Yahweh's Council: Its Structure and Membership (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161532931, 9783161532948, 3161532937

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

65

Ellen White

Yahweh’s Council Its Structure and Membership

Mohr Siebeck

Ellen White, born 1978; PhD from the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto, Canada; has taught at 5 universities in both Canada and the United States and is involved in regular archaeological work in Israel; currently researching at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153294-8 ISBN 978-3-16-153293-1 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For my Father who always believed I could do it, but didn’t live long enough to see it and my Mother who suffered through the process. For James Calhoun King, who showed me what it means to live well in this world.

1

Acknowledgements This book is the result of a long process that required the input and support of a large number of people to come to fruition. While the actual writing of the book began in the final stage of my Th. M. degree at Tyndale Seminary, I wish to thank those who opened the doors for me to get there. In particular, John Kessler, who made me get over my distaste for the Old Testament and fueled what will be a life long fascination, and Kevin Quast, who took the time to convince me that there was a place for women in this field. The material on the satan and the dating of those texts in this book largely represents the work I did while writing my Th.M. thesis on this intriguing biblical character. Thus, I wish to thank Rebecca Idestrom for the hours she put into to guiding me and helping me make my thesis a better study. As this study is an expansion of my Ph.D. dissertation those who helped me through out the doctorate have contributed to the overall success of this project. The faculty of theology at the University of St. Michael’s College encouraged me through financial support and academic training as they provided me with a community. Gratitude goes to my fellow students and friends. The Catholic Biblical Association has supported me both financially through grants and by inviting me to present an early version of this work in the Divinity in Ancient Israel seminar. The support of this community was invaluable and I am grateful to all those involved. I wish to thank my doctoral committee for the time and effort they put into the process of evaluating my dissertation. Special thanks to Lowell Handy for his graciousness during the defense and support as I wrote on “his topic.” Gordon Hamilton went above and beyond the call of duty in his written report and through the publishing process. I would also like to thank Michael Kolarcik and Glen Taylor for their contributions. It is hard to know the right words to use to publically thank the person who served as Doctor Vater officially for eight years and continues to support all my professional efforts. John L. McLaughlin has graciously given of his wisdom, guidance, rebukes, and encouragement at each stage of my professional journey. In words that are specially for him, “John, you are the Macallan 64 Year Old in Lalique of biblical scholars.” Thanks to Hermann Spieckermann, Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, and Henning Ziebritzki for accepting this book for publication and the support

VIII

Acknowledgements

they issued through the process. Sincere gratitude to Nadine Schwemmreiter-Vetter for shepherding the process through publication. Special appreciation to Mark S. Smith for his high standards and his generosity when it comes to editing. Due to his excellence, this book is significantly better than it was before his feedback. He is an inspiration and a mentor. I am particularly thankful to my whole family who has been actively involved in this process from beginning to end. My sister, Susan Riihimaki, who copy edited several versions of this book and stayed my sister even though she disputes my theology. My brother, Peter White, who was there for all my printing and publishing needs. Kate, Kristy, P.J. for making me laugh and reminding me there is more to life than the library. It is important for me to say that these people only made this present work better. Any issues, problems, or errors in this work are mine and mine alone. Göttingen, January 2014

Ellen White

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................ VII Abbreviations .......................................................................................XIII

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council and the Parameters of the Study ........................................................... 1 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.

Introduction ................................................................................... 1 History of Scholarship ................................................................... 1 Defining the Problem................................................................... 10 Methodology ............................................................................... 17 Outline ........................................................................................ 20

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts ................ 22 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 22 2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ ................................................................................... 23 2.2.1. Job 1–2 .............................................................................. 23 2.2.2. Psalm 82 ............................................................................ 24 2.2.2.1. Translation ............................................................ 25 2.2.2.2. Analysis ................................................................ 26 2.2.3. Deuteronomy 32 ................................................................ 34 2.2.3.1. Translation ............................................................ 34 2.2.3.2. Analysis ................................................................ 35 2.2.4. Problems with ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ ................................................... 39 2.2.4.1. Genesis 6:1–4........................................................ 42 2.2.4.2. Daniel 3................................................................. 46 2.2.4.3. Summary............................................................... 47 2.3. ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ ................................................................................... 47 2.3.1. 1 Kings 22 ......................................................................... 48 2.3.2. Isaiah 6 .............................................................................. 49

X

Table of Contents

2.4. Additional Plural Deities Passages............................................... 50 2.4.1. Genesis 18:16–33............................................................... 50 2.4.2. Numbers 22:22–35............................................................. 51 2.4.3. 2 Kings 19:15–19............................................................... 51 2.4.4. Psalm 103:19–22................................................................ 52 2.4.5. Isaiah 40 ............................................................................ 52 2.4.6. Zechariah 3 ........................................................................ 54 2.4.7. Daniel 7 ............................................................................. 55 2.5. ʣʥʱ ............................................................................................... 56 2.6. ʸʥʣ ............................................................................................... 57 2.7. ʬʤʷ .............................................................................................. 57 2.8. ʣʲʥʮ ............................................................................................. 58

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts ............................................................................ 59 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 59 3.2. 1 Kings 22:1–28 .......................................................................... 59 3.2.1. Translation......................................................................... 59 3.2.2. Exegesis............................................................................. 61 3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7 ........................................................................ 65 3.3.1. Translation......................................................................... 65 3.3.2. Exegesis............................................................................. 66 3.3.2.1. The First Pericope (Job 1:6–12)............................... 66 3.3.2.2. The Second Pericope (Job 2:1–7) ............................ 76 3.4. Isaiah 6........................................................................................ 80 3.4.1. Translation......................................................................... 80 3.4.2. Exegesis............................................................................. 81 3.5. Zechariah 3.................................................................................. 86 3.5.1. Translation......................................................................... 86 3.5.2. Exegesis............................................................................. 87 3.6. Daniel 7....................................................................................... 97 3.6.1. Translation......................................................................... 97 3.6.2. Exegesis............................................................................. 99

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions .............. 105 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................. 105 4.2. Yahweh/The Ancient of Days .................................................. 107 4.3. ʯʨʹʤ ......................................................................................... 109

Table of Contents

XI

4.4. ʧʥʸʤ ......................................................................................... 119 4.5. ʭʩʴʸʹʤ ..................................................................................... 121 4.6. ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ.................................................................................. 124 4.7. Those Standing Here................................................................ 127 4.8. The Thousands upon Thousands .............................................. 128 4.9. The Interpreting Persona.......................................................... 128 4.10. One like a Son of Man ............................................................. 130 4.11. Human Beings ......................................................................... 134 4.11.1. Micaiah ben Imlah/Zechariah ....................................... 135 4.11.2. Daniel .......................................................................... 135 4.11.3. Joshua .......................................................................... 135 4.11.4. Isaiah............................................................................ 136 4.12. Conclusions ............................................................................. 136

Chapter Five: Synchronic Analysis............................................... 138 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 138 5.2. Challenges to Proposing a New Structure .................................. 138 5.2.1. Tier One .......................................................................... 139 5.3. The Structure of the Council of Yahweh .................................... 140 5.3.1. Tier Two .......................................................................... 140 5.3.1.1. Judicial Officials ................................................. 140 5.3.1.2. Advisors.............................................................. 141 5.3.2. Tier Three ........................................................................ 141 5.3.2.1. Court Officers ..................................................... 141 5.3.2.2. Commissioned..................................................... 142 5.3.3. Non-member Categories .................................................. 143 5.3.3.1. Observers ............................................................ 143 5.3.3.2. Vehicles and Defendants ..................................... 144 5.4. Conclusions ............................................................................... 144

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis ................................................. 145 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 145 6.2. Monotheism............................................................................... 145 6.3. Dating ....................................................................................... 149 6.3.1. Isaiah 6 ............................................................................ 149 6.3.2. 1 Kings 22 ....................................................................... 152 6.3.3. Job 1–2 ............................................................................ 156

XII

Table of Contents

6.3.4. Zechariah 3 ...................................................................... 162 6.3.5. Daniel 7 ........................................................................... 165 6.4. Human Beings and the Council of Yahweh................................ 168

Chapter Seven: Conclusions ........................................................... 173 7.1. Summary ................................................................................... 173 7.2. Implications............................................................................... 174 7.3. Areas for Further Research ........................................................ 175

Bibliography ......................................................................................... 181 Index of Sources ................................................................................... 203 Index of Modern Authors ...................................................................... 213 Subject Index ........................................................................................ 218

2

Abbreviations AASF AB ABD AOTC ARM ATANT AzTh BA BAR BASORSup BAT BBR BDB BEATAJ BETL BEvT BHS Bib BibInt BibLeb BibOr BN BSac BST BWM BZAW CAT CBC CBET CBQMS CC ConBOT CTU

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Archives royales de Mari Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Arbeiten zur Theologie Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments Bulletin for Biblical Research F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bibel und Leben Biblia et orientalia Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Sacra The Bible Speaks Today Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Cambridge Bible Commentary Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Continental Commentary Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz and Joaquín Sanmartín (2nd enlarged ed.; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995)

XIV DDD EBH EBib EgT EstBib FAT FOTL FRLANT GBS HAR HAT HBS HTR HUCA IB ITC JAOS JBL JBQ JETS JJS JNES JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTSA KAI LBH NBD NCBC NIB NIBC NICOT NIDOTE OBO Or OTE OTL OTM OTSt PEQ PRS

Abbreviations Dictionary of Deities and Demons. Edited by K. van der Toorn, P. W. van der Horst, and B. Becking (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) Early Biblical Hebrew Etudes bibliques Église et théologie Estudios Biblicos Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship Harvard Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders biblische Studien Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick et al. (12 vols.; New York: Abingdon, 1951–1957) International Theological Commentary Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Edited by H. Donner and W. Röllig (3 vols.; 2nd ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964–1968) Late Biblical Hebrew New Bible Dictionary. Edited by I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman (3rd ed.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996) New Century Bible Commentary The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996 New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Edited by W. A. van Gemeren (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orientalia Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Old Testament Message Old Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Quarterly Perspectives in Religious Studies

Abbreviations RB RE RHPR RHR SBLMS SBLSP SBLWAW ScEs SJOT SSN SSS SWBA TBC TDNT

TLZ TOTC TP TS TSAJ TynBul UBL UF VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ ZAH ZAW

XV

Revue biblique Review and Expositor Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l’histoire des religions Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Science et Esprit Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Semitica Neerlandica Semitic Study Series Social World of Biblical Antiquity Torch Bible Commentaries Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley (10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976) Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologie und Philosophie Theological Studies Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Tyndale Bulletin Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter One

Defining the Divine Council and the Parameters of the Study 1.1. Introduction This study explores the membership and structure of the Council of Yahweh, as represented in biblical examples of this type-scene. The phrase “divine council” is used to describe the government or royal court of the supreme deity. In order to justify a new study on this topic, one must question the underlying assumptions of divine council studies, including the way in which comparative study is usually conducted.1 In their books, most scholars develop a model based on the texts found at Ugarit or Mesopotamia, and then explore the material in the Hebrew Bible in order to determine how it fits with the other religions. This approach has led to certain assumptions and even results that cannot be confirmed through the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, one purpose of this study is to question those assumptions. In doing so, I will develop the following points: firstly, there are multiple councils in the Hebrew Bible and not all of them belong to Yahweh; secondly, the Council of Yahweh negates a claim for radical monotheism but can reveal insight into the development from polytheism towards monotheism; and finally, there are textual strands that experiment with human membership on various levels within the council. 3

1.2. History of Scholarship Research on the divine council is not new. Early studies by Frank Moore Cross, Edwin C. Kingsbury, Norbert Lohfink, Johannes Pedersen, H. Wheeler 1

I first became interested in the divine council while researching my Th.M. thesis on

ʯʨʹʤ, as it was the setting for this character in Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3. E. White, “The Purpose and Portrayal of the ĞƗ‫ܒ‬Ɨn in the Old Testament” (Th.M. Thesis, Tyndale Seminary, 2004). This earlier study has significantly influenced this project in relationship to Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, Joshua, and the character of ʯʨʹʤ. Portions of that original study have been used throughout this current work. The pieces from the earlier thesis included in this project contain mostly factual information or interpretations that have not changed with further study.

2

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

Robinson, and Matitiahu Tsevat are helpful but most of them are neither detailed nor extensive.2 Moreover, most studies have either focused on one passage3 or one member4 of the council.5 While these studies are helpful in gaining insight into the details regarding aspects of the council, they are not extensive enough to provide a picture of the Council of Yahweh type-scene. Other full-length studies focus on the deity in general or the characteristics/attributes of God.6 While these 2 G. Couturier, “La vision du Conseil divin: Étude d’une forme commune au prophétisme et à l’apocalyptique,” ScEs XXXVI (1984): 5–43; F. M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” JNES 22 (1953): 274–77; L. Dequeker, “La cour céleste de Yahvé,” Collectanea Mechliniensia 52 (1967): 131–40; E. C. Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,” JBL 83 (1964): 279–86; N. Lohfink, “Gott und die Götter im Alten Testament,” Theologische Akademie 6 (1969): 50–71; J. Pedersen, “Canaanite and Israelite Cultus,” AcOr 18 (1939): 1–14; H. W. Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” JTS 45 (1944): 151–57; M. Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82,” HUCA XL–XLI (1969–1970): 123–37. 3 For literature on Gen 6:1–4, see below, p. 42, n. 94; on Psalm 82, see below, p. 24, n. 3. 4 For literature on ʯʨʹʤ, see below, p. 109, n. 7; on ʭʩʴʸʹʤ, p. 121, n. 54; on ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ, p. 124, n. 78. 5 On the divine council in prophetic books see D. E. Bokovoy, “ ʡʷʲʩ ʺʩʡʡ ʥʣʩʲʤʥ ʥʲʮʹ: Invoking the Council as Witnesses in Amos 3:13,” JBL 127 (2008): 37–51; Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah”; R. P. Gordon, “Standing in the Council: When Prophets Encounter God,” in The God of Israel (R. P. Gordon, ed.; University of Cambridge Oriental Press Publications 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 190–204; F. Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort Jahwes in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT 75; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997); Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh”; P. D. Miller, “The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War,” VT 18 (1968): 100–107; M. Nissinen, “Prophets and the Divine Council,” in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (U. Hübner and E. A. Knauf, eds.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 4–19; M. E. Polley, “The Call and Commission of the Hebrew Prophets in the Council of Yahweh, Examined in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method (C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White, eds.; PTMS 34; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 141–56; C. R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47. 6 S. Y. Cho, Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Study in Their Nature and Roles (Deities and Angels of the Ancient World 2; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008); E. J. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (BZAW 384; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008); A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961); O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God (trans. T. H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); K. Koch, Der Gott Israels und die Götter des Orients: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien II. Zum 80. Geburtstag von Klaus Koch (F. Hartenstein and M. Rösel, eds.; FRLANT 216; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007); idem, “Ugaritic Polytheism and Hebrew Monotheism in Isaiah 40–55,” in The God of Israel (R. P. Gordon, ed.; University of Cambridge

1.2. History of Scholarship

3

studies provide insight into the nature and identity of the deity, they do not focus on the council or the deity’s role in the council as it is depicted in the council type-scenes. In addition, Marjo Christina Annette Korpel makes this statement regarding methodology: “Because the size of the Ugaritic corpus is much smaller than that of the Old Testament we made the Ugaritic usage the standard to establish the degree of correspondence.”7 Taking the Ugaritic material as backdrop has been the typical approach to understanding the council.8 This, in and of itself, is not problematic, as it does provide insight and a means of comparison. However, if one’s main interest lies in Israelite concepts, then the primary focus needs to be on Israelite material. John J. Collins says, “When a Canaanite myth is used in the Hebrew Bible, it is inevitably torn from its original context and given a new meaning.”9 Thus, only after an exploration of biblical understandings is undertaken can true comparative work be done.10 Yet, as can be seen Oriental Publications 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 205–28; M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Cloud: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990); Lohfink, “Gott und die Götter im Alten Testament”; O. Loretz, “Die Einzigkeit eines Gottes im Polytheismus von Ugarit: Zur Levante als Ursprungsort des biblischen Monotheismus,” in Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients (M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot, eds.; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 71–89; B. N. Porter, ed., One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (Chebeague Island: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000). 7 Korpel, A Rift in the Cloud, 619. 8 Cho, Lesser Deities, 4–7; E. T. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 115. This idea is reflected in the methodology of Handy and Smith: L. K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994); M. S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 9 J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 286. 10 The Ugaritic material naturally is an important comparison for biblical material and this study should not be seen as an argument against utilizing material from other ancient Near Eastern cultures. This is especially true since the other material is older and likely provides insight into the foundations of Israelite religion, based on the theories of origins stemming from scholars such as Mendenhall (G. E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BA 17 [1962]: 50–76) and Gottwald (N. K. Gottwald, The Tribe of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 B.C.E. [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979].) These theories diverge on many levels, but agree on the theory that the majority of Israelites were originally Canaanites and therefore, Yahwism evolves out of Canaanite polytheism. For recent scholarship on this theory see W. G. Dever, B. Halpern, P. K. McCarter, and H. Shanks, eds., The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium of the Smithsonian Institute, Sponsored by the Resident Associate Program (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1993); W. G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); I. Finkelstein, “Searching for Israelite Origins,” BAR 14 (1988): 34–45; idem, “A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and

4

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

from the creation and flood parallels, Israel would often operate within traditional categories, but do so in such a way that they express their unique theologies. So to begin with a structure from outside Israel and then search for it within the Hebrew Bible can cause one to over-emphasize the similarities and to minimize the differences. Thus, it is important to begin with the Israelite material and then use the external data to help refine the theory and enter into a proper dialogue. This study is an attempt to provide the first piece in this process. A few studies have attempted a detailed overview of the divine council concept. The first full-length book on the subject was E. Theodore Mullen’s revision of his Harvard doctoral dissertation.11 Mullen begins with an exploration of the Ugaritic myths and pays close attention to the relationship among the members of the divine council in these texts, particularly El and Baal. The critique given to his work on the Hebrew Bible is that he reads through a Ugaritic lens.12 His major contribution for the purposes of this study of the Council of Yahweh is in exposing the unique role the prophets played in this council.13 However, he omits the scenes in the prologue of Job, and he does not attempt to establish the structure of either the Ugaritic or Hebrew Bible council. Mark S. Smith advanced the discussion and is the first to introduce the discussion of structure with a very short article outlining four tiers within the divine council;14 this was followed by Lowell K. Handy’s monoHistorical Perspectives,” in One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds.; BZAW 405; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 3–28; idem and A. Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (B. B. Schmidt, ed.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); V. Fritz and P. Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup 228; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); N. P. Lemche, “The Origin of the Israelite State: A Copenhagen Perspective on the Emergence of Critical Historical Studies of Ancient Israel in Recent Times,” SJOT 12 (1998): 44–63; A. Mazar, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy,” in One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds.; BZAW 405; Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2010), 29– 58; H. R. Page, “Myth, Meta-narrative, and Historical Reconstruction: Rethinking the Nature of Scholarship on Israelite Origins,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (P. Flint, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam, eds.; VTSup 101; Boston: Brill, 2006), 1–20; Z. Safrai and A. Faust, “Salvage Excavations as a Source for Reconstructing Settlement History in Ancient History,” PEQ 137 (2005): 139–58; M. Weinfeld, “Historic Facts Behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern,” VT 38 (1988): 324–33. 11 Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 111–243. 12 J. J. M. Roberts, “Review of The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature,” JBL 102 (1983): 623. 13 Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 209–25. 14 Mark S. Smith, “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank,” UF 16 (1984): 359.

1.2. History of Scholarship

5

graph,15 with Smith’s book about monotheism following a little over five years later.16 Handy uses the metaphor of bureaucracy to explain the structure observed in the various pantheons. Smith on the other hand uses the terminology of family, which derives from language used in the texts themselves. Despite this linguistic difference, Smith and Handy have concluded that there is a four-tier divine council throughout the ancient Near East. It is important to note, Handy’s focus is on the pantheon and that frames his comments regarding the council and Smith’s writing sometimes focuses on the pantheon in general rather than the council exclusively. This means that not everything in their books can be applied to the council specifically. For example, Handy discusses the cherubim in his chapter on messenger deities, but these divine beings are not found in any council passages.17 Regardless, these tiers do not correlate with the evidence from divine council texts in the Hebrew Bible, which will be explored below. Therefore, new understandings of the council’s structure from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible are needed to form a basis for further comparative studies. Smith and Handy may to have very different positions on the structure of the divine council. However, their different terminology is a result of their different purposes more than the actual results.18 In fact, since their conclusions are so similar and no alternatives have been put forward to date, one might conclude that this should be the definitive structural understanding of divine councils.19 15

Handy, Among the Host of Heaven. M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, esp. 41–66. 17 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 156. 18 Handy’s terminology and purpose come out of his desire to use an existing model (bureaucracy) as a metaphor through which he explains the structure observed in the various pantheons. Smith on the other hand bases his terminology and purpose on the language used in the texts themselves. Despite this linguistic difference, the structure is remarkably similar. 19 This structure will be sketched briefly using Smith’s model, but when Handy differs that will be noted. The assertion that this has become definitive refers to the modern theories. Prior to the publications of Handy and Smith in particular there was a tri-level hypothesis at work based on CTU 1.15 II 2–7 and its use of ‫ܔ‬l‫ܔ‬h specifically. The debate did not question the ‫ܔ‬l‫ܔ‬h of the pantheon but rather the language used to express this “reality” of three (i.e., trinity of gods, threefold, three categories, etc.). One form of that hypothesis is proposed by J. C. de Moor and K. Spronk, A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit: Autographed Texts and Glossaries (SSS N.S. 6; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 205; T. H. Gaster, “The Canaanite Epic of Keret,” JQR 37 (1947): 285–93; H. L. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age (BASORSup 2/3; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946), 22; J. Gray, The Canaanites (Ancient Peoples and Places 36; New York: Praeger, 1964), 58; C. Virolleaud, Légendes de Babylone et de Canaan (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1949), 143. The more recent interpretations of this passage view it as describing the way that the retinues arrived (i.e., 16

6

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

On the top tier is the chief god of the land. At Ugarit this tier was populated by El, who has the authority to issue commands and rule over the assembly, and Athirat (Asherah) because she is his spouse and has influence over him.20 On tier two, one finds the great gods, which at Ugarit would be the seventy children of El and Athirat. This is the level where most of the “combat and conflict” arise and for that matter are solved.21 The third tier is more complex. It comprises deities who are more powerful or more important than the lesser deities, and yet they are not part of El’s actual family. 22 An example of a god at this level is Kothar-wa-Hasis, a foreign god, as is evident from his homes in Egypt and Crete (CTU 1.3 VI 12–20). However, the greater gods need him, and at times he is depicted as knowing more than they (e.g., CTU 1.1 III; 1.2 III; 1.2 IV; 1.4 V–VII). Smith, therefore, defines this tier as the “middle” ground between the greater gods and the lesser gods.23 The lesser deities comprise the final tier.24 Here one finds the messenger gods, the major deities’ military retinue, and the divine workers or staff members. This is contrary to what Mullen wrote as he did not include these divine figures as part of the council.25 However, the latter theories of both Handy and Smith include this tier within the divine council.26 The main difference between Smith and Handy arises with respect to the Israelite material. When examining the Hebrew Bible, both begin with the four tiers and then examine the biblical text in line with them. This is precisely the methodological issue with their interpretations and the reason for a new study. Smith concludes that tier one is present in the person of that each group arrived in threes). Svi Rin and Nicholas Wyatt suggest a military connection rather than a “three” understanding; see S. Rin, Acts of the Gods: The Ugaritic Epic Poetry (Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1968), xli; N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit (The Biblical Seminar 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 212. For a good discussion of these theories see Cho, Lesser Deities, 22–31. 20 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 45. 21 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 45. 22 This is the most complicated level of the theory to understand. Handy himself even says that the lines between these deities and those above are “not clearly defined”; Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 131. It is helpful to think of this as the tradeworkers of construction and the higher level as the general contractor. The tradeworkers take orders from the general contractor, but the general contractor cannot complete the project without the specialized work of the tradeworkers. 23 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 26. 24 This distinction is challenged by Cho who claims that there is very little difference between tier three and tier four and thus considers the deities in both tiers in his analysis of lesser deities: Cho, Lesser Deities, 32. Despite this critique, Cho continues to refer to four tiers and adopts Handy’s structure and terminology. 25 Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 282. 26 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 149; M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 46.

1.2. History of Scholarship

7

Yahweh, which can certainly be supported by the texts. His didactic approach argues that tier four exists in the form of the “angels,” which he sees as the other gods who through a long historical process get transformed into lesser divine beings.27 Similarly, tiers two and three have been omitted due to the transformation within Israelite religion from polytheism to monotheism, which also accounts for the change in status of the beings in tier four.28 Michael S. Heiser presents this understanding of the issue when he states, “The data apparently informs us that Israelite religion evolved from polytheism to henotheistic monolatry to monotheism.”29 While it seems certain that there is development within Israelite religion, the linear progression ending in radical monotheism described by Heiser should be questioned, and the council itself should be considered in this larger discussion. Handy takes a slightly different approach. In his version, Yahweh occupies tier one, but tier two has not been edited out by the development towards monotheism. He places characters such as the Lying Spirit in 1 Kings 22 and ʯʨʹʤ from Job and Zechariah on this tier as gods.30 On tier three he suggests that Nehushtan (2 Kgs 18:4) and Ba‫ޏ‬al-Zebub (2 Kgs 1:1–8) might have functioned at this level in Israelite religion.31 Yet, his proposal is cautious due to lack of information regarding this level in the larger ancient Near Eastern context. On tier four, Handy takes the term ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ literally as messengers,32 even though that is not how these characters function within biblical council type-scenes; in fact in these scenes, the role of messenger is usually filled by prophets, not ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ. Thus he bases most of his argumentation regarding this tier on terminology and names. This is mixed methodology, since his four tiers were initially developed on the basis of function. Therefore, this study will examine the way in which the members of the Council of Yahweh function, in order to develop a structural understanding purely on the basis of function. While both theorists propose plausible explanations for understanding the Council of Yahweh, more could be said regarding its presentation in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Smith is almost certainly correct in stating that the development towards monotheism is an important factor for theologies regarding Israelite divine councils. However, he points out that divine 27

M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 49. M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 47–50. 29 M. S. Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Towards an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 18 (2008): 2. It is important to note that Heiser is merely describing the standard pattern in scholarship. He, himself, questions this understanding. 30 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 119–22. 31 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 140–42. 32 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 152–54. 28

8

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

council imagery or scenes also occur in post-exilic, so-called monotheistic, texts (e.g., Second Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, etc.).33 If one accepts the premise that the council is made up of multiple deities, then by definition it is not monotheistic.34 Most scholars will accept that biblical theology is not one stagnant thought, but rather has various streams, which experience some ebb and flow over time. This is also true of type-scenes, which have a series of set components, but also have unique elements introduced by the individual authors. It seems logical then that some strands of theology may attempt to depopulate the heavens, but attributing the functions of divine beings to human beings on the theological road towards monotheism, the belief that there is only one God. The Council of Yahweh typescenes are a place where this might naturally occur. The phrase in Ps 29:1b–2, which refers to the sons of God, is replaced in Ps 96:7–8a, 9a and 1 Chr 16:28–29, which substitutes families of people for sons of God. W. Randall Garr argues that Psalm 29 ist the earlier version of the phrase and the subsequent texts demonstrate that “They [the families of people] should ‘assume the place of his council (in Ps 29),’ becoming God’s devotional community.”35 To this he adds the emendations made to the Masoretic Text from 4QDeut 32:8; 43).36 A similar alteration was made in Psalm 99:2 in the Masoretic Text versus 4QPsk 99:2.37 While one might not take this as far as Garr, who states, “humanity writ large, and Israel writ small, replace the gods, becoming ‘the functional equivalent of the pantheon,” it does suggest that there may have been a theological strand that was moving towards more human and less divine activities in relation to God. 38 This is particularly important due to the numerous recent studies that explore the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and monotheism.39 On 33

M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, chs. 9–10. E.g. S. Petry, Die Entgrenzung JHWHs: Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium, in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch (FAT II 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 121–22 states that at least the presence of other divine beings is an indication of monolatry. Not all scholars agree with this position (see M. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 [2001]: 55). 35 W. R. Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 15; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 223. 36 4QDeutj 32:8 uses ʭʩʤʥʬʠ ʩʰʡ whereas MT Deut 32:8 has ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʰʡ. In Deut 32:43 (MT) the author uses ʭʩʥʢ rather than 4QDeutq’s (cf. LXX) use of ʭʩʮʹ. Also the Masoretic Text changes ʥʩʰʡ ʭʣ to ʥʩʣʡʲʚʭʣ and completely omits ʭʩʤʬʠ ʬʫʥʬʥʥʧʺʹʤʥ. 37 Here ʭʩʤʬʠʬʫ is replaced with ʭʩʮʲʤʚʬʫ. 38 Garr, In His Own Image, 224, quoting Jon Douglas Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 139 with 175, n. 26. 39 Examples of recent studies that debate the issue of monotheism are: J. Assmann, “Monotheism and Polytheism,” in Religions in the Ancient World (S. I. Johnson, ed.; Cambridge, Mass./London: Belknap, 2004), 24–25; G. Baumann, “Trendy Monotheism? 34

1.2. History of Scholarship

9

the other hand, Handy attempts to find elements within the Council of Yahweh that relate to each of the four tiers. Yet, his criteria for determining who belongs to what tier is not articulated and appears to the reader as mixed methodology in order to preserve the expected structure. Thus whether another structure emerges if the Hebrew Bible is examined without a four-tier approach, needs to be explored. The systematic studies by Mullen, Handy, and Smith deal mostly with the pre-Israelite ancient Near Eastern concept of the divine council; like Korpel’s work, the paradigm is developed from the material of another ancient Near Eastern culture, and this is applied to the Hebrew Bible. Heiser, on the other hand, focuses primarily on Israelite literature in his attempt to demonstrate that the divine council survives the exile and thus challenges the notion that Israel is monotheistic after the sixth century B.C.E.40 Heiser Ancient Near Eastern Models and Their Value in Elucidating ‘Monotheism’ in Ancient Israel,” OTE 19 (2006): 9–25; B. Becking, M. Dijkstra, and M. C. A. Korpel, eds., Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah (The Biblical Seminar 77; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); H. Cohn, “From Monolatry to Monotheism,” JBQ 26 (1998): 124–26; J. C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (2nd ed.; BETL 91; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1990); J. D. P. Hayman, “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” JJS 42 (1991): 1–15; Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?”; Koch, “Ugaritic Polytheism and Hebrew Monotheism in Isaiah 40–55,” 205– 28; B. Lang, Monotheism and Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology (SWBA 1; Sheffield: Almond, 1983); A. Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism (Washington: Biblical Archaeological Society, 2007); N. MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (FAT II 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); M. Oeming and K. Schmid, eds., Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (ATANT 82; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003); J. Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999); D. Penchansky, Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2005); C. Peri, “The Construction of Biblical Monotheism: An Unfinished Task,” SJOT 19 (2005): 135–42; D. L. Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism: The Unfinished Agenda,” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (G. M. Tucker, D. L. Petersen, and R. R. Wilson, eds.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 92–107; Petry, Die Entgrenzung JHWHs; B. Pongratz-Leisten, “When the Gods Are Speaking: Towards Defining the Interface between Polytheism and Monotheism,” in Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel (M. Köckert and M. Nissinen, eds.; FRLANT 201; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 132–68; Porter, ed., One God or Many; C. A. Rollston, “The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence,” Stone-Campbell Journal 6 (2003): 95–115; W. H. Schmidt, “‘Monotheismus’ und Erstes Gebot,” TLZ 122 (1997): 1081–92. The concept of monotheism as it relates to the divine council is explored in Chapter Six. 40 M. S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin – Madison, 2004), 6. Page numbers for Heiser’s dissertation are based on my own count of the printed text as none are available in the UMI version.

10

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

claims that the dominant concept in the post-exilic period was that there was a vice-regent, and his focus is on the Second Temple material. In short, scholarship to date has focused on other ancient Near Eastern paradigms or on the post-exilic material, and thus there is still the need to explore the Council of Yahweh type-scene as presented throughout the Old Testament. Thus one asks, can a structure be discerned within the Council of Yahweh using just the texts of the Hebrew Bible? 4

1.3. Defining the Problem Scholars make different assumptions concerning the members of the council, but there are very few studies as to which characters are council members. For example, the divine council structures described above are really pantheon structures that include all the deities, regardless of whether or not they actually appear in a council setting in any of the known texts. The complex historical issues surrounding redaction of texts due to the development from polytheism to monotheism add another element of difficulty for the various texts that comprise the canon. For example, gods other than Yahweh may have been edited out of the final form or transformed into less distinct beings. One scholar even refers to them merely as the “minions” of God.41 Therefore, in order to identify a structure for the council as it is represented in the Hebrew Bible, one must begin by examining the Hebrew Scriptures in order to determine the members of Yahweh’s Council and only on the basis of this collective establish a structure. While this is not the first attempt to compile a list of heavenly beings, a comprehensive list of Council of Yahweh members or functionaries within the Hebrew Bible has not been proposed to date.42 Furthermore, membership in the divine council cannot be determined simply by scanning all the texts that mention the council to identify the characters present. This is particularly true because the exact phrase “divine council” does not typically occur in the Hebrew Bible (the phrase ʬʠʚʺʣʲ does occur in the Hebrew Bible), and the English phrase is used to

41

Sh. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup 17; Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 18. 42 The fullest attempt to present such a list is the recent work of Cho, Lesser Deities, passim. However, his list is limited to those he defines as “lesser” beings. Thus his work provides similarities, but not the focus needed in order to provide insight into the council specifically. Also, one could determine a list of members or functionaries from the work of authors such as Smith, Handy, and Mullen, but since their focus is more on structure, function, and comparative work, the reader would need to mine their work in order to compile a list, which may not be comprehensive.

1.3. Defining the Problem

11

refer to a broader collection of passages.43 Therefore, it is important to define what one means by the phrase “divine council.” This phrase has been used in a variety of ways by various authors. Some have used it as a generic phrase to refer to the entire pantheon of gods in whichever culture they are discussing.44 Mark Smith begins his discussion of the divine council at Ugarit by outlining terminology that is usually associated with the divine council.45 He adopts the following definition: “wherever two or more deities with El are present, there the general divine assembly meets, even if the terminology of council is absent from the passage.”46 Thus it is unclear what his guiding criteria, terminology or divine plurality, are for determining a divine council text, especially because he opens the door to councils of various kinds depending on location.47 Let me use a modern example to explain why I disagree with Smith’s definition: When two or more Senators are gathered together, there is not a meeting of the Senate. In order to have a meeting of the Senate other parameters need to be met. These issues are obviously complex, but the ambiguity present regarding criteria complicates an effort to apply them to the Hebrew Bible. Handy, on the other hand, does not even use the phrase “divine council,” but is explicit that his observations are about the pantheon as a whole.48 Heiser is clear that his dissertation pertains to the divine council exclusively, but at no point does he actually provide a definition for “divine council.” He

43 This is not to say that there are not terms (such as p‫ې‬r ilm at Ugarit) that are used to describe the divine council but there is no universal phrase, and throughout the ancient Near Eastern traditions there are multiple phrases that can be used to describe this phenomenon. In addition, there are texts that depict a divine council but do not contain any of these phrases. These phrases in the Hebrew Bible will be explored in the following chapter. 44 E.g., “In this research three indications of ‘divine assembly’, ‘divine council’, and ‘pantheon’ are to be interchangeably used to denote the plurality of deities”: Cho, Lesser Deities, 1, n. 2. This is also the approach used by Smith in his chapter on the divine council, but his opinion is more complicated as he does seem to have some understanding of a difference between the pantheon, or general assembly, and the divine council, but at no point does he provide a definition that would distinguish between the two: M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 43. 45 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41–42. 46 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 43. 47 He says, “The issues are admittedly complex and the data debatable, but given these differences in the rendering of El’s abode and the site of the divine council, caution in identifying them is in order; the same point may apply to the language of El’s council and the pantheon more generally”: M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 43. 48 Not only is that explicit in the subtitle of the book, “The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy” (emphasis added), but also throughout the introductory chapter, esp. 5– 8.

12

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

does, however, use two criteria for determining council passages, namely terminology and location of the council.49 Other studies provide some helpful guidelines for understanding the divine council. H. Wheeler Robinson gives the most extensive definition. For Robinson a Council of Yahweh scene must be located in “the templepalace of Yahweh,” he must name his councilors “the sons of god,” and they must be in “subjection to Him,” as they are his “advisory council.”50 Robert P. Gordon makes a distinction between all groupings of gods and divine councils and provides the following definition, “a Divine Council (DC) means a meeting of the gods, normally under a presiding deity, to hear or to formulate, or even announce, decisions affecting divine or human affairs.”51 Yet, the definition can be even more specific, for not everyone who is at court is actually a courtier or royal. In his examination of the Mesopotamian council, Thorkild Jacobsen viewed the council as an assembly that deals with a specific crisis, and all appointments made by said council were only for the duration of the crisis.52 E. Theodore Mullen follows this understanding for both Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. He says, “the pictures of Yahweh in his council present him as the head of the assembly, the god whose decree determined the decision and actions of his messengers and holy ones.”53 Guy Couturier identifies a pattern in the divine councils of the ancient Near East and develops his working definition from this pattern. His claim is, la nature de ce conseil divin consiste essentiellement à déterminer un créateur qui a aussi la force d’instaurer et de maintenir l’ordre dans le monde des dieux et dans le cosmos; un aspect important de cet ordre, c’est la proclamation d’un roi sur les dieux eux-mêmes qui introduit ensuite son représentant, ou son image royale, dans le monde des hommes. 54

Couturier’s definition requires three elements: (1) that the chief God has associations with creation; (2) that the chief God plays a monarchal role for the universe; (3) that representatives are chosen to transmit messages to humanity. Thus, depending on the definition used, one can get diverse results. Therefore, it is of primary importance to develop a definition before exploring the concept. Since ʬʠʚʺʣʲ could actually be translated as “divine council” the contents of Psalm 82 will be helpful for the development of a definition. The first issue is what makes a divine council different than divine beings or 49

Heiser, “The Divine Council,” 34–36. Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” 152. 51 R. P. Gordon, “Standing in the Council,” 190. 52 T. Jacobsen, “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Toward the Image of Tammus (W. L. Moran, ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 157–70. 53 Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 120. 54 Couturier, “La vision du Conseil divin,” 15–16. 50

1.3. Defining the Problem

13

the pantheon? If the phrase “divine council” is taken seriously as a description of this phenomenon, then the definition must derive from this title. “Divine” belongs to the gods in the sacred realm. The very definition of “council” implies a gathering of beings, but it also implies a formal gathering.55 In general, a council is a governing body that determines the fate of the thing being governed. Thus for the purposes of this study the divine council will be viewed as the godly government, which most likely resembled the earthly royal court, since this would be the council most familiar to the authors of the texts.56 David Clines has argued, “that human experience of authoritative persons taking counsel and devolving functions requires a parallel arrangement in the heavenly sphere.”57 The royal court operated formally in two ways: the first way would be as an advisory board for the king regarding matters of state; the second way was as a formal judicial court.58 In each version the court is making a judgment on the affairs of state, at both the micro- and macro-levels. There is also the expectation that the court will act in a righteous and just way in order to be truly legitimate. This is consistent with the portrayal of ʬʠʚʺʣʲ in Psalm 82 as the ʭʩʤʬʠ are present in the passage and the formal setting is indicated by the labeling of the context as ʬʠʚʺʣʲ and the verb ʡʶʰ is used in a legal context. Therefore, my working definition of a divine council type-scene is a text where the fate of the world (in whole or in part) or an individual is being debated and/or decided, which involves courtroom imagery or uses conciliar language. This narrow definition obviously means that there are 55 “Council,” in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (K. Barber, ed.; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998), 320. 56 T. Longman III, Job (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 92. In Israel Yahweh is viewed as a heavenly king then his retinue would be the heavenly royal court (i.e., his divine council). For more on Yahweh’s identity as a king see the recent study by S. Flynn, YHWH is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel (VTSup 159; Leiden: Brill, 2013). A similar argument has been made regarding ʯʨʹʤ when arguing that this character is a divine reflection of the royal spies tradition. Naphtali H. Tur-Sinai states, “the emergence of the Satan as serving at the court of God can only be understood if he had a counterpart at the courts of terrestrial kings.” Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1967), 41, n. 1. 57 D. J. A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1989), 21. 58 R. Westbrook and B. Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2009) 35; R. R. Wilson, “Israel’s Judicial System in the Preexilic Period,” JQR 74 (1983): 240. These functions are similar to those that Max E. Polley discovered in relation to the council in Mesopotamia, see Polley, “The Call and Commission of the Hebrew Prophets in the Council of Yahweh,” 144. These two functions of the council and their parallels to the Israelite royal court are made on pp. 147–48. For good discussions on the structure and function of the biblical courts see R. H. Hiers, Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law (New York: Continuum, 2009); D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985).

14

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

numerous passages involving divine beings that are excluded from the divine council tradition; while they may have some council connection, that is not apparent from the narrative context, and thus they will be omitted from the current study. 59 This is done in order to ensure that the conclusions regarding the council are accurate. A step beyond this study would be to explore its results in relationship to these additional passages. The definition above requires that a Council of Yahweh type-scene contain three elements.60 First, it contains multiple divine beings. This is apparent from Ps 82:1, which pairs ʬʠʚʺʣʲ with ʭʩʤʬʠ. This criterion develops from the definition in that it recognizes that in order for it to be a “divine” council, there must be deities present to engage in the council’s activities. Second, it contains some form of judgment on an individual or group. The biblical passages considered by commentators as divine council scenes all involve governance. Finally, Yahweh is in charge of the council. This final criterion is specific to the Hebrew Bible and the current study. While Psalm 82 is instructive and helpful for understanding a divine council type-scene, this criterion does not apply. Here I make a distinction that is unusual as most studies focus on the divine council in general. However, it is my position that there are multiple councils present in the Hebrew Bible and thus I must distinguish between the various councils in order to get an accurate representation of the Council of Yahweh. Yet, this psalm will still be instructive as I will argue in the next chapter that it transfers the authority of El’s Council to Yahweh, called Elohim in this psalm.61 This is not the only passage that might be considered in a divine council study that should not be included in a Council of Yahweh study. Deuteronomy 32, at Qumran and in certain versions of the Septuagint, also presents a council that is not under the control of Yahweh. Therefore, Yahweh could be a member of another council, but divine councils not under the leadership of Yahweh would not be considered Council of Yahweh type-scenes. The Ugaritic parallel is helpful for understanding why. Baal is both the leader of his own council and is also a member of the 59 This narrow definition can also cause some difficulties when interacting with the classic four-tier concept, since the members of each tier were not allocated based on this narrow definition. Thus, while in this study some of the characters might be defined as functionaries or agents, in the previous studies they would be considered members. By limiting the definition in this way there may be characters who have access to the throne room of Heaven and speak or act in council and yet not be full-fledged members of the council (cf. prophets in the Bible to the messenger gods in the Ugaritic material). 60 Like the parallel scenes mentioned above, there may be cases where some of the criteria are involved, but not all five. These will not be included in this study in an effort to make certain that the texts are truly divine council texts. Further studies could explore these texts in relation to the conclusions made in this one. 61 The identity of ʭʩʤʬʠ at the end of this psalm is debated and will be explored further in the next chapter.

1.3. Defining the Problem

15

Council of El. Scenes where Baal appears as a member of El’s Council do not provide insight into the Council of Baal. Thus Yahweh must serve as the head of the council for the type-scene to qualify. Since the objective of this study is to gain insight into Yahweh’s Council, and not just divine councils in general, this is a necessary criterion for the present work. Two additional observations can be made from the type-scene collection. These observations are common to the majority of the type-scenes, but are not definitional. First, they all take place in sacred space, such as heaven or the temple. This may reflect the sacredness of the “divine” within the definition and title and tie into the theme of holiness that will be explored later in this analysis. Writing about the plurals in the creation narrative of Genesis, which represent an implied divine council, W. Randall Garr states “the gods are invoked in a conventional setting when the worlds of divinity and humanity are about to meet.”62 His observation can be taken further especially in relation to historical writing where encounters with the divine, even on earth, are considered sacred space. Thus it seems natural that a council that convenes mostly to judge/govern humanity (Psalm 82 would be an exception) would take place in sacred space. It also provides clarity of context for the narrative. Second, most contain some form of dialogue among the members. This is logical, particularly in a type-scene that contains legal elements. This also helps to clarify the difference between the council as opposed to a gathering of gods. This study focuses on the members of the council, and thus passages that might meet the criteria but do not give insight into the membership will not be explored. For example, the plural pronouns in the creation narratives of Genesis (1:26) likely reflect the Council of Yahweh, but reveal nothing about the members of the council and thus will not be explored in greater depth.63 There may be more than one council in the Hebrew Bible, just as there are multiple councils within the literature from Ugarit.64 Mark Smith has 62

Garr, In His Own Image, 202. For a discussion of the plurals in Genesis, see Garr, In His Own Image, 17–21. It should be noted that in Garr’s understanding of this passage the few details that are given conform to what we will discover regarding Council of Yahweh passages. He summarizes the passage as such, “God is the incomparable creator; and he seeks the counsel of fellow immortals to make a creature that will ultimately be related to the divines, at least in part. In this circumstance, the gods play a serious role, and their appearance conforms to formcritical and theological expectations” (202). Here Yahweh is in control, multiple divine beings are present, and governance in the decision to create is also included. While Garr does not state that he is using a framework of type-scene, his conclusions support such an investigation as he claims that expectations are met. The type-scene helps to create certain expectations in the reader. 64 There are several different councils mentioned in the Ugaritic material, such as the Council of El (e.g., CTU 1.65.3; 1.40.25, 42; 1.15 III 19; 1.39.7; 1.62.16; 1.87.18; 63

16

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

proposed two different models for the council, an early monarchal model and Josiahanic/Deuteronomistic model.65 Furthermore, texts such as Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 are likely references to councils not under the leadership of Yahweh. Thus, the phrase “divine council” may be misleading, and therefore will not be used to refer to the Council of Yahweh. One other term needs to be defined. Since this study focuses on the structure of the Council of Yahweh, membership within that council is vitally important. Thus, what constitutes “membership” needs to be clarified at the outset. For the purposes of this study, a “member” is defined as a being who is present and performs a role essential to the function of the council meeting, regardless of how major or minor (e.g., engages in discussion, provides advice, etc.). Presence alone is not enough to constitute membership, since a defendant could be present within the council in order to be judged (e.g., the beasts in Daniel 7), but might not be a member. Similarly, there can be functionaries, who have some contact with or function for the council, but are not members.66 This is different than playing a role within the council in that the actions they take happen outside the council (i.e., outside Heaven), and yet serve to further the work of the council (e.g., the prophets who pass on messages/decisions of the council). Thus these characters serve as agents of the council. Within this issue of membership, the assumption that all members are deities may be explored. For example, I consider the place of humans in scenes of the Council of Yahweh. As Mullen has mentioned, there are reasons to understand the prophets as participants within the council.67 However, even within this category there appears to be diversity and hierarchy. In addition, the role of Joshua in Zechariah 3 should be considered in relationship to the Council of Yahweh. Thus, a portion of this work will be devoted to a thorough study of the relationship between human beings and the members of Yahweh’s Council. I will explore the extent of the membership in the Council of Yahweh. Based on this list of members, it is possible to establish the council’s structure, as well as analyze the various strands of theology incorporated 1.40.25, 33–34), Ditanu (e.g., CTU 1.15 III 15, cf. line 4; 1.161.3, 10), Baal (e.g., CTU 1.162.17; 1.39.7; 1.62.16; 1.87.18), etc. For a good discussion of these councils, see M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41–43. 65 M. S. Smith, Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 114–19. 66 I would place the fourth tier of beings in the classic divine council structure that both Handy and Smith consider members in this category: Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 149; M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 46. On the other hand, Mullen claims they are not members, but observers: Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 282. How this plays out in the Hebrew Bible will be explored in more depth in Chapters Four and Five. 67 Mullen, Assembly of the Gods, 215–26.

1.4. Methodology

17

into the diverse texts that comprise the biblical canon. Beyond this list and the proposed structure, this study will explore the important concepts of monotheism, the nature of the council (particularly in relationship to different councils presented in the texts), and the possibility of human participation in various levels of the council. These issues are particularly important as they may provide insight into one aspect of Israelite theology regarding the Council of Yahweh within its ancient Near Eastern context. While many of my conclusions and insights have been noted in smaller studies, the benefit of this study is that it brings these theories into dialogue with each other and serves to provide a comprehensive study of the Council of Yahweh type-scene. In addition, it allows these observations to be evaluated according to the canonical texts in an attempt to contribute to understanding of the Hebrew Bible. 5

1.4. Methodology This project begins by establishing which texts contain a council typescene. This determination will be made on three bases. The first criterion is terminology that is typically associated with divine councils, such as ʣʥʱ, ʸʥʣ, ʬʤʷ, and ʣʲʥʮ, which are terms that mean “council” or “assembly,” and ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ and ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ, which are membership bodies.68 The second criterion will be the presence of council motifs, such as the heavenly courtroom or deliberation among the gods regarding the fate of one or more beings. The final criterion is slightly different because it limits the texts to only those that provide insight into the membership of the council. Ultimately, I will examine 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and Daniel 7,69 although other texts, such as Genesis 6 and Daniel 3, will be utilized when relevant. The type-scene texts then receive a detailed exegesis with a focus on a literary analysis of the characters that are present. A biblical type-scene is “dependent on the manipulation of a fixed constellation of predetermined motifs. Since biblical narrative characteristical68 This list was originally developed by F. M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” 274, n. 1. Each of these terms have provided that basis for individual studies; see particularly H.-D. Neef, Gottes himmlischer Thronrat: Hintergrund und Bedeutung von sôd JHWH im Alten Testament (AzTh 79; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1994). However, this approach only presents a piece of the council puzzle and includes a significant amount of data that does not relate to the council at all (e.g., when ʣʥʱ means “secret” or “community”). It should also be noted that the use of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ here is used as an example and all forms of this phrase will be discussed in that section of Chapter Two. 69 Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 also refer to a divine council and its membership, but I will argue that these texts depict a council other than the Council of Yahweh.

18

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

ly catches its protagonists only at the critical and revealing points in their lives, the biblical type-scene occurs not in the rituals of daily existence but at the crucial junctures in the lives of the heroes.”70 This emphasis on the extraordinary over the mundane is a difference between the biblical text and some of the other bodies of literature that utilize type-scenes and thus it makes sense to study this corpus in isolation before attempting comparative work elsewhere. This study will use both synchronic and diachronic methods, combining a historical-critical approach with literary methods, with a focus on the type-scenes found within the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The dual methods are appropriate for a type-scene study as the use of type-scene operates on both synchronic and diachronic levels. Robert Alter argues, “the type-scene is not merely a way of formally recognizing a particular kind of narrative moment; it is also a means of attaching that moment to a larger pattern of historical and theological meaning … the fact of recurrence, however, is as important as the presence of innovation in the use of the type-scene.”71 Thus the recurrent narrative moment leads one into a synchronic study of the scenes, but the innovation also suggests the necessity for a diachronic analysis of each individual scene. Thus one is looking for both similarities and differences in developing an interpretation of the council type-scene. Alter stresses the importance of the dualistic, synchronic and diachronic, approach to the type-scene: The process of literary creation, as criticism has clearly recognized from the Russian Formalists onward, is an unceasing dialectic between the necessity to use established forms in order to be able to communicate coherently and the necessity to break and remake those forms because they are arbitrary restrictions and because what is merely repeated automatically no longer conveys a message.72

When one suggests a structural framework for the Council of Yahweh, the very nature of that project entails a synchronic study of the texts. The synchronic study gives the interpreter access to the convention that lies behind the type-scene. It is important to access this convention for the modern reader to understand what elements are expected and which ones would have stood out as the author’s innovation, which could reveal insight into authorial theology.73 One could reasonably question my synchronic method to combine all the texts found in the Hebrew Bible rather than with contemporary texts from neighboring nations. While it is true that some of the texts are closer in date, and perhaps image (though that has yet to be demonstrated) to the Ugaritic material, the type-scene has an 70

R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 51. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 60. 72 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 62. 73 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 52. 71

1.4. Methodology

19

inner cultural component that spans time and thus studying Israel’s text in isolation makes sense. This does not mean that alternate cultures, such as Ugarit, cannot contribute to one’s understanding of the type-scene or should not be studied in comparison. This would represent the next step in the study of the divine council. It is also possible that the Council of Yahweh type-scene is a subset of a larger series of judgment-based typescenes, but such a study is beyond the scope of the current work. Since the focus is primarily literary, it does not allow for a detailed history of religions approach that examines all the differences and diversities beyond the type-scenes within the Hebrew Bible.74 However, there are various strands of tradition within the type-scenes of this study, these differences, particularly of time and genre, also need to be explored in depth. This diachronic analysis allows for the innovation in each author’s use of the convention. Alter believes this is the most interesting part of type-scene interpretation as that is where each author’s art is located in the conventional writing.75 Thus it is important to combine the synchronic method, which allows the interpreter insight into the convention, and the diachronic method, which allows the interpreter insight into the innovation in each type-scene. It is for this reason that the dual methodology is used. Both the synchronic and diachronic sections of this work have limitations. Only council texts that focus on individually identified members will be used for the synchronic analysis.76 The diachronic analysis will be limited to the historical-cultural contexts of each type-scene. Moreover, text-critical issues will be taken into consideration where appropriate. The study will not engage in cross-cultural comparative study, but also will not ignore relevant contemporary material. This is primarily a literary study

74 A minor example of this difference is Jeremiah’s insistence that a true prophet has access to the divine council, while Micah does not appear to have any knowledge of the divine council. Though one needs to be cautious about attributing this idea to the historical Jeremiah because it is possible that this is a Deuteronomic insertion into the text, this does not change the fact that there are at least two theologies present in the Hebrew Bible. Jeremiah’s position might also be reflected in the reference to the ʣʥʱ of Yahweh in Amos 3:7. Yet, this has to remain a tentative connection as ʣʥʱ in Amos could be understood as “secret” not “council.” 75 “[A]s is true of all original art, what is really interesting is not the schema of convention but what is done in each individual application of the schema to give it a sudden tilt of innovation or even to refashion it radically for the imaginative purposes at hand.” Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 52. 76 Since so much of this literary study utilizes the principles of characterization, description, inner life, speech and action, and contrast, texts that do not identify individual members do not provide data for this type of analysis and thus are relegated to a peripheral role for the current study. For character analysis see A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 33–42.

20

Chapter One: Defining the Divine Council

that has historical implications and questions; these will be explored at the end of this study. 6

1.5. Outline In the next chapter, “Determining Council of Yahweh Texts,” I will present a detailed list of criteria for determining Council of Yahweh typescenes and then use the terminology usually associated with divine councils in order to determine a corpus of Council of Yahweh texts. This will be done by applying the criteria for determining a Council of Yahweh text to each of the passages explored. This will eliminate some texts, such as Genesis 6 and Daniel 3, but also provide a list of texts to be studied further, namely 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and Daniel 7. In this chapter, I will also present Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 as texts that do refer to a divine council, but they represent a council under authority of a God other than Yahweh. Exploring these passages can also help identify the conventions of a type-scene and the innovations that are present in these texts may contribute to the interpretation in Council of Yahweh passages. This will help clarify the parameters of the Council of Yahweh and explore the complexity of the type-scene within the canon. I will follow this by exegeting the texts, with translations and notes that provide the data for this study in the third chapter, “Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts.” In this chapter, I will exegete each text with a focus on individual characters and their actions within the passages, which will then form the foundation for the survey in Chapter Four. It is necessary to examine the history and redaction of all the texts involved as this feature will be important in the diachronic analysis of this study. Chapter Four, “Council Members and Their Functions,” contains a list of council members based on the exegesis in Chapter Three. I explore the characteristics and abilities of each character, especially the way each character functions. Included in this chapter is a discussion of the role of these characters in non-council texts and whether these additional texts are relevant to the council. Characters who do not appear in council texts will not be included. In Chapter Five, “Synchronic Analysis,” the data formulated in Chapters Three and Four are used in order to complete a synchronic reading of the material. In this chapter, I develop a theory regarding the overall structure of the Council of Yahweh as presented in the Hebrew Bible. This brings together all the type-scenes depicting members of Yahweh’s Council and synthesizes the material at the macro-level. Then I develop a picture of the council that can only be discerned by merging the Council of Yahweh texts.

1.5. Outline

21

This is followed by “Diachronic Analysis.” Drawing on the data of Chapters Three and Four, Chapter Six includes a diachronic reading of the various theologies present in each type-scene. It differs from Chapter Five in that it explores the distinctive elements found within the passages rather than the holistic picture and sets each type-scene in its historical context. It follows Chapter Five because it explores the diversity found in the structure outlined in the earlier chapter and, therefore, uses it as the foundation for further analysis. Using the historical-critical data developed in Chapter Three, I present a theory regarding various theological strands that are present in the larger texts. In this chapter, I elaborate on the nuances of the three-fold conclusions that arise in the earlier chapter. Chapter Seven, “Conclusions,” will include an exploration of the threefold conclusion of the study: multiple councils, human participation, and no radical monotheism. I will also explore the implications of these conclusions for the field and further avenues of study that arise from this project.

7

Chapter Two

Determining Council of Yahweh Texts 2.1. Introduction Due to the prevalence of the divine council in the ancient Near East, it is important to explore the concept throughout the Hebrew Bible. The previous chapter defined a Council of Yahweh type-scene as one set in a sacred space in which heavenly beings are depicted, governing occurs, and Yahweh is head. Now attention must turn to determining which passages in the Hebrew Bible actually depict the Council of Yahweh. While this seems like a simple enough task, it is not. Certain passages are usually included in the discussions regarding the Council of Yahweh (e.g., 1 Kings 22; Zechariah 3; Job 1–2), but others are controversial (e.g., Gen 6:2–4; Deut 32:8–9; Psalm 82). Thus one must begin by determining what criteria will be used to verify whether a text depicts a Council of Yahweh scene, and then one must examine every potential text according to those criteria. There are two questions at stake here. First, does the text in question contain a divine council scene? Second, if it does represent a divine council scene, is that divine council the Council of Yahweh? The three criteria for determining a Council of Yahweh text are: (1) multiple divine beings must be present; (2) it must contain a judgment regarding the fate of a group or an individual; and (3) Yahweh must been seen as the leader of the council. In addition, these passages usually are set in a sacred space and contain discussion. These criteria establish which passages to explore in conjunction with the Council of Yahweh and this study.1

1

Despite this statement, I recognize that forms and paradigms often have missing elements when presented in textual form. For example, Psalm 88 is a psalm of lament, but does not include the expected praise and thanksgiving at the end. Also, the elements of a call narrative are known, but most of the calls are missing at least one of the elements: N. C. Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. Thus while a universal pattern holds, there are occasions where one or two elements might be missing from the pattern. However, only those texts that contain all the criteria will be included in order to ensure the results of this study are accurate regarding the Council of Yahweh.

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

23

To begin the quest for Council of Yahweh texts, I turn to the first criterion. In order for it to be a divine council, multiple deities must be present. So one can begin by looking at texts where multiple deities are present and then determine whether these texts meet the other criteria. Therefore, I will examine passages that contain phrases that by definition refer to more than one deity, such as ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ and ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ, and then apply the other criteria. The final criterion, i.e., Yahweh’s leadership, is particularly important for this study. Since the focus of the study is on the Council of Yahweh and not on divine councils in general, it is important to examine the type-scenes where Yahweh appears to determine if any of them meet the criteria of a council text. Finally, passages that contain terms that can refer to councils, i.e., ʣʥʱ, ʸʥʣ, ʬʤʷ , and ʣʲʥʮ are examined. Only those passages that are determined to be Council of Yahweh texts are then exegeted in the following chapter. 8

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ The phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ or a derivative of this phrase occurs in Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:7; Job 1:6; 21:1; 38:7; and Dan 3:25. Each of these passages must be examined and evaluated according to the criteria for a Council of Yahweh text. Three of these passages can be eliminated for the current study: Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 38:7. In Psalm 29, Yahweh is specifically named, and it might be in a sacred setting, since the throne of Yahweh is mentioned in verse 10; however, there is no judgment. Likewise, Job 38 does not have any judgment, and perhaps more importantly for the current study, it does not reveal any details about the individual members of the “sons of God.” Psalm 89 also follows this pattern, but will be discussed below in the section on ʬʤʷ. The remaining passages will be explored in more depth below. 2.2.1. Job 1–2 The Joban prologue contains two pericopes that depict ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ (Job 1:6– 12; 2:1–6). The first scene takes place during the yearly council meeting (v. 6) and opens with Yahweh initiating a conversation with ʯʨʹʤ regarding his vocational activities for the previous year (v. 7).2 Yahweh then asks ʯʨʹʤ about Job and his piety (v. 8). While God believes that Job is truly pious, ʯʨʹʤ wonders if Job is putting up a façade in order to maintain his 2 The arguments in favour of understanding this as a yearly meeting can be found in N. C. Habel, The Book of Job (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 17; J. L. McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened: The Use of Isaiah 6,9–10 in the Book of Isaiah,” Bib 75 (1994): 4; S. B. Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” DDD, 798.

24

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

privileged state (vv. 7–8). ʯʨʹʤ suggests that a true test of Job’s piety would involve removing his wealthy position (vv. 10–11). The Lord agrees, with the condition that Job not be physically harmed (v. 12). In the time between the two scenes, Job loses all his wealth, cattle, and children, but still remains loyal to Yahweh (1:13–22). The next year the annual meeting opens in the same way and Yahweh again asks ʯʨʹʤ about Job and his piety (2:1–3). Once again, Yahweh states that Job is the ultimate example of piety, but again ʯʨʹʤ questions whether Job’s piety is real or merely a pretense to save his own life (vv. 3–5). This time ʯʨʹʤ suggests that God afflict Job’s physical body directly, and the Lord agrees, with the stipulation that Job live through the experience (v. 6). As far as the Council of Yahweh criteria are concerned, these pericopes contain multiple divine beings and are located in Heaven, and they present themselves before God. Also, when God asks ʯʨʹʤ where he comes from, he replies “from the Earth,” which would be unnecessary if the conversation was taking place on Earth. The presence of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ meets the first criterion. It certainly contains the element of judgment as Job’s character comes under judgment. Yahweh and ʯʨʹʤ have a discussion regarding Job’s fate, and while the specific actions taken against Job are not laid out in either passage, limitations are set that give some insight into what will be done to Job. It is also clear that the third criterion has been met in that Yahweh is specifically named and demonstrated to be the one in authority throughout the discussion. Since this passage contains all the criteria required to be a Council of Yahweh text, it will be considered further in this study. 2.2.2. Psalm 823 While Job 1–2 has clearly been defined as a Council of Yahweh text, one has to be careful when using the term ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ, or in the case of Psalm 82 ʯʥʩʬʲ ʩʰʡ, to identify the Council of Yahweh because one could understand 3 For Psalm 82 see C. H. Gordon, “History of Religion in Psalm 82,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (G. A. Tuttle, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978): 129–31; H.-W. Jüngling, Der Tod der Götter: Eine Untersuchung zu Psalm 82 (SBS 39; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969); J. Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA XIV (1939): 29–126; R. T. O’Callaghan, “The Canaanite Background of Psalm 82,” CBQ 15 (1953): 311–14; S. B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” RB 102 (1995): 532–59; W. S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?,” Bib 76 (1995): 219–28; R. B. Salters, “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,” ZAW 103 (1991): 225–39; K. Schmid, “Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament? Methodische Überlegungen anhand von Dtn 32,8 f und Ps 82,” in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments (A. Wagner, ed.; BZAW 364; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 105–20.

