The Text in the Middle (Studies in Biblical Literature) [New ed.] 9781433128325, 9781453914236, 1433128322

Citation preview

The Text IN THE Middle

MICHAEL B. SHEPHERD

Studies in Biblical Literature 162

Analysis of inner-biblical exegesis ordinarily involves examination of the intertextual relationship between two texts within the biblical corpus. But in many cases there is an often overlooked intertext that serves as a bridge between the two texts. Such an intermediary text reads the primary text in a manner similar to the way the tertiary text reads it and supplies a missing link in a very subtle yet identifiable manner. The direction of dependence between texts of this kind is not as important in the present study as the direction in which these texts were meant to be read by those who gave them their final shape.

MICHAEL B. SHEPHERD received his Ph.D. in Old Testament Studies from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he is Associate Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew and Holder of the John and Allie Fogleman Professorship in Religion at Louisiana College in Pineville, Louisiana. His previous works include multiple peer-reviewed journal articles as well as the following books published by Peter Lang: The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic: A Distributional Approach, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible, The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament, and The Textual World of the Bible.

The Text IN THE Middle

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 162

This book is a volume in a Peter Lang monograph series. Every title is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Michael B. Shepherd

The Text IN THE Middle

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shepherd, Michael B. The text in the middle / Michael B. Shepherd. pages cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; Vol. 162) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Intertextuality in the Bible. 2. Bible. Old Testament— Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1171.3.S53 221.6—dc23 2014025202 ISBN 978-1-4331-2832-5 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-1423-6 (e-book) ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2014 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

To my students and fellow faculty members at Louisiana College both past and present

table of contents

Series Editor’s Preface

ix

Introduction 1 Chapter One: Citation from the Pentateuch (Genesis) Chapter Two: Citation from the Pentateuch (Exodus–Deuteronomy) Chapter Three: Citation from the Prophets Chapter Four: Citation from the Writings

7 57 107 161

Bibliography 179 Scripture Index 187

series editor ’ s preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Michael Shepherd examines the manner in which the biblical text interprets itself. While this idea in itself is neither new nor novel, the method that Shepherd employs does in fact invite a wider angle from which to explore this idea. He notes that in this regard the early post biblical interpreters understood this need and necessity as they used it to establish the

X

the text in the middle

manner in which the New Testament is shaped and understood. In this study, Shepherd employs what he terms the “bridge” texts. He explains that “bridge” texts are those texts that have previous been cited, but the manner in which they are “cited has already been anticipated in a previous citation of the original text, thus involving at least three texts (primary, secondary, tertiary)” p. 2. This study, in the copious examination of the particular texts and with the skill of the requisite languages, is certain to generate ongoing discourse, and will not only further expand the biblical horizon, but will do so in a direction that invites further conversation. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

introduction

The Hebrew Bible is a text composed of other texts, and those “other texts” are within the Bible itself.1 The elite class of ancient scribes who produced the biblical texts did so on the basis of an intricate web of learned citations (Ezra 7:6, 10; 9:10–11; Neh 8–9).2 They in effect created a text for scholars (i.e., those who could read and study the text and thereby come to appreciate the intertextual fabric that holds the Bible together and enables it to function in a meaningful way). While it is true that many parts of the Bible were composed independently in different times and places, it is also true that those many parts were brought together in the late post-exilic period and reshaped in light of one another. The Hebrew Bible was thus built to interpret itself, and early post-biblical interpreters—such as the authors of the New Testament and the rabbinic Midrash—understood this phenomenon and were greatly influenced by it. Michael Fishbane’s seminal work, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) is an appropriate starting point for any discussion of innerbiblical exegesis. Fishbane’s book not only establishes the reality of extensive textual exegesis in the Hebrew Bible (as opposed to oral tradition), but also it categorizes different types of exegesis—legal, aggadic, mantological—

2

the text in the middle

in a variety of genres. Central to Fishbane’s thesis is his distinction between traditum (tradition) and traditio (transmission). For Fishbane, it is self-evident that the transmission of a tradition always involves change of some kind. This presupposition is so pervasive in Fishbane’s work that he does not feel the need to argue against the possibility that there might be continuity in some cases. Such an assumption is also prevalent in recent studies of the use of the Old Testament in the New.3 It is possible to talk about innerbiblical exegesis on a number of different levels. One way to discuss the topic would be to look at glosses and interpolations, examples of explanation or interpretation in context.4 For instance, an English translation of hcxmw w#)r hqxm in Judg 5:26b might appear to be redundant: “she struck his head and she struck.” But in the Hebrew text an uncommon root (qxm) is explained by a common one (Cxm) (cf., Judg 10:8). Inserted comments or expansions are frequent in prose (e.g., 1 Sam 2:23b; Jer 25:1b), prophecy (e.g., Hag 2:5; Zech 12:10a), poetry (e.g., 1 Sam 2:2a; Nah 1:2b–3a; Ps 2:2b), law (Lev 23:39–43), and genealogical material (e.g., Gen 5:22, 24, 29).5 Another way to approach the subject would be to examine the way in which a composer employs the various components of a biblical book to provide interpretation of his material, such as the manner in which the large poems of the Pentateuch interpret the narrative blocks that precede them (Gen 3:14–19; Gen 49:1–27; Exod 15:1–18; Num 23–24; Deut 32–33).6 Still another way would be to treat explicit citation from another part of a biblical book (e.g., First and Second Isaiah) or from a completely different biblical book (e.g., Num 24:24; Dan 11:30).7 But for the purposes of the present study the often overlooked “bridge” texts (texts in the middle) will be of primary interest. This is where a citation of a text occurs, but the way in which the text is cited has already been anticipated in a previous citation of the original text, thus involving at least three texts (primary, secondary, and tertiary).8 This can occur within the Hebrew Bible itself (e.g., Lev 18:5; Ezek 20:11b, 13, 21; Neh 9:29), or it can involve New Testament texts (or other sources) where the manner of New Testament citation has a precedent in the Tanakh (e.g., Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12). Texts in the middle constitute a largely uncharted territory, especially in studies of the New Testament use of the Old—a field dominated by New Testament scholars whose knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and text production in the original languages is not always up to the task. Any treatment of innerbiblical exegesis requires criteria for textual dependence and for direction of dependence.9 Specific and rare verbal links,

introduction

3

morphological correspondence, syntactical similarity, and shared sequences, patterns, and structures are all good indications of textual dependence in addition to general content, context, and genre. The likelihood of dependence is greater when more of the criteria are met. Of course, it is possible to meet all the criteria and still not have textual dependence. Likewise, it is possible to meet only one or two of the criteria and have textual dependence. This is as much an art as it is a science. Regardless of how much evidence is presented in favor of textual dependence, there will always be someone to come along and posit a no longer extant common source or unverifiable oral tradition. As for direction of dependence, mere dating of the language could prove to be misleading given the updating of earlier texts and archaizing of later texts.10 Since there is ample evidence for the collection and mutual influence of these texts in the late post-exilic period, it will be imperative to look for clues as to how those who gave these texts their final shape wanted readers to understand intertextual links. It is possible for what was originally an earlier text to be repackaged as a text dependent upon what was originally a later text. For example, many would like to date material in the Prophets earlier than material in Deuteronomy, but someone clearly wanted readers to understand Deuteronomy as the voice of Moses, the prophetic writings being the voices of later Moses-like prophets (e.g., Deut 18:15, 18; Jer 1:9). It is also possible for two connected texts to be placed in their respective contexts simultaneously. Nevertheless, in many cases manipulation or expansion of one text by another will be evident. A brief example here will suffice to give the reader an idea of the type of innerbiblical relationships explored in the main chapters of the book. The text of Isa 59:21 stands apart from what precedes and follows it and serves to connect the section dealing with the lack of righteousness in the post-exilic community (Isa 56–59) with the section on the future inbreaking of God’s righteousness (Isa 60:1–63:14).11 It is a mosaic of texts from across the Tanakh and thus shows a kind of canonical consciousness.12 Isaiah 59:21 Source Texts Kt) ytyrb hnh yn) (Gen 17:4) “And as for me, this is my covenant As for me, look, my covenant is with them,” with you

Mt) ytyrb t)z yn)w

hwhy rm)

says YHWH,

4

the text in the middle Kyl( r#) yxwr Kyl( r#) xwrh (Num 11:17) “My Spirit that is upon you the Spirit that is upon you Kypb ytm# r#) yrbdw wypb yrbd yttnw (Deut 18:18) and my words that I put in your mouth, and I will put my words in his mouth Kypm w#wmy )l Kypm…#wmy )l (Josh 1:8) they will not move from your mouth It will not move…from your mouth K(rz (rz ypmw K(rz ypmw w(rz ypm (Deut 31:21) and from the mouth of your seed and from the mouth of his seed from the mouth of your seed’s seed,” hwhy rm)

says YHWH, Mlw( d(w ht(m Mlw( d(w ht(m (Isa 9:6; Mic 4:7; Pss 113:2; 115:18; 121:8; 125:2; 131:3) “from now to forever.” from now to forever

The text of Isa 59:21 sees the new covenant (Jer 31:31; Isa 61:8) in continuity with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:4; cf., Rom 4), and it sees the new Moses as the model of the righteous person who devotes himself to the received text of Scripture (Num 11:17; Deut 18:18; 31:21; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2). Dependence upon what was understood to be a “messianic” text (Deut 18:18; 34:10; Isa 9:6; Mic 4:7; Acts 3:22; 7:37) and what could be understood as new covenant terminology (Num 11:17, 29; Ezek 11:19–20; 36:26–27; Joel 3:1–5; Acts 2) in Isa 59:21 apparently influenced Paul’s quotation (Rom 11:27). It is worth noting that Isaiah 61 (see Luke 4:16–30) sees the coming righteousness and new covenant closely tied to the ministry of the servant of YHWH (cf., Isa 9:5–6; 11:1–10; 42:1–7; 49:1–9; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12). Perhaps this is part of what Paul means when he says that the Hebrew Scriptures are “for us” (Rom 4:23–24; 15:4; 1 Cor 9:10; 10:11)—that is, the Christian church. The Tanakh already reads itself the way Paul reads it (Luke 24:25–27; 44–47; Rom 1:1–2; 3:21–22; 16:25–26; 2 Tim 3:15–17). Contrary to the modern conception, Paul does not consider the Hebrew Scriptures to be on loan from the religion of Judaism. Rather, he understands his Bible to be genuine Christian Scripture (cf., Hebrews). It is the product of the prophets—those who went against the grain of the mainstream religious practices of ancient Israel (e.g., Jer 7) and later post-exilic Judaism (e.g., Zech–Mal) and who looked forward to the kind of messianic figure that Jesus would be (1 Pet 1:10–12).13

introduction

5

Notes 1. “…the Bible, despite its textual heterogeneity, can be read as a self-glossing book. One learns to study it by following the ways in which one portion of the text illumines another. The generation of scribes who shaped and reshaped the Scriptures appear to have designed them to be studied in just this way. Thus Brevard S. Childs speaks of ‘the interpretive structure which the biblical text has received from those who formed and used it as sacred scripture.’ This does not mean that redaction produced a unified text (or what we would think of as unified: a holistic text, free of self-contradiction, a systematic or organic whole: the Bible is everything but that); rather it means that the parts are made to relate to one another reflexively, with later texts, for example, throwing light on the earlier, even as they themselves always stand in the light of what precedes and follows them” (Gerald Bruns, “Midrash and Allegory,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Frank Kermode and Robert Alter [Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1987], 626–27; quoted in Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990], 15–16). 2. See David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Atlanta: SBL, 2010); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007); William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2004). 3. E.g., Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, ed., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). 4. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 259–61; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 44–65. 5. Included also here would be the practice of providing interpretation of narratives and speeches through a character’s retelling or reporting (e.g., Gen 24; 41; Matt 13:3–23). Supplied interpretations of visions are also examples (e.g., Dan 7–8). 6. See John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), 323–44. 7. See Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” VT 34 (1984): 295–320; Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 101–102. Thus, the principle scriptio sui interpres is not just a matter of using clear passages to interpret obscure ones or gathering all the passages that address a particular topic. It is primarily about identifying where biblical authors read themselves and one another. 8. In some cases this is a matter of creating a mosaic of texts in a single passage (e.g., Hos 12). In others it is a situation where the quoted text is already dependent on another text (e.g., Gen 37:24; Jer 38:6; Zech 9:11). 9. See Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).

6

the text in the middle

10. See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 11–13; Jacobus A. Naudé, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Chronology and Typology Debate,” JNSL 36.2 (2010): 1–22. 11. I would like to thank a former student, Terry Iles, for his stimulating paper on this text. 12. See Odil Hannes Steck, The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness, trans. James D. Nogalski (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), 160–62; Alexander Rofé, “The Piety of the Torahdisciples at the Winding-up of the Hebrew Bible: Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa 59:21,” in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Helmut Merklein, Karlheinz Müller, and Günter Stemberger (Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1993), 78–85. Cf., Jer 30:21 (Deut 18:15, 18; Mic 5:1; Dan 7:13; Tg. Jon.) and Ps 103:14 (Gen 3:19; 6:5; 8:21). 13. According to Joseph Blenkinsopp, “we may speak of the Hebrew Bible as basically prophetic,” as opposed to priestly (Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977], 102, 142). Even though the scribes who produced these texts may have been priests, they saw themselves in a prophetic role (van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 107, 169). “It will not escape us that this identification of prophecy with scribal activity marks a shift from direct revelation through the person of the prophet to revelation accruing from the inspired interpretation of biblical texts. In other words, the exegete or theologian is now the prophet” (Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 129). This would explain why the highest levels of composition in the Tanakh communicate a prophetic message rather than a priestly one. See Jer 36; Sir 24:33; b. B. Bat. 12. See also Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible, 113–118. For abbreviations in this volume see The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999).

·1· citation from the pentateuch

( genesis )

Genesis 1–2, Psalm 8, and Hebrews 2:5–9 It would be possible to discuss many texts that depend upon Genesis 1–2 (e.g., Isa 45; Pss 19; 104; 136; 148; Neh 9:6; Heb 11:3), but this section will focus on Psalm 8, and the following section will look at Prov 8:22–31. The first two chapters of Genesis combine two accounts. One presents a chronological arrangement of God’s preparation of a land of blessing that culminates in the creation of humanity (Gen 1:1–2:3). The other offers a more topical arrangement, one that highlights humans in relationship to other beings in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4–25). It is thus fitting that Psalm 8, a praise hymn, draws out a message about humanity’s place in the created order in its interpretation of these chapters. Here are the specific verbal parallels between the two passages: Psalm 8:4–9

Genesis 1–2

bw+ yk Myhl) )ryw (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 31) And God saw that it was good Kyt(bc) y#(m Kym# (Mym#) (yqr t) Myhl) #(yw (Gen 1:7–8) your heavens, the works of your fingers, And God made an expanse (heavens)

h)r) yk For I see

8

the text in the middle htnnwk r#) Mybkwkw xry

N+qh rw)mh t)w

…#(yw

Mybkwkh t)w hlylh tl#mml (Gen 1:16) moon and stars that you established. And he made…the small light for the rule of the night and the stars …Md) Nbw…#wn) hm Gen 1:26–28; 2:7–8, 15, 23 What is man…and son of man…? (see also Gen 4:25–5:2; 9:6–7) …Myhl)m +(m whrsxtw wmlcb Md)h t) Myhl) )rbyw (Gen 1:27) And you made him lack little from And God created humanity in his God… image …Kydy y#(mb whly#mt Mym#h Pw(bw Myh tgdb wdryw yd# twmhb Mgw Mlk Mypl)w hnc l( #mrh #mrh lkbw…hmhbbw Mymy twxr) rb( Myh ygdw Mym# rwpc Cr) (Gen 1:26b) You made him rule over the works of And let them rule over the fish of the your hands…sheep and oxen all of them sea and over the birds of the sky and and also the beasts of the field, the birds and over the beasts…and over every of of the sky and the fish of the sea creeping thing that creeps on land crossing over the paths of the seas.

Given the genre differences between the two passages, it is to be expected that Psalm 8 will take some poetic license in its rendition (cf., Ps 144:3–4; Job 7:17). When the writer to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 8, he does so in the context of his argument for the superiority of Christ to the angels (Heb 1:5, 7, 13; 2:5–9, 16) as he urges his readers to pursue Christ and not turn back to their former religious practices in the face of persecution for their faith. Such a citation depends upon the Septuagint rendering of Ps 8:6a: h0lla&ttwsav au0to_n braxu/ ti par’ a0gge/louv (“You made him a little lower than angels”). The Hebrew text, however, most likely translates, “And you caused him to lack little from God” (Myhl)m +(m whrsxtw). The word Myhl) in Genesis 1–2 does not refer to angels but to God, although it can refer to angels in other contexts (e.g., Hos 12:4–5). The Septuagint rendering is probably based on the ancient Jewish interpretation of the plural in “Let us make humanity in our image” (Gen 1:26a). But unlike the use of the plural in Isa 6:8, where angels are present in context (Isa 6:2, 3, 6), Gen 1:27 clarifies that God created humanity in “his” image. The text of Ps 8:6a in Hebrew (“to lack little from God”) is a characterization of what it means for humanity to be created in God’s image (i.e., to have the capacity for the blessing of life and dominion in the land). Humanity is created in the image of God but is not equal to God. This is also the point initially in the Hebrews quotation. Humanity is in the earthly realm rather than the



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

9

heavenly realm. But the writer also contends that all things currently are not subject to humanity the way they were originally intended to be (Heb 2:8). And so “we see Jesus whom he made a little lower than angels crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death so that by the grace of God he might taste death for all” (Heb 2:9). That is, Jesus, who was the exact representation of God (Heb 1:3), was made a little lower than angels (i.e., he was made human) in order to restore the created order. As a result, Christ will reign, and the saints will reign with him (Dan 7:13–14, 27; 1 Cor 6:3; 15:27; Rev 5:9–10). But what is the exegetical warrant for making Jesus the object of the verb in Ps 8:6a rather than (or in addition to) mankind in general? The clue seems to be Ps 8:7b; Heb 2:8: “Everything you put under his feet” (wylgr txt ht# lk; pa&nta u9pe/tacav u9poka&tw tw~n podw~n au0tou/). A similar expression occurs in what YHWH says to the one whom David calls “my Lord”: “Sit at my right hand until I make (ty#)) your enemies into a footstool for your feet (Kylgrl)” (Ps 110:1; cf., Heb 1:3; see also Gen 49:8–12). It would appear to be no mere coincidence then that the writer quotes this verse in context (Heb 1:13). In fact, Psalm 110 is a key text for Hebrews because it demonstrates how Christ can be both a Judean king and a legitimate priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7). Thus, the writer’s exegesis of Psalm 8 is based upon a holistic reading of the book of Psalms, taking the first praise psalm (Ps 8) of the first book (Pss 1–41) and reading it with the first block of psalms (Pss 107–110)—the first two are praise psalms—and first messianic psalm (Ps 110) of the last book (Pss 107–150) before the “Hallelujah” collection (Pss 111–117).1

Genesis 1:1–2:3, Proverbs 8:22–31, and Colossians 1:15–20 The first nine chapters of the book of Proverbs feature a series of discourses from the father to the son (Prov 1:8, 10; 2:1; 3:1, 21; 4:1, 10, 20; 5:1, 7; 6:1, 20; 7:1, 24; 8:32). Interspersed throughout this opening section of the book are three poems in which wisdom is personified as a woman (Prov 1:20–33; 3:13–20; 8).2 Proverbs 8 is the climax. It is followed by an epilogue in chapter 9 where Lady Wisdom is contrasted with Lady Folly. One leads to life, and the other leads to death. The warnings about the adulterous woman (Prov 5; 7) are cast as metaphors about choosing wisdom and rejecting folly. The middle of the book (Prov 10–29) contains collections of individual sayings. The final two chapters (Prov 30–31) return to extended discourses and form a

10

the text in the middle

framework with Proverbs 1–9 for the book as a whole (cf., Job 1–2; 42:7–17), revisiting some of the same imagery from the first nine chapters, imagery such as that of the wise woman (Prov 31:10–31; cf., Sir 51:13–30). The discourse in Prov 8:22–31 includes a number of interesting verbal links to Gen 1:1–2:3: Proverbs 8:22–31

Genesis 1:1–2:3

…wkrd ty#)r ynnq hwhy YHWH fathered me the beginning of of his way… Cr) ymdqm #)rm… …at the beginning of land.

…Myhl) )rb ty#)rb (Gen 1:1) In the beginning, God created… Cr)h…ty#)rb

(Gen 1:1) In the beginning…the land.

…ytllwx twmht Ny)b Mymh…Mwht ynp l( K#xw… (Gen 1:2) When there were no depths I was …and darkness was over the surface brought forth…water. of the deep…the water. … …Cr) h#( )l d( …Cr) h#byl Myhl) )rqyw (Gen 1:10) Before he made land… And God called the dry ground land… yn) M# Mym# wnykhb (yqrh t) Myhl) #(yw (Gen 1:7) When he established sky I was there, And God made the expanse Mwht ynp l( gwx wqwxb …Mwht ynp l(…(Gen 1:2) Mwht twny( zwz(b… When he marked the horizon over the …over the surface of the deep… surface of the deep, …When he fixed the springs of the deep, wyp wrb(y )l Mymw wqx Myl wmw#b …Mymy )rq Mymh hwqmlw… (Gen 1:10) When he set for the sea its limit so that …and the collection of water he its water would not pass over its edge, called seas… … … Md) ynb t) y(#(#w… …Md) h#(n Myhl) rm)yw (Gen 1:26) …And my delight was with humanity. And God said, “Let us make mankind…” Mym

The first part of Prov 8:22 is usually rendered something like, “YHWH acquired (or, created) me at the beginning of his way.” But the verb hnq can also have the sense of fathering a child or bringing forth a child (Gen 4:1; Deut 32:6). Such



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

11

a sense is suitable in a context that uses the polal of lwx (Prov 8:24, 25). Also, there is no preposition before the word “beginning” in the Hebrew text. This means that it can be read in apposition to the pronominal suffix on the main verb: “YHWH fathered me, the beginning of his way.” Wisdom is the beginning. The similarity of the above understanding with Paul’s Christ hymn in Col 1:15–20 is striking.3 Paul calls Christ “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) and “the beginning” (Col 1:18). He is the agent of creation (Col 1:16) in accordance with Prov 8:29–31. What is the exegetical basis for the identification of Christ with wisdom (cf., Matt 11:19; 1 Cor 1:30)? There is an echo of Prov 3:19; 8:22–31 in the words of Agur (Prov 30:4): “Who has ascended to heaven and descended? Who has gathered wind in his fists? Who has bound water in his garment? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is his name? And what is the name of his son, if you know?” The answer to the question of his name is clearly YHWH. The answer to the question of his son’s name is wisdom according to Prov 8:22–31.4 It is noteworthy then that Paul introduces his Christ hymn with a reference to God’s “beloved Son” (Col 1:13).5 But Paul is not the first to read Prov 8:22–31 in this manner. The rendering of Gen 1:1 in Targum Neofiti appears to be under the influence of Prov 8:22–31: “In the beginning, with wisdom, the Son of YHWH completed the sky and the land” (cf., Jer 10:12; 51:15; Ps 104:24).6 It is interesting to note how this compares and contrasts with the interpretation of Prov 8:22–31 in Sirach 24 where wisdom is equated with Torah (cf., Deut 4:6).7

Genesis 2:2–3; Exodus 20:11; Joshua 13:1; Judges 1:27–33; Hebrews 4:1–11 The text of Gen 2:2–3 concludes the account of Gen 1:1–2:3. God finished his work on the seventh day and rested on that same day.8 He blessed the seventh day and set it apart. The basis for this is that God rested on this day from all the work that he “created to make.” Because God does not need rest (Isa 40:28), the rest that commences with the conclusion of God’s creative work is actually a gift to mankind (Mark 2:27). The following account of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4b–25) confirms this initial impression. God gave mankind rest in the Garden (Gen 2:15b). The Masoretic vocalization (geminated hiphil) of the main verb in Gen 2:15b reflects the understanding that God “put” the man in the Garden at this point. But God had already put the man there in Gen 2:8b. The verb should be revocalized (without gemination) to mean “gave rest.” This is the way Targum Neofiti renders the verse. God

12

the text in the middle

gave the man rest in the Garden in order to worship or study in the Torah and obey it. Such a rendering takes into consideration the third feminine plural pronominal suffixes on the infinites translated “to work it and to keep it.” These pronouns have no immediate antecedent in the context. (The Hebrew word for Garden is not feminine.) Thus, God did not put the man in the Garden primarily to tend it. He gave him rest there for the sake of worship. From the perspective of someone like Moses who had the Torah (feminine singular noun), the best way to indicate the piety of the man in the Garden was to depict him in study of the Torah.9 The text of Exod 20:11 bases the Sabbath law on Gen 1:1–2:3. It refers to God’s “making” of the sky, the land, and the sea in six literal days as a model for the human work week. God rested on the seventh day, blessed it, and set it apart.10 Therefore, the Israelites who lived under the terms of the Sinai covenant were to rest on this same day and set it apart. But within the context of the Pentateuch and the Tanakh the Sabbath law serves a purpose larger than that of a mere restriction placed on the last day of each week. Not only is it the sign of the covenant (Exod 31:12–17), but also it is a reminder of the rest that God originally intended for mankind in the first sanctuary—the Garden of Eden. The tabernacle and the temple are temporary sanctuaries that anticipate the new Garden of Eden (Ezek 36:35). The rest that God gave in Gen 2:15 was lost in Gen 3:24. The story of the Bible is the story of how God restores that rest to humanity. That story at first glance seems to reach its culmination in the book of Joshua where the people enter and possess the land of the covenant (Gen 2:11–14; 15:18; Josh 1–12). The text says that God was faithful to give the people the land (Josh 11:23; 21:43–45). But this assertion stands alongside comments about the incomplete nature of the conquest (Josh 13:1; Judg 1:27– 33). God had not failed the people, but there was more to come. The complete restoration of the blessing of life and dominion in the land (Gen 1:26–28) was yet to occur. The same could be said of the return to the land from Babylon in the latter part of the sixth century (Isa 56–66; Zech 1–8; Ezra-Neh). Only in the messianic kingdom will the rest once granted in the Garden of Eden come to fruition without end (Isa 11:1–10). The writer to the Hebrews understood these texts very well and expressed their interrelationship in Heb 4:1–11. He fears that some of his readers might fail to enter God’s rest the same way the wilderness generation failed (Heb 3:7–4:2). Only those who have faith enter this rest (Heb 4:3). The writer makes a direct association between the rest that started on the seventh day



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

13

(Gen 2:2–3) and the rest that was denied to the wilderness generation due to unbelief (Heb 4:4–7). Indeed, Joshua did not even give the people this rest, although they entered the land under his leadership (Heb 4:8). There would have been no need for Psalm 95 to speak of another day if the conquest had been complete. Therefore, a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God (Heb 4:9). This is precisely the point of Joshua and Judges (Josh 13:1; Judg 1:27–33). The kind of rest that the biblical authors have in mind is not mere entry into the land. It is the ideal rest of Gen 2:2–3, 15. God was faithful to bring the people into the land, but the prophets understood that he had much more in store for the messianic kingdom.11

Genesis 2:23–25; Song of Songs 2:16; 6:3; 7:11 Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7–8; 1 Corinthians 7:4; Ephesians 5:31 The conclusion to Genesis 2 stresses that it was not good for the man to be alone in the Garden and that no suitable companion was found for the man among the animals (Gen 2:18–20). So God built a woman for the man from his own side (Gen 2:21–22). The man’s response to this is very fitting (Gen 2:23). The woman is from his own flesh and bone. The writer comments that the man is to form a new family unit with the woman (Gen 2:24). The two of them were naked and unashamed (Gen 2:25). The Song of Songs hearkens back to this ideal love relationship in more ways than one. One of the most recognizable refrains in the book is the one found in Song 2:16; 6:3; 7:11 where the woman expresses the fact that she belongs to her lover and he belongs to her. The woman is not her own, and the man is not his own. They belong to one another. The woman must care not for her own body but for her husband. Likewise, the husband is responsible for the welfare of his wife. This goes back to the fact that the woman is in effect the man’s body for which he must care (Gen 2:22–23). Thus, the marital relationship is a selfless one based on mutual sacrifice. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus cites Gen 2:24 when he makes the case to the Pharisees that there should be no separation of the man and the woman (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7–8). But it is Paul whose reading of the Genesis text most closely matches that of the Song of Songs: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife” (1 Cor 7:4). Paul quotes Gen 2:24 when he concludes his analogy between marriage and

14

the text in the middle

Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:31). The husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5:23; see also 1 Cor 11:3). Therefore, husbands should love their wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her (Eph 5:25). “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it just as Christ does the church” (Eph 5:29).

Genesis 3:1, 14–15; Isaiah 27:1; 65:25; Romans 16:20; Revelation 12:9 According to Rev 12:9, the one called “Devil” and “Satan” is “the great dragon, the ancient serpent.” This is presumably the serpent of Genesis 3. The text of Rev 12:17 shows familiarity with a rendering of Gen 3:15 preserved in Targum Neofiti where the people are said to crush the serpent’s head whenever they keep the commands (cf., Ps 91:13; Mark 16:18; Acts 28:3–6; Rom 16:20). Failure to keep the commands results in a blow to the heel of the woman’s seed. But what is the exegetical basis for the identification of the serpent with Satan? Genesis 3 provides very little background information about the serpent apart from the opening statement about its craftiness. The assumption seems to be that the reader knows this serpent. Furthermore, the presence of a talking animal in the story does not take on the character of the extraordinary (cf., Num 22:28). At the very least, it is easy to make the observation that the serpent misrepresents God’s words and leads the woman astray (Gen 3:1–5; cf., Gen 2:16–17).12 Moreover, God’s address to the serpent anticipates a momentous fatal blow to its head that amounts to the defeat of a final enemy (Gen 3:15; cf., Num 24:17; Hab 3:13; Ps 110:6). The book of Revelation is not the first biblical book to make the connection between Satan and the serpent of Genesis 3. Some texts mention an adversary angel (Zech 3; Job 1–2). Extrabiblical literature explores the origin of Satan among other things (e.g., 1 En.; Jub.). But it is the book of Isaiah that also understands the serpent to be the final enemy to be defeated: “In that day YHWH will punish with his hard and great and strong sword Leviathan, a fleeing serpent, and Leviathan, a twisted serpent, and he will slay the serpent that is in the sea” (Isa 27:1).13 This text is part of the conclusion to Isaiah 26, a passage that looks forward to a future resurrection for the people of God (cf., Dan 12:2) and a final judgment for the world in terms borrowed from the Genesis flood account (e.g., Gen 7:16). The defeat of the serpent precedes Isa 27:2–6, which reuses the vineyard imagery from Isa 5:1–7 to reveal that the



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

15

vineyard that was once left for trampling due to its unfruitfulness will be the same vineyard that God makes fruitful in the last days. Does the book of Isaiah make this connection any more explicit elsewhere? There is a quote from Gen 3:14 in Isa 65:25. This text in Isaiah is part of the passage about the new creation and the new Jerusalem (Isa 65:17–25). It quotes from an earlier passage in Isaiah (Isa 11:6–9) and identifies the new creation with the messianic kingdom revealed there.14 A comparison of Isa 65:25 with Isa 11:6–9 shows how the author has inserted a quote from Gen 3:14 in his citation in order to correlate the defeat of the final enemy with the coming of the messianic king (cf., Num 24:7 [LXX]; Dan 7:1–14). Isaiah 65:25

Isaiah 11:6a1, 7b, 8, 9a

A wolf and a lamb will graze as one, And a wolf will sojourn with a lamb, … And a lion like cattle will eat straw. And a lion like cattle will eat straw. (And as for the serpent, dust is what And a suckling will play over a his food will be.) [cf., Gen 3:14b2] serpent’s hole, and over a snake’s den a weaned child will put his hand. They will not act badly or corruptly They will not act badly or corruptly in all my holy mountain, in all my holy mountain. says YHWH.

Right at the point where the reader might expect the material about the serpent from Isa 11:8, the text of Isa 65:25 introduces Gen 3:14b: “On your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life.” The citation stands apart from the poetic parallelism of the passage. Far from being an etiology about the serpent’s loss of legs, the image of eating dust is elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible a metaphor for defeat (Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17; Ps 72:9). The conflict in Gen 3:15 unfolds in progressive parallelism from the serpent versus the woman to the serpent’s seed versus the woman’s seed and finally to the woman’s seed versus the serpent. This is not an account of the origin of human fear of snakes (contra Josephus). Rather, the reader must continue in order to discover the identity of the woman’s seed. Initially, the offspring of the woman perishes in the flood with the exception of Noah, his sons, and their wives. The seventy nations in Genesis 10 come from the three sons of Noah. The biblical narrative then focuses on one particular man (Abraham) and his seed: “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who despise you…To your seed I will give this land” (Gen 12:3a, 7a). These words pass to Isaac (Gen 26:2–5) and then Jacob: “May peoples serve you and nations bow

16

the text in the middle

down to you. Be a lord to your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, and blessed be those who bless you” (Gen 27:29). This finds concrete expression in the life of Joseph (Gen 37:8, 10; 42:6, 9), which in turn becomes a metaphor for the coming king from the tribe of Judah: “The sons of your father will bow down to you…He bows down, he lies down like a lion, and like a lioness who will arouse him” (Gen 49:8b, 9b)? This poetic reflection on the narrative has an echo in the Balaam oracles: “He bows down, he lies down like a lion, and like a lioness who will arouse him? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you” (Num 24:9). And this is with reference to the king who will lead a new exodus (Num 24:8; cf., Num 23:22) and be exalted over Gog (Num 24:7 LXX; cf., Rev 20:8).

Genesis 3:15; 4:1; 1 Samuel 1:11; 1 Timothy 2:15 The enigmatic text of Gen 3:15 has given rise to another series of passages that focus on the role of childbearing in God’s plan of restoration. Eve’s response to the birth of Cain in Gen 4:1 has long captured the interest of biblical commentators: “I have birthed a man, YHWH” (hwhy t) #y) ytynq). Virtually every word in the Hebrew text of this short statement seems an odd choice. The verb hnq ordinarily means “create” or “acquire,” but in this context it apparently means to bring forth in childbirth (cf., Deut 32:6; Prov 8:22). It is highly unusual for someone to say that a “man” (#y)) has been born (cf., Job 3:3). The reader expects to see something like dly (“child”) or Nb (“son”). The translation “manchild” (KJV) is an attempt to deal with this problem. Finally, what is the syntactical relationship of hwhy t) to what precedes? Is t) the direct object marker, putting hwhy in apposition to #y)? Is t) the preposition “with” (see LXX)? Since the preposition t) (“with”) does not ordinarily mean “with the help of” or “by means of” (BDB, 86) the reader is left with a rather difficult statement in which Eve claims to have brought forth YHWH in the flesh. At first glance, such a claim would seem to be outrageous. But on the heels of Gen 3:15 the expectation of a divine savior through childbearing does not appear to be so out of bounds. To be sure, Eve is in fact mistaken. The author does not share her view. But the belief that salvation would ultimately come through childbearing is on target. This belief surfaces again in the story of Hannah. Hannah vows that if YHWH would give her a child, she would give him to YHWH (1 Sam 1:11). She refers to the child with the rare phrase “seed of men” (My#n) (rz). Hannah perhaps anticipates that this will be a special



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

17

child. Indeed, her prayer reveals the expectation of a coming king (1 Sam 2:10). Samuel himself would not be the king, but he would anoint the first two kings—Saul and David. And it would be with David that God would make his covenant according to which a future son of David would build the temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–13; Zech 6:12–13). The texts of Gen 4:1 and 1 Sam 1:11 help to form a bridge from Gen 3:15 to 1 Tim 2:15. This verse in Paul’s letter to Timothy is the conclusion to a passage in which Paul says that he does not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man in the church (1 Tim 2:12). The rationale for this is the order of creation—Adam was formed first—and the fact that Eve was deceived in the Garden (1 Tim 2:13–14). Then Paul adds, “But she will be saved through childbearing…” (1 Tim 2:15). It would be out of sorts with New Testament teaching to understand this to mean that childbearing in general is the means of salvation for women, as if Christ’s death were only for men. It would also be strange to think that women who do not give birth are automatically excluded from salvation. The context of Paul’s discussion is clearly Genesis 3 (1 Tim 3:14). Therefore, while the definite article with the word “childbearing” (th=v teknogoni/av) does not require a specific reference to a particular birth (i.e., the birth of Jesus Christ), the term most likely refers to God’s plan to bring salvation through the process of childbearing as revealed in Gen 3:15.15 Thus, although Paul sees a distinction in roles for men and women in the church, he exalts the role of women in general when he points out the special function of childbearing in God’s plan of salvation. It was through women and their childbearing that Christ came (Matt 1; Luke 3:23–38).

Genesis 4:4–5; Proverbs 3:9–10; Hebrews 11:4 According to Gen 4:4–5, YHWH looked with favor on Abel’s offering of those born first from his flock and their fat, but he did not look with favor at Cain’s grain offering. Nothing is said about the attitude of these two when they brought their offerings. Both types of offerings are acceptable according to Leviticus 1–2. Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel offered a better sacrifice by faith. What is the exegetical basis for this claim? The key difference between the two offerings is that Abel brought the first of his flock. There is no indication that Cain’s grain offering was an offering of firstfruits. The willingness to bring the firstborn or the firstfruits shows trust that God will provide more: “Honor YHWH from your wealth, and from the firstfruits of all your produce.

18

the text in the middle

And your storehouses will be filled with abundance, and with fresh wine your vats will burst” (Prov 3:9–10; cf., Mal 3:6–12).

Genesis 4; 1 Kings 19; Jonah 4 In the story of Cain’s murder of Abel, Cain does not respond well to YHWH’s rejection of his offering: “And Cain was very angry (d)m Nyql rxyw), and his countenance fell” (Gen 4:5b). Following this is a series of questions from YHWH about Cain’s anger and subsequent course of action: “Why are you angry (Kl hrx hml), and why did your countenance fall? Is it not so, if you do well (by+yt M)), there is forgiveness? And if you do not do well (by+yt )l M)w), sin is at the door, lie down (see LXX). And his desire is for you, but you will rule over him” (Gen 4:6–7; cf., Gen 3:16b).16 Cain, of course, does not do well, but he acknowledges that his iniquity is too great to forgive (Gen 4:13; see Syr.), and YHWH grants him a city of refuge (Gen 4:17; see Deut 19:1–13; cf., Gen 4:24).17 The Genesis 4 narrative is apparently the model for the story of the rebellious prophet Jonah. Jonah 4 reveals the motive for the prophet’s disobedience at the beginning of the book (Jon 1:2–3). His response to the Ninevites’ faith and repentance (Jon 3:5–10) is less than favorable to say the least: “And it was very bad to Jonah, and he was angry (wl rxyw)” (Jon 4:1). He indicates that he did not want to go to Nineveh in the first place because he knew YHWH was gracious and compassionate (Jon 4:2; cf., Exod 14:12; 34:6–7). Jonah even asks God to take his life: “Take my life from me, for my death is better than my life (yyxm ytwm bw+ yk ynmm y#pn t) )n xq)” (Jon 4:3). YHWH then asks Jonah a question: “Is it with good reason that you are angry (Kl hrx b+yhh)” (Jon 4:4)? Such a comparison with Cain is not a flattering one for the prophet. There is more to the fabric of the Jonah story than the material from Genesis 4. Jonah 4 contains a mixture of elements from the story of Cain and the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 19. After the object lesson in Jon 4:6–8, God again asks Jonah if he is angry with good reason (Jon 4:9a). This time Jonah responds that he does have good reason to be angry even to the point of death (Jon 4:9b)! Jonah’s words here and in Jon 4:3 correspond to those of the prophet Elijah after hearing of Jezebel’s threat (1 Kgs 19:1–3): “And he asked his soul to die and said, ‘Enough! Now, O YHWH, take my life, for I am not better than my fathers (bw+ )l yk y#pn xq hwhy ht( br rm)yw twml w#pn t) l)#yw ytb)m ykn))’” (1 Kgs 19:4b).



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

19

Genesis 6–7; 19; Judges 19; Isaiah 1:9–10; 66:15–17; 2 Peter 3 Because the story of the flood in Genesis 6–7 is the first account of a worldwide judgment of humanity, it becomes the paradigm for subsequent stories and prophecies of judgment. Thus, just as YHWH said he would “cause rain to fall” (ry+mm) in Gen 7:4, so he “caused to rain” (ry+mh) sulfur and fire in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24; cf., Luke 17:26–29). Sodom and Gomorrah then become the gold standard of wickedness. There is nothing worse in the Bible than to be like Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut 29:22; 32:32; Isa 1:9–10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezek 16:46–47; Amos 4:11). YHWH said that he would not flood the world with water again (Gen 9:15), but this did not exclude the possibility of a future flood of fire (Exod 9:23; Ps 11:6). The most extensive reuse of the Sodom and Gomorrah story (Gen 19; cf., Gen 18) occurs in the narrative of Judges 19: Judges 19

Genesis 19

And the sun set near Gibeah in And the two angels entered (w)byw) Benjamin (v. 14b) Sodom in the evening (br(b) (v. 1a1) And they turned aside (wrsyw) to enter We will lodge in the square (bwxrb ()wbl) to lodge (Nwll) in Gibeah, and Nyln) (v. 2b) he entered ()byw) and sat in the square (bwxrb) of the city (v. 15a–b1) And look, an old man coming in from his work from the field in the evening (br(b) (v. 16a1)

And Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom (v. 1a2)

And he lifted up his eyes and saw And Lot saw ()ryw) (v. 1b) ()ryw) (v. 17a) And he brought him into his house Turn aside (wrws) to the house of (wtybl wh)ybyw)…and they washed your servant and lodge (wnyl) and their feet (Mhylgr wcxryw) and ate wash your feet (Mkylgr wcxrw)… and drank (wt#yw wlk)yw) (v. 21). And they turned aside (wrsyw) to him and entered his house (w)byw wtyb l)). And he prepared for them a feast (ht#m)…and they ate (wlk)yw) (vv. 2–3). They were making their hearts good, and look, the men of the city (y#n) ry(h), worthless men, surrounded the house (tybh t) wbsn), beating

Before they went to bed, the men of the city (ry(h y#n)), the men of Sodom, surrounded the house (tybh l( wbsn) from young

20

the text in the middle on the door. And they said (wrm)yw) to the old man, the owner of the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so that we may know him (Ktyb l) )b r#) #y) t) )cwh wn(dnw)” (v. 22; cf., 20:4–6).

to old, all the people from end. And they called to Lot and said (wrm)yw), “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know them (M)ycwh Mt) h(dnw wnyl))” (vv. 4–5).

And the man, the owner of the house, And Lot went out to them ()cyw went out to them (Mhyl) )cyw). And Mhl)) at the entrance. And the door he said (rm)yw) to them, “No, my he shut behind him. And he said brothers, do not act badly (yx) )l (rm)yw), “Do not, my brothers, act )n w(rt l))” (v. 23a). badly (w(rt yx) )n l))” (vv. 6–7). “Look (hnh), my daughter (ytb), the virgin, and his concubine, let me bring (h)ycw)) them out so that you can humble them and do to them what is good in your eyes (bw+h Mhl w#(w Mkyny(b). But to this man do not do this senseless thing ()l hzh #y)lw t)zh hlbnh rbd w#(t)” (v. 24).

“Look (hnh), I have two daughters (twnb) who have not known a man. Let me bring (h)ycw)) them out to you so that you can do to them according to what is good in your eyes (Mkyny(b bw+k Nhl w#(w). Only to these men do not do a thing (w#(t l) l)h My#n)l qr rbd)” (v. 8a–b1).

Israel, represented by the tribe of Benjamin, has become the new Sodom and Gomorrah (Hos 9:9; 10:9). “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25; cf., Deut 12:8). The sexual immorality is a metaphor for the spiritual harlotry of the people (Judg 2:11–13). 2 Peter 3 also sees a correlation between the flood account and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:6; 3:5–7; Jude 7). The future and final judgment of the world will be a judgment by fire (cf., Isa 66:15–17; Dan 7:11). But 2 Peter 3 also understands the connection between the flood account and the creation story.18 The flood account is essentially a re-creation story (e.g., Gen 1:2b, 20–28; 8:1b, 15–19). In fact, 2 Peter 3 features yet another example of a text in the middle: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). Look, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth (Isa 65:17a). New heavens and a new earth according to his proclamation do we expect in which righteousness will dwell (2 Pet 3:13). And I saw a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1).



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

21

Genesis 12:3, 7; Jeremiah 4:2; Psalm 72:17; Galatians 3:8, 16 Modern interpretation of the Hebrew Bible insists that the seed of Abraham is a plurality of descendants. But the above discussion of the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15) revealed an interest in Abraham’s offspring both individual and collective: r)) Kllqmw Kykrbm hkrb)w (“And I will bless those who bless you and curse those who despise you”) (Gen 12:3a) rwr) Kyrr) Km) ynb Kl wwxt#yw Kyx)l rybg hwh Mym)l Kl wxt#yw Mym( Kwdb(y

(“May peoples serve you and nations bow to you. Be a lord to your brothers that the sons of your mother may bow to you. I will curse those who curse you and bless those who bless you.”) (Gen 27:29)

Kwrb Kykrbmw

Pr+m hdwhy hyr) rwg Kyb) ynb Kl wwxt#y Kyby) Pr(b Kdy Kyx) Kwdwy ht) hdwhy wnmyqy ym )yblkw hyr)k Cbr (rk tyl( ynb (“Judah, as for you, your brothers will praise you. Your hand will be at the neck of your enemies. The sons of your mother will bow to you. Judah is a lion’s whelp. From prey, my son, you go up. He bows down, he lies down like a lion, and like a lionness who will arouse him?”) (Gen 49:8–9)

(“He bows down, he lies down like a lion, and like a lionness who will arouse him? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you.”) (Num 24:9)

rwr) Kyrr)w Kwrb Kykrbm wnmyqy ym )yblkw yr)k bk# (rk

Genesis 27:29 quotes Gen 12:3a and adds a new element. Genesis 49:8–9 quotes the new element from Gen 27:29a and adds something new of its own. Numbers 24:9 quotes all three texts. Its conflation of the wording of Gen 12:3a and Gen 27:29b shows an awareness of their interrelationship. Since these texts focus on an individual seed of Abraham from the tribe of Judah, Paul’s reading of Gen 12:7 is not merely a piece of fanciful Jewish exegesis: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘And to the seeds,’ as to many but as to one, ‘And to your seed,’ which is Christ” (Gal 3:16). For Paul, the seed of Abraham (i.e., believers [Rom 4]) are in Abraham’s seed (i.e., Christ) (Gal 3:28–29). The Hebrew term (rz (“seed”) can have a singular or collective sense, and Paul would have been well aware of this (Acts 22:3). Expectation of an individual seed and a plurality of descendants is already evident in the making of the covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:1–5). This is not unlike the making of the covenant with David in which there is mention of a Davidic dynasty (2 Sam 7:11) and an individual

22

the text in the middle

seed of David who will build the temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–13; see Zech 6:12–13; 1 Chr 17:14) (see also Gen 12:2, 7; 2 Sam 7:9–10). It is also a modern consensus that the statement in Gen 12:3b (“All the families of the earth will be blessed in you”) refers to a blessing formula: “All the families of the earth will bless themselves by you.”19 This is said to correspond to the blessing formula in Gen 48:20. Of course, the difference there is that the blessing formula is actually stated. Much of the discussion on this matter turns on the use of the niphal (middle/passive) and hithpael (reflexive) stems in passages like Gen 12:3b.20 And all the families of the earth will be blessed (niphal) in you (Gen 12:3b). And all the nations of the earth will be blessed (niphal) in him (i.e., Abraham) (Gen 18:18b). And all the nations of the earth will be blessed (hithpael) in your seed (Gen 22:18a). And all the nations of the earth will be blessed (hithpael) in your seed (Gen 26:4b). And all the families of the earth will blessed (niphal) in you [and in your seed] (Gen 28:14b).21

It is usually assumed that the niphal occurrences have the reflexive sense of the hithpael, but the ancient Greek translation (LXX) of these texts used the passive (cf., Gal 3:8). Furthermore, the use of two different stems in these passages is apparently not due to their interchangeability. They appear in two different contexts. When the text speaks of the nations being blessed in Abraham, the niphal stem occurs. When it speaks of the nations being blessed in the seed, the hithpael stem occurs, perhaps with an iterative sense.22 This situation holds true even in references to these passages outside of the Pentateuch (e.g., Jer 4:2; Ps 72:17).23 Paul is not the first to see an individual messianic seed in the words of blessing spoken to the patriarchs in the Pentateuch (Gal 3:8, 16, 28–29; cf., Acts 3:25–26). Already in the Prophets (Jer 4:2) and Psalms (Ps 72:17) this is the reading of the book of Moses.24 The text of Jer 4:2 comes at the end of a unit that extends from Jer 3:1 through Jer 4:4. The Sinai covenant is broken (Jer 11:10), and that means divorce according to the analogy of a marital relationship (Jer 3:1–5; cf., Isa 50:1). Furthermore, the law states that a man cannot take back a woman he divorces if she remarries and divorces again (Deut



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

23

24:1–4). Judah’s apostasy has even exceeded that of the northern kingdom of Israel (Jer 3:6–12; cf., Ezek 23). Nevertheless, YHWH will restore Israel, Judah, and the nations in the last days (Jer 3:14–18, 19–25). In contrast to the wicked sons of Josiah (Jer 21:1–23:4), he will give the people a righteous king like David (Jer 3:15; 23:5–6; 30:9; cf., 1 Sam 13:14). If and when Israel repents, they will no longer swear by Baal but by YHWH, and they will do so sincerely (Jer 4:1–2a; cf., 5:2; 12:16). This is where an apparent citation of Gen 22:18a; 26:4b occurs: “And nations will be blessed in him, and in him they will boast (wllhty wbw Mywg wb wkrbthw)” (Jer 4:2b). The passage concludes with a call for circumcision of the heart (Jer 4:3–4; cf., Deut 30:6; Rom 3:29). It is unfortunate that English versions (e.g., NRSV) do not indicate that Jer 4:2b is a citation. This gives the impression that the pronoun “him” refers to YHWH in Jer 4:2a (“All the nations will be blessed by him,” that is, by YHWH). The referent according to the cited text is the messianic seed (“All the nations will be blessed in him,” that is, in Abraham’s seed). According to Jer 4:2a, the people will swear faithfully by YHWH “with justice and righteousness” (hqdcbw +p#mb). These are the attributes of the messianic Branch and his Davidic kingdom in Jer 23:5–6 (cf., Isa 4:2; Zech 3:8): “He will do justice and righteousness (hqdcw +p#m) in the land” (Jer 23:5b2). Thus, it is likely that Jer 4:2b understands its cited source according to its original context and in association with the poems of the Pentateuch. Psalm 72 is the conclusion to Book II of the book of Psalms (Ps 72:18– 20). Each of the first four books of the book of Psalms concludes with a doxology (Pss 41:14; 72:18–19; 89:53; 106:48) and a psalm that is read messianically by the New Testament authors (Pss 40:7–9; 41:10 [Heb 10:5–10; John 13:18]; 72:10 [Matt 2:11; cf., Tg.]; 89:51–52 [1 Pet 2:21; 4:14]; Ps 110 [Heb 1:13; 7]). It is possible that Psalm 72 originally applied to David (Ps 72:20) and Solomon (Ps 72:1), but the composer of the book of Psalms included this psalm at a time when there was no Davidic king (e.g., Ps 137), only the messianic hope of the Prophets. It is not uncommon for the Prophets to reuse imagery from the Solomon narratives (1 Kgs 1–11) to describe the messianic kingdom (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:5 [Eng., 4:25]; Mic 4:4). It is a kingdom of justice, righteousness, and peace that extends to the ends of the earth. The quote from Gen 22:18a; 26:4b occurs in the final verse of the psalm before the doxology: “They will be blessed in him, let all the nations call him blessed” (whwr#)y Mywg lk wb wkrbtyw) (Ps 72:17b). Again, the

24

the text in the middle

text employs a singular pronoun to refer to an individual rather than a plurality of descendants. The referent is the ideal Davidic king, the seed of Abraham from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:8–12; Num 24:7–9, 17). Thus, not only for Paul (Gal 3:16), but also for Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms, the seed of Abraham is Christ, the Messiah. The spiritual descendants of Abraham will find the restoration of the blessing of life and dominion in the land in him.

