• Author / Uploaded
• David Bailey

• Categories
• Ketuvim
• Viejo Testamento
• Biblia
• Biblia hebrea
• Nuevo pacto

Citation preview

How to Read the Bible

The publication of this book was made possible by a gift from The Krancer and Twing families In loving memory of Anne Oxler Krancer

How to Read the Bible Marc Zvi Brettler

5766 · 2005 T h e J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society Philadelphia

Copyright © 2005 by Marc Zvi Bretiler First edition. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, except for brief passages in connection with a critical review, without permission in writing from the publisher: The Jewish Publication Society 2100 Arch Street, 2nd floor Philadelphia, PA 19103

Composition by Pageworks Design by Pageworks Manufactured in the United States of America 06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brettler, Marc Zvi. How to read the Bible / Marc Zvi Brettler.— 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 10: 0-8276-0775-X ISBN 13: 978-0-8276-0775-0 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1171.3.B74 2005 221.6Ί—dc22 2005009440

To Ezra, w h o has taught me so m u c h over the last sixteen years

Contents

Preface Abbreviations

ix xiii

1.

Reading as a Jew and as a Scholar

1

2.

W h a t Is the Bible, Anyway?

7

3.

The Art of Reading the Bible

13

4.

A Brief History of Israel

19

5.

With Scissors and Paste: The Sources of Genesis

29

6.

Creation vs. Creationism: Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth

37

7.

The Ancestors as Heroes

49

8.

Biblical Law: Codes and Collections

61

9.

Incense Is Offensive to Me: The Cult in Ancient Israel

73

"In the Fortieth Year . . . Moses Addressed the Israelites": Deuteronomy

85

11.

"The Walls Came Tumbling Down": Reading Joshua

95

12.

"May My Lord King David Live Forever": Royal Ideology in Samuel a n d Judges

10.

13.

107

"For Israel Tore Away from the House of David": Reading Kings

117

14.

Revisionist History: Reading Chronicles

129

15.

Introduction to Prophecy

137

16.

"Let Justice Well U p like Water": Reading Amos

149

17.

"They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares": Reading (First) Isaiah

161

18.

"I Will Make This House like Shiloh": Reading Jeremiah

173

19.

"I Will Be for T h e m a Mini-Temple": Reading Ezekiel

185

20.

"Comfort, O h Comfort My People": The Exile and Beyond

199

21.

"Those That Sleep in the D u s t . . . Will Awake": Zechariah, Apocalyptic Literature, and Daniel

209

22.

Prayer of Many Hearts: Reading Psalms

219

23.

"Acquire Wisdom": Reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes

231

24.

"Being But Dust a n d Ashes": Reading J o b

243

25.

"Drink Deep of Love!": Reading Song of Songs

257

26.

"Why Are You So Kind . . . W h e n I Am a Foreigner?": Reading Ruth vs. Esther

267

The Creation of the Bible

273

Afterword: Reading the Bible as a C o m m i t t e d Jew

279

Notes

285

Sources Cited

339

Index of Subjects

361

Index of Biblical Passages a n d Other References

372

27.

Preface

S

everal years ago, I m e n t i o n e d to an a c q u a i n t a n c e that I was w r i t i n g a b o o k called How to Read the Bible. He said: "What's so h a r d a b o u t r e a d i n g the

H e b r e w Bible? You read it t o p to b o t t o m , left to right." We h a d a g o o d laugh after 1 p o i n t e d o u t that (1) H e b r e w is read f r o m right to left, a n d (2) m y b o o k w a s a b o u t r e a d i n g the Bible, n o t reading Hebrew. As I t h e n explained, this b o o k is a b o u t the special "rules" for u n d e r s t a n d i n g texts f r o m a different culture. I n d e e d , this b o o k is the p r o d u c t of m a n y years of t h o u g h t a n d writing. It is a response to the frustration that most people experience w h o read the Bible. To use the w o r d s of a biblical character, Daniel, the Bible is a "sealed b o o k " — i t arose in a culture w h o s e values a n d c o n v e n t i o n s were f u n d a m e n t a l l y different f r o m ours. T h u s , the Bible today is either avoided as too strange, or else m i s r e a d — t a k e n as if it h a d b e e n w r i t t e n yesterday or today. In m y t w o decades of teaching college s t u d e n t s , a n d especially in ten years of t e a c h i n g a d u l t s an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Bible t h r o u g h the Boston-area Me'ah Program, I have discovered that o v e r c o m i n g these obstacles is n o easy challenge. Looking for articles to give to these intelligent adults w h o lack b a c k g r o u n d in biblical studies, m y colleagues a n d I have felt frustrated. Most essays o n the Bible by scholars are too technical. O t h e r b o o k s , w r i t t e n for the layperson, are w r o n g or simplistic, or they take a religious (typically Christian) perspective rather t h a n an historical one. This b o o k a t t e m p t s to fill the gap, to offer a Jewishly sensitive i n t r o d u c t i o n to h o w to read biblical texts in their historical context. My h o p e is that the Bible m i g h t again b e c o m e an o p e n b o o k for the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y a n d

other

communities. To k e e p this b o o k accessible, I have a d d e d as few e n d n o t e s as possible a n d limited references to w o r k s f o u n d in English. (Such an arrangement u n f o r t u n a t e l y

hides the fact that this b o o k is based on a m u c h w i d e r b o d y of k n o w l e d g e , m u c h of w h i c h is very technical.) It is m y pleasure to a c k n o w l e d g e the m a n y people w h o have h e l p e d m e along the way. Dr. Ellen Frankel, C E O a n d Editor-in-Chief of T h e J e w i s h Publication Society, h a s s u p p o r t e d the idea of this b o o k ever since I suggested it to her m o r e t h a n five years ago. She has served as an excellent a n d patient editor. Carol H u p p i n g , JPS P u b l i s h i n g Director a n d C O O , has d o n e w h a t she does best: m a k ing a book's a u t h o r a n d all its editors look good. Janet Liss, P r o d u c t i o n Editor at the JPS, m o v e d the b o o k a l o n g w i t h great care. Emily Law p r o o f r e a d the b o o k meticulously a n d Robin N o r m a n , p r o d u c t i o n m a n a g e r of the Jewish Publication Society, e n s u r e d that the typesetting, design, a n d cover p r o d u c t i o n

went

smoothly. Rabbi David E. S. Stein, assisted by Rabbi David Mevorach Seidenberg, served as d e v e l o p m e n t a l editor a n d also c o p y e d i t e d the m a n u s c r i p t ; together, they corrected m a n y factual errors a n d h e l p e d m e clarify w h a t I was trying to say, m a k i n g this b o o k m u c h m o r e readable. Two u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s at Brandeis University, Leora Koller-Fox a n d J a c o b Merlin, d o u b l e - c h e c k e d all the biblical citations in the m a n u s c r i p t a n d offered h e l p f u l suggestions. D o n a l d Kraus, Bible Editor of O x f o r d University Press, supervised the publication of two Bibles that I h e l p e d to edit, the third edition of the New Oxford Annotated

Bible a n d The Jewish

Study Bible; in the process, he taught m e m u c h a b o u t writing for an intelligent lay audience. Credit also goes to m y s t u d e n t s , especially those at Brandeis a n d Me'ah, w h o have constantly challenged m e to express difficult a n d foreign c o n c e p t s in a clear a n d concise fashion. They have e m b o d i e d the truism that s t u d e n t s are a professor's best teacher. In addition, the T h e o d o r e a n d Jane N o r m a n F u n d at Brandeis University h a s h e l p e d to defray the cost of p r e p a r i n g the m a n u s c r i p t ; I a m grateful for this c o n t r i b u t i o n , as well as the m a n y o t h e r ways that the University c o n t i n u e s to s u p p o r t m y w o r k . Finally I w o u l d like to t h a n k the a c a d e m i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the Near Eastern a n d J u d a i c Studies D e p a r t m e n t at Brandeis, A n n e Lawrence a n d Patricia Lucente, w h o offered h e l p a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t at various stages of this project. My teacher N a h u m M. Sarna, ‫ ד י ל‬w h o b r o a d e n e d the biblical publications of The Jewish Publication Society, was n o t able to review a draft of this b o o k , b u t the m a n y things that he taught m e are reflected o n every page. He serves as a m o d e l teacher a n d scholar for m e , b o t h in the way he h a s p e r f o r m e d each of those tasks

a n d in the way he has seen t h e m as intertwined. W h e n I q u o t e the Bible, I mostly follow the N e w Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) translation. (Its translators c o m p l e t e d their w o r k in stages—Torah in 1962, Prophets in 1978, a n d Writings in 1 9 8 2 — r e v i s i n g it in 1985. T h e J e w i s h Publication Society f u r t h e r revised the translation in 1999.) This translation, p u b lished u n d e r the title Tanakh (a medieval H e b r e w t e r m for Bible), is the best idiomatic translation of the H e b r e w Bible. It reflects very d e e p learning. W h e r e 1 d e p a r t f r o m the JPS translation a n d offer a r e n d e r i n g of m y o w n , this is n o t e d in the text. Last a n d not least, I m u s t m e n t i o n m y family. My m o t h e r was m y first H e b r e w teacher. My father was m y first teacher of Jewish Studies a n d c o n t i n u e s to take an active interest in m y w o r k , p r o o f r e a d i n g m u c h of this m a n u s c r i p t . My wife, Monica, m y daughter, Talya, a n d m y son, Ezra, have all b e e n supportive of m y career. They have offered a w o n d e r f u l e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h I can c o n t i n u e to learn, teach, a n d write. It is a p p r o p r i a t e that I dedicate this b o o k to Ezra, n a m e d after the great sage w h o w a s "a scribe expert in the Torah of Moses" (Ezra 7:6; transi, a d a p t e d ) , a n d w h o m rabbinic tradition viewed as a s e c o n d Moses.

Abbreviations

AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, 1992.

AnBib

Analecta biblica

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Pritchard.

Ed. D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. Garden City: NY:

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1954. AnOr

Analecta Orientali

AOAT

Alter Orient u n d Altes Testament

ΒΑ

Biblical Archaeologist

BAR

Biblical Archaeologist Reader

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

B.c.E.

Before the C o m m o n Era

Bib

Biblica

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester

BJS

Brown Judaic Studies

BZAW

Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAD

The Assynan Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1956.

CBNT

Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series

CBOT

Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

chap.

chapter

c.E.

C o m m o n Era

COS

The Context of Scripture. Ed. William W Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 2 .

DDD

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Ed. K. van der Toorn et al. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DtrH

The Deuteronomistic History (= Deuteronomy-2 Kings)

EJ

Encylcopedia Judaica

FOTL

Forms of the Old Testament Literature

HALOT

Koehler, L. et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament.

Trans. M. E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 . HAR

Hebrew Annual Review

HDR

Harvard Dissertations in Religion

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

INT

Interpretation

JPS

Jewish Publication Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JR

Journal of Religion

JSB

The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004.

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

NCBC

New Century Bible Commentary

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

OBT

Overtures to Biblical Theology

OTL

Old Testament Library

OTS

Oudtestamentlische

RB

Revue biblique

SBL

Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

ScrHier

Scripta

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

TAPS

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTS

Vetus Testamentum Supplements

Studien

hierosolymitana

ν.,νν.

verse, verses

YNER

Yale Near Eastern Researches

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft

How to Read the Bible

Reading as a Jew and as a Scholar

I

f "reading" is the act of m a k i n g sense of a text, then each of us reads differently.

Further, we each have a different conception of what the Bible is. Not surprisingly, then, we each interpret biblical texts in our own way. Of the m a n y approaches, we can describe as a "method" only those that are rigorous and systematic. This b o o k presents a m e t h o d of reading the Bible. It is often called "the historical-critical approach." By highlighting this m e t h o d , I do not m e a n that it is the only way to read the Bible. Indeed, m a n y Jews have viewed with suspicion this way of reading, rejecting it in favor of other methods. Yet I c o m m e n d this approach to readers because I have f o u n d it illuminating. W h e n the Bible is viewed in the light of this m e t h o d , we see the text as meaningful, engaging, and multifaceted.

Classical Interpretation For m u c h of the postbiblical period, readers of the Bible have all tended to follow the same m e t h o d . They have seen the Bible as a cryptic yet perfect book, of fundamental relevance to its c o m m u n i t y of interpreters. They have assumed that m u c h of the Bible, if not all of it, came (to some extent) from God. Hence the Bible is a privileged text that should be interpreted using special rules. That is, it should not be interpreted like regular, nonbiblical texts. 1 This m e t h o d developed d u r i n g the late biblical period. As we shall see in a later chapter, one passage in the Book of Daniel explains an earlier prophecy of Jeremiah, which t u r n e d on the phrase "seventy years." Daniel interpreted this phrase to m e a n "seventy weeks of years," or 4 9 0 years. Normally, w h e n an ancient Jew promised to return a borrowed ox in seventy days, it meant just t h a t — seventy days. Yet Daniel could u n d e r s t a n d Jeremiah's "seventy" differently because the Book of Jeremiah is a biblical text, reflecting special, divine language.

Consider, too, the ancient J u d e a n Desert c o m m u n i t y of Q u m r a n , w h i c h thrived over a period of several c e n t u r i e s — f r o m the second pre-Christian to the first post-Christian centuries. Their library—the part that is e x t a n t — i s w h a t we n o w call "The Dead Sea Scrolls." Like the a u t h o r of Daniel, they believed in interpreting biblical b o o k s in a special way. T h u s they kept a rich interpretive literature. For example, their Pesher H a b a k k u k , a type of c o m m e n t a r y o n the p r o p h e t i c b o o k of H a b a k k u k , held that their community's leader u n d e r s t o o d the true m e a n i n g of the b o o k better t h a n the p r o p h e t himself! The Pesher interpreted the text in relation to the interpreter's o w n period, m o r e than half a millenn i u m after H a b a k k u k lived. 2 Classical rabbinic interpretation also shared these w o r k i n g a s s u m p t i o n s . Even for the Torah's legal texts, it often subverted the plain sense of w o r d s for the sake of "harmonization." That is, w h e n texts ( f r o m divergent places a n d times) appeared to contradict each other, it "reconciled" t h e m so that they w o u l d agree. For example, a slave law in E x o d u s 21:6 suggests that in certain circumstances a H e b r e w slave serves the master "in perpetuity" (le-olam). This contradiets Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 , w h i c h states that masters must release all s u c h slaves on the jubilee year (every fiftieth year). However, according to the basic a s s u m p tions, God's w o r d m u s t be internally consistent. Therefore the rabbis insisted that the term "in perpetuity" in E x o d u s m e a n s "practically (but not literally) forever"—that is, until the jubilee year. 3 This type of interpretation is strange to the reader u n u s e d to classical Jewish (and to a large extent Christian) interpretation. But it is natural if w e u n d e r s t a n d the Bible as a u n i f o r m , perfect, divine w o r k , w h i c h may e m p l o y language in a cryptic fashion. This is n o t to say that every traditional, p r e m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r of the Bible t o o k every w o r d of the text a c c o r d i n g to all of these principles. Yet the few e x c e p t i o n s prove the rule. For e x a m p l e , Rabbi A b r a h a m ibn Ezra ( 1 0 8 9 - 1 1 6 4 ) suggested that s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n Moses wrote a small n u m b e r of verses in the To rah. Yet even as that c o m m e n t a t o r m a d e sure to i n f o r m his readers of that u n o r t h o d o x view, he was careful to c o n d e m n it. 4 Likewise, Rabbi Samuel b e n Meir (also k n o w n as "Rashbam"; 1 0 8 0 - 1 1 7 4 ) allowed that biblical language is n o t cryptic; rather, its w o r d s m e a n w h a t they n o r m a l l y imply, even if this c o n t r a d i c t s rabbinic tradition. T h u s , he alone a m o n g the extant medieval J e w i s h exegetes did not find it necessary to "reconcile" E x o d u s 2 1 : 6 w i t h Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 (see above). However, this o p i n i o n survives in only a single medieval m a n u s c r i p t , a n d it h a s n o t a p p e a r e d in m o s t p r i n t e d editions. This suggests that his a p p r o a c h s t o o d at, or even b e y o n d , the fringe of acceptable interpretation.

O n l y in the seventeenth century, w i t h the rise of E u r o p e a n rationalism, did scholars begin to question the u n i q u e , divine n a t u r e of the biblical text. H o b b e s (in England) a n d Spinoza (in H o l l a n d ) led the way. C o n s i d e r the latter's magnificent

Tractate,5

Theological-Political

w i t h its c h a p t e r called simply "Of

the

Interpretation of Scripture." It replaces the earlier a s s u m p t i o n s with a single premise that allows the Bible to be seen in a n e w m a n n e r : "I hold that the m e t h o d of interpreting Scripture is n o different f r o m the m e t h o d of interpreting n a t u r e , a n d is in fact in c o m p l e t e accord with it." 6 In a single sentence, Spinoza "deprivileges" the Bible. He r e n o u n c e s the traditional f r a m e w o r k for biblical interpretation: The Bible is not cryptic. It n o longer n e e d s to be interpreted as a seamless whole. It is imperfect. In places it m a y be of historical interest o n l y n o longer relevant to c o n t e m p o r a r y believers. In m o s t senses, it is a b o o k like any other.

The Historical-Critical Method It w o u l d take two m o r e centuries before the n e w w o r k i n g a s s u m p t i o n s gained acceptance a m o n g Europe's rationalist intellectual elite. But once this h a p p e n e d , the historical-critical m e t h o d took h o l d . ‫׳‬ W h a t is the historical-critical m e t h o d ? "Historical" refers to the view that the m a i n context for interpretation is the place a n d time in w h i c h the text was c o m posed. "Critical" simply m e a n s reading the text i n d e p e n d e n t l y of religious n o r m s or interpretive t r a d i t i o n s — a s o p p o s e d to accepting t h e m uncritically. 8 (In this context, it does not imply a j u d g m e n t a l or faultfinding a p p r o a c h , w h i c h is a n o t h er m e a n i n g of the w o r d "critical.") A m a i n c o m p o n e n t of this a p p r o a c h is source criticism, also called "Higher Criticism" (which distinguishes it from the effort to establish

the correct

reading of the t r a n s m i t t e d

text, k n o w n

as

"Lower

Criticism"). It seeks to identify a n d isolate the original sources of the biblical text as it has c o m e d o w n to us. T h e n e w m e t h o d crystallized in the late n i n e t e e n t h a n d early twentieth centuries, d e v e l o p i n g into a school of interpretation. The most influential p e r s o n of this school was the G e r m a n scholar Julius Wellhausen, based o n his magisterial w o r k of 1 8 7 8 (translated into English as Prolegomena 9

Israel)

to the History of Ancient

I n d e e d , it was mainly in G e r m a n y that the historical-critical m o v e m e n t

took root, specifically in the theology d e p a r t m e n t s of Protestant universities. For doctrinal reasons, Catholic scholars hardly participated in these d e v e l o p m e n t s until after the Vatican II p r o n o u n c e m e n t s in 1965.

The Reaction A m o n g J e w s T h e J e w i s h w o r l d , too, largely r e m a i n e d aloof. W h i l e a few J e w i s h c o n t e m p o raries of W e l l h a u s e n favored his a p p r o a c h , o t h e r s wrote p o l e m i c s against h i m , trying to u n d e r m i n e his r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the texts history. 1 0 These scholars c o n tinued

to advocate

the r a b b i n i c m o d e

of reading, suggesting that

what

Wellhausen a n d his colleagues saw as textual c o n t r a d i c t i o n s are really not c o n tradictions at all. T h e most notable attack o n the historical-critical perspective came f r o m a r e n o w n e d scholar of rabbinics, S o l o m o n Schechter. At a 1 9 0 3 b a n q u e t , he offered a n a d d r e s s titled " H i g h e r - C r i t i c i s m — H i g h e r Anti-Semitism." 1 1 He e q u a t ed Wellhausen's a p p r o a c h w i t h "professional a n d imperial anti-Semitism," calling it an "intellectual persecution" of J u d a i s m . 1 2 S c h e c h t e r s essay h a d

an

i m m e n s e i m p a c t on the Jewish attitude t o w a r d the Bible. Its influence s e e m s to explain w h y until the present generation m a n y professional Jewish biblical scholars have b e e n less engaged in historical-critical s t u d y t h a n their non-Jewish counterparts. Schechter actually offered a fair critique of H i g h e r Criticism as it was practiced in G e r m a n y in the late n i n e t e e n t h a n d the early t w e n t i e t h centuries. Like nearly all Christians of the time, its p r o p o n e n t s believed in the m o r a l superiority of Christianity to J u d a i s m , a n d they u s e d their scholarly w o r k s to illustrate this. W e l l h a u s e n , for e x a m p l e , l i k e n e d J u d a i s m in late antiquity to a d e a d tree. He a p p l i e d that image vigorously, describing the late biblical b o o k of Chronicles thus: "Like ivy it overspreads the d e a d t r u n k w i t h e x t r a n e o u s life, b l e n d i n g old a n d n e w in a strange c o m b i n a t i o n . . . . [I]η the process it is twisted a n d p e r verted." 1 3 As p a i n f u l as s u c h s e n t i m e n t s are for Jews, they n e i t h e r d i m i n i s h the brilliance of m u c h of his Prolegomena,

n o r negate the correctness of its basic

methodology.

Beyond the Early Biases Schechter h a d w a r n e d that the historical-critical m e t h o d "is seeking to destroy, d e n y i n g all o u r claims to the past, a n d leaving u s w i t h o u t h o p e for the future." 1 4 In fact, however, the m e t h o d itself is religiously n e u t r a l — n e i t h e r discrediting J u d a i s m n o r p r o m o t i n g Christianity. I n d e e d , by the final d e c a d e s of the twentieth century, m a n y professional scholars, i n c l u d i n g Jews, h a d a d o p t e d the historical-critical m e t h o d w i t h o u t attacking the H e b r e w Bible or J u d a i s m . These w o r k s illustrate that historical-critical m e t h o d s are n o t by definition anti-Semitic. 1 5

I w o u l d go even further. I insist n o t only that the historical-critical m e t h o d is neutral, b u t also that it can be religiously c o n s t r u c t i v e — e v e n for Jews. The last t w o d e c a d e s have seen a r e m a r k a b l e resurgence in interest in e t h n i c a n d religious roots a m o n g m a n y Americans, i n c l u d i n g American Jews. Publishers have p r o d u c e d an u n p r e c e d e n t e d n u m b e r of b o o k s on Jewish texts, s u c h as Barry Holtz's Back to the Sources.16

Serious adult Jewish e d u c a t i o n classes have reached

n e w levels of success. Many J e w s are going b a c k to the Bible in a serious, m o r e a c a d e m i c way, looking for w h a t the Bible originally m e a n t . They are e x p l o r i n g h o w its earlier m e a n i n g m a y bear o n religious life as we might n o w live it. They d o n o t wish to slavishly follow the n o r m s of the Jewish past, b u t neither d o they wish to ignore t h e m . Such n o r m s m u s t first be u n d e r s t o o d before they can i n f o r m c o n t e m p o r a r y beliefs a n d practices.

About This Book The p u r p o s e of this b o o k is to s h o w the value of reading the Bible in a historicalcritical m a n n e r . This perspective greatly e n r i c h e s the text, a n d allows u s to recover a vibrant civilization over t w o millennia old. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the Bible in its original context allows u s to u n d e r s t a n d ourselves. For t h e n we can see w h e r e o u r secular civilization accords w i t h ancient Israelite perspectives, a n d w h e r e it h a s diverged f r o m t h e m . It also allows u s to see w h e r e J u d a i s m h a s (or h a s n o t ) developed b e y o n d biblical religion. Finally, the historical-critical m e t h o d lets u s appreciate the Bible as an interesting text that s p e a k s in multiple voices o n prof o u n d issues. O n l y with the h e l p of the historical-critical m e t h o d can these different voices be fully heard a n d appreciated. In p r e s e n t i n g m y case, m y first task is to explain this book's title, How to Read the Bible. T h u s the following c h a p t e r defines w h a t 1 m e a n by "the Bible," a n d t h e n the third c h a p t e r explains w h a t I m e a n by "reading." By e x p l o r i n g the act of reading, it a t t e m p t s to s h o w that r e a d i n g in its fullest sense is far f r o m simpie. T h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s each focus o n a specific biblical text or genre, highlighting h o w m o d e r n biblical s c h o l a r s h i p m a k e s sense of that text or genre. In an a f t e r w o r d , I discuss h o w the historical-critical m e t h o d can h e l p c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w s relate to the Bible as a religious text in a m o r e m e a n i n g f u l way. All told, this b o o k is a Jewishly sensitive introduction

to the

historical-critical

method. Remarkably, it is the first s u c h a t t e m p t . 1 7 How to Read the Bible differs f r o m the m a n y so-called i n t r o d u c t i o n s to the Bible. 1 8 Most s u c h w o r k s survey each b o o k of the Bible, n o t i n g the critical p r o b lems p r e s e n t e d by each, positing w h e n each w a s written, a n d n o t i n g h o w m o d -

e m historical-critical scholarship a p p r o a c h e s each. Typically, they focus o n isolating a n d r e m o v i n g w h a t is s e c o n d a r y in each text. For e x a m p l e , they "root out" w h a t e v e r a p p e a r s in the b o o k of the p r o p h e t A m o s that he himself did n o t write. These w o r k s are o f t e n reference b o o k s , rather t h a n true i n t r o d u c t i o n s . In contrast, How to Read the Bible does not a t t e m p t to cover every biblical b o o k . Instead, it surveys representative biblical texts f r o m different genres, to illustrate h o w m o d e r n scholarship has t a u g h t u s to "read" these texts. Its i n t e n d ed a u d i e n c e i n c l u d e s the c u r i o u s adult w h o w a n t s to read t h r o u g h sections of the Bible a n d appreciate t h e m w i t h i n a m o d e r n f r a m e w o r k , a n d the college stud e n t in an i n t r o d u c t o r y Bible course. It conveys the general principles of this unfamiliar m e t h o d o l o g y . 1 9 S u c h an i n t r o d u c t i o n will enable the reader to u n d e r s t a n d m o r e technical studies, encyclopedias, a n d c o m m e n t a r i e s o n the Bible. Most significantly, it will p r o m p t y o u to a p p r o a c h biblical texts w i t h n e w k i n d s of questions, a n d to appreciate t h e m in a n e w way.

2 What Is the Bible, Anyway?

T

he Bible can be an i n t i m i d a t i n g b o o k . Its size alone is o v e r w h e l m i n g — 1 5 7 4 pages in the H e b r e w edition that is s t a n d a r d a m o n g Bible scholars (Biblia

Hebraica Stuttgartensia),

1 6 2 4 pages in The Jewish Publication Society's transla-

tion (see below), 2 0 2 3 pages in the JPS Hebrew-English

Tanakh, a n d 2 1 8 1 pages

in The Jewish Study Bible ( i n c l u d i n g n o t e s a n d essays). A significant a m o u n t of the biblical text is poetry, w h i c h is d a u n t i n g to many, a n d certainly does not m a k e for q u i c k reading. For s u c h a b o o k , an orientation w o u l d surely be helpful. This c h a p t e r covers the f u n d a m e n t a l s : basic terminology for the Bible, its basic structure, a n d w h y s u c h things matter. It also defines w h a t I m e a n by "the Bible" for the p u r poses of this b o o k .

Basic Terminology The N a m e in English T h e w o r d "Bible" derives f r o m the Greek biblia, m e a n i n g "books." 1 By its very n a m e , "the Bible" refers to "the collection of b o o k s " — t h a t is, the one that is d e e m e d to be authoritative or canonical. Different c o m m u n i t i e s have different Bibles. For Christians, the Bible ineludes the N e w Testament; for J e w s it does not. To distinguish it f r o m the Christians' Bible, people have suggested a variety of n a m e s for the Jews' Bible (besides simply "the Bible"). Christians typically call it the Old Testament, w h e r e "testament" is an old way of referring to a contract ("covenant"). This n a m e is based o n a p r o p h e c y in J e r e m i a h that states: "See, a time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the LORD—when I will m a k e a new covenant with the H o u s e of Israel a n d the H o u s e of J u d a h . It will not be like the covenant I m a d e w i t h their fathers, w h e n I took t h e m by the h a n d to lead t h e m out of the land of Egypt, a covenant w h i c h they broke, t h o u g h I e s p o u s e d t h e m — d e c l a r e s the LORD" ( 3 1 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) . Early Christian

tradition u n d e r s t o o d this passage to refer to a n e w c o v e n a n t , centered a r o u n d Jesus, w h i c h replaces the old Mosaic o n e . 2 This led to the t e r m s " N e w Testam e n t " a n d "Old T e s t a m e n t " — i n w h i c h "old" c o n n o t e s obsolescence. 3 Jews, however, view the original c o v e n a n t as still operative. For this reason, J e w s have t e n d e d to reject the t e r m "Old Testament." M a n y simply call this b o d y of literature "the Bible." For religious Jews, this n a m e is b y definition a p p r o p r i ate: these are "the b o o k s " that are authoritative for this g r o u p . A c a d e m i c scholars, m e a n w h i l e , generally prefer n o t to take sides in the debate as to w h i c h covenant w i t h G o d is in force. Therefore, in scholarly circles, the m o r e n e u t r a l t e r m s " H e b r e w Bible" or "Jewish Scripture(s)" have gained c u r rency. A d m i t t e d l y the first n a m e is slightly imprecise, because s o m e passages of the Bible are n o t in H e b r e w b u t rather in Aramaic, a related Semitic language. 4

Other Jewish Names: A Historical Review

In extant texts c o m p o s e d d u r i n g the biblical p e r i o d i t s e l f — w h i c h lasted m o r e t h a n a t h o u s a n d y e a r s — n o t e r m at all a p p e a r s for this set of b o o k s . T h e Bible w a s t h e n still in f o r m a t i o n as an authoritative collection. It received its title only after it c a m e into b e i n g — s i g n a l i n g the start of the postbiblical period. In the first c e n t u r y C.E., J o s e p h u s (the great Jewish historian w h o wrote in Greek) k n e w of the Bible. 5 He called it ta hiera grammata He also called it grammasi

("The Holy Writings"). 6

("that w h i c h is w r i t t e n " ) — o f t e n translated as "Scrip-

7

ture" b u t better r e n d e r e d uncapitalized, as "scripture." In classical rabbinic literature, the two m o s t c o m m o n t e r m s for the Bible were mikra ( ‫ מ ק ר א‬, literally "that w h i c h is read or recited aloud") a n d kitvei hakodesh

(‫כתבי הקדש‬,

Bible as torah,

"the holy writings"). 8 Sometimes, the rabbis referred to the

nevi'im,

u-khtuvim

(‫וכתובים‬

•‫נביאי‬

‫תורה‬,

"the Torah,

the

Prophets, a n d the Writings"). 9 In the Middle Ages, p e r h a p s in the late first m i l l e n n i u m c.E., scribes shorte n e d Torah, Nevi'im,

u-Khtuvim

into the a c r o n y m ‫ ת נ ״ ך‬, w h i c h is p r o n o u n c e d

Tanakh. J e w s t o d a y still c o m m o n l y use that n a m e for their Bible. As the title of T h e Jewish Publication Society's 1 9 8 5 o n e - v o l u m e translation, the T a n a k h m a k e s a p o i n t that o t h e r n a m e s ("the Bible," "Holy Scriptures," or even " H e b r e w Bible") d o not. Namely, it u n d e r s c o r e s that the translators r e n d e r e d directly f r o m the H e b r e w (not f r o m an ancient Greek version, like s o m e Christians translations) and d r e w u p o n J e w i s h interpretive t r a d i t i o n . 1 0

M a k i n g an issue out of w h a t to call these texts might s e e m p e d a n t i c , b u t it is not. As we shall see, the " H e b r e w Bible" a n d the "Old Testament" differ in m o r e t h a n n a m e only. They c o m p r i s e different n u m b e r s of b o o k s , w h i c h they place in a different order. (The o r d e r i n g m a t t e r s because it alters the context in w h i c h we u n d e r s t a n d the text; a b o o k s m e a n i n g can shift d e p e n d i n g u p o n w h i c h b o o k s we read before a n d after it.) More significantly, the term " H e b r e w Bible" suggests a c o r p u s that is self-standing, w h e r e a s the "Old Testament" d o e s not. T h e m e a n i n g of m a n y passages in the "Old Testament" c h a n g e s w h e n o n e views t h e m as part of a larger w h o l e that i n c l u d e s the N e w Testament. 1 1

Name and Structure As we have seen, the n a m e Tanakh reflects a three-part ("tripartite") organization of the Bible; for Jews, this is the s t a n d a r d division of the Bible. T h e n a m e of each of its parts, however, w a r r a n t s s o m e explanation. The n a m e of the first part, as we have said, is Torah. Christians have o f t e n translated the t e r m as "Law," b u t this is too restrictive; it m i s r e p r e s e n t s this collection of b o o k s , w h i c h features nonlegal e l e m e n t s s u c h as narrative a n d poetry. (It also m i s r e p r e s e n t s J u d a i s m , w h i c h is far m o r e t h a n a "religion of law.") Rather, Torah is a b r o a d t e r m that m e a n s "Instruction." T h e n a m e of the s e c o n d part, Nevi'im,

m e a n s "Prophets." However, m a n y of

its b o o k s are n o t actually p r o p h e t i c w o r k s . Its first p o r t i o n , often called the "Former Prophets," consists instead of narrative texts. They c o n t i n u e the story b e g u n in the Torah. A l t h o u g h p r o p h e t s play an i m p o r t a n t role in these narrative b o o k s , they dwell on far m o r e t h a n prophecies. T h e n a m e of the final part of the Bible, Kethuvim Ketuvim),

( s o m e t i m e s transcribed as

m e a n s "Writings." Of course the rest of the Bible also consists of "writ-

ings." W h a t therefore justifies giving the last set of b o o k s s u c h a generic n a m e ? As we shall see in c h a p t e r 27, the a n s w e r is a matter of history. In this case, Kethuvim

has c o m e to serve as a catchall term. It is a miscellany. It c o n t a i n s s u c h

diverse w o r k s as Psalms (prayers), Chronicles (history), Daniel ( p r o p h e c y ) , a n d Song of Songs (erotic poetry). T h e chart s h o w n on page 10 illustrates the typical a r r a n g e m e n t of the b o o k s in H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s a n d p r i n t e d editions of the Bible (Tanakh). 1 2 It also illustrates h o w there are t w e n t y - f o u r b o o k s of the Bible a c c o r d i n g to Jewish tradition.

Torah

Nevi'im

Kethuvim

Genesis

Joshua13

Psalms

Exodus

Judges

Proverbs15

Leviticus

Samuel14

Job

Numbers

Kings

S o n g of S o n g s 1 6

Deuteronomy

Isaiah17

Ruth

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel T h e Twelve M i n o r P r o p h e t s

Ecclesiastes 18

Esther Daniel Ezra-Nehemiah Chronicles19

Alternative Arrangements O n l y in Jewish Bibles will you find the b o o k s g r o u p e d into three sections. This tripartite s t r u c t u r e is f o u n d in all H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s of the Bible. All c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h translations follow its outline. In antiquity, however, this a r r a n g e m e n t was not the only one that J e w s e m p l o y e d . In particular, the J e w s w h o r e n d e r e d the Bible into Greek ( p r o d u c i n g the translation k n o w n as the Septuagint m o r e t h a n 2 1 0 0 years ago) 2 0 divided it into four sections: Torah; Historical Books; W i s d o m a n d Poetic Books; a n d Prophetic Books. 2 1 This o r d e r is quite logical—it begins w i t h Torah, the m o s t basic text, followed b y b o o k s a b o u t the past (Historical Books), the present ( W i s d o m a n d Poetic Books), a n d the f u t u r e (Prophetic Books). This o r d e r i n g s c h e m e m o s t likely originated in the land of Israel before b e i n g t r a n s m i t t e d to the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g Jewish c o m m u n i t y of Alexandria, Egypt, together w i t h the H e b r e w texts of the biblical b o o k s themselves.

The Christians5 Old Testament T h e early Christians c a m e to a d o p t the o r d e r of the Septuagint for t w o m a i n reasons. First, they s p o k e Greek (rather t h a n H e b r e w ) , so it w a s n a t u r a l for t h e m to rely o n the Greek translation a n d a d o p t the Greek order. Second, that o r d e r — u n l i k e s o m e o t h e r s — e n d e d w i t h the p r o p h e t i c b o o k s . In the Christian c a n o n (Old Testament + N e w Testament), this a r r a n g e m e n t j u x t a p o s e d the

P r o p h e t s ( w h i c h a c c o r d i n g to Christian tradition predict the arrival of J e s u s as m e s s i a h ) w i t h the Gospels ( w h i c h describe that arrival, fulfilling the prediction). T h u s , while the Christians' Bible u s e d an o r d e r of Old Testament b o o k s that p r e d a t e s the rise of Christianity, it did so because that o r d e r served Christian p u r p o s e s well. T h e scope of m a n y Christians' Old Testament is larger than that of the Jews' Bible. T h e f o r m e r i n c l u d e s n o t only the b o o k s listed above b u t also the Apocryp h a (which is Greek for "hidden"). These are various Jewish Hellenistic writings that the Catholic, O r t h o d o x , Coptic, a n d o t h e r Christian C h u r c h e s have held to be authoritative a n d sacred, b u t of lesser status t h a n the o t h e r b o o k s of the Bible (that is, they are "deuterocanonical"). These include b o o k s like 1 Maccabees (a historical text) a n d Sirach (which goes by m a n y n a m e s — B e n Sirach, W i s d o m of Ben Sirach, Sira, Ben Sira, etc.; a w i s d o m text similar to Proverbs). Catholic Bibles often print these b o o k s in a separate section called A p o c r y p h a , even t h o u g h they were originally part of the Old Testament canon. T h e Protestant C h u r c h later rejected the A p o c r y p h a as canonical. Regardless of h o w we view the A p o c r y p h a , if we set t h e m aside for the m o m e n t we get the following four-part Bible: Torah

Historical

Wisdom and Poetic

Prophetic

Genesis

Joshua

Job

Isaiah

Exodus

Judges

Psalms

Jeremiah

22

Leviticus

Ruth

Proverbs

Lamentations

Numbers

1 Samuel23

Ecclesiastes

Ezekiel

Deuteronomy

2 Samuel

S o n g of S o l o m o n

Daniel

1 Kings 2 Kings

T h e Twelve M i n o r Prophets24

1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther This is the a r r a n g e m e n t f o u n d in non-Jewish translations ranging f r o m the King J a m e s ( 1 6 1 1 ) to the N e w Revised Standard Version ( 1 9 8 9 ) a n d b e y o n d . Its reflects n o t only certain ancient Greek m a n u s c r i p t s b u t also the influential translation of the Bible into Latin by the early C h u r c h father J e r o m e ( 3 4 0 4 2 0 C.E.).

In addition, in a small n u m b e r of cases, chapters of biblical b o o k s begin in slightly different places in Jewish Bibles in contrast to Christian Bibles; this is yet another way in which the Hebrew Bible differs from the Old Testament. 2 5

My Definition of "the Bible" This b o o k is a Jewishly sensitive introduction to "the Bible." T h u s in this book I always use that term to m e a n what others call "the Hebrew Bible." I d o not m e a n to imply that this definition is either the original or the best one. (Indeed, the fact that the current Jewish order differs from what is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud is a good reminder that the order was never set in stone. 2 6 ) My use of the Jewish arrangement merely acknowledges that this is what Jews currently use in what they call the Bible.

3 The Art of Reading the Bible R e a d i n g is a complicated, multifaceted process. 1 1 am not referring to the technical aspect of s o u n d i n g out words, what is called "decoding"—this is relatively simple, especially in Hebrew. Nor am I referring to resolving the types of ambiguities that exist in any dead, or literary, language. These ambiguities can be quite significant in translating the Bible. For example, should the first sentence of the Bible be rendered "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" or "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth"? Should the root q-n-' ( ‫ ) ק נ א‬w h e n describing God be translated "jealous" or "zealous"? Lack of punctuation in the earliest biblical texts raises additional reading problems: should I read Isaiah 4 0 : 3 as "A voice rings out: , Make clear in the desert a road for the LORD!'" or as "A voice rings out in the desert , Clear a road for the L O R D ! " ' ? As theologically significant as these issues may be for reading or translating the Hebrew Bible, they pale in comparison to the reading challenges caused by the fact that the Bible was written in an ancient society that h a d fundamentally different literary conventions from ours. Especially if we k n o w only one language, and live mostly in one society or social group, we may not be aware of the extent to which convention guides so m u c h of what we d o and h o w we behave. Conventions, however, by definition have particular meanings in particular groups. Anyone hitchhiking in Israel using the American hitchhiking sign, which is considered an obscene gesture there, will quickly appreciate the importance of convention. Conventions combine with the meaning of words to determine h o w a text should be understood. Words alone d o not determine meaning; we interpret t h e m based on the context that they are in, namely their genre. The same words will be interpreted differently if they are f o u n d in a different genre or context. For example, the words "slow children" will be u n d e r s t o o d one way if they are f o u n d as part of a report dealing with special education in a school district, and another if they are f o u n d on a yellow, triangular street sign. The w o r d s are the same; their context, which determines their genre (school report vs. street sign),

will ascertain w h e t h e r they are descriptive of children w i t h below-average IQs, or are prescriptive, telling the driver to slow d o w n because a large n u m b e r of children live in a n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e p r o p e r interpretation of the same two w o r d s differs based o n their genre.

Reading and the Biblical Text There are m a n y ways of reading the Bible. My interest, however, is in reading the Bible like an ancient Israelite, 2 w h a t is o f t e n called reading the Bible f r o m a historical-critical perspective. As n o t e d in c h a p t e r 1, "historical-critical" is an u n f o r tunate term; m u c h m o r e t h a n history is involved in this type of reading, a n d the term "critical" incorrectly suggests that the "critic" is interested in s o m e h o w dism a n t l i n g the Bible or any faith-based c o m m i t m e n t w i t h the Bible at its core. This is n o t w h a t I a m a t t e m p t i n g here. Instead, I a m a s s u m i n g that the Bible, like any ancient text, has b e e n read differently in different periods, because readers read the Bible u s i n g their o w n c o n v e n t i o n s or rules. J a m e s Kugel, for example, has s h o w n h o w readers in the early postbiblical p e r i o d u n d e r s t o o d the Bible; their readings are often very strange f r o m o u r perspective, because these interpreters lived two t h o u s a n d years ago a n d w o r k e d w i t h i n a religious a n d cultural system that is so different t h a n o u r s . 3 W h e t h e r a particular biblical interpretation is right or w r o n g in an absolute sense is usually impossible to say, because the validity of any reading d e p e n d s o n its time p e r i o d a n d the c o n v e n t i o n s of that period. Everything d e p e n d s on w h a t rules the reader uses w h e n reading the biblical text.

The Rules of the Game Those w h o play the b o a r d game M o n o p o l y ® m i g h t k n o w the official rules ( p r i n t e d o n the box), b u t they m i g h t also be familiar w i t h alternative sets of rules. N o w h e r e d o the official rules suggest that $ 5 0 0 m u s t be a d d e d to Free Parking after a n y o n e lands o n that space a n d collects the money, n o r d o the rules deal w i t h the special cases of the player w h o rolls d o u b l e ones or d o u b l e sixes. Yet almost all M o n o p o l y players have conventions

that d e t e r m i n e h o w these situ-

ations s h o u l d be h a n d e d . W h a t is crucial is that before the g a m e starts, all participants agree on the rules g o v e r n i n g that particular game; otherwise, chaos ensues. Similarly, the way of reading suggested h e r e — w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s w h a t the

Bible meant w h e n it was written—is not intended to disparage other "rules" that might be used for reading the Bible. 1 do not m e a n to argue that these methods, whether based on certain religious or literary principles, are fundamentally wrong. Instead, this book develops, explores, explains, and justifies a different set of rules. In the afterword, I will argue that these rules do work for religious use—although for n o w this might seem unlikely, or even impossible. The importance of proper rules or genre for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the Bible is most easily illustrated through the following examples. They presume, for illustrative p u r p o s e s only, the existence of someone from a wholly different culture w h o is perfectly proficient in the English language, having mastered the grammar of English and an English dictionary. This individual (let me call her Marta) would be comparable to the m o d e r n scholar w h o has complete mastery of biblical word use and grammar (which incidentally is impossible). Marta will illustrate three situations that indicate h o w mastery of lexicon (word use) and grammar alone are insufficient for reading in the most comprehensive sense. Let's imagine that Marta arrives at m y house as I am reading some poetry. I h a p p e n to turn to a p o e m called "Subway," translated from Japanese. It begins: "Every day I step into a coffin / with strangers." 4 Reading even this first line, I sigh in pleasure—after all, I grew u p in N e w York, and traveled on many trains during rush hour, unable to breathe, feeling like I was buried alive with strangers for an hour. Marta, however, has n o comprehension of this experience, for at least two reasons. She has never experienced the subways. Just as significantly, she has never encountered poetry, and thinks that these initial eight words about entering coffins with strangers describe either a strange ritual or a kinky practice. T h o u g h she u n d e r s t a n d s the words, by reading t h e m literally, she misunderstands their meaning in this particular context. Only after Marta learns about subways, and more importantly, about genre conventions—for instance, that literature presented in short lines is poetry, that poetry uses metaphors, and that m e t a p h o r s should be interpreted in a particular way—will she understand those eight words. Reading that line of poetry t h u s extends far beyond a phonetic process, or even looking u p each word in a dictionary. Another scenario, from later in the day. Marta is looking over m y shoulder as I sort the day's mail. I sort into two piles; one with notices (typically in red) such as "Urgent: O p e n Immediately," the other lacking such notices. But then I trash everything from the "Urgent: O p e n Immediately" pile. Marta is bewildered. She k n o w s h o w to read, but nothing in her technical language preparation taught her about genres of mail. Had she learned that the words "Urgent: O p e n Immediately" (combined with other markers such as third class postage) typify

a genre that we call "junk mail," t h e n she w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d . But this lesson, w h i c h h a s to d o w i t h social aspects of reading a n d w r i t i n g a n d h o w we as readers pick u p o n clues (what biblical scholars call "form-critical markers"), is typically only l e a r n e d t h r o u g h experience w i t h i n a particular social g r o u p . For the final example, imagine that Marta w a t c h e s as I read the

Sunday

Boston Globe. She clearly observes that the n e w s p a p e r is c o m p r i s e d of various sections w i t h different layouts, b u t doesn't k n o w the significance of these differences. Specifically, she doesn't k n o w that Doonesbury, p r i n t e d o n the first page of the comics, m u s t be read differently t h a n the first page of the first section. T h o u g h b o t h sections contain the s a m e w o r d s , even the same personal n a m e s , we k n o w t h r o u g h experience that they c o n v e y different i n f o r m a t i o n or have different goals. T h e first page m e a n s to c o n v e y facts; the comics are i n t e n d e d to a m u s e . Marta, however, has n o d e v e l o p e d awareness of contexts a n d genres, h o w they m i g h t i n f o r m w h a t s o m e t h i n g really m e a n s , or h o w it s h o u l d be read, so she likely w o u l d u s e D o o n e s b u r y as a source for n e w s in the same w a y that she uses the first page.

The Challenge of Reading like an Ancient Israelite If Marta is smart, she will eventually figure these things out. She will learn based o n experience w h a t j u n k mail is, h o w to read the comics, even the n a t u r e of poetry. (Indeed, this is w h a t each of u s h a s learned to do.) It will take h e r awhile. Yet in learning to read (in this b r o a d sense), Marta will have an advantage that we Bible readers never have: she h a s w h a t linguists a n d anthropologists call " i n f o r m a n t s " — r e a l , live people w h o can lead h e r d o w n the right track. We have n o i n f o r m a n t s f r o m ancient Israel, so w e m u s t use other, less reliable criteria to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r we are reading the ancient texts correctly. 5 W h e n it c o m e s to reading the biblical text w i t h i n its original context, m o s t p e o p l e are hardly better t h a n Marta. Those of u s w h o have s p e n t years reading biblical a n d o t h e r ancient Near Eastern texts, a n d trying to figure o u t their c o n ventions, engage in a difficult a n d always s o m e w h a t speculative venture. There is n o certain w a y of k n o w i n g that we have the c o n v e n t i o n right, o t h e r t h a n the fact that it allows m a n y texts to m a k e sense, w h i c h is a partly subjective criterion. That begins to explain w h y this type of reading, w h i c h we call the historicalcritical m e t h o d , is so c o m m o n in the university, b u t so rare outside of it. T h e historical-critical m e t h o d m a k e s t w o a s s u m p t i o n s : that biblical society is discont i n u o u s w i t h o u r society a n d that the Bible s h o u l d be read according to its original social context, n o t anachronistically. T h e Bible m u s t instead be u n d e r s t o o d

only after its ancient conventions and genres are u n d e r s t o o d , but because there is so m u c h discontinuity, this is a most difficult task. Not only literary conventions are important. The Bible is the p r o d u c t of a particular society living at a particular time. Before we can begin exploring the issues of convention and genre, it is important to offer a schematic history of ancient Israel, so that biblical texts, genres, a n d conventions may be u n d e r s t o o d in this light. Accordingly, history is the subject of our next chapter.

4 A Brief History of Israel

T

his b o o k a t t e m p t s to u n d e r s t a n d the Bible as it was u n d e r s t o o d in the perio d s in w h i c h its b o o k s were first w r i t t e n a n d read, f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y the

twelfth c e n t u r y B.C.E. (the Song of D e b o r a h in J u d g e s 5) t h r o u g h the s e c o n d century B.C.E. (the Book of Daniel). 1 T h u s , we n e e d to k n o w s o m e basic facts a b o u t

history before exploring biblical texts. 2 But we w o u l d r u n a strong risk of b e i n g misled if we simply o p e n e d a history b o o k a n d believed everything w e read there. Because of relatively recent reassessments in the field of history, s o m e of the most p o p u l a r a n d w e l l - k n o w n histories of the biblical era are n o w obsolete. Consequently, we m u s t first p a u s e briefly to assess historians' a s s u m p t i o n s a n d m e t h o d s , taking n o t e of the i m p o r tance of p o i n t of view.

History as It Used to Be Told Writing a history of the biblical era m a y s o u n d like a simple v e n t u r e , a n d until the latter part of the t w e n t i e t h century, it was. M a n y b o o k s w i t h the w o r d s History of Israel in their title were available, a n d they all m o r e or less told the s a m e story. 3 These w o r k s differed s o m e w h a t c o n c e r n i n g the earliest history of Israel. However, f r o m the p e r i o d of David o n w a r d they were quite s i m i l a r — typically p a r a p h r a s i n g the biblical story, r e m o v i n g the language of divine causality that is f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t the Bible, a n d p u t t i n g the biblical a c c o u n t w i t h i n the context of ancient Near Eastern texts a n d cultures. Starting in the m i d 1970s, this b e g a n to change. Two m a i n shifts h a p p e n e d that d i s t u r b e d this c o n s e n s u s . In the first part of the t w e n t i e t h century, a large n u m b e r of c u n e i f o r m tablets were u n e a r t h e d a n d p u b l i s h e d . Several scholars discovered in these tablets, especially those f r o m the p e r i p h e r y of Mesopotamia, descriptions of various institutions that s e e m e d to c o n f i r m details of the biblical a c c o u n t . For e x a m p l e , E. A. Speiser suggested that

an institution existed at Nuzi, w h e r e a h u s b a n d could a d o p t his wife as a sister, thereby explaining the so-called wife-sister stories in Genesis 12, 20, a n d 26. According to Speiser's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , a wife c o u l d be a d o p t e d as a sister as a special sign of affection. 4 Speiser w a s n o t alone; William Foxwell Albright, c o n sidered the d e a n of biblical s c h o l a r s h i p a n d archaeology, outlined m a n y correlations b e t w e e n the history that the Bible tells a n d w h a t we m i g h t k n o w a b o u t this history f r o m external sources. 5 In general, the scholarly climate, at least in America, w a s that the Bible is to be trusted as a historical source until d i s p r o v e n b y a reliable outside source.

Shifting the Burden of Proof As scholars b e g a n to m o r e carefully evaluate the evidence, however, this picture began to shatter. Two b o o k s p u b l i s h e d in the 1970s reflect this change in attitude: The Historicity Abraham

of the Patriarchal

Narratives,

by Thomas Thompson,6 and

in History and Tradition, b y J o h n Van Seters. 7 These w o r k s a n d o t h e r s

s h o w e d that the m a n y analogies b r o u g h t b e t w e e n the so-called "Patriarchal Period" a n d the Bronze Age of the s e c o n d pre-Christian m i l l e n n i u m were specious. For example, scholars realized that Speiser w a s incorrect in reconstructing m a n y institutions at Nuzi, i n c l u d i n g the a d o p t i o n of a wife as sister—this w a s based o n a m i s r e a d i n g of c u n e i f o r m texts that was influenced by the Bible. F u r t h e r m o r e , they p o i n t e d out that the a r g u m e n t s b r o u g h t by Speiser, Albright, a n d others were specious. That is, j u s t because it has a second-millennium-B.c.E. parallel d o e s n o t prove that a biblical passage is early or accurate, especially if it also h a s a (more recent) first m i l l e n n i u m parallel—as most of t h e m do. In other words, a n u m b e r of scholars argued that these texts are n o t accurately reflecting the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m , b u t are projecting b a c k w a r d first m i l l e n n i u m realities— a n d in s o m e cases, coincidentally, these realities m a t c h the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m as well. Finally, the n e w scholars b e g a n to e m p h a s i z e the a n a c h r o n i s m s of Genesis. Earlier scholars h a d seen these a n a c h r o n i s m s as exceptions, as a small n u m b e r of a d j u s t m e n t s that crept into the text as it was transmitted. N e w e r scholars, h o w ever, saw these as a f u n d a m e n t a l part of the textual fabric, indicating that the text as a w h o l e was n o t reliably reflecting a Bronze Age milieu. The c o n t i n u e d archaeological excavations a n d surveys, particularly those after the 1 9 6 7 Six-Day War, also b e g a n to influence the way the Bible was seen as a historical source. In the early p a r t s of the century, excavations were typical-

ly seen as confirming the Bible. W h e n the evidence did not match the biblical description of a site, as in the destruction of Jericho by Joshua, scholars often said that the relevant layer (which once showed the destruction) has been eroded away. 8 W h e n excavations did not s h o w a level where destruction had taken place because of the biblically described conquest of a particular site, scholars w o u l d say that they d u g at the w r o n g site, and that the n a m e of a city h a d been applied to two different places in ancient and m o d e r n times. However, as the n u m b e r of excavations increased, and the evidence was s u p p l e m e n t e d by large survey operations, it became clear that the archaeological record contradieted the story of Joshua's rapid, complete conquest of Canaan. As a result of archaeology, the Book of Joshua could n o longer be seen as an accurate source for history. 9 At the end of the twentieth century, the d o u b t s that had developed on the basis of archaeological exploration of the "Patriarchal Period" and the conquest began to pervade certain groups of scholars, w h o suggested that similar d o u b t s should exist for m u c h of the Bible. A group of scholars centered in Copenhagen, often d u b b e d "the Copenhagen School," suggested that the Bible has little value as a historical source, and that ancient Israelite history should be written without recourse to the Bible. For example, they questioned the very existence of David. I call this attitude "creeping skepticism," where the d o u b t s rightly s h o w n for using the Bible as a source for reconstructing the earliest periods have crept into the interpretation of later periods as well. 1 0 Although the Copenhagen School m a d e biblical scholars aware of many of the theological biases that they held, they went too far. Several scholars have suggested that this school replaced the f u n d a m e n t a l i s m of previous generations, where the Bible was seen as historically true unless very strong evidence suggested otherwise, with a "negative fundamentalism," where the Bible must be viewed as false unless very strong evidence suggests otherwise. The debate a r o u n d this issue has been divisive and often ugly. 11 Given the importance of this issue to Jewish identity and particularly to m o d e r n Israeli identity, it has often been tinged with accusations a n d manifestations of antisemitism and antiZionism. 1 2 Obviously, here is not the place to resolve in detail the argument about the usefulness of the Bible as a historical source. I would note, however, that the arguments of the more extreme scholars in this school are generally discounted, a n d a reasonable middle position would suggest that the Bible may be used, with significant caution, as a source for ancient history, just like any other ancient d o c u m e n t .

The Bible^ Limits as a Source for History Two significant problems with using the Bible as a historical source m u s t be acknowledged. The first is that it is fundamentally a theological d o c u m e n t . T h o u g h it certainly relates m a n y historical events, its authors were not primarily interested in the accurate depiction of the past. The past is almost always refracted through a theological lens, and often through a partisan politicalideological lens as well. These lenses are a fundamental part of biblical texts. Thus, it is not sufficient to simply take God out of the picture, and to rewrite biblical tests in terms of "normal" historical causality rather than divine causality. 13 The Bible is not unique in this respect—in fact, it is typical of ancient Near Eastern historical writing as a whole. It would barely be an overstatement to point out that almost all these texts center o n the divine realm as m u c h as the h u m a n . 1 4 For example, according to the Mesha inscription, from Israel's Moabite neighbors to the east, Israel was able to subjugate Moab because "Kemosh [the Moabite high god] was angry at his land." 1 5 Yet, this has not caused all historians of the ancient Near East to avoid every use of such d o c u m e n t s in writing ancient history. Sources m u s t be used with care: m o d e r n historians m u s t be aware of the deep biases of the authors of these sources, and whenever possible, various sources that refer to the same event must be studied together, since they are often mutually enlightening. But these sources should not simply be discarded. The second problem of using the Bible as a source concerns the unusually complex transmission of the biblical text. Most sources for ancient Near Eastern history were u n e a r t h e d in the last two centuries; they typically represent tablets or steles that were written soon after the events that they record. These ancient d o c u m e n t s were usually not recopied extensively, 16 a n d were buried for two millennia or more before being uncovered. In contrast, the Bible was transmitted on p a p y r u s and p a r c h m e n t in antiquity, and was changed as it was transmitted, at least in its earliest stages. 1 7 It is naive to believe that we may recover the Bible's original text (what scholars call the "Urtext"), namely the text as p e n n e d by its original authors. The biblical texts f o u n d at Q u m r a n a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls, a n d the evidence of ancient Bible translations—especially the Septuagint (the pre-Christian translation of the Bible into Greek)—•suggest that even in antiquity, m a n y different versions of the same text circulated. The multiple forms of texts in the Second Temple period confirms that we cannot, for example, assume that the text of Kings as we n o w have it is the same as the text of Kings w h e n it was originally written. This is a serious problem that is not u n i q u e to the Hebrew Bible. Almost all classical texts suffer from the same issue—we have relatively few papyri that

have survived from antiquity, and even these are not autographs by the original authors. Most are medieval manuscripts. Especially in Classical Studies, the m e t h o d s of textual reconstruction are well developed, allowing scholars to piece together the best text possible using the m a n y texts and other kinds of evidence that are available to them. This discipline is as m u c h an art as a science, yet there is a consensus that is helpful in reconstructing texts. Although scholars do not have the original works by an ancient Greek historian such as Herodotus or Thucydides, they recreate Greek history via the textual criticism of manuscripts that postdate the author by centuries. In the same careful way, we may reconstruct history using the Bible. T h o u g h I am suggesting that theological and ideological biases, as well as issues of textual transmission, do not present insuperable problems, they are nevertheless serious impediments to writing a history of Israel. This means that a history of ancient Israel can never be written with finality. However, since historical b a c k g r o u n d is useful for u n d e r s t a n d i n g m a n y biblical texts, I have not given u p o n this venture. W h a t follows is a basic history that, t h o u g h tentative, will provide the readers with an essential picture. 1 8

The Beginning of Israel As noted above, scholars writing at the e n d of the twentieth century cast d o u b t s o n the biblical account of the beginning of Israel. This was true not only for w h a t h a d been called the Patriarchal Period, but for the Conquest and the period of Judges as well. N o outside confirmation exists for any aspect of the "Patriarchal Period," a n d thus, from a historical perspective, it is improper to speak of Abraham, Jacob, or Rachel as real figures, or as early Israelites or Jews. In addition, there is n o Egyptian evidence for an extended sojourn of Israel in Egypt. 1 9 The fact that the Bible shows relatively little influence from Egypt also suggests that the biblical account of an extended sojourn there by h u n d r e d s of t h o u s a n d s of Israelites is not factual. Finally, as noted above, the account of the extensive conquest by all Israel given in Joshua does not m a t c h the archaeological record as we currently u n d e r s t a n d it. Though various myths describe the origin of ancient Israel, n o n e of these may be taken at face value by the historian. They represent later self-understandings of the nature of Israel, its constituent groups, it relations to its neighbors, a n d its connection to the land of Israel and its G o d . 2 0 (Israel is in n o way u n i q u e h e r e — most m y t h s of origins have similar purposes, and may not be used in a simplem i n d e d way by historians.) Therefore, especially w h e n examining origins, it is important to use external rather than internal sources alone.

The first external reference to Israel is f o u n d o n an Egyptian m o n u m e n t a l stone dating from the time of the Egyptian p h a r a o h Merneptah. This d o c u m e n t , called the Merneptah Stele by m o d e r n scholars, records events that probably transpired in 1207 B.C.E. In the middle of a list recording the Pharaoh's campaign against peoples in the area of the Mediterranean, it notes: "Israel is wasted; its seed is not." 2 1 Egyptian, like some other ancient languages, uses special signs (called "determinatives") before certain words to indicate what class of word they belong to. (This is helpful in reading hieroglyphics or cuneiform, which are not written alphabetically.) The sign before "Israel" refers to an ethnic group. Thus, this inscription suggests that a people called Israel lived at the Eastern Mediterranean coast in the very late thirteenth century B.C.E. The Egyptian claim to have obliterated this people is generally seen as hyperbolic, which is typical of such inscriptions.

Two Perspectives on Historical Periods Conventionally, scholars divide history into periods, based on b o t h internal a n d external factors. In the case of ancient Israel, they tend to use two types of periodization: an internal framework based on Israel's o w n political changes, and an external framework based o n the regional powers into whose orbit Israel was absorbed. Given that external factors often influence internal factors, these two approaches at points reinforce each other.

Israel's History as Seen from the Outside The earliest k n o w n external documentation of ancient Israel in 1207 B.C.E. coincides with weakness in the two m a j o r imperial powers of the time: Egypt and Mesopotamia. T h o u g h there were reasons internal to b o t h empires for these developments, the arrival of the Sea Peoples (including the biblical Philistines), w h o wrecked havoc on the ancient Near Eastern sea coast, were also a factor in weakening these superpowers, especially Egypt. Other city-states around Israel may have b e g u n to develop at this time, taking advantage of the power v a c u u m that h a d developed. The early history of Israel also coincides with a m a j o r power shift from Egypt to Mesopotamia. By the e n d of the twelfth century, Egypt ceased controlling sections of Asia, t h o u g h in the following centuries it would occasionally invade Israel and the s u r r o u n d i n g areas.

The fate of Israel (in the north) a n d J u d a h (in the south) would change with the rise of the Mesopotamian powers. Mesopotamia often h a d two competing empires: Babylon to the south, and Assyria to the north. Neither was particularly powerful from the thirteenth t h r o u g h the early ninth centuries. This changed with the rise of the Assyrian dynasty, called the Calah kings after the n e w capital they established. These include Shalmaneser III ( 8 5 8 - 8 2 4 ) , w h o campaigned against the Mediterranean city-states, and w h o defeated a coalition in which Ahab, the king of N o r t h e r n Israel, played a leading role. T h u s Israel became a vassal state of Assyria. This relationship meant some loss of political autonomy, a n d an obligation to pay a sizable tribute to Assyria, w h i c h reasserted its claims during the reigns of the kings called the Sargonides ( 7 4 4 - 6 1 2 ) . This dynasty was b e g u n by the powerful Tiglath-Pileser III ( 7 4 4 - 7 2 7 ) , called Pul in the Bible. N o r t h e r n Israel rebelled against the Assyrians, and between 722 and 720, Samaria, the n o r t h e r n capital, was destroyed. In different sources, this is ascribed to either Shalmaneser V or Sargon II. The Assyrians were defeated by the Babylonians in 612, and the last r e m n a n t s of the Assyrian army lost their final battle in 609. Thus, by 612, Babylon h a d assumed the power formerly held by Assyria. The rise of Babylonian power had b e g u n a decade earlier, with the Babylonian king Nabopolassar ( 6 2 5 - 6 1 5 ) . The k i n g d o m of J u d a h rebelled against the Babylonians; following earlier policy, it was given several chances to fall into line after it rebelled. In 597, a group of Judeans, including the king, was exiled to Babylon, while after a second rebellion in 586, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and more J u d e a n s were exiled to Babylon. T h o u g h the Babylonians took over the Assyrian empire, their behavior was not the same. The Babylonians seem to have been less cruel in w a r — a t least their royal inscriptions brag less about bloody exploits. More significantly, they allowed exiled peoples to live together in their o w n communities in Babylon, forming ethnic neighborhoods in which earlier religious and cultural practices could and did flourish. 2 2 In contrast, the Assyrians had m a d e forced population transfers, mixing together defeated peoples from various places so that their ethnie identities would disappear, leaving only an identity as Assyrians. This explains why n o r t h e r n Israel had soon disappeared after its destruction in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0 , whereas the J u d e a n s survived as an ethnic and religious group. In 539 the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians. The final Babylonian king, N a b o n i d u s , instituted certain religious reforms that alienated the powerful priests of Marduk the Babylonian high god; these priests viewed the Persian king, Cyrus, as their savior and allowed h i m to c o n q u e r Babylon. They expected the conquering king to allow the proper worship to be restored; following the

typical tolerance s h o w n by conquerors to their vassals, this indeed h a p p e n e d . The Persians established a satrapy (a Persian administrative unit) called Yehud in the area of Judea, a n d allowed the J u d e a n s to return there in 538. The Persian control of the land of Israel e n d e d in 332 B.C.E. with the conquest of Israel by Alexander the Great. T h o u g h Greek culture h a d been important earlier, a more significant type of Hellenization began at this time. It typically was not forced, but represented the desires of particular people a n d social classes to adopt the prestigious a n d attractive customs of the G r e e k s — m u c h like their ancestors adopted Assyrian, Babylonian, a n d Persian customs. The vast empire of Alexander fell apart u p o n his death, a n d was divided a m o n g his generals. Israel had the great misfortune of falling on the border between the Ptolemies, w h o ruled from Egypt, and the Seleucids, w h o ruled from Syria; it was first u n d e r the rule of the Ptolemies, then of the Seleucids. W i t h the exception of Antiochus IV ( 1 7 5 - 1 6 4 ) , these kings were generally tolerant of J u d a i s m a n d Jewish practices. The reasons w h y Antiochus IV promulgated certain decrees against the practice of J u d a i s m in 167, and converted the Jerusalem tempie into a Temple for Zeus, are obscure. These decrees were reversed in 164 by the successful Maccabean revolt. Greek control of the land of Israel e n d e d in 6 3 B.C.E. , with the Roman conquest. The Romans would ultimately destroy the Second Temple in 70 C.E., following a Jewish revolt, b u t this brings us beyond the biblical period. Thus, in terms of external influences on Israel, the biblical period can t h u s be divided into the following periods: the pre-Assyrian period, the Assyrian period (mid-ninth c e n t u r y - 6 1 2 ) , the Babylonian period ( 6 1 2 - 5 3 9 ) , the Persian period ( 5 3 9 - 3 3 2 ) , and the Greek period ( 3 3 2 - 6 3 ) . This periodization is n o t trivial, since the political fate of Israel w o u l d often be determined by the political practices of the powerful k i n g d o m u n d e r whose orbit they fell, a n d Israel w o u l d often be influenced by the religious practices of their overlords.

Israel's History as Seen from the Inside The internal periodization is somewhat different. Given that we k n o w that a monarchy developed in ancient Israel, it is customary to refer to the period that preceded the m o n a r c h y as the premonarchic period. Given m a j o r problems in the use of b o t h Joshua and Judges as historical sources, it is wise not to further divide this period into the period of the conquest a n d the period of the judges.

(However, it is likely that the m o n a r c h y did develop f r o m s o m e sort of j u d g e or chieftain structure.) T h e p e r i o d of the early m o n a r c h y is obscure b e c a u s e it is n o t attested in non-Israelite c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s sources. T h e initial kings (Saul, b u t especially David a n d his son S o l o m o n ) , a c c o r d i n g to the Bible, ruled over a u n i t ed Israel. This p e r i o d , w h i c h covers a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 0 0 - 9 2 2 , is called the u n i t ed monarchy. After this p e r i o d , the t e n u o u s u n i o n of the area n o r t h of J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h I will call N o r t h e r n Israel, w i t h the area to the s o u t h , called J u d a h , dissolved. T h e Davidic m o n a r c h y c o n t i n u e d in J u d a h , while in the n o r t h various o t h e r dynasties established themselves. F r o m 9 2 2 until its d e m i s e in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0 (see above), the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m w a s typically the larger a n d m o r e p o w e r f u l one. This p e r i o d f r o m 9 2 2 to 722, w h e n c o m p e t i n g dynasties ruled over J u d a h a n d N o r t h e r n Israel, is called the divided monarchy. After 720, s o m e kings f r o m J u d a h were able to e x p a n d n o r t h w a r d , c a p t u r i n g s o m e of the land that h a d belonged to the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m . As n o t e d above, in 5 9 7 a n d t h e n in 586, following rebellions against Babylon, s o m e J u d e a n s were exiled to Babylon; in 586, the Babylonian a r m y destroyed the (First) Temple in Jerusalem, the capital of J u d e a . T h u s , the years b e t w e e n 597 a n d 5 8 6 u s h e r in the exilic period. T h e exile did n o t last long. In 5 3 8 , the year following his c o n q u e s t of Babylon, C y r u s allowed the J u d e a n s to r e t u r n h o m e to Israel, t h e n called the Persian p r o v i n c e of Y e h u d — a n event o f t e n referred to in m o d e r n times as shivat tziyyon

(‫ ש י ב ת ציוץ‬, "the r e t u r n to Zion"). T h u s , the exilic p e r i o d b e g a n

b e t w e e n 5 9 7 a n d 5 8 6 ( d e p e n d i n g on w h o was exiled w h e n ) , a n d e n d e d in 538, w i t h Cyrus' p r o c l a m a t i o n . T h e p e r i o d after 5 3 8 is t h u s referred to as the postexilic period. T h o u g h the exilic p e r i o d was short, it w a s crucial. It r e p r e s e n t e d a crisis for all the m a j o r Israelite institutions that h a d d e v e l o p e d , particularly the monarchy, w h i c h n o longer h a d a land to rule, a n d the p r i e s t h o o d , w h i c h n o longer h a d a t e m p l e at w h i c h to officiate. Prophecy, too, m a y have f u n d a m e n t a l l y c h a n g e d , as s o m e p e o p l e w o n d e r e d w h e t h e r G o d w o u l d c o n t i n u e to speak to his p e o p l e , Israel, outside of the land of Israel. T h u s , various i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e s a n d realignm e n t s of religion transpired in this period. In s u m , a n d in the broadest strokes, we m a y s p e a k of the exilic p e r i o d as a w a t e r s h e d p e r i o d , p r e c e d e d by the preexilic p e r i o d a n d followed b y the postexilic period. M o n a r c h y w a s a crucial institution of the preexilic p e r i o d , w h e r e we m a y s p e a k of the p r e m o n a r c h i c p e r i o d , the u n i t e d monarchy, a n d t h e n the divided monarchy.

Combining the Two Perspectives Can we blend the internal and external periodization? Yes, by noting that the preexilic/premonarchic period was characterized by ascendancy of the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. Babylonian ascendancy continued through almost all of the exilic period, which ended one year after the Persian conquest of Babylon. The postexilic period was characterized by Persian and then Greek rule. The chart below summarizes the periodization of ancient Israel from b o t h an internal and external perspective:

C E N T U R I E S (b.C.E.)

CRUCIAL DATE EXTERNAL Egyptian domination

INTERNAL Premonarchic

1000

922

586 Assyrian domination

United monarchy

Divided monarchy

538

Babylonian domination

Exilic

Persian domination

Postexilic

Greek domination

5 With Scissors and Paste The Sources of Genesis Púmary

Reading: Genesis

1-3.

Division of the Bible into Chapters

W

e are u s e d to w o r k s of fiction a n d n o n f i c t i o n b e i n g divided into chapters. Each c h a p t e r is s u p p o s e d to be, in s o m e sense, a self-enclosed unity. T h e

divisions b e t w e e n c h a p t e r s offer the ideal time to take a b r e a k — t o reflect o n the m e a n i n g as a whole of the unit y o u have j u s t c o m p l e t e d reading, a c h a n c e to get a d r i n k or a snack, etc. Taking a b r e a k b e t w e e n Genesis 1 a n d 2 w o u l d seem natural for any of these p u r p o s e s — b u t a n y o n e w h o did this w o u l d be m i s r e a d i n g the first unit of Genesis. That's because this c h a p t e r break is located in the w r o n g place. T h e c h a p t e r n u m b e r s n o w f o u n d in Bibles are n o t integral to the text. Rather, they date f r o m the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y c.E. 1 They first a p p e a r e d in m a n u scripts of the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible that the early C h u r c h father J e r o m e h a d written. By the m i d - s i x t e e n t h century, Jewish editors introd u c e d c h a p t e r s into p r i n t e d H e b r e w Bibles as well. T h u s , the c h a p t e r divisions are relatively recent, representing o n e particular u n d e r s t a n d i n g a b o u t h o w the Bible m a y be s u b d i v i d e d . The "standard" c h a p t e r divisions have n o authority, especially for Jews, a n d they are best ignored.

Division of the Bible into Paragraphs Torah scrolls divide the P e n t a t e u c h into the equivalent of p a r a g r a p h u n i t s by placing white space b e t w e e n units. 2 These w h i t e spaces are of two types: short ones called setumah

( ‫ ס ת ו מ ה‬, "closed"), w h e r e the next unit c o n t i n u e s o n the

same line; a n d longer o n e s called petuchah ( ‫ פ ת ו ח ה‬, "open"), w h e r e the rest of the line is left o p e n a n d the following u n i t c o n t i n u e s only o n the next line. This tradition of leaving spaces dates b a c k at least to the D e a d Sea Scrolls (mostly f r o m the third c e n t u r y B.C.E. to the first c e n t u r y c . E . ) . However, the Dead Sea Scrolls d o n o t always agree w i t h the divisions f o u n d in c o n t e m p o r a r y Torah scrolls, w h i c h the great medieval Jewish scholar M a i m o n i d e s ( 1 1 3 5 - 1 2 0 4 ) established o n the basis of a highly accurate t e n t h - c e n t u r y biblical m a n u s c r i p t called the A l e p p o Codex. In o t h e r w o r d s , spaces or p a r a g r a p h d i v i s i o n s — w h i c h vary s o m e w h a t even a m o n g medieval H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s a n d p r i n t e d editions of the Bible—have never b e e n entirely u n i f o r m . They do, however, represent a significant early interpretive tradition. Unfortunately, these divisions are n o t reflected in English Bible translations. Rather, each translator h a s i n d e p e n d e n t l y d e c i d e d w h e r e u n i t s begin a n d e n d . T h e typesetters have set the type accordingly. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , the p a r a g r a p h b r e a k s in the JPS translation represent the places w h e r e three c o m m i t t e e s w o r k ing in the s e c o n d part of the twentieth c e n t u r y felt n e w u n i t s s h o u l d be d e m a r cated. As w i t h a n y translation, their decisions deserve c o n s i d e r a t i o n — b u t are n o t definitive.

Division of the Bible into Verses Various rabbinic sources f r o m the M i s h n a h (approximately 2 0 0 c.E.) attest to the division of the Bible into pesukim

( ‫ פ ס ו ק י ם‬, literally "breaking points"), w h a t w e

3

w o u l d call verses. N o early c o m p r e h e n s i v e list exists of w h e r e these b r e a k i n g p o i n t s were perceived to be. However, s o m e evidence suggests that they were largely the same as the later divisions f o u n d in medieval H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s , w h i c h indicate verse e n d i n g s by a musical n o t e (called a silluk—a

vertical line)

u n d e r the final w o r d , as well as w h a t looks like a colon (so/ pasuk)

after each

verse. T h u s , of the three divisions n o t e d in m a n u s c r i p t s — c h a p t e r s , p a r a g r a p h s , a n d v e r s e s — t h e latter s h o u l d be seen as the m o s t ancient a n d authoritative. Yet, there are s o m e t i m e s differences in h o w the s a m e w o r d s are divided into verses in different biblical contexts; s o m e medieval m a n u s c r i p t s reflect these differences in their verse c o u n t s . Given the variants that we find, the verse divisions s h o u l d n o t be seen as fully authoritative. Occasionally, weighty evidence suggests that a unit of t h o u g h t really e n d s midverse while the s e c o n d part of that verse starts a n e w u n i t , or that a w o r d at the e n d of o n e verse b e l o n g s at the b e g i n n i n g of the next, or vice versa.

Discerning the Bible^ Literary Units T h e foregoing c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g chapter, p a r a g r a p h , a n d verse divisions have significant implications for h o w we read the Bible. We have to discover a n d use textual clues o t h e r t h a n these "late" formal m a r k i n g s to decide w h e r e u n i t s begin a n d e n d . T h u s , the Bible s h o u l d be envisioned as a text p u n c t u a t e d only b y w o r d s p a c e s 4 — w i t h n o t h i n g to indicate sections, p a r a g r a p h s , or even verses. O u r first step w h e n reading all biblical texts m u s t be to s u b d i v i d e that biblical text into these k i n d s of units. An analogy illustrates this p r o c e d u r e a n d w h y it matters. Let's imagine that a typesetter m a d e a mistake in laying o u t the type of a collection of p o e m s , a n d p r i n t e d t h e m all as one long p o e m . S o m e o n e w i t h m o d e r n or p o s t m o d e r n interests m i g h t e n j o y reading the result as a unified w o r k . But m o s t of u s w o u l d prefer to divide the long p o e m i n t o separate p o e m s . To d o so, we w o u l d use stylistic a n d c o n t e n t - b a s e d criteria. If, for e x a m p l e , an E. E. C u m m i n g s p o e m followed an Emily Dickinson p o e m , this w o u l d be easy; in o t h e r cases, it w o u l d be m o r e difficult. T h e Bible s h o u l d be treated like this imaginary p o e t r y b o o k . Even t h o u g h o u r p r i n t e d version s h o w s c h a p t e r s a n d verses, these s h o u l d be ignored. It m u s t be i m a g i n e d as a single, c o n t i n u o u s text. F u r t h e r m o r e , we m u s t develop r o b u s t criteria for distinguishing the c o m p o s i t i o n a l u n i t s e m b e d d e d in it. Otherwise, we m i g h t d o the equivalent of r e a d i n g the first t w o lines of a C u m m i n g s p o e m as the c o n c l u s i o n of the p r e c e d i n g D i c k i n s o n p o e m ! T h e criteria u s e d for separating biblical sources are similar to those u s e d to analyze poetry. We read carefully, a t t u n e d to changes in style a n d c o n t e n t , looking for c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n verses. N o n e of these criteria is airtight or absolutely objective. There is n o c o n s e n s u s a b o u t h o w m u c h variation a text m a y c o n t a i n in o r d e r to be considered a unified w o r k . N o r d o scholars always agree o n w h e t h e r or n o t a larger text is self-contradictory. T h u s in s o m e cases w e find real debate a b o u t w h e r e a unit begins a n d / o r ends. In m o s t cases, however, there is w i d e s p r e a d agreement.

Genesis 1-3 as a Unit Genesis 1 - 3 is inconsistent. It r e c o u n t s several events t w i c e — f o r e x a m p l e , the creation of h u m a n k i n d is n a r r a t e d first in 1 : 2 6 - 2 8 a n d t h e n in 2 : 7 - 2 3 . These episodes c a n n o t be seen as a general description of the creation of h u m a n k i n d

in c h a p t e r 1, w h i c h is elaborated a n d filled in c h a p t e r 2, because these t w o a c c o u n t s differ significantly in their detail. In c h a p t e r 1, o n day six, first the land animals are created ( w . 2 4 - 2 5 ) , a n d t h e n m a n a n d w o m a n are created simultan e o u s l y ( w . 2 6 - 2 8 ) . In contrast, in c h a p t e r 2, first m a n is created (v. 7), t h e n the animals are created ( w . 1 8 - 2 0 ) , a n d only after these are f o u n d u n s u i t a b l e to be man's p a r t n e r (v. 20) is w o m a n created ( w . 2 1 - 2 3 ) . A single story, w r i t t e n by a single author, w o u l d n o t be self-contradictory in s u c h a significant matter. This m i g h t be the m o s t significant difference b e t w e e n these stories, b u t once it is n o t e d , o t h e r distinctions quickly b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . Each individual difference by itself m i g h t n o t be convincing, b u t cumulatively, they b e c o m e c o m pelling. O t h e r differences i n c l u d e the fact that in Genesis 1 the deity is called G o d ( ‫ ) א ל ה י ם‬, w h e r e a s in m u c h of c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 the deity is called YHWH ( ‫·א ל ה י ם‬.‫ו ה ד‬τ ‫! י ה‬, '

Elohim

5

"the LORD God"). T h e u n i t s use different w o r d s for crucial t e r m s

like " c r e a t i o n " — t h u s in 1:27, the first h u m a n is "created" ( ‫ ב ר א‬, b-r-'), w h e r e a s in 2:7 the h u m a n is "formed" ( ‫ י צ ר‬, y-tz-r).

In fact, the w o r d translated as "ere-

a t e " ( ‫ ) ב ר א‬is u s e d a total of seven times in 1 : 1 - 2 : 3 , b u t n o t at all in 2 : 4 - 3 : 2 4 . Additionally, the style of c h a p t e r 1 is unlike the style of m o s t of c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 . Genesis 1 is highly s t r u c t u r e d into "days," each w i t h a recurring set of form u l a s (e.g., "God said . . . it w a s so," "And G o d saw that this was good. A n d there w a s evening a n d there w a s m o r n i n g , X day."). In contrast, m o s t of c h a p ters 2 - 3 is free flowing, w i t h a m u c h looser structure, a n d n o n e of these f o r m u laic phrases. This is c o n n e c t e d to a n o t h e r distinction: the s t r u c t u r e of c h a p t e r 1 portrays a p o w e r f u l , majestic G o d , while the G o d of m u c h of c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 — w h o "m0v[es] a b o u t in the garden" (3:8), talks to people ( 3 : 9 - 1 1 ) , a n d even tenderly clothes t h e m ( 3 : 2 1 ) — h a s a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different n a t u r e . These two pictures of G o d are the w o r k of different a u t h o r s .

Giving the Text a Break W h e r e is the literary break b e t w e e n

these two stories? In o t h e r

words,

w h e r e d o e s the story that begins with Genesis 1:1 e n d ? Verse 1:1 a n d the first half of 2:4, n a m e l y 2:4a, f r a m e the story. T h e w o r d pair "heaven . . . earth" (‫הארץ‬

. . . • ‫ ) ה ש מ י‬as well as the verb "to create" ( ‫ ) ב ר א‬a p p e a r together in these

t w o contexts only. This repetition f o r m s a f r a m e or envelope a r o u n d the story. Genesis 2:4a, "Such is the story of h e a v e n a n d earth w h e n they were created," therefore c o n c l u d e s the first story. This d e v i c e — i n w h i c h a p h r a s e or several w o r d s indicate the limits of a u n i t — i s called an "inclusio," a n d it is c o m m o n in biblical writing. For example,

the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 begins ‫ ו י ה י כ ל ״ ה א ר ץ‬, "The whole earth was," a n d c o n c l u d e s ‫כ ל ״ ה א ר ץ‬

‫על״פני‬,

"over the face of the w h o l e earth" (v. 9;

transi, a d a p t e d ) . Similarly, Psalm 8 begins a n d e n d s with the very same verse:

Ό

LORD, o u r Lord, H o w majestic is Your n a m e t h r o u g h o u t the earth" ( w . 2, 10). In general, the w o r d eileh ( ‫ א ל ה‬, "such is") m a y be used either to point b a c k ward (as a c o n c l u s i o n ) or to p o i n t f o r w a r d (as an i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . In this case, however, it c a n n o t be an i n t r o d u c t i o n for t w o reasons: (1) Its use of "heaven a n d earth" specifically refers back to Genesis 1:1 a n d o t h e r instances in that chapter, while this phrase is never f o u n d in 2 : 5 - 3 : 2 4 ; a n d (2) it uses the verb

b-r-'(‫ברא‬,

"to create"), w h i c h is characteristic of c h a p t e r 1 b u t absent in 2 : 5 - 3 : 2 4 . Genesis 2:4b, the s e c o n d part of 2:4, t h u s i n t r o d u c e s a n e w story, w h i c h c o n t i n u e s past c h a p t e r 3. In fact, the vocabulary of 2:4 f u r t h e r suggests that it is c o m p o s i t e ; it is unlikely that a single a u t h o r w o u l d refer to the created w o r l d first as "heaven a n d earth" (2:4a) a n d t h e n as "earth a n d heaven" (2:4b). This explains w h y m a n y Bibles, i n c l u d i n g the JPS translation, begin a n e w p a r a g r a p h w i t h 2:4b, b r e a k i n g in the m i d d l e of a verse.

Two Stories and Their Relationship O n c e the division b e t w e e n these t w o stories is d e t e r m i n e d at the m i d d l e of Genesis 2:4, a final difference b e t w e e n t h e m j u m p s o u t — t h e y are not b o t h ereation stories of the same type. T h e first story describes the creation of the w o r l d , in w h i c h people play a role alongside all else that is created. In contrast, the seco n d creation story has people as its m a i n focus, n a r r a t i n g the creation of parts of the w o r l d only to the extent that they are relevant to people. T h u s l : l - 2 : 4 a is an ancient Israelite story a b o u t the creation of the w o r l d , while 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 is a different story, by a different Israelite a u t h o r with different ideas, a n d its focus is the creation of h u m a n k i n d . This analysis raises t w o issues: If Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a a n d 2 : 4 b - 3 are telling different stories, t h e n w h y not read the s e c o n d story as an elaboration of the first, t h u s reading c h a p t e r s 1 - 3 as one long story? In addition, if we insist o n reading t h e m as t w o stories, is the m o d e l p r o p o u n d e d here, of two stories being w o v e n together, a plausible m o d e l for h o w literature w a s p r o d u c e d in the ancient world? T h e possibility of reading Genesis 1 - 3 as a compositional u n i t y is vitiated by the f u n d a m e n t a l differences in vocabulary, style, a n d content b e t w e e n the two stories. W h i l e in theory, a story a b o u t the creation of h u m a n k i n d might c o m e as an elaboration or c u l m i n a t i o n of a general creation story, in practice we could only claim that this were the case if the two largely agreed in c o n t e n t , style, a n d

vocabulary. Given the significant differences in all of these areas, the stories s h o u l d be separated, a n d viewed as w r i t t e n by different a u t h o r s . T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n , c o n c e r n i n g the b l e n d i n g of the t w o stories together into a single story, highlights o n e of the m a i n differences b e t w e e n m u c h of ancient a n d m o d e r n w r i t i n g — a difference that we m u s t simply accept a n d get u s e d to, or w e will be like Marta (see c h a p t e r 3). In most m o d e r n societies, the n a m e of the a u t h o r is closely linked to the literary w o r k he or s h e has p r o d u c e d ; t h r o u g h copyright control, the a u t h o r can protect that w o r k . Ancient writing w a s quite different. M u c h writing in the ancient Near East was a n o n y m o u s . Beyond that, there was n o c o n c e p t i o n that a w o r k m u s t be copied over exactly. The copyist typically played a creative role in the transmission of texts, o f t e n a d d i n g to t h e m . This m a y be seen m o s t clearly in a variety of M e s o p o t a m i a n texts, most especially the Gilgamesh epic, w h i c h e x p a n d e d over time, a n d even i n c o r p o r a t e d large sections f r o m o t h e r c o m p o s i t i o n s . 6 It m a y also be seen in various Dead Sea Scroll m a n u s c r i p t s of the Torah as well. 7 In fact, in m a n y ways the Bible is like m o d e r n texts that circulate o n the I n t e r n e t — t h e i r original a u t h o r is often u n k n o w n , a n d m a n y users w h o forward the texts revise t h e m or a d d to t h e m in significant ways. We m u s t get u s e d to this different n o t i o n of "text" as we a p p r o a c h the Bible.

Source Criticism of the Torah T h e stories in Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a a n d 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 s h o u l d n o t be viewed as fragm e n t s that b e c a m e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the Torah. Rather, they are each i n t r o d u c tions to a m u c h m o r e extensive d o c u m e n t , or "source," that m a y be f o u n d in the Torah. It is called "source criticism" w h e n we use this type of analysis to divide the Torah text into earlier written d o c u m e n t s that have b e e n c o m b i n e d by editors or redactors. W h e n applied to the Torah as a whole, it suggests that the Torah is c o m p r i s e d of four m a i n s o u r c e s — f o u r originally separate, (more or less) c o m p l e t e d o c u m e n t s — t h a t have b e e n w o v e n together. 8 T h e date of these d o c u m e n t s , called J, E, D, a n d P, has b e e n the subject of m u c h debate in recent biblical scholarship. T h e oldest d o c u m e n t is m o s t likely J, w h i c h was given this n a m e since in Genesis it typically uses the four-letter n a m e of G o d , YHWH (TT1ÌT), w h i c h s o m e Christian translators have transcribed as "Jehovah." T h e JPS translation represents this n a m e as "the LORD," while o t h e r translations use "the Eternal" or Yahweh or Y H W H . Probably of J u d e a n a u t h o r s h i p , this source w a s written in the first half of the m o n a r c h i c period. Next is E, the Elohist d o c u m e n t , so n a m e d because it typically refers to G o d in Genesis u s i n g the t e r m

Elohim

( ‫ א ל י ה י ם‬, ‫״‬God‫)״‬. It m a y originate f r o m the N o r t h e r n k i n g d o m , a n d is likely slightly later t h a n J. Ε is relatively short, a n d unlike the J a n d P, it is unclear if it s h o u l d be viewed as an originally separate d o c u m e n t . Ρ refers to the Priestly source, w h i c h also uses Elohim a n d o t h e r divine n a m e s (but not YHWH) in Genesis. This d o c u m e n t is s h a p e d by Priestly c o n c e r n s , i n c l u d i n g order, purity, a n d assuring the divine presence a m o n g Israel. Its date has b e e n an issue of great d e b a t e in biblical scholarship. Most likely, this source represents a school of t h o u g h t that w a s active over a long p e r i o d of time, b o t h before a n d after the Babylonian exile of 586. T h e D source s t a n d s for Deuteronomy, the final b o o k of the Torah. W i t h the exception of parts of the final chapters, w h i c h contain a diversity of material, most of D e u t e r o n o m y features a special vocabulary a n d particular theological c o n c e r n s — e s p e c i a l l y the p r o p e r w o r s h i p of a single G o d in the p r o p e r way in the p r o p e r place ( J e r u s a l e m ) , w h e r e His "name" resides. Like P, D is n o t a totally unified c o m p o s i t i o n f r o m a single time a n d place, b u t represents a stream of tradition that is m o r e or less c o t e r m i n u s w i t h Ρ W i t h the exception of the D source, w h i c h m o r e or less has its o w n b o o k , the Torah as it is n o w s t r u c t u r e d represents a careful c o m b i n a t i o n of these sources.

Putting the Pieces Together Given the a p p a r e n t existence of individual sources, they m u s t have been edited together, or "redacted," at s o m e point. Most likely this o c c u r r e d in stages. Scholars call the final editor R, for redactor. In this f o r m , the w o r k of the Priestly source h a s a particularly s t r o n g voice, a n d even i n t r o d u c e s the Torah. (Gen. l : l - 2 : 4 a is P; Gen. 2 : 4 b ff. is J.) For this reason, s o m e scholars e q u a t e R with the final voice of Ρ Exactly w h y the sources were i n t e r t w i n e d in this way is unclear. Exploring this issue really involves asking two questions: (1) W h y were all of these sources retained, rather t h a n just retaining the latest or m o s t authoritative one? (2) W h y were they c o m b i n e d in this o d d way, rather t h a n b e i n g left as c o m p l e t e d o c u m e n t s that w o u l d be read side by side, m u c h like the m o d e l of the four different a n d separate gospels, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e the Christian Bible or N e w Testament? Since there is n o direct evidence going b a c k to the redaction of the Torah, these issues m a y be explored only in a m o s t tentative fashion, w i t h plausible rather t h a n definitive answers. Probably the earlier d o c u m e n t s h a d a certain prestige a n d authority in ancient Israel, a n d could n o t simply be d i s c a r d e d . 9 Additionally, the redaction of the Torah f r o m a variety of sources m o s t likely represents an a t t e m p t to e n f r a n c h i s e those g r o u p s w h o held those particular sources

as authoritative. Certainly the Torah does not contain all of the early traditions of Israel. Yet, it does contain the traditions that the redactor felt were important for bringing together a core group of Israel (most likely during the Babylonian exile of 5 8 6 - 5 3 8 B . C . E . ) . The mixing of these sources by intertwining t h e m preserved a variety of sources and perspectives. (Various m e t h o d s of intertwining were u s e d — t h e preferred m e t h o d was to interleave large blocks of material, as in the initial chapters of Genesis. However, w h e n this w o u l d have caused narrative difficulties, as in the flood story or the plagues of Exodus, the sources were interwoven— several verses from one source, followed by several verses from the other.) More than one h u n d r e d years ago, the great American scholar G. Ε Moore called attention to the second-century Christian scholar Tatian, w h o c o m p o s e d the Diatessaron. 1 0 This work is a h a r m o n y of the Gospels, where most of the four canonical gospels are combined into a single work, exactly the same way that scholars propose the four Torah strands of J, E, D, a n d Ρ have been combined. This, along with other ancient examples, shows that even though the classical model posited by source criticism may seem strange to us, it reflects a way that people wrote literature in antiquity. 1 1 The first step for reading the beginning of Genesis is complete. We k n o w that the story that begins in 1:1 e n d s at 2:4a. This is a significant step, since it allows us, encourages us, or perhaps even forces us to read Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a apart from the story that follows. But this is only a technical, preliminary step to interpreting this material. The following chapter will address the meaning of each of these stories.

6 Creation vs. Creationism Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth Primary Reading: Genesis

1-3.

Genesis 1-3 as Science

D

efining the b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n different biblical units, a n d t h u s u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h e r e o n e story e n d s a n d a n o t h e r begins, is a m e a n s toward an

e n d , rather t h a n an e n d in itself. T h e next stage, interpreting the story, or in this case, i n d e p e n d e n t l y interpreting the t w o creation stories e m b e d d e d in Genesis 1 - 3 , is a m o r e difficult a n d a m o r e subjective task t h a n d e t e r m i n i n g that t w o stories have b e e n c o m b i n e d . Interpretation d e p e n d s o n genre. T h u s , as we begin to explore the m e a n i n g of these texts, w e are n o different than Marta (see "The Rules of the Game" in c h a p t e r 3), w h o is c o n f r o n t i n g the n e w s p a p e r — a n d its comics s e c t i o n — f o r the first time. We m a y even be worse off t h a n Marta. We naturally m a k e foreign stories fit the genre that they most resemble f r o m o u r experience. T h e stories in Genesis 1 - 3 deal w i t h c r e a t i o n — w i t h the origin of the w o r l d , of vegetation, of h u m a n life, of the animals. At first b l u s h , they look like science, a genre interested in a n s w e r i n g basic questions about the real s t r u c t u r e of the real w o r l d a n d its c o n stituent features. If we subscribe to m a i n s t r e a m science, Genesis 1 - 3 looks like w r o n g , b a d , or primitive science. Particularly in America, m a n y people u n d e r s t a n d the Bible to be science; in fact, they u n d e r s t a n d it to be m o r e correct t h a n m a i n s t r e a m scientific assertions, w h i c h are, after all, j u s t theories. This b o o k is not the place to explore in detail this position, often called "creationism" or even "creation science." 1 This m o v e m e n t h a s two p r i m a r y problems: (1) it begins w i t h an assertion, not explicit in the Bible itself, that the Bible m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d as literally t r u e — a s science,

natural history, or history; and (2) it ignores evidence within the Bible that biblical texts should not be read in the same way as m o d e r n scientific literature. The first words of the Bible are: "When God began to create heaven and earth"; they are not: "This is a scientific treatment of the origin of the world." In general the Bible does not introduce w o r k s with genre labels; it does not explicitly m a r k the distinction between, for example, history and historical fiction. This is problematic for anyone w h o wants to interpret the Bible as an ancient Israelite, reading it as they did. Indeed, this is perhaps the biggest problem we confront in interpreting the Bible, since n o section contains a library call n u m ber, telling us w h e t h e r it belongs on the fiction or the nonfiction shelves. Nor may we automatically assume that the text, which is over two millennia old, may be read the same way as the c o n t e m p o r a r y genre that it is most similar to. These observations have important implications for Genesis 1 - 3 . They do not begin with a genre label "science," a n d there is n o reason w h y we should pres u m e that the a u t h o r wanted t h e m to be viewed as such. The difficult task of assigning their genre m u s t follow an internal analysis of these texts, and m u s t take into account ancient, rather than m o d e r n , ways of reading texts. 2 Most people u n d e r s t a n d the goal of science as describing the way a particular p h e n o m e n o n or object works or develops. In chapter 5, I raised problems about reading Genesis 1 - 3 as science, since it s h o w e d that this passage incorporates two mutually exclusive accounts of creation. Such contradictions are not acceptable in science; this suggests at the very least that the redactor w h o opted to combine these two stories did not u n d e r s t a n d t h e m as the definitive, scientific account for h o w the world was created. The j o b of the scientist, like the m o d ern historian, is to analyze competing theories, a n d on the basis of evidence to determine w h i c h one is correct.

Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth The two creation stories incorporated into Genesis 1 - 3 should be understood as myths, not as science. "Myth" is an a m b i g u o u s term. Colloquially, it is often u n d e r s t o o d as w r o n g or bad science, as a fundamentally primitive a n d incorrect way of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the world that has n o place in m o d e r n society. In fact, in everyday speech, the statement "That's a myth" is s y n o n y m o u s with "That's false." The scholarly world, particularly within anthropology a n d classical studies, views m y t h — i t s significance a n d its interpretation—in a fundamentally different way. T h o u g h there are almost as m a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of myth as scholars w h o

explore this issue, there is a c o n s e n s u s that m y t h is a n essential, a n d c o n s t r u c tive, e l e m e n t of all cultures. T h e classicist Walter Burkert, in Structure and History in Greek Mythology

and

Ritual, d e v e l o p e d some of the m o s t valuable insights c o n c e r n i n g m y t h . 3 Most u s e f u l is Burkert's observation that " m y t h can be defined as a m e t a p h o r at tale level." 4 Let's imagine that Marta overheard s o m e o n e say to a lover, "You are a rose." Marta w o u l d object, or m i g h t at the very least be b e w i l d e r e d , n o t i n g , "Your lover isn't green, doesn't have t h o r n s , a n d is lacking a flower!" But m e t a p h o r s , u n l i k e nonfigurative language (e.g., "you are reading a book"), are neither right n o r w r o n g . 5 M e t a p h o r s can be classified in o t h e r ways: h e l p f u l or u n h e l p f u l ; original or s t a n d a r d ; etc. Yet all m e t a p h o r s are literally false—by definition. We can say the same a b o u t myths: they m a y be literally false, b u t like m e t a p h o r s , they are t r u e — o f t e n p r o f o u n d l y s o — o n a figurative level. Both m e t a p h o r s a n d m y t h s play an i m p o r t a n t role in society because of the limitations of n o n f i g u r a tive language. T h e m o r e technical definition offered by Burkert of a m y t h is "a traditional tale w i t h secondary, partial reference to s o m e t h i n g of collective i m p o r t a n c e . " 6 Let u s focus o n the core of this definition: " s o m e t h i n g of collective i m p o r t a n c e . " T h e j o b of the interpreter of m y t h s is to discover h o w the m y t h is u s i n g m y t h o logical/metaphorical language to convey " s o m e t h i n g of collective i m p o r t a n c e . " All of the typical tools of interpretation m u s t be u s e d to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t this "something" is, a n d h o w the m y t h is c o n s t r u c t e d to develop its ideas a b o u t this s o m e t h i n g , or in the case of m o r e c o m p l e x m y t h s , these "somethings." N o t only w o r d s a n d their individual m e a n i n g s d e t e r m i n e a literary work's interpretation. T h e way in w h i c h the w o r d s are p a t t e r n e d — t h e i r s t r u c t u r e — i s often as i m p o r t a n t in s h a p i n g m e a n i n g . 7 O n e q u e s t i o n that h e l p s u s u n d e r s t a n d the structure of the first creation story of Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a is: W h e r e does day o n e of creation begin? Various pieces of evidence suggest that it b e g i n s in verse 3, a n d that in t e r m s of structure, there are six p r i m a r y days of creation, w h i c h cover verses 3 - 3 1 . At first, the idea that day one begins in verse 3, a n d n o t with verse 1, s e e m s illogical, b u t every day of creation f r o m day two o n w a r d begins w i t h the formula: "God said, 'Let there be . . ."' ( w . 6, 9, 14, 20, 24). This suggests that the description of day o n e begins only in verse 3: "God said, 'Let there be light'; a n d there was light." T h e significance of the p r e c e d i n g t w o verses a n d their place in the narrative b e c o m e clearer in relation to the c o n c l u d i n g verses, Genesis 2 : l - 4 a . T h e interv e n i n g material, 1 : 3 - 3 1 , is characterized by structure. Each day begins "God said, 'Let . . .'" T h e phrase "(And) G o d said" characterizes the initiation of ereative activity, o c c u r r i n g in eight verses (3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). Surely this is

the story that the psalmist is referring to w h e n he states, "By the w o r d of the LORD

the heavens were m a d e , by the b r e a t h of His m o u t h , all their host" (33:6).

Six times after G o d creates "by the w o r d , " we read "it w a s so" ( w . 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30). Six times G o d sees that w h a t He created w a s g o o d ( w . 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25; w i t h a m o d i f i c a t i o n of "very g o o d " in v. 3 1 ) . 8 Six times we have the refrain, "And there w a s e v e n i n g a n d there w a s m o r n i n g , day . . ." ( w . 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; transi, a d a p t e d ) . All of these p h r a s e s are missing in b o t h 1 : 1 - 3 a n d in 2 : l - 4 a ; the fact that those verses d o n o t fit the p a t t e r n of the central creation story establishes t h e m as "other," as n o t part of the actual story. Instead, they s h o u l d be seen as an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n — o r better, a prologue a n d an e p i l o g u e — t o that story. This prologue a n d epilogue are j o i n e d together n o t only t h r o u g h the elem e n t s that they lack, b u t also t h r o u g h the p r o m i n e n t u s e of alliteration that distinguishes these small units. T h e Bible o p e n s alliteratively: bereishit (‫בראשית ברא‬,

as tohu va-vohu

bara

" W h e n . . . b e g a n to create"); the s e c o n d verse describes the earth ( ‫ ת ה ו ו ב ה ו‬, " u n f o r m e d a n d void") a n d m e n t i o n s a ruach

mer-

achefet ( ‫ ר ו ח מ ר ח פ ת‬, "[divine] w i n d hovering"; transi, a d a p t e d ) . This attention to s o u n d is e c h o e d in verses 2 : 2 - 3 , w h i c h s e e m to revel in the play a m o n g the repeating w o r d s ha-shevi'i

( ‫ ה ש ב י ע י‬, "seventh"), shavat

( ‫ ש ב ת‬, "to cease"), a n d

asah ( ‫ ע ש ה‬, "to do"). Along w i t h the p h r a s e "create . . . h e a v e n a n d earth" ( f o u n d in 1:1 a n d e c h o e d in 2:4a; see "Giving the Text a Break" in c h a p t e r 5), this alliteration h e l p s to define l : l - 2 : 4 a as a unit.

The Meaning of Genesis l:l-2:4a But w h a t does this unit mean? T h e structural e l e m e n t s are n o t repeated for aesthetic p u r p o s e s ; rather, these repetitions e n c o d e a key message of this chapter: G o d is a highly organized, p o w e r f u l creator. He says: It is so, it is g o o d . 9 There are n o ifs or b u t s — t h e w o r l d is completely responsive to His c o m m a n d s . This aspect of the G o d of this creation story is f u r t h e r reflected in a n o t h e r aspect of the story's structure: the m a n n e r in w h i c h these six days of creation m a y be divided into two triads, w h e r e e l e m e n t s A, B, a n d C of each triad are c o n n e c t e d . 1 0 T h e following d i a g r a m illustrates this structure: Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Light

Sky, water bodies

Land, vegetation

Precreation

Postcreation Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Luminaries

Birds, fish

Land animals

O n day one G o d creates light, 1 1 a n d on day four, the luminaries; on day t w o God creates h e a v e n s a n d water, a n d on day five, its inhabitants, birds a n d fish; o n day three G o d creates land a n d vegetation, a n d on day six, land animals, i n c l u d i n g h u m a n k i n d . T h e symmetry, w h i c h is striking, highlights the orderliness of ereation. It is even present in the alliterative m i r r o r i n g of the precreation ( 1 : 1 - 2 ) a n d postcreation ( 2 : l - 4 a ) story. This e m p h a s i s o n o r d e r is n o t s u r p r i s i n g given that this is a Priestly story. T h e Priestly School in ancient Israel c o n c e r n e d itself w i t h order a n d ordering, a n d h o w this reflects o n G o d . 1 2 S u c h c o n c e r n s m a y be seen, for e x a m p l e , in Leviticus 2 0 : 2 5 - 2 6 , w h i c h deals with things that are b e i n g b-d-l ( ‫ ב ד ל‬, "set apart" or "separated"): So you shall set apart the clean beast f r o m the u n c l e a n , the u n c l e a n bird f r o m the clean. You shall not d r a w a b o m i n a t i o n u p o n

yourselves

t h r o u g h beast or bird or a n y t h i n g w i t h w h i c h the g r o u n d is alive, w h i c h I have set apart for y o u to treat as unclean. You shall be holy to Me, for I

the

LORD

a m holy, a n d I have set you apart f r o m o t h e r peoples to be

Mine, ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) That same verbal root is u s e d five times in Genesis 1 ( w . 4, 6, 7, 14, 18). T h e o p p o s i t e of s t r u c t u r e is chaos, a n d it is t h u s a p p r o p r i a t e that 1 : 1 - 2 describe primeval c h a o s — a w o r l d that is " u n f o r m e d a n d void," c o n t a i n i n g d a r k ness a n d a m y s t e r i o u s w i n d . This story does n o t describe creation o u t of n o t h ing (Latin: creatio ex nihilo). Primeval stuff already exists in verses 1 - 2 , a n d the text s h o w s n o c o n c e r n for h o w it originated. Rather, it is a m y t h a b o u t h o w G o d alone s t r u c t u r e d primordial matter into a highly organized world. O n l y u p o n its c o m p l e t i o n is this structure "very good." A n d only t h e n can G o d "rest" ( 2 : 1 - 3 ) . M u c h of the activity of G o d t h r o u g h o u t this story is described u s i n g the verb bara

(‫)ברא‬,

typically translated "to create," a w o r d u s e d m o r e t h a n fifty times in

the Bible. Unlike other creation w o r d s , however, it always has God as its subject. That is, so to speak, G o d m a y bara b u t h u m a n s can never bara (at least according to the attested evidence). This verb a p p e a r s to be part of a small class of H e b r e w w o r d s that are used in reference to G o d only, thereby suggesting that in certain respects, G o d is totally o t h e r . 1 3 Use of the verb bara accentuates G o d s majesty. It also fits the d e p i c t i o n of G o d elsewhere in this m y t h . Language that sets G o d apart is u n u s u a l l y difficult to translate. In most cases, w h e n biblical a u t h o r s ascribed actions to G o d — l i k e "to see," "to do," "to hear," "to f a s h i o n " — t h e y u s e d the same verb typically used for people: they m o d e l e d their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of G o d after their real-life experiences. W h e r e the a u t h o r s avoided depicting G o d t h r o u g h h u m a n analogy, they p o i n t e d to the

incomparability of G o d — w h o m normal language cannot portray. Thus, Genesis 1:1 might (awkwardly) be translated: "In the beginning of God's creation (which is different from h u m a n creation, but "creation" is the closest English word to describe this action) of heaven a n d earth . . .."