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

25

this psalm as Yahweh addressing the Council of El.4 In this psalm, Yahweh is associated with the sons of Elyon, but the association makes a distinction between Yahweh and the divine beings rather than assimilating the two. The council is charged by God with not fulfilling its duties regarding humanity (v. 2) and instructed to implement social justice (v. 3). This God recognizes the divinity of these beings (v. 6), but then claims they will die, which could place them into the category of humans (v. 7).5 The psalm ends with God taking on the role of judge, as it is his rightful position. The legal context of this psalm is apparent and expected of divine council narratives.6 2.2.2.1. Translation7 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

A psalm of Asaph. God8 standing in the Council of El, among the gods, he accuses. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked ones; selah. Justice for the poor9 and the orphan! Make righteous the afflicted and the oppressed! Deliver the poor and the needy! From the hands of the wicked ones snatch them! They know10 nothing and nothing they understand. In darkness they walk to and fro and all the foundations of the Earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods and sons of Elyon, all of you. But like a human you will die. And like the other rulers you will fall.” Arise, O God! Judge the Earth for you will possess11 all the nations.

4 It should be noted that the insertion of Yahweh here is an interpretation since the divine name does not occur in this psalm. This is not unexpected since the psalm occurs in the Elohist psalter, but it could lead to even further confusion over the characters involved within these verses. Mark Smith concurs with this understanding: Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 48. 5 Though this is not necessarily the case as there are examples of gods who die in ancient mythology: M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), 338. 6 For the legal context, see R. Clifford, Psalms 73–150 (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 64–65. 7 All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. 8 To distinguish between the two usages of ʭʩʤʬʠ in this passage, I translate the first character as God to represent the singular. The second use of ʭʩʤʬʠ I will translate as gods to reflect the plurality intended by their association with the Council of El and the sons of Elyon. 9 The BHS includes the note “ex 4; 1 pro Ì àŽ .” Yet, this is an unnecessary emendation, especially since the passage contains many repetitive and alliterative features. Also, since the emendation is not attested in any manuscript it is a needless change, see P. Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring,” in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism (B. Pongratz-Leisten, ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 191. 10 Here the BHS suggests the perfect form should actually read as the imperfect, which would flow with the other imperfect verbs in the verse. Again Machinist demonstrates that this is an unnecessary change, especially when not supported in the manuscript tradition, “How Gods Die,” 191. 11 The Hiphil imperfect is used in an unidentified manuscript according to the BHS. Hans-Winfried Jüngling has claimed that the Septuagint reflects the Hiphil imperfect rather

26

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

2.2.2.2. Analysis One of the most challenging interpretive issues surrounds the dating of the psalm.12 The complexities surrounding the dating of the psalm have led some to omit any discussion of dating the composition.13 Hossfeld and Zenger date the psalm to the early post-exilic period due to its position in the Asaph collection.14 They use thematic strands to tie the psalms of the collection together, but the themes are large enough and prevalent enough in the Hebrew Bible that it is not necessary to conclude that this collection comes from only one period in Israel’s history nor that they share a compositional history.15 This points to the most difficult problem, which is there are no definite factors that indicate when to date the origin of the psalm, and therefore, scholars have to use the contents of the psalm in order to hypothesize regarding the dating. One of the major issues involved in this discussion is the setting of the poem: ʬʠʚʺʣʲ. The first noun in the chain is straightforward enough, meaning “council” or “assembly,” but the second noun requires more discussion. Translationally, ʬʠ could be rendered “El,” as in the personal name of a deity, or “God,” a general term for deity. How one translates this noun could potentially determine how one interprets the term ʭʩʤʬʠ. For example, Smith translates the noun as El, the head of the council, and thus understands ʭʩʤʬʠ to be Yahweh, a member of the council.16 However, Machinist combines the two nouns of the phrase to translate it as “el-istic,” with the generic sense of God and thus also sees ʭʩʤʬʠ as Yahweh, but since the second noun of the phrase has a generic reference to God in his translation rather than a reference to a specific deity, also sees ʭʩʤʬʠ as the head of the council.17 The implications of both these conclusions will be assessed below. One more radical, but still plausible interpretation is that the second noun is translated as El and following Machinist’s line of argumentation ʭʩʤʬʠ is understood to be El as the head of the council.18 than the Qal imperfect use, see his Der Tod der Götter, 71. Yet, Machinist argues that the sense of the word is closer to the Qal imperfect, see “How Gods Die,” 192, 224–26. 12 For surveys of the proposals see, Jüngling, Der Tod der Götter, 78–79; H.-J. Fabry, “‘Ihr alle seid Söhne des Allerhöchsten’ (Ps 82,6): Kanaanäische Richter vor dem Gericht Gottes,” BibLeb 15 (1974): 140–41. 13 P. D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 122. 14 F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (trans. L. M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 332–36. 15 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 236–37, n. 108. 16 M. S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 134. 17 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 190, 230, n. 40. 18 Frank Moore Cross’ work here is suggestive as he argues that the divine names here reflect the ancient type-scene, but he would argue that it does so without the intending

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

27

Verse 1 introduces several interpretive issues surrounding the dual usage of ʭʩʤʬʠ. The identity of the first ʭʩʤʬʠ is unclear and has been the subject of much discussion. The second issue once again is the identity of ʭʩʤʬʠ later in the verse. It is clear that different character(s) are intended in each use. The first character is the subject of the singular verbs and the second is parallel to the Council of El, which by definition is plural. However, since ʭʩʤʬʠ is a generic word for god(s) the identity of both is ambiguous and contested in the scholarly literature. The first use of ʭʩʤʬʠ really has two possibilities: El or Yahweh. However, this identity crisis cannot be solved without an exploration of the phrase ʬʠʚʺʣʲ. In Peter Machinist’s recent work on Psalm 82, he lays out two potential understandings for the identity of the first and last ʭʩʤʬʠ in the psalm. The first option is that this God is a member of the ʬʠʚʺʣʲ, but not the leader of it and thus the reference to Elyon in verse 6 would refer to El not ʭʩʤʬʠ. The second option that he puts forward is that ʭʩʤʬʠ is the head of the council from the beginning and El and Elyon are epithets for ʭʩʤʬʠ. The first option would see the responsibilities of the divine council transferred from the ʬʠʚʺʣʲ to ʭʩʤʬʠ, and in the second ʭʩʤʬʠ is exercising leadership authority to dismiss the subordinate ʭʩʤʬʠ and takes on “sole power and supervision.”19 Contrary to Machinist, it does not seem that the results of the two interpretations lead to differing outcomes. At the end of both options, ʭʩʤʬʠ is the only God left standing with justice as his purview. The difference really lies prior to the final conclusion. The interpretive issues are really the identity of ʭʩʤʬʠ, El or Yahweh, and whether this psalm represents a display of judgment power (Yahweh over his council) or a transfer of power (the power of El’s Council given over to Yahweh). There have been many interpretations of Psalm 82 who view ʭʩʤʬʠ as the head of the council from the beginning of the psalm. Based on the work of Simon B. Parker, Hans-Winfried Jüngling, Mitchell Dahood, Baruch Halpern, Jeffery H. Tigay, Herbert Schmid, Werner H. Schmidt, Mark S. Smith, John T. Willis, Bernd Janowski, and F. Charles Fensham, W. Randall Garr provides the following synthesis of interpretive strand for the council in Psalm 82, which he would see as a Council of Yahweh: In Ps 82, God likewise punishes gods whose deeds betray their un-Godly evil. He confronts them in court (v. 1): as a plaintiff, he charges them with their crimes (vv. 2–4); as a judge, he pronounces their sentence (v. 7). Inasmuch as he holds the ‘ideal epithet’ ʯʥʩʬʲ (v. 6b), which ‘emphasizes His supremacy over the other divine beings,’ he exercises the authority that befits his rank. Since his divine subordinates (lit., ‘sons’) fall under his the specific identifications (i.e. he sees the deity here as understood as Yahweh by the author and original audience, but the literary references use the pre-Yahwistic terminalogy): Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), passim. 19 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 196.

28

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

jurisdiction, he must intervene and restore a just order. … He must condemn his disloyal deputies, exercise his own rule, and restore justice. ‘The last verse of the psalm brings to God the victorious command to give justice to the world … The God of Israel is regarded as the only true judge and protector of the weak.’ Ultimately, justice is his responsibility (…). And like any suzerain, God has the right to depose errant vassals. 20

There are many good arguments in favor of this position. Machinist and Simon B. Parker both see verses 6–7 as ʭʩʤʬʠ pronouncing judgment against ʬʠʚʺʣʲ.21 Machinist argues that judgment should be made by the head of the council and thus it makes the most sense for ʭʩʤʬʠ to be the head of the council.22 The use of the verb ʡʶʰ in verse 1 has been used to argue that ʭʩʤʬʠ is a member of the council and not the head because the judge usually sits to pronounce sentence while the members of the court stand before the judge.23 Yet, there are several passages that challenge this pattern: Ezek 44:24; Isa 3:13; Ps 76:10; and Ps 82:8.24 Also, “to stand”25 is used when a subordinate stands before an authority (e.g., Gen 37:7; Exod 7:15; 17:9; Job 1:6; 2:1), but also can be used of the leader (e.g., Exod 17:9).26 In addition, Machinist argues that ʨʴʹ here should be translated in the sense of “to judge,” which would only be appropriate for the head of the council.27 Machinist’s major argument is that the psalm is silent on the fate of ʬʠ if he is truly a separate character from ʭʩʤʬʠ.28 The way Machinist understands the passage by separating ʭʩʤʬʠ and ʬʠ/ ʯʥʩʬʲ, the fate of 20 Garr, In His Own Image, 210–12, quoting F. Charles Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21 (1962): 135a. 21 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 197; Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God,” 544. 22 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 197. This is not the only possibility though. Mark Smith points to ARM 26 196 from the Mari collection, which shares many similarities to this psalm, see his God in Translation, 136–38. This letter contains a judgment of one god against another god and questions the second god’s authority. The connection between these two texts was first noted by J. J. M. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 218–19. 23 E.g. Exod 18:13–14. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God,” 536–38. 24 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 199. 25 The English translation here represents the use of one of the following verbs: ʡʶʰ, ʡʶʩ, ʣʮʲ. 26 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 200. 27 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 200–201. Machinist makes this comment in response to Parker’s claim that this verb should be understood in the sense of “to accuse,” which is a subordinate’s responsibility (Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God,” 535–36). He further cites 1 Sam 22:6–19 (following H. J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament [WMANT 14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964], 87– 88), Isa 3:13–15, and Hos 4:1–10 as examples where the judge both accuses and judges. However, this is not the pattern in the Council of Yahweh type-scenes. 28 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 202–203.

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

29

ʭʩʤʬʠ is decided, they will inherit the Earth and judge it, and the second ʭʩʤʬʠ is decided, they will die, but ʬʠ/ ʯʥʩʬʲ’s fate is omitted. However, this is not the only understanding of the psalm. ʬʠ/ ʯʥʩʬʲ is closely tied by parallelism to the second ʭʩʤʬʠ in this psalm and therefore, one can assume that they share the same fate. In the other divine council type-scenes found within the Hebrew Bible, the council operates under the will of the chief God and does not operate outside of that expressed will (cf. 1 Kings 22; Isaiah 6; Job 1–2; Zechariah 3; and Daniel 7). If Machinist is correct then this would be the only council scene where the council is able to operate independently of the chief God and in a way that angers that God. Despite these positive arguments, this position is not the only possibility. Jüngling has offered an alternative explanation for verses 6–7. He sees it as a pronouncement by ʭʩʤʬʠ in the role of the accuser, rather than the sentence of the judge.29 Machinist’s argument against the appearance of one of the verbs translated as “to stand” holds weight for the entire biblical canon, but when looking specifically at divine council type-scenes it does not hold. 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and Daniel 7 all use “to stand” with the members of the council, but never with the head of the council.30 In addition, when the reader is told the position of Yahweh (1 Kings 22; Isaiah 6; Daniel 7), he appears sitting on his throne. I would further argue that the dual use of ʭʩʤʬʠ in verse one is intended to tie the two together. By using ʭʩʤʬʠ instead of ʬʠ to refer to the singular deity, it ties the singular to the plural and literarily unites them as a unit.31 Since ʬʠ can also be the generic singular noun meaning “God” it would make more sense to use this term for the singular deity to differentiate him from the plural ʭʩʤʬʠ and tie the singular God directly to the leadership of ʬʠʚʺʣʲ.32 Despite having a clearer understanding of ʭʩʤʬʠ’s role in the council, the identity of ʭʩʤʬʠ as El or Yahweh has yet to be determined. The use of ʭʩʤʬʠ here rather than a personal name of God is often explained by its location in the Elohistic Psalter (Psalms 43–83). Lowell Handy represents a different view when he argues that ʭʩʤʬʠ in verses 1, 8 was originally 29

Jüngling, Der Tod der Götter, 73–76. While this observation is mine, a good detailed study of the verb in relationship to the council can be found in M. S. Smith, God in Translation, 133, n. 4. 31 This counteracts the examples, Ps 95:3, 96:4, given by Machinist (“How Gods Die,” 203) that tie Yahweh to the plural ʭʩʤʬʠ because the terminology in these examples distinguishes between the two. 32 K. Koch, Der Gott Israels und die Götter des Orients: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien II. Zum 80. Geburtstag von Klaus Koch (F. Hartenstein and M. Rösel, eds.; FRLANT 216; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 182, n. 62. Machinist has a different take on the double use. He argues that the dual use of ʭʩʤʬʠ is to demonstrate that the singular absorbs the plural as a literary representation of singular ʭʩʤʬʠ taking over the role of the plural ʭʩʤʬʠ: “How Gods Die,” 231. 30

30

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

Yahweh, but was changed by Elohistic redactors.33 Yet, these observations are speculative, especially since the creation of the Elohistic Psalter is currently debated in scholarly literature.34 The role that ʭʩʤʬʠ plays in the council is important for identifying ʭʩʤʬʠ’s identity, especially if one understands ʬʠʚʺʣʲ as “the Council of El,” rather than “the Council of God,” both of which are possible translations. Some have taken the parallel term ʯʥʩʬʲ in verse 6 as a means of understanding the noun in this first construction, since ʯʥʩʬʲ is well attested as an epitaph for ʬʠ.35 However, this really does not clarify the situation since it is also an epitaph for Yahweh.36 So if one is to understand ʭʩʤʬʠ as the chief god, his identity is still undetermined. Yet, if ʭʩʤʬʠ is not the head of the council, his identity may become clearer. Smith is correct that ʭʩʤʬʠ is a member of this council and represents the God of Israel, who is Yahweh.37 The identity of the plural ʭʩʤʬʠ has also been hotly contested. One theory is that the second ʭʩʤʬʠ here are not gods, but rather human judges. This theory is based on the references in Exod 21:6; 22:6–7, 8, 27; and 1 Sam 2:25, where there is instruction to bring the case before ʭʩʤʬʠʤ even though the context is the temporal court.38 Julian Morgenstern and Roger O’Callaghan view this text as a compilation. In their opinion, verse 1 is distinct from what follows and verse 1 may refer to a divine being, but verses 2–4 refer to human judges.39 This is not the only argument that can be made for rejecting an interpretation of ʭʩʤʬʠ as human beings. Yet, this is not the best possible understanding. Machinist argues that the parallel in these passages between ʭʩʤʬʠ and human rulers/judges does not suggest that these two terms are equated with each other, but “that divine authority and human authority are related in that both are crucial for order and justice and thus must be respected and not cursed.”40 Samuel Terrien points out the likeliness of this possibility when he states:

33

L. K. Handy, “Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82,” JSOT 47 (1990): 51–66. F. L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, “The So-Called Elohistic Psalter: A New Solution for an Old Problem,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (B. A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen, eds.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 35–51. 35 Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God,” 548–53; R. P. Gordon, “Standing in the Council”; M. S. Smith, God in Translation, 135, 212–14. 36 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 197. 37 M. S. Smith, God in Translation, 133. 38 C. H. Gordon, “ʭʩʤʬʠ in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935): 139–44. 39 J. Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA XIV (1939): 31; R. T. O’Callaghan, “The Canaanite Background of Psalm 82,” CBQ 15 (1953): 312. 40 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 205. 34

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

31

Ancient witnesses and some modern interpreters, Jewish and Christian, believe that the gods are human magistrates and other administrators of high rank, princes, or even priests, but the psalmist clearly distinguishes between gods or sons of God and human judges since he announces later on that these gods are going to die, just like men and princes (v. 7). 41

Marvin E. Tate furthers this point by explaining that the context of ʭʩʤʬʠ in the earlier passages is unclear and the arguments for ʭʩʤʬʠ as humans are stretched.42 He also argues, The judgment on the gods has some similarity to the rather widespread mythical imagery of the revolt and punishment of a god. A god could be killed if he became rebellious and failed to carry out his functions; as, for example, Kingu in Ennjma eliš (4.119–28); We-ila in Atra-‫ۏ‬asis (1.4.123–24).43

This would mean that these beings could be gods and yet still suffer the punishment of death for having failed in their duties. In addition, Machinist demonstrates the juxtaposition between this psalm and the second canonical creation narrative (Genesis 2–3) in relationship to the ʫ preposition, which he sees as “the point of mediation between the human and the divine.”44 Whereas in Genesis 2–3 the humans gain knowledge and become like gods, Psalm 82 contains the details of a knowledgeless group of gods who die to become like humans. The likeness comes by taking on an attribute that is definitionally part of the other group, but is only like because the category is not fully transcended. Herbert Niehr attempts to solve the interpretive issue by combining the human and divine options. He views the charges in verses 2–3 as human crimes that would usually fall under the purview of human judges, but since these officials reflect on the divine beings who are cosmically in charge of them, the ʭʩʤʬʠ are convicted. Thus while technically the ʭʩʤʬʠ are divine beings, they are present as stand in for the humans. This way he maintains the tension between human and divine without really solving the identity question.45 Machinist’s critique is probably best when he states, he regards his solution as a way out of what he sees as ‘the false alternative’ of having to choose whether elohim in Psalm 82 are gods or humans. But has he, in fact, escaped this alternative? It seems to me that he has not. For elohim, in his reading of the psalm, still refer throughout to the other gods, and the human element is, as just stated and as he himself appears to admit, an implicit analogy.46

41 S. L. Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Critical Eerdmans Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 588–89. 42 Tate, Psalms 51–100, 341. 43 Tate, Psalms 51–100, 338. 44 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 222. 45 H. Niehr, “Götter oder Menschen – eine falsche Alternative: Bemerkungen zu Ps 82,” ZAW 99 (1987): 94–98. 46 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 207.

32

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

It is true that humans are to be concerned with the issues in verses 2–4 (e.g., Deut 24:17, 27:19; Jer 22:3; Zech 7:8–14; Prov 22:22–23; Job 29:11–16, and 31:16–23), but these same concerns are attributed to God (e.g., Deut 10:17–18; Ps 41:1–3; 107:4–9; 113:5–9; Isa 25:4; Jer 20:13; and Job 5:15–16).47 It is hard to understand how Niehr’s suggestion solves the issue and in addition to Machinist’s critique it omits the context of the divine council. Thus, the interpretation of these beings as human is faulty, and one must look elsewhere to determine their identity. It is clear that these beings are divine. However, this does not mean that these are divine beings within Yahweh’s service. Several scholars have proposed that this divine council comprises the gods of other nations. Terrien speculates that these gods were not familiar with the rules of Israel. He says, Could it be that foreign gods, living in the splendor of great cities and enjoying the power of military supremacy, do not know how to live in a coherent society? They march on tenebrous roads (Prov 2:13); worse still, they find perverse pleasure in choosing tortuous paths (Prov 2:15). Their ignorance is itself the cause of their misdeeds, for it prevents them from comprehending the complexity and the simplicity of social ethics … Divinity was held to be shared by beings other than Yahweh, but the psalmist maintained that unethical “divinity” loses its divine character … The gods of the nations may be “the sons of the Most High,” but their divine filiality will not protect them from annihilation.48

This thought is echoed by John W. Rogerson and John W. McKay, who say, “In this case, the psalm asserts the power of the God of Israel over these other ‘gods’ … God, surrounded by his heavenly court, rises to pronounce judgment on the gods of the nations.”49 Mitchell Dahood also views these beings as the gods of foreign nations, rather than the Council of Yahweh. He says, “the psalmist had been under the impression that the pagan deities were of some importance, but now realizes that they are nothing.”50 This is a reasonable interpretation as it is clear that Yahweh is positioned in opposition to the sons of God. This stands in sharp contrast to all the Council of Yahweh texts that will be discussed in the next chapter. It also would work well as a corrective to those who may be inclined to follow the religious tradition of the other nations. One of the interesting features of this passage is that Yahweh claims to have thought at one time that these beings were immortal gods, but now he knows better. It has been explained away as an element of irony, and

47

Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 208. Terrien, The Psalms, 589–90. 49 J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 51–100 (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 164. 50 M. Dahood, Psalms: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2: 51–100 (AB 17; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 270. 48

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

33

therefore should not be taken as a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding on the part of God.51 For example, Simon B. Parker argues: Thus the heavenly beings are here again the gods, generally believed to be the rulers of the world. The psalm’s purpose is to expose their total failure as governors – more specifically to have Yahweh expose that failure. For this purpose Yahweh is rhetorically portrayed as having formerly shared general beliefs about the gods. But Yahweh is also the one who exposes their true nature and announces their demise, and the one who in the last verse of the psalm is acclaimed as their successor, governor of the world and their heir to all the nations. Thus Ps 82 rhetorically acknowledges the gods’ claims to be rulers of the nations, but does so only to demonstrate their failure and the justice of Yahweh’s replacing them as ruler of the world.52

If this exegesis is correct, then one must assume that this is not Yahweh’s Council, and therefore that there are at least two councils in the biblical texts. This psalm reads like a standard meeting of a divine council, but is different in that suddenly the council itself is put on trial.53 One might object to foreign elements being contained within a council trial. However, it is not unusual for foreign elements to be judged within the Council of Yahweh: Job is a non-Israelite and the beasts in Daniel 7 represent foreign nations/rulers. That Psalm 82 represents a meeting of the Council of El and Yahweh (called ʭʩʤʬʠ) arises from the ranks of the ʭʩʤʬʠ to accuse them of not doing their job and ends with the pronouncement (probably voiced by the Psalmist) that Yahweh will take over the dominion of the plural ʭʩʤʬʠ. Thus while Yahweh is a character in this divine council type-scene, he is not the head of it (El is) until possibly the end of the psalm when he takes over the position of the council.54 So this scene cannot truly be considered a Council of Yahweh type-scene, but it could represent a transition from a more ancient form of type-scene towards the Council of Yahweh typescene corpus.

51

Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 797. Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 797. 53 Tate, Psalms 51–100, 335. 54 This is interesting in light of Max E. Polley’s observations regarding Enuma Elish. He says, “The conflict with Tiamat, where both Anu and Ea are unsuccessful in defeating primordial chaos, forces the gods to confer permanent and absolute power on Marduk in return for his protection. Yet the assembly of the gods is not disbanded. The assembly becomes subordinate to Marduk and provides a means for enhancing his majesty through their praise of him. They now receive orders from him to do his bidding rather than making decisions following debate” (Polley, “The Call and Commission of the Hebrew Prophets in the Council of Yahweh,” 143). While Polley sees this in light of a change of government, it also shows how one council came to be under the control of a chief God. While the reasons for Yahweh’s leadership is different, Psalm 82 could conceivably be the narrative about how Yahweh came to be the leader of the divine council. 52

34

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

2.2.3. Deuteronomy 32 The possibility of a divine council, other than Yahweh’s, being included in the literary tradition of the religion of Israel is enhanced in the case of Deut 32:8 in the texts at Qumran (4QDeutj) and in the Septuagint (LXXAB). In this verse Elyon divided the peoples of the Earth according to the number of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ. This is different than the Masoretic Text, which has the “sons of Israel” as the preserved text. Reading ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in this passage, each of the nations of the Earth received their territory and their national god from ʯʥʩʬʲ and Israel was given Yahweh.55 Verse 43 also contains text-critical issues. It is clear that this version of the narrative fits some of the criteria for being a council. The chief God is present, as are other deities, and the fate of the nations is being determined, which are the defining features for a divine council scene. Thus it is a text that needs to be explored for determining a type-scene corpus for the Council of Yahweh. 2.2.3.1. Translation 8

9

43

When El Elyon gave inheritance to the nations, when he divided the sons of Adam, he affixed the borders of the peoples according to the numbers of the sons of God.56 Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his possession. … Be gladdened, O heavens,57 with him, And let all sons of God do obeisance to him. Be gladdened, O nations, with his people, And let all angels of God prevail for him.58 55

This follows a historical mythological tradition. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger demonstrate parallels between this text and a speech in the story of Wenamun, which has Amun distributing the lands: Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, 116. In addition, a similar tradition is included in Philo of Byblos (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.32, 38), see M. S. Smith, God in Translation, 142. For the text, see H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden, Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes (CBQMS 9; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), 56–59. The recent study by Ronnie Goldstein also contributes to the study of this ancient mythological tradition: “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and 43 in Light of Akkadian Sources,” Tarbiz 79 (2010): 5–21. 56 The translation here reflects LXX 848, 106c and 4QDeutj. Alternate readings include “sons of Israel”: Masoretic Text, Samartian Pentateuch (this text differs from the Masoretic Text only in two instances of scriptio defectiva), Targum, Peshitta, and “angels of God”: Septuagint (most manuscripts). 57 A. Rofé would translate ʭʩʮʹ here as “heavenly beings,” based on Jer 14:22 and Ps 89:6, “The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:43),” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium (R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds.; FRLANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 167. 58 Thanks to Glenn Wooden for reviewing this translation and making insightful suggestions for making it better and more accurate.

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

35

2.2.3.2. Analysis The Masoretic Text of Deut 32:8 has the peoples of the earth being divided according to the number of the sons of Israel ( ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʰʡ), which differs from the variants above which claim they were divided according to the sons of God (ʬʠ ʩʰʡ). Emanuel Tov and Mark S. Smith interpret the discrepancy in the variation as the result of monotheistic redactors.59 Richard D. Nelson concurs and sees this as part of a larger pattern of censorship.60 Several attempts have been made to understand the process through which this censorship has taken place.61 These studies all do an admirable job at reconstructing the literary process, but as Jan Joosten points out these studies rely on comparative work and all of the comparative texts make sense once emended, but the emendation in Deut 32:8 does not.62 That the change was made accidentally has been proposed, but accidentally adding three letters seems unlikely.63 Joosten’s theory that the original was “Bull El” (ʬʠ ʸʥʹ) is attractive, since the emendations to both “sons of God” and “sons of Israel” could follow logically, but difficult to prove.64 However, even if Joosten is correct that the original is “sons of Bull El” rather than “sons of God” it would not make a substantial difference for the interpretive issues at stake in this study. Thus, using the principle of lectio difficilior, one needs to consider ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in this passage.65 There has been some debate regarding the genre of Deuteronomy 32, called the Song of Moses, but the clearest genre classification is that the song is a covenantal lawsuit (rîb).66 Due to the legal overtones of this 59 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 47–50; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 269. Smith slightly modifies this view in God in Translation, 141–43. In this later work he argues that the text incorporates the older worldview in order to ultimately reject it. See also Rofé, “The End of the Song of Moses,” 167. 60 R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002), 367. 61 I. Himbaza, “Dt 32,8, une correction tardive des scribes: Essai d’interprétation et de datation,” Bib 83 (2002): 527–48; Garr, In His Own Image, 223–24; A. Rofé, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 50. 62 J. Joosten, “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8,” VT 57 (2007): 549, n. 7. 63 W. F. Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy xxxii,” VT 9 (1959): 339–46. 64 Joosten, “A Note on the Text,” 550–55. 65 D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 (WBC 6B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 791. Cf. M. S. Smith, God in Translation, 187–212. 66 First proposed by G. E. Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, eds.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 26–67; M. De Roche, “Yahweh’s rîb against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Preexilic Prophets,” JBL 102 (1983): 563–74; B. Gemser, “The rîb- or

36

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

genre category it is fitting that divine council material would be found in this song, but a full type-scene is not found here. The references to the council are used as a refutation of the defendant’s possible arguments. At most this song records a synopsis of a council meeting, but does not actually detail the meeting itself. In this passage we see many similar interpretive issues as in Psalm 82.67 Here again the interpreter is faced with the question of identity surrounding ʯʥʩʬʲ ʬʠ. In this passage, ʯʥʩʬʲ ʬʠ could be another name for Yahweh, which would mean that Yahweh divides the peoples of the world according to the number of the gods and keeps Israel for himself.68 While the Hebrew term ʯʥʩʬʲ is often used as an epithet for Yahweh, especially in biblical Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East (M. Noth and D. W. Thomas, eds.; VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1955), 120–37; J. Harvey, “Le ‘Rib Pattern’ prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance,” Bib 43 (1962): 172–96; J. Limburg, “The Root ʡʩʸ and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL 88 (1969): 291–304; Polley, “The Call and Commission of the Hebrew Prophets,” 150–51; J. M. Wiebe, “The Form, Setting and Meaning of the Song of Moses,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989): 119–63. For a history of reception and critique, see J. R. Boston, “The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses,” JBL 87 (1968): 198–202; H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 324, 330; G. Mendenhall, “Samuel’s ‘Broken Rîb’: Deuteronomy 32,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (D. Christensen, ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 169–80; K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge (JSOTSup 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978); M. Thiessen, “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43),” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24. It should be noted that while these studies level serious critiques against the rîb designation, their primary concern is to notice the influence of other genres (e.g., wisdom, liturgy) and they continue to acknowledge the legal overtones of the passage. The complexities of this chapter have generated much discussion: A. Kamphausen, Das Lied Moses: Deut. 32,1–43 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1862); K. Budde, Das Lied Mose’s Deut. 32 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1920); E. Baumann, “Das Lied Moses (Dt 32,1–43) auf seine gedankliche Geschlossenheit untersucht,” VT 6 (1956): 414–24; Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses,” 339–46; W. Moran, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses,” Bib 43 (1962): 317–27; U. Cassuto, “The Song of Moses (Dt 32,1– 43),” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (N. Lohfink and S. Amsler, eds.; BETL 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), 341–47. For a good discussion of the genre and dating issues found within this passage, see M. Leuchter, “Why is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?,” VT 57 (2007): 295–317. 67 In a very provocative article Konrad Schmid (“Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament?”) argues that these texts (Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82) should not be dated as early as has been thought and that they do not reflect a transition from polytheism to monotheism, but were actually monotheistic from the start. Exploring his theory in relation to the conclusions found in this work would represent a good next step in the research of the divine council. 68 R. Clifford, Deuteronomy with an Excursus on Covenant and Law (OTM 4; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1982), 169–70; P. D. Miller, Deuteronomy (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 196–97.

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

37

poetry, it is also commonly used in other ancient Near Eastern religious traditions. However, as seen above one does not need to assume that ʬʠ ʯʥʩʬʲ in this text is Yahweh, rather than ʬʠ, a proper divine name for the chief God. Jeffery H. Tigay summarizes the issue this way: It is combined with ’el, ‘God,’ in the phrase ’el ‫ޏ‬elyon, ‘God Most High.’ It is used by Israelites and non-Israelites, and also appears in non-Israelite sources. ‘Most High’ is an ideal epithet for God. In the present verse it emphasizes His supremacy over the other divine beings, and since it does not have exclusively Israelite associations it suits the context of God’s organizing the human race as a whole. Verse 9, relating to God’s selection of Israel, reverts to the specifically Israelite name YHVH.69

Tigay makes a very important point when he demonstrates that ʯʥʩʬʲ ʬʠ was a widespread title for the chief God, but his assumption that it is used to refer to Yahweh is not necessary. It is clear from verse 9 that the author feels free to use the name Yahweh, and while it is possible that the same God is meant in both verses, this is not explicit in the text. In fact, it does make the structure of these verses more awkward in a similar way to Psalm 82. It is more likely that Yahweh is a member of the “sons of God” rather than the chief God in this passage. Ronnie Goldstein has made an interesting proposal in his comparative study to the several Akkadian texts regarding Ishtar.70 He demonstrates that there is a tradition of the main god(s) making distributions for the other deities. However, in paralleling Yahweh to Ishtar, Goldstein argues that Yahweh is being exalted above the other deities and being made one of the (equal to) the great god(s). Thus in his view, Yahweh starts out as one of the “sons of God,” but is transformed by the narrative into a chief God, which would make it similar to Psalm 82. While there is nothing in verses 8–9 that can be viewed as convincingly superior, Goldstein uses verse 43 to highlight the promotion of Yahweh. Yet, verse 43 could be understood as just the appropriate response of a people to their appointed deity, the God on their side so to speak. The presence of El in this text has been viewed as a polemic against Canaanite deities.71 While the passage is certainly a litany of the power and majesty of Yahweh, there are no negative or polemical elements directed towards El. Unlike Psalm 82 that removes the right of the gods to rule, this passage gives authority to the gods over certain peoples and El is viewed as having the authority to distribute the people to the various gods. 69 J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 303. 70 Goldstein, “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8–9.” The texts explored are “The Hymn to the Queen of Nippur” and “The Exaltation of Ishtar.” 71 T. A. Keiser, “The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy,” VT 55 (2005): 490. He uses this idea to make a comparison to the use of El in Second Isaiah and this forms part of his argument for the dependency of Second Isaiah on Deuteronomy 32.

38

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

If an evolution of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible were to exist, this would be the first passage followed by Psalm 82 and then the rest of the Council of Yahweh corpus. It would move for El in authority with Yahweh as a member who get allotted Israel to El’s Council falling from grace and Yahweh being given authority over the whole world to scenes that depict the actions of the divine council under the authority of Yahweh. The issues of development will be examined in Chapter 6. Verse 8 is not the only verse in the song to have textual issues that relate to the current topic. In 4QDeutq, Deut 32:43 comprises 6 lines (as opposed to the Masoretic Text’s 4 lines) and includes a reference to ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in the second line, which is not found in the Masoretic Text. The Old Greek versions fall somewhere between the rendering found at Qumran and in the Masoretic Text. Nelson views this as an interpretive act on behalf of the translators. He says, “The orthodox revision represented by MT eliminated this reference to pagan gods (cf. Ps 97:7). OG1–2 translates ‘gods’ interpretively as ‘sons of God,’ while OG3–4 renders it as ‘angels’ (cf. Ps 97:7 LXX; Heb 1:6).”72 Mark E. Biddle notes that despite the Masoretic Text’s privileged position in Judaism and its use for most Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible that it does not present the oldest version of the Song of Moses.73 Again the best arguments favor the rendering found at Qumran as the most authentic (i.e., oldest).74 This argument is based on lectio difficilior and while it violates the principle of lectio brevior, it seems the length is merely a reflection of editing out difficult pieces within the text rather than adding them in. Biddle puts it this way, LXX and Q seem to reflect a much more archaic theology than does MT. Since it is difficult to imagine why copyists and translators would introduce apparent polytheism into the song, it is likely that the scribes who produced MT expunged all references to ‘sons of God,’ indeed, even to the ‘heavens’ in order to produce a theologically ‘unobjectionable’ text.75

In addition, 4QDeutq and the Septuagint represent parallelismus membrorum, which is characteristic of Hebrew poetry, but this feature is noticeably absent in the Masoretic Text (cf. line 3 and the overbalance in lines 5–7).76 It appears that there are multiple councils in the biblical text so one must ensure that s/he is not combining the concept of alternate councils (e.g., the Council of El) with the Council of Yahweh. Therefore, while the term ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ can indicate a divine council and could be helpful in iden72

Nelson, Deuteronomy, 379 (referring to various witnesses to the Septuagint text). M. E. Biddle, Deuteronomy (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 4; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), 469. 74 Biddle, Deuteronomy, 481. 75 Biddle, Deuteronomy, 482; Christensen, Deuteronomy, 813. 76 Biddle, Deuteronomy, 482. 73

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

39

tifying divine council texts, it should not be used blindly and without careful critical analysis regarding the context and presentation. 2.2.4. Problems with ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ Particularly relevant to this study is the interpretation that all the references to ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ refer to the Council of Yahweh.77 As has been shown, this assumption needs to be questioned on two fronts. The first step is to explore Parker’s claim that the phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ is in fact a generic phrase meaning divine council in all its occurrences. The second which we have already explored is whether all the occurrences of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ refer to the Council of Yahweh. This or a derivative of this phrase can be found in Genesis, Psalms, Job, Deuteronomy, and Daniel.78 The phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ is related to the Ugaritic phrase bn il which means “the children of El.”79 In Ugarit the phrase is often paired with p‫ې‬r and the expression p‫ې‬r bn ilm is also attested.80 Yet, this could be translated as either “the assembly of the children of the gods” or as “assembly of divine beings.” In CTU 1.16 V 24, El refers to the other gods as his

77

Parker argues that this phrase has become synonymous with the divine council in Ugarit so that it no longer can be used to describe actual paternity and thus it always refers to a divine council. For a particularly explicit description of this see Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 794–96. 78 Gen 6:2–4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan 3:25; Deut 32:8 in the Qumran texts and the Septuagint; Ps 82:6 (ʯʥʩʬʲ ʩʰʡ); 29:1; 89:7 (ʭʩʬʠ ʩʰʡ). 79 The references in the Ugaritic literature can be found in both poetic and religious texts (CTU 1.17 VI 28–29; 1.10 I 3; 1.4 III 13–14; 1.47.29; 1.148.9; 1.65.1–3; 1.40). A similar term appears only once in Phoenician as kl dr bn ’lm (KAI 26 A III 19) and is usually translated to mean “the whole circle of divine beings.” 80 Related phrases include p‫ې‬r (b)kkbm, which means “the assembly of the stars” and dr dt šmm, which means “the circle of those in the Heavens.” These phrases indicate that at Ugarit the gods have a connection to the stars. There may be parallels in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in Job 38:7 the parallelism between stars and the sons of God is reminiscent of the Ugaritic association of them with astrological bodies. This parallelism can be seen in several ways. The first is that both councils were present at creation (cf. Gen 1:26). The purpose of both groups is to celebrate the creator god, as is evident here and in the Enuma Elish. Psalm 29 presents a similar function for the sons of God and their purpose of glorifying the high god. The “Host of Heaven” is sometimes used to represent celestial bodies: the sun, moon, planets, and stars (Deut 4:19; Ps 148:2–3). Sometimes it refers only to the stars (Deut 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2). In this understanding the Host of Heaven were worshipped by some in Israel (2 Kgs 21:3, 5; 2 Chr 33:3, 5; Jer 8:2; 19:13) and there was an altar for them in the Jerusalem temple (2 Kgs 21:5). The worship of the Host of Heaven became associated with the worship of foreign gods (Deut 17:3; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3; 23:4–5; Jer 19:13; Zeph 1:4–5). This astralized concept of the Host of Heaven retains its connections to references to Yahweh’s hosts (Ps 103:19–21; 148:1–5; Dan 8:9–13) and the divine beings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures.

40

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

children (bny). One theory is that the phrase bn il was used in such a way as to make it an idiomatic term for divine beings. Parker says, The use of the expression ‘the father of the divine beings’ to refer to El tends to support the suggestion above that the phrase translated literally ‘the children of El’ was already so idiomatic a term for the collectivity of the gods that it no longer conveyed the fatherhood of El, but was simply a periphrasis for ‘god,’ i.e. ‘divine beings.’81

If so, another term was needed to express actual paternity because to call the children of El bn il would be merely to call them divine beings. The reference to ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in the biblical texts has its own interpretive issues. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor demonstrate that the adjectival genitive form of ʩʰʡ paired with a noun can be used to represent a particular class of that noun.82 For example, in Deut 2:19 when the text refers to the “sons of Ammon,” it is speaking about the Ammonites and in Ezek 2:1 when it says “son of human,” it is saying “human being.” Therefore, the “sons of God” should mean divine beings or gods. Even if one does not interpret it to mean a class of beings, one still has to determine whether the second noun in the construct chain is God or gods. A grammatical possibility is that in the Masoretic Text ʭʩʤʬʠʤ refers to a single deity by using El combined with a enclitic mem.83 Yet, those who argue for a plural understanding are not necessarily denying a chief god. Mark Smith says, “The mythological texts may present El as the head of the divine assembly, but the terminology embedded in the expressions for assembly here might not refer specifically to him.”84 Therefore, one could not call the divine council the assembly of the gods without suggesting that it was under the leadership of the high god. On the other hand, it could be argued that, “the biblical identification of ’Člǀhîm with Yahweh would suggest that the bČnê (hƗ)’Člǀhîm were not independent of, but essentially related to, Israel’s god.”85 This would suggest that the noun represents Yahweh and therefore, regardless of grammatical form, should be understood as singular. Also, a singular reference would most closely correspond with bn il in the Ugaritic texts. Because of the idiomatic nature of the term mentioned above, “Israelites would not 81

Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 795. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 9.5.3b (##17–19). 83 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41. 84 Smith further states that the expression may be used for a group of gods that gathers around a particular divine figure: Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 42. This would explain why there are some references to the assembly of Baal or Ditanu. It also accounts for the texts in which El is specifically mentioned. One of these groups on their own does not comprise the Pantheon, but it is the groups in collaboration that make up the general pantheon. 85 Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 794. 82

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

41

normally have stopped to think about the specific referent of the second term in the phrase.”86 This would fit with the use of the plural form to refer to the single deity, Yahweh, throughout the Hebrew Bible, and it would also explain the need to have another term to refer to divine beings who were not Yahweh, since the plural term for gods is now commonly used for a single referent. Parker highlights one of the biggest interpretive problems with an Israelite divine council, namely that it causes concern for those who ascribe to a monotheistic worldview: not only does a divine council limit the uniqueness of Yahweh, but it also suggests that other gods are possible in relation to Yahweh.87 Smith comments on this problem, At first glance, Israelite monotheism would seem theoretically to stand at odds with the imagery of Israelite assembly with its multiplicity of divinities, even if they are minor or subservient to Yahweh as their absolute king. In fact, the divine assembly is not oppositional to monotheistic statements in biblical literature. For example, it is commonly held by biblical scholars (…) that the opening of “Second Isaiah” (Isaiah 40) involves a divine council scene, yet this chapter is part of a larger work that contains the greatest number of monotheistic statements in the Bible (…). Divine council language and scenes also appear in the “priestly work” of the Pentateuch and post-exilic books (Zechariah and Daniel), which assumedly are monotheistic. In other words, monotheism requires that one divine assembly headed by one divine ruler, but it makes little or no impact on the language of assembly in itself. Moreover, as noted, it probably reduced and modified the sense of divinity attached to “angels.” 88

Smith is correct in demonstrating that monotheistic beliefs appear side by side with the presentation of the divine council. It seems that perhaps the importance of monotheism in relation to the council is not the denial of other divine beings, but that Yahweh be held in complete and absolute control of the cosmos. If Yahweh has complete power then whether the other beings are divine or not, they are servants of Yahweh and therefore, unworthy of worship. This is important for understanding that the role of ʯʨʹʤ is to serve Yahweh, not to be a rival deity or threat to the high god. A similar understanding is that held by Margaret B. Crook, who says, The Lord is in session with the heavenly council, whose members are called “sons of God.” The words are not to be taken literally: in other religions in the ancient world these beings would be gods; here they are angels, agents of God, who do His bidding … God here is unmatched and supreme. 89

It is important to note that interpreting these divine beings as angels is problematic because of the theological implication the term angel has 86

Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 795. Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 794–95. 88 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 51. 89 M. B. Crook, The Cruel God: Job’s Search for the Meaning of Suffering (Boston: Beacon, 1959), 11. 87

42

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

developed.90 As early as the New Testament period, it had become theologically correct to regard these beings as angels, which are defined as “a lesser order of heavenly beings at the one God’s beck and call. It was no longer necessary to assert God’s superiority over them or difference from them, for they no longer partook of divinity.”91 While this became the dominant theological concept, there is nothing intrinsic in the word ʪʠʬʮʤ, which actually means “the messenger,” which would suggest anything other than a divine being. Also, the messengers of the gods in other ancient Near Eastern cultures were also seen as gods.92 Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the original audience would have believed that the members of the divine council were beings that fit into an angelic definition, rather than merely a lower level of God.93 To demonstrate further that ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in the Hebrew Bible is merely a phrase meaning divine beings but not the name for the Council of Yahweh, I will explore two texts in which the phrase is used in some form and demonstrate how they are not divine council texts. Genesis 6 and Daniel 3 clearly demonstrate that the phrase is used to describe divine beings in settings outside the Council of Yahweh, and thus the presence of the phrase alone cannot define a certain text as belonging to the collection of divine council narratives. 2.2.4.1. Genesis 6:1–494 Canonically, this is the first appearance of the phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in the Masoretic Text and the passage details the interaction of these divine beings and human women. ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ are paralleled to the ʭʣʠʧ ʺʥʰʡ, daughters of humans (i.e., human females). This mating requires a response from 90 Also the term is problematic because it reduces the ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ to only containing ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ, which is only one category of this group; others, such as ʯʨʹʤ, ʧʥʸʤ, and ʭʩʴʸʹʤ were members of this group. Therefore, even if the term “angels” had not taken

on a theological meaning that is in opposition to the text, it would not be representative of the entire council. 91 Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 798. 92 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 50. 93 Because the term angel has become associated with a theological category, this study will refrain from using it in favor of the term divine beings; however, most of the quotations from others use the word angel to refer to the same beings. 94 Studies of Gen 6:1–4 include L. Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1–4,” JETS 13 (1970): 43–52; U. Cassuto, “The Episode of the Sons of God and Daughters of Man (Genesis vi 1–4),” in idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 47–70; D. J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1–4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’,” JSOT 3 (1979): 33–46; G. E. Closen, Die Sünde der ‘Söhne Gottes’, Gen 6,1–4: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Genesis (Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1937); J. E. Coleran, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6,2,”

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

43

Yahweh (v. 3) and resulted in the Nephilim (Num 13:33), a race of heroes and warriors (v. 4). Gen 6:1–4 is ambiguous by nature. Nahum Sarna says, The account given in these few verses is surely the strangest of all the Genesis narratives. It is so full of difficulties as to defy certainty of interpretation. The perplexities arise from the theme of the story, from its apparent intrusiveness within the larger narrative, from its extreme terseness, and from some of its vocabulary and syntax.95

This complex passage is usually dated to the traditional J source and based on even earlier traditions, which would make it the oldest reference to ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ.96 The identity of the sons of God has long been debated, but generally fall into three categories:97 (1) divine beings of one kind or another; (2) powerful men (e.g., kings, rulers, etc.);98 and (3) holy men, such as Seth.99 Theories within the first category are by far the most common, and based on the earlier discussion regarding the nature of this phrase, it is the most likely.100 There are three main reasons why this theory dominates.101 First, every other time the phrase is used in the Hebrew Bible, it means divine beings. Second, if “sons of God” is supposed to mean “sons of some men,” one not only loses the contrast, but it is a very strange way to phrase “the

TS 2 (1941): 488–509; J. Day, “The Sons of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants: Disputed Points in the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 427–47; L. Eslinger, “A Contextual Identification of the bene ha’elohim and benoth ha’adam in Genesis 6:1–4,” JSOT 13 (1979): 65–73; R. S. Hendel, “When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men,” BRev 3 (1987): 8–13, 37; P. Joüon, “Les unions entre les ‘fils de Dieu’ et les ‘filles des hommes’ Genèse, 6,1–4,” RSR 29 (1939): 108–14; M. G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4,” WTJ 24 (1962): 187–204; W. A. Van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Gen 6:1–4,” WTJ 43 (1981): 320–48. 95 N. Sarna, Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 45. 96 G. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Waco: Word, 1987), 137; C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (trans. J. J. Scullion; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 368. 97 For a comprehensive recent study of the theories surrounding Gen 6:1–4, see J. Day, “The Suns of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants.” 98 One of the biggest reasons for suggesting human beings are the “sons of God” is a general discomfort with the concept of divine beings engaging in sexual activities; however, there is no reason to assume that this discomfort was ever felt by the author(s) of this text, especially considering the plethora of material within the Hebrew Bible that does not conform to modern sensibilities. 99 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 139. 100 Early support comes from 1 En. 6:2; Jub. 5:1; Gen 6:4 LXX: ȖȓȖĮȞIJİȢ; Philo (De Gigant. 13.58); Josephus (Ant. 1.31); 1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6, 7; Justin; Irenaeus; Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian, and Origen. 101 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 139.

44

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

sons of some men married the daughters of other men.”102 Third, the use of this phrase in other ancient Near Eastern cultures is specific to the pantheon. One important reason to view this phrase as a generic reference to gods is that this story fits within the standard biblical condemnation of boundary violations. In this case the boundary is between divine and human. The pattern runs throughout Genesis (cf. the Tree of Knowledge, the Tower of Babel, etc.). Boundary violations can also be found throughout biblical law (e.g., crop mixing, Lev 19:19; mixed clothing, Deut 22:9–11), particularly when it comes to procreation: e.g., sex with animals, (Lev 20:16) and inter-marriage with non-Israelites, (Deut 7:3) are all prohibited and carry serious consequences. Thus Gordon Wenham says, It therefore follows that unions between the ‘sons of the gods’ and human women must be at least as reprehensible, for in this case both parties must know it is against the will of the creator who made the world so that everything should reproduce ‘according to its kind’ ([Gen] 1:11–12, 21, 24–25).103

Thus humans marrying humans would not be a boundary violation according to kind, but divine beings engaging in sexual conduct resulting in offspring would certainly violate the notion of mixing according to kind.104 The obvious connection between the name Nephilim and the verb ʬʴʰ is apparent, but this connection has stooped commentators. Yet, if one understands the narrative to be detailing the boundary violation between Heaven and Earth, which is a consistent concern in Genesis, then the name enforces the notion that this breech of Heaven and Earth is a failure; even though these creatures are half heavenly they have fallen to merely earthly beings, “famous men.”105 Wenham further suggests that the narrative could also serve as a polemic against the fertility cults that encourage marriages between gods and humans.106 102

Wenham notes that this interpretation is even less likely because the reference to “human” in the first verse is clearly intended to refer to the whole human race: Genesis 1–15, 140. 103 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 141. 104 Machinist, “How Gods Die,” 215. 105 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 143. 106 Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 142. Cassuto does not think that this passage actually condemns the actions of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ for he sees these marriages as legitimate and even if they were not it would be wrong for humans to be punished rather than the gods: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: From Adam to Noah (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), 294–95. This punishment may not be so easily resolved. The entire structure of this passage has baffled scholars for generations, but particularly verse 3, which seems to interrupt the narrative and its connection to the episode is difficult to grasp: Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 366. Cassuto’s understanding of this passage also fits within themes found in Genesis. He sees this as a clarification between human and the divine and the inability of humanity to obtain divinity (cf. Genesis 3). He says,

2.2. ʭʩʤʬʠʤʩʰʡ

45

This passage is deceiving when it comes to the Council of Yahweh criteria.107 While multiple divine beings are present and there is a judgment given by Yahweh, there is not sense that this is the divine court. Verse 3, which contains the judgment on humans, seems to fit better with verses 5 ff. Also, ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ are not participants in the judgment nor the recipients of the judgment. Moreover, it is not set in a sacred space, which all other council type-scenes are, and there is no deliberation or consultation between Yahweh and the divine beings, which there usually is in council scenes. Thus while on the surface it might appear that all three elements are present in this passage on further inspection none of the three truly apply.

The declaration in v. 3, My spirit shall not abide in man, etc. implies: Do not believe the heathen tales about human beings of divine origin, who were rendered immortal; this is untrue, for in the end every man must die, in as much as he, too, is flesh. The sons that were born from the intercourse of the sons of God with the daughters of men were, in truth, gigantic and mighty, yet they did not live forever, but had long ago become extinct. And when they lived, it is on the earth that they lived; even before their descent to Sheol, they were never translated to heaven. They were men of renown; indeed, men of renown, but even so they were men, not more than men. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 300) Regardless whether one agrees with Cassuto’s analysis, his point that this narrative is designed as a condemnation of foreign beliefs is important. He says, Among the ancient people, as we know, various myths were current telling of sexual relations between gods and daughters of men, and of the children born from these unions, who were regarded as half-gods or were raised to the full status of deities. Also among the Canaanites, who were closest to the Israelites, there existed legends of this kind, as the Ugaritic inscriptions testify. (Ibid., 299) It is precisely this type of belief that Gen 6:1–4 would have been designed to combat and therefore, would not refer to the Council of Yahweh. This type of polemic against the mythology of other ancient Near Eastern cultures is prevalent within the prologue of Genesis. 107 Could ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ here be the bn il or at the very least divine beings from other ancient Near Eastern cultures? While there are several different interpretations of the identity of these beings, which range from disobedient (fallen) angels to human beings of other cultures, these arguments seem to ignore the basic grammatical structure of the construct chain and therefore, they are discussed at length. However, the interpretation presented here is merely a possibility and has been presented as an illustration of the need to use caution in regards to making assumptions about the phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ. A recent analysis of these possibilities can be found in S. Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion: Another Contextual Look at the Sons of God,” JSOT 32 (2008): 435–56. Westermann states that the original setting for this passage has to be Canaanite: Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 369. This would lead one to conclude that this passage is a polemic against the behavior of the gods of the other cultures. They are related to human beings, but have no relationship to Yahweh, other than judgment. This lowers the status of other gods. This would be a very different conclusion than if this council represented the divine beings under the rule of Yahweh.

46

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

2.2.4.2. Daniel 3 In addition to the example of Gen 6:1–4, in the post-exilic text of Daniel 3, a single ʯʩʤʬʠʚʸʡ is mentioned. The Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, has called all the officials of his realm to him to dedicate a golden image he had made in homage to himself (vv. 1–3). At this ceremony Nebuchadnezzar orders all (“O peoples, nations, and people of every language”) to bow down and worship this image or else face the fiery furnace (vv. 4–7). Three Jews in administrative power, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused to bow to the image, as to do so would violate their dedication to their god (vv. 12–18). The king was true to his word and cast the three men into the furnace (vv. 19–23). Thinking he was about to watch three men burn to death, the king suddenly realized that four walked among the flame and he exclaims, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods” (v. 25). It is clear that this passage does not meet any of the criteria for a council text, no divine beings, no judgment, no Yahweh, and yet a derivative of the phrase is used. This passage in Dan 3:25 complicates the issue of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ because it is the only reference in the Old Testament to a singular “son of god” and it is in Aramaic. It is clear that the reference is to a generic divine figure. Then for consistency ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ is the generic term for gods and not the Council of Yahweh, nor a group within the council (i.e., it is the name of the council rather than a position). One might assume that Nebuchadnezzar, a foreign king, can recognize a divine being, a god, and yet not know enough about the construction of Yahweh’s Council to identify the member by function or title.108 This in itself points to the generic nature of the phrase rather than a specific council reference. In verse 28, this ʯʩʤʬʠʚʸʡ is referred to as “his messenger,” which has led to the interpretation that this is ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ. If this were so, one could understand the reference as initially to a generic counselor with the second reference being the position that the counselor holds. While this would fit together neatly, it is not as simple as this. In Council of Yahweh settings ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ is usually not the one who delivers messages. Rather, other characters involved with the council are seen to deliver messages (cf. ʧʥʸʤ

108

Now this would assume that the statement in the text is an accurate rendering of what Nebuchadnezzer actually said and that would be difficult to demonstrate. However, even if it is the imaginative iteration of the Israelite author this would not necessarily negate the generic nature of the phrase. The author would be portraying the perspective/ character of a foreign king.

2.3. ʭʩʮʹʤʠʡʶ

47

in 1 Kings 22 and the prophets).109 Furthermore, one can be ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ without being a messenger of the Council of Yahweh. This demonstrates that at least in one text this phrase is not used as a generic means of referring to a Council of Yahweh. In addition, it does not meet any of the criteria. No one is being judged, also no dialogue is taking place since there is only one divine being, it is not set in a sacred space, and Yahweh is not seen presiding over the meeting (as none is taking place). Thus, in the face of this evidence, one cannot consider this a divine council passage, and therefore cannot rely solely on terminology to determine a council type-scene. 2.2.4.3. Summary To summarize this section, since the phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ is used to represent divine beings, this is a logical place to begin the study of the Council of Yahweh. However, one needs to be careful precisely because it is a generic term for divine beings. When used to refer to a divine council, one needs to be cautious since the second term in the construct chain is not the name of the chief deity, which means the term could refer to any divine council or just gods in general. This is a very important difference with the texts at Ugarit. Because the construction at Ugarit usually involves the personal name for a god (e.g., El, Baal, etc.), there is little confusion as to what council is being spoken about, but the parallel also demonstrates that there can be multiple councils within a set of mythological texts. Therefore, there is the possibility of more than one divine council present in the Hebrew Bible. One cannot assume that when ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ appear as a council in the Old Testament, it refers to the Council of Yahweh. 9

2.3. ʭʩʮʹʤʠʡʶ The second phrase to consider is ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ, “Host of Heaven,” which occurs approximately 200 times. Because of the frequency of this phrase not all occurrences are examined. There are clearly times when this term is used to refer to gods. For example in Ps 103:21, the Host of Heaven are paralleled to his (Yahweh’s) servants, the mighty ones, and ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ. Similarly, Ps 148:2 has the Hosts paralleled to ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ. However, neither of these passages contains discussion or judgment, and therefore does not 109

This is very different from the role that the messenger gods play in Ugarit. In the Ugaritic texts the messenger gods carry messages from one god to another (e.g., CTU 1.2 I 11; 1.2 I 17–19, 33–35; 1.3 III 8–14; 1.4 VII 52): Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 159. In the Hebrew Bible ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ more often than not is playing the role of court official; see Zechariah 3 for example.

48

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

contain divine councils. A holistic study of divine councils might want to consider these passages, but they do not fit the type-scene model. Also, I would argue that a divine council is a formal setting that is different from divine encounters (a causal meeting of more than one divine being) or from liturgical events (where multiple gods may be present, but the context of the narrative is worship). This would model the real life experience of the Israelites: the King holds a formal court with his royals, but he might also have an informal conversation with one or more of them, which at best would be counsel not council. There are also times when it refers to Yahweh’s military or to objects of worship.110 J. Glen Taylor claims that this phrase is complex because there are more than one ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ and because the understanding of this collection has developed and changed over the time periods reflected in the texts.111 Nonetheless, there are two passages that should be evaluated in terms of the Council of Yahweh: 1 Kings 22 and Isaiah 6. 2.3.1. 1 Kings 22 In this passage, the kings of Israel and Judah meet to discuss what they should do about Ramoth-gilead, disputed territory currently in the hands of Aram (vv. 1–4). Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, requests the opinion of the prophets, so the king of Israel calls in 400 prophets and inquires whether or not the kings should go to war (vv. 5–6). The prophets respond in the affirmative, but Jehoshaphat is not convinced and asks for a “prophet of the LORD” (vv. 6–7). Reluctantly, the king of Israel calls Micaiah ben Imlah, but warns Jehoshaphat that this prophet never gives good messages (v. 8). When Micaiah first arrives before the kings, he prophesies destruction, but the king of Israel complains about this message, and Micaiah has a vision of the Council of Yahweh (vv. 15–19). In this vision, Yahweh is asking his council what they should do about this king of Israel (v. 20). ʧʥʸʤ steps forward and volunteers to be a lying spirit in the mouths of the king’s prophets, so that he will go to war and be killed (vv. 21–23), which is exactly what happens as the chapter progresses (vv. 34–37).112 110

E. T. Mullen, “Hosts, Hosts of Heaven,” ABD 3:302. J. G. Taylor, “Was Yahweh Worshiped as the Sun?,” BAR 20 (1994): 105–107. 112 This pattern is common in the Hebrew Bible, but not universal in the ancient Near East. In the Gilgamesh Epic VII, Anu (the high god) opens the discussion, Enlil makes a proposal, Shamash objects and Enlil wins out. In Atra-‫ۏ‬asis I, Enlil calls the council, both Enlil and Anu make proposals, which are accepted. According to Parker, “In such literary texts the great gods appear free to make proposals, raise objections or state terms without any strict protocol, and the high god seems to exercise rather [than] loose control over the proceedings”: Parker, “Council,” DDD, 205. These texts present a looser form of council procedure than other texts, particularly those of the Old Testament. A similar form of operation can be seen in Anzu. In this myth the high god calls the councils, 111

2.3. ʭʩʮʹʤʠʡʶ

49

1 Kings 22 demonstrates all three criteria for determining a Council of Yahweh passage, and therefore there should be no doubt regarding its inclusion in this study. Not only does it contain the phrase ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ it also uses the verb “to stand,” which is common to council scenes. Verse 19 states that the Lord was sitting on his throne, which would demonstrate this takes place in a sacred space. Verse 20 describes the discussion that took place among various members (with no details) fulfilling criterion one and verses 21–22 provide the decision and the means of implementation, which completes criterion two. Judgment is also clearly present in regards to the King of Israel’s fate. There is no doubt that criterion three is met because Yahweh is mentioned by name, leads the discussion, and ultimately approves the plan. 2.3.2. Isaiah 6 While the phrase ʭʩʮʹʤ ʠʡʶ does not occur in Isaiah 6, the phrase ʤʥʤʩ ʺʥʠʡʶ does appear, and thus this passage should be considered based on the derivative phrasing and the imagery that appears in the narrative.113 As with the other terminology explored, the phrase alone does not indicate a Council of Yahweh passage, but only the presence of all three criteria does. Isaiah 6 details the commission of the prophet Isaiah. In this vision, Isaiah sees the Lord sitting on his throne surrounded by ʭʩʴʸʹʤ and the scene is depicted as glorious (vv. 1–4). In the midst of this impressive scene, Isaiah claims to be impure of lips and expresses concern about his health because he has seen the Lord while in this state of impurity (v. 5). In response to this one of ʭʩʴʸʹʤ cleanses Isaiah’s lips with a hot coal and pronounces him clean (vv. 6–7). The Lord then asks for a volunteer and Isaiah responds (v. 8). Then God gives Isaiah a task and includes terms for the end of his commission (vv. 9–13). Rarely is there any discussion as to whether Isaiah 6 contains a Council of Yahweh scene because it is usually assumed, but of all the passages to presents a problem, and requests a volunteer to solve the problem and then the volunteer is sent out to complete the action. T. Jacobsen describes the Mesopotamian council as a primitive democracy that met during crisis events. He claims the council appointments were for the current time of crisis and were not necessarily ongoing and that all council members, including the high god, were bound by council decisions: T. Jacobsen, “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Toward the Image of Tammus (W. L. Moran, ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 157–70; idem, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 86. 113 It is important that the imagery of a divine council appear alongside the phrase because the phrase is a common enough way of referring to Yahweh. On its own it would not be enough to merit consideration in the current study.

50

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

be considered Council of Yahweh passages, the case for Isaiah 6 is the most debatable. The fulfillment of criterion one is clear in that multiple divine beings are present, Yahweh and ʭʩʴʸʹ. The second criterion is present, but the reader only hears about the judgment through the commission given to Isaiah to deliver to the people. Also, the final criterion is clear, as Yahweh is present, in charge, and gives the judgment. In addition, the supplementary observations that usually occur with divine council passages can be seen here, the passage takes place in sacred space as demonstrated by the description of Yahweh’s throne room/temple that introduces the commissioning of Isaiah as an agent. Discussion is not explicitly present, but verse 8 implies that there are others, with the use of “us” and that they are in agreement with Yahweh, since the volunteer would also be going for them. That beings other than Yahweh are included in “us” is clear by its parallel to “I” in the first stanza. This suggests that there has been a discussion to determine the judgment. 10

2.4. Additional Plural Deities Passages In order to be certain that the list of council texts is complete, it is important to explore the name Yahweh. By looking through the passages where Yahweh occurs, I can determine texts where Yahweh appears in conjunction with other divine beings and then assess whether they fit the other criteria for a council scene. The personal name of God appears 6551 times in the Hebrew Bible (MT), but only 39 times in conjunction with other deities.114 However, the majority of these occurrences just contrast the worship of Yahweh to that of other gods or have already been discussed. Gen 18:16–33, Num 22:22–35, 2 Kgs 19:15–19, and Ps 103:19–22 all appear to contain the criteria for a council text, but it is unlikely that these represent divine councils in the formal sense. 2.4.1. Genesis 18:16–33 Yahweh is present as are other deities and judgment is discussed, but it does not take place in a sacred space, which all other Council of Yahweh 114 Gen 18:16–33; Exod 15:11; 18:11; 34:14–17; Num 22:22–35; 27:16; Deut 4:19; 5:8–10; 10:17; 32:36–43; Josh 24:16; Judg 2:11–19; 3:7; 10:6; 1 Sam 12:9–10; 1 Kgs 8:6–11; 11:2, 4–8, 33; 18:20–40; 22:19–23, 53; 2 Kgs 19:15; 21:3–7; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7; Psalm 18; 29; 89; 95; 96; 99; 103; 106; Isa 6:1–13; 19:1–4; 24:21; 43:11–13; Ezek 1:4– 28; Zeph 1:4–6; 2:11; Zech 3:1–10. Passages that contain both the Spirit of the Lord in conjunction with the Lord have been omitted from this list because of the potential identity confusion due to the interchangeability that often appears in these passages. The identity confusion will be explored in more depth in Chapter Four.