Genesis 12:10–20; Exodus 12:35–38; Nehemiah 13:1–3 The account of Abram’s sojourn in Egypt in Gen 12:10–20 foreshadows the exodus of Abraham’s descendants from Egypt and the new exodus from Babylon. For example, Abram departed with great wealth—livestock, silver, and gold (Gen 12:16; 13:2). Israel departed Egypt also with great wealth—silver, gold, and livestock (Exod 12:35, 38). Then, according to the terms of the decree of Cyrus, the Judeans departed Babylon with silver, gold, and livestock (Ezra 1:4; cf., Hag 2:8). According to Exod 12:38, a “mixed multitude” (br() went up with the Israelites from Egypt. The precise identity of this group is not the concern of the present section.25 Rather, what is of interest here is the presence of a “mixed multitude” in Abram’s departure from Egypt and in the new exodus from Babylon. According to Gen 13:1, it was Lot, Abram’s nephew, who went up with Abram’s family from Egypt. Lot also acquired great wealth (Gen 13:5) so that he and Abram eventually had to part ways due to a lack of space (Gen 13:6–18; cf., Gen 36:7). Lot then resurfaces in Gen 14:12 and in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19). The reader learns that the Moabites and Ammonites descend from Lot by his two daughters (Gen 19:36–38). In the post-exilic community of Judeans who returned from Babylon there was an attempt to remove the “mixed multitude” (br() on the basis of the instruction in Deut 23:4 that no Ammonite or Moabite was to enter the assembly due to the fact that they did not meet Israel with food and water (Neh 13:1–3; cf., Deut 2).26 The Moabites were also excluded because Balak the king of Moab hired Balaam to curse the Israelites (Num 22–24). Since the “mixed multitude” (br() in Neh 13:3 are the descendants of Lot, it stands to reason that Lot represents the “mixed multitude” in Gen 13:1. Thus, Abram’s departure from Egypt also foreshadows the presence of a “mixed multitude” (br() in the later exodus from Egypt in Exod 12:38.



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

25

Genesis 14–15; 1 Samuel 2:35; 2 Samuel 7; Zechariah 6:12–13; Psalm 110; Matthew 22:41–46; Hebrews 1:13; 5:6; 7 There are several unique verbal parallels between Genesis 14 and 15, suggesting that these two juxtaposed chapters were intended to be read in light of one another:27 e.g., “the Amorites” (yrm)h) (Gen 14:7; 15:16), “covenant” (tyrb) (Gen 14:13; 15:18), “318” (rz(yl) = 318) (Gen 14:14; 15:2), “Dan/ judge” (Nd) (Gen 14:14; 15:14) “Damascus” (Gen 14:15; 15:2), “righteousness” (hqdc/qdc) (Gen 14:18; 15:6), “Salem” (Ml#) (Gen 14:18; 15:15, 16), “deliver/shield” (Ngm) (Gen 14:20; 15:1), and “possessions” (#kr)/“wages” (rk#) (Gen 14:21; 15:1, 14). When the writer to the Hebrews explains the name “Melchizedek, the king of Salem” (Gen 14:20), he does so on the basis of the parallel terms in Gen 15:6, 15, 16 (Heb 7:2). The term e9rmhneuo&menov in Heb 7:2 is probably “interpreted” rather than “translated” (cf., Ant. 1:180). That is, the author provides an exegesis of the passage rather than a literal rendering or etymology of the name. The name “Melchizedek” (qdc-yklm) probably means “my king is Zedek” or “my king is righteous (ness).” But the writer to the Hebrews explains it as “king of righteousness” on the basis of the meaning of hqdc (“righteousness”) in Gen 15:6. Likewise, he explains “king of Salem” on the basis of the occurrence of Mwl# (“peace”) in Gen 15:15—thus, “king of peace.” For the writer to the Hebrews, the priestly order of Melchizedek is crucial to his argument that Jesus is a superior high priest to Aaron and his descendants. How can someone from the tribe of Judah be a legitimate priest? Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham, demonstrating his subordination to the king of Salem (i.e., Jerusalem/Zion [Ps 76:3], the city of David) and the priest of God Most High (Heb 7:4–19). But there is a precedent for the author of Hebrews in Psalm 110 (Heb 1:13; 5:6; 7:17, 21). The Davidic king (Ps 110:1) is also a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4). Melchizedek’s mysterious background, his association with Jerusalem, and his occupation of royal and priestly offices establish the model (Heb 7:3; 11QMelch). The synoptic Gospels also read Psalm 110 messianically (Matt 22:41– 46; Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44; contra the Tg.). Jesus’ dialogue with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem ends after he poses a question from Ps 110:1 (Matt 22:46; cf., Mark 12:37). He asks them whose son the Christ is, and they respond that he is David’s son (Matt 22:42). Jesus then cites Ps 110:1, clearly understanding the superscription of the psalm to indicate Davidic

26

the text in the middle

authorship (Matt 22:43–44). David is the inspired speaker of the psalm. So Jesus asks, “Therefore, if David calls him Lord, in what way is he his son?” Jesus is not calling into question whether or not the Christ is the son of David (Matt 1:1). He is asking in what way the Christ can be David’s son if he is also David’s Lord. The answer is that he must also be the Son of God (cf., Matt 21:33–46). There is also an attempt within the book of Samuel to connect the priesthood with the kingship. When YHWH tells Eli in 1 Sam 2:35 that he will one day raise up a faithful priest, the reader is initially under the impression that this will be Samuel (1 Sam 3:20). Later the reader learns of Zadok (1 Kgs 2:35). But virtually every key expression in the description of the faithful priest in 1 Sam 2:35 finds a parallel within the book of Samuel in descriptions of the Davidic king: 1 Samuel 2:35

1–2 Samuel

And I will raise up (ytmyqhw) for myself a faithful (Nm)n) priest.

And I will raise up (ytmyqhw) your seed (2 Sam 7:12)

According to what is in my heart (ybblb) and in my soul he will do.

YHWH has sought for himself a man according to his heart (wbblk) (1 Sam 13:14; cf., 16:7)

And I will build for him an enduring a dynasty YHWH will make for you dynasty (Nm)n tyb wl ytynbw). (hwhy Kl h#(y tyb)28…and your dynasty will endure (Ktyb Nm)nw) (2 Sam 7:11, 16) And he will walk before my anointed YHWH has anointed you (Kx#m) all the days (yxy#m ynpl Klhthw …Let David remain before me Mymyh lk). (ynpl dwd )n dm(y) (1 Sam 10:1; 16:22b)

These connections appear to be the basis for the interpretation of the Davidic covenant found in Zech 6:12–13. According to the terms of the covenant in 2 Sam 7:13, the son of David was to build a temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom. Solomon initially seems to be this son of David (1 Kgs 1–11), but his kingdom does not last (1 Kgs 12) and his temple his ultimately destroyed (2 Kgs 25). In Zech 6:11, YHWH uses the high priest Joshua for an object lesson. He has Joshua stand before witnesses with a royal crown on his head, symbolizing one individual who will occupy both offices of priest and king. The prophecy states that this will be the messianic Branch known from other texts (Zech 6:12; Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8). It is he who will build the temple (Zech



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

27

6:12–13). He will rule on his throne, and he will be a priest on his throne (Zech 6:13). Therefore, there will be no conflict between the two offices (Zech 6:13). Abraham (Gen 20:7; 22:2; 23:6 [LXX]), Moses (Exod 6:14–27; Deut 18:15, 18; 33:5; 34:10), and perhaps also Samuel (1 Sam 2:18; 3:20; 7:15) establish the model for the combination of prophet, priest, and king into one. A theory of two Messiahs (Aaron and Israel) existed within the Qumran community (4QDa 10 I, 12; 1QS IX, 11; 1QSa II, 11–22).29 This was apparently intended to accommodate the revelation in Scripture of a priestly function for the Messiah, but it was also intended to avoid the conclusion that the Messiah would occupy more than one office. The following marginal reading to Targum Jonathan at Zech 12:10 in Codex Reuchlinianus (A.D. 1105) is from a no longer extant Palestinian Targum of the Prophets, attesting to a different theory of two Messiahs: “And I will let rest upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of prophecy and true prayer. Afterwards Messiah son of Ephraim will go out to wage war with Gog, and Gog will kill him before the gate of Jerusalem. And they will look at me and ask why the peoples pierced Messiah son of Ephraim, and they will mourn over him…” (see also Exod 40:9–11 Tg. Ps. Jon.; Tg. Song 4:5; b. Sukkah 52a; b. Sanh. 98a; cf. b. Pesah 118a; 4 Ezra 7:28–29). A separate Messiah son of Ephraim/Joseph was created in order to avoid the idea that the Messiah son of David might suffer. It was unthinkable to some that the Messiah could reign over an everlasting kingdom yet also suffer and die. But this was precisely the combination that the New Testament authors saw both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Jesus of Nazareth.

Genesis 14:14; Judges 7:7; 1 Samuel 30 According to Gen 14:14, Abram was able to defeat the coalition of kings in Gen 14:1 with merely 318 men. The story reveals that God was Abram’s “helper” (318 = rz(yl) [Gen 15:2]). Likewise, in Judg 7:1–8 YHWH instructs Gideon to cut his army down to 300 men in preparation for the battle against the Midianites. His stated purpose for this is “lest Israel glorify itself over against me saying, ‘It is my hand that has delivered me’” (Judg 7:2b). A sizable army might win without divine intervention, but an army of 300 men could only obtain victory with God’s help. YHWH made the situation seemingly impossible so that he would receive the glory. The round number 300 is likely an allusion to the Genesis 14 story. A similar account occurs in 1 Samuel 30.

28

the text in the middle

There the Amalekites raid Ziklag and take captive the wives and children of David and his men (1 Sam 30:1–6), just as Lot, Abram’s nephew, had been taken captive by the coalition (Gen 14:12, 14). David inquires of YHWH before pursuing the Amalekites (1 Sam 30:8). Then he and an army of 400 men (1 Sam 30:10) rescue their families.

Genesis 14; 23; 2 Samuel 24 The contrast between the king of Sodom and the king of Salem in Gen 14:17–18 is marked by the syntax of the Hebrew text (wayyiqtol…waw + x + qatal). Abram gives a tenth of all the spoils to the king of Salem (Gen 14:20b), but he refuses the “possessions” (#kr) offered by the king of Sodom (Gen 14:21b). His stated reason for this is that he does not want to be indebted to the king of Sodom (Gen 14:22–23). This is followed by the statement in Gen 15:1 that YHWH is Abram’s “wages” (rk#).30 Abraham takes the same stance in his acquisition of a burial site from the sons of Heth in Genesis 23. When he offers Ephron full price for the cave of Machpelah in his field, Ephron says that he will give Abraham the field and the cave for free (Gen 23:9, 11). It is only at Abraham’s insistence that Ephron reveals the price of 400 shekels of silver (Gen 23:12–16). In a sense, the land already belongs to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:7; 15:18), but Abraham does not act as if he is entitled to seize what is rightfully his. The conquest of the land will take place in God’s timing and in God’s way. In the meantime, it is important not to act inappropriately or become indebted to the inhabitants of the land. Such behavior would call into question the legitimacy of the conquest. The story of 2 Samuel 24, which combines elements of Genesis 14 and 23, presents the restoration of David as a reversal of his earlier downfall in 2 Samuel 11. There is a deliberate echo in 2 Sam 24:10 of David’s earlier response to Nathan’s confrontation in 2 Sam 12:13: “I have sinned” (yt)+x). David then chooses the three-day plague for his punishment (2 Sam 24:13–14). After David’s plea in 2 Sam 24:17, the prophet Gad instructs David to set up an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam 24:18; see 2 Chr 3:1). When David offers to purchase the threshing floor from Araunah, the Jebusite invites David to take the threshing floor and what is needed for the burnt offering for free (2 Sam 24:21–23). But David insists that he will pay full price and not take what does not belong to him (2 Sam 24:24; cf., 1 Chr 21:24). Unlike the earlier



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

29

account of David, Bathsheba, and Uriah, David does not abuse his royal power to seize what belongs to someone else (2 Sam 11:4; 12:1–3, 8–9).

Genesis 15:1; Psalms; Ephesians 6:16 Part of the spiritual armor in Eph 6:10–20 is “the shield of faith” (to\n qureo\n th=v pi/stewv) in Eph 6:16. This is one of those ambiguous genitives that can lend itself to a wide variety of interpretations unless there is some precedent of usage that can clarify the meaning.31 On the surface it would appear that the most straightforward understanding of the text is that this is “the shield that faith is.” Faith is the shield. The shield is a metaphor for faith in context. But further investigation reveals that this is not the use of the term “shield” that is most consistent with what Paul would have known from his Bible. Already in Gen 15:1 YHWH refers to himself as Abram’s shield (cf., Deut 33:29). It is also in this context that the reader learns of Abram’s faith in YHWH, which was reckoned to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6). This passage became foundational for Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). The metaphorical use of “shield” (Ngm) occurs most commonly in the book of Psalms where it usually refers to God (Pss 3:4; 7:11; 18:3, 31, 36; 28:7; 33:20; 59:12; 84:12; 115:9–11; 119:114; 144:2).32 God is the shield in which the psalmist puts his faith (Pss 18:3, 31; 28:7; 33:20–21; 84:12–13; 115:9–11; 144:2). According to this usage, Paul’s “shield of faith” would be the shield in which the believer places his or her faith. The action of the genitive noun is directed toward the preceding noun. Against this the objection might be raised that Paul’s word for “shield” (qureo&v) is not the word used to translate Ngm in the LXX of Psalms. In response to this, it should be noted that qureo&v only occurs in Eph 6:16 in the Greek New Testament and does not exclusively translate any one Hebrew word in the LXX. The LXX employs several different renderings for Ngm (a)ntilh/mptwr/a0nti/lhmyiv [Pss 3:4; 89:19; 119:114], boh/qeia/bohqo/v [Pss 7:11; 18:3], o#plon [Pss 35:2; 76:4], krataio&v [Ps 47:10], a)lh&qeia [Ps 84:12]), but the most frequent is u9peraspisth/vÆu9peraspismo&v (“shielder/shielding” [Pss 18:31, 36; 28:7; 33:20; 59:12; 84:10; 115:9–11; 144:2; cf., Gen 15:1]). In the LXX of Ps 35:2, qureo&v translates hnc, which is coordinated with Ngm. It also translates Ngm outside of the book of Psalms (JudgB 5:8; 2 Sam 1:21; 2 Kgs 19:32). There is no reason then why Paul could not use qureo&v to refer to the Ngm of the book of Psalms. The added genitive “of faith” makes this reference clear.

30

the text in the middle

Genesis 15:6; Habakkuk 2:4; Psalm 106:31; Neh 9:8; Romans 1:17; 4:3; Galatians 3:6, 11; Hebrews 10:37–38 A series of texts in the Hebrew Bible sharing similar and distinctive terminology and phrasing has greatly influenced the theology of the New Testament. Since these verses are often treated in isolation from one another, it will be instructive to see them next to one another before an exposition of their content. hqdc wl hbXxyw hwhyb !mahw Now he had placed his faith in YHWH, and he reckoned it to him righteousness. (Gen 15:6) hyxy wtnwmab qydcw But the one who is righteous by his faith will live. (Hab 2:4b) hqdcl wl bXxtw And it was reckoned to him for righteousness (Ps 106:31a) yk $yrbd ta ~qtw…tyrbh wm[ twrkw $ynpl !man wbbl ta tacmw hta qydc And you found his heart full of faith before you and made a covenant with him…And you established your words because you are righteous. (Neh 9:8)

The following discussion is a reproduction of material previously published by the present author on these texts.33 Habakkuk 1:5 and Acts 13:41 Paul’s speech at Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13:16–41 is one of several key speeches in the composition of Acts in which the revelation of the Hebrew Scriptures is the focal point (Acts 2:14–36; 3:12–26; 7:2–53).34 It comes at the request of the synagogue leaders after the reading of the Law and the Prophets (Acts 13:15). Paul begins in Acts 3:17 with the election of the fathers (cf., Neh 9:7) and the exodus. He moves quickly through the wilderness (Acts 13:18), the land (Acts 13:19), and the period from the judges through Samuel and Saul (Acts 13:20–21). Paul then makes the genealogical connection from David to Jesus, speaking also of John’s preparatory ministry



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

31

(Acts 13:22–25). He revisits this link in Acts 13:32–37, but in between there is an application: the Jews have neither recognized their own Savior nor understood their own Scripture (Acts 13:26–27, 29; cf., 2 Cor 3:15). Paul goes on to speak of Pilate, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the post-resurrection appearances (Acts 13:28–31). He then promptly returns to Scripture in Acts 13:32–41 (Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3; Ps 16:10). According to Paul, the Son of David is clearly greater than David himself due to the fact that he is also the resurrected Son of God. Paul concludes his speech with a call to faith from Hab 1:5 (Acts 13:41). When Paul and Barnabas then speak on the following Sabbath at the request of the people (Acts 13:42–47), the Gentiles believe (Acts 13:47–48; Isa 49:6). The quote of Hab 1:5 does not really follow the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint, although it does have important points of contact with the Septuagint. Both Acts 13:41 and the Septuagint begin with “Look, you scoffers” instead of “Look among the nations” (MT). This probably reflects a more original Hebrew text: Mydgb (“unfaithful ones”) instead of Mywgb (“among the nations”). It is likely that a scribe softened the text for the readers. Acts 13:41 does not have “and see” from the Masoretic Text (w+ybhw) and the Septuagint (kai\ e0pible/yate). The Septuagint then apparently misunderstands whmt whmthw (qauma&sate qauma&sia). Acts 13:41 simply omits the second of the two imperatives. Both Acts 13:41 and the Septuagint add the imperative a0fani/sqhte. But more importantly both texts add the pronoun “I” in “for I am working a work in your days” under the assumption that God is the speaker in Hab 1:5, which is not necessarily the case.35 Both texts turn the final clause of Hab 1:5 into a relative clause (Acts 13:41 adds e1rgon and u9mi=n). It is clear that Paul does not understand the verb “believe” in Hab 1:5 in a secular sense in which disbelief is equivalent to astonishment. Rather, he intends to call his hearers to repentance and justification by faith (Acts 13:38–39). The question remains, however, why Paul would quote Hab 1:5 in a speech about faith in the Messiah. Most scholars assume that the scope of Habakkuk is limited to the Babylonian invasion. But the description of the historical enemy in Hab 1:6–11 and the woes pronounced upon the enemy in Hab 2:5–20 are only part of the message of Habakkuk.36 The historical work of God prefigures the future work of God (Hab 2:2–4). The work of God to which Hab 3:2 refers is an eschatological theophany (Hab 3:3–15) in which God delivers his people and his anointed one (Hab 3:13). He will judge the wicked and deliver the righteous now and in the future.

32

the text in the middle

To see this it is necessary to discuss the composition of Habakkuk as a whole and its placement within the composition of the Twelve. It would be a gross understatement to say that this has not at all been part of the discussion in treatments of New Testament quotations from Habakkuk. It is no wonder then that scholars see merely an “historical” meaning in Habakkuk with little or no legitimate relationship to the concerns of the New Testament authors. For Paul, however, Habakkuk is part of a larger composition called “the Prophets” (Acts 13:40). It is within this context that the following discussion treats the New Testament quotes of Hab 1:5 and 2:3–4. Habakkuk 2:4 and Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11 The eschatological theophanies of Nah 1:2–8 and Hab 3:3–15 form an interpretive framework around the historical prophecies of Nahum and Habakkuk. Thus, Nahum’s account of the siege of Nineveh becomes a picture of future worldwide judgment. Habakkuk’s description of the righteous and the wicked in his own day anticipates and foreshadows the ultimate fate of the two groups in the future. Zephaniah follows Habakkuk and picks up the language of Nah 1:7 and Hab 2:20; 3:16 to speak of the eschatological Day of the LORD (Zeph 1:7, 15). It would be a mistake then to see an eschatological reading of these texts as something original to later interpreters such as the Qumran community (1QpHab) or the New Testament authors. The eschatological meaning of these texts is the historical (i.e., grammatical) meaning of the author/composer of the Twelve. After the opening superscription (Hab 1:1), Habakkuk begins with a quasi-lament regarding the fact that the wicked are surrounding the righteous (Hab 1:2–4; cf., Ps 13). Some take this to mean internal strife among Habakkuk’s own people. Others understand the wicked to be the enemy of Hab 1:6–11. The author then addresses his readers with a warning about the temptation to “lack faith” (wnym)t )l) in the “work” (l(p) of God. The reason for this warning is the following revelation that God himself is the one who is raising up the enemy (Hab 1:6–11). This will be difficult for the people to swallow. Habakkuk himself struggles with his own faith as he acknowledges the purposes of God (Hab 1:12) yet does not understand why God would use a wicked instrument to judge a people whom Habakkuk considers to be more righteous (Hab 1:13–17). At the outset of chapter 2, Habakkuk resolves (cohortative; cf., Hab 3:18) to wait on the word of the LORD, which comes in Hab 2:2–20, and to see what his own reply will be, which comes in chapter 3 (Hab 2:1). The LORD



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

33

commands Habakkuk, “Write a vision in order to explain upon tablets in order that the one who reads it may run” (Hab 2:2; cf., Isa 40:31).37 The vision is for “the appointed time” (d(wm) and “the end” (Cq). If it seems to tarry, Habakkuk is to “wait” (hkx) for it (Hab 2:3). The wicked will perish, but the righteous will live (Hab 2:4). It is clear from Daniel’s reading of this text that such language has to do with the future and final work of God, not the immediate circumstances of Habakkuk.38 In the conclusion to the final vision of Daniel 10–12, Daniel receives instructions to “shut up the words and seal the document until the time of the ‘end’ (Cq)” (Dan 12:4; cf., 12:9). He asks the angel how long it will be until the “end” (Cq) of the wonders (Dan 12:6; cf., 12:8). The response is “an appointed time” (d(wm), “appointed times” (Myd(wm), and a half (Dan 12:7). The righteous will be purified, and the wicked will act wickedly (Dan 12:10). Blessed is “the one who waits” (hkxmh). Daniel then becomes a model for the reader in Dan 12:13 much like Isaiah (Isa 8:16–18) and Habakkuk (Hab 3:17–19) before him, waiting on the future work of God whether or not it appears in his lifetime. It is imperative then to understand Hab 2:4 in terms of faith or lack thereof in the eschatological work of God: “Behold, his soul, which is not upright within him, is swollen, but the one who is righteous by his faith will live.” The first clause is apparently a description of the wicked unbeliever for which one might expect: “the one who is wicked will die.” The proud will swell up and die. The odd choice of terms (lp( [“to swell”] occurs only here) grabs the reader’s attention and creates a link with the key text in Hab 1:5. lp( (“to swell”) in Hab 2:4 is a play on l(p (“work”) in Hab 1:5 involving the transposition of the first two letters. This link also has implications for interpretation of hnwm) in the second half of Hab 2:4. hnwm) ordinarily means “faithfulness,” but the link to Hab 1:5 encourages the reader to understand it as the nominal form (“faith”) of the hiphil of Nm) (“to believe” or “to have faith”).39 The syntax of Hab 2:4b allows for two possibilities. Does the phrase “by his faith” modify “righteous” (qydc)—“the one who is righteous by faith will live”—or “live”—“the righteous will live by his faith/faithfulness”? The first option indicates the means by which someone is counted righteous: faith. According to this view, the text would appear to draw upon Gen 15:6 (“And he believed [Nm)h] in the LORD, and he reckoned it to him righteousness hdqc]”). The second option tells the way in which a righteous person lives: by faith or faithfully. Apart from the fact that the second option is somewhat of a tautology, the word order of this clause would seem to favor the first option:

34 hyxy wtnwm)b qydc.

the text in the middle

If the author wanted to modify qydc, he could not have been clearer. On the other hand, if he wanted to modify the verb, it would have been clearer to place wtnwm)b after hyxy (cf., Lev 18:5). Two more exegetical issues remain for Hab 2:4. Why does the Septuagint reflect first-person instead of third-person pronominal suffixes (“my soul” and “my faith/faithfulness” instead of “his soul” and “his faith/faithfulness”)? And, what is the meaning of the verb “live” in Hab 2:4b? A treatment of the Septuagint appears below in the section on Heb 10:37–38. As for the verb “live,” it is most unlikely that it refers to the normal course of a human life. According to Hab 1:12, the basis for the hope of life is the everlasting nature of the LORD himself. Furthermore, the very fact that the LORD calls on Habakkuk to wait on something that will not take place in his lifetime suggests that he will indeed take part in the future work of God in life beyond death. It is this hope in a future resurrection that enables Habakkuk and those who follow his example to suffer well in the midst of persecution (cf., Dan 3; 6; 12:1–3). Following the section of “woe” oracles in Hab 2:5–20 is the prayer of Habakkuk (Hab 3:1): “O LORD, I have heard your report, I have feared, O LORD, your work; in the midst of years revive it, in the midst of years make it known; in rage remember compassion” (Hab 3:2). Here the same Hebrew word for “work” (l(p) from Hab 1:5 appears. The root for “faith” (Nm)) from Hab 1:5 and 2:4 does not occur, but apparently “fear” ()ry) falls within the same semantic field. For instance, Exod 14:31 puts “fear” ()ry) and “faith” (Nm)) together in the people’s response to the exodus. Within the Book of the Twelve, the parallel narratives of Jonah 1 and 3 (cf., Jon 1:1–3 and 3:1–4) use the two terms interchangeably. At the conclusion of Jonah 1, the sailors (Gentiles) “fear” ()ry) the LORD (Jon 1:16). In Jon 3:5, the Ninevites (Gentiles) “believe” (Nm)) in God. Thus, Hab 3:2 continues the theme of faith in God’s work from Hab 1:5 and 2:4. The work of God in Hab 3:3–15 is an eschatological work depicted in terms of the exodus/Sinai stories (Hab 3:3–9a, 15), creation/flood/exodus themes (Hab 3:9b–10), and the conquest (Hab 3:11–12).40 According to Hab 3:13–14, this final work of judgment and restoration is “messianic” in that it involves the smiting of the enemy’s head so central to other messianic poems (Gen 3:15; Num 24:8, 17; Judg 5:26; Pss 68:22 [Eng., 68:21]; 110:5–6).41 It is in the hope of this work that Habakkuk rests and resolves to exult in the LORD no matter what (Hab 3:16–19).



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

35

The overall structure of Habakkuk features three main sections roughly corresponding to the more recent chapter divisions. At the beginning of each section is a verse that carries the theme and key terminology of the composition: “For a ‘work’ (l(p) is working in your days, you will lack ‘faith’ (from Nm)) when it is recounted” (Hab 1:5b). “Behold, his soul, which is not upright within him, is ‘swollen’ (from lp(), but the one who is righteous by his faith (from Nm)) will live” (Hab 2:4). “O LORD, I have heard your report, I have ‘feared’ (from )ry), O LORD, your ‘work’ (l(p); in the midst of years revive it, in the midst of years make it known; in rage remember compassion” (Hab 3:2).

The composition of Habakkuk is about justification by faith in the eschatological and messianic work of God. It is not merely about theodicy or correct behavior in the midst of a historical crisis. It instructs the reader about faith in something and someone larger than his or her immediate circumstances. Paul’s citations of Hab 2:4b in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11 follow the word order of the Hebrew text and are virtually identical with the exception of de&, which only appears in Rom 1:17. Paul does not use the pronoun either from the Masoretic Text (“his faith”) or from the Septuagint (“my faithfulness”). James Dunn thinks this was to give the word “faith” a new Christian sense, which ran counter to the general understanding of the Hebrew text.42 But a correct understanding of the Hebrew text does not require this at all, and Paul’s omission of the pronoun is probably inconsequential. Paul quotes Hab 2:4b in Gal 3:11 in order to offer intertextual support for his point from Gen 15:6 (Gal 3:6). He also employs Hab 2:4b to counter the specific wording of Lev 18:5 (Gal 3:12), which, according to Targum Onkelos and Matt 19:17, says that those who do the works of the law gain eternal life. Simon Gathercole has presented a well-balanced view on this text in response to adherents of the New Perspective.43 But Paul understands that the scenario of Lev 18:5 is hypothetical and not real in the composition of the Pentateuch (Ezek 20:11, 25).44 The law was added secondarily because of transgression (Gal 3:19).45 It exposes and exacerbates the problem of sin, pointing the reader of the Pentateuch to the need for a new covenant based on divine faithfulness (Deut 28:69; 29:3 [Eng., 29:1, 4]; 30:6), since no one is actually capable of keeping the law.46 The only person who is said to have kept the law in the Hebrew Bible is Abraham (Gen 26:5; cf., Deut 5:31; 6:1, 20; 10:13; 11:1;

36

the text in the middle

26:17; 30:10, 16), and he was justified by faith (Gen 15:6), not by works of law (see the contrast between the law and the faith message of the Pentateuch in Rom 3:20–22; 10:5–8).47 Thus, the final composition of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, not first-century Judaism, is the primary context in which to understand the Pauline contrast between faith and works of law. Paul’s reference to Hab 2:4b in Rom 1:17 is obviously programmatic for the letter as a whole in which he addresses the Jewish-Gentile relations of the Roman church in terms of the gospel of justification by faith. It is noteworthy that Gen 15:6 plays a supporting role this time (Rom 4:3)—the opposite of the relationship between Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4b in Galatians. Paul’s exegesis of Hab 2:4b in both Romans and Galatians is consistent with the composition of Habakkuk and its place within the Twelve. Habakkuk 2:3–4 and Hebrews 10:37–38 The quotation of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 is fundamentally different from Paul’s quotes of Hab 2:4b primarily because it is from the Septuagint and not from the original Hebrew text. It is not uncommon for a New Testament author to quote a non-original biblical text in order to suit his purposes. It is no more unusual than Paul’s quote from the poets (Acts 17:28). Just as Paul can quote from a non-biblical text, so the author of Hebrews can quote from a non-original biblical text. Both kinds of texts do not constitute inspired Scripture in the strict sense (2 Tim 3:16). Furthermore, a quotation from a non-original biblical text is not a text-critical statement on what the author thinks is the original text. Non-original readings provide insight into the early history of interpretation and very often shed light on the meaning of the original text. This is certainly the case with Heb 10:37–38. The text forms the conclusion to the last of the “warning” passages of Hebrews through which the author attempts to persuade his readers not to return to Judaism in the face of persecution but to hold fast to the Christ of the Hebrew Scriptures (Heb 2:1–4; 3:7–4:11; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39). Thus, the emphasis is on the faithfulness and perseverance of the believer made possible by God’s gracious preservation of the believer. The text precedes the famous faith chapter of Hebrews 11, showing the correlation between endurance and genuine faith. The phrase “in yet a little while” of Heb 10:37 is neither the Septuagint rendering nor an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text (but see Isa 26:20). The quote omits the middle of Hab 2:3. Its Septuagint-like rendering of the last part of Hab 2:3b adds an article and changes the infinitive absolute to



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

37

a participle. It also adds the conjunction “and”: “For he who is coming will come and not delay” (cf., “For it will surely come, it will not delay”). The author of Hebrews has substituted a coming individual or messianic figure for the coming vision. This is consistent with the composition of Habakkuk as whole in which a messianic individual figures prominently in the depiction of the future and final work of God (Hab 3:13). The text of Heb 10:38 reverses the order of the clauses in Hab 2:4. This is probably because the author uses the noun u9postolh, (“turning back”) in Heb 10:39 to comment on the verb u9poste/llw (“to turn back”) from the second part of Heb 10:38, which is the first clause in Hab 2:4. The first part of Heb 10:38 renders Hab 2:4b with a first-person pronoun: “My righteous one by faith/faithfulness will live.” There is a textual issue here. The Western reading “corrects” the text in the direction of the Septuagint. The Byzantine reading removes the problem of the pronoun altogether. Thus, the Alexandrian reading appears to be the original from which the others depart. The use of the first-person pronoun does derive from the first part of the verse in the Septuagint, but translations are generally not reliable in the realm of pronouns. The translation of Hab 2:4a in the Septuagint and in the second part of Heb 10:38 is a complete misunderstanding of a very difficult Hebrew text, not a reflection of a different Hebrew text. The Greek text has taken a single clause and made it into an “if…then” construction. It also confuses lp( (“to swell”) with the homonym lp( (“to be heedless”; see Num 14:44). It takes the verb “to be upright” in the sense “to be pleased” and makes the subject into “my soul” (i.e., the LORD’s soul) instead of “his soul.”48 The verse thus becomes a contrast between the apostate with whom the LORD is displeased and the faithful believer—very fitting for the theme of Hebrews. But this is not the point of the links between Hab 2:4 and Hab 1:5; 3:2, nor is it the point of the parallelism in the Hebrew text of Hab 2:4 wherein the one who is not upright (a wicked unbeliever) swells up and dies while the one who is justified by faith lives. Psalm 106:28–31 The people were joined to Baal of Peor, that is, the local manifestation of the Canaanite fertility god Baal at Peor (Ps 106:28; cf., Num 25). The psalmist says they ate “the sacrifices of the dead.” It is possible that this means sacrifices offered to or for the dead, but Num 25:1–2 says that these were the sacrifices of the gods (i.e., non-living gods) of the daughters of Moab with whom the Israelites “played the harlot”—a metaphor for their idolatry (cf., Jer 3; Ezek 16; Hos 1–3) but also an indication of the sexual activity that took place in

38

the text in the middle

the Baal fertility cult. The LORD was the true husband of Israel, and Baal was the husband of another woman (Canaan). Israel’s worship had already become confused and syncretistic. They provoked the LORD, and a plague broke out (Crp; cf., “breach” in v. 23) against them (Ps 106:29; cf., Num 25:4–9). But the plague was restrained when Phineas, the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron, intervened and speared the Israelite man and the Midianite woman who were acting in complete disregard for the situation (Ps 106:30; cf., Num 25:6–8). The psalmist says that this was reckoned to Phineas as righteousness (Ps 106:31a). This does not come from the story of Numbers 25 (but see Num 25:13 and Ps 106:31b) but from the statement about Abraham’s faith in Gen 15:6: “And he believed in the LORD, and he reckoned it to him righteousness.” Thus, the psalmist characterizes Phineas’ act as one that represented his faith, faith that counted as righteousness.49 Nehemiah 9:7–8 The statement in Neh 9:7 that God “chose” Abram is a theological interpretation of Gen 11:27–12:3. The election of the nation of Israel began with the unmerited election of an individual. There is no reason given for the call of Abram in Gen 12:1–13. That is, there is no reason why he was chosen rather than someone else. Ezra moves from this to the change of Abram’s name to Abraham in Gen 17:5 (Neh 9:7b). According to the Genesis text, the reason for the change was the soundplay between “Abraham” and Mywg Nwmh b) (“father of a multitude of nations”). This meant that Abraham would be more than a literal patriarch. He would be the spiritual father of all those who would be blessed in him and in his seed (Gen 12:3; 22:18). Thus, Paul invents his own play on Abraham’s name and calls him “the father of all those who believe” (Mynym)mh lkl b)) (Rom 4:11). The framework of Neh 9:8 appears to come from Gen 15:6, 18, although the list of the nations of Canaan does not occur there (cf., Deut 7). The background statement in Gen 15:6 about Abram’s faith has traditionally been understood to mean that God reckoned Abram righteous by faith: “And he [Abram] believed in the LORD, and he [the LORD] reckoned it to him righteousness” (cf., Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). But Rendtorff and others, following medieval Jewish interpretation, understand Abram to be the subject of both verbs.50 Abram reckons the LORD righteous. Rendtorff thinks Neh 9:8b supports this when Ezra says to the LORD, “You are righteous.” But this is not without its problems. The primary issue is the antecedent of the pronoun “it” in Gen 15:6b. This is a third feminine



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

39

singular suffixed pronoun in the Hebrew text. It is possible that this is a proleptic pronoun that anticipates the following feminine singular noun “righteousness,” but it is more likely that it refers back to the preceding statement about Abram’s faith. This is a common use of the third feminine singular pronoun.51 If this is correct, then the LORD would have to be the subject of the verb “reckon.” Otherwise it would be a nonsensical statement about Abram reckoning his own faith to the LORD as righteousness. The traditional understanding of Gen 15:6 finds support in biblical texts based on the verse. For example, the wording of Hab 2:4b and Ps 106:31 comes from Gen 15:6. And in both cases the believer, not the LORD, is the one counted righteous. In order for Rendtorff ’s interpretation to be correct, the reader would have to leap over the immediate antecedent of the pronoun in Gen 15:6b and take the preceding verse(s) as the referent. Furthermore, Neh 9:8b seems not to support Rendtorff upon closer examination. It does not say that Abram reckoned the LORD righteous. Rather, it is Ezra’s declaration on the basis of what he reads in the Torah about the LORD’s faithfulness to the covenant. The other issue in Neh 9:8 is the meaning of the niphal participle Nm)n. Does it mean “faithful” or “believing”? Those who think Neh 9:8 is a reinterpretation of Gen 15:6 understand it to be a description of Abram’s faithfulness rather than his faith. But those who take Neh 9:8 to be an accurate reading of Gen 15:6 will define the niphal participle according to the meaning of the hiphil verb of the same root in Gen 15:6. It is true that the niphal of this root usually means “confirmed,” “faithful,” or “reliable,” but the niphal participle is also the only adjectival choice available to the writer to describe someone who is “of faith” or “believing” (cf., Deut 1:32).

Genesis 15:6; 22; 1 Maccabees 2:52; James 2:21–24 The epistle of James understands the story of the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22 to be the demonstration of what is said about Abraham in Gen 15:6. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own son shows the genuine nature of his faith. This is likely the intent of the Genesis text. Other biblical writers have stories about their main characters that serve as defining moments, highlighting a quality for which the characters are well known. The story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 shows the reader what kind of heart David has (1 Sam 13:14; 16:7). The story in 1 Kgs 3:16–28 shows the reader what kind of wisdom Solomon has. In this case, however, the interpretation of the

40

the text in the middle

Genesis text found in James is perhaps borrowed from an earlier example of post-biblical interpretation in the book of 1 Maccabees. Compare the wording of the Greek texts (the original Hebrew of 1 Maccabees is no longer extant): 1 Maccabees 2:52

James 2:21, 23

0Abraa\m ou0xi vAbraa\m o9 path\r h9mw~n ou0k Was not Abraham Was not Abraham our father e0n peirasmw~| in testing eu9re/qh pisto/v found faithful/believing,

e0c e1rgwn e0dikaiw&qh justified by works



a0nene/gkav 0Isaa\k to\n ui9o\n au0tou/ e0pi\ to\ qusiasth/rion when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

…kai\ e0logi/sqh au0tw~| ei0v kai\ e0logi/sqh au0tw~| ei0v dikaiosu/nhn dikaiosu/nhn and it was reckoned to him for …and it was reckoned to him for righteousness? righteousness

Both texts feature questions with negatives that expect the answer yes (ou0xi/ ou0k). Both use Abraham as an example to make their point. The name “Abraham” is fronted in the word order of both. The “testing” (peirasmo/v) to which 1 Macc 2:52 refers is clearly the offering of Isaac mentioned by Jas 2:21 (see Gen 22:1 LXX). Both texts cite Gen 15:6. James, however, takes the expression “found faithful/believing” and renders it “justified by works.” This is instructive for those who would like to drive a wedge between James and Paul. James is not pitting works against faith. He is contrasting two different kinds of faith—one that works and one that does not. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son vindicates the claim about his faith.

Genesis 15:10; Jeremiah 34:18–20; Hebrews 9:18 The passage about Jesus’ mediation of a new covenant in Heb 9:15–22 explains the way the covenant works in terms of the Greek diaqh/kh (“last will and testament”). The terms of the covenant do not go into effect until the death of the one passing on the inheritance (see Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). This is markedly different from the sense of the



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

41

Hebrew word tyrb (“self-binding obligation”). Nevertheless, the Greek and Hebrew words meet at a fork in the road in the descriptions of the making of covenants in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the account of the making of the covenant with Abram in Genesis 15, Abram takes the appointed animals and cuts them in half so that the “furnace” can pass through the parts (Gen 15:9–10, 17)—thus the idiom “to cut a covenant” (Gen 15:18). A fuller explication of this process appears in Jer 34:18–20. King Zedekiah had made a “covenant” or “agreement” (tyrb) with the people to practice the law of the year of remission (Jer 34:8–22; see Lev 25; Deut 15), but they failed to keep their agreement—a manifestation of their general lack of faithfulness to their covenant relationship with YHWH.52 Those who made the covenant cut the pieces of the calf and passed through them (Jer 34:18–19). It was like taking an oath: “So may it be done to me like this animal if I do not keep the covenant.” Thus, the penalty for the breaking of the covenant was death (Jer 34:20). There is then no covenant apart from the shedding of blood (Exod 24:8; Heb 9:18, 20, 22). It is likely significant that this passage in Jeremiah is not far removed from the one that serves as the basis for the teaching on the new covenant in Hebrews 8–9 (Jer 31:31–34).

Genesis 16; 21; Galatians 4:21–5:1 The early church fathers took the passage in Gal 4:21–5:1 to be biblical warrant for allegorical interpretation, particularly in the Alexandrian tradition.53 But Gal 4:24 does not say, “These things are to be interpreted allegorically.” It says, “These things are allegorical (a#tina& e0stin a)llhgorou/mena).” This statement is in reference to the birth of Abraham’s two sons, Ishmael (“according to flesh”) and Isaac (“by promise”), by two different women, Hagar (the servant) and Sarah (the free woman). There is a clear difference between an allegorical composition and an allegorical interpretation. The former is intended by the biblical author. The latter is not. The former requires explication by the interpreter. The latter requires the imposition of the interpreter. In the case of Gal 4:21–5:1, Paul is identifying something in the text of the Pentateuch. Already within the Pentateuch Hagar and Sarah represent themes that develop over the course of the book’s composition. When YHWH calls Abram in Gen 12:1–7, the story of Abraham unfolds in a series of threats to the covenant according to which Abraham will have offspring who will possess the land (Gen 12:7; 15:18). Abram nearly loses his

42

the text in the middle

wife Sarah (and thus any hope of offspring) in the stories of Gen 12:10–20 and 20:1–18 when he passes her off as his sister in the interest of self-preservation. He then offers his nephew Lot the land option in Genesis 13 and risks his own life rescuing Lot in Genesis 14. The story of the binding of Isaac (Gen 22) is the climactic threat followed by the potential for indebtedness to and intermarriage with the peoples of the land (Gen 23–24). Thus, the attempt to achieve the fruition of the covenant through Hagar (Gen 16; 21) is part of a larger development of opposition to God’s plan. At each stage God providentially preserves his covenant relationship with Abraham. But the threats to the covenant do not stop with Abraham’s story. Isaac passes off his own wife, Rebekah, as his sister (Gen 26:6–11). Jacob has to leave and live outside the land (Gen 29–31). Jacob’s reunion with Esau initially appears ominous (Gen 32–33). Jacob’s sons offend the inhabitants of the land (Gen 34). Jacob’s family moves to Egypt (Gen 46) where they become slaves (Exod 1). Once again God keeps everything intact in spite of the obvious difficulties. The temporal, conditional covenant of law at Sinai takes the place of the unconditional covenant with the patriarchs (Exod 19–24). It is a covenant doomed to failure (Lev 26: Deut 28) and in need of replacement by a new covenant (Deut 28:69; Eng., 29:1). Thus, it is fitting that Hagar represents Sinai and present-day Jerusalem with its emphasis on the works of the law of Moses (Gal 4:25). On the other hand, Sarah represents the new Jerusalem and the new covenant, a return to the simple faith and obedience of Abraham (Gal 4:26; cf., Rom 4). A similar reading of the Pentateuch (i.e., a contrast of Sinai [old covenant] and Zion [new covenant]) appears in Heb 12:18–29.

Genesis 17:5; Nehemiah 9:7; Romans 4:11 In Gen 17:5 Abram receives a name change from “Abram” (Mrb)) to “Abraham” (Mhrb)), which likely does not differ in meaning (“exalted father”) but is closer to the sound of the Hebrew phrase translated “father of a multitude of nations” (Mywg Nwmh b)). According to Rashi, this means that the two nations of Edom (Esau) and Israel (Jacob) will descend from Abraham, but Gen 25:23 clearly refers to these nations as “two nations” and not “a multitude of nations.” Furthermore, “peoples” (Mym() will serve Jacob (Gen 27:29), and an “assembly of nations” (Mywg lhq) and kings will come from him (Gen 35:11; cf., Gen 17:6, 16). Others understand “multitude of nations” to be a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, but the Hebrew word ywg (“nation”) is not the same as the Hebrew words for “tribe” (Pl), +b#). Radak



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

43

suggested that the nations were the descendants of Keturah (Gen 25:1–3). These explanations of Gen 17:5 are all attempts to avoid the obvious. Abraham cannot literally be the father of a multitude of nations. He is the spiritual father of the nations because in him and in his seed all the nations will be blessed (Gen 12:3; 22:18). The exposition of the Pentateuch in Nehemiah 9 features several references to the Abraham narratives in quick succession (Neh 9:7–8): “you chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans” (Gen 11:31; 15:7); “you made his name Abraham” (Gen 17:5); “you found his heart believing before you” (Gen 15:6); and “you made the covenant with him” (Gen 15:18). It is precisely this constellation of texts that gives the sense of Abraham’s name change. YHWH elected Abram to be the means of restoring the lost blessing to the nations, that is, to those who would (like Abram) believe and enter into covenant relationship with YHWH. Thus, Paul’s phrase “father of all who believe” (Mynym)mh lkl b)) not only features a similar soundplay (if backtranslated to Hebrew) to the one in Gen 17:5 but also brings out the sense of what it means for Abraham to be the father of a multitude of nations (Rom 4:11, 17).

Genesis 22:4–5; Hosea 6:2; Hebrews 11:17–19 After receiving instruction from YHWH to offer up his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen 22:1–2), Abraham departs for the land of Moriah along with two of his servants and Isaac (Gen 22:3). On the third day, Abraham sees the place where the offering is to be made (Gen 22:4). He then says something unexpected to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey, and I and the young man will go thither. And we will worship and return to you” (Gen 22:5). How could Abraham say that “we” will return, knowing that after the sacrifice of Isaac only he (Abraham) would be left? Of course, both of them do return because God provides a ram to take the place of Isaac (Gen 22:13; cf., Gen 44:33). But Gen 22:19 concludes the story the way the reader might have expected it after the introduction: “And Abraham returned to his servants, and they arose and went together to Beersheba, and Abraham lived in Beersheba.” There is no mention of Isaac. Hebrews 17–19 understands Gen 22:5 to be an indication of Abraham’s belief in the resurrection (cf., Rom 4:17). He obeyed without flinching and confidently asserted their return because he knew that God was able to raise the dead (cf., Dan 3; 6; 12:2). The intermediary text here is likely Hos 6:1–3 (see also 2 Kgs 20:5, 7). These are the words of repentance that YHWH would

44

the text in the middle

like to hear in a genuine way from his otherwise fickle and disingenuous people (Hos 6:4–11; cf., Jer 3:22b–25). Hosea 6:1–3

Genesis 22

hwhy l) hbw#nw wkl

Mkyl) hbw#nw…hkln We will go…and return to you (v. 5)

Come and let us return to YHWH, wn#bxyw Ky wn)pryw Pr+ )wh yk

for he tore, but he will heal us; he struck, but he will bind us. wnmqy y#yl#h Mwyb Mymym wnyxy

He will revive us after two days, on the third day he will raise us up,

…wmqyw…y#yl#h Mwyb On the third day…and they arose… (vv. 4, 19)

wynpl hyxnw

and we will live before him. hwhy t) t(dl hpdrn h(dnw

And let us acknowledge, let us pursue acknowledgement of YHWH, w)cwm Nwkn rx#k like dawn his going forth is established.

…Klyw…rqbb Mhrb) Mk#yw And Abraham arose early in the morning…and went…(v. 3)

Cr) hrwy #wqlmk wnl M#gk )wbyw

ynb hl(l h#h wl h)ry Myhl)

And he will come like the rain to us, like the spring rain that waters (hrwy) the ground.

God will provide (h)ry) for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my my (v. 8)

It is possible to understand the expression “after two days, on the third day” (Hos 6:2) as a numerical device (cf., Amos 1–2; Prov 30) or to mean “in a little while,” but elsewhere significant events in the Bible do take place on a literal third day (e.g., Exod 19:16; Josh 1:11; Jon 3:4; Est 5:1). Modern critical scholarship understands the revival in Hos 6:2 to be a national and political restoration of Israel, but this was not the way the text was read in antiquity. Targum Jonathan, for example, takes this revival to be the resurrection from the dead. The description of the coming of YHWH in Hos 6:3 is similar to prophetic depictions of the messianic kingdom (e.g., Ezek 34:26). In the New Testament, it is Jesus’ resurrection that takes place on the third day (Matt 16:21), but because he is the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18) this day is also the beginning of the resurrection of the people of God.



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

45

Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2–3; Romans 9:10–13 Theologians sometimes cite Rom 9:13 in support of the view that Paul is talking about corporate election rather than individual election. They say that the quoted text, Mal 1:2–3, is talking about the nations of Israel and Edom rather than the individuals Jacob and Esau. But Paul also quotes Gen 25:23 (Rom 9:12), a text that announces both the birth of two individuals and the birth of two nations. The Malachi text is an exegesis of the Genesis text. Paul’s text is thus an exegesis of an exegesis. It is a false dichotomy to separate corporate election from individual election in this context. When YHWH tells Rebekah that “the older will serve the younger” (Gen 25:23), this initially applies to the relationship between Jacob and Esau (Gen 27:29, 37). It is only because of the election of these two individuals that the nations of Israel and Edom have their respective fates. Hosea 12 shows how integrally linked and almost interchangeable Jacob and the nation of Israel are. When Mal 1:2–3 refers to the Genesis passage, it is not so much a matter of love for Jacob and hate for Esau. It is rather election (bh)) of Jacob and rejection ()n#) of Esau. This is the sense that these terms have elsewhere in the Jacob narratives (e.g., Gen 25:28; 29:18, 31–33; cf., Deut 21:15–17). The Malachi text understands the correlation between the story of the two sons and the history of the two nations. Paul can then move fairly freely between the election of individuals and that of corporate entities. For example, he can use the illustration of God’s dealings with Pharaoh (an individual) to explain his relationship to Jews and Gentiles (nations) (Rom 9:14–29). There is no such thing as corporate election apart from individual election. Corporate entities consist of individuals. They are not mere abstractions. Likewise, there is no election of individuals in the Bible apart from election of a people. From the very beginning it was God’s plan to elect an individual who would become a nation through which all the nations would be blessed (Gen 12:1–3; Neh 9:7).