Humankind in the Priestly Creation Story Myths, like m a n y other narrative genres, not only describe, but also prescribe. Few are neutral, a n d most make value j u d g m e n t s . Some of the value j u d g m e n t s m a d e by the first creation story are obvious and have been noted already: the world is very good, and God is powerful a n d is heeded. The structure of our chart (above) might suggest that each of the boxed elements, representing what was created on each day, are of equal value. Is this s o — o r as a creation myth, does the text also establish value j u d g m e n t s concerning the most important or significant element(s) of creation? This story highlights the creation of h u m a n k i n d . This is not surprising in a text written by people. The creation of h u m a n k i n d is the longest section, comprising verses 2 6 - 3 0 . Only after people are created is the world "very good" (v. 31), rather than simply "good," as in all of the earlier days of creation. Only peopie "rule" a n d "master" (v. 28). Only for people is the act of creation expressed using the plural "Let us" (v. 26). And only with people does the text express itself in poetry (v. 27). These last two points require further clarification. Let us look more closely at Genesis 1 : 2 6 - 2 7 , which reads: And God said, "Let us m a k e m a n in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth." And God created m a n in His image, in the image of God He created him; male a n d female He created them. The meaning of the first person plural "us" a n d "our" has been the focus of great debate and polemic even in antiquity. 1 4 The suggestion that here God is speaking in the "royal we" is often p r o p o u n d e d . However, this is unlikely, since such usage is otherwise unattested with verbs in the Bible. 1 5 More likely, the text is implicitly portraying God in terms of a h u m a n king: God is talking to his royal counselors or cabinet. 1 6 Such imagery appears clearly in other biblical texts, such as J o b 1 - 2 , Isaiah 6, and especially 1 Kings 22:19: "I saw the L O R D seated u p o n His throne, with all the host of heaven standing in

a t t e n d a n c e to the right a n d to the left of H i m . " T h e creation of people is so significant that this creative act alone d e m a n d s that G o d consult his cabinet, c o m prised of angels or o t h e r heavenly figures. But as the next verse m a k e s clear via a singular verb, consultation is their only role: G o d creates people w i t h o u t their assistance. In several respects, the N e w Revised S t a n d a r d Version (NRSV) translation better c a p t u r e s the essence of Genesis 1:27 t h a n the JPS translation. T h e NRSV p r i n t s the verse i n d e n t e d , as poetry: So G o d created h u m a n k i n d in His image, In the image of G o d He created t h e m ; Male a n d female He created t h e m . T h o u g h a m o r e t h o r o u g h discussion of H e b r e w p o e t r y will wait until we s t u d y the m o r e poetic texts such as p r o p h e c y a n d p s a l m s (see "The Poetry of Isaiah" in c h a p t e r 17), this verse h a s obviously n o n p r o s a i c features: its division into distinct sections of roughly equal length, a n d its u s e of repetition (e.g., "God," "ereated," "image," "them") a m o n g its various lines. This poetic interlude in the m i d die of an otherwise prose passage heightens the significance of the creation of humankind.

In the Image of God A close look at the H e b r e w w o r d i n g resolves the m e a n i n g of the p h r a s e "image of G o d 1 ‫ ״‬/ as well as w h e t h e r it is " m a n " or " h u m a n k i n d " that is b e i n g created. Genesis 1:27 uses the w o r d ha-adam

( ‫ ) ה א ד ם‬. Generally this is a gender-neutral

term, used to convey the m e a n i n g " h u m a n k i n d " as well as "a person" of either gender. T h e last part of the verse, "Male a n d female He created t h e m , " m a k e s it clear that ha-adam

refers to " h u m a n k i n d " rather t h a n "man." (Largely u n d e r the

influence of Genesis 2 — w h i c h first describes the creation of a m a n , a n d t h e n the creation of a w o m a n — G e n . 1:27 h a s s o m e t i m e s b e e n u n d e r s t o o d as "God ereated m a n . . . ." But as we have seen, these are two separate creation stories, a n d Genesis 2 s h e d s n o light o n the m e a n i n g of ha-adam

in 1:27, w h i c h is gender-

neutral.) T h e w o r d tzelem ( ‫ צ ל ם‬, "image") elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For e x a m p l e , the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem w h e n it refers to " m e n s c u l p t u r e d u p o n the walls, figures of C h a l d e a n s d r a w n in vermilion" ( 2 3 : 1 4 ) or w h e n it accuses Israel of fornicating w i t h "phallic images" (16:17). T h e w o r d o f t e n refers to idols (e.g., N u m . 3 3 : 5 2 ; Ezek. 7:20; A m o s 5:26; 2 C h r o n . 23:17).

It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions, b o t h Jewish a n d Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms, as in Exodus 24:10: "and they saw the God of Israel: u n d e r His feet. . . ." Ezekiel, a priest whose writing shares m a n y features with that of the Priestly school, describes God in highly corporeal terms in his initial vision (Eze. l : 2 6 - 2 8 a ) : Above the expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and on top, u p o n this semblance of a throne, there was the semblance of a h u m a n form. From what appeared as his loins u p , I saw a gleam as of a m b e r — w h a t looked like a fire encased in a frame; and from what appeared as his loins d o w n , I saw what looked like fire. There was a radiance all about him. Like the appearance of the b o w which shines in the clouds on a day of rain, such was the appearance of the s u r r o u n d i n g radiance. That was the appearance of the semblance of the Presence of the L O R D . God is here depicted as a physical being, w h o has an image in "the semblance of a h u m a n form." Furthermore, the gender of God cannot be distinguished, since from loins d o w n , God is encased by fire. This may fit quite neatly the possible implications of Genesis 1:27: that h u m a n k i n d , created male and female, mimics G o d . 1 8 However we interpret the creation of h u m a n k i n d , these creations are unlike any other. Various elements in Genesis 1 : 2 6 - 3 0 highlight the significance of humankind's being created in God's (physical) image, with male and female equal. The conclusion of this myth, however, describes the Sabbath in a m a n n e r that even surpasses h u m a n k i n d — o n l y the Sabbath is "declared holy" (Gen. 2:3). 1 9 Holiness is especially important within the Priestly system, in which the Holy Sabbath plays a leading role (see especially Exod. 3 1 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) . Thus, in offering these evaluations, the first creation story highlights the importance of both h u m a n k i n d and the Sabbath.

The Meaning of Genesis 2:4b-3:24 Critical biblical scholarship allows u s — p e r h a p s even forces u s — t o see Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a and 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 as two distinct stories that should be interpreted separately. Of course we cannot easily forget the preceding story as we read the Garden of Eden story. However, it is even harder to p u t aside all that we already

" k n o w " a b o u t this story itself. N o biblical story is m o r e familiar in Western culture. As it h a p p e n s , the story as widely k n o w n h a s b e e n filled out t h r o u g h vario u s (Christian) interpretations. For e x a m p l e , n o w h e r e does the text itself tell u s w h a t the f o r b i d d e n fruit was. In early Christian tradition it was generally u n d e r s t o o d as an apple, w h e r e a s early J e w i s h tradition offered several o p i n i o n s as to the fruit's identity, w i t h the fig b e i n g the m o s t p o p u l a r — a n d contextually the m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e (see especially Gen. 3 : 7 ) . 2 0 O t h e r dearly held views of this text are also n o t b o r n e out by a close reading. T h u s , we m i g h t believe that its m a i n t h e m e is the curse received by the w o m a n (and all w o m e n ) , yet the w o r d "curse" is absent in God's c o m m e n t s to her (Gen. 3:16), while it is present in God's s t a t e m e n t s b o t h to the s e r p e n t (3:14) a n d to the m a n (3:17). 2 1 Moreover, the d o c t r i n e s of the Fall of Man or original sin are n o w h e r e to be f o u n d in this passage, t h o u g h they a p p e a r in early Christian interpretation of the text. 2 2 The G a r d e n Story is a b o u t immortality lost a n d sexuality g a i n e d . 2 3 It begins f r o m a simple premise: originally, p e o p l e were immortal. In fact, the h u g e life s p a n s recorded in the early c h a p t e r s of Genesis are part of an effort to m a k e a bridge b e t w e e n that original immortality a n d "normal" life spans. As i m m o r t a l beings, they were asexual; in the G a r d e n story G o d does n o t tell t h e m to "be fertile a n d increase" as they were told in the first creation story (Gen.

1:28).

Sexuality is discovered only after eating f r o m the tree, w h e n "they perceived that they were n a k e d " (3:7). In fact, the divine c o m m a n d of 2:17 s h o u l d n o t be u n d e r s t o o d as o f t e n t r a n s l a t e d — " f o r as s o o n as y o u eat of it, y o u shall die" (so the JPS t r a n s l a t i o n ) — b u t rather "for as s o o n as y o u eat of it, you shall b e c o m e mortal." T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n (procreative) sexuality a n d mortality is c o m pelling a n d w a s well u n d e r s t o o d even in antiquity—if people were to be b o t h sexually procreative a n d immortal, disastrous o v e r p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d result. 2 4 Many details w i t h i n c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 s u p p o r t this interpretation. T h e tree that is first f o r b i d d e n is (literally) "the tree of k n o w l e d g e of good a n d bad." Here da-at ( ‫ ד ע ת‬, "knowledge") is b e i n g used in a sense that it often has in the Bible: intimate or sexual k n o w l e d g e . "Good a n d b a d " is b e i n g u s e d here as a figure of s p e e c h called a "merism": t w o o p p o s i t e t e r m s are j o i n e d by the w o r d "and"; the resulting figure m e a n s "everything" or "the ultimate." 2 5 (A m e r i s m is likewise u s e d in Genesis 1:1, "heaven a n d earth," w h i c h there m e a n s the entire world.) T h e w o r d s "good a n d bad" have n o m o r a l c o n n o t a t i o n here. O n l y after the p r i m o r d i a l c o u p l e eat f r o m the tree d o they gain sexual awareness. I n d e e d , i m m e d i a t e l y after this story c o n c l u d e s , we read " N o w the m a n

k n e w his wife Eve, a n d she conceived a n d b o r e Cain" (Gen. 4:1). That is, eating f r o m the tree of "knowledge" leads to a very specific type of "knowing." N o w h e r e in the text is this k n o w l e d g e d e p i c t e d as intellectual or ethical. This reading also explains w h y the tree of life is m e n t i o n e d only t o w a r d the e n d of the story (Gen. 3:22). Early in the story, p e o p l e w e r e i m m o r t a l , so that tree offered n o advantage, a n d t h u s was n o t m e n t i o n e d . However, only after eating f r o m the tree of ultimate "knowledge," b e c o m i n g sexual, a n d b e c o m i n g m o r tal, d o e s the tree of life c o m e i n t o focus. Eating f r o m this tree w o u l d allow p e o pie to b e c o m e b o t h i m m o r t a l a n d sexual, creating a n o v e r p o p u l a t i o n p r o b l e m . T h e first c o u p l e w a s expelled n o t as p u n i s h m e n t , b u t so that they m i g h t n o t "take also f r o m the tree of life a n d eat, a n d live forever!" (3:22). T h e r e n a m i n g of the w o m a n as Eve, chaw ah ( ‫ ח ו ה‬, "progenitress"), "because s h e w a s the m o t h e r of all the living" (Gen. 3:20), h a p p e n s only after eating f r o m the tree. This too bolsters the "sexual" reading of this s t o r y — e a t i n g of the tree of ultimate "knowledge" t u r n s the wife of A d a m f r o m ha-ishah

(‫האשה‬,

"the

w o m a n " ) into a (potential) m o t h e r . God's response to the w o m a n after she eats f r o m the tree is not a curse. T h e w o r d s "And to the w o m a n He said, / '1 will m a k e m o s t severe / Your p a n g s in childbearing; / In p a i n shall y o u b e a r children. / Yet y o u r urge shall be for y o u r h u s b a n d , / A n d he shall rule over you'" (Gen. 3:16) are a description of women's n e w state: procreative, w i t h all the "pains" c o n n e c t e d to p r o c r e a t i o n in the prem o d e r n w o r l d , i n c l u d i n g the n a t u r a l p a i n of childbirth. This verse is n o t stating (as a h a r m o n i s t i c reading of Genesis 1 - 3 m i g h t imply) that before eating the fruit women

gave b i r t h

painlessly,

but

now

they would

have

labor

pains.

F u r t h e r m o r e , it n o t e s that w o m e n will n o t d o w h a t m o s t p e o p l e d o — t r y to avoid p a i n at all c o s t — b e c a u s e "your urge shall be for y o u r h u s b a n d , / A n d he shall rule over you." T h e m e a n i n g of this last section is a m b i g u o u s . T h e root m-sh-l ( ‫ מ ש ל‬, "to rule") has a general sense, so that its use m i g h t suggest an overall hierarchy of male over female. However, the context of this verse suggests that it m e a n s merely that m e n will d e t e r m i n e w h e n c o u p l e s engage in sexual intercourse.26 It is difficult to d e t e r m i n e the attitude of this m y t h m a k e r t o w a r d the n e w state that he is d e s c r i b i n g . 2 7 Is h e h a p p y that a b o r i n g life as asexual i m m o r t a l s in E d e n h a s b e e n t r a d e d for a challenging, sexual life outside of Eden? O r does he miss immortality? O r is h e b e i n g merely descriptive, n o t i n g h o w h u m a n k i n d m o v e d f r o m an earlier stage to its c u r r e n t one? T h e Bible (in contrast to m u c h of Victorian a n d post-Victorian society) h a s a generally positive attitude t o w a r d h u m a n sexuality, as m a y be seen m o s t clearly f r o m the Song of Songs (see "Sex in the Song . . ." in c h a p t e r 25). In various places, it sees w o m e n in particular

(in contrast to m e n ) as very sexual beings (see especially Proverbs 1 - 9 ) . T h u s , it is quite reasonable w i t h i n a biblical context to see Eve as a type of P a n d o r a figu r e , 2 8 w h o is to be c o m m e n d e d for b r i n g i n g sex into this world.

Implications and Conclusions Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a a n d 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 are two separate stories, written by different a u t h o r s u s i n g different styles. T h e y are b o t h m y t h s — n e i t h e r aims primarily at offering a scientific description of "the earth a n d everything u p o n it" (Neh. 9:6). They are m e t a p h o r s on the story level, traditional tales dealing w i t h issues of collective i m p o r t a n c e . As s u c h , they are "creating" worlds. T h e first story describes a very good w o r l d , w h i c h is highly s t r u c t u r e d a n d controlled b y a m o s t p o w e r f u l G o d w h o in s o m e ways is so dissimilar f r o m h u m a n s that he even h a s his o w n w o r d , bara

(‫)ברא‬,

to express his creative

activity. The w o r l d of the s e c o n d story is m u c h m o r e a m b i g u o u s . Its G o d , a m a s t e r potter (Gen. 2 : 7 ) , 2 9 is m u c h m o r e h u m a n l i k e , w a l k i n g a n d talking, even sewing (3:21). Also this w o r l d is u n l i k e that in the p r e v i o u s story: it lacks the g e n d e r equality of the previous story, a n d it is n o t "very good." M o d e r n "critical" biblical s c h o l a r s h i p fosters these observations by allowing the stories to be disengaged f r o m each other, allowing each to be seen as an i n d e p e n d e n t story, reflecting its author's perspectives. It u n d e r s t a n d s t h e m as constructive m y t h s , w h i c h h e l p e d to f r a m e the very essence of Israelite selfu n d e r s t a n d i n g , as well as their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of their relationship to their G o d , a n d to the w o r l d that they believed He h a d created.

7 The Ancestors as Heroes Primary Reading: Genesis 12-50

(esp. chaps. 12, 20, 26, 37).

Patriarchal History?

T

he Book of Genesis is often divided into two parts: chapters

1-11,

Universal Myth; and chapters 1 2 - 5 0 , Patriarchal History. To the extent that n a m e s help us shape h o w we read units, these n a m e s (as well as these divisions) are b o t h problematic. The appellation "Universal Myth" is the less problematic of the two. By and large, the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be viewed as m y t h s in the sense 1 described in chapter 6. They are stories dealing with issues of collective importance, a n d should not be seen as science, natural history, or history. Most of the stories deal with universal concerns. This is certainly the case for the initial stories, as I showed in chapter 6, but it is also true of most of the later stories. Genesis 10 is a long, segmented genealogy 1 that deals with the relationships a m o n g the earth's various peoples. Likewise, 1 1 : 1 - 9 contains the well-known Tower of Babel story, which ends: "and from there the L O R D scattered them over the face of the whole earth"—it is hard to imagine a more universal story! This universal setting makes sense, since the first eleven chapters of Genesis may be read as a dialogue between "crime and punishment," 2 or more specifically, as successive failed attempts by God to create an obedient h u m a n k i n d : the Eden generation disobeys, the flood generation disobeys, and finally the generation of the Tower of Babel disobeys. These failures justify the choosing of Abraham in chapter 12. 3 Yet Abraham, or Abram, as he is first called, is not first introduced in Genesis 12. Rather, he is introduced in the genealogy in 11:26: "When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran." In fact, one version of A b r a m s migration from Mesopotamia is preserved in verse 31: "Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans

for the land of C a n a a n ; b u t w h e n they h a d c o m e as far as H a r a n , they settled there." T h u s 1 2 : 1 , "The LORD said to A b r a m , 'Go forth f r o m y o u r native land a n d f r o m y o u r father's h o u s e to the land that I will s h o w you,'" is n o t the b e g i n n i n g of a n e w story. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h o u g h m u c h in c h a p t e r s 1 - 1 1 is universal in outlook, n o t all of the material m a y be characterized that way. Genesis 2 : 1 - 3 describes the origin of the Shabbat, w h i c h is a u n i q u e l y Israelite institution, as "a sign for all time b e t w e e n Me a n d the p e o p l e of Israel" (Exod. 31:17). T h u s , this s u p p o s e d l y u n i versai i n t r o d u c t i o n i n c l u d e s e l e m e n t s of p a r t i c u l a r i t y — w h i c h is n o t surprising, given that Israelites wrote these stories for an Israelite a u d i e n c e . T h e term "Patriarchal History" is d o u b l y p r o b l e m a t i c as it is applied to c h a p ters 1 2 - 5 0 : they are neither "patriarchal" n o r are they "history" in the c o m m o n ly u n d e r s t o o d sense of the w o r d . T h e Matriarchs play a m a j o r role in m a n y of these stories. 4 In Genesis 27, it is Rebekah w h o m a k e s sure that the right son (Jacob, n o t Esau) receives the blessing f r o m Isaac. In 2 5 : 2 2 , w h e n she feels the t w o children struggling in her w o m b , she directly inquires of the LORD, a n d is a n s w e r e d directly (v. 23). Tamar in Genesis 3 8 is a n o t h e r s t r o n g w o m a n , o u t s m a r t i n g h e r father-in-law, J u d a h . She is n o t c o n d e m n e d b y the text; in fact J u d a h recognizes that "She is m o r e right t h a n I" (38:26), a n d she is r e w a r d e d w i t h children. Her first b o r n s o n , Perez, is the ancestor of David. She is even n a m e d in a blessing in Ruth 4:12: "may y o u r h o u s e be like the h o u s e of Perez w h o m Tamar b o r e to J u d a h . " T h u s , a l t h o u g h the Patriarchs o u t n u m b e r the Matriarchs in t e r m s of verses, a n d a l t h o u g h the society d e p i c t e d is by a n d large patriarchal (that is, the m a i n locus of p o w e r is in the m e n ) , 5 this unit s h o u l d n o t be called "Patriarchal

History."

Meanwhile, "history" is n o t o r i o u s l y h a r d to define. It is often u n d e r s t o o d as an a c c o u n t of w h a t actually t o o k place. 6 S u c h a c c o u n t s can never be identical to the events themselves, yet we typically j u d g e historians by h o w closely their a c c o u n t m i r r o r s or m a p s those e v e n t s — b y w h a t they a d d , omit, or twist. "History" in this sense hardly applies to the narratives in Genesis 12—50. There is n o reason to believe that its a u t h o r s were trying to relate exactly w h a t h a p p e n e d , or even w h a t they believed to be historically true. T h e stories were c o m p o s e d m u c h later t h a n the events they depict, for they reflect the b a c k g r o u n d of that later p e r i o d . ‫ ׳‬For these reasons, I avoid the t e r m "Patriarchal History."

Role Models? T h e stories of Genesis 1 2 - 5 0 are often u n d e r s t o o d to be p r e s e n t i n g the ancestors as p a r a d i g m a t i c figures, as role m o d e l s w h o s e behavior s h o u l d be e m u l a t e d

b y the c o m m u n i t y . Probably this way of reading the stories is very old, for it is c u s t o m a r y to view ancestors in this idealized fashion. However, these stories were likely not u n d e r s t o o d this way d u r i n g the biblical period. T h e biblical text c o r r o b o r a t e s this claim. It contains m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d references to A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b outside of Genesis. (Isaac is hardly m e n t i o n e d , j u s t as he is hardly m e n t i o n e d in Genesis.) For e x a m p l e , after Israel sins, Moses prays to G o d , asking h i m to r e m e m b e r A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b (see, e.g., Exod. 32:13; Deut. 9:27). However, never o n c e d o e s Moses tell the Israelites to r e m e m b e r the Patriarchs a n d to e m u l a t e their behavior. Even Isaiah 51:2, an exilic p r o p h e t i c text that o p e n s "Look b a c k to A b r a h a m y o u r father / A n d to Sarah w h o b r o u g h t y o u forth," d o e s not c o n t i n u e by saying that you s h o u l d follow their actions. Prophetic literature a n d Psalms offer m a n y o p p o r t u n i t i e s to e n c o u r a g e the p e o p l e to e m u l a t e their ancestors, b u t this is never done once, i m p l y i n g that they were n o t viewed as role m o d e l s in the biblical period. In fact, a reading of the stories a b o u t the ancestors w i t h o u t the p r e s u m p t i o n that they are role m o d e l s suggests that they have quite a few warts. This is clearest w i t h Jacob, w h o s e w h o l e life is s u f f u s e d w i t h trickery. His brother, Esau, is quite correct w h e n he r e m a r k s , "Was he, t h e n , n a m e d J a c o b that he m i g h t s u p plant m e these t w o times? First he t o o k away m y birthright a n d n o w he h a s t a k e n away m y blessing!" (Gen. 27:36), p u n n i n g o n the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the w o r d s bekhorah

( ‫ ב כ ו ר ה‬, "birthright") a n d berakhah

( ‫ ב ר כ ה‬, "blessing"). The

entire life story of J a c o b could be read as a type of morality tale: trick o t h e r s a n d you shall be t r i c k e d . 8 He tricks his brother, a n d t h e n leads a life of b e i n g tricked by others, i n c l u d i n g his wife ( 3 1 : 1 9 - 3 2 ) a n d his children (chap. 37). This is a g r o u p of stories f r o m w h i c h ancient Israelites m i g h t have learned a b o u t the d a n gers of trickery, as well as the divine c o n c e r n b e s t o w e d o n their ancestor n a m e d Israel or Jacob, b u t it does n o t illustrate a p a r a d i g m that s h o u l d be e m u l a t e d . T h e same is true of A b r a h a m . N o w h e r e d o e s the text of Genesis or a n y o t h e r biblical text suggest that each Israelite s h o u l d be p r e p a r e d to sacrifice his child, as A b r a h a m was in c h a p t e r 22. In fact, that story in its c u r r e n t f o r m suggests that the p u r p o s e of this test w a s to r e w a r d A b r a h a m by p r o m i s i n g that his descend e n t s w o u l d b e c o m e n u m e r o u s a n d c o n q u e r the land of Israel, thereby b e c o m ing a source of blessing for o t h e r s ( 2 2 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . 9 Several o t h e r actions p e r f o r m e d by A b r a h a m d o not provide suitable m o d els for e m u l a t i o n . For example, in Genesis 12, fairly early in the narrative w h e n he a n d his wife are still called A b r a m a n d Sarai, A b r a m passes her off as his sister, so that he will n o t be killed ( 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 ) . Sarai is taken into the royal h a r e m (v. 15) as Pharaoh's wife (v. 19)! A b r a m is i n d e e d saved, b u t at Sarai's expense. This is n o t paradigmatic, righteous behavior. Many early postbiblical retellings of this story, written after the idea devel-

o p e d that the Patriarchs s h o u l d be viewed as role m o d e l s , r e s p o n d to the moral p r o b l e m that these stories p r e s e n t . 1 0 Jubilees, a p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c w o r k 1 1 f r o m the s e c o n d pre-Christian century, n o t e s twice in retelling Genesis 12 that Sarai w a s taken "by force" ( 1 3 : 1 1 - 1 3 ) . T h e great Hellenistic J e w i s h scholar Philo c o m m e n t e d that Sarai " w h o in a foreign c o u n t r y was at the mercy of a licentious a n d cruel-hearted d e s p o t a n d h a d n o t o n e to protect h e r — f o r h e r h u s b a n d w a s h e l p less . . ." (On Abraham,

9 4 - 9 5 ) . In the Genesis A p o c r y p h o n , a greatly e x p a n d e d

retelling of Genesis in Aramaic f o u n d a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls ( 2 0 : 1 0 ) a n d in the medieval Midrash T a n c h u m a (Lekh Lekhah 5), A b r a m is d e p i c t e d as w e e p ing, rather t h a n callously passing his wife off. In each of these retellings, Abraham's role is rewritten so that he is a victim of circumstances. The Legends of the Jews, a c o m p i l a t i o n b y Louis Ginzberg of rabbinic sources f r o m the postbiblical p e r i o d t h r o u g h the medieval p e r i o d , s h o w s a similar tendency. D r a w i n g f r o m a variety of postbiblical sources, this is h o w Ginzberg retells part of the story of Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 : 1 2 O n his j o u r n e y f r o m C a n a a n to Egypt, A b r a h a m first observed the b e a u ty of Sarah. Chaste as he was, he h a d never before l o o k e d at her, b u t now, w h e n they were w a d i n g t h r o u g h a stream, he saw the reflection of her beauty in the water like the brilliance of the s u n . W h e r e f o r e he s p o k e to h e r t h u s , "The Egyptians are very sensual, a n d I will p u t thee in a casket that n o h a r m befall m e o n a c c o u n t of thee." At the Egyptian boundary, the tax collectors asked h i m a b o u t the c o n t e n t s of the casket, a n d A b r a h a m told t h e m he h a d barley in it. "No," they said, "it c o n t a i n s wheat." "Very well," replied A b r a h a m , "I a m p r e p a r e d to pay the tax o n wheat." T h e officers t h e n h a z a r d e d the guess, "It contains pepper!" A b r a h a m agreed to pay the tax o n p e p p e r , a n d w h e n they charged h i m w i t h concealing gold in the casket, h e did n o t refuse to pay the tax o n gold, a n d finally o n precious stones. Seeing that he d e m u r r e d to n o charge, h o w e v e r high, the tax collectors, m a d e t h o r o u g h l y suspicious, insisted u p o n his u n f a s t e n i n g the casket a n d letting t h e m e x a m i n e the contents. W h e n it was forced o p e n , the w h o l e of Egypt was r e s p l e n d e n t w i t h the b e a u t y of Sarah. In c o m p a r i s o n with her, all o t h e r beauties were like apes c o m p a r e d w i t h m e n . She excelled Eve herself. T h e servants of P h a r a o h o u t b i d o n e a n o t h e r in seeking to obtain possession of her, t h o u g h they were of o p i n i o n that so radiant a b e a u t y o u g h t n o t to r e m a i n the p r o p e r t y of a private individual. They r e p o r t e d the m a t t e r to the king, a n d P h a r a o h sent a p o w e r f u l a r m e d force to b r i n g Sarah to the palace, a n d so b e w i t c h e d was he b y h e r c h a r m s that those w h o h a d

brought him the news of her c o m i n g into Egypt were loaded d o w n with bountiful gifts. This account (or more correctly combination of accounts) "cleans u p " the image of Abraham. So d o similar sources that insist, contrary to what the biblical text implies, that each time Pharaoh attempted to c o n s u m m a t e the relationship, an angel protecting Sarai struck h i m . ‫( ״‬A m u c h earlier retelling of the story by J o s e p h u s suggests: "But God thwarted his [Pharaoh's] criminal passion by an outbreak of disease a n d political disturbance." 1 4 ) These various retellings, which embellish the biblical text, highlight for us the questionable behavior of the biblical Abraham, further suggesting that he, along with the other ancestors of Genesis, are not intended as role models.

The Ancestors as Symbols15 Given that Genesis was written over a long time period by different authors, we may not expect all of the ancestral stories to share the same goal. For example, in Genesis 14 Abram is presented as a great warrior, 1 6 an image that is not shared with the rest of Abraham material—this presents a single, particular view of Abraham in ancient Israel, which was preserved in the biblical text. Thus, the search for a single explanation for all of these ancestral stories is futile. In fact, it is likely that many of t h e m were reworked as they were transmitted, and their original p u r p o s e or p u r p o s e s were obscured in the process. However, in some cases, their goals remain visible. Some of the stories in Genesis are symbolic, where the ancestor represents Israel as a whole, or a group within Israel. This is evident in the story we examined above, Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 : There was a famine in the land, and Abram went d o w n to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I k n o w what a beautiful w o m a n you are. If the Egyptians see you, a n d think, 'She is his wife,' they will kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to you." W h e n Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw how very beautiful the w o m a n was. Pharaoh's courtiers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh, and the w o m a n was taken into Pharaoh's palace. And because of her, it went well with Abram; he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male and female slaves, she-asses, a n d camels. But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh

a n d his h o u s e h o l d w i t h m i g h t y plagues on a c c o u n t of Sarai, the wife of A b r a m . P h a r a o h sent for A b r a m a n d said, " W h a t is this y o u have d o n e to me! W h y did y o u n o t tell m e that she w a s y o u r wife? W h y did y o u say, 'She is m y sister,' so that I t o o k her as m y wife? Now, here is y o u r wife; take h e r a n d begone!" A n d P h a r a o h p u t m e n in charge of h i m , a n d they sent h i m off w i t h his wife a n d all that h e possessed. This story has b e e n the subject of m u c h s t u d y because it is repeated again in Genesis, in c h a p t e r s 2 0 (with A b r a h a m a n d Sarah) a n d 2 6 (with Isaac a n d R e b e k a h ) . 1 7 The differences a m o n g the three versions are significant, a n d yield i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h o w stories were told a n d retold in ancient Israel, a n d h o w variants of the same story m i g h t have d e v e l o p e d over time. This c o m p a r i s o n also highlights e l e m e n t s that are u n i q u e to each story. Several features stick o u t in the Genesis 12 version: A b r a m , motivated by a famine, specifically goes to Egypt; t h r o u g h deceit he is e n r i c h e d there; a n d he is eventually expelled. It is quite o d d that despite Pharaoh's a p p a r e n t anger at A b r a m , A b r a m gets to k e e p the various possessions that P h a r a o h h a d given h i m . W h e n told in this outline f o r m , it is evident that story is a "pre-telling" of the later story of Israel in Egypt. According to the J o s e p h story, Israel (the p e r s o n a n d the n a t i o n ) e n d s u p in Egypt d u e to a famine. (Contrast this with Genesis 20, w h i c h is set in Gerar.) There the Israelites are ultimately e n r i c h e d w h e n they ask their Egyptian n e i g h b o r s to "borrow" silver a n d gold objects a n d g a r m e n t s (Exod. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). T h e Israelites are ultimately expelled (Exod. 1 2 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) . T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 a n d the E x o d u s story is sealed by the w o r d nega'im

( • ‫ נ ג ע י‬, "plagues") in Genesis 12:17 a n d again in

E x o d u s 11:1 (of the plagues b r o u g h t against P h a r a o h ) . T h e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n these two stories were recognized in classical Jewish sources. Genesis Rabbah, an early rabbinic m i d r a s h (a type of Bible c o m m e n t a r y ) , n o t e s certain verbal similarities b e t w e e n o u r u n i t a n d later Torah texts: it i n t r o d u c e s these observations by o b s e r v i n g that "God said to A b r a h a m o u r father, 'Go a n d p r e p a r e the p a t h for y o u r children'" (Genesis Rabbah 40:6). T h e medieval c o m m e n t a t o r N a c h m a n i d e s , active in the t h i r t e e n t h century, n o t e d various t h e m a t i c c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n these stories, a n d c o n c l u d e s by n o t i n g , "Absolutely e v e r y t h i n g that h a p p e n e d to the father h a p p e n e d to the children" ( c o m m e n t a r y o n Gen. 12:10). For these scholars, h i s t o r y — o r m o r e precisely, certain e l e m e n t s of h i s t o r y — i s cyclical, 1 8 a n d t h u s w h a t h a p p e n s once "helps" an event h a p p e n again. M o d e r n biblical s c h o l a r s h i p u n d e r s t a n d s the s a m e data differently—it a s s u m e s that an a u t h o r prefigures later events by c o m p o s i n g a story with the same e l e m e n t s b u t setting it at an earlier time. This highlights the i m p o r t a n c e of that later event. Here, the E x o d u s motif, o n e of the most central

motifs of the entire Bible, is prefigured—this may be seen as a type of fulfillment of Deuteronomy 16:3, which enjoins that the Exodus should be recalled "as long as you live." Deuteronomy in particular does this by connecting various laws to the Exodus. 1 9 The centrality of the Exodus is also emphasized by placing it at the very beginning of the ancestral stories, in Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 . It is difficult to k n o w h o w an ancient Israelite would have "read" Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 , because, as is the case for biblical texts in general, it does not contain a genre label. We might distinguish various texts that present the past with such labels as "true history," "symbolic history," "historical fiction," or "light entertainment set in the past." Using various internal and external clues, we may sometimes surmise to which category a particular text belongs. In the case of Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 , an overabundance of clues associating this passage with the Exodus would have suggested to the ancient Israelite that it is symbolic. Rather than depicting real events, it was meant to bolster the importance of the Exodus, and to s u p p o r t a view of providence that suggests a deity w h o protects his peop i e — w h o goes d o w n with t h e m into exile, but also returns with t h e m from there (see Gen. 46:4). Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 is not u n i q u e as a symbolic text. Others may be identified by significant similarities between the text in Genesis and later texts or events, or w h e n oddities in the text are best explained by observing that a story in Genesis is following the script of another story. These criteria are somewhat subjective, and isolating these symbolic stories can be difficult, especially because the Bible preserves for us only a small part of the traditions of ancient Israel. O t h e r stories may quite possibly be symbolic, but we can n o longer recognize what they are patterned after. Eor this reason we cannot say h o w m a n y or what proportion of the ancestral stories in Genesis are symbolic.

The Joseph Story In m a n y ways, the Joseph story is different from m a n y of the other stories in Genesis. Although there are a small n u m b e r of inconsistencies within this story, s u c h as w h e t h e r Joseph was sold to the Midianites (37:28a, 36) or Ishmaelites ( 3 7 : 2 5 - 2 7 , 28b), these are rather inconsequential w h e n compared to contradictions in earlier sections of Genesis. Even chapter 38, the story of J u d a h and Tamar, which interrupts the flow of the J o s e p h story, is well integrated into the larger story t h r o u g h use of theme and vocabulary. 2 0 There is a sense of drama a n d deep interest in what we w o u l d call h u m a n psychology throughout the story. Genesis 3 7 - 5 0 incorporates a variety of traditions; it was not the w o r k of a single author. However, it does not contain the usual sources found in Genesis

0 , E, P), a n d it c o n t a i n s m a n y fewer c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a n the previous part of the b o o k . For these reasons, several scholars u n d e r s t a n d the story as a separate novella; 2 1 in a n y case, we m a y certainly s p e a k of the J o s e p h story. Several e l e m e n t s of the J o s e p h story are clearly symbolic. For example, a significant t h e m e of this story is the conflict a m o n g the b r o t h e r s (especially J o s e p h a n d J u d a h ) , w h i c h mirrors the conflicts of the divided m o n a r c h y (see "Israel's History as Seen f r o m the Inside" in c h a p t e r 4). T h e story explains w h y J u d a h b e c a m e the most i m p o r t a n t tribe a m o n g the children of Leah. In fact, m u c h of the J o s e p h story can be u n d e r s t o o d as the narrative elaboration of an idea f o u n d in 1 Chronicles: (5:1) The s o n s of R e u b e n the first-born of Israel. He was the first-born; b u t w h e n he defiled his father's b e d , his birthright w a s given to the sons of J o s e p h son of Israel, so he is n o t r e c k o n e d as first-born in the genealogy; (2) t h o u g h J u d a h b e c a m e m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n his b r o t h e r s a n d a leader came f r o m h i m , yet the birthright b e l o n g e d to J o s e p h . In o t h e r w o r d s , the story describes the relationships a m o n g Reuben, J u d a h , a n d J o s e p h , w h i c h actually represent the later relationships a m o n g s u b g r o u p s of Israel. In genealogical lists, b e i n g firstborn often represents b e i n g the m o s t p o w e r ful.

22

T h u s , it is necessary to explain h o w this role m o v e d f r o m (the tribe o f )

R e u b e n to J u d a h . This is a c c o m p l i s h e d to s o m e extent before the J o s e p h story begins, b u t is c o n t i n u e d in the J o s e p h story. T h e b e g i n n i n g of Genesis 3 5 : 2 2 notes, "While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben w e n t a n d lay w i t h Bilhah, his father's c o n c u b i n e ; a n d Israel f o u n d out"; a c c o r d i n g to 49:4, this disqualified R e u b e n f r o m leadership. Similarly, the next t w o children, S i m e o n a n d Levi, are disqualified because they massacred a Canaanite city (chap. 34; see 4 9 : 5 - 7 ) . T h u s , before the J o s e p h story starts, J u d a h , the f o u r t h - b o r n son, is left as the dominant brother.23 This t h e m e of w h o deserves the right of the firstborn is played out almost f r o m the o p e n i n g of the J o s e p h story. R e u b e n is u n s u c c e s s f u l in saving J o s e p h (Gen. 3 7 : 2 1 - 2 2 , 2 9 - 3 0 ) , while J u d a h ' s plan succeeds ( w . 2 6 - 2 7 ) . T h e p r o m i n e n t role of J u d a h is t h e n reflected in Genesis 38, w h i c h has as its focus J u d a h a n d his family. Later in the story, after the b r o t h e r s have r e t u r n e d f r o m Egypt while leaving S i m e o n b e h i n d as a hostage, R e u b e n offers to r e t u r n to Egypt w i t h Benjamin, b u t J a c o b refuses ( 4 2 : 3 7 - 3 8 ) . A few verses later, J u d a h m a k e s a similar offer ( 3 8 : 8 - 1 4 ) , a n d this time J a c o b accedes to the offer. In b o t h of these places, J u d a h plays the role of leader, of firstborn, instead of Reuben. T h e position that J u d a h ' s d e s c e n d e n t King David will play is s a n c t i o n e d t h r o u g h these

details of the story, as well as o t h e r s that place J u d a h in a position of leadership (see 4 4 : 1 6 - 3 4 ; 46:28). The J o s e p h story can also be viewed symbolically as a struggle b e t w e e n the h o u s e of J u d a h , r e p r e s e n t i n g the Davidic monarchy, a n d the h o u s e of J o s e p h , representing the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m . T h e story accurately reflects the fact that the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m ("Joseph") w a s m u c h larger in area, a n d m o r e p o w e r f u l militarily, t h a n J u d a h to the s o u t h . However, reading the story as only a political allegory is erroneous. In antiquity, as in m o d e r n times, literary w o r k s were often written for m o r e t h a n o n e p u r p o s e . As already n o t e d , the a u t h o r or c o m p i l e r of the J o s e p h story h a d an u n u s u a l l y strong d r a m a t i c sense, a n d was quite interested in h u m a n psychology. This m a y already be seen f r o m the i n t r o d u c t i o n to the story, w h i c h s h o w s a k e e n interest in the various relationships b e t w e e n a father a n d sets of children f r o m various wives. It notes details that are typically omitted in biblical stories, s u c h as the age of the protagonist (Joseph is 17 years old, according to Gen. 37:2), a n d o t h e r m u n d a n e i n f o r m a t i o n , like J o s e p h s p e n d i n g his time w i t h the concubine's children (v. 2). T h u s , f r o m its very beginning, the story sets u p a p r o b l e m — h o w will a y o u n g child, the son of the dead favored wife, fare, esped a l l y since he s e e m s to be associating w i t h the less p o w e r f u l children? Like m a n y g o o d stories, the i n t r o d u c t i o n to the J o s e p h story leaves m a n y q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d . H o w are we to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h ? Is he a spoiled brat w h o takes advantage of his situation as favored son, or is he naïve? W h a t a b o u t Jacob? Why, for e x a m p l e , d o e s he s e n d J o s e p h o u t after his b r o t h e r s (Gen. 3 7 : 1 3 ) — i s he trying to teach J o s e p h a lesson, or is he oblivious to the d y n a m i c a m o n g the brothers? Many m o r e s u c h q u e s t i o n s are at the surface here, suggesting that it w o u l d be a simplification to read this story only as a political allegory.

An Obstacle Story? In a d d i t i o n to looking at the m e a n i n g of individual stories, it is possible to see if they have b e e n c o m b i n e d i n t o a m e a n i n g f u l whole. T h e stories of Abraham's family m a y be read f r o m b e g i n n i n g to e n d as a s o m e w h a t s m o o t h narrative b e g i n n i n g w i t h the p r o m i s e of the land in Genesis 12, a n d e n d i n g w i t h a recapitulation of that p r o m i s e in the final chapter, in 50:24, by the d y i n g J o s e p h : "I a m a b o u t to die. G o d will surely take notice of y o u a n d b r i n g y o u u p f r o m this land to the land that He p r o m i s e d o n oath to A b r a h a m , to Isaac, a n d to Jacob." O n e scholar h a s suggested that m u c h of the material in this large section m a y b e read as an obstacle story. That is, it o p e n s with the p r o m i s e of land a n d p r o g e n y to A b r a h a m a n d his d e s c e n d e n t s , a n d t h e n in great detail, time after

time, notes various obstacles that prevent this promise from being fulfilled. 2 4 The Abraham story, for example, may be outlined as follows: Abraham is given a grand promise with two main parts: land, and the progeny to fill it (Gen. 12:1-3). He successfully migrates to Canaan a n d walks throughout the land ( 1 2 : 4 - 9 ) . Yet as soon as he has d o n e so, he needs to leave due to famine; in the process, he is worried about being killed, and his wife, through w h o m he m u s t bear progeny, is taken into P h a r a o h s harem. Since he is childless, one might think that Lot, his nephew, would be his heir. However, w h e n given the choice, Lot chooses not the land of Canaan b u t the plain of the Jordan (chap. 13). Lot is ultimately captured in war, a n d Abraham the warrior recovers him. In the process, King Melchizedek of Salem makes a generous offer to Abraham, w h o certainly could have attained some territory, b u t Abraham refuses (chap. 14). The covenant is renewed through a detailed ceremony (chap. 15). Since Sarai, Ab ram's wife, has not conceived, Sarai suggests that Abram take Hagar as a wife, so he might have an heir. N o sooner does he d o this then she conceives and is banished by Sarai to the wilderness, u n d e r m i n i n g the possibility that Abram's heir problem will be solved. The covenant is renewed and circumcision is m a n dated (chap. 17). (Genesis 1 8 - 1 9 is about Sodom, forming an interlude.) Sarah is taken by Abimelech of Gerar, again m a k i n g us w o n d e r h o w an heir to Abraham will be p r o d u c e d (chap. 20). Finally, the heir, Isaac, is b o r n (21:1), so it is safe to banish Ishmael, the "backup heir" (chap. 21). No sooner does Isaac grow u p a bit, than God asks Abraham: "Take your son, your only son, w h o m you love, Isaac, a n d offer h i m u p . . ." (22:2); Abraham agrees, a n d is ready to kill his heir (chap. 22). Finally, Abraham makes a real estate transaction—but purchases only a cave for burial p u r p o s e s (chap. 23). By the time we get to Genesis 24, Abraham is elderly, has a single child to carry on the promise, and has n o more of the land than a burial plot. Obstacle after obstacle has been p u t in his place—foreign kings w h o desire the wife w h o will p r o d u c e the heir, banished children, almost sacrificed children, great wars, etc. This pattern can be seen as continuing t h r o u g h o u t Genesis—it is especially evident in the fights that Jacob has with his twin Esau. Thus, it w o u l d seem quite appropriate to view Genesis 1 2 - 5 0 as one big obstacle story. However, amid the various obstacles, the covenantal promise is repeated time a n d time again. The emphasis should not be on the obstacles, but on the constantly renewed promise. Even after the most difficult experiences, such as the binding of Isaac, the covenantal promise is renewed (Gen. 2 2 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) . Even at the very end of the b o o k , w h e n the Israelites are in Egypt, with n o immediate h o p e of returning to Israel, this promise is repeated: "God will surely take notice of you and bring you u p from this land to the land that He promised on oath to

Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob" (50:24). In s u m , the structure of Genesis 1 2 - 5 0 suggests that it should not be read as straightforward history, interested in the past for its o w n sake. Instead, this portion of the b o o k functions as a m y t h of encouragement—it might seem impossible for the promise to be fulfilled, yet the promise is renewed time after time. It suggests that the fulfillment of the p r o m ise, the divine blessing, is right a r o u n d the c o r n e r — a suggestion that would have been most welcome to readers of this text as a whole. Patterns in b o t h individual stories, a n d in the stories as they have been c o m b i n e d , suggest that this material was not written in order to represent what actually h a p p e n e d , but rather, on the level of mythological material, to deal with such f u n d a m e n t a l questions as: W h y do we own this land? H o w should we react in the face of adversity?

8 Biblical Law Codes and Collections Primary Reading: Exodus

19-24.

The Nature of Biblical Law

L

aw should be the easiest genre to "read" a n d u n d e r s t a n d . We d o not have an everyday acquaintance with prophecy, a n d historical texts play only a m i n o r role in the c o n t e m p o r a r y United States, but we all e n c o u n t e r laws o n a daily basis. Legal battles are often the subject of news headlines. We deal with laws w h e n we are served with tickets for p a r k i n g or traffic violations, w h e n we b u y houses or rent apartments, w h e n we write our wills. Because law is a basic part of our lives, most Americans have some familiarity with the legal system and its u n d e r p i n n i n g s . This familiarity, which on the surface makes biblical law easier to u n d e r stand than other genres, is more of an i m p e d i m e n t than a help. T h o u g h biblical law looks m u c h like our o w n laws, in terms of its u n d e r p i n n i n g s and function it is fundamentally different. The most significant difference between m o d e r n law and biblical law is its i m p u t e d author: Exodus claims that the origin of its laws is divine. The Decalogue (the "Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s " ) 1 is presented as u n m e d i a t e d revelation by God to all Israel; it is introduced by "God spoke all these words, saying . . ." (20:1). The laws that follow the Decalogue in 2 0 : 2 0 2 - 2 3 : 1 9 are presented as God's revelation to Moses that Moses is s u p p o s e d to relay to Israel, "The L O R D said to Moses: T h u s shall you say to the Israelites . . ." (20:19). Thus, all of the laws incorporated in chapters 1 9 - 2 4 are presented as divine law. The structure of this portion of Exodus emphasizes that the laws it incorporates are God's laws by o p e n i n g with a description of the revelation (chap. 19), which is followed by the Decalogue ( 2 0 : 1 - 1 4 ) , which is followed by a descrip-

tion of the revelation ( 2 0 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) , which is followed by a g r o u p of laws ( 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 ) , which is followed by a final description of the revelation (chap. 24). This creates a double-decker sandwich, highlighting the significance of the law as divine revelation. Revelation (chap. 19) Decalogue ( 2 0 : 1 - 1 4 ) Revelation ( 2 0 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) Laws ( 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 ) Revelation (chap. 24) This structure corresponds to explicit statements about the divine origin of the law, which may seem like overkill. All of this may have been necessary, however, because this conception is one of the few in which the Bible was u n i q u e within its ancient Near Eastern context. 3 Elsewhere, it was not the deity but the king w h o established law and propagated legal collections. For example, the prologue to the famous Laws of H a m m u r a b i 4 concludes: "When the god Marduk comm a n d e d me to provide just ways for the people of the land [in order to attain] appropriate behavior, I established truth a n d justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. At that time: If a m a n accuses another m a n a n d charges h i m with homicide . . ." 5 The same idea is reinforced in the epilogue that follows the laws: "These are the just decisions which H a m m u r a b i , the able king, has established . . ." 6 Still later, H a m m u r a b i calls himself "king of justice, to w h o m the god Shimachu has granted [insight into] the truth. My p r o n o u n c e m e n t s are choice . . ." 7 Thus, in broadest strokes, the organization of Exodus 1 9 - 2 4 is similar to that of H a m m u r a b i — t h e y b o t h have narrative material s u r r o u n d i n g laws. However, in the law collection of H a m m u r a b i , the s u r r o u n d i n g material makes it clear that these laws originate from the h u m a n king, while God as King was u n d e r s t o o d to be the lawgiver in Israel. 8 This explains why, in contrast to surr o u n d i n g societies, the Bible portrays kings as playing a relatively m i n o r role in the creation of law, and according to some, even in the administration of justice. 9 The fact that the Bible u n d e r s t a n d s God to be the lawgiver also explains an oddity of the biblical law collections: the way in which they combine (what we w o u l d call) religious law a n d (what we would call) secular law, including criminal law and torts. For example, the Decalogue says b o t h "You shall have n o other gods besides Me" (Exod. 20:3) a n d "You shall not steal" (20:13). The law collection that follows in Exodus contains laws about goring oxen ( 2 1 : 2 8 - 3 2 ) as well as pilgrimage festivals ( 2 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . Such "religious laws" a n d "secular laws" are often mixed together in adjacent verses (e.g., 2 3 : 1 - 4 ) .

Sometimes the Bible, in its structure, distinguishes between religious law— laws regulating h o w God should be w o r s h i p p e d — a n d interpersonal law. The Decalogue, for example, is divided into two sections: religious law, then interpersonal law. Yet, even here, a law that we would consider interpersonal, h o n oring one's parents, is given a religious justification: ". . . that you may long e n d u r e on the land that the L O R D your God is assigning to you" (Exod. 20:12). 1 0 Exodus 2 2 : 2 0 - 2 3 is similar: You shall n o t w r o n g a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not ill-treat any w i d o w or orphan. If you do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me, a n d My anger shall blaze forth a n d I will p u t you to the sword, a n d your o w n wives shall become widows and your children orphans. The notion that the biblical authors u n d e r s t o o d all law as divine law 1 1 shows u p most clearly w h e n c o m p a r i n g laws of adultery in the ancient Near East with those in the Bible. Adultery in the ancient Near East was typically treated as an offense against the wronged h u s b a n d . In certain cases, the offended h u s b a n d h a d a role in determining the p u n i s h m e n t of his wife and her param o u r — " h e shall treat her as he wishes." 1 2 T h o u g h one biblical text seems to be familiar with this notion (Prov. 6 : 3 4 - 3 5 , w h i c h is outside the Torah), 1 3 all biblical legal texts insist o n absolute p u n i s h m e n t — n o t h i n g is left u p to the husband's discretion. This perspective is also f o u n d outside of legal texts; it may be seen, for example, in Joseph's answer to Potiphar's wife w h e n she tries to seduce him: "How then could I d o this most wicked thing, a n d sin before God?" (Gen. 39:9). Adultery here is not u n d e r s t o o d as a crime against the wronged h u s b a n d , b u t as a "sin before God," w h o is u n d e r s t o o d to be the source of law. The uniqueness of the Bible's conception explains w h y the Bible depicts revelation in such detail. It also accounts for an u n u s u a l n u m b e r a n d diversity of sources that attempt to explain this event. All of these, in turn, help us see the underlying diversity of u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of God, and of revelation itself, that existed within ancient Israel. 1 4 For example, most of the sources emphasize that Moses alone h a d close access to God, a n d that the process of revelation was dangerous, yet Exodus 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 notes: "Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, a n d seventy elders of Israel ascended; a n d they saw the God of Israel. . . . Yet He did not raise His h a n d against the leaders of the Israelites; they beheld God, a n d they ate a n d drank." Because the idea of divinely revealed law was so u n i q u e to ancient Israel, an unusually large n u m b e r of diverse sources attempt to explain this event. 1 5

The Decalogue As n o t e d earlier, the first set of laws c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n this c o r p u s is the Decalogue, in E x o d u s 2 0 : 2 - 1 4 . T h e u s u a l n a m e for this selection, "the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s , " is n o t attested in the B i b l e — a n d is inaccurate. The first statem e n t in the Decalogue reads:

"I

the

LORD

a m y o u r G o d w h o b r o u g h t y o u o u t of

the land of Egypt, the h o u s e of b o n d a g e " (20:2); this is certainly not a c o m m a n d m e n t . T h e term "Decalogue," f r o m the Greek deca (ten) logos (words), is superior. That Greek t e r m is a n c i e n t — u s e d in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Bible b e g u n in Alexandria in the third pre-Christian c e n t u r y ) to r e n d e r aseret ha-devarim

( ‫ ·ר י ם‬τ‫ ב‬ι ‫ ה™ד‬m fνcνW™‫ ;ו‬Exod. 3 4 : 2 8 ;‫ י‬Deut. 4:13,‫ י‬10:4).‫ י‬T h e

w o r d davar ( ‫ ) ; ד ב ר‬, singular of devarim

( • , 1 ‫ ־‬T J ) , is o n e of the m o s t c o m m o n

biblical n o u n s ; typically it m e a n s "thing" or "word." (Given the i m p o r t a n c e of the Decalogue, its n a m e in rabbinic tradition shifted slightly a n d n o t surprisingly to aseret ha-dibrot

[ ‫ ] ע ש ר ת ה ד ב ת ת‬, w h i c h m e a n s specifically "the ten divine

utterances.") Both of the c o m m o n l y u s e d terms, Decalogue a n d the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s , follow the tradition of E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y in insisting that this text m u s t b e divided into ten sections. This m o s t likely reflects a n o t i o n of ten as a n u m ber expressing perfection. Yet, the Decalogue c o m p r i s e s as m a n y as thirteen separate statements: 1.

(v. 2)

I

the

LORD

a m y o u r G o d w h o b r o u g h t y o u o u t of the land of

Egypt... 2. (v. 3) You shall have n o o t h e r g o d s besides Me. 3. (v. 4) You shall n o t m a k e for yourself a s c u l p t u r e d image . . . 4. (v. 5) You shall n o t b o w d o w n to t h e m or serve t h e m . 5. (v. 7) You shall n o t swear falsely by the n a m e of the Lord y o u r G o d . . . 6. (v. 8) R e m e m b e r the s a b b a t h day a n d k e e p it h o l y 7. (v. 12) H o n o r y o u r father a n d y o u r m o t h e r . . . 8. (v. 13) You shall n o t m u r d e r . 9. (v. 13) You shall n o t c o m m i t adultery. 10. (v. 13) You shall n o t steal. 11. (v. 13) You shall n o t bear false witness against y o u r neighbor. 12. (v. 14) You shall n o t covet y o u r neighbor's h o u s e . 13. (v. 14) You shall n o t covet y o u r neighbor's wife . . . Already the ancients k n e w of different traditions a b o u t h o w to g r o u p these thirteen pieces together to f o r m "ten" s t a t e m e n t s . 1 6

Classical J e w i s h

and

Christian u n d e r s t a n d i n g s differed significantly. 1 7 For instance, Christians have normally taken t h e m as "ten commandments,"

relegating verse

2,

"I a m the

LORD"

to an u n n u m b e r e d i n t r o d u c t i o n , while rabbinic tradition as a rule c o u n t s this as the first divine utterance. T h u s , w i t h i n Jewish contexts, the t e r m Decalogue, w h i c h is m o r e inclusive of all the verses, is the m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e term. T h e Decalogue is the only collection of law that, according to biblical tradition, G o d revealed to all Israel w i t h o u t an intermediary. (Indeed, this helps to a c c o u n t for its significance w i t h i n biblical a n d later religious traditions. In the Bible itself, it is n o t m a r k e d as the center of or source for all the o t h e r biblical laws, as s o m e t i m e s claimed in Jewish tradition.) Critical biblical s c h o l a r s h i p h a s a t t e m p t e d to p r o d u c e an earlier proto-Decalogue, w h i c h is m u c h shorter, a n d w h e r e the u t t e r a n c e s tend to be similar in f o r m a n d length to the g r o u p in v. 13: "You shall n o t m u r d e r . You shall n o t c o m m i t adultery. You shall n o t steal." 1 8 S u c h r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s are conjectural. Yet clearly the Decalogue existed in several f o r m s in ancient Israel. T h e version in D e u t e r o n o m y 5 differs f r o m that in E x o d u s 2 0 in b o t h small a n d large w a y s . 1 9 For example, a totally different reason is given in D e u t e r o n o m y for w h y the Sabbath s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d , a n d that text i n t r o d u c e s the Sabbath i n j u n c t i o n u s i n g a different verb, as m a y be seen f r o m the following j u x t a p o s i t i o n : Exodus

20:8-11

Deuteronomy

5:12-15

R e m e m b e r the s a b b a t h day a n d k e e p it

Observe the sabbath day a n d k e e p it

holy. Six days y o u shall labor a n d d o

holy, as the

all y o u r w o r k , b u t the seventh day is a

m a n d e d you. Six days y o u shall labor

s a b b a t h of the

a n d d o all y o u r w o r k , b u t the seventh

LORD

y o u r God: you

LORD

y o u r G o d has c o m -

shall n o t d o any w o r k — y o u , y o u r s o n

day is a s a b b a t h of the

or daughter, y o u r male or female slave,

y o u shall n o t d o any w o r k — y o u , y o u r

or y o u r cattle, or the stranger w h o is

son or y o u r daughter, y o u r male or

LORD

y o u r God;

w i t h i n y o u r settlements. For in six

female slave, y o u r ox or y o u r ass, or

days the

m a d e h e a v e n a n d earth

any of y o u r cattle, or the stranger in

a n d sea, a n d all that is in t h e m , a n d He

y o u r settlements, so that y o u r male

rested o n the seventh day; therefore

a n d female slave m a y rest as you do.

the

R e m e m b e r that you were a slave in the

LORD

LORD

blessed the s a b b a t h day a n d

hallowed it.

land of Egypt a n d the

LORD

your God

freed y o u f r o m there w i t h a m i g h t y h a n d a n d an outstretched arm; therefore the

LORD

y o u r G o d has c o m m a n d -

ed y o u to observe the s a b b a t h day.

O n a m o r e m i n o r level, E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y use different w o r d s , that likely have different n u a n c e s , for the p r o h i b i t i o n against false testimony; Exod. 2 0 : 1 3 uses the n o u n shaker (‫שוא‬,

"vain").

In a d d i t i o n

"false"), while D e u t e r o n o m y 5:17 uses shav to the differences seen b e t w e e n

Exodus

and

Deuteronomy, several biblical a n d early postbiblical sources q u o t e the three short i n j u n c t i o n s ("You shall n o t m u r d e r . You shall n o t c o m m i t adultery. You shall n o t steal") in a different o r d e r f r o m the o n e preserved in b o t h E x o d u s a n d Deuteronomy. For e x a m p l e , J e r e m i a h 7:9 asks rhetorically, "Will y o u steal a n d m u r d e r a n d c o m m i t adultery?" while ancient sources ranging f r o m Philo to the Christians' N e w Testament (Rom. 13:9) k n o w of the o r d e r "adultery . . . m u r d e r . . . steal." 2 0 T h o u g h m i n o r variations m a y exist in reasons given, in t e r m s u s e d , in syntax, or in the o r d e r of various i n j u n c t i o n s , the basic i n j u n c t i o n s are always the same. Are the differences t h e n trivial? N o , b e c a u s e they exist in the single biblical text that is s u p p o s e d to c o n t a i n the unmediated

word of God. They teach u s

that the ancients did n o t transmit biblical texts like we transmit m o d e r n texts, u s i n g p h o t o c o p i e r s a n d "cut-and-paste" w o r d - p r o c e s s i n g p r o g r a m s . Rather, all biblical texts c h a n g e d d u r i n g their transmission. T h e y were u p d a t e d , e x p a n d e d , a n d m a d e to fit their b r o a d e r c o n t e x t . 2 1 If this h a p p e n e d to the D e c a l o g u e — w h i c h is ascribed directly to G o d — t h e n it certainly h a p p e n e d to o t h e r texts, w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n even m o r e f l u i d . 2 2 In a n y case, the m a n y versions s h o w that E x o d u s 2 0 : 2 - 1 4 c a n n o t simply be seen as the w o r d s that G o d s p o k e o n Sinai. A n o t h e r piece of evidence suggests that the Decalogue s h o u l d n o t be u p h e l d as the central biblical text. T h e Decalogue states w h y o n e s h o u l d n o t b o w d o w n or serve o t h e r gods: For I the Lord y o u r G o d a m a n i m p a s s i o n e d G o d , visiting the guilt of the p a r e n t s u p o n the children, u p o n the third a n d u p o n the f o u r t h generations of those w h o reject Me, b u t s h o w i n g k i n d n e s s to the t h o u s a n d t h generation of those w h o love Me a n d k e e p My c o m m a n d m e n t s (Exod. 2 0 : 5 - 6 ) . This n o t i o n of intergenerational p u n i s h m e n t is expressed elsewhere in the Bible (see especially Exod. 3 4 : 6 - 7 ) , a n d is illustrated, for e x a m p l e , w h e n G o d "transfers" David's sin to the child of his a d u l t e r o u s affair w i t h Bathsheba, a n d that child dies (2 Sam. 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . 2 3 Yet, this i d e a — u n a m b i g u o u s l y stated "by G o d " in the D e c a l o g u e — i s d i s p u t e d b y o t h e r biblical sources, i n c l u d i n g Ezekiel 18, w h i c h states decisively: "the p e r s o n w h o sins, only he shall die" (v. 4). D e u t e r o n o m y 7 : 9 - 1 0 is even m o r e striking, q u o t i n g f r o m this i n j u n c t i o n in the Decalogue only to argue against it: "Know, therefore, that only the

LORD

your

G o d is G o d , the steadfast G o d w h o k e e p s His covenant faithfully to the t h o u s a n d t h generation of those w h o love H i m a n d k e e p His c o m m a n d m e n t s , b u t w h o instantly requites with d e s t r u c t i o n those w h o reject H i m — n e v e r slow w i t h those w h o reject H i m , b u t r e q u i t i n g t h e m instantly." 2 4 This p o l e m i c indicates that those w h o constituted biblical Israel did n o t all agree w i t h the Decalogue's theology. In short, the Decalogue d o e s not possess absolute authority, not even in the Bible itself. There is a great deal that we d o n o t k n o w a b o u t the Decalogue. We c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e its original f o r m , a l t h o u g h we are sure that it is not currently in that f o r m . 2 5 We c a n n o t p i n p o i n t w h e n , w h e r e , a n d h o w it b e c a m e viewed so centrally in I s r a e l — q u o t e d in various p r o p h e t i c a n d o t h e r texts. 2 6 N o r can we easily discern its f u n c t i o n (although we can rule it o u t as a collection of laws, since it c o n t a i n s n o sanctions for violating particular n o r m s ) . Despite these great uncertainties, it o c c u p i e s a strikingly central position within Jewish, Christian, a n d i n d e e d all of Western civilization.

The Covenant Collection The legal collection that follows the Decalogue is often n a m e d the "Covenant C o d e . " 2 7 Unlike the Decalogue, it a p p e a r s in only o n e version. F u r t h e r m o r e , it is p r e s e n t e d as m e d i a t e d revelation that Moses is s u p p o s e d to "set before" the Israelites (Exod. 21:1). It derives its n a m e f r o m E x o d u s 24:7, "Then he [Moses] took sefer ha-berit ( ‫ ס פ ר ה ב ר י ת‬, "the record of the covenant") a n d read it aloud to the people. A n d they said, All that the

LORD

h a s s p o k e n we will faithfully do!"'

W h a t the t e r m "record of the c o v e n a n t " refers to in this context is u n c e r t a i n , b u t by c o n v e n t i o n biblical scholars use that n a m e to describe all of the p r e c e d i n g laws f o u n d in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 . An even better designation t h a n "the C o v e n a n t C o d e " w o u l d be "the C o v e n a n t Collection." C o d e s are typically m e a n t to be c o m p l e t e , a n d are organized for use b y the courts. T h e material in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 is neither. It contains, for e x a m p l e , n o material on h o w individuals married or divorced, n o r h o w s h e p h e r d s fulfilled their obligations to flock o w n e r s (see Gen. 3 1 : 3 8 - 3 9 ) , t w o areas of w i d e s p r e a d c o n c e r n in antiquity. Moreover, s o m e parts, such 2 2 : 1 7 - 1 9 , are organized by p u n i s h m e n t : You shall n o t tolerate a sorceress. W h o e v e r lies w i t h a beast shall be p u t to death. W h o e v e r sacrifices to a god o t h e r t h a n the Lord alone shall proscribed.

be

as

(See also 2 1 : 1 5 - 1 7 . ) Such a system of organization w o u l d be c u m b e r s o m e for lawyers a n d j u d g e s . In fact, because n o Near Eastern culture a p p e a r s to have h a d codes in the later R o m a n sense, it is best to s p e a k in general of "collections." 2 8 T h e diversity of materials f o u n d in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 f u r t h e r suggest that it s h o u l d n o t be read as a code. Most of the laws are c o u c h e d in conditional terms: ki ( ‫ כ י‬, " I f / W h e n . . . then"). For example: "If a m a n s e d u c e s a virgin for w h o m the bride-price has n o t b e e n paid, a n d lies with her, then h e m u s t m a k e her his wife by p a y m e n t of a bride-price. If h e r father refuses to give her to h i m , then he m u s t still weigh o u t silver in accordance w i t h the bride-price for virgins" ( 2 2 : 1 5 - 1 6 , transi, a d a p t e d ) . This is called "casuistic" law. It is the m a i n f o r m of law k n o w n f r o m the ancient Near East. 2 9 O t h e r i n j u n c t i o n s in this collection are c o u c h e d in absolute terms, as in the Decalogue. O n e e x a m p l e of absolute (or "apodictic") law is " W h o e v e r lies w i t h a beast shall be p u t to d e a t h " (22:18). Apodictic law is hardly f o u n d in o t h e r ancient Near Eastern collections. The mixing of apodictic a n d casuistic law sets the Bible apart f r o m o t h e r ancient Near Eastern legal texts. At the s a m e time, the Bible a p p e a r s to share with o t h e r ancient Near Eastern law collections the character of not b e i n g a code i n t e n d e d for court use. C o n s i d e r w h a t a p p e a r to be impractical or impossible laws. For example, law 2 1 8 of H a m m u r a b i reads: If a physician p e r f o r m s m a j o r surgery w i t h a b r o n z e lancet u p o n a m e m b e r of the u p p e r class a n d t h u s causes the person's death, or o p e n s the temple of a p e r s o n of the u p p e r class a n d t h u s b l i n d s that person's eye, they shall cut off his h a n d . 3 0 In s u c h a w o r l d , n o physician w o u l d o p t to serve the u p p e r class. Laws 2 2 9 - 3 0 read: If a b u i l d e r c o n s t r u c t s a h o u s e for a m a n b u t does not m a k e his w o r k s o u n d , a n d the h o u s e that he c o n s t r u c t s collapses a n d causes the d e a t h of the h o u s e h o l d e r , that b u i l d e r shall be killed. If it s h o u l d cause the d e a t h of the son of the h o u s e h o l d e r , they shall kill a son of that builder.31 This law presents practical p r o b l e m s of a different type: W h a t if a childless contractor kills the son of the h o u s e h o l d e r ? T h u s , a l t h o u g h H a m m u r a b i is longer, m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e , a n d m o r e logically o r d e r e d t h a n the C o v e n a n t C o l l e c t i o n — t h a t is, a l t h o u g h it looks m o r e like a legal c o d e — i t too s h o u l d be seen as a collection. S o m e of its laws m a y reflect the n o r m s of the law c o u r t s in H a m m u r a b i ' s p e r i o d , b u t others, s u c h as the laws j u s t q u o t e d , are most likely "theoretical law." Such laws express the ideals of a

particular reformer within a society. Thus, law 2 1 8 expresses the notion that physicians are not supposed to h a r m their patients, even accidentally, while law 2 3 0 expresses the seriousness with which ancient contractors were supposed to work.

The Goring Ox Unfortunately, we can n o longer k n o w which laws recorded in the Laws of H a m m u r a b i were real, a n d which were ideal—there is n o textual distinction between them. Nevertheless, all such laws may be examined to reveal h o w they reflect the n o r m s (both real a n d ideal) of the legists w h o edited them. The same is true of biblical law. In the rest of this chapter I will attempt to tease out some n o r m s that are woven into the Covenant Collection in Exodus. For the time being, I will narrow my focus to a single topic: a goring ox. The passage in question is Exodus 2 1 : 2 8 - 3 2 , which states: W h e n an ox gores a m a n or a w o m a n to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be p u n ished. If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, t h o u g h warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a m a n or a w o m a n — the ox shall be stoned and its owner, too, shall be put to death. If ransom is laid u p o n him, h e 3 2 m u s t pay whatever is laid u p o n h i m to redeem his life. So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, the owner shall be dealt with according to the same rule. But if the ox gores a slave, male or female, he shall pay thirty shekels of silver to the master, and the ox shall be stoned. This law, or more properly, these laws, deal with the following four cases: (1) unexpected goring by an ox; (2) goring by a habitual gorer; (3) goring of a minor; (4) goring of a slave. Especially given that oxen do not typically gore peopie, the similarities in structure and even wording between the laws in Exodus and H a m m u r a b i 2 5 0 - 5 2 are very striking. H a m m u r a b i reads: (250) If an ox gores a m a n while it is passing through the street, that case has n o basis for a claim. (251) If a man's ox is a k n o w n gorer, and the authorities of his city quarter notify h i m that it is a k n o w n gorer, b u t he does not blunt its h o r n s or control his ox, and that ox gores to death a m e m b e r of the u p p e r class, he [the owner] shall give thirty shekels of silver. (252) If it is a man's slave [who is fatally gored], he shall give twenty shekels of silver. 3 3

T h o u g h we are u n c e r t a i n of the date of the Covenant Collection, it is certainly several c e n t u r i e s later t h a n

the eighteenth-century-B.C.E.

Laws of

H a m m u r a b i . A l t h o u g h the "main copy" of these laws was inscribed o n a basalt stele in Babylon, later r e m o v e d to Elam (and n o w f o u n d at the Louvre), we k n o w that the Laws of H a m m u r a b i b e c a m e part of the M e s o p o t a m i a n scribal tradition, a n d were copied for several c e n t u r i e s . 3 4 Given the m a n y similarities b e t w e e n the way this law is expressed in E x o d u s a n d H a m m u r a b i , it is highly likely that the a u t h o r of this section of the Covenant Collection k n e w the laws as they a p p e a r e d in H a m m u r a b i , p e r h a p s via a n intermediary source, a n d revised t h e m to fit Israelite n o r m s . T h u s , a l t h o u g h the similarities b e t w e e n the earlier Babylonian a n d later Israelite law are striking, the differences are even m o r e telling. They can be analyzed to u n c o v e r the m a n n e r in w h i c h the Israelite legislator c h a n g e d his source to convey different principles. 3 5 Both collections deal with h o m i c i d e caused b y a person's b e n i g n animal. In m o d e r n terms, it is equivalent to a p e r s o n driving a car that seemed to be in perfeet r u n n i n g order b u t s u d d e n l y lost its brakes, so that the driver could n o t avoid hitting a n d killing a pedestrian. Given that not even negligence was involved, the o w n e r of the ox is n o t held responsible in either ancient culture for the death. Yet, biblical law contains an additional provision absent f r o m H a m m u r a b i : "the ox shall be s t o n e d a n d its flesh shall n o t be eaten." This is a significant e c o n o m ic loss for the o w n e r of the ox—it w o u l d be the equivalent of insisting that the car that accidentally killed s o m e o n e be b r o u g h t to a "car c r u n c h e r " a n d flattened. T h e s t o n i n g of the ox most likely reflects a peculiarly Israelite idea, that the ox h a s p e r p e t r a t e d a b o u n d a r y violation by c o m m i t t i n g a h u m a n homicide. As s u c h , it b e c a m e taboo, a n d it m u s t be killed, a n d its o w n e r is deprived of the n o r m a l benefit derived f r o m a d e a d o x — i t s use as food. C o m p a r i n g the second case, the habitually goring ox, is even m o r e instructive. For b o t h ancient cultures, this is a case of negligence. In o u r culture, it is c o m p a r a b l e to having y o u r car fail an inspection because y o u r brakes are faulty, being told n o t to drive a n y w h e r e w i t h o u t fixing t h e m , a n d t h e n driving away a n d killing a pedestrian because the b r a k e s c o u l d n o t stop the car o n time. Neither the action n o r the choice of victim was p r e m e d i t a t e d , yet the killing could have b e e n — a n d f r o m the legislator's perspectives, s h o u l d have b e e n — anticipated. For this reason, H a m m u r a b i does n o t consider the o w n e r of the ox guilty of first degree m u r d e r (a capital crime) or even manslaughter, yet the guilty party m u s t pay a m o n e t a r y fine of thirty silver shekels, most likely the econ o m i c value of a n upper-class individual at that time. In contrast, the C o v e n a n t Collection notes that if this habitually goring ox kills "a m a n or a w o m a n — t h e ox shall be s t o n e d a n d its owner, too, shall be p u t to death. If r a n s o m is laid u p o n h i m , h e m u s t pay w h a t e v e r is laid u p o n h i m to

redeem his life." The stoning of the ox is expected, following the n o r m s develo p e d in the preceding case. Yet, the law suggests that negligence w h i c h causes a n o t h e r person's death is so serious that the owner too deserves to be stoned. This conclusion is softened by allowing the o w n e r to r a n s o m himself, most likely by paying a fine to the family of the individual gored. 3 6 The initial suggestion that "its owner, too, shall be p u t to death" reflects a basic principle or postulate 3 7 of the Covenant Collection, and indeed of all of the biblical law collections: the f u n d a m e n t a l value ascribed to h u m a n life. Thus, the person w h o accidentally a n d unintentionally b u t t h r o u g h negligence kills a h u m a n t h r o u g h an agent such as an ox, is deserving of death. The subcase f o u n d in E x o d u s 21:31, "So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, the owner shall be dealt with according to the same rule," is absent from H a m m u r a b i . This too is significant. Many of the laws in H a m m u r a b i are class conscious, distinguishing a m o n g three groups: the u p p e r class, c o m m o n e r s , a n d slaves. For example, laws 1 9 6 - 9 9 read: If an upper-class person should blind the eye of a n o t h e r upper-class person, they shall blind his eye. If he should break the b o n e of a n o t h e r upper-class person, they shall break his bone. If he should blind the eye of a c o m m o n e r or break the b o n e of a c o m m o n e r , he shall weigh and deliver sixty shekels of silver. If he s h o u l d blind the eye of the slave of an upper-class person, or break the b o n e of a slave of an upper-class person, he shall weigh and deliver one-half of his value [in silver]. Biblical legislators, including those w h o c o m p o s e d the Covenant Collection, accepted only part of this value system. As in H a m m u r a b i , slaves are treated separately, since (in b o t h cultures) the slave's o w n e r m u s t be c o m p e n s a t e d for the economic loss. 3 8 (For the status of slaves in the Covenant Collection, see Exodus 2 1 : 2 0 - 2 1 . ) However, n o w h e r e d o biblical laws distinguish between classes of nonslaves, as in the Mesopotamian distinction between u p p e r class a n d c o m moner. In fact, the best explanation for E x o d u s 21:31, "So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, the owner shall be dealt with according to the same rule," is that it is taking issue with the notion that (free) people should be treated differentially, based on their w o r t h .

From the Goring Ox to Biblical "Law" in General For reasons of space, I cannot treat here the m a n y other laws contained in the Covenant Collection. (This b o o k cannot substitute for a commentary, w h i c h explains each verse.) However, m a n y of the above observations about the goring

ox law d o h o l d true for o t h e r laws in the C o v e n a n t Collection. T h a t is, m a n y of those laws m a y be ideal, m a n y are revisions of earlier M e s o p o t a m i a n laws, b u t t h e y avoid the s h a r p class distinctions seen in M e s o p o t a m i a . Moreover, m a n y of o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the status of the C o v e n a n t Collection are equally true of law elsewhere in the Bible. C o n s i d e r the o t h e r legal collections: the Holiness Collection of Leviticus 1 7 - 2 6 a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Law Collection in D e u t e r o n o m y 1 2 - 2 6 . N o n e of these is organized like a law code; n o n e is c o m p r e h e n s i v e . T h e y all c o n t a i n repetitions of the s a m e laws. S o m e of their laws, m a n y scholars believe, are ideal rather t h a n real: the J u b i l e e year (Leviticus 25); the cheirem (•")Π, "proscription" or "ban") of the C a n a a n i t e s (Deut. 2 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) ; a n d o t h e r s . 3 9 These features distinguish biblical law f r o m law as we n o r m a l l y e x p e r i e n c e or u n d e r s t a n d it. T h u s those "laws" m a y have f u n c t i o n e d in ancient Israel differently t h a n d o today's laws as they a p p l y to o u r o w n lives. F u r t h e r m o r e , if we look at all of these law collections together, w e see a n o t h er reason to b e c a u t i o u s w h e n we s p e a k of biblical "law." As I will s h o w in c h a p ters 9 a n d 10, each of these collections c o m e s f r o m a different time p e r i o d a n d reflects a different ideological perspective. ( A l t h o u g h the date of the C o v e n a n t Collection is u n c e r t a i n , it is likely the earliest of the three collections. In contrast to the others, it reflects a largely n o n u r b a n p e r s p e c t i v e . 4 0 ) W h e n

dealing

w i t h the s a m e issue, the three collections o f t e n differ significantly. F o r e x a m p l e , E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y recognize that an Israelite m a y enslave

another

Israelite "forever" ( 2 1 : 5 - 6 a n d 1 5 : 1 6 - 1 8 , respectively), w h e r e a s Leviticus insists that Israelite slaves m u s t be released every fiftieth year, e x p l a i n i n g that "they are My servants, w h o m I freed f r o m the l a n d of Egypt; they m a y n o t give themselves over into servitude" ( 2 5 : 4 2 ; cf. w . 3 9 - 4 3 ) . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e : E x o d u s calls its fall festival "the festival of ingathering" a n d n o t e s that it s h o u l d b e c o m m e m o r a t e d "at the e n d of the year" for an u n s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d ( 2 3 : 1 6 ) . D e u t e r o n o m y k n o w s the s a m e festival as the feast of b o o t h s (sukkot), c o m m e m o r a t e d for seven days ( 1 6 : 1 3 - 1 5 ) . Leviticus describes a feast of b o o t h s that begins in the seventh m o n t h , a n d it is c o n c l u d e d by a s o l e m n g a t h e r i n g o n the eighth day ( 2 3 : 3 3 - 3 6 ) ! S u c h differences a m o n g the various legal c o r p o r a are the n o r m rather t h a n the exception. Nevertheless, certain p o s t u l a t e s s e e m to s t a n d b e h i n d all biblical laws. T h e y i n c l u d e an attitude t o w a r d h u m a n life that m a k e s capital p u n i s h m e n t less f r e q u e n t in the Bible t h a n in H a m m u r a b i ' s laws, a n d that shies away f r o m vicarious p u n i s h m e n t , that is, p u n i s h m e n t for a crime c o m m i t t e d

by

a n o t h e r family m e m b e r . 4 1 Nevertheless, the internal differences in detail are large a n d f r e q u e n t e n o u g h to w a r r a n t a v o i d i n g s e n t e n c e s that begin, "Biblical law suggests . . . "

9 "Incense Is Offensive to Me" The Cult in Ancient Israel Primary Reading: Leviticus

16.

Ritual Within the Bible eligious ritual has an ambiguous place within m o d e r n life. 1 It is often critiqued as an archaic remnant of earlier practices, which should be replaced by more abstract forms of religion. 2

R

This antipathy toward ritual is reflected in the work of many biblical scholars, especially those influenced by the w o r k of the great German scholar Julius Wellhausen, w h o systematized m u c h of biblical scholarship toward the end of the nineteenth century. 3 He viewed the history of biblical religion as a dévolution, in which free expression of religion, reflected in the early sources, was gradually replaced—most especially in the Priestly Source—by fixed ritual. In this view, the prophets, some of w h o m are seen as hostile toward ritual, are viewed as the apex of biblical religion. It was not unusual, for example, for scholars to highlight the centrality of texts such as Isaiah 1:10-17: (10) Hear the word of the Lord, / You chieftains of Sodom; / Give ear to our G o d s instruction, / You folk of Gomorrah! / ( 1 1 ) "What need have I of all your sacrifices?" / Says the Lord. / "I am sated with burnt offerings of rams, / And suet of fatlings, / And blood of bulls; / And I have no delight / In lambs and he-goats. / (12) That you come to appear before Me— / W h o asked that of you? / Trample My courts (13) n o more; / Bringing oblations is futile, / Incense is offensive to Me. / New m o o n and sabbath, / Proclaiming of solemnities, / Assemblies with iniquity, / I cannot abide. / (14) Your new m o o n s and fixed seasons / Fill Me with loathing; / They are become a b u r d e n to Me, / I cannot endure

them. / (15) And w h e n you lift u p your hands, / I will t u r n My eyes away from you; / T h o u g h you pray at length, / I will not listen. / Your h a n d s are stained with c r i m e — ( 1 6 ) Wash yourselves clean; / Put your evil doings / Away from My sight. / Cease to d o evil; / (17) Learn to do good. / Devote yourselves to justice; / Aid the wronged. / U p h o l d the rights of the o r p h a n ; / Defend the cause of the widow." These verses are often u n d e r s t o o d as a blanket c o n d e m n a t i o n of ritual practices, especially those associated with the Jerusalem cult as prescribed in the Torah; ethical behavior is meant to replace ritual behavior. This unit from Isaiah will be examined in chapter 17 (see "Isaiah as a Typical Classical Prophet"); for now, it is sufficient to note that this negative view of ritual is exaggerated. The fact that the Bible is so rich in rituals certainly argues for their centrality. Indeed, this is confirmed by texts s u c h as Isaiah 1 : 1 0 - 1 7 , for only central practices would have been railed against so vociferously. Thus, developing a sympathetic u n d e r s t a n d ing of ritual is crucial for u n d e r s t a n d i n g what biblical texts meant. Ritual was a central part of all ancient Near Eastern religions. Many ritual texts covering a wide variety of situations have been discovered at Ugarit, a city near the Mediterranean coast of Syria, w h i c h has yielded a large n u m b e r of texts from the fourteenth a n d thirteenth centuries. 4 These texts are extremely important given the geographical proximity of Ugarit to Israel, and although they predate biblical literature by several centuries, they s h o w significant contiguities with the Bible. Ugaritic narrative texts highlight the significant role that ritual played in daily life there. 5 A similar picture is evident with Israel's immediate neighbors, where large n u m b e r s of ritual texts have been u n e a r t h e d . 6 Thus, given the geographical a n d historical context of the Bible, the prominent role of ritual in it is expected. I will focus here o n the Temple ritual associated with Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Since it was an u n u s u a l ritual even for the Bible, I will supplem e n t its analysis with some general reflections o n the place of ritual within Israelite life. The Yom Kippur ritual is f o u n d in Leviticus 16. Actually, verses 1 - 2 8 outline two rituals that c o m b i n e to form the larger ritual. The first ritual (which itself comprises several sub-rituals) transpires inside the sanctuary precincts (w. 1 - 1 9 , 2 7 - 2 8 ) . The second ritual, involving the scapegoat, takes place outside the sanctuary (w. 2 0 - 2 6 ) . Verse 20 serves to integrate the two: "When he has finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting, a n d the altar, the live goat shall be brought forward." These rituals c o m b i n e to assure that the desired results— the ritual cleansing of the sanctuary, a n d the purging of the people's sins—are accomplished.

The Day of Atonement Rituals: Background Key Terms Used to Describe the Rituals In c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish practice, r e p e n t a n c e is seen as the key feature of Yom Kippur, or the Day of A t o n e m e n t . T h e liturgy of the day is replete w i t h confessions, one of w h i c h h a s as its refrain "for all these, Ο G o d of forgiveness, forgive us, p a r d o n us, grant u s remission." 7 It is therefore natural to read the ritual described in Leviticus 16 in t e r m s of this t h e m e , as c o n n e c t e d to repentance. Yet, a close reading of that biblical passage suggests otherwise: neither ( ‫ ת ש ו ב ה‬, "repentance") n o r the w o r d f r o m w h i c h it derives, shuv

teshuvah (‫שוב‬, "to

return"), are f o u n d a n y w h e r e in the chapter. I n d e e d , this root is first u s e d in the Torah in the theological sense of "repent" or "return to G o d " only in Deutero n o m y : " w h e n y o u are in distress because all these things have befallen y o u a n d , in the e n d , ve-shavta

( ‫ ו ש ב ת‬, 'you return') to the

LORD

y o u r G o d a n d obey Him"

(4:30). In fact, w i t h i n the Torah, only in D e u t e r o n o m y does the c o n c e p t of r e p e n t a n c e play a central role. Given that Priestly texts a n d those f r o m Deutero n o m y represent the t w o great yet different streams of t h o u g h t in the Bible, the fact that shuv is p r o m i n e n t in o n e a n d absent in the o t h e r is significant. Rather t h a n shuv, Priestly texts use the verb kipper. W h a t t h e n is the m e a n ing of the root k-p-r ( ‫ ) כ פ ר‬that is typically translated as "to a t o n e " — a n d that is reflected in the day's n a m e ? Unfortunately, we have a rather i n c o m p l e t e k n o w l edge of biblical Hebrew. As discussed in c h a p t e r 3, we lack w h a t linguistic scholars call "informants," native s p e a k e r s of a language w h o can tell researchers w h a t a w o r d or a grammatical s t r u c t u r e m e a n s , or w h e t h e r a particular locution is grammatical. C o n t e m p o r a r y H e b r e w is n o t a reliable source for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the biblical idiom; too m u c h time h a s p a s s e d — t h e language h a s evolved m e a n while. Instead, we k n o w w h a t a particular biblical w o r d m e a n s u s i n g the following three m e t h o d s : (1) c o m p a r i s o n with related (cognate) w o r d s in o t h e r Semitic languages; (2) c o n s u l t i n g the ancient Bible translators (especially those of the S e p t u a g i n t — t h e Greek translation most likely b e g u n in the third preChristian c e n t u r y — b e c a u s e it is the oldest version a n d typically highly literal); a n d (3) inference from the literary context. In the case of the root k-p-r, the first a n d third m e t h o d s are the most help8

ful. In Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic that is closely related to Hebrew, the root m e a n s "to wipe." 9 It was u s e d of w i p i n g h a n d s or eyes. It w a s u s e d m e t a p h o r i cally in the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the Bible, in sentences like "Saul w i p e d out [i.e., did away with] the r e m n a n t of the Amalekites." T h e root is also

well attested in A k k a d i a n — a Semitic language of ancient M e s o p o t a m i a — w h i c h is m o r e distantly related to H e b r e w yet close e n o u g h to provide useful information. There too it h a d the sense of "to wipe off." 1 0 It was u s e d , for example, of a person's feet, or of cleaning jewelry. Related to this use was "to purify," often via ritual (or magical) means, a n d referring to the purification of temples, countries, fields, a n d h o m e s . This latter sense of k-p-r fits several of its a p p e a r a n c e s in Leviticus 16. (Here I a m applying m e t h o d 3, above.) The core verse of o u r chapter uses the root k-p-r in this characteristic way: "Thus he shall k-p-r the S h r i n e 1 1 of the uncleanness a n d transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins; a n d he shall d o the same for the Tent of Meeting, w h i c h abides with t h e m in the midst of their uncleanness" (v. 16). The root is u s e d not in reference to people n o r to an action p e r f o r m e d b y individuals (such as repentance); rather, two structures, "the Shrine" a n d "the Tent of Meeting," are "k-p-r-ed." 12

"k-p-r-ed."

In verse 20, the altar as well is

Several m o d e r n translations r e n d e r these instances as "atone," 1 3 b u t

this seems at best o p a q u e or u n c l e a r — h o w can one atone for the altar? Instead, the JPS translation's "purge" better reflects the u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the ritual outlined in this chapter, w h o s e m a i n t h e m e is the purging or purification of the Sanctuary (or Temple).

Concept Behind the Inside Ritual The Bible scholar J a c o b Milgrom gives a compelling explanation of the first set of rituals, relating t h e m to w h a t he calls "The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray.'" 1 4 The Sanctuary (the Priestly author's representation of the J e r u s a l e m Temple) is like the painting in Oscar Wilde's story, w h i c h changes as a result of various h u m a n activities. Here the Priestly c o n c e p t i o n seems to a s s u m e that the Temple absorbs different types of impurities at different loci. For example, "wanton u n r e p e n t e d sin" pollutes certain parts of the Temple, i n c l u d i n g the Holy of Holies. The Temple absorbs s u c h impurities, w h i c h build u p as they are stored there. T h u s the Temple m u s t o n occasion be ritually purified. The b u i l d u p of these impurities is, f r o m the Priestly perspective, a threat to national security. The priest Ezekiel evinces this c o n c e r n in the first p o r t i o n of the p r o p h e t i c b o o k that bears his n a m e . Ezekiel p r o p h e s i e d in Babylon after being exiled there f r o m Jerusalem in 597 B.c.E. 15 The first eleven chapters of his b o o k portray "divine a b a n d o n m e n t , " a motif frequent in ancient Near E a s t e r n — particularly Assyrian—literature. 1 6 According to Ezekiel, G o d — o r m o r e pre-

cisely, kevod

YHWH ( H I T ‫ ] כ ב ו ל‬,

"the Presence of the LORD")—exited the Temple.

The Presence first left the p l a t f o r m of the Temple ( 1 0 : 1 8 ) a n d t h e n "ascended f r o m the midst of the city a n d stood o n the hill east of the city" (11:23). This a b a n d o n m e n t of the Temple by the divine Presence is w h a t ultimately allowed it to be destroyed. Ezekiel also explains w h y G o d left: "And [God] said to m e , 'Mortal, d o you see w h a t they are doing, the terrible a b o m i n a t i o n s that the H o u s e of Israel is practicing here, to drive Me far f r o m My Sanctuary?"' (8:6). C h a p t e r 8 describes a wide range of "abominations" ( i m p r o p e r acts), i n c l u d i n g w o r s h i p of the s u n (v. 16). These activities polluted the Temple, says Ezekiel, a n d caused G o d to a b a n d o n it. Similar t h i n k i n g stands b e h i n d Leviticus 16 as well. Here the rituals are p l a n n e d to p u r i f y the Temple f r o m like pollutants, thereby assuring c o n t i n u e d divine presence a n d blessing.

P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g o f the I n s i d e R i t u a l

As b a c k g r o u n d to the m a i n ritual, it is i m p o r t a n t to r e m e m b e r that the Priestly S a n c t u a r y — a s d e p i c t e d at the e n d of E x o d u s — h a s a three-part s t r u c t u r e (see diagram): •

T h e general Temple area, w h i c h c o n t a i n s the m a i n altar u s e d for sacrifices; it m a y be entered by any p e r s o n in a state of ritual purity. Ν w _ 100 cubits _

κ-

‫ז‬

Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting j (on frame of planks [gold]) ; Holy of Holies

SO cubits

|.‫םג‬

Ark (gold) 1.

77‫־‬

Incense altar (gold)

Holy Place

V

-

Lampstand

Curtain

(9° l d

15 cubits

V

!

‫ י ם‬Table (gold)«

-h

‫ז‬

Screen \

Laver

Sacrificial altar (bronze)

bronze)) , ‫' ׳‬ J OUUI

i Posts (bronze)

-Enclosure (courtyard) of the Tabernacle-

Illustration of the Tabernacle from The Jewish Study Bible, copyright © 2004 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Used by permission.

•

Ha-kodesh

( ‫ ה ק ד ש‬, "the holy area"), typically translated as "Shrine" in the

JPS translation, h o u s e s the l a m p s t a n d , the table for the b r e a d of display, a n d the altar of incense. O n l y (ritually p u r e ) priests m a y enter this area. •

T h e Holy of Holies is b e h i n d this area. It m a y be e n t e r e d only b y the high p r i e s t — A a r o n or f u t u r e high priests d e s c e n d e d f r o m h i m — w h e n p u r i f y i n g the Temple (Lev. 1 6 : 2 - 3 ) . This area, a c c o r d i n g to Priestly tradition, c o n t a i n e d the Ark, w h i c h was covered by a kapporet

(‫)כפרת‬.

Scholars d e b a t e the n a t u r e a n d translation of this w o r d , a n d h o w it is related to the root k-p-r; the JPS translation r e n d e r s it as "cover"; o t h e r s r e n d e r it as "mercy seat." A c c o r d i n g to Priestly a c c o u n t s , a "curtain" separates the Holy of Holies f r o m the Shrine.

The Inside Ritual Leviticus 1 6 : 1 - 1 9 e n u m e r a t e s a set of rituals that share certain elements: sacrifice, b l o o d , Sanctuary, a n d Aaron the high priest. This passage details a set of o r d e r e d activities that, if precisely p e r f o r m e d , will p u r i f y the Temple, thereby g u a r a n t e e i n g the divine presence. T h e b e g i n n i n g of the c h a p t e r c o n n e c t s the ritual to the enigmatic story c o n c e r n i n g the d e a t h s of N a d a b a n d A b i h u in Leviticus 10. (It is possible that in a n earlier f o r m of Leviticus, c h a p . 16 directly followed c h a p . 10.) These t w o c h a p ters m a y relate to each o t h e r in a variety of ways. N a d a b a n d A b i h u have died in the Sanctuary, a n d t h u s it n e e d s to be p u r g e d or cleaned. Perhaps, too, the d e a t h s of these t w o s o n s of Aaron w a s caused by their i m p r o p e r e n t r y into part of the Sanctuary, w h i c h w o u l d explain w h y c h a p t e r 16 outlines w h o m a y safely e n t e r the i n n e r m o s t section of the Sanctuary, as well as w h e n a n d h o w to d o so. Verse 2 stresses the d a n g e r of e n t e r i n g the i n n e r m o s t part of the Temple ("into the Shrine b e h i n d the curtain, in front of the cover that is u p o n the ark"). It anticipates verses 1 2 - 1 3 , w h i c h prescribe the m a n n e r in w h i c h Aaron m a y enter this area: (12) A n d he shall take a p a n f u l of glowing coals s c o o p e d f r o m the altar before the LORD, a n d two h a n d f u l s of finely g r o u n d aromatic incense, a n d b r i n g this b e h i n d the curtain. (13) He shall p u t the incense o n the fire before the LORD, SO that the c l o u d f r o m the incense screens the cover that is over the Ark of the Pact, lest he die. As elsewhere in the Bible, the a s s u m p t i o n is that seeing G o d causes d e a t h (see, e.g., J u d g . 13:22). T h e incense here acts as a s m o k e s c r e e n , p r e v e n t i n g

Aaron (and his high-priest d e s c e n d a n t s ) f r o m seeing God's cloudlike manifestation in the H o l y of Holies. Leviticus 1 6 : 3 - 4 n o t e s the p r e p a r a t i o n for the ritual. Aaron b r i n g s the requisite sacrificial a n i m a l s (v. 3). He m u s t be ritually p u r e a n d p r o p e r l y dressed in "work clothes." In a d d i t i o n , he brings three o t h e r a n i m a l s o n behalf of Israel (v. 5). Two of these are for a chattat

(‫;)חטאת‬

a l t h o u g h the JPS translation a n d m o s t

o t h e r s r e n d e r this as "a sin offering," it is b e t t e r translated "a purification offering," in o t h e r w o r d s , an offering that will p u r i f y or p u r g e or cleanse a specific area of the T e m p l e . 1 7 T h e text c o n t i n u e s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of the ritual itself: Aaron can only serve as a p r o p e r officiant if h e ( a n d his priestly family, for w h o m he s e e m s to bear responsibility) is ritually p u r e , t h u s h e m u s t first offer his o w n p u r i f i c a t i o n offering (Lev. 16:6). T h e n h e m a y begin to p e r f o r m the m a i n part of the ritual, d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h of the t w o h e - g o a t s will be u s e d for the nation's p u r i f i c a t i o n offering ( w . 7 - 8 ) . That offering is c o m p l e t e d (v. 9), while the o t h e r he-goat is p u t o n h o l d until the m a i n ritual is c o m p l e t e d (v. 10). Leviticus 16:11 r e t u r n s u s to verse 6; it is n o t a n e w action, b u t a repetition of the p r e v i o u s t a k e n action, w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l n o t e that this a n i m a l m u s t be slaughtered. This is d o n e in part b e c a u s e this s l a u g h t e r i n g p r o d u c e d b l o o d , w h i c h m u s t b e saved b e c a u s e it will be the central agent of the ritual that follows in verse 14. However, since that ritual will transpire in the Holy of Holies, " b e h i n d the curtain," it m u s t be a c c o m p l i s h e d u s i n g incense, t h e r e b y p r o d u c i n g a c l o u d so that the Divine Presence is n o t seen ( w . 1 2 - 1 3 ; see above, " C o n c e p t Behind the Inside Ritual"). W h i l e in the H o l y of Holies, b l o o d of t w o purification offerings is s p r i n k l e d : that of Aaron's p u r i f i c a t i o n offering bull (v. 1 4 — s e e w . 3, 11), a n d that of the nation's h e - g o a t (v. 1 5 — s e e v. 5). Like m o s t rituals, in o r d e r to be effective, this o n e m u s t be a c c o m p l i s h e d in a precise fashion; in this case, s p r i n k l i n g the b l o o d seven times, a n u m b e r u s e d f r e q u e n t l y in the Bible to symbolize c o m p l e t e n e s s . T h e u l t i m a t e goal or result of these rituals is n o t e d in Leviticus 16:16: " T h u s h e shall p u r g e the Shrine of the u n c l e a n n e s s a n d transgression of the Israelites, w h a t e v e r their sins; a n d he shall d o the s a m e for the Tent of Meeting, w h i c h abides w i t h t h e m in the m i d s t of their u n c l e a n n e s s . " This "purging" or ritual purification is a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h the use of a n i m a l b l o o d , w h i c h for the Priestly a u t h o r s is seen as a k i n d of "ritual d e t e r g e n t . " 1 8 Exactly h o w a n d w h y b l o o d f u n c t i o n s in this w a y is unclear, t h o u g h it is likely c o n n e c t e d to the Priestly assertion that b l o o d is to b e i d e n t i f i e d as the nefesh ( ‫ נ פ ש‬, "lifeforce") of the a n i m a l ( 1 7 : 1 0 - 1 4 ) ; p e r h a p s in s o m e sense it r e a n i m a t e s a n d t h u s purifies. Leviticus 16:17 offers s o m e a d d i t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d verses

1 8 - 1 9 prescribe the final part of the purification ritual, purging the altar in the Holy section through a final blood ritual. The "horns of the altar" refer to quartercircular p r o t u b e r a n c e s like those f o u n d in various altars excavated in Israel. As may be seen from the different vocabulary used in verses 16 and 19, each act of purification accomplishes s o m e t h i n g slightly different, purifying parts of the structure from different types of sins. W i t h verse 19, the m a i n ritual is completed, a n d t h r o u g h the use of ritual detergent blood, the Temple or Sanctuary is restored to a state of ritual purity. It is again a "house" that will not repel G o d , 1 9 a place where He will want to reside.

The Outside Ritual The function of the previous ritual was to purify various holy places a n d objects; the p u r p o s e of this scapegoat ritual is clarified in Leviticus 16:21: "Aaron shall lay b o t h his h a n d s u p o n the head of the live goat a n d confess over it all the iniquities a n d transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting t h e m on the head of the goat; a n d it shall be sent off to the wilderness t h r o u g h a designated man." There may be s o m e r e d u n d a n c y between this ritual a n d the previous offerings a n d blood ritual, or this may be seen as a totally different ritual, purging the Israelites of intentional sins, w h i c h may n o t have been covered by the previous set of rituals. At any rate, the goat is literally carrying off the sins of the people, removing t h e m to an area outside of civilization, to "an inaccessible region" (Lev. 16:22). The actions of Aaron highlight the role of the goat. For other sacrifices, the person offering the animal is told to place one h a n d on the sacrifice (3:8, 13; 4:4, 29, 33) as an indication that this is his or her animal. Here, however, Aaron places b o t h of his h a n d s o n the animal—a u n i q u e act within the Bible—through w h i c h he transfers the sins o n t o the animal. The w o r d "Azazel" appears four times in Leviticus 16 (w. 8, 10 [twice], 26). It is etymologically difficult to explain, not fitting the three-letter pattern typical of H e b r e w roots. N o r is context particularly helpful in clarifying its precise meaning. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Bible) u n d e r s t o o d it to m e a n "scapegoat," w h i c h is quite suitable for verses 8 a n d 10a, b u t less likely for 10b a n d 26. Some u n d e r s t a n d it to be a place-name. Alternatively, some u n d e r stand Azazel to m e a n "for the elimination of divine anger." 2 0 This may be more satisfactory from a m o d e r n theological perspective, but is etymologically unlikely. The most likely explanation derives f r o m the parallelism of verse 8, "one m a r k e d for the L O R D a n d the other m a r k e d for Azazel," w h i c h s u p p o r t s the

ancient t r a d i t i o n — f o u n d in a w i d e range of s o u r c e s — t h a t Azazel was the n a m e of a d e m o n . 2 1 This ritual w o u l d t h e n be a r e m n a n t of an older prebiblical ritual, s o m e w h a t "Israelitized," p r o p i t i a t i n g a malevolent wilderness d e m o n . T h e definition of Azazel is likely an intractable p r o b l e m . Nevertheless, it is clear that the ritual p e r f o r m e d in Leviticus 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 2 c o m p l e m e n t s the earlier ritual, s u p p l e m e n t i n g the purification of the Temple with the purification of Israel t h r o u g h this rite of elimination. The

rest of this section

is anticlimactic,

tying together

loose

ends.

Specifically, it deals with final actions of all of the participants in the rituals— Aaron, w h o p u r g e d the Temple (Lev. 1 6 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) , the person w h o led the scapegoat (v. 26), a n d the person w h o b u r n e d the carcasses of the animals w h o s e b l o o d w a s u s e d for purification ( w . 2 7 - 2 8 ) . All of these people c a m e into c o n tact w i t h either s u p e r c h a r g e d holiness, s u p e r c h a r g e d impurity, or b o t h , a n d t h u s they require ritual purification before r e s u m i n g n o r m a l life.

Refraining the Ritual T h e language of the i n t r o d u c t i o n to Leviticus 16 m a y suggest that it w a s a ritual to be p e r f o r m e d as n e e d e d to purify the sanctuary: "The

LORD

said to Moses:

"Tell y o u r b r o t h e r Aaron that he is not to c o m e at will into the Shrine . . . T h u s only shall Aaron enter the Shrine" ( w . 2 - 3 ) . N o particular time is specified for this ritual. O n e w o u l d expect it to be p e r f o r m e d as n e e d e d — f o r example, after the p o l l u t i o n of the Temple t h r o u g h corpse c o n t a m i n a t i o n , as w h e n N a d a b a n d A b i h u died in the Tabernacle (v. 1; see above, "The Inside Ritual"). For this reason, verses 2 9 - 3 4 m a y n o t be an original part of Leviticus 16. They f u r t h e r ritualize the purification c e r e m o n y by fixing w h e n it s h o u l d transpire: on the t e n t h day of the s e v e n t h m o n t h , w h a t is called in Leviticus 2 3 : 2 7 Yom Ha-kippuiim,

the Day of Purgation (or A t o n e m e n t ) . This a d d i t i o n s u p p l e -

m e n t s the rituals described earlier in Leviticus 16, w h i c h focus on the sanctuary a n d Aaron, w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t that "you shall practice self-denial; a n d y o u shall d o n o m a n n e r of w o r k , neither the citizen n o r the alien w h o resides a m o n g you. . . . It shall be a s a b b a t h of c o m p l e t e rest for you, a n d you shall practice self-denial" ( w . 2 9 - 3 1 ) , a r e q u i r e m e n t that is applicable to the b r o a d e r c o m m u nity, n o t only to Aaron a n d his (priestly) family. This b r o a d e r c o n c e r n is typical of the w o r k of the Holiness School, the g r o u p responsible for Leviticus 1 7 - 2 6 , w h i c h has as its refrain "You shall be holy." This school t e n d s to d e m o c r a t i z e the n a r r o w priestly perspective seen elsewhere in Priestly literature. 2 2 Apparently the a u t h o r f r o m the Holiness School believed that this type of

ritual needed to be institutionalized at a particular time, on Yom Kippur, i m m e diately preceding the festival of Sukkot. Biblical evidence suggests that Sukkot was the major fall festival. (Only in postbiblical times did Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year celebrated on the first day of the seventh m o n t h , nine days before Yom Kippur and fourteen days before Sukkot, become central.) The dedication of S o l o m o n s Temple was on Sukkot (1 Kings 8:2), and it is Sukkot that is celebrated with great fanfare d u r i n g the early postexilic period (Neh. 8 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) . The most appropriate time for an annual ritual "housecleaning" w o u l d be immediately preceding Sukkot. But this is not the only logical occasion for such a ritual. Another major festival complex is in the spring, comprised of the one-day Pesach or Passover festival, followed by the seven-day Matzot, or Unleavened Bread, festival (Lev. 2 3 : 5 - 8 ) . 2 3 Thus, it should not be surprising that a different tradition developed that would time this housecleaning then. Ezekiel 4 5 : 1 8 - 2 0 notes: (18) T h u s said the Lord GOD: O n the first day of the first m o n t h , you shall take a bull of the herd without blemish, a n d you shall cleanse the Sanctuary. (19) The priest shall take some of the blood of the purification offering and apply it to the doorposts of the Temple, to the four corners of the ledge of the altar, a n d to the doorposts of the gate of the inner court. (20) You shall d o the same on the seventh day of the m o n t h to purge the Temple from uncleanness caused by unwitting or ignorant persons. If b o t h this and the Leviticus 16 ritual were performed, the Temple would be cleansed twice annually, helping to assure the presence of the Presence, with the attendant protection of all Israel.