2.4. Additional Plural Deities Passages

51

texts do. This passage holds the most promise for being a Council of Yahweh scene, but I doubt that is the best interpretation of the passage. While it shares many similarities with council type-scenes in that Yahweh and two ʭʩʫʠʬʮ have a discussion with Abraham about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the absence of the sacred setting and lack of formality suggest that this may be a related text, but not a full fledged type-scene. In addition, verses 17–18 seem to indicate that the conversation that takes place is meant to inform Abraham about a decision the council has already made rather than a deliberation about what that fate should be. Granted Yahweh appears to be open to changing the judgment in response to Abraham’s request; however no change actually takes place and by the time Yahweh and Abraham have this discussion the other divine beings have exited the scene and thus a plurality of deities are not present.115 2.4.2. Numbers 22:22–35 Yahweh is present along with another deity and there is an issue of punishment, but again this passage does not take place in a sacred space and at best recounts the decision of the council being enacted (though there is nothing to say that this judgment against Balaam was decided on in the council and not just by Yahweh himself). Unlike all the Council of Yahweh type-scenes the judgment is not spoken by Yahweh, whose only actions are to open the mouth of the donkey and eyes of Balaam, all divine dialogue comes from the ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ. There is no interaction between Yahweh and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ. Finally, the passage really is not about judgment but about punishment, which Balaam is able to escape. Judgment is what happens within a council, but punishment happens outside a council. 2.4.3. 2 Kings 19:15–19 The context of this passage is prayer and it does mention Yahweh and other divine beings who are in Heaven. One might argue that judgment is present in Hezekiah’s request for judgment to be made against Sennacherib, but this is not the same as divine beings discussing what the judgment should be. In fact, the divine beings (Yahweh and the cherubim – perhaps the gods of Assyria, but they are rejected as unreal) are not actually present in the scene, but are only spoken about. This is an entreaty by King Hezekiah for Yahweh to interact, but it does not depict a scene in which Yahweh is actually interacting. This prayer has more in common with the psalms of lament than it does with the divine council type-scene. 115 It is interesting that verse 22 says that Abraham remained “standing” (ʣʮʲ) before Yahweh, which invokes the formal sense that is contained in each of the Council of Yahweh type-scenes. What we have in this passage is quite possibly a related narrative.

52

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

2.4.4. Psalm 103:19–22 Here Yahweh is in a leadership role, other deities are mentioned, and Heaven is the setting, but there is no discussion of judgment, despite the implication that judgment or the enforcement of judgment is something that these divine beings do. This psalm does describe what the psalmist views as the responsibilities of God and some of the divine beings, but it is not limited to the divine council as verse 22 indicates. 2.4.5. Isaiah 40 Some mention should also be made of Isaiah 40 since it is often argued to be a council text.116 David L. Petersen, a proponent of the divine council position explains the significance of viewing this passage as a divine council scene: Because of the wrenching exilic experience, Deutero-Isaiah represents a new stage in reflection on Israelite prophecy. Zion herself participates in the divine council, and she participates as prophet … These are traditions in flux, traditions which are not fully synthesized.117

If this text does represent a council type scene then Petersen is quite correct that the use of Zion as a council member would be innovative (and would likely derive from a reflection on the theological crisis of exile). This is especially true as every other council type scene that includes humans only does so as individuals and highly positioned (from a theological point of view) individual at that. Roy F. Melugin has argued that verses 1–11 represent the divine council and that parallels the scene in Isaiah 6, which serves as a call narrative for First Isaiah and this represents the call narrative for Second Isaiah.118 On the other hand, Terry W. Eddinger disputes both claims, saying that elements of Habel’s call narrative form are absent from Second Isaiah and that this passage is not set in the council.119 Francis Landy also exposes the differences between Isaiah 6 116 Parker, “Council,” 207; C. R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47. While the contents of the article go beyond this study, Nathan MacDonald’s recent essay represents a very important voice on issues of monotheism in Second Isaiah: “Monotheism and Isaiah,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson, eds.; Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 43–61. 117 D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 23. 118 R. F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW 141; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976), esp. 81–85. For a comprehensive list of the similarities between the two passages, see B. M. Zapff, Jesaja 40–55 (Würzburg: Echter, 2001), 359– 62. 119 T. W. Eddinger, “An Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11 (17),” BBR 9 (1999): 124.

2.4. Additional Plural Deities Passages

53

and 40: vision versus audition; temple/heavenly setting versus dislocated voices associated with desert and exile.120 The issue arises because the plural imperatives do not automatically mean a multiplicity of divine beings, which would violate the main polemic of this passage, and there is nothing to reveal the identity of the “voice.”121 A variety of suggestions have been put forward as to who the imperatives are directed at. In the Targum, the recipients are the prophets.122 The Septuagint has the instructed as the priests. That those being commanded are the divine council was first introduced by Frank Moore Cross who was followed by Christopher R. Seitz.123 The strongest argument for this interpretation is the supernatural nature required to complete verses 3–4, but even this does not determine a divine council as such actions are not normally discussed in the council, but may take place as a result of a council decision.124 Thus as Eddinger says that if there is any council involvement in this scene it took place before verse 1.125 An alternate interpretation was suggested by David Noel Freedman who claimed that the plural imperatives should be understood in light of verse 9, which would make Israel the recipient of the commands.126 Similar arguments are made for the voice in verse 3 and the ambiguous statements throughout. Landy may represent the best view that in light of the trauma the ambiguity in the text is intentional and multidirectional; the comfort is the point of the passage and therefore everything

120

F. Landy, “The Ghostly Prelude to Deutero-Isaiah,” BibInt 14 (2006): 334. Petersen argues against the notion that the voice is the prophet (particularly as offered by C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 6) based on the rendering in 1QIsa a, which uses female personal pronouns to argue that the voice is that of Zion. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 20. 122 This interpretation is followed by J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 18; J. P. Fokkelman, “Stylistic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11,” OTSt 21 (1981): 72–73; A. Van Seters, “Isaiah 40:1–11,” Int 35 (1981): 402. 123 Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” 276; Seitz, “The Divine Council,” 230. Others who follow this interpretation include J. Limburg, “An Exposition of Isaiah 40:1–11,” Interpretation 29 (1975): 407; N. L. A. Tidwell, “The Cultic Background of Isaiah 40,1–11,” JTSA 3 (1973): 48. 124 Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” 276. 125 Eddinger, “An Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11,” 124. 126 D. N. Freedman, “The Structure of Isaiah 40:1–11,” in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday, July 28, 1985 (E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing, eds.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 172. Similar to K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (trans. M. Kohl; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 51; U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS 16; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 381–83, watchmen of Jerusalem of 52:8; R. G. Kratz, “Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1 f. und das Jeremiabuch,” ZAW 106 (1994): 260, Golah elite. 121

54

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

else remains in the background.127 The caution presented by Klaus Kiesow is merited.128 There are arguments made for the divine council in this passage, but they are by no means the only interpretation nor are they more convincing than any other, especially since it cannot be determined that there are multiple divine beings in this passage. It is possible that this is a derivative scene or is intended to reflect the divine council, but that would need to be explored after a study of the divine council type-scene had been conducted.129 Thus this exploration is potentially the next phase of investigation. Finally, of the 39 passages only Zechariah 3 has the potential to be a Council of Yahweh text and will be explored below. Daniel 7 should also be considered based on this criterion because it refers to Yahweh by an alternative title. 2.4.6. Zechariah 3 Zechariah 3 contains a concern for impurity as well as a courtroom setting. Despite the fact that “to stand” is a fairly common verb in the Hebrew Bible, it is closely tied to the Council of Yahweh. Jeremiah 23 defines a prophet as one who has “stood” in the council. In addition, Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers have demonstrated that this verb is “the most common word in Hebrew literature for reflecting the technical procedures of participating in the Court.”130 The scene is set with ʯʨʹʤ in the role of prosecutor, ʪʠʬʮʤ as the defense attorney, Yahweh as the judge, and the high priest Joshua as the defendant (3:1). The scene starts with ʯʨʹʤ trying to make an accusation, but the Lord silences ʯʨʹʤ (3:2). The reason given is that Joshua is a “brand plucked from the fire.” However, the scene then turns its full attention on Joshua as he is standing in the Council of 127 Landy states, “They may be divine beings, comparable to the seraphim of Isaiah 6, or prophets, or even ordinary people, comforting each other. The indeterminacy introduces the passage as something vague, a gesture outwards inviting and requiring a response, as if only through reciprocity, ultimately from us, can the poetic movement be accomplished. We are then the surrogate authors of the book or at least responsible for its effectiveness”: “The Ghostly Prelude to Deutero-Isaiah,” 337. 128 K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und motivgeschichtliche Analysen (OBO 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 26. 129 I think my caution here is justified as Cross, the original proposer of this theory, states, “It undoubtedly had its origins in conceptions of the role of Yahweh’s divine assembly as a court. At the same time, the imagery of the divine council has receded in the background, and the lawsuit oracle has been so modified as to preserve reminiscences of its origin only in its literary framework and in stereotyped introductory phrases.” Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 188. 130 C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 182. The verb “to stand” occurs here six times in seven verses.

2.4. Additional Plural Deities Passages

55

Yahweh in a state of impurity (3:3). Joshua then has his impure garments removed, is pronounced clean by ʪʠʬʮʤ, and granted new clothing and a turban (3:4–5). The vision closes with the commissioning of Joshua (3:7– 10). There is no question that Zechariah 3 meets all criteria for a Council of Yahweh text. The courtroom motif is clear, and it is likely that the “he” in verse 1 is a divine being. The first criterion is met by the presence of multiple deities: ʯʨʹʤ, ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ, and Yahweh. To fulfill criterion two, discussion takes place in the council, with the characters ʯʨʹʤ, ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ and Yahweh. Joshua (perhaps as a representative for the nation) is clearly the object of judgment. Again, Yahweh is named and is responsible for the decision of the court, which fulfills criterion three. 2.4.7. Daniel 7 The first in a series of visions in the Book of Daniel, Daniel 7 contains a coded divine council scene. The chapter is set in the reign of King Belshazzar of Babylon and details the dream-vision that Daniel had while lying in bed (v. 1). The vision begins with the appearance of three beasts, who resembled recognizable animals, but each deviated from the temporal form of the animal in some way (e.g., walking upright, wings, etc.) (vv. 3– 6). When the fourth beast appears, no natural comparison is made and the vision turns to the ten horns of this beast (vv. 7–8). Following the appearance of the beasts, a royal divine court is set up, and the Ancient of Days appears (vv. 9–10). Once the court and the retinue are arranged, the books are open and judgment takes place (vv. 10–14). The horned beast is slain and burned (vv. 11, 19–26). By contrast, the others are allowed to live, but their dominions are taken away (vv. 12). Dominion is transferred to One like a Son of Man, along with glory and kingship, and his dominion will be everlasting (vv. 13–14). At this point Daniel is afraid and confused and approaches one of the attendants to request an interpretation (vv. 15–16). The passage fits within the definition of a council as it uses the verb “to stand,” and it explicitly claims to be a court (v. 10). The setting is clearly Heaven, a sacred space, as the throne is once again present, and the citizens of Heaven are surrounding the scene, which meets criterion one. There is no discussion present in the pericope to meet criterion two, but the presence of “the court” implies that the judgment was made by it. Also, the Ancient of Days speaks to the court and thus represents his dominance in a discussion that does not present another side. There are two judgment issues before the court in this passage, the beasts’ fate and the pronouncement in favor of the One like a Son of Man. This would fulfill criterion two. There may be dispute surrounding criterion three as Yahweh is never named, but rather the court is presided over by the Ancient of Days. Thus

56

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

for now it will be considered among the Council of Yahweh texts, but it will be important to establish in Chapter Three that the Ancient of Days is indeed Yahweh. 11

2.5. ʣʥʱ The phrase ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ is not the only one that may denote multiple divine beings. The term ʣʥʱ refers to the Council of Yahweh specifically six times (Ps 89:8; 25:14; Jer 23:18, 22; Job 15:8; Amos 3:7), twice it implies it (Num 13:10; Neh 3:6), and there are two references that are debatable (Job 29:4–5; Prov 3:32).131 For the most part these passages do not deal with individual members of the council, but refer to the entire collection.132 Malamat says, “The term ʣʥʱ is always mentioned in the Bible in a static manner, without detailing how matters were handled within the assembly. However, there are in the Bible, unlike at Mari, detailed descriptions of heavenly assemblies, though with no connection to the term ʣʥʱ.”133 This is precisely the challenge with this term; it is one of the clearest references to a divine council, but it provides little to no insight into the workings of that council. Yet, this does not mean that this term cannot be useful for the study of Council of Yahweh membership.134 In fact, this word helps to 131 The implied texts (Num 13:10; Neh 3:6) and the debatable texts (Job 29:4–5; Prov 3:32) are so tenuous that one would need to use extreme caution with any conclusions based on these textual understandings. For arguments in support of these texts describing a divine council, see Parker, “Council,” 207. Related terms can be found in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician. Akk. pu‫ې‬ur ilƗni and Ug. p‫ې‬r (bn) ilm = assembly of the gods; Ug. p‫ې‬r m’d = assembly of the meeting; Phoen. mp‫ې‬rt ҵl gbl qdšm = the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos; Ug. dr (bn) il = circle of the gods; Phoen. kl dr bn ҵlm = the whole circle of gods. 132 Parker, “Council,” 206. 133 A. Malamat, Mari and the Bible (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 12; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 139. 134 One needs to be cautious in the way in which this term is used in relation to understanding the council. Since Mari provides a good comparative opportunity, the caution provided by Abraham Malamat should be kept in mind: Unlike many other topics, the comparison of Mari and Israel in this matter of ours is rather vague and forced, for we are dealing here with two different planes on which the secret council is active. In Mari, the council is an actual, earthly, secular body that, first and foremost, is a royal-state institution functioning alongside the ruler or governor, and the like; whereas, in the Bible, in most instances, what we have is a heavenly assembly headed by the Deity, i.e., here we are on the theological plane. There is no doubt that this plane is a projection of the earthly, real council. In the Bible, too, the members of the divine council are almost without exception prophets (alongside heavenly beings). To be sure, even in the Bible, in a few instances, we have a national council or convocation but, even then, the main participants are God

2.7. ʬʤʷ

57

identify one of the key passages for understanding the relationship between humanity and the Council of Yahweh (Jer 23:18, 22; cf. Amos 3:7). Jeremiah 23:18, 22 claims that the sign of a true prophet is that the prophet stood in the council. The verb “stood” ( ʣʮʲ) is used in the formal sense and mirrors the way it appears in every Council of Yahweh type-scene.135 12

2.6. ʸʥʣ An additional term that could be used to identify divine council texts is ʸʥʣ. In the Masoretic Text, Amos 8:14 is pointed as ʪʸ ʓʘ ʣʓ , but F. J. Neuberg has argued that it should be pointed as ˃ʸ ʍ ʣʘʖ  meaning (“your pantheon”).136 This translation fits with the consonantal text and works in parallel to “your gods” ( ʪʩʤʬʠ) mentioned in the preceding bi-colon. While this is an interesting hypothesis, the emended texts provide little by way of insight into the membership of the council, and conclusions based on emendations would be tenuous, and therefore, will not be discussed in depth here. 13

2.7. ʬʤʷ This term for “council” can be found in Psalm 89, which as we saw also contains the phrase ʭʩʬʠ ʩʰʡ and the terms ʠʡʶ, and ʣʥʱ. This psalm falls into the category of royal psalms and details the awesome power of Yahweh with his favor on the Davidic monarchy.137 This psalm is import-

or his spokesmen – the prophets. In order to understand the essence of the inner, closed council that is called ʣʥʱ in the Bible, and in order to ascertain its apparatus and activity, we must draw an analogy not only from source to source but also from earthly-royal plane to the heavenly-divine one – an analogy that is complicated and rather risky. (Mari and the Bible, 137) Malamat makes several interesting observations here. The first is that the divine council is most likely a mirror of the earthly royal court and the second, is that comparative studies need to be careful in making the necessary parallels. His claim that the divine council in the Hebrew Bible is generally comprised of prophets is controversial and unsustainable. This will be explored in Chapter Five. 135 Malamat, Mari and the Bible, 138. 136 F. J. Neuberg, “An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DOR,” JNES 9 (1950): 215– 17. He claimed the same could be said for Ps 14:5; 49:20; 73:15; 84:11; 112:2; Jer 2:31. In addition to this, Ackroyd suggests that Ps 95:10; Prov 30:11–14; Isa 53:8 and Jer 7:19 also be considered candidates for emendation: P. R. Ackroyd, “The Meaning of Hebrew ʸʥʣ Considered,” JSS 13 (1968): 3–10. 137 G. W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959), 108–109; Cross, Canaanite Myth and

58

Chapter Two: Determining Council of Yahweh Texts

ant for the final criteria of this study (that Yahweh must be the head of the council). In verses 6–9, the superiority of Yahweh over all the members of the council is established. The use of such a large number of divine council related terms in this one section serves to highlight the majesty of Yahweh ʍ ˎʑ and the subordination of the council to him. In addition, the phrase ʬʤʔ ʷ ʭʩˇʣ ʑ ʖ  ʷʍ highlights the holiness of the council (a motif that is picked up in Isaiah 6 and Zechariah 3). Thus it is not a dismissal of the council or a polemic against the council, but rather an elevation of Yahweh and his position within the divine assembly. 14

2.8. ʣʲʥʮ Isaiah 14:13 is the only verse in the Hebrew Bible that contains this term in a divine context, but the context is clearly not a divine council typescene as the reference occurs in the midst of a mocking boast. However, from the phrasing it seems clear that the author of Isaiah views the proper meeting place of the council as in the heavenly throne room (above the stars) on the “mount of assembly.” This could explain the connection between the Council of Yahweh type-scene and sacred space, especially considering the majority of passages explicitly mentioning the throne of Yahweh (1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; Daniel 7).

Hebrew Epic, 258; R. Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980): 35–47.

Chapter Three

Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts 3.1. Introduction The preceding chapter focused on determining which texts form the corpus of Council of Yahweh texts in the Old Testament. This chapter focuses on an exegesis of those texts. The texts will be explored in the canonical order as issues of dating will not be explored until Chapter Six. The exegesis will explore issues that relate to the council in these passages and summarize the cast of characters to be explored in the following chapter.1 It is important to remember the criteria for determining a council passage: in order to be considered a Council of Yahweh text, multiple deities must be present, it is to determine the fate of an individual or a group, and it must be led by Yahweh. 15

3.2. 1 Kings 22:1–28 In the previous chapter, I demonstrated that 1 Kings 22 met the criteria for being included in the Council of Yahweh corpus. Here Yahweh is mentioned by name and leads the council in Heaven. After a discussion among multiple deities, judgment is made on the King of Israel. Thus all elements of a council text are present. 3.2.1. Translation 1 2 3

4

For three years there remained no war between Aram and Israel. But in the third year Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, went to the King of Israel. The King of Israel said to his official, “You know that Ramoth Gilead is ours and yet we do nothing to retake her from the hand of the King of Aram.” So he asked Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to fight Ramoth Gilead?” Jehoshaphat said to the King of Israel, “I am as you are, my people are as your people, my horses are as your horses.”

1 This chapter does not intend to present a complete exegesis of every passage involved but rather to provide literary context for each piece and raise issues that will be relevant for the subsequent discussion regarding the members of the Council of Yahweh. This means that some interesting though peripheral issues will be left unexplored, but the reader is encouraged to turn to the commentaries listed in the notes and bibliography for more detailed examinations.

60 5 6

7

8

9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 26

27

28

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts But Jehoshaphat said to the King of Israel, “Please seek first the word of Yahweh.” So the King of Israel gathered the prophets, about 400 men.” And he said to them, “Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead or shall I refrain?” And they said “Go! For Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king.” But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not still a prophet of Yahweh that we can inquire of him?” The King of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is still one man to inquire of Yahweh through, but I hate him because he does not prophesy good things about me, but rather bad things; Micaiah ben Imlah.” Jehoshaphat said the king should not say that. So the King of Israel said to an official, “Bring Micaiah ben Imlah at once!” The King of Israel and Jehoshaphat, the King of Judah were each sitting on his throne dressed in robes at the entrance of the threshing room floor at the gate of Samaria and all the prophets were prophesying before them. Then Zedekiah ben Kenaanah made for himself horns of iron, and he said, “Thus says Yahweh, with these you will gore Aram until they are destroyed.” And all the prophets prophesied the same saying, “Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious for Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king.” The messenger who went to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look the words of the prophets are uniformly good for the king. Please let your word be as one with them and speak good things.” But Micaiah said, “As Yahweh lives, I can only tell what Yahweh says to me.” When he came to the king, the king asked Micaiah, “Shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead or shall we refrain?” And he said to him, “Attack and be victorious for Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king!” Then the King said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me only the truth in the name of Yahweh?” So he said, “I saw all of Israel being scattered on the hills like sheep with no one to shepherd them, and Yahweh said, ‘These have no master, let them go each to his home in peace.’” The King of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he does not prophesy good about me but only bad?!” And he said, “Therefore, hear the word of Yahweh, I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne and all the Host of Heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. Yahweh said, ‘Who will lure Ahab so he attacks and falls at Ramoth Gilead?’ And one said this and one said that. The spirit came forward and stood before Yahweh, and he said, ‘I will lure him.’ Yahweh said to him, ‘How?’ He said, ‘I will go out and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You will lure and you will also succeed. Go and do this!’ So now behold Yahweh put a lying spirit in the mouth of all your prophets and Yahweh has decreed for you disaster.” Zedekiah ben Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah across the cheek and he said, “How did the spirit of Yahweh go from me to speak to you?” Micaiah said, “You will find out on the day when you go into the inner room to hide.” The King of Israel said, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon, ruler of the city and to Joash son of the king. Say this, ‘The king put this one in prison and give him little bread and little water until I return in safety.’” Micaiah said, “If you return in safety, Yahweh did not speak through me.” Then he said, “Mark my words all you peoples.”

3.2. 1 Kings 22:1–28

61

3.2.2. Exegesis Mordechai Cogan makes two interesting observations regarding prophets in this passage. The first is that the standard battle inquiry phrase ʤʥʤʩʡʬʠʹ (e.g. Num 27:21; Judg 1:1; 1 Sam 23:2; 30:8) is neglected in favor of  ʹʸʣ ʤʥʤʩ ʸʡʣ, which is a more generic phrase (cf. 1 Kgs 14:5).2 He states, “The altered terminology may be associated with the change in the divinatory procedure employed: prophets replace priests as the consultants, and the divine word replaces the mantic oracles.”3 This is important in light of Cogan’s second observation: this is the earliest reference to prophets being consulted before a battle rather than priests (cf. Num 27:21; 1 Sam 30:7– 8).4 Because of the connection between prophets and the Council of Yahweh,5 it appears that the appearance of the council and this shift in accessing God’s will are related. J. T. Walsh points out that the question that the King of Israel asks the 400 prophets is fairly specific, but their response is ambiguous in three ways. He says, First, the prophets do not name the “lord” who will deliver the victory. Second, there is no direct object for the verb “deliver.” English requires a direct object here, and the NRSV’s “it” clearly points to Ramoth-gilead. The Hebrew, however, does not specify what will be delivered. Third, the prophets do not identify “the king” who will gain the victory either. Ahab certainly understands it to be himself, but the prophets do not in fact say so. 6

Walsh goes on to say that Jehoshaphat might have picked up on these ambiguities, which prompted his question regarding another prophet.7 Yet, Walsh points out that verses 10–14 do clarify these ambiguities.8 In any 2

M. Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 489. 3 Cogan, 1 Kings, 489–90. 4 Cogan, 1 Kings, 490. 5 This connection was originally noted by Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 209–25. The connection will be explored in detail in Chapter Six. 6 Walsh has a footnote after the first sentence that states this is based on early manuscripts that contain ʩʰʣʠ rather than ʤʥʤʩ: J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 345. 7 Walsh, 1 Kings, 345. 8 Walsh, 1 Kings, 347. Here Walsh sees ambiguity in another way. He states, “Is it coincidence that Zedekiah (whose name is explicitly Yahwistic: ‘Yahweh is Righteousness’) is the son of ‘Chenaanah’ (Hebrew, kƟnaҵănâ), whose name sounds suspiciously like ‘Canaanite’ (Hebrew, kƟnaҵănî)? The continuing problem during Ahab’s reign has been the tendency to blur the distinction between Israelite Yahwism and Canaanite Baalism (including the worship of Asherah), even to merge them into a polytheistic system. Are Ahab’s prophets equally at the service of Yahweh and of Baal or Asherah, depending on which deity the king wishes to consult at any given moment?” (Walsh, 1 Kings, 347, n. 5) Walsh’s point about the prophetic name is well taken, but his solution might be more complex than necessary. Perhaps this theophoric and national naming is indicative of the

62

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

case, the confrontation between Zedekiah ben Chenaanah and Micaiah ben Imlah shows Zedekiah views the prophecies in opposition to each other. The legitimacy of these prophets is important for the present study even though they do not appear in the council scene directly. One very unusual element in the passage is that Micaiah ben Imlah prophesies almost exactly what the 400 prophets prophesy (as the servant encouraged him to), but this time the King of Israel disputes the prophecy. The strangeness of this also appears in the grammar of this passage as Micaiah’s speech interrupts the “overarching waw-consecutive syntactical structure.”9 Walsh says: How does Ahab infer that Micaiah is not telling the truth? Is it because Micaiah so predictably prophesied disaster for Ahab in the past (v. 8) that a favorable prophecy is automatically suspect? Or should we read between the lines and hear sarcastic intonations in Micaiah’s words? The narrator does not tell us but leaves us with the paradoxical, almost titillating picture of a prophet who has just declared his absolute fidelity to Yahweh’s words apparently prophesying falsely, and a king who has shown himself more interested in approval than in truth demanding truth instead of endorsement. 10

This is a very strange portion of narrative and has generated much discussion. Micaiah has just sworn to speak the words of Yahweh and then speaks the same words the 400 prophets have spoken, which both the readers and the members of the royal court learn are the words of Yahweh through the message of ʧʥʸʤ. However, ʧʥʸʤ is also revealed to be lying so Micaiah is also lying in this first prophecy. Yet, it is the King of Israel who objects to this first prophecy. His objection makes no sense logically. After all the King of Israel is trying desperately to get King Jehoshaphat to go to war and here the prophet of Yahweh has agreed with his 400 prophets and given a prophecy that is precisely what the King of Israel desires. One solution proposed for this unusual narrative sequence is that the first prophecy was dripping in sarcasm. Shimon Bar-Erfrat deduces that “Micaiah means the opposite of what he says, and this is apparently obvious from his tone, because the king responds immediately by demanding that he speak only truth.”11 This might explain the awkwardness away, but it does not really satisfy the narrative as a whole because just two verses earlier he promises to only speak the words of Yahweh. Micaiah then reverses his earlier prophecy and confirms the King of Israel’s earlier assessment. Yet again after the second prophecy the King of Israel is dissatisfied with what Micaiah says and emphatically states his main complaint that the prophet origin of Israelite religion and that the original religion was indeed polytheistic. Thus, what he sees as blurring is rather a religious stage prior to separation. 9 I. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 255. 10 Walsh, 1 Kings, 349. 11 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 211.

3.2. 1 Kings 22:1–28

63

never speaks anything good when it comes to him. This seems crazy when he has just chastised the prophet for giving him a positive prophecy. Even more inexplicable, Micaiah’s monologue that follows and details his vision of the heavenly council is unsolicited and almost appears as an interruption in the narrative. This is also unusual because Micaiah reveals things to the King of Israel that presumably should be kept secret from him.12 The council scene is all about deceiving the King of Israel into going to battle in order that he may die, but Micaiah then reveals this to the king. What was the point of sending the lying spirits to deceive the king, if Micaiah is going to turn around and reveal the secret to him? Perhaps it is done to prove the ultimate untrustworthiness of the other prophets even if they seem to be no less prophets than Micaiah.13 Micaiah’s monologue identifies the Host of Heaven within Yahweh’s Council. Not much is revealed about these characters within this council narrative. Based on the Deuteronomistic passages that make a negative connection between the Host of Heaven and the gods of other nations, Cogan hypothesizes that these are the gods of the Canaanite nations.14 If this were true it would be important in the discussion of monotheism and the development of Israelite religion. The theory would mean that the gods were foreign and not to be worshipped, but by transforming them into members of Yahweh’s Council and removing their proper names these negative influences were reformed. This is not as straightforward as it might seem from this presentation because here, 1 Kings 22, the presentation of the Host of Heaven is positive and associated with Yahweh as opposed to the negative portrayals of the Host of Heaven that Cogan utilizes. J. Glen Taylor clarifies: At first glance, the claim that the worship of the Host of Heaven was a Yahwistic phenomenon seems to run counter to the implication of DH itself that this cultic practice belonged to peoples such as the Amorites whom the Israelites supplanted upon entry into the land of Canaan. This view, however, must be taken to represent only part of the picture because an equally clear picture emerges from DH that the worship of the Host of Heaven was a Yahwistic phenomenon.”15 12 Marvin Sweeney states, “Biblical literature presumes that false prophecy comes from a source other than YHWH (Deut 18:9–22; Jer 23:9–22; 27–28), but works such as Job suggest that YHWH has a treacherous side (cf. 1 Sam 16:14–23). Micaiah’s visionary assertion that YHWH has sent a lying spirit to Ahab challenges the prevailing view that YHWH’s words are true.” See M. A. Sweeney, I & II Kings (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007), 260. This is particularly interesting as there are councilrelated texts on both sides of this paradox. 13 One must wonder if ʧʥʸʤ in this narrative is the root of the writing prophets’ distaste for the spirit (cf. Mic 2:11; Jer 5:13; Hos 9:7), Cogan, 1 Kings, 497. 14 Cf., e.g., Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3; Jer 8:2; 19:13; 33:22: Cogan, 1 Kings, 492. 15 J. G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 111; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 105–106.

64

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

This adds to the complexity of understanding this character phrase in connection with Yahweh’s Council. Taylor further points out the negative connection between the Host of Heaven and Yahweh in Zeph 1:5, which could suggest that the negative Deuteronomistic views of the Host of Heaven are about something other than a connection to the other ancient Near Eastern religions.16 Clearly there is a multiplicity of traditions represented in the various texts. Baruch Halpern has done a comprehensive study of these texts and made some compelling observations.17 These observations are threefold: 1) The baals and other gods were originally thought to be authentic and ancestral Israelite deities;18 2) That the baals are part of/or potentially synonymous with the Host of Heaven;19 3) The references in Cogan’s list are from a different and later tradition than this positive view of the Host of Heaven, but both are associated with the “other gods.”20 Based on these convincing observations, the process appears to be the reverse of the proposal above. These deities were an original part of the Israelite cult that were viewed as members of Yahweh’s Council, but due to theological developments within certain traditions they eventually became the target of cultic reformation.21 16 Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, 106. Taylor’s solution is that worship of Yahweh as part of the Host of Heaven is not problematic, but that iconism of them on their own is not acceptable, see his extensive discussion in Yahweh and the Sun, 172–82. A similar modern analogy is presented by Halpern: “No Catholic or traditional Jew or Muslim would imagine that a prohibition on sacrifices to any but the chief god precluded the dedication of candles, or like rites, to Mary, angels, saints or ancestors. Attention lavished on the high god’s retainers, after all, was a mere corollary of the worship of the high god.” B. Halpern, From Gods to God (FAT II 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 79. 17 See chapter 2, “The Baal (and the Asherah) in Seventh-Century Judah: Yhwh’s Retainers Retired,” in Halpern, From Gods to God, 57–79. 18 Halpern, From Gods to God, 59, 90. The lack of capitalization on “baals” above is a reflection of Halpern’s use and his argument that it indicates a class and not a proper name. He says, “Jeremiah employs the term, baal, to denote a class of deities, the baals, which includes the Host of Heaven … subordinate to Yhwh … the ‘Host’ and ‘the baal’ are identical. ‘The baal’ is a collective noun,” 73. 19 Halpern, From Gods to God, 61, 74, 76, 78, 79. 20 Halpern, From Gods to God, 90–97. Halpern sums up his argument, “The Israelite elite, represented at the end of the Iron Age by Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, P and H(Dtr), did not arrive at a doctrine of monotheism by rejecting the gods of other peoples. Rather, it arrived at this pass by rejecting the gods that traditional culture, and earlier elite culture, had inherited from the fathers from the remotest bounds of the collective memory. The Deuteronomistic History as much as admits that such gods, and the cultic appurtenances characteristic of their cults, stemmed from the earliest moments of Israel’s life in Canaan. And the attribution of Deuteronomy to Moses represents an attempt to manufacture a tradition, of alienation from all gods other than Yhwh, that is older than memory itself – older than the memories of ‘other gods’ who were Israelite gods, who were, in the traditional understanding, a part of Yhwh’s heavenly court” (96). 21 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 63.

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

65

This narrative provides further insight into the character of Yahweh within his council. It also introduces a new character, referred to only as ʧʥʸʤ. This character is identified, observes the council, and is involved and thus should be considered for membership in the Council of Yahweh. ʧʥʸʤ is also interesting in light of the parallels between ʧʥʸʤ and Isaiah found in Isaiah 6, which will be explored further in Chapters Four and Six. Other characters also need to be considered for membership in the Council of Yahweh: the 400 prophets and Micaiah ben Imlah. The 400 prophets are mentioned and used by the council, but they neither observe it nor are involved within the council and thus are not members. However, since they are used by the council, they will be touched on in the following chapter. Micaiah ben Imlah, on the other hand, does observe it, but he is not involved within it. However, he does pass on the council’s message; therefore, despite not being an actual member, his relationship to the council will be explored further in the following chapter. 16

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7 In the previous chapter, I determined that Job 1–2 meets all the criteria of a Council of Yahweh passage, and therefore must be considered in any study of this subject. Job 1–2 contains two council scenes that, while similar, contribute different points to an overall understanding of the Council of Yahweh and the characters involved in it, especially ʯʨʹʤ. 3.3.1. Translation 1:6

7

8

9 10

11

12

2:1

On the day when the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh, the satan also came among them. Yahweh said to the satan, “Where have you come from?” And the satan answered Yahweh, “From going about the Earth and walking to and fro on it.” Then Yahweh said to the satan, “Have you set your heart toward my servant Job? There is no one like him on Earth; a man blameless and upright, fears God and turns from away evil.” The satan replied to Yahweh, “Has Job feared God for nothing? Have you not put a hedge around him and around his house and around all that is his? You have blessed the works of his hand and his cattle increases in the land. However, stretch out your hand and strike all that he has then he will curse22 you to your face.” Yahweh said to the satan, “Look all that he has is in your hand only do not stretch out your hand against him.” The satan went out from the face of Yahweh. On the day when the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh, the satan also came among them to stand before Yahweh. 22

The Hebrew of the Masoretic Text has the verb “to bless” (ʪʸʡ).

66 2

3

4 5

6 7

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts Yahweh said to the satan, “Where have you come from?” And the satan answered Yahweh, “From going about the Earth and walking to and fro on it.” Then Yahweh to the satan, “Have you set your heart toward my servant Job? There is no one like him on Earth; a man blameless and upright, fears God and turns away from evil. He is firm in his integrity and you incited me against him to swallow him up for nothing.” The satan answered Yahweh, “Skin for skin. A man will give all he has for his life. However stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bone, then he will curse23 you to your face.” Yahweh said to the satan, “Look he is in your hand, but preserve his life.” The satan went out from the face of Yahweh. He smote Job with terrible boils from hand to foot as far as the crown of his head.

3.3.2. Exegesis 3.3.2.1. The First Pericope (Job 1:6–12)

ʯʨʹʤ has had a long dramatic interpretive history and it appears in the first two chapters of Job more than in the rest of the Old Testament combined.24 Therefore, the interpretations of this passage are numerous and vary widely. On one hand, certain scholars, such as L. L. Morris, claim that although a fully developed doctrine about Satan is not present, the roots of such a doctrine are, and he argues that ʯʨʹʤ is evil and working against the best interest of humanity. 25 However, others, such as Sheldon, are convinced that ʯʨʹʤ is an ambiguous character and the interpreter cannot tell if it is good or evil.26 Other theories have been put forward, including that it is a literary device,27 the personification of an aspect of Yahweh,28 or a neutral The Hebrew of the Masoretic Text has the verb “to bless” (ʪʸʡ). For a detailed study of the scholarly studies on ʯʨʹʤ, see D. R. Brown, “The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan in Biblical Studies,” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2011): 200–27. While helpful, this article can only be used as introductory piece for the Hebrew Bible as several important themes and studies on the topic are omitted, notably all scholarship on Zechariah 3. 25 F. I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976), 83; L. L. Morris, “Satan,” NBD, 1064–65; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 72; R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies (Moreshet Series 2; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 19; D. L. McKenna, Job (CC 12; Waco: Word, 1986), 37. For the opposite view see F. Kreuzer, “Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen Bibel – eine bekannte Größe?,” Bib 86 (2005): 536–44. 26 L. J. Sheldon, “The Book of Job as Hebrew Theodicy: An Ancient Near Eastern Intertextual Conflict Between Law and Cosmology” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2002), 257; Clines, Job 1–20, 20–21; J. H. Walton, Job (The New NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 65–67. 27 B. C. Birch, W. Brueggemann, T. E. Fretheim, and D. L. Petersen, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 402–403; J. Russell, The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of God in History (Ithaca: 23 24

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

67

figure who is depicted as Yahweh’s faithful servant.29 Even though there is a plethora of interpretive issues when it comes to the character of ʯʨʹʤ in Job, the following analysis will show that the final option is the best. The prologue of Job is one of the longest sections in the biblical text where the Council of Yahweh is depicted. Twice the narrative says, “On that day,” (1:6; 2:1) which may indicate that there was a particular day of meeting. Parker agrees, saying, “It is clear from these passages that the divine beings in general customarily came together at certain times to report to Yahweh.”30 Kingsbury, Frankfort, McLaughlin, and Habel all claim that the assembly of the gods took place on a specific day each year.31 Habel claims this day coincides with the festival in Job. He states, “The day of the heavenly council meeting was probably simultaneous with the annual festival in Job’s household. Job’s pious sacrifices, like those of Noah, had apparently attracted the attention of heaven.”32 McLaughlin believes that it was probably the annual end-of-the-year harvest festival.33 Following the Targum it has become commonplace to think of the first scene in Heaven as taking place on New Year’s day when each person is judged and the second scene as the Day of Atonement, but this cannot be proven based on the biblical text alone.34 Though not all scholars concur as Seow has argued that this is intended to refer only to the unspecified day of the meeting described in the narrative that follows (cf. 1 Sam 1:4; 14:1; 2 Kgs 4:8, 11, 18), and that the events of that one day are intended to contrast with the multitude of days of the preceding verse.35 Either way it does appear that this is a formal and scheduled meeting of the council.

Cornell University Press, 1988), 5; C. L. Seow, Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary (Illuminations; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 256. 28 Clines, Job, 22; J. Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 176; R. R. Schärf, “Die Gestalt des Satans im Alten Testament,” in Symbolik des Geistes: Studien über psychische Phänomenologie (C. G. Jung, ed.; Psychologische Abhandlungen 6; Zurich: Rascher, 1948), 151–319. In an interesting twist Carol Newsom sees ʯʨʹʤ here as the embodiment of a hermeneutic of suspicion: C. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 55–56. 29 L. Jung, Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature (New York: Ktav, 1974), 25. 30 Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 798. 31 H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 331– 33; Habel, The Book of Job, 17; Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,” 284–85; McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened,” 4. 32 Habel, The Book of Job, 17. 33 McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened,” 4. 34 Hartley, The Book of Job, 71. 35 Seow, Job, 271.

68

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

This would suggest that this was a regularly scheduled meeting designed for the council members to give their year-end reports. The repetition between the two pericopes also suggests that this is part of the council’s routine. The presentation seems to suggest a scene in which various ʩʰʡ ʭʩʤʬʠʤ would be expected to report. ʯʨʹʤ is singled out in the prose because his report is the only one that bears on the poem to come not because he was the only being making a report. It is also unlikely that only Job would have been discussed at the yearly council meeting, but again the narrative focuses on Job because he is the subject of the poem to follow. That ʯʨʹʤ might not have been a member of the council or even an invited guest, but was rather an intruder has been suggested because the narrative introduces it with the use of the particle ʭʢ separately from the rest of the assembled members.36 If it is an intruder, it would still have to deal with its reason for barging into the council. Some scholars go for a compromise and suggest that ʯʨʹʤ was welcome in the council, but may not have been a regular member.37 Yet, Seow’s observation that this is likely the emphatic use of the participle to draw the reader’s attention to the character of ʯʨʹʤ since that is where the focus of the following dialogue is going is likely correct.38 If it is not an intruder, one should assume that other beings would have attracted its attention in its year of roving. Parker claims that ʯʨʹʤ demonstrates the abilities of the council members as far as how and when they are allowed to speak.39 Even though ʯʨʹʤ is allowed to speak freely to Yahweh and make proposals, Yahweh initiates the conversation and has to approve the proposal made. ʯʨʹʤ also serves to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh and his authority (Job 1:12; 2:6; Zech 3:2). This interpretation is in direct contrast with those who view ʯʨʹʤ as an intruder in the heavenly council. These scholars do not deny that there was a heavenly court, but they do deny ʯʨʹʤ’s membership in that council. John E. Hartley says,

36 J. L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 101; McKenna, Job, 37; S. L. Terrien, Job (CAT 13; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1963), 23. Andersen argues that the preposition often refers to “an intruder,” but he does not provide a list of other places where this is the case: Andersen, Job, 82. While he does not raise the issue in the first scene Gordis does make a claim that ʯʨʹʤ is not welcome or invited in the second scene: Gordis, The Book of Job, 19. 37 M. E. Tate, “Satan in the Old Testament,” RE 89 (1992): 462. Habel claims that the text is ambiguous regarding whether it is a member or an intruder. 38 Seow, Job, 272. 39 Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” 798.

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

69

Was the Satan one of the sons of God? The majority of scholars assume that he was. Driver-Gray understand the preposition among to indicate that he had a prominent place in the assembly. But some recent scholars understand the text to portray the Satan as an intruder. They come to this position either by taking the term also to mean “other than” or by understanding the preposition among to indicate someone who is an outsider.40

This would cause other problems. For example, if ʯʨʹʤ is not a member of Yahweh’s court, how did it get there? In other words, how does someone with no authority to enter Yahweh’s court “intrude” on it? It seems to limit God’s ability to keep out the undesirable. If God cannot keep ʯʨʹʤ out of his throne room, how can he exercise authority over ʯʨʹʤ on Earth? Yet, from the passages where ʯʨʹʤ appears, it would seem certain that Yahweh can and does control ʯʨʹʤ.41 The similar reference in the second heavenly council pericope also sheds some light on this debate. The fact that the text says, to take its position among them (lit. “to stand”) (2:1), suggests that ʯʨʹʤ is a member who has a regular position in the council.42 As we saw in the previous chapter, the verbs “to stand” play important roles in setting the stage in divine council scenes and almost always appear at the beginning of the scene. This is a standard judicial formula, which can be used of both the plaintiff (Num 27:2; 1 Kgs 3:16) and the defendant (Num 35:12; Deut 19:17; Josh 20:6).43 It can also be used more generally to apply to someone who is supplicating before a superior (Deut 1:38; 1 Kgs 1:2; 10:8).44 Mark S. Smith has demonstrated that there are clear connections between the use of these verbs and judgment, another important theme in the council type-scene (despite the term not appearing in any of the council type-scenes apart from Psalm 82).45 These verbs are also connected to the royal court, the earthly reflection of the divine council.46 Therefore, it is best to understand ʯʨʹʤ as a member of the divine council in this passage. Birch, Bruggemann, Fretheim, and Petersen view ʯʨʹʤ as a literary device.47 They say,

40

Hartley, The Book of Job, 72. See Zech 3:2 and the restrictions within the text of Job (as demonstrated below). 42 Sheldon, “Job as Hebrew Theodicy,” 257. 43 C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies: Considered in Relation to Modern Criticism, with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary and New Translation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1879), 46. 44 C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies, 46. 45 M. S. Smith, God in Translation, 133, n. 4. 46 Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God,” 537–38. 47 Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, and Petersen, A Theological Introduction, 402–403. 41

70

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

The figure of satan is scarcely known elsewhere in the Old Testament (only in 1 Chr 21:1 and Zech 3:1–2), and is not to be taken here with anything more than dramatic force. That is, the character satan is a dramatic device to pose in a most poignant tone the way in which lived experience disputes against settled religious conviction.48

Parallels between Job and ʯʨʹʤ in the book suggest that ʯʨʹʤ’s role could be literary as opposed to theological. ʯʨʹʤ “stretches out its hand,” (1:12; 2:5) to destroy the work of Job’s “hands” (1:10), which relates to the “hand” of God (1:11; 2:10). ʯʨʹʤ says that Job will curse God to “His face” (1:11; 2:5), while Job is concerned with his sons cursing God in their “hearts,” (1:5) and later desires to plead his case to Yahweh’s “face” (13:15).49 F. Kreuzer also views ʯʨʹʤ as literary because of the differences he sees between the scene in Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3. Based on these differences he claims there is no traditional figure that the audience is expected to know but a literary figure created by each author to serve the purpose of opposition to the antagonist.50 C. L. Seow views this character as a literary hypostasis that allows two sides of God to dialogue with each other: trust and doubt.51 Thus the character serves the purpose of being “an externalizing of the inner conflict between divine trust and divine doubt.”52 This doubt is particularly interesting when viewed in parallel to Job’s own expressed doubts about his children (1:5).53 While there are certainly literary features involved in a type-scene, to claim that ʯʨʹʤ is only a literary device seems too reductionist, especially when suggesting that Job 1–2 and

48 Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, and Petersen, A Theological Introduction, 402–403. I would contest their claim that ʯʨʹʤ appears in 1 Chronicles 21, but that it is the generic noun for “adversary” being used in that context and that the noun is indefinite because it is an unspecified human. For support of my position see B. A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 155; P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: ĞƗ‫ܒ‬Ɨn in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 127–32; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989), 147; H. Kaupel, Die Dämonen im Alten Testament (Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1930), 105– 108; G. N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 12A; Garden City: Doubleday, 2004), 744; F. X. Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus: Forschungen zur Geschichte Israels nach biblischen und profanegeschichtlichen, insbesondere neuen keilinschriftlichen Quellen (Münster in Westfalen: Aschendorff, 1922), 241–43; S. L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 171; Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 44–45; J. W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 60 (1993): 175. 49 Habel, The Book of Job, 91. 50 Kreuzer, “Der Antagonist,” 543. He even claims there is no way to tell if this supernatural being is thought to be the same being in Job 1–2 as in Zechariah 3 (ibid.). 51 Seow, Job, 256. 52 Seow, Job, 256. 53 Seow, Job, 273. Cf. C. Newsom, “Job,” NIB, 4:348.

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

71

Zechariah 3 might be different beings altogether; this will be explored further in the next chapter. One piece of the narrative cannot be looked at in isolation from the other pieces. It is Yahweh who initiates the conversation (1:7). It is Yahweh who brings the subject of Job into the conversation, and then it is Yahweh who ultimately decides what action will be taken against Job and what limitations that action will have (1:8, 12). Yahweh is in control of the situation from start to finish. Yahweh guides ʯʨʹʤ throughout the conversation. Yahweh’s control throughout the pericope suggests that Yahweh is using ʯʨʹʤ to express the character’s underlying questions about human piety. Janzen says, We take the question to have the purpose not only of directing the Satan’s attention specifically to Job, but of sowing a seed in that investigative consciousness. This seed bears fruit as the Satan adopts the question form and brings Yahweh’s implicit query concerning Job to explicit articulation.54

This understanding could support the literary understanding of ʯʨʹʤ. In other words, the character is a tool of the text to move the story along and separate undesirable aspects of Yahweh from Yahweh himself. Or, it could be similar to the difficulty in distinguishing between the messenger of Yahweh and Yahweh. In both cases there is a clear separation, and yet at other times the distinction is not so clear.55 In regards to ʯʨʹʤ, this can be seen in the parallel passages of 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chr 21:1, where in the first text the action to incite David was done by Yahweh and in the second attributed to a ʯʨʹ.56 This can also be seen in the Job text itself as ʯʨʹʤ’s actions are perceived by humans to come from Yahweh (1:21; 2:10; 30:20– 30; 31:35; 33:29; 40:2).57 Perhaps ambiguity of identity is a characteristic of the divine beings that make up the Council of Yahweh. James A. Wharton has suggested that because ʯʨʹʤ is the one who acts against Job, ʯʨʹʤ is responsible for the action, not Yahweh: The only clue to God’s possible reluctance about the proposed test comes in God’s response to hassatan in verse 12 … God here rejects hassatan’s proposal that God’s power should be used directly against Job. This test was proposed by hassatan, not God. It is to be by the hand of hassatan, not by God’s hand, that Job’s suffering is to be inflicted. God’s final word sets a protective limit beyond which hassatan’s assault on Job may not go.58

54

J. G. Janzen, Job (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 39. Examples include Gen 16:7–13; 21:15–21; 22:11–12; 31:11–13; Exod 3:2–6; Judg 6:11–24; and Zech 3:1–5. 56 There is no definite article in this passage. 57 H. L. Ellison, A Study of Job: From Tragedy to Triumph (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 25. 58 J. A. Wharton, Job (Westminster Biblical Commentary; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1999), 18. 55

72

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

This is an interesting spin on the conversation, yet it is problematic and hard to sustain. That God can put limits on ʯʨʹʤ suggests that ʯʨʹʤ’s power is, at the very least, subordinate to God’s. It also appears that ʯʨʹʤ is working for Yahweh, and therefore, ʯʨʹʤ’s power comes from Yahweh. To borrow an analogy from the monarchy, when the monarch consents to a particular course of action, and even though it is the bureaucrats who actually perform the action, it is still the monarch’s power being exercised. The bureaucrats do not have power; they have permission. The name Yahweh occurs seven times in the two scenes with ʯʨʹʤ, but only three times in the rest of the prologue of Job.59 This is the author’s way of emphasizing Yahweh’s sovereignty and superiority.60 Hartley summarizes the issue, Many scholars speak of this transaction between Yahweh and the Satan as a wager. But this is inaccurate, for no sum was set to be handed over to the winner. The single issue at stake was the motivation for Job’s upright behavior and his fear of God. The Satan functions as God’s servant, solely an instrument in the testing. The author holds to a pure monotheism wherein God is ultimately responsible for all that happens.61

Ultimately, for ʯʨʹʤ to be operating outside God’s will would be to present a being powerful enough to usurp Yahweh’s authority. Clearly, ʯʨʹʤ in this passage answers to God and must request permission to act. Therefore, it is not appropriate to interpret ʯʨʹʤ as Yahweh’s opponent; if anything ʯʨʹʤ appears to serve God. This leaves the interpreter with some exegetical issues, for if ʯʨʹʤ is completely subservient to God, can ʯʨʹʤ have any independence here? ʯʨʹʤ is not a virtual puppet. The character is able to respond to Yahweh’s inquiries and decide the form of Job’s trials. While ʯʨʹʤ is unable to initiate, it does seem to be capable of independent thought. How scholars view ʯʨʹʤ’s independent thinking has varied. For example Hartley claims, “Instead of uncovering disruptive plans, he acts as a troublemaker, a disturber of the kingdom.”62 What Hartley is saying is that ʯʨʹʤ is supposed to use its freedom to discover acts of disloyalty and report those to the council, but instead it uses its freedom to try and cause acts of disloyalty from Job. David L. McKenna also notes that ʯʨʹʤ appears to be overly enthusiastic about fulfilling its mandate, to the point where it seems to use torture in order to uncover flaws in human character.63 Jean Lévêque says, 59 Cf. Job 1:6, 7 (2x), 8, 9, 12 (2x); 2:1 (2x), 2 (2x), 3, 4, 6, 7 versus Job 1:21 (3x). Hartley says, “No doubt the name Yahweh appears in these scenes because the author wants to stress Yahweh’s sovereignty, specifically his complete superiority to the Satan”: Hartley, The Book of Job, 70. 60 Hartley, The Book of Job, 70. 61 Hartley, The Book of Job, 74. 62 Hartley, The Book of Job, 72. 63 McKenna, Job, 43.

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

73

Satan fait preuve vis-à-vis de l’homme d’une animosité inexplicable, qui reste en tout cas inexpliquée dans le livre de Job. Il paraît condamné – depuis quand, on ne sait – à flairer partout le mal et à douter toujours du bien. Avec une sorte de rage irrationnelle, il s’acharne sur Job comme pour se venger d’une trop longue impuissance.64

According to this theory, the way in which ʯʨʹʤ speaks to Yahweh and the words that it uses suggest a barely controlled rage, which is not satisfied with one set of tests, but demands a second set. However, as suggested above, these interpretations overread the portrayal of ʯʨʹʤ. Proponents of this view claim that this is a literary technique similar to a tiqqune sopherim (the change of the Masoretic Text from curse to bless) in 2:5, which the Masoretic scribes used to replace ʯʨʹʤ’s prediction of Yahweh being cursed by Job suggesting that the concept was so theologically difficult that there needed to be a scribal change.65 That ʯʨʹʤ would use such difficult language suggests something about ʯʨʹʤ’s nature in this passage. That ʯʨʹʤ is subservient to Yahweh in this passage is clear, but is there room to see a developing independence in ʯʨʹʤ, which would also be consistent with the later developments, in the intertestamental literature and the New Testament, regarding Satan? Shimon Bar-Erfrat represents this view when he states, “This is an ironic turn of phrase worthy of Satan’s cynical approach … The repetition of the same verb with the opposite meaning underlines the contrast between Satan and Job in the clearest possible way.”66 The implied contrast is that Job represents the ultimate in good behavior and ʯʨʹʤ would thus represent the opposite. Yet, returning 64 J. Lévêque, Job et son Dieu: Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique (2 vols.; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1970), 1:187. 65 P. H. Kelley, D. S. Mynatt, and T. G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 37; Gordis, The Book of Job, 19; C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 177–78. See also, Lev 24:15 and 20:2; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13. McCarthy calls the use of “to bless” in place of “to curse” a euphemistic strategy. The occurrence in Job is sometimes called a kinnuy a term used to indicate some form of substitution and is more general than the term tiqqun (169). Job 1:5 and 2:9 are not on the traditional lists. The Septuagint and Vulgate contain the same euphemism. The Septuagint does have a different reading in Job 1:5 and 2:9, but these both represent euphemistic readings in their own right and could not be viewed as a simple translation of the verb “to curse.” The Targum uses “to provoke” instead of “to bless” and the Syriac uses the verb “to curse.” This substitution is the standard understanding of this unusual use of this verb, but it is not the only option suggested. Alan Cooper has argued that two different understandings of this verb in the prologue (1:10, 21; 2:3 as bless and 1:11; 2:5, 9 as curse) is merely an “evasion of the problem,” and that the author is actually making a point about what “to bless” means. He suggests that one will not bless if her/his life is at stake, but really does not reveal what this alternate understanding of “bless” would be: A. Cooper, “Reading and Misreading the Prologue to Job,” JSOT 46 (1990): 77, n. 17. 66 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 214.

74

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

to the question posed, the answer would be “No” if based on this evidence alone, because the tiqqune sopherim is not only found on ʯʨʹʤ’s lips, but also on the lips of the pious Job (1:5) and his wife (2:9). McCarthy’s view adds an interesting literary explanation for this use: There is a certain irony in Job 1:11; 2:5 and 9 in the use of “bless.” Job is the paragon of virtue (1:1, 8, 22; 2:3), the man who, par excellence, blesses God (1:21). The taunts of Satan to the LORD, expressed in euphemistic and ironic terms would lose their present impact and colour, if reduced to a more prosaic, albeit blasphemous, literal rendering of the euphemism.67

Thus the use of the verb for two different understandings is both protective of blasphemy and literarily appealing. A. Leo Oppenheim famously compared ʯʨʹʤ to Persian spies.68 According to Herodotus, during the Persian period royal spies were sent into foreign lands to produce intelligence.69 In theory, this intelligence could be both negative and positive; however, it was usually the negative that was reported.70 Martens, Pope, and Tur-Sinai see the role of ʯʨʹʤ in this passage as God’s royal spy. 71 Habel says, “The Satan’s reply suggests that Yahweh was asking for the Satan to report on a particular role he was playing on Yahweh’s behalf. The verb šZ‫ܒ‬, ‘roving,’ immediately suggests a word play on ĞƗ‫ܒ‬Ɨn, the title which the Satan bears.”72 It would appear that ʯʨʹʤ is fulfilling a very similar role to the Persian spies. The parallels to the Persian spy are not the only ones associated with ʯʨʹʤ and its vocational function. There are many parallels between the prologue of Job and the text of Proto-Zechariah. According to Habel, Clearly the “roving” (šZ‫ )ܒ‬eyes of Yahweh (Zech. 4:10), and his “patrolling” (hithpael of hlk) angels (Zech. 1:10–11), perform the same function as the Satan, namely, to range the earth, report back signs of disorder, and raise doubts about the integrity of leading citizens (as in Zech. 3:1–2). The Satan, it seems, is more than an aimless angel rambling the earth; he has a specific role as Yahweh’s suspicious one, his spy.73

Whether or not one agrees with this assessment, it is evident that ʯʨʹʤ here is depicted as a servant of Yahweh. It has long been noted that there is a paronomasia between ʯʨʹʤ and the verb ʨʥʹʮ (1:7). This could be a simple literary technique that is well 67

McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 193. A. L. Oppenheim, “The Eyes of the Lord,” JAOS 88 (1968): 173–80. 69 Herodotus, Histories 1.114. 70 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 184. 71 E. A. Martens, “ʯʨʹ,” NIDOTE 4:63; M. Pope, Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 15; New York: Doubleday, 1973), 10; Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 41. 72 Habel, The Book of Job, 89. 73 Habel, The Book of Job, 89. 68

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

75

attested in Hebrew literature. However, Pope believes that the title ʯʨʹʤ was originally derived from this verb.74 Tur-Sinai makes a similar claim that ʯʨʹʤ was originally written with a shin instead of a sin, which would give the term the meaning of the “one who goes to and fro.”75 If either of these suggestions were true, then it would give credibility to the idea that ʯʨʹʤ here fulfills a particular function of the Council of Yahweh and is not a proper name, but a description of the role that the character plays. Perhaps the most convincing evidence for understanding ʯʨʹʤ as a servant of Yahweh, who is under Yahweh’s control and without evil intent, is not only that permission must come from Yahweh in order to test Job’s piety, but that it is Yahweh himself who designs the parameters for that testing. Had ʯʨʹʤ stepped outside the parameters set by Yahweh, then it might advance an argument that ʯʨʹʤ in this passage was a rebellious character, but ʯʨʹʤ does not. Furthermore, even though ʯʨʹʤ requests less restriction in the next episode, as noted above, this was not a conversation it initiated. Once again, it was Yahweh who wanted to know more details about the Job case (2:1–3). Jung claims that this passage is “clearly against any Satan vs. God theory.”76 ʯʨʹʤ is not pushing God into something, nor is it manipulating Yahweh or acting contrary to Yahweh’s will. Leo Jung says, Stress must be laid on the word “permitted”. Job suffers because God (Job 1:12; 2:6) expressly consents to the trials he has to undergo. Satan never appears as acting on his own account; he acts in his capacity as God-appointed accuser and tempter. When he accuses without reason he is rebuked (Zech 3:1) and silenced.77

Therefore, the claims by Habel and Langton that ʯʨʹʤ is developing an independence from Yahweh lacks merit.78 It is also important to note that ʯʨʹʤ does not attempt to convince Yahweh. At no point does ʯʨʹʤ debate the merits of what it has suggested or push its claim in order to get Yahweh to consent to testing Job. ʯʨʹʤ suggests only that Job’s piety may not be deeper than an outward reflection, and Yahweh consents to have Job tested. The language ʯʨʹʤ uses is similar to that used in Hos 2:6[8] in regard to the Lord hedging in Hosea’s wife (metaphoric Israel) so that she cannot stray. In this use it implies that Yahweh has prevented Job from committing sin.79 The approval of the test demonstrates that Yahweh did not see anything wrong with ʯʨʹʤ’s doubt or its 74

Pope, Job, 10. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 41. 76 Jung, Fallen Angels, 26. 77 Jung, Fallen Angels, 25. 78 Habel, The Book of Job, 19; E. Langton, Satan: A Portrait (London: Skeffington, 1945), 10. 79 Seow, Job, 256. 75

76

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

questioning regarding Job. In fact, it appears to legitimize ʯʨʹʤ’s claim that this may truly be a possibility, which requires further investigation. 3.3.2.2. The Second Pericope (Job 2:1–7) The second scene is so verbally similar to the first that one might be tempted to overlook the fresh details included in it. However, the extensive verbatim repetition only serves to highlight the differences between the two scenes.80 While one might be tempted to interpret Yahweh’s claim that ʯʨʹʤ incited him to test Job for no reason as a condemnation of ʯʨʹʤ and evidence of its malicious nature, this is not the best understanding. Habel says, the catalyst which initiates the plot in the opening episodes is Yahweh’s boast about Job’s character. His provocative words lead to a conflict with the Satan. By a clever ironic twist, however, the narrator has Yahweh accusing the Satan of being the catalyst and inciting him to afflict Job for no reason.81

Habel goes on to add that regarding ʯʨʹʤ: “There is no necessary evil intent or malice in his comments or actions. Rather, he expresses the skepticism of any realist who understands human nature.”82 This demonstrates that Yahweh, not ʯʨʹʤ, has tested Job.83 The verb form used is the Hiphil 2ms of ʺʥʱ with a 1cs suffix. This verb appears 18 times in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 13:7;84 Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14;85 1 Sam 26:19;86 2 Sam 24:1;87 1 Kgs 21:25;88 2 Kgs 18:32;89 Isa 80

Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 109. Habel, The Book of Job, 80. See also T. J. Wray and G. Mobley, The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 62. 82 Habel, The Book of Job, 89. 83 This may lead to questions about the justice and power of God, but such questions are beyond the scope of this study. 84 The context of this use is a warning not to give in to the incitement of anyone, no matter how intimately they are related. While the passage clearly contains nothing positive regarding the one who incites, it also puts the responsibility on the one being incited not to give in to such actions. 85 Joshua 15:18 and Judg 1:14 are verbally identical. In these verses the inciting is to ask for something in the sense of urging or encouraging someone to do something. 86 In this passage it is unclear who is doing the inciting and David has a different response depending on whether it comes from God or from a human. The message is that it is acceptable for Yahweh to incite, but not for human beings. 87 This verse mirrors 1 Chr 21:1, except that here Yahweh does the inciting and in Chronicles it is done by a non-specified adversary. Either way the inciting is done to accomplish the will of Yahweh giving him a means of expressing his anger. 88 In this passage Ahab is under review and his evil deeds are said to be incited by his wife Jezebel. 89 This verse comes in a series of warnings by Rabshakeh against Hezekiah’s claim that Yahweh will deliver Jerusalem and is usually translated as “misled.” Isaiah 36:18 and 2 Chr 32:11, 15 are also about Hezekiah and the invasion of Sennacherib. 81

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

77

36:18; Jer 38:22;90 43:3;91 Job 2:3; 36:16, 18;92 1 Chr 21:1; 2 Chr 18:2, 31;93 32:11, 15). Some patterns can be seen in these verses. The majority of times when the verb is used with a human inciter it is viewed as negative with negative consequences, but when God is the inciter it has a positive effect. Also, the one who is being incited is held responsible for her/ his action. In other words, one cannot say, “but so-and-so incited me so I am not responsible.” Job 2:3 is the only case where a divine being other than Yahweh is accused of inciting. When God accuses ʯʨʹʤ of inciting him to strike out at Job without cause (2:3), Rowley sees this as a reprimand of ʯʨʹʤ’s function. He says, “Satan’s function is to accuse, not to accuse falsely.”94 The idea here is that ʯʨʹʤ’s accusation does not bear fruit and therefore, it is false. Therefore, God’s statement is not about being incited or about Job’s innocence, but about ʯʨʹʤ’s job performance. If one takes into consideration the passage regarding ʯʨʹʤ in Zechariah 3 where Yahweh also rebukes ʯʨʹʤ for a false accusation then this may be the best possible interpretation for this statement. Traditional interpretation paints a picture of ʯʨʹʤ as a slimy character who hisses through his teeth, “skin for skin.”95 However, nothing in the text indicates that this phrase was uttered through clenched teeth. This phrase sounds idiomatic or proverbial, which seems to have something to do with bartering or trading.96 Gordis points out the proverbial character as the verse is in 3||3 meter.97 ʯʨʹʤ is not hissing for blood between clenched teeth, he is merely repeating a common proverb. Following this logic, this phrase would be a cliché used in the marketplace to argue for an equitable

90 This verse demonstrates that negative things happen to those who give in to the incitement of those closest to them. 91 The inciting here is against the will of Yahweh and naturally is viewed as negative. 92 In the first verse God uses incitement to achieve positive results, and in the second the human is warned against giving in to incitements, again placing the responsibility on the incited to reject it. 93 The King of Israel is incited to go to war in Ramoth Gilead and Jehoshaphat is helped by God misleading the captains of the chariots. Here again it seems that when humans incite it has bad consequences, but that divine incitements are neutral or positive. It is interesting that this is the parallel passage to 1 Kings 22, a divine council scene, but that this verb only appears in Chronicles, which is one of the very few verbal differences between the two passages. In fact, this verb appears more in Chronicles than any other biblical book. 94 H. H. Rowley, The Book of Job (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 34. 95 This view is rooted in traditional interpretation of ʯʨʹʤ being an evil character; A. Kelly, Satan: A Biography (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 265–76. 96 W. L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, vol. 1: Prologue and First Cycle of Speeches, Job 1:1–14:22 (BibOr 42; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987), 30. 97 Gordis, The Book of Job, 20.

