The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology 9780567680020, 9780567680051, 9780567680037

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

661 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, Susan Gillingham, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

THE ORIGIN OF ISRAELITE ZION THEOLOGY

Antti Laato

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2018 Paperback edition published 2020 © Antti Laato, 2018 Antti Laato has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN:

HB: 978–0–5676–8002–0 PB: 978–0–5676–9323–5 ePDF: 978–0–5676–8003–7

Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, ISSN 2513-858, volume 661 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Preface vii Abbreviations ix Chapter 1 Introduction

1

Chapter 2 Methodology 2.1. Formation of the Hebrew Bible 2.2. Empirical Perspectives to Traditions of the Hebrew Bible 2.3. How to Proceed in Concrete Analysis

9 9 19 39

Chapter 3 Historical Background 3.1. The Concept of United Monarchy in the Hebrew Bible 3.2. The Ark Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History 3.3. The Narrative of the Temple Building 3.4. Summary and Conclusions

44 44 65 82 98

Chapter 4 The Storm-God and Zion Theology 4.1 The Mediterranean Context of the Storm-God Imagery 4.2. Divine Council of Ēl in Zion 4.3. Storm-God Thundering against Chaos Powers 4.4. The Great King Enthroned over Cherubim 4.5. Yahweh’s Abode in Paradise 4.6. Royal Ideology and the Imagery of the Storm-God 4.7. Summary and Conclusions

99 99 117 139 150 167 179 186

Chapter 5 The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology 5.1. The Ark and the Cult Site of Shiloh 5.2. Jerusalem and Shiloh in Two Different Perspectives 5.3. The Poetic Version of the Ark Narrative—Psalm 132

189 190 200 211

vi Contents

5.4. The Origin of the Aniconic Cult in Shiloh 5.5. Summary and Conclusions

218 231

Chapter 6 Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology 6.1. The Rise of Baal in the Late Bronze Age 6.2. Early Israelite Settlement in the Transjordan 6.3. Early Anti-Baal Rhetoric in Psalm 68 6.4. Summary and Conclusions

234 234 241 245 273

Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions

276

Bibliography 283 Index of References 319 Index of Authors 331

P refa ce

This research project is related to my long-standing interest in the book of Isaiah where Zion theology plays a central role. The major work of this study was written in 2015 when I was granted the Professor Pool scholarship by the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland, and my own university, Åbo Akademi University, granted a scholarship for spring 2016 both of which are hereby gratefully acknowledged. Many colleagues have read and commented on the manuscript. In particular I want to thank Dr Lotta Valve who read the whole manuscript in its final phase and made valuable suggestions to clarify its presentation. I also want to thank Dr Garth Gilmour, Dr Raz Kletter and Dr Uzi Avner, who have helped me with their expertise in archaeology, and Professor Tryggve Mettinger, who offered good proposals to the manuscript. I received valuable feedback from two reviewers (unknown to me) and the two editors of LHBOTS, Claudia Camp and Andrew Mein, which helped me to finalize the editing of the manuscript. I am also grateful to Lorna Koskela who has edited the language of this study. I am grateful to my copy-editor, Duncan Burns, who helped me in the final stages, when my manuscript (delivered in November 2016) was prepared for publication (Spring 2018). It has been wonderful to do this work while having the possibility to discuss its different details from the perspective of reception history with my wife Dr Anni Maria Laato. We both are interested in the reception history of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, and have learned that Zion theology is one of the most fruitful cases to look at these later interpretations in Jewish and Christian writings. I dedicate this study to my two beloved friends whom I lost when writing and finalizing this manuscript: my father-in-law, Emeritus Professor in New Testament Exegetics Jukka Thurén (30 June 1930–10 May 2015), and Ph.D. (in archaeology) and Dr (in Old Testament Exegetics) Mikko Louhivuori (27 July 1952–16 September 2016). I learnt from them a lot of exegetics, archaeology and theology in our discussions. Ps. 36:9: “For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.”

A b b rev i at i ons

AASF AASOR AB ABD ABG AcOr AEL AfO AGJU AnBib ANEM ANEP ANESTP ANET AnOr ANVAO AOAT ARAB ARAM ASOR ATANT ATD BA BAR BASOR BASPSup BBB BBR BBS

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte Acta orientalia Ancient Egyptian Literature. M. Lichtheim. 3 vols. Berkeley, 1971–1980 Archiv für Orientforschung Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta biblica Ancient Near East Monographs The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, 1954 The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, 1969 Analecta Orientalia Avhandliger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo Alter Orient und Altes Testament Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Daniel David Luckenbill. 2 vols. Chicago, 1926–1927 Aram periodical published by the ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies American Schools of Oriental Research Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists: Supplement Bonner biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin of Biblical Studies

x Abbreviations BEATAJ BETL BEvT Bib BibInt BibS(F) BibS(N) BJRL BJS BKAT BN BO BSac BTB BThSt BTZ BWANT BZ BZAW CANE CBQ CBQMS CBR CC CDOG CHANE CIS ConBOT COS DDD DJD DMOA DNWSI EA

EAEHL

Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895–) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951–) Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca orientalis Bibliotheca sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblisch-theologische Studien Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Sasson. 4 vols. New York, 1995 Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Currents in Biblical Research Continental Commentaries Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2002 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden, 1995 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling. 2 vols. Leiden, 1995 El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J. A. Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig, 1908–1915. Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–379. 2d revised ed. Kevelaer, 1978 Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1975

Abbreviations EdF EI EvT FAT FB FOTL FRLANT GS HAT HBT HKAT HO HSAO HSM HSS HTKAT HTR HUCA IAAR ICC IEJ Int JANER JANESCU JAOS JAS JBL JCS JNES JNSL JPOS JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JSS JTI JTS KAI KAT KHC

xi

Erträge der Forschung Eretz Israel Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesammelte Studien Handbuch zum Alten Testament Horizons in Biblical Theology Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Antiquities Authority Reports International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Asian Studies Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Interpretation Journal of Theological Studies Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. H. Donner and W. Röllig. 2d ed. Wiesbaden, 1966–1969 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

xii Abbreviations KTU

LCL LHBOTS MAOG MDOG MSIATAU NCB NCBC NEAEHL NICOT OBO OLA OLP OLZ Or OTL OTP OTS PEFQS PEQ PTMS QD RB RdQ RIM RIMA RIMB RIME RIMS RS RSP SAA SAAS SAOC SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBS

Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2d enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CTU) Loeb Classical Library The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University New Century Bible New Century Bible Commentary The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1993 New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (NS) Old Testament Library The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–85) Old Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Quaestiones disputatae Revue biblique Review de Qumran The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project. Toronto The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Supplements Ras Shamra Ras Shamra Parallels State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Studies Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

Abbreviations SBT SEÅ SHANE SJOT SOTSMS SPB SRB StANT SVTP TA TB TDOT

THAT

TRE TS TSAJ TTZ TUAT TynBul TZ UBL UF UT VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ WUANT WUNT ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZTK

xiii

Studies in Biblical Theology Svensk exegetisk årsbok Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament The Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Studia Post Biblica Studies in Rewritten Bible // Studies in the Reception History of the Bible Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Tel Aviv Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1971–76 Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. Berlin, 1977– Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh, 1984– Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Ugaritisch-Biblische Literature Ugarit-Forschungen Ugaritic Textbook. C. H. Gordon. AnOr 38. Rome, 1965 Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on

The aim of this study is to deal with the early roots of the Zion theology as it is transmitted in the Hebrew Bible and especially in the book of Psalms. Zion theology is not a given concept in the Hebrew Bible, but a meta-level scholarly concept.1 My starting-point is that the Hebrew Bible is the product of the exilic and postexilic times, but contains older traditions transmitted, edited and updated linguistically. In Chapter 2 I shall offer more details on my methodological starting-points; for now, it is important to note that I see the transmission process of the Hebrew Bible along the lines of empirical models.2 In my view, empirical models indicate that the Hebrew Bible can be regarded as a collection of writings in which older traditions have been preserved and actualized through editing and linguistic reworking in a way analogous to the literary development of the Akkadian epics. This means that older thematic patterns can play a significant role in later literary works. A classic example is the literary evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic.3 1.  For a good orientation of this problem, see Corinna Körting, Zion in den Psalmen, FAT 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Fredrik Poulsen, Representing Zion: Judgement and Salvation in the Old Testament, Copenhagen International Seminar (London: Routledge, 2015). 2.  The concept “empirical models” is defined in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), xi, as follows: “texts whose evolution can be documented by copies from several stages in the course of their development.” See further section 2.2. 3.  For this see Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). See further Tigay, Empirical Models. It is worth noting that Mark Smith characterizes Tigay’s edited monograph on empirical models as important in understanding the origin and transmission of biblical traditions. Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), xxiii–xiv. Similar positive characterization of Tigay’s study can be found in Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus Teil 1 und 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

2

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Older mythical traditions related to Zion have been sought using comparative method. Biblical traditions are compared with similar traditions in the Ugaritic texts, but also in other ancient Near Eastern material. Ugaritic texts should be seen as part of the West Semitic tradition in which Canaanite (and early Israelite) as well as Amorite cultures are included. This means that early Israelite concepts of god and religious structure shared similar parameters and expressions as, for example, those found at Ugarit.4 Of course, there were also differences, but the basic episteme (using Foucault’s term5) in which thinking and writing about gods and religious matters took place was similar. In order to illustrate this shared cultural setting I compare some Psalms with other West Semitic texts. By doing this I am not claiming that we are dealing with direct borrowing, but rather with analogous thinking in the West Semitic religious milieu. Such a comparative analysis has its risks. Ugaritic material originates many hundreds of years earlier than the biblical books were composed into their final forms.6 When other ancient Near Eastern material is 2007), 161, where he, in referring to Tigay’s edited monograph, notes that it is “viel zu wenig beachtete Buch.” See further Raymond F. Person and Robert Rezetko, eds., Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, Ancient Israel and Its Literature (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). I have argued elsewhere that the empirical models should be applied in such a way as to take account of how biblical traditions were transmitted in the pre-exilic period and edited in the exilic and postexilic period. See Antti Laato, History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of Historical Prophets, ConBOT 41 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996), 62–147. 4.  For this see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 16–17. 5.  See Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 1992); idem, The Archaeology of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1994). 6.  For this see, e.g., Gregorio del Olmo Lete, “Approaching a Description of the Canaanite Religion of Ancient Israel: Methodological Issues,” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992, ed. George J. Brooke et al., UBL 11 (Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1994), 259–73; Reinhard Kratz, “Der Mythos vom Königtum Gottes in Kanaan und Israel,” ZThK 100 (2003): 147–62. Del Olmo Lete and Kratz pointed out that iconic similarities between the kingship of God in Ugaritic and biblical material can be detected, but that it is difficult to arrive at conclusions concerning the date of the biblical text from this evidence. This warning is important because the themes of the Ugaritic mythic patterns have been preserved in different variations in late Phoenician material, especially in The History of Phoenicians by Philo of Byblos

1. Introduction

3

related to the comparative analysis, the result may end up as a chaotic mosaic where pieces are combined from different sets of puzzles.7 While the West Semitic traditions can be used to illustrate the religious milieu in which the early Israelites formulated their own mythical traditions, other ancient Near Eastern materials are heuristic tools to illustrate what could have taken place in early Israel. By referring to Barton’s concept of “literary competence”8 it can be said that ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography can increase the modern reader’s ability to understand the biblical texts. This is due to the parameters of ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography, which are closer to the biblical texts than our modern categories. I do not consider the Zion-related theology in the book of Psalms as an isolated phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible. I shall argue that this theology is closely related to two other relevant events recounted in the Hebrew Bible. First, I consider the architectural details of the Temple and Lucian’s De Dea Syria. For this discussion see, e.g., Otto Eissfeldt, Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton, Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 4 (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1939), 67–71; idem, Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit, Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 5 (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1952); Robert A. Oden, Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea, HSM 15 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977); Conrad E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baal, and the Rephaim, HSM 21 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979), 31–49; Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History, CBQMS 9 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981); Albert I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary, Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans L’Empire Romain 89 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), esp. 261–68; Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 44–51. Concerning Philo of Byblos, Baumgarten notes (on p. 264): “Analysis of the contents suggested that this text was based on ancient Phoenician traditions, but that these traditions had been demythologized and extensively reworked under the impact of Greek natural science.” See also the useful discussion in Nick Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition, UBL 13 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), esp. 373–424. 7.  Cf., the criticism which Clements has delivered against Stoltz’s construction: Fritz Stolz, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem: Studien zur altorientalischen, vor- und frühisraelitischen Religion, BZAW 118 (Berlin: de Gruyter 1970). See Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, JSOTSup 13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1980), 76. 8.  John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984), 8–19.

4

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

of Solomon (1 Kgs 6–7). I shall examine in which ways it is possible to combine the old mythical Zion-related traditions with the architectural details of the Temple.9 Second, I consider available religious traditions related to the reigns of David and Solomon as, for example, the Ark Narrative, which ends with David’s transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6).10 Needless to say, both the historical setting of 1 Kings 6–7 and the reign of David and Solomon are hotly debated issues in biblical studies, and therefore further clarification in methodology is needed (Chapter 2), as well as some background information of how I understand the history of the United Monarchy (Chapter 3). My starting-point is that the outcome of the Zion theology can be placed in an early period of the history of Israel. The relevant assumption is that as soon as Jerusalem became the religious center in Israel, some sort of religious ideology was used to justify the presence of Yahweh on Mount Zion.11 Even though only traces of such early Zion theology have been left in the Hebrew Bible, I assume that its basic structure can be compared to 9.  For such an approach note especially Wolfgang Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999); Peter Dubovsky, The Building of the First Temple, FAT 103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 10.  For a good discussion, see in particular Choon L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, HSM 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press 1989). 11.  For this sound reasoning note especially the following studies: J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 (1973): 329–44; idem, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic–Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982), 93–108; idem, “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, SBLSS 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 163–70; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup 1982); idem, “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Ishida, ed., Studies in the Period of David and Solomon, 109–38; idem, “The Elusive Essence: YAHWEH, El and Baal and the Distinctiveness of the Israelite Faith,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift fur Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Erhard Blum et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 393–417; idem, Reports from a Scholar’s Life: Selected Papers on the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015); Seow, Myth, Drama. This is not to say that I base my understanding of the formation of the Zion theology in the Davidic–Solomonic period on Roberts’, Mettinger’s and Seow’s viewpoints. Similar emphasis on the importance of the religious ideology from the times of David and Solomon onwards is also made in Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, esp. 147–337. Keel connects this ideology to the architectural details of the Temple. Keel is, therefore, a very useful source for me.

1. Introduction

5

prevailing Phoenician, Syrian and Canaanite mythical patterns in spite of it also containing its own Yahwistic and Israelite peculiarities. Such an early ideology was then transmitted and modified, and has influenced the later concepts of the Zion theology as we know it in the present form of the Hebrew Bible, especially in the book of Psalms.12 In the recent scholarship of the Hebrew Bible it has been unclear from which period onwards it is possible to speak about the Israelite (or Judean) cultic center in Jerusalem, and from which period onwards the Temple existed on Mount Zion. There are several archaeological and historical problems involved with this question and it is impossible to solve all these problems in a single monograph. In my methodological study on the prophetic literature I argue that every interpretive model is based on several “would be” statements which concern literary and redaction criticism, form history, tradition history and historical circumstances under which the texts have been written and transmitted.13 Therefore, I shall proceed in the following way: In Chapter 3 I shall argue for one logical possible world14 for the historical circumstances which prevailed in Jerusalem at the time of David (election of Jerusalem) and Solomon (the building of the Temple). While such a possible world is certainly not the only alternative, it nevertheless functions as background for my thesis on Zion theology outlined in this study and further stimulates scholarship by presenting one option for discussion. Having clarified the outlines of the possible world concerning the beginning of the Jerusalemite temple at the time of Solomon, I shall examine the origin of the Zion theology in relation to this possible world. 12.  I examine Psalms selectively because my focus is laid on the early form of Zion theology. As Körting rightly notes (partly referring to the opinion of Janowski), Zion theology in its present form in the book of Psalms is a broad concept and includes several theological motifs. See Körting, Zion in den Psalmen, 1–6. See further Bernd Janowski, “Die heilige Wohnung des Höchsten: Kosmologische Implikationen der Jerusalemer Tempeltheologie,” in Gottestadt und Gottesgarten: Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels, ed. Othmar Keel and Erich Zenger, QD 191 (Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 24–68; repr. in Der Gott des Lebens: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 3–26. 13.  Laato, History and Ideology. 14.  Concerning the concept “logical possible world,” see Jaakko Hintikka, “On the Development of the Model-Theoretic Viewpoint in Logical Theory,” Synthese 77 (1988): 1–36. I have argued in Laato, History and Ideology (see esp. 22–31, 301–97) that every interpretation of a biblical text contains a lot of “would be” statements and, therefore, an exegetical analysis cannot provide a normative interpretation but rather one possible interpretation which is valid in a logical possible world (defined by these “would be” statements).

6

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

In Chapters 4–6 I shall work like an archaeologist who first digs the youngest layers and then proceeds to dig deeper into the older tradition layers. In Chapter 4 I shall detect new impulses which the building project of Solomon with the aid of Phoenician assistance gave to Israelite Yahwism. I will argue that the imagery of the Storm-god became popular in Yahwism and that this imagery was also reflected in the Temple architecture and iconography.15 In Chapter 5 I shall take one step backwards in history and discuss the ways in which the Shilonite cult with the Ark of Covenant influenced the Jerusalemite cult. I shall argue that the cult in Shiloh was based on the identification between Ēl and Yahweh.16 As the name Israel indicates, the first Israelites were worshippers of Ēl. This is not in contradiction with the patriarchal stories, according to which the patriarchs worshipped Ēl using different names.17 While biblical texts contain a positive picture of Ēl, they also show very strong intolerance of the worship of Baal. This anti-Baal trend needs an explanation, particularly if the imagery of the Storm-god in Zion theology can 15.  Concerning the Storm-god imagery in the ancient Near East, see especially Daniel Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2001); idem, “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies Part I and II,” JANER 7, no. 2 (2008): 121–68; JANER 8, no. 1 (2008): 1–44. See further Alberto R. W. Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California San Diego 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), where biblical material is also discussed. An important study on the imagery of the Storm-god in the book of Psalms is Reinhard Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen, BZAW 387 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008). See also Sebastian Grätz, Der strafende Wettergott: Erwägungen zur Traditionsgeschichte des Wettergottes im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, BBB 114 (Bodenheim: Philo Fine Arts, 1998). 16.  For this see especially Seow, Myth, Drama. See further Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 44–75; Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH.” 17.  For this see the old but still very stimulating study by Albrecht Alt, “Der Gott der Väter,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I (Munich: Beck, 1953), 1–78. Alt’s results have been updated and slightly modified in Cross, Canaanite Myth, 3–43. I have discussed the Abraham tradition and its relation to the diplomatic policy of David and Solomon in my article “The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon,” which will be published in Abraham’s Family: A Network of Meaning, ed., Lukas Bormann, WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming).

1. Introduction

7

be related to the Syro-Phoenician and Canaanite religious milieu. This anti-Baal trend has been explained in different ways. One option has been that it is a late phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible. Josiah’s reform would have been directed against Assyrian religious structures in Judah and later substituted by Canaanite gods by the Deuteronomists.18 Another popular view has been that the Israelite religion originates from a schism within the Canaanite religious milieu.19 Finally, there is the option that Yahweh was a new deity in Canaan and came into conflict with Baal (but not with Ēl).20 In that case the use of the imagery of the Storm-god can be interpreted either as assimilation or as occupation. I shall discuss the anti-Baal trend in early Israel more closely in Chapter 6. The focus in Chapter 6 will be built on the analysis of Psalm 68.21 This research project is related to my long-standing interest in the book of Isaiah, wherein Zion theology plays a central role. A conference was arranged on the book of Isaiah in Örebro School of Theology (April 23–24, 2015), during which I presented a paper “Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah.”22 That article is a parallel product of this monograph and gives my readers the possibility to see how I consider Zion theology as an essential part of the proclamation of the historical Isaiah.

18.  See, e.g., Ernst Würthwein, “Die josianische Reform und das Deuteronomium,” ZTK 73 (1976): 395–423, esp. 417; idem, Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25, ATD 11/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 456. Cf. also Hans-Detlef Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung, AThANT 66 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980), esp. 164–65; Hermann Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, FRLANT 129 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 160–70. 19.  See especially Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine, UBL 8 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990); Johannes C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, BETL 91 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997). 20.  See Martin Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden: Archäologische Befunde – biblische Überlieferungen – historische Korrelationen,” ZAW 122 (2010): 1–19. 21.  Note especially the interpretation of Ps. 68 in de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 171–91. 22.  See Antti Laato, “Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah,” in Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology, and Reception, ed. Greger Andersson et al., LHBOTS 654 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 22–46.

8

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Some words should be added for those readers who find it less meaningful to speak about the United Monarchy of David and Solomon (see Chapter 3). First, I do not argue in this monograph that the present historical and archaeological evidence leads to the conclusion that the United Monarchy is a fact. Rather, I argue that the United Monarchy is a plausible possibility, and this monograph is one piece in the complicated puzzle which attempts to explain ways in which the traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible have been developed. In this study the outcome of the Zion theology is explained in the historical circumstances among which the United Monarchy existed. Second, it is important to note what I mean by the United Monarchy. In Chapter 3 I do not argue that during the reigns of David and Solomon Israel would have had military control over other peoples in Canaan. Instead, I propose that David and Solomon used clever diplomacy in order to establish a status quo policy in Canaan, which received acceptance by Egypt. Egypt, in turn, had to struggle with its own internal political problems at that time and was incapable of controlling Canaan alone. In a recent article I presented arguments that Abraham’s family history was originally related to David and Solomon’s diplomatic policy of co-operating with other nations/peoples in Canaan.23 In the subsequent history, more critical attitudes towards other nations were incorporated in the patriarchal traditions, and in the final phase these traditions were used to describe the proto-history of Israel as we now find it in the book of Genesis. This being the case, the United Monarchy was the result of David and Solomon’s successful diplomatic co-operation, which led to a flourishing economic period in Israel. Third, in the analysis of the Zion texts I find earlier literary layers which are related to mythical West Semitic traditions and which have subsequently been edited in a new theological context. Scholars who do not accept my historical conclusions may still find such a tradition-historical analysis meaningful.

23.  Laato, “Abraham Story in Genesis.”

Chapter 2 M et h od ol ogy

The aim of this Chapter 2 is to discuss multifaceted methodological problems which must be solved in any attempt to penetrate into an early form of the Israelite Zion theology. These problems are primarily due to the fact that the research will be done on texts which have been preserved in the Hebrew writings and which in turn were composed in their present forms many hundreds of years later. 2.1. Formation of the Hebrew Bible The expression “Israelite Zion theology” in the title of the study contains a very fundamental and many-faceted historical challenge because it combines the place-name Zion with “Israelite.” In this way it expresses an idea of the United Monarchy from the time of David and Solomon. Therefore, an essential task is to present an overall picture of my way of understanding the formation of the Hebrew Bible and its relation to the religious history of ancient Israel. Shortcomings in Wellhausen’s System Julius Wellhausen made a great contribution to the study of the Hebrew Bible by demonstrating that the development of the Israelite religion in pre-exilic (Yahwist and Elohist), exilic (Deuteronomic) and postexilic (Priestly documents) periods is detectable in the Hebrew Bible.1 Even today this reconstruction remains a starting-point which every expert in the field must learn and modify.2 I have tested this model in many different 1.  See especially Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927). 2.  It is impossible to present modifications of Wellhausen’s system in recent scholarly investigations on the Pentateuch here. For orientation, see Römer’s contribution in Walter Dietrich et al., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Theologische Wissenschaft (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014).

10

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

ways in my studies and found it attractive. Wellhausen’s view explains many historical aspects in the development of the Israelite religion. It demonstrates, for instance, the lines of the development of the Israelite religious history visible in the Deuteronomistic History, as well as in the Chronistic Historical work. Nevertheless, there are two larger points in Wellhausen’s construction which I have not found convincing. The first is the lack of tradition-historical questions.3 Wellhausen abruptly assumed that the writing process was mainly creative. Certain texts were formulated in a certain period of time, and the contents of these texts reflect the ideas of that time only. Therefore, according to Wellhausen, the Priestly document, which, for him, was formulated in the postexilic period, has nothing to do with the early history of Israel. The second point of disagreement is the absence of discussion in Wellhausen’s works on the relationship between de facto tradition and the established normative tradition. For example, the Priestly document in the Pentateuch apparently became normative in the postexilic period in Judah. But this does not imply that these traditions had not existed earlier, only that they became normative later and subsequently found their way into the Pentateuch. These two points of disagreement have a deep impact on methodology. The impact can be formulated with the following question: How do we solve the riddle of the relationship between the present form of the text (which we know) and the earlier forms of traditions (which we do not know) behind it? Empirical Models During my years in academic research I have found the so-called empirical models useful in problematizing this relationship between the present form of texts in the Hebrew Bible and the older traditions reflected in these texts.4 An empirical model is provided by two or more extant texts which allow scholars to follow the transmission process of a single literary work, i.e., the existence of two or more versions of the same literary work which originate from different times or even from different historical periods. Such empirical models are also attested in the Hebrew Bible. 3.  This was noted in Albrecht Alt’s, Martin Noth’s and Gerhard von Rad’s studies, among others. The research in the Nordic countries as well as in the English-speaking world has emphasized more tradition-historical aspects. For this see the articles in Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation III/2: The Twentieth Century (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). 4.  Concerning the term “empirical models,” see Tigay, Empirical Models; Person and Rezetko, eds., Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism. See my earlier treatment of this approach in Laato, History and Ideology, 62–147.

2. Methodology

11

The best example is Chronicles and its relation to the Deuteronomistic History (1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings). Extra-biblical examples of empirical models are the Assyrian royal inscriptions5 and the Akkadian epics, especially the Gilgamesh Epic.6 In order to illustrate what I am proposing, let us imagine that the Deuteronomistic History had not been preserved in the Hebrew Bible, only Chronicles. By reading Chronicles I would quickly realize that the author uses some typical formulations, for example, that the Temple of Jerusalem has been built for the Name of Yahweh (e.g., 1 Chr. 22:7–8, 10, 19; 28:3; 29:16; 2 Chr. 1:18; 2:3; 6:5–10, 20; 7:16, 20; 12:13; 20:8–9; 33:4, 7). I would apparently conclude that this šēm-theology is the Chronicler’s typical emphasis, and it would be easy to conclude that the Chronicler formulated this theology in order to avoid the idea that Yahweh would have “physically” lived in the Temple. However, I now know that such a conclusion—according to which the šēm-theology was formulated by the Chronicler—is erroneous. This theology appears already in the Deuteronomistic History7—written about 200 years earlier—and the Chronicler simply adopted it. This example shows that a certain concept which is repeated thematically by the Chronicler is not his own creation, but rather a loan from an older historical work, in this case from the Deuteronomistic History. I can then continue and pose the following question: Could the Deuteronomist have adopted the šēm-theology from older sources?8 Is it possible to exclude this possibility? I think the answer is no. There is no possibility of knowing with certainty whether this theology and other typically Deuteronomistic phraseologies were traditional theological concepts in Jerusalem/Israel or not. A good comparison is the Akkadian royal epithets which were used for many hundreds of years in Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions.9 The same can be said for the ancient Hebrew expression šikken šēm and the equivalent 5.  Hans J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives, BZAW 221 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994). 6.  Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. 7.  See, e.g., the list given in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 324–26. 8.  Scholars have shown convincingly that the language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History are connected with early Akkadian treaty terminology. Worth noting is also the view of Weinfeld that Deut. 32, Ps. 78 and Hosea are forerunners of the Deuteronomic phraseology. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 364–70. 9.  For this see Marie-Joseph Seux, Epithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967).

12

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Akkadian expression which appears already in the Amarna Letters EA 287:60–61; 288:5–7, which were written in Jerusalem and sent to the Egyptian Pharaoh.10 Weinfeld, however, notes that the Akkadian expression had “originally” “nothing to do with an abstract notion of God”11 and argues that the Deuteronomic school gave it a specific theological meaning. Moreover, Weinfeld argues that “the authentic part of Nathan prophecy” in 2 Sam. 7:1–7 does not contain this aspect of name theology, and the Deuteronomist reformulates the idea in 2 Sam. 7:13.12 Weinfeld’s argument is sound but it is not possible to know if the lack of šēm-theology in “the authentic part” of 2 Sam. 7:1–7 is only accidental or whether the Deuteronomist de facto received it from other early sources. It is not difficult to imagine that a similar expression to that in EA 287:60–61 (šarri šakan šumšu ina māt Urusalim ana dāriš, “the king has established his name in Jerusalem forever”) could have been used for a deity who was worshipped in Jerusalem.13 My overall methodological procedure is based on empirical models and I shall now present basic methodological viewpoints which should be considered in the analysis when traces of elements of the Israelite Zion theology are sought from the textual material of the Hebrew Bible. The Origin of Hebrew Today the relevant starting-point14 to understand the linguistic development of the Hebrew Bible is that the main corpus of the writings 10.  Concerning the roots of the Deuteronomistic Shem theology, see especially Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, BZAW 318 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). 11.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 193. 12.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 193–94. So also Hayim Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: EtymologicalSemantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical Aramaic (Jersey City, NJ: KTAV, 2009), 396–97. 13.  For example, Richter (The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology, 199) notes that “the Akkadian and Sumerian evidence clearly demonstrates that the ritual complex associated with ‘placing the (written) name’ was deeply embedded in the psyche of the Mesopotamian culture.” 14.  Concerning the linguistic development of Biblical Hebrew, see Robert D. Bergen, ed., Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994); Ian Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, JSOTSup 369 (London: T&T Clark International, 2003); Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, eds., Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2006); Ian Young

2. Methodology

13

has been written in Standard Biblical Hebrew which was used during 600–400 BCE. The Chronistic Historical work is written in Late Biblical Hebrew (400–200 BCE), and scholars debate whether the Priestly document can be connected with Late Biblical Hebrew or not.15 Early Hebrew writings are mainly attested in epigraphic material, but certain (mainly poetic) texts in the Hebrew Bible do contain traces of early Hebrew orthography, morphology and syntax.16 et al., Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. Vol. 1, An Introduction to Approaches and Problems. Vol. 2, A Survey of Scholarship, a New Synthesis and a Comprehensive Bibliography, BibleWorld (London: Equinox, 2008); Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit, eds., Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012); Ohad Cohen, The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSS 63 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013); Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach, Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 9 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). See the general outline of the formation of the Biblical Hebrew in William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); David M. Carr, Writings on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 155–59; Ron E. Tappy and P. Kyle McCarter, eds., Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2008); Seth L. Sanders, The Invention of Hebrew (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009). 15.  For this see the older discussion in Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSM 12 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976); Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, Cahiers de la Revue biblique 20 (Paris: Gabalda, 1982); idem, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period, VTSup 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), and the literature referred to in the previous note. 16.  Early Hebrew orthography and early Yahwistic poetry were emphasized in the studies of Frank M. Cross and Daniel N. Freedman. Note especially Frank M. Cross and Daniel N. Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952); idem, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). See further, Daniel N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980); Daniel N. Freedman, A. Dean Forbes and Francis I. Andersen, Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992). Another important work has been David A. Robertson’s Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew

14

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

What follows now is an attempt to describe how I would like to see the evolution of the biblical traditions. I shall concentrate on the Enneateuch (Genesis–2 Kings), which is a large historical presentation of the history of Israel from its beginning to the exile. The Enneateuch is good way to demonstrate outlines of the development of the biblical traditions because it refers to older literary sources and, in addition, contains texts which are related to each other. After having presented some examples from the Enneateuch I shall proceed to a more concrete way of demonstrating the methodology with the aid of empirical models in section 2.2. Enneateuch as a Heuristic Model to Understand the Transmission Process The Enneateuch gives us reason to believe that its writers used older sources. The Deuteronomistic History refers many times to sources which can be regarded as annals:17 1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, Poetry, SBLDS 3 (Missoula: University of Montana, 1972), but his methodological rules for early Hebrew poetry have been recently criticized. See Yigal Bloch, “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry: A Re-evaluation,” VT 59 (2009): 34–70; idem, “The Third-Person Masculine Plural Suffixed Pronoun -mw and Its Implications for the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, eds., Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 147–70; Robyn C. Vern, Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the Linguistic Arguments, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 10 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011). The criticism does not concern Robertson’s arguments to date a certain text tentatively early, but rather his attempt to establish rules which unambiguously state that certain linguistic phenomena in Biblical Hebrew are certainly early. 17.  For this characterization “annals,” see John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 302; Niels Peter Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 58; Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 323–37; Nadav Na’aman, “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah,” VT 48 (1998): 333–49; idem, “The Temple Library of Jerusalem and the Composition of the Book of Kings,” in Congress Volume: Leiden, 2004, ed. A. Lemaire, VTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 129–52. On the other hand, Simon B. Parker has tested whether it might be possible that the authors of the books of Kings could have used epigraphic sources for their history and concluded that there is no evidence for this. See Simon B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); idem, “Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions?,” VT 50 (2000): 357–78. However, the sources referred to in the books of Kings are not epigraphic royal (monumental) inscriptions but seper. The term refers rather to some older version of the history or texts (preserved in royal archives). Na’aman (“The Temple Library of Jerusalem,”

2. Methodology

15

14, 20, 27; 22:39, 46; 2 Kgs 1:8; 8:23; 10:34; 12:20; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5. This list indicates that the Deuteronomist used older written sources when he composed the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. In addition, the Deuteronomist refers to the book of Torah connected with Moses, in many instances, thus indicating that he had information about the Mosaic traditions in written form: Josh. 1:8; 8:31, 34; 23:6; 24:26; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 21:8; 23:25 (cf., also 1 Kgs 8:9, 53, 56; 2 Kgs 18:4, 6, 12).18 2 Kings 22–23 refer to an older written law document which was probably used when the version of Deuteronomy as we know it today was published.19 Therefore, the authors of the books of Kings knew some textual material which was related to Mosaic traditions which were later recorded in reworked versions in the Pentateuch.20 In addition, 130) notes that archives in ancient Near East were not long-enduring. See the archives and libraries in Olof Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda: CDL, 1998). Nevertheless, it is important to note that in Jerusalem, one and the same dynasty ruled from the times of David and Solomon until the exile. There was certainly an interest in preserving older stories and documents which recorded the events of the dynasty. They could have been used for legitimation (see further Chapter 3). This being the case I assume that Deuteronomist(s)—who began his/their literary activity already in the reign of Josiah—had written records from the royal archives which gave him/them the opportunity to speak about events related to actual historical personae and events as, for example, Shishak, Mesha, Neo-Assyrian kings etc. For very good partial correspondence between these biblical texts and extra-biblical documents but also some problems (depending on the fact that there was no critical scholarship to evaluate sources), note several articles in André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern, eds., The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, VTSup 129 (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 18.  It is worth noting that Deut. 28:58, 61; 29:19–20, 26; 30:10; 31:24, 26 refer to “this book of Torah,” and it seems reasonable to assume that references in later books of the Deuteronomistic History may be related to these references in Deuteronomy. 19.  This explains why there is such a good correspondence between Neo-Assyrian vassal terminology and Deuteronomy. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. 20.  I am well aware of different theories that the story about the book of Torah found in the reign of Josiah (2 Kgs 22–23) is a literary fiction. However, these theories cannot exclude the relevant possibility that reference is made to some written document in the present form of the Deuteronomistic History, thus indicating a network of textual documents which were known to readers. See the discussion in Antti Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times, ConBOT 33 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992); Erik Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and

16

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the chronological system adopted in the books of Kings indicates that it is based on older pre-Deuteronomistic material.21 The case sui generis is the Covenant Code (Exod. 20:22–23:33), which is called “the Book of the Covenant” in Exod. 24:7. It is a wellknown fact that many laws in Deuteronomy are related to the laws of the Covenant Code which is an earlier document.22 The Covenant Code in turn is dependent on ancient Near Eastern law documents,23 giving a good example of how the biblical traditions are deeply rooted in ancient Near Eastern literary culture.24 In the Enneateuch the writers of Israel’s history used two earlier sources which contained poetic material. The first written document is the Book of Jashar (Book of the Righteous One—the righteous one referring to God, Deut. 32:4) which is referred to in Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Juha Tanska, “Changing Paradigms in Biblical Criticism: 2 Kings 22:1 23:30 in the Flux of Discourses” (Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2011). 21.  I have analyzed the synchronisms of 1–2 Kings and concluded that in spite of the fact that they contain contrived data it is possible to reconstruct an older reliable synchronic chronology which corroborates well with the extrabiblical material. For this see Antti Laato, Guide to Biblical Chronology (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 34–70. 22.  See the survey in Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium, BZAW 284 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), especially his analysis of the interrelated passages between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomium on pp. 217–364. 23.  See the following literary analyses (but the dates for the Covenant Code vary): Shalom M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, VTSup 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Eckart Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches” Ex XX 22–XXIII 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1988); idem, Rechtsgeschichte der Redaktionen im Kodex Ešnunna und im “Bundesbuch”: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studie zu altbabylonischen Rechtsüberlieferungen (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1989); Ludger SchwienhorstSchönberger, Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22–23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie, BZAW 188 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990); Ralf Rotenbusch, Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im “Bundesbuch” (Ex 21,2–11.18–22,16) und ihr literarischer Kontext im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000); David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 24.  For this see further John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

2. Methodology

17

1:18 and presumably also in 1 Kgs 8:12–13 (3 Kgdms 8:53).25 In both cases the Deuteronomist has taken a poetic passage from that document, and it seems reasonable to assume that the Book of Jashar included other poetic passages which may have been included in the Enneateuch without any reference to the source. These two poetic passages contain archaic features both linguistically and in terms of content.26 Another reference to an older written document which contained poetic material is the Book of Wars, which is mentioned in Num. 21:14. It is probable that not only the poetic passage of Num. 21:14–15 but also Num. 21:17–18 (with the introductory words: “then Israel sang this song”) and Num. 21:27–31 (with introductory words: “that is why hammōšĕlîm say”) belong to this same collection of poems. These poetic passages contain archaic linguistic features.27 Many other poetic texts referred to in the Enneateuch are also apparently from older literary sources.28 Deuteronomy 17:18 and 1 Sam. 10:25 can also be mentioned. They refer to documents connected with the royal institution. Such references can be interpreted as some sort of royal covenantal agreement between the king and the people (cf., Ps. 2:7–8; 2 Kgs 11:12).29 One important methodological aspect is to examine how older poetic material has influenced the later editors’ ways of presenting the history of Israel. In the Enneateuch there are two cases where a later formulated prose account is paralleled to poetic texts: Exodus 14–15 and Judges 4–5. 25.  Also worth noting is the LXX reading in 3 Kgdms 8:53 where the corresponding verses in the Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 8:12–13 (but a longer textual tradition) is presented with an addition that Solomon’s poetic passage has been written in “a book of the song” which in Hebrew is sefer haššîr. Could this term be a misreading of sefer hayyāšār? 26.  Concerning Josh. 10:12–13, see, e.g., Robert G. Boling and George E. Wright, Joshua, AB 6 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 282–85; concerning 2 Sam. 1:19–27, see P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel, AB 9 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 66–79. 27.  Concerning Num. 21:27–30, see Paul D. Hanson, “The Song of Heshbon and David’s NÎR,” HTR 61 (1968): 297–320. Note also Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Das Hesbonlied Num 21,27aβb–30 und die Geschichte der Stadt Hesbon,” ZDPV 104 (1988): 26–43. 28.  Concerning Gen. 49, see Raymond de Hoop, Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context, OTS 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); concerning Deut. 32, see Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, OTS 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); see further many other poetic passages in Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. 29.  Cf., a similar covenantal agreement which Esarhaddon made with the people (NAP 3). See this text in Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997).

18

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

By analyzing the relationship between these passages respectively one can understand better how old poetic texts have been understood in a new historical context.30 For example, many different forms31 and variations of the Exodus tradition in the Hebrew Bible can be used as an argument that the tradition itself must be relatively early. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain the existence of multiple variations of the theme.32 When the Enneateuch is read with the aid of geographical and topographical viewpoints one realizes how much its material is located in the areas of the Northern Kingdom or outside the Kingdom of Judah.33 This fact is significant because there is an agreement among scholars that the Enneateuch was a product of Judea made in Jerusalem. Why is so much textual material in the Hebrew Bible related to the northern areas when the document itself was produced by Judean scribal circle(s) in Jerusalem? The relevant assumption is that at some stage(s) of history there had been a strong interest in collecting older Israelite traditions, and many of them were of northern origin.34 These were subsequently adopted, modified and edited in the Enneateuch. 30.  See, e.g., the useful analysis of Judg. 4–5 in Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 76–103. Note, however, another view in Jacob L. Wright, “Deborah’s War Memorial: The Composition of Judges 4–5 and the Politics of War Commemoration,” ZAW 123 (2011): 516–34. 31.  See the useful discussion in Niels Peter Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Society Before the Monarchy, VTSup 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 306–85. 32.  For this see Graham Davies, “Was There an Exodus?,” in In Search of PreExilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 23–40. 33.  See, e.g., Wolfgang Zwickel et al., Herders neuer Bibelatlas (Freiburg: Herder, 2013). 34.  A good example is the book of Deuteronomy, where Jerusalem is not mentioned at all; rather, we find the old Israelite cultic center at Ebal (and Gerizim) around Shechem. For this see Ralph K. Hawkins, The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012); Antti Laato, “A Cult Site of Mount Ebal: A Biblical Tradition Rewritten and Reinterpreted,” in Holy Places and Cult, ed. Erkki Koskenniemi and Cor de Vos, SRB 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 51–84 (a study first presented to a SRB Conference already in 2010). Note also another kind of treatment of the Ebal/Gerizim tradition in Nadav Na’aman, “The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site Near Shechem,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer, BZAW 294 (Stuttgart: de Gruyter, 2011), 141–61.

2. Methodology

19

2.2. Empirical Perspectives to Traditions of the Hebrew Bible Relevance of Empirical Models There are many indications which support the view that the present form of the Enneateuch is the result of scribal activity in which older sources were adopted, modified and edited. What takes place in such a process of redactional activity should be studied from an empirical perspective. However, very sophisticated literary- and redaction-critical methods from a purely theoretical perspective were developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In these studies, several redactional layers could be found and scholars developed a curious ability to reconstruct these older multilayers verbatim. Different scholars achieved different results. Instead of sinking in the deep blue of the multiple redactional layers, I have emphasized that empirical models can give a realistic perspective on what was taking place when an older text in ancient Near East was edited into a new literary product. I have argued that two different empirical perspectives to the Hebrew Bible are needed. The first perspective is to illustrate the redaction process itself. There are empirical models where the geno- and phenotexts can be known with relative certainly. Good empirical models in these cases are the Assyrian royal inscriptions.35 In the Hebrew Bible, the relationship between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles comes close to these empirical models.36 Another empirical perspective consists of the cases which illustrate how a literary evolution has taken place over time. The literary evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic illustrates such a transmission process.37 Tertel argues that the Akkadian epics do not constitute good empirical models.38 He notes that “the only general tendency apparent from the present analysis of the redactorial treatment of Akkadian epic literature is that of increasing parallelism and repetition.”39 Tertel also regards Samuel/ 35.  Tertel, Text and Transmission. 36.  It is worth noting that we cannot assume that the MT version of Samuel/ Kings was used as source in Chronicles. After all, there are different textual versions for Samuel/Kings which contain varied readings. For this see Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984). 37.  Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Independent Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh were integrated in the Old Babylonian period to form a larger epic cycle and this epic was then transmitted over one thousand years until the New Babylonian period. 38.  Tertel, Text and Transmission, 20–56. 39.  Tertel, Text and Transmission, 54–55.

20

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Kings–Chronicles as unsuitable for comparison because it is impossible to exclude the possibility that Chronicler used some additional sources and a version of Samuel/Kings which is not identical to the versions known to us.40 Tertel proposes that empirical models should be restricted to such ideal cases where it is possible to compare geno- and phenotext with each other. From these starting-points Tertel notes rightly that Assyrian royal inscriptions are suitable empirical models because their genealogical trees can often be established with relative certainty. Tertel analyzes the discourse profile of the Assyrian royal inscriptions with the aid of Longacre’s discourse analysis41 and concludes that the discourse profile becomes simpler in the new editions. He then compares 2 Chronicles 32 to 2 Kings 18–19 and demonstrates that a similar process of literary development is evident there: the discourse profile becomes simpler in the later edition of the Chronicler.42 Tertel’s attempt to restrict empirical models merely to only some versions of the Assyrian royal inscriptions is unnecessary. An empirical perspective can shed light also on the longer transmission of the traditions in the Hebrew Bible material. There are clear differences between the process of transmitting the Assyrian royal inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (narrative) texts. The different versions of the Assyrian royal inscriptions resemble one another closely. They originate from the same historical period, the reign of a certain Assyrian king, and represent the same ideology. On the other hand, the Hebrew Bible texts represent a much longer process of transmission and moreover were edited during different historical periods and in the midst of distinct ideological atmospheres. This being the case, the transmission of the Akkadian epics and Samuel/Kings–Chronicles provides a better empirical model for describing what might have taken place in cases when traditions have been transmitted over long periods of time, and when editing has taken place in a new historical period and ideological atmosphere.43 Therefore, various empirical models should be used in order to illustrate appropriate 40.  Tertel, Text and Transmission, 56–57. 41.  Robert E. Longacre, “A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,” Text 1 (1981): 337–59; idem, The Grammar of Discourse (New York: Plenum, 1983); idem, “Interpreting Biblical Stories,” in Discourse and Literature: New Approaches to the Analysis of Literary Genres, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985), 169–85. 42.  Tertel, Text and Transmission, 156–71. 43.  It is worth noting that even Tertel concludes that the editorial work made in Chronicles in its relationship to Samuel/Kings corresponds well to different literary stages in the Assyrian royal inscriptions.

2. Methodology

21

ways in which the transmission of texts in the Hebrew Bible has taken place. Empirical models illustrate the following aspects in methodology which play important role in this study: (1) The redaction criticism: Empirical models where the versions resemble one another so closely that clear traces of the redactor’s use of a genotext in producing a phenotext can be discerned give us the possibility to follow what kind of changes the editor has made in the genotext when it has been adopted in a modified form in his own phenotext. Assyrian royal inscriptions give us a good picture of these redactional changes. (2) The tradition history: The literary evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic shows that an older separate tradition of the Babylonian flood story (the Atrahasis Epic) has been modified and edited in a new historical and ideological situation. In a similar way it is reasonable to assume that older Israelite religious traditions were used when the argument was presented that Yahweh has manifested his presence in the sanctuary of Jerusalem. (3) Cross-cultural transitions: In cases of cross-cultural transitions the epithets of one god has been transformed to concern another deity.44 An illustrative example is the Babylonian Enuma Elish, where the god who defeats the tumult of chaos is Marduk (who usurps the position previously accorded to the Sumerian creation gods). On the other hand, in some Assyrian versions of the Enuma Elish the victorious god is Aššur. In every other respect the wording in the Babylonian and Assyrian versions correspond to each other quite well.45 In this study I shall examine the ways in which the building project of the temple in Jerusalem led to a new religious presentation of Yahweh, so that he was depicted according to the imagery of the West Semitic Storm-god. I shall now present how I aim to use these three empirical perspectives in this study. Empirical Perspectives to Redaction Criticism What kind of perspective do empirical models give to the process of redaction criticism? In order to demonstrate this process, the best way is to deal with different versions of Assyrian royal inscriptions where the texts are related to each other. I take as my starting-point the illustrative list of Louis Levine, who presents changes which have taken place in Sennacherib’s royal inscriptions. It is to be noted that in the article, 44.  For this see Mark S. Smith, God in Transition: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). 45.  See the manuscript evidence in Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, Mesopotamian Civilizations 16 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 3–144.

22

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

with limited space, Levine is not able to illustrate all these changes with concrete examples:46 1.0. Word-level variation 1.1. Inversion of word order 1.2. Synonymity (prepositions, conjunctions, verbs, nouns) 1.3. Expansion or deletion (prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, nouns) 1.4. Alteration 1.4.1. Alteration of person or verb 1.4.2. Alteration of number 2.0. Phrase-level variation 2.1. Displacement of phrase 2.2. Synonymous phrases 2.3. Expansion or deletion 3.0. Episode-level variation 3.1. Episode order 3.2. Expansion or deletion of an episode 3.3. Alteration of events 4.0. Composition-level variation 4.1. Combination of separate campaigns 4.2. Division of events into campaigns 5.0. Manuscript-level variation 5.1. Scope of what is included and excluded in a manuscript In my earlier study History and Ideology I tested this list of Levine and found that the changes can be found in different versions of the royal inscriptions of Sennacherib. I also demonstrated that similar changes have taken place even in the literary evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 46.  Louis D. Levine, “Preliminary Remarks on the Historical Inscriptions of Sennacherib,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 58–75. The category abridgement should be added to 3.2. Clearly abridgement should be distinguished from deletion—something which is also mentioned in his article from 1981: “Manuscripts, Texts and the Study of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis, ed. F. Mario Fales, Orientis Antiqvi Collectio XVII (Rome: Istituto per L’Oriente, 1981), 49–70, esp. 61: “…at least four processes are at work in the relationship between ‘editions’. In one, the text remains virtually unchanged in terms of length. In the second, minor detail is removed. The third and fourth consist of radical abridgement and complete omission.”

2. Methodology

23

in the Chronicler’s way of using texts from the Deuteronomistic History, as well as in the MT and LXX versions of the book of Jeremiah.47 I concluded five general rules which I regard as characteristic for the redaction process. Rule 1: The redactor does not always transmit his source text verbatim. The empirical perspective reveals in a very illustrative way that a redactor was able to make stylistic changes and employ synonyms which corresponded better to the language of his own time.48 When he added words or phrases, he often reformulated the passage in some way. He could also abridge his source text or assimilate some of its parts to other sections. Even the different textual “Vorlage” of, for instance, Jeremiah, the LXX and the MT, sometimes differ from each other so that it is manifestly clear that a later copyist (better to say: redactor) did not preserve the wording of his source text without any changes. Redactio-critical studies often indulge in wishful thinking, asserting that redactors normally preserved the older core of the text because it was regarded as authoritative and divinely inspired. This view encounters several problems in the face of the available empirical models. From an empirical perspective it is clear that redactors definitely had the freedom to reformulate their source texts. The notion of redactors who deeply respected their source texts at the same time as they altered them is

47.  Laato, History and Ideology, 62–147; concerning Chronicles, see esp. 115–24. 48.  William F. Albright writes: “A principle which must never be lost sight of in dealing with documents of the ancient Near East is that instead of leaving obvious archaisms in spelling and grammar, as later became the fashion in Greece and Rome, the scribes generally revised ancient literary and other documents periodically. This practice was followed with particular regularity by cuneiform scribes. As a result scribes of the Middle-Babylonian age nearly always revise Old-Babylonian texts substituting current grammatical forms and even contemporary phraseology. Neo-Babylonian recensions of the same texts are still farther modernized. The reverse is also found, and we have attempts to write Old Babylonian in Neo-Babylonian times, but the results are so indescribably confused that the modern cuneiformist can usually fix the true date after a single rapid perusal.” William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957), 79–80. A similar tendency to make linguistic and stylistic corrections can be found in Chronicles—see, e.g., Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1976)—as well as in 1QIsa and the Samaritan Pentateuch; see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 89–91, 93–94, 108–10.

24

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

rooted in an attempt to portray literary criticism as an exact exegetical method. However, the empirical models show that we cannot speak of any “eisern-konsekvente Methode.” Thus empirical models confirm that the concept of “literary tension” which has been defined so flexibly in modern exegetical studies cannot serve as the basis of an exact scientific method. The role of the exegete is dominant in literary criticism, as can be verified by the plethora of different results achieved by scholars who have used the same literary-critical method on the same texts.49 Rule 2: The redactor preserved the main ideas of his source text. The fact that editors made changes in the wording of their source texts does not mean that they did not respect the content of their sources. Empirical models show that they often preserved the central ideas of their source texts even though they could have modified them and presented them in a new ideological or religious context. One can compare the Chronicler’s way of repeating the content of his sources quite slavishly, while at the same time he could also modify them so that they corresponded better to his theological aims. The evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic provides a good example of how the main ideas of a text are preserved during the long process of transmission. The main course of events in the Old Babylonian version(s) corresponds well to the events portrayed in the Late Babylonian version. Many of the main ideas in the integrated Akkadian Epic can already be found in the Sumerian tales as, for example, (1) Gilgamesh’s quest for eternal life; (2) the close relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu; (3) the friends’ encounter with Huwawa; (4) Gilgamesh’s rejection of Inanna/Ishtar and the subsequent revenge of the goddess; the Bull of Heaven, and its slaughter; (5) Enkidu’s death. Even though much new textual material was incorporated into the epic (and some parts deleted) after the Old Babylonian period, the versions indicate that the main ideas of the epic have been preserved through the centuries.50 Examination of Sennacherib’s royal inscriptions, the Deuteronomistic–Chronistic History and the textual versions of Jeremiah—all texts which resemble one another much more than the versions of the Gilgamesh Epic—paints roughly the same picture. By combining rules 1 and 2 the following rule is induced, restricting the usage of the literary-critical method. 49.  It is worth noting that I do not want to reject literary and redaction method. My aim is to define its limits, but empirical models clearly show that scholars ask right questions by using this method. 50.  For details see Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic.

2. Methodology

25

Rule 3: Literary criticism can lead one astray when it asserts that redactors could not manipulate their source texts. It is possible that the redactor could simply have preserved older textual material “as is” without harmonizing it with the rest of his phenotext. However, empirical models show that assimilations and harmonizations were often a part of the redaction process.51 Thus one must be aware that passages which can be regarded as the work of a redactor may also contain older traditions which have been reworked. Traditional literary criticism following the model of German biblical scholarship is “handicapped”52 because it has often been applied without considering the possibility that the editor may have manipulated his source text. Rule 4: Literary tensions in the present form of the text only enable us to describe the tip of the iceberg of the genotext used by the redactor in composing the present form of the text. This rule follows logically from the above-mentioned rules. Of course, apparent literary tensions are indications that the text contains more than one literary stratum. However, as rule 3 states, it is not always possible to reconstruct the genotext by eliminating the passages of the phenotext which stand in literary tension with the context. Rule 5: Literary criticism alone is incapable of comprehensively describing the composition of a text’s redactional layers. It must be complemented by other methods. Barth and Steck divide traditional exegetical methods into two groups: those which deal with the transmission of the text and those which deal with the atmosphere in which the text was compiled. The methods belonging to latter group are: form

51.  For example, Tigay (The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 55–109) lists the following phenomena in the evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic: (a) different grammatical and lexical forms of the same word; (b) synonyms or words functioning similarly; (c) added words or phrases; (d) different formulae introducing speeches; (e) expansion by parallelism; (f) telescoping of parallel lines; (g) reformulation with negligible change in meaning; (h) reformulation with new idea added; (i) reformulation with meaning changed completely; (j) restructured sections; (k) changes in the roles of characters; (l) assimilation; (m) major additions. Many of these changes correspond to similar changes in Levine’s list referred above. 52.  This term is more positive than Kaufman’s term “blind.” See Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 (1982): 29–43, esp. 35. As noted already, I am not pessimistically inclined to the use of literary criticism as Kaufman.

26

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

history, tradition history and historical situation.53 My proposal is that the latter methods should be considered as complementary to literary criticism. 5.1: Form-historical investigation helps us discern the possible lines of evolution of the text. For example, if two different Gattungen are interwoven in the text, then one could investigate whether or not the phenotext was compiled using two different texts, each of a distinct Gattung.54 Tigay’s form-historical analyses of the Gilgamesh Epic are worthy of note in this connection.55 The Chronicler provides a simple and clear-cut example. In 2 Chronicles 6 the prose account of 1 Kings 8 is combined with the poetic part from Psalm 132 (in 2 Chr 6:41–42).56 Both 1 Kings 8 and Psalm 132 have their own literary forms which are clearly detectable in 2 Chronicles 6. One may even ask whether the Chronicler knew that Psalm 132 was tradition-historically related to the reign of Solomon. 5.2: A careful traditio-historical analysis of the text may reveal that it contains different themes, indicating that the present form of the text may have been redacted with the aim of combining two different traditions together. With the aid of tradition criticism it is possible to describe the larger ideological frames in which the literary evolution of the text has taken place. For example, Chronicles contains some references to Priestly laws when the material from the Deuteronomistic History has been reworked in it. This indicates that the Chronicler combined two traditions together and in this way completed the description of the Deuteronomistic History in a new way. In this study I shall argue that Zion theology contains traces of two different imageries of Yahweh: the Ēl tradition originating from Shiloh (Chapter 5) and the Storm-god tradition which was adopted from West Semitic religious milieu and introduced in Jerusalem through the building project of the Temple (Chapter 4).

53.  Hermann Barth and Odil H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments. Leitfaden der Methodik. Ein Arbeitsbuch für Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987). 54.  For form-historical considerations note especially Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969). 55.  See Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 140–77. 56.  Concerning the relationship between Ps. 132 and 2 Chr. 6:41–42, see further Antti Laato, “Psalm 132: A Case Study in Methodology,” CBQ 61 (1999): 24–33.

2. Methodology

27

5.3: Every text has its extra-textual dimension which is related to a particular historical situation. In a new editing process the extra-textual dimension may leave its own clear traces in the text. This phenomenon is found in the Old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic (in relation to the Sumerian tales) which is connected with a new political situation, the western orientation of Babylonian policy. A similar tendency is also attested in the central role played by the cult of the Temple of Jerusalem in Chronicles. The reorganization of the Temple cult at the beginning of the Persian period influenced the editorial strategy of the Chronicler, and actualized older traditions in a new historical context. In this study I shall argue that the “miraculous” salvation of Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah (701 BCE) gave new impulses in Zion theology, and that this is particularly visible in Psalm 48 (see section 4.1).57 Empirical Perspectives to Tradition History In this study I shall argue that the Hebrew Bible contains larger tradition historical processes which concern the relocating of older Israelite religious places in Jerusalem. Such relocation is well demonstrated with some Assyrian recensions of Enuma Elish where the place name of Esagila was substituted with Ešarra and the name of Marduk was replaced by Aššur.58 Such a tendency to relocate places is an important element in the ancient Near East and something similar could have taken place in Israel when Jerusalem became a political and religious center in the United Monarchy and subsequently became the capital city of the kingdom of Judah. An important question in this study is the role the older religious traditions connected originally with Shechem (together with Ebal and Gerizim), Shiloh, Bethel, Gilgal, Dan and Bashan in Transjordan play in the Hebrew Bible. Why are these cult places referred to as legitimate in the presentation of the history of Israel if the aim at the same time was to emphasize the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem (Deut. 12)? If these cult places were seen as legitimate in the early history of Israel one relevant option is that there were also religious traditions which were originally connected with these places and which were subsequently adopted and modified to concern Jerusalem. I shall now demonstrate in which ways the Hebrew Bible indicates the connection between Jerusalem and these other religious places mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, as old centers of the Israelite Yahwism. Three different basic patterns to emphasize this relationship can be found. 57.  For this see also my article “Understanding the Zion Theology.” 58.  For this see Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 5.

28

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Pattern 1: From place X to Jerusalem. This pattern emphasizes that an older legitimate cult place has lost its importance and its legitimation has been moved to Jerusalem. This can be presented in such a way that the older cult place has been abandoned (because of Jerusalem) or its important cult object has been moved to Jerusalem. The following six examples can be found in the Hebrew Bible. (1) The most important example is how Shiloh was abandoned and Jerusalem elected instead of it. This is well illustrated in the story of the Ark in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Sam. 4–6 + 2 Sam. 6).59 The Ark Narrative describes how the cult symbol of Shiloh was stolen and transferred to Philistia and then finally moved to Jerusalem. The story emphasizes that religious traditions connected with the Ark, which once were associated with the cult of Shiloh, were subsequently relocalized in Jerusalem.60 It is clear that the research question concerning the ways in which older Shiloh traditions have been actualized in Jerusalem is relevant in this study, and this question will be dealt with in Chapter 5. Psalm 78 deals with the history of Israel and shows how God has led his people. It becomes clear that Shiloh was once the central cult place in Israel (Ps. 78:52–55), but the place was subsequently abandoned and Jerusalem chosen instead of it (Ps. 78:60–61, 67–69). A similar view on the abandonment of the cult place of Shiloh is presented in Jer. 7:1–15; 26:1–19. Jeremiah warns the people that a similar fate could befall Jerusalem. Taken as a whole, the book of Jeremiah does not represent a view according to which Jerusalem was totally and finally rejected. Even though the city and its temple were destroyed by the Babylonians, the hope is maintained that the city and the temple will be rebuilt (see, e.g., Jer. 33). (2) In a similar way it is possible to argue that the theological traditions of Qiryat-Yearim (associated with the divine name of Baal61) where the Ark was situated for about twenty years, influenced the cult of Jerusalem when the Ark was moved from there to Jerusalem. Both Psalm 132 and 2 Samuel 6 account for this event and connect the overall theological traditions of the Ark to the election of the Davidic kingship. The stay of the Ark in Qiryat-Yearim, in particular, indicates that old Canaanite 59.  Concerning the Ark Narrative, see further section 3.2. 60.  Good studies to illustrate this possibility are: Jörg Jeremias, “Lade und Zion,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Hans W. Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 183–98; Seow, Myth, Drama, 11–54. 61.  Different names for Qiryat-Yearim illustrate that the place was in some way connected with the divine name Baal: Balah (Josh. 15:9), Mount Balah (Josh. 15:11) and Qiryat-Baal (Josh. 18:14).

2. Methodology

29

concepts associated with the Storm-god (or Baal) could have been related to the Ark already there.62 In that case, the adoption of the imagery of the Storm-god in the Temple of Solomon is more readily explicable (see section 5.3). (3) In the present form of the Deuteronomistic History the Ark has been associated with a tent (2 Sam. 6:17)—and in the Enneateuch this tent may have been in some way related to the Tabernacle in the wilderness as presented in the Pentateuch. It seems that such a tent was associated with the cult of Jerusalem in a way which emphasizes continuity with tribal traditions. In the words of Nathan to David (2 Sam. 7:5–7) the tent is contrasted with the Temple building: This is what Yahweh says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”

Even though in this passage the building of the Temple is not permitted, the further prophecy of Nathan indicates that the Temple would be built in Jerusalem by the son of David. When the Deuteronomistic History describes the dedication of the Temple it refers to the whole tent being moved inside to the Temple (1 Kgs 8:3–5): When all the elders of Israel had arrived, the priests took up the ark, and they brought up the ark of Yahweh and the tent of meeting and all the sacred furnishings in it. The priests and Levites carried them up, and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.

Thus the Deuteronomistic History indicates that there is continuity from the worship at the tribal tent to the cult at the Temple of Jerusalem. I am not keen to regard this description of the move from the tent to the temple as a later Deuteronomistic (if not priestly) ideology. First of all, 2 Sam. 7:5–7 contains an old oracle because šēm-theology is not used in connection with the building of the Temple (cf., 2 Sam. 7:13). Secondly, a similar theological emphasis is even detectable in Psalm 78. The sanctuary at Shiloh was characterized as a “tent,” indicating that “tent” indeed was the term used for the Israelite sanctuary before the building of the temple. 62.  For this, note in particular Seow, Myth, Drama, 55–76.

30

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Thirdly, Exod. 15:1–18 contains a reference to a sanctuary which would be established on the mount (v. 17), but this sanctuary is related to the open-air cultic context as the use of the Hebrew nawê indicates. The word is an archaic expression about the encampment of the nomadic tribes. The Akkadian term nāwûm appears already in the documents of Mari from eighteenth century BCE where it is used to describe the nomadic encampment.63 The Hebrew expression gives reason to believe that Yahweh was regarded to be present in an open-air cultic place—something which implies a movable tabernacle as described in 2 Sam. 7:5–7 and Psalm 78, and of course also in the Pentateuchal concept of Tabernacle.64 Fourth, archaeological evidence indicates that Israelite cult places were openaired (see section 5.1). This being the case, the transmission process of the priestly tradition of the Tabernacle in the Pentateuch is complicated, and it is methodologically dubious to assume boldly that the concept of the Tabernacle is a creation of the postexilic period with no older Israelite tradition. (4) An important cult site in the Hebrew Bible is also Shechem. Closely related to this cult site are the two mounts, Ebal and Gerizim, which are situated beside the city. The importance of this site is particularly emphasized in the book of Deuteronomy. Even though, as far as the present form of the Enneateuch is concerned, Jerusalem is apparently meant in Deuteronomy 12, it is striking that the name of the city is never mentioned either in Deuteronomy or in the Pentateuch in general. Instead of Jerusalem, reference is made to the Mount of Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. 11:29–30; 27:1–26). Deuteronomy 11:29–30 is particularly important because the text is located just before Deuteronomy 12 and gives its reader prima facie understanding that the chosen cult place in Deuteronomy 12 must be Ebal and Gerizim, not Jerusalem. Shechem is presented as an old Israelite cult center in many Hebrew Bible traditions.65 Joshua 8:30–35 is 63.  Concerning this see Abraham Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience: The Schweich Lectures 1984 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 43–47; idem, Mari and the Bible, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 8. 64.  Concerning the archaeological evidence of Israelite open-air cult places and their relation to tent, see section 5.1. 65.  Concerning the role of Shechem in Hebrew Bible traditions note, in particular, Eduard Nielsen, Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: Gad, 1955); George E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw–Hill, 1965); Karl Jaroš, Sichem: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jos 24, OBO 11 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976); Sven Tengström, Die Hexateucherzählung:

2. Methodology

31

a parallel tradition to Deuteronomy 27 which emphasizes that an altar was built at Ebal.66 According to Joshua 23–24 the covenant between Yahweh and Israel was renewed in Shechem.67 Many texts in Deuteronomy seem to be related to the northern (Levitical) traditions.68 Deuteronomy is an important test case of how older cultic traditions have been actualized in Jerusalem. 2 Kings 22–23 give us reason to believe that Deuteronomic traditions including the Passover festival became popular in Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah. (5) If Deuteronomy indicates that older northern traditions were actualized in Jerusalem, a similar conclusion can be made for the Covenant Code which allows the worship of Yahweh on different altars (Exod. 20:24–26) and apparently in open-air cult places. The Covenant Code is clearly edited before the cult centralization described in Deuteronomy 12. In terms of content, the Covenant Code can easily be related to ancient Near Eastern and Israelite legal traditions that are perhaps even related to the tribal society.69 The Covenant Code in its present literary context

Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie, ConBOT 7 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976); Karl Jaroš and Brigitte Deckert, Studien zur Sichem-Aera, OBO 11a (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1977); Eckart Otto, Jakob in Sichem: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels, BWANT 110 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979). Concerning the archaeology of Tell Balâtah, see especially Edward F. Campbell et al., Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâtah. Vol. 1, Text. Vol. 2, The Illustrations, ASOR Archaeological Reports 6 (Boston: ASOR, 2002). 66.  As is well-known the textual transmission of Deut. 27:4 and Josh. 8:30–35 are complicated. Concerning the transmission of Josh. 8:30–35 and its relation to the Deuteronomistic History and its tradition, see Laato, “Cult Site of Mount Ebal.” Concerning the archaeology see especially Hawkins, Mt. Ebal, and the literature referred within (especially A. Zertal’s contributions). 67.  See the interpretation of Josh. 24 and traditions behind the passage in Götz Schmitt, Der Landtag von Sichem (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964); Herbert Mölle, Der sogenannte Landtag zu Sichem, FzB 42 (Würzburg: Echter, 1980); William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, JSOTSup 93 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990); David Frankel, The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible, Siphrut 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 77–136. 68.  Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991). 69.  In the case of the Covenant Code, distinction must be made between older traditions which prevailed in the Israelite tribal society and the literary fixation of the Covenant Code (as it is now in Exod. 20–23), which apparently took place at the time of the monarchic period.

32

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

shows that older Israelite legal material found its way to Jerusalem and was edited there. Jerusalem became in this way the new center of the Mosaic Israel. (6) Psalm 68 contains an important cultic tradition which—as I shall argue in Chapter 6—was originally connected with the Mount of Bashan and later relocalized in Jerusalem.70 If this is the case, then Psalm 68 is a good example of how old traditions connected with the Israelite settlement in Transjordan may have been actualized in Jerusalem. The Enneateuch contains references to the Israelite tribes having lived in Transjordan before the Arameans invaded there during the ninth century BCE.71 According to the Enneateuch, these areas were still under Israelite control during the reigns of David and Solomon (see further section 6.2). Pattern 2: Jerusalem contra place X. This second pattern concerns the cases where Jerusalem is contrasted with other rival cult places. The criticism of other cult places indicates that Jerusalem-oriented writers have legitimated Zion as the (only) place where Yahweh can be worshipped. The best examples of the cultic centralization are, of course, Deuteronomy 12 and 2 Kings 22–23. A rival situation does not exclude the possibility that some aspects of a cult which had been criticized were adopted in Jerusalem. The following examples illustrate this pattern: (1) Jerusalem contra Bethel. This contrast is the most apparent example in the traditions of the Hebrew Bible. The Enneateuch gives us the impression that Bethel was an important cult place in the early history of Israel.72 The Israelite history of Bethel begins with Jacob and his dream there (Gen. 28:10–22). During the period of Judges Bethel plays a central role. For example, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron was priest there (Judg. 20:27–28). But then the situation changes dramatically in the description of the history of Israel as it is presented in the Enneateuch. Jeroboam chose Bethel and Dan as cult sites for his 70.  For this see de Moor, Rise of Yahwism; Antti Laato, “Psalm 68—A Reworked Poem from the Early Israelite Period,” in Plogbillar & Svärd: En festskrift till Stig Norin, ed. Tal Davidovich (Farsta: Molin & Sorgenfrei, 2012), 101–46. 71.  This is also supported by the Mesha Stele, which refers to the tribe of Gad and the Israelite Yahweh sanctuary in the Transjordan area. See further section 6.2. 72.  See the Bethel traditions in the Hebrew Bible from the following works: Klaus Koenen, Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie, OBO 192 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 2003); Melanie Köhlmoos, Bet-El-Erinnerungen an eine Stadt: Perspektiven der alttestamentlichen Bet-El-Überlieferung, FAT 49 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Jules F. Gomes, Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity, BZAW 368 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012).

2. Methodology

33

Yahwism and made golden calves there. This deed has been interpreted in the Deuteronomistic History as apostasy (1 Kgs 12:25–33).73 The sins of Jeroboam are reflected in Exodus 32 (cf., Exod. 32:8 and 1 Kgs 12:28). Josiah polluted the altar of Bethel (1 Kgs 13:2; 2 Kgs 23:15–18), and in the books of Amos and Hosea the cult of Bethel is condemned (Amos 4:4–5; 5:4–6; Hos. 4:15; 10:5). In the postbiblical period this biblical evidence gave good basis for scribes to criticize Bethel. Even though Zechariah 7 implies that Bethel was an important cult place during the exile and even at the beginning of the Persian period—and there is also basis for a positive picture of Bethel in the Hebrew Bible—the Jerusalem-oriented scribes could easily find arguments which made the city unsuitable for worship of Yahweh. This is seen particularly in 2 Kgs 17:24–41, which is directed against the cult of Bethel. The text throws dubious shadow over Yahwism in Bethel. It was connected with all kinds of foreign aspects from the Assyrian religion and, therefore, could not fulfill the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. (2) Jerusalem contra Dan. The situation of Dan is similar to that of Bethel because both are mentioned in 1 Kgs 12:25–33. The cult place of Dan is not only condemned in 1 Kings 12 but its dubious origin with idols and graven images is told in Judges 17–18. (3) Jerusalem contra Gilgal: The role of Gilgal is important in the book of Joshua.74 But later in the book of Amos and Hosea Gilgal is rejected, as is Bethel (Amos 4:4–5; 5:4–6; Hos. 4:15). So, if Gilgal was once a legitimate cult place, the worship there had developed to non-normative forms. (4) Jerusalem contra Shiloh. Even though 1 Samuel 4–6 + 2 Samuel 6 emphasize the continuity from Shiloh to Jerusalem, Psalm 78 as well as Jeremiah 7 and 26 are examples of criticism of the cult place of Shiloh. Shiloh played a role in the history of the Northern Kingdom. For example, the prophet Ahia came from Shiloh (1 Kgs 11:29). Shiloh is a good example of a case where criticism of a certain cult place, on the one hand, and continuity from that same cult place, on the other, can go hand in hand in the Hebrew Bible.

73.  Historically seen, it seems reasonable to assume that the golden calf was interpreted as a fundament in an aniconic presentation of Yahweh. 74.  It is worth noting that Nielsen discusses the possibility that some traditions which in the Hebrew Bible have been connected to Gilgal may in their earlier forms have been related to Shechem. Nielsen, Shechem, 295–303. See esp. 300: “Further, we may ask whether some of the traditions which in the book of Joshua are located at Gilgal were originally concerned with Shechem.”

34

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

(5) Jerusalem contra Samaria. It is remarkable that Samaria is not condemned more often in the prophetic literature as a religious city, rather as a political entity. The existence of Samaria was relatively short-lived, and there was no common traditio-historical background which would have made Samaria an important cult center for all the tribes of Israel. It was founded during the dynasty of Omri (1 Kgs 16:24)—i.e., clearly after the collapse of the United Monarchy—and then destroyed by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17). Nevertheless, in the book of Hosea, Samaria is mentioned once in relation to Bethel—assuming that Beth Aven is a pejorative name of Bethel (Hos. 10:5):75 The people who live in Samaria fear for the calf-idol of Beth Aven Its people will mourn over it, and so will its idolatrous priests, those who had rejoiced over its splendor, because it is taken from them into exile.

That the golden calf perhaps was a religious symbol even in Samaria may receive support from Hos. 8:5–6, even though the text can also be understood so that the inhabitants of Samaria worshipped the Calf of Bethel. After the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, Samaria is mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:24, 26 within a story which condemns the cult of Bethel. This emphasis on the cult of Bethel is significant because it was Bethel not Samaria which continued to exist and which challenged Jerusalem during the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. (6) Jerusalem contra Gerizim/Ebal. I have argued elsewhere that the rivalry between Samaria and Jerusalem in the postexilic period led to relocating Gerizim and Ebal in Judah—something which is visible in Deut. 11:30:76 As you know, these mountains are across the Jordan, westward, toward the setting sun, near the great trees of Moreh, in the territory of those Canaanites living in the Arabah in the vicinity of Gilgal.

Such relocation was necessary in order to show that the legitimate cult places in Deuteronomy were not situated in the vicinity of Mount Gerizim 75.  That Beth Aven can also refer to the Israelite cult place outside the city of Bethel, see Nadav Na’aman, “Beth-aven, Bethel and Early Israelite Sanctuaries,” ZDPV 103 (1987): 13–21. 76.  Laato, “Cult Site of Mount Ebal.”

2. Methodology

35

where the Samaritans had built their sanctuary.77 As in the case of Shiloh, even Ebal and Gerizim with Shechem also emphasize the aspect of continuity. In Jerusalem the right heritage of Deuteronomic covenant traditions were preserved. Pattern 3: From Sinai to Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible there are texts which account for the continuity between Sinai—the holy place sui generis which is the common heritage of the tribal Israel—and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is seen as the legitimate place where Exodus and Sinai traditions of the tribal Israel can be practiced.78 The following cases can be enumerated here: (1) From Egypt to the mount of Jerusalem. Exodus 15 in its present form in the Enneateuch apparently connects the cult place mentioned in vv. 17–18 to the very same place as Deuteronomy 12, i.e. to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, as already noted, this identification with Jerusalem is not at all self-evident when this archaic poetic passage is analyzed separately from its content.79 The main point in this pattern “from Egypt to Jerusalem” was to emphasize that Yahweh who saved his people from 77.  The results of archaeological excavations in Gerizim are available only in the form of preliminary reports, but note especially Yitzhak Magen’s recent articles where he clearly states that the Samaritan temple was built in the time of Nehemiah. Yitzhak Magen, “Mount Gerizim—A Temple City: Summary of Eighteen Years of Excavations,” Qadmoniot 33 (2000): 74–118; Ephraim Stern and Yitzhak Magen, “The First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim,” Qadmoniot 33 (2000): 119–24; Yitzhak Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. O. Lipschits et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 157–211; idem, “Bells, Pendants, Snakes & Stones: A Samaritan Temple to the Lord on Mt. Gerizim,” BAR 36 (2010): 26–35, 70. 78.  Very precise is the title of Gese’s collected essays at this point: Hartmut Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion: alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie, BEvT 64 (Munich: Kaiser, 1974). 79.  The date of Exod. 15:1–18 is controversial and scholars discuss ways in which the text contains archaic Hebrew expressions. While I regard the language of Exod. 15:1–18 as being updated it is nevertheless interesting to see that some old syntactic phenomena (e.g., the imperfect forms should be read in the past tense) have been preserved in this poetic passage. This is due to the fact that the Hebrew prefixed verb yiqtol has two different origins yaqtulu (present-future) and yaqtul (past action which developed to the wayyiqtol form). Concerning the archaic features of Exod. 15, see Robertson, Linguistic Evidence; Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 31–45. A good option for the identification of cultic site could be Ebal (and Gerizim) near Shechem.

36

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Egypt has now settled himself in Jerusalem—something which was actualized in the Passover festival centered around Jerusalem from the reign of Josiah onwards (Deut. 16:1–8; 2 Kgs 23:21–23). (2) Judah—a part of the tribal Israel. Deuteronomy 33 is an interesting text in the Pentateuch because it does not give much credit for Judah. There is only one short passage (v. 7) which mentions Judah: Hear, Yahweh, the cry of Judah; bring him to his people. With his own hands he defends his cause. Oh, be his help against his foes!

The text can be interpreted so that Deuteronomy 33 was formulated at a time when Judah was outside other tribes and there was a hope that it could be reunited with them.80 That such a text was preserved in the book of Deuteronomy is significant. It shows that something essential took place in Jerusalem when Deuteronomic traditions around Sinai/Horeb were introduced there. Jerusalem became the legitimate heir of the tribal Israel (again?!). Deuteronomy 33 is a poetic text which contains archaic features.81 (3) Judah—taking the position of leader in the tribal Israel. Another text which contains blessings over the tribes of Israel is Genesis 49. This text is significantly different from Deuteronomy 33. It emphasizes that Judah has assumed leadership among the tribes. Formulations against three older brothers (Ruben, Simeon and Levi) can even be interpreted in such a way that they were rejected while Judah was regarded as the firstborn of Jacob/ Israel in Genesis 49.82 Like Deuteronomy 33, so Genesis 49 belongs to those poetic texts in the Hebrew Bible which have preserved some archaic features.83 (4) Israel under the Mosaic covenant guarantees victory. One special case is Judges 5, which, according to many scholars, is one of the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible. It is not self-evident how this text in its present 80.  For another way of understanding this verse, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 323. 81.  Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 64–81. 82.  Note 1 Chr. 5:1–2 which contains a passage concerning the firstborn position of Joseph. 1 Chr. 5:1 can also be interpreted so that even though Joseph was regarded as the firstborn he was not listed in the first place of the Israelite genealogies; rather, it was Judah, as becomes clear from 1 Chr. 1–9. 83.  Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 46–63.

2. Methodology

37

literary context emphasizes the glory of Jerusalem. However, when Judges 5 is analyzed together with Psalm 68, which was relocated to Jerusalem (Ps. 68:30; see further Chapter 6), it becomes clear why even Judges 5 can be interpreted in the glory of Jerusalem. Psalm 68:8–9 is a close parallel to Judg. 5:4–5, as can be seen in the following synopsis: Ps. 68:8–9: Elohim, when you went out before your people, when you marched in the desert the earth quaked, even heavens dripped down before the face of Elohim, He-of-the-Sinai, before Elohim, the Elohim of Israel. Judg. 5:4–5: When you, Yahweh, went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water. The mountains quaked before Yahweh, the One of Sinai, before Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Thus Judges 5 emphasizes the same theology as Psalm 68 and Exodus 15. The One who saved Israel from Egypt and revealed himself in Sinai is the divine King of Jerusalem. It is also worth noting that Jael was the wife of Heber the Kenite who was of the family tree of Moses (through Hobab the Kenite).84 Therefore Judges 5 glorifies the woman who puts her trust in Yahweh, who revealed himself to Moses, who had a family-relation to Hobab. Another part of the Deuteronomistic History, namely, the book of Deuteronomy, indicates again that it is in Jerusalem that the legitimate Moses-tradition has been preserved. (5) An old tribal hymn adopted and modified in a Jerusalem context. Habakkuk 3 is an interesting text, which is clearly connected with the temple of Jerusalem (Hab. 2:20). It is dependent on an older Israelite theophany tradition in Ps. 77:17–20.85 The content of Habakkuk 3 emphasizes that the God who revealed himself in Sinai has taken his dwelling-place in Zion.86

84.  Benjamin Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297–303. 85.  See my article: Antti Laato, “Yahweh Manifests Himself Between Two Cherubim: An Approach to the Reception History of Hab 3:2?,” in Begegnungen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart: Beiträge dialogischer Existenz, ed. Claudia Rammelt et al. (Berlin: LIT, 2015), 55–64. 86.  Concerning the interpretation of Hab. 3:2 as referring to two cherubim in the Temple of Jerusalem, see Laato, “Yahweh Manifests Himself Between Two Cherubim.”

38

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Empirical Perspectives to Cross-Cultural Translations In his illustrative study Mark Smith has shown how ancient Near Eastern deities and their divinity operatives could be translated in new religious milieus through cross-cultural discourses. Using several examples Smith demonstrates how it was usual to translate gods according to their function and gender in cross-cultural classification of deities.87 Such cross-cultural discourses are important in this study because in Chapter 4 the focus is put on the question as to why Yahweh has been depicted using the imagery of the Storm-god. And it is especially significant that this imagery of the Storm-god is closely related to the Mediterranean geographical context (sections 4.1 and 4.3), indicating that the Phoenician Storm-god and his function have been translated into the Israelite context. Empirical models give examples of cases where the form of a certain religious text has been adopted and modified to serve other religious needs. A good example is the Aramaic text of the Demotic Script where an almost similar text to that in Psalm 20 has been formulated in the polytheistic context.88 In the research of the Hebrew Bible it is an optional methodological approach to deal with the early Hebrew poetic texts and illustrate their content with the aid of the West Semitic myths. This is well demonstrated in F. M. Cross’s influential study, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Many other scholars have similar approaches even though

87.  Smith, God in Transition. 88.  See the text (Egyptian Papyrus Amherst 63) in Sven P. Vleeming and Jan-Wim Wesselius, Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63, Vols. 1–2 (Amsterdam: Juda Palache Instituut, 1985 and 1990), and the English translation in William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scriptures. Vol. 1, Canonical Composition from the Biblical World (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 309–27. For further discussion, see R. A. Bowman, “An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script,” JNES 3 (1944): 219–31; Sven P. Vleeming and Jan-Wim Wesselius, “An Aramaic Hymn from the Fourth Century B.C.,” BiOr 39 (1982): 501–9; Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner, “A Paganized Version of Ps 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” JAOS 103 (1983): 261–74; Ingo Kottsieper, “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63,” ZAW 100 (1988): 217–44; idem, “Papyrus Amherst 63 — Einführung, Text und Übersetzung von 12,11–12,” in Die Königspsalmen. Die altorientalisch-kanaanäische Königs­ tradition in jüdischer Sicht. I: Ps 20, 21, 72, 101 und 144. Mit einem Beitrag von I. Kottsieper zu Papyrus Amherst, ed. Oswald Loretz, UBL 6 (Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1988), 55–75; idem, “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63. Teil II‒V,” UF 29 (1997): 385‒434; idem, “Zum Hintergrund des Schriftsystems im Pap. Amherst 63,” Dutch Studies on Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 5, no. 1 (2003): 89–115; Ziony Zevit, “The Common Origin of the Aramaicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20,” JAOS 110 (1990): 213–28.

2. Methodology

39

their way of dating the Hebrew Bible texts may differ significantly.89 In the exegesis of Psalm 29 it is a common trend to ask whether a Judean (alternatively: Israelite) editor had adopted an old West Semitic hymn to the Storm-god (or Baal) and modified it to concern Yahweh (for this see further section 4.3). 2.3. How to Proceed in Concrete Analysis A More Precise Definition of the Task The perspective of empirical models to understand the origin of the Israelite Zion theology has given rise to several important viewpoints which I shall examine more closely in this study. First, there is reason to examine the ways in which the temple building project of Solomon introduced new religious trends in Yahwism. According to 2 Sam. 7:1–7, the temple building project was seen as a new element in Yahwism. The temple project was realized in Jerusalem with help from Phoenicia, and there is reason to believe that not only architectural details but even new religious imagery from a Syro-Phoenician context influenced Yahwism at that time. According to the Ugaritic Baal myth, after having defeated the powers of chaos the Storm-god Hadad Baal received the temple on Saphanu. From this mount he manifests his power by giving fertility to the land and struggles against his enemies.90 I shall examine the ways in which the Storm-god imagery influenced by Canaanite and/or Syro-Phoenician impulses is visible in Jerusalemite Zion theology and is related to the architectural details of the temple. In particular, I question the ways in which the architectural elements of the temple of Jerusalem may reflect this imagery of the Storm-god. Secondly, the biblical evidence seems to imply that there was continuity from the old Israelite tribal traditions, which originated from different local sanctuaries and which were relocated in Jerusalem. The most obvious example in the present form of the Hebrew Bible is the way the Ark was moved from Shiloh to Jerusalem (1 Sam. 4–6 + 2 Sam. 6). I shall examine how older Israelite traditions were transformed to Jerusalem and combined with the Storm-god imagery.

89.  See, e.g., Oswald Loretz’s many studies in the bibliography of this study. 90.  Note especially the following studies: Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic; Seow, Myth, Drama; de Moor, Rise of Yahwism; Grätz, Der strafende Wettergott; Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten, and its summary in English by the same author, “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East”; Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott.

40

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Thirdly, there are some important historical periods which are signifi­ cant in the formation of the Israelite (and Jerusalemite) Zion theology: (1) the move of the Ark to Jerusalem in the reign of David; (2) the build­ing of the Temple in Jerusalem by Solomon; (3) the invasion of Sennacherib in Judah in 701 BCE when Jerusalem was saved from the clutches of the Assyrian army; (4) the reign of Josiah and the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem; (5) the exilic period when the Temple of Jerusalem was in ruin; (6) the postexilic period when Jerusalem and Samaria were rivals. The focus in this study is laid on the first two events. At the end of this chapter I shall still deal with the concrete methodological procedure which I follow in this study. Clearing Away Four Strata of Development By analyzing a text which is presumed to be related to the reign of David and Solomon, several general lines of development in the Hebrew Bible must be considered. This means that it is impossible to get an instant window to the time of David and Solomon simply by reading the Hebrew Bible. First of all it is important to remark that all possible older texts in the Hebrew Bible have gone through linguistic revisions. The older traditions only became readable when the present form of the Hebrew Bible was formed. The texts written in Standard Biblical Hebrew (excluding Masoretic punctuations) from around the exile and early post-exilic time (600–400 BCE) may still contain older traditions or older textual layers. In particular, when the texts contain older Hebrew morphology or archaic features, there is reason to examine whether they contain older textual layers or preserve older religious traditions.91 Secondly, it is methodologically relevant to consider the possibility that popular theological concepts in the exilic and postexilic periods may have been based on older religious and theological concepts which were subsequently adopted. A good example is the šēm theology which the 91.  See the useful discussion of how old poetic texts have been preserved in the Hebrew Bible in Mark S. Smith, “Why Was ‘Old Poetry’ Used in Hebrew Narrative? Historical and Cultural Considerations about Judges 5,” in Puzzling Out the Past: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce Zucker­man, ed. Marilyn J. Lundberg et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 197–212. Similar tendencies to preserve old poetic traditions in new compositions even in the book of Psalms are probable, when considering the way the Chronicler uses some Psalms so that they better suit his theological purposes. A good example is Ps. 96 and its version in 1 Chr. 16:23–33. See the detailed discussion in H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 129; Laato, History and Ideology, 122–23.

2. Methodology

41

Chronicler emphasizes in his historical work and which is a concept that he received from the Deuteronomistic historical work. Thirdly, it is important to consider the evolutionary lines of the Hebrew Bible where traditions are formed according to the principle “from Israelite cult places to Jerusalem.” This means that some central theological ideas have been adopted or borrowed from older sources and then modified to concern the Zion theology. Fourthly, the tradition history of texts should be analyzed in conjunction with historical and religious-social aspects. Thus, for example, it is reasonable to examine the ways in which the religious imagery of the Storm-god used in the early Zion theology is related to architectural details of the Temple. In a similar way the traditional West Semitic religious vocabulary and imagery of Ēl or of the Storm-god (Baal) can be related to texts which describe Yahweh as Ēl of Israel or as the Storm-god. How to Seek Older Layers in the Hebrew Bible? The texts will be examined according to the following methodological procedure. From the texts all available elements which contain archaic linguistic elements92 or older tradition-historical themes are first detected. The best examples of older tradition-historical themes are those details which have become more or less non-normative in the later exilic and postexilic period as, for example, the idea that Yahweh is dwelling in his Temple or that he is the leader of the divine council where the members are other deities. Of course, in the present form of the Hebrew Bible expressions according to which Yahweh is dwelling (e.g. the verb šākan) in the Temple were probably interpreted so that Yahweh’s name/glory was dwelling etc.93 In a similar way the idea of the divine council was apparently interpreted so that other members of the council are angels.94 Nevertheless, it is possible to take these older traditio-historical elements as an indication that the text reflects old theology which nevertheless may have been updated linguistically or that the text contains an older core which has been recomposed or edited. 92.  Of course, we must bear in mind that archaic elements may be later stylistic elements in the text. On the other hand, we must also consider the possibility that some words may be of late origin but are used as synonymous to earlier vocabulary when the Hebrew text was updated linguistically. 93.  Cf., the interpretation of Isa. 8:18 in the light of Isa. 66:1. For this see Laato, “Understanding the Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah.” 94.  For this see Antti Laato, “Adam and the Divine Council: Looking behind Genesis 1–11 and Deuteronomy 32,” in Adam and Eve Story in the Hebrew Bible and in Ancient Jewish Writings Including the New Testament, ed. Antti Laato and Lotta Valve, SRB 7 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 47–72.

42

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

When there is reason to believe that the text is old or that it contains an older core its content will be examined using the vocabulary and tradition (motifs, themes, imagery) test. This means that the vocabulary and religious traditions in the text are compared with the Ugaritic and other old epigraphic material. If it is possible to show that (almost) all words and important religious traditions have their equivalents or parallels in Ugaritic and other old West Semitic texts there is an option95 that the text gives us a window to understand old Jerusalemite Zion theology. In the vocabulary test I consider the information supplied in the Ras Shamra Parallels volumes, where available parallel pairs of Ugaritic words are compared with those in the Hebrew Bible.96 Even other old idioms and expressions which can be attested in early Mesopotamian and Egyptian ancient Near Eastern texts will be considered. Of course, such a vocabulary test does not prove that a given text is old.97 As noted earlier, I believe that the Hebrew Bible consists of texts which received their final form in the exilic and postexilic period. However, the vocabulary test opens a possibility that the text contains an older tradition or older literary core where a Zion tradition was formulated with the aid of vocabulary which was in use in old times. There may then be other reasons to support the conclusion that the content of the text is old.

95.  I emphasize the word “option” here. It is necessary to consider the fact that Ugaritic religious motifs connected with the struggle between the deity and the powers of chaos have been preserved even in a late work of Philo of Byblos (ca. 64–141 CE). Therefore, we cannot be sure that the parallel imagery between Ugaritic and biblical texts imply that the latter text (or its content) is old. 96.  I use the following abbreviations: RSP I = Loren R. Fisher, Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. 1, AnOr 49 (Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1972); RSP II = Loren R. Fisher, Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. 2, AnOr 50 (Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1975); RSP III = Stan Rummel, Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. 3, AnOr 51 (Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1981). Note also Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150, AB 17C (New York: Doubleday 1970), 445–56, where Ugaritic parallels in the Psalms have been listed. Concerning the Ugaritic texts I refer to KTU = Manfred Dietrich, Oswald Loretz and Joaquín Sanmartín, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-SyrienPalästinas und Mesopotamiens 8 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995). 97.  This problem is presented well in Peter C. Craigie, “Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: A Critical Evaluation of Their Relevance for Psalm 29,” UF 11 (1979): 135–40. Cf., also Oswald Loretz, Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteigungspsalmen: Die Metamorphose des Regenspenders Baal-Jahwe (Ps 24,7–10; 29; 47; 93; 95–100 sowie Ps 77,17–20; 114), UBL (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1988), 207–13.