Other Biblical Rituals There is n o such thing as the typical biblical ritual. Therefore the discussion of the structure and meaning of Leviticus 16 cannot be applied to all other rituals. However, we analyzed this example to show that rituals—even those involving lots of elements and lots of blood—are not meaningless prescribed actions. Rather, they are a series of activities that have meaning and serve particular functions. Other rituals should be analyzed similarly. In some cases, their p u r p o s e is fairly transparent from the immediate biblical context alone. Consider the ritual in Deuteronomy 2 1 : 1 - 9 concerning expiation for a homicide w h e n the m u r d e r er cannot be found. It uses blood to cleanse the land: "do not let guilt for the

b l o o d of the i n n o c e n t remain a m o n g Your p e o p l e Israel" (v. 8). W i t h this in m i n d , it is relatively easy to u n d e r s t a n d m u c h of the s y m b o l i s m of the ritual. 2 4 However, m a n y rituals d o not detail their f u n c t i o n so clearly. Their m e a n i n g r e m a i n s m o r e o p a q u e w i t h o u t recourse to o t h e r types of analysis. 2 5 Leviticus in particular is full of rituals. In contrast to m a n y rituals f o u n d in o t h e r biblical b o o k s , these m u s t be p e r f o r m e d at the sanctuary. This is because Leviticus is a Priestly b o o k , a n d the priests' lives centered o n the Temple. There is a strong sense, often a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h repetition, that these rituals m u s t be p e r f o r m e d exactly as prescribed. This is m i r r o r e d in the highly repetitive sections of E x o d u s 2 5 - 3 1 , 3 5 - 4 0 , w h i c h detail the instructions for the Tabernacle a n d their fulfillment, a n d w h i c h c u l m i n a t e with: ( 3 9 : 4 2 ) Just as the Lord h a d c o m m a n d e d Moses, so the Israelites had d o n e all the w o r k . (43) A n d w h e n Moses saw that they h a d p e r f o r m e d all the t a s k s — a s the Lord h a d c o m m a n d e d , so they h a d d o n e — M o s e s blessed t h e m . F r o m the perspective of the Priestly author, the rituals prescribed are divine c o m m a n d m e n t s , a n d therefore it is crucial to follow their instructions exactly, i n s u r i n g divine satisfaction, a n d t h u s h u m a n success. In the w o r d s of E x o d u s 25:8, "Let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary that I m a y dwell a m o n g t h e m . " This explains w h y such rituals play s u c h a crucial role in ancient Israelite society, a n d in the societies of its n e i g h b o r s . Many of these passages lack an ethical or m o r a l c o m p o n e n t , a n d we m i s u n d e r s t a n d (or "anachronize") t h e m if we claim that s u c h a c o m p o n e n t is implicit. We also m i s u n d e r s t a n d the f u n c t i o n of ritual in the ancient world. T h e texts are quite clear: If the rituals are a c c o m p l i s h e d properly, if the b l o o d is sprinkled the right n u m b e r of times in the correct place, a n d the scapegoat b e a r i n g the sins is safely b r o u g h t to the wilderness, t h e n the Temple will be cleansed, a n d the peop i e s sins will be annulled. N o prayer, contrition, or r e p e n t a n c e is n e c e s s a r y — the ritual by itself, if properly p e r f o r m e d , assures the divine Presence a n d divine blessing. 2 6 T h e belief that ritual prescriptions, if carefully followed, will m a i n t a i n the divine Presence is a peculiarly Priestly view. It is easy to u n d e r s t a n d h o w this view might d e v e l o p w i t h i n a g r o u p that h a d the Temple a n d its rituals as their center. At the same time, as we shall see later, different g r o u p s h a d o t h e r views c o n c e r n i n g w h a t w o u l d lead to divine blessing. 2 ‫׳‬

10 "In the Fortieth Year . . . Moses Addressed the Israelites" Reading Deuteronomy Primary Reading: Deuteronomy

(esp. chaps. 1, 4, 5, 12, 31).

A Pious Fraud

D

e u t e r o n o m y contains the longest introductory sentence of any biblical book:

(1) These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the J o r d a n — t h r o u g h the wilderness, in the Arabah near Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab, (2) it is eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea by the Mount Seir r o u t e — (3) it was in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh m o n t h , that Moses addressed the Israelites in accordance with the instructions that the L O R D h a d given him for them, (4) after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, w h o dwelt in Heshbon, a n d King O g of Bashan, w h o dwelt at Ashtaroth and Edrei, (5) on the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses u n d e r t o o k to e x p o u n d this Teaching; he said: (transi, adapted). The long list of details given here has a simple function: to legitimize the book as a whole. It is another way of saying: "I am authentic." There is a good reason that Deuteronomy in particular needs to be legitimated in this way so m u c h of the b o o k repeats narratives and legal material from earlier in the Torah. Deuteronomy 5, for example, recounts the Decalogue of Exodus 20. The second half of chapter 1 retells the story of the spies, found in N u m b e r s 1 3 - 1 4 . Its festival calendar in chapter 16 resembles the one f o u n d in Exodus 2 3 : 1 4 - 1 9 . For good reason, the book is called in English D e u t e r o n o m y — f r o m the Greek

deutero-nomos,

"second l a w " — a n d in rabbinic sources mishnei torah, "a repetition

of the Torah." At first b l u s h , that is precisely w h a t the b o o k is: Moses' repetition of selected earlier laws a n d narratives as his valedictory address. T h e repetition, however, is far f r o m exact. Even the Decalogue, w h i c h claims to be the w o r d s that the

LORD

s p o k e ("those a n d n o m o r e — t o y o u r w h o l e con-

gregation at the m o u n t a i n " ; Deut. 5:19), d o e s n o t replicate exactly the w o r d s f o u n d in E x o d u s 20. Most especially in the Sabbath utterance, b u t n o t only there, the text of D e u t e r o n o m y deviates significantly f r o m E x o d u s . 1 In fact, that u t t e r a n c e h a s b e e n " D e u t e r o n o m i z e d , " that is, m a d e to fit the theology a n d language of the b o o k of Deuteronomy, w h i c h has n o k n o w l e d g e of the seven-day creation m e n t i o n e d in Genesis 1 a n d E x o d u s 20, b u t is full of references to the E x o d u s , a m a j o r t h e m e in D e u t e r o n o m y . 2 T h e so-called spy story is also revised in a n u m b e r of significant ways. For e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to N u m b e r s 13:2, it w a s G o d w h o initiated the s e n d i n g of the scouts, while a c c o r d i n g to D e u t e r o n o m y 1 : 2 2 - 2 3 , this w a s the people's idea, w h i c h Moses a p p r o v e d . According to N u m b e r s 13:2, each tribe's chieftain was sent, while D e u t e r o n o m y 1:23 notes only that "one f r o m each tribe" w a s sent. M a n y o t h e r differences m a y be cited. Legal traditions are equally flexible. T h o u g h there are m a n y similarities b e t w e e n the festival calendars in E x o d u s 2 3 a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 16, there are m a n y differences as well. T h e similarities include a notice that there are only three pilgrimage festivals, i n c u m b e n t u p o n males only. E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 7 reads, "Three times a year all y o u r males shall a p p e a r before the Sovereign, the compared

to D e u t e r o n o m y

16:16, "Three times a y e a r — o n

LORD,"

the Feast of

U n l e a v e n e d Bread, o n the Feast of Weeks, a n d o n the Feast of Booths—all y o u r males shall a p p e a r before the

LORD

y o u r G o d in the place that He will choose."

In b o t h there is n o m e n t i o n of Rosh H a s h a n a h ( N e w Year) or Yom K i p p u r (the Day of A t o n e m e n t ) , f o u n d in the Priestly c a l e n d a r of Leviticus 23. T h e differences are also quite striking. For e x a m p l e , the fall festival is n o t e d in quite brief t e r m s in E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 6 , "and the Feast of Ingathering at the e n d of the year, w h e n y o u gather in the results of y o u r w o r k f r o m the field." It is r e n a m e d , e x p a n d e d , a n d c h a n g e d quite significantly in D e u t e r o n o m y 16: (13) After the i n g a t h e r i n g f r o m y o u r t h r e s h i n g floor a n d y o u r vat, y o u shall h o l d the Feast of Booths for seven days. (14) You shall rejoice in y o u r festival, w i t h y o u r son a n d daughter, y o u r male a n d female slave, the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, a n d the w i d o w in y o u r c o m m u n i t i e s . (15) You shall h o l d a festival for the

LORD

y o u r G o d seven days, in the place that the LORD

LORD

will c h o o s e ; for the

y o u r G o d will bless all y o u r c r o p s a n d all y o u r u n d e r t a k i n g s ,

a n d y o u shall have n o t h i n g b u t joy. T h e n a m e of the festival h a s b e e n c h a n g e d , it is celebrated for a p r e s c r i b e d time p e r i o d , a n d it m u s t be held "in the place that the

LORD

will choose," generally

u n d e r s t o o d to be J e r u s a l e m . Various e l e m e n t s of the u n d e r c l a s s are m e n t i o n e d as i n c l u d e d , a n d divine blessing is explicitly m e n t i o n e d as the r e w a r d for its eelebration. T h e s e c h a n g e s of earlier narrative a n d legal material typify D e u t e r o n o m y 3 ( a n d m a n y m o r e s u c h e x a m p l e s c o u l d be cited). 4 They are all the m o r e striking given that D e u t e r o n o m y notes: "You shall not a d d a n y t h i n g to w h a t I c o m m a n d y o u or take a n y t h i n g away f r o m it"

(4:2),

a n d "Be careful to observe o n l y that

w h i c h I e n j o i n u p o n you: n e i t h e r a d d to it n o r take away f r o m it" t a m p e r s w i t h its s o u r c e s extensively.

(13:1).

Yet it

5

T h e s e factors all suggest a special origin for D e u t e r o n o m y . I n d e e d , b o t h traditional J e w i s h a n d m o d e r n critical s c h o l a r s h i p have c o n n e c t e d it to the b o o k f o u n d , a c c o r d i n g to 2 Kings 22:8, in the J e r u s a l e m Temple w h e n K i n g j o s i a h of J u d a h p u r i f i e d a n d r e n o v a t e d the Temple in

6 2 2 B.C.E.6 AS

a result of r e a d i n g this

b o o k , Josiah enacts several r e f o r m s (see 2 Kings 2 3 ) that resonate r e m a r k a b l y w i t h the laws in D e u t e r o n o m y , especially the laws e m p h a s i z e d there c o n c e r n i n g w o r s h i p p i n g o n e G o d in a u n i f i e d fashion in o n e Temple (in J e r u s a l e m ) . A c c o r d i n g to the r a b b i n i c perspective, D e u t e r o n o m y w a s h i d d e n away by the apostate k i n g Manasseh, w h o reigned t w o kings before Josiah. T h e critical position suggests instead that the b o o k "discovered" in the Temple w a s the p r o d u c t of the scribes of J o s i a h s c o u r t , a l t h o u g h it m a y i n c o r p o r a t e still earlier w o r k s , p e r h a p s of N o r t h e r n Israelite origin. For this reason, the great biblical scholar W i l h e l m Martin Lebrecht de Wette characterized the core or original text of D e u t e r o n o m y 7 as "a p i o u s forgery." Some c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars follow de Wette's o p i n i o n , suggesting that verses s u c h as D e u t e r o n o m y 4:2 a n d 13:1 are inserted to cover u p the n a t u r e of the b o o k as a forgery. O t h e r s see these verses as typical ancient Near Eastern rhetoric, in w h i c h interpretation is depicted as a legitimate restatement of earlier traditions. 8 This idea e x t e n d s b e y o n d the biblical period; the great first-century-c.E. Jewish historian J o s e p h u s rewrites the Bible quite radically in his Antiquities, he too states

(1.17):

yet

"The precise details of o u r Scripture records will, then, be set

forth, each in its place as m y narrative p r o c e e d s . . . neither a d d i n g n o r o m i t t i n g anything." 9

Comparing Peaches and Nectarines C o m p a r i s o n is an extremely u s e f u l tool for u n d e r s t a n d i n g biblical texts. It is generally a c k n o w l e d g e d that the C o v e n a n t Collection of E x o d u s served as the basis for m u c h of the D e u t e r o n o m i c law collection, a n d w a s revised extensively. 10 T h e laws c o n c e r n i n g the H e b r e w slave in b o t h collections will be c o m p a r e d h e r e to see the d e f i n i n g characteristics of D e u t e r o n o m y . We will t h e n be able to explore in greater detail w h e n a n d w h y these m i g h t have d e v e l o p e d . T h e t w o laws are r e p r o d u c e d below. Deuteronomy

Exodus 21

15

(2) W h e n y o u acquire a H e b r e w slave,

(12)

he shall serve six years; in the s e v e n t h

w o m a n , is sold to y o u , he shall serve

year he shall go free, w i t h o u t p a y m e n t .

y o u six years, a n d in the s e v e n t h year

(3) If h e c a m e single, he shall leave

y o u shall set h i m free. (13) W h e n y o u

single; if he h a d a wife, his wife shall

set h i m free, d o n o t let h i m go e m p t y -

leave w i t h h i m . (4) If his m a s t e r gave

h a n d e d : (14) F u r n i s h h i m o u t of the

h i m a wife, a n d she h a s b o r n e h i m

flock, t h r e s h i n g floor, a n d vat, w i t h

c h i l d r e n , the wife a n d her

w h i c h the

children

If a f e l l o w H e b r e w ,

LORD

man

or

y o u r G o d h a s blessed

shall b e l o n g to the master, a n d he shall

you. (15) Bear in m i n d that y o u w e r e

leave

slaves in the land of Egypt a n d the

alone.

(5)

But

if

the

slave

y o u r G o d r e d e e m e d y o u ; there-

declares, "I love m y master, a n d m y

LORD

wife a n d children: 1 d o n o t w i s h to

fore I e n j o i n this c o m m a n d m e n t u p o n

go free," (6) his m a s t e r shall take h i m

y o u today. (16) But s h o u l d he say to

b e f o r e G o d . He shall be b r o u g h t to

y o u , "I d o n o t w a n t to leave y o u " — f o r

the d o o r or the d o o r p o s t , a n d his m a s -

he loves y o u a n d y o u r h o u s e h o l d a n d

ter shall pierce his ear w i t h an awl; a n d

is h a p p y w i t h y o u — ( 1 7 ) y o u

he shall t h e n r e m a i n his slave for life.

take an awl a n d p u t it t h r o u g h his ear

(7) W h e n a m a n sells his d a u g h t e r as a

i n t o the door, a n d he shall b e c o m e

slave, she shall n o t be freed as m a l e

y o u r slave in p e r p e t u i t y Do the s a m e

slaves are. (8) If she p r o v e s to b e dis-

w i t h y o u r female slave. (18) W h e n y o u

pleasing to h e r master, w h o d e s i g n a t e d

d o set h i m free, d o n o t feel aggrieved;

shall

h e r for himself, he m u s t let h e r be

for in the six years h e h a s given y o u

r e d e e m e d ; he shall n o t have the right

d o u b l e the service of a h i r e d

to sell h e r to o u t s i d e r s , since he b r o k e

Moreover, the

faith w i t h her. (9) A n d if he d e s i g n a t e d

bless y o u in all y o u d o .

h e r for his s o n , he shall deal w i t h h e r as is the practice w i t h free m a i d e n s .

LORD

your God

man. will

(10) If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. (11) If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment. The formal similarities in content and structure support the notion that these texts are genetically connected; in this case, that Deuteronomy k n e w and revised Exodus. Some of the revisions are minor, a n d may be stylistic only, for example, the difference between the slave's being "acquired" in Exodus, a n d being "sold to you" in Deuteronomy. Many, however, are quite major, including the way in which the female slave is discussed: she is in her own category in Exodus, while in Deuteronomy she is treated the same as the male. Several differences between these texts are especially important. Deuteronomy omits the subcases dealing with the slave's w i f e — p e r h a p s it did not agree with the idea that a bought slave could be used to sire future slaves for the master, as Exodus 21:4 implies. 1 1 In fact, at the very place where that legislation was expected, Deuteronomy notes: "(13) W h e n you set h i m free, d o not let him go e m p t y - h a n d e d : (14) Furnish h i m out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the L O R D your God has blessed you. ( 1 5 ) Bear in m i n d that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the L O R D your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this c o m m a n d m e n t u p o n you today." This introduces two major themes of Deuteronomy: its humanitarianism, a n d the importance of the Exodus from Egypt—which is used as a motive clause in m a n y laws. 1 2 The subcase of the slave w h o wants to stay with his master appears in b o t h books, with a significant change: the ritual of piercing the ear (not the earlobe!) with an awl in Exodus transpires "before God" (v. 6), while in Deuteronomy it takes place at "the [master's] door" (v. 17). Exodus allows God to be worshipped at a plurality of sanctuaries; in the w o r d s of Exodus 20:21 : "Make for Me an altar of earth and sacrifice on it your b u r n t offerings and your sacrifices of well-being, your sheep a n d your oxen; in every place where I cause My n a m e to be m e n tioned I will come to you and bless you." This fits with many traditions found in Genesis, where the ancestors built altars for God in a variety of places (see, e.g., 22:13; 46:1). In contrast, a cornerstone of Deuteronomy's theology is that God must properly be w o r s h i p p e d only in the one place that God has chosen for his n a m e to dwell. This is not only the core theme of the first legal section in Deuteronomy (chap. 12), but also manifests in the subsequent revision of many earlier laws. 1 3 Thus, returning to the slave laws, it is n o w clear why Deuter-

o n o m y converts a ritual that was taking place at local sanctuaries into a private, h o m e ritual: it does not want to trouble the slaveowner and slave to travel to Jerusalem to perform the rite. 1 4 Deuteronomy has also changed the way in which the female slave is treated. Although the nature of the case in Exodus is not certain, it is likely to be that of a m i n o r daughter w h o is sold into slavery by her f a t h e r . ^ By omitting this case, and instead insisting twice (w. 12, 17) that the female should be treated as the male, Deuteronomy is removing this possibility. Finally, the end of Deuteronomy's text provides a motive for why the master should not feel bad w h e n releasing a slave at the e n d of the seventh year—"for in the six years he has given you double the service of a hired m a n " — i n other words, the slave was already a good buy, so do not be tempted to take further advantage of the situation. The argument to release the slave here is secular and logical rather than religious and symbolic. This c o m p a r i s o n brings into focus several f u n d a m e n t a l features of Deuteronomy: its focus on centralization of worship, its humanitarianism, its betterment of the status of w o m e n , and its attempt to use secular logic to convince Israelites to follow divine law. Is there any social or historical set of events that can help explain these remarkably diverse changes?

Deuteronomy as a Treaty Deuteronomy offers a final clue that might help u n d e r s t a n d its origin and meaning: its structure, which is unlike that of any other biblical book. Initially its format looks similar to Leviticus: b o t h books are comprised predominantly of laws, and b o t h have long passages toward the end that outline the results of following—and in m u c h greater detail, abrogating—these laws (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). However, the two structures differ greatly as well: Leviticus begins with laws, whereas the main legal section of Deuteronomy begins in chapter 12. Furthermore, while these two books' laws overlap somewhat (espedaily the laws concerning permitted and prohibited animals in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, the laws of keeping kosher, as they are called in postbiblical literature), their differences are far greater. (Partly for this reason, critical scholars have concluded that these books have different sources from different time periods, and more important, they arise from different social groups.) O n the crudest scale, then, D e u t e r o n o m y may be analyzed as Introduction (chaps. 1 - 1 1 ) , Legal Core ( 1 2 - 2 6 ) , and Conclusion ( 2 7 - 3 4 1 6 ) . This structure is

similar to that of the Laws of H a m m u r a b i , w h i c h is c o m p r i s e d of laws flanked by an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d conclusion. However, the c o n t e n t s a n d f u n c t i o n of H a m m u r a b i ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n are vastly different in c o n t e n t , goal, a n d vocabulary f r o m that f o u n d in Deuteronomy, so it is unlikely they influe n c e d this biblical text. Half a c e n t u r y ago, George E. M e n d e n h a l l n o t e d that D e u t e r o n o m y shared the s t r u c t u r e of second-millennium-B.C.E. Hittite treaties. 1 7 T h e Hittites, w h o lived in part of the area of m o d e r n Turkey, were a m a j o r p o w e r of the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m , h a v i n g s u b j u g a t e d a n u m b e r of Near Eastern states. It e n t e r e d into treaties w i t h these states that cast the Hittite king as overlord (or "suzerain") a n d the v a n q u i s h e d state as vassal. As M e n d e n h a l l observed, these treaties h a d significant structural similarities to Deuteronomy, w i t h b o t h c o n t a i n i n g the following elements: p r e a m b l e , historical prologue, treaty stipulations, provisions for deposit in the t e m p l e a n d periodic readings, witnesses, a n d curses a n d blessings. This suggested to M e n d e n h a l l that the early Israelites b o r r o w e d the covenant f o r m f r o m the Hittites. In o t h e r w o r d s , D e u t e r o n o m y n e e d s to be u n d e r s t o o d as a theologized treaty—in w h i c h G o d is the overlord a n d Israel is the vassal. Of course, s o m e features of the Hittite treaties were m o d i f i e d ; for e x a m p l e , rather t h a n calling u p o n a variety of gods to witness the treaty, D e u t e r o n o m y calls u p o n heaven a n d earth (4:26; 32:1), but s u c h a d a p t a t i o n s d o not negate the claim that Deutero n o m y is the religious t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a political d o c u m e n t . T h e fact that the w o r d berit ( ‫ ) ב ר י ת‬m a y be u s e d b o t h for a treaty b e t w e e n Israel a n d o t h e r nations, a n d as a technical t e r m for the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n Israel a n d G o d , s u p p o r t s Mendenhall's idea. Most biblical scholars accept the insight that D e u t e r o n o m y n e e d s to be u n d e r s t o o d as a treaty. Since Mendenhall's article was p u b l i s h e d , however, a n u m b e r of first-millennium Assyrian vassal treaties have also b e e n p u b l i s h e d . Many n o w believe that the E s a r h a d d o n treaties of the early seventh c e n t u r y ( p u b l i s h e d in 1958) have closer a n d m o r e direct c o n n e c t i o n s to D e u t e r o n o m y t h a n the earlier Hittite treaties. 1 8 In particular, the curses f o u n d in D e u t e r o n o m y 2 8 (but n o t in Leviticus 26) s h o w striking similarities to the Vassal Treaties of E s a r h a d d o n (abbreviated VTE). For e x a m p l e , D e u t e r o n o m y 2 8 : 2 3 reads: "The skies above y o u r head shall be c o p p e r a n d the earth u n d e r you iron," a n d VTE 5 2 8 - 3 1 reads: "May they [the gods] m a k e y o u r g r o u n d like iron so that n o o n e can p l o u g h [cut] it. Just as rain d o e s n o t fall f r o m a brazen heaven, so m a y rain a n d d e w n o t c o m e u p o n y o u r fields a n d pastures." 1 9 J u d a h was a vassal of Assyria for m u c h of the seventh century. Although n o

vassal treaties b e t w e e n J u d a h a n d Assyria have b e e n u n e a r t h e d , it is likely that the type of language q u o t e d above w o u l d have b e e n u s e d in treaties w i t h J u d a h , a n d t h u s c o u l d have b e e n b o r r o w e d f r o m there for Deuteronomy. This p r o p o s e d context suggests a c o u p l e of conclusions. First, s u c h treaties probably w o u l d have b e e n k n o w n only a m o n g the m o r e e d u c a t e d class or royal scribes, w h i c h m e a n s that this class m a y have b e e n responsible for writing Deuteronomy. (The n a t u r e of the author[s] is often discussed in t e r m s of the " W i s d o m " influence o n D e u t e r o n o m y . 2 0 ) S e c o n d , if D e u t e r o n o m y is a religious a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a political f o r m , its p o i n t m a y be polemical: true allegiance b e l o n g s to the G o d of Israel—not to the Assyrian overlords a n d their gods. In this c o n n e c t i o n , let u s recall that D e u t e r o n o m y is often u n d e r s t o o d as the "book" discovered in the Temple in the late seventh century. As I said earlier, J u d a h w a s a vassal of Assyria for the p r e c e d i n g decades, d u r i n g w h i c h s o m e f o r m of D e u t e r o n o m y m i g h t have b e e n written. It m a y have even b e e n m e a n t to attack the type of Assyrian w o r s h i p i n t r o d u c e d in the early seventh c e n t u r y by King Manasseh, the great apostate king. By later in the seventh century,

when

D e u t e r o n o m y w a s " f o u n d , " J u d a h w a s n o longer a vassal of Assyria, w h i c h was b u s y fighting a losing series of wars against the a s c e n d a n t Babylonians. It is easy to u n d e r s t a n d in this context w h y the b o o k argues that G o d (rather t h a n s o m e M e s o p o t a m i a n p o w e r ) is the true overlord, a n d that the f o r m s of w o r s h i p introd u c e d by Manasseh u n d e r Assyrian influence are offensive. 2 1

For the Love of God U n d e r s t a n d i n g D e u t e r o n o m y as a theologized political treaty, in w h i c h the overlord is G o d a n d the vassal is Israel, affects h o w we u n d e r s t a n d the b o o k as a w h o l e , as well as s o m e of its p a r t s . 2 2 Certain e l e m e n t s of the b o o k — s u c h as the long historical prologue, the i n j u n c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the reading of the b o o k a n d its s a f e k e e p i n g ( 3 1 : 9 - 1 3 , 26), a n d its interest in w i t n e s s e s — a r e best u n d e r stood w i t h i n the b r o a d e r treaty c o n t e x t . 2 3 More significantly, Assyrian treaties use certain w o r d s as technical t e r m s (that is, they d o not have their n o r m a l m e a n i n g s ) ; it is likely that D e u t e r o n o m y u s e s their H e b r e w equivalents in the same way. F r o m the Jewish perspective, o n e of the most i m p o r t a n t sections of D e u t e r o n o m y is 6 : 4 - 9 , w h i c h by early in the rabbinic p e r i o d w a s recited as a prayer called the Shema after its first w o r d (it begins: shema yisrael, Israel").

24

"Hear, Ο

Before the discovery of the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n D e u t e r o n o m y a n d

Assyrian vassal treaties, the b e g i n n i n g of verse 5 w a s the subject of m u c h dis-

cussion: "You shall love the L O R D your God with all your heart and with all your soul a n d with all your might." H o w can such love be c o m m a n d e d ? The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon clarifies what this means. The main p u r pose of VTE is to assure the proper succession of Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, to the throne after the death of his father. (Rebellions by vassals were c o m m o n after a king's death. Indeed, a rebellion had preceded the accèssion of Esarhaddon himself to the throne.) In this connection, one of the main stipulations of VTE is that the vassals m u s t "love the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal." 2 5 In this context, it is quite clear that not emotional love, but obedience is being sought. William Moran, w h o first noted that this is the love that Deuteronomy as well is seeking, called it "covenantal love" and suggested that it is identical with loyalty and obedience. 2 6 This has extremely important implications for h o w we should read Deuteronomy 6:5 and what follows. Most translations, including the JPS translation, p u t a period after verse 5, suggesting that love of God is separate from the injunctions that follow. Probably a better p u n c t u a t i o n of this text would be: You shall love the L O R D your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might: Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day—impress t h e m u p o n your children, recite t h e m w h e n you stay at h o m e and w h e n you are away, w h e n you lie d o w n and w h e n you get up; bind them as a sign on your h a n d and let t h e m serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe t h e m on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. In this reading, "love"—namely obedience a n d loyalty—is not important in itself, but matters to the extent that it is expressed through concrete actions: teaching children, reciting these w o r d s , 2 7 binding a n d inscribing them. 2 H In the same way that h u m a n love can be fully s h o w n only w h e n emotion is expressed, love of God m u s t be expressed through actions. Without u n d e r s t a n d i n g the treaty b a c k g r o u n d of Deuteronomy, it is easy to miss this point, a n d to insist— as so m a n y commentators a n d interpreters have—that Deuteronomy c o m m a n d s love as an emotion. The contextual, historical-critical reading of the book prevents this error.

Conclusion Deuteronomy is a very special book. Almost any passage from it is recognizable instantly due to its characteristic vocabulary and distinctive phrases

and

r h y t h m s . 2 9 Its ideas—especially the importance of w o r s h i p p i n g one God in one fashion a n d in one place (e.g., "It has been clearly demonstrated to you that the 30 L O R D alone is God; there is n o n e beside Him"; 4 : 3 5 ) — a l s o set it apart from the rest of the Torah. Although these ideas become central within Judaism, they were not expressed earlier in such clear, unequivocal terms. The origin and p u r p o s e of some of these ideas may remain unclear, 3 1 yet reading it as a response to a seventh-century vassal treaty imposed o n J u d a h by the Assyrians helps to explain m u c h of what makes Deuteronomy unique.

"The Walls Came Tumbling Down" Reading Joshua Primary Reading: Joshua (esp. chaps. 1-12, 21,

23-24).

A Challenging Book to Read Joshua

is a difficult b o o k for u s to read, for a n u m b e r of reasons. First, its m a i n

t h e m e is the c o n q u e s t of the land of Israel. Few of u s care to read stories of c o n q u e s t , because war evokes great ambivalence. It isn't pretty. D u r i n g the r e c o u n t e d battles, Israel practiced cheirem ( ‫ ) ח ר ם‬, a b a n or proscription against c o n q u e r e d places—"exterminat[ing] e v e r y t h i n g in the city with the sword: m a n a n d w o m a n , y o u n g a n d old, ox a n d s h e e p a n d ass" (6:21). F u r t h e r m o r e , almost half of the b o o k is c o m p r i s e d of l o n g (boring) lists. To complicate matters, it is extremely unlikely that the Book of J o s h u a represents w h a t really h a p p e n e d . In the w o r d s of a recent c o m m e n t a t o r : "hardly a n y of the material it preserves is the sort that can be directly u s e d for historical reconstruction." 1 T h u s , the real question to ask a b o u t J o s h u a is: " W h y w o u l d a n y o n e have told the early history of Israel in this fashion?"

Joshua as History As n o t e d earlier, the present state of the evidence does not enable historians to reconstruct exactly h o w the people Israel c a m e into being, a n d h o w they came to possess their l a n d . 2 This m u c h , however, is generally c o n c e d e d : A people called Israel existed in the land by the e n d of the thirteenth c e n t u r y B.C.E. (see "The Beginning of Israel" in c h a p t e r 4); S o m e o n e c o n q u e r e d some of the cities that the Bible claims J o s h u a conquered;

•

•

It is difficult to discern w h o conquered t h e m (we k n o w that the Sea People, including the Philistines, were also settling in the area at this time a n d taking over population centers); O n e reason that the conquerors' identity is obscure is because Israelite artifacts are practically the same as those of other local groups living at this time;

•

Of the cities that according to J o s h u a were conquered in the period, archaeological evidence for many of those sites show n o signs of conquest;

•

This period meanwhile s h o w s a remarkable upsurge of n e w settlement in the central hill or highland area of the country; and

•

Egypt's longstanding political control over the area of Canaan had waned by this point. 3

Significantly, the difficulty in distinguishing Israelite artifacts implies that Israel had not spent centuries enslaved in Egypt. Archaeology is not fully objective—it interprets f o u n d artifacts, and thus some people may d o u b t a n u m b e r of the points m a d e above. We cannot always identify biblical places with certainty. Scholars debate which m o d e r n site corres p o n d s to a biblical site, especially w h e n the m o d e r n site with the same n a m e as the biblical one does not corroborate the biblical evidence. 4 However, w h e n determining correct place-names for sites, we should not begin with the assumption that the Bible is factual history, expecting the archaeological record to corroborate it. (Until recently, scholars m a d e such an assumption—either explicitly or tacitly—all too often.) The following question highlights the problems with the biblical account: W h a t would the archaeological record look like if the Book of Joshua were factual? We would expect to find a complete destruction of the major Canaanite cities datable to the same time period. In addition, we would expect to find Canaanite material culture (pottery jugs, housing styles) 5 replaced by totally n e w styles, most likely with Egyptian motifs or styles, reflecting the origins of the conquering people. However, such evidence eludes us even after a large n u m b e r of excavations and surveys (mini-excavations). W h a t have archaeologists f o u n d instead? Some evidence of destruction, b u t significantly more evidence for n e w settlement patterns at previously uninhabited sites in the highlands. This suggests to many that the main claim in J o s h u a — a complete a n d total conquest by Israel—is false; rather, m a n y Israelites originated as Canaanites. 6 Archaeologists in general n o w d o u b t that the people Israel arose predominantly outside of the land of Israel.‫׳‬

Embedded Clues in the Stories of Joshua T h e Book of J o s h u a repeatedly p a i n t s a picture of a c o m p l e t e c o n q u e s t of the entire land. This c o m e s t h r o u g h clearly in t w o s u m m a r y texts, o n e located in the m i d d l e of the b o o k , a n d one t o w a r d the e n d . Each uses the w o r d kol ( ‫ כ ל‬, "all, every, whole") repeatedly to highlight the t h e m e that all w a s c o n q u e r e d according to all that G o d h a d p r o m i s e d . T h u s the first passage reads: J o s h u a c o n q u e r e d the w h o l e ( ‫ ) כ ל‬of this region: the hill c o u n t r y of J u d a h , all ( ‫ ) כ ל‬the Negeb, the whole ( ‫ ) כ ל‬land of G o s h e n ,

the

S h e p h e l a h , the Arabah, a n d the hill c o u n t r y a n d coastal plain of Israel— everything f r o m M o u n t Halak, w h i c h a s c e n d s to Seir, all the way to Baal-gad in the Valley of the L e b a n o n at the foot of M o u n t H e r m o n ; a n d he c a p t u r e d all ( ‫ ) כ ל‬the kings there a n d executed t h e m . . . . Apart f r o m the Hivites w h o dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city m a d e t e r m s with the Israelites; all ( ‫ ) כ ל‬were taken in battle. . . . T h u s J o s h u a c o n q u e r e d all the

(‫)כל‬

the country, a c c o r d i n g to all

(‫)כל‬

the

LORD

had promised

Moses; a n d J o s h u a assigned it to Israel to share according to their tribal divisions. A n d the land h a d rest f r o m w a r (Josh. 1 1 : 1 6 - 1 7 , 19, 23; transi, a d a p t e d ) . Similarly, the s e c o n d s u m m a r y passage reads: The

LORD

gave to Israel the w h o l e

c o u n t r y w h i c h He h a d s w o r n to

(‫)כל‬

their fathers that He w o u l d assign to t h e m ; they took possession of it a n d settled in it. T h e

LORD

gave t h e m rest o n all sides, according to all

( ‫ ) כ ל‬He h a d p r o m i s e d to their fathers o n oath. N o t o n e m a n of all ( ‫) כ ל‬ their e n e m i e s w i t h s t o o d t h e m ; the into their h a n d s . N o t one of all

LORD

(‫)כל‬

delivered all

(‫)כל‬

their e n e m i e s

the g o o d things w h i c h the

LORD

h a d p r o m i s e d to the H o u s e of Israel w a s lacking. Everything ( ‫ ) כ ל‬was fulfilled (Josh. 2 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 ; in s o m e editions, w . 4 3 - 4 5 ; transi, a d a p t e d ) . Here the repetition of the w o r d kol s e e m s m e a n i n g f u l : it is like a bell r u n g over a n d over so as to s o u n d a c o n t i n u o u s t h e m a t i c note. We call a repeated w o r d that h e l p s give s t r u c t u r e a n d m e a n i n g to a literary unit a "leading w o r d . " (Bible scholars o f t e n use the G e r m a n equivalent, Leitwort.)

Leading w o r d s provide

g u i d a n c e to the reader; they are keys to a unit's m e a n i n g . (Many c o n t e m p o r a r y t r a n s l a t i o n s — i n c l u d i n g that of J P S — s e e k to r e n d e r the Hebrew's plain sense into n o r m a l English idiom. Their translation a p p r o a c h often does n o t precisely convey the repetition of leading w o r d s in the original

language. Partly this is because n o r m a l English discourse avoids s u c h repetitions as a w k w a r d or m o n o t o n o u s . More to the p o i n t , a given H e b r e w w o r d usually h a s m o r e t h a n o n e sense, a n d a plain-sense translation by n a t u r e chooses w h i c h e v er English w o r d best expresses its m e a n i n g in each context. A disadvantage of the idiomatic translation a p p r o a c h is that a biblical unit's t h e m e m a y literally be lost in translation, as o u r t w o s u m m a r y passages in J o s h u a illustrate. 8 In contrast, o t h e r translation a p p r o a c h e s are m o r e sensitive to the text's use of a leading w o r d . In particular, in their Bible translation, the t w o great twentieth-century

German-Jewish

t h i n k e r s Franz Rosenzweig a n d

Martin

Buber

reflected s u c h repetitions w h e n e v e r possible b y repeating the same G e r m a n w o r d . 9 A c o n t e m p o r a r y translator of the Bible into English, Everett Fox, is cont i n u i n g to follow Buber a n d Rosenzweig's principles. 1 0 ) In a d d i t i o n to the repetition of kol, o t h e r leading w o r d s in the text suggest a complete, total, a n d swift c o n q u e s t . T h e m i r a c u l o u s a n d nearly instant c o n q u e s t of J e r i c h o — t h e first city attacked after crossing the J o r d a n (Josh. 6 ) — s e t s the stage for this idea. Later, w h e n the S o u t h e r n coalition is defeated (chap. 10), a sixfold repetition of "let n o n e escape" (10:28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40), reinforces the i m p r e s s i o n that the c o n q u e s t w a s complete. A s i m u l t a n e o u s description of six proscribed cities h a s the same effect (10:1, 28, 35, 37, 39, 4 0 ) . 1 1 C h a p t e r 12 also uses repetition for emphasis. T h e first part of that passage, a b o u t the c o n q u e s t of Transjordan (the area east of the J o r d a n River), repeats the w o r d ve-ad

(‫ועד‬,

"until" or " u p to") six times, u n d e r s c o r i n g the all-encompassing n a t u r e of Israel's b o u n d a r i e s . T h e s e c o n d part of that passage, c o n c e r n i n g the c o n q u e s t of the N o r t h e r n coalition, is stylized a n d r e d u n d a n t . In e n u m e r a t i n g the cities a n d kings c a p t u r e d , it says thirty-one times "the k i n g of X: 1," w h e r e X is the n a m e of one city after another. (This list is all the m o r e r e m a r k a b l e because evidence d u g u p f r o m the r u i n s of those city-states have s h o w n that they did n o t have kings.) A n d in case the reader misses the p o i n t , the list concludes: "Total n u m ber of kings: 31." In s u m , t h r o u g h the strategic use of leading w o r d s , the p r e d o m i n a n t s t r a n d of J o s h u a highlights the claim that "the

LORD

gave to Israel the w h o l e

(‫)כל‬

coun-

try w h i c h He h a d s w o r n to their fathers that He w o u l d assign to t h e m " (Josh. 21:41).

Contradictory Assessments A tale of swift a n d total victory, however, is n o t the only story that J o s h u a tells. 1 2 For instance, we also read: "Joshua waged war w i t h all those kings over a long p e r i o d " ( 1 1 : 1 8 ) — a s h a r p contrast to o t h e r passages' portrayal of a sort of ancient

Six-Day War. More important, immediately after chapter 12's s u m m a r y of the completed conquest, we read: Joshua was n o w old, advanced in years. The L O R D said to him, "You have grown old, you are advanced in years; and very m u c h of the land still remains to be taken possession of. (2) This is the territory that remains: all the districts of the Philistines and all those of the Geshurites, (3) from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt, to the territory of Ekron on the north, are accounted Canaanite, namely, those of the five lords of the P h i l i s t i n e s — t h e Gazites, the A s h d o d i t e s , the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites—and those of the A w i m (4) on the south; further, all the Canaanite country from Mearah of the Sidonians to Aphek at the Amorite border (5) and the land of the Geballtes, with the whole Valley of the Lebanon, from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount H e r m o n to Lebo-hamath on the east, (6) with all the inhabitants of the hill country from the Valley of the Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, namely, all the Sidonians. I Myself will dispossess those nations for the Israelites; you have only to apportion their lands by lot a m o n g Israel, as I have c o m m a n d e d you." (13:1)

As a glance at any Bible atlas indicates, this "land that remains" is substantial! In other words, this passage directly conflicts with the account given a few verses earlier. 1 3 W h a t are we to make of the fact that this book presents more than one idea concerning basic notions such as how the land was conquered and what its boundaries are? Like many other scholars, I conclude from its internal contradictions that the Book of Joshua is not the work of a single author. Rather, it is a composite book. Either it has gone through several stages of editing and redaction, or it was written by an author w h o (for some u n k n o w n reason) incorporated earlier sources—even though they did not agree with the author's point—or both. Further evidence for the book's composite nature comes into view w h e n we consider what critical scholars call the Deuteronomistic History.

The Deuteronomistic History W h a t is the relationship of the first several books of the Bible to each other? Scholars have grouped t h e m in various ways. 1 4 The canon has joined the first five b o o k s together as the Torah or Pentateuch, literally "five books." This unit e n d s with the death of its main protagonist, Moses. Yet Moses is absent from Genesis, and one could argue that the theme of entry into the promised l a n d —

w h i c h begins in Genesis 1 2 — m o r e accurately characterizes these books. This t h e m e , however, is n o t fulfilled until J o s h u a . T h u s m a n y scholars, especially t h r o u g h the m i d d l e of the t w e n t i e t h century, saw the first six b o o k s of the Bible, the H e x a t e u c h (six b o o k s ) as a literary unit. They believed that the Pentateuchal sources—collectively

termed

"JEPD"—spill

over into J o s h u a

(though

not

b e y o n d ) , justifying the s t u d y i n g of these six b o o k s as a unit. In 1943, the G e r m a n biblical scholar Martin N o t h p r o p o s e d a n e w m o d e l . 1 5 Building o n the w o r k of others, he e m p h a s i z e d the fact that the b o o k s of Deuteronomy, J o s h u a , J u d g e s , Samuel, a n d Kings share similar vocabulary a n d theology. N o t h c o n c l u d e d that those b o o k s f o r m a literary unit that he n a m e d the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History (abbreviated "DtrH"). He suggested that this w o r k , w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e d earlier sources, w a s c o m p o s e d d u r i n g the Babylonian exile. W i t h certain modifications, this h y p o t h e s i s h a s gained w i d e

assent.16

Scholars have q u e s t i o n e d Noth's claim that there was a single D e u t e r o - n o m i s t i c "historian." M a n y n o w believe that there were two: one w o r k i n g d u r i n g the reign of Josiah (late seventh c e n t u r y B.C.E.) a n d the o t h e r d u r i n g the Babylonian exile ( 5 8 6 - 5 3 8 ) , w h o m a y be distinguished o n the basis of vocabulary a n d ideology. 1 7 Still o t h e r s have suggested additional historians, seeing these historians' w o r k as e x t e n d i n g into the postexilic p e r i o d . 1 8 Despite the m a n y c o m p e t i n g reconstructions of h o w the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History arrived at its present form, a b r o a d e n o u g h c o n s e n s u s exists that we can s p e a k of D e u t e r o n o m y t h r o u g h Kings as a "collection." W h y we s h o u l d c o n s i d e r J o s h u a a part of this collection is clear: it shares m a n y features of Deuteronomy. For e x a m p l e , the establishment of altars o n M o u n t Ebal a n d the curse c e r e m o n y p e r f o r m e d there in J o s h u a 8 : 3 0 - 3 4 fulfill a ritual prescribed in D e u t e r o n o m y 17. In 8:29, the i m p a l e d corpse of the King of Ai is r e m o v e d at s u n s e t — t h i s a s s u m e s D e u t e r o n o m y 2 1 : 2 3 . J o s h u a takes for g r a n t e d that the n a t i o n s of C a n a a n n e e d to be proscribed or k i l l e d — t h i s instit u t i o n is f o u n d in D e u t e r o n o m y only ( 2 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) . A sefer ha-torah (‫התורה‬

‫ספר‬,

"Book of the Torah") is m e n t i o n e d twice in J o s h u a (1:8; 8:34); in the Torah, it is a p p e a r s only in D e u t e r o n o m y ( 2 8 : 6 1 ; 2 9 : 2 0 ; 30:10). I could a d d u c e f u r t h e r evidence that links J o s h u a n o t only to Deuteronomy, b u t also to J u d g e s , Samuel, a n d Kings, 1 9 suggesting that the h y p o t h e s i s of a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History is quite robust. T h e D t r H h y p o t h e s i s is i m p o r t a n t for reading J o s h u a properly. It helps to explain significant c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the text: these are the result of the c o m p l e x evolution of the overall text. It also explains w h y the b o o k is so inaccurate as a history of the p r e m o n a r c h i c a l period: the b o o k w a s n o t written until m a n y centuries later.

Revising History In antiquity, a storyteller typically related details about a past event because they were important, not because they were true. 2 0 The opening of the Book of Joshua illustrates this principle, while showing h o w a Deuteronomistic historian could revise earlier materials to keep t h e m relevant for the (exilic) community: After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to J o s h u a son of N u n , Moses' attendant: (2) "My servant Moses is dead. Prepare to cross the Jordan, together with all this people, into the land that I am giving to the Israelites. (3) Every spot on w h i c h your foot treads I give to you, as I promised Moses. . . . (5) No one shall be able to resist you as long as you live. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. (6) Be strong a n d resolute, for you shall apportion to this people the land that I swore to their fathers to assign to them. (7) But you must be very strong a n d resolute to observe faithfully all the Teaching that My servant Moses enjoined u p o n you. Do not deviate from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. (8) Let not this Book of the Teaching cease from your lips, but recite it day and night, so that you may observe faithfully all that is written in it. Only then will you prosper in your undertakings and only then will you be successful. (9) I charge you: Be strong and resolute; d o not be terrified or dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." (10) Joshua thereupon gave orders to the officials of the people: (11) "Go through the c a m p a n d charge the people thus: Get provisions ready, for in three days' time you are to cross the J o r d a n . . . " (1)

This introduction to the book presents two interconnected problems: (1) It is u n d u l y repetitive, especially in its use of the phrase "be strong a n d resolute"; and (2) It is confusing, moving from military matters to Torah study a n d back again. We can best account for these problems by assuming that most of verses 7 - 9 is a secondary addition. 2 1 The original text, as one would expect in this situation, dealt only with military strength; this was the context in which God told Joshua to "be strong and resolute"—words that fit the military sphere. However, s u c h a charge meant little to the exilic audience living far from the land, a n d so an exilic editor modified the words (attributed to God!) 2 2 so that God told Joshua to be strong in relation to Torah study. Internal evidence confirms this j u d g m e n t . Editors w h o a d d e d material to a text often repeated a phrase before and after the insertion, forming a bridge of

sorts. If the original text w a s A-B-C, to w h i c h X w a s a d d e d after B, the n e w text w o u l d often look like A-B-X-B-C. W h e n Β is repeated after the insertion, scholars call it a "resumptive repetition." It is a way of expressing "back to w h e r e we w e r e . " 2 3 T h e use of this device is quite o b v i o u s in J o s h u a 1. Here is the passage again, w i t h the r e s u m p t i v e repetition m a r k e d in b o l d , a n d the intervening (seco n d a r y ) verses in italics: (5) N o one shall be able to resist y o u as long as you live. As I was w i t h Moses, so I will be w i t h you; I will n o t fail you or forsake you. (6) Be s t r o n g a n d resolute, for you shall a p p o r t i o n to this people the land that I swore to their fathers to assign to t h e m . (7) B u t y o u m u s t b e v e r y s t r o n g a n d r e s o l u t e to observe faithfully

all the Teaching that My servant

Moses enjoined upon you. Do not deviate from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. (8) Let not this Book of the Teaching cease from your lips, but recite it day and night, so that you may faithfully

all that is written in it. Only then will you prosper in your

observe under-

takings and only then will you be successful. (9) I c h a r g e y o u : Be s t r o n g a n d r e s o l u t e ; d o n o t be terrified or d i s m a y e d , for the

LORD

y o u r G o d is

with y o u w h e r e v e r you go." An exilic D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editor h a s a d d e d the material in italics a n d repeated the material in bold, u p d a t i n g the text to fit with n o r m s that e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e of Torah study. T h r o u g h s u c h a d d i t i o n s the biblical text was n o t allowed to atrophy, b u t was kept alive.

Origins I have explained w h y a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editor c h a n g e d an earlier text. But w h y did those various early stories a b o u t the c o n q u e s t arise in the first place? Critical scholarship recognizes m a n y of t h e m as a type k n o w n as "etiology," a w o r d deriving f r o m the Greek verb aitia, "to cause." An etiology explains s o m e t h i n g familiar by telling a story a b o u t its origin. 2 4 In the Book of Genesis, the story a b o u t Jacob/Israel fighting w i t h the m a n / a n g e l a n d getting w o u n d e d is an etiology. It gives m e a n i n g to the practice of n o t eating a particular part of livestock: "That is w h y the c h i l d r e n of Israel to this day d o n o t eat the thigh m u s c l e that is on the socket of the hip, since J a c o b s h i p socket was w r e n c h e d at the thigh m u s cle" (32:33). Etiologies also explain w e l l - k n o w n names. O f t e n they give a derivation that plays o n w o r d s yet is false f r o m a linguistic p o i n t of view (these are often called

"folk etymologies"). Again in Genesis, the m e a n i n g of the n a m e E d o m is explained b y a story in w h i c h Esau requests of his b r o t h e r Jacob: "'Give m e s o m e of that ha-adom ha-adom

("red s t u f f ' ) to g u l p d o w n , for I a m f a m i s h e d ' — w h i c h

is w h y he was n a m e d E d o m " (25:30). In b o t h of these examples, the text uses the p h r a s e al ken ( ‫ ע ל י כ ן‬, "that is w h y " or "which is why"). N o t all etiologies are m a r k e d w i t h al ken. Stories as a whole can f u n c t i o n etiologically, w i t h o u t giving an explicit signal to the reader. That the a c c o u n t in J o s h u a 7 - 8 of the c o n q u e s t of Ai is etiological b e c o m e s clear once we k n o w that city's actual history. The n a m e Ai m e a n s "heap" or "ruins," a n d archaeological evidence is quite definitive a b o u t it being an u n i n h a b i t e d ruin for well over a t h o u s a n d y e a r s — roughly f r o m 2 4 0 0 B.C.E. until 1 2 0 0 B . C . E . 2 5 C o n t r a r y to the biblical depiction, in Joshua's day Ai h a d n o p o p u l a c e for h i m to overcome a n d kill off. This story therefore m a k e s sense only as an etiological narrative. It told its a u d i e n c e w h y the city is called Ai, a n d w h a t caused the d e s t r u c t i o n o n this site that the Israelites n o w inhabited. T h e explanation: it w a s part of the great a n d m i r a c u l o u s conquest of the land, in w h i c h G o d fought for Israel as long as they observed God's c o m m a n d s . T h e story gave a national a n d m o r a l m e a n i n g to the ruins. M u c h of the rest of the Book of J o s h u a is etiological as well, explaining in a nonhistorical fashion h o w a n d w h e n Israel c o n q u e r e d various sites. Etiologies of o t h e r sorts are m i x e d in, i n c l u d i n g the story of the Gibeonites: "Joshua m a d e t h e m h e w e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s of w a t e r — a s they still a r e — f o r the c o m m u nity a n d for the altar of the LORD" ( 9 : 2 7 ) . 2 6 C o n t e m p o r a r y readers m a y tend to d o w n p l a y the value of s u c h stories because they are nonscientific or ahistorical. However, etiologies were extremely i m p o r t a n t in antiquity. 2 7 Nevertheless, it w o u l d be a mistake to u n d e r s t a n d all of J o s h u a as etiological. Like m o s t ancient literature, J o s h u a is c o m p l e x , c o m i n g f r o m a variety of time p e r i o d s a n d social circles. It serves a variety of p u r p o s e s .

Concluding on a Different Note T h e biblical a u t h o r s h a d little interest in the past for its o w n sake. Typically they retold or fashioned stories a b o u t the past for didactic, theological, or political reasons. T h u s , it is significant that J o s h u a d o e s not e n d w h e n we reach the s u m m a r y in 2 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 ( q u o t e d above), w h i c h e n d s , " Not one of all the g o o d things w h i c h the LORD h a d p r o m i s e d to the H o u s e of Israel was lacking. Everything w a s fulfilled." This w o u l d have b e e n an ideal e n d i n g for the b o o k if it w e r e c o n c e r n e d only w i t h l a n d - t e n u r e a n d justifying the later Israelite's possession of the

land. But Joshua is about more than that. In the b o o k s final form, its last three chapters proceed to make its m a i n point. They focus, in different ways, on obedience to God. This theme is most explicit in Joshua 23, which concludes: (12) For should you t u r n away and attach yourselves to the remnant of those n a t i o n s — t o those that are left a m o n g y o u — a n d intermarry with them, you j o i n i n g t h e m a n d they joining you, (13) k n o w for certain that the L O R D your God will not continue to drive these nations out before you; they shall become a snare and a trap for you, a scourge to your sides and t h o r n s in your eyes, until you perish from this good land that the L O R D your God has given you. ( 1 4 ) "I [Joshua] am n o w going the way of all the earth. Acknowledge with all your heart and soul that not one of the good things that the L O R D your God promised you has failed to h a p p e n ; they have all come true for you, not a single one has failed. ( 1 5 ) But just as every good thing that the L O R D your God promised you has been fulfilled for you, so the L O R D can bring u p o n you every evil thing until He has wiped you off this good land that the L O R D your God has given you. ( 1 6 ) If you break the covenant that the L O R D your God enjoined u p o n you, and go a n d serve other gods and b o w d o w n to them, then the LORD'S anger will b u r n against you, and you shall quickly perish from the good land that He has given you." These verses, like the rest of the chapter, are bursting with Deuteronomistic terminology. 2 8 Here the promise of the land is conditional. The final chapter again displays these features. There a historical reprise emphasizes God's salvation of Israel from the time of Abraham until the entry into the land ( 2 4 : 3 - 1 3 ) . Immediately following that passage, however, is one in which Joshua gives the nation a choice as to which god they want to follow (w. 1 4 - 1 5 ) . And that, in t u r n , is followed by a warning that if Israel forsakes God, "He will t u r n and deal harshly with you a n d make an e n d of you" (v. 20).

Another Editorial Hand It is not only the end of the book that reframes the conquest account that is elsewhere so positive a n d optimistic. Nor is it only the Deuteronomistic historian w h o h a d a h a n d in reworking these earlier traditions into one that w o u l d be religiously meaningful for later generations. As noted earlier, the other great stream that provided biblical material is the Priestly Tradition. These are the authors

w h o seem to have h a d the final h a n d in editing the Pentateuch, placing their ereation story first, so that all that follows might be read through that lens. It is they w h o provided a significant narrative and legal framework for most of the Pentateuch. While they did not have a m a j o r role in structuring the Deuteronomistic History, they are not totally absent from it. For example, a narrative near the beginning of the book, concerning the circumcision at Gilgal (Josh. 5 : 2 - 9 ) , is (largely) Priestly in origin. That is, this passage features a characteristically Priestly concern. Of all the Torah's legislation, the rite of circumcision is m e n t i o n e d only in Priestly laws; it is absent from the Covenant Collection and the laws of Deuteronomy. 2 9 Only in Ρ is circumcision of p a r a m o u n t importance, so m u c h so that, according to Genesis 17: Such shall be the covenant between Me a n d you a n d your offspring to follow w h i c h you shall keep: every male a m o n g you shall be circumcised . . . and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me a n d you. . . . T h u s shall My covenant be m a r k e d in your flesh as an everlasting pact. And if any male w h o is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has b r o k e n My covenant (w. 10-14). Similarly, the Priestly law in Exodus 12:48 emphasized that only males w h o are circumcised may eat of the Pascal offering—which, as Joshua 5:10 indicates, is the b a c k d r o p for the story found here. A Priestly author has reworked material in order to reinforce one of his key institutions—circumcision—by m e n tioning it at the beginning of the conquest narrative. 3 0

Conclusion We have seen that the concern in Joshua is not with "real" history, b u t with the power of traditions about the past to teach a n d enlighten. In this book, b o t h the Priestly a n d Deuteronomistic schools wrote n e w traditions. Both reframed older traditions—thereby revising their meaning. Through etiological tales they m a d e existing places and practices more meaningful. The historical-critical m e t h o d allows us to recover these creative steps, so that we may see the traditions both before their reworking and after their revision. This offers a powerful model for u n d e r s t a n d i n g later Judaism, which in a similar way has reworked and revised earlier traditions and texts. Such creativity has allowed Judaism to remain a dynamic, living religion.

12 "May My Lord King David Live Forever" Royal Ideology in Samuel and Judges Primary Reading: Samuel (esp. 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8; Judges 1-3, 13-21).

Who Killed Goliath? Everyone

k n o w s that David killed Goliath—the story of 1 Samuel 17 is a m o n g the best k n o w n in the Bible; a variety of famous paintings have depicted in gory detail the scene of David delivering Goliath's head to Saul. 1 Yet in an a p p e n d i x a d d e d to the book of Samuel, we read: "Again there was fighting with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, whose spear had a shaft like a weaver's bar" (2 Sam. 21:19). Historians follow a well-known principle in their research: if two sources each attribute the same action—especially a heroic o n e — t o a well-known figure a n d to one w h o is otherwise u n k n o w n , it probably h a p p e n e d with the u n k n o w n figure; a n d the story was later transferred to the well-known person. Thus, if there really was a giant n a m e d Goliath, then Elhanan killed h i m — n o t David. Even if we deny that this tradition about a giant-slayer was historical, we would still think it likely that the Israelites told this story first about Elhanan, a n d only secondarily about David. Additional evidence bolsters this claim. The David and Goliath story in 1 Samuel 17 is folkloristic. Its structure and plot d o not characterize a narrative interested in the past as it actually transpired. The plot concerns a y o u n g whippersnapper w h o can defeat a fearful giant before w h o m everyone else cowers. The person w h o eventually defeats the giant has been promised the h a n d of the king's daughter in marriage. As in m u c h folklore, the tale includes unexpected twists, such as the m a n n e r in which David disposes of Goliath. The scene where David tries to walk in Saul's armor is even comical.

In addition, the David a n d Goliath story conflicts with its context, suggesting that it is a late a d d i t i o n to Samuel. In the previous story (1 Sam. 1 6 : 1 5 - 2 3 ) , David was i n t r o d u c e d into Saul's court as a lyre player to help ease Saul's melancholy. However, t h r o u g h o u t c h a p t e r 17, Saul has n o idea w h o David is. In fact, we read: (55) W h e n Saul saw David going out to assault the Philistine, he asked his army c o m m a n d e r Abner, " W h o s e s o n is that boy, Abner?" A n d A b n e r replied, "By y o u r life. Your Majesty, I d o not know." (56) "Then find out w h o s e son that y o u n g fellow is," the k i n g ordered. (57) So w h e n David r e t u r n e d after killing the Philistine, Abner took h i m a n d b r o u g h t h i m to Saul, w i t h the h e a d of the Philistine still in his h a n d . (58) Saul said to h i m , " W h o s e son are y o u , m y boy?" And David a n s w e r e d , "The son of y o u r servant Jesse the Bethlehemite." C h a p t e r 17 fits poorly with w h a t follows as well. In the next story, Saul twice suggests to David that he m a r r y one of his d a u g h t e r s in exchange for certain d e e d s (1 Sam. 18:17, 25). That unit s h o w s n o awareness of 17:25, w h i c h h a d promised the king's d a u g h t e r to the p e r s o n w h o could slay Goliath. These tensions all suggest that a later h a n d inserted the David a n d Goliath story into the rest of 1 Samuel. W h e r e did that later story c o m e from? Probably from storytellers w h o e x p a n d e d o n the traditions f o u n d in the a p p e n d i x to Samuel m e n t i o n e d above. Both passages share a couple of u n u s u a l features. O n e is the o d d simile that Goliath's spear "had a shaft like a weaver's bar" (1 Sam. 17:7; 2 Sam. 21:19); it appears in the Bible only in these two p l a c e s — a n d their parallels in Chronicles. A n o t h e r is the m e n t i o n of a giant w h o "taunts" Israel (1 Sam. 17:10, 25, 26, 36, 45; 2 Sam. 21:21); this root ( ‫ ח ר ף‬, ch-r-p) is f o u n d n o w h e r e else in Samuel. These clues suggest that the David a n d Goliath story grew f r o m 2 Samuel 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 2 , a short unit describing the exploits of "David a n d his men," the giant-slayers. The suggestion that the David a n d Goliath story is a late, s e c o n d a r y addition to Samuel raises f u r t h e r questions: W h y did s o m e o n e write this episode? W h y did s o m e o n e insert it here? T h e answer to those questions will help u s u n c o v e r the m a i n p u r p o s e of the Book of Samuel.

The Ideology of Samuel Some t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y scholars took the Book of Samuel as an accurate historical text. For example, J o h n Bright claimed that:

Saul was a tragic figure. Of splendid appearance, modest, at his best m a g n a n i m o u s and willing to confess his faults, always fiercely courageous, there was nevertheless in h i m an emotional instability that was to be his u n d o i n g . Always of a volatile t e m p e r a m e n t capable of frenzies of excitement, it appears that as pressure was p u t on him he became increasingly disturbed of m i n d , swinging like a p e n d u l u m between m o m e n t s of lucidity and black m o o d s in which, incapable to intelligent action, he indulged in behavior calculated to alienate even those closest to him. Before the end Saul was probably n o longer quite sane. 2 Bright simply paraphrased the biblical text and removed divine causality. Thus, according to Bright, it was not God w h o afflicted Saul (1 Sam. 16:14, "an evil spirit from the LORD began to terrify him") b u t some unspecified mental malady. Happily, scholars n o w widely recognize h o w u n s o u n d this type of history writing is. It fails to address the most basic questions about its sources, such as: W h e n was this text written? W h o wrote it? W h a t was the purpose in writing it? Obviously, n o one can answer these questions definitively and precisely. We will not be able to say that this part of Samuel was drafted by some physician n a m e d J o s e p h w h o lived in Gilgal and, after having visited King Saul on what we n o w reckon as May 5, 1003 B.C.E., wrote it u p as case notes the next day. However, by listening for internal hints in the text—by exploring rhetorical features a n d interpreting them, as I demonstrated earlier in this b o o k — w e can answer some of our questions, even if the answers m u s t be tentative. O u r answers will determine h o w we read this unit: as an accurate historical record of the past, or as a w o r k c o m p o s e d with some other goal in m i n d . The material from 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8 forms a literary unit. 3 The character of this material suggests that its main goal is to delegitimate Saul as king and to legitimate David as Saul's proper successor. The text conveys this message in a n u m b e r of ways. O n e way is by depicting David as Saul's son, w h o thus has a "legal" claim to the throne. Portraying David (the J u d e a n ) as the actual son of Saul (the Benjaminite) would exceed the creativity that the audience of a narrative about the past can tolerate. But the text points to David's "filial" relationship with Saul by emphasizing that he was the king's son-in-law. In addition, clothing imagery plays a role in the motif of legitimacy. The w o r d i n g is even somewhat awkward, so that the point will not be missed: "Jonathan took off the cloak he was wearing and gave it to David, and his tunic, including his sword, including his bow, a n d including his belt" (1 Sam. 18:4, transi, adapted). 4 Thus, J o n a t h a n symbolically t u r n s David into himself—the eldest son of Saul a n d crown prince. Indeed, m u c h later J o n a t h a n says as m u c h to David: "You are going to be king over Israel" (1 Sam. 23:17).

Moreover, the text p u t s the actual w o r d s "my father" a n d "my son" into the m o u t h s of David a n d Saul, r e s p e c t i v e l y — a l t h o u g h in context those w o r d s ' plain sense is n o t their literal m e a n i n g . In 1 Samuel 24, David addresses Saul, "Please, avi (

,

2 4 : 1 2 )".. .

(‫)אב‬.

True to its translation a p p r o a c h , the JPS t

ders avi contextually as the honorific "sir," while a d d i n g a footnote: "Lit. '[my] father.'" In this way, the translators allow that the w o r d i n g has a d o u b l e m e a n ing—namely, it f u r t h e r serves to suggest k i n s h i p b e t w e e n David a n d Saul. As the c h a p t e r c o n t i n u e s , Saul is m a d e to say w i t h a p p a r e n t t e n d e r n e s s , "Is that y o u r voice, beni ( ‫ ב ל‬, ' m y son') David?" (v. 17). Saul asks the same q u e s t i o n again in an alternative version of this story (what scholars call a "doublet"; 26:17), reinforcing the p a t t e r n of the earlier chapter. In short, b y c o m b i n i n g passages that in different ways create w h a t m i g h t be called a pseudogenealogical relationship w i t h Saul, an editor has legitimated David, m a k i n g h i m into the c r o w n prince rather t h a n a u s u r p e r . Meanwhile, the text p o r t r a y s David a n d Saul as o p p o s i t e s — i n particular, as c o n t r a s t i n g positive a n d negative figures. 5 This is true in several ways, starting w i t h their p h y s i q u e . Saul is described twice as "a h e a d taller t h a n all the people" (1 Sam. 9:2, 10:23). In contrast, David is twice called ha-katan

QûÌ?H; 16:11,

17:14). In context, the plain sense of this w o r d is "the youngest" ( w h i c h is h o w the JPS translation r e n d e r s it). However, it can also m e a n "the smallest/shortest," w h i c h resonates in this story w h e n j u x t a p o s e d w i t h b o t h the giant Goliath a n d the tall Saul. Descriptions of physical attributes are rare in the Bible; usually w h e n they appear, it is i m p o r t a n t for the plot. In this case, two p u r p o s e s are served by the implicit contrast in size. First, it alerts the reader to the subtler contrasts b e t w e e n David a n d Saul. S e c o n d , it casts a s h a d o w over Saul: he is the o n e w h o s h o u l d have c o n f r o n t e d Goliath, b u t instead the k i n g lets s o m e y o u n g ster w i t h less stature d o so. Again, clothing imagery conveys a similar message. In 1 Samuel 17, David tries o n Saul's clothes, b u t they d o n o t fit—David will n o t b e c o m e a n e w Saul. However, the m a i n set of contrasts b e t w e e n David a n d Saul centers o n m u r d e r . Specifically, Saul is o n e w h o kills the i n n o c e n t , while David spares even the guilty. T h u s , Saul tries twice to have David killed by the Philistines (chap. 18). Moreover, the n a r r a t i o n c o n t i n u e s , "Saul urged his s o n J o n a t h a n a n d all his courtiers to kill David" (19:1) a n d r e c o u n t s two a t t e m p t s o n David's life ( w . 1 0 - 1 7 ) . Saul even tries to kill his o w n son J o n a t h a n (14:44, 2 0 : 3 3 ) a n d orders the m u r d e r of the priests of the city of N o b (chap. 22). Saul personally chases David in a t t e m p t s to kill h i m in c h a p t e r s 23, 24, a n d 26. In contrast, David h a d easy o p p o r t u n i t i e s to take Saul's life in 1 Samuel 2 4 a n d 26; b u t a l t h o u g h the king was trying to h u n t h i m d o w n , David refused to

kill "the LORD'S anointed" (24:7; 26:11). Likewise, David did not want A b n e r — Saul's relative and former army officer—killed (2 Sam. 3). He p u n i s h e d those w h o killed Ish-Bosheth, a son of Saul (chap. 4). Thus, David has compassion even for those w h o threaten his kingship. O u r unit further contrasts the two anointed figures by juxtaposing their treatment of Amalekites. According to legislation in Deuteronomy (25:19), the Amalekites must be exterminated. In 1 Samuel 1 5 : 2 - 3 , Samuel c o m m a n d s Saul to carry this law out by killing the Amalekites along with all their cattle. Saul, however, leaves their king and some of their cattle alive. In contrast, the person w h o finished off Saul on Mt. Gilboa "just h a p p e n e d " to be an Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:13), a n d David arranges for h i m to be killed immediately. David follows the law of the ban that Saul had ignored. O n e of the strongest contrasts between the two characters is that David receives God's spirit while Saul loses it. At a crucial m o m e n t , Saul is incapable of receiving a divine oracle (1 Sam. 28), while all David needs to d o is to ask, a n d the oracle is received (1 Sam. 23:2; 3 0 : 7 - 8 ; 2 Sam. 2:1). Furthermore, David's oracles are positive, and he defeats his enemies (1 Sam. 23; 2 7 : 7 - 1 2 ; 30), whereas after a negative oracle Saul a n d m u c h of his family fall to the Philistines (1 Samuel 28; 31). This pattern, in conjunction with the others, underscores the narrator's statement that "the spirit of the L O R D gripped David . . . [and] departed from Saul" (1 Sam. 16:13-14). I have asserted that this part of Samuel (1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8) is a highly ideological text legitimating David as king. Can I prove this interpretation? No, not in the sense that a scientific fact can be proven. The only "evidence" that we have is the biblical text, whose statements and literary features need to be explained. O n e explanation is that the text is "simply" recording facts and events. I reject that explanation for several reasons. Premodern texts, including the Bible, show little antiquarian interest and rarely record facts for their o w n sake. In addition, the structure and other literary features of this material suggest that it seeks something other than the actual past. Different explanations for a given biblical text need to be weighed against each other. I believe that the purpose suggested here makes sense of content and the current of the passage in question better than any other explanation.

Ideology Serves Theology Although I perceive a conscious and consistent legitimation of David at the expense of Saul, I do not mean to suggest that it is arbitrary or pure political

p r o p a g a n d a . It also h a s a moral d i m e n s i o n . A key e l e m e n t in this unit is 1 Samuel 15, the story a b o u t Saul's failure to proscribe things Amalekite. It tells u s that G o d will transfer the k i n g s h i p f r o m Saul (to David) as a direct result of his d i s d a i n i n g the divine c o m m a n d . In the poetic w o r d s of the p r o p h e t Samuel: "Because y o u rejected the

LORD'S

c o m m a n d , / He h a s rejected y o u as king"

(15:23). T h e previous verse, w h i c h s o u n d s very m u c h like the later classical p r o p h e t s s u c h as A m o s a n d Isaiah, 6 e m p h a s i z e s that "Surely, o b e d i e n c e is better t h a n sacrifice, / C o m p l i a n c e t h a n the fat of rams." T h u s , this unit of Samuel legitimates David w i t h i n a theological f r a m e w o r k : Saul loses his k i n g s h i p w h e n h e rejects p r o p e r religious n o r m s , a n d , in typical biblical m e a s u r e - f o r - m e a s u r e m a n n e r , is rejected as k i n g for rejecting God. This p r o n o u n c e m e n t applies n o t only to King Saul, b u t also to all those w h o follow h i m .

Judges as History J u d g e s , the b o o k that i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s Samuel, p r e s e n t s itself as the history of the period b e t w e e n the c o n q u e s t of the land by J o s h u a a n d the period of the establishment of the monarchy. T h e people w e r e led by shofetim

(singular:

shofet, ‫ ) ש פ ט‬, often translated as "judges" ( t h u s the n a m e of the b o o k ) . However, since they h a d little to d o w i t h judicial matters, "judges" is a m i s n o m e r . T h e t e r m is better r e n d e r e d as "chieftains," local or tribal leaders w h o r e s p o n d e d to crises a n d led their t r i b e — o r in s o m e cases, several t r i b e s — t o battle. Social scientists have d o c u m e n t e d this type of leadership by local chieftains in m a n y p r e m o n a r c h i c a l societies. T h u s the Bible's portrayal of Israel's progrèssion f r o m chieftain to k i n g is n o t o n l y logical, b u t also m o s t likely historically true. This does n o t m e a n , however, that the details f o u n d in the Book of J u d g e s are accurate. N o n e of the facts or events in J u d g e s is c o r r o b o r a t e d by outside evidence. Given the m a t t e r s that it deals with, this is n o t at all surprising; these are n o t the type of significant events that c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s inscriptions w o u l d record. Even so, it w o u l d be i m p r o p e r to p a r a p h r a s e the b o o k a n d to accept its c h r o n o l o g y as correct. In the f o r m in w h i c h it h a s c o m e d o w n to us, the b o o k m a y preserve s o m e accurate historical traditions, b u t these have b e e n r e w o r k e d a n d reorganized for a p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n telling the past as it really was. T h u s , reconstructing the "period of j u d g e s " o n the basis of the Book of J u d g e s is perilous. C h r o n o l o g y is usually seen as the b a c k b o n e of history, yet this b o o k d o e s n o t offer a consistent time line. For e x a m p l e , J u d g e s o p e n s "after the d e a t h of J o s h u a " (1:1), yet J o s h u a dies (again?) in 2:8. Regarding the action n a r r a t e d

meanwhile, we cannot tell w h e n it transpired. Furthermore, the last five chapters of the book seem to take place at the same time as the initial chapters. In 18:30, a m a n w h o m the text suggests was Moses' grandson is functioning as a priest, while in 20:28, Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron is the main priest. Both of those figures bring us back to the generation after Joshua. However, according to the central section of Judges, many generations have passed. In addition, several of the stories contain significant improbabilities. This is most evident in the final story of Judges, concerning the rape of the concubine by the Benjaminites of Gibeah. After a m o b rapes this w o m a n nearly to death, her h u s b a n d "picked u p a knife, and took hold of his concubine and cut her u p limb by limb into twelve parts. He sent t h e m throughout the territory of Israel" (19:29), in an attempt to m u s t e r the tribes against the offending Gibeonites and Benjaminites. Aside from the strangeness of this action, why would he have needed twelve pieces? After all, Benjamin (one of the twelve tribes) was going to be attacked, so he would hardly have called it to battle. Thus, this gruesome and surrealistic story, in its arc a n d in its details, seems to be something other than a retelling of actual events of the past.

Micro and Macro Structure in Judges W h e n we are confronted with a story that is set in the past yet seems not to be portraying the "real" past, we always need to ask: W h y has this story been shaped in this fashion? Fortunately, the Book of Judges provides ample clues, both in its stories and in h o w they are combined. Consider another story in Judges that is clearly not historical: (3:7) The Israelites did what was offensive to the LORD; they ignored the LORD their God and worshiped the Baalim and the Asheroth. (8) The LORD became incensed at Israel and surrendered t h e m to King C u s h a n rishathaim of Aram-naharaim; and the Israelites were subject to Cushan-rishathaim for eight years. (9) The Israelites cried out to the LORD, a n d the LORD raised a c h a m p i o n for the Israelites to deliver them: Othniel the Kenizzite, a younger k i n s m a n of Caleb. (10) The spirit of the LORD descended u p o n him and he became Israel's chieftain. He went out to war, a n d the LORD delivered King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram into his hands. He prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim, (11) and the land had peace for forty years; then Othniel the Kenizzite died, (transi, of v. 11 adapted)

Cushan-rishathaim, the n a m e of the king of Aram-naharaim (often translated as "Aram of the two rivers"—the Tigris and Euphrates) calls attention to itself: it is metrically balanced and rhymes with the n a m e of his realm, a quite unusual feature. More tellingly, the n a m e means "the dark double-wicked one." In ancient Semitic cultures, names were given by parents at the time of birth, often expressing parental feelings u p o n the child's birth—it is hard to u n d e r s t a n d w h y a parent would n a m e a child "the dark double-wicked one." In addition, Aram is to the n o r t h of Israel, while the judge, Othniel, is a Kenizzite, and t h u s from the tribe of J u d a h , from the south of Israel. It is hard to grasp why he would fight against an Aramean—this is like saying that a Texan was the first to defend the United States after Canada attacked it. The misplaced geography a n d the oddness of the n a m e of Cushanrishathaim would have suggested to ancient readers that this story is something other than straightforward history. In fact, it is best read as a story about an ideal J u d e a n defeating pure evil. As the book's first story about a chieftain, it is appropriately simple and to the point: all starts out well w h e n J u d a h is in charge. As m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s have noted, most of the other chieftains in Judges are quite imperfect heroes. A m o n g other things, they d o u b t God, sacrifice a daughter, cavort with Philistine w o m e n , a n d break religious vows. In fact, the chieftains form a pattern: as the narrative progresses from Othniel (of J u d a h , in the south) to Samson (of Dan, which eventually was the n o r t h e r n m o s t tribe)— the chieftains become worse a n d worse. This pattern functions to denigrate n o r t h e r n judges. All told, these stories sharpen the message from the Othniel account: only J u d e a n leadership is satisfactory. The beginning and end of Judges together amplify that message. These sections d o not contain stories about chieftains. Rather, the initial chapters recount the conquest of the land, in which J u d a h plays a crucial role, defeating those in its territories—whereas other tribes fail to d o so. Near the e n d of the book, chapters 1 7 - 1 8 depict in a derogatory fashion the origin of worship in the north. The last three chapters, about the concubine of Gibeah, are a prequel to the set of stories about Saul in 1 Samuel, which we discussed above. Saul would come from Gibeah in Benjamin, w h e r e — s o Judges tells u s — t h e people behave in a h o r r e n d o u s manner. The concubine husband's act (mustering the troops by c h o p p i n g u p her b o d y a n d sending its pieces to all the tribes) will surely come to m i n d w h e n we read of Saul's later act: "He took a yoke of oxen and cut them into pieces, which he sent by messengers throughout the territory of Israel, with the warning, 'Thus shall be d o n e to the cattle of anyone w h o does not follow Saul and Samuel into battle!'" (1 Sam. 11:7). By denigrating Gibeah (Saul's birth-

place), Benjamin (Saul's tribe), and Jabesh Gilead (a city closely associated with Saul), the concubine of Gibeah story is suggesting that there is n o chance that Saul will be a good king.

Judges and Samuel as Parallel Stories Judges does not describe accurately the period between Joshua and Saul. Instead, it parallels the Book of Samuel. Several times it raises the issue of kings h i p — b y discussing the possibility of Gideon becoming king (8:22), by highlighting Abimelech's role as king of Shechem (chap. 9), and by repeating the formula "in those days there was n o king in Israel" four times in its final five chapters. In this vein, it makes a clear value j u d g m e n t about w h o the proper king is: he must be an Othniel-like figure w h o hails from J u d a h . He cannot be northern. He cannot be a Benjaminite—certainly not one from Gibeah like Saul. The peopie of Israel do not ask for a king to replace Samuel, the last chieftain, until 1 Samuel 8. Yet by that point, the Deuteronomistic Historian has already conditioned readers to think that J u d e a n , Davidic kingship is the only legitimate kind. My title for the present chapter, "May My Lord King David Live Forever," reflects I Kings 1:31, the book that follows Samuel. Yet that statement really is the message of both Judges and Samuel. Reading these two books as factual, rather than as royal propaganda bolstering the Davidic dynasty and state, would be a serious error. It w o u l d be like opening a newspaper and reading the editorial pages as factual news.

13 "For Israel Tore Away from the House of David" Reading Kings Primary Reading: 1 Kings 1-12, 16; 2 Kings

17-25.

History Is Too Important to Leave to Chance1

T

hus far I have emphasized that m u c h of what looks like history in the Bible is really mythological. That is, biblical texts are interested in expressing or p r o m o t i n g particular views about issues of collective importance (see "Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth" in chapter 6). The issues that these texts explore are sometimes political and sometimes theological; often they are a combination of both. At times, these stories incorporate earlier historical traditions, but rarely, if ever, are those traditions present for their own sake—for what is called "antiquarian interest." 2 At first glance, the Book of Kings looks different from the rest of this material. We will return to Samuel one more time to underline these differences. In one of Samuel's most central texts, N a t h a n offers David a divine promise concerning his son: (2 Sam. 7:14) I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. W h e n he does wrong, I will chastise him with the rod of m e n a n d the affliction of mortals; (15) but I will never w i t h d r a w My favor from him as I withdrew it from Saul, w h o m I removed to make room for you. (16) Your house and your kingship shall ever be secure before you; your throne shall be established forever. Although Kings shares some of these same ideas, it narrates them in a very different manner. Instead of long, well-styled 3 character studies, most of the

accounts in Kings are short. They also contain different types of details than

Samuel—details of chronology, of tribute paid, of royal building projects, etc. In other words, the structure and style of the book are unlike the books of the early prophets that precede it. This raises the question of whether we should give the traditions it contains the benefit of the d o u b t , and if we should treat Kings as history, in our m o d e r n sense. The answer is that Kings is like the other books of the Bible we have examined: it presents historical information for the sake of other agendas. The following sections will explain why.

The Chronology of Kings In discussing w h y Judges is not history, I noted that whereas chronology is the "backbone" of history, Judges is out of chronological order (see "Judges as History" in chapter 12). The same critique applies to Kings. Although it supplies chronological notes more o f t e n — a n d in more detail—if we look carefully we will see that Kings too is out of chronological order. We need look no farther than the first long unit in Kings, which concerns Solomon, a son of David w h o followed him as king. Near that unit's end we read: "When Hadad heard in Egypt that David h a d been laid to rest with his fathers and that Joab the army c o m m a n d e r was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, 'Give me leave to go to m y own country"' (1 Kings 11:21). Clearly, this m u s t have transpired very early in Solomon's reign, not at the e n d of it. This suggests that the text is doing something other than recalling the reign of Solomon as it actually h a p p e n e d in correct chronological order. Even the detailed chronological notes themselves sometimes provide problems. In the following excerpt from 1 Kings 16, note the years w h e n different reigns begin and end. H o w well d o they fit together? 4 (15) During the twenty-seventh year of King Asa of J u d a h , Zimri reigned in Tirzah for seven days. At the time, the troops were e n c a m p e d at Gibbethon of the Philistines. (16) W h e n the troops w h o were e n c a m p e d there learned that Zimri h a d committed treason and had struck d o w n the king, that very day, in the camp, all Israel acclaimed the army c o m m a n d e r O m r i king over Israel. (17) Orari and all Israel then withdrew from Gibbethon and laid siege to Tirzah. (18) W h e n Zimri saw that the town was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal palace a n d b u r n e d d o w n the royal palace over himself. And so he d i e d — (19) because of the sins which he committed and caused Israel to commit, doing what was displeasing to the L O R D and following the ways of Jeroboam. (20) The other events of Zimri's reign, and the treason which he committed, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of

Israel. (21) Then the people of Israel split into two factions: a part of the people followed Tibni son of Ginath to make h i m king, and the other part followed Omri. (22) Those w h o followed Omri proved stronger than those w h o followed Tibni son of Ginath; Tibni died a n d O m r i became king. (23) In the thirty-first year of King Asa of J u d a h , O m r i became king over Israel—for twelve years. He reigned in Tirzah six years. (24) Then he b o u g h t the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver; he built a town on the hill and n a m e d the town which he built Samaria, after Shemer, the owner of the hill. (25) O m r i did what was displeasing to the LORD; he was worse than all w h o preceded him. (26) He followed all the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat a n d the sins which he committed a n d caused Israel to commit, vexing the LORD, the God of Israel, with their futilities. (27) The other events of Omri's reign, a n d his actions, a n d the exploits he performed, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Israel. (28) Omri slept with his fathers and was buried in Samaria; a n d his son Ahab succeeded him as king. (29) Ahab son of O m r i became king over Israel in the thirty-eighth year of King Asa of J u d a h , and Ahab son of O m r i reigned over Israel in Samaria for twenty-two years. If Zimri only reigned for seven days, a n d began to reign during the twenty-seventh year of King Asa (v. 15), h o w did his successor, Omri, begin to reign in the thirty-first year of King Asa (v. 23)? If O m r i became king in the thirty-first year of Asa and reigned for twelve years (v. 23), h o w is it possible that his son, Ahab, began to reign in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (v. 29)? There is n o obvious way to solve this arithmetic problem. Some scholars speculate that two kings reigned for the same time and their regnal years counted for both kings. 5 Unfortunately, the biblical text itself attests only rarely to such "co-regencies" and justifies t h e m w h e n they were necessary (e.g., the first king became seriously ill).

Other Historical Issues in Kings A closer look at this section reveals other types of problems, that is, issues that m o d e r n historians might be curious about, but that the text does not address. For example: W h o favored Zimri and w h o favored Omri? Likewise, w h o favored Tibni over Omri (1 Kings 16:21)? H o w and w h y did O m r i s faction win (v. 22)? W h y did Omri move his capital, a n d why did he choose Samaria (v. 24)? The biblical historian shows little interest in these sorts of questions, which would preoccupy the m o d e r n historian. Instead, the DtrH is mostly interested in evaluating each of these kings and

noting their negative behavior. This is especially remarkable concerning Zimri, w h o reigned only for seven days, yet is c o n d e m n e d "because of the sins w h i c h he committed a n d caused Israel to commit, doing what was displeasing to the L O R D a n d following the ways of Jeroboam" ( 1 Kings 1 6 : 1 9 ) . The sin is King Jeroboam's building of cult sites with golden calves in Bethel a n d Dan ( 1 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) , an action seen as horrific by the DtrH, since these sites c o m p e t e d with Jerusalem, site of the Temple a n d royal house. But h o w m u c h worship could Zimri have d o n e in seven days, especially while he was engaged in a civil war? Rather, the c o m m e n t in 1 Kings 16:19 is part of the stereotyped evaluation of each n o r t h e r n king by the DtrH, a J u d e a n , w h o will not miss a chance to denigrate the north. Although we k n o w of only a small n u m b e r of extrabiblical sources that bear directly on the Bible, a n u m b e r of these cluster a r o u n d the reign of Omri. The Mesha Inscription, written in Moabite (a Semitic language very close to Hebrew), notes: "Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for m a n y days, for C h e m o s h was angry with his land." 6 (Incidentally, the Moabites attributed the oppression of Moab to the anger of C h e m o s h , their high god. Israel was n o t alone in the ancient Near East in believing that deities directly participated in history.) In addition, Assyrian records from more than a century after the time of O m r i — a n d even after the end of his d y n a s t y — c o n t i n u e to call N o r t h e r n Israel "the house of Omri." 7 This suggests that b o t h O m r i a n d the dynasty he established were militarily powerful. Yet, the biblical text barely mentions this. Although the closing notice in 1 Kings 16:27 m e n t i o n s Omri's "actions" (or, "his mighty deeds"), it offers n o details. In s u m , Kings is not fundamentally different from the previous "historical books" we have examined. It may look a bit different, and may preserve a higher percentage of correct traditions, b u t this is a difference of extent, not of kind. As the following examples will show, Kings is not interested in the past for its o w n sake, b u t for m u c h more important reasons—for teaching ideological a n d theological lessons.

Solomon The Solomon material in Kings closely fits this description. Even a cursory reading of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 suggests that its perspective differs from that of a m o d e r n historian of antiquity. The text tells us almost n o t h i n g about Solomon before he accedes to the throne other than the fact that "the L O R D favored him" ( 2 Sam. 1 2 : 2 4 ) . Many passages in Kings deal with his building projects in exacting detail; nevertheless, these passages contain contradictions. For example, 1 Kings 5:27,

in discussing Solomon's b u i l d i n g projects, says that "King S o l o m o n i m p o s e d forced labor on all Israel," while 9 : 2 0 - 2 2 claims, "All the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, a n d Jebusites w h o were n o t of the Israelite stock . . . of these S o l o m o n m a d e a slave force, as is still the case. But he did n o t r e d u c e any Israelites to slavery . . .." Did S o l o m o n use Israelite forced labor or not? O t h e r details in the story seem to be extremely unlikely, for e x a m p l e the suggestion that the u s u r p e r A d o n i j a h asked for Abishag the S h u n a m m i t e , w h o w a r m e d David in his old age (1 Kings 1), as a wife. This w o u l d have b e e n tant a m o u n t to asking for the late king's wife, or at the very least, to asking to m a r r y a senior m e m b e r of the f o r m e r royal court. It w o u l d have suggested to S o l o m o n that A d o n i j a h still w a n t e d to be king, in c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h h i m . 8 Certainly, A d o n i j a h s h o u l d have k n o w n that S o l o m o n w o u l d view his request as an a t t e m p t to u s u r p the t h r o n e , a n d that he w o u l d be p u n i s h e d with d e a t h (see v. 25). It is likely that the reason for this story is that the n a r r a t o r w a n t e d to get rid of A d o n i j a h w i t h o u t m a k i n g S o l o m o n responsible, a n d creating this incident p r o v i d e d the ideal way to d o it. If the material a b o u t S o l o m o n was not arranged chronologically, a n d if it is not interested in a complete, balanced, or objective picture of Solomon's life, h o w is it arranged, a n d w h a t is it interested in doing? 9 In o r d e r to a n s w e r these q u e s t i o n s we will first look at the structure of the text. T h e following sets of verses parallel each o t h e r in c o n t e n t a n d structure, a n d will h e l p u s to divide the first eleven c h a p t e r s into sections: 1 Kings 3

1 Kings 9

(1) S o l o m o n allied himself by marriage

(24) As s o o n as Pharaoh's d a u g h t e r

w i t h P h a r a o h king of Egypt. He m a r -

w e n t u p f r o m the City of David to the

ried Pharaoh's d a u g h t e r a n d b r o u g h t

palace that he h a d built for her, he

h e r to the City of David to live there

built the Millo. (25) S o l o m o n u s e d to

until

his

offer b u r n t offerings a n d sacrifices of

palace, a n d the H o u s e of the LORD, a n d

well-being three times a year o n the

the walls a r o u n d Jerusalem. (2) T h e

altar that he h a d built for the LORD,

people, however, c o n t i n u e d to offer

a n d he u s e d to offer incense o n the

sacrifices at the o p e n shrines, because

o n e that was before the LORD. A n d he

u p to that time n o h o u s e h a d b e e n

kept the H o u s e in repair.

he h a d

finished b u i l d i n g

built for the n a m e of the LORD. (3) A n d S o l o m o n , t h o u g h h e loved the LORD a n d followed the practices of his father David, also sacrificed a n d offered at the shrines.

Using these parallels to divide 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 i n t o sections, the following o u t line c o m e s into view: Accession of S o l o m o n to the t h r o n e ( 1 - 2 ) 1 0 S o l o m o n follows G o d a n d is blessed ( 3 : 1 - 9 : 2 3 ) S o l o m o n does n o t follow G o d a n d is cursed ( 9 : 2 6 - 1 1 : 4 0 ) Typical D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c c o n c l u s i o n f o r m u l a ( 1 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 ) This organization is theological rather t h a n chronological. I n d e e d , it mirrors the s t r u c t u r e of the material a b o u t David in the Book of Samuel. There, David is blessed u p until the time that he sins w i t h Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11, after w h i c h p o i n t almost n o t h i n g s e e m s to go right for D a v i d s family.

The Laws of the King This material f r o m Kings is part of the DtrH, so it is n o t surprising that S o l o m o n a p p e a r s to be cursed for violating the laws of D e u t e r o n o m y

Deuteronomy

1 7 : 1 6 - 1 7 , the b e g i n n i n g of w h a t is o f t e n called "the laws of the king," notes: Moreover, he shall n o t k e e p m a n y horses or send people b a c k to Egypt to a d d to his horses, since the

LORD

h a s w a r n e d y o u , "You m u s t n o t go

back that way again." A n d he shall n o t have m a n y wives, lest his heart go astray; n o r shall he amass silver a n d gold to excess. 1 Kings 9 : 2 6 - 1 1 : 4 0 outlines h o w S o l o m o n violated all three of these prohibitions: •

In 9 : 2 8 - 1 0 : 2 5 , S o l o m o n a c c u m u l a t e s excessive wealth t h r o u g h his c o n tact w i t h the Q u e e n of Sheba a n d others. Verse 10:14 notes that S o l o m o n annually received 6 6 6 talents of g o l d — o v e r 5 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. a year.

•

In 1 0 : 2 6 - 2 9 , S o l o m o n p r o c u r e s m a n y horses, a n d m a n y of t h e m c o m e f r o m Egypt.

•

In c h a p t e r 11, S o l o m o n marries many foreign wives, w h o (v. 3) " t u r n e d his heart away."

T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to the D t r H , G o d p u n i s h e d S o l o m o n for g o o d reason. (The p u n i s h m e n t came after his death; it consisted of his son's losing part of the kingd o m w h e n the n o r t h e r n tribes seceded after R e h o b o a m dismissed their petition to lighten their corvée b u r d e n . ) Regarding the third p r o h i b i t i o n that S o l o m o n violates, the initial verses o n

this topic present themselves as a quote: "of which the L O R D had said to the Israelites." Indeed, what follows, "None of you shall join them and n o n e of them shall join you, lest they t u r n your heart away to follow their gods" is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 7. That text had charged Israel with proscribing the nations of Canaan, holding that "You shall not intermarry with them: d o not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the LORD'S anger will blaze forth against you and He will promptly wipe you out" (7:3-4). Strikingly, the text in 1 Kings 1 1 : 1 - 2 , which seems to be merely citing Deuteronomy, is actually extending the Deuteronomic laws. Deuteronomy 7 prohibited intermarriage only with the seven resident nations of Canaan (including Hittites); 2 3 : 4 - 7 prohibit intermarriage with the neighboring Moabites and Ammonites; 2 3 : 8 - 9 permit intermarriage with Egyptians and Edomites three generations after Moses. However, 1 Kings 11:1 spotlights Solomon's Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Phoenician, and Hittite wives. Of these, Deutero n o m y outlawed only his Moabite, Ammonite, and Hittite wives. Hence, 1 Kings extends the injunctions of Deuteronomy in their widest sense, to include Egyptian, Edomite, and Phoenician w o m e n — p e r h a p s even all non-Israelite women! This type of stringency or extension of the law is quite c o m m o n in rabbinic texts, w h i c h develop the notion of "making a fence a r o u n d the Torah" to safeguard it. 1 1 However, 1 Kings 11 d e m o n s t r a t e s that this was not a rabbinic invention, b u t that it existed already in the biblical period. In fact, it is even possible that 1 Kings 11 represents a type of protorabbinic interpretation. It is as if the a u t h o r of that text were saying: "Deuteronomy is prohibiting specific foreign wives because 'they will t u r n y o u r children away from [God] to worship other gods, a n d the LORD'S anger will blaze forth . . .' Is it only wives from the seven Canaanite nations w h o can lead Israelite m e n astray? Certainly n o t — any non-Israelite can, t h u s marriage with any non-Israelite w o m a n m u s t be prohibited." Such an evolution in legal interpretation, if my u n d e r s t a n d i n g of it is correct, is remarkable in two ways. First, it shows the audacity of the biblical author, w h o (just like the rabbis) extends the law while insisting that this is what God really said or meant. Second, it shows that rabbinic-type interpretation did not begin in the rabbinic period, but had significant roots in the biblical perio d . 1 2 The fact that we find this type of protorabbinic interpretation in biblical "historical" texts is another reason to be cautious about using these texts to reconstruct the real history of Israel.

Archaeological History Some readers may object to my skepticism about using 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 to reconstruct the history of the reign of Solomon. They may point to the excavation of Solomon's stables in Megiddo or the Solomonic royal gates at the cities of Megiddo, Hazor, a n d Gezer (see 1 Kings 9:15), to corroborate the biblical a c c o u n t . 1 3 However, more recent scholarship has raised significant questions about the stratigraphy—the study of levels a n d their dating—at these cities. It is uncertain if the royal gates should be dated to Solomon or later; 1 4 in any case, most scholars agree that the Solomonic Stables are neither stables (they are storerooms) nor Solomonic. 1 5 These cases that remind us that archaeology is not objective, and that it is dangerous to use archaeology in a circular fashion to confirm the Bible.

Jerusalem in 701 Even t h o u g h we need to be cautious about reading the Bible as history, scholars have reached a consensus about key events in the year 701 B.C.E. The Assyrian king Sennacherib came d o w n the Mediterranean coast, vanquished m a n y citystates, and fought against King Hezekiah of Judea, c o n q u e r i n g m a n y J u d e a n cities. The Assyrian army besieged but did not c o n q u e r Jerusalem. The convergence of evidence from a wide range of sources—texts from the Bible a n d from Assyria, the Assyrian palace's wall-relief depictions, and other archaeological finds (especially a r o u n d the conquered Israelite city of Lachish)—allows us to reconstruct the outlines of that campaign with confidence. 1 6 In fact, there is remarkable agreement between the account of the siege given in Sennacherib's Annals about his third campaign, and the short account in 2 Kings 1 8 : 1 3 - 1 6 . The annals, a genre of historical inscriptions u p d a t e d yearly, were organized chronologically according to (military) campaigns. They read: In my third campaign, I marched against Hatti [Upper S y r i a ] . . . . As for Hezekiah, 1 7 the J u d e a n , I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities a n d s u r r o u n d i n g smaller towns, which were without number. Using p a c k e d - d o w n r a m p s a n d battering rams . . . I conquered [them]. I took out 2 0 0 , 1 5 0 people, 1 8 y o u n g a n d old, male and female, horses, mules, . . . a n d sheep without n u m b e r a n d counted t h e m as spoil. He himself, I locked u p within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. . . . He, Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship,

a n d he sent m e after m y d e p a r t u r e to N i n e v e h , m y royal city . . . 3 0 talents of gold, 8 0 0 talents of silver . . . e l e p h a n t h i d e s . . . his male a n d female singers. 1 g W h y d o Assyrian inscriptions m e n t i o n a siege of J e r u s a l e m b u t n o t the city's c o n q u e s t ? S u c h inscriptions t e n d e d n o t to lie, a l t h o u g h they did t e n d to omit u n p l e a s a n t facts. T h u s it a p p e a r s that the u p s t a r t city survived the siege ( w h i c h Assyria lifted only after H e z e k i a h agreed to pay a large tribute to S e n n a c h e r i b ) . A small part of the biblical d e s c r i p t i o n of these events reads: (2 Kings 18:13) In the f o u r t e e n t h year of King H e z e k i a h , King Sennac h e r i b of Assyria m a r c h e d against all the fortified t o w n s of J u d a h a n d seized t h e m . (14) King H e z e k i a h sent this message to the k i n g of Assyria at Lachish: "I have d o n e w r o n g ; w i t h d r a w f r o m m e ; a n d I shall bear w h a t e v e r y o u i m p o s e o n m e . " So the k i n g of Assyria i m p o s e d u p o n King H e z e k i a h of J u d a h a p a y m e n t of three h u n d r e d talents of silver a n d thirty talents of gold. (15) H e z e k i a h gave h i m all the silver that w a s o n h a n d in the H o u s e of the LORD a n d in the treasuries of the palace. (16) At that time Hezekiah cut d o w n the d o o r s a n d the d o o r p o s t s of the Temple of the LORD, w h i c h King H e z e k i a h h a d overlaid w i t h gold, a n d gave t h e m to the k i n g of Assyria. T h e p o i n t s of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n these verses a n d the Assyrian a n n a l s are r e m a r k a b l e : cities c o n q u e r e d , J e r u s a l e m saved, a n d tribute paid, even exact a g r e e m e n t o n the n u m b e r of gold talents. T h e Book of Kings, h o w e v e r , goes o n to r e c o u n t this event for a n o t h e r t w o a n d half c h a p t e r s , t h r o u g h c h a p t e r 21. It is clear that this passage is f r o m a different s o u r c e t h a n

1 8 : 1 3 - 1 6 . T h o s e f o u r verses always spell the n a m e of

H e z e k i a h as Chizkiyah Chizkiyahu

( ‫ — ח ז ק י ה‬s i x times), while the c o n t i n u a t i o n spells it as

( ‫ — ח ז ק י ה ו‬m o r e t h a n t w e n t y times). S u c h variation w a s c o m m o n in

n a m e s c o n t a i n i n g G o d s n a m e (YHWH), w h e r e i n the latter m a y be spelled either ‫ ; י ה ו‬or ‫ י ה‬. However, any given a u t h o r w o u l d t e n d to use o n e f o r m or the o t h e r consistently. 2 0 T h e shift in spelling therefore implies that the material following 2 Kings 1 8 : 1 6 is f r o m a different s o u r c e or s o u r c e s . 2 1 This material is quite different in tone a n d c o n t e n t . W h a t is m o s t striking is the w a y in w h i c h it e m p h a s i z e s , even o v e r e m p h a s i z e s , the salvation of J e r u s a l e m . T h e first part of Kings c o n t a i n s a p r o p h e c y f r o m Isaiah to the k i n g of Assyria: (19:32)

Assuredly, t h u s said the LORD c o n c e r n i n g the king of Assyria: /

He shall n o t enter this city: / He shall n o t shoot an arrow at it, / O r advance u p o n it w i t h a shield, / O r pile u p a siege m o u n d against it. /

(33) He shall go back / By the way he came; / He shall not enter this city—declares the L O R D . / ( 3 4 ) I will protect a n d save this city for My sake, / And for the sake of My servant David. The next verse notes, "that night an angel of the L O R D w e n t out a n d struck d o w n one h u n d r e d and eighty-five t h o u s a n d in the Assyrian c a m p , a n d the following m o r n i n g they were all dead corpses." The following chapter, beginning in verse 12, describes a visit by the Babylonian king Berodach-baladan (also called Merodach-baladan) to Hezekiah. That episode is clearly out of order, since the passage is actually describing a Babylonian visit to J u d e a to help form a coalition to fight against Assyria a n d t h u s is earlier than 7 0 1 . 2 2 M o d e r n scholars' analysis of this material about the events of 701 has taught us a great deal about the writing of historical texts a n d h o w to read them. The texts employ multiple sources for the same event. They mix fact with fiction or highly embellished history. We see again that chronology was n o t the most important organizing factor for these historians writing texts about the past. We also witness h o w theology enters h i s t o r y — t h e main object of the text in its final f o r m is to emphasize the inviolability of Jerusalem. Perhaps we can m a k e o u r point typographically, c o m p a r i n g three versions of the campaign. Nowadays a good historian recounting the events w o u l d write: The Assyrian army destroyed m a n y J u d e a n cities a n d towns b u t did not capture Jerusalem. However, what the Assyrian annals wrote a m o u n t s to:

The Assyrian army destroyed many Judean cities and towns but did not capture Jerusalem

In contrast, the account in Kings implies a s u m m a r y like this: The Assyrian army

destroyed many Judean cities and towns but

Jerusalem.

did not capture

In short, readers w o u l d d o well not to underestimate the role of this—or any other—historian in emphasizing one event at the expense of another.

More Why than What It should n o w be clear w h y I o p e n e d the present chapter with the s u b h e a d i n g "History is too important to leave to chance." While w i t h o u t question Kings contains m a n y facts, they were not of p a r a m o u n t importance to its author. Like

other biblical historians, this author cared m u c h more about "why" than about "what." Here was an interpreter of the community's foundational history, not a university professor of history writing for the record. (In that sense, biblical history is like contemporary popular history, or newscasts—as the highly ideological TV news stations report it. These media can give us a model to u n d e r s t a n d biblical history, and vice versa.) In some cases, the traditions as the biblical author k n e w them did not m a k e the point he wanted to make clearly enough, a n d so those traditions became malleable, a n d were changed; in some cases, traditions were completely m a d e up. (The traditions concerning Solomon's m a n y wives probably belong in this category, since they almost entirely use Deuteronomistic phraseology, a n d t h u s they were likely products of this school.) We will see the results of this editorial process even more clearly in the next chapter, as we explore the late biblical b o o k of Chronicles.

14 Revisionist History Reading Chronicles mmwmbbmmbwbwbmbìwmwwmmm^

Primary

Reading: 1 Chronicles 1, 5, 20; 2 Chronicles

7, 33, 35.

An Unpropitious Beginning T h e

Book of C h r o n i c l e s o p e n s w i t h the dullest material imaginable, u s e f u l

if y o u are ever h a v i n g t r o u b l e falling asleep: "(1:1) A d a m , Seth, E n o s h ; (2) K e n a n , Mahalalel, Jared; (3) E n o c h , M e t h u s e l a h , Lamech; (4) N o a h , S h e m , H a m , a n d J a p h e t h . " 1 Most of the first n i n e c h a p t e r s read similarly, s o m e t i m e s c o n t a i n i n g short interesting n o t e s , b u t mostly j u s t o n e genealogy after the next. S o m e o n e m u s t have f o u n d this interesting, or at least i m p o r t a n t . I n d e e d , we k n o w that in the p e r i o d of Chronicles, m o s t likely the f o u r t h c e n t u r y

B.C.E.,

J e w s highly valued genealogies. All t w e n t y - o n e biblical o c c u r r e n c e s of the v e r b y-ch-s ( ‫ י ח ש‬, "to be registered b y genealogy") a p p e a r either in C h r o n i c l e s or in the c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s b o o k of E z r a - N e h e m i a h . 2 Ezra 2:62 m e n t i o n s certain priests w h o "searched for their genealogical records, b u t they c o u l d n o t b e f o u n d , so they were disqualified for the p r i e s t h o o d . " P r i e s t h o o d in ancient Israel at that p o i n t in time w a s c o n s i d e r e d to be hereditary. Remarkably, priests k e p t a n d u p d a t e d s u c h records in the Babylonian exile a n d b e y o n d . Genealogies played a l e a d i n g role in legitimating various g r o u p s or individuals, as m a y be seen f r o m Chronicles. F o r e x a m p l e , we saw above (see "The J o s e p h Story" in c h a p t e r 7) that the n a r r a t o r of Genesis displaces Jacob's first three sons, R e u b e n , S i m e o n , a n d Levi, w i t h t w o y o u n g e r sons, J u d a h (ancestor of David) a n d J o s e p h (ancestor of the first line of N o r t h e r n kings). By the time the C h r o n i c l e r (the a u t h o r of C h r o n i c l e s 3 ) w a s writing, this w a s i m p o r t a n t history, especially since the ten n o r t h e r n tribes were almost c o m p l e t e l y "lost," a n d it w a s largely J u d e a n s , eventually called Jews, w h o r e t u r n e d f r o m the Babylonian exile. 4 T h u s , the genealogy of J u d a h p r e c e d e s that of any of the o t h e r c h i l d r e n of J a c o b (1 C h r o n . 2 : 3 - 4 : 2 5 ) , a n d it is the longest of s u c h genealogies. As n o t e d

earlier, the following introduction to the genealogy of firstborn Reuben makes it quite clear w h y Reuben follows J u d a h : (1 Chron. 5:1) The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel. (He was the first-born; b u t w h e n he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of J o s e p h son of Israel, so he is not reckoned as first-born in the genealogy; (2) t h o u g h J u d a h became more powerful than his brothers and a leader came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.)

This is a retelling in miniature of the J o s e p h story in Genesis.

A Made-up Genealogy The Chronicler also creates genealogies to solve problems in his sources. O n e problem presented by Samuel and Kings is the claim that the main J u d e a n priest at the time of David was Zadok, yet Z a d o k s genealogy is never given. Some scholars posit—for the text n o w h e r e states this—that originally, Zadok officiâted at a Canaanite shrine in Jerusalem; he was "inherited" by David w h o , as Israel's king, c o n q u e r e d that city. 5 For the Chronicler, however, the idea that a high priest h a d n o legitimate genealogy was impossible. Given the importance of having proper priests in his period, he h a d to "find" a proper genealogy for Zadok, connecting him to Aaron, the first priest and brother of Moses. According to most scholars, the Chronicler accomplishes this by m a k i n g u p a genealogy, w h i c h asserts that Zadok is directly descended from Aaron: (5:29) The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, a n d Miriam. The sons of Aaron: N a d a b , Abihu, Eleazar, a n d

Ithamar.