78

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

exchange.98 Now some have claimed that this is a poor understanding of this phrase because one would not normally trade for a different version of the same thing.99 Thus additional suggestions have been put forward. Other alternatives suggested are one body part for another,100 and one layer of skin for another.101 Yet, these are not the best possible explanations as Clines points out: Proverbial expressions are often tautologies, and the phrase may well have had to do originally with what was fair: proverbially speaking, the only indisputably fair exchange for one pelt is another pelt. That does not mean that the saying must always have precisely that sense.102

Thus this proverbial phrase is designed to encourage exchanges where the goods exchanged are of equal worth. Seow, viewing the statement as a response to Job’s actions after the first test, argues that Job’s trade has not been equitable so far as he sees the first “skin” as Job’s property and the second “skin” as his physical person.103 However, it seems that ʯʨʹʤ’s use of it in this context is a response to Yahweh’s claim that he was incited for no reason and serves to demonstrate that Yahweh has so far been guilty of “short changing” the test. In this version the first “skin” would be God’s protection/blessing and the second “skin” would be Job’s life, as this would represent an equitable trade for things of equal value.104 This would be similar to the legal concept of eye for an eye (Exod 21:24–25).105 ʯʨʹʤ is warning Yahweh with what may have been a typical wisdom statement or proverb of the time. What ʯʨʹʤ is saying is that without allowing Job’s 98 Seow, Job, 291; Clines, Job, 43. Clines points to similar phrases: “house for house” in Ugaritic; “one head for another” in Arabic, and even “a sausage for a sausage” in (earlier) German. 99 Andersen, Job, 90, see also Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 23. 100 This understanding is found in the Targum and Rashi and was followed by S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job: Together with a New Translation (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 21. Taken metaphorically E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. H. Knight; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 16–17. Clines points out that the word skin is never used to represent a particular body part and really does not make sense in the current context: Clines, Job, 44. 101 Andersen, Job, 90; Rowley, Job, 37; Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 24. Gordis demonstrates that this idea of double skin is not present in Hebrew and that in the Arabic two different words are used for each type of skin: Gordis, The Book of Job, 20. 102 Clines, Job, 43. 103 Seow, Job, 291. 104 Similar to my interpretation in that is makes Yahweh’s actions the focus of the proverb, Clines views the proverb as future focused and sees the first “skin” as Job’s, which if Yahweh touches, Job will strike out at Yahweh’s “skin” in the form of a curse to his face: Clines, Job, 45. 105 Hartley, The Book of Job, 80.

3.3. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7

79

body to be touched the Lord is still protecting Job, and therefore Job is unlikely to waver from his piousness. According to Habel, ʯʨʹʤ is the ultimate cynic and the reason God mentions Job to him is that if the supreme skeptic can be convinced of Job’s piety, then Job must be the pinnacle of human faith.106 However, what God ends up with, according to Norman Whybray, is a trial where his entire system of governance is at stake: The Satan expresses the belief that even a pious person whose faith is not shaken by a sudden reversal of material fortune will nevertheless turn against God if threatened with death, since to die is to lose everything that makes life worth living. In making this assertion the Satan expresses a total cynicism about human nature: he implies that true piety among human beings does not exist. This is, in effect, a challenge to the whole enterprise of God’s creation.107

In order for Whybray’s statement to be true, Job would actually have to be a pious man, as God believes (“blameless, upright, fears God and turns away from evil” 1:8; 2:3), but ʯʨʹʤ doubts the truth of God’s statement (1:9–11; 2:4–5). While it is true that in the end Job does prove himself to be pious, the question at this point in the narrative is not whether a pious man may lose his faith if faced with death, but is Job really a pious man, or has he just learned to look like one? ʯʨʹʤ is evidently claiming that feigned piety would crumble in the face of death. Whybray himself recognizes this when, regarding the first test, he states, ʯʨʹʤ “suggests that Job’s piety is spurious; that Job only appears to be religious so that God may continue to confer prosperity.”108 Granted that by the time of the second test Job is no longer prosperous, this does not mean that this notion is no longer valid. Job could, for example, believe that he had somehow slipped in his piousness and been punished, which causes him to appear more pious than before, or he could believe that if he remains pious the Lord will bring back his material possessions to him. These solutions are merely ways in which to fill the gap and there is no textual evidence for them. However, as long as these appear to be theoretical possibilities, and it seems that ʯʨʹʤ’s purpose is to rule them out by testing Job. Therefore, Job 1–2 contributes to the understanding of Yahweh as the chair of the council and also introduces the reader to ʯʨʹʤ. Both of these characters will be explored in depth in the next chapter. ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ are also present in this scene, but seem to have no individual identity and have already been addressed in Chapter Two.

106

Habel, The Book of Job, 90. N. Whybray, Job (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 33. 108 Whybray, Job, 31. 107

80

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

3.4. Isaiah 6 17

Of all the texts considered Council of Yahweh type-scenes in this study, Isaiah 6 is the most problematic when it comes to meeting the criteria of council texts. In the last chapter, several arguments were made in favor of including this passage. The exegesis of this scene will provide further evidence that this is a Council of Yahweh text and will give insight into the workings of the council and its cast of characters. 3.4.1. Translation 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne being high and exalted and his hems 109 filled the temple. Seraphim were standing110 above him, each had six wings, with two to cover its face, and with two to cover its feet, and with two it flew about. One called to another and said, “Holy Holy Holy Yahweh of Hosts all the Earth is full of his glory.” The thresholds of the doorposts shook at the sound of the calling and the temple was filled with smoke. And I said, “Woe to me for I am ruined, for I am a man of unclean lips and I live among people of unclean lips and my eyes have seen the king, Yahweh of Hosts.” One of the seraphim flew to me and in its hand a live coal with tongs it took from upon the altar. It touched it to my mouth and it said, “Behold, this touched your lips and it has taken your guilt and your sin is atoned.” Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” And I said, “Here I am, send me!”

109 This is based on Exod 28:33–34; 39:24–26 and the iconographic evidence in O. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4: Mit einem Beitrag von A. Gutbub über die vier Winde in Ägypten (SBS 84/85; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 62–67. A variety of translational options have been suggested, such as “trains,” J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 224–25; F. Delitzsch, Commentar über das Buch Jesaia (4th ed.; Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament III/1; Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1889), 123; A. Dillmann and R. Kittel, Der Prophet Jesaja (6 th ed.; Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 5; Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1898), 55; W. Eichrodt, Der Heilige in Israel: Jesaja 1–12 (BAT 17; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960), 13, n. 1; G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 103; H.-P. Müller, “Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 6,” ZAH 5 (1992): 168; “genitals,” L. Eslinger, “The Infinite in a Finite Organical Perception (Isaiah VI 1–5),” VT 45 (1995): 145–73; “minor assistants,” V. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA LX (1989): 39–89. 110 This leads to a wooden translation, but due to the importance of the verbs “to stand” in divine council scenes I have chosen to make their presence obvious.

3.4. Isaiah 6 9

10

11

12 13

81

He said, “Go and say this to the people, ‘Surely you hear, but you never understand. Surely you see, but you never know. Make calloused the heart of this people and its ears make dull and its eyes close. Otherwise it might see with its eyes and with its ears it might hear and its heart might discern and it might turn and heal itself.” Then I said, “Until when Lord?” And he said, “Until when the cities lie ruined from no habitation and houses have no people and the fields laid to waste ravaged. Until Yahweh sends humans away and the forsakenness is great in the land. Yet a tenth will remain, but it will be laid to waste again. As the terebinth and as the oak whose stump remains when cut down, the seed of holiness is in her stump.”

3.4.2. Exegesis A widely held theory is that Isaiah 6 is the call narrative of Isaiah ben Amoz, perhaps as part of an original memoir that extends into chapter 9.111 However, this designation is not universally accepted. Because of this narrative’s position in chapter 6 rather than at the beginning of the book, scholars such as Odil Hannes Steck, Christopher R. Seitz and Joseph Blenkinsopp, have questioned whether this truly represents an initial call. Seitz, following Steck, sees this as a commissioning of the message that Isaiah is supposed to deliver in light of the Syro-Ephraimite war.112 Blenkinsopp says, This vision is often referred to as the call of Isaiah to a prophetic ministry, but from its position in the book it is clear that this was at least not the view of the editors who arranged the material. Its location at this point, together with the knowledge of failure implicit in the conversation during the visionary experience, suggests rather that it functions in a more limited way as Isaiah’s commissioning for a specific political mission in connection with the threat of a Syrian-Samarian invasion in or about the year 734.113

Blenkinsopp adds that the speech of the Seraphim mirrors Isa 8:18 and thus creates an inclusio, which highlights that this commissioning narrative is specific to the conflict that follows.114 Yet, in an attempt to combat Jacob Milgrom’s assertion that chapters 1–5 must pre-date the context of chapter 6 because of the arrangement of the text, Blenkinsopp says: “the editorial arrangement is not exclusively and not even primarily chronological.”115 This logic contradicts his claim that Isaiah 6 does not represent a 111 For the prevalence of this theory, see H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. T. H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 252, 256–58. 112 Seitz, Isaiah 1–39 (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993); O. H. Steck, “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja 6,” BZ 16 (1972): 188–206. 113 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 223. 114 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 224. 115 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 224. See J. Milgrom, “Did Isaiah Prophesy During the Reign of Uzziah?,” VT 14 (1964): 164–82. Torsten Uhlig points out that the first 5 chapters serve as a foundation without temporal references and thus chapter 6 could still serve as an initial call that gives rise to the temporally located prophecies that follow: Uhlig,

82

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

prophetic call narrative. In addition, Watts has questioned whether the “I” in this chapter should be understood as Isaiah because he is not actually named, but he proposes no other candidates.116 Discussion of the formal parallels between this narrative and that found in 1 Kings 22 is also important. Marvin Sweeney argues that since 1 Kings 22 does not represent a call narrative for Micaiah ben Imlah, who is clearly already considered a prophet, then this parallel passage in Isaiah 6 would not represent an initial call either.117 This argument is fallacious. The parallel in the passage is between the two prophets in that they observe the throne scene, but even more so between Isaiah and ʧʥʸʤ. Micaiah enters the divine council as an observer, but Isaiah is a participant and volunteer in the same way that ʧʥʸʤ would be. A better parallel for Micaiah ben Imlah would be the prophet in the scene found in Zechariah 3. In addition, parallels are not formulaic, and of course an author can take a theme and adapt it for another purpose.118 Yet, there may still be validity in Wildberger’s designation of a “throne council vision,” or better still, Steck’s proposal to view it as “receipt of a commission in a heavenly scene,” though neither of these terms are specific enough for a truly distinct category.119 This argument is strengthened by the numerous parallels between Isaiah 6 and Daniel 7.120 Element

Isaiah

Daniel

The date formula The throne and its occupant The divine beings in attendance The confession The flight of a divine being The word about understanding The touching of the lips

6:1 6:1 6:2 6:5 6:6 6:9–10 6:7

7:1 7:9 7:10 9:23 9:21 9:23 10:16

Such a large number of parallels demonstrate that Isaiah 6 likely had impact on the writing of Daniel 7. Zechariah 3 also contains most of these elements. However, one cannot claim that this is the form of a Council of Yahweh type-scene as these elements are absent from 1 Kings 22 and Job 1–2.

The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah (FAT II 39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 83. 116 J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco: Word, 1985), 73–74. 117 M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL XVI; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 134. 118 Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 257. 119 Steck, “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja 6”; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 257. 120 This chart is adapted from P. L. Redditt, Daniel (NCBC; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 115.

3.4. Isaiah 6

83

Regardless of whether Isaiah 6 is an original call or a specific mission call, it contains five of the six features of a call narrative.121 In order, the features are: divine confrontation (vv. 1–2); the introductory word (vv. 3– 7); the commission (vv. 8–10); the objection (v. 11a);122 and the assurance (vv. 11–13). The missing feature is a sign of confirmation. Yet, because chapter 6 is usually considered as a piece within the memoir section, Habel has suggested that the Immanuel sign in chapter 7 fills this void.123 Traditionally this passage is viewed as having two separate parts, the theophany (vv. 1–5) and the commissioning (vv. 6–8 or 6–13).124 Yet, the passage’s structure has been seen as three responses encased in death.125 A. The death of the king (v. 1a) B 1. Divine holiness (vv. 1b–7) B 2. Divine concern (vv. 8–10) B 3. Divine purpose (vv. 11–13a) A. The oak tree cut down (v. 13b)

This structure highlights the three sections of the text and the way in which expectations are reversed by each of the responses. It also highlights Isaiah’s eventual failure to convert his people. A series of three brings unity to the chapter on a literary level.126 There is the obvious repetition of three in the Trishagion (v. 3) as well as the three sets of wings on ʭʩʴʸʹʤ. Several terms are repeated three times in the passage: ʩʰʣʠ (vv. 1, 8, 11), ʤʥʤʩ (vv. 3, 5, 12), ʭʲ (vv. 5, 9, 10), ʠʬʮ (vv. 1, 3, 4), ʡʹʩ (vv. 1, 5, 11). Add to this verse 7 contains three clauses in the ʭʩʴʸʹʤ speech, verse 5 has three clauses introduced by ʩʫ, and the devastation in verse 11 takes place in three parts. The setting of this scene is ambiguous with two possibilities suggested: the heavenly palace or the earthly temple. The debate comes from the mention of both the throne of the Lord and the temple in verse 1. The verse 121

Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” 297–323; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 134. 122 This interpretation understands the phrase “How long, O Lord” as an objection. Habel cites Moses, Gideon, and Jeremiah, but these characters all object to their own call based on their abilities; however, Isaiah’s “objection” is to the message; see Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” 300, 304, 308. This is not a universal interpretation; cf. J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 190. 123 Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” 312. 124 Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 258. 125 Adapted from J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 75. 126 Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening, 80–81 provides a good overview of the theme of three that runs through the passage and the significance of it. See also, L. Alonso-Schökel, “Die stilistische Analyse bei den Propheten,” in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 158.

84

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

states that Yahweh was sitting on his throne, which is taken by some scholars to indicate his heavenly throne, but it also states that his hem filled the temple/palace, which has been understood by some as the earthly temple because of the descriptions in verses 1, 4, and 6.127 Thus some have chosen to view the scene as set in the temple on Earth.128 While others take the view that it is set in the heavenly palace of Yahweh.129 Some seek a compromise and view God as truly sitting on his heavenly throne and the sheer size of Yahweh expands from Heaven down into the temple, and Isaiah is in the earthly temple looking up into Heaven at the council.130 This is not without some logistical issues of its own, if the temple is literally filled with Yahweh’s hem where Isaiah is standing and how was he able to view what was happening above Yahweh from underneath his robe?131 Proof for any of these theories is difficult as the ambiguity lies within the text itself. It may be best to follow the lead of Hayes and Irvine and allow the ambiguity to stand while focusing on the royal and sacred presentation of Yahweh.132 Either way the passage is set in a sacred space that represents the dwelling place of Yahweh, which is consistent with the other council passages explored.

127 This view is complicated if the heavenly temple mirrors the earthly temple as is suggested by Baldwin: “The statues of the cherubim (or ‘seraphim’ according to Isaiah) on either side of the ark of the covenant mirror in the earthly temple what was happening in the heavenly temple (Exod. 25:18–22; 40:34–36; 1 Kgs 8:6), just as the dwelling of God in the holy of holies of the Jerusalem temple was an extension of God’s paramount presence in the heavenly sanctuary (Deut 12:11; Ps 150).” J. E. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1972), 77. 128 J. Jensen, Isaiah 1–39 (OTM 8; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984), 85; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (trans. R. A. Wilson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 124–25; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 177; P. Miscall, Isaiah (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 34; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 133. 129 W. Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 58; Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 54; Watts, Isaiah, 74; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 253–54. 130 R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 73; A. S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 57–58; J. Mauchline, Isaiah 1–39: Confidence in God (TBC; London: SCM Press, 1962), 89; B. G. Webb, The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings (BST; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 59; S. H. Widyapranawa, Isaiah 1–39 (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 30–31. 131 Joseph Blenkinsopp solves this rather silly image by understanding the hem filling the room as hyperbolic: Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 224. He furthers his understanding with a parallel to Assyrian kings who were depicted as gigantic in comparison to others. 132 J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times & His Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 111.

3.4. Isaiah 6

85

According to Isa 6:1, the prophet saw God. It has long been held that to see God would mean death to the viewer (see Gen 32:30; Exod 19:21; 20:19; 33:20; Deut 18:16; and Judg 13:22).133 Yet, there are multiple passages that present exceptions (Gen 16:9–13; Exod 24:9–11; Judg 6:11–24; 13:22–23). Moreover, Moses is said to have known God “face to face” (Deut 34:10). There is no reason to believe that Isaiah is not able to see the Lord in this scene despite the absence of Yahweh’s description.134 However, the fact that ʭʩʴʸʹʤ have covered their eyes suggests the difficulty of seeing God in this passage.135 Much discussion has focused on the term ʺʥʠʡʶ and how it should be translated. There are four major proposals:136 (1) The term should be translated “hosts,” meaning either the armies of Israel (cf. 1 Sam 17:45), the armies of Heaven, or referring to the Canaanite gods; (2) It should be translated as “heavenly hosts,” meaning the stars (cf. Judg 5:20; Isa 40:26); (3) It should be translated as “mightiness” because it is an abstract noun; (4) It may be best to translate the term as a phrase meaning “surrounded by hosts.”137 It is less than clear whether or not this term is used for representing Yahweh’s Council; in all but case four it would not be. The understanding of ʺʥʠʡʶ is not the only uncertainty in this passage. It is also unclear what Isaiah represents. One theory is that Isaiah’s impurity represents the uncleanliness of the entire nation. J. Oswalt states: Sinful Israel can become servant Israel when the experience of Isaiah becomes the experience of the nation. When the nation has seen itself against the backdrop of God’s holiness and glory, when the nation has received God’s gracious provision for sin, then she can speak for God to a hungry world.138

Thus Isaiah’s commission represents Israel’s commissioning. Isaiah is forgiven and chosen, just as Israel is forgiven and chosen. Joshua, in Zechariah 3, stands before the Council of Yahweh and is purified of his sin, which parallels Isaiah in this passage. 133 R. S. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (K. van der Toorn, ed.; CBET 21; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997), 219–24. 134 Webb, The Message of Isaiah, 59. 135 ʭʩʴʸʹʤ’s refrain is paralleled in 1 En. 39:12, but the Enoch passage omits the designation ʺʥʠʡʶ. Both verses contain the phrase, “ʤʥʤʩʹʥʣʷʹʥʣʷʹʥʣʷ.” 136 Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Wilson), 78. He includes theories 1 and 3 in his second edition of the commentary, but the entire discussion is shortened and he provides no insight as to why the others are no longer considered: O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (trans. J. Bowden; 2 nd, completely rewritten ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 126–27. 137 Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Wilson), 77. 138 Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 174–75.

86

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

That Isaiah is allowed to stand before Yahweh in a state of uncleanliness is unexpected.139 Considering concern for ritual purity in the legal portions of the Hebrew Bible, to have an unclean human stand before God in a state of uncleanliness would be taboo. Yet, as Kaiser notes, “Thus Isaiah is removed from the complex of guilt in which his people is involved, so that he can dare to speak in the heavenly council, and show how God can use him as his instrument.”140 Here Yahweh does the unexpected. Even Isaiah expects punishment as he himself cries out his guilt, but despite this expectation God extends mercy and forgiveness. While it is actually the ʭʩʴʸʹʤ that perform the cleansing ritual, Yahweh’s approval is implicit in his willingness to engage Isaiah after he has been purified.141 The parallels between this text and Zechariah 3 are abundantly clear. However, the reversal of expectation can also be found in Job 1–2, when Yahweh allows Job to be tormented despite his impeccable piety, and 1 Kings 22, when Yahweh sends the lying spirit to the prophets. Based on this exegesis, potential council members in Isaiah 6 include Yahweh in the leadership role, and the attendants would include ʭʩʴʸʹʤ, who are identified, and active and thus will be examined further in the next chapter. Also, present and involved is Isaiah, and therefore he will be explored further. 18

3.5. Zechariah 3 Zechariah 3 is a Council of Yahweh passage as it contains all the required criteria. It contains multiple deities; Yahweh is identified and in charge; an exchange among the characters takes place; and judgment is placed on Joshua (or perhaps all of Israel). Thus it must be examined in greater detail for insight into the Council of Yahweh and its membership. 3.5.1. Translation 1

2

3 4

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Yahweh, and the satan standing at his right side to accuse him. Yahweh said to the satan, “May Yahweh rebuke you, O the satan! Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not the brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes while standing before the messenger. Then he answered and he said to the ones standing before him, “Take off the filthy clothes from him.” Then he said to him, “See I took away from you your sin and will clothe you in rich garments.”

139

Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening, 90–92. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 130. 141 Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening, 94. 140

3.5. Zechariah 3 5

6 7

8

9

10

87

Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put the clean turban on his head and they clothed him in garments while the messenger of Yahweh was standing by. Then the messenger of Yahweh gave testimony to Joshua, “Thus says Yahweh of Hosts, if you walk in my ways, and if you keep my requirements, then you will judge my house and you will have charge of my courts and I will give you a place among these standing here. Listen now, Joshua, the high priest, you, and your associates, the ones sitting before you that are symbolic men bringing my servant the branch. Indeed, behold the stone that I set before Joshua, on one stone there are seven eyes. Behold I will engrave an inscription on it, declares Yahweh of Hosts, and I will remove the sin of the Earth in a single day. On that day, declares Yahweh of Hosts, you will call each neighbor under the vine and under the fig tree.”

3.5.2. Exegesis Zechariah 3:1–7 is clearly a Council of Yahweh text. Present at this meeting of the council are ʯʨʹʤ, a specific messenger of Yahweh,142 and Joshua. The text states that ʯʨʹʤ intends to accuse Joshua. No speech is actually attributed to ʯʨʹʤ, but a rebuke is delivered from Yahweh, perhaps for the intended accusation. The Lord then redeems Joshua and provides him with new clothes143 as he is installed in the office of high priest.144 This passage shows the legal context of the heavenly council. The reader is told that Joshua is “standing before the messenger of the Lord” (1:1). This verb “to stand” is present throughout the pericope: “The verb for ‘stand’ recurs in this verse and is found again once each in verses 3, 4, 5, and 7. It is a key word, making the audience fully aware, from first to last, of the divine council setting and of Yahweh’s exalted presence.”145 The imagery of the council in this passage differs slightly from the passage in Job. Here the legal context is more dominant. There is little debate that ʯʨʹʤ is the prosecuting attorney as it is depicted as being on the right hand side of ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ, which is the traditional place for the repre142 Edgar W. Conrad identifies the messenger of Yahweh in this passage as the historical Haggai. See Conrad, Zechariah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 88. However, his hypothesis is tenuous at best and does not find support in other literature. Also, the messenger of Yahweh is usually seen as a character in its own right. As mentioned in the previous chapter the messenger of Yahweh often seems to be the same as Yahweh. This is one of the texts where it is difficult to decipher if it is Yahweh or the messenger of Yahweh or if it is both at the same time. 143 See Exod 29:4 and Lev 8:7 for examples of priestly consecration demonstrated by a change of clothes. 144 That this is the installation of Joshua as high priest, see M. Prokurat, “Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Form Critical Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1989), 338–39. 145 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 183.

88

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

sentative of the prosecution (Ps 109:6).146 Its actions in this passage also lead to this conclusion: From time immemorial, in the ancient world until the present, a figure equivalent to a Public Prosecutor has been the first officer of any court. It is hard to imagine any developed society in which such a person did not play a role. The Accuser is clearly the leading figure in this case, despite his dismissal. Yahweh himself and not the Angel of Yahweh rebukes him; the Angel of Yahweh is the Public Defender or advocate – the second, not the first, officer in any court.147

Joshua is present as the defendant, Yahweh is the judge, ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ is the defense attorney, and ʯʨʹʤ is the prosecutor.148 Contrary to this, Redditt argues that Yahweh is the defense attorney: “Before Satan could even speak, God demanded his silence with a rebuke. The time for accusing was past; the time for absolving had arrived. Instead of serving as the judge, God was serving as the attorney for the defense!”149 However, it is the judge who would have the ability to silence the argument of an attorney, which is precisely what Yahweh does in this scene. The actions of ʪʠʬʮ ʤʥʤʩ fit better with the role of defense attorney as this character suggests actions based on the judge’s pronouncement of favor. The distinction between Yahweh and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ is not accepted by all scholars. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that the Syriac has ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ in verse 2 rather than Yahweh as found in the Masoretic Text. David L. Petersen follows the Syriac, but not for text critical reasons, but “for reasons of consistency within the vision scene, I [Petersen] adopt the Syriac reading.”150 The second reason is that there are several passages where there is not a clear distinction between Yahweh and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ (cf. Gen 16:11; Judg 6:11, 14; 13:21–22).151 Petersen argues that verse 2 should 146

R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 156. 147 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. 148 E. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 132. 149 P. L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 63. 150 D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 187. Other scholars who espouse this theory are Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 113; A. E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012), 147. 151 It should be noted that there are also passages that distinguish the two (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:18, 27; Zech 1:12). Some also claim there are passages where ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ is actually the preincarnate Christ (Exod 23:23; 32:34; 1 Chr 21:27): Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 147; M. F. Unger, Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 57. This interpretation is not justified, see the critique in T. E. McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, vol. 3: Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1069.

3.5. Zechariah 3

89

be read as ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ because it is more consistent with the literary presentation of Zechariah: Whereas the visions appear to depict the working out of Yahweh’s will, they do not function to display immediately the divine presence. The visions are at a distance of one removed from the deity himself. (Similarly, when the divine dwelling is envisioned in ch. 1, Zechariah is not shown the deity.) Hence, it would have been inappropriate for the deity himself to appear, even in his normal role in the divine assembly.152

This may seem reasonable, but Yahweh is certainly present and distinct from ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ in chapter 1 and in verse 20 the LORD interacts directly with the prophet by showing him the four blacksmiths, so this argument is not as strong as it first seems. McComiskey also makes an argument for amalgamating the two characters based on his rhetorical understanding: “In all probability, the angel of the Lord represents Yahweh as the judge in this court scene, for it is the angel who carries out the implications of Yahweh’s rebuke in verse 2 by removing the nation’s guilt (v. 4) and speaking on Yahweh’s behalf (v. 7).”153 This might be true as often the judge and prosecutor (though there are no known cases of the judge being the same as the defense) would be filled by the same person in Israelite jurisprudence.154 However, when the king presides over a court case they usually pronounce a verdict and expect it to be enacted by others (i.e. they do not personally administer the verdict).155 This would be mirrored here with Yahweh, the king, judge, rebuking ʯʨʹʤ by bestowing favor on Joshua and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ, the officer of the court, most analogous with the defense attorney, calling for the decision to be carried out, with the officers of the court, the unidentified “those standing there” taking the actual actions. Petersen has attempted to demonstrate that when Yahweh uses the verb ʸʲʢ (3:2), translated “rebuke,” that it is used of those who oppose Israel or Yahweh’s will (Isa 17:13; Ps 9:6; 119:21).156 Similarly Baldwin argues that this is a forceful verb used mostly in political and religious contexts that demonstrate opposition to the will of God or to his chosen.157 This association is particularly suited for use with ʯʨʹʤ as in each of the two passages where this celestial being appears the character represents an alternate view from Yahweh’s (regarding Job, but really retributive justice

152

Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 191. This idea is echoed by McComiskey, “The evidence best supports the view that the angel of the Lord is a representation of Yahweh in a way that actualizes his immanence, but not in direct theophany”: McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 1038. 153 McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 1069. 154 Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel, 41. 155 Cf. 2 Sam 3:27; 8:6. 156 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 191. 157 Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 191.

90

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

in the Book of Job, and regarding Joshua, who is the brand plucked from the fire in Zechariah). VanderKam takes a slightly different approach: A peculiar feature of the report about the trial is that ʯʨʹʤ does not express his accusation(s); presumably he had done so before the action that the prophet reports began. As a result, the first words uttered by any character are the rebuke delivered by the Lord to ʯʨʹʤ; the charges made by the prosecutor must be inferred from the rebuke. From it, we may presume that he questioned the fitness of Jerusalem and Joshua.158

From this perspective, when ʯʨʹʤ is rebuked with this verb, his claim was against Joshua, perhaps representing not only his impurity, but also the priesthood or Israel more generally. Without joining an intense debate about the nature of prophecy and whether or not it declined as Israelite history progressed, it should be noted that Zechariah (and Haggai) have been associated with those prophets who hold power instead of being more revolutionary.159 Conrad says, “In contrast [to Deutero-Isaiah] Haggai and Zechariah were understood as serving the interests of those in power and as lacking ‘the revolutionary element which was always an essential ingredient in genuine prophecy.’”160 Should this be the case, then if ʯʨʹʤ was intended to represent a claim against one of the leaders (in this case Joshua), then perhaps the implied author is suppressed in his vision. One does not have to accept this point of view about prophecy in order for this to be true. In any case, Zechariah holds a close relationship to those in power, but one could argue that those in power held it legitimately based on the divine revelations of Zechariah, and therefore the further omission of ʯʨʹʤ’s opposition is another expression of the divine sanction on the current leadership. Verse 3 says that Joshua was wearing “filthy clothes,” which suggests to some scholars that ʯʨʹʤ was accusing him of coming into the presence of Yahweh in “a state of ritual impurity.”161 C. H. H. Wright says, “But the accusations of Satan, though true (as proved by the filthiness of the garments in which the high priest ministered), were repelled by a gracious manifestation of God’s pardoning grace, declared through the Angel of the

158 J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 25. 159 Conrad, Zechariah, 14. 160 Conrad, Zechariah, 14. The internal quotation is from P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979), 247. In agreement with Conrad against Hanson, Stephen L. Cook says, “Zechariah 1–8 appear to have been written in support of the Second Temple establishment. Zechariah’s visions aim at establishing a post-exilic templecentered community and are infused with central-cultic images and theology”: Prophecy & Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 2. 161 Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 130.

3.5. Zechariah 3

91

Lord.”162 One could claim, as Wright does, that because Yahweh acted and had Joshua’s filthy163 clothes removed and replaced with pure ones164 that ʯʨʹʤ’s accusation was legitimate. Therefore, it was not that ʯʨʹʤ’s opposition was illegitimate, but that God intended to demonstrate mercy and grace toward Joshua, which would relieve the transgression.165 James VanderKam has furthered this understanding when he puts Joshua’s doning of the filthy clothes in the context of his role as high priest: Joshua’s filthy apparel is associated with guilt ( ʯʥʲ); when the former is removed, the latter is as well (v. 4). The soiled clothing on this ‘brand plucked from the fire’ is replaced with ‘festal apparel’ (vv. 4–5). The high priest himself must be in a state of purity before he can be involved in removing the guilt of others. Through this ritual, Joshua is transported from the realm of defilement to that of purity or holiness so that in the new sanctuary he may serve the chosen people in their quest to become pure.166

Another theory is that Joshua is the representative of all Israel. Carroll Stuhlmueller says that the “‘rich, clean turban’ indicates a symbolic reinstatement of the high priest and symbolically all Israel.”167 The turban here is likely a reference to the turban of the high priest in Exod 28:36–38, 162

C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies, 47. The word here translated as “filthy” carries the connotation of human excrement, which would be the highest level of cultic impurity (Deut 23:12–14; Ezek 4:12): Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 193. 164 It is interesting to note that ¬¢ ©Š íŽ  is usually used with royal connotations as  ìŽ ¡† éŠ  , which is usually used of priestly garments (Isa 3:22; 62:3). For a opposed to ³Õ  thorough discussion of the priestly vestments, see T. Podella, Das Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt (FAT II 15; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 55–66, 66–72. 165 E. Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986), 121. 166 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 25–26. 167 C. Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Book of Haggai and Zechariah (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 78. Prokurat agrees with Stuhlmueller and cites Exod 28:36–38 and Num 18:1 in support of this theory: Prokurat, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 338. Merrill concurs: “Inasmuch as the OT high priest represented the whole covenant people generally (…), it is certain that Joshua here symbolizes the remnant nation” (Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 121 n. 14). Mason narrows the scope of the representation to those who have returned from exile: R. Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 50. Achtemeier suggests a narrow focus of the symbolism of Joshua, in that he is meant to be the representative of the Zadokite priesthood, which needs to be cleansed of the sinful practices; see Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi, 121. C. H. H. Wright falls in between the two positions, or more accurately he encompasses both positions. He says, “he is represented in the vision not merely as laden with his own sins, but with those of the people whose representative as high priest he was before God. For the high priest was the representative of the priesthood, and the priests representatives of the people of Israel”: C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies, 50. Petersen agrees with Wright: Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 192. 163

92

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

which also has a connection to the guilt of the people.168 This is echoed by Peggy Day: “The overwhelming majority of scholars who have worked with Zech 3:1–7 maintain that Joshua is a cipher for the restored community, and that his change of clothes represents the change in the community’s status from impure to pure (or sinful to forgiven) in the eyes of Yahweh.”169 Part of the reason for this interpretation is the parallel between this passage and Amos 4:11. Here Joshua is said to be a “brand plucked from the fire” (Zech 3:7). In Amos 4:11 all of Israel is said to be like “a brand plucked from the fire.”170 It is likely that Zechariah uses this phrase to evoke Joshua as a symbol for the nation. It is not unusual for one of the characters in a Council of Yahweh text to represent the entire nation; this is a pattern that will be explored further in Chapter Six. There may be reasons other than the filthy clothes for ʯʨʹʤ’s accusation. Sweeney claims that the changing of clothes and washing is a part of the ordination rites found in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8–9.171 If this is true, then there would be nothing out of place in the presentation of Joshua: the ritual cleansing would be a part of the larger ordination rite and not a symbolic act of greater significance. At the same time, the symbolism of ordination could be used to signal Joshua’s elemental purity. It has been claimed that Zechariah 3 is Joshua’s call narrative because many elements of this passage reflect other call narratives, especially Isaiah 6.172 Some of the similarities are: a human is present in the divine council; he is impure and in need of cleansing; he is cleansed and given authority. Peggy Day sees this as an investiture or divine call to the office of high priest.173 An interesting difference is that ʯʨʹʤ is not present in the Isaiah 6 passage.174 The difference is very important. As in Job 1–2, in Zechariah 3, ʯʨʹʤ is potentially the character that represents concerns with the system. In Job, it casts doubt on Yahweh’s system of justice and reward. Here, it opposes Joshua’s fitness for the role of high priest. In Isaiah 168

VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 26. P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 117. 170 The text in Amos uses this phrase as a simile, whereas in Zechariah it is a metaphor. Petersen claims that a metaphor is a stronger literary device than a simile: Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 192. 171 M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 593. See particularly Exod 29:4; Lev 8:7. 172 It is important to note that this is not one of the call narratives cited by Habel in his important article, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narrative,” 297–323. In addition, the passage would be missing at least two of the five elements: objection and reassurance. 173 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 118–19. 174 It could be that the concept of ʯʨʹʤ did not exist when Isaiah was written. This would mean that ʯʨʹʤ was both unnecessary and nonexistent when Isaiah was written. However, the point still remains that nothing about the system is questioned in this text. 169

3.5. Zechariah 3

93

6, neither Yahweh’s system of justice and reward nor the fitness of the prophet is at issue, and therefore, ʯʨʹʤ does not appear. Why is the appointment of Joshua, who was descended from Aaron by Zadok (1 Chr 6:3, 8–15), questioned, especially when other divine appointments (e.g., Isaiah) are not questioned, and the Zadokite priesthood was the legitimate family for the high priesthood? His grandfather Seraiah was chief priest in 587 B.C.E. (2 Kgs 25:18)175 when Jerusalem was defeated and the exile started.176 Joshua was born in exile to his father Jehozadak.177 Therefore, Joshua would be the natural choice for high priest based on hereditary lineage. Yet, this could be the exact reason his appointment is questioned: “there was ample precedent in the rejection of Eli and his line (1 Sam 2:27–33) for the permanent dismissal of Joshua and his line.”178 The Bible has many examples of the misdeeds of the previous priesthood. The Book of Ezekiel gives a vivid depiction of the depravity taking place in the temple before the fall of Jerusalem (see chapter 8 in particular). Other passages, such as Jer 8:1–2 and 2 Chr 36:14, refer to the priesthood specifically. If Joshua’s ancestors were so corrupt, why would Joshua be any different? There may have been factions within Israel who would have asked just such a question. Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ could be a means of giving voice to these concerns, and because Yahweh rebukes ʯʨʹʤ he also adds indisputable divine approval of Joshua as high priest. This may not be the only concern that ʯʨʹʤ is representing. There were probably those who had concerns about Joshua because he was returning to the land after having been displaced. Peggy Day says, “For those Yahwists who had remained in the land and had not been deported to Mesopotamia, the idea of a ‘foreign’ priest presiding over the temple cult may have been a point of contention.”179 This concern may have been based on the idea that Joshua was polluted by the religious cultures of other nations and therefore more likely to follow the example of his predecessors.180 VanderKam says, “The former expression [a brand plucked from the fire] probably refers to his stay in Babylon, the land of captivity where Joshua may have been 175 John Bailey and Roland de Vaux argue that the high priest position did not receive prominence until the post-exilic period, which is demonstrated by the regularity that Joshua is referred to as high priest in contrast to the rather infrequent use prior to the exile: J. W. Bailey, “The Usage of the Post Restoration Period Terms Descriptive of the High Priest,” JBL 70 (1951): 217–25; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 397–98. 176 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 188. 177 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 188. 178 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. The authors also claim that the monarchy and the priesthood were “repudiated” together and that because the monarchy was not being restored, there would be those who would think that the priesthood should not be restored either (186). 179 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 120. 180 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 120–21.

94

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

born and from which he had returned. His sojourn in Babylon may have been viewed as a cause of defilement for him – a blemish that had to be effaced before he could serve as high priest in the new temple.” 181 Meyers and Meyers suggest the same when they say, “Viewed in a narrow way, the Accuser might have argued that Joshua had been in exile and was permanently contaminated by the experience, so he could not ever be qualified to assume the office for which he was next in line.”182 Mason also suggests that the filthy clothes are “a sign of guilt and contamination from Babylon.”183 One does not have to conclude that ʯʨʹʤ represents one or another of these claims, but rather that there are potential community concerns about Joshua’s appointment, and ʯʨʹʤ could be a generic representation of such concerns. In other words, whatever objections were raised regarding Joshua he was seen as illegitimate in Heaven.184 If one adopts the view that Joshua represents all of Israel, which is suggested by the pairing of him and Israel in Yahweh’s rebuke of ʯʨʹʤ, then ʯʨʹʤ’s objections would actually be more akin to ʯʨʹʤ’s objections in Job. It is a question of whether God’s justice functions as it should. ʯʨʹʤ would embody the question, should God grant Israel redemption? Either way, ʯʨʹʤ can be seen as the embodiment of concern for the action that is about to take place, and in both cases the divine pronouncement is that these concerns are not valid in the current circumstance. Joshua is probably the symbolic representation of Israel. If this hypothesis is correct, then the charge that ʯʨʹʤ levels against Joshua is probably intended for Jerusalem as well. This theory is further supported by Zech 3:2 where Yahweh responds that he has chosen Jerusalem, which suggests that ʯʨʹʤ’s accusation was against Jerusalem and not Joshua alone, especially since it is placed right next to the rebuke. This has led to the theory that ʯʨʹʤ believes that Jerusalem has been rejected by God and therefore, should remain condemned.185 This would include the rebuilding of the temple, since it symbolizes God’s favor on the people of Israel. If this is true then, “any efforts to restore either would be contrary to God’s will; temple restoration would be nothing short of blasphemy.”186 That the temple and the priesthood would be included in this injunction is demonstrated by the choice of Joshua, the high priest, as representative. Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ’s 181

VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 25. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. This argument is furthered by VanderKam, who claims that the term brand, ʣʥʠ, (used of Joshua) is meant to be a pun of the word Ur for the Babylonian city from which Abram migrated: J. C. VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 555–56. 183 Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 50. 184 This is further supported by the approval of Joshua found in Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2. 185 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. 186 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. 182

3.5. Zechariah 3

95

claim is not only against Jerusalem, but also against the temple and the priesthood. This understanding has a historical basis in the destruction of Shiloh and theological roots in the pre-exilic prophets and Lamentations.187 As with the hypothesis of the filthy clothes, these claims would also be legitimate based on the contents of Scripture: The Accuser’s case on both issues ([Joshua and Jerusalem] would have been quite strong, for there is much in the Primary History and in the preexilic prophets upon which he could have developed his argument that Yahweh had permanently terminated Jerusalem, the temple, and the priesthood.188

Therefore, it is not that ʯʨʹʤ was making an illegitimate claim or that he was acting out of a false malicious vendetta, but that he was fulfilling his function to be the officer of justice in Yahweh’s court.189 The accusation is dismissed, not because it is unfair, unjust, or false, but because God has chosen to show mercy and grace to his chosen people, city, and priesthood. Therefore, it is because God has extended mercy that ʯʨʹʤ’s allegations are rebuked and thus seen as illegitimate in Heaven, not because they had no validity. VanderKam walks his reader through the apodoses and protases given to Joshua. He first notes that the phrase “walk in my ways,” a common phrase in the Deuteronomistic corpus is about following the law and “perhaps to administer justice.”190 Later he states that rule [literally: judge] my house: The verb ʯʩʣ is not used elsewhere with a building as its object. Its primary sense is juridical, but it can also express the notion of ruling, as the parallel here “have charge of my courts” demonstrates. Although there are verses that speak of Levites as judging (Deut 17:9–11; 21:5; Ezek 44:24 [at the sanctuary]; 2 Chr 19:8, 11), others name this as a royal duty (for example 2 Sam 15:1–4; 1 Kgs 3:16–28; Jer 21:11–12; 22:1–4). This responsibility is now to be placed on the shoulders of the high priest Joshua. Consequently, the prophet may here be crediting him with greater authority in a sphere in which the king had predominated.191

This is very interesting and certainly resembles what happens historically. However, I wonder if the type-scene here plays a larger role in this attribution. The verb is truly one of judgment and gets rendered “rule” insofar as judgment is ultimately in the hands of the rulers. Standing in a divine council, the ultimate seat of judgment one might wonder if a far greater authority than earthly kingship is being transferred to Joshua. VanderKam 187

Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 186. 189 Meyers and Meyers suggest that ʯʨʹʤ looks bad in this passage because “he is unaware of the change in policy.” This language seems most appropriate to the situation in Zechariah 3 (Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 186). 190 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 28. 191 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 28–29. 188

96

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

goes on to treat the parallel phrase “have charge of my courts.” He emphasizes that courts is plural, which to him suggests more than the temple, but rather the whole compound, which without a royal court, leaves him as the “sole ruler.”192 Again, VanderKam is logical and historical in his analysis here. Yet, Joshua is standing in a heavenly court and this command is in parallel to the command to judge. One could justifiably ask if the plural might imply something beyond the earthly. This type scene adds an element not found in the other scenes we have studied in that there are several implied characters. Who is the “he” who begins the narrative (v. 1)? Who are those who attended him (v. 4)? And are these the same attendants as those mentioned in verse 7? Many of the commentaries are silent on the identity of the “he” in verse 1.193 The most popular interpretation of this character is that it is the angelus interpres as this character is known to show Zechariah things (cf. 1:9).194 Another viable, though less popular interpretation is that it is Yahweh who shows Zechariah the scene in heaven.195 This interpretation is based on Yahweh directly showing Zechariah the four blacksmiths (1:20) and in the preceding verse (though it is clear that there is a literary break between the two) the “he” referred to is Yahweh. It is very difficult to decide between these two options as there is very little evidence. While tenuous the context of the divine council may help identify this figure since prophetic access, even in visionary form, to the council is depicted as coming from Yahweh directly (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; Jer 23:21–22; Amos 3:7). There is little debate regarding the attendants. Mason points out that the reader does not know there are others standing there until verse 4 and he sees this as an intentional literary feature designed to place all the attention on Joshua until these others are required by the text.196 This could help explain why there are so few details regarding “those standing there,” but most assume these are “other angels” or members of the council.197 Unfortunately, these beings 192

VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 29. R. J.. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; R. L. Smith, Micah – Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word, 1984). 194 Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi, 121; Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 113; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 187; Unger, Zechariah, 57. After reading the groundbreaking dissertation of Heather Macumber, I would now distinguish between ʪʠʬʮʤ who interprets and the one who shows: Macumber, “Angelic Intermediaries: The Development of a Revelatory Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2012), passim. 195 McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 1069. 196 Mason, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 50. 197 Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 114; H. Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 334; Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 149; T. Laetsch, Minor Prophets (Concordia Classic Commentary Series; St. Louis: Con193

3.6. Daniel 7

97

are not identified by category, which could help in understanding them, but they do serve a function similar to that of the seraphim in Isaiah 6. Yahweh appears in this scene, which clearly cements his role within the council. Also, the character of ʯʨʹʤ recurs in this passage in a role that is similar to and yet different from his position in Job 1–2. ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ is also identified, present, and involved in this scene and thus must be considered in Chapter Four. “Those standing there” will also be discussed further. One additional character appears and must be considered for membership. Joshua does not seem to be involved, but is identified and observes and thus will be examined further in the next chapter. 19

3.6. Daniel 7 I previously demonstrated that Daniel 7 meets the criteria for a Council of Yahweh text despite its dramatic difference from the other texts in the corpus thus far. It is thus important to examine the passage more thoroughly in order to determine its contribution to the understanding of the council and those involved. 3.6.1. Translation 1

2

3 4

5

6

7

In the first year that Balshazzar was king in Babylon, Daniel had a dream and a vision in his head (while he lay) on his bed then he wrote the dream he saw in his head in words. Daniel said, “This is what I saw in my night vision. Behold, four winds from Heaven stirred up the great sea. Four great beasts emerged from the water, each different than the other. The first one was like a lion with wings like an eagle. I continued to watch until its wings were plucked and it was lifted from the Earth until it stood on two feet like a human, a heart like a human given. Behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear, which was standing on one side with three ribs in its mouth between its teeth and they said to it, ‘Rise and eat a great amount of flesh!’ After this I kept looking and behold another one like a leopard with four wings like a bird upon its back and the beast had four heads and dominion was given to it. After this I kept looking in my night visions and behold a fourth beast fearful and terrifying and very strong. It had strong iron teeth and it ate and crushed and trampled the remnant at its feet. It was different from all the other beasts and it had ten horns on it.

cordia, 1956), 423; McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 1071; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 194; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 65; Smith, Micah – Malachi, 200; Unger, Zechariah, 60.

98 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17 18

19

20

21 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a small one, came up between them and three horns were uprooted by it. Behold it has eyes like a human and a mouth speaking great things. I kept looking until thrones appeared and the Ancient of Days sat with clothing as white as snow with hair on his head as pure as wool, his throne was burning flames and its wheels burning with fire. A river of fire issued and flowed out from before him. A thousand thousands served him and ten thousand ten thousands stood before him. He sat in judgment and the books were opened. I kept watching because then there was a sound of the great words, which the horn was speaking. I watched until the beast was slain and its body was destroyed and given to the fire. As for the remaining beasts, their dominion was removed, but an extension of their lives was given for an appointed time. I kept watching the night vision, and behold with the clouds of Heaven, one like a human being was coming. He came to the Ancient of Days. To him he gave dominion, honor, and a kingdom and all the peoples, nations, and languages would serve him. His dominion is a dominion forever that shall not pass away and his kingdom will not be destroyed. As for me Daniel, my spirit was troubled198 and the visions of my head alarmed me. I approached one of those standing there and began asking it the truth concerning all this. So he made known to me the interpretation of these things. These four great beasts are four kings who will arise from the Earth. But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever, and forever. Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all of them, exceedingly fearful with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, which devoured, crushed, and trampled the remnant at its feet. The ten horns that were on its head and the other horn that came up, before which three fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, who appeared greater than the others. Then I watched this horn make war with the holy ones and prevailing against them. Until the Ancient of Days came; judgment was given for the holy ones of the Most High and the time came for the holy ones to possess the kingdom. He said, “The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on Earth that shall be different from all kingdoms. It shall devour the Earth, trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom and another will arise after them. He will be different from the first and will humble three kings. He will speak words against the Most High and he will wear out the holy ones of the Most High and will intend to change times and laws. They will be given into his hands for years and years and a half year. Then it will sit in judgment and his dominion will be taken away to be annihilated and destroyed till the end. Then the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven will be given to the people, the holy ones of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom and all dominions will serve and obey him.” Here the account ends. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts were greatly alarming to me and my face went pale, but I kept the matter in my heart. 198

Lit., “troubled in its sheath.”

3.6. Daniel 7

99

3.6.2. Exegesis In order to understand Daniel 7, one needs to have insight into the way this chapter functions in the larger work. Chapter 7 is closely tied with the six chapters that precede it. Redditt and Collins claim that Daniel 2–7 is a chiasm and that the purpose of chapter 7 is to balance out chapter 2.199 Collins even recognizes that chapters 3–6 may have originally been independent of 2 and 7, as reflected in the Septuagint version, and that chapters 2 and 7 were added to provide cohesion between the two halves of Daniel.200 Redditt breaks the structure into the following parts:201 2:4b–49 A dream about four world kingdoms replaced by a fifth 3:1–30 Three friends in the fiery furnace 4:1–47 Daniel interprets a dream for Nebuchadnezzar 5:1–31 Daniel interprets the handwriting on the wall for Belshazzar 6:1–28 Daniel in the lions’ den 7:1–28 A vision about four world kingdoms replaced by a fifth

Such a chiastic link would require many similar features within the two narratives in order for the chiasm to work. The two chapters share four characteristics.202 The first is one shared by the majority of the text up until chapter 7; it is written in Aramaic. The second common feature is that both chapters make use of the five-kingdom motif. The third shared element, which also appears in chapter 4, is the use of dreams. Apart from the possible redaction of 1:17, the verb or noun for “dream” does not appear anywhere else in Daniel. The fourth element also links the chapter to Daniel 4 by locating the dream within the reign of Belshazzar, which is a break with the narrative sequence of the book thus far. The proposed chiastic structure does seem to contain the mirroring usually found within intentional chiasms and there are many links between chapter 2 and chapter 7. However, the focal point of a chiasm is usually the middle point (in this case Daniel’s interpretations) and not the final piece (chapter 7). This does not fit with the majority understanding that Daniel 7 is the most important chapter in the entire book.203 Collins’ sub-

199 J. J. Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL XX; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 30; Redditt, Daniel, 114. 200 Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 30. 201 Taken from Redditt, Daniel, 114. One should note that this does not form the standard Chi pattern that defines a chiasm. However, it has become commonplace to refer to these longer mirroring patterns as chiastic structures and since Redditt uses the term, I retain his usage. 202 Redditt, Daniel, 114. 203 J. J. Collins, Daniel, 1, 2 Maccabees (OTM 15; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981), 72; D. E. Gowan, Daniel (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 102; L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Introduction and

100

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

sequent placement theory could answer to both these issues. In its present place within Daniel, it works to form the mirrored structure examined above, but it maintains the importance that it enjoyed as an independent text. Thus, for the purposes of this study it is appropriate to study this chapter in light of chapter 2. While the language remains the same (Aramaic) in chapter 7, there are several points of divergence from the previous material: Daniel becomes the narrator rather than the subject of narration, and the focus shifts from the earthly royal court to the heavenly council. Yet, the allegorical nature of the revelation remains the same throughout the passage. This symbolism begins with the sea from which the beasts emerge. The association between the sea and chaos has a long history within Israelite religion and throughout the ancient Near East. Collins connects the scene here to the texts that involve Rahab and Leviathan (e.g., Job 26:12–13; Ps 89:9–11; 74:13–17).204 Of this symbolism Collins says, “It evokes a sense that the monsters which had been subdued at creation were again let loose on the world.”205 The animal allegory, which could have been taken from the list in Hosea 13, adds to the presentation in Daniel 2. In chapter 2 these kingdoms have been allotted time, but here they are viewed as agents of chaos: “anarchy and rebellion.”206 The winds of Heaven (cf. Zech 2:6; 6:5) add to the idea that this is meant to evoke the chaos myth, as Smith-Christopher sees these as a heavenly battle between these two forces.207 Redditt turns to the interpretation for a better understanding of this part of the passage and he says, “As in Daniel 2, ‘kings’ here stand for the kingdoms they rule. They would rise from the earth, not the sea, as in the vision. The sea represented their opposition to God; earth was where they would rule.”208 This pattern of king for nation may provide insight into the One like a Son of Man. The animals themselves contain code. The first beast is a hybrid lioneagle, an animal that represents supremacy on land and in the air, and represents the Babylonian Empire, which is appropriate imagery for the nation that conquered Judah.209 Hartman and Di Lella claim that the descriptions Commentary (AB 23; Garden City: Doubleday, 1978), 208; Redditt, Daniel, 114; W. S. Towner, Daniel (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), 91. 204 Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 73–75. This water imagery is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to expand on historical/political events (cf. Isa 17:12–14; 30:7; 51:9–10; Ps 87:4), so the use of it here to refer to temporal kingdoms should not be viewed as problematic. 205 Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 74. 206 Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 75. 207 D. L. Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel,” NIB 7:101. 208 Redditt, Daniel, 130. 209 Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 212.

3.6. Daniel 7

101

of the first and second animals have been transposed, since the description better fits the nature of the other animal and because of the numbers involved.210 The second beast, the bear, represents the empire of the Medes, and this imagery suits the relationship between Israel and the Median Empire, as the bear was considered hostile only when confronted (cf. 2 Sam 17:8; Hos 13:8; Prov 17:12).211 The leopard represents the Persian Empire (v. 6), whose animal is fierce, but not to the same extent as the lion (v. 4), which again mirrors the relationship among these political players.212 The fourth beast is the Greek empire.213 No known animal resembles this beast, which could be the author’s way of setting apart the European Greek empire from the Asiatic nations.214 The ten horns on the beast represent the ten kings who reigned between Alexander and Antiochus IV Epiphanes.215 Since horns were a common symbol of royal power in the ancient Near East, this symbolism makes sense.216 Yet, this understanding is not universally accepted because there is no known historical event that would relate to Antiochus’ removal of the three preceding kings of Greece; therefore, some suggest that the ten horns are actually meant to symbolize the rulers of other gentile nations, or even non-symbolically.217 The notation that the little horn waged war on the holy ones is likely a reference to Antiochus’ persecutions of the Jews, the details of which are included in

210 The first animal represents the Babylonian Empire and thus the three fangs/ribs/ tusks would represent the three known kings of this empire, Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, and Belshazzar. It would also leave the second animal with one, Darius the Mede, and the third kingdom, the Persian, would have four kings (Cyrus, Ahasuerus [= Xerxes], Artaxerxes, and Darius I) according to this kind of numerology. Additional support for this theory can be found in Rev 13:1–2 which describes the beast as having feet like a bear and a mouth like a lion, which could suggest that the Masoretic Text version of Dan 7:4 is an emendation of the original (likely by accidental transposition). For more information see, Hartmann and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 209–12. It should be noted that there is no textual evidence for this emendation and no reason to assume that Daniel is aware of any Babylonian kings other than the two he mentions by name (Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar). Thus Redditt, Daniel, 120, 122–23. 211 Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 212–13. 212 Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 213. 213 This understanding is almost universal in modern scholarship, but that was not always the case. Historically, it was thought that the four empires were Babylonian, MedoPersian, Greek, and Roman. Since the only place Rome appears in the book is 11:30, this seems less likely and hence has given way to the newer interpretation: Redditt, Daniel, 119. For a very detailed exploration of the various proposed theories see, J. E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1989), 174–76. 214 Gowan, Daniel, 107, 110. 215 Towner, Daniel, 95. 216 Gowan, Daniel, 106. 217 Goldingay, Daniel, 164, 179.

102

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

verse 25. This persecution is set to end with the direct judgment of the Ancient of Days. The legal setting is clear not only from the appearance of the Lord and his retinue on thrones, and from the judgment that is pronounced, but also from the mention of the books. These books (literally scrolls) are likely the record book and the book of life found in other parts of the Hebrew Bible (Mal 3:16; Neh 5:19; 13:14; Isa 65:6; Ps 51:3; 69:29; 109:14; Exod 32:32; Dan 12:1; Ezek 2:9; 3:1). These books record the names of all those living on Earth and detail their good and bad deeds. Ideas similar to those found in Ugarit’s mythology abound within this chapter.218 The Ancient of Days is similar to the epithet “Father of Years” often used for El, the chief God of Ugarit.219 The relationship between Yahweh and El has long been determined and thus this alternative designation for El is appropriately used in the coded system of apocalyptic literature to refer to Yahweh.220 While this phrase is not used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to refer to Yahweh, similar terms are, and thus the association of these two characters is most logical.221 The use of “white” and “wool” in the description of the Ancient of Days is used to communicate purity (cf. Isa 1:18; Ps 51:9). The scene reflects the description in Ps 97:1– 5 and the fire imagery that occurs in Mal 3:2; Exod 3:2; Ezek 1:27. 1 En. 14:15–23 is within a divine context. In addition, the One like a Son of Man comes on the clouds of Heaven. In Ugaritic mythology, Baal is known as “the rider of the clouds” (e.g., CTU 1.2 IV 8, 29; 1.3 II 40; 1.3 III 38; 1.3 IV 4, 6; 1.4 III 11, 18; 1.4 V 60; 1.5 II 7). This indicates that despite this character’s appearance, he is a divine being of important rank.222 Also, the phrase “the rider of the clouds” can be connected to Yahweh, since else218

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 41–48; J. A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery,” JTS 9 (1958): 225–42; A. Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration,” JBL 99 (1980): 75–86; P. G. Mosca, “Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link,” Bib 67 (1986): 496–517; for an extensive summary see Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 280–94. 219 CTU 1.1 III 24; 1.2 III 5; 1.3 V 8; 1.4 IV 24; 1.5 IV 2; 1.6 I 36; 1.17 VI 49. 220 F. M. Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” HTR 55 (1962): 225–59; E. Dhorme, “Le nom du Dieu d’Israël,” RHR 141 (1952): 5–18; O. Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1 (1956): 25–37; idem, “Jahwe, der Gott der Väter,” TLZ 88 (1963): 481–90; J. Harvey, “Elohim et Yahvé,” EgT 2 (1971): 149–59; P. D. Miller, “El the Warrior,” HTR 60 (1967): 411–31; R. Rendtorff, “El, Ba‘al und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion,” ZAW 78 (1966): 277–92; M. H. Segal, “El, Elohim, and Yhwh in the Bible,” JQR 46 (1955): 89–115. 221 See Ps 90:2; 93:2 (“from everlasting”); Isa 41:4; 44:6 (“first and last”); Ps 102:26– 28 (“years have no end”); Job 36:26 (“the number of his year is past searching out”). For more on the association between the Ancient of Days and Yahweh, see Sh. Pace, Daniel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 17; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2008), 239. 222 Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 77.

3.6. Daniel 7

103

where in the Hebrew Bible he is associated with flying through the air, sometimes in connection with clouds,223 and thus it creates a very close link between these characters. The appearance of the interpretive being is common in apocalyptic literature and occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Zech 1:9, 19; 2:3; 4:1; 5:5; 6:4);224 however, it is unusual here in Daniel because prior to this Daniel has been able to interpret the dreams, visions, and the writing on the wall by himself.225 This discrepancy is only highlighted by Daniel’s need to request interpretation not once but twice in the narrative. Pace sees his need for interpretation as a means of highlighting the importance of this vision; the famous interpreter now requires an interpretation from Heaven itself and his request is not rebuffed.226 Since the Ancient of Days should be understood as Yahweh, in Chapter Four the two will be explored as one. Several new characters are also introduced in this passage: the beasts, the Thousands upon Thousands, Daniel, the interpreting persona and the One like a Son of Man. The beasts are the subject of the council and one could argue that they are involved; however, their judgment and sentence indicate that they are not accepted and therefore, should not be understood as members.227 The Thousands upon Thousands are perhaps the most difficult to decipher. That these are members of the Council of Yahweh is usually taken for granted and often treated as a parallel phrase to the ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ, but this 223

Examples include Deut 33:26; Ps 18:9–15; 68:33; 104:3; Isa 19:1; Jer 4:13 ff; Nah

1:2 ff. 224 D. Dörfel, Engel in der apokalyptischen Literatur und ihre theologische Relevanz: Am Beispiel von Ezechiel, Sacharja, Daniel und Erstem Henoch (Theologische Studien; Aachen: Shaker, 1998); M. Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 58; D. P. Melvin, The Interpreting Angel Motif in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013); S. Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983); H. Reichelt, Angelus Interpres: Texte in der Johannes-Apokalypse (Europäische Hochschulschriften 507; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994); K. Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter: The Interpreting Angel in the Post-Exilic Prophetic Visions of the Old Testament,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer, and K. Schöpflin, eds.; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 2007; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 189–204; E. J. C. Tigchelaar, “L’ange qui parlait à Zacharie, est-il un personnage apocalyptique?,” EstBib 45 (1987): 347–60. 225 Redditt, Daniel, 129. 226 Pace, Daniel, 246. 227 Joshua and Isaiah were also originally in the role of defendant and had the council not commissioned them they would have remained in that role and not be considered members. The role of the beast more closely resembles Job in that the council will decide their fates, but none actually participates in their trial nor can they affect the operation of the council.