Genesis 28:12; Targum Neofiti; John 1:51; 1 Peter 1:12 In Gen 28:12, Jacob has a dream in which he sees a ladder or a staircase or an incline of some sort (Mls) reaching into heaven from the ground with angels ascending and descending on it. YHWH stands on it and reiterates the words of the covenant with Abraham to Jacob. It is not immediately clear what the significance of the sight of the Mls is. Jacob refers to the place as “the house

46

the text in the middle

of God” and “the gate of heaven” (Gen 28:17), so perhaps the Mls represents access to God and his revelation of himself as in a sanctuary. Targum Neofiti, however, says that the angels who accompanied Jacob from his father’s house (cf., Gen 32:2) ascended the Mls to invite the angels on high to descend and see Jacob: “Come, see a pious man whose image is affixed on the throne of glory, whom you were desiring to see.” Targum Neofiti in this case is the text in the middle between the Hebrew text of Gen 28:12 and the New Testament. Neofiti’s interpretation has the advantage of explaining why the angels were ascending and descending. In John 1:51, Jesus tells Philip and Nathaniel that they will see “heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” This is because Jesus is now the great spectacle that will attract the attention of the angels. The words spoken to Jacob (Gen 28:14) will come to fruition in Jesus. According to 1 Pet 1:10–11, the prophets revealed the gospel and the Christ but not the exact timing of the events. In a subtle allusion to the wording of Neofiti, 1 Pet 10:12 says these are things “into which angels desire to look.”

Genesis 48:5; Jeremiah 31:9; 1 Chronicles 5:1–2 In Gen 48:5, Jacob tells Joseph that his two sons, “Ephraim and Manasseh,” will be “like Reuben and Simeon” to him. In naming Ephraim first, Jacob already anticipates that Ephraim will take the place of the firstborn Manasseh (Gen 48:13–20). Reuben and Simeon were Jacob’s first and second born sons (Gen 29:32–33). Thus, Ephraim and Manasseh will be like Jacob’s first and second born sons. YHWH says in Jer 31:9b that he is Israel’s father and that Ephraim is his firstborn. This then affects the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 5. Reuben was technically the firstborn of Israel, but when he profaned his father’s bed the birthright was given to the sons of Joseph (1 Chr 5:1; see Gen 35:22; 49:3–4). The ruler would come from Judah (Gen 49:8–12), but the birthright and the blessing (LXX) would belong to Joseph (Gen 49:22–26; 1 Chr 5:2).

Genesis 49:8–12 Jacob’s poetic words of blessing to Judah are so fraught with intertextual links that it is not possible to list only a handful of passages. The passage itself is an interpretation of preceding material in the patriarchal narratives. It is then cited elsewhere both inside and outside the Pentateuch. In Gen 49:1, Jacob summons his sons to tell them what will happen “at the end of the days” (cf.,



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

47

Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29). His words look back to the preceding stories, but they do so in order to look forward to the future work of God. In typical prophetic fashion, the past is recast as an image of the future. It is clear from the amount of material devoted to the twelve sons that Judah and Joseph are the two most important in Jacob’s blessing (Gen 49:8–12, 22–26). This too is anticipated in the Joseph narratives (Gen 37:26; 38; 43:3–5, 8–10; 44:16, 18–34). Jacob’s address begins by showing from the Genesis narratives why the kingship will not come from his first three sons. Reuben defiled his father’s bed (Gen 35:22; 49:3–4; Deut 33:6). Simeon and Levi slaughtered the men of Shechem (Gen 34; 49:5–7). Therefore, it is to Judah that the brothers will bow (Gen 49:8). Here it becomes evident that in the preceding story Joseph is a prefiguration of this Judean king (Gen 27:29; 37:8, 10; 42:6, 9). The comparison of Judah to a lion (Gen 49:9) has a number of echoes throughout Scripture (Num 24:9; Deut 33:20; Ezek 19; Rev 5:5). Perhaps the clearest of these is the citation of Gen 49:9b in Num 24:9a. Balaam’s poetic interpretation of the preceding narrative is also eschatological (Num 24:14). The Deut 33:20 text from Moses’ blessing of the twelve tribes (Deut 33:1; cf., Gen 49:28b) is not about Gad but “the one who enlarges Gad” and who is “like a lion.” Ezekiel 19 shows how the sons of Josiah failed to meet the standard of the lion king. The Revelation text describes Jesus as “the lion from the tribe of Judah.” In a recent Journal of Biblical Literature article, Richard Steiner has demonstrated the presence of four inner-biblical interpretations of Gen 49:10 following four different yet legitimate understandings of the syntax and semantics of the verse.54 According to Steiner, “Ancient and medieval interpreters of the verse took d(a as equivalent to English (1) ‘ever’ (in the phrase ‘not ever’), (2) ‘forever’ (in the phrase ‘not forever’), (3) ‘until’ (indicating a point of cessation), and/or (4) ‘until (not to mention after)’ (indicating a point of culmination).” The inner-biblical versions of these interpretations occur in four prophecies that correspond to the rise (Nathan), decline (Ahijah), fall (Ezekiel), and renewal (Zechariah) of the Davidic dynasty. In the words of the covenant with David spoken through the prophet Nathan, YHWH says, “And my covenant loyalty will not depart from him (ydsxw wnmm rwsy )l)” (2 Sam 7:15a). Here is a clear echo of Gen 49:10a1: “A scepter will not depart from Judah (hdwhym +b# rwsy )l).” But 2 Sam 7:14b also takes the word +b# (“scepter”) in the sense of a rod of discipline: “If he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with a rod (+b#) of men and with blows of sons

48

the text in the middle

of men” (cf., Pss 89:29–34; 132:12; 1 Chr 17:13). The text of 2 Sam 7:16 then understands d( in Gen 49:10b to mean “ever” (“A scepter will not depart from Judah…ever”): “And your house will endure and your kingdom until eternity (Mlw( d() before you. Your throne will be established until eternity (Mlw( d()” (cf., 1 Chr 17:14). In his prophecy to Jeroboam, Ahijah indicates that YHWH will build an “enduring house” (Nm)n tyb) for him just as he had done for David if he will only obey what YHWH commands (1 Kgs 11:38; cf., 2 Sam 7:14, 16). YHWH says, “And I will afflict the seed of David because of this, but not all of the days (Mymyh lk )l K) t)z N(ml dwd (rz t) hn()w)” (1 Kgs 11:39). In other words, there will be a kind of departure of the kingdom of David, but this departure will not last forever (“A scepter will not depart from Judah… forever [d(]”). According to Steiner, Ezek 21:32b interprets d( in Gen 49:10 to mean “until” in the sense of cessation rather than culmination: “Also this will not happen until the one to whom the judgment belongs comes (+p#mh wl r#) )b d(), and I will give it.” This reading understands the debated hly# in Gen 49:10b to mean “to whom tribute belongs”: “until the one to whom tribute belongs comes (hly# )by yk d(), and to him will be obedience of peoples.” In context Steiner takes Ezek 21:32b to refer to Nebuchadnezzar who brings the Davidic dynasty to its end. His reading assumes that the demonstrative t)z (“this,” fem.) refers either to the “ruin” (hw() or to the general situation of the removal of the crown (Ezek 21:31). It is also possible that t)z refers to hr+( (“crown,” fem.) in Ezek 21:31. The sense would then be that there will be no crown (i.e., no king) until the rightful king arrives. This is attractive because the present king in Ezek 21:30 is the “prince” ()y#n). His ultimate replacement according to Ezek 34:23–24 is the messianic “prince.” According to this reading of Gen 49:10b, hly# means “to whom it (i.e., the kingship) belongs” (cf., Tg. Onk.). The “obedience of peoples,” not just Israel, will be his (Gen 27:29; Isa 11:10; 42:6; 49:6; 55:4; Dan 7:14). Such an understanding of Ezek 21:32b fits well with Steiner’s observation later in the article about the similarities between Ezek 21:32 and Zech 9:9, even suggesting that Zechariah might be dependent upon Ezekiel.55 Zechariah 9:9–10 reads Gen 49:10–11a messianically either in response to Ezek 21:32 or in continuity with it (cf., Zeph 3:14–15; Zech 2:14; 10:11b): “Look, your king is coming to you (Kl )wby Kklm hnh), he is righteous and delivered, afflicted and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, a foal of female donkeys



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

49

(twnt) Nb ry( l(w)” (Zech 9:9a2–b). According to this reading of Gen 49:10b, d( means “until” in the sense of culmination: “until the one to whom it belongs comes” (cf., Ps 110:1; 4Q252). Steiner also points out the combination of the wording of Zech 9:9b and Gen 49:11a (“binding his colt to the vine, and to the choice vine the foal of his female donkey” [wnt) ynb hqr#lw hry( Npgl yrs)]) in Matt 21:1–11 (cf., 1 Kgs 1:33). Isaiah 63:1–6 is another passage that makes a clear decision between two viable interpretive options in Jacob’s address to Judah. According to Gen 49:11b, the Judean king “washes his clothing in wine and his vesture in blood from grapes (htws Mybn( Mdbw w#bl Nyyb sbk).” Does this mean that the abundance of his kingdom is such that he is able to use luxury items for menial tasks? Or is this a poetic image of the blood-stained garments of a warrior? The Isaiah passage opts for the latter interpretation: “Who is this who comes from Edom, red of garments from Bozrah” (Isa 63:1a1)? The second verse of this passage asks the pertinent question: “Why is your clothing (#wbl) red, and your garments like one who treads in a wine press?” The answer comes in verse three: “A wine press I tread alone, and from peoples there is no one with me; and I tread them in my anger and trample them in my wrath; and their juice [i.e., blood] spatters on my garments, and all my clothing I defile” (cf., Isa 63:5–6). This is the “day of vengeance” (Mqn Mwy) (cf., Isa 61:2). Isaiah 63 is the bridge between Genesis 49 and the book of Revelation. The text of Rev 14:19–20 refers to “the great winepress of God’s wrath,” which was trampled, and from which blood flowed. In Rev 19:13, the rider on the white horse has a garment stained with blood. He has the “scepter” (cf., Gen 49:10; Isa 11:4; Ps 2:9) and tramples the winepress of God’s wrath (Rev 19:15). Thus, the warrior-king in Gen 49:11 dismounts his animal and ties it to the grapevine and proceeds to trample the nearby winepress. This reading of Gen 49:11b might help to adjudicate between two plausible interpretations of Gen 49:12. It is possible to translate Gen 49:12, “Eyes darker than wine, and teeth whiter than milk.” But given the warrior imagery of Gen 49:11, it is likely better to translate, “Dull of eyes from wine, and white of teeth from milk.” In other words, this is an image of a victorious warrior who has enjoyed the spoils of battle (cf., Isa 53:12).

Genesis 50:25; Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32 At the end of the Joseph story Joseph instructs his brothers to bring up his bones with them when YHWH brings them up from Egypt to the land sworn

50

the text in the middle

to the patriarchs (Gen 50:24–25). The conclusion to the book of Joshua indicates that this was done and that the bones were buried in Shechem (Josh 24:32; cf., Gen 33:19; 48:22; Acts 7:16). The text of Exod 13:19 reveals how this transferral took place since Joseph’s brothers did not live to see the day of the exodus. The textual dependence here will be apparent from the verbal similarity. Mtl(hw Mkt) Myhl) dqpy dqp rm)l l)r#y ynb t) Pswy (b#yw

(some witnesses add Mkt)) hzm ytmc( And Joseph made the sons of Israel take an oath saying, “God will surely visit you, and you will bring up my bones from here (some witnesses add “with you”).” (Gen 50:25) rm)l l)r#y ynb t) (yb#h (b#h yk wm( Pswy twmc( t) h#m xqyw Mkt) hzm ytmc( t) Mtyl(hw Mkt) Myhl) dqpy dqp

And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he (SP: Joseph) had in fact made the sons of Israel take an oath saying, “God will surely visit you, and you will bring up my bones from here with you.” (Exod 13:19) …Mk#b wrbq Myrcmm l)r#y ynb wl(h r#) Pswy twmc( t)w And as for the bones of Joseph that the sons of Israel brought up from Egypt, they buried them in Shechem… (Josh 24:32)

It was Moses who took Joseph’s bones with him, not the actual brothers of Joseph. So how can Josh 24:32 say that the sons of Israel did this? This is a piece of textual exegesis that exploits two different uses of l)r#y ynb in the Pentateuch and beyond. Depending on the context, the phrase can refer to the literal children of Jacob, which is the way Joseph uses it in Gen 50:25 (cf., Gen 50:24), or it can refer to the descendants of Jacob, which is the way Josh 24:32 uses it. The sons of Israel, in the sense of the descendants of Jacob, were those who went up with Moses (see the use of the phrase, e.g., in Exod 14).

Notes 1. These psalms all have “Hallelujah” in their introduction or conclusion, or both. The traditional Passover Hallel includes Pss 113–118 (b. Pesah 117–118). “It was not until recent times that it gradually became recognized that the book of Psalms as we have it today is clearly the result of a very deliberate and nuanced process of compilation. As a result the individual psalm is placed in a broader context which often gives it an additional function and its import is not infrequently given a new accent” (Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical



2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

51

Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, trans. David E. Orton [Leiden: Deo, 2005], 318). For the New Testament authors, the book of Psalms is a prophetic book (1 Chr 25:1; Acts 2:30) and not simply a hymnbook. The Hebrew word hmkx (“wisdom”) is a grammatically feminine noun and thus requires feminine verbal forms and pronouns to agree with it (cf., sofi/a). See Lukas Bormann, “The Colossian Hymn, Wisdom, and Creation,” in Between Text and Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times, ed. Michaela Bauks, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 243–56. Israel is never God’s son in the book of Proverbs (cf., Exod 4:22). See Bruce K. Waltke, “Agur’s Apologia for Verbal, Plenary Inspiration: An Exegesis of Proverbs 30:1–6,” in The Challenge of Bible Translation, ed., Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 310–11. There may also be a clue in the use of the verb Ksn in Prov 8:23. The lexicons do not agree on the root classification and meaning of this verb, but according to BDB (651) it translates as “set, install” and occurs in only one other text—Ps 2:6—which speaks of the installation of God’s unidentified king. Other New Testament authors understand Psalm 2 to be messianic (Acts 4:25–26; 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). This translation of Neofiti follows the text of the manuscript the way it currently stands. For an explanation of the erasure in the manuscript see Michael B. Shepherd, “Targums,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2d ed., ed. Joel B. Green (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2013), 933. The erasure is likely a correction of a secondary insertion based on scribal style elsewhere in the manuscript (see Robert R. Cargill, “The Rule of Creative Completion: Neofiti’s Use of llk#,” AS 10 [2012]: 173–91). Between the loss of the tree of life (Gen 3:24) and its return (Rev 22:2) the only access to the tree is the Torah/wisdom (Deut 4:6; Prov 3:18). The absence of the article in the phrase “tree of life” (Prov 3:18) is inconsequential due to the fact that the use of the article is statistically less in poetry than in prose. The variant reading “sixth day” (LXX, SP, Syr.) apparently arose because of the difficulty of explaining how God could have finished his work and rested on the same day. Michael B. Shepherd, The Textual World of the Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 97–98. See Num 3:7, 8; 8:26; 18:7; Deut 11:16; 12:30; 13:5; Josh 22:5 1 Kgs 9:6; Jer 16:11; Hos 12:13; Mal 3:14. The basis of the Sabbath law in Deut 5:15 appears the be the exodus rather than the creation account. Both stories feature the division of water. It is possible then to read this rationale in one of two ways. Either the Israelites were to remember from where they came (i.e., servitude in Egypt) when they gave their servants rest, or they were to give their servants rest because they remembered from where they came. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974), 417. F. F. Bruce agrees that the rest began on the seventh day, but he does not seem to understand that this rest for humans was subsequently lost and in need of restoration (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 105–110). Bruce also creates an unnecessary and false dichotomy between what he calls the physical rest in the Garden

52

1 2. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1 9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2 5. 26. 27. 28. 2 9. 30.

the text in the middle and the spiritual rest that the writer to the Hebrews has in mind. This leaves Bruce to wonder exactly what kind of rest is still to come according to Heb 4:9. The fact is that the rest in the Garden included spiritual fellowship with God. Furthermore, the kind of rest that the writer to the Hebrews has in mind is not void of physical reality. The saints will reign with Christ in a real place (Isa 65:17–18; 66:22; Dan 7:13–14, 27; Rev 5:9–10; 21:1–22:5). This is also the role of Satan in Matt 4:6; Luke 4:9–11. It would be a mistake to read all of the ancient Near Eastern mythology about the serpent in the sea into this passage. The biblical authors use the rich storehouse of terminology and imagery from their neighbors for their own purposes. The defeat of the sea monster, which outside of biblical literature represents the defeat of chaos in creation (e.g., Enuma Elish; cf., Ps 74:13–17), is sometimes a metaphor for the defeat of an historical enemy like Egypt (e.g., Isa 30:7; 51:9–11; Ezek 29:3; Ps 87:4). In Isa 27:1, it is a metaphor for the defeat of the final enemy (Ezek 38–39) based on Genesis 3 (cf., Job 26:12–13). See Richard L. Schultz, Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 240–56. See I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1999), 469. John Calvin, Genesis, vol. 1, Calvin’s Commentaries (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 203–204. See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 114–15. See Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 297–301. This was also Rashi’s view. See the helpful analysis in Benjamin J. Noonan, “Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations,” HS 51 (2010): 73–93. BHS suggests that “and in your seed” has been added (cf., Syr. Gen 12:3). See Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 82. The hithpael of Krb in Deut 29:18 probably has a reflexive sense. The occurrence in Isa 65:16 can be read as passive or reflexive. See John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), 473–510. See Shaul Bar, “Who Were the ‘Mixed Multitude’?” HS 49 (2008): 27–39. There was also a more fundamental concern to avoid the influence of idolatry and foreign worship (Deut 7:3–4; Ezra 9–10; Neh 13:23–27). See the list in John H. Sailhamer, Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 309–311. 1 Chronicles 17:10 has hnby instead of h#(y. See Lawrence Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: the History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 317–28. The statement in Gen 15:1b should be rendered, “I am your shield, your very great reward,” (cf., NIV) rather than, “I am your shield. Your reward will be very great” (cf.,



31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38. 39.

citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

53

NRSV). The phrase d)m hbrh (“very great”) is never the predicate of a nominal clause in biblical Hebrew. See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and ed. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 89–100. Nearly a third (19/60) of all occurrences of Ngm in the Hebrew Bible appear in the book of Psalms—more than any other biblical book. Only Ps 76:4 is a strictly non-metaphorical and non-theological use. Psalm 35:2 calls on YHWH to take a shield and help. Psalm 47:10 is possibly an allusion to Gen 15:1. The occurrence of “shield” in Ps 84:10 is a term for the anointed king according to the MT (cf., Ps 89:19), but in the LXX it is vocative and refers to God. See Michael B. Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2011), 47–54; The Textual World of the Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 63, 72–73. “With Wenham, it is granted that Paul did not set himself in contrast to Jesus but operated in essential continuity with him. It is less certain that it best served Paul’s purposes in proclaiming the gospel to do so by alluding to or echoing Jesus’ teaching. For during Paul’s ministry, Jesus’ identity as the OT-promised Messiah still had to be demonstrated. This could be accomplished not by quoting Jesus’ words but by furnishing proof that the events in Jesus’ life, especially his crucifixion and resurrection, fit the pattern laid out in the OT. Thus the OT, not Jesus, was Paul’s primary theological source” (Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Diversity and Unity in the New Testament,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002], 145–46). The imperatives in this verse are plural. Therefore, it is not entirely clear to whom God would be speaking here if he were in fact the speaker, unless he is addressing Habakkuk as the representative of the people. It is more likely that this is a general address from the author to the readers. The following verse then clarifies in God’s own words that the work of which the author speaks is indeed a divine work. Furthermore, the Septuagint probably preserves the original text in its conflated reading of Hab 1:6: “the Chaldeans, the warriors.” The original text had “the warriors” to which a scribe added an historical referent: “the Chaldeans.” It is possible that the original referred to the Assyrians (see Jon, Mic, and Nah), but it is also possible that the original was intentionally vague in order to foreshadow the future work of God (see Hab 1:11 and Dan 11:36–39). The second of two volitional forms in sequence often indicates purpose or result (see E. F. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2d ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1910], 320, 322, 325). See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 492. “[I]n this particular context steadfastness can only mean the religious attitude of unshakeable trust, that is, faith” (Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967], 285); “[W]ithin the general context its value is to all intents and purposes that of our ‘faith’” (James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961], 173, n. 1). Moisés Silva contends that

54

the text in the middle

there is no dichotomy between faith and faithfulness in Habakkuk or Paul (Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001], 165–67). But it would be incorrect to say they are one and the same. 40. The inclusion in Hab 3:19b of the superscription to the following psalm from the collection of which Habakkuk was a part is a clue that the author intends this final poem to be eschatological. It is likely that the author does not understand it in the sense “For the director…” (xcn “to be preeminent”) but in the sense of ei0v to\ te/lov (“for the end”) (xcn “to endure”) as it is so often in the Septuagint of Psalms. 41. “And so here also K1xey#Oim. is the divinely-appointed king of Israel; not, however, this or that historical king—say Josiah, Jehoiakim, or even Jehoiachin—but the Davidic king absolutely, including the Messiah, in whom the sovereignty of David is raised to an eternal duration…” (C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 10 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001], 425). 42. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 46. 43. Simon J. Gathercole, “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,” in From Prophecy to Testament: the Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig A. Evans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 126–45. 44. Cf., John Calvin: “The hope of eternal life is, therefore, given to all who keep the Law; for those who expound the passage as referring to this earthly and transitory life are mistaken. The cause of this error was, because they feared that thus the righteousness of faith might be subverted, and salvation grounded on the merit of works. But Scripture therefore denies that men are justified by works, not because the Law itself is imperfect, or does not give instructions for perfect righteousness; but because the promise is made of none effect by our corruption and sin” (Harmony of the Pentateuch, trans. J. King [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989], 2:165; quoted in Moisés Silva, “Galatians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 803). See Romans 7. 45. See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 47–59. 46. See Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 168–71; Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch, 11–56. See also Deut 9:24; Jer 13:23; Rom 5:20. 47. See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 66–71. 48. The pronominal suffixes “my” (yodh) and “his” (waw) are very similar and easy to confuse in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. 49. See John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 4, trans. James Anderson, Calvin’s Commentaries (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 232–33; Franz Delitzsch, Psalms, trans. Francis Bolton, Keil & Delitzsch 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 671. 50. Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, trans. David E. Orton (Leiden: Deo, 2005), 27. 51. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 440–41.



citation from the pentateuch (genesis)

55

52. This stood in stark contrast to the Rechabites who were notorious for their faithfulness to their ancestral traditions (Jer 35). 53. J. N. B. Carleton Paget, “Christian Exegesis in the Alexandrian Tradition,” in Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), pt. 1, Antiquity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 512. 54. Richard C. Steiner, “Four Inner-Biblical Interpretations of Genesis 49:10: On the Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguities of d(a as Reflected in the Prophecies of Nathan, Ahijah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,” JBL 132 (2013): 33–60. 55. In a personal email correspondence, Dr. Steiner indicated to me that he initially understood the Ezekiel text messianically, but he finally decided that this did not fit the context.

·2· citation from the pentateuch

( exodus – deuteronomy )

Exodus 3:14; Hosea 1:9; Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5 It is now generally recognized by Old Testament scholars that Exod 3:14 is not a statement of aseity (self-existence), a view still perpetuated in works of systematic theology.1 Picking up on the statement in Exod 3:12—Km( hyh) (“I will be with you”)—God says to Moses, “I am the one who will be with you (hyh) r#) hyh)).” The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one who is present with his people to make himself known and recognized through acts of judgment and deliverance. This interpretation bears itself out in the narrative (Exod 5:2; 6:3; 7:1–5; 9:14–16) and in the recognition formulae of Leviticus 17–27 and the book of Ezekiel (e.g., Lev 18:30; Ezek 6:7). Because the ordinary spelling of God’s name is the third person hwhy (“he will be with you”) rather than the first person hyh) of Exod 3:14, any use of the first person form of the name is likely a reference to Exod 3:14. In fact, there is only one example of the first person form in the Hebrew Bible. In the naming of Hosea’s third child ym( )l (“not my people”), God says, “You are not my people, and I am not hyh) to you” (Hos 1:9). The covenant relationship

58

the text in the middle

with Israel is broken, but in the future YHWH will again be Israel’s God (Hos 2:25). The word hyh) in Hos 1:9 is not a verb but a name. In order to make this clear to the reader, it is perhaps best to bring out the reference to Exod 3:14 in translation by means of quotation marks: “You are not my people, and I am not ‘I will be with you’ (or, ‘’HYH’) to you.” This method of citation in Hos 1:9 sets the precedent for the quotation of Exod 3:14 in Rev 1:4: “Grace to you and peace from the one who is (a)po\ o9 w@n)….” There are those who would charge John here with a grammatical error in the Greek text. The preposition a)po, goes with the genitive (or, ablative) case (a)po\ tou= o!ntov), not the nominative. But those who are familiar with Hos 1:9 understand that this is an intentional way of setting apart the reference to Exod 3:14: “Grace to you and peace from ‘the one who is’….”

Exodus 12:8–9; Deuteronomy 16:7; 2 Chronicles 35:13 According to Exod 12:8–9, the Israelites were to eat the meat of the very first Passover meal “roasted of fire” (#) ylc) and not raw or “boiled in water” (l#b Mymb l#bm). But according to Deut 16:7, the instruction was to boil (l#b) it and eat it at the place chosen by YHWH. The text of 2 Chr 35:13 then appears to conflate the two when it says in the context of Josiah’s Passover festival that they boiled the Passover lamb in fire according to the custom (#)b xsph wl#byw +p#mk). Fishbane says that Exodus and Deuteronomy are simply in contradiction to one another and that 2 Chronicles is an unsuccessful attempt to bring the two together.2 He considers the expression “boiled in fire” to be absurd. But such a reading is somewhat superficial. Exodus and Deuteronomy describe two different settings. The first is the original Passover. The second is the subsequent celebration of the Passover festival at the chosen sanctuary. There are certain elements that belong to the former that do not belong to the latter. For example, the original Passover had to be eaten in haste with loins girded, sandals on, and staff in hand (Exod 12:11). This was precisely because the people were about to leave Egypt. This would not be the case at subsequent celebrations in the land of the covenant. Any attempt to do so would be in commemoration and not out of necessity. Likewise, Deut 16:7 indicates that the meat of the Passover meal would be prepared differently in the future. The Chronicles text does not say that they boiled the meat and roasted it, which is what a true conflation would look like. Rather, it is a perfectly intelligible way of saying that they boiled the water over the fire and cooked the meat in that water.



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

59

Exodus 13:2, 13; Leviticus 18:21; Numbers 3:13, 41; 8:16–17; 18:15–16; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3; 17:17, 31; 21:6 (2 Chr 33:6); 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Ezekiel 16:21; 20:26, 31; 23:37; Nehemiah 10:373 The Pentateuch forbids child sacrifice whether to YHWH or to any other so-called god (Lev 18:21; Deut 12:31; 18:10; cf., Gen 22). The book of Kings condemns Israel’s tendency to follow their Canaanite neighbors in this practice (2 Kgs 16:3; 17:17, 31; 21:6 [2 Chr 33:6]; 23:10), and the book of Ezekiel follows suit (Ezek 16:21; 20:26, 31; 23:37). But the references to child sacrifice in the book of Jeremiah all include a clause that suggests the Israelites thought that they were in obedience to the divine law: And they built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not enter my mind (Jer 7:31). And they built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire, burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, and it did not enter my mind (Jer 19:5). And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of Ben Hinnom, to pass their sons and their daughters through to Molech, which I did not command them, and it did not enter my mind to do this abomination in order to cause Judah to sin (Jer 32:35).

Why does YHWH in each case insist that this was not something that he had commanded? Would it not have been because the people had claimed that their religious practices, including their syncretism, were in accordance with the Mosaic law (e.g., Jer 7:1–28)? It is possible that the current placement of the law in Exod 13:2 provides a clue to the ancient misunderstanding. As it stands, the law in Exod 13:2 instructs the people to set apart the firstborn of humans and animals to YHWH without qualification (cf., Neh 10:37). It is only much later in the chapter and in the Pentateuch that the reader learns of the redemption of the firstborn (Exod 13:13; Num 18:15–16). It is also later in the Pentateuch that the reader learns how the tribe of Levi will take the place of the firstborn (Num 3:12–13, 41; 8:16–17). It seems likely then that the people understood the law in Exod 13:2 in isolation and apart from its present context and thus found warrant for the practice of child sacrifice.

60

the text in the middle

Exodus 13:9, 16; Deuteronomy 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Joshua 1:8; Jeremiah 31:33; Proverbs 3:3 When Moses gives the instruction for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Exod 13:6–7, he tells his audience to pass the instruction on to future generations with the explanation that this was due to what YHWH did in the exodus (Exod 13:8). Furthermore, this was to be a sign on their hand and a remembrance between their eyes in order that the Torah of YHWH might be in their mouth (Exod 13:9). It is not clear yet what this means. How exactly would the instruction become a sign and a remembrance? The text of Exod 13:16 offers a clue when it replaces the word for remembrance with the word for bands or frontlets (tp+w+). That is, the instruction was not merely to be an oral tradition passed down by memory. It had to take the form of written Scripture in order to safeguard its accurate preservation. The bands were a step in this direction. Later Jewish use of phylacteries was thus not far from the spirit of the law.4 Deuteronomy provides the reader with the author’s own commentary on the law (Deut 1:5).5 Moses says in the context of the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) that his words are to be on the people’s hearts (Deut 6:6). Not only are they to teach these words to their children (Deut 6:7), but also they are to bind them as a sign on their hands and as bands between their eyes (Deut 6:8). They are also to write them on the doorposts of their homes and on their gates (Deut 6:9). This is more than internalization of the Torah. It is an explicit reference to writing. This is striking given what is known about literacy in ancient Israel. The average Israelite might have been able to produce a simple letter, but this text extends the ideal of the scribe to the general populace. The text of Deut 11:13–21 then takes Deut 6:4–9 and parses each section for the reader. Written Scripture will be the means by which future generations will learn the Torah (Deut 31:9–13; Ps 78:1–8). Deuteronomy is also interested in the internalization of the Torah by the work of God’s Spirit (Deut 29:3; 30:6; Jer 31:33; Ezek 11:19–20; Prov 3:3), but this must be in conjunction with the reading of the Torah in the mouth and in the ears of the people (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Neh 8:8). There is no dichotomy in Deuteronomy between the word and the Spirit.

Exodus 14:21–22; Joshua 3:17; 4:23; 2 Kings 2:8, 14 The new exodus theme surfaces repeatedly in the Prophets (e.g., Isa 11:16; 43:16–21; Jer 23:7–8; Hos 2:16–17), but the reuse of exodus imagery in



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

61

narrative depiction of events figures most prominently in the stories of Joshua and Elijah (and Elisha).6 In the book of Joshua, Joshua is the new Moses (Josh 1:17; 3:7; 4:14), often retracing the footsteps of his predecessor (e.g., Exod 3:5; Josh 5:15). Elijah (and Elisha) too is in many ways a prophet like Moses (e.g., 1 Kgs 19). Note the verbal similarities in the three accounts of passage through a body of water on dry ground: Exod 14:21–22

Josh 3:13, 17

2 Kgs 2:8, 14

And Moses stretched out “As soon as the soles And Elijah took his mantle his hand over the sea, and of the feet of the and folded it and struck the YHWH caused the sea to priests who are waters, and they were go with a strong east wind carrying the ark of divided here and there. And all night. And he made the YHWH, the Lord of the two of them passed sea into the dry place, and all the earth, rest in through the dry place. the waters were split apart. the waters of the And the sons of Israel Jordan, the waters of And he took the mantle of entered the midst of the sea the Jordan will be cut Elijah that fell from upon on the dry ground, and the off, the waters that him and he struck the water. waters were to them a wall are coming down And he said, “Where is on their right and on their from above. And YHWH, the God of Elijah?” left. they will stand like Also he struck the waters, a heap.” and they were divided here and there. And Elisha And the priests who crossed. were carrying the ark of the covenant of YHWH stood in the dry place in the midst of the Jordan firmly. And all those of Israel were passing through the dry place until the whole nation finished crossing the Jordan.

In the Joshua text the feet of the priests carrying the ark take the place of Moses’ outstretched hand. The waters of the Jordan are “cut off” rather than “split apart” like the Sea of Reeds. There is no reference to a “strong east wind” or the breath of YHWH’s nostrils (Exod 15:8a1). But when the Joshua text says that the waters will stand like a “heap” (dn), it follows the poetic interpretation of Exod 14:21–22 found in Exod 15:8a2: “Flowing

62

the text in the middle

streams stood like a heap (dn).” The Joshua text does not use the image of the waters standing like a “city wall” (hmx). Both the Exodus account and the Joshua account say that the sons of Israel passed through a “dry place” (hbrx). Elijah’s mantle takes the place of Moses’ outstretched hand in the Kings account. The striking of the waters with the mantle is reminiscent of Moses’ use of his staff to strike objects elsewhere in the Exodus narrative (Exod 7:20; 8:12–13; 17:5–6). According to Exod 14:16, YHWH does tell Moses to take his staff, but there is no instruction to strike the waters (cf., Exod 9:23; 10:13; Num 20:8–9). The waters of the Jordan are divided much like those of the Sea of Reeds, and Elijah and Elisha also pass through a “dry place” (hbrx). Elisha then follows in the footsteps of his master, becoming the new Elijah (cf., 1 Kgs 17; 2 Kgs 4:1–37). He too ()wh P)) strikes the waters of the Jordan with Elijah’s mantle. The waters divide, and he passes through them. The key word that the accounts in Joshua and Kings have in common is rb( (“pass through” or “cross over”). The Exodus account says they “entered” ()wb) and “went” (Klh).

Exodus 15:2a; Isaiah 12:2b; Psalm 118:14 The verbal similarity of these next three verses from Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings is not really in doubt, but it remains to be seen how close their contexts are and what kind of interrelationship they have. h(w#yl yl yhyw hy trmzw yz(

My strength and song is Yah, and he has become my salvation (Exod 15:2a) h(w#yl yl yhyw hwhy hy trmzw yz( yk

For my strength and song is Yah, YHWH, and he has become my salvation (Isa 12:2b) h(w#yl yl yhyw hy trmzw yz(

My strength and song is Yah, and he has become my salvation (Ps 118:14)

The texts of Exod 15:2a and Ps 118:14 are identical. Isaiah 12:2b adds the conjunction yk at the beginning and the name hwhy in the middle. The Exod 15:2a text stands at the beginning of the song that Moses and the sons of Israel sang after the exodus from Egypt (Exod 14). The Isaiah 12:2b text stands at the beginning of a hymn that celebrates the hope of a new exodus (Isa 11:16). Psalm 118 is related to the latter in that it looks forward to the triumphal



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

63

entry of a messianic king who will lead a kind of new exodus for the people of God (Ps 118:15–16 [cf., Num 23:22; 24:7–9, 17–18], 22–26 [Matt 21:1–17, 33–46; 23:39; Mark 11:1–11; 12:1–12; Luke 13:35; 19:28–40; 20:9–19; John 12:12–16]). Shemaryahu Talmon has distinguished seven stages in the textual transmission of this verse.7 He does not include Ps 118:14 in his analysis. 1QIsaa p.m. The Vorlage of 1QIsaa s.m. The original SP text, Exod 15:2 The present SP MT of Exod 15:2 MT Isa 12:2 (doublet)

h(w#yl yl )hyh hwhy ytrmzw yz¿wÀ(

1QIsaa p.m. (doublet)

h(w#yl yl )hyh hwhy h ytrmzw yz(w)(

h(w#yl yl )hyh h ytrmzw yz(w)( h(w#yl yl yhyw y ytrmzw yz( h(w#yl yl yhyw ytrmzw yz( h(w#yl yl yhyw hy trmzw yz( h(w#yl yl yhyw hwhy hy ytrmzw yz(

Talmon sees the first two stages in textual witnesses to Isaiah, even though Exodus 15 has the more archaic poem on which the hymn in Isaiah 12 appears to be dependent for its conception of a new exodus. For Talmon, the name hwhy was originally written in full and then subsequently abbreviated as h, y, or hy. It was then felt at a later time that a marginal gloss was necessary to explain the abbreviations lest they be mistaken for something like the first common singular pronominal suffix (e.g., Jer 6:11 MT and LXX). But then the gloss was sometimes included as part of the text itself, creating a double reading. But what if the original version of this text is to be found in the transmission of Exodus 15? And what if the divine name in this text was originally abbreviated and only later written in full? In this case the process might have started with the original text of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) for Exod 15:2 (see also pc Mss MT).8 The present text of the SP is the result of haplography, leaving out the divine name altogether. The MT of Exod 15:2 restores an abbreviated divine name from the y at the end of ytrmz, but this leaves trmz without a pronominal suffix. The doublets in the MT of Isa 12:2 (2 Mss) and 1QIsaa p.m. are the result of attempts to restore this pronominal suffix and to explain the abbreviated forms of the divine name. It is possible that the use of the suffixed conjugation for the verb of being ()hyh) in 1QIsaa is a secondary development based on the fact that there are no other wayyiqtol forms in Isaiah 12. 1QIsaa p.m. and the Vorlage of 1QIsaa s.m. are efforts to restore a singular reading of the divine name, one in full form and the other in abbreviated form. The text of Ps 118:14, which Talmon does not mention, was transmitted in two forms. One is identical to that of the MT of Exod 15:2. The other is

64

the text in the middle

close to the original text of the SP and is identical to a few manuscripts of the MT when it includes the pronominal suffix on ytrmz. Since all of the witnesses to Isa 12:2 have ytrmz, it is possible that Ps 118:14 originally followed something like the MT of Exod 15:2 and was then adjusted on the basis of a witness to Isa 12:2. The Isaiah passage would then be the text in the middle.

Exodus 16; Numbers 11; Joel 3:1–5; Nehemiah 9; John 6; Acts 2; 7; Rom 7:69 Three questions emerge with the New Testament quotations from Joel 3:1–5 (Eng., 2:28–32). First, does Peter’s citation of this passage in Acts 2:17–21 indicate that Pentecost was an exhaustive fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy? Second, is the salvation of which Paul speaks in Rom 10:13 the same as that of which Joel speaks in Joel 3:5 (Eng., 2:32)? Third, if Peter assumes that the Spirit of Joel 3:1–5 (Eng., 2:28–32) is the same Spirit of Pentecost, what is the connection between Pentecost and the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible?10 In response to the first question, Luke’s placement of Peter’s speech in Acts 3:11–26 is decisive. There Peter says that “times of refreshing” are still yet to come from the Lord. Thus, while Pentecost was in some sense a fulfillment of the Joel passage, the ultimate Day of the LORD remains for the future. In response to the second question, there is no reason to think that salvation in Paul is different from salvation in Joel unless the reader creates a false dichotomy between physical deliverance and spiritual deliverance. Salvation in Joel and Paul is holistic. This is why the doctrine of a real, bodily resurrection is so central to biblical faith. In response to the third question, the Spirit is no stranger to the Book of the Twelve (e.g., Mic 2:7; 3:8; Hag 2:5; Zech 4:6; 6:8; 7:12; 12:10), but an adequate response here will require a more extensive discussion of the Spirit in the composition of the Hebrew Bible.11 James VanderKam argues in a 2004 essay that Jewish traditions about the Festival of Weeks exerted a great influence on Luke’s Pentecost account in Acts 2.12 In particular, VanderKam points out the remembrance of the Sinai covenant on this date (Exod 19:1–2), the use of Sinai imagery, and the contrast in early Christian Pentecost tradition between the gift of the law and the gift of the Spirit. VanderKam suggests in conclusion that other texts, such as Num 11:26–30, may have contributed to the shape of the narrative in the book of Acts. It seems that VanderKam and others have done well to lay the groundwork for further investigation into the role of the Festival of Weeks in Jewish and Christian tradition. His study also invites research into other possible Hebrew



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

65

Bible antecedents of this relationship between the two gifts. The following discussion explores the parallel narratives of the Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 and compares them to the structure of Neh 9:6–31, which is in large part a reading of the Pentateuch. These texts appear to anticipate in some way the contrast between the law and the Spirit in the New Testament. Parallel Narratives: Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 The final composition of the Pentateuch features an arrangement of parallel narratives on opposite sides of the Sinai account, making Sinai the center of the structure:13 Manna, quail (Exod 16:4–34) 40 years (Exod 16:35) Water from rock (Exod 17:1–7) Joshua next leader (Exod 17:8–13) Battle with Amalek (Exod 17:14–16)

SINAI Manna, quail (Num 11:4–34) 40 years (Num 14:21–22) Water from rock (Num 20:1–12) Eleazar next priest (Num 20:23–29) Battle with Canaanites (Num 21:1–3)

This kind of parallel structuring encourages the reader to see the theology of the Pentateuch primarily in terms of a message about Sinai. It also invites the reader to interpret the narratives in light of their respective parallels. The narratives about the LORD’s provision of food and water in Exodus 16 and17 find well-known parallels in the wilderness stories of Numbers 11 and 20. According to the documentary hypothesis, Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 are respectively the P and JE versions of the manna/quail story. These two accounts differ not only in the way they tell the story but also in the way they conclude the story. Deuteronomy then offers yet another perspective that stresses the humility and dependence upon the LORD learned by the people (Deut 8:3).14 Both Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 begin with the grumbling of the people (Exod 16:2; Num 11:1). The Exodus 16 passage, however, pays much more attention to the provision of manna with only brief mention of the quail in Exod 16:13. Numbers 11, on the other hand, primarily has the quail in view and only speaks of the manna in Num 11:5–9. The purpose of the

66

the text in the middle

narrative in Exodus 16 is to set up the law of the Sabbath, the day on which the people were not to gather manna (Exod 16:23–30). But the Numbers 11 account features the LORD’s gift of the Spirit (Num 11:24–30) and concludes with judgment (Num 11:31–35). It is noteworthy that an encounter between Moses and the leaders immediately precedes the key moment in each passage. In Exod 16:22, just before Moses’ instruction about the Sabbath, the leaders of the congregation approach Moses and inform him that the people have gathered a double portion of food on the sixth day. It is as if the leaders expected Moses to rebuke the people for their disobedience of the command in Exod 16:16. Likewise in Num 11:27, a young man informs Moses that Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp. Joshua then requests that Moses restrain them (Num 11:28). But Moses responds with the hope that the LORD would give his Spirit to all the people. It appears that the replacement of the gift of the law (Sabbath) with the gift of the Spirit here is intentional, the Sabbath being the representative sign of the covenant of law (Exod 31:12–17). The point here is not that every story in which law is absent is automatically a story about the replacement of the law. Rather, this is an effort to appreciate the compositional function of the parallel narratives. It is possible to illustrate this in the following way: Murmuring (Exod 16:2) Quail (Exod 16:13) Manna (Exod 16:14–21) Moses and Leaders (Exod 16:22) SABBATH (Exod 16:23–30) Conclusion (Exod 16:31–36) Murmuring (Num 11:1) Manna (Num 11:5–9) Moses and Leaders (Num 11:28) SPIRIT (Num 11:29)

Quail (Num 11:31–35)

This observation requires further explanation of Num 11:24–30. In this passage Moses carries out the instruction of Num 11:16–17 to gather to himself seventy elders (cf., Exod 24:1) and take them to the tent of meeting. The LORD says he will take from the Spirit that is upon Moses and give it to the elders so that they can help Moses bear the burden of the people (cf., Exod 18). When he does this in Num 11:25, the elders begin to prophesy. It is true that the hithpael of the verb “prophesy” sometimes indicates ecstatic behavior (e.g., 1 Sam 10:10–13; 19:24), but John Levison has rightly noted that the



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

67

prophecy in this context is for purposes of leadership (cf., Num 12:6).15 Levison suggests that the use of the terms “rest” and “take” in Num 11:25 helps to define the nature of this prophecy more accurately (cf., Exod 24:11; Isa 11:2). The Spirit also rested on two men who remained in the camp—Eldad and Medad (Num 11:26). These two men then began to prophesy in the camp. The “Spirit” in this passage plays a very similar role to that of “the Spirit of God” elsewhere in the Pentateuch: Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:38) and Balaam’s prophecy (Num 24:2; cf., Gen 1:2; Exod 31:3; Dan 4:5, 15 [Eng., 4:8, 18]; 5:11, 14; Eph 5:18). Targum Neofiti offers an expansive commentary on Num 11:26 that brings the larger context of the Pentateuch to bear on its interpretation of the Hebrew: And two men were left in the camp. The name of one was Eldad, and the name of the second was Medad. And the Holy Spirit rested upon them. Eldad was prophesying and said, “Behold, quail came up from the sea and became a stumbling block to Israel.” And Medad was prophesying and said, “Behold, Moses the prophet is being taken away from the midst of the camp, and Joshua the son of Nun is serving in his leadership position after him.” And the two of them were prophesying as one and saying, “At the end of the days, Gog and Magog will come up to Jerusalem, and into the hands of King Messiah they will fall. And for seven years the sons of Israel will have fuel for a fire from the weapons so that they need not go out to the forest for wood.” And they were from the seventy wise men who were set apart. And the seventy wise men did not go out from the camp while Eldad and Medad were prophesying in the camp (author’s translation).

Neofiti presents Eldad and Medad as members of the seventy wise men (not elders). It also identifies the Spirit that rested upon them as the Holy Spirit (cf., Isa 63:10). Neofiti understands the prophecy of this passage to be verbal and not behavioral, providing individual prophecies and then a prophecy that the two men speak together. Eldad’s prophecy is more or less a summary of the quail story. Medad’s prophecy, on the other hand, looks forward to the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua. It interprets the extraction of the Spirit from Moses as the removal of Moses from the camp. This take on the transfer of leadership is quite insightful given the fact that the appointment of Joshua in Num 27:15–23 describes Joshua as one who has the Spirit within him (Num 27:18). Joshua, however, turns out not to be the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18) but a wise man. The reference to his appointment in Deut 34:9 identifies the Spirit within him as the Spirit of wisdom. Never again did a prophet arise in Israel like Moses (Deut 34:10).16

68

the text in the middle

The transfer of leadership is from the prophet-lawgiver to the Spirit-filled wise man. When Eldad and Medad prophesy together, their attention turns toward the eschatological and messianic future. The phrase “at the end of the days” ties their words to the major poetic texts of the Pentateuch (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 31:29).17 The title “King Messiah” occurs within these same poetic texts in the renderings of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti (Gen 49:1, 10–12; Num 23:21; 24:20, 24). Targum Onkelos names the Messiah as King in Gen 49:10 and Num 24:17. In other words, Targum Neofiti links the Spirit of prophecy in Num 11:26 with the prophetic outlook of the pentateuchal poems. Noteworthy of comparison here are key prophetic texts that employ the phrase “at the end of the days” (Isa 2:2; Jer 30:24; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Dan 2:28; 10:14) and speak of a future Davidic king (Hos 3:5). At first glance the reference to Gog and Magog looks like an attempt to bring the eschatology of Ezekiel 38–39 to bear on the prophecy of Eldad and Medad (cf., Ezek 39:9–10). But with such strong connections to the poems of the Pentateuch, it seems likely that the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of Num 24:7 is also in view: “A man will go out from his seed and rule over many nations, and his kingdom will be exalted higher than Gog, and his kingdom will be increased.” The Masoretic Text has historicized this verse with the name “Agag” (1 Sam 15) in place of “Gog.” According to William Horbury, the Septuagint of Num 24:7 not only adds messianic value to the text but also has the effect of combining the Pentateuch and the Prophets with the identification of the “man” as the victor over Ezekiel’s Gog.18 Nehemiah 9 The text of Nehemiah 8 and 9 comes at a critical moment in the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah. It follows the list of former returnees in Nehemiah 7 repeated from Ezra 2. After the first occurrence of the list in Ezra 2, the text indicates that the post-exilic community under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua began to reestablish the sacrificial cult (Ezra 3). Following the second occurrence in Nehemiah 7, chapters 8 and 9 reveal a new focus on the reading and interpretation of Scripture (Neh 8–9). Within this fundamental shift from the Temple setting to what would become the synagogue setting is a redefinition of the role of the priest (Ezra) from that of a cultic functionary to that of a teacher of Scripture (Ezra 7:6, 10; cf., Deut 33:10). This is not to say that Ezra had no interest in the priestly law. It is simply to point out that



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

69

the scope of Ezra’s reading in Nehemiah 8–9 is much larger than any law code. His reading begins with the creation account and runs through the narrative of the Pentateuch (Neh 9:6–31). Such a shift away from the law proper is also manifest in the structure of Nehemiah 9:6–31, only to see a return to the law and the failure of the people to keep it in Nehemiah 10–13. Nehemiah 9 is one of several summaries of biblical history in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:1–15; Ezek 20; Pss 78, 105, 106, 136; cf., Acts 7:1–53; 13:16–41; Heb 11). These do not merely rehearse the history of ancient Israel. They provide interpretations of the biblical texts on which they depend. It is worth noting that the one common element in all of these summaries is the exodus and not the law. In fact, the positive reference to the law in Neh 9:13–14 is an exception to the generally silent or negative treatment of the law elsewhere. In his commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah, H. G. M. Williamson laments the fact that other commentators have not recognized the structure of Neh 9:12–21.19 This is the section on the wilderness that follows creation (Neh 9:6), the patriarchs (Neh 9:7–8), and the exodus (Neh 9:9–11). While in general agreement with Williamson, the present study has identified a slightly different set of parallels extending from verse 12 through verse 31 as follows: Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire (Neh 9:12) Gift of the Law (Neh 9:13–14) Bread and Water (Neh 9:15a) Land Possession (Neh 9:15b) Rebellion (Neh 9:16–18) Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire (Neh 9:19) Gift of the Spirit (Neh 9:20a) Bread and Water (Neh 9:20b) Land Possession (Neh 9:24) Rebellion (Neh 9:26–31)

Williamson comments that Neh 9:15b does not find recapitulation in the parallel, but this is only because he does not extend the unit further to Neh 9:24. He also suggests that the gift of the law (Neh 9:13–14) finds recapitulation in Neh 9:20a by means of the infinitive “to make them wise,” which elsewhere according to Williamson refers to study and practice of the law (Josh 1:8). But this suggestion is questionable given the use of the copulative at the beginning of Josh 1:8 in the Septuagint, which appears to make a distinction between the law proper in Josh 1:7 and the book of the law (the Torah or Pentateuch) in Josh 1:8. The structure as a whole sets up a contrast between the

70

the text in the middle

rebelliousness of the people and the faithfulness of God (cf., Ezek 20; Ps 78; Acts 7). It points to the pattern of law added because of transgression in the Pentateuch with particular reference to the golden calf episode of Exodus 32. The rebellion in the first sequence of Neh 9:12–18 is specifically a rebellion against the law: “they did not obey your commands” (Neh 9:16b). This is also a part of the rebellion in the parallel sequence (Neh 9:26, 29), but this time the rebellion extends to a rejection of the Spirit and the prophets (Neh 9:30). Similar evaluations of the people appear elsewhere in the reflections on the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:13–14) and southern kingdom (Jer 25:4), the exilic and post-exilic prayers of Dan 9:10 and Ezra 9:10, and in the first-century speech of Stephen (Acts 7:51–53) with reference to the people of his own day. But the real interchange in the structure of Neh 9:6–31 is between the gift of the law (Neh 9:13–15) and the gift of the Spirit (Neh 9:20a). C. F. Keil for one saw Neh 9:20a not as a reference to Josh 1:8 but as a reference to Num 11:24–30.20 Following both gifts then is mention of bread from heaven or manna (Neh 9:15, 20b). This sequence in particular seems to be influential for John 6:22–71. In John 6:31, Jesus cites a biblical text that speaks of the bread from heaven that the fathers ate. Martinus Menken argues that the wording of Ps 78:24 fits the citation most closely, but the larger context of John 6 has more in common with Neh 9:20, which speaks of the Spirit.21 Jesus states that the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (John 6:33). He subsequently declares that he is the bread of life (John 6:35). But much later in the chapter Jesus teaches that the Spirit is the one who gives life (John 6:63). According to John’s Gospel, Jesus—who stands in the place of Moses and the law (John 1:17)—will return to the Father, but when he goes he will send the Spirit in his place (John 16:5–11). The evidence seems to suggest that a precedent of some sort exists within the Hebrew Bible itself for the New Testament view of the Spirit in relationship to the law, especially with regard to the account of Pentecost in Acts. These texts communicate this relationship in an implicit manner according to the narrative shape itself.22 Explicit statements that contrast the law and the Spirit appear in the writings of Paul: “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to that by which we were held, so that we serve in newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter” (Rom 7:6). According to Paul, the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit (Rom 8:4). Thus, in some way the



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

71

Spirit stands in the place of the law. In Paul’s view, Christians are ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of Spirit (2 Cor 3:6).