2. Methodology

43

In the tradition test motifs, themes and imagery which are used in Hebrew texts are examined. They are compared with traditions in West Semitic texts (mainly Ugaritic) but also with other ancient Near Eastern texts. In addition, the development of certain traditions in biblical texts is considered. In such comparisons the history of tradition may reveal that a Hebrew text contains a certain tradition in its archaic or older form, indicating that it is possible to grasp a seam of old Zion theology. A good example is the concept of divine council and its development inside the Hebrew Bible (see section 4.2). The Outline of the Study I shall present the results of my examination in the following way. As noted several times already in this chapter, it is important to relate our discussion to the historical period of David and Solomon and to the building project of the Temple in particular. Therefore, I shall deal with the historical background of David’s and Solomon’s reign in Chapter 3. In Chapters 4–6 I follow the basic outline of my methodology and proceed from the present form of the Hebrew Bible backwards to older layers like in archaeological excavations. In Chapter 4 I examine the roots of ancient Zion theology by relating the texts to the historical period of Solomon and to the architectural details of the Temple. The focus is on texts in which Yahweh is depicted as the Storm-god. I shall propose that the imagery of Yahweh as the Storm-god was intimately connected with the architectural details of the Temple of Jerusalem. The next step in the investigation is to examine the relation between the Storm-god imagery and the Ark of Covenant. In Chapter 5 the focus is on different Shiloh traditions preserved in 1 Samuel 4–6 + 2 Samuel 6 + 1 Kings 8, Genesis 49, Psalm 78 and Psalm 132. I shall propose that the cultic terminology in the book of Psalms is—in different ways—connected with the Ark (e.g. Ps. 24:7–10) and that this tradition is associated with the tribal Israel. The older tribal traditions indicate why the Ark has played an important role in the Temple of Jerusalem. Finally, in Chapter 6, I deal with Psalm 68 and examine the role played by the Mount Bashan in the cult poetry related to Jerusalem. I shall discuss whether Yahwism borrowed the Storm-god imagery from Baal Hadad religion already in a pre-monarchic time, while at the same time criticism against Baalism was a theme. Anti-Baal tendency is visible in many different ways in the present form of the Hebrew Bible.

Chapter 3 H i s tori c a l B a c k g r ound

The aim of this chapter is to clarify some essential historical facts about Jerusalem and traditions about the city in the Hebrew Bible. I shall explain how I understand the biblical traditions concerning David and Solomon which were used and modified in the Deuteronomistic History. The present situation of research makes it clear that such an overview on the reigns of David and Solomon cannot be done in only one possible way. Therefore, it is important to present a relevant, logically possible world against which the formation of early Zion theology is interpreted. 3.1. The Concept of United Monarchy in the Hebrew Bible The topic of this study “Zion theology” is intimately related to the question of the Davidic monarchy. According to the Hebrew Bible, David conquered Jerusalem and made it a new religious center of Israel.1 My starting-point is that the election of the royal and religious city and the building of the Temple there could not have taken place in early Israel without a theologically defined ideology. This being the case, the early form of Zion theology is connected with the history of Israel and Judah beginning in the reigns of David and Solomon. Stalemate Situation The United Monarchy is a hotly debated issue today, and there are many fundamental problems involved in the discussion of the archaeology,2 1.  It is enough to refer to the well-documented two-volume work of Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems. 2.  The most fundamental problem is the so-called low chronology for Iron Age I suggested by Israel Finkelstein. The fundament of the low chronology was laid down in two articles: Israel Finkelstein, “The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan,” TA 22 (1995): 213–39; idem, “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View,” Levant 23 (1996): 177–87. The discussion has advanced mainly in the debate between Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar. See, e.g., Amihai Mazar, “The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History

3. Historical Background

45

history3 and religious history4 of this period. My intention is not to solve all archaeological, historical and religious historical problems, but rather to give relevant starting points against which I present my theory on the formation of early Zion theology. This is a typical game-theoretical Relating to the Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE,” in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel, ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Proceedings of the British Academy 132 (London: The British Academy, 2007), 143–71; idem, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy,” in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann, BZAW 405 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 29–58; Israel Finkelstein, “A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives,” in Kratz and Spieckermann, eds., One God—One Cult—One Nation, 3–28. Important articles on the archaeology of United Monarchy are also the following: William Dever, “Monumental Architecture in Ancient Israel in the Period of the United Monarchy,” in Ishida, ed., Studies in the Period of David and Solomon, 269–306; idem, “Archaeology and the ‘Age of Solomon’: A Case Study in Archaeology and Historiography,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. Lowell K. Handy, SHCANE 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 217–51; idem, “Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy,” in Day, ed., In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, 65–94; Jane M. Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence,” in Vaughn and Killebrew, eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, 13–80; David Ussishkin, “Archaeology of the Biblical Period: On Some Questions of Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age,” in Williamson, ed., Understanding the History of Ancient Israel, 131–41. 3.  See, e.g., the articles and discussion in Handy, The Age of Solomon; Abraham Malamat, The History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York: Free Press, 2006); articles and discussion in Lemaire and Halpern, eds., The Books of Kings. Note also Nadav Na’aman’s important comparative aspect in “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.,” BASOR 304 (1996): 17–27. One special problem is the history of Egypt and Assyria, neither of which was powerful during the reigns of David and Solomon. See, e.g., Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973); Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment, JSOTSup 297 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Henry W. F. Saggs, The Might That Was Assyria (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984), 58–84; Amelie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–300 BC, 2 vols. (London: Routledge, 1995), 1:348–65, 2:473–546. 4.  See, e.g., Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy (London: SCM, 1994); Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism; idem, Early History of God; Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001).

46

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

situation. I am like a chess-player who favors an opening variation and argues that it is possible to play certain moves with good results. I do not like all opening variations but present my own way to play. It is clear that I can only present relevant starting points in archaeology, history and religious history and then present my theory on the outcome of Zion theology. Other experts will then evaluate my results critically, and relate them to different and even diametrically opposed theories on historical and archaeological understandings of early Israel and different religionhistorical hypotheses. The best I can achieve—in the stalemate situation of the United Monarchy—is to give a new relevant possible world in order to understand the origin of Zion theology. This being the case, in this chapter I shall provide relevant frameworks and larger interpretive models on early Israel which I shall presuppose in my analysis in Chapters 4–6. Needless to say, in this manner I do not exclude ongoing wider and important scholarly discussions on early Israel and on the United Monarchy, in particular. In the same way a chess-player cannot exclude other good opening variations by favoring one certain way of opening, so too is the situation in my study. Nevertheless, understanding of the game is deepened only when one is allowed to show one’s game from the opening variation until the end game. It is only in this way that it is possible to present a new understanding of the very complicated phase of early Israel. The books of Samuel and Kings are the main sources about the reigns of David and Solomon, and these works are the results of the redactional activity of the exilic time. The central question is: What kind of earlier sources were used and how were they modified by the redactor(s)? As noted in Chapter 2, the starting-point in this study is the perspective of the empirical models according to which redactor(s) did not preserve earlier sources verbatim but made all kinds of changes to them. Therefore the discussion on earlier sources must be based on interpretive models which emphasize the relevance of certain themes and topics in earlier sources. In this chapter I shall briefly present how I see the historical and archaeological circumstances of Jerusalem during the times of David and Solomon, and how the content of the books of Samuel and Kings can be regarded as being based on older literary sources and traditions from the United Monarchy. The Fortified City of Jerusalem During the Reigns of David and Solomon? One of the most controversial archaeological problems in the Land of Israel is Jerusalem at the time of the so-called United Monarchy. Because I am positively inclined to the logical possible world that there was a

3. Historical Background

47

fortified city in Jerusalem during the reigns of David and Solomon, it is necessary briefly to present the main arguments for such a historical scenario. Scholars have noted that relatively few archaeological finds have been found in the City of David which can be dated univocally to the time of the United Monarchy. Particularly problematic is the use of ceramics, because of the fragmentary nature of the finds5 and because there are no secure lines of typological development of ceramics in Iron Age II Judah.6 However, Nadav Na’aman has compared this situation with the Amarna Jerusalem and noted that—in a similar way—very few finds can be related to this period even though Amarna letters clearly prove that Jerusalem was a relatively strong city.7 Worth noting also is EA 287, which implies that in 5.  For the ceramics found in the City of David, see Alon De Groot and Donald T. Ariel, “Ceramic Report,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 5, Extramural Areas, ed. Donald T. Ariel, Qedem 40 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000), 91–154, esp. 93–94; Alon De Groot and Hannah Bernick-Greenberg, “The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIA),” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 7B, Area E: The Finds, ed. Alon De Groot and Hannah Bernick-Greenberg, Qedem 54 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012), 199–247. 6.  For the problem of ceramics in Iron Age IIA Judah, see, e.g., Alon De Groot, “Discussion and Conclusions,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 7A, Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Text, ed. Alon De Groot and Hannah Bernick-Greenberg, Qedem 53 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012), 141–84, esp. 150. The issue is mainly crystallized in the invasion of Shishak and the archaeological strata from Israel and Judah which can be related to this event. See Finkelstein, “Archaeology of the United Monarchy”; idem, “The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine—A Guide to the 10th Century Polity,” ZDPV 118 (2002): 110–35; idem, “The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, ed. Yairah Amit et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 171–87; idem, “Iron Age I Khirbet et-Tell and Khirbet Raddana: Methodological Lessons,” in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and the History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. Amnon Ben-Tor et al. (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 107–13. 7.  Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters.” See further Yigael Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I: 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons, Qedem 19 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1984), 26, where it is noted that “most of archaeological evidence for the settlement of Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age II—representing the Jerusalem of El-Amarna Archive—has been discovered so far in the burial-caves on the hills around the City of David…”

48

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Jerusalem a fortified stronghold did exist, into which its king Abdi-Ḫepa was able to escape when his opponents attempted to kill him.8 It may also be good to remember the discussion of the western city of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II between “maximalists” and “minimalists,” a debate which finally fizzled out for the maximalists.9 An important issue in the interpretation with archaeological excavations carried out in Jerusalem as far as the United Monarchy is concerned is the dating of the stepped stone structure in Area G of the City of David. The leader of the excavations in the City of David from 1978 to 1982, Yigal Shiloh, concluded that this stepped stone structure originates from the Israelite period in the tenth century BCE when the old Canaanite (Jebusite) citadel was utilized and the stepped stone structure was built instead of the walls.10 The large stone structure which continues from this stepped stone structure has also been dated to Iron Age IIA. In this case, Area G can be seen as an administrative center of Jerusalem during the time of the United Monarchy.11 Nevertheless, other significantly later dates for this large stone structure have also been presented, and so the discussion will continue. The dating of the walls of Jerusalem is also controversial and there is no consensus among scholars. The possibility that the city was fortified during the reign of Solomon has been presented by Eilat Mazar and supported by Amihai Mazar.12 8.  See the translation and interpretation of EA 287 in William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 327–30. 9.  For this see Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: Nelson 1983); Hillel Geva, “Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter,” in Vaughn and Killebrew, eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, 183–208. 10.  Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I: 1978–1982, 27. 11.  For the date of this large stone structure note especially Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David: Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007 (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2009); De Groot, “Discussion and Conclusions,” 152–54; Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Congress Volume: Munich, 2013, ed. Christl M. Maier, VTSup 163 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 347–69, esp. 358–61. Concerning the date of a floor with a tabun built above the large stone structure to the Iron Age II A, see Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy” 56–66. 12.  For this see Eilat Mazar, Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem: A Remarkable Archaeological Adventure (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011); Mazar, “Archaeology and the Bible,” 360. Results of

3. Historical Background

49

Jerusalem was an ideal place at which to locate a royal and administrative center. Most notably, it had a naturally created water source, Warren’s Shaft, which offered a constant supply of water to its inhabitants.13 It seems attractive to assume that Warren’s Shaft was used already in the Jebusite time and that this waterspout could have been the ṣinnôr through which David’s men came to the city and conquered it (2 Sam. 5:7–8; 1 Chr. 11:5–6).14 The Eternal Dynasty of David Timo Veijola has demonstrated that many texts in the Deuteronomistic History which speak about the eternal dynasty of David are connected to each other.15 He rightly concludes that the idea of the eternal dynasty was important for the Deuteronomist. What conclusions can be made from this evidence as far as the date of the idea of an eternal dynasty is concerned is, however, more problematic. Veijola dates the idea to the exilic period. However, in the Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions the idea of the eternal dynasty was regularly connected with temple building projects, and this is exactly the literary context in 2 Samuel 7.16 Therefore, I regard archaeological excavations are of course controversial in the case of Jerusalem, but scholars can clearly build up a relevant logical possible world where Jerusalem was a walled city. For such a view see especially Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 122–25, 248–49. 13.  For this view see Dan Gill, “The Geology of the City of David and Its Ancient Subterranean Waterworks,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985: Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 4, Various Reports, ed. Donald T. Ariel and Alon De Groot, Qedem 35 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996), 1–28. Because the Warren Shaft was partly naturally formed there is no need to refute the existence of this water system in the time of the United Monarchy by referring to other water systems in Israel which were made later. See also Jane M. Cahill and David Tarler, “Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–1985,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 2000), 31–45, esp. 43–44. 14.  See the detailed discussion and interpretive problems of 2 Sam. 5:6–10 in Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 169–75. 15.  Timo Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, AASF B 193 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975). 16.  Antti Laato, “2 Samuel 7 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Ideology,” CBQ 59 (1997): 244–69. Concerning building projects of temples in the West Semitic world see especially Douglas J. Green, “I Undertook Great Works”: The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West Semitic Royal Inscriptions, FAT 2/41 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Worth noting also are the Egyptian parallels which emphasize

50

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

as a relevant option that the Deuteronomist knew an older tradition where the Temple building project was related to the promise of the eternal dynasty of David. The Deuteronomist seemingly adopted that tradition and reformulated it in 2 Samuel 7, while also editing other texts with similar content in the books of Samuel and Kings.17 In a similar way, the Chronicler preserved the idea of the eternal dynasty in his own historical writings. Without the books of Samuel and Kings many scholars would probably be keen to conclude that the idea of the eternal dynasty is a Chronistic theological idea. It is clear, however, that the Chronicler adopted this idea from earlier sources. This example illustrates my way of understanding the textual material in the book of Samuel. Common ancient Near Eastern religious practice gives us reason to assume that the dynastic promise is well suited in 2 Samuel 7, where the plans to build the Temple—reference is made to Solomon (2 Sam. 7:13)—are balanced by the divine promise to build an eternal royal house for David and Solomon. That such an idea would have been absent from Jerusalemite royal ideology during the First Temple period is improbable. The Deuteronomist has presented this idea in his historical work using certain typical phraseology. This phraseology may be his or, alternatively, he may have (partly) adopted it from earlier sources. As a parallel one could consider that Akkadian royal epithets have remained unchanged from century to century.18 The eternal dynasty of David should also be related to the relevant theory that Yahweh was the god of David and Solomon.19 By planning and building the temple for Yahweh they were regarded as receiving the divine blessing for the eternal dynasty. the eternality of the royal throne. For this see Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 192–96. See further Abraham Malamat, “A Mari Prophecy and Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle,” in Prophecy—Essays Presented to George Fohrer on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, 6 September 1980, ed. John A. Emerton, BZAW 100 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 68–82; repr. in Mari and the Bible, 106–21. 17.  I leave open whether some formulations concerning the eternal dynasty of David in addition to 2 Sam. 7 could also originate from earlier sources. 18.  For this see the evidence Seux, Épithètes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes. 19.  For this see especially Hermann Vorländer, Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, AOAT 23 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1975), 231–44; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 24–49; Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 199–212. This does not mean that David and Solomon would have introduced Yahweh in Israel. Concerning the origin of Yahweh in Israel, see Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft.” See further Chapters 5 and 6.

3. Historical Background

51

The Stories of “David’s Rise to Power” and “Succession Narrative” Scholars have discussed the ways in which the present form of the Deuteronomistic History on the reigns of David and Solomon go back to two earlier stories, the “History of David’s Rise to Power” (= HDR) and the “Succession Narrative” (= SN). Scholars have attempted to reconstruct the wording of these stories, and different redactional hypotheses have been put forward on their development.20 I am positively inclined to the idea that the Deuteronomist knew older sources related to the themes of HDR and SN. However, from the perspective of empirical models it is hardly possible to reconstruct any exact wording from these sources. Therefore, when I speak of the stories of HDR and SN, I am referring to blocks of tradition rather than precise reconstructions of the wording of antecedent literary layers. Both HDR and SN have a common theme, an apology for David and for his son Solomon, as well as for their dynasty. There are several features in these stories which indicate that in the earlier traditions answers were given to “rumors” which were presented against David (and his dynasty) and which were circulating among the people. These rumors and counter-arguments against them were not relevant in the time of the exile, but they can readily be dated to the time of David and Solomon.21 The aim of the HDR and SN was to explain everything in 20.  See the influential study of Leonhard Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnach­folge Davids (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1926). Rost’s work has been translated into English and it is reasonable to use that edition in this English study: Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne, Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1 (Sheffield: Almond, 1982). Rost’s work has been the starting-point of many subsequent theories of how the HDR and SN should be understood. Some scholars deny their independent early existence. See the discussion in the following studies: R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Sam. 9–20 and I Kings 1 and 2 (London: SCM, 1968); Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, ConBOT 8 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976); Peter A. Ackroyd, “The Succession Narrative (So-called),” Int 35 (1981): 383–96; Walter Dietrich, “Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Fragen, ed. Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 38–69; John Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009); idem, “A Revival of the Succession Narrative and the Case against It,” JSOT 39 (2014): 3–14; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2 Samuel 11–20; 1 Kings 1–2),” JSOT 38 (2013): 35–58. 21.  After having completed the manuscript I was informed by Tryggve Mettinger about Andrew Knapp’s important study, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: SBL, 2015). Knapp has a similar approach to understanding HDR and

52

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

a pro-Davidic and pro-Solomonic manner. The Deuteronomist found the versions of these literary works in royal archives and used them in his own presentation of the history of David. The pro-Davidic details include the following themes in the storyline:22 (1) David in Philistia. When David attempted to establish the monarchy in Israel, his residence in Philistia and his close friendship (or vassalship) with the Philistine king, Akis, were, of course, not understood as meritorious. The Philistines had been Israel’s enemies for many years. In fact, David resided in Philistia when the decisive battle against Israel was fought. In this battle Saul and his son Jonathan were killed. It is not difficult to imagine that David’s political connections with Philistia led to speculations as to whether he indeed had gone into battle against Saul and the Israelite army at Gilboah. David stood in need of an apology. The present form of the Deuteronomistic account—which is based on older traditions (HDR and SN)—puts forward the following apologetic answers for David’s residence in Philistia. First of all, it is emphasized that David was forced to move to Philistia in order to avoid Saul’s persecutions. This apparently corresponded to historical reality. Secondly, 1 Sam. 26:19 even emphasizes that Saul forced David to serve foreign gods (Philistine gods!?) because he did not allow him to live in Israel and serve Yahweh. The belief that every land had its own god appears to have enjoyed assent in ancient Israel (see Deut. 32:8–9; 2 Kgs 5:17; cf., also the Mesha Stele where Moab is presented as the land of Chemosh). It was possible to serve Yahweh only in the land of Israel (and Judah). Thirdly, it is emphasized that David never attacked Judah but, in fact, destroyed the enemies of Israel (1 Sam. 27:8–12). The three phrases concerning David’s history recounted in 1 Sam. 27:10 are apparently speculations that circulated among the Philistines and subsequently among Judeans and Israelites. According to these phrases, David attacked Judeans and/or SN—he calls them “the Traditions of David’s Rise and Reign” (TDDR). He defines TDDR negatively by excluding units of the text which can be demonstrated to be of late origin. I recommend warmly that my readers consult with Knapp’s fine study. They can also compare Knapp’s approach with my earlier treatment in Antti Laato, A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations, International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 68–78. 22.  What follows is a modification of my presentation in Laato, A Star Is Rising, 68–78. Note further the following studies: P. Kyle McCarter, “The Apology of David,” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504; Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001); Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 161–276.

3. Historical Background

53

Israelites and their friends. However, the passage emphasizes that these speculations are nothing more than David’s clever attempt to deceive the Philistines. Fourthly, it is emphasized that the relationship between David and Akis was not very close. The tradition preserved in 1 Sam. 21:10–15 recounts that David played the role of a madman in order to avoid closer contact with Akis. 1 Samuel 28:1–2 notes that David was ready to go to battle together with the Philistine army against Saul and the Israelite army. However, it is noted that other Philistine kings did not have confidence in David’s loyalty and so David could not take part in the battle against Saul. (2) David and the family of Saul. The stories of HDR and SN indicate that several members of Saul’s family and their supporters were killed when they came into contact with David. Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle against the Philistines and David planned to wage war against them (1 Sam. 28–31). Abner was murdered when he visited David in order to give his support to him (2 Sam. 3). Ishbaal (rather than Ishboshet) was murdered and his murderers made contact with David (2 Sam. 4). Michal, the daughter of Saul, gave no child to David (2 Sam. 6:20–23). The progeny of Saul—seven men—were killed as a consequence of Saul’s blood crime against the Gibeonites; only the handicapped Meribbaal (Mephiboset) was spared (2 Sam. 21). The potential interpretation of these historical events among the people was that David attempted to annihilate potential royal candidates from the rival dynasty of Saul. The pro-Davidic traditions, adopted and edited in the Deuteronomistic History, contained an apology for David concerning these suspicions. First, it is apparently regarded as a historical fact in the Deuteronomistic History that Saul was killed in battle against Philistia. However, both in 1 Sam. 28:1–2 and 29:1–11 it is noted that David did not march into battle against Saul and his army. Further, it is told in 1 Samuel 31–2 Samuel 1 that the news of the death of Saul and his son Jonathan shocked David. David and his men lamented over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:11–12). David killed the Amalekite who claimed to have helped Saul commit suicide (2 Sam. 1:13–16). In particular, David emphasizes that Saul was the anointed of Yahweh and therefore he could not have been killed by men (2 Sam. 1:16). David composed a lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27) which, apparently, circulated among the Israelites. David blessed the men of Jabesh-Gilead who buried Saul and Jonathan (1 Sam. 31:11–13; 2 Sam. 2:4–7). All these stories indicate that David was not at all pleased by the death of Saul and his son Jonathan. Many episodes in 1 Samuel emphasize similar apologetic viewpoints towards David. David had two opportunities to kill Saul (1 Sam. 24 and 26) but

54

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

refrained from doing so because he did not wish to raise his hand against “the anointed one of Yahweh” (1 Sam. 24:7, 11; 26:11). 1 Samuel 26:10 takes up David’s saying that Saul could be killed only by Yahweh himself or in battle—a saying which became reality in 1 Samuel 31. Secondly, 1 Samuel emphasizes the friendship between Jonathan and David. They made a covenant with one another (1 Sam. 20; 23:16–18). David regarded Jonathan as the next king of Israel and showed respect towards him (1 Sam. 20:41–42). The friendship between David and Jonathan made Saul angry (1 Sam. 20:24–34). This detail spoke very effectively in David’s favor. If David loved Jonathan and Jonathan loved David, nobody could say that David had attempted to wrest the monarchy from Saul’s family. David respected Jonathan and, in fact, Saul was the enemy of both David and, in the final analysis, his own son, Jonathan. Thirdly, 2 Sam. 3:22–39 recounts the murder of Abner. In this narrative it is expressis verbis emphasized that the people understood that David did not initiate this blood crime (2 Sam. 3:37). In order to make this clear, it is noted in 2 Samuel 3 that David was unaware of Joab’s plan to kill Abner (2 Sam. 3:26). David says explicitly that he is innocent of the blood of Abner and that this blood crime will be on Joab’s head (2 Sam. 3:28–29; cf., 1 Kgs 2:5–6, 28–29). David instituted a period of mourning over the death of Abner, refusing to eat and displaying his sorrow in public (2 Sam. 3:31–32). David also composed a lament over the fate of Abner (2 Sam. 3:33–34). Finally, it is told that the people who thought that David was behind the murder of Abner were convinced of his innocence when they saw this behavior. The present form of the story contains some references to the reign of Solomon when Joab was killed. Both 2 Sam. 3:28–29 and 38–39 indicate that David was too weak to eliminate the sons of Zeruiah. They were eliminated during the reign of Solomon, but only after Joab had made a misguided political decision and supported Adoniah rather than Solomon. Fourthly, after the murder of Abner, Ishbaal was eliminated by Bana and Rekab. However, it is accounted in 2 Samuel 4 that David was not at all pleased with this blood crime. He killed the murderers and stressed once again that neither the death of Saul nor the death of Ishbaal gave him any pleasure. Fifthly, Michal bore no children to David, which is explained in 2 Sam. 6:20–23 as a punishment of Yahweh upon the daughter of Saul. The reason for this punishment was that Michal despised David when he danced and rejoiced before the ark while it was in transit to Jerusalem. The text does not state that David did not have sexual relations with Michal, but this could be one plausible interpretation, given the historical circumstances.

3. Historical Background

55

Sixthly, most problematic for David, was apparently the killing of the seven most important members of Saul’s family in revenge for Saul’s blood crimes against the Gibeonites. It is argued in 2 Samuel 21 that David acted as a gōēl haddām in destroying the family of Saul. However, it is difficult to avoid the implication that in this way many potential royal candidates from the family of Saul were uprooted. On the other hand, Saul did commit blood crimes (cf., also the killing of the priests at Nob) and that these events were generally known among the Israelites. If this is so, the revenge recounted in 2 Samuel 21 was socially and theologically appropriate in ancient Israel. The whole story emphasizes that the Gibeonites initiated this action by suggesting that seven members of Saul’s family had to be killed. However, it was David who chose the particular members. 2 Samuel 21:7 asserts that David did not propose Meribbaal, the son of Jonathan, for the death penalty because of his covenant with Jonathan. Even though Meribbaal was handicapped and thus not a potential rival for the throne, he had non-handicapped sons. (3) Divine legitimation of David. Four major themes in 1 and 2 Samuel emphasize that the divine legitimation of the monarchy was transferred from Saul to David. The first of these themes is seen in David’s and Saul’s relationship to Samuel. In 1 Sam. 15:35 it is emphasized that Saul did not meet Samuel again after he had shown disloyalty to God in his war against the Amalekites. Instead, it is told that the relationship between Samuel and David was established during this time. According to 1 Samuel 16, Samuel anointed David king, conferring upon him divine legitimation to become king of Israel. According to 1 Sam 19:18–24, David escaped and told Samuel everything that Saul had done to him. Even though Samuel’s reactions are not recorded in the passage, the general tone of the narrative implies that Samuel disapproved of Saul’s actions. 1 Samuel 25:1 refers to the burial of Samuel. The passage does not comment on whether or not David was present, even though the previous verse speaks of David and 25:1 begins: “Now Samuel died, and all Israel assembled and mourned for him…” The last meeting between Saul and Samuel is narrated in 1 Samuel 28, where Samuel returns from Sheol to tell Saul of his impending death. This passage represents an apology for David because it gives the impression that Samuel, the charismatic leader of Israel, regards the death of Saul as a righteous punishment meted out by Yahweh. Secondly, Saul’s victories over the Philistines and Amalekites made him a great hero in Israel. According to 1 Samuel, David enjoyed even greater success against the Philistines than Saul. 1 Samuel 18:7 includes a quotation from a song sung by Israelite women after David’s military

56

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

victory against Goliath: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”23 This song provoked Saul to jealousy against David (1 Sam. 18:8–9). 1 Samuel 30 recounts how David also destroyed the Amalekites—something which Saul failed to do in 1 Samuel 15. Thus in the narrative of 1 Samuel the transition from Saul to David in terms of their relative military success is emphasized. Nevertheless, Saul’s military success remained indisputable to the extent that David mourned the deaths of Saul and Jonathan as the loss of great and glorious heroes of Israel (2 Sam. 1:17–27). Thirdly, according to 1 Sam. 14:18, the ark was a religious symbol in Israel during the reign of Saul. However, the ark tradition preserved in 1 Samuel 4–6; 2 Samuel 6 presents a pro-Davidic version, indicating that the Shilonite cult symbol was first removed to Philistia, subsequently transferred to Kiriath-Jearim and finally brought to Jerusalem by David. This tradition glorifies David as the one who established the ancient Shilonite cult symbol in Jerusalem and thus creates a link between tribal Israel and the monarchy. Abiathar, a member of the priestly family from Shiloh, was one of David’s high priests. This indicates that David showed respect for Shilonite tribal traditions.24 23.  Concerning the textual problems between the MT and LXX versions of 1 Sam. 16–18, see Emanuel Tov, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version,” in Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, 97–130. 1 Samuel 17 and textually difficult text in 2 Sam. 21:19 according to which Elhanan son of Jair killed Goliath (cf., the Chronicler’s way to solve this problem by interpreting the text, 1 Chr. 20:5) are in tension with each other. The composition of 1 Sam. 17 was probably based on the story-telling that David’s soldier Elhanan assisted David when Goliath was killed (cf., 1 Sam. 17:7 according to which Goliath had also an assistant) and then gave David the honor of cutting off the head of Goliath. In 1 Sam. 17 the victory over Goliath was put solely into David’s name. Cf., the similar situation where Joab exhorted David to come and conquer Rabbah in the final stage (2 Sam. 12:26–28). By giving David the opportunity to cut off the head of Goliath, the victory over him was put into David’s name. This way of interpreting 1 Samuel 17 leads to the story itself being old, and possibly originating from the time of the United Monarchy. It may have been composed to give David divine legitimation. A parallel story is found in the Hattušiliš apology. See Harry A. Hoffner, “A Hittite Analogue to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions?,” CBQ 30 (1968): 220–25; James K. Hoffmeier, “David’s Triumph Over Goliath: 1 Samuel 17:54 and Ancient Near Eastern Analogues,” in Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature. Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009, ed. Shay Bar et al., CHANE 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 87–114, esp. 98. 24.  It is not possible here to deal more closely with the priestly houses in early Israel. I agree with Cross that there were two competing priestly families, Moses’ and

3. Historical Background

57

Fourthly, there is a transition from the promise of an eternal dynasty of Saul to the eternal dynasty of David. 1 Samuel 13:13–14 emphasizes that Saul’s disloyalty to Yahweh led to his loss of dynastic privilege in Israel. Verse 14 refers to “a man after Yahweh’s own heart” whom Yahweh will appoint king in Israel. The establishment of the eternal dynasty of David is addressed in many passages in 1 and 2 Samuel (1 Sam. 13:13–14; 25:28–29; 2 Sam. 3:9–10), and 2 Samuel 7 serves as the magna carta for the eternal dynasty of David. (4) David and domestic policy. The Deuteronomistic History indicates that David had many domestic political problems. There were two rebellions—one mounted by Absalom, the son of David, and the other by Sheba. In both cases David is portrayed as first commending his life into the hands of Yahweh and then reestablishing his monarchy in Israel. It seems that David was an astute military leader, though perhaps one less skilled in resolving the internal-political issues which provoked these domestic rebellions.25 Absalom’s rebellion also explains why he could not follow David on the throne. The episode of Bathsheba and the killing of Uriah are related to the birth of Solomon as the final outcome of the story (2 Sam. 10–12). Could it be that the aim of the story originally was to explain that Solomon was really the son of David and not of Uriah? Was there a rumor that Solomon was not the legitimate son of David, and was it used against Solomon’s claim to becoming king?26 Aaron’s. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 195–215. Because David was king in Hebron for seven years (2 Sam. 2; 5) it is reasonable to assume that he had his own priest there. Hebron belonged to the Aaronite families (Josh. 21) and Zadok followed David into Jerusalem, so it is reasonable to assume that Zadok belonged to the Aaronite priestly family. Whether Zadok was the original name of this priest or a new name taken after he moved to Jerusalem can be discussed. See further Antti Laato, “The Levitical Genealogies in 1 Chr 6 and the Formation of the Levitical Ideology in Postexilic Judah,” JSOT 62 (1994): 77–99. 25.  See also Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 231–33. 26.  Cf., here Timo Veijola, “Salomo—der Erstgeborene Bathsebas,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 230–50; repr. Timo Veijola, David: Gesammelte Studien zu den Davidüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments, Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 52 (Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 84–105. Veijola argues that Solomon was the first child of the adultery between David and Bathsheba, and the story of the death of the first child was made to avoid such a scenario. While this hypothesis cannot be proven, it seems reasonable to assume that the story emphasizes that Solomon was the son of David in reality.

58

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Seen from a historical point of view, many different models might explain the literary material in the pro-Davidic apology in 1 and 2 Samuel. One model could be that David was, in fact, largely responsible for uprooting Saul’s family as follows: Together with Philistines (as the vassal of Philistia?!) David had battled against Saul’s army and continued to battle against Ishbaal after Saul’s death (2 Sam. 2). He then systematically uprooted Saul’s family (Ishbaal and seven members of the family of Saul as a consequence of Saul’s blood crime). He arranged the murder of Abner and, in this way, attempted to establish his monarchy in Israel. One consequence of this may have been David’s internal-political problems (the rebellions of Absalom and Seba). The weakness of this interpretive model is that it paints a black-and-white picture of what must have been a complex historical reality. However, it is reasonable to assume that something like this black-and-white sketch was circulating among those who opposed David’s monarchy. This is illustrated well in the words of Shimei (2 Sam. 16:7–8): “Get out, get out, you murderer, you scoundrel! Yahweh has repaid you for all the blood you shed in the household of Saul, in whose place you have reigned. Yahweh has given the kingdom into the hands of your son Absalom. You have come to ruin because you are a murderer!” Because of opposition such as this, David was in need of an apology. Is the claim according to which such a pro-Davidic apology, now found in the Deuteronomistic version of 1 and 2 Samuel, once formulated in the reigns of David and/or Solomon historically plausible? I think there are good arguments to regard such an apology as originating from the time of David and/or Solomon. Such a literary product can be compared with the account “The Apology of Hattušiliš.”27 This text is related to the events in the Hittite kingdom when Hattušiliš III (1267–1240 BCE), the brother of Muwatalli, dethroned Urḫitešup, the son of Muwatalli, at the beginning of the thirteenth century BCE. The text recounts the family history of Mursili, the ruler of the Hittite kingdom. After Mursili’s death, Muwatalli became king. Hattušiliš was loyal to his brother for as long as he ruled the Hittite kingdom. He also remained loyal to the son of Muwatalli and helped him take the throne. However, when Urḫitešup began to cause problems for Hattušiliš and diminished his local rulership, the latter had no choice other than to rebel and seize the monarchy. Seven central themes in the Apology of Hattušiliš provide parallels to the apology of David in 1 and 2 Samuel. 27.  The translation of the Hattušiliš apology is available in COS 1:199–204 (in English) and in TUAT 1:5, 481–92 (in German). For the use of Hattušiliš’s apology, see in particular McCarter, “The Apology of David”; Laato, A Star Is Rising, 68–76; Halpern, David’s Secret Demons; Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 119–59.

3. Historical Background

59

(i) The central theme of the narrative is the divine support which Hattušiliš received from the goddess Ishtar. She is continuously mentioned in the text, and she was ultimately responsible for Hattušiliš’s rule over the Hittite kingdom. In an analogous way, 1 and 2 Samuel describe how Yahweh supported David’s rise to power. (ii) Hattušiliš’s monarchy was said to be predestined by Ishtar. However, she did not exhort him to rebel but guided the course of historical events so that Hattušiliš assumed the throne. This forms a close parallel to the pro-Davidic apology. Yahweh promises David that he will become the king of Israel. Subsequent historical events showed how Yahweh governed the course of historical events so that David received kingdom in Israel without rebelling against Saul. (iii) Hattušiliš’s rise to power is described in detail. Already as a young boy he was made a priest of Ishtar. During the reign of his brother, Hattušiliš became the governor of the northern territories and after this he became commander-in-chief of the whole Hittite army during the famous battle of Kadesh between the Egyptians and the Hittites. In a similar way, the rise of David to become king of Israel is described step-by-step. First he was brought into Saul’s court, and subsequently became an important commander in the Israelite army. Finally, he became the king of Judah and then the king of all Israel. (iv) Through many tribulations caused by local governors and finally by Urḫitešup himself, the goddess Ishtar supported Hattušiliš and did not give him into the hands of his enemies. The history of David also contains detailed information on how Yahweh supported David through all manner of difficulties and saved him from his enemies. (v) Hattušiliš enjoyed success in his military campaigns—showing that the goddess supported him. David was also depicted as a great military hero whom Yahweh supported. As already noted, Hattušiliš’s apology also provides a good parallel to 1 Samuel 17, especially 1 Sam. 17:54. (vi) Hattušiliš supported Urḫitešup and contributed significantly to his assumption of the throne. Nevertheless, it is noted that Urḫitešup was not a legitimate king because he was the son of a concubine. A central theme in the pro-Davidic apology is that David supported Jonathan to become king despite the fact that Saul had lost his divine legitimation and forfeited the future of his dynasty in Israel. (vii) Hattušiliš did not kill Urḫitešup and his other enemies when he became king. He exiled Urḫitešup because the latter attempted to instigate a rebellion. David is similarly depicted as respecting the family of Jonathan, the son of Saul. He saved Meribbaal Jonathan’s son, from the jaws of death.

60

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Many details found in the Apology of Hattušiliš correspond to historical reality.28 He was loyal to his brother and it seems that he also supported Urḫitešup’s bid to become king. There is reason to believe that the young Urḫitešup feared his uncle’s great political power and this led to the internal-political conflict. Of course, the historical reality was more complicated than the narrative found in the Apology of Hattušiliš. Nevertheless, it appears that the main contours of the text have a strong historical basis. If this is the case, then the content of the pro-Davidic apology in 1 and 2 Samuel should be that it, too, is rooted in historical reality. I will now attempt to present one possible reconstruction of the history of David’s reign. Like any clever politician, David was quite capable of using other people to achieve his ends. David adeptly positioned himself as a vassal of the Philistine king, Akis, in order to become king in Israel. He managed to cooperate with some Philistines and then ultimately to free Israel from the yoke of the Philistines. It cannot be proved that David was in the Philistine army and waged war against Saul. However, it is reasonable that David’s residence in Philistia gave Akis the opportunity to gather information about the strategy and tactics of the Israelite army. Furthermore, there is no decisive argument for doubting the historical veracity of the accounts of the friendship between David and Jonathan, nor can I see any reason for supposing that David wanted to murder Abner and Ishbaal. If Abner had been willing to join to David, it would only have benefitted David’s cause since Ishbaal would have lost crucial political support. It seems to me that all sorts of speculations to the effect that David was attempting to wrest the monarchy from the family of Saul inspired Bena and Rekab to kill Ishbaal; they were probably motivated by the thought that David would confer some benefits upon them as a result of their act. David’s reaction was measured; he did not welcome (publicly) the murder of Ishbaal. Apparently he realized that it would be difficult to win the Israelites over to his side if they knew that David had welcomed the murder of their king. Nevertheless, the elimination of Ishbaal clarified the political situation in Israel and was favorable to David’s position. The execution of seven members of Saul’s family was probably connected with someone’s desire to strengthen the political status of David. David’s role in this is more difficult to determine. The

28.  Concerning the life of Hattušiliš, see Theo P. J. van den Hout, “Khattushili III, King of Hittities,” in Civilization of Ancient Near East Volume 2, ed. Jack M. Sasson (New York: Macmillan, 1995), 1107–20; Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 148–59.

3. Historical Background

61

killing of Saul’s family was connected with a serious domestic crisis, a famine, and was not the result of an evil plan hatched by David to eliminate potential challengers for the throne. It seems that Saul’s family was in some way already in focus beforehand, because oracular messages against Saul’s family were formulated as necessitating revenge on them for the blood spilled at Nob (2 Sam. 21:1): “During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of Yahweh. Yahweh said: ‘It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death’.” The initiative to exact revenge on Saul’s family came from oracular messages (through priests) and the killing of the seven members of Saul’s family was the Gibeonites’ idea, not David’s. However, it was David who chose which seven members from Saul’s family were to die. Summing up my “would be” proposal: the literary material in the book of Samuel is based on older pro-Davidic traditions which existed in written versions—labelled by scholars as HDR and SN. The Deuteronomist has mainly followed them when writing his exilic version of the history of David. As far as this study is concerned, a more important older tradition is the Ark Narrative, which I shall deal with in section 3.2. From Clever Diplomacy to the Deuteronomistic Fabrication of the Great Empire The Deuteronomistic History describes David as the one who established the Great Empire of Israel by subjugating the peoples around Israel (2 Sam. 8). However, this presentation is a Deuteronomistic fabrication from sources which were known at the time of the exile.29 There is other textual material in the book of Samuel which does not correspond well to this Deuteronomistic representation.30 David’s army comprised contingents of Philistine soldiers from the Kerethites and Pelethites, as well

29.  For the historical problems in 2 Sam. 8, see especially Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 178–81. 30.  Cf., Nadav Na’aman, “In Search of Reality Behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours,” IEJ 52 (2002): 200–224. Na’aman compares David’s wars with the extrabiblical evidence and concludes that “very little of this data may tentatively be assigned to the time of the historical David” (p. 216). I evaluate the situation in a different way mainly on two points. First, I regard it as plausible that the HDR and SN were written in the time of the United Monarchy (and then modified in the Deuteronomistic History). Second, I emphasize internal tensions in the book of Samuel which reveal the Deuteronomistic tendentious interpretations in 2 Sam. 8.

62

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

as six hundred Gittites under the leadership of Ittai (2 Sam. 16).31 This implies that David did not subjugate Philistia, but rather used a divide et impera policy as exemplified by his friendly relations with Gath where he found refuge from Saul (1 Sam. 27).32 It is also difficult to maintain the view that all Moabites were David’s enemies; it seems that at least at the beginning some of them were not his enemies. David requested that his family stayed with the king of Moab when he escaped from Saul (1 Sam. 22:3–4).33 Again, a plausible interpretive model is that David managed to create some sort of political or diplomatic agreement with the Moabites which helped him in his rise to power. Later, a conflict between David and Moab (or perhaps some Moabites) flared up and this led to severe penalty actions from David’s side (2 Sam. 8:2).34 The situation of Ammon is not so straightforward either, as accounted in 2 Sam. 8:12 and in 2 Samuel 10–12. The story about the wars against the Ammonites begins with an interesting reference that the late king Nahash was favorably inclined towards David and therefore the latter wanted to show his benevolence to the new king Hanun (2 Sam. 10:2). This led to a political conflict, the beginning of which was propagated in the Israelite version in such a way that the men of David were dishonored by the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:2b–4). On the other hand, the mother of Rehabeam was an Ammonite woman, Naamah (1 Kgs 14:21). This 31.  According to Na’aman, Ittai is a literary figure. Nadav Na’aman, “Ittai the Gittite,” BN 94 (1998): 22–25. I cannot see any argument for such a proposal. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that David who stayed in Gath (1 Sam. 27) also received supporters there. 32.  One may ask if the story about the killing of Goliath (from Gath) was later transmitted so that it was David alone and not David together with his soldier who killed the Philistine warrior (1 Sam. 17 contra 2 Sam. 21:19). In this way it was emphasized that David was not so favorably inclined towards Gath. 33.  For the ways in which it is possible to speak about the unified state or monarchy in Moab in the time of David, see Bruce Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Cf., Nadav Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 47 (1997): 83–92. That “Moab” existed as a political entity before the time of David and Solomon has been proposed in Israel Finkelstein and Oded Lipschits, “The Genesis of Moab: A Proposal,” Levant 43 (2011): 139–52. 34.  Na’aman (“In Search of Reality”) argues that 2 Sam. 8:2 is a reference to the reign of Mesha when he killed many thousands of Israelites in Transjordan. Even in the case that Na’aman is right then 1 Sam. 22:3–4 may indicate that David had good contacts with the Moabites—and the book of Ruth commemorates this historical fact by proposing that a Moabite woman was David’s foremother.

3. Historical Background

63

indicates that Solomon and apparently already David (after the crisis of the Ammonite war) maintained good contacts with the Ammonites. It was David who arranged the marriage of Solomon with an Ammonite princess.35 Therefore, the Ammonite war in 2 Samuel 10–12 must be evaluated from the viewpoint that it may reflect only a military operation against some Ammonite groups which attempted to destroy the diplomatic status quo policy of David. According to 2 Sam. 17:27, Shobi son of Nahash (apparently a brother of Hanun) continued his father’s friendly policy toward David. This being the case, there is reason to believe that the present form of 2 Samuel 10–12 was developed as a long process and finally presented in the Deuteronomistic History as David subjugating the Ammonite rebellion. The historical circumstances may have been quite different. Perhaps there was an internal Ammonite crisis between Hanun and Shobi which concerned the succession after Nahash. Hanun attempted to get support from Aramean troops (2 Sam. 10:6) while Shobi wanted to continue the status quo policy with David. From the point of view of history, 2 Samuel 10–12 was not directed against all Ammonites, only against Hanun’s party which attempted to eliminate the pro-Davidic Shobi party. The historical David seems to have been a clever politician who managed to unite Israelite tribes under one monarchy by means of marriage contacts36 and by choosing the Shilonite cult symbol (for this see further Chapter 5).37 He also managed to create good diplomatic contacts to Tyre (2 Sam. 5:11) and to Toi, the king of Hamath.38 35.  For this, see Abraham Malamat, “Naamah, the Ammonite Princess, King Solomon’s Wife,” RB 106 (1999): 35–40. 36.  For this see Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 177–78. See also 2 Sam. 3:3, according to which the mother of Absalom was the daughter of Geshur. Concerning Geshur, see Nadav Na’aman, “The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory,” SJOT 26 (2012): 88–101. 37.  Concerning the pro-Bashan tradition in Ps. 68, see Chapter 6. This pro-Bashan tradition in the time of David and Solomon is also related to the appointment of Ira, the Jairite, as priest. See 2 Sam. 20:26 and Chapter 6. 38.  Concerning the possibility to identify Toi with Tauta (or Taita) of Aleppo, see Charles Steitler, “The Biblical King Toi of Hamath and the Late Hittite State of ‘P/Walas(a)tin’,” BN 146 (2010): 81–99; Mazar, “Archaeology and the Bible,” 347–69, esp. 368; Timothy P. Harrison, “Recent Discoveries at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical Implications,” in Maier, ed., Congress Volume: Munich, 2013, 396–425, esp. 404–5. Cf., Benjamin Sass, “Four Notes on Taita King of Palistin with an Excursus on King Solomon’s Empire,” TA 37 (2010): 169–74. See further Kay Kohlmeyer, “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo,” in Tempel

64

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Solomon continued David’s diplomacy and managed to establish Pax Israelitica in Canaan by considering Egyptian political interests in particular. It seems reasonable to assume that the peaceful situation in Canaan benefitted Egypt at a time when it had its own political problems.39 Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1) established a status quo policy in Canaan giving Israel an important role.40 This status quo policy also made it possible for Israel to subjugate Canaanite cities. The Egyptian conquest of Gezer (1 Kgs 9:16) is a good example that Israel’s political interests in Canaan were not at odds with the Egyptians’.41 Using this scenario to interpret the material in the book of Samuel indicates that David and Solomon managed to make Israel an important political factor in Canaan by means of clever political manoeuvers and alliances that coincided with Egyptian interests there. Historically, David and Solomon never gained political hegemony in Canaan by subjugating all nations around Israel—as summed up later in the Deuteronomistic History (2 Sam. 8); rather, they made clever political agreements with Egypt, Tyre, some Philistine cities, as well as with Moab and Ammon (which may have been divided into different small political units).42 International marriages also played an important role in their policy, particularly in the case of Solomon (1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:24; 11:1–8; 14:21). In this way David and Solomon were able to guarantee peace as well as the political and economic interests of Israel. im Alten Orient: 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München, ed. Kai Kaniuth et al., CDOG 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 179–218, esp. 202–5. 39.  For this, see Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt; Bernd U. Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Konigszeit: Die Kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall, OBO 170 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999), 12–19. 40.  Concerning the discussion of Solomon’s marriages, see Manfred Görg, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil, EdF 290 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997), 75–86; Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 241–44. Keel writes (p. 242): “Trotz grosser Anstrengungen ist auf die Frage, wessen Pharaos Tochter die Prinzessin gewesen sein könnte, falls Salomo tatsächlich eine solche heiraten konnte, keine sichere Antwort zu finden.” 41.  The question whether or not the Egyptian Pharaoh Siamun invaded Gezer is discussed among scholars. For this see Alberto R. Green, “Solomon and Siamun: A Synchronism Between Early Dynastic Israel and the Twenty-First Dynasty of Egypt,” JBL 97 (1978): 353–67; more critical treatments can be found in Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt, 112–19; Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 19–35. 42.  In a separate article, “Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon,” I have argued that patriarch stories contain old traces of diplomacy which David and Solomon showed towards other peoples around Israel.

3. Historical Background

65

3.2. The Ark Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History The Ark Narrative (1 Sam. 4–6 and 2 Sam. 6) is related to the legitimation of Jerusalem as the Israelite and Yahwistic cult center. Its poetic parallel is in Psalm 132. Both 2 Samuel 6 and Psalm 132 are referred to in Chronicles, indicating how central a role the Ark plays in the legitimation of Jerusalem.43 Before I argue that 1 Samuel 4–6 + 2 Samuel 6 consist of a pre-Deuteronomistic version of the Ark Narrative it is important to show that the Ark was an important cultic object in the pre-exilic Temple. The Ark as Cult Object in the Pre-exilic Time The Ark of Yahweh is often mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Statistically speaking, the most important texts are the Priestly writings in the Pentateuch. In addition there are some references to the Ark to be found in Deuteronomy (Deut. 10:1–8; 31:9, 25–26), the book of Joshua and the Ark Narrative.44 The Hebrew Bible indicates that the Ark was a cultic symbol in the Temple of Jerusalem until the exile.45 There are, however, 43.  It is quite obvious that the Chronicler used the Ark in order to emphasize that Jerusalem is the rightful place at which to continue Mosaic traditions (and not Mount Gerizim, for example). 44.  Several studies have been made where the religious-historical background and the theological meaning of the Ark are discussed. It is enough to refer to only some studies which are solely based on the theme of the Ark. More literature related to the Ark can be found through them. See, e.g., Martin Dibelius, Die Lade Jahwes: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, FRLANT 98 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906); Marten H. Woudstra, The Ark of the Covenant from Conquest to Kingship, International Library of Philosophy and Theology: Biblical and Theological Studies (Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1965); Rainer Schmitt, Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft: Eine kritische forschnungsgeschichtliche Darstellung (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972); Choon L. Seow, “Ark of the Covenant,” ABD 1:386–93; Deuk-il Shin, The Ark of Yahweh in Redemptive History: A Revelatory Instrument of Divine Attributes (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012). Scholars have discussed in which ways 1 Sam. 4–6 and 2 Sam. 6 are related to the same tradition. Walter Dietrich has rightly emphasized that these chapters should be regarded as belonging to the same basic tradition which the Deuteronomist(s) used in their historical writing. See Walter Dietrich, Samuel Teilband 1: 1Sam 1–12, BKAT 8/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), 54*–56*. See further section 5.2 in the present study. 45.  Concerning the different theories of the disappearance of the Ark in the time of the exile, see J. Alberto Soggin, “The Ark of the Covenant: Jeremiah 3:16,” in Le livre de Jeremie: Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission, ed. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, BETL 54 (Leuven: Peters, 1997), 215–21.

66

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

different opinions as to whether the Ark played a role in pre-exilic rituals in Jerusalem.46 I shall briefly discuss the arguments. Scholars have argued that the cherubim construction upon the so-called kappōret was not originally related to the Ark as described in Exod. 25:10–22.47 McCormick writes that “the ark in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic literature is a simple wood box that contains the tablets

46.  There are different theories as to when the Ark disappeared from cultic practice. For these theories, see John Day, “Whatever Happened to the Ark of Covenant?,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 422 (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 250–70. Beside the interpretation that the Ark disappeared during the time of the exile (cf., Jer. 3:16; and the possible allusion to the Ark in Lam. 2:1), another quite popular alternative has been Haran’s suggestion that the Ark was destroyed in the reign of Manasseh. See Menahem Haran, “The Disappearance of the Ark,” IEJ 13 (1963): 46–58. Another attempt to explain the disappearance of the Ark is that of Hermann Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, FRLANT 148 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 88–96. In his opinion the Ark was needed as the symbol of the United Monarchy and lost this significance after the death of Solomon and was deliberately removed. The problem for this proposal is Jer 3:16, according to which the Ark was in use even later. Porzig argues that the Ark never existed in Solomon’s temple; it is theological construction from post-exilic time. Porzig, Die Lade Jahwes. 47.  See, e.g., Bernd Janowski, “Keruben und Zion: Thesen zur Entstehung der Zionstradition,” in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993), 247–80; Othmar Keel, “Fern von Jerusalem: Frühe Jerusalemer Kulttraditionen und ihre Träger und Trägerinnen,” in Zion—Ort der Begegnung: Festschrift für Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebenjahres, ed. Ferdinand Hahn et al., BBB 90 (Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993), 439–502, esp. 467–69. Keel writes that “Die Lade war ein—relative leicht transportabler—Kasten” (p. 467), and “Die Lade war, wie gesagt, ein Kasten und kein Thron” (p. 468), and refers to parallels in Arabic-nomadic religions. Keel refers to Fritz Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des alten Israels, AThANT 60 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 163–71, and Thomas Staubli, Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn, OBO 107 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 222–29. See further Herbert Niehr, “JHWH in der Rolle des Baalšamem,” in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, ed. Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein, OBO 139 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994), 307–26. According to Exod. 25:10–22, the two cherubim were modelled in kappōret upon the Ark. Shiloh was not a nomadic cult site but an Israelite sanctuary (see further our discussion in section 5.1). There is no need to suppose that the Ark in Shiloh would have been a simple box.

3. Historical Background

67

of the covenant, i.e. the Decalogue.”48 This is hardly a true judgment based on the Deuteronomistic writings. Already in the Priestly writings kappōret is something extra (Exod. 25:17–22) which was placed upon the Ark (Exod. 25:10–16). Deuteronomy 10:1–5, in turn, is clearly only parallel to Exod. 25:10–16. Therefore, this text does not prove that the cherub throne was not originally related to the Ark. In addition, it seems that the role of the cherub throne has been downplayed in Deuteronomy— an idea clearly present also in Jer. 3:15–16.49 On the other hand, the Deuteronomistic History shows that the existence of iconic presentation similar to kappōret is clearly assumed in 1 Sam. 4:4; 6:2, where the epithet yôšēb hakkĕrûbîm is closely associated with the Ark. This means that it is impossible to state that the cherub throne over the Ark was unknown in the Deuteronomistic literature.50

48.  Clifford M. McCormick, Palace and Temple: A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons, BZAW 313 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 172–73. 49.  For this downplaying of the cherub throne as a part of a tendency of demythologization and secularization, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 191–209. It is worth noting that I. Wilson remarks rightly that even in Deuteronomy the Ark is related to the presence of Yahweh. See Ian Wilson, “Merely A Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy,” in Day, ed., Temple and Worship, 212–49. 50.  McCormick (Palace and Temple, 170–72) notes that the Ark or the inner chamber are not mentioned in Isa. 6; 2 Kgs 19:15; 1 Kgs 22:19–23 and concludes that “these references present images of the temple furnishing and layout that stand in stark contrast to the image developed by Dtr” (p. 171). This judgment is clearly exaggerated. For example, Isa. 6 can be related to the sanctuary of the Temple—the altar being an incense altar—and the door posts in Isa. 6:4 may refer to the inner chamber (i.e. Debir). For this, see H. G. M. Williamson, “Temple and Worship in Isaiah 6,” in Day, ed., Temple and Worship, 123–44. As noted by McCormick, 2 Kgs 19:15 refers to the cherub throne and the text may simply indicate that the doors to the inner chamber were opened so that Hezekiah could have prayed in front of Yahweh. In the case of 1 Kgs 22:19–23 McCormick refers to Niehr’s article—Herbert Niehr, “In Search of Yahweh’s Cult Statue in the First Temple,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. Karel van der Toorn (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 73–99—and speculates (p. 171): “The temple of YHWH Sabaoth in Jerusalem may have been a single chambered temple…with an enthroned image of deity, before whom was a smoking incense altar.” For an aniconic cult of Yahweh in the Temple, see especially the convincing arguments presented in Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, ConBOT 42 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995); idem, “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and origins,” in van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book, 173–204.

68

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Even though the cherub throne is linked to the Ark in the Deuteronomistic literature this does not prove that such a relation existed at the time of David and Solomon. Janowski argues that the epithet yôšēb hakkĕrûbîm originally related to Solomon’s construction of cherubim in the Debir of the Temple and only secondarily to the Ark.51 While this scholarly construction is an option, I do not regard it as convincing. First, the Ark Narrative (see below) is pre-Deuteronomistic and in it the epithet of Yahweh who sits upon the cherub throne (yôšēb hakkĕrûbîm) has been related to the Ark. Secondly, it is reasonable to believe that the Ark played a role in liturgical procession in the First Temple period (see below). It is difficult to think that a simple box was used in these processions, especially when the epithet yôšēb hakkĕrûbîm in any case was related to Yahweh. After all, the cultic processions depicted in Egyptian art describe the divinity in some way.52 Thirdly, in the previous chapter I demonstrated how the Hebrew Bible contains the pattern “From cult place X to Jerusalem.” It is not problematic to understand the two massive cherubim in Solomon’s Temple as an example of this pattern. The epithet yôšēb hakkĕrûbîm, related to the old Israelite cultic symbol, the Ark, was adopted in the architectural construction of the Temple of Yahweh. Janowski conjectures why Solomon would have built the two massive cherubim if the cherubim throne had already been a Shilonite symbol and was transferred to Jerusalem.53 In addition, he questions whether a 0.75m high Ark could be regarded as the throne of Yahweh.54 In the next chapter I will argue that the new massive cherubim construction was Solomon’s way of depicting Yahweh as a great Storm-god, who was called “a Great King.” The loftiness of Yahweh was visualized in the Temple by means 51.  Janowski, “Keruben und Zion”; see also Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 213–21. Keel has also presented a picture from Medinet Habu where the box is carried by a priest (p. 215). 52.  For cultic processions, see Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 323–25. Keel writes (p. 323): “Just as in Egypt, all kinds of cult symbols represented the deity, so too in Jerusalem the Ark may have mediated the nearness of God.” See further Chapter 5. Another possible way to illustrate the biblical Ark may be to look at shrine models which have been found in archaeological excavations. But as Kletter notes, there is no secure way to relate these models to the biblical description of the Ark. See Raz Kletter, “A Clay Shrine Model,” in Yavneh II: The ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit, ed. Raz Kletter et al., OBO Series Archaeologica 36 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 28–84, esp. 67. 53.  Janowski, “Keruben und Zion,” 254. 54.  Janowski, “Keruben und Zion,” 259.

3. Historical Background

69

of two massive cherubim. By contrast, the Ark was intentionally made to be movable because it was used in the cultic processions. Being a portable object, the Ark could not have been massive. Yet, importantly, the relatively small size did not diminish the Ark’s symbolic meaning. In a similar way, we have ancient Near Easter seals and amulets which depict deities in miniature sitting on their thrones. If we compare this to the situation in Egypt, the movable cult object seems to be smaller than the big statues placed inside the Temple.55 The role of the Ark in the book of Psalms should be evaluated from the spiritual metamorphosis of the Jerusalemite Temple theology during the exile. This concerns the role of the Ark in particular—something argued by Weinfeld.56 Similar results were achieved by Tryggve N. D. Mettinger. He argues that the exile was seen as a great religious setback for traditional Zion theology according to which Jerusalem was the dwelling-place of Yahweh—and the Ark played a central role in this theology. Instead of this traditional Zion theology, two new theological constructions were created (or: modified) which became popular ways of speaking about Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem: not Yahweh but only his name (Shem) or his glory (Kabod) is present in Jerusalem. These theologies were presented on the one hand in the Deuteronomistic History (Shem theology), and on the other in the Priestly writings and the book of Ezekiel (Kabod theology). Indeed, it can be demonstrated that these theologies put traditional Zion theology effectively aside.57 Against this background it becomes clear that the theological significance of the Ark cannot be emphasized in the book of Psalms, which is related to Second Temple rituals. On the other hand, many texts in the book of Psalms are old, and there is reason to seek indirect references to the Ark there. The Ark’s or cherubim’s role58 is visible in many different and indirect ways in the book of Psalms. In particular, the figurative speech must be considered.59 There are many references to the wings of Yahweh 55.  See, e.g., the discussion of picture 434 in Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 325. 56.  Moshe Weinfeld, “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel,” ZAW 88 (1976): 17–56. 57.  Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth. 58.  The imagery of cherubim can refer to the Ark or to the two cherubim made by Solomon. 59.  See, in particular, Craig C. Broyles, “The Psalms and Cult Symbolism: The Case of the Cherubim-Ark,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. Philip S. Johnston and David G. Firth (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005), 139–56; Richard J. Clifford, “Psalms of the Temple,” in The Oxford Handbook of

70

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

(Pss. 17:8; 18:11; 36:8; 57:2; 61:5; 63:8; 91:4), and a good interpretive option is that reference is made to the wings of cherubim (so especially in Ps. 18:11; cf., Ps. 104:3).60 It is also worth noting that Hezekiah’s prayer is addressed to “Yahweh, the God of Israel, Enthroned over Cherubim” (2 Kgs 19:15; Isa. 37:16), indicating that the wings of Yahweh in the Psalms are associated with cherubim. Yahweh comes to help by flying on cherubim (cf., Ps. 18:11). The attribute “Enthroned over Cherubim” can also be found in Ps. 80:2. The verb “rise up” (the verb qûm, Pss. 3:8; 7:7; 9:20; 10:12; 12:16; 17:13; 35:2; 44:27; 68:2; 74:22; 76:10; 82:8; 102:14) is often used when God is requested to act—something that parallels the vocabulary used when reference is made to the Ark (Num. 10:35–36; Ps. 132:8).61 The expression “the Ark of your might (ōz)” has been used in Ps. 132:8. It parallels neatly Yahweh’s “might” and “glory (kābôd)” which were captured according to Ps. 78:61, a reference which must be to the Ark. When according to Ps. 105:4 one should seek Yahweh and “his might” it is natural to take “his might” as a reference to the Ark.62 There are also some Psalms which indicate some kind of processions around Zion and it is difficult to explain such liturgical praxis without a concrete cultic symbol (see e.g. Pss. 24; 42; 47; 48; 68; 96; 118; 122; 132).63 the Psalms, ed. William P. Brown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 326–37. Broyles and Clifford note that the Ark was used in the festival processions. Broyles writes that “by this sacred symbol [= the Ark] Yahweh’s kingship was presented to the worshipping congregation not only as an imaginative metaphor but as a visual symbol” (p. 140). 60.  Broyles, “The Psalms and Cult Symbolism,” 152–55. Broyles refers to Pss. 36, 57, 61 and 63. He also discusses also Ps. 99 and sees there references to the Ark symbolism (p. 147). 61.  Even though the word “Ark” is mentioned in the book of Psalms only in Ps. 132, as a historical reference to David’s and Solomon’s religious actions, it is worth noting that in Ps. 132:8 the verb qûm is used when Yahweh together with his Ark are exhorted to take their dynamic position in the resting-place of Zion. Therefore, it seems to me that a careful analysis of the Psalms should be made when the cultic and theological meanings of the Ark are evaluated. It is worth noting that Shin (Ark of Yahweh, 120) sees a connection between Ps. 132:8 and many other psalms where the verb qûm is used. Nevertheless, he concludes that “it is understandable that the significance of the ark was reduced after its installation in the temple because the two [Temple and Ark] together functioned equally as symbols of the presence of God” (p. 123). 62.  See Seow, “Ark,” 387. 63.  Cf., the list of Psalms where cultic procession is visible in Clifford, “Psalms of the Temple,” 332. It is impossible here to discuss many old and still today actual theories according to which the Ark played a significant role in First Temple liturgical

3. Historical Background

71

According to 1 Kgs 8:6–9, the Ark was placed in the Debir of the Temple underneath the wings of the cherubim.64 I do not regard the arguments that the Ark did not exist there as convincing. For example, the argument that the Ark is never mentioned in the book of Kings after 1 Kgs 8:6–9 fails, because the two massive cherubim are never mentioned in the book of Kings after the building project of Solomon (note, however 2 Kgs 19:15). On the other hand, the idea of Yahweh as enthroned King and the Ark are closely connected in Psalm 132. In Ps. 132:7–8 Yahweh is exhorted that he and “the Ark of your strength” will take their restingplace in the Temple. Later, in Ps. 132:13–14, it is said that Yahweh will be enthroned (yāšab) in his resting-place where his Ark is also situated.65 processions. I shall discuss Ps. 24 later in this study but readers may consult, e.g., the following studies: Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien 1–2 (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1966); Arthur Weiser, Die Psalmen, ATD 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987); Hans-Joachim Kraus, A Continental Commentary: Psalms 1–59 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993); idem, A Continental Commentary: Psalms 60–150 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993). 64.  Janowski (“Keruben und Zion,” 271–72) discusses the hypothetical possibility that 1 Kgs 8:1–11 may reflect the conflict between “kanaanäisch-phönizischer Keruben- und israelitischer Ladetradition.” The presupposition is that the Ark originally had nothing to do with the cherubim—a view which does not receive any support in the Hebrew Bible but is a scholarly construction. This scholarly construction is well presented in the conjunction of survey of research in Schmitt, Zelt und Lade, 49–174. While cherubim certainly are well suited to the Canaanite–Phoenician sphere, it is hardly possible to exclude their role in pre-monarchic Israel. See the overview in Martin Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron: Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament, AOAT 15/1–2, 2 vols. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985), esp. 261–63, 367. Metzger emphasizes that the Ark may have been used in processions (Ps. 24 is important) and in these occasions the idea about an invisible throne could easily be related to the Ark. I would suggest that the cherubim expressed continuity between the Israelite sanctuary in Shiloh and the Temple of Jerusalem (see Chapter 5). The new element in the Temple built by Solomon was to depict Yahweh as a Great King according to the model of the Canaanite–Phoenician sphere. 65.  Janowski’s attempt to dismantle the imagery of Yahweh as enthroned King and the Ark in Ps. 132 is not convincing (Janowski, “Keruben und Zion,” 261–62). Janowski argues that the footstool refers to the resting place. He fails to see that in that case even the Ark is situated in the resting place, as Ps. 132:7–8 clearly indicates. The conclusion is that Yahweh is enthroned in the resting place where the Ark is, and that that resting place also contains the footstool. It is easy to see that the imagery of Ps 132 and the formulations in 1 Chr. 28:2 correspond well to each other.

72

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Scholars have discussed the function of the Ark beneath the two massive cherubim. An attractive theory is that the Ark has been regarded as the footstool of Yahweh’s throne.66 The imagery could be suitable for the new construction in the Temple where Yahweh is imagined as the Great King sitting on the throne over massive cherubim. It would follow that the Ark situated below the cherubim is his footstool. This imagery would be particularly suitable when the Ark was moved in cultic processions. Yahweh steps down from his majestic throne inside the Temple and is moved by two cherubim in the process. That the Ark was the footstool of Yahweh is clearly implied in the words of David according to 1 Chr. 28:2, as noted by Metzger:67 “I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of Yahweh and for the footstool of our God…” Here the Chronicler parallels “the ark of the covenant of Yahweh” and “the footstool of our God.” Another text in the Hebrew Bible where the ark is mentioned in close connection with the footstool is Ps. 132:7: Let us go to his dwelling place, let us worship at his footstool. Arise Yahweh and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might.

In this verse parallelisms exist between “dwelling place” and “resting place,” on the one hand, and between “his footstool” and “the ark of your might,” on the other hand.68 In the book of Chronicles, Psalm 132 is used in the situation when Solomon has transferred the Ark to the Temple

66.  This theory is old and it has been challenged by scholars. Concerning the survey of early research, see Schmitt, Zelt und Lade, 110–31; Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, 352–65, esp. 358–59. 67.  Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, 359. 68.  The argumentative strategy of Spieckermann is worth noting here when he deals with the role of the Ark in the Temple cult. He notes that “es gibt keinen einzigen Beleg, in dem der ‘Schemel der Füsse’ mit der Lade identifiziert würde, und nur einen einzigen, der diese Kombination überhaupt nahelegt (Ps 132,7f.).” Then he continues to speak about 1 Chr. 28:2 and admits that here the Ark is identified with the footstool. However, he insists that the Chronicler has written this “ohne Rücksicht auf die btreffenden historischen Verhältnisse.” See Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 94 n. 13. It is clear that such an argumentation is not convincing. The Chronicler shows strong interests in the cultic matters of Jerusalem and we have no reason to downplay the meaning of 1 Chr. 28:2 when we discuss the evidence that the Ark de facto was identified as the footstool of the throne of Yahweh.

3. Historical Background

73

underneath the two big cherubim (2 Chr. 5:7) and holds a prayer for the whole people of Israel (2 Chr. 6:41–42). It is clear that the Chronicler’s way of using Psalm 132 is logical and gives support for his way of relating the Ark and the footstool in 1 Chr. 28:2. Psalm 99 is also an interesting text, where in v. 1 it is noted that Yahweh is enthroned above cherubim and then in v. 5, the people are exhorted to come to his footstool to worship him. Everything speaks for the author of Psalm 99 seeing this in a very concrete way. The two massive cherubim are related to the throne of Yahweh, but where is his footstool? Apparently, they are very close to the two cherubim. The simplest way to explain this is to refer to 1 Kgs 8:6–9, according to which the Ark was placed below the two massive cherubim.69 The imagery of the Ark as the footstool of Yahweh was a secondary development and suited well in the architectural context of the Temple. In order to rise up from the throne the king had to step on the footstool i.e. on to the Ark. Originally both the Ark and the two massive cherubim Solomon built in the Temple emphasized Yahweh’s kingship. While it was certainly possible to choose another podium on which the invisible God of Israel could stand or sit (cf., Jeroboam I’s selection of the bull statue as such a podium, 1 Kgs 12:26–33), the cherubim throne was chosen because it symbolized continuity between Shiloh and Jerusalem. I shall argue in Chapter 5 that there are other indications which speak for this continuity between Shiloh and Jerusalem. The existence of the Ark as an important cult object in the First Temple also receives support from Jer. 3:16.70 According to this verse, the Ark lost its significance during the exile: “In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land, declares Yahweh, people will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made.” Jeremiah 3:16 is one of the passages in the book of

69.  There are still two texts, Lam. 2:1 and Isa. 66:1, which use the imagery of the footstool. It is clear that the “footstool” in these texts refers to the Temple of Jerusalem, but it is more difficult to know in which way. 70.  Thiel has argued that Jer. 3:14–18 is a post-Deuteronomistic addition. See Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, WMANT 41 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973), 91–93. I connect these verses to other texts in the book of Jeremiah where the past and the future of the people are contrasted (see below). In this perspective Jer. 3:14–18 clearly emphasizes that the people should forget the Ark as the central cult symbol. If it is assumed that the Ark never played a central role in the first Temple, then the question arises why a text such as Jer. 3:14–18 was written at all.

74

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Jeremiah where the old and the new era in the salvation plan of Yahweh are compared to each other.71 Traditions about the Ark were regarded as so important that they could not simply have been missed by the writers of the exilic period who collected and edited Israelite traditions. In the present form of the Hebrew Bible the Ark also symbolizes the continuity between tribal Israel and the cult in Jerusalem.72 It was an alternative cultic symbol for the young bull in Bethel which has been rejected in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 32; 1 Kgs 12:28–32). All these aspects indicate why it was important to preserve traditions about the Ark even in the exilic and postexilic presentations of the History of Israel—as can see in the Deuteronomistic History and in Chronicles. In the previous chapter I outlined the methodological approach for understanding the cultic traditions of Jerusalem. I emphasized that the overall picture in the Hebrew Bible is that old tribal cult traditions in different sanctuaries were relocalized in Zion. As far as the Ark of Yahweh is concerned the biblical texts indicate that it was originally located in the Sanctuary of Shiloh but then moved to Jerusalem (1 Sam. 4–6 + 2 Sam. 6). Such a tendency to use religious traditions and symbols in a new temple and ritual context does not lack ancient Near Eastern parallels. A good parallel is Sennacherib’s building of the akītu-house (New Year Temple) in Aššur. After the destruction of Babylon in 689, Sennacherib apparently wanted to argue for the continuity of the Babylonian akītufestival in Aššur. He says that “in order to pacify (the god) Aššur, my lord, for people to sing the praises of his might, (and) for the admiration of future people, I removed dirt from Babylon and piled (it) up in heaps (and) mounds in that akītu-house.”73 In another inscription Sennacherib writes how he depicted the battle between Aššur and Tiamat on the bronze gate of this temple: “I depicted on this gate and image of [(the god) Aššur, who] is going to fight [Tiāmat], (showing) the bow as he carries (it), in the chariot which he rides, (and) the Deluge [which he has h]arnessed, (and) the god Amurru as the driver who rides with him.”74 Assuming that the 71.  For this, see Weinfeld, “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” 72.  For this continuity, see Woudstra, The Ark of Covenant, and Shin, The Ark of Yahweh. Even in the book of Chronicles the Ark still plays a significant role in the rhetorical strategy where arguments are presented that Jerusalem is the right place for worship for the whole Israel. This explains also why the Ark is important in later Jewish eschatology (see, e.g., 2 Macc. 2:4–7). 73.  See A. Kirk Grayson and Jamie Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2, RINAP 3/2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 268. 74.  Grayson and Novotny, Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, 2:224.

3. Historical Background

75

cult place of Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines,75 its cultic symbol and traditions could well have been transmitted into a new political and religious center, Jerusalem (as Sennacherib did concerning the Babylonian akītu-festival). The Pre-Deuteronomistic Form of the Ark Narrative In 1926 Leonard Rost established a view that the Ark Narrative 1 Samuel 4–6 + 2 Samuel 6 is an old independent tradition which has been integrated into Deuteronomistic History.76 Rost argued that the original Ark Narrative consisted of 1 Sam. 4:1b–18a, 19–21; 5:1–11b, 12; 6:1–3b, 4, 10–14, 16; 6:19–7:1; 2 Sam. 6:1–15, 17–20a, i.e. he regarded only some verses as belonging to the redactional work. Since then scholars have had different opinions concerning which passages belong to the Ark Narrative.77 My methodological starting-point outlined in the previous chapter was that the Hebrew Bible contains old traditions which have been integrated and their language updated, and therefore I am especially interested in examining the Ark Narrative from a traditio-historical point of view. Nevertheless, an important question here is which parts of the book of Samuel originate from the Ark Narrative. Scholars have presented arguments that 2 Samuel 6 was not an integral part of the same narrative as 1 Samuel 4–6 or 1 Sam. 4:1–7:1.78 The basic 75.  This destruction is not directly attested in 1 Samuel (cf., however, 1 Sam. 4:11), but reference to the destruction of Shiloh is made in Ps. 78:60; Jer. 7:12, 14; 26:6. For the archaeological evidence, see section 5.1. 76.  Rost, Succession to the Throne, 6–34. 77.  For this see especially Franz Schicklberger, Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuel-Buches: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, FB 7 (Würzburg: Echter, 1973); Antony F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study, SBLDS 16 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975); Patrick D. Miller and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the ‘Ark Narrative’ of 1 Samuel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977); McCarter, I Samuel; Klaas A. D. Smelik, “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered,” in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament, ed. Adam S. van der Woude, OTS 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 128–44; Seow, Myth, Drama; Dietrich, 1 Samuel. 78.  For this see, in particular, Schicklberger, Die Ladeerzählungen, 129–49; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 23–25. Zwickel has attempted to discern different redactional layers in 2 Sam. 6. See Wolfgang Zwickel, “David: Historische Gestalt und Idealisiertes Vorbild: Überlegungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von 2 Sam 6,” JNSL 20 (1994): 79–123. Similar redaction-historical investigation of the Ark Narrative is to be found in Porzig, Die Lade Jahwes, 130–57. But, as noted in Chapter 2, I follow another way of argumentation in this study.

76

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

problem lies in Rost’s emphasis that the narrative has been completely preserved. I think that Rost’s assumption in this case should be treated with great caution. The Deuteronomistic editor has clearly used 2 Samuel 6 as an argument that Yahweh chose Jerusalem which David conquered (2 Sam. 5) and presented the election of Jerusalem in parallel to the divine election of the dynasty of David in 2 Samuel 7. Miller and Roberts note that the place where the Ark was situated was Kiryat-Jearim in 1 Samuel 4–6 but Baalat-Judah in 2 Sam. 6:2, which is difficult to accept if both texts originally belonged to the same narrative. They refer to the discussion in Schicklberger’s study and state that the identification of these two cities is questionable.79 However, here one can refer to 1 Chr. 13:6, which identifies the two place names with each other, and it is worth noting that even 4QSama contains the same reading as 1 Chr. 13:6. It seems that the place name of Kiryat-Jearim varied in old Israelite traditions, as becomes clear from several texts in the Deuteronomistic History which have preserved the name of the city in varied forms: Baalah (Josh. 15:9: “Baalah, that is, Kiryat-Jearim”) and Kiryat-Baal (Josh. 15:60: “Kiriath Baal, that is, Kiryat-Jearim”; Josh. 18:14: “Kiriath Baal, that is, Kiryat-Jearim”). All three texts from the book of Joshua indicate that the name by which the readers knew the city during the time of the Deuteronomistic redaction was Kiryat-Jearim, but in the sources available to him the name of the city varied. This evidence seems to indicate that the older version of the Ark narrative contained the name Baalat-Judah, which was subsequently substituted by Kiryat-Jearim in 1 Samuel 4–6. This being the case, the name Baalat-Judah in 2 Sam. 6:2 can be explained in such a way that when the Deuteronomistic editor used the Ark narrative the second time, he simply forgot to change the name of Baalat-Judah to Kiryat-Jearim because apparently he was familiar with the varied names of the city (as is clearly indicated by the evidence in the book of Joshua). Alternatively, the Qumran reading is original (the same which the Chronicler has adopted in 1 Chr. 13:6) and in that case the Deuteronomist has followed a similar way of presenting the city of Kiryat-Jearim as he did in the book of Joshua: he first mentioned the name in the source (i.e. Baalat-Judah) and then explains it using the name he knew his readers were familiar with (i.e. Kiryat-Jearim). It is worth noting that it is possible to read the content of Psalm 132 as a possible indication that the Ark was found in Kiryat-Jearim. Psalm 132:6 reads: “Behold, we heard of it in Ephratah, we found it in the fields of Jaar (yr).” The 79.  Schicklberger, Die Ladeerzählungen, 133–40; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 23–25.

3. Historical Background

77

Hebrew yr can be related to yrym.80 I shall argue in section 5.3 that the Deuteronomist knew Psalm 132. Miller and Roberts relate 1 Sam. 2:12–17, 22–25, 27–36 to 1 Sam. 4:1b–7:1 and emphasize that the focus is not on the Ark but on Yahweh and his actions among his people.81 Nevertheless, they note that the Ark plays an important role in 1 Samuel 4–6: “The ark is at the center of the story [= 1 Sam. 5–6] but not merely as the cultic symbol of the Israelites’ god.”82 Rost would hardly disagree, I think. Miller and Roberts even state that “the author of 2 Sam 6 had the earlier narrative 1 Sam 4–7 before him, and his shaping of the later material, particularly the incident of the death of Uzzah, has been influenced by the theology of the earlier ark narrative.”83 All this indicates how difficult it is to distinguish 2 Samuel 6 from 1 Samuel 4–6, and it seems that Miller and Roberts also think that these chapters were in some way related to each other in their pre-Deuteronomistic forms, because the author of 2 Samuel 6 knew 1 Samuel 4–6 and got influences from it. This short survey indicates that I agree with those scholars who have emphasized that the Ark Narrative is pre-Deuteronomistic and contains old stylistic and theological details which the Deuteronomistic editor has preserved in great detail.84 For example, it seems that the Deuteronomist has preserved the detail that the Ark in Jerusalem was preserved in the tent (2 Sam. 6:17; cf., also 1 Kgs 1:39; 2:28–34),85 i.e. in the open-air cult 80.  Of course, Ephratah needs not be located near Kiryat-Jearim. Psalm 132:6 can also be understood so that David and his men heard about the Ark when they were in their home town and then decided to seek it from “the fields of Jaar” and brought it to Jerusalem. 81.  Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 23–31, 60–75. 82.  Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 23–31, 66. 83.  Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 23–31, 24. 84.  In particular, it is worth noting that Samuel is absent in the Ark Narrative, which means that it must be an independent story from the Deuteronomistic discourse where Samuel plays a central role in 1 Samuel. An interesting stylistic feature is also the hand of Yahweh in the story. Roberts has shown that expressions concerning the hand of god in the Ark Narrative (i.e. “hand of Yahweh,” 1 Sam. 5:6, 7, 9; 6:5, 9, 30) are typical in ancient Near Eastern texts. See J. J. M. Roberts, “The Hand of Yahweh,” VT 21 (1971): 244–51. 85.  Görg argues that the existence of the tent in dynastic tradition, i.e., in 2 Sam. 6–7 is of later origin. Manfred Görg, Das Zelt der Begegnung: Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels (Bonn: Hanstein, 1967), 75–137. However, the tent of Ēl is contrasted with the temple of the Storm-god in 2 Sam. 6–7, and the tent is an early element in the traditions behind the book of Samuel. For this see further section 5.1.

78

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

place which seems to be typical of early Israelite worship.86 However, I think that several formulations and, in particular, the language was updated when this tradition was edited in the Deuteronomistic History. This being the case, the Ark Narrative should be examined from a traditiohistorical point of view. What was its aim and what kind of theology did it contain before it was integrated into Deuteronomistic History? In such a traditio-historical analysis the most fruitful approach is to relate the story to ancient Near Eastern parallels. In this respect, the most important studies are those by Miller and Roberts, and by Seow.87 I discuss parallels presented by Miller and Roberts below, and return to Seow’s important study in Chapter 5, where the focus lies in the connection between Shiloh and Jerusalem. Capturing Enemy’s Gods—Ancient Near Eastern Parallels Miller and Roberts have emphasized that ancient Near Eastern parallels give important material that helps us to understand the central theological problem in 1 Sam. 4:1b–7:1, namely why Yahweh allowed his cult object to be captured by the Philistines. Miller and Roberts emphasize that the theological meaning of capturing an enemy’s god(s) was to emphasize the prevailing god’s or gods’ superiority. Such a theme was certainly relevant for the Deuteronomistic editor who worked during the time of the exile. The Ark Narrative provided him with a nice piece of evidence that Yahweh’s power was not dependent on cultic symbols. Yahweh has 86.  For the important role of open-air cult places in early Israel, see Wolfgang Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel: Studien zur Kultgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas, FAT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); idem, “Cult in the Iron Age I–IIA in the Land of Israel,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa 2–5 May, 2010, ed. Gershon Galil et al., AOAT 392 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 581–94; the importance of the open-air cult places has also been emphasized in Garth H. Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult in the Southern Levant in the Early Iron Age: An Analytical and Comparative Approach” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford, 1995); idem, Early Israelite Religion in the Period of the Judges: New Evidence from Archaeology (Cape Town: Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research and University of Cape Town, 1997), even though Gilmour also emphasizes continuity in the temple building. See further section 5.1. 87.  Also worth noting is that Schicklberger (Die Ladeerzählungen, 196–97) and Campbell (The Ark Narrative, 179–91) deal with some interesting ancient Near Eastern parallels. See further Horst D. Preuss, Verspottung fremder Religionen im Alten Testament, BWANT 12 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971), 43–49; Morton Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974), 9–41.

3. Historical Background

79

the sovereignty to act wherever and whenever he so wills. In this respect the Ark Narrative provided the Deuteronomist with an excellent hermeneutical tool to understand the meaning of the destruction of the Temple. Another theological concept he used to explain the catastrophe of the destruction was the Shem theology. The destruction of the Temple did not indicate the weakness of Yahweh’s power to protect his own majesty but was rather his way to punish the disloyal people. The old Ark Narrative provided a paradigmatic story for precisely such a theology. Important ancient Near Eastern parallels to help understand the Ark Narrative are texts which are related to Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 BCE). First of all, they are certainly older than the Ark Narrative. They also illustrate well what kind of theological ideas may have been presented in a presumed old tradition or text.88 The first text Miller and Roberts discuss is the “Prophecy of Marduk.”89 The text was written as Marduk’s autobiography. Unfortunately, it is fragmentary in many points. Nevertheless, it contains a clear plot according to which Marduk lived in exile in different countries until he finally found his way back to Babylon during the time of Nebuchadnezzar I, to whom good days are prophesied (vaticinium ex eventu) in the text. Marduk’s trips to foreign lands have historical background. It seems that his visit to Hatti is related to the Hittite king Mursil’s capture of Babylon (about 1595 BCE). The removal of Marduk’s statue and a sojourn in Assyria is related to Tukulti-Ninurta I’s (ca. 1233–1195) victory over Kaštiliašu.90 Finally, reference is made to Marduk’s stay in Elam, which can be dated to Nebuchadnezzar I’s own time. The first two captures of Marduk’s statues have been interpreted in a positive way in the “Prophecy of Marduk” indicating Nebuchadnezzar I’s new peaceful policy towards Hatti and Assyria. Marduk visited Hatti in order to establish good economic contacts between Hatti and Babylon. The visit to Assyria was 88.  Other interesting texts which could be mentioned here include the description the sack of Babylon during the time of Sennacherib and the different interpretations of this event during the reigns of Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal and Nabunaid. See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 14–16. 89.  Concerning this text, see Rykle Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Sulgi als Propheten, Zwei prophetische Texte,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 (1971): 3–24. An English translation can be found in COS 1:480–81. 90.  For this victory, see Ernst Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner Nachfolger, AfO 12 (Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers, 1959), 12, 14, 27, 30; A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 244–45, 247, 272–73, 276.

80

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

also interpreted in a positive manner but because of the fragmentary nature of the text more precise justification for Marduk’s trip there cannot be established. But in the case of Elam the text seems to present another attitude. The sacking of Babylon by Elamites was interpreted as Marduk wanting to realize it:91 “I myself gave the command. I went to the land of Elam, and all the gods went with me—I alone gave the command. The food offerings of the temples I alone cut off.” The text indicates that Marduk will avenge the Elamites, and Elam will be destroyed—something which de facto took place in Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign. The Prophecy of Marduk contains an important theological explanation. It is emphasized that at all times Marduk had everything under his control:92 “I am Marduk the great lord. I alone am lord of destinies and decisions. Who has taken this road? Wherever I went, from there I returned.” It is easy to see that the Prophecy of Marduk is a good parallel to the Ark Narrative. In both texts the captured deity controls the situation—the aniconic cult symbol of the Ark was regarded as the throne of Yahweh, and its capture indicated in the pre-Deuteronomistic form of the story that in a certain sense Yahweh himself was captured. This also explains the name î-kābôd93 of the son of Phinehas and the statement of Eli that “the glory (kābôd) from Israel has gone into exile” (1 Sam. 4:19–22). Also, the Ark Narrative emphasizes that while the deity permitted the catastrophe, the same deity will also take care that he will return to his own place. In the Ark Narrative the final destiny of the Ark was Jerusalem. The Prophecy of Marduk is only one example of treating the difficult problem of the capture of the divine statue. In another text from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I identified by Miller and Roberts, the king is praying for Marduk: “How long will you, the lord of Babylon, live in an enemy country?”; and exhorting the god: “Turn your face to Esangil which you love.”94 This parallel text indicates that the captured statue will return to the place which the deity loves, and such an idea suits well in the Ark Narrative according to which the final destiny of the Ark will be Jerusalem. This being the case, the point of the Ark Narrative can be summarized by using the words of Ps. 78:68: “He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loved.” 91.  The translation is from Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 13. 92.  The translation is from Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 12. 93.  The meaning of the name is “Where Is the Glory?” and this is based on the understanding of î as Ugaritic iy, “where is?” or “alas!” For this see, e.g., McCarter, 1 Samuel, 115–16. 94.  See the text in Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 77–78.

3. Historical Background

81

Finally, Miller and Roberts discuss two large fragments, the first one which was published by Lambert,95 and the second one which they have presented as a transcription and a translation.96 In the first fragment Marduk became displeased when the Elamites captured his statue from Babylon, and in the second fragment Marduk allowed the devastation of Elam, and subsequently left this wicked country and returned to his own city to the great celebration of the people of Babylon—an account which contains good parallels to the cultic procession in 2 Samuel 6.97 These parallels show that the original aim of the Ark Narrative was to legitimate the cult symbol which David and Solomon elected to represent the presence of Yahweh in Jerusalem. The history of the Ark showed that the deity behind it is powerful enough to defend his great majesty against the enemies of Israel. The Ark Narrative and David’s Policy At the end of this section I discuss some options as to how the pre-Deuteronomistic version of the Ark Narrative can be understood. As Campbell has argued, I think that the Ark Narrative must have some concrete history behind it. However, this history is not the main focus of the story; instead, the emphasis is on strong religious motifs which relate the journey of the Ark from Shiloh to Jerusalem.98 The ancient Near Eastern parallels of “the exiled gods” indicate that the basic idea in the pre-Deuteronomistic Ark Narrative was Yahweh’s absolute control of the situation. The parallel stories end with the return of the captured cultic symbol to its original place. However, in the case of the Ark Narrative the cult object was not returned back to Shiloh but to Jerusalem. There were apparently historical reasons for this because the cult place was probably destroyed by the Philistines (cf., Jer. 7 and 26).99 Assuming that the Ark was sent back to Israel in some way, the event must have been interpreted as significant. In that case the first oral stories of the Ark’s return were told and circulated with the central argument that Yahweh had shown the power of his mighty hand and subjugated the Philistines. Assuming that these oral stories or opinions about the return

95.  See the text in Wilfred G. Lambert, “Emmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38. 96.  Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 79–81. 97.  This is also noted in Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 16–17. 98.  Campbell, Ark Narrative, 247–61. 99.  See more closely section 5.1, where I discuss the archaeological evidence of Shiloh.

82

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

of the Ark followed the typical ideas in ancient Near Eastern parallels, they must have inspired the restoration of the cult place of Shiloh.100 Such an attempt may have been related to the reign of Saul—a trace of the Ark is still visible in 1 Sam. 14:18. However, the history very soon showed a new way to understand the meaning of the mighty hand of Yahweh. David became aware of these stories about the Ark and decided to use them for his own political aims. He moved the Ark to Jerusalem and the Ark Narrative was written to celebrate this event. The story emphasized the mighty acts of Yahweh, which demonstrated that God, who once had manifested his power in Shiloh, was still able to show his strong arm after the destruction of the sanctuary, and would now take Jerusalem as his new resting-place. In this way David—and later also Solomon—argued for the divine legitimation of Jerusalem. And it was this version of the Ark Narrative which the Deuteronomistic editor(s) knew and reused in his/ their own history. 3.3. The Narrative of the Temple Building 1 Kings 1–11 contains many important details connected with the establishment of the cult in the Temple of Jerusalem, and there is reason to believe that they have been the focus of later redactional activity.101 The most important details as far as this study is concerned are of course the building of the temple (and palace), its furniture (1 Kgs 6–7), as well as its dedication (1 Kgs 8). Therefore, I shall briefly present how I shall approach these traditions used by the Deuteronomist(s). Yahweh and Sun An important backdrop to this study is the theory that the Temple of Jerusalem was in some way related to the Sun-god.102 The arguments can 100.  That Shiloh had not lost its religious significance during the time of Solomon is indicated by the story of the prophet Ahia who came from that city (1 Kgs 11). 101.  For this see especially Pekka Särkiö, Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der israelitischen Historiographie: Eine traditions- und redaktionskritisiche Untersuchung über 1 Kön 3–5 und 9–11 (Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); Nadav Na’aman, “Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon,” in Handy, ed., Age of Solomon, 57–80. 102.  For this view see especially Othmar Keel, “Fern von Jerusalem”; Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem,” in Dietrich and Klopfenstein, eds., Ein Gott allein?, 269–306; see further Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 264–333. See also a good survey of research and balanced methodological discussion of Sun-related passages in the Hebrew Bible in Bernd

3. Historical Background

83

be divided in two different categories. First, there are iconic signs i.e. on one hand, similarities between the iconic symbols of the Sun-god attested in ancient Near Eastern iconography, and, on the other hand, cultic objects depicted in 1 Kings 6–7. The iconic signs do not form a decisive argument103 because similar symbolism is attested for different deities and for different purposes in the ancient Near East.104 Second, and more important, there is textual evidence which shows Yahweh as related directly to the Sun, either linguistically or at a metaphorical level.105 Yet, as Janowski noted, there are different possibilities when it comes to interpreting the literary evidence: the passages where the solar cult was influenced by foreign religions and practiced in Judah/Israel beside the worship of Yahweh (e.g. 2 Kgs 23:11) should be distinguished from solar interpretation of Yahweh religion (e.g. Ezek. 8:16–18).106 Was the Temple of Jerusalem from the beginning related to the Sun-god? This discussion is concentrated on the interpretation of the LXX’s 3 Kgdms 8:53, which is parallel to the MT 1 Kgs 8:12–13. Keel and Uehlinger refer to Noth, who constructed the original text in the following way: 107 Janowski, “JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit,” in idem, Die Rettende Gerechtigkeit: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 192–219. 103.  In fact, this is exactly the opinion of C. S. Peirce, who emphasized that iconic signs offer heuristic possibilities for a scholar to find a new meaning for the object under examination. Most decisive are indexical signs in which the causal connection between the sign and the object is emphasized. For this see Laato, History and Ideology, 31–52. 104.  This is well demonstrated by Keel and Uehlinger in their different important approaches to iconic symbolism. See Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World; Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998). Note also their formulation concerning lmlk-seals in the above-mentioned study (pp. 353–54) and in Keel and Uehlinger, “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem,” 299. In my view, Smith relates the sun-disk in the lmlk-seals rightly to the metaphor of sun used for human kings overall in the ancient Near East as well as in Israel (2 Sam. 23:3–4; Ps. 72:4–5). See Smith, Early History of God, 153–58. 105.  See J. Glen Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 111 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993); Smith, The Early History of God, 148–59. 106.  Janowski, “JHWH und der Sonnengott,” 197. For this see also Smith, Early History of God, 158. 107.  Martin Noth, Könige, BKAT 9 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968), 168, 172.