104

Chapter Three: Exegetical Issues in Council of Yahweh Texts

will be examined further in Chapter Four. This difficulty also extends to “the holy ones of the Most High” (vv. 18 and 22). Most often this is understood as the people of Israel, but Martin Noth introduced the idea that these beings are “angels,” and his theory has been adopted and developed by Collins.228 The parallels between this passage and the Animal Apocalypse of the book of 1 Enoch 85–90 that Collins demonstrates strengthens this theory. 229 However, one cannot assume that just because they are mentioned in a council passage these beings are members. Daniel’s role is also unclear. Like Micaiah ben Imlah he is able to observe the scene, but he does not participate. Yet, unlike Micaiah, he is able to interact with a being of the council, and thus his role will be discussed further in Chapter Four. Related to this is the question of the interpreting persona, often viewed as the angelus interpres. Since there is doubt that this being is a member of the council, the identity, role, and function of this character will need to be examined in greater detail. In addition, the One like a Son of Man needs to be considered further since he is present, titled, and commissioned in the vision and thus will be explored in depth in the next chapter.

228

M. Noth, “The Holy Ones of the Most High,” in his The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 215–28. This theory was first proposed by O. Procksch, “Der Menschensohn als Gottessohn,” Christentum und Wissenschaft 3 (1927): 429. That these beings are generally considered angels is reflected in the title of Saul Olyan’s monograph, A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 36; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), esp. 15, 63, which are the only references to the Thousands upon Thousands. 229 Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 54–55, 296, 323.

20

Chapter Four

Council Members and Their Functions 4.1. Introduction This study began with a discussion about the Council of Yahweh and the various criteria that can be used to determine whether a text is a council type-scene. In order to determine membership within the Council of Yahweh, one must develop additional criteria for determining who are and who are not included. This is not as easy as it sounds. However, the definition of a council should be helpful in providing insight into potential criteria. Yet, even before putting criteria forward one needs to explore what a member is. Standard convention has seen that membership exists at various levels and not all levels are equally relevant or important, but all levels play a role in the council.1 In addition, there are often characters who perform a role on behalf of the council, but that role alone is not enough justification to consider them regular members. This chapter will explore all characters that may qualify for membership or even a supporting role, while the following chapter will explore the structure that can be developed based on the information gathered here. The criteria for determining membership will be defined in three ways. The first is that the character is identified (not necessarily by personal name, but at least by title or distinguishing feature that is some way distinguished from the totality of the council). This is important because without this identifier the reader would not know which character is taking which action, and thus it provides no further insight into membership or structure. For example, there are some unidentified council members who appear in 1 Kings 22, e.g., the reader is told “one said one thing, and another said another” (v. 20b), but at no point does the reader learn the identity of these characters. This verse confirms that the council typically has a discussion regarding the fate of the individual or group, but provides no insight beyond that. The second criterion is that the character is an observer. This criterion seems obvious, but it is also problematic. One can certainly assume that if 1 I will say more about this in the following chapter, which explores structure in detail. Examples of studies that demonstrate this are: Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, passim; Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature”, passim; M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41–66.

106

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

a being is a member of the council that being needs to be present for some council meetings. However, the being does not need to be physically present, but it must be able to observe the council through a vision or dream sequence. This is true even when the being is merely an agent of the council, but there might be times when a being could be an instrument of the council without having been privy to the council (or even know s/he is being used in that way). For example, the 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22 are used as an instrument of the council but are not present for the council and according to this criterion will not be considered members despite playing a role on behalf of the council. Agents who actually observe the council and are aware of their role on behalf of the council are more difficult. Since these characters are important to the function of the council they will be considered in this chapter, but the relationship between agents and members will be explored further in the following chapter. For this study, knowledge of the council, which would be gained from observing it, is required for membership consideration. The final criterion is that the character is involved in the council’s purpose. Some activities are more important than others, and some relate to the primary purpose of the council more than others. However, these distinctions will be made in the following chapter on structure rather than within this chapter. For the purposes of this chapter, having some active role within the council drama will be enough for a character to be considered further. Because there are multiple levels of membership and the narratives only provide small fragments of the council meeting, all three features do not need to be present in order for a character to be a member, but the more criteria present the greater the case is for that being’s membership. The reverse is also true: There are cases where a character is identified, observes, and is involved (e.g., the beasts in Daniel 7), but based on a narrative analysis is not considered to be a member. Thus, the criteria serve as guidelines that need to be evaluated alongside each individual literary context. Essentially the exegete is tasked with developing a characterization for each potential member and then evaluating that characterization. Characterization within the Hebrew Bible is not as easy to determine as it is in modern writing because the number of details supplied to the reader are minimal. Meir Sternberg describes the process this way: It is only by such a process of reconstruction, working back from the dynamics of events to the static but tense antecedents that govern and produce them, that the reader gradually closes the gaps to form something like the character sketch that classical narrative (or the novel) so often provides right at the outset.2 2 M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 322.

4.2. Yahweh/The Ancient of Days

107

The tools used for this character reconstruction process are description, which is visual detail, inner life, which is the thought-process of the character, contrast, which is either between characters or with the character or with expectations/norms, and finally speech and action, which is particularly important for the current project.3 The task with the characters involved in council type-scenes is even more challenging as there are very few full-fledged characters, mostly type characters, and a large number of agents.4 I exegeted the various Council of Yahweh passages that actually contain individual members in the previous chapter, and at the end of each exegesis I gave a list of potential members. This chapter explores this list and examines each character (or group of characters) in greater detail. This will provide the basis for the following chapter, which will propose a structure for understanding the council and provide further insight into the boundaries of membership. 21

4.2. Yahweh/The Ancient of Days Since part of the purpose of this study is to question the assumptions that underlie the study of the council, one must explore the question of Yahweh’s membership and leadership. Previously, I questioned whether all references to a divine council in the biblical texts should be considered the Council of Yahweh, especially since divine councils can be found in many ancient Near Eastern cultures. Therefore, it is not enough to assume that just because Yahweh is the chief god of Israel that he is a leader or even a member of every divine council (though it is likely, considering the ancient Near Eastern pattern). Ultimately, it is more important whether or not the scene in question relates to the Council of Yahweh or whether the passage refers to another council, such as that of El (e.g., Deut 32:8 at Qumran or in the Septuagint). The first criterion, being identified, is met because the divine name Yahweh appears in each of the council scenes, except for Daniel 7 where the Ancient of Days presides.5 This removes any ambiguity over what deity is involved. In addition, the second criterion is met because Yahweh not only observes the events but is physically present 3 A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 33–42. 4 Berlin, Poetics, 23–33. These terms are the technical terms used by Berlin and should not be confused with my structural terms explored in the following chapter. 5 The divine name appears in 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6, Job 1–2, and Zechariah 3. Daniel 7 is the only Council of Yahweh text that does not include the divine name, as all other contenders, such as Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 were excluded in Chapter Two. The identity of the Ancient of Days as Yahweh will be discussed in detail below.

108

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

in each of the passages. Finally, the involvement criterion is met by Yahweh setting the “agenda” in each passage: 1 Kings 22; Isaiah 6; Job 1– 2; Zechariah 3; and Daniel 7. For example, Yahweh addresses ʯʨʹʤ in Job, while in Isaiah and 1 Kings Yahweh asks for a volunteer. This makes it clear that Yahweh is a member of the council, since he is identified, an observer, and involved. It is also clear that in those texts Yahweh is the chief deity and the council answers to him. In all these scenes it is Yahweh who approves the plan. In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days presides over the council. Yet, this title need not preclude Yahweh’s leadership, but simply identifies the deity through ancient mythological terminology consistent with the apocalyptic genre of Daniel. Despite the fact that this title fits more easily with descriptions of El, one should not assume that the text refers to a deity other than Yahweh. By the time Daniel was written El’s characteristics had been amalgamated into Yahweh, and while these two may represent separate characters in texts like Genesis (as argued in Chapter Two), by this point in history the two are indistinguishable, and terminology previously limited to El is now extended to Yahweh.6 Thus the chief god of the council in Daniel 7 is Yahweh. 6 Not all scholars concur with this position. Carsten Colpe argues that the imagery in the passage suggests that these ancient myths are still alive and functioning in the Israelite tradition: Colpe, “੘ ȣੂઁȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ,” TDNT 8:400–77. This is taken further by Daniel Boyarin who does not actually dispute that El and Yahweh have been assimilated, but that the merger was incomplete as Yahweh was a better match to Baal than El and therefore, parts of El kept slipping out into hypostasis or onto other divine beings. He claims, ’El, the ancient sky god of all the Canaanites (his name comes to mean just ‘God’ in biblical Hebrew), was the god of justice, while his younger associate, named Ba‘al by most of the Canaanites – but not the Israelites, who called him YHVH – was the god of war. In the biblical religion, in order to form a more perfect monotheism, these two divinities have been merged into one, but not quite seamlessly. The Israelites were a part of that ancient Canaanite community, differentiated to some extent by different ideas about God that they developed through their historical existence, but the idea of a duality within God was not easily escaped, however much certain leaders sought to enforce it. A God that is very far away generates – almost inevitably – a need for a God who is closer; a God who judges us requires almost inevitably a God who will fight for us and defend us (as long as the second God is completely subordinate to the first, the principle of monotheism is not violated). He views this as what is happening between the Ancient of Days and the One Like a Human Being in Daniel 7 with Yahweh being the Ancient of Days but also his young Baal side leaking out and becoming the second figure of the One like a Human Being. He claims this issue is eventually solved with God the Father, God the Son dynamic that emerges from New Testament texts. See, Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012), 43–52. This idea is largely based on the two God theory of M. Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London:

4.3. ʯʨʹʤ

109

4.3. ʯʨʹʤ7 22

The first criterion, being identified, is met with the term ʯʨʹʤ. An important feature concerning ʯʨʹʤ’s character is the presence of the definite article on the noun. This indicates that it is not a proper name, as this would be intrinsically definite, nor is it a common noun, which would not have the article and would then be translated as “adversary, opponent, accuser.”8 Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ in the Hebrew Bible is not the name of a person or a being, but its title, or vocation. This character is identified according to its function within the council, which is consistent with the general naming practices in Israel and throughout the ancient Near East.9 The presence of the definite article is also found with ʧʥʸʤ and ʪʠʬʮʤ. It should be noted that the term could be translated as “a certain …” rather than in the sense of

SPCK, 1992). It is important to note that Boyarin is clear that the older god (his phrase) in Daniel 7 is Yahweh: The Jewish Gospel, 51. 7 Character studies on ʯʨʹʤ include L. Chafer, Satan (New York: Gospel, 1909); P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven; R. Heckl, “Die Figur des Satan in der Rahmenerzählung des Hiobbuches,” leqach 10 (2012): 45–57; Kelly, Satan; D. Kinet, “The Ambiguity of the Concepts of God and the Satan in the Book of Job,” in Job and the Silence of God (C. Duquoc and C. Floristán, eds.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983), 30–35; R. Schärf Kluger, Satan in the Old Testament (trans. H. Nagel; Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967); Kreuzer, “Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen Bibel – eine bekannte Größe?,” Bib 86 (2005): 536–44; Langton, Satan; H. Lockyer, Satan: His Person and Power (Waco: Word, 1980); A. Marx, “La chute de Lucifer (Esaïe 14,12–15; Luc 10,18): Pré-histoire d’un mythe,” RHPR 80 (2000): 171–85; K. Nielson, Satan – The Prodigal Son? A Family Problem in the Bible (The Biblical Seminar 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); S. Page, Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); E. Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Vintage, 1996); J. D. Pentecost, Your Adversary, the Devil (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969); Russell, The Prince of Darkness; S. Schreiber, “The Great Opponent: The Devil in Early Jewish and Formative Christian Literature,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer and K. Schöpflin, eds.; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 437–58. 8 While this might be understood in the category of unique referent as presented by Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, the emphasis on the rarity with which the terms of this category are placed together with the definite article would be evidence against such an attribution because the term ʯʨʹ always appears with the article in divine council contexts: B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §13.4b. 9 It was not uncommon for naming to have more to do with function than any other factor in the ancient Near East. Names were considered to have an effect on the person and his/her behavior: V. P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 43.

110

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

“the one and only.”10 This seems to be the case with ʪʠʬʮʤ, as multiple ʭʩʫʠʬʮ are known from various texts.11 It is not as easy to determine for ʯʨʹʤ and ʧʥʸʤ, as either translation is possible. There is little evidence to suggest that there may be more than one ʯʨʹ, which is why a plurality of ʭʩʰʨʹ are rarely suggested.12 The case with ʧʥʸʤ is more complicated with scholars on both sides of the argument.13 Thus one must be careful in using the definite article as a basis for interpretation. However, it is safe to conclude that the presence of the article negates understanding the noun as a personal name, but rather indicates a specific member of a group or a title/position. 4.3.1. Etymology of ʯʨʹʤ The etymology of the term ʯʨʹ is debated in four ways: the first is that the verb ʯʨʹ derived from the use of the noun (BDB); the second is that the noun ʯʨʹ derived from the verb ʯʨʹ;14 the third that ʯʨʹ derived from the verb ʨʥʹ (and may have originally been written with a shin rather than a sin);15 and finally that the noun ʯʨʹ derived from the verb ʭʨʹ.16 Tur-Sinai puts forward a very compelling case for the origin of ʯʨʹ to be from ʨʥʹ as it mirrors the character’s role in Job and has a parallel in earthly royal courts.17 He also reasonably demonstrates that there was no distinction between shin and sin at the time of development, and how the meaning adversary or accuser could develop from the role of the spy. What is not as clear is why this more original meaning of the term only appears here in 10 This translation would follow the use of the article to give a “particular reference” (Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §13.5.1d ##1–6). Waltke and O’Connor view this differently. They claim that the use of ʺʧʠ with a noun is the usual way to phrase “a certain …” (§13.8a), or as an indefinite noun in construct with a definite noun (§ 13.4c ##30–35), or paired with the generic noun of class (§13.8b ##14–16). 11 E.g. Gen 28:12; 32:2–3; Ps 91:11–12; 103:20; 148:2. 12 F. Kreuzer argues that the different depictions in Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3 may be because the same being is not intended: Kreuzer, “Der Antagonist,” 542. 13 For only one ʧʥʸ see, Walsh, 1 Kings, 351; for multiple divine ʺʥʧʥʸ see, E. J. Hamori, “The Spirit of Falsehood,” CBQ 72 (2010): 18. 14 Clines, Job, 20. Clines actually argues that it is as likely that the verb derived from the noun, but does not completely eliminate the other possibility. 15 Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 41–44. 16 Gordis, The Book of Job, 14. Clines also mentions that this is a possibility but sees little distinction between the two terms: Clines, Job, 20. 17 His claim in The Book of Job, 41, n. 1, that the appearance of ʯʨʹʤ in the divine council can only happen if there is an earthly parallel is deceiving as the role of Accuser or Attorney is also paralleled in royal courts. However, since ʯʨʹʤ’s function is different in the two types of divine council type-scene – legal courtroom and courtier deliberations –, he is correct that its role here parallels one royal court position, but I would argue that its function in Zechariah parallels a different member of the royal retinue.

4.3. ʯʨʹʤ

111

Job, a rather late text in the corpus of texts that refer to a ʯʨʹ, nor does it account for the contemporary but radically different presentation in the function of the character in Zechariah (a book clearly familiar with the royal spy concept). Favoring one of the first two options, Seow argues that there is wordplay between ʯʨʹʤ and ʨʥʹ, but this does not indicate etymology. 18 Gordis agrees with Seow and argues that this is merely a wordplay, but he also dismisses the claim in BDB that the verb derived from the noun. Instead he propagates the theory that the title comes from the verb, ʭʨʹ, “to hate” as he views this as being more in line with ʯʨʹʤ’s character.19 Thus this seems more an ideological argument rather than a linguistic one. In deciding how to interpret ʯʨʹʤ one has to answer one of the interpretive questions set forward at the beginning of this study: namely, are there characters present in council texts who are not members of the council? Perhaps due to the later theological developments concerning the character of ʯʨʹʤ, this question is posed about ʯʨʹʤ more often than about any other possible member of the council. As seen in the previous chapter several scholars view ʯʨʹʤ as an intruder in the council and if that interpretation were correct it would create several interpretive problems. For example, if ʯʨʹʤ is not a member of Yahweh’s Council, how was ʯʨʹʤ able to get in? By not including Zedekiah ben Chenaanah and the 400 prophets within the council, 1 Kings 22 demonstrates that Yahweh is able to expose or not expose his council to any beings he chooses. In fact, the majority of prophets are not present in the council, but are merely observers of it (e.g. Micaiah ben Imlah and Zechariah). In other words, how does someone with no authority to enter Yahweh’s court “intrude” on it? This would certainly suggest a limit to Yahweh’s power. If God cannot keep ʯʨʹʤ out of his throne room, then how could he hope to control the actions of ʯʨʹʤ on Earth or in relation to Job? Yet, from the passages where ʯʨʹʤ appears, it is certain that Yahweh can and does control ʯʨʹʤ.20 Schreiber says, Without a doubt, satan is presented as a heavenly being, a member of the heavenly council, but as such subject to God’s power and acting only on God’s instructions. No dualism with a highest god and a highest evil force can be constructed as a basic scheme of this narrative.21

18

Seow, Job, 274. Gordis, The Book of Job, 14. 20 This control is seen in Job in the restrictions that God places on ʯʨʹʤ. This limits its ability to act on its own accord in regards to Job. The limiting power of the Lord over ʯʨʹʤ is also clearly seen in Zech 3:2, where God silences the objection of ʯʨʹʤ with absolutely no resistance. 21 Schreiber, “The Great Opponent,” 439. 19

112

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

Most of the arguments against understanding ʯʨʹʤ as a member of the council stem from the first pericope, because the statement that introduces ʯʨʹʤ follows his raison d’être; however, the second pericope is explicit that ʯʨʹʤ is there to “take its position among them” (2:1), and this suggests that ʯʨʹʤ is a member who holds a regular position in the council.22 The similar statement in the second pericope must also be considered, and based on the wording there, little doubt can be left as to whether or not ʯʨʹʤ is included among ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ. The third criterion, involvement, is met by ʯʨʹʤ in Job, but the nature of this involvement requires further discussion. Job’s prologue contains the most references to ʯʨʹʤ in the Old Testament. It is usually on the basis of its behavior in Job that some believe ʯʨʹʤ either to be already evil or to be turning evil.23 Yet, ʯʨʹʤ is a member of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ and a servant of Yahweh. In the two pericopes in Job’s prologue that mention ʯʨʹʤ, the issue of initiative is vital. Since Yahweh initiates conversation and action, it is difficult to support a claim of satanic independence. Initiative is also important to the idea of responsibility in the text. Is Yahweh or ʯʨʹʤ responsible for the testing of Job? ʯʨʹʤ articulates the premise of measure for measure justice, and Yahweh steps outside the system of expected retributive justice in order to do something new and to demonstrate the limitations of the dominant philosophy. Just like ancient Persian spies, ʯʨʹʤ’s vocation in the Book of Job was to search out the faithful and report the unfaithful to Yahweh.24 He does this not to incite trouble or cause hardship for humanity, but because that is the role it fulfils in the council of which it is a member. ʯʨʹʤ is actually the keeper of measure-for-measure justice. C. L. Seow points out that in response to Yahweh’s question about Job, ʯʨʹʤ responds with a question of its own: “Have you not put a hedge around him?” The verb used here is also used in Hos 2:6[8] in reference to the metaphorical portrayal of Israel as Hosea’s wife. Soew claims that the scene in Hosea needs to be understood in light of the Deuteronomic expectations of retributive justice. However, he states, the case of the unfaithful-but-hedged-in wife of Hosea poignantly illustrates the vulnerability of God in the divine-human relationship. Despite all the blessings Israel received through that relationship, God has to take preventive-obstructive measures to avert human unfaithfulness. Now in the book of Job, the wisdom tradition offers a critique of 22

Sheldon, “Job as Hebrew Theodicy,” 257. E.g., Schärf Kluger, Satan in the Old Testament, passim; Morris, “Satan,” NBD, 1064–65; Russell, The Devil, passim. It is important to note that the general terms “opponent” or “adversary” are neutral terms and do not carry the negative connotation of their modern English translations. See Schreiber, “The Great Opponent,” 437. 24 Herodotus, “Books I–II,” in Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), 133. See also Zech 1:10–11 and 4:10. 23

4.3. ʯʨʹʤ

113

such a theology, if only implicitly, through the Adversary’s question. The benign nature of divine blessing is perhaps at the same time an indication of divine insecurity (…). God’s hedge ostensibly protects, but it really hampers. The Adversary thus externalizes celestial doubt not only about human integrity and intention (…), but poignantly also about God’s own … His charge may indeed be a critique of Deuteronomic theology, for he questions if divine blessing is really a reward for fidelity, or if it is more a bribe by the vulnerable suzerain to secure a fragile allegiance.25

Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ, as the patroller of justice, continues to serve its purpose in the face of God in its attempt to determine whether the system itself is truly just. At no point in the prologue does ʯʨʹʤ act outside Yahweh’s will or disobey him; it is under Yahweh’s total control.26 ʯʨʹʤ’s speech towards Yahweh could be viewed as disrespectful, but this is not true. While it does respond to Yahweh’s questions with questions of its own, this is a traditional Semitic way of speaking and the famous “skin for skin” comment is a proverb, not a demand.27 Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ is merely a servant of Yahweh in a scene initiated by Yahweh and in which Yahweh is in total control from start to finish.28 In the Book of Job, ʯʨʹʤ is always viewed as subservient to Yahweh. Jung says, “God desires man to be perfect and Satan accuses and tests man in order that his sincerity may be proved or his fickleness punished.”29 ʯʨʹʤ’s job is not to be God’s adversary.30 Quite the contrary: ʯʨʹʤ serves God and yet the way in which it serves God has made it humanity’s adversary. ʯʨʹʤ serves God by testing human piety.31 Human beings usually do not like the ways in which ʯʨʹʤ tests, and therefore view it as an adversary, an enemy, and the epitome of evil. Since ʯʨʹʤ is not inherently evil, but because encounters with it are unpleasant for humans and hold the possibility of failure, ʯʨʹʤ has been labeled evil. It is another way that humans shift some responsibility from themselves, but ʯʨʹʤ’s purpose is good. ʯʨʹʤ is designed to confirm one’s commitment to God. Evil comes into play when humans fail ʯʨʹʤ’s tests, not merely from the presence of ʯʨʹʤ. There are many parallels between the text of Job and the presentation of ʯʨʹʤ in Zechariah 3. These three uncontested passages (Job 1, 2 and Zechariah 3) referring to a celestial being called ʯʨʹʤ present an almost identical portrayal. This could be due to the similar date of composition. With 25

Seow, Job, 257–58. Hartley, The Book of Job, 169. 27 Michel, Job, 30. 28 Hartley, The Book of Job, 74. 29 Jung, Fallen Angels, 25. 30 Jung, Fallen Angels, 25–26. 31 Habel, The Book of Job, 90. 26

114

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

the ordinary use of the noun ʯʨʹ, there is often a legal or governmental context.32 Zechariah 3 highlights the legal elements and portrays ʯʨʹʤ as the prosecuting attorney, as can be seen by its physical location.33 This supports the idea that ʯʨʹʤ is not meant to describe an individual, but a vocation. As in the Book of Job, ʯʨʹʤ is unable to act outside Yahweh’s will and must obey Yahweh’s command to be silent in Zechariah. His submissive position is highlighted by its immediate obedience to Yahweh’s rebuke without trying to argue or further its point. Even more apparent in this passage is the legitimacy of ʯʨʹʤ’s claim.34 Regardless of whether one favors the hypothesis of ritual impurity or the personification of religious, cultic, or cultural concerns, ʯʨʹʤ’s objection(s) would be correct and justifiable.35 It also appears that the best interpretation of ʯʨʹʤ in this passage is that it is the literary portrayal of the concerns in society over the rebuilding of the temple, the reinstatement of the priesthood, and perhaps the assimilation of those returning from exile.36 The portrayal here is strikingly consistent with the portrayal in the prologue of Job. ʯʨʹʤ of the Old Testament is not the personification of evil, but rather a dedicated servant of Yahweh and a member of ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ. This does not mean that ʯʨʹʤ’s behavior was always correct, but that its intent was not evil or disobedient. It is precisely this behavior that leads to a dual-function hypothesis regarding the nature of ʯʨʹʤ. The portrayal of ʯʨʹʤ represents two functions, which may at first seem very different, but they operate on different levels of the text and therefore are not contradictory. The first function is textual depiction. ʯʨʹʤ’s role is to serve the purpose of God’s Persian spy. In other words, ʯʨʹʤ is like Yahweh’s roving eye in Zech 4:10 or the patrolling angels in Zech 1:10–11. ʯʨʹʤ’s job or vocation is to rove the Earth and examine human piety. This is particularly apparent in ʯʨʹʤ’s conversations with Yahweh in the prologue of Job, but it can also be seen in ʯʨʹʤ’s objections to the defiled Joshua in Zechariah 3. It is very important to realize that the text portrays ʯʨʹʤ as the skeptic. It is not the judge or the jury; it is not even the tempter. Its role is to bring forward to Yahweh what could be infractions of divine law. In no passage is ʯʨʹʤ’s objection invalid; however, for reasons that go beyond the letter 32

P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 32. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 156; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 184. 34 Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi, 121; P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 118–19; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 184; C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies, 47. 35 See the discussion of Zechariah 3 in Chapter Three. 36 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 117; Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 50; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185; Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope, 78. 33

4.3. ʯʨʹʤ

115

of the law, such as God’s redemption in Zechariah 3, ʯʨʹʤ’s claims are rejected.37 The rejection is not disapproval of ʯʨʹʤ’s job performance nor does it make ʯʨʹʤ evil, any more than a prosecuting attorney who loses a case in court.38 In fact, ʯʨʹʤ takes on God’s role in order for the deity to be allowed to behave in a way that is un-god-like. The second function has more to do with the reason ʯʨʹʤ is portrayed at all. In other words, it is about the purpose of including such a character. This assessment is taken from the historical backdrop or from the literary context of the passage. As seen above, the role of ʯʨʹʤ is to be the ultimate skeptic of human piety; however, due to the way ʯʨʹʤ functions within the text ʯʨʹʤ is also used to voice skepticism about the way in which the pious are governed. This can be seen most clearly in Zechariah 3.39 In Zechariah 3, Joshua is appointed high priest and ʯʨʹʤ is present with an objection. One may wonder why there is a need to question Joshua’s appointment, especially when other divine appointments (e.g., Isaiah) are not questioned or when appointing a Zadokite priest, since Zadokites have held the position in the past. Yet, this could be the precise reason there is a need to question Joshua’s appointment.40 The biblical text is full of examples of the misdeeds of the priesthood. The Book of Ezekiel gives a vivid depiction of the depravity taking place in the temple before the fall of Jerusalem (see Ezekiel 8 in particular). Other passages, such as Jer 8:2 and 2 Chr 36:14, refer to the priesthood specifically. If Joshua’s ancestors were so corrupt, why would Joshua be any different? There may have been factions of the Restoration Community in Yehud or in the Diaspora who would have asked just such a question. Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ could be a means of giving voice to these concerns and adding an indisputable divine confirmation of Joshua in the role of high priest. It is also possible that Joshua represents those who have returned from exile and the concern that the contact with foreign nations has polluted the religion of the returnees.41 As has been stated ʯʨʹʤ may represent any one or all of these possibilities. It might be that the claim and rebuke of ʯʨʹʤ is intended to cover all possible objections and that is why a specific charge is not voiced. Thus no matter what the objection, all objections to Joshua are overruled by God.

37

Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 186. As has already been shown there are parallels between ʯʨʹʤ and this judicial official. This is true of both the title and the common noun. 39 It is also prominent in Job 1–2, where the implicit question is whether it is right for the righteous to be blessed and whether this blessing is the motivating factor in the practice of piety. 40 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185. 41 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 120. 38

116

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

This idea is not invalid even if one adopts the view that Joshua is meant to represent all of Israel.42 If this is a proper way to understand Joshua, then ʯʨʹʤ’s objections would actually be more akin to his objection in Job. It is a question of whether God’s justice functions as it should. Thus, ʯʨʹʤ represents the question, “Should God grant Israel redemption?” Either way, ʯʨʹʤ can be seen as the embodiment of concern for the action that is about to take place, and in both Zechariah and Job the divine pronouncement is that these concerns are not valid in the current circumstance. There are six components common to the portrayal of ʯʨʹʤ in the Old Testament passages: 1. ʯʨʹʤ appears within the Council. 2. The narrative has a governmental/legal context. 3. ʯʨʹʤ makes an accusation based on justice. 4. ʯʨʹʤ is under God’s authority. 5. ʯʨʹʤ is not independent. 6. ʯʨʹʤ is ultimately demonstrated to be incorrect. The first two elements, the council and a legal/governmental setting, are related to each other in that the narrative appears in the legal proceedings of the council. This is very clear in the Book of Job as both pericopes begin with the sons of God, the council, being assembled on the “one day” that they meet.43 Zechariah 3 is also set as a court case that is being held in the midst of the council. This is an important element because one could claim that without a council setting the character ʯʨʹʤ cannot be used. The third aspect common to the texts that include ʯʨʹʤ is that ʯʨʹʤ makes an accusation based on genre-specific justice. Because of the texts’ legal context, this likens ʯʨʹʤ’s role to that of a district attorney. This is especially true in that the character must assume the absolute guilt of the one it is prosecuting as a function of its position; there is no room for innocence. It is also important to note that the accusation is made against a human being, not the deity. Therefore, any critique of the divine is made purely by association with humanity. For example, in Job the piety of the main character is questioned (e.g., he might be worshipping Yahweh for his own personal gain, rather than sincere faith). However, a consequence of the accusation could be that God’s system of justice is also questioned because it allows for such an accusation to be made against the human. It is also important that the type of justice ʯʨʹʤ represents is appropriate for the genre of both texts. In the Job passage, ʯʨʹʤ represents the retribution principle, and this type of measure-for-measure justice is at home in 42

Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope, 78. The idea that Joshua is meant to represent all of Israel is related to the parallel with Amos 4:11 where the text refers to all Israel as the “brand plucked from the fire.” 43 Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,” 284–85; McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened,” 4.

4.3. ʯʨʹʤ

117

the context of wisdom literature.44 In Zechariah, however, ʯʨʹʤ’s concerns revolve around purity and social distinction, which are appropriate legal categories for the post-exilic prophet.45 This difference indicates that the connection to justice is not something dictated by the scene or by the genre but something that is inherent within the character. In other words, ʯʨʹʤ always represents some form of justice, which is dependent upon the genre in which the character appears. The fourth and fifth elements, being under Yahweh’s authority and having no independence, are very important. ʯʨʹʤ is always shown to be under God’s complete authority. Therefore, ʯʨʹʤ has no independence apart from what Yahweh grants it. While these concepts are related, they are not precisely the same thing. One can be under someone’s authority and yet operate freely. This is not the case with ʯʨʹʤ. In Job, all action is initiated 44 D. Bergant, Israel’s Wisdom Literature: A Liberation-Critical Reading (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 17; J. Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), esp. 46–51 and 58– 68; J. L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010), 103; E. W. Nicholson, “The Limits of Theodicy as a Theme of the Book of Job,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel (J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson, eds.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 71–82; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 190–239, esp. 206– 208. A similar expectation of retributive justice is found within the earthly judicial system, which often functions according to the law of retaliation: V. Wagner, Rechtssätze in gebundener Sprache und Rechtssatzreihen im israelitischen Recht: Ein Beitrag zur Gattungsforschung (BZAW 127; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972), 3–15; B. S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exodus XXI 22–5 (Ius Talionis),” VT 23 (1973): 273–304; H.W. Jüngling, “‘Auge für Auge, Zahn für Zahn’: Bemerkungen zu Sinn und Geltung der alttestamentlichen Talionsformel,” TP 59 (1984): 1–38; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law,” BA 43 (1980): 230–34; M. Gilbert, “La loi du talion,” Christus 31 (1984): 81; and P. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M. J. Smith; JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 376–82. These are not the only forms of biblical literature that employ this understanding of justice as measure for measure was the most common concept of justice in the ancient Near East, see also Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. It is important to note that measurefor-measure justice is not the only proposal made for understanding the prologue of Job. D. J. A. Clines, “False Naivety in the Prologue of Job,” HAR 9 (1985): 127–36 followed by A. Cooper, “Reading and Misreading the Prologue to Job,” claim that this issue is not the system of justice and reward, but rather a questioning of the association of possessions with piety in the first place. Cooper claims that God is uninterested in Job’s possessions throughout the narrative and never takes responsibility for his accumulation of property (this is only done by other characters). He argues that the conclusion that one is supposed to take from the Prologue is that God acts “for no reason.” This derives from M. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” HUCA XXXVII (1966): 73–106. 45 This is because the Book of Zechariah fits within a cultic/priestly response to the exile and that distinguishes it from the earlier pre-exilic prophetic concerns.

118

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

by Yahweh, including conversation, even the action that he authorized ʯʨʹʤ to take is restricted. In Zechariah, God immediately curtails the only action that ʯʨʹʤ takes that could be conceived of as independent, even before the words can leave its lips. This is not a figure who can operate outside the deity’s will. The final element is also important; ʯʨʹʤ is always incorrect in its accusation. In Job, this is demonstrated when the main character proves to be truly pious and does not curse God. In Zechariah, this is demonstrated by God silencing ʯʨʹʤ before it can even make his accusation. Therefore, in each narrative ʯʨʹʤ is proved wrong before the case concludes. Ultimately, this revelation reverses the reader’s expectations as ʯʨʹʤ takes on the expected role of God or represents the expected justice of God in order that God can step outside these expectations and provide new insight into the world, especially cultic order. In the Hebrew Bible, ʯʨʹʤ operates under Yahweh’s authority and is a member of Yahweh’s Council. However, there does appear to be something not quite right about ʯʨʹʤ; after all, ʯʨʹʤ is proven wrong in Job and rebuked in Zechariah. Therefore, if ʯʨʹʤ is not the epitome of evil, this dysfunction must be explained in a different way. Perhaps the best way to view ʯʨʹʤ is as blind justice; ʯʨʹʤ has no capacity to extend mercy or adjust justice to account for circumstance.46 It is not that ʯʨʹʤ is evil; it is that ʯʨʹʤ represents the consequences for a world without God’s mercy or power. In Job, ʯʨʹʤ questions the validity of the retributive justice principle and thus sets the scene for Yahweh to step outside the principle. In this narrative, Yahweh is not using ʯʨʹʤ in order to demonstrate his mercy but to prove that he is not bound by any form of justice, even if he established such justice. By having ʯʨʹʤ voice the expected judicial practice, the deity is able to demonstrate that he stands outside judicial expectations. In fact, if the prose and poetry portions are taken together, one can even see Yahweh as claiming that he is not bound by justice or expectation, and his supreme power allows him to step outside the system at will. This has led to the accusation that Yahweh is malicious. In contrast, Zechariah 3 has Yahweh stepping outside the judicial expectations in order to demonstrate mercy to part of humanity. Rather than delivering the justifiable punishment to Joshua, he declares him innocent despite his guilt. Therefore, in Zechariah, ʯʨʹʤ highlights the gift of God’s ʣʱʧ by demonstrating what life would be like without it. ʯʨʹʤ’s purpose is to raise questions about humanity’s piety and God’s justice. As the representative of blind justice, ʯʨʹʤ is only able to operate in absolute terms. In other words, according to ʯʨʹʤ, humanity is either 46

Jung, Fallen Angels, 26.

4.4. ʤʧʥʸ

119

good or bad, guilty or innocent. Because ʯʨʹʤ has no capacity to distinguish according to circumstance, it is unable to understand that someone can be guilty technically, but redeemed, through God’s mercy, and therefore, innocent, so it accuses them. Also, because ʯʨʹʤ’s form of justice is blind and ʯʨʹʤ is incapable of understanding that God’s ultimate justice allows for circumstance and ʣʱʧ, its accusations also serve as a critique of Yahweh’s system of justice. The fact that ʯʨʹʤ is proven wrong and rebuked is less of a comment on ʯʨʹʤ itself, than it is an expression of the supremacy of Yahweh and his ways. By allowing Job’s testing, God shows that his system of justice is justified. Contrary to ʯʨʹʤ’s claim that the deity is buying Job’s piety through reward, which would be unjust, Job shows that pious integrity is what actually motivates the heart of God’s system of justice, not reward. While the end result is the same, the reason for the result is different. Therefore, the ultimate purpose for including the character of ʯʨʹʤ is to highlight the superiority and/or blessing of Yahweh’s justice. 23

4.4. ʧʥʸʤ Being present in the council, the first criterion, is met easily by ʧʥʸʤ. ʧʥʸʤ, who in 1 Kings 22 takes on the personification of a liar, carries on its name the definite article, like ʯʨʹʤ. This suggests that like ʯʨʹʤ, ʧʥʸʤ is also a title of a position within the council. Walsh disagrees with this assessment and says, “The definite article indicates that this is the only ‘spirit’ in Yahweh’s court.”47 While this is a particularly interesting and even attractive position, it is not generally held. Also, if one adopted Walsh’s theory then it would have to be applied to ʯʨʹʤ as well. Should this minority theory prove to be true it would have interesting consequences for understanding the parallels between these deities and identified deities in other ancient Near Eastern pantheons. If these beings are actual solitary figures rather than a random representative of a group, then their origins could easily have been one of the named gods (e.g., Anat, Ba‫ޏ‬al, Asherah, etc.) of the Canaanite council whose names have been relegated to a function. Either way, a solitary figure behind these terms presents a better parallel to council practice in the ancient Near East.48 The second criterion, observing the council, is also met by ʧʥʸʤ as this character is present for the discussion regarding the King of Israel’s fate. 47

Walsh, 1 Kings, 351. Again it is important to note that one should not give priority to ancient Near Eastern parallels. It is equally possible that in an attempt to distinguish themselves and their religious system that they intentionally developed a council that does not reflect the common practices of the area. 48

120

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

ʧʥʸʤ clearly meets the involvement criterion. ʧʥʸʤ has more autonomy than ʯʨʹʤ because whereas ʯʨʹʤ had to rely on Yahweh’s initiative in order to speak and interact, ʧʥʸʤ is able to volunteer for a project that ʧʥʸʤ proposes to Yahweh. Yet, once again, before the plan can be put into action Yahweh must give his consent (v. 22). In what appears to be an attempt to protect monotheism, Jones views ʧʥʸʤ “as a reference to the divinely inspired spirit of prophecy, which, because it was an extension of the divine personality, was personified.”49 Because spirit is often considered an attribute of a person, it lends itself to this kind of hypostasis. However, the literary context of this passage does not fit this understanding. It is clear that multiple characters are present as they discuss several proposals and the text does not lend itself to being understood as various aspects of Yahweh in dialogue. This is not the first time Yahweh has used this kind of spirit to accomplish his purposes. In 1 Sam 16:14 he sends an evil spirit to torment Saul.50 Walton and Matthews draw a parallel between David and Absalom in 2 Sam 15:32–37 and 16:15–17:14 when David sent Hushai to become one of Absalom’s advisers.51 In fact, Hamori identifies eight passages in the Hebrew Bible where a ʧʥʸ is clearly a divine being acting on the behest of Yahweh.52 Hamori says: In each of these eight texts, a divinely sent ʧʥʸ causes a person or group of people to hear falsehood or otherwise be deceived, sometimes accompanied by terror. The purpose is judgment-related, as the one afflicted with falsehood is shown to have been in the wrong already. The result is often death to a king (usually violent) or removal of political opponents, ensuring Israel’s security and preserving God’s plan for the elect. A survey of these texts will demonstrate the existence of a recurring biblical tradition of a ʧʥʸ as divine agent, specifically associated with bringing destructive justice by means of falsehood.53

49 G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 368. Jones follows this by claiming a parallel between ʧʥʸʤ here and ʭʩʴʸʹʤ in Isa 6:6, but the only similarity these two characters share is that they both approach (a) prophet(s). The closest parallel between ʧʥʸʤ and Isaiah 6 is to the prophet himself, who both steps forward and volunteers to act on behalf of the council by bringing a message to those on Earth. His suggested parallel would also undercut his position that ʧʥʸʤ is a personification since ʭʩʴʸʹʤ are certainly not. Jones is following Gray who says, “The spirit is the supernatural, divinely inspired power of prophecy, which in the case of Zedekiah and his colleagues lured Ahab to destruction. This was an emanation, or extension, of the divine personality, and so may be personified”: J. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 403. 50 For more on this parallel see Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 368. 51 J. H. Walton and V. H. Matthews, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 439. 52 Judg 9:23; 1 Samuel 16–19; 1 Kgs 22:21–24; 2 Kgs 19:7/Isa 37:7; Isa 19:13–14; 29:10; Job 4:12–21; and Hos 4:12–5:4: see Hamori, “The Spirit of Falsehood,” 18. 53 Hamori, “The Spirit of Falsehood,” 18.

4.5. ʭʩʴʸʹʤ

121

It is clear that the portrayal of ʧʥʸʤ in 1 Kings 22, a council type-scene, is consistent with ʧʥʸʤ in other texts, but not necessarily the same being. So at least in this case one can conclude that the function of bringing justice is the same for the divine ʧʥʸʤ in both council and non-council texts, and therefore, non-council texts might be cautiously used to understand this role better in a later study. It is also not the first time that Yahweh has deceived a prophet in order to accomplish his goals (Ezek 14:9; Jer 20:7). 24

4.5. ʭʩʴʸʹʤ54 Not only are ʭʩʴʸʹʤ mentioned, which meets the first criterion, they are the most extensively described council characters. Hartenstein says, “the fact that they are described in much more detail than YHWH himself is remarkable.”55 There are seven occurrences of the word ʳʸʹ/ ʭʩʴʸʹ found in five different texts. However, only in Isaiah 6 are they associated with the Council of Yahweh. The traditional interpretation of ʭʩʴʸʹʤ is as serpents who have human attributes.56 Yet, more recent scholars believe there is a stronger connection to fire.57 The name most likely is traced to the verb ʳʸʹ, which means “to burn/to destroy.”58 The connection between fire and holiness is also appropriate in this context, as these beings serve to announce the holiness of the deity: “fire is everywhere associated with God’s holiness (Exod. 3:1–6; 13:21; 19:18; Lev. 10:1–2; Num. 11:1–2; 1 K. 18:24; Isa. 6:6–7) so that it would be entirely appropriate for those who declare that holiness (v. 3) to be ‘fiery’ in their appearance.”59 The 54 For ʭʩʴʸʹʤ see J. de Savignac, “Les ‘Seraphim’,” VT 22 (1972): 320–25; M. Görg, “Die Funktion der Serafen bei Jesaja,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer and K. Schöpflin, eds.; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 155–88; K. R. Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” JBL 86 (1967): 410–15; E. R. Lacheman, “The Seraphim of Isaiah 6,” JQR 59 (1968): 71–72; L. D. Morenz and S. Schorch, “Der Seraph in der Hebräischen Bibel und in Altägypten,” Or 66 (1997): 365–86; D. J. Wiseman, “Flying Serpents,” TynBul 23 (1972): 108–10. 55 F. Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim in the Bible and in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer and K. Schöpflin, eds.; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 170. 56 T. N. D. Mettinger, “Seraphim ʭʩʴʸʹ,” DDD, 742. 57 For a full discussion of the various hypotheses regarding the ʭʩʴʸʹ see Mettinger, “Seraphim ʭʩʴʸʹ,” 742–43. 58 Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim,” 164. 59 Oswalt, Isaiah 1 –39, 179. That ʭʩʴʸʹʤ cover parts of their anatomy in the presence of Yahweh, has led to the suggestion that this is done in order to respect God’s holiness: ibid.

122

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

connection to fire is plausible, since they are connected with coals in Isaiah 6; this may seem insignificant, but considering the parallels with Zechariah 3 the method of purification might be connected with the nature of the one purifying, and the etymology of the name.60 Potential parallels are Šarrabu or Šarrapu, epithets of Nergal, the Akkadian god of pestilence. Wildberger, however, says, “the Hebrew ʸʡʹ, ‘heat of the sun,’ Isa. 35:7; 49:10 (KAT 3 415)” is a better parallel.61 Gesenius suggests the Arabic šarif, ‘noble,’ as a way to understand this divine councilor.62 It is not necessary to insist on one sense over the other. ʭʩʴʸʹʤ could have a connection to fire and still share serpentine characteristics. Hartenstein attempts to make sense of the references to fiery serpents in Num 21:6, 8; Deut 8:15; Isa 14:29, by suggesting this is another phrase used to refer to ʭʩʴʸʹʤ (versus the typical translation of “poisonous”).63 Furthermore, Keel relates this to the flying serpents in Isa 30:6 as representing a combination of the three fiery serpent texts with Isaiah 6.64 Wildberger follows this hypothesis, saying, “It is more likely correct to connect it with the Egyptian šfr, ‘fabulous winged creature,’ as portrayed in a grave at Beni Hasan (AOB 392) (cf. the Demotic serref ‘griffin’).”65 Yet, this theory is not without its flaws. For example, the iconographic evidence used to support this theory has serpents with either two or four wings, but never six like in Isaiah 6. Proponents of the theory claim that this discrepancy is just Isaiah’s way of putting his own stamp on a traditional motif.66 One might also note that none of the iconography has the wings covering any part of their bodies as ʭʩʴʸʹʤ in Isaiah do. Also,

60 In Zechariah 3 the defendant also requires purification as he appears before Yahweh in filthy clothes, but here the messenger removes the robes and dresses him in clean ones, along with adding a tunic. Therefore, one can assume that purification is something the council does when a guilty party is present but that the method of purification varies depending on what requires purification and which being is doing the purification. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch also connect this to the act of purification in verse 6: Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (trans. J. Martin; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1873; reprint, 1988), 1:197. 61 Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 264. 62 W. Gesenius, Lexicon of the Old Testament including the Biblical Chaldee (trans. E. Robinson; Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1836), 977. 63 Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim,” 164–65. 64 Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, 74–110. He makes the connection based on the winged serpent motif on stamps on Iron Age seals. 65 Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 264 (referring to Altorientalische Bibliothek 392). 66 Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim,” 166; Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, 110–14.

4.5. ʭʩʴʸʹʤ

123

It is tempting to associate this aspect of the vision scenario with the cult object in the Jerusalem temple known as Nehushtan, a bronze serpent with healing powers of Mosaic origin to which incense was offered (2 Kgs 18:4; cf. Num 21:6, 8–9). This would at any rate explain the altar and the hot coals, hardly consistent with the primary image of a throne room or audience hall. 67

The plural ending on the noun indicates that there is more than one ʳʸʹ, but the exact number is impossible to determine, though the suggestion that there are only two and the ending is actually a dual no longer in use is debated.68 Kaiser originally claimed that since a choral arrangement is here depicted, such an arrangement would be challenging for only two beings.69 Thus it would be best to understand the ending as a standard plural rather than an archaic dual. Yet, the text specifically says that “one” called to “another,” and if those terms are taken literally, there is no reason to assume that there are any more than two.70 However, the number of ʭʩʴʸʹʤ does not affect the issue of membership or their role in the council. The second criterion, being an observer, is also met by ʭʩʴʸʹʤ and has generated a debate regarding their physical position. Oswalt is careful to point out that, “The Hebrew says they were ‘over’ God, but that need not be taken literally. The servants were standing, as it were, while the king was seated. Thus they were literally above him, but still on the same plane as he (attending him Gen. 45:1; Judg. 3:19; 2 Sam. 13:9).”71 This concern seems unnecessary as the comment is clearly about physical location rather than authoritative hierarchy. Not that one cannot connote the other, but here there is no other indication that ʭʩʴʸʹʤ might hold a superior position, and their worship of Yahweh should be viewed as an implicit indication of his superiority over them. Another theory is that judgment is the main issue.72 This fits with the council setting in which the vision occurs. Hartenstein examines the significance of the verb ʠʬʮ in the passage.73 A semantically-equivalent verb is also prominent in the Hittite tradition when the storm-god Telipinu disappeared and the temple filled with smoke, which resulted in the whole country being laid to waste.74 Considering the parallels of filling, shaking, and desolation that can be found within Isaiah 6, this makes a good comparison. However, in Isaiah 6 these features are related to the very pres67

Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 225. Mettinger, “Seraphim ʭʩʴʸʹ,” 742. 69 Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Wilson), 76. 70 Dr. John L. McLaughlin in personal communication. Also, recognized by Kaiser in the second edition of his commentary: Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Bowden), 126, n. 44. 71 Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 178. 72 Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 171–72. 73 Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim,” 162. 74 H. A. Hoffner, Hittite Myths (SBLWAW 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 14–37. 68

124

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

ence of Yahweh rather than the removal of the God. Even if one accepts the judgment theory, s/he does not need to abandon the holiness hypothesis:75 Isaiah 6 “seems to point to the judgment of Y HWH as an aspect of his holiness.”76 The presence of fire and the role it plays in the narrative further supports this position. The purification ritual that ʭʩʴʸʹʤ undertake meets the involvement criterion. Throughout the ancient Near East the Mischwesen, hybrid beings, were used in connection with royalty and ruling or to represent power.77 In this scene, ʭʩʴʸʹʤ are connected with royalty in the sense that Yahweh is the King of Heaven and seated on his royal throne. This is confirmed by the cultic action that ʭʩʴʸʹʤ take. In this scene, it is one of ʭʩʴʸʹʤ who purifies Isaiah, an action mirrored in Zechariah 3. However, it is important to notice that the scene in Zechariah 3 is clearer, as an accusation is voiced (despite being rebuked), and the purification takes place during the resulting discussion, whereas there is no discussion or multiple divine beings present in Isaiah 6. In general, the parallels with Zechariah 3 suggest that ʭʩʴʸʹʤ are members of the Council of Yahweh. Yet it is also important to note that despite playing a role in the function of the council, these beings do not participate in the discussion regarding fates and they do not come to judgment. Thus, these elements also need to be taken into consideration when discussing the structure of the council and the roles various characters play. 25

4.6. ʤʥʤʩʪʠʬʮ78 At first glance it seems clear that ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ should be considered members of the Council of Yahweh. After all, in Zechariah 3, ʪʠʬʮʤ is identified, observes the activity of the council and is involved in it by acting and 75

Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum, 196–202. Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim,” 172. Emphasis is in the original. This is echoed in Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 181. 77 Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim,” 157. 78 ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ are discussed by A. F. L. Beeston, “Angels in Deuteronomy 33:2,” JTS 2 (1951): 30–31; D. Dimant, “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community,” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East (A. Berlin, ed.; Bethesda: University Press of America, 1996), 93–103; P. E. Dion, “The Angel with the Drawn Sword (II [sic] Chr 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context,” ZAW 97 (1985): 114–17; Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”; Jung, Fallen Angels; S. A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); S. F. Noll, Angels of Light, Power of Darkness: Thinking Biblically about Angels, Satan & Principalities (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998); H. Röttger, Mal’ak Jahwe – Bote von Gott: Die Vorstellung von Gottes Boten im hebräischen Alten Testament (RST 13; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1978); Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter.” 76

4.6. ʤʥʤʩʪʠʬʮ

125

speaking without any form of censure and is even depicted as speaking for Yahweh. In addition ʪʠʬʮʤ is filling an official position, a position similar to the modern defense attorney. 79 Despite these clear arguments in favor of member status, there are two complications, one of membership itself, and the other of function. The question is not whether ʪʠʬʮʤ in Zechariah is a member, but whether all ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ be considered members when only one of the group is mentioned in the Council of Yahweh corpus. All ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ, present in a council would be considered included in it. The second issue is also complicated because it deals with this character’s function, particularly in relation to Yahweh.80 The key issue is the ambiguity between the identity of ʪʠʬʮʤ and Yahweh. Handy says, In the Bible, the messengers usually are presented as subservient creatures who do only the will of Yahweh; however, there are some examples in which the distinction between Yahweh and the messenger becomes confused … It has sometimes been argued that the phrase ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ is a technical term for the manifestation of Yahweh and therefore means the god in person rather than a messenger sent by the deity. 81

The debate about whether or not the titles Yahweh and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ are synonymous has merit. However, it is not the case that the two character names are merely interchangeable, since both beings have distinct identities and actions in some texts. Thus, when this phenomenon occurs there must be a reason for it. Zechariah 3:2 reads that “Yahweh said to the Satan, ‘Yahweh rebuke you, Satan. Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you.’” Yahweh has not been mentioned as present in this vision prior to this speech, the court is said to be standing before ʪʠʬʮʤ, and the use of third person speech has caused some confusion.82 The strangeness of form here has caused Petersen to claim that Yahweh is not present in this scene at all and that his absence in favor of ʪʠʬʮʤ is due to the presence of a human being. He says,

Because of the confusion between ʪʠʬʮʤ and Yahweh in this passage Petersen claims that ʪʠʬʮʤ is in fact the judge and Yahweh is absent from the scene; see his Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 191. 80 Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, 123. 81 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 157–58. 82 It should be noted that none of these things on their own are very significant, but it is the combination of all three that have led to questions. For example, it is actually quite common for Yahweh to speak in the third person and this may even have an authoritative official function, so the first two observations carry more weight than the third. 79

126

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

The mal’Ɨk is, quite simply, the supreme authority in the council. He acts in place of the normal supreme authority, Yahweh … The visions are at a distance of one removed from the deity himself … Hence, it would have been inappropriate for the deity himself to appear, even in his normal role in the divine assembly. 83

Furthermore, he uses Zech 3:5 to emphasize the importance of ʪʠʬʮʤ’s presence.84 His point here is extremely interesting. One does not have to conclude, as Petersen does, that Yahweh is absent from the scene, but perhaps the character confusion that takes place in this passage is due to the presence of a human being. Yet, the Septuagint and the Vulgate both identify the initial character as Yahweh. Alternately, Meier notes this phenomenon and claims three possible explanations for the confusion:85 the first is that this is Yahweh in theophanic form, but he dismisses this as overly simplistic, especially as it ignores the significance of subordination. The second proposal is that this being is the pre-incarnate Christ and thus the two beings are separate and yet one. This too he dismisses because it relies on later theology. The third proposal is that the genitive of ʪʠʬʮʤ is a later addition on theological grounds and this option is the one he determines to be most likely. He states, The word mal’Ɨk was inserted in certain contexts because of theological discomfort with Yahweh appearing as a ĞƗ‫ܒ‬Ɨn adversary (Numbers 22), or in visible form or with the actions of a man (Gen 16:13; Judges 6; 13; cf. Gen 22:14), or in contexts where the actual presence of God was otherwise theologically troublesome (Exod 4:24). 86

While his theory is reasonable, there are many cases where Yahweh himself acts or speaks to people directly and those texts were not redacted (e.g., Exod 34:5–6; 2 Sam 24:1; Job 40). Thus, his explanation is not satisfactorily complex. Meyers and Meyers are probably on the right track when they say, “The frequent use of angels as mediators becomes characteristic of exilic and post-exilic prophecy. Perhaps as Yahweh becomes more transcendent, the members of his council take on more active and specific roles.”87 This would fit with the development in heavenly identities that come out in the Second Temple Period, especially in apocalyptic literature. Since ʪʠʬʮʤ appears in both council and non-council text, one needs to ascertain whether the role of ʪʠʬʮʤ is consistent in both types of texts. If the role proves to be consistent throughout the texts then non-council texts might be used to enhance the understanding of the character within council 83

Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 190–91. He states, the presence of ʪʠʬʮʤ “serves again to indicate both Yahweh’s absence and yet his control of the situation through a divinely designated agent”: Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 191. 85 S. A. Meier, “Angel of Yahweh,” DDD, 57–58. 86 Meier, “Angel of Yahweh,” 58. 87 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 183. 84

4.7. Those Standing Here

127

texts. However, a distinction might be made between the function of ʪʠʬʮʤ in and outside of his role in the council. Hamori says, “It appears that the category mal’Ɨkîm incorporates a wide variety of forms and functions, sometimes seemingly linked only by their shared title.”88 ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ literally means “the messengers,” but in council texts this is not the role ʪʠʬʮʤ plays. In Heaven, he appears in the role of human advocate (Job 33:23– 26)89 and at times is even the counterpart to the accuser of humanity (Zechariah 3). Council messages tend to be delivered by ʧʥʸʤ or prophets. 26

4.7. Those Standing Here These characters appear in Zechariah 3 (vv. 4, 8) and at first glace appear to be much like the Thousands upon Thousands in Daniel 7. Yet, these characters are merely a generic mention of the myriad of witnesses to Yahweh’s Council. In Zechariah 3, they are the ones who actually enact the ruling of the judge by ritually cleansing Joshua (v. 4) and in doing so belong to the court. Moreover, in verse 8, Joshua is given the right of access to the council by the association of “the Ones Standing Here.” This implies that the term in this passage is a general reference to the members of Yahweh’s Council and a way of speaking about the council as a whole. This is significant when the two verses are combined as it suggests that God’s will is enacted by the totality of the council – one mind, one action, complete harmony. This is especially true if ʯʨʹʤ is included in this group, after all this character is initially introduced as standing before the council, because it would demonstrate that the rebuke is completely successful with no reservations, doubts, concerns, or lingering dissent.

88

Hamori, “When Gods Were Men,” 117. While this scene may not actually occur in Heaven, it is likely that Job is calling out for justice from the council. The context of the plea is judgment and condemnation, which falls within the parameters of the council. Crying out for “a mediator” would indicate that there be some kind of discussion and it is made clear that this mediator is a being other than Yahweh, but that this being is divine. Also, while the human being is facing judgment, this passage would indicate that this human being does not have access to the Council of Yahweh and thus must rely on a divine figure to plead his case. This could have interesting implications in a discussion about human beings and the Council of Yahweh. For more on the relationship between these verses and the divine council, see Pope, Job, 251. 89

128

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

4.8. The Thousands upon Thousands 27

These beings appear in the council chamber in the text of Daniel 7, which means they meet the second criterion. However, they do not meet either of the other two criteria, being identified or involved. Therefore, they would not be considered members of the council. A modern parallel would be to see these characters as similar to the audience that watches CSPAN. Daniel 7 does not provide much insight into these beings, but that does not mean that it is useless for the purposes of the current study. Whether or not one takes the description literally or hyperbolically, it lets the reader know that Heaven, and more particularly the council, is densely populated. This is particularly interesting in light of the small number of council members singled out within the council texts of the Hebrew Bible; even in comparison with the extensive Ugaritic council these large-scale numbers would be overwhelming. Their role would be to attend Yahweh, but there is nothing to indicate that they participate in the discussion. This of course does not mean that all these beings are members of the inner circle of the council nor that they have significant roles to play within its structure. 28

4.9. The Interpreting Persona What to call the character who interprets the events in Daniel 7 for the prophet is slightly problematic. It has become typical to refer to this being as the angelus interpres; however, this title is not completely accurate and potentially misleading.90 While it seems inappropriate to refer to a character in a Semitic text by a Latin version of a Greek term, there are larger reasons to reject this title for this particular character. There are two issues with using this title to refer to this character: 1) There is no indication in the text that this character is a ʪʠʬʮ; 2) The interpretation provided here does not appear to be an official act. While there are many ʭʩʫʠʬʮ throughout the Hebrew Bible, rarely do they occur in council settings, only in Zechariah 3, nor is there any reason to assume that all attendants are actually ʭʩʫʠʬʮ. In fact, the variety of characters discussed within this chapter should be enough to provide evidence to the contrary. Hence, the

90 This title has become commonplace for a variety of Old Testament characters, but this amalgamation is more of a creation than a true homogeny. For example, the “man” in Ezekiel 40–48 is often referred to by this term, but this character is more of a divine tour guide than an interpreter. See Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter,” 198. Greater clarity, more distinction, and attention to terminology are necessary for further study of this (or more accurately these) character(s): Macumber, “Angelic Intermediaries.”

4.9. The Interpreting Persona

129

term persona is used rather than angelus.91 This discussion demonstrates that the interpreting persona does not meet the first criterion, being identified, but does meet the second of observing the council, which is clear from its ability to interpret the council to Daniel. The issue of involvement is more difficult to resolve. Its interpretive role could certainly remind anyone who has been a student of the experience of being in class, not understanding the teacher, and turning to the person next to her/him for clarification. The fellow student has no particular job to interpret the teacher, but s/he will usually reply with an interpretation. While the context might be different, almost everyone can relate to this type of experience. The question here then is does this persona have an official role that relates to interpretation or is its role a mere matter of circumstance? In addition, one needs to question whether this incident should be combined with the interpreting actions of Gabriel in Daniel 8. There, Yahweh sees that Daniel is afraid and does not understand, so he instructs Gabriel to interpret for Daniel (v. 16). It is not unreasonable to amalgamate these two beings, considering they are found in the same book, the vision series, and employ the same motif.92 It would also not be unreasonable for Yahweh to choose the same being that was chosen by Daniel himself in the previous chapter. Gabriel reappears in Dan 9:21–23, but this time he flies, which should make one wonder if he should be understood as a ʳʸʹ rather than a ʪʠʬʮ.93 This identification becomes even more likely when one compares Gabriel touching the prophet in Dan 8:18 to the cleansing in Isa 6:6–7.94 It is interesting that Gabriel is also referred to as a “man” in Daniel 9. If this character is the same as the interpretive persona in Daniel 7, then it raises interesting questions about humanity and the Council of Yahweh.95 Both of these connections are strengthened further if the interpreting being in Dan 10:5–6 is also the same one. Regardless of whether these characters can be amalgamated, this being is not a member of the council simply because of the interpretive action. Because the action is not integral to the functioning of the council (and might only be present because divine interpretation is a part of the genre of 91 The choice of “persona” over a term like “being” is merely one of style and was chosen in an attempt to mesh with traditional terminology while disputing its veracity. 92 Schöpflin, “God’s Interpreter,” 199. 93 Cherubim also have wings (Exod 25:20; 37:9; 1 Kgs 6:27; 8:7; 1 Chr 28:18; 2 Chr 3:13; 5:8; Ezek 1:6, 8, 9, 11, 23–25; 10:5, 8, 16, 19; 11:22) and thus are another possibility. 94 The action is different, trance breaking versus purification, but both characters use touch in order to accomplish their goals. 95 The relationship between humanity and the Council of Yahweh will be explored in Chapter Six.