Exodus 16:33; Num 17:25; 1 Kings 8:9; Hebrews 9:4 The description of the ark of the covenant in Heb 9:4 is often translated something like what follows: “…the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which [e0n h[|] there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant” (NRSV). This rendering immediately runs into difficulties when compared with 1 Kgs 8:9: “There was nothing in the ark, only the two tablets of stone that Moses deposited there at Horeb, which YHWH cut with the sons of Israel when they departed from the land of Egypt.” Are these two texts in conflict, or is there a problem with the common rendering of Heb 9:4? It is possible that Heb 9:4 only describes the situation in the tabernacle, while 1 Kgs 8:9 relates a change during the time of Solomon’s temple, but this is not the only possibility. According to Exod 16:33—a text that anticipates the Sinai pericope (Exod 19–24)—Aaron was to “take a jar and put in it a full omer of Nm [“what?”] and deposit it before YHWH.” Verse 34 clarifies that “before YHWH” means “before the testimony,” since YHWH would meet with Moses above the ark, which housed the two tablets of the testimony (Exod 25:16, 22; 31:18; Deut 4:13). It does not say that the jar was to be put in the ark but “before the testimony,” which was in the ark. The most natural reading of this would seem to be that the jar was not to be in the ark itself. It was not “with” (M() the testimony in the ark but “before” (ynpl) the testimony outside of the ark (cf., Deut 31:26). As for Aaron’s rod, it too was to be “before the testimony” as “something to be preserved” (trm#m) (Num 17:25; cf., Exod 16:33). There is no clear indication that it was ever to be put inside the ark of the testimony. Therefore, the interpretation of these instructions reflected in 1 Kgs 8:9 must be deemed correct. Only the two stone tablets of the testimony were inside the ark. What then is to be done with Heb 9:4? The key phrase in the verse is the prepositional phrase e0n h[|‚ which the NRSV translates “in which.” According to the NRSV (and many other English translations), the ark of the covenant was the object “in which” the jar of manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets of the covenant were. But the rendering should probably be “with which.” The jar of manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets of the covenant were all “with” the ark in some way, but only the tablets were “in” the ark. The jar and the rod were

72

the text in the middle

only “before” the ark. It is the text of 1 Kgs 8:9 that forms the bridge between Exod 16:33; Num 17:25 and Heb 9:4.

Exodus 25–40; 1 Kings 6–8 (2 Chronicles 5–7); Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 40–48; Ezra 3; John 1:14; Hebrews 9; Revelation 15:8 The differences in arrangement between the instructions for the tabernacle in Exod 25–31 and the construction of the tabernacle in Exod 35–40 in the MT and the LXX are significant for textual criticism,23 but for the present purposes it is important to note the parallels between Exodus 25–40 and the preparation of the original sanctuary in Genesis 1–2. John Sailhamer has noted these similarities well: It is well known, for example, that the Creation account in Genesis is structured around a series of seven acts of creation. Each of these acts is marked by the divine speech, “And God said” (Ge 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26; cf. vv. 11, 28, 29). In the same way, the Torah’s instruction for the building of the tabernacle is divided into seven acts, each introduced by the divine speech, “And the LORD said” (Ex 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12). Thus the tabernacle is portrayed as a reconstruction of God’s good creation. Moreover, the Garden of Eden is described in ways similar to that of the tabernacles. For example, both contained pure gold (Ge 2:12a; Ex 25:3) and precious jewels (Gen 2:12b; Ex 25:7) and were guarded by cherubim (Ge 3:24; Ex 25:18). At the close of the Creation account in Genesis 2:1–3 was the reminder that God rested on the seventh day, the Sabbath. So also in the account of the building of the tabernacle, the last instruction is the reminder to observe the Lord’s Sabbath (Ex 31:12–18). Moreover, in the Genesis narrative, God concluded his last work with an inspection and evaluation of all he had done (“And God saw all he had made, and behold, it was very good,” Ge 1:31) and a blessing (1:28), just as in the description of the building of the tabernacle, when the work was completed, Moses inspected and evaluated all that was done (“And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it just as the LORD had commanded,” Ex 39:43a), and he blessed them (39:43b).24

The tabernacle becomes the model for Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 6–8), which then becomes the model for the Second Temple (Hag 1–2; Ezra 3) and the new temple (Exod 40–48), which represents the new Garden of Eden (Ezek 36:35). One of the threads that ties the descriptions of these sanctuaries together is the cloud that covers the sanctuary and the glory of YHWH that fills the sanctuary (Exod 40:34–35; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; Ezek 44:4). Isaiah experiences this in his vision of YHWH in the temple (Isa 6:4). The believer is even said to be a kind of sanctuary filled by the Holy Spirit (Gen 41:38; Exod 31:3; Dan



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

73

4:5–6, 15; 5:11, 14; 1 Cor 6:19; Eph 5:18). It is noteworthy that there is no appearance of YHWH’s glory at the completion of the Second Temple (Ezra 3–6). Already the focus on the Second Temple in Exra 3–6, which follows the list of returnees in Ezra 2, is displaced by the focus on the reading and interpretation of Scripture in Nehemiah 8–9, which follows the repetition of the list from Ezra 2 in Nehemiah 7. John’s Gospel speaks of Jesus’ incarnation in terms of YHWH’s original purpose for the tabernacle: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt/tented/ tabernacled [e0skh/nwsen] among us” (John 1:14a). YHWH says in Exod 29:45– 46, “And I will dwell in the midst of the sons of Israel, and I will be their God. And they will know that I am YHWH their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt to dwell in their midst. I am YHWH their God” (cf., Gen 9:27 Tg. Neof.; see also Rev 21:3). But the New Testament documents do not launch into full-fledged typology or allegory of the tabernacle or the temple. The author of Hebrews in particular expresses his restraint in this area—“…concerning which things it is not now to speak according to part” (Heb 9:5)—even though he acknowledges with Exod 25:40 the heavenly pattern on which the sanctuary is based (Heb 8:5). Instead, Rev 15:8 looks to the image of the temple filled with smoke from the glory of God in its depiction of the sanctuary in the last days (cf., Rev 21:22).

Exodus 17; Numbers 20; Psalm 95; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Hebrews 3–4 The exhortation in Hebrews 3–4 is based on an exposition of the second half of Psalm 95, which is an exposition of God’s provision of water from a rock in Exodus 17. It is evident from the specific wording of Psalm 95 that it is a reading of Exodus 17 and not the parallel account in Numbers 20. For example, Ps 95:9 refers to the fact that the forefathers “tested” (hsn) God at Meribah and Massa. This verb appears in Exod 17:2, 7, but it is not a feature of the account in Numbers 20. The place name Massa (“testing”) also does not appear in Numbers 20. It is remarkable then that the exposition of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3–4 appears not to have its basis in Exodus 17 but in the parallel found in Numbers 20. The key word in Hebrews 3–4 is “unbelief”: “Beware, brothers, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief (a0pisti/av) in turning away from the living God” (Heb 3:12). “And we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief (a)pisti/an)” (Heb 3:19). “But the word of hearing did not

74

the text in the middle

benefit those not joined by faith (pi/stei) to what was heard” (Heb 4:2b).25 “Therefore, since it is left for some to enter it, and those who formerly had the good news proclaimed did not enter because of unbelief (a)pei/qeian),…” (Heb 4:6).26 “Therefore, let us hasten to enter that rest, lest anyone fall in the same example of unbelief (a)peiqei/av)” (Heb 4:11). This key term “unbelief” does not come from Exodus 17 but from Num 20:12: “And YHWH said to Moses and to Aaron, ‘Because you did not believe in me to set me apart to the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore, you will not bring this assembly into the land that I have given to them.’” The reason given for the failure of Moses and Aaron to enter the land is unbelief (cf., Deut 1:37; 3:26; Ps 106:32).27 Thus, the writer to the Hebrews shows an appreciation for the compositional function of the parallel narratives on opposite sides of the Sinai account in the Pentateuch. In this case the primary (Exod 17), secondary (Ps 95), and tertiary (Heb 3–4) texts were offset by the influence of a fourth text (Num 20).28

Exodus 19:6a; Isaiah 61:6a; 66:21; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6 “And you will be to me a kingdom of priests (LXX: “royal priesthood”; Tg. Neof.: “kings and priests”) and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6a). “And you will be called the priests of YHWH, ‘the servants of our God’ will be said of you” (Isa 61:6a). “And also from them I will take for priests, for Levites (> LXXMs),’ says YHWH” (Isa 66:21). You are a “chosen race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,”…(1 Pet 2:9). and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and father…(Rev 1:6). and you made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and they will reign on the earth (Rev 5:10). but they will be priests of God and Christ and they will reign with him for a thousand years (Rev 20:6b).

The early versions understood the phrase “kingdom of priests” (Mynhk tklmm) in Exod 19:6a to mean not “a kingdom with priests” (cf., Exod 19:22) but “a royal priesthood” (LXX) and “kings and priests” (Tg. Neof.). That is, all of the people of God were to be kings and priests (Gen 1:26–28; Dan 7:27). The privileges were not to be limited to a monarchy and a separate priestly class.



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

75

This is also the way the New Testament documents understand the phrase (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6b). But 1 Peter and Revelation do no merely take words once meant for ancient Israel and reapply them to the church.29 Their interpretation already appears in the book of Isaiah. According to Isaiah 61:6a, the people of God will once again be priests as a result of the ministry of the servant of YHWH (Isa 61:1–5). These priests will come not only from Israel but also from all the nations (Isa 66:18–21). This is because Israel was never intended to be the sole people of God. YHWH made his covenant with Abraham in order to restore the lost blessing of life and dominion in the land to all the nations (Gen 12:3).

Exodus 19; Jeremiah 7:22; Galatians 3:19 If the phrase “kingdom of priests” in Exod 19:6 means “royal priesthood,” then what caused the change to a “kingdom with priests” (Exod 19:22)? John Sailhamer has demonstrated that a fundamental act of disobedience in the narrative leads to the addition of the Sinai covenant and the giving of the law.30 When the people come to Sinai in Exod 19:1, they are already in a covenant relationship with YHWH. It is the covenant with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This covenant was the reason for the exodus (Exod 2:23–25). So there is no reason to think that the covenant referenced in Exod 19:5 is anything other than the covenant with the patriarchs, although many commentators presuppose that Exod 19:5 is an anticipation of the Sinai covenant. When YHWH gives the instructions to Moses to prepare the people to meet with him on the third day, he says in Exod 19:12, “And you will border the people around saying, ‘Watch yourselves going up in the mountain and touching its edge. Anyone who touches the mountain will surely be put to death’” (cf., JPS). Then Exod 19:13b says, “When the ram’s horn blasts long, they will go up in the mountain.” It seems clear from the Hebrew text that the people were to meet with YHWH on the mountain. It is not so clear from the average English translation. The NRSV of Exod 19:12 says, “…‘Be careful not to go up the mountain….’” This rendering follows Targum Onkelos, which translates the Hebrew text as if it said rhb twl(m Mkl wrm#h (“Keep yourselves from going up in the mountain”) rather than rhb twl( Mkl wrm#h (“Watch yourselves going up in the mountain”). According to the Hebrew text, the people were to go up in the mountain but only along the prescribed path. The NRSV contradicts itself in Exod 19:13b when it says that the people may go up “on

76

the text in the middle

the mountain” after the trumpet blast. Other English translations render this “to the mountain” or the like in order to harmonize with their interpretation of Exod 19:12 (e.g., NIV). But the Hebrew phrase rhb means “in or on the mountain.” Why then would translators make an exception here? Perhaps it because of the logistical problem of having so many people (Exod 12:37) on a mountain at one time. Whatever the case may be, it is not a translation based on usage within the language. The people, who were already in covenant relationship with YHWH, were to prepare to meet with him on the mountain on the third day. The people make all of the preparations in Exod 19:14–15 according to Exod 19:10–13 (for Exod 19:15b see Gen 3:3). But when they hear the sound of the shofar in Exod 19:16a (cf., Exod 19:13b), they do not go up in the mountain to meet with YHWH. Instead they tremble in the camp (Exod 19:16b). At this point everything changes. No longer will they be able to meet with YHWH on the mountain (Exod 19:12–13). Moses can only station them “at the bottom of the mountain” (rhh tytxtb) (Exod 19:17b). No longer are the people a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6). They are now a “kingdom with priests” (Exod 19:22). No longer is Moses to set a border around the people (Exod 19:12). Now he is to set a border around the mountain (Exod 19:23). Now Moses will mediate for the people (Exod 20:18–21). The apostle Paul then has exegetical warrant when he says that the law was “added because of transgression” (Gal 3:19). The giving of the law was not an essential feature of the unconditional covenant relationship between YHWH and the patriarchs. It was added secondarily because of the people’s sin. It was designed to exacerbate and expose their sin problem (Exod 32; Lev 10; 17).31 The conditional and temporal nature of the Sinai covenant (Lev 26; Deut 28) presupposes the need for a new covenant relationship (Deut 28:69). It is evident that the Sinai covenant was never intended to be a solution that would produce faith and obedience in the people (Deut 29:3; 30:6). But this reading of the giving of the law is already present in the Prophets. For example, the prophet Jeremiah quotes YHWH in Jer 7:22, “For I did not speak with your fathers and I did not command them in the day of my bringing them out of the land of Egypt concerning matters of burnt offering and sacrifice.” This is not a denial of the existence of the instructions in Leviticus 1–7. It is a recognition of the fact that the law was added secondarily. It is ultimately a non-essential part of the people’s covenant relationship with YHWH. In connection with Jeremiah’s temple gate speech (Jer 7:1–15), this



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

77

is an important point to make. The people had reached the point where they were neglecting virtually everything about their covenant relationship with YHWH except for their cultic rituals. It is no coincidence that Jeremiah also points the people to the need for a new covenant relationship (Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8; 10:16–17).

Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21; Matt 5:21–48 When Jesus says that he has not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (i.e., the Hebrew Scriptures) but to fulfill them, he means that he is the one of whom the Scriptures speak (Matt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; etc.). Therefore, his exposition of the Mosaic law in Matt 5:21–48 is not an abrogation of the law but an interpretation of the law in the context of the Pentateuch. It is a response to the misinterpretation of the law by the rabbinic authorities of the day (Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).32 Jesus’ exposition is virtually identical to the heart theology found in the Pentateuch’s own commentary—the text of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:5). The Decalogue of Exod 20:1–17 already has an exposition in the applications found in the Covenant Code (Exod 21:1–23:12), but the repetition of the Decalogue in Deut 5:6–21 is even more striking not only because of the differences between the two versions but also because of the different settings (see also Exod 34:11–26). According to Deut 6:6, “These words that I am commanding you today will be on your heart.” But Deut 29:3 is clear that YHWH had not yet given the people a heart to know him, and so Deut 30:6 looks forward to the hope of a new covenant (Deut 28:69) when God will circumcise the hearts of the people—a spiritual circumcision (cf., Gen 17). This seems to be what Jesus has in mind when he explains the Decalogue in terms of the inner life of the human heart: “But I say to you that any one who looks at a woman in order to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28; cf., Rom 7:7).33 The Prophets have already applied the Decalogue in precisely this manner (Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2). They see the breaking of the covenant as an indication of the condition of the people’s hearts (Jer 7:24) and their need for a new covenant relationship (Jer 31:31–34). There is some debate about the citations of the Decalogue in Jer 7:9 and Hos 4:2, given the brevity and different arrangement of the words.34 But in light of the similarity to Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 it does not seem plausible to suggest that these

78

the text in the middle

prophetic texts are merely bearers of some other oral (or written) tradition or common language. No one denies that Matt 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9 are citations of the Decalogue, yet they are neither complete nor in the same order. Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5

Jeremiah 7:9

bngt )l

bng

Hosea 4:2

(Exod 20:15; 21:16; Deut 5:19) #xkw hl) xcr xcr xcrt )l (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17) bng P)nt )l (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18)

P)n

Kyhl) hwhy M# t) )#t )l

rq#l (b#h

)w#l

P)n

(Exod 20:7a; Deut 5:11a)

rq#l ym#b w(b#t )lw

(Lev 19:12a) rq# d( K(rb hn(t )l

(Exod 20:16) )w# d( K(rb hn(t )lw

(Deut 5:20)

Both Jeremiah (Jer 3) and Hosea (Hos 1–3) condemn the spiritual harlotry (i.e., idolatry) of the people (Exod 20:1–6; Deut 5:6–10). For Jeremiah, their idolatry is a reflection of their stubborn hearts and need for circumcised hearts (Jer 4:4; cf., Deut 30:6). For Hosea, it is a manifestation of their failure to acknowledge YHWH (Hos 4:6). The old covenant is broken (Jer 11:10). In the new covenant YHWH will write his instruction on the hearts of the people (Jer 31:33; cf., Exod 31:18; 2 Cor 3:3).

Exodus 32:20; Deuteronomy 9:21; 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 23:4, 6, 12, 15; 2 Chronicles 15:16; 30:14; 34:4 The story of the golden calf in Exodus 32 has its own commentary in Deuteronomy 9. The reuse of Moses’ response to the people’s idolatry in Kings and Chronicles to describe later responses to idolatry is a way to mark central characters as Moses-like or faithful. It is not the concern of the present section to explore whether the direction of dependence might have been in



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

79

the opposite direction. It is clear from the presentation that someone wanted the readers to see a model established by Moses and then followed by later generations of leaders. This is not unlike the situation with the citations of Exodus 32 in 1 Kgs 12:28 and Neh 9:18.35 Regardless of whether a modern scholar thinks the direction of dependence is from Kings to Exodus, there is really very little question that the final author of Kings wants the reader to see in the sin of Jeroboam a recapitulation of what happened at Sinai. (How could the average reader of the Pentateuch be expected to think of a precedent set by Jeroboam when reading about Moses?) Thus, 1 Kgs 12:28 and Neh 9:18 represent two different readings of the plural forms employed in Exod 32:1b, 4b, 8b. One exploits the plurality to speak of two golden calves at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12:28–29; cf., 1 Sam 4:8). The other uses singular forms to focus on the one calf that represented the one God (YHWH) who brought the people out of Egypt (Neh 9:18). ynp l( rzyw qd r#) d( Nx+yw #)b Pr#yw w#( r#) lg(h t) xqyw l)r#y ynb t) q#yw Mymh

And Moses took the calf that they made and burned it in the fire and ground it until it was fine and scattered it on the surface of the water and made the sons of Israel drink it (Exod 32:20). wt) tk)w #)b wt) Pr#)w ytxql lg(h t) Mty#( r#) Mkt)+x t)w rhh Nm dryh lxnh l) wrp( t) Kl#)w rp(l qd r#) d( b+yh Nwx+

And your sin that you made, the calf, I took and burned it in the fire and crushed it, grinding it well, until it was as fine as dust, and I threw its dust into the stream that runs down from the mountain (Deut 9:21).

Moses’ recollection in Deut 9:21 specifies the water into which he threw the dust, but it does not include the part of Exod 32:20 where he makes the Israelites drink the water. This is perhaps to take the edge off of the depiction of Moses in Exod 32:20. It could also be an attempt to avoid confusion with rituals such as the one described in Num 5:11–28. trkyw hr#)l tclpm ht#( r#) hrybgm hrsyw wm) hk(m t) Mgw Nwrdq lxnb Pr#yw htclpm t) )s)

And also Maacah his mother, he removed her from being queen because she made an object of horror to the Asherah. And Asa cut down her object of horror and burned it in the wadi of Kidron (1 Kgs 15:13; cf., 2 Chr 15:16). hr#)lw l(bl Myw#(h Mylkh lk t) hwhy lkyhm )ycwhl…Klmh wcyw l) tyb Mrp( t) )#nw Nwrdq twmd#b Ml#wryl Cwxm Mpr#yw Mym#h )bc lklw

80

the text in the middle And the king commanded…to bring forth from the temple of YHWH all the vessels that were made for Baal and for Asherah and for all the host of the sky and he burned them outside of Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and he carried their dust to Bethel (2 Kgs 23:4; cf., 2 Kgs 23:12, 15). ht) Pr#yw Nwrdq lxn l) Ml#wryl Cwxm hwhy tybm hr#)h t) )cyw M(h ynb rbq l( hrp( t) Kl#yw rp(l qdyw Nwrdq lxnb

And he brought the Asherah from the temple of YHWH outside of Jerusalem to the wadi of Kidron and burned it in the wadi of Kidron and made it as fine as dust and threw its dust upon the gravesite of the sons of the people (2 Kgs 23:6; cf., 2 Kgs 23:12, 15; 2 Chr 30:14).

Here the reforms of Asa and Josiah, based on Deuteronomy, are cast in terms of Moses’ actions at Sinai. They both represent a return to the ideals of Moses. Josiah burns the vessels of the idols and carries them to Bethel (see 2 Kgs 12:29). Both Asa and Josiah treat the Asherah like the golden calf, burning it (and, in the case of Josiah, grinding it to dust). It is not clear whether the dust was also mixed with water from the wadi. According to Deut 9:21, Moses “threw” the dust into the stream. In 2 Kgs 23:6, the dust is thrown upon a gravesite. This obviously takes the place of the action in Exod 32:20 where the people are made to drink the water mixed with the dust. It is a way of showing that their sin has come back to haunt them. The punishment for their sin is in accordance with the sin itself. As they have done, so it is done to them. The Chronicler takes the descriptions of Asa and Josiah in his sources and extends them to another prominent and righteous king from Judah— Hezekiah. (dg Mhyl(m hl(ml r#) Mynmxhw Myl(bh twxbzm t) wynpl wctnyw Mhl Myxbzh Myrbqh ynp l( qrzyw qdhw rb# twksmhw Mylsphw Myr#)hw

And they pulled down before him the altars of the Baals, and the sun pillars that were above them he cut down. And the Asherahs and the carved images and the molten images he shattered and made fine and tossed upon the surface of the graves of those who sacrificed to them (2 Chr 34:4).

Within the book of Chronicles this makes Hezekiah another one of the righteous descendants of David like Asa and Josiah. But because of the Chronicler’s dependence upon Kings, which is a reading of Exodus and Deuteronomy, it also makes Hezekiah another example of a new Moses.



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

81

Leviticus 17:7; Numbers 25:1; Deuteronomy 24:1–4; Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3; Ezekiel 16; 23; Hosea 1–3; Ephesians 5:25–29; Revelation 18–19 The use of harlotry or prostitution (hnz) as a metaphor to describe idolatry and the broken covenant relationship between YHWH and his people already appears in the reference to goat idols in Lev 17:7 and in the account of Baal Peor in Numbers 25. This metaphor resurfaces in the Prophets (e.g., Jer 3:1; Ezek 15:16; Hos 1:2). It appears alongside terms like “adultery” (P)n) and “apostasy” (hb#m) (Jer 3:8). What does this say about marital fidelity that God would use it to describe his own relationship with his people (Eph 5:25–29)? The biblical authors could have employed any number of heinous sins to depict the breaking of the covenant—murder, injury, theft, false witness, etc.— but they choose adultery because there is no greater crime that one person can commit against another (see 2 Sam 11–12). Likewise, the use of the divorce metaphor (e.g., Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1; Matt 19 [cf., Deut 24:1–4]) speaks volumes about the inestimable value of loyalty in human and divine relationships. And so, in the final analysis there is a choice between the prostitution represented by Babylon on the one hand and the marriage supper of Christ the Lamb of God (Rev 18–19) on the other.

Leviticus 18:5 (Targum Onkelos); Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21, 25; Nehemiah 9:29; Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30; Romans 7; 10:5; Galatians 3:12 The offer of life by works of law (Lev 18:5) is only a hypothetical offer designed to show the impossibility of obtaining life by such means. This is the interpretation in Ezek 20:25 (“And also I gave them statutes not good and judgments by which they could not live.”) and Romans 7. It is also the point of Jesus’ response to the rich young ruler. Jesus does not mean to say that someone can actually keep all the commands and thereby obtain eternal life. The fact that the young man claims obedience to the commands and still lacks something proves this. Jesus’ response is a test to see whether or not the young man recognizes the impossible task and casts himself upon the mercy of God. The specific faith language and syntax of Hab 2:4 quoted in Gal 3:11 is intended to counteract that of Lev 18:5 quoted in Gal 3:12. For a fuller discussion of these texts see Shepherd, Textual World, 38–40.

82

the text in the middle

Leviticus 23:39–42; Deuteronomy 16:13–15; Nehemiah 8:14–17 Here I would like to refer to the work of Michael Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 107–113). In fact, several passages not treated in this book involving multiple citations have sufficient analysis in Fishbane’s publication. For example, see the discussion of Exod 34:6–7 on pages 335–50. See also his treatment of the Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:22–27) on pages 329–34.36

Numbers 12; Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Hebrews 3:5–6 The figure in the servant songs of Isaiah (Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–9; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) is in many ways a composite of the best qualities found in other well-known servants of YHWH in the Bible such as Moses (Deut 34:4), Joshua (Josh 24:29), and David (Ps 18:1). The narratives of these individuals enable the reader to understand what a servant of YHWH is. The writer to the Hebrews makes such an association between Moses and Christ when he compares and contrasts the servant of YHWH with the Son of God. Moses

Christ

And the man Moses was very afflicted (wn() (Num 12:3a; cf., Luther: geplagt)

 nd we considered him…afflicted A (hn(m) e was oppressed and afflicted H (hn(n) (Isa 53:4b, 7a)

a prophet among you (Num 12:6; Deut 18:15, 18)

he LORD called me from the T womb (Deut 34:10; Jer 1:5; Isa 49:1)

my servant (ydb() Moses (Num 12:7)

my servant (ydb() (Isa 52:13)

In all my house (Tg. Onk.: my people) he is faithful (Num 12:7b)

I will give him a portion with the many (Isa 53:12a)

Heal ()pr) her (Num 12:13b)

we are healed (wnl )prn) (Isa 53:5b)



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

83

“And Moses on the one hand was faithful in (e0n) all his house as a servant for witness of the things to be spoken, but Christ on the other hand as a son over (e0pi,) his house, whose house we are if we hold fast to the boldness and the boasting of the hope” (Heb 3:5–6; cf., John 8:35).37

Numbers 20–21; Deuteronomy 2–3; Judges 11 Jephthah’s version (Judg 11) of the story in Numbers 20–21 where Moses leads the Israelites along the western side of the Jordan requires knowledge of an intermediate text in Deuteronomy 2–3, which the author says is part of an exposition of the Torah (Deut 1:5).38 The speech is prompted by the Ammonite claim that when Israel came up from Egypt they took the land from the Arnon to the Jabbok and to the Jordan and must now return it in peace (Judg 11:13). But Ammon is not part of the story in Numbers 20–21. The text recounts Israel’s encounters with Edom (Num 20:14), Canaan (Num 21:1), the Amorites (Num 21:21), and Bashan (Num 21:33). Chapters 22–25 of Numbers go on to tell of Israel’s dealings with Moab and Midian. The only reference to Ammon (Num 21:24) indicates that the land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, which extended to the border of the Ammonites, actually belonged to Sihon the king of the Amorites. So how does Ammon come into the picture? It has been suggested that Jephthah’s speech was originally one directed against Moab, which was then reworked for the Ammonite context. This would explain, for example, why Jephthah refers to the god of the Ammonites as Chemosh when in fact Chemosh was the god of Moab (1 Kgs 11:7, 33). Milkom was the god of the Ammonites (1 Kgs 11:5, 7, 33). But since there is no extant textual evidence for such a revision, the reader must look for at least one alternative to this theory. Fortunately the reader does not have to look far to see that Deut 2:17–25 has added Ammon to the commentary on Numbers 20–21 in Deuteronomy 2–3. According to the Deuteronomy passage, Israel was not to touch the Ammonites because they were descendants of Lot (Deut 2:19; cf., Deut 2:1–16). Thus, not only was the Ammonite claim to the land between the Arnon and the Jabbok false, but also the accusation of Israelite seizure of any Ammonite territory was untrue (Judg 11:15). According to Jephthah, Israel dealt peacefully with the Ammonites just as they had done with Edom and Moab (Judg 11:16–18). It was only when Sihon the king of the Amorites refused to

84

the text in the middle

allow Israel to pass through that YHWH gave the land of the Amorites (not the Ammonites) to his people (Judg 11:19–22; cf., Deut 2:24).39

Numbers 21:8; 2 Kings 18:4; John 3:14–15 The reference in John 3:14 to the story of the bronze serpent in Num 21:8 raises the question of whether or not John 3:14 represents a typological interpretation. The Numbers text is a divine solution to the problem of the “bites” (K#n) from “serpents” (Mypr#h My#xnh) sent by YHWH in the wilderness for the complaints of the people (Num 21:5–6; cf., Jer 8:17). Moses was to make a Pr# and put it on a banner so that any person “bitten” (Kw#n) could look at it and live (Num 21:8; cf., Deut 8:15). Moses instead makes a “bronze serpent” (t#xn #xn), but it serves the same purpose (Num 21:9). The bronze serpent in the story is an object of faith designed to redirect the people to their dependence upon YHWH in the wilderness in spite of the problems of their circumstances (cf., Exod 4). It is likely then that John is making a simple analogy between two objects of faith. The serpent was raised as an object of faith in the wilderness so that the people could live. Likewise, the Son of Man must be raised (i.e., crucified [John 12:32–33]) “so that anyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:15). But there is a text in 2 Kgs 18:4 that serves to connect Num 21:8 and John 3:14–15. There the reader finds that Hezekiah “crushed the bronze serpent (t#xnh #xn) that Moses made, for until those days the sons of Israel were making sacrifices [or, burning incense] to it, and it was called Nehushtan (Nt#xn).” The bronze serpent had become a god and an object of worship. This is the difference between the bronze serpent and the Son of Man. The Son of Man is not only an object of faith. He is also truly God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14) and worthy of worship (see also 1 Cor 10:9).

Numbers 22–24; 31:8, 16; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14 Within Numbers 22–24 the character of Balaam does not appear on the surface to be particularly villainous. He only says or does what YHWH tells him. He does not curse Israel at the request of Balak the king of Moab. Rather, he blesses Israel. Why then does biblical literature universally view Balaam in a negative light?40 According to Num 31:8, he was among those slain by the sword when the Israelites took vengeance on the Midianites. Numbers 31:16 directly associates Balaam with the incident



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

85

at Baal of Peor recorded in Numbers 25 as if what the Midianite women did there had been at his word. This also seems to be the view of Rev 2:14, which says that Balaam “taught Balak to throw a stumbling block before the sons of Israel to eat meat offered to idols and to commit sexual immorality.” The understanding seems to be that Balaam’s inability to curse Israel did not stop him from setting up the literal and spiritual harlotry of Numbers 25. Jude 11 says the false teachers “abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for wages.” The text does not say what Balaam’s error was, but there may be a comparison with the reward promised to Balaam for his services to Balak (Num 22:7, 17, 37). It is safe to say that Num 31:16 is the basis for Rev 2:14, but is there any warrant for the reading of Num 31:16? Furthermore, is there any basis within the text of Numbers 22 for the reading of Jude 11? In Num 31:16, the association of Balaam with the Baal of Peor incident seems to have its basis in the simple juxtaposition of Numbers 22–24 and Numbers 25.41 Balaam himself does not appear in the narrative of Numbers 25, but Num 31:16 has extracted meaning from the placement of this story next to the account of Balaam. Much like the sequence of film in a movie reel, it would not be possible to see this meaning if the story of Numbers 25 were in any other position.42 As for Jude 11, it is possible to discern within the subtleties of the narrative of Numbers 22 that Balaam struggles with the temptation of personal gain as his motivation. According to Num 22:20, God instructs Balaam to go with the men sent by Balak, but once Balaam does so in Num 22:21 God becomes angry, and it is only after Balaam’s encounter with the angel that he is allowed to proceed (Num 22:22–35). The angel explains, “Look, I went forth as an adversary because the way was precipitate before me” (Num 22:32b). The use of the verb +ry (“be precipitate,” BDB, 437) is difficult here. The only other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible is Job 16:11. Some modern English versions follow the rendering in the Latin Vulgate (“perverse,” e.g., NRSV). In any case, there is enough ambiguity here to infer from the context that Balaam not only left with the men, but also he left with the wrong motive (i.e., monetary gain).

Numbers 24:7; 2 Samuel 23:1; Isaiah 19:20; Zechariah 6:12; John 19:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 Several texts within the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the New Testament appear to use “the man” to refer to a messianic figure.43 The peculiar

86

the text in the middle

nature of this type of reference raises the question of whether or not there is some system of dependence among these texts. To begin, the Masoretic Text of Num 24:7b refers to an unnamed king who is to be exalted over Agag. According to the Septuagint, the enemy to be defeated is not the historical Agag (1 Sam 15) but the eschatological Gog (Ezek 38–39; Rev 20:8). Furthermore, the Septuagint of Num 24:7a does not speak of water sprinkled from buckets or seed in many waters as in the Masoretic Text (w(rzw wyldm Mym lzy Mybr Mymb). Rather, it says, “A man will go forth from his seed” (e0celeu/setai a!nqrwpov e0k tou= spe/rmatov au0tou=; w(rzm Md) lz)y). This is presumably the man in the second half of the verse—the eschatological king who is to be exalted over Gog. At the very least this is a contextually plausible reading of the Septuagint and its Hebrew Vorlage.44 It is also relevant that the Septuagint uses a!nqrwpov (“man”) to translate +b# (“ruler’s staff”) in Num 24:17. Targum Onkelos translates the same word with “Messiah” (cf., Gen 49:10; Isa 11:4; Ps 2:9; Rev 19:15). The text of 2 Sam 23:1 does not bear any particular relationship to Num 24:7 other than the fact that both use the same introductory device M)n (see Num 24:3–4) and both have a messianic reading of “the man” in their Septuagint renderings (and the Hebrew sources behind those renderings). The Masoretic Text of 2 Sam 23:1b is little more than a description of David the speaker: “the son of Jesse,” “the man raised on high” (l( Mqh rbgh), “the anointed of the God of Jacob,” and “the sweet psalmist of Israel.” But the conclusion to 2 Samuel 22 refers to David and his seed (2 Sam 22:51)—a likely reference to the seed of the covenant with David who will build the temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–13; Zech 6:12– 13; Dan 7:13–14). 4QSama (cf., LXX) also refers to this seed in its second part of 2 Sam 23:1b: “the man whom God raises up” (l) Myqh rbgh; cf., 2 Sam 7:12: “I will raise up your seed” [K(rz t) ytmyqhw]). It is plausible then that 4QSama refers the outer two parts (“son of Jesse” and “sweet psalmist of Israel”) to David and the inner two parts (“the man God raises up” and “the anointed of the God of Jacob”) to David’s seed.45 It is noteworthy that David likely speaks about this seed in the poem (e.g., 2 Sam 23:2–4; cf., Isa 11:1–5; Ezek 34:26; Mic 5:1; Zech 9:9; Mal 3:20; Pss 72; 110:3; see also the reference to the covenant in 2 Sam 23:5). Isaiah 19:20 is another example where the Septuagint includes a reference to a “man” (i.e., a messianic figure) and where the Masoretic Text lacks the term (cf., Num 24:7, 17). Following the oracle devoted to judgment of Egypt in Isa 19:1–15, this text falls within a passage about the salvation of Egypt (Isa



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

87

19:16–25). The MT of Isa 19:20b2 reads, “And he [i.e., YHWH] will send to them a savior and a judge [brw; cf., 1QIsaa, dryw], and he will rescue them.” But the LXX has, “And the Lord will send to them a man (a!nqrwpon) who will save them, a judge will save them.” Does this depend upon the reader’s knowledge of texts like Num 24:7, 17, or is it simply a commonly recognized way to refer to an unidentified messianic figure? It is difficult to say for sure. In Zech 6:9–11, the prophet receives instructions to make a crown and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua. In this way Joshua becomes a prop for the messianic prophecy of Zech 6:12–13, which speaks of one man who will occupy the offices of priest and king (cf., Ps 110). The text of Zech 6:12b is particularly relevant to the present discussion: “Look, a man, Branch is his name, and from his place he will sprout, and he will build the temple of YHWH.” Here again is an unidentified “man.” He has the messianic title “Branch” from Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5 (the Davidic king); Zech 3:8 (the servant of YHWH) (cf., Isa 11:1). He will build the temple of YHWH in accordance with the terms of the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7:13. Thus, from the post-exilic perspective of the prophet, Solomon was not the one of whom the covenant spoke. Given the common ground of the Davidic covenant, it is possible that there is some relationship between 2 Sam 23:1 and Zech 6:12. It should be noted, however, that the two texts use different words for “man” (rbg and #y)). It is arguable that Pilate’s presentation of Jesus in John 19:5—“Look, the man” (I0dou\ o9 a!nqrwpov)—is a citation of Zech 6:12. Pilate himself is likely not making the connection, but John uses Pilate’s words to create the link for the reader. When backtranslated into Hebrew, the only difference between the Zechariah text (#y) hnh) and the John text (#y)h hnh) is the definite article.46 In the context of John 19:5 the use of the article seems odd, as if Pilate were referring to Jesus as someone whom all the people knew from elsewhere. But as a reference to Zech 6:12 made by John it works very well. Jesus is the man from Zech 6:12. This would be in accordance with John’s own purpose statement: “These things are written in order that you may believe that the Christ the Son of God [whom we know from the Hebrew Scriptures] is Jesus.”47 It is John’s purpose to identify in his narrative the historical Jesus of Nazareth with the Messiah already known from the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., John 1:45). One other text from the New Testament seems pertinent to the issue at hand. In 1 Tim 2:5 Paul says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man (a!nqrwpov), Christ Jesus” (cf., Gal 3:20; Heb

88

the text in the middle

9:15). Paul highlights the fact that the mediator between God and men is none other than a human mediator (see 1 Tim 2:1, 4, 6). But Christ Jesus is also the God-man (Rom 9:5).48 Therefore, it is not out of bounds to suggest that Paul intends more by “a man” than mere human mediation. This is “the man” revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures—God in the flesh (Isa 9:5–6; 10:21).

Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Isaiah 43:16–21; Hosea 11:1; Psalm 107:33–35; Matthew 2:15; Jude 549 The theme of the new exodus is already a feature of the composition of the Pentateuch: Myrcmm M)ycwm l)

God brings them out of Egypt (Num 23:22a) Myrcmm w)ycwm l)

God brings him out of Egypt (Num 24:8a1)

In Balaam’s second oracle (Num 23:18–24), he speaks of the original exodus of Israel from Egypt and compares Israel to a lion (Num 23:24). In his third oracle (Num 24:3–9), he speaks of a new exodus led by a messianic king (Num 24:7) and compares this king to a lion (Num 24:9). While the Prophets and the Writings often make use of new exodus imagery (e.g., Isa 11:11–16; 43:16–21; Ezek 20:33; Ps 107:33–35), it is primarily Hosea that influences the New Testament (Matt 2:15). According to Hos 8:13 and 9:3, the coming judgment will be a return to Egypt metaphorically speaking. This means that any future restoration will be like a new exodus. Thus, in Hos 11:1b there is a reference to the exodus: “Out of Egypt I called my son” (cf., Num 23:22; 24:8).50 Then, Hos 11:5 speaks of a return to Egypt (reading wl instead of )l; see LXX and BHS). This sets up the hope of a new exodus in Hos 11:11: “‘They will tremble like a bird out of Egypt, and like a dove out of the land of Egypt; and I will cause them to live in [LXX: restore them to] their houses,’ says YHWH.” This is the broader context (not to mention the development of the new exodus theme in the remainder of the Twelve) from which Matthew quotes when he describes the early life of Jesus in terms of an inauguration of a new exodus. It is thus noteworthy that the program in Hos 3:4–5 looks beyond judgment to messianic salvation in the last days.



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

89

According to Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and other witnesses, Jude 5 says that “Jesus” led the people out of Egypt. Sinaiticus and others simply say that “the Lord” did this. On the one hand, it would be possible to argue that “Jesus” is the more difficult reading since there is no reference to Jesus in the historical narrative. But it is also plausible to suggest that this reading was added secondarily to make the reference to the exodus more explicitly Christian (see Jude 4 where “Jesus” is “our Lord”). Another possibility is that Jude, like Hosea and Matthew, also saw the relationship between the original exodus and the new exodus.

Numbers 24:17; Matthew 2:1–12; Revelation 2:28; 22:16 If Matt 2:13–15 is dependent upon Hosea 11, which is dependent upon Num 24:8, then it is interesting to note that Matt 2:1–12, the story of the Magi who came looking for the King of the Jews because they had seen his star in the east (a0natolh|/), is apparently dependent upon Num 24:17: “A star [Tg. Onk.: a king] treads [LXX: rises (a0natelei/)] from Jacob.” A reuse of this image occurs in Rev 2:28 where the morning star is a gift from Jesus to the one who overcomes (cf., Dan 12:3; Matt 13:43). According to Rev 22:16, Jesus is the bright morning star.

Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Zechariah 10:2; Matthew 9:36 “When Jesus saw the crowds he had compassion for them, for they were troubled and dejected like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt 9:36; cf., 1 Pet 2:25 [Isa 53:6]). This text is similar to several passages in the Hebrew Bible: h(r Mhl Ny) r#) N)ck hwhy td( hyht )lw

And the congregation of YHWH will not be like sheep without a shepherd (Num 27:17b). h(r Mhl Ny) r#) N)ck Myrhh l) Mycpn l)r#y lk t) yty)r

I have seen all Israel scattered on the mountains like sheep without a shepherd (1 Kgs 22:17a; cf., Ezek 34:5; 2 Chr 18:16a). h(r Ny) yk wn(y N)c wmk w(sn Nk l(

Therefore, they travel like sheep, they are afflicted, for there is no shepherd (Zech 10:2b).

90

the text in the middle

The first text (Num 27:17b) is the conclusion to Moses’ prayer for a successor to take his place. This will be Joshua (Num 27:18; Deut 34:9). The second (1 Kgs 22:17a) is Micaiah’s vision of what will happen to Ahab in the upcoming battle with the Syrians. Israel will lose its shepherd (i.e., their king). The third text (Zech 10:2b) speaks of the people’s current state of affliction without a king due to their idolatry, divination, and empty dreams. The closest verbal correspondence occurs between Num 27:17b and 1 Kgs 22:17a in the sequence h(r Mhl Ny) r#) N)ck (lit., “like sheep to whom there is not a shepherd”). In each case the sheep without the shepherd are the people of Israel without a leader or a king. The Matt 9:36 text is in continuity with this. When Jesus sees the people like sheep without a shepherd, he tells the disciples to ask the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest (Matt 9:38). He then commissions them to go not to the Gentiles or the Samaritans but to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 9:5–6). Is this simply a common metaphor, or is this a case of textual dependence? The verbal correspondence between Num 27:17b and 1 Kgs 22:17a argues for the latter. It seems then that Zech 10:2 is the bridge text for Matthew, since he understand Jesus to be the shepherd in Zech 11 (Matt 26:15; 27:9–10). There is thus a progression from the hope of a shepherd (Num 27:17b) to the loss of a shepherd (1 Kgs 22:17a) and the coming of a new shepherd (Zech 10–11).

Deuteronomy 17:14–20; 1 Samuel 8; 1 Kings 1–11 Whatever is made of critical attempts to date a passage like Deut 17:14–20 in the seventh century B.C., it is clear that those who gave these texts their final form wanted readers to take it as a set of instructions from Moses designed to anticipate life in the land of the covenant. In fact, the whole of Deuteronomy through Kings might be said to be the product of a deuteronomistic school, but the presentation of these texts has its own chronology. Regardless of whether the critical scholar wants to date Deut 17:14–20 after the time of Samuel and Solomon, the final author(s) of the Former Prophets wanted the reader to see Samuel’s speech about the king in 1 Samuel 8 and the depiction of Solomon’s kingdom in 1 Kings 1–11 in dependence upon Moses’ original instructions for the king. The Samuel text actually serves as a bridge between Moses and Solomon, enabling the reader to see how Solomon could match the description of the king in Deut 17:14–20 and at the same time abuse the privileges granted therein.



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

91

According to Deut 17:14–15, when the people enter the land, possess it, settle in it, and say collectively, “Let me set over me a king like all the nations who are around me (ytbybs r#) Mywg lkk Klm yl( hmy#)),” then they are to appoint a “king whom YHWH your God chooses (wb Kyhl) hwhy rxby r#) Klm).” J. G. McConville’s comment on this text is instructive: The phrase ‘like all the nations around us’ is otherwise found only in 1 Sam. 8:5, 20. The story in 1 Sam. 8 echoes our passage, recording the moment in Israel’s history when the people did what is envisaged here. In that place their request is regarded as sinful (7). It does not follow, however, that a request in the terms found here was necessarily wrong. In 1 Sam. 8:7, Yahweh points to a whole history of sin against him as the context of the request; and the addition in 1 Sam. 8:20 is significant: ‘…and go out before us and fight our battles’, a right that is not granted to the king in the deuteronomic law (cf. Boecker 1969:91–92).51

Whereas the instruction in Deut 17:14–15 is to be like the nations in the mere establishment of a monarchy, the request of the people in 1 Sam 8:5 uses this as leverage to introduce the idea that their king should behave like the kings of the nations. They want somebody to “judge” them, a charismatic military deliverer like the leaders in the book of Judges (1 Sam 8:5, 20). This is exactly what Saul appears to be initially in the account of 1 Samuel 11. But Saul is not the king “chosen” by YHWH in accordance with Deut 17:15 (1 Sam 8:18). When YHWH sends Samuel to Jesse in Bethlehem, Samuel states three times that YHWH has not “chosen” (rxb) the sons of Jesse brought before him (1 Sam 16:8–10). It is only when David is brought in that YHWH makes his selection and commands Samuel to anoint the next king of Israel (1 Sam 16:12–13). According to Deut 17:15b, the king is to be a fellow Israelite, not a foreigner (cf., Deut 18:15, 18). He is not to increase horses or return the people to Egypt to increase horses (Deut 17:16; cf., Deut 28:68). The people were not to return the way they had come in the exodus. Solomon’s practice in 1 Kgs 10:28 is in violation of this part of the law.52 The law also prohibits the king from multiplying wives, lest his heart turn aside (Deut 17:17a). Within the context of Deuteronomy this apparently means foreign wives who will lead the king after other gods (Deut 7:3–4). David had multiple wives, but they were not foreigners (2 Sam 3:2–5; 5:13–16). Solomon, on the other hand, had many foreign wives who turned his heart after other gods (1 Kgs 11:1–10; see also Neh 13:26).53 The law also forbids the increase of silver and gold (Deut 17:17b). But the amount of silver and gold in Solomon’s kingdom initially appears to be a

92

the text in the middle

positive thing (1 Kgs 6:22; 7:48 [cf., Gen 2:11–12; Exod 25–31]; 10:14–29), a sign of favor and blessing from God (1 Kgs 3:13). The prophets even reuse the abundance and prosperity of Solomon’s kingdom to describe the messianic kingdom (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:5 [Eng., 4:25]; Mic 4:4). It is only after the account of Solomon’s love of foreign women that the reader learns of any problems in the kingdom (1 Kgs 11:11–43). And it is only after Solomon’s death that the reader learns that he was a bit of a tyrant (1 Kgs 12:14; cf., 1 Sam 8:17). The specific nature of Solomon’s abuse of his blessings will become apparent in Samuel’s speech to the people (1 Sam 8:11–18). Before turning to Samuel’s speech, it should be noted that the final part of the law in Deut 17:18–20 instructs the king to write for himself a copy of the Torah and “read it publicly” (wb )rq [Seb hb )rq])54 in order to learn to fear YHWH by keeping the words of the Torah lest his heart become proud (and so that his kingdom might last). This is essentially the same purpose given for the public reading of the Torah in Deut 31:9–13 (cf., Neh 8–9). Joshua writes a copy of the Torah and reads its words in Josh 8:30– 35 (cf., Deut 27:1–8), but the king who best exemplifies this law is Josiah (2 Kgs 22–23; see also 2 Chr 17:7–9). Upon the discovery of the Torah in the temple (2 Kgs 22), Josiah has a public reading of it and then begins to make religious reforms on the basis of it (2 Kgs 23; cf., Jer 36). Nowhere does the reader find such a description of Solomon. There is only a broad reference to his desire to follow in the ways of his father David (1 Kgs 3:3). It is a rather obvious inference that Solomon’s failure (1 Kgs 11:11) is a direct result of his lack of Torah reading.55 When Samuel tells the people what “the custom of the king” (+p#m Klmh) will be (1 Sam 8:11a), he says that the king will take their sons and daughters to serve him (1 Sam 8:11b–13). He will also take their land, servants, and animals (1 Sam 8:14–17a). The people will thus become the king’s servants and cry out to YHWH (1 Sam 8:17b–18). According to 1 Kgs 9:20–22, Solomon subjected the remaining Canaanite peoples to forced labor, but he made the Israelites into soldiers, servants, and leaders of his chariot and horsemen—the precise wording of 1 Sam 8:11b–12. Furthermore, 1 Kgs 12:14 reveals that Rehoboam’s father had made the people’s yoke heavy and disciplined them with “scorpions.” Thus, while Solomon is part of the chosen line of David (in accordance with Deut 17:15) and for ten chapters of 1 Kings even appears on the surface to be the fulfillment of the covenant with David (2 Sam 7), the glory days of his kingdom pass away and are only a literary foil in the biblical narrative.



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

93

Behind the veil of Solomon’s wealth, wisdom, and power is an account laced with practices out of sync with the instruction for the king in Deut 17:14–20. This only becomes obvious to the reader in 1 Kings 11, but the reader who is familiar with the law and with Samuel’s speech in 1 Samuel 8 can anticipate Solomon’s failure and understand how and why it happened much more fully.