(30) Eleazar

begot

Phinehas, Phinehas begot Abishua, (31) Abishua begot Bukki, Bukki begot Uzzi, (32) Uzzi begot Zerahiah, Zerahiah begot

Meraioth,

(33) Meraioth begot Amariah, Amariah begot Ahitub, (34) Ahitub begot Zadok . . . This fabricated genealogy "solves" the problem of the earlier books of Samuel and Kings.

The Method of "Historical Probability" The notion that the Chronicler m a d e u p genealogies is paralleled by cases where he fabricated history. To many, this way of looking at Scripture may be offensive,

b u t we must r e m e m b e r that the recollection of historical traditions in this period was different than it is now. There was little or n o interest in history for its own sake, that is, for what it taught about the real past. History mattered because of what it taught about the present, including the legitimacy of the main priestly clan. Moreover, ancient historians may not have realized that they were m a n i p u lating "facts." The classicist Elias Bickerman used the term "historical probability" to describe the Chronicler's m e t h o d . 6 This refers to the way people make sense of data, based on their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w the world functions. For example, those with a certain notion of "historical probability" d o u b t the findings of the Warren Commission that a lone g u n m a n assassinated J o h n F Kennedy in 1963, despite the great deal of evidence in support of that theory. Instead, they might say that Kennedy was killed by a c o m m u n i s t — o r a CIA plot—based on their belief about h o w events h a p p e n . That underlying belief is their notion of "historical probability." The Chronicler as a historian‫ ׳‬also had certain ideas about h o w things h a p p e n . For him, it was clear that Zadok had to be descended from Aaron—so he supplied the scenario that seemed most likely.

When in Doubt, Leave it Out Just as the Chronicler a d d s material w h e n it suits his purposes, he also leaves material out. Sometimes material is left out simply because it is n o longer relevant. For example, w h e n (the first edition of) the Book of Kings was written, everyone remembered the N o r t h e r n Kingdom; while m u c h of its populace h a d gone into exile in Assyria, some of its refugees h a d f o u n d their way to J u d a h . Thus, the Book of Kings relates various traditions about the N o r t h e r n Kingdom, in particular those that make J u d a h seem superior. By the time the Book of Chronicles was written, the N o r t h e r n Kingdom was a distant memory. T h u s (although Chronicles retells the history from Adam through the Babylonian exile and the beginning of the following restoration) it omits the traditions about the North, except for w h e n that k i n g d o m interacted with J u d a h . 8 Thus, the confusing shifts back and forth in Kings concerning O m r i and Ahab are simply absent. Because the North was irrelevant, illegitimate, or both, its traditions did not bear repeating. Similarly, Chronicles does not m e n t i o n the reign of Saul, w h o preceded David, for only the kingship of David a n d his descendents n o w mattered. As a national symbol, David plays a more important role in Chronicles than in the Deuteronomistic History. For this reason the Chronicler omitted negative material concerning David, especially his affair with Bathsheba and the p u n i s h -

ments that followed it. 9 In the book of Samuel, the "Bathsheba affair" takes place during a war against the Ammonites. Chronicles retains the first verse of that source with m i n o r changes (2 Sam. 12:1, paralleled in 1 Chron. 20:1), b u t follows it immediately with the account about the end of the war (2 Sam. 1 2 : 3 0 - 3 1 , paralleled in 1 Chron. 2 0 : 2 - 3 ) . Chronicles omits entirely David's affair with Bathsheba, the m u r d e r of Uriah, the rebuke by the prophet Nathan, and the death of David and Bathsheba's first child (2 Sam. 12:2-29). It simply did not h a p p e n . Chronicles similarly omits the unflattering set of events that h a p p e n e d next in Samuel: the rape of David's daughter Tamar by A m n o n , her half-brother; the m u r d e r of A m n o n by his half-brother Absalom; and the (largely successful) rebellion by Absalom, followed by his death. These events suggest a measurefor-measure p u n i s h m e n t of David and his house. They reflect badly on David, so the Chronicler omitted t h e m (perhaps with the h o p e that his book would displace Samuel as an authoritative version of history). Instead of David spending the e n d of his life in ignominy, according to Chronicles he s p e n d s these years preparing for Solomon to build the Temple. The Chronicler composes a long section (1 Chronicles 2 2 - 2 9 ) to illustrate this point. The Chronicler may also have viewed as "unseemly" the transition from David to Solomon in the first two chapters of Kings. There, David is old and impotent (see 1 Kings 1:4), his son Adonijah tries to assume the throne while David is still alive, a n d the m a j o r players are divided about w h o the next king should be. Ultimately, after some behind-the-scenes activity and overreaching by a rival, Solomon's claim to the throne is assured. Chronicles mentions n o n e of this. In its place, 2 Chronicles 1:1 states: "Solomon son of David took firm hold of his k i n g d o m , for the L O R D his God was with him and m a d e him exceedingly great." According to Chronicles, the transition from David to Solomon was s m o o t h a n d uncomplicated. W h e n in d o u b t , leave it out!

Rewriting History Comparison of Chronicles and its sources reveals h u n d r e d s of cases where the Chronicler changed his sources in various ways—not only m i n o r u p d a t i n g of language and spelling (e.g., from ΎΠ, as the earlier spelling of "David," to ΎΎΤ), but also significant ideological changes. As we discussed above, the notion of "historical probability" is responsible for m a n y of these changes. Two examples will illustrate this in greater detail. According to the Book of Kings, the J u d e a n King Manasseh was the worst of

all kings—he revived idolatry in the Temple (2 Kings 2 1 : 4 - 5 ) and he "put so m a n y innocent persons to death that he filled Jerusalem with blood from end to end" (2 Kings 21:16). Yet, according to the regnal formula in 1 Kings 21:55, he reigned for 55 years. It seems not to have disturbed the final editor of Kings that the worst king of J u d a h was also the longest reigning—longer even than David or Solomon, w h o each reigned forty years! But it did bother the Chronicler, most likely because he had a different idea of personal retribution than the Deuteronomistic historian—an idea more like Ezekiel 18:4: "The person w h o sins, only he shall die" (see "Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19). To the Chronicler, Manasseh could be "explained" in two ways—either he reigned for a m u c h shorter period, or Kings left out material that would account for such a long reign despite a period of wickedness. The Chronicler chose the latter option, depicting Manasseh as a model penitent: (2 Chron. 33:11) So the LORD brought against them the officers of the army of the king of Assyria, w h o took Manasseh captive in manacles, b o u n d h i m in fetters, a n d led him off to Babylon. (12) In his distress, he entreated the LORD his God and h u m b l e d himself greatly before the God of his fathers. (13) He prayed to Him, and He granted his prayer, heard his plea, a n d returned him to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh k n e w that the LORD alone was God. (14) Afterward he built the outer wall of the City of David west of Gihon in the wadi on the way to the Fish Gate, and it encircled Ophel; he raised it very high. He also placed army officers in all the fortified towns of J u d a h . (15) He removed the foreign gods a n d the image from the House of the LORD, as well as all the altars that he had built on the Mount of the House of the LORD a n d in Jerusalem, and d u m p e d t h e m outside the city. (16) He rebuilt the altar of the LORD and offered on it sacrifices of well-being and thanksgiving, and c o m m a n d e d the people of J u d a h to worship the LORD God of Israel. T h u s Manasseh deserved to be blessed with the longest reign of all. But these events never h a p p e n e d — i n fact, they could not have h a p p e n e d . Manasseh was a vassal not of Babylon but of Assyria (see "Deuteronomy as a Treaty" in chapter 10); thus he w o u l d not have been brought to Babylon. Only a writer w o r k i n g centuries later could say this—a writer w h o wished to teach that even if you are as bad as Manasseh and have been p u n i s h e d for your grievous sins, if you repent, all will be forgiven and restored. This story was m a d e u p for such a purpose. Ultimately, stories about the past are more instructive than the past itself; history is too important to leave to chance.

Rewriting Torah The Chronicler makes a second type of change as well. For the Deuteronomistic Historian w h o wrote Kings, the book of Deuteronomy was the "canonical" Torah work. The n o r m s or laws we read about in Kings follow Deuteronomy, and on the rare occasion w h e n a source f o u n d in the Torah is cited, it is cited from D e u t e r o n o m y The story of King Amaziah (son of King Joash) of J u d a h illustrates this point: (2 Kings 14:5) Once he had the k i n g d o m firmly in his grasp, he put to death the courtiers w h o had assassinated his father the king. (6) But he did not put to death the children of the assassins, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Teaching of Moses, where the L O R D c o m m a n d e d , "Parents shall not be p u t to death for children, nor children be p u t to death for parents; a person shall be put to death only for his own crime." This quote follows the law in D e u t e r o n o m y 24:16: "Parents shall not be p u t to death for children, nor children be p u t to death for parents: a person shall be p u t to death only for his o w n crime." Relatively speaking, Kings hardly acknowledges the Ρ source. However, by the time that Chronicles was written, b o t h the D a n d Ρ sources were authoritative. It is likely that the Torah (more or less as we k n o w it) already h a d authority in the community. This m e a n t that Ρ traditions as well as D traditions n e e d e d to be incorporated into Chronicles. Sometimes the Chronicler f o u n d this easy to do, b u t at other times the task proved quite challenging. A simple case concerns Solomon and his dedication of the Temple on the fall festival of Sukkot (see "From the Goring Ox . . ." in chapter 8). According to Deuteronomy 16:13, "you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days." This seven-day festival is indeed fulfilled w h e n the Temple is dedicated in 1 Kings 8 : 6 5 . 1 0 However, Leviticus a d d s an eighth day to this Sukkot festival, during which the people are to hold "a solemn gathering" (23:36, 39). Unlike the Deuteronomistic version, Chronicles k n o w s this law, and so it revises its source (1 Kings 8:65) to say: (2 Chron. 7:8) At that time Solomon kept the Feast for seven days—all Israel with h i m — a great assemblage from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt. (9) O n the eighth day they held a solemn gathering; they observed the dedication of the altar seven days, and the Feast seven days. (10) O n the twenty-third day of the seventh m o n t h [counting

f r o m the b e g i n n i n g of seven-day festival o n the 15th to the 21st, followed by a solemn assembly on the 2 2 n d ] he dismissed the people to their h o m e s . T h e editor u p d a t e d this text to include the n o r m s described in Leviticus. A m o r e complicated case in w h i c h the Chronicler i n c o r p o r a t e d b o t h D a n d Ρ is his description of J o s i a h s Passover offering in 2 Chronicles 3 5 : 1 3 , w h i c h s h o u l d be translated as "They b o i l e d 1 1 the passover sacrifice in fire, as prescribed . . .." This description is quite o d d . W h a t does the locution "boiled in fire" m e a n , a n d w h y is it f o u n d here? T h e a n s w e r is provided

by

the

C h r o n i c l e r s sources. 1 2

According

to

Deuteronomy, "You shall boil a n d eat [the paschal offering] at the place that the LORD

y o u r God will choose"

(16:7;

transi, a d a p t e d ) . According to P's n o r m s ,

however, "they shall eat it roasted over the fire, w i t h u n l e a v e n e d bread a n d with bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or boiled in any way with water, b u t roaste d — h e a d , legs, a n d entrails—over the fire" (Exod.

12:8-9,

transi, a d a p t e d ) . 1 3

T h e boiling-roasting distinction reflects regional a n d /or chronological differences b e t w e e n D a n d

Ρ

(see above, c h a p t e r s

9-10).

Given that b o t h of these

sources are equally authoritative, w h a t can the Chronicler r e c o m m e n d ? Chronicles conflates these s o u r c e s — t h e boiling of D b e c o m e s "They boiled the Passover," while the "roasted" of Ρ in E x o d u s b e c o m e "in fire" in Chronicles. We can illustrate the grafting typographically: D:

"You shall boil a n d eat it at the place that the

LORD

y o u r G o d will

choose" (Deut. 16:7). P:

"They shall eat it wasted over the fire, with u n l e a v e n e d bread a n d w i t h bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or boiled in any way w i t h water, b u t roasted—head,

legs, a n d entrails—over the fire" (Exod. 1 2 : 8 - 9 ) .

Chronicles: "They boiled the passover sacrifice in fire, as prescribed . . ." (2 C h r o n . 35:13). The p h r a s e "as prescribed" may be an a t t e m p t to cover u p the fact that Chronicles is c o m b i n i n g two irreconcilable traditions. 1 4 C e n t u r i e s later, the process j u s t d e l i n e a t e d — w h e r e two different Torah texts f r o m two different sources are " r e c o n c i l e d " — b e c o m e s a key process in rabbinic m i d r a s h . 1 1 The rabbis did not recognize that the Torah is c o m p r i s e d

of

s o u r c e s — t o t h e m , it is a single holy text, given by G o d to Moses. T h u s , they too n e e d to reconcile what we see as source-critical differences. But this process d o e s n o t start w i t h the rabbis. It starts as s o o n as editors c o m b i n e the Torah's sources a n d a c o m m u n i t y canonizes that text. That process h a s already taken place by the time of the Chronicler. 1 6

How Did He Get Away With It? After hearing about the Chronicler's radical revisionism, m a n y people w o n d e r h o w his book managed to get canonized. The answer to this question has several parts. The Chronicler was not living in a v a c u u m — h i s n o r m s were the n o r m s of his community, for w h o m he was writing. The authoritative and "standard" history of DtrH n o longer spoke to that community. It did not reflect their theology, n o r did it fully accord with their authoritative text, w h i c h n o w included Ρ Thus, in a sense, the Chronicler's c o m m u n i t y was "waiting" for such a history to be written, just as J.ΕK. conspiracy theorists were waiting nearly thirty years for Oliver Stones 1991 movie JFK to be released. In addition, the Chronicler did a wonderful j o b of "footnoting" his history, giving it greater authority. Chronicles refers to fifteen books that supposedly served as sources, 1 7 as in this example: "The other events of Manasseh's reign, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers w h o spoke to h i m in the n a m e of the L O R D God of Israel are f o u n d in the chronicles of the kings of Israel" (2 Chron. 33:18). Some scholars believe that these were real sources of one sort or another. 1 8 Others suggest, more plausibly to my m i n d , that these sources never existed, and they are a type of fake footnote, through which the Chronicler asserts the authority and veracity of his c o m p o s e d traditions. In either case, these notices would have helped the alternative version of history in Chronicles gain acceptance, and ultimately, be canonized as scripture.

Is Chronicles Typical? The picture developed throughout our discussion of biblical history writing may be disturbing to some. I have c o n t e n d e d that authoritative writers fabricate history, m a k i n g u p their sources. Further, I have argued, it was more important to the biblical writers to be relevant than to be true. I do not k n o w h o w typical the Chronicler was of the other biblical authors. I have highlighted Chronicles simply because its sources are extant, so that scholars could develop a good sense of h o w its a u t h o r reworked earlier sources, and h o w radical he was. Even if some of the earlier historians preserved in the Bible were more conservative, we should r e m e m b e r that for all of them, their greatest concern was not getting the past "correct." Rather, it was to collect, revise, a n d compose traditions in order to produce texts about the past that would be meaningful to their communities.

15 Introduction to Prophecy

Primary Reading: 1 Kings 17 through 2 Kings 9.

Difficulties in Studying Prophecy

B

y "prophecy" I m e a n the "transmission of allegedly divine messages by a h u m a n intermediary to a third party." 1 As a literary genre, prophecy is extremely difficult to read and to u n d e r s t a n d . Prophets are quite alien to contemporary culture. W h e n we see someone dressed oddly in public, proclaiming that the end of the world is near, we typically keep our distance—or perhaps listen b u t laugh. Most people in our society n o longer share the view that God c o m m u n i c a t e s messages to us t h r o u g h certain individuals. Indeed, m a n y of us think that anyone w h o believes that they have received such a divine message is delusional a n d requires psychiatric treatment. Ancient Israelites h a d a fundamentally different view of the world and h o w God is manifest in it; the historical-critical m e t h o d helps us to recover their worldview. Let me highlight some of the differences between the contemporary a n d biblical worlds by recasting biblical passages in today's idiom. First, imagine that you are hiring someone to fill a position, and the first stage is for candidates to send in a promotional video. In scene two of one individual's video—lets call h i m Elisha—he is walking along w h e n a few kids r u n u p a n d to the side of the road and m o c k him. He curses them; they promptly drop dead. Then Elisha goes on his merry way. A simple question: w o u l d you call this person in for an interview? You might hesitate, to say the least. Yet the Bible relates a similar event about the prophet Elisha—and that passage is intended to reflect positively on him:

(2 Kings 2:23) From there he went u p to Bethel. As he was going u p the road, some little boys came out of the town and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" (24) He turned around and looked at them and cursed them in the n a m e of the LORD. T h e r e u p o n , two she-bears came out of the w o o d s and mangled forty-two of the children. (25) He went on from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria. Now, let's imagine a second scenario. O n e day you h a p p e n to be in New York City, in a house of worship, and the preacher gets u p and says: T h u s said the LORD: / For three transgressions of the residents of Manhattan, / For four, I will not revoke it: / Because they s h o p in expensive s h o p s and neglect the poor, / Eat in five-star restaurants while others starve. / I will send d o w n fire u p o n Fifth Avenue, / A conflagration on 57th St. / And it shall devour the fancy penthouses, / Destroy the mansions. / And the people of "the city" shall be exiled to California— said the LORD. You might w o n d e r h o w it is that this preacher presumes to speak for God. You might also be puzzled about why the preacher suddenly decided to speak in poetry rather than prose. Yet this imagined s e r m o n is a paraphrase of one of the prophet Amos' oracles against the nations—oracles that grabbed his audience's attention—such as: (1:3) T h u s said the LORD: For three transgressions of Damascus, / For four, I will not revoke it: / Because they threshed Gilead / With threshing boards of iron. (4) I will send d o w n fire u p o n the palace of Hazael, / And it shall devour the fortresses of Ben-hadad. (5) I will break the gate bars of Damascus, / And wipe out the inhabitants from the Vale of Aven / And the sceptered ruler of Beth-eden; And the people of Aram shall be exiled to Kir—said the LORD. Finally, imagine that you are traveling on a public bus. In the seat right behind you, two people are conversing. You overhear one of them telling the other about a recent incident: (Zech. 5:9) I looked u p again and saw two w o m e n come soaring with the wind in their wings—they h a d wings like those of a s t o r k — a n d carry off the tub between earth and sky. (10) "Where are they taking the tub?" I asked the angel w h o talked with me. (11) And he answered, "To build a shrine for it in the land of Shinar; a stand shall be erected for it, a n d it shall be set d o w n there u p o n the stand."

Would you change your seat? These three examples give us an idea 01 h o w different biblical prophecy is from our everyday experiences. We cannot read the prophetic texts as m o d e m s — t h e y would come across as too weird. Before we look at such texts again, we need more background, so that we can u n d e r s t a n d t h e m more sympathetically, within their original context.

Prophecy and Omens in the Ancient Near East The biggest challenge in our u n d e r s t a n d i n g biblical prophecy is to appreciate a widespread belief in the ancient Near East: the divine will can be apparent to people—if we k n o w where and h o w to perceive it. Prophecy, where the divine communicates directly with a h u m a n , is just one manifestation of this belief. In Israel, prophecy served as the p r e d o m i n a n t way in which people discerned the divine will. Meanwhile, that a n d other forms of "tuning in" to divine messages existed in m a n y areas throughout the ancient Near East. 2

The Shape of Things to Come O u r most extensive knowledge about divine communication comes from ancient Mesopotamia. 3 Archaeologists have excavated many kinds of o m e n texts from various periods, showing that the Mesopotamians valued this genre. Those o m e n texts study a wide variety of p h e n o m e n a for signs as to what the gods are intending to do. Many o m e n s are based on sacrifices, typically focusing on the h i d d e n meaning of the shape of a given sacrificial animals liver, which varies greatly from one specimen to the next. Trained specialists even interpreted these shapes by comparing them to clay models of liver forms. The o m e n texts are formulated in two parts: a particular observable condition, and the implication of that condition for the future. (Scholars call these parts "protasis" and "apodosis," respectively.) The following four examples give some sense of their variety: 4 If a man's chest hair curls upwards: he will become a slave. If a m a n has a flushed face and his right eye sticks out: he will be devoured by dogs far from his house. If the gallbladder (of the sacrificial sheep) is stripped of the hepatic duct: the army of the king will suffer a thirst during a military campaign.

If the n o r t h wind sweeps the face of heavens until the appearance of the n e w m o o n : the harvest will be a b u n d a n t . The texts interpret some conditions on the basis of word association; others, on the basis of w h e t h e r certain signs seemed o m i n o u s or propitious. Still others use criteria that we have not been able to decipher. In any event, both the people and their leaders invested time and effort into interpreting omens. They gleaned those o m e n s from a huge range of p h e n o m e na, b o t h celestial and terrestrial, b o t h normal and unusual. The o m e n texts show that the populace believed that they could discern the divine will—although it might take an expert to d o so reliably.

Prophecy, Mesopotamian Style Archaeologists have excavated more than 130 Mesopotamian texts that bear on prophecy. Strangely, all of them come from just two sites out of the dozens in the region: 5 Mari on the Tigris River (circa the eighteenth century B.C.E.), and in Assyria d u r i n g the reigns of E s a r h a d d o n ( 6 8 0 - 6 6 9 ) a n d A s h u r b a n i p a l ( 6 6 8 - 6 2 7 ) . This concentration of evidence for a social institution is unusual. It raises an obvious question: did prophecy exist in Mesopotamia throughout its history (and the relevant texts simply have been lost)? O r was prophecy important only in these two distinct periods and locales? If the latter is the case, then Mesopotamian prophecy probably could not have influenced the development of Israelite prophecy. Here are two examples of a Mesopotamian prophecy. The first, from Assyria, is an oracle from the w o m a n Ishtar-la-tashiat of Arbela. The second one comes from Mari: Esarhaddon, king of lands, fear not! That wind which blows against y o u — I need only say a word and I can bring it to an end. Your enemies, like a [young] boar in the m o n t h of Simanu, will flee even at your approach. I am the great Belet—I am the goddess Ishtar of Arbela, she w h o has destroyed your enemies at your mere approach. W h a t order have I given you which you did not rely upon? I am Ishtar of Arbela! I lie in wait for your enemies, I shall give t h e m to you. I, Ishtar of Arbela, will go before and behind you fear not! You w h o are paralyzed [saying], "Only in crying Woe can I either go u p or sit d o w n . " 6 Moreover, the day I sent this tablet of mine to my lord, [an ec]static of Dagan came and addressed me as follows: "The god sent [me]. Hurry,

write to the ki[ng] that they are to offer the mortuary-sacrifices to the sha[de] of Yahdun-Li[m]." This is w h a t this ecstatic said to m e , a n d I have therefore w r i t t e n to m y lord. Let m y lord d o w h a t pleases h i m . ' T h e c o n t e n t a n d phraseology of s o m e of these p r o p h e t i c texts is m i r r o r e d in the Bible. However, it is i m p o r t a n t to r e m e m b e r that ancient Israel believed in p r o p h e c y m o r e t h a n any o t h e r type of divination, seeing it as the best way to c o m p r e h e n d the divine will. We are n o t sure why. As discussed above, we d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r M e s o p o t a m i a n p r o p h e c y i n f l u e n c e d Israel at an early stage. Closer to h o m e , we have s o m e evidence that the P h o e n i c i a n s also believed in p r o p h e t s .

M e a n w h i l e , across the J o r d a n River, an

eighth-century-B.c.E.

inscription f o u n d in the city of Deir A l i a even talks a b o u t "Balaam the seer," the s a m e p r o p h e t m e n t i o n e d in N u m b e r s 2 2 - 2 4 . 8 However, we have so few texts f r o m Israel's i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o r s that we c a n n o t accurately evaluate the p o t e n tial evidence. W a s Israel u n i q u e in its heavy reliance o n the m e d i u m of p r o p h e cy? It is h a r d to say.

The Nature of Prophecy in Israel T h e m a i n biblical t e r m for a p r o p h e t is navi

(‫)נביא‬,

u s e d 3 2 5 times in the

H e b r e w Bible. It a p p e a r s even in the Book of Genesis. In the m i d d l e wife-sister story (see "The Ancestors as Symbols" in c h a p t e r 7), G o d refers to A b r a h a m as a navi, e x p l a i n i n g to the k i n g that A b r a h a m "will intercede for y o u — t o save y o u r life" (20:7). This first use is telling: the c o m m o n view t o d a y of a biblical p r o p h e t as " s o m e o n e w h o tells the f u t u r e " w a s n o t the o n l y — o r even the m a i n — f u n c tion f r o m the Bible's s t a n d p o i n t . Rather, the navi w a s an intercessor, 9 a gob e t w e e n the p e o p l e a n d G o d . T h e biblical p r o p h e t

m a y i n t e r c e d e for others, as A b r a h a m

d o e s for

A b i m e l e c h , or as m a n y later p r o p h e t s d o for the p e o p l e Israel. However, the texts m o r e c o m m o n l y r e c o u n t the prophet's f u n c t i o n as a m e s s e n g e r f r o m G o d to the p e o p l e ; in this sense, the p r o p h e t f u n c t i o n s as a divine messenger. p r o p h e t s m a y be explicitly labeled "the

LORD'S

Thus

m e s s e n g e r " (e.g., Hag. 1:13), a n d

o n e p r o p h e t is called Malachi, w h i c h m e a n s "my messenger." T h e p r o p h e t s e m p l o y the f o r m u l a ko amar ( ‫ א מ ר‬Γ 0 , " t h u s says"), called the "messenger form u l a " 1 0 b e c a u s e secular m e s s e n g e r s also u s e d it. T h u s , as a divine messenger, the p r o p h e t s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as s t a n d i n g s o m e w h e r e o n a direct line b e t w e e n G o d a n d the people: O n this line, s o m e p r o p h e t s s t a n d closer to G o d , while s o m e s t a n d closer to the p e o p l e . To see h o w the p r o p h e t f u n c t i o n s in b o t h directions o n this line, c o n s i d e r this e x a m p l e f r o m Amos:

(7:1) This is w h a t m y Lord GOD s h o w e d me: He w a s creating a plague of locusts at the time w h e n the late-sown c r o p s were b e g i n n i n g to s p r o u t — t h e late-sown c r o p s after the k i n g s reaping. (2) W h e n it h a d finished d e v o u r i n g the h e r b a g e in the l a n d , I said, Ό

Lord GOD, p r a y

forgive. H o w will J a c o b survive? He is so small." (3) T h e c o n c e r n i n g this. "It shall n o t c o m e to pass," said the

LORD

relented

LORD.

This passage begins w i t h the prophet's vision f r o m G o d ( w . l - 2 a ) , followed by the prophet's plea to G o d in r e s p o n s e (v. 2b). It c o n c l u d e s w i t h God's s t a t e m e n t to the p r o p h e t (v. 3). H e n c e A m o s n o t only delivers messages f r o m G o d b u t also delivers r e q u e s t s o n behalf of the p e o p l e to G o d . T h e c o n t e n t of the c o n c l u d i n g s t a t e m e n t is especially i m p o r t a n t , since it suggests that G o d h a d a c h a n g e of heart. This teaches u s that a c c o r d i n g to the biblical a u t h o r s , p r o p h e t s h a d great p o w e r to t r a n s f o r m the divine decree. In s h o r t , the Bible d o e s n o t view p r o p h e t s primarily as p r e d i c t o r s of the f u t u r e . 1 1 T h e e t y m o l o g y of the t e r m navi is u n c e r t a i n . 1 2 Most scholars relate it to an A k k a d i a n ( M e s o p o t a m i a n ) root nabû, "to n a m e , call," either in the sense of "one w h o calls out," i.e., a speaker, or "one w h o h a s b e e n called." Some t e r m s for p r o p h e t are m u c h less f r e q u e n t , yet their origins are clearer: chozeh (ΠΤίΓΙ) a n d ro'eh him

( ‫) ת א ה‬

b o t h m e a n "a seer." Likewise, is h Elohim

(‫)איש האליהים‬

(•,‫אלה‬

‫)איש‬

or ish ha-elo-

m e a n s "(the) m a n of God." T h e biblical text treats these var-

ious t e r m s as s o m e w h a t d i s t i n c t — f o r e x a m p l e , it e m p l o y s ish Elohim to describe Elijah a n d Elisha, b u t n o t o t h e r p r o p h e t s like Isaiah or J e r e m i a h .

Two Main Types of Israelite Prophecy W h y did the Bible use m o r e t h a n o n e t e r m for a p r o p h e t ? In part, b e c a u s e there were different types of p r o p h e t s . Biblical scholars typically distinguish b e t w e e n those w h o talked at length to the general p o p u l a t i o n , a n d those w h o talked primarily to the k i n g a n d w h o s e messages are brief. Usually w e refer to the f o r m e r g r o u p — i n c l u d i n g the p r o p h e t s Isaiah, J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel, Hosea, A m o s , a n d Micah, all of w h o m have their o w n b o o k s — a s "classical" p r o p h e t s . Their writings date f r o m the eighth c e n t u r y

B.C.E.

T h e latter g r o u p is c o m p r i s e d of i n d i v i d u a l s like N a t h a n a n d G a d ( t e n t h c e n t u r y B.C.E.), a n d Elijah a n d Elisha ( n i n t h c e n t u r y B.C.E.). Some of t h e m r e m a i n nameless, a n d s o m e are female. M a n y scholars have referred to t h e m as "preclassical" p r o p h e t s . However, I avoid that t e r m for t w o reasons. First, we d o

not k n o w w h e n prophets of the classical type first developed. Perhaps they existed in earlier eras t o o — b u t their speeches went unrecorded or were lost. (Nor do we k n o w what factors in the social, religious, or economic life of ancient Israel first p r o m p t e d classical prophecy and its records.) 1 3 Second, we do k n o w that prophets of the type like Elijah continued to exist side by side with the classical prophets. For both reasons, the term "preclassical" is misleading. "Nonclassical" is a better term, though it too is somewhat misleading, since the prophets within this group are so different from each other. Indeed, we can subdivide this group of prophets usefully, either by w h e t h e r they perform magical acts (e.g., Elijah and Elisha), or by w h e t h e r they critique the monarchy (e.g., Elisha) or support it (e.g., N a t h a n ) . 1 4 Those w h o support the king are the earliest Israelite prophets that the Bible writes about. They are m u c h like other ancient Near Eastern prophets. It is easy to locate them within this context, even if we d o not know the lines of influence (see above, "Prophecy, Mesopotamian Style"). But we know precious little about h o w prophecy developed in Israel. The remainder of this chapter will focus on the main characteristics of the nonclassical prophets. Often it will clarify their role by contrasting it with that of the classical prophets. Each of the next several chapters will then spotlight a leading classical prophet.

The Nonclassical Prophets T h o u g h the nonclassical prophets were not all alike, most of them h a d — a c c o r d ing to the Bible—some combination of the following traits: • •

they generally knew what was h a p p e n i n g in other places; they were consulted on fixed occasions and often paid for their services;

• • •

they b a n d e d together; their prophecy could be induced; they performed miracles;

•

they usually prophesied to the king, speaking in prose;

• •

they performed unusual actions; and they predicted the future.

We will n o w explore these qualities in turn, giving examples from various prophets.

Viewing and Sensing Remotely T h e nonclassical p r o p h e t s were e x p e c t e d to k n o w w h a t was h a p p e n i n g in distant places that they c o u l d n o t physically see. T h e e x c e p t i o n that proves this rule is 2 Kings 4 : 8 - 3 7 . In this s t o r y the only child of the S h u n a m m i t e w o m a n dies, a n d she entreats the p r o p h e t Elisha. His assistant, Gehazi, tries to s h o o h e r away, b u t Elisha says: "Let h e r alone, for she is in bitter distress; a n d the LORD

h a s h i d d e n it f r o m m e a n d h a s n o t told me" (v. 27). Elisha implies that

he n o r m a l l y k n e w the divine will a n d c o u l d perceive w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d elsewhere. In a similar vein, in 2 Kings 6:12 a foreign officer says to the A r a m e a n k i n g ( w h o h a d failed in several a t t e m p t s to a m b u s h Israel): "Elisha, that p r o p h e t in Israel, tells the k i n g of Israel the very w o r d s y o u s p e a k in y o u r bedroom."

Serving as Freelance Consultants People w h o n e e d e d these p r o p h e t s visited t h e m at traditional times. W h e n the son of the S h u n a m m i t e w o m a n dies a n d she w a n t s to consult Elisha, h e r h u s b a n d a t t e m p t s to stop her, saying: " W h y are you going to h i m today? It is neither n e w m o o n n o r sabbath" (2 Kings 4:23). His question implies that on fixed occasions the p r o p h e t s m a d e themselves available for c o n s u l t a t i o n — n o t unlike a college professor w h o posts a schedule of regular office hours. O t h e r texts suggest that the people paid p r o p h e t s for advice given on s u c h days. Consider the scene in 1 Samuel w h e r e Saul a n d his servant are searching for s o m e stray donkeys. The dialogue begins with Saul's u n n a m e d servant: (9:6) . . . "There is a m a n of G o d (ish elohim) in that town, a n d the m a n is highly esteemed; everything that he says c o m e s true. Let us go there; p e r h a p s he will tell u s about the errand o n w h i c h we set out." (7) "But if we go," Saul said to his servant, "what can we b r i n g the m a n ? 1 3 For the food in o u r bags is all gone, a n d there is n o t h i n g we can bring to the m a n of God as a present. W h a t have we got?" (8) T h e servant answered Saul again, "I h a p p e n to have a quarter-shekel of silver. I can give that to the m a n of God a n d he will tell us a b o u t o u r errand." This, then, is really a discussion a b o u t the smallest p a y m e n t that they believe Samuel will accept in order to tell t h e m w h e r e the d o n k e y s are!

F o r m i n g Prophetic Fellowships

Many of these nonclassical p r o p h e t s b a n d e d together into g r o u p s w h o lived a n d p r o p h e s i e d together. T h e stories c o n c e r n i n g Elijah m e n t i o n that he is the h e a d of s u c h a g r o u p . It also a p p e a r s in 1 Samuel, as King Saul b e c o m e s a t e m p o r a r y or ad h o c p r o p h e t : "he saw a b a n d of p r o p h e t s c o m i n g t o w a r d h i m . T h e r e u p o n the spirit of G o d g r i p p e d h i m , a n d he s p o k e in ecstasy a m o n g t h e m " (10:10). T h e t e r m usually u s e d for these g r o u p s is benei ha-nevi'im

( ‫)בני ה נ ב י א י ם‬,

literal-

ly "sons of p r o p h e t s , " better u n d e r s t o o d as " m e m b e r s of a p r o p h e t i c g r o u p or guild." T h e material in Kings a b o u t Elijah a n d Elisha refers to s u c h g r o u p s m o r e t h a n ten times.

P r e p a r i n g to Receive T h e i r Message

For these individuals, p r o p h e c y can be i n d u c e d by the right t e c h n i q u e . For e x a m p l e , Elisha says, "Now t h e n , get m e a musician" (2 Kings 3:15). T h e result is described thus: "As the musician played, the h a n d of the

LORD

[a technical

term for p r o p h e c y ] c a m e u p o n h i m . " In various places, p r o p h e t s p r o p h e s y at night, s o m e t i m e s in temples. This m a y be similar to "incubation dreams," n a m e ly going to sleep at a special place w i t h the h o p e that you will have a p r o p h e t i c d r e a m — a p h e n o m e n o n well-attested in m a n y cultures.

Doing Wonders

O n e striking aspect of the stories a b o u t these nonclassical p r o p h e t s , especially Elijah a n d Elisha, is the extent to w h i c h they are miracle workers. T h e y feed the masses w i t h a small a m o u n t of food, revive the d e a d , find lost objects, m a k e pois o n e d food safe, heal lepers, etc. T h e Bible r e c o u n t s m a n y types of "miracle w o r k e r " stories a b o u t these figures. T h e tales are of varied literary types, a n d they e m p h a s i z e different aspects of the p r o p h e t i c experience. T h u s they likely originated in various circles for different p u r p o s e s . 1 6 Note that, as a k i n d of literary fulfillment of Elishas request of Elijah that "a d o u b l e p o r t i o n of y o u r spirit pass o n to m e " (2 Kings 2:9), miracle a c c o u n t s are transferred b e t w e e n these t w o p r o p h e t s , w i t h the n u m b e r of miracles p e r f o r m e d by Elisha equal to a p p r o x imately d o u b l e those of Elijah.

Restricting Their Audience The Bible suggests that a primary role of nonclassical prophets was to prophesy to the king. Thus, the Elijah unit opens with "Elijah the Tishbite, an inhabitant of Gilead" speaking to Ahab, king of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 17:1). Even the famous confrontation between Elijah and the priests of Baal opens: "Much later, in the third year, the word of the LORD came to Elijah: 'Go, appear before Ahab; then I will send rain u p o n the earth'" (chap. 18). The focus on speaking to the king contrasts sharply with classical prophecy, which typically addresses itself to a broad group of people, even though sometimes classical prophets inveigh against the king; they do so as part of their mission to the people. Both kinds of prophets engage in rebuking the powerful, but the nonclassical prophets typically rebuke the king only using short, prosaic condemnations. For example, Elijah's famous rebuke of Ahab by Elijah, after Ahab has Naboth killed in order to appropriate Naboth's vineyard, reads: "Thus said the LORD: Would you m u r d e r and take possession? T h u s said the LORD: In the very place where the dogs lapped u p Naboth's blood, the dogs will lap u p your blood too" (1 Kings 21:19). Classical prophets, on the other h a n d , speak to all classes, often in long poetic speeches.

Doing Strange Deeds Nonclassical p r o p h e t s p e r f o r m u n u s u a l actions. Recall Elisha's deadly r e s p o n s e — m e n t i o n e d at the start of this c h a p t e r — t o the children w h o m o c k him. Elsewhere, in a single passage of forty-four verses, Elisha produces excessive a m o u n t s of oil for a needy widow, promises a w o m a n that she will conceive, revives a dead child, provides the antidote to a poisonous stew, and multiplies a limited a m o u n t of food to feed the masses (2 Kings 4). The purpose of such acts is to glorify prophetic prestige. In contrast, w h e n classical prophets do strange things, such acts turn out to have their o w n meaning; they are teaching tools.

Making Predictions Nonclassical prophets d o predict the future. However, they d o not dwell on it. Rather, they offer short, final p r o n o u n c e m e n t s , such as Elijah's word to King Ahab: "As the LORD lives, the God of Israel w h o m I serve, there will be n o dew or rain except at my bidding" (1 Kings 17:1). According to Kings, that one-

sentence message turned out to be the start of a three-year drought a n d famine. In contrast, w h e n the classical prophet predicts d o o m , most often it is conditional, functioning as a call to repent.

Summary of Prophetic Types in the Bible According to the Bible, the populace believes that both nonclassical a n d classical prophets can convey the divine will. Both types serve as intermediaries between the people and their God. Yet the differences between the types are e n o r m o u s — i n terms of their audience and communication style, the reason for their odd actions, and their use of predictions. Given such differences, one may reasonably w o n d e r whether the same title of "prophet" should apply to both groups! The following table compares and contrasts the classical and nonclassical prophets. Characteristics of Nonclassical Versus Classical Prophets

Characteristic

Nonclassical

Classical

Knew secret and h i d d e n information

Yes Yes Yes

No

Yes Yes

No

Typically consulted on fixed occasions Were paid to disclose or intercede Banded together Induced prophecy Worked miracles Main audience Main genre of speech Reason for strange deeds Type of predictions

Yes King Prose Build prestige Short verdicts

No No No No People Poetry Convey a message Long warnings

16 "Let Justice Well Up like Water" Reading Amos Primary Reading:

Amos.

Amos as a Typical "Classical Prophet"

T

he writings of Amos provide a good starting point for u n d e r s t a n d i n g books attributed to the classical prophets. (Amos is structured as a book, although ultimately a later editor incorporated it into a larger biblical book, The Twelve [Minor] Prophets. See "Name and Structure" in chapter 2.) As a relatively short text, Amos gives us a workable o p p o r t u n i t y to outline the structure, function, and style of prophetic books.

This chapter first highlights mistakes c o m m o n l y made in reading Amos, due to c o m m o n misunderstandings of classical prophecy. Then it examines the b o o k s persuasive tactics and themes, specifically the five main points found in classical prophecy that Amos exemplifies. It concludes with observations on the formation of Amos into a b o o k . 1

Common Mistakes Made in Reading Amos If we lack training in h o w to read prophetic texts, we usually think about t h e m in terms of the types of texts we are familiar with. Thus, the Book of Amos is often read as a predictive text—a work intended to foretell the future. Further, we read h i m like a contemporary rabbi w h o c o n d e m n s listeners for not following the n o r m s of the Torah. In addition, we assume that the prophet Amos wrote the book that bears his n a m e — j u s t as we find it in our Bible.

Not a Prediction T h e m a i n p u r p o s e of classical p r o p h e c y w a s not to predict the f u t u r e . P r o p h e t s d o s p e n d a lot of time talking a b o u t the f u t u r e , b u t they d o so for t w o reasons. O n e reason is to convince the p e o p l e to r e p e n t . The s e c o n d reason is that if Israel suffers, it m e a n s that G o d has j u d g e d a n d p u n i s h e d t h e m for their c o v e n a n t infractions. A m o s 5:6 illustrates the first p o i n t u n a m b i g u o u s l y : "Seek the LORD, a n d y o u will live, / Else He will r u s h like fire u p o n the H o u s e of J o s e p h / A n d c o n s u m e Bethel w i t h n o n e to q u e n c h it." Establishing the s e c o n d p o i n t w a s m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d . R e m e m b e r that in a polytheistic society, nearly everyone believed that any of the m a n y g o d s c o u l d p u n i s h a p e r s o n or a g r o u p . (That is w h y A m o s ' N o r t h e r n c o n t e m p o r a r y Hosea h a d to c o n t e n d that the G o d of Israel is responsible for n a t u r e — r a t h e r t h a n the C a n a a n i t e deity Baal. See especially Hosea 2.) In a d d i t i o n , m a n y n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s believed that n a t u r e or the forces of n a t u r e were s o m e t i m e s m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n the gods. A m o s — l i k e the o t h e r classical p r o p h e t s — w i s h e d to challenge b o t h of these basic views a b o u t reality. He held that the G o d of Israel is responsible for everything that h a p p e n s . In the w o r d s of 3:6: "Can m i s f o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the LORD

has n o t c a u s e d it?" This is n o t a p r e d i c t i o n ; rather, it is a n e x p l a n a t i o n of

h o w the w o r l d w o r k s .

Not Referring to the Torah A m o s m a k e s his p o i n t s a b o u t the n e e d for r e p e n t a n c e a n d about divine p u n i s h m e n t , b u t not by urging the people to follow the authoritative Torah text. We can be fairly certain that his failure to m e n t i o n such a text is because in his day, n o s u c h Torah existed. This claim m a y s e e m surprising. Consider, t h e n , w h a t A m o s m e a n s w h e n he says: "Did you offer sacrifice a n d oblation to Me / Those forty years in the wilderness, / Ο H o u s e of Israel?" (5:25). In context, this is a rhetorical q u e s t i o n w h o s e a n s w e r is clearly "no." W h e n A m o s p o s e d this question, he w a s taking for granted his audience's belief that the Israelites did not offer sacrifices d u r i n g the wilderness period. Yet a c c o r d i n g to the (Priestly) Torah passages in Leviticus a n d N u m b e r s , Aaron the high priest presided over c o u n t less sacrifices d u r i n g that period. Likewise, Amos' w o r d s c a n n o t easily be reconciled with Deuteronomy. For e x a m p l e , h e says that one of the p u n i s h m e n t s of Israel will be "tonsures on every h e a d " (8:10). This refers to pulling o u t or shaving one's hair as a m o u r n i n g ritual. However, that practice is expressly prohibited in D e u t e r o n o m y 14:1. 2 It

w o u l d be o d d for a p r o p h e t w h o k n e w D e u t e r o n o m y to suggest this as a divine p u n i s h m e n t . In fact, the m a j o r t h e m e of D e u t e r o n o m y is the p r o p e r w o r s h i p of G o d in one central sanctuary, w h i c h in his day could only have m e a n t J e r u s a l e m . Yet A m o s never c o n d e m n s w o r s h i p at n o r t h e r n "high places." I n d e e d , he lends the shrine of Bethel prestige by p r o p h e s y i n g there! I d o not m e a n to suggest that A m o s k n e w nothing of w h a t is n o w in the Torah. He s p e a k s of the period of w a n d e r i n g in the wilderness (2:10), the d e s t r u c t i o n of S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h (4:11), a n d Sabbath a n d N e w M o o n observances (8:5). Rather, A m o s did not k n o w the Torah as it n o w exists, c o m p l e t e a n d authoritative, b l e n d i n g together various sources. He k n e w traditions that w o u l d eventually b e c o m e part of the Torah, but he did not k n o w the Torah as a unified b o o k . 3 H o w could this be? Recall that the Torah has a long a n d c o m p l e x history of c o m p o s i t i o n (see c h a p t e r s 6 - 1 0 ) . That is, it a n d the p r o p h e t i c b o o k s developed d u r i n g the same period. T h u s even t h o u g h the Torah a p p e a r s first in the c a n o n , all Torah texts did not precede in time all p r o p h e t i c texts. N o r did all p r o p h e t s k n o w all of the Torah. In the traditional view, the Torah existed first a n d influenced the p r o p h e t s . However, we n e e d to consider seriously the converse possibility—that p r o p h e t ic n o t i o n s a n d material i n f l u e n c e d s o m e of w h a t b e c a m e part of the Torah. 4

A m o s the Book Versus A m o s the Prophet "Amos" m a y m e a n two t h i n g s — t h e p e r s o n , or the b o o k of that n a m e . They are not identical. Not all that is in the Book of A m o s was written by the p r o p h e t A m o s himself. Many scholars imagine several stages of growth: the w o r d s of Amos; a d d i t i o n s by a school of Amos; a n d m o r e a d d i t i o n s in another, later sett i n g ? Scholars debate h o w to discern the various stages; nevertheless, we can point to s t r o n g evidence that these stages existed. This picture m a y be strange to u s — w e live an era in w h i c h e d u c a t e d people take care to cite a n d q u o t e their sources precisely. However, in antiquity, editors were comfortable a d d i n g to their predecessors' w o r k s . ( T h u s was the entire D source a d d e d to the Torah; see "A Pious F r a u d " in c h a p t e r 10.) It was m o r e i m p o r t a n t for such editors to a d d their verses to a b o o k like A m o s a n d have t h e m be recognized as authoritative, t h a n to claim t h e m as their o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . In s o m e sense this process is like that of the j o k e s or a n e c d o t e s that circulate on the Internet. They m a y attributed to a particular author, b u t their recipients revise, a d d to, subtract from, a n d u p d a t e the w o r d s before s e n d i n g t h e m along to others. This m e a n s , in the case of b o t h

Amos a n d the Internet, that tracking d o w n the original text is a difficult if not impossible task. Some biblical scholars e x p e n d a great deal of energy trying to find the original words of Amos and other prophets. In recent decades, however, more scholars have recognized that this is impossible. 6 We simply k n o w too little. H o w did the p r o p h e t Amos recite his speeches? That is, did he write t h e m d o w n and read t h e m aloud, word for word? Did he speak from memory, a n d write the words d o w n later? Did he revise his w o r d s after delivering them, perhaps taking into account the difference between oral and written expression? O r did someone in the audience write d o w n the prophet's words, a n d if so, was it an exact record? Did anyone change or "improve" on the speeches while recopying them? Given this chain of uncertainty, it is easy to u n d e r s t a n d w h y we need to distinguish between the book and the words of Amos. Furthermore, we m u s t admit that we can never recover exactly what Amos said. T h u s w h e n we seek to reconstruct the historical conditions of Amos' time and place, we cannot treat the b o o k as if it were his direct first-person account.

The Rhetoric of Amos Few of us like to be told in public that our actions and core beliefs are b o t h w r o n g h e a d e d and dangerous. So h o w did the p r o p h e t s get the people to listen to such condemnations? The c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a p p r o a c h — t h a t is, the rhetoric— used by each prophet must have m a d e a big difference to listeners. Here, too, not all prophets were identical; for example, Isaiah used fancy poetry w h e n he prophesied; but Amos did n o t . ' Different p r o p h e t s used rhetorical devices that probably reflected their own skills and preferences, as well as their different audiences. Since the devices used by Amos are not fancy, we may guess that he was not speaking, by and large, to a highly educated, poetry-loving audience. Amos induces the Israelites to listen to him w h e n he begins by prophesying against all of their enemies—Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, etc. O n e can almost hear the Israelites cheering as Amos c o n d e m n s e n e m y after e n e m y for its behavior. His targets alternate between north a n d south; they get closer a n d closer to h o m e , until the a u d i e n c e — n o w listening attentively—hears: "Thus said the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, / For four, I will not revoke it" (2:6). In addition, Amos also lures his audience with rhetorical questions, espedally in 3 : 3 - 6 : (3) Can two walk together / Without having met? (4) Does a lion roar

in the forest / W h e n he has n o prey? / Does a great beast let out a cry f r o m its d e n / W i t h o u t h a v i n g m a d e a capture? (5) Does a bird d r o p o n the g r o u n d — i n a t r a p — / W i t h n o snare there? Does a trap s p r i n g u p f r o m the g r o u n d / Unless it h a s caught s o m e t h i n g ? (6) W h e n a r a m s h o r n is s o u n d e d in a t o w n , / Do the people not take alarm? Can misf o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the

LORD

h a s not caused it?

These q u e s t i o n s c a p t u r e listeners by m a k i n g t h e m w o n d e r : W h a t is this p r o p h e t A m o s talking about? W h a t does "two w a l k i n g together" m e a n , a n d w h a t does that have to d o w i t h Amos' message? A m o s ' listeners w o u l d have a n s w e r e d "no" after each question. T h u s w h e n the p r o p h e t p o s e d the final question ("Can misf o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the

LORD

h a s n o t caused it?"), they p r o b a b l y were

ready to a n s w e r "no" a g a i n — a f f i r m i n g that G o d is in charge of all. Irony also attracts listeners. T h u s at o n e point, A m o s has n o t i c e d that the people t h i n k they will not be p u n i s h e d for their m o r a l failures because their sacrificial offerings are k e e p i n g G o d happy. T h e p r o p h e t wishes to teach that this way of t h i n k i n g is wrong. He m a k e s his point by carrying the people's reasoning to extremes. He suggests that if they believe offerings w o r k so well, they o u g h t to go a h e a d a n d sin m o r e — s o long as they m a k e sure to b r i n g extra sacrifices: (4:4) C o m e to Bethel a n d transgress; / To Gilgal, a n d transgress even more: / Present y o u r sacrifices the next m o r n i n g / A n d y o u r tithes o n the third day; (5) A n d b u r n a t h a n k offering of leavened b r e a d ; / A n d proclaim freewill offerings loudly. For y o u love that sort of thing, Ο Israelites—declares m y Lord GOD. This is of course the last thing that an audience w o u l d expect a p r o p h e t — o r G o d — t o tell t h e m . 8 By giving such u n e x p e c t e d advice, Amos gets their attention. A m o s also resorts to p u n s , w h i c h h e l p disarm his audience. At the same time, the w o r d p l a y reinforces his message. Three e x a m p l e s will suffice. First, he plays on the n a m e Gilgal, literally "a r o u n d or circular place," a n d j u x t a p o s e s it w i t h a s i m i l a r - s o u n d i n g root (g-J-h) that m e a n s "to be exiled": ki ha-gilgal galoh yigleh ("for Gilgal shall go into exile"; 5:5). Second, he plays o n the m e a n i n g of the o d d p l a c e - n a m e Lo-dabar, w h i c h literally m e a n s "nothing": "Ah, those w h o are so h a p p y a b o u t L o - d a b a r / n o t h i n g " (6:13; transi, a d a p t e d ) . Finally, in one of his visions he sees "a basket of kayitz ( s u m m e r fruit)," w h i c h represents that "the h o u r of ketz ( d o o m ) has c o m e for My p e o p l e Israel" (8:2). (This p u n w o u l d have s o u n d e d even stronger to his N o r t h e r n a u d i e n c e if they p r o n o u n c e d those t w o w o r d s identically, as scholars n o w believe they did. T h e p r o n u n c i a t i o n reflected in o u r c u r r e n t Bibles is a later, J u d e a n Hebrew. 9 )

The Five Main Points of Amos and of Classical Prophecy Most of the classical prophets, including the prophet Amos, make the following five points: • •

The God of Israel is also a universal deity. Israel and J u d a h are accountable to this deity—God is not good to them unconditionally, but rather rewards t h e m only for following the covenant.

•

This covenant involves b o t h interpersonal (ethical) and religious (ritual) obligations—not one or the other.

• •

"The Day of the L O R D , " a day of p u n i s h m e n t , will arrive in the future. Even w h e n Israel is p u n i s h e d , it will not be destroyed; there will be a remnant.

Lets explore each of these points, in turn.

A Universal God Most ancient Near Eastern peoples were polytheistic. Typically they wors h i p p e d — a m o n g other more personal or familial deities—a high god or goddess w h o was especially responsible for their city-state. Thus, Ashur was the high god of the Assyrians; Marduk, of the Babylonians; C h e m o s h , of the Moabites; Milcom, of the Ammonites; and in pre-Israelite times, Baal (superceding II or El) of the Canaanites. T h u s the Moabites would have shrugged off Amos' c o n d e m nation of Moab—"Because he b u r n e d the bones / Of the king of Edom to lime" (2:1)—for they would have seen this as a matter of concern for their deity, C h e m o s h , or for the Edomite high god, Qaus, but not for the god of their Israelite neighbors. Amos, however, insists that the God of Israel has jurisdiction over more than just the land of Israel. This deity cares about more than what the people Israel d o — o r what is d o n e to them. Indeed, God is the sole deity, and is universal, punishing all nations everywhere for infractions of basic h u m a n decency.

Accountability Although this Israelite deity held sway everywhere, the relationship with the people Israel was a special one. They were supposed to be following divine laws

that a p p l y to t h e m alone. T h u s , after c o n d e m n i n g o t h e r n a t i o n s in 1 : 3 - 2 : 3 , A m o s indicts only J u d a h because "they have s p u r n e d the Teaching of the

LORD /

A n d have not observed His laws" (2:4). In 2 : 6 - 8 , he c o n d e m n s the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m for violating n o r m s that the Israelites t h o u g h t of as b i n d i n g on the peopie Israel specifically. At s o m e point in history, Israelites b e g a n to u n d e r s t a n d this relationship as a bent ( ‫ ) ב ר י ת‬, a covenant or c o m p a c t . 1 0 But this m e t a p h o r was a m b i g u o u s , for political c o v e n a n t s in the ancient Near East were of two types. In a covenant of grant, one party u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y gave s o m e t h i n g to a n o t h e r party. In contrast, a suzerainty

treaty recorded the agreement reached by two u n e q u a l parties, a vas-

sal a n d a suzerain (overlord). Usually the suzerain u n d e r t o o k to protect the vassal, while the vassal h a d to pay tribute to the suzerain. 1 1 A variety of polemical p r o p h e t i c texts tell u s that m a n y people in Israel viewed their covenant with G o d as a covenant of grant: G o d w o u l d protect t h e m unconditionally. A m o s a n d o t h e r classical p r o p h e t s , however, m a i n t a i n e d that G o d was suzerain, a n d Israel w a s a vassal. T h u s G o d will protect Israel only if they observe the treaty s t i p u l a t i o n s — t h a t is, h e e d God's w o r d . This is the i m p o r t of 9:7: "To Me, Ο Israelites, y o u are / Just like the E t h i o p i a n s 1 2 — d e c l a r e s the LORD—True, I b r o u g h t Israel u p / F r o m the land of Egypt, / But also the Philistines f r o m C a p h t o r / A n d the A r a m e a n s from Kir." G o d has m o v e d m a n y peoples a r o u n d , not only this one. Israel's w o n d r o u s liberation in the past does not imply u n c o n d i t i o n a l divine protection in the future. F u r t h e r m o r e , to the extent that this relationship is special, it is o n e that m a k e s d e m a n d s : "You alone have I singled out [literally: k n o w n ] / Of all the families of the e a r t h — / That is w h y I will call you to account / For all y o u r iniquities" (3:2).

Both Ethical and Ritual Obligations Again, p r o p h e t i c polemic indicates that s o m e Israelites believed that ritual action alone was e n o u g h to assure divine presence a n d blessing. (Recall the ironic w o r d s of Amos, "Come to Bethel a n d transgress . . ..") A m o s asserts an additional d i m e n s i o n to the covenant: p r o p e r ethical, interpersonal behavior. Religion involves right as well as rite. 1 3 A m o s claims in God's n a m e : (5:21) I loathe, I s p u r n y o u r festivals, / I a m not a p p e a s e d by y o u r s o l e m n assemblies. / (22) If y o u offer Me b u r n t offerings—or y o u r meal offerings— / I will not accept t h e m ; / I will pay n o h e e d / To y o u r gifts of fatlings. / (23) Spare Me the s o u n d of y o u r h y m n s , / And let Me n o t

hear the m u s i c of y o u r lutes. / (24) But let justice well u p like water, / Righteousness like an unfailing stream. These verses (the last of w h i c h Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. featured in his f a m o u s "I have a d r e a m " speech) are o p e n to t w o interpretations. If taken literally, they suggest that religious or cultic rites are u n i m p o r t a n t ; only justice a n d righteousness matter. This has b e e n a f r e q u e n t Protestant interpretation of this (and similar) passages; classical Reform J u d a i s m a n d the Society for Ethical Culture also e m p h a s i z e d this reading. A n o t h e r reading u n d e r s t a n d s that the p r o p h e t is exaggerating for effect. His point is that ritual alone is n o t efficacious. This is a m o r e typical J e w i s h reading of the passage. In c o n d e m n i n g unethical behavior, A m o s dwells o n the o p pression of the lower class by the u p p e r class, w h o "lie o n ivory b e d s , 1 4 / Lolling o n their c o u c h e s , / Feasting o n l a m b s f r o m the flock / A n d o n calves f r o m the stalls" (6:4).

T h e Day Will C o m e Those w h o deserve p u n i s h m e n t will be p u n i s h e d d u r i n g the "Day of the L O R D . " T h e earliest m e n t i o n of this day a p p e a r s to be in Amos: (5:18) Ah, you w h o w i s h / For the day of the LORD! W h y s h o u l d you w a n t / The day of the LORD? / It shall be d a r k n e s s , not light! ( 1 9 ) — A s if a m a n s h o u l d r u n f r o m a lion / A n d be attacked by a bear; / O r if he got i n d o o r s , / S h o u l d lean his h a n d o n the wall / A n d be bitten by a snake! (20) Surely the day of the LORD shall be / Not light, b u t darkness, / Blackest night w i t h o u t a glimmer. This passage suggests that the Day of the LORD w a s already a p o p u l a r c o n c e p t before A m o s discussed i t 1 5 — t h e p e o p l e were w i s h i n g for its arrival. Clearly, they believed it w o u l d be a g o o d day, m o s t likely a day in w h i c h G o d w o u l d a p p e a r as a warrior to save Israel f r o m its enemies. T h e p o i n t A m o s m a k e s is that the Day of the LORD is destructive. M u c h a b o u t this "day" is unclear — w e d o n o t k n o w its origin, w h e t h e r p e o pie t h o u g h t of it as a literal day or s o m e longer p e r i o d of time, or w h e t h e r its "darkness" is literal or m e t a p h o r i c a l . 1 6 In s o m e texts, as in Amos, this day brings the p u n i s h m e n t of Israel, while o t h e r s m e n t i o n the p u n i s h m e n t of its enemies. T h o u g h the description varies, the Day of the LORD is a w i d e s p r e a d a n d longs t a n d i n g c o n c e p t , f r o m A m o s all the way t h r o u g h the e n d of classical prophecy.

All Is Not Lost G o d will n o t totally destroy Israel o n the Day of the LORD—nor at any o t h e r time, since w i t h o u t the subservient p a r t n e r the C o v e n a n t w o u l d n o longer exist. As the classical p r o p h e t s f r e q u e n t l y p u t it, the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel implies a r e m n a n t of the p e o p l e will be s a v e d — n o m a t t e r w h a t . A variety of biblical texts predict that ten percent will survive various d e s t r u c t i o n s (see especially Isa. 6 : 1 3 , "But while a tenth part yet r e m a i n s in it . . ."), i n c l u d i n g in Amos: "For t h u s said m y Lord GOD / A b o u t the H o u s e of Israel: T h e t o w n that m a r c h e s o u t a t h o u s a n d s t r o n g / Shall have a h u n d r e d left, / A n d the o n e that m a r c h e s o u t a h u n d r e d s t r o n g / Shall have b u t ten left" (5:3). Or, u s i n g m o r e figurative language: " T h u s said the

LORD: A S

a s h e p h e r d rescues

f r o m the l i o n s j a w s / Two s h a n k b o n e s or the tip of an ear, / So shall the Israelites escape / W h o dwell in S a m a r i a — / W i t h the leg of a b e d or the h e a d of a c o u c h " (3:12). T h e five ideas o u t l i n e d above relate to each o t h e r loosely, w h i c h explains w h y they r e c u r so often in classical prophecy. We can restate the cluster of c o n c e p t s as follows: YHWH—a universal d e i t y — h a s a special relationship w i t h Israel, w h i c h calls for Israels h e e d i n g b o t h cultic a n d ethical n o r m s . If Israel d o e s n o t meet these obligations, they will be p u n i s h e d . O n e of the possible p u n i s h m e n t s will o c c u r on the Day of the LORD. However, b e c a u s e of the C o v e n a n t , Israel will never be totally d e s t r o y e d — a r e m n a n t will always r e m a i n .

The Formation of the Book of Amos All five ideas d i s c u s s e d in the p r e v i o u s section are f o u n d in the Book of Amos. Yet we c a n n o t be sure h o w m a n y of t h e m c a m e f r o m the p r o p h e t himself. Later revisions a n d a d d i t i o n s played a role (see above, "Amos the Book Versus A m o s the Prophet"). I will s k e t c h the f o r m a t i o n of the b o o k here, w h i c h m u s t r e m a i n only a s k e t c h , because m u c h of the history of the text is obscure. A m o s , the e i g h t h - c e n t u r y p r o p h e t , believed that h e heard the divine voice, as he reports: "Hear this w o r d , Ο p e o p l e of Israel, / That the

LORD

has spoken"

(3:1; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . He s a w visions that he believed were divine: "This is w h a t m y Lord GOD showed m e " (7:1; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . He felt c o m p e l l e d to share these w i t h the p u b l i c , i n c l u d i n g at the t e m p l e at Bethel (see 7:10, 13). 1 7 At s o m e p o i n t , either he or o n e of his disciples b r o u g h t these separate oracles together. W h e n this h a p p e n e d , s o m e o n e h a d to d e c i d e h o w to o r d e r the oracles. M a n y m e t h o d s of o r d e r i n g w o u l d have b e e n possible (e.g., chronological, asso-

ciative, topical), b u t the Book of A m o s s e e m s to k e e p similar types of oracles together, like the visions n o w collected in c h a p t e r 7. In this way, the first Book of A m o s w a s p r o d u c e d . Later, to explain a n d u p d a t e the material, s o m e o n e a d d e d s u p e r s c r i p t i o n a n d n a r r a t i o n . This i n c l u d e s the story a b o u t A m o s a n d A m a z i a h the priest, in w h a t is n o w 7 : 1 0 - 1 7 . Surely an editor inserted that narrative there b e c a u s e it refers directly to the oracle in the p r e v i o u s verse, even t h o u g h this p l a c e m e n t i n t e r r u p t s the flow of the p r o p h e t i c s p e e c h . T h u s the b o o k slowly grew, a n d p r o b a b l y existed in a few copies only. Two events h e l p e d to p o p u l a r i z e the b o o k . T h e first w a s the e a r t h q u a k e two years after A m o s p r o p h e s i e d (see 1:1); Zechariah 14:5 also m e n t i o n s "the earthq u a k e in the days of King Uzziah of J u d a h , " a n d archaeological digs c o n f i r m its o c c u r r e n c e . 1 8 As part of his typical language of d e s t r u c t i o n , A m o s h a d u s e d e a r t h q u a k e imagery: "Shall n o t the e a r t h s h a k e for this / A n d all that dwell o n it m o u r n ? / Shall it n o t all rise like the Nile / A n d surge a n d s u b s i d e like the Nile of Egypt?" (8:8); " I s a w m y LORD s t a n d i n g by the altar, a n d He said: Strike the capitals so that the t h r e s h o l d s q u a k e , a n d m a k e an e n d of the first of t h e m all. A n d I will slay the last of t h e m w i t h the s w o r d ; n o t o n e of t h e m shall escape, a n d n o t o n e of t h e m shall survive" (9:1); a n d "It is m y Lord the GOD of Hosts / At w h o s e t o u c h the earth trembles / A n d all w h o dwell on it m o u r n , / A n d all of it swells like the Nile / A n d s u b s i d e s like the Nile of Egypt" ( 9 : 5 ) . He h a d p r o b a bly m e a n t this as general i m a g e r y of d e s t r u c t i o n — a figurative e a r t h q u a k e ; b u t o n c e the big t e m b l o r hit, these verses were u n d e r s t o o d as true prophecy, a u t h e n ticating the b o o k as a whole. After this e a r t h q u a k e c a m e the book's s u p e r s c r i p t i o n : "The w o r d s of A m o s , a s h e e p b r e e d e r f r o m Tekoa, w h o p r o p h e s i e d c o n c e r n i n g Israel in the reigns of Kings Uzziah of J u d a h a n d J e r o b o a m s o n of J o a s h of Israel, t w o years before the e a r t h q u a k e . " This s u p e r s c r i p t i o n tells u s m o r e t h a n most: A m o s w a s originally J u d e a n ( f r o m Tekoa, a t o w n a b o u t ten miles s o u t h of J e r u s a l e m ) ; he directed his p r o p h e c i e s at the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m ("Israel"); a n d he lived in the early to m i d e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C.E. (for J e r o b o a m II reigned a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 8 6 - 7 4 6 ) . Most significantly, it n o t e s the c a l a m i t o u s e a r t h q u a k e . (This o p e n i n g verse of A m o s is rich in i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t it leaves m a n y b a c k g r o u n d q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d : W h y did A m o s migrate to the N o r t h ? In w h a t social circles d i d he move? W h o c o m prised his family? A n d so on. Readers s h o u l d n o t , however, h a r p o n these u n c e r tainties.) T h e p h r a s e "two years b e f o r e the e a r t h q u a k e " serves to legitimate the p r o p h e c i e s that follow. T h e b o o k received f u r t h e r a u t h e n t i c a t i o n d e c a d e s later, w i t h the d e s t r u c -

tion a n d exile of Samaria in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0 B.C.E. Events s e e m e d to bear o u t the dire warnings: "Do not seek Bethel, / N o r go to Gilgal, / N o r cross over to Beer-sheba; / For Gilgal shall go into exile, / A n d Bethel shall b e c o m e a delusion" (5:5). "As I drive you into exile b e y o n d D a m a s c u s . . ." (5:27) "Assuredly, right s o o n / They shall h e a d the c o l u m n of exiles" (6:7). As A m o s (the b o o k a n d the p e r s o n ) b e c a m e m o r e prestigious, scribes p r o d u c e d m o r e copies. Archaeological evidence suggests that after the destruction of the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m , m a n y Israelites or N o r t h e r n e r s migrated to J u d a h in the s o u t h . 1 9 At least one of t h e m b r o u g h t along the Book of Amos, w h i c h w e n t t h r o u g h f u r t h e r a d a p t a t i o n s to fit its n e w milieu. Specifically, s o m e o n e a d d e d references to Zion a n d the Davidic h o u s e at key p o i n t s to m a k e the b o o k m o r e suitable for its n e w audience. Before the oracles against the n a t i o n s (which at an earlier stage h a d b e g u n the b o o k ) , a n e w o p e n i n g told readers that A m o s h a d proclaimed: "The LORD

roars from Zion, / Shouts a l o u d from J e r u s a l e m ; / And the pastures of the

s h e p h e r d s shall languish, / A n d the s u m m i t of Carmel shall wither" (1:2). This verse is a statement that the "real" Amos, w h o left Tekoa for Bethel, w o u l d surely not have said. Similarly in response to J u d e a n c o n c e r n s , the b o o k gained a n e w closing: (9:11) In that day, I will set u p again the fallen b o o t h of David: I will m e n d its breaches a n d set u p its r u i n s anew. I will build it firm as in the days of old, (12) So that they shall possess the rest of E d o m / A n d all the n a t i o n s once attached to My n a m e — d e c l a r e s the LORD w h o will b r i n g this to pass. (13) A time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the LORD— / W h e n the p l o w m a n shall meet the reaper, / A n d the treader of grapes / H i m w h o h o l d s the b a g of seed; / W h e n the m o u n t a i n s shall d r i p wine / And all the hills shall wave with grain. (14) I will restore My people Israel. They shall rebuild r u i n e d cities a n d inhabit t h e m ; / They shall plant vineyards a n d d r i n k their wine; / They shall till gardens a n d eat their fruits. (15) A n d I will plant t h e m u p o n their soil, / N e v e r m o r e to be u p r o o t e d / F r o m the soil I have given t h e m — s a i d the LORD y o u r God. We can be sure that the p r o p h e t A m o s of the eighth c e n t u r y could not have said these verses, for two reasons. First, A m o s otherwise s h o w s n o c o n c e r n for the Davidic h o u s e , yet s u d d e n l y verse 11 m e n t i o n s that dynasty. Second, in contrast to the adjective in that verse ("the fallen b o o t h of David"), d u r i n g Amos' time the

Davidic house was strong. So w h y is this passage here? Typically the Bible's editors e n d e d its books on a positive note. And that underscores m y point: Only someone in the Southern K i n g d o m — n o t the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m — w o u l d have perceived this closing note as unabashedly "positive"!

Conclusion: What We Have Learned from Amos Although the language of Amos is n o t so difficult, reading his book is not easy. Prophecy is a genre that is foreign to us. As the historical-critical m e t h o d has taught us, a text like Amos is quite different from most books that we encounter. In particular, the text makes more sense w h e n we grant that the words of the real p r o p h e t Amos are not necessarily the same as the w o r d s in the b o o k that bears his n a m e and that this b o o k grew over time. In contrast to other prophetic b o o k s — i n c l u d i n g Isaiah, the focus of the next c h a p t e r — A m o s is simple. In imagining h o w this little book developed, and h o w its oracles functioned in various settings over time, we have taken a step toward u n d e r s t a n d i n g m u c h longer, more complex prophetic books.

17 "They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares" Reading (First) Isaiah Primary Reading: Isaiah 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 20, 31.

The Challenge of Reading Isaiah

I

saiah is the longest of the prophetic books, comprised of 66 chapters. 1 In some respects it is the most difficult to read of all the biblical books. This section will touch on each of the factors that make Isaiah such a challenge.

Out of Many, One The b o o k s history is complex: it embodies the work not of a single prophet, but of at least two prophets a n d more likely three—or more. The earliest of these poets, prophesying during the eighth century, is Isaiah son of Amoz (not to be confused with the earlier Amos). Scholars sometimes refer to him as First Isaiah; his work comprises m u c h of chapters 1 - 3 9 . The second prophet, w h o m scholars call Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah), prophesied in Babylonia h u n d r e d s of years later, during the Babylonian exile. That work has become chapters 4 0 - 5 5 in the book as we n o w have it. The third figure, w h o m some scholars call Trito-Isaiah (Third Isaiah), prophesied in Israel shortly after the return from exile. That prophet's work comprises chapters 5 6 - 6 6 . However, distinguishing between their oracles is not simply a matter of dividing u p the chapters. Just as not all of the book of Amos came from the prophet Amos (see "The Formation of the Book of Amos" in chapter 16), so not all of Isaiah 1 - 3 9 is by Isaiah son of Amoz. Deutero-Isaiah and other later, anon-

y m o u s figures a p p a r e n t l y inserted s o m e of their o w n w o r k there. 2 M a n y scholars also believe that s o m e o n e copied c h a p t e r s 3 6 - 3 9 f r o m the Book of Kings. 3

W o r d s Without Peer A n o t h e r factor that m a k e s the first Isaiah hard to u n d e r s t a n d is its use of m a n y rare words. A large n u m b e r of those w o r d s a p p e a r only once in the w h o l e Bible. (Scholars call s u c h w o r d s hapax legomena, a Greek expression m e a n i n g " u n i q u e words." We often use the term hapax for short, as I will below.) Recall that c o n text is one of o u r m a j o r guides for w h a t w o r d s m e a n (see "The Act of Reading" in c h a p t e r 3). Therefore, w h e n w o r d s a p p e a r only o n c e — s o that we have only o n e e x a m p l e of h o w they are u s e d — t h e i r m e a n i n g often remains unclear. This is w h y the JPS translation h a s so m a n y footnotes in Isaiah saying " m e a n i n g of H e b r e w uncertain."

Ambiguous References and Unclear Boundaries Beyond the p r o b l e m s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a p a x w o r d s , the p o e t r y of Isaiah is u n u s u a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d , a n d its figures are o f t e n o b s c u r e . In a d d i t i o n , the b o o k h a s r u n t o g e t h e r m a n y s e p a r a t e oracles. ( S o m e o t h e r p r o p h e t s , s u c h as A m o s , u s e f o r m u l a s — s u c h as " T h u s said the L o r d " — t o indicate the b e g i n n i n g of an oracle, or a m e s s e n g e r f o r m u l a — s u c h as "declares the L o r d " — t o indicate its e n d . T h e s e f o r m u l a s — w h i c h s c h o l a r s call "form-critical

markers"—are

largely a b s e n t in Isaiah.) D u e to the lack of a clear b r e a k b e t w e e n m a n y of the u n i t s , s c h o l a r s d e b a t e w h e r e t h o s e u n i t s begin a n d e n d . T h i s d e b a t e m a n i f e s t s in the m a n y different l a y o u t s that v a r i o u s t r a n s l a t i o n s have e m p l o y e d for this book.

Uncertain Historical Context As in Amos, this b o o k o p e n s w i t h a s u p e r s c r i p t i o n that states w h e n the p r o p h e t was active. F r o m w h a t we are told, Isaiah's p r o p h e c i e s covered a long period, f r o m "the reigns of Uzziah, J o t h a m , Ahaz, a n d Hezekiah, kings of J u d a h " (1:1), n a m e l y f r o m the m i d - to late-eighth century. Many m a j o r events took place d u r i n g this time: the Syro-Ephraimite w a r in the 7 3 0 s ( w h e n D a m a s c u s a n d N o r t h e r n Israel i n v a d e d J u d a h ) ; the e n d of the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m a n d the exile

of m u c h of its p o p u l a c e in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0 ; the devastation of the J u d e a n c o u n t r y s i d e a n d the siege of J e r u s a l e m in 7 0 1 (see "Israel's History as Seen f r o m the Inside" in c h a p t e r 4; "Jerusalem in 7 0 1 " in c h a p t e r 13); a n d m o r e . However, Isaiah t e n d s to p r e s e n t its individual oracles w i t h o u t giving dates or o t h e r u n a m b i g u o u s clues to the situations that they refer to. As it h a p p e n s , the s a m e oracle m a y read very differently d e p e n d i n g o n w h i c h historical context that we imagine for it. If the book's editors h a d placed Isaiahs oracles in chronological order, w e m i g h t have an easier time inferring their contexts. However, the b o o k is n o t a r r a n g e d that way. I n d e e d , w h a t m o s t c o n s i d e r to be Isaiah's d e d i c a t i o n as a p r o p h e t d o e s n o t a p p e a r until c h a p t e r 6 . 4 Conversely, s o m e of the material in c h a p t e r 1 a p p e a r s to date f r o m n e a r the e n d of Isaiah's mission. (See especially verse 8: "Fair Zion is left / Like a b o o t h in a vineyard." This s e e m s to refer to J e r u s a l e m u n d e r siege in 7 0 1 . ) Instead of chronological order, the b o o k o f t e n p r e s e n t s its u n i t s associatively. T h e editors have g r o u p e d together oracles p e r t a i n i n g to similar topics. At o t h e r times they have a r r a n g e d u n i t s by c a t c h w o r d s , w h e r e u n i t s b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d i n g w i t h similar w o r d s are placed adjacently. F o r e x a m p l e , Isaiah c o m p l a i n s , 5 "My people's rulers are babes, / It is g o v e r n e d by w o m e n " (3:12). This is followed associatively by a unit that c o n d e m n s w o m e n — n a m e l y "the d a u g h t e r s of Zion" (3:16). That unit e n d s w i t h the p h r a s e "In that day" (4:1), at w h i c h p o i n t a n e w unit starts w i t h those s a m e w o r d s ( 4 : 2 ) . 6

The Poetry of Isaiah Reading Isaiah m e a n s u n d e r s t a n d i n g it as poetry, w h i c h m e a n s u n d e r s t a n d i n g the characteristics of biblical poetry. 7 Earlier, I n o t e d the error of i n t e r p r e t i n g p o e t r y as if it were prose (see "The Rules of the G a m e " in c h a p t e r 3). We w o u l d be equally w r o n g to treat biblical p o e t r y as if it were modern

poetry. 8 Even

t h o u g h m a n y cultures have a genre w e m i g h t call poetry, those w o r k s d o n o t all share the s a m e characteristics. Broadly s p e a k i n g , p o e t r y m a y be c o n s i d e r e d a type of elevated language that is n o t prose. H o w e v e r , the w a y in w h i c h it is "not prose" differs f r o m society to society a n d f r o m time to time. Classical English p o e t r y is metrical, that is, it h a s a p a t t e r n e d n u m b e r of stressed a n d u n s t r e s s e d syllables. It is o f t e n r h y m e d , figurative ( m e a n i n g , it uses m a n y m e t a p h o r s a n d similes) a n d uses special vocabulary. A n y o n e w h o reads biblical p o e t r y f r o m Isaiah (or elsewhere) will quickly realize that like English poetry, it is highly figurative a n d o f t e n uses elegant w o r d s , b u t u n l i k e English poetry, it is neither m e t rical 9 n o r r h y m e d .

Instead, the m a i n characteristic of biblical p o e t r y is "binary repetition." By this I m e a n that w e can divide m o s t poetic verses i n t o t w o lines (binary), w h e r e the s e c o n d line repeats the m e a n i n g of the first in s o m e fashion. For e x a m p l e , the b e g i n n i n g of Isaiah 1:2 reads: "Hear, Ο h e a v e n s , a n d give ear, Ο earth." This m a y be d i v i d e d into "Hear, Ο h e a v e n s " a n d "and give ear, Ο earth," w h e r e the latter p h r a s e largely repeats the f o r m e r in t w o ways. It repeats the syntax ( i m p e r ative + Ό " + n o u n ) . In a d d i t i o n , it repeats the m e a n i n g ("hear" a n d "give ear" are related as s y n o n y m s , a n d "heavens" a n d "earth" are related as opposites). Each p h r a s e in the verse ( s u c h as "Hear, Ο h e a v e n s " or "and give ear, Ο earth") is called a "colon." T h u s , the m a j o r feature of biblical p o e t r y is that its lines divide i n t o "bicola" (singular "bicolon"). 1 0 Scholars call the relationship b e t w e e n the p h r a s e s "parallelism," since the s e c o n d colon parallels the first. T h e n a t u r e of the parallelism h a s b e e n a n issue of great debate. Bishop Robert L o w t h ( 1 7 1 0 - 1 7 8 7 ) in his Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews ( 1 7 5 3 ) suggested three m a i n relationships b e t w e e n the t w o cola: s y n o n y m o u s , antithetical, a n d synthetic. In synonymous

parallelism,

the sec-

o n d colon repeats the first in different w o r d s , as in Psalm 2:4, "He w h o is e n t h r o n e d in h e a v e n laughs; the Lord m o c k s at t h e m . " In antithetical

parallelism,

the s e c o n d colon expresses the o p p o s i t e idea of the first, as in Proverbs 15:20, "A wise s o n m a k e s his father h a p p y ; A fool of a m a n h u m i l i a t e s his mother." In synthetic

parallelism,

the s e c o n d c o l o n c o m p l e t e s the first, a n d together (i.e.,

t h r o u g h a synthesis of the two) they express a c o m p l e t e t h o u g h t . This can be seen in Psalm 23:1, "The

LORD

is m y s h e p h e r d ; I lack n o t h i n g . "

Biblical scholars accepted Lowth's system for a l o n g time. It r e m a i n s h e l p f u l , a l t h o u g h it h a s rightly c o m e u n d e r assault in recent decades. S o m e observers have n o t e d that the t e r m s are i m p r e c i s e — f o r e x a m p l e , "synthetic parallelism" is a vague, catchall term. In a d d i t i o n , b e c a u s e m o d e r n archaeologists have u n c o v ered a large c o r p u s of ancient Semitic poetry, w e can n o w look at parallelism m o r e broadly. It m u s t be even older t h a n the Bible, because it is f o u n d in the literature of m o s t ancient Semitic-language cultures. We n o w u n d e r s t a n d that b o t h the Bible a n d o t h e r Semitic p o e t r y often create this parallelism t h r o u g h a c o n v e n t i o n k n o w n as "word pairs." W o r d s that are semantically related (e.g., g o o d a n d b a d ; day a n d night; ox a n d ass) a p p e a r in s t a n d a r d c o m b i n a t i o n s . That is, the a u d i e n c e w h o hears one of those w o r d s t h e n expects that its m a t e will be n o t far b e h i n d — t y p i c a l l y , in the next colon. T h u s these pairs h e l p e d to create parallelism. 1 1 Finally, m a n y scholars believe that Lowth's three categories are too restrictive. T h e y prefer to explain the s t r u c t u r e of the bicolon like this: "A, a n d what's m o r e , B" ( w h e r e "A" a n d "B" s t a n d for the t w o cola). In their view, "B" h e i g h t e n s

"A" in a wide range of ways. 1 2 This u n d e r s t a n d i n g of biblical poetry encourages us to pay particular attention to the second colon, for it defines the meaning of a line more than the first. However, in some cases the second colon is merely a formal repetition of the first, where the poet inserts the second word of a word-pair mechanically. 1 3 We saw this, for example, in Amos, where the oracles against the nations all o p e n with "For three transgressions . . . I For four . . . " There the numerals "three" and "four" follow a c o m m o n pattern: A is some number, and Β is that n u m b e r plus one; the numerals in these verses are merely fillers, since only one sin is listed in each section. Another example may be seen in Psalm 121, which portrays God as protector. Verse 6 reads: "By day the sun will not strike you, / nor the m o o n by night." Colon A ("By day the sun will not strike you") makes sense, given the strong Mediterranean sun. But to the best of my knowledge, n o one has ever suffered m o o n b u r n . T h u s colon Β ("nor the m o o n by night") reflects a formal seco n d i n g of A, using the word pairs "day-night" and "sun-moon." The conflicting analyses of the previous two paragraphs create a dilemma: H o w do we read biblical poetry? Do we read the second colon as more intensive than the first, or do we see it as simply a filler? O r — t o complicate matters still further—is it the case (as I believe) that some poets use the second colon to heighten the first, while others use it as filler? Given that these poets are n o longer around to inform us, we d o not k n o w for sure h o w to read many of their poems. Nevertheless, the binary structure of biblical poetry is easily visible throughout Isaiah. For example, we can parse the first chapter of Isaiah according to the three kinds of parallelism: b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism (1:2) Hear, Ο heavens, a n d give ear, Ο earth, monocolon14 For the LORD has spoken: "I reared children and brought t h e m u p — bicolon—synthetic parallelism And they have rebelled against Me! (3) An ox k n o w s its owner, An ass its master's crib: Israel does not know, My people takes n o thought." (4) Ah, sinful nation! People laden with iniquity! Brood of evildoers! Depraved children!

b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism

t r i c o l o n 1 5 — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism

T h e y have forsaken the LORD, S p u r n e d the Holy O n e of Israel, Turned their b a c k s o n H i m .

The historical-critical m e t h o d h a s recovered m a n y of the Bible's rhetorical a p p r o a c h e s , allowing u s read the text as Israelites m i g h t h a v e — u s i n g their c o n ventions, n o t ours. To begin with, we look for natural b r e a k s in each verse, guided by the b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e that u n d e r g i r d s m o s t verses. Instead of u n d e r s t a n d ing the s e c o n d bicolon as merely repetitive, we m a y look for ways in w h i c h it h e i g h t e n s the first. I c a n n o t overstate the i m p o r t a n c e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g Isaiah as biblical poetry.

Isaiah as a Typical Classical Prophet A l t h o u g h he is highly p o e t i c — a n d t h u s quite different in style f r o m A m o s — Isaiah shares w i t h A m o s the five features of classical p r o p h e c y listed in o u r p r e v i o u s chapter. 1.

T h r o u g h eleven c h a p t e r s of oracles against the nations, Isaiah e m p h a sizes that G o d is a universal

G o d ( 1 3 - 2 3 ) . Elsewhere, a c c o r d i n g to

Isaiah, G o d famously calls Assyria "rod of My anger, / In w h o s e h a n d , as a staff, is My fury!" (10:5). In o t h e r w o r d s , God's will alone i n d u c e s far away Assyria to c o n q u e r large sections of J u d a h . 2.

C h a p t e r 1 explains that this p u n i s h m e n t is the result of Judah's special relationship

w i t h its G o d — t h e J u d e a n s are God's children (v. 2) a n d ,

f r o m God's perspective, "My people" (v. 3). 3.

The c o n t i n u a t i o n of the c h a p t e r m a k e s it clear that the covenantal relat i o n s h i p i n c l u d e s interpersonal obligations,

a n d that fulfilling cultic

responsibilities is n o t sufficient: (1:11) "What n e e d have I of all y o u r sacrifices?" / Says the LORD. "I a m sated w i t h b u r n t offerings of rams, / A n d suet of fatlings, / A n d b l o o d of bulls; / A n d I have n o delight / In l a m b s a n d he-goats. (12) That y o u c o m e to a p p e a r before M e — / W h o asked that of you? / Trample My c o u r t s (13) n o more; / Bringing oblations is futile, / Incense is offensive to Me. N e w m o o n a n d s a b b a t h , / Proclaiming of solemnities, / Assemblies w i t h iniquity, / I c a n n o t abide. (14) Your n e w m o o n s a n d fixed seasons / Fill Me w i t h loathing; / They are b e c o m e a b u r d e n to

Me, / I cannot e n d u r e t h e m . (15) A n d w h e n you lift u p y o u r h a n d s , / I will t u r n My eyes away from you; / T h o u g h you pray at length, / I will n o t listen. / Your h a n d s are stained with crime-—(16) Wash yourselves clean; / Put your evil doings / Away from My sight. / Cease to d o evil; (17) Learn to d o good. / Devote yourselves to justice; / Aid the wronged. / U p h o l d the rights of the o r p h a n ; / Defend the cause of the widow." 4.

Isaiah describes an ultimate p u n i s h m e n t that will c o m e t h r o u g h the Day of the

LORD.

Isaiah's image shares the "darkness" that we saw in A m o s

5 : 1 8 - 2 0 , b u t , not surprisingly—given that Isaiah lived after A m o s d i d — t h e image is m o r e developed: (13:6) Howl! For the day of the

LORD

is near; / It shall c o m e like

havoc from Shaddai. / (7) Therefore all h a n d s shall grow limp,/ And all men's hearts shall sink; / (8) And, overcome by terror,/ They shall be seized by p a n g s a n d throes, / Writhe like a w o m a n in travail. / They shall gaze at each other in horror, / Their faces livid with fright. / (9) Lo! The day of the

LORD

is

c o m i n g / W i t h pitiless fury a n d w r a t h , / To m a k e the earth a desolation, / To wipe out the sinners u p o n it. / (10) The stars and constellations of heaven / Shall not give off their light; / The s u n shall be dark w h e n it rises, / And the m o o n shall diffuse n o glow. / ( 1 1 ) "And I will requite to the world its evil, / And to the wicked their iniquity; / I will put an e n d to the pride of the arrogant / A n d h u m b l e the haughtiness of tyrants . . ." 5.

Isaiah emphasizes the idea of a remnant—not

all of Israel will be

destroyed. He expresses this idea most clearly in chapter 6 (which m a n y scholars believe r e c o u n t s his dedication as a p r o p h e t , as m e n t i o n e d above). The c o m i n g destruction is inevitable, but "while a tenth part yet remains in it, it shall repent. It shall be ravaged like the terebinth a n d the oak, of which s t u m p s are left even w h e n they are felled: its s t u m p shall be a holy seed" (v. 13). 1 6

How Isaiah Differs The differences b e t w e e n Isaiah a n d A m o s are m o r e t h a n stylistic, more t h a n the fact that Isaiah uses more difficult vocabulary a n d poetry. N o two p r o p h e t s ' style

a n d concerns are identical; each one is u n i q u e to his particular time period a n d audience, and each has u n i q u e mannerisms. As noted, classical prophets often performed o d d symbolic actions (see "Doing Strange Deeds" in chapter 15). This is quite clear from Isaiah, w h o , for example, is told: "Go, untie the sackcloth from your loins and take your sandals off your feet" (20:2). However, in contrast to nonclassical prophets, this is not a magical activity meant to cause a miraculous outcome, but rather is an unusual act m e a n t to symbolize something. In this case, the passage proceeds to clarify the action's symbolism: It is a sign and a portent for Egypt and Nubia. Just as My servant Isaiah has gone naked a n d barefoot for three years, so shall the king of Assyria drive off the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Nubia, y o u n g and old, naked a n d barefoot and with bared b u t t o c k s — t o the shame of Egypt! (w. 3 - 4 ) . Of course, the most famous of Isaiah's symbolic acts is f o u n d in 7:14: "Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His o w n accord! Look, the y o u n g w o m a n is with child a n d about to give birth to a son. Let her n a m e him Immanuel." This JPS translation follows the Hebrew closely and presumes that this "sign" is about to take place in the near future. It differs strikingly from the famous (but less accurate) King J a m e s rendering: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his n a m e Immanuel," which accords with Matthew 1:23 in the New Testament. In comparison with Amos, w h o depicted a total exile of the N o r t h e r n kingd o m , Isaiah (also a J u d e a n ) claims that although m u c h of J u d a h might be decimated, Jerusalem shall never fall. This theme, which scholars call "the inviolability of Jerusalem," distinguishes Isaiah's message from that of other classical prophets. Given the events that Isaiah witnessed in 7 0 1 — w h e n Sennacherib conquered the countryside but not Jerusalem (see "Jerusalem in 701" in chapter 13)—it is not surprising that he dwells on this theme. Here is one example: (31:5) Like the birds that fly, even so will the LORD of Hosts shield Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting and rescuing. . . . (8) Then Assyria shall fall, / Not by the sword of m a n ; / A sword not of h u m a n s shall devour him. / He shall shrivel before the sword, / And his y o u n g m e n pine away. (9) His rock shall melt with terror, / And his officers shall collapse from weakness—Declares the LORD, w h o has a fire in Zion, / W h o has an oven in Jerusalem. Was this Isaiah predicting the future, or were these words written later, after

S e n n a c h e r i b h a d left J e r u s a l e m alone? Surely, biblical a u t h o r s s o m e t i m e s c o m p o s e d an oracle after the event that it refers to, in order to interpret for the a u d i ence w h a t h a d occurred. (Scholars call this vaticinium

ex eventu, " p r o p h e c y after

the event.") Today, however, we have n o way to distinguish p r o n o u n c e m e n t s w r i t t e n in that situation. F u r t h e r m o r e , the eschatology depicted in Isaiah—his view of the ideal f u t u r e — i s highly developed c o m p a r e d with A m o s (see 9 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) . Isaiah 1 - 3 9 presents n o single picture of the ultimate future, either because Isaiah's views evolved d u r i n g the apparently long period that he prophesied, or because s o m e of that material postdates Isaiah son of Amoz. The most famous of these visions is: (2:1) The w o r d that Isaiah son of A m o z p r o p h e s i e d c o n c e r n i n g J u d a h a n d Jerusalem. / (2) In the days to c o m e , 1 7 / T h e M o u n t of the LORD'S H o u s e / Shall s t a n d firm above the m o u n t a i n s / A n d tower above the hills; / A n d all the n a t i o n s / Shall gaze o n it with joy. / (3) A n d the m a n y p e o p l e s shall go a n d say: / " C o m e , / Let u s go u p to the M o u n t of the LORD, / To the H o u s e of the G o d of Jacob; / That He m a y instruct u s in His ways, / A n d that we m a y walk in His paths." / For instruction shall c o m e forth f r o m Zion, / T h e w o r d of the LORD f r o m J e r u s a l e m . / (4) T h u s He will j u d g e a m o n g the n a t i o n s / A n d arbitrate for the m a n y peoples, / A n d they shall beat their s w o r d s into p l o w s h a r e s / A n d their spears into p r u n i n g h o o k s : / Nation shall n o t take u p / Sword against nation; / They shall never again k n o w war. This vision of the e s c h a t o n spotlights the J e r u s a l e m Temple; its central image is G o d as the j u s t j u d g e , u s h e r i n g in universal peace. As is typical of the Bible, Isaiah a s s u m e s that the n a t i o n s of the w o r l d will recognize as p a r a m o u n t Israel's G o d — a n d consequently, His land a n d Temple. We c a n n o t be sure w h o first conceived of the eschaton in this particular way. Micah i n c l u d e s s o m e of the same lines: (4:1) In the days to come, / T h e M o u n t of the Lord's H o u s e shall stand / Firm above the m o u n t a i n s ; / A n d it shall t o w e r above the hills. / T h e p e o p l e s shall gaze o n it w i t h joy, / (2) A n d the m a n y n a t i o n s shall go a n d shall say: / "Come, / Let u s go u p to the M o u n t of the Lord, / To the H o u s e of the G o d of Jacob; / That He m a y instruct u s in His ways, / A n d that we m a y walk in His paths." / For instruction shall c o m e forth f r o m Zion, / The w o r d of the Lord f r o m J e r u s a l e m . / (3) T h u s He will j u d g e a m o n g the m a n y peoples, / A n d arbitrate for the m u l t i t u d e of nations, / H o w e v e r distant; / A n d they shall beat their s w o r d s into p l o w s h a r e s /

A n d their spears i n t o p r u n i n g h o o k s . / N a t i o n shall n o t take u p / Sword against nation; / They shall never again k n o w war. These t w o passages are so similar that either one a u t h o r copied f r o m the other, or b o t h copied f r o m the same source. (This is a g o o d illustration of one difference b e t w e e n m o d e r n a n d ancient b o o k s . In antiquity, editors copied w o r d s f r o m one b o o k to a n o t h e r w i t h ease, believing p e r h a p s that "this s h o u l d have b e e n w h a t Isaiah said.") A n o t h e r w e l l - k n o w n text in Isaiah ascribes an i m p o r t a n t role to a Davidic d e s c e n d a n t in this n e w w o r l d order: (11:1) But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse [Davids father], / A twig shall s p r o u t f r o m his stock. / (2) T h e spirit of the LORD shall alight u p o n h i m : / A spirit of w i s d o m a n d insight, / A spirit of counsel a n d valor, / A spirit of d e v o t i o n a n d reverence for the LORD. / (3) He shall sense the t r u t h b y his reverence for the LORD: / He shall not j u d g e by w h a t his eyes b e h o l d , / N o r decide b y w h a t his ears perceive. / (4) T h u s he shall j u d g e the p o o r w i t h equity / A n d decide with justice for the lowly of the land. / He shall strike d o w n a land w i t h the rod of his m o u t h / A n d slay the wicked with the b r e a t h of his lips. / (5) Justice shall be the girdie of his loins, / A n d faithfulness the girdle of his waist. / (6) T h e wolf shall dwell w i t h the lamb, / T h e leopard lie d o w n w i t h the kid; / The calf, the beast of prey, a n d the failing together, / W i t h a little b o y to h e r d t h e m . / (7) T h e c o w a n d the b e a r shall graze, / Their y o u n g shall lie d o w n together; / A n d the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw. / (8) A babe shall play / Over a v i p e r s hole, / A n d an infant pass his h a n d / O v e r an adder's d e n . / (9) In all of My sacred m o u n t / N o t h i n g evil or vile shall be d o n e ; / For the land shall be filled w i t h devotion to the LORD / As water covers the sea. This passage depicts a n e w o r d e r in the animal world. It suggests that this Davidic k i n g will be the ideal j u d g e , in contrast w i t h c h a p t e r 2, w h e r e G o d has that role. M a n y w o u l d call this passage "messianic," in the sense that it describes the ideal f u t u r e king. T h e English w o r d "messiah" c o m e s f r o m mashiach

( ‫ מ ש י ח‬, "anointed"); a n o i n t i n g w a s the rite that m a d e a p e r s o n into a

king. However, the H e b r e w Bible never uses the t e r m mashiach to describe s u c h f u t u r e kings; stated differently, in the Bible, the messiah is never called "messia h . " 1 8 To be precise, I refer to this figure as the "future ideal Davidic king," a l t h o u g h that is m o r e c u m b e r s o m e . A final difference b e t w e e n Isaiah a n d A m o s c o n c e r n s the f u n d a m e n t a l role

of the prophet. Amos often calls u p o n the people to repent; this is almost totally absent in Isaiah. In fact, God gives Isaiah a most u n u s u a l mission: "Dull that people's m i n d , / Stop its ears, / And seal its eyes— / Lest, seeing with its eyes / And hearing with its ears, / It also grasp with its m i n d , / And repent a n d save itself" (6:10). In other words, Isaiah is s u p p o s e d to m a k e sure the people d o not r e p e n t — a n d indeed the remainder of the First Isaiah does not contain a single call to repentance, in contrast to Amos.

Bringing It All Together Of all the prophetic works, that of First Isaiah is the most beautiful yet also the most abstruse. Given its difficulty, I find it remarkable that this b o o k was preserved at all. Clearly, some g r o u p with a fine sense of poetry a n d s y m p a t h y to Isaiah's message took responsibility for this. The fact that the b o o k proclaimed the inviolability of Jerusalem, and that Sennacherib did not c o n q u e r the city, certainly helped its prestige at first. In that sense, chapters 3 6 - 3 9 , w h i c h describe these events, had the same impact as the verses in Amos about the q u a k i n g g r o u n d (see "The Formation of the Book of Amos" in chapter 16). Such notices vindicated the p r o p h e t as a true p r o p h e t — namely a p r o p h e t whose w o r d s came true (see Deut. 1 8 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) . Yet a main t h e m e of Isaiah, the inviolability of Jerusalem, was disproved with the destruction of the Temple and the exile of 586. O n e might have t h o u g h t that after this t u r n of events the b o o k w o u l d have been treated as false p r o p h e c y — a n d consigned to oblivion. However, by that point, Isaiah had probably been authoritative for more than a century. Presumably its sublime style a n d evocative message about a better future maintained the interest of readers a n d scribes—and ultimately assured its place in the canon.

18 "I Will Make This House like Shiloh" Reading Jeremiah Primary Reading: Jeremiah

1,3,

15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36, 52.

Background

T

he Book of Jeremiah opens with the longest superscription of any prophetic book: (1:1) The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. ( 2 ) The word of the LORD came to him in the days of King Josiah son of A m o n of J u d a h , in the thirteenth year of his reign, (3) a n d throughout the days of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of J u d a h , and until the end of the eleventh year of King Zedekiah son of Josiah of J u d a h , w h e n Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth m o n t h .

Translated into m o d e r n terms, it says that Jeremiah began to prophesy in 6 2 7 B.C.E. and finished around the time of the destruction of the Temple in 5 8 6 — a period of more than forty years. (According to the Bible and other sources as well, this was an eventful time. King Josiah reformed religious practice in J u d a h . Babylon defeated Assyria and came into its own as a world power. Egypt briefly imposed vassal status on J u d a h — m o r e than once. Babylon defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish in 605. The Babylonians exiled Judah's king, Jehoiachin, in 597. Finally, they returned to destroy Jerusalem and exile m u c h of its populace in 586.) We also learn that Jeremiah was a priest and that he hailed from Anathoth, a town about three miles (five km.) n o r t h of Jerusalem. The b o o k is filled with other biographical information—so m u c h so that many scholars identify in the b o o k a separate strand or source devoted to biog-

raphy. 1 This is u n i q u e a m o n g p r o p h e t i c books. As usual, we c a n n o t be certain that any of this i n f o r m a t i o n is historically accurate. 2 Yet we possess an u n u s u a l ly rich a m o u n t of b a c k g r o u n d that gives us a h e a d start in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the oracles attributed to this p r o p h e t .

Reading Jeremiah after Isaiah F r o m the superscription, we learn that Jeremiah p r o p h e s i e d almost a c e n t u r y after Isaiah, d u r i n g a very different historical period. In particular, in Isaiah's time, the Assyrians were the enemies w h o m J u d a h w o u l d overcome; for Jeremiah, the Babylonians were the enemies w h o w o u l d destroy the Jerusalem Temple. T h u s it is not surprising that the Book of J e r e m i a h is quite different from those we have already seen. C o m p a r e d to the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah is m u c h easier to read. It contains m o r e prose, and its poetic sections are less complex. It has fewer u n i q u e ( h a p a x ) words. It also gives date formulas a n d o t h e r clues a b o u t where one oracle begins a n d a n o t h e r ends. For example, the phrase "The w o r d w h i c h came to Jeremiah from the LORD" a p p e a r s ten times, always i n t r o d u c i n g an oracle.

Organizing Principles Correlation of the date formulas s h o w s that the Book of J e r e m i a h is n o t in chronological order. Like Isaiah, m u c h of it is arranged associatively. For exampie, J e r e m i a h 2 0 a n d 21 are adjacent because they each c o n c e r n a m a n n a m e d P a s h h u r (an Egyptian n a m e ) , a l t h o u g h two different P a s h h u r s are involved. O t h e r passages are ordered b y catchphrases. Some of the prophecies an editor has g r o u p e d topically; t h u s 23:9 contains a title—"Concerning the p r o p h e t s " — a n d w h a t follows c o n c e r n s Jeremiah's p r o p h e t i c adversaries ( w h o m we w o u l d call "false prophets," t h o u g h that term never a p p e a r s in the H e b r e w text). 3 Similarly, a collection of p r o p h e c i e s against the J u d e a n kings appears u n d e r the title "To the H o u s e of the king of J u d a h " (21:11). A set of oracles against other peoples follows the title "The w o r d of the

LORD

to the p r o p h e t Jeremiah con-

c e r n i n g the nations" (46:1). The b o o k s of earlier p r o p h e t s — i n c l u d i n g I s a i a h — d o not display topical organization. An editor of the Book of Jeremiah appears to have e x p e r i m e n t e d with n e w ways of assembling p r o p h e t i c oracles into a b o o k .

Content The content of Jeremiahs book differs from that of Isaiah's. Scholars attribute some of these differences to the distinct historical contexts noted earlier. We can also point to the impact of each figure's o w n personality a n d style. Disparate editorial processes may account for still other differences in content. The biggest factor, however, is that the two books wish to convey different messages. A m a j o r theme of Isaiah is the inviolability of Jerusalem: "the L O R D of Hosts [will] shield Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting and rescuing" (Isa. 31:5). In contrast, Jeremiah's major theme is the p e n d i n g destruction of J e r u s a l e m — a n d of its Temple. The w o r d s of 26:6 refer to both disasters: "then I will m a k e this House like Shiloh [the sanctuary site that the Philistines had destroyed centuries earlier], a n d I will make this city a curse for all the nations of earth." Furthermore, as the previous chapter noted, Isaiah focused more on explaining devastating events than on convincing the people to repent. In contrast, in m u c h of Jeremiah, the prophet calls for repentance, as in 3:14: "turn back, rebellious children—declares the L O R D . " 4

Reworking Isaiah In some cases, Jeremiah may be basing his oracles on earlier prophecies of Isaiah, but if so, then he transforms t h e m in a radical fashion. For example, as we saw earlier, Isaiah had viewed Assyria as God's servant, chosen to punish Israel: (10:5) Ha! Assyria, rod of My anger, / In whose h a n d , as a staff, is My fury! / (6) I send him against an ungodly nation [= J u d a h ] , / I charge him against a people that provokes Me, / To take its spoil and to seize its booty / And to make it a thing trampled / Like the mire of the streets. (Recall that classical prophecy saw the God of Israel as a universal deity.) God, however, w o u l d "punish the majestic pride and overbearing arrogance of the king of Assyria" (v. 12); the passage had gone on to describe this p u n i s h m e n t in great detail. That prophesy of Isaiah's may describes the destruction of J u d a h since succeeded Assyria as a great Assyria, as God's new instrument.

serve as the basis of Jeremiah 25, which through the agency of Babylon, which has power. Jeremiah views Babylon as a new However, Babylon's impact will be m u c h

greater than Assyria's; it will not only p u n i s h J u d a h , it will also destroy the Temple and exile m u c h of the populace.

Remarkable Words for Remarkable Times W h e t h e r or not Jeremiah 25 was based on Isaiah, it is a turning point in the b o o k — a n d in Jeremiah's career. After twenty-three years of attempts to convince the people to repent, he a b a n d o n s his call for repentance (w. 1 - 7 ) . W h y now? The date formula gives us a clue: "the first year of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon" (v. 1). That was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar (the more c o m m o n biblical form of the n a m e "Nebuchadrezzar") defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.E.). That victory asserted Babylon's dominance of the ancient Near East. 5 The text t h u s connects the radical shifts in this chapter to the s u d d e n , regionwide political transformation. Repeatedly in earlier chapters, Jeremiah included vague threats about an e n e m y from the n o r t h (e.g., "Thus said the LORD: See, a people comes from the northland, / A great nation is roused / From the remotest parts of the earth"; 6:22). The historic rise of Babylon n o w p r o m p t s our text to clarify that this empire is that "northern" p o w e r (25:9). 6 (Prior to Babylon's hegemony, Jeremiah's audience would have f o u n d it hard to tell which foreign power he meant.) Furthermore, the text assigns the Babylonians absolute world domination for seventy years (w. 1 1 - 1 3 ) ; neither J u d e a n repentance nor any deeds by Babylon will change this. (The n u m b e r seventy may be a r o u n d n u m b e r indieating the life span of a healthy person, as in Ps. 90:10, "The span of our life is seventy years." Alternatively, the author of this text perhaps k n e w an inscription from the earlier Assyrian king Esarhaddon, which claims that the Babylonian deity Marduk decreed seventy years of desolation for Babylon, and reapplied it here in an Israelite context. 7 )

Code Words The passage in Jeremiah 25 continues with a recurring biblical image: the "cup of wrath," 8 filled with p o t e n t — a n d ultimately p o i s o n o u s — d r i n k . All the nations will drink from this cup, representing their subservience to Babylon (w. 15-26). This section ends with a very difficult sentence: "And last of all, the king of Sheshach shall drink" (v. 26). Despite our vast knowledge of ancient Near

Eastern place-names, we c a n n o t point to a likely candidate for "Sheshach." A d d i n g to the puzzle is the fact that this section of verse 2 6 is missing f r o m the Septuagint of J e r e m i a h . 9 We can solve the puzzle w i t h the h e l p of a n o t h e r ancient version, the Aramaic translation (Targum). 1 0 It r e n d e r s Sheshach as "Babylon." The medieval Jewish c o m m e n t a t o r Rashi ( 1 0 4 0 - 1 1 0 5 ) elaborates: "Sheshach: this is Babylon u s i n g atbash." Atbash is a system of ciphers, in w h i c h we substitute the first letter of the alphabet (alef, ‫ ) א‬for the last (tav, Π), the second (bet, 2) for the seco n d to last (shin, ‫ ) ש‬, etc. In English, this w o u l d be like s u b s t i t u t i n g A for Ζ; Β for Y; C for X, etc. T h e result of this c i p h e r in H e b r e w is that

(Sheshach) =

‫( ; ב ב ל‬Babylon). Rashi's explanation fits the evidence. T h u s we learn that writers used codes already in antiquity. However, their use in the Bible is extremely

rare. 1 1

(Certainly the entire text s h o u l d n o t be read as a code.) W h a t circumstances p r o m p t e d the code here?