130

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

apocalyptic literature), this relates more to the role of Daniel as an observer than it is a necessary/formal part of the council itself. 29

4.10. One like a Son of Man The One like a Son of Man is identified, which meets the first criterion. He meets this criterion because he is identified in a way that distinguishes him from other characters. While it is clear that this naming fits the criterion, it is also unusual compared to the other characters examined so far and thus deserves further exploration. Due to the symbolic nature of apocalyptic writing and the context of Daniel 7, one does not need to view the “One like a Son of Man” as a title of a particular member of the council, but it could be a symbolic reference to a particular member. Within the context, Collins claims the character’s symbolism is the most important factor in determining his role. He says, “Daniel 7 does not make an explicit identification, but leaves the figure deliberately enigmatic. The important point is that he is a heavenly figure and represents the supernatural power supporting the persecuted Jews.”96 This may be true for an exegetical exploration of the passage. However, in order to gain insight into membership in Yahweh’s Council, one must determine the character’s identity. The first question to consider is whether or not this is a divine being. There are those who view this figure as a human being, since the standard grammatical construction of “son of” usually indicates a member of the group that follows the preposition.97 Towner introduces the questions involved saying, Is he to be understood as a single individual or the embodiment of a collective entity of some kind? Is he one of the persons known by the Old Testament writers to be in heaven already because they were translated, such as Enoch (Gen 5:24) or Elijah (II Kings 2:12)? Is he one of those persons exceptional for having known God intimately (Adam, Abraham, Moses, or David)? Is he one of those preexistent figures already known in Judaism (the personified wisdom, Prov. 8:22–31; the suffering servant, Isa. 52:13–53:12; or the Messiah, the anointed one of David, Ezek. 37:24–28)? Or is he some hitherto unknown entity, now making his totally unexpected appearance?98

Thus, the figure’s identity, if human, has been the subject of much debate. Jeffery views the setting of Daniel 7 as either a Semitic new king ritual or an Achaemenid throne presentation ceremony.99 This would fit with ancient Near Eastern kings sometimes being referred to as a son of god, but this 96

Collins, Daniel, 1, 2 Maccabees, 79. This line of interpretation ignores the relevance of the initial ʫ preposition. 98 Towner, Daniel, 103. 99 A. Jeffrey, “The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB 3:461. 97

4.10. One like a Son of Man

131

parallel does not seem to account adequately for the phrase “son of man.” Hartman and Di Lella turn to parallels in the Myth of the Solar Heavenly Man, Iranian rites of enthronement, the Enthronement of Marduk, and solar rites from Tyre. 100 Smith draws parallels to the phrase at Ugarit and also claims this meaning for Job 25:6.101 This usage also occurs in 11QtgJob 9:9 and 26:2–3.102 There are four main suggestions about his identity: 1) the Davidic king;103 2) a (high) priest;104 3) the messiah;105 and 4) the representative of Israel.106 Beyond the construct chain there are other arguments in favor of a human understanding. Goldingay says, “The visionary portrayal of him coming with the clouds of the Heavens might simply signify that he comes by God’s initiative and as his gift, without suggesting that he is in himself other than human.”107 In addition, he argues that Exod 24:18 has Moses having a theophany within a cloud and Psalm 2 presents God as begetting and installing the chosen king despite the king’s humanity. However, one should note that an encounter with God in a cloud on a mountain is quite different than flying on a cloud in the air.108 Goldingay himself also notes the weakness of this argument when he points out that only god(s) come(s)

100

Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 127. M. S. Smith, “The ‘Son of Man’ in Ugarit,” CBQ 45 (1983): 59–60. 102 Collins, Daniel, 1, 2 Maccabees, 305. 103 Mosca, “Ugarit and Daniel 7.” Goldingay makes a strong case against this position, which can be summarized with his statement: “Seeing the humanlike figure as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes of a coming king does draw attention to links between Dan 7 and Dan 1–6. Dan 7 is concerned with God’s reign in the world, not with God’s temple in Jerusalem”: Goldingay, Daniel, 170. 104 A. LaCocque, Daniel in His Time (trans. L. Cochrane; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 149–61; C. H. T. Louis-Fletcher, “The High Priest as Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Daniel 7:13 as a Test Case,” in SBLSP 36 (E. Lovering, ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 167–69. 105 G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Interpretation of Daniel 7,” CBQ 45 (1983): 55–56. 106 J. G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1978), 148–49; A. Bentzen, Daniel (HAT 19; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1952), 64; M. Delcor, “Les sources du chapitre 7 de Daniel,” VT 18 (1968): 294; E. W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel (TBC; London: SCM Press, 1956), 183, 187; R. Mason, “The Treatment of Earlier Biblical Themes in the Book of Daniel,” PRS 15 (1988): 99. 107 “The grounds for identifying the humanlike figure as the Davidic anointed are circumstantial ones. There are no direct pointers to this in the text, though as the one whom God commissions to exercise his kingly authority, the humanlike figure fulfills the role of the anointed one, whether or not he is actually an earthly Davidide”: Goldingay, Daniel, 170. 108 As was pointed out to me in a personal communication from Dr. John L. McLaughlin. 101

132

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

“in/on” the clouds in the biblical canon.109 The ʭʲ preposition used in relation to clouds has caused significant discussion regarding the human or divine nature of this character. Towner summarizes the issue: About the son of man we learn first of all that he comes into the scene “with the clouds of heaven.” The phrase seems simple enough, but the preposition “with” is susceptible of several nuances, including “together with,” “by means of,” or “on.” If one like a son of man is riding on the clouds (LXX-Dan), perhaps he is descending from heaven with them as if borne on a heavenly chariot. On the other hand, if he is coming together with clouds (Theod-Dan), the reasonable implication would be that the son of man is riding up from earth, rising as clouds do on the horizon. The issue between these two understandings of the simple preposition “with” is the issue between theophany (the son of man as a divine figure being brought down on clouds at the appropriate moment of disclosure) and apotheosis (the son of man as an earthly figure being lifted to heavenly heights in order to be awarded the dominion).110

The parallels between this character and Baal from Ugarit are particularly apparent with the connection to clouds. Baal is known as “the rider on the clouds” (e.g., CTU 1.2 IV 8, 29; 1.3 II 40; 1.3 III 38; 1.3 IV 4, 6; 1.4 III 11, 18; 1.4 V 60; 1.5 II 7), which is one way to understand the phrase in Daniel 7. This parallel would seem to indicate that the figure in Daniel should be interpreted as divine; however, this is not necessarily the case. The phenomenon of de-divinizing Canaanite deities or foreign gods is common, and to parallel Baal, the main threat to Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, with a human would be a strong statement regarding the ultimate position of the rider on the clouds. Yet, this is most likely not the best way to understand the statement here. Since the ancient mythology is an important component of disguising the dating and message of the apocalyptic book, the symbols are meant to parallel the intended understanding rather than critique it. In fact, there is much evidence to support a heavenly identity for this figure. Support for this understanding comes from several sources. Within the Book of Daniel, Gabriel appears in human form to interpret the vision in chapter 8, and again in chapters 10 and 12 heavenly beings appear in human form. In addition, Collins argues, “the ‘son of man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch, a Jewish work heavily dependent on Daniel, is said to be like one of the holy angels (1 Enoch 46:1).”111 Collins’ point here is interesting. The emphasis must be put on the ʫ preposition.112 He presents a situation that is the reverse of the one present in Daniel 7; in 1 Enoch a son of man is like a heavenly being, but in Daniel 7 a heavenly being is like a 109

Goldingay, Daniel, 171. This happens with human beings in Josephus, Ant. 4.4.48; Acts 1:9; 1 Thess 4:17. 110 Towner, Daniel, 105. 111 Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 79. 112 Pace, Daniel, 245.

4.10. One like a Son of Man

133

son of man. It is clear that the son of man in 1 Enoch is not divine but shares characteristics with the heavenly beings. Thus in Daniel 7 the One like a Son of Man is not a human being, but shares characteristics with humans. Some scholars attempt to identify this character with other celestial characters known either in Second Temple literature or within the Book of Daniel itself. The most dominant of these theories is that the One like a Son of Man is the celestial being Michael. Collins, the major proponent of this theory, summarizes his position: Michael in chapter 10 is the patron and representative of the Jewish people. When he triumphs, they triumph. Similarly in chapter 7, if the kingdom is given to the ‘holy ones’ it is equally given to the people of the holy ones, the faithful Jews. In light of chapter 10, the ‘one like a son of man’ may well be identified with Michael, representative and leader at once of the heavenly host and of the Jewish people.113

The argument has merit in that it focuses on the ultimate purpose of the One like a Son of Man and it presents a consistent portrayal of characters with the Book of Daniel. Yet, if Collins is correct then one must wonder why the connection is not made explicit in the text. Not all scholars have attempted to identify this council member with a specific figure, either human or celestial. Goldingay sees such an attempt as a violation of the intent of this passage. He states, If the figure is Michael, or Gabriel, or any other specific individual, it is odd that he appears only here and not in vv 18, 22, and 27 … Later chapters must not be read back into this one … Chap. 7 invites us to focus on the humanlike figure’s role rather than its identity. Indeed, it has been argued that the humanlike figure’s failure to appear in the interpretative section of the vision indicates that it is not a particularly important feature of the chapter.114

This particular position fits with what is generally known about council members in the Hebrew Bible. Rarely do celestial council members have an identity, but usually are identified by function or position (cf. ʯʨʹʤ, ʧʥʸʤ, etc.). In addition, Goldingay’s claim that this figure is unimportant in this section has merit in that the focus of the interpretive section is on the result, not the character. Even Collins, who Goldingay is denouncing in the previous quotation, notices the absence of this character in the interpretation:

113 114

Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 78–79. Goldingay, Daniel, 172.

134

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

In the angel’s interpretation in vss. 17–18, the “one like a son of man” is not explicitly identified. Instead we are told that “the saints of the Most High” will receive the kingdom that was given to the “one like a son of man” in the vision. This does not necessarily mean that he is a collective figure, identical with them, but it does mean that he represents them in some way.115

This provides a very interesting parallel to Zechariah 3. Most commentators see Joshua as a representative of a larger group of humans, but Joshua is the only one present within the council.116 If both these characters are meant to represent a larger group of humans, then both narratives represent a council paradigm in which a council member takes on the group persona without direct access to the council, but whose fate is being decided by said council. In addition, Redditt notices that, “The one like a human came to the One Ancient of Days and was presented before him as a loyal subject to a sovereign.”117 This is consistent with the way in which other council members present themselves before Yahweh, but this might just be expected behavior before the deity, and this presentation meets the second criterion, observing the council. All members defer to Yahweh and are subject to his initiations and commands; thus the presentation of the One like a Son of Man in a way that is consistent with a subject before a ruler fits within the expected behavior of a council member before Yahweh. The third criterion, involvement, is a little more ambiguous. The One like a Son of Man does not actually participate in any council activities or discussion. His role in the council more clearly parallels that of Isaiah and Joshua and thus will be considered with them in the following chapter on structure. 30

4.11. Human Beings The following section may appear out of place in a discussion about a “divine” council. Yet, in order to avoid assumptions and because there are human characters in the Council of Yahweh type-scene, these characters need to be explored according to the three membership criteria. The first of which can be addressed for all the characters at once, the first criterion is that the character is identified, and each of the following characters have personal names that are used in the respective passages. Below I explore each of these characters according to the other two criteria.

115

Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 77. See Chapter Three for a detailed discussion of theories and theorists. 117 Redditt, Daniel, 129. 116

4.11. Human Beings

135

4.11.1. Micaiah ben Imlah/Zechariah The connection between prophets and the Council of Yahweh has long been noted.118 For the purpose of this chapter, two prophets should be considered together: Micaiah ben Imlah and Zechariah. Both prophets are observers to the actions of the council and the judgments made there. Yet neither prophet is an involved participant, nor is either directly commissioned by the council. In 1 Kings 22 Micaiah ben Imlah is summoned before the kings of Israel and Judah in order to advise them regarding God’s will for war with Ramoth-Gilead. During his prophecy Micaiah is able to view the Council of Yahweh in order to observe the deliberations and learn its will regarding his prophecy. Similarly Zechariah is shown the council in order to observe the “trial” of Joshua. Thus both prophets meet the observe criterion, but fail to meet the involvement criterion.119 4.11.2. Daniel The case of Daniel is slightly different than the other two humans just discussed. At the beginning of the vision it appears that Daniel is granted access into the council through a dream to serve as an observer of the case before the Ancient of Days, thus, meeting criterion two. However, unlike Zechariah and Micaiah ben Imlah, he does not remain a silent observer, but interacts with and solicits information from one of those gathered, which could be understood to meet the involvement criterion. Yet, he still does not actively participate within the council itself, nor is he a part of the formal process as anything other than an observer. 4.11.3. Joshua The case of Joshua is quite different than the previous three human beings. The first major difference is that Joshua is a priest not a prophet. The council is the realm of the prophets, who have limited access to it in order to provide messages of warning to God’s people (cf. Jer 23:18, 21–22).120 Yet, Joshua does not wear the prophetic mantle, so the suggestion that he is a participant in the Council of Yahweh is radical. While it may be radical, Joshua meets the observe criterion, and he is given explicit access to the council (“the ones standing here”), which meets the involvement criterion. This type of unlimited inclusion in the council appears to go beyond the access that was granted to Micaiah, Zechariah, or Daniel.

118 Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah”; Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh”; Seitz, “The Divine Council.” 119 This dichotomy is explored further in the following Chapter. 120 Nissinen, “Prophets and the Divine Council.”

136

Chapter Four: Council Members and Their Functions

4.11.4. Isaiah Isaiah also provides an interesting twist on the human prophetic observer of the council hypothesis. While Isaiah is a prophet and thus should have access to the Council of Yahweh, he is not only an observer, like the other prophets in this study, he is also involved, which means he meets all three criteria. In fact, there are several parallels between the actions of Isaiah and ʧʥʸʤ of 1 Kings 22. In each case, Yahweh seeks a volunteer to be commissioned with a mission from the council and a being, either Isaiah or ʧʥʸʤ, volunteer for the mission. McLaughlin says, “Since Isaiah actually participates in the council meeting whereas Micaiah only observes, Isaiah’s subsequent role more closely parallels that of the spirit in Micaiah’s vision rather than that of his fellow prophet.”121 This is an important distinction, and since it has already been determined that ʧʥʸʤ is a member of the Council of Yahweh, one must consider if by analogy Isaiah is also a member. But despite the numerous parallels between these two characters there is a major difference between them. ʧʥʸʤ actually determines the plan of the council when it volunteers to go, but Isaiah merely volunteers for a task without knowing what it might be, which suggests he was not privy to the discussion of the council that decided the fate of the people. Isaiah is also paralleled to Joshua in that both undergo a cleansing ritual before being given responsibilities (Joshua by being given complete access to the council and Isaiah by being able to participate in the discussion about the earthly mission and judgment). Even in this, Isaiah demonstrates more activity than Joshua, in that he initiates or points out his uncleanliness, whereas ʯʨʹʤ is the one to highlight this in Zechariah. Yet, in contrast to this, Isaiah shows less initiative than ʧʥʸʤ, who not only volunteers for his mission, but is also the one who actually conceives of it. Thus both characters belong with the Council of Yahweh, but function at different levels of membership (see Chapters Five and Six). 31

4.12. Conclusions In this chapter, I examined the various characters that could potentially be viewed as members of the Council of Yahweh. Each character was looked at in terms of three criteria. The first is that the character had to be identifiable either by name or title. The second is that they needed to be present, even if that presence was accomplished in a dream or vision state. Finally, they had to engage in activity related to the function of the council. This final criterion will be important for the discussion that follows in 121

McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened,” 3.

4.12. Conclusions

137

Chapter Five. The resulting list of characters is: Yahweh, ʯʨʹʤ, ʧʥʸʤ, ʭʩʴʸʹʤ, ʪʠʬʮʤ, the One like a Son of Man, and some human beings.122 The next chapter will explore the types of membership and agency that occur in the Council of Yahweh. Chapter Six will explore the relationships between the human beings and the Council of Yahweh in more depth.

122 Several of the characters in this chapter were determined not to be members. These include Micaiah ben Imlah, Zechariah, Daniel and the Thousands upon Thousands.

Chapter Five 32

Synchronic Analysis 5.1. Introduction Now that the Council of Yahweh text corpus has been explored for potential members and their functions, it is important to explore whether a structure emerges when the texts and characters are looked at as a whole. As stated in the introduction, the studies about structure to date propose a four-tier structure throughout the ancient Near East, but with various answers regarding the Hebrew Bible. Here I propose a new understanding of the council structure that will be based completely on the function of characters rather than on the characters themselves because of the difficulty regarding identity. This is also a reflection of the royal court of ancient Israel where members would engage in various roles, both administrative and judicial.1 Thus some characters may fit into more than one category of membership. The structure also determines degrees of membership or agency within the Council of Yahweh. This allows for the narrow definition of membership to be upheld, but also provides a comprehensive understanding of those involved in the work of the council. 33

5.2. Challenges to Proposing a New Structure Before proceeding any further, some preliminary remarks should be made. By suggesting a structural framework for the Council of Yahweh, one is engaging in a systematic synchronic study of the texts and is therefore focusing more on the literary form. This type of analysis does not allow for a detailed history of religions approach that examines the differences and diversities within the Hebrew Bible itself, not to mention the insights gained through anthropology and archaeology. A minor example of this is Jeremiah’s insistence that a true prophet is one who has access to the council (Jer 23:18, 22), while Hosea or Micah do not appear to have any knowledge of the council whatsoever. So while I acknowledge that there are various strands of tradition within the material that I am working with, 1

Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel, 35, 41.

5.2. Challenges to Proposing a New Structure

139

these differences will not be the focal point of this particular study. What I am seeking at this juncture is an overall paradigm regarding the structure of the Council of Yahweh that can be contrasted and compared to the structure in other ancient Near Eastern cultures in future research. At the same time this proposed structure would continually need to be evaluated from within using a history of Israelite religion approach. With this in mind, I turn now to my fresh proposal regarding the structure of the Council of Yahweh. 5.2.1. Tier One The natural place to begin a structural exploration is at the top. In the case of the Hebrew Bible, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that Yahweh, being the chief god, would be located at the top of the council and that he would be alone in that primary position.2 In Chapter Two, I explored whether all divine councils in the Hebrew Bible should be considered Council of Yahweh type-scenes. Also, in that chapter, I outlined criteria for determining a council type-scene. At that point, one criterion distinguished a divine council text from a Council of Yahweh text, notably the participation of Yahweh in a leadership role. To avoid making assumptions, I explored whether Yahweh appeared in each of the texts and whether he took on a leadership role (cf. LXX Deut 32:8). In addition, it is an assumption that there is a leader of the council no matter how reasonable this seems. In each text, Isaiah 6, 1 Kings 22, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and Daniel 7, I demonstrated that Yahweh was not only present, but also controlled the agenda of the meeting and the actions of the members. This exercise of authority demonstrates that there is a leadership role with power over the rest of the council and would be akin to the first tier in the proposals already presented. Thus, it is appropriate to refer to the Israelite divine council as the Council of Yahweh. As one might expect, determining a structure for the Council of Yahweh becomes more complicated beyond the top tier. Since there is a universal understanding that Yahweh is the chief god of the nations of Israel and Judah and therefore is expected to lead its council, it is relatively easy to establish this level of the council. However, the relationship among the other deities and their relationship to Yahweh is less obvious, especially as very few of them appear in the same scene, which would allow the interpreter to analyze their direct interactions. Nor are these other deities described using familial or related language that could help clarify their rela2 I will refer to this level of the structure as a tier from here forward to maintain continuity with the previous studies on divine council structure. Also, the question of whether all Israelite religion would have viewed a solitary Yahweh on the top tier will be addressed in the concluding chapter.

140

Chapter Five: Synchronic Analysis

tionship through an understanding of the ancient Israelite family structure. Yet, this is not the only complication faced at this stage of the investigation. The fact that most of the members of Yahweh’s Council are not referred to by name but by title or by function further complicates efforts to identify where they belong in a structural analysis, or even if these characters are indeed separate deities or merely different manifestations of the same deity performing various roles. Because of this final complication, this structural proposal will focus on functional roles, rather than identity. 34

5.3. The Structure of the Council of Yahweh 5.3.1. Tier Two My proposed structure comprises three tiers, and five divisions. In addition, I name three character categories that have some relationship to the Council of Yahweh, but whose occupants are not members of the council. As has already been stated, the first tier comprises the chief god, Yahweh. Also, like other ancient Near Eastern cultures, members on the second tier are the most actively involved in the actual function of the council. I call this tier “the councilors” based on how these characters function in the text. I divide this and the following tier into two divisions in order to demonstrate that there is no observable hierarchy among these divisions, but rather a heterarchy. This allows for systems to relate to one another laterally rather than vertically. The roles and functions of each division are different but each division demonstrates an ability to act within the council, to speak within the council, and to demonstrate some form of initiative in that setting, though this last criterion is severely limited. Therefore, they have been presented here as equal but different. 5.3.1.1. Judicial Officials The first division of councilors is the “judicial officials.” These are the gods who take an active role in legal proceedings, such as ʯʨʹʤ and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ. A good example of this is Zechariah 3 where ʯʨʹʤ acts as a prosecutor and ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ positions itself as the defense attorney. This goes against the grain of Handy’s theory, which would put ʪʠʬʮʤ on the fourth tier based on the translation of its name.3 Heiser summarizes this understanding when he states,

3

Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 152–54.

5.3. The Structure of the Council of Yahweh

141

Specialists in Israelite religion who have focused on the divine council are apparently in agreement that, unlike the Ugaritic texts, at no point are the biblical ʭʩʫʠʬʮ ever specifically designated ʭʩʤʬʠ, ʭʩʬʠ, or the ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ in the Hebrew text. Thus in the consensus view ʭʩʫʠʬʮ of the Israelite council are not only a separate class and at the lowest level of the heavenly bureaucracy, but they are not regarded as ontologically equivalent to the ʭʩʤʬʠ, ʭʩʬʠ, or the ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ.4

However, this is not a good understanding of the actual function of ʪʠʬʮʤ in the council. Despite the translation of the name, ʪʠʬʮʤ does not function as a messenger, but directly participates in the judgment section of Zechariah 3. 5.3.1.2. Advisors The second division consists of the “advisors.” These are the gods Yahweh consults when formulating a plan or to receive status reports. In 1 Kings 22, Yahweh addresses the council in order to gain its input as to how to proceed with killing the King of Israel. ʧʥʸʤ, the prototype of an advisor, steps forward with a plan for Yahweh’s approval. Again, this division is based on function, and therefore a council member can be a court official and an advisor. ʯʨʹʤ is one such character as it functions as a judicial official in Zechariah 3, but as an advisor in Job 1–2. 5.3.2. Tier Three 5.3.2.1. Court Officers The third tier in this structure (radically different than tier three in Smith’s and Handy’s structure) consists of two divisions.5 I call this tier the “agents.” The first division is similar to the third tier in other ancient Near Eastern cultures and like that tier is sparsely populated. I call this division “court officers” because it consists of gods who serve the council. The best example of this type of deity is the ʭʩʴʸʹ in Isaiah 6. While their primary role is to worship Yahweh, they also serve the council by purifying the lips of Isaiah in order to allow for his participation. ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ performs a similar purification function in Zechariah 3. Because these characters do play a specific and active role in the council, and because they act on their own initiative in the council, they have been included in the council tiers.

4 Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature,” 46. 5 Handy, Among the Host of Heaven, 131; M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 26.

142

Chapter Five: Synchronic Analysis

5.3.2.2. Commissioned The second division, and by far the most controversial, comprises the “commissioned.” It may be more appropriate to think of this division as council participants rather than members. The characters in this division are all given responsibilities that relate to the council as a result of the judgment that the council makes. Both humans and gods appear in this division: ʯʨʹʤ, ʧʥʸʤ, Isaiah, and Joshua. Sometimes the characters from tier two also appear in this category because they personally take on the mission that they have discussed or proposed in their role as advisors. It remains unclear why there are times that tier two deities sometimes perform the actions of the council instead of the other times when completely different characters are brought in to accomplish these tasks. However, my hypothesis is that if supernatural elements are involved in the mission, then a tier two deity is necessary to perform the commissioned activity. For example, control over nature, sickness and health, and life and death in Job 1–2 requires the intervention of ʯʨʹʤ. However, if the commissioning does not require divine abilities to perform, then earthly characters (e.g., Isaiah, Joshua) can be used. There are two council scenes where human beings are brought into the council, allowed to participate in the council, and given access and rights to the council that extend into the future: Isaiah 6 and Zechariah 3. Isaiah speaks without being spoken to, which ʯʨʹʤ does not do in Job 1–2, and volunteers for a task in the way that the advisor ʧʥʸʤ was able to in 1 Kings 22; the difference is that his message is prophetic and can be delivered by a human being to other humans whereas ʧʥʸʤ gives the prophets a deceptive message that they believe comes from the divine directly. In other words, ʧʥʸʤ is playing the role with the prophets that the council is playing for Isaiah. So while both characters are acting as commissioned members, there is a hierarchy between those from tier two and those who only appear on tier three. The case of Joshua is more complicated than that of Isaiah. Joshua is granted access to the council in exchange for “walk[ing] in my ways and keep[ing] my requirements,” and he will also be rewarded with ruling Yahweh’s house and courts. However, “walk[ing] in [Yahweh’s] ways” is the responsibility of all believers, so it is hard to see this as a commission from the council. Yet, this behavior will set Joshua up as “an omen of the things to come” (v. 8), and thus his behavior is a commission of the council to be an example for the future.6 This ties Joshua to the priestly theme of mystical participation, which can also be viewed in Ezekiel and Genesis 1.7 6 This does leave the reader with the complication of Joshua’s “colleagues” who are also part of the omen, but not part of the council or the reward. 7 For a thorough discussion of this tradition see M. S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 82–84.

5.3. The Structure of the Council of Yahweh

143

While this division is controversial because it involves considering human beings as part of the divine council, it is even more radical because it places them with the deities that are second only to Yahweh. Yet, if one uses function as the main criterion for structure then these characters, Isaiah and Joshua, belong on this tier. Despite the fact that the One like a Son of Man is likely a divine being, he would also be a part of this division, since the only textual information on this character is a commission, and he takes no part in the discussion nor gives any advice. 5.3.3. Non-member Categories 5.3.3.1. Observers The commissioned should not be confused with those in the first nonmember category: the observers. Whether or not this category should be included as part of the council is debatable. These human beings are not actual members, nor do they participate in the council. However, they do serve a purpose for the council and are provided access, albeit limited, to the council and therefore, have been included in this study. While these characters act as messengers, in that they retell the council events that they have observed, they do not fit on the third tier because their agency is not mandated by the council: they are not instructed by the council to pass on their visions. There are four examples of this. The first is Micaiah ben Imlah in 1 Kings 22, who observes the scene in Heaven and recounts it as a means of justifying his divergent prophecy. The second is Zechariah, who in chapter 3 of the book named for him observes the council, but does not participate in it. Daniel and the Thousands upon Thousands would also be considered observers. In many ways, this category is similar to the fourth tier of the Ugaritic pantheon because the characters in this category are used to transmit information regarding the council to other parties (e.g., CTU 1.2 I 22, 26, 28, 30, 41, 42, 44; 1.13.25–26; 1.124.11; 2.17.7; 2.23.5; 2.33.35; 2.36.11; 2.76.3).8 However, it is different in that this category is completely divine in Ugarit and completely human in the Hebrew Bible.9 This difference could be accounted for by the evolution towards monotheism that Smith noted.10 It also differs in that the messages in Ugarit are intended for other divine beings, but in the Hebrew Bible the messages are meant for human beings.

8

Cf. M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 57. M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 46. 10 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 49–50. 9

144

Chapter Five: Synchronic Analysis

5.3.3.2. Vehicles and Defendants There are at least two more categories that relate to the Council of Yahweh, but neither of these should be considered membership categories. The first would be the “vehicles” of the council. An example of this category is the 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22 because they do not participate in the council nor do they observe it, but they are used by the council (through ʧʥʸʤ) in order to accomplish the mission of the council. The second category would be the “defendants”; since by nature the council is a judging body, something or somebody needs to be judged. These characters are not members, but are a necessary part of any council. Like the divisions, these categories are not stagnant. For example, Joshua, a defendant, becomes an agent because he is commissioned (see above), whereas the beasts from Daniel 7, who are also defendants, do not because they are found guilty. 35

5.4. Conclusions This synchronic study of the Council of Yahweh mirrors elements of the pantheon structure of other ancient Near Eastern religions, such as the chief god in the leadership role, a diverse and well-populated second tier, and the presence of messengers. Yet, it also begins to show that there are major differences between the structure found in the texts of the Hebrew Bible and those found elsewhere in the ancient world. Key differences are the focus on function rather than identity and the role of humanity in the works of the council. Future study regarding these differences should provide more insight into the development within Israelite religion and also provide an additional avenue into Israel’s uniqueness in its ancient Near Eastern context.

36

Chapter Six

Diachronic Analysis 6.1. Introduction The previous chapter explored a holistic picture of the Council of Yahweh type-scenes. Now it is necessary to explore the diversity among the council texts for insight into the various council theologies within Israelite religion. It also becomes important to explore the various composition dates of the texts in order to determine if any linear development can be observed within the canon regarding the Council of Yahweh. In Chapter One, I hinted that the Council of Yahweh had implications for the theories of monotheism, and at this stage it becomes important to explore those implications. Monotheism is a much larger topic than the Council of Yahweh type-scenes but these two topics enjoy a circular relationship. The very existence of a council has implications for developing a theory of monotheism, particularly surrounding the once prevalent evolution theory. On the other side, if monotheism truly evolved out of polytheism, then one would expect that the evolution would affect a council that by nature comprises multiple deities. Thus I will begin with a general discussion regarding the current theories of monotheism and then date each of the Council of Yahweh typescenes in order to explore whether any evolution can be seen within the council and its structure. Particular attention will be placed on the role of human beings within the Council of Yahweh and its implications for a monotheistic understanding. 37

6.2. Monotheism From what is known about the polytheistic world view in Ugarit, Babylon, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, monotheism would have indeed been unusual in the ancient world of the Hebrew Bible. Yet, with the rise of historical criticism, the assumption that the biblical text represents radical monotheism was questioned. A new theory emerged that Israelite religion, as presented in the texts, represents a development from polytheism to monotheism, with Second Isaiah being the ultimate expression of monoth-

146

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

eism.1 This theory seemed to fit the evidence well, since there are texts that clearly retain traces of an earlier polytheism or the more neutral monolatry, the belief that while multiple gods exist, one god should be worshiped above or to the exclusion of all the others.2 However, even this theory needs to be explored, as one cannot draw a straight developmental line from polytheism through monolatry to monotheism. Also, the nature of this monotheism will be examined. Frymer-Kensky developed the phrase “radical monotheism,” but states that the biblical corpus represents a stage on the route to radical monotheism but does not contain its full expression.3 Pakkala presents another view, “Although monotheism may be characterized as its child, ironically the OT itself is not monotheistic.”4 While the problem of understanding monotheism could be explored through several different avenues, this study will use the lens of the Council of Yahweh in order to explore the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and monotheism. The rise of monotheism bears weight on many elements within the council, especially the relationship between human beings. These texts are not univocal on these topics and the various theologies they reflect, and these differences will be the subject of the rest of this chapter. For this reason, it is important to examine the dating of each text in order to determine whether there are developmental changes in the various theologies presented in the Hebrew Bible. The biggest interpretive issue with a Council of Yahweh is that by nature it challenges monotheism; not only does a divine council limit the uniqueness of Yahweh, it also suggests that other gods are possible in relation to Yahweh. Moreover, some scholars are leery about even questioning the concept of monotheism; as Becking says, “For many Christians and theologians, biblical monotheism is an apparent and clear proposition that needs no discussion or clarification.”5 Therefore, the council is often 1

Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism, 10, 105–108. It should be noted that although Lemaire states that Deutero-Isaiah was the beginning of monotheism, “The development of monotheistic Yahwism did not stop with the genius of Deutero-Isaiah. It took a long time for this idea to become dominant in religious thought, and even longer for it to become common in practice” (10). 2 This has been noted by J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 226–33; R. K. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOTSup 241; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), passim, esp. chapter 2; M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, esp. 10–14, 149–94. 3 T. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddess: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992), 106, 154, 155, 217–20, 244–45. 4 Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History, 1. 5 B. Becking, “Only One God: On Possible Implications for Biblical Theology,” in Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah

6.2. Monotheism

147

relegated to subordinate status with terms like “divine being” rather than “god” and “angel” rather than ʪʠʬʮ. This observation does not imply that the members of the Council of Yahweh are equal with him but that they, or at least the vast majority of them, are gods. The concern for protecting monotheism or the entrenched belief that the Bible is monotheistic often leads the interpreter down a certain path of interpretation. An example of this is seen in Crook’s work: The Lord is in session with the heavenly council, whose members are called “sons of God.” The words are not to be taken literally: in other religions in the ancient world these beings would be god; here they are angels, agents of God, who do His bidding. They may not carry out judgments upon mankind without His permission. God here is unmatched and supreme.6

This understanding is problematic for three reasons. The first reason is the least significant of the three but still relevant. Crook directly states that the sons of god function differently in other ancient Near Eastern cultures than they do in the Hebrew Bible. While it is true that the Hebrew Bible adapts the common mythology in order to make a unique theological point, it can be a slippery slope to assume that something has different meanings in different cultures merely because it does not fit with an accepted theology. After all, the term is used in the same way in multiple cultures, and the same forms are used throughout the ancient Near East. It seems that the motivating factor in this diverse understanding is to reconcile a council that includes multiple gods with the belief that the biblical text contains a belief in monotheism. This is related to the use of the term “angel” instead of ʪʠʬʮ or even “sons of god.” The use of the term “angel” is particularly problematic when dealing with the text of the Hebrew Bible. “Angel” is the English word for the Greek term cognate with ʪʠʬʮ, and is not really a title or name at all. Furthermore, it has undergone extensive theological and doctrinal development that has little to do with the text of the Hebrew Bible and much more to do with historical methods of interpretation and the history of church traditions. While this became the dominant theological concept, there is nothing in the word itself to suggest that it would not be used of deities in the ancient Near East. Also, the messengers of the gods in other cultures were considered gods. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the members of Yahweh’s Council fit the more recent angelic definition, rather than being a level of deity.

(B. Becking, M. Dijkstra and M. C. A. Korpel, eds.; The Biblical Seminar 77; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 189. 6 Crook, The Cruel God, 11.

148

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

Ultimately these efforts amount to a fancy game of biblical Balderdash.7 While one can come up with a creative and plausible definition for the various terms, it amounts to nothing more than a sophisticated game of semantics. However, if one does not allow monotheism to be the guiding principle in interpretation then the depiction of the nature of god in the Hebrew Bible becomes far more complex. Part of the problem might come from the basic assumptions that are involved. Traditionally there have been two options. The first is that the entire Hebrew Bible represents radical monotheism, and any traces of polytheism are the result of transference from other ancient Near Eastern cultures (syncretism) or remnants of the pre-monotheistic religion. The second option is that Israelite religion underwent various stages of development from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism, and each of these stages are represented in the texts of the respective historical period. The Council of Yahweh is a problem for both these theories. The idea of development is problematic because of the extensive use of council imagery in post-exilic texts (see Zechariah, Daniel, and Job), and if radical monotheism emerges with Second Isaiah then the order of development does not fit. Mark Smith says, At first glance, Israelite monotheism would seem theoretically to stand at odds with the imagery of Israelite assembly with its multiplicity of divinities, even if they are minor or subservient to Yahweh as their absolute king. In fact, the divine assembly is not oppositional to monotheistic statements in biblical literature.8

Smith makes this claim because council imagery appears next to monotheistic statements, particularly in Second Isaiah, which in his view opens with a council-type scene (Isaiah 40) but contains the largest number of “monotheistic” statements in the Hebrew Bible. If Smith’s interpretation is correct, then the point in this literature does not appear to be the absolute denial of other gods, but that Yahweh be held in complete and absolute control of the cosmos. Therefore, it would represent “intolerant monolatry” rather than radical monotheism.9 If Yahweh has complete power then whether the other beings are divine or not they would be under Yahweh’s power and unworthy of worship. Yet, there is no reason to assume that the Hebrew Bible provides only one answer to the questions regarding the Council of Yahweh and monotheism. While “intolerant monolatry” might

7 Balderdash is a board game in which a word is given and each of the participants makes up a definition for the word. The goal is to convince as many participants as possible that your created definition is the true definition. 8 M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 51. 9 The phrase “intolerant monotheism” first appears in Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History, passim.

6.3. Dating

149

explain the material in Second Isaiah, other approaches or stages of development may be present in the other voices within the text. Now that the scene has been set, I will turn my attention to dating the Council of Yahweh texts and explore the relationship between each text and the concept of monotheism. This process will reveal any pattern or development that might emerge, or it will challenge the notion of a linear progression in the development of the theology of Israelite religion. The relationship between the human characters and the Council of Yahweh, particularly in relationship to the concept of monotheism, will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. 38

6.3. Dating 6.3.1. Isaiah 6 Likely due to the importance of Isaiah in the Second Testament and its role in the development of Christian doctrine, the application of the historical critical method, especially the multiple book theory, to this book caused great controversy. 10 While there is still not universal acceptance of the tripartite structure of Isaiah,11 most modern scholars accept the triple division of the book; however, since Isaiah 6 falls within First Isaiah, which stems from the eighth century Isaiah ben Amoz or a prophectic circle

10

The multiple book theory hypothesizes that the Book of Isaiah is actually three books that have been put together. The first book comprises chapters 1–39 and was written during the 8 th century. Chapters 40–55 make up the Book of Second Isaiah and date to the exile, and the remaining chapters are from the post-exilic author of TritoIsaiah. For a brief but helpful description of this theory see, Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 186. Several studies have explored the impact of historical criticism on the academy and the church. A good example of one such study that relates to the Book of Isaiah is R. G. S. Idestrom, From Biblical Theology to Biblical Criticism: Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University, 1866–1922 (ConBOT 47; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000). 11 Examples of modern scholars who do not accept the division of Isaiah are O. T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1950); R. B. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 14; E. Lanz, Der ungeteilte Jesaja: Neues Licht auf eine alte Streitfrage (BWM 13; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2004); Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah; G. D. Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6:9–10: A Contextual, Literary, and Theological Analysis,” BBR 8 (1998): 167–86; Webb, The Message of Isaiah; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1: Chapters 1–18 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 3–9; R. F. Youngblood, The Book of Isaiah: An Introductory Commentary (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 15–17.

150

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

temporally close to him,12 this debate does not need further exploration for the purposes of the present work. The core of Isaiah 1–39 should be dated between 740–690 B.C.E. and has been traditionally attributed to Isaiah ben Amoz due to the claims of Isa 1:1; 2:1; 7:3; 13:1; 20:2; 37:6, 21; and 38:1.13 Chapter 6 opens with a reference to the death of Uzziah, which would date this event to 736/35 B.C.E.14 While scholars have demonstrated that not all dates or authorial attributions should be taken literally, there is no reason to argue that this chapter does not date to the time mentioned.15 Isaiah 6:9–10 is often the subject of debate regarding dating. Three main streams have been put forward for understanding this chapter of Isaiah. The first option is it was always part of the call narrative of Isaiah ben Amoz, either as a commissioning for the start of his mission or specifically in response to the Syro-Ephraimite crisis.16 Notably, Kaiser reverses his earlier opinion in the second edition of his Isaiah commentary when he argues that the “hardening of hearts” that is part of Isaiah’s commission is really Deuteronomistic in nature as a way of showing Yahweh’s control over the fate of Israel. He states,

12

M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 97. 13 Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 23, 26. One should note that Joseph Blenkinsopp claims that none of these references should be attributed to the historical Isaiah. He says, “Prophetic literature is not self-referential in general and, apart from titles, certainly inserted at a late date (1:1; 2:1; 13:1), the name Isaiah occurs only in annalistic passages deriving from a Deuteronomistic author or from a source closely related to the History (7:3; 20:2– 3; 37–39). Furthermore, the fact that no critical scholar attributes the passage introduced by the last of the three above-mentioned titles to Isaiah may serve to illustrate the problematic nature of prophetic attribution in general”: Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 84. 14 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 224; Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Wilson), 73. There is a contrast in the name of the king here, Uzziah, “my strength is Yahweh,” and the name in 2 Kgs 15:1, Azariah, “Yahweh is help.” Wildberger puts Uzziah’s death in the year 739 B .C. E.: Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 258. 15 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 91. Wildberger does make a good point when he states that the date might have been presented at the beginning of the narrative precisely because it was not written down until a much later date: Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 259. 16 J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT II 19; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1997), 79–82; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 224; C. Hardmeier, “Jesajas Verkündigungsabsicht und Jahwes Verstockungsauftrag in Jes 6,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten (J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt, eds.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 238; H.-P. Müller, “Glauben und Bleiben: Zur Denkschrift Jesajas Kapitel vi 1–vii 18,” in Studies in Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers (VTSup 26; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 53–54; Steck, “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja 6.”

6.3. Dating

151

It is certain that this second way of understanding the prophet’s ministry as his call to preach repentance and a change of behaviour is in essential correspondence with the Deuteronomistic picture of the prophet which was developed after the collapse of the state of Judah, and is probably separated from the time of Isaiah’s activity by two whole centuries.17

This is not impossible, especially considering the parallels with 1 Kings 22, but his argument is not the necessary conclusion. The motif of Yahweh “hardening hearts” is found elsewhere in the text without Deuteronomistic influence (see the E and P elements of the Plague Narrative). While McLaughlin has pointed out differences in the usage in Isaiah and these other texts, he also demonstrates the important literary function of this motif for the entire Book of Isaiah.18 The second option put forward is that this represents a Rückprojizierung of the prophet at the end of his ministry. 19 Various reasons have been put forth for this understanding. Joosten studied quotation usage and determined that these verses represent “pseudocitation” and thus the theory of retrojection is consistent with the style rules of biblical Hebrew.20 The final option is it is an exilic or post-exilic redaction in light of the Israelites’ experience.21 The intricate funnel structure that runs through Isaiah 6 makes it less likely that these verses are a latter addition as they literarily mirror vv. 6–7.22 For the same reasons that this passage could be disputed as a Council of Yahweh text, it does not present too much difficulty for the concept of monotheism. It is clear that this passage does not represent monotheism, since other divine beings, ʭʩʴʸʹʤ, are present. However, it is just as clear that ʭʩʴʸʹʤ are subservient to Yahweh as they worship him in verse 3. The reference to “us” comes only after Yahweh’s reference to “I,” which sug17

Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Bowden), 120. McLaughlin, “Their Hearts Were Hardened,” esp. 7–9 and 21–25. If McLaughlin is correct, and the evidence suggests that he is, then chapter 6 predates the other material that relies on it or a significant redactional process took place to give it this primary place. The first solution, being the simplest, makes the most sense without additional evidence to the contrary. 19 E. Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament: Beobachtungen zu Jes 1–11 (Teil II),” ZAW 109 (1997): 23–24; W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik (BEvT 74; Munich: Kaiser, 1976), 176–80; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament (BZAW 74; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1955), 82–86; H. Niehr, “Zur Intention von Jes 6,1–9,” BN 21 (1983): 60. 20 J. Joosten, “La prosopopée, les pseudo-citations et la vocation d’Isaïe (Is 6,9–10),” Bib 82 (2001): 232–43. 21 U. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 85–87; Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 98–101; R. J. Coggins, “Isaiah,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (J. Barton and J. Muddiman, eds.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 444; Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Bowden), 118–21; C. F. Whitley, “The Call and Mission of Isaiah,” JNES 18 (1959): 38–48. 22 Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening, 79. 18

152

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

gests that one comes only after the other.23 Thus, this passage at best reflects monolatry and perhaps a very radical form of it, since the only specifically mentioned divine beings worship Yahweh, and the unnamed beings are only alluded to by Yahweh himself. 6.3.2. 1 Kings 22 The scholarly dating of Kings and the Deuteronomistic History has a long and complicated history. The classic view is that the Deuteronomistic History had its initial composition in the pre-exilic period and underwent a post-exilic editing.24 In some ways the dating of Kings is not problematic. For example, 2 Kings 25 provides details regarding Jehoiachin that took place during the reign of Awil-Marduk (562–560 B.C.E.), and therefore, the text, or at least that part of the text, cannot date before that time. Also, as it is a source for the Chronicler, the text must predate that book.25 The author(s) of Kings is transparent about using sources but not clear about when sources are being used nor which sources are used.26 Even if these things were clear, there is little known about the original sources, and therefore, the interpreter still needs to provide a theory of composition. There are two potential implications to this understanding of composition. The first is that the theology and the perspective of the Deuteronomistic History are only found in the material that joins the source material together. Therefore the theology found in the original sources is even more important than the final form. Thus the date of the original composition 23 It is possible that the “us” refers to the royal “we” rather than the divine council as has been suggested with the first creation narrative (Gen 1:26), but the judgment included in this passage fits the context of the council better than any plural of majesty. If the Genesis passage is taken as a parallel, the most likely use of “us” is to refer to the council as a whole rather than specific members within that council. Yet, the identity of the “us” is unknown and might merely be a conversation that Yahweh had with ʭʩʴʸʹʤ; however, this too would fulfill the requirements for a council text and thus the point is moot. 24 Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 13; M. J. Mulder, 1 Kings (trans. J. Vriend; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 15. 25 Like many of the books contained in the Hebrew Bible, there are many theories regarding the dating of Chronicles, but one is safe to assume that this composition began after 400 B.C.E., which would leave a span of 150 years during the post-exilic period in which Kings was written. See Mulder, 1 Kings, 12. 26 There are sources such as the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 1:18; 10:34; 13:8, 12; 14:28; 15:11, 15, 21, 26, 31), the History of the Kings of Judah (1 Kgs 15:6, 23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 8:23; 12:19; 15:6, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5), and the Book of the Deeds of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41) that are named; however, there are clearly other sources, such as lists and poems that are not. See, Mulder, 1 Kings, 12. 1 Kings 8:53a advances the theory that there are additional unnamed sources used in the Septuagint, which states that the material found in 8:12 derives from the Book of the Song.

6.3. Dating

153

needs to factor into any understanding regarding the theological perspective about the Council of Yahweh.27 The other possibility is that the final redactor utilized his/her sources in such a way as to form or even transform the theologies of the original sources, and therefore the timeframe of the final form is the important one for understanding the perspective about the Council of Yahweh. Martin Noth put this overall interpretation of the role of the Deuteronomist forward, and while the details of his theory have been largely challenged over the past few decades, his overarching thesis is widely accepted.28 Discussions of authorship have revolved around Noth’s theory that a single author/redactor wrote the Books of Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings during the sixth century as a means of explaining Israel’s downfall as a nation.29 He pointed to the linguistic similarities and common 27 The discussion began with J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4 th ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963). While this work is primarily known for its discussion of the Pentateuch and Pentateuchal sources, it was also influential in the discussion involving sources in the Books of Kings. This was followed by scholars such as I. Benzinger, Jahvist und Elohist in den Königsbüchern (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament. Neue Folge 2; Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1921); G. Hölscher, “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion,” in vol. 1 of Eucharisterion: Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag (H. Schmidt, ed.; FRLANT 36; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 158–213; R. Smend, “JE in den geschichtlichen Büchern des AT,” ZAW 39 (1921): 204–15. These scholars attempted to divide the books of Kings according to classical Pentateuchal sources, namely J and E. Otto Eissfeldt also joined in the discussion but while he supported the notion of sources, he disapproved of the use of Pentateuchal sources as a means of dividing the text as Kings did not fit within the categories of J and E: O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1934), 289–97. For more on this discussion see S. J. de Vries, 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco: Word Books, 1985), xxxix–xl. 28 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (4th ed.; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1957), esp. 74. For Noth’s impact see Mulder, 1 Kings, 14. 29 M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull, J. Barton and M. D. Rutter; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), esp. 4–11. “The novelty of Noth’s model was neither in the perception of the continuity of these books nor in the observation of their Deuteronomistic editing. The Deuteronomistic stratum within these books had been recognized long before Noth, but it was understood as editorial overlay(s) on top of the separate books”: S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 1. Prior to this new proposal, the most common theory claimed that there was an initial composition before the exile that was followed by an exilic redaction: ibid., 1. McKenzie clarifies, “It should be stressed that Noth perceived the Deuteronomistic History to be an original unit beneath the present books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets. Noth found plenty of passages in Deuteronomy through Kings which he took to be later additions to the original work of Dtr … But Noth made no attempt to relate the numerous additions to each other or to contend that they had a common origin. He found no indication, therefore, that Dtr’s History had been systematically revised by a later editor”: ibid., 2.

154

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

ideology throughout these books.30 This position was strengthened by the attribution of 1–2 Kings to the prophet Jeremiah in b. Baba Batra 15a, which makes this claim due to the parallel in Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30.31 This proposal has undergone significant critique and modifications, most notably from Alfred Jepsen and Gerhard von Rad.32 Frank Moore Cross proposed that there were two significant stages in the writing of the Deuteronomistic History; the first was during the reign of Josiah, and the second was during the exile.33 Theories of compositional sources have expanded greatly from this point and frequently number in the double digits.34 Simon de Vries says, All sides agree that other collections of material must have been available to the final redactors besides the three sources that are specifically named in the biblical text – but there has been little agreement as to just what these additional sources may have been. Likewise all agree that an editor-redactor – someone living in the exilic period, later than the last event recorded – brought all this material together into a single book.35

With this in mind, I will explore the dating of 1 Kings 22. Cross’ theory is particularly important for the current study, since he divides 1 Kings 22 between Dtr1 and Dtr2. Cross attributes 1 Kgs 22:15–20 30

For a good summary of this theory, see McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings, 1–3. De Vries, 1 Kings, xxxix. 32 A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches (Halle: Niemeyer, 1953), 40–50; G. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. T. Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 166–204. 33 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 274–89. 34 This may have begun with the Göttingen school under Smend and as evidenced in the work of his students, particularly Dietrich and Veijola: W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), passim, esp. 144; R. Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (H. W. Wolff, ed.; Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 494–500; idem, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989), 110–66; T. Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977), passim; idem, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1972), passim. De Vries takes an interesting approach towards the growing number of redactors: When we say “deuteronomist” or use the symbol Dtr, we are actually thinking of the school that produced the deuteronomistic redaction, whether that be evidenced in two distinct hands or more. In a way, the use of the symbol Dtr deliberately sets aside the question of multiple redactions since it generally has no relevance for the exegesis of individual passages. In any event, all the members of the Dtr school were sufficiently of one mind and committed to the same distinctive style and vocabulary to make the problem irrelevant in most passages. (de Vries, 1 Kings, xliii) 35 De Vries, 1 Kings, xlii. 31

6.3. Dating

155

to the Dtr2.36 This requires one to abandon the larger discussion of unity and composition and explore the micro-level of this particular chapter. Cross is not the first scholar to propose redaction within the text of 1 Kings 22. Wellhausen placed verses 1–38 in his “Ephraimite” source (along with 1 Kings 20; 2 Kgs 3; 6:24–7:20; 9–10), and thus it was separate from the original Elijah cycle.37 Driver, Oesterley and Robinson, Snaith, and Steuernagel supported this theory.38 Noth’s theory had the Deuteronomist placing the pericope in this position in the overall narrative, and Fichtner added that this pericope was not originally about Ahab.39 This has not been universally accepted. Pfeiffer and Steuernagel think that only a second Deuteronomistic redactor (550 B.C.E.) could be responsible for this pericope.40 The majority of commentators have not questioned the internal literary unity of verses 1–38 (other than a few minor glosses: verses 1–2a, 28b, 35b, 38); an exception is Friedrich Schwally, who claimed that it must be a composite.41 This changed when Gray argued that there was a historically reliable biography of Ahab and a prophetic Judean Micaiah story.42 Fohrer drew similar conclusions.43 Würthwein argued that there were two separate literary sources combined within the text of 1 Kings 22, a sage source and a prophet source, each with its own redactional history.44 This leads to the conclusion that The narrative is now designed as pure propaganda, reflecting the ideological controversy in which the Unheilspropheten, claiming admission into the secret council of God (cf. Jer. 23:22; Isa. 6:1 ff.; Amos 3:7; Ezek. 1:1 ff.), profess a higher authority than any authority attested merely by possession of the spirit of Yahweh, the claim of the Heilspropheten.45

36

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 286. Wellhausen, Composition, 283–87. 38 S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (8th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1898), 195; W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934), 97–99; N. Snaith, “Commentary on Kings,” IB 3:13; C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1912), 362–63. 39 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 69–71; J. Fichtner, Das erste Buch von den Königen (BAT 12,1; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964), 297–300. 40 R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1941), 409; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 372. 41 F. Schwally, “Zur Quellenkritik der historischen Bücher,” ZAW 12 (1892): 159–61. 42 Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 371–94. 43 G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. D. Green; Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 232. 44 E. Würthwein, “Zur Komposition von I Reg. 22:1–38,” in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost (F. Maass, ed.; BZAW 105; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 245–54. 45 S. J. de Vries, Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 7. 37

156

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the original narrative underwent redaction at a latter stage, but the evidence for two completely separate sources that are later combined into one is unconvincing. Jepsen claims that there are eight levels of redaction in this section; however, his largest contribution to the study of 1 Kings 22 was to argue convincingly that this narrative should be seen as a prophetic narrative rather than a battle report, and its purpose is to critique das Nabitum (guild of prophets) by staging a confrontation between the Landnabis (lay prophets) and the Hofnabis (court prophets).46 Ahab’s reign provides a good setting for this “conflict” and that is the reason it is placed here, not because it is an incident from the reign of the historical Ahab. Thus the latest proposal dates this passage to 550 B.C.E., but it could have been composed up to a hundred years earlier, though still later than Isaiah 6. Like Isaiah 6, this passage at best reflects monolatry because of the presence of divine beings other than Yahweh. But unlike Isaiah 6, it is not a radical version. The characters in this passage are more detailed and developed. While they are still clearly under the leadership and direction of Yahweh, they are asked their opinions and ʧʥʸʤ even suggests a course of action and is granted permission to follow through on it. 6.3.3. Job 1–2 The composition date of the Book of Job is debated. The ancient Jewish tradition attributes the book to Moses.47 Anderson and Hartley attribute the text to the monarchical period (i.e., sometime between Solomon and Josiah, 970–750 B.C.E.).48 Jensen suggests that it was written during the exile in order to explain suffering.49 Further complicating the situation is whether the prologue/epilogue section of the text can be dated in the same way as the poem, the main body of the book (Job 3:1–42:6), but since the council references are only in the prologue, I will only consider the prologue. The Hebrew of the Book of Job demonstrates that the author had access to a much larger vocabulary than can be found in the rest of the Old Testament.50 The discussion regarding language does not end with the trans46

Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, esp. 40–50. Habel, The Book of Job, 9. However, a variety of rabbinic interpretations regarding authorship developed later. For more information see Pope, Job, xxxii. 48 F. I. Anderson, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976), 63; Hartley, The Book of Job, 20. 49 Janzen, Job, 4. 50 R. Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 210. There are also a significant number of Aramaisms and Arabisms; see the list in Dhorme, Book of Job, clxxv–clxxix. These features have led some scholars to suggest that the Book of Job was a translation from one of these languages: For a 47

6.3. Dating

157

lational argument, but rather Avi Hurvitz attempted to demonstrate that the Prose of Job was written in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH).51 Using undisputed late date texts, such as Esther, Chronicles, and Ezra, Hurvitz has attempted to provide characteristics in the Hebrew linguistics that do not appear prior to the sixth century B.C.E. Avi Hurvitz argues that seven features in the text belong to LBH:52 1) the use of ʯʨʹ, which he sees as a late development because it only occurs in two late texts, Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 21, and in his view if ʯʨʹ existed then this character and not ʧʥʸ would appear in 1 Kings 22;53 lengthy discussion of past theories of translation see Gordis, Book of God and Man, 209– 12. These theories are not the best solution to the problems raised by the text of Job. The first reason is the standard principle that a translation is generally more simplistic than the original: P. K. McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (GBS; OTS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 21. Gordis says, “The difficulties of the Hebrew text of Job bear witness to it being the original”: Gordis, Book of God and Man, 211. He claims that this is true if all other things were equal; however, he also claims that they are not equal. He argues that there is nothing in pre-Islamic Arabic literature similar to Job and that their polytheistic worldview would not have produced a text with the spiritual concerns of Job. As for the Aramaic translation hypothesis, Gordis claims that it makes too many assumptions to be convincing and the Aramaisms can be better explained by other theories. He says, The proponents of the theory of an Aramaic original for these books [Job and Daniel] rest their case on two assumptions. The first contention is that the present Hebrew text gives evidence of ‘mistranslation’ of the non-existent Aramaic original, which can be ‘recovered’ by ‘retroversion.’ In spite of the ingenuity expended upon discovering examples of these alleged mistranslations and the warmth with which the thesis is at times defended, a careful analysis of the evidence in each case proves it to be unconvincing. (Gordis, Book of God and Man, 210) He then gives the following reasons for his position: 1. “It is, however, not impossible that the crabbed and cryptic style in Daniel may be characteristic of apocalyptic writing. Because the author is picturing the future, which necessarily unknown to him, he takes refuge in obscurity”; 2. “a difficult text is prima facie evidence of its original character”; 3. That the author would need to be of the Hebrew upper class in order to have the world experience demonstrated in the text of Job: Gordis, Book of God and Man, 211–13. 51 A. Hurvitz, “The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered,” HTR 67 (1974): 17–34. This argument has been accepted by J. J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 507; E. L. Greenstein, “The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function,” JBL 122 (2003): 652. 52 In order to be considered Late Biblical Hebrew the linguistic feature must demonstrate linguistic distribution, contrast, extra-biblical attestation, and accumulation. For a very good summary of these criteria, see I. Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” VT 59 (2009): 608. 53 The role of ʯʨʹ in dating Job will be discussed further below. It is necessary to point out some problems with Hurvitz’s argument here. Many scholars no longer accept that ʯʨʹ in 1 Chronicles 21 is the celestial ʯʨʹ: see Levine, Numbers 21–36, 155; P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 127–32; Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, 147; Kaupel, Die Dämonen im Alten Testament, 105–108; Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29,

158

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

2) ʬʡʷʬ only appears 9 times outside of Job in Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles, all late date texts (It does occur in Proverbs, but because the date of Proverbs is disputed Hurvitz does not consider this);54 3) ʬʲ ʬʬʴʺʤʬ is only found in Nehemiah and Chronicles; 4) ʺʠʦ ʩʸʧʠ: This form is only found in Ezra and Chronicles; 5) ʬʲ ʡʶʩʺʤʬ: This combination Hithpael plus ʬʲ only occurs in late biblical texts, Zechariah and Chronicles; however, the Niphal plus ʬʲ does occur in earlier texts as well as the Hithpael without ʬʲ; 6) ʣʲ plus present participle only occurs one other time in Nehemiah;55 7) ʥʮʹʥ … ʤʩʤ ʹʩʠ only appears in Esther.56 Hurvitz acknowledges that the prose prologue may be based on earlier traditions and may include archaism, but this does not prove an earlier date. The same way an archaeological strata can contain elements from earlier/lower strata it cannot be dated earlier than the youngest find on the level. Therefore, no matter how many early elements are contained in a 744; Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus, 241–43; McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles, 171; Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job, 44–45; J. W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” 175. If this is the correct interpretation then the late dating for ʯʨʹ would be based on one text alone. Also, this omits any discussion of the celestial being in Numbers 22 being called ʯʨʹ, which would be relevant to this claim. Finally, the argument regarding 1 Kings 22 seems weakest of all as the function of ʯʨʹ is different than ʧʥʸ and while they may be related this would need to be argued to be convincing. Ian Young agrees with the assessment presented here and says, “There does not seem to be any reason to argue that if in EBH the word ʯʨʹ meant ‘adversary’ (1 Kgs 5:18; 11:14, 23, 25) one could not attach a definite article to this word as a means of designating ‘the Adversary’, a heavenly figure. There is no obvious linguistic development here. It is possible to argue that there is a linguistic development involved in Chronicles, if it is the case that the definite articles have been dropped and the word reanalyzed as a proper noun. This might be an argument that Job and Zechariah are older than Chronicles, although such an argument would hardly cause a stir among biblical scholars” (“Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” 612 [italics in the original]). To the arguments I have already made he adds that the opponent in Dan 10:21 makes a better parallel than the ʧʥʸ, but that figure is not referred to as ʯʺʹ. I actually agree that ʯʨʹ is a factor that suggests a late date, but for reasons other than those proposed here. 54 Ian Young disputes this point because of the occurrence in Proverbs that he dates to the monarchal period: Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” 610. 55 This already tenuous example is made even more dubious when one takes into consideration that this term could be the defective form of ʣʥʲ, which would make it the Early Biblical Hebrew form. I. Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” 617. 56 Others argue that this phrase is part of a larger syntactical style that can be found in Esth 2:5; 2 Sam 12:1; 1 Kgs 21:1; Isa 5:1; and Cant 8:11: I. Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” 618; H. G. M. Williamson, “Once Upon a Time …?,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and B. A. Aucker, eds.; VTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 528.

6.3. Dating

159

text, it cannot be dated before its newest elements. Even if one accepts Hurvitz’s LBH hypothesis, they do not have to accept a late dating for the prose as it might merely reflect a late redaction of the text.57 Despite arguing for an additional four LBH items in this passage, Young argues that due to the Aramaisms associated with wisdom literature and lack of accumulation (7/749 words) that a late dating is not justified based on linguistics.58 In addition, the genre of Job causes difficulty for one who desires to establish an accurate date. Unlike a lot of prophetic literature, which is written to address particular concerns within the nation, Job belongs to the category of wisdom literature, which tends to be written for anyone at any time.59 Without the aid of historical content, Job could be dated to almost any time in history. The study of the date of the Book of Job is further complicated by the absence of familiar historical references, such as Abraham, the Exodus, the Canaanite conquest or the exile, and historical institutions, such as the monarchy, the temple, or prophets. It has even been suggested that they were deliberately suppressed in order to present an accurate picture of the founding families period.60 What Young argues is that Late Biblical Hebrew and Early Biblical Hebrew forms co-exist and do not lead to accurate dates.61 Habel believes that the prologue was an early myth or legend that dates to the time of the founding families.62 This idea is strengthened by the many parallels between the texts of Genesis and Job. For example, wealth is based in cattle and slaves; religious beliefs and practices are simple; sacrifices are offered by the father, without priests or a central location of worship; and there is longevity of life, which is found only in Genesis and Job.63 Habel believes that the poem was written with the legend of Job in 57 J. L. Crenshaw, “Job, Book of,” ABD 2:50; J. C. de Moor, “Ugarit and the Origin of Job,” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992 (G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey, eds.; UBL 11; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994), 230–31; B. Zuckerman, Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 26–27. 58 The figure here is based on Young’s critique of Hurvitz, but if both lists are correct then the number becomes 11, which would make a large difference in the chart presented by I. Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” 606–29, esp. 622–26. 59 Habel, The Book of Job, 10. 60 Anderson, Job, 63. 61 I. Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?,” 627–28. 62 Habel, The Book of Job, 8. 63 Pope, Job, XXXII. Habel would also suggest that it was not originally an Israelite legend, but perhaps was initially Edomite: Habel, The Book of Job, 9. Pope concurs with Habel in that he also believes that the Book of Job is based on a much earlier legend: “The Prologue-Epilogue also presents a number of literary features and motifs which are characteristic of Semitic epic, as known from Akkadian literature and more recently from

160

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

mind, and therefore the archaic elements within the poem are used to preserve the ancient foundation of the legend. In other words, the archaisms in the texts have been put there intentionally by a later author in order for the text to seem older than it actually is. The archaisms should not determine the date of the text, but tell the reader more about the author’s intention and purpose. It is also possible that the Canaanite parallels and the archaisms are due to later Phoenician influence. This, paired with the Aramaisms, leads Anderson to a post-exilic date for the text.64 Terrien suggests that the Book of Job fits best with the theological needs of the exilic period, and therefore must be related to Israel’s suffering in the exile.65 However, there are reasons for arguing against the hypothesis that Job was written during the exile. The first reason is the retribution theology found in the Deuteronomistic literature, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which present the exile as just punishment for the sins of Israel. Yet, Job, the would-be representative of Israel, is presented as an innocent victim whose suffering is undeserved. If Job is an exilic creation to account for the exilic political circumstance, then it would be presenting a counter theology.66 The other

the Ugaritic texts. These epic literary features appear as a sort of substratum which may well derive from a very ancient Job epic”: Pope, Job, XXXIII. His assertion is further supported by the reference to Job in Ezek 14:14, 20. In this text Job is related to Noah and Danel; the consonantal text is dn’l, as in Ugarit (e.g., CTU 1.1 I 6, 9, 11, 36), not dny’l. This reference to Danel has long led to the claim that Daniel also has an earlier legend; therefore, it is not a stretch to believe that the legend of Job is also ancient, regardless of when the actual text of Job was written. In further support of this understanding are the numerous parallels to Job that can be found in other ancient Near Eastern literature. The Canaanite Keret epic, which dates to the Bronze Age, even though it is fragmented, contains a strikingly similar story about a king who loses all and then is helped to regain it all by his god, El. Similar motifs, such as loss and restoration, family and health, can also be found in this text. Ludlul bƝl nƝmeqi, often called the “Babylonian Job,” is, as its nickname implies, a parallel to the Book of Job found in Mesopotamian literature. The earliest surviving version of this text dates to around 669–633 B.C.E., but it may have been written as early as 1600–1150 B.C.E. There is also evidence of similar compositions from Akkadian literature, as explored in J. Nougayrol, “Une version ancienne du ‘Juste souffrant’,” RB 59 (1952): 239–50. Finally, the discovery and reconstruction of a Sumerian text by Samuel Noah Kramer, which dates to the second millennium B.C.E., demonstrates that the motifs found in Job do not necessarily derive from a late date. See S. N. Kramer, “Man and His God: A Sumerian Variation of the ‘Job’ Motif,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley (M. Noth and D. W. Thomas, eds.; VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1969), 170–82. 64 Anderson, Job, 62. 65 Terrien, Job, 23. 66 Habel, The Book of Job, 9. Habel however is overlooking the other responses to exile and suffering that are possible. His assumption that Job fits in with retribution theology is stronger with the prose portion than the poetry as ʯʨʹʤ is used to question the

6.3. Dating

161

problem with this theory is that Job appears to be an Edomite.67 At the time of the fall of Judah, the Israelite relationship with Edom was hostile.68 Therefore, it is unlikely that an Edomite would be used to symbolize a righteous, unblemished Israel.69 The more recent consensus dates Job to the post-exilic period.70 There are several reasons for this date, such as the emphasis placed on wisdom literature during this period. The shift from a communal focus to an individualistic focus within the cultic realm began in the early part of the Second Temple period, and this shift is reflected in Job. The two most important arguments in favor of this hypothesis are that the “clusters” of literary parallels (Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Second Isaiah) to Job all date to the sixth century, and secondly, that the character of ʯʨʹʤ had a history of development, and therefore, the text of Job can be dated based on its use of ʯʨʹʤ.71 The first reason for accepting this date is that the offices (kings, princes, counselors, and officials) in 3:14–15 are consistent with the hierarchy of the Persian Empire, but this on its own is not substantial since this was not an uncommon structure in the ancient Near East.72 The trade route referred to in 6:19 from Tema and Sheba was cultivated during the Persian rule.73 Darius is known to have established a messenger service, which may be what Job is requesting in 9:25 when he

merits of retribution theology, but ultimately Job, through his actions, prove it and Yahweh, by extension, correct and all that was lost is returned. 67 His homeland was Uz, which is associated with Edom. For a detailed analysis, see Pope, Job, 3–4. 68 Pope, Job, XXXVI. 69 Hartley, The Book of Job, 19. 70 For an overview of this position and those who hold it, see Gordis, Book of God and Man, 216, 361. 71 See, Seow, Job, 42–43. Jobian concerns, such as individual suffering, can be seen in Second Isaiah, especially in the Servant Songs (see Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–7; 50:4–9; 52:13– 53:12; cf. Isa 41:20 and Job 12:9) and in Jeremiah (cf. Job 3 and Jer 20:7–18). For an indepth discussion of the parallels between the suffering innocent in Isaiah and Job see Hartley, The Book of Job, 14. Yet, this cannot settle the issue of dating because one can argue that either is dependent on the other. The character of ʯʨʹʤ is often mentioned in the arguments regarding dating. When using this figure to try to determine a date for the text, one is left with three potential arguments: the prologue was added to the poem at a later date, ʯʨʹʤ was added to the prologue at a later date, or the poem was added to the prologue, which did not contain the ʯʨʹʤ figure, at a later date because it is believed that the character is a later development: Dhorme, Book of Job, lxxvii. The assumption is that ʯʨʹʤ appears in Job as the post-exilic form known from the text of Zechariah 3; therefore, the presence of ʯʨʹʤ in this text indicates that this part of the text must be post-exilic. This is not necessary as the reverse could just as easily be true. 72 Hartley, The Book of Job, 18. Cf. Ezra 7:28, 8:25; Esth 1:3. 73 Hartley, The Book of Job, 18; for a detailed discussion of this see Seow, Job, 40–41.