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; 34:10; Jeremiah 1:9; Matt 17:5b; Mark 9:7b; Luke 9:35b; Acts 3:22; 7:37 A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, like me YHWH your God will raise up for you. Listen to him (Deut 18:15). A prophet I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him (Deut 18:18).

It is not uncommon for interpreters to take Deut 18:14–22 as a description of what true prophets are to be like in general. That is, as opposed to the forbidden modes of revelation in Deut 18:9–13 and the false prophet mentioned in Deut 18:20, the true prophets will be the ones like Moses whose words actually come to pass (Deut 18:15, 18, 21–22). They will be the means by which God reveals himself to the people. New Testament efforts (e.g., Matt 17:5b; Acts 3:22; 7:37) to see one particular prophet like Moses whose description Jesus matches are then said to be christological interpretations that go beyond the intent of the historical author (sensus plenior). But such a facile treatment of these texts overlooks some important details in Deut 18:14–22 and the interpretation of the passage in the book of Deuteronomy itself. It is possible to read Deut 18:14–22 in two sections. The first (Deut 18:14–19) speaks of a prophet like Moses. The second (Deut 18:20–22), set apart by K), speaks of the false prophet and how to identify the true prophet. It is true that genuine prophets are sometimes depicted in terms of the prophet like Moses (e.g., Jer 1:9b2: “Look, I have put my words in your mouth”; Exod 3–4; Judg 6), but this is a way to legitimize the prophet. The intent is not to identify the prophet as the one like Moses. No prophet in ancient Israel ever matches the description of the prophet like Moses. This is the point of the interpretation of Deut 18:14–19 in Deut 34:10: “And never again did a prophet rise in Israel like Moses whom YHWH knew face to face.” The con-

94

the text in the middle

struction dw(…)l in Deut 34:10 always has the sense of “never again” in the Pentateuch and beyond (e.g., Gen 8:21; 9:11, 15; 17:5; 32:29; Exod 10:29; 14:13; Num 18:22; Deut 11:16; 13:17; 17:16; 18:16).56 This would have been a strange statement for someone like Joshua or someone early in the history of Israel’s prophets to make. It presupposes that the era of Israel’s prophets has passed. It comes from the perspective of someone in the post-exilic period who is able to look back over the history of Israel’s prophets and say that the prophet like Moses never came and is therefore still to come (cf., Mal 3:1, 23; Matt 17:9–13). It is apparently this perspective that influences the reading of Deut 18:14–19 in the New Testament.

Deuteronomy 23:4 (cf., Deut 7:3–4); 1 Kings 11:1–10; Ezra 9–10; Nehemiah 13 Deuteronomy 23:16–17; Joel 3:2; Proverbs 30:10; Philemon 16 Deuteronomy 24:1–4; Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:1; Matthew 19:7 Several laws in Deuteronomy 12–26 revisit legal material from Leviticus and elsewhere in the Pentateuch (e.g., Lev 23 and Deut 16), but this section will examine examples of multiple quotation from Deuteronomy 23–24 outside the Pentateuch. To begin, the prohibition in Deut 23:4 forbids inclusion in the Israelite community to the Ammonites and Moabites because they failed to meet Israel with bread and water when they came out of Egypt (Deut 23:5; see Deut 2:8–25). In comparison with Deut 7:3–4, a law against foreign intermarriage (and worship of other gods) that originally applied to the seven nations of Canaan (Deut 7:1), this was presumably also a way to avoid the influence of the religious practices of Ammon and Moab. At the very least this seems to be the way the law is understood in 1 Kings 11:1–10 where Moabite women and Ammonite women are among those who led Solomon after other gods (i.e., Chemosh the idol of Moab and Molech the idol of Ammon [1 Kgs 11:7]).57 Furthermore, the problem with foreign cohabitation (Deut 7:3–4) in Ezra 9–10 is a problem with the Ammonites and Moabites in Neh 13:1–3, 23–27 (Deut 23:4). Nehemiah even reminds the people of the failures of Solomon in this context (Neh 13:26). Thus, the two laws in Deut 7:3–4 and Deut 23:4 are read together as one.58 Only the Ammonite or Moabite who pledges allegiance to the God of Israel is welcome in the community (e.g., Ruth 1:16). The law in Deut 23:16–17 prohibits the delivery of a servant to his master upon his escape. The servant is to live with the person to whom he comes. In his letter to Philemon, the apostle Paul appears to reapply this law in the



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

95

context of the gospel and the new covenant community. He sends Philemon’s escaped servant back to his master with the admonition that he be treated not as a servant but as a beloved brother in the Lord (Phm 16; cf., Gen 16:9–10; Eph 6:5–9; Col 3:22–4:1). But Paul has a precedent here in the Hebrew Bible. Already in the words of Agur the delivery of a servant to his master is reinterpreted in terms of slander: “Do not slander [N#lt; LXX: paradw~|v = Ml#t] a servant to his master lest he despise [cf., Gen 12:3; 16:4] you and you be found guilty” (Prov 30:10). But more importantly the Prophets envision a new covenant relationship in which there is no distinction between young and old, male and female, or servant and master (Joel 3:1–2 [Eng., 2:28–29]). This is the same kind of relationship that Paul presupposes (Gal 3:28). The odd occurrence of rm)l at the beginning of Jer 3:1 is perhaps a way to mark the citation of Deut 24:1–4: Deuteronomy 24:1–4 Jeremiah 3:1 If a man (#y)) takes a woman (h#)) and marries her, and then, if she does not find favor in his eyes because he found in her nakedness of a thing, and he writes for her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away (hxl#w) from his house, and she goes out from his house and goes and becomes another man’s (rx) #y)l htyhw hklhw), and the latter man rejects her and writes for her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house, or if the latter man dies who took her for himself as a wife, her first husband who sent her away will not be able to return (bw#l) to take her to be his wife after she has been defiled, for it is an abomination before YHWH. And you will not bring the land into guilt ()y+xt )lw Cr)h t)), which YHWH your God is giving to you as an inheritance.

If a man sends his wife away, and she goes from with him and becomes another man’s, will he return to her again? Will not that land be polluted indeed? And you, you have played the harlot with many companions, and will you return to me, says YHWH? wt#) t) #y) xl#y Nh rx) #y)l htyhw wt)m hklhw dw( hyl) bw#yh )yhh Cr)h Pnxt Pwnx )wlh Mybr My(r tynz t)w hwhy M)n yl) bw#w

In Jeremiah’s context, YHWH is the faithful husband, and Judah is the unfaithful wife because of her adultery with Baal. The implication from the cita-

96

the text in the middle

tion of Deut 24:1–4 is that YHWH has divorced Judah who has subsequently married Baal. But Baal has now also rejected Judah. The question is then whether or not YHWH will take back Judah. The answer according to the law must be no, but YHWH’s grace overrides the law and restores Judah, Israel, and the nations in a new covenant relationship (Jer 3:14–18; 31:31–34; cf., Deut 28:69; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Ezek 16; 20; Hos 1–3). The phrase “certificate of divorce” (twtyrk rps) from Deut 24:1–4 also occurs in Isa 50:1: “Thus says YHWH, ‘Where is the certificate of divorce of your mother whom I sent away [hytxl#]? Or where are my creditors to whom I sold you? Look, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.’” This is not a denial that divorce ever took place. It is a denial that the divorce took place for any reason other than the transgressions. But the very next two verses speak of the hope of redemption from Babylonian exile in a new exodus (Isa 50:2–3; cf., Exod 7:21; 10:21–29; 14:21–22; Isa 43:19). The interpreter faces a dilemma here because the direction of dependence is not self evident. Are Isa 50:1 and Jer 3:1 reading Deut 24:1–4 independently, or is one reading Deut 24:1–4 through the lens of the other?59 One possibility is that the prophet in Second Isaiah is a younger contemporary of Jeremiah who follows the work of the older prophet. Another possibility is that Jeremiah is responsible for both texts. Both texts look beyond YHWH’s legal right under the old covenant to divorce and reject his people permanently to his choice to restore them in a new covenant relationship. The citations of Deut 24:1–4 in the New Testament (Matt 5:31–32; 19:3–12; Mark 10:1–12) suggest that the law was added because of transgression (Exod 19:16; 32; Lev 10:1–3; 17:1–7; Gal 3:19).60

Deuteronomy 30:1–10; Jeremiah 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31: 23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26 Deuteronomy 30:11–14; Psalm 139:7–12; Proverbs 30:4; Romans 10:5–8 In Deuteronomy 30 Moses presents the terms of the covenant apart from the covenant made at Horeb (Deut 28:69 [Eng., 29:1]), which the Prophets understand to be the new covenant of the future (e.g., Jer 31:31–34).61 This is not a covenant renewal. The piel of #dx (“to renew”) never has tyrb (“covenant”) as its object in the Hebrew Bible (cf., 1Q28b 5:21; 1Q34 2:6). The making of this covenant is not narrated in Deuteronomy 29–30



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

97

(cf., Gen 15:18; Luke 22:20). Rather, chapter 29 explains the current situation under the terms of the old covenant, which will ultimately end in exile. Chapter 30 then looks beyond exile to the restoration of God’s people. The syntax of Deut 30:1–7 is crucial to the meaning of the passage. The fronting of the personal pronoun (ht)w) in Deut 30:8 clearly sets apart Deut 30:8–10, but what has not been so clear is the precise delineation of what is the protasis and what is the apodosis in Deut 30:1–7. According to most English translations, the protasis is in Deut 30:1–2. The apodosis in Deut 30:3–7 is understood to be marked by the shift in subject from “you” in Deut 30:1b–2 to “YHWH” in Deut 30:3–7. In this view the people must somehow turn to YHWH before he restores them and circumcises their hearts. How this differs from the old covenant relationship is not evident. There seems to be a condition of obedience that the people are simply not able to meet. Perhaps the shift of subject is not the most reliable guide in this passage to the identification of the protasis and the apodosis. Already within what is thought to be the protasis there is a shift from the subject “all these words” to the subject “you” (Deut 30:1–2). Therefore, it seems best to depend upon the shift in verbal forms from yqtl (protasis) to wqtl (apodosis).62 According to this view, once the covenant curses expected in Deuteronomy 28–29 come upon the people (Deut 30:1a), then everything in the chain of wqtl forms (Deut 30:1b–7) will happen. That is, repentance, restoration, and circumcision come as a package. There is no reference to temporal sequence, condition, or cause and effect. It will be instructive then to see how other texts read the syntax of this passage. Here the assumption is that those who gave the Scriptures their canonical form wanted readers to take Deuteronomy 30 as the words of Moses on which all other references to “restoring the fortunes” (Deut 30:3) of the people are based.63 The most substantial dependence upon Deuteronomy 30 occurs in Jeremiah’s so-called “Book of Comfort” (Jer 30–33). The first instance is prior to this section in Jer 29:10–14, which is part of a letter Jeremiah sent to the exiles (Jer 29:1). YHWH says that when the seventy years in Babylon are over he will visit the people and establish his good word by restoring them (Jer 29:10). He does not set a condition on this. He merely says that the reason for this is the fact that he knows the plans for peace that he has for them (Jer 29:11). YHWH then continues (w/wqtl forms) by saying that at that time of restoration the people will call to him and seek him, and he will hear them and be found by them and restore them (Jer 29:12–14). There is noth-

98

the text in the middle

ing that separates these clauses to indicate that the people must initiate their restoration. It is an unbroken chain of wqtl forms that presents the redemptive work of God in one package. God tells Jeremiah in Jer 30:2–3 to write the words he speaks to him in a “book” (rps) because days are coming when he will restore the fortunes of his people and return them to the land of their fathers so that they can possess it. He does not attach a condition to this. It is something that God initiates. Likewise, he simply states in Jer 30:18 that he will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob without any precondition. The text of Jer 31:23 also assumes that God will restore the fortunes of the people without any prior commitment on their part. The same can be said of Jer 32:44; 33:7, 11. In each case there is no demand that the people initiate the restoration. The reading of Deuteronomy 30 in Jeremiah seems to be influential for other texts (e.g., Ezek 16:53; 39:25; Hos 6:11; Joel 4:1; Amos 9:14; Zeph 2:7; 3:20; Pss 14:7; 53:7; 85:2; 126:1, 4).64 The passage in Amos 9:11–15 does not come from the eighth-century prophet Amos but from the post-exilic composer of the Twelve. The work of this prophetic composer, which is evident primarily in the seams that connect the individual books, is very much under the influence of Jeremiah (e.g., Hos 3:5 [cf., Jer 30:9]; 14:10 [cf., Jer 9:11]; Obad 1–5 [cf., Jer 49:9, 14–16]; Mic 3:12 [cf., Jer 26:18]; Hab 2:13 [cf., Jer 51:58]; Zech 11:12–13 [cf., Matt 27:9–10]).65 After nearly nine full chapters of messages and visions of judgment directed against the northern kingdom of Israel, Amos 9:11–15 suddenly shifts to a glorious picture of the restoration of the fallen booth of David. There is no indication that the people must begin this process of restoration with their own self-motivated repentance. This is not to say that God does not require the people’s repentance (Ezek 18:30–32; Zech 1:3; Mal 3:7). It is to say that this repentance is part of a package of restoration that God initiates (Jer 31:18; Ezek 11:19–20; Lam 5:21). The expectation seems to be that this restoration is something that will take place even beyond the return from Babylonian exile (see, e.g., Neh 1). When the people return to YHWH, he will bless them, for they will heed his voice and do what is written in the book of the Torah (Deut 30:8–10; cf., Gen 15:6; 26:5). According to Deut 30:11, Moses’ instruction is not too difficult or distant. It is not in the sky or on the other side of the sea so that someone has to go and retrieve it (Deut 30:12–13). It is near to the people, in their mouth and in their heart to do it (Deut 30:14). The references to the sky and the sea are perhaps allusions to Moses ascending Sinai and crossing the



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

99

Sea of Reeds in an effort to obtain the Torah for the people. Targum Neofiti interprets the crossing of the sea to be a reference to Jonah. Texts like Ps 139:7–12; Job 28; Prov 30:4; Bar 3 indicate that only God is omnipresent and able to search the heights and the depths to find wisdom. On the other hand, the apostle Paul understands the purpose of the ascent to be to bring Christ down (Rom 10:6). The purpose of the descent into the sea is to raise Christ from the dead (Rom 10:7). The “word” in Deut 30:14 is the word of faith that Paul is proclaiming (Rom 10:8). Those who confess that Jesus is Lord and believe (in their heart) in the resurrection will be saved (Rom 10:9). What exegetical warrant might there be for such interpretations? According to Deut 30:14, the word is near to the people both in their mouth and in their heart. It is in their mouth in the sense that they now have it in the book of the Torah and can read it aloud on a regular basis (Deut 31:9–13; cf., Neh 8–9). They no longer have need of the mediation of the Torah through Moses. It is now directly accessible to them in the text of Scripture (Deut 29:28). But the new covenant relationship also puts the Torah in the heart of the people (Deut 30:6, 14; Jer 31:31–34; cf., Deut 29:3). How is it then that Paul takes this to be the gospel of Jesus Christ? The answer lies in the connection between the Torah and wisdom in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish and Christian tradition. The text of Deut 4:6 makes the link between Torah and wisdom explicit. Jewish tradition then interprets the personification of wisdom in texts like Prov 8:22–31 to be that of the Torah (Sir 24). Christian tradition, however, understands Christ to be wisdom (e.g., Matt 11:19; 1 Cor 1:30; Col 1:15–20). These two ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both the Torah and Christ are the Word of God by which he created the world (John 1:1–3). Thus, to bring the Torah to the people is to bring the revelation of Christ to them (John 5:46–47).

Deuteronomy 31:9–13; Nehemiah 8–9; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 4:11–13; 1 Timothy 4:13 In Deut 31:9–13, Moses writes the Torah and entrusts it to the Levitical priests and the elders. He instructs them to read the Torah every seven years at the appointed time of the Year of Remission during the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut 15–16). All the people (men, women, children, and resident aliens) were to gather to hear this reading in order to learn the fear of YHWH. The only biblical passage that narrates an instance in which

100

the text in the middle

the people follow this instruction is Nehemiah 8–9. Here the post-exilic community (men, women, and those who could understand) gathers in Jerusalem in the seventh month (Neh 7:72b), the month in which the Feast of Tabernacles is celebrated (Neh 8:13–18). They call Ezra, an Aaronic priest rather than a Levitical priest (Ezra 7:1–6), to bring “the book of the Torah of Moses” and read it (Neh 8:1–8). Nehemiah 9 reveals the understanding that “this Torah” in Deut 31:9 is not a collection of laws or the book of Deuteronomy but the narrative of the Pentateuch (creation, exodus, Sinai, wilderness, etc.). Although this Torah had originally been entrusted to the priests, they had failed in this responsibility (2 Kgs 22–23). The prophets were the ones who had preserved the Torah (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:13; Dan 9:10). Ezra himself acknowledges this (Ezra 9:10–11). The centrality of the reading of the Torah in the worship of the post-exilic community becomes the model for the synagogue and the early church. Such a shift away from the sacrificial cult of the Temple also means a new role for the priesthood. No longer is there as much a need for cultic functionaries as there is one for teachers of the Torah (Deut 33:8–11; Ezra 7:6, 10; 2 Chr 17:7–9). This explains the place of Scripture in the writings of the New Testament. According to Acts 2:42, the practice of the early church was to devote itself to the teaching of the apostles. A mere glance at the quotations in the speeches of Peter in Acts 2–3 reveals that the teaching of the apostles was exposition of the Hebrew Scriptures. This observation finds support in the letters of Paul. Pastors are given to be teachers so that the church might become more like Christ (Eph 4:11–13). The church is to be the pillar and support of the truth, devoted to the reading of Scripture and its exposition (1 Tim 3:15; 4:13).

Deuteronomy 33:2–5; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2 According to Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2 (cf., 1 Tim 2:5), the giving of the law at Sinai was mediated not only through Moses but also through angels. The account in Exodus 19 makes no reference to angels. There is only repeated reference to Moses’ encounters with God on the mountain (e.g., Exod 19:3–6, 9–13, 9–24; 20:21–22; 24:1–2; etc.). Likewise, Deut 5:4 mentions YHWH’s “face to face” meeting with the people from the midst of the fire. But what does it mean, for example, that “Moses would speak, and God would answer in a voice” (Exod 19:19b) or that “God spoke all these



citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

101

words” (Exod 20:1)? Apparently the people heard the ten words and then sent Moses on their behalf for the rest (Exod 20:21; Deut 5:4–5, 22). The text does not indicate how God spoke to Moses and the people any more than the prophetic books reveal how the word of YHWH would come to a prophet (e.g., Jer 1:2). There is no indication that visions or dreams were the means of communication. In fact, it seems that the lack of mediation between YHWH and Moses is what made their relationship unique (Exod 33:11; Num 12:6–8). Nevertheless, God did originally reveal himself to Moses through an angel (Exod 3:2). An angel was with the camp of Israel during the exodus (Exod 14:19). During the giving of the law, God said that he was sending an angel before Moses and the people (Exod 23:20; 33:2). It is not without contextual support then that Deut 33:2 highlights the role of angels in the giving of the law. Moses’ blessing in Deuteronomy 33 opens with an introduction that refers to the Sinai narrative (Deut 33:2–5; cf., Judg 5:4–5; Isa 63:19; Hab 3:3; Ps 68:8–9): YHWH came from Sinai, And rose from Seir to them; He shone from Mount Paran, And came from holy myriads; From his right hand td#) to them. Also he loves peoples, All his holy ones are in your hand; And as for them, they recline at your feet, Each one lifts up from your words. Torah Moses commanded to us, A land possession for the assembly of Jacob. And he [i.e., Moses] was in Jeshurun a king, When the heads of the people were gathered, Together the tribes of Israel.

This translation is an attempt to render the Masoretic Text somewhat literally, assuming it is the more difficult reading that best explains the origin of the other readings. The “holy myriads” in Deut 33:2a are normally understood to be angels (cf., Dan 7:10). Since Deut 33:2b stands outside the parallelism and appears to be a comment on Deut 33:2a, it seems best to understand the term td#) (“foundation”; Deut 3:17; 4:49) to represent angels in some way (cf.,

102

the text in the middle

LXX), much like the use of ryb) (“mighty”) to represent angels elsewhere (Ps 78:25).66 These mediators are now in the hand of the individual in some sense (Deut 33:3a; note the singular pronoun). The peoples (cf., Deut 32:43; 33:19) can come like students directly to the feet of their master and receive his words (Deut 33:3b). This is different from the situation at Sinai. The Torah is now directly accessible in the book of Moses (Deut 33:4; cf., Deut 31:9–13; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Ezra 7:14).

Notes 1. Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, trans. David E. Orton (Leiden: Deo, 2005), 40–41. 2. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 135–37. 3. See Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigheit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857), 299–308. 4. See Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, trans. Walter Jacob (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1992), 368. 5. See Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11: Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43; Zweiter Teilband: 4,4411,32, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Herders, 2012). 6. For a concise treatment of the readings of the plague narratives (Exod 7ff) in Pss 78 and 105 see Michael B. Shepherd, Textual World of the Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 47–58. 7. Shemaryahu Talmon, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 269–71. Talmon uses the abbreviations p.m. and s.m. for the prima manus (reading of a manuscript prior to correction) and secunda manus (reading of a manuscript after correction). 8. It should also be noted that the LXX of Exod 15:2 (kai\ skepasth/v) reflects ytrtsw instead of ytrmzw (cf., Deut 32:38). 9. The following section comes from Michael B. Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2011), 31–38. 10. The New Testament authors do not understand the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible only in terms of the power of God or the spirit of prophecy. Nevertheless, modern theologians tend to make a distinction between the revelation of the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and that in the New Testament: “In the OT, the Spirit is ‘personal’ only in the sense that rûah is the self-manifesting activity of God himself, the extension of his personal vitality. The phrase ‘Spirit of the Lord’ is thus a synecdoche for God himself in action (cf. ‘hand’, ‘finger’, ‘arm’ of the Lord). But the NT modifies this understanding in a trinitarian direction. The Son may petition the Father to send the Spirit (John 14:16, 26), but he also commissions the Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7; cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33) as the ‘Spirit of Jesus/Christ’” (M. Turner, “Holy Spirit,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander,



11.

12.

1 3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

23. 24. 25.

citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

103

Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000], 558). But this differs very little from a text like Isa 42:1 where God the Father (Isa 63:16) puts his Spirit upon the messianic servant of the LORD (Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; 11:1–10). Furthermore, Turner’s analogy with certain anthropomorphisms does not work very well given the fact that God never “pours out” (Joel 3:1 [Eng., 2:28]) or “gives” (Neh 9:20) his hand, finger, or arm to anyone. The New Testament authors describe the Spirit as “personal” with specific language drawn from the Hebrew Bible itself (e.g., Isa 63:10 and Eph 4:30; Ezek 11:19–20 [36:26–27] and 2 Cor 3:3). See R. Albertz and C. Westermann, “xAw%r rûah spirit,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, vol. 3, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 1218–1220; Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 260–62; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 59. James C. VanderKam, “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. C. A. Evans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 185–205. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 278. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 271–304. John R. Levison, “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of Ecstatic Elders,” CBQ 65 (2003): 503–21. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 86–87. See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch, 35–37; Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 209–12. William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998), 29. It is noteworthy that the Pentecost account of Acts 2 also highlights the role of prophecy in the gift of the Spirit with its quotation of Joel 2:28–32 (Eng., 3:1–5; Acts 2:17–21; cf., Isa 59:21). As noted above, Acts 3:20 then looks forward to eschatological “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:20). H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 313–14. C. F. Keil, Nehemiah, trans. Sophia Taylor, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 152–53. Martinus J. Menken, “The Provenance and Meaning of the Old Testament Quotation in John 6:31,” NT 30 (1988): 39–56. “In the majority of cases neither themes nor ideas are stated explicitly. They are implied in the narrative and have to be abstracted by interpretation” (S. Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 [1980]: 169). Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress), 316. Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 298–99. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), 595.

104

the text in the middle

26. English translations usually render a)pei/qeia as “disobedience” (e.g., NRSV), but BDAG recognizes the sense “disbelief” (99). This fits the context of Hebrews 3–4 where a)pei/qeia and a)pisti/a are interchangeable. 27. See Shepherd, Textual World, 61, 63. 28. See also 1 Cor 10:4 (Num 21:16–19 Tg. Onk.; Deut 2:6; 32:4 Tg. Neof.). 29. Contra D. A. Carson, “1 Peter,” and G. K. Beale, “Revelation,” in Beale and Carson, ed., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1030–1031, 1090. 30. Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 51–57. 31. See Meyer, The End of the Law, 166–71. 32. See Charles Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church (Nashville: B&H, 2011), 104–108. 33. See also Gen 3:6; 2 Sam 11:2–4; Prov 6:25; Job 31:1, 9. 34. See William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 244. See also Ezek 18:5–9; Zech 5:3–4. 35. See Shepherd, Textual World, 75. 36. It is well known that Leviticus and Ezekiel have much in common, but for the purposes of this study, the similarities are on a two-way street and do not necessarily yield examples of bridge texts or texts in the middle. 37. See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2, The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 260–62. 38. See the helpful discussion in Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, NAC 6 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 357–64. 39. See also Numbers 32 and Joshua 22. 40. See G. W. Coats, “Balaam, Sinner or Saint?” BR 18 (1973): 21–29. 41. In rabbinic exegesis this technique is known as Kms (see Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur [reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965], 142–43). 42. See Sergei Eisenstein, The Film Sense, trans. Jay Leyda (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1942), 4, 11; Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983; reprint, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 44. 43. See Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 28–30, 34–35, 43–45. 44. It is possible that there is a connection between the man in Num 24:7 LXX and the king from the tribe of Judah in Gen 49:8–12. There is a citation of Gen 49:9b in Num 24:9a. Furthermore, the image of the brothers bowing to Judah in Gen 49:8 has its basis in the story of Joseph who is a prefiguration of the coming king (Gen 27:29; 37:8, 10; 42:6, 9). Throughout the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers in Egypt before he reveals himself to them he is known simply as “the man” (e.g., Gen 43:3; cf., Ps 105:17). 45. For this kind of insertion between two parallel lines elsewhere in Samuel see 1 Sam 2:2. 46. The BHS editor for Zech 6:12 suggests that the article was lost due to haplography, but he does not cite any textual support for this view. 47. See D. A. Carson, “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 124 (2005): 693–714. 48. For those who do not think that Paul is the author of 1 Timothy it must be said that the author clearly intends to adopt the persona and theology of Paul. It is very straightforward,



49.

5 0. 51. 52. 53.

54.

55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61.

citation from the pentateuch (exodus–deuteronomy)

105

however, to suggest that the differences in style and content between 1 Timothy and Paul’s other letters are due to the later stage of Paul’s writing and the differences in subject matter (see Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009], 638–42). See John H. Sailhamer, “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” WTJ 63 (2001): 87–96; Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets, 17–24; idem, “The New Exodus in the Composition of the Twelve,” in Text and Canon, ed. Paul J. Kissling and Robert L. Cole (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, forthcoming). Elsewhere Hosea appears to be dependent upon the Pentateuch (e.g., Hos 4:2; 12). J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC 5 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 293. See Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 119. According to Emanuel Tov, the LXX downplays Solomon’s idolatry in this passage and focuses primarily on his love of foreign women (“The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 47–48). To read aloud quietly to oneself is b hgh (e.g., Ps 1:2). See C. J. Labuschagne, “)rq qr’ to call,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark E. Biddle, vol. 3 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 1162. What is this Torah? While some take it to be the collection of laws in Deuteronomy 12–26 (e.g., McConville, Deuteronomy, 295), it is apparent from the larger context of the book that the exposition of the Torah in Deut 1:5 is an exposition of both narrative and law from Genesis–Numbers. When Nehemiah 8–9 follows the instruction for the reading of the Torah in Deut 31:9–13, it understands the Torah to be the book of Moses (i.e., Gen– Deut). Furthermore, the phrase “the book of the covenant” in 2 Kgs 23:2 comes from Exod 24:7 and not Deut 12–26. The attribution of the Exodus text to the D source or deuteronomistic redaction is special pleading. See Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets, FAT 27 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 113–131. See Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigheit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857), 299–308. See also the mixture of the laws of land redemption (Lev 25:25–30) and levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10) in Ruth 3–4. See Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 137–38. Another example of citation from Deuteronomy 24 occurs in 2 Kgs 14:6; 2 Chr 25:4. These texts quote the law in Deut 24:16, which interprets the law in Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9 not to mean that sons must pay for the sins of their fathers and vice versa. It is possible that 2 Kgs 14:6 forms a bridge between Deut 24:16 and the more extended discourse on the subject in Ezekiel 18. “The Moab covenant may even be likened to the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34), because, while maintaining the standards of Horeb/Sinai, it opens on to a future lying even beyond

106

62. 63.

64.

6 5. 66.

the text in the middle

what should be the final defiance of that covenant, incurring its full sanctions (Deut. 28), and conceives of a new beginning, with a new enabling by Yahweh. This is more than covenant renewal; it is the establishment of a pattern of grace after failure that reaches all the way to the resurrection (cf. also N. Lohfink 1998)” (McConville, Deuteronomy, 37). See Alviero Niccacci, Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 140–45. The older view understands twb# to be “captivity” from the root hb# (“to take captive”) so that the expression in Deut 30:3 means “to restore the captivity” (e.g., BDB, 986). This makes sense in a number of passages where return from exile is part of the context. But there are manifestly passages where this meaning does not work (e.g., Job 42:10). More recently the tendency has been to take twb# from bw# so that the construction involves a cognate object: “to turn a turning” or “to restore fortunes” (TLOT 3:1314–15). Lamentations 2:14 chides the false prophets for not exposing the people’s iniquity in order that their fortunes might be restored. This could be taken to mean that exposure and subsequent repentance would lead to restoration, but it is also possible that this is the same idea expressed in the protasis of Deut 30:1a. That is, the people must face the covenant curses for their iniquity before restoration can take place. See Shepherd, “The New Exodus in the Composition of the Twelve.” The Latin Vulgate renders ignea lex (“fiery law”), taking the word to be a compound of #) (“fire”) and td (the Persian word for law). See Deut 5:4; Ezra 7:14.

·3· citation from the prophets

Introduction Analysis of citation from the Prophets comes with its own unique set of challenges. A brief survey of the modern history of research reveals a lack of consensus in methodology.1 What one scholar understands to be a quotation another scholar takes as a commonly held tradition, stock terminology (e.g., Jer 42:22; 44:13; Ezek 6:11 et al.), or dependence upon a common textual source. Even where there is agreement that two texts bear a relationship of some sort there may be disagreement about the direction of dependence. And then there is the problem of the non-standard terminology in the field. Scholars employ almost interchangeably terms like quotation, citation, exegesis, intertextuality, allusion, dependence, influence, echo, et cetera. To insist on methodological conformity is like chasing after the wind. Even where the impression of a consensus with regard to a particularly sound approach exists it is not long before someone challenges the status quo. It is the nature of scholarship itself. This is not something to resist but something to embrace. It is healthy to appreciate the varied insights of different scholars. Standardization might be a convenient way to put everyone

108

the text in the middle

in the same box, but it comes at a price, and that price is the loss of creativity. Some scholars are so rigid in their criteria for dependence that they lose sight of reality and the human element, outsmarting themselves and the biblical authors. They simply need to get out of their own way. After all, interpretation of ancient literature is not an exact science.2 Others are so particular and idiosyncratic in their definitions of technical terms that such terms cease to have any correspondence to common usage. Rather than create the façade or illusion of an ironclad methodology or scholarly consensus it is perhaps best to learn from the original masters: the scribes, the Pseudepigrapha, the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, the New Testament, the Mishna, the Talmuds, the Midrash, et cetera.3 These early interpreters were in many ways an extension of the kind of exegetical activity that occurs within the Bible itself. Their nonconformity is what makes the conversation interesting.4 Scholars will always disagree, but the debate and conflict is what moves the field forward. The extent of citation in the Prophets is not so incredible when it is realized that all texts are in some way made up of other texts.5 But many wonder what the reasons for citation are. Is it to lend authority to the work? Is it to offer an explanation of the cited text? Is it a way to display compositional skill? It is unlikely that there is only one reason for all citation. The reader will have to decide on a case-by-case basis. Benjamin Sommer suggests that one reason might be the pure enjoyment of the reader.6 Whatever the case may be, it is safe to assume that authors for the most part wanted careful readers to be able to identify their citations. They might be veiled (i.e., not formally marked), but they are not completely hidden. As in the first two chapters, the concern of this chapter will be to examine the phenomenon of inner-biblical exegesis involving three or more texts. There will be some attempt to discuss direction of dependence, but the reality is that diachronic analysis always comes to an impasse. What matters is not what one prophet saw in another but what the scribes who gave the text its final form saw. These scribes (i.e., the biblical authors/composers) had the same vantage point that modern readers do in the sense that they were able to look at all the texts simultaneously and shape them in light of one another (e.g., Ezra 7:6, 10; 9:10–11; Neh 8–9).7 What this means is that the intent in some cases is for readers to see the texts synchronically rather than according to a specific direction of dependence. It could also mean that an echo of a later author is to be heard in an earlier author.8



citation from the prophets

109

One final thought: It is an unrealistic expectation that an author must quote the entire context of his source in order to have that context in view. The fact that an author cites a limited portion of text is not a reason to assume that his scope does not extend beyond that portion. The way in which the text is cited in context will reveal whether or not the larger composition of the source is in view.9 No author is able to reproduce a source in its entirely every time reference is made to it. Every citation has boundaries. For example, it is often thought that the citation of Isa 61:1–2 in Luke 4:18–19, which stops before the reference to the day of vengeance, is an indication that Jesus did not want to be negative in his preaching, or that he did not come for judgment, or that he only wanted to mention those things that he gave in response to John the Baptist’s question (Luke 7:22).10 But the place where the citation stops is probably inconsequential. The day of vengeance elsewhere in Isaiah is a positive thing for the true people (i.e., the remnant) of God (e.g., Isa 34:8; 63:4).

Judges 4–5; Isaiah 63:19; Psalm 68 (Num 10:35); Ephesians 4 The relationship between Judges 4 and 5 is similar to the one between Exodus 14 and 15. Exodus 14 is the narrative of the exodus event. The Song of Moses in Exodus 15 is a poetic interpretation of the narrative in chapter 14. Likewise, Judges 4 is the narrative of Deborah and Barak’s victory over Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s Canaanite army. Their song in Judges 5 is a poetic interpretation of that narrative. The song focuses on two aspects of the story in particular. First, it commends those like Zebulun and Naphtali who volunteered to help Barak (Judg 4:10; 5:2, 9, 14–15, 18), while also condemning those who did not lend a hand (Judg 5:16–17, 23). The latter part of the song then highlights the unexpected, but not unanticipated (Judg 4:11), victory at the hands of Jael (Judg 4:17–22; 5:24–27; cf., Judg 9:53). Deborah had indicated to Barak that victory would come by means of a woman (Judg 4:9), but at that point in the narrative the reader assumes that the woman will be Deborah. After the introduction in Judg 5:1–3, the song casts this most recent act of divine deliverance in terms of the deliverance par excellence—the exodus and YHWH’s subsequent appearance at Sinai and conquest of the land east of the Jordan (Judg 5:4–5). The song goes on to create a contrast between the pre-Deborah period and the current state of affairs (Judg 5:6–13). It then specifically mentions Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir (= Manasseh [Gen 50:23]),

110

the text in the middle

Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali as faithful supporters of Barak (cf., Judg 4:10), while citing Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Meroz (?) as those who stayed behind (Judg 5:14–23). The text calls Jael the most blessed of women, highlighting her decision to give Sisera milk instead of the water that he requested so that he would fall asleep (Judg 5:24–25; cf., 4:18–19). The final two verses of the section focus on her act of striking Sisera’s head. Verse 26 refers to the tent peg that she took in Judg 4:21, but it calls the “hammer” (tbqm) of that verse “a workman’s hammer” (Mylm( twmlh). Whereas Judg 4:21 says she “struck” ((qt) the peg into his temple, and it descended into the ground, the text of Judg 5:26b uses three different words for the act of striking (Mlh [“hammer”; cf., twmlh]; qxm [“strike”; hapax legomenon]; Cxm [“strike”; a gloss to explain qxm]) and a different word (Plx) to describe how the peg passed through Sisera’s temple. The song also adds the image of Sisera fallen between the feet of Jael (Judg 5:27; cf., 4:22). The final section of the song features the pitiful image of Sisera’s mother looking out her window in expectation of her son’s victorious return, wondering what the delay could possibly be (Judg 5:28). She assumes that her son should soon return with the spoils of battle (Judg 5:29–30). This provides a unique perspective on the event, which is all the more poignant precisely because the reader knows all too well that her assumptions are misguided. The concluding verse of the chapter alludes to Exod 20:6 (Judg 5:31). Judges 5 is not only a text that interprets Judges 4 but also a text that is interpreted by Psalm 68. Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32, and Judges 5 are among the oldest poetic texts in the Bible (see, e.g., their arrangement in the Leningrad Codex). It is likely then that Psalm 68 is a reading of Judges 5 and not the other way around.11 Psalm 68 opens with a citation of Num 10:35 (Ps 68:1) and an allusion to the song of Judges 5 (Ps 68:5, 33; cf., Judg 5:1). It too is in celebration of God’s victory over his enemies. The first citation of Judges 5 occurs in Ps 68:8–9, casting the celebration in terms of God’s original act of deliverance in the exodus and in terms of what took place in the days of Deborah and Barak (cf., Isa 63:19): Judges 5:4–5 Psalm 68:8–9 ry(#m Kt)cb hwhy

Km( ynpl Kt)cb Myhl)

YHWH, when you went forth from Seir, God, when you went forth before your people, Mwd) hd#m Kd(cb hls Nwmy#yb Kd(cb



citation from the prophets

111

When you marched from the field of Edom, When you marched in Jeshimon,12 Selah wp+n Mym# Mg h#(r Cr) wp+n Mym# P) h#(r Cr) Land quaked, also sky dripped, Land quaked, also sky dripped, Mym wp+n Myb( Mg

Also clouds dripped water; hwhy ynpm wlzn Myrh Myhl) ynpm Mountains flowed from before YHWH,13 …from before God, ynys hz ynys hz (This is Sinai.) (This is Sinai.) l)r#y yhl) hwhy ynpm l)r#y yhl) Myhl) ynpm From before YHWH, the God of Israel. From before God, the God of Israel.

Psalm 68 uses Myhl) (“God”) where Judges 5 has hwhy (“YHWH”). Where Judg 5:4 creates a parallel between Seir and Edom, Ps 68:8 brings out the idea that God was leading his people through the wilderness (“Jeshimon” means “wilderness”; see Deut 32:10; Pss 78:40; 106:14). The use of “Selah” to divide verses 8 and 9 in Psalm 68 is curious given the fact that this marker normally divides the major subunits of a psalm. One possibility is that “Selah” here marks the citation of Judg 5:4–5. There are other passages where “Selah” seems to have this function (Hab 3:3 [Deut 33:2]). The next line (Judg 5:4a3; Ps 68:9a1) is virtually identical in both texts with the exception of the psalmist’s use of P) in place of Mg. The psalm does not include the parallel to this line—“Also clouds dripped water.” Judges 5:5a depicts what the mountains did “from before YHWH.” Psalm 68:9 is elliptical here, but it is clear that “from before God” goes with what follows and not with what precedes. The parallel in Ps 68:9b resumes the thought with the phrase “from before God” (cf., Judg 5:5b). Interrupting the parallelism here is the authorial interpolation ynys hz (“This is Sinai”).14 With this relatively rare reference to Sinai outside the Pentateuch (Judg 5:5; Ps 68:9, 18; Neh 9:13) the author makes his comparison with the events of the pentateuchal narrative explicit. The reference to Sinai has heavily influenced the targumic renderings of Judges 5 and Psalm 68 to which the present discussion will turn shortly. Psalm 68:10 speaks of “freewill offerings” (twbdn), which is perhaps an allusion to Judg 5:2a2: “when a people offered itself freely” (M( bdnthb) (cf., Ps 110:3). Then in the following verses the role of women is similar to that found in Judges 4–5: “The women who proclaim good news are a great host. Kings of armies, they flee, they flee, but she who abides at home divides spoils” (Ps 68:12b–13; see also Ps 68:26; cf., Exod 15:20–21; Judg 11:34). Here one

112

the text in the middle

woman stands apart from the others, enjoying the victory at home. It is difficult not to see in this an allusion to Jael in Judg 5:24. There is yet another reference to Sinai in Ps 68:18b, but there is some question about word division. According to the MT, the text reads #dqb ynys Mb ynd) (“The Lord was among them at Sinai in holiness”). The pronoun “them” refers back to the thousands mentioned in Ps 68:18a (cf., Ps 18:11). But because of the similarity to Deut 33:2 the following division is also plausible: )b ynd) #dqb ynysm (“The Lord came from Sinai in holiness”). This then serves as the context for Ps 68:19a: “You went up to the height, you took captives captive; You took gifts among mankind” (cf., Judg 5:12). Following the lead of the rendering of Judges 5 in Targum Jonathan (see Judg 5:2, 8, 9) the Targum of Psalm 68 sees the giving of the law here (cf., Tg. Ps. 68:9, 12, 16): “You went up to the expanse, O prophet Moses you took captives captive; You taught the words of the Torah, You gave them as gifts to humanity.” The pronoun “them” refers either to the words or to the captives. It is generally recognized that the Targum of Ps 68:19a bears some sort of relationship to Paul’s quote of the psalm in Eph 4:8: “He went up on high and took captives captive, he gave gifts to men.”15 Apart from the shift to third person, Paul does not use the MT’s verb “to take” (xql) but the Targum’s verb “to give” (bhy). But the Targum’s rendering is likely not intended to be a replacement for the MT but an interpretation of it. After all, what does it mean to take gifts among mankind? The MT does not say “you took gifts from mankind” (Md)m twntm txql) but “you took gifts among mankind” (Md)b twntm txql). What could this mean other than a distribution of gifts to humanity (cf., Exod 25:2)? In fact, the word “to distribute” (qlx) in Hebrew requires only a simple transposition of the consonants in the word “to take” (xql). It is thus possible and even likely that the targumist based his rendering on this word association. It is also worth noting that the conclusion to the psalm mentions God’s gift of strength to the people (Ps 68:36).16 Paul interprets the gifts of Ps 68:19a to be the offices of the early church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (Eph 4:11). This is not without warrant from the psalm, especially in light of the references to Sinai and their interpretation in the Targum. Conspicuously absent from Paul’s list of offices is that of the priest. Already in Ezra 7:1–11 the transition of the priest from a cultic functionary in the Temple to a teacher of Scripture (cf., Deut 33:8–11) in the synagogue—the model for the early church—is in progress. The priests who were in a sense taken captive at Sinai (Exod 19:22) now have the responsibility to build up the kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6; Isa



citation from the prophets

113

61:6; 66:21; 1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) in a teaching role. This is not to say, of course, that only priests can be teachers in the church. It is only to say that there is a shift from the office of priest to that of the pastor-teacher in the community of faith. Other notable links between Psalm 68 and Judges 5 include the theme of striking the enemy’s head. Psalm 68:22 says God will “strike” (Cxm) the head of his enemies. This same verb appears in the poetic account of Jael’s striking of Sisera’s head (Judg 5:26; cf., Gen 3:15; Num 24:17; Hab 3:13; Ps 110:5). Psalm 68 also shares with Judges 4–5 references to key tribes: Benjamin, Zebulun, and Naphtali (Judg 4:10; 5:14, 18; Ps 68:28). Verse 33 of the psalm forms something of an inclusio with verse 5, alluding to the opening verse of Judges 5 (note the use of Selah again). From beginning to end Psalm 68 never quite departs from the very specific and unique wording of the text of Judges 5.

Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles The relationship between the books of Samuel and Kings and the book of Chronicles does not yield a study in bridge texts or texts in the middle per se, but the extent of the exegetical relationship between them is such that it is necessary to preface the following sections on Samuel and Kings with a few thoughts on the Chronicler’s reading of these texts. The Chronicler stands in a position to look at the canon from its beginning to its end, taking the reader from Adam in Genesis to the decree of Cyrus in Ezra-Nehemiah. But his special interest is in the southern kingdom of Judah and the fate of the Davidic monarchy. He thus uses the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9 to make his way quickly to the narrative of Saul’s death and into the stories of David. The voice of the Chronicler is sometimes quite noticeable and obvious. One such example is his rehearsal of 1 Samuel 31 in 1 Chronicles 10. His own conclusion is a separate critique of Saul and summary of Saul’s failures taken from 1 Samuel 13; 15; 28 (1 Chr 10:13–14). In this way the Chronicler shows an awareness of the larger context of his source, even though he does not reproduce all the narratives of that source. In other passages the Chronicler shows more subtlety. For example, his omission of the difficult clause in 2 Sam 7:14b is quite deft (1 Chr 17:13). Sometimes the Chronicler will preserve and extend a wordplay from his source, such as the one based on the root Crp in 2 Sam 5:20; 6:8. He does this in part by rearranging the order of the material (1 Chr 13:2, 11; 14:11; 15:13). At other points the Chronicler uses his own wordplay. For instance, he plays on the root qzx in the name Hezekiah (whyqzxy)

114

the text in the middle

in his account of Hezekiah’s temple repairs and Passover festival (2 Chr 29:3, 34; 31:4; 32:5, 7).17 This wordplay and these specific narratives do not occur in the Hezekiah stories of 2 Kings 18–20 or Isaiah 36–39 (cf., 2 Chr 32). The Chronicler is not averse to the combination and insertion of material from outside his primary sources. After all, the Chronicler is not only an exegete. He is also a theologian and a composer.18 In his version of the celebration of the transport of the ark to the City of David (cf., 2 Sam 6), he combines material from Psalms 96 and 105 (1 Chr 16). He also includes a large swath of material about David’s preparations for Solomon’s temple (1 Chr 22–29). This section is not known from any biblical source or any other source for that matter. But it does fill a gap from 1 Kgs 1:13, 30; 7:51. These texts presuppose that David had made preparations for Solomon and his temple, yet no narrative of such preparations occurs earlier in Samuel. Another example of gap filling occurs in 2 Chr 33:13 where the Chronicler provides an explanation for the long fifty-five year reign of the wicked King Manasseh—he repented. It is often important to be aware of word meanings in the Chronicler’s sources when interpreting his text. One such instance of this happens in 1 Chr 21:1. The source for this text reads, “And the anger of YHWH burned again against Israel, and he incited David against them saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah’” (2 Sam 24:1). The Chronicler, on the other hand, has, “And satan (N+#) stood against Israel, and he incited David to number Israel” (1 Chr 21:1). Most English versions render satan here as a proper name: Satan (i.e., the Devil). Not only would this be an unprecedented reference to Satan in the book of Chronicles, but also the action that was attributed to YHWH in 2 Sam 24:1 would now be attributed to Satan. It would be possible to deal with this in purely theological terms (e.g., YHWH controls Satan), but given the character of the book of Chronicles, it is advisable to look for exegetical reasons for the Chronicler’s use of N+#. One possibility is that the Chronicler refers in this passage to the adversary angel (N+#) known from Zechariah 3 and Job 1–2. These texts do share key terms with 1 Chr 21:1 (Zech 3:1; Job 2:3).19 But it seems more likely that the Chronicler would use N+# in a sense that is more in accordance with its usage in his primary sources (Sam and Kgs) rather than in a sense found in texts not known to be particularly significant to him. A N+# in Samuel and Kings is a foreign adversary against whom the nation would have to take precautions and muster an army (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 5:18; 11:14, 23, 25). In two of these texts YHWH is the one who raises up the foreign adversary (1 Kgs 11:14, 23). Thus, the Chronicler, perhaps prompted by the presence of )n +w# (cf., Aram.

)n+#)

citation from the prophets

115

in 2 Sam 24:2, interpreted the need for a military census in 2 Samuel 24 to be due to the raising up of a foreign adversary by YHWH against Israel.20 Conspicuously absent from the Chronicler’s presentation of David (1 Chr 10–29) and Solomon (2 Chr 1–9) is any reference to the failures of these kings such as David’s adultery (2 Sam 11–12) or Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kgs 11:1–10). The Chronicler is not attempting to reconstruct the history of his sources. He diligently cites his sources (e.g., 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29) so that the reader can go and find out more about the exploits of his characters, both the good and the bad. The Chronicler does not want to whitewash the past. He wants to reuse the past to cast an image of the future. At a time when there was no Davidic monarchy (i.e., the post-exilic period), the Chronicler wanted to give his readers a picture of an ideal kingdom—the messianic kingdom. He does this by presenting David and Solomon in the best possible light. In this the Chronicler is not very different from the Prophets (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:5 [Eng., 4:25]; Mic 4:4). The Chronicler is also not interested in the northern kingdom of Israel. While the book of Kings alternates between accounts of the north and those of the south, the Chronicler focuses on Judah because it is from Judah that the hope of the covenant with David will rise. What this means is that the prominent narratives about the prophets Elijah and Elisha from the book of Kings do not appear in Chronicles due to the fact that their ministry was primarily in the north. It is also means that the Chronicler has much more space to devote to Judean kings like Asa (2 Chr 14–16; cf., 1 Kgs 15:9–24) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17–20; cf., 1 Kgs 22:41–51), even portraying them in terms of Torah piety (2 Chr 6:16; 14:3; 17:7–9; 23:18; 25:4; 30:16; 34:14).21 The conclusion to the book of Chronicles is as intriguing as any other part of the book. The author interprets Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years (Jer 25:11; 29:10) in terms of the law of land Sabbaths (Lev 25:1–7; 26:33–35) (2 Chr 36:20–21). He then ends with a truncated version of the decree of Cyrus from Ezra 1:1–4 (2 Chr 36:22–23), which both texts interpret to be a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (cf., Isa 44–45). Whereas the book of Ezra-Nehemiah understands Jeremiah’s prophecy to indicate a literal period of seventy years of Babylonian captivity, the conclusion to Chronicles seems to present Cyrus’ decree as the beginning of something rather than the end. This is in accordance with Gabriel’s interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Dan 9:24–27), which sees the decree (Dan 9:1, 25) as the beginning of an undefined period of seventy sevens (cf., Gen 4:24; LXX Jer 25:1–13; Ezek 38–39).22 The Chronicler thus looks forward to the hope of a messianic figure who will

116

the text in the middle

build the temple, bringing the terms of the Davidic covenant to fruition (Zech 6:12–13; 1 Chr 17:12–13; 36:23).