Later C h a n g e s to the Book D u r i n g the Babylonian exile, s o m e m e m b e r s of the defeated people reserved h a r s h j u d g m e n t s for the victors. ( C o m p a r e the postexilic Ps. 137:8, in reference to Babylon: "a blessing o n h i m w h o seizes y o u r babies a n d d a s h e s t h e m against the rocks!") Probably at that time, a copyist of J e r e m i a h a d d e d 2 5 : 2 6 b as a way to "vent" against the Babylonian masters: they too were not e x e m p t f r o m d r i n k ing f r o m the prophet's p o i s o n o u s "cup." Perhaps to avoid the eyes of a Babylonian censor, the copyist m a d e the point only in code. Because this addition came relatively late in the book's d e v e l o p m e n t , it did n o t find its way into all versions of J e r e m i a h . N o w a d a y s it m a y seem a s t o n i s h i n g to u s that s o m e o n e w o u l d a d d to Jeremiah's divine p r o p h e c i e s ("thus said the LORD, the G o d of Israel, to me"; 25:15). But again, s u c h alterations clearly were the n o r m in the transmission of texts t h r o u g h o u t the ancient Near East. I n d e e d , 2 5 : 2 6 b is n o t the only piece of the b o o k that s t a n d s o u t f r o m the rest of it. Most of the prose p o r t i o n s of J e r e m i a h s h o w clear linguistic a n d theological affinities to D e u t e r o n o m y . 1 2 This suggests that J e r e m i a h w e n t t h r o u g h a wholesale editing by o n e or m o r e editors affiliated with the Deuteronomistic school. ( W h e t h e r those editors were s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y D e u t e r o n o m i s t s , or later exilic ones, or b o t h , is unclear. 1 3 ) In the process of m a k i n g this b o o k fit their theology, those editors a d d e d m u c h to the "authentic" w o r d s of J e r e m i a h . Again,

these editors believed that s u c h is w h a t J e r e m i a h s h o u l d have (or m u s t have) said, so they inserted it into his m o u t h .

Relationship to the Torah A n o t h e r difference b e t w e e n the w o r k of (First) Isaiah a n d the Book of J e r e m i a h is the latter's greater use of w h a t we recognize as Torah material. (As discussed in the previous chapter, a l t h o u g h we might tend to a s s u m e that the classical p r o p h e t s insisted that the people follow the Torah, in fact in their day the Torah as a b o o k did not yet exist.)

Points of Similarity We can point to close correlations b e t w e e n passages in J e r e m i a h a n d w h a t we n o w k n o w as the Torah. For e x a m p l e , J e r e m i a h poses a rhetorical q u e s t i o n , "Will y o u steal a n d m u r d e r a n d c o m m i t a d u l t e r y a n d swear falsely, a n d sacrifice to Baal, a n d follow o t h e r g o d s w h o m y o u have n o t experienced?" (7:9). Here he is accusing the people of violating the Decalogue, w h i c h he alludes to via a d d u c ing i t — b y a n d large—in reverse order. (In the Bible, s u c h reversal indicates that a later source is citing an earlier o n e — i t f u n c t i o n s like q u o t a t i o n m a r k s in English. 1 4 ) In a d d i t i o n , J e r e m i a h i n c l u d e s several passages that insist o n p u n c t i l i o u s ritual observance. For e x a m p l e , one long p r o p h e c y urges strict Sabbath observance ( 1 7 : 1 9 - 2 7 ) . I n d e e d , it b l a m e s the d e s t r u c t i o n of the Temple on Judah's lack of regard for the Sabbath. T h u s the b o o k strikes a different balance b e t w e e n ethical a n d "religious" c o n c e r n s f r o m that f o u n d in Isaiah (or Amos). O t h e r correlations w i t h Torah traditions relate to the Book of D e u t e r o n o m y specifically. T h u s J e r e m i a h 3 : 1 - 3 uses as a parable for Israel's behavior the legal case of a w o m a n w h o divorced, m a r r i e d a n o t h e r m a n , divorced h i m , a n d t h e n w a n t s to r e t u r n to her first h u s b a n d . T h e Torah m e n t i o n s this (rather obscure) legal case only in D e u t e r o n o m y

24:1-4.

Similarly, J e r e m i a h

28

concerns

H a n a n i a h , w h o f r o m the perspective of J e r e m i a h is a false p r o p h e t . The story q u o t e s J e r e m i a h as accusing H a n a n i a h of h a v i n g "urged disloyalty" (v. 16), w h i c h m a t c h e s a key term in D e u t e r o n o m y 13:6 (dibber sarah,

ΓΠζΓ~01).

F u r t h e r m o r e , the false p r o p h e t dies s o o n thereafter (Jer. 28:17), in accord w i t h D e u t e r o n o m y 13:6 a n d 18:20.

A c c o u n t i n g for the Similarities

W i t h respect to Torah traditions a n d literature, J e r e m i a h differs f r o m earlier p r o p h e t s in three ways: (1) J e r e m i a h himself w a s a priest; (2) J e r e m i a h lived later; (3) significant parts of "his" b o o k p o s t d a t e the life of J e r e m i a h . As a p r o p h e t , J e r e m i a h believed he h a d access to divine oracles. But as a priest, he k n e w "instruction," that is, Torah traditions. T h e b o o k u n d e r s c o r e s the priestly role as religious teacher w h e n it r e c o u n t s w o r d s of conspiracy: C o m e let u s devise a plot against J e r e m i a h — f o r torah [ ‫ ת ו ר ה‬, "instruction"] shall n o t fail f r o m the priest, n o r c o u n s e l f r o m the wise, n o r oracle f r o m the p r o p h e t . C o m e , let u s strike h i m w i t h the t o n g u e , a n d we shall n o longer have to listen to all those w o r d s of his ( 1 8 : 1 8 ; transi. adapted). J e r e m i a h s adversaries associate torah w i t h p r i e s t s — r a t h e r t h a n w i t h sages or p r o p h e t s . If so, t h e n J e r e m i a h the priest w o u l d naturally be m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h Torah traditions t h a n the classical p r o p h e t s w h o p r e c e d e d h i m . Recall critical scholars' t h e o r y that over time, Torah traditions d e v e l o p e d slowly i n t o an authoritative b o o k — o n e that individuals could q u o t e , cite, a n d interpret. J e r e m i a h lived in a time close to the exile; by t h e n it is likely that J a n d Ε traditions were well k n o w n a n d authoritative, a n d m a n y D ( b u t n o t P) traditions were b e c o m i n g authoritative. In a d d i t i o n , for the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editors of the b o o k w h o lived after J e r e m i a h , D traditions w e r e certainly authoritative. T h e s e factors f u r t h e r explain w h y J e r e m i a h cites m o r e "Torah material" t h a n did prior p r o p h e t s s u c h as (the first) Isaiah. 1 5

A New Heart and a New Covenant A n o t h e r way in w h i c h J e r e m i a h d e p a r t s f r o m Isaiah is in his d e p i c t i o n of h u m a n k i n d in the f u t u r e . Prior biblical eschatological visions typically i m a g i n e d c h a n g e s only in the n a t u r a l w o r l d . For e x a m p l e , A m o s h a d p a i n t e d a verbal picture of great agricultural a b u n d a n c e . T h e p r o d u c e will be so b o u n t i f u l that its harvest will still be u n d e r w a y w h e n the time c o m e s to plant again: A time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the LORD— / W h e n the p l o w m a n shall meet the reaper, / A n d the treader of g r a p e s / H i m w h o h o l d s the b a g of seed; / W h e n the m o u n t a i n s shall d r i p w i n e / A n d all the hills shall wave w i t h grain (9:13).

In t u r n , Isaiah envisioned d r a m a t i c c h a n g e s in the a n i m a l k i n g d o m : T h e wolf shall dwell w i t h the lamb. . . . / T h e c o w a n d the bear shall graze, / Their y o u n g shall lie d o w n together; / A n d the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw. . . . / A b a b e shall play over a viper's hole . . . ( 1 1 : 6 - 8 ) . Jeremiah's c o n c e p t i o n , however, is even m o r e extreme. T h e b o o k foresees basic c h a n g e s n o t o n l y in the n a t u r a l w o r l d , b u t also in h u m a n nature: ( 3 1 : 3 1 ) See, a time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the L O R D — w h e n I will m a k e

a n e w c o v e n a n t w i t h the H o u s e of Israel a n d t h e H o u s e of J u d a h . ( 3 2 ) It will n o t be like the c o v e n a n t I m a d e w i t h their fathers, w h e n I t o o k t h e m b y the h a n d to lead t h e m o u t of the l a n d of Egypt, a c o v e n a n t w h i c h they b r o k e , t h o u g h I e s p o u s e d t h e m — d e c l a r e s the LORD. (33) But s u c h is t h e c o v e n a n t I will m a k e w i t h the H o u s e of Israel after these d a y s — d e c l a r e s the LORD: I will p u t My T e a c h i n g i n t o t h e i r i n m o s t b e i n g a n d i n s c r i b e it u p o n their h e a r t s . T h e n I will be t h e i r G o d , a n d t h e y shall b e My p e o p l e . ( 3 4 ) N o l o n g e r will t h e y n e e d to teach o n e a n o t h e r a n d say to o n e a n o t h e r , " H e e d the LORD"; for all of t h e m , f r o m t h e least of t h e m to t h e greatest, shall h e e d

Me—

d e c l a r e s the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities, A n d r e m e m b e r t h e i r sins n o m o r e . As is typical of eschatological p r o p h e c i e s d u r i n g that p e r i o d , this o n e d o e s n o t specify the starting date of the e s c h a t o n — i t is a n a m o r p h o u s "coming" time (v. 31). It d e f i n e s that time only w i t h respect to the c o v e n a n t m a d e in the wilderness (a bilateral suzerain-vassal treaty that p r o m i s e d God's p r o t e c t i o n of Israel if it o b s e r v e d a set of divine regulations; see "Accountability" in c h a p t e r 16). This text says that "they b r o k e " that c o v e n a n t (v. 32), referring to the people Israel. It f u r t h e r p r e s u m e s that even if G o d r e n e w e d or reinstated it, the nation w o u l d b r e a k it again. T h i s p r o p h e c y offers a radical s o l u t i o n to this d i l e m m a : "a n e w c o v e n a n t " (v. 31). T h e text gives n o sign that this c o v e n a n t will be n e w in content. Rather, G o d will n o w "put" a n d "inscribe" it inside the people themselves (v. 33). In o t h e r w o r d s , they will be p r e p r o g r a m m e d w i t h the c o v e n a n t (as firmware, in the parlance of c o m p u t e r s ) , u n a b l e to b r e a k i t . 1 6 As a result, there will be n o m o r e n e e d for p r o p h e t s to h a r a n g u e the p e o p l e (v. 34). Stated differently, G o d will take a w a y free choice f r o m Israel. They will a u t o matically abide b y God's wishes, a s s u r i n g divine blessing. T h e exile will n o t r e c u r b e c a u s e Israel will n o t sin a g a i n — i t c a n n o t . O n l y in this way will the p e o -

pies special relationship with God be established as a lasting fact: "Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people" (v. 3 3 ) . w

An Inside Look at Being a Prophet As noted earlier, the editing of Jeremiah has uniquely preserved a large n u m b e r of biographical traditions relating to Jeremiah the person. These traditions include sections often called "confessions," 1 8 first-person pieces where this prophet speaks directly to God. (These passages remind us that prophets served as intermediaries between God and the people; see "The Nature of Prophecy in Israel" in chapter 15. Although p r o p h e t s usually conveyed the divine message to the nation, they did also speak to God.) There, Jeremiah expresses his emotions—especially concerning the difficulties of the prophetic experience—with intensity. T h u s he laments, "1 have become a constant laughingstock" (20:7). Sometimes the poetry used is rather flat: "Accursed be the day / That I was born! Let not the day be blessed / W h e n my m o t h e r bore me!" (20:14). That outburst compares unfavorably to a similar speech in J o b 3. Elsewhere, however, he relates one of the most powerful images of prophecy's impact on a prophet: I thought, "I will not m e n t i o n Him, / N o more will I speak in His n a m e " — / But His word was like a raging fire in my heart, / Shut u p in m y bones; / I could not hold it in, I was helpless (20:9). This is a highly poetic restatement of the idea found in Amos 3:8: "My Lord GOD has spoken, / W h o can but prophesy?" Often Jeremiah identifies with the people w h o m he is supposed to rebuke. For example: (4:19) O h , my suffering, my suffering! 1 9 / H o w I writhe! / O h , the walls of my heart! / My heart m o a n s within me, / I cannot be silent; / For I hear the blare of horns, / Alarms of war. / (20) Disaster overtakes disaster, / For all the land has been ravaged. / Suddenly my tents have been ravaged, / In a m o m e n t , my tent cloths. / (21) How long must I see standards / And hear the blare of horns? The identification is even clearer in 8:21: "Because my people is shattered I am shattered; / I am dejected, seized by desolation." Typically, Jeremiah's attitude is one of great sympathy toward the people he is c o n d e m n i n g . 2 0 Quite likely, this attitude compromised his ability to function

as a prophet. Perhaps this is the import w h e n God tells him: "Assuredly, thus said the LORD: / If you t u r n back, I shall take you back / And you shall stand before Me; / If you produce what is noble / Out of the worthless, / You shall be My spokesman" (15:19). This verse suggests that Jeremiah has been (temporarily) "decommissioned" as prophet as a result of (unspecified) conduct. However, God is offering him a second chance to "stand before me"—namely, to hear G o d s w o r d — a n d then to act as "spokesman." 2 1 In short, these first-person narratives offer an amazing sense of h o w the prophetic experience affected Jeremiah. Yet we m u s t bear in m i n d that these recorded "confessions" are unique. W h y did those w h o c o m p o s e d prophetic books not present similar insights into the inner experience of Isaiah—or of Amos, or of other classical prophets? We d o not know. Therefore we must be very careful about generalizing from Jeremiah to the other prophets. 2 2 We have n o evidence that they felt the same way as he did.

The Preservation of Jeremiah Jeremiah's central prediction—the i m p e n d i n g destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and the exile of m u c h of the population to Babylon—came to pass. Presumably it was for this reason that successive generations preserved the prophet's words. In fact, the b o o k e n d s with a narrative probably copied from 2 Kings, about the last days of the k i n g d o m of J u d a h (chap. 52). This passage, w h i c h is an a p p e n d i x (see the end of chap. 51), serves to p u n c t u a t e Jeremiah's core message of d o o m a n d to underscore his status as a "true" prophet. With regard to the mechanism of transmission, the book itself describes the copying of an early form of the work. Chapter 36 o p e n s in the fourth year of K i n g j e h o i a k i m (605 B.C.E.; V. 1) with God's request that Jeremiah prepare a written record: "Get a scroll a n d write u p o n it all the w o r d s that I have spoken to you . . . to this day" (v. 2). To fulfill this request, Jeremiah called the scribe Baruch son of Neriah: "Baruch wrote d o w n in the scroll, at Jeremiah's dictation, all the w o r d s which the LORD h a d s p o k e n to him" (v. 4 ) . This account is remarkable on several grounds. First, another person besides the p r o p h e t transcribed the oracles. 2 3 Second, Jeremiah reportedly h a d the ability to recite or recreate all his earlier oracles from memory. T h i r d — a n d most extraordinarily—he did this not once b u t twice. After the king h a d destroyed that scroll (Jehoiakim himself h a d b u r n e d it u p o n hearing it read aloud; w . 2 1 - 2 5 ) : "Jeremiah got another scroll a n d gave it to the scribe Baruch son of

Neriah. And at Jeremiahs dictation, he wrote in it the whole text of the scroll that King Jehoiakim of J u d a h h a d b u r n e d " (v. 32a). Finally, the account concludes by n o t i n g that "more of the like was added." Here is direct evidence that prophetic texts existed in a variety of versions. Even after a text was complete, more could be a d d e d later. 2 4

Reading Jeremiah I have contrasted Jeremiah with Isaiah, emphasizing the m a n y differences between the two. In so doing, I have been able to survey the variety of experiences of the classical prophet, a n d the range of forms of their books. In reading each classical prophet, keep in m i n d the five aspects that make t h e m a classical prophet a n d thus similar to the others. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah c h a m p i o n e d the views that Israel's God is a universal deity with a special focus o n the people Israel; that this nation is being held accountable in regard to both cultic and ethical norms; a n d so forth (see chapter 16). At the same time, r e m e m b e r t h a t — d u e to a variety of factors—each prophet is different. Thus, Jeremiah's b o o k is u n i q u e in its including a vast a m o u n t of biography. It stands out also by having been preserved only in a highly redacted Deuteronomistic edition. In addition, n o other preserved p r o p h e t so embodies the paradox of the messenger "caught" between the two covenant partners. His mission was to view God's w o r d s "as fire, / And this people shall be firewood" (5:14). Ultimately, however, the flames c o n s u m e d not only the nation, but also Jeremiah himself: "But His word was like a raging fire in m y heart" (20:9).

19 "I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple" Reading Ezekiel Primary Reading: Ezekiel 1-11,

16, 23, 33-40,

48.

Location, Location, Location Ezekiel

o p e n s with a s u p e r s c r i p t i o n that tells u s exactly w h e r e a n d w h e n he

received his p r o p h e c y : (1) In the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the f o u r t h m o n t h , w h e n I was in the c o m m u n i t y of exiles by the C h e b a r Canal, the heavens o p e n e d a n d I saw visions of God. (2) O n the fifth day of the m o n t h — i t w a s the fifth year of the exile of King J e h o i a c h i n — ( 3 ) the w o r d of the LORD

c a m e to the priest Ezekiel son of Buzi, by the C h e b a r Canal, in the

land of the Chaldeans. And the h a n d of the LORD came u p o n h i m there. This s u p e r s c r i p t i o n sets Ezekiel apart f r o m the o t h e r p r o p h e t s we have explored in t w o ways: he begins to p r o p h e s y after the exile of 5 9 7 B.C.E., a n d he is p r o p h esying outside of Israel in Babylon. As the JPS translation's note at verse 1 observes, we are u n s u r e w h i c h year "the thirtieth year" there refers to, b u t verse 2 places this dedication oracle in the s u m m e r of 593. Like J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel is a priest, 1 b u t unlike his older contemporary, he begins to p r o p h e s y only "by the C h e b a r Canal, in the land of the Chaldeans." In o t h e r w o r d s , Ezekiel w a s s t a n d i n g near the Babylonian city of N i p p u r . Some of Ezekiel's c o n t e m p o r a r i e s m a y have h a d p r o b l e m s with this setting. After all, they p r o b a b l y conceived of p r o p h e c y — c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h the G o d of Israel—as b e i n g b o u n d to the land of Israel. This w o u l d explain w h y the b o o k of J o n a h tells u s that w h e n that p r o p h e t w i s h e d to avoid h e e d i n g the divine will, he fled mi-lifnei

YHWH

(ΓΠΓΡ ‫ ) מ ל פ נ י‬, literally, "from before the LORD" ( 1 : 3 ) .

Similarly, m a n y Israelites t h o u g h t that G o d c o u l d only be w o r s h i p p e d within the

land of Israel ( " H o w can we sing a s o n g of the

LORD

o n alien soil?"; Ps.

137:4).

A belief that p r o p h e c y could n o t o c c u r in foreign lands c o n t i n u e d in later times; an early rabbinic m i d r a s h , the Mekhilta, states: "Before the land of Israel h a d b e e n especially c h o s e n , all lands were suitable for divine revelations; after the land of Israel h a d b e e n c h o s e n , all o t h e r l a n d s were eliminated." 2 T h o u g h n o t everyone in Ezekiels c o m m u n i t y m a y have believed this, e n o u g h did that he felt the n e e d to prove his legitimacy as an "off-site" p r o p h e t . A u t h e n t i c a t i o n is the m a i n f u n c t i o n of Ezekiels inaugural vision. That p r o p h e c y is long ( m o r e t h a n 5 3 verses; l : 3 b - 3 : 1 6 a ) a n d detailed, because Ezekiel n e e d s to prove that his mission is real. In the b a r o q u e quality of its detail it resembles the b e g i n n i n g of D e u t e r o n o m y (see "A Pious F r a u d " in c h a p t e r 10), t h o u g h it is even longer a n d stranger. Both b o o k s , for different reasons, n e e d e d to o v e r c o m e obstacles to their b e i n g seen as legitimate. Ezekiels inaugural prophecy, like Isaiah 6 a n d J e r e m i a h 1, follows the typical f o r m of a p r o p h e t i c initiation or d e d i c a t i o n . 3 As with Isaiah a n d J e r e m i a h , Ezekiels call to p r o p h e c y c o n t a i n s the root sh-l-ch (,‫שלח‬, "to send"), reflecting the view that the p r o p h e t is a m e s s e n g e r of the divine (Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:7; Ezek. 2:3). Like t h e m , Ezekiel p e r f o r m s a symbolic action w i t h his m o u t h (Isa. 6:7: Jer. 1:9; Ezek. 3:2). Just like J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel is told, "Do not fear" (Jer. 1:8; Ezek. 2:6 Ithree times], 3:9). By following the same script, Ezekiel is claiming to be a true p r o p h e t like Isaiah a n d J e r e m i a h . Yet Ezekiel exceeds the script w h e n he sees "visions of G o d " (1:1). Jeremiah's i n a u g u r a t i o n h a d b e e n aural only ( 1 : 4 - 1 0 ) , t h o u g h it h a d b e e n followed by a set of visions. Isaiah's h a d b e e n b o t h aural a n d visual; he h a d seen "my Lord seated o n a high a n d lofty t h r o n e ; a n d the skirts of His robe filled the Temple" (6:1). Yet, Isaiah h a d described little a b o u t God's a p p e a r a n c e o t h e r t h a n large size 4 a n d b e i n g clothed. Isaiah h a d gone on to tersely describe s e r a p h i m — a n g e l s of s o r t s — a n d their f u n c t i o n . In contrast, Ezekiel 1 describes God's heavenly court in great detail—of the type that only s o m e o n e " w h o was really there" m i g h t offer. More t h a n that, he describes w h a t G o d looks like. Ezekiel the priest, using priestly language, sees "the Presence of the

LORD":

(1:26) Above the expanse over their h e a d s w a s the s e m b l a n c e of a t h r o n e , in a p p e a r a n c e like s a p p h i r e ; a n d on top, u p o n this s e m b l a n c e of a t h r o n e , there w a s the s e m b l a n c e of a h u m a n form. (27) F r o m w h a t a p p e a r e d as his loins u p , I saw a gleam as of a m b e r — w h a t looked like a fire encased in a frame; a n d f r o m w h a t a p p e a r e d as his loins d o w n , I saw w h a t looked like fire. There w a s a radiance all a b o u t h i m . (28) Like the a p p e a r a n c e of the b o w w h i c h shines in the c l o u d s o n a day of rain,

s u c h w a s the a p p e a r a n c e of the s u r r o u n d i n g radiance. That was the a p p e a r a n c e of the s e m b l a n c e of the Presence of the LORD. G o d is depicted indirectly: unlike the elders w h o m E x o d u s 2 4 : 1 0 portrays as seeing "the G o d of Israel" (see "In the Image of G o d " in c h a p t e r 6), Ezekiel sees only the "appearance of the s e m b l a n c e of the Presence of the LORD," w h i c h in t u r n takes "the s e m b l a n c e of a h u m a n form." Clearly Ezekiel accepts the c o m m o n biblical idea that seeing G o d directly is deadly (see, e.g., J u d g . 13:22; c o n tra E x o d u s 24). At the same time, he does n o t seem to accept w h a t is implied in D e u t e r o n o m y 4:12, 15, a n d elsewhere, that G o d is incorporeal. (The latter view w o u l d b e c o m e s t a n d a r d in medieval J u d a i s m , 5 b u t it was n o t s t a n d a r d yet in Ezekiels time.) By seeing God, Ezekiel proves that he has "stood in [Gods] c o u n cil" (Jer. 2 3 : 2 2 ) — a n d is a true p r o p h e t .

In the Shadow of Exile We have explained the strangeness of the book's o p e n i n g passage by the u n u s u al, exilic setting of Ezekiel himself: he n e e d e d to convince the people of his legitimacy as a p r o p h e t in exile. 6 A n o t h e r p a s s a g e — a frequently m i s u n d e r s t o o d t e x t — s u p p o r t s this interpretation. In the JPS translation, we read: ( 1 1 : 1 5 ) Ο mortal, I will save y o u r b r o t h e r s , y o u r brothers, the m e n of y o u r k i n d r e d , all of that very H o u s e of Israel to w h o m the i n h a b i t a n t s of J e r u s a l e m say, "Keep far f r o m the LORD; the land h a s b e e n given as a heritage to us." (16) Say then: T h u s said the Lord GOD: I have i n d e e d r e m o v e d t h e m far a m o n g the n a t i o n s a n d have scattered t h e m a m o n g the countries, a n d I have b e c o m e to t h e m a d i m i n i s h e d sanctity in the c o u n t r i e s w h i t h e r they have gone. This section's style is typical of Ezekiel. It begins with "O mortal," ben (.‫)בךאךם‬,

literally "son

of m a n "

h u m a n k i n d , " a n d t h u s "mortal."

7

but

better

understood

adam

as " m e m b e r

of

T h e text c o n t i n u e s by q u o t i n g a p o p u l a r

p r o v e r b that the people are f o n d of s a y i n g — t h i s is also typical for Ezekiel. However, the e n d of verse 16 is quite o d d : "I have b e c o m e to t h e m a d i m i n i s h e d sanctity in the c o u n t r i e s w h i t h e r they have gone." The p h r a s e "a d i m i n i s h e d sanctity" r e n d e r s mikdash Given that the Bible f r e q u e n t l y uses the term mikdash

me'at

(‫מעט‬

‫)מקדש‬.

for the Temple in

J e r u s a l e m , m a n y scholars once t h o u g h t that this verse referred to the origins of the synagogue as an institution. Instead of w o r s h i p p i n g at the full-scale Temple

in Jerusalem, they suggested that in Babylon, Ezekiel instituted the synagogue as a kind of mini-Temple. 8 The verse, however, is better translated: "I [God] will be for t h e m a mini-Temple in the countries whither they have gone." The sentiment is striking: we d o not need a physical building—a Temple—because the divine presence is with us, even if that presence is not h o u s e d in a building. (This sentiment contrasts strongly with Exod. 25:8, "And let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary that I may dwell a m o n g them.") Similarly, God said to Jacob w h e n he left Israel for Egypt, "I Myself will go d o w n with you to Egypt, a n d I Myself will also bring you back" (Gen. 46:4). The historical a n d geographical setting of Ezekiel also explains a great deal about the chapters that follow Ezekiel's initiation. Most classical prophets went out to the people, but in Ezekiel's case it seems that the people came to him: "Certain elders of Israel came to me a n d sat d o w n before me" (14:1; cf. 20:1). Consider too his habit of m a k i n g odd symbolic gestures (see especially chapters 4 - 5 ) : such actions would have conveyed their message only if people were coming to his h o u s e — s o as to hear his n e w oracles and to watch his latest weird activity. Because Ezekiel began his career after the exile of 597 in Babylon, m u c h of his audience believed in the truth of the prophecies of retribution by Jeremiah and others (that the Temple was about to be destroyed a n d that another exile was inevitable). Thus, Ezekiel had a certain cachet as a p o s t - 5 9 7 prophet-inexile, something that Jeremiah lacked in Israel—where the population seemed more blithe (see, e.g., Jeremiah 28). In addition, the exiles probably were feeling cut off from God. T h u s they would go visit Ezekiel to hear the latest divine news. This "news" he typically c o m m u n i c a t e d in a straightforward, mostly prosaic fashion. Ezekiels c o m m u n i c a t i o n style again suggests that he did not face the challenge of the earlier prophets, w h o h a d to go out to the people and win them over with clever rhetoric. In s u m , m a n y u n i q u e features of Ezekiel's prophecies make sense if we read t h e m with the proper historical and geographical background. Thus, the opening passage is not a model of an alien spacecraft, as some have suggested. 9 Nor does it point to the lingering affect of childhood psychological trauma. 1 0 Rather, it reflects Ezekiel's successful campaign to show that he was a true prophet even t h o u g h he was outside the land of Israel.

Refuting Popular Beliefs O n e way that Ezekiel w o u l d get the J u d e a n s in exile to listen was by being a careful listener himself, repeating what they said but then correcting it. Earlier I

cited an instance where Ezekiel quotes a popular saying in order to show that it is false ( 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) . Ezekiel offered J u d e a n s something hopeful to replace their pessimistic beliefs. The famous dry b o n e s unit (chap. 37) features the same tactic, quoting the people as saying: "Our bones are dried up, our hope is gone; we are d o o m e d " (v. 11). 1 1 In another passage he gives a slightly longer rebuttal of a proverb: (12:22) Ο mortal, what is this proverb that you have in the land of Israel, that you say, "The days grow m a n y and every vision comes to naught?" (23) Assuredly, say to them, T h u s said the Lord GOD: I will put an end to this proverb; it shall not be used in Israel any more. Speak rather to them: The days draw near, and the fulfillment of every vision. (24) For there shall n o longer be any false vision or soothing divination in the House of Israel. (25) But whenever I the L O R D speak what I speak, that word shall be fulfilled without any delay; in your days, Ο rebellious breed, I will fulfill every word I speak—declares the Lord GOD. The same pattern we saw in chapter 11 appears here: "O mortal," followed by the proverb, and then by the rebuttal. This unit likewise e n d s with the c o m m o n prophetic formula "declares the Lord GOD," which typically concludes an oracle. Much more significant is the proverb that he rebuts in chapter 18. There we read: (18:1) The word of the L O R D came to me: (2) What do you mean by quoting this proverb u p o n the soil of Israel, "Parents eat sour grapes a n d their children's teeth are blunted"? (3) As I live—declares the Lord GOD—this proverb shall n o longer be current a m o n g you in Israel. (4) Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine. The person w h o sins, only he shall die. The proverb "Parents eat sour grapes and their children's teeth are blunted" might be rendered into m o d e r n English as "The parents eat Snickers® a n d the children get cavities." It must have been popular, since it appears also in Jeremiah 31:29: "In those days, they shall n o longer say, 'Parents have eaten sour grapes and children's teeth are blunted.'" The two prophetic books, however, give a different meaning to this proverb's disuse. In Jeremiah, the proverb will only become false in the f u t u r e — i n the idealized time of the eschaton. But according to Ezekiel, the proverb is already false; he understood God to say that now, in his o w n time, "all lives are Mine [and will be j u d g e d so individually]; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine [as individuals]. The person w h o sins, only he shall die" (v. 4). Ezekiel therefore refutes the proverb at length. First, he treats the case of a

righteous m a n w h o begets a wicked son, w h o in turn begets a righteous m a n ( 1 8 : 5 - 2 0 ) . From this case he concludes: "The person w h o sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the b u r d e n of a parent's guilt, n o r shall a parent share the b u r d e n of a child's guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, a n d the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone" (18:20). Then, he proceeds to telescope these three generations into one, teaching that w h e n wicked people repent, or righteous people become wicked, God will j u d g e them according to their later behavior. This is another way of saying: Even t h o u g h you have been exiled for your sins, all is not lost. Indeed, "it is not My desire that anyone shall die—declares the Lord GOD" (V. 32). This leads to the unit's grand conclusion: "Repent, therefore, and live!" (ibid.). We can imagine that the exile c o m m u n i t y was feeling a huge b u r d e n of guilt. If so, this unit (chap. 18) must have meant a lot to them. Ezekiels address is so long, detailed, and repetitive because he is refuting not only a popular proverb, but also an authoritative set of beliefs. 1 2 We saw earlier that the Decalogue presumes intergenerational p u n i s h m e n t , describing God as "an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents u p o n the children, u p o n the third and u p o n the fourth generations of those w h o reject Me" (Exod. 20:5; see "The Decalogue" in chapter 8). Other biblical texts suggest that retribution functions on a corporate level, so that the c o m m u n i t y as a whole receives rewards and p u n i s h m e n t s (e.g., Deut. 1 1 : 1 3 - 2 1 ; see "Deuteronomy as a Treaty" in chapter 10). Genesis adopts such a view concerning Sodom, where the issue is not whether the righteous people will be saved, but h o w many are needed to save the city ( 1 8 : 2 2 - 3 3 ) . According to these views, individuals cannot change their destiny in the face of family or c o m m u n i t y evil. Thus, Ezekiel is arguing against two beliefs f o u n d in a variety of biblical texts—intergenerational p u n ishment, and corporate (communal) responsibility and retribution. That is why he needs to m a k e his point so forcefully. Likewise, an oracle in Ezekiel 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 3 makes this point repeatedly, stating that if a city were wicked, "should Noah, Daniel, a n d Job be in it, as I live— declares the Lord GOD—they w o u l d save neither son nor daughter; they would save themselves alone by their righteousness" (v. 20; cf. w . 14, 18). The Daniel mentioned here is not the same as the one in the biblical b o o k of that n a m e — the n a m e s are spelled differently; the Daniel there is later than the Daniel of Ezekiel. Here the reference is to Danel, a righteous Canaanite w h o features in an Ugaritic epic. 1 3 Thus, "Noah, Dan[i]e1, a n d Job" represent three righteous n o n Israelites w h o lived long before Ezekiel. Following the principle expressed in chapter 18, "they would save themselves alone by their righteousness." Because

retribution is personal and not corporate, their meritorious deeds w o u l d not benefit the c o m m u n i t y as a whole.

A Good Listener and a Crude Speaker Ezekiel did not need to use lofty poetry or rhetoric, because (as noted earlier) people w a n t e d to hear him: he was their primary connection with God in a society w i t h o u t a Temple. He listened to people's belief that God had a b a n d o n e d them; then he replied so as to contradict their despair. Yet to suggest that it was his theological message alone that attracted people would be an exaggeration. In 33:32, God is portrayed as saying to Ezekiel: "To them you are just a singer of b a w d y songs, w h o has a sweet voice and plays skillfully." This suggests that Ezekiel attracted listeners as m u c h because of his style as because of his message. Calling Ezekiel a "bawdy" (or "erotic") poet is striking, b u t it does fit the content of Ezekiel 16 a n d 2 3 . 1 4 Many scholars actually consider these chapters to be p o r n o g r a p h i c — a l t h o u g h this term is difficult e n o u g h to define in m o d e r n times, let alone for ancient texts from different cultures. In any case, these two chapters are sexually explicit. C h a p t e r 16 uses the root z-n-h (HJT), "to whore, fornicate," thirteen times; chapter 23, seven times. O n e passage claims, "At every crossroad you built your height and you m a d e your beauty abominable by o p e n ing y o u r legs to anyone w h o passed by. Increasing your harlotry, you harloted with the Egyptians, your b i g - m e m b e r e d neighbors . . ." ( 1 6 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) 1 5 while another describes the J u d e a n s ' behavior in this m a n n e r : "They harloted in Egypt, in their y o u t h they harloted; there their breasts were squeezed, there they pressed their virgin nipples" (23:3). Such "bawdy" talk probably attracted some of Ezekiel's audience.

The Structure of Ezekiel The Book of Ezekiel is m u c h more orderly than the two other large prophetic books. Its chronological setting d u r i n g the Babylonian exile may have contributed to this. In addition, its editor may have been better, or that person redacted more lightly, so that it contains fewer insertions that disrupt earlier literary units. Two ordering principles are evident in the book: a chronological structure, and a collation of material into large thematic units that fit the chronology.

The oracles of Ezekiel are arranged chronologically (with one exception) a n d can be dated in this way: 1 6 Chariot Vision Call to Be a W a t c h m a n

1:1

June 593 June 593

Temple Vision

3:16b 8:1

Discourse with Elders Second Siege of Jerusalem

20:1 24:1

August/September 592 August 591 January 588

J u d g m e n t on Tyre

26:1

March/April 5 8 7 / 5 8 6

J u d g m e n t o n Egypt J u d g m e n t on Egypt

29:1

J a n u a r y 587 April 5 7 1

B.C.E.

J u d g m e n t on Egypt

29:17 30:20

J u d g m e n t o n Egypt

31:1

June 587

Lament over Pharaoh

32:1

March 585

Lament over Egypt Fall of Jerusalem

32:17 33:21

April 5 8 6

N e w Temple Vision

40:1

April 5 7 3

April 587

December/January 5 8 6 / 5 8 5

A second pattern overlaps with this first one: two "watchman" oracles frame a large section of the b o o k between them. Both of t h e m charge Ezekiel with forewarning b o t h the wicked a n d the righteous a m o n g the people. The first oracle reads: (3:17) Ο mortal, 1 a p p o i n t you w a t c h m a n for the House of Israel; a n d w h e n you hear a w o r d f r o m My m o u t h , you m u s t w a r n t h e m for Me. (18) If I say to a w i c k e d m a n , "You shall die," a n d you d o n o t w a r n h i m — y o u d o n o t speak to w a r n the wicked m a n of his wicked course in order to save his life—he, the w i c k e d m a n , shall die for his iniquity, b u t I will require a r e c k o n i n g for his b l o o d f r o m you. (19) But if you d o w a r n the w i c k e d m a n , a n d he does n o t t u r n back f r o m his w i c k e d n e s s a n d his wicked course, he shall die for his iniquity, b u t you will have saved your o w n life. (20) Again, if a righteous m a n a b a n d o n s his righteousness a n d d o e s wrong, w h e n I p u t a s t u m b l i n g block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sins; the righteous d e e d s that he did shall n o t be r e m e m b e r e d ; b u t because you did n o t w a r n h i m , I will require a r e c k o n i n g for his blood from you. (21) If, h o w ever, you w a r n the righteous m a n n o t to sin, a n d he, the righteous, does not sin, he shall live because he took w a r n i n g , a n d you will have saved y o u r o w n life.

The second such oracle reads: (33:7) Now, Ο mortal, 1 have appointed you a w a t c h m a n for the House of Israel; a n d whenever you hear a message from My m o u t h , you must transmit My warning to them. (8) W h e n I say to the wicked, "Wicked m a n , you shall die," b u t you have not spoken to w a r n the wicked m a n against his way, he, that wicked m a n , shall die for his sins, but I will d e m a n d a reckoning for his blood from you. (9) But if you have warned the wicked m a n to t u r n back from his way, and he has not t u r n e d from his way, he shall die for his o w n sins, but you will have saved your life. These same two chapters also deal with Ezekiel's silence—an issue that biblical scholars d o not fully u n d e r s t a n d , since the voluble Ezekiel is nowhere directly depicted as being silent! 1 7 Yet God suggests as m u c h in telling him: "And I will m a k e your tongue cleave to your palate, and you shall be d u m b ; you shall not be a reprover to them, for they are a rebellious breed" (3:26), while the other passage notes: In the twelfth year of our exile, o n the fifth day of the tenth m o n t h , a fugitive came to me from Jerusalem a n d reported, "The city has fallen." ( 2 2 ) N o w the h a n d of the L O R D h a d come u p o n me the evening before the fugitive arrived, a n d He o p e n e d my m o u t h before he came to me in the morning; thus m y m o u t h was opened a n d I was n o longer speechless. (33:21)

Thus, Ezekiel's hearing of the destruction of the city and the Temple in 586 represents a turning point in the book. Taking into account these factors—the "watchman" frame a n d the trope of silence—we can outline the book's structure as follows: I.

1:1-3:15

Dedication as p r o p h e t

Π. III. IV

3:16-24:27 25-32 33-48

Oracles of retribution against Israel Oracles against the nations Oracles of consolation (after the fall of Jerusalem in 586)

This outline captures the ironic arc of the book: until the Temple was destroyed, Ezekiel was a prophet of retribution, explaining to the exiles w h y the destruction was about to transpire, even t h o u g h he stressed the opportunity to repent (in contrast with Jeremiah 25). Once the news of the destruction arrived, Ezekiel

changed course; indeed, he shifted his tack by 180 degrees. He became a p r o p h e t of consolation. Next we will examine Ezekiel's transformation, highlighting the contrasting themes between sections II-III a n d section IV Although 3 : 1 6 - 2 4 : 2 7 a n d 3 3 - 4 8 are distinct parts of the book, they are best read and u n d e r s t o o d juxtaposed to one another.

From Divine Abandonment to "The

LORD IS

There"

According to ancient Near Eastern conceptions, deities resided in their temples, protecting their people and their temples while present at these holy sites. The biblical verse q u o t e d earlier exemplifies this view: "Let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary that I may dwell a m o n g them" (Exod. 25:8). As we observed earlier in discussing Leviticus (chapter 9), some Israelites concentrated on ensuring that God remained at the Temple—protecting it and the people of the covenant. Various actions that gave offense could conceivably cause the deity to depart. Some scholars have called this motif of a god leaving a temple "divine aband o n m e n t . " It may be seen in the following inscription of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon ( 6 8 1 - 6 6 9 ) : "The lord of the gods, Marduk, was angry. He planned evil; to wipe out the land, to destroy its inhabitants . . . an evil curse was on his lips." The gods and goddesses w h o dwell in it (i.e., the temple Esagila) fled like birds a n d went u p to heaven. The protective gods [. . . ran] off and withdrew. 1 8 Ezekiel, living in Babylon, k n e w and a d o p t e d this motif. He described the gradual departure of the Presence in several sections throughout the first eleven chapters: (8:3) He stretched out the form of a h a n d , and took me by the hair of my head. A spirit lifted me u p between heaven and earth and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the Penimith Gate that faces north; that was the site of the infuriating image that provokes fury. (4) And the Presence of the God of Israel appeared there, like the vision that I had seen in the valley. (10:4) But w h e n the Presence of the L O R D moved from the cherubs to the platform of the House, the House was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the radiance of the Presence of the L O R D . (11:22) Then the cherubs, with the wheels beside them, lifted their wings, while the Presence of the God of Israel rested above them.

(23)

The Presence of the

LORD

ascended from the midst of the city and

stood on the hill east of the city. Once the Presence had left the Temple, the Babylonians could destroy it. These chapters, however, not only describe "divine a b a n d o n m e n t , " but also justify in detail why God is leaving. God is furious, although the focus of divine anger—unlike in Amos and Isaiah—is not ethical concerns. True, some moral considerations are highlighted: "The iniquity of the Houses of J u d a h a n d Israel is very very great, the land is full of crime and the city is full of corruption" (9:9; see also chap. 22). More typical, however, are texts such as this one: (8:6) And He said to me, "Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the terrible abominations that the House of Israel is practicing here, to drive Me far from My Sanctuary? You shall yet see even greater abominations!" (7) Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I looked, a n d there was a hole in the wall. (8) He said to me, "Mortal, break through the wall"; so I broke through the wall and f o u n d an entrance. (9) And He said to me, "Enter and see the vile abominations that they are practicing here." (10) I entered and looked, and there all detestable forms of creeping things and beasts and all the fetishes of the House of Israel were depicted over the entire wall. (11) Before t h e m stood seventy m e n , elders of the House of Israel, with Jaazaniah son of Shaphan standing in their midst. Everyone h a d a censer in his h a n d , a n d a thick cloud of incense smoke ascended. We d o not k n o w w h e t h e r the activities described here really h a p p e n e d . 1 9 Either way, the point here is that Ezekiel imagines that God is letting the Temple be destroyed for cultic infractions, not for ethical violations. Ironically, while committing these cultic sins, the people of Israel think: "The L O R D does not see us; the L O R D has a b a n d o n e d the country" ( 8 : 1 2 ) . They are dead wrong: God does see t h e m and has not yet a b a n d o n e d the country, b u t — a s a result of their "abominations"—is about to d o so. If a main theme of the retribution section is divine a b a n d o n m e n t , it should not surprise us that the main theme of the consolation section is the return of the divine Presence. Chapters 4 0 - 4 8 describe Israel after its future restoration and return from exile. These chapters focus on the n e w Temple to be built in Jerusalem. 2 0 This unit e n d s by declaring that the city will eventually be renamed "The L O R D IS There" ( 4 8 : 3 5 ) . Jerusalem's n e w n a m e will be a reversal of the divine a b a n d o n m e n t described earlier in the book. The last section reverses other earlier motifs as well. Instead of Israel's being

victim of the Day of the LORD, chapters 3 8 - 3 9 famously recount the war of Gog 2 1 and Magog, where Israel's enemies will fall. In 36:2, Ezekiel prophesies "to the m o u n t a i n s of Israel," o v e r t u r n i n g his earlier p r o p h e c y of r e b u k e of 6:2, also addressed "to the m o u n t a i n s of Israel." C h a p t e r 3 4 is especially clever in its reversal. It begins like a p r o p h e c y of retribution: Ό mortal, p r o p h e s y against the s h e p h e r d s [i.e., kings] of Israel. . . . T h u s said the Lord GOD: I a m going to deal with the shepherds!" ( w . 2 - 1 0 ) . However, it m o v e s f r o m retribution to consolation, n o t i n g that these derelict kings will be replaced by God as king and by an ideal Davidic king: "Then I will a p p o i n t a single s h e p h e r d over t h e m to tend t h e m — M y servant David. He shall tend t h e m , he shall be a s h e p h e r d to them. I the

LORD

I the

will be their God, a n d My servant David shall be a ruler a m o n g t h e m —

LORD

have s p o k e n " ( w . 2 3 - 2 4 ) . 2 2

O n e can imagine the J u d e a n s in exile, feeling their o w n guilt (and the guilt of their ancestors, despite his reassurances in chapters 14 a n d 18). They m u s t have w o n d e r e d : "Do we really deserve to be forgiven a n d restored?" A phrase a p p e a r i n g in the b o o k fifty-eight times (out of seventy-two times in the Bible) relates w h y Israel will be r e d e e m e d : it is not because of their merit, b u t so that "they shall k n o w that I a m the LORD."23 The following section from the p r o p h e cies of consolation m a k e s clear what this u b i q u i t o u s phrase means: (36:21) Therefore I a m c o n c e r n e d for My holy n a m e , w h i c h the H o u s e of Israel have caused to be p r o f a n e d a m o n g the nations to w h i c h they have come. (22) Say to the H o u s e of Israel: T h u s said the Lord GOD: Not for y o u r sake will I act, Ο H o u s e of Israel, b u t for My holy n a m e , w h i c h you have caused to be p r o f a n e d a m o n g the nations to which you have come. (23) I will sanctify My great n a m e w h i c h has been p r o f a n e d a m o n g the n a t i o n s — a m o n g w h o m you have caused it to be profaned. And the n a t i o n s shall k n o w that I a m the LORD—declares the Lord GOD—when I manifest My holiness before their eyes t h r o u g h you. . . . (32) Not for y o u r sake will 1 act—declares the Lord GOD—take good note! Be a s h a m e d a n d humiliated because of y o u r ways, Ο House of Israel! . . . (36) And the nations that are left a r o u n d you shall k n o w that I the

LORD

land. I the

have rebuilt the ravaged places a n d replanted the desolate LORD

have s p o k e n a n d will act.

In other words, Israel is God's people; a n d n o w that G o d has p u n i s h e d Israel because it broke the covenant, that p u n i s h m e n t — t h e i r d o w n t r o d d e n state— could be mistaken as a sign of His weakness. Thus, God will restore Israel not because they are deserving, b u t because their c o n t i n u e d p u n i s h m e n t is liable to reflect poorly o n Him.

The various prophecies of consolation fit together quite tightly, and address the same themes as the rest of the book. Since God is with this people in exile, functioning as a mini-Temple, Israel need not feel hopeless. Likewise, since God will not place the sins of the parents on the children, Israel need not feel guilty. God will overturn earlier prophecies of d o o m . God will forgive Israel, not for their sake, but for the sake of G o d s "holy name." Thus, like contemporary b o o k s written by a single author, the parts of the Book of Ezekiel fit together. This coherence, however, is most evident w h e n the b o o k is read as a product of its time a n d place: an ancient Babylonian text, written in response to the tribulations of the Babylonian Jewish community.

20 "Comfort, Oh Comfort My People" The Exile and Beyond MBBgBMMIninBBHIHIMMM

Primary Reading: Isaiah 40, 41, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 55, 63; Haggai 2; Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 8, 13.

Historical Background

N

a b u n a i d , or N a b o n i d u s , the last k i n g of Babylon, reigned f r o m 5 5 6 - 5 3 9 B.C.E.; he directed that the m o o n god, Sin, be elevated over M a r d u k , the tra-

ditional high god of the Babylonians. Probably this action s t r u c k m a n y of his subjects as o d d ; surely it o f f e n d e d the priests of M a r d u k . W h e n the Persian king, C y r u s the Great, attacked Babylon in O c t o b e r 539, he was able to c o n q u e r the city bloodlessly w i t h the h e l p of the p o p u l a c e , especially the displaced priests of M a r d u k . T h u s Cyrus, w h o reigned until 530, established the A c h a e m e n i d Persian e m p i r e that w o u l d last for t w o centuries, until Alexander the G r e a t s victory over Persia. His a d m i n i s t r a t i o n divided the e m p i r e into provinces; the territory of the erstwhile k i n g d o m of J u d a h w a s n o w k n o w n as the province of Yehud. T h e p r o p h e c i e s of Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 a n d o t h e r literature of the late exilic a n d early postexilic p e r i o d s c o n n e c t deeply to this b a c k g r o u n d . The Persians tolerated o t h e r religions, a n d they allowed various p e o p l e s exiled by the Babylonians to r e t u r n to their h o m e l a n d s . T h e n e w rulers even r e t u r n e d the statues a n d o t h e r religious items that the Babylonians h a d c a p t u r e d a n d p u t in storage. In 538, the J u d e a n s received their Temple vessels a n d were e n c o u r a g e d to r e t u r n to Yehud. At first, most J u d e a n s m u s t have viewed this d r a m a t i c t u r n a r o u n d as fulfillment of the p r o p h e c y of J e r e m i a h 25, w h i c h p r o m i s e d restoration of the k i n g d o m after a p e r i o d of seventy years of d o m i n a t i o n by Babylon. At this time, Yehud was an u n d e r d e v e l o p e d , b a c k w a t e r province. Rather t h a n "return" there, m a n y J u d e a n s preferred to stay in the c o s m o p o l i t a n cities w h e r e they h a d b e c o m e established. These p e o p l e — c a l l e d yehudim

("Jews"; see

n. 4 in chapter 14)—created a voluntary diaspora c o m m u n i t y in Babylon. Such communities also formed in other cities throughout the empire. Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, the Jews w h o did resettle there did not sueceed in rebuilding the Temple immediately. They did not begin work until 520, completing it four years later. This Second Temple was smaller a n d m u c h less magnificent than the First Temple. In general, the tiny province of Yehud, centered on Jerusalem, remained impoverished and weak throughout the Persian period, both politically and militarily. 1

Who Saved Babylon? A d o c u m e n t called the Cyrus Cylinder sheds a great deal of light on the rise of Cyrus. 2 It is written in Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians. It describes the failing of King N a b u n a i d (Nabonidus), "[an] incompetent person" w h o "did away with the worship of Marduk, the king of gods; he continually did evil against his [Marduks] city." The cylinder goes on to describe h o w Marduk responded to the situation: U p o n [hearing] their cries, the lord of the gods [Marduk] became furiously angry [and he left] their borders. . . . Marduk [ ] turned [?] toward all the habitations that were a b a n d o n e d and all the people of Sumer and Akkad w h o had become corpses; [he was r e c o n c i l e d and had mercy [upon them]. He surveyed a n d looked throughout all the lands, searching for a righteous king w h o m he could support. He called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he proclaimed his n a m e to be king over all [the world], . . . He [Marduk] ordered him to march to his city Babylon. . . . He m a d e him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king w h o did not revere him, into his hands. This is a remarkable piece of propaganda from the priests of Marduk, w h o were extremely powerful. This context gives us a way to u n d e r s t a n d some of DeuteroIsaiah's prophecies. It also shows h o w useful it is to read biblical works against their ancient Near Eastern b a c k g r o u n d , which m o d e r n archaeology and biblical studies have m a d e possible. For Babylonian Jews w h o remained steadfast to their religion, the concept that Marduk chose Cyrus was unthinkable, so they developed a counter-theology. Several units in Isaiah from chapter 4 0 on read as if they respond directly to (that is, are polemics against) the ideas f o u n d in the Cyrus cylinder. Here are two examples:

(41:1) Stand silent before Me, coastlands, / And let nations renew their strength. / Let t h e m approach to state their case; / Let us come forward together for argument. / (2) W h o has roused a victor from the East, / S u m m o n e d him to His service? / Has delivered u p nations to him, / And trodden sovereigns down? / Has rendered their swords like dust, / Their b o w s like wind-blown straw? / (3) He pursues them, he goes on unscathed; / No shackle is placed on his feet. / (4) W h o has wrought a n d achieved this? / He w h o a n n o u n c e d the generations from the start— / I, the LORD, w h o was first / And will be with the last as well. (45:1) T h u s said the LORD to Cyrus, / His anointed one ["messiah"]—/ W h o s e right h a n d He has grasped, / Treading d o w n nations before him, / Ungirding the loins of kings, / O p e n i n g doors before him / And letting n o gate stay shut: / (2) I will march before you / And level the hills that loom up; / 1 will shatter doors of bronze / And cut d o w n iron bars. / (3) I will give you treasures concealed in the dark / And secret h o a r d s — / So that you may k n o w that it is I the LORD, / The God of Israel, w h o call you by name. / (4) For the sake of My servant Jacob, / Israel My chosen one, / I call you by name, / I hail you by title, though you have not k n o w n Me. / (5) I am the LORD and there is n o n e else; / Beside Me, there is n o god. / I engird you, t h o u g h you have not k n o w n Me, / (6) So that they may know, from east to west, / That there is n o n e but Me. / I am the LORD a n d there is n o n e else. The phrase "I call you by name" (v. 4) is especially evocative, matching exactly the statement in the Cyrus Cylinder: "He [Marduk] called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he proclaimed his name." As we shall see, the polemic between those backing Marduk the high-god of the Babylonians, and those backing the God of the Jews, extended far beyond these two passages. The two prophecies cited above derive from an a n o n y m o u s prophet whose oracles have been a p p e n d e d to Isaiah 1 - 3 9 . We do not k n o w if Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 represents the w o r k of a single p r o p h e t or of more than one. Most scholars suppose that two authors c o m p o s e d this section; they call the author of chapters 4 0 - 5 5 "Deutero-Isaiah," and the a u t h o r of chapters 5 6 - 6 6 "Trito-Isaiah." 3 (See "Out of Many, One" in chapter 17.) Scholars have reached this conclusion in part because 4 0 - 5 5 is almost entirely consolation, and does not reflect the return to Israel, whereas 5 6 - 6 6 does reflect this return a n d includes substantial rebuke. Exactly h o w a n d why someone attached these oracles to those of an earlier prophet is u n k n o w n ; 4 scholars are certain, however, that 4 0 - 6 6 does not reflect the w o r k of the eighth-century Isaiah son of Amoz.

The following sections will treat Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 as one unit, even though the same h a n d may not have written all of that section.

The Message of Deutero-Isaiah C o m p a r e d to previous prophets, Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 presents m a n y n e w themes. Some of the differences may be d u e to the u n i q u e historical setting of the prophecies, while other aspects reflect the ongoing evolution of Israelite religion. These passages place t r e m e n d o u s emphasis on "radical m o n o t h e i s m " (see n. 30 in chapter 10), which likely belongs to the latter category. Whereas the sentiments of Deuteronomy 4:35 ("It has been clearly demonstrated to you that the L O R D alone is God; there is n o n e beside Him") are rare in preexilic texts, 5 they suffuse this part of Isaiah. For example, Isaiah 45:6 similarly notes: "I am the L O R D and there is none else." The p r o p h e t again and again equates polytheistic gods with their idols, depicting both as powerless fetishes. 6 The following sarcastic passage is typical: (44:9) The makers of idols / All work to n o purpose; / And the things they treasure / Can d o n o good, / As they themselves can testify. / They neither look n o r think, / And so they shall be shamed. / (10) W h o w o u l d fashion a god / O r cast a statue / That can d o n o good? / ( 1 1 ) Lo, all its adherents shall be shamed; / They are craftsmen, are merely h u m a n . / Let them all assemble a n d stand up! / They shall be cowed, and they shall be shamed. / (12) The craftsman in iron, with his tools, / Works it over charcoal / And fashions it by h a m m e r i n g , / Working with the strength of his arm. / Should he go hungry, his strength would ebb; / Should he drink n o water, he w o u l d grow faint. / 1 3 ) The craftsman in w o o d measures with a line / And m a r k s out a shape with a stylus; / He forms it with scraping tools, / Marking it out with a compass. / He gives it a h u m a n form, / The beauty of a m a n , to dwell in a shrine. / (14) For his use he cuts d o w n cedars; / He chooses plane trees and oaks. / He sets aside trees of the forest; / O r plants firs, and the rain makes them grow. / (15) All this serves m a n for fuel: / He takes some to w a r m h i m self, / And he builds a fire a n d bakes bread. / He also makes a god of it and worships it, / Fashions an idol a n d bows d o w n to it! / (16) Part of it he b u r n s in a fire: / O n that part he roasts meat, / He eats the roast and is sated; / He also w a r m s himself and cries, "Ah, / 1 am warm! I can feel the heat!" / (17) Of the rest he makes a g o d — h i s own carving! / He bows d o w n to it, worships it; / He prays to it a n d cries, / "Save me, for you are m y god!" / (18) They have n o wit or j u d g m e n t : / Their eyes are

besmeared, a n d they see not; / Their minds, and they cannot think. / (19) They do not give thought, / They lack the wit and judgment to say: / "Part of it I b u r n e d in a fire; / I also baked bread on the coals, / I roasted meat a n d ate it— / Should 1 m a k e the rest an abhorrence? / Should 1 b o w to a block of wood?" / (20) He pursues ashes! / A deluded m i n d has led him astray, / And he cannot save himself; / He never says to himself, / "The thing in my h a n d is a fraud!" This passage, like others in the b o o k , is unfair—it confuses the deity with the representation of the deity. The Mesopotamians w h o w o r s h i p p e d the statue of Marduk did not believe it was really Marduk. In their eyes, the statue stood for Marduk, and Marduk might have been especially present in it, b u t the god was not confined to the statue, and the statue was not the god.‫ ׳‬Nonetheless, Deutero-Isaiah depicts other gods in this polemical fashion in order to argue against the existence of all other deities. Deutero-Isaiah also emphasized that the God of Israel—the only G o d — i s extremely powerful. O n e oracle uses the complex image of God the warrior, w h o tramples enemies as farmers trample grapes to make wine: (63:3) I trod out a vintage alone; / Of the peoples n o man was with Me. / I trod t h e m d o w n in My anger, / Trampled t h e m in My rage; / Their lifeblood bespattered My garments, / And all My clothing was stained. / (4) For 1 had planned a day of vengeance, / And My year of r e d e m p t i o n arrived. / (5) Then I looked, b u t there was n o n e to help; / I stared, but there was n o n e to a i d — / So My own arm wrought the t r i u m p h , / And My own rage was My aid. / (6) I trampled peoples in My anger, / I m a d e t h e m d r u n k with My rage, / And I hurled their glory to the ground. Time and again the prophet repeats the theme of

YHWH'S

power, in order to

convince the people that God does have the ability to return t h e m to the land of Israel. Other texts recall G o d s past accomplishments, as a prelude to their repetition in the near future: (51:9) Awake, awake, clothe yourself with splendor. / Ο arm of the LORD! / Awake as in days of old, / As in former ages! / It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, / That pierced the Dragon. / (10) It was you that dried u p the Sea, / The waters of the great deep; / That m a d e the abysses of the Sea / A road the redeemed might walk. / (11) So let the ransomed of the LORD return, / And come with shouting to Zion, / Crowned with joy everlasting. / Let t h e m attain joy and gladness, / While sorrow a n d sighing flee.

This passage recalls an ancient Israelite myth, in which God creates the world a n d becomes king by quelling the water deities. 8 After stating that God will soon reenact this act of prowess, the prophet alludes to the Exodus (w. 10-11). Indeed, the portrayal of the return to Zion as a new Exodus r u n s like a thread through the fabric of Deutero-Isaiah. 9 The God w h o has s h o w n u n m a t c h e d power in these two m o m e n t s — i n forming the world and in forming Israel—can surely do it again. Not only God, but also Israel has a major role to play in the people's r e d e m p tion. God is strong e n o u g h to fulfill the part of redeemer, b u t is Israel deserving? Like Ezekiel (see chapter 19), this prophet deals with the guilt that the exiles m u s t have felt. This prophet, too, assuages their guilt, convincing them that they are worthy to return. Already in the initial prophecy, Deutero-Isaiah suggests that Israel's "term of service is over . . . I her iniquity is expiated; / For she has received at the h a n d of the L O R D / Double for all her sins" (40:2). Theologically, this is an audacious and even disturbing n o t i o n — J u d a h has been "over-punished"! Surely, however, it could help a group wracked by guilt. Another way that Deutero-Isaiah bolsters the confidence of the J u d e a n s in exile is by writing them into the eternal, unconditional covenant granted to David: "Incline your ear and come to Me; / Hearken, and you shall be revived. / And I will make with you [plural, meaning, Israel as a whole] an everlasting covenant, / The e n d u r i n g loyalty promised to David" (55:3). Israel—rather than only David's d e s c e n d a n t s — b e c o m e s the beneficiary of David's covenant. 1 0 The prophet revalues the Davidic covenant by democratizing it to all Israel. Not surprisingly, therefore, Deutero-Isaiah—in contrast to most earlier classical p r o p h e t s — n o w h e r e depicts a Davidic descendant as the future ideal king. In some places, Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 depicts a "kinder, gentler" deity by depicting God as female. 1 1 This new imagery helped convince the J u d e a n s that God, like a mother, w o u l d aid them, by restoring t h e m to their homeland. The prophet accomplishes the change not by using feminine verbs or p r o n o u n s of God (which the Bible never employs) but by using feminine m e t a p h o r s and similes as images of God. For example: (49:14) Zion says, / "The L O R D has forsaken me, / My Lord has forgotten me." / (15) Can a w o m a n forget her baby, / Or disown the child of her womb? / Though she might forget, / I never could forget you. / (16) See, I have engraved you / O n the palms of My hands, / Your walls are ever before Me. Here God is "The Excellent Mother" w h o cares for her children so m u c h that their picture is engraved or tattooed on her palms. Certainly, such a devoted m o t h e r deserves great trust!

Some of the most remarkable passages in Deutero-Isaiah help Israel to u n d e r s t a n d w h y it deserves to be redeemed, especially passages concerning a "suffering servant." That servant's identity may not be consistent in all of the passages that invoke this image. The longest such passage would later play a significant role in early Christianity a n d has been a part of Jewish-Christian polemics throughout the ages. It reads: (53:1) "Who can believe what we have heard? / U p o n w h o m has the arm of the L O R D been revealed? / (2) For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown, / Like a tree t r u n k out of arid ground. / He had n o form or beauty, that we should look at him: / N o charm, that we should find him pleasing. / (3) He was despised, s h u n n e d by m e n , / A m a n of suffering, familiar with disease. / As one w h o hid his face from us, / He was despised, we held him of n o account. / (4) Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, / O u r suffering that he endured. / We accounted h i m plagued, / Smitten and afflicted by God; / (5) But he was w o u n d e d because of our sins, / Crushed because of our iniquities. / He bore the chastisement that made us whole, / And by his bruises we were healed. / (6) We all went astray like sheep, / Each going his own way; / And the L O R D visited u p o n h i m / The guilt of all of us." / (7) He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, / He did not o p e n his m o u t h ; / Like a sheep being led to slaughter, / Like a ewe, d u m b before those w h o shear her, / He did not o p e n his m o u t h . / (8) By oppressive j u d g m e n t he was taken away, / W h o could describe his abode? / For he was cut off from the land of the living / Through the sin of my people, w h o deserved the p u n i s h ment. / (9) And his grave was set a m o n g the wicked, / And with the rich, in his d e a t h — / T h o u g h he had d o n e n o injustice / And h a d spok e n n o falsehood. / (10) But the L O R D chose to crush him by disease, / That, if he m a d e himself an offering for guilt, / He might see offspring and have long life, / And that t h r o u g h h i m the LORD'S p u r p o s e might prosper. / (11) Out of his anguish he shall see it; / He shall enjoy it to the full t h r o u g h his devotion. / "My righteous servant makes the m a n y righteous, / It is their p u n i s h m e n t that he bears; / (12) Assuredly, I will give h i m the m a n y as his portion, / He shall receive the multitude as his spoil. / For he exposed himself to death / A n d was n u m b e r e d a m o n g the sinners, / Whereas he bore the guilt of the m a n y / And m a d e intercession for sinners." Here the prophet does not specify the identity of the servant. Given that Deutero-Isaiah often calls Israel "my servant" (e.g., "But hear, now, Ο Jacob My servant, / Israel w h o m I have chosen!" in 44:1), the servant might be Israel as a

whole. 1 2 But other readings are also plausible. Is the p r o p h e t referring to a past, present, or future figure? Is an individual meant, or a collective? These questions have been the subject of heated debate for centuries. Definitive answers seem to be beyond our reach. In any case, the text newly emphasizes a type of vicarious p u n i s h m e n t . That the u n n a m e d servant suffered for the sake of others (53:4) and was injured (v. 5) in p u n i s h m e n t for their guilt (w. 6, 1 1 - 1 2 ) is an extreme version of the concept that Ezekiel so firmly rejected (see "Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19). F r o m a historical perspective, it is likely that the exiles' excessive guilt is what evoked this theological idea. As with the annual scapegoat ritual in the now-vanished Temple (see Leviticus 16), they could u n d e r s t a n d their guilt as having been transferred onto another party.

Cognitive Dissonance As we have seen, some of the prophecies in Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 did come true, espedally those concerning Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon w h o redeemed the exiled Judeans. However, m a n y oracles did not come true. For example, most of the J u d e a n s did not return to their ancestral land. Those w h o did often did not enjoy the easy j o u r n e y that the p r o p h e t predicted: (40:3) A voice rings out: "Clear in the desert / A road for the LORD! / Level in the wilderness / A highway for our God! / (4) Let every valley be raised, / Every hill and m o u n t m a d e low. / Let the rugged ground become level / And the ridges become a plain. / (5) The Presence of the L O R D shall appear, / And all flesh, as one, shall b e h o l d — / For the L O R D Himself has spoken." . . . / (9) Ascend a lofty m o u n t a i n , / Ο herald of joy to Zion; / Raise your voice with power, / Ο herald of joy to J e r u s a l e m — / Raise it, have n o fear; / A n n o u n c e to the cities of J u d a h : / Behold your God! / (10) Behold, the Lord GOD comes in might, / And His arm wins t r i u m p h for Him; / See, His reward is with Him, / His recompense before Him. / (11) Like a shepherd He pastures His flock: / He gathers the lambs in His arms / And carries t h e m in His bosom; / Gently He drives the m o t h e r sheep. For the hard-pressed returnees, the gap between that prophecy a n d their reality m u s t have been unsettling, p r o m p t i n g not only disappointment b u t cognitive dissonance. 1 3 The prophetic texts we will n o w consider use several approaches to combat

the perceived dissonance. O n e approach is to reinterpret the prophecies of consolation so that they remain true. A simple instance of this appears in the second chapter of Haggai, one of the "minor" (that is, short) prophetic texts (see n. 18 in chapter 2). He explicitly recognizes the failures of the restoration: "Who is there left a m o n g you w h o saw this House in its former splendor? How does it look to you now? It must seem like nothing to you" (2:3). Yet, he continues by giving a promise: (2:6) For thus said the L O R D of Hosts: In just a little while longer I will shake the heavens a n d the earth, the sea and the dry land; (7) I will shake all the nations. And the precious things of all the nations shall come here, and I will fill this House with glory, said the L O R D of Hosts. (8) Silver is Mine a n d gold is Mine—says the L O R D of Hosts. (9) The glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former one, said the L O R D of Hosts; and in this place 1 will grant prosperity— declares the LORD of Hosts. The key phrase here is "In just a little while longer"—the ideal future has clearly not arrived, but it is around the corner. 1 4 Haggai's early prophecies seem to have been instrumental in spurring the rebuilding the Second Temple. (We will examine more examples of the reinterpretation of earlier oracles in the next chapter on Daniel and apocalyptic literature.) A second approach to relieve cognitive dissonance is to ignore the discrepancies, focusing instead on the theme of retribution. This is especially obvious in E z r a - N e h e m i a h . ^ For example, w h e n N e h e m i a h saw that the Jews were not properly observing the Sabbath, he "censured the nobles of J u d a h , saying to them, W h a t evil thing is this that you are doing, profaning the sabbath day! This is just what your ancestors did, and for it God brought all this misfortune on this city; and n o w you give cause for further wrath against Israel by profaning the sabbath!'" (Neh. 1 3 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . These verses most likely allude to Jeremiah 17:27: "But if you d o not obey My c o m m a n d to hallow the sabbath day and to carry in n o b u r d e n s through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will set fire to its gates; it shall c o n s u m e the fortresses of Jerusalem and it shall not be extinguished." Ezra-Nehemiahs emphasis is not on the consolations but on the prophecies of retribution of previous prophets, and its main concern is m a k i n g sure that already fulfilled prophecies will not have a reason to be fulfilled again. In their concern with retribution, the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah were sometimes stringent, "making a fence a r o u n d the Torah" (see "Solomon" in chapter 13). Ezra's blanket proscription of intermarriage is a strong example of this. Earlier sources had forbidden various specific groups as marriage partners

(ibid.); n o such text had advocated expelling the children of an intermarried couple from the community. But Ezra 9:2 notes: "They have taken their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed has become intermingled with the peoples of the land." 1 6 According to that book, the Jews m a d e a covenant to expel not only these foreign wives, b u t also "those w h o have been b o r n to them" (Ezra 10:3). This decision grew out of a close study of Torah and prophetic texts, 1 7 combined with a great concern by some that the exile and the destruction of the Temple not be repeated.

One Important Implication This survey of postexilic literature suggests that the people in that period studied Torah and other texts closely. This image is corroborated by the description in Nehemiah of the great covenant m a d e in Jerusalem, where (8:1) the entire people assembled as one m a n in the square before the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the scroll of the Teaching of Moses with which the L O R D had charged Israel. . . . ( 5 ) Ezra o p e n e d the scroll in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people; as he o p e n e d it, all the people stood up. . . . (8) They read from the scroll of the Teaching of God, translating it and giving the sense; so they understood the reading. As the passage continues, we learn that specific sections were read and listened to carefully, a n d then implemented. For example, the people celebrated dwelling in b o o t h s d u r i n g Sukkot, after the scribes read aloud the section about the relevant rites: "They found written in the Teaching that the L O R D had comm a n d e d Moses that the Israelites must dwell in booths d u r i n g the festival of the seventh m o n t h " (v. 14). To u n d e r s t a n d the divine will, such texts suggest, prophecy was n o longer necessary. Old, authoritative texts—the Torah and the prophetic books, which became so important in the exilic period—retained their importance a n d could be studied to determine the divine will as it applied to the contemporary situation. The prophetic impulse did not stop at that point, 1 8 but, as we will see in the next chapter, prophecy went through remarkable changes.

21 "Those That Sleep in the Dust . . . Will Awake" Zechariah, Apocalyptic Literature, and Daniel Primary Reading: Zechariah

1,2, 5, 7, 8; Daniel 1-6, 8, 9, 12.

Zechariah Stands on a Cusp Zechariah and the Classical Prophets

T

he first part of Zechariah (chaps. 1 - 8 ) f o r m s a literary unit c o m p o s e d a littie m o r e t h a n 2 5 0 0 years ago, in the late sixth c e n t u r y B.C.E. T h e rest of the

b o o k s e e m s unrelated to this first part; on those g r o u n d s , it s e e m s that a later editor a d d e d the latter part (just as s o m e o n e affixed Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 to oracles by the earlier p r o p h e t Isaiah son of A m o z ; see "Out of Many, O n e " in c h a p t e r 17). 1 In this chapter, I will focus only on the first p o r t i o n of the b o o k . Zechariah 1 - 8 share m a n y features with the classical p r o p h e t i c b o o k s (see above, c h a p t e r s 1 5 - 1 9 , esp. c h a p t e r 16). Zechariah e m p l o y s m a n y of classical prophecy's typical formulas, s u c h as ne'um YHWH ("—declares the LORD") a n d ko amar

YHWH

("Thus said the LORD:"). Like the classical p r o p h e t s ,

Zechariah

depicts G o d as universal ("The m a n y p e o p l e s a n d the m u l t i t u d e of n a t i o n s shall c o m e to seek the LORD of Hosts in J e r u s a l e m a n d to entreat the favor of the LORD"; 8:22). These p r o p h e c i e s p r e s u m e a special relationship b e t w e e n Israel a n d its G o d that entails obligations o n the part of each party ("Turn back to m e — s a y s the LORD of H o s t s — a n d I will t u r n b a c k to you"; 1:3). Israel's obligations include ethical as well as cultic responsibilities ("These are the things y o u are to do: Speak the t r u t h to one another, r e n d e r true a n d perfect justice in y o u r gates. A n d d o n o t contrive evil against o n e another, a n d d o n o t love perjury, because all those are things that I h a t e — d e c l a r e s the LORD"; 8 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) . A l t h o u g h

Zechariah never uses the classical prophet's p h r a s e "Day of the LORD," he s e e m s to have that n o t i o n in m i n d ("In that day m a n y n a t i o n s will attach themselves to the LORD a n d b e c o m e His people, a n d He will dwell in y o u r midst. T h e n y o u will k n o w that I w a s sent to y o u by the LORD of Hosts"; 2:15). According to Zechariah, this day will be a rather peaceful, pro-Israel occasion. T h u s Zechariah subscribes to four of the five m a i n ideas of classical p r o p h e cy. At the same time, he significantly alters the fifth characteristic i d e a — a b o u t a " r e m n a n t . " Earlier p r o p h e t s h a d predicted

the r e t u r n of a r e m n a n t ,

but

Zechariah never does so. W h y not? Because he believes that his generation, w h i c h h a s e x p e r i e n c e d b o t h exile a n d r e t u r n , is the remnant.

This idea a p p e a r s

several times: (8:6) T h u s said the LORD of Hosts: T h o u g h it will seem impossible to the r e m n a n t of this people in those days, shall it also be impossible to Me?—declares the LORD of Hosts. (8:11) But n o w I will not treat the r e m n a n t of this people as b e f o r e — declares the LORD of H o s t s — ( 1 2 ) b u t w h a t it s o w s shall prosper: The vine shall p r o d u c e its fruit, the g r o u n d shall p r o d u c e its yield, a n d the skies shall provide their moisture. 1 will b e s t o w all these things u p o n the r e m n a n t of this people. For Zechariah, there is n o f u t u r e r e m n a n t because he believes that he is already living in that future. Because Zechariah h a s identified himself as part of the r e m n a n t that o t h e r s p r o p h e s i e d a b o u t , he uses phrases that set h i m apart f r o m earlier p r o p h e t s . Key a m o n g these is the idea of "the earlier p r o p h e t s " — f o u n d only in this b o o k — w h i c h Zechariah uses three times: (1:4) Do not be like y o u r fathers! For w h e n the earlier p r o p h e t s called to t h e m , " T h u s said the LORD of Hosts: C o m e , t u r n b a c k f r o m y o u r evil ways a n d y o u r evil deeds," they did not obey or give h e e d to M e — declares the LORD. (7:7) Look, this is the message that the LORD p r o c l a i m e d t h r o u g h the earlier p r o p h e t s , w h e n J e r u s a l e m a n d the t o w n s a b o u t h e r were p e o p l e d a n d tranquil, w h e n the N e g e b a n d the S h e p h e l a h were p e o p l e d . (7:12) They h a r d e n e d their hearts like a d a m a n t against h e e d i n g the instruction a n d a d m o n i t i o n that the LORD of Hosts sent to t h e m by His spirit t h r o u g h the earlier p r o p h e t s ; a n d a terrible w r a t h issued f r o m the LORD

of Hosts.

Given that classical, preexilic p r o p h e c y lasted a long w h i l e — a t least two h u n d r e d years—it is s u r p r i s i n g that n o n e of the p r o p h e t s prior to Zechariah ever referred to his predecessors as a g r o u p . He is the first p r o p h e t we see l o o k i n g back a n d s t u d y i n g earlier oracles, a n d viewing these oracles as an authoritative b o d y of w o r k c o m i n g f r o m a collective source. A n o t h e r significant difference b e t w e e n Zechariah a n d earlier p r o p h e t s is that an angel m e d i a t e s his visions. Visions typify classical prophecy, b u t these usually originate w i t h G o d , as in A m o s ("This is w h a t m y Lord GOD s h o w e d me"; 7:1) a n d J e r e m i a h ("The w o r d of the

LORD

c a m e to me: W h a t d o you see, Jeremiah?

I replied: I see a b r a n c h of an a l m o n d tree"; 1:11). Z e c h a r i a h s visions are quite different; the p r o p h e t r e c o u n t s that "the angel w h o talked with me" (5:5 a n d elsewhere) w h o explained w h a t he was seeing a n d conveyed divine w o r d s to h i m . 2 Perhaps s u c h m e d i a t i o n expresses a m o r e distant sense of God. Moreover, unlike the visions of the classical p r o p h e t s , w h i c h h a d t e n d e d to involve everyday items w h o s e s y m b o l i s m is fairly t r a n s p a r e n t , Z e c h a r i a h s visions are often strange: "I l o o k e d u p again a n d saw two w o m e n c o m e soaring w i t h the w i n d in their w i n g s — t h e y h a d wings like those of a s t o r k — a n d carry off the t u b b e t w e e n earth a n d sky" (5:9).

Z e c h a r i a h a n d the B e g i n n i n g s o f A p o c a l y p t i c L i t e r a t u r e

Some of these features that distinguish Zechariah f r o m classical p r o p h e c y typify apocalyptic literature, a genre that p r o b a b l y d e v e l o p e d s o o n after Z e c h a r i a h s lifetime—that is, in the early Second Temple period. (The adjective "apocalyptic" a n d the n o u n "apocalypse" derive f r o m the Greek apokalypsis,

"to u n c o v e r or

reveal.") Since the early n i n e t e e n t h century, scholars have u s e d "apocalyptic" as a genre label in various o v e r l a p p i n g ways. I prefer the following definition: A genre of revelatory literature w i t h a narrative f r a m e w o r k , in w h i c h a revelation is m e d i a t e d by an o t h e r w o r l d l y b e i n g to a h u m a n recipient, disclosing a t r a n s c e n d e n t reality w h i c h is b o t h t e m p o r a l , insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, a n d spatial, insofar as it involves another, s u p e r n a t u r a l w o r l d . ‫ן‬ Many parts of Zechariah 1 - 8 fit this definition: 4 these p r o p h e c i e s are revelatory; they tell a story; they feature an a n o n y m o u s angel as mediator; a n d they divulge their revelations to the very h u m a n Zechariah. Their "transcendent reality envisages eschatological salvation," especially in c h a p t e r 8, w h i c h imagines a n e w J e r u s a l e m ("Jerusalem will be called the City of Faithfulness, a n d the m o u n t of

the

LORD

of Hosts the Holy Mount"; v.

3).

However, Zechariah does n o t clearly

imagine "another, s u p e r n a t u r a l w o r l d " in the same m a n n e r as o t h e r apocalyptic texts like E n o c h , Daniel, 4 Ezra, a n d 2 B a r u c h . 5 The origins of this genre, along w i t h its a u t h o r s ' place in society, are obscure. Apocalypse m a y have its roots in earlier Canaanite a n d Israelite mythical traditions, a n d in preexilic prophecy. Persian motifs p r o b a b l y also i n f l u e n c e d the genre. 6 At a n y rate, apocalyptic ideas w e n t o n to play a leading role in J u d a i s m d u r i n g the Persian a n d Hellenistic periods. They also h a d a m a j o r impact on early Christianity. 7

Daniel Daniel is a short b o o k that boasts s o m e u n u s u a l features. A l t h o u g h m u c h of it is in Hebrew, the m i d d l e p o r t i o n (2:4b t h o u g h e n d of c h a p . 8) is in the related language of A r a m a i c — t h e lingua franca of the ancient Near E a s t — w h i c h was widely s p o k e n in Israel d u r i n g this time period. (We d o n o t k n o w w h y the b o o k is written in t w o languages.) Moreover, it is c o m p o s e d of t w o f u n d a m e n t a l l y different genres that overlap the language transitions: stories (chaps. 1 - 6 ) a n d apocalypses (chaps. 7 - 1 2 ) .

The Historical Setting Some of the book's claims are at o d d s w i t h historical fact: •

Daniel depicts the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, a n d Greeks as four consecutive e m p i r e s (chap. 2); however, s o m e of those states existed concurrently.

•

It talks a b o u t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s b e i n g exiled f r o m his k i n g d o m (chap. 4); this p r o b a b l y reflects events involving the last k i n g of Babylon, N a b o n i d u s , w h o took a "leave of absence" f r o m b e i n g k i n g a n d lived in an oasis o n the Arabian peninsula.

•

It depicts Belshazzar as the last k i n g of Babylon (chap. 5); this is an error.

S o m e o n e living in the Babylonian exile w o u l d not have m a d e these k i n d of mistakes. In o t h e r w o r d s , Daniel's p u r p o r t e d setting d u r i n g the Babylonian exile (see c h a p . 4) is n o t plausible; the b o o k m u s t be f r o m a later era. In fact, it e m p l o y s Greek l o a n w o r d s (e.g., sumfoniah

or "bagpipes," related to the English w o r d

"symphony," a p p e a r s in 3:5), w h i c h establishes that s o m e o n e wrote it d u r i n g the Greek p e r i o d . 8

W h a t the Visions Address

T h u s far we have seen that Daniel is a c o m p o s i t e text of d u b i o u s historicity f r o m different genres. As n o t e d above, the s e c o n d half of Daniel c o m p r i s e s apocalyptic visions. C h a p t e r 8 is a typical e x a m p l e of that genre: "revelatory literature . . . in w h i c h a revelation is m e d i a t e d by an o t h e r w o r l d l y being." 9 Here, in contrast to the apocalypse in Zechariah, the i n t e r m e d i a r y is actually n a m e d : the angel Gabriel (v. 16). This passage reveals a " t r a n s c e n d e n t reality" that is b o t h "temporal" a n d "spatially" different f r o m o u r world. We can easily interpret s o m e parts of the v i s i o n — f o r e x a m p l e , scholars agree o n the m e a n i n g of verse 8, "Then the hegoat grew very great, b u t at the p e a k of his p o w e r his big h o r n w a s b r o k e n . In its place, four c o n s p i c u o u s h o r n s s p r o u t e d toward the four w i n d s of heaven": the "he-goat" is Alexander the Great, a n d the "four c o n s p i c u o u s h o r n s " represent the four generals w h o s u c c e e d e d h i m . 1 0 The c o n t i n u a t i o n of the passage deals, in not-so-veiled language, w i t h A n t i o c h u s IV E p i p h a n e s , the Greek k i n g w h o in 167 B.C.E. took the u n p r e c e d e n t e d step of c o n v e r t i n g the J e r u s a l e m Temple into a temple for Zeus, while p r o h i b i t i n g central Jewish practices. (We k n o w little a b o u t w h y he did so. Most Greek kings, like their Persian predecessors, were quite tolerant of local religions.) O t h e r sources tell u s that he s u s p e n d e d the regular Temple offerings; this is reflected w h e n Daniel hears m e n t i o n of a c u r r e n t crisis, "the regular offering . . . forsaken because of transgression" (v. 13). T h u s , s o m e o n e wrote d o w n this vision after 167 ( w h e n A n t i o c h u s took control of the Temple) b u t before 164 ( w h e n the H a s m o n e a n s restored the Temple following the Maccabean victory). Probably m u c h — i f n o t all—of the apocalyptic material in Daniel w a s written a r o u n d that time. In verse 19 of that chapter, an angelic figure tells Daniel: "I a m going to i n f o r m y o u of w h a t will h a p p e n w h e n w r a t h is at an e n d , " c o n t i n u i n g : ki le-mo'ed ketz

( ‫כי ל מ ו ע ד ק ץ‬,

"for [it refers] to the time a p p o i n t e d for the end"). This verse

is picking u p o n the vocabulary of H a b a k k u k 2:3: "For there is yet a p r o p h e c y la-mo'ed ( ‫ ל מ ו ע ד‬, 'for a set term'), / A t r u t h f u l witness for ketz ( ‫ ק ץ‬, 'a time') that will come." T h u s , even t h o u g h the Book of Daniel presents this passage as a n e w prophecy, it relates to an older prophecy.

214

H o w to Read the Bible

Reinterpretation and Creative Philology

Referring to m u c h earlier oracles represents a shift in the evolution of ideas a b o u t prophecy. As the J e w s w h o inherited old p r o p h e c i e s c a m e to believe that they could be s t u d i e d in o r d e r to u n d e r s t a n d the divine will in the present, n e w p r o p h e c i e s s e e m e d to be less a n d less necessary. T h e apocalypse of Daniel 9 records an i m p o r t a n t stage in this d e v e l o p m e n t . There, Daniel "consulted the b o o k s c o n c e r n i n g the n u m b e r of years that, according to the w o r d of the

LORD

that h a d c o m e to J e r e m i a h the p r o p h e t , were to be

the t e r m of Jerusalem's desolation—shiv'im ( ‫ ש ב ע י ם‬, 'seventy') years" (9:2). This is quite a strange verse, especially since the initial verb ("consulted") really m e a n s "looked at a n d investigated carefully." Few p r o p h e t i c texts are m o r e straightforward t h a n Jeremiah's seventy-year oracle, w h i c h p r o m i s e d seventy years of Babylonian w o r l d d o m i n a t i o n b e g i n n i n g in 6 0 5 , followed by p u n i s h m e n t of the Babylonians a n d a restoration of Israel (Jer. 25; see above, c h a p t e r 18). At first glance, this w o u l d seem like the last p r o p h e c y that one w h o lived centuries later w o u l d "consult" for c o n t e m p o r a r y insights. However, an a u t h o r w h o was writing b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164 w o u l d have h a d good reason to s t u d y that passage carefully. For J e r e m i a h h a d p r o m i s e d an ultimate, p e r m a n e n t restoration of Israel after seventy years; yet people were n o w — u n d e r A n t i o c h u s I V — u n a b l e to w o r s h i p in J e r u s a l e m , a n d u n d e r pain of d e a t h for observing basic Jewish practices. T h u s , either Jeremiah's p r o p h e c y was false, or else w h a t he said m u s t have a h i d d e n m e a n i n g — o n e that only close s t u d y could reveal. T h e a u t h o r of Daniel chose the latter a p p r o a c h , revealing this esoteric m e a n i n g later in the chapter: (21) W h i l e I w a s u t t e r i n g m y prayer, the m a n Gabriel, w h o m I h a d previously seen in the vision, w a s sent forth in flight a n d reached m e a b o u t the time of the e v e n i n g offering. (22) He m a d e m e u n d e r s t a n d by s p e a k i n g to m e a n d saying, "Daniel, 1 have j u s t c o m e forth to give y o u u n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . . (24) Seventy w e e k s have b e e n d e c r e e d for y o u r p e o pie a n d y o u r holy city until the m e a s u r e of transgression is filled a n d that of sin c o m p l e t e , until iniquity is expiated, a n d eternal righteousness u s h e r e d in; a n d p r o p h e t i c vision ratified, a n d the Holy of Holies a n o i n t e d . . ." T h e a u t h o r here reinterprets the p r o p h e c y of J e r e m i a h as if the w o r d

shiv'im

,

( • ‫ ) ש ב ע‬in the p h r a s e "seventy years" were tacitly repeated a n d revocalized: shavu'im shiv'im ( ‫ ) ש ב ע י ם ש ב ע י ם‬, "seventy weeks" of years, n a m e l y 7 0 x 7 = 4 9 0

years. 1 1 Thus, the a u t h o r grants this central prophecy of Jeremiah a 420-year extension! This reading enables J e r e m i a h s oracle to remain a true prophecy, and Jeremiah a p r o p h e t of truth. Certainly, the reading in Daniel is not what Jeremiah meant. Several factors that w o u l d typify later postbiblical interpretation are already visible here, particularly "creative philology," 1 2 where w o r d s need not have their usual meaning, especially if they are divine words, which are treated as special. 1 ‫ י‬Thus, n o clear line divides rabbinic types of interpretation from those f o u n d in the biblical period itself. 1 4 Stated differently, in some ways, we s h o u l d view the late biblical period as proto-rabbinic. Continuity holds across the periods not only for interpretation of earlier prophecy, b u t also for evolving theological ideas. For example, the notion of resurrection of the dead is hardly a central biblical notion, though a few biblical texts may hint at it. 1 ‫ י‬In the Bible, resurrection is u n a m b i g u o u s l y m e n t i o n e d only in Daniel: "Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence" (12:2). 1 6 For the rabbis, however, the future resurrection becomes a central doctrine.

T h e m e s in the Stories of D a n i e l

If the reader u n d e r s t a n d s h o w the genre of apocalypse functions, then the apocalyptic sections of Daniel are not so difficult to grasp. Once one finds the allusions to specific historical events (and apocalyptic a u t h o r s typically give m a n y clues), the m e a n i n g and function of these prophecies become clear. But h o w are we to u n d e r s t a n d the fanciful stories in Daniel 1 - 6 ? These stories are at least as bizarre as the apocalyptic images that conclude the book. 1 ‫׳‬ Daniels first chapter breaks us in slowly, s h o w i n g h o w Daniel and his three friends prosper in the royal court while avoiding the king's ritually impure food a n d w i n e . 1 8 They p e r f o r m e d "ten times better than all the magicians and exorcists throughout his realm" (v. 20). In chapter 2, Daniel o u t d o e s the deed of J o s e p h in Genesis 41: not only can Daniel interpret dreams, but he can divine their content. This reflects positively not only on Daniel, but also on his deity. T h u s N e b u c h a d n e z z a r concludes, "Truly your God must be the God of gods a n d Lord of kings a n d the revealer of mysteries to have enabled you to reveal this mystery" (Dan. 2:47). Of course, it is impossible to imagine the historical N e b u c h a d n e z z a r — a w o r s h i p p e r of M a r d u k w h o destroyed the Temple in J e r u s a l e m — a s saying this.

The following chapter shifts its focus to Daniel's three friends: Shadrach, Meshach, a n d Abed-nego. W h e n they abrogate Nebuchadnezzar's c o m m a n d by refusing to b o w d o w n to a statue, the king's response is immediate a n d brutal: (3:19) N e b u c h a d n e z z a r was so filled with rage at Shadrach, Meshach, a n d Abed-nego that his visage was distorted, a n d he gave an order to heat u p the furnace to seven times its usual heat. . . . (2) Because the king's order was urgent, a n d the furnace was heated to excess, a tongue of flame killed the m e n w h o carried u p Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego . . . The three friends, however, were saved: (27) The satraps, the prefects, the governors, a n d the royal c o m p a n i o n s gathered a r o u n d to look at those m e n , o n whose bodies the fire h a d had n o effect, the hair of whose heads h a d not been singed, whose shirts looked n o different, to w h o m not even the o d o r of fire clung. (28) N e b u c h a d n e z z a r spoke u p a n d said, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, a n d Abed-nego, w h o sent His angel to save His servants w h o , trusting in Him, flouted the king's decree at the risk of their lives rather than serve or worship any god but their o w n God. (29) I hereby give an order that anyone of any people or nation of whatever language w h o blasphemes the God of Shadrach, Meshach, a n d Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, a n d his house confiscated, for there is n o other God w h o is able to save in this way." This story, full of well-placed details s u c h as the o d o r of the fire n o t clinging to these three, repeats the t h e m e s of the previous c h a p t e r — t h e miraculous deliverance of the Jewish court hero, a n d the a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of God's greatness. The above themes c o n t i n u e in the following chapters.

In Daniel 4,

N e b u c h a d n e z z a r acknowledges God yet again, while shifting into poetry: (31) I blessed the Most High, a n d praised and glorified the Ever-Living One, / W h o s e d o m i n i o n is an everlasting d o m i n i o n / And whose kingd o m e n d u r e s t h r o u g h o u t the generations. / (32) All the inhabitants of the earth are of n o account. / He does as He wishes with the host of heaven, / And with the inhabitants of the earth. / There is n o n e to stay His h a n d / O r say to Him, "What have You done?" Chapter 5 again features Daniel's ability to interpret: he alone can decipher the "writing o n the wall" (MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN).

The last of these narrative chapters is about Daniel and the lion. This story parallels that of the three friends a n d the fiery furnace (chap. 3). It begins with a bizarre royal decree (in this case, that people may pray only to the king). Pious Daniel, w h o violates the decree, is caught and punished by being thrown into the lion's den. Again, the text relishes details: "A rock was brought and placed over the m o u t h of the den; the king sealed it with his signet and with the signet of his nobles, so that nothing might be altered concerning Daniel" (6:18). Daniel of course is saved, a n d his adversaries are killed. The last few lines summarize the lesson of this chapter as well the initial six chapters. (6:26) Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every language that inhabit the earth, "May your well-being abound! (27) I have hereby given an order that throughout m y royal domain m e n m u s t tremble in fear before the God of Daniel, for He is the living God w h o e n d u r e s forever; His kingdom is indestructible, and His d o m i n i o n is to the e n d of time; (28) He delivers a n d saves, and performs signs and w o n d e r s in heaven and on earth, for He delivered Daniel from the power of the lions." (29) T h u s Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and d u r i n g the reign of Cyrus the Persian. In s u m , these stories are not really about specific historical individuals. Rather, they "prove" that God is great and will save any pious Jew, especially those persecuted for religious beliefs. Obviously these stories belong in the literary genre of "royal tales." 1 9 In addition, they all feature competition between Jew a n d non-Jew, in which the u n d e r d o g — w h o is the Jew—always wins.

The Significance of the Stories As a scholar, I am curious w h e t h e r the ancient Jews took these stories as "real history" or recognized t h e m instead as legends. Neither possibility can be ruled out. Other biblical books, such as J o n a h 2 0 a n d Ruth (see chapter 26 below) d r o p hints that they are not accurately depicting the past. Because those b o o k s are primarily didactic (see "Concluding on a Different Note" in chapter 11), they lack specific historical references. In contrast, Daniel creates the illusion of history with notes such as "the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar" (2:1) and "Darius the Mede received the k i n g d o m , being about sixty-two years old" (6:1). Nevertheless, the stories of Daniel are so exaggerated and implausible that we must w o n d e r whether readers in antiquity believed them.

Ultimately, it may not matter w h e t h e r the editors a n d copyists of the stories in Daniel believed that they were true. For the stories exist mainly to illustrate an attitude about living as a Jew: be pious, and even if threatened you will ultimately be saved—to enjoy a better fate than your non-Jewish adversaries. 2 1 In the w o r d s of Daniel 6:29: "Thus Daniel prospered . . ." But this is only half the story—the other half concerns glorification of the God of Israel, w h o is a great and saving God. T h u s Jews are Jews for good reason. Did these stories originate in the Diaspora, a n d t h u s illustrate that God saves even outside of the land of Israel? Or did they originate in Israel during the persecutions of Antiochus, and t h u s illustrate reasons for h o p e during a dark time? The historical-critical m e t h o d has not answered this question decisively. No matter h o w we resolve such issues, the message of the stories in Daniel is what is important. W h a t we notice most is h o w the stories in this book reinforce each other, a n d h o w effectively they convey their belief that God would reward a n d protect piety.

22 Prayer of M a n y H e a r t s Reading Psalms Primary Reading: 1 Samuel

1-2; Psalms 1, 3, 6, 14, 15, 24, 53, 118.

What Is Psalms? T h e

English title "Psalms" c o m e s to u s f r o m the Septuagint, the venerable

Jewish translation of the Bible into Greek. It r e n d e r e d the w o r d

mizmor

( ‫ ) מ ז מ ו ר‬, w h i c h features in m a n y s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s (chapter titles) in this b o o k , as psalmos. Both the H e b r e w a n d Greek w o r d s m e a n "a s o n g s u n g to the a c c o m p a n i m e n t of a stringed i n s t r u m e n t . " In o t h e r w o r d s , this b o o k consists of s o n g lyrics—about 150 separate songs (largely, b u t n o t exactly, identical w i t h the c h a p t e r headings). Many of t h e m strike u s as familiar, either because of their i m p o r t a n t role in c o n t e m p o r a r y religious life, or because we have e n c o u n t e r e d t h e m as classics of w o r l d literature (e.g., "The

LORD

is m y s h e p h e r d . . ."; Ps.

23).

A "psalm" is a poetic prayer c o m p o s i t i o n that is n o t necessarily in the Book of Psalms, a l t h o u g h that b o o k c o n t a i n s most of the k n o w n psalms. Psalms is an u n u s u a l l y i n t i m i d a t i n g b o o k . Weighing in at 150 chapters, it is easily the longest b o o k of the Bible. T h e poetry of its lyrics is rarely straightforw a r d . Its s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s are usually obscure or a m b i g u o u s . Time a n d again, u p o n even a cursory reading, we e n c o u n t e r s u d d e n shifts in tone a n d f o c u s — often w i t h i n the same p s a l m — w h i c h c o m p o u n d s the challenge that this b o o k poses. H o w are we to read the individual psalms? H o w are we to u n d e r s t a n d the b o o k as a whole? Here I d o not m e a n "read" as an act of c o n t e m p o r a r y p e r s o n al devotion; that m a y be i m p o r t a n t to m a n y of us, b u t it is n o t the task at h a n d . Rather, the h i s t o r i a n s role is to view this b o o k a n d its e l e m e n t s in t e r m s of the ancient milieu in w h i c h they arose. The p r e s e n t c h a p t e r will s h o w that Psalms is an ordered collection of col-

lections, comprising different genres from various places and times. To establish this claim, the best place to begin is outside of Psalms—specifically, at the beginning of 1 Samuel, which contains two prayers: one in prose, the other in poetry. The p o e m is one of those psalms that the Book of Psalms did not incorporate. 1

Prayer in the Bible: What Samuel Teaches Us The first prayer f o u n d in Samuel is that of H a n n a h , w h o had been desperately wanting a (male) child. She prayed: of Hosts, if You will look u p o n the suffering of Your maidservant a n d will r e m e m b e r me and not forget Your maidservant, a n d if You will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the LORD for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head (1 Sam. 1:11). Ο LORD

Like almost one h u n d r e d other biblical prayers, this one is prose. 2 (It lacks parallelism and figuration, and it employs plain language.) Its three-part structure is clear: an invocation of God, a long request, and a motivation—why God should heed this request). The following table shows these e l e m e n t s 3 Invocation

Ό

Request

"if You will look u p o n the suffering of Your maidservant a n d will r e m e m b e r me and not forget Your maidservant, and if You will grant Your maidservant a male child" "I will dedicate him to the LORD for all the days of his life; a n d n o razor shall ever touch his head."

Motivation

LORD

of Hosts"

Stated differently, after calling u p o n God (perhaps getting His attention), this prayer offers a deal. H a n n a h says that if God gives her a child, she will return it to God. The reason why H a n n a h would want this deal is quite clear from biblical conceptions of biology: if she has one child, then her w o m b has been opened by God (Gen. 29:31; 30:22), a n d she will be able to have more children (see 1 Sam. 2:21). O n e could imagine someone in Hannah's situation coming to the local temple and spontaneously composing such a prayer. Altogether different is Hannah's second prayer. After she gives birth to a son, weans him, and brings him to the sanctuary, 4 she prays: (1 Sam. 2:1) My heart exults in the LORD; / I have t r i u m p h e d through the LORD. / I gloat over my enemies; / I rejoice in Your deliverance. / (2) There is no holy one like the LORD, / Truly, there is none beside You; /

There is n o rock like our God. / (3) Talk n o more with lofty pride, / Let n o arrogance cross your lips! / For the LORD is an all-knowing God; / By H i m actions are measured. / (4) The b o w s of the mighty are broken, / And the faltering are girded with strength. / (5) Men once sated must hire out for bread; / Men once h u n g r y h u n g e r no more. / While the barren w o m a n bears seven, / The m o t h e r of many is forlorn. / (6) The LORD deals death and gives life, / Casts d o w n into Sheol and raises up. / (7) The LORD makes poor and makes rich; / He casts d o w n , He also lifts high. / (8) He raises the p o o r from the dust, / Lifts u p the needy from the dunghill, / Setting them with nobles, / Granting them seats of honor. / For the pillars of the earth are the L O R D S ; / He has set the world u p o n them. / (9) He guards the steps of His faithful, / But the wicked perish in d a r k n e s s — / For not by strength shall m a n prevail. / (10) The foes of the LORD shall be shattered; / He will t h u n d e r against t h e m in the heavens. / The LORD will judge the ends of the earth. / He will give power to His king, / And t r i u m p h to His anointed one. This prayer of thanksgiving is clearly in poetry. It has the characteristic features of biblical poetry that we discussed in chapter 17: binary lines, parallel structure, and figurative language. 5 If we lifted this text from its context in the narrative, we would read it as a royal psalm of thanksgiving after a military victory. Not only is it full of war language (see esp. w . 4 and 10), but also it refers outright to the king (v. 10). This is quite strange, since at this point in Israel's history, the monarchy has not yet been established. Stated differently, the H a n n a h portrayed in Samuel could not have recited this psalm, which dates from the monarchic period. But the biblical editors were not stupid. So how could one of t h e m have thought to insert this psalm into Hannah's m o u t h ? O u r psalm's presence in its current location shows us that the editor expected the Israelite audience to find it plausible that a w o m a n whose deepest wish had come true would respond by reciting such a psalm. In other words, the Israelites customarily prayed using ready-made psalms. W h y did they d o so? Probably because they believed such p o e m s to be both movingly beautiful and traditional—that is, proven to be efficacious. As an Israelite w o m a n visiting the sanctuary, h o w would H a n n a h have come to recite this particular psalm? As the person w h o had come to pray, she would have asked an official (such as a priest) for the most relevant psalm available. Perhaps because the Israelites did not have "off-the-rack" prayers for special occasions in women's lives, the official would have chosen this psalm because it contains a reference to a barren w o m a n w h o gives birth (v. 5). Furthermore, it

celebrates victory over an e n e m y — a reversal of f o r t u n e — w h i c h H a n n a h could relate to h e r rivalry w i t h P e n i n n a h , her h u s b a n d ' s o t h e r wife. O n e can imagine H a n n a h t h e n reciting this off-the-rack prayer, repeating each p h r a s e after the priest, resonating w i t h the parts c o n c e r n i n g c h i l d r e n a n d

rivalries—reciting

these verses w i t h verve, while m u m b l i n g t h r o u g h the rest. T h u s I have a c c o u n t e d for h o w a royal p s a l m of victory e n d e d u p in H a n n a h ' s m o u t h . That explanation, in t u r n , s h e d s light o n the n a t u r e of the Book of Psalms: That b o o k c o m p r i s e d poetic selections f r o m w h i c h w o r s h i p p e r s c o u l d find s o m e t h i n g relevant w h e n they felt the n e e d for formal, poetic, traditional language.

When, Where, and Why As we have seen in earlier chapters, we m u s t first identify a work's literary genre a n d social setting (what scholars call the Sitz im Leben) before we can read it correctly. This is quite difficult for psalms, most of w h i c h contain only obscure h i n t s at their b a c k g r o u n d . For e x a m p l e , Psalm 1 1 8 : 2 7 c o n t a i n s the ritual instruction "bind the festal offering to the h o r n s of the altar w i t h cords," so we k n o w that w o r s h i p p e r s (or p e r h a p s Levites) recited this p s a l m d u r i n g the sacrifice of a festival offering. But most p s a l m s are silent a b o u t w h i c h particular rituals, if any, they are associated. Most ritual texts, in t u r n , are silent a b o u t their c o n n e c t i o n s to particular p s a l m s . 6 Consequently, d i s c e r n i n g the social setting of psalms involves a lot of guessing. Such speculation is useful, however, if it h e l p s guide u s t o w a r d the ancient m e a n i n g of psalms. Psalm 6 reads: (1) For the leader; w i t h i n s t r u m e n t a l m u s i c o n the sheminith. A p s a l m of David. (2) Ο LORD, d o not p u n i s h m e in anger, / d o n o t chastise m e in fury. / (3) Have m e r c y on m e , Ο LORD, for 1 languish; / heal m e , Ο LORD, for m y b o n e s s h a k e w i t h terror. / (4) My w h o l e b e i n g is stricken w i t h terror, / while You, LORD—O, h o w long! / (5) Ο LORD, t u r n ! Rescue me! / Deliver m e as befits Your faithfulness. / (6) For there is n o praise of You a m o n g the dead; / in Sheol, w h o can acclaim You? / (7) I a m w e a r y w i t h groaning; / every night I d r e n c h m y b e d , / I melt m y c o u c h in tears. / (8) My eyes are w a s t e d b y vexation, / w o r n o u t because of all m y foes. / (9) Away f r o m m e , all you evildoers, / for the LORD h a s h e e d ed the s o u n d of m y w e e p i n g . / (10) T h e LORD h a s h e e d e d m y plea, / the LORD

will accept m y prayer. / (11) All m y e n e m i e s will be frustrated a n d

stricken with terror; / they will turn back in an instant, frustrated (transi, adapted). In terms of its structure and elements, this psalm resembles Hannah's prose prayer in 1 Samuel 1: invocation of God, requests, and motivations (why God should heed this prayer). Invocation

Ό

Requests

"do not punish me . . . d o not chastise me. . . . Have mercy on me . . . ; heal me . . . rescue me . . . deliver me" (w. 2 - 5 ) "as befits Your faithfulness. For there is n o praise of You a m o n g the dead; in Sheol, w h o can acclaim You? I am weary with groaning; every night I drench my bed, I melt my couch in tears. My eyes are wasted by vexation, w o r n out because of all my foes" (w. 5-8)

Motivations

L O R D " (V. 2 )

The psalms' expressed motivations give us insight into h o w the ancient Israelites u n d e r s t o o d what would move or satisfy God. In this case, for example, the poet assumes that God enjoys praise. Indeed, the speaker almost threatens God by pointing out that (to paraphrase v. 6) "if You let my enemies kill me, there will be one less person a r o u n d to praise You!"