84

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology Damals sagte Salomo: ‘Der Sonne hat ihren Platz angewiesen im Himmel’ Jahwe, er hat erklärt, im Wolkendunkel wohnen zu wollen. So habe ich denn wirklich gebaut ein Herrschafts-Haus für dich, eine Stätte deines Thronens für alle Zeiten.

Keel and Uehlinger comment on Noth’s translation briefly:108 “Man kann diese Sätze kaum anders als eine Ausbürgerung der Sonnengottheit aus dem Jerusalemer Tempel verstehen, der nun von einem im Wolkendunkel residierenden Wettergott okkupiert wurde.” They translate the text:109 Damals sagte Salomo: ‘Jahwe hat der Sonne ihren Platz im Himmel angewiesen, er hat erklärt, er wolle im Wolkendunkel wohnen. So habe ich denn ein Herrschaftshaus für dich gebaut, eine Stätte für deine Thronen für alle Zeiten.

Even though the Greek version contains its own textual problems, as is evident in the witnesses of different manuscripts,110 it is significant that in the Hebrew text, the quotation begins with Yahweh as the subject, and only then the verb—in the Hebrew the more natural order would be verb + subject. This may indicate that something has been “censored”—and the LXX reading gives a good explanation and alternative to what was there before “censoring.”111 Behind the LXX version there was apparently a Hebrew Vorlage which does not follow the MT reading in all details as the following synopsis indicates (the reading not attested in the MT is underlined): 108.  Keel and Uehlinger, “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem,” 287. 109.  Keel and Uehlinger, “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem,” 287. 110.  For this see Henry S. J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: The British Academy, 1921), 77–79; A. van den Born, “Zum Tempel Weihespruch (1 Kg viii 12f),” OTS 14 (1965): 237–44; David W. Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns,” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29; Percy S. F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11, VTSup 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 164–80. 111.  So Martin J. Mulder, 1 Kings. Vol. 1, 1 Kings 1–11, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 397. See also Ernst A. Knauf, “Le Roi Est Mort, Vive le Roi! A Biblical Argument for the Historicity of Solomon,” in Handy, ed., Age of Solomon, 81–95. Knauf argues that instead of Yahweh the subject who put the Sun in the heaven is Ēl.

3. Historical Background ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν ἐν οὐρανῷ κύριος εἶπεν τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐν γνόφῳ οἰκοδόμησον οἶκόν μου113 οἶκον ἐκπρεπῆ σαυτῷ τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος

85

A sun the Lord made manifest112 in the sky he said that he wants to dwell in deep darkness Build114 my house, a remarkable house for yourself115 to dwell in anew.116

More difficult is the question as to how the Greek reading should be interpreted. Scholars agree that “the Book of Odes” (seper haššîr) in 3 Kgdms 8:53 is the same as “the Book of the Righteous” (seper hayyāšar) in Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18—there was a metathesis of two consonants. Thus the original reading of Solomon’s saying was preserved in the same older literary document as the poetic text of the Sun and Moon in Josh. 10:12–13. This poetic text was formulated as a memory of Joshua’s victory against the alliance which consisted of the king of Jerusalem among others. The original meaning of the text did not concern the miracle in the heavenly sphere—the interpretation offered in the Deuteronomistic History—but it should be seen as a divine curse (or: command) against the gods Sun and Moon who remained handicapped in front of Yahweh’s victorious march against the Canaanite allies:117 And he [Joshua] said in the presence of Israel: “Sun, over Gibeon be still! Moon too, over the Valley of Aijalon.” And Sun was stilled, and Moon stood fixed, until the nation avenged itself on its enemies, Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?

112.  The Hebrew verb in the Vorlage is apparently hiphil form of yāda. 113.  Instead of ‫“( בניתי‬I have built”) the Vorlage of the LXX apparently had ‫ביתי‬ (“my house”). 114.  The translator of the LXX text has understood ‫ בנה‬as imperative form. Such reading is natural assuming that the Vorlage read ‫“( ביתי‬my house”) and not ‫בניתי‬ (“I have built”). 115.  The reference here must be to Solomon’s own palace—something which has hardly been the original reading. This indicates that the LXX translator had a Hebrew text in front of him which was either corrupted or unclear. 116.  This continues the idea of the preceding line and refers to Solomon’s living in his new palace. 117.  For this see Boling and Wright, Joshua, 274, 276, 282–85; Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 139–40.

86

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The Book of Jashar contains an interesting early scenario to the pre-exilic religion in Jerusalem. In that work it is argued that Yahweh has a powerful might over deities such as the Sun and Moon. If this scenario is correct, then the relationship between the Sun-god and Yahweh was understood in the frame of the divine council.118 The content of the Book of Jashar indicates that early Jerusalemite theology emphasized that Yahweh is the sovereign god in the leading position of the divine council. Other gods had to obey the will of Yahweh. This theology led to expressions where the Sun or alternatively ṣedeq acts according to the will of Yahweh. It was also possible to interpret some of them in such a way that the Sun or ṣedeq are personal abstractions of Yahweh.119 Such expressions may have been preserved in the Hebrew Bible, which is the result of later monotheistic theological work of earlier Israelite traditions. I am well aware of the fact that scholars interpret the evolution of the Israelite religion as threads leading from polytheism to monolatry, and from monolatry to intolerant monolatry, and finally to monotheism. However, I regard such evolutionary lines as too simplistic. I interpret the evidence in the Hebrew Bible in such a way that the monolatric principle has been an aspect in Yahwism from the beginning, but that there was no control mechanism which could have made it an absolute principle in all forms of Yahwism. It seems to me that Book of Jashar was an exponent of early monolatric Yahwism, where the argument was presented that Yahweh has sovereign power over all other deities. In this document Yahwism was propagated in such a way that Yahweh managed to subjugate other deities when Israel took its victory march into the land of Canaan (Josh. 10:12–13) and when Yahweh established his own temple in the former city of the Sun-god in Jerusalem (3 Kgdms 8:53). In the Book of Jashar these deities were not refuted as nothingness; rather, they were regarded as forming the divine council which was led by Yahweh. Another early text which presupposes the existence of other deities is Deuteronomy 32 (which was updated linguistically in the exilic period). In it the concept of the divine council was related to an old monolatric principle of Yahwism reflected in the first commandment. The existence of other gods was accepted, but the power of Yahweh over these deities was emphasized. It was Yahweh and only Yahweh who was responsible for the political setbacks which occurred in Israel. However, in the history 118.  Knauf (“Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi!,” 82–86) rightly sees a connection to Deut. 32:8–9 and its central theme, the Divine Council. 119.  For these expressions see especially Roy A. Rosenberg, “The God Ṣedeq,” HUCA 36 (1965): 161–77; Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, 92–256; Janowski, “JHWH und der Sonnengott.”

3. Historical Background

87

of Israel the concept of the divine council was also open for polytheism. This was also the reason why the concept of the divine council was later refuted and almost totally censored in the Hebrew Bible, but was preserved in a few cases where the context makes it clear that the other members of the divine council are angels—as, for example, in the LXX and Qumran versions of Deut. 32:8–9. I shall return to this topic of divine council and explain its role in early Zion theology in section 4.2. Architectural Details of the Temple The description of the temple building in 1 Kings 6 contains lot of architectural terms which are difficult to interpret, for example, yāṣîa (qere-reading in 1 Kgs 6:5, 7, 10), ṣēlā in 1 Kgs 6:5, 15–16, migrāôt in 1 Kgs 6:6, lûl or bĕlûl120 in 1 Kgs 6:8 and gēbîm and śĕdērōt in 1 Kgs 6:9. McCormick has used these linguistic difficulties as an argument that the text cannot give the reader any possibility to “reconstruct the appearance of the temple.”121 Such a conclusion may be true for the modern reader but it is hardly possible to maintain this for the writer of the exilic time when the description in 1 Kings 6 received its final form. The writer of the exilic time did not write nonsense but rather used current architectural terms.122 However, the translator of the LXX or alternatively the composer of the Vorlage of the LXX translation apparently had difficulties in understanding these terms and had to make the text more comprehensible by rearranging it.123 120.  Concerning the reading bĕlûl, see Elisha Qimron, “Lwl and blwl,” Leshonenu 38 (1974): 225–27 [Hebrew]. 121.  McCormick, Palace and Temple, 112–22, the quotation is from p. 122. 122.  For a critical evaluation see Mark S. Smith, “In Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6–7): Between Text and Archaeology,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. Seymour Gitin et al., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 275–82; Dubovsky, Building of the First Temple, 5–6. 123.  Both Adrian Schenker (“Une nouvelle lumière sur l’architecture du temple grâce à la Septante? La place de l’arche d’alliance selon 1 Rois 6:16–17 et 3 Règnes 6:16–17,” Annali di Scienze Religiose 10 [2005]: 139–54) and Keel (Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 292–93) have argued that the LXX version should be given preference. For criticism of this see Erhard Blum, “Der Tempelbaubericht in 1 Könige 6,1–22: Exegetische und historische Überlegungen,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.), ed. Jens Kamlah (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 292–316, esp. 298–301. Blum refers especially to David W. Gooding, “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement Between the MT and the LXX,” VT 17 (1967): 143–72. In the process of rearrangement of the text it is also possible to argue that 1 Kgs 6:11–13 were

88

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

By referring to Schenker, Keel argues that the LXX version of 1 Kgs 6:16–17 indicates that there were two holies of holies, one for the Sun-god (dabir with the cherub throne) and another for Yahweh (pleuron with the Ark).124 I cannot see that such an interpretation of the (linguistically difficult) LXX version is possible.125 It also goes without saying that this hypothetical reading would support the view that there were two cult symbols for two different deities placed in the two chambers—a view which I regard as unconvincing. If my way to understand 3 Kgdms 8:53 in relation to Josh. 10:12–13 is accepted, then there is no textual basis for an idea that the Sun-god would have been respected in Jerusalem. Hurowitz has compared the account in 1 Kings 6–8 to ancient Near Eastern royal reports on temple building, and concluded that the parallels are not conclusive as proofs that 1 Kings 6–8 is based on an ancient archival source from the time of Solomon. However, different details in 1 Kings 6–8 can be compared with ancient Near Eastern parallels:126 “Be its historical accuracy what it may, this account conforms in its basic and overall thematic structure to a pattern shared by many other biblical and extra-biblical stories about building temples and palaces, and especially (accidentally if not intentionally) excluded from the LXX version. Charles F. Burney (Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of the Kings [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914], 68–70) has listed several expressions in 1 Kgs 6:11–13 which are reminiscent of the Priestly source solely. He argues that the verses have been added by a Priestly oriented editor in the postexilic period and that these later additions were not included in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX (see p. xix). However, the editorial Wiederaufnahme in 1 Kgs 6:14 (which clearly related 1 Kgs 6:11–13 to its context) has been included in the LXX translation at the end of 3 Kgdms 8:3. This may indicate that the Septuagint translator probably knew the Hebrew text where 1 Kgs 6:11–13 was included. Note, however, Dubovsky, Building of the First Temple, 109–212, where he presents a detailed analysis of the development of the text in 1 Kgs 6–8. Dubovsky’s important study needs careful attention which is not possible in this study. The most important methodological question concerns how textual witnesses can illustrate the pre-exilic literary development of the traditions in 1 Kings 6–8. 124.  Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 292–93. 125.  The Hebrew text is complicated at this point, and the translator of the LXX has apparently had problems understanding it. 126.  Victor A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992); idem, “ ‘Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It’: Building the First Temple According to the Books of Kings,” in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. Mark J. Boda and Jamie Novotny, AOAT 366 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 281–302 (283).

3. Historical Background

89

from Mesopotamian writings dating from the end of the third millennium BCE until the middle first millennium.”127 The structure of the architectural details of the temple building in 1 Kings 6 follows a logical line of thought, which Hurowitz compares with the description of Ešarra, the temple of Aššur in Esarhaddon’s annals:128 When the second year arrived, I raised the top of Ešarra, the residence of the god Aššur, my lord, to the sky (a-na AN-e). Above, I made it tower to the heavens (a-na AN-e), (and) below, I secured its foundations (ú-kin iš-di-šú) in the netherworld. I made Eḫursaggula, the temple of the great mountain, glisten like the stars [lit. writings] of the firmament. I heaped (it) up like a mountain. I built (and) completed (ar-ṣip ú-šak-lil) that temple from its foundations to its parapets (ul-tu uš-še-šú a-di gaba-dib-bi-šú) (and) filled (it) with splendor to be seen. I roofed it with beams of cedar (and) cypress, grown on Mount Sirāra (and) Mount Lebanon, whose fragrance is sweet. I fastened bands of gold on [doors] of cypress and installed (them) in its gates. I restored the shrines, daises, cult platforms, (and) ruined ground plans; I made (them) good and made (them) shine like the sun. Its top was high (and) reached the heavens; below, its foundations were entwined with the apsû. I made anew whatever furnishings were needed for Ešarra and put (them) in it.

Hurowitz notes several parallels to 1 Kings 6 which I repeat here, adding some new details.129 First, both texts begin with the dating of the building project to the regnal year of the king (1 Kgs 6:1). That the dating of 1 Kgs 6:1 is pre-Deuteronomistic seems to be clear because it contains an old Canaanite name Ziv for the second month, which the Deuteronomistic editor was forced to explain by adding “that is the second month.” Several scholars have argued that the date “480 years after the exodus 127.  It seems to me that Na’aman’s (“Source and Composition,” 74–76) criticism against Hurowitz’s approach is not accurate. Hurowitz never emphasizes that we have a clear parallel account to 1 Kgs 6–7 in Mesopotamian royal texts. He actualizes that different topics mentioned in 1 Kgs 6–7 have their parallels in Mesopotamian texts. A good approach to the description of the temple of Jerusalem can be found in Zwickel’s above-mentioned study. He uses archaeological and written sources to illustrate that the details in 1 Kgs 6–7 have their parallels in ancient Near East. 128.  See the text in Rykle Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, AfOB 9 (Graz: Weidner, 1956), 5 (the text is Aaa A V 27—VI 27); Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 126–27. The translation is that of Leichty. 129.  Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 244–47.

90

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

of the Israelites from the land of Egypt” in 1 Kgs 6:1 originates from the Deuteronomistic editor. However, I have argued elsewhere that the period of 480 years in 1 Kgs 6:1 is pre-Deuteronomistic and corroborates with the pre-Deuteronomistic dates in the book of Judges. The Deuteronomist adopted this earlier figure and several other chronological details in his historical work and was not aware of the fact that his own chronological framework was not in balance with these 480 years.130 Already this detail indicates that 1 Kgs 6:1 contains two if not three different layers. The earliest layer contained the dating in relation to Solomon’s regnal year by using an old Canaanite month name. In the pre-Deuteronomistic historical presentation, the building of Solomon’s temple was related to the history of Israel and 480 years were calculated between the exodus and this building project. Finally, the Deuteronomist adopted this version without noticing that his larger chronological framework did not balance in accordance with this scheme of 480 years. Secondly, the account of Esarhaddon first describes the outside of the temple (as in 1 Kgs 6:2–8) and then goes to describe its roofing (as in 1 Kgs 6:9–10) and finally describes how the temple looked inside with references to the wood and gold used as well as to the doors and reliefs (as in 1 Kgs 6:15–22). Thirdly, both texts end with the description of the furnishing (as the description of Debir in 1 Kgs 6:23–38). Esarhaddon’s text from the first half of the seventh century BCE is not the first Assyrian text which describes a temple project in an order similar to that of 1 Kings 6. A good parallel to 1 Kings 6 is Tiglath-Pileser I’s (1114–1076 BCE) inscription A.0.87.1. vii 71–114 which, in fact, contains some interesting linguistic similarities to Esarhaddon’s text:131 In my accession year the gods Anu and Adad, the great gods, my lords, who love my priesthood, commanded me to rebuild their shrine. I made bricks. I delineated this area, dug down to the bottom of its foundation pit, (and) laid its foundation upon bedrock. I piled up this entire area with bricks like an oven, making it 50 layers of brick deep. I laid thereon the limestone foundation of the temple of the gods Anu and Adad, the great gods, my lords. I rebuilt it from its foundations to its parapets (iš-tu uš-še-šu a-di

130.  Concerning this pre-Deuteronomistic chronology, see Laato, Guide to Biblical Chronology, 98–105. 131.  See the text in A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 28. I follow Grayson’s translation but have put the expression “its foundations to its parapets” in it in order to mark its similarity to Esarhaddon’s text.

3. Historical Background

91

gaba-dib-bi-šu)132 and made it bigger than before. I constructed two large ziggurats which were appropriate for their great divinity. I planned (and) laboriously rebuilt (and) completed (ú-šék-lil) the pure temple, the holy shrine, their joyful abode, their happy dwelling which stands out like the stars of heaven and which represents the choicest skills of the building trade. Its interior I decorated like the interior of heaven. I decorated its walls as splendidly as the brilliance of rising stars. I raised its towers and its ziggurats to the sky (a-na AN-e) and made fast its parapets with baked brick. I installed inside a conduit (suitable for the conduct) of the rites of their great divinity. I brought the gods Anu and Adad, the great gods, my lords, inside (and) set them on their exalted thrones. (Thus) did I please their great divinity.

Even this inscription begins with the date of the building project, followed first by a description of the temple’s outside and then subsequently its inside. The text also contains some details of the building project, i.e. “50 layers of brick deep,” which gives a reader the impression of the ways in which the new building is “bigger than before.” Another text of TiglathPileser I (A.0.87.4) contains an interesting description of the building projects which were made to restore the house of šaḫūru and the house of labūnu.133 It is noted how the first house was made “fifteen feet longer and five and one-half feet wider.” Further, it is noted how “I [TiglathPileser I] constructed from its foundations to its parapets (iš-tu uš-še-šu a-di gaba-dib-be-šu ar-ṣip)” and how “cedar and beams” from Mount Lebanon were used in its building, apparently when the roof was laid on the building. The text continues: “I reconstructed the house of the labūnu, before (which) it (stands), of terebinth from its foundations to its parapets (iš-tu uš-še-šu a-di gaba-dib-be-šu ar-ṣip).” The text then describes the interior of the house, mentioning how “I made replicas in basalt of a nāḫiru, which is called a sea-horse (and) which by the command of the gods Ninurta and Nergal, the great gods, my lords, I had killed with a harpoon of my own making in the [(Great)] Sea [of the land] Amurru.” These texts of Tiglath-Pileser I, written before the time of Solomon, indicate that the basic structure of 1 Kings 6, which begins with the dating, then continues to describe the temple outside then its roofconstruction and finally its interior, is relevant. 1 Kings 6:9–10 describes 132.  It is worth noting that in Tiglath-Pileser I’s inscription, the foundation of the building is uššē and this word is also used in the stereotypical expression “from its foundations to its parapets.” On the other hand, Esarhaddon’s inscription uses also the word uššē in this “old” expression but otherwise uses the word išdu. 133.  See the text in Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I, 44–45.

92

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the construction of the roof on the temple using the verb sāpan (“cover”). Solomon used cedar trees (from Lebanon), which can be 30–35 meters high. Apparently gēbîm and śĕdērōt in 1 Kgs 6:9 are architectural terms for roof construction.134 On the other hand, I interpret the difficult v. 10 so that it refers to the side-chambers (yāṣîa) of the Temple (1 Kgs 6:5–6).135 In 1 Kgs 6:6 it is noted that the ceilings of the side-chambers were laid on the stepped structure of the temple so that there was no need to bind (the use of the verb āḥaz) them to the walls of the Temple. 1 Kings 6:10, in turn, refers to the roofs of the highest side-chambers being bound to the walls of the Temple by cedar bulks (cf., the use of the same verb āḥaz) and this is the reason why this detail has been listed in connection with the description of the roof.136 It is easy to imagine that in the eyes of ancient Israelites the height of the Temple was so magnificent (30 cubits) that its roof-construction in 1 Kgs 6:9–10 was accounted for in detail with similar pride as seen in Tiglath-Pileser I’s inscriptions. I shall return to the height of the Temple in the next chapter when I explain the meaning of the symbolism in the Sanctuary of Jerusalem. The layout of the Temple of Solomon as well as its side-chambers has good archaeological parallels in the temples of Tell Tayīnāt (Kunulua) and Ain Dara. The excavations in Tell Tayīnāt between 1935 and 1938 led to the discovery of the temple (Building II) which had a layout reminiscent of the Temple of Solomon.137 In new excavations (in 2005) 134.  For this see Zwickel, Der Salomonische Tempel, 68–70. 135.  Note also the proposal for the interpretation of this difficult Hebrew term in Yosef Garfinkel and Madeleine Mumcuoglu, “Triglyphs and Recessed Doorframes on a Building Model from Khirbet Qeiyafa: New Light on Two Technical Terms in the Biblical Descriptions of Solomon’s Palace and Temple,” IEJ 63 (2013): 135–63. It is worth noting that there is no evidence that this Khirbet Qeiyafa model would be a Judean marker and in this way provide a good “picture” of the Jerusalemite Temple. For this see Kletter, “A Clay Shrine Model,” 71. Note also Dubovsky, Building of the First Temple, 125–44. 136.  According to Victor A. Hurowitz (“Yhwh’s Exalted House—Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Day, ed., Temple and Worship, 63–110, esp. 71) 1 Kgs 6:10 contradicts 1 Kgs 6:6 and suggests a new vocalization of the verb āḥaz. This is unnecessary as soon as we realize that 1 Kgs 6:9–10 are related to the construction of the roof and, therefore, the information is needed as to how the roof of the highest side-chamber was connected to the wall of Jerusalem. Of course, the roof of the first-level side-chamber was identical with the ceiling of the second-level side-chamber etc. 137.  See the excavation results in C. W. McEwan, “The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,” American Journal of Archaeology 41 (1937): 8–16; Richard C. Haines, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II:

3. Historical Background

93

a new temple (Building XVI) closely similar to Building II was found.138 While it is still possible to maintain that the Tell Tayīnāt temple(s) follow West Syrian architectural tradition, Harrison nevertheless emphasizes that the final phases of these two temples (Buildings II and XVI) apparently belong together and to the time of Neo-Assyrian period (the reign of Esarhaddon) and replicate “a well-established Assyrian double temple tradition best exemplified by the perpendicularly oriented twin temples in the Ziggurat complex on the citadel at Khorsabad.”139 Another important parallel to the Temple of Solomon is Ain Dara.140 The significance of the latter has been noted recently by many scholars who draw attention to the structural similarities. In addition, it is notable that the temple in the Ain Dara originates from early first millennium BCE, thus from about from the same time as the Temple of Solomon.141 The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Chatal Hueyuek, Tell al-Judaidah, and Tell Tayinat, Oriental Institute Publications 95 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 37–66. For the perceived relevance of the temple building as parallel to the layout of the Temple of Solomon, see George E. Wright, “Solomon’s Temple Resurrected,” BA 4 (1941): 17, 19–31; Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus I: Der Tempel Salomos (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 558–62; Arnulf Kuschke, “Tempel,” in Biblisches Reallexikon, ed. Kurt Galling (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977), 333–42, esp. 340–41; Christopher J. Davey, “Temples of the Levant and the Buildings of Solomon,” TynBul 31 (1980): 107–47, esp. 133–34; Volkmar Fritz, “Der Tempel Salomos im Licht der neueren Forschung,” MDOG 112 (1980): 53–68, esp. 62–64; Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 376–77. Note also Magnus Ottosson, Temples and Cult Places in Palestine, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 12 (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1980). 138.  See this building in Timothy P. Harrison and James Osborne, “Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat,” JCS 64 (2012): 125–43; Timothy P. Harrison, “West Syrian Megaron or Neo-Assyrian Langraum? The Shifting Form and Function of the Tell Tayīnāt (Kunulua) Temples,” in Kamlah, ed., Temple Building and Temple Cult, 3–21. 139.  This same quotation can be found in both articles mentioned in the previous notes at pp. 139 and 18 respectively. In his JCS article Harrison refers to Gordon Loud, Khorsabad, Part I: Excavations in the Palace and at a City Gate, Oriental Institute Publications 38 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), 80–128. 140.  See the archaeological description of this temple in Ali Abū ‘Assāf, Der Temple von Ain Dārā (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1990). 141.  See especially Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel, 58–64; John M. Monson, “The Temple of Solomon: Heart of Jerusalem,” in Zion, City of Our God, ed. Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1–22; idem, “The

94

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Scholars have noted that as in the Temple of Solomon so also in the Ain Dara temple there were two columns in an entrance niche through which the temple was accessed. The temple itself was divided between antecella and cella. Side-chambers with more than one store were built around the temple building and an upper one was accessible through a staircase from the bottom one.142 There are, however, also differences. For example, the antecella was smaller than the cella itself, though it seems clear that this temple as well as the temple in Tell Tayīnāt follow Syro-Hittite tradition from the third millennium onwards.143 These two best parallels to the layout of the Temple of Jerusalem from Hittite-Syrian tradition may indicate that Solomon received the architectural pattern for his sanctuary from the North. On the other hand, as already noted, the temple building tradition in the Levant has similar features. This is noted by J. Kamlah in his article, which concludes with the following estimation:144 “All of these comparative aspects reveal two characteristic attributes of Levantine temples and their associated cults: On one hand, they illuminate the regional diversity and complexity of cultic conceptions in the various sub-regions; on the other hand, they clearly demonstrate that the Levantine sub-regions were closely connected with each other. The history of temple building and temple cult in the Ain Dara Temple and the Jerusalem Temple,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis, BJS 346 (Providence: Brown University, 2006), 273–99; Mirko Novak, “The Temple of Ain Dāra in the Context of Imperial and Neo-Hittite Architecture and Art,” in Kamlah, ed., Temple Building and Temple Cult, 41–54, esp. 51–52. 142.  Side-chambers were added in the last building phase III (900–740 BCE). See Abū ‘Assāf, Der Temple von Ain Dārā, xx. 143.  Peter Werner, Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jt. V.Chr., Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 15, Münchener Universitäts-Schriften: Philosophische Fakultät 12 (Munich: Profil, 1994); Stefania Mazzoni, “Syro-Hittite Temples and the Traditional in antis Plan,” in Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer, ed. Jörg Becker et al., AOAT 371 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 359–76; and the article of Corinne Castel in the same Festschrift (pp. 123–64), “The First Temples in antis: The Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda in the Context of 3rd Millennium Syria.” See further Adelheid Otto, “Gotteshaus und Allerheiligstes in Syrien und Nordmesopotamien während des 2. Jts. v. Chr.,” in Kaniuth et al., eds., Tempel im Alten Orient: 7, 355–83, and the article of Frances Pinnock in the same volume (pp. 385–405), “Syrian and North Mesopotamian Temples in the Early Bronze Age.” 144.  Jens Kamlah, “Temples of the Levant—Comparative Aspects,” in Kamlah, ed., Temple Building and Temple Cult, 507–34. The quotation is from p. 529.

3. Historical Background

95

Levant—as well as its religious history in general—can only be comprehensively understood if the area is seen as an inseparably combined entity consisting of multi-cultural diversity.” In the light of many extrabiblical parallels to 1 Kings 6, it is difficult to accept Rupprecht’s thesis that 1 Kings 6 is not based on the historical event of the building project of Solomon, and rather was originally connected with the restoration of an old Jebusite sanctuary.145 We do not know anything about the continuity between a possible Jebusite sanctuary (if such a sanctuary ever existed on Temple Mount) and the Temple of Solomon. The story in 2 Samuel 24 and its parallel in 1 Chronicles 21 indicate that the threshing floor of Arauna, not a Jebusite Temple, was situated on Temple Mount. David built an altar there (including a typical Israelite open-air sanctuary?!), and this building project was interpreted as a precursor for Solomon’s interest in building his new royal center there.146 This being the case, my starting-point in this study is that Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem and that it was a completely new building.147 One detail which should be dealt with here is the argument presented by Na’aman that the Deuteronomistic historian “(who apparently lived in the time of King Josiah) felt free to depict the Solomonic temple according to the temple of his own time.”148 Na’aman follows the argument presented by Van Seters according to which 2 Kgs 25:13–17; Jer. 52:17–23 list the temple objects taken by the Babylonians, described in 1 Kings 6–7.149 The argument must be examined carefully because the present form of 1 Kings 6 is the result of the Deuteronomistic editor who worked in the time of the exile. However, the central control question to this hypothesis of Van Seters and Na’aman is the continuity of the cult symbols. If some conclusions can be made from ancient Near Eastern building projects, it is a conservative tendency to rebuild temples exactly on the same places and restore older cult symbols in the temples. There is no need to think that 145.  Konrad Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe?, BZAW 144 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977). 146.  See also criticism of Rupprecht’s view in John Van Seters, “Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography,” CBQ 59 (1997): 45–57, esp. 53–54; Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel, 29–36; Keel, Die Geschihcte Jerusalems, 265–66; Blum, “Der Tempelbaubericht in 1 Könige 6,1–22,” 304 n. 50. 147.  For this option see, e.g., Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel, 29–36; William G. Dever, “Were There Temples in Ancient Israel? The Archaeological Evidence,” in Beckman and Lewis, eds., Text, Artifact, and Image, 300–316. 148.  Na’aman, “Sources and Compositions,” 75. 149.  Van Seters, In Search of History, 301, 309–10.

96

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the situation was very different in Jerusalem. In this connection there are some interesting details of alterations in the Temple area recorded in the books of Kings.150 The first such passage is 2 Kgs 16:10–17, which deals with the renovations Ahaz made in the Temple of Jerusalem. Notably, Ahaz preserved the altar construction, though he put it in a new place. He also removed the fundament of oxen from the Bronze Sea. This being the case, when according to 2 Kgs 25:16 the Babylonians took bronze from the Sea “which Solomon had made for the Temple of Yahweh,” no information is given as to whether this Bronze Sea was laid on twelve oxen, as Solomon had built it, or on a stone fundament as Ahaz changed it. If the Babylonians took the bronze from the Sea without the oxen fundament, then there is not an exact correspondence between the cultic object of the Bronze Sea described in 1 Kings 7 and the booty taken by the Babylonians.151 Another important detail concerning an alteration which was made on the decorations of the Temple of Solomon is described in 2 Kgs 18:16: “At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord, and gave it to the king of Assyria.” Again there is no reference in 2 Kings 25 that the Babylonians had removed the gold from the doors and doorposts which Solomon had covered according to 1 Kings 6. The only gold and silver items listed in 2 Kings 25 are “the censers and sprinkling bowls” (2 Kgs 25:15). These two details show that there is not an exact correspondence between 1 Kings 6–7 and 2 Kings 25 as far as expensive metals are concerned. Assuming that the Deuteronomistic editor knew the changes which Ahaz and Hezekiah had made in the Temple area, he must also have known some other sources which described the Temple before these renovations. Assuming that Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem he probably described it in a source. Such a source followed a typical pattern of temple building project as can be seen in Tiglath-Pileser I’s inscription. Therefore, I agree with Hurowitz that 1 Kings 6–7 is based on older literary sources which the Deuteronomistic redactor modified and presented in his text. Another detail in 1 Kings 6–8 is that Solomon established a new religious and administrative center on Temple Mount. That such a building project was a typical phenomenon in the ancient Near East receives support from Assyrian royal inscriptions from before the time of Solomon. A good example is Tukulti-Ninurta I’s (1244–1208 BCE) new building 150.  See especially Dubovsky, Building of the First Temple, 30–108. 151.  For this see Mordecai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000) 273; Smith, “In Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6–7),” 279.

3. Historical Background

97

project Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta (modern Tulûl Aqīr, 3km north from Assur beside the eastern slope of the River Tigris) which he constructed opposite his old capital city (A.0.78.22):152 At that time the god Aššur-Enlil, my lord, requested of me a cult centre on the bank opposite my city and he commanded me to build his sanctuary. Beside the desired object of the gods [= the city Aššur] I built the great cult centre, my royal dwelling, (and) called it Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta. I completed within it the temple of the gods Aššur, Adad, Šamaš, Ninurta, Nusku, Nergal, Sibitti, and the goddess Ištar, the great gods, my lords. I made the Pattu-mēšari [= Canal of Justice] flow as a wide (stream) to its sanctuaries (and) arranged for regular offerings to the great gods, my lords, in perpetuity from the fish [lit. “produce”] of the water of that canal. Within that cult centre I took possession of much terrain beside the Tigris, I erected (a terrace which was) 120 layers of brick high, (and) on top of those layers of brick I constructed Egalmešarra, “House of the Universe,” my royal dwelling. At that time I built the wall of Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta, the great cult centre, (to inspire) awe for my lordship. I completed it from its foundations to its parapets (ul-tu uš-še-šú a-di gaba-dib-bi-šú ú-šék-lil) and deposited my monumental inscription.

The text indicates nicely how a new cultic center combined with the royal residence was built on virgin ground. Assuming that Solomon wanted to show his political power by constructing something “everlasting” in Jerusalem, his building projects on Temple Mount seem highly relevant.153 Summing up, I take as my starting-point in this study that 1 Kings 6–8 contains older traditions of the architectural details of the Temple and cultic items used in the time of Solomon. As such, a relevant startingpoint is the seeking out of analogies to these cult symbols from ancient Near Eastern parallels, relating them to texts in the book of Psalms. Of course, every detail will be argued for in the coming chapters. Because the Ark Narrative in 1 Kgs 8:1–13 is related to the Temple, I shall discuss (in Chapter 5) the relationship between Shiloh sanctuary and Jerusalem

152.  See the text in Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I, 24–26; Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millenia BC (to 1115 BC), 269–71. I follow Grayson’s translation but have put the expression “its foundations to its parapets” in it in order to mark its similarity to Esarhaddon’s text. 153.  Similar examples where royal palaces and temples were situated close to each other can be found also in Khorsabad which was established by Sargon II (721–705 BCE) as a new capital of Assyria (dūr šarru-kīn, Sargonsburg) on virgin ground. See Loud, Khorsabad, 80–128.

98

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Temple. Solomon’s prayers and speech in 1 Kgs 8:14–61 are parts which have been written and/or edited by the Deuteronomistic historian, as recognized by scholars.154 3.4. Summary and Conclusions The discussion above shows that much textual material in the book of Samuel is related to the legitimation of the royal house and its apologetics. This indicates that the writer(s) of the book of Samuel had the opportunity to receive quite selective material from the beginning of the Davidic dynasty. Many important political and religious questions have not been dealt with. For example, it is not told how the Israelites were organized politically, or what kind of tensions prevailed between different groups in Israel. Neither is there any coherent knowledge about the relationship between the Israelites and the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites and Ammonites. There are indications that David had a good relationship with some Philistine groups, as well as with Moabites and Ammonites. I have interpreted this evidence in such a way that David and Solomon managed to establish a status quo policy in Canaan, as far as Egyptian interests were concerned. Israel had a central political role in Canaan during the United Monarchy, and this was misrepresented in 2 Samuel 8 as David simply subjugating all surrounding peoples by his military power. I have also dealt with the reign of Solomon as accounted in 1 Kings 1–11 and discussed his temple building project. I have proposed that there are no fundamental historical, religious historical or architectural objections to regarding the temple building project, as described in the text, as a project of Solomon’s reign. This means that the architectural symbolism of the Temple can be illustrated with the aid of extra-biblical material and related to symbolic language used in the book of Psalms.

154.  See in particular, Eep Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14–61, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 3 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993).

Chapter 4 T he S torm -G od a n d Z i on T he ology

In this chapter I shall deal with psalms which apply the imagery of the Storm-god to Yahweh. I shall argue that the imagery is strongly related to the West Semitic religious tradition, especially to the Ugaritic Baal myths. In addition, the imagery can be connected with the architectural details of the Temple of Solomon. The common denominator of the imagery of the Storm-god and the architectural details of the Temple is the Syro-Phoenician tradition. I shall argue that the Storm-god imagery— which was not unknown in Yahwism before the United Monarchy (for this, see Chapter 6)—nevertheless became popular and received its peculiar features during the reign of Solomon. 4.1 The Mediterranean Context of the Storm-God Imagery A good starting-point is the analysis of a text which contains references to the Mediterranean geographical context and thus indicates that borrowings were made from the Phoenician religious milieu from where Solomon also received assistance for his Temple project. Psalm 48—An Early or Late Psalm? Great is Yahweh, and most worthy of praise, in the city of our God. His holy mountain 3 splendidly rising is the joy of the whole earth. Mount Zion, the heights of Ṣāpôn, the city of the Great King.1 2

1.  The poetic structure of Ps. 48:2–3 is best taken as containing three tricola which describe the beauty of the city of God. However, there are several other

100

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology God is in her citadels he shows himself as protection. 5 When the kings joined forces, when they advanced together, 6 they saw and were astounded; they were frightened and fled. 7 Trembling seized them there, pain like that of a woman in labor 8 as the east wind2 shatters the ships of Tarshish.3 4

As we have heard, so we have seen in the city of Yahweh Sabaoth, in the city of our God: God makes her secure forever. 10 We mediated on your kindness, O God, within your temple. 11 Like your name, O God, so your praise reaches to the ends of the earth; your right hand is filled with righteousness. 12 Mount Zion rejoices, the daughters of Judah are glad because of your judgments. 13 Walk about Zion, go around her, count her towers, 14 consider well her ramparts, examine her citadels, that you may tell of them to the next generation. 15 For this God is our God for ever and ever; he will guide us against Death.4 9

possibilities for understanding the poetic structure of these two verses. See Oswald Loretz, “Ugaritisch-hebräische Symbiose der Gottesberge ṣapānu und Zion in Psalm 48,2c–3c,” UF 40 (2008): 489–505. 2.  The preposition in the phrase bĕrûaḥ qādîm is in many manuscripts kĕrûaḥ qādîm. I have translated according to the latter. 3.  Müller notes that v. 8 does not contain any clear parallelism. Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 185. However, I take this verse as illustrating the destruction of enemies mentioned in v. 7 and forming a tricolon with that verse. Verse 8 forms an inclusio with the first part of the psalm. 4.  Scholars often read ōlāmôt according to the LXX instead of the MT, reading al mût (“against death”). The correction is understandable. On the other hand, Ps. 48 may be related to the myth of the Storm-god and in that myth the battle against Death (Motu) plays a significant role. Because the MT has preserved this reading (cf., also Ps. 68:21) there is no need to change the text.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

101

The text is one of the psalms composed “by Korahites” or “to Korahites,” depending on how the preposition lĕ- in v. 1 is understood. Wanke took it for granted that the psalm was composed by the Korahites and used this detail as an argument for dating the text. According to Wanke, the Korahites began to play a role in the temple’s liturgical singing only in the postexilic period, as they are mentioned mainly in the Priestly source and in the book of Chronicles.5 Such an argument is risky because introductory words in the psalms can also be regarded as later instructions pertaining to “by whom” and “how” the psalm should be presented. There are other ways of interpreting this introduction; for example, we could have an indication that it was the Korahite singers who usually recited this psalm. And even if Wanke’s argument is valid, there is no need to conclude that all Korahite texts in the book of Psalms were composed later. It is also reasonable to argue that they transmitted older liturgical material from the First Temple period in their compositions. Another problem in dating all Korahite material as very late is the genealogical link of Korah to Levi as presented in Chronicles. I have argued elsewhere that the lists in 1 Chronicles 6 are based on earlier material which was reworked in pre-Chronistic time. If this is the case, then the Levitical genealogies in Chronicles may originate from pre-exilic time.6 The Korahites may already have played an important role in the pre-exilic period. It goes without saying that there was certainly music in the First Temple. Wanke also presents several arguments which concern the content of Psalm 48 (and Ps. 46) and concludes that these Zion psalms must be of the postexilic period. These arguments are based on some linguistic features—which are always controversial, especially when it is clear that old texts edited in the Hebrew Bible have certainly been updated linguistically. Another important argument for Wanke in dating Psalm 48 to the postexilic period is the motif of Völkerkampf. Since the publication of Wanke’s work in 1966 this motif has been discussed by other scholars, and while they may debate whether the Völkerkampf motif originated from the Canaanite Jebus, they nevertheless often view the pre-exilic period as the starting-point for this motif.7 5.  Günter Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditions­ geschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966), 23–31. 6.  Laato, “Levitical Genealogies.” 7.  See, for example, the two recent treatments of this motif in Ps. 48: Friedhelm Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit, BThSt 74 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011), 127–74; Martin Leuenberger, “Grosskönig und Völkerkampf in Ps 48: Zur historischen, religions- und theologiegeschichlichen Verortung zweier

102

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

As far as the dating of Psalm 48 is concerned, I refer to the methodological discussion in Chapter 2. Psalms cannot be dated in straight lines because it is reasonable to assume that older texts have been updated linguistically and in many cases also theologically during the exilic and postexilic periods.8 What is more important here is to compare the linguistic idioms and traditions of Psalm 48 with Ugaritic and other ancient Near Eastern material and to discuss how they reflect old Jerusalemite cultic theology. A good starting-point for analysis is provided by two details in the psalm where the Mediterranean context comes into focus. The first one is that Mount Zion is identified with Mount Ṣāpôn (v. 3) and the second one is the ships of Tarshish (v. 8). Mount Saphon Verse 3 has often been interpreted in modern translations so that Zion is “on the sides of the north” because the Hebrew word ṣāpôn means “north” (see, e.g., Gen. 13:14; Deut. 3:27). But even in that the case the geographical location of Zion is difficult to understand, because the city is not situated in the north, as far as the Hebrew worldview (based on the West Semitic orientation and presented in Gen. 10) is concerned. Therefore, the interpretation that the reference here is to the old Wes-Semitic mythological mount which appears, for example, in Ugaritic texts, seems a reasonable conclusion. In Ugaritic texts the mount ṣapānu refers to Mount Aqra (Ǧabal al Aqra in Arabic, and Mount Kassius in Greek texts), which is located in the vicinity of Ugarit close to the Mediterranean Sea.9 The possibility of connecting Mount Zion with Mount Ṣāpôn supports the idea that the mythological context of Psalm 48 was translated from the Mediterranean religious context, presumably from the Phoenicians. zionstheologischer Motive,” in Ich will dir danken unter den Völkern. Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Gebetsliteratur: Festschrift für Bernd Janowski, ed. Alexandra Grund, Annette Krüger and Florian Lippke (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013), 142–56. 8.  Concerning different ways of dating Ps. 48, see, e.g., Josef Scharbert, “Das historische Umfeld von Psalm 48,” in Ein Gott Eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitet—Festschrift für Notker Füglister OSB zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer (Würzburg: Echter, 1991), 291–306; Leuenberger, “Grosskönig und Völkerkampf in Ps. 48.” 9.  For this identification see, e.g., RSP II:319; Roberts, “Davidic Origin of the Zion Theology,” 329–44, esp. 334; Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, HSM 4 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 142–44.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

103

Koch has devoted a special study to the religious-historical background of Ṣapôn,10 and on the basis of his article I am keen to argue that the mount’s connection with Zion is best explained as originating from an early period. In a later period it would be difficult to explain why an old-fashioned mythical motif of divinity abiding on a mount outside Judah would have played such a significant role in the psalm. An early date of the link between Jerusalem and the divine Mount Saphon is preferable because in the Neo-Assyrian period the divine world in the West Semitic area was astralized. In this thinking the temple imagery was developed in the direction that the heavenly abode of a deity represents an earthly manifestation of the deity in his/her temple.11 A good example of this is Psalm 11, where the presence of Yahweh in the Temple of Jerusalem is related to his abiding in the Heaven (v. 4): “Yahweh is (present) in his holy temple; Yahweh’s throne is in heaven; his eyes behold, his eyelids test the sons of men.” Scholars have shown that such a connection between the heavenly abode of a deity and the temple dedicated to him/ her is well presented in the relief of Nabuapaliddin, the king of Babylon (885–850 BCE) found in Sippar (ANEP 529). In that relief the king is led by a priest and a deity is depicted as following them to the temple of the Sun-god Shamash. The picture describes Shamash in his heavenly abode and the meeting between the king and the deity apparently takes place in the temple.12 This being the case, it seems to me that the link between Zion and Saphon must have been established in a period when it was still meaningful to seek association to the divine Mount Saphon; as such, a date before the astralization of the West Semitic divine world is to be preferred. A good interpretive model is that the idea of the divine Mount Saphon was borrowed from the Phoenician religious milieu during the reign of Solomon when the Temple was built.

10.  Klaus Koch, “Ḫazzi–Ṣafôn–Kassion: Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament, ed. Bernd Janowski and Klaus Koch, OBO 129 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1993), 171–223. 11.  For this see Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 283–372. 12.  See, e.g., Martin Metzger, “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes,” UF 2 (1970): 139–58; Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 29–32; Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 172–74. See further the relief and its interpretation as well as the text related to it in Christopher E. Woods, “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited,” JCS 56 (2004): 23–103.

104

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Mettinger’s analysis of the Sabaoth, Shem and Kabod theologies in the Hebrew Bible could also be mentioned in this context. He argues that during the exile, the Shem and Kabod theologies became popular in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance which existed between the pre-exilic Sabaoth theology (God dwelling in the Temple of Jerusalem) and reality (the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonian army).13 Mettinger’s analysis can also be related to the astralization of the divine sphere, when the Assyrian imperialistic policy in the eighth century BCE actualized the question of the relationship between the earthly temple (potential object of destruction) and the divine sphere.14 Thus the Deuteronomistic and Priestly theologies indicate that the abode of Yahweh is in Heaven and only his Name or his Glory is connected with Mount Zion.15 In this light Psalm 48, with its emphasis that Zion is the mythical Mount Ṣapôn where the deity dwells, clearly represents an old Israelite religious concept. As noted, I cannot see any objections to dating this idea to the very beginning of the existence of the Temple of Jerusalem. Such an early date is not in conflict with the fact that Mount Saphon plays a significant role in the Ugaritic texts. In the Ugaritic texts Mount Saphanu is the abode of Baal, where his temple was built after he managed to defeat the power of chaos, Yammu.16 KTU 1.3. III.28–31 contains a close parallel to Ps. 48:3 (‫יפה נוף משוש‬ ‫)כל־הארץ הר־ציון ירכתי צפון קרית מלך רב‬:17 atm wank ibġyh btk ġry il ṣpn bqdš bġr nḥlty bnm bgb tliyt,

Come and I will reveal it in the midst of my mountain, divine Saphanu, on the holy mountain of my heritage on the beautiful hill of my might.

13.  Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth; see also idem, Namnet och närvaron: Gudsnamn och gudsbild i Böckernas Bok (Örebro: Libris, 1987); idem, In Search of God; idem, “The Elusive Essence.” 14.  It is a reasonable conclusion (albeit difficult to prove) that the destruction of Samaria in the 720s actualized the question of the relationship between Yahweh’s sanctuary and his heavenly abode. 15.  Concerning the astralization of the divine sphere, see further Koch, “Ḫazzi– Ṣafôn–Kassion,” 217–18. 16.  For Ugaritic texts which refer to Ṣapôn see RSP II:318–324. 17.  There are different ways of understanding this Ugaritic verse (RSP II:321– 22). I follow the interpretation presented in Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4, VTSup 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 203, 234–36.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

105

The Hebrew har is parallel to the Ugaritic ġr or gb, words which have been used to pertain to the mountain of Baal. The expression yarkĕtê ṣāpôn is parallel to the Ugaritic expression ṣrrt ṣpn, often used in the Ugaritic texts.18 The Hebrew yāpēh has a semantic equivalence to the Ugaritic nm. It is also worth noting that in Ps. 27:4 the worshipper speaks about Zion: “One request I have of Yahweh, it I seek, for me to dwell in the house of Yahweh all the days of my life, to gaze on the pleasant place of Yahweh (bĕnōam Yhwh) and to make inquiry in his temple.” The expression bĕnōam Yhwh is often translated as “the beauty of Yahweh” and this is apparently one relevant interpretation. In the Ugaritic texts the equivalent word has been used for the beauty of the goddess Anat and the mount of Baal. On the basis of the Ugaritic parallel I am keen to interpret Ps. 27:4 as “the beautiful place of Yahweh.”19 This close connection between Ps. 48:3 and the Baal myth gives reason to question how the mythical motif behind Psalm 48 is related to the West Semitic imagery of the Storm-god. The Ships of Tarshish Another detail in the psalm related to the Mediterranean context is the destruction of enemies, which is compared with the shattering of the ships of Tarshish (v. 8). The motif of the ships of Tarshish20 relates the content of Psalm 48 to Phoenicia because the Hebrew Bible indicates that the ships were built by Phoenicians (1 Kgs 10:22; Isa. 23:1; Ezek. 27:12, 25). In Psalm 48 the ships of Tarshish are destroyed by the “east wind” (rûaḥ qādîm). This eastern wind has been used in the Hebrew Bible as a description of the might of Yahweh and his (destroying) powers (Exod. 14:21; Isa. 27:8; Jer. 18:17). Thus the wind is a manifestation of the power 18.  Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I, AB 16 (Garden City: Doubleday 1965), 289–90; RSP II:318. See further RSP I:358, 479. 19.  For this interpretation, see Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:235. 20.  The concept “ships of Tarshish” can be an idiomatic expression and refer to ships which are able to sail as far as Tarshish. However, in the story of Solomon “the ships of Tarshish” are mentioned only in 1 Kgs 10:22, and the verse indicates these ships operated together with Hiram’s ship, in this case in the Mediterranean Sea. On the other hand, 1 Kgs 9:26–28; 10:11–12 refer to Solomon’s ships in Ezion Geber which sailed to Ophir. However, there is as yet no archaeological evidence that Phoenicians would have attested Solomon in Ezion Geber. For this see Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 64–70; Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems, 246. This being the case, the co-operation between the Phoenicians and Solomon in Ezion Geber is best left open. However, the view presented in 1 Kgs 10:22 according to which Hiram assisted Solomon in the Mediterranean Sea does not confront these problems, as I will soon argue.

106

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

of Yahweh. The ships of Tarshish should be related to the enemies of Yahweh—something which explains the imagery used in some prophetic utterances (Isa. 2:16; 23:1, 14) very well.21 The Neo-Assyrian vassal treaty between Esarhaddon and the king Baal of Tyre gives a nice parallel to the imagery of the ships of Tarshish which are destroyed by the evil wind:22 10′ May Baal Shamaim, Baal Malagê and Baal Saphon 11′ raise an evil wind against your ships to undo their moorings 12′ and tear out their mooring pole, may a strong wave 13′ sink them in the sea and a violent tide [rise] against you.

The text confirms that the imagery of the ships of Tarshish in Psalm 48 fits well in the religious milieu of Tyre. Yahweh is seen as the Storm-god who raises the east wind which breaks the ships of Tarshish. Scholars have discussed the identification of Tarshish and different proposals have been presented.23 What seems to be clear is that reference is made to a city or an area which is located somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. According to the biblical texts the city of Tarshish was situated somewhere in the Mediterranean area (Gen. 10:4), apparently a long journey from the Phoenician coast (Isa. 60:9; Jonah 1:3). Esarhaddon’s inscription, where Tarshish is combined with Cyprus and Ionia, also refers to this same western location.24 One of the most popular alterna-

21.  It is worth noting that the corresponding parallel words ḥîl and yālad in Ps. 48:7 are also used in Ugaritic texts. See RSP I:186. 22.  See this text in Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), 27. 23.  For the identification and different locations of Tarshish, see the discussion in David W. Baker, “Tarshish,” ABD 6:331–33; Ariel van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision, VTSup 71 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 40–47; Andre Lemaire, “Tarshish—Tarsisi: Problème de Topographie Historique Biblique et Assyrienne,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai, ed. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, VTSup 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 44–62; Reed Lessing, “Just Where Was Jonah Going? The Location of Tarshish in the Old Testament,” Concordia Journal 28 (2002): 291–93. 24.  Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, 86. It is true that even southern location may in principle be possible from Ps. 72:20; Ezek. 38:13 and in particular, from 2 Chr. 20:36–37 (where ships from Ezion-Geber aimed to sail to Tarshish). Nevertheless, the first two mentioned passages do not state that Tarshish would have been situated in the south; the city is only associated with other place names which are located in the south. It is problematic to use 2 Chr. 20:36–37 as evidence for the location of



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

107

tives proposed has been Tartessos, situated in southern Spain.25 Another important possibility (proposed by Albright) is a city in Sardinia, because a Phoenician inscription (from about 830–730 BCE) making reference to Tarshish has been found there.26 The alternative, proposed on the basis of the Septuagint translation in Ezek. 27:12 (karchēdonioi) is Carthage. The name Carthage, however, comes from the Semitic qrtḥdšt (“a new city”), and authors from late antiquity used the same name for a city which existed on the coast of western Spain.27 This being the case, the Greek translation of Ezek. 27:12 could even be used to support the location of Tarshish in Spain. Finally, there are scholars who connect Tarshish with Tarsus in Cilicia, arguing that Gen. 10:2–4; Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:12–14 as well as Esarhaddon’s inscription relate Tarshish to the areas around Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and Asia Minor.28 Lipiński has argued that the reference to Tarshish in the account of Hiram and Solomon in 1 Kgs 10:22 can be used as an argument for the tradition not originating from the time of Solomon. According to Lipiński, Tarshish should be related to the Pillars of Heracles, and he notes that the archaeological attestations of a Phoenician presence in that area date from the ninth century BCE, which is about half a century after Solomon’s death.29 The evidence available today is insufficient to conclude that the middle of the ninth century BCE is the earliest date for the possible mention of Tarshish in biblical traditions. First of all, scholars disagree on the location of Tarshish. In addition, it is unclear whether any place bearing the name Tarshish in an early period can be identified unequivocally, because the name can be related to the Akkadian verb rašāšu, “to Tarshish in the south, because the parallel passage in 1 Kgs 22:49 refers to the ships being built in order to get gold from Ophir. Ophir, on the other hand, could well have been located in the south. 25.  According to Herodotus’ History (I.163; IV.152) a Phoenician colony was situated at the Guadalquiver River and the area is known for the production of metal and chrysolite (cf., Strabo, Geography 3.2.11; Pliny, Natural History 37, 43). 26.  See this text in CIS 1:144 and discussion in Lemaire, “Tarshish—Tarsisi,” 50–51. 27.  See Strabo, Geog. 3.2.10. 28.  The history of Tarsus begins ca. 2000 BCE and the city played an important role in the Hittite Empire. It was destroyed in about 1200 BCE and resettled by Greek merchants during the ninth century BCE. See W. Ward Gasque, “Tarsus,” ABD 6:333– 34. It is worth noting that the city itself was situated in the area of Taurus Mountain which was famous for its raw materials. 29.  Edward Lipiński, “Hiram of Tyre and Solomon,” in Lemaire and Halpern, eds., Books of Kings, 251–72, esp. 265–71. A similar argument has been presented in Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Konigszeit, 70–73.

108

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

heat, melt, smelt” (i.e. taršišu). This being the case, Tarshish may first have referred to different places from where heavy metals were brought. In this case, the mountain areas of Taurus would be a good alternative for the location of these “smelting centers.”30 In later times the location of Tarshish may have been fixed to Cilicia or to Spain or to some other place. Certainly there is no strong reason to connect Tarshish directly with the Pillars of Heracles and then make conclusions from archaeological excavations there. Thus, one option for identifying Tarshish could be somewhere in the Taurus mountain area from where metals were imported to the Levant and to Mesopotamia. If this is the case, it is unproblematic to emphasize that economic contacts between the Taurus area and Phoenicia were established in early times, and were certainly active during the time of Solomon.31 Great ships which could sail to Tarsus and import metals from there were called “ships of Tarshish.” From Tarshish Solomon received not only gold and silver but notably also iron, which was needed for weapons.32 30.  Concerning these sources of raw materials which were so important for the neighboring Levant and Mesopotamia, see K. Aslihan Yener, “Taurus Mountains,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric M. Meyers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 5:155–56. 31.  Archaeological evidence shows no records of the destruction of Tyre at the time of the Sea People invasion. On the contrary, it can be shown that Tyre was an important center of trade from about 1100 BCE onwards (cf., also the Egyptian story of Wenamun, AEL 2:224–30, which is dated in the eleventh century BCE). William A. Ward (“Tyre,” in Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology, 5:247–50) notes that Tyre established important trade contacts during the period of IA I (about 1150–900 BCE). He writes (p. 248): “A welcome by-product of the search for metal was the creation of a trading empire that provided new customers for Phoenician products. Cyprus, with its rich sources of copper was the logical first step; evidence of a Phoenician commercial presence on Cyprus exists in the eleventh century BCE.” A similar view is presented in Piero Bartoloni, “Commerce and Industry,” in Phoenicians, ed. Sabatino Moscati (Milan: Bompiani, 1988), 78–85. He writes (p. 78): “The earliest commercial activities of the Phoenician cities, in the last two centuries of the 2nd millennium B.C., were carried on primarily in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean and consequently involved neighbouring regions such as Egypt, the southern coast of Anatolia and Cyprus, in the exchange of products and manufactured articles and in the necessary search for raw materials for production.” 32.  It is worth noting that at the beginning of the Israelite monarchy, iron was lacking in Israel. Apparently Philistines who came from the islands of Greece knew from where to get iron (1 Sam. 13:19–22). David’s military success implied that he had to organize the trade of iron in some way. That iron came from the Taurus



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

109

This discussion shows that the mentioning of “ships of Tarshish” in the psalm cannot be used an argument for postdating the mythical tradition to a post-Solomonic time as Lipiński has argued in the case of 1 Kgs 10:22. Even though it is not possible to locate Tarshish securely, the name itself is well known in Assyrian royal inscriptions which date to the pre-exilic period, as well as from the inscription from Sardinia which takes us even closer to the beginning of the Temple of Solomon. If the name Tarshish was originally related to “smelting center,” then its most important trade materials would have been raw metals such as iron, tin, lead and silver, as indicated in Ezek. 27:12. This gives reason to seek the location of Tarshish somewhere in Anatolia. There is good evidence that the Phoenicians had established important trade contacts with southern Anatolia or to the areas close to the Taurus Mountains already by the end of the second millennium BCE. This means that the mention of the name Tarshish in the mythical tradition used in Psalm 48 can well originate from the time of Solomon. I have proposed thus far that Ṣapôn and “ships of Tarshish” are parts of the early mythical tradition which looms behind Psalm 48 and which are related to the Phoenician religious milieu. I shall now proceed to a most controversial question of the motif of Völkerkampf. As already noted, the origin of this religious motif has been treated in several different ways by scholars. Chaos Battle Scholars have often argued that the struggle against the powers of chaos in the Ugaritic Baal cycle has left traces in the Hebrew Bible and, in particular, in the Psalms.33 The Ugaritic myth of Baal in KTU 1.1–1.6 has Mountains through Phoenician contacts seems to be a reasonable assumption (cf., Ezek. 27:12). According to 2 Sam. 5:11, already David had good contacts with Tyre and its king Hiram. 33. Concerning the role of theophany in Canaanite and Israelite cult poetry and their interconnection, see Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung, WMANT 10 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965); idem, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem kananäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen, FRLANT 141 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987); Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 112–44; Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, HSM 5 (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1973); Carola Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Amsterdam: van Oorschot, 1986); Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds; Martin G. Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography, OBO 169 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999); John Day, Yahweh and the Gods

110

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

not been preserved intact.34 Its main topic is Baal’s struggle against the powers of chaos. The combat myth is referred to many times in different contexts, and Baal’s victory over his enemies is similarly repeated many times. The content of the Baal myth can be summarized in the following way in KTU 1.1–1.6:

I. Presentation of Baal who is the Cloud-Rider (KTU 1.2). Baal smites Yammu using two maces made by Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu and inherits eternal kingship (KTU 1.2 IV:7–29). II. Baal’s banquet, with food, music and songs (KTU 1.3 I:1–28; cf., KTU 1.3 III:4–8). III. Anatu proclaims that Baal has smitten Yammu (KTU 1.3 III:32–51). IV. Anatu expresses hope that Baal will bestow fertility (KTU 1.3 IV:68–83). V. Baal claims that he should have a palace and Anatu promise to assist him (KTU 1.3 IV:94–VI:25). VI. Baal claims again that the palace must be built for him and Atiratu supports him in that claim by emphasizing that Baal is king (KTU 1.4 I:4–19; KTU 1.4 IV:40–57) and finally notes that after Baal receives his palace he can send rain and guarantee fertility (KTU 1.4 V:2–11).35 VII. Good news, that the palace can be built on Saphanu, is sent to Baal by Anatu (KTU 1.4 V:20–35) after which Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu immediately begins to build it (KTU 1.4 V:44–VI:40).

and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002); Mark S. Smith, “Canaanite Backgrounds to the Psalms,” in Brown, ed., The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms, 43–56, esp. 48–50. 34.  See the careful analysis of KTU 1.1–1.4 in Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 1, Introduction with Text, Translation & Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2, VTSup 55 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), and Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 2. A good English translation based on this order has been offered by Dennis G. Pardee in COS 1:241–274. Note also the translation of Johannes C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, NISABA 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), which is based on the order KTU 1.3, 1.1–1.2 and 1.4–1.6. See further also Johannes C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Balu, AOAT 16 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971). It is out of scope of this study to attempt to solve this problem of the order of the Baal myth. 35.  There are different systems to refer to the lines of KTU 1.4 V, because that column is on the reverse side of the tablet and continues directly from the previous column.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

111

VIII. After the palace has been built, Baal arranges a banquet with much wine (KTU 1.4 VI:40–VI:12). IX. There is a discussion about whether a window should be built in the palace of Baal after all. After construction of the window Baal guarantees fertility (KTU 1.4 VII:13–37). X. Baal’s kingship and his assertion that he has no rival follows. He is even mightier than Motu, who rules over the gods (KTU 1.4 VII:37–VIII:47). XI. Baal wants to challenge Motu. Baal accepts Motu’s invitation to the banquet. Baal dies (KTU 1.5). XII. Anatu searches for Baal and buries him (KTU 1.5 VI:25–1.6 I:43). XIII. There is no one who can replace Baal on his throne (KTU 1.6 I:43–II:3). XIV. Anatu punishes Motu (KTU 1.6 II:4–37) and Ilu realizes in a dream that the mighty Baal has revived (KTU 1.6 III:1–IV:29). XV. The final battles, where Baal forces Motu to accept that he can retake his royal throne on his resting-place on Saphanu (KTU 1.6 V:1–VI:54). In this battle emphasis is made that Motu is strong and Baal is strong (mt z bl z), until Motu becomes afraid and confirms that Baal can retake his throne. As soon as Mount Ṣāpôn is related to Ugaritic Saphanu it becomes an attractive alternative to see Psalm 48 as containing traces of the old West Semitic myth of Baal. First of all, Yahweh is protecting his holy Mount Ṣāpôn, which is the object of the attack, not directly by the chaos power of Death (cf., Ps. 48:15) but by the armies of foreign kings. That enemies could be compared to the power of chaos is well attested in the Hebrew Bible. The topic is present in other Zion psalms (Pss. 46; 68; 76)36 as well as in Isaiah 1–39 (8:5–10; 17:12–14; 29:1–8; 30:27–33; 31:4–9; 33:1–24).37 How old is this idea of Völkerkamp in Zion theology? 36.  Concerning Ps. 68 see, in particular, the discussion in Chapter 6. 37.  Concerning the interpretation of the chaos battles in Isaiah 1–39 see the analysis of the texts in Hans Wildberger, A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 1–12 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991); idem, A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 13–27 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997); idem, A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 28–39 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002). I have discussed Zion theology in the book of Isaiah in an article “Understanding the Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah,” in Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology and Reception, ed. Tommy Wassermann, Gregor Andersson and David Willgren, LHBOTS (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 22–46. In this article I presented an alternative way of understanding the enigmatic

112

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Scholars have often argued that the idea of inviolability of Zion in Psalm 48 (as well as in Pss. 46 and 76) was developed from the paradigmatic story in 2 Kings 18–19 (par. Isa. 36–37), according to which the attack of the Assyrian king against Jerusalem failed. It is argued that Yahweh is depicted as “the great king” (melek rāb) in Psalm 48, corresponding to the Akkadian royal title šarru rabu (cf., 2 Kgs 18:19).38 However, the title šarru rabu is not rendered in the Hebrew melek rāb but melek gādôl (see 2 Kgs 18:19, 28; Isa. 36:4, 13).39 In addition, šarru rabu is attested in the Neo-Assyrian royal ideology.40 The title was known among Hittite kings and originated from a north Syrian context.41 In particular, this title has been used for the Storm-god Adad, as the personal name Adad-šar-rabû indicates.42 While I am not opposed to the idea that Sennacherib’s failed attempt to conquer Jerusalem has influenced the present form of Psalm 48, I would argue that the beginning, i.e. Ps. 48:2–8, contains an older Jerusalemite idea that Yahweh is the Storm-god who lives in Zion and struggles against the power of chaos. In his important contributions to Zion theology, Janowski has noted that the independent motifs in Zion theology may be traced back to an early period. However, he argues that the parameter for understanding Zion theology has been changed. First of all the textual basis of the Zion-related texts which can be dated to an early period is thin. Secondly, Janowski is critically inclined towards the idea that Zion theology relationship between anti-Assyrian texts and the invasion of Sennacherib based on my monograph Antti Laato, “About Zion I Will Not Be silent”: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity, ConBOT 44 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998). 38.  This is the view of Wanke dealt with earlier in this chapter. See Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten, 93–99. For this connection to Sennacherib’s invasion, see also Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes, 144. See further Leuenberger, “Grosskönig und Völkerkamp in Ps 48,” 148–53, where he argues that the title is connected with the Neo-Assyrian period. Leuenberger also notes important parallels from the Aramaic texts. 39.  It is worth noting that the biblical expression melek gādôl is clearly an old Hebrew equivalent to the Neo-Assyrian royal title šarru rabu which was written on an ivory from Nimrud. For this, see Alan R. Millard, “Alphabetical Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud,” Iraq 24 (1962): 41–51. 40.  See Seux, Epithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. 41.  See also Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1988), 230–31. 42.  For this see Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nord­ syriens, 427; Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 198.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

113

would have been a solid concept from the beginning. Janowski prefers a concept of Temple theology which was transformed in the exilic and postexilic periods to a universal Zion-related theology, as can be seen in Deutero-Isaiah.43 I would like to present an alternative view on the origin of Zion theology. While I would agree with Janowski that much of the textual material about Zion theology must be regarded as late—all older texts have been reworked linguistically and many if not all of them also theologically—from the perspective of the empirical models, mythical themes in Psalm 48 can be interpreted as containing old traces of early Zion theology. This mythical material can be dated to the time when influences came from Phoenicia, tentatively to the reign of Solomon when the Temple was built with the assistance of the Phoenician king Hiram. To begin with, we can note that the motif of the east wind which shatters the ships of Tarshish (Ps. 48:8) is apparently part of an old myth. There are several texts in the Hebrew Bible (see Isa. 27:8; Jer. 18:17; Ezek. 27:26; Job 27:21) which speak about destruction caused by the east wind in a context which gives reason to think that the expression is rooted in a wellknown mythic motif. 44 Such a myth has not been preserved in the Hebrew Bible, however, but traces of it are presented in the reedited form of Psalm 48. That reference is made to a wind from the east indicates that the chaos battle was thought to take place between the Storm-god abiding on Mount Ṣāpôn (Saphanu) and enemies coming from the (Mediterranean) Sea (Yammu). The enemies clearly represent the power of chaos. The idea that the city of Jerusalem has divine protection is already related to the religious traditions of the Jebusites. According to 2 Sam. 5:6, the inhabitants of Jebus said to David: “You shall not come in here (lō tābô hēnnâ), but the blind and lame shall turn you away, saying: David cannot enter here (lō yābô dāwīd hēnnâ).” It is difficult to think that such a statement would have been a Deuteronomistic idea implanted in the Jebusite religious ideology. It is much easier to see this detail as an old trace of Jebusite religious ideology. The expression that evil will not enter the city of Jerusalem was also used by the inhabitants of Jerusalem as quoted in Mic. 3:11: “Is not Yahweh among us (hălō Yhwh bĕqirbēnû)? No disaster is coming to us (lō tābô alênû rāâ)!” The latter expression is reminiscent of the Jebusite statement referred to above, and it is exactly the same as the saying of the Jerusalemites in Jer. 5:12. The first part of Mic. 3:11 is reminiscent of Ps. 46:6, according to which God is inside the 43.  See especially Janowski, “Keruben und Zion”; idem, “Die heilige Wohnung des Höchsten.” 44.  For this see Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 475.

114

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

city of Jerusalem (ĕlōhîm bĕqirbāh). Worth noting also are vv. 8 and 12 of Psalm 46, where identical expressions appear: “Yahweh Sabaoth is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.” Yahweh’s struggle against the enemies of Zion was an integral part of the mythical tradition expressed in Psalm 48. Therefore, I agree with Jeremias, according to whom the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6) combined the Yahweh war tradition with the West Semitic mythical concepts. This would have led to the formation of the early myth now attested in the Zion-related Psalms 46; 48 and 76: Yahweh protects Zion against the attacking enemies.45 Nevertheless, I would like to modify Jeremias’ view and argue that there were different roots for this old West Semitic mythical theme which are visible in the later reworked Psalms 46, 48 and 76. First, 2 Sam. 5:6 gives us reason to believe that a religious idea according to which the deity of the city protects its inhabitants against all enemies was typical for Canaanite cities. Background for such an idea is to be found in the Ugaritic Baal myth, where Baal protects his royal palace on the top of Saphanu against all enemies.46 Secondly, the specific mythical idea attested in Psalm 48 originates from the Mediterranean context and is best explained so that it was adopted in Jerusalem in the reign of Solomon when Hiram assisted him in the building of the Temple. Thirdly, the idea of Yahweh combating against enemies of Israel according to the myth of chaos battle was hardly a new idea in the Israelite religion during the reign of Solomon. Exodus 15:1–18, which contains traces of an old poetic text, has a topic related to the pattern of the myth of Baal. By defeating the army of Egypt (representing the power of chaos) Yahweh shows his might and becomes the king in Israel by securing himself the temple on the mount.47 Fourthly, in Chapter 6 I shall discuss Psalm 68 and suggest that the original setting of the Psalm was in a pre-monarchic Israelite settlement in Transjordan. 45.  Jeremias, “Lade und Zion.” I shall justify this view more closely in Chapter 5, where I discuss the origin of the imagery of Yahweh sitting upon the cherubim throne. Cf., here the other view according to which the epithet of Yahweh “Enthroned over Cherubim” originates from two cherubim which Solomon built in the Temple of Jerusalem. See Janowski, “Keruben und Zion,” 247–80. I have discussed this proposal in Chapter 3, where I examined the Ark Narrative. 46.  Note Werner H. Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel: Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes, BZAW 80 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1961), 35–43. 47.  Concerning the interpretation of Exod. 15:1–18, see, in particular, Cross, Canaanite Myth an Hebrew Epic. See further Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea; Shawn W. Flynn, Yhwh Is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel, VTSup 159 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 47–58.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

115

Traces of Later Redactional Activities? Thus far I have argued that in Psalm 48 the old mythical motif of Yahweh’s struggle against the enemies of Zion is applied and this myth is concentrated in Ps. 48:2–8. The question is whether v. 9 should be interpreted so that the composer has used older material and now refers to some concrete event in history which has demonstrated the validity of the mythical motif of the inviolability of Zion. Such a historical reference could have been the withdrawal of the Assyrian army in 701 BCE.48 From one point of view the year was a catastrophe for Judah, as indicated in Isa. 1:4–9 and in archaeological evidence.49 But on the other hand, the Assyrian army was unable to conquer Jerusalem.50 This “miraculous” salvation was interpreted as Yahweh’s action against the Assyrian army, and it is possible that Isa. 22:1–2 commemorates Jerusalem’s joy: “What is the matter with you now, that you have all gone up to the housetops, you who were full of noise, you boisterous town, you exultant city?” Isaiah criticized the inhabitants of Jerusalem for not understanding what has taken place when Yahweh punished his people through the Assyrian army (Isa. 22:1–14). It is an attractive proposal that this “miraculous” salvation of Jerusalem is referred to in Ps. 48:9: “As we have heard, so we have seen in the city of Yahweh Sabaoth!” There are other details in Ps. 48:9–15 which indicate that the final form was composed at a time when only Judah existed. While Ps. 48:2–8 contains old mythical ideas and several parallel words attested in the Ugaritic texts, the situation is different in Ps. 48:9–15. It is difficult to find any good parallels from RSP to vv. 9–15.51 One should also notice 48.  Concerning the influence of this historical event in the present form of Ps. 48, see Scharbert, “Das Historische Umfeld von Psalm 48,” 302–6; Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes, 127–74; Leuenberger “Grosskönig und Völkerkamp in Ps 48.” 49.  For this see, e.g., Nadav Na’aman, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the LMLK Stamps,” VT 29 (1979): 61–86. 50.  I have argued elsewhere that we should not read Sennacherib’s inscriptions as reliable sources in every detail insofar as the withdrawal of the Assyrian army from Jerusalem is concerned. My proposal is that a bubonic plague or some similar disease forced the Assyrian army to withdraw from Jerusalem. Antti Laato, “The Assyrian Propaganda and the Historical Falsifications in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib,” VT 45 (1995): 198–226. See further my recent treatment of this problem in “Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah.” 51.  Through the index of RSP I it is easy to see that no good parallels can be found for Ps. 48:9–15, though there are several for Ps. 48:2–8. The situation is similar when we consider the mythical theme of Saphanu and the ships of Tarshish destroyed by the east wind.

116

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

v. 12 where reference is made to Zion and the “daughters of Judah” which refers to the cities of Judah—indicating that Samaria had been destroyed when the Psalm received its final form. So, if the psalm in its present form had been composed already during the time of Solomon, then it is difficult to explain why only Judah is mentioned and all other cities in Israel overlooked.52 Verse 11 refers to the name of Yahweh and his praise which reach to “the ends of the earth.” This kind of universal scope connected with the Shem theology widens the expression in Ps. 48:3, where the words “the whole land/earth” are intimately related to the old mythical motif of the holy mount and can be interpreted as referring to the local area around Jerusalem, including the land of Israel, and possibly also other areas in the land of Canaan.53 Let me conclude this section. I have argued that the beginning of Psalm 48 (i.e. vv. 2–8) contains an older mythical tradition according to which Yahweh is described as the Storm-god who struggles against the waters of chaos. These powers of chaos are identified with the enemy armies attacking Zion, which in turn is identified as the mount of the Stormgod, i.e. Mount Ṣāpôn (Saphanu). As in the Ugaritic myth the Storm-god defeats the chaos-monster Sea (Yammu), so Yahweh annihilates the enemies like the ships of Tarshish. In its present form Psalm 48 was composed after Sennacherib’s invasion and this reworking is detectable especially in vv. 9–15. The Abode of the Divine Council Before leaving the interpretation of Psalm 48, I would like to note that Mount Ṣāpôn is not only connected with the myth of the battle of chaos; according to Ugaritic texts, the divine council has its meetings there and/ or divine banquets were held on the divine mount.54 The idea has lived on in later Phoenician texts as can be seen from the inscription of Yeḥimilk 52.  This feature can be compared with Ps. 68:28. See the discussion in Chapter 6. 53.  It is worth noting that the inscription of Khirbet Beit Lei from about 700 BCE speaks about Yahweh as the “God of the whole land” (lh kl hrṣ). Because the expression is parallel to the phrase “the mounts of Judah belong to the God of Jerusalem,” the expression should not be taken as universalistic. The inscription is a good indication of how Ps. 48:3 (“the joy of the whole earth”) should be interpreted in an early stage of the psalm. I have translated the expression as “earth” and not “land” because in the present form of the psalm, a universalistic scope is clearly meant as is indicated by Ps. 48:11. Cf., Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes, 127–31; Leuenberger “Grosskönig und Völkerkamp in Ps 48,” 154. 54.  For this see especially E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, HSM 24 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

117

(KAI 4) from the tenth century BCE.55 This very same idea is also rooted in the Hebrew Bible, as Isa. 14:13 shows. The Babylonian king says arrogantly: “But you said in your heart: ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the heights of Ṣāpôn’.” If the general line of development concerning the astralization of deities is correct, then the following scenario could be found in the Hebrew Bible: First, the dwelling place of Yahweh was located on Mount Zion and later in Heaven. This would imply that in the early form of Zion theology, the abode of Yahweh was also regarded as the place of the divine council.56 In order to understand this early aspect of Zion theology, I shall deal with the development of the idea of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible. Then I shall discuss the concept of the divine council in Psalm 82. 4.2. Divine Council of Ēl in Zion In ancient Near Eastern texts the heavenly council represents the most authoritative decision-making body in the divine and human world.57 A good example is the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish where Marduk becomes the leader of deities. In some Assyrian recensions Marduk is replaced by Assur.58 Thus the political power was always reflected in the order of the divine world. Ugaritic texts provide the best outer-biblical parallels to the concept of divine council in the Hebrew Bible.59 55.  In this text the building of the Temple benefitted from the long life of the king which the main gods of Byblos as well as “the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos” (mpḥrt il gbl qdšm) granted. For this text see Green, “I Undertook Great Works,” 89–94. The inscription provides a nice parallel to 2 Sam. 7, according to which David plans (and Solomon realizes) the building of the Temple and receives a promise of an eternal dynasty. 56.  Concerning the “Cosmic Mountain,” see further Clifford, Cosmic Mountain where he presents ancient Near Eastern material on the divine mountain. Concerning Ṣāpôn in Isa. 14, Clifford does not identify it with the mount of the assembly (pp. 161–62 n. 85)—something I have found unconvincing. 57.  Min Suc Kee, “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-scene,” JSOT 31 (2007): 259–73. An important survey of the Ugaritic material concerning the divine council is to be found in Mullen, The Divine Council. 58.  See Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths; see also idem, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma eliš,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten. XXXIXe Recontre Assyriologique Internationale Heidelberg 6.–10. Juli 1992, ed. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann, HSAO 6 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 77–79. 59.  This is seen already in terminology. See Mullen, The Divine Council, 117–20.

118

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The Hebrew Bible in its present Masoretic form is a collection of holy scriptures which has a theological focus, Jewish monotheism. It is clear that the idea of the divine council was a religious concept which is not tolerated in the present form of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, the concept has survived in a few texts because the Judean editors and Jewish copyists, as well as the Masoretes, interpreted them in their own ways which were not in opposition to monotheism, i.e. the members of the divine council are Yahweh and his angels. A diachronic survey of the concept of the divine council makes the evolutionary line of its development quite clear. In this section I shall first present the general lines of development of the idea of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible in order to have some perspective on how Psalm 82 should be dated. Divine Council Terminology in the Hebrew Bible The most common root in Akkadian and Ugaritic texts for the “divine council” is pḫr. The term is not attested (or has not been preserved) in the Hebrew Bible. However, the terms dt (KTU 1.15 II:7, 11), dr (KTU 1.37:7; 1.40:25–26, 33–34; 1.41:16; 1.65:2) and md (several times in KTU 1.2) have their parallels in Ps. 82:1 (ădat Ēl), Amos 8:14 (dôrĕkā)60 and Isa. 14:13 (har môēd), respectively. It seems clear that in these biblical passages, traces of old concepts of the divine council are detectable. In addition, qĕhal qĕdōšîm (Ps. 89:6) and sôd qĕdōšîm (Ps. 89:8; see also Jer. 23:18) are apparently concepts which originally referred to the divine council. In the Ugaritic texts “the sons of Ēl” or “the sons of Qudšu/Atirat” are members of the divine council, and equivalent terms are attested several times in the Hebrew Bible in contexts where traces of the concept of the divine council can also be found: bĕnê ēlîm (Pss. 29:1; 89:7), bĕnê Elyôn (Ps. 82:6), bĕnê ĕlōhîm (Deut. 32:8) or bĕnê hāĕlōhîm (Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1) as well as kol ĕlōhîm (Ps. 97:7) and qĕdōšîm (Deut. 33:2–3; Job 5:1).61 I shall now demonstrate with the aid of some key texts how the idea of the divine council has been developed in the Hebrew Bible. Only in some few cases it is possible to find traces of the polytheistic version of 60.  Concerning this reading in Amos 8:14, instead of the curious derek in the MT, see Frank J. Neuberg, “An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DÔR,” JNES 9 (1950): 215–17. 61.  Concerning Deut. 33:2–3, the plural reading has been suggested by Frank M. Cross and Daniel N. Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses,” JBL 67 (1948): 191–210; Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 66, 72.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

119

the divine council. These texts have been preserved in the Hebrew Bible because transmitters have interpreted other divine beings in the council as angels. The Polytheistic Divine Council in Deuteronomy 32 One of the earliest references to the divine council in the Hebrew Bible is described in Deut. 32:8–9.62 Verse 8 is a locus classicus which contains interesting textual problems. The Masoretic text here reads: When Elyôn gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided the sons of man he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

Scholars long ago observed that the Septuagint reading “according to the angels of God” (kata arithmon aggelōn theou) implies the Hebrew text “according to the sons of God.” This reading is now confirmed by the Qumran text 4QDeutj which suggests reading bĕnē ĕlōhîm.63 This “polytheistic” reading is supported also by 4QDeutq, which reads “all gods” in Deut. 32:43.64 It is clear that the Qumran readings do not imply an idea of a polytheistic divine council. On the contrary, the evidence 62. For the pre-exilic date of this text see Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. 63.  Patrick W. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran,” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–15; R. Meyer, “Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32.8f. 43 (4Q) für die Auslesung des Moseliedes,” in Verbannung und Heimkehr. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Arnulf Kuschke (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961), 197–209; Julie A. Duncan, “4QDeutj,” DJD 14:75–91, esp. 90; Paul W. Skehan and Eugene Ulrich, “4QDeutq,” DJD 14:137–42; Sanders, Deuteronomy 32, 154–59, 248–52; Tov, Textual Criticism, 269; Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52–74. 64.  It seems clear that the MT reading in v. 43 is based on a “censored” textual version. Both 4QDeutq and LXXB read “worship him all gods” (LXX: “sons of God”). See Skehan and Ulrich, “4QDeutq”; Ariel van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Florentino García Martínez et al., VTSup 53 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 93–100; Eugene P. McGarry, “The Ambidextrous Angel (Daniel 12:7 and Deuteronomy 32:40): Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Textual Criticism in Counterpoint,” JBL 124 (2005): 211–28, esp. 225–27. This means that Deut. 32:36–39 should be read in the context that Yahweh has control in the divine council even though Israel had to suffer.

120

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

from other Qumran manuscripts shows that the reading bĕnē ĕlōhîm has been interpreted as referring to angels. This becomes clear from 4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice where angels are called ēlîm, ĕlōhîm, qĕdōšîm and rûḥôt, among other terms.65 It is reasonable to believe that the Qumran and LXX reading was original, and that the MT reading (with support in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Targumim, Vulgate and the Peshitta) results from a later theological revision which aims to secure the monotheistic understanding of the verse. The reworking of the text in the MT shows how problematic the original reading in Deut. 32:8–9 was for ancient Jewish copyists. There is reason to believe that this original reading is rooted traditio-historically in an old concept of the polytheistic version of the divine council. The verbs nāḥal and pārad in Deut. 32:8 refer to a decisive point in history when Elyôn was regarded as distributing land to every nation. In the innerbiblical exegesis this event could easily be related to the mythological past when the peoples were given their own languages and lands after the flood of Noah. The same verb pārad in niphal is used twice in Genesis 10 (vv. 5 and 32), a passage which lists 70 nations. While innerbiblical allusion is easy to detect between these two texts (Deut. 32:8–9 and Gen. 10–11), it is hardly possible to suggest that one text is dependent on the other. Rather, both are related to the same early mythic tradition. It is certainly difficult to argue that Deut. 32:8–9 was based on the Priestly account of Genesis 10–11. If that were the case then it would be difficult to explain why a later (monotheistic) writer in the exilic or postexilic period introduced an idea of the pantheon of gods in Deut. 32:8–9.66 I prefer the alternative that both texts are related to an old mythical pattern in the West Semitic religious milieu. This tradition goes back to the idea that the highest god in the Ugaritic pantheon, Ēl, has 70 sons. In this connection we can note the Ugaritic text KTU 1.4 VI:46, which refers to šbm bn aṯrt, “the seventy sons of Asherah.” Because Asherah was the consort of Ēl this implies that Ēl was regarded as having “seventy sons” in the pantheon.67 If this scenario is accepted then the number of 65.  For this see Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition, HSM 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 23–38; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Sabbath,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 805–7, esp. 806–7. 66.  See further Laato, “Adam and the Divine Council.” 67.  It is true that the number “seventy” can also be interpreted in the sense of “totality.” Cf., the Ugaritic passages where Anat offers seventy sacrifices (KTU 1.6 I:18–28), Baal has seventy (even eighty) brothers (KTU 1.12 II:48–49) and Kirta has seventy commanders, even eighty leaders (KTU 1.15 IV:5). See Johannes C. de



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

121

nations (seventy together) enumerated in Genesis 10 is based on this old mythical tradition and assumes that each nation also has a god or son of God. Thus an idea like Deut. 32:8–9 must have been a part of the original mythical tradition: there were seventy gods which the highest god Elyôn installed as gods to the nations. Of course, such a polytheistic idea was unacceptable for the subsequent Priestly editor of Genesis 10 and thus the tradition was modified. However, a similar tradition was transmitted in the early poetic text Deut. 32:8–9, because it was interpreted as referring to the angels of nations (see such an interpretation in book of Daniel; see below). Many scholars have argued that in the old mythical tradition of Deut. 32:8–9 Yahweh was subjugated to the highest god Elyôn.68 I am skeptical towards this interpretation because Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32 is consistently identified with Ēl.69 There is no evidence of Yahweh ever occurring in the Ugaritic pantheon lists, which indicates that he was not an established god in Syro-Palestine during the Bronze Age, but rather a new deity introduced by the emerging Israelite religious society (whatever it was).70 Moor, “Seventy!,” in “Und Mose schrieb diese Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz, ed. Manfred Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper, AOAT 250 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 199–203; Day, Yahweh and the Gods, 20–25; Nick Wyatt, “The Seventy Sons of Athirat, the Nations of the World, Deuteronomy 32.6B, 8–9, and the Myth of Divine Election,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker, VTSup 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 547–56, esp. 548; Marjo C. A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014), 236. But in that case, the idea of totality expressed by “seventy” in subsequent traditions may have been interpreted in a concrete way by understanding seventy as an exact number. 68.  In particular, the idea was presented in Otto Eissfeldt’s study El im ugaritischen Pantheon, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil. Hist. Klasse 98/4 (Berlin: Akademie, 1951), and has become popular since then. See, e.g., Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “elyôn,” TDOT 9:121–39, esp. 127–29; James M. Trotter, “Death of the lhym in Psalm 82,” JBL 131 (2012): 221–39, esp. 223–28. 69.  See further Konrad Schmid, “Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament? Methodische Überlegungen anhand von Dtn 32,8f und Ps 82,” in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, ed. Andreas Wagner, BZAW 364 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 105–20. 70.  Here I would like to emphasize that I fully agree with Korpel (A Rift in the Clouds), who has shown that Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible is conceptually presented by motifs and themes which parallel the Ugaritic milieu. However, I prefer to interpret this evidence in such a way that Yahwism does not originate from a

122

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Therefore, the relevant religious-historical theory is that in some point of history Yahweh was related to the Canaanite pantheon. He was regarded as identical with Ēl (possibly through the god of the patriarchs Ēl or rather Ilu)71 and in this way regarded as the highest god and the leader of the pantheon.72 In this interpretive model Yahweh in Deut. 32:8–9 must be identical with the highest god Elyôn or Ēl Elyôn. If Yahwism in the early period was a monolatrous religion, then the idea that Yahweh could have been subjugated under the realm of Elyôn would become even more problematic.73 This being the case, kî at the beginning of v. 9 should be understood as an emphatic particle: Indeed, Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob was to be the measure of his inheritance.

P. Sanders refers to Iliad 15:187–193 and, in my view, to a more relevant passage in the Atraḫasis Epic I.i:11–18,74 and comments that “in Greece and Mesopotamia there were several myths concerning the primordial division of realms among the gods” but “the realms are not peoples but geographical territories or parts of the cosmos.”75 In spite of lacking exact parallels I cannot see any decisive argument against the view that Deut. 32:8–9 reflects an ancient Israelite concept. The Hebrew verb nāḥal is closely connected with the action of dividing geographical areas. In Ugaritic-Syro-Canaanite milieu but rather that Yahwism has occupied the religious concept of the Storm-god from the Syro-Canaanite milieu, and this took place during the time when the Temple of Jerusalem was being built. See further Chapter 6. Concerning the origin of Yahwism from outside Canaan, note especially Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden.” 71.  For this scenario, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. 72.  Concerning the relevant view that Yahweh is identical with Elyôn or Ēl Elyôn, see, e.g., Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel,” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204; Wyatt, Myths of Power, 350–51. 73.  It is not possible here to deal with the origin of Yahwism. That monolatrous (or even monotheistic) traditions are relevant also in the early Israelite period becomes clear, for example, from the monotheism of Akhenaten in Egypt. As far as the relevance of the monolatrous (or even monotheistic) trends in early Israel are concerned, note, in particular, de Moor, Rise of Yahwism; Andre Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007), 7–47. 74.  See the text in Wilfred G. Lambert and Alan R. Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 42–43. 75.  Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 369.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

123

addition, the Hebrew Bible contains the idea that every nation and its god are related to a particular land. According to 2 Kgs 5:17, Naaman wants to give sacrifices to Yahweh in the land of Aram. Therefore, he takes as much earth from Israel as a pair of mules can carry. Without earth/sand from Israel, the worship of Yahweh in Aram would have been impossible.76 In a similar way, in the famous Moabite Stone Mesha states that “Kemosh was angry with his land” (KAI 181, lines 5–6). It becomes clear from the text that Mesha rules over the land where the people of Moab were living. This being the case, a particular god was related to the land and to the people living in that land. Moreover, the people living in the land had to worship its god in order to receive blessing. This is well illustrated in the story of 2 Kgs 17:24–33. The new people settling in the areas of Samaria had to consider the worship of Yahweh, the owner of the land, in order to have blessing.77 In section 3.3 I discussed the LXX version of 1 Kgs 8:12–13, i.e. 3 Kgdms 8:53, and concluded that present in the Book of Jashar is the idea that Yahweh managed to take control over other Canaanite deities when the Israelites settled in the land (Josh. 10:12–13). The Temple building project of Solomon was the final manifestation of this victory. 3 Kingdoms 8:53 formulates in a monolatrous spirit how Yahweh has settled down in his resting-place in the former city of the Sun-god, who apparently became one minor deity in the divine council of Yahweh. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 explains 3 Kgdms 8:53 in a nice way and shows the way in which the Temple of Solomon was understood as the place where Israelites should serve Yahweh who governs the divine assembly. Thus the concept of the divine council was related to the political importance of Jerusalem when there was the opportunity to speak about the leading position of Yahweh among other deities. Such a historical period is the United Monarchy. Thus Deut. 32:8–9 originally reflected a theological construction according to which the worship of other deities was refuted in Israel. But the passage also shows that other deities existed and were worshipped among other nations—an idea which is present elsewhere in Deuteronomy (Deut. 4:19; 29:25). Such a theological solution was pragmatic. Yahweh, i.e. Ēl Elyôn, decided that other nations might worship their own deities 76.  See also Judg. 11:24; 1 Sam. 26:19. 77.  The book of Amos contains also criticism of such a land–God ideology which was related to the kingship of Jerobeam II in the eighth century BCE. See Antti Laato, “Yahweh Sabaoth and His Land in the Book of Amos,” in Enigmas and Images: Essays in Honor of Tryggve Mettinger, ed. Blazenka Scheuer and Göran Eidevall, ConBOT 58 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 115–29.