162

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

asks for swift runners.74 The Behistun inscription of Darius from 520 B.C.E. may be what Job is alluding to when he asks for his words to be set in stone and outlined in lead (19:23–24).75 The discovery of 4QpalaeoJobc, which dates to 225–150 B.C.E. demonstrates that the book was already operating as scripture by that point, and the influence of the Book of Job on the Book of Tobit (late third or early second century) suggests that it must be written prior to the third century.76 Therefore, my working hypothesis is that the prologue of Job was a post-exilic document (sometime between the sixth and third centuries B.C.E.). Once again the two Council of Yahweh narratives found in the Book of Job represent monolatry. Also, similar to the previous narrative, 1 Kings 22, it represents a more liberal version than a radical form. Like 1 Kings 22, the majority of the council members are not listed in detail, but one of them emerges in an explicit way. In these passages, ʯʨʹʤ engages in extensive dialogue, questions the opinions of Yahweh, and proposes courses of action, which goes even beyond the actions of ʧʥʸʤ in 1 Kings 22. Yet, just like ʧʥʸʤ, ʯʨʹʤ is completely at the mercy of Yahweh in that ʯʨʹʤ is required to gain Yahweh’s permission, abide by his limitations, and even wait for him to initiate conversation. 6.3.4. Zechariah 3 Zechariah 3 should be viewed as a part of Proto-Zechariah (chapters 1–8), which is considered and dated separately from Second Zechariah (chapters 9–14) for five reasons.77 First, the series of visions ends in chapter 8, and second, chapters 9–14 never make reference to these visions. Third, all references to the reign of Darius, the Jerusalem community, and the temple end after chapter 8. Fourth, Zechariah is specifically named in chapters 1– 8, but not in 9–14. Fifth, the vocabulary differs between the two sections of the text. Redditt argues that chapters 1–8 are stylistically similar to the Book of Haggai; in fact, the similarities are so striking that one could hypothesize that both books had the same editor.78 Another reason, first noted by Joseph Mede in 1638, is that in the Gospel of Matthew (27:9), Zech 11:12 is attributed to Jeremiah, and therefore he claimed that

74

Hartley, The Book of Job, 18. Hartley, The Book of Job, 18. This is not completely convincing since there is no evidence that the Behistun was outlined in lead. The only lead found on the inscription, in its current condition, was to attach a beard. 76 Seow, Job, 43–44. 77 Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 61–62; R. Mason, “The Relation of Zech 9– 14 to Proto-Zechariah,” ZAW 88 (1976): 227–38. 78 Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 37. 75

6.3. Dating

163

chapters 9–11 were actually written by Jeremiah.79 According to Mede’s theory, this would mean that these chapters were written before the exilic period. This is not the only significant division when considering the context of Zechariah 3. Baldwin argues that Zechariah 3 is one of the night visions, which makes a total of eight visions in Zechariah 1–8.80 Yet, this theory is not universally accepted.81 The Semitic number of perfection is seven, and therefore the night vision sequence would be viewed as complete without the addition of Zech 3:1–7. Yet, numerology is not the only reason to argue against the original inclusion of Zech 3:1–7 in the vision sequence; there are significant differences between this vision and the other seven. Notably the angelus interpres82 is absent from the vision in Zechariah 3, which sets it apart from the other visions (1:9, 19; 2:3; 4:5; 5:5; 6:4; in 1:2 Yahweh fills this role). In addition, there is no request for interpretation, as Zechariah appears to understand what he has seen; granted, this request is also missing from the vision in 5:1–4, but that vision is still interpreted. A second difference occurs in the introductory formula.83 This vision begins with “then he showed me” rather than the typical “and I looked up and saw.”84 This difference extends to the verbal form of the root ʤʠʸ used, as it appears in the Hiphil in Zechariah 3 and in the Qal in the other introduc79

For a detailed discussion of Mede’s claims of Jeremiah’s authorship of chapters 9– 11, see R. L. Smith, Micah – Malachi, 170. 80 Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 113. The other seven visions are: 1:7–17; 2:1–4; 2:5–17; 4:1–14; 5:1–4; 5:5–11; 6:1–8. 81 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 115; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 62; Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 593. 82 This terminology is used because it is the way this character is usually referred to when talking about Zechariah. This is legitimate because the character is actually called a ʪʠʬʮ in the text. This is in contrast to the character I refer to as the interpreting persona in Daniel 7 because the type of divine being is not identified in the text of Daniel. In addition, the difference in the way I have titled these characters recognizes that this character in Zechariah has an official interpretive function, and the character in Daniel is an interpreter by circumstance. 83 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 178. Meyers and Meyers also see verses 8–10 as supplementary along with A. Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 161. This responds to Wim Beuken who sees these verses pair with the purification of Joshua and verses 6–7 were edited a short time later: Beuken, Haggai – Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: van Gorcum, 1967), 283, 290–300. David Petersen sees the original vision as verses 1–5 and see three responses 6–7, 9; 8; and 10, which he sees as “deuteroprophetic” additions: Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 202. While all these present interesting theories, James VanderKam is correct in saying they are “highly speculative and do not appreciably modify the interpretation”: VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 24. 84 Cf. 1:8, 18; 2:1; 4:2; 5:1; 6:1 with 3:1.

164

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

tory formula. Zechariah 3 also omits the emphatic ʤʰʤ.85 Tollington points out that this would not be the only break in the introductory formula, as 1:8, 4:1, and 5:5 use the imperative towards the prophet while the other four visions have the statement uttered by the prophet.86 The vision in 2:5– 9 also differs from the other seven visions in that it has less symbolism and fewer characters but still resembles the other visions more than Zech 3:1– 10.87 Whether original or not, it shares many similarities with the vision in 4:1–14 and these visions often get treated together.88 With the inclusion of Zech 3:1–10, the vision cycle forms a chiastic structure and therefore demonstrates that the placement of this vision was done intentionally by the final redactor.89 The differences may be used to highlight the unique and important nature of the central vision of the chiasm. If this were true it would not be a later addition to the cycle, but a vital and integral part of the whole structure of Zechariah 1–8. Finally, there are no manuscript witnesses that do not include this vision. There are several dates contained within the text that could be helpful in determining when the text of Zechariah was written. If one accepts the date in Zech 1:1 as accurate then the prophet started his ministry in the eighth month of the second year of Darius, which would be sometime between the end of October and the end of November 520 B.C.E.90 Zechariah 1:7 also dates the night visions to the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month in the second year of the Persian king Darius Hystaspes, or February 15, 519 B.C.E.91 A final date, the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev or December 7, 518 B.C.E., is in 7:1.92 Therefore, one can assume that the writing of these portions of the text was after these dates; how long after is still a valid question. Redditt proposes that the final redaction of Zechariah 1–8 occurred between November 518 B.C.E. and April 516 B.C.E. as the 85 One view is that this is merely a stylistic variant; see Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 113. For a good summary of the different positions, see N. L. A. Tidwell, “wƗ’ǀmar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” JBL 94 (1975): 344. 86 A similar pattern break can be seen in the text of Amos 9:1–14, which differs from the formula of Amos 7:1–9 and 8:1–3. See J. E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 34. 87 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 114. 88 Tidwell, “wƗ’ǀmar,” 346. 89 A = 1:1–17; B = 2:1–4; B’ = 2:5–17, C = 3:1–10, C’ = 4:1–14, B2 = 5:1–4, B3 = 5:5–11, A’ = 6:1–8; see, Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 85; Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 84. 90 Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 61; Smith, Micah – Malachi, 169. Stuhlmueller dates it as October 27, 520 B.C.E.: Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope, 51. However, since no day is mentioned in the text itself, such a precise date is unsustainable. 91 Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 61. 92 Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 61.

6.3. Dating

165

Temple was being completed.93 Some such as Benjamin Uffenheimer and Janet E. Tollington argue that Zechariah 3 and 6 date to a time after Zerubbabel and dispute attributing the “branch” to him.94 Against this understanding and in support of the canonical dating, James C. VanderKam, following Hinckley G. Mitchell, argues that “the term ʧʮʶ may actually be a play on his Babylonian name zƝr-EƗbili = ‘the seed of Babylon.’”95 While dated closely to the previous two texts (1 Kings 22 and Job 1–2) a different picture emerges from Zechariah in relation to monotheism. Once again the presence of multiple divine beings negates the possibility of monotheism. Yahweh rebuking ʯʨʹʤ might lead one to conclude that liberal monolatry is the best way to describe this passage, just like Job 1–2, since it demonstrates the power and authority of Yahweh over a member of the council. On the other hand, ʪʠʬʮʤ acts independently and does not appear to have limitations set by Yahweh, which may lead the interpreter to say that this is polytheism rather than monolatry. Yet, this would probably be pushing the definition too far, as ʪʠʬʮʤ’s commissioning of Joshua is said to be a message from “Yahweh of Hosts.” Since the words of ʪʠʬʮʤ belong to Yahweh, it is reasonable to see this character as being under the authority of Yahweh. Thus this text likely represents a loose form of monolatry. 6.3.5. Daniel 7 There are four main theories about the Book of Daniel’s composition.96 The first theory is that there was only one author of the book, and this person chose to write in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Three arguments have been put forward in favour of this position: 1) the Aramaic sections tend to focus on Babylon while the Hebrew has a specifically Israelite perspective; 2) the audience for the Hebrew material differed from the less educated audience of the Aramaic portion; and 3) the language switch in chapter 2 was used to report the speech of the Chaldeans and then the author just chose to continue in Aramaic for the sake of convenience. The second theory is that the book was originally written in Hebrew and was quickly translated into Aramaic and that the present version was created when a 93

Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 42; VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas,

23. 94

B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah: From Prophecy to Apocalyptic (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1961), 1–7; Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 172–73. 95 VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 22. Cf. H. G. Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 186–87. 96 For a good summary of these theories, see Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 12–13.

166

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

piece of the original Hebrew manuscript was lost and the translation was used to fill in the gaps. The third theory, originally voiced by Harold Ginsberg, reverses the languages of writing to an Aramaic original and a Hebrew translation.97 The Aramaic original could have been an actual written document or the translation issues could derive from the author’s internal monologue being in Aramaic, as it was the author’s primary language.98 The final theory is that an editor combined separate sources into one text.99 This theory dates back to the seventeenth century, as expressed by Baruch de Spinoza, and states that an older Aramaic source was added into a new Hebrew composition.100 Either the third or fourth theory is best as these are based on textual arguments rather than speculation or tenuous connections. There are two challenges to the traditional theory that a historical Daniel wrote the whole book. The first is the authenticity of the predictions, and the second is the literary relationship between chapters 1–6 and 7– 12.101 John Collins states that, The referential aspects of the book suggest that chps. 7–12 belong together in the Maccabean period since all are dominated by the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. By contrast, chps. 1–6 contain no certain allusions to that time. While some episodes in chps. 1– 6 could be read as allegories for the persecution, the overall portrayal of the Gentile kings is scarcely compatible with the persecutor of chps. 7–12.102

Whether the two halves of the book originally belonged together or were later combined in a sophisticated and thorough manner, chapter 7 serves as the linchpin for both sections and is integral to both halves.103 Collins says, The retention of Daniel 7 in Aramaic serves as an interlocking device between the two halves of the book. Chapter 7 belongs with the visions by genre, subject matter, and fictional dating (since it begins a new sequence of Babylon-Media-Persia). It is linked to the tales by language and by the obvious parallelism with the four-kingdom prophecy of ch. 2.104

This final Aramaic chapter is typically dated between 169–164 B.C.E. due to its allusion to Antiochus IV. 105 Daniel 1:1 dates the book to the reigns of 97 H. L. Ginsberg, “The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” VT 4 (1954): 246–75. Cf. Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 11–18. 98 LaCocque, Daniel in His Time, 9. 99 Towner, Daniel, 5–6. 100 J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 88–99. 101 Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 25. 102 Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction, 30. 103 LaCocque, Daniel in His Time, 3. 104 Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 30. 105 Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 30; LaCocque, Daniel in His Time, 3; Pace, Daniel, 8; Redditt, Daniel, 116.

6.3. Dating

167

Jehoiakim of Judah and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. However, this date has long been challenged, as early as Porphyry in the third century C.E.106 While the book claims that these visions were given to Daniel during the exilic period, the content of the visions should be interpreted as apocalyptic code referring to the deeds of Antiochus IV and his persecution and defilement of Jewish life. Pace says, “While not historical, this technique casts the author’s reflections about the sufferings of the community’s present in light of the wisdom of the past.”107 Pace’s claim is that this was done to provide the audience with hope. By casting the visions into the past, a past that Israel survived, the audience would gain hope that it will survive its current situation.108 Also, by layering the critique of the present in the past, it protects the author from retribution by those who are criticized. This cloaking of the present in the past could even relate to the book’s attribution to the legendary figure of Danel, who originally appears as a wise king in the Ugaritic literature and then in Ezek 14:14, 20; 28:3 and in the Second Temple Book of 1 Enoch (as Daniel in chapters 6–7; 69:2).109 While obviously the most recent of the Council of Yahweh texts, it is the hardest text to interpret in relationship to the concept of monotheism. The reason for this is because the passage is steeped in ancient mythology, and it is complicated to separate the theology of the writer(s) of Daniel from the original theology of the symbols, as explored in the previous exegesis of this passage. Despite this, several observations can be made. When the judgment is to take place, “thrones” are set up, which demonstrates that multiple deities are present and comprise the court (v. 10), and thus this is not a monotheistic text. However, the emphasis is on “the Ancient of Days,” whose identity was revealed to be Yahweh by my exegesis in Chapter Two. In addition, when the “One like a Son of Man” appears, he is presented before Yahweh; the setting implies the court is still in session, but again the focus is solely on “the Ancient of Days.” The presentation itself demonstrates that the one presented is subordinate to the one to whom he is presented. This passage, therefore, reflects something close to radical monotheism and is most similar to the theology found in Isaiah 6. Having completed an analysis of the dating of the Council of Yahweh texts, it is important to address the theory of monotheistic evolution. In 106

While Porphyry’s work is no longer available directly, it is known from quotations found in Jerome’s commentary on Daniel. This particular issue is discussed in Jerome’s prologue. For further details see M. Casey, “Porphyry and the Book of Daniel,” JTS 27 (1976): 15–33. 107 Pace, Daniel, 9. 108 Pace, Daniel, 9–10. 109 LaCocque, Daniel in His Time, 5.

168

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

relation to the Council of Yahweh texts, there is no linear progression with regards to the monolatry presented in each text. In fact, the earliest (Isaiah 6) and most recent (Daniel 7) show the most advanced forms of monolatry, and the middle three (1 Kings, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3) show a very similar perspective to each other, which might be due to the close proximity of their dates of composition. Yet, one further area must be explored in relationship to monolatry and the Council of Yahweh; the role of human beings within the council. 39

6.4. Human Beings and the Council of Yahweh Definitional logic suggests that the divine council consists of gods, and humans, by nature, cannot be members of the council. However, Jer 23:16–22 challenges this assumption if only slightly. In this passage, the term ʣʥʱ appears twice in reference to the Council of Yahweh. On behalf of the Lord of Hosts, the prophet is speaking against pseudo-prophets, in this case ones who are speaking of peace.110 In verse 18, he says to the people that the prophets have not stood in the Council of Yahweh and therefore, have not heard his words. Then in verse 22, the text says that if they had been in God’s council, they would have been proclaiming his words. This juxtaposition between false and true prophecy revolves around the Council of Yahweh.111 It is explicit that true prophets must have access to the Council of Yahweh in order to convey the words of the Lord (cf. Jer 28:20; 15:19). Terence Fretheim says, The council demonstrates that God is not in heaven alone, but that a complex sociality is basic to the divine life. In other words, relationship is integral to the identity of God, independent of God’s relationship to the world. In some sense the prophet was invited to participate in this relationship. The boundary between human and divine communities is not seen to be fixed or impenetrable. The human is caught up into the divine life and together they become involved in the becoming of the world. In so doing the prophet retains his individuality, and his humanness is not compromised. Yet, the prophet, in leaving the council table with a word to speak, becomes the embodiment of the word of God in the world. The prophet is the vehicle for divine immanence.112

Since the prophets are human beings, this passage, at the very least, grants access to non-deities. It should be noticed that this access is not given to 110

It is important to mention here that the Masoretic Text does not use the term pseudo-prophets, which is derived from the Septuagint. I use it in order to distinguish between the two groups under discussion and because legitimacy is Jeremiah’s concern in this passage. 111 P. C. Craigie and P. H. Kelley, Jeremiah 1–25 (WBC 26; Dallas: Word, 1991), 344. 112 T. E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary 15; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2002), 336.

6.4. Human Beings and the Council of Yahweh

169

humans in general, but to the specifically chosen prophets of Yahweh for the express purpose of transmitting the will of the council, ultimately Yahweh. So these unique individuals are admitted in order to provide a service to the council. Another possible response to developing monotheism is that the Council of Yahweh underwent a shift from membership consisting entirely of gods to one that allowed a few very exceptional humans, based on the position the human holds (e.g., prophet, high priest) to take up roles on behalf of the council.113 As explored in Chapter One, the traditional interpretation is that the divine councils comprise all the deities and only the deities. If this interpretation is to hold, then when human beings are depicted in the Council of Yahweh scenes they must only be there in order to view the proceedings of the council and yet not participate, this makes them observers, but not members.114 This interpretation would fit 1 Kings 22, for example, as Micaiah is said to observe the scene in Heaven, but does not participate in it nor act as its agent. A similar argument could be made for Zechariah 3. Certainly, Zechariah, like Micaiah ben Imlah, is allowed to observe the council scene, but does not participate in it. Also, Joshua the High Priest is present in the council as the defendant in his own trial (v. 1). Again, a human being has access to the council but does not act nor speak. He is acted upon. He is spoken to. Yet, this case is not closed. Joshua is commissioned in this text to “judge [Yahweh’s] house” and to “keep [his] courts,” and in verse 7 the Lord extends a covenant to Joshua, which includes access to the council (“… and I will grant you free access among these who are standing here”). Therefore, this is not a clear case of an outside observer being granted a viewing permit to the actions of the council. Not only is he granted standing rights, his commission (usually understood as the ability to rule over the temple, though this is not explicit) contains reference to judging,

113 This is Gordon’s argument when he states, “The metamorphosis of the DC [Divine Council] within the Old Testament opens the way for the ‘humanizing’ of the concept, in the sense that an enhanced role for human participants in relation to the council becomes possible”: R. P. Gordon, “Standing in the Council,” 201. However, Gordon’s understanding of the divine council is much broader than the one used in this study, and while he recognizes that human contact with the council does not occur in a linear way he does not appear to find this important. In addition, like those before him, he only sees it in relation to prophets and ignores the role of Joshua. 114 As noted in Chapter Two there are also certain times when the phrase “sons of god” is used that interpreters believe it refers to human rather than divine beings (see page 25). Recently Fockner has suggested that this term can mean either a group of humans or a group of divine beings and that the passages that use this term need to be explored further to determine which group is intended. See Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion,” 449–50.

170

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

the job of the council. It seems as if Joshua is commissioned to do the work of the council on Earth and allowed to be present for council meetings in Heaven. Now one could argue that “access” means nothing more than viewing rights and that this does not reflect a theological shift, but merely a transfer of roles one from prophet (the usual observers of the council according to Jeremiah 23) to priest. Yet, the connection with other council members implies a closer relationship than that of an observer: in Job the members of the council are referred to as the ones standing before Yahweh, so if Joshua is to join “those standing here” then the implication is that he is going to become more than a messenger of the council. This observation is tentative, but it does seem like there is greater participation and inclusion with Joshua than with any other human being. In this very particular case a human being may be being offered membership in the Council of Yahweh. The traditional interpretation faces further challenge when one examines the text of Isaiah 6. This text contains elements of the two already mentioned, which is important since it predates both of the aforementioned texts. Here, Isaiah is in the council standing before the Lord’s throne, just like Joshua was (and the council members in Job), but contrary to the passage in Zechariah, Isaiah claims that he is impure and should not be in this place and, therefore, receives his cleansing. Unlike Joshua, Isaiah speaks in the council, and he does so on his own initiative. This is a contrast to Joshua, whose impurity is brought forward by ʪʠʬʮʤ. 1 Kings 22 also has elements that are paralleled in Isaiah, but the parallel is not between Isaiah and Micaiah, but between Isaiah and ʧʥʸʤ. In both texts Yahweh asks for a volunteer to send on an earthly mission, and in 1 Kings 22 ʧʥʸʤ, a member of the council, steps forward to volunteer, and in Isaiah 6 it is Isaiah the human being who steps forward and volunteers. In 1 Kings 22, ʧʥʸʤ not only volunteers for the mission, but also engages in the discussion regarding the fate of the King of Israel. When engaging in the discussion, ʧʥʸʤ is acting as a full member, but when taking part in the earthly mission, ʧʥʸʤ is acting as the agent of the council. Thus the parallel would make Isaiah an agent of the council. However, this role is slightly more complicated than simple agenthood. A parallel is found in the King Keret epic, when El needs someone to go and heal Keret. The council members are first asked to volunteer for the mission, and when none do, another being, Shataqatu, is created for the mission (CTU 1.14 V 10–VI 3). This character is an agent of the council rather than a member, but this character is also not asked to volunteer nor present when the request is made. This parallel demonstrates that one does not have to be a member to be an agent of the council. Yet, Isaiah does play a larger role than Shataqatu, as he is able to volunteer for his mission. Therefore, Isaiah does not participate in the council as an officer but at the level of an active agent.

6.4. Human Beings and the Council of Yahweh

171

Prophetic access to the council is in itself an innovation of Israelite religion. Yet, the various approaches of the Israelite theologians demonstrate varying degrees of comfort and reflection regarding the boundary between humans and gods within the structure of the Council of Yahweh. Certainly, some of the prophetic writers are comfortable with the concept of humans (a select, divinely chosen few) being able to observe the council (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Zechariah). This concept is also found in the historical work of the Deuteronomistic Historian and the apocalyptic Book of Daniel. Yet, each author has a unique interpretation of how this works and how much freedom these humans have within the council. Also, it is clear that there is not a linear progression within the theological understanding. Isaiah might be the earliest of the Council of Yahweh texts, and yet that narrative is the most developed as far as human participation within the proceedings of the council. Because Jer 23:18, 22 and Amos 3:7 do not actually contain a council scene, but only references to prophetic access to observe the council, it is hard to determine how they understood the relationship between a prophet and the council.115 Yet, the close relationship between Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History might suggest that the scene in 1 Kings 22 reflects Jeremiah’s understanding as well as the Deuteronomist.116 In this scene, the human beings are significantly less active within the council than the prophet in Isaiah 6. Here the prophet is only allowed to observe and report on the council, not speak or act within it. Even more limiting is the access given to the other 400 prophets, who do not even get to observe the council, but rather have an emissary of the council sent to them with the verdict, false though it might be.117 Zechariah also seems to have the same view of prophetic access as the Deuteronomist in that Zechariah himself is only allowed to observe the council in Zechariah 3. Joshua, on the other hand, is given access to the council, and this is clearly a theological innovation as he is the high priest and not a prophet. Also, much of his experience in the council is more reminiscent of Isaiah 115 Including Amos 3:7 here is based on the Hebrew ʣʥʱ being translated as “council” rather than “secret”: Parker, “Council,” 204–207, esp. 207. In addition, Amos 3:7 interrupts the flow of the question sequence in verses 3–6 that is picked up again in verse 8; this could indicate that verse 7 is a later editorial addition. 116 Jer 23:18, 22 would be attributed to Jeremiah rather than the Deuteronomist following the classical distinction between poetry and prose in the prophetic book: see J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 33–34. 117 One might claim that these were false prophets and that is why they were not permitted access to the council. Yet, this is not a good understanding as the prophets are communicating a legitimate word from Yahweh. The council has decided to give them a false message in order to get the king to do what they wanted him to do. Therefore, the message was untrue, but not false.

172

Chapter Six: Diachronic Analysis

than of Micaiah; however, he does not have as much freedom within the council as Isaiah does because he does not speak. Daniel, on the other hand, reverts to the deuteronomistic view of humans as observers of the council. Yet, there is still an innovation here when Daniel is able to ask a member of the council to explain its proceedings.118 This may seem like an insignificant addition, but it is a step backward as far as human participation within the council. Prior to this, there was no evidence that the human observers/participants had any confusion in understanding the events of the council. However, now the human is unable to interpret on his own and needs to turn to divine assistance.119 While the path is not exactly linear and while human access is not completely revoked at the close of the Hebrew Bible, it does seem that Israelite theologians entertained the idea of very limited human participation within the Council of Yahweh (perhaps as a means of moving towards monotheism), but ultimately, began to reject this concept and resurrected the boundaries between Heaven and Earth.

118 Of course the concept of a divine interpreter first appears in the Book of Zechariah; however, the Book of Daniel is the first to place this lack of understanding within the council itself. 119 One would be amiss not to notice that there is also a genre change between the earlier prophetic literature and the apocalyptic literature of Daniel. Mediation is part of apocalyptic literature according to Collins’ definition: J. J. Collins, “Towards the Morphology of a Genre: Introduction,” Semeia 14 (1979): 9. However, there is no reason to assume that the genre shift does not reflect a theological shift as well.

40

Chapter Seven

Conclusions 7.1. Summary This investigation began by questioning whether the assumptions in divine council research were well founded or not. Of the assumptions questioned, two of the most fundamental are that the divine council is completely divine and that there is only one council present in the Hebrew Bible. After tracing the scholarship to date, I determined there was no standard set of criteria used to determine which texts contain a divine council. Taking the title “divine council” seriously, I proposed two criteria that can be used universally to identify a divine council and one additional one for determining a Council of Yahweh text in particular. The first two are: 1) Multiple deities are present; 2) Someone or something is judged. The final criterion relates specifically to a Council of Yahweh type-scene: Yahweh needs to be identified as the leader in the text. Using the criterion of multiple deities as a starting point, I examined the texts where multiple deities appear. In doing this, I eliminated texts that did not meet the other criteria and discovered that not all divine councils in the biblical texts are Council of Yahweh texts (e.g., Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32). From this investigation a small corpus of Council of Yahweh texts emerge: Isaiah 6; 1 Kings 22; Job 1–2; Zechariah 3; Daniel 7. These texts were then explored in order to determine which characters could be considered council members. Again, I identified a small cast of characters: Yahweh, ʯʨʹʤ, ʧʥʸʤ, ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ, ʭʩʴʸʹʤ, One like a Son of Man, Isaiah, and Joshua. Additional characters were also noted as peripheral to the council but who do not have membership status. From this collection, I developed a structural understanding of the Council of Yahweh as it appears in the Hebrew Bible. Like previous studies I concluded that tier one is comprised of the chief God alone. Tier two, the councilors, I divided into two divisions, judicial officials and advisors. These beings are the main actors in the court of Yahweh and demonstrate the most independence. They serve the vital functions of the Council of Yahweh. Tier three, the Agents, also has two divisions, court officers and the commissioned. The court officers take care of the mundane functions of the court and often take commands from those on higher tiers. The

174

Chapter Seven: Conclusions

commissioned have a certain amount of access to the council and are given specific tasks to do on behalf of the council. Other groups or individuals relate to the council but do not constitute members, but function as observers (e.g., Micaiah ben Imlah, Zechariah, Daniel, Thousands upon Thousands), vehicles (e.g., 400 prophets), and defendants (e.g., the Beasts). In recognition that the Hebrew Bible is neither univocal nor systematic, the next stage of this research focused on a historical investigation, particularly in reference to the relationship between the Council of Yahweh and monotheism. I discovered that the theory regarding the development from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism does not follow from the Council of Yahweh texts, which often reflect a form of monolatry. The most radical form is found in the earliest text, Isaiah 6, and the most liberal are found in later texts, 1 Kings 22, Job 1–2, and Zechariah 3. However, one cannot hypothesize a linear process away from radical monolatry as the latest text, Daniel 7, returns to a form similar to that found in Isaiah 6. Thus if the texts are plotted on a liberal to radical continuum, one would begin with 1 Kings to Job 1–2 to Zechariah 3 to Daniel 7, and finish with Isaiah 6. This represents an ongoing debate rather than a linear revelation. 41

7.2. Implications The Council of Yahweh shares features with the ancient Near Eastern cultures that surrounded the nation of Israel, but it also demonstrates a theological reflection of the journey in Israelite religion towards monotheism. Each of the three conclusions of this study has its own implications. The first conclusion is that there is more than one council presented within the Hebrew Bible; I argued that another divine council appears in Deut 32:8 (based on the variant readings at Qumran and in the Septuagint) and in Psalm 82. This opens up the possibility that these divine council texts could refer to the divine council of other nations and, therefore, provide a foundation for comparative work in a way different than the Council of Yahweh type-scenes. It also provides a point of comparison internal to the Hebrew Bible. This can make textual analysis more complicated, but it can also provide insight into internal and external theological understandings. The second conclusion argues that council imagery and settings negate the claim of radical monotheism asserted for post-Second Isaiah texts. Wildberger says, “There are also other places in the OT which refer to the motif of the assembly of the gods or, as the case may be, the heavenly council. This presumes a polytheism, with a king of the gods ruling as head of the pantheon.”1 As noted earlier, questioning the monotheism of the Hebrew Bible 1

Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 254.

7.3. Areas for Further Research

175

is not a unique or new position but questioning it through a sustained analysis of the divine council has not been completed, despite the work of Smith and Heiser who have already raised this issue.2 This conclusion would mean that the presence of the council indicates that those texts represent at the most radical monolatry. This has implications for the development towards monotheism, such as a non-linear, non-universal development. The final conclusion is that in some strands of the tradition, a very special human being is included in the council on the lowest tier in the structure; it should be noted that even in the traditions that may include a unique human inclusion, it is a rare occurrence that does not extend beyond the individual. This conclusion has the most striking implication of all. Because this appears to be unique in the ancient Near East, it demonstrates an element of the religion that is an Israelite innovation.3 It is an innovation that is likely due to theological reflection on the universalism of a divine council in the ancient Near East and an emergent monotheism, though as already seen not in a linear progression. It is one solution to the relational nature of the deity and the need to depopulate the gods. 42

7.3. Areas for Further Research While this study does not engage in comparative work itself, it has implications for the future of comparative studies on the topic of the divine council. It represents the platform from which the comparative dialogue can take place. This means that the Israelite concepts do not need to take a secondary role to the understanding of the concept in other cultures. A future study should be completed to compare these results to those from Ugarit, Mesopotamia, and Deir ‫ޏ‬Alla to name a few. It would also provide the basis for further comparative work within the Hebrew Bible itself, as it could be used to explore the action of divine beings outside the Council of Yahweh. This type of further study can provide insight into questions such as: Do council members have different functions beyond their council roles? Or are they always acting as members of the council? 4 And are all deities members of the council? 2

M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, passim; Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Literature,” passim. 3 This is not to say that there might be seeds of human membership within the realm of the divine in other cultures, such as some of the theories around the Rephaim in Ugarit or even the link between kingship and deification in Egypt, but the idea of humans as participating members within a divine council is not an explicit concern. 4 It has been standard procedure to view the actions of the character inside and outside of the council as sympatico. For an example, see Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods, 198– 200. Yet, this assumption is not necessarily a good one.

176

Chapter Seven: Conclusions

Thus there are various ways in which this study can be followed up and questions arise out of this primary study. The largest area left for further research is in the area of deities outside of the Council of Yahweh typescenes. This is true of council members who appear in non-council texts, and it is also true of deities who appear in the text, outside of council texts, and/or in the remains of material culture. Examples of deities that have been excluded from this study, but should be considered in a more extensive look at council membership, are Plague and Pestilence (Hab 3:5). These characters function in ways (e.g., connected with Yahweh and his judgment) that would be compatible with the members of the divine council, but there is no explicit evidence that these deities are members. Criteria need to be devised and consistently applied to determine whether excluded deities could actually be considered included. The relationship between female deities and the Council of Yahweh is a case where one has to distinguish between the textual presentation of the council and what has appeared in folk-religion or in earlier expressions of the council. There is sound archaeological evidence for both Asherah and Anat being Yahweh’s consort.5 However, there is little textual data for Asherah and none for Anat to suggest this role, and neither are present in any biblical council texts.6 The distinction between folk religion and 5

For detailed discussions of these theories in relation to Asherah, see T. Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup 232; Copenhagen International Seminar 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 94–104; W. G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 131–35, 219–36; J. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), esp. 84–187; A. F. Ide, Yahweh’s Wife: Sex in the Evolution of Monotheism; a Study of Yahweh, Asherah, Ritual Sodomy and Temple Prostitution (Las Colinas: Monument Press, 1991), esp. 47–68; S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 23–38. Though less popular a theory there are those who claim there is evidence that Anat was also viewed as the consort of Yahweh. John Day says, “The idea that Anat could serve as Yahweh’s consort has often been thought to be confirmed by a reference to the goddess Anat-Yahu in the fifth-century BCE Jewish Aramaic papyri from Elephantine in Egypt (AP 44.3). Yahu (Yahweh) was very much the main deity worshipped there, and Anat-Yahu, literally, ‘Anat of Yahu’ would seem to be his consort”: J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 143. See also K. van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen 39 (1992): 80–101; J. H. Stuckey, “Goddess Anat: Warrior Virgin of the Ancient Levant,” Samhain 3 (2002): n.p. 6 A possible exception to this may be found in 1 Kings 22, as the 400 prophets, whose second-hand prophecy is a lie, could be viewed as the 400 prophets of Asherah whose fate is unknown after the battle at Mount Carmel. This would explain why Jehoshaphat requests Micaiah ben Imlah, who is the only prophet in the scene to observe the Council of Yahweh. Yet, this text could be used to argue against the idea that Asherah is a legitimate member of the council as her prophets are not permitted access to it, but that a prophet of

7.3. Areas for Further Research

177

textual theology may be an artificial one, but it is also an important one. This is particularly true should one wish to do comparative work or developmental work rather than systematic studies. It is for this reason that this study concludes that according to the Hebrew Bible there are no goddesses present in the Council of Yahweh. One could argue that there may have been female members of the collectives that comprise the council and there is no evidence to the contrary. This is true since a masculine plural would normally be used to represent a mixed gendered group, and therefore, the collectives found in the council could be male, female, or androgynous. However, there is also no evidence other than the grammatical gender to suggest gender, and since ascribing actual gender based on grammatical gender can lead to notorious conclusions, especially in the case of a title, I did not use gender as one of the categories of observation. One might find images of the Divine Feminine in the text of the Hebrew Bible (Proverbs 1–9) and especially within the Catholic canon of the Old Testament (Ben Sira 7, 14–15, 24; Wisdom of Solomon 6–7), namely the personification of Wisdom/Sophia. This character is unique and interesting but also contains parallels to ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ. She is considered part of and yet separate from Yahweh, like ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ.7 While she is not best understood as a hypostasis, due in part to her complexity, she is said to do things that have elsewhere been attributed to Yahweh. For example, she is also said to have been present at creation (Prov 8:27–30; Wis 7:22; 8:1, 4, 8; 9:9). In a different approach to Wisdom, various studies have attempted to identify Wisdom/Sophia with one of the ancient Near Eastern goddesses, such as Inanna, Astarte, and Persian Provenance, and all have had some degree of success.8 Yet, the universal success actually results in universal failure. Roland Murphy responds to this:

Yahweh is needed in order to view the council’s decision. Also, the King of Israel responds to Jehoshaphat’s question (ʥʺʥʠʮ ʤʹʸʣʰʥ ʣʥʲ ʤʥʤʩʬ ʠʩʡʰ ʤʴ ʯʩʠʤ ʨʴʹʥʤʩ ʸʮʠʩʥ) by saying there is still (ʣʥʲ) a prophet of Yahweh, which might imply that these ones are not actually Yahweh’s prophets. See Walsh, 1 Kings, 345–46. 7 On the idea of Wisdom as a hypostasis, see, O. Keel, Die Weisheit spielt vor Gott: Ein ikonographischer Beitrag zur Deutung der m e‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬äqät in Sprüche 8,30 f (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 12–13. For more on the complex relationship between Yahweh and ʪʠʬʮʤ see Chapter Four, pp. 125–27. 8 J. Hadley, “Wisdom and the Goddess,” in Wisdom in Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton (R. P. Gordon, J. Day, and H. G. M. Williamson, eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 234–43.

178

Chapter Seven: Conclusions

Can anything of theological significance be made of such a chameleon-like figure? As indicated at the outset, little is to be gained by a classification of hypostasis or the like, or even of an analysis of the foreign influences that have contributed to her characterization. This historical approach to the wisdom texts is enlightening, but it is ‘soft’ on meaning. Personified Wisdom was understood by those who wrote about her and honoured her, not as a rival to the Lord, or even as a sympathetic goddess. This research fails to do justice to Wisdom herself, and to the place of wisdom in the Bible.9

Because of the apparent similarities among all these female figures the connection is not nearly as striking. For example, if there were clear parallels between Isis and Wisdom and not between any other goddess then it would indicate a symbiotic relationship between the two. Yet, because there are so many possible parallels it seems more likely that it relates to what a woman could or could not be in the ancient Near East. In other words, the parallels would exist because all the figures are women. Even though they are goddesses, there may be an element of social role relating to gender that is coming into play. It also seems that Murphy’s assessment has merit because it seeks to take the text seriously within its own context. While ancient Near Eastern parallels can be helpful in developing the total picture of the textual context, it should not be the lens through which the text is viewed. It may seem like a semantic argument to say that one should examine the text and then look at the ancient Near Eastern world for help, rather than look at the ancient Near Eastern world and then apply these concepts to the text, but it is actually vital if one wants to understand the textual intent. If, for example, one believes that Wisdom is developed from Asherah, the temptation would be to find the characteristics of Asherah within Wisdom. This could lead to interpreters ignoring aspects of Wisdom that are foreign to Asherah, while highlighting minor similarities in a way that gives them a disproportionate level of emphasis. Therefore, it is important to start with a textual analysis of biblical texts before looking at potential parallels in the ancient Near East. Therefore, if all goddesses share elements in common with Wisdom/Sophia then she is unlikely to be an expression of any of them. However, it is possible that she is the representative of all divine females, just as Yahweh becomes the representative of all male deities. As monotheism developed, Wisdom/Sophia became the representative of all female deities. The association of Wisdom/Sophia is also due to the emergence of radical monotheism. The results of this study are not limited to insights into Israel alone. The benefits for comparative understandings with the divine councils throughout the ancient Near East is not unilateral. One way in which this study 9 R. E. Murphy, “The Personification of Wisdom,” in Wisdom in Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton (R. P. Gordon, J. Day, and H. G. M. Williamson, eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 222.

7.3. Areas for Further Research

179

could be helpful for studies on the divine council of other nations is assistance in the development of criteria for determining council passages and for determining who is and who is not a member of each council. It could also provide further insight into the structure of those other councils. For example, in using this study itself as a comparative point one could reexamine the four-tier structure proposed for Ugarit. It may be better to understand tier three as a division within tier two since the tier terminology suggests hierarchy, and there is no indication that the tier two gods are superior to Kothar wa-঩asis, but often they are shown to be in need of him. Following this line of thought, with such a populated second tier it might be useful to examine the actions and functions of the gods on that tier to determine if there is a more detailed structure (divisions, subtiers, etc.) present on this tier. The plethora of material available from Ugarit would make this a rich avenue for further exploration.

43

Bibliography Achtemeier, Elizabeth. Nahum – Malachi. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986. Ackroyd, Peter R. “The Meaning of Hebrew ʸʥʣ Considered.” Journal of Semitic Studies 13 (1968): 3–10. Ahlström, Gösta W. Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs. Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959. Albright, William F. “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deut xxxii.” Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): 339–46. Allis, Oswald T. The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1950. Alonso-Schökel, Luis. “Die stilistische Analyse bei den Propheten.” Pages 154–64 in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic, 1981. Anderson, Francis I. Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976. Assmann, Jan. “Monotheism and Polytheism.” Pages 17–31 in Religions in the Ancient World. Edited by Sarah Iles Johnson. Cambridge, Mass./London: Belknap, 2004. Attridge, Harold W., and Robert A. Oden. Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 9. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1981. Bailey, John W. “The Usage of the Post Restoration Period Terms Descriptive of the High Priest.” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 217–25. Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1978. –. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1972. Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. London: SPCK, 1992. Barthel, Jörg. Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 19. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997. Baumann, Eberhard. “Das Lied Moses (Dt 32,1–43) auf seine gedankliche Geschlossenheit untersucht.” Vetus Testamentum 6 (1956): 414–24.

182

Bibliography

Baumann, Gerlinde. “Trendy Monotheism? Ancient Near Eastern Models and Their Value in Elucidating ‘Monotheism’ in Ancient Israel.” Old Testament Essays 19 (2006): 9–25. Beasley-Murray, George R. “The Interpretation of Daniel 7.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 44–58. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Becking, Bob. “Only One God: On Possible Implications for Biblical Theology.” Pages 189–201 in Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah. The Biblical Seminar 77. Edited by Bob Becking, Meindert Dijkstra, and Marjo C. A. Korpel. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Becking, Bob, Meindert Dijkstra, and Marjo C. A. Korpel, eds. Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah, The Biblical Seminar 77. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Beeston, Alfred F. L. “Angels in Deuteronomy 33:2.” Journal of Theological Studies 2 (1951): 30–31. Bentzen, Aage. Daniel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 19. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1952. Benzinger, Immanuel. Jahvist und Elohist in den Königsbüchern. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament. Neue Folge 2. Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1921. Bergant, Dianne. Israel’s Wisdom Literature: A Liberation-Critical Reading. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders biblische Studien 16; Freiburg: Herder, 1998. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Beuken, Wim. Haggai – Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 10. Assen: van Gorcum, 1967. Biddle, Mark E. Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 4. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2003. Binger, Tilde. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 232. Copenhagen International Seminar 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd edition. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Birney, Leroy. “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1–4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13 (1970): 43–52. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Wisdom and Law: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. –. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. Isaiah 40–55. Anchor Bible 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Blum, Erhard. “Jesajas prophetisches Testament: Beobachtungen zu Jes 1–11 (Teil II).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 109 (1997): 12–29. Boecker, Hans Jochen. Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964.

Bibliography

183

Bokovoy, David E. “ ʡʷʲʩ ʺʩʡʡ ʥʣʩʲʤʥ ʥʲʮʹ: Invoking the Council as Witnesses in Amos 3:13.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 37–51. Boston, James R. “The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 198–202. Bovati, Pietro. Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible. Translated by Michael J. Smith. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 105. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: New Press, 2012. Brown, Derek R. “The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan in Biblical Studies.” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2011): 200–27. Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 1–39. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998. Budde, Karl. Das Lied Mose’s Deut. 32. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1920. Casey, Maurice. “Porphyry and the Book of Daniel.” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 15–33. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part One: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. –. “The Episode of the Sons of God and Daughters of Man (Genesis vi 1–4).” Pages 47– 70 in vol. 1 of idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973). –. “The Song of Moses (Dt 32,1–43).” Pages 341–47 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by Norbert Lohfink and Samuel Amsler. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 68. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Chafer, Lewis. Satan. New York: Gospel, 1909. Chisholm, Robert B. Handbook on the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Cho, Sang Youl. Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Study in Their Nature and Roles. Deities and Angels of the Ancient World 2. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. Word Biblical Commentary 6B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah 1–39. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Clifford, Richard. “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 35–47. –. Deuteronomy with an Excursus on Covenant and Law. Old Testament Message 4. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1982. –. Psalms 73–150. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Clines, David J. A. “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1–4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3 (1979): 33–46. –. “False Naivety in the Prologue of Job.” Harvard Annual Review 9 (1985): 127–36. –. Job 1–20. Word Biblical Commentary 17. Dallas: Word, 1989. Closen, Gustav E. Die Sünde der ‘Söhne Gottes’, Gen 6,1–4: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Genesis. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1937. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Coggins, Richard J. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

184

Bibliography

–. “Isaiah.” Pages 433–86 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Cohn, Herbert. “From Monolatry to Monotheism.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 26 (1998): 124–26. Coleran, James E. “The Sons of God in Genesis 6,2.” Theological Studies 2 (1941): 488– 509. Collins, John J. “Towards the Morphology of a Genre: Introduction.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–20. –. Daniel, 1, 2 Maccabees. Old Testament Message 15. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981. –. Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature XX. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. –. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Colpe, Carsten. “੘ ȣੂઁȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ.” Pages 400–77 in vol. 8 of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Conrad, Edgar W. Zechariah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Cook, Stephen L. Prophecy & Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Cooper, Alan. “Reading and Misreading the Prologue to Job.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990): 67–79. “Council.” Page 320 in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Edited by Katherine Barber. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998. Couturier, Guy. “La vision du Conseil divin: Étude d’une forme commune au prophétisme et à l’apocalyptique.” Science et Esprit XXXVI (1984): 5–43. Craigie, Peter C., and Page H. Kelley. Jeremiah 1–25. Word Biblical Commentary 26. Dallas: Word, 1991. Crenshaw, James L. “Job, Book of.” Page 50 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd edition. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010. Crook, Margaret B. The Cruel God: Job’s Search for the Meaning of Suffering. Boston: Beacon, 1959. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22 (1953): 274–77. –. “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs.” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 225– 59. –. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 2: 51–100. Anchor Bible 17. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. –. “The Sons of God and Daughters of Men and the Giants: Disputed Points in the Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 427–47. Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: ĞƗ‫ܒ‬Ɨn in the Hebrew Bible. Harvard Semitic Monographs 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Delcor, Mathias. “Les sources du chapitre 7 de Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 290–312.

Bibliography

185

Delitzsch, Franz. Commentar über das Buch Jesaia. 4th edition. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament III/1. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1889. de Moor, Johannes C., and Klaas Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit: Autographed Texts and Glossaries. Semitic Study Series N.S. 6. Leiden: Brill, 1987. –. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. 2nd edition. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91. Leuven: Leuven University Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, 1990. –. “Ugarit and the Origin of Job.” Pages 230–31 in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992. Edited by G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Dequeker, Luc. “La cour céleste de Yahvé.” Collectanea Mechliniensia 52 (1967): 131– 40. de Roche, Michael. “Yahweh’s rîb against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Preexilic Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 563–74. de Savignac, J. “Les ‘Seraphim’.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 320–25. de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Dever, William G., Baruch Halpern, P. Kyle McCarter, and Hershel Shanks, eds. The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium of the Smithsonian Institute, Sponsored by the Resident Associate Program. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1993. de Vries, Simon J. Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. –. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Waco: Word Books, 1985. Dhorme, Edouard. “Le nom du Dieu d’Israël.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 141 (1952): 5–18. –. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984. Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. –. Jesaja und die Politik. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 74. Munich: Kaiser, 1976. Dillmann, August, and Rudolf Kittel. Der Prophet Jesaja. 6th edition. Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 5. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1898. Dimant, Devorah. “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community.” Pages 93–103 in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Adele Berlin. Bethesda: University Press of America, 1996. Dion, Paul E. “The Angel with the Drawn Sword (II [sic] Chr 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985): 114–17. “Divine.” Page 407 in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Edited by Katherine Barber. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998.

186

Bibliography

Dörfel, Donata. Engel in der apokalyptischen Literatur und ihre theologische Relevanz: Am Beispiel von Ezechiel, Sacharja, Daniel und Erstem Henoch. Theologische Studien. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 1998. Driver, Samuel R. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 8th edition. New York: Scribner, 1898. Driver, Samuel R., and George B. Gray. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job: Together with a New Translation. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Dunn, James D. G. “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 303–36. Eddinger, Terry W. “An Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11 (17).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999): 119–35. Eichrodt, Walther. Der Heilige in Israel: Jesaja 1–12. Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 17. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960. Eissfeldt, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1934. –. “El and Yahweh.” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956): 25–37. –. “Jahwe, der Gott der Väter.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 88 (1963): 481–90. Ellison, Henry L. A Study of Job: From Tragedy to Triumph. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971. Emerton, John A. “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery.” Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958): 225–42. Eslinger, Lyle. “A Contextual Identification of the bene ha’elohim and benoth ha’adam in Genesis 6:1–4.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (1979): 65–73. –. “The Infinite in a Finite Organical Perception (Isaiah VI 1–5).” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 145–73. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “‘Ihr alle seid Söhne des Allerhöchsten’ (Ps 82,6): Kanaanäische Richter vor dem Gericht Gottes.” Bibel und Leben 15 (1974): 135–47. Ferch, Arthur. “Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 75–86. Fichtner, Johannes. Das erste Buch von den Königen. Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 12. Reihe 1. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964. Finkelstein, Israel. “Searching for Israelite Origins.” Biblical Archaeology Review 14 (1998): 34–45. –. “A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives.” Pages 3–28 in One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Finkelstein, Israel, and Amihai Mazar. The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Flynn, Shawn. YHWH is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 159. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Fockner, Sven. “Reopening the Discussion: Another Contextual Look at the Sons of God.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (2008): 435–56. Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by David Green. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Fokkelman, Jan P. “Stylistic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11.” Old Testament Studies 21 (1981): 68–90.

Bibliography

187

Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Freedman, David Noel. “The Structure of Isaiah 40:1–11.” Pages 167–94 in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday, July 28, 1985. Edited by Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary 15. Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2002. Fritz, Volkmar, and Philip Davies, eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 228. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law.” Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980): 230–34. –. In the Wake of the Goddess: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Free Press, 1992. Garr, W. Randall. In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 15. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Gaster, Theodor H. “The Canaanite Epic of Keret.” Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1947): 285–93. Gemser, Berend. “The rîb- or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality.” Pages 120–37 in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Martin Noth and D. Winton Thomas. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Gesenius, William [Wilhelm]. Lexicon of the Old Testament including the Biblical Chaldee. Translated by Edward Robinson. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1836. Gilbert, Maurice. “La loi du talion.” Christus 31 (1984): 73–82. Ginsberg, Harold L. “The Composition of the Book of Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 246–75. –. The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies 2/3. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946. Gnuse, Robert Karl. No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 241. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Dallas: Word, 1989. Goldstein, Ronnie. “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and 43 in Light of Akkadian Sources.” Tarbiz 79 (2010): 5–21. Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. –. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies. Moreshet Series: Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought 2. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978. Gordon, Cyrus H. “History of Religion in Psalm 82.” Pages 129–31 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by Gary A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. –. “ ʭʩʤʬʠ in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges.” Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 139–44. Gordon, Robert P. “Standing in the Council: When Prophets Encounter God.” Pages 190– 204 in The God of Israel. University of Cambridge Oriental Press Publications 64. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

188

Bibliography

Görg, Manfred. “Die Funktion der Serafen bei Jesaja.” Biblische Notizen 5 (1978): 28– 39. Gottwald, Norman K. The Tribe of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979. Gowan, Donald E. Daniel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Gray, George B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. Gray, John. 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. –. The Canaanites. Ancient Peoples and Places 36. New York: Praeger, 1964. Greenstein, Edward L. “The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 651–66. Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels. 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Habel, Norman C. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965): 297–323. –. The Book of Job. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Hadley, Judith. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. –. “Wisdom and the Goddess.” Pages 234–43 in Wisdom in Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by Robert P. Gordon, John Day, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Hailey, Homer. A Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972. Halpern, Baruch. From Gods to God. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. Hamori, Esther J. “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. –. “The Spirit of Falsehood.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010): 15–30. Handy, Lowell K. “Sounds, Words and Meanings in Psalm 82.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47 (1990): 51–66. –. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Revised edition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979. Hardmeier, Christof. “Jesajas Verkündigungsabsicht und Jahwes Verstockungsauftrag in Jes 6.” Pages 235–51 in Die Botschaft und die Boten. Edited by Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort Jahwes in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 75. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. –. “Cherubim and Seraphim in the Bible and in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources.” Pages 155–88 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007. Edited by Tobias Nicklas, Friedrich V. Reiterer, and Karin Schöpflin. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.

Bibliography

189

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 23. Garden City: Doubleday, 1978. Harvey, Julien. “Le ‘Rib Pattern’ prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance.” Biblica 43 (1962): 172–96. –. “Elohim et Yahvé.” Église et théologie 2 (1971): 149–59. Hayes, John H., and Stuart A. Irvine. Isaiah the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times & His Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 1987. Hayman, Peter. “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1–15. Heaton, Eric W. The Book of Daniel. Torch Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1956. Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52–74. –. “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin – Madison, 2004. –. “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Towards an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18 (2008): 1–30. Hendel, Ron S. “When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men.” Bible Review 3 (1987): 8–13, 37. –. “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel.” Pages 219–24 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 21. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997. Herbert, Arthur S. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Hesse, Franz. Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1955. Hiers, Richard H. Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law. New York: Continuum, 2009. Hill, Andrew E. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012. Himbaza, Innocent. “Dt 32,8, une correction tardive des scribes: Essai d’interprétation et de datation.” Biblica 83 (2002): 527–48. Himmelfarb, Martha. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985. Hoffner, Harry A. Hittite Myths. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Hölscher, Gustav. “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion.” Pages 158–213 in vol. 1 of Eucharisterion: Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 36. Edited by Hans Schmidt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Hurowitz, Victor. “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources.” Hebrew Union College Annual LX (1989): 39–89. Hurvitz, Avi. “The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered.” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 17–34.

190

Bibliography

Ide, Arthur Frederick. Yahweh’s Wife: Sex in the Evolution of Monotheism; a Study of Yahweh, Asherah, Ritual Sodomy and Temple Prostitution. Las Colinas: Monument Press, 1991. Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. From Biblical Theology to Biblical Criticism: Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University, 1866–1922. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 47. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000. Jackson, Bernard S. “The Problem of Exodus XXI 22–5 (Ius Talionis).” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 273–304. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 157–70 in Toward the Image of Tammus. Edited by W. L. Moran. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. –. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976. Janzen, J. Gerald. Job. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985. Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989. Jeffrey, Arthur. “The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Exegesis.” Pages 339–549 in vol. 3 of Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Jensen, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. Old Testament Message 8. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984. Jepsen, Alfred. Die Quellen des Königsbuches. Halle: Niemeyer, 1953. Johnson, Aubrey R. The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961. Joines, Karen R. “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision.” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 410–15. Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Joosten, Jan. “La prosopopée, les pseudo-citations et la vocation d’Isaïe (Is 6,9–10).” Biblica 82 (2001): 232–43. –. “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8.” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 548–55. Joüon, Paul. “Les unions entre les ‘fils de Dieu’ et les ‘filles des hommes’ Genèse, 6,1– 4.” Recherches de science religieuse 29 (1939): 108–14. Jung, Leo. Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature. New York: Ktav, 1974. Jüngling, Hans-Winfried. Der Tod der Götter: Eine Untersuchung zu Psalm 82. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 39. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969. –. “‘Auge für Auge, Zahn für Zahn.’ Bemerkungen zu Sinn und Geltung der alttestamentlichen Talionsformel.” Theologie und Philosophie 59 (1984): 1–38. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by R. A. Wilson. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster 1972. –. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. 2nd, completely rewritten edition. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Kamphausen, Adolf. Das Lied Moses: Deut. 32,1–43. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1862. Kaupel, Heinrich. Die Dämonen im Alten Testament. Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1930. Keel, Othmar. Die Weisheit spielt vor Gott: Ein ikonographischer Beitrag zur Deutung der me‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬äqät in Sprüche 8,30 f. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.

Bibliography

191

–. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4: Mit einem Beitrag von A. Gutbub über die vier Winde in Ägypten. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Translated by James Martin. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1884; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Keiser, Thomas A. “The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy.” Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): 486–500. Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Kelly, Ansgar. Satan: A Biography. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Kiesow, Klaus. Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und motivgeschichtliche Analysen. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Kinet, Dirk. “The Ambiguity of the Concepts of God and the Satan in the Book of Job.” Pages 30–35 in Job and the Silence of God. Edited by Christian Duquoc and Casiano Floristán. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. Kingsbury, Edwin C. “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 279–86. Kline, Meredith G. “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4.” Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1962): 187–204. Knoppers, Gary N. 1 Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. Anchor Bible 12A. Garden City: Doubleday, 2004. Koch, Klaus. Der Gott Israels und die Götter des Orients: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien II. Zum 80. Geburtstag von Klaus Koch. Edited by Friedhelm Hartenstein and Martin Rösel. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 216. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. –. “Ugaritic Polytheism and Hebrew Monotheism in Isaiah 40–55.” Pages 205–28 in The God of Israel. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. A Rift in the Cloud: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990. Kramer, Samuel Noah. “Man and His God: A Sumerian Variation of the ‘Job’ Motif.” Pages 170–82 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Essays Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley. Edited by M. Noth and D. W. Thomas. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 3. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1 f. und das Jeremiabuch.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 106 (1994): 243–61. Kreuzer, Florian. “Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen Bibel – eine bekannte Größe?” Biblica 86 (2005): 536–44. Kugler, Franz Xaver. Von Moses bis Paulus: Forschungen zur Geschichte Israels nach biblischen und profangeschichtlichen, insbesondere neuen keilinschriftlichen Quellen. Münster in Westfalen: Aschendorff, 1922. Lacheman, Ernest R. “The Seraphim of Isaiah 6.” Jewish Quarterly Review 59 (1968): 71–72. LaCocque, André. Daniel in His Time. Translated by Lydia Cochrane. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.

192

Bibliography

Laetsch, Theodore. Minor Prophets. Concordia Classic Commentary Series. St. Louis: Concordia, 1956. Landy, Francis. “The Ghostly Prelude to Deutero-Isaiah.” Biblical Interpretation 14 (2006): 332–63. Lang, Bernhard. Monotheism and Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology. The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 1. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Langton, Edward. Satan: A Portrait. London: Skeffington, 1945. Lanz, Eddy. Der ungeteilte Jesaja: Neues Licht auf eine alte Streitfrage. Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien 13. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2004. Lemaire, André. The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism. Washington: Biblical Archaeological Society, 2007. Lemche, Niels Peter. “The Origin of the Israelite State: A Copenhagen Perspective on the Emergence of Critical Historical Studies of Ancient Israel in Recent Times.” Scottish Journal of Old Testament 12 (1998): 44–63. Leuchter, Mark. “Why is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 295–317. Lévêque, Jean. Job et son Dieu: Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. Etudes bibliques. 2 vols. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1970. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Limburg, James. “The Root š¢± and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 291–304. –. “An Exposition of Isaiah 40:1–11.” Interpretation 29 (1975): 406–11. Lockyer, Herbert. Satan: His Person and Power. Waco: Word, 1980. Lohfink, Norbert. “Gott und die Götter im Alten Testament.” Theologische Akademie 6 (1969): 50–71. Longman III, Temper. Job. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Loretz, Oswald. “Die Einzigkeit eines Gottes im Polytheismus von Ugarit: Zur Levante als Ursprungsort des biblischen Monotheismus.” Pages 71–89 in Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. Edited by Manfred Krebernik and Jürgen van Oorschot. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. Louis-Fletcher, Crispin H. T. “The High Priest as Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Daniel 7:13 as a Test Case.” Pages 161–93 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 36. Edited by Eugene Lovering. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. “Monotheism and Isaiah.” Pages 43–61 in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David G. Firth and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009. Machinist, Peter. “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring.” Pages 189–240 in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism. Edited by Beate Pongratz-Leisten. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Macumber, Heather. “Angelic Intermediaries: The Development of a Revelatory Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2012. Malamat, Abraham. Mari and the Bible. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 12. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Martens, Elmer A., “ ʯʨʹ.” Page 63 in vol. 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. Van Gemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

Bibliography

193

Marx, Alfred. “La chute de Lucifer (Esaïe 14,12–15; Luc 10,18): Pré-histoire d’un mythe.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 80 (2000): 171–85. Mason, Rex. “The Relation of Zech 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88 (1976): 227–38. –. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. –. “The Treatment of Earlier Biblical Themes in the Book of Daniel.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 15 (1988): 81–100. Mauchline, John. Isaiah 1–39: Confidence in God. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1962. Mazar, Amihai. “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy.” Pages 29–58 in One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. McCarter, P. Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. McComiskey, Thomas Edward. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Vol. 3: Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. McKenna, David L. Job. The Communicator’s Commentary 12. Waco: Word, 1986. McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991. –. 1–2 Chronicles. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004. McLaughlin, John L. “Their Hearts Were Hardened: The Use of Isaiah 6,9–10 in the Book of Isaiah.” Biblica 75 (1994): 1–25. Meier, Samuel A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Harvard Semitic Monographs 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. –. “Angel of Yahweh.” Pages 53–59 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Pieter W. van der Horst, and Bob Becking. 2 nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Melugin, Roy F. The Formation of Isaiah 40–55. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 141. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976. Melvin, David P. The Interpreting Angel Motif in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Mendenhall, George E. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine.” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1962): 50–76. –. “Samuel’s ‘Broken Rîb’: Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 169–80 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane Christensen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Merrill, Eugene. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1994. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “Seraphim ʭʩʴʸʹ.” Pages 742–44 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Pieter W. van der Horst, and Bob Becking. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

194

Bibliography

Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City: Doubleday, 1987. Michel, Walter L. Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic. Vol 1: Prologue and First Cycle of Speeches, Job 1:1–14:22. Biblia et orientalia 42. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987. Milgrom, Jacob. “Did Isaiah Prophesy During the Reign of Uzziah?” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964): 164–82. Miller, Patrick D. “El the Warrior.” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 411–31. –. “The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 100–107. –. Interpreting the Psalms. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. Deuteronomy. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Miscall, Peter. Isaiah. Readings. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Mitchell, Hinckley G. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927. Moran, William. “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses.” Biblica 43 (1962): 317–27. Morenz, Ludwig D., and Stefan Schorch. “Der Seraph in der Hebräischen Bibel und in Altägypten.” Orientalia 66 (1997): 365–86. Morgenstern, Julian. “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82.” Hebrew Union College Annual XIV (1939): 29–126. Morris, Leon L. “Satan.” Pages 1064–65 in New Bible Dictionary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996. Mosca, Paul G. “Ugarit and Daniel 7: A Missing Link.” Biblica 67 (1986): 496–517. Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993. Mulder, Martin J. 1 Kings. Translated by John Vriend. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Mullen, E. Theodore. The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. –. “Hosts, Hosts of Heaven.” Pages 301–304 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Müller, Hans-Peter. “Glauben und Bleiben: Zur Denkschrift Jesajas Kapitel vi 1–vii 18.” Pages 25–54 in Studies in Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 26. Leiden: Brill, 1974. –. “Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 6.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 5 (1992): 163–85. Murphy, Roland E. “The Personification of Wisdom.” Pages 222–33 in Wisdom in Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by Robert P. Gordon, John Day, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Neef, Heinz-Dieter. Gottes himmlischer Thronrat: Hintergrund und Bedeutung von sôd JHWH im Alten Testament. Arbeiten zur Theologie 79. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1994. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002. Neuberg, Frank J. “An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DOR.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9 (1950): 215–17.

Bibliography

195

Newsom, Carol. “Job.” Pages 317–637 in vol. 4 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. –. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Nicholson, Ernest W. “The Limits of Theodicy as a Theme of the Book of Job.” Pages 71–82 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Niditch, Susan. The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition. Harvard Semitic Monographs 30. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Niehr, Herbert. “Zur Intention von Jes 6,1–9.” Biblische Notizen 21 (1983): 59–65. –. “Götter oder Menschen – eine falsche Alternative: Bemerkungen zu Ps 82.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 94–98. Nielsen, Kirsten. Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978. –. Satan – The Prodigal Son? A Family Problem in the Bible. The Biblical Seminar 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Nissinen, Martti. “Prophets and the Divine Council.” Pages 4–19 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. –. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Noll, Stephen F. Angels of Light, Power of Darkness: Thinking Biblically about Angels, Satan & Principalities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. 4th edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1957. –. “The Holy Ones of the Most High.” Pages 215–28 in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966. –. The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by Jane Doull, John Barton and Michael D. Rutter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Nougayrol, Jean. “Une version ancienne du ‘Juste souffrant’.” Revue Biblique 59 (1952): 239–50. O’Callaghan, Roger T. “The Canaanite Background of Psalm 82.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 311–14. Oeming, Manfred, and Konrad Schmid, eds. Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 82. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003. Oesterley, William O. E., and Theodore H. Robinson. An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. Olyan, Saul M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. –. A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 36. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Eyes of the Lord.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968): 173–80. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

196

Bibliography

Pace, Sharon. Daniel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 17. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2008. Page, Hugh R. “Myth, Meta-narrative, and Historical Reconstruction: Rethinking the Nature of Scholarship on Israelite Origins.” Pages 1–20 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 101. Boston: Brill, 2006. Page, Sydney. Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1996. Pakkala, Juha. Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Parker, Simon B. “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy.” Revue Biblique 102 (1995): 532–59. –. “Council. ” Pages 204–208 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Pieter W. van der Horst, and Bob Becking. 2 nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. –. “Sons of (the) God(s).” Pages 794–800 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Pieter W. van der Horst, and Bob Becking. 2 nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985. Pedersen, Johannes. “Canaanite and Israelite Cultus.” Acta orientalia 18 (1939): 1–14. Penchansky, David. Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2005. Pentecost, J. Dwight. Your Adversary, the Devil. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969. Peri, Chiara. “The Construction of Biblical Monotheism: An Unfinished Task.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 19 (2005): 135–42. Petersen, David L. Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 23. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. –. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. –. “Israel and Monotheism: The Unfinished Agenda.” Pages 92–107 in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by Gene M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Petitjean, Albert. Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil. Études bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. Petry, Sven. Die Entgrenzung JHWHs: Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium, in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1941. Podella, Thomas. Das Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996. Polley, Max E. “The Call and Commission of the Hebrew Prophets in the Council of Yahweh, Examined in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting.” Pages 141–56 in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 34. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.

Bibliography

197

Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “When the Gods Are Speaking: Towards Defining the Interface Between Polytheism and Monotheism.” Pages 132–68 in Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Martti Nissinen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 201. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Pope, Marvin. Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 15. New York: Doubleday, 1973. Porter, Barbara Nevling, ed. One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World. Chebeague Island: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000. Prinsloo, Willem S. “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” Biblica 76 (1995): 219–28. Procksch, Otto. “Der Menschensohn als Gottessohn.” Christentum und Wissenschaft 3 (1927): 425–42, 473–81. Prokurat, Michael. “Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Form Critical Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1989. Provan, Iain. 1 and 2 Kings. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. Rad, Gerhard von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by Eric William Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. –. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by James D. Martin. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. –. Daniel. The New Century Bible Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Reichelt, Hansgünter. Angelus Interpres: Texte in der Johannes-Apokalypse. Europäische Hochschulschriften 507. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994. Rendtorff, Rolf. “El, Ba‘al und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 78 (1966): 277–92. Rin, Svi. Acts of the Gods: The Ugaritic Epic Poetry. Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1968. Roberts, Jimmy J. M. “Review of The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 622–23. –. The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Robinson, Geoffrey D. “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6:9–10: A Contextual, Literary, and Theological Analysis.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 167–86. Robinson, H. Wheeler. “The Council of Yahweh.” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944): 151–57. Rofé, Alexander. “The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:43).” Pages 164–72 in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. –. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. London: T&T Clark, 2002. Rogerson, John W., and John W. McKay. Psalms 51–100. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Rollston, Christopher A. “The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence.” Stone-Campbell Journal 6 (2003): 45–115.

198

Bibliography

Röttger, Hermann. Mal’ak Jahwe – Bote von Gott: Die Vorstellung von Gottes Boten im hebräischen Alten Testament. Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 13. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978. Rowley, Harold H. The Book of Job. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Russell, Jeffery. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. –. The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of God in History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988. Salters, Robert B. “Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 225–39. Sarna, Nahum. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Schärf, Rosa Rivkah. “Die Gestalt des Satans im Alten Testament.” Pages 253–57 in Symbolik des Geistes: Studien über psychische Phänomenologie. Edited by C. G. Jung. Psychologische Abhandlungen 6. Zurich: Rascher, 1948; ET: Schärf Kluger, Rivkah. Satan in the Old Testament. Translated by Hildegard Nagel. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967. Schmid, Konrad. “Gibt es ‘Reste hebräischen Heidentums’ im Alten Testament? Methodische Überlegungen anhand von Dtn 32,8 f und Ps 82.” Pages 105–20 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Edited by Andreas Wagner. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 364. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Schmidt, Werner H. “‘Monotheismus’ und Erstes Gebot.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 122 (1997): 1081–92. Schöpflin, Karin. “God’s Interpreter: The Interpreting Angel in Post-Exilic Prophetic Visions of the Old Testament.” Pages 189–204 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007. Edited by Tobias Nicklas, Friedrich V. Reiterer, and Karin Schöpflin. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Schreiber, Stefan. “The Great Opponent: The Devil in Early Jewish and Formative Christian Literature.” Pages 437–57 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007. Edited by Tobias Nicklas, Friedrich V. Reiterer, and Karin Schöpflin. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Schwally, Friedrich. “Zur Quellenkritik der historischen Bücher.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 12 (1892): 153–62. Segal, Moses Hirsch. “El, Elohim, and Yhwh in the Bible.” Jewish Quarterly Review 46 (1955): 89–115. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 229–47. –. Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993. Seow, Choon Leong. Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Illuminations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Sheldon, L. Jean. “The Book of Job as Hebrew Theodicy: An Ancient Near Eastern Intertextual Conflict Between Law and Cosmology.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2002. Smend, Rudolf. “JE in den geschichtlichen Büchern des AT.” Edited by H. Holzinger. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 39 (1921): 181–217.

Bibliography

199

Smend, Rudolf. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte.” Pages 494–509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. –. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989. Smith, Mark S. “The ‘Son of Man’ in Ugarit.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 59–60. –. “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank.” Ugarit-Forschungen 16 (1984): 397. –. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. –. Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. –. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. –. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. Word Biblical Commentaries 32. Waco: Word, 1984. Smith-Christopher, David L. “The Book of Daniel.” Pages 17–152 in vol. 7 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Snaith, N. “Commentary on Kings.” Pages 3–340 in vol. 3 of The Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Steck, Odil Hannes. “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja 6.” Biblische Zeitschrift 16 (1972): 188– 206. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Steuernagel, Carl. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1912. Stuckey, Johanna H. “Goddess Anat: Warrior Virgin of the Ancient Levant.” Samhain 3 (2002): n.p. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Book of Haggai and Zechariah. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. The Forms of Old Testament Literature XVI. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000. –. I & II Kings. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word, 1990. –. “Satan in the Old Testament.” Review and Expositor 89 (1992): 461–74. Taylor, J. Glen. Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 111. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. –. “Was Yahweh Worshiped as the Sun?” Biblical Archaeology Review 20 (1994): 105– 107. Terrien, Samuel L. Job. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 13. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1963. –. The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Critical Eerdmans Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Thiessen, Matthew. “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1– 43).” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 401–24. Thompson, John A. The Book of Jeremiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Tidwell, Neville L. A. “The Cultic Background of Isaiah 40,1–11.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 3 (1973): 41–54.

200

Bibliography

–. “wƗ’ǀmar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 343–55. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “L’ange qui parlait à Zacharie, est-il un personnage apocalyptique?” Estudios Biblicos 45 (1987): 347–60. Tollington, Janet E. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 150. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd edition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Towner, W. Sibley. Daniel. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Meaning of the Book of Job.” Hebrew Union College Annual XXXVII (1966): 73–106. –. “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82.” Hebrew Union College Annual XL–XLI (1969–1970): 123–37. Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. The Book of Job: A New Commentary. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1967. Uffenheimer, Benjamin. The Visions of Zechariah: From Prophecy to Apocalyptic. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1961. Uhlig, Torsten. The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 39. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Unger, Merrill F. Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. van der Toorn, Karel. “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine.” Numen 39 (1992): 80–101. van Gemeren, Willem A. “The Sons of God in Gen 6:1–4.” Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1981): 320–48. Van Seters, Arthur. “Isaiah 40:1–11.” Interpretation 35 (1981): 401–404. VanderKam, James C. “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 553–70. –. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004. Veijola, Timo. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1972. –. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977. Virolleaud, Charles. Légendes de Babylone et de Canaan. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1949. Wagner, Volker. Rechtssätze in gebundener Sprache und Rechtssatzreihen im israelitischen Recht: Ein Beitrag zur Gattungsforschung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 127. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972. Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, John H. Job. The New NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Walton, John H., and Victor H. Matthews. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Bibliography

201

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Word Biblical Commentary 24. Waco: Word, 1985. Webb, Barry G. The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Historic Facts Behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern.” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 324–33. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 4th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963. Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco: Word, 1987. Westbrook, Raymond, and Bruce Wells. Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2009. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. –. Genesis 1–11. Translated by John J. Scullion. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Wharton, James A. Job. Westminster Biblical Commentary. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1999. Whitley, Charles F. “The Call and Mission of Isaiah.” Journal for Near Eastern Studies 18 (1959): 38–48. Whybray, Norman. Job. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Widyapranawa, S. H. Isaiah 1–39. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Wiebe, John M. “The Form, Setting and Meaning of the Song of Moses.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989): 119–63. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Once Upon a Time …?” Pages 517–28 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and B. A. Aucker. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wilson, Robert R. “Israel’s Judicial System in the Preexilic Period.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1983): 229–48. Wiseman, Donald J. “Flying Serpents.” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 108–10. Wray, T. J., and Gregory Mobley. The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots. New York: Palgrave, 2005. Wright, Charles Henry Hamilton. Zechariah and His Prophecies: Considered in Relation to Modern Criticism, with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary and New Translation. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1879. Wright, G. Ernest. “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 26–67 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962. Wright, John W. “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 60 (1993): 87–105. Würthwein, Ernst. “Zur Komposition von I Reg. 22:1–38.” Pages 245–54 in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost. Edited by F. Maass. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Wyatt, Nicholas. Religious Texts from Ugarit. The Biblical Seminar 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 1: Chapters 1–18. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

202

Bibliography

Young, Ian. “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?” Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 606–29. Youngblood, Ronald F. The Book of Isaiah: An Introductory Commentary. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000. Zapff, Burkard M. Jesaja 40–55. Würzburg: Echter, 2001. Zeev, Safrai, and Avraham Faust. “Salvage Excavations as a Source for Reconstructing Settlement History in Ancient History.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 137 (2005): 139–58. Zuckerman, Bruce. Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

44

Index of Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1–2 1 1:11–12 1:21 1:24–25 1:26 2–3 5:24 6 6:1–4 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 ff. 6–8 16:7–13 16:9–13 16:11 16:13 18:16–33 21:15–21 22:11–12 22:14 31:11–13 32:30 37:7 45:1

4 142 44 44 44 15, 39, 152 31 130 17, 20 2, 22, 39, 42–45 23 43, 45 23, 43 45 4 71 85 88 126 50–51 71 71 126 71 85 28 123

50 28 121 85 85 30 78 30 30 28 85 131 84 129 110 80 91 92 87 110 102 88 85 126 50 129 80 84

Leviticus

Exodus 3:1–6 3:2–6 3:2 4:24 7:15 13:21 15:11 17:9

18:11 18:13–14 19:18 19:21 20:19 21:6 21:24–25 22:6–8 22:27 23:23 24:9–11 24:18 25:18–22 25:20 28:12 28:33–34 28:36–38 29 29:4 32:2–3 32:32 32:34 33:20 34:5–6 34:14–17 37:9 39:24–26 40:34–36

121 71 102 126 28 121 50 28

8–9 8:7 10:1–2 19:19 20:2 20:16 24:15

92 87 121 44 73 44 73

204

Index of Sources

Numbers 11:1–2 13:10 13:33 18:1 21:6 21:8–9 21:8 22 22:22–35 27:2 27:16 27:21 35:12

24:16 121 56 43 91 122, 123 123 122 126, 158 50, 51 69 50 61 69

Deuteronomy 1:38 2:19 4:19 5:8–10 7:3 8:15 10:17–18 12:11 13:7 17:3 17:9–11 18:9–22 18:16 19:17 21:5 22:9–11 23:12–14 24:17 27:19 32 32:8–9 32:8 32:9 32:36–43 32:43 33:26 34:10

69 40 39, 50, 63 50 44 122 32, 50 84 76 39, 63 95 63 85 69 95 44 91 32 32 14, 16, 17, 20, 34– 38, 107, 173 22, 37 8, 34, 35, 107, 139, 174 37 50 8, 34, 38 103 85

Joshua 15:18 20:6

76 69

50

Judges 1:1 1:14 2:11–19 3:7 3:19 5:20 6 6:11–24 6:11, 14 9:23 10:6 13 13:22–23

61 76 50 50 123 85 126 71, 85 88 120 50 126 85, 88

1 Samuel 1:4 2:25 2:27–33 12:9–10 14:1 16–19 16:14–23 17:45 22:6–19 23:2 26:19 30:7–8 30:8

67 30 93 50 67 120 63 85 28 61 76 61 61

2 Samuel 3:27 8:6 12:1 13:9 15:1–4 15:32–37 16:15–17:14 17:8 24:1 24:16

89 89 158 123 95 120 120 101 71, 76, 126 88

1 Kings 1:2 3:16–28 3:16

69 95 69

205

Index of Sources 5:18 6:27 8:6–11 8:6 8:7 8:12, 53 10:8 11:4–8 11:14, 23, 25 11:33 14:5 14:19 15:6, 23, 31 16:5, 14, 20, 27 18:20–40 18:24 20 21:1 21:10, 13 21:25 22

22:1–38 22:1–28 22:1–4 22:1–2 22:5–6 22:6–7 22:8 22:10–14 22:15–20 22:15–19 22:19–23 22:19 22:20 22:21–24 22:21–23 22:21–22 22:22 22:28 22:34–37 22:35, 38, 39, 45 22:53

158 129 50 84 129 152 69 50 158 50 61 152 152 152 50 121 155 158 73 76 7, 17, 20, 22, 29, 47, 48–49, 63, 77, 82, 86, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 119, 135, 136, 139, 142, 144, 151, 152–56, 157, 158, 162, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176 155 59–65 48 155 48 48 48 61 154 48 50 49, 58, 96 48, 49, 105 120 48 49 120 155 48 155 50

2 Kings 1:1–8 1:18 2:12 3 4:8, 11, 18 6:24–7:20 8:23 9–10 10:34 12:19 13:8, 12 14:28 15:1 15:6, 11, 15, 21 15:26, 31, 36 16:19 17:16 18:4 18:32 19:7 19:15–19 19:15 20:20 21:3–7 21:3 21:5 21:17, 25 23:4–5 23:28 24:5 24:18 25 25:18 25:30

7 152 130 155 67 155 152 155 152 152 152 152 150 152 152 152 39, 63 7, 123 76 120 51 50 152 50 39, 63 39 152 39 152 152 154 152 93 154

1 Chronicles 6:3 6:8–15 16:28–29 21 21:1 21:18, 27 28:18

93 93 8 157 70, 71, 76, 77 88 129

2 Chronicles 3:13 5:8

129 129

206 18:2, 31 19:8, 11 32:11 32:15 33:3, 5 36:14

Index of Sources 77 95 76, 77 77 39 93, 115

Ezra 7:28 8:25

161 161

Nehemia 3:6 5:19 13:14

56 102 102

Esther 1:3 2:5

161 158

Job 1–2

1:1 1:5 1:6–12 1:6 1:7–8 1:7 1:8 1:9–11 1:9 1:10–11 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13–22 1:21 1:22 2 2:1–7 2:1–6 2:1–3

1, 4, 17, 20, 22, 23– 24, 29, 65–79, 82, 86, 92, 97, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 139, 141, 142, 156– 62, 165, 168, 173, 174 74 70, 73, 74 23, 50, 65–76 23, 39, 67, 72 24 23, 71, 72, 74 23, 71, 72, 74, 79 79 72 24 70, 73 70, 73, 74 24, 67, 70, 71, 72 24 71, 72, 73, 74 74 131 50, 65–66, 76–79 23 24, 75

2:1 2:2 2:3–5 2:3 2:4–5 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:9 2:10 3 3:1–42:6 3:14–15 4:12–21 5:15–16 6:19 9:25 12:9 13:15 15:8 19:23–24 21:1 25:6 26:12–13 29:4–5 29:11–16 30:20–30 31:16–23 31:35 33:23–26 33:29 36:16, 18 38:7 40 40:2

39, 67, 69, 72, 111 72 24 72, 73, 74, 77, 79 79 72 70, 73, 74 24, 67, 72 72 73, 74 70, 71 161 156 161 120 32 161 161 161 70 56 162 23 131 100 56 32 71 32 71 127 71 77 23, 39 126 71

Psalms 2 9:6 14:5 18 18:9–15 25:14 29 29:1–2 29:1 41:1–3 43–83

89 57 50 103 56 8, 23, 39, 50 8 23, 39 32 29

207

Index of Sources 49:20 51:3, 9 68:33 69:29 73:15 74:13–17 76:10 82

82:1 82:2–4 82:2, 3 82:6–7 82:6 82:7 82:8 84:11 87:4 89 89:6–9 89:6 89:7 89:8 89:9–11 90:2 91:11–12 93:2 95 95:3 95:10 96 96:4 96:7–8, 9 97:1–5 97:7 99 99:2 102:26–28 103 103:19–22 103:19–21 103:20 104:3 106 107:4–9 109:6 109:14 112:2

57 102 103 102 57 100 28 2, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24–33, 36, 37, 38, 69, 107, 173, 174 14, 27, 29 27, 30 25 28, 29 23, 25, 27, 39 25, 27, 31 28, 29 57 100 23, 50, 57 58 34 23, 39 56 100 102 110 102 50 29 57 50 29 8 102 38 50 8 102 50 52 39, 47 110 103 50 32 88 102 57

113:5–9 119:21 148:1–5 148:2–3 148:2 150

32 89 39 39 47, 110 84

Proverbs 1–9 2:13, 15 3:32 8:22–31 8:27–30 17:12 22:22–23 30:11–14

177 32 56 130 177 101 32 57

Canticles 8:11

158

Isaiah 1–39 1–5 1:1 1:18 2:1 3:2 3:13 5:1 6

6:1–13 6:1–7 6:1–5 6:1–4 6:1–2 6:1 6:2 6:3–7 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6–13

150 81 150 102 150 91 28 158 17, 20, 29, 48, 49– 50, 52, 54, 58, 80– 86, 92, 97, 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 139, 141, 142, 149– 52, 156, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174 50 83 83 49 83 58, 82, 83, 85, 155 82 83 83, 121, 151 83 49, 82, 83 83

208 6:6–8 6:6–7 6:6 6:7 6:8–10 6:8 6:9–13 6:9–10 6:9 6:11–13 6:11, 12, 13 7:3 8:18 9 13:1 14:13 14:29 17:12–14 17:13 19:1–4 19:1 19:13–14 20:2–3 20:2 24:21 25:4 29:10 30:6 30:7 35:7 36:18 37–39 37:6 37:7 37:21 38:1 40–55 40 40:1–11 40:3–4 40:26 41:4 41:20 42:1–4 43:11–13 44:6 49:1–7 49:10 50:4–9 51:9–10

Index of Sources 83 49, 121, 129, 151 82 82 83 49, 50, 83 49 82, 150 83 83 83 150 81 81 150 58 122 100 89 50 103 120 150 150 50 32 120 122 100 122 76–77 150 150 120 150 150 8, 90, 149 41, 52–54, 148 52 53 85 102 161 161 50 102 161 122 161 100

52:13–53:12 62:3 65:6

130, 161 91 102

Jeremiah 2:31 4:13 5:13 7:19 8:1–2 8:2 14:22 15:19 19:13 20:7–18 20:7 20:13 21:11–12 22:1–4 22:3 23 23:9–22 23:16–22 23:18 23:21–22 23:22 23:27–28 28:20 33:22 38:22 43:3 52

57 103 63 57 93 63, 115 34 168 39, 63 161 121 32 95 95 32 54, 170 63 168 56, 57, 135, 138, 168, 171 96, 135 56, 57, 138, 155, 168, 171 63 168 63 77 77 154

Ezekiel 1:1 1:4–28 1:6 1:8, 9, 11, 23–24 1:27 2:1 2:9 3:1 4:12 8 10:5, 8, 16, 19 11:22 14:9

155 50 129 129 102 40 102 102 91 115 129 129 121

Index of Sources 14:14, 20 28:3 37:24–28 40–48 44:24

160, 167 167 130 128 28, 95

Hosea 2:6 4:1–8 4:12–5:4 9:7 13 13:8

75, 112 28 120 63 100 101

1:9 1:10–11 1:12 1:18 1:19 1:20 2:1–4 2:1 2:3 2:5–17 2:5–9 2:6 3

Amos 3:3–6 3:7 3:8 4:11 7:1–9 8:1–3 8:14 9:1–14

171 19, 56, 57, 96, 155, 171 171 92, 116 164 164 57 164

Micah

19

2:11

63

Habakuk 3:5

176

Nahum 1:2

103

Haggai 1:1, 12, 14 2:2

94 94

Zechariah 1–8 1:1–17 1:1 1:2 1:7–17 1:7 1:8

162, 163, 164 164 87, 164 163 163 74, 164 163, 164

3:1–10 3:1–7 3:1–5 3:1–2 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4–5 3:4 3:5 3:6–7 3:6 3:7–10 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10 4:1–14 4:1 4:2, 5 4:10 5:1–4 5:1 5:5–11 5:5 6:1–8 6:1 6:4

209 103, 163 74, 112, 114 88 163 103, 163 89, 96 163, 164 163 103, 163 163, 164 164 100 1, 16, 17, 20, 22, 29, 54–55, 58, 70– 71, 82, 85, 86–97, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 115, 118, 122, 124, 127, 128, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 157, 161, 162–65, 168, 169, 173, 174 50, 164 87, 92, 163 71, 163 70, 74 54, 55, 96, 163, 169 54, 68, 88, 89, 94, 111, 125 55, 87, 90 55, 91 87, 89, 91, 96, 127 87, 126 163 122 55 87, 89, 92, 169 127, 142, 163 96, 163 163 163, 164 103, 164 163 74, 112, 114 163, 164 163 163, 164 103, 163, 164 163, 164 163 103, 163

210 6:5 7:1 7:8–14 8 9–14 9–11 11:12

Index of Sources 100 164 32 162 162 163 162

Zephaniah 1:4–6 1:4–5 1:5 2:11

50 39 64 50

Daniel 1–6 1:1 1:17 2–7 2 2:4–49 3–6 3 3:1–30 3:1–3 3:4–7 3:12–18 3:19–23 3:25 3:28 4 4:1–47 5:1–31 6:1–28 7–12 7

131, 166 166 99 99 99, 100 99 99 17, 20, 46–47 99 46 46 46 46 39, 46 46 99 99 99 99 166 16, 17, 20, 29, 33, 54, 55–56, 58, 82– 83, 97, 104, 106, 107, 108, 128, 129,

7:1–28 7:1 7:3–6 7:4 7:6 7:7–8 7:9–10 7:9 7:10–14 7:10 7:11, 12 7:13–14 7:15–16 7:17–18 7:18 7:19–26 7:22 7:25 7:27 8 8:9–13 8:16, 18 9 9:21–23 9:21, 23 10 10:5–6 10:16 10:21 12 12:1

130, 131, 132, 133, 139, 144, 163, 165– 68, 173, 174 99 55, 82 55 101 101 55 55 82 55 55, 82, 167 55 55 55 134 104, 133 55 104, 133 102 133 129, 132 39 129 129 129 82 132, 133 129 82 158 132 102

Maleachi 3:2 3:16

102 102

Septuagint Ben Sira 7 14–15 24

Wisdom of Solomon 177 177 177

6–7 7:22 8:1, 4, 8 9:9

177 177 177 177

211

Index of Sources

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 6–7 6:2 14:15–23 39:12 46:1

69:2 85–90

167 43 102 85 132

167 104

Jubilees 5:1

43

Qumran 1QapGen 2:1 1QIsaa 4QDeutj 32:8 4QDeutq 32:43

43 53 8, 34, 39 8

4QpalaeoJob c 4QPsk 99:2 11QtgJob 9:9 11QtgJob 26:2–3

162 8 131 131

New Testament Matthew 27:9

2 Peter 162

Acts 1:9

2:4

43

Jude 132

6, 7

1 Thessalonians

Revelation

4:17

13:1–2

43

101

Hebrews 1:6

38

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Atra-‫ۏ‬asis 1.4.123–24

31

CTU 1.1 I 6, 9, 11, 36 1.1 III 1.1 III 24 1.2 I 17–19 1.2 I 22, 26, 28, 30 1.2 I 33–35 1.2 I 41, 42, 44

160 6 102 47 143 47 143

1.2 III 1.2 III 5 1.2 IV 1.2 IV 8, 29 1.3 II 40 1.3 III 8–14 1.3 III 38 1.3 IV 4, 6 1.3 V 8 1.3 VI 12–20 1.4 III 11 1.4 III 13–14

6, 47 102 6 102, 132 102, 132 47 102, 132 102, 132 102 6 102, 132 39

212 1.4 III 18 1.4 IV 24 1.4 V–VII 1.4 V 60 1.4 VII 52 1.4.25, 42 1.5 II 7 1.5 IV 2 1.6 I 36 1.10 I 3 1.13.25–26 1.14 V 10–VI 3 1.15 II 2–7 1.15 III 15 1.15 III 19 1.16 V 24 1.17 VI 28–29 1.17 VI 49 1.39.7 1.40 1.40.25, 33–34, 42

Index of Sources 102, 132 102 6 102, 132 47 15 102, 132 102 102 39 143 170 5 16 15 39 39 102 15, 16 39 16

1.47.29 1.62.16 1.65.1–3 1.65.3 1.87.18 1.124.11 1.148.9 1.161. 3, 10 1.162.17 2.17.7 2.23.5 2.33.35 2.36.11 2.76.3

39 15 39 15 15, 16 143 39 16 16 143 143 143 143 143

Ennjma eliš 4.119–28

31

KAI 26 A III 19

39

Index of Modern Authors Achtemeier, Elizabeth…91, 96, 114 Ackroyd, Peter R.…57 Ahlström, Gosta W.…57 Albright, William F…35, 36 Allis, Oswald T.…149 Alonso-Schökel, Luis…83 Alter, Robert…18, 19 Anderson, Francis I.…66, 68, 78, 156, 159, 160 Assmann, Jan…8 Attridge, Harold W.…34 Bailey, John W.…93 Baldwin, Joyce G…84, 88, 89, 96, 131, 163, 164 Baltzer, Klaus…53 Bar-Efrat, Shimon…10, 62, 73, 76 Barker, Margaret…108-109 Barthel, Jörg…150 Baumann, Eberhard…36 Baumann, Gerlinde…8 Beasley-Murray, George R.…131 Becker, Uwe…151 Becking, Bob…9, 146-147 Beeston, Alfred F. L.…124 Begrich, Joachim…36 Bentzen, Aage…131 Benzinger, Immanuel…153 Bergant, Dianne…117 Berges, Ulrich…53, 151 Berlin, Adele…19, 107 Beuken, Wim…163 Biddle, Mark E.…38 Binger, Tilde…176 Birch, Bruce C.…66, 69, 70 Birney, Leroy…42 Blenkinsopp, Joseph…53, 80, 81, 84, 117, 123, 150 Blum, Erhard…151 Boecker, Hans Jochen…28

Bokovoy, David E.…2 Boston, James R.…36 Bovati, Pietro…117 Boyarin, Daniel…108 Brown, Derek R.…66 Brueggemann, Walter…66, 69, 70, 84 Budde, Karl…36 Casey, Maurice…167 Cassuto, Umberto…36, 42, 44-45 Chafer, Lewis…109 Cho, Sang Youl…2, 6, 10, 11 Christensen, Duane L.…35 Clements, Ronald E.…84 Clifford, Richard…25, 36, 58 Clines, David J. A.…13, 42, 67, 78, 110, 117 Closen, Gustav E.…42 Cogan, Mordechai…61, 63 Coggins, Richard J.…96, 151, 162 Cohn, Herbert…9 Coleran, James E.…42 Collins, John J.…3, 99, 100, 102, 104, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 157, 165, 166, 172 Colpe, Carsten…108 Conrad, Edgar W.…87, 90 Cook, Stephen L.…90 Cooper, Alan…73, 117 Couturier, Guy…2, 12 Craigie, Peter C.…168 Crawford, Timothy G.…73 Crenshaw, James L.…68, 117, 159 Crook, Margaret B.…41, 147 Cross, Frank Moore…1, 2, 17, 26-27, 53, 54, 57-58, 102, 135, 154, 155 Dahood, Mitchell…27, 34 Davies, Philip…4 Day, John…43, 146, 176

214

Index of Modern Authors

Day, Peggy L.…70, 92, 93, 109, 114, 115, 157, 163, 164 Delcor, Mathias…131 Delitzsch, Franz…80, 122 de Moor, Johannes C.…5, 9, 159 Dequeker, Luc…2 de Roche, Michael…35 de Savignac, J.…121 de Vaux, Roland…88, 93, 114 Dever, William G.…3, 176 de Vries, Simon J.…153, 154, 155 Dhorme, Edouard…78, 102, 156, 161 Dietrich, Walter…151, 154 Dijkstra, Meindert…9 Di Lella, Alexander A.…99, 100, 101, 131, 166 Dillmann, August…80 Dimant, Devorah…124 Dion, Paul E.…124 Dörfel, Donata…103 Driver, Samuel R.…78, 155 Eddinger, Terry W.…52 Eichrodt, W.…80 Eissfeldt, Otto…102, 153 Ellison, Henry L.…71 Emerton, John A.…102 Eslinger, Lyle…43, 80 Fabry, Heinz-Josef…26 Ferch, Arthur…102 Fichtner, Johannes…155 Finkelstein, Israel…3, 4 Flynn, Shawn…13 Fockner, Sven…45, 169 Fohrer, Georg…155 Fokkelman, Jan P.…53 Frankfort, Henri…67 Freedman, David Noel…53 Frensham, Charles…27, 28 Fretheim, Terence E.…66, 69, 70, 168 Fritz, Volkmar…4 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva…117, 146 Garr, W. Randall…8, 15, 27, 28 Gaster, Theodor H.…5 Gemser, Berend…35 Gesenius, Wilhelm…122 Gilbert, Maurice…117 Ginsberg, Harold L.…5, 166

Gnuse, Robert Karl…146 Goldingay, John E.…101, 131, 132, 133 Goldstein, Ronnie…34, 37 Gordis, Robert…66, 68, 73, 77, 78, 110, 111, 156-157, 161 Gordon, Cyrus H.…24, 30 Gordon, Robert P.…2, 12, 169 Görg, Manfred…121 Gottwald, Norman K.…3 Gowan, Donald E.…99, 101 Gray, George B.…78, 80 Gray, John…5, 120, 152, 155 Greenstein, Edward L.…157 Gunkel, Hermann…36 Habel, Norman C.…22, 23, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76, 79, 83, 92, 113, 156, 159-160 Hadley, Judith…176, 177 Hailey, Homer…96 Halpern, Baruch…3, 27, 64 Hamilton, Victor P.…109 Hamori, Esther J.…2, 110, 120, 124, 127 Handy, Lowell K.…3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 30, 105, 125, 140, 141 Hanson, Paul D.…90 Hardmeier, Christof…150 Hartenstein, Friedhelm…2, 121, 122, 123, 124 Hartley, John E.…66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 113, 156, 161, 162 Hartman, Louis F.…99, 100, 101, 131, 166 Harvey, Julien…36, 102 Hayes, John H.…84 Hayman, Peter…9 Heaton, Eric W.…131 Heiser, Michael S.…7, 8, 9, 12, 105, 141, 175 Hendel, Ron S.…43, 85 Herbert, Arthur S.…84 Hesse, Franz…151 Hiers, Richard H.…13 Hill, Andrew E.…88, 96 Himbaza, Innocent…35 Himmelfarb, Martha…103 Hoffner, Harry A.…123 Hölscher, Gustav…153 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger…26, 30 Hurowitz, Victor…80

Index of Modern Authors Hurvitz, Avi…157 Ide, Arthur Frederick…176 Idestrom, Rebecca G. S.…149 Irvine, Stuart A.…84 Jackson, Bernard S.…117 Jacobsen, Thorkild…12, 49 Japhet, Sara…70 Janowski, Bernd…27 Janzen, J.…71, 156 Jeffrey, Arthur…130 Jensen, Joseph…84 Jepsen, Alfred…84 Johnson, Aubrey R.…2 Joines, Karen R.…121 Joosten, Jan…35, 151 Jones, Gwilym H.…120 Joüon, Paul…43 Jung, Leo…67, 75, 113, 118, 124 Jüngling, Hans-Winifred…24, 25-26, 27, 29, 117 Kaiser, Otto…84, 85, 86, 123, 150, 151 Kamphausen, Adolf…36 Kaupel, Heinrich…70, 157 Keel, Othmar…2, 34, 80, 122, 177 Keil, Carl Friedrich…122 Keiser, Thomas A.…37 Kiesow, Klaus…54 Kelley, Page H.…73, 168 Kelly, Ansgar…77, 109 Kinet, Dirk…109 Kingsbury, Edwin C.…1, 2, 67, 116, 135 Kittel, Rudolf…80 Kline, Meredith G.…43 Knoppers, Gary N.…70, 157-158 Koch, Klaus…2, 9, 29 Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette…3, 9 Kramer, Samuel Noah…160 Kratz, Reinhard G.…53 Kreuzer, Florian…66, 70, 109, 110 Kugler, Franz Xaver…70, 158 Lacheman, Ernest R.…121 LaCocque, André…131, 166, 167 Laetsch, Theodore…96 Landy, Francis…53, 54 Lang, Bernhard…9 Langton, Edward…109

215

Lanz, Eddy…149 Lemaire, André…9, 146 Lemche, Niels Peter…4 Leuchter, Mark…36 Lévêque, Jean…73 Levine, Baruch A.…70, 157 Limburg, James…36, 53 Lockyer, Herbert…109 Lohfink, Norbert…2, 3 Longman III, Temper…13 Loretz, Oswald…3, 83, 84, 85, 121, 123, 124, 150 Louis-Fletcher, Crispin H. T.…131 MacDonald, Nathan…9, 52 Machinist, Peter…25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 44 Macumber, Heather…96, 128 Malamat, Abraham…56-57 Martens, Elmer A.…74 Marx, A. Martens…109 Mason, Rex…91, 96, 114, 131, 162 Matthews, Victor H.…120 Mauchline, John…84 Mazar, Amihai…4 McCarter, P. Kyle…3, 157 McCarthy, Carmel…73, 74 McComiskey, Thomas Edward…88, 89, 96, 97 McKay, John W.…32 McKenna, David L.…66, 68, 72 McKenzie, Steven L.…70, 153, 154, 158 McLaughlin, John L.…23, 67, 116, 123, 131, 136, 151 Meier, Samuel A.…124, 125, 126 Melugin, Roy F.…52 Melvin, David P.…103 Mendenhall, George E.…3, 36 Merrill, Eugene…88, 90, 164 Mettinger, Tryggve N. D.…121, 123 Meyers, Carol L.…54, 74, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 114, 115, 126, 163 Meyers, Eric M.…54, 74, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 114, 115, 126, 163 Michel, Walter L.…77, 113 Milgrom, Jacob…81 Miller, Patrick D.…2, 26, 36, 102 Miscall, Peter…84 Mitchell, Hinckley G.…165 Mobley, Gregory…76

216

Index of Modern Authors

Montgomery, James A.…166 Moran, William…36 Morenz, Ludwig…121 Morgenstern, Julia…24, 30 Morris, Leon L.…66 Mosca, Paul G.…102, 131 Motyer, J. Alec.…83, 149 Mulder, Martin J.…152, 153 Mullen, E. Theodore…3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 48, 61, 175 Müller, Hans-Peter…80, 150 Murphy, Roland E.…178 Mynatt, Daniel S.…73 Neef, Heinz-Dieter…17 Nelson, Richard D.…35, 38 Neuberg, Frank J.…57 Newsom, Carol…67, 70 Nicholson, E. W.…117 Niditch, Susan…103 Niehr, Herbert…31, 151 Nielsen, Kirsten…36, 109 Nissinen, Martti…2, 135, 150 Noll, Stephen F.…124 Noth, Martin…104, 153, 155 Nougayrol, Jean…160 O’Callaghan, Roger T.…24, 30 O’Connor, Michael…40, 109, 110 Oden, Robert A.…34 Oeming, Manfred…9 Oesterley, William O. E.…155 Olyan, Saul M.…104, 176 Oppenheim, A. Leo.…74 Pace, Sharon…102, 103, 132, 166, 167 Page, Hugh R.…4 Page, Sydney…109 Pagels, Elaine…109 Pakkala, Juha…9, 146, 148 Parker, Simon B.…23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 52, 56, 67, 68, 69, 171 Patrick, Dale…13 Pedersen, Johannes…1, 2 Penchansky, David…9 Pentecost, J. Dwight…109 Peri, Chiara…9

Petersen, David L.…9, 52, 53, 66, 69, 70, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 125, 126, 163 Petitjean, Albert…163 Petry, Sven…8, 9 Pfeiffer, Robert H.…155 Podella, Thomas…91 Polley, Max E.…2, 13, 33, 36 Pongratz-Leisten, Beate…9 Pope, Marvin…74, 75, 127, 159, 160, 161 Porter, Barbara Nevling…3, 9 Prinsloo, W. S.…24 Procksch, Otto…104 Prokurat, Michael…87, 91 Provan, Iain…62 Rad, Gerhard von…117, 154 Redditt, Paul L.…82, 88, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 134, 162, 163, 165, 166 Reichelt, Hansgünter…103 Rendtorff, Rolf…102 Rin, Svi…6 Roberts, Jimmy J. M.…4, 28 Robinson, Geoffrey D.…149 Robinson, H. Wheeler…1-2, 12 Robinson, Theodore H.…155 Rofé, Alexander…34, 35 Rogerson, John W.…32 Rollston, Christopher A.…9 Röttger, Hermann…124 Rowley, Harold H.…77, 78 Russell, Jeffery…66-67, 109, 112 Salters, Robert B.…24 Sarna, Nahum…43 Schärf, Rosa Rivkah (Schärf Kluger, Rivkah)…67, 109, 112 Schmid, Herbert…27 Schmid, Konrad…9, 24, 36 Schmidt, Werner H.…9, 27 Schöpflin, Karin…103, 124, 128, 129 Schorch, Stefan…121 Schreiber, Stefan…109, 111 Schwally, Friedrich…155 Segal, Moses Hirsch…102 Seitz, Christopher R.…2, 53, 81, 84, 135 Seow, Choon Leong…67, 68, 70, 75, 78, 111, 113, 161, 162 Shanks, Hershel…3 Sheldon, L. Jean…66, 69, 112

Index of Modern Authors Smend, Rudolf (1851–1913)…153 Smend, Rudolf (b. 1932)…154 Smith, Mark S.…3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 64, 69, 105, 131, 142, 143, 146, 148, 175 Smith, Ralph L.…96, 97, 163, 164 Smith-Christopher, David L.…100 Snaith, N.…155 Spronk, Klaas…5 Steck, Odil Hannes…81, 82, 150 Sternberg, Meir…106 Steuernagel, Carl…155 Stuckey, Johanna H.…176 Stuhlmueller, Carroll…91, 114, 116, 164 Sweeney, Marvin…63, 82, 84, 92, 163 Tate, Marvin E.…25, 31, 33, 68 Taylor, J. Glen…48, 63, 64 Terrien, Samuel L.…31, 32, 160 Thiessen, Matthew…36 Thompson, John A.…171 Tidwell, Neville L. A.…53, 164 Tigay, Jeffrey H.…27, 37 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C.…103 Tollington, Janet E.…164, 165 Tov, Emanuel…35 Towner, W. Sibley…100, 101, 130, 132, 166 Tsevat, Matitiahu…2, 117 Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H.…13, 70, 74, 75, 78, 110, 158

217

Veijola, Timo…154 Virolleaud, Charles…5 Wagner, Volker…117 Walsh, Jerome T.…61, 62, 110, 119, 177 Waltke, Bruce K. …40, 109, 110 Walton, John H.…66, 120 Watts, John D. W.…82, 84 Webb, Barry G.…84, 85, 149 Weinfeld, Moshe…4 Wellhausen, Julius…153, 155 Wells, Bruce…13, 89, 138 Wenham, Gordon…43, 44, 45 Westbrook, Raymond…13, 89, 138 Westermann, Claus…43, 44, 45, 53 Wharton, James A.…71 Whitley, Charles F.…151 Whybray, Norman…79 Widyapranawa, S. H.…84 Wiebe, John M.…36 Wildberger, Hans…81, 82, 83, 84, 122, 150, 174 Williamson, Hugh G. M.…158 Willis, John T.…27 Wilson, Robert R.…13 Wiseman, Donald J.…121 Wray, T. J.…76 Wright, Charles Henry Hamilton…69, 91, 114 Wright, G. Ernest…35 Wright, John W.…70, 158 Würthwein, Ernst…155 Wyatt, Nicholas…6

Uehlinger, Christoph…2, 34 Uffenheimer, Benjamin…165 Uhlig, Torsten…81, 83, 86, 151 Unger, Merrill F.…88, 96, 97

Young, Edward J.…149 Young, Ian…157, 158, 159 Youngblood, Ronald F.…149

van der Toorn, Karel…176 VanderKam, James C.…90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 163, 165 van Gemeren, W. A.…43 Van Seters, Arthur…53

Zapff, Burkard M.…52 Zeev, Avraham…4 Zeev, Safrai…4 Zenger, Erich…26, 30 Zuckerman, Bruce…159

Subject Index Abraham…44, 51, 56 Absalom…120 accusation/accuse…25, 28–29, 33, 54, 77, 86–87, 90–91, 94–95, 113, 116, 118–19, 124, 127 Accuser, see satan ʬʠʚʺʣʲ …10, 12–14, 26–30 adversary, see satan advisory/advice…12–13, 16, 143 Ahab…60–63, 76, 100, 120, 155–56 Akkadian…34, 37, 56, 80, 122, 159–60 Anat…119, 176 ancient Near East(ern)…12, 22, 48, 100–101, 109, 117, 124, 138, 147, 160, 175, 178 Ancient of Days…55–56, 98, 102–103, 107–108, 134–35, 167 angels…7, 34, 38, 41–42, 45, 64, 74, 86, 88–90, 96, 104, 114, 126, 128– 29, 132, 134, 147, 163 Animal Apocalypse…104 Antiochus…101, 166–67 Anu…33, 48 Anzu…48 apocalyptic literature…102–103, 108, 126, 130, 132, 157, 172 Aramaic…46, 99–100, 157, 165–66, 176 Asaph…25–26 Asherah/Athirat…6, 61, 119, 176, 179 Astarte…177 authority…6, 14, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 37– 38, 68–69, 72, 92, 95, 111, 116–18, 126, 131, 139, 155, 165 Awil-Marduk…152 Baal…4, 14–16, 40, 47, 61, 64, 102, 108, 132 Babylon/Babylonian…46, 55, 93–94, 97, 100–101, 145, 160, 165–167

beasts…16, 33, 55, 97–98, 100–101, 103, 106, 144, 174 Behistun inscription…162 ʯʥʩʬʲʩʰʡ…24, 27, 29, 34, 37, 39 Beni Hasan…122 blasphemy…74, 94 bless…65–66, 73–74, 78, 112–113, 115, 119 boundary violations…44, 168, 171 brand…54, 86, 90–94, 116 call narrative…22, 52, 81–82, 92, 150 canon…10, 17–18, 20, 29, 31, 42, 59, 132, 145, 165, 177 chaos…33, 100 characters/characterization…1–2, 7, 10, 13–14, 16–17, 19–20, 24–25, 27–28, 32–33, 38, 46, 55, 59, 63–68, 70–72, 75–77, 79–80, 83, 86–90, 92, 96–97, 99, 102–11, 115–22, 125–30, 132– 34, 136–38, 140–44, 146, 149, 156– 57, 159, 161, 163–65, 170, 173, 175, 177, 179 Cherubim…5, 51, 84, 129 cleanse…49, 91, 92 clothes…86–87, 90–92, 94–95, 122 clouds…3, 98, 102–103, 131–32 commission…49–50, 55, 81–83, 85, 103–104, 131, 142–44, 150, 165, 169–70, 173, 174 comparative method…1–3, 5, 10, 19, 35, 37, 56–57, 174–75, 177–79 composition…113, 145, 160, 168 – Asaph psalms…26 – Daniel…165–66 – 1 Kings 22…152, 154–56 consort…176 contamination…94

Subject Index council – Baal’s ~…15, 40 – divine ~…1–2, 4–6, 8–20, 22–25, 27, 29, 32–34, 36, 38–42, 47–58, 69, 77, 80, 82, 87, 92, 95–96, 105, 107, 109–10, 127, 135, 139, 141, 143, 146, 152, 168–69, 173–75, 179 – of El’s ~…15, 25, 27, 30, 33, 38 – heavenly ~…41, 63, 67–69, 86–87, 100, 147, 174 – multiple ~s…1, 5, 7, 11–12, 14–17, 21, 23, 33, 38–39, 47–48, 50, 107, 139, 169, 173, 178–79 – structure…1, 4–6, 9–10, 13, 16–17, 20, 31, 37, 44–45, 53, 62, 83, 99– 100, 105–107, 124, 128, 134, 138– 45, 149, 161, 164, 171, 175, 179 – Yahweh’s ~…1–2, 4, 7–10, 12–20, 22–24, 27–28, 32–33, 38–39, 42, 45–50, 54–59, 65, 67, 71, 75, 80, 82, 85–87, 92, 97, 103, 105, 107, 121, 124–125, 127, 129, 134–40, 144–49, 151, 153, 162, 167–77 – yearly ~…23, 68 councilor/councilors…12–13, 122, 140, 173 court – divine ~…17, 27–28, 32, 45, 47, 54– 55, 64, 68, 69, 87, 95, 96, 111, 116, 119, 125, 127, 141–42, 167, 169, 173 – royal/earthly ~…1, 12–13, 30, 48, 57, 62, 88–89, 96, 100, 110, 115, 138, 156 creation…4, 12, 15, 18, 30–31, 39, 79, 100, 128, 152, 160, 177 Crete…6 criteria/criterion…9, 11–17, 20, 22–24, 34, 45–47, 49–50, 54–55, 58–59, 65, 80, 86, 97, 105–109, 112, 119–21, 123, 128–30, 134–36, 139–40, 143, 157, 173, 176, 179 Daniel…55, 98, 103–104, 108, 129–30, 135, 137, 143, 160, 167, 173–74 Darius I…101, 161–62, 164 dating – Daniel 7…132, 165–67 – Deuteronomy 32…36 – Isaiah 6…149–51

219

– Job 1–2…156–62 – 1 Kings 22…152–56 – Psalm 82…26 – Zechariah 3…162–65 David…57, 71, 76, 120, 130–31 defendant(s)…16, 36, 54, 69, 88, 103, 122, 144, 169, 174 definite article…71, 109–10, 119, 158 definition…8, 11–15, 23, 27, 31, 55, 105, 147–48, 165, 168, 172 Deuteronomistic History…16, 63–64, 95, 117, 150–54, 160, 171, 172 dialogue…4, 15, 47, 51, 68, 70, 120, 162, 175 Diaspora…115 disobey…45, 113–14 Ditanu…16, 40 divisions – advisors…141–42, 173 – commissioned…103–104, 142–44, 169–70, 173–74 – court officers…141, 173 – judicial officials…140, 173 ʸʥʣ…17, 23, 57 dream…55, 97, 99, 103, 106, 135–36 Earth…13, 15, 24–25, 28–29, 33–36, 38, 44–45, 56–57, 65–66, 69, 74, 80, 83–85, 87–88, 95–100, 102, 110, 111, 114, 117–18, 120, 131–32, 136, 142, 144–45, 147, 168, 170, 172, 178 Edomite…159, 161 Egypt…6, 122, 145, 175–76 El…4, 6, 11, 26–27, 29, 33–35, 37–40, 47, 102, 107–108, 160, 170 Elephantine…176 Elijah…130, 155 ʯʥʩʬʲ…24, 27–30, 34, 36–37, 39 ʭʩʤʬʠ …8, 13–14, 25–31, 33, 68, 141 evil…27, 65–66, 75–77, 79, 111–15, 118, 120 family…5–6, 8, 93, 140, 159–60 female deities…176–78 fire…46, 54, 86, 90–93, 98, 102, 116, 121–22, 124 functionaries… 10, 14, 16

220

Subject Index

Gabriel…129, 132–33 genre…19, 35–36, 108, 116–17, 129, 159, 166, 172 governance…14–15, 79 government…1, 13, 33, 114, 116 guilt/guilty…78, 80, 86, 89, 91–92, 94, 116, 118–19, 122, 144 hardening of hearts…150 Heaven/heavenly…8, 14–16, 24, 34, 38–39, 44–45, 51–53, 55–59, 82–86, 94–95, 97–98, 102–103, 124–28, 132, 143, 168–70, 172 Herodotus…74, 112 hierarchy…123, 140, 142, 161, 179 high priest…54, 86–87, 90–95, 115, 169, 171 holiness…15, 58, 81, 83, 85, 91, 121, 124 Host of Heaven/ʭʩʮʹʤʠʡʶ…17, 23, 39, 47–49, 60, 133 humans/humanity…1, 8, 12–13, 15–17, 21, 25, 30–32, 40, 42–45, 52, 57, 66, 70–72, 76–77, 79, 81, 86, 92, 97–98, 112–16, 118, 121, 125–27, 129–37, 142–46, 149, 168–72, 175 hypostasis…70, 108, 120, 177–78 impure…49, 55, 92, 170 independence…29, 40, 72–73, 75, 100, 112, 116–18, 165, 168, 173 innocence…77, 116, 118–19, 160–61 interpreting persona…103, 128–29, 163 intruder…68–69, 111 Isaiah ben Amoz…49–50, 65, 81–86, 103, 115, 122, 124, 134, 136, 142– 43, 149–51, 161, 170–73 Jehoiachin…152 Jehoshaphat…48, 59–62, 77, 176–77 Jeremiah…19, 64, 83, 138, 154, 162– 63, 168 Jerusalem…39, 76, 84, 86, 90, 93–95, 115, 123, 125, 131, 162 Job (person)…24, 33, 66–68, 70–79, 86, 89, 103, 117, 119, 127, 148, 157, 160–62 Joshua…1, 16, 54–55, 85–97, 103, 114– 16, 118, 127, 134–36, 142–44, 163, 165, 170–71, 173

judge…15, 25, 27–31, 54, 87–89, 95– 96, 108, 114, 125, 127, 169 judgment/judged…13–14, 16, 19, 22– 24, 27–28, 31–33, 46–47, 49–52, 55, 59, 67, 69, 86, 95, 98, 102–103, 120, 123–24, 127, 135–36, 141–42, 144, 147, 152, 167, 173 judicial context, see legal context justice…27–28, 30, 33, 76, 92–95, 108, 113, 116–17, 120–21, 127, 178 – blind ~…118–19 – retributive ~ (measure for measure ~) 89, 112 – social ~…25 Keret epic…160, 170 kings and kingship…13, 41, 43, 46, 48, 51, 59–63, 77, 83, 89, 97–98, 100– 101, 120, 123–24, 130–31, 135, 141, 148, 150, 152, 160–61, 166, 175, 177 lectio brevior…38 lectio difficilior…38 legal context…13, 15, 25, 78, 87, 102, 114, 116–17 Leviathan…100

ʭʩʫʠʬʮʤ…2, 7, 42, 47, 124–25, 127 Marduk…33, 131, 152 Mari…28, 56 Masoretic Text…8, 38, 50, 157 Medes/Median…101, 162–63 mediator/mediation…126–27, 172 member/membership…1–2, 4, 6–7, 10, 14–20, 23, 26–30, 37–38, 41–42, 46, 49, 52, 56–59, 62–69, 86, 96–97, 103–108, 110–14, 118, 123–30, 133–34, 136–47, 152, 154, 162, 165, 168–70, 172–77, 179 mercy…86, 91, 95, 118–19, 162 Mesopotamia/Mesopotamian…12–13, 49, 93, 145, 160, 175 messages…12, 16, 18, 46–48, 62, 65, 76, 81, 83, 120, 127, 132, 135, 142– 43, 165, 171 messenger of Yahweh/ ʤʥʤʩ ʪʠʬʮ…46– 47, 51, 55, 71, 86–89, 97, 122, 124– 25, 140–41, 173, 177

Subject Index messengers…5–7, 12, 14, 42, 46, 47, 60, 125, 127, 141, 143–44, 147, 161, 170 messiah…130–31 Micah…19, 138 Micaiah ben Imlah…48, 60, 62–63, 65, 82, 104, 111, 135–37, 143, 155, 169–70, 172, 174, 176 Michael…133 military…6, 32, 48 Mischwesen…124 ʣʲʥʮ …17, 23, 58 monolatry…7–9, 146, 148, 152, 156, 162, 165, 168, 174–75 monotheism…1, 5, 7–8, 10, 17, 21, 36, 41, 52, 63–64, 72, 108, 120, 145–49, 151, 165, 167, 169, 174–76, 178 Moses…35, 38, 64, 83, 85, 130–31, 156 mythology…25, 45, 102, 132, 147, 167 name/named…7, 23–26, 29, 36–37, 42, 44, 46–47, 49–50, 55, 59, 60–61, 63–64, 72, 75, 82, 95, 101–102, 105, 107–110, 119, 121–22, 125, 134, 136, 140–41, 143, 147, 150, 154, 162, 165 Nebuchadnezzar…46, 99, 101, 167 Nehushtan…7, 123 Nephilim…43–44 objection…48, 62, 83, 92, 94, 111, 114– 16 observers…16, 82, 105, 108, 111, 123, 135–36, 143, 169, 170, 172 One like a son of man…55, 100, 102– 104, 130–34, 137, 143, 167, 173 opposition…32, 42, 62, 70, 89–90, 100 Pantheon…5, 8, 10–11, 13, 40, 57, 119, 143–44 participation…17, 21, 139, 141–42, 170–72 Pentateuch…34, 41, 153 persecution/persecuted…101–102, 130, 166–67 Persia/Persian…74, 101, 112, 114, 161, 164, 166, 177 Phoenician…39, 56, 84, 160 piety/pious…23–24, 67, 71, 74–75, 79, 86, 113–19

221

plaintiff…27, 69 polytheism…7, 10, 36, 38, 145–46, 148, 165, 174 post-exilic…8, 10, 26, 41, 46, 90, 93, 117, 126, 148–49, 151–52, 160–62 power/powerful…6, 27, 32, 33, 37, 41, 43, 46, 57, 71–72, 76, 90, 101, 111, 118, 120, 123–24, 130, 139, 148, 165 pre-exilic period…95, 117, 126, 148, 152, 160, 167 presence…8, 16–18, 24, 37, 42, 49, 55, 80, 84, 87, 89, 90, 109–110, 113, 121, 124–26, 136, 144, 156, 161, 165, 175 presiding…12, 47, 93 priest/priesthood…31, 53, 61, 90–91, 93–95, 114, 135, 159, 170 prophets/prophetic…4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 47–49, 52–54, 56–57, 60–63, 65, 81–82, 86, 89–90, 93, 95, 106, 111, 117, 120–21, 127–29, 135–36, 138, 142, 144, 151, 153–56, 159, 164, 168–72, 174, 176–77 prosecutor…54, 88–90, 140 public defender…88 punishment…31, 44, 51, 86, 160 purity, purification…85–86, 91–92, 102, 117, 122, 124, 129, 141, 163

ʬʤʷ…17, 23, 57 Qumran…14, 34, 38–39, 107, 174 Rahab…100 Ramoth-Gilead…48, 59–61, 77, 135 rebuke…75, 77, 86–90, 93–95, 114–15, 119, 124–25, 127 redaction…10, 20, 99, 151, 153–56, 159, 164 redemption…94, 115–16 reject(ion)…30, 35, 51, 64, 71, 77, 93– 94, 115, 128, 172 revelation…90, 100, 118, 174 rider of the clouds…102 ritual…18, 86, 90–92, 114, 124, 127, 130, 136 royal…1, 12–13, 48, 55–57, 62, 69, 74, 84, 91, 95–96, 100–101, 110–11, 124, 138, 152

222

Subject Index

ʧʥʸʤ…42, 46, 48, 62–65, 82, 109–10, 119–21, 127, 133, 136–37, 141–42, 144, 156, 162, 170, 173 sacred space…13, 15, 22–23, 45, 47, 49–51, 55, 58 âarrabu …122 âarrapu …122 satan/ʯʨʹʤ …7, 13, 23–24, 41–42, 54– 55, 65–79, 87–95, 97, 108–20, 127, 133, 136–37, 140–42, 161–62, 165, 173 sea…97, 100 Second Temple period…10, 126, 133, 161, 167 Septuagint…8, 14, 25, 34, 38–39, 43, 53, 73, 99, 107, 126, 132, 139, 168, 174 Seraphim/ ʭʩʴʸʹʤ …2, 42, 49, 83, 85– 86, 120–24, 137, 151–52, 173 serpent(s)…122–23 servant(s)…41, 47, 62, 65–67, 72, 74– 75, 85, 87, 112–14, 123, 130, 161 Seth…43 Shataqatu…170 Sheba…161 sin…75, 80, 85–87, 110 skeptic(ism)…76, 79, 114–15 skin for skin…48, 66, 74, 77–78, 98, 113 ʣʥʱ …17, 19, 23, 56–57, 168, 171 solar, see sun sons of god/ ʭʩʤʬʠʤ ʩʰʡ…17, 23–27, 29, 31, 33–35, 37–47, 56, 68, 79, 103, 112, 114, 141 spies…13, 74, 112 standing (to stand)…25, 28, 31–32, 49, 51, 54–55, 60, 65, 69, 80, 84–87, 96, 118, 125, 127, 135, 169 subordination/subordinate…27–28, 33, 58, 64, 72, 108, 126, 147, 167 subservient…41, 72–73, 113, 125, 148, 151 sun…39, 42, 122 symbolism…91–92, 100–101, 130, 164 Syro-Ephraimite war…81, 150 Telipinu…123 Tema…161

Temple…10, 12, 15, 39, 50, 53, 80, 83– 84, 90, 93–96, 114–15, 123, 131, 159, 162, 165, 169 test…24, 71, 75–76, 78–79 tier – agents…14, 16, 41, 100, 106–107, 141, 147, 173 – chief God…12, 29–30, 33, 37, 40, 47, 64, 102, 107–108, 139–40, 144, 173 – councilors…122, 140, 173 – four ~ theory…4–7, 9, 14, 16, 138, 143, 179 Thousands upon Thousands…103–104, 127–28, 137, 143, 174 throne…14, 23, 29, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60, 69, 80, 82–84, 98, 102, 111, 123–24, 130–31, 167 tiqqune sopherim…73–74 trial(s)…33, 72, 75, 79, 90, 103, 135, 169 type-scene…1–3, 7–10, 13–15, 17–23, 26, 28–29, 33–34, 36, 45, 47–48, 51–52, 54, 56–58, 59–60, 80, 82, 95–96, 105, 107, 110, 111, 134, 139, 145, 148, 173–74, 176 Ugarit/Ugaritic…1, 4, 6, 11–12, 14–15, 18–19, 39–40, 45, 47, 56, 78, 102, 128, 131–32, 141, 143, 145, 160, 167, 175, 179 uncleanliness…85–86 vehicles…144, 168, 174 verdict…89, 171 vision…48–49, 53, 55, 63, 81–82, 88, 90–91, 97–100, 103–104, 106, 123, 125, 129, 132–36, 163–64 vocation/vocational…23, 74, 109, 112, 114, 151 volunteer/s…48–50, 82, 108, 120, 136, 142, 170 Vulgate…73, 126 wisdom – literature…78, 112, 117, 159, 161 – personification of Wisdom…130, 177–78 witnesses…31, 38, 127, 157, 164 World, see Earth

Subject Index Yahweh…1, 7, 10, 13–20, 22–27, 29– 34, 36–41, 43, 45–52, 54–81, 85–97, 102–103, 107–114, 116–29, 132–34, 136–37, 139–43, 146, 148, 150–52,

223 155–56, 162–63, 165, 167, 169–70, 173, 177–78

Zadokite…91, 93, 115 Zechariah…92, 135, 137, 163, 171, 174