Assigning a Genre Many psalms share the triad of elements f o u n d here—invocation, requests, and motivation. Biblical scholars have classed such psalms u n d e r the genre of "petitions." Because those psalms often begin with complaints or laments, some scholars refer to t h e m as "complaints" or "laments." 7 Sometimes their grammar suggests that individuals recited them, while other psalms couch their language in the plural. T h u s scholars subdivide the class of laments into "individual" and "communal" types. Each genre of psalm follows a c o n v e n t i o n — a script or form that was engrained in the culture. (In our culture, too, we have certain conventions for writing a personal letter versus a business letter; each type of composition has its own conventions.) For example, Psalm 22, featured in Christian tradition, opens with "My God, my God," which immediately leads into "why have You a b a n d o n e d me; / why so far from delivering me / and from my anguished roaring?" (v. 2). The psalm proceeds to present m a n y motivations for w h y God

s h o u l d listen, i n c l u d i n g "I b e c a m e Your charge at birth; / f r o m m y mother's w o m b You have b e e n m y G o d " (v. 11), a n d "Then will I proclaim Your fame to m y b r e t h r e n , / praise You in the congregation" (v. 2 3 ) . 8

Accounting for Mood S w i n g s T h u s far, o u r analysis of Psalm 6 h a s ignored the e n d : "for the LORD has h e e d e d the s o u n d of m y w e e p i n g . / T h e LORD h a s h e e d e d m y plea, / the LORD will accept m y prayer. / All m y e n e m i e s will be frustrated a n d stricken w i t h terror; / they will t u r n b a c k in an instant, frustrated" ( w . 9 b - l l ; transi, a d a p t e d ) . These verses are p u z z l i n g partly because their grammatical tense does n o t seem to fit the c o n t e x t . 9 Some of the verbs s e e m to depict actions that are c o m p l e t e d or are in the past ("has h e e d e d . . . has heeded"). But h o w can the s p e a k e r say this, given the dire straits j u s t described? F u r t h e r m o r e , the m o o d has shifted sharply a n d inexplicably. S u c h a d r a m a t i c c h a n g e in the m o o d of a p s a l m is actually f r e q u e n t — w h i c h of course only h e i g h t e n s the p r o b l e m . It is f o u n d , for example, in the lament of Psalm 3, w h e r e there is m o v e m e n t f r o m Ό LORD, m y foes are so many! / Many are those w h o attack me" (v. 2) to "I have n o fear of the myriad forces / arrayed against m e o n every side. . . . For You Have slapped all m y enemies in the face; / You have b r o k e n the teeth of the w i c k e d " ( w . 7 - 8 ; transi, a d a p t e d ) . Seeing b o t h a change of tense a n d the s u d d e n s p r o u t i n g of c o n f i d e n c e in m a n y l a m e n t s raises the q u e s t i o n that form-criticism addresses: W h a t social setting (Sitz im Leben) can explain this m o o d swing? Form-criticism o f t e n asks great q u e s t i o n s that it c a n n o t a n s w e r decisively. T h u s , we c a n n o t identify w i t h certainty the social setting of petitions that c o n tain the c o n f i d e n c e motif that we have j u s t described. Many form-critics suggest that w o r s h i p p e r s u s e d to recite these p s a l m s in a temple, w h e r e an individual ( w h o m the scholars often call a "cultic p r o p h e t " 1 0 ) heard each c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e n let the petitioner k n o w w h e t h e r G o d w a s sympathetic. After h a v i n g b e e n told that G o d h e e d e d the l a m e n t , the petitioner w o u l d recite the lines expressing c o n f i d e n c e (such as "for the LORD h a s h e e d e d the s o u n d of m y w e e p i n g . / T h e LORD has h e e d e d m y plea, / the LORD will accept m y prayer"; 6 : 9 b - 1 0 ) . 1 1 That r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of certain psalms' ritual setting finds s o m e s u p p o r t f r o m biblical passages that describe a dialogue w i t h God. O n e verse that m a y allude to s u c h a ritual exchange is "You have ever d r a w n nigh w h e n I called You; / You have said, 'Do n o t fear!'" (Lam. 3:57).

Several Genres in Psalms We have looked carefully at a few p s a l m s so as to posit their genres. This has h e l p e d u s to u n d e r s t a n d the p s a l m w i t h i n the larger genre of w h i c h it s e e m s to partake. So far we have discussed t w o genres: the h y m n (Hannah's song) a n d the petition (Pss. 3, 6, a n d 22). A n o t h e r genre is the "entrance liturgy," a p p a r e n t l y recited b y the w o r s h i p p e r w h o is a b o u t to enter the Temple precincts. For e x a m pie, Psalm 15 begins "LORD, w h o m a y s o j o u r n in Your tent, / w h o m a y dwell o n Your holy m o u n t a i n ? / He w h o lives w i t h o u t b l a m e . . . " Part of Psalm 2 4 shares the same genre: " W h o m a y ascend the m o u n t a i n of the LORD? / W h o m a y stand in His holy p l a c e ? — / H e w h o has clean h a n d s a n d a p u r e h e a r t . . . " ( w . 3 - 4 ) . 1 2 Again, n o explicit ritual text in Leviticus or Kings m e n t i o n s s u c h a liturgy. Rather, o u r a t t e m p t to explain these p s a l m s a n d their s t r u c t u r e is w h a t motivates the reconstruction. The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , in t u r n , helps u s read a n d u n d e r s t a n d the p s a l m better. Certainly, this is s o m e w h a t circular. We m u s t always r e m e m b e r that we are following textual clues, a n d we m u s t always ask: Is there a different social setting that w o u l d better explain the p s a l m w i t h i n its ancient context?

Time and Place Reconstructing the social setting a n s w e r s the q u e s t i o n of "why" s o m e o n e c o m p o s e d the psalms. In the same w a y — b a s e d o n textual c l u e s — w e can often reconstruct w h e n a n d w h e r e they were written. In so doing, we c a n n o t take literally the tradition that ascribes the book's a u t h o r s h i p to King David. The b o o k itself d o e s not m a k e this claim; the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s seem to attribute less t h a n half of the p s a l m s to David. Many p s a l m s attribute their origin to other figures, s u c h as the two attributed to S o l o m o n (72, 127), a n d the twelve each to A s a p h (50, 7 3 - 8 3 ) a n d to the s o n s of Korah ( 4 2 - 4 9 , 8 4 , 85, 87, 88). Even the s u p e r scriptions that d o say "Of David. A p s a l m " or "A Psalm of David" m a y not m e a n to attribute a u t h o r s h i p to h i m . Rather, s u c h f o r m u l a s m a y m e a n "a psalm in the style of David." 1 3 L o o k i n g b e y o n d the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s gives u s f u r t h e r clues for d a t i n g the psalms. T h e language of the "Davidic psalms" m a k e s clear that they are not all f r o m the same p e r i o d , a n d n o n e of t h e m reflects the early-tenth-century H e b r e w that he w o u l d have s p o k e n . In fact, the o p e n i n g of Psalm 137, "By the

rivers

of Babylon, / there we sat," indicates that the p s a l m c o m e s f r o m the postexilic p e r i o d — f o u r h u n d r e d years after David's time. O t h e r p s a l m s c o n t a i n postexilic

p h r a s e s or w o r d s . T h u s the tradition that developed in the Synagogue a n d the C h u r c h that attributed ( m u c h o f ) the b o o k to David is i n c o r r e c t . 1 4 The Psalter clearly h a s a long history, f r o m the First t h r o u g h the (early) Second Temple period. Scholars agree that most p s a l m s are c o n n e c t e d to the J e r u s a l e m Temple. Even so, s o m e of these p o e m s clearly originated elsewhere. For example, Psalm 8 0 c o n t a i n s internal h i n t s that its origin lay in the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m : "Give ear, Ο s h e p h e r d of Israel / w h o leads J o s e p h like a flock! / Appear, You w h o are e n t h r o n e d on the c h e r u b i m , / at the h e a d of Ephraim, Benjamin, a n d Manasseh! / Rouse Your m i g h t a n d c o m e to o u r help!" (w. 2 - 3 ) . This passage invokes G o d as the leader of the northern tribes. Some scholars have defined several psalms as N o r t h e r n o n the basis of their dialect, since we k n o w f r o m archaeological evid e n c e that N o r t h e r n H e b r e w w a s different t h a n J u d e a n H e b r e w . 1 ‫ י‬In s u m , the p s a l m s preserved in Psalms reflect a w i d e variety of settings, dates, a n d places of origin.

A Collection of Collections We have established that the Book of Psalms c a m e together over a long period of time. F u r t h e r evidence c o m e s f r o m the n o t a t i o n a b o u t halfway t h r o u g h the b o o k , "End of the prayers of David son of Jesse" (72:20), w h i c h m u s t m a r k the conclusion of an earlier edition of the Psalter. T h e book's d e v e l o p m e n t over time has left traces in its present structure. C o m p a r e Psalms 14 a n d 53: Psalm 14

Psalm 53

(1) For the leader. Of David.

(1) For the leader; o n mahalath.

T h e b e n i g h t e d m a n thinks, "God does n o t care."

(2)

A

maskil of David. (2) T h e b e n i g h t e d m a n thinks, "God

Man's d e e d s are c o r r u p t a n d

does n o t care." Man's w r o n g d o i n g

loathsome; n o o n e d o e s good.

is c o r r u p t a n d loathsome; n o o n e

The

does good.

LORD

looks d o w n f r o m

h e a v e n on m a n k i n d to find a m a n

(3) G o d looks d o w n f r o m heaven o n

of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,

m a n k i n d to find a m a n of

a m a n m i n d f u l of God.

u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a m a n m i n d f u l of

(3) All have t u r n e d b a d , altogether foul; there is n o n e w h o does g o o d , n o t even one. (4) Are they so witless, all those

God. (4) Everyone is dross, altogether foul; there is n o n e w h o does good, n o t even one.

evildoers, w h o d e v o u r m y p e o p l e

(5) Are they so witless, those

as they d e v o u r food, a n d d o n o t

evildoers, w h o d e v o u r m y people

invoke the LORD?

as they d e v o u r food, a n d d o n o t

(5) There they will be seized w i t h fright, for G o d is present in the circle of the righteous. (6) You m a y set at n a u g h t the c o u n s e l

invoke God? (6) There they will be seized w i t h f r i g h t — n e v e r w a s there s u c h a f r i g h t — f o r G o d has scattered the

of the lowly, b u t the LORD is his

b o n e s of y o u r besiegers; y o u

refuge.

have p u t t h e m to s h a m e , for G o d

(7) Ο that the deliverance of Israel m i g h t c o m e f r o m Zion! W h e n the LORD

restores the f o r t u n e s of His

h a s rejected t h e m . (7) Ο that the deliverance of Israel m i g h t c o m e f r o m Zion! W h e n

people, J a c o b will exult, Israel

G o d restores the f o r t u n e s of His

will rejoice.

people, J a c o b will exult, Israel will rejoice.

Clearly this is a single psalm, preserved in t w o slightly different versions. T h e discrepancies result f r o m changes a n d errors d u r i n g textual transmission. A single editor p r o b a b l y w o u l d n o t have i n c l u d e d b o t h versions. More likely, each p s a l m already existed in t w o different collections. Later, an editor of the Psalter a p p a r e n t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d b o t h collections. In o t h e r w o r d s , Psalms is a collection of collections. F u r t h e r evidence that Psalms 14 a n d 5 3 c a m e f r o m t w o separate collections is the language e m p l o y e d to refer to the Deity. T h e last two verses of Psalm 14 consistently use YHWH ("the L O R D " ) , w h e r e a s the same verses in Psalm 53 use Elohim ("God"). If we step b a c k f r o m these t w o psalms, we can see a larger pattern: Psalms 4 8 - 8 3 f o r m a collection that, c o m p a r e d to the rest of the Psalter, prefers to e m p l o y Elohim. T h e difference in the relative use of these n a m e s is striking: Psalms 4 8 - 8 3 :

Elohim, 2 1 0 times; YHWH, 4 5 times

Rest of the Psalter:

Elohim, 9 4 times; YHWH, 5 8 4 times

O n the basis of this c o m p a r i s o n , scholars c o n s i d e r c h a p t e r s 4 8 - 8 3 to be a collection in its o w n right, w h i c h they call the "Elohistic Psalter," since it relies u p o n the n a m e

Elohim.

We can spot o t h e r collections as well. For e x a m p l e , Psalms 1 2 0 - 1 3 4 all begin with "A Song of Ascents" or a similar formula. (We are n o longer sure w h a t a Song of Ascent is. 1 6 ) Psalms 7 3 - 8 3 , w h o s e s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s attribute t h e m to

Asaph, once formed a separate collection. (Psalm 50 has a similar attribution, b u t it is n o w in a different part of the book.) The final five psalms begin with "Hallelujah!" In s u m , we can be quite certain that the Psalter comprises a collection of collections.

Psalms as an Orderly Book Given the evidence surveyed in the previous section, perhaps Psalms is not really a b o o k at all; it w o u l d seem to be a hodge-podge. We can n o longer determine w h y each psalm is in its place. Even so, we can discern some general principles of ordering for Psalms. That order is sufficient to consider Psalms a true b o o k . 1 7 O n the simplest level of organization, we see that the laments predominate at the beginning of the Psalter, whereas the h y m n s appear mostly at its end. Thus, Psalms moves from complaint to thanksgiving, from being troubled to being joyful. That is a c o m m o n biblical structure, as in prophetic books that begin with rebuke a n d end with consolation (see esp. Ezekiel). The structure of Psalms is more complex as well. A formula that praises God (what scholars call a "doxology") occurs four times, with only slight variation: Blessed is the LORD, God of Israel, / from eternity to eternity. / Amen and Amen. (41:14) Blessed is His glorious n a m e forever; / His glory fills the whole world. / Amen and Amen. / End of the prayers of David son of Jesse. ( 7 2 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) Blessed is the

LORD

forever; / Amen and Amen.

(89:53)

Blessed is the LORD, God of Israel, / F r o m eternity to eternity. / Let all the people say, "Amen." / Hallelujah. (106:48) Functionally speaking, these formulas divide the b o o k into five parts. Linguistic a n d contextual evidence suggests that these formulas are not an original part of the book. In other words, a later editor inserted t h e m so as to create a five-part composition. The book's conclusion reinforces that five-part structure, for it exuberantly underscores the earlier praise formulas (we might call it a "megadoxology"): (150:1) Hallelujah. Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the sky, His stronghold. (2) Praise H i m for His mighty acts; praise Him for His exceeding greatness. (3) Praise Him with blasts of the h o r n ; praise Him

w i t h h a r p a n d lyre. (4) Praise H i m w i t h timbrel a n d dance; praise H i m w i t h lute a n d pipe. (5) Praise H i m w i t h r e s o u n d i n g cymbals; praise H i m w i t h loud-clashing cymbals. (6) Let all that b r e a t h e s praise the

LORD.

Hallelujah. W h a t is the p u r p o s e of this five-part division? Psalms tells u s at its very beginning. Possibly the same editor w h o a d d e d the five doxologies also placed Psalm 1 as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Psalter. It s p e a k s of the righteous p e r s o n for w h o m "the Torah of the

LORD

is his delight, a n d h e studies that Torah day a n d night"

(v 2). As an orientation to the b o o k , that verse a c c o m p l i s h e s t w o things. First, h e r e — a t the start of K e t h u v i m — t h e third m a j o r p o r t i o n of the H e b r e w Bible— it asserts the p r i m a c y of the Torah. Of the three parts of the Bible, the Torah is the first a m o n g equals (scholars use the Latin expression primus inter pares). It is the only p o r t i o n that gets m e n t i o n e d at the b e g i n n i n g of the o t h e r t w o . 1 8 In a d d i t i o n , the a p p r o b a t i o n for s t u d y i n g "Torah" in v. 2 is actually d o u b l e voiced. That is, the righteous p e r s o n is s u p p o s e d to s t u d y n o t only the Five Books of Moses b u t also this s e c o n d "Torah," the five-part Book of Psalms. If so, t h e n the editor w h o created the five-part s t r u c t u r e h e a d e d by Psalm 1 offered u s an a m a z i n g rereading of the Book of Psalms. It is n o t merely a c o m p i l a t i o n of old p o e m s for w o r s h i p p e r s to recite as prayers. Rather, it is n o w a b o o k — s o m e t h i n g to be studied.

23 "Acquire Wisdom" Reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes Primary Reading: Proverbs 1,3,6, 7-8,

7, 10, 22, 23, 30, 31; Ecclesiastes

1-3,

10,12.

Outside the Bible's Theological Triangle Even

a cursory glance at the b o o k s of Proverbs a n d of Ecclesiastes suggests

that they are unlike a n y t h i n g we have e n c o u n t e r e d so far. They are not instruction in the same way that Torah is—Proverbs, for example, is largely c o m p o s e d of pithy sayings that are not m a r k e d as having divine origin. N o r are they Israelite historical texts—while Proverbs a n d Ecclesiastes d o m e n t i o n

King

S o l o m o n , they record little in the way of actual events. N o r are the t w o b o o k s p r o p h e t i c — t h e p r o f o u n d s e n t i m e n t s of Ecclesiastes, for e x a m p l e , are w o r d s of that preacher; they are not u n d e r s t o o d to be divine. T h e messenger formula "thus said the LORD" is lacking in b o t h b o o k s . The same is true of a third biblical b o o k , J o b , w h i c h is the focus of the next c h a p t e r yet treated in this c h a p t e r insofar as it is similar to Proverbs a n d to Ecclesiastes. G o d c o m m u n i c a t e s directly w i t h a h u m a n b e i n g only at the very e n d , a n d even there provides n o real g u i d a n c e o n h o w to live. T h e story of J o b is set in the land of U z — n o t in Israel, a n d it does n o t involve Israelites. T h e b o o k s h o w s n o interest in the Israelite past. It bears n o p r o p h e t i c message. These three b o o k s share certain o t h e r features, too. They all contain a prep o n d e r a n c e of a p h o r i s m s a n d proverbs. 1 Together they account for most of the Bible's usages of the abstract n o u n chokhmah

( ‫ ח כ מ ה‬, "wisdom"; 8 8 out of a total

of 161) a n d of verbs f o r m e d f r o m the root ch-kh-m,

( ‫ ח כ ם‬, "to be wise"; 9 6 o u t

of 166). This, c o m b i n e d with o t h e r factors, suggests to m a n y that the three b o o k s e m a n a t e f r o m a w i s d o m s c h o o l — a l t h o u g h exactly w h a t that school was still eludes u s . 2 T h e y also all engage in e x p l o r i n g the p r o p e r cosmic order. 3

A certain lack b i n d s these b o o k s strongly together: they all lack expressions of c o n c e r n for the c o v e n a n t that u n i t e s Israel a n d God. In fact, c o n c e r n w i t h Israel as a nation

is a b s e n t — a s n o t e d , J o b does n o t even m e n t i o n

Israel.

F u r t h e r m o r e , these b o o k s c o n c e r n themselves m o r e w i t h the individual t h a n w i t h "corporate Israel." Stated differently, these three b o o k s lie outside of the Bibles theological triangle. That is, m o s t of the Bible is interested in the relationships b e t w e e n God, the p e o p l e Israel, a n d the land of Israel. I can portray those three c o n c e r n s as the c o r n e r s of a triangle (see diagram). At the center of the triangle lies the covenant, because its goal is to unite the three entities: if the people of Israel u p h o l d the c o v e n a n t of the G o d of Israel, they will possess the land of Israel. God

This thesis is a m a i n t h e m e of the Torah, w h i c h evokes it often in its land p r o m ises, a n d in the great r e b u k e s in Leviticus 2 6 a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 28. Meanwhile, the historical b o o k s of Nevi'im narrate the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Israel's observance of the law a n d its land tenure. T h e p r o p h e t i c b o o k s offer w a r n i n g s to Israel, telling t h e m h o w to r e m a i n o n the l a n d — o r h o w to repossess it. Such a cluster of t h e m e s is absent in the three b o o k s of

Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b . F u r t h e r m o r e , in places, their perspective o n "covenantal" c o n c e r n s is at o d d s w i t h the o t h e r biblical b o o k s . For example, b o t h Torah a n d p r o p h e t i c texts e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e of s u p p o r t i n g the poor, as m a y be seen w h e n D e u t e r o n o m y discusses the remission of d e b t s every seventh year: (15:9) Beware lest you h a r b o r the base t h o u g h t , "The seventh year, the year of remission, is a p p r o a c h i n g , " so that y o u are m e a n to y o u r n e e d y k i n s m a n a n d give h i m n o t h i n g . He will cry o u t to the

LORD

against y o u ,

a n d y o u will i n c u r guilt. (10) Give to h i m readily a n d have n o regrets w h e n y o u d o so, for in r e t u r n the

LORD

y o u r G o d will bless y o u in all

y o u r efforts a n d in all y o u r u n d e r t a k i n g s . (11) For there will never cease to be n e e d y o n e s in y o u r land, w h i c h is w h y I c o m m a n d you: o p e n y o u r h a n d to the p o o r a n d n e e d y k i n s m a n in y o u r land.

Likewise, Amos, a prophetic text, shows a strong concern for the poor: (2:6) T h u s said the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, / For four, I will not revoke it: / Because they have sold for silver / Those whose cause was just, / And the needy for a pair of sandals. / (7) Ah, you w h o trample the heads of the poor / Into the dust of the ground . . . In contrast, Proverbs chides one w h o has bothered to help out a poor person by cosigning a loan: (6:1) My son, if you have stood surety for your fellow, / Given your h a n d for another, / (2) You have been trapped by the words of your m o u t h , / Snared by the words of your m o u t h . / (3) Do this, then, my son, to extricate yourself, / For you have come into the power of your fellow: / Go grovel—and badger your fellow; / (4) Give your eyes n o sleep, / Your pupils n o slumber. / (5) Save yourself like a deer out of the h a n d of a hunter, / Like a bird out of the h a n d of a fowler. It is hard to believe that Proverbs—with its practical yet less compassionate attitude toward the p o o r — a p p e a r s in the same Bible as Deuteronomy a n d Amos! Even in cases where all biblical books agree that something is b a d or good, Proverbs presents the issue in a distinctive manner. For example, the entire Bible is anti-adultery. (The Bible defines adultery as a m a n s having sexual intercourse with a w o m a n w h o is married to another man.) In the Torah, adultery is a capital offense: "If a m a n is f o u n d lying with another man's wife, both of t h e m . . . shall die. T h u s you will sweep away evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22). In the Torah's narrative, Joseph recognizes the seriousness of adultery w h e n he says to Mrs. Potiphar: "How then could I do this most wicked thing, a n d sin before God?" (Gen. 39:9). In contrast, Proverbs c o n d e m n s adultery as an offense not against God b u t rather against the woman's h u s b a n d : (6:32) He w h o commits adultery is devoid of sense; / Only one w h o w o u l d destroy himself does such a thing. / (33) He will meet with disease a n d disgrace; / His reproach will never be expunged. / (34) The fury of the h u s b a n d will be passionate; / He will show n o pity o n his day of vengeance. / (35) He will not have regard for any ransom; / He will refuse your bribe, however great. In this respect, Proverbs' view of adultery is like that in the rest of the Near Eastern world. Indeed, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b are more international in their purview than other books in the Bible. This is most obvious in the sections of

Proverbs that e c h o an earlier Egyptian text called The Instruction

of

Amenemope,

as we shall see below. But all three b o o k s s h o w m a n y m o r e similarities—in style a n d in specific p h r a s e s a n d l i n e s — t o pre-Israelite literature. Apparently the a u t h o r s of these biblical b o o k s h a d access to this non-Israelite m a t e r i a l — a n d saw fit to m a k e use of it. Given the similarities a m o n g these three b o o k s , a n d their differences f r o m the rest of the Bible, scholars c u s t o m a r i l y refer to t h e m t o g e t h e r as " W i s d o m Literature." 4 N o t all scholars agree that this is the best t e r m . 5 At the s a m e time, m a n y scholars believe that the s c o p e of this literature e x t e n d s b e y o n d these three b o o k s . 6 Yet in the s a m e w a y that Leviticus a n d D e u t e r o n o m y m a y be s t u d i e d t o g e t h e r usefully as Torah, or that Isaiah a n d Ezekiel m a y be s t u d i e d together

effectively as classical

prophecy,

the

three

books

of

Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b can be e x a m i n e d p r o d u c t i v e l y w i t h regard to each other. Also, given their i n t e r n a t i o n a l flavor, it is o f t e n h e l p f u l to read t h e m against o t h e r ancient Near Eastern texts, r a t h e r t h a n in light of the Torah or Israelite p r o p h e t i c texts.

What Is Proverbs? Proverbs is a collection of smaller collections of diverse proverbs a n d other didactic material f r o m diverse settings, s o m e of w h i c h reflect international influence. As o u r discussion will show, the attribution to King S o l o m o n in 1:1 is n o t historically accurate. Many of its adages address the pursuit of w i s d o m or righteousness.

Patterns That Reveal the Book's Nature T h e same types of evidence that led u s to c o n c l u d e that Psalms is a collection of collections (see c h a p t e r 22) a p p l y to Proverbs as well. Partway t h r o u g h this b o o k , a notice reads: "These too are p r o v e r b s of S o l o m o n , w h i c h the m e n of King Hezekiah of J u d a h copied" (25:1), indicating that Proverbs once c o n c l u d ed j u s t before that point. In addition, the b o o k repeats m a n y of its proverbs. For e x a m p l e , b o t h Proverbs 14:12 a n d 16:25 read: "A road m a y seem right to a m a n , / But in the e n d it is a road to d e a t h . " 7 O t h e r p r o v e r b s are told in nearly identical forms, for example: "Ill-gotten wealth is of n o avail, / But righteousness saves f r o m d e a t h " (10:2) a n d "Wealth is of n o avail on the day of w r a t h , / But

righteousness saves from death" (11:4). 8 Both p h e n o m e n a suggest that a proverb (sometimes altered during transmission) f o u n d its way into more than one collection, which a later editor compiled into the larger book. Occasionally, two separate verses share only half of a proverb while their respective other halves each reflect a distinct viewpoint. For example, the following verses give two different answers to the question of h o w to live long and well: The instruction of a wise m a n is a fountain of life, / Enabling one to avoid deadly snares. (13:14) Fear of the

LORD

is a fountain of life, / Enabling one to avoid deadly

snares. (14:27) The difference in perspective is significant. The first proverb is secular—it advocates following the words of a wise sage, w h o is not necessarily righteous in terms of following divine law. To recast its message in m o d e r n terms: go gain the type of practical w i s d o m taught in secular schools, for those skills will keep you out of trouble. In contrast, the second proverb is religious. In m o d e r n terms, it r e c o m m e n d s going to synagogue or church. To give another example, the following pair offers the same contrast in perspective: The horse is readied for the day of battle, / But victory comes from the LORD

(21:31).

For by stratagems you wage war, / And victory comes with m u c h planning (24:6). The first proverb holds that God causes all ("theonomy"), whereas the second one suggests that h u m a n s control their own fate ("autonomy"). Thus, proverbs in Proverbs seem to have two very different perspectives: God is either the m a j o r player or else ignored altogether. The first type e m p h a sizes "fear of God," "righteousness," and "wickedness," while the second type highlights "wisdom," "being wise," a n d "being foolish." Words that characterize one type rarely appear together with words that typify the other type. 9 Some scholars believe that these two types reflect different worldviews: 1 0 in one, God micromanages; in the other, things just h a p p e n . 1 1 Alternately, the same person may have u p h e l d each of these views at different times. But at any rate, each proverb presents only one point of view.

T h e Central Section

T h e b u l k of Proverbs ( 1 0 : 1 - 2 2 : 1 6 ) is c o m p r i s e d of t w o - p a r t sayings in w h i c h the s e c o n d part o p p o s e s the first part (a poetic f o r m called "antithetical parallelism"; see c h a p t e r 17). These sayings seem to have n o c o n n e c t i o n one to the next. Here is a typical three-verse-long passage f r o m this section of the b o o k : (10:4) Negligent h a n d s cause p o v e r t y / But diligent h a n d s enrich. (5) He w h o lays in stores d u r i n g the s u m m e r is a capable son, / But he w h o sleeps d u r i n g the harvest is an i n c o m p e t e n t . (6) Blessings light u p o n the h e a d of the righteous, / But lawlessness covers the m o u t h of the w i c k e d . For s o m e reason, the editors of Proverbs prefer sayings of this type, w h i c h is often r e d u n d a n t . S u c h a preference is o d d ; surely the ancient Israelites did n o t c o m p o s e all their p r o v e r b s in this f o r m . I n d e e d , m o s t p o p u l a r p r o v e r b s q u o t e d elsewhere in the Bible a n d the ancient Near East a p p e a r in a w i d e range of o t h e r forms, s u c h as " H o w can straw be c o m p a r e d to grain?" (Jer. 2 3 : 2 8 ) , or "Let n o t h i m w h o girds on his s w o r d boast like h i m w h o u n g i r d s it!" (1 Kings 2 0 : 1 1 ) . 1 2

T h e First Section

Very different f r o m the book's center section is its o p e n i n g (chaps. 1 - 9 ) . It c o n tains n o n e of those i n d e p e n d e n t , pithy, t w o - p a r t sayings. Instead, this section presents a p a e a n to w i s d o m as an ideal. It develops this t h e m e t h r o u g h several s p e e c h e s a d d r e s s e d to a y o u n g adult male, w h i c h contrast t w o w o m e n : an archetypal (yet real) w o m a n , d e p i c t e d as a f o r e i g n 1 3 seductress; a n d chokhmah "wisdom"), personified as female in vivid t e r m s .

14

(‫חכמה‬,

In a d d i t i o n to glorifying wis-

d o m , this section drives h o m e the p o i n t that the real w o m a n — t h e s m o o t h - t a l k ing t e m p t r e s s — i s deadly: "a h i g h w a y to Sheol / Leading d o w n to Death's i n n e r c h a m b e r s " (7:27). O b v i o u s l y this section is x e n o p h o b i c a n d misogynistic; we d o n o t k n o w w h y s u c h o p i n i o n s figure so p r o m i n e n t l y in Proverbs' i n t r o d u c t i o n . 1 5

T h e T h i r d Section

T h e book's third section is also quite distinct f r o m the first t w o sections described above. It begins w i t h a n e w i n t r o d u c t i o n of its o w n ( 2 2 : 1 7 - 2 1 ) . T h e n

it p r e s e n t s a n u m b e r of sayings that are several verses long; for example: " W h e n y o u sit d o w n to dine w i t h a ruler, / C o n s i d e r well w h o is before you. / T h r u s t a knife into y o u r gullet / If you have a large appetite. / Do n o t crave for his dainties, / For they are counterfeit food" ( 2 3 : 1 - 3 ) . Following that subsection is the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n m e n t i o n e d earlier, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e s a n o t h e r subsection w i t h m o r e of the same: "These too are p r o v e r b s of S o l o m o n , w h i c h the m e n of King Hezekiah of J u d a h copied" (25:1). T h e m a i n p o r t i o n of this section ( 2 2 : 1 7 - 2 4 : 3 4 ) is w h e r e we find m a n y similarities—as Amenemope.

16

mentioned

above—to

an

Egyptian

work,

The

Instruction

of

T h e similarities i n c l u d e the following pairings:

Do n o t rob the w r e t c h e d because he is w r e t c h e d ; / Do n o t c r u s h the p o o r m a n in the gate. (Proverbs 2 2 : 2 2 ) Beware of r o b b i n g a w r e t c h , / Of attacking a cripple. ( A m e n e m o p e 2) Do n o t r e m o v e the ancient b o u n d a r y stone / That y o u r ancestors set u p . (Proverbs 2 2 : 2 8 ) Do n o t r e m o v e ancient b o u n d a r y stones; / Do n o t e n c r o a c h u p o n the field of o r p h a n s , / For they have a m i g h t y K i n s m a n , / A n d He will surely take u p their cause w i t h you. (Proverbs 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) Do not m o v e the m a r k e r s o n the b o r d e r s of fields, / N o r shift the position of the m e a s u r i n g - c o r d . / Do n o t be greedy for a cubit of land, / N o r e n c r o a c h o n the b o u n d a r i e s of a widow. ( A m e n e m o p e 6) T h e t w o b o o k s share too m u c h w o r d i n g to be i n d e p e n d e n t w o r k s . But w h i c h b o r r o w e d f r o m which? C o n s i d e r that o n e verse in Proverbs m a k e s sense only w h e n we a s s u m e that its editor b o r r o w e d material f r o m s o m e f o r m of Amenemope.

That verse reads: "Indeed, I wrote d o w n for you a threefold lore"

(22:20). This is o b s c u r e — t h e r e is n o t h i n g "threefold" in the context. We can resolve the p r o b l e m if we a s s u m e that the vowels of one w o r d b e c a m e c o r r u p t ed in transmission. (The Masoretic tradition already acts as if o n e of the letters suffered f r o m a scribal error at s o m e point.) If instead of the Masoretic reading of the c o n s o n a n t s ‫ ש ל י ש י ם‬as shalishim ("threefold") we read sheloshim w e can u n d e r s t a n d this verse as a reference to the thirty sections of

("thirty"), Amenemope.

We c a n n o t k n o w exactly h o w a n d w h e n an Israelite editor e m p l o y e d a version of that earlier w o r k , in part because the history of c o m p o s i t i o n of Proverbs is c o m p l e x (as the structure discussed so far indicates). Yet it a p p e a r s that an editor of Proverbs c h a n g e d the n a m e of the deity m e n t i o n e d in the Egyptian b o o k , while leaving m u c h of the rest alone.

The Final Section The continuation of Proverbs contains a variety of material. Some of it resembles what we have seen earlier. Other passages are quite different. This includes a collection of numerical sayings, such as: "The earth s h u d d e r s at three things, / At four which it cannot bear: / A slave w h o becomes king; / A scoundrel sated with food; / A loathsome w o m a n w h o gets married; / A slave-girl w h o supplants her mistress" ( 3 0 : 2 1 - 2 3 ) . Also u n i q u e is the acrostic paean to the "capable wife" ( 3 1 : 1 0 - 3 1 ) , which concludes the book. In other words, passages on the topic of w o m e n frame the Book of Proverbs at its beginning a n d e n d . 1 7

Reading Proverbs Each section of Proverbs presents particular challenges. The first nine chapters, with their caricature of a "foreign w o m a n , " is by todays egalitarian standards offensive. In the second, central section, m a n y proverbs are too obvious to excite, such as: "A wise son brings joy to his father; / A dull son is his mother's sorrow" (10:1). They p r o m p t unanswerable questions, such as: For w h o m were these words intended? Were they meant for educating children? 1 8 Other sayings, however, are colorful and surprising; like the best of m o d e r n proverbs, they provoke the reader to think about the associations that they make. For example: "A gold ring in the snout of a pig. / A beautiful w o m a n bereft of sense" (11:22; transi, a d a p t e d ) . 1 9 Perhaps the most challenging part of reading Proverbs is taking it on its own terms, removed from other biblical literature. Most interpreters have failed to do so. Thus, Yeshua (Joshua) Ben-Sirach, a sage living in the second century B.C.E., identified "wisdom" with "fear of the LORD," conflating what in Proverbs had been two distinct ideas (see above, "Patterns That Reveal the Book's Nature"). For example, Ben-Sirach opens his book with the observation that "all wisdom is from the LORD," and elsewhere it notes that "the whole of w i s d o m is fear of the Lord" (19:20). 2 0 This identification of w i s d o m and righteousness became standard in later J u d a i s m — s o m u c h so that later generations took the word "wisdorn" in Proverbs to mean "Torah." T h u s Jewish tradition has long understood Torah, a n d not simply wisdom, to be the subject of the famous verse, "She is a tree of life to those w h o grasp her, / And whoever holds on to her is happy" (Prov. 3:18; compare v. 13). Historical-critical study encourages us to strip away such later identifications, and to u n d e r s t a n d such texts on their own terms—that is, in reference to secular wisdom.

Ecclesiastes: Utter Futility! Ecclesiastes, also k n o w n by its H e b r e w title Kohelet (or Koheleth, Qohelet, or Q o h e l e t h ) , is one of the Bibles m o s t challenging books. Part of the p r o b l e m derives f r o m o u r lack of a clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g the history of its c o m p o s i t i o n . Most scholars suggest that the b o o k e n d s with a s e c o n d a r y set of a p p e n d i c e s in 1 2 : 9 - 1 4 , w h i c h a t t e m p t to m a k e a rather radical b o o k m o r e acceptable. 2 1 I n d e e d , if we set aside these verses to look at the "original" w o r k , we see a b o o k that

is neatly b r a c k e t e d

by an inclusio:

1:2 reads "Utter

futility!—said

K o h e l e t h — U t t e r futility! All is futile!"; 12:8 s e c o n d s that view by nearly repeating it, "Utter futility—said Koheleth—All is futile!" But even apart f r o m the d r a m a t i c shift of direction in the last six verses, the b o o k is very difficult. It c o n t a i n s a large n u m b e r of genres, i n c l u d i n g m o n o logue (chaps. 1 - 2 ) , p o e t r y (chaps. 3, 12), a n d proverbial sayings (chaps. 7, 10). H o w these c o m p o s i t i o n s c o m b i n e to create m e a n i n g is o f t e n n o t clear. F u r t h e r , the p r o t a g o n i s t q u o t e s n o t only p r o v e r b s that he agrees w i t h , b u t also p o p u l a r p r o v e r b s that he w i s h e s to s h o w are w r o n g , 2 2 yet o f t e n we c a n n o t tell w h i c h are w h i c h . Despite the barriers that we face, we d o hold several keys to reading Ecclesiastes. 2 3 First, we k n o w based on its vocabulary a n d style that it is a wisd o m b o o k , a n d as s u c h it is full of observations. The protagonist, Koheleth ( w h o m the b o o k seems to identify w i t h King S o l o m o n ; 2 4 1:1, 12, 16), is c o n stantly finding, looking, a n d observing. I n d e e d , the w o r d ra'iti ( , ‫" ״ ר א י ת‬I saw, I f o u n d , I observed") a p p e a r s eighteen times in this short b o o k . As in Proverbs, s t u d e n t s learn n o t t h r o u g h Torah study, n o r t h r o u g h p r o p h e t i c oracles, b u t t h r o u g h observation. Ecclesiastes, however, differs f r o m Proverbs in one

remarkable

facet:

Proverbs treats w i s d o m as positive, w h e r e a s Ecclesiastes—having e x p e r i m e n t e d with b o t h w i s d o m a n d f o o l i s h n e s s — f i n d s that w i s d o m too has limitations: (2:15) "The fate of the fool is also destined for me; to w h a t advantage, t h e n , have I been wise?" A n d I c a m e to the conclusion that that too was futile, (16) because the wise m a n , j u s t like the fool, is n o t r e m e m b e r e d forever; for, as the s u c c e e d i n g days roll by, b o t h are forgotten. Alas, the wise m a n dies, j u s t like the fool! In o t h e r w o r d s , w i s d o m is fleeting, because the wise m a n does n o t get credit for his perspicacity; thus, later generations d o n o t r e m e m b e r h i m . An a n e c d o t e in 9 : 1 3 - 1 5 c o n f i r m s this view: a p o o r wise m a n w h o saves a city is forgotten. Koheleth t h e n concludes, using the form of point a n d c o u n t e r p o i n t : "So 1

observed: W i s d o m is better than valor; but: A poor man's w i s d o m is scorned, / And his w o r d s are not heeded" (v. 16). A second key to the b o o k is that it assumes a vast gap between God and peopie: God controls everything in the world, but people cannot u n d e r s t a n d h o w He does this. As a result of that chasm, it views people's vaunted w i s d o m as actually worthless. Koheleth states this quite clearly: "and I have observed all that God brings to pass. Indeed, m a n cannot guess the events that occur u n d e r the sun. For m a n tries strenuously, but fails to guess them; and even if a sage should think to discover t h e m he would not be able to guess them" (8:17). T h u s a m a j o r theme of the b o o k is God's control of the w o r l d — a domination that is both complete a n d inscrutable. Indeed, this is the point of the book's famous poem: (3:1) A season is set for everything, a time for every experience u n d e r heaven: / (2) A time for being b o r n and a time for dying, / A time for planting a n d a time for uprooting the planted. . . . / (8) A time for loving a n d a time for hating; / A time for war a n d a time for peace. The point is that God has determined what these "seasons" should be; n o t h i n g that h u m a n s do can change t h e m . 2 5 People are powerless to change what God has determined. Moreover, they cannot even k n o w w h e n those seasons occur. As the same passage p u t s it: "I have observed the business that God gave m a n to be concerned with: He brings everything to pass precisely at its time; He also p u t s eternity [= the desire to k n o w the future] in their m i n d , b u t without m a n ever guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass" (w. 1 0 - 1 1 ) . Such extreme determinism distinguishes Ecclesiastes from the rest of the Bible. 2 6 O n e might think that people's reaction to a world in which they are pawns, in which God "holds all the cards," would cause suicidal pessimism. However, this same passage tells us that "the only worthwhile thing there is for them is to enjoy themselves a n d d o what is good in their lifetime; also, . . . whenever a m a n does eat and drink a n d get e n j o y m e n t out of all his wealth, it is a gift of God" (w. 12-13). Irony of ironies: try to be happy, b u t it is God w h o will decide if you will be h a p p y or not. This leads us to the book's third key: happiness is one of its major themes. 2 7 Koheleth concludes that "the only good a m a n can have u n d e r the sun is to eat and drink and enjoy himself. That m u c h can accompany him . . . through the days of life that God has granted h i m u n d e r the sun" (8:15). Elsewhere the Bible has n o problems with happiness. W h a t makes Ecclesiastes exceptional is its giving a central role to happiness, "the gift of God" (3:13; 5:18).

More Wisdom The theme of wisdom will continue in the next chapter, as we explore Job. Like Proverbs and Koheleth, J o b emphasizes the importance of experience in u n d e r standing h o w the world functions. Yet the experience of the author of J o b seems to have differed remarkably from that of the authors of the other two works, yielding a m u c h more enigmatic and p r o f o u n d work.

24 "Being But Dust and Ashes" Reading Job Primary Reading: Job. (Note: This is a beautiful b u t c o m p l i c a t e d b o o k ; it is difficult to read in one sitting.)

Beyond Difficult

I

n c h a p t e r 23, I treated J o b as one of three e x e m p l a r s of biblical " w i s d o m lit-

erature." 1 highlighted h o w challenging are the o t h e r two books, Proverbs a n d

Ecclesiastes: their history of c o m p o s i t i o n is obscure, a n d their diverse parts d o not fit neatly into a m e a n i n g f u l whole. Yet J o b is m o r e difficult t h a n b o t h of those books combined.1 First of all, the language in this b o o k is extremely h a r d to u n d e r s t a n d . J o b e m p l o y s a large n u m b e r of hapax w o r d s (see "Words W i t h o u t Peer"; see c h a p t e r 17) a n d u n u s u a l grammatical f o r m s — s o m u c h so that s o m e scholars have w o n dered if it is a bad translation from a n o t h e r language! 2 Moreover, that difficult vocabulary p o p s u p at crucial j u n c t u r e s in the text, leaving u s u n s u r e h o w to interpret not only the w o r d , b u t also the v e r s e — o r even an entire section. The historical-critical m e t h o d reveals o t h e r p r o b l e m s on t o p of these, c o n nected to the c o m p o s i t i o n of J o b . Looking at t h e m can help u s u n d e r s t a n d why the b o o k is so difficult, w h i c h can m a k e reading J o b less frustrating. Some of these p r o b l e m s are obvious f r o m the outline of the book's structure, as follows: 1.

Narrative i n t r o d u c t i o n

2.

Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad, Z o p h a r

3.

Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad, Z o p h a r

4.

Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad

5. 6. 7.

Speeches by Elihu God's speeches Narrative conclusion

Certain asymmetries here are puzzling. Why, for example, is there n o speech by Zophar in the third set of speeches (section 4)? If Zophar's third speech is missing, what does this mean? Perhaps it is not really m i s s i n g — p e r h a p s the words "Zophar the Naamathite said in reply" simply fell out somewhere, skipped by a distracted scribe; but if so, at what point should we reinsert them? W h e t h e r we read a particular section as said by Job, or by Zophar, makes a big difference. Aside from the strange structure, none of the friends has a distinct personality, as might be expected. 3 More unsettling is the unfulfilled promise w h e n each speech cycle is repeatedly p u n c t u a t e d by the phrase "X said in reply." This suggests that we are reading a true dialogue, yet we never get one. Indeed, the characters not only talk past each other (as we shall see below), they also attempt to define the other's position. For example, Eliphaz says: "You [Job] say, 'What can God know? / Can He govern through the dense cloud? / The clouds screen Him so He cannot see / As He moves about the circuit of heaven'" ( 2 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . These words Eliphaz p u t s into Job's m o u t h — a n d they misconstrue Job's argument! The threefold cycle of speeches is followed by Elihu's lone speeches in chapters 3 2 - 3 7 . His presence is a surprise. He is m e n t i o n e d neither in the book's prologue (2:11) n o r its epilogue (42:7, 9), where Job has only three other friends. W h a t is Elihu doing here? W h y does he offer four speeches in a row? Even stranger than this, he depicts himself as a b u m b l e r w h o talks a lot but says littie: "For I am full of words; / The wind in my belly presses me. / My belly is like wine not yet opened, / Like j u g s of n e w wine ready to burst. / Let me speak, then, a n d get relief; / Let me o p e n my lips a n d reply" ( 3 2 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) . To make matters more confusing, what God says later on is m u c h like what Elihu says here. W h a t does this tell us about God? If Elihu is a b u m b l i n g idiot, then his speeches may foreshadow God's speeches, hinting that even God's answers are not satisfactory. 4 God's speeches to Job have their o w n difficulties, as we shall see below. For n o w we can ask: W h y does God need to speak twice? W h a t is the difference between Job's two answers to God, a n d w h y is this difference so important that God is satisfied with Job's second response, but not with his first? Most significantly, does God really answer Job's challenge? These problems are easily multiplied, for the Book of Job is an enigma.' 5 This great w o r k of literature is not o p e n to a simple, authoritative explanation.

A Partial Resolution Despite the extreme challenges, we can make several definitive statements about parts of Job. Once these are considered, we can make some sense out of the book as a whole. The Book of Job is comprised of two main parts: a prose frame around a poetic center. 6 The prose is n o w marked as chapters 1 - 2 and 4 2 : 7 - 1 7 . The rest of the b o o k ( 3 : 1 - 4 2 : 6 ) is poetry. Each part also prefers different divine names. Yet the difference between the two parts is more than a matter of linguistic style. Each of the two sections tells a fundamentally different story. In the prose part, Job's misfortunes arise from a discussion between God and the Adversary, a character w h o is absent from the poetic part. The afflictions of Job in the prose and poetry are also different. In the prose, all his children are killed, b u t in the poetry they are alive: "My odor is repulsive to m y wife; / I am loathsome to my children" (19:17). Finally, it is the prose that depicts what scholars have called "Job the patient." The poetry portrays a distinct temperament, "Job the impatient." 7 However, in contrast to what we f o u n d through source-analysis of the Torah, w h e n we contrast the two parts of Job, we must conclude that they d o not represent two separate sources. For neither section is complete without the other. For example, the prose epilogue assumes that some sort of dialogue had occurred between the friends and Job: "After the L O R D h a d spoken these words to Job, the L O R D said to Eliphaz the Temanite, '1 am incensed at you a n d your two friends'" (42:7). Nor could a poetic composition have stood on its own."Afterward, J o b began to speak and cursed the day of his birth" (3:1)—as a beginning, this statement assumes too m u c h . Although the two parts belong together, they are each distinct e n o u g h that it is worth examining each one in turn, to grasp their internal coherence. Then we will be better able to perceive what each part contributes to the overall story.

Job the Patient: Happily Ever After The opening and closing passages in the b o o k — t h e two prose sections (chaps. 1 - 2 and 4 2 : 7 - 1 7 ) — f i t together quite neatly. 8 Consider the following verses near the end: "Thus the LORD blessed the latter years of Job's life more than the former. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand she-asses. He also had seven sons and three daughters" ( 4 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . That is, Job receives double the property that he owned at the start of the book, and his children are "replaced" by the same n u m b e r as he originally

h a d . (Perhaps d o u b l i n g property is a blessing, while having twenty children w o u l d not be!) According to s o m e scholars, the style of these passages resembles that of an epic, p e r h a p s even of a fairy tale. T h u s the narrator treats u s to a measured account, featuring patterns of repeating phrases a n d events. We find m a n y g r o u p s of f o u r s — f o r example, four attributes of J o b ("blameless," "upright," "feared God," a n d " s h u n n e d evil") a n d four catastrophic sets of deaths (those t e n d i n g the cattle, t h e n the sheep, t h e n the camels, a n d finally Job's children). T h e s t r u c t u r e of the o p e n i n g itself is highly symmetrical, n a r r a t i n g first w h a t h a p p e n s on the earth, t h e n in heaven, t h e n o n earth, t h e n in heaven, t h e n again o n earth (as scholars w o u l d d e n o t e it: ABABA). Meanwhile, the descriptions of the heavenly scene in c h a p t e r s one a n d t w o are very similar. T h e exact repetition of the p h r a s e s "1 alone have escaped to tell y o u " ( w . 15, 16, 17, 19) a n d "This o n e w a s still s p e a k i n g w h e n a n o t h e r o n e c a m e a n d said . . ." ( w . 16, 17, 18) ereates an eerie, breathless narrative. It is especially telling that three c o l u m n s of C h a l d e a n s strike in the third catastrophe (1:17), while in the f o u r t h , "a m i g h t y w i n d . . . s t r u c k the four c o r n e r s of the h o u s e " ( 1 : 1 9 ) — t h i s is the structure of imaginative literature, s u c h as fairy tales. R u n n i n g like a t h e m a t i c t h r e a d t h r o u g h this i n t r o d u c t i o n is the verb b-r-kh (

9,2:5;1 ,21,10,1:5;‫)ברך‬.Typically in biblical Hebrew, it m e a n s "to bless,"

yet this passage e m p l o y s it e u p h e m i s t i c a l l y — r e f e r r i n g to its opposite: "to curse." W i t h reference to G o d , c u r s i n g m e a n s "to b l a s p h e m e , " a locution that the a u t h o r s e e m s to w a n t to avoid stating o u t r i g h t . 9 In b o t h senses taken together, this w o r d unifies the o p e n i n g prose section, leaving u s to w o n d e r : after b e i n g struck w i t h s u c h horrible afflictions, w h a t will J o b d o — b l e s s G o d , or "bless" (curse) God? T h e book's final prose passage m a k e s it clear that J o b does n o t curse God. It begins: "After the

LORD

h a d s p o k e n these w o r d s to J o b , the

LORD

said to Eliphaz

the Temanite, '1 a m incensed at you a n d y o u r t w o friends, for you have n o t spok e n the t r u t h a b o u t Me as did My servant J o b ' " (42:7). Here the imaginary quality of the w o r k continues. In verse 11, each of Job's friends give h i m "one kesiiah," an old unit of weight m e n t i o n e d in the Bible only in Genesis 3 3 : 1 9 a n d J o s h u a 24:32; its use here suggests a distant, "long, long ago" setting. T h e e n d of this narrative section is remarkable: "Afterward j o b lived o n e h u n d r e d a n d forty years to see four generations of s o n s a n d g r a n d s o n s . So J o b died old a n d contented" ( w . 1 6 - 1 7 ) . In o t h e r w o r d s , "he lived h a p p i l y ever after." This e n d i n g , along with the surrealistic p a t t e r n s in c h a p t e r s 1 - 2 , suggests that rather t h a n viewing the prose p o r t i o n as an e p i c , 1 0 we s h o u l d characterize it as b e i n g like a fairy tale. That is to say, the storyteller gives u s a m p l e clues to convey that we s h o u l d n o t take the story as historically true, yet p r o m p t s u s by

those same finely crafted features to listen for a message of t r u t h . This o p i n i o n is a m o n g those in the Babylonian T a l m u d , w h e r e one u n n a m e d rabbi states that "Job never existed, b u t is a parable." T h e c o n t e m p o r a r y translator S t e p h e n Mitchell a d o p t s this view w h e n he o p e n s his translation with "Once u p o n a time in the land o f U z . " 1 1

The Adversary

T h e heavenly scene described in the book's i n t r o d u c t i o n d i s t u r b s m a n y readers. It portrays h e a v e n differently f r o m h o w we usually imagine the divine w o r l d f u n c t i o n i n g . The image of an angelic court itself is not u n i q u e to J o b . 1 2 However, f r o m the perspective of o t h e r biblical texts, the presence in this court of ha-satan (‫השטן‬,

"the Adversary") is o d d .

Some translators have r e n d e r e d ha-satan as "Satan." However, for g r a m m a t ical reasons, this w o r d c a n n o t be a p r o p e r n a m e . 1 3 (True, the figure that this term d e n o t e s is a b a d guy or troublemaker, w h o in later t h o u g h t did develop into a full-fledged Satan. 1 4 ) Given the linguistic evidence that places this prose section's origin in the Persian p e r i o d , 1 3 the a u t h o r m a y have m o d e l e d the role of "the Adversary" after the royal spy w h o traveled t h r o u g h o u t the Persian e m p i r e , testing individuals' loyalty in the far-flung p r o v i n c e s . 1 6 As depicted in J o b 1 - 2 , this Adversary can p u s h G o d to d o w h a t G o d was not i n t e n d i n g to d o , b u t he has n o i n d e p e n d e n t power. T h e theology b e h i n d this prose narrative is remarkable: W h e n G o d is u n d e r the Adversary's influence, s o m e o n e m a y suffer despite being blameless. Such m i s f o r t u n e m a y u p s e t the righteous yet they will ideally r e m a i n p i o u s like J o b , w h o u t t e r s "Naked came I o u t of m y m o t h e r s w o m b , a n d n a k e d shall I r e t u r n t h e r e ; 1 7 the

LORD

h a s given, a n d the

LORD

has taken away; blessed be the n a m e

of the LORD" (1:21). Even after f u r t h e r afflictions strike their body, s u c h people will say " n o t h i n g sinful" (2:10) a n d merely p e r f o r m the n o r m a l m o u r n i n g rituals, as n e e d e d . Ultimately, G o d will reward such piety. 1 8

Job the Impatient Polarization of the Debate

As n o t e d , the book's m i d d l e p o r t i o n tells a very different story. N o Adversary is causing trouble, b u t neither is J o b taking his afflictions with

equanimity.

Structurally, this section is a long dialogue between J o b and his "friends." By the end, the two parties seem to need a good mediator or therapist—they do not "hear" each other, a n d they allow the situation to escalate out of hand. The b o o k conveys the escalating tension in several ways. At the beginning, Eliphaz approaches J o b with respect, noting: "If one ventures a word with you, will it be too much?" (4:2). After he accuses J o b merely of speaking improperly, he adds generously, "See, you have encouraged many; / You have strengthened failing h a n d s " (4:3). By the final r o u n d , however, Eliphaz is accusing Job of s e n ous crimes: (22:5) You k n o w that your wickedness is great, / And that your iniquities have n o limit. / (6) You exact pledges from your fellows without reason, / And leave t h e m naked, stripped of their clothes; / (7) You do not give the thirsty water to drink; / You deny bread to the hungry. Job's speeches point to the escalation even more clearly. After rebutting his friends time a n d time again, after d e m a n d i n g a hearing from God and getting n o meaningful response, J o b seems ready to give up. He says, "I cry out to You, b u t You d o not answer me; / I wait, but You do not consider me" (30:20). Ultimately J o b does the one thing left to h i m — h e calls d o w n a curse u p o n himself if he is guilty (chap. 31). In this powerful passage he invokes measure-for-measure retribution: "If I raised my h a n d against the fatherless, / Looking to m y supporters in the gate, / May my arm d r o p off m y shoulder; / My forearm break off at the elbow" (w. 2 1 - 2 2 ) . The ancients took such imprecations very seriously. For this reason, they serve as a fitting e n d to Job's speech. After he has taken these m u l tiple curses u p o n himself in protestation of innocence, what more can be said? T h u s his friends are unwilling to challenge him further. 1 9

Is Experience the Best Teacher? The reason that this "dialogue" m u s t e n d without resolution is that n o resolution is possible. Both J o b and his friends ground their main arguments in experience, b u t their own experiences lead t h e m in very different directions. Thus, to explain suffering, the friends argue: "Only the wicked suffer; you are suffering; therefore you are wicked," while J o b counters: "I a m not wicked, yet I am suffering; therefore God is indifferent to the wicked." Similarly, regarding divine power, the friends argue: "God is powerful, therefore good," whereas J o b argues: "God is powerful, therefore destructive." Only God k n o w s w h i c h position (if any) is correct. This is w h y Job calls out so often for God to appear, a n d w h y we

readers might wish that G o d s s p e e c h e s — w h e n they d o c o m e — w e r e

less

obscure. The reasoning of J o b and his friends is not easy to follow. Only rarely d o J o b a n d his friends formulate their a r g u m e n t s in a straightforward manner, as one might expect in a w o r k so devoted to debate. But this is not a Platonic dialogue. Rather, the a u t h o r casts all the discourse as poetry. Elsewhere even the Bible uses prose to state ( m u c h like J o b s friends) that whereas the righteous d o not suffer, the wicked do. Here are three such formulations in Proverbs: (10:3) The Lord will not let the righteous go hungry, / But He denies the wicked w h a t they crave. (12:21) N o h a r m befalls the righteous, / But the wicked have their fill of misfortune. (13:25) The righteous m a n eats to his heart's content, / But the belly of the wicked is empty. This is a traditional perspective. Eliphaz in his last speech makes his similar point in a more complex fashion: (22:4) Is it because of your piety that He arraigns you, / And enters into j u d g m e n t with you? / (5) You k n o w that your wickedness is great, / And that your iniquities have n o limit. . . . / (10) Therefore snares are all a r o u n d you, / And s u d d e n terrors frighten you, / ( 1 1 ) O r darkness, so you cannot see. . . . / (23) If you return to Shaddai you will be restored . . . J o b counters by claiming that God is indifferent to the wicked, as in this poignant speech: (24:1) W h y are times for j u d g m e n t not reserved by Shaddai? / Even those close to H i m cannot foresee His actions. / (2) People remove boundary-stones; / They carry off flocks and pasture them; / (3) They lead away the d o n k e y s of the fatherless, / And seize the widow's bull as a pledge; / (4) They chase the needy off the roads; / All the p o o r of the land are forced into hiding. . . . / (9) They snatch the fatherless infant from the breast, / And seize the child of the p o o r as a pledge. / (10) They go about n a k e d for lack of clothing, / And, hungry, carry sheaves . . . I (12) Men groan in the city; / The souls of the dying cry out; / Yet God does not regard it as a reproach. In the e n d , neither side moves the other.

The two parties' positions become similarly entrenched with regard to God's power. For example, Eliphaz sees God's p o w e r as only good: (5:8) But I would resort to God; / I would lay my case before God, / (9) W h o p e r f o r m s great deeds w h i c h cannot be fathomed, / W o n d r o u s things without n u m b e r ; / (10) W h o gives rain to the earth, / And sends water over the fields; / ( 1 1 ) W h o raises the lowly u p high, / So that the dejected are secure in victory; / (12) W h o thwarts the designs of the crafty, / So that their h a n d s cannot gain success; / (13) W h o traps the clever in their o w n wiles; / The plans of the crafty go awry. / (14) By day they e n c o u n t e r darkness, / At n o o n they grope as in the night. / (15) But He saves the needy from the sword of their m o u t h , / From the clutches of the strong. Job, in contrast, suggests that this powerful God "abuses" power, wielding it recklessly against J o b and others: (12:13) W i t h Him are w i s d o m a n d courage; / His are counsel and understanding. / (14) W h a t e v e r He tears d o w n cannot be rebuilt; / W h o m e v e r He imprisons cannot be set free. / (15) W h e n He holds back the waters, they dry up; / W h e n He lets t h e m loose, they tear u p the land. / (16) With Him are strength and resourcefulness; / Erring a n d causing to err are from Him. / (17) He m a k e s counselors go about naked / And causes j u d g e s to go mad. / (18) He u n d o e s the belts of kings, / And fastens loincloths on them. / (19) He makes priests go about naked, / And leads temple-servants astray. / (20) He deprives trusty m e n of speech, / And takes away the reason of elders. . . . I (24) He deranges the leaders of the people, / And makes t h e m w a n d e r in a trackless waste. / (25) They grope without light in the darkness; / He makes t h e m w a n d e r as if d r u n k . W i t h regard to other issues as well, J o b a n d his friends come to stand on different sides. Each side sees different implications from the same premise. For example, the friends believe that people are u n g o d l y — s o m u c h so that they cannot be guiltless, as Bildad claims in his magnificent last speech: (25:2) Dominion and dread are His; / He imposes peace in His heights. / (3) Can His troops be numbered? / O n w h o m does His light not shine? / (4) H o w can m a n be in the right before God? / H o w can one b o r n of w o m a n be cleared of guilt? / (5) Even the m o o n is not bright, / And the

stars are not pure in His sight. / (6) H o w m u c h less man, a w o r m , / The son-of-man, a maggot. J o b too acknowledges the creaturehood of people, and that they are u n g o d ly. However, he believes that this should p r o m p t God to be lax in j u d g m e n t — people should not be held to divine standards: "What is man, that You make m u c h of him, / That You fix Your attention u p o n him? / You inspect him every morning, / Examine him every minute" ( 7 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . The Book of Job presents m a n y more such arguments in which the speakers talk past each other.

What Does Experience Teach? As stated earlier, the friends and J o b disagree on the basis of their experiences. Experience, both personal and as related by others, plays a crucial role in wisd o m literature. But everyone has different experiences. This fact explains w h y each "side" in Job tries to establish that its experience is superior. For example, Eliphaz claims: "See, we have inquired into this a n d it is so; / Hear it and accept it" (5:27); and Bildad notes: "Ask the generation past, / Study what their fathers have searched out" (8:8). To this, Job counters that his w i s d o m is at least as good as theirs: "You must have consulted the wayfarers; / You cannot deny their evidence" (21:29), and even, "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; / The birds of the sky, they will tell you, / Or speak to the earth, it will teach you; / The fish of the sea, they will inform you" ( 1 2 : 7 - 8 ) . In s u m , although the friends and Job share some premises, they reach different conclusions from them, because their base of experience is different. But as readers, we must w o n d e r after the arguments conclude and the dust has settied: W h o is right?

"The

LORD

Replied to Job"

(38:1)

After Elihu's speeches, God finally answers Job. But the only thing that is clear about these speeches is their structure: I. II. III. IV

38:1-40:2 40:3-5 40:6-41:26 42:1-6

G o d s first speech Job's first response God's second speech Job's second response

The relationship between these speeches accords with the power relationship between the two figures; God, w h o speaks m u c h more, is m u c h more powerful. Emphasizing that differential is the divine appearance "out of the tempest" 2 0 and by G o d s two initial statements. The first speech begins, " W h o is this w h o darkens counsel, / Speaking without knowledge? / Gird your loins like a man; / I will ask a n d you will inform Me" ( 3 8 : 2 - 3 ) . The start of the second speech repeats part of this verbatim (40:7). God also tells Job to prepare for war 2 1 and suggests that he is not yet "a man."

A Nonanswer God's first response ( 3 8 : 1 - 4 0 : 2 ) does not answer Job's questions—at least not in any direct fashion. Job had wanted to k n o w the charges against him, to u n d e r stand w h y he was being p u n i s h e d ; 2 2 he had also insisted on u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w God practices retribution. God does not address these issues. Instead, God treats us to the longest list of rhetorical questions in the Bible: "Where were you," "Have you," "Which," "Can you," "Do you," "Is it?" and so on. The examples all involve the world of nature, not of h u m a n society or behavior. Some scholars infer from the extravagance of God's list of questions that its purpose is to overwhelm J o b . 2 3 Others suggest that God mediates between the position of the friends (who said that God is powerful a n d good) and Job (who said that God is powerful and abusive) by answering simply: "God is powerfui." 2 4 A third perspective observes that the depiction of nature here is negative and chaotic—concluding tellingly with the h a w k , whose "young gulp blood; / W h e r e the slain are, there is he" (39:30). H u m a n concepts of justice are not part of this picture.

Job's reply to this first speech ( 4 0 : 3 - 5 ) a m o u n t s to "Well, what can I say?"

An Obscure Answer Not satisfied with Job's response, God delivers a second speech, which we might expect to be more clear. Indeed, this speech, in both structure and content, is quite different from the first. The structure is best u n d e r s t o o d as follows: I. II.

40:7-14 40:15-24

Justice Behemoth

III.

40:25-41:26

Leviathan

The paragraphing and layout in the JPS translation do not reflect this structure, and therefore they obscure the m e a n i n g of this speech. Even so, we cannot be sure what these sections m e a n a n d h o w they fit together. Most likely this Behemoth is a mythological figure based on a h i p p o p o t a m u s , while Leviathan resembles various sea-creatures k n o w n from Ugaritic mythology. 2 i But h o w are they germane? H o w do they relate to what God was saying about justice? We may apply here the same interpretations that we applied to God's first speech. For example, we may u n d e r s t a n d these sections as a continuation of God's overwhelming Job. God may be displaying power by pointing to the ability to control these mythological beasts.

Limits to Divine Power? Alternatively, God may be saying something quite different. This speech may be conceding that even God cannot control these two creations. By this reading, the verse "See, any h o p e of capturing [Leviathan] must be disappointed; / O n e is prostrated by the very sight of him" (41:1) includes God as one of the prostrated. Similarly, "Divine beings are in dread as he rears up; / As he crashes d o w n , they cringe" (41:17) would apply also to God. If so, we can go back and apply this interpretation to God's introductory speech. Rather than being sarcastic (as m a n y take it), God may actually be admitting weakness: (40:10) Deck yourself now with grandeur and eminence; / Clothe yourself in glory a n d majesty. / (11) Scatter wide your raging anger; / See every p r o u d m a n and bring him low. / (12) See every p r o u d man a n d h u m b l e him, / And bring t h e m d o w n where they stand. / (13) Bury t h e m all in the earth; / Hide their faces in obscurity. / (14) Then even I would praise you / For the t r i u m p h your right h a n d w o n you. That is, God is really saying to Job: "I'm not perfect. But can you do any better? Then stop criticizing!"

J o b Responds Again The b o o k spotlights Job's second reply to God. These are the last words of poetry. Unlike his first reply, God does not respond back afterward—indicating satisfaction that Job has n o w u n d e r s t o o d . The JPS translation takes Job's words to mean:

(42:2) I k n o w that You can d o everything, / That n o t h i n g you p r o p o s e is impossible for You. / (3) W h o is this w h o o b s c u r e s counsel w i t h o u t knowledge? / I n d e e d , I s p o k e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g / Of things b e y o n d m e , w h i c h I did n o t know. / (4) Hear now, a n d I will speak; / 1 will ask, a n d You will i n f o r m m e . / (5) I h a d h e a r d You w i t h m y ears, / But n o w I see You with m y eyes; / (6) Therefore, I recant a n d relent, / Being b u t d u s t a n d ashes. This translation o b s c u r e s the fact that in part, J o b is q u o t i n g G o d s earlier speeches. (In c h a p t e r 23, I n o t e d that u n m a r k e d q u o t a t i o n s feature in a n o t h e r b o o k of w i s d o m literature, Ecclesiastes.) Clarifying the q u o t a t i o n s w o u l d m a k e the w h o l e passage m u c h clearer: (42:1) J o b said in reply to the LORD: (2) I k n o w that You can d o everything, / That n o t h i n g you p r o p o s e is impossible for You. (3) W h o is this w h o o b s c u r e s counsel without

knowledge?

[38:2; 4 2 : 3 ] — / I n d e e d , I

s p o k e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g / Of things b e y o n d me, w h i c h I did not know. / (4) Hear now, and I will speak; I will ask, and You will inform me [38:3; 4 2 : 4 ] — / (5) I h a d heard You with m y ears, / But n o w I see You w i t h m y eyes; / (6) Therefore, I recant a n d relent, / Being b u t d u s t a n d ashes. This reply is longer a n d m o r e developed t h a n Job's first answer. Yet, even as 1 have translated the passage here, its m e a n i n g is still uncertain. Is J o b e m p h a sizing his a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t that as a h u m a n , G o d is b e y o n d his u n d e r s t a n d i n g (v. 3b)? O r does he focus o n a c k n o w l e d g i n g God's o m n i p o t e n c e (v. 2 ) — a n d if so, h o w is this a response? Is J o b satisfied because he h a s experienced a visual revelation of G o d ("now I see You w i t h m y eyes"; v. 5)? If so, h o w does this a n s w e r Job's concerns? To complicate things further, we c a n n o t say for sure w h a t the final verse of p o e t r y — t h e most i m p o r t a n t o n e — m e a n s . 2 6 As we have said, the JPS translation r e n d e r s verse 6 as "Therefore, I recant a n d relent, / Being b u t d u s t a n d ashes." In contrast, the N e w Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates it, "Therefore I despise myself, / a n d repent in d u s t a n d ashes," w h e r e a s Mitchell translates it as "Therefore I will be quiet, c o m f o r t e d that I a m d u s t . " 2 ‫ ׳‬So, w h a t is J o b doing: recanting, engaging in self-loathing, or attaining e n l i g h t e n m e n t ? All three v i e w s — a n d o t h e r s as w e l l — a r e plausible. We m a y wish to u n d e r s t a n d the m e a n i n g of the p o e t r y in the same way that we can u n d e r s t a n d prose, yet in all h o n e s t y w e c a n n o t p i n d o w n the m e a n i n g of this verse.

Putting Job Back Together Again By this point, my earlier statement about J o b being the most difficult book of the Bible should make sense. With the p r o f o u n d issues that this book addresses, and its potent rhetoric, it p r o m p t s us to ask: W h a t does it all mean? In particular, w h o is right—God? The friends? Job? In particular, h o w might we read the book as a whole, considering both the poetry and the prose? At least one thing is clear: according to the way the book has been put together, the friends—with their "traditional" w i s d o m answers—are wrong. The epilogue begins: "After the L O R D had spoken these words to Job, the L O R D said to Eliphaz the Temanite, '1 am incensed at you and your two friends, for you have not spoken the truth about Me as did My servant Job'" (42:7). However, the ambiguity of 42:6 still leaves open the possibility that Job's earlier arguments were right. (That possibility looks more likely if we take seriously the idea that Elihu's speeches u n d e r m i n e God's position.) Thus, the book may be saying that the way God r u n s the world, the innocent d o indeed suffer. Alternatively, its editor may have structured the book so that n o single answer wins the debate; instead, this w o r k offers a variety of plausible answers, each of which has some basis in experience. 2 8 Perhaps it is appropriate that we cannot find a clear answer to our questions, given the very serious and personal issues that the Book of J o b confronts.

25 "Drink Deep of Love!" Reading Song of Songs Primary Reading: Song of Songs.

T

he Song of Songs ( s o m e t i m e s called "the Song" for short) is the m o s t exquisite b o o k of the Bible. 1 In trying to guide readers, I d o n o t w a n t to para-

p h r a s e it—it is simply too b e a u t i f u l a n d too multilayered. N o p a r a p h r a s e can d o it justice. The Song of Songs deserves to be read a n d reread; it c a n n o t be c o n fined to a single m e a n i n g . 2 W h a t I can best offer are s o m e signposts that will h e l p readers discover the richness of the text.

Solomon and the Song In English, in a d d i t i o n to "Song of Songs," this c o m p o s i t i o n is often called the "Song of S o l o m o n , " based o n the first verse: "The Song of Songs, by S o l o m o n . " In p r e v i o u s chapters, I discussed similar attributions, w h i c h rarely seem to be historically accurate. (This i n c l u d e s the attribution of m u c h of Psalms to David, a n d of Proverbs a n d Ecclesiastes to S o l o m o n . ) Here, too, c o m p a r i s o n w i t h dated H e b r e w inscriptions has s h o w n scholars that m a n y p h r a s e s a n d f o r m s in the S o n g d o n o t m a t c h the language of King S o l o m o n s time. In places, the text is clearly postexilic; for e x a m p l e , 4 : 1 3 uses pardes ( ‫ ) פ ר ד ס‬, a Persian w o r d m e a n ing "orchard." ( H e b r e w writers w o u l d n o t have b o r r o w e d f r o m the Persian language until after the exile to Babylon; see above, c h a p t e r 4.) In short, s o m e o n e w r o t e it d o w n well after S o l o m o n . I n d e e d , if S o l o m o n really wrote the b o o k , w h y w o u l d he refer to himself in the third p e r s o n , as in "King S o l o m o n m a d e h i m a p a l a n q u i n . . . " (3:9)? Critical scholars broadly agree that the first verse is n o t integral to the b o o k . Everywhere else in the b o o k (thirty-two times), the relative p r o n o u n — t r a n s l a t ed as "that," "which," or " w h o " — i s expressed using the particle prefix she-

(ψ).

O n l y in this first verse d o we find the longer form asher ( ‫ ; א ש ר‬the JPS translation r e n d e r s it as "by"—or in its footnote, "concerning"). A single a u t h o r w o u l d n o t have used b o t h forms. This a n o m a l y h a s p r o m p t e d scholars to c o n c l u d e that a later editor a d d e d 1:1. That editor most likely w a n t e d u s to t h i n k of this b o o k as written by S o l o m o n . Given the description in 1 Kings 11:3 of Solomon's "seven h u n d r e d royal wives a n d three h u n d r e d c o n c u b i n e s , " S o l o m o n w o u l d naturally have been a c a n d i d a t e for the love-song business. T h e Song's o w n repeated m e n t i o n of a k i n g may have also motivated the a t t r i b u t i o n . 3 W h i l e readers m a y still use the royal Solomonic c o u r t as an imagined setting for the b o o k , the historical-critical m e t h o d suggests that we also try to imagine reading the Song as i n d e p e n d e n t of the initial attribution.

A Collection A l t h o u g h the S o n g looks like a unified c o m p o s i t i o n , it is not. It conveys a sense of u n i t y by b e i n g a collection of p o e m s of similar genres. A n u m b e r of indications argue against its b e i n g a c o m p o s i t i o n by a single author. First, the Song c o n t a i n s a refrain, yet the refrain does n o t a p p e a r in exactly the same H e b r e w w o r d s , as we w o u l d expect f r o m a b o o k written by one author: (2:7) I a d j u r e y o u , Ο m a i d e n s of J e r u s a l e m , / By gazelles or by h i n d s of the field: / Im [ ‫ א ם‬, "Do not"] w a k e or rouse / Love until it please! (3:5) 1 a d j u r e you, Ο m a i d e n s of J e r u s a l e m , / By gazelles or by h i n d s of the field: / Im [‫אם‬, "Do not"] w a k e or rouse / Love until it please! (8:4) I a d j u r e you, Ο m a i d e n s of Jerusalem: / M ah [Ì1D, "Do not"] w a k e or rouse / Love until it please! A second sign of the book's multiple a u t h o r s h i p is that it uses variant f o r m s of the same w o r d s — v a r i a n t s that linguists u n d e r s t a n d to arise f r o m different H e b r e w dialects. For e x a m p l e , the style of the direct object suffix differs b e t w e e n c h a p t e r s 3 a n d 5: bikashtiv

(1‫ )בלןשתי‬versus bikashtihu

(‫ ;)בלןשתיהו‬both words

m e a n "I sought h i m . " Perhaps the strongest proof of m o r e t h a n one a u t h o r is the near repetition of o n e particular passage, an elaborate description of features of the lover's body, w h i c h is called a wasf. (Such descriptions have a l o n g - s t a n d i n g place in Arabic

poetry, w h i c h is w h y scholars refer to t h e m by this Arabic term, p r o n o u n c e d "watzf." 4 ). T h e Song repeats one of its wasfs, b u t does so with variations: (4:1) Ah, y o u are fair, m y darling,

(6:4) You are beautiful, m y darling,

Ah, y o u are fair.

as Tirzah,

Your eyes are like doves

C o m e l y as Jerusalem,

Behind y o u r veil.

Awesome as b a n n e r e d hosts.

Your hair is like a flock of goats

(5) Turn y o u r eyes away f r o m m e ,

Streaming d o w n M o u n t Gilead.

For they o v e r w h e l m me!

(2) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes

Your hair is like a flock of goats

C l i m b i n g u p f r o m the w a s h i n g pool;

Streaming d o w n f r o m Gilead.

All of t h e m bear twins,

(6) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes

A n d n o t o n e loses h e r y o u n g .

C l i m b i n g u p f r o m the w a s h i n g pool;

(3) Your lips are like a c r i m s o n thread,

All of t h e m bear twins,

Your m o u t h is lovely.

A n d n o t o n e loses her y o u n g .

Your b r o w b e h i n d y o u r veil

(7) Your b r o w b e h i n d y o u r veil

Gleams like a p o m e g r a n a t e split o p e n .

Gleams like a p o m e g r a n a t e split

(4) Your n e c k is like the Tower of

open.

David,

(8) There are sixty q u e e n s ,

Built to h o l d w e a p o n s ,

A n d eighty c o n c u b i n e s ,

H u n g w i t h a t h o u s a n d shields —

And damsels without number.

All the quivers of warriors.

(9) O n l y o n e is m y dove,

(5) Your breasts are like t w o fawns,

My perfect one,

Twins of a gazelle,

T h e only one of her m o t h e r ,

Browsing a m o n g the lilies.

T h e delight of her w h o bore her.

(6) W h e n the day b l o w s gently

Maidens see a n d acclaim her;

A n d the s h a d o w s flee,

Q u e e n s a n d c o n c u b i n e s , a n d praise

I will betake m e to the m o u n t of

her.

myrrh, To the hill of frankincense. (7) Every part of you is fair, m y darling, There is n o b l e m i s h in you. W h y w o u l d a single a u t h o r repeat the same description? If h e 5 were to repeat it, w h y d o so w i t h these particular variations? The best a n s w e r to these questions is that m o r e t h a n one version of these poetic passages circulated in ancient Israel; s o m e o n e t h e n collated t h e m together in a larger w o r k that eventually b e c a m e the Song of Songs as we have it. Saying that this b o o k is a collection leaves m a n y questions o p e n . W h a t type

of a collection is it? Is its organization h a p h a z a r d , or is its collection of p o e m s organized to tell a story? Evidence p o i n t s in b o t h directions. T h e historicalcritical m e t h o d justifies reading the b o o k either as a loose a n t h o l o g y or as a u n i fied w o r k .

What Genre of Poetry Is It? Most often, the Song is described as love poetry, sensual poetry, or erotic poetry. W h a t is m e a n t by these t e r m s is rarely discussed; p e r h a p s the reticence is based o n the awareness that we have too little evidence to define these genres for ancient Israel. Some u n i t s in the Song can safely be categorized as "love poetry" based o n the use of the root '-h-v ( ‫ א ה ב‬, "to l o v e " ) — f o u n d , surprisingly, only seven times in the w h o l e b o o k . Similarly, the label "sensual" is appropriate for passages in w h i c h the senses are evoked, b o t h directly and indirectly: "I have c o m e to m y garden, / My own, m y bride; / I have p l u c k e d m y m y r r h a n d spice, / Eaten m y h o n e y a n d honeyc o m b , / D r u n k m y wine a n d m y milk. / Eat, lovers, a n d drink: Drink d e e p of love!" (5:1). T h e t e r m "erotic poetry," however, is m o r e slippery: if w e u n d e r s t a n d this t e r m to m e a n w o r d s i n t e n d e d to sexually arouse, all we k n o w is that certain sections of the Song have this effect o n s o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y readers. However, we have n o way to tell w h e t h e r its p o e t r y h a d the effect of sexual arousal in its setting in antiquity. W i t h o u t k n o w i n g m o r e a b o u t its original setting a n d i n t e n d e d p u r p o s e , we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h i c h of these genres applied to the Song of Songs in ancient times.

Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry In reading the Song, we m u s t be careful n o t to i m p o s e Victorian n o t i o n s of sexuality, n o r any n o t i o n a b o u t w h a t m a n y p r e s u m e is a "negative" attitude t o w a r d sexuality in J u d a i s m or Christianity. 6 T h e Song m a y seem o d d as a biblical b o o k , yet w h e n viewed in the b r o a d e r context of the ancient Near East, especially Egyptian literature, 7 it is quite n o r m a l . (Gaining s u c h perspective illustrates the utility of the historical-critical m e t h o d : it can correct o u r o w n cultural biases.) In t e r m s of style, the wasfs in the Song are quite similar to the following p o e m written in the p e r i o d of the Egyptian N e w K i n g d o m ( m i d - s i x t e e n t h to early eleventh centuries

B.C.E.):

T h e One, the sister w i t h o u t peer, / T h e h a n d s o m e s t of all! / She looks like the rising m o r n i n g star / At the start of a h a p p y year. / Shining bright, fair of skin, / Lovely the look of her eyes, / Sweet the speech of her lips, / She has n o t a w o r d too m u c h . / Upright neck, shining breast, / Hair true lapis lazuli; / Arms surpassing gold, / Fingers like lotus b u d s . / Heavy thighs, n a r r o w waist, / Her legs p a r a d e her beauty; / W i t h graceful steps she treads the g r o u n d , / C a p t u r e s m y heart by her m o v e m e n t s . / She causes all men's n e c k / To t u r n a b o u t to see her; / Joy h a s he w h o m she e m b r a c e s , / He is like the first of m e n ! / W h e n she steps outside she s e e m s / Like that o t h e r One [the S u n ] . 8 Like the Song, b u t unlike the rest of biblical literature, this p o e m refers to the female lover as "sister." Like all b u t o n e of the wasfs in the Song, the Egyptian a u t h o r describes the b o d y f r o m t o p to b o t t o m , describing m a n y of the same b o d y parts m e n t i o n e d in the biblical b o o k . T h e c o m p a r i s o n s are equally o d d (by m o d e r n Western sensibilities)—the Egyptians extol blue hair ("Hair true lapis lazuli") while the Israelites desire elongated n o s e s ("Your nose like the L e b a n o n t o w e r / That faces toward Damascus"; 7:5). T h e wasfs in b o t h cultures m o v e f r o m describing the b o d y to d r a w i n g implications f r o m that description. T h u s the Egyptian text states: "With graceful steps she treads the g r o u n d , / C a p t u r e s m y heart by her m o v e m e n t s . / She causes all men's n e c k s / To t u r n a b o u t to see her." Similarly, the Israelite p o e m c o n t i n u e s : "I say: Let m e climb the p a l m , / Let m e take h o l d of its b r a n c h e s ; / Let y o u r breasts be like clusters of grapes, / Your b r e a t h like the fragrance of apples" (7:9). O n e c o u l d argue that s o m e of the a u t h o r s of the wasfs in the Song were aware of the Egyptian traditions. M e s o p o t a m i a n sources, m e a n w h i l e , preserve a significant collection of p o t e n c y incantations; they, too, can h e l p u s d r a w a picture of ancient Near Eastern sexuality. O n e of the m o r e t a m e incantations goes like this: At the h e a d of m y b e d a r a m is tied. At the foot of m y b e d a w e a n e d s h e e p is tied. A r o u n d m y waist their wool is tied. Like a r a m eleven times, like a w e a n e d s h e e p twelve times, like a partridge thirteen times, m a k e love to m e , a n d like a pig f o u r t e e n times, like a wild bull fifty times, like a stag fifty times! Etc. 9 This incantation s h o w s that s o m e ancient M e s o p o t a m i a n s a d d r e s s e d their c o n c e r n s w i t h sexual p o t e n c y in a rather o p e n a n d creative fashion. T h e t h e m e of c o m p e t i t i o n a m o n g rivals, so p r o m i n e n t in the Song (see, e.g., 1:8), a p p e a r s in M e s o p o t a m i a m literature as well: I sense m y b e a u t y spots, / My u p p e r lip b e c o m e s moist / W h i l e the

lower one trembles. / I shall embrace him, I shall kiss him, / I shall look at him; / I shall attain victory. . . / Over my gossipy w o m e n , / And I shall return happily to my lover. 1 0 These literatures clearly are concerned with real lovers, they are secular, and they are avidly sexual. Their similarity to the Song suggests that we should read it in the same manner.

The Taming of the Song Despite this, tradition has tamed the Song by allegorizing it in a variety of ways. Thus, the Targum, the ancient Aramaic translation of the Bible, views the Song as a historical allegory about the "marriage" between God and Israel. Consider the provocative exclamation, "I have taken off my robe— / Should I d o n it again? / I have bathed my feet— / Should I soil them again?" (5:3; transi, adapted). The w o m a n is a n n o u n c i n g to the m a n outside that she is naked in bed. The Targum renders this verse as an expression of national guilt a n d moral j u d g m e n t : The assembly of Israel answered before the prophets: "Lo, already, I have removed the yoke of His c o m m a n d m e n t s from me and have worshipped the idols of the nations. H o w can I have the face to return to Him?" The Lord of the World replied to them through the prophets: "Moreover, 1 Myself have already lifted My Presence from a m o n g you, h o w then can I return since you have done evil? I have cleansed my feet from your filth, and h o w can I soil t h e m a m o n g you with your evil deeds?" 1 1 Even Abraham ibn Ezra, considered one of the more liberal medieval interpreters (because of Spinoza's advocacy of his work), w h o himself authored secular love poetry, was a d a m a n t that the Song must be interpreted allegorically. In his introduction to the Song, he states: "The Song of Songs is certainly not a p o e m about desire," adding, "do not be surprised that the bride is a parable for Israel, and her groom is God, for such is the habit of the prophets." Ibn Ezra then brings a set of five prophetic examples and one example from Psalms that use parables of lovers to represent Israel and God (including Ezekiel 16; see "Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19). However, all of the passages that Ibn Ezra cites clearly indicate that the units are parables. For example, while Isaiah 5 begins, "Let me sing for my beloved / A song of my lover about his vineyard," verse 7 spells out w h o the players are: "For the vineyard of the L O R D of Hosts / Is the House of Israel, / And the seedlings he lovingly tended / Are the men of

J u d a h . " In contrast, n o similar statement in the Song suggests that it is allegorical, n o r that the male lover is God, a n d the female lover Israel. In fact, the Song c o n t a i n s n o references to G o d at all. 1 2 As I have argued, the secular Near Eastern love p o e m s to w h i c h it is so similar suggest that the Song was originally a secular w o r k , dealing with two u n m a r r i e d lovers. 1 3 The Song itself gives n o indication that it i n t e n d s its w o r d s differently.

Sex in the Song Versus the Rest of the Bible T h e Song depicts premarital sex positively; this attitude differs dramatically f r o m w h a t is f o u n d elsewhere in the Bible. But the Bible is a highly c o m p l e x b o o k reflecting the o u t l o o k of different g r o u p s , so s u c h a difference is n o t surprising. It certainly does not justify reading the b o o k allegorically. Moreover, in the legal collections, the core objection to a y o u n g w o m a n engaging in premarital activity is n o t a m o r a l one. Instead, the p r o b l e m is that according to biblical law, a w o m a n did n o t always have the full right to decide h o w she m i g h t use her sexuality. 1 4 T h u s , for e x a m p l e , according to the Covenant Collection: (Exod. 2 2 : 1 5 ) If a m a n s e d u c e s a virgin for w h o m the bride-price has n o t b e e n paid, a n d lies w i t h her, he m u s t m a k e h e r his wife by p a y m e n t of a bride-price. (16) If h e r father refuses to give her to h i m , he m u s t still weigh out silver in accordance w i t h the bride-price for virgins. T h e law's only c o n c e r n is w i t h the father's c o m p e n s a t i o n , called the bridep r i c e , 1 5 a n d n o t with any morally i m p r o p e r behavior by the daughter.

Ambiguities T h e ambiguity of the Song is one of the features that m a k e it so remarkable. Poetry is a m b i g u o u s , b u t this b o o k s e e m s to revel in that quality

Double Entendre M u c h of the book's ambiguity is sexual in nature. For example, in the s e c o n d d r e a m s e q u e n c e f r o m c h a p t e r 5, we read:

(2) I was asleep, / But my heart was wakeful. / Hark, my beloved knocks! / "Let m e in, my own, / My darling, m y faultless dove! / For m y head is d r e n c h e d with dew, / My locks with the d a m p of night." / (3) I had taken off my r o b e — / Was I to d o n it again? / I h a d bathed my feet— / Was I to soil t h e m again? / (4) My beloved took his h a n d off the latch, / And my heart was stirred for him. / (5) I rose to let in my beloved; / My h a n d s dripped m y r r h — / My fingers, flowing m y r r h — / U p o n the handles of the bolt. / (6) 1 o p e n e d the door for my beloved, / But my beloved had t u r n e d and gone. / I was faint because of what he said. / 1 sought, but f o u n d him not; / I called, but he did not answer. This passage t u r n s on the ambiguity of w h e t h e r the woman's "house" is really her dwelling, or her body. Is the male lover standing outside trying to get inside; or is he next to her, trying to enter her? In what sense is he "knocking"? In verses 4 - 5 , are the "hand" and the "latch" e u p h e m i s m s for genitalia? In verse 3, w h e n the w o m a n describes herself as clean a n d naked, is she saying that the m a n should go away because she is already half-asleep, or is she teasing him to come nearer? 1 6 Representing the b o d y as a house is a frequent m e t a p h o r in m a n y cultures; this allows the poet of this unit to introduce n u m e r o u s double meanings. Such sexual ambiguities fill the Song. For example, the vineyard in the Song is an image that often alludes to the woman's ripe and sweet sexuality. Most likely this symbol plays on the visual similarity between a cluster of dark grapes a n d the pubic triangle. 1 7 Thus, the w o m a n can say: "My m o t h e r s sons . . . m a d e me guard the vineyards; / My own vineyard I did not guard" (1:6)—this means that her brothers tried to keep her chaste by m a k i n g her w o r k out in the field, but she fooled them. While guarding the literal vineyards, she was free with her own figurative one. Another case where vineyard is used symbolically is 1:13, where the w o m a n says of her male lover: "My beloved to me is a spray of h e n n a blooms / In the vineyards of En-gedi" (transi, adapted). However, En-gedi h o u s e d the ancient J u d e a n p e r f u m e industry, 1 8 not a wine vineyard. Thus, "vineyards" is not meant literally; this verse is really a veiled reference to the w o m a n enjoying the man's body.

T h e Song's Conclusion A different type of ambiguity appears at the conclusion of the Song. It affects h o w we read the b o o k as a whole—if we choose to read it as a meaningfully arranged collection. The JPS translation renders the last verse (in which the

female lover is speaking) as follows: "Hurry, m y beloved, / Swift as a gazelle or a y o u n g stag, / To the hills of spices!" (8:14). T h e initial w o r d is berach

(‫)ברח‬,

w h i c h actually m e a n s , "Flee away!" Taken on its o w n , this verse w o u l d seem to be an u n h a p p y e n d i n g to the Song, w h e r e the w o m a n tells the m a n (poetically), "Scram!" However, "the hills of spices" m a y refer to the woman's body! T h e similarity in s h a p e b e t w e e n breasts a n d m o u n t a i n s suggests this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 1 9 as does the following verse: "My beloved to m e is a bag of m y r r h / Lodged b e t w e e n m y breasts" (1:14), w h i c h m o r e directly depicts the image e v o k e d by "hills of spices." T h u s , even the c o n c l u s i o n to the S o n g is u n c e r t a i n . Is it a b o u t love a n d desire fulfilled, or a b o u t u n r e q u i t e d love a n d desire?

Canonization of the Song In c h a p t e r 2 7 , I will deal m o r e generally w i t h the issue of h o w various b o o k s b e c a m e part of the Bible, w h a t is o f t e n referred to as the c a n o n i z a t i o n of the Bible. Suffice it to say here that the traditional allegorical interpretation of the Song (see above) raises a question: Was the Song viewed as allegory after it b e c a m e canonical, or did it b e c o m e canonical only after it w a s viewed as allegory? T h e way we a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n d e t e r m i n e s o u r basic a p p r o a c h to the q u e s t i o n of h o w b o o k s b e c a m e part of the Bible. We can define biblical b o o k s as only those that the people already treated as sacred a n d religious. Alternatively, we can b r o a d e n the n o t i o n of b o o k s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the Bible to all b o o k s that were central to Israel for a variety of reasons. If the latter is the case, t h e n J e w s m i g h t have held the Song as a central w o r k — a cultural t r e a s u r e — o n aesthetic g r o u n d s . Maybe they even u s e d it for e n t e r t a i n m e n t in settings like w e d d i n g r e c e p t i o n s . 2 0 P e r h a p s only later, once it w a s in the same "book" alongside p r o p h e t i c parables that u s e d the image of G o d as h u s b a n d a n d Israel as wife, did the allegorical interpretation take p r e c e d e n c e over the literal one.

Conclusions A l t h o u g h we k n o w little a b o u t w h o w r o t e the Song of Songs, we can v e n t u r e a few p o i n t s of orientation. Secondarily a t t r i b u t e d to S o l o m o n , the b o o k is a collection of p o e m s of u n c e r t a i n g e n r e — p r o b a b l y love p o e m s a n d sensual p o e t r y

that its original audience may have considered erotic. The Song's attitudes and wording resemble other ancient Near Eastern poetry of those genres. It was not written as an allegory, although rabbinic tradition has treated it that way. Its hearty approach to sexuality does not fit most depictions of love and sex elsewhere in the Bible; but given the nature of the Bible as a diverse collection itself, this should not be surprising. The ambiguity of the imagery in this book contributes to its beauty. Finally, the Song may have become part of the Bible even while the ancient Israelites cherished it as a secular w o r k that celebrates h u m a n love.

26 " W h y Are You So Kind . . . W h e n I A m a Foreigner? " Ruth vs. Esther Primary Reading: Ruth and Esther.

Surface Similarities

R

u t h a n d Esther are t w o of the b e s t - k n o w n b o o k s of the H e b r e w Bible. At first glance they seem quite similar. Both are short stories n a m e d for female fig-

ures. In each one, w o m e n a n d foreigners play a p r o m i n e n t role. This c h a p t e r will c o m p a r e these t w o similar works. This c o m p a r i s o n will raise explicitly a central issue that has until n o w b e e n largely implicit: h o w the Bible f u n c t i o n s as a collection that expresses a diversity of views.

Beyond History: The Genre of Ruth and Esther As we have seen, identifying a w o r k s genre can h e l p u s u n d e r s t a n d h o w to read or interpret that b o o k . 1 Both Ruth a n d Esther are historical in the sense of "narratives that depict a past" (see "The Bible's Limits as a Source for History" in c h a p t e r 4), b u t neither is history in the sense of depicting an actual past. In fact, b o t h w o r k s signal that they are not to be read historically.

The Book of Ruth Ruth, at least in its final form, dates f r o m m u c h later t h a n "the days of the chieftains [judges]," the p e r i o d m e n t i o n e d in its o p e n i n g verse. This is certain because it i n t r o d u c e s the c e r e m o n y in 4:7 w i t h the w o r d s " N o w this was for-

merly d o n e in Israel in cases of r e d e m p t i o n or exchange." In o t h e r w o r d s , the n a r r a t o r n e e d e d to explain a c e r e m o n y that h a d long since b e c o m e d e f u n c t . 2 A l t h o u g h a w o r k that has literary merit m a y also be historical, 3 R u t h is m o r e easily labeled as literature t h a n history. It is r e m a r k a b l y well f o r m e d f r o m a literary or rhetorical perspective ( t h o u g h s u c h features d o n o t always c o m e t h r o u g h clearly in the translation). In this story, a gibbor chayil ( ‫" ח י ל‬lÎZtë, "a valiant w a r r i o r or gentleman"; translated as " p r o m i n e n t rich m a n , " 2:1) m e e t s an eshet chayil ( ‫ א ש ת ח י ל‬, "valiant w o m a n " ; translated as "worthy w o m a n , " 3:11), a n d they live h a p p i l y ever after. T h e story also highlights Ruth's m o v e m e n t f r o m being u n d e r God's general protection to b e i n g e s p o u s e d by Boaz, by playing o n two senses of the w o r d kanaf ( ‫ כ נ ף‬, "extremity"): lachasot tachat

kenafav

( ‫ ל ח ס ו ת ת ח ת ״ כ נ פ י ו‬, " u n d e r w h o s e w i n g s y o u have s o u g h t refuge," 2:12) a n d ufarasta

khenafekha

( ‫ ו פ ר ש י ! כ נ פ ך‬, "spread y o u r robe," 3:9). In o t h e r w o r d s , Boaz

resolves the difficulties facing N a o m i a n d Ruth by acting as a surrogate for God. S u c h verbal links suggest that g o o d storytelling is the goal of the b o o k , rather t h a n history. The b o o k gives additional hints that it is n o t historical. It begins w i t h an image that ancient readers w o u l d have f o u n d i r o n i c — a famine in Bethlehem ( • ‫ ) ב י ת ל ח‬, literally "house of bread." More significantly, w i t h the exception of the n a m e Ruth, the personal n a m e s at the start of the b o o k d o n o t fit p a t t e r n s we find elsewhere in the Bible. Instead, they are clearly symbolic: N a o m i m e a n s "sweetness"; her s o n s w h o die y o u n g are n a m e d M a h l o n ("Illness") a n d Chilion ("Cessation"); a n d the d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w w h o follows N a o m i only p a r t w a y to Israel is n a m e d O r p a h — l i t e r a l l y "back of the neck," m e a n i n g "back-turner." In ancient Israel, n o p a r e n t s w o u l d have n a m e d their c h i l d r e n M a h l o n a n d Chilion. Surely the a u t h o r e m p l o y s those n a m e s so as to signal that the b o o k s h o u l d be read symbolically a n d not as straightforward history.

T h e Book of Esther

In a d d i t i o n to b e i n g substantially longer t h a n Ruth, Esther e m p l o y s a very different style. It c o m b i n e s real historical c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h fancy or fantasy, m u c h like m o d e r n historical fiction. Its description of the Persian royal gardens, the extent of the e m p i r e , a n d its division i n t o "satraps" (bureaucratic divisions) are all accurate. Even s o m e of the n a m e s , s u c h as Esther a n d Mordecai (Babylonian n a m e s related to the g o d d e s s Ishtar a n d the god M a r d u k ) , were real personal n a m e s in the Persian period. However, o t h e r aspects are at o d d s w i t h the k n o w n historical record: a queen's b e i n g c h o s e n t h o u g h a "Miss Persia contest" 4 ; a king's

not caring if H a m a n kills off a portion of his tax base; Haman's offering to give the king ten thousand talents of silver 5 ; and the rule that the decrees of Persian kings could not be changed once they were sealed. All of this is fanciful. Indeed, contrary to the picture presented in Esther, the Persian kings typically tolerated minorities; they did not persecute groups because of ethnicity or religion per se. Like Ruth, the Book of Esther employs markers to indicate that its main interest is not historical. Like Ruth, this b o o k features various literary symmetries. For example, the clause "The text of the d o c u m e n t was to the effect that a law . . ." (3:14) is mirrored by "The text of the d o c u m e n t was to be issued as a law . . ." (8:13). Some view the b o o k as structured around party scenes in particular. 6 However, unlike Ruth, the storytelling in Esther is h u m o r o u s in a variety of places. For example, H a m a n is eager to k n o w why Esther called h i m to her party, and the king asks Esther what she wants; after m u c h buildup, rather than discussing any matter of substance, she unexpectedly answers, "If Your Majesty will do me the favor, if it please Your Majesty to grant my wish and accede to m y request—let Your Majesty and H a m a n come to the feast which I will prepare for them; and tomorrow I will do Your Majesty's bidding" (5:8). All of these pieces of evidence—the factual errors, the literary symmetries, and the lighthearted style—point to the fact that Esther is not a historical account. Rather, it is more like comedy, burlesque, or farce. Probably the original social setting for this book was the annual party in celebration of the already existing holiday of Purim; the book, w h e n read aloud, functioned as a justification for the u p s i d e - d o w n festival/

Women in Esther and Ruth My intention here is not to explain why Ruth and Esther were written. Instead, considering b o t h works to be mainly imaginative rather than factual, I will compare h o w they each imagine two themes: the role of w o m e n , a n d the Israelite attitude toward foreigners. Discerning the role of w o m e n according to the Book of Esther is not at all straightforward. Partly this derives from the fact that the b o o k is comedy. With comedy, it is normally difficult to untangle what the author really believes from what is meant tongue-in-cheek. O n one h a n d , Esther is a model of bravery w h e n she approaches the king to plead for the Jews because she believes that merely by doing so she risks being p u t to death (4:11). O n the other h a n d , Esther does not risk her life on her own initiative, so arguably she is an agent 8 rather than a

p r i m a r y character or hero. The book's true stance is likely revealed in its final verse, f r o m w h i c h Esther is missing: "For Mordecai the J e w r a n k e d next to King A h a s u e r u s a n d was highly regarded by the J e w s a n d p o p u l a r w i t h the m u l t i t u d e of his b r e t h r e n ; he sought the good of his people a n d interceded for the welfare of all his k i n d r e d . " In o t h e r w o r d s , Esther plays a crucial role at one j u n c t u r e — a role she is able to play because h e r b e a u t y m o v e s the k i n g (in 2:17: "she w o n his grace a n d favor"; in 5:2: "she w o n his f a v o r " ) — b u t the b o o k could j u s t as well have b e e n n a m e d the Book of Mordecai. In contrast, Ruth depicts a very different w o r l d , in w h i c h a c o m m u n i t y of w o m e n exists in parallel w i t h that of m e n . Its protagonists are t w o w o m e n w h o face a p r o b l e m largely defined by the society's g e n d e r roles: because w o m e n m a y n o t inherit ancestral land h o l d i n g s outright, they m u s t find an a p p r o p r i a t e m a n , a "redeemer," w h o can give t h e m access to the field b e l o n g i n g to Naomi's deceased h u s b a n d , Elimelech. They d o n o t n e e d a m a n to tell t h e m h o w to d o t h i s — N a o m i advises the y o u n g e r Ruth, a n d Ruth follows her mother-in-law's instructions. Ruth also s h o w s her o w n initiative w h e n she improvises w h a t to d o at Boaz's granary. T h e Book of Ruth also highlights the larger c o m m u n i t y of w o m e n in w h i c h Ruth a n d N a o m i f u n c t i o n . After their h u s b a n d s die, N a o m i begs each daughterin-law, "Turn back, each of y o u to her mothers

h o u s e " (1:8; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .

In 4:17, it is not the father b u t rather the w o m e n n e i g h b o r s w h o n a m e Ruth's child. A few verses earlier, the p e o p l e bless Ruth in the n a m e of Israel's great Matriarchs: May the

LORD

m a k e the w o m a n w h o is c o m i n g into y o u r h o u s e like

Rachel a n d Leah, b o t h of w h o m built u p the H o u s e of Israel! Prosper in E p h r a t h a h a n d p e r p e t u a t e y o u r n a m e in Bethlehem! A n d m a y y o u r h o u s e be like the h o u s e of Perez w h o m Tamar b o r e to J u d a h — t h r o u g h the offspring w h i c h the

LORD

will give you b y this y o u n g w o m a n

(4:11-12). W o m e n t h u s play a m u c h m o r e p r o m i n e n t a n d positive role in Ruth t h a n in Esther.

Foreigners in Esther and Ruth It is difficult to characterize the attitude of the Book of Esther t o w a r d non-Jews. T h e b o o k m e n t i o n s s o m e good foreigners, like H a r b o n a h , w h o suggests that H a m a n be i m p a l e d on the tree he w a n t e d to use to impale Mordecai (7:9). The p r e d o m i n a n t n o n - J e w s in the story, however, are A h a s u e r u s a n d H a m a n . The

a u t h o r depicts A h a s u e r u s as a fool, s p e n d i n g his time partying instead of ruling; he is clueless a n d easily m a n i p u l a t e d . For his part, H a m a n is a m e g a l o m a n i a c w i t h an irrational fear of J e w s w h o therefore w a n t s t h e m killed. After messengers a n n o u n c e H a m a n s plan far a n d wide, n o b o d y either protests o n the Jews' behalf or offers to c o m e to their defense. I n d e e d , the p o p u l a c e includes "enemies" w h o a p p e a r willing to d o the killing. In short, this farce generally depicts n o n - J e w s in a negative fashion. Ruth is quite different. In c h o o s i n g a Moabite w o m a n as its protagonist, the a u t h o r p i c k e d s o m e o n e w h o m the a u d i e n c e w o u l d view negatively f r o m the start, for t w o reasons. First, the Torah portrays the origin of the Moabite people t h r o u g h incest. In Genesis, Lot sleeps w i t h his elder daughter, w h o n a m e s the resulting child Moab, w h i c h w a s u n d e r s t o o d in Israel to c o m e f r o m me'av, "from d a d d y " ( 1 9 : 3 0 - 3 8 ) . Second, the Torah c o n t i n u e s to h o l d the Moabites at arm's length. W h e n D e u t e r o n o m y lists n a t i o n s with w h o m intermarriage

(being

"admitted into the congregation") is questionable, its most extreme strictures apply to the Moabites: (23:4) No . . . Moabite shall be a d m i t t e d into the congregation of the LORD; n o n e of their d e s c e n d a n t s , even in the tenth generation, shall ever be a d m i t t e d into the congregation of the LORD. . . . (7) You shall never c o n c e r n yourself w i t h their welfare or benefit as long as you live. C o n t r a r y to c o m m o n o p i n i o n (based on ancient rabbinic interpretation), I believe that Ruth stays a foreigner t h r o u g h o u t the b o o k . She does n o t "convert to J u d a i s m . " There was n o such t h i n g as conversion in the biblical p e r i o d . 9 T h e f a m o u s statement of Ruth in 1 : 1 6 - 1 7 is rather a declaration of closeness to Naomi: Do n o t urge m e to leave y o u , to t u r n b a c k a n d not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; w h e r e v e r y o u lodge, I will lodge; y o u r p e o pie shall be m y people, a n d y o u r G o d m y God. W h e r e you die, 1 will die, a n d there I will be b u r i e d . T h u s a n d m o r e m a y the LORD d o to m e if a n y t h i n g b u t d e a t h parts m e f r o m you. R u t h s p r o n o u n c e m e n t does not m a k e her into an Israelite. I n d e e d , after this declaration the n a r r a t o r twice uses the p h r a s e "Ruth the Moabite" (2:2, 21), as does Boaz (4:5, 10). Even R u t h calls herself nochnyyah

("a foreigner"; 2:10). T h e atti-

t u d e of the text seems to have been: "Once a Moabite, always a Moabite." T h e a u t h o r of Ruth, however, d o e s n o t hold the protagonist's status as a Moabite against her. Even as a foreign w o m a n , Ruth can enter the community. More t h a n that, she b e c o m e s the progenitor of King David. T h u s the b o o k illustrates that k i n d n e s s is far m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n ethnicity. It objects to the antipa-

thy toward foreigners that may be present in Esther, an attitude that is found in greater extreme in Ezra. According to Ezra 9:2, intermarriage is forbidden because it allows "the holy seed [to] become intermingled with the peoples of the land." The Book of Ruth presents an opposing perspective.