1 Samuel 2:1–10; 2 Samuel 22:1–23:7; Psalms 75; 113:7–9; Luke 1:46–55 Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam 2:1–10 introduces the central theme of the book of Samuel: YHWH’s anointed (1 Sam 2:10). Together with the poems in 2 Sam 22:1–23:7 it forms an interpretive framework for the narratives about Samuel, Saul, and David. Key elements of Hannah’s prayer also figure prominently in Psalms 75 and 113 and in the Magnificat of Luke 1:46–55. Do these texts simply share common terminology, or is there a genuine intertextual relationship? Is Luke’s depiction of Mary’s Song based on a careful reading of the book of Samuel? Do the psalms help to form a bridge from 1 Sam 2:1–10 to Luke 1:46–55? To begin, the verbal links between 1 Sam 2:1–10 and 2 Sam 22:1–23:7 help the reader to make the connection between the book’s introduction and its conclusion. 1 Samuel 2:1–10 2 Samuel 22:1–23:7 (cf., Ps 18) hwhyb ynrq hmr y(#y Nrqw yngm

My horn is exalted in YHWH (1 Sam 2:1a3)

My shield and the horn of my salvation (2 Sam 22:3b)

hwhyk #wdq Ny) hwhy yd(lbm l) ym yk Ktlb Ny) yk wnyhl)k rwc Ny)w wnyhl) yd(lbm rwc ymw

There is no one holy like YHWH For who is God apart from YHWH? Indeed there is no one besides you And there is no rock like our God And who is a rock apart from our (1 Sam 2:2) God? (2 Sam 22:32) Mmwrm P) lyp#m (y#wt yn( M( t)w ld rp(m Myqm lyp#t Mymr l( Kyny(w Nwyb) Myry tp#)m

He brings low, he also exalts He raises from the dust the lowly From ash heaps he lifts the needy (1 Sam 2:7b–8a1)

And an afflicted people you deliver And your eyes are upon the haughty, you bring them low (2 Sam 22:28)

wklml z( Ntyw wklm tw(w#y lydgm wxy#m Nrq Mryw wxy#ml dsx h#(w



citation from the prophets

117

And he will give strength to his king He magnifies the deliverances of his king And he will exalt the horn of his anointed And he performs covenant loyalty (1 Sam 2:10b) for his anointed (2 Sam 22:51)

The final chapters of 2 Samuel revisit the language of Hannah’s prayer and that of the covenant with David (2 Sam 7; 23:1–7) in order to reassure the reader of David’s restoration from his failures (e.g., 2 Sam 24; cf., 2 Sam 11– 12) and to make it clear that the unconditional covenant relationship with David is still intact. This is also the special concern of the opening chapters of Luke’s gospel (Luke 1:32–33, 69; 2:4, 11). Psalms 75 and 113 each have their own unique take on Hannah’s prayer, providing insight into the textual history of 1 Sam 2:1–10. Psalms 75 and 113 hyb#y lkw Cr) Mygmn



hydwm( ytnkt ykn)

1 Samuel 2:1–10 Cr) yqcm hwhyl yk lbt Mhyl( t#yw

Earth and all its inhabitants melt For the pillars of the earth belong to YHWH I am the one who regulates its pillars (Ps 75:4)

And he set the world on them (1 Sam 2:8b; see also 2:3b2)

wlht l) Myllwhl ytrm)

See 1 Sam 2:10 LXX (cf., Jer 9:22–23)

Nrq wmyrt l) My(#rlw

I said to the boastful, Do not be boastful, And to the wicked, Do not raise a horn (Ps 75:5) Mknrq Mwrml wmyrt l)

hhbg hhbg wrbdt wbrt l)

qt( r)wcb wrbdt

Mkypm qt( )cy

Do not raise to the height your horn Do not speak with a proud neck (Ps 75:6)

Do not speak so much so proudly Let not pride go from your mouth (1 Sam 2:3a)

+p# Myhl) yk Myry hzw lyp#y hz

Mmwrm P) lyp#m

For God judges This one he brings low, this one he exalts (Ps 75:8)

He brings low, he also exalts (1 Sam 2:7b)

118

the text in the middle

(dg) My(#r ynrq lkw

wmdy K#xb My(#rw

qydc twnrq hnmmwrt

wxy#m Nrq Mryw

And all the horns of the wicked I will cut And the wicked will be silenced down in darkness The horns of the righteous will be exalted And he will exalt the horn of his (Ps 75:11) anointed (1 Sam 2:9a2, 10b2) ld rp(m ymyqm ld rp(m Myqm Nwyb) Myry tp#)m

Nwyb) Myry tp#)m

Mybydn M( yby#whl

Mybydn M( by#whl

wm( ybydn M( Mlxny dwbk )skw

He raises from the dust the lowly From ash heaps he lifts the needy To make them sit with nobles With the nobles of his people (Ps 113:7–8)

He raises from the dust the lowly From ash heaps he lifts the needy To make them sit with nobles And inherit a seat of honor (1 Sam 2:8a)

tybh trq( yby#wm

h(b# hdly hrq(

hxm# Mynbh M) hllm) Mynb tbrw

He gives the barren woman of the house a dwelling place The happy mother of children (Ps 113:9)

A barren woman gives birth to seven But she who has many children languishes (1 Sam 2:5b)

Psalm 75:5 shows familiarity with the form of the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint of 1 Sam 2:10, which is close to Jer 9:22–23.23 Psalm 113:7–8 reflects the shorter text of 1 Sam 2:8–9 (i.e., 1 Sam 2:8a, 9b), which we know from a comparison of the Masoretic Text with the Septuagint and 4QSama.24 Luke shows a general awareness of the larger context of the story of Hannah’s barrenness when he prefaces Mary’s Song of Praise with the story of Elizabeth’s barrenness (Luke 1:5–45).25 He then has Mary express the same hope in YHWH’s anointed that is found in Hannah’s prayer and in the book of Samuel. Luke 1:46–55 1 Samuel 2:1–10 My soul magnifies the Lord And my spirit exults in God my savior (Luke 1:46–47)

My heart exults in YHWH For I rejoice in your salvation (1 Sam 2:1a2, b2)

For he has looked upon the lowliness of his maidservant (Luke 1:48a)

He raises from the dust the lowly (1 Sam 2:8a1)

And holy is his name (Luke 1:49b)

There is no one holy like YHWH (1 Sam 2:2a)



citation from the prophets And his mercy (dsx) is for generations of those who fear him (Luke 1:50; cf., Exod 20:6)

He keeps the feet of his loyal followers (wdysx) (1 Sam 2:9a1)

He has scattered the proud in the thought of their heart (Luke 1:51b)

Do not talk so much so proudly Let not pride go from your mouth YHWH, those who contend with him will be shattered (1 Sam 2:3a, 10a)

He has brought down the powerful from thrones And he has raised the lowly (Luke 1:52)

He brings low, he also exalts

119

He raises from the dust the lowly (1 Sam 2:7b, 8a)

The hungry he has filled with good things The satisfied hire themselves out And the rich he has sent away empty for bread (Luke 1:53) But the hungry cease to be so Forever YHWH makes poor and rich (1 Sam 2:5a, 7a) He has helped Israel his servant by He keeps the feet of his loyal remembering his mercy (dsx) followers (wdysx) (Luke 1:54) (1 Sam 2:9a1) Luke 1:55 Micah 7:20

The parallels between Hannah’s prayer and Mary’s Song are even more obvious when the Greek text of Luke 1:46–55 is backtranslated into Hebrew. It is worth noting that Mary’s Song focuses on the same verses from Hannah’s prayer found in 2 Samuel 22, Psalm 75, and Psalm 113.

1 Samuel 2:26; Proverbs 3:4; Luke 2:52 The text of 1 Sam 2:26 states, “And the boy Samuel was steadily growing and finding favor both with YHWH and with men.” There is a clear echo of this in Luke’s description of Jesus’ boyhood: “And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52; cf., Luke 2:40). This is in part because Samuel is something of a messianic prototype—a priest (1 Sam 3), a prophet (1 Sam 3:20), and a judge (1 Sam 7:15) who anointed the first two kings of Israel (Saul and David)—much like Moses who was a Levite (Exod 6:14–27), a prophet (Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10), and a king (Deut 33:5). These similarities join Moses and Samuel in texts like Jer 15:1; Ps 99:6. But the intertext in this case is likely Prov 3:4: “And find favor and good insight in the eyes of God and men” (cf., Rom 14:18). This is the result of heeding

120

the text in the middle

the wisdom of parental instruction. The term “wisdom” is the missing link between 1 Sam 2:26 and Luke 2:52. Furthermore, both narratives underscore the submission of Samuel and Jesus to their parents in their childhood (1 Sam 1–3; Luke 2:41–52).

1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:10–17; 57:19; 58; Jeremiah 7:21–23; Hosea 6:6; 14:3; Amos 5:21–24; Micah 6:6–8; Zechariah 7; Psalms 4:6; 27:6; 40:7–9; 50:14, 23; 51:18–21; 54:8; 107:22; 116:17; 141:2; Proverbs 21:3; Hebrews 10:5–10; 13:15 The prophetic denunciation of empty sacrifices is well known, but is this a common tradition, or do the various manifestations in the Hebrew Bible reflect textual dependence? Furthermore, did those who gave these texts their final shape intend readers to see these passages in light of one another? The first example of this kind is 1 Sam 15:22. It is the prophet Samuel’s denunciation of King Saul for his failure to kill King Agag of the Amalekites and to devote all to destruction (1 Sam 15:3). Saul has defeated the Amalekites, but he has kept King Agag alive and kept some of the best of the plunder for sacrifices (1 Sam 15:20–21). That is, Saul has substituted sacrifice for obedience. Here the text of 1 Sam 15:22 is quoted in full due to the fact that its specific terminology resurfaces in so many other examples: “Does YHWH have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of YHWH? Look, obeying is better than sacrifice, to heed is better than the fat of rams (Myly) blxm by#qhl bw+ xbzm (m# hnh hwhy lwqb (m#k Myxbzw twl(b hwhyl Cpxh).” This same terminology appears at the beginning of Isaiah’s comparison of the people to Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa 1:10–17). It is almost as if the prophet takes Samuel as his starting point and then expands on the idea: “What to me is the abundance of your sacrifices (Mkyxbz)? says YHWH. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams (Myly) twl() and fat (blx) of fatlings. And in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats I do not delight (ytcpx)” (Isa 1:11). YHWH does not seek these things from the people (Isa 1:12). They are an abomination to him (Isa 1:13–14). The people have bloodshed on their hands (Isa 1:15). What YHWH really desires is justice (+p#m), justice for the orphan and the widow (Isa 1:16–17, 23; cf., Deut 10:18). Other prophets will take up this idea of justice that Isaiah adds to Samuel’s words (cf., Isa 58; Zech 7). Jeremiah’s words in Jer 7:21–23 come on the heels of the prophet’s rebuke of the people’s false sense of security in the temple (Jer 7:1–15). The people are bringing their sacrifices and living their lives in any manner that they



citation from the prophets

121

please. And so YHWH says that they may as well disregard the instructions for burnt offerings (Mkytwl() and sacrifices (Mkyxbz) (Jer 7:21). It is possible that Jer 7:21 means either to multiply burnt offerings and sacrifices in vain or to mix them, but it is clear that the command to eat the meat of burnt offerings is a command to disobey the law (Lev 1). YHWH reminds the people that matters of burnt offering and sacrifice were added secondarily (Jer 7:22). Without faith and obedience in the covenant relationship the burnt offerings and sacrifices are meaningless (Jer 7:23). The Book of the Twelve and the book of Psalms have the most material devoted to this subject. The text of Hos 6:6 follows the wording of 1 Sam 15:22 and Hosea’s contemporary Isaiah (Isa 1:11): “For it is in covenant loyalty that I delight (ytcpx) and not sacrifice (xbz), and in recognition of God rather than burnt offerings (twl().” Here covenant loyalty and recognition of God are set in direct opposition to sacrifice and burnt offerings (cf., Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:23). This is not because the cult is inherently wrong. It is in order to correct one extreme with another. The people have worshiped Baal for the very blessings they have received from YHWH (Hos 2:4–15) and have thus failed to acknowledge YHWH (Hos 4:1, 6). The text of Hos 14:3 (LXX) looks forward to a time when the people will offer spiritual sacrifices (cf., Isa 57:19; Pss 4:6; 27:6; 50:14, 23; 54:8; 107:22; 116:17; 141:2; Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5). The text of Amos 5:21–24 is closer to Isa 1:10–17 than any other. It is difficult to say which prophet might have influenced the other (Isa 1:1; Amos 1:1). Like the Isaiah text, the Amos text stresses YHWH’s rejection of religious assemblies (Mkytrc(), burnt offerings (twl(), grain offerings (Mkytxnm), and fatlings (Mky)yrm) (Amos 5:21–22). He also rejects their music (Amos 5:23). And like the Isaiah text, the Amos text indicates that what YHWH desires is justice (+p#m) and righteousness (hqdc) (Amos 5:24; cf., Prov 21:3). The practices of Amos’ generation are compared to the worship of false gods in the wilderness generation (Amos 5:25–27; cf., Acts 7:41–43). In light of YHWH’s contention that he has remained faithful throughout the people’s history (Mic 6:1–5; cf., Jer 2:1–13), the question is raised in Mic 6:6–7 about what might be the proper way to come before YHWH in worship. Should the worshiper come with burnt offerings (twlw(), calves, rams, olive oil, and the firstborn? Verse 8 indicates that YHWH seeks none of these (cf., Deut 10:12). He is pleased with the practice of justice (+p#m), devotion to covenant loyalty (dsx), and humbly living a life of faith with God. It is worth noting that Micah is also a contemporary of Isaiah.

122

the text in the middle

The text of Ps 40:7 features a parallelistic line with a comment inserted between the two parallel clauses: In sacrifice (xbz) and offering (hxnm) you do not delight (tcpx), (Ears have you dug for me) Burnt offering (hlw() and sin offering you do not request.

This verse uses the word l)# (“request”) instead of the word #rd (“seek”) in Mic 6:8. The word l)# is used here in the sense that it has in Deut 10:12, the text on which Mic 6:8 is based. The speaker in the psalm delights in doing what pleases God (Ps 40:9), so what is it that pleases God in this context? A negative answer would be that he does not delight in sacrifices and offerings (cf., Lev 1–7). A positive answer would have to be an explanation of the comment, “Ears have you dug for me.” This expression is likely a way to say that God has made the speaker attentive and obedient (cf., 1 Sam 15:22; Isa 50:4–5; 1 Chr 17:25). The writer to the Hebrews quotes this with reference to Christ’s obedient offering of himself as a sacrifice: “A body you prepared for me” (Heb 10:5; cf., LXX).26 It is possible that this reading is due to an inner-Greek variant with confusion of SWMA (“body”) for WTIA (“ears”). It is also possible that the Hebrews text represents an interpretation of Ps 40:7 in which the ears are a part for the whole (synecdoche). Either way the understanding seems to be that God prefers obedience to mere sacrifice. The only text in the Hebrew Bible that expresses the above view of sacrifice and also affirms the value of sacrifice when someone is obedient is Ps 51:18–21 (cf., Matt 23:23). According to this text, God does not delight (Cpx) in sacrifice (xbz) or burnt offering (hlw(). The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and a broken heart. Only then will God delight in righteous sacrifices. It is possible to take “burnt offering and whole offering” (hlw( lylkw) in Ps 51:21 as a scribal interpolation so that the righteous sacrifices could be spiritual sacrifices (cf., Ps 4:6), but there is no textual evidence for this, and the conclusion to the verse is difficult to spiritualize: “Then they will offer on your altar bulls.”

2 Samuel 7:1–17; Zechariah 6:12–13; Psalms 89 and 132; 1 Chronicles 17:1–15; Luke 1:32–33; Acts 2:30; Hebrews 1:5 It is difficult to overestimate the extent of the influence of the covenant with David (2 Sam 7:1–17) in biblical theology. Without question the New



citation from the prophets

123

Testament authors understand the historical Jesus of Nazareth to be the son of David of whom this covenant speaks (e.g., Luke 1:32–33; Acts 2:30; Heb 1:5). Such a messianic reading of the covenant is consistent with the presentation and reading of the covenant in the Hebrew Bible and in the early history of interpretation (e.g., 4QFlor). But this reading has not been so obvious to modern scholars who prefer to see only Solomon and the Davidic dynasty in 2 Sam 7:1–17. To begin, it is important to note that 2 Sam 7:1–17 does not use the word “covenant” (tyrb). It is only in 2 Sam 23:5 and outside the book of Samuel that this term occurs with reference to this passage. Having brought the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6), David expresses his desire to build a “house” (tyb) for it, a desire that the prophet Nathan initially affirms (2 Sam 7:1–3). But then YHWH turns Nathan back to David with the message that he has never needed a house (2 Sam 7:4–7). He goes on to tell David what he will do for him. He will make his name great (2 Sam 7:9). He will make a place for his people (2 Sam 7:10). He will raise up David’s seed (2 Sam 7:12). It is not a coincidence that these are also the key features of the covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:1–9; 15; 17). The unconditional covenant with David is in continuity not with the temporal, conditional covenant of Sinai but with the unconditional covenant of the patriarchs. Like Abraham, David will have a plurality of descendants and one particular descendant who will reign over an everlasting kingdom (Gen 49:8–12). Thus, David will not build a house for YHWH (1 Kgs 5:17), but YHWH will build a house (i.e., dynasty) for David (2 Sam 7:11). The reader might expect something here about the succession of Davidic sons who will reign on his throne, but the text focuses instead on one particular son of David who will build the temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–13). Modern interpreters often jump to the conclusion that this must be Solomon. After all, Solomon does build the temple, and he does look like the son of David from 2 Sam 7:12–13 for ten chapters (1 Kgs 1–10). Even David and Solomon seem to think that Solomon is the fulfillment of the covenant, reading Solomon’s name back into the wording of 2 Sam 7:12–14 (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:18–20). But as 1 Kings 11–12 shows, Solomon, like all the other righteous kings of Judah, is nothing more than a literary foil. His kingdom does not last. The Prophets understand this well, looking beyond the failures of the Davidic monarchy to the hope of an ideal king who will appear in the last days (Isa 9:5–6 [Eng., 9:6–7]; 11:1–10; Jer 23:5–6; 30:9; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; Hos 3:5). For

124

the text in the middle

example, the post-exilic prophet Zechariah quotes from 2 Sam 7:13 and sees not a reference to Solomon but one to the messianic Branch (Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5–6). When your days are over and you lie with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you who will go forth from your inward parts, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my name (ym#l tyb hnby )wh), and I will establish the throne ()sk) of his kingdom forever (2 Sam 7:12–13). Look, a man, Branch is his name, and from below him he will sprout, and he will build the temple of YHWH (hwhy lkyh t) hnbw). And he is the one who will build the temple of YHWH (hwhy lkyh t) hnby )whw), and he will lift up splendor and sit and rule on his throne (w)sk) (Zech 6:12b–13a).

Likewise, the post-exilic author of Chronicles focuses not on Solomon or the failed succession of Davidic sons but on the one son of David will come in the future. And your house will endure, and your kingdom, forever before you. Your throne will be established forever (2 Sam 7:16). And I will cause him to remain in my house and in my kingdom forever. And his throne will be established forever (1 Chr 17:14).

This is the same sort of kingdom that the visions of the book of Daniel anticipate in the last days (Dan 2:28, 34–35, 44–45; 7:13–14, 18, 27). The divine sonship language of 2 Sam 7:14 has attracted attention because of the supposed parallel with other ancient Near Eastern monarchies. This has led to the tendency to downplay the significance of the king’s relationship to YHWH. But it must be said that this kind of language is quite unique within the Hebrew Bible itself (Ps 2:7; 89:27) and is apparently reserved for David and for only one specific son of David (Heb 1:5; cf., Exod 4:23). It is a metaphor designed to express the closeness of the relationship between YHWH and his chosen king. As such, the reference to the king’s discipline (2 Sam 7:14b) must be understood as a way to illustrate the father-son relationship by using something that is common to all father-son relationships (Prov 3:12). The ambiguous construction wtw(hb r#) has been variously rendered as “When he commits iniquity” or “If he commits iniquity.” The former presupposes that the king will commit iniquity. The latter does not. The Septuagint, the Targum, and the Psalms (Pss 89:31–32; 132:12) are unanimous in their interpretation of this as “if” rather than “when.” Ultimately the son of David will



citation from the prophets

125

learn obedience in a human sense by what he suffers for the sin of the people (Php 2:8; Heb 5:8). Of all the psalms that bear the influence of the covenant with David (e.g., Pss 2; 72; 89; 110; 132) Psalms 89 and 132 feature the most extensive and sustained dependence upon the text of 2 Sam 7:1–17. The introduction to Psalm 89 extols the covenant loyalties of YHWH (Ps 89:1–5). The speaker in Ps 89:3a says, “Forever covenant loyalty will be built (hnby dsx Mlw().” It is unusual to find dsx as the subject of the verb hnb. The text of 2 Sam 7:11b reads, “YHWH declares to you that YHWH will make (h#(y) a house (tyb) for you.” The Chronicler combines this with the wording of Ps 89:3a: “YHWH will build (hnby) a house (tyb) for you.” Psalm 89:4 explicitly refers to the making of a covenant with David: “I made a covenant with my chosen one, I bound myself by oath to David my servant.” Psalm 89:5 is closer to the wording of 2 Sam 7:12–13, 16: “Forever I will establish your seed, and I will build for generations your throne (K)sk rwdw rdl ytynbw K(rz Nyk) Mlw( d().” The main exposition of 2 Sam 7:1–17 appears in Ps 89:20–38. The psalmist prefaces this exposition by setting it within the larger context of YHWH’s superiority to the angels (Ps 89:6–9; cf., Heb 1:5), his defeat of Egypt in the exodus (Ps 89:10–11), and his creative power (Ps 89:12–14). YHWH is the king who reigns in justice and righteousness (Ps 89:15–19). Psalm 89:18b says that YHWH raises the “horn” (Nrq) of the people. This is likely a reference to the human king (1 Sam 2:10; Ps 132:17). Such a balance between the divine king and the human king is common to the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen 49:8–12; Exod 15:18; Num 24:7), Prophets (Isa 9:5–6; Zech 2:14; 9:9), and the Writings (Dan 7:14, 27). This is most evident in the way the textual witnesses to Ps 89:19 vary: “For to YHWH our shield belongs, and to the Holy One of Israel our king belongs” (MT; cf., Ps 84:10); “For YHWH is our shield, and the Holy One of Israel is our king” (Syr.; cf., Ps 84:4, 12). Psalm 89:20–38 1–2 Samuel Then you spoke in a vision (Nwzx) According to all these words and (Ps 89:20a) according to all this vision (Nwyzx) thus Nathan spoke to David (2 Sam 7:17) With my holy oil I anointed him And Samuel took the horn of oil (wytx#m y#dq Nm#b) (Nm#h Nrq) and anointed (x#myw)

126

the text in the middle

(Ps 89:21b) him in the midst of his brothers (1 Sam 16:13a) An enemy (byw)) will not act the And I cut off all your enemies creditor against him (Kyby)) from before you (Kynpm) And a son of injustice will not afflict And sons of injustice will not him (wnn(y )l hlw( Nbw) (cf., LXX) afflict him again (wpysy )lw And I will cut down from before him wtwn(l hlw( ynb) like before (wynpm) his foes (Ps 89:23–24a) (2 Sam 7:9a2, 10b) And my faithfulness and my covenant And my covenant loyalty (ydsx) loyalty (ydsxw ytnwm)w) will be with will not turn aside from him him And your house will endure (Nm)n) And in my name his horn will be exalted And he will exalt the horn of his (wnrq Mwrt) anointed (wxy#m Nrq Mryw) (Ps 89:25) (1 Sam 2:10b2; 2 Sam 7:15a, 16a) He will be the one who calls me, “You are my father (yb))” Also I, firstborn I will give him (Ps 89:27a, 28a)

I will be the one who becomes his father (b)), and he will be the one who becomes my son (2 Sam 7:14a)

Forever (Mlw(l) I will keep for him my And my covenant loyalty (ydsx) covenant loyalty (ydsx) will not turn aside from him And my covenant will endure (tnm)n) And your house will endure (Nm)n), for him and your kingdom, forever (d( (Ps 89:29) Mlw() before you (2 Sam 7:15a, 16a) And I will set forever (d(l) his seed And I will raise up your seed (w(rz) (K(rz) after you And his throne (wask) like the days of And I will establish the throne the sky ()sk) of his kingdom forever (d( (Ps 89:30) Mlw() Your throne (K)sk) will be established forever (Mlw( d() (2 Sam 7:12a2, 13b, 16b) If (M)) his sons forsake my instruction And in my judgments they do not walk If (M)) they profane my statutes And my commands they do not keep I will visit with a rod (+b#b) their crime And with blows (My(gnb) their iniquity (Mnw() (Ps 89:31–33)

If he commits iniquity (r#) I will correct him with a rod (+b#b) of men and with blows of (y(gnb) sons of man (2 Sam 7:14b)

wtw(hb),

But my covenant loyalty (ydsx) I will not And my covenant loyalty (ydsx) break (ryp))27 from with him will not turn aside (rwsy)28 from him



citation from the prophets

127

And I will not deal falsely in my faith- And your house will endure (Nm)n) fulness (ytnwm)b) (2 Sam 7:15a, 16a) (Ps 89:34) His seed (w(rz) will be forever (Mlw(l) And I will raise up your seed And his throne (w)sk) like the sun before (K(rz) after you…, and I will me establish (ytnykhw) his kingdom Like the moon he will be established (Nwky) And I will establish (ytnnkw) the And an enduring (Nm)n) witness in the throne ()sk) of his kingdom clouds forever (Mlw( d() (Ps 89:37–38) And your house will endure (Nm)n) …Your throne ()sk) will be established (Nwkn) forever (d( Mlw() (2 Sam 7:12, 13b, 16)

Of particular interest in this section is the reapplication of 2 Sam 7:14 in Ps 89:31–33. In the original context, the words applied only to the one son of David who would build the temple and reign over an everlasting kingdom. This was an unconditional covenant (like the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and the new covenant community), and the condition of 2 Sam 7:14 was only a hypothetical scenario designed to illustrate the unique father-son relationship. The text of Ps 89:31–33 reuses this language to talk about the conditional relationship that YHWH has with every other descendant of David who might reign on the throne. This difference is evident in the choice of verb for the apodosis in each passage. In 2 Sam 7:14b the verb is “I will correct him” (wytxkhw). In Ps 89:33 the verb is “I will visit (i.e., punish)” (ytdqpw). Such a distinction and reuse of language is important for the latter part of the psalm (Ps 89:39–52) where a Davidic king is calling into question the ongoing validity of the covenant with David. It is also important to note the shift in pronouns from Ps 89:31–33 to Ps 89:34. In Ps 89:31–33 the text employs plural verbs and pronouns for the “sons.” But Ps 89:34a shifts to the singular: “But my covenant loyalty I will not break from with him.” This is the fundamental contrast between the son of David (2 Sam 7:12–16; Ps 89:34) and the sons of David (Ps 89:31–33). YHWH’s relationship with the sons of David is conditional, but his relationship with the son of David is not. The covenant with David is unconditional (Ps 89:35–38). Thus, even when one of the sons of David fails and faces punishment, the covenant with David stays intact (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:29–39). The speaker in Ps 89:39–52 (a Davidic king) has clearly misunderstood how the words of 2 Sam 7:12–16 should apply to him. He thinks that no matter what he should not have to face the consequences of his actions.

128

the text in the middle

When things go badly, he accuses YHWH of breaking his covenant (Ps 89:40; cf., Ps 89:35). He does not understand that the unconditional aspect of the covenant only applies to the one son of David. The reuse of the language of that covenant to apply to the sons of David, such as what is found in Ps 89:31–33, puts a condition on the relationship. If the sons of David do not follow YHWH’s instruction, he will punish them. And so, according to Ps 89:24, YHWH had said that he would defeat David’s enemies. But now YHWH seems to be giving the victory to the enemies of one of the sons of David (Ps 89:43). The speaker wonders where the former covenant loyalties might be and feels that his lament is warranted (Ps 89:50), but the reader of the psalm knows that the real hope of the covenant with David lies in the future. Psalm 132 takes the desire David expresses to Nathan—“I live in a cedar house, and the ark of God dwells in the midst of the curtain” (2 Sam 7:2; cf., 1 Chr 16:1, 39)—and puts it into the form of an oath: “[YHWH do so to me,] if I enter the tent of my house, if I go up on the couch of my bed, if I give sleep to my eyes, slumber to my eyelids, before I find a place for YHWH, dwellings for the Mighty One of Jacob” (Ps 132:3–5; cf., 1 Sam 3:17; 2 Sam 11:11). Of course, the place for YHWH is really the place for his ark (Ps 132:7–8). This characterization of David’s words captures the essence of his desire. He feels that it is an injustice for him to enjoy personal comforts before the ark of YHWH is in its proper resting place. Much like Psalm 89, Psalm 132 has an interest in the implications of the covenant with David for subsequent sons of David (Ps 132:10). YHWH swore to David, Faithfulness will not return from it [i.e., from the oath]: “From the fruit of your belly I will put on your throne. If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies that I teach them, Also their sons forever will sit on your throne.” (Ps 132:11–12; cf., 2 Sam 7:12–16)

These words reapply the words of the unconditional covenant with David— which originally applied to the one son of David—to the conditional relationship that YHWH has with the sons of David in general. But the conclusion to the psalm features the same shift from plural (sons of David) to singular (the son of David) that occurred between Ps 89:31–33 and Ps 89:34: “There [i.e., in Zion (Ps 132:13–14; cf., 2 Sam 5)] I will cause a horn to sprout for David, I have arranged a lamp for my anointed one. His enemies I will clothe with



citation from the prophets

129

shame, and upon him his crown will shine” (Ps 132:17; cf., 1 Sam 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:36). Despite the failures of the sons of David, one particular horn for David will sprout, and his crown will shine. This is the unconditional nature of the original covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7.

2 Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:31; Proverbs 30:5–6; Revelation 22:18–19 2 Samuel 22:34; Habakkuk 3:19; Psalm 18:34 The relationship between 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 is a study by itself.29 The task is not to reconstruct one psalm from the two, disregarding the separate processes of transmission for the two texts in their respective compositions.30 Rather, it is to determine the intertextual relationship between them. It is possible to make the case for the priority of either version of the psalm. The composer of the book of Psalms seems to have included Psalm 18 next to Psalm 19 with the presupposition that the reader would know the role of 2 Samuel 22 in the composition of the book of Samuel as mentioned above (cf., Pss 1–2 and 118–119). Psalm 18 generally has the fuller orthography (e.g., 2 Sam 22:2 [ytdcmw] and Ps 18:3 [ytdwcmw]; 2 Sam 22:5–6 [ynmdq, ynpp), ynt(by, ynbs] and Ps 18:5–6 [ynwpp), ynwt(by, ynwbbs, ynwmdq]; 2 Sam 22:19 [ynmdqy] and Ps 18:19 [ynwmdqy]; 2 Sam 22:44 [yndb(y] and Ps 18:44 [ynwdb(y]; 2 Sam 22:47–48 [Mryw, tmqn] and Ps 18:47–48 [Mwryw, twmqn]),31 although there are exceptions (e.g., 2 Sam 22:51 [lydgm] and Ps 18:51 [ldgm]).32 Psalm 18 also has examples of Aramaic influence (e.g., Kmxr) [Ps 18:2; > 2 Sam 22:2]).33 It is true that Aramaic was alive and well in the earlier part of the pre-exilic period (e.g., the ninth century B.C. Tell Dan inscription), but Aramaic influence on biblical Hebrew texts is most evident in transitional and post-exilic Hebrew.34 Psalm 18 also appears to make “improvements” on the text of 2 Samuel 22 so that difficult forms are easier to read (e.g., 2 Sam 22:27 [rbtt, lptt] and Ps 18:27 [rrbtt, ltptt]).35 One verse that is identical in both versions of the psalm is 2 Sam 22:31/Ps 18:31: “As for the one true God, blameless is what his way is (wkrd Mymt l)h), The saying of YHWH is refined (hpwrc hwhy trm)), A shield is what he is to all who take refuge in him (wb Mysxh lkl )wh Ngm).” The first and third clauses are parallel. The middle clause is an authorial comment inserted into the parallelism (cf., Ps 12:7). It is this insertion that influences Prov 30:5–6: “Every saying of God is refined, A shield is what he is to those who take refuge in him (wb Mysxl )wh Ngm hpwrc hwl) trm) lk); Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Here the authorial comment has

130

the text in the middle

become the primary clause, and there is a warning not to add to what God says. The conclusion to Revelation (and thus the Bible) builds on this and adds the thought that nothing should be taken away either (Rev 22:18–19; cf., Deut 4:2). A related, yet somewhat different, example is the relationship between 2 Sam 22:34/Ps 18:34 and Hab 3:19. The Habakkuk text shows an awareness of both versions of the psalm and also makes its own contribution to the form of the verse. yndm(y [LXX = twmbh] ytwmb l(w twly)k [Q: ylgr] wylgr hw#m He makes his feet (Q: my feet) like the female deer, And upon my high places (LXX: the high places) he causes me to stand. (2 Sam 22:34)

[LXX = tmbh] ytmb l(w twly)k ylgr hw#m He makes my feet like the female deer, And upon my high places (LXX: the high places) he causes me to stand. (Ps 18:34)

yndym(y

[LXX = twmbh] ytwmb l(w twly)k ylgr M#yw And he sets my feet like the female deer, And upon my high places (LXX: the high places) he causes me to tread. (Hab 3:19) ynkrdy

The Habakkuk text uses the verb M#yw instead of the participle hw#m. It follows the reading ylgr (Ps 18:34) instead of wylgr (2 Sam 22:34). On the other hand, the Habakkuk text follows the fuller orthography of ytwmb (2 Sam 22:34) rather than the defective spelling of ytmb (Ps 18:34). It also uses a different verb at the end of the verse: ynkrdy instead of ynd(y)m(y (2 Sam 22:34/Ps 18:34). The variation between MT yt(w)mb and LXX t(w)mb in all three texts is due either to haplography or to dittography.

Isaiah 2:1–5; Joel 4:10; Micah 4:1–5 Isaiah 2:1–5 Micah 4:1–5 Cwm) Nb why(#y hzx r#) rbdh Ml#wryw hdwhy l(

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:



citation from the prophets Mymyh tyrx)b hyhw

Mymyh tyrx)b hyhw

Myrhh #)rb hwhy tyb rh hyhy Nwkn

#)rb Nwkn hwhy tyb rh hyhy

Mywgh lk wyl) wrhnw tw(bgm )#nw

tw(bgm )wh )#nw Myrhh

Mym( wyl( wrhnw And it will be, at the end of the days, And it will be, at the end of the days, the mountain of the house of YHWH will the mountain of the house of YHWH be established at the top of the mountains, will be established at the top of the and it will be lifted up higher than hills, mountains, and it will be lifted up and all the nations will flow to it. higher than hills, and peoples will flow to it. wrm)w Mybr Mym( wklhw

wrm)w Mybr Mywg wklhw

36

hwhy rh l) hl(nw wkl

bq(y yhl) tyb l)

bq(y yhl) tyb l)w

wytxr)b hklnw wykrdm wnryw

wytxr)b hklnw wykrdm wnrwyw

hrwt )ct Nwycm yk

hrwt )ct Nwycm yk

Ml#wrym hwhy rbdw

Ml#wrym hwhy rbdw

And many peoples will go and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of YHWH, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us from his ways, and that we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion Torah will go forth, and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.

And many nations will go and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of YHWH and to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us from his ways, and that we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion Torah will go forth, and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.

Mywgh Nyb +p#w

Mybr Mym( Nyb +p#w

Mybr Mym(l xykwhw

qwxr d( Mymc( Mywgl xykwhw

Myt)l Mtwbrx wttkw

Myt)l Mhytbrx wttkw

twrmzml Mhytwtynxw

twrmzml Mhyttynxw

brx ywg l) ywg )#y )l

brx ywg l) ywg w)#y )l

hmxlm dw( wdmly )lw

hmxlm dw( Nwdmly )lw

hwhy rh l) hl(nw wkl

And he will judge between the nations, And he will judge between many and he will decide for many peoples. And peoples, and he will decide for they will beat their swords into plowing numerous nations far away. And tools and their spears into pruning tools. they will beat their swords into Nation will not lift up to nation a sword, plowing tools and their spears into and they will never again learn war. pruning tools. Nation will not lift up to nation a sword, and they will never again learn war.

131

132

the text in the middle

wnpg txt #y) wb#yw dyrxm Ny)w wtn)t txtw rbd tw)bc hwhy yp yk And each will live under his grape vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one causing trembling, for the mouth of YHWH of hosts has spoken. hwhy rw)b hklnw wkl bq(y tyb

wkly Mym(h lk yk

O house of Jacob, come and let us walk wyhl) M#b #y) in the light of YHWH. wnyhl) hwhy M#b Kln wnxn)w d(w Mlw(l Though all the peoples walk each in the name of his god, we will walk in in the name of YHWH our God forever and ever.

Diachronic analysis of Isa 2:1–5 and Mic 4:1–5 has not yielded satisfactory results on the direction of dependence between the two passages, and there seems to be little reason to posit a no longer extant common source or tradition.37 But synchronic analysis shows that the text is “The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (Isa 2:1).38 The Micah passage has no corresponding superscription. Thus, those who gave the prophetic corpus its final shape gave the Isaiah passage the priority so that readers would know which way to read the texts. The wording of Isa 2:2 and Mic 4:1 is very close. The Micah text alters the position of Nwkn and inserts the pronoun )wh. It also uses wyl( for wyl) and Mym( for Mywgh lk (cf., Mic 1:2). But at the beginning of Mic 4:2 the text has Mywg for Mym( in Isa 2:3, almost like someone who is borrowing a text and yet wants to make it appear to be his or her own. This verse in Micah also adds a waw conjunction before “to the house of the God of Jacob,” making a careful distinction between the mountain of YHWH and the house of YHWH. Otherwise, Mic 4:2 only has an orthographic variant wnrwyw for wnryw). The variation between the two passages is more marked in Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3. The Micah text uses Mybr Mym( for Mywgh and qwxr d( Mymc( Mywgl for Mybr Mym(l. It is important to note that both of these are longer readings. This verse also has some orthographic variants: Mhytbrx Mhyttynxw, and Nwdmly (Mic 4:3) for Mtwbrx Mhytwtynxw, and wdmly (Isa 2:4). The Micah text also uses the plural w)#y for the singular )#y in Isa 2:4. These alterations do little to change the meaning of the Isaiah text, but they establish a relationship that



citation from the prophets

133

will prove to be important when the Micah text introduces its exegesis and interpretation of Isaiah. Joel 4:10a (Eng., 3:10a) has what appears on the surface to be a reversal of the text in Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3: Myxmrl Mkytrmzmw twbrxl Mkyt) wtk (“Beat your plowing tools into swords and your pruning tools into spears”). But since this envisions the defeat of the enemies of the people of God in the Day of YHWH, it ultimately means peace. The superscription in Isa 2:1 still gives that passage priority here, but what is the relationship between Joel 4:10a and Mic 4:3 in the Book of the Twelve? Micah is said to be a contemporary of Isaiah (Isa 1:1; Mic 1:1). No such clear indication of date appears for the prophet Joel in his book (cf., Joel 1:1). It is true that Micah comes several books after Joel in the order of the Twelve (but not in the LXX: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah), but the composer of the Twelve has given Mic 4:1–5 a more prominent position directly after the middle verse of the book (Masora parva at Mic 3:12: Myqwspb rpsh ycx [“the middle of the book in verses”]). Micah 4:4 has no equivalent in the Isaiah passage, but this text also features borrowed material. The first half of the verse comes from 1 Kgs 5:5 (Eng., 4:25), a description of prosperity and security in Solomon’s kingdom used here as a metaphor for what Zion will be like in the last days (cf., Zech 3:10). The second half of the verse comes from an expression used to mark the three major divisions of the book of Isaiah (Isa 1:20; 40:5; 58:14). Thus, while the verse is a departure from Isa 2:1–5, it is not a departure from the book of Isaiah. The final verse of the two passages is perhaps the most intriguing. The key word in both texts is Klh (“to walk”). This verb occurred three times in the verse about the nations going to Zion in the last days (Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2). The text of Isa 2:5 is an interpretation of Isa 2:3, and the text of Mic 4:5 is an interpretation of Isa 2:5. The call to walk in the light of YHWH in Isa 2:5 is an exhortation to live wisely now with the hope of Isa 2:2–4 in full view (cf., Prov 6:23). In the last days (Isa 2:2), all the nations will walk in the Torah (Isa 2:3), but there is also a sense in which that can be a present reality (Ps 119:105). Those who hold fast to the Torah will see the light at the end of the tunnel (Isa 8:16–9:6). Micah substitutes the phrase “in the name of YHWH” for “in the light of YHWH” (Mic 4:5; cf., Zech 10:12). The Torah, which is the light, is inextricably tied to YHWH’s reputation. According to Micah, the nations do not currently walk in YHWH’s name, but the people

134

the text in the middle

of God must nevertheless continue to do so until the last days when all the nations will join them.

Isaiah 4:2; 11:1–10; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12–13; Romans 15:12 The fact that “the branch of YHWH” (hwhy xmc) in Isa 4:2 is coordinated with “the fruit of the land” has led some modern interpreters to equate them despite the use of the term “branch” as a messianic title in Jer 23:5–6; Zech 3:8; 6:12–13 and despite the early messianic reading of Isa 4:2 in the Targum of Isaiah. But writers ordinarily use apposition, not coordination, to equate two nouns. Thus, David the king is one person, but David and the king are two people. It is certainly not unheard of that the people of God will enjoy both the messianic king and the fruit of the land in the last days (e.g., Amos 9:11–15). The lack of any explicit reference to the Davidic king in Isa 4:2 is what sets the passage apart from the Jeremiah and Zechariah texts (cf., Ezek 17:22–24). And so what is it that bridges the gap? In Jer 23:5–6, YHWH says he will raise up “a righteous branch” (qydc xmc) for David who will reign with wisdom and perform justice and righteousness. The text of Zech 3:8 picks up the language of Hag 2:23 to indicate that YHWH is about to bring someone other than Zerubbabel to be his servant the “branch” (xmc).39 This thought continues in Zech 6:12–13 with a clear echo of the covenant with David (2 Sam 7:13). The “branch” (xmc) will build the temple of YHWH and occupy the offices of king and priest, illustrated by the high priest Joshua wearing a crown (Zech 6:11). What warrant do these prophets have from Isaiah for their identification of the branch with the Davidic king? Isaiah 11:1–10 describes a messianic Davidic king who will reign in justice, righteousness, and peace. He is the “branch” (r+x) from the “stem” ((zg) of Jesse and the “sprout” (rcn) from “his roots” (wy#r#), “the root of Jesse” (y#y #r#) (Isa 11:1, 10; cf., Rom 15:12). The word xmc (“branch”) does not appear here, but it is not difficult to see that the words in Isa 11:1, 10 are part of the same field of meaning. Brevard Childs, who concedes in his commentary that the branch in Isa 4:2 might have “originally” been the fruit of the land, notes well the present relationship to Isaiah 11: In the same manner, once the term “branch” had become a technical term for the Messiah in later prophetic literature, it is difficult to imagine this earlier, non-technical usage not accumulating a richer connotation than perhaps originally intended.



citation from the prophets

135

Particularly does this move seem likely when one recalls that the passage has been linked intertextually with its larger Isaianic context. Had not Isa 11:1 spoken of a “shoot” (nēṣer) from the stump of Jesse, which initiated the prophetic theme of the return of paradisal peace and harmony (vv. 6–9; cf. 65:21ff.)?40

But whereas Childs sees texts like Jeremiah and Zechariah having a later influence on the reading of Isa 4:2, the reader must also entertain the option that the connection with Isaiah 11 is what led to the association of the branch in Isa 4:2 with the Davidic king in the later prophets. Childs is certainly correct that it is hard to read Isa 4:2 in its current canonical context as anything other than messianic.

Isaiah 5:1–7; 27:2–6; Ezekiel 15; 17; 19:10–14; Psalm 80:9–14; Matthew 21:33–46; John 15:1–17 The image of Israel or the people of God as the vine or the vineyard and God as the keeper of the vine(yard) is a common one in the Hebrew Bible and is not always due to textual dependence. Perhaps the most wellknown example is the use of the metaphor in Isa 5:1–7 to illustrate the infidelity of God’s people and the inevitability of divine judgment. In spite of YHWH’s (i.e., the keeper’s) efforts to ensure the productivity of the people (i.e., the vineyard), they only manage to produce injustice (i.e., bad grapes). Out of necessity there is nothing left to do but to leave the vineyard to be trampled. The passage in Isa 27:2–6 redeems this sad state of affairs in an eschatological context. There the hope is that YHWH will make his vineyard fruitful in the last days so that its fruit fills the whole earth. Here are the verbal parallels between the two passages: Mrk (“vineyard”) (Isa 5:1, 3, 4, 5, 7; 27:2); ry#, hn( (“sing”) (Isa 5:1; 27:2); Mybn(, hbwnt (“grapes,” “fruit”) (Isa 5:2, 4; 27:6); ty#w rym# (“thorns and thistles”) (Isa 5:6; 27:4).41 The imagery in Ezek 15; 17; 19:10–14 is not directly related to Isaiah. Ezekiel’s term is Npg (“vine”) (cf., Hos 10:1) rather than Isaiah’s Mrk (“vineyard”). But the two do share a negative view of the vine/vineyard. Psalm 80:9–14 also uses Npg, and the text is reminiscent of Ezek 17:1–10 in particular. It employs the metaphor to describe the exodus from Egypt. But there is also an echo of Isa 5:5b2 (wrdg Crp) in Ps 80:13a: “Why have you broken through its walls (hyrdg tcrp hml)?” Normally a vineyard (Mrk) and not a mere vine (Npg) would have a wall (rdg). This combination of Isaiah

136

the text in the middle

and Ezekiel may be informative for the use of the metaphor in the New Testament. Matthew (Matt 21:33–46) uses the Greek word for “vineyard” (a0mpelw&n), and his text has affinities with the Isaiah passages. John (John 15:1–17) uses the word for “vine” (a!mpelov). In Jesus’ parable of the vineyard and the tenants (Matt 21:33–46; cf., Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19), the vineyard represents the people as it does in Isaiah, but the focus of the parable is on the tenants—the chief priests and the Pharisees (Matt 21:45; cf., Isa 1:23). These tenants mistreated the prophets and killed God’s own Son, and so they will lose their position. In John 15:1–17, Jesus is the vine, and the Father is the vinedresser (as in Isaiah). This does not make Jesus the “new Israel.” This is the means by which God will make his people fruitful (John 15:5; cf., Isa 27:6). Isaiah also envisions the people as fruitful trees bearing the fruit of righteousness because of the ministry of the messianic servant of YHWH (Isa 61:1–3; cf., Luke 4:16–30).

Isaiah 6:9–10; Matthew 13:13–15; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10; Acts 28:26–27 The account of Isaiah’s call in Isaiah 6 indicates that the people will not respond to Isaiah’s message, demonstrating that their coming judgment is a just one: Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not acknowledge. Render the heart of this people insensitive, Their ears dull and their eyes dim; Lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return and be healed. (Isa 6:9–10)

This is consistent with what is said of other true prophets (Zech 7:11–12). Jeremiah’s call anticipates opposition from all sides (Jer 1:18–19). No one is likely to listen to Ezekiel either (Ezek 2:5; 12:2), but at least the people will know that a prophet has been in their midst. That is, they will be responsible for their complacency and excuses. The Isaiah text is also Jesus’ response to the question from the disciples about why he teaches in parables (Matt 13:13–15; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10). Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus does not teach in parables in



citation from the prophets

137

order to relate to the common folk with simple stories. Rather, the parables expose the failure of the general populace and their religious leadership to recognize their own Messiah and to discern the message about the kingdom of God. Only to the disciples will Jesus disclose the meaning of the parables (Matt 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). Much like the prophets of old, Jesus is rejected by the vast majority of his own people. Paul likewise cites the Isaiah passage to explain the unbelief of those who hear his gospel message (Acts 28:24–27). The conjunction i3na (“in order that”) introduces the citations in Mark and Luke, making it clear that the purpose of the parables is essentially the hardening of the people (cf., Exod 10:1). But some believe that i3na is a mistranslation of an Aramaic d (“who”) in the sources of the Gospels (cf., Tg. Jon.), even though Aramaic d can introduce a purpose clause. The difference would be that the quotation from Isaiah would merely be a description of those who have not received knowledge of the kingdom rather than the purpose for Jesus’ parables, which, of course, is the question to which Jesus is responding. Matthew Black has offered a helpful critique of this view: The parabolic teaching is not simply to prevent perception and comprehension; more important still, it is to prevent their consequences, repentance, and forgiveness, and it could not do so unless those without were taught in parables in order that they might not perceive and understand. Mark’s mh/ pote clause, that is to say, logically depends on his i3na clause. To remove the first ‘stumbling-block’ by regarding it as a misunderstood de clause, which should have been relative, makes its dependent mh/ pote clause meaningless.42

The upshot of all this is that a right decision in Mark and Luke can help with the interpretation of another conjunction (o3ti) in the verse preceding Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah where the evangelist alludes to the cited text (Matt 13:13). This is typically considered a causal use of o3ti, but a comparison with Mark and Luke suggests that it is a consecutive use (cf., John 7:35; 14:22; 1 Tim 6:7; Heb 2:6) indicating the intended result of Jesus’ teaching in parables.

Isaiah 7:14; 9:5–6 (Eng., 9:6–7); 11:1–10; Matthew 1:23 The present author has published an account of the composition of the book of Isaiah that explains the exegetical warrant for Matthew’s quote of Isa 7:14.43

138

the text in the middle

The author has also published the verbal links between the description of the Davidic king in Isa 9:5–6; 11:1–10 and the servant songs in Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–9; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12, explaining the warrant for the identification of Jesus as the servant of YHWH (Matt 8:17; 12:18–21; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32–33; 13:47; John 12:38; Rom 10:16; 1 Pet 2:22):44 Table 1: The Servant of the LORD. Description

1–12

42:1–7

49:1–9

50:4–11

Light to the Nations

9:1–6 (9:2–7)

42:6

49:6

50:10

Root of Jesse

11:1, 10

Spirit of the LORD

11:2

Rod of His Mouth

11:4

52:13–53:12

61:1–9

53:2 42:1

61:1 49:2

Covenant of a People

42:6

49:8

61:8

Freedom for the Prisoners

42:7

49:9

61:1

Despised by the People

49:7

Regarded by Kings

49:7

Helped by the LORD

49:8

Time of Favor

49:8

50:6

53:3, 5 52:15

50:7, 9 61:2

It is true that the servant of YHWH in Isaiah is sometimes Israel (e.g., Isa 41:8), but it is also true that the servant of YHWH is sometimes an individual who acts on behalf of Israel (e.g., Isa 49:5–6). After all, the designation “servant of YHWH” is typically reserved for individuals in the Bible (e.g., Moses, Joshua, David). Therefore, it is difficult to accept Benjamin Sommer’s conclusion that the links between the Davidic king and the servant of YHWH are designed to be a nationalization of the covenant with David.45 This raises more problems than it solves. It seems instead that the composer has gone to great lengths to identify the suffering servant with the image of the ideal Davidic king (cf., Zech 9:9; 12:10; Dan 9:26).



citation from the prophets

139

Isaiah 8:14–15; 28:16; Zechariah 3:9; Psalm 118:22; Daniel 2:34–35, 44–45; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:6–8 There is considerable evidence from the New Testament that suggests texts from the Hebrew Bible using stone imagery for the Messiah and/or the messianic kingdom were read together and in light of one another. For example, in 1 Peter 2 Christ is the stone, and the Christians are stones (cf., Zech 9:16). Christ is the stone from Isa 28:16 (1 Pet 2:6; cf., Rom 9:33), the object of faith whose kingdom brings justice and righteousness (Isa 28:17; cf., Tg. Isa 28:16; Isa 9:5–6; 11:1–10; Jer 23:5–6). Those who do not believe in him will find that he becomes the chief cornerstone in accordance with Ps 118:22 (1 Pet 2:7; cf., Tg. Ps 118; Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11).46 He will be the stumbling block from Isa 8:14 to them (1 Pet 2:8; cf., Rom 9:32). Romans 9:32–33 also puts together Isa 8:14 and 28:16 in a similar manner. The connection between these two texts in Isaiah is likely the catalyst for the stone image elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as shown below. Jesus’ quotation of Ps 118:22 in Luke 20:17 is followed by the statement, “Every one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but as for the one on whom it falls, it will crush him” (Luke 20:18).47 Here Jesus combines the stone imagery of Ps 118:22 with that of Dan 2:34–35, 44–45. The stone in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is not made with human hands (Dan 2:34; cf., Mark 14:58). Unlike the four parts of the statue (i.e., the worldly kingdoms), the stone has a divine origin. It represents the everlasting kingdom of the covenant with David (Dan 2:44; cf., 2 Sam 7:13). In the parallel to Daniel 2 in Daniel 7, the four beasts are the four parts of the statue, and the Son of Man is the stone (Dan 7:13–14). The stone crushes the four parts of the statue and becomes a great mountain that fills the earth (Dan 2:35). All of this will take place in the last days (Dan 2:28). This is the link to the stone imagery in Isaiah where it is said that in the last days Mt. Zion will be above all other mountains (Isa 2:2). All of the nations will go to it to receive YHWH’s instruction and to enjoy the justice, righteousness, and peace of the messianic kingdom (Isa 2:3–4; cf., Zech 3:8–9; 6:12–13). The image of the stone in Ps 118:22 also connects to that of the book of Isaiah via the citation of Isa 12:2 in Ps 118:14. Isaiah 12:2, a celebration of the new exodus led by the messianic king (Isa 11; cf., Isa 28:16–17), is itself a citation of the poetic rendition of the original exodus in Exod 15:2. Psalm 118 follows this lead in its celebration of the triumphal entry of the stone (i.e., the king).