124

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

while the Israelites should serve Yahweh and Yahweh only. In ancient Israel there was no religious philosophical school which could problematize monotheism in the discourse of Nominalism or Realism. This being the case, there is no need to see Deut. 32:8–9 in tension with Deut. 32:39, where it is emphasized: “beside me there are no other gods.” The text simply emphasizes that Yahweh will manifest his power in Israel without considering other gods.78 He does not need any help from other gods, and nor would he permit foreign gods to help the enemies of Israel defeat his people.79 He punishes his own people when it is disloyal. In the political crisis Israelites should understand that other gods in the divine council did not use their power against Yahweh by dethroning him. Yahweh himself is behind all events in the world. No god has power to annul Yahweh’s decisions because each of them is a member of the divine council and subject to him. It is worth noting that Deuteronomy 32 refers to demons or demon-like gods (Šedim, Deut. 32:17) and destructive powers under the control of Yahweh (Rešep and Qeteb, Deut. 32:24).80 Even though Deut. 32:17 states that the Israelites sacrificed to Šedim, who are not gods, it does not emphasize that other deities are demons— something which is presented in a later text, Ps. 106:37–38. The role of the destructive demonic powers which are under Yahweh’s control is used to emphasize that it was Yahweh—and not other gods in the divine council—who imposes a penalty upon the sinful people (see also Hab. 3:3–5). The later Deuteronomic Shem theology is thus a logical continuation of the theology of Deuteronomy 32: Yahweh cannot be subjugated 78.  For the interpretation of Deut. 32:39 in the context of the Deuteronomic theology and the later reception history of this verse, see Jaques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Use of Deuteronomy 32:39 in Monotheistic Controversies in Rabbinic Literature,” in García Martínez, ed., Studies in Deuteronomy, 223–41. See further the discussion in Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God”; idem, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 18, no. 1 (2008): 1–30. 79.  According to a common ancient Near Eastern pattern, a military victory was always regarded as the result of the power of the victorious gods. In Deut. 32 the problem is how to explain the military defeats of Israel. Do they indicate that Yahweh has been defeated by foreign gods? The answer is that Israel is the heritage of Yahweh who is the Rock of Israel and also the Highest God Ēl Elyôn. He governs history as he will, and all Israelite setbacks are related to its disloyalty to its Rock. 80. Belief in different demons was widespread in the ancient Near East and Israel. See, e.g., different Hebrew terms for demons and evil spirits in Günter Wanke, “Dämonen II. Altes Testament,” TRE 8:275–77. The best survey of demons in the Old Testament can be found in DDD.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

125

by other deities. When the dwelling-place of Yahweh was destroyed by the Babylonians, the only explanation could be that Zion was not—in a strict sense—the dwelling-place of Yahweh, only the place where he manifested his name. The Divine Council and the Prophecy of Doom The imagery of the divine council has also been preserved in two prophecies of doom. The use of the divine council on these occasions was unproblematic because the main focus was laid on the hubris of the enemy king and his dethronement from the divine council. Isaiah 14 contains criticism of the enemy king’s plan to conquer the whole world.81 The enemy king (with his gods) attempts to enter the divine council on the heavenly mount and take its throne for himself. By using the imagery of the divine council the Hebrew writer emphasizes that Yahweh will remain as sole king on his throne. The plan of the enemy king is not according to the will of Yahweh and, therefore, he will be cast into Sheol (Isa. 14:12–15):82 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; 12

81.  I follow the view of H. Barth according to which the core of Isa. 14 was originally addressed against the Assyrian king and only applied to the Babylonian king in the present form of the book of Isaiah. See Herman Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation des Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977), 119–41. 82. There are many ancient Near Eastern parallels to Isa. 14. See, e.g., Hugh R. Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature, VTSup 65 (Leiden: Brill 1996), esp. 120–40; R. Mark Shipp, Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21, Academia Biblica 11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Ugaritic parallels are presented in William A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 89–91. See further, Matthias Albani, “The Downfall of Helel, the Son of Dawn: Aspects of Royal Ideology in Isa 14:12–13,” in The Fall of the Angels, ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Themes in Biblical Narrative 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 62–86. A Greek parallel to the poem has even been suggested. See John C. Poirier, “An Illuminating Parallel to Isaiah XIV 12,” VT 49 (1999): 371–89.

126

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly (bĕhar môēd), in the heights of Ṣāpôn. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like Elyôn (edammēh lĕelyôn).” 15 But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

The political crisis of the people of Yahweh is reflected in the divine world where the enemy king (with the aid of his gods) has attempted to seat himself on the throne like Elyôn. All the evils that have occurred in Judah (and Jerusalem) can be explained by the enemy king’s struggle to dethrone Yahweh in the divine sphere. However, it becomes evident who the real ruler on the mount of the divine assembly is (Isa. 14:16–17): Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?” 16

A parallel text describing the arrogance of the foreign king is Ezekiel 28. The Tyrian king is said to have come to the mountain of Eden, which is also called the holy mountain (as in Ps. 48:2) and the mountain of God, and is consequently identified with the abode of the divine council (Ezek. 28:12–16):83 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: This is what the Sovereign Yahweh says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. 12

83.  The Ezekelian text is related to the abode of Ēl and in this way connected with the place where the divine council has its assemblies. Concerning this relation, see Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 149–54; Page, Myth of Cosmic Rebellion, 148–58.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

127

Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God (bĕhar qōdeš); you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created ill wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God (mēhar ĕlōhîm), and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.

The prophet applies an old creation myth to the Tyrian king and explains political events by referring to the struggle in the divine sphere.84 The Tyrian king received political power because he was created upon the paradise mountain of God. This is probably a reference to the city of Tyre being ancient. However, the Ruler of the mountain has now discerned wickedness in the king who will be driven out from paradise, thus signifying the destruction of the city of Tyre (Ezek. 26–28). Even though the imagery behind Ezekiel 28 is not identical to Isaiah 14, the principle is the same. Yahweh is the one who rules the divine sphere and no human power can oppose his plans. Formation of Monotheistic Version of the Divine Council The old Jerusalemite theological view that Yahweh governs the history of Israel as the leader of the divine council came to a crisis during the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. The concept showed its weakness in the face of the Assyrian and Babylonian imperialistic policy. Yahweh appeared to be only one minor god alongside Aššur or Marduk and other strong Mesopotamian deities. The vassal treaties where Yahweh was mentioned as one “small” witness beside Assyrian and Babylonian great gods placed Yahweh’s rule in question. Scholars have remarked that 84.  Tryggve N. D. Mettinger (The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religiohistorical Study of Genesis 2–3 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007], 85–98) speaks about the Adamic myth behind the Ezekelian text. See also Moshe Greenberg, Ezechiel 21–37, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 244–63. Greenberg compares Ezek. 28:11–19 with Ps. 82 and Isa. 14:12. He notes that it is difficult to reconstruct the myth behind the Ezekelian passage even though it clearly uses mythical motifs.

128

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Ezekiel 17 alludes to the vassal treaty which Zedekiah had made with Nebukadnezzar, and where he had promised in the name of Yahweh to be loyal to the Babylonian king (Ezek. 17:12–21).85 The institution of political vassal treaties made the theological problem of Yahweh’s governorship critical. Is it meaningful to believe that Yahweh has ultimate control when he is merely the god of a Judean vassal who is subjugated to Assyria or Babylonia? This must have resulted in a deep crisis in Yahwism, one which is not often discussed in scholarly literature from the point of view that the old divine council concept of Deut. 32:8–9 was seen to be handicapped. The political crisis led to the new formation of the divine council imagery. When the political hegemony was no longer a controlling factor of the governorship of Yahweh in the divine council, the whole concept was regarded as more or less unsuitable in Yahwism. Therefore, it was necessary to modify it in a new light, and this took place, in particular, in the exilic time. Such a new interpretation shows how central the concept of the divine council was in pre-exilic Jerusalemite theology. Scholars agree that Isaiah 40–55 is the best example of a textual corpus which challenges the existence of foreign gods.86 For my purposes in this study it is essential to see that Isaiah 40–55 contains many texts where foreign gods are exhorted to comply with the divine plans of Yahweh. The only relevant imagery for these texts is the divine council. In the divine court Yahweh can meet other gods and challenge them to speak. Isaiah 40–55 argues, however, that these other gods are not real gods. What happens in Isaiah 40–55 is, in fact, the expulsion of all other deities from the divine council where Yahweh rules as the only God. Isaiah 40–55 describes a scene where the prophet is allowed to attend the divine council and is enjoined to proclaim (Isa. 40:3–8).87 The idea that a prophet can visit the divine council is also attested elsewhere in 85. See Tsevat, “Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths”; see also Moshe Greenberg, Ezechiel 1–20, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 358–60. 86.  It is enough to refer to Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion. 87.  Concerning the divine council in Deutero-Isaiah see Frank M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” JNES 12 (1953): 274–78; idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 186–90; Roger N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl 13–14: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah, SOTSMS 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971); Kee, “Heavenly Council,” 269–70. For Isa. 40:1–11 and the connection of this text to the idea of the heavenly court, see Christoph R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 294–303.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

129

the Hebrew Bible:88 1 Kgs 22:19–23, Isaiah 6 and Jer. 23:18, 22–24. In Isaiah 40–55 the imagery of the divine council takes a new direction. In Isa. 40:12–26 Yahweh challenges the whole universe and reveals himself as the true God who can dictate the course of history.89 Westermann distinguishes trial speeches in Isaiah 40–55 (Isa. 41:1–5, 21–29; 43:8–15; 44:6–8, 21–22; and perhaps also 45:11–13) where “Yahweh and the gods of the nations confront one another in a legal process, the purpose of which is to decide who is truly God.”90 The imagery which pervades these texts is derived from the divine council where Yahweh questions the gods concerning future events. A good example is Isa. 41:21–29, which begins with an exhortation to idols: “Present your case,” says Yahweh “Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King. 22 “Let them bring them and tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, 23 tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods (ĕlōhîm). Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.” 21

88.  For this see Martti Nissinen, “Prophets and the Divine Council,” in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnari für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburstag, ed. Ulrich Hübner and Ernst A. Knauf, OBO 186 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 4–19. 89.  See the arguments in Whybray, Heavenly Counsellor. See further Jan L. Koole, Isaiah. Part 3 Volume 1, Isaiah 40–48 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 80–117. He writes (p. 81): “Now the interrogative ‘who’ is mentioned six times. Who is this Yahweh, to whom such exalted terms are applied? It is His Majesty! Compared with him, what do the nations signify (vv. 12–17), the idols (vv. 18–20), the mighty of the earth (vv. 21–24), the deified stars and planets (vv. 25–26)?” 90.  Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM, 1969), 15. See also Claus Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede (Munich: Kaiser, 1960); idem, “Sprache und Struktur der Prophetie Deuterojesajas,” in Forschung am Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1964), 92–170, esp. 124–34; Joachim Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja, BWANT 4/25 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), 42–47. For the trial speech and its connection to the heavenly council, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 176–90.

130

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The final proof of Yahweh’s power to control history is provided by the Persian king Cyrus, who will come to destroy Babylonia (Isa. 41:25–29; see also Isa. 41:1–7; 44:24–45:7; 45:9–13; 46:8–11; 48:11–16). The destruction of the Babylonian Empire (and its gods) is seen in Isaiah 40–55 as proof that all gods are powerless. They are nothing and, therefore, do not exist. Isaiah 43:8–13 illustrates this argument.91 Yahweh calls Israel as his witness before the divine court, since no other gods exist to testify to what he says (Isa. 43:10): “You are my witnesses, declares Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.” The end of the verse constitutes a near parallel to the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish I:7–9, which emphasizes the formation of the gods:92 When no gods whatever had been brought into being, uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined— Then it was that the gods were formed within them.93

This passage of Enuma Elish asserts that the gods came into being at the beginning of the process of creation initiated by the primeval gods, Apsu and Tiamat. A similar idea was probably presented in a pre-exilic Jerusalemite creation theology.94 Isaiah 43:10, on the other hand, leaves no doubt that Yahweh is the sole creator of the universe.95 No other gods 91.  The question is whether or not vv. 14–15 belong together with Isa. 43:8–13. 92.  This parallel was observed long ago by Friedrich Stummer, “Einige keilschriftliche Parallellen zu Jes. 40–66,” JBL 45 (1926): 171–89, esp. 180–81; see further Roger N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1983), 50 and 53–57 (concerning the polemic attitude against the ideas presented in Enuma Elish); Matthias Albani, Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen: Zur Begründung des Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im Alten Orient, ABG 1 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000), 246. 93.  The translation is from ANET, 61. 94.  For this hypothesis see Laato, “Adam and the Divine Council.” 95.  Note the study of Flynn, Yhwh Is King, where he argues that Marduk’s sovereign kingship in Enuma Elish was adopted in Jerusalem earlier during the Neo-Assyrian period—something which, according to Flynn, becomes visible in Pss. 93, 95–99. The question is whether it was possible to develop such a theology during the time of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian period when Yahweh was apparently regarded as a minor deity in the vassal treaties where Judah’s king promises his loyalty to the Assyrian/Babylonian king. Cf., 2 Kgs 16:8–9 and my discussion concerning Ezek. 17.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

131

were formed in this process. Isaiah 43:10 is one of the clearest examples of the monotheistic view of creation in the Hebrew Bible. This monotheistic trend in Isaiah 40–55 is emphasized by the observation that the Creator is also the ruler of history.96 Deutero-Isaiah’s message led to a radical understanding of the traditional Israelite concept of the divine council. Yahweh alone is God there, and any other members are merely angels and celestial servants of Yahweh, and not gods. Angels as the Members of the Divine Council The new composition of the divine council after the “dethronement of foreign deities” is reflected in the transmission process of the Hebrew Bible (e.g. the LXX translation of Deut. 32:8), in the book of Daniel or in Qumran’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The divine council consists of Yahweh, as the only God, and the celestial angels. According to the book of Daniel, foreign political powers are represented in the celestial sphere by their angels. Daniel 10:13 describes the difficulties which Michael, the archangel of Israel, faced in the divine court when the Persian angel opposed his plan: “But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.” In Dan. 10:20 mention is made of “the prince of Persia” with whom battle will be joined in the celestial sphere and of “the prince of Greece,” who, it seems, will come to wage war against “the prince of Persia.” Thus Yahweh as the leader of the divine council can prevail upon nations and their angels to wage war against each other and thereby assist his people Israel. It seems clear that the angels of foreign nations in the divine council are traces of an older polytheistic version of the divine council where other nations are represented by their gods. After this survey of the development of the concept “divine council” in the Hebrew Bible we are in a better position to evaluate Psalm 82 and put it in the timeline of the development lines of the divine council. 96.  Stuhlmueller has shown that creation vocabulary and imagery were used in Isa. 40–55 in order to prove that Yahweh rules in history. He formulates the concept “creative redemption of Israel” in Isa. 40–55, which implies that the power of other gods is null and void. Yahweh alone governs events in history. Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, AnBib 43 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970). Stuhlmueller writes (p. 236): “Beginning with Israel’s traditional faith in Yahweh Redeemer, but now recognizing that same redemption on a cosmic scale, Dt-Is proceeded to announce not only the cosmic creative redemption of Israel, but also the work of cosmic first creation by Yahweh. From this latter position, he could better appreciate the positive contribution of foreigners to Israel’s redemption.”

132

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Psalm 82—An Old Canaanite Concept of the Divine Council in Its Monolatrous Modification Yahweh-God (ĕlōhîm)97 has stationed (niṣṣāb) in the assembly of Ēl (baădat Ēl); he renders judgment among the “gods” (ĕlōhîm): 2 “How long will you [plur.] judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? 3 Defend the weak and the fatherless; Do justice to the poor and the oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. 5 They [gods] do not know, they do not understand. They wander in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, “You [plur] are gods (ĕlōhîm); you are all sons of the Most High (ûbĕnê Elyôn).” 7 But you will die like men; you will fall like one of the rulers.” 8 Rise up, O Yahweh-God (ĕlōhîm),98 judge the earth, for you give inheritance (tinḥal) among all the nations. 1

In its present form the psalm has been interpreted in different ways as referring to the divine judgment of judges or kings or other divine beings.99 In spite of these different interpretations scholars agree that the traditiohistorical background of the psalm is the polytheistic version of the divine council. 97.  Psalm 82 belongs to the so-called Elohistic Psalter, and it seems reasonable to assume that Yhwh should be read here. Otherwise it is difficult to understand the content of v. 1, according to which ĕlōhîm refers at the beginning of the verse to “god” but at the end of the verse to the many gods (see also v. 6). 98.  Even here it is reasonable to assume that an earlier version of the psalm Yhwh has been read here. 99.  For these different interpretations, see Julius Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA 14 (1939): 29–126; Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82,” HUCA 40–41 (1969–70): 123–37; Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 226–44; Herbert Niehr, “Götter oder Menschen—Eine falsche Alternative: Bemerkungen zu Psalm 82,” ZAW 99 (1987): 94–98; Lowell K. Handy, “Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82,” JSOT 47 (1990): 51–66; idem, Among the Hosts of Heaven, 88–92; Page, Myth of Cosmic Rebellion, 158–64; Frank-Lothard Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, HTKAT 40 (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 479–92; Trotter, “Death of the lhym.”



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

133

The psalm swarms with vocabulary and expressions which have their cognate parallels in Ugaritic material. To begin with, the term ădat Ēl in v. 1 where “gods” (ĕlōhîm) have been assembled has a close parallel in the Ugaritic Kirta epic where Ēl is the leader of dt ilm, “assembly of gods” (KTU 1.15 II:7, 11).100 In the Ugaritic texts Ēl and his consort Atirat (Asherah) have seventy divine sons (KTU 1.4 VI:46: šbm bn ṯrt) and these sons are apparently the members of the divine council. A similar image has been used in Psalm 82. The leader of the divine council is called Ēl (v. 1), or alternatively Elyôn (v. 6). The latter title is identical with the leader of the divine council in Deut. 32:8–9. In v. 6 the members of the council are called gods (ĕlōhîm) and bĕnê Elyôn (v. 6), again a good parallel to the pre-Masoretic version of Deut. 32:8–9. There has been discussion as to whether the divine title Elyôn was originally related to the Storm-god (Hadad//Baal) or Ēl in West Semitic tradition. The first alternative has been an option not only because of the use of the adjective ly for Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III:5–8) but also because epithets aliy(n) (“Valiant”), aliy qrdm (“Valiant Warrior”) and aliyn bl (“Strong Baal”) are so common for him.101 However, it is not clear in which way the latter epithets of the Storm-god are related to the divine name Elyôn. First, there is the linguistic problem to relate aliy(n) or aliyn to Elyôn. Second, KTU 1.16 III:5–8 can be taken as an example of how Baal is described with the adjective “high.” It has nothing to do with the title of Baal. Third, in the Hebrew Bible Elyôn is always an epithet of Ēl or Yahweh.102 And this relation between Ēl and Elyôn also receives support from the Sefire inscription where the divine names are paralleled with each other (l wlyn). Even though they can be two separate deities (note the w- between the names) in the text their appearance next to 100.  For these Ugaritic parallels see, e.g., Oswald Loretz, Psalmstudien: Kolometrie, Strophik und Theologie ausgewählter Psalmen, BZAW 309 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 259. Loretz notes that the translation “assembly of Ēl” in Ps. 82:1 should be rejected. I cannot see any ground for such refutation. It is worth noting that the two parallel prepositions in v. 1, bĕ- and bĕqereb, are often used in parallel in Ugaritic texts, too. See RSP I:137–138. 101.  See the evidence of aliy(n) and aliyn in the Ugaritic material in Nick Wyatt, “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” UF 24 (1992): 403–24, esp. 404–5. It is worth noting that Wyatt does not relate these epithets to Elyôn. 102.  For these different theories connecting Elyôn to Ēl or Baal, see RSP III:451–58. Concerning Elyôn in the Hebrew Bible, see, e.g., Gen. 14:18–22; Num. 24:16; Deut. 26:19; 28:1; 32:8–9; Josh. 16:5; 1 Kgs 9:8; Pss. 7:18; 9:3; 21:8; 46:5; 47:2–3; 50:14; 57:3; 73:11; 77:10–11; 78:17, 35, 56; 83:19; 87:5; 89:28; 91:1, 9; 92:2; 97:9; 107:11; Lam. 3:35, 38.

134

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

each other indicates their close relationship. On the other hand, the w- can also be waw explicativum (Ēl that is, Elyôn).103 This being the case, the most reasonable interpretation is that the identification of Ēl and Elyôn is rooted already in pre-Israelite tradition and adopted in Psalm 82. This indicates that Elyôn is an ancient title used not only in Deut. 32:8–9 but also in Psalm 82 for the leader of the divine council, who is Ēl. The essential question in the interpretation of Psalm 82 is whether Ĕlōhîm at the beginning of v. 1 and v. 8 (apparently referring to Yahweh) should be identified with Ēl // Elyôn. Ĕlōhîm takes his firm stand (niṣṣāb) as the leader of the divine council (v. 1). Parker and following him Trotter have noted that in the Hebrew Bible the verb nṣb has often been used for people standing around the king or judge (Exod. 18:14; 1 Sam. 22:6–7, 17; 2 Sam. 13:31).104 Therefore Ĕlōhîm should be regarded as one member of the divine council subjugated to its leader.105 However, the Hebrew Bible has also preserved the use of the verb in cases where someone is in charge, as is evident in 1 Kgs 5:30; Ruth 2:5–6 (see also 1 Kgs 4:5). Assuming that the tradition of the divine council preserved in Psalm 82 is old, then the semantic field for the verb nṣb must be sought from ancient Near Eastern texts. The verb nṣb in Ugaritic means “erect” (a stele)106 but Boda has argued that it can even have the meaning “to station oneself.”107 The Balaam inscription from Deir Alla provides a close parallel by using the Aramaic verb nṣb in a context which deals with the divine council: “The Shaddai gods have established a council (wnṣbw šdyn mwd).”108 It is worth noting that the use of the verb nṣb here is parallel to the verb 103.  See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 50–52; Eric E. Elnes and Patrick D. Miller, “Elyon,” DDD, 293–99. 104.  It is indeed ordinary in legal contexts that the judge sits while disputing parties stand. For this see Hans-Jochen Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtlebens im Alten Testament, WMANT 14 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964). 105.  See Simon B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” RB 102 (1995): 532–59; Trotter, “Death of the lhym,” 225–28. Parker and Trotter follow Otto Eissfeldt’s opinion according to which Yahweh is subjugated to the Ēl in Ps. 82. See Otto Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1 (1956): 25–37. See also Smith, God in Transition, 132–39, where it is noted that the identification between Ēl // Elyôn and Ĕlōhîm leads to “interpretational problems” which are due to the translatability (and its possible rejection). 106.  KTU 1.17 I:26. See Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition Part 1–2, 2nd rev. ed., HO 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 2:646. 107.  See Mark J. Boda, “Ideal Sonship in Ugarit,” UF 25 (1993): 9–24, esp. 12–13. 108.  See Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, 172.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

135

qûm (Ps. 82:8), which has often been used in the Psalms when Yahweh is described as the Divine Warrior who stands up in order to help his people (cf., also Num. 10:35–36).109 The hypothesis supported by Parker and Trotter fails not only traditio-historically but especially hermeneutically. It is hardly possible that Psalm 82 would have been preserved in its present form if Yahweh is subordinated to some other god.110 It is much easier to interpret this psalm—as many others in the book of Psalms—so that Yahweh is identified with Ēl and Elyôn.111 It is interesting that Parker refers to Deutero-Isaiah, where the “death” of other deities of the divine council has been argued. In my opinion it is precisely Deutero-Isaianic texts that indicate the ways in which the court imagery in Psalm 82 was understood in the book of Psalms during the postexilic period. Yahweh has a trial against other deities in the heavenly court where he sentences them to death. Whether such an understanding was the original meaning of traditions behind Psalm 82 is the topic I will now discuss. The verb “judge” (šāpaṭ) is used four times in this psalm and Ugaritic parallel expressions give good correspondence to them. In KTU 1.108 line 3 contains the expression il ṯpẓ, a good linguistic parallel to ĕlōhîm yišpōṭ in Ps. 82:1.112 Other deities are criticized in Ps. 82:2 as having judged unjustly (tišpĕṭû āwel). Mullen has argued that this criticism of the deities makes sense because their duty was to establish justice in the world. Every deity has his own land to rule (Deut. 32:8–9; see also Deut. 33:3).113 If they failed they can be criticized in the divine council, as becomes clear in two passages, Job 4:17–18 and Isa. 24:21, where “angels” and 109.  It is also worth noting that in the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is often described as one who accuses his people who have not followed the stipulations of the covenant. However, in such texts Yahweh also plays the role of the Judge. So even though the verb nṣb in Ps. 82 would imply “standing” (as the act of Accuser) there is nothing which speaks against the interpretation that Yahweh plays a double role as Accuser and Judge. For the use of the verb qûm related to the Ark, see further section 3.2. 110.  For this see Schmid, “Reste hebräischen.” 111.  See, e.g., the following Ps. 83:19, where Yahweh and Elyôn are expressis verbis identified. 112.  RSP III:26. The context of KTU 1.108 is an intercessory prayer to Rapiu (rpu, “healer”). Its content is much disputed and it is not clear whether Rapiu is here a title of Baal, Ēl or a deified hero/king. See, e.g., de Moor, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 187–90; Nick Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 395–98. 113.  Deut. 33:3 can be understood so that it refers to “holy ones” who are guardians of the peoples. See Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 189–90, following Cross and Freedman, “Blessing of Moses.” See also Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 66, 72–73.

136

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

“hosts of heights” are condemned. Mullen notes that even deities can be punished by death in the divine council, as becomes clear from the fate of Kingu in Enuma Elish (IV:119–128) and Wê-ila in the Atra-ḫasis Epic (I,223–224).114 Linguistically, Ps. 82:2–4 contains formulations which can well be ancient. In the Kirta Epic (KTU 1.16 VI:32+34, 45+47) the cognate Ugaritic words ġlt (“prostration, inactivity”) and ṯpṭ (“judge”) have been used when Kirta is criticized for not having taken care of the juridical cases of widows and the oppressed or orphans (ytm, line 49) and not saving them from violent men.115 Psalm 82:5 provides close parallels to the criticism of the idols in the Deutero-Isaianic context (see, e.g., Isa. 44:9, 18; 45:20). The question regarding the direction of the borrowings is essential. Deutero-Isaiah has clearly developed the idea of divine council so that he denies the existence of all other deities beside Yahweh. The criticism of other deities is based on the theological view that they are incapable of predicting coming events, let alone taking care of the future of the people of Israel. Yahweh, by saving his own people from exile, shows his power in the divine council, and other deities cannot prevent him. Is such an interpretation the only one possible in Psalm 82? That the formulation in Ps. 82:5 could be an old one is demonstrated by parallel words in Ugaritic texts. Parallel expressions pairing the verbs yāda and bîn as well as yāda and hālak are attested in Ugaritic texts.116 The death of the deities has been expressed in Ps. 82:7, ‫אכן כאדם תמותון‬, in a way which has its closest parallels in the Kirta Epic. The central plot in the epic is that Kirta has no descendants and must die before the continuity of his dynasty is guaranteed. To have a descendant was an important precondition in the practice of the ancestral cult in the Ugaritic religious milieu.117 The children of Kirta meet the report of the coming death of their father with disbelief: ap ab ik mtm tmtn, “Must you also, father, die like mortals” (KTU 1.16 I:3–4).118 Later they formulate a 114.  Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 232–36. 115.  RSP III:133–34. Concerning ġlt and āwel, see Issam K. H. Halayqa, A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite, AOAT 340 (Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2008), 142. 116.  RSP I:197–198; III:193. 117.  For this see del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 325–30; Dennis Pardee, “Nouvelle étude épigraphique et littéraire des textes fragmentaires en langue ougaritique dits ‘Les Rephaïm’ (CTA 20–22),” Or 80 (2011): 1–65; Johannes C. de Moor, “Concepts of Afterlife in Canaan,” UF 45 (2014): 373–88. 118.  See RSP I:52–53.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

137

counter-argument for their disbelief (KTU 1.16. I:10–11): “Is Kirta the son of Ēl, the offspring of the Compassionate and Holy One?” This counterargument is then combined with wondering how Ēl can allow Kirta to die (KTU 1.16 I:20–23; see also KTU 1.16 II:40–44): How can it be said that Kirta is the son of Ēl, the offspring of the Compassionate and Holy One? Or do the gods die (u ilm tmtn), the offspring of the Compassionate not live (špḥ lṭpn l yḥ)?

The story continues with the description of how Ēl takes up the case of Kirta in the divine council. Even though the questions of disbelief uttered by the children of Kirta are not repeated in the divine council, the topic of the death of Kirta as the son of Ēl is implied in the story. None of the gods in the council gives an answer to Ēl and that is why he takes the initiative and creates “a remover of sickness.”119 This being the case, it is impossible to exclude an early date for this aspect of the tradition in Psalm 82. Interpretation of v. 8 is the decisive factor of how the motif of the death of gods should be understood. There are two interpretive options to understanding the verse. It has often been interpreted as “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, you will take all the nations as your inheritance.” However, in Num. 34:17–18 and Josh. 19:49 the verb nāḥal in qal can also have the meaning “divide the land for a possession.” Therefore, it is also possible to translate v. 8 here as: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for you give inheritance (tinḥal) among all the nations.” If the translation “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, you will take all the nations as your inheritance,” is accepted, then Psalm 82 is parallel to Deutero-Isaian texts where the God of Israel challenges all other deities and proclaims them to be nothing. However, if the former translation is accepted, then Psalm 82 is parallel to Deut. 32:8–9 where Elyôn gives an inheritance (of land) for every nation and for its god. In that case, Psalm 82 reflects a pre-exilic Jerusalemite theology in which actual political or religious political crises in the world are reflected in the divine sphere. The message of the psalm is that Yahweh has control over everything. Gods who have not taken care of their duties will be “put to death” and Yahweh has the power to divide the land anew. This kind of theology is compatible with doom prophecy against foreign

119.  See Theodore J. Lewis, “The Shatiqatu Narrative from the Ugaritic Story about the Healing of King Kirta,” JANER 13 (2013): 188–211.

138

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

nations which often included a prediction of the destruction of their gods (e.g. Num. 21:29–30; Isa. 46:1–2; Jer. 48:7–9; 49:1–5; 50:2–3; 51:44–45, 47–48; cf., Isa. 14:13–15).120 This survey of the divine council implies that in pre-exilic Jerusalem the concept was used to express the idea that other deities (even other celestial beings) are under Yahweh’s control. However, because of the normative theological trends, there is no clear example in the Hebrew Bible of how the presence of other deities in the divine council was understood. Only some tentative suggestion can be given: 1. The concept of the divine council gave the possibility to interpret the dissonance between policy and theology. It was a common view in the ancient Near East that political success also implied success in the divine sphere. The divine council was useful because it was a reminder that even other nations with their gods may play a significant role in policy and subjugate Israel/Judah (cf., the Ark Narrative). 2. There is reason to believe that already in the pre-exilic period the theological version of the divine council has also been understood in a monolatrous way. In Deuteronomy 32 it was developed in the direction that the political subjugation of the people of Yahweh was not due to the impotence of Yahweh. Yahweh governs his people and can punish them; other deities do not play any role in the political setbacks of the people. Nevertheless it is accepted (Deut. 32:8–9) that they exist, but Yahweh has allowed them to rule other nations, not Israel. As I have proposed, Psalm 82 also reflects the pre-exilic concept of the divine council. The death of the deities recounted in the psalm is parallel to the form of doom prophecy against nations where reference is made to the fall of foreign deities. 3. The divine council has its abode in Zion, where Yahweh manifests his power. The origin of this theology can be found in the political period when it was possible to emphasize Yahweh’s sovereignty over other deities. This is reflected in 3 Kgdms 8:53 as I have argued in section 3.3. This being the case, the United Monarchy was a suitable period for the outcome of the concept of the divine council in Jerusalem. 120.  Duane L. Christensen, Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel: Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations in Old Testament Prophecy, Bibal Monograph Series 3 (Berkeley: Bibal Press, 1989).



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

139

4. 1 Kings 11:1–8 gives reason to suggest that Solomon’s kingship was related in a positive way to other nations in Canaan, not only through political marriages but also so that other deities were worshipped in Jerusalem outside the temple of Yahweh. In this case the divine council may have been a religious concept which related Yahweh to these other deities and emphasized his sovereign position over other deities.121 The Deuteronomistic editor understood such a tradition in a way that Solomon worshipped these deities. The tradition itself, however, probably emphasized the status quo policy which David and Solomon managed to create in Canaan. Jerusalem was the center for the United Monarchy where Yahweh was worshipped in the great temple and other members of the divine council were represented and respected outside the city.122 Next I shall deal with Psalm 29, which also contains traces of the Mediterranean context of Zion theology (as Ps. 48) and indicates how other deities were related to Yahweh (through the concept of the divine council). 4.3. Storm-God Thundering against Chaos Powers In section 4.1, the Mediterranean context of the mythological imagery in Psalm 48 was discussed. I concluded that the situation is best explained so that the mythical material was borrowed from the Phoenicians during 121.  A more detailed study should be done on how different deities are related to each other in archaeological cultic contexts. For a background to this problem, see especially Wiebke Meinhold, “Tempel, Kult und Mythos: Zum Verhältnis von Hauptund Nebengottheiten im Heiligtümern der Stadt Aššur,” in Kaniuth, ed., Tempel im Alten Orient, 325–34. Meinhold speaks about relations between deities in the categories of family, activity and function. Tentatively it could be possible to interpret 1 Kgs 11:1–8 so that other deities worshipped outside Jerusalem and its Temple were seen to take part in the divine council and ascribe praises to Yahweh (Ps. 29:1–2; see section 4.3). 122.  This way of interpreting 1 Kgs 11:1–8 may also explain why the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh mentioned several times earlier in 1 Kgs 1–11 (see 1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24) is not at all criticized. 1 Kings 11:1–8 is part of the pre-exilic tradition where right understanding of Solomon’s political marriages was still understood. However, during the time of the exile such a tradition was seen as disloyalty toward Yahweh and the Deuteronomist could not leave it in his work without criticism. For this problem note also Yong Ho Jeon, “The Retroactive Re-evaluation Technique with Pharaoh’s Daughter and Nature of Solomon’s Corruption in 1 Kings 1–12,” TynBul 62 (2011): 15–40.

140

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the time of Solomon, when the Temple of Jerusalem was built with their assistance. Psalm 29 is another text where the Mediterranean context is closely related to Zion theology. As in the case of Psalm 48, it is also possible to show that Psalm 29 contains traces of an old mythical tradition which is related to the West Semitic imagery of the Storm-god. In its present form Psalm 29 refers to other deities—apparently interpreted as angelic celestial beings—and this imagery was traditio-historically linked with the concept of the divine council (see section 4.2). The Mediterranean Context of Psalm 29 Ascribe to Yahweh, you sons of gods,123 ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength (kābôd wāōz). 2 Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due his name; worship Yahweh in the splendor of the sanctuary.124 3 The voice of Yahweh is against the waters; the God of glory125 thunders, Yahweh thunders against the mighty waters. 1

123.  The Hebrew expression bĕnê ēlîm could be interpreted as “sons of Ēl” if one accepts the idea that the last mem in the word ēlîm is enclitic as in the Ugaritic language (KTU 1.4 III:14; cf., KTU 1.40:7–8, 17, 25, 33–34, 42). See, e.g., Kloos, Yahweh’s Combat with the Sea, 16. However, it is questionable if the Biblical Hebrew knows an enclitic mem. See John A. Emerton, “What Light Has Ugaritic Shed on Hebrew?,” in Brooke, Curtis and Healey, eds., Ugarit and the Bible, 53–69, esp. 60. See also Oswald Loretz, Psalm 29: Kanaanäische El- und Baaltraditionen in jüdischer Sicht (Altenberge: SIC-Verlag, 1984), 75–78, idem, Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteigungspsalmen, 154–58. I have translated “sons of gods,” though I think that we can still opt for a possibility that the present form of Ps. 29 is the result of the standardization of the Hebrew in later exilic or postexilic period when archaic forms have been interpreted in a new way (see Chapter 2: Methodology). So Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 45–46 and n. 9. In her above-mentioned study (p. 16) Kloos notes that the expression bn ilm can be found also in the Karatepe (KAI 26AIII:19) and Arslan Tash (KAI 27:11) inscriptions, where they can be interpreted as “sons of Ēl.” In both alternative interpretations of Ps. 29:1 it is clear that “sons of gods” or alternatively “sons of Ēl” are subjugated to Yahweh. See further Ps. 89:7. 124.  Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 152 n. 28, 154–55) relates the Hebrew expression hadrat qōdeš to the Ugaritic word hdrt (KTU 1.14 III:51) meaning “appearance, vision” and gives a translation “when he appears in holiness.” This proposal is, however, unconvincing as noted by many scholars. See, e.g., Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 36–37. 125.  Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 153 n. 30) notes that the Hebrew expression ēl hakkābôd may be related to the imagery of the storm (cf., Exod. 19:16;



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

141

The voice of Yahweh is powerful; the voice of Yahweh is majestic. 5 The voice of Yahweh breaks the cedars; Yahweh breaks in pieces the cedars of Lebanon. 6 He makes Lebanon leap126 like a calf, Sirion like a young wild ox. 7 The voice of Yahweh strikes with flashes of lightning. 8 The voice of Yahweh shakes the desert; Yahweh shakes the Desert of Qadesh. 9 The voice of Yahweh twists the oaks and strips the forests bare. And in his temple all cry, “Glory!”127 10 Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood128; Yahweh is enthroned as King forever. 11 Yahweh gives strength (ōz) to his people; Yahweh blesses his people with peace. 4

The text refers to three geographical areas: Lebanon, Sirion and Qadesh. Lebanon and with good reasons Sirion and Qadesh can be located in Phoenicia and/or Syria. The clearest case is Lebanon (Ps. 29:5–6), which refers to the mountain area close to the Mediterranean Sea in Isa. 30:27). Yahweh is Ēl who manifests his power in the heavy cloud of storm. Loretz (Psalm 29, 81; Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteigungspsalmen, 159–60) has criticized Cross’s view. However, in his criticism he does not take into consideration the context of Ps. 29, which clearly refers to the manifestation of Yahweh in storm. 126.  This is another instance in this psalm where scholars have discussed whether mem in the end of wayyarqîdēm should be interpreted as enclitic. The translation of the present Hebrew text can be done in such a way that the suffix refers to Lebanon and Sirion: “Yahweh makes them leap: Lebanon like a calf, Sirion like a young wild ox.” 127.  The shout “glory” (kābôd) is related to the manifestation of Yahweh in Ps. 29:3 as well as to the exhortation to the sons of gods in Ps. 29:1. 128.  The Hebrew word mabbûl is interpreted here as “flood.” Scholars have discussed whether the reference is to the heavenly stores of waters which Yahweh can pour down and cause fertility. See J. Begrich, “Mabbūl: Eine exegetische-lexikalische Studie,” ZS 6 (1928): 135–53; Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 62–93. The view has been criticized in Dennis Pardee, “Review of C. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea,” AfO 35 (1988): 229–32; idem, “On Psalm 29: Structure and Meaning,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, VTSup 99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 153–83, esp. 171 n. 53. That mabbûl is related to the waters of chaos mentioned in Ps. 29:3 seems to be the most natural interpretation, after all.

142

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Phoenicia.129 Sirion (Ps. 29:6) is identified with Hermon according to Deut. 3:9. However, this verse also contains an interesting note that it was the Sidonians who used the name Sirion for Hermon. This being the case, the name Sirion relates Psalm 29 to the Phoenician religious milieu. Another possibility is to relate Sirion to somewhere in Lebanon because in an Ugaritic text (KTU 1.4 VI:18–21) Sirion and Lebanon are used in parallel expressions.130 In the Hebrew Bible Qadesh (Ps. 29:8) refers most often to the place name Qadesh Barnea. However, Kloos, among others, has noted that the expression midbar qādēš never occurs in the Hebrew Bible even though this same geographical area may have been referred to in KTU 1.23:65 (mdbr qdš). This expression in the Ugaritic text may refer to the desert area close to the famous city of Qadesh on the Orontes.131 Scholars have interpreted this Ugaritic expression in other ways—for example, so that qdš refers to “sanctuary” or to the adjective “holy.”132 These proposals imply that midbar qādēš in its pre-Masoretic consonantal text can be read in other ways—for example, as “holy desert.”133 On the basis of this there is good reason to propose that all three geographical names—Lebanon, Sirion and Qadesh—should be located in Phoenicia and/or Syria, and if Sirion is identified with Hermon according to the note in Deut. 3:9, then the name itself indicates that it was an ancient Phoenician one.134

129.  The meaning of the name Lebanon in the Assyrian temple-palace constructions as well as in Jerusalem is discussed more closely in section 4.5. 130.  It is worth noting that according to the opinion of de Moor, the reference to Sirion in the Ugaritic Baal myth may also denote Mount Hermon. See de Moor, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 58 n. 260. In that case the Ugaritic material would confirm in a nice way the statement in Deut. 3:9. Even in the Gilgamesh Epic Sirion and Lebanon have been linked with each other. For this see Stolz, Strukturen und Figuren, 155 n. 29. 131.  Kloos, Yahweh’s Combat with the Sea, 40–41. 132.  De Moor (Religious Texts from Ugarit, 118 nn. 8–9 and 127) translates the Ugaritic text: “Arise! Establish a sanctuary in the desert.” In his opinion, the reference may be to a sanctuary which was then established in the oasis of Palmyra. On the other hand, the passage can also be interpreted “in the midst of the holy desert.” See. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 334. 133.  So, e.g., Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 103. 134.  Note, however, that Erich Zenger maintains an opinion that the geographical references do not refer to the North Syrian context. See Erich Zenger, “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 in den Teilkompositionen Ps 28–30 und Ps 93–100,” in Flint and Miller, eds., The Book of Psalms, 407–42, esp. 414.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

143

This geographical survey indicates that many references to Sea in this psalm should be related to the old mythical motifs where the Mediterranean represents the powers of chaos (as in Ps. 48). Yahweh who manifests his power in the Temple of Jerusalem is the Storm-god who defeats the Sea. Ugaritic Parallels to Thundering of Yahweh Psalm 29 contains some striking parallels to West Semitic descriptions of the Storm-god Adad, Haddu or Baal. Abi-Milku, the king of Tyre, compared the might of Pharaoh to the thundering of Haddu (EA 147:13– 14): “who gives forth his voice in the heavens like Haddu and the whole land trembles at his cry” (ša id-din ri-ig-ma-šu i-na sa-me ki-ma Addi ù tar-ku-ub gab-bi mâti iš-tu ri-ig-mi-šu).135 From iconographic evidence Keel argued that Baal’s most important symbol was the thunder-club which he used to make the heavens rumble. He also mentions an Ugaritic text which is a good parallel for Psalm 29, i.e. KTU 1.4 VII:29–41 according to which Baal uses his voice for thundering.136 This same text, or its larger context (KTU 1.4 VII:14–52), has been discussed by many other scholars before and after Keel. Following mainly the findings of other scholars I give a translation of this Ugaritic text with important parts in the original language and give comments in the footnotes:137 135.  For this see Peter C. Craigie, “Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition,” VT 22 (1972): 143–51, esp. 149; Pardee, “On Psalm 29,” esp. 167. 136.  Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 212–13. See the translation in The Context of Scriptures 1:262–63. This same Canaanite myth of Baal as parallel to Ps. 29 has been dealt with in Pardee, “On Psalm 29,” 153–83; Dennis Pardee and Nancy Pardee, “Gods of Glory Ought to Thunder: The Canaanite Matrix of Psalm 29,” in Psalm 29 through Time and Tradition, ed. Lowell K. Handy, PTMS 110 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2009), 115–24. 137.  See the detailed analysis of this text in Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:637–96. I follow mainly the translation of Dennis Pardee in COS 1:262–63. See also his comments on the texts. Other important translations and comments on this text can be found in de Moor, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 62–65; Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 108–111. See the further Ugaritic parallels to Ps. 29 in Loretz, Psalm 29, 111–26; idem, Ugarit-Texte, 191–213—Loretz has a somewhat cautious attitude towards assumed parallels; John Day, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI,” VT 29 (1979): 143–51; Johannes F. Diehl, Anja A. Diesel and Andreas Wagner, “Von der Grammatik zum Kerygma: Neue grammatische Erkenntnisse und ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Form und des Gehalts von Psalm xxix,” VT 49 (1999): 462–86, esp. 476–80; Pardee, “On Psalm 29,” 172–76; Pardee and Pardee, “Gods of Glory Ought to Thunder,” 115–24.

144

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Mighty Baal speaks up: I am going to charge Kôṯaru this very day, Kôṯaru, this very moment. Let a window be opened in the house, yptḥ ḥln bbhtm138 a lattice in the middle of the palace. urbt bqrb hklm And let a rift in the clouds be opened, w[yp]tḥ bdqt rpt139 according to the pronouncement of Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu. Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu breaks out laughing, He raises his voice and says: Didn’t I tell you, O mighty Baal, (that) you, Baal, would come around to my word? He opens up a window in the house, a lattice in the middle of the palace. Baal (himself) opens up the rift in the clouds, Baal emits his holy voice, Baal repeats the utterance of his lips, His [holy] voice [causes] the earth [to tremble], [at his thunder] the mountains shake with fear,

yptḥ ḥln bbhtm urbt bqrb hklm yptḥ bl bdqt rpt140 qlh qdš b[l] ytn141 yṯny bl ṣ[at š]pth qlh q[dš] [wt]r142 arṣ143 ql[h ] ġrm tḫšn

138.  Yahweh’s Temple is called in Ps. 29 qōdeš (v. 2) and hêkāl (v. 9), in this Ugaritic text the terms are bt (“house”; in fact, the plural form indicates a wonderful palace complex) and in the following line hkl (“palace”). Both Ugaritic terms appear also later in the text. 139.  The lattice here is the same as the rift in the cloud mentioned in this same context. Through this window rain was poured on the earth—an idea also attested in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Mal. 3:10). Even though it would be attractive to interpret mabbûl in Ps. 29:10 as a reference to heavenly stores of waters which Yahweh pours on the earth, the word itself denotes flood and therefore a more probable interpretation for the word in the context of Ps. 29 is waters of chaos. 140.  The rift in the cloud which appears already earlier in the text is closely related to the thundering voice of Baal. Thundering (Ps. 29:3–9) and lightning (Ps. 29:7) are central themes in Ps. 29. It is possible that the Ugaritic expression bdqt rpt is a term which was developed from the lightning and which seems to open a rift in the cloud. In that case the expression ḥōṣēb lahăbôt ēš (“divide the flames of fire”) in Ps. 29:7 is a good semantic parallel. The Hebrew verb ḥṣb (“divide”) is parallel to the Ugaritic verb ptḥ (“open”). 141.  The “voice” (ql) of Baal and the expression ṣat špth (“said of his lips”) are repeated in the Ugaritic text. They describe the nature phenomenon of thundering. In Ps. 29 the key word is qôl which is repeated seven times. In Ps. 29:3 the “voice” of Yahweh is clearly interpreted as “thundering” (the verb rm). 142.  For this reconstruction, see de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, 162. This reconstruction is plausible because the same expression is also attested in KTU 1.4 V:21. 143.  The verb trr here as well as nṭṭ expresses the trembling of the earth and mountains/hills. Corresponding Hebrew verbs (rqd and ḥyl) have been used in Ps. 29:6, 8–9.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology The ancient [mountains] leapt [up] the high places of the earth totter.

rtq[ṣ ġrm]144 qdmym bmt ar[ṣ] tṭṭn145

Baal’s enemies grasp hold of the trees, The haters of Haddu to the flanks of the mountains. Mighty Baal (Aliyan Baal) speaks up: Enemies of Haddu, why do you shake with fear? Why do you shake with fear, you who take up arms against the Warrior?

ib bl tiḫd yrm146 šnu hd gpt ġr147

Baal looks ahead, his hand indeed shook, when the cedar (shaft) dances in his right hand. So Baal has taken up residence in his house.

n bl qdm ydh ktġḏ arz bymnh149 bkm yṯb bl lbhth150

145

ib hd{t} lm tḫš lm tḫš ntq dmrn148

144.  The text here is difficult to reconstruct. See Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:676. 145.  “Mountains” (ġr) or “flanks of mountains” (gpt ġr) as well as “high places of the earth” (bmt arṣ) are trembled by the voice of Baal. In a similar way in Ps. 29 it is depicted how Lebanon and Sirion are moved by the voice of Yahweh (v. 6). 146.  The enemies of Baal seek refuge among “trees” or “forest” (yrm), and it is implied in the text that Baal is seeking out his enemies and making them tremble. Similar imagery is visible in Ps. 29. According to the vv. 5 and 9 Yahweh’s voice breaks “cedars” (erez) of Lebanon and strips the “forest” (yĕārôt). This can be taken as a metaphor for Yahweh’s struggle against the powers of chaos. 147.  The theophany of Baal in the storm is understood as his struggle against his enemies. This parallels well to the content of Ps. 29. The breaking of cedars and stripping of forests are images in Ps. 29 which can be understood so that Yahweh is seeking out his enemies in the midst of the forests. In this respect the Ugaritic text according to which the enemies of Baal seek refuge in forests better explains the metaphors used in Ps. 29. 148.  The word dmrn has been the object of several different interpretations. See Wyatt, “Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” 410–12. Wyatt argues that this title of Baal can be related to the title of Zeus “Demarous” mentioned in Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History. See also the discussion in de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, 166–67; Baumgarten, Phoenician History of Philo, 195–97; Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:679. 149.  Baal shows his power by holding a “cedar” (rz) in his hand. The reference is apparently to the spear of Baal which becomes a living tree. Such a scenario is depicted in the famous limestone Stele of Baal (“Baal with Thunderbolt”) found in the large Western temple in Ugarit. See ANEP 490 and Marguerite Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 134–35. KTU 1.101:4 refers to Baal’s weapon of lightning (ṣ brq, “a tree of lightning”), which corresponds well to the imagery presented here. I shall return to this text and its interpretation. 150.  KTU 1.4 emphasizes the kingship of Baal, and the use of yṯb + l-preposition, “sit [on the throne],” is equivalent to the Hebrew yšb + l-preposition in Ps. 29:10.

146

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Is there or is there not a king u mlk ubl mlk (who) can establish himself in the land of arṣ drkt yštkn151 (Baal’s) dominion? I shall surely send a courier to Môtu, son of Ilu, a messenger to the beloved of Ilu, the Warrior. Môtu may mutter to himself, the beloved one may scheme in his gullet:152 I am the only one who rules over the gods, indeed fattens gods and men, who satiates the hordes of the earth.

aḥdy dymlk l ilm153 lymru ilm wnšm dyšb hmlt arṣ154

The list of parallels indicates that there is no problem in dating the religious concepts of the psalm to the time of Solomon. The primary motif of Psalm 29, the mighty waters of chaos, even though not attested in the Ugaritic text quoted, is present in the myth where Baal has earlier defeated Yammu and Naharu. The central idea of the Ugaritic text concerning the window which Baal opens so that rain may fall upon the earth can be derived from Psalm 29, where Yahweh’s lightning can be understood as coming from behind clouds, first breaking a rift there. Another Ugaritic text which is parallel to Psalm 29 as well as to Psalm 48 is KTU 1.101, which de Moor relates to the Baal Myth.155 Interpretation of this text is difficult as it is badly damaged towards. Fortunately, its beginning is readable. It depicts Baal’s might when he sits as the king 151.  The Ugaritic words mlk (“king”) and drkt (“dominion”) refer to Baal’s royal position in the cosmos. Psalm 29:10 calls Yahweh melek, “king,” and it is emphasized in this psalm that the whole cosmos including all deities in the divine council and the powers of chaos are under the control of Yahweh. 152.  It is difficult to decide whether the following three lines consist of the message which Baal’s messengers will “proclaim to Motu into his throat” and “inform the Beloved in his insides” (so Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:650–51, 683–94) or whether they are Motu’s own claim to kingship—which in that case could be taken ironically. Motu, i.e. Death itself, cannot rule the living ones because he can only kill. In that case Jotham’s Fable (Judg. 9:7–15) is a good parallel to such irony. Jotham argues that Abimelech cannot rule the people, but only destroy and kill. 153.  Baal is king over all other deities. The same idea related to Yahweh is expressed in Ps. 29. The psalm begins with an exhortation to divine beings to glorify Yahweh who is the king (Ps. 29:10). 154.  Baal is one who takes care of gods, human beings and animals (assuming that the Ugaritic expression hmlt arṣ refers to them) giving them food. Psalm 29 ends with an assertion that Yahweh gives strength and blessings for his people. 155.  The translation of the text can be found in de Moor, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 1–2; Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 388–90.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

147

on his mountain Saphanu.156 Linguistically and thematically, KTU 1.101 is a close parallel to KTU 1.4 VII:14–52. I give here a translation of KTU 1.101 alongside the Ugaritic text, with parallels to Psalm 29 and 48 in the footnotes: Baal sits like the base of a mountain, Haddu se[ttles] as the ocean, In the midst of his divine mountain, Saphanu, In [the midst of] the mountain of victory.

bl yṯb kṯbt ġr157 hd r[bṣ] kmdb158 btk ġrh il ṣpn bt[k] ġr tliyt

Seven lightning-flashes […], Eight bundles of thunder A tree-of-lightning [in his] ri[ght hand].

šbt brqm […] ṯmnt iṣr rt ṣ brq y[…]159

His head is magnificent, His brow is dew-drenched, His feet are eloquent in (his) wrath.160 [His] horn is [exal]ted.

rišh tply ṭly bn nh uzrt tmll išdh qrn[h] dt lh

His head is in the snows in heaven … [of] the Bull El.

rišh bglṯ bšm[m] […] ṯr it

His mouth is like two clouds […], Like wine is the love of his heart …

ph kṯ[t] ġbt[…] kyn ddm lbh

156.  See the different interpretations in Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Sieges- und Thronbesteigungslied Baals (KTU 1.101),” UF 17 (1985): 129–46; Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit; Mark S. Smith, “Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People),” in Day, ed., Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 3–27, esp. 19–20. 157.  The kingship of Yahweh is referred to in Pss. 29:10; 48:3, and the cognate Hebrew verb yāšab (cf., the Ugaritic yṯb) has been used in Ps. 29:10. 158.  Ugaritic mdb denotes Yammu, and Baal is depicted as being enthroned over his dead corpse. Psalm 29:10 contains a nice parallel to this idea by depicting Yahweh ruling over the waters of chaos. For this see especially Loren R. Fisher and F. Brent Knutson, “An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit,” JNES 28 (1969): 157–67; Nick Wyatt, “The Significance of ṣpn in West Semitic Thought: A Contribution to the History of a Mythological Motif,” in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kultzentrum, ed. Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, ALASP 7 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), 213–37. Wyatt’s article has been reprinted in Nick Wyatt, Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (London: Equinox, 2005), 102–24, esp. 112–13. 159.  In Ps. 29 the word qôl appears seven times indicating seven lightning with thunders. In KTU 101 reference is made to seven lightning-flashes and eight claps of thunder. 160.  The text is difficult to interpret and a lot of different translations exist. See Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 389 n. 9.

148

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

An additional argument for the imagery, words and expressions in Psalm 29 being ancient can be derived from innerbiblical exegesis. When Psalm 29 is compared to Psalm 93–100 it becomes clear that Psalm 29 is earlier than these “Yahweh is King” psalms.161 The difference between these psalms is well illustrated in Ps. 96:7–8a, which follow Ps. 29:1–2a verbatim, but contain one important difference—the expression bĕnê ēlîm has been substituted by mišpaḥôt ammîm: 7 Ascribe to Yahweh, all you families of nations (mišpaḥôt ammîm), ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength. 8 Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due his name.

The piece of ancient Zion liturgy in Ps. 29:1–2 has been regarded as relevant in later times but instead of preserving the idea of the divine council where other deities (interpreted as angels) glorify Yahweh, the later composer modified the text by changing its subject to mišpaḥôt ammîm. Thus Psalm 96 is a nice example of editorial work in which certain formulations in an ancient psalm (in this case, Ps. 29) were modified in a minimal way so that they fitted better to a new theological context. As far as Psalm 93 is concerned (it has been regarded as the earliest among Pss. 93–100162), I shall return to its interpretation in section 4.4. These close parallels have inspired some scholars to propose that Psalm 29 was originally a hymn to the Storm-god (Hadad/Baal) composed in the Syrian or Phoenician religious milieu and later reinterpreted to concern Yahweh.163 Empirical evidence for a similar process of reinterpretation can be found in the ancient Near Eastern milieu (see Chapter 2). This hypothesis is a relevant model for understanding the outcome of Psalm 29, but I prefer an alternative explanation. As in the case of Psalm 48, Psalms 29 was also traditio-historically linked to the attempt to describe 161.  For this see, in particular, Erich Zenger, “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 im Psalter,” in Erich Zenger, ed., Ritual und Poesi: Formen und Orte religiöser Dichtung im Alten Orient, HBS 18 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 163–90, esp. 183–85; idem, “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH”; Flynn, YHWH is King, 66–72. 162.  For this see Zenger, “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH,” 423–39; cf., Frank-Lothard Hossfeld’s interpretation in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 51–100, 446–50. 163.  See this discussion in Kloos, Yahweh’s Combat with the Sea, 15–124; Handy, Psalm 29 through Time; Smith, “Canaanite Backgrounds to the Psalms,” 43–56, esp. 48–50.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

149

Yahweh as the Storm-god and therefore motifs from the Syro-Phoenician religious milieu are very dominant in the text.164 Psalm 29 in Its Relation to Psalms 48 and 82 Psalm 29 parallels the mythical tradition of Psalms 48 and 82 in many ways. First of all, it refers to the divine council where Yahweh is a sovereign leader. Yahweh is identified with Ēl (Ps. 29:3), who according to Psalm 82 is identified with the Most High (Eljôn) and is the leader of the divine council—something which parallels Deut. 32:8–9. Other members of the divine council are called “sons of gods” (bĕnê ēlîm) if not “sons of Ēl” (Ps. 29:1). The second important detail is that Yahweh has been depicted as the Storm-god who manifests his power in storms and battles against the Sea. The preposition al in Ps. 29:3–4 should be interpreted as “against” (not “upon”). Psalm 48:7–8 refers to the struggle where the destruction of the ships of Tarshish is compared with the annihilation of the enemies of Zion. They are defeated in the storm through which Yahweh manifests his power. Psalm 29:5–6 parallels this idea. Yahweh’s voice will break down the cedars of Lebanon. The third important factor is the voice of Yahweh. The formulations in the psalm are a good example of how the ancients did not distinguish between the lightning and its voice. Therefore the voice of Yahweh breaks (šābar) Lebanon’s cedars (Ps. 29:5), cleaves (ḥāṣab) fire (Ps. 29:7) and shakes (jāḥîl) the wilderness (Ps. 29:8). All these verbs indicate that Yahweh manifests his power in the rain storm with noise and lightning. In a similar way, in Psalm 48 it is said how Yahweh’s appearance in the storm breaks (šābar, Ps. 48:8) the ships of Tarshish (made of timber from the cedar forests in Lebanon). If our interpretation is correct that Yahweh has been presented as the Storm-god (Hadad/Baal) in a Syrian/Phoenician religious context in Psalms 29 and 48, then the following question arises: Does the symbolism in the Temple of Jerusalem contain traces of this same influence from the Phoenician/Syrian religious milieu? After all, the biblical traditions

164.  Note, however, the view of Ginzberg and Fitzgerald that Ps. 29 was originally dedicated to Baal. Fitzgerald argues that placing Baal instead of Yahweh in the text it would increase its alliteration. See Harold L. Ginzberg, “A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter,” in Atti del Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti: Roma, 23–29 Settembre 1935 XIII (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1938), 472–76; Aloysius Fitzgerald, “A Note on Psalm 29,” BASOR 214 (1974): 61–63. Cf., also Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes, 29–45.

150

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

indicate that Hiram the king of Tyre assisted Solomon in building the Temple (1 Kgs 6–7).165 I shall now discuss these architectural details in sections 4.4 and 4.5. 4.4. The Great King Enthroned over Cherubim I have shown thus far that in Psalms 29 and 48 Yahweh has been depicted by the epithets of the West Semitic Storm-god. As such, it is reasonable to ask whether the symbols in the Temple of Jerusalem may be interpreted in the same terms. Today there are important parallels to the Temple of Solomon in Tell Tayīnāt, Aleppo and, in particular, Ain Dara. These parallels are interesting not only for their architectural similarities but also for the reason that each of them was dedicated to the Storm-god.166 The Representation of Yahweh in the Temple—Psalm 24 An old and important question among scholars has been how the presence of Yahweh was depicted in the Temple. Was there an image of Yahweh, or was the cult aniconic as many scholars have suggested?167 The cherub throne as depicted in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 25:17–22; 1 Kgs 6:23–28) indicates that the cult in the Temple of Jerusalem was aniconic.168 165.  Concerning the question of 1 Kgs 6–8 and its relation to the actual building project of Solomon, see the discussion in Chapter 3. An excellent study on the symbolism in the Temple of Jerusalem is Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel. 166.  Concerning the Temple of fAleppo, see Kohlmeyer, “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo”; idem, “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo,” in Kaniuth, ed., Tempel im Alten Orient, 179–218. Concerning the Temple of Tell Tayīnāt, see Harrison and Osborne, “Building XVI,” 125–43; Harrison, “West Syrian Megaron,” 3–21. Concerning the archaeological presentation of Ain Dara temple see, in particular, Abū ‘Assāf, Der Tempel von Ain Dara. The view that the temple was dedicated to the Storm-god, see Novak, “The Temple of Ain Dara.” For the importance of the Temple of Ain Dara in understanding the Temple of Solomon, see Monson, “The Temple of Solomon”; idem, “The Ain Dara Temple and the Jerusalem Temple.” 167.  As Christoph Uehlinger has rightly noted, we cannot take for granted that the Israelite or Jerusalemite cult was aniconic. After all, prohibitions against iconic cult objects indicate that they were practiced in ancient Israel and Judah. See Christoph Uehlinger, “Arad, Qitmit—Judahite Aniconism vs. Edomite Iconic Cult? Questioning the Evidence,” in Beckman and Lewis, eds., Text, Artifact, and Image, 80–112; Theodore J. Lewis, “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” in Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East, ed. Neal H. Walls, ASOR Book Series 10 (Boston: ASOR, 2005), 69–107, esp. 71. 168.  Of course, it is possible that in some circles attempts were made to depict Yahweh in some way.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

151

Mettinger has shown convincingly that an aniconic de facto cult tradition existed in the ancient Near East. There is no essential problem in seeing the biblical evidence of aniconism related to the Yahweh cult in the Temple of Jerusalem as relevant.169 The Israelite aniconic tradition in particular can be related to the maṣṣĕbôt (see further section 5.4). However, two reservations must be made. First, the second commandment, according to which Yahweh should not be depicted in any way, implies that attempts to this direction were made in Israel. Therefore, it is possible that some archaeological finds may actually be iconographic representations of Yahweh.170 Second, the biblical evidence indicates that there were different attempts to introduce the symbol of Asherah in the 169.  Mettinger distinguishes between de facto aniconic tradition (with tolerance towards iconic representations) and later formulated programmatic aniconic tradition (with intolerant attitude towards icons). See Mettinger, No Graven Image?; idem, “Israelite Aniconism,” 173–204; idem, “A Conversation with My Critics: Cultic Image or Aniconism in the First Temple?,” in Amit et al., eds., Essays on Ancient Israel, 273–96; Lewis, “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” 102–5. Contra Niehr, “In Search of YHWH’s Cult Statue,” 73–95; Christoph Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images,” in van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book, 97–155. 170.  One possible iconographic picture of Yahweh which nevertheless is not confirmed by an inscription, and therefore is an uncertain case, is presented in Garth H. Gilmour, “An Iron Age II Pictorial Inscription from Jerusalem Illustrating Yahweh and Asherah,” PEQ 141, no. 2 (2009): 87–103. Based partly on this article and other archaeological evidence Gilmour argues that the Temple of Jerusalem was “possibly even hosting an image of YHWH alongside one of Asherah.” See Garth H. Gilmour, “Iconism and Aniconism in the Period of the Israelite Monarchy: Was There an Image of the Deity in the Jerusalem Temple?,” in Visualizing Jews Through the Ages: Literary and Material Representations of Jewishness and Judaism, ed. Hannah Ewence and Helen Spurling (New York: Routledge, 2015), 91–103. The quotation is from p. 100. Other examples of possible (but uncertain) iconic representations of Yahweh are the cultic stands from Taanach. For the interpretation of these cultic stands, see Pirhiya Beck, “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 352–81; Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 318–25. Neither one of these two scholars states firmly that the cultic stands contain an iconographic picture of Yahweh. For example, Zevit writes (p. 324) that the iconography of the male and female deity in the small stand may “maximally…be identified with YHWH (or Baal) and with Ashera (or some other goddess).” In addition, he assumes that the sphinxes in the large stand “were associated with YHWH” (p. 324).

152

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Yahwistic religion in Jerusalem (I shall return to this discussion later). This means that iconic representations of Yahweh may have been current in some periods. That the cult of Yahweh in the Temple of Jerusalem was aniconic does not imply that his presence was not illustrated in any way. As Niebuhr has noted, it is necessary to distinguish between an iconic object describing a deity and aniconic presentations which imply “concepts or images that are accessible only to abstract thought.”171 When the problem is approached from this viewpoint, then the expression “Great King” in Ps. 48:2 indicates an image which implies that Yahweh’s presence was expressed in the symbolism of the Temple of Jerusalem in such a way that he was seen as a high and mighty God. The epithet “Enthroned over Cherubim” is associated with the imagery of Yahweh as king (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; Pss. 80:2; 99:1; Isa. 37:16; cf., 2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:11). That Solomon built two massive cherubim in the Debir of the Temple172 indicates that he wanted to give a more impressive picture of the greatness of Yahweh than was possible to achieve with the two small cherubim on the kappōret of the Ark. The instructions regarding the kappōret in Exod. 25:17–22 indicate that the invisible throne of Yahweh was about the same size as a normal chair or royal throne. The two cherubim of Solomon were ten cubits high and their outstretched wings were also ten cubits. The right wing of the one touched the left wing of the other, while the outer wings extended to the walls. It is therefore reasonable to think that the expression “Great King” in Ps. 48:2 is associated with this aspect of imagery in the Temple. For example, in Ain Dara the greatness of the Storm-god was described by four big footprints on the ceiling of the temple.173 The image of the great Storm-god is also well illustrated in the Ugaritic Baal myth where no god could sit on the throne of Baal. The throne was too big for them. KTU 1.6 I:43–67 recounts how Ēl and Atiratu attempt to find a good candidate to replace Baal. The most important task of the new royal candidate would be to guarantee fertility (KTU 1.6 I:47–52):174

171.  H. Richard Niebuhr, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), 120. The opinion of Niebuhr was also emphasized by Lewis, “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” 106. 172.  Note also Dubovský, Building of the First Temple, 193–210. 173.  For this see Abū ‘Assāf, Der Tempel von Ain Dārā. 174.  See the translation and its interpretation in Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 132–33; Pardee’s translations in COS 1:269–70.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

153

The Great Lady Atiratu of the Sea, replies: Must we not appoint someone as king who has knowledge and wit (yd ylḥn)? The Gracious One, the kindly god answers: One of meager strength cannot run, compared with Baal cannot handle the lance (mrḥ),175 compared with the son of Dagan how weak he is (ktmsm).176

Then Atiratu proposes that Attaru should be appointed as king but he is too small for the throne of Baal (KTU 1.6 I:56–64): Thereupon terrible Attaru climbs the height of Sapanu, sits on Baal’s seat. (But) his feet do not reach the footstool, His head does not reach the top (of the seat). (To this) terrible Attaru responds: I will not be king on the heights of Sapanu. Terrible Attaru (then) descends, He descends from the seat of Mighty Baal…

The whole episode illustrates that other gods could not sit on Baal’s throne because it is too big for them, and, in addition, the candidate is apparently unable to guarantee fertility by using the lance of Baal. The episode shows in a nice way how the Storm-god was regarded as being physically bigger than other gods. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the imagery of the Temple would also illustrate the greatness of Yahweh as the Storm-god. The idea of the greatness of Yahweh in the Temple is also implied in the vision of Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–2): “I saw Yahweh, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.” Isaiah’s vision implies that Yahweh is sitting on his high cherubim throne and only the fringes of his mantle are seen from the perspective of Isaiah.177

175.  The lance here is the weapon which Baal uses for thundering. See de Moor, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 85 n. 414. 176.  The interpretation of ktmsm is problematic. For this see D. Pardee’s translation in COS 1:286 n. 246. I take the word as deriving from the verb mss (in tD “to weaken”) and interpret it as k tmsm, “because he will weaken.” For this cf., de Moor’s translation in Religious Texts from Ugarit, 85. 177.  See Roberts, “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition,” 163–70, esp. 165; Williamson, “Temple and Worship in Isaiah 6,” 123–44.

154

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The greatness of Yahweh in the Temple of Solomon receives its poetic expression in Psalm 24. The earth is Yahweh’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; 2 for he founded it on the seas (al yammîm yĕsādāh) and established it on the rivers (wĕal nĕhārôt yĕkônĕnehā). 1

Who may ascend the mountain of Yahweh? Who may stand in his holy place? 4 The one who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not trust in an idol or swear deceitfully. 5 He will receive blessing from Yahweh and vindication from God of his salvation. 6 This is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, God of Jacob.178 3

Lift up your heads, you gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. 8 Who is this King of glory? Yahweh strong and mighty (izzûz wĕgibbôr), Yahweh mighty in battle (gibbôr milḥāmâ). 9 Lift up your heads, you gates; lift them up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. 10 Who is he, this King of glory? Yahweh Sabaoth— he is the King of glory. 7

This psalm contains two different parts. The beginning (vv. 1–2) and the end (vv. 7–10) can be related to the imagery of the Storm-god who subjugates the chaos “seas” and “rivers” under his power (vv. 1–2).179 The preposition al in v. 2 can be interpreted in two ways, so that Yahweh 178.  The MT reads here ‫ מבקשי פניך יעקב‬and it seems clear that something is missing. Therefore, it is reasonable to follow the LXX reading ζητούντων τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ Ιακωβ. 179.  According to the Ugaritic mythology the abode of Ēl is established beside great waters and rivers. For example, Marvin H. Pope (El in the Ugaritic Texts, VTSup 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1955], 61–64, esp. 64) notes that Ps. 24:2 fits well in this context. On the other hand, the Ugaritic texts also indicate that after the defeat of Yammu Baal established his throne over the waters of chaos (see KTU 1.101) and similar ideas can be found in Job 26:7. See further Wyatt, Mythic Mind, 102–24.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

155

has struggled against Sea and River and then established the earth upon them—as indicated in Ps. 29:10. Both yammîm and nĕhārôt are often referred to in Ugaritic texts as Baal’s opponents (KTU 1.2 III:7–9; IV:12–30; 1.4 II:6–7).180 The battle motif is attested in Ps. 24:7–10, where Yahweh is depicted as the great warrior (gibbôr milḥāmâ, Ps. 24:8). While Ps. 24:7–10 may refer to an actual war where Yahweh showed his might, a more natural interpretation seems to be one according to which Yahweh’s victory over the powers of chaos is described. Verses 7–10 indicate some sort of cultic procession.181 The essential focus in this text is the difference in size between the two cherubim on the kappōrēt of the Ark and the two massive cherubim which Solomon built in the Holy of Holies. The kappōrēt of the Ark only symbolized Yahweh’s throne while the real dimension of the throne was visible in the Debir of the Temple. When Yahweh returns to his resting-place in the Temple, he has to go through the doors of the Hêkal and of the Debir. Therefore, the liturgy expresses twice that the gates of the Temple are too small for him. The heads of the gates must be lifted up so that Yahweh can come inside and sit down on the cherub throne in the Holy of Holies. Cross has compared the exhortation to the gates to lift up their heads (Ps. 24:7, 9) with KTU 1.2 I:27, where Baal rebukes other gods for panicking because of the message of Yammu and Naharu: “Lift, O gods your heads! (šu ilm raštkm).”182 This parallel is certainly significant, even though no traces of other deities are visible in Psalm 24. In its present form Psalm 24 has been reworked, and the close literary connection between the continuous battle of Yahweh (vv. 7–10) and its visible consequence in creation, i.e. the subjugation of Sea and River under the power of God (vv. 1–2), is interrupted by the so-called Torah liturgy (vv. 3–6). Psalm 24:3–6 is a close parallel to the Torah liturgy in Psalm 15, which has no reference to the battle of chaos. By means of this new element in the composition, the old mythical background of Ps. 24:1–2 was also downplayed and the seas and the rivers were demythologized.

180.  RSP I:203; III:369–383. 181.  Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 91–105. The role of the Ark in the pre-exilic Jerusalemite cult was apparently related to Yahweh war ideology (see Num. 10:35–36). Cf. the idea presented by Jeremias, “Lade und Zion.” In Chapter 5 I discuss more closely how the transfer of the Ark was an important cultic event which guaranteed continuity between Yahwism and Jerusalem. 182.  Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 98–99.

156

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The Pillars Boaz and Jachin—Psalm 93 Another symbolic image of the physical greatness of Yahweh consists of the two pillars, Boaz and Jachin, which were erected in front of the Temple building.183 This tradition of erecting two pillars in the entrances of the temple was common in ancient Syria and Canaan.184 Similar massive pillars were also put in the entrance of the Temple of Ain Dara.185 Because these pillars were situated beside the massive footprints in the doorpost, one may ask whether they were symbols for the scepters (or scepter and lance) of the Storm-god.186 The large limestone stele from the large western temple in Ugarit depicts Baal standing with a scepter or thunder-club in his right hand. This thunder-club has a round head (probably symbolizing a pomegranate).187 In his left hand Baal holds a lance with a sprouting tree. A similar scene is depicted in a ceramic seal impression found in Tell Mardikh (Ebla). In this picture, the Storm-god has in his right hand a scepter with a round decorated head.188 As already noted, the scepter symbolized Baal’s power to guarantee fertility. Therefore, in Ugarit the weaponry of Baal was intimately related to fertility, as the lance with sprouting tree indicates. 183.  For different proposals to understand the names Boaz and Jachin, see Martin J. Mulder, “Die Bedeutung von Jachin und Boaz in 1 Kön. 7:21 (2 Chr. 3:17),” in Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, ed. Jan W. van Henten et al., SPB 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 19–26; idem, 1 Kings. Vol. 1, 1 Kings 1–11, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters 1998), 317–21; Christian Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion. Band 1–2, BBB 94/1–2 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 749–66. 184.  Joachim Bretschneider, Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jahrtausend, AOAT 229 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), esp. 145–53; Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, 756–61; Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel, 113–25. It is worth noting that shrine models often contain two pillars indicating that this was a common architectural tradition. For these shrine models see Kletter, “A Clay Shrine Model,” esp. 71–75. 185.  Abū ‘Assāf, Der Tempel von Ain Dārā. 186.  Cf., the Assyrian relief of the Temple of Haldi in Musasir at Urartu where two pillars of the building have been decorated by a lance (ANEP 370). 187.  It is worth noting that in Moza near Jerusalem a miniature scepter (9 cm) has been found which apparently had a pomegranate as its head. For this see Zvi Greenhut and Alon De Groot, “Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations,” IAAR 39 (2009): 149–55. 188.  Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 212–14.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

157

The pillars Boaz and Jachin can be interpreted as mythical weapons used by Yahweh in his battle against the powers of chaos. That these pillars are symbols of fertility seems evident. Zwickel has noted that Psalm 93 contains both the Hebrew word ōz and the verb kûn in a context which speaks about creation.189 This psalm illustrates how the two pillars in the Temple should be understood. More importantly, Psalm 93 also contains a clear reference to the chaos battle where Yahweh demonstrates his power as king:190 Yahweh is king,191 he is robed in majesty (lābēš gēût); Yahweh put on armory (lābēš). With strength (ōz) he has girded himself. Indeed, the world is established (tikkôn), it shall not be shaken. 2 Your throne was established (nākôn kisăkā) long ago; you are from all eternity. 3 The floods (nĕhārôt) have lifted up, Yahweh, the floods (nĕhārôt) have lifted up their voice; the floods (nĕhārôt) have lifted up their pounding waves. 4 Mightier than the voice of the great waters (miqqôlôt mayim rabbîm), mightier than the breakers of the sea192— Yahweh on high is mighty. 5 Your statutes stand firm; holiness adorns your house, Yahweh, for endless days.193 1

189.  Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel, 113–25. Zwickel develops the argument in the direction that Jachin and Boaz symbolize fertility, possibly even the goddess Asherah. For this, see further Wolfgang Zwickel, “Die Keramikplatte aus Tell Qasīle: Gleichzeitig ei Beitrag zur Deutung von Jachin und Boas,” ZDPV 106 (1990): 57–62. For criticism of Zwickel’s thesis, see Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, 761–66. 190.  See, e.g., Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes, 15–29. 191.  As is well-known, the Hebrew expression can be translated also “Yahweh has become king.” If this alternative is chosen, the emphasis is that Yahweh has defeated the power of chaos and then sat down on his throne. The translation in present tense emphasizes his royal power which he has now. 192.  It is reasonable to regroup the consonant mem from the end of the word addîrîm to the following word-pair mišbĕrê yām as a preposition (indicating comparative as in the beginning of the verse). See, e.g., Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalm 51–100, 446. 193.  Psalm 93:5 is linguistically difficult and different proposals have been made to interpret it. See these interpretations in John S. Kselman, “Sinai and Zion in Psalm 93,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts, ed. Bernhard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 69–76.

158

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Psalm 93 can be read taking into consideration the symbols of the Temple and then imagining how an ancient Israelite understood it. The psalm begins with a reference to the kingship of Yahweh and his weaponry (cf., the verb lābēš which has been used in the meaning “put on armory”). Verse 1 was understood as Yahweh sitting as king on his massive cherubim throne in the Holy of Holies and girding himself with strength (ōz hitazzār), i.e. taking his weaponry, the scepters of Boaz and Jachin, in order to establish (yākîn) the world. His opponents Rivers and Sea (= great waters) will raise their own voices (see qôlām and qôlôt in Ps. 93:3–4), but using his weaponry Yahweh causes a voice which is much louder than the voice of all the mighty waters and rivers (Ps. 93:4). It is clear that the voice in this psalm must be interpreted in the same way as the voice in Psalm 29. It refers to thunder and lightning, which are Yahweh’s weaponry against chaos powers. The word ōz (“strength”), which is attested in the name Boaz, appears three times in Psalm 29, suggesting that Yahweh can use one of his scepters as a thunder-club in order to make the voice. As in the ancient Near Eastern iconography, as well as in the Temple symbolism and Psalms 29 and 93, Yahweh’s weaponry guarantees fertility in the world. The conclusion that Psalm 93 is related to Boaz and Jachin as the scepters of Yahweh (or alternatively a scepter and a lance) used in the struggle against the waters of chaos can be illustrated with the West Semitic tradition, and especially with the Ugaritic texts related to Baal. First, in the Ugaritic Baal myth Kôtar-wa-Ḫasis makes two magic war-clubs for Baal when he defeats Yammu (KTU 1.2 IV:7–27). The dual form ṣmdm (from ṣmd) has been used in this context.194 This imagery might be relevant for Solomon’s temple-building project as well. These two maces of Baal received symbolic names—and there is reason to assume that this was the precise meaning of the two pillars in the Temple of Solomon. The names of Baal’s maces are (1) Yagarriš (from the verb grš, “may it drive out”), which drives out, and (2) Ayyamarri (consisting of the elements ay, “all,” and verb mry, “expel”), which expels Yammu.195 Where the names of the maces in the Ugaritic text emphasize the actual struggle between Baal and Yammu, the biblical tradition has related the names Boaz and Jachin, on the one hand, to Yahweh’s struggle against 194.  There is discussion surrounding how the word ṣmd exactly should be understood but it is attractive to relate these weapons to the iconographic presentation of Baal. For this see Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:338–42. 195.  Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:342–43; Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 65–67.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

159

chaos (Boaz) and, on the other hand, to his power to establish harmony in the cosmos (Jachin). Second, the epithet of the Storm-god bl ṣmd in the text of Kilamuwa (KAI 24:15–16) means “the lord of the war-club,” indicating how the scepters are a central part of the imagery where Baal struggles against chaos.196 The Kilamuwa inscription shows how the imagery of the Ugaritic texts has been transmitted in West Semitic culture later in the ninth century. Third, according to the Ugaritic evidence (KTU 1.6 I:50–53), no god was able to substitute Baal on his throne because “compared with Baal, he cannot brandish the lance, compared with the Son of Dagan, how weak he is!” The Storm-god uses the massive lance in order to guarantee fertility, and that is also the reason why Boaz and Jachin are such massive pillars in front of the Temple. Fourth, in the battle between Baal and Motu the keyword is z, “strong” (KTU 1.6 VI:10–22), indicating that the Hebrew word ōz (“strength”), used often in the book of Psalms as referring to Yahweh’s power, is of old mythical tradition. Another text which contains allusions to Boaz and Jachin is Psalm 24 (already discussed). It begins with a description of the creation: “The earth is Yahweh’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it on the seas (al yammîm yĕsādāh) and established it on the rivers (wĕal nĕhārôt yĕkônĕnehā).” The verb kûn is used here and later in Ps. 24:8 also the adjective izzûz. While kûn denotes here, as in Psalm 93, Yahweh’s power to establish harmony in the creation against the chaos “seas” and “rivers,” the adjective izzûz is used to denote his power in struggle, not only against chaos but apparently also against the enemies of Zion. As in Psalm 93, so also in Psalm 24, Yahweh is depicted as one who manifested his power in creation and established the world. Asherah in the Temple of Jerusalem? Before I can conclude the discussion on Boaz and Jachin being interpreted as referring to Yahweh’s scepters used in his mythical struggle against the powers of chaos, it is important to consider another option for interpreting these pillars.197 Some scholars have suggested that the worship of Asherah would have been an original and integral part of the cult of Yahweh in the Temple of Jerusalem and the symbolic meaning of these two pillars

196.  Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 10; Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, SBLMS 34 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 53. 197.  Concerning the scholarly discussion that the two pillars Boaz and Jachin symbolize Asherah, see Silvia Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament, OBO 74 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1987), 58–59; Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, 749–66.

160

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

would indicate her presence. This alternative has gained popularity after the discovery of the inscriptions in Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom.198 I shall therefore discuss the relevant biblical passages which may be connected with the worship of Asherah199 in Jerusalem or in the Temple of Solomon. That the goddess Asherah was worshipped in Jerusalem in some periods of history is clearly indicated in the books of Kings. There are four passages in the books of Kings that should be dealt with here:200 1 Kgs 15:13:201 He [Asa] even deposed his grandmother Maakah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah. Asa cut it down and burned it in the Kidron Valley. 2 Kgs 18:4: He [Hezekiah] removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.

198.  Interestingly, Noth referred to this possibility long before the findings of Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom. See Noth, Könige, 154, 167. After the find of Asherah-inscriptions, this same proposal has been made in many studies. See, e.g., Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 163–65; Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 57–59; Oswald Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990), 215–17. 199.  It should be noted that the concept “Asherah pole” in the Hebrew Bible can also refer to a stylized tree which has lost its original connection to the goddess. See the discussion in Benjamin Sass, “On Epigraphic Hebrew ŠR and *ŠRH, and on Biblical Asherah*,” Transeuphratène 46 (2014): 47–66. 200.  See the discussion on the worship of Asherah in Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh; Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992); Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs; Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997); Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Leslie S. Wilson, The Serpent Symbol in the Ancient Near East: Nahash and Asherah: Death, Life, and Healing (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001); Day, Yahweh and the Gods, 42–67; Smith, Early History of God, 108–47; Steve A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of Asherah: With Further Considerations of the Goddess (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007). 201.  There are striking textual variations between the MT and the LXX. See Binger, Asherah, 111–14.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

161

2 Kgs 21:3, 7: He [Manasseh] rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them… He took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which Yahweh had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever.” 2 Kgs 23:4, 7: The king [Josiah] ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of Yahweh all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley and took the ashes to Bethel… He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of Yahweh, the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah.

The first text 1 Kgs 15:14 does not state that Asherah was worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem. Maakah was the wife of Rehoboam, and 1 Kgs 14:23 indicates that Asherah was worshipped in different high places but not in the Temple. Neither does 2 Kgs 18:4 refer to the Temple of Jerusalem. The only places where Asherah was worshipped according to these verses were the high places. The situation was different in the case of Manasseh and Josiah. Both texts indicate that an Asherah pole (interpreted maximally as referring to the picture or the symbol for the goddess Asherah) once existed inside the Temple of Jerusalem. Therefore Manasseh may have introduced the cultic image of Asherah to the Temple and Josiah removed it from there. How should this Deuteronomistic view be evaluated? Olyan has warned that evidence of the Deuteronomistic History cannot be taken at face value.202 Deuteronomists opposed the worship of Asherah and therefore they wanted to relate her worship to the foreign Canaanite elements. Olyan argues that extrabiblical inscriptions show that the worship of Asherah was an integral part of the cult of Yahweh. He emphasizes that the dynasty of Jehu was critically inclined towards the worship of Baal but not to the worship of Asherah (2 Kgs 13:6). Olyan refers to the religion of the patriarchs where a holy tree plays an important role and regards such a tree as being a symbol for Asherah.203 Neither did early prophets criticize the worship of Asherah, according to Olyan. In particular, he argues that the Masoretic reading in Hos. 14:9 should be 202.  Olyan, Asherah, 1–22. 203.  Olyan, Asherah, 5.

162

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

followed.204 And in that passage Yahweh is related to the metaphor of the holy tree. Olyan takes this as an indication that Hosea did not oppose the worship of Asherah alongside Yahweh. Olyan’s theory is controversial. Indeed, the Deuteronomistic circle opposed the worship of Asherah, but to make them the first ones who criticized the cult of the goddess is a shot in the dark. The symbol of the tree in the ancient Near East is a many-faceted case and there is clearly room for the use of the tree in the cult without connecting it to the symbol of the goddess.205 In the stories of the patriarchs there is no indication that a holy tree would denote a goddess or Asherah. When “holy trees” are later condemned in Deuteronomy (16:21–22), two important notes must be made. First, the holy trees as symbols for Asherah are condemned together with maṣṣēbâ-stones. In the book of Hosea the latter ones are clearly objects which the prophet seems to have accepted (see Hos. 3:4–5). Not so with Asherah, as can be seen in Hos. 14:9 (see below). Second, the formulation of Deut. 16:21–22 does not emphasize the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. Rather, the law has been formulated in a way which may indicate that it is based on older tradition. The practice may have shown that not only trees but even stones often became objects for non-Yahwistic cults, especially if graven images were made on the stones.206 Olyan’s idea that the early prophets never condemned the worship of Asherah is based on the argumentum e silentio. The Masoretic text of Hos. 14:9 does not indicate that the worship of Asherah was linked with Yahweh. It can also be interpreted so that Yahweh himself represents everything that the people sought from Asherah. Therefore, both verbs, ānâ and šûr, are used in this verse as a wordplay for the names of Anat and Asherah, emphasizing what is said at the beginning of the verse: Ephraim does not need idols, because Yahweh is everything Ephraim needs!207 204.  Olyan, Asherah, 20–21. 205.  Cf., Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, 752: “Nicht jeder stilisierte Baum/Sakralbaum ist eine Aschere oder steht mit Aschera in direkter Verbindung.” 206.  Concerning the standing stones see further section 5.4. 207.  For this correct interpretation, see Day, Yahweh and the Gods, 57–59. Day has also demonstrated that already in an early innerbiblical exegesis Hos. 14:9 has been understood as criticism of the worship of Asherah. See John Day, “The Dependence of Isaiah 26:13–27:11 on Hosea 13:4–14:10 and Its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 357–68, esp. 362–64. For another less convincing view, see Olyan, Asherah, 21; Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, 341–43.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

163

More promising is Olyan’s note that at the time of the dynasty of Jehu the Yahwistic cult included the worship of Asherah. This theory receives support not only from 2 Kgs 13:6, but also from the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription which speaks of “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.”208 On the other hand, this view does not imply that the religious group behind Elijah and Elisha would have regarded the worship of Asherah as legitimate. I prefer the view that the Deuteronomistic program was based on an older monolatrous view that Israel should worship Yahweh and Yahweh only. This view is recounted in Deut. 32:8–9 and referred to in Deut. 4:19; 29:25.209 This old Israelite concept of respecting Yahweh as the only god of Israel is best explained as Yahwism coming to Canaan from the south210 and thus the deity was a new phenomenon in Canaan.211 208.  The interpretation of this expression in Pithos A has been intensive since the find of the texts in Kuntillet Ajrud. See John A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud,” ZAW 94 (1982): 2–20; idem, “’Yahweh and His Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol?,” VT 49 (1999): 315–37; Shmuel Ahituv, Esther Eshel and Ze’ev Meshel, “The Inscriptions,” in Kuntillet Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah–Sinai Border, ed. Ze’ev Meshel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012), 73–142. 209.  That a monolatrous tendency has been connected with Yahwism in an early period—as indicated in Deut. 32:8–9 and implied in many other poetic texts where only Yahweh is mentioned as the God who can help Israel (Exod. 15:1–18; Deut. 33; Judg. 5)—is a historically relevant proposal because we can detect monolatrous and even monotheistic tendencies in the ancient Near East long before the outcome of Israel in Iron Age I. For this, see the articles in Othmar Keel, ed., Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980); de Moor, Rise of Yahwism. 210.  For this see especially Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden.” See also Lars-Erik Axelsson, The Lord Rose up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah, ConBOT 25 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987). 211.  Johannes de Moor has rightly noted that the onomasticon of personal names indicates that the worship of Yahweh was an old phenomenon in Canaan, already before the monarchic period. On the other hand, the onomasticon of the place names indicates that old Canaanite names of deities have survived in them. This implies “a gradual, non-violent integration of the Israelites into the Canaanite world, because only such a slow development can have made it impractical to change the existing names.” De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 10–40, the quotation is from p. 39. Concerning the personal names see further Stig Norin, Sein Name allein ist hoch: Das Jhw-haltige Suffix althebräischer Personennamen untersucht mit besoderer Berücksichtigung der alttestamentlichen Redaktionsgeschichte, ConBOT 24 (Lund: Gleerup, 1986); idem, Personennamen und Religion im alten Israel untersucht mit besonderer Berücksichtung der Namen auf El und Baal, ConBOT 60 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

164

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The secondary development in Yahwism was to relate the Israelite God to the Canaanite pantheon, and in this development it was natural to connect Yahweh with Ēl. Because Asherah was regarded as the wife of Ēl she could easily be related to the worship of Yahweh. Therefore, the archaeological and biblical evidence shows that different attempts were made to integrate the worship of Asherah in Yahwism but that such attempts were also criticized from the monolatrous viewpoints.212 To conclude the discussion, there is archaeological and biblical evidence that the worship of Asherah was popular in Israel and Judah, but there is no direct evidence that the worship of Asherah would have been an integral part of the worship of Yahweh in the Temple of Jerusalem that Solomon built. Because it is possible to interpret the symbolism of the two pillars as being an integrated part of the imagery of the Storm-god, there is no need to regard them as symbols for Asherah. What is evident, however, is that Asherah was also worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem during the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:3, 7). But the textual evidence shows that a particular statue was made for Asherah by Manasseh and placed in the Temple. It was not an integral part of the original symbolism of the Temple. Aniconic Footprints in the Temple of Jerusalem—Psalm 77 The iconographic presentation of the Storm-god in the Syrian or Phoenician context was not adopted uncritically in the Temple of Jerusalem. The best evidence is the aniconic representation of Yahweh on the empty cherub throne. What makes a comparison of the Storm-god imagery used in the book of Psalms and the Syrian/Phoenician temple architecture so 2013); Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Of course, the evidence does not show that no other deities were worshipped in Israel, but the evidence clearly supports the biblical data according to which the worship of Yahweh was deeply rooted in Israel. Because Yahweh is not attested in the Canaanite pantheon, Yahwism must have been transferred from outside—something which is also supported by the biblical data. This being the case, the biblical view according to which some groups regarded Yahweh as the only God whom Israel can worship is a relevant religious-historical model. 212.  This means that I regard the idea of a “Yahweh alone” movement as relevant for understanding the multi-layered biblical evidence. Concerning this movement, see two basic studies: Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987); Bernhard Lang, Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology (Sheffield: Almond, 1983). Needless to say, I regard the Yahweh alone movement to be rooted in the early history of Israel. Cf., similar ideas in de Moor, Rise of Yahwism.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

165

interesting is the four big footprints found in the Ain Dara Temple.213 It seems reasonable to assume that these are the footprints of the Storm-god who was understood as having taken up residence inside his temple. Some scholars have interpreted these footprints as an expression of ancient Near Eastern aniconism.214 However, aniconism would be a valid term here only if there was no statue of the Storm-god inside the temple of Ain Dara. Otherwise the footprints should be taken as symbols of the way through which the Storm-god (visualized by a picture or a statue in the temple) came into his house. Taking into consideration the rich iconographic presentations which also include pictures of deities, the conclusion that these footprints are aniconic symbols seems improbable in the case of Ain Dara. Therefore, assuming that there was a statue of the Storm-god inside the Temple Ain Dara, the footprints were probably iconic representations of the process of the deity coming to his palace. Against this background it is interesting to take a fresh look at Psalm 77. Psalm 77 contains two different parts. It begins as a typical lamentation (vv. 1–10; cf. Ps. 142) but then through vv. 11–13 an apparently old mythical tradition where Yahweh is described as the Storm-god is introduced (vv. 14–20). Psalm 77 ends with an epilogue referring to Moses and Aaron (v. 21), and this addition was made to relate vv. 11–20 more intimately to the exodus tradition.215 I shall now discuss vv. 11–20 more carefully. Then I said, “This is my grief that the right hand of the Most High (Elyôn) has been changed.216 12 I will remember the deeds of Yah; yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago. 13 I will consider all your works and meditate on all your mighty deeds.” 14 Your ways, God, are holy. What god (ēl) is as great as God?217 11

213.  Abū ‘Assāf, Der Tempel von Ain Dārā. 214.  See Theodore J. Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118 (1998): 35–53, esp. 40; idem, “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” 107 n. 141; Monson, “Temple of Solomon”; idem, “The New Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel,” BAR 26 (2000): 20–35, 67. 215.  For this, note especially Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 51–100, 273–81; Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 43–63. 216.  It is difficult to see any clear parallelism here, and the verse may also be regarded as a prose introduction to the following poetic verses. 217.  Because Ps. 77 is part of the Elohistic Psalter it is possible to read here Yhwh instead of ĕlōhîm.

166

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology You are the God who performs miracles; you display your strength (uzzĕkā) among the peoples. 16 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. 17 The waters saw you, God,218 the waters saw you and writhed; the very depths were convulsed. 18 The clouds poured down water, the heavens resounded with thunder; your arrows flashed back and forth. 19 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind, your lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked. 20 Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen. 15

In the present form of the text the theophany of Yahweh in vv. 17–20 is related to a new literary context, that of the exodus, by referring to Moses and Aaron in v. 21. A reader understands the latter part of the psalm as referring to the events when God redeemed his people from Egypt by leading them through the Reed Sea (cf., the parallels between Exod. 15 and Ps. 77:14–16).219 However, without the literary context, vv. 17–20 could easily be related to the theophany of the Storm-god who manifests his power against the sea by means of lightning and thunder. Verses 11–13 are an introduction to the theophany (vv. 14–20) and in this theophany an older textual poem (vv. 17–20) has been reworked. Yahweh is called by his shorter name Yah and he is identified with Elyôn (v. 11), the leader of the divine council. The Storm-god is depicted as one who demonstrates his strength (ōz) among the peoples. He redeemed Joseph and Jacob, and this can be interpreted as indicating a Northern or pan-Israelite focus in the older tradition. While this imagery is related to the exodus tradition and Yahweh’s mighty act of redeeming Israel from Egypt, the description of theophany with lightning and thunder (vv. 17–20) is not directly connected to the events of Reed Sea. Hossfeld characterizes Psalm 77 as “a five-strophe prayer with cosmological insertion” indicating that vv. 17–20 are not originally connected with the psalm. He argues that these verses contain “the step-parallelism of its so-called Canaanite tricola.”220 The view that vv. 17–20 contain an 218.  Even here it may be that the original reading was Yhwh instead of ĕlōhîm. 219.  See these parallels in Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 49–50. 220.  See Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 51–100, 273–81. Quotations are from p. 275. A similar tricola is attested in Ps. 93:3. Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 51.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

167

old mythical tradition connected with the theophany of Yahweh against the powers of chaos receives support from Hab. 3:10–12, 15 which is a close parallel to Ps. 77:17–20 and literarily dependent on it.221 That Yahweh does not leave any footprints behind him is an interesting detail in the older core of the psalm. In this context, the victorious march of Yahweh against the waters of chaos has been described. In the Temple of Ain Dara, the victory of the Storm-god and his entering to his abode (like Baal after his victory over Yammu) has been depicted by the use of footprints. Therefore, Ps. 77:20 can be taken as an Israelite version of the manifestation of the Storm-god. The aniconic character of the cult of Yahweh with its empty cherub throne in Jerusalem is emphasized in this psalm as Yahweh leaving no footprints behind him. This is contrasted to the actual iconographic representations of the footprints of the Storm-god in the West Semitic tradition (assuming that the Temple of Ain Dara was a representative example of that tradition). 4.5. Yahweh’s Abode in Paradise In the previous section I demonstrated how the imagery of the Storm-god was reflected in the architectural details of the Temple of Jerusalem. I shall now discuss architectural details in the Temple of Jerusalem which can be related to the imagery of the divine abode of the Storm-god in the West Semitic tradition. The central Zion-related text is Psalm 46. Bipartite Psalm 46 The present form of Psalm 46 is formally a coherent literary unit which is structured by similar expressions in vv. 8 and 12. However, a traditiohistorical analysis indicates that this psalm can be divided into two parts. The first part (vv. 1–8) contains old mythical motifs which speak about Zion as the paradisiacal dwelling-place of Yahweh. Reigning in this city Yahweh prevents all attacks from enemies which are compared with the waters of chaos. Verses 9–12 are composed of references to concrete actions of Yahweh in history. In these verses listeners are exhorted to see how Yahweh annihilated the enemies who invaded against Zion. In this respect the composition history of Psalm 46 is similar to that of Psalm 48 where vv. 1–8 contain old mythical traditions and vv. 9–15 refer to Yahweh’s actions in history (see section 4.1).

221.  For this see Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk, AB 25 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 328–29; Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 53–54.

168

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology God is our refuge and strength (ōz), an ever-present help in trouble. 3 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall (bĕmôṭ hārîm) into the heart of the sea, 4 though its waters roar (yehĕmû) and foam (yeḥmĕrû) and the mountains quake with their surging (yirăšû hārîm bĕgaăwātô). 2

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High (Elyôn) dwells. 6 God is within her, she will not fall (bal timmôṭ); God will help her at break of day. 5

Nations are in uproar (hāmâ), kingdoms are moved (māṭû); he lifts his voice (nātan bĕqôlô), the earth melts. 8 Yahweh Sabaoth is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. 7

Come and see what Yahweh has done, the horror he has brought on the earth. 10 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth. He breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the shields with fire. 9

“Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.” 12 Yahweh Sabaoth is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. 11

Old Mythical Motifs in Psalm 46 The first eight verses of Psalm 46 contain old mythical motifs similar to those found in Psalms 29; 48:1–8 and 93. These motifs can be listed as following: According to Ps. 46:5, Zion is the city of God (îr ĕlōhîm) which is similar to the expression îr ĕlōhênû in Ps. 48:2. Another term used in Ps. 46:5 is “the holy dwelling-place of Elyôn” (qĕdōš miškĕnê Elyôn). The term emphasizes not only that Zion is the place where Yahweh lives (šākan) but also the holiness of the place.222 The same emphasis on holiness is found in Ps. 48:3 (har qodšô, “his holy mount”). The idea that Yahweh dwells in Zion (see also Ps. 46:5 and the expression ĕlōhîm bĕqirbāh) must clearly be pre-exilic. It is also worth noting that the 222.  The use of the word miškānôt also indicates continuity from the tent shrine (2 Sam. 7:6; Ps. 132:7). See further the discussion in Chapter 5.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

169

Masoretic vocalization of the genitive constructions in Pss. 46:5; 48:3 does not need to be correct. In both cases the root qdš can also be taken as denoting the sanctuary (cf., the equivalent Ugaritic word for sanctuary qdš). Therefore, the translations “the sanctuary of the dwelling-place of Elyôn” and “the mount of his sanctuary” could also be possible. The use of vocabulary in Ps. 46:2–8 indicates that the nations’ attacks are compared with the waters of chaos. This becomes clear from the use of the same verbs. The Hebrew verb hāmâ has been used for the roaring of waters (v. 4) and for the uproar of the nations (v. 7). In addition, the verb môṭ has been used for the tottering of mountains in the midst of the battle of chaos (v. 3) and also for the tottering movement of kingdoms (v. 7). But this same verb has also been used in v. 6, where it is stated that Zion will be the secure place which cannot totter because Yahweh Sabaoth is in its midst. Yahweh is depicted as the Storm-god who once manifested his power over the waters of chaos in creation and can now eliminate all enemy attacks against Jerusalem. The mighty power of Yahweh is depicted with the concept “strength” (ōz) which may be a reference to his war-club Boaz at the portico of the Temple. The people living in the city where the Temple of Yahweh has been built can trust that the mighty God is willing to use his weapon Boaz against all enemies.223 The assurance of the cultic community in Ps. 46:8 can be regarded as one part of old liturgical material which reflects pre-exilic Temple theology. It forms a nice inclusio with v. 2. In addition, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, according to Mic. 3:11, used a similar liturgical formulation when they expressed their reliance on the inviolability of the city. Psalm 46:8 illustrates how older mythical traditions used in Psalm 46 were understood in pre-exilic Judah. The inhabitants of Jerusalem put their reliance on Yahweh, who was regarded as living inside the city and protecting it against all enemy aggression (see also Jer. 5:12; 7:4). The identification of Yahweh with Elyôn indicates an idea that he is the leader of the divine council (cf., the use of this name for Yahweh in Deut. 32:8–9; Ps. 82:6; Isa. 14:14). Even though the idea of the divine 223.  This way of interpreting Ps. 46:2–8 also helps to understand the enigmatic verse Isa. 30:32. The reading maṭṭēh mûsādâ, “the club of foundation,” has been regarded as difficult, and therefore the proposal has been maṭṭēh mûsārâ, “the club of discipline.” This proposal is certainly a relevant possibility, but I interpret the MT reading as referring to Yahweh’s club of thundering (on analogy with the imagery of the Storm-god) which has been used to establish the creation by struggling against the powers of chaos. Thus v. 32 could be translated: “Every stroke Yahweh lays on them with his founding club will be to the music of timbrels and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm.”

170

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

council is not directly attested in Psalm 46, the Ugaritic material indicates that the assembly of gods takes place in the residence of Ēl, and this residence was located by the paradisiacal rivers (see, e.g., KTU 1.2 I:19–24).224 As in Ps. 48:9–15 so also in Ps. 46:9–12 the old mythical tradition has been interpreted as being realized in the mighty actions of Yahweh in history, apparently in the year 701 BCE when the Assyrian army could not conquer Zion. The scope in Ps. 46:9–12 is much wider than in the old mythical tradition in Ps. 46:2–8. Yahweh shows his mighty power over all in the whole world. The eschatological vision ends with the hope that Yahweh will eliminate all wars in the world and will be exalted among nations—an expectation which is reminiscent of Isa. 2:2–4.225 Exhortation to nations to understand that Yahweh alone is God and exalted among nations corresponds well to new theological thinking in Psalm 96 in its relation to the older Psalm 29 (see section 4.3). Living Waters of Zion—Psalm 46 As Beate Ego has noted, the living streams inside Jerusalem (vv. 5–6) are contrasted with the threatening chaos waters in vv. 2–4 and 7–8. She has also shown that a similar contrast can be found in Ps. 65:7–14.226

224.  For this see, e.g., Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 35–57; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 45–46; Mullen, Divine Council, 120–68; Michael M. Homan, To Your Tents, O Israel! The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 97. Note, however, more cautious view in Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 94–95; Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:230–34. 225.  I have argued elsewhere that Isa. 2:2–4 is the basic vision of the future of Zion which provides a paradigm to the whole book of Isaiah. The invasion of Sennacherib is a paradigmatic story which shows that Yahweh can realize his vision. The present form of the book of Isaiah contains two different layers of texts related to the inviolability of Zion. The historical prophet proclaimed the inviolability of Zion by referring to old mythical traditions. Some of these texts were preserved more or less verbatim while others were reworked to concern the events in 701 BCE. Concerning the central role of Isa. 2:2–4 in the book of Isaiah and the invasion of Sennacherib as its paradigmatic story, see Laato, “About Zion I will not be Silent.” For the development of Zion-related theology inside the book of Isaiah, see Laato, “Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah.” 226.  Beate Ego, “Die Wasser der Gottesstadt: Zu einem Motiv der Zionstradition und seinen kosmologischen Implikationen,” in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte, ed. Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego, FAT 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 361–89, esp. 363–69.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

171

This contrast implies that the imagery of the life-giving waters must be related to a cosmological and mythic worldview.227 The imagery used in Ps. 46:5–6 means that Zion is the cosmic divine mount that is watered by streams (so also Ps. 36:8–10).228 It is not difficult to find good parallels for such mythical and cosmological themes in the Ugaritic myths where Baal on the one hand had to struggle against Yammu (representing the waters of chaos) but then also gives life-giving waters from his divine abode at Mount Saphanu. However, this is not the most obvious Ugaritic parallel to living waters of Zion in Psalm 46. According to the Ugaritic mythology, Ēl is living “at the source of the rivers, at the midst of the springs of the two deeps” (mbk nhrm qrb apq thmtm, KTU 1.4 IV:21–22).229 The motif is old and a seal found in Mari depicts similar imagery.230 This mythic imagery is apparently also reflected in the story of Paradise (Gen. 2–3) where the four rivers cross Eden (Gen. 2:10–14). Hiddekel and Euphrat correspond to the two great rivers of Mesopotamia but Pison and Gihon have been more difficult

227.  It is worth noting that Ego notes that such a link to a mythical worldview of creation cannot be made in a straightforward manner because the present form of the psalm reflects other themes. See especially Ego, “Die Wasser der Gottesstadt,” 384–85. However, I do not regard this note as relevant in this case. 228.  Scholars have discussed ways in which Ps. 77:12–15 can be related to the cosmic rivers established in the creation. Concerning this note; see especially John A. Emerton, “Spring and Torrent in Psalm LXXIV 15,” in Volume du Congrès: Genève, 1965, ed. Pieter A. de Boer, VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 122–33. 229.  The same or a similar text appears or has been reconstructed for good reasons also in the following passages: KTU 1.2 III:4; 1.3 V:6–7; 1.6 I:33–34; 1.17 VI:46–49. See also KTU 1.100:3. For the home of Ēl, see Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 61–64; Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 35–57; Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:225–34; Herbert Niehr, “Die Wohnsitze des Gottes El nach den Mythen aus Ugarit: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Lokalisierung,” in Janowski and Ego, eds., Das biblische Weltbild, 325–60, esp. 330–39. It is also worth noting that the abode of Ēl is probably depicted in a scene of a mug found in Ugarit. For this see Marvin H. Pope, “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. Hans Goedicke (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 393–405. See also another possible iconographic presentation of Ēl in Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 47–49 (concerning the cylinder seal found at Mari). See further Christoph Uehlinger, “Audienz in der Gotterwelt: Anthropomorphismus und Soziomorphismus in der Ikonographie eines altsyrischen Zylindersiegels,” UF 24 (1993): 339–59. 230.  For this see Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 47–49.

172

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

to localize.231 Pison, which flows around the land of Havilah—a name related to the Arabian Peninsula (Gen. 10:29; 1 Chr. 1:23; cf., Gen. 25:18) or to Northern Africa (Kush; Gen. 10:7; 1 Chr. 1:9), seems to be parallel to Gihon, which flows around the land of Kush. In that case the order of the floods in Gen. 2:10–14 is: two southern rivers and two northern rivers. On the other hand, if the order of the rivers are from east to west then Pison and Gihon should be localized somewhere in Elam. There is no need to solve this problem here, but it is worth noting that the name Gihon has been used for the spring in Jerusalem from where waters flowed into the city of Jerusalem. According to the early reception history of Gen. 2:10–14 in the book of Sir. 24:23–27, two extra rivers are mentioned beside these four and the city of Jerusalem is said to be situated in their midst. Such an interpretation seems to regard the Gihon spring as identical with the flood mentioned in Gen. 2:10–14. In this reception tradition of Gen. 2:10–14 the assumption is of course that the spring of Gihon in Jerusalem was once a great flood. Such tradition is probably also echoed in some texts of the Hebrew Bible which contain an eschatological scenario: the city of Jerusalem will again become the source of living waters which flow to the east making the Dead Sea a big pool for all kinds of fishes (Ezek. 47:1–12; Joel 4:18; Zech. 14:8).232 The later biblical texts as well as the book of Sirach indicate that the living water imagery is an important topic in Zion theology. The Ugaritic material gives reason to believe that this imagery is of old mythical heritage. Is it possible to find traces of this mythical motif in the architectural details of the Temple of Jerusalem? The Molten Sea According to 1 Kings 6–7 the Solomonic Temple also had a water construction, the so-called Molten Sea (hayyām mûṣāq) which was placed on twelve bronze oxen. Its symbolic meaning is not given in 1 Kgs 7:23–26. According to 2 Chr. 4:6, the Molten Sea was made for priests so that they could wash themselves, while the ten minor lavers were used to wash burnt offerings. The Chronicler’s explanation may reflect the ritual custom of the postexilic period but it does not explain why the water construction was called yām, “sea.”

231.  Concerning the discussion, see Manfred Dietrich, “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten: Überlegungen zur Lage des Gartens Eden,” in Janowski and Ego, eds., Das biblische Weltbild, 281–323, esp. 302–17. 232.  For this see especially Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 36–39.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

173

Building constructions which contained water can still be seen in archaeological remains of ancient temples and in iconographic presentations.233 One of the most important parallels to the Molten Sea is the relief of Sargon II (721–705 BCE) which depicts the plundering of the Temple of god Haldi in Musasir at Urartu (ANEP 370).234 In that relief, two big basins of water are situated in front of the temple building, just as the Molten Sea was placed in front of the Temple of Jerusalem. In addition, these two big basins rested upon bulls’ forelegs in an analogous way to the Molten Sea being supported by twelve bull figures. Another important parallel is the big limestone basin from Amathont on Cyprus (2.2 m in diameter) which has four handles on which bulls have been carved.235 This gives reason to discuss how the water imagery is related to the temple ideology in Jerusalem, in particular. Two main explanations have dominated. The Molten Sea symbolizes the chaotic power of cosmic waters which Yahweh defeated in the creation or it is a symbol for life-giving waters which Yahweh will give to his people as a blessing. Both options are clearly possible not only in the light of the Storm-god tradition in Ugaritic texts but also in the light of the rich imagery of water in the book of Psalms.236 The latter alternative is connected with the question of the imagery of gardens which has often been related to the mythical motifs of living waters.237 This leads us to discuss the garden imagery, and especially that of Lebanon because not only Psalm 29 and 48 but also Solomon’s building project, 233.  For this see Shalom M. Paul and William G. Dever, Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem: Keter, 1973), 257–59; Hurowitz, “Yhwh’s Exalted House,” 78–79; Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “ ‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum and Lawrence E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 18–31, esp. 20–21; Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 136–44; Zwickel, Der solomonische Tempel, 125–36; Dietrich, “Das biblische Paradies,” 286–93. 234.  See further N. Gillman, “Le temple de Muṣaṣir, une nouvelle tentative de restitution,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 18 (2009–2010): 245–63; Dlshad A. Marf, “The Temple and the City of Musasir/Ardini: New Aspects in the Light of New Archaeological Evidence,” Subartu 8 (2014): 13–29. 235.  See Paul and Dever, Biblical Archaeology, 258. 236.  For this see especially Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 136–44. 237.  The basic study in the topic of gardens in the Hebrew Bible and their ancient Near Eastern background is Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000).

174

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the Lebanon Forest House (1 Kgs 7:2), relates the imagery of Lebanon to Jerusalem. How should that imagery be understood? Does it have any connection to the living waters of Jerusalem referred to in Ps. 46:5–6? After this discussion the symbolic meaning of the Molten Sea will be evaluated. Lebanon Imagery in Zion The relief from the palace of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal in Nineveh (BM 124939A) is a fine example of the ancient Near Eastern idea of how gardens and rivers were constructed in the vicinity of the temple.238 It is reasonable to assume that fine gardens and rivers symbolized the spatial place of the divine paradise. In the relief, a pavilion or smaller sanctuary has been depicted in front of the temple. A royal statue has been placed in this pavilion. Because this relief decorated the wall in the palace of Assurbanipal, the royal statue presumably depicts one of Assurbanipal’s forefathers.239 Janowski refers to an interesting Assyrian text, “The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince,” where such a garden, surrounding the “building of the holy Akitu House of the plain,” is mentioned.240 It is called “the garden of abundance, the likeness of Mount Lebanon” (kirî nuḫši tamšil Labnāna). It is significant that the geography of Lebanon has been localized in Assyria. The great and abundant cedar forests in 238.  Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 150 (picture 202). Janowski (“Die Heilige Wohnung des Höchsten,” 50–57) also discusses this same picture and its relation to Ps. 46. 239.  For the ancestral cult, see Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: Brill, 1996); John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan, eds., Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008); Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt, Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 429–73; for Assyrian royal ancestral cult, see especially Brian Brown, “Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud,” JANER 10 (2010): 1–53. 240.  Janowski, “Die Heilige Wohnung des Höchsten,” 52. See the text in Alasdair Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SSA 3 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989), xxviii, 68–76; see also Wolfram von Soden, “Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen. Nebst einigen Beobachtungen zur Vorgeschichte des Aḫiqar-Romans,” in Aus Sprache, Geschichte und Religion Babyloniens: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Series Minor 32 (Napoli: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, 1989), 29–67. Livingstone notes that “it is possible, though not certain, that the crown prince, referred to by the name Kummâ, is Assurbanipal” (xxviii).



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

175

Lebanon in antiquity certainly impressed the people who came to see them.241 This is illustrated well in the literary evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic where the cedar forest of Huwawa was originally located somewhere in the east. In the integrated Akkadian epic the place has been relocalized in Lebanon apparently because it had become known in Mesopotamia.242 In his royal inscriptions Sennacherib accounts for how he built “a great park” beside his palace which was “the image of Mt Amanus (tamšil Ḫamānim), planted with every kind of aromatic plants and orchard fruit.”243 This extra-biblical evidence indicates that Lebanon was known in the ancient Near East as a place which had received extra divine blessings. Lebanon was a replica of the divine paradise. Against this background the architectural constructions of Solomon in Jerusalem become understandable. He built a Lebanon forest palace beside the Temple (1 Kgs 7), and as Stordalen has rightly pointed out, the name cannot refer to Lebanon timber only because reference is made to “forest.”244 Stordalen also notes that the gardens were joined to the building complex including the temple and the royal palace.245 According to Stordalen, the symbolic meaning of 241.  The idea that Lebanon is regarded as the divine forest is attested in Egyptian documents where Lebanon is identified as “God’s land.” For this see Hannes Mayer, “Das Bauholz des Tempels Salomos,” BZ 11 (1967): 53–66; Frédéric Gangloff, “The Significance of Lebanon in the Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” Theological Review 18 (1997): 3–20. 242.  For this see Fritz Stolz, “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon,” ZAW 84 (1972): 141–56, esp. 149–53. See further Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. 243.  See Edward Lipiński, “Garden of Abundance, Image of Lebanon,” ZAW 85 (1973): 358–59. 244.  Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 102. It is worth noting that Stordalen formulates very carefully and warns against emphasizing the religious and mythical role of gardens beside the Mesopotamian temples too much (pp. 112–13, 160). This cautious treatment is justified by Stordalen by dealing with the garden motif in different social contexts (pp. 81–183). A good example which should be considered here is the Throne-room of Assurnasirpal II. For this see Stordalen’s discussion on pp. 94–98 by referring especially to Irene J. Winter, “The Programme of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II,” in Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson, ed. Prudence O. Harper and Holly Pittman (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983), 15–31, and also to Julian Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. Mognes T. Larsen, Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 329–43. 245.  For this connection between palace and temple, note especially McCormick, Palace and Temple.

176

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Jachin and Boaz in front of an entry hall (ûlām) of the Temple should carry similar symbolism to the entry hall of Solomon’s palace being called the Lebanon Forest House. Therefore, the two pillars should be taken as “a kind of stylized forest.”246 I have suggested another interpretation for these pillars by combining their names to the content of Psalm 93 and the imagery of the Storm-god (section 4.4). The concept of Lebanon’s forest in Zion’s topography may at first sound a little curious, but, as noted in sections 4.1 and 4.3, Mediterranean topography has been related to Zion both in Psalm 48 and Psalm 29. That the traditions of Mediterranean mythological motifs of these two psalms go back to the time of Solomon corroborates well with the name of his building project the “Lebanon Forest House” (1 Kgs 7:2). According to the Mediterranean imagery applied to the topography of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was identified with Ṣāpôn (Ps. 48:3) and beside it, the Cedar forest of Lebanon was situated apparently in the form of a garden247 but also in the form of the name of the royal palace of Solomon. Such a topographical understanding of the Temple–royal palace complex receives support from several texts in the Hebrew Bible. I shall now discuss these biblical texts. Before proceeding it is important to keep in mind the fundamental idea of how ancients understood topographical considerations related to sacred places. 2 Kings 5:17 illustrates this well. Naaman wanted to worship Yahweh in Aram, and therefore he took soil from the land of Israel and moved it to Aram. The soil was apparently used there as a basis for some sort of a minor sanctuary. The sand was regarded as making the land of Israel present inside Damascus and in this way Yahweh, who was the god of the land, could also dwell there. In a corresponding way we may assume that the planted cedars (1 Kgs 10:27) and timber from Lebanon made the image of Lebanon present in Jerusalem—a similar idea is present also in Sennacherib’s inscriptions (see the textual examples mentioned in section 3.3). What, then, is the fundamental logic behind the custom of relating Lebanon imagery to the temple and royal palace complex? The king who was responsible for the building of the temple and palace used massive cedars from Lebanon and planted cedars from Lebanon in his royal garden 246.  Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 121–22. 247.  According to 1 Kgs 10:27 cedar trees were abundant in Jerusalem in the time of Solomon. Because in this verse cedars are compared with sycamore trees in Shephelah it is reasonable to assume that the reference here is to planted cedars, not to timber used in building constructions.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

177

enclosed in the temple and palace. The garden was seen as a replica of Lebanon symbolizing the divine paradise.248 In this way it was demonstrated that the timber came from the divine paradise beside which the temple was built. A similar attitude towards Lebanon was also prevalent in Assyria during the reign of Sennacherib, where not only timber from Lebanon was used as a building material, but also the imagery of Lebanon was “copied” in the garden enclosed in the temple and royal palace complex. The imagery of Lebanon has left a great impact in the Hebrew Bible and it has been used in heterogeneous ways.249 References in the Hebrew Bible indicate that the imagery of Lebanon was part of an old mythical tradition. First of all, references are made to special trees which belong to God: Ps. 80:11 speaks about Ēl’s cedars (arzê Ēl), Ps. 104:16 identifies “the cedars of Lebanon” with “the trees of Yahweh” (ăṣê Yhwh), and according to Ezekiel 31, mighty trees grew in the garden of Eden, the divine paradise of Ēl (esp. Ezek. 31:8–9, 16, 18). The most fascinating references to Lebanon are related to the royal house of Jerusalem. In Jeremiah 22 there are three references to Lebanon (Jer. 22:6, 20, 23). Of particular interest is Jer. 20:23: You who live in Lebanon, who are nestled in cedar buildings, how you will groan when pangs come upon you, pain like that of a woman in labor!

The text is part of the doom prophecies addressed against Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah (Jer. 22:13–19 and 20–23).250 The text implies that the concept of Lebanon is used to denote the royal palace of Jehoiakim. It is hardly possible that the expression “live in Lebanon” is used only because timber from Lebanon was used as a building material (cf., Jer. 22:14–15). Rather, the imagery was used because the royal house could have been

248.  For this see Mayer, “Das Bauholz des Tempels Salomos”; Gangloff, “The Significance of Lebanon.” 249.  Stolz, “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon”; Martin Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dwight Roger Daniels, Uwe Glessmer and Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukrichener Verlag, 1991), 198–229. 250.  Jer. 22:13–19 is expressis verbis addressed against Jehoiakim (v. 18). It is noted in vv. 14–15 that he restored his royal palace. Therefore, I regard Jer. 22:20–23 as being addressed to Jehoiakim, too.

178

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

labelled Lebanon. In that case it is reasonable to assume that reference is made to the Lebanon Forest House built by Solomon. Jeremiah’s prophecy indicates that the palace was restored during the reign of Jehoiakim. Lebanon also figures in Ezek. 17:3–4; a concept which refers to the royal house of Jerusalem: A great eagle, with great wings, Long-pinioned Rich with many-colored plumage, came to Lebanon. He took the top of the cedar tree, he plucked off the top branch, he carried it off to the country of merchants, and set it down in a city of shopkeepers.

In its historical context, Ezekiel 17 is related to the exile of Jekoniah and the enthronement of Zedekiah in 597 BCE. The parable relates the royal palace of Jerusalem to Lebanon and is a close parallel to Jer. 22:23, where the Jerusalemite king is said to live in Lebanon. The third text in the prophetic literature which relates Lebanon to the royal house of Jerusalem is Isa. 10:33–34 + 11:1–9. The Lebanon imagery (with its many cedars) in Isa. 10:33–34 is best interpreted as referring to the royal house of Jerusalem. In this prophecy, the prediction is made that the royal house will be destroyed and its Davidic king will be dethroned. Only after this catastrophe will a new royal candidate from the stock of Isaiah take the throne.251 These three texts indicate that the use of the concept Lebanon was firmly established for the royal palace of Jerusalem and that this imagery is based on old mythical motifs which were used to denote the building projects of Solomon. Solomon built the temple on the Mount of Ṣāpôn, and the royal palace beside it was called the Lebanon Forest House. Closely connected with both buildings was the garden where cedar stocks from Lebanon were planted as an image for the divine paradise. The idea of living streams in Ps. 46:5–6 is best taken as a part of the divine garden related to the Temple and the royal palace. Apparently the spring of Gihon and its roaring waters were interpreted as echoing ancient cosmic rivers. Against this background there is no objection against the 251.  For this see Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 54–76. See the overall analysis of the tree metaphor and Lebanon forest in Isa. 10:33–34 in Kirsten Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, JSOTSup 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 123–40.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

179

interpretation according to which the Molten Sea was taken as a symbol for these cosmic life-giving waters.252 Zwickel discusses several cultic water constructions in ancient Near Eastern temples and concludes along the same lines as Keel that the meaning of the Molten Sea must have been similar to that in Mesopotamia, i.e. it symbolizes the living water and the ten minor lavers indicate canals through which the divine blessings of water stream over all the land.253 Psalm 65:12 may give us an idea of how the ten lavers were understood in the First Temple period. The word magāl means the track of the wagon and in this context can refer to the wagons of Yahweh when he rides in the heavens (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:5, 18, 34) with cherubim (2 Sam. 22:11 = Ps. 18:11) or with heavenly horses254 (Hab. 3:8). This being the case, the ten lavers may symbolize Yahweh’s power to give rain to the whole land of Israel from his heavenly basin of water (the Molten Sea). The Storm-god manifests his power by riding with his chariots and providing water of rains on the land. 4.6. Royal Ideology and the Imagery of the Storm-God I conclude this chapter by dealing with some examples of how the victory of the Storm-god over the powers of chaos has been related to the royal ideology. After all, the focus of pre-exilic Zion theology must also have had a political meaning and in that case it was intimately connected with the royal institution. First it is important to present some ancient Near Eastern parallels which show that such a connection between the victory of the god(s) over the powers of chaos and royal ideology was common. Some Illustrating Parallels from the Ancient Near East Mark S. Smith has shown that according to the religious belief in Mari the Storm-god Adad, after having defeated the powers of chaos, could 252.  See especially Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 142 (picture 188). So also Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 60, 82–85. 253.  Zwickel, Der solomonische Tempel, 125–36. So also Janowski, “Die Heilige Wohnung des Höchsten,” 42–57. Concerning the interpretation of ten lavers, see also Helga Weippert, “Die Kesselwagen Salomos,” ZDPV 108 (1992): 8–41. 254.  It is worth noting that according to 2 Kgs 23:11 horses were constructed in front of the Temple and dedicated to the Sun-god. Hab. 3:8 gives an alternative possibility to understand these horses. They were symbols for Yahweh’s chariots which may have also been misinterpreted as representing the Sun-god in the Deutero­ nomist’s final analysis.

180

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

bestow effective weapons on Zimri-Lim (A.1968): “The weapons[s] with which I fought with the sea I gave to you.”255 This text indicates that the myth of the victory of the Storm-god over the powers of chaos had a concrete political dimension. The god who once manifested his power in creation could help the king. The text also implies how easily the political enemies could have been related to the powers of chaos. In the same way as Adad once defeated the waters of chaos in the process of creation, he now guarantees victory for the king by bestowing his effective weapons, which Zimri-lim can use in his wars against enemies. Another letter from the archive of Mari which was sent to Yashub-Yahad (king of Dir) from Yarim-lim (king of Aleppo) declares that Adad supported him by giving him his powerful weapons: “I will show you the terrible weapons of Addu and of Yarim-lim.”256 The New Year’s Temple text of Sennacherib (K 1356) is another interesting example of how the divine struggle against the powers of chaos is related to the royal ideology.257 According to this text, Sennacherib built the Akitu House and depicted the battle between Aššur and Tiamat on its gate.258 Aššur is followed by his entourage while Tiamat has her own horde of monsters. Sennacherib says that he built the Akitu House and made the skilled metalwork of a picture of tin at the command of the gods, Šamaš and Adad. At the end of the inscription it becomes clear that Sennacherib also made his own image next to that of Aššur. The message of the picture in the light of this text is quite clear: As Aššur once defeated the chaotic powers of Tiamat he can now assist Sennacherib when the Assyrian king wages war against his enemies.

255.  Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 158–59; idem, Early History of God, 94–95. See further the analysis of A.1968 in Malamat, Mari and the Bible, 157–62; Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 59–63. The translation of the Mari prophecy A.1968 is from J. J. M. Roberts, Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 166–69. 256.  Smith, Early History of God, 95–96. 257.  See this text in Grayson and Novotny, Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, 2:222–25. See further Jamie Novotny, “Temple Building in Assyria: Evidence from Royal Inscriptions,” in Boda and Novotny, eds., From the Foundations to the Crenellations, 109–39, esp. 132. 258.  The text was written after the destruction of Babylon in 689 BCE and shows an Assyrian tendency to reinterpret Enuma Elish as Aššur’s (i.o. Marduk’s) struggle against Tiamat. For the Assyrian recension of Enuma Elish, see Lambert, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma eliš”; idem, Babylonian Creation Myths.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

181

A Theophany of the Storm-God and the Eternal Dynasty of David— Psalm 89 Psalm 89 is a literary unit composed under the influence of the Deuterono­ mistic theology.259 The psalm combines the promise of the eternal dynasty of David (vv. 20–38) with a theophany of Yahweh where Yahweh is depicted according to the imagery of the Storm-god (vv. 6–19). This combination of theophany (old mythical tradition) and dynastic promise (also an old tradition) is then used to describe an actual crisis at the time of the exile if not after the death of Josiah (vv. 39–55).260 The heavens praise your wonders, Yahweh, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones (biqhal qĕdōšîm). 7 For who in the clouds can compare with Yahweh? Who is like Yahweh among the sons of gods (bibnê ēlîm)? 8 In the council of the holy ones (bĕsôd qĕdōšîm) God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. 9 Yahweh God Sabaoth, who is like you in mighty, Yah? Your faithfulness surrounds you. 10 You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. 11 You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm (bizrôac uzzĕkā) you scattered your enemies. 12 The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it. 13 You created Ṣāpôn and Yāmîn;261 Tabor and Hermon sing for joy at your name. 14 Your arm is endowed with power; your hand is strong, you have lifted up your right hand (tāōz yādĕkā tārûm yĕmînekā). 6

259.  See Mettinger, King and Messiah, 254–93; T. Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms, AASF B 220 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982). 260.  See Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 59–68. 261.  Koch (“Ḫazzi—Ṣafôn—Kasion,” 176–78) has argued that we should interpret the Hebrew words Ṣāpôn and Yāmîn as the names of the mounts as Tabor and Hermon in the end of the verse. Yāmîn could be the Mount of Teman from where Yahweh comes according to Hab. 3:3 and where Yahweh has been located in the inscription of Pithos B of Kuntillet Ajrud. Even Jub. 4:25–26 mention four cosmic mounts: Eden, Sinai, Zion and “the Mount in the South.” This mount in the South could therefore be Yāmîn in Ps. 89:13.

182

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. 16 Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, Yahweh. 17 They rejoice in your name all day long; they celebrate your righteousness. 18 For you are their glory and strength (uzzāmô), and by your favor you exalt our horn. 19 Indeed, our shield belongs to Yahweh, our king to the Holy One of Israel. 15

Yahweh here is depicted as the sovereign leader in the council of the divine beings. It is reasonable to assume that this divine council holds the meeting on the holy mount Ṣāpôn as mentioned first in v. 13. The word Yāmîn probably refers to the mount in Teman in the south and could play a similar role as Sinai or Horeb in other biblical traditions which place Yahweh’s coming from the South. Psalm 89:13 therefore expresses an old idea that Yahweh who once manifested his power in the South (Yāmîn, Teman, Sinai or Horeb) has then taken his abode in Zion (see further Ps. 68 and Chapter 6). Tabor and Hermon accept this sovereignty of Zion by singing with joy at the name of Yahweh who manifests his power in Jerusalem. Another peculiar idea in this theophany is the depiction of Yahweh as the Storm-god who has lifted up his right hand and is ready to destroy the powers of chaos. The deity with his right arm lifted up is a typical iconographic presentation for the Storm-god.262 The keyword for the manifestation of Yahweh’s power is the word ōz (“strength”), which is an allusion to the pillar Boaz which symbolizes the scepter of Yahweh used in his fight against the powers of chaos. Later in Ps. 89:26, Yahweh’s victory over the powers of chaos also merits the Davidic king: “I will set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers.”263 Psalm 89 has preserved an old pre-exilic idea of how the Jerusalemite king can take part in the victory of the Storm-god against the powers of chaos. Similar theology can be detected in two royal psalms, Psalms 2 and 110, which are connected with the enthronement ritual.

262.  See, e.g., picture 291 (from Ugarit) in Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 213, or the bronze statue of Baal from Megiddo in Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 116–17. 263.  For this connection, see especially Smith, Early History of God, 91–101.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

183

The Enthronement Ritual—Psalm 110 and Psalm 2 Psalm 110 is a difficult text from the point of textual criticism.264 The Masoretic text has been reworked for theological reasons especially in v. 3. The LXX reading indicates that in v. 3, the idea of “birth” as a metaphor for the adoption in the enthronement ritual has been visible. This being the case I shall present a translation of Psalm 110 which is based on these textual critical and literary critical considerations. Yahweh says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” 2 Yahweh will extend the scepter of your strength (maṭṭēh uzzĕkā) from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of your enemies!” 3 Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. On the mountains of holiness, from the bosom of the dawn I have given birth to you like the dew.265 4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 1

264.  For this see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, 198–201. Note especially the important study of Miriam von Nordheim, Geboren von der Morgenröte? Psalm 110 in Tradition, Redaktion und Rezeption, WMANT 117 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu­kirchener, 2008), where the discussion is related to the reception history of Ps. 110. 265.  Verse 3b is textually extremely difficult as differences between the MT and the LXX indicate. The translation is based on the reading yrrhb (cf., Deut. 33:15) instead of yrdhb and this reading is attested in many MT manuscripts as well as in Symmachus. Another reading in v. 3 is the vocalization yĕlidtîkā, which can be justified by the translation of the LXX: exegennēsa se. In addition, the proposals of BHS that the first mem in the word mišḥar should be deleted because of dittography and the reading kĕṭal (instead of the MT lĕkā ṭal) is to be preferred are followed. The alternative is that mišḥar is a variant form for šaḥar. For discussion of the textual problem in this verse, see Hartmut Gese, “Natus ex Virgine,” in Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie, 73–89, esp. 81 n. 21; Kraus, Psalmen 60–150, 926–27; T. Booij, “Psalm CX: ‘Rule in the Midst of Your Foes!’,” VT 41 (1991): 396–407, esp. 397–401; von Nordheim, Geboren von der Morgenröte?, 25–29, 80–90; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, 199–201. The present form of the MT (which is readable as Zenger notes in his commentary with Hossfeld) is probably an attempt to avoid mythical motifs which may give an idea that the human king could be divine.

184

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” 5 The Lord (ădōnāy) is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. 6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. 7 He will drink from a brook (minnaḥal) along the way, and so he will lift his head high.

As reconstructed above, Psalm 110 should be understood as a text where old traces of a royal enthronement ritual have been preserved. The text reveals some interesting indications that Yahweh is depicted here as a Storm-god who adopts the new king as his own. First, the motif that the king is allowed to take seat at the right hand of the god is old in the ancient Near East and there are many Egyptian iconographic examples where the Pharaoh had the privilege of sitting at the right hand of the god.266 This motif is also present in the Ugaritic Baal myth (KTU 1.4.rev.V:46–48: tdb ksu wyṯ ṯb lymn aliyn bl, “A throne was prepared and he [Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu] was seated at the right hand of Mightiest Baal”). This being the case the motif of sitting at the right hand of the god also fits well to the tradition of the Storm-god. It is perhaps important to note that Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu was the builder of the temple of Baal, and in a similar way Davidic kings took care of the building and the restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem. The second important detail is the scepter of strength which Yahweh gives to the king. The text refers to the scepter being given from Zion, i.e. from the abode of Yahweh, and it is called “the scepter of your strength” (maṭṭēh uzzĕkā). An allusion to the scepter of Yahweh, used to establish balance in nature as well as to defeat the enemies of Zion, is apparent (cf., also the Mari parallel quoted earlier). The keyword ōz is used several times in the psalms when Yahweh is depicted as the Storm-god. Assuming that in the pre-exilic period the enthronement ritual took place in the Temple (so 2 Kgs 11), both the throne of Yahweh upon the two massive cherubim and the scepter of strength (the pillar Boaz) were present. The third important point is v. 3, although the reading presented above is based on a textual reconstruction. According to this verse the enthronement ritual was connected with the mythical motif of the birth of the king. In Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.23) the twin gods Šaḥar and Šalim are associated with the mythic sphere of Ēl. They were born after Ēl made 266.  For these pictures see, e.g., Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 263; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, 204.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

185

love to his two wives. This being the case, Yahweh is described in v. 3 as the god Ēl. What exactly the birth from “the bosom of the dawn” means is not very clear, but a similar expression is used for the Babylonian king in Isa. 14:12–15, according to which he is called hêlēl ben šāḥar, “Morning star, Son of the Dawn.” Could the two titles for the foreign king in Isaiah 14 also originate from the enthronement ritual? The dawn might refer to the death of an old passed king and thus the term “son of the Dawn” to the continuity of the dynasty, while the “morning star” might refer to the new king himself. If this is the case, then the imagery used in Ps. 110:3 is rooted in a mythical idea that the passed king was taken among his fathers and the new king was born.267 These mythical motifs were, then, one reason why the Masoretes regarded it as necessary to rework the text. The fourth aspect to be considered is the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. Genesis 14:18–22 relates Melchizedek to the worship of Ēl Ēlyôn, and it has already become clear that this divine name is related to Yahweh depicted as the leader of the divine council or Yahweh depicted as the Storm-god.268 Fifth, according to vv. 5–6, Yahweh struggles against the enemies of the king. This aspect is dominant in Zion theology according to which Yahweh’s mighty power over the waters of chaos is manifested at a political level. The enemies of Zion are compared with the chaotic powers which will be eliminated. Sixth, Ps. 110:7 contains a relevant reference to the enthronement ritual according to which the enthroned king drank from the brook. The Hebrew term naḥal (“brook”) has been used for the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 2:37) where the coronation of Solomon took place (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 45). Therefore, the drinking of the water probably took place at the Spring of Gihon. In the ritual, the water symbolizes the living water from the divine mount—the imagery used in Ps. 46:5. It was hoped that the king would live a long life when he drinks this living water streaming from the divine world—something which is also expressed in the coronation of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:34, 39): “Long live, king Solomon!”

267.  Cf., the royal rituals in Ugarit in del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 166–212. 268.  The god Šaḫru (probably same as the Ugaritic Šaḥar, “Dawn”) played a role in the installation of the high priestess of Baal at Emar. See Daniel E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, HSS 42 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 79. This is an interesting detail of comparison and indicates that the installation of the Davidic king as the priest according to the order of Melchizedek contains similar imagery (see Ps. 110:3).

186

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Another enthronement ritual, namely Psalm 2, contains similar motifs to Psalm 110, even though its general setting is different. While Psalm 110 localizes the throne of Yahweh in Zion (v. 1) from where he gives “the scepter of your strength” (maṭṭēh uzzĕkā) to the Davidic king (v. 2), in Psalm 2 the throne of Yahweh is in Heaven (Ps. 2:4: yôšēb baššāmayim, “he who is enthroned in the Heaven”). Zion is only the place where Yahweh allows the Davidic king to rule: “I have installed (nissaktî) my king upon Zion, my holy Mount” (Ps. 2:6). Yahweh gives the Davidic king the scepter of iron (šēbeṭ barzel) which he can use to annihilate his enemies (Ps. 2:9). The keyword ōz alluding to the pillar Boaz is no longer used in the psalm. These details may indicate that Psalm 2 in its present form is late—even though its contents reflect traces of older Jerusalemite royal ideology. 4.7. Summary and Conclusions In this chapter I have dealt with some texts from the book of Psalms which depict Yahweh as the Storm-god. I have argued that there are several reasons to regard these psalms as containing traces of old mythical texts which once constituted the basic ideas in Zion theology from the time of Solomon. The following criteria have been used for regarding this theology as old: First, it has been demonstrated that these psalms reflect well the mythical motifs in the West Semitic culture. It is not only a question of mythical themes but also linguistic parallels where cognate Hebrew words were chosen and used to express similar mythical motifs to those found mainly in the Ugaritic texts. The most significant element in Zion theology is that Yahweh has been depicted with the typical epithets pertaining to the West Semitic (Syrian/Phoenician) Storm-god. This evidence indicates that general outlines of the Zion theology of Solomon can be regarded as constituted by elements which de facto were known in the West Semitic world and were therefore also relevant in the reign of Solomon. Of course, it is necessary to assume that someone did the creative work and associated Yahweh with this mythical material. Second, I have argued that Mediterranean topography was applied to Zion during the time of Solomon when the Temple was built with the assistance of Hiram, the king of Tyre (especially in Pss. 48 and 29). Such borrowings from the Syro-Phoenician religious milieu are difficult to explain in a much later period when Yahwism was modified in clear monotheistic lines and separated from other religions.



4. The Storm-God and Zion Theology

187

Third, I have demonstrated in several cases that the texts related to Zion theology from the reign of Solomon contain old religious concepts which were modified or reinterpreted in later times, showing again how difficult it is to assume that these concepts could have been composed in later times. Among these old concepts are the ideas that Yahweh dwells on the Mount of Zion,269 Yahweh is the leader of the divine council270 and Yahweh is the great king whose throne is upon the cherubim.271 As far as the date of these details is concerned, I have argued that the astral orientation of religions in Syria and Canaan during the eighth and seventh centuries BCE (as influenced by Assyrian and Babylonian religions) made it difficult to develop such religious concepts in Jerusalem which were based on the idea that Yahweh dwells on the divine mount. To the same conclusion speaks also the development of the idea of the divine council, which I have dealt with in detail. In the early stages of the concept of the divine council the leadership of Yahweh was emphasized and the existence of other deities accepted; yet, during the exile the divinity of other deities was rejected, as shown by many texts in Isaiah 40–55. Fourth, I have presented many relevant correspondences between the content of the Zion theology of Solomon and the architectural details of the Temple presented in 1 Kings 6–7. While the architectural details of the Temple can be interpreted in different ways, I have nevertheless shown that these correspondences are relevant in the light of the ancient Near Eastern mythical material and archaeological evidence of the temples. It can be shown that the architecture of the Temple of Solomon as depicted in 1 Kings 6–7 parallels well with the architectural plan of the temple found in Ain Dara. Its foundation predates and its existence overlaps the time of Solomon. As in the temple of Ain Dara, the god was imagined as a great and high figure also in the Temple of Jerusalem. In Ain Dara the footprints and the two pillars in the gate of the temple as well as the two footprints inside the temple gave an impression of a high and great divinity. In the Temple of Solomon the cherubim seat and the two pillars Boaz and Jachin illustrated the Great King (melek rāb; Ps. 48:2–3). In Ps. 24:7, 9 the gates of the Temple are exhorted to lift up their heads so that the King of Glory can come inside. It is clear that the imagery is not related to the Ark and its cherubim but rather to the great throne of cherubim which Solomon built in the Debir. 269.  This theology was later modified to the Deuteronomistic Shem- and Priestly Kabod-theologies. 270.  This theology was censored (as in the MT version of Deut. 32:8–9) or reinterpreted so that the members of the divine council are not gods but angels. 271.  The Ark and cherubim lost their significance in the postexilic period.

188

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

All evidence points cumulatively to the conclusion that the reign of Solomon is the most probable period for the origin of Zion theology. As noted in Chapter 2, the tendency of the Hebrew Bible is to emphasize the move from the cult place X to Jerusalem. I have now proposed that the two massive cherubim built in the Temple of Jerusalem were apparently an attempt to relate the older symbol of cherub-throne associated with the Ark to the new political reality of Solomon ruling a larger geographical area in Canaan. In the next two chapters, 5 and 6, I shall deal with the religious traditions of Shiloh and Transjordan. The evidence presented in this chapter actualizes the question as to whether Jerusalemite Zion theology should be interpreted as a pro-Baal tendency in the Israelite religion. Such a conclusion is quite simply not evident. Borrowings from another religious milieu can also be understood as occupation. In the next chapter I shall discuss the evidence that speaks clearly in favor of Yahweh being associated with Ēl in a very early period, and in Chapter 6 I shall argue that an anti-Baal tendency was also an early religious phenomenon in Yahwism.

Chapter 5 T h e A r k of C ov enant a n d t h e Z i on T h e ology

In the previous chapter I noted several times how the mythical tradition connected with the Storm-god is insufficient to explain the form of the early Zion tradition. Yahweh is not only depicted with the imagery of the Storm-god (connected with the Mediterranean context); he is also called Ēl or Ēl Elyôn, and that imagery is clearly connected with the Canaanite Ēl or Ilu. How and why Zion theology was so heavily influenced by this kind of Ēl tradition needs to be answered, and this is the aim of the present chapter. Traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible indicate that the Ēl tradition was connected with Shiloh in particular, and its central cultic symbol the Ark. This being the case, it is reasonable to seek the origin of the Ēl tradition in Zion theology from the religious traditions of Shiloh.1 The Hebrew Bible contains different traditions concerning the Ark of Yahweh and its transfer (from Shiloh) to Jerusalem. I have already dealt with the Ark Narrative preserved in the book of Samuel (1 Sam. 4–6 + 2 Sam. 6) in section 3.2. I argued that this tradition was originally used to legitimate the new capital city of Jerusalem as the religious center in Israel, and that its basic outlines were formed during the reigns of David and Solomon. There are three other texts in the Hebrew Bible which relate Jerusalem and the dynasty of David to Shiloh (and/or its cult symbol the Ark), namely Gen. 49:8–12, Psalm 78 and Psalm 132. I shall discuss these traditions in sections 5.2 and 5.3, but first some important background factors pertaining to the cult site of Shiloh.

1.  This connection has been discussed in different important studies. See especially Otto Eissfeldt, “Silo und Jerusalem,” in Volume de Congrès: Strasbourg, 1956, ed. Pieter A. H. de Boer, VTSup 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1957), 138–47; Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH”; Seow, Myth, Drama.

190

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

5.1. The Ark and the Cult Site of Shiloh How can the findings of archaeological excavations illustrate the early Israelite cult and ancient Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun) in particular? Was it usual in early Israel to have permanent cult places? These two questions are now discussed. Permanent and Open-Air Cult Places in Early Israel Archaeological investigations on cult sites in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages indicate great changes. Gilmour writes: “The long-standing temples which dominated their cities and towns in the Bronze Age, indicative of the centralised political authority that existed in the city-state system, all but disappear.”2 Zwickel speaks about a transition period beginning in about 1250 BCE and ending ca. 1000 BCE at the time of the United Monarchy. During the Late Bronze Age it was common that politically important cities had at least one temple. This urban religious culture collapsed in the above-mentioned transition period. Instead of urban religious centers with temple buildings, new open-air sanctuaries were established, but these were never on the same spot as the temples.3 This change indicates that a new population with new religious traditions had settled in the land. Only in a few places did Late Bronze Age temples continue to exist in the Iron Age. According to Zwickel, Beth-Shean is the only place where “the series of Late Bronze Age temples continued at least to the end of the 12th or even the beginning of the 11th century.”4 Another example may be the temple of Shechem.5 2.  Gilmour, Early Israelite Religion, 25. See the surveys in Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel; Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult.” 3.  Zwickel, “Cult in the Iron Age I–IIA in the Land of Israel,” 581–94. 4.  Zwickel, “Cult in the Iron Age I–IIA in the Land of Israel,” 584–85; the quotation is from p. 585. 5.  For this proposal, see Lawrence E. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Šekem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant’,” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell Jr. at His Retirement, ed. Prescott H. Williams Jr. and Theodore Hiebert (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 228–49; Campbell et al., Shechem III, 1:213–15. I thank Garth Gilmour for bringing Stager’s work to my attention. Another view for this Shechem’s sanctuary, see Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel, 76. Zwickel (“Cult in the Iron Age I–IIA in the Land of Israel,” 585) writes: “Most likely, Megiddo survived as a Canaanite city state at least to the second part of the 12th century BCE. Also in Shechem the Migdal Temple existed until the middle of the 12th century BCE. Unfortunately, we know nothing concrete about the history of Megiddo or Shechem in this period. Only in Bet-Shean the series of Late Bronze Age temples continued at least to the end of the 12th or even the beginning of the 11th century BCE.”

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

191

Gilmour evaluates the situation along similar lines. In the Late Bronze Age the cult was concentrated inside the cities (such as Hazor, Megiddo, Beth-Shean and Shechem) where the temples were built. These temples indicated centralized political activity. The situation changed radically at the beginning of the Iron Age as a consequence of the Egyptian withdrawal. Sea peoples in the coastal areas and new settlers in the hill country did not adopt these traditional Canaanite cult places. “Cultic activity in the early Iron Age is characterized by regional diversity, decentralization and considerable evidence for small-scale private shrines in domestic, industrial and extramural contexts.”6 According to Gilmour, there is some evidence of continuity between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the central hill country, but also evidence of discontinuity: “In the central hill country the diverse nature and origins of the settlers may be expected to be revealed in the cultic evidence. However such evidence, particularly in terms of architecture and continuity, is almost completely absent or at best difficult to identify in the archaeological record.”7 Gilmour emphasizes the discontinuity: “In the hill country as well the open-air cult sites reflect something of the tradition of regional sanctuaries from the previous period. Change, on the other hand, is predominant.”8 Gilmour singles out three important new features in Iron Age cultic places. First, in the Iron Age the typical cultic site is a “secondary cult site,” i.e. a cult place which was situated within a building which is not a temple. Gilmour lists Tel Miqne Fields I and IV, Lachish room 49, Hazor stratum XI and Ai, as well as domestic contexts at Megiddo room 2081 and Tel Qiri Area D (perhaps even Tell Irbid). Second, industrial cult corners, which were established in industrial contexts, are closely related to these secondary cult sites.9 Among these cult places is the early twelfthcentury metalworking area at Tel Dan, and later the tenth-century cultic corners at Tell el-Hammah and Tel Amal in the Beth Shean valley, and at Tell Mazar Mound A in the Jordan Valley. Third, extramural shrines at Tel Michal on the coast, and possibly at Tell Mazar in the Jordan Valley, are also a new phenomenon in the Iron Age. Gilmour concludes his dissertation:

6.  Gilmour, Early Israelite Religion, 25. The same text is also in Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult,” 264. 7.  Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult,” 264. 8.  Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult,” 271. 9.  Gilmour notes that it is often difficult to distinguish between secondary cult sites and industrial cult corners. See Gilmour, Early Israelite Religion, 18.

192

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology The most significant feature of the twelfth to tenth centuries in terms of cult-site types is the relative abundance in the archaeological record of small private cult corners or shrines, reflected in the increased number of secondary, particularly private shrines, and industrial shrines. When compared to previous periods, when this type was hardly ever discerned, one is forced to conclude that they are a product of the age. After the national cult was centralized first in Jerusalem and then in the northern and southern kingdoms, this type of shrine becomes scarce once again, or takes on a different form.10 While these absences both before and following our period may be artificial, and thus remain to be found, one is tempted to see them as real, and a most significant indicator of the real situation in the land in the twelfth to tenth centuries BC.11

There are also some good examples of open-air cult places from Iron Age I which may have been used by the Israelites: notably, the so-called Bull Site (Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīle)12 and Hazor (both in Area A and Area B).13 These sites contained a maṣṣēbâ stone, and a bull figurine was found in the Bull Site and in Hazor Area A, apparently a cultic symbol which formed an alternative Israelite tradition to the Cherub Throne and which is echoed both in Exodus 32 and 1 Kgs 12:28–33. Even the Iron Age I site on Mount Ebal should be considered an Israelite cult site.14 10.  Here Gilmour refers to John S. Holladay, “Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 249–99. 11.  Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult,” 272. 12.  Amihai Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site’—An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” BASOR 247 (1982): 27–42; idem, “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from the Time of the Judges,” BAR 9 (1983): 34–40; idem, Archaeology of the Land, 348–52; Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel, 212–15; Gilmour, “The Archaeology of Cult,” 91–94; idem, Early Israelite Religion, 20–21. 13.  Doron Ben-Ami, “Early Iron Age Cult Places—New Evidence from Tel Hazor,” TA 33 (2006): 121–33. 14.  See Adam Zertal, “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mount Ebal?,” BAR 11, no. 1 (1985): 26–43; idem, “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982–1987,” TA 13–14 (1986–87): 105–65; idem, “A Cultic Center with a Burnt-Offering Altar from Early Iron Age I Period at Mt. Ebal,” in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: IOSOT Congress Jerusalem 1986, ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck, BEATAJ 13 (Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1988), 137–47; idem, “Ebal, Mount,” ABD 2:255–58; idem, “Ebal, Mount,” NEAHL 1:375–77; idem, “Ebal, Mount,” in Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archeology, 2:179–80. Zertal’s conclusions are supported in Hawkins, Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal. Concerning this cult site and its possible connection to Josh. 8:30–35, see my treatment in Laato, “A Cult Site of Mount Ebal.”

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

193

Archaeological evidence of discontinuity between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age cult sites corroborates well with the biblical evidence concerning the difference between the Israelite and Canaanite religious places. Na’aman has dealt with several biblical passages which refer to the early cultic places of the Israelites or patriarchs. He has observed that the biblical texts have carefully preserved information that these cultic places were situated outside the Canaanite centers (e.g. Beth-aven, Gilgal, Shechem with Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, Hebron, Gibeon and Gebah, perhaps even Beer-sheba). Na’aman’s conclusion is worth quoting:15 “No proof whatsoever has been found, either archaeological or textual, to support the claim that there was any continuity of location between Canaanite temples and Israelite cultic places. All of the evidence clearly points to the opposite conclusion—namely, that the Israelites deliberately established their shrines on different sites than those of the former Canaanite temples. This discontinuity reflects the radical break of the Israelite cult from the former Canaanite practices.” The present results of the archaeological investigations give reason to believe that the people who settled in Iron Age Canaan, especially those in the hill country, did not simply accept earlier religious traditions but either created something new or alternatively had some new traditions which were not related to the old Canaanite religious structures. This broader context should be considered when evaluating the cult site in Shiloh. Archaeological Evidence of Khirbet Seilun Since archaeological investigations began in Khirbet Seilun scholars have been keen to clarify the cultic setting of Shiloh during the Iron Age I period.16 This is also true for the excavations led by Finkelstein.17 15.  Na’aman, “Beth-aven, Bethel and Early Israelite Sanctuaries,” 13–21. The quotation is from p. 21. 16.  For a survey, see Donald G. Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989). The most important recent archaeological excavation reports are Israel Finkelstein, ed., “Excavation at Shiloh 1981–1984: Preliminary Report,” TA 12 (1985): 123–80; Aron Kempinski and Israel Finkelstein, “Shiloh,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 4:1364–70; Israel Finkelstein, ed., Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, MSIATAU 10 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1993). I refer to the last publication; the first one is—in many points—substantially included in this later version. These reports also contain references to earlier excavations at the site by Danish archaeologists. 17.  In Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 211, the goals of the Shiloh expedition are explained in the following way: “The primary goal of this expedition was, naturally,

194

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Finkelstein has subsequently re-evaluated the results from the excavations from archaeological viewpoints without any prima facie attempt to relate them to biblical traditions.18 What conclusions can be made from these excavations as far as biblical traditions are concerned? According to Finkelstein, three important details from the site of Shiloh indicate that it was an important cultic center:19 (1) thus far the excavations have not given any example of ordinary domestic buildings. All architectural structures related to Iron Age I, mainly in areas C, D and K, indicate that Shiloh “was not an ordinary village with a cult place but rather a religious temenos.”20 (2) There was a remarkably dense concentration of population around the site of Shiloh which indicates its importance, presumably as a cultic center. (3) While “the Israelite settlement process was still in its initial phases in many parts of the country”21 the areas to tackle the questions concerning Shiloh during the period of Israelite Settlement and the Judges: What was the character of the site in Iron I? What was Shiloh’s role in the overall phenomenon of Israelite Settlement in the hill country.” 18.  The change in Finkelstein’s way of speaking about the settlement process in the Iron Age is visible in his article “The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second Millenia BCE,” in Finkelstein and Na’aman, eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy, 150–78 [the book was published in Hebrew already in 1990] where he refers to cyclic processes of growth and breakdown of urban systems. In his article from 1991, namely, in “The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Consensus, Mainstream and Dispute,” SJOT 2 (1991): 47–59, he had already substantially modified his view published in 1988 and suggests that the term “Israelite” could be omitted from the settlement process of the hill country. In 1996 Finkelstein proposed the so-called Low Chronology which changed even more radically his understanding of the emergence of Israel. See Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy,” 177–87. See further Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed; idem, David and Solomon; Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel, ANEM 5 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013). For critical discussion of the methodological background of “Low Chronology” hypothesis see Raz Kletter, “Chronology and United Monarchy,” ZDPV 120 (2004): 13–54. 19.  Israel Finkelstein, “The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II,” in Finkelstein, ed., Shiloh, 371–93, esp. 386. 20.  The quotation is from Finkelstein, “History and Archaeology of Shiloh,” 386. 21.  The quotation is from Finkelstein, “History and Archaeology of Shiloh,” 386. It is worth noting that Finkelstein refers to his work Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 27–28, when he speaks about his definition of “Israelite”. On p. 27 he writes that “the distinctions between ethnic groups at the beginning of the period were apparently still vague”, but then on p. 28: “In any case, one should not ignore the fact that a group of people living in Canaan of the end of the 13th century BCE was described in the Merneptah Stele as ‘Israel’.”

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

195

around Shiloh indicate that the place played a prominent role for its inhabitants. Finkelstein concludes: “This makes Shiloh an important stage in the transition of the Iron Age I hill country population from a social system concentrated around small, isolated groups into the formation of an early monarchic state.”22 The old interpretive problem as to whether there was a permanent building structure for the sanctuary—as the terms hêkāl (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3) and bêt Yhwh (1 Sam. 1:7, 24; Judg. 18:31) indicate—or whether the sanctuary was a tent-like structure as indicated in Ps. 78:60–61, did not receive any answer. No archaeological structure which could be directly related to the sanctuary was found.23 However, Finkelstein writes: “Although our excavations have not provided a definitive answer regarding the location of the sanctuary, the negative evidence from the northern, eastern and western sectors is of considerable value. Since it is inconceivable that the sacred place was anywhere except inside the settlement, this leaves only the summit and southern slope as candidates.”24 Finkelstein regards it possible that the sanctuary was situated the western slope (area C) and the building structures there were connected to the

22.  The quotation is from Finkelstein, “History and Archaeology of Shiloh,” 387. 23.  There is always the possibility that the Israelite sanctuary was located outside the permanent living quarters—something which is well attested in the traditions of the Pentateuch and can perhaps receive support even from 1 Sam. 4:12–14. According to this passage, the news of the fate of the Ark was first informed in the city and only after that did Eli hear the catastrophic news. The assumption here is that Eli was sitting beside the tabernacle which was situated outside the city in the opposite direction from where the messenger arrived. For this possible location of the sanctuary, see Charles W. Wilson, “Jerusalem,” PEFQS 1873: 36–38 and Asher S. Kaufman, “Fixing the Site of the Tabernacle at Shiloh,” BAR 14, no. 6 (1988): 46–52. It is worth noting that scholars have noted a similar situation at Shechem where the cult-site for pastoralists may have been situated outside the ordinary living quarters. For this, see Robert G. Boling, “Bronze Age Buildings at the Shechem High Place: ASOR Excavations at Tananir,” BA 32 (1969): 82–103; Edward F. Campbell and George E. Wright, “Tribal League Shrines in Amman and Shechem,” BA 32 (1969): 104–16. However, the interpretation of excavations at Tananir remains controversial. For this, see Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel, 24–27. The Amman Airport Temple which Campbell and Wright regard as parallel to the shrine of Tananir may have also functioned as the place for mortuary activities. For this see Larry G. Herr, “Amman Airport Temple,” in Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East Volume, 1:102–3. 24.  Finkelstein, “History and Archaeology of Shiloh,” 384.

196

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

sanctuary. He notes that those scholars who have argued that Shiloh had a permanent cultic structure for the sanctuary seem to be right.25 In his latest book, however, Finkelstein is perhaps a little more cautious in the way he characterizes the possible cult site in Iron Age Shiloh, and also considers the possibility that Shiloh had been an administrative center. He writes: “To summarize this point, although there is no direct evidence of an Iron I shrine at Shiloh, indirect considerations seem to hint that Iron I Shiloh was not a typical highlands settlement, and the long-term evidence—from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages—seems to hint at the existence of a cult place there.”26 Interestingly, there are very few archaeological finds at Khirbet Seilun which can be directly related to cultic activities.27 Finkelstein’s argument that no ordinary houses for living have been found in Shiloh cannot be proven. There is nothing in these houses to indicate that they would be in cultic use. Neither can we establish archaeologically that Shiloh was the central city of the area—this idea is based solely in the biblical material which, of course, is a relevant conclusion in the light of the recent knowledge. Therefore, the archaeological evaluation of Shiloh as a cult site is based solely on biblical references. The destruction of Iron Age Shiloh is dated archaeologically to the middle of the eleventh century BCE (plus minus 50–60 years), which corroborates with the conclusion that can be made from 1 Samuel 4–6, i.e. that the Philistines destroyed Shiloh.28 Permanent Sanctuary or Movable Tent in Shiloh The present results of the archaeological investigations in Shiloh cannot give a definitive answer to the question of what kind of cultic structure was built for the Ark. The concept of a movable ark indicates that even though there were some permanent structures for the sanctuary, there was nothing corresponding to a temple.29 The situation in Shiloh may also be

25.  Finkelstein, “History and Archaeology of Shiloh,” 384–85. 26.  Finkelstein, Forgotten Kingdom, 23–26, the quotation is from p. 25. 27.  See the fragments of a cultic stand in Finkelstein, Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 226–27; idem, Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, 173. 28.  See Finkelstein in Kempinski and Finkelstein, “Shiloh,” 1368: “As suggested by Albright following the Danish expedition’s excavations, this may be attributable to the Philistine destruction of the site (mid-eleventh century BCE).” 29.  It should be emphasized that the structure of the Tabernacle described in Exod. 25–31 cannot be related in simple lines to this question about David’s tent and where he put the Ark after he transferred it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:17), because

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

197

evaluated from the viewpoint of the archaeological survey of early Iron Age I when most cultic sites were open-air. Could it be possible that Shiloh too was a similar open-air cult place? In traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible two different ways of speaking about the cult site of Shiloh were formed: one in which a non-permanent tent construction was emphasized (e.g. Ps. 78:60) and another where permanent structures were referred to (the terms hêkāl, 1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3, and bêt Yhwh, 1 Sam. 1:7, 24; Judg. 18:31). It is linguistically possible to explain the difference in biblical terminology relating to the sanctuary of Shiloh. Seow has noted that “the old alternative posed between a tent-shrine of desert origin and a temple of Canaanite origin is a false one.”30 He regards it possible that the Ark was placed in a permanent building at Shiloh, but notes that Nathan’s Oracle in 2 Sam. 7:1–7 was not directed against such a building, but rather against the idea that the Ark would be limited permanently to one location. He shows from the Ugaritic texts that, in fact, Ēl’s living quarters were not limited to the tent alone, but that even a temple and a palace are mentioned (KTU 1.114:1–2):31 Ēl slaughtered game in his temple (bbth), victuals within [his] palace (hkh[l]).

In addition, Seow notes that there were two different religious traditions related to the Ark. On the one hand, the Ark was related to Shiloh, and Ēl was a dominating factor in this tradition. On the other hand, the Ark tradition was also connected with Qiryat-Yearim and in it Yahweh was depicted mainly using the West Semitic Storm-god imagery.32 the priestly version is the result of a long and complicated tradition process. The tent was a movable construction which could have been placed inside the Debir of the Temple. Concerning such movable shrines, see the evidence in Julius Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting’,” HUCA 17 (1942–43): 155–71; Frank M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle,” in Biblical Archaeologist Reader I, ed. David N. Freedman and George E. Wright (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 217–19; and especially his modified opinions in Frank M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 84–95; Seow, Myth, Drama, 39–40; Daniel E. Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” VT 50 (2000): 484–98. 30.  Seow, Myth, Drama, 40. 31.  Another text, but more fragmentary, is KTU 1.21 II:1–3. See Seow, Myth, Drama, 35–37. 32.  Seow, Myth, Drama, 11–78.

198

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Seow’s analysis gives good support for the basic thesis of this study, but I should like to modify it in some details. When the Ark narrative received its final form in the reigns of David and Solomon, its main idea was to show that Yahweh-Ēl who once ruled in Shiloh (an open-air cult place), and then missed his dwelling-place there when the Philistines destroyed the place, would again show his strong power by taking his residence in Jerusalem (a permanent temple building). This new step in the tradition applied mainly the Storm-god imagery in order to show that Yahweh had begun the final struggle against his enemies and would find his restingplace in the Temple built by Solomon. In the long transmission process of biblical traditions the open-air tent sanctuary in Shiloh (so rightly still in Ps. 78) began to be called hêkāl (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3) or bêt Yhwh (1 Sam. 1:7, 24; Judg. 18:31). If the confrontation between Ēl- and Baal-related traditions is seen from this perspective, then the main disagreement relating to the building of the Temple of Jerusalem concerned the question as to whether Yahweh-Ēl should be related to the Storm-god (Baal) according to the common West Semitic pattern that a permanent Temple should be built for him. A careful reading of 2 Sam. 7:1–7 indicates that the whole building project is related to the question of Yahweh’s ability as Ēl to be the Divine Warrior in Israel. The confrontation between the “tent” and the “temple” in 2 Sam. 7:1–7 was originally related to the fundamental question of how Yahweh was imagined as a Divine Warrior. The verb mithallēk in 2 Sam. 7:6 should be interpreted as referring to Yahweh’s military activity (see, e.g., Deut. 23:15; 1 Sam. 12:2). In particular, Deut. 23:15 is illustrative: “Since Yahweh your God walks (mithallēk) in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you.”33 If this way of interpreting 2 Sam. 7:1–7 is correct, the text can be related to the topic of the Ark Narrative. According to 1 Samuel 4 the Ark was moved from Shiloh to the military area where the Israelites struggled against the Philistines. Yahweh manifested himself in the battlefield as Ēl but failed to show his might. 33.  Schmitt has dealt with 2 Sam. 7:6. He refutes three opinions: (1) the Ark originates from the time when Israel went out from Egypt; (2) the Ark and the Tent have belonged together from the beginning; (3) the sanctuary in Shiloh was no house. Schmitt, Zelt und Lade, 299–303. In my opinion Seow has presented important parallel material, and we can view 2 Sam. 7:6 as indicative of how, in the time of David and Solomon, the permanent house for Yahweh in Jerusalem according to the model of the Storm-god (Baal) is contrasted against the movable cult place of Israelite Ēl. Therefore, the Ark as the central cultic symbol of Yahwism indicated the real nature of the Israelite religion: the Divine Warrior who is the King of Israel and who wars against the enemies of Israel.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

199

1 Samuel 5–6 was written as an answer for this catastrophe. The aim of this composition was to show that Yahweh, Ēl of Israel, manifested his power in the land of Philistia. Nathan continues this argument in 2 Sam. 7:1–7. Yahweh is Ēl, the Divine Warrior of Israel, whose presence was related to the Ark and its tent in an open-air cult place (as seems to have been typical for the Israelite settlement according to the archaeological evidence) and who manifested his power in war by “walking” (mithallēk) among the tribes of Israel.34 On the other hand, the temple building project, aided by the Phoenicians,35 was justified from another theological perspective of Yahweh’s war. The argument was that Yahweh should be seen as the Storm-god according to the West Semitic religious patterns. After David transferred the Ark to Jerusalem (by identifying Yahweh with the Storm-god as Seow has proposed in his analysis for 2 Sam. 6), he attempted to justify a new concept of the deity by building a temple for him: Yahweh had defeated his enemies (i.e. the enemies of Israel) and now needed a temple for his permanent dwelling (according to the topic of the Baal myth; see Chapter 4). By dwelling in his permanent temple Yahweh—like Baal—manifests his power and destroys all enemies who attempt to attack the divine Temple mount. If this scenario is correct, then 2 Sam. 7:1–7 demonstrates a basic conflict between two different religious systems in Iron Age Israel: i.e. the traditional Israelite open-air cult place with the tent (and possibly some permanent buildings) contra the permanent building of the temple according to the West Semitic Storm-god tradition.36 What Nathan is saying in 2 Sam. 7:1–7 is that Yahweh cannot be identified with the West Semitic Storm-god who needs a permanent building for his dwellingplace. The reason for this opposition was apparently that Baal had always been opposed in Israel (see further Chapter 6). The present form of 2 Samuel 7 indicates, however, that the temple building project was 34.  It is worth noting that there is no clear place-name which contains the element “Yahweh.” Concerning this note especially B. S. J. Isserlin, “Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-Names in Palestine: A Historical and Geographical Sketch,” PEQ 89 (1957): 133–44, esp. 137: “It looks as if YHWH, a jealous god, did not lightly permit his name to dwell in any place.” See also Anson F. Rainey, “The Toponymics of EretzIsrael,” BASOR 231 (1978): 1–17. 35.  David had already established political contact with Hiram, the king of Tyre (2 Sam. 5:11). 36.  Scholars have discussed the pre-Deuteronomistic form of 2 Sam. 7:1–7. See Görg, Das Zelt der Begegnung, 86–91; Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 68–79. Weinfeld has rightly noted that the idea of Yahweh going from tent-to-tent is an old pre-Deutero­nomistic idea. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 196–97.

200

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

realized in Israel, not by David but by Solomon. 2 Samuel 7 in its present form illustrates how the results of the analyses in Chapter 4 should be understood: Yahweh can be depicted using the imagery of the Storm-god and still be called Ēl and not Baal. This is the reason why Nathan’s veto has been preserved in 2 Samuel 7. The building of the Temple does not imply that Yahweh is identified with the Storm-god Baal, but rather that he simply has taken over all epithets of Baal and continues to be Ēl, the Divine Warrior of Israel. In the next two sections (5.2 and 5.3) I shall examine other texts where the relation between the Ark/Shiloh and the Temple of Jerusalem is dealt with. 5.2. Jerusalem and Shiloh in Two Different Perspectives In this section I shall examine how Shiloh is presented in Genesis 49 and Psalm 78. Both passages contain traces of some archaic linguistic features.37 In addition, their content is not directly borrowed from the prose stories of the Enneateuch, indicating that they are based on older independent traditions. “When He Comes to Shiloh”—Genesis 49 Genesis 49:10 contains an old crux interpretum: ad kî yābō šîlōh. How should this Masoretic reading be interpreted? I have devoted a separate study to this problem, where I argue that the Masoretic reading “when he comes to Shiloh” is the original meaning of this phrase.38 In my article I argued that the traditions transmitted in the book of Hosea can provide 37.  See Robertson, Linguistic Evidence; Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. 38.  I make here a short summary of my article “ ‘When he comes to Shiloh’ (Gen 49,8–12)—An Approach to the Books of Samuel,” in The Books of Samuel: Stories— History—Reception History, ed. Walter Dietrich , BETL 284 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 511–19. For the view that the reading Shiloh is original in Gen. 49:10, see, e.g., Johannes Lindblom, “The Political Background of the Shiloh Oracle,” in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953, ed. George W. Anderson et al., VTSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1953), 78–87; idem, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 77–78; Otto Eissfeldt, “Silo und Jerusalem”; Schley, Shiloh, 161–63; Rebecca C. Steiner, “Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in Jacob’s Blessing: yeter śěēt (Gen 49:3), yěṣûî ālā (49:4), and yābō šîlōh (49:10),” JBL 129 (2010): 209–35, esp. 219–26; Serge Frolov, “Judah Comes to Shiloh: Genesis 49:10bα, One More Time,” JBL 131 (2012): 417–22. Concerning the view that the MT reading clearly refers to Shiloh, see John A. Emerton, “Some Difficult Words in Genesis 49,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

201

another possibility to understand Gen. 49:10. In this interpretation Hos. 10:11–15 has a historical allusion to the co-operation between Judah and Ephraim in the early history of Israel, referring to the time when David and Solomon managed to establish a kingdom in Canaan using political maneuvers (cf., even Hos. 13:1–3 according to which Ephraim was respected among the tribes of Israel). The significant religious aspect of this political co-operation was that David restored the old Shilonite cult symbol, the Ark, and also accepted the Shilonite priest Abiathar as High Priest in Jerusalem.39 Frolov rightly notes that the syntactic construction ad kî in Gen. 49:10 does not mean that the governorship of Judah will end when Judah comes to Shiloh; rather, it emphasizes the real zenith of governorship, as becomes clear from other verses in the Hebrew Bible where this grammatical construction can be found (Gen. 26:13; 41:49; 2 Chr. 26:15).40 Illustrative is Gen. 26:13, which speaks of how Isaac became richer and richer until he was very rich. The point is not to say that after having become rich he lost everything but rather that his richness reached a real zenith. In a similar way Judah’s political power reaches its zenith when he comes to Shiloh. Therefore the end of the verse should be translated in such a way that this climax becomes visible. I have added the word “then” for this reason: The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he will come to Shiloh and then the obedience of the nations shall be his.

According to Genesis 49, Judah will receive a decisive position among the twelve tribes, but it is only when he accepts the cult of Shiloh that tribal Israel will manage to subjugate the nations under its feet. This corresponds quite well to how things have been presented in the book of Samuel. The moving of the Ark to Jerusalem is the topic of 2 Samuel 6, after which the promise of an eternal dynasty is given to David (2 Sam. 7). The subjugation of the peoples living in the Land of Canaan is then presented in 2 Samuel 8. Even though the Deuteronomistic presentation on His Retirement from the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, ed. Peter R. Ackroyd and Bernard Lindars (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 81–93, esp. 83–88. 39.  Concerning the history of the priestly families of Zadok and Abiathar, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 195–215. 40.  Frolov, “Judah Comes to Shiloh,” 417–22.

202

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

of 2 Samuel 8 is a late tendentious way of emphasizing the subjugation of the nations, the historical reality was based on David’s and Solomon’s clever policy (see section 3.1). Genesis 49:8–12 differs from the content of 2 Samuel in one essential point; its contents refer to Judah (i.e., David in this case) having come to Shiloh (presumably to establish its sanctuary). In that case Gen. 49:8–12 is based on an early document which was written to celebrate the election of David as king of the whole Israel (i.e., the historical event reflected in 2 Sam. 5). The subsequent history soon showed that Shiloh was not re-established. The reason was apparently military pressure from the Philistine side. In order to realize his promise David moved the Ark to Jerusalem. The Ark Narrative then began to take its form, designed to guarantee the political agreement between two strong tribes, Judah and Joseph/Ephraim. Its aim was to show that, in spite of the destruction of Shiloh, Yahweh had shown his mighty power in history and was now ready to defend his divine abode in Jerusalem. Yahweh of Shiloh did not suffer a final setback but continued to walk among the tribes by choosing Jerusalem as his divine dwelling-place. Another tribe which plays a prominent role in Genesis 49 is Joseph. However, Gen. 49:22–26 is textually very difficult, and everything indicates that the text has been corrupted or perhaps rather reworked during transmission.41 Korpel has shown in a convincing way how the text should be understood in its pre-Masoretic form. Even here, as in many other instances in Genesis 49, the son of Jacob is compared with an animal:42 A son of cow is Joseph, a son of a cow next to a well. In the meadows43 she strode towards44 the Bull,

22

41.  For this see especially the following: Stanley Gevirtz, “Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Fors,” HUCA 46 (1975): 33–54; Korpel, A Rift in the Cloud, 532–43; de Hoop, Genesis 49, 180–221, and the literature cited. 42.  Korpel, A Rift in the Cloud, 532–33. 43.  As Korpel notes, the Hebrew consonant text bnwt should be understood as bnwt. In this way the word is a good parallel to the water source ayin, “well.” See the similar parallels between “meadow” and “water” in Ps. 23:2; Isa. 35:17; Jer. 49:17; 50:44; Joel 1:20. It is worth noting that nwt is an archaic concept for speaking about the tribal society. For this see Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 43–47. 44.  The use of the Hebrew verb ṣāad can compared with the use of the equivalent Ugaritic verb ṣġd in KTU 1.10 III:7; 1.23:10, and Korpel emphasizes the sexual intercourse in the Ugaritic context. While such an emphasis is not needed in the

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology 23

203

and he made him strong,45 so that they became numerous. And (if) archers harassed him,

his bow remained stable and the arms of his hands became nimble because of the hands of the Steer of Jacob because of the name of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel.46 24

Because of Ēl, your Father, who helps you, yea, Ēl Šadday who blesses you, with blessings of the heavens above blessings of the Flood resting below, blessings of breasts and womb.

25

The blessings of your Father are stronger than the blessings of the eternal mountains the wishes of the everlasting hills. May they be on the head of Joseph and on the skull of the dedicated one of his brethren. 26

This text in its pre-Masoretic reconstruction contains old traditions. First, the metaphor of the Bull is used for the God of Israel. As Korpel rightly notes, in the Masoretic consonantal text the words prt and šwr in v. 22 can be interpreted as pōret (“a cow”) and šôr (“a bull”). Because byr in v. 24 (abbîr) can also be interpreted as “bull,” then it is probable that the text is evidence of an old Northern tribal tradition whereby a young and strong bull may be used as a metaphoric representation of Ēl.47 The early transmitters of the Hebrew text have regarded such a metaphor as dangerous on the basis of Exodus 32 (and 1 Kgs 12:28–32) and, therefore, made a new reading of it. The Masoretes have followed this reading in their vocalization. Korpel’s reading makes it obvious that the names of Hebrew text, it is clear that Israel is depicted here as female. The idea is similar to Deut. 32:13–15, where Israel is also depicted as an animal (female) which rejected the Rock of Israel and chose other deities. In Gen. 49:22–26 the relationship between Joseph and God is depicted as ideal. Joseph strode towards the Bull, i.e. wanted to worship “the Stone of Israel.” 45.  According to Korpel, the semantic field of the Hebrew verb mrr should be here related to the Ugaritic verb meaning “to strengthen.” This interpretation makes sense, because Jer. 23:3 refers to Joseph who can multiply in the meadow (nwh). 46.  It is significant that here God receives an epithet “the Stone of Israel” which parallels well to the similar name “the Rock” (ṣûr) in Deut. 32:4, 13, 15, 18, 30–31, 37. For these names of Yahweh, see Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 77–129, esp. 85–88, 99–102. 47.  Korpel, A Rift in the Cloud, 532–33.

204

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the God of Israel associated with Bull must have originated from an early period when the confrontation between the cherub throne (in Jerusalem) and the Bull basement (in Bethel and Dan) had not become fervent—a confrontation which was transmitted in the Deuteronomistic History. In Genesis 49, an old tradition from the time of David and Solomon has been preserved. It shows that Jeroboam I did not establish a new religious tradition in Bethel and Dan but rather followed an old Israelite alternative tradition according to which it was possible to associate Yahweh’s cult with the aniconic Bull basement.48 Such a cultic tradition also receives support from archaeological results (see section 5.1). Second, the name of the God, “the Stone of Israel” (eben Yiśrāēl), indicates that a stone was suitable for symbolizing the presence of the God of Israel, as can be seen from 1 Sam. 7:12. In addition, the name emphasizes close connection between the worship of Yahweh/God and maṣṣēbâ stones which are documented in many places in the Hebrew Bible (see especially Gen. 28:18–22; Hos. 3:4). Such a religious idea must reflect an early Israelite belief system because the use of maṣṣēbâ stones in the cult was later rejected (see Deut. 16:22; see further section 5.4). Even here archaeological surveys show that maṣṣēbâ stones and Bull figurines were important in presumably Israelite open-air cult places (see sections 5.1 and 5.4). Third, v. 26 indicates that Joseph was regarded as the firstborn of Jacob after Reuben was rejected (cf., Gen. 49:3–4). Such an interpretation of Genesis is apparently made in 1 Chr. 5:1–2, where it is stated that “he [Reuben] was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father’s marriage bed, his rights as firstborn were given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel.” On the other hand, the Chronicler has also noted the central position of Judah—with good correspondence to Genesis 49—by writing “though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him (ûlĕnāgîd mimmennû), the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph.” This early reading of Genesis 49 (innerbiblical exegesis) indicates that Jacob’s blessings were based on an early tradition concerning the central roles of Judah and Joseph in Israel. Such a scenario is suitable for the time of the United Monarchy and makes David’s religious and political maneuver to respect the Ephraimite cult symbol in Shiloh relevant. 48.  For this view, see especially Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 266; idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 197–98; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 73 n. 117; Adrian H. W. Curtis, “Some Observations on ‘Bull’ Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Old Testament,” in In Quest of the Part: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism, ed. Adam S. van der Woude, OTS 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 17–31.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

205

Genesis 49 contains an old tradition about the reign of David and Solomon which emphasizes the close co-operation between the two strong tribes Judah and Joseph, thus providing a background to Hos. 10:11. The reading “Shiloh” in Gen. 49:10 gives another look (beside that in the Deuteronomistic History) at the historical circumstances where David chose the Shilonite cult symbol Ark and revitalized the Yahweh-Ēl worship related to it. One may wonder why there are so few references to this co-operation between Judah and Ephraim in the Hebrew Bible. First, it should be noted that the Deuteronomistic History presents a very one-sided picture about the success of David and Solomon. The traditions were transmitted selectively for many hundred years in Jerusalem before their final edition, and during this period the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were often enemies. The final selection of traditions which were transmitted and later edited was made in a religious milieu where Jerusalem (with its cherub throne) and Samaria—Bethel (with its Bull symbol) were competing religious traditions. Second, Psalm 78 describes the Shiloh– Jerusalem relationship in negative terms, indicating that many positive traditions about co-operation between the tribes of Judah and Ephraim may have been deselected during the process of transmission. This gives reason to study Psalm 78 more closely, and in particular its connection to the Ark Narrative and Genesis 49. Jerusalem contra Shiloh—Psalm 78 Psalm 78 has an innerbiblical allusion to the blessing of Joseph in Genesis 49. The imagery of Joseph, who has a bow in his hand in Gen. 49:24, indicates his military power. This imagery has been inverted in Ps. 78:9: the men of Ephraim with bows in their hands turned back on the day of battle. The verse is textually difficult, however, and it has often been proposed that if it is not a later addition then it is not in its right position in the psalm.49 As far as the present study is concerned, the more important question is whether Psalm 78 can contain an older and/ or non-Deuteronomistic viewpoint to the Shiloh tradition. Scholars have

49.  It is important to note the argument presented in Antony F. Campbell, “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the Theology of Tenth Century Israel,” CBQ 41 (1979): 51–79, esp. 63–64, that if v. 9 is a later addition so even vv. 10–11 must then be regarded as a later insertion. This argument is accepted by Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 51–100, 287. If v. 9 is a later addition it may be an innerbiblical allusion to Gen. 49. For discussion of the innerbiblical allusions between the stories of plagues and exodus in Ps. 78 and the Pentateuch, see Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 241–65.

206

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

diametrically opposing views concerning the dating of Psalm 78.50 There are two details in the psalm which provide evidence for older traditions. First, the Psalm contains traditions which are parallel to the Enneateuch but not copied directly from there. A good example is the exodus tradition. For example, the plagues in Egypt are told in a way which does not follow the discourse in the book of Exodus.51 Second, Psalm 78 contains some archaic linguistic elements which may be traces from an older core while the language of the text was updated in the postexilic period (in the redaction of the book of Psalms).52 As noted in Chapter 2, my methodological starting-point is that the texts in the Hebrew Bible were updated linguistically and edited during the exilic and postexilic period. The two points mentioned indicate that Psalm 78 contains sufficient incoherent elements to justify a closer examination of its traditions concerning Shiloh. Clifford has pointed out that the first time Shiloh is in focus in this Psalm is in vv. 52–55, which I render here according to his translation:53 He set his people moving like sheep, He guided them, a flock in the wilderness. 53 He led them in safety so that they were unafraid. As for their enemies, the sea covered them. 54 He brought them to his sacred precinct, the mountain which his right hand created. 52

50.  An early date in tenth-century Jerusalem has been suggested in Otto Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32:1–43 und das Lehrgedicht Asaphs Ps 78 samt einer Analyse der Umgebung der Mose-Liedes (Berlin: Akademie, 1958); Mark Leuchter, “The Reference to Shiloh in Psalm 78,” HUCA 76 (2006): 1–31. Quite a popular date is the period after the reign of Solomon and before the destruction of Samaria. See, e.g., Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: Psalms 51–100, AB 17 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 238; Philip D. Stern, “The Eighth Century Dating of Psalm 78 Re-argued,” HUCA 65 (1995): 41–65. Even the reign of Hezekiah or alternatively of Josiah have been regarded as good alternatives. See Richard J. Clifford, “In Zion and David a New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith: FS Frank Moore Cross, ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 121–41. An exilic if not postexilic date in the influence of the Chronistic theology has been suggested in Kraus, Psalmen 60–150, 702–5. 51.  Campbell, “Psalm 78,” 68–70; Clifford, “Interpretation of Psalm 78,” 124–25; Archie C. C. Lee, “The Context and Function of the Plagues Tradition in Psalm 78,” JSOT 48 (1990): 83–89. 52.  For this see Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, esp. 150–53. 53.  Clifford, “Interpretation of Psalm 78,” 134–35.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

207

He drove out the nations before them, he apportioned them their heritage by lot, he settled the tribes of Israel in their tents. 55

The text is not dependent on the traditions in the Enneateuch. First, it contains an alternative tradition to the wandering in the wilderness. Instead of presenting the Israelites as murmuring (the topic in the Pentateuch) the text presupposes an ideal relationship between Israel and Yahweh— something which is parallel to Hosea 2, for example. Second, Shiloh was not the first place to which Yahweh led his people after they came to the Land of Canaan. For example, Gilgal (Josh. 5:9) and Ebal (Josh. 8:30–35; cf., Deut. 11:29–30; 27:1–26) are mentioned before Shiloh (Josh. 18:1). Third, Joshua 18 indicates that some parts of the land were apportioned by lot in Shiloh, while Josh. 14:6 refers to Gilgal as the first place where the lands were distributed to the Israelites. The picture given of Shiloh in Ps. 78:52–55 is positive. However, it is contrasted with the end of the Psalm, where a more critical attitude towards Shiloh and especially towards the tribe of Joseph/Ephraim is presented. Concerning Shiloh it is argued (Ps. 78:60–61): 60 He abandoned54 the tabernacle (miškān) of Shiloh, the tent (ōhel) where he dwelt among men.55 61 He sent the ark of his strength (uzzô)56 into captivity, his splendor (tipartô) into the hands of the enemy.

The Ark is regarded here as a symbol for Yahweh’s presence and especially for his strength. The key word ōz (“the strength”)—so important in Zion theology (see Chapter 4)—is related to the Ark (so also in Ps. 132:8) and indicates that the symbolic name of Boaz as the scepter of Yahweh may well have originated from Shilonite traditions about the Ark. The two key words of Ps. 78:61 which are related to the Ark, ōz (“strength”) and tipeeret (“splendor”), also appear in Ps. 96:6: “Glory and majesty are before him; strength (ōz) and splendor (tipeeret) are in his sanctuary.” Psalm 96 is a text which speaks about the royal majesty 54.  As Campbell (Ark Narrative, 215) has noted, the use of the verb nāṭaš does not imply that the cult place of Shiloh would have been destroyed. 55.  The expression šikkēn bāādām should be retained and the piel form can be interpreted according to Num. 14:30; Jer. 7:3, 7. For this see Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 58. 56.  The Hebrew text reads only “his strength” (uzzô). The reference must be to the Ark because the word “strength” has been closely connected with it (Ps. 132:8).

208

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

of Yahweh in his Temple. A parallel version of Psalm 9657 has been used in 1 Chronicles 16 to denote the liturgical song which the Levitical singers presented when the Ark was moved into the tent which David had built for it in Jerusalem (cf., 2 Sam. 6:17). The Chronicler’s way of using Psalm 96 confirms that the text was related to the Ark in the pre-exilic Temple of Jerusalem. Another interesting detail is found in Ps. 96:10: “Say among the nations: The Lord reigns! The world is firmly established (ap tikkôn tēbel), it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.” Thus Psalm 96 parallels well with Psalm 93, which uses the verb kûn (“establish”) in a similar context—and according to the analysis made in section 4.4 with reference to the pillar Jachin. Psalm 96 is clearly later than Psalm 29 because it censors the idea of the divine council (see section 4.2). The writer of Psalm 96 used older material from Psalms 29 and 93 and older theological ideas connected with the Ark. Psalm 78 does not say anything about transferring the Ark to Jerusalem, even though this event is central in the Enneateuch. While in the Enneateuch the old Ark Narrative emphasized the continuity between Shiloh and Jerusalem, Psalm 78 in its final form has a critical attitude towards Shiloh, as presented in vv. 67–69: Then he rejected the tent (ōhel) of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; 68 but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loved. 69 He built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth that he established forever.58 67

While Shiloh and the tribe of Joseph are presented in a positive way in Genesis 49, Psalm 78 contrasts the election of the tribe of Judah and Mount Zion with the rejection of the tent of Joseph and the tribe of 57.  It is worth noting that there are some interesting changes in the wording of Ps. 96 and 1 Chr. 16:23–33. For this see Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 129; Laato, History and Ideology, 121–24. 58.  In KTU 1.108:7–8 Anat is called “the mistress of the high heavens, [the mistre]ss of the footstool” (blt šmm rmm // [b]lt kpṯ). The Ugaritic word kpṯ (“floor”) here refers to the earth which is understood as the footstool of the deity (cf., Isa. 66:1). The imagery in Ps. 78:69 is similar. It is argued that the sanctuary of Yahweh is built in such a way that it dominates both the heights (of heaven) and the earth. For this see Yitzhak Avishur, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994), 291–92.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

209

Ephraim. This critical attitude against Shiloh indicates that Psalm 78 was composed in a different political context. It seems clear that such a poetic formulation must originate from the time after the division of the United Monarchy. The terminology used for the cult place at Shiloh is significant. Both miškān and ōhel are used to denote the cultic center of Shiloh.59 These are the terms which have also been adopted in the Pentateuch to refer to the Tabernacle. The latter term is used in 2 Sam. 6:17 for the tent which David erected for the Ark, as well as in 2 Sam. 7:6, where reference is made to the earlier Yahwistic cultic structure. The use of this terminology reveals once again the confrontation which existed between Ēl and Baal. While in the Ugaritic texts the permanent building of the temple is in focus, the living quarters of Ēl have been depicted with reference to the tent shrine. An illustrative example is KTU 1.4 IV:20–24:60 Then they set face Toward Ēl at the sources of two Rivers (nhrm), in the midst of the pools of the Double-Deep (qrb apq thmtm). They entered the tent of Ēl (ḏd il)61 and went into the tent-shrine of the King (qrš mlk), Father of Years.

Another important cultic symbol for Shiloh, the Ark, was intimately related to the tent, as 2 Sam. 6:17; 7:6, as well as later Tabernacle traditions in the Pentateuch demonstrate. The kappōret with its two cherubim also indicates the worship of Ēl. Yahweh’s epithet, “he who is enthroned over cherubim” (yôšēb hakkěrūbîm, 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; cf., also 2 Kgs 19:15; Pss. 80:2; 99:1; Isa. 37:16), was an integral part of the iconographic aspect of the Ark. In iconographic presentations from Ugarit, however, Ēl is depicted as sitting on a throne which is not a cherub throne.62 In historical terms the cherub throne is a suitable royal 59.  The use of the terms miškān and ōhel for the holy place of Yahweh in Shiloh should be compared with the terms hêkāl (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3) and bêt Yhwh (1 Sam. 1:7, 24; Judg. 18:31), which have been used in the Deuteronomistic History. While these latter terms could be used to denote the dwelling-place of Ēl (cf., section 5.1) the first ones are more logical, indicating the change in terminology. 60.  See Pope, El in Ugaritic Texts, 61–72; Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 35–57; Seow, Myth, Drama, 33–34. 61.  For this interpretation of the Ugaritic ḏd, see Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 51–53; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 55 n. 43. 62.  See the image in Lewis, “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” esp. 82. However, I wonder if the throne is depicted on this Stele as having the legs

210

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

representation for Yahweh in Shiloh because there are many similar examples from that time. First of all, there are two Late Bronze Age finds from Megiddo: an ivory plaque depicting a royal figure and an ivory model of a cherub throne. Second, the relief on Ahiram’s sarcophagus in Byblos depicts the king sitting on a cherub throne (ANEP 456, 458).63 This being the case, the epithet of Yahweh, yôšēb hakkěrūbîm, can most easily be related to the royal imagery of Ēl originating from the sanctuary of Shiloh. The Ark was associated closely with the Yahweh war and there is no problem in relating Ēl to that tradition.64 This cumulative evidence indicates that the Yahwistic cult at Shiloh was related to the worship of Ēl. The theophoric names related to Shiloh— Samuel, his father Elqanah and his grandfather Yerahemel65—referred to in the Deuteronomistic History serve as additional proof for this conclusion.66 In addition, Seow has shown that the birth story of Samuel can easily be related to the activity of Ēl because both in the Ugaritic stories of Kirta and Aqhatu it is Ēl who gives a son to the childless man.67 This analysis has revealed that while the content of Psalm 78 in many respects runs parallel to the Ark Narrative,68 the cult place of Shiloh is expressis verbis rejected. While in the Ark Narrative the transferring of the Ark to Jerusalem indicates the continuity “from Shiloh to Jerusalem” in a positive way, Psalm 78 emphasizes the rejection of Shiloh and the election of Jerusalem. On the other hand, Ps. 78:52–55 contains a very positive treatment of Shiloh, something which is parallel to Genesis 49 where the kingship of Judah is related to the sanctuary of Shiloh. Psalm 78 may be symptomatic of the traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible. After the collapse of the United Monarchy, the long rivalry between Jerusalem and Samaria caused many traditions to be deselected. However, of an animal figure. If so, then the picture may contain traces of the cherub throne motif. For other possible iconographic representations of Ēl, see Yon, City of Ugarit, 130–33. 63.  For this, see Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH”, esp. 113–16; Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 168–70. 64.  Concerning the view that Ēl is a Divine Warrior, see Patrick D. Miller, “El the Warrior,” HTR 60 (1967): 411–31; idem, Divine Warrior, 48–63; Seow, Myth, Drama, 18–19. 65.  The MT has the name in the form Yeroḥam, while the LXX reads Ieremeēl. 66.  See the detailed discussion in Seow, Myth, Drama, 19–23, 30. 67.  Seow, Myth, Drama, 25–31. 68.  Campbell (Ark Narrative, 218) notes that “Ps 78:59–72 corresponds in surprising detail with the whole of the Ark Narrative in 1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6.” However, he also presents some differences between the Ark Narrative and Ps. 78 (p. 225).

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

211

in some instances there are traditions where indirect references to the United Monarchy can be seen. A common dominator for these traditions is that they emphasized a historical fact: Judah and Ephraim co-operated under the leadership of David and Solomon.69 5.3. The Poetic Version of the Ark Narrative—Psalm 132 Psalm 132:2, 5 contains the divine epithet “Mighty One of Jacob” (ăbîr Yaăqōb) which appears in the blessing of Joseph (Gen. 49:25). This give us reason to believe that the expression was one common way of speaking about the might of Yahweh in Shiloh.70 It also indicates that the young bull fundaments made by Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:28–32) followed an early Israelite tradition. Psalm 132 is an interesting text in the middle of the Songs of Ascent. It combines the dynasty of David with the election of Jerusalem in a manner which can be compared with 2 Samuel 6–7.71 The dating of Psalm 132 is an essential question when its relevance in the discussion of the early form of Zion theology is evaluated.72 Those who prefer a late date argue that the Psalm is dependent on the Deuteronomistic History. This being the case, I begin my discussion by dealing with the literary relationship between Psalm 132 and the Deuteronomistic History. 69.  I have mentioned some vague traces of this co-operation still reflected in the Deuteronomistic History. See Laato, “When he comes to Shiloh.” 70.  So Seow, Myth, Drama, 49 n. 25. All other references to the “Mighty One of Jacob” are from the book of Isaiah (Isa. 1:24; 49:26; 60:16), indicating that this “Northern” epithet of Yahweh was established in the cult of Jerusalem. Note also abbîrîm in Ps. 78:25. 71.  See Zenger’s view in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, 611–31, esp. 617–18. 72.  There are different proposals for the date. See, e.g., discussions and literature referred to in the following studies: Seow, Myth, Drama; A. Laato, “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Israelite/Jerusalemite Royal Ideology,” CBQ 54 (1992): 49–66; idem, “Psalm 132: A Case Study in Methodology,” 24–33; Corrine L. Patton, “Psalm 132: A Methodological Inquiry,” CBQ 57 (1995): 643–54; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms,” CBQ 64 (2002): 675–86; John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, BZAW 352 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 101–15; Thijs Booij, “Psalm 132: Zion’s Well-being,” Bib 90 (2009): 75–83; Gianguerrino Barbiero, “Psalm 132: A Prayer of ‘Solomon’,” CBQ 75 (2013): 239–58. Both Patton and Barbiero have presented arguments for a late dating of Ps. 132. They have not noticed that the psalm does not support the Deuteronomistic (and Chronistic) Shem

212

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The Relationship Between Psalm 132 and the Deuteronomistic History Mettinger argues that the conditional promise of the dynasty of David in Ps. 132:11–12 should be related to the Deuteronomistic formulations in 1 Sam. 13:13–14; 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 6:11–13; 9:4; 11:38, where the emphasis on keeping the Torah is a central theme and related to the longevity of the royal dynasty. He also mentions that the promise of the “lamp for David” in Jerusalem (Ps. 132:17) is also found in 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19. Thus he concludes that Psalm 132 must be still later than the above-mentioned Deuteronomistic passages.73 In another important study where Mettinger discusses the Temple theology, he emphasizes that Ps. 132:13–14 preserves a pre-exilic idea that Yahweh dwells in Zion. Mettinger dates this pre-exilic theology self-evidently before Deuteronomistic Shem theology.74 Mettinger’s arguments for the late dating of the royal ideology of Psalm 132 were based on the fundamental views which Rost and following him Noth had established. According to their view, the Deuteronomist knew from tradition the unconditional promise of the eternal dynasty of David (2 Sam. 7:11b, 16) which he then commented on in 2 Samuel 7, adding ideas of conditionality, and that this same Deuteronomistic redaction is then also visible in 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:5.75 The Göttingen school developed this idea and argued that the unconditional promise of the dynasty of David in 2 Samuel 7 represents the theology of DtrH, while the conditional formulations in 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:5 originate from DtrN.76 Mettinger disagrees with the dating of the unconditional promise in 2 Samuel 7, but accepts the view of the dating of the conditional promise for DtrN. theology. Neither are they interested in studying the psalm with the aid of ancient Near Eastern parallels and therefore examine only other texts in the Hebrew Bible. However, all texts in the Hebrew Bible have been written in same Standard Biblical Hebrew, and therefore methodology based on comparison of linguistic elements has its apparent shortcomings. 73.  Mettinger, King and Messiah, 256–57, 276–78. 74.  Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 23, 27–28, 60, 121. 75.  Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, 89–95; Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1967), 93–94, 100; Noth, Könige, 30. So also Hans W. Wolff, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes,” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–85, esp. 174. 76.  Timo Veijola and Walter Dietrich regard the passages as belonging to DtrN. See Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 118–19, 141–42; Veijola, Verheissung, 149– 50; Walter Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 71–73 nn. 23 and 35.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

213

If Psalm 132 was written under the influence of the Deuteronomistic theology, why then has the old-fashioned Zion theology (Yahweh dwells in Zion) been used in it rather than Deuteronomistic Shem theology? There are other additional problems in relating Psalm 132 to Deuteronomistic theology. First, Psalm 132 presents the order of the events in a different way to 2 Samuel 6–7. David’s idea of building a permanent temple (cf., 2 Sam. 7:1–7) is presented first, and only thereafter does his seeking after the Ark take place (cf., 2 Samuel 6). Second, it is assumed in 2 Samuel 6 that David and his men knew where the ark was located (2 Sam. 6:1–2). On the other hand, Ps. 132:6 indicates that the location of the ark had lapsed from memory. Third, the assumed Deuteronomistic formulations in Psalm 132 are not at all self-evident.77 This being the case, it is necessary to examine once more the assumed parallel expressions in Ps. 132:11–12, 1778 and ask whether they are dependent on the Deuteronomistic History or vice versa. All four passages in 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12–13; 8:25 and 9:4–5 are related to Solomon and his rule in the whole Israel.79 Scholars have not considered that the conditional 77.  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark,” JBL 88 (1969): 143–56, esp. 143–44; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 96. 78.  It is difficult to regard the formulations in Ps. 132:12 as typically Deuteronomistic. That there are some linguistic features which are common for Ps. 132 and 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12–13; 8:25 and 9:4–5 is clear. However, these linguistic features concern only the formulation im yišmĕrû bānĕkā and kissē lĕkā. The question is, whether or not these two formulations should be regarded as typically Deuteronomistic. An examination of 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25 and 9:5 clearly indicates that the formulation lō yikkārēt lĕkā îš meal kissē Yiśrāēl is typically Deuteronomistic. It is worth noting that Ps. 132 possesses only two words in common with this Deuteronomistic formulation and, in addition, that the preposition lĕ is used instead of al used in 1 Kings. A corresponding observation can also be made in the case of the second linguistic feature in Ps. 132 which has been regarded as Deuteronomistic. In 1 Kgs 2:4 and 8:25 there is an identical formulation im yišmĕrû bānĕkā et darkām lāleket lĕpānay which can be regarded as typically Deuteronomistic. In Ps. 132 only the first three words of this formulation are used, and this sort of expression is so common in religious usage that no conclusions concerning the connection between Ps. 132 and Deuteronomistic history work can be drawn on the basis of it. Concerning the connection between Ps. 132:17 and 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19 it may be noted that only the word nîr is common for these four passages. Therefore it is impossible to draw any conclusion regarding the Deuteronomistic origin of Ps. 132:17, because the concept of the nîr can just as well be regarded as part and parcel of the Jerusalemite royal ideology. 79.  Richard D. Nelson regards “Israel” in these passages as referring to the Northern areas. See Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 18 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 99–105. Nelson’s view has drawn criticism from Provan, who notes that the term kissê Yiśrāēl refers to the United

214

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

promises in 1 Kings 2–9 as well as the passages concerning the promise of David’s nîr (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19) are formulated in such a way that they refer to the promise which has been given: 1 Kgs 2:4: “And that Yahweh may fulfil the promise which he made me, if your sons are careful how they behave, and walk loyally before me with all their heart and soul, you will never lack a man on the throne of Israel.” 1 Kgs 8:25: “And now, Yahweh, God of Israel, keep the promise which you made to your servant David when you said, you will never lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your descendants are careful in all they do to walk before me faithfully as you have done.” 1 Kgs 9:5: “…as I promised your father David when I said, you will never lack a man on the throne of Israel.” 2 Kgs 8:19: “…and was faithful to the promise which he had made him to leave him a lamp forever in his presence.”

According to the first three passages Yahweh had given a conditional promise concerning the Davidic dynasty’s rule over the whole of Israel (cf., kissē Yiśrāēl), but such a conditional promise has not been given in the Deuteronomistic History because the promise in 2 Samuel 7 is unconditional. In a similar way the fourth passage indicates that Yahweh had given the promise about the lamp but such a promise cannot be found earlier in the Deuteronomistic History either, and in 2 Samuel 7 there is no reference at all to the lamp of David. However, both promises can be found in Psalm 132. So, the question is whether or not the reference in these four passages de facto is to Psalm 132, which included such a well-known tradition during the exile that the Deuteronomistic editor could presuppose that his readers were familiar with these promises.80 If this is the case, then Psalm 132 must be older than the Deuteronomistic History. I have argued elsewhere with reference to other scholars that 2 Samuel 7 was the key promise in the Deuteronomistic History which had consequences for the hope of Jehoiakin (2 Kgs 25:27–31).81 The four texts Monarchy and not exclusively to the government of the North. See Ian W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, BZAW 172 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 107–8. 80.  It is worth noting that 2 Chr. 6:41–42 contain free allusions to Ps. 132 indicating the psalm’s importance in liturgy. 81.  For this see Laato, A Star Is Rising, 33–47; see also idem, Josiah and David Redivivus, 28–37; idem, “2 Samuel 7.”

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

215

above quoted are not an attempt to reinterpret the unconditional promise of 2 Samuel 7 (expressing the hope) conditionally; rather, they are reinter­ pretations of a conditional promise given to David’s dynasty in Psalm 132. 1 Kings 11:31–39 is a key-text for understanding the four texts. In it, both 2 Samuel 7 and the above-mentioned four texts from 1 Kings 2–9 are referred to: the dynasty of David lost the throne of Israel because of Solomon’s sins but did not lose the kingship in Jerusalem because of the promise given to David (cf., 1 Kgs 11:38b, which has a clear allusion to 2 Sam. 7; bayit-motif). The Deuteronomist argues that Solomon and his successor Rehoboam were punished because of Solomon’s disloyalty (as indicated in 2 Sam. 7:14) but not rejected totally. This being the case, the view that 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12–13; 8:25 and 9:4–5 provide a conditional corrective to the unconditional promise in 2 Samuel 7 does not stand. They are texts which speak about the conditional rule of the Davidic dynasty over the Northern tribes. The corresponding reinterpretation is also detectable in Ps. 132:17. In its present context Ps. 132:17 must be read in such a way that the Davidic dynasty can rule conditionally, as clearly indicated in vv. 11–12. In the Deuteronomistic History this conditional promise of nîr has been interpreted unconditionally according to 2 Samuel 7, so that the Davidic dynasty could always rule in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19). This survey has shown that Psalm 132 is not dependent on the Deuteronomistic History but vice versa. This tallies well with the Temple theology of Psalm 132, which is clearly non-Deuteronomistic and apparently pre-exilic. This means that Psalm 132 is an important source for an early Israelite Zion theology. In the next section I shall determine more closely how the theology of Psalm 132 is related to the old Zion theology. The Ark of Covenant and the Tent of David in Jerusalem David was responsible for transferring the Shilonite cult symbol to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6; Ps. 132; cf. Gen. 49:8–12). Where the Ark was placed after it had been transferred to Jerusalem is not clear. 2 Samuel 6:17 refers to the tent (hāōhel) which David pitched for it, and the same word is used in 2 Sam. 7:6 as the place for the Ark. As noted already, even Psalm 78 speaks about the tent (ōhel) as the place where the Ark was situated. This indicates that 2 Samuel 6–7 supports the idea that some form of an open-air cult center with a tent-shrine existed for the Ark in Jerusalem. Such a possible open-air cult-place in Jerusalem sits well with the evidence from archaeological investigations (see section 5.1). The vocabulary for the Ark used in 2 Sam. 15:25 also supports this conclusion. In it, David expresses his hope that he would again see the Ark “and its camping place (ôtô wĕet nāwēhû).” The Hebrew word nāwēh appears in

216

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Exod. 15:13 and should be regarded as a cognate term for the Akkadian nāwûm in Mari texts meaning the nomadic camping area.82 The word nāwēh can easily be related to the open-air cult place. Exodus 15:13 contains the keyword “strength” (ōz): “In your unfailing love you led the people you have redeemed. In your strength you guided them to your holy camping” (bĕozĕkā el nĕwēh qodšĕkā). This being the case, Exodus 15 expresses an idea that Yahweh has established an inheritance and a cultic place for his people (Exod. 15:13, 17). Whether this cult place was Shechem with Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. 11:29–30; 27:1–8) or Shiloh (Ps. 78:52–55) or Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6) is dependent on the way of dating Exodus 15 as well as on the way the text has been used in its long transmission process.83 This dating is not an essential question in this study because in the present form of the Pentateuch everything speaks in favor of Exodus 15 referring to the cult place in Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 6:17; 7:6; 15:25 suggest that David established in Jerusalem something similar to that which existed in Shiloh, i.e. the tent-shrine with the Ark. Psalm 132:6–8 can be interpreted against this background: We heard it in Ephrathah, found it in the fields of Jaar.84 7 Let us go to his tent-shrine, let us worship at his footstool, saying, 8 “Arise, Yahweh, and come to your resting place, you and the Ark of your might.” 6

In these three verses the story of the journey of the Ark is told in a very abridged version. In v 6, reference is made to the past history when the Ark was found in Qiryat-Jearim and apparently moved to Jerusalem. In v. 7, exhortation is given to the cultic community to go to the tentshrine which refers to the tent, which David made for the Ark of Yahweh in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:17). The imagery of the tent-shrine (miškĕnôt) and footstool (hădōm raglāyw) in Ps. 132:7 are presented in a similar way in the Ugaritic texts when the tent-shrine of Ēl is depicted (KTU 1.1 III:22–26; 1.2 III:5–6; 1.4 IV:20–30; 1.6 I:32–43; 1.17 VI:47–51).85 82.  For this see Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 43–47. 83.  I would not like to exclude the possibility that Exod. 15 has been a text which was well-known in Israel and used in different religious centers. This option is particularly plausible if the central cult place varied between different places in early Israel. 84.  Jaar is interpreted as referring to Qiryat-Jearim. 85.  In KTU 1.1 III:22–26; 1.2 III:5–6; 1.17 VI:47–51 the idea of bowing in front of Ēl’s feet is not attested in the text, though the idea can be reconstructed in it.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

217

An illustrative example is KTU 1.6 I:34–38, where Anat’s visit in Ēl’s dwelling is recounted: She enters Ēl’s tent (ḏd il), goes into the tent-shrine (qrš)86 of the King, Father of Years. At Ēl’s feet (l pn il) she bows and falls, Does homage and honors him.

This same imagery for Ēl’s tent is apparent when Atirat comes to him and requests that permanent temple should be built for Baal (KTU 1.4 IV:20–81). The text continues, stating that when Atirat enters Ēl’s tent, she bows in front of him while Ēl “taps his feet on the footstool (hdm).” Verse 8 refers to an important cultic event worth remembering. When the Ark of Yahweh was transferred from the tent of David to the Temple it found its final resting-place (1 Kgs 8). This cultic event was still remembered in the book of Chronicles and reference there is made to Ps. 132:8–10 (2 Chr. 6:41–42). This early interpretation of Psalm 132 relates Ps. 132:8 to the transfer of the Ark to the Temple built by Solomon. Psalm 132 is an additional example of how the Temple of Jerusalem was understood as the abode of Ēl of Shiloh. The Ugaritic parallels show that the theological concepts used in Ps. 132:7 can easily be dated to the early monarchic period. The evidence indicates that Yahweh was understood as Ēl—something which receives strong support from the names of Yahweh used in the Zion-related psalms. The imagery related to the Storm-god should therefore be understood as a religious occupation. This imagery went hand in hand with the building of the Temple, but the name of the Storm-god was not Adad, Hadad or Baal, but rather Yahweh-Ēl of Israel. The present form of Psalm 132 presupposes the existence of the Temple of Jerusalem which was the final resting-place for the Ark (Ps. 132:8). The Ark was put under the wings of the two massive cherubim (1 Kgs 8:6). What then is the meaning of this resting-place? Resting-place Theology The resting-place theology is an important topic in Psalm 132. This theology has nothing to do with the concept of deus otiosus. The verb qûm is used when the Ark was placed in its resting-place inside the Temple (Ps. 132:8) and this verb denotes Yahweh’s active role in the life of his people Israel (Num. 10:35–36). Hillers and following him Cross have argued that it is difficult to imagine that the verb qûm would have been 86.  For the term qrš, see especially Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent.”

218

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

connected with the act of placing the ark in its resting-place. They refer to the use of this verb in Num. 10:35, where it refers to Yahweh’s rising from his Tabernacle and coming to help his people. Therefore they have suggested that the preposition lĕ- in Ps. 132:8 is a trace of the use of archaic Hebrew and in this passage it indicates “from” as it can also mean in the Ugaritic language.87 However, this is not the most natural proposal because the word mĕnûḥâ is used in v. 8 and this word refers clearly to the Temple of Jerusalem in v. 14.88 Therefore, it is most natural to give the preposition its ordinary meaning here and interpret Ps. 132:8 in such a way that Yahweh’s ark is moved to its resting-place and the verb qûm is used to denote the active role of Yahweh. He is going to his restingplace without the need to seek a new dwelling-place among the tribes of Israel. His aim is not to rest in his dwelling-place but rather to show his strength and power to help his people. The same verb qûm has often been used in the Psalms when Yahweh is requested to rise up and come to help his servants or his people (Pss. 3:8; 7:7; 9:20; 10:12; 17:13; 44:27; 74:22; 82:8). 5.4. The Origin of the Aniconic Cult in Shiloh As already noted in the previous section, I agree with those scholars who argue that the cherub throne in the Temple of Jerusalem was an aniconic representation of Yahweh. This same result is also valid for the religious symbolism of the Ark of Covenant which was originally situated in Shiloh. Does any possibility remain to clarify the origin of this aniconic representation of the cherub throne over the Ark? In the following I shall offer a tentative interpretation, during which I will consider two presumably ancient Israelite religious traditions: (1) aniconic maṣṣēbâstones used in the cult, and (2) the tradition of the exodus.89 87.  Delbert Hillers, “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132,” CBQ 30 (1968): 48–55; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 95 n. 19. Concerning the use of the preposition l- in the Ugaritic language, see Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, HdO 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 195–97. 88.  See further Seow, Myth, Drama, 169–72, where other relevant arguments against Hillers’ (and Cross’) opinion have been presented. 89.  The exodus tradition in the Hebrew Bible has been interpreted in many different ways. I interpret this factual phenomenon in such a way that a historical reality looms behind the traditions. See Davies, “Was There an Exodus?” In my tentative hypothesis I assume two basic historical corner-stones behind the variations of the exodus tradition. First, the exodus tradition illustrates in different ways how Semitic groups have left Egypt after the collapse of the Hyksos dynasty there. Thus the motif

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

219

The Religious Historical Background of Aniconism—Maṣṣĕbôt Uzi Avner’s doctoral dissertation from 2002 and his subsequent articles have increased enormously our knowledge on early material and the spiritual culture of the Negev and Sinai populations from the Neolithic period to the Early Bronze age.90 An important detail in his dissertation, which—I believe—has a strong impact in understanding the roots of Israelite aniconism, is the role of standing stones (maṣṣĕbôt) in the non-sedentary religious culture. Mettinger, in particular, has emphasized this continuity between standing stones and Israelite aniconism.91 Because maṣṣĕbôt were mainly unhewn field stones which were used to represent a deity or deities they can explain the origin of the aniconic cult in the ‘escape from Egypt to Canaan’ became central in different generations during the Late Bronze Age. For this see the various contributions in Eliezer D. Oren, ed., The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1997), and Barbara J. Sivertsen, The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 10–22. Second, I assume that a group under the leadership of Moses escaped from Egypt during the reign of Ramesses II. For discussion on the logical possible world for the Mosaic exodus, see James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); idem, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Cf., also de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 208–70, where an attempt to identify Moses with Beya has been made. While this identification cannot be confirmed and remains only a hypothesis, there are several interesting details which illustrate the Egyptian background of the Moses story. For these details see also Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken, 1986). 90.  Uzi Avner, “Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, During the 6th–3rd Millenia B.C.” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, 2002). The dissertation is available at http://www.freemedia.ch/fileadmin/img/ rockart/stonewatch/download/SC03_Negev_Sinai.pdf. See also a good summary in Uzi Avner, “Sacred Stones in the Desert,” BAR 27, no. 3 (2001): 30–37, 39, 41. See further one example of how these cultic sites were concentrated in certain areas in Uzi Avner, Moti Shem-Tov, Lior Enmar, Gideon Ragolski, Rachamim Shem-Tov and Omry Barzilai, “A Survey of Neolithic Cult Sites in the Eilat Mountains, Israel,” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 44 (2014): 101–16. The nonsedentary peoples were no marginal phenomenon. Avner shows that they played an important role, for example, in ancient metallurgy. For this see Uzi Avner, “Egyptian Timna—Reconsidered,” in Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, ed. Juan M. Tebes (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 103–62. 91.  Mettinger, No Graven Image?, 135–97; idem, “A Conversation with My Critics.”

220

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

ancient Near East. It is often remarked that the three ancient Near Eastern religions where aniconism is a central element—i.e. the Israelite and Nabatean religions92 as well as Islam—all have their roots in the religious traditions of desert peoples.93 As far as the Israelite aniconism is concerned, archaeological evidence shows that standing stones played an important role in early Israelite and Judean sanctuaries. These stones have been found in Arad, Lachish (locus 81), Beth-Shemesh (uncertain cultic case), the Bull Site in the territory of Manasseh, Tirzah (the gate cult place), Megiddo, Tel Dan (various cult corners), Hazor94 and Taanach (possibly Israelite).95 This indicates that the aniconic Yahwism has a long religious tradition in Israel and Judah. This also explains why no certain iconic representation of Yahweh has been found in the archaeological investigations. Nevertheless, this does not exclude the possibility that attempts were made to depict Yahweh in some circles. There are some texts in the Hebrew Bible which reveal the religious meaning related to maṣṣĕbôt. A good starting-point is Gen. 49:24. This text refers to the divine name “the Stone of Israel.”96 Such a divine name must be related to the idea that a standing stone represents the presence of the deity. One of the most primitive descriptions of the maṣṣēbâ cult is Gen. 28:18–22: Early the next morning Jacob took the stone (hāeben) he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar (maṣṣēbâ) and poured oil on top of it. 19 He called that place Bethel, though the city used to be called Luz. 20 Then 18

92.  For the Nabatean aniconism, see especially Joseph Patrich, The Formation of Nabatean Art: Prohibitions of a Graven Image among the Nabateans (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990). See further Uzi Avner, “Nabatean Standing Stones and Their Interpretation,” ARAM 11–12 (1999–2000): 97–122, where the baetyl reliefs in Nabatean niches and Nabatean standing stones are religious-historically related to maṣṣĕbôt. 93.  For this remark, see especially Avner, Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, 92. 94.  For Hazor, see Ben-Ami, “Early Iron Age Cult Places.” 95.  For this survey, see Mettinger No Graven Image?, 143–68. Note also Holladay, “Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy.” The problem in Holladay’s analysis is that some examples may reflect a domestic cult in ancient Israel. For this see Rainer Albertz, “Family Religion in Ancient Israel and Its Surroundings,” in Bodel and Olyan, eds., Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, 89–112, esp. 94–97. Nevertheless, there is a basic agreement that the above-mentioned list illustrates the recent knowledge of Israelite maṣṣēbâ-sites. For this see Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 123–66, esp. 256–65. 96.  In addition, worth noting is the divine name ṣûr (“Rock”) in Deut. 32.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

221

Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear 21 so that I return safely to my father’s household, then Yahweh will be my God 22 and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house (hāeben hazzôt ăšer śamtî maṣṣēbâ yihyēh bêt ĕlōhîm), and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth.”

Genesis 28:22 contains an interesting statement that the standing stone will be God’s house, indicating that God’s presence is related to the maṣṣēbâ.97 According to Gen. 35:14, Jacob erected maṣṣēbâ in the place where God had spoken to him. This agrees well with the idea that the stone represents the house of God as indicated in Gen. 28:18–22. Genesis 31:13 too implies a similar idea that the standing stone and deity are related to each other: “I am the God of Bethel (hāēl bêtēl), where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me.” The archaic idea that a deity may live in the stone becomes clearer from many other texts in the Hebrew Bible where a standing stone is said to represent a foreign god or an idol. According to 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:27, a standing stone representing Baal (maṣṣĕbat habbaal) was made in Israel during the reign of Ahab, and Jehu destroyed it. 2 Kings 10:26 relates 97.  The religious idea is clearly archaic. Such an idea made maṣṣĕbôt problematic in a later period of Israel when the cult was concentrated in Jerusalem. Therefore, it is understandable why maṣṣĕbôt were later prohibited (Deut. 16:21–22). It is worth noting that this verse is regarded as a later addition in the story by Köhlmoos, Bet-El-Erinnerungen, 235. The argument is “den unmotivierten Personenwechsel und die neue Deutung der Mazzebe als Gotteshaus.” See also Koenen, Bethel, 150–59, where vv. 20–22 are regarded as a later insertion to the story, but one before the reign of Josiah or perhaps even before the fall of Samaria. It is difficult to think that such an archaic and non-Deuteronomic idea would be a later addition to the story. Rather, this old idea must be an essential part of the story. Concerning this archaic idea, see Karel van der Toorn, “Worshipping Stones: On the Deification of Cult Symbols,” JNSL 23 (1997): 1–14; Avner, Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, 87–88, where reference is made to Gen. 28:22 and other ancient Near Eastern texts where a similar archaic idea of the role of standing stones is visible. See further the analysis in Gomes, Sanctuary of Bethel, 62–67, where he argues that v. 22 belongs to the older E(lohist) source. My point here is not to take any stand concerning the right way to understand the sources behind the Pentateuch. In this study, the essential point is to emphasize that v. 22 represents an archaic theological understanding of maṣṣēbâ. Cf. the following studies by Blum indicating how complicated the analysis of Pentateuch sources is: Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 17–19; idem, “Noch einmal: Jakobs Traum in Bethel—Genesis 28,10–22,” in McKenzie and Römer, eds., Rethinking the Foundations, 33–54.

222

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Baal’s standing stone to the temple of the deity (maṣṣĕbôt bêt habbaal). The Israelites are exhorted to destroy the cult place of foreign deities with “their pillars” (maṣṣēbōtêhem or maṣṣēbōtām, Exod. 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3). All these references can be taken to indicate that the stone itself was seen as representing a deity. That maṣṣĕbôt were an integral part of the Israelite Yahweh cult becomes clear not only from archaeological evidence but also from biblical texts. While the present form of the Hebrew Bible represents an intolerant attitude toward standing stones (Lev. 26:1; Deut. 16:22), many references in historical books indicate that such pillars were regularly used. A combination of bāmôt, maṣṣĕbôt and ăšērîm are listed in the Deuteronomistic History as a witness that the Israelites or Judeans had rejected the normative Yahwism (1 Kgs 14:23; 17:10; 18:4; 23:14).98 But as soon as we are outside the Deuteronomistic theological program it is possible to find texts where a more tolerant attitude towards maṣṣĕbôt can be detected. One of these texts is Gen. 22:18–22, referred to above. Another text is Hos. 3:4, which is a doom prophecy against Israel: “For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods (wĕên zĕbaḥ wĕên maṣṣēbâ wĕên ēpôd ûtĕrāîm).” The text reveals that maṣṣĕbôt and tĕrāîm are closely integrated to the Yahwistic cult (sacrifice and ephod) in Israel.99 While both could represent a deity,100 both were also important in the ancestral cult101 (see Gen. 31:19, 34–35; 1 Sam. 19:13, 16, and discussion below).102 Another prophetic text which justifies the use of maṣṣĕbôt in the 98.  Interestingly the Chronicler adds in this list of three forbidden cultic items even altars (mizbĕḥôt). See 2 Chr. 14:2; 31:1. 99.  Concerning the varied use of tĕrāîm in the Hebrew Bible, see Klaus Seybold, “terafîm,” THAT 2:1057–60. Concerning the ancient Near Eastern background, see Oswald Loretz, “Die Teraphim als ‘Ahnen-Götter-Figur(in)en’ im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit,” UF 24 (1992): 133–78. 100.  It is worth noting that the LXX translates the word with eidōlon, “idol” or glyptos, “carved image”. Concerning tĕrāîm and the image of deity, see especially Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17–18, 20. 101.  Albertz and Schmitt do not want to use the terms “cults of the dead” or “ancestral cult” because they “imply veneration of ancestors similar to that of gods, and this is not attested in our sources.” Instead, they use the concept, “care for the dead”. See Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 430, 493 (the quotation is from the latter page). 102.  The use of tĕrāîm for both deities and ancestors, see Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 60–61.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

223

Yahwistic cult without any condemnation is Isa. 19:19: “In that day there will be an altar to Yahweh (mizbēaḥ laYhwh) in the heart of Egypt, and a pillar to Yahweh at its border (maṣṣēbâ ēṣel gĕbûlāh laYhwh).” The critical attitude toward maṣṣĕbôt was developed in the prophetic circles apparently because they were also used in the worship of foreign deities. It seems that these foreign maṣṣĕbôt were artificially crafted. They could have graven images, and in this respect they were also criticized according to an archaic Yahwistic view where a positive attitude toward maṣṣĕbôt was held. Hosea 10:1–2 is illustrative (cf. also Mic. 5:12, where maṣṣĕbôt and pĕsîlîm are paralleled): Israel was a spreading vine; he brought forth fruit for himself. As his fruit increased, he built more altars; as his land prospered, he adorned his sacred stones (hêṭîbû maṣṣĕbôt). 2 Their heart is deceitful, and now they must bear their guilt. He [God] will demolish their altars and destroy their sacred stones. 1

Many of the standing stones found in Negev and Sinai are natural, unhewn stones103 and it can be assumed that such a tradition was regarded as legitimate in the early form of Yahwism (so Hos. 3:4–5). But if they were adorned—as indicated in Hos. 10:1—they became illegal. Avner’s many studies indicate that Israelite aniconism was based on an ancient de facto (not normative) tradition that the symbol of deity should not be worked by human hand. If this were indeed the case, then the second commandment can be understood to be deeply rooted in this ancient religious idea in the Neolithic Levant.104 Standing stones were also important in the ancestral cult or as symbols representing forefathers.105 An illustrative example is 2 Sam. 18:18: “During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar (maṣṣebet) and erected

103.  Avner, Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, 67: “Almost all masseboth are natural, unshaped stones, but a close inspection reveals that their shapes were carefully considered when selected, whether narrow or broad.” 104.  So Mettinger, No Graven Image? 105.  See the different ways pertaining to the use of standing stones in Carl F. Graesser, “Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine,” BA 35 (1972): 34–63; Avner, Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, 84–89.

224

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

it in the King’s Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, ‘I have no son to carry on the memory of my name (hazkîr šĕmî).’ He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom’s Monument (yad abšālôm) to this day.”106 The Ugaritic texts indicates that maṣṣĕbôt could be identified with dead fathers and used in the ancestral cult. According to the Kirta legend (KTU 1.17 I:25–28), the duty of the son is “to erect a stele to his father-gods” (nṣb skn ilbh).107 Absalom had no son and, therefore, he had to erect the stone for himself. It is possible to continue on this track and ask whether there are more traces of the ancient traditions about the Israelite religion. For example, could Exod. 24:4 refer to an ancient religious ceremony where the dead patriarchs of Israel were regarded as being present? Did Moses erect twelve maṣṣĕbôt to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel, i.e. the twelve patriarchs of Israel when he made the covenant between Yahweh and Israel? “He [Moses] got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel (ûšĕtêm eśrēh maṣṣēbâ lišnêm āšār šibṭê Yiśrāēl).” In that case the aim of Exod. 24:4 could have been parallel to the theological formulation in Exod. 6:2–3 according to which the patriarchs served the same God, Yahweh. Scholars have discussed in which ways the ancestral cult was practiced in ancient Israel.108 There are two biblical texts, Lev. 26:30 and Ezek. 43:7–9, which may refer to such symbolic stones of ancestors.109 In Ezek. 43:7 the text can be interpreted as follows:110 “The people of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the memorial monuments [alternatively: funeral offerings] for their kings (ûbĕpigrê malkêhem) at their death.” Another text, 106.  This note has been regarded as a later addition to the Succession Narrative by many scholars, and therefore its use as evidence of pre-exilic religious practice has been questioned. See Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 460. See, however, McCarter, II Samuel, 407–9, where reference is made to KTU 1.17. 107.  For the interpretation of this text, see de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 346–47. 108.  That the ancestral cult (or care for the dead) has played a prominent role in the Iron Age Israel is now well documented in Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 429–73. See further van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel; Bodel and Olyan, Household and Family Religion. 109.  See David Neiman, “PGR: A Canaanite Cult-Object in the Old Testament,” JBL 67 (1948): 55–60; de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 345. For another interpretation, “funeral offering,” see Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 96–97. 110.  If the word peger has its usual meaning “corpse,” then the text can be interpreted in such a way that it refers to criticism of royal burial chambers close to the Temple which could pollute the sacred area. For this option, see Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 456.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

225

Lev. 26:30, reads: “I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your memorial monuments on the memorial monuments of your idols (et pigrêkem al pigrê gillûlêkem), and I will abhor you.” In this text it is difficult to interpret peger as meaning “corpse.” The text indicates that peger is some kind of an object which can be made for human beings and deities. Standing stones or memorial monuments were also made to represent important individuals who wanted to be memorialized in the cult because they were not able to be present in the religious ceremony. Such an interpretation is possible concerning the Middle Bronze sanctuaries of Hazor, Tel el-Hayyat and Tel Kitan.111 Albertz and Schmitt note that “no archaeological evidence of memorials in the form of stelae has been found in Iron Age Israel,” though they refer to Syrian and Phoenician examples.112 The Origin of Aniconic Representation on Cherubim Throne The survey above indicates that the maṣṣĕbôt can be related to the early Yahwistic cult, and that they explain well the origin of the (de facto) aniconic Yahweh cult. The question remains as to whether it is still possible to trace roots for the origin of the aniconic representation of Yahweh over the cherubim throne on the Ark of covenant (yôšēb hakkĕrūbîm, 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; 2 Chr. 13:6; Pss. 80:2; 99:1; Isa. 37:16). That the cherub throne was an ancient Near Eastern concept is well presented in scholarly literature.113 That such a symbol was chosen in Israel to represent the kingship of Yahweh must have been based on some fundamental theological concepts. There are some texts in the Hebrew Bible which explain the roles of cherubim in the representation of Yahweh in the Israelite religion. The best starting-point is 2 Sam. 22:11 (par. Ps. 18:11), which speaks of Yahweh riding on the cherub (wayyirkab al kĕrūb), an image which comes close to yôšēb hakkĕrūbîm. The passage is a part of the larger text 2 Sam. 22:8–16 (par. Ps. 18:8–16), where Yahweh is described as a Storm-god.114 Thus the text reflects the imagery of theophany related to 111.  For such an option for the Middle Bronze Hazor (Area A4), see Doron Ben-Ami, “Mysterious Standing Stones: What Do These Ubiquitous Things Mean?,” BAR 32 (2006): 38–45.

112.  Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 460–62. The quotation is from p. 460. 113.  See especially Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron. In this study the cherub throne is related to other representations of thrones in the ancient Near East. 114.  It is difficult to give chronological preference either to the 2 Samuel or to the Psalms text. For this, see especially Georg Schmuttermayr, Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel

226

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

the Temple of Jerusalem (see the analysis in Chapter 4). Nevertheless, the idea of Yahweh riding on a cherub is old and is related to the Yahweh war and the role of the Ark in it:115 The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the mountains116 shook; they trembled because he was angry. 9 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, coals blazed out of it. 10 He spread apart the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. 11 He rode a cherub and flew; soared117 on the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness his hiding place118— his canopy are dark waters and dense clouds. 13 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds passed hailstones and coals of fire.119 14 And Yahweh thundered from heaven; the voice of Elyôn resounded. 15 He shot his arrows and scattered them [=enemies], with great bolts of lightning he put them in panic.120 8

22: Studien zu einem Doppeltext. Probleme der Textkritik und Übersetzung und das Psalterium Pianum, StANT 25 (Munich: Kösel, 1971). Nevertheless, it is important to note that 2 Sam. 22 contains some older grammatical forms compared to Ps. 18. For this, see Cross and Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography; Smith, “Why Was ‘Old Poetry’ Used in Hebrew Narrative?,” esp. 210. 115.  Müller (Jahwe als Wettergott, 18–42) reconstructs an original core of theophany in vv. 8–13*, 15–16*. As noted in Chapter 2, I am not convinced that older cores can be reconstructed verbatim because the editors may have changed the wording of their source texts (cf., the situation in 1 Chr. 16 where Ps. 96 has been quoted; or parallels between 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18). In any case, I agree with Müller that an older theophanic text of the Storm-god is attested here. 116.  The alternative reading “mountains” is attested in many Hebrew manuscripts and 2 Sam. 18:8 as well as in the Syriac version and Vulgate of 2 Sam. 22:8. The reading is also attested in Ps. 18:8 and is to be preferred. 117.  Many ancient translations of 2 Sam. 22:11 supporting by Ps. 18:11 contain an older and more reliable reading: dāâ, “fly, soar”. 118.  Ps. 18:12 reads here sitrô, which is the better reading. See Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 23 n. 31. 119.  The translation is based on Ps. 18:13. 120.  The translation follows Ps. 18:15.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

227

The valleys of the sea121 were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of Yahweh, at the blast of breath from his nostrils. 16

Yahweh is depicted here as the Storm-god but also identified with (Ēl) Elyôn. While Baal in the Ugaritic myths was the rider of clouds122 Yahweh, in turn, in this text is the rider of cherub. This indicates that the Storm-god imagery is associated with the cherub throne of the Temple (or of the Ark). The text also reveals something about the role of the cherubim. The context suggests that cherubim represent Yahweh’s destructive powers when he appeared to war against his enemies and caused them to panic. This meaning of the roles of the cherubim also explains the divine name Yahweh Sabaoth. As is often suggested by scholars, the epithet Sabaoth can be related to the heavenly hosts of Yahweh which in particular are associated with the idea of the Divine Warrior. The full divine name related to the Ark is “Yahweh Sabaoth who sits enthroned upon the cherubim” (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 1 Chr. 13:6; Isa. 37:16).123 This means that cherubim were interpreted as belonging to the heavenly hosts of Yahweh who were ready to wage war against the enemies of Israel. The heavenly host of Yahweh takes part in the cosmogonic battle (Ps. 89:6–12) and the theophany in Psalm 89 is related to Yahweh’s assistance towards the Davidic dynasty (section 4.6). Another text where cherubim are related to destructive powers under the control of Yahweh is Habakkuk 3. I have offered a dedicated study of Hab. 3:2 elsewhere,124 where I argue that the Masoretic version of Hab. 3:2 is a result of later reworking. At first sight the LXX version seems to indicate that its Hebrew Vorlage was longer.125 The following parallels can be detected:

121.  2 Sam. 22:16 reads here yām, while Ps. 18:16 mayîm. 122.  For this see especially Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 594–610. See further Chapter 6, where the anti-Baal tendency of the Israelite Storm-god imagery is discussed. 123.  See the overview of the research presented in Choon L. Seow, “Hosts, Lord of,” ABD 3:304–8. See further Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH.” 124.  Laato, “Yahweh Manifests Himself between Two Cherubim.” 125.  The correct methodological approach to solve the crux of Hab. 3:2 is to compare it with the LXX version. Concerning this, see especially Andersen, Habakkuk, 273–83.

228

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology Kurie, eisakēkoa tēn akoē sou kai efobēthēn katenoēsa ta erga sou kai eksestēn en mesō duo zōōn gnōsthēsē en tō eggizein ta etē epignōsthēsē en tō pareinai ton kairon anadeikhthēsē en tō tarakhthēnai tēn psukhēn mou en orgē eleous mnēsthēsē

Yhwh šāmatî šimăkā yārētî Yhwh pāālěkā běqereb šānîm ḥayyêhû běqereb šānîm tôdîa běrōgez raḥēm tizkôr

The LXX reading en mesō duo zōōn gnōsthēsē (“In the midst of two living creatures you will be known”) indicates that the translator has read a Hebrew Vorlage which contained bqrb šnym ḥywt twdy. On the other hand, en tō eggizein ta etē epignōsthēsē (“when the years draw near, you will be recognized”) can be translated back to běqereb šānîm tôdîa. So, the unvocalized Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX was bqrb šnym ḥywt bqrb šnym twdy, and after vocalizing tiwwādēa (instead of the MT’s tôdîa) the translator understood it elliptically and this resulted in the double translations gnōsthēsē and epignōsthēsē. The Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX relates the two living creatures to the two cherubim in the cherub throne of Yahweh (Exod. 25:17–22 or 1 Kgs 6:23–28).126 I have argued for the following translation of Hab. 3:2: Yahweh, I have heard your message, Yahweh, I am afraid in the face of your work. In the midst of the two (cherubim) Yah is alive! In the midst of the two (cherubim) you will reveal yourself! In wrath you will remember mercy!

Such an understanding of Hab. 3:2 fits well in the context. In Hab. 2:20, the verse immediately preceding the prayer of Habakkuk, the reference is to Yahweh who will manifest his message from the Temple of Jerusalem. The verb yāda (niphal) has been used for Yahweh as subject in the meaning “make oneself known,” for example, in Exod. 6:3; Isa. 19:21; Ps. 9:17. Additional support for this understanding of Hab. 3:2 can be found in Hab. 3:5. This verse describes how two personified powers, Deber and Resheph, assist Yahweh in his march to help his people. That these powers are angelomorphic receives support from the Hebrew Bible. In 2 Samuel 24 Yahweh’s angel spreads pestilence among the Israelites. Amos 5:10 reports that Deber was sent against the Egyptians and the parallel passages in Ps. 78:49–50 speak of “destroying angels” which 126.  This option is also mentioned by Andersen (Habakkuk, 280), but he does not develop the idea further.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

229

are deployed against the Egyptians to kill them with pestilence (deber). This evidence shows that Deber was an angelomorphic figure. Resheph is attested in Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.14 I:18–19; 1.15 II:6; 1.82:3) and it is clear that he is a god of destruction. Deuteronomy 32:23–24 and Ps. 78:48 as well as the imagery in Job 5:7; Ps. 91:5–6; Ben Sira 43:17 make it probable that Resheph too was regarded as a flying demon or angel.127 This analysis suggests that the two cherubim in the throne of Yahweh were interpreted as guardians who could become destructive powers like Deber and Resheph in Hab. 3:5.128 In ancient Israelite poetry it was usual to emphasize that the God who revealed himself at Sinai will come to help his people, and finally establish his kingship on the top of the mount where his temple is built (Exod. 15:1–18; Deut. 33; Ps. 68). The prayer of Habakkuk reverses the order. Habakkuk 3 is dependent on an earlier Israelite cultic tradition (cf., Hab. 3:10–12, 15 and Ps. 77:17–20).129 Habakkuk 3 indicates that the cherubim represent angelic powers which Yahweh can send against the enemies of Israel. For example, the introductory words, “Yahweh, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim” (2 Kgs 19:15; par Isa. 37:16), open the prayer of Hezekiah in the midst of the Assyrian invasion. Hezekiah requests Yahweh to help him, and in the subsequent story it is told that God manifests his power by sending an angel to destroy the Assyrian

127.  For this see Paolo Xella, “Resheph,” DDD, 700–703. Concerning the religio-historical background of Deut. 32:24 and Hab. 3:5, see Karel van der Toorn, “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel,” in Demons: The Demonology of Israelite–Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment, ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lihctenberger and K. F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 61–83. Also worth noting is the opinion of Sanders in his The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 401–2, according to which “Rešep is still regarded as a deity in Hab. 3:5 and Deut. 32:24” (402). This suggests that Resheph is one member of the divine council. 128.  It is worth noting that in the Balaam text (Num. 22–24) one of Yahweh’s angels was disguised as Satan against Balaam (Num. 22:22, 32–33). This old and primitive understanding of the figure of Satan shows that the angel of Yahweh may become the destructive power of Deber or Resheph (Hab. 3:5). See Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: śātān in the Hebrew Bible, HSM 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); Antti Laato, “The Devil in the Old Testament,” in Evil and the Devil, ed. Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi, ESCO (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 1–22. 129.  This is commonly mentioned in commentaries. See, e.g., Walter Rudolph, Micha–Nahum–Habakuk–Zephanja, KAT 8/3 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), 244–45; Andersen, Habakkuk, 328–29.

230

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

army (2 Kgs 19:35; par Isa. 37:36). The story indicates that the angel which Yahweh sent against the Assyrian army was one of the cherubim— something which parallels the idea in Habakkuk 3. Another text where the angel motif is used for destructive pestilence is Ps. 78:48–51: He gave over their cattle to the hail, their livestock to pestilence-demons (lārĕšāpîm). 49 He unleashed against them his hot anger, his wrath, indignation and hostility— a band of destroying angels (malăkê rāîm). 50 He prepared a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death but gave them over to the plague-demon (laddeber). 51 He struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, the firstfruits of manhood in the tents of Ham. 48

This passage in Psalm 78 is an important detail because it describes the exodus event with the aid of angelic destruction in Egypt, and connects it with the cult place of Shiloh in the following verses (Ps. 78:52–55). The passage presents Resheph and Deber demons as personified angelic powers under the control of Yahweh in the land of Egypt (cf., also Amos 4:10). Traditio-historically Ps. 78:48–51 is parallel to Exodus 12, where Yahweh sends his destroyer (mašḥît) against the firstborn of Egypt. A similar episode of a destroyer-angel annihilating the people by means of pestilence is also related to the sanctuary of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 24). 2 Samuel 24:16 calls the angel killing the people, malāk hammašḥît bāām. The altar built by David is located in the place where Solomon later built the Temple and where he put the Ark under two massive cherubim constructed in the Debir. Therefore, it is possible to interpret even 2 Samuel 24 as the cherubim being related to destructive powers of pestilence which are under Yahweh’s control.130 The above analysis speaks for a hypothesis that the empty cherub throne was a logical development of the aniconic maṣṣēbâ tradition in the early Israelite religion. Its aim was to remind the Israelites of the great event in which Yahweh saved the people from slavery in Egypt. As noted, the historical circumstances surrounding the exodus are outside the scope of this study, but I assume that different traditions about it were 130.  See further the interpretation of the epithet Sabaoth and mašḥît in Marc Z. Brettler, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 102–9. Brettler argues that the terminology was formulated according to the Israelite military concepts. Of course, this does not need to be in conflict with my interpretation but can be complementary.

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

231

circulating in early Israel and that the cult of Shiloh was one exponent of this tradition. The empty cherub throne symbolized the great power of Yahweh who sent destructive angels of pestilence and plague against the Egyptians. This event was especially recounted in the exodus tradition, according to which Egyptians were finally willing to let Israelites go out from Egypt when their firstborn were killed. In the long transmission process of Israelite religious traditions, connections between the cherub throne and exodus tradition have vanished almost totally, but they are still recognizable if the above interpretive scenario is accepted. 5.5. Summary and Conclusions In Chapter 3 I emphasized that the textual material of the book of Samuel is selective, containing mainly updated and edited versions of older documents related to the legitimation of the House of David: the eternal dynasty (2 Sam. 7), an apology for David and Solomon in the forms of David’s Rise to Power and Succession Narrative. There are only a few references to the internal politics of the early monarchic Israel, and some of them have been preserved in the Ark Narrative, which recounts the history of how the Ark, once situated in Shiloh, was moved to Jerusalem. In Chapter 4 I argued that the early form of Zion theology was formulated by adopting imagery of the Storm-god according to the typical West Semitic model. This explains why some early Zion-related texts have a strong Mediterranean context. The aim of the present chapter was to discuss whether it is possible to say something about the traditio-historical background of pre-Jerusalemite Yahwism. I have argued that there was a positive connection between Shiloh and Jerusalem which was later broken—apparently after the reign of Solomon, when the two separate kingdoms Israel and Judah were established. I have argued that in spite of the selective nature of the sources in the book of Samuel there are some important references to internal politics in early Israel. I placed focus on the co-operation between Judah and Ephraim as it is referred to in the book of Hosea—a book which often gives references to the early history of Israel. The past glorious position of Ephraim among the tribes of Israel is referred to in Hos. 10:11–15; 13:1–3. I argued that the first-mentioned text refers to the political co-operation between Judah and Ephraim during the time of David. The corresponding positive picture of Judah and Ephraim is also given in Genesis 49, where the blessings of Judah and Joseph take a prominent role. This internalpolitical perspective also helps in understanding the famous enigmatic Shiloh passage in Gen. 49:8–12. I have argued that the reading Shiloh in

232

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Gen. 49:10 should be taken as original. The verse indicates that the real zenith of the kingdom of Judah will be achieved when Judah comes to Shiloh, i.e. when it accepts the cultic symbol of Shiloh, the Ark. A close connection between the cult of Jerusalem and Shiloh is also implied in Psalm 78, even though in this case a critical attitude is presented against Shiloh (cf., however, Ps. 78:52–55). Psalm 78 refers to a rivalry between Jerusalem and Shiloh, and there is not so much continuity between these cult places as in the Ark Narrative. There is an implied idea that the Shilonite cult symbol (Ps. 78:60–61) was moved to the Temple of Jerusalem, but this event has not been emphasized. I also discussed Psalm 132 and demonstrated that the Ark was an important factor which emphasized the continuity between the Temple of Jerusalem, where the imagery of the Storm-god was related to Yahweh and older open-air cult place (in Kiryat-Yearim and later in Davidic Jerusalem) in which the imagery of the Canaanite Ēl with the tent of dwelling was connected with Yahweh. The continuity between these two cult places becomes visible in the transfer of the Ark to the Temple of Jerusalem. This being the case, the imagery of the Storm-god so evident in the description of the cult of the Jerusalemite Temple (see Chapter 4) cannot be interpreted as Yahwism having been theologically rooted in West Semitic Baalism. Rather, the evidence presented in Chapters 4 and 5 indicates that this process should be understood as an example of occupation, one where the new god, Yahweh, was integrated into an old West Semitic religious context. The adoption of the Mediterranean Storm-god to Yahweh indicated a new political situation in Israel, where David and Solomon managed to establish Jerusalem as one of the most important religious centers in the Land of Canaan by means of political alliances. In this new situation it was argued that Yahweh is not only the Most High God, Ēl Elyôn, but also the dynamic Storm-god who defeated the powers of chaos and was able to give fertility. Yahweh Sabaoth, who once had his cult place in Shiloh, has now taken his resting-place in Jerusalem. Finally, I have also attempted to create a possible world for the outcome of the aniconic cherub throne. While my hypothesis certainly is not the only explanatory model, it is nevertheless an attempt to integrate the exodus tradition in the symbolic meaning of cherubim. The problem of such an interpretive model is that old traditions have been transmitted selectively and modified through centuries. The results of Chapters 4 and 5 give reason to envisage the following scenario for the development of Israelite religion history. The worship of the Storm-god became extremely popular beginning at the end of

5. The Ark of Covenant and the Zion Theology

233

the second millennium and in the first millennium, both in Canaan and the Syro-Phoenician area, and the worship of Ēl decreased. While it is apparent that also in Israel it became popular to depict Yahweh as the Storm-god, it is significant that on the level of divine names, Ēl persisted as an epithet of Yahweh, while Baal never became popular.131 This gives reason to present the following question: Was the tendency to depict Yahweh in terms of the Storm-god a new innovation in Jerusalem during the time of (David and) Solomon? It seems reasonable to assume that the Israelite religion had to confront the challenge of the Storm-god even earlier. This leads my discussion to Psalm 68 and to the traditions which lurk behind it. The final section of this study, Chapter 6, now follows.

131.  This is clearly attested in the personal names both in the Hebrew Bible and in the epigraphic material. See Norin, Sein Name allein ist hoch; idem, Personennamen und Religion im alten Israel; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods; de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 10–40; Albertz and Schmitt, Family and Household Religion, 245–386, 505–17, 534–609.

Chapter 6 A nt i - B a a l Y a h wi s m a n d Z i on T he ology

6.1. The Rise of Baal in the Late Bronze Age In Chapter 4 I presented arguments for the view that the building of the Temple of Jerusalem was justified by the imagery of the Storm-god as attested in the Ugaritic Baal myths and in the West Semitic religious milieu. In Chapter 5 I argued that Yahweh and Ēl were identified already in an early period, especially in the sanctuary of Shiloh, and that this background explains why Yahweh in Jerusalem was also called Ēl.1 In this chapter I shall now discuss the anti-Baal trends in early Yahwism.2 My central question here is whether an anti-Baal trend was de facto tradition already in the early Yahwism of pre-monarchic period. When referring to the anti-Baal trend I mean an intolerant attitude toward Baal who was a popular god in Syro-Canaan during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. The dating and nature of anti-Baal trend in Yahwism has implications on the way the identification between Yahweh-Ēl and the Storm-god should be understood in the Temple project of Solomon. Assuming that Yahwism was mainly a new version of the West Semitic religion it seems reasonable that the anti-Baal trend was not a constitutive element in early Yahwism but rather developed later. However, if Yahweh was a new deity from the outside, one which was introduced in Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age and then assimilated with Ēl, then there are two different possibilities to explain (1) the nature of Storm-god imagery and (2) the outcome of the anti-Baal trend in Yahwism—both of which are clearly detectable in the Hebrew Bible: 1.  For this see especially Smith, Early History of God, 32–43. Smith writes on p. 33: “One indication that Yahweh and El were identified at an early stage is that there are no biblical polemics against El.” 2.  For background to this problem, see especially Mettinger, “The Elusive Essence,” repr. in Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, Reports from a Scholar’s Life: Selected Papers on the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 35–61; Smith, Early History of God, 65–107.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

235

Yahwism—new religion from outside in LB/IA Canaan

Nature of Storm-god imagery

Anti-Baal trend

Assimilation

Yahweh was assimilated with the Storm-god Baal in the early period of Israel

Criticism against Baal was a later theological phenomenon

Occupation

Only the role and epithets of Baal were adopted in Yahwism in order to make the worship of Baal unnecessary

Criticism of Baal was an early phenomenon in the Israelite religion

The above table should be related to the evidence of different traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible which indicate a consequent hostile attitude towards a Canaanite Baal. While it is possible to find several texts where Yahweh is identified with Ēl, there are no texts where Yahweh is identified expressis verbis with the names Baal or Hadad. If such texts or traditions existed in Israel or in Judah they have not been preserved in the Hebrew Bible. It is true that some pro-Baal traditions may lay behind the text-examples dealt with in Chapter 4, but the cross-cultural translation where the Storm-god imagery was used for Yahweh can be interpreted in two different ways, as indicated in the table. The first interpretive model is assimilation, where there is a friendly attitude towards a foreign religion.3 Such a friendly trend is clearly discernible in Exod. 6:2–3, where Yahweh-belief is related to the Ēlreligion, and it is possible to speak about assimilation between Yahweh and Ēl Šadday, the god of patriarchs. If a similar friendly cross-cultural assimilation has taken place in the case of the Storm-god Baal Hadad/ Haddu and Yahweh, the process has later been interpreted differently, as the present form of the Hebrew Bible clearly shows. The worship of Baal was regarded as illegitimate. The second interpretive model of cross-cultural translation is occupation, where a non-friendly or even hostile attitude towards a foreign religion is detectable. Nevertheless, the foreign religion contains elements which were needed and therefore borrowed.4 An example of this model is found 3.  For examples of these transcultural assimilations in early West Semitic culture see Smith, God in Transition, 37–90. 4.  This important question is related to the results given in Chapter 4. That the Canaanite kingship of Baal was not adopted in Israel without modification and even with certain critical aspects is discussed especially in Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen.

236

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

in some late Assyrian attempts to substitute the role of Marduk in Enuma Elish with that of Aššur. Sennacherib had destroyed Babylon and some Assyrian scribes wanted to introduce Enuma Elish in a new form, one in which Aššur simply substituted Marduk.5 The problem in understanding the role of Baal in the early Israelite religion is well demonstrated in the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription 4.2.6 This text refers to three different divine names/epithets—Ēl, Yhwh and Baal— but it is not clear whether the reference is to three different deities or simply to one god whose name is Yahweh, and who is called or identified as Ēl—a term that can simply means “god” or be a divine name—and whose epithet is “lord” (bl).7 That bl is an epithet is not only theoretical speculation since the inscription is built upon parallelisms and such a parallel line is especially visible at the end: …to bless baal on a day of war… …to the name of Ēl on a day of wa[r…]

In similar way, parallel lines may also be found at the beginning where reference is made to Ēl, and then in broken continuation the first word is probably Yhwh: “And when Ēl shines forth in the [heights, Y]hw[h…].” If this is the case, the inscription shows that the god (or the divine name) Ēl was identified with Yahweh and that using the title baal (“Lord”) for Ēl-Yahweh was unproblematic—something which may explain some personal names in the Hebrew Bible. For example, the sons of Saul had names which contained both the Yahweh- (Jonatan) and baal-element (Ishbaal). The use of the title baal for Yahweh may also explain Hos. 2:18, where the prediction is made that this title will be censored from Israel’s liturgy in the coming days. Hosea 2:18 may indicate that the epithet baal was so intimately related to the worship of Hadad/Haddu that it was later regarded as a divine name and, therefore, unsuitable as an epithet of Yahweh. 5.  Lambert notes that there is no direct evidence that Sennacherib would have attempted to do this in any consequent way but writes that some Neo-Assyrian scribes might have attempted to do this. In addition, Lambert notes that the tendency to use the epithets of Marduk in the description of Aššur is much earlier. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 4–6. 6.  Ahituv, Eshel and Meshel, “The Inscriptions,” in Meshel, ed., Kuntillet Ajrud, 73–142, esp. 110–14. 7.  E.g. Ahituv, Eshel and Meshel (“The Inscriptions,” 133) note concerning bl: “In its most basic sense, it need not refer to the god at all, but simply functions as a common noun meaning ‘lord’ or ‘master’. Thus it may simply be another epithet for the God of Israel.”

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

237

The discussion concerning the anti-Baal nature of Yahwism in early Israel should be related to the popularity of the worship of Baal-Hadad, which began to push the worship of Ēl into the background during the Late Bronze Age.8 Such an anti-Baal tendency does not need to be related to the idea of monotheism, which from the generally accepted view was formed in a later period and finally presented in the Hebrew Bible as the normative tradition.9 The anti-Baal tendency can also be connected with monolatrous trends which—as scholars have often proposed—played a role in the early Israelite religion.10 When I speak about monolatrous trends I mean the de facto tradition in Yahwism to worship Yahweh and only Yahweh. The borderlines between tolerance and intolerance toward other deities were certainly diffuse even without mentioning that different political constellations could have made the worship of other deities a reality in Israel. I shall now present my understanding of the larger religious historical frames which explain on the one hand the positive attitude toward Ēl in the Hebrew Bible, but, on the other hand, also explain why Baal was subsequently rejected.11 Needless to say, such an interpretive model is not the only one possible.

8.  Concerning the rise of Baal’s role in vital important matters in West Semitic religion, see Hartmut Gese, “Die Religionen Altsyriens,” in Hartmut Gese, Maria Höfner and Kurt Rudolph, Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer, Die Religionen der Menschenheit 10/2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970), 1–232, esp. 119–34; del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 46–55. 9.  For this late origin of the biblical normative monotheism, see Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion; Robert K. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, JSOTSup 241 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997)—Gnuse also presents larger implications of the emergence of the monotheism in Judeo-Christian tradition; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism; idem, Early History of God, 182–99. 10.  Scholars have proposed that a monolatrous de facto tradition was an essential part of Yahwism. It is reflected in the first commandment and early collections of Mosaic laws, among others. For some orientation, see Josef Scharbert, “Jahwe im frühisraelitischen Recht,” in Gott, der Einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel, ed. Ernst Haag, QD 104 (Freiburg: Herder, 1985), 160–83; de Moor, Rise of Yahwism; Lemaire, Birth of Monotheism. 11.  Discussion on the anti-Baal nature of Yahwism is a difficult task methodologically because the texts in the present form of the Hebrew Bible are late. The basic problem is that Yahweh is identified as Ēl in the Hebrew Bible and every explanatory model is based on different attempts to penetrate behind the texts. As soon as Yahweh-worship was introduced in Israel its relation to Ēl became acute because it seems obvious that Ēl was worshipped in Yiśrā-Ēl. See Smith, Early History

238

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Extrabiblical evidence gives some important background for understanding the formation of the biblical traditions. They show that Ēl was a respected god in early Israel—something which becomes clear already from the name of Israel. The name Israel is old and it was in use from the beginning of the Iron Age as the famous Stele of Merneptah shows.12 References to the name Israel can also be found in other earlier extra-biblical texts as, for example, on the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan inscription and in Assyrian royal inscriptions since the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.13 In addition, many personal names in the Hebrew Bible as well of God, 43–47, 65–107. Concerning the worship of Baal, Smith writes on p. 43: “The historical picture of Israelite treatment of Baal is difficult to reconstruct.” The reader may consult other attempts to understand the anti-Baal texts of the Hebrew Bible in Green, Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, 219–80; James S. Anderson, Monotheism and Yahweh’s Appropriation of Baal, LHBOTS 617 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). 12.  Skeptic views that the name Israel are attested in this inscription, as suggested in Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson, “The Victory Song of Merenptah, Israel and the People of Palestine,” JSOT 27 (2002): 3–18, have been refuted by Kenneth Kitchen, “The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of Their Records,” JSOT 28 (2004): 259–72. See also William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 201–8; idem, “Merenptah’s ‘Israel’: The Bible’s and Ours,” in Exploring the Longue Duree: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. David Schloen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 89–96. See further Michael G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” BASOR 296 (1994): 45–61; idem, “The Structure of the Final Hymnic-Poetic Unit on the Merenptah Stela,” ZAW 116 (2004): 75–81; idem, “Merneptah’s Inscription and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel,” in Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. Beth A. Nakhai, AASOR 58 (Boston: ASOR, 2003), 19–44; idem, “Merneptah’s Reference to Israel: Critical Issues for the Origin of Israel,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, ed. Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil and Paul J. Ray Jr. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 47–61; Robert D. Miller II, “Identifying Earliest Israel,” BASOR 333 (2004): 55–68; idem, Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of Israel in the 12th and 11th Centuries B.C. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), esp. 93–96; Ludwig D. Morenz, “Wortwitz—Ideologie— Geschichte: ‘Israel’ im Horizont Mer-en-ptahs,” ZAW 120 (2008): 1–13. Useful references to scholarly literature on this topic can be found in Dermot Nestor, “Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ and the Absence of Origins in Biblical Scholarship,” CBR 13 (2015): 293–329. 13.  Note the possible reference to Israel on the Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 21687 stemming from a time before Merneptah. For this see Manfred Görg, “Israel in Hieroglyphen,” BN 106 (2001): 21–27; Peter van der Veen, Christoffer Theis and Manfred Görg, “Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merenptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 216871,” JAEI 2, no. 4 (2010): 15–25.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

239

as in the epigraphic material support the view that the Israelites respected a god who was called Yahweh and Ēl but not Baal. In his thorough study on the epigraphic evidence, Norin concludes in his English summary: “…Baal is actually a foreign body in the Biblical Judah and Israel… Baal was not indigenous in Palestine prior to the dynasty of King Omri… If the worship of Baal was a limited phenomenon, El worship was more common… El stood in the shadow of Yhwh during the main part of the monarchy.”14 A significant feature in Merneptah’s way of speaking about the political constellation in Palestine is that Canaan and Israel are distinguished from each other.15 The ways in which these different political constellations may have reflected the different religious structures are a much more complicated question and beyond the scope of this study.16 Nonetheless, this feature is not in conflict with the traditions preserved in the books of Joshua and Judges, according to which Israel was not an integral part of Canaan. This evidence relating to the results presented in Chapters 4 and 5 gives the following interpretive scenario: the building of the Temple was not an unproblematic issue in early Israel (2 Sam. 7:1–7) because it was understood as an attempt to change the fundamental basis of the Yahweh-Ēl religion which was practiced in open-air cult places. No archaeological example of a permanent sanctuary for Yahweh-Ēl worship in the early Iron Age has been found (see section 5.1). However, when the Temple was built it was the sanctuary of Yahweh-Ēl, not of Baal. In early Israel, where the topics of the Baal myth were translated to concern Yahweh, there must have been a gradual interest or need for this shift.17 The Temple project seems to have been a decisive turning-point in the Israelite religion, where the imagery of the Storm-god was so intimately integrated 14.  Norin, Personennamen und Religion im alten Israel, 279. See further de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 10–40. 15.  See, e.g., Smith, Early History of God, 6–7, 25–27. 16.  The biblical account of early Israel is based on an idea that the “Mosaic” exodus from Egypt took place which led to the “Mosaic” and monolatrous worship of Yahweh in Israel. It is impossible to argue that the Israelite religion during the times of Judges or the early monarchic period would have followed monolatrous principles (for this see Smith, Early History of God, 19–64). However, I have argued in this study that the monolatrous principle was one important de facto tradition in early Yahwism which has influenced the development of the Israelite religion and later in the exilic period became the normative tradition in the form of monotheism. 17.  Concerning translations of deities in cross-cultural contexts, see Smith, God in Transition.

240

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

in Yahwism that there was no possibility to turn away from this track. This is also the reason why so many texts where Yahweh is depicted as the Storm-god can be found in the book of Psalms. The increase of the worship of Baal in the West Semitic religious culture during the second millennium BCE must be related to the picture of the Israelite religion (presented above), according to which Ēl worship was its constitutive element. The Ugaritic texts indicate that there was increased interest in Baal (or Adad or Hadad) at the end of the second millennium BCE. This interest produced the influential myth where Baal’s central role was emphasized in matters of vital important as the giver of rains and fertility.18 According to some older theories, Baal would have become a rival to Ēl in the Ugaritic religious milieu.19 However, the evidence from Ugaritic texts can better be explained as that the popularity of Baal led to a restructuring of the West Semitic religion in a new way.20 In the highest heavens Ēl self-evidently ruled, but he allowed Baal/Adad/ Hadad to take care of the lower heavenly sphere which was related to the human world. This meant that in matters of vital importance concerning fertility and agriculture human beings had to revere Baal. He was regarded as the lord of the divine sphere which was responsible for the care of human beings. The Baal myths formed a religious episteme which changed the understanding of reality. Baal who had defeated the powers of chaos had become the king of the divine and human world. Without Baal life on earth became impossible; without Baal no rains could be given. The new religious reality in the Syro-Phoenician and Canaanite world, in which the Israelites (the worshippers of Ēl-god) lived, propagated the belief that everyone should revere the Storm-god Baal. This new trend to diminish the power of Ēl, the creator of the world, apparently did not pass the early Israelites unnoticed. They believed that Ēl was the main god and the leader of the divine council in the highest heavens, and it was he who was also responsible for taking care of his creation. In my opinion the

18.  Concerning the development of the myth of the Storm-god’s combat with the sea, see Noga Ayali-Darshan, “The Other Version of the Story of the Storm-god’s Combat with the Sea in the Light of Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Hurro-Hittite Texts,” JANER 15 (2015): 20–51. 19.  E.g. Arvid S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: Gad, 1952); Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts; Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1969). 20.  See especially L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods; Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 46–55.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

241

old traditions preserved in Psalm 68 give an example of the way early Israelite worshippers of Ēl-Yahweh reacted against the challenge of the pro-Baal trend in the West Semitic religious milieu.21 Thus Psalm 68 is an example of an early anti-Baal scenario in Israelite traditions which were later adopted and modified in the Hebrew Bible. Psalm 68 has an interesting beginning in that it refers to Elohim without identifying him at first. As the text proceeds, Elohim is described as the Storm-god who manifests his power against the enemies of Israel. In Ps. 68:5 Elohim is identified by the name Yah. He is then identified as the god who revealed himself at Sinai, and finally also as Ēl and Šadday. But he is never called Baal. The content of Psalm 68 reflects an early Israelite tradition that Ēl did not remain in his highest heavens with no interest in helping the Israelites with their need for life and security. In Psalm 68, the argument is presented that the new elements in the West Semitic religious structure, with their emphasis on the Baal myths, were on the wrong track. 6.2. Early Israelite Settlement in the Transjordan Psalm 68 contains a reference to Mount Bashan (vv. 16–17), and vv. 14–15 indicate that this mount is Zalmon (Jebel ed-Druz) in the area of Bashan. While the present form of Psalm 68 indicates that it was localized in Jerusalem as part of Zion theology (see especially v. 30) there is reason to believe that its old religious traditions were originally related to an Israelite sanctuary in the Transjordan area and then transferred to concern the Temple of Jerusalem (see discussion in Chapter 2). Before interpreting the traditions of Psalm 68 in this light, it is necessary to give evidence for the early Israelite settlement in the Transjordan.22

21.  An important contribution to understanding Ps. 68 has been made by de Moor (Rise of Yahwism, 171–91). He has rightly emphasized the anti-Baal nature of Ps. 68. In my opinion, such anti-Baal scenario in early Israelite traditions does justice to the biblical material where Ēl is respected but Baal hated. The anti-Baal attitude is so deeply rooted in Israelite traditions and reflected in the personal names by the absence of Baal names that it is difficult to consider the anti-Baal criticism in the Hebrew Bible as a late theological construction. 22.  For the problem between the history and tradition (ideology) of Transjordan as a place of Israelite settlement, see Magnus Ottosson, Gilead: Tradition and History, ConBOT 3 (Lund: Gleerup, 1969).

242

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Transjordan plays a central role in those traditions of the Hebrew Bible which refer to the settlement of the Israelite tribes. Reuben, Gad and half of the tribe of Manasseh received their territories in the Transjordan (Num. 32; Josh. 13). The Mesha Stele implies that an Israelite settlement existed in Moab for a long time. It states that the men of Gad had dwelt in Aṭarot from old (l. 10) and that a Yahwistic sanctuary existed in the vicinity of Mount Nebo (l. 14).23 Mount Nebo (or Pisgah) belonged to the territory of Reuben (Num. 32:38; Josh. 13:15–23). Reuben was regarded as the firstborn of Jacob and this indicates that he played a significant role in earlier Israelite traditions, and that the Transjordan must have been in the center of some early Israelite traditions.24 These traditions were later modified and subsequently adopted in the present form of the Hebrew Bible. The old Hebrew epic in Judges 5 indicates that the territories behind the Jordan River were related to Israel through the concept of Yahweh war.25 Reference is made to the two Transjordanian tribes, that of Reuben

23.  There is discussion among scholars as to how old the Israelite settlement in Moab was. See John A. Dearman, ed., Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Philip D. Stern, “Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription,” HUCA 64 (1993): 1–14; Joe M. Sprinkle, “2 Kings 3: History or Historical Fiction?,” BBR 9 (1999): 247–70; Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age, 133–53; Eveline J. van der Steen and Klaas A. D. Smelik, “King Mesha and the Tribe of Dibon,” JSOT 32 (2007): 139–62; Finkelstein and Lipschits, “The Genesis of Moab,” 139–52. In spite of different opinions, the fact is that the inscription itself indicates that Israelites lived in Moab from the days of old, and I cannot see any reason to doubt that the biblical traditions and the Mesha Stele speak about same historical scenario concerning the Israelite settlement in the Transjordan. 24.  Concerning this see Frank M. Cross, “Reuben, the Firstborn of Jacob: Sacral Traditions and Early Israelite History,” in From Epic to Canon, 53–70. An earlier version of this article was published in ZAW 100 (1988): 46–66. It is not possible to deal with the details in Cross’s article, but his main trend is clearly correct. Reuben played a more dominant role in earlier Israelite traditions when the Transjordan was still an integrated part of Israel. Deuteronomy 33:6 indicates the crisis in the history of Reuben—apparently as a consequence of military setbacks which Israel experienced in the Transjordan. 25.  It is impossible to deal with the enormous amount of literature which has been written on Judg. 5 and its compositional nature and historical importance in early Israel. It is enough to note in this connection some basic outlines of how I understand this poetic passage. First, the prose text in Judg. 4 is based on the older poetic passage. For this see especially Baruch Halpern, “The Resourceful Israelite Historian,” HTR

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

243

(Judg. 5:16) and that of Makir (Judg. 5:14). The latter name refers to the firstborn of Manasseh who settled in Bashan (Josh. 17:1). Judges 5 implies that Israelite tribes were to assist each other in military crises— something which reflects a pre-monarchic social structure in Israel. It is also significant that Ps. 68:8–9 contains a poetic passage which is practically identical to Judg. 5:4–5 (see section 6.3). During the reigns of David and Solomon the territories in the Transjordan area supported the Davidic dynasty. During the rebellion of Absalom David escaped from Jerusalem to the Transjordan (2 Sam. 15–17). This implies that David knew he could find security there. In particular, 2 Sam. 17:27 mentions Ammiel the son of Makir from Lo-Debar. Lo-Debar was situated on the border between the tribe of Gad and the tribe of Manasseh according to Josh. 13:26. The passage

76 (1983): 379–401; idem, The First Historians, 76–105; Nadav Na’aman, “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV–V),” VT 40 (1990): 423–36. For an alternative view see K. Lawson Younger, “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?! Contextual Method and Intertextual Analysis: Judges 4 and 5,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, ed. William W. Hallo, K. Lawson Younger and Bernard Frank Batto, Scripture in Context 4 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 109–46. Second, the song is an old tradition which has been updated linguistically and edited in the Deuteronomistic History. For the composition history of Judges and the Song of Deborah, see Gregory T. K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges, VTSup 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), esp. 176–80. Nevertheless, some old linguistic details have been preserved in Judg. 5, indicating its old origin. See Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, esp. 147–56; Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 9–14; Smith, “Why Was ‘Old Poetry’ Used in Hebrew Narrative?” Cf., Serge Frolov, “How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,” JSOT 36, no. 2 (2011): 163–84. Frolov argues that the song is of late origin, but he cannot exclude the possibility that some linguistic details in Judg. 5 may be old. It is also worth noting that the translators of the early Greek text (as versions LXX A and LXX B indicate) have had difficulties in understanding some parts of the poem. Third, the content of Judges 5 is relevant in the religious setting of the Iron Age I, as can be seen from parallels from Tukulti-Ninurta I epic. For this see Peter C. Craigie, “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,” JBL 88 (1969): 253–65. Craigie’s parallels do not prove that the song in its present form is ancient, but nevertheless show that the content is not irrelevant in the early setting of the tradition of Judg. 5. Fourth, Judg. 5 and its rather different prose version demonstrate that the Song of Deborah is an old tradition, which makes it possible to speak about Israel which was divided to different tribal areas. Thus the content of Judg. 5 orientates towards pre-monarchic Israel. See, e.g., Baruch Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, SBLMS 29 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983); Malamat, History of Biblical Israel, 97–150, esp. 105–14.

244

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

describes the northern border of Gad thus: “from Mahanaim to the territory of Debir.” According to Deut. 3:15, the River Jabbok was the southern border of the tribe of Manasseh in the Transjordan (cf., also Num. 32:39–40). Because Mahanaim should probably be localized on the northern bank of Jabbok, and apparently represented the southernmost boundary point for the territory of half-Manasseh, it seems probable that Lo-Debar belonged to the tribal area of Manasseh. This way of arguing is in full harmony with the name Makir, which seems to refer to the important family name of Manasseh (Gen. 50:23; Num. 26:29; Josh. 17:1) and to the leaders of all tribes of Israel at the time of Deborah (Judg. 5:14). Because in the biblical traditions Makir is regarded as the firstborn of Manasseh from Bashan and, in addition, the sons of Makir were great soldiers (Josh. 17:1), this clan played a central role in the time of David and Solomon. During the reign of Solomon, the areas in the Transjordan were integral parts of the administrative system (1 Kgs 4).26 These factors support the biblical view that an Israelite settlement existed in Transjordan. According to the biblical evidence, the Israelite settlement in the Transjordan disappeared as a consequence of several military expeditions there. While Mesha (referred to above) struck a blow against the Israelite settlement in the Moabite territories, the most fatal blow against the Israelite settlements in the Transjordan was dealt out by the Arameans. This is indicated in the Tel Dan inscription,27 as well as in 2 Kgs 10:32–33: “In those days Yahweh began to reduce the size of Israel. Hazael overpowered the Israelites throughout their territory east of the Jordan in all the land of Gilead, the region of Gad, Reuben and Manasseh, from Aroer by the Arnon Gorge through Gilead to Bashan.” These preliminary considerations give reason to test whether Psalm 68 contains traditions originally located in the Transjordan and which were later adopted in Jerusalem. I shall examine the psalm verse by verse and ask how its language, style (in particular, parallelismus membrorum) and 26.  See Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy, ConBOT 5 (Lund: Gleerup, 1971). 27.  See the inscription in Abraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan,” IEJ 43 (1993): 81–93; idem, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” IEJ 45 (1995): 1–18; and its interpretation in William M. Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt,” BASOR 302 (1996): 75–90. For another view of the way the two fragments should be combined, see George Athas, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (London: T&T Clark International, 2003); idem, “Setting the Record Straight: What Are We Making of the Tel Dan Inscription?,” JSS 51 (2006): 241–55.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

245

content parallel Ugaritic texts and the West Semitic religious milieu.28 I shall relate the discussion to the results already presented in Chapters 4 and 5. 6.3. Early Anti-Baal Rhetoric in Psalm 68 Scholars have long recognized that Psalm 68 is connected with ancient Ugaritic texts and their themes.29 Psalm 68 is perhaps the most interesting case of these possible links to Ugaritic poetry.30 Albright suggested that the psalm is not a coherent poem but in fact a list of separate early poems and that only the introductory words of these poems have been collected in Psalm 68.31 However, there are good arguments to regard Psalm 68 as a literary unit, a view which does not exclude the possibility that some traces of later reworked passages can be detected in it.32 Psalm 68 is a part of the so-called Elohistic Psalter. Therefore the question as to whether the word Elohim, used so many times in the text, 28.  This chapter contains material I have presented earlier in Laato, “Psalm 68—A Reworked Poem.” As noted in that study, it was a preliminary approach to the larger research project which is now visible in this study. After having received the opportunity to deal other early Zion-related traditions in the Hebrew Bible, I have modified the article in several details. 29. See, e.g., William F. Albright, “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII),” HUCA 23 (1950–51): 1–39; Sigmund Mowinckel, Der achtundsechzigste Psalm, ANVAO 2 (Oslo: Dybwad, 1953); Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100; de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 162–207. 30.  In RSP III:265 the content of Ps. 68 is connected with the Canaanite chaos battle: “Ps 68: a) 1–2 combat–victory; 3, victory shout; b) 7–8 combat of Divine Warrior (ritual conquest); 9–10 salvation of his people; 11–14 victory over enemy; 15–18 procession to Zion; 19–20 victory shout; c) 21 combat–victory over enemies; 22–23 salvation of his people; 24–27 procession to sanctuary–victory shout; 28–35 manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign.” It is worth noting that all verses given in the above quotation from RSP III are according to English text, not according to BHS which has introduction of the psalm marked as v. 1. 31.  Albright, “Catalogue.” Albright’s idea still receives support among scholars. See, e.g., Miller, Divine Warrior, 102–13. 32.  Concerning the arguments of literary coherence, see, in particular, Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen, 73–76; Jan P. Fokkelman, “The Structure of Psalm LXVIII,” in In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism: Papers Read at the Joint British–Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet 1988, ed. Adam S. van der Woude, OTS 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 72–83. For another interpretation of Ps. 68, note also Henrik Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden. Jdc 5, Hab 3, Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld, FRLANT 211 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 204–57.

246

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

should be changed to Yahweh is a relevant one. However, such changes are hardly justified because the name Yahweh is also mentioned several times in Psalm 68. According to vv. 5 and 19, the name of Elohim is Yah, and according to vv. 17, 21 and 27, Yahweh. This being the case, Elohim is the original word in the text. It does not refer to the name of a deity but is a stylistic element in the text. The writer describes the theophany of Elohim using typical language, concepts and imagery of the Storm-god, and then identifies this Elohim with Yah, i.e. Yahweh and Ēl (but not with Baal or Hadad). In the translation I use the word Elohim in order to make this stylistic point clear.33 The Translation and Analysis of Psalm 68 with Special Reference to Ugaritic Parallels I shall go through Psalm 68 with special reference to Ugaritic parallels. My aim is to show that traditions in the psalm have good parallels in the Ugaritic religious texts and that similar vocabulary and imagery were once used to describe an early Israelite theophany of Elohim. Some clarifications on the following translation are put in the footnotes. However, in many cases, especially when I argue that the wording of Psalm 68 is archaic, I discuss them in the text which follows the translation.34 1

To the chief musician. A psalm for/of David. A song.

Elohim rises, his enemies are scattered, his haters flee before his face.35 3 As smoke is swept away,36 they are swept away, as wax smelt before fire, the wicked perish before the face of Elohim. 2

33.  Concerning “Elohim” as a style element in Ps. 68 compare de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 171–76. 34.  The text of Ps. 68 has been characterized in the following way in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 51–100, 160: “The quantity of corrupted text is high; the hapax legomena are frequent; the number of odd expressions and seldom-seen syntactical constructions is far above the quantity to be expected in poetic texts. This basic set of facts is the primary reason for the wide differences in interpretation.” One line of interpretation for Ps. 68 has been that it contains archaic features. 35.  The verb yāqûm may also be jussive. 36.  Scholars have often revocalized kĕhinnādē (niphal part.) and tinnādē. The latter form can be understood as niphal 3rd masc. plur. In Ugaritic the preformative t- replaces y- in plural masculine forms. See Sivan, Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 112. This is also noted by Albright, “Catalogue,” 17: “In Canaanite and early Hebrew masculine plurals were often construed with fem. sing. verbs where their meaning was clearly collective.” So also Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 135; de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 172 n. 351.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

247

But Righteous ones rejoice, they shout before the face of Elohim, they jubilate in joy. 5 Sing to Elohim, play melody for his name, raise to the Rider in the Desert, “Yah is his name,” shout before his face. 4

The Father of the orphans and Judge of the widows is Elohim in his Holy habitation. 7 Elohim settles the solitary ones in a home, leads the prisoners with skilled (female) musicians, but the stubborn settle in the arid land. 8 Elohim when you went out before your people, when you marched in the desert, 9 the earth quaked, even heavens dripped down before the face of Elohim, He-of-the-Sinai, before Elohim, the Elohim of Israel. 10 Generous rain you besprinkle, O Elohim, your inheritance, you will establish (your) dominion. 11 Your habitations which are situated there, you establish in your goodness for the poor, Elohim. 6

12

The Lord gives forth word37 of glad tidings:38

A big army, 13 the kings of the armies, they are fleeing again and again, while women at home will divide spoil 14 and surely men are laying39 between sheepfolds.40 37.  Worth noting is Dahood’s (Psalms II: 51–100, 140) remark according to which “word” (Dahood reads it imrāh) here can refer to “thunder” (cf., Ps 85:13). The Akkadian rigmu has these same meanings: “word” and “thunder.” 38.  Dahood (Psalms II: 51–100, 141) understands hambaśśĕrôt as piel fem. part. where the ending -ôt is in fact the Phoenician feminine singular ending modifying feminine imrāh. The same meaning is attained if the words constitute the genitive construction. Smith and Pitard (Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:572) connect mĕbaśśĕrôt to women who bring glad tidings of victory in battle and compare this with Anat’s delivery of the news to Baal in KTU 1.4 V:20–35 where the Ugaritic word for “news,” bšrt, and the verb bšr have been used. 39.  The verb form tiškĕbûn is 2nd masc. plur. or 3rd fem. plur. However, as already noted, in Ugaritic the imperfect form with preformative t- can replace y- in masculine plural. Because the verb form has nun at the end it can be taken as an archaic form and, therefore, indicate 3rd masc. plur. See Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 135; Sivan, Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 111. 40.  The word šĕpattayim is problematic. De Moor has suggested that the word is parallel to the Ugaritic mtpdm and means “donkey-pack.” He argues that “because the

248

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology The wings of the Dove are covered with silver, and its pinions with yellow gold. 15 When Šadday scatters kings on it, snow falls on Zalmon. Is Mountain of Elohim Mount of Bashan? Many-peaked mountain is Mount of Bashan. 17 Why do you watch with envy you many-peaked mountains that mountain on which Elohim wants to stay, yea on which Yahweh wants to live forever? 18 The chariots of Elohim are many thousands, archers of the Lord-from-Sinai are thousands in the sanctuary. 19 You ascended on high, you took many captives, you received tributes from men, who still are rebelling against the settling of Yah-Elohim. 16

Blessed be the Lord day by day! Ēl himself carries to us our victory. 21 Ēl himself is for us God who gives victories and from Yahweh Lord there is escape from Death. 22 Yea God stroke the heads of his enemies, hairy skulls, he who marched in (from) the heaven. 20

23

The Lord has spoken from Bashan:

Surely I will turn away Yam back into the depths 24 so that you will plunge your feet in blood, the tongue of your dogs will have its share41 from the enemies. Your ways were seen, O Elohim,42 the ways of my Ēl, my King in the sanctuary! 26 Singers are coming first, then musicians, among them are young women with timbrels. 27 From the congregation bless Elohim Yahweh, from the midst of the assembly of Israel. 25

V-shape of the sheepfold resembled the shape of a donkey-pack, it was designated by the same word.” In any case the same word appears also in Judg. 5:16 and Gen. 49:14 (with ma-prefix) and the context indicates that reference is made to some sort of an animal shelter. So de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 121 n. 80. 41.  The word minnēhû is a noun from men or minat, “portion,” and refers to the tongue of dog. See Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 167. 42.  Alternatively: “They saw your ways, O Elohim.”

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

249

There is little Benjamin in ecstasy, the princes of Judah (with) their noisy leaders and the princes of Zebulun and of Naphtali. 29 Establish Elohim your power! Show your strength, Elohim,43 as44 you have done before to us. 30 Because of your temple at Jerusalem kings will bring gifts to you. 28

Rebuke the beast in the reeds, the herd of bulls among the calves of the nations. Humbled, may the beast bring bars of silver. Scatter45 the nations who delight in war. 32 They will bring blue clothes from Egypt, Cush will open his hands toward Elohim. 33 Sing to Elohim, you kingdoms of the earth, sing praise to the Lord, 34 to him who rides across the primeval highest heavens, behold, he thunders with mighty voice. 35 Proclaim the power of Elohim, whose majesty is over Israel whose power is in the heavens. 36 You, Elohim, are awesome in your sanctuary; Ēl of Israel gives power and strength to his people. Bless Elohim! 31

In the introduction of Psalm 68 the words mizmôr and šîr are used in parallel. This parallelism—which indeed can be found in other psalms, too—may be important in Psalm 68, because the verbs šîr and zāmar are used in parallel in Ps. 68:5, 33. The parallelism between šr (“to sing”) and ḏmr (“to play music”) is common in Ugaritic texts.46 An illustrative example is KTU 1.108:3–4: dyšr wyḏmr b knr wṯlb, “who sings and chants with lyre and lute” (cf., also KTU 1.3 I:18–22). Psalm 68:2 contains a parallelism between “enemies” and “those who hate.” The same parallelism between “enemies” (ib) and “those who hate” (šnu) is attested in the Baal myth (KTU 1.4 VII:35–37): ib bl tiḫd yrm 43.  In many manuscripts ĕlōhêkā has been read as ĕlōhîm (so BHS). 44.  The word zû is a relative pronoun in this context: “Elohim with whom it is so that you have done …” 45.  The Hebrew verb is imperative but it can also be vocalized as perfect. 46.  RSP I:369. See further Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 54; III: 100–150, 3, 47, 51, 331, 456.

250

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

šnu hd gpt ǵr, “the enemies of Baal escape to the forests, those who hate Hadad to the ridges of mountain.”47 It is not clear whether the reference in Ps. 68:2 is to human or divine adversaries or monsters of chaos. In Ps. 104:7–9 the cosmic waters flee when Yahweh thunders with his voice.48 The content of Ps. 68:2 expresses a typical ancient Near Eastern idea of theophany where enemies will disappear in front of the god. It is possible that the word “face” here has preserved its anthropomorphic aspect. God will shine his face against his enemies. Dahood notes that linguistically Ps. 68:2 is a close parallel to Num. 10:35. However, he writes that the Ark does not play any role in Psalm 68 and, therefore, v. 2 is simply related to the ancient Near Eastern pattern of theophany.49 Miller connects the verse to Num. 10:35. He follows the suggestion of Albright that Psalm 68 is a collection of shorter parts from separate ancient poems.50 Even though I do not agree with Albright and Miller that Psalm 68 does not form a larger coherent textual unit, it seems obvious that Num. 10:35–36 is a relevant parallel here. Against Dahood’s view it can be noted that the poetic passages in Num. 10:35–36 do not mention the Ark either; it is only referred to in the introductory words of prose in Num. 10:35–36. Therefore, I cannot see any objection as to why the imagery of the Divine Warrior in Psalm 68 could not be connected with the representation of the Ark.51 The reference to the Ark does not imply that Psalm 68 should be connected with Shiloh. According to 2 Sam. 7:6 the Ark was situated in different places, and the Hebrew Bible refers at least to Shechem (Josh. 8:33), Bethel (Judg. 20:27) and KiriathJearim or Baalah (1 Sam. 7:1–2; 2 Sam. 6:2). It is also possible that in the tradition behind Psalm 68 reference is made to cultic celebration when the Ark was situated in Bashan. This could be the time of Deborah when the leaders came from Makir (Judg. 5:14).

47.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 134; RSP I:99. 48.  Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:678. 49.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 134. 50.  Miller, Divine Warrior, 104–5. Concerning Albright’s theory, see Albright, “Catalogue.” 51.  Psalm 68 in its present form is related to the Temple of Jerusalem as becomes clear from v. 30. When I seek older traditions behind Ps. 68 there is no need to connect them with Shiloh because of the reference to the Ark. First, Yahweh’s theophany expressed by the language related to the Ark can be used without the presence of the actual cult symbol. Second, biblical traditions found in Josh. 8:33; Judg. 20:26–27 and in particular 2 Sam. 7:6 indicate that the Ark could have been connected with different sanctuaries.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

251

Psalm 68:3 compares Elohim to fire and therefore the enemies in front of the face of Elohim are like wax in front of a fire. The two Hebrew expressions with pānîm in parallelism (note also v. 2, which contains an expression with pānîm) indicate that any attempt to come before God is to be compared with an attempt to come close to a devouring fire. A similar stylistic phenomenon is attested in an Ugaritic letter (KTU 2.16:6–10; cf., also KTU 2.23:21): umy td ky rpt l pn špš w pn špš nr by mid, “My mother, may you know that I have entered before (the face of) the Sun and that the face of the Sun has shone upon me brightly.”52 In this text the entrance in front of the Sun-god is compared to the effect of the Sun-god showing his merciful face. Cultic joy connected with the appearance of the victorious Divine Warrior (Ps. 68:4) is a typical phenomenon in ancient Near Eastern cult poetry, including the victory of Baal over the powers of chaos.53 It is worth noting that scholars often reconstruct KTU 1.2 I:12 so that it contains a parallelism between lṣ (“rejoice”) and šmḫ (“happy”).54 In that case the Ugaritic text would have an identical parallelism as the one in Ps. 68:4. Psalm 68:5 contains a clear allusion to the appellation of Baal rkb rpt, which is a well-known epithet in Ugaritic texts (e.g., KTU 1.2 IV:8; 1.4 III:11, 18, V:60; 1.5 II:7).55 It is even possible that the same Baal appellative (cf., Ps. 104:3) has been used for Elohim in Psalm 68 because the Hebrew b/v is accepted as a mutation of the Ugaritic p.56 If this is the case then the Psalm argues strongly that Elohim is Yah and not Baal.57 De Moor argues that in a later addition, i.e. Ps. 68:26–35, this “Baal 52.  For this parallelism see RSP I:314. See these texts also in Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Text in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices, AnOr 38 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 219. 53.  For example, Jeremias (Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen, 69) compares Ps. 68 with Ps. 47 and notes that both texts refer to cultic joy—and both Psalms reflect Canaanite myths. 54.  See Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:283. 55.  See the evidence in RSP III:458–460. 56.  So Tate, Psalms 51–100, 163. 57.  If rōkēb bāărābôt is to be understood as “Cloud Rider,” then KTU 1.3 II:39–40 contains a parallelism between šmm (“heavens”) and rkb rpt. In that case it may be possible that the original vocalization here is šāmāw instead of MT’s šĕmô. See RSP I:357. Dahood (Psalms II: 51–100, 135–36) interprets lamed as vocative and vocalizes šāmāw and give a translation “Sing, O gods, chant, O his heavens.” In this case Dahood receives a nice parallel to the above-mentioned KTU 1.3 II:39–40: ṭl šmm šmn arṣ rbb [r]kb rpt, “dew of heaven, oil of earth, showers of the Rider on the Clouds.”

252

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

appellative” has been explained (v. 35): “whose power is in the heavens.”58 I am keen to follow the Hebrew text without emendations and translate v. 5 “Rider in the Desert.” This epithet of Elohim is intentionally formulated as an alternative to Baal’s epithet.59 Elohim is not only the Storm-god, he is also Yah or Yahweh, who took care of his people in the desert,60 and finally even Ēl. Israelites do not need Baal because Elohim, the Storm-god, identifies himself as Yahweh and Ēl. In this way of thinking v. 35 explains the meaning of “Rider in the Desert” and its connection to the epithet of Baal. The argumentation discernible in Psalm 68 is in a certain sense primitive. No sophisticated religious-philosophical arguments are presented in the categories of realism or nominalism. The whole discourse begins with the theophany of Elohim who in this psalm is depicted as the Storm-god. The identification of Elohim then follows, and the conclusion is that there is no room for Baal, only for Yahweh (Yah) or Ēl (Šadday). The interpretation of sollû in v. 5 is difficult in this context. The verb sālal can mean “lift up, cast up” and it has been used when a highway or path is being prepared (e.g., Isa. 57:14; 62:10). Dahood tries to interpret the present passage in a similar way.61 On the other hand, all other verbs in v. 5 are connected with singing, playing and shouting and, therefore, even here the idea may be linked to some sort of vocal activity. The problem may be solved if the expression bĕyāh šĕmô is understood as an object for the verb.62 The expression itself has been regarded as difficult, but Müller has argued that it is “a beth existentiae, which here has an emphasising function as a rheme-marker.”63 In that case the point would be that the one who rides in the desert (or on clouds) has the name Yah and not Baal.

58.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 183–84. 59.  So John Gray, “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: Psalm LXVIII,” JSS 22 (1977): 2–26; de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 183–84. Cf., also Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:336 n. 198. 60.  It is important to note that the wilderness tradition in the Hebrew Bible, apart from the Pentateuch, is often presented in a positive manner. The relationship between Yahweh and the people was ideal in the desert (e.g. Hos. 2:16–17; Jer. 2:5–8; Isa. 41:17–20; 43:18–21; 44:1–4). 61.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 136. 62.  Cf., the translation in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 51–100, 158. 63.  Hans-Peter Müller, “Zur Grammatik und zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Ps 68,5,” ZAW 117 (2005): 206–16. The quotation is from p. 216.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

253

As noted above, the Ugaritic texts contain the pairing of the verbs šr and ḏmr. Psalm 68:5 contains good intensified rhetoric. First, there is an exhortation to sing to Elohim, then to play melody to his name and finally it is revealed that the praise should be directed not “to the rider on clouds” but rather to “the Rider in the Desert”—and his name is Yah! This verse is closely connected to vv. 8–9, where “He-of-the-Sinai” marched from the desert to help his people. Parallelism between the “fatherless” and “widow” (Ps. 68:6) often appears in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, this parallelism is an old ancient Near Eastern motif. In the Ugaritic Aqhatu legend (KTU 1.17 V:7–8) there is a similar parallelism between the “fatherless” and “widow”: ydn dn almnt yṯpṭ ṯpṭ y[tm], “He judges the case of the widow, defends the cause of the fatherless.” A passage in the Kirta legend (KTU 1.16 VI:48–50), lpnk ltšlḥm ytm bd kslk almnt, “You do not feed the fatherless before you, the widow behind your back,”64 can also be mentioned in this context. The expression bakkôšārôt (Ps. 68:7) has been explained as deriving from the hapax legomenon kôšārâ with an unknown meaning. Therefore, Albright and de Moor connect the expression bakkôšārôt with the goddess Kosharoth.65 For this option it may be significant that the Aqhatu legend (KTU 1.17 II:26, 39–40) contains a similar parallelism between bt (“house”) and kṯrt (Kotharatu).66 The goddess is related to childbirth, and because Ps. 68:7 does not refer to that particular theme, scholars have not been convinced by this proposal.67 Dietrich and Loretz connect the Hebrew word with the Akkadian kušartu and understand it as referring to fetters which were used when captives in war were transported away (cf., Judg. 16:21 and Ps. 107:10, where the Hebrew words “bronze” and “iron” are used to denote fetters).68 The Ugaritic kṯrt indicates the idea of “skilled” in the literary contexts of weddings and birth and could have been to do with music. The meaning of the Ugaritic word could, therefore, be “female singers” among others, and from this both Dahood and Tate offer the translation “music.”69 Later in the psalm (v. 26) there is another reference to “female singers.” Another argument for the translation

64.  Albright, “Catalogue,” 18; Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 136; Psalms III: 101–150, 342, 450; RSP I:216. 65.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 173 n. 353. 66.  RSP III:48. 67.  See Dennis Pardee, “Kosharoth,” DDD 491–492. 68.  Concerning this view see RSP I:424. 69.  See Dahood, Psalms II, 137; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 163.

254

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

“(female) musicians” is the tradition that Miriam composed the Song of the Sea. The meaning of Ps. 68:7 could then be that Elohim has settled “Israelites” in a land (after their release from Egypt) and led the prisoners (from Egypt) with female singers who praised Elohim for the victory he had given.70 Albright compares the language used in Ps. 68:7 with the Ugaritic Kirta epic KTU 1.14 II:43–45: yḥd bth sgr almnt škr tškr, “the solitary one closed his house, the widow hired herself out” (KTU 1.14 IV:21–22).71 The Ugaritic parallel indicates that the content of Ps. 68:7 is expressed with language which may have been used in the religious milieu of early Israel. Psalm 68:7 expresses how Yahweh secures a home for the Israelites. The Ugaritic Baal myth (KTU 1.4 VII:7–13) contains Baal’s victory march against the cities and indicates that the description of Elohim who is coming to help his people (Ps. 68:8–9) fits in well in early Israelite poetry.72 In the present form of the psalm there is a pause (at the end of v. 8)—indicated by Selah—even though the idea continues directly in v. 9. Apparently the psalm has been presented in a dramatic way. Listeners hear that something happened when Elohim went out and marched with his people. There is then a pause and continuation in v. 9. The expression zēh sînay has a close parallel in Ugaritic texts where the name of Ēl can be combined with the expression of “the One of” by using d as in the expression il d-pid (“Ēl the one of heart” or “Ēl the merciful one”): KTU 1.4 II:10, III:31; 1.6 III:4.73 Another early parallel which has been suggested is the proto-Sinaitic inscription l d lm, “Ēl (god) of eternity.”74 However, this reading is nowadays put into question and is no longer a valid parallel. The epithet of Yahweh zēh sînay also appears in Judg. 5:5. Judges 5:4–5 contains a very similar description of the theophany to Ps. 68:8–9:

70.  Note also Judg. 5 where Deborah composed a victory song, or 1 Sam 18:6–7 where women sing about David’s victory over the Philistines. 71.  Albright, “Catalogue,” 19; Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 136; Psalms III: 101–150, 445; RSP I:200. 72.  For this victory march of Baal see Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:660–66. 73.  RSP III:20. 74.  See the Proto-Sinaitic texts in William F. Albright, The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment, HTS 22 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969) and especially inscription nr. 358 on p. 24. For the out-dated reading El Olam, see, e.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 18–19. For the reading of inscription nr. 358, see Meindert Dijkstra, “El Olam in the Sinai?,” ZAW 99 (1987): 249–50.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

255

When you, Yahweh, went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water. The mountains quaked before Yahweh, the One of Sinai, before Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Some phrases are almost identical expressions. While Judg. 5:4–5 is related to Yahweh, Ps. 68:8–9 refers at first hand to Elohim who in v. 5 is identified with Yah. There has been an attempt to explain this difference as Psalm 68 being the result of an Elohistic redaction (so Albright), but this is improbable as I have already noted. Judges 5:4–5 illustrates that the early rhetorical strategy employed also in Psalm 68 mirrors occupation of the Canaanite pantheon which was concluded in early Israel. Because it was impossible to say that Yahweh is Baal, the idea was presented in such a way that it is Elohim who behaves like Baal. It is not, however, Baal but Yahweh. This rhetorical presentation indicates a strong anti-Baal religious milieu. It was forbidden to mention the name of Baal (cf., Exod. 23:13; Deut. 12:3; Josh. 23:7). While in the Ugaritic religious context Baal was subjugated to Ēl, who was in the highest heavens, and it was Ēl who allowed Baal to operate actively in the world by giving rain and fertility, the Israelites argued that it was only their god Ēl who is in the highest heavens (see further Ps. 68:34) and who also operates in the world of humankind, defeating the powers of chaos and guaranteeing fertility. The Hebrew word gešem (Ps. 68:10) is a hapax legomenon but its equivalent gšm is attested in Ugaritic. The expression gešem nĕdābôt can be compared semantically to the Ugaritic equivalent gšm adr, “a mighty downpour,” which is found in the letter KTU 2.38:14 where reference is made to ships which have been caught in a heavy storm.75 The expression naḥălātĕkā wĕnilâ is difficult, and scholars often emend it. For example, de Moor reads here “thy inheritance thou didst vanquish.”76 KTU 1.3 III:30–31 provides an interesting parallel: bqdš bǵr nḥlty bnm bgb tliyt, “upon the holy mount of my heritage, in the pleasance upon the hill of (my) dominion/victory” (cf., also KTU 1.101:1–4). Dahood argues that the text is syntactically parallel to Ps. 68:10 because it “makes use of the double-duty suffix”: nḥlty determines also tliyt. The Ugaritic parallel indicates that the Hebrew expression in

75.  See Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 139. 76.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 139.

256

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Ps. 68:10 can be interpreted without emendations and that this peculiar expression may well reflect archaic Hebrew. Thus Dahood translates: “your patrimony and dominion yourself restore.”77 Dahood and de Moor connect the Hebrew ḥayyātĕkā (Ps. 68:11) to the Ugaritic ḥwt, “habitation,” while de Moor vocalizes the Hebrew word as plural.78 In addition, Dahood makes an interesting comparison between the parallel passages in 2 Sam. 23:13 (ḥayyat pĕlištîm) and 1 Chr. 11:15 (maḥanēh pĕlištîm). This change in the Chronicler’s work indicates that the Hebrew word parallels the Ugaritic ḥwt, and that its meaning was no longer self-evident in the time of the Chronicler. This being the case, the language of Ps. 68:11 probably reflects archaic Hebrew. The two last words in Ps. 68:12 can be connected with glad tidings and translated “the bearers of the glad things are a great army.” However, in my opinion ṣābā rāb could better be related to the following verse. In this case the interpretation would be: “The Lord gives forth word of glad tidings! A big army, the kings of the armies are…” De Moor understands the kings here as referring to the Israelite leaders. He translates “the kings of the armies are roaming again and again.”79 However, the basic meaning of the verb ndd in Hebrew is “flee, run away.” Therefore, I regard the verse as referring to enemy armies which are in flight. The expression gĕwat bayit should be taken as idiomatic for “woman” (Jer. 6:2), referring to the one (feminine) who stays at home and divides the spoil.80 In Judges 5 there is indirect evidence for women’s interest in the spoil (Judg. 5:28–30): “Through the window peered Sisera’s mother; behind the lattice she cried out, ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?’ The wisest of her ladies answer her; indeed, she keeps saying to herself, ‘Are they not finding and dividing the spoils: a woman or two for each man, colorful garments as plunder for Sisera, colorful garments embroidered, highly embroidered garments for my neck—all this as plunder?’ ” Similarity to the idea used in Judges 5 can be used as argument that this detail in Psalm 68 is early.

77.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 139–40; Psalms III: 101–150, 452; RSP I:275; RSP III:26. 78.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 140, and de Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 174 n. 356. 79.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 174. It is worth noting that de Moor writes in p. 174 n. 357: “The verb is ndd, not nwd ‘to flee’.” 80.  Tate, Psalms 51–100, 164–65.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

257

The end of Ps. 68:14 can be translated without difficulty but its meaning is unclear. Dahood translates “The wings of the dove are plated with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold,” and understands it as referring to Mount Zalmon (Jebel ed-Druz) mentioned in the next verse.81 This is also de Moor’s opinion. “The wings of the Dove” is a metaphor for Mount Zalmon because the Ugaritic mknpt (KTU 1.16 I.9) has been used to describe the crests of a mountain.82 Parallelism between ksp (“silver”) and yrq ḫrṣ (“yellow gold”) is used in the Kirta legend: KTU 1.14 III:22, 34, V:34–35 (after restoration); VI:17–18.83 The Ugaritic phrase yrq ḫrṣ is clearly a good parallel to the Hebrew bîraqraq ḥārûṣ. Assuming that the kings in v. 13 are enemies, then even here the kings should be regarded as enemy forces which Šadday will spread, i.e. scatter, across Zalmon.84 In that case, the idea in Psalm 68 could be an enemy attack against the Mountain of God. Kings are like the powers of chaos which try to penetrate to the divine mountain without success—something which fits well in the context and is a nice parallel to the Baal myth where it is asked whether someone can challenge Baal who is enthroned in Mount Ṣapanu, in his divine abode (KTU 1.3 III:32– IV:51).85 In particular, it is stated that Baal has smitten Yammu and can now take his seat in his heavenly abode on Mt Ṣapanu. Therefore, this Ugaritic text is a nice parallel to Ps. 68:15. Indeed, the next verse refers to the Mountain of Elohim, from where God will attack the enemies of Israel. Albright connects the name of Bashan (Ps. 68:16) with “viper” and regards KTU 1.5 I:1–2 (where bṯn is used twice) as parallel to this verse.86 This suggestion is questionable. Better is the alternative that reference is made to the area of Bashan which was the heritage of the tribe of Manasseh. The expression “many-peaked” in this same verse refers to the

81.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 141–42. 82.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 174 n. 359. 83.  RSP I:235. 84.  Tate (Psalms 51–100, 179) regards it possible that we have here a comparative “like”: “When Shadday spreads out kings on it, it is like snow falls on Zalmon.” 85.  It is not clear why in this passage Anat is claiming that she has smitten Yammu. One possibility is that Anat identifies strongly with Baal and claims her victory over Yammu in that way. See further Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel, 35–43, where the connection of this aspect of the Baal myth has been related to the Hebrew Bible combat myth. However, Schmidt does not connect this Ugaritic passage directly to Ps. 68. 86.  Albright, “Catalogue,” 27.

258

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

hubris of Mount Bashan and in Ps. 68:17 the same expression refers to the hubris of other mountains (i.e. other divine powers controlling these mountains).87 Emerton has argued that Ps. 68:16 should be understood as a question: “Is Mount Bashan a mountain of God, many-peaked mountain, Mount Bashan?”88 I return to this good suggestion below. In Ps. 68:17 reference is made to “many-peaked mountains”—in plural. They look with envy on the many-peaked Mount Bashan on which Elohim wanted to live. However, it seems quite obvious that in this verse the Jerusalem-oriented redactor (who was not positively inclined towards the Bashan region) has manipulated the older text. This is the first time the tetragrammaton Yahweh is used and not the shorter version of the name, Yah, as in v. 5. The expression ap Yahweh yiškōn lāneṣaḥ corresponds well to typical early Zion theology where Yahweh is dwelling (šākan) in the Temple of Jerusalem. The aim of this phrase was to emphasize that Yahweh has chosen Zion as his abode, not Bashan. In the original version of vv. 16–17 the Mount of Bashan (in singular) is compared with other many-peaked mountains (plural) which look with envy at the election of Mount Bashan. In the present form of the text, it is argued in v. 16 that even Bashan is “many-peaked.” In an older core of Psalm 68 the mount chosen by Elohim was Zalmon in Bashan (Ps. 68:15) and, therefore, other many-peaked mountains watched the mount of Elohim with envy. How should this reworking be understood? In the case of Psalm 78 I argued that it contains a positive attitude toward Shiloh in vv. 52–55 but also negative attitude in vv. 60–61 and I explained this as the present form of the psalm originating from the time after the United Monarchy when the positive tendency “from Shiloh to Jerusalem” was changed to the negative “Shiloh contra Jerusalem” attitude (section 5.2). Psalm 68 has gone through a similar process of reworking. Emerton’s way of understanding the present form of v. 16 as a question suits well this later Judah-oriented redaction. However, I should like to modify his opinion so that only the first part of v. 16 remains a question. The second part is an affirmative answer to this question which aims at connecting Bashan to the group of many-peaked mountains in v. 17. Thus the original version and its later reworking are as follows: 87.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 175 n. 361. 88.  John A. Emerton, “The ‘Mountain of God’ in Psalm 68:16,” in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen May 8th 1993, ed. Andre Lemaire and Benedict Otzen, VTSup 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 24–37.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

259

Older core of Psalm 68

Present form of Psalm 68

Mount of Elohim is Mount of Bashan! Why do you watch with envy you many-peaked mountains that mountain on which Elohim wants to stay?

Is Mount of Elohim Mount of Bashan? Many-peaked mountain is Mount of Bashan! Why do you watch with envy you many-peaked mountains that mountain on which Elohim wants to stay, yea on which Yahweh wants to live forever?

The aim of the original core is to say that Yahweh moved from Sinai to Mount Bashan and then again from Bashan to Jerusalem in the cultic procession (as presented in vv. 25–30). The tradition behind Psalm 68 contains a similar rhetorical strategy to the Ark Narrative: Yahweh who was respected in older Israelite traditions related to Sinai and Bashan established his abode in Jerusalem/Zion. The hapax legomenon ribbōtayim (Ps. 68:18) can be found in Ugaritic KTU 1.4 I:30: kt il dt rbtm, “A gorgeous dais (or the dais of Ēl) the value of which is twice ten thousands (shekels).”89 This indicates that the word may have been used in early Hebrew.90 The parallelism between alp (“thousand”) and rbt (“myriad”) is attested in Ugaritic texts.91 Albright argues that the original sequence of the consonant text was šnnny and that the first aleph should be omitted because it was dittography. He then connects šnn with the Ugaritic tnn and Alalakh šanānu, “archer.” This is a plausible explanation and forms a nice parallel to v. 18. It seems reasonable to assume that the meaning of this hapax legomenon was later lost when the text was transmitted.92 The end of the verse is difficult. Tate translates it: “…the Lord is with them, Sinai is with holy ones.”93 This suggestion is contrived. An attractive proposal is to read ădōnāy bā missînay (so BHS) because Deut. 33:2 contains a similar description of theophany: Yahweh missînay bā. In 89.  For the problem of how to translate il here, see Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:415–16. 90.  See Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 142. 91.  See the evidence in RSP I:114. 92.  William F. Albright, “Notes on Psalm 68 and 134,” in INTERPRETATIONES ad Vetus Testamentum Pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel Septuagenario Missae, ed. Nils Alstrup and Arvid S. Kapelrud (Oslo: Dahl, 1955), 1–12; this reading is also accepted by Dahood (Psalms II: 51–100, 142). 93.  Tate, Psalms 51–100, 161, 166.

260

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

that case the expression can be taken as the name “the Lord-from-Sinai.” Verse 19 speaks of Elohim’s heavenly army which is ready to attack all of Israel’s enemies. The original core of Psalm 68 is one example of the way Exod. 15:1–18 may reflect a typical old Israelite understanding which legitimates a cultic place: Yahweh, who rescued his people from Egypt and from the waters of Chaos (= Reed Sea), has established his abode on the mountain where he is enthroned as the Divine King. In Psalm 68 this Israelite tradition received the form that the Lord from Sinai has taken his residence on Mount Bashan. The meaning of Ps. 68:19 is that Elohim has ascended to the Divine Mount and has established his heavenly palace (the sanctuary) there. On his Divine Mount Elohim has a great army ready to struggle for Israel. It is told that Elohim took many enemy captives and received tributes from them. There is no problem in understanding bāādām as “from men,” because, as Dahood has noted, the expression ba-, “from,” is well attested in Biblical Hebrew.94 The end of the verse can be interpreted in such a way that the enemies of Israel have been mythologized as chaos powers opposing Yah-Elohim’s desire to settle on the Holy Mount.95 The verse says that Yah-Elohim will put an end to all opposition and receive tributes from the enemies of Israel. The article in hāēl (Ps. 68:20) can be interpreted in such a way that reference is made to “the God,” but it can also be regarded as a demonstrative prefix. In that case the translation would be “this Ēl” or “Ēl himself.” This way of understanding the verse fits well in the rhetorical strategy of Psalm 68. Elohim who is the Storm-god and who gives victory to Israel is Ēl himself and not Baal. Concerning the Hebrew yôm yôm, Dahood notes that Ugaritic texts contain a similar expression, wymym.96 The expression lammāwet (Ps. 68:21) is translated “from death,” thus evoking the Ugaritic preposition l- (“from”). In a similar way the expression lêYahweh presupposes Ugaritic l-.97 Mt (Motu, Death) is a well-known personified chaos power in Ugaritic texts, and traces of this personification are visible in different ways in the Hebrew Bible.98 The Masoretes vocalized the text with an article, but the consonant text can

94.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 143. 95.  Such imagery is typical in the Hebrew Bible. For example, it is attested in Zion theology: Pss. 46; 48 and 76. For this see, e.g., Jeremias, “Lade und Zion.” 96.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 143. 97.  Sivan, Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 195–97. 98.  See references to passages of the Hebrew Bible in RSP III:392–400.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

261

be understood without the article and thus the personification of Motu may be suggested. The end of Ps. 68:20 and the beginning of Ps. 68:21 contain the name Ēl. In the Ugaritic texts the word il can be used twice in parallel expressions: KTU 1.23, 33–34; 34–35, 37, 45; KTU 1.114:2–3, 14. The parallelism between adn (“lord”) and il (“god”) is attested in KTU 1.124:1–2.99 These Ugaritic parallels only indicate that this verse may well reflect the archaic linguistic level of the poem. In Ps. 68:21 Ēl is identified with “Yahweh Lord.” Ēl—the leader of the Canaanite pantheon—is the one who manifests his power in Yah’s struggle against Mot, and in this way becomes identified with him. But while the Canaanite myth leaves Ēl in the background, as a deity leading the divine council and controlling the highest heavens, the Israelite version emphasizes the pragmatic power of Ēl in the historical events of Israel and natural phenomena. The expression qodqōd śēār, “hairy skull” (Ps. 68:22), can refer to soldiers’ long hair—something which is described in the Nazirite law (Num. 6) and presupposed in the story of Samson (Judg. 13–16), and perhaps also in Judg. 5:2.100 The description of violence directed against the hair and the skull is well attested in the Ugaritic Baal myth (e.g. KTU 1.3 V:1–3). An interesting detail in this verse is also the collective use of the singular rōš. This may also be an indication of archaism, because in Ugarit the singular word riš has been used collectively (KTU 1.2 I:23–24; cf., KTU 1.2 I:27, 29, where the plural form rašt- is used).101 The end of Ps. 68:22 is difficult. The reference may be to an enemy “who walks in his guilt.” On the other hand, Dahood’s proposal is that the word baăšāmāw can be interpreted as coming from the ordinary Hebrew word for “heaven” written with prosthetic aleph—he mentions similar cases in the Hebrew Bible: Jer. 21:5 (cf. Jer. 32:21) and Job 38:15 (cf. Job 31:22). Such a prosthetic aleph is attested in Ugaritic.102 In this case the reference would be to Yah-Elohim, who has come down from his high mount (reaching toward heaven) and struggled against the enemies of Israel.

99.  RSP I:100–101. 100.  Concerning the interpretation of pr in Judg. 5:2, see Miller, Divine Warrior, 87–90. 101.  Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 1:262. See further Sivan, Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 63. 102.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 145; see further Sivan, Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 73.

262

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

In many Masoretic manuscripts there is a reading bimmĕṣūlôt (Ps. 68:23).103 I follow this reading. The text continues to describe how the Lord of Bashan will turn Yam away, back into the depths. So, the Lord of Bashan has power over chaos.104 Ym (Sea) is a personified chaos power in Ugaritic texts. In some texts of the Hebrew Bible, traces of the personification of the Sea have been preserved.105 In particular, it should be noted that Yam is written in Psalm 68 without the article, indicating that it has been understood as a personified power. Verse 24 contains the same verb, māḥaṣ, as v. 22. Albright has suggested an emendation at the beginning of the verse and reads lm nt trḥṣ instead of lĕmaan timḥaṣ.106 However, there is no need to emend this verb to rāḥaṣ here, because there is an Ugaritic parallelism which is built up by using the verb mḫṣ twice.107 The description of a bloody battle is typical of the Baal myth and, in particular, of Anat’s aggressive behavior (KTU 1.3 II:3–16).108 The text continues to describe how Elohim will annihilate his enemy. The use of dogs here may be a mythological motif.109 For example, in Egyptian mythology the jackal-headed Anubis was the protector of a deceased person. It is possible that similar mythological dogs were seen as assisting Yah-Elohim and Israel in their struggle against Mot and Yam. Psalm 68:25 can be interpreted in such a way that the enemies of Elohim (in v. 24) saw the victorious ways of Ēl in his sanctuary when he came to struggle against them. Thus the text would emphasize the role of 103.  An interesting alternative is also to reconnect the Hebrew consonants and read ešbōm meṣulôt yām, “I will muzzle the depths of Yamm.” See Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:250. 104.  There is no need to emend mibbāšān to bāšān (“Serpent”) as Dahood (Psalms II: 51–100, 145) and Miller (Divine Warrior, 110–12) have suggested. The proposal is given even in Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:250, however, with the evaluation: “This, of course, is highly speculative…but given the apparent antiquity of Ps. 68 and its allusions, it is certainly possible that later tradents might not preserve such an allusion intact.” As far as I can see, this emendation is made only to be able to quote some nice parallels from Ugaritic poetry where the chaos monster Serpent is destroyed. The MT is clear and is connected with the chaos battle motif also without such an emendation. 105.  RSP III:369–83. 106.  Albright, “Catalogue,” 15, 28–29, 38. 107.  See the evidence in RSP I:257. 108.  Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:145–59. 109.  Alternatively, this motif may also be taken very concretely, as the famous dog-motif in doom prophecies suggests (1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:9, 23–24; 22:38; 2 Kgs 9:10, 36; Jer. 15:3).

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

263

the sanctuary in this mythological struggle. On the other hand, the next verse speaks about the ceremonial process in the temple area of Jerusalem (cf., v. 30) and, therefore, the first verb can also be taken as a passive expression: “they saw,” i.e. “Your ways, O Elohim, have been seen!” In that case, the reference is to “the procession of Elohim” which is seen to be coming nearer. The Ugaritic texts contain a parallelism between il (Ēl) and mlk (“king”).110 The idea in vv. 25–30 depicts how Ēl, who was once in residence on Mount Bashan, is Yahweh who will move to the sanctuary of Jerusalem. The idea of the Ark Narrative is similar. The Shilonite cult symbol, the Ark of Covenant, was transferred to Jerusalem with great celebration and joy (2 Sam. 6). For Ps. 68:26 it can be mentioned that Ugaritic texts have a parallelism between qdm (“in front of”) and tk (“in the middle”).111 Another important Ugaritic parallelism is šr (“to sing”) and tp (“tambour”) in KTU 1.108 obv. 3–4.112 The word mĕqôr (Ps. 68:27) means “fountain” and this can be understood as a reference to the cultic assembly. Albright and Dahood have found a connection between the Hebrew roots qôl and qahal.113 The Kirta legend (KTU 1.14 III:16–17; V:8–9 after restoration) contains a parallelism between qr (“noise”) and ql (“sound”) and it is interesting that Ps. 68:27 contains the parallelism congregation/assembly derived from these words. As Dahood has pointed out, the parallelism between the prepositions be- and min- indicates that they should be understood in the same way.114 There are two possible ways of translating here: “in the assembly of Israel” or “from the midst of the assembly of Israel.” The participle rōdēm (Ps. 68:28) is connected with “deep sleeping” (tardema). I follow the interpretation of the LXX and translate it as “in ecstasy.”115 The word rigmātām is difficult. It can come from the verb rgm “to stone” and the meaning could be “heap of stone” and then “crowd.” However, the best way is probably to connect it to the Ugaritic rgm (“speak”) or to the Akkadian ragamu (“shout”), and so I have translated the passage in this way.

110.  See RSP I:111. 111.  See RSP I:323. See further Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150, 455. 112.  RSP III:168. 113.  William F. Albright, “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” in de Boer, ed., Volume du Congrès: Strasbourg, 1956, 242–58, esp. 256, and Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 148. 114.  Dahood, Psalms II, 148. 115.  So also Tate, Psalms 51–100, 168.

264

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Psalm 68:28 refers to four Israelite tribes, whose connection to the area of Bashan is not attested in the present form of the Hebrew Bible. This shows that the cultic procession described in vv. 25–30 took place in Jerusalem (see v. 30). The expression “as you have done before to us” (Ps. 68:29) may be understood in such a way that the history of the (open-air) cultic place in Bashan was an important period in Yahwism, but that a new beginning would take place in the Temple of Jerusalem—something which becomes apparent in the next verse. The keyword “strength,” ōz, and its derivatives appear six times altogether in vv. 29, 34–36. There is a great emphasis on Elohim’s strength against all the powers of chaos. Such an emphasis could be compared with KTU 1.6 VI:17–20, where the struggle between Baal and Motu is described with the Ugaritic z. Psalm 68:30 ends the cultic procession described in vv. 25–30. The term hêkāl is a reference to the Temple of Jerusalem. Psalm 68:31 contains three enigmatic animal metaphors: ḥayyat qānēh and adat abbîrîm as well as eglê ammîm. Because “reed” is a metaphor often connected with Egypt (2 Kgs 18:21; Isa. 19:6; 36:3; Ezek. 29:6) and the following verse refers to this land, Tate interprets this metaphor as an allusion to Egypt. Bulls and calves could be allusions to the Canaanites because this symbol is often connected with Baal. Tate argues that the verse speaks about the enemies of Israel.116 However, v. 32 does not contain a polemical attitude towards Egypt but could be interpreted as referring to the good commercial contacts between Israel and Egypt/ Cush. Therefore, “the beast of reed” can also refer to dangerous lions in the thicket of Jordan (cf., Jer. 12:5) and refer to the Canaanites as other two metaphors. In that case all the enemies in v. 31 would be the Canaanites—something which fits well into the historical scenario that David and Solomon managed to subjugate different Canaanite cities. They also had good commercial contacts with Egypt, as indicated by Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of the Pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1), and such a commercial contact between Egypt and Israel is also a meaningful conclusion from the archaeological evidence. The word ḥašmannîm (Ps. 68:32) is a hapax legomenon. Dahood has argued that the word equates with the Akkadian hašmānu and hušmānu in Ras Shamra Akkadian, meaning “blue cloth.” Dahood notes that “hands” can also mean “products of hands.”117 Another possibility is to connect 116.  Tate, Psalms 51–100, 183–84. In my earlier study on Ps. 68 I regarded Tate’s view as plausible. However, I paid insufficient focus to v. 32. 117.  Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 150.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

265

the Hebrew expression tārîṣ yādāw with the Akkadian verb tarāṣum and understand it as a prayer towards Elohim or as handing tribute to Elohim.118 The content of this verse is connected to v. 31. The enemies of Israel will be subjugated and they will bring their tributes and prayers to Elohim. The rhetorical role of Selah in Ps. 68:33–34 should be noted again. In v. 33 the congregation is exhorted to sing praise to the Lord, and then after the pause there is a continuation which takes up the motif of v. 4, “the one who rides in the Desert” (a modification of Baal’s epithet “one who rides on clouds”). De Moor regards this verse as a later addition.119 However, there is no reason to regard this verse as belonging to a later redaction if it is related to v. 5. Verse 34 can also be the inclusio of the poem. Elohim here is depicted like Baal in Ugaritic texts, according to which he thunders with his mighty voice. A good comparison is KTU 1.4 VII:27–31: “Baal opens up the rift in the clouds, Baal emits his holy voice (qlh qdš bl ytn), Baal repeats the utterance of his lips. His [holy] voice [causes] the earth [to tremble at his thunder], the mountains shake with fear.” Psalm 29 is another good example of Hebrew poetry where the imagery of Baal thundering with his voice in the highest heaven has been adopted to describe the power of Yahweh.120 The expression “the primeval highest heavens” (šĕmê šĕmê qedem) refers to the primeval abode of the god, presumably just the living quarters of Ēl. I understand this expression as referring to the popular image in the West Semitic area that Ēl rules these highest heavens, but the practical divine power in the world is manifested through Baal’s thundering. In this verse the argument is presented that Elohim who thunders and gives power and strength to Israel is Ēl of Israel (Ps. 68:36). He has not left his creation to the hands of Baal but from his primeval highest heavens is active in helping his people Israel. In Ps. 68:35–36, the expression “give power” is found twice. In v. 35 the people are exhorted to give power to Elohim—which means “to proclaim his power”—and in v. 36 Elohim gives power to the people— which means “to give divine help.”

118.  This connection to the Akkadian verb and the two interpretation alternatives were suggested by Tryggve N. D. Mettinger in his personal correspondence in February 20 and 21, 2012. 119.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 183–84. 120.  The Canaanite background of Ps. 29 is widely accepted among scholars (see section 4.3). Note the following studies among others: Stolz, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem, 152–57; Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 15–124; Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen, 29–45.

266

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The analysis of Psalm 68 indicates that the text contains many archaic linguistic features and themes which are close parallels to the Ugaritic texts. There is also evidence that the psalm was later reworked or recomposed. I have argued that the original core of the psalm is connected with the transition “from the Mount of Bashan to Zion” in a way analogous to the transition “from Shiloh to Jerusalem” (cf., Chapter 2). My understanding of the psalm is a modification of the hypothesis suggested by de Moor.121 My proposal differs from de Moor’s hypothesis as far as the original core is concerned. While de Moor argues that Ps. 68:2–25 forms an original core, I suggest that in these verses a later reworking is also visible, in particular in vv. 16–17. Additionally, I have argued that the end of the psalm in its entirety, i.e. vv. 26–36, does not belong to a later reworking. The problem is that it is no longer possible to know for certain which parts of the present text belong to the original core.122 The original setting of the psalm is connected to the Israelite primitive argumentation that Baal is not needed. Elohim who reveals his power in storm is identified as Yah and Ēl (Šadday). Such a rhetorical strategy was needed in the time of Solomon, when the Temple was built. As I noted in section 5.1, the problem of the temple-building project was that it challenged the fundamental basis of the Israelite Ēl-Yahweh worship in the open-air sanctuary (2 Sam. 7:1–7). Psalm 68 contained early Israelite rhetoric that Ēl-Yahweh is the Storm-god but not Baal! Mount Bashan and Early Israelite Zion Theology According to the view presented in this chapter, the original core of Psalm 68 was composed in Jerusalem during the time of Solomon. The psalm followed the typical rhetorical strategy that the God who appeared in an old Israelite open-air cult place on Mount Bashan will in the future manifest his power in the central sanctuary of Jerusalem. The biblical evidence locates the area of Bashan to the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 13:29–31). The second half of the tribe of Manasseh settled in the area of Shechem. Thus there is a natural link between Shechem and Bashan through the settlement of the tribe of Manasseh. This link suggests that there were political, religious and cultural contacts between the Israelites in the central mountain area and the Transjordan. This becomes visible in Judges 5, according to which Makir, the firstborn of Manasseh from Bashan (Josh. 17:1), plays an important role in supporting the Israelite army which made war against Hazor (Judg. 5:14). 121.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 172–91. 122.  Note here the methodological discussion in Chapter 2.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

267

The close contacts between David and the Bashan region are also attested in 2 Samuel 15–17, when David escaped from Jerusalem during the time of Absalom’s rebellion. This gives reason to assume that, as in the case of Shiloh, so also in the case of Bashan David and Solomon wanted to show respect towards the local religious traditions. 2 Samuel 20:25–26 contain an interesting detail that David had three priests: Abjathar, Zadok and Ira the Jairite (îrā hayyāīrî). The expression ‫ וגם עירא היארי היה כהן לדוד‬indicates that the editor has other sources to complete the picture of 2 Sam. 8:17, listing Ira together with Abjathar and Zadok. Ira is connected with the clan of Jair (1 Chr. 2:21–22), which apparently belonged to Gilead and Makir, and should be regarded as representing the Transjordanian tribe of Manasseh.123 This being the case, the contacts between David and Makir may have intensified after the revolt of Absalom because David received support from there. During the reign of Solomon the religious traditions of Bashan were subsequently respected in Jerusalem, and Psalm 68 is one indication of this. What were the constitutive elements of this religious milieu in Bashan? The first peculiar feature must have been the cultic site which was in some way associated with Mount Zalmon. The divine name Šadday appears in v. 15 in association with Mount Zalmon. That Šadday may originally have been an epithet for a mountain god is well argued by Cross among others.124 If this theory is accepted, it seems reasonable to assume that the Israelite tribes in the Transjordan area showed respect for Yahweh with the name Ēl Šadday. The Hebrew Bible supports the view that Ēl Šadday was the god who was known in the early times of the Israelite settlement. The Balaam story (Num. 22–24), which is related to the Transjordan, contains the divine name Šadday twice (Num. 24:4, 16). The extrabiblical Deir Alla inscription indicates that this divine epithet indeed fits well with the story because the text refers to Šadday gods.125 Another important text in the Hebrew Bible where the divine name Šadday is attested is the book of Job. De Moor has argued that the book of Job should be located in the region of Bashan.126 123.  Olyan has attempted to relate Ira to the Kenites and the tribe of Caleb but I cannot see this proposal as convincing. Saul M. Olyan, “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” JBL 101 (1982): 177–93. 124.  For this, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 52–60. 125.  See Hoftijzer and van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla; Jo A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir Alla, HSM 31 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984). 126.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 131–62. An earlier version of de Moor’s study was published in Johannes C. de Moor, “Ugarit and the Origin of Job,” in Brooke, Curtis and Healey, eds., Ugarit and the Bible, 225–57.

268

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Secondly, Psalm 68 indicates that the Israelites in the Transjordan regarded the exodus tradition as important. They believed in a god who had led Israel through the desert of Sinai to Bashan. The wilderness tradition is understood in this tradition as a positive salvation-historical event as in the book of Hosea and in Deutero-Isaiah.127 Thirdly, the Israelites in the Bashan region had a critical attitude towards Baal. They did not accept the common and popular West Semitic religious concept that Baal was responsible for the rains and fertility and, therefore, must be worshipped. As de Moor has shown, there is no problem in regarding the anti-Baal tendency as an early Israelite legacy in the Bashan region.128 Starting from these three perspectives I shall modify de Moor’s hypothesis that behind Psalm 68 there is a coherent and old Israelite poetic tradition which was related to the Yahweh-Ēl cult in the vicinity of Mount Zalmon and which was recontextualized in Jerusalem during the United Monarchy. The Original Core of Psalm 68 I have argued thus far that the original core of Psalm 68 contains three main features. First, it emphasizes the transfer of religious traditions “from Mount Bashan to Jerusalem,” indicating that the Temple of Jerusalem was supported by the tribe of Manasseh in particular. Second, the religious traditions in Mount Bashan already contained the adoption of the Storm-god traditions in their description of Ēl-Yahweh. The basic outline of Psalm 68 nicely follows Baal’s combat myth. In the same way as Baal is forced to struggle against the power of chaos and his desire is to guarantee his kingship with a palace on the Mount of Saphanu, so also Psalm 68 describes Elohim’s struggle against the enemies of Israel (personified as chaos powers) from Mount Bashan. In the light of the Ugaritic epic there is no prima facie problem in understanding Psalm 68 as an early Israelite poem. Third, the original core of Psalm 68 contains an anti-Baal tendency, indicating that the adoption of the Storm-god traditions in that text should be understood as occupation. From these three

127.  Scholars have also questioned the role of the exodus tradition in the book of Hosea and Isa. 40–55. See Thomas B. Dozemann, “Hosea and the Wilderness Wandering Tradition,” in McKenzie and Römer, eds., Rethinking the Foundations, 55–70, and Hans M. Barstad, A Way in the Wilderness, JSSM 12 (Manchester: University of Manchester, 1989), 21–36. I shall discuss this problem later in another context. 128.  De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 183–84, 188.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

269

perspectives I shall now present the content of the original core of Psalm 68. I refer to the themes in the Baal myth referred to in section 4.1 using Roman numbers (BM I–XV). Psalm 68:2–9 follows the topics of the Baal myth BM I–IV and its content can be regarded as an Israelite version of the combat myth where Elohim has been introduced with no clear identification, but is then identified not as Baal but as Yah who appeared in Sinai and led the people of Israel into the promised land. The theophany of Elohim (Ps. 68:2–3) can be compared with the presentation of Baal at the beginning of the Ugaritic cycle (see BM I). Elohim will appear and help his people. Details in these verses fit in well with the West Semitic religious context from the second millennium BCE onwards and, in addition, reflect the Yahweh-war tradition. Numbers 10:35 is an almost verbatim parallel to Ps. 68:2, and the destroying fire motif in Ps. 68:3 is closely connected with other texts in the Hebrew Bible depicting Yahweh’s appearance in the holy war (e.g., Deut. 33:2, “he shone forth from Mount Paran”; Hab. 3:3–4, “His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth. His splendor was like the sunrise; rays flashed from his hand, where his power was hidden”). In the Ugaritic myth, the presentation of Baal is followed by a banquet with music and song (BM II) and so also in Ps. 68:4–5 the theophany of Elohim is followed by liturgical joy among the righteous ones. Similar joy connected with the appearance of Yahweh is attested in early Hebrew poetry. A good example of this is Judg. 5:4–5, which is introduced by v. 3: “Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers! I, even I, will sing to Yahweh; I will praise Yahweh, the God of Israel, in song.” Exodus 15 is another good example of joyful praise to Yahweh who had destroyed the Egyptian army in the struggle which is remythicized as the combat against chaos powers.129 The interpretation of Ps. 68:5 has two different possibilities. One possible option is that reference is made to the appellation of Baal, “the Rider on Clouds.” In that case the text has either been reworked at some stage or the appellation was simply misread in the copying process so that it was changed to “the Rider in the Desert.” Another option is that “the Rider in the Desert” is an Israelite version of the appellation of Baal, a deliberate pun against Baal. I prefer this option because the poem depicts Elohim as coming from the desert of Sinai (Ps. 68:8–9).

129.  Concerning Exod. 15, see, e.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 112–44.

270

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

After the defeat of the enemy it is asserted in the Ugaritic myth (cf., BM III) that Baal will bestow fertility from his holy place on Saphanu (BM IV). In a similar way, Ps. 68:6–11 continues to describe how Elohim-Yah aids his people from his holy habitation (vv. 6–7) and gives fertility (vv. 10–11). In Ps. 68:6–7 Elohim allows his people to settle in the country which is related to the Sinai-tradition in Ps. 68:8–9. Elohim is described as the true Father of the orphans and Judge of the widows, who will take care of weak Israelites. He will settle them in their land. In Ps. 68:8–9 there is a recurrence of theophany, which is a close parallel to that found in vv. 2–3. Elohim comes from Sinai and aims to take up his final habitation on Mount Bashan. A similar victory march is attested in the Baal myth where Baal goes from city to city and then returns to his house (KTU 1.4 VII:7–13).130 Psalm 68:8–9 also explain the title of Yah-Elohim in v. 5. “The Rider in the Desert” is the god who marches in the desert and comes from Sinai (so also Judg. 5:4–5). Leuenberger has dealt with the origin of Yahwism in an article where he challenges the so-called Berlin thesis of Köckert and Pfeiffer.131 In his view “the Southern origin of Yahweh…is argued by a new and more comprehensive evaluation of archaeological data… and biblical texts… The results correlate with each other in matters of the history of religion and theology and thereby substantiate the origin of the solitary weather-god Yahweh in the Late Bronze Age Araba.”132 My way of interpreting Psalm 68 follows Leuenberger’s basic idea. Elohim of Bashan has a name Yah (v. 5) and he comes from Sinai (v. 9) by riding in the desert (v. 5). Leuenberger’s view that in the Late Bronze Age Araba Yahweh would have been a weather-god is more difficult to prove. In this study I have suggested another way of understanding the religious historical development in Yahwism. The aspects of the Storm-god were included in Yahwism as an early Israelite answer to an effort to play out the responsibility of Ēl for his creation and give all the credit to Baal. Later the theology of the Storm-god was integrated intimately into early Zion theology through the building project of the Temple. 130.  See Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2:660–66. 131.  See Manfred Köckert, “Vom einen zum einzigen Gott. Zur Diskussion der Religionsgeschichte Israels,” BThZ 15 (1998): 137–75; idem, “Die Theophanie des Wettergottes in Psalm 18,” in Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Thomas Richter, Doris Prechel and Jürgen Klinger (Saarbrücken: SDV, 2001), 209–26; idem, “Wandlungen Gottes im antiken Israel,” BThZ 22 (2005): 3–36; Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden. 132.  Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden.” The quotation is from p. 19. Note also Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir.

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

271

In the Canaanite religion Baal—after his victory over the power of chaos—guarantees rain and an abundance of crops. The temple of Baal is an indication of his power over the forces of nature (see BM IV and IX). In a similar way the power of Elohim is described in Ps. 68:10–11. Elohim gives fertility to the land where he has settled his people.133 In v. 10 the word “habitation,” according to the Ugaritic ḥwt, gives an interesting linguistic nuance for an old Israelite tradition. After Baal has taken his residence on Sapahanu and established harmony in the cosmos (BM X–XV), Motu forms a threat against his kingship. An old Israelite tradition in Ps. 68:12–15 continues in a similar way. The verses describe the actual threat against the harmony which Elohim has established. In the Israelite tradition the powers of chaos are identified as political powers which threaten the settlement of Israel.134 Psalm 68:12–15 contains many peculiar geographical features and the best explanation is to relate them to the areas of Bashan. Elohim—now identified with Šadday—will struggle against his enemies and the enemies of Israel who attempt to penetrate the Mount of God. The enemies are defeated and spread out all over the Mount of Zalmon. In the Baal cycle an important detail is Baal’s kingship on Saphanu. It is questioned whether any other god can rival him (KTU 1.4 VIII:42–44): “Since Baal has taken up residence in his house is there or is there not a king (who) can establish himself in the land of (Baal’s) dominion?” The climax of the original core of Psalm 68 puts forward a similar statement concerning the Mount of Elohim. I argued that the original core did not include criticism of Mount Bashan—something which would have been strange because vv. 15 and 23 refer to Mount Bashan in a positive way. The original core contained the phrases: “Mount of Elohim is Mount of Bashan!” and “Why you watch with envy you many-peaked mountains that mountain on which Elohim wants to stay?” After the collapse of the United Monarchy the editor made changes to this original core, changing the original positive tendency “from Bashan to Jerusalem” to “Bashan contra Jerusalem.” A similar trend is also found in Psalm 78 (see section 5.2). He added the idea that even the Mount of Bashan is a many-peaked mountain which enviously watches the mountain of God, i.e. Jerusalem, on which Yahweh-Elohim has chosen to stay. With this addition, the first line was also reinterpreted as a question: “Is the Mount of Elohim the Mount of 133.  Miller, Divine Warrior, 107. 134.  Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic) has argued convincingly for this view.

272

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Bashan?” The reworked version of Ps. 68:17 contains a similar emphasis to that found in Ps. 78:60–61, 68–69. Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem and its sanctuary, not any other cultic place. In the Ugaritic myth Baal is forced to continue his struggle against Motu—and he will die in the battle (BM XI); Ps. 68:18–22 emphasizes that Elohim will subjugate the power of death (v. 21) and guarantee victory for his people. These verses describe the heavenly army of Elohim and his victories against the (political) powers of chaos which continually attempt to dethrone him from the holy mountain. The enemies’ attempt to ascend to the Mount of Bashan is depicted (v. 19)—and this means an attack against Israel which will be saved from death (vv. 20–21). It is stated that Elohim is on Mount Bashan and he comes (mithallēk) from its top, i.e. from heaven and strikes the enemies of Israel (v. 22). As noted in section 5.1 the verb mithallēk (2 Sam. 7:6) has connections to the Yahweh war. The content and even the language and style of these verses fit in well with the Ugaritic religious milieu and can, therefore, be regarded as a part of older tradition. An essential part of the Baal cycle is the victory over Yammu (KTU I.2 IV:7–27), which is followed by Anatu’s bloody battle against men (KTU 1.3 II:1–III:3). In Ps. 68:23–24 a similar description of an old Israelite tradition is presented: Yam is destroyed, a bloody battle follows and the victorious warrior is Ēl who is King in his sanctuary (on Mount Bashan). I argued that v. 25 is related to the cultic festival depicted in vv. 26–30. The cultic procession in Ps. 68:25–30 describes how the Lord from Bashan (mentioned earlier in v. 23) is coming to the new sanctuary, which according to v. 30 is Jerusalem. In this case vv. 23–30 can be seen as an early expression of Zion theology as to how God manifests his voice from Bashan (v. 23) and then moves in a cultic procession to the sanctuary of Jerusalem (v. 25) where Israelite tribes are present (v. 28). In vv. 29–30 Elohim takes his place in the sanctuary of Jerusalem and will be identified as Yahweh who dwells in the Temple built by Solomon. The expression “as you have done before to us” in v. 29 emphasizes the continuity from Bashan to Jerusalem. As Yahweh once showed his power on Mount Bashan, he will now continue to take care of the Israelite tribes in the sanctuary of Jerusalem. Verses 31–32 refer to the political powers of Egypt, Cush and probably the Canaanites and may reflect the political circumstances during the monarchic period. Positive references to Egypt and Cush in v. 32 are based on the good political and commercial contacts between them and

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

273

Israel. As noted in Chapter 3, the existence of the United Monarchy was based on a status quo policy between Egypt and Israel. Its consequence was that Israel managed to subjugate many Canaanite cities under its power. The beginning of v. 33 contains a universal reference to kingdoms of the earth. The text is parallel to Ps. 96:7–8, and seems to reflect a later theology. Of course, it may be possible that such a universal detail originally emphasized Yahweh’s sovereignty over other deities, as parallel expressions between Ps. 96:7–8 and Ps. 29:1–2 show (for this see section 4.3). In their present form vv. 33–36 emphasize in an emphatic way the role which Baal had received in the West Semitic mythical traditions. In v. 34 the epithet “who Rides in the Desert” (v. 5) is interpreted, and it can be regarded as a good inclusio to this psalm. Elohim is described as Ēl who lives in the primeval highest heavens but at the same time also thunders with his mighty voice. He also takes over the role of Baal in the lower level of heaven and in this way he renders the worship of Baal in Israel unnecessary. The keyword strength (ōz) is used several times in vv. 33–36 and the same cognate word is also a keyword in the final battle between Baal and Motu (KTU 1.6 VI:10–22). I have argued that the Israelite anti-Baal tradition from Bashan was adopted in Jerusalem during the period of the United Monarchy, when the Temple was built; this agrees well with my analysis that the Temple was not seen as the sanctuary for the Storm-god Baal but for Yahweh or Ēl who manifests his power in storm. The old Israelite traditions behind Psalm 68 were parallel to the positive traditions related to Shiloh. Both described Yahweh as the King of Israel who rescued the people from Egypt and led them in Sinai to the cult place where the Israelites could worship Yahweh. Yahweh is also the Divine Warrior who will defend his people against its enemies. Psalm 68 is further proof that the political and religious success of the United Monarchy was based on the fundamental idea that different tribal traditions were respected. But as in the case of Psalm 78 (concerning Shiloh) so also in Psalm 68 (concerning Mount Bashan) the present form of the text is the result of reworking after the collapse of the United Monarchy. The consequence of this was that a critical attitude towards Shiloh and towards Mount Bashan emerged. The final form of Psalm 68 originates from the period after the collapse of the United Monarchy. As in Psalm 78, where the positive picture of Shiloh in vv. 52–55 is changed to a negative one in vv. 60–61, 67–69, so also in Psalm 68, where vv. 16–17 indicate such a shift. After the establishment of the Northern

274

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

Kingdom, the Transjordan was annexed in it and contacts with Jerusalem ceased. Mount Bashan consequently became a rival for the divine Mount of Yahweh in Jerusalem. 6.4. Summary and Conclusions I have argued in this chapter that Psalm 68 contains an older core which used old Israelite religious traditions related to the Mount of Bashan and the Israelite settlement in the Transjordan during the pre-monarchic times. The original core of the psalm was composed to describe the friendly relationship between Mount Bashan and the Temple of Jerusalem. It was argued that Yahweh, who had manifested his power once in Sinai, had been present on Mount Bashan and protected Israelite settlement in the Transjordan. Yahweh then moved on from Mount Bashan to the Temple of Jerusalem. The rhetorical strategy of the original core of Psalm 68 contains a strong anti-Baal tendency. Even though it describes the God of Israel as the Storm-god it avoids using the name or epithet of Baal. It describes Elohim, who behaves like the Storm-god but who is subsequently identified with Yah and Ēl Šadday. Yahweh’s epithet “Rider in the Desert” (Ps. 68:5) was deliberatively used to confront the epithet of Baal, “Rider on the Clouds.” Psalm 68:34 makes this even clearer when Elohim manifests his power in thunder in the primeval highest heavens, i.e. in the dwelling-place of Ēl by being the real “Rider on the Clouds.” Thus the “Rider in the Desert” is the “Rider on the Clouds.” That Psalm 68, in its present form, indicates a strong anti-Baal tendency, even though the imagery of the Storm-god has been adopted to depict Yahweh, is further proof that from the beginning Zion theology was not an attempt to identify Yahweh with Baal, but rather that the Baal imagery was used for political and religious reasons. It was emphasized that Yahweh is Ēl who is the strong and active god and who has now established his dwelling-place in Zion. Interpreting Psalm 68 in this way demonstrates that already in the pre-monarchic period the basic ideas of the Baal myth were used to describe the strength of Yahweh against the powers of chaos. Psalm 68 contains a tradition that the real origin of Yahwism should be located in the South. Yahweh came from Sinai to Bashan and from Bashan to Jerusalem. This means that the identification between Yahweh-Ēl and the Storm-god was not a new innovative move introduced by (David and) Solomon in order to justify the temple building project, even though the idea gained increased significance during the time of David and Solomon. There is reason to propose that the original core of Psalm 68 was an important

6. Anti-Baal Yahwism and Zion Theology

275

cultic text in Jerusalem because it showed that adopting the imagery of the Storm-god in the cultic setting of Jerusalem and the architectural details in the Temple of Solomon was not an attempt to depict Yahweh as Baal. The epithets of the Storm-god were needed already in the pre-monarchic Israel. The Transjordanian traditions behind Psalm 68 are one example of this, and many scholars would say that Exodus 15, which contains early pre-monarchic traditions, can be taken as another text. The present form of Psalm 68 originates from after the time of the United Monarchy. There was one significant change which was made in vv. 16–17. Through editorial reworking Mount Bashan was placed among the mountains which watch with envy that Yahweh continues to live in Zion. This criticism parallels well with the criticism against Shiloh in Ps. 78:60–61, 68–69.

Chapter 7 S um m a ry a n d C on c lusi ons

In this study the origin of Zion theology was seen from larger historical perspectives where the focus was placed on the reigns of David and Solomon. The main source, the Hebrew Bible, is a collection of scriptures which received their final form in the exilic and postexilic period. Therefore, a thorough discussion on methodology was presented in Chapter 2. This methodological discussion was based on the perspectives coming from the empirical models of redaction criticism, tradition history and cross-cultural translation. An empirical perspective on redaction criticism indicates that later editors often preserved the main content of their sources, even though they did not follow them verbatim and could also add new viewpoints and make their own reinterpretations. This means that later formulated texts may contain traces of old traditions. This empirical perspective to the tradition-historical investigations concerning Jerusalem is relevant in the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem—which in the present form of the Hebrew Bible is the only place where the sacrificial cult of Yahweh is possible—is related to other cult sites in three basic patterns: (1) from cult place X to Jerusalem, i.e. the cult which was once conducted in a legitimate way in another cult place was moved to Jerusalem (e.g. the Ark from Shiloh to Jerusalem). (2) Jerusalem contra cult place X, i.e. another cult place is criticized because it is regarded as illegitimate beside the legitimate cult place of Jerusalem (e.g. Bethel). (3) From Sinai to Jerusalem, i.e. the Mosaic Torah which was revealed on Sinai is seen to get its legitimation in the cult of Jerusalem. Empirical models give some interesting examples of cross-cultural translations where an old religious tradition has been adopted in a new religious context. One of the best examples is Enuma Elish and some of its Assyrian versions where Marduk is replaced by the god Aššur. Another example is Psalm 20 and its polytheistic version in the Aramaic text of the Demotic Script (Papyrus Amherst 63). Such examples help us understand the development of early Israelite religion. The use of the Storm-god imagery in an early form of Yahwism was interpreted as the cross-cultural translation from the West Semitic religious milieu.

7. Summary and Conclusions

277

The concrete methodological procedure to detect older traditions is based on clearing away different strata of development from biblical texts. The first layer concerns all kinds of linguistic revisions which, during the exilic and postexilic period, were made on older written material— the basic assumption is that the Hebrew Bible is the collection of the texts from that time. Secondly, in addition to linguistic revisions, older written material was edited from the perspective of popular theological concepts from the exilic and postexilic times. Third, in some cases it is possible to consider the evolutionary lines of themes and traditions which help in arranging Zion-related traditions chronologically. For example, the concept of the divine council was developed in both the exilic and postexilic time. Patterns such as “from Israelite cult place to Jerusalem” and “Israelite cult place contra Jerusalem” may also be useful if they are related to older traditions which concern the United Monarchy (when it was important to emphasize continuity between the old Israelite cult place and Jerusalem) and the post-Solomonic time (when other cult places were seen mainly as rivals to Jerusalem) respectively. Fourth, relevant historical and religious-social aspects should also be considered. Old mythical traditions in the book of Psalms contain parallels to old West Semitic mythical elements, mainly to the Ugaritic material, both in terms of content and cognate vocabulary or linguistic idioms. Old Zion-related traditions in the book of Psalms should be meaningful when they are compared to this comparative material from the West Semitic culture. Even architectural details of the temple should be considered and compared with the imagery used in the psalms. Any attempt to penetrate the religious milieu of Jerusalem during the reigns of David and Solomon is a complicated issue. It is related to fundamental problems which concern historical, archaeological and religious-historical investigation. There is no scholarly consensus about these details. Therefore, I discussed briefly in Chapter 3 how I understand the historical period of United Monarchy. My aim was not to present ultimate solutions to these fundamental problems but rather to build up a logical possible world relevant for the analysis of the Zion theology in Chapters 4–6. I argued that the Hebrew Bible contains only a few independent flashes from the reigns of David and Solomon which are based on older written traditions. These traditions were updated linguistically and in some way also edited theologically at the time of the exile when they were presented in the Hebrew Bible. I proposed that David’s Rise to Power and the Succession Narrative contain a similar apologetic tendency to the Hittite Hattušiliš Apology, which gives reason to suggest that a Deuteronomistic editor used older written material (apologetic traditions about David and Solomon) from the royal archive of Jerusalem.

278

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

These traditions were updated linguistically and theologically by the Deuteronomist. The idea of the eternal dynasty in 2 Samuel 7 is historically and ideologically meaningful at the time of David and Solomon because Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions contain the same idea of an eternal dynasty which gods promise to give to a king who has taken care of temple-building project(s). The Deuteronomist adopted this old idea and wrote 2 Samuel 7 apparently using older formulations from written documents. The Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel 4–6 + 2 Samuel 6 has been preserved because the Deuteronomist wanted to present Jerusalem as a legitimate continuation of the old tribal cult center in Shiloh. In the case of Solomon it is much more difficult to discern older traditions behind 1 Kings 1–11. It seems that the Deuteronomist wanted to present the reign of Solomon as a contrast to the present situation of the exile by emphasizing that Solomon built the Temple and that the Israelites could live in peace. The Deuteronomist used and edited his sources to give an overall picture of the peaceful and magnified reign of Solomon. An important tendency in the Deuteronomistic History is to argue that David and Solomon managed to establish something which could be called “an Israelite Empire.” I suggested another kind of political scenario in the Land of Canaan during the time of David and Solomon—namely, that the policy of David and Solomon was mainly one of diplomacy and not imperialism. By means of diplomatic treaties David and Solomon managed to establish good contacts with their neighboring nations. David, for example, used Philistine soldiers in his army, had Kerethites and Pelethites as his personal guardians, and his earlier visit in Gath led to six hundred Gittites under the leadership of Ittai following him (2 Sam. 15). This shows that the Deuteronomistic picture that David subjugated the Philistines is one-sided. David managed to realize a divide et impera policy among the Philistines. In a similar way David had good contacts with some Moabites (implied in 1 Sam. 22:3–4; reflected later in the book of Ruth) and Ammonites (this is implied in 2 Sam. 10:1–2; 17:27). David and Solomon’s friendship with Hiram, the king of Tyre, gave them the opportunity to prosper by establishing important economic routes in Canaan. Solomon’s wives—for which the Deuteronomist blamed him (1 Kgs 11:1–8)—de facto indicated his clever foreign policy. David and Solomon—according to my tentative hypothesis—managed to establish a status quo in the Land of Canaan which was accepted by Egypt. This is indicated by the marriage between Solomon and the daughter of the Pharaoh. The situation was apparently politically suitable for Egypt which had its own problems in foreign and domestic affairs.

7. Summary and Conclusions

279

The presupposition for David’s policy was that he managed to establish good contacts with Israelite tribes, especially the tribe of Ephraim as well as the strong Transjordan tribes. By interpreting the biblical data in this way, it is clear that the Deuteronomist’s characterization of the so-called Israelite Empire must be re-evaluated. It was not simply the constitution of the Israelite tribes which managed to subjugate neighboring peoples under the yoke of Israel, but rather a diplomatic agreement which David managed to create using his good contacts with Philistia, Moab, Ammon and Tyro, and which Solomon later developed by establishing good contacts with Egypt. According to 1 Kgs 9:16, the Egyptian Pharaoh conquered Gezer and gave it to Solomon. This indicates the limits of the military power which David earlier and Solomon after him had to consider in order for the status quo situation to remain undisturbed. This political status quo led to prosperity, which gave Solomon opportunity to begin large building projects. The Temple of Yahweh and the royal palace were his main projects in Jerusalem. It is against this political and economic situation that I interpreted the text material dealt with in Chapters 4–6, progressing from the time of Solomon backwards. This presentation followed my methodological procedure in Chapter 2. The starting-point is the present form of the texts in the Hebrew Bible from the exilic and postexilic periods. In the same way as in archaeological investigations, the analysis must start from the most recent layers and then proceed backwards in an attempt to penetrate deeper into the earlier layers. In this way the reader is better able to evaluate the results of the investigation because every attempt to go behind the present form of the text is a step to a more or less insecure interpretive model. In Chapter 4 the focus was on the Storm-god imagery which has been used in many psalms. I presented arguments that the Storm-god imagery became popular during the reign of Solomon and that it was closely related to the building of the Temple. Not only the Mediterranean geography used in Psalms 48 and 29 but also different metaphors related to the architectural details of the Temple speak in favor of this hypothesis. Yahweh was depicted as the Great King enthroned on the cherub throne, and therefore new cultic symbols, the massive cherubim, were constructed in the Debir of the Temple, while the older cult symbol the Ark of Covenant became Yahweh’s footstool and was used in cultic processions. Jerusalem was identified with the divine Mount Saphon and the divine council under the leadership of Ēl Elyôn (identified with Yahweh) was also relocated there. Other members of the divine council were revered outside the city (cf., the tradition behind the tendentious Deuteronomistic account in

280

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

1 Kgs 11:1–8), and Psalm 29 was related to this religious-political reality in Jerusalem. Zion was identified as the place where Paradise once existed, and the living waters from the spring of Gihon were probably identified with one river in Paradise. In later eschatological texts this imagery was developed into the idea that wide living waters will flood from Jerusalem towards to the Dead Sea and transform that lake into a source of fresh water. A replica of the divine forest of Lebanon was also placed in Jerusalem, and the Lebanon Forest House built by Solomon was offered as an indication of this imagery. The Storm-god imagery was insufficient to explain the depiction of Yahweh in old Zion-related traditions. He was clearly identified with Ēl, too. Therefore, the focus in Chapter 5 was laid on the traditions of Shiloh, especially the Ark. I argued that David and Solomon used the Shiloh traditions to maintain good contacts with the tribe of Ephraim. In this way they wanted to make the new political city of Jerusalem the religious center of the Israelite tribes. After the collapse of the United Monarchy, the positive Shiloh traditions were interpreted in a negative way and instead it was emphasized that Yahweh rejected Shiloh and elected Jerusalem (Ps. 78). Yahweh-Ēl was worshipped in Shiloh, which indicates the early nature of the Israelite religion—something which is also related to the theophoric name of Israel. The results outlined in Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrated that, on the one hand, Yahweh was related to the Storm-god—and Baal was regarded as the Storm-god sui generis in the West Semitic religions—but, on the other hand, Yahweh was identified with Ēl in Shiloh. Therefore, in Chapter 6, the discussion focused on the anti-Baal trend in early Israel and its implication on the imagery of the Storm-god used in psalms. The question posed was whether the use of the imagery of the Storm-god was an example of assimilation or occupation. This led to the analysis of Psalm 68, an example of religious traditions which originated from the Transjordan area and which were recontextualized in Jerusalem. In this psalm, an anti-Baal trend is visible. I explained this as the worshippers of Ēl reacting at the end of the Late Bronze Age to the popular myths that Ēl allowed Baal to take care of the lower heaven and to be responsible for rains and fertility. Psalm 68 contains primitive rhetoric. It describes the theophany of Elohim with the aid of the Storm-god imagery and then identifies this Elohim with Yahweh or Ēl. This study gives some impulses to the discussion pertaining to the history of the Israelite religion. When exilic and postexilic theological perspectives are eliminated from traditions that are connected with an early form of Zion theology, three important corners-stones which illustrate the form of the Israelite religion during the reigns of David and Solomon remain.

7. Summary and Conclusions

281

First, Zion was regarded as the dwelling-place of Yahweh. This was interpreted as Yahweh manifesting his power inside the Temple building—as presented in Isaiah 6, for example—where his cherub throne was constructed. In the exilic and early postexilic periods correctives in the form of the Shem and Kabod theologies were formulated.1 Their aim was clearly to avoid the cognitive dissonance which existed between the idea that the Temple was Yahweh’s dwelling-place and the fact that this dwelling-place had now been destroyed. In the old Ark Narrative (representing the religious policy of David and Solomon) the Ark was still regarded as so powerful that its capture represented a disaster among the Philistines. Therefore, its reinstallation in the tent sanctuary of David (2 Sam. 6) and later in the Temple of Solomon was justified. However, after the destruction of the Temple, the Ark as a symbol for the presence of Yahweh was simply forgotten during the exilic period (see Jer. 3:16). Second, Zion was understood as the place of the divine council with Yahweh as the leading god Ēl Elyôn. The existence of other deities was understood in a tolerant way as the deities for other peoples, but Yahweh was regarded as the god of Israel. Deuteronomy 32 is a good example of this early theology. It contains a monolatrous understanding of Yahwism, but allows for the existence of other deities in a positive manner. They were gods of the other people under the leadership of Yahweh or Ēl Elyôn. Assuming that monolatry was the main trend in the early Israelite understanding of Yahwism, the concept of the divine council fostered a policy tolerant towards other deities. In the exilic situation this fundamental concept was dismantled, as becomes clear from many texts in Isaiah 40–55. Other deities on the divine council are then judged in the heavenly court as being nothingness. There was also another alternative way to understand these foreign deities in the divine council: they were degraded to angels, as becomes clear from the book of Daniel and early Greek translations (e.g. Deut. 32:8–9). Third, Deuteronomistic retribution theology has made it difficult to evaluate the contents of older sources. For example, the tradition behind 1 Kgs 11:1–8 was interpreted by the Deuteronomist as Solomon being disloyal to Yahweh. However, in its historical context the tradition illustrated how the theology of the divine council was realized in Jerusalem in a tolerant way. Solomon’s marriages were political, and it was important to show in Jerusalem that Israel’s God was the leader of the gods. 1.  I do not want exclude the possibility that the Shem or Kabod theologies were developed already after the collapse of the Northern Kingdom. In any case these theologies became popular during the exile when they could explain why Yahweh still is King even though his temple is in ruins.

282

The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology

The great Temple was built for him and other deities were worshipped outside the Temple, thus demonstrating the greatness of Yahweh. Thus, for example, the wording of Psalm 29 makes sense in such a historical scenario. According to this psalm, other deities outside the Temple area are exhorted to glorify Yahweh in his Temple. The situation was different in the exilic and postexilic period when deities in the divine council were refuted or degraded to angels and the Yahweh monolatry was developed in a direction which was intolerant towards other deities—something which led later to full-blown monotheism. In this scenario, the tradition of 1 Kgs 11:1–8 was interpreted in such a way that Solomon rejected Yahweh by allowing the worship of other deities in Jerusalem, and Yahweh punished Solomon. Was the Chronicler familiar with the older tradition behind 1 Kgs 11:1–8 and its historical context? At least he did not accept the Deuteronomistic interpretation. It is time to bring this study to a close. In one sense it feels that this endpoint is nothing other than a starting-point for forthcoming studies. To begin, further studies are needed to clarify the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem as well as the historical and religion historical background of the reign of David and Solomon. Secondly, there are other interpretive models of how the imagery of the Storm-god to be investigated and understood. When these models are combined with the fact that research goes on in many different areas, including the interpretation of the texts of the Hebrew Bible and West Semitic comparative religious material, we can expect new ways of understanding the development of the Israelite religion. Thirdly, it is important to clarify how monolatry was understood in early Israel. There is no need to accept simple evolutionary lines from polytheism to monolatry and from monolatry to intolerant monolatry and finally to monotheism. If the United Monarchy was a glorious period in the history of Israel when the worship of Yahweh was glorified in Jerusalem by the building of the Temple, then the concept of the divine council may have been an early expression of monolatry in Israel which nevertheless contained a tolerant attitude towards other deities worshipped by other peoples (Deut. 32:8–9).

B i b l i og r a p h y

Abū ‘Assāf, Ali. Der Tempel von Ain Dārā. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1990. Ackroyd, Peter A. “The Succession Narrative (So-called).” Int 35 (1981): 383–96. Ahituv, Samuel, Eshter Eshel, and Ze’ev Meshel. “The Inscriptions.” Pages 73–142 in Kuntillet Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah–Sinai Border. Edited by Ze’ev Meshel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012. Albani, Matthias. “The Downfall of Helel, the Son of Dawn: Aspects of Royal Ideology in Isa 14:12–13.” Pages 62–86 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Themes in Biblical Narrative 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Albani, Matthias. Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen: Zur Begründung des Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im Alten Orient. ABG 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000. Albertz, Rainer. “Family Religion in Ancient Israel and Its Surroundings.” Pages 89–112 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Edited by John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. Oxford: Blackwell, 2012. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volumes 1–2. London: SCM, 1994. Albertz, Rainer, and Rüdiger Schmitt. Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Albright, William F. “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII).” HUCA 23 (1950–51): 1–39. Albright William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957. Albright, William F. “The High Place in Ancient Palestine.” Pages 242–58 in Volume du Congrès: Strasbourg, 1956. Edited by Pieter Arie Hendrik de Boer. VTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Albright, William F. “Notes on Psalm 68 and 134.” Pages 1–12 in INTERPRETATIONES ad Vetus Testamentum Pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel Septuagenario Missae. Edited by Nils Alstrup and Arvid S. Kapelrud. Oslo: Dahl, 1955. Albright, William F. The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment. Harvard Theological Studies 22. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Albright, William F. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. London: Athlone, 1968. Alt, Albrecht. “Der Gott der Väter.” Pages 1–78 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. Munich: Beck 1953. Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Anderson, James S. Monotheism and Yahweh’s Appropriation of Baal. LHBOTS 617. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

284 Bibliography Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment. JSOTSup 297. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Athas, George. “Setting the Record Straight: What Are We Making of the Tel Dan Inscription?” JSS 51 (2006): 241–55. Athas, George. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. Attridge Harold W., and Robert A. Oden. Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. CBQMS 9. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Avigad, Nahman. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Nelson, 1983. Avishur, Y. Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994. Avner, Uzi. “Egyptian Timna—Reconsidered.” Pages 103–62 in Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Edited by Juan Manuel Tebes. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Avner, Uzi. “Nabatean Standing Stones and Their Interpretation.” ARAM 11–12 (1999– 2000): 97–122. Avner, Uzi. “Sacred Stones in the Desert.” BAR 27, no. 3 (2001): 30–37, 39, 41. Avner, Uzi. “Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, During the 6th–3rd Millenia B.C.” Ph.D. diss., Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, 2002. Online: http://www.freemedia.ch/fileadmin/img/rockart/stonewatch/ download/SC03_Negev_Sinai.pdf. Avner, Uzi, Moti Shem-Tov, Lior Enmar, Gideon Ragolski, Rachamim Shem-Tov, and Omry Barzilai. “A Survey of Neolithic Cult Sites in the Eilat Mountains, Israel.” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 44 (2014): 101–16. Axelsson, Lars Eric. The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah. ConBOT 25. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987. Ayali-Darshan, Noga. “The Other Version of the Story of the Storm-god’s Combat with the Sea in the Light of Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Hurro-Hittite Texts.” JANER 15 (2015): 20–51. Baker, D. W. “Tarshish.” ABD 6:331–33. Barbiero, Gianni. “Psalm 132: A Prayer of ‘Solomon’.” CBQ 75 (2013): 239–58. Barstad, Hans M. A Way in the Wilderness: The “Second Exodus” in the Message of Second Isaiah. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph Series 12. Manchester: University of Manchester, 1989. Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation des Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Barth, Hermann, and Hans Odil Steck. Exegese des Alten Testaments. Leitfaden der Methodik. Ein Arbeitsbuch für Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1987. Bartoloni, Piero. “Commerce and Industry.” Pages 78–85 in The Phoenicians. Edited by Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Bompiani, 1988. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984. Baumgarten, Albert. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans L’Empire Romain 89. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Bibliography

285

Beck, Pirhiya. “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine.” Pages 352–81 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Begrich, Joachim. “Mabbūl: Eine exegetische-lexikalische Studie.” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 6 (1928): 135–53. Begrich, Joachim. Studien zu Deuterojesaja. BWANT 4/25. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938. Ben-Ami, Doron. “Early Iron Age Cult Places—New Evidence from tel Hazor.” TA 33 (2006): 121–33. Ben-Ami, Doron. “Mysterious Standing Stones: What Do These Ubiquitous Things Mean?” BAR 32 (2006): 38–45. Bergen Robert D., ed. Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 13–27. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Binger, Tilde. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Biran, Abraham, and Joseph Naveh. “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.” IEJ 43 (1993): 81–93. Biran, Abraham, and Joseph Naveh. “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.” IEJ 45 (1995): 1–18. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2 Samuel 11–20; 1 Kings 1–2).” JSOT 38 (2013): 35–58. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark.” JBL 88 (1969): 143–56. Bloch, Yigal. “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry: A Re-evaluation.” VT 59 (2009): 34–70. Bloch, Yigal. “The Third-Person Masculine Plural Suffixed Pronoun -mw and Its Implications for the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 147–70 Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “ ‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism.” Pages 18–31 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum and Lawrence E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984. Blum, Erhard. “Noch einmal: Jakobs Traum in Bethel—Genesis 28,10–22.” Pages 33–54 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer. BZAW 294. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Blum, Erhard. “Der Tempelbaubericht in 1 Könige 6,1–22: Exegetische und historische Überlegungen.” Pages in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Edited by Jens Kamlah. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Boda, Mark J. “Ideal Sonship in Ugarit.” UF 25 (1993): 9–24. Bodel, John, and Samuel M. Olyan, eds. Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Oxford: Blackwell, 2012. Boecker, Hans-Jochen. Redeformen des Rechtlebens im Alten Testament. WMANT 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964.

286 Bibliography Boling, Robert G. “Bronze Age Buildings at the Shechem High Place: ASOR Excavations At Tananir.” BA 32 (1969): 82–103. Boling, Robert G., and George E. Wright. Joshua. AB 6. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982. Booij, Thijs. “Psalm 132: Zion’s Well-being.” Bib 90 (2009): 75–83. Booij, Thijs. “Psalm CX: ‘Rule in the Midst of Your Foes!’ ” VT 41 (1991): 396–407. Borger, Rykele. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. Archiv für Orientforschung Beihefte 9. Graz: Weidner, 1956. Borger, Rykele. “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Sulgi als Propheten, Zwei prophetische Texte.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 (1971): 3–24. Born van den, A. “Zum Tempel Weihespruch (1 Kg viii 12f).” OTS 14 (1965): 237–44. Bowman, Raymond A. “An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script.” JNES 3 (1944): 219–231. Bretschneider, Joachim. Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jahrtausend. AOAT 229. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Brettler, Mark Z. God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Brown, Brian. “Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud.” JANER 10 (2010): 1–53. Broyles, Craig C. “The Psalms and Cult Symbolism: The Case of the Cherubim-Ark.” Pages 139–56 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip S. Johnston. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005. Burney, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew text of the Books of the Kings. Oxford: Clarendon, 1914. Busink, Theodore A. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus I: Der Tempel Salomos. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Cahill, James M. “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 13–80 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. SBL, Symposium Series 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cahill James M., and David Tarler. “Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–1985.” Pages 31–45 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Campbell, Anton F. The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study. SBLDS 16. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Campbell, Anton F. “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the Theology of Tenth Century Israel.” CBQ 41 (1979): 51–79. Campbell, Edward F., et al. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/ Tell Balâtah. Vol. 1, Text. Vol. 2, The Illustrations. ASOR Archaeological Reports 6. Boston: ASOR, 2002. Campbell, Edward F., and George E. Wright. “Tribal League Shrines in Amman and Shechem.” BA 32 (1969): 104–16. Carr, David M. Writings on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Castel, Corinne S. “The First Temples in Antis: The Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda in the Context of 3rd Millennium Syria.” Pages 123–64 in Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer. Edited by Jan-Waalke Meyer et al. AOAT 371. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Bibliography

287

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Christensen, Duance L. Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel: Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations in Old Testament Prophecy. Bibal Monograph Series 3. Berkeley: Bibal, 1989. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament. JSOTSup 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1980. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. HSM 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Clifford, Richard J. “In Zion and David a New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78.” Pages 121–41 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith: FS Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Clifford, Richard J. “Psalms of the Temple.” Pages 326–37 in The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Edited by William P. Brown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings. AB 10. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988. Cogan, Morton. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974. Cohen, Ohad. The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose. HSS 63. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Craigie, Peter C. “Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: A Critical Evaluation of Their Relevance for Psalm 29.” UF 11 (1979): 135–40. Craigie, Peter C. “Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition.” VT 22 (1972): 143–51. Craigie, Peter C. “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta.” JBL 88 (1969): 253–65. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah.” JNES 12 (1953): 274–78. Cross, Frank Moore. “ēl.” TDOT 1:242–61. Cross, Frank Moore. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross, Frank M. “The Priestly Tabernacle.” Pages 217–219 in Biblical Archaeologist Reader I. Edited by David N. Freedman and George E. Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. Cross, Frank Moore. “Reuben, the Firstborn of Jacob: Sacral Traditions and Early Israelite History.” ZAW 100 (1988): 46–66. Repr. Pages 53–70 in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. “The Blessing of Moses.” JBL 67 (1948): 191–210. Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952. Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

288 Bibliography Curtis, Adrian H. W. “Some Observations on ‘Bull’ Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Old Testament.” Pages 17–31 in In Quest of the Part: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. OTS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms I: Psalms 1–50. AB 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: Psalms 51–100. AB 17B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms III: Psalms 101–150. AB 17C. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Davey, Christopher J. “Temples of the Levant and the Buildings of Solomon.” TynBul 31 (1980): 107–47. Davies, Gordon. “Was There an Exodus?” Pages 23–40 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Day, John. “The Dependence of Isaiah 26:13–27:11 on Hosea 13:4–14:10 and Its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’.” Pages 357–68 in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70/1. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Day, John. “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI.” VT 29 (1979): 143–51. Day, John. “Whatever Happened to the Ark of Covenant?” Pages 250–70 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: śātān in the Hebrew Bible. HSM 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Dearman, John Andrew, ed. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Dever, William G. “Archaeology and the ‘Age of Solomon’: A Case Study in Archaeology and Historiography.” Pages 217–51 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Dever, William G. “Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy.” Pages 65–94 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 406. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Dever, William G. “Merenptah’s ‘Israel’: The Bible’s and Ours.” Pages 89–96 in Exploring the Longue Duree: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Dever, William G. “Monumental Architecture in Ancient Israel in the Period of the United Monarchy.” Pages 269–306 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982. Dever, William G. “Were There Temples in Ancient Israel? The Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 300–316 in Text, Artifact, and Image—Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2006. Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Bibliography

289

Dibelius, Martin. Die Lade Jahwes: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. Diehl, Johannes F., Anja A. Diesel, and Andreas Wagner. “Von der Grammatik zum Kerygma: Neue grammatische Erkenntnisse und ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Form und des Gehalts von Psalm xxix.” VT 49 (1999): 462–86. Dietrich, Manfred. “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten: Überlegungen zur Lage des Gartens Eden.” Pages 281–323 in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego. FAT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Dietrich, Walter. “Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte.” Pages 38–69 in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Fragen. Edited by Albert de Pury, and Thomas Römer. OBO 176. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dietrich, Walter. Samuel Teilband 1: 1Sam 1–12. BKAT 8/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. Dietrich, Manfred, and Oswald Loretz. “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot. UBL 9. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992. Dietrich, Manfred, and Oswald Loretz. “Sieges- und Thronbesteigungslied Baals (KTU 1.101).” UF 17 (1985): 129–46. Dietrich, Manfred, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Dietrich, Walter, et al. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Theologische Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014. Dikjstra, Meindert. “El Olam in the Sinai?” ZAW 99 (1987): 249–50. Dozemann, Thomas B. “Hosea and the Wilderness Wandering Tradition.” Pages 55–70 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer. BZAW 294. Stuttgart: de Gruyter, 2011. Dubovsky, Peter. The Building of the First Temple. FAT 103. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Duncan, Julie Ann. “4QDeutj.” Pages 75–91 in DJD 14. Ego, Beate. “Die Wasser der Gottesstadt: Zu einem Motiv der Zionstradition und seinen kosmologischen Implikationen.” Pages 361–89 in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego. FAT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Eissfeldt, Otto. Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32:1–43 und das Lehrgedicht Asaphs Ps 78 samt einer Analyse der Umgebung der Mose-Liedes. Berlin: Akademie, 1958. Eissfeldt, Otto. “El and Yahweh.” JSS 1 (1956): 25–37. Eissfeldt, Otto. El im ugaritischen Pantheon. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 98/4. Berlin: Akademie, 1951. Eissfeldt, Otto. Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 4. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1939.

290 Bibliography Eissfeldt, Otto. Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 5. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1952. Eissfeldt, Otto. “Silo und Jerusalem.” Pages 138–47 in Volume de Congrès: Strasbourg, 1956. Edited by Pieter Arie Hendrik de Boer. VTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Elnes, Eric E., and Patrick D. Miller. “Elyon.” DDD 293–99. Emerton, John A. “The ‘Mountain of God’ in Psalm 68:16.” Pages 24–37 in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen May 8th 1993. Edited by André Lemaire and Benedikt Otzen. VTSup 50. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Emerton, John A. “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud.” ZAW 94 (1982): 2–20. Emerton, John A. “Some Difficult Words in Genesis 49.” Pages 81–93 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas on his Retirement from the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Emerton, John A. “Spring and Torrent in Psalm LXXIV 15.” Pages 122–33 in Volume du Congrès: Genève, 1965. Edited by Pieter Arie Hendrik de Boer. VTSup 15, Leiden: Brill, 1965. Emerton, John A. “What Light Has Ugaritic Shed on Hebrew?” Pages 53–69 in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. UBL 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Emerton, John A. “ ‘Yahweh and His Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol?” VT 49 (1999): 315–37. Eynikel, Eric. The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. OTS 33. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Fassberg, Steven Ellis, and Avi Hurvitz, eds. Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2006. Finkelstein, Israel. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.” Levant 28 (1996): 177–87. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine—A Guide to the 10th Century Polity.” ZDPV 118 (2002): 110–35. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan.” TA 22 (1995): 213–39. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second Millenia BCE.” Pages 150–78 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Consensus, Mainstream and Dispute.” SJOT 2 (1991): 47–59. Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. ANEM 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Finkelstein, Israel. “A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives.” Pages 3–28 in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. BZAW 405. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.

Bibliography

291

Finkelstein, Israel. “The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II.” Pages 371–393 in Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Edited by Israel Finkelstein. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University 10. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1993. Finkelstein, Israel. “Iron Age I Khirbet et-Tell and Khirbet Raddana: Methodological Lessons.” Pages 107–13 in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and the History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Edited by Sidnie White Crawford et al. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 2007. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity.” Pages 171–87 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Edited by Yaira Amit et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Finkelstein, Israel, ed. “Excavation at Shiloh 1981–1984: Preliminary Report.” TA 12 (1985): 123–80. Finkelstein Israel, ed. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University 10. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1993. Finkelstein, Israel, and Oded Lipschits. “The Genesis of Moab: A Proposal.” Levant 43 (2011): 139–52. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press, 2006. Fisher, Loren R. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1. AnOr 49. Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1972. Fisher, Loren R. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Vol. 2. AnOr 50. Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1975. Fisher, Loren R., and F. Brent Knutson. “An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit.” JNES 28 (1969): 157–67. Fitzgerald, Aloysius. “A Note on Psalm 29.” BASOR 215 (1974): 61–63. Fleming, Daniel E. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar. HSS 42. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Fleming, Daniel E. “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary.” VT 50 (2000): 484–98. Flynn, Shawn W. Yhwh Is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel. VTSup 159. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Fokkelman, Jan P. “The Structure of Psalm LXVIII.” Pages 72–83 in In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism. Papers Read at the Joint British–Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet 1988. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. OTS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Foucault, Michele. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge, 1992. Frankel, David S. The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible. Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Freedman, David Noel. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Freedman, David Noel, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen. Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

292 Bibliography Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion. Band 1–2. BBB 94/1–2. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Fritz, Volkmar. “Der Tempel Salomos im Licht der neueren Forschung.” MDOG 112 (1980): 53–68. Frolov, Serge. “How Old Is the Song of Deborah?” JSOT 36, no. 2 (2011): 163–84. Frolov, Serge. “Judah Comes to Shiloh: Genesis 49:10bα, One More Time.” JBL 131 (2012): 417–22. Gangloff, Frédéric. “The Significance of Lebanon in the Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Texts.” Theological Review 18 (1997): 3–20. Garfinkel, Yosef, and Madeleine Mumcuoglu. “Triglyphs and Recessed Doorframes on a Building Model from Khirbet Qeiyafa: New Light on Two Technical Terms in the Biblical Descriptions of Solomon’s Palace and Temple.” IEJ 63 (2013): 135–63. Gasque, W. W. “Tarsus.” ABD 6:333–34. Gese, Hartmut. “Die Religionen Altsyriens.” Pages 1–232 in Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer. By Hartmut Gese, Maria Höfner, and Kurt Rudolph. Die Religionen der Menschenheit 10/2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. Gese, Hartmut. “Natus ex Virgine.” Pages 73–89 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Gese, Hartmut. Vom Sinai zum Zion: alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. BevT 64. Munich: Kaiser, 1974. Geva, Hillel. “Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter.” Pages 183–208 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. SBL Symposium Series 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Gevirtz, Stanley. “Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Fors.” HUCA 46 (1975): 33–54. Gill, Dan. “The Geology of the City of David and Its Ancient Subterranean Waterworks.” Pages 1–28 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 4, Various Reports. Edited Donald T. Ariel and Alon De Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996. Gillman, Nicolas. “Le temple de Muṣaṣir, une nouvelle tentative de restitution.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 18 (2009–2010): 245–63. Gilmour, Garth Hugh. “An Iron Age II Pictorial Inscription from Jerusalem Illustrating Yahweh and Asherah.” PEQ 141, no. 2 (2009): 87–103. Gilmour, Garth Hugh. “The Archaeology of Cult in the Southern Levant in the Early Iron Age: An Analytical and Comparative Approach.” PhD diss., Oxford, 1995. Gilmour, Garth Hugh. Early Israelite Religion in the Period of the Judges: New Evidence from Archaeology. Cape Town: Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research, University of Cape Town, 1997. Gilmour, Garth Hugh. “Iconism and Aniconism in the Period of the Israelite Monarchy: Was there an Image of the Deity in the Jerusalem Temple?” Pages 91–103 in Visualizing Jews Through the Ages: Literary and Material Representations of Jewishness and Judaism. Edited by Hannah Ewence and Helen Spurling. New York: Routledge, 2015. Ginzberg, Harold Louis. “A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter.” Pages 472–76 in Atti del Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti: Roma, 23–29 Settembre 1935 XIII. Rome: Tipografia del Senato 1938.

Bibliography

293

Gnuse, Robert Karl. No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. JSOTSup 241. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Gomes, Jules Francis. Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity. BZAW 368. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Gooding, David W. “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns.” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29. Gooding, David W. “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement Between the MT and the LXX.” VT 17 (1967): 143–72. Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Text in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. Görg, Manfred. Das Zelt der Begegnung: Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967. Görg, Manfred. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil. EdF 290. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997. Görg, Manfred. “Israel in Hieroglyphen.” BN 106 (2001): 21–27. Graesser, Carl F. “Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine.” BA 35 (1972): 34–63. Grätz, Sebastian. Der strafende Wettergott: Erwägungen zur Traditionsgeschichte des Wettergottes im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Bodenheim: Philo Fine Arts, 1998. Gray, John. “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: Psalm LXVIII.” JSS 22 (1977): 2–26. Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC). RIMA 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Grayson, A. Kirk, and Jamie Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Grayson, A. Kirk, and Jamie Novotny. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Green, Alberto R. “Solomon and Siamun: A Synchronism Between Early Dynastic Israel and the Twenty-First Dynasty of Egypt.” JBL 97 (1978): 353–67. Green, Alberto R. The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Green, Douglas J. “I Undertook Great Works”: The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West Semitic Royal Inscriptions. FAT 2/41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezechiel 1–20. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezechiel 21–37. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Greenhut, Zvi, and Alon De Groot. “Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations.” IAAR 39 (2009): 149–55. Groot De, Alon. “Discussion and Conclusions.” Pages 141–84 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 7A, Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Text. Edited by Alon De Groot and Hannah Bernick-Greenberg. Qedem 53. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012. Groot De, Alon, and Donald T. Ariel. “Ceramic Report.” Pages 91–154 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 5, Extramural Areas. Edited Donald T. Ariel. Qedem 40. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000.

294 Bibliography Groot De, Alon, and Hannah Bernick-Greenberg. “The Pottery of Strata 15–13 (Iron Age IIA).” Pages 199–247 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. 7B, Area E: The Finds. Edited by Alon De Groot, and Hannah BernickGreenberg. Qedem 54. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012. Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir Alla. HSM 31. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984. Hadley, Judith M. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Haines, Richard C. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II: The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Chatal Hueyuek, Tell al-Judaidah, and Tell Tayinat. Oriental Institute Publications 95. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971. Halayqa, Issam K. H. A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite. AOAT 340. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008. Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001. Halpern, Baruch. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan. SBLMS 29. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Halpern, Baruch. “The Resourceful Israelite Historian.” HTR 76 (1983): 379–401. Handy, Lowell K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Handy, Lowell K. “Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82.” JSOT 47 (1990): 51–66. Hanson, Paul D. “The Song of Heshbon and David’s NÎR.” HTR 61 (1968): 297–320. Haran, Menahem. “The Disappearance of the Ark.” IEJ 13 (1963): 46–58. Harrison, Timothy P. “Recent Discoveries at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua/Calno) and Their Biblical Implications.” Pages 396–425 in Congress Volume: Munich, 2013. Edited by Christl M. Maier. VTSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Harrison, Timothy P. “West Syrian Megaron or Neo-Assyrian Langraum? The Shifting Form and Function of the Tell Tayīnāt (Kunulua) Temples.” Pages 3–21 in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Edited by Jens Kamlah. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Harrison Timothy P., and James F. Osborne. “Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat.” JCS 64 (2012): 125–43. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit. BThSt 74. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2011. Hasel, Michael G. “Israel in the Merneptah Stela.” BASOR 296 (1994): 45–61. Hasel, Michael G. “Merneptah’s Inscription and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel.” Pages 19–44 in Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by Beth Alpert Nakhai. Annual of ASOR 58. Boston: ASOR, 2003. Hasel, Michael G. “Merneptah’s Reference to Israel: Critical Issues for the Origin of Israel.” Pages 47–61 in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. Edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Hasel, Michael G. “The Structure of the Final Hymnic-Poetic Unit on the Merenptah Stela.” ZAW 116 (2004): 75–81. Hawkins, Ralph K. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Bibliography

295

Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” BSac 158 (2001): 52–74. Heiser, Michael S. “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible.” BBR 18 (2008): 1–30. Herr, L. G. “Amman Airport Temple.” Pages 102–3 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 1. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Hilber, John W. Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms. BZAW 352. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Hillers, Delbert R. “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132.” CBQ 30 (1968): 48–55. Hintikka, Jaakko. “On the Development of the Model-Theoretic Viewpoint in Logical Theory.” Synthese 77 (1988): 1–36. Hjelm, Ingrid, and Thomas L. Thompson. “The Victory Song of Merenptah, Israel and the People of Palestine.” JSOT 27 (2002): 3–18. Hoffmann, Hans-Detlef. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. ATANT 66. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980. Hoffmeier, James K. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Hoffmeier, James K. “David’s Triumph Over Goliath: 1 Samuel 17:54 and Ancient Near Eastern Analogues.” Pages 87–114 in Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature. Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009. Edited by Shay Bar et al. CHANE 52. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Hoffner, Harry. “A Hittite Analogue to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions?” CBQ 30 (1968): 220–25. Hoftijzer J., and G. van der Kooij. Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla. DMOA 19. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Holladay, John S. Jr. “Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach.” Pages 249–99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank More Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Homan, Michael M. To Your Tents, O Israel! The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. CHANE 12. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hoop de, Raymond. Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context. OTS 39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Eric Zenger. Psalmen 51–100. HTKAT 40. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Hout van den, Theo P. J. “Khattushili III, King of Hittities.” CANE 2:1107–120. Hurowitz, Victor A. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Hurowitz, Victor A. “ ‘Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It’: Building the First Temple According to the Books of Kings.” Pages 281–302 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Jamie Novotny. AOAT 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

296 Bibliography Hurowitz, Victor A. “Yhwh’s Exalted House—Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple.” Pages 63–110 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 20. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Isserlin, B. S. J. “Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-Names in Palestine: A Historical and Geographical Sketch.” PEQ 89 (1957): 133–44. Janowski, Bernd. “Die heilige Wohnung des Höchsten: Kosmologische Implikationen der Jerusalemer Tempeltheologie.” Pages 24–68 in Gottestadt und Gottesgarten: Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels. Edited by Othmar Keel and Eric Zenger. QD 191. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Repr. pages 3–26 in Bernd Janowski, Der Gott des Lebens: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Janowski, Bernd. “JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit.” Pages 192–219 in Die Rettende Gerechtigkeit: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 2. Edited by Bernd Janowski. Neukirchen-Vlyn: Neukirchener, 1999. Janowski, Bernd. “Keruben und Zion: Thesen zur Entstehung der Zionstradition.” Pages 247–80 in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993. Jaroš, Karl. Sichem: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jos 24. OBO 11. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976. Jaroš Karl, and Birgitte Deckert. Studien zur Sichem-Aera. OBO 11a. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1977. Jeon, Yong Ho. “The Retroactive Re-evaluation Technique with Pharaoh’s Daughter and Nature of Solomon’s Corruption in 1 Kings 1–12.” TynBul 62 (2011): 15–40. Jeremias, Jörg. Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem kananäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen. FRLANT 141. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Jeremias, Jörg. “Lade und Zion: Zur Entstehung der Ziontradition.” Pages 183–98 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. Kamlah, Jens. “Temples of the Levant—Comparative Aspects.” Pages 507–34 in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Edited by Jens Kamlah. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Kapelrud, Arvid. Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen: Gad, 1952. Kaufman, Asher S. “Fixing the Site of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.” BAR 14, no. 6 (1988): 46–52. Kaufman, Stephen A. “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism.” HUCA 53 (1982): 29–43. Kee, Min Suc. “The Heavenly Council and its Type-scene.” JSOT 31 (2007): 259–73. Keel, Othmar. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus Teil 1 & 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.

Bibliography

297

Keel, Othmar. “Fern von Jerusalem: Frühe Jerusalemer Kulttraditionen und ihre Träger und Trägerinnen.” Pages 439–502 in Zion—Ort der Begegnung: Festschrift für Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebenjahres. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn et al. BBB 90. Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993. Keel, Othmar, ed. Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt. Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem.” Pages 269–306 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994. Kempinski, Aron, and Israel Finkelstein. “Shiloh.” NEAHL 4:1364–70. Keulen van, Percy S. F. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship Between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11. VTSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Kitchen, Kenneth A. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973. Kitchen, Kenneth A. “The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of Their Records.” JSOT 28, no. 3 (2004): 259–72. Kletter, Raz. “Chronology and United Monarchy.” ZDPV 120 (2004): 13–54. Kletter, Raz. “A Clay Shrine Model.” Pages 28–84 in Yavneh II: The ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit. Edited by Raz Kletter et al. OBO Series Archaeologica 36. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Klingbeil, Martin G. Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography. OBO 169. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Kloos, Carola. Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Amsterdam: van Oorschot; Leiden: Brill, 1986. Knapp, Andrew. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Knauf, Ernst Axel. “ ‘Le Roi Est Mort, Vive le Roi! A Biblical Argument for the Historicity of Solomon.” Pages 81–95 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969. Koch, Klaus. “Ḫazzi–Ṣafôn–Kassion: Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten.” Pages 171–223 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Klaus Koch. OBO 129. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Köckert, Manfred. “Die Theophanie des Wettergottes in Psalm 18.” Pages 209–26 in Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Thomas Richter, Doris Prechel, and Jürgen Klinger. Saarbrücken: SDV, 2001. Köckert, Manfred. “Vom einen zum einzigen Gott. Zur Diskussion der Religionsgeschichte Israels.” BTZ 15 (1998): 137–75.

298 Bibliography Köckert, Manfred. “Wandlungen Gottes im antiken Israel.” BTZ 22 (2005): 3–36. Koenen, Klaus. Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie. OBO 192. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 2003. Kohlmeyer, Kay. “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo.” Pages 179–218 in Tempel im Alten Orient: 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München. Edited by Kai Kaniuth et al. Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Kohlmeyer, Kay. “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo: Baugeschichte und Bautyp, räumliche Bezüge, Inventar und bildliche Ausstattung.” Pages 55–78 in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Edited by Jens Kamlah. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Köhlmoos, Melanie. Bet-El-Erinnerungen an eine Stadt: Perspektiven der alttestamentlichen Bet-El-Überlieferung. FAT 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kooij van der, Ariel. “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43.” Pages 93–100 in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Florentino García Martínez et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Kooij van der, Ariel. The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision. VTSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Koole, Jan Leunis. Isaiah. Part 3, Volume 1: Isaiah 40–48. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997. Koopmans, William T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Korpel Marjo C. A., and Johannes C. de Moor. Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014. Korpel, Marjo C. A. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. UBL 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990. Körting, Corinna. Zion in den Psalmen. FAT 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63.” ZAW 100 (1988): 217–44. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63. Teil II‒V.” UF 29 (1997): 385‒434. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Papyrus Amherst 63 — Einführung, Text und Übersetzung von 12,11–12.” Pages 55–75 in Die Königspsalmen. Die altorientalisch-kanaanäische Königstradition in jüdi-scher Sicht. I: Ps 20, 21, 72, 101 und 144. Mit einem Beitrag von I. Kottsieper zu Papyrus Amherst. Edited by Oswald Loretz. UBL 6. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1988. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Zum Hintergrund des Schriftsystems im Pap. Amherst 63.” Dutch Studies on Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 5, no. 1 (2003): 89–115. Kratz, Reinhard. “Der Mythos vom Königtum Gottes in Kanaan und Israel.” ZThK 100 (2003): 147–62. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. A Continental Commentary: Psalms 1–59. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. A Continental Commentary: Psalms 60–150. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalmen 2. Teilband: Psalmen 60–150. BKAT 15/2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Kselman, John S. “Sinai and Zion in Psalm 93.” Pages 69–76 in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts. Edited by Bernard Frank Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Bibliography

299

Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–300 BC. 2 vols. London: Routledge, 1995. Kuschke, Arnulf. “Tempel.” Pages 333–42 in Biblisches Reallexikon. Edited by Kurt Galling. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977. Laato, Antti. “2 Samuel 7 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Ideology.” CBQ 59 (1997): 244–69. Laato, Antti. “About Zion I Will Not Be Silent”: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity. ConBOT 44. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998. Laato, Antti. “The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon.” In Abraham’s Family: A Network of Meaning. Edited by Lukas Bormann. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming. Laato, Antti. “Adam and the Divine Council: Looking behind Genesis 1–11 and Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 47–72 in Adam and Eve Story in the Hebrew Bible and in Ancient Jewish Writings Including the New Testament. Edited by Antti Laato and Lotta Valve. SRB 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2016. Laato, Antti. “The Assyrian Propaganda and the Historical Falsifications in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib.” VT 45 (1995): 198–226. Laato, Antti. “A Cult Site of Mount Ebal: A Biblical Tradition Rewritten and Reinterpreted.” Pages 51–84 in Holy Places and Cult. Edited by Erkki Koskenniemi and Cornelius de Vos. SRB 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Laato, Antti. “The Devil in the Old Testament.” Pages 1–22 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi. Library of New Testament Studies 481. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Laato, Antti. Guide to Biblical Chronology. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015. Laato, Antti. History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of Historical Prophets. ConBOT 41. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996. Laato, Antti. Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times. ConBOT 33. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992. Laato, Antti. “The Levitical Genealogies in 1Chr 6 and the Formation of the Levitical Ideology in Postexilic Judah.” JSOT 62 (1994): 77–99. Laato, Antti. “Psalm 132: A Case Study in Methodology.” CBQ 61 (1999): 24–33. Laato, Antti. “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Israelite/Jerusalemite Royal Ideology.” CBQ 54 (1992): 49–66. Laato, Antti. “Psalm 68—A Reworked Poem from the Early Israelite Period.” Pages 101–46 in Plogbillar & Svärd: En festskrift till Stig Norin. Edited by Tal Davidovich. Farsta: Molin & Sorgenfrei, 2012. Laato, Antti. A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Laato, Antti. “Understanding Zion theology in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 22–46 in Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology, and Reception. Edited by Greger Andersson et al. LHBOTS 654. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Laato, Antti. “ ‘When he comes to Shiloh’ (Gen 49,8–12)—An Approach to the Books of Samuel.” Pages 511–19 in The Books of Samuel: Stories—History—Reception History. Edited by Walter Dietrich, Cynthia Edenburg, and Philippe Hugo. BETL 284. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.

300 Bibliography Laato, Antti. “Yahweh Manifests Himself between Two Cherubim: An Approach to the Reception History of Hab 3:2?” Pages 55–64 in Begegnungen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart: Beiträge dialogischer Existenz. Edited by Claudia Rammelt et al. Berlin: LIT, 2015. Laato, Antti. “Yahweh Sabaoth and His Land in the Book of Amos.” Pages 115–29 in Enigmas and Images: Essays in Honor of Tryggve Mettinger. Edited by Blazenka Scheuer and Göran Eidevall. ConBOT 58. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Lambert, Wilfred G. “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma eliš.” Pages 77–79 in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten. XXXIXe Recontre Assyriologique Internationale Heidelberg 6.–10. Juli 1992. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt, and Harald Hauptmann. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997. Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Lambert, Wilfred G. “Emmeduranki and Related Matters.” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38. Lambert Wilfred, and Alan R. Millard. Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Lang, Bernhard. Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Lee, Archie C. C. “The Context and Function of the Plagues Tradition in Psalm 78.” JSOT 48 (1990): 83–89. Leichty, Verdun Erle. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Lemaire, André. The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007. Lemaire, André. “Tarshish—Tarsisi: Problème de Topographie Historique Biblique et Assyrienne.” Pages 44–62 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lemaire, André, and Baruch Halpern, eds. The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. VTSup 129. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Lemche, Niels Peter. Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988. Lemche, Niels Peter. Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Society Before the Monarchy. VTSup 37. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Leonard, Jeffrey M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 (2008): 241–65. Lessing, Reed. “Just Where Was Jonah Going? The Location of Tarshish in the Old Testament.” Concordia Journal 28 (2002): 291–93. Leuchter, Mark. “The Reference to Shiloh in Psalm 78.” HUCA 76 (2006): 1–31. Leuenberger, Martin. “Grosskönig und Völkerkampf in Ps 48: Zur historischen, religionsund theologiegeschichlichen Verortung zweier zionstheologischer Motive.” Pages 142–56 in Ich will dir danken unter den Völkern. Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Gebetsliteratur: Festschrift für Bernd Janowski. Edited by Alexandra Grund, Annette Krüger, and Florian Lippke. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013. Leuenberger, Martin. “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden: Archäologische Befunde— biblische Überlieferungen—historische Korrelationen.” ZAW 122 (2010): 1–19.

Bibliography

301

Levine, Louis D. “Manuscripts, Texts and the Study of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 49–70 in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis. Edited by F. Mario Fales. Orientis Antiqvi Collectio XVII. Rome: Istituto per L’Oriente, 1981. Levine, Louis D. “Preliminary Remarks on the Historical Inscriptions of Sennacherib.” Pages 58–75 in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited by Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. Lewis, Theodore J. “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel.” JAOS 118 (1998): 35–53. Lewis, Theodore J. “The Sha‘tiqatu Narrative from the Ugaritic Story about the Healing of King Kirta.” JANER 13 (2013): 188–211. Lewis, Theodore J. “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images.” Pages 69–107 in Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Neal H. Walls. ASOR Book Series 10. Boston: ASOR, 2005. L’Heureux, Conrad E. Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baal, and the Rephaim. HSM 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979. Lindblom, Johannes. “The Political Background of the Shiloh Oracle.” Pages 78–87 in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. Lipiński, Edward. “Garden of Abundance, Image of Lebanon.” ZAW 85 (1973): 358–59. Lipiński, Edward. “Hiram of Tyre and Solomon.” Pages 251–72 in The Books of Kings: Source, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Edited by André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. VTSup 129. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Livingstone, Alasdair. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989. Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum, 1983. Longacre, Robert E. “Interpreting Biblical Stories.” Pages 169–85 in Discourse and Literature: New Approaches to the Analysis of Literary Genres. Edited by Teun A. van Dijk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. Longacre, Robert E. “A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis.” Text 1 (1981): 337–59. Loretz, Oswald. “Die Teraphim als ‘Ahnen-Götter-Figur(in)en’ im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit.” UF 24 (1992): 133–78. Loretz, Oswald. Psalm 29: Kanaanäische El- und Baaltraditionen in jüdischer Sicht. Altenberge: SIC-Verlag, 1984. Loretz, Oswald. Psalmstudien: Kolometrie, Strophik und Theologie ausgewählter Psalmen. BZAW 309. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Loretz, Oswald. Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteigungspsalmen: Die Metamorphose des Regenspenders Baal-Jahwe (Ps 24,7–10; 29; 47; 93; 95–100 sowie Ps 77,17–20; 114). UBL 7. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1988. Loretz, Oswald. Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990. Loretz, Oswald. “Ugaritisch-hebräische Symbiose der Gottesberge ṣapānu und Zion in Psalm 48,2c–3c.” UF 40 (2008): 489–505. Loud, Gordon. Khorsabad, Part I: Excavations in the Palace and at a City Gate. Oriental Institute Publications 38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936.

302 Bibliography Magen, Yitzhaq. “Bells, Pendants, Snakes & Stones: A Samaritan Temple to the Lord on Mt. Gerizim.” BAR 36 (2010): 26–35, 70. Magen, Yitzhaq. “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 157–211 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Magen, Yitzhaq. “Mount Gerizim—A Temple City: Summary of Eighteen Years of Excavations.” Qadmoniot 33 (2000): 74–118. Malamat, Abraham. History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Malamat, Abraham. Mari and the Bible. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 12. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Malamat, Abraham. Mari and the Early Israelite Experience: The Schweich Lectures 1984. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1992. Malamat, Abraham. “A Mari Prophecy and Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle.” Pages 68–82 in Prophecy—Essays Presented to George Fohrer on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, 6 September 1980. Edited by John A. Emerton. BZAW 100. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Malamat, Abraham. “Naamah, the Ammonite Princess, King Solomon’s Wife.” RB 106 (1999): 35–40. Marf Zamua, Dlshad A. “The Temple and the City of Musasir/Ardini: New Aspects in the Light of New Archaeological Evidence.” Subartu 8 (2014): 13–29. Mayer, H. “Das Bauholz des Tempels Salomos.” BZ 11 (1967): 53–66. Mazar, Amihai. “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 347–69 in Congress Volume: Munich, 2013. Edited by Christl M. Maier. VTSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Mazar, Amihai. “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy.” Pages 29–58 in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. BZAW 405. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000—586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Mazar, Amihai. “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from the Time of the Judges.” BAR 9 (1983): 34–40. Mazar, Amihai. “The ‘Bull Site’—An Iron Age I Open Cult Place.” BASOR 247 (1982): 27–42. Mazar, Amihai. “The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE.” Pages 143–71 in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Edited by H. G. M. Williamson. Proceedings of the British Academy 132. London: The British Academy, 2007. Mazar, Benjamin. “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite.” JNES 24 (1965): 297–303. Mazar, Eilat. Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem: A Remarkable Archaeological Adventure. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011. Mazar, Eilat. The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David: Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2009. Mazzoni, Stefania. “Syro-Hittite Temples and the Traditional in antis Plan.” Pages 359–76 in Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer. Edited by Jan-Waalke Meyer et al. AOAT 371. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Bibliography

303

McCarter, P. Kyle. II Samuel. AB 9. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. McCarter, P. Kyle. “The Apology of David.” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504. McCormick, Clifford M. Palace and Temple: A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons. BZAW 313. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. McEwan, Calvin W. “The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.” American Journal of Archaeology 41 (1937): 8–16. McGarry, Eugene P. “The Ambidextrous Angel (Daniel 12:7 and Deuteronomy 32:40): Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Textual Criticism in Counterpoint.” JBL 124 (2005): 211–28. McKenzie, Steven L. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984. Meinhold, W. “Tempel, Kult und Mythos: Zum Verhältnis von Haupt- und Nebengottheiten im Heiligtümern der Stadt Aššur.” Pages 325–334 in Tempel im Alten Orient: 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München. Edited by Kai Kaniuth et al. CDOG 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “A Conversation with My Critics: Cultic Image or Aniconism in the First Temple?” Pages 273–96 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Edited by Yairah Amit et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “The Elusive Essence: YAHWEH, El and Baal and the Distinctiveness of the Israelite Faith.” Pages 393–417 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Erhard Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins.” Pages 173–204 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peters, 1998. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBOT 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. Namnet och närvaron: Gudsnamn och gudsbild i Böckernas Bok. Örebro: Libris, 1987. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. ConBOT 42. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. Reports from a Scholar’s Life: Selected Papers on the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. ConBOT 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.” Pages 109–38 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982. Metzger, Martin. “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes.” UF 2 (1970): 139–58.

304 Bibliography Metzger, Martin. Königsthron und Gottesthron: Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament. AOAT 15/1. 15/2. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985. Metzger, Martin. “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum.” Pages 198–229 in Ernten, was man sät: Fetsschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Dwight R. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer, and Martin Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukrichener Verlag, 1991. Meyer, Rudolf. “Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32.8f. 43 (4Q) für die Auslesung des Moseliedes.” Pages 197–209 in Verbannung und Heimkehr. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Arnulf Kuschke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961. Millard, Alan R. “Alphabetical Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud.” Iraq 24 (1962): 41–51. Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Miller, Patrick D. “El the Warrior.” HTR 60 (1967): 411–31. Miller Patrick D., and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Miller Robert D. II. “Identifying Earliest Israel.” BASOR 333 (2004): 55–68. Miller Robert D. II. Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of Israel in the 12th and 11th Centuries B.C. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Ziony Zevit, eds. Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Mölle, Herbert. Der sogenannte Landtag zu Sichem. FzB 42. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1980. Monson, John M. “The Ain Dara Temple and the Jerusalem Temple.” Pages 273–99 in Text, Artifact, and Image—Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2006. Monson, John M. “The New Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel.” BAR 26 (2000): 20–35, 67. Monson, John M. “The Temple of Solomon: Heart of Jerusalem.” Pages 1–22 in Zion, City of Our God. Edited by Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Moor, Johannes C. de. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Nisaba (Religious Texts Translation Series) 16. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Moor, Johannes C. de. “Concepts of Afterlife in Canaan.” UF 45 (2014): 373–88. Moor, Johannes C. de. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. BETL 91. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997. Moor, Johannes C. de. The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Balu: According to the Version of Ilimilku. AOAT 16. Kevelaer: Butzon & Becker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971. Moor, Johannes C. de. “Seventy!” Pages 199–203 in “Und Mose schrieb diese Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz. Edited by Manfred Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper. AOAT 250. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998.

Bibliography

305

Moor, Johannes C. de. “Ugarit and the Origin of Job.” Pages 225–57 in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. UBL 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Morenz, Ludwig D. “Wortwitz—Ideologie—Geschichte: ‘Israel’ im Horizont Mer-enptahs.” ZAW 120 (2008): 1–13. Morgenstern, Julius. “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting’.” HUCA 17 (1942– 43): 155–71. Morgenstern, Julius. “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82.” HUCA 14 (1939): 29–126. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Der achtundsechzigste Psalm. ANVAO II. Hist. Filos. Klasse. 2. Oslo: Dybwad, 1953. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien 1–2. Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1966. Mulder, Martin J. 1 Kings. Vol. 1, 1 Kings 1–11. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Mulder, Martin J. “Die Bedeutung von Jachin und Boaz in 1 Kön. 7:21 (2 Chr. 3:17).” Pages 19–26 in Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Edited by Jan Willem et al. SPB 36. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Mullen, E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. HSM 24. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Müller, Hans-Peter. “Zur Grammatik und zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Ps 68,5.” ZAW 117 (2005): 206–16. Müller, Reinhard. Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen. BZAW 387. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Na’aman, Nadav. “Beth-aven, Bethel and Early Israelite Sanctuaries.” ZDPV 103 (1987): 13–21. Na’aman, Nadav. “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.” BASOR 304 (1996): 17–27. Na’aman, Nadav. “In Search of Reality Behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours.” IEJ 52 (2002): 200–224. Na’aman, Nadav. “Ittai the Gittite.” BN 94 (1998): 22–25. Na’aman, Nadav. “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy.” IEJ 47 (1997): 83–92. Na’aman, Nadav. “The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory.” SJOT 26 (2012): 88–101. Na’aman, Nadav. “The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site Near Shechem.” Pages 141–61 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John van Seters. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer. BZAW 294. Stuttgart: de Gruyter, 2011. Na’aman, Nadav. “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV–V).” VT 40 (1990): 423–36. Na’aman, Nadav. “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah.” VT 48 (1998): 333–49. Na’aman, Nadav. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the date of the LMLK Stamps.” VT 29 (1979): 61–86.

306 Bibliography Na’aman, Nadav. “Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon.” Pages 57–80 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Na’aman, Nadav. “The Temple Library of Jerusalem and the Composition of the Book of Kings.” Pages 129–52 in Congress Volume: Leiden, 2004. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Neiman, David. “PGR: A Canaanite Cult-Object in the Old Testament.” JBL 67 (1948): 55–60. Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983. Nestor, Dermot. “Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ and the Absence of Origins in Biblical Scholarship.” CBR 13 (2015): 293–329. Neuberg, Frank J. “An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DÔR.” JNES 9 (1950): 215–17. Newsom, Carol. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSM 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Radical Monotheism and Western Culture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960. Niehr, Herbert. “Die Wohnsitze des Gottes El nach den Mythen aus Ugarit: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Lokalisierung.” Pages 325–60 in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego. FAT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Niehr, Herbert. “Götter oder Menschen—Eine falsche Alternative: Bemerkungen zu Psalm 82.” ZAW 99 (1987): 94–98. Niehr, Herbert. “In Search of Yahweh’s Cult Statue in the First Temple.” Pages 73–99 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peters, 1998. Niehr, Herbert. “JHWH in der Rolle des Baalšamem.” Pages 307–26 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994. Nielsen Edvard. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: Gad, 1955. Nielsen, Kirsten. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. JSOTSup 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Nims, Charles F., and Richard C. Steiner. “A Paganized Version of Ps 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script.” JAOS 103 (1983): 261–74. Nissinen, Martti. “Prophets and the Divine Council.” Pages 4–19 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnari für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburstag. Edited by Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf. OBO 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Nordheim von, Miriam. Geboren von der Morgenröte? Psalm 110 in Tradition, Redaktion und Rezeption. WMANT 117. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008. Norin, Stig. Personennamen und Religion im alten Israel untersucht mit besonderer Berücksichtung der Namen auf El und Baal. ConBOT 60. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Norin, Stig. Sein Name allein ist hoch: Das Jhw-haltige Suffix althebräischer Personennamen untersucht mit besoderer Berücksichtigung der alttestamentlichen Redaktions­geschichte. ConBOT 24. Lund: Gleerup, 1986.

Bibliography

307

Noth, Martin. Könige: 1.Teilband. BKAT 9/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968. Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1967. Novak, Mirko. “The Temple of Ain Dāra in the Context of Imperial and Neo-Hittite Architecture and Art.” Pages 41–54 in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Edited by Jens Kamlah. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Novotny, Jamie. “Temple Building in Assyria: Evidence from Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 109–39 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Jamie Novotny. AOAT 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. Oden, Robert A. Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea. HSM 15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977. Oldenburg, Ulf. The Conflict Between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion. Disertationes ad Historiam Religionum Pertinentes 3. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del. “Approaching a Description of the Canaanite Religion of Ancient Israel: Methodological Issues.” Pages 259–73 in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke et al. UBL 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition Part 1–2. 2nd rev. ed. Handbook of Oriental Studies 67. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Olyan, Saul M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBLMS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Olyan, Saul M. “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David.” JBL 101 (1982): 177–93. Oren, Eliezer D., ed. The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1997. Otto, Adelheid. “Gotteshaus und Allerheiligstes in Syrien und Nordmesopotamien während des 2. Jts. v. Chr.” Pages 355–83 in Tempel im Alten Orient: 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München. Edited by Kai Kaniuth et al. CDOG 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium. BZAW 284. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Otto, Eckart. Jakob in Sichem: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels. BWANT 110. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. Otto, Eckart. Rechtsgeschichte der Redaktionen im Kodex Ešnunna und im “Bundesbuch”: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studie zu altbabylonischen Rechtsüberlieferungen. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1989. Otto, Eckart. Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches” Ex XX 22–XXIII 13. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Ottosson, Magnus. Gilead: Tradition and History. ConBOT 3. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. Ottosson, Magnus. Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 12. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1980. Page, Hugh Rowland. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature. VTSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Pardee, Dennis. “Kosharoth.” DDD 491–92.

308 Bibliography Pardee, Dennis. “Nouvelle étude épigraphique et littéraire des textes fragmentaires en langue ougaritique dits ‘Les Rephaïm’ (CTA 20–22).” Or 80 (2011): 1–65. Pardee, Dennis. “On Psalm 29: Structure and Meaning.” Pages 153–83 in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. Edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Pardee, Dennis. “Review of C. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea.” AfO 35 (1988): 229–32. Pardee, Dennis, and Nancy Pardee. “Gods of Glory Ought to Thunder: The Canaanite Matrix of Psalm 29.” Pages 115–24 in Psalm 29 through Time and Tradition. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 110. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009 Parker, Simon B. “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy.” RB 102 (1995): 532–59. Parker, Simon B. “Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions?” VT 50 (2000): 357–78. Parker, Simon B. Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Parpola, Simo, and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988. Patrich, Joseph. The Formation of Nabatean Art: Prohibitions of a Graven Image Among the Nabateans. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990. Patton, Corrine L. “Psalm 132: A Methodological Inquiry.” CBQ 57 (1995): 643–54. Paul, Shalom M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Paul, Shalom M., and William C. Dever. Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Keter, 1973. Pedersén, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda: CDL, 1998. Person, Raymond F., and Robert Rezetko, eds. Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism. Ancient Israel and Its Literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Pfeiffer, Henrik. Jahwes Kommen von Süden. Jdc 5, Hab 3, Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. FRLANT 211. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Pinnock, Frances. “Syrian and North Mesopotamian Temples in the Early Bronze Age.” Pages 385–405 in Tempel im Alten Orient: 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München. Edited by Kai Kaniuth et al. CDOG 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Poirier, John C. “An Illuminating Parallel to Isaiah XIV 12.” VT 49 (1999): 371–89. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. HSM 12. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. VTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Pope, Marvin H. “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit.” Pages 393–405 in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Andrews University Seminary Studies 12/1. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971. Porzig, Peter C. Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer. BZAW 397. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009.

Bibliography

309

Poulsen, Fredrik. Representing Zion: Judgement and Salvation in the Old Testament. Copenhagen International Seminar. London: Routledge, 2015. Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Verspottung fremder Religionen im Alten Testament. BWANT 12. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. Provan, Ian W. Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. BZAW 172. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Qimron, Elisha. “Lwl and blwl.” Leshonenu 38 (1974): 225–27 [Hebrew]. Rainey, Anson F. “The Toponymics of Eretz-Israel.” BASOR 231 (1978): 1–17. Reade, Julian. “Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art.” Pages 329–343 in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Edited by Mogens Trolle Larsen. Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag, 1979. Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Rezetko, Robert, and Ian Young. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach. Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 9. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Richter, Sandra L. The Deuteronomistic History and the name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. BZAW 318. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Roberts, J. J. M. Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” JBL 92 (1973): 329–44. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms.” CBQ 64 (2002): 675–86. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Hand of Yahweh.” VT 21 (1971): 244–51. Roberts, J. J. M. “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition.” Pages 163–70 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. SBL Symposium Series 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Roberts, J. J. M. “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire.” Pages 93–108 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982. Robertson, David A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. SBLDS 3. Missoula: University of Montana, 1972. Rosenberg, Roy A. “The God Ṣedeq.” HUCA 36 (1965): 161–77. Rost, Leonhard. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926. Rost, Leonhard. The Succession to the Throne. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Almond, 1982. Rotenbusch, Ralf. Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im ‘Bundesbuch’ (Ex 21,2–11.18– 22,16) und ihr literarischer Kontext im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2000. Routledge, Bruce. Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Micha—Nahum—Habakuk—Zephanja. KAT 13/3. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975. Ruiten, Jacques T. A. G. M. van. “The Use of Deuteronomy 32:39 in Monotheistic Controversies in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 223–41 in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Florentino García Martínez et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

310 Bibliography Rummel, Stan. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible Volume III. AnOr 51. Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 1981. Rupprecht, Konrad. Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? BZAW 144. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Sæbø, Magne, ed. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation III/2: The Twentieth Century. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Saggs, H. W. F. The Might that was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984. Sanders, Paul. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. OTS 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sanders, Seth L. The Invention of Hebrew. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Särkiö, Pekka. Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der israelitischen Historiographie: Eine traditions- und redaktionskritisiche Untersuchung über 1 Kön 3–5 und 9–11. Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Sarna, Nahum. Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1986. Sass, Benjamin. “Four Notes on Taita King of Palistin with an Excursus on King Solomon’s Empire.” TA 37 (2010): 169–74. Sass, Benjamin. “On Epigraphic Hebrew ŠR and *ŠRH, and on Biblical Asherah*.” Transeuphratène 46 (2014): 47–66. Scharbert, Josef. “Das historische Umfeld von Psalm 48.” Pages 291–306 in Ein Gott Eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitet— Festschrift für Notker Füglister OSB zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Scharbert, Josef. “Jahwe im frühisraelitischen Recht.” Pages 160–83 in Gott, der Einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel. Edited by Ernst Haag. QD 104. Freiburg: Herder, 1985. Schenker Adrian. “Une nouvelle lumière sur l’architecture du temple grâce à la Septante? La place de l’arche d’alliance selon 1 Rois 6:16–17 et 3 Règnes 6:16–17.” Annali di Scienze Religiose 10 (2005): 139–54. Schicklberger, Franz. Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuel-Buches: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung. FB 7. Würzburg: Echter, 1973. Schiffman, L. H. “Sabbath.” Pages 805–7 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. Israel und Ägypten in der Konigszeit: Die Kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall. OBO 170. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999. Schley, Donald G. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOTSup 63. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Schmid, Konrad. “Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament? Methodische Überlegungen anhand von Dtn 32,8f und Ps 82.” Pages 105–20 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Edited by Andreas Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Schmidt, Werner H. Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel: Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes. BZAW 80. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1961. Schmitt, Götz. Der Landtag von Sichem. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Das Hesbonlied Num 21,27aβb–30 und die Geschichte der Stadt Hesbon.” ZDPV 104 (1988): 26–43.

Bibliography

311

Schmitt, Rainer. Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft: Eine kritische forschnungsgeschichtliche Darstellung. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972. Schmuttermayr, Georg. Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22: Studien zu einem Doppeltext. Probleme der Textkritik und Übersetzung und das Psalterium Pianum. StANT 25. Munich: Kösel, 1971. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schniedewind, William M. “Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt.” BASOR 302 (1996): 75–90. Schroer, Silvia. In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament. OBO 74. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Schwemer, Daniel. Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001. Schwemer, Daniel. “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies Part I.” JANER 7, no. 2 (2008): 121–68. Schwemer, Daniel. “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies Part II.” JANER 8, no. 1 (2008): 1–44. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22–23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie. BZAW 188. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Seitz, Christoph R. “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah.” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47. Seow, Choon-Leong. “Ark of the Covenant.” ABD 1:386–93. Seow, Choon-Leong. “Hosts, Lord of.” ABD 6:304–8. Seow, Choon-Leong. Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance. HSM 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Seux, Marie-Joseph. Epithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967. Shiloh, Yigal. Excavations at the City of David I: 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984. Shin, Deuk-Il. The Ark of Yahweh in Redemptive History: A Revelatory Instrument of Divine Attributes. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012. Shipp, R. Mark. Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21. Academia Biblica 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2002. Sivertsen, Barbara J. The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of Exodus. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Sivan, Daniel. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Skehan, Patrick W. “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran.” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–15. Skehan, Patrick W., and Eugene Ulrich. “4QDeutq.” Pages 137–42 in DJD 14. Smelik, Klaas A. D. “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered.” Pages 128–44 in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. OTS 25. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Smith, Mark S. “Canaanite Backgrounds to the Psalms.” Pages 43–56 in The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Edited by William P. Brown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

312 Bibliography Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Smith Mark S. God in Transition: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2010. Smith, Mark S. “In Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6–7): Between Text and Archaeology.” Pages 275–82 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by Seymour Gitin et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Smith, Mark S. “Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People).” Pages 3–27 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 1, Introduction with Text, Translation & Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. VTSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Smith, Mark S. “Why Was ‘Old Poetry’ Used in Hebrew Narrative? Historical and Cultural Considerations about Judges 5.” Pages 197–212 in Puzzling Out the Past: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce Zuckerman. Edited by Marilyn J. Lundberg et al. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Smith, Mark S., and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4. VTSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1987. Soden, Wolfram von. “Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen. Nebst einigen Beobachtungen zur Vorgeschichte des Aḫiqar-Romans.” Pages 29–67 in Aus Sprache, Geschichte und Religion Babyloniens: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Istituto Universitario Orientale, Series Minor 32. Napoli: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, 1989. Soggin, J. Alberto. “The Ark of the Covenant: Jeremiah 3:16.” Pages 215–21 in Le livre de Jeremie: Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by PierreMaurice Bogaert. BETL 54. Leuven: Peters, 1997. Spieckermann, Hermann. Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen. FRLANT 148. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Spieckermann, Hermann. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. FRLANT 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Sprinkle, Joe M. “2 Kings 3: History or Historical Fiction?” BBR 9 (1999): 247–70. Stager, Lawrence E. “The Fortress-Temple at Šekem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant’.” Pages 228–49 in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell Jr. at His Retirement. Edited by Prescott H. Williams Jr. and Theodore Hiebert. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Staubli, Thomas. Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn. OBO 107. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991. Steen Eveline J. van der, and Klaas A. D Smelik. “King Mesha and the Tribe of Dibon.” JSOT 32 (2007): 139–62. Steiner, Richard C. “Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in Jacob’s Blessing: yeter śěēt (Gen 49:3), yěṣûî ālā (49:4), and yābō šîlōh (49:10).” JBL 129 (2010): 209–35. Steitler, Charles. “The Biblical King Toi of Hamath and the Late Hittite State of ‘P/Walas(a)tin’.” BN 146 (2010): 81–99.

Bibliography

313

Stern, Ephraim, and Yotzhaq Magen. “The First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim.” Qadmoniot 33 (2000): 119–24. Stern, Philip D. “Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription.” HUCA 64 (1993): 1–14. Stern, Philip. “The Eighth Century Dating of Psalm 78 Re-argued.” HUCA 65 (1995): 41–65. Stolz, Fritz. “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon.” ZAW 84 (1972): 141–56. Stolz, Fritz. Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des alten Israels. ATANT 60. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. Stolz, Fritz. Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem: Studien zur altorientalischen, vor- und frühisraelitischen Religion. BZAW 118. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. AnBib 43. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970. Stummer, F. “Einige keilschriftliche Parallellen zu Jes. 40–66.” JBL 45 (1926): 171–89. Sweeney, Marvin A. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Talstra, Eep. Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14–61. CBET 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Tanska, Juha. “Changing Paradigms in Biblical Criticism: 2 Kings 22:1 23:30 in the Flux of Discourses.” Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2011. Tappy, Ron E., and P. Kyle McCarter, eds. Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas: Word, 1990. Tawil, Hayim. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: EtymologicalSemantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical Aramaic. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV, 2009. Taylor, J. Glen. Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 111. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Tengström, Sven. Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie. ConBOT 7. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Tertel, Hans Jürgen. Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives. BZAW 221. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Thackeray, Henry S. J. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. London: The British Academy, 1921. Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. WMANT 41. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tigay Jeffrey H., ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. Tigay, Jeffrey H. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. HSS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Toorn, Karel van der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

314 Bibliography Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Toorn, Karel van der. “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel.” Pages 61–83 in Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lihctenberger and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Toorn, Karel van der. “Worshipping Stones: On the Deification of Cult Symbols.” JNSL 23 (1997): 1–14. Tov, Emanuel. “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version.” Pages 97–130 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Trotter, James M. “Death of the lhym in Psalm 82.” JBL 131 (2012): 221–39. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82.” HUCA 40–41 (1969–70): 123–37. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel.” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images.” Pages 97–155 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peters, 1998. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Arad, Qitmit—Judahite Aniconism vs. Edomite Iconic Cult? Questioning the Evidence.” Pages 80–112 in Text, Artifact, and Image—Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2006. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Audienz in der Gotterwelt: Anthropomorphismus und Sozio­ morphismus in der Ikonographie eines altsyrischen Zylindersiegels.” UF 24 (1993): 339–59. Ussishkin, David. “Archaeology of the Biblical Period: On Some Questions of Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age.” Pages 131–41 in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Edited by H. G. M. Williamson. Proceedings of the British Academy 132. London: The British Academy, 2007. Van Seters, John. The Biblical Saga of King David. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Van Seters, John. “A Revival of the Succession Narrative and the Case against It.” JSOT 39 (2014): 3–14. Van Seters, John. “Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography.” CBQ 59 (1997): 45–57. Veen, Peter van der, Christopher Theis, and Manfred Görg. “Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merenptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 216871.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2, no. 4 (2010): 15–25. Veijola, Timo. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975. Veijola, Timo. “Salomo—der Erstgeborene Bathsebas.” Pages 230–50 in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

Bibliography

315

Veijola, Timo. David: Gesammelte Studien zu den Davidüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 52. Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Veijola, Timo. Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 220. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia 1982. Vern, R. C. Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the Linguistic Arguments. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 10. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. Vleeming, Sven Peter, and Jan-Wim Wesselius. “An Aramaic Hymn from the Fourth Century B.C.” BO 39 (1982): 501–9. Vleeming, Sven Peter, and Jan-Wim Wesselius. Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63, Vols. 1–2. Amsterdam 1985, 1990. Vorländer, Hermann. Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. AOAT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1975. Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Wanke, Günter. “Dämonen II. Altes Testament.” TRE 8:275–77. Wanke, Günter. Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang. BZAW 97. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966. Ward W. A. “Tyre.” Pages 247–50 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 5. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Weidner, Ernst F. Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I und seiner Nachfolger. Archiv für Orientforschung Beihefte 12. Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers, 1959. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” ZAW 88 (1976): 17–56. Weippert, Helga. “Die Kesselwagen Salomos.” ZDPV 108 (1992): 8–41. Weiser, Arthur. Die Psalmen. ATD 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927. Werner, Peter. Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordsyrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jt. V.Chr. Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 15. Münchener Universitäts-Schriften: Philosophische Fakultät 12. Munich: Profil, 1994. Westermann, Claus. Grundformen prophetischer Rede. Munich: Kaiser, 1960. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. Westermann, Claus. “Sprache und Struktur der Prophetie Deuterojesajas.” Pages 92–170 in Forschung am Alten Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1964. Whybray, R. Norman. The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl 13–14: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah. SOTSMS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Whybray, R. Norman. The Second Isaiah. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1983. Whybray, R. Norman. The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Sam. 9–20 and I Kings 1 and 2. London: SCM, 1968. Wiggins, Steve A. A Reassessment of Asherah: With Further Considerations of the Goddess. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007. Wildberger, Hans. A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 1–12. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

316 Bibliography Wildberger, Hans. A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 13–27. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Wildberger, Hans. A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 28–39. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1982. Williamson, H. G. M. “Temple and Worship in Isaiah 6.” Pages 123–44 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Wilson, C. W. “Jerusalem.” PEFQS (1873): 36–38. Wilson, Ian. “Merely A Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy.” Pages 212–49 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Wilson, Leslie S. The Serpent Symbol in the Ancient Near East: Nahash and Asherah: Death, Life, and Healing. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001. Winter, Irene J. “The Programme of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II.” Pages 15–31 in Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson. Edited by Prudence Oliver Harper and Holly Pittman. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983. Wolff, Hans-Walter. “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes.” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–85. Wong, Gregory T. K. Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges. VTSup 111. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Woods, Christopher E. “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited.” JCS 56 (2004): 23–103. Woudstra, Marten H. The Ark of the Covenant from Conquest to Kingship. International Library of Philosophy and Theology: Biblical and Theological Studies. Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1965. Wright, David Pearson. Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Wright, George E. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Wright, George E. “Solomon’s Temple Resurrected.” BA 4 (1941): 17, 19–31. Wright, Jacob L. “Deborah’s War Memorial: The Composition of Judges 4–5 and the Politics of War Commemoration.” ZAW 123 (2011): 516–34. Wyatt, Nick. Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. London: Equinox, 2005. Wyatt, Nick. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. UBL 13. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. Wyatt, Nick. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Wyatt, Nick. “The Seventy Sons of Athirat, the Nations of the World, Deuteronomy 32.6B, 8–9, and the Myth of Divine Election.” Pages 547–56 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wyatt, Nick. “The Significance of ṣpn in West Semitic Thought: A Contribution to the History of a Mythological Motif.” Pages 213–37 in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kultzentrum im Alten Orient. Edited by Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 7. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Repr. as pages 102–24 in Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. Edited by Nick Wyatt. London: Equinox, 2005. Wyatt, Nick. “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God.” UF 24 (1992): 403–24.

Bibliography

317

Würthwein, Ernst. Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. ATD 11/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Würthwein, Ernst. “Die josianische Reform und das Deuteronomium.” ZTK 73 (1976): 395–423. Yener, K. Aslihan. “Taurus Mountains.” Pages 155–56 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 5. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Yon, Marguerite. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Young, Ian, ed. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. JSOTSup 369. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. Young, Ian, et al. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. Vol. 1, An Introduction to Approaches and Problems. Vol. 2, A Survey of Scholarship, a New Synthesis and a Comprehensive Bibliography. BibleWorld. London: Equinox, 2008. Younger, K. L. “Heads! Tails! Or the Whole Coin?! Contextual Method and Intertextual Analysis: Judges 4 and 5.” Pages 109–46 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Edited by K. L. Younger, W. W. Hallo, and B. P. Batto. Scripture in Context 4. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991. Xella, Paolo. “Resheph.” DDD 700–703. Zenger, Eric. “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 im Psalter.” Pages 163–90 in Ritual und Poesi: Formen und Orte religiöser Dichtung im Alten Orient. Edited by Eric Zenger. Herder’s Biblical Studies 18. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. Zenger, Eric. “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 in den Teilkompositionen Ps 28–30 und Ps 93–100.” Pages 407–42 in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. Edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Zertal, Adam. “A Cultic Center with a Burnt-Offering Altar from Early Iron Age I Period at Mt. Ebal.” Pages 137–47 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: IOSOT Congress Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck. BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1988. Zertal, Adam. “Ebal, Mount.” ABD 2:255–58. Zertal, Adam. “Ebal, Mount.” NEAHL 1:375–77. Zertal, Adam. “Ebal, Mount.” Pages 179–80 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 1. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Zertal, Adam. “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982–1987.” TA 13–14 (1986–87): 105–65. Zertal, Adam. “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mount Ebal?” BAR 11, no. 1 (1985): 26–43. Zevit, Ziony. “The Common Origin of the Aramaicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20.” JAOS 110 (1990): 213–28. Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum, 2001. Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Cult in the Iron Age I-IIA in the Land of Israel.” Pages 581–94 in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa 2–5 May, 2010. Edited by Gershon Galil et al. AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012.

318 Bibliography Zwickel, Wolfgang. “David: Historische Gestalt und Idealisiertes Vorbild: Überlegungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von 2 Sam 6.” JNSL 20 (1994): 79–123. Zwickel, Wolfgang. Der salomonische Tempel. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999. Zwickel, Wolfgang. Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel: Studien zur Kultgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas. FAT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Die Keramikplatte aus Tell Qasīle: Gleichzeitig ei Beitrag zur Deutung von Jachin und Boas.” ZDPV 106 (1990): 57–62. Zwickel, Wolfgang, et al. Herders neuer Bibelatlas. Freiburg: Herder, 2013.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 2–3 171 2:10–14 171, 172 6:2 118 6:4 118 7:11 144 8:2 144 10–11 120 10 102, 120, 121 10:2–4 107 10:4 106 10:5 120 10:7 172 10:29 172 10:32 120 13:14 102 14:18–22 133, 185 22:18–22 222 25:18 172 26:13 201 28:10–22 32 28:12–22 204 28:18–22 220, 221 28:20–22 221 28:22 221 31:13 221 31:19 222 31:34–35 222 35:14 221 41:49 201 49 17, 36, 43, 200–202, 204, 205, 208, 231

49:3–4 49:4 49:8–12 49:10 49:14 49:22–26 49:22 49:24 49:25 50:23

204 220 189, 202, 215, 231 200, 201, 205, 232 248 202, 203 203 203, 205 211 244

Exodus 6:2–3 224, 235 6:3 228 12 230 14–15 17 14:21 105 15 35, 37, 166, 216, 269, 275 15:1–18 30, 35, 114, 163, 229, 260 15:13 216 15:17–18 35 15:17 30, 216 18:14 134 19:16 140 20–23 31 20:22–23:33 16 23:13 255 23:24 222 24:4 224 24:7 16 25–31 196

25:10–22 66 25:10–16 67 25:17–22 67, 150, 152, 228 32 33, 74, 192, 203 32:8 33 34:13 222 Leviticus 26:1 222 26:30 224, 225 Numbers 6 261 10:35–36 70, 135, 217, 250 10:35 218, 250, 269 14:30 207 21:14–15 17 21:14 17 21:17–18 17 21:27–31 17 21:27–30 17 21:29–30 138 22–24 229, 267 22:22 229 22:32–33 229 24:4 267 24:16 133, 267 26:29 244 32 242 32:38 242 32:39–40 244 34:17–18 137

320 Deuteronomy 3 229 3:9 142 3:15 244 3:27 102 4:19 123, 163 7:5 222 10:1–8 65 10:1–5 67 11:29–30 30, 207, 216 11:30 34 12 27, 30–32, 35 12:3 222, 255 16:1–8 36 16:21–22 162, 221 16:22 204, 222 17:18 17 23:15 198 26:19 133 27 31 27:1–26 30, 207 27:1–8 216 27:4 31 28:1 133 28:6 15 28:58 15 29:19–20 15 29:25 123, 163 29:26 15 30:10 15 31:9 65 31:24 15 31:25–26 65 31:26 15 32 11, 17, 86, 119, 121, 124, 220, 281 32:4 16, 203 32:8–9 52, 86, 87, 119–24, 128, 133–35, 137, 138, 149, 163, 169, 187, 281, 282

Index of References 32:8 118–20, 131 32:9 122 32:13–15 203 32:13 203 32:15 203 32:17 124 32:18 203 32:23–24 229 32:24 124, 229 32:30–31 203 32:36–39 119 32:37 203 32:39 124 32:43 119 33 36, 163 33:2–3 118 33:2 259, 269 33:3 135 33:6 242 33:7 36 33:15 183 33:26 179 Joshua 1:8 15 5:9 207 8:30–35 30, 31, 192, 207 8:31 15 8:33 250 8:34 15 10:12–13 17, 85, 86, 88, 123 10:13 16, 85 13 242 13:15–23 242 13:26 243 13:29–31 266 14:6 207 15:9 28, 76 15:11 28 15:60 76 16:5 133 17:1 243, 244, 266 18 207 18:1 207

18:14 28, 76 19:49 137 21 57 23–24 31 23:6 15 23:7 255 24 31 24:26 15 Judges 4–5 4 5

17, 18 242 37, 163, 242, 243, 254, 256, 266 5:2 261 5:3 269 5:4–5 37, 243, 254, 255, 269 5:5 254, 255 5:14 243, 244, 250, 266 5:16 243, 248 5:28–30 256 9:7–15 146 11:24 123 13–16 261 16:21 253 17:5 222 18:14 222 18:17–18 222 18:20 222 18:31 195, 197, 198, 209 20:26–27 250 20:27–28 32 20:27 250 Ruth 2:5–6 1 Samuel 1:7 1:9

134 195, 197, 198, 209 195, 197, 209

1:24

195, 197, 198, 209 2:12–17 77 2:22–25 77 2:27–36 77 3:3 195, 197, 209 4–7 77 4–6 28, 33, 39, 43, 56, 65, 74–77, 189, 196, 210, 278 4 198 4:1–7:1 75, 77, 78 4:1–18 75 4:4 67, 152, 209, 225, 227 4:11 75 4:12–14 195 4:19–22 80 4:19–21 75 5–6 77, 199 5:1–11 75 5:6 77 5:7 77 5:9 77 5:12 75 6:1–3 75 6:2 67 6:4 75 6:5 77 6:9 77 6:10–14 75 6:16 75 6:19–7:1 75 6:30 77 7:1–2 250 7:12 204 10:25 17 12:2 198 13:13–14 57, 212 13:19–22 108 14:18 56, 82 15 56 15:35 55

Index of References 16–18 56 16 55 17 56, 59, 62 17:7 56 17:54 59 18:6–7 254 18:7 55 18:8–9 56 19:13 222 19:16 222 19:18–24 55 20 54 20:24–34 54 20:41–42 54 21:10–15 53 22:3–4 62, 278 22:6–7 134 22:17 134 23:16–18 54 24 53 24:7 54 24:11 54 25:1 55 25:28–29 57 26 53 26:10 54 26:11 54 26:19 52, 123 27 62 27:8–12 52 27:10 52 28–31 53 28 55 28:1–2 53 29:1–11 53 30 56 31 53 31:11–13 53 2 Samuel 1 53 1:11–12 53 1:13–16 53 1:17–27 53, 56 1:18 17, 85 1:19–27 17 2 57, 58

321 2:4–7 53 3 53, 54 3:3 63 3:9–10 57 3:22–39 54 3:26 54 3:28–29 54 3:31–32 54 3:33–34 54 3:37 54 3:38–39 54 4 53, 54 5 57, 76, 202 5:6–10 49 5:6 113, 114 5:7–8 49 5:11 63, 109 6–7 77, 211, 213 6 4, 28, 33, 39, 43, 56, 65, 74–77, 114, 189, 199, 201, 210, 213, 215, 216, 263, 278, 281 6:1–15 75 6:1–2 213 6:2 76, 152, 209, 225, 227, 250 6:17–20 75 6:17 29, 77, 196, 208, 209, 215, 216 6:20–23 53, 54 7 49, 50, 57, 76, 117, 199–201, 212, 214, 215, 231, 278 7:1–7 12, 39, 197–99, 213, 239, 266 7:5–7 29, 30

322 2 Samuel (cont.) 7:6 168, 198, 209, 215, 216, 250, 272 7:11 212 7:13 12, 29, 50 7:14 215 7:16 212 8 61, 64, 98, 201, 202 8:2 62 8:12 62 8:17 267 10–12 57, 62, 63 10:1–2 278 10:2–4 62 10:2 62 10:6 63 12:26–28 56 13:31 134 15–17 243, 267 15:25 215, 216 15 278 16 62 16:7–8 58 17:27 63, 243, 278 18:8 226 18:18 223 20:25–26 267 20:26 63 21 53, 55 21:1 61 21:7 55 21:19 56, 62 22 226 22:8–16 225 22:8–13 226 22:8 226 22:11 152, 179, 225, 226 22:15–16 226 22:16 227 23:3–4 83 23:13 256 24 95, 228, 230 24:16 230

Index of References 1 Kings 1–11

82, 98, 139, 278 1:33 185 1:34 185 1:38 185 1:39 77, 185 1:45 185 2–9 214, 215 2:3–4 212 2:3 15 2:4 212, 215 2:5–6 54 2:28–34 77 2:28–29 54 2:37 185 3:1 64, 139, 264 4 244 4:5 134 5:30 134 6–8 88, 96, 150 6–7 4, 82, 83, 89, 95, 96, 150, 172, 187 6 87, 89–91, 95 6:1 89, 90 6:2–8 90 6:5 87 6:6 87, 92 6:7 87 6:8 87 6:9–10 90–92 6:9 87, 92 6:10 87, 92 6:11–13 87, 88, 212 6:12–13 215 6:14 88 6:15–22 90 6:15–16 87 6:16–17 88 6:23–38 90 6:23–28 150, 228 7 96, 175 7:2 174, 176 7:8 64, 139

7:23–26 172 8 26, 43, 82, 217 8:1–13 97 8:1–11 71 8:3–5 29 8:6–9 71, 73 8:6 217 8:9 15 8:12–13 17, 83, 123 8:14–61 98 8:25 212, 215 8:53 15 8:53 LXX 17, 83, 85, 86, 88, 123, 138 8:56 15 9:4–5 215 9:4 212 9:5 212 9:8 133 9:16 64, 139, 279 9:24 64, 139 9:26–28 105 10:11–12 105 10:22 105, 107, 109 10:27 176 11 82 11:1–8 64, 139, 278, 280–82 11:29 33 11:31–39 215 11:36 212–15 11:38 212, 215 11:41 14 12 33 12:25–33 33 12:26–33 73 12:28–33 192 12:28–32 74, 203, 211 12:28 33 13:2 33 14:11 262 14:19 14

14:21 62, 64 14:23 161, 222 14:29 14 15:4 212–15 15:7 14 15:13 160 15:14 161 15:23 14 15:31 14 16:4 262 16:5 14 16:14 15 16:20 15 16:24 34 16:27 15 17:10 222 18:4 222 21:9 262 21:23–24 262 22:19–23 67, 129 22:38 262 22:39 15 22:46 15 22:49 107 23:14 222 2 Kings 1:8 15 2:4 213 3:2 221 5:17 52, 123, 176 6:12–13 213 8:19 212–15 8:23 15 8:25 213 9:4–5 213 9:10 262 9:36 262 10:26 221 10:27 221 10:32–33 244 10:34 15 11 184 11:12 17 12:20 15 13:6 161, 163

323

Index of References 13:8 15 13:12 15 14:6 15 14:15 15 14:18 15 14:28 15 15:6 15 15:11 15 15:15 15 15:21 15 15:26 15 15:31 15 15:36 15 16:8–9 130 16:10–17 96 16:19 15 17 34 17:24–41 33 17:24–33 123 17:24 34 17:26 34 18–19 20, 112 18:4 15, 160, 161 18:6 15 18:12 15 18:16 96 18:19 112 18:21 264 18:28 112 19:15 67, 70, 71, 152, 209, 225, 229 19:35 230 20:20 15 21:3 161, 164 21:7 161, 164 21:8 15 21:17 15 21:25 15 22–23 15, 31, 32 23:4 161 23:7 161 23:11 83, 179 23:15–18 33 23:21–23 36 23:25 15

23:28 15 24:5 15 25 96 25:13–17 95 25:15 96 25:16 96 25:27–31 214 1 Chronicles 1–9 36 1:9 172 1:23 172 2:21–22 267 5:1–2 36, 204 5:1 36 6 101 11:5–6 49 11:15 256 13:6 76, 227 16 208, 226 16:23–33 40, 208 20:5 56 21 95 22:7–8 11 22:10 11 22:19 11 28:2 71–73 28:3 11 29:16 11 2 Chronicles 1:18 11 2:3 11 4:6 172 5:7 73 6 26 6:5–10 11 6:20 11 6:41–42 26, 73, 214, 217 7:16 11 7:20 11 12:13 11 13:6 225 14:2 222 20:8–9 11

324 2 Chronicles (cont.) 20:36–37 106 26:15 201 31:1 222 32 20 33:4 11 33:7 11 Job 1:6 118 2:1 118 4:17–18 135 5:1 118 5:7 229 26:7 154 27:21 113 31:22 261 38:15 261 Psalms 2

182, 183, 186 2:4 186 2:6 186 2:7–8 17 2:9 186 3:8 70, 218 7:7 70, 218 7:18 133 9:3 133 9:17 228 9:20 70, 218 10:12 70, 218 11 103 11:4 103 12:16 70 15 155 17:8 70 17:13 70, 218 18 226 18:8–16 225 18:11 70, 152, 179, 225, 226 18:12 226 18:13 226 18:15 226

Index of References 20 38, 276 21:8 133 23:2 202 24 70, 71, 150, 154, 155, 159 24:1–2 154, 155 24:2 154 24:3–6 155 24:7–10 43, 154, 155 24:7 155, 187 24:8 155, 159 24:9 155, 187 27:4 105 29 39, 139–50, 158, 168, 170, 173, 176, 186, 208, 265, 279, 280, 282 29:1–2 139, 148, 273 29:1 118, 141, 149 29:2 144 29:3–9 144 29:3–4 149 29:3 141, 149 29:5–6 141, 149 29:5 145, 149 29:6 142, 144, 145 29:7 144, 149 29:8–9 144 29:8 142, 149 29:9 144, 145 29:10 144–47, 155 34 179 35:2 70 36 70 36:8–10 171 36:8 70 42 70 44:27 70, 218

46

46:1–8 46:2–8 46:2–4 46:2 46:3 46:4 46:5–6 46:5 46:6 46:7–8 46:7 46:8 46:9–15 46:9–12 46:12 46:48 47 47:2–3 48

48:1–8 48:2–8 48:2–3 48:2 48:3

48:7–8 48:7

101, 111, 112, 114, 167–71, 174, 260 167 169, 170 170 169 169 169 170, 171, 174, 178 133, 168, 169, 185 169 170 169 114, 167, 169 167 167, 170 114, 167 167 70, 251 133 27, 70, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 109, 112–16, 139, 140, 147–50, 173, 176, 186, 260, 279 168 112, 115, 116 99, 187 126, 152, 168 102, 104, 105, 116, 147, 168, 169, 176 149 100

48:8

100, 102, 105, 113, 149 48:9–15 115, 116, 170 48:9 115 48:11 116 48:12 116 48:15 111 50:14 133 57 70 57:2 70 57:3 133 61 70 61:5 70 63 70 63:8 70 65:7–14 170 65:12 179 68 32, 37, 43, 70, 111, 114, 182, 229, 241, 244–46, 249–52, 255–57, 259, 260, 262, 264, 266, 268–70, 273–75, 280 68:1–2 245 68:1 245 68:2–25 266 68:2–9 269 68:2–3 269, 270 68:2 70, 249–51, 269 68:3 245, 251, 269 68:4–5 269 68:4 251, 265 68:5 179, 241, 246, 249, 251–53, 258, 265, 269, 270, 273, 274 68:6–11 270

Index of References 68:6–7 270 68:6 253 68:7–8 245 68:7 253, 254 68:8–9 37, 243, 253–55, 269, 270 68:8 254 68:9–10 245 68:9 270 68:10–11 270, 271 68:10 255, 256, 271 68:11–14 245 68:11 256 68:12–15 271 68:12 256 68:13 257 68:14–15 241 68:14 257 68:15–18 245 68:15 258, 267, 271 68:16–17 241, 258, 266, 273, 275 68:16 257, 258 68:17 246, 258, 272 68:18–22 272 68:18 179, 259 68:19–20 245 68:19 246, 260, 272 68:20–21 272 68:20 260, 261 68:21 100, 245, 246, 260, 261, 272 68:22–23 245 68:22 261, 262, 272 68:23–30 272 68:23–24 272 68:23 262, 271, 272 68:24–27 245

325 68:24 262 68:25–35 251 68:25–30 259, 263, 264, 272 68:25 262, 272 68:26–36 266 68:26–35 251 68:26–30 272 68:26 253, 263 68:27 246, 263 68:28–35 245 68:28 116, 263, 264, 272 68:29–30 272 68:29 264 68:30 37, 241, 263, 264, 272 68:31–32 272 68:31 264, 265 68:32 264, 272 68:33–36 273 68:33–34 265 68:33 249, 265, 273 68:34–36 264 68:34 255, 265, 273, 274 68:35–36 265 68:35 252, 265 68:36 265 72:4–5 83 72:20 106 73:11 133 74:22 70, 218 76 111, 112, 114, 260 76:10 70 77 164–66 77:1–10 165 77:10–11 133 77:11–20 165 77:11–13 165, 166 77:11 166 77:12–15 171 77:14–20 165, 166 77:14–16 166

326 Psalms (cont.) 77:17–20 37, 166, 167, 229 77:20 167 77:21 165, 166 78 11, 28–30, 33, 43, 189, 198, 200, 205, 206, 208, 210, 215, 230, 232, 258, 271, 273, 280 78:9 205 78:10–11 205 78:17 133 78:25 211 78:35 133 78:48–51 230 78:48 229 78:49–50 228 78:52–585 216 78:52–55 28, 206, 207, 210, 230, 258, 273 78:52–53 232 78:56 133 78:59–72 210 78:60–61 28, 195, 207, 232, 272, 273, 275 78:60 75, 197 78:61 70, 207 78:67–69 28, 273 78:68–69 272, 275 78:68 80 78:69 208 80:2 70, 152, 209, 225 80:11 177 82 118, 132–35, 137, 138, 149 82:1 118, 132–35 82:2–4 136 82:2 135

Index of References 82:5 136 82:6 118, 132, 133, 169 82:8 70, 134, 135, 137, 218 83 117 83:19 133, 135 85:13 247 87:5 133 89 181, 182, 227 89:6–19 181 89:6–12 227 89:6 118 89:7 118, 140 89:8 118 89:13 181, 182 89:20–38 181 89:26 182 89:29 133 89:39–55 181 91: 133 91:4 70 91:5–6 229 91:9 133 92:2 133 93–100 148 93 130, 148, 156–59, 168, 176, 208 93:1 158 93:3–4 158 93:3 166 93:4 158 93:5 157 95–99 130 96 40, 70, 170, 207, 208, 226 96:6 207 96:7–8 148 96:10 208 97:7 118 97:9 133 99 73 99:1 73, 152, 209, 225

99:5 73 102:14 70 104:3 70, 251 104:7–9 250 104:16 177 106:37–38 124 107:10 253 107:11 133 110 182–84, 186 110:1 186 110:2 186 110:3 183–85 110:5–6 185 110:7 185 118 70 122 70 132 26, 28, 43, 65, 70–72, 76, 77, 189, 211–15, 217, 232 132:2 211 132:5 211 132:6–8 216 132:6 76, 77, 213 132:7–8 71 132:7 72, 168, 216, 217 132:8–10 217 132:8 70, 207, 217, 218 132:11–12 212, 213, 215 132:12 213 132:13–14 71, 212 132:14 218 132:17 212, 213, 215 142 165 Isaiah 1–39 111 1:4–9 115 1:24 211 2:2–4 170 2:16 106 6 67, 129, 281

6:1–2 153 6:4 67 8:5–10 111 8:18 41 10:33–34 178 11:1–9 178 14 117, 125, 127, 185 14:12–15 125, 185 14:13–15 138 14:13 117, 118 14:14 169 14:16–17 126 17:12–14 111 19:6 264 19:19 223 19:21 228 22:1–14 115 22:1–2 115 23:1 105, 106 23:14 106 24:21 135 27:8 105, 113 29:1–8 111 30:27–33 111 30:27 141 30:32 169 31:4–9 111 33:1–24 111 35:17 202 36–37 112 36:3 264 36:4 112 36:13 112 37:16 70, 152, 209, 225, 227, 229 37:36 230 40–55 128–31, 187, 268, 281 40:1–11 128 40:3–8 128 40:12–26 129 40:12–17 129 40:18–20 129 40:21–24 129 40:25–26 129

327

Index of References 41:1–7 130 41:1–5 129 41:17–20 252 41:21–29 129 41:25–29 130 43:8–15 129 43:8–13 130 43:10 130, 131 43:14–15 130 43:18–21 252 44:1–4 252 44:6–8 129 44:9 136 44:18 136 44:21–22 129 44:24–45:7 130 45:9–13 130 45:11–13 129 45:20 136 46:1–2 138 46:8–11 130 48:11–16 130 49:26 211 57:14 252 60:9 106 60:16 211 62:10 252 66:1 41, 73, 208 66:19 107 82 136 82:7 136 Jeremiah 2:5–8 252 3:14–18 73 3:15–16 67 3:16 66, 73, 281 5:12 113, 169 6:2 256 7 33, 81 7:1–15 28 7:3 207 7:4 169 7:7 207 7:12 75 7:14 75 12:5 264

15:3 262 18:17 105, 113 20:23 177 21:5 261 22 177 22:6 177 22:13–19 177 22:14–15 177 22:18 177 22:20–23 177 22:20 177 22:23 177, 178 23:3 203 23:18 118, 129 23:22–24 129 26 33, 81 26:1–19 28 26:6 75 32:21 261 48:7–9 138 49:1–5 138 49:17 202 50:2–3 138 50:44 202 51:44–45 138 51:47–48 138 52:17–23 95 Lamentations 2:1 66, 73 3:35 133 3:38 133 Ezekiel 17

128, 130, 178 17:3–4 178 17:12–21 128 26–28 127 27:12–14 107 27:12 105, 107, 109 27:25 105 27:26 113 28 126, 127 28:12–16 126 29:6 264

328 Ezekiel (cont.) 31 177 31:8–9 177 31:16 177 31:18 177 38:13 106 43:7–9 224 43:7 224 47:1–12 172 Daniel 10:13 131 10:20 131 Hosea 2 207 2:16–17 252 2:18 236 3:4–5 162, 223 3:4 204, 222 4:15 33 8:5–6 34 10:1–2 223 10:1 223 10:5 33, 34 10:11–15 201, 231 10:11 205 13:1–3 201, 231 14:9 161, 162 Jonah 1:3 106 Joel 1:20 202 4:18 172 Amos 4:4–5 33 4:10 230 5:4–6 33 5:10 228 8:14 118 Micah 3:11 113, 169 5:12 223

Index of References Habakkuk 2:20 37, 228 3 37, 227, 229, 230 3:2 37, 227, 228 3:3–5 124 3:3–4 269 3:3 181 3:5 228, 229 3:8 179 3:10–12 167, 229 3:15 167, 229 Zechariah 14:8 172 Malachi 3:10

Strabo Geography 3.2.10 107 3.2.11 107 Mesopotamian and Hittite Texts Assyrian Inscriptions Ashurbanipal 17 Esarhaddon 89, 106, 328 Sennacherib

74–75, 180

144

Tiglath-Pileser I 90–91

Apocrypha Ecclesiasticus 24:23–27 172 43:17 229

Tukulti-Ninurta I 96–97

2 Maccabees 2:4–7 74 Pseudepigrapha Jubilees 4:25–26 181 Classical Literature Herodotus Histories I.163 107 IV.152 107 Homer Iliad 15:187–193 122 Pliny Natural History 37 107 43 107

Atra-ḫasis Epic I,223–224 136 I.i:11–18 122 Enuma Elish I:7–9 130 IV:119–128 136 Mari A.1968 276 Prophecy of Marduk 17 Hattišiliš Apology 58–60 Amarna Texts 147:13–14 143 287 47, 48 287:60–61 12 288:5–7 12

Canaanite and Aramaic Texts KAI 4 117 24:15–16 159 26AIII:19 140 27:11 140 181:5–6 123, 246 181:10 242 181:14 242 Papyrus Amherst 63 276 Ugaritic Texts KTU 1.1–1.6 109, 110 1.1–1.4 110 1.1–1.2 110 1.1 III:22–26 216 1.2 110, 118 I:12 251 I:19–24 170 I:23–24 261 I:27 155, 261 I:29 261 II:7–9 155 III:4 171 III:5–6 216 IV.7–29 110 IV:12–30 155 IV:7–27 158, 272 IV:8 251 1.3 I:1–28 110 I:18–22 249 II:1–III:3 272 II:3–16 262 II:39–40 251 III:4–8 110 III.28–31 104 III:30–31 255 III:32–IV:51 257 III:32–51 110 IV:94–VI:25 110 V:1–3 261 V:6–7 171

Index of References 1.4–1.6 110 1.4 145 1.4 I:4–19 110 I:30 259 II:10 254 II:14 140 II:6–7 155 III:11 251 III:18 251 III:31 254 IV:20–81 217 IV:20–30 216 IV:20–24 209 IV:21–22 171 IV:40–57 110 V 110 V:2–11 110 V:20–35 110, 247 V:21 144 V:44–VI:40 110 V:60 251 VI:18–21 142 VI:40–VI:12 111 VI:46 120, 133 VII:7–13 254, 270 VII:13–37 111 VII:14–52 143, 147 VII:27–31 265 VII:29–41 143 VII:35–37 249 VII:37– VIII:47 111 VIII:42–44 271 rev.V:46–48 184 1.5 VI:25– 1.6 I:43 111 1.5 111 I:1–2 257 II:7 251 1.6 I:18–28 120 I:32–43 216 I:33–34 171 I:34–38 217 I:43–II:3 111 I:43–67 152 I:47–52 152

329 I:50–53 159 I:56–64 153 II:1–IV:29 111 II:4–37 111 III:4 254 V:1–VI:54 111 VI:10–22 159, 273 VI:17–20 264 1.10 III:7 202 1.12 II:48–49 120 1.14 I:18–19 229 II:43–45 254 III:16–17 263 III:22 257 III:34 257 III:51 140 IV:21–22 254 V:8–9 263 V:34–35 257 1.15_II:6 229 II:7, 11 118, 133 IV:5 120 1.16 I:3–4 136 I:9 257 I:10–11 137 I:20–23 137 II:40–44 137 III:5–8 133 VI:32+34 136 VI:45+47 136 VI:48–50 253 VI:49 136 1.17 224 I:25–28 224 I:26 134 II:1–3 197 II:26 253 II:39–40 253 V:7–8 253 VI:46–49 171 VI:47–51 216 1.23 184, 261 1.23:10 202 1.23:65 142 1.33–34 261 1.34–35 261

330 KTU (cont.) 1.37 261 1.37:7 118 1.40:7–8 140 1.40:17 140 1.40:25–26 118 1.40:25 140 1.40:33–34 118, 140 1.40:42 140 1.41:16 118

Index of References 1.45 261 1.65:2 118 1.82:3 229 1.100:3 171 1.101 146, 147, 154 1.101:1–4 255 1.101:4 145 1.108 135 1.108 obv. 3–4 263

1.108 l. 3 135 1.108:3–4 249 1.114:1–2 197 1.114:14 261 1.114:2–3 261 2.16:6–10 251 2.23:21 251 2.38:14 255

I n d ex of A ut hor s Abū ‘Assāf, A. 93, 94, 150, 152, 156, 165 Ackroyd, P. 51 Ahituv, S. 163, 236 Albani, M. 125, 130 Albertz, R. 45, 128, 174, 220, 222, 224, 225, 233, 237 Albright, W. F. 23, 204, 245, 246, 250, 253, 254, 257, 259, 262, 263 Alt, A. 6 Andersen, F. I. 13, 167, 227–29 Anderson, J. S. 238 Ariel, D. T. 47 Ash, P. S. 45, 64 Athas, G. 244 Attridge, H. W. 3 Avigad, N. 48 Avishur, Y. 208 Avner, U. 219–21, 223 Axelsson, L. E. 163, 270 Ayali-Darshan, N. 240 Baker, D. W. 106 Barbiero, G. 211 Barstad, H. M. 268 Barth, H. 26, 125, 178 Bartolini, P. 108 Barton, J. 3 Barzilai, O. 219 Baumgarten, A. 3, 145 Beck, P. 151 Begrich, J. 129, 141 Ben-Ami, D. 192, 220, 225 Bergen, R. D. 12 Bernick-Greenberg, H. 47 Beuken, W. A. M. 125 Binger, T. 160 Biran, A. 244 Blenkinsopp, J. 51, 213 Bloch, Y. 14 Bloch-Smith, E. 173 Blum, E. 87, 95, 221 Boda, M. J. 134 Bodel, J. 174, 224 Boecker, H.-J. 134 Boling, R. G. 17, 85, 195

Booij, T. 183, 211 Borger, R. 79, 89, 106 Born, A. van der 84 Bowman, R. A. 38 Bretschneider, J. 156 Brettler, M. Z. 230 Brown, B. 174 Broyles, C. C. 69, 70 Burney, C. F. 88 Busink, T. A. 93 Cahill, J. M. 45, 48, 49 Campbell, A. F. 75, 78, 81, 205–7, 210 Campbell, E. F. 31, 190 Carr, D. M. 13 Castel, C. S. 94 Childs, B. S. 128 Christensen, D. L. 138 Clements, R. E. 3 Clifford, R. J. 69, 70, 102, 117, 170, 171, 206, 209 Cogan, Mordechai 96, 112 Cogan, Morton 78 Cohen, O. 13 Craigie, P. C. 42, 143, 243 Cross, F. M. 6, 13, 17, 35, 36, 38, 57, 109, 114, 118, 122, 128, 129, 134, 135, 140, 155, 159, 170, 172, 197, 200, 201, 204, 209, 213, 218, 226, 242, 243, 254, 267, 269, 271 Curtis, A. H. W. 204 Dahood, M. 42, 105, 206, 245–47, 249– 57, 259–64 Davey, C. J. 93 Davies, G. 18, 218 Day, J. 66, 109, 110, 121, 143, 160, 162 Day, P. L. 229 De Groot, A. 47, 48, 156 Dearman, J. A. 242 Deckert, B. 31 Dever, W. G. 45, 95, 173, 238 Dibelius, M. 65 Diehl, J. F. 143 Diesel, A. A. 143

332

Index of Authors

Dietrich, M. 9, 42, 51, 65, 75, 147, 160, 172, 173, 212 Dijkstra, M. 254 Dozemann, T. B. 268 Dubovsky, P. 4, 87, 88, 92, 96, 152 Duncan, J. A. 119 Ego, B. 170, 171 Eissfeldt, O. 3, 134, 189, 200, 206 Elnes, E. E. 134 Emerton, J. A. 140, 163, 171, 200, 201, 258 Enmar, L. 219 Eshel, E. 163, 236 Eynikel, E. 15, 16 Fassberg, S. E. 12 Finkelstein, I. 44, 45, 47, 193–96, 242 Fisher, L. R. 42, 147 Fitzgerald, A. 149 Fleming, D. E. 185, 197, 217 Flynn, S. W. 114, 130 Fokkelman, J. P. 245 Forbes, A. D. 13 Foucault, M. 2 Frankel, D. 31 Freedman, D. N. 13, 17, 35, 36, 118, 135, 200, 203, 226, 243 Frevel, C. 156, 157, 159, 160, 162 Fritz, V. 93 Frolov, S. 200, 201, 243 Gangloff, F. 175, 177 Garfinkel, Y. 92 Gasque, W. W. 107 Gese, H. 35, 183, 237 Geva, H. 48 Gevirtz, S. 202 Gill, D. 49 Gillman, N. 173 Gilmour, G. H. 78, 151, 190–92 Ginzberg, H. L. 149 Gnuse, R. K. 237 Gomes, J. F. 32, 221 Gooding, D. W. 84, 87 Gordon, C. H. 251 Görg, M. 64, 77, 199, 238 Graesser, C. F. 223 Grätz, S. 6, 38 Gray, J. 252

Grayson, A. K. 74, 79, 90, 91, 97, 180 Green, A. R. 6, 64, 238 Green, D. J. 49, 117 Greenberg, M. 127, 128 Greenhut, Z. 156 Hackett, J. A. 267 Hadley, J. M. 160 Haines, R. C. 92, 93 Halayqa, I. K. H. 136 Hallo, W. W. 38 Halpern, B. 15, 18, 45, 52, 58, 242, 243 Handy, L. K. 3, 45, 132, 148, 240 Hanson, P. D. 17 Haran, M. 66 Harrison, T. P. 63, 93, 150 Hartenstein, F. 101, 112, 115, 116 Hasel, M. G. 238 Hawkins, R. K. 18, 31, 192 Heiser, M. S. 119, 124 Herr, L. G. 195 Hilber, J. W. 211 Hillers, D. R. 218 Hintikka, J. 5 Hjelm, I. 238 Hoffmann, H.-D. 7 Hoffmeier, J. K. 56, 219 Hoffner, H. 56 Hoftijzer, J. 134, 267 Holladay, J. S., Jr. 192, 220 Homan, M. M. 170 Hoop de, R. 17, 202 Hossfeld, F.-L. 132, 148, 157, 165, 166, 183, 184, 205, 211, 246, 252 Hout, T. P. J. van den 60 Hurowitz, V. A. 88, 89, 92, 173 Hurvitz, A. 12, 13 Isserlin, B. S. J. 199 Janowski, B. 5, 66, 68, 71, 83, 86, 113, 114, 174, 179 Jaroš, B. 30, 31 Jeon, Y. H. 139 Jeremias, J. 28, 109, 114, 149, 155, 157, 235, 245, 251, 260, 265 Kamlah, J. 94 Kapelrud, A. 240 Kaufman, A. S. 195



Index of Authors

Kaufman, S. A. 25 Kee, M. S. 117, 128 Keel, O. 1, 2, 4, 44, 49, 50, 57, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 82–85, 87, 88, 95, 103, 105, 143, 156, 160, 163, 171, 173, 174, 179, 182, 184, 210 Kempinski, A. 193, 196 Keulen, P. S. F. van 84 Kitchen, K. A. 45, 238 Kletter, R. 68, 92, 156, 194 Klingbeil, M. G. 109 Kloos, C. 109, 114, 140–42, 148, 265 Knapp, A. 51, 52, 58, 60 Knauf, E. A. 84, 86 Knutson, F. B. 147 Köckert, M. 270 Koch, K. 26, 103, 104, 181 Koenen, K. 32, 221 Kohlmeyer, K. 63, 64, 150 Köhlmoos, M. 32, 221 Kooij, G. van der 106, 119, 134, 267 Koole, J. L. 129 Koopmans, W. T. 31 Korpel, M. C. A. 7, 109, 121, 202, 203, 227 Körting, C. 1, 5 Kottsieper, I. 38 Kratz, R. 2 Kraus, H.-J. 71, 113, 183, 206 Kselman, J. S. 157 Kuhrt, A. 45 Kuschke, A. 93 L’Heureux, C. E. 3, 240 Laato, A. 2, 5–8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 49, 52, 57, 58, 64, 83, 90, 101, 111, 112, 115, 120, 123, 130, 170, 181, 192, 200, 208, 211, 214, 227, 229, 245 Lambert, W. G. 21, 27, 81, 117, 122, 180, 236 Lang, B. 164 Lee, A. C. C. 206 Leichty, V. E. 89 Lemaire, A. 15, 45, 106, 107, 122 Lemche, N. P. 14, 18 Leonard, J. M. 205 Lessing, R. 106 Leuchter, M. 206

333

Leuenberger, M. 7, 50, 101, 102, 115, 122, 163, 270 Levine, L. D. 22 Lewis, T. J. 137, 150–52, 165, 209 Lindblom, K. 200 Lipinski, E. 107, 175 Lipschits, O. 62, 242 Livingstone, A. 174 Longacre, R. E. 20 Loretz, O. 38, 42, 100, 133, 140, 141, 143, 147, 160, 222 Loud, G. 93, 97 Magen, Y. 35 Malamat, A. 30, 45, 50, 63, 180, 202, 216, 224, 243 Marf, D. A. 173 Mayer, H. 175, 177 Mazar, A. 44, 45, 48, 63, 93, 192 Mazar, B. 37 Mazar, E. 48 Mazzoni, S. 94 McCarter, P. K. 13, 17, 52, 58, 75, 80, 224 McCormick, C. M. 67, 87, 175 McEwan, C. W. 92 McGarry, E. P. 119 McKenzie, S. L. 19 Meinhold, W. 139 Meshel, Z. 163, 236 Mettinger, T. N. D. 4, 50, 51, 67, 69, 103, 104, 127, 151, 181, 189, 207, 210, 212, 219, 220, 223, 227, 234, 244, 265 Metzger, M. 71, 72, 103, 177, 225 Meyer, R. 119 Millard, A. R. 112, 122 Miller, P. D. 75–77, 79–81, 109, 134, 210, 245, 250, 261, 262, 271 Miller, R. D. II 238 Miller-Naudé, C. L. 13 Mölle, H. 31 Monson, J. M. 150, 165 Moor, J. C. de 7, 32, 38, 110, 120–22, 135, 136, 142–46, 153, 163, 164, 219, 224, 233, 237, 239, 241, 245, 246, 248, 252, 253, 256–58, 265–68 Moran, W. L. 48 Morenz, L. D. 219, 238 Morgenstern, J. 132, 197, 206

334

Index of Authors

Mowinckel, S. 71, 245 Mulder, M. 84, 156 Mullen, T. E. 116, 117, 126, 132, 135, 136, 170 Müller, H.-P. 252 Müller, R. 6, 38, 100, 112, 142, 165–67, 180, 226 Mumcuoglu, M. 92 Na’aman, N. 14, 15, 18, 34, 45, 47, 61–63, 82, 89, 95, 115, 193, 243 Naveh, J. 244 Neiman, D. 224 Nelson, R. D. 213 Nestor, D. 238 Neuberg, F. J. 118 Newsom, C. 120 Niebuhr, H. R. 152 Niehr, H. 66, 67, 132, 151, 171 Nielsen, E. 30, 33 Nielsen, K. 178 Nims, C. F. 38 Nissinen, M. 129 Nordheim, M. von 183 Norin, S. 163, 164, 233, 239 Noth, M. 83, 160, 212 Novak, M. 94, 150 Novotny, J. 74, 180 Oden, R. A. 3 Oldenburg, U. 240 Olmo Lete, G. del 2, 134, 136, 185, 237 Olyan, S. M. 159–62, 174, 224, 267 Oren, E. D. 219 Osborne, J. F. 93 Otto, A. 94 Otto, E. 16, 31 Ottosson, M. 93, 241 Page, H. R. 125, 126, 132 Pardee, D. 110, 136, 141, 143, 253 Pardee, N. 143 Parker, S. B. 14, 134 Parpola, S. 17, 106 Patrich, J. 220 Patton, C. L. 211 Paul, S. M. 16, 173 Pedersén, O. 15 Person, R. F. 2, 10 Pfeiffer, H. 245, 270

Pinnock, F. 94 Pitard, W. T. 104, 105, 110, 143, 145, 146, 247, 250, 254, 259, 262, 270 Poirier, J. C. 125 Polzin, R. 13, 23 Pope, M. H. 154, 170, 171, 209, 240 Porzig, P. C. 66, 75 Poulsen, F. 1 Preuss, H. D. 78 Provan, I. W. 214 Qimron, E. 87 Ragolski, G. 219 Rainey, A. F. 199 Reade, J. 175 Redford, D. B. 14 Rezetko, R. 2, 10, 13 Richter, S. L. 12 Roberts, J. J. M. 4, 75–77, 79–81, 102, 153, 180, 211 Robertson, D. A. 13, 14, 35, 200, 206, 243 Rosenberg, R. A. 86 Rost, L. 51, 75, 212 Rotenbusch, B. 16 Routledge, B. 62, 242 Rudolph, W. 229 Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. van 124 Rummel, S. 42 Rupprecht, K. 95 Sæbø, M. 10 Saggs, H. W. F. 45 Sanders, P. 17, 119, 122 Sanders, S. L. 13 Sanmartin, J. 42, 134 Särkiö, P. 82 Sarna, N. 219 Sass, B. 63, 160 Scharbert, J. 102, 115, 237 Schenker, A. 87 Schicklberger, F. 75, 76, 78 Schiffman, L. H. 120 Schipper, B. U. 64, 105, 107 Schley, D. G. 193 Schmid, K. 121, 135 Schmidt, W. H. 114, 257 Schmitt, G. 31 Schmitt, H.-C. 17



Index of Authors

Schmitt, R. 65, 72, 174, 198, 222, 224, 225, 233 Schmuttermayr, G. 225, 226 Schniedewind, W. M. 13, 244 Schroer, S. 159, 160, 179 Schwemer, D. 6, 38, 112 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 16 Seitz, C. R. 128 Seow, C.-L. 4, 29, 38, 65, 70, 75, 189, 197, 209–11, 218, 227 Seters, J. van 14, 51, 95 Seux, M.-J. 11, 50, 112 Seybold, K. 222 Shem-Tov, M. 219 Shem-Tov, R. 219 Shiloh, Y. 48 Shin, D.-I. 65, 70, 74 Shipp, R. M. 125 Silberman, N. A. 45 Sivan, D. 218, 246, 247, 260, 261 Sivertsen, B. J. 219 Skehan, P. W. 119 Smelik, K. A. D. 75, 242 Smith, M. 164 Smith, M. S. 1, 21, 38, 39, 45, 83, 87, 96, 104, 105, 110, 134, 143, 145–48, 158, 160, 170, 171, 180, 182, 226, 234, 235, 237–39, 243, 247, 250–52, 254, 259, 261, 262, 270 Soden, W. von 174 Soggin, J. A. 65 Spieckermann, H. 7, 66, 72 Sprinkle, J. M. 242 Stager, L. E. 190 Staubli, T. 66 Steck, O. H. 26 Steen, E. van der 242 Steiner, R. C. 38, 200 Steitler, C. 63 Stern, E. 35 Stern, P. D. 242 Stolz, F. 3, 66, 142, 175, 177, 265 Stordalen, T. 173, 175, 176 Stuhlmueller, C. 131 Stummer, F. 130 Sweeney, M. A. 16 Tadmor, H. 112 Talstra, E. 98 Tanska, J. 16

335

Tappy, R. E. 13 Tarler, D. 49 Tate, M. E. 248, 251, 253, 256, 257, 259, 263, 264 Tawil, H. 12 Taylor, J. G. 83, 86 Tengström, S. 30, 31 Tertel, H. J. 11, 19, 20 Thackeray, H. S. J. 84 Theis, C. 238 Thiel, W. 73 Thompson, T. L. 238 Tigay, J. H. 1, 10, 11, 19, 24–26, 36, 164, 175, 233 Toorn, K. van der 13, 174, 221, 224, 229 Tov, E. 23, 56, 119 Trotter, J. M. 121, 132, 134 Tsevat, M. 122, 128, 132 Uehlinger, C. 83, 84, 103, 150, 151, 171, 182, 210 Ulrich, E. 119 Ussishkin, D. 45 Veen, P. van der 238 Veijola, T. 49, 51, 57, 181, 199, 212 Vern, R. C. 14 Vleeming, S. P. 38 Vorländer, H. 50 Wagner, A. 143 Walton, J. H. 16 Wanke, G. 101, 112, 124 Ward, W. A. 108 Watanabe, K. 106 Weidner, E. F. 79, 97 Weinfeld, M. 11, 12, 15, 31, 67, 69, 74, 199 Weippert, H. 179 Weiser, A. 71 Wellhausen, J. 9 Werner, P. 94 Wesselius, J.-W. 38 Westermann, C. 129 Whybray, R. N. 51, 128–30 Wiggins, S. A. 160 Wildberger, H. 111 Williamson, H. G. M. 39, 67, 153, 208 Wilson, C. W. 195 Wilson, I. 67

336

Index of Authors

Wilson, L. S. 160 Winter, I. J. 175 Wolff, H.-W. 212 Wong, G. T. K. 243 Woods, C. E. 103 Woudstra, M. H. 65, 74 Wright, D. P. 16 Wright, G. E. 17, 30, 85, 93, 195 Wright, J. L. 18 Würthwein, E. 7 Wyatt, N. 3, 121, 122, 133, 135, 142, 145–47, 152, 154, 158 Xella, P. 229

Yener, K. A. 108 Yon, M. 145, 210 Young, I. 12, 13 Younger, K. L. 38, 243 Zenger, E. 132, 142, 148, 157, 165, 166, 183, 184, 205, 211, 246, 252 Zertal, A. 192 Zevit, Z. 13, 38, 45, 151, 220 Zobel, H.-J. 121 Zwickel, W. 4, 18, 75, 78, 92–95, 156, 157, 173, 179, 190, 192, 195