In the Same Book, in the Same Room Let's imagine that we could place the authors of Esther and Ruth in the same room together. W h a t might their conversation s o u n d like? In the dialogue that follows, I play u p the apparent differences in their perspective. "R" represents the a u t h o r of Ruth, and "E" that of Esther. E:

How can you stand being married to your Moabite wife? Don't you k n o w that Moabites are the w o r s t — t h e y sin and cause others to sin! And if that isn't enough, they are all the result of incest! You are going to dilute our "holy seed" by having children with her!

R:

Moabites, shmoabites! People are what they become, not h o w they are born. A Moabite w o m a n w h o p e r f o r m s acts of kindness is better than a Jewish m a n w h o doesn't. Don't listen to that fanatic "holy seed" notion—it is just plain wrong. And, while we are at it, your tone makes you s o u n d like you don't like w o m e n too m u c h either.

E:

That's an overstatement. Some w o m e n are w o n d e r f u l to look at, and w h e n they listen to their h u s b a n d s and other male relatives, good things h a p p e n . But beware the w o m a n w h o shows i n d e p e n d e n t initiative. She is "the highway to Sheol [hell]" (Prov. 7:27) —stay away from her!

R:

That view s o u n d s shortsighted: "Beauty is illusory" (Prov. 31:30). But more important, it's u n d u l y harsh and judgmental. 1 prefer to judge w o m e n as we j u d g e foreigners—by what they do, not by what they are. Don't you k n o w that a Moabite w o m a n was the ancestor of King David?

E:

You don't expect me to believe that myth, d o you?

You might expect any person w h o heard such a debate to choose one side over the other. W h a t is most remarkable about the Bible is that, here and in many areas, it takes n o sides. Instead, diametrically o p p o s e d positions on such f u n d a m e n t a l issues as "How do we relate to outsiders?" or "How d o we view gender?" are included in one collection of books. This leads us to the overall question of the next chapter: How did the Bible come to be formed out of so many texts filled with conflicting viewpoints?

27 The Creation of the Bible

An Abundance of Ignorance

W

e k n o w little a b o u t the Bible's o r i g i n — h o w so m a n y b o o k s c o m p r i s i n g so m a n y diverse ideas b e c a m e "the Bible." 1 Clearly the process h a p p e n e d in

stages, over a l o n g time. N o b o d y w o k e u p o n e m o r n i n g , decided to create the Bible, a n d arranged the next day for all J e w s to a d o p t it as such. T h e process w a s at least as m u c h " d o w n - u p " as " u p - d o w n . " That is, the w i d e r p o p u l a t i o n h e l p e d to d e t e r m i n e w h a t the Bible i n c l u d e d ; it w a s n o t primarily an official (rabbinic) decision. 2 I n d e e d , the Bible likely c a m e into b e i n g before the publication of the M i s h n a h , the first great rabbinic w o r k (ca. 2 0 0 C.E.).

This is w h y few rabbinic o p i n i o n s describe the Bible's d e v e l o p m e n t . In any

case, the rabbis were n o t interested in history for its o w n sake, so we n e e d to interpret all rabbinic evidence w i t h care. Meanwhile, s o m e p r e r a b b i n i c evidence c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s a n d o t h e r Jewish Hellenistic a u t h o r s . Also the Dead Sea Scrolls s h e d light on the process of " h o w the Bible b e c a m e the Bible," b u t that evidence is indirect a n d often a m b i g u o u s . In short, too m u c h of the picture is obscure to enable m e to offer a definite time line of "project milestones."

The Canon Until recently, scholars a d d r e s s e d the q u e s t i o n s raised above in t e r m s of the "canon" of the Bible. Some of us, however, have recently e m p h a s i z e d that this t e r m (related to the Greek w o r k kanon, a "reed" or a " m e a s u r i n g stick") m a y be anachronistic in reference to the Bible; it m o r e properly refers to "a fixed stand a r d (or collection of writings) that defines the faith a n d identity of a particular religious c o m m u n i t y . " 3 T h e early C h u r c h first u s e d this t e r m w i t h reference to

lists of b o o k s that are part of the Christian Bible. It is n o t native to early Jewish literature c o n c e r n i n g w h a t is part o f — o r e x c l u d e d f r o m — t h e Bible. Applied to the J e w i s h Bible, "canon" has b e e n used in m a n y ways, m a k i n g it an a m b i g u o u s and confusing term.4 For these reasons, m a n y scholars prefer to s p e a k of "the d e v e l o p m e n t of scripture," rather t h a n "the canonization of the Bible." 5 Yet that is n o t m u c h of an i m p r o v e m e n t . For m e at least, "scripture" is a foreign term. F u r t h e r m o r e , because "scripture" m e a n s merely "that w h i c h is written," it is historically i m p r e eise. Therefore, I prefer to frame o u r q u e s t i o n as follows: W h e n a n d h o w did a central set of b o o k s with a particular n a m e (e.g., mikra read or recited"] or kitvei ha-kodesh

[‫הקדש‬

,

! ‫ מ ק ר א‬, "that w h i c h is

‫ כ ת ב‬, "holy writings"]) c o m e into

being within Judaism?6 The process evolved gradually, partly because the b o o k s that n o w c o m p r i s e the Bible were written over a period of m o r e t h a n a t h o u s a n d years (see "Other Jewish N a m e s : A Historical Review" in c h a p t e r 2). F u r t h e r m o r e , the three-part ("tripartite") s t r u c t u r e of the Bible m o s t likely reflects historical d e v e l o p m e n t : at first, the Torah alone w a s central. T h u s the postexilic b o o k s of E z r a - N e h e m i a h a n d Chronicles e m p l o y phrases s u c h as "the Torah of the LORD," "the Torah of Moses," "My [God's] Torah," a n d simply "the Torah," referring to a b o o k m u c h like w h a t we n o w call the Torah. 7 By the Hellenistic p e r i o d , J e w s treated o t h e r b o o k s as i m p o r t a n t a n d w o r t h y of s t u d y as well; for example, the Book of Daniel specifically reinterprets the seventy-year oracle of J e r e m i a h (see "Reinterpretation a n d Creative Philology" in c h a p t e r 21). Daniel 9:2 s p e a k s of "c0nsu1t[ing] the sefarim ( ‫ ס פ ר י ם‬, 'books')," b u t the w o r d sefarim—even

u s e d w i t h a definite

article as "the" b o o k s — i s too generic to be a technical term (that is, reflecting texts of c o m m u n a l i m p o r t a n c e — w h a t J e w s w o u l d later call the Bible). T h e most i m p o r t a n t d a t u m for a g r o u p of sacred b o o k s b e y o n d the Torah comes from Josephus—the

first-century-c.E. Jewish

historian—who

notes:

" O u r b o o k s , those of w h i c h are j u s t accredited are b u t two a n d twenty, a n d contain the record for all time." 8 He is e m p l o y i n g the c o n c e p t of a set n u m b e r of authoritative b o o k s , w h i c h he calls these "holy b o o k s . " 9 J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e e n u m e r a t e s t h e m . However, c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars widely agree that he m e a n s the t w e n t y - f o u r b o o k s that we n o w call the Bible, w i t h Ruth b e i n g c o u n t e d as part of J u d g e s , a n d L a m e n t a t i o n s as part of J e r e m i a h . 1 0 O n e reason to t h i n k so is that the roughly c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s IV Ezra (a nonbiblical w o r k ) refers to "twentyfour" b o o k s (14:44ff.). It s e e m s likely that these t w o sources h a d in m i n d the s a m e collection of central b o o k s . Until several decades ago, m a n y scholars a s s u m e d that the rabbis c o n v e n e d a council at J a m n i a ( m o d e r n J a b n e h or Yavneh), d u r i n g w h i c h they c a n o n i z e d

the Bible. 1 1 At the e n d of the n i n e t e e n t h century, the great J e w i s h historian Heinrich Graetz h a d p o p u l a r i z e d this view, b u t it is n o w recognized to be w r o n g . Rabbinic literature associated with the sages of J a m n i a (late first c e n t u r y C.E.) d o e s discuss w h e t h e r certain biblical b o o k s (such as Song of Songs or Esther) "defile the h a n d s . " (That is the rabbis' classic technical term for a w o r k that is biblical. 1 2 ) However, as most historians n o w a c k n o w l e d g e , rabbinic texts f r o m a later period are not reliable for r e c o n s t r u c t i n g an earlier period. In addition, the literary f o r m of these particular texts is suspect: they d o not have the give-andtake of "real" rabbinic debates. Most likely, s o m e o n e c o m p o s e d these "debate" texts to justify w h y the "problematic" (unsettling) b o o k s like Esther

and

Ecclesiastes were already part of the Bible. However, even t h o u g h rabbinic literature often refers to "twenty-four" biblical b o o k s (the same n u m b e r we h a v e ) , 1 3 the entire g r o u p of sages m a y not have shared the same Bible. 1 4 C o n s i d e r h o w they cited Ben-Sirach (a nonbiblical second-century-B.C.E. Jewish w o r k c o m p o s e d in the land of Israel; see "Reading Proverbs" in c h a p t e r 23). Rabbinic literature s o m e t i m e s q u o t e s Ben-Sirach using the same citation f o r m u l a s as for b o o k s that we call biblical. 1 5 As o n e scholar h a s observed, it "was s o m e t i m e s e x p o u n d e d m u c h like any o t h e r biblical b o o k , " 1 6 w h i c h suggests that for s o m e rabbis, Ben-Sirach w a s as authoritative as is the Bible—and most likely for t h e m it w a s Bible! T h u s for the rabbinic p e r i o d , it might be best to speak of a "largely closed" set of texts that c o m p r i s e d the Bible— or several c o m p e t i n g c o n c e p t i o n s of it, w i t h s o m e sages i n c l u d i n g Ben-Sirach, a n d o t h e r s not. Quite possibly a "largely closed" set of texts that c o m p r i s e d the Bible, m o s t ly identical to o u r c u r r e n t Bible, also existed a m o n g a Jewish sect that lived in the J u d e a n Desert, w h o s e surviving library is w h a t we n o w call the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1 7 This c o m m u n i t y m a y not have h a d a n o t i o n of c a n o n ; at least, they h a d n o special term for s u c h a thing. However, in their interpretive literature they did tend to cite particular b o o k s . F u r t h e r m o r e , certain b o o k s are extant in m a n y copies, indicating that they were especially i m p o r t a n t to the community. Of the b o o k s that are part of the classical rabbis' Bible, only the Book of Esther is missing a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have today; thus, the c o m m u n i t y probably did not c o n s i d e r that b o o k authoritative. 1 8 In contrast, o t h e r Dead Sea Scroll texts cite the Temple Scroll a n d the Book of Jubilees as a u t h o r i tative. F u r t h e r m o r e , the c o m m u n i t y kept a large n u m b e r of m a n u s c r i p t s of b o t h w o r k s . 1 g T h u s , o u r term "canonical" Bible s e e m s anachronistic for this g r o u p in the p r e r a b b i n i c period. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that its set of authoritative b o o k s largely, b u t not completely, o v e r l a p p e d w h a t w o u l d eventually b e c o m e biblical for the rabbis.

The Order and the Ordering of Biblical Books For the many centuries before Jewish scribes published books in codex form, they preserved b o o k s in the form of separate scrolls. 2 0 In certain cases, the scribes put several books in a single scroll—and in a particular order. O n e such book was the Torah, which needed to be ordered because Jews read it ritually in order as part of the lectionary. Similarly, they grouped Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings in sequence, since they tell a more or less c o n t i n u o u s story in chronological order. However, for the rest of the Bible, its books fall into no particular order. Certain people a n d groups (especially professional scribes!) love order. Mesopotamian scribes often copied series of cuneiform tablets (such as lexical lists) in arbitrary but standard orders. The resulting predictability made it easier for readers to find what they were looking for, n o matter which copy they consuited. Similarly, perhaps ancient Israelite librarians may have kept biblical scrolls in ordered cubby holes, so that they could locate the right text easily. This may be the original function of ordering the b o o k s of the Bible. 21 The Bible shows evidence of ordering at b o t h the macro a n d the micro level. O n the microlevel, its text is divided into books—typically, what can fit on a scroll. (Thus, the twelve "Minor" Prophets comprise a single book or scroll, even though it is m a d e u p of m a n y books.) 2 2 O n the macrolevel, this large collection comprises smaller collections. Exactly h o w and w h e n this was d o n e is the subject of intense current debate: How early is the three-part division of the Bible into Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim? W h e n a n d w h y did this tripartite division develop? Rabbinic s o u r c e s — t h o u g h not any of the earliest such sources—do attest to a three-part (what scholars call a "tripartite") Bible. 2 3 Scholars have f o u n d allusions to this structure in the New Testament and a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, these references d o not decisively prove that the Bible was organized into three parts as early as the first century c . E . 2 4 Indeed, Jews clearly employed a variety of orders a n d ordering schemes in the Second Temple period, 2 5 and the tripartite ordering was likely one of them. The tripartite ordering was likely one of the early ordering schemes, for its classifications are not obvious ones. As noted earlier, Daniel properly belongs with the latter prophets; meanwhile, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, and perhaps some other books belong with the former p r o p h e t s (see "Name a n d Structure" in chapter 2). Thus, their present classification seems to reflect an evolution: by the time those later books came along, the set of b o o k s k n o w n as Prophets had

already been determined, so they could not be included in that section. That is, over time the Torah became authoritative first, then Nevi'im, and finally Kethuvim. 2 6 This hypothesis for the evolutionary development of the tripartite canon would also explain the stability—and lack of stability—of order within each section. The Torah—authoritative first—is fully stable: all manuscripts have the order as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, N u m b e r s , Deuteronomy. (Of course, given the contents of these books, their order is not really flexible.) Within Nevi'im, the same is true for the Former Prophets. Concerning the order of the Latter Prophets, there is more flexibility; most manuscripts do not follow the Talmudic order. Within Kethuvim, manuscripts show a t r e m e n d o u s variation of the order of its b o o k s . 2 7 This accords with its p r e s u m e d status as the section becoming authoritative latest. Quite surprisingly, the ancient sources d o not show even a broad consensus on what the last—culminating—book of the Bible should be!

The Stabilization of the Biblical Text A book may be authoritative even t h o u g h it does not have a fixed text. The spelling of its words, certain whole words themselves—even whole verses— such things could and did vary from one written copy to another. Thus, I consider the issues of canonization and textual stabilization separately. Indeed, it is highly likely that the biblical text became stable only in the early rabbinic period. By then, Jews already had a relatively clear idea as to which texts were "in" and which were "out," and they had devised certain m e t h o d s of midrashic interpretation (namely, m e t h o d s of interpretation that read the text carefully, and even base their deductions on fine spelling variants). Functionally speaking, the latter development allowed for fluid meaning even as the text became fixed. As we have seen, the Dead Sea Scrolls c o m m u n i t y considered authoritative a Bible of sorts, yet they did not have a single stable text for its b o o k s . 2 8 That ancient desert c o m m u n i t y still proceeded to e x p o u n d their texts—sometimes in versions that are quite different from those f o u n d in (what later crystallized as) the Masoretic text. 2 9 In fact, in at least one case, they seem to be interpreting two different versions of the same verse. In other words, just because they believed a certain work to be holy and inspired did not imply that it had to exist in a single version. 3 0 In the words of the c o n t e m p o r a r y scholar Moshe Greenberg, "Piety is not always accompanied by a critical sense." 3 1 Based on the textual witnesses available to us, we can say that the Bible's

(consonantal) text largely stabilized by the second century C.E. We do not k n o w exactly h o w this h a p p e n e d ; perhaps someone m a d e a master edition or recension from which other scribes copied. 3 2 Perhaps the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 c.E. and the failure of the revolt of 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 (the Bar Kokhba Rebellion) created a crisis that served as an impetus for creating an authoritative text. The development of a midrashic approach (in the early second century C . E . ) 3 3 that treated the exact spelling of each word as important may have been influential as well in stabilizing the text. Considering the wider range of ancient versions (and the opportunities meanwhile for scribal errors in transmission), medieval biblical texts show remarkably few variants. However, even that era k n e w occasional, significant textual variants, including readings in the Babylonian Talmud that differ from most of o u r biblical manuscripts. 3 4 The stabilization of the consonantal text continued until well after the advent of printing in the late 1400s. Even so, to this day, a few variant spellings remain. (Of course, printing c o u l d — a n d did!—introduce new errors into the text.) 3 5

How the Bible Became the Bible Today, were we to open two texts of the Hebrew Bible, they would contain the same books, grouped into three m a j o r parts, appearing mostly (if not entirely) in the same order, with a well over 99% agreement on the consonants and vocalization (vowels and cantillation). 1 h o p e that it is n o w clear that this consistency was the result of a long and complicated process that took place largely behind the scenes, obscured from our view. At the beginning of the process came the idea of a "Bible" itself. Most likely the Torah (which itself developed over time) became authoritative first. Later, a larger Bible coalesced around the Torah, though different groups at different times viewed the contents of this Bible differently, ordered its books differently, and grouped it variously into major divisions. In the late first or early second century, scribes seemed to stop copying all but one particular consonantal text of this incipient Bible. More than half a century later, guardians of the biblical text devised various systems of marking the proper vocalization of the consonantal text. By the late first millennium, the vocalization system associated with Aaron Ben-Asher and with the city of Tiberius in the Galilee "won" over competing systems, giving us the Bible as we n o w have it. 3 6 This means that in its current form (with vowels), the Bible is only a little more than 1,000 years old!

Afterword Reading the Bible as a Committed Jew h u s far I have written this book in m y "scholarly" m o d e , emphasizing what the Bible meant in its time and place. I have emphasized the importance of the historical-critical m e t h o d , which encourages me to present facts about antiquity as 1 understand them. In so doing, I have attempted to mask my personal beliefs. These beliefs should not m a t t e r — o n e s own religion (or lack thereof) should not decisively impact how one u n d e r s t a n d s the Hebrew Bible in its original environment. Many w h o have just completed this b o o k would guess that I, as its author, lack religious convictions altogether. After all, it is easy to read the previous pages as an acute case of "Bible bashing." I have emphasized the composite nature of the Bible, treating it as a h u m a n , rather than a divine, work. I have contextualized it in the ancient Near East, rather than treating it as a timeless book. I have m a d e the following claims: the beginning of Genesis is a "myth"; the Exodus did not h a p p e n ; and Joshua did not fight the battle of Jericho and make the walls come tumbling down. Further, I have stated that m u c h of the material in the Bibles historical texts is not historical; that not everything found in the work k n o w n as Amos (or Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel) was written by Amos (or Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel); and that David c o m p o s e d n o n e of the psalms. I have asserted that not only is the Song of Songs a secular work, but that m u c h of the Bible is also, for it was influenced by (secular) ideology as m u c h as by religion. I am, in fact, an observant Jew. I take the Bible quite seriously in my personal life. It is not merely a book from which 1 make a living (as a teacher and author). Rather, it stands at the core of w h o I a m as a person, and as a Jew. There is n o single way to place the Bible at o n e s core. Indeed, the ways of viewing the Bible as a religious text are at least as n u m e r o u s as the people w h o puzzle it out. Thus, I do not intend what follows as the way to reconcile the scholars' critical approach with a religious (Jewish) life. Instead, 1 simply wish

to explain h o w I negotiate not merely w h a t the Bible m e a n t (the subject of the previous chapters), b u t also w h a t the Bible m e a n s to me.

From Sourcebook to Textbook In a nutshell, here is m y view of the Bible as a Jew: The Bible is a sourcebook I—within interpreting

my community—make

that

into a textbook. I do so by selecting, revaluing, and

the texts that I call sacred.

"Sourcebooks" are n o t the s a m e as "textbooks." A s o u r c e b o o k , by n a t u r e , p r e s e n t s m a n y perspectives, w h e r e a s a t e x t b o o k — i n o r d e r to be c o g e n t — a d o p t s a particular p o i n t of view. An e c o n o m i c s t e x t b o o k that was b o t h Keynesian a n d Marxist, or an i n t r o d u c t o r y literary t e x t b o o k that was b o t h new-critical a n d deconstructivist, w o u l d be c o n f u s i n g , as c o n f u s i n g , i n d e e d , as the Bible itself. However, a b r o a d - m i n d e d professor t e a c h i n g " I n t r o d u c t i o n to Economics" c o u l d create a s o u r c e b o o k s h o w i n g a variety of a p p r o a c h e s , i n c l u d i n g the Keynesian a n d the Marxist. Likewise, a g o o d literature professor m i g h t c o m p i l e readings that e n c o u r a g e d s t u d e n t s to analyze the same text f r o m c o m p e t i n g theoretical perspectives. The Bible as it presents itself, "off the shelf," is a s o u r c e b o o k . It c o m e s f r o m m a n y places a n d times; it conveys the interests of m a n y different groups. W i t h i n it, we can find m o r e t h a n o n e o p i n i o n o n almost any single item of i m p o r t a n c e — t h e n a t u r e of G o d , the corporeality of G o d , intergenerational p u n i s h m e n t , the relationship b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n , the attitude t o w a r d foreigners, retribution, etc. In this sense, the Bible is surely m o r e s o u r c e b o o k t h a n textbook.1 Yet, in o r d e r to take the Bible seriously in m y religious life—as a guide for various issues—1 m u s t m a k e it into s o m e t h i n g m o r e authoritative. G u i d e b o o k s d o n o t say: at the fork in the road, take either a right, a left, or t u r n a r o u n d . Rather, they m a k e decisions, they c h o o s e b e t w e e n options. T h u s , w h e n I confront the Bible as a practicing Jew, I t r a n s f o r m it into a m o r e m o n o l i t h i c b o o k .

Selection As n o t e d , I m a k e the Bible into a t e x t b o o k in several ways. The simplest is t h r o u g h "selection"—choosing o n e of the o p t i o n s that the Bible offers. H o w a n d w h y I m a k e those choices is a c o m p l i c a t e d (and personal) issue. At any rate, in part I d o this w i t h i n m y religious c o m m u n i t y — a n d in part I choose a c o m m u -

nity that h a s already m a d e c o m p a t i b l e choices. Such c o m m u n i t i e s m i g h t be a synagogue c o m m u n i t y , a c o m m u n i t y of l i k e - m i n d e d friends, or an e x t e n d e d family. As personal as religion is, it has a very s t r o n g social d i m e n s i o n , a n d t h u s m y f i n d i n g a religious c o m m u n i t y is crucial to m e . ( W h e n p e o p l e s beliefs change, they m a y m o v e f r o m one c o m m u n i t y to another, f i n d i n g g r o u p s that view the Bible a n d its interpretation in a similar fashion.) Selecting f r o m a m o n g the Bible's sources is n o t h i n g new. Already in the b i b lical p e r i o d its a u t h o r s a n d editors did so. As we saw earlier in this b o o k , the editor of Chronicles k n e w sources describing m o r e t h a n one way to cook the paschal lamb. By claiming that it s h o u l d be boiled (2 C h r o n . 3 5 : 1 3 ) , that a u t h o r selected D e u t e r o n o m y 16:7 over E x o d u s 12:9. True, that a u t h o r gave a n o d to the E x o d u s text b y m e n t i o n i n g fire (see "Rewriting History" in c h a p t e r

14).

However, the b o t t o m line w a s a choice: the editor selected the ritual practice in D e u t e r o n o m y 16:7, setting the o t h e r practice aside. Classical m i d r a s h (and medieval Jewish commentary, w h i c h followed in its w a k e ) h a s f u n c t i o n e d similarly. 2 As I m e n t i o n e d in c h a p t e r 1, E x o d u s 2 1 : 6 allows a H e b r e w to be a "slave for life," w h e r e a s Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 insists that all s u c h slaves "shall serve w i t h you only until the jubilee year"; the editor of the Mekhilta resolved the a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n b y reinterpreting "for life" as m e a n ing "until the jubilee year." This w a s creative philology (see "Reinterpretation a n d Creative Philology" in c h a p t e r 21). Some m i g h t speak of this as reconciling these two texts. However, practically speaking, the m i d r a s h i c editor selected Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 over E x o d u s 2 1 : 6 . (This is ironic given that the Mekhilta

is a

m i d r a s h on E x o d u s . ) So, too, as I engage the Bible: After carefully c o n s i d e r i n g its texts, I use selection to a d o p t s o m e texts as m o r e m e a n i n g f u l to m e t h a n others.

Revaluation Sometimes, w h e n c o n f r o n t i n g a particular issue, I find that all the biblical texts are p r o b l e m a t i c for one reason or another. In s u c h cases, I m u s t a c k n o w l e d g e that the Bible is an ancient text; it hails f r o m a society f u n d a m e n t a l l y different f r o m ours. P e r h a p s it h a s n o t always aged well. Therefore I m u s t actively "translate" the text into t e r m s that fit o u r society. This is extremely difficult to d o w i t h integrity, yet in s o m e areas, especially c o n c e r n i n g matters of sex a n d g e n d e r (what "real m e n " a n d "real w o m e n " do), it is the only w o r k a b l e a p p r o a c h . I t h e n distinguish w h a t the text originally meant (in its original historical context) f r o m w h a t it n o w means (taking into c o n s i d e r a t i o n certain key differences b e t w e e n

ancient Israelite antiquity and m o d e r n times). 3 I assign the new meaning by modernizing the text quite carefully.

Interpretation

Interpretation, even radical interpretation, has always played a role in making sense of the Bible. As we saw in a prior chapter, the author of the Book of Daniel wrote that his protagonist "consulted the books concerning the n u m b e r of years that, according to the word of the L O R D that had come to Jeremiah the prophet, were to be the term of Jerusalem's desolation—seventy years" (Dan. 9:2). As a result of this reckoning with Jeremiah's earlier prophecy (and with the help of the angel Gabriel), Daniel realized that "70 years" really meant 4 9 0 years (see "Reinterpretation a n d Creative Philology" in chapter 21). Examples of similarly radical reinterpretation a b o u n d in rabbinic literature. Amos 5:2 reads in part, straightforwardly: D p ‫"( נ פ ל ה ל א ת ו ס י ף‬Fallen, not to rise again,") / ‫"( ב ת ו ל ת י ש ר א ל‬Is Maiden Israel"). Some rabbinic interpreters found this sentiment unacceptably hopeless. They repunctuated this verse to read: ‫"( נ פ ל ה ל א‬Fallen—no!") / ‫"( ת ס י ף ק ו ם‬Again to rise") / ‫"( ב ת ו ל ת י ש ר א ל‬Is Maiden Israel"). 4 Syntactically, this interpretation is impossible, but it shows h o w radical interpretation can arise out of necessity. Radical interpretation maintains the place of the biblical text as central within Judaism but allows it to be e x p o u n d e d in a fashion that its original authors would hardly recognize. This m e t h o d continues to be important today.

Final Words The approach that I have laid out here allows me to walk something of a tightrope between being a serious historical-critical Bible scholar, emphasizing prerabbinic n o r m s of biblical interpretation and taking the Bible seriously as a Jew, incorporating postbiblical, rabbinic norms. Many feel that these roles are mutually incompatible. Yet, as m y s u p p o r t i n g examples show, this approach has roots in b o t h biblical a n d rabbinic texts. J u d a i s m as it has evolved is more than biblical religion, just as Jews are more than only Karaites—and even Karaites have adopted m a n y practices not mentioned in the Bible. 5 Yet we retain some continuity in our approaches to a text that we hold sacred. The historical-critical m e t h o d , with its emphasis on the prerabbinic meaning of diverse texts, might seem to be antirabbinic. Not so. Classic rabbinic texts

are typically p u n c t u a t e d with the p h r a s e davar acher ( ‫ ד ב ר א ח ר‬, "another o p i n ion"), used to separate distinct opinions. Frequently, rabbinic texts offer as m a n y diverse o p i n i o n s as biblical texts d o . 6 In o t h e r w o r d s , the Bible is really m u c h m o r e like a rabbinic text t h a n people t h i n k — i t is full of cases of "another o p i n ion." The m a i n difference between the Bible a n d classic rabbinic texts is that the Bible m a r k s its distinct o p i n i o n s less forthrightly. Yet in light of the historicalcritical m e t h o d , the Bible a p p e a r s as a compilation of diverse s o u r c e s — t h a t is, closer to the s t r u c t u r e of m u c h of rabbinic literature. I n d e e d , a small n u m b e r of rabbinic texts seem to recognize the c o m p o s i t e n a t u r e of the Torah. Certainly, n o rabbinic text says that the Torah w a s written by J, E, D, a n d P. However, an early medieval m i d r a s h i c w o r k , Pesikta

de-Rav

Kahana, describes the revelation at Sinai, suggesting that it was not monolithic: "R. H a n i n a bar Papa said: T h e Holy O n e a p p e a r e d to Israel with a stern face, w i t h an e q u a n i m o u s face, w i t h a friendly face, w i t h a j o y o u s face . . ."—all of w h i c h , w i t h the same authority, r e p r e s e n t e d the same G o d . ' The m i d r a s h proceeds to present a n o t h e r tradition describing G o d at the m o m e n t of revelation as "a statue w i t h faces on every side." In o t h e r w o r d s , each individual present gained a u n i q u e l y personal view of God. The historical-critical m e t h o d exemplified in the b o o k a s s u m e s that we can n o longer recover the single t r u t h of w h a t the Torah describes as Revelation, n o r of o t h e r religious issues that the ancient H e b r e w texts address. The most we can d o is to recognize the "faces on every side"—the multiple ancient p e r c e p t i o n s of God, preserved in o u r c o m p o s i t e Bible.

Notes

Chapter 1 1. I h a v e b o r r o w e d this characterization of traditional biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f r o m J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997), 1 8 - 2 3 . He e x p a n d s that b o o k in his Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common

Era ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d

Univ. Press, 1998). He m a k e s similar o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t a later p e r i o d in his In Potiphar's

House:

The Interpretive

Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco:

H a r p e r a n d Row, 1990). 2. For a translation of Pesher H a b a k k u k , see Geza Vermes, The Complete

Dead

Sea Scrolls ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , UK: P e n g u i n , 1997), 4 7 8 - 8 5 ; see esp. 4 7 9 ( f r o m the m i d d l e of c o l u m n 2): "the priest [in w h o s e heart] G o d set [ u n d e r s t a n d i n g ] that he m i g h t i n t e r p r e t all the w o r d s of His servants the p r o p h e t s , t h r o u g h w h o m he foretold all that w o u l d h a p p e n to His p e o p l e a n d [His l a n d ] " a n d 4 8 1 : "the Teacher of Righteousness, to w h o m G o d m a d e k n o w n all the mysteries of the w o r d s of His servants the Prophets." F o r a discussion of Pesher literature, see Shani L. Berrin, "Pesharim," in The Encyclopedia

of

the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. S c h i f f m a n a n d J a m e s C. V a n d e r K a m , 2.644-47. 3. Classical r a b b i n i c c o m m e n t a r y ( m i d r a s h ) e x p l a i n s the E x o d u s p h r a s e "in p e r p e t u i t y " w i t h the w o r d s "until the j u b i l e e year." See, for e x a m p l e , J a c o b Z. L a u t e r b a c h , ed. a n d trans., Mekhilta de-Rabbi

Ishmael

(Philadelphia:

J e w i s h Publication Society, 1 9 3 5 ; reissued 2 0 0 4 ) , 3.17. 4. See esp. Ibn Ezra's c o m m e n t a r y to Gen. 3 6 : 3 1 . 5. B a r u c h

Spinoza,

Tractatus

(Leiden: Brill, 1991).

Theologico-Politicus,

(trans.

Samuel

Shirley

6. Ibid., 141. 7. For a d e s c r i p t i o n of the m e t h o d itself, see J o h n Barton, "Historical-Critical A p p r o a c h e s , " in The Cambridge

Companion

to Biblical Interpretation,

ed. J o h n

Barton ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, 1 9 9 8 ) , 9 - 2 0 . For d e s c r i p t i o n s of the d e v e l o p m e n t of this m e t h o d , see The Cambridge

History of the Bible, 3

vols. ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, 1 9 6 3 - 7 0 ) , a n d the series Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation

(Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k

& R u p r e c h t , 1 9 9 6 - ). For an outline of the m e t h o d , see Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical

Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).

8. T h e t e r m "historical-critical" m a y date f r o m the s e v e n t e e n t h century. 9. J u l i u s W e l l h a u s e n , Prolegomena

to the History of Ancient

Israel (Gloucester,

MA: Peter Smith, 1973). M u c h of the b o o k brilliantly synthesizes earlier findings. It separates the Bible, especially the Torah, i n t o sources that are d a t e d to particular time periods. T h e n it p u t s those s o u r c e s b a c k together a c c o r d i n g to a posited historical d e v e l o p m e n t of Israelite religion. 10. T h e w o r k s of the G e r m a n rabbi David Zvi H o f f m a n n are the m o s t significant of those w h o decried Wellhausen's a p p r o a c h . A m o n g his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w h o d e f e n d e d the historical-critical m e t h o d w a s a n o t h e r G e r m a n - e d u c a t e d rabbi, the A m e r i c a n Reform leader K a u f m a n n Kohler. 11. S o l o m o n Schechter, Seminary

Addresses

and Other Papers (Cincinnati, O H :

Ark P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1915), 3 5 - 3 9 . 12. Ibid., 38. 13. Prolegomena,

2 2 7 . O n W e l l h a u s e n s i n d e b t e d n e s s to the age he lived in for

his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of J u d a i s m , see Lou H. Silberman, "Wellhausen

and

J u d a i s m , " Semeia 2 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 7 5 - 8 2 . 14. Schechter, Seminary

Address,

37.

15. T h e Jewish Study Bible ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 4 ) is f u r t h e r proof of h o w far this m e t h o d h a s s p r e a d ; t w o d e c a d e s ago it w o u l d have b e e n i m p o s s i b l e to find e n o u g h J e w i s h scholars c o m m i t t e d to the historical-critical m e t h o d to c o m p l e t e that b o o k . 16. Barry Holtz, ed., Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts ( N e w York: S u m m i t Books, 1984). 17. Richard Elliott F r i e d m a n h a s w r i t t e n several excellent readable w o r k s on the Bible. However, his Who Wrote the Bible (San Francisco: H a r p e r S a n Franciso, 1997) is not Jewishly sensitive, a n d his m o r e recent

Commentary

on the Torah with

Francisco:

English

Translation

and

Hebrew

Text

(San

H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s o , 1997) d o e s n o t use source criticism. 18. T h e classic of this genre is O t t o Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An

Introduction,

(trans. Peter A. Ackroyd ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1965). For a survey

of the genre, see Brevard S. Childs, Introduction

to the Old Testament

As

Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 2 7 - 4 5 . 19. For those interested in m o r e detailed theoretical discussions of m e t h o d o l o gy, see J o h n Barton, Reading

the Old Testament:

Method

in Biblical

(revised a n d enlarged edition; Louisville, KY: Westminster J o h n 1996); Douglass A. Knight, ed., Methods 0J Biblical Interpretation

Study Knox,

(Nashville,

TN: A b i n g d o n , 2 0 0 4 ) .

Chapter 2 1. T h e Greek w o r d biblia, in t u r n , likely derives f r o m the Phoenician port city of Byblos, a m a j o r exporter of p a p y r u s , f r o m w h i c h the ancients m a d e most of their books. Paper reached the West f r o m C h i n a only in the late first mill e n n i u m c.E. 2. See 2 C o r i n t h i a n s 3 : 1 4 a n d H e b r e w s 8:7. 3. As a technical term for a b o d y of literature, "Old Testament" was first u s e d by Melito of Sardis a n d the C h u r c h Fathers Tertullian a n d Origen, w h o lived f r o m the s e c o n d to the third centuries c.E. 4. Semitic languages (or dialects) in the ancient Near East i n c l u d e d A k k a d i a n , Phoenician, Ugaritic, Moabite, Aramaic, a n d Hebrew. W h e n in this b o o k I refer to "Semitic cultures," I m e a n the civilizations that p r o d u c e d d o c u m e n t s or inscriptions in these languages. F r o m that evidence we k n o w that those cultures shared a great deal in t e r m s of their o u t l o o k a n d way of life. 5. This b o o k uses the d a t i n g s c h e m a B.C.E. (Before the C o m m o n Era) a n d c . E . ( C o m m o n Era) for the designations B.c. a n d A.D., respectively. T h e dates are equivalent. 6. See J o s e p h u s , Antiquities

10.210, 1 3 . 1 6 7 , 16.168, 2 0 . 2 6 4 ; Against

Apion

1.54, 127, 228. A n o t h e r ancient J e w w h o wrote in Greek, Philo, e m p l o y e d a similar phrase, hai hierai graphai, in his Abraham

61, de congressu 34, 90;

Decalogue 8, 37; a n d elsewhere. (See also J o s e p h u s in Against Apion 2.45.) These references were s u p p l i e d by Professor Shaye D. C o h e n . 7. See Against Apion

1.42. This m a y be f o u n d in H. St. J. Thackery, trans.,

Josephus I: The Life; Against Apion, Loeb Classical Library ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926), 1 7 8 - 7 9 . 8. T h e s e c o n d term overlaps w i t h the earlier Greek n o m e n c l a t u r e . For these a n d other rabbinic t e r m s for the entire Bible a n d its sections, see Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization

of Hebrew Scripture:

The Talmudic and

Evidence ( H a m d e n , CT: A r c h o n Books, 1976), 57.

Midrashic

9. Ibid., 6 0 - 7 2 . 10. Frederick Ε. G r e e n s p a h n , " H o w J e w s Translate the Bible," in

Biblical

Translation in Context, ed. Frederick W K n o b l o c h (Bethesda: Univ. Press of Maryland, 2 0 0 2 ) , 5 2 - 5 3 . 11. Roland E. Murphy, "Old T e s t a m e n t / T a n a k h — C a n o n a n d Interpretation," in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying

the Bible in Judaism and

Christianity,

ed. Roger Brooks a n d J o h n J. Collins (Notre D a m e , IN: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1990), 1 1 - 2 9 . 12. Apart f r o m the Torah, J e w s have a r r a n g e d the biblical b o o k s in m a n y o t h e r orders. See the discussion in Leiman, The Canonization

of Hebrew

5 1 - 5 3 . See also the charts in Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction Massoretico-Critical

Scripture, to the

Edition of the Hebrew Bible ( 1 8 9 7 ; repr., H o b o k e n , NJ:

Ktav, 1966), 108. G i n s b u r g w o r k e d w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e of the i m p o r t a n t t h o u s a n d - y e a r - o l d Bible m a n u s c r i p t k n o w n as the Aleppo C o d e x (and related c o d e x e s s u c h as Leningrad B19a). T h e o r d e r of Kethuvim in Aleppo is: Chronicles, Psalms, J o b , Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs,

Ecclesiastes,

Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, E z r a - N e h e m i a h . 13. This is the first of the " F o r m e r Prophets"; three o t h e r s follow. 14. Although English Bibles list Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, a n d Ezra-Nehemiah as two b o o k s apiece, originally they were each a single book. Because those b o o k s were quite long, later editors split each one into two parts for convenience. 15. Many m a n u s c r i p t s placed J o b before Proverbs. 16. Jewish scribes a n d editors have t e n d e d to g r o u p together five relatively short b o o k s (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, a n d Esther), placing t h e m usually w i t h i n K e t h u v i m or s o m e t i m e s right after the Torah, at the start of Nevi'im. W i t h i n this collection, w h i c h is o f t e n called the

Chamesh

Megillot ("Five Scrolls"), their o r d e r has b e e n highly variable. The o r d e r s h o w n reflects the s e q u e n c e in w h i c h J e w s read t h e m d u r i n g the liturgical year. A n o t h e r c o m m o n a r r a n g e m e n t reflects the chronological o r d e r in w h i c h they were written according to rabbinic ascription. 17. Three b o o k s (Isaiah, J e r e m i a h , a n d Ezekiel) f o r m a set called "Major Prophets," w h e r e "major" refers to the length of the books. W i t h i n this set, Jewish scribes a n d editors have a r r a n g e d the b o o k s in different sequences. 18. "Minor" in this context m e a n s "short." T h e twelve are Hosea, Joel, Amos, O b a d i a h , J o n a h , Micah, N a h u m , H a b a k k u k , Z e p h a n i a h , Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. In H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s a n d p r i n t e d editions, these twelve texts always a p p e a r in the same order. 19. Too m u c h e m p h a s i s s h o u l d n o t b e placed o n Chronicles as the "last" b o o k of the Bible—this is n o t its p o s i t i o n in m a n y of the m o s t accurate early manuscripts.

20. As stated, the Septuagint w a s originally a Jewish translation. For centuries, m a n y J e w s s p o k e Greek as their first language, a n d they used various Greek translations of the Bible. For e x a m p l e , the J u d e a n Desert c o m m u n i t y w h o s e library we n o w call the Dead Sea Scrolls k e p t Greek translations o n h a n d (see the s u m m a r y in Eugene Ulrich, "Septuagint," Encyclopedia

of the Dead

Sea Scrolls, 2 . 8 6 3 - 6 8 ) . However, the Septuagint w a s preserved in its entirety only w i t h i n

the Christian

community.

Scholarly literature

Septuagint a n d its origin is i m m e n s e ; see recently Natalio Marcos, The Septuagint

in Context: Introduction

on

the

Fernandez

to the Greek Version of the Bible,

trans. Wilfred G. E. W a t s o n (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2 0 0 1 ) . 21. In antiquity this was the p r e d o m i n a n t o r d e r of these four sections, b u t n o t the only a r r a n g e m e n t . See the lists a n d detailed discussion in H e n r y Barclay Swete, An Introduction

to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e

Univ. Press, 1902), 1 9 7 - 2 3 0 ; for less complete, b u t less technical discussion, see Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Church and Its Background

in Early Judaism

Canon of the New

Testament

( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s ,

1985), 1 8 1 - 2 3 4 . 22. The Septuagint placed Ruth after J u d g e s , a p p a r e n t l y because the t w o are recognized as o c c u r r i n g in the same time period (see Ruth 1:1). It also placed Lamentations after the Book of J e r e m i a h , the p r o p h e t w h o is said to have written those laments. 23. T h e division into two parts of s o m e of the larger b o o k s (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, E z r a - N e h e m i a h ) is f o u n d already in the Septuagint. Greek tradition also assigned different n a m e s to s o m e of the biblical b o o k s ; for e x a m pie, w h a t we call Chronicles, they called Paralipomena, "that w h i c h w a s o m i t t e d [from Samuel a n d Kings]." 24. In Septuagint m a n u s c r i p t s , the p r e d o m i n a n t order of the Twelve differs f r o m that f o u n d in H e b r e w Bibles. However, English Bibles typically o r d e r the Twelve according to their H e b r e w order. 25. For a chart of these differences, see JSB, 2 1 1 8 - 1 9 . 26. b. BavaBatra

14b-15a.

Chapter 3 1. M u c h of this chapter, a n d the title of this b o o k , is based o n J o h n Barton, Reading

the Old Testament:

Method

in Biblical Study,

rev. a n d enl.

ed.

(Louisville, KY: Westminster J o h n Knox, 1996). 2. Barton's term for reading the Bible like an ancient Israelite is "literary c o m petence" (see the previous note).

3. J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997), 18-23. 4. This p o e m is q u o t e d in T h o m a s E. Sanders, The Discovery of Poetry (Atlanta: Scott, F o r e s m a n a n d C o m p a n y , 1967), 33. 5. O u r lack of i n f o r m a n t s m a y have m o v e d m a n y readers, a n d s o m e scholars, away f r o m the historical-critical m e t h o d , w h i c h they see as overly conjectural a n d unverifiable. This is an exaggerated reaction. Many of the results of historical-critical analyses can be trusted with a high degree of confidence.

Chapter 4 1. Based o n linguistic evidence, most scholars consider the Song of D e b o r a h in J u d g e s 5 to be the earliest piece of biblical literature. Portions of the Book of Daniel are typically dated to b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164 B.C.E., based on internal references to historical events. 2. For additional literature o n the theoretical issues discussed here, see m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient

Israel ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995);

"The C o p e n h a g e n School: T h e Historiographical Issues," AJS Review

27

( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 2 1 ; a n d V Philips Long, ed., Israel's Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography,

Sources for Biblical a n d Theological Study

7 ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1999). 3. The m o s t f a m o u s of these in America was by J o h n Bright, recently r e p u b lished in a f o u r t h ( p o s t h u m o u s ) edition. 4. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, A n c h o r Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), XL-XLI, 9 1 - 9 3 . 5. This t e n d e n c y p e r v a d e s the w o r k of William Foxwell Albright, a n d m a y be seen especially in his synthesis, From Stone Age to Christianity:

Monotheism

and the Historical Process ( G a r d e n City, NY: Anchor, 1957). The b o o k also displays a significant Christian bias. For an i m p o r t a n t critique of Albright, see Burke O. Long, Planting Interpreting

and Reaping

Albright:

Politics, Ideology, and

the Bible (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1997).

6. T h o m a s L. T h o m p s o n , The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: for the Historical Abraham, 7. J o h n Van Seters, Abraham

The Quest

BZAW 133 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974). in History and Tradition ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale

Univ. Press, 1975). 8. See, e.g., Kathleen Kenyon, Archaeology Praeger, 1970), 2 1 1 .

in the Holy Land, 3 r d ed. ( N e w York:

9. See the s u m m a r y in Amihai Mazar, Archaeology 10,000-586

B.C.E.,

of the Land of the Bible

A n c h o r Bible ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday,

1990),

3 2 8 - 3 8 . For a recent detailed synthesis, see William G. Dever, Who Were the Early

Israelites

and

Where

Did

They

Come

From?

(Grand

Rapids

MI:

E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 ) . For a p o p u l a r summary, see A m y Dockser Marcus, The View from Nebo: How Archaeology

is Rewriting and Reshaping the Middle East

(Boston: Little, Brown, 2 0 0 0 ) , 7 8 - 1 0 4 . 10. See the s u m m a r y a n d critique in m y article "The C o p e n h a g e n School: The Historiographical Issues," AJS Review 2 7 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 2 1 . 11. T h e literature o n theoretical biases is n o w i m m e n s e . See especially the w o r k s of T h o m p s o n a n d Lemche f r o m the C o p e n h a g e n School, as well as a variety of a u t h o r s p u b l i s h i n g in the SJOT. For critiques, see the article cited in n. 10 a n d various w o r k s by Dever. T h e d i s p u t e is reflected in the variety of articles f o u n d in Lester L. G r a b b e , ed., Can A 'History of Israel' Be Written? J S O T S u p 2 4 5 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). 12. Accusations of anti-Zionism have b e e n leveled in particular against Keith W W h i t e l a m , The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian

History

( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1996). 13. For m o r e o n the methodological issues in u s i n g the Bible as a historical source, see m y b o o k The Creation of History a n d the various b o o k s a n d articles cited above. 14. For m a n y e x a m p l e s f r o m various cultures, see Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations

in

the Ancient Near East and in Israel, CBOT 1 ( L u n d ; Gleerup, 1967). 15. COS, 2 . 1 3 7 . 16. Assyrian scribes, however, recopied their annals extensively since they were u p d a t e d annually. S o m e t i m e s in this process, they w o u l d revise a n d s h o r t e n the events of earlier years; see Louis D. Levine, "Manuscripts, Texts a n d the S t u d y of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions," in F M. Fales, ed., Royal

Inscriptions:

New

Horizons

(Rome: Instituto per LOriente,

Assyrian 1981),

49-70. 17. Detailed discussion of the reliability of textual transmission m a y be f o u n d in E m a n u e l Τον, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2 n d rev. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: A u g s b u r g Fortress, 2 0 0 1 ) . 18. Many b o o k s bear titles like "A/The History of (Ancient) Israel," w h i c h the following s u m m a r y d r a w s u p o n . Two of the m o r e recent s u c h b o o k s are Iaian Provan, V. Philips Long, a n d T r e m p e r L o n g m a n III, A Biblical History of Israel

(Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n

Knox, 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d Victor

H.

Matthews, A Brief History of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n

Knox, 2 0 0 3 — s e e also his theoretical discussion on 3 - 9 7 ) . These lean t o w a r d the conservative side in t e r m s of u p h o l d i n g as m u c h of the biblical narrative as possible. 19. See D o n a l d B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992), 2 5 7 - 8 0 ; n o t e especially 2 6 0 , w h e r e he accuses m a n y biblical scholars of " m a n h a n d l i n g of evidence." Contrast the view of J a m e s K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the

Authenticity

of the Exodus Tradition ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1997). 20. Biblical scholars have not reached a c o n s e n s u s o n exactly w h a t the Israelite s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g was, or even a b o u t w h e n the ancestral stories were written. C o m p a r e , e.g., E. T h e o d o r e Mullen, Jr., Ethnic Myths and Foundations:

A New Approach

to the Formation

of the Pentateuch

Pentateuchal (Atlanta:

Scholars, 1997) to Ρ Kyle McCarter a n d Ronald S. H e n d e l , "The Patriarchal Age: A b r a h a m , Isaac a n d Jacob," in Hershel Shanks, ed., Ancient Israel, rev. a n d exp. ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999), 1 - 3 1 . 21. COS, 2.41. 22. I. Eph'al, "The W e s t e r n Minorities in Babylonia in the 6 t h - 5 t h Centuries B.C.: Maintenance a n d C o h e s i o n , " Orientalia

47 (1978), 74-90.

Chapter 5 1. See G. Ε Moore, "The Vulgate C h a p t e r s a n d N u m b e r e d Verses in the H e b r e w Bible," in Sid Z. Leiman, ed., The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory

Reader( N e w York: Ktav, 1974), 8 1 5 - 2 0 .

2. See E m a n u e l Τον, Textual Criticism

of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress, 2 0 0 1 ) , 5 0 - 5 1 , 2 1 0 - 1 1 . 3. See Τον, 5 2 - 5 3 , a n d L. Blau, "Massoretic Studies, III.-IV: The Division into Verses," in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, ed. Sid Z. Leiman, 623-64. 4. O n the division b e t w e e n w o r d s , see Τον, 2 0 8 - 9 , 2 5 2 - 5 3 . 5. F r o m comparative linguistic evidence a n d ancient translations, scholars have d e t e r m i n e d that in the period of the Bible, the c o n s o n a n t vav (1) represented a "w" s o u n d . That is w h y scholars often write the unvocalized divine n a m e as "YHWH" rather t h a n

"YHVH."

6. See Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). In fact, the m o s t f a m o u s part of this c o m p o s i tion, the flood story of tablet 11, reflects a r e w o r k i n g of the earlier AtraHasis epic.

7. See especially 4 Q p a l e o E x o d m , w h i c h h a s m a n y e x p a n s i o n s of the type seen in the Samaritan Pentateuch. See DJD 9, 6 8 - 7 0 . 8. For a p o p u l a r i n t r o d u c t i o n to source criticism, see Richard Elliott F r i e d m a n , Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, Knohl, The Divine Symphony:

1997); Israel

The Bible's Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 8 5 . For a color-coded delineation of these sources, see Richard Elliott F r i e d m a n , The Bible with Sources Revealed

(San

Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2 0 0 3 ) . For a m o r e technical discussion, see Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen

(Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1998).

9. See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation

in Ancient Israel (Oxford: O x f o r d

Univ. Press, 1985), w h o argues for a slowly d e v e l o p i n g c a n o n , or a c a n o n w i t h i n a c a n o n . More specifically, o n the retention of legal sections of E x o d u s that were reinterpreted in Deuteronomy, see Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy

and the Hermeneutics

of Legal Innovation

( N e w York: O x f o r d

Univ. Press, 1997). 10. George

Foot

Moore,

"Tatiaris D i a t e s s a r o n

Pentateuch," in Empirical

and

the Analysis

Models for Biblical Criticism,

of

the

ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay

(Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 2 4 3 - 5 6 . 11. For additional models, see Empirical Models for Biblical

Criticism.

Chapter 6 1. T h e literature by a n d a b o u t creationism is i m m e n s e . T h e following w e b site offers a g o o d

sense

of t h e

principles

and

agendas

of

creationists:

http://www.creationism.org. 2. For a recent discussion of the p r o b l e m of genre a n d p r e m o d e r n texts, see Bert Roest a n d H e r m a n Vanstiphout, eds., Aspects of Genre and Type in PreModern Literary Cultures (Groningen: Styx, 1999). 3. Walter Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1979). 4. Ibid., 28. 5. For m o r e on m e t a p h o r s , see m y God is King: Understanding

an

Israelite

Metaphor, J S O T S u p 76 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). 6. Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, 1 - 3 4 , esp. 23. 7. See, e.g., J o h n Carlos Rowe, "Structure," in F r a n k Lentricchia a n d T h o m a s McLaughlin, eds., Critical

Terms for

Literary

Study

(Chicago: Univ. of

Chicago Press, 1990), 2 3 - 3 8 . A m o n g biblical scholars of the late t w e n t i e t h

century, J. Ρ F o k k e l m a n e m p h a s i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of structure; see e.g. his Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory

Guide (Louisville, KY: Westminster

J o h n Knox, 1999), 9 7 - 1 1 1 . 8. T h e fact that m a n y of these structural e l e m e n t s are not evenly d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t Genesis 1 h a s led m a n y scholars to suggest that this first creation story has a long prehistory, a n d h a s i n c o r p o r a t e d e l e m e n t s of earlier stories. This is likely correct, yet it does n o t affect m y basic a r g u m e n t a b o u t the s t r u c t u r e a n d m e a n i n g of this m y t h . 9. Since the p r e d o m i n a n t image of G o d in the Bible is as male, a n d t h r o u g h out the H e b r e w Bible "God" is always treated as grammatically male, I will e m p l o y the masculine p r o n o u n t h r o u g h o u t this b o o k in reference to God. Historical-critical m e t h o d o l o g y is i n d e b t e d to the n o r m s of the past w h i c h it is trying to recapture, rather t h a n the preferences of c o n t e m p o r a r y religious practice. The use of the m a s c u l i n e p r o n o u n t h r o u g h o u t the Bible— a n d in this b o o k — s h o u l d have n o bearing on m o d e r n theological issues, on h o w we might envision G o d , n o r w h a t p r o n o u n s we might use in c o n t e m p o r a r y discourse. 10. This s t r u c t u r e is p o i n t e d o u t in m o s t c o m m e n t a r i e s ; in greater detail see Bernhard W A n d e r s o n , "The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study," in From Creation

to New Creation,

OBT (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,

1994),

42-55. 11. As in the M e s o p o t a m i a n m y t h E n u m a Elish (often incorrectly called T h e M e s o p o t a m i a n Creation Story), light exists before the creation of the luminaries. 12. As argued by several scholars, it is likely that this creation story is actually the p r o d u c t of "H," a later representation of the Priestly School, rather t h a n Ρ itself, b u t this is not i m p o r t a n t at this point. 13. T h u s , the m a i n t h e m e of Rudolf O t t o , The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational

Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the

Rational

( L o n d o n : O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1925) is correct, b u t only to a limited degree in the Bible. 14. For early Jewish a n d Christian interpretations, see J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997), 6 1 - 6 3 . 15. See Claus W e s t e r m a n n , Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1984), 145. 16. See m y b o o k God Is King, 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 . 17. See especially J a m e s Barr, "The Image of G o d in the Book of Genesis—A Study of Terminology," BJRL 51 ( 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 ) , 1 1 - 2 6 . 18. A different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Genesis 1:27 sees the final third ("male a n d

female he created them") as a n e w t h o u g h t , i n d e p e n d e n t of w h a t precedes; see Phyllis A. Bird, '"Male a n d Female He Created T h e m ' : Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation," in Missing Persons and Mistaken

Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient

Israel, OBT (Minneapolis,

MN: Fortress, 1997), 1 2 3 - 5 4 . 19. Usually creation implies the f o r m a t i o n of physical objects. Institutions, however, can also be created. Genesis 2 : 2 - 3 deals w i t h the creation of the Sabbath, m u c h like the M e s o p o t a m i a n m y t h E n u m a Elish narrates the ereation of kingship a n d of the institutions s u r r o u n d i n g the w o r s h i p of the god Marduk. 20. See Louis Ginzberg,

The

Legends

of the Jews,

trans.

Henrietta

Szold

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968; reissued, 2 0 0 2 ) , vol. 5, 97-98. 2 1 . See Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality

(Philadelphia: Fortress,

1978), 126. 22. For the Fall of Man, see R o m a n s 5; the idea of original sin is not present in the Greek N e w Testament text here, b u t already a p p e a r s in an early Latin translation of the Greek. See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian History of the Development Tradition (100-600)

Tradition:

A

of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic

(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1971), 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 .

23. For a detailed, b u t different t r e a t m e n t of the story, see J a m e s Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,

1993). I learned m a n y of the ideas that I develop below f r o m 1. Tzvi A b u s c h ; s o m e are also f o u n d in Susan Niditch, "Genesis," in The Women's Commentary,

Bible

ed. Carol A. N e w s o m a n d Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, KY:

W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1992), 1 2 - 1 4 . A synthesis of recent feminist readings of the G a r d e n story can be f o u n d in Alice O g d e n Bellis, Harlots,

Heroes:

Women's

Stories

in the Hebrew

Bible

Helpmates,

(Louisville,

KY:

W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1994), 4 5 - 6 6 . 24. C o n c e r n w i t h o v e r p o p u l a t i o n is not anachronistic; in fact, this is a m a i n t h e m e of the M e s o p o t a m i a n Atra-Hasis epic. (For the text, see Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia:

Creation,

the Flood, Gilgamesh,

and

Others

[Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1991], 1 - 3 8 . ) 25. O n m e r i s m s , see Luis Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988), 8 3 - 8 4 . 26. See especially the r e a d i n g of this verse

proposed

in Carol

Meyers,

Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1988), 9 5 - 1 2 1 . 27. T h o u g h s o m e have suggested that the a u t h o r of his story, the Yahwist, m a y

be a w o m a n , this is most unlikely. W i t h the exception of the Book of Ruth, w h i c h s h o w s particular interest in the w o m e n ' s w o r l d a n d depicts w o m e n very positively (see " W o m e n in Esther a n d Ruth" in c h a p t e r 26), biblical a u t h o r s m a y be a s s u m e d to be male, unless there is strong evidence otherwise. 28. Niditch, "Genesis," 13. 29. In contrast to bara'(‫)ברא‬,

the w o r d yatzar ( ‫ ) י צ ר‬is used in this story, a w o r d

often used of h u m a n potters (see especially Jer. 18).

Chapter 7 1. O n the different types of genealogies a n d their use, see Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, YNER 7 ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ.

Press,

1977), w h i c h

Genealogies," ABD,

he s u m m a r i z e s

in his article

"Genealogy,

2.929-932.

2. See J o h n van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1992), 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 , following Claus Westermann. 3. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, O T L (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 24. 4. T h e literature on the role of the Matriarchs is n o w i m m e n s e . See in particular A Feminist

Companion

to Genesis,

ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield, UK:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); i d e m , Genesis: A Feminist Companion

to the

Bible (Second Series) (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Susan Niditch, "Genesis," in The Women's Bible Commentary,

ed. Carol A. N e w s o m

a n d Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n 1 0 - 2 5 , esp. 1 5 - 2 5 ; a n d Alice O g d e n Bellis, Helpmates,

Knox, Harlots,

1992), Heroes:

Women's Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1994), 6 7 - 9 8 (with extensive bibliography). 5. For a dissenting view, see Carol Meyers, Discovering

Eve: Ancient

Israelite

Women in Context ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1988), 2 4 - 4 6 . 6. See the discussion in m y b o o k The Creation

of History

in Ancient

Israel

( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995), 1 0 - 1 2 . 7. See above, c h a p t e r 4. 8. See Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (San Francisco: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1987), 7 0 - 1 2 5 . 9. Quite possibly Genesis 2 2 : 1 5 - 1 8 is not an original part of this story, as n o t e d by m o s t c o m m e n t a r i e s . For the m e a n i n g of the b i n d i n g of Isaac story before these verses were a d d e d , see J o n D. Levenson, The Death

and

Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation and Christianity

of Child Sacrifice in Judaism

( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1993). He properly

e m p h a s i z e s that the story may not be u n d e r s t o o d as a p o l e m i c against child sacrifice. 10. T h e following e x a m p l e s are t a k e n from J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 144-46. 11. "Pseudepigrapha" are n o n c a n o n i c a l w o r k s that originated in the Jewish Hellenistic period. Most originated in Hebrew, b u t they survived because the C h u r c h preserved t h e m in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopie, a n d o t h e r languages. The term m e a n s "false writings" because m a n y of the P s e u d e p i g r a p h a present themselves as a u t h e n t i c w o r d s of a w e l l - k n o w n sage, such as Moses. J a m e s H. C h a r l e s w o r t h has collected t h e m in The Old Pseudepigrapha,

Testament

2 vols. ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985).

12. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication Society, 1968; reissued, 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 . 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 . A version of this b o o k w i t h o u t the valuable footnotes is available u n d e r the title Legends of the Bible. 13. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1.224; for the sources, see 5 . 2 2 1 , n. 75. 14. Antiquities, Jewish

1.164; for the translation, see H. St. J. Thackery,Josephus IV:

Antiquities

Books I-IV,

Loeb Classical Library ( C a m b r i d g e ,

MA:

Harvard Univ. Press, 1930), vol. 1, 81. J o s e p h u s has here reconciled Genesis 12 w i t h the similar stories in c h a p t e r s 20 a n d 26. 15. W h a t follows is a s u m m a r y of "The Typologies of Genesis" in m y b o o k The Creation

of Histoiy

in Ancient

Israel,

4 8 - 6 1 ; see there for extensive

documentation. 16. See Yohanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient

Israel

( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), 6 7 - 9 5 . 17. For literature o n the wife-sister motif, see m y b o o k The Creation of

History,

176, n. 30, a n d 177, n n . 35, 36. 18. See m y b o o k The Creation of History, "Cyclical a n d Temporality

48, a n d m o r e generally m y article

Teleological Time in the

Hebrew

Bible," in

Time

and

in the Ancient World, ed. Ralph M. Rosen (Philadelphia: Univ. of

Pennsylvania M u s e u m of Archaeology a n d Anthropology, 2 0 0 4 ) , 1 1 1 - 2 8 . 19. See especially the t e n u o u s c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the E x o d u s a n d the Sabbath in D e u t e r o n o m y 5 : 1 5 — i t is t r a n s p a r e n t h o w the Sabbath is related to ereation in the E x o d u s Decalogue, b u t it is less clear h o w it c o m m e m o r a t e s the Exodus. 20. See, e.g., Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative 21. See, e.g., W. Lee H u m p h r e y s , Joseph

(NY: Basic, 1981), 5 - 1 2 .

and His Family:

A Literary

Study

(Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1988), 1 5 - 3 1 ; a n d Van Seters, Prologue to History,

311.

22. O n the signifance of the firstborn, a n d generally on the symbolic n a t u r e of biblical genealogies, see the w o r k s of Wilson cited above, n. 1. 23. See Frederick E. G r e e n s p a h n , When Brothers Dwell Together: The

Preeminence

of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1994). 24. Peter F Ellis, The Yahwist: The Bible's First Theologian ( L o n d o n : G. C h a p m a n , 1969), 1 3 6 - 3 8 .

Chapter 8 1. For w h y I prefer the term "Decalogue," see p. 6 4 , "The Decalogue." 2. For E x o d u s 20, verse n u m b e r i n g varies a m o n g Bible editions because there are discrepancies in the n u m b e r i n g of the verses of the Decalogue. T h e n u m bers used here follow the JPS translation. 3. O n the basic similarities b e t w e e n biblical views a n d those of Israels neighbors, see M o r t o n Smith, "The C o m m o n Theology of the Ancient Near East," JBL 7 1 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 3 5 - 4 7 . 4. For reasons that will b e c o m e m o r e clear later (see below, "The C o v e n a n t Collection"), I a m avoiding the t e r m "code." Instead, I a m u s i n g the terminology f o u n d in a recent translation of these a n d o t h e r laws: Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from

Mesopotamia

and Asia Minor,

SBL Writings f r o m the

Ancient World Series (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995). 5. Roth, Law Collections,

80-81.

6. Ibid., 133. 7. Ibid., 135. 8. See m y God Is King, 113. 9. See Keith W h i t e l a m , The Just King: Monarchical Ancient

and Judicial Authority

in

Israel, J S O T S u p 12; (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1979). Note esp.

D e u t e r o n o m y 1 7 : 8 - 1 3 , w h i c h gives the levitical priests a judicial role in a unit that i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s the law of the k i n g ( 1 7 : 1 4 - 2 0 ) . That law e m p h a s i z e s the king's subservience to the law a n d the levitical priests ( 1 7 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) . See also the a c c o u n t of 2 Chronicles 1 9 : 4 - 1 1 , c o n c e r n i n g King J e h o s h a p h a t , a n d the c o m m e n t s in Sara J a p h e t , I & II Chronicles,

OTL:

(Louisville, KY, 1993), 7 7 0 - 7 9 . 10. The reference is to living long in the land of Israel, not to personal longevity. 11. M o s h e Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law," in J u d a h G o l d i n , ed., The Jewish Expression ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1976),

1 8 - 3 7 , d e v e l o p s the view that the entire Bible p r e s u m e s that all law w a s religious, divine law. This h a s b e e n q u e s t i o n e d m o r e recently; see, e.g., A n n e Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation

of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law,

J S O T S u p 2 8 7 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1999). 12. F r o m law 14 of the Middle Assyrian Laws (Roth, Law Collections,

158).

13. Texts s u c h as these are d o w n p l a y e d b y G r e e n b e r g — s e e n. 11. 14. This is e x p l o r e d in m y paper, "The M a n y Faces of G o d in E x o d u s 19," in Jews, Christians,

and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures,

ed. Alice O g d e n

Bellis a n d Joel S. Kaminsky, SBL S y m p o s i u m Series 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 5 3 - 6 7 . 15. For a c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n — t h a t only the three m a i n sources, J, E, a n d Ρ are c o m b i n e d h e r e — s e e Baruch J. Schwartz, " W h a t Really H a p p e n e d at M o u n t Sinai? F o u r Biblical A n s w e r s to O n e Q u e s t i o n , " Bible Review

13:5 ( 1 9 9 7 ) :

2 0 - 3 0 , 46. 16. M o s h e G r e e n b e r g , "The Decalogue Tradition Critically E x a m i n e d , " in The Ten Commandments

in History and Tradition, ed. Ben-Zion Segal (Jerusalem:

Magnes, 1 9 9 0 ) , 9 6 - 9 9 ; J a m e s Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap, 1 9 9 7 ) , 3 8 2 - 8 4 . 17. T h e r e is significant difference a m o n g the views of various Christian d e n o m inations, a n d a m o n g various J e w i s h traditions, r e g a r d i n g the division of the c o m m a n d m e n t s w i t h i n the Decalogue. See the chart in E d u a r d Nielsen, The Ten Commandments

in New Perspective: A Traditio-historical

Approach,

SBT 2 7

(Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1 9 6 8 ) , 10. 18. See, e.g., J o h a n n J a k o b S t a m m a n d Maurice E d w a r d Andrew, The Ten Commandments

in Recent Research,

SBT 2 2 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967),

1 8 - 2 0 ; M o s h e Weinfeld, "The U n i q u e n e s s of the Decalogue a n d its Place in J e w i s h Tradition," in The Ten Commandments

in History and Tradition,

ed.

Ben-Zion Segal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1 9 9 0 ) , 6 - 8 . 19. See the chart in Moshe G r e e n b e r g , "The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined," 9 2 - 9 3 . 20. Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 3 8 3 - 8 4 . 2 1 . N o t e h o w in particular the reason given for S a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e in the Decalogue in D e u t e r o n o m y fits w i t h D e u t e r o n o m y ' s b r o a d e r interest in e m p h a s i z i n g the E x o d u s f r o m Egypt. O n the internal evidence for the develo p m e n t of the Decalogue, see B. Levinson in the JSB, 3 7 6 , o n D e u t e r o n o m y 5:9. 22. T h e ancient translations a n d the Dead Sea Scrolls offer concrete evidence for the fluidity of the biblical text in late antiquity. For a b r o a d discussion of textual t r a n s m i s s i o n of the Bible, see E m a n u e l Τον, Textual

Criticism

of the

Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 1 ) ; for essays o n the Bible as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see in a d d i t i o n E u g e n e Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999). 23. That the child's d e a t h is a p u n i s h m e n t of David is clear in the H e b r e w text, t h o u g h the p o i n t is o b s c u r e d by translations ( i n c l u d i n g that of JPS) that incorrectly r e n d e r he-evir ( ‫ ה ע ב י ר‬, "has transferred") as "has remitted"; see S. Bar-Efrat in the JSB, 6 3 9 , o n 2 S a m u e l 12:13. 24. See Michael F i s h b a n e , "Torah a n d Tradition," in Tradition and Theology in the Old

Testament,

ed.

Douglas A. Knight

(Philadelphia:

Fortress,

2 7 9 - 8 0 , a n d various places in Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation

1977),

in

Ancient

Israel ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1985). 25. In a d d i t i o n to the evidence cited in n. 21, it is n o t e w o r t h y that the Sabbath c o m m a n d m e n t s e e m s to a d d r e s s w o m e n , while the c o m m a n d m e n t c o n c e r n i n g coveting one's neighbor's wife d o e s not, also suggesting that the Decalogue h a s a c o m p l e x history of c o m p o s i t i o n . 26. F i s h b a n e , "Torah a n d Tradition," 2 7 5 - 3 0 0 ; Meir Weiss, "The Decalogue in P r o p h e t i c Literature," in The Ten Commandments

in History

and

Tradition,

67-81. 27. M u c h a b o u t the law collection in E x o d u s c o n t i n u e s to be d e b a t e d ; see esp. the essays in Theory Interpolation,

and Method

and Development,

in Biblical and Cuneiform

Law:

Revision,

ed. Bernard M. Levinson, J S O T S u p

181

(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1994). 28. N o t e the title of Roth's b o o k ( c o n t a i n i n g texts a n d translations),

Law

Collections. All of these collections differ f r o m the later R o m a n legal c o d e s in size, organization, a n d use. 29. See Albrecht Alt, "The Origins of Israelite Law," in Essays on Old History

and Religion

( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday,

Malcolm Clark, "Law," in Old Testament

Form Criticism,

Testament

1967), 1 0 1 - 7 1 ;

W

ed. J o h n H. Hayes

(San A n t o n i o , TX: Trinity Univ. Press, 1 9 7 4 ) , 9 9 - 1 3 9 . 30. T h e translation follows Roth, Law Collections,

123, a l t h o u g h I have r e n d e r e d

i, w h i c h she leaves u n t r a n s l a t e d , as "a m e m b e r of the u p p e r class." 3 1 . Roth, Law Collections,

125.

32. In the A k k a d i a n of H a m m u r a b i — a s in the H e b r e w of the Bible—there is n o separate gender-inclusive p r o n o u n , so "he" is u s e d to i n c l u d e b o t h males a n d females. In m a n y of the laws that follow, "he" or "him" m a y be u s e d in a g e n d e r - n e u t r a l sense. 33. Roth, Law Collections,

128.

34. Ibid., 7 3 - 7 6 . 35. T h e following o b s e r v a t i o n s are largely t a k e n f r o m M o s h e Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical C r i m i n a l Law," in The Jewish Expression,

ed. J u d a h

Goldin ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1976), 1 8 - 3 7 ; i d e m , "More Reflections o n Biblical Criminal Law," ScrHier Finkelstein,

The Ox

That

Gored,

TAPS 7 1 / 2

3 1 (186), 1 - 1 7 ; a n d J. J. (Philadelphia:

American

Philosophical Society, 1981). More generally, see David Ρ Wright, "The Laws of

Hammurabi

as a S o u r c e

2 0 : 2 3 - 2 3 : 1 9 ) , " Maarav

for t h e

Covenant

Collection

(Exodus

10 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 1 - 8 7 .

36. Some scholars believe that the law here is c o m p o s i t e , w h e r e an earlier law insisted that the o w n e r be killed, a n d that this is s u p p l e m e n t e d by a later law that allowed for this r a n s o m i n g . 37. See the article of G r e e n b e r g cited above (n. 35). 38. It is unclear h o w the value of the "twenty shekels" of silver in H a m m u r a b i c o m p a r e s to the "thirty shekels" of the C o v e n a n t Collection. 39. O n Deuteronomy's cheirem as "a theory," see Moshe Greenberg, "Herem," EJ, 8 . 3 4 9 ; o n the jubilee year as real or ideal, see C h r i s t o p h e r J. H. Wright, "Jubilee, Year of," ABD,

3.1027-1028.

40. See Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform

Law, ed. Bernard M. Levin-

son. For a different o p i n i o n , see J o h n van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code ( N e w York: O x f o r d , 2 0 0 3 ) . 41. See the essays by Greenberg (n. 35).

Chapter 9 1. "Ritual" has b e e n defined in a variety of ways, a n d n o precise u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ritual will be p r e s e n t e d here. For a discussion, see David Ρ Wright, Ritual in Narrative:

The Dynamics

of Fasting, Mourning,

and Retaliation

Rites in the

Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2 0 0 1 ) , 8 - 1 3 . 2. Gustavo Benavides, "Modernity," in Critical Terms for Religious Studies,

ed.

Mark C. Taylor (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998), 196. 3. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena

to the History of Ancient Israel (Gloucester,

MA: Peter Smith, 1973). For a summary, see the foreward of Douglas A. Knight in the recent reprint by Scholars Press (Atlanta, 1994), v - x v i ; specifically o n Wellhausen's views o n

religion, see Patrick

D. Miller, Jr.,

"Wellhausen a n d the History of Israel's Religion," Semeia 2 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 6 1 - 7 3 . 4. For a list of ritual texts f r o m Ugarit, see Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 5. See Wright, Ritual

in Narrative;

G. del O l m o Lete, Canaanite

2, n. 4. Religion

According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, trans. W. G. E. W a t s o n ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: Etsenbrans, 2004). 6. A small n u m b e r of ritual texts f r o m Israel's n e i g h b o r s are collected in ANET, 3 2 5 - 6 1 ; COS, 1 . 5 5 - 5 7 , 1 6 0 - 6 8 , 2 9 5 - 3 2 9 , 4 2 7 - 4 4 .

7. See J.H. Hertz, The Authorized Congregations

of the British Empire

Daily Prayer

Book of the United

Hebrew

( L o n d o n : National Council for Jewish

Religious E d u c a t i o n , 1945), 9 1 2 - 1 3 . 8. I collected m u c h of the etymological i n f o r m a t i o n n o t e d b e l o w w i t h the h e l p of HALOT,

vol. 2, 4 9 3 - 9 4 . For a m o r e c o m p l e t e discussion, see Baruch A.

Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 1 2 3 - 2 7 . T h e following discussion c o n c e r n s the use of the root k-p-r specifically in the Piel c o n j u g a t i o n (and related c o n j u g a t i o n s ) . 9. See J. Payne Smith, A Compendious

Syriac

Dictionary

Founded

Upon

the

Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D. (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1976), 223. 10. CAD, Κ 179. 11. Leviticus 16 describes the ritual as it took place in the w i l d e r n e s s sanctuary, t h o u g h I agree w i t h m o s t scholars that it is retrojecting Temple practice into the (mythic) p e r i o d of the w a n d e r i n g . For this reason, 1 will treat it as a Temple ritual t h r o u g h o u t this chapter. 12. See also E x o d u s 3 0 : 1 0 . 13. See, e.g., the NRSV 14. J a c o b Milgrom, "Israels Sanctuary: T h e Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray,"' RB 8 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 3 9 0 - 9 9 . I have based m u c h of the following t r e a t m e n t o n Milgrom s article, a n d o n his extensive t r e a t m e n t of Leviticus 16 in his Leviticus

1-16,

AB ( G a r d e n

City, NY: Doubleday,

1991),

1009-1084.

Milgrom calls this biblical c h a p t e r "The Day of Purgation." See also the detailed treatment of this c h a p t e r by B. Schwartz in the JSB, 2 4 3 - 4 7 . 15. O n the significant c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n Ezekiel's p r o p h e c i e s a n d the Priestly c o r p u s , see W a l t h e r Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, H e r m e n e i a ; (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 52. 16. M o r t o n Cogan, Imperialism

and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth

and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBLMS (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974), 9 - 2 1 . 17. T h e suggested translation accords w i t h the n o t e in the JPS translation at Leviticus 4:3. 18. Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary," 3 9 1 . 19. T h e typical biblical t e r m for the Temple is beit YHWH ( H I T ‫ ב י ת‬, "the h o u s e of the LORD"), w h i c h s h o u l d be t a k e n literally. 20. B. J a n o w s k i , "Azazel," in D D D , 1 2 8 - 3 1 . 21. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1 0 2 0 - 2 1 . 22. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary

of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the

School (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995).

Holiness

23. A l t h o u g h later J u d a i s m h a s conflated these t w o festivals, h e r e — a n d in m o s t o t h e r places in the Bible—they are separate, c o n t i g u o u s festivals. 24. See Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentaiy:

Deuteronomy

(Philadelphia:

Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 4 7 2 - 7 6 . 25. See, e.g., the highly suggestive b u t controversial proposal c o n c e r n i n g permitted

and

forbidden

food in Mary Douglas,

"The A b o m i n a t i o n s

of

Leviticus," in Punty and Danger ( L o n d o n : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 4 1 - 5 7 . Meanwhile, the classic rabbinic n o t i o n c a n n o t be u p h e l d that a chok ( p i n ) refers to a class of law that defies rational explanation. In fact, c o m parative a n d anthropological evidence m a k e the laws associated w i t h one chok—regarding

the red heifer ( N u m . 1 9 ) — r a t h e r transparent; see, e.g., N.

Fox in the JSB, 3 2 1 - 2 3 . 26. See Israel Knohl, "Between Voice a n d Silence: T h e Relationship b e t w e e n Prayer a n d Temple Cult,"JBL 115 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 1 7 - 3 0 . 27. For a rich, different type of analysis of m a n y biblical rituals, see Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations

0J Cult (Princeton,

NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2 0 0 0 ) .

Chapter 1 0 1. See "The Decalogue" in c h a p t e r 8. For a c o m p l e t e list of differences, see c h a p t e r 8, n. 19. 2. M o s h e

W e i n f e l d , Deuteronomy

and

the Deuteronomic

School

(Oxford:

C l a r e n d o n , 1972), 3 2 6 - 3 0 . 3. T h e best source for characteristics that typify D e u t e r o n o m y is Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

and the Deuteronomic

School. Many of these are s u m m a r i z e d in

Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary:

Deuteronomy

(Philadelphia:

J e w i s h Publication Society, 1996), xii-xix. 4. For the legal material, see Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy Hermeneutics

of Legal Innovation

and

the

( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1997); for a

c o m p a r a b l e treatment of s o m e narrative material, see m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 6 2 - 7 8 . 5. See the

discussion

Hermeneutics

of this p h r a s e

of Legal Innovation,

in Levinson, Deuteronomy

and

the

48; i d e m , "You Must N o t A d d A n y t h i n g to

W h a t I C o m m a n d You: Paradoxes of C a n o n a n d A u t h o r s h i p in Ancient Israel," Numen

50 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 5 1 ; a n d m y b o o k The Creation of History,

78.

6. T h e sources a n d historicity of the a c c o u n t in Kings have b e e n q u e s t i o n e d recently. See the discussion in N o r b e r t Lohfink, "Recent Discussion on

2 Kings 2 2 - 2 3 : T h e State of the Q u e s t i o n , " in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy,

ed. D u a n e L. Christensen

( W i n o n a Lake, IN: 1993), 3 6 - 6 1 . 7. This is often referred to as the Urtext (original text). This Urtext, as scholars imagine it, h a s gotten smaller in recent years, as m o r e of D e u t e r o n o m y has b e e n ascribed to the exilic period a n d b e y o n d ; see, e.g., R a y m o n d F Person, Jr., The Deuteronomic

School: History, Social Setting, and Literature

(Atlanta:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 2 ) . For a discussion of the critical position, see E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy

and Tradition

(Philadelphia: Fortress,

1967), 5 8 - 8 2 . For classical Jewish sources, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968; reissued, 2 0 0 2 ) , 4 . 3 7 7 , n. 116. 8. See above, n. 5. 9. See the discussion in m y b o o k The Creation of History, 10. This is d e f e n d e d at length in Levinson, Deuteronomy Legal Innovation; Diaspora:

78.

and the Hermeneutics

of

for a different view, see J o h n van Seters, A Law Book for the

Revision in the Study of the Covenant

Code ( N e w York: O x f o r d ,

2003). 11. For this, a n d a b r o a d e r discussion of the i m p r o v e m e n t of the status of w o m e n in Deuteronomy, see Carolyn Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic

Family Laws, BZAW 2 1 6 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993) a n d

Eckart O t t o , "False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views of W o m e n f r o m Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy," in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient

Near

East, ed. Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., J S O T S u p 2 6 2 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 1 2 8 - 4 6 . 12. See above, n. 3. 13. This is s h o w n in great detail in Levinson, Deuteronomy of Legal Innovation,

and the

Hermeneutics

23-52.

14. T h e same idea is reflected in D e u t e r o n o m y 12, w h i c h not only desacralizes the eating of animals, b u t also allows meat to be eaten outside of Jerusalem. See J a c o b Milgrom, "Profane Slaughter a n d

a F o r m u l a i c Key to

the

C o m p o s i t i o n of Deuteronomy," HUCA 4 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 - 1 7 . 15. See N a h u m M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary:

Exodus

(Philadelphia:

Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 120. 16. Critical scholars have long believed that n o t all of the final c h a p t e r s actually b e l o n g to Deuteronomy. Rather, s o m e parts of these represent the conelusion to the Torah f r o m o t h e r sources. For details, see m y article coa u t h o r e d w i t h T h o m a s Römer, " D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 a n d the Case for a Persian H e x a t e u c h , " JBL 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 4 0 1 - 1 9 .

17 George E. M e n d e n h a l l , "Covenant F o r m s in Israelite Tradition," BA 2 3 / 3 (Sept. 1954), 2 - 2 2 ; reprinted in BAR 3 . 2 5 - 5 3 . 18 See esp. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

and the Deuteronomic

School, esp. 5 9 - 1 7 8 ,

a n d the earlier article of R. F r a n k e n a , "The Vassal-Treaties of E s a r h a d d o n a n d the Dating of Deuteronomy," OTS 14 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 2 2 - 5 4 . A m o r e detailed s t u d y is f o u n d in D e n n i s J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). For critiques of Mendenhall, Weinfeld, a n d McCarthy, see E. W Nicholson, "Covenant in a C e n t u r y of Study Since Wellhausen," OTS 24 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , 5 4 - 6 9 , reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy,

ed. D u a n e L. Christensen,

7 8 - 9 3 ; i d e m , God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old

Testament

(Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1986), 5 6 - 8 2 . 19 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

and the Deuteronomic

School, 115. For o t h e r specific

parallels, see 1 1 5 - 2 9 . T h e text of VTE, quite surprisingly, is not f o u n d in COS b u t m a y be f o u n d in ANET,

5 3 4 - 4 1 ; for the Hittite treaties, see 2 0 1 - 6 ,

529-30. 20 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

and the Deuteronomic

School, 2 4 4 - 8 1 ; the a p p r o p r i -

ateness of this w i s d o m influence has been questioned by C. Brekelmans, " W i s d o m Influence in Deuteronomy," in The Song of Power, 21

123-34.

Earlier generations of scholars claimed that Assyria i m p o s e d its religion o n its vassals; this is n o w believed to be incorrect—see Richard Lowery, The Reforming Kings, J S O T S u p 120 (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1990).

22

For a sensitive d e v e l o p m e n t of this idea, see J o n D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry

into the Jewish

Bible (Minneapolis, MN: W i n s t o n ,

1985), esp.

80-86.

23 24

See n. 18, above. It is striking that this p a r a g r a p h later b e c a m e so significant—it is not esped a i l y i m p o r t a n t in D e u t e r o n o m y or elsewhere in the Bible; a n d in its original context, it is not even a prayer!

2 5 ANET,

537, p a r a g r a p h 24, line 2 6 6 .

26 William L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of G o d in Deuteronomy," CBQ 2 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 7 7 - 8 7 . This is e x p a n d e d u p o n in a less technical fashion by S. Dean McBride, Jr., "The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of D e u t e r o n o m y 6 : 4 - 5 , " INT 2 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 2 7 3 - 3 0 6 . 27

In this context, "these w o r d s " likely refers to the Decalogue, f o u n d in the immediately p r e c e d i n g chapter.

28 In the rabbinic view, the latter actions refer to the i n j u n c t i o n s for d o n n i n g tefillin (phylacteries) a n d affixing a mezuzah

to each d o o r p o s t .

29

See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

30

This idea is s o m e t i m e s called "radical m o n o t h e i s m " — a term p o p u l a r i z e d by

and the Deuteronomic

School, 3 2 0 - 5 9 .

Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation

of Pagan Myth ( N e w York: Free Press, 1992).

31. For e x a m p l e , is D e u t e r o n o m y ' s e m p h a s i s on w o r s h i p in J e r u s a l e m only a political m o v e , n a m e l y an a t t e m p t to b r i n g the cult u n d e r royal supervision? O r is it a theological idea, n a m e l y that the one G o d s h o u l d be w o r s h i p e d in o n e way in one place only?

Chapter 11

1. Richard D. Nelson, Joshua, O I L (Louisville, KY: Westminster, J o h n Knox, 1997), 2 - 3 . 2. O n the challenges of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g Israelite history, see c h a p t e r 4. 3. Reasonable s u m m a r i e s of the present state of archaeological k n o w l e d g e m a y be f o u n d in two recent b o o k s by William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology

Can Tell Us about

the Reality of Ancient Israel ? ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 1 ) ; Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From? ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 ) . For a slightly older p o p u l a r s u m m a r y of m a n y of the issues, see Hershel Shanks, ed., The Rise of Ancient

Israel ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Biblical

Archaeological Society, 1992). 4. O n t o p o n y m s , see Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Geography,

Historical

trans. A. F Rainey ( L o n d o n : Burns &‫ ־‬Oates, 1979), 1 0 5 - 3 0 .

5. Older studies point to collar-rimmed jars a n d four-room houses as n e w Israelite artifacts in this period, b u t it is n o w clear that such styles predate Israel a n d are f o u n d elsewhere. The same is true for the supposedly distinctive lack of pig b o n e s in Israelite settlements—this is f o u n d outside of Israel as well, a n d it may reflect climate changes or n e w animal h u s b a n d r y practices. 6. O n the origins of Israel, see the literature cited above in n. 3. An i m p o r t a n t early s t u d y that developed this idea is George E. M e n d e n h a l l , "The H e b r e w C o n q u e s t of Palestine," BA 2 5 / 3 (Sept. 1962), 6 6 - 8 7 , r e p r i n t e d in

BAR,

3.100-120. 7. Some archaeologists a n d historians believe that the E x o d u s story m a y have s o m e basis in history, in that a small g r o u p f r o m Egypt j o i n e d the hill-country pioneers. However, scant evidence exists to s u p p o r t this claim outside of the biblical text. As n o t e d , early Israelite material culture s h o w s little infiuence f r o m the material culture of Egypt. 8. In J o s h u a 11:16 a n d again in 2 1 : 4 3 , the JPS translation does not directly r e n d e r every o c c u r r e n c e of the w o r d kol.

9. Martin

Buber a n d

Franz

Rosenzweig, Scripture

and

Translation,

trans.

Lawrence Rosenwald with Everett Fox (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 1994), xxi-xxii, xxxvi-xlii, 1 1 4 - 2 8 , 1 4 3 - 5 0 ; m o r e recently o n "key w o r d s " see S h i m o n

Bar-Efrat, Narrative

Art

in the Bible, J S O T S u p

70

(Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989), 2 1 2 - 1 5 . 10. Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy,

Leviticus,

Numbers,

Schocken Bible ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1995), vol. 1., xi-xii.

11. O n the b a n , see Richard Nelson, "Herem Conscience," in Deuteronomy C.H.W. Brekelmans,

a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Social

and Deuteronomic

Literature:

Festschiift

for

ed. M. Vervenne a n d J. Lust (Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press,

1997), 3 9 - 5 4 . 12. This picture could be c o m p l i c a t e d f u r t h e r by looking at the initial c h a p t e r s of J u d g e s — s e e c h a p t e r 12, below. 13. See, e.g., Yohanan Aharoni et al., eds., The Carta

Bible Atlas,

4 t h ed.;

(Jerusalem: Carta, 2 0 0 2 ) , 59, m a p 69. 14. O n h o w the first b o o k s of the Bible lit together, see m y article c o a u t h o r e d with Thomas

Römer, " D e u t e r o n o m y

34 and

the Case

for a

Persian

H e x a t e u c h , " JBL 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 4 0 1 - 4 1 9 . 15. Martin N o t h s b o o k was later translated u n d e r the title The

Deuteronomistic

History, J S O T S u p 15 (Sheffield, UK: Univ. of Sheffield, 1981). For an evaluation of this b o o k a n d its impact, see Steven L. McKenzie a n d M. Patrick G r a h a m , eds., The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin

Noth,

J S O T S u p 182 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). 16. N o t h s t h e o r y has b e e n criticized recently, however, a n d is b e g i n n i n g to fall out of favor; see, e.g., Gary N. K n o p p e r s , "The D e u t e r o n o m i s t a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship," ZAW 1 0 8 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 3 2 9 - 4 6 , a n d "Rethinking the Relationship b e t w e e n Deutero n o m y a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History: T h e Case of Kings," CBQ

63

(2001) 393-415. 17. See, e.g., Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction

of the

Deuteronomistic

History, J S O T S u p 18 (Sheffield, UK: Univ. of Sheffield, 1981). 18. See R a y m o n d F Person Jr., The Deuteronomic and Literature

School: History, Social

Setting,

(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). The position

a s s u m i n g m o r e than a d o u b l e redaction is often called "the Göttingen School." O n e presentation of the text of D t r H according to its sources is found

in A n t o n y

Deuteronomistic

F. C a m p b e l l

and

Mark A. O'Brien,

History: Origins, Upgrades,

Unfolding

the

Present Text (Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress, 2 0 0 0 ) . There are, however, almost as m a n y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s of D t r H (according to its sources) as scholars w o r k i n g o n the DtrH.

19. For e x a m p l e , "the Ark of the LORD" is m e n t i o n e d ten times in J o s h u a , t w e n ty times in Samuel, a n d once in Kings. 20. I discuss in great detail the p u r p o s e of ancient storytelling in m y b o o k The Creation of History. 21. See Nelson, Joshua, 34; a n d in greater detail, Alexander Rofé, "The Piety of the Torah-Disciples at the W i n d i n g - U p of the H e b r e w Bible: Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2; Isa. 59:21," in H e l m u t Merklein et al., eds., Bibel in jüdischer christlicher

Tradition:

Festschrift

für

Johann

Maier

zum 60.

und

Geburtstag

( F r a n k f u r t a m Main: A n t o n Hain, 1993), 7 8 - 8 5 . 22. T h e c h u t z p a h involved in s u c h modifications s h o u l d not be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . 23. For m o r e o n the literary device of r e s u m p t i v e repetition, see m y Book of Judges, O l d Testament Readings ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 2 0 0 2 ) , 9 5 - 9 6 . 24. For a discussion of etiologies w i t h sources, see R J. van Dyk, "The F u n c t i o n of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives," ZAW 102 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , 1 9 - 3 3 . 25. See Robert E. Cooley, "Ai," in The Oxford Encyclopedia

of Archaeology

in the

Near East, ed. Eric M. Meyers ( N e w York: O x f o r d , 1997), 1.33. 26. T h e p h r a s e "as they still are" is ad ha-yom

ha-zeh

(ΠΤΠ • ‫ ע ד ה י ו‬, literally,

"until this day"). Like the expression "that is w h y " discussed above, it is a n o t h e r m a j o r m a r k e r of an etiology. 27. H e r m a n n G u n k e l , The Stones of Genesis (Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1994), 1 8 - 2 4 . 28. T h e extent to w h i c h this language is D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c m a y be seen b y checking J o s h u a s p h r a s e s against the i n d e x to W e i n f e l d s Deuteronomy Deuteronomic

and the

School, 4 3 1 - 3 2 , or by looking at the discussion of J o s h u a 2 3

in Nelson, Deuteronomy,

255-62.

29. T h e only non-Priestly narratives that a s s u m e the Israelite practice of

ritual

circumcision are Genesis 3 4 a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History's occasional ( a n d usually disparaging) references to Philistine warriors as u n c i r c u m c i s e d , e.g., J u d g e s 14:3, 1 Samuel 18:25, a n d 2 S a m u e l 1:20. 30. See the observation of J o h n Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, N C B C ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1986), 75, that the extent of P's involvement in the c h a p t e r has b e e n u n d e r e s t i m a t e d .

C h a p t e r 12 1. This c h a p t e r is based on m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995), esp. 9 1 - 1 1 1 ; a n d m y Book of Judges,

Israel Old

Testament Readings ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 2 0 0 2 ) . See there for extensive documentation.

2. J o h n Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 131. 3. O n the integrity of this unit, a n d on the p u r p o s e s of the p r e c e d i n g a n d following units, see m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 9 1 - 1 1 1 . 4. This translation r e p r o d u c e s the text's threefold repetition of ve-ad

(‫ועד‬,

"including"), w h i c h highlights the extent to w h i c h J o n a t h a n gives David his clothes. 5. Not all of the cases that 1 a d d u c e b e l o w are equally convincing, b u t together they certainly f o r m a p a t t e r n of contrasts. 6. See "The Five Main Points of Amos" in c h a p t e r 16.

C h a p t e r 13

1. This is the m o t t o of the E u r o p e a n organization CLIOH, w h i c h s t a n d s for "Creating Links a n d Innovative Overviews to E n h a n c e Historical Perspective in E u r o p e a n Culture." 2. The term "antiquarian interest" is used often by Baruch H a l p e r n , The First Historians:

The Hebrew Bible and History

(San Francisco: H a r p e r & Row,

1988). For a critique, see m y b o o k The Creation of History, esp. 1 1 - 1 2 . 3. Many w o u l d state this otherwise, that Samuel is better "literature" t h a n Kings, b u t I believe that the t e r m "literature" is problematic or misleading w h e n used of biblical texts; see m y b o o k The Creation of History,

14-17.

4. The example is taken from J. Maxwell Miller, The Old Testament

and the

Historian (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1 - 3 . 5. E d w i n R. Thiele uses this principle extensively in his The Numbers

Mysterious

of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Z o n d e r v a n , 1983). He

solves this a n d o t h e r chronological p r o b l e m s by a s s u m i n g a large n u m b e r of "co-regencies." 6. COS, 2 . 1 3 7 ; cf. ANET 7. See ANET,

320.

2 8 4 - 8 5 ; COS 2 . 2 9 7 - 9 8 .

8. See Volkmar Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, trans. Anselm H a g e d o r n (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 3 ) , 28. 9. For the analysis that follows, see m y article "The Structure of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 , " JSOT 4 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 8 7 - 9 7 . 10. There c o n t i n u e s to be a debate w i t h i n biblical studies on w h e t h e r these c h a p t e r s c o m p l e t e 2 Samuel, a n d together c o m p r i s e a hypothetical source called the succession narrative, dealing w i t h the q u e s t i o n " W h o will succeed David as king?"

11. M. Avot 1:1; see J a c o b Neusner, The Mishnah:

A New Translation

(New

Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1991), 6 7 2 . 12. See Michael Fishbane,

Biblical

Interpretation

in Ancient

Israel

(Oxford:

C l a r e n d o n , 1985). A c o n d e n s e d version of this is Michael F i s h b a n e , "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel" in Midrash and Literature,

ed. Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick ( N e w

Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1986), 1 9 - 3 7 . Specifically on intermarriage, see F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation

in Ancient

Israel, 1 2 5 - 2 6 ; a n d Gary N.

K n o p p e r s , "Sex, Religion, a n d Politics: T h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t o n Intermarriage," HAR 14 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , 1 2 1 - 4 1 . 13. See, e.g., Kathleen Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament

( N e w York:

S c h o c k e n , 1971), 5 3 - 7 0 . 14. For the traditional view, see Dever, What

Did the Biblical Writers

Know?,

1 3 1 - 3 8 ; for the revisionist view, see Israel Finkelstein a n d Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts ( N e w York: T o u c h s t o n e , 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 3 5 - 4 2 . 15. See Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel from the Prehistoric Beginnings

to the End of the First

Temple

Period,

trans. A n s o n

Rainey

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 2 0 1 - 3 . 16. See especially David Ussishkin, The Conquest

of Lachish

by

Sennacherib

(Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ., The Institute of Archaeology, 1982); Mordechai C o g a n a n d Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB ( N e w York: Doubleday,

1988),

246-51. 17. T h e use of H e b r e w personal a n d geographical n a m e s (e.g., Jerusalem) in A k k a d i a n inscriptions offer i m p o r t a n t evidence for h o w H e b r e w was pron o u n c e d in the biblical period.

H e b r e w at that time was written w i t h o u t

vowels (which were inserted only in the late first m i l l e n n i u m c . E . ) , while A k k a d i a n was written syllabically, w i t h vowels. 18. Many scholars believe that this n u m b e r is a scribal error or an exaggeration. It w o u l d imply a p o p u l a t i o n of J u d e a of several million at this time, w h i c h is most unlikely based o n o t h e r evidence. 19. COS, 2 . 3 0 2 - 3 . 20. O n these suffixes, see Ziony Zevit, "A C h a p t e r in the History of Israelite Personal N a m e s , " BASOR 2 5 0 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 1 - 1 6 . 21. The analysis of this material is too c o m p l e x to be detailed here. See Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian

Crisis, SBT 2 3 ( L o n d o n : SCM,

C h r i s t o p h e r R. Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny: Isaiah: A Reassessment

of the Isaiah 36-39

22. C o g a n a n d Tadmor, II Kings, 2 6 0 - 6 3 .

The Development

1967);

of the Book of

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991).

C h a p t e r 14 1. O n C h r o n i c l e s in general, see m y b o o k The Creation

of History,

20-47.

Additional excellent material a p p e a r s in M. Patrick G r a h a m a n d Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture, J S O T S u p 2 6 3 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1999); a n d the c o m m e n t a r y of Sara J a p h e t , I & II Chronicles, O T L (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1993). 2. A l t h o u g h English Bibles t e n d to p r i n t C h r o n i c l e s in t w o parts a n d Ezra a n d Nehemiah

as s e p a r a t e

books,

according

to J e w i s h

scribal

tradition

C h r o n i c l e s a n d E z r a - N e h e m i a h are each single b o o k s — s e e c h a p t e r 2, n n . 15 a n d 23. 3. I use the t e r m "Chronicler" to refer to the a u t h o r of C h r o n i c l e s only. For m u c h of the t w e n t i e t h century, the b o o k of E z r a - N e h e m i a h w a s seen as a c o n t i n u a t i o n of Chronicles. E z r a - N e h e m i a h begins w h e r e C h r o n i c l e s e n d s . However, in a s e m i n a l article, Sara J a p h e t , "The S u p p o s e d

Common

A u t h o r s h i p of C h r o n i c l e s a n d E z r a - N e h e m i a h Investigated Anew," VT 18 (1968),

332-72,

argued

that

the stylistic a n d

theological

differences

b e t w e e n the t w o are too great to say that they are w r i t t e n by the s a m e p e r son. A d d i t i o n a l evidence ( c o n c e r n i n g the differing attitude t o w a r d intermarriage in C h r o n i c l e s versus in E z r a - N e h e m i a h ) c o r r o b o r a t e s that j u d g m e n t ; see Gary N. K n o p p e r s , "Intermarriage, Social Complexity, a n d E t h n i c Diversity in the Genealogy of J u d a h , " JBL 120 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 5 - 3 0 . A m a j o r i t y of scholars have a d o p t e d J a p h e t s c o n c l u s i o n s . 4. J u d e a n s so p r e d o m i n a t e d in this p e r i o d that even n o n - J u d e a n s c o u l d be called J u d e a n s , as in Esther 2:5: "In the fortress S h u s h a n lived a

yehudi

( ‫ י ה ו ד י‬, "Judean" or "Jew") by the n a m e of Mordecai . . . a Benjaminite." 5. For a s u m m a r y of this t h e o r y of Z a d o k s h i d d e n past, see George W. Ramsey, "Zadok," ABD,

6.1035-36.

6. See Elias Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations Postbiblical Judaism

of

( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1962), 22. For m o r e discussion

o n the role of historical probability, see m y b o o k The Creation of History, esp. 25-26. 7. Scholars d e b a t e w h e t h e r the C h r o n i c l e r s h o u l d be called a historian a n d / o r a theologian. I outline w h y these t w o c o n c e p t s are n o t m u t u a l l y exclusive in The Creation of History,

46-47.

8. O n the t r e a t m e n t of the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m in Chronicles, see H.G.M. W i l l i a m s o n , Israel in the Books of Chronicles Press, 1977).

( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Univ.

9. T h e easiest way to see the Chronicler's o m i s s i o n s a n d c h a n g e s is to use b o o k s s u c h as J. C. A n d r e s et al., Chronicles Samuel,

and Its Synoptic

Parallels

in

Kings, and Related Biblical Texts (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,

1998), w h i c h list the texts of C h r o n i c l e s a n d its s o u r c e s in parallel c o l u m n s . T h e large a m o u n t of w h i t e space in these c o l u m n s s h o w s h o w m u c h the C h r o n i c l e r either a d d s or s u b t r a c t s p o r t i o n s of his sources. Seeing s u c h c h a n g e s brings the Chronicler's ideology into s h a r p e r relief. 10. T h e H e b r e w text actually refers to t w o seven-day festivals, b u t the s e c o n d seven-day festival is believed to be a scribal error. It is missing in several i m p o r t a n t Septuagint m a n u s c r i p t s . 11. In this verse a n d in the verses discussed in the following p a r a g r a p h s , I a m insisting that the v e r b b-sh-l ( ‫ ) ב ש ל‬be translated as "boil"—its m e a n i n g in biblical H e b r e w — r a t h e r t h a n as the m o r e generic "cook," a m e a n i n g often incorrectly assigned to it in h a r m o n i z i n g translations. 12. F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation,

135-36.

13. N o t e h o w Ρ is repetitive a n d e m p h a t i c , even s o u n d i n g polemical. Most likely Ρ is polemicizing against D or s o m e similar text or n o r m . 14. See the discussion of the t e r m ka-mishpat F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation,

( ‫ כ מ ש פ ע‬, "as prescribed") in

209-13.

15. See "Classical I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " in c h a p t e r 1. 16. That the Torah w a s already a sacred text m a y be seen in the f r e q u e n t references to "the Torah," "The Torah of Moses," "The Torah of the LORD" b o t h in Chronicles a n d the c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s Ezra-Nehemiah. J u d s o n R. Shaver discusses m a n y of these references in his Torah and the Chroniclers History Work: An Inquiry into the Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic in Relationship

to Pentateuchal

Institutions

Legislation (BJS 196; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989),

t h o u g h m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m a n y issues differs f r o m his. 17. For a list of the s o u r c e s that C h r o n i c l e s claims to d r a w u p o n , see Leiman, Canonization,

18.

18. J a p h e t , I & II Chronicles,

20-23.

C h a p t e r 15 1. Martti Nissinen, "Preface," in Martti Nissinen, ed., Prophecy in Its Near Eastern

Context:

Mesopotamian,

Biblical and Arabian

Perspectives,

Ancient SBL

S y m p o s i u m 13 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) , vii. For a m o r e detailed definition, see David L. Petersen, "Defining P r o p h e c y a n d Prophetic Literature," ibid., 3 3 - 4 4 .

2. O n the ancient Near Eastern milieu, see the excellent s u m m a r y in H. B. H u f f m o n , "Prophecy (ANE)," ABD, 5 . 4 7 7 - 8 2 . For m o r e recent a n d detailed material, see Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (see previous note). 3. Scholars w h o have u n c o v e r e d ancient M e s o p o t a m i a n practices have repeatedly shed light o n biblical texts in the process. That is because p e o p l e s t h r o u g h o u t the ancient Near East shared m a n y cultural institutions a n d a s s u m p t i o n s ( s o m e t h i n g like w h a t we m e a n w h e n we speak of "Western civilization" today). Also, Mesopotamia's leading city-states were l o n g s t a n d i n g political—and therefore c u l t u r a l — c e n t e r s in the region. O n c o m m u n i c a tions from the gods, see the t r e a t m e n t s in A. Leo O p p e n h e i m , Mesopotamia:

Portrait

0J a Dead Civilization

1977), 2 0 6 - 2 7 ; Jean Bottéro, Mesopotamia:

Ancient

(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods,

trans. Z. Bahrani a n d M. an De Mieroop (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992), 1 0 5 - 3 7 . 4. Bottéro, Mesopotamia,

127, 130.

5. O n this, see Martti Nissinen, "The Sociological Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets," in Nissinen, ed., Prophecy

in Its Ancient

Near Eastern

Context,

89-114. 6. ANET,

605. More of these p r o p h e c i e s are collected and discussed in Simo

Parpola, Assyrian

Prophecies, State Archives of Assyria 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki

Univ. Press, 1997). 7. Ibid., 624. For a detailed discussion of the Mari letters a n d their bearing o n prophecy, see A b r a h a m Malamat, Mari and the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 59-162. 8. For a survey of interpretations of the Deir Alia inscription, see H u f f m o n , "Prophecy (ANE)," ABD, 5 . 4 7 7 ; the text m a y be f o u n d in COS, 2 . 1 4 0 - 4 5 . 9. See Yochanan Muffs, Love & Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient

Israel

( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), 9 - 4 8 . 10. See the classic s t u d y of Claus W e s t e r m a n n , Basic Forms of Prophetic

Speech,

trans. H. C. W h i t e (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 9 8 - 1 2 8 . 11. For an ironic e n d o r s e m e n t of the p r o p h e t s ' intercessory role, see J e r e m i a h 7:16; 11:14; 14:11, w h e r e G o d asks J e r e m i a h not to pray for Israel. 12. O n this etymology, see HALOT,

2 . 6 6 1 - 6 2 . T h e following p a r a g r a p h s are

based on an assortment of critical t r e a t m e n t s of biblical p r o p h e c y ; see esp. Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy

and Society

in Ancient

Israel

(Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1980); J o s e p h Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement

in the Land to the Hellenistic

Period (Philadelphia: Westminster,

1983). Two good p o p u l a r i n t r o d u c t i o n s to p r o p h e c y are: J o h n F A. Sawyer, Prophecy and the Prophets of the Old Testament,

Oxford Bible Series (Oxford:

O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1987); J a m e s Luther Mayes a n d Paul J. Achtemeier, Interpreting

the Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

13. Some scholars have c o n t e n d e d that classical p r o p h e c y developed as a reaction against the first p e r i o d of "social disintegration in Israel" a n d that class differences b e c a m e especially p r o n o u n c e d at this time (e.g., Bright,

History,

2 5 9 - 6 2 ) . That a r g u m e n t is c i r c u l a r — t h e classical p r o p h e t s s u c h as A m o s first c o n d e m n these social c o n d i t i o n s , therefore they m u s t have b e e n n e w in their day. N o external evidence exists in s u p p o r t of this idea. 14. Even earlier figures w h o m the Bible describes as p r o p h e t s include Moses, Miriam, D e b o r a h , a n d Samuel. 15. T h e H e b r e w here for "can we bring" is navi ( ‫ ) נ ב י א‬, w h i c h is p r o n o u n c e d a n d spelled the same as the w o r d for "prophet." This is a p u n , or possibly a p o p ular etymology for navi: the o n e to w h o m o n e "brings" p a y m e n t in exchange for h e a r i n g the future. 16. For m o r e o n the miracle stories, see Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical The Narratives

Stories:

about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible Their Literary Types and

History (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988); Robert B. Coote, ed., Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary

Perspective, Semeia Studies (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).

C h a p t e r 16 1. T h e best English c o m m e n t a r i e s o n A m o s are H a n s Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos, trans. W. J a n z e n et al., H e r m e n e i a (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), a n d Shalom M. Paul, Amos

( H e r m e n e i a ; Philadelphia: Fortress,

1991).

Wolff excels o n matters of history of c o m p o s i t i o n , a n d Paul o n the m e a n i n g of the b o o k in its final f o r m , especially as elucidated by ancient Near Eastern texts. 2. T h e same H e b r e w w o r d , korchah ( ‫ ) ק ר ח ה‬, is used in b o t h contexts, t h o u g h the different JPS translation c o m m i t t e e s for Torah a n d Nevi'im translated it differently, o b s c u r i n g this issue. 3. This distinction is m a d e by Yehezkel K a u f m a n , The Religion of Israel (trans. Moshe G r e e n b e r g ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1972). 4. This is a m a j o r t h e m e of Wellhausen's

Prolegomena.

5. For o n e s u c h reconstruction, see Wolff, Joe! and Amos,

106-13.

6. See Moshe Greenberg, "The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the H e b r e w Text: A S a m p l i n g f r o m Ezekiel 2 : 1 - 3 : 1 1 , " in Moshe Greenberg, Studies

in the Bible and Jewish

Thought,

JPS Scholar of Distinction Series

(Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication Society, 1995), 2 0 9 - 2 5 . F r o m a different

perspective, E h u d Ben Zvi h a s e m p h a s i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of looking at the p r o p h e t i c b o o k ; see especially E h u d Ben Zvi, "The Prophetic Book: A Key F o r m of Prophetic Literature," in Marvin A. Sweeney a n d E h u d Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First

Century

(Grand

Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 7 6 - 9 7 . 7. T h e u n p o l i s h e d rhetoric of m a n y p r o p h e t s is surprising. O n this, see S t e p h e n A. Geller, "Were the P r o p h e t s Poets?" Prooftexts 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 2 1 1 - 2 1 . 8. See the similar sentiment in Micah 6 : 6 - 7 : "(6) W i t h w h a t shall I a p p r o a c h the LORD, / Do h o m a g e to G o d on high? / Shall I a p p r o a c h H i m with b u r n t offerings, / W i t h calves a year old? (7) W o u l d the LORD be pleased with t h o u s a n d s of rams, / W i t h m y r i a d s of streams of oil? Shall I give m y firstb o r n for m y transgression, / T h e fruit of m y b o d y for m y sins?" 9. W.

Randall

Garr,

Dialect

Geography

of Syria-Israel,

1000-586

B.C.E.

(Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 3 8 - 3 9 . 10. Scholars c o n t i n u e to debate w h e n the n o t i o n of "covenant" entered Israelite religion, a n d w h e t h e r we m a y a s s u m e a covenantal base m e t a p h o r even in cases w h e r e the w o r d bent is absent. O n these issues, see Nicholson, God and His People. 11. See " D e u t e r o n o m y as a Treaty" in c h a p t e r 10; George E. M e n d e n h a l l a n d Gary A. H e r i o n , "Covenant," ABD,

1.1179-1202.

12. Here the Ethiopians serve as an e x a m p l e of a faraway people. 13. See Shalom Spiegel, "Amos vs. Amaziah," in J u d a h G o l d i n , ed., The Jewish Expression ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1976), 3 8 - 6 5 . 14. Here a n d in 3 : 1 5 the references are to items inlaid with ivory. Such items have been excavated f r o m S a m a r i a — s e e the survey in Amihai Mazar, ed., Archaeology

of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586

B.C.E., AB (Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1990), 5 0 3 - 5 ; a n d King, Amos, Hosea, Micah,

139-49.

15. There is almost universal a g r e e m e n t to this p o i n t , t h o u g h Meir Weiss, "The Origin of the 'Day of the L o r d ' — R e c o n s i d e r e d , " HUCA 3 7 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 2 9 - 6 0 , in an excellent article surveying the Day of the LORD, dissents. 16. A collection of texts on this topic w i t h s o m e s e c o n d a r y reading is f o u n d in Richard H. Hier, "Day of the L O R D , " ABD, 2 . 8 2 - 8 3 . See also the bibliograp h y in Paul, Amos, 183, n n . 7 - 1 1 . 17. We c a n n o t tell clearly w h e t h e r A m o s directly repeated the w o r d s that he t h o u g h t he h e a r d , or w h e t h e r he embellished t h e m . (See Moshe Greenberg, "Jewish C o n c e p t i o n s on the H u m a n Factor in Biblical Prophecy," in Moshe Greenberg, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought, 4 0 5 - 1 9 . ) N o r d o we k n o w over h o w long a p e r i o d , a n d o n w h a t separate occasions, A m o s u t t e r e d his oracles.

18. See Paul, Amos, 35, η. 32; Philip J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah: An logical Commentary

Archaeo-

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 2 1 - 2 2 .

19. See M. Broshi, "The Expansion of J e r u s a l e m in the Reigns of Hezekiah a n d Manasseh," IEJ 2 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 2 1 - 2 6 .

C h a p t e r 17 1. While the Book of Isaiah has m o r e chapters, the Book of J e r e m i a h is slightly longer in t e r m s of verses. 2. See esp. H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Composition

Role in

and Redaction (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1994); Roy Ε Melugin a n d

Marvin A. Sweeney, eds., New Visions of Isaiah, J S O T S u p 2 1 4 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 3. See the s u m m a r y in Brevard

S. Childs, Isaiah,

O T L (Louisville, KY:

W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 6 0 - 6 6 . 4. Scholars c o n t i n u e to debate this issue, however; not all of t h e m agree that this c h a p t e r s h o u l d be read as a p r o p h e t i c dedication or initiation. 5. W h e n 1 attribute w o r d s to "Isaiah," I d o so for convenience. I d o not m e a n to imply that these were the actual w o r d s said by Isaiah son of A m o z ; see "Amos the Book Versus A m o s the Prophet" in c h a p t e r 16. 6. Here in 4:1 a n d 4:2, the phrase "in that day" served as a c a t c h w o r d or catchphrase, leading an editor to c o m b i n e two units that were originally unrelated. T h r o u g h o u t Isaiah, s u c h c a t c h p h r a s e s help us u n d e r s t a n d the structure of the b o o k , a n d to realize that the b o o k is not o r d e r e d chronologically. 7. For a brief description of biblical poetry, see Adele Berlin, "Reading Biblical Poetry," in JSB, 2 0 9 7 - 2 1 0 4 . For her longer, m o r e technical discussion w i t h bibliography, see "Parallelism," ABD, 5 . 1 5 5 - 6 2 . T h e classic w o r k is that of Lowth f r o m 1753, w h o first u s e d the t e r m "parallelism"; i m p o r t a n t modifications to his theory are offered in J a m e s Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1981); Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry ( N e w York: Basic, 1985). A f u n d a m e n t a l l y different a p p r o a c h to biblical poetry, w h i c h will n o t be followed here, was developed by F r a n k M. Cross a n d D. N. F r e e d m a n — s e e especially David Noel F r e e d m a n , Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew

Poetry

( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1980). 8. T h e first-century-c.E. Jewish historian J o s e p h u s m a d e this error, w h e n he ascribed various Greek m e t e r s to biblical poetry. See Kugel, The Idea, 140. 9. There is, however, s o m e debate a b o u t w h e t h e r or n o t m e t e r exists in biblical poetry. Scholars generally agree that H e b r e w poetry (as n o w vocalized)

has n o f o r m of alternating stressed a n d unstressed syllables. Some believe that an earlier form, w h i c h m a y be r e c o n s t r u c t e d , h a d meter. Many parallel phrases in the same biblical c o m p o s i t i o n are of roughly equal length, suggesting to s o m e that an original m e t e r was lost. O t h e r s believe that this simply indicates a principle of biblical poetry: lines s h o u l d be of a p p r o x i m a t e ly equal length. 10. There are s o m e tricola, b u t they are relatively rare. 11. For an exploration of parallelism a n d w o r d - p a i r s u s i n g m o d e r n linguistics, see Adele Berlin, The Dynamics

of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana

Univ. Press, 1985). 12. These scholars follow the lead of Kugel a n d Alter. See esp. Kugel, The Idea, 5 1 - 5 8 ; the q u o t a t i o n is f r o m 58. 13. See Stanley Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 32 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973); M e n a h e m Haran,

"The

Graded

Numerical

Sequence

and

the

Phenomenon

of

A u t o m a t i s m ' in Biblical Poetry," VTS 22 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 2 3 8 - 6 7 . 14. F r a m i n g a n n o u n c e m e n t s tend to be separate m o n o c o l a — s i m p l e sentences w i t h o u t a parallel m a t e or mates. 15. Unlike s o m e o t h e r scholars, J a m e s Kugel w o u l d classify this p o r t i o n of the verse n o t as a "tricolon" b u t as an " u n b a l a n c e d bicolon"; on classifications of ancient H e b r e w poetry, see above, n. 7. 16. Similarly, three out of the four biblical o c c u r r e n c e s of s hear am (‫עם‬

‫)שאר‬,

"the r e m n a n t of the people," are f o u n d in Isaiah (11:11, 16; 28:5). T h e p r o p h e t even believed that G o d asked h i m to n a m e one of his children Shear-jashub ( ‫ ) ש א ר י ש ו ב‬, m e a n i n g "A-Remnant-Shall-Return" (7:3). 17. Some older translations r e n d e r this "at the e n d of days," w h i c h is incorrect—see "The Day Will C o m e " in c h a p t e r 16. 18. The classic w o r k on biblical messianism is S i g m u n d Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism,

trans. G.

W. A n d e r s o n (Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1954); m o r e recently, see J o h n J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient

Literature,

AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1995), esp.

20-48.

Chapter 18

1. B. D u h m a n d S. Mowinckel e m p h a s i z e d w h a t they saw as a biographic "strand"; for a summary, see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989), 1 1 - 1 2 .

2. Even the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n h a s n o t r e m a i n e d b e y o n d suspicion. At least as described elsewhere in the Bible, J o s i a h s r e f o r m t u r n e d the n a t i o n u p s i d e d o w n ; therefore, if J e r e m i a h truly w a s active d u r i n g that r e f o r m , he pres u m a b l y w o u l d have m e n t i o n e d it. Yet he never explicitly does. In a d d i t i o n , only one p r o p h e c y is dated d u r i n g Josiah's reign, a n d the date f o r m u l a there is u n u s u a l l y vague (3:6). Both facts suggest to s o m e that J e r e m i a h b e g a n to p r o p h e s y later t h a n the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n indicates. 3. It does, however, a p p e a r o n occasion in the Septuagint's Greek translation of J e r e m i a h , to r e n d e r the term nevi'im ( ‫ נ ב י א י ם‬, "prophets"). 4. Incidentally, the first clause of 3:14 illustrates m y claim (in chap. 16) that the Israelite p r o p h e t s loved wordplay: shuvu vanim shovavim (‫שובבים‬

‫בנים‬

S u c h alliteration is featured also in 12:11: s amah li-shmamah,

avelah

sh'memah,

nashammah

kol

ΏΙ$). alai

ha-aretz

( ·‫ץ‬ν‫א ר‬T T‫כ ל ־ ה‬τ ‫מ ה‬τ ‫ש‬- ‫נ‬τ ‫מ ה‬τ ‫ש ״מ‬ι ‫ל י‬- τ‫ל ה ע‬τ ‫ב‬: τ‫מ ה א‬τ ‫מ‬τ ‫ש‬ι ‫מ ה ·ל‬T‫ש‬T ) . 5. J o a n Oates, Babylon ( L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1979), 128. 6. A l t h o u g h Babylon is actually northeast of the land of Israel, the intervening desert was so vast that it p r e v e n t e d direct transit. Historically, armies f r o m the east w o u l d skirt the desert a n d reach the land of Israel via S y r i a — t h u s e n t e r i n g f r o m the n o r t h . 7. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

and the Deuteronomic

School,

143-46.

8. O n this "cup of w r a t h , " see Robert Ε Carroll, The Book of Jeremiah,

OTL

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 5 0 1 - 2 . 9. Actually, the "missing" verse is n o t altogether strange w i t h regard

to

J e r e m i a h . In general, the Septuagint of J e r e m i a h reflects a m u c h shorter H e b r e w text t h a n the Masoretic Text. F u r t h e r m o r e , its u n i t s a p p e a r in a different order. T h u s this first Greek translation m u s t have b e e n m a d e f r o m a distinct edition (technically, a "recension") of J e r e m i a h — o n e that is also attested a m o n g s o m e of the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Τον, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3 1 9 - 2 7 . 10. This Targum m a y date f r o m the third c e n t u r y c.E. or earlier; see Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 10. 11. T h e same c i p h e r m e c h a n i s m is u s e d in the Bible only in o n e o t h e r place, J e r e m i a h 51:1. There, Leb-kamai [ ‫ = ] ל ב ק מ י‬the C h a l d e a n s [ ‫ ] ב ש ד י ם‬, the n a m e for an A r a m e a n tribe that was i m p o r t a n t in the neo-Babylonian perio d , w h i c h is o f t e n u s e d as a n a m e for the Babylonians. In that verse, h o w ever, the identity of the c o n d e m n e d p o p u l a c e is n o secret. For a different i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these t w o ciphers, see Mark Leuchter, "Jeremiah's 70-Year P r o p h e c y a n d the ‫ ל ב ק מ י‬/ ‫ ש ש ך‬Atbash Codes," Bib 8 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , 5 0 3 - 2 2 . 12. T h e alternative position to a c c o u n t for this e v i d e n c e — t h a t J e r e m i a h w a s

influenced by Josiah's r e f o r m a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c s c h o o l — i s m u c h less likely. That h y p o t h e s i s does not explain w h y only the p r o s e — n o t the p o e t r y — i s so close to Deuteronomy. In a d d i t i o n , as n o t e d earlier, the b o o k offers little evidence that J e r e m i a h affiliated himself w i t h those associated with Josiah's r e f o r m a n d the "discovery" of Deuteronomy. 13. For o n e view, see E. W N i c h o l s o n , Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1970); m o r e recently, see Louis S t u h l m a n , The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A of the Correspondences Text-critical

with the Deuteronomistic

Redescription

Literature in the Light of Recent

Research, SBLDS 8 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986); a n d the s u m m a -

ry in Carroll, Jeremiah,

3 8 - 5 0 , especially his c o n c l u d i n g r e m a r k s that "the

p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g the c o m p o s i t i o n a n d redaction of the b o o k of J e r e m i a h persist a n d are unlikely to be resolved in favour of one overarching theory." 14. See Levinson, Deuteronomy

and the Hermeneutics

of Legal Innovation,

18-20.

15. See Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 3 6 - 4 0 , 5 3 - 6 2 . 16. Michael A. Carasik, "Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel" (PhD diss., Brandeis Univ., 1997) 85. 17. For a very different early u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this "new covenant," see 2 C o r i n t h i a n s 3 : 1 - 6 in the N e w Testament. 18. O n the "confessions," see the discussions in the c o m m e n t a r i e s , as well as Kathleen M. O ' C o n n o r , The Confessions of Jeremiah:

Their Interpretation

and

Role in Chapters 1-25, SBLDS 9 4 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). 19. A glance at the King J a m e s translation of this p h r a s e suggests the value of u s i n g m o d e r n , idiomatic biblical translations. 20. Occasionally, however, J e r e m i a h does seek retribution, especially u p o n his enemies. See, for e x a m p l e , "O

LORD

of Hosts, Ο just J u d g e , / W h o test the

t h o u g h t s a n d the m i n d , / Let m e see Your retribution u p o n t h e m , / For I lay m y case before You" (11:20). 21. For this interpretation, see esp. William McKane, Jeremiah, ICC ( E d i n b u r g h : Τ & T Clark, 1986), 1 . 3 5 7 - 5 8 . 22. To be m o r e specific, little of s u c h "angst" is visible in Isaiah, w h o v o l u n teered to b e c o m e a p r o p h e t (see Isaiah 6:8), w h e r e a s this "profession" w a s forced u p o n J e r e m i a h (see 1 : 4 - 1 0 ) . 23. P e r h a p s J e r e m i a h , like m o s t people in his day, did n o t k n o w h o w to write a n d therefore n e e d e d the services of a scribe. T h e extent of reading a n d writing abilities in ancient Israel is d e b a t e d ; see the reasonable discussion in J a m e s L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1998), 2 9 - 4 0 .

Silence,

24. Today we have two different H e b r e w editions ("recensions") of the Book of J e r e m i a h ; see above, n o t e 9.

Chapter 1 9 1. O n the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n priests a n d Torah traditions, see the previous chapter. See also Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah, J S O T S u p 3 5 8 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). 2. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, trans, a n d ed., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1976), 1.4. 3. For m o r e on this form, see esp. N o r m a n Habel, "The F o r m a n d Significance of the Call Narratives," ZAW 7 7 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 2 9 7 - 3 2 3 ; a n d Klaus Baltzer, "Considerations Regarding the Office a n d Calling of the Prophet," HTR 6 1 (1968), 5 6 7 - 8 1 . 4. See m y b o o k God is King: Understanding

an Israelite Metaphor, J S O T S u p 76

(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1989), 83. 5. To Moses M a i m o n i d e s — w h o lived s o m e 1 7 0 0 years after Ezekiel—divine incorporeality was a basic principle (although it w a s still d i s p u t e d even in his day). T h u s states the version of his Thirteen Principles recited after the m o r n i n g prayers: "I believe w i t h perfect faith that o u r creator—blessed be his n a m e — i s not a b o d y a n d n o bodily qualities apply to H i m , a n d He has n o appearance whatsoever." O n this translation, see the discussion in Lawrence A.

Hoffman's

Commentaries,

My

People's

Prayer

vol. 6, Tachanun

Book:

Traditional

and Concluding

Prayers

Prayers,

Modern

(Woodstock, VT:

Jewish Lights, 2 0 0 2 ) , 162. O n the continuity b e t w e e n biblical a n d postbiblical images of the divine, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Mythmaking

Rabbinic

(Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2003).

6. For a s h a r p l y contrasting view, w h i c h psychoanalyzes the p r o p h e t , see David J. Halperin, Seeking

Ezekiel:

Text and Psychology

(University Park:

Pennsylvania State Univ., 1993). 7. This phrase, f o u n d 9 4 times in Ezekiel (out of a total of 139 in the Bible) creates a very h u m a n image of Ezekiel as a p r o p h e t w h o felt distant f r o m G o d , in contrast w i t h s o m e o t h e r p r o p h e t s , especially Isaiah, w h o in c h a p ter 6 m o v e s quite c o m f o r t a b l y a m o n g the heavenly court. 8. We n o w have e n o u g h evidence to k n o w that the synagogue did n o t arise until several centuries after Ezekiel. This s h o u l d have b e e n obvious f r o m the text of Ezekiel itself, w h i c h does n o t say that the people s h o u l d build any-

thing. See the excellent s u m m a r y in Lee I. Levine, The Ancient

Synagogue:

The First Thousand Years ( N e w H a v e n , CT: Yale Univ. Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 - 4 1 ; a n d Birger O l s s o n a n d M a g n u s Z e t t e r h o l m , The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins Until 200 C.E., CBNT 3 9 ( S t o c k h o l m : Almqvist & Wiksell, 2 0 0 3 ) . 9. O n J u l y 30, 2 0 0 4 , at 6 p . m . , a Google search for "Ezekiel spacecraft" yielded 1 , 7 0 0 hits. 10. See Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and

Psychology.

11. This c h a p t e r is s p e a k i n g a b o u t national resurrection, a n d h a s little or n o b e a r i n g o n the issue of p e r s o n a l resurrection, w h i c h likely w a s a later belief. 12. See Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate

Responsibility

in the Hebrew Bible, J S O T S u p

196 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1995). 13. Ugarit w a s a city in n o r t h e r n C a n a a n that flourished t h r o u g h o u t the Bronze Age, only to be destroyed a r o u n d

1 2 0 0 B.C.E. W h e n

twentieth-century

archaeologists excavated its r e m a i n s , they discovered a vast Canaanite literature, w r i t t e n in a language close to biblical Hebrew. See Michael David C o o g a n , Stories from

Ancient

Canaan

(Philadelphia: Westminster,

1978),

2 7 - 4 7 ; or COS, 1 . 3 4 3 - 5 6 . 14. O n these c h a p t e r s , see S. Tamar K a m i o n k o w s k i , Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel, J S O T S u p 3 6 8 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 2 0 0 3 ) . 15. This translation follows M o s h e G r e e n b e r g , Ezekiel

1-20,

AB 2 2 ( G a r d e n

City: Doubleday, 1983), 2 7 1 . T h e translation that follows is f r o m M o s h e Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37,

AB 2 2 a ( G a r d e n City: Doubleday, 1997), 4 7 1 . In

contrast, the JPS translation h a s s o m e w h a t b o w d l e r i z e d these passages. 16. See: w w w . b i b l e . o r g / d o c s / o t / b o o k s / e z e / e z k - i n t r . h t m . 17. For i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of his silence, see Ellen F Davis, Swallowing Textuality

and the Dynamics

the Scroll:

of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy, J S O T S u p 78:

Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989), 4 8 - 5 8 . 18. See M o r t o n Cogan, Imperialism

and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the

Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBLMS 19 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), 12; see m o r e generally 9 - 2 1 . 19. W h a t Ezekiel describes is n o t m e n t i o n e d in the Book of Kings, w h i c h generally did n o t hesitate to n o t e cultic sins. They look m o r e like activities s p o n s o r e d by the m u c h earlier King M a n a s s e h t h a n activities p e r f o r m e d d u r i n g the reign of Z e d e k i a h , the last k i n g of J u d a h . See M o s h e Greenberg, " P r o l e g o m e n o n , " in Charles C u t l e r Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel

and the

Original

Prophecy ( N e w York: Ktav, 1970), xviii-xxix. 20. T h e r e is significant d e b a t e o n w h e t h e r this reflects a real Temple, or is imaginary. In a d d i t i o n to the c o m m e n t a r i e s , see J o n Douglas Levenson, Theology

of the Program

of Restoration

of Ezekiel

4 0 - 4 8 , HSM 10 (Missoula, MT.:

Scholars, 1976); Steven S h a w n Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel

40-48,

HSM 4 9 (Atalanta: Scholars, 1992); a n d Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation:

The Territorial

Rhetoric

of Ezekiel

40-48,

SBLDS

154

(Atlanta: Scholars, 1996). 2 1 . G o g is believed to be a reflection of the s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y Lydian k i n g Gyges. 22. It is difficult to k n o w h o w literally to read this passage, w h i c h s e e m s to suggest that David himself, r a t h e r t h a n a Davidic d e s c e n d a n t , will be king! 23. A classic t r e a t m e n t of this f o r m u l a is W a l t h e r Zimmerli, "Knowledge of G o d A c c o r d i n g to the Book of Ezekiel," in his I Am Yahweh, trans. Douglas W Stott (Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1982), 2 9 - 9 8 .

Chapter 2 0 1. For a detailed h i s t o r y of the Persian p e r i o d , see Lester L. G r a b b e , from Cyrus to Hadrian

Judaism

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992).

2. See COS, 2 . 3 1 4 - 1 6 . 3. See J. F A. Sawyer, "Isaiah, Book of," in J o h n H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary Biblical

Interpretation

(Nashville,

TN: A b i n g d o n ,

C h r i s t o p h e r R. Seitz, "Trito-Isaiah," ABD,

1999),

552-54;

of and

3.501-7.

4. A reason o f t e n given, that these later sections c o m p l e m e n t the w o r d s of First Isaiah, d o e s n o t h o l d u p to scrutiny. Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 s h o w s m o r e c o n t i n u i t y w i t h J e r e m i a h , as B e n j a m i n D. S o m m e r h a s o b s e r v e d in his A Prophet Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66

Reads

(Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998).

5. In fact, it is likely that this verse in D e u t e r o n o m y c o m e s f r o m an exilic Deuteronomist. 6. See K a u f m a n n , The Religion of Israel,

16-17.

7. See the essays in Michael B. Dick, ed., Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making

of the Cult Image

in the Ancient

Near

East

( W i n o n a Lake, IN:

E i s e n b r a u n s , 1999). 8. See F i s h b a n e , Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking,

37-92.

9. A classic discussion is f o u n d in Bernard W. A n d e r s o n , " E x o d u s Typology in S e c o n d Isaiah," in B. A n d e r s o n a n d W Harrelson, eds., Israel's Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg

Prophetic

( H a r p e r &r Brothers, 1962),

177-195. 10. See O t t o Eissfeldt, "The P r o m i s e s of Grace to David in Isaiah 5 5 . 1 - 5 , " in A n d e r s o n a n d H a r r e l s o n , eds., Israel's Prophetic Heritage,

196-207.

11. See Mayer I. G r u b e r , "The M o t h e r h o o d of G o d in S e c o n d Isaiah," in his The Motherhood

of God and Other Studies (Atlanta: Scholars, 1 9 9 2 ) , 3 - 1 5 .

12. An old, b u t excellent discussion of the m a n y possibilities for identifying the servant is C h r i s t o p h e r R. N o r t h , The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah:

An

Historical and Critical Study ( L o n d o n : O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1948). 13. O n e definition of cognitive dissonance is "a psychological p h e n o m e n o n which

refers to the d i s c o m f o r t

felt at a d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n

what

y o u already k n o w or believe, a n d n e w i n f o r m a t i o n or interpretation." See J.S. A t h e r t o n , Learning

and

Teaching:

Cognitive

Dissonance

(UK,

http://www.learningandteachinginfo/learning/dissonance.htm.

2003);

Psycholo-

gists first u s e d the idea of cognitive d i s s o n a n c e in the late 1950s to h e l p explain the behavior of p e r s o n s in cults. Biblical scholars later applied the c o n c e p t to biblical oracles. See Robert Ρ Carroll, When Prophecy Cognitive

Dissonance

in the Prophetic

Traditions of the Old Testament

Failed: (New

York: Seabury Press, 1979). 14. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed, 161. 15. W h i l e verses are n u m b e r e d to a c c o r d i n g to their location in "Ezra" or " N e h e m i a h , " the two are c o m b i n e d as a single b o o k a c c o r d i n g to Jewish r e c k o n i n g — s e e n. 15 in c h a p t e r 2. 16. See the discussion in Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Identities:

Intermarriage

and Conversion from

Impurities

and

Jewish

the Bible to the Talmud

(New

York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 7 - 3 3 . 17. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation

in Ancient Israel, 1 1 5 - 2 3 .

18. The cessation of p r o p h e c y is a c o m p l e x issue—see Benjamin D. S o m m e r , "Did P r o p h e c y Cease? Evaluating a Réévaluation," JBL 115 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 3 1 - 4 7 .

Chapter 2 1 1. Most scholars agree that the latter part of Zechariah is a later addition. See M. Saeb0, "Zechariah, Book of," in J o h n H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation,

666-69.

2. Similar to Z e c h a r i a h s visions w i t h an angelic g u i d e — a n d close to t h e m chronologically—is Ezekiel's vision featuring a s u p e r n a t u r a l guide, "a m a n w h o s h o n e like c o p p e r " (Ezek. 40:3). 3. This is cited f r o m Semeia 14 in the survey of J o h n J. Collins, The Imagination:

An Introduction

to Jewish Apocalyptic

Literature,

Apocalyptic

2 n d ed. ( G r a n d

Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1998), 5. For a different definition, see Klaus Koch, " W h a t Is Apocalyptic? An A t t e m p t at a Preliminary Definition," in Paul D. H a n s o n , ed., Visionaries and Their Apocalypses

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983),

16-36. 4. For a m o r e extensive exposition of these c h a p t e r s as apocalyptic, f r o m a dif-

ferent starting p o i n t , see S t e p h e n L. C o o k , Prophecy and Apocalypticism:

The

Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 1 2 3 - 6 5 . 5. These b o o k s are e x a m i n e d in detail in Collins, The Apocalyptic

Imagination.

6. The Persian influence is hard to trace because o u r earliest extant m a n u scripts of b o t h literatures tend to date f r o m m u c h later t h a n this period. Therefore we c a n n o t tell the difference b e t w e e n early a n d late developm e n t s . For various suggestions c o n c e r n i n g the origin of apocalypticism, see the essays in J o h n J. Collins, The Encyclopedia Origins of Apocalypticism

of Apocalypticism,

in Judaism and Christianity

vol. 1, The

( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m ,

1998), 3 - 1 6 1 . 7. See the essays in Collins, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism,

vol. 1, 2 6 7 - 4 1 4 .

8. For m o r e details on these a n d o t h e r i n t r o d u c t o r y issues, see J o h n J. Collins, Daniel, H e r m e n e i a (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 1 - 1 2 3 . 9. For the definition of apocalyptic literature, see o u r discussion of Zechariah earlier in this chapter. 10. See Collins, Daniel, 3 3 1 . 11. Again, j u s t to be clear: the basis for this reinterpretation is the d o u b l i n g of the w o r d sh-v-'-m ( ‫ — ש ב ע י ם‬H e b r e w w a s written w i t h o u t vowels in this period), once as "seventy" ( ‫ — ש ב ע י ם‬s h i v ' i m ) a n d once as "weeks" ( ‫ ב ע י ם‬$ — shavu'im). 12. This term is b o r r o w e d f r o m the Israeli scholar J o s e p h H e i n e m a n n , w h o s e m a j o r w o r k has n o t b e e n translated into English. 13. See Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 18: "The first a s s u m p t i o n that all ancient interpreters seem to share is that the Bible is a f u n d a m e n t a l l y cryptic d o c u ment." 14. See Michael F i s h b a n e , Biblical

Interpretation

in Ancient

Israel

(Oxford:

C l a r e n d o n , 1985). A c o n d e n s e d version of this is Michael Fishbane, "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel" in Midrash and Literature,

ed. Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick ( N e w

Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1986), 1 9 - 3 7 . 15. See Leonard J. G r e e n s p o o n , "The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection," in Baruch H a l p e r n a n d J o n D. Levenson, eds., Traditions Turning

Points in Biblical Faith

in

Transformation:

( W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

2 4 7 - 3 2 1 ; Klaas S p r o n k , Beatific Afterlife in Ancient

1981),

Israel and in the Ancient

Near East, AOAT 2 1 9 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1986). 16. The origins of the d o c t r i n e of resurrection are n o t clear. It m i g h t be a reaction to the historical events b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164, w h e n J e w s were first p u n i s h e d for their specific religious beliefs, w h i c h m a y have led to the idea that G o d w a s p o s t p o n i n g the reward for faithfulness, to a time after death.

Alternatively, it m i g h t reflect Greek influence; see m y "Is There M a r t y r d o m in the H e b r e w Bible?" in Margaret C o r m a c k , ed., Sacrificing the Self: Perspecfives on Martyrdom

and Religion ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 3 - 2 2 ,

esp. 15. 17. In a d d i t i o n to c o m m e n t a r i e s o n Daniel, the following three b o o k s are especially helpful: D a n n a N o l a n Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6, J S O T S u p 72 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); Pamela J. Milne, Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure Narrative

in Hebrew Biblical

(Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1988) a n d Lawrence M. Wills, The

Jew in the Foreign Court, H D R 26 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990). 18. This is the only biblical reference that suggests that G o d requires m e m b e r s of the C o v e n a n t to d r i n k special wine. (It w o u l d be anachronistic to use the w o r d "kosher" in reference to the food that Daniel a n d his four friends eat.) 19. See the discussion of the "royal tale" genre in the w o r k s cited in n. 17, above, a n d in Collins, Daniel,

38-52.

20. O n the ahistorical character of the Book of J o n a h , see A m o s F u n k e n s t e i n , Perceptions

of Jewish

History

(Berkeley: Univ. of California Press,

1993),

64-70. 21. See W Lee H u m p h r e y s , "A Life-Style for Diaspora: A S t u d y of the Tales of Esther a n d Daniel," JBL 9 2 (1973), 2 1 1 - 2 3 . The Septuagint version of Esther, w h i c h has m a n y additions relative to the H e b r e w text, tells a similar story.

Chapter 2 2 1. For a survey of general issues c o n c e r n i n g Psalms, see Klaus Seybold, Introducing

the Psalms, trans. R. G r a e m e D u n p h y ( E d i n b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark,

1990). 2. O n these, see M o s h e Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window

to the

Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1983), esp. 5 9 - 6 0

(for the e n u m e r a t i o n

of the ninety-seven prose

prayers).

Scholars a n d s t u d e n t s o f t e n s t u d y prose a n d poetic prayers separately, b u t this is u n f o r t u n a t e since the t w o genres m a y be m u t u a l l y enlightening. 3. For this type of analysis, see Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer. 4. For the analysis that follows, see m y " W o m e n a n d Psalms: Toward an U n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Role of Women's Prayer in the Israelite Cult," in Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., eds, Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, J S O T S u p 2 6 2 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 2 5 - 5 6 , esp. 4 5 - 4 8 .

5. Specifically, this p s a l m features t w o types of parallelism: s y n o n y m o u s (e.g., "He raises the p o o r f r o m the d u s t , / Lifts u p the n e e d y f r o m the dunghill"; v. 8), a n d antithetical (e.g., "The b o w s of the m i g h t y are b r o k e n , / A n d the faltering are girded w i t h strength"; v. 4). As for figurative language, it refers to G o d via the m e t a p h o r "rock" (v. 2). 6. O n w h y this m a y be so, see Knohl, "Between Voice a n d Silence." 7. See the t e r m s u s e d in Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms Introduction

to Cultic Poetry,

Part 1 With

an

F O T L XIV ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s ,

1988), 9 - 2 1 . 8. For m o r e o n this type of analysis see Claus W e s t e r m a n , Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. C r i m a n d Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1981), t h o u g h he h a s a slightly different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the lament's structure. 9. Scholars debate w h e t h e r biblical H e b r e w expresses tenses. Some h o l d that the verbal f o r m s instead indicate w h e t h e r actions are c o m p l e t e or not. However, that debate is n o t i m p o r t a n t for this particular text, since here the H e b r e w m a k e s it clear that these are actions c o m p l e t e d in the past. 10. For one description of this inferred f u n c t i o n a r y in Israel's shrines, see Aubrey R. J o h n s o n , The Cultic Prophet in Ancient

Israel (Cardiff: Univ. of

Wales Press, 1962). 11. For an investigation of various types of divine responses to prayers, see Patrick

D.

Miller, They Cried to the

LORD:

The Form and Theology of Biblical

Prayer (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 1 3 5 - 7 7 . 12. O n the genre of "entrance liturgy," see H e r m a n n G u n k e l , An Introduction

to

the Psalms, trans. J a m e s D. Nogalski (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1998), 313. 13. Of the p s a l m s a t t r i b u t e d to the "Korahites," Psalm 4 3 lacks an explicit s u p e r s c r i p t i o n , b u t on the g r o u n d s of c o n t e n t a n d style, m o s t scholars a s s u m e that it is the s e c o n d half of Psalm 42. O n the m e a n i n g of the s u p e r scriptions that m e n t i o n David, see Alan M. Cooper, "The Life a n d Times of King David According to the Psalter," in The Poet and The Historian, ed. R. E. F r i e d m a n (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 1 1 7 - 3 1 . Historians d o n o t view King David as the true i n v e n t o r of psalmody, because p s a l m genres exist in even older literature f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a . 14. See N a h u m M. Sarna, Songs of the Heart: An Introduction

to the Book of Psalms

( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1993), 1 9 - 2 0 . 15. See Gary A. R e n d s b u r g , Linguistic Evidence for the Northern

Origin of Selected

Psalms, SBLMS 4 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). He likely overstates the case for N o r t h e r n psalms.

16. See Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents

(Psalms 120-134):

Their Place in

Israelite History and Religion, SBLDS 148 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996), 1 - 2 7 . 17. See Gerald H e n r y Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew

Psalter,

SBLDS 76

(Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985); a n d J. C l i n t o n M c C a n n , The Shape and

Shaping

of the Psalter, J S O T S u p 159 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). 18. As we saw in c h a p t e r 11, a s e c o n d a r y insertion at the start of J o s h u a also inserts Torah into the b e g i n n i n g of the s e c o n d m a j o r p o r t i o n of the Bible, Nevi'im.

Chapter 2 3 1. A "proverb" is a type of saying, while "Proverbs" is the n a m e of a b o o k . 2. T h e n a t u r e of ancient w i s d o m schools is explored in J o h n G. G a m m i e a n d Leo G. P e d u e , eds., The Sage in Israel and the Ancient

Near East ( W i n o n a

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). 3. See, for e x a m p l e , Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature,

AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 1 1 5 - 1 8 .

4. T h e two m a j o r i n t r o d u c t i o n s to the genre of w i s d o m literature are: J a m e s L. Crenshaw, Old Testament

Wisdom:

An Introduction

(Atlanta: J o h n

Knox,

1981); a n d Murphy, The Tree of Life. 5. Rather t h a n " w i s d o m literature," R. N. W h y b r a y prefers to s p e a k instead of "the intellectual tradition." See his The Intellectual Testament,

Tradition

in the Old

BZAW 135 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974).

6. See, for example, the essays in J o h n Day et al., eds., Wisdom in Ancient

Israel

(Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, 1995), 9 4 - 1 6 9 . 7. For o t h e r s u c h identical pairs, see Daniel C. Snell, Twice-Told Proverbs and the Composition

of the Book of Proverbs

( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s ,

1993), esp. 35. 8. See Snell, Twice-Told

Proverbs.

9. See R. B. Y. Scott, "Wise a n d Foolish, Righteous a n d W i c k e d , " VT 29 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 145-65. 10. See William McKane, Proverbs, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 1 0 - 2 2 . 11. See Klaus Koch, "Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?" in J a m e s L. Crenshaw, ed., Theodicy

in the Old Testament

(Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1983), 5 7 - 8 7 . 12. For additional examples, see R. B. Y. Scott, "Folk Proverbs of the Ancient Near East," in J a m e s L. Crenshaw, ed., Studies in Ancient ( N e w York: Ktav, 1976), 4 1 7 - 2 6 .

Israelite

Wisdom

13. It is u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r "foreign" in this context m e a n s non-Israelite, or any w o m e n outside of one's wife. 14. According to s o m e scholars, w i s d o m is hypostasized here as a deity. For different views, see Bernhard Lang, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess

Redefined

( N e w York: Pilgrim Press, 1986); Claudia V

Wisdom

and the Feminine

Camp,

in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d

Press, 1985); a n d Michael V Fox, Proverbs 1-9, AB (Garden City, NY, 2000). 15. For one possible explanation, see J o s e p h Blenkinsopp, "The Social Context of the O u t s i d e r W o m a n ' in Proverbs 1 - 9 , " Bib 72 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 4 5 7 - 7 3 . 16. See COS, 1 . 1 1 5 - 2 2 . 17. Some scholars believe that a later editor a d d e d the closing passage so as to c o u n t e r the misogynistic i n t r o d u c t i o n . See Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs, O T L (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1999), 2 7 3 - 7 4 . 18. See J a m e s L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel, 62. 19. For a brief description of h o w p r o v e r b s f u n c t i o n , see J a m e s G. Williams, "The Power of F o r m : A Study of Biblical Proverbs," Semeia

17 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

3 5 - 5 8 ; for a longer discussion see his Those Who Ponder Proverbs:

Aphoristic

Thinking and Biblical Literature (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1981). 20. See for e x a m p l e , Murphy, The Tree of Life, 7 8 - 7 9 . 21. F o r the m a i n s t r e a m Commentary:

view, see, e.g., Michael V

Ecclesiastes

Fox, T h e JPS

Bible

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2 0 0 4 ) ,

8 2 - 8 3 . Peter Machinist expresses a contrary view in the JSB, 1 6 2 1 - 2 2 . 22. See Robert Gordis, "Quotations in W i s d o m Literature," in Crenshaw, ed., Studies

in Ancient

Israelite

Wisdom,

2 2 0 - 4 4 ; a n d R. N. Whybray,

"The

Identification and Use of Q u o t a t i o n s in Ecclesiastes," SVT 32 (1981), 4 3 5 - 5 1 . 23. The best i n t r o d u c t i o n to Ecclesiastes, w h i c h also c o n t a i n s a detailed c o m mentary, is Michael V Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes ( G r a n d Rapids., MI; E e r d m a n s , 1999). 24. Linguistic evidence suggests that Ecclesiastes is a m u c h later b o o k , f r o m the Second Temple period. A p p a r e n t l y its a u t h o r w a n t e d to lend the protagonist the aura of Solomon's wealth a n d w i s d o m . A l t h o u g h the b o o k does n o t contain any Greek w o r d s , m a n y scholars believe that it reflects the influence of Greek t h o u g h t . 25. Based o n this passage in Ecclesiastes, the folksinger Pete Seeger c o m p o s e d a s o n g that the Byrds m a d e f a m o u s in 1965: To e v e r y t h i n g — t u r n , t u r n , t u r n There is a s e a s o n — t u r n , t u r n , t u r n A n d a time for ev'ry p u r p o s e u n d e r h e a v e n

A time to gain, a time to lose A time to r e n d , a time to sew A time to love, a time to hate A time of peace: I swear it's n o t too late! Ironically, these lyrics—which A m e r i c a n protesters s a n g often d u r i n g the Vietnam W a r — d r a m a t i c a l l y altered the original p o i n t of Ecclesiastes. 26. T h e d e t e r m i n i s m in Ecclesiastes c o n t i n u e s in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (This shared feature is o n e aspect that scholars cite in dating this biblical b o o k to the Hellenistic period.) See J e a n D u h a i m e , "Determinism," in Lawrence H. Schiffman a n d J a m e s C. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 9 4 - 9 8 . 27. See R.N. Whybray, "Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy," JSOT 2 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 8 7 - 9 8 .

Chapter 2 4 1. In a d d i t i o n to the various c o m m e n t a r i e s cited below, see E d w i n M. G o o d , In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with a Translation (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1990). 2. For an overview of the difficulties of the language of J o b , see J o n a s C. Greenfield, "The Language of the Book" in Moshe Greenberg et al., The Book of Job:

A

New

Translation

According

to the

Traditional

Hebrew

Text

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1980), xiv-xvi. 3. For a different view, see David J.A. Clines, "The A r g u m e n t s of Job's Three Friends," in D. J. A. Clines et al., eds., Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, J S O T S u p 19 (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1982), 1 9 9 - 2 1 4 . 4. For the p u r p o s e of this exposition, the c o n t e n t of Elihu's s p e e c h e s will be ignored, following the m o d e l of Matitiahu Tsevat, "The M e a n i n g of the Book of Job," in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion of the Hebrew Bible ( N e w York: Ktav, 1980), 1 - 3 7 , along w i t h m a n y others. Some see Elihu's s p e e c h e s as "retarding" the action, while others note the similarities b e t w e e n t h e m a n d God's speeches in the following c h a p t e r — b o t h deal extensively w i t h God's p o w e r in nature. 5. For e x a m p l e , J o b 2 8 raises several questions: W h o is speaking, J o b or the narrator? Does the c h a p t e r reflect the w o r k of one a u t h o r or several? Is it original or secondary? All of these q u e s t i o n s affect the m o s t basic question: w h a t does it really m e a n ? 6. For additional details c o n c e r n i n g this a n d o t h e r source-critical distinctions, see the c o m m e n t a r i e s .

7. For this distinction, see, a m o n g others, Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1978), 13. 8. O n this u n i t , see N a h u m M. Sarna, "Epic S u b s t r a t u m in the Prose of J o b , " Studies in Biblical Interpretation,

411-24.

9. Some w o u l d discuss this in t e r m s of "corrections of the scribes" or "a scribal e u p h e m i s m " (e.g., Samuel Rolles Driver a n d George B u c h a n a n Gray, The Book of Job, ICC [Edinburgh: Τ «Sr Τ Clark, 1971], 8; Marvin H. Pope, Job, AB [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973], 8), b u t this is n o t c o r r e c t — s e e Τον, Textual Criticism,

64-67.

10. Sarna, "Epic S u b s t r a t u m in the Prose of Job." 11. S t e p h e n Mitchell, The Book of Job (San Francisco, CA: N o r t h Point, 1987), 5. 12. Isaiah p o r t r a y e d G o d as s u r r o u n d e d by angels (Isa. 6 : 1 - 8 ; see "Location, Location, Location" in c h a p t e r 19). Elsewhere the p r o p h e t Micaiah expresses the s a m e idea: "I saw the

LORD

seated u p o n His t h r o n e , w i t h all the host

of heaven s t a n d i n g in a t t e n d a n c e to the right a n d to the left of H i m " (1 Kings 22:19). 13. See the c o m m e n t in E. D h o r m e , A Commentary

on the Book of Job, trans.

Harold Knight (Nashville, TN: T h o m a s Nelson, 1984), 5. 14. For the story of this d e v e l o p m e n t , see Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan ( N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995). For m o r e o n the Satan in the H e b r e w Bible, see Peggy L. Day, An Adversary

in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew

Bible,

HSM 4 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). 15. Avi Hurvitz, "The Date of the Prose-tale of J o b Linguistically Reconsidered," HTR 6 7 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 7 - 3 4 . 16. For m o r e o n this p o i n t , see m y b o o k God Is King, 105. 17. T h e reference is to "Mother Earth," see N o r m a n C. Habel, The Book of Job, O T L (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 93. 18. For a different, (overly) close r e a d i n g of this section, see Meir Weiss, The Story of Job's Beginning: A Literary

Analysis

(Jerusalem: Magnes Press,

1983). 19. See Michael Brennen Dick, "The Legal M e t a p h o r in J o b 31," CBQ 4 1 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 3 7 - 5 0 a n d "Job 3 1 , T h e O a t h of I n n o c e n c e , a n d the Sage," ZAW 9 5 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 31-53. 20. See Habel ,Job,

535-36.

2 1 . O n girding one's loins, see Habel, Job, 536. 22. O n the s t r o n g forensic b a c k g r o u n d of the b o o k , see Habel, Job, 5 4 - 5 7 a n d passim. 23. For the f u n c t i o n of these rhetorical questions, see (in a d d i t i o n to the c o m -

mentaries) Michael V Fox, "Job 3 8 a n d God's Rhetoric," Semeia

19 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,

53-61. 24. In a d d i t i o n to the c o m m e n t a r i e s , the following three very different treatm e n t s of these speeches are helpful: R. A. F MacKenzie, "The P u r p o s e of the Yahweh Speeches in the Book of Job," in Studia Biblical et Orientalia, 10 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,

1959),

AnOr

1 . 3 0 1 - 1 1 ; Tsevat, "The

M e a n i n g of the Book of Job"; a n d Athalya Brenner, "God's A n s w e r to Job," VT 3 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 2 9 - 3 7 . 25. In a d d i t i o n to the c o m m e n t a r i e s , see B. F Batto, "Behemoth," D D D 1 6 5 - 6 9 a n d C. Uehlinger, "Leviathan," D D D , 5 1 1 - 1 5 . O n Ugarit, see n. 13 in c h a p ter 19. 26. For o n e a t t e m p t to resolve this ambiguity, see J o h n Briggs Curtis, " O n Job's Response to Yahweh," JBL 9 8 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 9 7 - 5 1 1 . 27. Mitchell, The Book of Job, 88, 1 2 8 - 2 9 . 28. This is the thesis of Carol A. N e w s o m , The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination

( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 3 ) ; she s p e a k s t h r o u g h o u t of

J o b as a " p o l y p h o n i c c o n s t r u c t i o n . "

Chapter 2 5 1. This c h a p t e r is based o n m y f o r t h c o m i n g article "A Lock W h o s e Key Is Lost: Unresolved a n d Unresolvable P r o b l e m s in Interpreting the Song" in Scrolls of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs, ed. Peter S. H a w k i n s a n d Lesleigh C u s h i n g Stahlberg (Bronx, NY: F o r d h a m Univ. Press, f o r t h c o m i n g ) ; see further literature there. 2. Readers in English m a y find it fruitful to consult m o r e t h a n o n e translation, s u c h as Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7 C ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1977); Marcia Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary

Study

of The Song of Songs (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1982); Ariel a n d C h a n a Bloch, The Song of Songs ( N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995). 3. T h e text m e n t i o n s a "king" in 1:4, 12; 3:9, 11; a n d 7:6. It m e n t i o n s "Solom o n " in 1:5; 3:7, 9, 11; a n d 8:11. 4. O n the wasfs, see the essays in Athalya Brenner, ed., A Feminist to The Song of Songs

Companion

(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press,

1993),

214-57. 5. Scholars have investigated the possibility of female a u t h o r s h i p of the Song; for a discussion, see A. Brenner a n d Ε van D i j k - H e m m e s , On

Gendering

Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1986), esp. 7 1 - 8 1 . For a critique, see m y article "Lock W i t h o u t a Key." 6. For a b r o a d e r view of the Jewish attitude, see J o n a t h a n Magonet, ed., Jewish Explorations

of Sexuality

(Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1995).

7. See especially Michael V Fox, The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs (Madison: Univ. of W i s c o n s i n Press, 1985). 8. Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature

(Berkeley: Univ. of California

Press, 1976), 2 . 1 8 2 . 9. Robert D. Biggs, Sà.zi.ga: Ancient Mesopotamian

Potency Incantations

(Locust

Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1967), 30. 10. This is q u o t e d f r o m Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, 79. 11. Pope, Song of Songs, 516. 12. A possible exception to this is in 8:6, w h e r e shalhevetyah

( ‫ ) ש ל ה ב ת י ה‬m a y be

u n d e r s t o o d as either "the flame of G o d " or "a great flame"; see Pope, Song of Songs, 6 7 0 - 7 1 . 13. Despite s o m e interpreters' claims to the contrary, it is quite clear that (at least in most passages) the lovers are u n m a r r i e d , a n d are n o t b r i d e a n d g r o o m . For e x a m p l e , in 1:6 the female speaker is u n d e r her brothers', not her h u s b a n d ' s , control. 14. Women's sexual rights a c c o r d i n g to biblical law are explained most clearly in J u d i t h R o m n e y Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah

( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press,

1988), 4 0 - 4 1 . W i d o w s

and

divorcees were exceptional, in that they controlled their o w n sexuality. 15. T h e bride-price m u s t n o t be c o n f u s e d w i t h the dowry. T h e bride-price goes f r o m the groom's family to the bride's family, w h e r e a s the d o w r y is b r o u g h t by the bride into the marriage. Biblical law does n o t m a k e clear w h e t h e r the d o w r y b e c o m e s the groom's p r o p e r t y or not; in rabbinic law, the g r o o m m a y e n j o y the benefits f r o m or interest o n the dowry, b u t the d o w r y belongs to the bride. 16. For a m o r e detailed reading of this passage ( 5 : 2 - 6 ) , see m y article "Sensual or Sublime: O n Teaching the Song of Songs," in Approaches Hebrew Bible as Literature

in Translation,

to Teaching the

ed. Barry N. O l s h e n a n d Yael S.

F e l d m a n ( N e w York: M o d e r n Language Association, 1989), 1 3 3 - 3 5 . 17. See especially Marcia Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible, 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 . 18. See Victor H. Matthews, " P e r f u m e s a n d Spices," ABD, 5 . 2 2 6 - 2 8 , esp. 2 2 7 . 19. See F r a n k Moore Cross, Canaanite

Myth and Hebrew Epic ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:

Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 5 5 - 5 6 , n. 4 4 , especially his reference to the "Grand Teton range" as it m a y relate to the divine n a m e 20. See b. S a n h é d r i n 101a.

Shaddai.

Chapter 2 6 1. T h e observations b e l o w o n R u t h a n d Esther are largely based o n D a n n a N o l a n Fewell a n d David Miller G u n n , Compromising Characters

in the Book of Ruth

Redemption:

Relating

(Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n

Knox,

1990); Kirsten Nielson, Ruth, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster J o h n Knox, 1997); Michael V. Fox, Character

and

Ideology

in the Book of

Esther

( C o l u m b i a : Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1991); J o n D. Levenson, Esther, O T L (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1997); a n d Adele Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary:

Esther

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society,

2001). 2. Some consider this single verse (4:7) to be a later gloss a d d e d o n to a m u c h earlier b o o k . Scholars are c o n t i n u i n g a healthy debate c o n c e r n i n g Ruth's date. 3. See m y The Creation of History,

8-19.

4. See A n d r é Lacoque, The Feminine Unconventional:

Four Subversive

Figures in

Israel's Tradition, OBT (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 51. 5. W h a t H a m a n offers is a s u m larger t h a n any one p e r s o n could possibly have possessed.

Fox, Character

and

Ideology,

52, estimates this a m o u n t

as

" 5 8 % - 6 8 % of the a n n u a l revenue of the empire." 6. See Sandra Beth Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure,

SBLDS

4 4 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 3 1 - 3 5 ; for other structures, see 1 0 6 - 1 3 . 7. K e n n e t h Craig strongly advocates the view that P u r i m p r e c e d e d the Book of Esther; see his Reading

Esther:

A Case for

the Literary

Carnivalesque

(Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1995). See also Adele Berlin, in Esther, xxvii, a n d in the JSB, 1623. 8. See Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Biblical Narrative

(Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1985), 3 1 - 3 2 .

9. See Shaye J.D. C o h e n , The Beginnings Uncertainties

Type in

of Jewishness:

Boundaries,

Varieties,

(Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1999).

Chapter 2 7 1. A m o r e detailed overview of m a n y of the issues discussed here is J o h n Barton, "The Significance of a Fixed Text a n d C a n o n , " in Magne Saeb0, ed., The Hebrew

Bible/Old

Testament:

The History

of Its Interpretation,

vol. 1

(Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1996), 6 7 - 8 3 . 2. Philip R. Davies e m p h a s i z e s the role of the p o p u l a c e in his Scribes

and

Schools: the Canonization

of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r

J o h n Knox, 1998), w h i c h is s u m m a r i z e d in his "The J e w i s h Scriptural Canon

in Cultural Perspective," in Lee Martin M c D o n a l d a n d J a m e s

A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate

(Peabody, MA: H e n d r i c k s o n , 2 0 0 2 ) ,

36-52. 3. See Lee Martin M c D o n a l d a n d J a m e s A. Sanders, "Introduction," in Lee Martin M c D o n a l d a n d J a m e s A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 4. See M o s h e Halbertal, People of the Book: Canon,

Meaning,

11.

and

Authority

( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1997); Eugene Ulrich, "The N o t i o n a n d Definition of C a n o n , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Debate,

Canon

21-35.

5. See J a m e s Barr, Holy Scripture:

Canon, Authority,

Criticism

(Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1983). 6. For the rabbinic t e r m s u s e d for "the Bible," see Sid Z. Leiman, Canonization

of Hebrew

Scripture:

The

Talmudic

and

Midrashic

The

Evidence

( H a m d e n , CT: A r c h o n , 1976), 5 3 - 7 2 . 7. See m y article c o a u t h o r e d w i t h T h o m a s Römer, " D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 a n d the Case for a Persian H e x a t e u c h , " J B L 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 4 0 1 - 1 9 . 8. See Leiman, The Canonization

of Hebrew Scripture,

3 1 - 3 3 ; Steve Mason,

"Josephus a n d His Twenty-two Book C a n o n , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate,

110-27.

9. Leiman, Canonization, 33. 10. For this r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c a n o n of J o s e p h u s , see Leiman,

Canonization,

32-33. 11. O n d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t did a n d did n o t h a p p e n at J a m n i a , see Jack Ρ Lewis, "Jamnia Revisited," in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon

Debate,

146-62. 12. For texts a n d the m e a n i n g of "defiling the h a n d s , " see Leiman,

Canonization,

102-120. 13. Leiman, Canonization,

53-56.

14. In a d d i t i o n to Leiman, Canonization,

see J a c k N. Lightstone, "The Rabbis'

Bible: T h e C a n o n of the H e b r e w Bible a n d the Early Rabbinic Guild," in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 15. Leiman, Canonization,

92-102.

16. Leiman, Canonization,

97.

163-84.

17. For the late Second-Temple p e r i o d , scholars use the t e r m "sect" to refer to one of the m a n y g r o u p s of J e w s w h o a d h e r e d to distinctive doctrine a n d their o w n authorities. For a cogent defense of the identification of the Q u m r a n (Dead Sea Scrolls) c o m m u n i t y with J o s e p h u s ' description of the

party that he called Essenes, see J a m e s C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n n s , 1994), 7 1 - 9 8 . 18. However, s o m e of the Dead Sea Scrolls d o relate to Esther; see Sidnie W h i t e Crawford,

"Esther,

Book

of," in

Schiffman and

VanderKam,

eds.,

Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 6 9 - 7 0 . For a list of the n u m b e r of m a n uscripts of each biblical b o o k f o u n d at Q u m r a n , see Esther Eshel, "The Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls," JSB, 1922. 19. See J a m e s C. VanderKam, " Q u e s t i o n s of C a n o n Viewed t h r o u g h the Dead Sea Scrolls," in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate , 9 1 - 1 0 9 . 20. For a history of the place of the c o d e x in J u d a i s m , see Mordechai Glatzer, "The Book of B o o k s — F r o m Scroll to C o d e x a n d into Print," in Mordechai Glatzer, ed., The Jerusalem

Crown: Companion

Volume (Jerusalem: N. Ben-

Zvi, 2 0 0 2 ) , 6 1 - 1 0 1 . 21. See N a h u m M. S a m a , "Ancient Libraries a n d the O r d e r i n g of the Biblical Books," in his Studies in Biblical Interpretation,

53-66.

22. W h e n the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls s o m e t i m e s copied Genesis a n d E x o d u s o n t o a single l o n g scroll, they s k i p p e d several lines b e t w e e n the two b o o k s , w h i c h indicates that those b o o k s were viewed as separate. 23. Leiman, Canonization,

53-72.

24. T h e m a i n d e f e n d e r of an alternative r e c o n s t r u c t i o n — a n original two-part c a n o n — i s J o h n Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions

of Ancient

Prophecy

in

Israel after the Exile (Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1986), 3 5 - 9 5 . O n p r o b lems w i t h m a n y of the s t a n d a r d a r g u m e n t s in favor of an original or early tripartite c a n o n , see Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, "Origins of a Tripartite O l d Testament C a n o n , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon

Debate,

1 2 8 - 4 5 ; Eugene Ulrich, "The Non-Attestation of a Tripartite C a n o n in 4QMMT," CBQ 6 5 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 0 2 - 1 4 . 25. The older characterization of an Alexandrian vs. a Palestinian c a n o n is n o t viable; see Albert C. S u n d b e r g Jr., "The Septuagint: T h e Bible of Hellenistic J u d a i s m , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 79. 26. See, for e x a m p l e , Leiman, Canonization,

131.

27. O n variation in the o r d e r of the Latter P r o p h e t s a n d in K e t h u v i m , see Christian C. Ginsburg, Introduction

to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the

Bible ( N e w York: Ktav, 1966), 1 - 8 . 28. For a s u m m a r y o n the "Bible" of the Dead Sea Scrolls c o m m u n i t y , see Τον, Textual Criticism,

1 0 0 - 1 1 7 ; see also the specific evidence that Eugene Ulrich

cites in m a n y of the essays in his The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999). 29. See, for e x a m p l e ,

the

d i f f e r e n c e s systematically

noted

in J a m e s

H.

C h a r l e s w o r t h , ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, with English Translations. Documents

and Greek

Vol. 6b, Pesharim, Other Commentaries,

Texts

and Related

(Louisville, KY, W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 2 ) .

30. See Pesher H a b a k k u k 4 : 9 - 1 6 , a n d the discussion in William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk,

SBLMS 2 4 (Missoula, MT.: Scholars, 1979),

80-83. 31. Moshe Greenberg, "The Stabilization of the Text of the H e b r e w Bible, Reviewed in Light of the Biblical Materials f r o m the J u d e a n Desert," reprinted in Sid Z. Leiman, The Canon Introductory

and Masorah

of the Hebrew

Bible: An

Reader ( N e w York: Ktav, 1974), 314.

32. O n the difficult question of h o w various c o m p e t i n g textual versions resolved over time into o n e "official" version, see the discussion of M. H. G o s h e n Gottstein, " H e b r e w Biblical Manuscripts: Their History a n d Their Place in the HUBP Edition," in F r a n k Moore Cross a n d S h e m a r y a h u Talmon, eds., Qumran

and the History of the Biblical Text ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ.

Press, 1975), 4 2 - 8 9 . 33. Rabbinic literature often associates the m i d r a s h i c m o v e of interpreting variant spellings—malei ( ‫ מ ל א‬, "full"; Latin: "plene") versus chaser Ρ Ο Π , "short" or "defective")—with R. Akiva. 34. O n the variant Talmudic (and later) readings of biblical texts, see B. Barry Levy, Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 35. For a s u m m a r y of the evolution of the biblical text, see David E. S. Stein's preface to the JPS Hebrew-English

Tanakh (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society, 1999), ix-xix. 36. T h e s t a n d a r d reference w o r k o n the Masoretes is Israel Yeivin, to the Tiberian Masorah,

Introduction

trans. E. J. Revell, Masoretic Studies 5 (Missoula,

MT: Scholars, 1980); o n the victory of the Tiberian tradition as represented in the Aleppo Codex, see Yosef Ofer, "The History a n d Authority of the Aleppo Codex," in Glatzer, ed., The Jerusalem Crown: Companion Volume, 2 5 - 5 0 .

Afterword 1. O n the multiplicity of c o n c e p t i o n s in the Bible, see the essays in J a s o n Ρ Rosenblatt a n d J o s e p h C. Sitterson, Jr., eds., "Not in Heaven": Coherence and Complexity

in Biblical Narrative

(Bloomington: University of Indiana Press,

1991), especially Bernard M. Levinson, "The Right Chorale: F r o m the Poetics to the H e r m e n e u t i c s of the H e b r e w Bible," 1 2 9 - 1 5 3 .

2. In this b o o k I h a d originally i n t e n d e d to i n c l u d e c h a p t e r s o n these m o d e s of interpretation, b u t w i t h the publication of the essays "Classical Rabbinic Interpretation" (Yaakov Elman), "Midrash a n d Midrashic

Interpretation"

(David Stern), a n d "Medieval Jewish Interpretation" (Barry D. Walfish) in JSB, 1 8 4 4 - 1 9 0 0 , this is n o longer necessary 1 perceive only minimal continuities b e t w e e n these m o d e s of Bible s t u d y a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y critical studies. Earlier scholars did anticipate i m p o r t a n t aspects of historical-critical study, i n c l u d i n g the use of o t h e r Semitic languages (some classical rabbis a n d Spanish exegetes), the idea that s o m e small parts of the Torah are not Mosaic (Abraham ibn Ezra), certain aspects of "lower" textual criticism (various Spanish exegetes), a n d the idea that similar biblical laws in different b o o k s s h o u l d be s t u d i e d i n d e p e n d e n t ly of each o t h e r (Rashbam). Yet those rabbis applied s u c h ideas only to a small n u m b e r of texts. N o single p r e m o d e r n scholar ever c o m b i n e d t h e m together. In addition, they never e m p l o y e d o t h e r key features of the historical-critical m e t h o d , s u c h as c o n d u c t i n g systematic source analysis or consuiting ancient versions s u c h as the Septuagint. Most i m p o r t a n t , p r e m o d e r n Jewish scholarship focused on the place of the Bible in Jewish life, not on its place as an ancient Near Eastern d o c u m e n t . Nevertheless, the interpretations (and m o d e s of interpretation) in these Jewish sources are rich, prof o u n d , a n d varied. 3. The distinction b e t w e e n w h a t the Bible "meant" a n d w h a t it "means" is central to the p r o g r a m of Krister Stendahl (Swedish b i s h o p , theologian, a n d Harvard professor emeritus); see esp. "Biblical Theology: A Program," in his Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1 1 - 4 4 , esp. 1 4 - 1 6 . In Jewish circles d u r i n g the twentieth century, a leading e x p o n e n t of this a p p r o a c h w a s Mordecai M. Kaplan (professor of homiletics at the Jewish Theological Seminary a n d f o u n d e r of Reconstruc-tionism), w h o called it "revaluation." 4. This is a p r i m a r y example used in J a m e s L. Kugel, "Two I n t r o d u c t i o n s to Midrash" in Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick, eds., Midrash

and

Literature ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. 1986), 7 7 - 1 0 3 ; see esp. 78. 5. O n Karaites, a g r o u p that does n o t u p h o l d the sanctity of the "oral law" (rabbinic interpretation), see Meira Polliack, "Medieval Karaism," in Martin G o o d m a n et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 9 5 - 3 2 6 . 6. See m y earlier discussion o n this issue in "Biblical History a n d Jewish Biblical Theology," JR 77 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , 5 6 3 - 8 3 , esp. 5 7 4 - 7 7 . 7. Pesikta de-Rav

Kahana,

"In the third m o n t h , " p a r a g r a p h 25; p. 2 2 3 of

M a n d e l b a u m edition; for the c o m p l e t e texts a n d a discussion, see m y "The M a n y Faces of G o d in E x o d u s 19," in Alice O g d e n Bellis a n d Joel S. Kaminsky, eds., Jews, Christians,

and the Theology of the Hebrew

Scriptures,

SBL S y m p o s i u m s Series 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 5 3 - 6 7 , esp. 3 5 3 .

Sources Cited*

Ackroyd, P R. et al., eds., The Cambridge

History of the Bible. 3 vols. C a m b r i d g e :

C a m b r i d g e University. Press, 1 9 6 3 - 7 0 . Aharoni, Yohanan. The Archaeology

of the Land of Israel from

the

Prehistoric

Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period. Translated by A n s o n Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. .The Land of the Bible: A Historical

Geography.

Translated by Α. Ε Rainey.

L o n d o n : Burns & Oates, 1979. Aharoni, Yohanan et al., eds. The Carta Bible Atlas.

4 t h ed. Jerusalem: Carta,

2002. Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical as Divine Manifestations

Events

in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. CBOT 1. Lund:

G l e e r u p , 1967. Albright, William Foxwell. From Stone Age to Christianity:

Monotheism

and the

Historical Process. G a r d e n City, NY: Anchor, 1957. Alt, Albrecht. "The Origins of Israelite Law." In his Essays on Old

Testament

History and Religion, 1 0 1 - 7 1 . G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative.

N e w York: Basic, 1981.

. The Art of Biblical Poetry. N e w York: Basic, 1985. A n d e r s o n , Bernard W " E x o d u s Typology in Second Isaiah." In Israel's Heritage: Essays in Honor of fames Muilenburg,

Prophetic

edited b y B. A n d e r s o n a n d W

Harrelson, 1 7 7 - 9 5 . N e w York: Harper, 1962. . "The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study." In his From Creation to New Creation, 4 2 - 5 5 . OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994. Andres, J. C. et al., Chronicles and Its Synoptic

Parallels in Samuel,

Related Biblical Texts. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. *Only works in English have been included.

Kings, and

A t h e r t o n , J.S. Learning and Teaching: Cognitive Dissonance,

h t t p ://www. learning

andteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm. Baltzer, Klaus. "Considerations Regarding the Office a n d Calling of the Prophet." HTR 6 1 (1968): 5 6 7 - 8 1 . Bar-Efrat, S h i m o n . Narrative Art in the Bible. J S O T S u p 70. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality.

Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress, 1993. . Holy Scripture:

Canon,

Authority,

Criticism.

Philadelphia:

Westminster,

1983. . "The Image of G o d in the Book of G e n e s i s — A S t u d y of Terminology." BJRL 51 ( 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 ) : 1 1 - 2 6 . Barton, J o h n . "Historical-Critical Approaches." In The Cambridge Biblical Interpretation,

Companion

to

edited by J o h n Barton, 9 - 2 0 . C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e

University Press, 1998. . Oracles of God: Perceptions

of Ancient

Prophecy

in Israel after the

Exile.

O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1986. . Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. ed. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1996. . "The Significance of a Fixed Text a n d C a n o n . " In The Hebrew Testament: The History of Its Interpretation.

Bible/Old

Edited by Magne Saeb0. 1 : 6 7 - 8 3 .

Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1996. Batto, Β. F "Behemoth." In DDD, 1 6 5 - 6 9 . Leiden: Brill, 1999. Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Background in Early Judaism.

Canon of the New Testament

Church and its

G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1985.

Benavides, Gustavo. "Modernity." In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, edited by Mark C. Taylor, 1 8 6 - 2 0 4 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Ben Zvi, E h u d . "The Prophetic Book: A Key F o r m of Prophetic Literature." In The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Marvin A. Sweeney a n d E h u d

Ben Zvi, 2 7 6 - 9 7 .

Century, Grand

edited by

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans, 2003. Berg, Sandra Beth. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure.

SBLDS 44.

Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979. Berlin, Adele.

The Dynamics

of Biblical

Parallelism.

Bloomington:

Indiana

University Press, 1985. . The JPS Bible Commentary:

Esther. Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication Society,

2001. . "Parallelism." In ABD,

5:155-162.

Berlin, Adele a n d Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 4 .

Berrin, Shani L. "Pesharim." In The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman a n d J a m e s C. VanderKam, 2 . 6 4 4 - 4 7 . N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 0 . Bickerman, Elias. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Postbiblical Judaism.

N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1962.

Biggs, Robert D. Sà.zi.ga:

Ancient

Mesopotamian

Potency

Incantations.

Locust

Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1967. Bird, Phyllis A. '"Male a n d Female He Created T h e m ' : Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation." In h e r Missing Persons and Mistaken

Identities:

Women

and Gender

in Ancient

Israel,

123-54.

OBT.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997. Blenkinsopp, J o s e p h . A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement

in the

Land to the Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. . "The Social C o n t e x t of the ' O u t s i d e r W o m a n ' in Proverbs 1 - 9 . " Bib 72 (1991): 4 5 7 - 7 3 . Bloch, Ariel, a n d C h a n a Bloch. The Song of Songs. N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995. Bottéro, Jean. Mesopotamia:

Writing, Reasoning,

and the Gods. Translated by Z.

Bahrani a n d M. Van De Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Brenner, Athalya, ed. A Feminist Companion

to Genesis. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1993. , ed. A Feminist Companion

to The Song of Songs. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1993. , ed. Genesis: A Feminist Companion

to the Bible. 2 n d Series. Sheffield, UK:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. . "God's Answer to J o b . " V I 3 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 1 2 9 - 3 7 . . The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary

Type in Biblical

Narrative.

Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1985. Brenner, A. a n d Ε van D i j k - H e m m e s . On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Brettler, Marc Zvi. "Biblical History a n d Jewish Biblical Theology." JR 7 7 (1997): 563-83. . The Book of Judges. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 2 0 0 2 . . "The C o p e n h a g e n School: T h e Historiographical Issues." AJS Review 2 7 (2003): 1 - 2 1 . . The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995. . "Cyclical a n d Teleological Time in the H e b r e w Bible." In Time and Temporality in the Ancient World, edited by Ralph M. Rosen, 1 1 1 - 2 8 . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania M u s e u m of Archaeology a n d 2004.

Anthropology,

. God Is King: Understanding

an Israelite Metaphor. J S O T S u p 76. Sheffield,

UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. . "Is There M a r t y r d o m in the H e b r e w Bible?" In Sacrificing Perspectives on Martyrdom

the

Self:

and Religion, edited by Margaret C o r m a c k , 3 - 2 2 .

N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 2 . . "A Lock W h o s e Key Is Lost: Unresolved a n d Unresolvable P r o b l e m s in I n t e r p r e t i n g the Song." In Scrolls of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs, edited by Peter S. H a w k i n s a n d Lesleigh C u s h i n g Stahlberg. Bronx, NY: F o r d h a m University Press, f o r t h c o m i n g . . "The Many Faces of G o d in E x o d u s 19." In Jews, Christians, Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures,

and the

edited by Alice O g d e n Bellis a n d Joel S.

Kaminsky, 3 5 3 - 6 7 . SBL S y m p o s i u m Series 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 . . "Sensual or Sublime: O n Teaching the Song of Songs." In Approaches Teaching the Hebrew Bible as Literature O l s h e n a n d Yael S. F e l d m a n ,

in Translation,

133-35.

to

edited by Barry N.

N e w York: M o d e r n

Language

Association, 1989. . "The Structure of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 . " JSOT 4 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) : 8 7 - 9 7 . . " W o m e n a n d Psalms: Toward an U n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Role of Women's Prayer in the Israelite Cult." In Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, edited b y Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., 2 5 - 5 6 . J S O T S u p 2 6 2 . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Brettler, Marc Z., a n d T h o m a s Römer. " D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 a n d the Case for a Persian H e x a t e u c h . " JBL 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) : 4 0 1 - 1 9 . Bright, J o h n . A History of Israel. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Broshi, M. "The E x p a n s i o n of J e r u s a l e m in the Reigns of Hezekiah

and

Manasseh." IEJ 2 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 2 1 - 2 6 . Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk.

SBLMS 24. Missoula, MT:

Scholars, 1979. Buber, Martin a n d Franz Rosenzweig. Scripture

and Translation.

Translated by

Lawrence Rosenwald w i t h Everett Fox. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Burkert, Walter. Structure

and History in Greek Mythology

and Ritual.

Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1979. C a m p , Claudia V Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1985. C a m p b e l l , A n t o n y F, a n d Mark A. O'Brien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic

History:

Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 0 . Carasik, Michael A. "Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel." P h D diss., Brandeis University, 1997.

Carroll, Robert Ε The Book of Jeremiah.

OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.

. When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament.

N e w York: Seabury Press, 1979.

C h a r l e s w o r t h , J a m e s H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, Texts with English Translations. Related Documents.

Vol. 6b, Pesharim,

and Greek

Other Commentaries,

and

Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 2 .

. The Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha.

2 vols. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday,

1983, 1985. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction

to the Old Testament

as Scripture.

Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1979. . Isaiah. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 1 . . Isaiah and the Assyrian

Crisis. SBT 2 3. L o n d o n : SCM, 1967.

C h r i s t e n s e n , D u a n e L., ed. A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy.

W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1 9 9 3

Clark, W Malcolm. "Law." In Old Testament

Form Criticism,

edited b y J o h n H.

Hayes, 9 9 - 1 3 9 . San A n t o n i o , TX: Trinity University Press, 1974. Clifford, Richard J. Proverbs. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1999. Clines, David J. A. "The A r g u m e n t s of Job's Three Friends." In Art and Rhetoric in Biblical Literature,

Meaning:

edited by D. J. A. Clines et al., 1 9 9 - 2 1 4 .

J S O T S u p 19. Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1982. C o g a n , Mordechai, a n d Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB. N e w York: Doubleday, 1988. Cogan, Morton. Imperialism

and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth

and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. SBLMS 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. Cohen,

Shaye J.

Uncertainties.

D.

The

Beginnings

Boundaries,

Varieties,

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Collins, J o h n J. The Apocalyptic Literature.

of Jewishness:

Imagination:

An Introduction

to Jewish

Apocalyptic

2 n d ed. G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1998.

. Daniel. H e r m e n e i a . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. . The Encyclopedia

of Apocalypticism.

Judaism and Christianity.

Vol. 1, The Origins of Apocalypticism

N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1998.

. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ancient Literature.

in

Other

AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1995.

C o o g a n , Michael David. Stories from Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. C o o k , S t e p h e n L. Prophecy

and Apocalypticism:

The Postexilic

Social

Setting.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. Cooley, Robert E. "Ai." In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near

East,

edited by Eric M. Meyers, 1.33. N e w York: O x f o r d , 1997. Cooper, Alan M. "The Life a n d Times of King David According to the Psalter." In

The Poet and The Historian,

edited by R. E. F r i e d m a n , 1 1 7 - 3 1 . Chico, CA:

Scholars, 1983. Coote, Robert B., ed. Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary

Perspective. Semeia Studies.

Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Craig, K e n n e t h . Reading Esther: A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque.

Louisville,

KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1995. Crenshaw, J a m e s L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1998. . Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction.

Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1981.

Cross, F r a n k Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, F r a n k M. a n d D. N. F r e e d m a n . Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Crow, Loren D. The Songs of Ascents

(Psalms 120-134):

Their Place in Israelite

History and Religion. SBLDS 148. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. Curtis, J o h n Briggs. O n Job's Response to Yahweh." JBL 9 8 (1979): 4 9 7 - 5 1 1 . Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia:

Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh,

and

Others. O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1991. Davies, Philip R. Scribes and Schools: the Canonization

of the Hebrew

Scriptures.

Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1998. Davis, Ellen F Swallowing

the Scroll: Textuality

and the Dynamics

of Discourse in

Ezekiel's Prophecy. J S O T S u p 78. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989. Day, J o h n et al., eds. Wisdom in Ancient Israel. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1995. Day, Peggy L. An Adversary

in Heaven:

Satan

in the Hebrew Bible. HSM 43.

Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. del O l m o Lete, G. Canaanite

Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit.

Translated by W G. E. Watson. W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrans, 2 0 0 4 . Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Wnters It? What Archaeology

Know and When Did They Know

Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient

Israel.

Grand

Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 1 . . Who Were the Early Israelites

and Where

Did They Come From? G r a n d

Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 . D h o r m e , E. A Commentary

on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight.

Nashville, TN: T h o m a s Nelson, 1984. Dick, Michael Brennen, ed. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. . "Job 31, T h e O a t h of I n n o c e n c e , a n d the Sage." ZAW 9 5 (1983): 3 1 - 5 3 . . "The Legal M e t a p h o r in J o b 31." CBQ 4 1 (1979): 3 7 - 5 0 .

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. 3 9 vols. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 5 5 - . Dockser Marcus, Amy. The View from

Nebo: How Archaeology

is Rewriting

and

Reshaping the Middle East. Boston: Little, Brown, 2 0 0 0 . Douglas, Mary. "The A b o m i n a t i o n s of Leviticus." In her Purity and

Danger,

4 1 - 5 7 . L o n d o n : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969. Driver, Samuel Rolles, a n d George B u c h a n a n Gray. The Book of Job.

ICC.

E d i n b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark, 1971. D u h a i m e , Jean. "Determinism." In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman a n d J a m e s C. VanderKam, 1 9 4 - 9 8 . N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 0 . Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament:

An Introduction.

Translated by Peter A.

Ackroyd. N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1965. . "The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 5 5 . 1 - 5 . " In Israel's Heritage:

Essays in Honor of James

Muilenburg,

Prophetic

edited by A n d e r s o n

and

Harrelson, 1 9 6 - 2 0 7 . N e w York: Harper, 1962. Ellis, Peter Ε The Yahwist: The Bible's First Theologian. L o n d o n : G. C h a p m a n , 1969. Eph'al, I. "The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6 t h - 5 t h Centuries B.C.: M a i n t e n a n c e a n d Cohesion." Orientalia

4 7 (1978): 7 4 - 9 0 .

Falk, Marcia. Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of The Song of Songs. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1982. F e r n a n d e z Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint

in Context: Introduction

to the Greek

Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2 0 0 1 . Fewell, D a n n a Nolan. Circle of Sovereignty:

A Story of Stories in Daniel

1-6.

J S O T S u p 72. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Fewell, D a n n a Relating

Nolan, a n d

Characters

David Miller G u n n .

Compromising

Redemption:

in the Book of Ruth. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n

Knox, 1990. Finkelstein, Israel, a n d Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: New Vision of Ancient

Archaeology's

Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. N e w York:

Touchstone, 2 0 0 1 . Finkelstein, J. J.

The Ox

That

Gored.

TAPS 71/2. Philadelphia:

American

Philosophical Society, 1981. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. . Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking.

O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press,

2003. . "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel." In Midrash

and Literature,

edited by Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n

Sanford Budick, 1 9 - 3 7 . N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986.

and

. "Torah a n d Tradition." In Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament,

edit-

ed by Douglas A. Knight, 2 7 9 - 8 0 . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne. The Transformation

of Torah from Scribal Advice

to

Law. J S O T S u p 287. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. F o k k e l m a n , J. R Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory

Guide. Louisville, KY:

W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1999. Fox, Everett.

The Five Books of Moses:

Deuteronomy.

Genesis,

Exodus,

Leviticus,

Numbers,

Vol. 1. of S c h o c k e n Bible. N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1995.

Fox, Michael V Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. C o l u m b i a : University of S o u t h Carolina Press, 1991. . "Job 3 8 a n d God's Rhetoric." Semeia 19 (1981): 5 3 - 6 1 . . The JPS Bible Commentary:

Ecclesiastes.

Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication

Society, 2 0 0 4 . . Proverbs 1-9. AB. G a r d e n City, NY, 2 0 0 0 . . The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs. Madison, W I : University of W i s c o n s i n Press, 1985. . A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of

Ecclesiastes.

G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999. F r a n k e n a , R. "The Vassal-Treaties of E s a r h a d d o n a n d the Dating of D e u t e r o n omy." OTS 14 (1965): 1 2 2 - 5 4 . F r i e d m a n , Richard Elliott.

The Bible with Sources

Revealed.

San

Francisco:

HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. . Commentary

on the Torah with English Translation

and Hebrew Text. San

Francisco: H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s o , 1997. . Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco: H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s c o , 1997. Fritz, Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings. Translated by Anselm H a g e d o r n . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 3 . Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Biblical Transformation Funkenstein,

Amos.

Women,

Culture,

and the

of Pagan Myth. N e w York: Free Press, 1992.

Perceptions

of Jewish

History.

Berkeley: University

of

California Press, 1993. G a m m i e , J o h n G., a n d Leo G. Pedue, eds. The Sage in Israel and the Ancient

Near

East. W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1990. Garr, W Randall. Dialect Geography of Syria-Israel,

1000-586

B.C.E.

Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Geller, S t e p h e n A. "Were the P r o p h e t s Poets?" Prooftexts 3 (1983): 2 1 1 - 2 1 . Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms Part 1 With an Introduction XIV G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1988.

to Cultic Poetry. F O T L

Gevirtz, Stanley. Patterns in the Early Poetry oj Israel Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 32. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Ginsburg, Christian C. Introduction

to the Massoretico-Critical

Edition of the Bible.

N e w York: Ktav, 1966. First p u b l i s h e d in 1897. Ginzberg,

Louis.

The Legends

of the Jews.

Translated

by Henrietta

Szold.

Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968. 7 vols. Reissued in 2 0 0 2 . Glatzer, Mordechai. "The Book of B o o k s — F r o m Scroll to C o d e x a n d into Print." In The Jerusalem

Crown: Companion

Volume, edited by Mordechai Glatzer,

6 1 - 1 0 1 . Jerusalem: N. Ben-Zvi, 2 0 0 2 . G o o d , E d w i n M. In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with a Translation.

Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press, 1990. Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. . " Q u o t a t i o n s in W i s d o m Literature." In Studies in Ancient Israelite

Wisdom,

edited by J a m e s Crenshaw, 2 2 0 - 4 4 . N e w York: Ktav, 1976. G o s h e n - G o t t s t e i n , Moshe H. "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History a n d Their Place in the HUBP Edition." In Qumran Text,

and the History of the Biblical

edited by F r a n k Moore Cross a n d S h e m a r y a h u Talmon,

42-89.

C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Grabbe, Lester L., ed. Can A 'History of Israel' Be Written? J S O T S u p 2 4 5 . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. . Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. Graham, M. Patrick, a n d Steven L. McKenzie. The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture. J S O T S u p 263. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Gray, J o h n . Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NCBC. G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1986. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window

to the Popular Religion of

Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. . "The Decalogue Tradition Critically E x a m i n e d . " In The Ten in History

and

Tradition,

Commandments

edited by Ben-Zion Segal, 9 6 - 9 9 .

Jerusalem:

Magnes, 1990. . Ezekiel 1-20. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. . Ezekiel 21-37.

AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1997.

. "Jewish C o n c e p t i o n s o n the H u m a n Factor in Biblical Prophecy." In his Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought,

4 0 5 - 1 9 . JPS Scholar of Distinction

Series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. . "More Reflections o n Biblical Criminal Law." ScrHier 3 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) : 1 - 1 7 . . "Prolegomenon." In Pseudo-Ezekiel

and the Original Prophecy,

Charles Cutler Torrey, xviii-xxix. N e w York: Ktav, 1970.

edited by

. "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law." In The Jewish

Expression,

edited by J u d a h Goldin, 1 8 - 3 7 . N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976. . "Herem." EJ 8 . 3 4 9 . . "The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the H e b r e w Text: A S a m p l i n g f r o m Ezekiel 2 : 1 - 3 : 1 1 . " In his Studies Thought,

in the Bible and

Jewish

2 0 9 - 2 2 5 . JPS Scholar of Distinction Series. Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 1995. Greenfield, J o n a s C. "The Language of the Book." In The Book of Job: A New Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, edited by Moshe G r e e n b e r g et a l , xiv-xvi. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1980. G r e e n s p a h n , Frederick E. " H o w J e w s Translate the Bible." In Biblical in Context,

Translation

edited by Frederick W Knobloch, 5 2 - 5 3 . Bethesda: University

Press of Maryland, 2 0 0 2 . . When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence

of Younger Siblings in the

Hebrew Bible. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1994. G r e e n s p o o n , Leonard J. "The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection." In Traditions in Transformation:

Turning Points in Biblical Faith, edited by Baruch H a l p e r n a n d

J o n D. Levenson, 2 4 7 - 3 2 1 . W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Gruber, Mayer I. "The M o t h e r h o o d of G o d in Second Isaiah." In his Motherhood

The

of God and Other Studies, 3 - 1 5 . Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.

G u n k e l , H e r m a n n . An

Introduction

to the Psalms.

Translated by J a m e s

D.

Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998. . The Stories of Genesis. Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1994. Habel, N o r m a n C. The Book of Job. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. . "The F o r m a n d Significance of the Call Narratives." TAW

77 (1965):

297-323. Halbertal, Moshe. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority.

Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Halperin,

David J. Seeking

Ezekiel:

Text and

Psychology.

University

Park:

Pennsylvania State University, 1993. Halpern,

Baruch.

The First Historians:

The Hebrew

Bible and

History.

San

Francisco: H a r p e r & Row, 1988. Haran, M e n a h e m . "The G r a d e d N u m e r i c a l Sequence a n d the P h e n o m e n o n of ' A u t o m a t i s m ' in Biblical Poetry." VTS 2 2 (1971): 2 3 8 - 6 7 . Hayes, Christine E. Gentile

Impurities

and Jewish

Identities:

Intermarriage

and

Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2002. Hertz, J.H. The Authorized

Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of

the British Empire. L o n d o n : National Council for Jewish Religious E d u c a t i o n , 1945. Hier, Richard

H.

"Day of the

LORD."

ABD

2.82-83.

H o f f m a n , Lawrence Α., ed. My People's Prayer Book: Traditional Prayers, Commentaries.

Vol. 6, Tachanun

and Concluding

Prayers.

Modern

W o o d s t o c k , VT:

J e w i s h Lights, 2 0 0 2 . Hoffmeier, J a m e s K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity

of the Exodus

Tradition. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1997. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989. Hallo, William W , a n d K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 2 . Holtz, Barry, ed. Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. N e w York: S u m m i t Books, 1984. H u f f m o n , Η. B. "Prophecy (ANE)." ABD, Humphreys,

W. Lee. Joseph

and

5.477-482.

His Family:

A Literary

Study.

Columbia:

University of South Carolina Press, 1988. . "A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther a n d Daniel." JBL 92 (1973): 2 1 1 - 2 3 . Hurvitz, Avi. "The Date of the Prose-tale of J o b Linguistically Reconsidered." HTR 6 7 (1974): 1 7 - 3 4 . J a n o w s k i , B. "Azazel." In DDD, 1 2 8 - 3 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1999. J a p h e t , Sara. I & II Chronicles.

OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox,

1993. . "The S u p p o s e d C o m m o n A u t h o r s h i p of Chronicles a n d E z r a - N e h e m i a h Investigated Anew." VT 18 (1968): 3 3 2 - 7 2 . J o h n s o n , Aubrey R. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient

Israel. Cardiff: University of

Wales Press, 1962. Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate

Responsibility

in the Hebrew Bible. J S O T S u p

196.

Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. K a m i o n k o w s k i , S. Tamar. Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel. J S O T S u p 368. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2 0 0 3 . K a u f m a n , Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1972. Kenyon, Kathleen. Archaeology in the Holy Land. 3rd ed. N e w York: Praeger, 1970. . Royal Cities of the Old Testament.

N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1971.

King, Philip J. Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological

Commentary.

Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1988. Knight, Douglass Α., ed. Methods Abingdon, 2004.

of Biblical

Interpretation.

Nashville,

TN:

. "Forward." Pp. v - x v i in the reprint of J u l i u s Wellhausen, Prolegomena

to

the History of Ancient Israel. Atlanta: Scholars, 1994. Knohl, Israel. "Between Voice a n d Silence: T h e Relationship b e t w e e n Prayer a n d Temple Cult." JBL 115 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 1 7 - 3 0 . . The Divine

Symphony:

The Bible's Many

Voices.

Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 2 0 0 3 . . The Sanctuary

of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minne-

apolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. K n o p p e r s , Gary N. "The D e u t e r o n o m i s t a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship." ZAW 1 0 8 (1996): 3 2 9 - 4 6 . . "Intermarriage, Social Complexity, a n d Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of J u d a h . " JBL 120 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 1 5 - 3 0 . . "Rethinking the Relationship b e t w e e n D e u t e r o n o m y a n d the D e u t e r o n omistic History: T h e Case of Kings." CBQ 6 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 3 9 3 - 4 1 5 . . "Sex, Religion, a n d Politics: T h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t o n Intermarriage." HAR 14 ( 1 9 9 4 ) : 1 2 1 - 4 1 . Koch, Klaus. "Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the O l d Testament?" In Theodicy in the Old Testament, edited by J a m e s L. Crenshaw, 5 7 - 8 7 . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. "What Is Apocalyptic? An A t t e m p t at a Preliminary Definition." In Visionaries and Their Apocalypses,

edited b y Paul D. H a n s o n , 1 6 - 3 6 . Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1983. K o h n , Risa Levitt. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and The Torah. J S O T S u p 3 5 8 . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2 0 0 2 . Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical

Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Kugel, J a m e s L. The Bible as It Was. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997. . The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981. . In Potiphar's House: The Interpretive

Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco, CA:

H a r p e r a n d Row, 1990. . Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. . "Two I n t r o d u c t i o n s to Midrash." In Midrash

and Literature,

edited by

Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick, 7 7 - 1 0 3 . N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Lacoque, A n d r é . The Feminine

Unconventional:

Four Subversive

Figures in Israel's

Tradition. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Lang, Bernhard. Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess N e w York: Pilgrim Press, 1986.

Redefined.

Lauterbach, J a c o b Ζ., ed. a n d trans. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1976. First p u b l i s h e d in 1935. Leiman, Sid Z., ed. The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An

Introductory

Reader. N e w York: Ktav, 1974. . The Canonization

of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic

Evidence.

H a m d e n , CT: A r c h o n Books, 1976. Leuchter, Mark. "Jeremiah's 70-Year P r o p h e c y a n d the ‫ ל ב ק מ י‬/ ‫ש ש ך‬

Atbash

Codes." Bib 8 5 (2004): 5 0 3 - 2 2 . Levenson, J o n Douglas. The Death Transformation

and Resurrection

of the Beloved Son:

of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity.

The

N e w Haven, CT:

Yale University Press, 1993. . Esther. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1997. . Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the fewish Bible. Minneapolis, MN: W i n s t o n , 1985. . Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48.

HSM 10. Missoula,

MT: Scholars, 1976. Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2 0 0 0 . Levine, Louis D. "Manuscripts, Texts a n d the S t u d y of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions." In Assyrian

Royal Inscriptions:

New Horizons,

edited by F M.

Fales, 4 9 - 7 0 . Rome: Istituto l'Oriente, 1981. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy

and the Hermeneutics

of Legal Innovation.

New

York: O x f o r d University Press, 1997. , ed. Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform and Development.

Law: Revision,

Interpolation,

J S O T S u p 181. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press,

1994. . " T h e Right Chorale': F r o m the Poetics of Biblical Narrative to the H e r m e n e u t i c s of the H e b r e w Bible." In "Not in Heaven": Coherence and Complexity

in Biblical Narrative,

edited by J a s o n Ρ Rosenblatt a n d J o s e p h C.

Sitterson, 129-53, 2 4 2 - 4 7 . I n d i a n a Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. . "'You Must Not Add Anything

to What I Command

a n d A u t h o r s h i p in Ancient Israel." Numen

You': Paradoxes of C a n o n

50 (2003): 1 - 5 1 .

Levy, B. Barry. Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 1 . Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient California Press, 1976.

Egyptian

Literature.

3 vols. Berkeley: University of

Long, Burke O. Planting and Reaping Albright: Politics, Ideology, and Interpreting

the

Bible. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. Long, V Phillips., ed. Israel's Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Historiography.

Israelite

Sources for Biblical a n d Theological Study 7. W i n o n a Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Lowery, Richard. The Reforming Kings. J S O T S u p 120. Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1990. MacKenzie, R. Α. Ε "The P u r p o s e of the Yahweh Speeches in the Book of Job." Studia

Biblical et Orientalia.

A n O r 10. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,

1959. 1 . 3 0 1 - 1 1 Magonet, J o n a t h a n , ed. Jewish Explorations

of Sexuality.

Providence, RI: Berghahn

Books, 1995. Malamat, A b r a h a m . Mari and the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Matthews, Victor H. A Brief History of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 3 . . " P e r f u m e s a n d Spices." ABD, Mayes, J a m e s

Luther,

and

5.226-28.

Paul J. A c h t e m e i e r .

Interpreting

the

Prophets.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586

B.C.E.

AB. G a r d e n

City, NY: Doubleday, 1990. McBride, S. Dean, Jr. "The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of D e u t e r o n o m y 6 : 4 - 5 . " Int 2 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 2 7 3 - 3 0 6 . M c C a n n , J. Clinton. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. J S O T S u p 159. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. McCarter, Ρ Kyle, a n d Ronald S. H e n d e l . "The Patriarchal Age: A b r a h a m , Isaac a n d Jacob." In Ancient

Israel, edited b y Hershel Shanks, 1 - 3 1 . Rev. a n d

e x p a n d e d . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999. McCarthy, D e n n i s J. Treaty and Covenant.

AnBib 21. Rome: Biblical Institute

Press, 1978. M c D o n a l d , Lee Martin, a n d J a m e s A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, MA: H e n d r i c k s o n , 2 0 0 2 . McKane, William. Jeremiah, vol. 1. ICC. E d i n b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark, 1986. . Proverbs. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. McKenzie, Steven L., a n d M. Patrick G r a h a m , eds. The History Traditions:

The Heritage

of Martin

Noth.

JSOTSup

of Israel's

182. Sheffield, UK:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Melugin, Roy F, a n d Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. New Visions of Isaiah. J S O T S u p 2 1 4 . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. M e n d e n h a l l , George E. "Covenant F o r m s in Israelite Tradition," BA 2 3 / 3 (Sept. 1954): 2 - 2 2 ; r e p r i n t e d in BAR 3 . 2 5 - 5 3 .

. "The H e b r e w C o n q u e s t of Palestine." BA 2 5 / 3 (Sept. 1962):

66-87.

Reprinted in BAR 3 . 1 0 0 - 1 2 0 . M e n d e n h a l l , George E., a n d Gary A. Herion. "Covenant." ABD, Meyers, Carol. Discovering

Eve: Ancient

1.1179-1202.

Israelite Women in Context.

N e w York:

O x f o r d University Press, 1988. Milgrom, Jacob. "Israel's Sanctuary: T h e Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray.'" RB 8 3 (1976): 3 9 0 - 9 9 . . Leviticus 1-16. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1991. . "Profane S l a u g h t e r a n d

a Formulaic

Key to the C o m p o s i t i o n

of

Deuteronomy." HUCA 4 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 1 - 1 7 . Miller, J. Maxwell. The Old Testament

and the Historian.

Philadelphia: Fortress,

1976. Miller, Patrick D., Jr. "Wellhausen a n d the History of Israel's Religion." Semeia 2 5 (1982): 6 1 - 7 3 . . They

Cried

to the LORD: The Form

and

Theology

of Biblical

Prayer.

of Structure

in Hebrew

Biblical

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994. Milne, Pamela J. Vladimir Narrative.

Propp and the Study

Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1988.

Mitchell, Stephen. The Book of fob. San Francisco, CA: N o r t h Point, 1987. Moore, George Foot. "Tatian's Diatessaron a n d the Analysis of the Pentateuch." In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay, 2 4 3 - 5 6 . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. M o r a n , William L. "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of G o d in Deuteronomy." CBQ 2 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 7 7 - 8 7 . Mowinckel, S i g m u n d . He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old and Later Judaism.

Testament

Translated by G. W A n d e r s o n . Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n ,

1954. Muffs, Yohanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. C a m bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Mullen, E. T h e o d o r e , Jr. Ethnic Myths

and Pentateuchal

Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch.

Foundations:

A

New

Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997.

Murphy, Roland E. "Old T e s t a m e n t / T a n a k h — C a n o n a n d Interpretation." In Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying

the Bible in Judaism and

Christianity,

edited by Roger Brooks a n d J o h n J. Collins, 1 1 - 2 9 . Notre D a m e , IN: University of Notre D a m e , 1990. . The Tree of Life: An Exploration

of Biblical Wisdom Literature.

AB. G a r d e n

City, NY: Doubleday, 1990. Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic

History. J S O T S u p

18. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 1981. .Joshua.

OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r , J o h n Knox, 1997.

. "Herem a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Social Conscience." In Deuteronomy Deuteronomic

Literature:

Festschrift for

C.H.W

Brekelmans,

and

edited by M.

Vervenne a n d J. Lust, 3 9 - 5 4 . Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991. N e w s o m , Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination.

N e w York:

O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 3 . Nicholson, Ernest W. "Covenant in a C e n t u r y of Study Since Wellhausen." OTS 2 4 (1986): 5 4 - 6 9 . Reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, . Deuteronomy

edited by D u a n e L. C h r i s t e n s e n , 7 8 - 9 3 .

and Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

. God and His People: Covenant

and Theology in the Old Testament.

Oxford:

C l a r e n d o n , 1986. . The Pentateuch

in the Twentieth

Century:

The Legacy of Julius

Wellhausen.

Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1998. . Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1970. Niditch, Susan. "Genesis." In The Women's Bible Commentary,

edited by Carol A.

N e w s o m a n d Sharon H. Ringe, 1 0 - 2 5 . Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. . Underdogs

and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore.

San Francisco:

H a r p e r a n d Row, 1987. Nielsen, E d u a r d . The Ten Commandments

in New Perspective: A

Traditio-historical

2

Approach. SBT 7. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1968. Nielson, Kirsten. Ruth. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1997. Nissinen,

Martti.

Mesopotamian,

Preface to Prophecy Biblical and Arabian

in Its Ancient Perspectives,

Near

Eastern

Context:

edited by Martti Nissinen.

SBL S y m p o s i u m 13, vii-vii. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 . . "The Sociological Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets." In Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, edited by Marttti Nissinen, 8 9 - 1 1 4 . N o r t h , C h r i s t o p h e r R. The Suffering Seiyant

in Deutero-Isaiah:

An Historical

and

Critical Study. L o n d o n : O x f o r d University Press, 1948. Noth,

Martin.

The

Deuteronomistic

History.

JSOTSup

15. Sheffield, UK:

University of Sheffield, 1981. Oates, J o a n . Babylon. L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1979. O ' C o n n o r , Kathleen M. The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation

and Role

in Chapters 1-25. SBLDS 94. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Ofer, Yosef. "The History a n d Authority of the Aleppo Codex." In The Jerusalem Crown: Companion N. Ben-Zvi, 2 0 0 2 .

Volume, edited b y Mordechai Glatzer, 2 5 - 5 0 . Jerusalem:

O g d e n Bellis, Alice. Helpmates,

Harlots,

Heroes: Women's Stories in the

Hebrew

Bible. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1994. Olsson, Birger, a n d M a g n u s Zetterholm. The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 c.E. CBNT 39. S t o c k h o l m : Almqvist &r Wiksell, 2 0 0 3 . Olyan, Saul M. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy

in Biblical Representations

of

Cult.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2 0 0 0 . O p p e n h e i m , A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia:

Portrait of a Dead Civilization.

Chicago:

University of Chicago, 1977. Otto, Eckart. "False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views of W o m e n f r o m Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy." In Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient

Near

East, edited by Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., 1 2 8 - 4 6 . J S O T S u p 262. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational

Factor in the

Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational. L o n d o n : O x f o r d University Press, 1925. Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Paul, Shalom M. Amos. H e r m e n e i a . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600).

of Doctrine.

Chicago: University

of Chicago, 1971. Person, R a y m o n d E, Jr. The Deuteronomic Literature.

School: History, Social Setting,

and

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 2 .

Petersen, David L. "Defining P r o p h e c y a n d Prophetic Literature." In Prophecy in Its Ancient

Near

Eastern

Context:

Mesopotamian,

Biblical

and

Arabian

Perspectives, edited b y Martti Nissinen, 3 3 - 4 4 . SBL S y m p o s i u m 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 . Polliack, Meira. "Medieval Karaism." In The Oxford Handbook

of Jewish

Studies,

edited by Martin G o o d m a n et a l , 2 9 5 - 3 2 6 . Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 2 . Pope, Marvin H.Job. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973. . Song of Songs. AB 7C. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Pressler, Carolyn. The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic

Family

Laws.

BZAW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Pritchard, J a m e s B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. with s u p p . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Provan, Iaian, V Philips Long, a n d Tremper L o n g m a n III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 3 .

Ramsey, George W. "Zadok." ABD, 6 . 1 0 3 5 - 3 6 . Redford, D o n a l d B. Egypt, Canaan,

and Israel in Ancient

Times. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1992. Rendsburg, Gary A. Linguistic Evidence for the Northern

Origin of Selected

Psalms.

SBLMS 43. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Roest, Bert, a n d H e r m a n Vanstiphout, eds. Aspects of Genre and Type in PreModern Literary Cultures. G r o n i n g e n : Styx, 1999. Rofé, Alexander. "The Piety of the Torah-Disciples at the W i n d i n g - U p of the H e b r e w Bible: Josh. 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa. 59:21." In Bibel in jüdischer

und christ-

licher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann

edited by

Maier zum

60. Geburtstag,

H e l m u t Merklein et al., 7 8 - 8 5 . F r a n k f u r t a m Main: A n t o n Hain, 1993. . The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives

about the Prophets in the Hebrew

Bible; Their Literary Types and History. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Rosenblatt, J a s o n P, a n d J o s e p h C. Sitterson, Jr., eds. "Not in Heaven": and Complexity

in Biblical Narrative.

Coherence

Bloomington: University of Indiana

Press, 1991. Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia

and Asia Minor. SBL Writings

f r o m the Ancient W o r l d Series. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Rowe, J o h n Carlos. "Structure." In Critical Terms for Literary Study,

edited by

F r a n k Lentricchia a n d T h o m a s McLaughlin, 2 3 - 3 8 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Saeb0, M. "Zechariah, Book of." Dictionary

of Biblical Interpretation,

edited by

J o h n H. Hayes, 6 6 6 - 6 9 . Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1999. Sanders, T h o m a s E. The Discovery

of Poetry.

Atlanta: Scott, F o r e s m a n

and

C o m p a n y , 1967. Sarna, N a h u m M. "Ancient Libraries a n d the O r d e r i n g of the Biblical Books." In his Studies in Biblical Interpretation,

5 3 - 6 6 . Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society, 2 0 0 0 . . "Epic S u b s t r a t u m Interpretation,

in the

Prose of J o b . " In his Studies

in

Biblical

4 1 1 - 2 4 . Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2 0 0 0 .

. The JPS Torah Commentary:

Exodus.

Philadelphia: J e w i s h

Publication

to the Book of Psalms.

N e w York:

Society, 1991. . Songs of the Heart: An Introduction S c h o c k e n , 1993. Sawyer, J o h n F A. "Isaiah, Book of." In Dictionary

of Biblical Interpretation,

edit-

ed by J o h n H. Hayes, 5 5 2 - 5 4 . Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1999. . Prophecy and the Prophets of the Old Testament. O x f o r d Bible Series. O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1987. Schechter, S o l o m o n . Seminary P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1915.

Addresses and Other Papers. Cincinnati, O H : Ark

Schökel, Luis Alonso. A Manual

of Hebrew

Poetics. Rome: Pontificio Istituto

Biblico, 1988. Schwartz, Baruch J. " W h a t Really H a p p e n e d at M o u n t Sinai? F o u r Biblical A n s w e r s to O n e Q u e s t i o n . " Bible Review 13:5 ( 1 9 9 7 ) : 2 0 - 3 0 , 46. Scott, R. B. Y. "Folk Proverbs of the Ancient Near East." In Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom,

edited by J a m e s L. Crenshaw, 4 1 7 - 2 6 . N e w York: Ktav,

1976. . "Wise a n d Foolish, Righteous a n d W i c k e d . " VT 2 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 1 4 5 - 6 5 . Seitz, C h r i s t o p h e r R. "Trito-Isaiah." ABD,

3.501-7.

. Zion's Final Destiny: The Development the Isaiah 36-39.

of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment

of

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991.

Seybold, Klaus. Introducing

the Psalms. Translated by R. G r a e m e D u n p h y . E d i n -

b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark, 1990. S h a n k s , Hershel, ed.

The Rise of Ancient

Israel.

Washington,

DC:

Biblical

Work: An Inquiry

into the

Archaeological Society, 1992. Shaver, J u d s o n R. Torah and the Chronicler's

History

Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions to Pentateuchal

Legislation.

in

Relationship

BJS 196. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989.

S i l b e r m a n , Lou H. "Wellhausen a n d J u d a i s m . " Semeia 2 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 7 5 - 8 2 . Smith, J. Payne. A Compendious

Syriac Dictionary

Founded

Upon the

Thesaurus

Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1976. Smith, M o r t o n . "The C o m m o n T h e o l o g y of the Ancient Near East." JBL 7 1 (1952): 135-47. Snell, Daniel C. Twice-Told Proverbs and the Composition

of the Book of

Proverbs.

W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1993. S o m m e r , B e n j a m i n D. "Did P r o p h e c y Cease? Evaluating a R é é v a l u a t i o n . " J B L 115 (1996): 3 1 - 4 7 . . A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66.

Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press, 1998. Speiser, Ε. A. Genesis. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Spiegel, Shalom. "Amos vs. Amaziah." In The Jewish Expression,

e d i t e d by J u d a h

G o l d i n , 3 8 - 6 5 . N e w H a v e n , CT: Yale University Press, 1976. Spinoza, Baruch. Tractatus

Theologico-Politicus.

Translated by S a m u e l Shirley.

Leiden: Brill, 1991. S p r o n k , Klaas. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 2 1 9 . Kevelaer: Butzon