140

the text in the middle

Exodus 23:20; Isaiah 40:3; 62:10–12; Malachi 3:1, 23; Mark 1:2–348 Look, I am sending a messenger (K)lm xl# ykn) hnh) (SP, LXX: “my messenger” [yk)lm]) before you to keep you on the way (Krd) (Exod 23:20a) Look, I am sending my messenger (yk)lm xl# ynnh), and he will prepare a way before me (ynpl Krd hnpw) (Mal 3:1a) Look, I am sending (xl# ykn) hnh) to you Elijah the prophet ()ybnh) before the coming of the great and terrible Day of YHWH (Mal 3:23 [Eng., 4:5]) A voice calls, “In the wilderness prepare the way of YHWH (hwhy Krd wnp), make straight in the desert plain a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3; cf., 62:10–12) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Look, I am sending my messenger before you who will prepare your way. A voice calls in the wilderness, ‘Make straight his paths’ (or, A voice calls, ‘In the wilderness make straight his paths’) (Mark 1:2–3; cf., Isa 40:3 LXX)

In a citation of “Isaiah the prophet,” Mark combines Exod 23:20 and Isa 40:3, joining the angel who led the people in conjunction with the original exodus (Exod 3:2; 14:19; 32:34; 33:2) with the voice calling to prepare the way of YHWH for the new exodus (e.g., Isa 43:16–21) in his introduction to John the Baptist. But what is the warrant for this move from the activity of an angel to the voice of a prophet? Mark’s citation of Exod 23:20 is actually a combination of the wording of that text and the wording of Mal 3:1, which appears to be a quotation of Exod 23:20. The Malachi text also shares wording with Isa 40:3. But Mal 3:1 uses K)lm (“messenger”) in the sense of “prophet” ()ybn) rather than “angel.” This is the way the text is interpreted in Mal 3:23, an appendix to the six disputations of the book from the composer of the Twelve.49 The messenger is the prophet Elijah who will prepare the way for the Day of YHWH (see Joel). Thus, Mark identifies John the Baptist as the prophet like Elijah according to the way he is described in 2 Kgs 1:8 (Mark 1:6; cf., Luke 1:17).

Isaiah 45:23; Psalm 22:30 (Eng., 22:29); Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10–11 In Isa 45:23, YHWH says, “By myself I swear: From my mouth (yp) righteousness (hqdc) has gone forth, a word (rbd), and it will not return (bw#y). For to



citation from the prophets

141

me every knee will bow ((rky), every (lk) tongue will swear.” This is the same “word” (rbd) that brackets Second Isaiah. It will stand forever (Isa 40:8) and not “return” (bw#y) empty (Isa 55:11). The word spoken from “the mouth of YHWH” (hwhy yp) outlines the entire book of Isaiah (Isa 1:20; 40:5; 58:14). It is the hope of restoration from Babylon and messianic salvation in the last days for all the nations. It is the inbreaking of God’s “righteousness” (hqdc) in a new covenant relationship with his people (Isa 56:1; 60–62). Thus, Paul quotes this text in something closer to its LXX form (and possibly in combination with Isa 49:18) with reference to the final judgment (Rom 14:11). Believers must not judge one another because they will all stand before God. But Paul’s quotation of this verse in the Christ hymn of Php 2:6–11 supplies the content of what “every tongue will confess”: “that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father” (Php 2:11). Because Christ lowered himself (Php 2:6–8), “God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, in order that at the name of Jesus every knee might bow…and every tongue confess…” (Php 2:9–11). Here “the name” (M#h, )m#) is YHWH (Lev 24:11; Acts 5:41; 3 John 7). Thus, everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is “Lord” (ku/riov = hwhy in LXX). But what is Paul’s exegetical warrant from Isa 45:23 for this confession other than a general reference to messianic salvation? Psalm 22 is perhaps the text in the middle in this case. The role of Psalm 22 in the New Testament is well known (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 19:24; Heb 2:12). The first half of the psalm is a lament from a Davidic figure not unlike the suffering servant of Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–9; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12 (Ps 22:1–23). The second half of the psalm features a speaker who addresses a group with plural imperatives (Ps 22:24–32): “You who fear YHWH, praise him.” This is apparently in response to the vindication of the king, a final expression of confidence to complete the structure of the lament (cf., Ps 13). In the conclusion to the psalm, the text says that “the kingdom belongs to YHWH and a ruler (l#m) over the nations” (Ps 22:29). Modern versions typically follow the LXX and Syriac when they interpret YHWH to be the subject of the participle l#m: “And he rules over the nations.” But this coordination of clauses is based on a questionable theory of poetic parallelism, which arbitrarily requires at least two parallel cola per verse and an accent count of two, three, or four per colon.50 The syntax suggests that “ruler” is coordinated with “the kingdom,” indicating that both the king and the kingdom belong to YHWH. (This is the same word used for the messianic king in Mic 5:1 [Eng., 5:2].) If this understanding of the syntax is correct, then “ruler” is likely the antecedent for the pronoun “him” in Ps 22:30: “All (lk) the fat of the earth

142

the text in the middle

eat and bow down, before him all (lk) those who go down to dust will bow (w(rky).” It is important to note the verbal similarity to Isa 45:23. It is also significant that both passages have the nations in view. But Ps 22:29–30 also forms the bridge between Isa 45:23 and Php 2:10–11 by making the king the object of worship.

Isaiah 54:13; Jeremiah 31:34; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 1 John 2:27; b. Yebamot 122b The text of Isa 54:13 envisions a restored new covenant community (cf., Isa 2:2–4; 54:10): “And all your children will be taught of YHWH (hwhy ydwml), and great will be the peace of your children.”51 This is the same hope expressed in the new covenant passage of Jer 31:31–34. Because the Torah will be in the people and written on their heart, they will not need to “teach” (wdmly) one another to know YHWH. Everyone in the new covenant community will know YHWH. Thus, Paul can say to the church at Thessalonica, “Concerning brotherly love, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God (qeodi/daktoi) to love one another” (1 Thess 4:9). Here Paul combines Isa 54:13 and Jer 31:34. Furthermore, John can say, “You have no need that anyone should teach you” (1 John 2:27). Of course, John is not saying that there should be no teaching in the church. John himself is teaching through his letter. What he is saying is that members of the new covenant community have no need of anyone to teach them to know the Lord. They already know him. This is especially important for John’s purpose (1 John 5:13) as he writes to a church whose assurance has been rattled by the presence of false teaching.

Isaiah 55:10–11; Psalm 147:12–20; 2 Thessalonians 3:1 The second half of Psalm 147 is another example in the present arrangement of the Tanakh that bridges the gap between a text in Isaiah and one in the New Testament.52 In 2 Thess 3:1, Paul asks the Thessalonian church to pray that “the word of the Lord might run and be glorified.” This language clearly echoes that of Ps 147:15: “He who sends (xl#h) his word to earth, even quickly his word (wrbd) runs.” But this psalm picks up the language and imagery of Isaiah 55:10–11, which says God “sends” (xl#) his word to “earth” (Cr)) like the rain and the “snow” (gl#). And like the rain and the snow, God’s word fulfills the purpose for which it is sent. Thus, Ps 147:16–17 goes on to say that



citation from the prophets

143

God sends the “snow” (gl#) and the hail, but when “he sends his word” (xl#y wrbd) he melts them (Ps 147:18). He also declares “his word” (wrbd) to Jacob (Ps 147:19).

Isaiah 60:19–20; Zechariah 14:6–7; Revelation 21:23; 22:5 The vision of the new creation in Isa 60:19–20 is that of one where there is no need for the sun or the moon because the glory of YHWH (Isa 60:1–3) will be an everlasting source of light. The book of Revelation picks up this image in its description of the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:23). But Rev 22:5 adds the thought that there will be no night. This likely derives from Zech 14:6–7. John sees a relationship between Isa 60:19–20 and Zech 14:6–7 that forms a complete picture for him. He does not seem to understand Zech 14:6–7 to mean that day becomes night and night becomes day in a reversal of the norm due to divine judgment. Rather, the normal light sources congeal precisely because they are no longer needed. There is no day or night (or evening) because there is only the light of God’s glory (cf., Isa 24:21–23; 30:26).

Isaiah 63:7–14 This last passage from the book of Isaiah is not so much an example of a text in the middle as it is an instance of textual exegesis of several passages. It is not unlike numerous other rehearsals of the biblical narrative (e.g., Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:1–15; 1 Sam 12; Ezek 20; Pss 105; 106; 136; Neh 9). Regardless of their relationship to differing oral traditions in the prehistory of the biblical compositions, those who gave these texts their present form intended them to be read as interpretations of the canonical literature (e.g., Deut 1:5; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Neh 8).53 They contain very specific examples of interpretations that can hardly be explained apart from the phenomenon of textual exegesis. The passage in Isa 63:7–14 fits within the post-exilic perspective of “Third Isaiah” where the righteousness of the people is not yet a reality and the salvation of God is yet to come (Isa 56:1). Its placement between Isa 60–62 and Isa 63:15–64:11 is strategic in that it holds in the balance both the faithfulness of God and the infidelity of the people, a general characteristic of rehearsals of biblical narrative. The passage in Isa 63:1–5 speaks of one from Gen 49:11–12 who is “mighty to save” ((y#whl br) (Isa 63:1). This leads into Isa 63:7–14 where YHWH is Israel’s “savior” ((y#wm) (Isa 63:8). The text of

144

the text in the middle

Isa 63:7–14 then concludes with a sudden shift from third person to second person, anticipating the prayer of Isa 63:15–64:11 (Isa 63:14b). The prophet says that he will bring to remembrance YHWH’s “acts of covenant loyalty” (Isa 63:7). He quotes YHWH as saying that the children of Israel were his people, “children who do not act deceitfully” (Isa 63:8). This is perhaps an ironic inference drawn from the fact that the children of Israel did not turn out to be what YHWH required of them (e.g., Deut 32:5; Isa 1:2). Verse 9 has a kethiv/qere issue and textual variation between the MT and the LXX. Childs summarizes well: The initial problem is signalled by the Kethib/Qere variant interpreting the Hebrew lō’. The MT appears to understand the clause according to the Qere: “in all their troubles, he was troubled.” However, the LXX prefers the Kethib (“not”), and repoints ṣar (“affliction”) as ṣir (“messenger”). With the verse division also shifted, a very different sentence emerges: “it was no messenger or angel, but his face (presence) that saved them.” It is argued by those defending this reading that the formula “angel of the presence” does not appear elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, in response, it is also clear that there is a rather close parallel in Ex. 33:12ff. of the face or presence of God accompanying Israel as a sign of his continued commitment in spite of the sin of the golden calf. The extension of the term in the formula “angel of his presence” is fully in accord with the other circuitous formulations of divine intermediaries who are the visible agents of the selfsame divine essence (e.g., “angel of Yahweh,” etc.). Although the LXX’s rendering remains attractive, I would nevertheless argue that the MT’s interpretation is probably to be preferred (cf. Barthélemy, CTLAT).54

It is true that the phrase “the angel of his presence” (wynp K)lm) does not occur elsewhere, but a K)lm (“messenger, angel”) does play a crucial role in the Exodus narratives (Exod 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2), and the relationship between the K)lm in Exod 32:34; 33:2 and YHWH’s “presence” (Mynp) in Exod 33:14–15 is unmistakable. Verse 9 of Isaiah 63 concludes with an image similar to the one found in Exod 19:4; Deut 32:11. But the people nevertheless “rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit” (Isa 63:10; cf., Num 20:10; Ps 51:13; Eph 4:30). A similar take on the wilderness narratives appears in Pss 78:40; 106:33; Neh 9:20, 30. The impetus for such a reading is found in the words of Moses: “I wish that all the people of YHWH were prophets, that YHWH would put his Spirit on them” (Num 11:29). This desire went unrealized in the wilderness experience and would only become a reality in the Day of YHWH (Joel 3; Acts 2).



citation from the prophets

145

Translations usually assume that the people are the subject of the verb “remembered” in Isa 63:11a, which introduces a quote of their words that begins in Isa 63:11b. But the verb is singular, and the people are referenced in the third person in the so-called quote. It is possible that Moses is the subject, but it is not clear what sense this would make in the context. The most natural reading is to continue the subject from Isa 63:10b: YHWH. YHWH remembered “days of old, Moses, his people” (cf., Exod 2:24; Isa 63:9b). Here “his people” is in apposition to “Moses” the leader and representative of the people along with Aaron his brother (Isa 63:11b; Ps 77:21). The questions in Isa 63:11b–14a are not a quote of what YHWH remembered. His remembrance is a beneficial act of grace (e.g., Gen 8:1). Rather, the questions are the prophet’s own reminiscence (Isa 63:14b) as he calls to mind the “former things” in order to prompt hope in the “new things” (Isa 48:1–8). The questions (Isa 63:11b–14a) refer to Moses’ leadership, the Holy Spirit, and the exodus. YHWH is the one who caused “his beautiful arm” (wtr)pt (wrz) to go at the right hand of Moses (cf., Exod 14:31), splitting the water in order to make an everlasting name for himself (Isa 63:12; cf., Exod 14:21; Isa 63:14b). This hits at the heart of the Exodus narrative. YHWH intended to make a name for himself (Exod 7:5; 9:16). He caused them to walk through the depths like a horse in the wilderness (Isa 63:13). His Spirit gave them rest (cf., Vss; Exod 32:34) like an animal in a valley (Isa 63:14a; cf., Ps 23). This is the kind of rest anticipated in Exod 33:14, which YHWH’s presence would give (cf., Deut 3:20).

Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 3:1–3; Revelation 10 In Jer 15:16, the prophet describes his reception of YHWH’s words: “Your words were found, and I ate them (Mlk)w Kyrbd w)cmn). Your word became to me rejoicing and the joy of my heart, for your name was called upon me, YHWH the God of hosts” (cf., LXX). This is apparently a reference to Hilkiah’s finding of the book of the Torah in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 22:3, 8): “the words of this book that was found” (hzh )cmnh rpsh yrbd) (2 Kgs 22:13) and “the words of the book of the covenant that was found” ()cmnh tyrbh rps yrbd) (2 Kgs 23:2; cf., Exod 24:7–8; 2 Kgs 23:24).55 When Jeremiah says that he ate the words, he uses a metaphor familiar to the reader of Deut 8:3. He also alludes to his own calling as a prophet when YHWH put his words in his mouth (Jer 1:9; cf., Deut 18:18). Jeremiah’s response to the words is similar to the celebration following Ezra’s reading of the Torah in Neh

146

the text in the middle

8:1–12. This is in stark contrast to a later confession in which Jeremiah says the word of YHWH became to him reproach and derision all the time to the point where he decided not to remember it or speak in YHWH’s name (Jer 20:8–9; cf., Jer 6:10–11). But it was like a burning fire within him that could not be contained. The same metaphor surfaces in Ezek 2:8–3:3 where the later contemporary of Jeremiah is clearly dependent upon the wording of Jer 15:16: “And you, son of man, hear what I am speaking to you. Do not be rebellious like the rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving to you.” And I saw, and look, a hand was stretched out to me, and look, in it was a scroll of a document. And he spread it before me, and it was written on the front and the back [cf., Exod 32:15; Zech 5:1–4]. And written in it were lamentations and murmuring and wailing. And he said to me, “Son of man, what you find eat (lwk) )cmt r#) t); > LXX). Eat this scroll and go, speak to the house of Israel [LXX: sons of Israel].” And I opened my mouth, and he fed me this scroll. And he said to me, “Son of man, your belly feed and your inward parts fill with this scroll that I am giving to you.” And I ate, and it was in my mouth like honey in sweetness [cf., Ps 19:11].

Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s own reception of the scroll is positive (Jer 15:16; Ezek 3:3), but the message of the scroll is hard for the people and leads to their rejection of the prophet (Jer 20:8–9; Ezek 2:5, 8–10). This text serves as a bridge between the Jeremiah text and Revelation 10. In the Revelation passage, John says that he saw an angel with a little scroll opened in his hand (Rev 10:2; cf., Jer 32:11, 14). The voice from heaven instructed him to take the scroll and eat it (Rev 10:8–9). It was sweet like honey in his mouth, but it made his stomach bitter (Rev 10:10). The word “bitter” is likely a play on the Hebrew words rm (“bitter”) and yrm (“rebellion”) (Ezek 2:8; cf., Exod 15:23).56 Much like the prophets before him, John found that he was able to accept the scroll, but he would later find that it was hard to handle (Rev 1:9). The Revelation 10 passage is largely based on the Ezekiel text, but that text is itself a reading of another prophet.

Jeremiah 17:5–8; Psalm 1; Revelation 1:3 William Holladay argues that Psalm 1 is the model for the passage in Jer 17:5– 8, but he does not take into account the fact that Psalm 1 takes something general—trust in YHWH (Jer 17:7)—and gives it a very specific, concrete expression—Torah study (Ps 1:2).57 The Torah in Pss 1; 19; 119 is not the Mosaic law given at Mount Sinai. That law was cause for fear (Exod 19:16; 20:18–21; Deut 5:1–5, 22). The Torah in Psalm 1 is cause for delight, much



citation from the prophets

147

like the reading of the Pentateuch in Neh 8–9. Psalm 1 begins with the blessed person (r#) #y) yr#)) and ends with the wicked (cf., Prov 10:1–22:16). The Jeremiah passage, however, begins with the cursed man and ends with the blessed (r#) rbgh Kwrb). But the closest parallels between the two passages are in the description of the blessed person. The “cursed” (rwr)) man in Jer 17:5–6 corresponds to “the wicked” (My(#rh) in Ps 1:4–6. The cursed man “trusts” (x+by) in mankind. His heart/mind turns away from YHWH. He will be like a tree or a bush in the desert plain, inhabiting parched places in the wilderness. Likewise, the wicked will be like chaff that the wind drives away. Psalm 1:5 adds the thought that the wicked will not remain in the final judgment (cf., Eccl 12:14). The way of the wicked will perish (Ps 1:6; 2:12). But according to Jer 17:7–8, the fate of the “blessed” (Kwrb) man who “trusts” (x+by) in YHWH is quite different. He will be “like a tree planted by water” (Mym l( lwt# C(k). This is also said of the person in Ps 1:1–3. He will be “like a tree planted by streams of water” (Mym yglp l( lwt# C(k). But in Psalm 1 the blessed person is not simply someone who trusts in YHWH. This trust manifests itself in disassociation with sinners and delight in the Torah. He “reads aloud quietly to himself” (hghy; cf., )rqy in the Torah day and night. This model for the scribe/scholar (Ezra 7:6, 10) comes from Josh 1:8. If Jer 17:5–8 were dependent upon Psalm 1, surely there would be some reference to the Torah. The Jeremiah text goes on to say that the tree sends its roots by a “stream” (lbwy). “Its leaf” (whl() is green, and it does not cease its production of “fruit” (yrp). Psalm 1 takes this and says that the tree provides “its fruit” (wyrp) in its time, and “its leaf” (whl() does not “wither” (lwby). Furthermore, everything that the blessed person does he/she will make successful (Ps 1:3b; cf., Josh 1:8). Thus, the source of spiritual nourishment in Jer 17:5–8 is trust, but that trust is Torah study in Psalm 1. Only the Torah scholar will bear spiritual fruit. Revelation 1:3 clearly echoes the wording of Psalm 1: “Blessed (maka&riov = yr#)) is/are the one who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things written in it, for the time is near.” Here the blessed person is an individual who reads the written words. And so, Psalm 1 is a reading of Jer 17:5–8, and Rev 1:3 follows the model of Psalm 1.

Jeremiah 23:1–6; Ezekiel 34; Psalm 23; John 10 The opening verses of Jeremiah 23 set up a contrast between the bad shepherds (Jer 23:1–4) and the good shepherd (Jer 23:5–6). The replacement of bad shepherds (i.e., bad kings) with good shepherds (i.e., good kings) is some-

148

the text in the middle

thing already anticipated in Jer 3:14–18. The bad shepherds are the wicked sons of Josiah who have not lived up to the righteous standard of their father (Jer 21–22). The good shepherd is the righteous branch whom YHWH will establish for David (Jer 23:5). He will reign in justice and righteousness. This text in Jer 23:5–6 bears a curious relationship to the passage in Jer 33:14–26. Jeremiah 33:14–26 is the longest continuous passage in the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah not found in the Septuagint.58 The first part of this passage is an exegesis of Jer 23:5–6, perhaps taking its cue from a messianic reading of Jer 33:13 (see Tg. Jon.). Jeremiah 33:14 takes “‘Behold, days are coming, says the LORD,’ and I will establish” from Jer 23:5 and inserts new material before “for David” in verse 15, forcing the beginning of Jer 33:15 to restart the introduction. The added material serves to refer the reader to the earlier text of Jer 23:5–6. Jer 33:15 uses the verb “sprout” (xmc) instead of the verb “establish” (Mwq) from Jer 23:5 and replaces “righteous branch” (qydc xmc) with “branch of righteousness” (hqdc xmc).59 This verse also omits from Jer 23:5 the clause, “And a king will reign and be wise.” The differences between Jer 23:6 and 33:16 are several: “In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in security. And this is his name by which he will be called: the LORD our righteousness” (Jer 23:6). “In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell in security. And this is what it will be called: the LORD our righteousness” (Jer 33:16). Jeremiah 33:16 has shifted the focus from the messianic king to the city of Jerusalem. The next part of the passage features an interesting mix of statements about the Davidic covenant (Jer 33:17) and a supposed covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:18). According to the Masoretic Text of Jer 33:18, “for the priests, the Levites” a man will not be cut off from before the LORD offering burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices. Some textual witnesses have two groups here: “for the priests and the Levites” (cf., Jer 33:21b). The apposition of these terms occurs elsewhere (e.g., Deut). The coordination of the two is frequent in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. But from what follows it would seem that the Aaronic priesthood is in view and not the levitical priesthood (cf., Ezek 43:19; 44:15). It was the prerogative of the Aaronic priesthood to carry out the duties of Jer 33:18 (Lev 1–7), not the levitical priesthood (Num 3). The text of Jer 33:19–26 roots the assurance of the covenants with David and the Levites in God’s covenant with creation, the Noahic covenant (Gen 8:22; 9). This move probably imitates the earlier connection between the new covenant (Jer 31:31– 34) and the covenant with creation (Jer 31:35–37). There is no question about the eternal nature of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7; 23:5), but it is appropriate to ask where in Scripture an eternal covenant with the Levites appears. There are several



citation from the prophets

149

texts that speak of a covenant with Aaron and his sons, descendants of Levi (Lev 2:13; Num 18:19; 25:10–13; cf., 1 Sam 2:35), but not with the Levites generally. The covenant in Deut 33:9 is not a reference to a separate covenant with the Levites but a reference to the faithfulness of the Levites in Exod 32:26–29. The covenant in Mal 2:4 is not a covenant with “the Levites” but with “Levi,” the tribe of Aaron. It is evident from the context of Mal 1:6–2:9 that the responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood are in view. Nehemiah 13:29 makes a careful distinction between “the covenant of the priesthood” on the one hand and “the Levites” on the other, which the Septuagint renders diaqh/khv th=v i9eratei/av kai\ tou\v Leui/tav. When the absolute position involves two or more nouns in a construct chain, the word in the construct often repeats before each one.60 This is not always the case, but given the above evidence it is unlikely that Neh 13:29 is the only text that refers to a covenant with the Levites, especially in such an ambiguous manner. Thus, while commonly understood to speak of a covenant with the priesthood and the Levites, this text actually refers to the defilement of three separate entities: the priesthood, the covenant of the priesthood, and the Levites. It seems then that Jer 33:14–26 reflects the interest of a particular historical group (the Levites) in the post-exilic period. It is certainly not consistent with Jer 23:5–6, which is eschatological, nor is it consistent with the generally negative view of the priesthood elsewhere in the book (e.g., Jer 2:8). The text is the product of a priestly campaign, using Jer 23:5–6 and 31:35–37 as leverage to promote a levitical covenant alongside the Davidic covenant and the new covenant. Once again the Masoretic Text has included a text that historicizes the message of the book and bears no relationship to the eschatological outlook of the first edition of Jeremiah (cf., Zech 6:12–13; Ps 110).61

Ezekiel 34 follows the pattern of bad shepherds (Ezekiel 34:1–10) and good shepherds (Ezek 34:11–31), but this time the good shepherds are YHWH himself and the ideal Davidic king (Ezek 34:23–24). According to Ezek 34:15, YHWH says, “I will be the one who tends my flock, and I will be the one who makes them lie down (Mcybr)).” This is an image that Psalm 23 adopts in its depiction of YHWH as the ideal shepherd-king (cf., Pss 20–22; 24): YHWH is my shepherd, I do not lack. In green pastures he makes me lie down (yncybry)” (Ps 23:1b–2a). But YHWH goes on to say in Ezek 34:23–24 that he will “establish” (ytmqhw; cf., 2 Sam 7:12; Jer 23:5) one shepherd over them, namely, his servant David. He will be their “prince” ()y#n), which in Ezekiel is the term for the Davidic king (Ezek 21:30; 44:3; 45:7, 17, 22; 46). This prepares the way for Jesus, the son of David and God incarnate, to say, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10).

150

the text in the middle

Jeremiah 25:1–13; Ezekiel 38–39; Daniel 9; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Revelation 20:8 The present author has already provided an exposition of the way in which Ezekiel and Daniel understand the enemy from the north in Jeremiah and Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years.62 Suffice it to say that the interpretation turns on a clear distinction between the two editions of Jeremiah (one historical and one eschatological) and a determination of what edition Ezekiel and Daniel are reading. This then establishes the continuity with New Testament writings in which the final enemy is still a future one (Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:3; Rev 20:8) and not an historical figure from the past (e.g., Babylon, Antiochus Epiphanes, etc.).

Ezekiel 1; Daniel 7; Revelation 4–5; 13 The fact that Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation share similar animal imagery is not news to anyone, but this section briefly suggests reading Daniel as a bridge between Ezekiel and Revelation. The four creatures (cherubim [Ezek 10]) in the vision of Ezekiel 1 set up the appearance of the glory of YHWH in the form of a man seated on a throne (Ezek 1:26–28). These four creatures each have the face of a human, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (Ezek 1:10; cf., 10:14). In Daniel 7, the vision of four beasts (lion, bear, leopard, and a fourth beast) is followed by the appearance of a man who receives the kingdom (Dan 7:13–14). These beasts are not angels but kings/kingdoms (Dan 7:17). But the sequencing between Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7 is the same: four creatures followed by a human king. Both lists of creatures feature a lion. The book of Revelation combines material from Ezekiel and Daniel. It opens with a quotation from Dan 7:13 (Rev 1:7). In Revelation 4, the appearance of four creatures around the throne of God sets up the Davidic king (Dan 5:5) who opens the scroll in chapter 5 (cf., Dan 7:14, 27; Rev 5:9–10). Each of the four creatures has a different face: a lion, an ox, a human, and an eagle. Thus, these are the four faces from Ezekiel 1, but each creature only has one face as in Daniel 7. In Rev 13:2, the beast has features of a leopard, a bear, and a lion. These are the beasts from Daniel 7, but their features are combined in a single creature as in Ezekiel 1. The fourth beast is not mentioned in Rev 13:2 because the beast of Revelation 13 is the fourth beast with the little horn from Daniel 7 (Dan 7:8, 21; Rev 13:5–7). It is a composite of the beasts, representing the culmination of worldly opposition to the kingdom of God. It does not



citation from the prophets

151

correspond to any known animal because it does not correspond to any known historical kingdom. Babylon is merely a familiar metaphor (Rev 18). Its defeat comes at the hands of the same Lamb/Davidic king (i.e., Christ) as the one in Revelation 5 (Rev 19).

The Book of the Twelve The present author has published on the composition of the Book of the Twelve and the citations from the Twelve in the New Testament.63 In The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament, the thesis is that the texts of the Twelve cited in the New Testament documents must be understood in the context of the composition of the Twelve as a whole. These cited texts are in some cases citations themselves of other texts within the Tanakh. There are also examples where the cited texts are already being read within the Tanakh the way the New Testament authors read them. The reader is thus referred to that monograph for further exposition.

Hosea 12 Hosea 12 draws an analogy between the patriarch Jacob/Israel and the northern kingdom of Israel/Jacob, creating a mosaic of inner-biblical citations from Genesis.64 Of course, it is possible to insist that Hosea 12 represents a different Jacob tradition from the one found in Genesis, but since there is no direct access to this alleged variant tradition against which to test the hypothesis, it is at least advisable to look for verbal correspondences between the two biblical texts. If verbal correspondences are present, and if a straightforward and plausible explanation of them on the basis of textual dependence is possible, then there is no reason to deny the presence of textual exegesis. At the very least, it can be said that readers of the biblical canon would be expected to make the association between Hosea 12 and Genesis. The passage begins by saying that YHWH has a point of “contention” (byr) with Judah (Hos 12:3 [Eng., 12:2]; cf., Hos 12:1–2) to punish Jacob according to his ways. There is then a reference to the birth account of Jacob and Esau: “In the belly (N+b) he followed at the heel (bq() of his brother (wyx))” (Hos 12:4a). This is the explanation for the name of “Jacob” (bq(y) in Gen 25:24–26. When the twins were in their mother’s “belly” (N+b), Esau came out first. Jacob, “his brother” (wyx)), was grasping Esau’s “heel” (bq().

152

the text in the middle

The second half of Hos 12:4 moves to a story in Jacob’s adult life (wnw)b; cf., Gen 49:3): “He persevered with elohim” (Myhl) t) hr#). This is a reference to the story of Gen 32:23–33. There the man with whom Jacob wrestled says, “Jacob will no longer be your name but Israel (l)r#y: “God perseveres” or “He perseveres with God”), for you persevered (tyr#) with God (Myhl)) and with men and prevailed (lkwtw)” (Gen 32:29). Thus, Hos 12:4 refers to the two accounts of the naming of Jacob/Israel (cf., Gen 35:10). It is clear that Jacob understood his encounter with the “man” (Gen 32:25; Tg. Neof.: Sariel) to be an encounter with God: “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel (l)ynp: “face of God”), for, ‘I saw God (Myhl)) face to face (Mynp l) Mynp), and my life was rescued’” (Gen 32:21; cf., Exod 33:11, 20). But was this actually this case? Elsewhere the appearance of mysterious men is the appearance of angels (e.g., Gen 18:2; 19:1; Dan 8:15–16). It is possible that Jacob makes the same mistake as Manoah in the account of the announcement of Samson’s birth (Judg 13). Manoah thought that he and his wife would die because they had seen God (Judg 13:22), but they had in fact only seen an “angel” (K)lm) (Judg 13:21). This is the same term that Hos 12:5a1 uses to explain Myhl): “And he persevered with an angel and prevailed” (K)lm l) r#yw lkyw). This meaning for Myhl) is attested elsewhere (Ps 97:7; cf., LXX). Targum Jonathan even translates Myhl) in Hos 12:4 with “angel.” The latter part of Hos 12:5a—“He wept and ingratiated himself to him” (wl Nnxtyw hkb)— comes from Gen 33:4, 8: And Esau ran to meet him, and he embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him. And they wept (wkbyw). And he said, “Who to you is all this camp that I encountered?” And he said, “To find favor (Nx) in the eyes of my lord.”

Hosea 12:5b1 says, “At Bethel he found him” (wn)cmy l) tyb). Elsewhere in Hosea “Bethel” (“house of God”) is “Beth Aven” (“house of trouble”) (Hos 4:15 [cf., Tg. Jon.]; 5:8). It was one of two places (along with Dan) where Jeroboam set up his golden calves (1 Kgs 12:25–30; 2 Kgs 17:21; Hos 10:5, 8; cf., Exod 32). But it was also the place where Jacob had his encounters with God in Gen 28:10–22; 35:9–15. To whom do the pronouns “he” and “him” refer in Hos 12:5b1? Some understand the verse to mean that Jacob found God at Bethel (e.g., NET), but elsewhere God is the one who does the finding (e.g., Deut 32:10; Hos 9:10). Hosea 12:5b2 says, “And there he spoke with us.” That is, the words of the covenant that God spoke to Jacob at Bethel were also true



citation from the prophets

153

for Jacob’s seed. This kind of solidarity between generations past and present is attested elsewhere (e.g., Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:1–15; cf., Rom 4:23–24; 15:4; 1 Cor 9:10; 10:11). According to Hos 12:6, YHWH the God of hosts is “his (i.e., Jacob’s) memorial” (wrkz). This is a reference to Exod 3:14–15 (cf., Hos 1:9) where God says that his name (YHWH) is “my memorial” (yrkz) for generation upon generation. Verse 7a then addresses Israel: “And you, in your God you must return” (bw#t Kyhl)b ht)w) (cf., Hos 6:1). This should perhaps read, “And you, in your tents (Kylh)b) you must return” (cf., Hos 12:10b). It could then be an allusion to Gen 25:27b: “And Jacob was a pious man, inhabiting tents (Mylh))” (cf., Luther; Tg. Neof.; Gen 6:9; 17:1; Job 1:1). Israel was to maintain covenant loyalty and justice and wait on their God (Hos 12:7b), not perverting the law (Hos 12:8; cf., Deut 25:13). The term for “deceit” (hmrm) in the phrase “scales of deceit” (Hos 12:8) is the same one found in Isaac’s description of Jacob to Esau: “Your brother came in deceit (hmrm)” (Gen 27:35). But Ephraim/Israel was confident that their sins would not be discovered: “Surely I am rich. I have found (yt)cm) vigor/wealth (Nw); cf., Gen 35:18; 49:3) for myself. In all my labors they will not find (w)cmy) to me iniquity (Nw(), which is sin” (Hos 12:9). In Hos 12:10a, YHWH turns from Israel to himself (ykn)w) in what is most likely a citation of Exod 20:2: “And I (have been) YHWH your God from the land of Egypt” (cf., “I am YHWH your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt” [Exod 20:2; cf., Gen 15:7; Hos 13:4]). He adds, “Again I will cause you to live in tents like days of an appointed time” (Hos 12:10b; cf., Hos 12:7a). This is a reference to the “appointed times” of Leviticus 23 and more specifically the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:42–43). YHWH then points out the fact that he has spoken by the prophets and increased prophetic visions (Hos 12:11a). It is by the hand of the prophets that YHWH “makes comparisons” (hmd)) (Hos 12:11b). The piel of hmd likely does not mean “destroy” (cf., Hos 6:5). The root with that meaning occurs elsewhere in the qal and niphal stems (e.g., Hos 4:5). Here the homonym hmd occurs as elsewhere in the piel to refer to the use of analogies, metaphors, and figures so common to the prophetic literature (BDB, 198; e.g., Hos 11:1, 5, 11). It is this practice of the prophets that makes the comparison between Jacob and Israel possible. Hosea 12:12 refers to the “trouble” (Nw)) in Gilead (d(lg) and the sacrifices of oxen in Gilgal (lglg) where their altars are like “heaps” (Mylg) (cf., Hos 6:8; 9:15; 10:1, 4). There may be a subtle allusion here to Jacob’s “heap of witness”

154

the text in the middle

(d(lg) (Gen 31:47). Verses 13 and 14 of Hosea 12 make a comparison between Jacob’s flight to Aram and Moses’ departure from Egypt: And Jacob fled (xrbyw) to the country of Aram, and Israel worked (db(yw) for a wife (h#)b), and for a wife he kept (rm#). And by a prophet YHWH brought up (hl(h) Israel from Egypt, and by a prophet he was kept (rm#n).

Verse 13 uses two wayyiqtol forms to recount Jacob’s flight (Gen 27:43) and his work (Gen 29:20). The “x + qatal” clause at the end of the verse explains how Jacob worked for his wife: he “kept” (rm#). That is, he kept flocks (Gen 30:31). Verse 14 uses two “x + qatal” clauses in its reference to Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Moses is the prophet by whom YHWH brought Israel up from Egypt (Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10), and by the shepherd Moses Israel was “kept” (rm#n) like a flock (cf., Ps 77:21). What is the point of this comparison? Israel had followed in the sins of their forefather Jacob (Hos 12:3–9, 12, 15), but there was also a positive analogy to be made between Jacob and Moses, the prophet par excellence. The true prophets are still the ones by whom Israel is kept (Hos 12:10–11).

Ezekiel 7:1–9; Amos 8:1–3; Lamentations 4:18 In Amos 8:1–3, the eighth-century prophet (Amos 1:1) receives a vision of a basket of “summer fruit” (Cyq). He is then told that “the end” (Cqh) has come ()b) to the people of Israel. This kind of wordplay occurs in other prophetic visions (e.g., Jer 1:11–14). The sixth-century prophet Ezekiel picks up this language in his address to Judah: “the end has come” (Cqh )b) (Ezek 7:2, 6). These words of the prophet are confirmed in the reflection on the Babylonian invasion in Lam 4:18b: “Our end (wnycq) drew near, our days were full, for our end came (wnycq )b).”

Jonah; Psalm 107:21–26; Matthew 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25 The Masoretic Text brackets Ps 107:21–26 with inverted nun letters (cf., Num 10:34, 36; Ps 107:40). Psalm 107 is a praise hymn, the first psalm of the fifth and final book of psalms. The psalm reads smoothly from verse 20 to verse 27, giving the impression that verses 21–26 might be a later



citation from the prophets

155

addition. This somewhat self-contained section of the psalm is not without connection to the rest of the hymn (e.g., Ps 107:1, 8, 15, 21, 31), but it is unique in its concentrated dependence on the Jonah story. The inclusion of this section is perhaps an attempt to give the psalm an inner-biblical narrative reference, much like the function of superscriptions elsewhere (e.g., Ps 3:1).65 Psalm 107:22a says, “Let them sacrifice sacrifices of (yxbz wxbzyw) thanksgiving.” According to Jon 1:16, the sailors “sacrificed a sacrifice” (xbz wxbzyw) to YHWH. Verses 23 and 24 of Psalm 107 note how “those who go down into the sea in ships” (twyn)b Myh ydrwy), “those who do work (hk)lm) in many waters,” “see the works of YHWH” (hwhy y#(m w)r) and his wonders in the “deep” (hlwcm). Jonah “went down” (dryw) into a “ship” (hyn)) in “the sea” (Myh) where he was asked about his “work” (hk)lm) (Jon 1:3–4, 8). He responded that he “feared” ()ry) YHWH, the God who “made” (h#() the sea and the dry ground (Jon 1:9). He was subsequently thrown into the “deep” (hlwcm) (Jon 2:4). Psalm 107:25–26 goes on to say that YHWH spoke and brought a “storm wind” (hr(s xwr) that caused the waves to rise and fall (cf., Jon 1:15). In Jon 1:4, YHWH hurled a great “wind” (xwr), and there was a great “storm” (r(s) on the sea. Psalm 107 also includes something of a refrain (Ps 107:6, 13, 19, 28) that is reminiscent of Jonah’s cry of distress referenced in Jon 2:3. The pericope about the calming of the storm in the synoptic Gospels (Matt 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25) also follows the model of the Jonah story. Jesus went into a boat with his disciples (Matt 8:23). There was a “great storm in the sea” (Matt 8:24). The boat was being covered by the waves just like Jonah’s ship, which was about to be broken (Jon 1:4). But the main character Jesus was asleep just like Jonah (Jon 1:5). Then, just as the captain of the ship had aroused Jonah (Jon 1:6), the disciples woke up Jesus (Matt 8:25). Jesus noted their lack of faith (cf., Jon 1:16; 3:5) and then rebuked the wind and the sea so that there was a great calm (Matt 8:26). This parallels Jon 1:15 and Ps 107:28–29, which says that YHWH silenced the “storm” (hr(s) and its waves in response to the people’s cry. The disciples were amazed, asking how wonderful it was that the wind and sea obeyed Jesus (Matt 8:27; cf., Jon 1:9, 16; Ps 107:21, 24). The intertextuality creates a not-so-veiled reference to Jesus’ deity.

Notes 1 See, for example, Richard L. Schultz, Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 18–61.

156

the text in the middle

2. “The weighing of such evidence (and hence the identification of allusions) is an art, not a science” (Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998], 35). This is not to say that interpreters should create meaning. It is only to say that determination of an author’s verbal meaning sometimes requires thinking outside a prescribed hermeneutical box. Of course, it is important to have consistent methodology and criteria, but these can only provide a broad framework. They should not become rules applied blindly. 3. See Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, eds., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004). See also Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982); Schultz, Search for Quotation, 116–180. 4. This is not to suggest that the biblical authors were somehow at odds with each other the way later interpreters would be. But the biblical authors do balance each other, providing different perspectives on the same subject matter. Later interpreters can have the same positive effect on one another. 5. See M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 279; J. Kristeva, The Kristeva Reader, ed. T. Moi (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 201; see also Michaela Bauks, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange, eds., Between Text of Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). 6. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 19. 7. “[T]hey wrote, edited, copied, gave public readings, and interpreted. If the Bible became the Word of God, it was due to their presentation. Both the production and the promotion of the Hebrew Bible were the work of the scribes. The story of the making of the Bible is the story of the scribes behind the Bible” (Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007], 2). See also Philip R. Davies and Thomas Römer, eds., Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script (Durham, UK: Acumen, 2013). The original biblical scholars became the authors, adopting the words of their predecessors (i.e., the prophets) as their own and lending a canonical perspective to the texts (see Prov 29:18 LXX). This process was not considered plagiarism in the ancient world (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). The final product, which was more than the sum of the parts, constituted revelation by literary means. 8. Schultz, Search for Quotation, 199. 9. See Michael B. Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2011). 10. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 1:1–9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 411. 11. One might ask then whether Judges 4 also depends upon Judges 5. It is possible to argue for this historically and diachronically, but the present arrangement of the book of Judges requires the reader to see Judges 4 first and Judges 5 second. 12. It is possible that Nwmy#y without the article is not a place name, but the absence of the article in poetry where normally expected in prose is not uncommon.



citation from the prophets

157

13. The LXX (cf., Syr., Tg.) has e0saleu&qhsan (“they were shaken” = w@l@zOn"). Cf., Isa 63:19; 64:2. 14. See James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; reprint, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 114; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 54–55. 15. See F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 342–43. 16. See Timothy Gombis, “Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8,” NovT 47 (2005): 367–80. 17. Hezekiah’s celebration of the Passover festival incidentally provides another example of a text in the middle. Due to extenuating circumstances, they were unable to celebrate the festival in the first month as prescribed by Exodus 12 (2 Chr 30). Therefore, they celebrated it in the second month. But there is already a precedent for this in Num 9:1–14 where those who were unclean by a corpse or far away in the first month could celebrate the festival in the second month. 18. See Thomas Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). 19. See Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 418–19. 20. See John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 302–308. 21. See Michael B. Shepherd, The Textual World of the Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 97–107. See also the expansion on 2 Kgs 15:5 in 2 Chronicles 26. 22. See idem, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 39–41, 95–99. 23. See Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 448–52. 24. Ibid, 442–48. 25. See N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 378–84. 26. See F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 240–42. 27. Some manuscripts have rys) (“remove”). 28. A few manuscripts have rws). 29. E.g., Robert B. Chisholm, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983). 30. “Some of these parallel sources are based on ancient texts that already differed from one another before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which additionally underwent changes after they were transmitted separately from one generation to the next” (Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3d ed. [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], 12). 31. This suggests a later date for Psalm 18 (see Francis I. Andersen and Dean A. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 312–18. 32. Note 2 Sam 22:34b (yndm(y ytwmb) and Ps 18:34b (yndym(y ytmb).

158

the text in the middle

33. The form htxnw in Ps 18:35 could be an Aramaic third feminine plural designed to agree with the feminine plural subject yt(wrz. The text of 2 Sam 22:35 has txnw. 34. See Jacobus A. Naudé, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Chronology and Typology Debate,” JNSL 36/2 (2010): 1–22; Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976); Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); I. Young, R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensward, The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London: Equinox, 2009). 35. See also the adjustment to the arrangement of the clauses in 2 Sam 22:44–46; Ps 18:44–46. 36. hwhy rh l) > 1QIsaa. 37. “Given the difficulty of demonstrating that one prophet is dependent on another and the increasing frequency with which an ‘unpreserved third source’ is invoked to account for verbal parallels, one cannot help but wonder whether it is simply the easiest option, for there is little one can say about the anonymous author of a no longer extant source” (Schultz, Search for Quotation, 297). 38. Ibid., 302–304. 39. See Michael B. Shepherd, “Compositional Analysis of the Twelve,” ZAW 120 (2008): 191. 40. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 36. 41. See Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2d ed. (New York: Praeger, 1960), 82–86. 42. Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 212–13. 43. Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets, 79–90. 44. Idem, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible, 37–38. 45. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 112–19. 46. The following is an excerpt from Michael B. Shepherd, “Targums,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2d ed., ed. Joel B. Green (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2013), 932–33: The quotation of Psalm 118:25-26 with reference to the triumphal entry of Jesus is an example of possible dependence upon targumic tradition (Mt 21:9; Mk 11:9-10; Lk 19:38; Jn 12:13). The Targum of Psalm 118:22-29 sets its translation within the context of the anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13) and assigns the content of the psalm to various speakers from that scene (cf. Ps 118:2-4): the sons of Jesse, the builders, Jesse and his wife, David, the tribes of the house of Judah, and Samuel. Matthew and Mark have additions to their quotations of Psalm 118:25-26 that mention David: “Hosanna to the son of David” and “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David.” Matthew and John combine their quotations from Psalm 118 with Zechariah 9:9, which speaks of the ideal Davidic king (Mt 21:5; Jn 12:15). In a clever wordplay the Targum interprets the “stone” of Psalm 118:22 as the “son” who was forsaken. It is thus noteworthy that the quotation of this verse in the Gospels serves as the conclusion to the parable of the vineyard and the tenants in which the tenants kill the son (Mt 21:37-39, 42; Mk 12:6-8, 10-11; Lk 20:1315, 17). The ambiguous statement attributed to David in the Targum of Psalm 118:26b is also significant: “they will bless you from the sanctuary of the LORD.” To whom do the pronouns “they” and “you” (pl.) refer if, according to the Targum, David is the one making the entry? It appears that David is joining in the celebration of the entry of another, but



4 7. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

57.

58.

citation from the prophets

159

why the plural “you”? The context of the Targum might suggest that “you” refers to the builders who speak in Psalm 118:26a or the people in general, but this makes little sense given the fact that these are the candidates for the antecedent of “they” (contra those who suddenly see the voice of priests here). Another possibility is that the mêm of the second masculine plural pronoun in the Hebrew text (“we bless you”) is a case of dittography (see the following mêm prefix). Its omission would leave a second masculine singular pronoun. If this is so, then the Targum is simply following its source text, but its meaning is the same as the original: “you” refers to the one who comes in the name of the LORD—perhaps the son of David in accordance with Matthew 21:9 (see Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 12:42). This also appears in some witnesses to Matt 22:44. See Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets, 64. See Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, WBC 32 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 340. See James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). The homily at the end of b. Yeb. 122b suggests revocalizing Kynb (“your children”) so that it means “your builders” (cf., 1QIsaa). Psalm 147:12–20 is a separate praise psalm in the LXX. Note how it begins the same way the first half does: call to praise, yk clause, and participles. See Shepherd, The Textual World of the Bible. Childs, Isaiah, 523. See William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 458–59; William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 111. According to the Mekilta commentary on Exod 15:22–26, “They went three days in the desert and they did not find water=Torah (as in the Isaiah verse [Isa 55:1]), and they came to Mara, but they could not drink water (study Torah) in Mara, because they were rebellious [from hrm]. Moses prayed and God taught him a word of Torah, which is a “tree of life,” and the bitter [from rrm] waters (rebellious, Torah-less people) became sweet” (Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990], 66). “If previous scholars have read the midrash as radically preemptive of a simple and literal meaning in order to make its ideological point, I would propose, in the light of my reading, that the Torah authorizes such a spiritual reading of itself, via the gaps, ambiguities, and ungrammaticalities of its narrative discourse, although I will admit that the particular inflection of the midrash’s reading in which all that is spiritual is referred to as Torah is a particularly rabbinic move” (Ibid., 70). Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 489–90. Holladay does not think that Psalm 1 is “late,” but Psalms 1 and 2 do not have superscriptions like the psalms in the major collections of the book (e.g., Pss 3–41), which means the two were likely attached to the final form of the book and intended to be read together as an introduction to the Psalter (b. Ber. 9b–10a). Of course, the psalm could have been written well before the post-exilic composition of the book, but the interpreter is then faced with a choice. Should the psalm be read the way it was intended to be read within the context of the Psalter, or should it be read in isolation according to the reconstructed and hypothetical prehistory of the psalm? Jeremiah 39:4–13 also does not appear in the Septuagint, perhaps due to homoioteleuton.

160

the text in the middle

59. The Leningrad Codex has “branch of righteousness” in Jer 33:15. A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts have “righteous branch.” Of course, it is possible that “branch of righteousness” means “righteous branch,” but the textual variation would seem to indicate that ancient readers made a distinction between the two in this case. 60. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 138–40. 61. Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets, 98–99. 62. Idem, Daniel, 39–43, 95–99; The Twelve Prophets, 91–102. 63. Shepherd, “Compositional Analysis of the Twelve”; The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament; idem, “The New Exodus in the Composition of the Twelve.” 64. Cf., Jer 9:3–5 (Eng., 9:4–6). Nahum 1 and Habakkuk 3 are two other examples in the Twelve of mosaics of primarily pentateuchal material used for figural purposes. 65. It is possible that Jonah is dependent on Psalm 107, but this relationship is hard to imagine and less realistic. The bracketed text in Num 10:34–36, however, does appear to be the cited text in Ps 68:1. It is generally recognized that Jon 2:3–10 is a mosaic of material from the book of Psalms (e.g., Pss 3:9; 18:5–7, 17; 31:7; 40:3–4; 42:8; 69:2; 88:8; 120:1; 138:2–3; etc.).

·4· citation from the writings

Job; Testament of Job; James 5:11 The epistle of James says, “You have heard of the patience of Job” (Jas 5:11). But has the reader of the biblical book of Job really heard of Job’s patience? Job’s responses to the calamities in Job 1–2 are certainly very pious and commendable (Job 1:1, 8, 20–22; 2:3, 9–10), and they might even be described as patient, but the author never uses such a term to characterize Job. In fact, the bulk of the book beginning with chapter 3 depicts a very impatient Job who curses the day of his birth and demands his day in court with God to insist on his own righteousness and to be vindicated of any charge of hidden, unconfessed sin behind his present suffering. The intertext here between the biblical book of Job and the epistle of James is likely the pseudepigraphal Testament of Job, which does mention the patience of Job. There are, of course, other examples where a text from Second Temple literature serves as a bridge or even as a primary text. New Testament texts like 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 (fallen angels) are not expositions of Gen 6:1–4. At the very most they depend on literature like 1 Enoch and Jubilees (cf., 4Q252), which interpret Gen 6:1–4 as an introduction to Gen 6:5ff. The passage in

162

the text in the middle

Gen 6:1–4 is elsewhere read as a conclusion to the genealogy in Genesis 5 and as a general description of what ordinary life was like in the days of Noah (Matt 24:37–39). It is also possible for the bridge text to be in the New Testament itself. For instance, the historically difficult reference to the preaching (e0kh/rucen) in the days of Noah (1 Pet 3:19–20) is easily explained by the description of Noah as a preacher (kh/ruka) in 2 Pet 2:5.

Psalm 94:12; Job 5:17–18; Proverbs 3:11–12; Hebrews 12:5–11 The Masoretic Text of Prov 3:11–12 reads, “The discipline (rswm) of YHWH, my son, do not reject (s)mt), and do not loathe his rebuke (wtxkwt). For the one whom YHWH loves he rebukes (xykwy), and like a father (b)kw) the son he accepts.” The Septuagint, however, has a slightly different reading for Prov 3:12b: “and he scourges (mastigoi= de, = b)kyw) the son he accepts.” The text of Heb 12:5–6 appears to quote this latter Septuagint reading, which does not compare YHWH to a father. But the exposition of the quote in Heb 12:7–11 does make the comparison between the discipline of YHWH and that of an earthly father. It is possible that the writer to the Hebrews is aware of both readings and seeks to make use of the two together. It is also possible that the versions of this proverbial saying in Ps 94:12 and Job 5:17–18 have exerted an influence on the writer’s exegesis. Blessed is the man (rbgh yr#)) whom you discipline (wnrsyt), O Yah, and from your instruction you teach (Ps 94:12). Look, blessed is the man (#wn) yr#)) whom God rebukes (wnxkwy), and the discipline (rswm) of Shaddai do not reject (s)mt). For he causes pain (by)ky) and binds, he strikes, and his hands heal (Job 5:17–18).

Thus, the wording of Heb 12:6 follows Prov 3:12b LXX and Job 5:18a most closely, but the meaning brought out of this cited text in Heb 12:7–11 follows Prov 3:12b MT. The Masoretic Text of Prov 3:12b is the only one that compares YHWH to a father.

Esther The Masoretic Text of the book of Esther does not make explicit reference to God, although the implicit references are difficult to miss (e.g., Est 4:13–17). The major additions in the Greek translation tradition of the book, which



citation from the writings

163

may or may not go back to Hebrew/Aramaic originals, are at least in part designed to rectify this situation.1 But it is only something that requires correction if the book is read in isolation. There is considerable evidence, however, that the book was never intended to be read apart from the rest of the Tanakh. That is, the author assumes that the reader will make the necessary intertextual connections to stories like those of Joseph, Samuel, and Daniel, which provide the theological context.2 The references to Ahasuerus and his 127 provinces in the opening verse of the book of Esther will be familiar to the reader of Dan 6:2 (Eng., 6:1) and Ezra 4:6. The setting of the feast in Esther 1 is also reminiscent of the book of Daniel (i.e., Dan 5). Esther is initially introduced as someone who would be “better than” (hnmm hbw+h) and even more attractive than Queen Vashti (Est 1:19; 2:7; cf., Est 1:11). This recalls the descriptions of Joseph (Gen 39:6; 41:38), Daniel (Dan 1:4, 17; 4:15 [Eng., 4:18]), and key characters from the book of Samuel (e.g., 1 Sam 15:28; 25:3, 17 [Est 4:13–14]). Esther also bears two names (Est 2:7, 10)—one native and one foreign—like Joseph and Daniel (Gen 41:45; Dan 1:7). Her time of preparation (Est 2:12; cf., Gen 41:14; Dan 1:18), her finding of favor with foreigners (Est 2:9, 15, 17; cf., Gen 39:4, 21; Dan 1:9), and her prominent position in a foreign royal court (Est 2:17, 19; cf., Gen 41:40; Est 10:3; Dan 2:48–49; 5:29; 6:4) all bear a striking resemblance to the stories of Joseph and Daniel in particular. Such an introduction would hardly go unnoticed by a careful reader of the Tanakh. When the major protagonist (Mordecai) and the villain (Haman) are introduced, their relationship is cast in terms of a settling of an old score from the book of Samuel. Mordecai is a descendant of Kish, the father of King Saul (Est 2:5; see 1 Sam 9:1–2). Haman is a descendant of Agag (Est 3:1; see 1 Sam 15:8), the king of the Amalekites (Gen 36:12; Exod 17:8–13; Num 24:20). According to the story in 1 Samuel 15, Saul had specific instructions from Samuel to kill King Agag and annihilate the Amalekites, including any animal that might be taken as plunder (1 Sam 15:1–3). Saul defeated the Amalekites, but he spared King Agag and took some of the best of the plunder for sacrifices (1 Sam 15:4–9, 15). When Samuel arrives he rebukes Saul, explaining that obedience is better than sacrifice and that the kingdom has been torn from him (1 Sam 15:22, 28). Samuel himself executes Agag (1 Sam 15:33). In the book of Esther, this old rivalry is reversed. The Agagite (Haman) is now in a position to annihilate the son of Kish (Mordecai) and his people (Est 3:10–15; cf., Gen 37:25; Dan 6:10 [Eng., 6:9]). But when the fortunes of the Judeans change, and they overcome their enemies, the text states three

164

the text in the middle

times that they did not take any of the plunder (Est 9:10. 15, 16).3 It is the redemption of the former failure of their ancestors in the story of 1 Samuel 15. Some of the elements shared with the Joseph and Daniel narratives are common to the setting of the royal court yet somewhat unique in the biblical corpus: eunuchs (officials) and cupbearers (Gen 39:1; 40:2; Est 2:21–23; 6:2), royal procession (Gen 41:43; Est 6:11), the signet ring (Gen 41:42; Est 8:2, 8; Dan 6:18 [Eng., 6:17]), and royal clothing (Gen 41:42; Est 8:15; Dan 5:29).4 Others are more specific: the threat of the death penalty (Est 4:11; Dan 2:13; 3:6; 6:8 [Eng., 6:7]), resignation (ytlk# ytlk# r#)k [Gen 43:14b]; ytdb) ytdb) r#)k [Est 4:16b], the king’s sleepless night (Est 6:1; Dan 2:1; 6:19 [Eng., 6:18]), and the irrevocable decree of the Medes and Persians (Est 8:8; Dan 6:9, 16 [Eng., 6:8, 15]).

Daniel 2:34–35, 44–45; 7:9–14; Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 1:7, 14 For a discussion of these texts the reader is encouraged to consult Michael B. Shepherd, “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man,” WTJ 68 (2006): 99–111; idem, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 2009).5

Ezra 1:1–4; 6:3–5; 2 Chronicles 36:236 The Edict of Cyrus has been preserved in four forms: the Cyrus Cylinder, Ezra 1:2–4, Ezra 6:2–5, and 2 Chr 36:23. Rolf Rendtorff summarizes the relationship of these documents in terms of their reliability: Most exegetes see Ezra 6.3–5 as a reliable historical source which may even have preserved the original wording of the ‘Cyrus edict’ of 538 (thus already Meyer, 46ff.: de Vaux, etc.). This is indicated e.g. by the use of Aramaic, since Aramaic was introduced by the Persians as an official language. (This form of Aramaic is therefore designated ‘imperial Aramaic’.) In contrast, Ezra 1:1ff. is usually seen as a free formulation by the author of Ezra. (Cf. Galling, 61ff.; Bickerman differs, regarding both documents as authentic: he says that 6.3–5 was intended for the royal administration and 1.2–4 for the Hebrew-speaking Jewish exiles.)7

All of the biblical versions mention the building of the house of God. This is in accord with the Cyrus Cylinder in which the restoration of sanctuaries



citation from the writings

165

is reported. The return of the exiles is another matter, but Rendtorff suggests that the Cyrus Cylinder may also mention the return of former inhabitants to other regions.8 When the biblical versions are compared and contrasted in synoptic fashion, Ezra 1:1–4 and 2 Chr 36:22–23 share the most material. The 2 Chronicles passage is basically a truncated version of the Ezra passage. Both passages speak of the edict as a fulfillment of “the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah.” Cyrus narrates his appointment to build the house of God in Jerusalem with qtl forms, as if the text were a translation of an Aramaic original; yet the Aramaic version in Ezra 6:2–5 does not contain this narration. The Aramaic version appears to expand two portions of the version in Ezra 1:2–4. The call to build the house of God is expanded to include the dimensions of the house; and the support of silver and gold mentioned in Ezra 1:4 is interpreted in Ezra 6:5 as the return of the gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple. In a discussion of the appropriate location of Daniel within the Tanak, John Sailhamer highlights the central role of Daniel in the two pre-Christian shapes of the canon.9 Of particular importance is the mention of the time “from the issuing of a word to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25). The arrangement of books in Codex B19a places Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah as the last two books of the canon. The decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple comes at the outset of Ezra-Nehemiah in Ezra 1:2–4. Sailhamer comments, “In that position, the edict of Cyrus identifies the historical return under Ezra and Nehemiah as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s vision of seventy years.”10 The arrangement in Baba Bathra 14b, however, has Chronicles at the end, which concludes with the decree of Cyrus (2 Chr 36:23). Sailhamer notes: In this arrangement, the edict of Cyrus has been shortened from that in Ezra/Nehemiah (Ezra 1:2–4), so that it concludes with the clause “Let him go up” (2 Chron 36:23). In the book of Chronicles, the subject of that clause is identified as he “whose God is with him.” For the Chronicler this is possibly also a messianic image (cf. 1 Chron 17:12).11

This latter shape of the Tanak looks beyond the return from exile and “fits well with what appears to be the Hebrew text (Vorlage) of the Septuagint of Jeremiah and the reading of these texts by the NT.”12 Either way, the book of Daniel plays a central role in the formation of the Hebrew canon.13 But the Tanak that concludes with Chronicles seems to be truer to the composition of

166

the text in the middle

Daniel itself. Like the Septuagint of Jeremiah, the messianism of Daniel looks to a future fulfillment beyond the historical fulfillment of Ezra-Nehemiah. It is no accident that the text that plays such an important role on the canonical level, Dan 9:25, is found within the interpretive Hebrew material of Daniel (Dan 8–12). The author of Daniel has linked this material to the equally messianic Aramaic section (Dan 2:4b–7:28), which is also not without its own inter-textual connections. In Dan 2:28, the Hebraism )ymwy tyrx)b (“at the end of the days”) sets the stage for the eschatology of the book.14 This phrase in Hebrew is used strategically in the composition of the Pentateuch (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29). Sailhamer has demonstrated that three of the occurrences of the phrase within the Pentateuch (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 31:29) stand at the beginning of prominent poetic seams in which a major character from the preceding narrative proclaims a coming king from Judah to appear “at the end of the days.”15 The present author has further noted: The phrase falls into disuse in the Former Prophets. Although the hope of a Messiah (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 22:51; 23:1) and an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:12–13) is expressed, the fulfillment is not. Each successive king is marked by failure to some degree. The phrase then reemerges (Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1). Once again, the hope is a future king (Hos 3:5). The two final occurrences of the phrase come in Daniel; thus, it has an important function in each division of the Tanak. The use of “at the end of the days” in Daniel links the eschatology of the book to that of the rest of the canon. Therefore, the coming king from Judah is the most likely candidate for the head of the everlasting kingdom in Daniel (Dan 2:44; 3:33; 4:31; 6:27; 7:14, 18, 27). God is the ruler of his kingdom, and he gives it to whomever he pleases (Dan 4:14, 22, 29). His choice is the coming king from Judah—the one “like a son of man” in Dan 7:13.16

Thus, the eschatological “messianism” of the Pentateuch and the Prophets is taken up by the author of Daniel in the Aramaic section. This is then interpreted in the Hebrew section (Dan 9:2, 25) in relation to the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Jer 25:11, 12; 29:10; 2 Chr 36:23).

Excursus: Rewritten Bible The genre of rewritten Bible has received a good deal of attention since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.17 Not everyone agrees on what is to be included within this genre, but at least three works are undisputed members:



citation from the writings

167

Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, and Biblical Antiquities.18 Of these three, Genesis Apocryphon is the one example of rewritten Bible that has escaped a more specific description of its genre. Early classifications such as targum and midrash have fallen by the wayside. Even the genre of rewritten Bible now seems too broad and undefined. What is needed is an appropriate identification of the subgenre of Genesis Apocryphon within the larger realm of rewritten Bible. Genesis Apocryphon has the distinctive characteristic of first-person narration by the major characters of the biblical narrative (Lamech, Noah, and Abram). This appears to be more than a stylistic feature particular to Genesis Apocryphon, since other works could conceivably have been produced with the same essential element—for example, a rewritten Joshua narrated in the first person by Joshua himself. It is thus constitutive of a subgenre of rewritten Bible. Genesis Apocryphon is Bible rewritten in the first person by the major characters of the biblical narrative. The shift to third person in the rendering of Genesis 14 poses a problem for this thesis and forces recognition of the whole of the extant Genesis Apocryphon as a mixed genre (Mischgattung). The purpose of setting forth such an idea is to foster a more focused reading of this early piece of biblical interpretation. The following discussion proceeds from a survey of Genesis Apocryphon genre studies to a closer look at the unique traits of the text itself. Genesis Apocryphon Genre Studies Discussions of genre usually have to do with both form (e.g., Genesis Apocryphon is rewritten Bible) and content (e.g., Genesis Apocryphon is first-person narration by the major characters of the biblical narrative). A literary genre can be defined roughly as a group of written texts that display distinctive characteristics. Disagreement over the details of specific groupings does exist, but most would agree that such grouping is possible to some degree. This is because a given written document tends to differ from other text types in a way that is consistent with written documents of its own type. Thus, the boundaries of genre are marked by both comparison and contrast. In his treatment of genre-recognition, John Barton employs the structuralist term “literary competence”: “In the case of language, competence can be assessed by the speaker’s ability to recognize the meaning of sentences he has never heard before and to produce new sentences himself without infringing the rules of what are traditionally called grammar and syntax.”19 When this is extended to genre-recognition, it is not merely the ability to recognize and

168

the text in the middle

produce linguistically “correct” sentences. It is the knowledge of when and how to read a text in a certain way so that the intended literary type of the author is taken into account. For Barton, this amounts to “developing some sense of what sorts of questions it makes sense to ask” of a given work.20 A reader’s competence does not lie in knowing all the answers to questions about a text or in having exhaustively discovered the meaning of a text, but in bringing to the table the right questions to ask a text. In an interesting combination of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s language games with Ferdinand de Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole, E. D. Hirsch poses a question that gets to the heart of the matter: To play the game properly you must have learned the rules. But since there are a great many games (langue), and since it is necessary to know the rules that apply to a particular game (parole), a problem arises. How does one know which game is being played?21

Hirsch points out that those who know all the games may still disagree over which game is being played. An interpreter must play a given “game” over and over before he or she is able to play with the right expectations. Through reading and rereading, the conception of genre evolves from an initial presupposition to an identification of the correct literary type. With regard to Genesis Apocryphon, there has been disagreement over which “game” is being played. Paul Kahle and his students initially preferred to label the scroll a targum.22 But soon it became apparent that this thesis only held true for the third-person rendering of Genesis 14. No known targum employs the major characters of the biblical narrative to provide first-person narration. Other scholars opted to speak of Genesis Apocryphon as midrash—a term that has ceased to be meaningful for many.23 Midrash has been defined as both an exegetical activity (actualizing) and a literary genre (rabbinic literature).24 But its usage at Qumran is that of a non-technical term for interpretation in general. Even later rabbinic literature uses the word broadly to include both peshat and derash exegesis.25 No one disagrees that Genesis Apocryphon is interpretation (midrash), but something else is needed to distinguish it from other types of biblical interpretation. Joseph Fitzmyer, in his now well-known commentary on Genesis Apocryphon, drew the following conclusion in his discussion of the scroll’s genre: We stress then the independent character of this composition. Though it depends on the biblical text of Genesis and displays at times traits of targumic and midrashic composition, it is in reality a free reworking of the Genesis stories, a re-telling of the



citation from the writings

169

tales of the patriarchs (Lamech, Noah, Abram, etc.) It is definitely related to the intertestamental literary compositions such as Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.26

This careful description of the character of Genesis Apocryphon has held sway to this day. The scroll is a reworking, a retelling, or a rewriting of the Genesis stories. Now the task is to define Genesis Apocryphon more specifically within the genre of rewritten Bible. George Nickelsburg describes Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, and Biblical Antiquities as “running paraphrases of longer and shorter parts of the Bible, often with lengthy expansions.”27 He places other examples of rewritten Bible, such as Life of Adam and Eve and Philo the Epic Poet, in different subgenres.28 For Philip Alexander, Chronicles is “the prototype of all the rewritten Bible texts.”29 Indeed, Chronicles is a comprehensive treatment of biblical history from Adam to the decree of Cyrus. Alexander has provided an extensive list of rewritten Bible characteristics in which he essentially defines the genre as narrative retelling of the biblical stories.30 This retelling assumes knowledge of the original and serves as a commentary. Jubilees is a rewriting of Genesis 1–Exodus 14 with a unique chronological framework of Jubilee periods (Lev 25). Unlike Genesis Apocryphon and Biblical Antiquities, the rewriting is presented as revelation—revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This has affinities with the view of interpretation as revelation found among the Qumran writings.31 Jubilees is also unlike its rewritten Bible counterparts in its pervasive halakhic interests (e.g., religious festivals and patriarchal observance of Torah).32 According to Nickelsburg, Jubilees was composed around 200 B.C. to inspire obedience to Torah.33 This raises the question of the relationship of Jubilees to Genesis Apocryphon. E. Y. Kutscher leaned toward the first century B.C. for the date of the Genesis Apocryphon scroll,34 and scholars generally treat Jubilees as the earlier of the two. Nevertheless, it has also been suggested that Genesis Apocryphon represents an earlier and simpler tradition.35 Biblical Antiquities is a later example of rewritten Bible (c. A.D. 70).36 Compared with Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees, it is relatively uninterested in the narratives of Genesis. The text skips Genesis 1–3 and 12–50 (summarized in chapter 8), Exodus 3–13, the legal material of the Pentateuch, the conquest, and parts of 1 Samuel. Biblical Antiquities does, however, have a unique interest in the book of Judges—its pattern of history and great leaders.37 Nickelsburg highlights the role of “the many speeches put on the lips of the leaders of Israel” in which Israel is proclaimed to be God’s people.38 Neither Biblical

170

the text in the middle

Antiquities nor Jubilees features first-person narration by the major characters of the biblical narrative, but the use of speeches by the major characters in Biblical Antiquities has a similar effect on the interpretation of the message of Judges: it presents the interpretation as authoritative without presenting it as revelation. Genesis Apocryphon Genesis Apocryphon immediately distinguishes itself with an account of Lamech adjuring his wife Bitenosh to tell him the truth about whether or not her pregnancy is of angelic origin (2:1–18). This conversation is not found elsewhere. The ensuing interest in Enoch and Noah (2:19–17:19), not unlike what can be found in 1 Enoch, is no doubt motivated by the enticing statements found in Gen 5:24, 29. What kind of a man walks with God and is no longer? How can the origins of a man who comforts people from their labor be explained? These are the types of questions that fuel the expansive character of Genesis Apocryphon. This section also puts the author’s geographical knowledge on display in the division of the world among the sons of Noah.39 Such knowledge sets Genesis Apocryphon apart from other examples of rewritten Bible. This aspect of the author’s skill can also be seen in the rendering of Genesis 14.40 As Alexander has noted, the author also “shows great skill in bringing other parts of Scripture to bear on the interpretation of the passage directly under consideration.”41 For instance, in the account of Abram’s sojourn in Egypt the three Egyptian nobles recount to Pharaoh the beauty of Sarai (20:2– 8) in terms much like those that are found in Prov 31:10–31 and Song 4:1–7; 6:4– 9; 7:2–10.42 The subsequent narrative conflates the accounts found in Gen 12:10–20 and Gen 20:1–18.43 Moshe Bernstein notes two examples of this: (1) Pharaoh’s inability to approach Sarai (20:17) echoes Abimelech’s inability to approach Sarah (Gen 20:4) and (2) Lot’s words to Hirqanos about the sending away of Sarai and about Abram’s prayer for Pharaoh (20:23) correspond to God’s words to Abimelech (Gen 20:7). This kind of conflation has a precedent in the biblical text itself where in Gen 26:1–11 the details of the famine (Gen 12:10), Gerar, and Abimelech (Gen 20:1–18) are brought together from the two earlier sojourn accounts for the story of Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar. The account of Abram’s sojourn also contains an interesting link to the book of Daniel. In 20:19, Pharaoh sends for all the wise men, wizards, and healers, but only Abram is able to heal him through prayer (20:28–29).



citation from the writings

171

In Daniel, both Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:2–13; 4:4) and Belshazzar (Dan 5:7–8) call for the wise men to be interpreters, but only Daniel is able to be the interpreter by means of prayer and revelation from God (Dan 2:17–23, 27–28; 4:16–24; 5:17–28).44 Perhaps this link has been forged by way of the Joseph narratives.45 The initial clue to this is Abram’s statement in 19:10: “I heard that there was grain in Egypt.” The same words are found on the lips of Jacob in Gen 42:2.46 The connection with Daniel is then evident. The Pharaoh of the Joseph narratives also has trouble with his wise men (Gen 41:8), and only Joseph, who points to God, is able to help (Gen 41:16). Pharaoh says of Joseph, “Is a man found like this in whom is the Spirit of God…there is no one understanding and wise like you” (Gen 41:38–39) just as Nebuchadnezzar says of Daniel, “Daniel…in whom is the Spirit of Holy God” (Dan 4:5). Belshazzar’s wife calls Daniel a man “in whom is the Spirit of Holy God…insight and wisdom like the wisdom of God were found in him” (Dan 5:11). Abram’s sojourn concludes with the reception of gifts from Pharaoh (20:30–34), including the gift of Hagar (20:32). This is, of course, an anticipation and explanation of Hagar’s presence in Genesis 16. It is noteworthy that the biblical text has its own version of anticipation with the mention of Egypt in Gen 15:18.47 Abram’s narration continues through 21:22 with a rendering of Genesis 13 that concludes in anticipation of Genesis 14 as it makes mention of Mamre, Arnem, and Eshkol (21:21–22; cf., Gen 13:18; 14:13, 24).48 The preceding text of Genesis Apocryphon has been narrated in the first person by the major characters of the biblical narrative (Lamech, Noah, and Abram). At times this has produced an emotionally charged perspective (e.g., the weeping of Abram in 20:10– 12, 16; see also 22:5). The first-person narration has the effect of an authoritative interpretation given by the major characters themselves. Lamech, Noah, and Abram emerge from the biblical text in order to provide the final word on the text’s meaning. A modern analogy would be the consultation of a star actor about the meaning of a movie scene. His or her interpretation is taken for granted to be the correct one.49 The same effect occurs in the composition of Daniel. The major character Daniel is referred to in the third person throughout the stories of Daniel 1–6. Even the report of his vision in chapter 7 is prefaced by third-person narration in Dan 7:1. Daniel then emerges in chapters 8–12 as the authoritative, first-person narrator. The author of Daniel works with two pieces of material—one in Aramaic (Dan 2:4b–7:28) and one in

172

the text in the middle

Hebrew (Dan 8–12). The author employs the Hebrew material as a commentary on the Aramaic material. The model for this comes not from Ezra, but from Jeremiah (i.e., Jer 10:11–12), a book of major importance for the author of Daniel (Dan 9:2).50 Taking a cue from Dan 2:28 (“at the end of the days”) and Dan 7:13–14 (“like a son of man”), the author has Daniel interpret the four kingdoms and the eternal kingdom of Dan 2 and 7 eschatologically (Dan 8:19; 10:14) and messianically (Dan 9:25). The hope in time of distress found in chapters 3 and 6 is interpreted in Daniel 12 as a future hope in the resurrection (cf., 2 Macc 7). The earlier narratives are not rewritten; but the sequence of kingdoms is maintained, and the major character becomes the first-person interpreter. The first-person narration of Genesis Apocryphon ceases at 20:23. This is precisely the point at which the rendering of Genesis 14 begins. The text looks more like a targum than anything else—it contains fewer additions, and it features a mix of literal translation and paraphrase.51 The Targum of Job from Qumran provides evidence that targumic material was written early enough to be included in a work like Genesis Apocryphon. But what is the relationship of this material to the rest of the work? The simplest solution is to view this material as one of the “pieces” that the author employed to compose the whole. In other words, Genesis Apocryphon is not made of whole cloth.52 The author composed or put together at least two different pieces of material into a well-crafted whole. In this, Genesis Apocryphon does not differ much from biblical authorship and composition. The result is a mixed genre (Mischgattung) for the whole of the extant Genesis Apocryphon: (1) Bible rewritten in the first person by the major characters of the biblical narrative and (2) targum. This observation also helps to explain the choice of Aramaic as the language of Genesis Apocryphon. The author seeks to set the interpretive rewriting apart from the biblical text in much the same way that the Aramaic commentary of the targums is meant not to be confused with the Bible itself. Consciousness of the surrounding biblical narrative continues in the rendering of Genesis 14. For example, reference is made to one of Lot’s shepherds from Gen 13:7 who is said to have escaped captivity and told Abram about the capture of Lot (22:1–4). Considerable restraint, however, can also be seen in contrast with the NT book of Hebrews. Whereas Heb 7:2 interprets “Melchizedek” in light of Gen 15:6 (hqdc) as “king of righteousness,” Genesis Apocryphon leaves the name uninterpreted.53 Whereas Heb 7:2 interprets “king of Salem” in light of Gen 15:15 (Mwl#) as “king of peace,” Genesis



citation from the writings

173

Apocryphon interprets Salem as Jerusalem—an interpretation that becomes standard among the targums.54 But Genesis Apocryphon does expose one important link between Genesis 14 and Genesis 15. The defectively written noun #kr (“possession”) in Gen 14:21 provides an opportunity to forge a relationship with the noun rk# (“reward”) by means of an interchange of the first and last letters. It is as if to say that Abram will not take a #kr from the king of Sodom because his rk# is the LORD (cf., Gen 23:11–16).55 Genesis Apocryphon translates #kr with )yskn (“wealth” or “flocks”) in 22:19. The same word reappears in the expansive rendering of Gen 15:1: “I am your shield…your riches and your wealth/ flocks (Kyskn) will increase greatly” (22:31–32). The difference between Genesis Apocryphon and the biblical text is not the linkage but the meaning of the linkage.56

Conclusion Genesis Apocryphon is Bible rewritten in the first person by the major characters of the biblical narrative. This does not mean that Lamech, Noah, and Abram did the writing. It only means that the author presented the rewriting in first-person narration in order to give the interpretation a stamp of authority. The author also worked with a targumic rendering of Genesis 14, requiring the whole of the extant Genesis Apocryphon to be classified as a mixed genre (Mischgattung). The combination of the first-person narration and the targum puts this text into a unique subgenre of rewritten Bible. It is hoped that this will serve as a more sharply defined category for this type of text. Genesis Apocryphon is not the halakhic rewriting of Jubilees or the speech-oriented rewriting of Biblical Antiquities. It is its own type of rewriting to be read accordingly. The first-person narration is not a novelty. It is a defining feature of the subgenre. This means that other texts could very well be found in the future that fit into the same subgenre of rewritten Bible. An appreciation of the subgenre of Genesis Apocryphon can help to avoid confusion if and when such discoveries are made. The known examples of rewritten Bible stand as vital pieces of early biblical interpretation much like the early translations of the Bible. These texts have been mined for their insight into this early history of interpretation and for insight into the biblical text itself. A more focused reading of Genesis Apocryphon can only help to continue this area of research.

174

the text in the middle

Notes 1. Jon Levenson (Esther [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 27–34) argues that the theological version of the book represented by the Greek is more original. The reader can decide whether his rationale for the removal of the theological element in the MT is convincing. See also Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 535–48. 2. The books of Esther and Daniel are next to one another in the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible. 3. Also in the Joseph and Daniel stories the enemy faces the fate planned for the protagonist (Gen 42:17; Est 7:10; 9:10; Dan 6:25 [Eng., 6:24]). 4. Fasting, sackcloth, and ashes (Est 4:1; Dan 9:3) commonly occur outside these stories. 5. See also the language that Dan 7:28 shares with Gen 37:11; Luke 2:19. 6. This section features excerpts from Michael B. Shepherd, The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic: A Distributional Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 2008). 7. Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 60. 8. Ibid. 9. John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 34–36. 10. Ibid., 35. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., 36; earlier in the essay Sailhamer discusses the two final shapes of Jeremiah—the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (ibid., 27–30); see also Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2d rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 319–27; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), passim. 13. Daniel is often said to be part of that portion of the canon labeled “Prophets” on the basis of its placement in the Greek Bible and on the basis of texts that refer to Daniel as a prophet (4Q174 2:3; Matt 24:15); but the fact that the historical figure Daniel was considered a prophet is not determinative for the canonical placement of the book that bears his name; in a sense, all of Hebrew Scripture is regarded as the product of the prophets (e.g., Rom 1:2; 16:26). 14. The Hebrew phrase occurs in Dan 10:14. 15. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 35–37; idem, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 209–12. 16. Shepherd, “Daniel 7:13,” 104. 17. E.g., Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1973); George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael Stone (CRINT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 33–156; D. J. Harrington, “The Bible Rewritten (Narratives),” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986); Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),



18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

25

26. 27.

28.

29.

citation from the writings

175

99–121; J. L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper, 1990). Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities is also a good candidate for inclusion (see Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 111–16), but Josephus’ stated intention is to write a history that uses the Bible (Ant. 1:5, 26–27). John Barton, Reading the Old Testament, rev. and enl. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 11. Ibid., 17. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 70. E.g., G. J. Kuiper, “A Study of the Relationship between A Genesis Apocryphon and the Pentateuchal Targumim in Genesis 14:1–12,” in In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968), 149–61. See also Manfred R. Lehmann (“1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim,” RevQ 1 [1958]: 249–63) who viewed the scroll as the oldest prototype of targum (running translation) and midrash (running commentary). For the view that a targum is intended to be commentary see C. Rabin, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, CRINT 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1030–32. E.g., Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 96. See Addison G. Wright, “The Literary Genre Midrash,” CBQ 28 (1966): 105–38. See also Rimon Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature” and E. Earle Ellis, “Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 547–94, 691–726. “Midrash” and “exegesis” “end up covering much of the same ground. ‘Midrash’ stands for a perfectly respectable, rule-bound, rational, scholarly treatment of the text, as much as does ‘exegesis.’ But the words intersect over such a broad area that we are hardly required to use a foreign word when a native one serves perfectly well” (Jacob Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature [New York: Doubleday, 1999], 225). Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, 2d ed. (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 10. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 89; Nickelsburg takes 1 Enoch 6–11 to be a forerunner of this type of rewritten Bible. It is interesting to note that Enoch is the first-person narrator in the surrounding text, but not in chapters 6–11. Numerous texts fall broadly into the genre of rewritten Bible. For example, the Temple Scroll is a pseudepigraphical work in which “the reader confronts the text as a new Tora” (Michael Fishbane, “Use, Authority, and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra, 350–51). The genre also appears among the writings of the church fathers—Irenaeus’ Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. One of the latest examples of rewritten Bible is Sefer ha-Yashar (c. eleventh century A.D.). Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 100; see the textual relationship between Chronicles 1–9 and Genesis Apocryphon in James C. VanderKam, “The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis Apocryphon,” JBL 97 (1978): 55. The Hebrew

176

3 0. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

3 6. 37. 3 8. 39.

40.

41. 42.

4 3. 44.

4 5. 46. 47. 48.

the text in the middle

Bible also contains a number of summaries of itself (e.g., Deut 6:20–25; 26:5–9; Josh 24:2– 13; Ezek 20; Pss 78, 105–6, 136; Neh 9). Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 116–18. Ibid., 101; Fishbane, “Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” 362. Among other distinctive characteristics, Jubilees devotes much more attention to Isaac than does the text of Genesis. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 102; the completely preserved Ethiopic translation goes back to a Greek translation of a Hebrew original (fragments found among DSS). E. Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2d ed., ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, Scripta hierosolymitana 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965), 1–34. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 96, n. 2. “We may cautiously infer that the origins of Jubilees are possibly to be found in Pal. Traditions, perhaps in the tradition represented by GA” (Kuiper, “A Genesis Apocryphon and Pentateuchal Targumim, 159); Eva Osswald, “Beobachtungen zur Erzählung von Abrahams Aufenthalt in Ägypten im »Genesis-Apokryphon«,” ZAW 72 (1960): 24. The extant Latin text is a translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. Alexander notes the otherwise sparse coverage of Judges in the aggadah (“Retelling the Old Testament,” 108). See also Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 107–8. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 108–9. Moshe J. Bernstein (“Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon,” DSD 3 (1996): 42) notes that the families of the sons of Noah are shifted from the rendering of Genesis 10 to the rendering of Genesis 9 in order to introduce Canaan. This anticipation can already be seen in Gen 9:18. See Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” 105–6. “The author of Genesis Apocryphon was a scholar who studied the text of the Bible in a close and disciplined manner, and who had a distinct interest in ‘archaeological’ matters. However, he wears his learning very easily; he introduces it unobtrusively into an attractive and readable retelling of the biblical text. His touch is light and lacks the heavy theological, moralising emphasis of Jubilees” (ibid., 107). Ibid. James C. VanderKam (“The Poetry of I Q Ap Gen, XX, 2–8a,” RevQ 10 [1979]: 57–66) argues that this section is poetry on the basis of its parallelism, meter, chiasm, paronomasia, repetition of similar sounds, and inclusion. The lack of figurative language, however, is noteworthy. See Osswald, “Beobachtungen,” 7–25. Sefer ha-Yashar links Abraham’s rescue from the fiery furnace (see Tg. Neof. Gen 11:31) to the account of the three friends in the fiery furnace from Daniel 3 (Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 85–90). See also Exod 7:11. See Bernstein, “Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization,” 48. See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 153. See Bernstein, “Re-arrangment, Anticipation and Harmonization,” 45–46.



citation from the writings

177

49. The narratives are not really memoirs or autobiographies. They are first-person, interpretive rewritings of the biblical text itself. 50. See Shepherd, The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic, 10–18. 51. Alexander distinguishes between two types of targums: (1) one that consists of a base translation plus detachable glosses and (2) one in which the translation is dissolved in the paraphrase (Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra, 228–37); the Genesis Apocryphon rendering of Genesis 14 is closer to the first type. 52. See the discussion in Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 157–58. 53. Cf., Targum Neofiti at Gen 14:18: qdc )klmw (“And the king Zedek . . .”). The author of Hebrews uses e9rmhneu&w in the sense “to interpret” much like what is found in Josephus (see Louis H. Feldman, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” in Mikra, 468–69). See again Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology, 309–11. 54. Genesis Apocryphon leaves untouched several other links between Genesis 14 and Genesis 15 such as the number 318 (Gen 14:14) and the gematria value of Eliezer (Gen 15:2), and the relationship between the use of the verb Ngm (Gen 14:19) and the use of the noun Ngm (Gen 15:1). Note also the curious rendering )(r)w )ym# hrm (22:16) for Cr)w Mym# hnq (Gen 14:19). Could this be based on Deut 32:6, 8? 55. I take the syntax of Gen 15:1b to yield the following translation: “Do not fear, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward” (cf., NIV; Heb 11:6, 8). d)m hbrh is not ordinarily used like a predicate adjective. 56. Targum Neofiti also takes “after these things” in Gen 15:1 to be a reference to the events of the preceding chapter. It presents Abram as concerned about having already received his reward in this world and about the possibility of vengeance from the relatives of the slain.

bibliography

Albertz, R., and C. Westermann. “xAw%r rûaḥ spirit.” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, vol. 3, 1202–1220. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997. Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” In It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, 99–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, 217–53. Philadelphia, Fortress, 1988. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Andersen, Francis I., and Dean A. Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Bacher, Wilhelm. Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965. Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited by M. Holquist. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Bar, Shaul. “Who Were the ‘Mixed Multitude’?” Hebrew Studies 49 (2008): 27–39. Bar-Efrat, S. “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 154–73. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

180

the text in the middle

———. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Reprint, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament. Revised and enlarged. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983. Bauks, Michaela, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange, eds. Between Text of Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Beale, G. K. and D. A. Carson, ed. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Reprint, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 37–57. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. Translated and edited by Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary 6. Nashville: B&H, 1999. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. Vol. 1, 1:1–9:50. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994. Bormann, Lukas. “The Colossian Hymn, Wisdom, and Creation.” In Between Text and Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times, ed. Michaela Bauks, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange, 243–56. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. ———. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Calvin, John. Genesis, vol. 1. Translated by John King. Calvin’s Commentaries. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. ———. Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 4. Translated by James Anderson. Calvin’s Commentaries. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Cargill, Robert R. “The Rule of Creative Completion: Neofiti’s Use of llk#.” Aramaic Studies 10 (2012): 173–91. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

bibliography 181 Carson, D. A. “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 693–714. Chapman, Stephen B. The Law and the Prophets. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974. ———. Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983. ———. From Exegesis to Exposition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Coats, G. W. “Balaam, Sinner or Saint?” Biblical Research 18 (1973): 21–29. Davies, Philip R., and Thomas Römer, eds. Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script. Durham, UK: Acumen, 2013. Delitzsch, Franz. Psalms. Translated by Francis Bolton. Keil & Delitzsch 5. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Eisenstein, Sergei. The Film Sense. Translated by Jay Leyda. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1942. Ellis, E. Earle. “Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, 691–726. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Feldman, Louis H. “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, 455–518. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. ———. “Use, Authority, and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” In Mikra, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, 339–77. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, 2d ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. Gathercole, Simon J. “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament.” In From Prophecy to Testament: the Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig A. Evans, 126–45. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigheit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer, 1857. Gombis, Timothy. “Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8.” Novum Testamentum 47 (2005): 367–80. Harrington, D. J. “The Bible Rewritten (Narratives).” In Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986.

182

the text in the middle

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1992. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza, 2d ed. New York: Praeger, 1960. Kasher, Rimon. “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, 547–94. Philadephia: Fortress, 1988. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Kautzsch, E. F., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley, 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Keil, C. F. Minor Prophets. Translated James Martin. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. ———. Nehemiah. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866–91. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Diversity and Unity in the New Testament.” In Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann, 144–58. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. ———, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009. Kristeva, J. The Kristeva Reader. Edited by T. Moi. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. ———. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco: Harper, 1990. Kuiper, G. J. “A Study of the Relationship between A Genesis Apocryphon and the Pentateuchal Targumim in Genesis 14:1–12.” In In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer, 149–61. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968. Kutscher, E. Y. “The Language of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’.” In Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2d ed., ed. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin, 1–34. Scripta hierosolymitana 4. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965. Labuschagne, C. J. “)rq qr) to call.” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle, vol. 3, 1158–64. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997. Lehmann, Manfred R. “1Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim.” Revue de Qumran 1 (1958): 249–63. Levenson, Jon. Esther. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Levison, John R. “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of Ecstatic Elders.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (2003): 503–21.

bibliography 183 Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Marshall, I. Howard. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 1999. McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. Menken, Martinus J. “The Provenance and Meaning of the Old Testament Quotation in John 6:31.” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 39–56. Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville: B&H, 2009. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994. Mulder, Martin Jan, and Harry Sysling, eds. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity. Philadelphia, Fortress, 1988. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Naudé, Jacobus A. “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Chronology and Typology Debate.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36.2 (2010): 1–22. Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Niccacci, Alviero. Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 86. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael Stone, 33–156. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Noonan, Benjamin J. “Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations.” Hebrew Studies 51 (2010): 73–93. Osswald, Eva. “Beobachtungen zur Erzählung von Abrahams Aufenthalt in Ägypten im »Genesis-Apokryphon«.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1960): 7–25. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 1–11: Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43; Zweiter Teilband: 4,44–11,32. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Herders, 2012. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. Quarles, Charles. Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church. Nashville: B&H, 2011. Rabin, C. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century.” In The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, 1007–37. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2, The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. ———. Deuteronomy. Translated by Dorothea Barton. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja.” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 295–320. ———. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

184

the text in the middle

———. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Orton. Leiden: Deo, 2005. Rofé, Alexander. “The Piety of the Torah-disciples at the Winding-up of the Hebrew Bible: Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa 59:21.” In Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Helmut Merklein, Karlheinz Müller, and Günter Stemberger, 78–85. Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1993. Rollston, Christopher A. Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Rooker, Mark F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Sæbø, Magne ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Pt. 1, Antiquity. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. ———. Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. ———. “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 87–96. ———. “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible.” In Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann, 25–37. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. ———. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009. Schiffman, Lawrence. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: the History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2004. Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Shepherd, Michael B. “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 99–111. ———. “Compositional Analysis of the Twelve.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120 (2008): 184–93. ———. The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic: A Distributional Approach. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. ———. Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. ———. The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament. New York: Peter Lang, 2011. ———. “Targums.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2d ed., ed. Joel B. Green, 931–34. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2013. ———. The Textual World of the Bible. New York: Peter Lang, 2013. ———. “The New Exodus in the Composition of the Twelve.” In Text and Canon, ed. Paul J. Kissling and Robert L. Cole. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, forthcoming. Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

bibliography 185 Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Steck, Odil Hannes. The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness. Translated by James D. Nogalski. St. Louis: Chalice, 2000. Steiner, Richard C. “Four Inner-Biblical Interpretations of Genesis 49:10: On the Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguities of d(: as Reflected in the Prophecies of Nathan, Ahijah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013): 33–60. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987. Talmon, Shemaryahu. Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. ———. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture.” In Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, 31–56. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. ———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Turner, M. “Holy Spirit.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, 551–58. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. VanderKam, James C. “The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis Apocryphon.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 45–55. ———. “The Poetry of I Q Ap Gen, XX, 2–8a.” Revue de Qumran 10 (1979): 57–66. ———. “The Festival of Weeks and the Story of Pentecost in Acts 2.” In From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. C. A. Evans, 185–205. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2d ed. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Waltke, Bruce K. “Agur’s Apologia for Verbal, Plenary Inspiration: An Exegesis of Proverbs 30:1–6.” In The Challenge of Bible Translation, ed., Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth, 303–320. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Willi, Thomas. Die Chronik als Auslegung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

186

the text in the middle

Wright, Addison G. “The Literary Genre Midrash.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 105– 38. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Young, I., R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensward. The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. London: Equinox, 2009.

scripture index

Genesis 1–2 7 1:1–2:3 9 2:2–3 11 2:23–25 13 3:1, 14–15 14 3:15; 4:1 16 4:4–5 17 4 18 6–7 19 12:3, 7 21 12:10–20 24 14 28 14:14 27 14–15 25 15:1 29 15:6 30, 39 15:10 40 16 41 17:5 42 19 19 21 41

22 22:4–5 23 25:23 28:12 48:5 49:8–12 50:25

39 43 28 45 45 46 46 49

Exodus 3:14 57 12:8–9 58 12:35–38 24 13:2, 13 59 13:9, 16 60 13:19 49 14:21–22 60 15:2 62 16 64, 65 16:33 71 17 73 19 75

188

index 19:6 20:1–17 20:11 23:20 25–40 32:20

74 77 11 140 72 78

Leviticus 17:7 81 18:5 81 18:21 59 23:39–42 82 Numbers 3:13, 41 59 8:16–17 59 10:35 109 11 64, 65 12 82 17:25 71 18:15–16 59 20 73 20–21 83 21:8 84 22–24 84 23:22 88 24:7 85 24:17 89 24:8 88 25:1 81 27:17 89 31:8, 16 84 Deuteronomy 2–3 83 5:6–21 77 6:4–9 60 7:3–4 94 9:21 78 11:13–21 60 12:31 59 16:7 58 16:13–15 82

17:14–20 90 18:10 59 18:15, 18 93 23:4 94 23:16–17 94 24:1–4 81, 94 30:1–10 96 30:11–14 96 31:9–13 99 33:2–5 100 34:10 93 Joshua 1:8 60 3:17 60 4:23 60 13:1 11 24:32 49 Judges 1:27–33 4–5 7:7 11 19

11 109 27 83 19

1 Samuel 1:11 16 2:1–10 116 2:26 119 2:35 25 8 90 15:22 120 30 27 2 Samuel 7 25 7:1–17 122 22:1–23:7 116 22:31 129 22:34 129 23:1 85 24 28

index 189 1 Kings 1–11 90 6–8 72 8:9 71 11:1–10 94 15:13 78 19 18 22:17 89 2 Kings 2:8, 14 60 16:3 59 17:17, 31 59 18:4 84 21:6 59 23:4, 6 78 23:10 59 23:12, 15 78 Isaiah 1:9–10 19 1:10–17 120 2:1–5 130 4:2 134 5:1–7 135 6 72 6:9–10 136 7:14 137 8:14–15 139 9:5–6 137 11:1–10 134, 137 12:2 62 19:20 85 27:1 14 27:2–6 135 28:16 139 40:3 140 43:16–21 88 45:23 140 50:1 81, 94 52:13–53:12 82 54:13 142 55:10–11 142

57:19 120 58 120 59:21 3 60:19–20 143 61:6 74 62:10–12 140 63:7–14 143 63:19 109 65:25 14 66:15–17 19 66:21 74 Jeremiah 1:9 93 3 81 3:1 94 4:2 21 7:21–23 120 7:22 75 7:31 59 15:16 145 17:5–8 146 19:5 59 23:1–6 147 23:5–6 134 25:1–13 150 29:14 96 30:3, 18 96 31:9 46 31:23 96 31:33 60 31:34 142 32:35 59 32:44 96 33:7, 11, 26 96 34:18–20 40 Ezekiel 1 150 3:1–3 145 7:1–9 154 15 135 16 81

190

index 16:21 17 19:10–14 20:11, 13 20:21, 25 20:26, 31 23 23:37 34 38–39 40–48

59 135 135 81 81 59 81 59 147 150 72

Hosea 1–3 81 1:9 57 6:2 43 6:6 120 11:1 88 12 151 14:3 120 Joel 3:2 94 3:1–5 64 4:10 130 Amos 5:21–24 120 8:1–3 154 Jonah 1–4 154 4 18 Micah 4:1–5 130 6:6–8 120 Habakkuk 1:5 30 2:3–4 36 2:4 30, 32 3:19 129

Zechariah 3:8 134 3:9 139 6:12 85 6:12–13 25, 122, 134 7 120 10:2 89 14:6–7 143 Malachi 1:2–3 45 3:1, 23 140 Psalms 1 146 4:6 120 8 7 18:31 129 18:34 129 22:30 140 23 147 27:6 120 40:7–9 120 50:14, 23 120 51:18–21 120 54:8 120 68 109 72:17 21 75 116 80:9–14 135 89 122 94:12 162 95 73 106:28–31 37 106:31 30 107:21–26 154 107:22 120 107:33–35 88 110 25 113:7–9 116 116:17 120 118:14 62 118:22 139 132 122

index 191 139:7–12 96 141:2 120 147:12–20 142 Job 161 5:17–18 162 Proverbs 3:3 60 3:4 119 3:9–10 17 3:11–12 162 8:22–31 9 21:3 120 30:4 96 30:5–6 129 30:10 94 Song of Songs 2:16 6:3 7:11

13 13 13

Lamentations 4:18 154

9 64, 68 9:7–8 38 9:7 42 9:8 30 9:29 81 10:37 59 13 94 13:1–3 24 1 Chronicles 5:1–2 46 17:1–15 122 2 Chronicles 5–7 72 15:16 78 30:14 78 33:6 80 34:4 78 35:13 58 36:23 164 1 Maccabees 2:52 39 Genesis Apocryphon

167, 170

Testament of Job

161

Esther 162 Daniel 2:34–35 139, 164 2:44–45 139, 164 7 150 7:9–14 164 9 150 Ezra 1:1–4 164 3 72 6:3–5 164 9–10 94 Nehemiah 8:14–17 82 8–9 99

Matthew 1:23 137 2:1–12 89 2:15 88 5:21–48 77 8:23–27 154 9:36 89 13:13–15 136 17:5 93 19:5 13 19:7 94 19:16–30 81 21:33–46 135 21:42 139 22:41–46 25

192

index 24:15 24:30 26:64

150 164 164

Mark 1:2–3 140 4:10–12 136 4:35–41 154 9:7 93 10:7–8 13 10:17–31 81 12:10–11 139 13:26 164 14:62 164 Luke 1:32–33 122 1:46–55 116 2:52 119 8:9–10 136 8:22–25 154 9:35 93 18:18–30 81 20:17 139 21:27 164 John 1:14 72 1:51 45 3:14–15 84 6 64 10 147 15:1–17 135 19:5 85

13:41 30 28:26–27 136 Romans 1:17 30, 32 4:3 30 4:11 42 7 81 7:6 64 9:10–13 45 9:33 139 10:5 81 10:5–8 96 14:11 140 15:12 134 16:20 14 1 Corinthians 7:4 10:4

13 73

Galatians 3:6 30 3:11 30, 32 3:12 81 3:8, 16 21 3:19 75, 100 4:21–5:1 41 Ephesians 4 109 4:11–13 99 5:25–29 81 5:31 13 6:16 29

Acts 2 64 2:30 122 2:42 99 3:22 93 4:11 139 7 64 7:37 93 7:53 100

Philippians 2:10–11 140 Colossians 1:15–20 9 1 Thessalonians 4:9

142

index 193 2 Thessalonians 2:3 150 2:8 164 3:1 142 1 Timothy 2:5 85 2:15 16 4:13 99 Philemon 16 94

2:6–8 2:9

139 74

2 Peter 3 19 1 John 2:27

142

Jude 5 88 11 84

James 2:21–24 39 5:11 161

Revelation 1:3 146 1:4, 8 57 1:6 74 1:7, 14 164 2:14 84 2:28 89 4–5 150 4:8 57 5:10 74 10 145 11:17 57 12:9 14 13 150 15:8 72 16:5 57 18–19 81 20:6 74 20:8 150 21:23 143 22:5 143 22:16 89 22:18–19 129

1 Peter

b. Yebamot

Hebrews 1:5 122 1:13 25 2:2 100 2:5–9 7 3–4 73 3:5–6 82 4:1–11 11 5:6 25 7 25 9 72 9:4 71 9:18 40 10:5–10 120 10:37–38 30, 36 11:4 17 11:17–19 43 12:5–11 162 13:15 120

1:12

45

122b

142

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department 29 Broadway, 18th floor New York, NY 10006 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM