Bible. Divrei Shalom Collected Studies by Shalom Paul on Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967 2005

Divrei Shalom

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Edited by

B. Halpern — M. H. E. Weippert Th.P.J. van den Hout — I. Winter

VOLUME 23

Divrei Shalom Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967–2005 "!wl` yrbd" (l ,f rtsa ;wk ,b !yrbd) by

Shalom M. Paul

BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON 2005 •

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Paul, Shalom M. Divrei Shalom : collected studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the ancient Near East, 1967-2005 = (Divre Shalom (Devarim 2, 26: Ester 9, 30)] / by Shalom M. Paul. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055 ; v. 23) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-14367-X (alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Middle Eastern literature— History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series. BS1171.3.P38 2005 221.6—dc22 2005042181

ISSN ISBN

1566–2055 90 04 14367 X

© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

contents

v

CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Bible and the Ancient Near East 1. “The Image of the Oven and the Cake in Hosea 7:4–10,” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968), 114–120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. “Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968) (= Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo [New Haven, 1968], 180– 186) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. “Cuneiform Light on Jer. 9:20,” Biblica 49 (1968), 373–376 4. “Exod. 21:10: A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28 (1969), 48–53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. “Sargon’s Administrative Diction in 2 Kings 17:27,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969), 73–74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. “Formulaic Patterns of Law in Israel and Mesopotamia,” Leàonénu 34 (1970), 257–266. Hebrew (translation into English) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. “Psalm 72:5—A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of the King,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31 (1972), 351–355 . . . . 8. “Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life,” in: T. H. Gaster Festschrift (New York, 1973) (= Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5), 345–354 . . . . . . . . . . . 9. “Classifications of Wine in Mesopotamian and Rabbinic Sources,” Israel Exploration Journal 25 (1975), 42–44. . . . . . . . 10. “Nehemiah 6:19—Counterespionage,” Hebrew Annual Review 1 (1977), 177–179 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. “Amos 3:15—Winter and Summer Mansions,” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978), 358–360. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. “Fishing Imagery in Amos 4:2,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978), 183–190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. “An Unrecognized Medical Idiom in Song of Songs 6:12 and Job 9:21,” Biblica 59 (1978), 545–547 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. “1 Samuel 9:7: An Interview Fee,” Biblica 59 (1978), 542– 544 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii ix

3

11 23 27 37

39 51

59 71 75 77 81 91 95

vi

contents

15. “Unrecognized Biblical Legal Idioms in the Light of Comparative Akkadian Expressions,” Revue Biblique 86 (1979), 231–239 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. “Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses,” Maarav 2/2 (1979–80), 173–185 . . . . . . 17. “Psalm 27:10 and the Babylonian Theodicy,” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982), 489–492. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. “Two Cognate Semitic Terms for Mating and Copulation,” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982), 492–493 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19. “Job 4:15—A Hair Raising Encounter,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983), 119–121 . . . . . . . . . . . 20. “Daniel 3:29 — A Case of ‘Neglected’ Blasphemy,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42 (1983), 291–294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. “Dan 6:8: An Aramaic Reflex of Assyrian Legal Terminology,” Biblica 65 (1984), 106–110. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. ‫משא מלך שרים‬: “Hosea 8:8–10 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Epithets,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31: Studies in Bible (Jerusalem, 1986), 193–204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah 9:13a,” Vetus Testamentum 39 (1989), 495–497 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. “Biblical Analogues to Middle Assyrian Law,” in: Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, ed. E. B. Firmage et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1990), 333–350 . . . . . . . . 25. “Exodus 1:21: ‘To Found a Family’: A Biblical and Akkadian Idiom,” in: Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz, Part II, ed. R. J. Ratner et al. (= Maarav 8 [1992]), 139–142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. “Gleanings from the Biblical and Talmudic Lexica in Light of Akkadian,” in: MinÈah le-NaÈum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane (= Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series (Sheffield, 1993), 242256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. “Decoding a ‘Joint’ Expression in Daniel 5:6, 16,” in: Comparative Studies in Honor of Yochanan Muffs, ed. E. L. Greenstein and D. Marcus (= Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 [1993]), 121–127. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. “From Mari to Daniel: Instructions for the Acceptance of Servants into the Royal Court,” in: Eretz Israel 22 (Abraham Malamat Volume), eds. S. AÈituv and B. Levine (Jerusalem,

99 109 121 125 129 133 139

145 155

159

177

181

195

contents 1993), 161–163. Hebrew (translation into English) . . . . . . . . 29. “Euphemistically ‘Speaking’ and a Covetous Eye,” in: Biblical and Other Studies in Honor of Reuben Ahroni on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. T. J. Lewis (= Hebrew Annual Review 14 [1994]), 193–204. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. “Untimely Death in the Semitic Languages,” in: The Bible in the Light of its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, ed. S. Japhet (Jerusalem, 1994), 575–586 (translation into English). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. “The ‘Plural of Ecstasy’ in Mesopotamian and Biblical Love Poetry,” in: Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 585–597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. “Two Proposed Janus Parallelisms in Akkadian Literature,” N.A.B.U. (1995), 11–12 (co-authored with W. Horowitz) . . . 33. “Hosea 7:16: Gibberish Jabber,” in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 707–712. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. “‘Emigration’ from the Netherworld in the Ancient Near East,” in: Immigration and Emigration Within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. LipiÔski, ed. K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (Leuven, 1995), 221–227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. “A Lover’s Garden of Verse: Literal and Metaphorical Imagery in Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry,” in: Tehillah leMoshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cogan et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1997) 99–110 . . . . . 36. “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” in: The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, I, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden, Boston & Köln, 2001), 55–68. . . . . 37. “The Shared Legacy of Sexual Metaphors and Euphemisms Mesopotamian and Biblical Literature,” in: Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001, II, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki, 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . 38. “A Double Entendre in Job 15:32 in the Light of Akkadian,” in: Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul et al. (Leiden, 2003), 755–757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii 205

213

223

239 253

257

263

271

285

299

315

viii

contents

39. “Daniel 12:9: A Technical Mesopotamian Scribal Term,” in: Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume : Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul (Winona Lake, IN, 2003), 115–118. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40. “Hebrew (‫יר)ים‬ ִ ‫ ִצ‬and Its Interdialectal Equivalents,” in: “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”—Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati, P. Artzi, C. Cohen, B. L. Eichler, and V. A. Hurowitz (Bethesda, MD, 2004), 759–763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41. “Daniel 6:20: An Aramaic Calque on an Akkadian Expression,” Scriptura 87 (2004), 315–316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. “Jerusalem of Gold—Revisited,” “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (Ps 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A.M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN, 2005), 707-711 (revised version of: “Jerusalem — A City of Gold,” Israel Exploration Journal 17 [1967], 259–263 [= “Jerusalem of Gold: A Song and an Ancient Crown,” Biblical Archaeology Review 3 [1977], 38–41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. “Two Cosmographical Terms in Amos 9:6,” in: Sara Japhet Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, forthcoming), Hebrew (translation into English) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biblical Studies 44. “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971), 397–403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45. “Prophets and Prophecy,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 13 [1971], 1150–1175) (a revised version appears in: Etz Hayim: A Torah Commentary, ed. D. Lieber et al. [Philadephia, 2001], 1407–1412) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46. “Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in DeuteroIsaiah,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1972), 102–120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47. “A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles against the Nations of Amos,” in: De la Torah au Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, ed. J. Doré et al. (Paris, 1981), 189–204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

319

323 329

333

343

353

363

399

417

contents 48. “Amos 3:3–8: The Irresistible Sequence of Cause and Effect,”Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983), 203–220. . . . . . . . . . . 49. “Polysensuous Polyvalency in Poetic Parallelism,” in: “Sha-‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov (Winona Lake, IN, 1992), 147–163 . . . . . . . . . . 50. “Polysemous Pivotal Punctuation: More Janus Double Entendres,” in: Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1996), 369– 374 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51. “An Overlooked Double Entendre in Jonah 2:5,” in: The Honeycomb of the Word: Interpreting the Primary Testament with André LaCocque, ed. W. Dow Edgerton (Chicago, 2001), 155–157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

439

457

477

485

Additional Writings of Shalom M. Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 Source Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 Lexeme and Expression Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535

x

preface

preface

xi

PREFACE I am pleased to make available this volume of my collected articles, which span almost four decades of research into the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. I hope and trust that these studies, which have been revised and corrected, will be of value to both scholar and student alike. They examine various aspects of the narrative, legal, prophetic, and wisdom genres of Biblical literature, with a major emphasis on elucidating the text with the aid of Akkadian source material, and are presented here in two separate sections by theme and original date of publication. Staying au courant with the ever-rapidly expanding multidisciplinary fields of research and exploring a text with meticulous attention to its complex philological, lexical, and poetic details are an unenviable task. Endless time and effort are required to master the prerequisite tools for plumbing the depths of the Biblical text. But the joy and love of insight and discovery into this rich and complex world of our literary past, which comes down to us “trailing clouds of glory” behind it, are unparalleled. I am extremely fortunate to have been initiated into this field by some of the towering late great masters of the past century: W. F. Albright, the doyen of archaeological study, instilled within me the awareness of the multiple vistas of the ancient Near East, its languages, beliefs, and thought; H. L. Ginsberg, the world-renowned expert in Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Biblical Hebrew, imparted to me, with his keen and penetrating mastery of the sources, the method of a close exegetical reading of the Biblical text; E. A. Speiser, who commanded an all-embracing knowledge and understanding of the vast area of Mesopotamian literature and languages, introduced me to the fascinating world of cuneiform texts and provided me with the skills to read them; N. M. Sarna, whose academic acumen encouraged me to make my initial foray into the field of Bible; A. J. Heschel, distinguished theologian, acquainted me with the persona of the prophet; S. Lieberman, unparalleled master of Rabbinic literature, taught me the methodology for reading Talmudic texts; and J. C. Greenfield, my dear friend and colleague, whose expertise ranged the entire field of ancient Near Eastern studies, helped me to elucidate difficult linguistic cruxes. All of the above were necessary “preparatory rites” for my admission into Biblical and ancient Near Eastern research.

xii

preface

I have unstintingly attempted, while teaching ten years at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York and thirty-three years at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, to instill these disciplines, intellectual challenges, and love for textual study into the hearts and minds of my many students. It is my hope that they, too, will continue to explore and investigate the origins of our vast heritage. This collection is dedicated to my beloved wife, Yona, my dear companion throughout these many years; to my children Michali, Yael, and Benzi; and to my grandchildren Tal, Tamar, Dror, Ziv, Rotem, Shahar, Adva, Talia, and Daniel. I would like to thank Baruch Halpern for accepting this volume in the Culture and History of the Ancient Near East series, as well as Hans van der Meij, Mattie Kuiper, and Kim Fiona Plas of Brill Academic Publishers for their encouragement and skillful production of this volume. I am also very grateful to \ani Davis for her unstinting devotion and professional advice in preparing and standardizing the final manuscript for publication. I can truly and personally share the sentiment voiced in b. ‘Eruvin 54b: ‫“( דברי תורה כל זמן שאדם הוגה בהן מוצא בהן טעם‬The more one studies Torah, the more he relishes it”). Jerusalem, 2005

Shalom M. Paul

N.B. All references to my articles appearing in the notes have been cited according to their original publication. Their location in this volume appears in brackets [ ] after the original publication.

abbreviations

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR AB AbB ABL AfO AgAp AHw AJA Akk. Alalakh AMT AnBib ANET AnOr AnSt Ant. AO AOAT AOS AP Aq. Aram. ARM ArOr AS ASJ ATD b. BA

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY) Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (London and Chicago, 1892–1914) Archiv für Orientforschung Josephus Flavius, Against Apion W. von Soden, Akkadische Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1965–81) American Journal of Archaeology Akkadian D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London, 1953) R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (London, 1923) Analecta Biblica J. S. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, 1965) Analecta Orientalia Anatolian Studies Josephus Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews Der Alte Orient Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923) Aquila Aramaic Archives Royales de Mari Archiv Orientální Assyriological Studies Acta Sumerologica (Japan) Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bavli, Babylonian Talmud Biblical Archaeologist

xiv BAM

abbreviations

F. Köcher, Die Babylonisch-Assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen (Berlin, 1963) BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907) BE Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania BeO Bibbia e Oriente BH Biblia Hebraica BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library BK, BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament BM Museum Siglum of the British Museum BMAP E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven, 1953) BR M. San Nicolò and H. Petschow, Babylonische Rechtsurkunden aus dem 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich, 1960) BRM Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan (New Haven, 1917) BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BWL W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960) BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW, BZATW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Camb. J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cambyses (Leipzig, 1890) CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBS Catalogue of the Biblical Section, Museum Siglum of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania CD Codex Damascus (Damascus Scroll)

abbreviations CIS COT CT DJD Dar DISO EG EJ FRLANT GAG GHAT Heb. HALAT

HAR HAT HG Hh Hit. HK HL HSAT HSS HTR HUCA IB ICC IDB IEJ ISET

xv

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum Commentaar op het Oude Testament Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Darius (Leipzig, 1897) C. F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitiques de l’Ouest (Leiden, 1965) E. Grant, Babylonian Business Documents of the Classical Period (Philadelphia, 1919) Encyclopaedia Judaica Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Rome, 1952) Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (see also HK) Hebrew W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Leiden, 1983) (see also KBL) Hebrew Annual Review Handkommentar zum Alten Testament J. Kohler and A. Ungnad, Hammurabi’s Gesetz (Leipzig, 1909) The Series ›AR-ra = ›ubullu Tablets (see also MSL) Hittite (Göttinger) Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (see also GHAT) Hittite Laws Die Heilige Schrift des Altes Testamentes Harvard Semitic Series Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual The Interpreter’s Bible International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Israel Exploration Journal S. N. Kramer, M. ÇiÅ, and H. Kizilyay, Sumerian

xvi

JANES JAOS JBL JCS JEN JNES JPOS JRAS JSOT JSS JThS, JTS KAH KAI KAJ KAR KAT KB KBL KBo KD KHAT, KHC KTU KUB KuD LE LH LI LIH LKA LKU

abbreviations Literary Tablets and Fragments in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul (Ankara, 1969) Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Historischen Inhalts H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1962–64) E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Juristischen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1927) E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1915–23) Kommentar zum Alten Testament Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1968) (see also HALAT) Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Biblischer Commentar über das AT, ed. Keil and Delitzsch Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Kerygma und Dogma Laws of Eshnunna Laws of Hammurapi Laws of Lipit Ishtar L. King, The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi (London, 1889–1900) E. Ebeling and F. Köcher, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur (Berlin, 1953) A. Falkenstein, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk (Berlin, 1931)

abbreviations LTBA LU LXX m. MAD MAL MAOG MB MDP MIO MSL MT MVAG N NA N.A.B.U. NB Ni NBN NEB NJPS NKRA NRVGL

OB OBO OECT OIP OLZ Or OTL OTS PAPS

xvii

Die Lexikalischen Tafelserien der Babylonier und Assyrer in der Berliner Museen Laws of Ur Nammu Septuagint Mishnah Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Middle Assyrian Laws Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft Middle Babylonian Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon (see also Hh) Masoretic Text Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft Museum Siglum of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania (Nippur) Neo-Assyrian Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires Neo-Babylonian Tablets excavated at Nippur in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von Babylon (Leipzig 1889) New English Bible New Jewish Publication Society Neue Keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der el-Amarna Zeit M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden (Glossar) (Lepizig, 1935–37) Old Babylonian Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Oriental Institute Publications Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Proceedings of the American Philosophical

xviii

PBS PEQ Phoen. Pract. Voc. As. PRAK PRU RA RB RevSém RHPhR, RHPR RIDA RivB RLA RQ R’, RS RSO RSV SAA SAHG

SAT SBAW SBJ SBL SBLDS SMR SRT Sum. SVT Syr. t. TCL

abbreviations Society Publications of the Babylonian Section, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Palestine Exploration Quarterly Phoenician B. Landsberger and O. Gurney, “Practical Vocabulary of Assur,” AfO 18 (1957–1958), 328ff. H. de Genouillac, Premières recherches archéologiques à Kich (Paris, 1924) Le Palais royal d’Ugarit Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale Revue Biblique Revue Sémitique Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité Rivista Biblica Reallexikon der Assyriologie Revue de Qumran Ras Shamra Rivista degli Studi Orientali Revised Standard Version State Archives of Assyria A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1953) Die Schriften des Alten Testaments Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil-Hist. Klasse Abteilung La Sainte Bible de l’École Biblique de Jérusalem Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington and London, 1969) E. Chiera, Sumerian Religious Texts (Upland, PA, 1924) Sumerian Supplement, Vetus Testamentum Syriac Tosefta Textes Cunéiformes, Musée du Louvre

abbreviations TDP Tg. Jon. Tg. Onq. Tg. Neof. Tg. Yer. ThLZ, TLZ ThR TIM TWAT UET UF Ugar. UM UVB VAB VAS, VS VAT VD VT WMANT WO W. Sem. WVDOG y. YBC YOS ZA ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZTK ZVRW

xix

R. Labat, Traité Akkadien de Diagnostics et Pronostics Médicaux (Paris and Leiden, 1957) Targum Jonathan Targum Onqelos Targum Neofiti Targum Yerushalmi Theologische Literaturzeitschrift Theologische Rundschau Texts in the Iraq Museum G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1973–94) Ur Excavation Texts Ugarit Forschungen Ugaritic University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Vorläufiger Bericht über die… Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler Vorderasiatische Abteilung. T(h)ontafeln Verbum Domini Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Welt des Orients West Semitic Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen-Orient-Gesellschaft Yerushalmi, Jerusalem Talmud Yale Babylonian Collection Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft

xx

abbreviations

the image of the oven and the cake

THE BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

1

2

the bible and the ancient near east


3

THE IMAGE OF THE OVEN AND THE CAKE IN HOSEA 7:4–10 With the death of Jeroboam II in 748/747, the Northern Kingdom of Israel was caught in the vortex of political anarchy, which led to the accession of six kings within a little more than fourteen years. This period of unbridled murder, political chaos, and vacillation is alluded to several times in Hos 4–141 and finds its most poignant expression in Hos 7:4–10 in the images of an oven and a cake. 1. The Oven: A Figure for the People’s Regicidal Fury,2 vv. 4, 6–7.3 a. The Simile 4‫ֵפים‬ ִ ‫כלם ֲאנ‬ 5‫הם‬ ֵ ‫כמו תנור ב ֵֹער‬ 1 Cf. H. Tadmor, “The Historical Background of Hosea’s Prophecies,” Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1960), 84–88 (Hebrew); idem, “Azriyau of Yaudi,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), 248–252. 2 For other references to the disintegration of kingship during this period, cf. Hos 8:4a; 10:3, 7. 3 Verse 5, however interpreted and/or emended, interrupts the subject of the metaphor found in vv. 4, 6–7. Its theme is the effect of wine on the kings and princes and belongs appropriately after v. 3, where a similar image of their revelry is described. 4 In the received text, the prophet begins by branding the entire people as ‫ַא ִפים‬ ֲ ‫מנ‬, ְ “adulterers”—a figure of speech which does not fit this particular context. Cf. A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, V (Leipzig, 1912), 182. Most scholars are agreed in seeking a connection with the root ‫אנף‬, “to be furious, to rage,” a suitable synonym to the other verbs: ‫בער‬, “to burn,” and ‫חמם‬, “to be heated,” occurring in these verses. See the commentaries of W. Nowack (Der kleinen Propheten, HAT 3/4 [Göttingen, 1922]); E. Sellin (Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, KAT 12/1 [Leipzig, 1930]); F. Nötscher (Zwölfprophetenbuch, Echter-B [Würzburg, 1948]); Th. H. Robinson and F. Horst (Die zwölf kleinen Propheten: Hosea bis Micha, HAT 1/14 [Tübingen, 1954]); A. Weiser (Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, ATD 24 [Göttingen, 1964]); J. Mauchline (“Hosea,” IB, VI [Nashville, 1956]); H. W. Wolff (Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea, BKAT 14/1 [Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965] = Hosea, trans. G. Stansell, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1965); and G. R. Driver (“Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets I,” JThS 39 [1938], 156)—who read ‫אֹנְ ִפים‬. A preferable reading, however, would be ‫ֵפים‬ ִ ‫( ֲאנ‬styled after the verb ‫)חנף‬. The qal occurs in 1 Kings 8:46; Isa 12:1; Ps 2: 12; 60:3; 79:5; 85:6; Ezra 9:14; 2 Chron 6:36. Though it is otherwise attested only in the hitpa‘el: Deut 1:37; 4:21; 9:8, 20; 1 Kings 11:9; 2 Kings 17:18, the reading ‫( ְמאַנְּ ִפים‬pi‘el—expressing intensity) is quite possible. 5 H. Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes (Lugduni Batavorum [Leiden], 1900);

4

the bible and the ancient near east 7‫מעיר‬

‫ ישבות‬6‫א ֶֹפה‬ ‫מלוש בצק עד ֻח ְמ ָצתוֹ‬ They are all raging; They are like a blazing oven, Which the baker desists from stoking From the time the dough is kneaded until it is leavened. ‫ כתנור‬9‫ ִק ְר ָבּם‬8‫כי‬ 10‫אר ָבּם‬ ֻ ‫לבם ָכּ‬ Truly their inwards are like an oven, Their hearts like a blazing fire within them. The conspirators are compared to a burning oven whose baker desists from stoking it only for the length of time it takes for the kneaded dough to leaven, i.e., the fire is allowed to die down for a few hours before it is once again stirred up. b. The Explication, vv. 6b–7:

11‫הם‬ ֶ ‫אַפּ‬ ְ

‫כל הלילה ישן‬ ‫ הוא בּ ֵֹער כאש להבה‬12‫בקר‬

Nowack, Sellin, Robinson, Mauchline, and Driver. Cf. also the suggestion of Ehrlich (Randglossen), ‫ֲרים‬ ִ ‫כמו תנור בֹּע‬, “burning like an oven.” These exegetes as well as the medieval Jewish commentators (Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and Abarbanel) all recognized that Heb. ‫ תנור‬is masculine. The latter, in order to resolve the difficulty, called attention to the fact that ‫ בּ ֵֹע ָרה‬has a penultimate accent and thus is not to be construed as a feminine participle (MT, ‫)כמו תנור בּ ֵֹע ָרה ]מ[א ֶֹפה‬. 6 Or, ‫ה‬ ֻ ‫א ֵֹפ‬, “whose/its baker”— Oort, Sellin, Mauchline, and Driver (MT, ‫)]מ[א ֶֹפה‬. ֵ 7 There is no need to emend this word. Several commentators have emphasized that the verb means “to heat” or “to kindle”; see A. Scholz, Commentar zum Buche des Propheten Hoseas (Würzburg, 1882); and H. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche (Uppsala, 1935): “… er hört auf zu heizen bedeuten kann und hier bedeuten muss”; and C. van Gelderen and W. H. Gispen, Het Book Hosea, COT (Kampen, 1953); and cf. Hos 11: 9; Isa 42:13; Ps 78:38; for the meaning “to stir up,” cf. Isa 13:17 and Ezek 23:22. 8 Heb. ‫ כי‬is asseverative. 9 Already emended by F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1895), 32 (citing Schorr), and Oort (MT, ‫)ק ְרבוּ‬. ֵ 10 N. H. Tur Sinai, Halashon ve-Hasefer, I (Jerusalem, 1954), 120. For the parallelism of ‫ תנור‬with ‫אוּר‬, see Isa 31:9. Cf. also the suggestion made by Perles (Analekten, 37) (citing Schorr): ‫בּ ֵֹער ָבּם‬, “burn within them” (MT, ‫אָר ָבּם‬ ְ ‫)בּ‬. ְ 11 This is the reading of both Tg. Jon., ‫רוגזהון‬, and the Syriac; it is followed by Th. K. Cheyne, Hosea with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge, 1884), W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh, 1905), Sellin, Horst, Weiser, and Mauchline. For the unusual form, cf. 2 Sam 23:6, ‫ֻלּ ַהם‬ ָ ‫( כּ‬MT ‫)א ֵֹפ ֶהם‬. 12 For Heb. ‫ בבקר=בקר‬, see Num 16:5 and Ps 5:4.


5

Though their fury lies dormant all night, On the morn it flares up like a blazing fire. The few short hours that the baker allows the heated oven to rest and ceases from raking its fire correspond to the sleeping hours of the conspirators when their rage is dormant. However, the smoldering inactivity of both is brief—for when their fatigue has “leavened,”13 they once again blaze up to renew their nefarious intrigues.14 In v. 7 the prophet further explicates his own symbolism: ‫כלם יחמו כתנור‬ ‫ את‬15‫ואכלו‬ ‫כל מלכיהם נפלו‬ 17‫אין קרא בהם אלי‬

16‫שפטיהם‬

They all are heated as an oven: They devour their rulers; All of their kings have fallen, With none among them to call unto Me. Regicide has become fashionable; one after another, the kings of Ephraim have fallen only to be replaced by their assassins.18 2. The Inert Cake: A Figure for Ephraim’s Ineptness in the Face of Calamity, vv. 8–11. a. The Simile, vv. 8–9: 13 The imagery is even more pointed once it is realized that the leavening process in baking takes place overnight. See G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, IV (Gütersloh, 1935), 48. Further comments to these verses in Hosea are found on pp. 35–37 and 96–97. On p. 107, he states: “Der tannur ist Hos. 7, 4 das Backgerät, dessen Feuer der Bäcker—nich schürt vom Kneten des Teigs bis zur seinem Säuern—das heisst, bis der Teig so weit ist, dass das Formen des Brots und das Backen beginnen kann.” 14 Cf. Mic 2:1. 15 Heb. ‫ אכל‬is frequently associated with the devouring activity of fire; see, e.g., Isa 5:24, 9:18–19 (already pointed out by Kimchi). 16 For Heb. ‫שופטים‬, “rulers,” see Amos 2:3; Isa 40:23; Ps 2:10. 17 A circumstantial clause. 18 It is a moot question how many of the four regicides which took place in Israel after the death of Jeroboam II our passage looks back upon. V. 6 is even more poignant if, as is implicit in Tadmor’s dating of Hos 4–14 in the reign of Menahem (see his “Historical Background,” 115 n. 1), the reference is only to the first two regicides, since only a month’s time elapsed between the first and second regicides (2 Kings 15:10–14).

6

the bible and the ancient near east ‫אפרים בעמים הוא יתבולל‬ ‫אפרים היה עגה בלי הפוכה‬ ‫אכלו זרים כחו והוא לא ידע‬ ‫גם שיבה זרקה בו והוא לא ידע‬

The first stich of v. 8, ‫אפרים בעמים הוא יתבולל‬, draws upon a familiar term of the baking parlance. The hapax legomenon ‫ יתבולל‬is associated by most commentators with the passages describing the mixing of flour with oil in the preparation of sacrificial cakes.19 It is possible, however, that the verb ‫בלל‬, like its interdialectal etymological and semantic Akkadian cognate bal§lu, refers here to the process of kneading.20 Thus, the translation of v. 8a would be: “Ephraim shall be kneaded among the nations.”21 The prophet selected this rare word instead of the common Hebrew verb ‫לוש‬, “to knead,” already employed in v. 4, in order to effect a clear double entendre, for in Akkadian inscriptions both the G (bal§lu) and N (nablulu) conjugations of bal§lu are used to describe the mixing of populations:22 nià¿ m§t Aààur u m§t Mußur itti aÉ§mià ablulma23 uà¿piàa maÉÊru, “The Assyrians and the Egyptians I mingled together and let them engage in trade with each other”;24 and nià¿ m§t Aààur u m§t Karduniaà itti aÉ§meà ibba(llu),25 “The peoples of Assyria and Babylonia 19 Exod 29:2; Lev 2:5; Num 7:13. Tur Sinai (Halashon ve-Hasefer, I, 116), on the other hand, derives the verb from Heb. ‫בל‬, “nothing,” i.e., “it will come to naught.” For the meaning “sich auffrischen,” see Ehrlich, Randglossen, ad loc. 20 The following directions are found in an Akkadian ritual: nuÉatimmu ina muÉÉi bal§la àa kirßi naqbÊta iqabbi, “The baker will recite the blessing while kneading pieces of dough.” See F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris, 1921), 77, 63:45. The corrected reading is that of A. L. Oppenheim, “Studies in Accadian Lexicography II,” Or 11 (1942), 128; and CAD, B, 41. 21 Since this stich introduces an explication of the imagery before the imagery itself has begun, and since ‫ הוא‬is superfluous as the text stands, and since the second stich continues the figure of speech. H. L. Ginsberg (oral communication) has suggested that the original reading may have been, “Ephraim is like dough (‫;)כּ ִע ָסּה‬ ְ he shall be kneaded.” 22 See CAD, B, 44. 23 G conjugation. 24 H. Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study,” JCS 12 (1958), 34. An echo of this term may still be found in m. Yad. 4.4 (in connection with an Assyrian king!): ‫כבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האמות‬, “Long ago Sennacherib, king of Assyria, arose and intermingled all the nations.” In the Mishnah, however, the reference is to the de- and repopulation program of the Assyrian king. 25 N conjugation.


7

mingled with each other.”26 Hence, in both baking and political terminology the root ‫ בלל‬was the ideal choice to forecast the impending doom of the Northern Kingdom. In v. 8b, Hosea likens Ephraim to an ‫עגה בלי הפוכה‬, “a cake incapable of turning,” an image which has been subjected to many interpretations.27 It is here suggested that the idiom is symbolic of the lethargic state of the nation and its present exhausted condition. “Incapable of turning” means “unable to act,” i.e., the populace of Ephraim is incapable of doing anything to avert its impending tragedy. The two misfortunes that can befall a cake and which it can do nothing to avert are the subject of the following verse. The first stich of v. 9 states: ‫אכלו זרים כחו והוא לא ידע‬, “Strangers have consumed his strength—yet he is unaware.” Ephraim, in its calamitous situation, is like a cake which is being nibbled at; both remain passive and are incapable of taking measures. For the second stich, which likewise ends with the refrain ‫והוא לא‬ ‫ידע‬, “yet he is unaware/he does not realize,” Hosea culls another idiomatic expression from the lexicon of bakers: ‫גם שיבה זרקה בו‬. For the correct understanding of this image, one must refer to the end of Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic,28 where Utnapishtim puts the valiant Gilgamesh to a severe test: if he can overcome sleep for six days and seven nights, he will be able to gain the priceless boon of immortality. No sooner had Gilgamesh sat down than “sleep fans him like a whirlwind” (line 201). Utnapishtim’s spouse advises her husband to awaken Gilgamesh “that he may return safe on the way whence he came” (line 207). Utnapishtim, however, wise to the wiles of men, says, “Since to deceive is human, he will seek to deceive thee” (i.e., by asserting that he has not slept at all). “Up, bake for him wafers; put (them) at his head” (lines 210–211). His wife promptly bakes the wafers and marks on the wall the number of days that Gilgamesh remains fast asleep. The seven cakes, corresponding to his one week of sleep, are then described in their successive stages of decomposition: “His first wafer is dried out; the second has gone bad; the third is soggy;

26

CAD, B, 44. AHw, 98, reads ib-bal/ba(-al?)-lu. Consult the commentaries cited above. Tur Sinai (Halashon ve-Hasefer, I, 116) reads ‫פוֹכה‬ ָ ‫ה‬, ָ “a turner”—“a cake which has no one to turn it”—and relates it to a Talmudic idiom: ‫( כאבן שאין לה הופכין‬cf. b. Sanh. 14a and Abod. Zar. 8b). 28 The quoted passages are taken primarily from E. A. Speiser’s translation in ANET. 27

8


the crust of the fourth has turned white; the fifth has a moldy cast; the sixth is (still) freshly baked;29 the seventh—just as he touched him the man awoke” (lines 215–218). The Akkadian expression for the incipient deterioration of the fifth cake, àÊba ittadi, “it had thrown off a mold,”30 lit., “white hairs” (line 217), is none other than the exact semantic etymological equivalent of Heb. ‫שיבה זרקה‬, for Akk. àÊbu is the etymological cognate of Heb. ‫שיבה‬, and Akk. nadû is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫זרק‬.31 The idiomatic expression borrowed from the Akkadian means “to grow moldy.” Now Hosea’s final metaphor becomes perfectly clear: A cake may be attacked not only by greedy mouths but also by mold. In this case, no less than in the other, it does nothing to save itself. Again, how very like Ephraim! Something indeed is very “rotten in the state of Ephraim.” b. The Explication, v. 10: Though Israel’s pride has been humbled before his very eyes,32 They have not returned to the Lord their God, And have not sought Him in despite of it all. “The pride of Israel has been humbled before his very eyes”—corresponds to the consumption (v. 9aa) and the spontaneous deterioration

29 Akk. baàlat. Speiser (op. cit.) translates, “fresh-colored.” The translation here follows that of CAD, B, 140. Philological remarks pertaining to the technical terms employed in the description of the progressive deterioration of the wafers may be found in E. Ebeling’s review of R. Campbell Thompson, Epic of Gilgamesh, in AfO 8 (1932–33), 232; and A. L. Oppenheim, “Mesopotamian Mythology II,” Or 17 (1948), 55–58. 30 Cf. CAD, N/I, 95; ’/III, 94. Another product subject to mold is clothing; cf. the use of this idiom in lines 246 and 255 of the Gilgamesh epic: t¿diqu àÊba aj iddÊma ed¿àu lidià, “Let not (his) cloak have a moldy cast; let it be wholly new.” The expression is also found in a medical text; see H. Waschow, “Babylonische Briefe aus der Kassitenzeit,” MAOG 10/1 (1936), 27. Cf. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 51 n. 32. Both these scholars, however, interpret the idiom in a different manner. 31 The use of the N form of nadû, ittadi, would justify the vocalization ‫קה‬ ָ ‫ז ְֹר‬, passive of the qal, in the Hebrew text. This idiom is not related to the one found in KTU 2 1.17:VI.36–37: spsg.ysk [l]r’ià.Èrß.lír.qdqdy, “They will pour glaze [on] (my) head, white stuff over my cranium,” which likens the white hair covering a man’s head in old age to the glaze on pottery. 32 Cf. Hos 5:5.


9

(v. 9ba) of the cake. “Yet they have not returned to the Lord their God and have not sought Him in spite of it all”—corresponds to the inertness of the cake (vv. 8b. 9ab, 9bb). Israel, however, has gone one step further. Instead of reacting in the only effective and practical way possible, by returning to the Lord, they have flown off to seek the friendship of Egypt and Assyria (vv. 11ff.),33 which is even worse than taking no measures at all. 33 Cf. the parallel passages in Hos 5:11ff. and 12:2. In the former, the prophet states that since the author of the nation’s sickness is God, no one but God can cure it. For the latter, see H. L. Ginsberg, “Hosea’s Ephraim, More Fool than Knave,” JBL 80 (1961), 339–347, esp. p. 340.

10


deutero-isaiah and cuneiform royal inscriptions

11

DEUTERO-ISAIAH AND CUNEIFORM ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS* Most scholars today are in basic agreement that chapters 40–48 of Deutero-Isaiah are a self-contained literary unit consisting of prophecies written in Babylonia during the earliest part of that anonymous prophet’s career,1 and it is precisely within this complex that analogies to the language and phraseology of cuneiform royal inscriptions have been found. Kittel,2 already in 1898, drew attention to similarities between Deutero-Isaiah and Cyrus’ proclamation, and concluded that both were dependent on what he called “the Babylonian court style.” Though other scholars expanded the field of research to include both royal and hymnic inscriptions,3 their studies were mainly limited to the * This paper is dedicated to the fond memory of my teacher, Professor E. A. Speiser. It was my great privilege to be the last doctoral student to complete a dissertation under his supervision in the study of cuneiform and Biblical literature, two of the fields in which me made so many outstanding contributions. 1 For a study of these chapters, see M. Haran, Between RI’SHONOT (Former Prophecies) and \ADASHOT (New Prophecies). A Literary-Historical Study in the Group of Prophecies Isaiah XL–XLVIII (Jerusalem, 1963) (Hebrew); idem, “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. XL–XLIII,” SVT 9 (1963), 127–155; and all the modern commentaries. 2 R. Kittel, “Cyrus und Deuterojesaja,” ZAW 18 (1898), 149–164. Cf. also his comments in Geschichte des Volkes Israels, III/1 (Stuttgart, 1927), 210ff. 3 E. Sellin, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde nach dem babylonischen Exil, I: Der Knecht Gottes bei Deuterojesaja (Leipzig, 1901), 131–135; L. Dürr, Ursprung und Ausbau der israelitisch-jüdischen Heilandserwartung (Berlin, 1925), 146–152; F. Stummer, “Einige keilschriftliche Parallelen zu Jes. 40–46,” JBL 45 (1926), 171–189; H. Gressmann, Der Messias, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 19 (Göttingen, 1929), 59–61; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, 4th ed. (Leipzig, 1930), 601, 684–690; J. W. Behr, The Writings of Deutero-Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions (Pretoria, 1937); I. Engnell, “The ‘Ebed Yahweh Songs and the Suffering Messiah in ‘Deutero-Isaiah’,” BJRL 31 (1948), 77ff.; M. Smith, “II Isaiah and the Persians,” JAOS 13 (1963), 415–421. Many of the examples adduced in these studies, with the exception of the monograph by Behr, are quite general and not altogether convincing. Compare, on the other hand, the comparison between the prism inscription of Sennacherib (V:67–69) and Isa 59: 17 made by E. A. Speiser, in The World History of the Jewish People, I: At the Dawn of Civilization, ed. E. A. Speiser (Tel Aviv, 1964), 120. While Behr attributes the similarities between the royal inscriptions and the prophetic passages to a common Babylonian cultural environment, Smith is of the opinion that the parallels between Deutero-Isaiah and Cyrus’ proclamation are due

12


neo-Babylonian period, and hence they did not take into consideration that many of the formulaic expressions current in the documents of that period could be traced back to earlier prototypes. The purpose of this paper is to point out several as yet unrecognized analogues to the language, phraseology, and ideology of royal inscriptions in the writing of this prophet who, more than any of his predecessors, was so strongly influenced by this literary genre. The examples, moreover, are culled from various sections of the book of Deutero-Isaiah and are not limited to the first nine chapters. A familiar motif from Sumerian times on is the predestination and designation of the king’s legitimacy by a divine call.4 In a study of Mesopotamian royal titles, Hallo5 assembled the various epithets compounded with a divine name such as “called by the god by name,” Sum. mu.pàd.da DN; “named with a (good) name by the god,” Sum. mu.(du 10 ).sa 4 .a DN; “beloved of the god,” Sum. ki.ág DN; “favorite of the god,” Sum. àe.ga DN; “servant,” Sum. arad 2; and “shepherd,” Sum. sipa. All of these epithets are also found in later cuneiform royal inscriptions where the king is the one whose “name had been called or designated” by the gods, Akk. àumàu/zikiràu/nibÊssu/nibÊt àumiàu nabû and àumàu/zak§r àumiàu/nibÊt àumiàu zak§ru,6 expressions which are identical to the calling of Cyrus and the “servant” in Deutero-Isaiah: ‫קראתי‬ ‫בשמך‬, “I have called you by your name” (43:1),7 and ‫הזכיר שמי‬, “He designated my name” (49:1).8 The Akk. phrases nar§m ili, “the beloved of the god,” migir ili, “the favorite of the god,” and itût (kån libbi) ili, “the chosen, selected, of the god,” correspond, moreover, to Heb. ‫אֹהבי‬, “My beloved,” (41:8),9 and ‫בחירי רצתה נפשי‬, “My chosen one

to Persian political propaganda disseminated in Babylonia by Cyrus’ agents before the conquest. 4 For a Mesopotamian parallel to Isa 40:19–20, see I. Eph‘al, “On the Linguistic and Cultural Background of Deutero-Isaiah,” Shnaton 10 (1986–89), 31–35 (Hebrew). Cf. E. Dhorme, La religion assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1916), 150ff.; R. Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1939), 40ff.; H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, 1948), 238–240. 5 W. W. Hallo, Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis, AOS 43 (New Haven, 1957), 132–142. 6 Cf. M.-J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris, 1967), 176–179, 370f. 7 Cf. Isa 42:6; 45:3, 4; 48:12 (‫ֹר ִאי‬ ָ ‫;)מק‬ ְ 49:1. 8 Found only here with this precise meaning. 9 Cf. Isa 43:4; 48:14.


13

whom I desire” (42:1).10 And last, but not least, the cognates of Akk. r¿’ûm, “shepherd,” and wardum, “servant,” both appear in DeuteroIsaiah, the former when Cyrus is called ‫( ר ִֹעי‬Isa 44:28) and the latter throughout the famous ‫ עבד‬passages of that prophet.11 Another way of expressing the divine legitimation and selection of the king is by the use of Akk. kÊnià, “truly, favorably,”12 with such verbs as naplusu and naã§lu, “to look at,” Éaà§Éu, “to desire,” uttû, “to select,” banû, “to create,”13 r¿àam ullû, “to elevate.”14 Two other verbs employed with this adverb are zak§ru and nabû.15 Of Nabonidus it is said àumàu kÊnià izkuru, “They (the gods) duly designated his name,”16 and of Esarhaddon, zikir àumija kÊnià imbû, “They (the gods) duly named me.”17 In Hebrew, the interdialectal functional equivalent of Akk. kÊnu/kÊnià is ‫צדק‬18/‫בצדק‬, and this is precisely the word employed in the selection and call of the designated servant in 42:6, ‫אני ה' קראתיך‬ ‫בצדק‬, “I, YHWH, have duly called you,” an expression which verifies and legitimizes the divine call of this individual alone.19

10

Cf. Isa 41:8, 9; 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2; 45:4; 49:7; 65:9, 15, 22. Cf. Isa 41:8; 42:1; 43:10; 44:1, 21; 45:4; 49:5; etc. Many of these examples, with the corresponding cuneiform expressions, have already been noted by Behr, Writings. For the neo-Babylonian equivalent of Sum. mu.du 10 .sa 4 .a DN, “named with a good name by the god,” cf. Neriglissar’s inscription in S. Langdon, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 214:20: àum ãabi lu imbânni. 12 Akk. ã§bià and Éadià occasionally alternate with kÊnià. For the former, see the inscription of ’amaààumukin cited below in the text, and for the latter, see Langdon, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften, 142:I:14. 13 For selected references, see AHw, 480. 14 R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9 (Graz, 1956), 40:11. 15 AHw, loc. cit. 16 Langdon, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften, 234:15. 17 Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, 80:18. 18 Cf. the corresponding names of the two kings, àarru-kÊn (Sargon) and ‫מלכיצדק‬ (Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4), “the king is legitimate.” 19 This clause is then followed in the text by another phrase characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah—‫ואחזק בידך‬, “I grasped your hand” (cf. 41:9, 13; 45:1), whose cuneiform analogue is found in line 12 of the Cyrus cylinder, where it is stated that Marduk searched for a just ruler àa ittamaÉ q§tiàu, “whom he could grasp by the hand”; F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, VAB 3 (Leipzig, 1911), 2. Note the use of Akk. tam§Éu here and its Heb. cognate ‫תמך‬, which is employed in the same context in Isa 41:10 and 42:1. (Cf. also Ps 73:23.) For a similar expression in a Hittite text, see Jeremias, Das Alte Testament; and Stummer, “Einige keilschriftliche Parallelen.” The grasping of an individual’s hand by a deity is a scene often depicted on cylinder seals. Another correspondence between the royal inscriptions and Deutero-Isaiah is 11

14


In the royal inscriptions, after the king is called and selected by the gods he is then given a task to fulfill. A similar sequence of events is found in Deutero-Isaiah, where the designated servant is called upon to fulfill his unique twofold mission (42:6). Then, in 42:7, he is bidden: ‫לפקח עינים ִעוְ רות להוציא ממסגר אסיר‬ ‫מבית כלא ישבי חשך‬ “to open blind eyes, to liberate prisoners from confinement, (and) dwellers in darkness from prison.”20 Here the expression, “to open blind eyes,” serves as a metaphor for the releasing of the imprisoned or “dwellers in darkness” from their dungeons. Similarly in cuneiform inscriptions, Sargon declares: m§r¿ Sippar Nippur B§bili ù Barsippa àa ina la anniàunu ina qirbiàu kamû ßibittaàunu §butma ukallimàunåti nåru, “The people of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, and Borsippa who, through no fault of their own, have been kept imprisoned in it (i.e., the conquered city of Dur-Yakin), I destroyed their prison and let them see the light (i.e., ‘I set them free’).”21 The equation in Hebrew of “opening one’s eyes” with freedom and liberation explains, furthermore, a lexical innovation of DeuteroIsaiah, for in 61:1 the prophet announces that he was sent by God, ‫לקרא לשבוים דרור‬, “to proclaim liberty to captives,” ‫קוח‬-‫ולאסורים פקח‬, “and to prisoners freedom (lit., ‘opening of eyes’).”22 When the prophet comes to describe the future tribute that will be brought to Jerusalem by the various nations of the world, he makes specific reference in one passage to the valuable wood which will be

the motif of divine help (Akk. tukkulu, Heb. ‫)עזר‬. Cf. Isa 41:10, 13, 14; 44:2; and M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s, II, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 70:59: ilAààur àa utakkilanni; 100:32; 108:68; 110:2. 20 According to Y. Kaufmann (The Religion of Israel, VIII [Jerusalem, 1956], 125 [Hebrew]), this mission was to be performed by God and not by the servant. Cf. Isa 49:9. 21 H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, I (Leipzig, 1889), 122–124:134–135; cf. 58–60:359–360. See also W. G. Lambert, “Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians,” AfO 19 (1959), 66:8: àa ina bÊt ßibitti nadû tukallam når, “You show light (i.e., ‘liberate’) to those who have been thrown into prison.” Cf. 54:212–213, and Stummer, “Einige keilschriftliche Parallelen,” 180. See CAD, K, 524–525. 22 Heb. ‫קוֹח‬-‫ח‬ ַ ‫ ְפּ ַק‬refers to the “opening” of the eyes and not, as E. J. Kissane (The Book of Isaiah, II [Dublin, 1943], 274) suggests, to the opening of bonds or prisons. The verb ‫ פקח‬is used throughout the Bible only for the opening of the eyes or ears (cf. Isa 42:20).


15

used to rebuild and redecorate the Temple (Isa 60:13): ‫כבוד הלבנון אליך יבוא‬ ‫ברוש תדהר ותאשור יחדו‬ ‫לפאר מקום מקדשי‬ ‫ רגלי אכבד‬23‫ומקום‬ “The glory of the Lebanon shall come to you 24‫ברוש תדהר ותאשור יחדו‬ To adorn the site of My sanctuary, And the site of My feet shall I glorify.” The “glory of the Lebanon” is none other than the precious cedar whose wood supplied the necessary timber for the building of the First Temple.25 Cuneiform sources likewise mention the bringing of cedars (Akk. er¿nu) taken from the Lebanon as tribute to the king for the construction of palaces and temples.26 Nebuchadnezzar reports that the kings ißer¿ni dannåti ultu Labnanim ana m§É§zija B§bili ibabalånim, “brought me mighty cedars from the mountains of Lebanon to my city of Babylon.”27 In the Isaiah text, there then follows a triad of trees28 whose wood is to be used for the construction and adornment of the future Temple. Whereas the identity of the first tree, Heb. ‫ברוש‬, cognate to Akk. bur§àu, has been established as “juniper,”29 a tree which also grows in the Lebanon30 and was employed along with the cedar in both the building and decoration of the Israelite First Temple31 and the 23

Elsewhere throughout the Bible (Isa 66:1; Ps 99:5; 110:1; 132:7; Lam 2:1; 1 Chron 28:2) the word employed in this expression is Heb. ‫הדום‬, “footstool.” 24 Heb. ‫ יחדו‬is occasionally found in Deutero-Isaiah at the conclusion of a series of nouns or verbs; cf. Isa 41:19 (identical to 60:13), 20, 23; 45:21. 25 Cf. the manifold references in 2 Kings 6–7. 26 For references, see CAD, E, 274–276. 27 Langdon, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften, 148:III:15–18. The Hebrew cognate to Akk. er¿nu, ‫ארן‬, appears as a hapax legomenon in Isa 44:14. 28 Cf. also Isa 41:19. 29 I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, III (Wien, 1924), 33–36; CAD, B, 328. Cf. also AHw, 139; M. Zohary, IDB, II, 293. 30 See the entry ‫ ברוש‬in Encyclopedia Biblica, II (Jerusalem, 1954), 339–341 (Hebrew). For the occurrence of cedar and juniper trees in the Lebanon and anti-Lebanon, cf. Isa 37:24 and the statement of ’almanezzar III, in E. Michel, “Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III,” WO 2 (1964), 40:17–18: ana ›am§nim ¿li guàår¿ er¿ni bur§ài akkisi, “I went into the Amanus and cut timber of cedar (and) juniper trees.” 31 1 Kings 5:22, 24; 6:15, 34; 9:11.

16


palaces and temples of Mesopotamian rulers,32 the other two trees, ‫תדהר ותאשור‬, have been subject to various conflicting interpretations.33 It would seem likely, in view of the above, that their identity would be sought in the following manner: trees which grow in the Lebanon (or anti-Lebanon) are associated with the cedar and juniper, and whose wood is used for construction purposes. It is interesting, then, to note that in many cuneiform records of trees brought as tribute to the Assyrian kings, a favorite recurrent combination found in the inscriptions of Aààurnasirpal II,34 Sargon,35 and Sennacherib36 is er¿nu, “cedar,” bur§àu, “juniper,” àurm¿nu, “cypress,”37 and dupr§nu (or dapr§nu), another variety of “juniper”;38 e.g., guàår¿ er¿ni àurm¿ni dapr§ni bur§ài lu akkis, “I (Aààurnasirpal) felled (in the Amanus) logs of cedar (er¿nu), cypress (àurm¿nu), dupr§nu and bur§àu junipers.”39 Hence, these two trees, àurm¿nu and dupr§nu, which also grow in the Lebanon and are often cited in connection with palaces and temples,40 seem to fill the exact same slots as Heb. ‫ תאשור‬and ‫תדהר‬. A further clue to the identity of the former may be found in the Talmud, where ‫ תאשור‬is equated with ‫שורבינא‬41 (cognate of Syr. àarwain§ and Arab. àarbÊn),42 “cypress,” and ‫שורבינא‬, in turn, has been independently related to Akk. àurm¿nu.43 32

See CAD, B, 327. Cf. the standard commentaries and lexica. 34 E. Schrader, Sammlung von assyrischen und babylonischen Texten, KB 1 (Berlin, 1889), 109:89. 35 Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, I, 70:419; 90:72; 128:158–159; 144: 31–32. 36 D. L. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago, 1924), 110: 36–37. 37 Löw, Die Flora, III, 29; Zohary, IDB, II, 292. Cf. also A. Malamat, “Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other Early Mesopotamian rulers,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (Chicago, 1965), 368–369. See CAD, ’/III, 349–353. 38 CAD, D, 189–190. 39 Schrader, Sammlung, 108:88–89. 40 For àurm¿nu, e.g., àurm¿nu irrissu ã§bu àa qereb Sirara, “sweet fragrant cypresses from Sirara”; guàår¿ er¿ni àurm¿ni ßÊråti tarbit ›am§nim u Sirara, “logs of tall cedars and cypresses which grow in the Amanus and Lebanon”; Streck, Assurbanipal, II, 170: 46; 246:58–60. For a similar reference to dupr§nu, see above, n. 34, and for the juxtaposition of the àurm¿nu and dupr§nu trees, see the additional examples cited in AHw, 162. The dprn tree also appears in Ugaritic texts, KTU2 1.72:28; 4.158:20. 41 b. Roà Haà. 23a and B. Bat. 80b. 42 Löw, Die Flora, III, 26–29. 43 Ibid., 29. 33


17

If this Talmudic tradition can be relied upon, it would give further support for the identification of Heb. ‫ תאשור‬with Akk. àurm¿nu, and it would then stand to reason that ‫ תדהר‬is none other than the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. dupr§nu. In addition to precious trees, men and women, silver and gold, and cattle and sheep are all frequently mentioned in the list of tribute brought to the Mesopotamian monarchs. Many inscriptions include, furthermore, narkab§ti, “chariots,” ßumbÊ, “wagons,” sÊsê, “horses,” parê, “mules,” and gammal¿, “camels.”44 This may be compared to Isa 66: 20, where there is a description of the return of the diaspora, when the distant nations shall come to Jerusalem to pay homage to God by bringing back the scattered exiles of Israel. The prophet then describes this return as a ‫מנחה‬, “tribute,” in terms familiar to the tribute lists of inscriptional literature. The children of Israel shall be brought on ‫סוסים‬, Akk. sÊsê (“horses”), ‫רכב‬, Akk. narkab§ti (“chariots”), ‫צבים‬, Akk. ßumbÊ (“wagons”), ‫פרדים‬, Akk. parê (“mules”),45 and, finally, ‫כרכרות‬, the only unknown entity in the list. It is precisely at this point46 in the cuneiform royal inscriptions that camels are mentioned.47 This sequence then would help to equate Heb. ‫ כרכרות‬as a semantic equivalent of Akk. gammal¿, and thus lends further support to one of the traditional interpretations,48 which identifies the word as a synonym for “dromedaries.”49 That Deutero-Isaiah knew of camels brought as a tribute is attested in Isa 60:6:

44 Cf. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, 46:61; 327 n. 8 (Aààurbanipal); Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, I, 42:253; 48:280; 76:440; 132:183–185 (Sargon); and Luckenbill, Annals, 24:25; 25:51–52; 28:20–21; 33:25; and esp. 51:29: narkab§ti ßumbÊ sÊsê parê im¿r¿ gammal¿ udri (“camels”) (Sennacherib). The complete list of items appears only in this last citation. The sÊsê are usually combined with the narkab§ti, and the parê with the ßumbÊ; cf. Isa 66:20. 45 The etymological equivalent of Akk. parû is Heb. ‫ ;פרא‬Heb. ‫ פרד‬is its semantic equivalent. In the cuneiform inscriptions, mules and donkeys (Akk. im¿r¿) usually appear one after the other. 46 I.e., after Akk. parê and im¿r¿. 47 See above, n. 44 for the reference to Sennacherib. 48 This interpretation, already found in the commentaries of ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and Abarbanel, is the most popular one cited in translations, commentaries, and lexica. It first appears, to the best of my knowledge, in Saadya, who translates Heb. ‫ כרכרות‬by Arab. ‫אלעמאריאת‬. See Y. Ratzaby, Saadya’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah (Kiriat Ono, 1993), 147 (Hebrew). For the meaning “dromedaries,” see R. Dozy, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, II (Paris and Leiden, 1967), 172. 49 Though one must be extremely wary in enlisting support from Arabic, which abounds in its numerous synonyms for “camels,” it should be noted, at least in passing,

18

the bible and the ancient near east ‫שפעת גמלים ְתּ ַכ ֵסְּך‬ ‫ִבּ ְכ ֵרי מדין ועיפה‬ “Dust clouds50 of camels shall cover you, Young camels of Midian and Ephah.”

Note also that the prophet employs in this passage another synonym for camel, Heb. ‫בּ ֶכר‬, ֶ the etymon of Akk. bakru, which appears only in late Babylonian times51 and is mentioned as tribute in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III: gammal¿ anaq§ti adi bakkar¿àina, “(I received as tribute…) camels, she-camels together with their colts.”52 For my last example, I wish to return to the motif of prenatal divine predestination and selection. A theme which occurs in the inscriptions of several kings, starting with Aààur-r¿à-iài I (1132–1115) down to Nabonidus (556–539) is the designation of the king while yet in the womb of his mother:53 1. Ashur-r¿sha-ishi I (1132–1115):54 Aààur-r¿àa-iài àa Anu Enlil u Ea il§ni rabûti ina libbi agarinni kÊnià iÉsuÉåàuma ana àut¿sur m§t Aààur b¿låtiàu ibbû, “Ashur-r¿sha-ishi, whom Anu, Enlil, and Ea, the great gods, truly desired (while still) in the womb

that kirkiratun is “the callosity, or callous protuberance upon the breast of the camel which, when the animal lies down, touches and rests upon the ground, projecting from his body like a cake of bread”; E. W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, I, 7th ed. (London, 1885), 2601. It is most doubtful, however, that the two words are related. In the Qumran scroll of Isaiah (1QIsa), the word is spelled ‫כורכובות‬. 50 N. H. Tur Sinai, The Book of Job (Tel Aviv, 1954), 205 (Hebrew). See also 2 Kings 9:17 (twice); Ezek 26:10. 51 Cf. AHw, 97; CAD, B, 35. For the feminine ‫בּ ְכ ָרה‬, ִ see Jer 2:23. 52 P. Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, I (Leipzig, 1893), 26:157; cf. also D. J. Wiseman, “A Fragmentary Inscription of Tiglat-Pileser III from Nimrud,” Iraq 18 (1956), 126:21. 53 It is also found in an Old Babylonian letter to a god: iàtu àasårriàu àÊmtum ã§btum àÊmassu, “Ever since he was (in) his (mother’s) womb, a favorable destiny was decreed for him”; see F. R. Kraus, “Eine neue Probe akkadischer Literatur Brief eines Bittstellers an eine Gottheit,” JAOS 103 (1983), 205:9. This motif also appears in the stele of King Pianchi of Egypt (751–730): “It was in the belly of your mother that I said concerning you that you were to be ruler of Egypt. It was as seed and while you were in the egg that I knew you, that (I knew) you were to be lord.” See M. Gilula, “An Egyptian Parallel to Jeremiah I 4–5,” VT 17 (1967), 114. For another example, from the inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884), see O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts, KAH 2 (Leipzig, 1922), 91:9. 54 E. Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I. und seiner Nachfolger, AfO Beiheft 12 (Graz, 1959), 54:1–3. Cf. also R. Borger, Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften, Handbuch der Orientalistik 5/1 (Leiden, 1961), 103.


2.

3.

4.

5.

19

of his mother and decreed his rule to guide Assyria on the right path.” Sennacherib (704–681):55 B¿let-ilÊ b¿let nabnÊti ina àasurri agarinni §littija kÊnià ippalsannima ußabbâ nabnÊti, “B¿lit-ilÊ, the goddess of living creatures, looked favorably upon me (while I was still) in the womb of my mother who bore me and created my features.” Esarhaddon (680–669):56 il§ni rabûti àar m§t ¿lÊtum u à[aplÊtum ina] àasurri agarinni §littij[a] b¿låte àa(!) kala m§t§tima… libbi Aààur uzakkiruma, “The great gods designated (me) king of the upper and l[ower] lands… (while yet) [in the] womb of my mother who bore me… for rule of all the lands (in accordance with) the will (?) of Aààur.” Ashurbanipal (668–627?):57 an§ku Aààurbanapli binûtu Aààur u B¿let… àa Aààur u Sin b¿l agî ultu åm¿ råqåti nibit àumiàu izkuru ana àarråti u ina libbi ummiàu ibnû ana r¿’ût m§t Aààur, “I, Ashurbanipal, am the creation of Aààur and B¿lit… whom Aààur and Sin, the lord of the crown, already in the distant past58 had called by name for ruling, and who had created him in his mother’s womb for the shepherding of Assyria.” ’amaààumukin (652–648):59 aàar nabnÊt ummi §littija ana ¿nåt nis¿ àumÊ ã§bià lu tambi àarrat il§ni E-ru-u-a, “In the place of forming (= womb) of the mother who bore me, Erua, the queen of the gods, favorably called my name for lordship over mankind.”

55

Luckenbill, Annals, 117:3. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, 115, text 82:7–10. Cf. 119, text 101:12–14. 57 Streck, Assurbanipal, II, 2:1–5. Cf. 252–254:1–6. 58 Akk. ultu åm¿ råqåte, “in the distant past”; ina ßeÉ¿riàu, “in his childhood” (Schrader, Sammlung, 188:2; 190:1—Adad-Nirari III); ultu ßeÉ¿riàu, “from his childhood” (Streck, Assurbanipal, II, 2:3—Aààurbanipal); and ultu åm¿ ßeÉ¿riàu, “from the days of his childhood” (Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, 12:13–14—Esarhaddon) are other expressions for the gods’ early choice of the king. Cf. H. Lewy, “NitokrisNaqî’a,” JNES 11 (1952), 264 n. 5. 59 C. F. Lehmann, ’amaààumukin König von Babylon (Leipzig, 1892), 7:6–8. This is a bilingual text (the Sumerian version is on p. 6), and the difficult Akkadian grammatical construction is most likely due to its Sumerian prototype. For several different translations of the Akkadian text, cf. Lehmann, loc. cit.; E. Schrader, Historische Texte altbabylonischer Herrscher, KB 3/1 (Berlin, 1892), 198:6–8; and Dhorme, La religion assyro-babylonienne, 153. 56

20


6. Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562):60 iàtu… Marduk ibàimu nabnÊti ina immu enåma ald§ku abannû an§ku, “After Marduk formed my features (while I was still) in my mother’s (womb), when I was born (and) created.” 7. Nabonidus (556–539):61 an§ku Na-bi-um-na-’-id… àa Sin u Ningal ina libbi ummiàu ana àÊmat àarråtti iàÊmu sÊmatsu, “I, Nabonidus, … whose fate Sin and Ningal (while yet) in the womb of his mother had destined for dominion.” This motif occurs in the Bible in Jeremiah’s dedication scene:62 ‫בטרם אצרך בבטן ידעתיך‬ ‫ובטרם תצא מרחם הקדשתיך‬ ‫נביא לגוים נתתיך‬ “Before I formed you in the womb, I chose you.63 And before you were born, I consecrated you. I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). And it is often repeated in chapters 41–49 of Deutero-Isaiah, e.g.: ‫ה' מבטן קראני‬ ‫ממעי אמי הזכיר שמי‬ “YHWH called me before I was born. While yet in my mother’s womb He designated my name” (49:1) ‫ועתה אמר ה' י ְֹצ ִרי מבטן לעבד לו‬ “And now YHWH, who formed me in the womb to be His servant, has resolved…” (49:5). Thus, this exilic prophet had two main sources from which he drew: intra-Biblical, i.e., Jeremiah, and extra-Biblical, i.e., Mesopotamian royal inscriptions. Of the two, however, Jeremiah proved to be the far more influential and inspirational for the development of Deutero-Isaiah’s thought,64 since he adopted not only the theme of prenatal designa60

Langdon, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften, 122:23–27. Ibid., 218:1–5. 62 For an earlier example of prenatal designation, see Judg 13:5. 63 Cf. the similar phraseology, “I chose you,” lit., “I knew you,” above, n. 53. 64 However, the specific motif of being “called” while yet in the womb is a feature which Deutero-Isaiah shares only with its Mesopotamian prototypes. 61


21

tion from Jeremiah, but also that prophet’s very phraseology—and then reinterpreted the message in the light of his unique religious outlook.65 In Jeremiah it is written: ‫ נביא לגוים נתתיך‬...‫אצרך‬ “I have created you… (and) appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). Deutero-Isaiah, in turn, employs these same two verbs (‫ נתן‬...‫ )יצר‬in his description of the creation and mission of Israel: ‫אצרך ואתנך לברית עם לאור גוים‬ “I have created you and appointed you a covenant people, a light to the nations” (42:6). ‫ ונתתיך לאור גוים‬...‫יצרי מבטן‬ “He who created me in the womb… (said), ‘I have appointed you a light to the nations’ ” (49:5–6). ‫ואצרך ואתנך לברית עם‬ “I have created you66 and appointed you a covenant people” (49:8). However, even though the phraseology is borrowed from Jeremiah,67 Deutero-Isaiah completely transformed and transcended that prophet’s original message. For whereas the call in Jeremiah was to an individual, here it is expanded to encompass all of Israel—the entire people was created and chosen from the very beginning to fulfill a divine task. And while Jeremiah was to become ‫נביא לגוים‬, “a prophet to the nations,” i.e., to announce to all nations (including Israel) their present and future fate, Israel in Deutero-Isaiah was to be a prophet nation (49:2–3; 51:

65

This was illuminatingly pointed out to me by Prof. H. L. Ginsberg. The constant juxtaposition of these two verbs, which ultimately derives from the prophecy in Jeremiah, proves that the stem of ‫ אצרך‬is ‫יצר‬, “create,” and not ‫נצר‬, “preserve.” 67 For the influence of Jeremiah on the phraseology and ideology of Deutero-Isaiah, see S. M. Paul, “Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah,” Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1972), 102–120 [399–416]; B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, 1998), 32–72. 66

22


16; 59:21) whose mission it was to spread the teaching of God to all humanity (42:1–4) and to recount God’s glory (43:21), and thereby to become ‫( לאור גוים‬lit., “a light of nations”), that is to say, to bring God’s “blessing (‫ישועה‬, lit., ‘deliverance, salvation’) to the ends of the earth” (49:6). Israel, as God’s witnesses,68 becomes the source and the instrument whereby His beneficence will spread throughout the entire world (45:22–24).69 Israel’s mission is not one of world conquest, as in the Mesopotamian inscriptions, but rather one of world salvation. 68 69

A theme which appears in Isa 43:10, 12 and 44:8. Cf. Isa 55:4.

cuneiform light on jer. 9:20

23

CUNEIFORM LIGHT ON JER 9:20 Cassuto1 was the first to draw the attention of the scholarly world to the section in the Baal epic which seems to shed light on the verse in Jer 9:20: ‫כי עלה מות בחלונינו בא בארמנותינו להכרית עולל מחוץ‬ ‫בחורים מרחבות‬, “Death (Heb. ‫מות‬2) has climbed in through our windows, has entered our fortresses, cutting off babes from the streets, young men from the squares.” In the Ugaritic text, the craftsman god Kothar wa-Khasis, when bidden to construct a palace for Baal, says, bl.aàt.urbt.bbh[tm] Èln.bqrb.hklm,3 “Shall I not install a window in the hou[se], an aperture amid the palace?” Baal, however, does not at first permit his architect to place windows in his palace, and only later, after he has subdued his arch-enemy, assumed here to be Mot, does he order windows to be installed.4 Cassuto concluded from this that Mot was in the habit of making his uninvited entrance through windows, for which additional support was brought from Jeremiah, where Mot apparently attacks through this very aperture. Hence, Jeremiah became the prooftext for the Ugaritic epic and the Ugaritic epic supplied the necessary mythological background material. This example of mutually edifying exegesis quickly became accepted by many scholars,5 some of whom then turned their attention to a

1 U. Cassuto, “Il palazzo di Ba‘al nella tavola II AB di Ras Shamra,” Or 7 (1938), 265–290, esp. 284–286; idem “The Palace of Baal,” JBL 61 (1942), 54; idem, “Biblical and Canaanite Literature,” Tarbií 13 (1942), 208 (Hebrew); idem, The Goddess Anat3(Jerusalem, 1958), 22, 29, 49 (Hebrew). 2 Heb. ‫ מות‬is usually interpreted in reference to “pestilence.” Cf. also v. 21, where the Septuagint reads ‫דּ ֶבר‬, ֶ “pestilence,” instead of ‫דּ ֵבּר‬, ַ “speak.” For references to Mot in Ugaritic literature and the Bible, see J. M. Healey, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst (Leiden, Boston and Köln, 1999), 598–602, with additional bibliography. 3 KTU2 1.4.V:61–62. 4 KTU2 1.4.VII:17–18, 25–27. The windows are the apertures in the sky through which the rains descend. Cf. Gen 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Mal 3:11. 5 A. Pohl, “Miszellen,” Or 22 (1941), 36–37; W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, 1942), 198 n. 45; H. L. Ginsberg, “The Ugaritic Texts and Textual Criticism,” JBL 62 (1943), 113–114; A. D. Singer, “Gleanings in Ugaritic Poetry,” BIES 11 (1943), 18ff. (Hebrew); S. Loewenstamm, “Do not read ‫ארבותינו‬, but rather ‫ארמנותינו‬,” BIES 13 (1947), 16–19 (Hebrew); J. P. Hyatt, Jeremiah, IB 5 (New York, 1956), 893; A. Dotan, “‫חלון‬,” Encyclopedia Biblica, III (Jerusalem, 1958), 153 (Hebrew); H. Tur

24


further examination of the textus receptus of Jeremiah. In the light of the Ugaritic parallelism of Èln and urbt in the pertinent verses of the Baal epic, both Ginsberg6 and Singer7 in the same year suggested independently8 to emend the Hebrew text of ‫ בארמנותינו‬to ‫בארֻבותינו‬, “throught our lattices,” thus adding to the thematic parallelism of both texts an exact philological correspondence: Ugar. Èln–urbt = Heb. ‫חלון–ארובה‬. This emendation, however, was called into question by Loewenstamm9 who, in his defense of the Masoretic text, refuted Ginsberg’s argument which was based on assumed Septuagintal evidence, and pointed out that Singer misunderstood the basic meaning of ‫ארמון‬, which in Biblical Hebrew is parallel to such words as ,‫ חומה‬,‫חיל‬ ‫ בחן‬,‫ עופל‬,‫ מבצר‬,‫ קריה נשגבה‬,‫קרית עוז‬, and thus is not to be translated as “palaces” but rather “fortresses.”10 He concluded that the windows mentioned in this verse were those of the fortress through which Mot makes his “death-like” entrance. He further drew attention to Joel 2: 9, where the destroyer, in this case locusts, also enters through the windows of the house, and that very verse in Joel employs the same two verbs found in Jeremiah, ‫ עלה‬and ‫בא‬. All these scholars were working on the assumption that there was a direct connection between the Ugaritic and Biblical texts—a premise which can no longer be maintained for the following two reasons: (1) there is no indication whatsoever that Baal in this part of the epic is engaged in a battle with Mot. On the contrary, his enemy here is obviously Yamm,11 and the windows are installed only after he defeats the sea monster;12 (2) there is no indication in any of the extant Ugaritic material that Mot actually does enter via windows. So we are led to examine the verse in Jeremiah afresh. That demons

Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/1 (Jerusalem, 1967), 181–182; M. J. Mulder, Kanaänitische Goden in het Oude Testament (The Hague, 1965), 65–70. 6 Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Texts.” 7 Singer, “Gleanings.” 8 Ibid., n. 32a. 9 Loewenstamm, “Do not read,” and later in his entry ‫ מות‬in Encyclopedia Biblica, IV (Jerusalem, 1962), 155 (Hebrew). See also S. Talmon, “On the Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Ugaritic Parallels,” Eretz-Israel, XIV (H. L. Ginsberg Volume) (Jerusalem, 1978), 117–134 (Hebrew). 10 Cf. also Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Texts,” 114 n. 9, and the entry ‫ ארמון‬in Encyclopedia Biblica, I (Jerusalem, 1955), 583 (Hebrew). 11 Cf. idem, in ANET, 134; and Gaster, Thespis, 188–189. 12 KTU 2 1.4.VII:25–27.

cuneiform light on jer. 9:20

25

are known to attack in a manner similar to the way described in Jeremiah can now be substantiated from another source. In Mesopotamian literature there is a series of texts13 devoted to the exorcising of the feared Lamaàtu,14 a demon who usually preys upon infants15 and pregnant women16 and afflicts them with terrible sickness and pain. This demon is known to enter the house in many different ways. One favorite means of entrance is ap§nià irrubu ßerr§nià ihallup,17 “She enters through the window, slithers through the cap of the door pivot.”18 Of particular interest is the following text,19 which relates that Lamaàtu ap§nià ihtanallup dår§nis uàtanar, “always slips in through the window, constantly leans over20 the wall.” Now since Akk. dåru has a semantic range similar to Heb. ‫ארמון‬: “city wall/fortification wall/inner city wall/fortress/enclosure of a house”21 (this last meaning, however, is not attested for ‫)ארמון‬, it would be tempting to equate the above text with the verse in Jeremiah, where the exact same sequence of nouns appears: “window–city or house wall.” (However in Jeremiah, it must be admitted, the wall fortification is that of the city and not of a private house, for which, as just mentioned above, the word ‫ ארמון‬is never used.) The Lamaàtu demon, furthermore, does not confine her attacks merely to infants but eãlåti àugguàu uàaggaà ard§ti Éubbulu uÉabbal m§r¿ nuppußu unappaß, “She (Lamaàtu) kills young men, ruins women,

13 See D. W. Myhrman, “Die Labartu-Texte,” ZA 16 (1902), 141–200; K. Frank, Babylonische Beschwörungsreliefs (Leipzig, 1908), 73–87; F. Thureau-Dangin, “Rituel et amulettes contre Labartu,” RA 18 (1921), 161–198; A. Falkenstein, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk (= LKU) (Berlin, 1931), which contains texts 32 and 33; and W. von Soden, “Eine altbabylonische Beschwörung gegen die Dämonin Lamaàtum,” Or 23 (1954), 337–344. 14 This demon’s name, which was first read as Labartu, became the source of a fanciful case of exegesis in Lam 4:10. For the correct reading of Lamaàtu, see Falkenstein, LKU, 6 n. 1. For this demoness, see W. Farber, “Lamaàtu,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, VI (Berlin and New York, 1980–83), 439–446; J. Black and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (London, 1995), 115–116. 15 AHw, 533. 16 Thureau-Dangin, “Rituels et amulettes.” 17 Ibid., 163:rev. 17. 18 See CAD, &, 134 (ßerr§nià); cf. ibid., 137 (ßerru). See also von Soden, “Eine altbabylonische Beschwörung,” 341–342. For ap§nià, see CAD, A/II, 166. 19 Falkenstein, LKU, 32:13. The exact reference is line 13, which is correctly cited in CAD, D, 190 (dår§nià), but incorrectly cited in CAD, ›, 35 (Éal§pu) as line 14. 20 The Akkadian verb is àurru. See CAD, ’/III, 357. 21 CAD, D, 192ff. (dåru).

26


and smites children.”22 This also reminds one of Mot, who is said to do the same in Jeremiah: ‫להכרית עולל מחוץ בחורים מרחבות‬, “cutting off the babes23 from the streets, the young men from the squares.”24 In short, this note is meant to call attention to the following items: (1) The currently well-accepted theory that Ugaritic Mot attacks through windows and thus is to be related to the verse in Jeremiah is unfounded; (2) The proposed textual emendation of ‫ בארֻבותינו‬for ‫בארמנותינו‬, drawn from the above Ugaritic analogy, is thus incorrect; (3) Mot, personified here as a demon, may be compared to the Mesopotamian Lamaàtu demon, in that both attack human beings by entering through the windows25 and climbing over the walls.26 22 Falkenstein, LKU 33:24–26. All the above-cited texts are from NB times and hence somewhat contemporaneous with the time of Jeremiah. 23 Note that both Mot and Lamaàtu specialize in attacking infants and youth. Cf. also von Soden, “Eine altbabylonische Beschwörung,” 338:8 (an OB text): iÉallup ßerram idâk ßeÉram, “She has slipped in through the door pivot; she is killing the young.” The Hebrew pair of nouns, ‫עולל–בחורים‬, is found only one other time in the Bible, in Jer 6:11. 24 If, nevertheless, one is still inclined to resort to emendation, a far simpler resolution of the text would be to read ‫ח)י(לינו‬, “our walls,” for ‫( חלונינו‬cf. Loewenstamm, “Do not read,” 17), since ‫ארמון‬-‫ חיל‬is a characteristic set of pair words in Biblical Hebrew (cf. Ps 48:14; 122:7). 25 For another example of an incantation against entering through the various windows of the house, see G. Meier, “Kommentare aus dem Archiv der Tempelschule in Assur,” AfO 12 (1937–39), 24:3–10. Prof. Gaster kindly drew my attention to this text. For later references in Rabbinic and Classical literature, see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãah, III: Order Mo‘ed (New York, 1962), 82–83, notes on t. ’ab. 6:4, lines 10, 12. 26 The above analysis has now found general acceptance in scholarly works and commentaries. See, e.g., M. Smith, “Death in Jeremiah IX, 20,” UF 19 (1987), 289–293; W. McKane, Jeremiah, I, ICC (Edinburgh, 1986), 210–211; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, AB 21A (New York, 1999), 566; Healey, in Dictionary of Deities, 602.

exod. 21:10: a threefold maintenance clause

27

EXOD. 21:10: A THREEFOLD MAINTENANCE CLAUSE Exod 21:7–11 pertains to a father’s selling his daughter1 and the obligations of the purchaser. The actual purpose of such a transaction, according to this law, is to provide the girl with a husband, for the purchaser is either to marry her himself or give her in marriage to one of his sons. The stipulations of the law state that “if she proves displeasing2 to her master who has designated her for himself,3 he must let her be redeemed. He shall not have the right4 to sell her to outsiders,5 since he broke faith with her” (v. 8).6 If she is designated

1 The daughter is sold as an ‫אָמה‬. ָ For the alleged juridical status of this term as contrasted to a ‫שפחה‬, see A. Jepsen, “Amah und Schipchah,” VT 8 (1958), 293–297, 427. Jepsen does state, however, that these terms can no longer be used to indicate different source documents. C. Cohen (“Studies in Extra-Biblical Hebrew Inscriptions I. The Semantic Range and Usage of the Terms ‫ אמה‬and ‫שפחה‬,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 5–6 [1983], XXV–LIII), on the other hand, has shown that these two terms “are true synonyms. There is no difference of meaning or social rank between them whatsoever” (p. XXXIII). 2 ‫ ;רעה בעיני‬cf. Gen 28:8. 3 ‫לו )קרי( יְ ָע ָדהּ‬. The word ‫ יעד‬is probably the technical term designating this type of marriage. There appears to be a close semantic relationship between this verb and Akk. uddû, “to designate, appoint, assign” (D-stem of idû), in the marriage law of MAL A 43:21: m§ru àa aààata uddiuniààunni, “the son to whom he has assigned the wife” (cf. 1.28). Further examples may be found in CAD, I/J, 32. For three different interpretations of the verb ‫ יעד‬as reflected in the versions: “betrothal” (LXX, Vulgate), “marriage” (Peshitta), “designation/promise” (Tg. Onq., Tg. Jon.), see B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, I (New York, 1966), 329 n. 288. A complete discussion of the Rabbinic exegesis of this law is found on pp. 328–335. In the Bible, ‫ארשׂ‬ is the verb used with a free woman (e.g., Exod 22:15; Deut 22:23, 25, 27–28) and ‫ חרף‬with a slave (Lev 19:20). 4 ‫ לא ימשל‬in this context means “not to have the right”; cf. Saadya Gaon’s translation in M. Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Torah (New York, 1959), 336 (Hebrew). The legal function of ‫ משל‬here is similar to that of its semantic equivalent ‫ שלט‬in the Aramaic papyri. See A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923), No. 10:16–17, ‫אנת שליט למלקח‬, “You have the right to purchase.” For the NB model of the Aramaic ‫לא ישלט‬, Akk. ul iàallaã, see Y. Muffs, Studies in Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientes Antiqui Pertinentia 8 (Leiden, 1968), 134. For Akk. àal§ãu, see CAD, ’/I, 238–240. 5 ‫ עם נכרי‬includes anyone who is not a member of that nuclear family; cf. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem, 1951), 187 (Hebrew). For the meaning of ‫עם‬, see E. A. Speiser, “ ‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel,” JBL 79 (1960), 157–163. For a slightly different interpretation, cf. A. Cody, “When is the Chosen

28


for his son, she is then to be treated like any other free maiden (v. 9).7 Should the master subsequently take another wife,8 he must continue People Called a Gôy?” VT 14 (1964), 1–6. For ‫נכרי‬, “outside the family,” cf. Gen 31: 15, Ps. 69:9, and Eccles 6:2. 6 Heb. ‫ בגד‬in legal terminology is the interdialectal functional equivalent of Akk. nabalkutu, “to break an agreement.” See CAD, N/I, 13. For Akk. mannummê àa ibbalakktu, “whoever breaks the agreement,” see P. Koschaker, Neue keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der el-Amarna Zeit (= NKRA), Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Abhandlungen phil.-hist. Klasse 39/5 (Leipzig, 1928), 11 n. 4; and Speiser, “New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws,” AASOR 10 (1930), 8. For the legal overtones of ‫בגד‬, “to break a relation/agreement with someone,” cf. Judg 9:23, Mal 2:10–11, 14–15, and the manifold references in the Bible where the verb is employed to symbolize Israel’s breaking its covenant agreement with God, e.g., Hos 6:7. Cf. P. A. H. de Boer, “Some Remarks on Exodus XXI:7–11,” Orientalia Neerlandica (Leiden, 1948), 165; and A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, IV (Leipzig, 1928–29), 265. 7 Heb. ‫ כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה‬is a technical phrase meaning “to treat as a free(-born) woman.” A possible cuneiform legal analogue first appears in a Sumerian di.til.la document from Ur III: A. Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Abhandlungen N.F. 40 (Munich, 1956), Texts 74:5 and 178:15: dumu.uru.gim.in.dí[m]-*m[¬],” sie zu einem Sohne der Stadt gemacht hat.” According to Falkenstein (p. 123), this phrase grants full rights of a citizen to the individual. Cf. also E. Szlechter, “L’affranchisement en droit suméro-akkadien,” AHDO-RIDA 1 (1952), 84; G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, I (Oxford, 1952), 225; and P. Koschaker, Über einige griechische Rechtsurkunden aus den östlichen Randgebieten des Hellenismus, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlungen phil.-hist. Klasse 42 (Leipzig, 1931), 71 n. 3. It is found in Nuzi: E. Speiser, “One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts,” AASOR 16 (1936), No. 42:21–22, together with an explicative clause: kî m§rat ArappÉi ippuààaài ana amti la utarrài, “She shall treat her as a daughter of Arappha; she shall not return her to (the status of) a slave girl.” Speiser states in “Nuzi Marginalia,” Or 25 (1956), 14, that this is “an officially recognized and legally protected designation.” Cf. P. Koschaker, “Fratriarchat in Keilschrifttexten,” ZA 41 (1933), 16. Finally, it reappears in an Assyrian document published by M. David and E. Ebeling, “Assyrische Rechtsurkunden,” ZVRW 44 (1929), No. 5, in which a woman is adopted of her own free will. The adopting father agrees that “he will not ill-treat [her] (Akk. la ulammanài) nor rape [her] (Akk. la umazzi[si]); he must treat her as his own daughter, an Assyrian” (Akk. kî martiàu AààuraÊae uppaussi). Akk. ki(ma) X ep¿àu is the customary way of expressing “to treat a person”; cf. CAD, E, 196–197; 232, 2´d, especially the first example). This idiom is found again in Exod 21:31. Ehrlich (Randglossen, I, 349) already noted the specific nuance of Heb. ‫בנות‬, “free maidens,” in this context. Note also the remarks of Abraham ibn Ezra and S. D. Luzzatto in their respective commentaries, ad loc. 8 The interdialectal semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫אחרת‬, “another wife,” is found in MAL A, 46:99, urkittu. For the meaning of Akk. urkittu, “a second/subsequent wife,” taken while the first one is yet alive, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 232–233; and A. van Praag, Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien, Archaeologisch-historische Bijdragen, Allard Peirson Stichting 12 (Amsterdam, 1945), 93. Cf. also Sum. dam.egir.ra in LI 28.


29

to support the girl, his first wife, with three basic necessities (v. 10). If he does not fulfill this obligation of support, she is freed and need not make any payment to obtain her release (v. 11). This pericope has been interpreted as the Biblical counterpart to a type of marriage contract well known from Nuzi—the ãuppi m§rtåti u kallåti/kall§tåti, “document of daughtership and daughter-inlawship,”9 a legal institution which has been studied by Koschaker10 and Mendelsohn.11 The usual stipulations of such a contract allow the purchaser, upon adopting the girl, to marry her himself or give her in marriage to one of his sons or slaves. The girl remains under the jurisdiction of her adopter or her designated husband(s) for life12 unless the agreement is broken and a settlement is made.13 Thus, both the law in Exodus and the Nuzi documents have the following in common: they both deal with the sale of a young girl by her father to a purchaser, who must insure her with a marital status. This paper is concerned with the specific maintenance clause found in v. 10 of the law of Exodus and is not dependent upon the acceptance or rejection of the above hypothesis, i.e., that the Exodus law is a reflex—albeit a very modified one—of the Nuzi ãuppi m§rtåti u kallåti/kall§tåti documents. Verse 10 states: “If he marries another, he will not withhold from this (his first wife) ‫ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫סוּתהּ וְ עֹנ‬ ָ ‫שׁ ֵא ָרהּ ְכּ‬.” ְ This verse makes two specific points: first, the husband must continue to

9 I. Mendelsohn, “The Conditional Sale into Slavery of Free Born Daughters in Nuzi and the Law of Ex. 21:7–11,” JAOS 55 (1935), 190–195; idem, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (New York, 1949), 12ff. Cf. also E. Neufeld’s study of these documents in Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (London, 1944), 68–76. For studies on cuneiform marriage law, see van Praag, Droit matrimonial, esp. pp. 80–84; R. Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, AfO Beiheft 23 (Horn, Austria, 1988); M. T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 7th–3rd Centuries B.C., AOAT 222 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1989). 10 Koschaker, NKRA, 82–91; idem, “Fratriarchat,” 13–28. According to Koschaker (ibid., 20–22), just as m§rtåtu is significant of the jurisdiction involved, so kall§tåtu reflects the purpose of the relationship. For another interpretation, cf. H. Lewy, “Gleanings from a New Volume of Nuzi Texts,” Or 10 (1941), 216 n. 2. Cf. also the discussion of these documents in C. Gordon, “The Status of Women Reflected in the Nuzi Tablets,” ZA 43 (1936), 146–169, esp. pp. 150–153; Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 161–167; and A. Saarisalo, “New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Slaves,” Studia Orientalia 5/3 (1934), 74–76. 11 See above, n. 9. 12 Speiser, “One Hundred Nuzi Texts,” No. 23:12–13: àumma 10 aw¿låti mussaàu imtåt u 11 aw¿la ana aààåti inandin, “If ten of her husbands should die, she may be given as wife to the eleventh.” Cf. Nos. 30, 33, 42. 13 Ibid., Nos. 23, 30.

30


support his rejected wife, and second, this basic support consists of three items. Although it appeared that a direct parallel to the former point was to be found in LI 28, which, according to the translations of both Steele14 and Kramer,15 pertained to a situation similar to the one described in Exodus, the new Sumerian text of this law published by Civil16 shows that the law is not dealing with a rejected wife per se, but rather with one who has lost her attractiveness or who has been stricken with a type of disease: “If a man’s first-ranking wife loses her attractiveness or becomes a paralytic, she will not be evicted from the house. However, her husband may marry a healthy wife (var. ‘a second wife’), and the second wife shall support the first-ranking wife (var. ‘He shall support the second wife and the first-ranking wife’).” A similar set of circumstances is found in LH 148, where a man marries a second wife after his first wife becomes sick with a disease called la’bu. He, too, is not permitted to divorce her, but must continue to support her for the rest of her life (adi balãat ittanaààÊài).17 Hence, all three collections of laws—LI, LH, and Exodus—obligate the husband to continue to provide for the maintenance of his first wife, who is subsequently bypassed in favor of another—in LI and LH the reason is because of illness; in Exodus it is left unstated. The basic items required for the minimal support of a woman are found in LI 27, the law directly preceding the one discussed above: “If a man’s wife does not bear him a child, but a harlot from the public square does bear him a child, he shall provide grain, oil, and clothing for the harlot.”18 The provision here is for three commodities, the same number as found in the law of Exodus. This triad of barley or food rations, Sum. àe.ba, Akk. eprum; oil, Sum. ì.ba/ì.già, Akk. piààatum; and clothing, Sum. túg.ba / síg.ba, Akk. lubuà/ltum, which constitutes the basic maintenance allotment in LI 27, is quite common throughout Mesopotamian legal texts.19 In fact, as the following

14

F. R. Steele, “Lipit-Ishtar Law Code,” AJA 52 (1948), 425–450. S. N. Kramer, “Lipit-Ishtar Law Code,” ANET, 60. 16 M. Civil, “New Sumerian Law Fragments,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, AS 16 (Chicago, 1965), 2–3. For this translation, see M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, 1995), 31–32, 35 nn. 7, 8. 17 For an example of the praxis of this law, see Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, Text 6 and pp. 9ff. 18 Roth, Law Collections, 31. 19 See the important study by I. J. Gelb, “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration 15


31

sampling of documents stemming from different periods shows, this threefold provision became stereotypic. 1. For the upkeep of a wife of a freeman by a slave: Ur III, Falkenstein Text 8:20 “As long as she lives, Lubaba (the slave) is obliged to give her VI àe gur.lugala X ma.na síg.gi VI sìla ì.già, “6 kors of royal barley, 10 minas of gi wool, and 6 silas of olive oil.” 2. For the upkeep of a wet-nurse: (a) ana ittiàu 3, III:47–50: (47) um.me.gá.lá.a.ni.àè ana muà¿niqtiàu (48) mu.III.kam àe.ba.ìa.ba 3 àan§te epra piààatam (49) síg.ba túg.ba.bi lubuàta (50) in.na.ni.íb.kala(g) udannin “He maintained (lit., ‘strengthened’) his wet-nurse three years with food, oil, and clothing.”21 (b) LE 32: àumma awÊlum m§raàu ana àånuqim ana tarbÊtim iddinma epram piààatam lubuàtam àalaà àan§tim la iddin 10 àiqil kaspam tarbÊt m§riàu iàaqqlama m§raàu itarru, “If a man gives his child for suckling and for rearing, but does not furnish the food, oil, and clothing rations (to the caretaker) for three years, he shall weigh and deliver 10 shekels for the cost of the rearing of his child, and he shall take back his son.”22 3. For the upkeep of a priestess: LH 178 is concerned with the devolution of the property of priestesses and pertains to a woman who is not permitted to dispose of a àeriktum, a “grant,” given to her by her father during his lifetime. Upon her father’s death, it is taken by her brothers, who

System,” JNES 24 (1965), 240–243, which documents the distribution of these commodities in the early Mesopotamian ration system. 20 Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, Text 8:4–10, p. 10. 21 B. Landsberger, Materialien zum sumerischen Lexicon, I: Die Serie ana ittiàu (Rome, 1937), 45. 22 Roth, Law Collections, 64. See A. Goetze, The Laws of Eshnunna (New Haven, 1956), 92, for further references. Cf. also LE 9.

32

4.

5.

6.

7.

the bible and the ancient near east administer it and who, in turn, must supply her with kÊma emåq zittiàa ipram piààatam u lubuàam, “food, oil, and clothing allowances in accordance with the value of her inheritance share.”23 For the upkeep of a sister: In an OB document from the time of Rim-Sin, four brothers obligate themselves to provide a specific amount of barley, oil, and clothing annually for their sister. The brother who fails to provide this threefold maintenance quota forfeits his inheritance.24 For the upkeep of parents by real or adopted children: OB documents from the first dynasty of Babylon,25 from the time of Samsuiluna,26 from Larsa,27 and one from NB times28 make the provision of different amounts of barley, oil, and clothing obligatory upon the children. For the upkeep of a deserted wife: MAL A 36:86 deals with the legal consequences if a husband has not left his wife la àamna la àap§te la lubulta la ukullâ, “any oil, wool, clothing, or provisions.”29 For the upkeep of a slave: A NB document from the time of Nabonidus pertains to a slave who fled from one owner to another who provided him with epru piààatu u lubuàtu.30

In sum, the basic necessities of life were epitomized in Mesopotamian legal texts by a formulaic triad of commodities.31 This, then, has a 23 Roth, Law Collections, 117; Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, I, 374. For the actual praxis of this law, see R. Harris, “The nadÊtu Laws of the Code of Hammurapi in Praxis,” Or 50 (1961), 163–169. 24 E. Chiera, Old Babylonian Contracts, University Museum Publication of the Babylonian Section 8/2 (Philadelphia, 1922), Text 116:8–9, 11, pp. 123–124. 25 A. Poebel, Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts 6/2 (Philadelphia, 1909), Text 28, pp. 29–31, and Text 48, pp. 35–38. 26 Chiera, Old Babylonian Contracts, Text 153:19–20, pp. 131–132. 27 C. F. Jean, “Nouveaux contrats de Larsa,” RA 26 (1929), 104–107. 28 F. E. Peiser, “Aus Rom,” OLZ 7 (1904), 39. 29 For text and discussion, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, ad loc.; Roth, Law Collections, 165. 30 F. E. Peiser, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, IV: Texte juristischen und geschäftlichen Inhalts (Berlin, 1896), 244–247, No. 44:7, 11. For further references, see CAD, I/J, 167–168. 31 For the mention of oil as one of the requirements stipulated in Egyptian wedding contracts, see E. Lüddeckens, Ägyptische Eheverträge (Wiesbaden, 1960), 261–262.


33

direct bearing upon Exod 21:10. There, too, a threefold obligation of support is placed upon the husband. The first two items, ‫שׁ ֵא ָרהּ‬, ְ ָ ‫כּ‬, ְ “her clothing,” are the interdialectal “her meat/food,”32 and ‫סוּתהּ‬ semantic equivalents of Sum. à e.ba and síg.ba, Akk. eprum and lubuàtum. (The Akkadian etymological cognate of the first item in the Biblical triad, àÊru, is also found as part of a list of basic provisions in OB33 and NA34 documents.) The third item, ‫ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫עֹנ‬, however, is much more difficult to interpret. This hapax legomenon has been a crux throughout the centuries, and several different interpretations have been offered to explain it. The commonly accepted meaning of the word found in most commentaries and dictionaries is “her conjugal rights.”35 Another interpretation, “her dwelling,” connected with ‫מעוֹן‬, ָ is adopted by a few commentators.36 However, in the light of the extra-Biblical evidence adduced above, it is here suggested that ‫ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫ עֹנ‬is none other than the functional equivalent of the third item in the traditional cuneiform formula, Sum. ì.ba, Akk. piààatum. Whatever its ultimate etymological derivation, ‫ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫ עֹנ‬appears to be an otherwise unknown equivalent for “oil, ointments.”37

32

Cf. Mic 3:2 and Ps 78:20. M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts (Leipzig, 1913), Nos. 19:35, 65:15, 125:12, 223:7, etc. For the formulaic triad of commodities, see, in addition, Nos. 19:33–34, 78:7, 242:6, etc. 34 B. Parker, “Economic Tablets from the Temple of Mamu at Balawat,” Iraq 25 (1963), 86–100. The word appears in several documents involving debts with security as one of the provisions that must be paid for by the creditor. (I owe this reference to my friend and colleague, Y. Muffs.) 35 See Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. J. Z. Lauterbach (Philadelphia, 1949), 27–29; b. Ketub. 47b–48a (where several of the rabbis still contend that the word should be interpreted differently), the commentaries of Saadiah, Rashi, A. ibn Ezra, Ramban, Abarbanel, Ehrlich, Dillmann, Holzinger, Baentsch, McNeil, Driver, Heinisch, Beer, Keil-Delitzsch, Noth, and the dictionaries of Brown-Driver-Briggs and Koehler-Baumgartner. The word ‫ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫ עֹנ‬is understood to mean “her time,” and is then interpreted euphemistically. 36 Abraham ibn Ezra (but immediately rejected), Rashbam, and Cassuto. 37 The writer was happy to note that shortly after he reached this conclusion there appeared an article by E. Oren, “Concerning ‫שארה כסותה וענתה‬,” Tarbií 32 (1963), 317 (Hebrew), in which a similar identification of the word was made by citing LI alone, without any further indication of the Mesopotamian documentation at hand. However, on the basis of lectio difficilor, it seems preferable not to emend the text as Oren is led to do (Heb. ‫ענְ גָּהּ‬, ָ “ointments [?]”) comparing t. Ter. 9, 14. N. H. TurSinai (“‫שארה כסותה וענתה‬,” The Language and the Book, II [Jerusalem, 1950], 215–218 [Hebrew]; and P eshuto shel Miqra, I [Jerusalem, 1962], 114–115), after thoroughly discussing the problem, is led to emend the text to read ‫ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫ ֻעגּ‬, “her cake(s).” 33

34


The importance of oils for the protection of the skin against the hot sun is well known throughout the ancient Near East. “They formed part of the general hygiene of the ancient Egyptians who bathed very frequently and followed this up by rubbing the body with oils and creams. The oils kept the skin supple…. Therefore ointments and aromatic oils were a necessity of life for all classes of society.”38 In the light of the overall importance of oil and ointments in hygienic, ritualistic,39 and legal practices,40 it is no wonder that this important commodity would become part and parcel of any basic maintenance allotment. Conjugal rights, on the other hand, are nowhere mentioned in the documents from the ancient Near East as an integral requirement for marital support. It is hardly likely, moreover, that a husband would be obligated to fulfill such a demand on behalf of a rejected wife.41 The specific order of the three items in Exodus—food, clothing, and oil—is also found in several OB42 and Elamite documents.43 In the latter, the interdialectal semantic equivalent for oil is kupurtum; e.g., in one contract, provision is made for 14 àiqi[l kaspi ana] eprim u lubåàim u kupurtim, “14 shekels of silver for food, clothing, and ointment.”44 The same sequence of commodities, moreover, is found in a Biblical passage where its specific legal aspect may still be noted. In Hos 2:7, adulterous Israel claims to follow her lovers who supply her with her fundamental needs: “my bread and water, my wool and flax [i.e., clothing], my oil and drink.” Since she does not realize that it was God who had provided her all the time with this basic support (v. 10), He

38

R. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, III (Leiden, 1965), 2–3. Ibid., 3ff. 40 E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im alten Testament und im alten Orient (Berlin, 1963). On p. 1 he discusses the general importance of oil in the ancient Near East. For the use of oil in a marriage ceremony, see MAL A, 42–43 and n. 31 above. 41 Hence, this is not comparable to the clause in the Aramaic documents, E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Documents (New Haven, 1955), 206:38–40, where, according to the interpretation of H. L. Ginsberg (“The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Documents,” JAOS 74 [1954], 159), denial of conjugal rights by either spouse is considered an act of repudiation. The Biblical passage pertains not to an act of repudiation but to the question of support. 42 Chiera, Old Babylonian Contracts, Text 153:19–20; Poebel, Babylonian Legal and Business Documents, Texts 48:31 and 28. 43 V. Scheil, Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Perse, XXIV: Mission en Susiane. Actes juridiques susiens (Paris, 1933), 332:17–18, 333:13–15. Cf. p. 10 n. 18. 44 Ibid., 333: r. 16. Text 332: r. 18, àe.ba [t]úg.níg.lám u qupurtam. 39


35

shall proceed to deprive her of her regular maintenance allotment (v. 11).45 Finally, Eccles 9:7–8, in the delightful passage where he advises one to enjoy his life to the utmost, highlights, among other things, these very three items in the same identical order: “Up, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a glad heart…. At all times let your clothes be sparkling clean, and oil on your head not be lacking. Enjoy life with the woman you love.”46 45 Cf. also Ezek 16:18–19. For the use of oil in other non-ritualistic passages, see 2 Sam 12:20; Isa 61:3; Ps 23:5, 45:8; Ruth 3:3; 2 Chron 28:15. In an oral communication, Prof. H. L. Ginsberg has ingeniously suggested the following possible reconstruction of the difficult verse in Hos 14:9: “What need has Ephraim anymore of idols? I am his oil and his food; I am his raiment for his body. From Me his needs are forthcoming”—reading: ‫ לוֹ‬,‫ עֹנָתוֹ‬,‫ ְשׁ ֵארוֹ‬,‫ לבושו לעורו‬,‫צ ְרכּוֹ‬, ָ respectively. 46 For similar sentiments in Egyptian literature, cf. J. A. Wilson, “The Instruction of the Vizier Ptah-Hotep,” ANET, 413: “If thou art a man of standing, thou shouldst found thy household, and love thy wife at home as is fitting. Fill her belly; clothe her back. Ointment is the prescription for her body.” (Cf. also “A Song of the Harper,” ANET, 467, l. 10.) In Mesopotamian literature, cf. E. A. Speiser, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” ANET, 90, ll. 6–14: “Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly. Make thou merry by day and by night…. Let thy garments be sparkling fresh; thy head be washed; bathe thou in water…. Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom…”; and the myth of Adapa, who was offered by Anu the food and water of life (which he mistakenly refused), a garment, and oil. See S. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind (Winona Lake, IN, 2001), 21:61´–65´.

36


sargon’s administrative diction in 2 kings 17:27

37

SARGON’S ADMINISTRATIVE DICTION IN 2 KINGS 17:27 The account of the Assyrian importation of foreigners and the subsequent resettlement of the district of Samaria following the deportation of the native citizens is found in 2 Kgs 17:24ff. The Biblical record relates that the new settlers did not fear the Lord and were consequently attacked by lions. The king of Assyria (Sargon) was informed that this calamity had occurred since the newcomers (v. 26): ‫לא ידעו‬ ‫ אינם ידעים את משפט אלהי הארץ‬...‫“( את משפט אלהי הארץ‬They do not know the rites of the God of the land”). He thereupon issued the following orders (v. 27): “Send there some/one1 of the priests whom you deported from there and let them go and settle there in order to teach them [the inhabitants] the rites of the God of the land (‫וְ י ֵֹרם‬ ‫)את משפט אלהי הארץ‬.” Accordingly, one of the priests was sent off to Bethel (v. 28) and duly instructed the inhabitants “how they should worship the Lord” ('‫)ויהיה מורה אתם איך ייראו את ה‬. That such a normalization of the internal religious (and political) affairs in key cities was characteristic of Sargon’s general administrative policy can be attested from another document, an Assyrian cylinder inscription commemorating the founding of the new capital at Dår’arrukÊn (= Khorsabad) by Sargon. This royal city became for one short period a melting pot for the various deportees from the rest of the king’s vast empire. In his attempt to Assyrianize the people, Sargon relates the following information:2 m§r¿ Aààur mudûte ini kalama ana àåÉuz ßibitte pal§É ili u àarri aklÊ u à§pirÊ uma’iràunåti, “I commissioned natives of Assyria, masters of every craft, as overseers and commanders, to teach them (the inhabitants of Dår-’arrukÊn) correct instruction3 in serving the god and king.”

1 The confusion of both singular (‫אחד מהכהנים‬, “one of the priests,” and ‫ֹרם‬ ֵ ‫וְ י‬, “and he shall teach them”) and plural (‫וילכו וישבו‬, “and they went and settled”) elements in this sentence is resolved in the versions and commentaries by leveling the pertinent words to either the singular or the plural; cf. J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh, 1951); and J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia, 1963), ad loc. 2 D .G. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s (Leipzig, 1883), 12:74 and 18:95–97. 3 For Akk. ßibittu (“correct behavior”), see CAD, &, 157. &ibittu is derived from

38


The Assyrian expression: ana àåÉuz ßibitte pal§É ili, is none other than the cuneiform cognate equivalent of the Biblical phrase, ‫וְ י ֵֹרם את משפט‬ ‫אלהי הארץ‬, and the priest in the Biblical account teaches them (v. 28), '‫איך ייראו את ה‬, pal§É ili. Hence, in both documents the Assyrian king issues almost exactly the same instruction commissioning authoritative personnel to go and teach the new settlers of two key cities—Dår’arrukÊn and Samaria—the correct cult of the native gods, thereby effecting a religious homogenization of the disparate elements of the populace.4 This almost verbatim reproduction in 2 Kings of a characteristic expression of Sargon’s policy is further evidence of the impact of Sargon and his career on contemporary biblical writers.5 ßab§tu (“to seize”), just as iÉzu (“knowledge, instruction”) is derived from aÉ§zu (“to seize”). Cf. åsam… uàaßbitu (LH xxivb:6–8) and åsim àåÉuzim (LH v:17–18), both meaning “to teach proper conduct.” It is therefore suggested to translate it as “(correct) instruction/teaching.” See AHw, 1438. 4 After this note was written I was pleased to learn that H. Tadmor had already connected these very two texts in his article, “Temple City and Royal City in Babylonia and Assyria,” ‫( העיר והקהלה‬Jerusalem, 1968), 200–201 (Hebrew). See now M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (New York, 1988), 210, who have accepted this suggestion. For the various attempts to identify the Assyrian king mentioned in the Biblical passage, see M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBL Monograph Series 19 (Missoula, 1974), 101 n. 23; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 209, note to v. 24. 5 Cf. H. L. Ginsberg, “Isaiah in the Light of History,” Conservative Judaism 22 (1967), 9–17.

formulaic patterns of law in israel and mesopotamia

39

FORMULAIC PATTERNS OF LAW IN ISRAEL AND MESOPOTAMIA Gunkel’s significant study on Gattungen, which established a close connection between the content and form of each literary genre, and on the Sitz im Leben of these genres, contributed greatly to our understanding of Biblical literature. The last literary genre to be subjected to such a form-based analysis was that of legal texts. Jirku1 and Jepsen2 first analyzed this literary genre in 1927 in independent studies.3 Jepsen identified four sources for “The Book of the Covenant,” which he designated as follows: (1) Hebrew Laws; (2) Israelite Laws; (3) Religious and Moral Prohibitions; and (4) Cultic Matters. Jirku concentrated in particular on the formal structure of Biblical laws and, based on comparative studies of the formulaic patterns of Mesopotamian laws that were already known in his day—the collection of Sumerian laws, the laws of Hammurapi, the Middle Assyrian laws, and the Hittite laws—claimed that “it is an undeniable fact, which can be concluded from the comparative research of law, that the legal collections were always composed in one and a single style.”4 He thereby concluded that the heterogeneous mixture of formulaic patterns in all the legal collections of the Pentateuch served as irrefutable proof of secondary editing,5 for “if Moses really did bequeath law to his people, he definitely would have composed and publicized it in a homogenous style.”6 In accordance with this basic assumption, which he called “the iron rule,”7 he divided Biblical legislation into ten independent compilations based on ten formulaic patterns found in the Pentateuch. The ten opening formulae are as follows: 1. ‫ כי‬+ a verb in the third person: ‫וכי יגח שור את איש‬, “When an ox gores a man” (Exod 21:28); 1

A. Jirku, Das weltliche Recht im alten Testament (Gütersloh, 1927). A. Jepsen, Untersuchungen zum Bundesbuch (Stuttgart, 1927). 3 In the same year, S. Mowinckel published a study of the Sitz im Leben of the Ten Commandments in his book, Le Décalogue (Paris, 1927). 4 Jepsen, Untersuchungen, 32. 5 Ibid., 32–33. 6 Ibid., 52. 7 Ibid., 160. 2

40


2. Verb in the second-person singular: ‫ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה‬, “Six days you shall do your work” (Exod 23:12); 3. Subject + a verb in the third person: ‫ואיש אשר ינאף את אשת איש‬, “If a man commits adultery with a married woman” (Lev 20: 10); 4. ‫ארור‬: ‫ארור מסיג גבול ֵר ֵעהוּ‬, “Cursed be he who moves his fellow countryman’s landmark” (Deut 27:17); 5. Verb in the second-person plural: ‫לא תעשו ָעוֶל במשפט‬, “You shall not pervert justice” (Lev 19:15); 6. Jussive, third-person singular: ‫לא יקום ֵעד אחד באיש‬, “A single witness may not give evidence against a person” (Deut 19:15); 7. Participle: ‫ומקלל אביו ואמו‬, “He who reviles his father or his mother” (Exod 21:17); 8. ‫ כי‬+ a verb in the second-person singular: ‫כי תבנה בית חדש‬, “When you build a new house” (Deut 22:8); 9. ‫ כי‬+ a verb in the second-person plural: ‫וכי תבֹאו אל הארץ ונטעתם‬ ‫כל עץ מאכל‬, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food” (Lev 19:23); 10. ‫( כי‬an additional ‫ כי‬formulation): ‫ואיש כי ישכב את אשה שכבת זרע‬, “If a man has carnal relations with a woman” (Lev 19:20). According to Jirku, each formulaic pattern is characteristic of a specific compilation of laws in the Pentateuch; or, in other words, there are ten differently styled compilations of laws in the Pentateuch. In order to evaluate the validity of Jirku’s analysis, one must first examine more closely his basic premise. Are Mesopotamian compilations of laws each actually worded according to a single formulaic pattern? At first glance there would appear to be a formal unity. The majority of the laws are indeed worded according to the conditional casuistic pattern, the protasis of which begins with the word tukumbi in Sumerian,8 àumma in Akkadian,9 and takku in Hittite,10 all meaning “if.” However, a more thorough examination reveals that Jirku’s “iron rule” is not an absolute one. First, a number of examples of laws that

8

A. Poebel, Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik (Rostock, 1923), 423. T. J. Meek, “The Asyndeton Clause in the Code of Hammurabi,” JNES 5 (1946), 64–72; E. A. Speiser, “A Note on the Derivation of àumma,” JCS 1 (1947), 321–328. 10 E. A. Hahn, Language 12 (1936), 108–120; idem, Language 20 (1944), 91–107. 9


41

are not styled as conditional phrases can be cited from compilations of laws that were already known in Jirku’s day:11 1. “The field, orchard, or house of a soldier, fisherman, or a state tenant will not be sold” (LH 36); 2. “A naditu-priestess, merchant, or a holder of a field with special services may sell her or his field, orchard, or house. The buyer shall perform the service of obligation on the field, orchard, or house which he purchases” (LH 40); 3. “A concubine who goes about the main thoroughfare with her mistress is to be veiled” (MAL A 40); 4. “The inhabitants (of certain cities) and he who is a priest in any town…, their houses are exempt and their associates render the luzzi-services” (HL 50). These are admittedly exceptions, but their occurrence (and others as well) indicates an inherent flaw in Jirku’s premise.12 Additional light has been cast on the literary style of laws by the discovery of the laws of Eshnunna.13 Surprisingly enough, in this single compilation no less than five different formulaic patterns can be found:14 1. The formula for laws which determine the price of various commodities or the wages for certain services: “10 silas of grain are 11 For a study of the various types of formulae in Mesopotamian law, see H. Petschow, “Zu den Stilformen antiker Gesetze und Rechtssammlungen,” JSS 82 (1965), 24–38. The Akkadian laws are translated by M. Roth (Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor [Atlanta, 1995]), and the Hittite laws by H. A. Hoffner, Jr. in the same volume). 12 For additional examples, see LH 38, 39, 187; MAL A 41, 47, 57–59, B 6, F 2; HL 48, 50–52, 54–56, 167, 178, 181–186; and all the laws in the neo-Babylonian compilation. For discussions of the five exceptionally formulated laws of Hammurapi, see G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, I (Oxford, 1960), 125; R. A. F. MacKenzie, “The Formal Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (Toronto, 1964; repr. Ann Arbor, MI, 1991), 42; Petschow, “Zur den Stilformen,” 33–34. For the formulation of MAL A 40, see P. Koschaker, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den “alt-assyrischen Gesetzen”, MVAG 26/3 (Leipzig, 1921), 12. 13 See A. Goetze, in ANET, 161–163; idem, The Laws of Eshnunna (New Haven, 1956), R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna (Jerusalem, 1969). 14 Yaron, “Forms in the Laws of Eshnunna,” RIDA (3rd series) 9 (1962), 137–153; idem, Laws of Eshnunna, 59–71. See also Petschow, “Zur den Stilformen,” 36 n. 70.

42

2.

3.

4.

5.

the bible and the ancient near east the hire of a winnower” (LE 8; cf. the formula for wages in HL 178–183, 185A); The usual casuistic formula (àumma awÊlum, “if a man”): “If a man should cut off the finger of another man, he shall weigh and deliver 20 shekels of silver” (LE 43);15 The split protasis formula: “Should a member of the awÊlu-class bring bride payment to the house of his father-in-law—if (either the groom or the bride) then should go to his or her fate—the silver shall revert to its original owner” (LE 17);16 The apodictic formula: “The son of a man who has not yet received his inheritance share, or a slave, will not be advanced credit” (LE 16);17 The awÊlum àa, “A man who…,” formula: “A man who is seized in the house of a commoner, within the house, at midday, shall weigh and deliver 10 shekels of silver. He who is seized at night in the house shall die; he shall not live” (LE 13).18

According to Yaron,19 the Sitz im Leben of these formulae are, respectively: (1) The actual life of the retail market; (2) courts of law; (3) similar to no. 2; (4) commands by the ruler; (5) proclamations addressed to each individual member of the public at large. One can conclude that the casuistic formula, in spite of its frequency and prevalence, was only one of a number of formulaic patterns in use throughout the ancient Near East. As noted by Yaron, the almost completely homogenous style of the laws of Hammurapi is certainly the work of a draftsman who selected one typical formula for practically the entire corpus. The style of the laws of Eshnunna, on the other hand, was not standardized, and the laws thus remained in their original 15

The majority of the laws are formulated according to this formula. Cf. also LE 9. 17 Cf. also LH 36, 38, 39, 40, 187; MAL A 40, F2; HL 48, 50–51, 56. Yaron includes LE 51–52 in this type, but they actually belong to type 5 (awÊlum àa, “a man who…”). 18 Cf. LE 12, 19, 51–52; MAL A 40:42–45, 58–60, 61–62; 41:6–10; 47:7–13; HL 50–52; and all the neo-Babylonian laws. This type is completely absent from LH. It parallels the ‫ איש אשר‬formula, which occurs in laws formulated according to the priestly pattern. Some thus claim that it originated in the cult. A similar formula with only the word àa, “who,” occurs in LE 12, 13; MAL A 40:63–65, 68–76, 89–93; HL (kuià) 185:15, 186. Cf. also Exod 21:13, which begins with ‫ואשר‬. 19 For his discussion of the various types of legal formulations in this collection, see Yaron, Laws of Eshnunna, 59–71. 16


43

form.20 Nevertheless, one must voice reservation regarding Yaron’s conclusion that “there is no reason to assume that any one legislator would wish to express his rules in greatly divergent ways.”21 It is not inconceivable that a given legislator was capable of using a variety of formulaic patterns, since the formula is closely related to the content of the law; in other words, the content itself could determine the manner in which the legislator formulated the law. We may now return to the question of the formulaic patterns in the Pentateuch.22 First, one must mention the classic study by Alt, which followed that of Jirku.23 Alt claimed that the formation of law is not a process of literary creation, but part and parcel of the process of the development of daily life. He considered his primary task to uncover the pre-literary sources within the literary formulae. His analysis of two primary types of formulae—the conditional, casuistic formula and the absolute, apodictic formula—has determined the course of research of Israelite law to this day. In casuistic laws (from Latin casus, “case, occurrence”), the incident precedes the result. The law is introduced by a conditional phrase, ‫כי‬, “if,” the protasis of which describes a certain act or situation and is followed by a verb in the third person. Subsidiary clauses are introduced by the words ‫אם‬, “if,” or ‫או‬, “or” (Exod 21:31, 36). The apodosis then states the punishment: corporal punishment for crimes or a fine for damages. The Hebrew formula parallels the Akkadian àumma awÊlum formula mentioned above. Alt claimed that Israelite casuistic law “vielmehr liegt offen zutage, dass das kasuistisch formulierte Recht im Hexateuch, wo immer ihm seine ursprüngliche Gestalt erhaben geblieben ist, der uns hinreichend bekannten Eigenart israelitischen Denkens und Wollens gegenüber eine völlig neutrale Stellung einnimmt.” It is devoid of any specific Israelite characteristic and pertains to relations between people, not matters of religion or cult.24 This lack of a (national) religious base

20

Ibid., 59–60, 71. Ibid., 59–60. See also J. C. Miles and O. R. Gurney, “The Laws of Eshnunna,” ArOr 17/2 (1949), 176. 22 In the Pentateuch, one must distinguish between numerous formulaic patterns. See S. A. Loewenstamm, “Biblical Law,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, V (Jerusalem, 1968), 625–628 (Hebrew). In the present discussion, we shall limit ourselves to the casuistic and apodictic forms. 23 A. Alt, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts (Leipzig, 1934) = Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I (Munich, 1959), 278–332. 24 Ibid., 291. 21

44


for the law indicated to him that its origin lay outside of Israel. He concluded that its origin was to be located in Canaanite courts of law and that it must have been adopted by Israel some time between the conquest and the formation of the Monarchy.25 The apodictic formula, in the form of an absolute command, was considered by Alt, on the other hand, to be “volksgebunden israelitisch und gottgebunden jahwistisch.”26 The apodictic laws are cardinal and comprehensive, and pertain to the relations between an individual and God or between two individuals. Alt determined that they originated during the wilderness sojourn. The apodictic laws, according to him, were proclaimed by the Levites in the presence of the congregation during the periodic ceremony of the renewing of the covenant that took place every seven years between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim on the holiday of Sukkot. It should be noted that Alt classified three different types of formulae as apodictic: the participial formula: ‫ומקלל‬ ‫אביו ואמו מות יומת‬, “He who reviles his father or mother shall be put to death” (Exod 21:17); the series of curses in Deut 27:15–26; and the absolute commands in the Decalogue, as well as the prohibitions against incest in Leviticus 18. Alt’s conclusions established the general direction of the study of Israelite law27 and have served as a basis for all further research in the field.28 Several objections to his conclusions, however, must be raised. First of all, with respect to casuistic law, the Israelite tribes certainly did not lack legal and judicial institutions in the wilderness or at the time of the conquest. How can one ascertain, then, that casuistic laws were adopted only later? The Israelite tribes could hardly have survived as a 25

Ibid., 299. Ibid., 323. 27 Cf., for example, K. H. Rabast, Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz (Berlin, 1949). 28 For studies on the formulaic patterns of Israelite law, see H. Cazelles, Études sur le code d’alliance (Paris, 1949), 106–116; R. A. F. MacKenzie, “The Forms of Israelite Laws,” doctoral dissertation (Rome, 1949); Rabast, Das apodiktische Recht; H. Schmökel, “Biblische “Du Sollst” Gebote und ihr historischer Ort,” JSS 36 (1950), 365–390; W. Kornfeld, Studien zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Vienna, 1952); H. Gese, “Beobachtungen zum Stil alttestamentliches Rechtssätze,” ThLZ 85 (1960), 147–150; H. G. Reventlow, “Kultisches Recht im Alten Testament,” ZTK 60 (1963), 267–304; G. Fohrer, “Das sogennante apodiktisch formulierte Recht und der Dekalog,” KuD 11 (1965), 49–74; E. Nielsen, Die Zehn Gebote (Copenhagen, 1965), 49–64; Loewenstamm, “Biblical Law”; S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, SVT 18 (Leiden, 1970), 112–124; S. Greengus, “Law in the OT,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville, 1976), 535. 26


45

people until the time of the Monarchy with only apodictic commands or, as Alt would claim, with only prohibitions. Secondly, the casuistic laws in the Bible do not reflect the political, social, or economic reality of the Canaanite cities in the Late Bronze Age. Thirdly, Alt, when dividing the entire Israelite legal corpus into casuistic and apodictic law, should have classified the formula (‫( איש אשר )כי‬a formula which, as discussed above, is attested in ancient Near Eastern legal compilations) as casuistic. Yet it is this very formulaic pattern that is characteristic of the specifically Israelite priestly law. Thus, not all Israelite casuistic law lacks specific Israelite characteristics, as claimed by Alt. On the contrary, there is no evidence in favor of a Canaanite origin of this formulaic pattern. Rather, it is merely one of the many elements in the Pentateuch that Israel adopted from Mesopotamia.29 Casuistic law, so common in the majority of ancient Near Eastern legal compilations, thus left its mark on the earliest Israelite legal compilation as well, the Book of the Covenant. The question of the origin of Israelite apodictic law is much more complicated, and much has been written on the subject. As early as 1937, Mowinckel claimed that the use of this type of law with regard to cultic matters does not prove that it originated in the cult,30 and in 1939 Landsberger, in a brief footnote, stated that the interchange of apodictic and casuistic styles is typical of “der lebendige Predigtstil,”31 but did not provide any evidence to back up his claim. Meek was the first to firmly deny the uniqueness of Israelite apodictic law. Noting the presence of the apodictic form of Middle Assyrian Law §40 and other laws in the ancient near East, he concluded: “Hence those scholars are clearly wrong who say that the apodictic law was unique and original with the Hebrews.”32 Nevertheless, Meek himself committed a fundamental error. There is indeed a type of absolute command in certain ancient Near Eastern laws, but it always phrased in the third person, whereas Israelite apodictic law is often phrased in the second person. Such a type, which parallels Deut 19:15, ‫לא יקום‬ ‫עד אחד באיש‬, is certainly not unique to Israel.33

29 Cf. F. C. Fensham, “The Possibility of the Presence of Casuistic Legal Material at the Making of the Covenant at Sinai,” PEQ 93 (1961), 143–146. 30 “Zur Geschichte der Dekaloge,” ZAW 55 (1937), 220 n. 1. 31 Symbolae Koschaker (Leiden, 1939), 223 n. 19. 32 Hebrew Origins (New York, 1960), 72; ANET, 183 n. 24. 33 See I. Rapaport, “The Origins of Hebrew Law,” PEQ 73 (1941), 158–167;

46


An important advance was made in 1954 by Mendenhall who, in his study of Israelite law, pointed out the use of the second person in treaties between the Hittite kings and their vassals. Compare, e.g., “Take all the captives. Bring them to me.”34 Heinemann35 and Baltzer36 followed Mendenhall and determined that the origin of apodictic law was to be found in the Hittite treaties and contracts. Once again, some comments are in place. First of all, McCarthy noted that geographically the majority of the apodictic texts are found in treaties from Asia Minor; lists of direct commands are very rare in treaties from Syria, the area in the Hittite sphere of influence adjacent to Israel (although, of course, this is not decisive).37 Secondly, virtually all of these direct commands deal with political issues. They admittedly occur repeatedly, but they are not intended to regulate other domains of the life of the people. Such objections led Gerstenberger to take a somewhat different approach.38 He accepted neither the theory of Alt, i.e., that the origin of apodictic law lay in the domain of the cult,39 nor that of the supporters of the covenant theory, i.e., that the origin lay in the domain of treaties. One of Gerstenberger’s main claims was that the treaty formulae do not prohibit offenses in principle, but are limited to the actions of a specific vassal vis-à-vis a specific sovereign. On the other hand, the Israelite laws are “an sich und absolut gültig.” They are not annulled by the death of a given leader. They are timeless, universal, and all-comprehensive. Moreover, the special sanctions against the violation of the commands found in the treaties are absent from the Bible.40 Gerstenberger unequivocally concluded that there is another literary genre much akin to the absolute command, viz., wisdom literature.41 J. J. Stamm, “Dreissig Jahre Dekalogforschung,” ThR 27 (1961), 216; MacKenzie, “Formal Aspects,” 41; E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des “apodiktischen Rechts” (Neukirchen, 1965), 66–70. 34 G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954), 50–76, 126–146 = Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955). 35 G. Heinemann, Untersuchungen zum apodiktischen Recht (Hamburg, 1958). 36 K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular2 (Neukirchen, 1964). 37 D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome, 1963). 38 Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft, 66–70; idem, “Covenant and Commandment,” JBL 84 (1965), 38–51. 39 Idem, Wesen und Herkunft, 64, 90–95; idem, “Covenant and Commandment,” 47–48. 40 Idem, Wesen und Herkunft, 100–105; idem, “Covenant and Commandment,” 46–51. Cf. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 159–160. 41 Idem, Wesen und Herkunft, 117; idem, “Covenant and Commandment,” 49–50.


47

He showed how closely legislation and wisdom literature (e.g., Prov 3:27–30) were related in both form and content, and concluded that the origin of apodictic law was in the “Sippenethos,” the ethos of the family or clan.42 Gerstenberger admitted, however, that this origin could not be proven, since the sole illustration that he was able to adduce was the instructions given to the Rechabites, where the founder of the group, Jonadav son of Rechab, commanded his followers as follows (Jer 35:6–7): ‫ ובית לא תבנו וזרע לא תזרעו וכרם לא‬...‫לא תשתו יין‬ ‫תטעו ולא יהיה לכם כי באהלים תשבו כל ימיכם‬, “You shall not drink wine… Nor shall you build houses or sow fields or plant vineyards, nor shall you own such things; but you shall live in tents all your life.”43 Gerstenberger’s research accords well with that of Elliger regarding the series of prohibitions against incest in Leviticus 18.44 Fohrer, in spite of his reservations regarding Gerstenberger’s findings, concluded that the origins of apodictic law are most likely to be found in a nomadic or semi-nomadic society.45 Let us return to the main subject of this study. Gerstenberger (and others before him)46 noted the similarity between the apodictic formula and wisdom literature. Yet, in spite of the addresses in the second person common to both types of literature, and in spite of the fact that many apodictic commands can be interpreted as moral instructions, wisdom literature cannot be the source of apodictic law. As noted by Cazelles, the formulation of the Book of the Covenant and the Ten Commandments is “impératif et comminatoire,” whereas wisdom literature is merely “exhortation.”47 The former addresses the conscience, is obligatory, and is based on divine command, whereas

Gerstenberger bases his study on J. Fichtner, Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischen Ausprägung, BZAW 62 (Giessen, 1933). 42 Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft, 110–117; idem, “Covenant and Commandment,” 50–51. W. Richter (Recht und Ethos [Munich, 1966], 117) accepted Gerstenberger’s basic supposition, but changed the terminology to Gruppenethos. 43 Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft, 115. 44 K. Elliger, “Die Gesetz Leviticus 18,” ZAW 67 (1955), 1–25 = Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (Munich, 1966), 232–259. 45 Fohrer, “Das sogennante apodiktisch formulierte Recht,” 74. See also A. Jepsen, “Beiträge zur Auslegung und Geschichte des Dekalogs,” ZAW 79 (1967), 302–303. 46 Cf. Cazelles, Études, 112ff.; idem, “Loi Israélite,” Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, V (Paris, 1952–53), 497–530; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 160. 47 Cazelles, Études, 113. Cf. also Kornfeld, Studien, 185–202; R. Kilian, “Apodiktisches und Kasuistiches Recht im Licht Aegyptischer Analogien,” BZ 7 (1963), 59–60.

48


the latter addresses the intellect, counsels, has a utilitarian interest, and is based on reflection and experience.48 Finally, Gevirtz, in his study of West Semitic curse formulae, showed that the casuistic and apodictic formulaic patterns are also present in these curses.49 But objections must be raised to Gevirtz’s conclusions as well. The inscriptions which Gevirtz studied all post-date the beginning of Israelite apodictic law. All the more so is it impossible to prove anything regarding Israelite apodictic law from the apodictic formulation in the Phoenician funerary inscription of Tabnit (fifth century B.C.E.): ‫אל אל תפתח עלתי ואל תרגזן‬, “Do not, do not open my coffin, and do not disturb me!”50 (cf. a similar expression of Samuel in 1 Sam 28:15: ‫למה הרגזתני‬, “Why have you disturbed me?”). Gevirtz states that “it is this prohibitive-preventive function which invests the curse with a legal air,”51 but no one can deny the vast differences between the literary genre of curses and that of law. One more important point should be noted. As mentioned above, Alt classified three different types of formulae as apodictic: the participial formula, curses, and absolute commands/prohibitions. Our discussion has focused on the third type. This is only natural, since the curse is not particular to Israel, nor can it be classified as law, whereas the participial formulation, although particular to Pentateuchal law,52 is not apodictic. More correctly, it is closer to casuistic than the apodictic law. The pure apodictic formula does not presuppose a violation of the law, nor does it state the legal consequences of a violation of the law, whereas the participial formula does in each case.53 The absolute command/prohibition is formulated in the secondperson singular and plural. The plural formulation is rarer, but is found

48

Y. Kaufmann, Toldot Ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit, V (Jerusalem, 1956), 559. S. Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” VT 11 (1961), 137–158. 50 KAI, I, 13:3–4, 5–6. 51 Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses,” 140. 52 The participle is found in Babylonian and Egyptian curse literature; see Cazelles, Études, 110–112; J. G. Williams, “Concerning One of the Apodictic Formulas,” VT 14 (1964), 484–489. 53 See Kornfeld, Studien, 40, 50, 54; Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft, 24; Gese, “Beobachtungen”; Kilian, “Apodiktisches und Kasuistiches Recht.” On the other hand, R. J. Williams (“Concerning One of the Apodictic Formulas,” VT 15 [1965], 113–115) thinks that the participial formula is closer to the apodictic type. M. Noth (Exodus [Philadelphia, 1962], 179) and Fohrer (“Das sogennante apodiktisch formulierte Recht,” 72) consider it to be an intermediary form. 49


49

in texts such as Exod 22:21: ‫כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון‬, “You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan.” There is no reason to suppose that the interchange between singular and plural forms indicates different strata of the text. As we have already seen, this literary pattern is found in wisdom literature, curses, and treaties. Even were we to doubt the possibility that the Sitz im Leben of apodictic law is associated with one of these literary genres, we must nevertheless agree with Gerstenberger that “in the ancient Near East there was a literary style, primarily negative and in the second-person singular, that appeared in different literary genres, and whose Urform was entirely identical with prohibitions well known from the Pentateuch.”54 We can thus definitively state that the apodictic formula is not particular to Israel. Yet—and this is the essential point—previous scholars failed to distinguish between the form and its various uses: wisdom literature is formulated in this manner in order to supply moral advice for the benefit of the individual; curses (very rarely) are formulated in this manner in order to express execratory threats without a moral content; and treaties are formulated in this manner in order to state in purely political terms the obligations of the vassal’s loyalty to his sovereign. However, all things considered, this only witnesses to the occurrence and distribution of the form but does not solve the fundamental issue, viz., the uniqueness of apodictic law in Biblical legislation. In my opinion, in order to interpret this phenomenon, one must not only isolate it, but also fit it into the general framework of Israelite society. Its origin is surely to be found in the emergence of Israel as a people. The founding and the foundation of the people are rooted in the institution of the covenant. This is a unique event in history: a people whose existence was entirely predicated upon a covenant with its God. The deity, who enters into a covenant relationship with His people, makes His will publicly known to them through a series of instructions and laws. These instructions and laws, relating to both civil and criminal law, morality and the cult, are directed specifically to each individual as absolute commands/prohibitions, and the continued existence of the people is based entirely on their implementation. It is for this reason that each of the legal compilations in the Pentateuch is comprised of laws relating to all aspects of life, whereas the legal compilations of the ancient Near East are restricted to civil and crimi-

54

Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft, 152.

50


nal law. In Israel, the laws are of divine origin and express the will of God in all realms of the life of His people.55 The legislation for this ‫גוי‬ ‫קדוש‬, “holy nation,” and ‫ממלכת כהנים‬, “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19: 6), includes laws that are formulated according to the casuistic pattern and others formulated according to the apodictic pattern. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the two. Apodictic law is prescriptive, not descriptive; prospective, not retrospective; absolute, not relative; mandatory, not conditional; personal, not impersonal; it is the will and command of God, and not the legislation of a royal authority. It is this application of the apodictic formula that is the unique contribution of Israel to the field of law, the origin of which lies in the formation of Israel as the chosen people. 55 I.e., this is not merely a political treaty as is the case with the Hittite vassal treaties, but rather a covenant treaty between God and Israel, whose stipulations are not limited to the political realm but rather encompass all areas of life.

psalm 72:5

51

PSALM 72:5—A TRADITIONAL BLESSING FOR THE LONG LIFE OF THE KING Scholars have drawn attention to several features of the court style of Psalm 72.1 The purpose of this paper is to point out another example of such a Hofstil which has escaped the notice of the commentators. Verse 5, ‫ייראוך עם שמש ולפני ירח דור דורים‬, of this psalm is a well-known crux. Since the psalm, commencing with v. 4 through v. 17, is addressed to the king in the third person, the presence of the second-person pronomial suffix in the verb ‫ייראוך‬, “Let them fear you,” the object of which is apparently the king, is somewhat anomalous. Furthermore, both the prepositions ‫ ִעם‬and ‫ לפני‬seem to be a bit puzzling in their present context. Turning first to the second query, it has been noted by several scholars2 that the Hebrew prepositions ‫ עם‬and ‫ לפני‬may both mean 1 Cf. R. E. Murphy, A Study of Psalm 72 (71) (Washington, 1948), ch. 3; H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, I, BK XV/2 (Neukirchen, 1960), 496–497; R. Pautrel, “Le style de cour et le psaume LXXII,” À la rencontre de Dieu: Mémorial Albert Gelin (Le Puy, Lyon, and Paris,1961), 157–163; G. von Rad (Theologie des Alten Testaments, I [Munich, 1961], 320 = Old Testament Theology, I [New York and Evanston, 1962], 320), who also refers to K. Grzegorwewski, “Elemente vorderasiatischen Hofstils auf kanaanäischen Boten,” doctoral dissertation (Königsberg, 1937). For other possible Babylonian influences on this psalm, see P. Grelot, “Un parallèle babylonien d’Isäie LX et du Psaume LXII,” VT 7 (1957), 319–321; S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, I (New York, 1962), 55. 2 E. Podechard (Le Psautier, traduction littérale et explication historique, I: Psaumes 1–75: Notes critiques [Lyon, 1949], 280), who also compares Dan 3:33; 4:31; R. Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World (New York, 1955), 212, Eccles 2:16; Ps 106:6; Job 9:26; 1 Chron 25:8; M. Dahood, “Nest and Phoenix in Job 29, 18,” Biblica 48 (1967), 542–543, Job 29:18; idem, Psalms, II (New York, 1968) 180–181, Ps 72: 5; idem, Psalms, III (New York, 1970), 396, Ps 72:5; 73:5; 106:6; 120:4; 143:7; H. L. Ginsberg, “Job the Patient and Job the Impatient,” Congress Volume, Rome, 1968, SVT 17 (Leiden, 1969), 105 n. 3. The most comprehensive list so far assembled for both Hebrew and Ugaritic is that of M. Held (The Action-Result [Factitive-Passive] Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,” JBL 84 [1965], 273 and 280 n. 36), who adds to the above Ps 28:1; 143:7 (cf. Isa 14:10; Ps 49:13, 21); 88: 5; 2 Chron 14:10 (cf. Exod 9:14); Ezek 28:3 (cf. Ezek 31:2, 18). He also cites Ps 72:5 (cf. Ps 89:37–38; YOS 9, 35:148–150 [Akkadian]; and the Phoenician inscription of Azitawadda cited in the present article); 73:5 (cf. Ps 82:7); 106:6 (cf. Ps 78:57); 120: 4 (cf. Ps 64:4; 140:4); Job 29:18; 37:18. For Ugaritic ‘m, he also cites KTU2 1.6.I: 50–52, lyrí ‘m.b‘l.ly‘db.mrÈ ‘m.bn.dgn, “He cannot run like Baal, nor handle a javelin like the son of Dagon.”

52


“like,” “in the manner of.” For examples of the former, see Ps 106:6, “Both we and our fathers have sinned,” literally, “We have sinned in the same manner as [‫ ]עם‬our fathers”; Job 9:26, “They pass by like [‫ ]עם‬skiffs of reeds, like an eagle swooping on the prey”;3 Eccles 2:16, “For there is no enduring remembrance for the wise as [‫ ]עם‬for the fool”;4 1 Chron 25:8, “And they cast lots for their duties, small and great alike, teacher like [‫ ]עם‬pupil.” The verb ‫ עמם‬appears in Ezek 31:8 in conjunction with other verbs denoting comparison (‫ דמה‬,‫)היה כ‬. “The cedars in the garden of God could not compare with it [‫ֲמ ֻמהוּ‬ ָ ‫]ע‬, nor the cypresses match its boughs. The plane trees could not vie with its branches, no tree in the garden of God was its peer in beauty.” The same meaning for the preposition is also attested in Ugaritic:5 KTU 2 1.17.VI:28–29: aàsprk.‘m.b‘l.ànt.‘m.bn.il.tspr.yrÉm, “I shall let you count years like Baal, like the sons of El shall you count months,” i.e., you shall be immortal just as he and they are. As for the latter, the preposition ‫ לפני‬with the meaning “as, like,” see 1 Sam 1:16, “Do not regard your maidservant as [‫ ]לפני‬a base woman”;6 2 Sam 3:34, “You have fallen as [‫ ]לפני‬wicked men fall’; Job 3:24, “For my groaning comes as [‫ ]לפני‬my bread, and my groans pour out like water.” It has therefore been suggested that the two prepositions in the synonymously paralleled stichs of Ps 72:5 have the same meaning as the above, and that the phrases ‫ עם שמש‬and ‫ לפני ירח‬should accordingly be translated “as the sun” and “as the moon.”7 The specific point of

3 This meaning was already arecognized by A. Schultens (Commentarius in Librum Iobi [Halae Magdeburgicae, 1773], 242), who also cites Ps 143:7. 4 Thus H. L. Ginsberg, Koheleth [Jerusalem, 1961], 70 [Hebrew]), who also cites the end of the same verse and Eccles 7:11. Cf. also Eccles 1:11. 5 See Ginsberg, “Job the Patient,” 105 n. 3, and Held, “Action-Result Sequence,” 273 and 280 n. 36. 6 See M. Segal, Books of Samuel (Jerusalem, 1956), ad loc. (Hebrew); and Ginsberg, “Job the Patient,” 105 n. 3. This was noted already by Y. ibn GanaÈ, Sepher Hashorashim (Jerusalem, 1966), 405. Podechard (Le Psautier, 280) also cites Job 4:19, but this verse is subject to many different interpretations. The preposition ‫ לפני‬in Job 8:16, ‫לפני שמש‬, contra C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (Psalmen5, KD [Leipzig, 1894], ad loc.) is not to be compared to the examples just cited. 7 See Ginsberg, “Job the Patient,” 105 n. 3. The statement of B. D. Eerdmans (The Hebrew Book of Psalms, Oudtestamentische Studiën 4 [Leiden, 1947], 343), that

psalm 72:5

53

comparison, however, remains to be elucidated, and for this we must return to the first problem, the verb ‫יראוָּך‬ ָ ִ‫י‬, “May they fear you.” In the light of the reading of the LXX, sumparamenei=, most commentators8 have emended this verb to ‫ַא ִריְך‬ ֲ ‫וְ י‬, “Let (his days) be long.”9 A correct translation of the verse would then be, “May his days be as long as the sun, and as long as the moon, through all generations.” The king is bestowed a blessing of long life, which is expressed in terms of there is no parallel to this use of ‫ עם‬and ‫לפני‬, should accordingly be discounted. For the traditional parallelism of “sun” and “moon” in the Bible, see the examples collected by S. Gevirtz (Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel [Chicago, 1963], 49 n. 2) and B. Margulis (“A Ugaritic Psalm [R’ 24.252],” JBL 89 [1970], 298). 8 E.g., A. B. Ehrlich, Die Psalmen (Berlin, 1905); D. B. Duhm, Die Psalmen2, KHC (Tübingen, 1922); F. Wutz, Die Psalmen (Munich, 1925); R. Kittel, Die Psalmen5, KAT (Leipzig, 1929); Murphy, Study of Psalm 72 (71); Podechard, Le Psautier; B. Bonkamp, Die Psalmen nach dem hebräischen Grundtext übersetzt (Freiburg i Br., 1949); A. Weiser, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt, ATD (Göttingen, 1950); W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms (London, 1953); A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff, 1955); C. van Leeuwen, “God, de Koning en de Armen in Psalm 72,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 12 (1957–58), 16 n. 3; P. W. Skehan, “Strophic Structure in Psalm 72 (71),” Biblica 40 (1959), 302–308; Kraus, Psalmen, I, ad loc. For other studies, see P. Veugelers, “Le Psaume LXII poème messianique,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 41 (1965), 324; R. Tournay, “Le Psaume 72, 16 et le Réveil de Melqart,” École des Langues Orientales Anciennes de l’Institut Catholique de Paris: Mémorial du Cinquantenaire 1914–1964 (Paris, 1965), 97–104. 9 For the absolute use of the verb ‫ ארך‬in the hiph‘il, see Eccles 7:15, “There is a righteous man who perishes despite his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life [‫ ]מאריך‬despite his evil-doing.” Some commentators also cite Eccles 8:12, “Though a sinner does evil a hundred times and prolongs [‫ ]מאריך‬his life.” However, the verb ‫ מאריך‬here may mean God “grants him forbearance.” Though the absolute use of the verb is fully attested in Eccles 7:15 (and thus B. D. Eerdmans [The Hebrew Book of Psalms (Leiden, 1947), ad loc.] is correct in adding “his days,” comparing Isa 53:10), M. Dahood’s reconstruction of a Ugaritic passage on this basis is still open to question. In “The Phoenician Background of Qoheleth,” Biblica 47 (1966), 274, he follows A. Herdner’s suggestion (Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 [Paris, 1963] , 50 n. 4), and reads in KTU21.10.II:20, Èwt.’aÉt.wn’ar[k], “Hail/May you live, my sister, and prolong your days.” See Herdner’s note, and otherwise, G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh, 1956), 117, wn’ar[m], “and be exalted.” However, the Ugaritic blessing may be translated, “Sister, let us lengthen life! (?).” See S. B. Parker, “Baal Fathers a Bull,” Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker (Atlanta, 1997), 183. Cf., on the other hand, another disputed passage, KTU 2 1.24:38–39, ’ar yrÉ.wyrÉ y’ark, in which the verb y’ark is translated, “shall shine upon thee” by H. L. Ginsberg (Or 7 [1938], 7), but is interpreted by T. H. Gaster (“The ‘Graces’ in Semitic Folklore: A Wedding-song from Ras Shamra,” JRAS [1938], 54), “May (this couple) prolong their days,” and by C. Gordon (“A Marriage of the Gods in Canaanite Mythology,” BASOR 65 [1937], 33), “long (shine).” See now D. Marcus, “The Betrothal of Yarikh and Nikkal-Ib,” Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, op. cit., 217), “shine on you.”

54


the permanence of the sun and the moon.10 Similar blessings for the eternal duration of the king’s progeny or dynasty are found in Ps 89: 30, “I will establish his progeny forever and his throne as the days of the heavens”; v. 37, “His progeny shall endure forever, his throne, as long as the sun before me”; v. 38, where the MT: ‫כירח יכון עולם‬ ‫וְ ֵעד בשחק נאמן סלה‬, “Like the moon it shall be established forever an enduring witness in the sky,” should more likely be divided and read as follows:11 ‫ָעד כּשחק נאמן‬ ֶ ‫כירח יכון עולם ו‬, “Like the moon it shall be established forever, enduring as the sky.”12 This literary motif of prayers and blessings for the longevity of the king and his dynasty based on the permanent duration of the celestial phenomena is extremely well documented in ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions.13 Compare, for example, Sum. d utu.gim u .zu 4 ga.ra.ab.sù.sù.ud, “I will make your days long like the sun for you”;14 Akk. itti àamê u erßeti lukîn pa[lû]a, “May he establish my dynasty like the heavens and the earth”;15 Phoen.16 ’ps àm ’ztwd ykn l‘lm km àm àmà wyrÈ, “But may the name of Azitawadda endure forever like the name of the sun and the moon”;17 Aram.18 ‫ כרסא‬...‫בעלמשין אלה)א‬

10

Cf. Jer 31:34–36; 33:20–21. For a slightly different reading, see E. LipiÔski (La poème royal du Psaume LXXXIX 1–5. 20–38 [Paris, 1967], 78), who also mentions the inscription of Azitawadda. Cf., too, Margulis, “A Ugaritic Psalm,” 298 n. 13. Others emend to ‫ועד שחק נאמן‬, ַ “as long as the sky endures.” In either case, compare Heb. ‫ )כ(שחק נאמן‬with the Aramaic inscription quoted below, ‫כיומי שמין אמין‬, “enduring as the days of heaven.” Cf. also 2 Sam 7:16, and Ben Sira 45:15, “He shall have an everlasting covenant with him and his progeny as the days of heaven [‫]כימי שמים‬.” 12 Cf. Ps 21:5. 13 For an example from Egyptian literature, see A. Erman, Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (Tübingen, 1923), 325. 14 W. W. Hallo, “New Hymns to the Kings of Isin,” BiOr 23 (1966), 246:7´. 15 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, II, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 228:18; 240:18; 242:44–45; 246:73–74. 16 This phrase appears twice in Azitawadda’s inscription from Karatepe (the second time, partially broken). See KAI, I, 26 A IV:2–3 and C V:5–6 (p. 6). Prof. M. Held, in a paper read at the meeting of the American Oriental Society in 1969, demonstrated that certain formulaic expressions of Azitawadda’s inscription are translations from cuneiform royal inscriptions. The examples discussed here were not referred to by him in his presentation. 17 For Biblical analogues of ykn l‘lm, cf. Ps 89:5, and for ykn… km àm àmà wyrÈ, Ps 89:37b–38a (see below). Cf. also 2 Sam 7:16b and 1 Chron 17:12, 14. For the relationship of Psalm 89 to the two rescensions of Nathan’s oracle to David, 1 Sam 7:4–17 and 1 Chron 17:3–15, see N. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, MA, 1963), 29–46 11

psalm 72:5

55

‫מרא מלכן( פרעה כיומי שמין אמין‬, “May (the) god Baalshamem… (make the throne of the Lord of kingdoms) Pharaoh enduring as the days of heaven.”19 Note, too, the eleven-line Punic inscription of Pyrgi from the late sixth century B.C.E., in which the years of the effigy of the god are likened to the stars: wànt lm’s ’lm bbty ànt km hkkbm’l, “May the years of the statue of the god in his temple be like the years of these stars” (or “like the stars of El”).20 More to the point, however, are the analogues to the blessing of Ps 72:5, which are found in the Sumerian and Akkadian versions of a building inscription of Samsuiluna. In both, the king is blessed with long life in terms of the permanence of the moon and the sun. The Sumerian version reads: nam.ti d Nanna d Utu.bi.gim.nam gi . sa.aà.ag.a nam.a.ni.èà mu.ni.in.tar.ri.eà, “(May the gods) 16 determine for him life as eternal as the moon and the sun.”21 And as for the Akkadian, the king is blessed: àulmam u bal§ãam àa kÊma Sîn u ’amaà d§rium ana qÊàtim liqÊàåàum ana àiriktim liàrukåàum, “May (the gods Zababa and Ishtar) grant him as a gift, bestow upon him as a present, good health and life which are as eternal as the moon and the sun.”22

(= idem, Studies in Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia, 2000), 377–394. 18 This is part of a letter which contains a plea for succor from Nebuchadnezzar and is addressed to the Pharaoh. It was found at Saqqarah in 1942. See H. L. Ginsberg, “An Aramaic Contemporary of the Lachish Letters,” BASOR 111 (1948), 24–27; J. Bright, “A New Letter in Aramaic, Written to a Pharaoh of Egypt,” BA 12 (1949), 46–52; and J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Letter of King Adon to the Egyptian Pharaoh,” Biblica 46 (1965), 41–55. The text is found in KAI, I, 266:2–3 (p. 51). For additional bibliography, see ibid., II (p. 312). 19 For Biblical analogues, see Ps 89:30 and 38 (discussed in the text), and Deut 11:21. 20 The scholars who have dealt with this inscription are divided over the interpretation of the last word, ’l. Some contend that the meaning is (“like the stars of) El,” while others opt for “(like) these (stars)” (cf. Jer 9:11). See S. Moscati, “Sull’iscrizione fenico-punica di Pyrgi,” RSO 39 (1964), 257–260; P. Norbert, “Scavi nel Santuario Etrusco di Pyrgi,” VD 43 (1965), 198–205; G. Garbini, “Considerazioni sull’Iscrizione Punica di Pyrgi,” Oriens Antiquus 4 (1965), 35–52; J. G. Février, “Remarques sur l’inscription punique de Pyrgi,” ibid., 175–180; J. Ferron, “Quelques remarques à propos de l’inscription phénicienne de Pyrgi,” ibid., 181–201; M. Dahood, “Punic hkkbm ’l and Isa 14, 13,” Or 34 (1965), 170–172. See now, however, C. R. Krahmalkov (Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, Studia Phoenica 15 [Leuven, 2000], 475), who translates, “As for the red robe of the statue of the goddess (Astarte) in her temple, her/its red robe is like those of the gods of the Kakkabites (= Carthaginians).” 21 A. Poebel, “Eine sumerische Inscrift Samsuilunas über die Erbauung der Festung Dur-Samsuiluna,” AfO 9 (1933–34), 241–292. See p. 244, col. iii:20–24. 22 F. J. Stephens, Votive and Historical Texts from Babylonia and Assyria, YOS 9 (New

56


Note that in all three blessings the presence of the same components: Heb. ‫ויאריך‬, “May his days be long,” corresponds to Sum. nam.ti and Akk. bal§ãam, “life”; Heb. ‫ עם שמש ולפני ירח‬is parallel to Sum. d Nanna d Utu. bi.gim.nam and Akk. kÊma Sîn u ’amaà, “like the moon and the sun”; Heb. ‫ דור דורים‬is parallel to Sum. gi .sa.aà.ag.a 23 and 16 Akk. d§rium, “everlasting, forever.” The image of the permanence of the moon and the sun to express the long rule of the king is also found in an inscription from the Assyrian period: adi Sîn u ’amaà ina àamê da(!)-[ru-u]-ni… ana dår [d§r] lipÊlu mâtu, “As long as the moon and the sun stay firmly in the sky… may they rule over the country forever.”24 These two celestial bodies are likewise noted together in the Karatepe inscription just cited, in which King Azitawadda is blessed, ’ps àm ’ztwd ykn l‘lm km àm àmà wyrÈ, “But may the name of Azitawadda endure like the name of the sun and the moon.”25 And in a text from Ugarit, reference is also made to the sun and the moon to express eternality: btk ugrt.lymt.àpà.wyrÉ.wn‘mt.ànt il, “in the midst of Ugarit for the days of the sun and the moon and the pleasant years of El.”26 Hence, the description of the long duration of a king’s reign specifically in terms of the sun and the moon is seen to be a stock phrase attested in Sumerian, Akkadian, Phoenician, and Hebrew. Haven, 1937), 35:148–154. See E. Sollberger, “Samsu-Ilåna’s Bilingual Inscriptions C and D,” RA 6 (1969), 39. Cf. M. Held, “The Root ZBL/SBL in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” JAOS 88 (1968) = Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo, AOS 53 (New Haven, 1968), 91 n. 20. 23 See Poebel, “Eine sumerische Inschrift Samsuilunas,” 289; A. Falkenstein, “Zum sumerischen Lexicon,” ZA 58 (1967), 5–7, esp. p. 7. 24 See S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, I: Texts, AOAT 5/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970), 98:28, r. 2. See also 96:5ff. 25 In the Biblical, Phoenician, and Ugaritic passages, the sun precedes the moon. This is the usual order in Biblical poetry; see above, n. 7. For the reverse order, see Ps 104:19. In Sumerian and Akkadian, however, the moon takes precedence over the sun. The priority of Sin over Shamash is very frequent in Mesopotamian literature. See, for example, the vassal treaties, D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), 59:419–424; R. H. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, XI ( = ABL) (London and Chicago, 1892–1914), 1105:r. 8–12; and kudurrus, L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones (London, 1912), 47 iv:7–11; and many others. This is most likely due to the fact that Utu (Shamash) was considered the son of the moon-god Nanna (Sin) in Mesopotamian mythology. 26 KTU2 1.108:25–27. Cf. J. Blau and J. C. Greenfield, “Ugaritic Glosses,” BASOR 200 (1970), 13; S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick (eds.), ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, II (Jerusalem, 2001), 887; B. Margulis, “A Ugaritic Psalm,” 292–304.

psalm 72:5

57

It is interesting to note in this connection another verse of Psalm 72, which also employs similar imagery. The MT of v. 17 reads ‫יהיה‬ ‫שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו‬, “May his name be eternal, like the sun may his name ‫ינון‬.” The thought expressed here is the same as in v. 5, that is, a divine blessing for the eternal duration of the king’s fame expressed by the imagery of the sun. The verb ‫ינון‬, which is a hapax legomenon,27 has been emended by many commentators to ‫יכון‬, “be established,” on the basis of the LXX diamenei= and V permanent. This emendation is further substantiated by the fact that Heb. ‫ יכון שמו‬is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. àuman àak§num, an expression which is often combined with Akk. d§rû, “perpetual, eternal,” to describe the establishment of the king’s everlasting fame. A correct translation of the verse would then be, “May his name be eternal, like the sun may his name be established (= enduring).” The affinities with Ps 89:5, ‫עד עולם אכין זרעך‬, and vv. 37–38, ‫זרעו לעולם יהיה וכסאו כשמש‬ ‫נגדי כירח יכון עולם‬, are patently clear. This verse, moreover, may also be compared to the inscription of Azitawadda, for Heb. ‫יהי שמו לעולם‬ corresponds precisely to Phoen. àm ’ztwd ykn l‘lm,28 and Heb. ‫לפני שמש‬ is the interdialectal equivalent of Phoen. km àmà.29

27 Ketib: yinnîn, qere: yinnôn. Those who maintain the MT reading, e.g., Kimchi, Keil and Delitzsch, Dahood, and Veugelers, derive the verb from the noun nÊn, “posterity” (see Gen 21:23; Isa 14:22; Job 18:19) and translate, “Let his name be propagated/perpetuated.” But as Podechard (Le Psautier, 284) has stated, the thought here is not that his name should be perpetuated through his descendants, but that the king himself should be celebrated by all forever. For other suggested readings, see Veugelers, “Le Psaume LXII,” 334. 28 Note that Phoen. ykn is the etymological but not semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫יכון‬. Hence, it can be properly compared only with Heb. ‫ יהי‬in this verse. 29 For a similar blessing, see Ovid, Amores, I, xv:16 (G. Showerman, Ovid—Heroides and Amores [London, 1914], 376), cum sole et luna semper Aratus erit, “As long as the sun and the moon, forever shall Aratus [a Greek poet, native of Cilicia, a contemporary of Callimachus and Theocritus, who wrote an astronomical poem] exist.” Latin cum in this passage, as well as Akkadian itti in the Shamash-shuma-ukin inscription (see above, n. 15), both mean literally “with,” but take on the nuance of “as long as” in these quotations. Cf. also the Lamaàtu text, itti ißßår àamê lu tapparras, T. G. Pinches, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, IV R2 (London, 1891), 56 i:8 and dupl., H. F. Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts, PBS 1/II (Philadelphia, 1919), 113 i: 2, in which the expression itti ißßår àamê is a variant of the usual kÊma ißßår àamê; see CAD, I/J, 211–212. For the use of Arabic ma‘a in this sense, see H. L. Fleischer, Kleinere Schriften, I (Leipzig, 1885), 415; see also M. Wolff, “Analekten,” ZDMG 54 (1900), 8 (reference courtesy of T. H. Gaster). [After this paper was submitted for publication in 1972, J. C. Greenfield’s “Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element

58


in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions,” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke (Baltimore, 1971), 253–268 appeared, in which he referred to several of the texts cited in this article (see esp. pp. 266–267) (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, op. cit., 704–717, esp. pp. 717–718.]

heavenly tablets and the book of life

59

HEAVENLY TABLETS AND THE BOOK OF LIFE To Professor T. H. Gaster àulmu àa adannià u ãåb à¿ri liddinunikka Divine bookkeeping also began in Sumer. This well-known and intriguing belief in the existence of heavenly tablets upon which the deeds and destinies of individuals as well as nations were recorded can be traced from Sumerian to Talmudic times. The following survey of such celestial ledgers, some of which have hitherto been overlooked, is dedicated to a scholar who has contributed so much to the elucidation and understanding of the myths, legends, and customs of the civilizations here under study. Noted here for the first time are cuneiform parallels to “the book of life” (or “of the living”) of Ps 69:29. A hymn to the god Haia with a prayer for Rim-Sin reads:1 nun d Ri-im- d en.zu bala-Éúl-Éúl u -sù-ud-da àu-zi gar-mu-na-ab 4 / im-nam-ti-la-ke 4 du-rí-àè nu-kúr-ru mu-bi gub-ni, “Grant to prince Rim-Sin a reign all joyous and length of days! On a tablet of life2 never to be altered place its (the reign’s) name(s)!” Note, too, that in this same text there is a reference to a tablet of fate, im-namtar, which also occurs in UET 6, 2:4 (restored by Hallo), LKA 146: 9 (dub-nam-meà), and in an unpublished Yale text.3 The goddess Nungal is also known to have possessed such an in-nam-ti-la, “tablet of life.”4 1

C. J. Gadd and S. N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts, UET 6/1(London, 1963), 101:51f., courtesy of W. W. Hallo, whose translation of this difficult text is tentative. For a thorough study of this hymn, see H. Steible, Ein Lied an den Gott ›aja mit Bitte für den König RÊmsîn von Larsa (Freiburg I Br., 1967). His translation of these lines is on p. 15 and his commentary on pp. 164–165. (I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the late Dr. Raphael Kutscher, who made this study available to me.) 2 W. Heimpel, in a written communication (April, 1971), is of the opinion that im-nam-til-la is not a “tablet of life” but a “tablet of (one’s) curriculum.” He adds, “Concretely I believe it is a tablet where the deeds of an individual are recorded.” 3 YBC 4658:13, d Nin-líl-le dub-nam-tar-ra-mu àu-z[u-à]è mu-e ? -rax-[…], courtesy of Hallo, who also draws attention to A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (= SAHG) (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1953), 65, 6:5, dub-àa 6 -ga àu-gá-gá, “[Nisaba], you who hold the good tablets (of destiny) of the land.” Cf. below, n. 14. 4 Nungal hymn, line 74 = H. F. Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts, PBS

60


The gods in Mesopotamia were considered the determiners of destiny,5 and they wrote their decisions on “tablets of destiny” (ãuppi àÊm§ti).6 Nabu, the divine scribe, was in possession of these records, and kings frequently offered their prayers to him.7 Thus, Ashurbanipal addresses the deity,8 bal§ãija ina p§nika àaãir, “My life is inscribed before you.”9 ’amaààumukin prays, åmê bal§ãiàu arkåti ina ãuppi liàãur, “May [Nabu] inscribe the days of his life for long duration in a tablet.”10 And Nebuchadrezzar entreats, ina l¿’îka kÊnim mukÊn puluk àamê u erßeti ibi ar§ku åmÊja àuãur littåtim, “On your [Nabu’s] unchangeable tablet, which establishes the boundaries of heaven and earth, proclaim length of days for me, inscribe long life.”11 The existence of other heavenly

1/2 (Philadelphia, 1919), 104: rev. 10 = Ni 42, 13, 17. References are from Heimpel’s communication (above, n. 2). The hymn has been published by Sjöberg, “Nungal in the Ekur,” 19–46. 5 In E. Ebeling, Literarische Keilschrifttexte als Assur (= LKA) (Berlin, 1953), 146, Ea orders the seven apkallu of Eridu to bring forth the tablets of destiny: “Bring the writing of my Anu-ship [highest supreme offices]; let them read it before me. The tablets of destiny are brought.” Cf. W. G. Lambert, “Review of E. Ebeling, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur,” BiOr 13 (1956), 144. 6 Cf. B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien (Heidelberg, 1925), II, 124–125. For a discussion of àÊmtu, isqu, and ußurtu, see A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago, 1964), 201–206. On the theme of the divine determining of destiny in Mesopotamia, see also G. Furlani, “Sul concetto del destino nella religione babilonese e assira,” Aegyptus 9 (1928), 205–239; H. Zimmern, “’imat, SÊma, Tych¿, Manat,” Islamica 2 (1928), 574–584; Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie (Berlin, 1969), III, 541 (Sumerians); J. Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago and London, 2001), 92–94; and, in general, M. David, Les dieux et le destin en Babylonie (Paris, 1949). Cf., too, the references in nn. 7, 37, and 46. 7 For the role of Nabu, see H. Zimmern and H. Winckler, Die Keilschriftinschriften und das Alte Testament, KAT3 (Berlin, 1903), 399–408. See, too, C. Fichtner-Jeremias, Der Schicksalsglaube bei den Babyloniern, MVAG 27/2 (Leipzig, 1922). Nabu is the holder of the tablets of destiny, n§ài/§Éiz ãuppi àÊm§ti, and the reed stylus, ã§miÉ qan ãuppi, ã§miÉ l¿’i ß§bit qan ãuppi, but he is not the only god invested with this task. Other gods, who are mentioned in texts as “determiners of destiny,” il§ni muàÊm àÊm§ti, are Anu, Ningirsu, Bau, Ninhursag, Ishtar, Enlil, Ninlil, Ea, Shamash, Sin, Ninurta, Nusku, Girru, Nergal, Mami, Annunaki, Marduk, Ashur, and Namtar, the personification of fate itself. 8 Cf. T. H. Gaster, Thespis (New York, 1961), 288, note. 9 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7/2 (Leipzig, 1916), 347:21, bal§ãija ina p§nika àatir. Cf. 275:15–16. 10 C. F. Lehmann, ’amaààumukin König von Babylon (Leipzig, 1892), 10:23. 11 S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 100, ii:23–25. For Nabu’s unalterable tablets, cf. L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, CT 34 (London, 1914), 20:50, ina l¿’ika kÊnim.


61

ledgers which record man’s deeds are also well attested;12 cf. ãuppi arnÊàu Éiã§tiàu gill§tiàu m§mâtiàu, “the tablet of his misdeeds, errors, crimes, oaths,”13 and ãuppu damiqti, “the tablet of good deeds.”14 Such records of divine scribal activity are also alluded to several times in the Bible.15 1.

2.

Exod 32:32–33, where the erasure of a name from such a register is equivalent to a sentence of death. Moses, interceding for the Israelites after the incident of the golden calf, says, “Now if You will forgive their sin [well and good]. But if not, erase me from the record which You have written. But the Lord said to Moses, ‘He who has sinned against Me, him only will I erase from My record’.”16 Isa 4:3, “Then he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem shall be called ‘holy’, all who are inscribed for life in Jerusalem.”17

12 For ãuppi il§ni, see H. Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis babylonischen Religion (Leipzig, 1901), 116, no. 24:8. For l¿’u àa isq¿ti, see O. Schroeder, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, VS 15 (Leipzig, 1916), 26:17. Cf. P. Jensen, Texte zur assyrisch-babylonischen Religion, KB 4/1 (Berlin, 1915), 138:21. For multiple references to ãuppi àÊm§ti, “tablet of destiny,” see CAD, ’/III, 13–14. 13 Cf. E. Reiner, ’urpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations, AfO Beiheft 11 (Graz, 1958), 27:78–80, “May his sin be shed today, may it be wiped off him, averted from him. May the record of his misdeeds (ãuppi arnÊàu), his errors (Éiã§tiàu), his crimes (gill§tiàu), his oaths (m§mâtiàu), (all) that is sworn, be thrown into the water.” For ãuppi arni, see also H. Zimmern, Beiträge, 124:5, bottom. 14 For a “tablet of good works,” ãuppu damiqti, see T. G. Pinches, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, IV R2 (London, 1891), 11: rev. 48, dub-sa 6 -ga-na baan-du: (ana) ãuppu damiqtÊàu àuãur. Cf. above, n. 3. 15 Several of the Biblical verses referred to have textual difficulties which are not dealt with here. The importance of these citations is only to demonstrate the belief in the existence of heavenly ledgers or in divine scribal activity also in the Bible. For a brief survey, see S. Ahitub, “The Book of the Lord,” Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1968), V, 1086–1087 (Hebrew). 16 Cf., too, Ps 69:29 (discussed below); 109:13. For the concept, cf. Gudea 9:6–8; M. Lambert and J. R. Tournay, “Le Statue B de Gudéa,” RA 45 (1951), 64. For similar terminology, compare the Ahiram inscription, wh’.ymÉ sprh, “And as for him, may his inscription be erased,” KAI 1, 2. 17 Cf. in a slightly different context, itti balãåti amm§ni, “I was reckoned among the living” (in Ludlul B¿l N¿meqi; W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature [= BWL] [Oxford, 1967], 60:83), which means to receive a favorable decree from the gods to be among the living. For the opposite, cf. A. Boisser, Choix de texts divinatoires, II, 31, 10, itti am¿li la imm§ni, “He shall not be counted among men.” Cf. S. Langdon, “The Semitic Goddess of Fate, Fortuna, Tyche,” JRAS (1930), 23.

62 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

the bible and the ancient near east Isa 34:16–17, “Consult the ‘Scroll of the Lord’18 and read it.”19 Isa 65:6, “See, this is recorded before Me.” Jer 17:13, “O Hope of Israel! O Lord! All who forsake You shall be put to shame, and those who turn from You20 shall be inscribed in the netherworld.”21 Jer 22:30, “Thus said the Lord, ‘Record this man [Jehoiachin] as childless’.” Mal 3:16, “The Lord listened and heard it, and a scroll of remembrance was written before Him concerning those who revere the Lord and honor His name.”22 Ps 40:8 possibly belongs here too: “… In a scroll of a book it is written for me.” Ps 56:9, “… Are they [my tears] not in Your book?”23 Ps 87:6, “The Lord will inscribe in the register of peoples: ‘This one was born there’ (Selah).” Ps 139:16, “And in Your book they are all recorded.” Dan 7:10, “The [heavenly] court sat and the books were opened.” Dan 10:21, “But I will tell you what is recorded in the book of

18 D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome, 1964), 45–49, comparing the Sefire Treaty (III:4), interpreted s¿per YHWH as a reference to the inscribed copy of a covenant. In the light of the material assembled here, it is more likely to interpret this “book” as a heavenly ledger. Cf. Ibn Ezra, ad loc. 19 The fate of Edom is sealed in this prophecy. For the determining of the destiny of Babylon, see R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9 (Graz, 1956), 15:2–11, 70 àan§ti minût nidûtiàu iàãurma r¿m¿nû Marduk surrià libbaàu inåÉma elià ana àaplià uàbalkitma ana 11 àan§ti aà§bàu iqbi, “Seventy years as the period for it (Babylon) to remain uninhabited (Marduk) wrote down. But the merciful Marduk, in a moment his heart was at rest, turned (the figure) upside down and ordered it to be inhabited after eleven years.” 20 Read wesûr¿(y)k§. 21 For ’¿r¿ß as “netherworld,” see W. Baumgartner, Die Klagegedichte des Jeremias, BZATW 32 (Giessen, 1917), 40. H. Gunkel (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit [Göttingen, 1895], 18 n. 1) already amassed evidence for this meaning in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Aramaic. For this verse, cf., too, M. Dahood, “The Value of Ugaritic for Textual Criticism,” Biblica 40 (1959), 164–166. The same meaning is also well attested in Ugaritic,’rß. See W. Baumgartner, B. Hartmann, and E. Y. Kutscher, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (= HALAT) (Leiden, 1967), 88. 22 Cf. its citation in the Damascus Scroll, CD-B, 20:19; F. G. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, I (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1997), 597. 23 Cf. T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (New York, 1969), 759.


14.

63

truth.” (There follows a preview of the history of the next two and three-quarters of a century.) Dan 12:1, “But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found inscribed in the book.”

Two other possible examples which have been cited are: 1 Sam 25: 29, “The life of my lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life”;24 and Ezek 13:9,25 “They [the false prophets] shall not be enrolled in the register of the House of Israel.”26 Citations for this belief in post-Biblical literature27 are also found in the Pseudepigrapha, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and in Talmudic literature. A. Pseudepigrapha 1. Jub 30:19–23, “And so they inscribe as a testimony in his favor on the heavenly tablets blessing and righteousness before the God of all…. But if they transgress and act in the ways of uncleanness of any kind, they will be recorded on the heavenly tablets as adversaries, and they will be erased from the book of life, and they will be 24

O. Eissfeldt (Der Beutel der Lebendigen [Berlin, 1960], 25) maintains that this verse represents the initial stage of the concept that is developed in Psalms. He also quotes K. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (Tübingen, 1902), 167f. Eissfeldt bases his view on the study of A. L. Oppenheim (“On an Operational Device in Mesopotamian Bureaucracy,” JNES 18 [1959], 121–128), who discussed the custom in Nuzi of registering sheep and goats by means of pebbles transferred to receptacles. According to Eissfeldt, the Biblical idiom refers to such a usage, i.e., the wish of Abigail that King David’s life be deposited in a pouch reserved for those who are to be kept alive. See, too, N. H. Tur Sinai, Peshuto shel Miqra (Jerusalem, 1965), II, 180. 25 This verse, however, may refer to a human register similar to Neh 7:5f.; 12: 22f. 26 Some have also compared Neh 13:14, “Remember this, my God, to my credit, and do not blot out the devotion I have shown toward the House of my God and its attendants.” For the idiom z§kar le (cf. Jer 2:2), see J. Hempel, “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Lichte altorientalischen Parallelen,” ZDMG 4 (1915), 61, continuation of n. 4. 27 Only selected examples are listed here. For a comprehensive listing (excluding the Qumran literature), see Zimmern and Winckler, Die Keilschriftinschriften, 405–406; P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen, 1934), 290–292; and W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter3 (Tübingen, 1926), 258. Cf., too, A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1905), 69–73. For an additional collection of citations stressing apocalyptic literature, see R. Eppel, “Les tables de la loi et les tables célestes,” RHPR 17 (1937), 401–412.

64


recorded in the book of those who are to be destroyed and with those who will be uprooted from the earth.” 2. 1 Enoch 47:3, “In those days I saw the Head of Days, when He seated Himself upon the throne of His glory, and the books of the living were opened before Him.” (Cf. 81:1f.; 103:2; 104:1, 7; 108:3, 7.)28 B. Apocalypse of Zephaniah 1. 1:9–11, “These are the angels of the Lord Almighty, who write down all the good works of the righteous upon their scroll…. But I take them from them and bring them before the Lord Almighty, for Him to write their names in the book of the living. And the other angels of the accuser, who is upon the earth, also write down all the sins of men upon their scrolls. They, too, sit at the gate of Heaven and read them out to the accuser for him to inscribe them upon his scroll, so that he can accuse them when they come out of the world below.” 2. For other references to heavenly scrolls, see 2:14–17.29 C. Dead Sea Scrolls30 1. 4QDibHama (= 4Q504), kol hakk§tûb bes¿p¿r haÈayyî[m], “All those inscribed in the book of life.”31 2. 1QHa IX:23–24,32 hakkol È§qûq lep§n¿(y)k§h beÈ¿r¿t zik§rôn,33 “Every-

28

Enoch is the latter-day counterpart of Nabu, the heavenly scribe, who possesses the heavenly tablets. 29 H. P. Houghton, “The Coptic Apocalypse,” Aegyptus 39 (1959), 78, 88. the translation, chapter division, and verses in the text are taken from H. F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, 1989), 921, 923. 30 See F. Nötscher, “Himmlische Bücher und Schicksalsglaube in Qumran,” RQ 1 (1959), 405–411. 31 M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4, DJD, VII (Oxford, 1982), 146, VI:14. See also idem, “Un recueil liturgique de Qumrân, Grotte 4: ‘Les paroles des luminaries’,” RB 68 (1961), 210:14. On p. 232, he refers this expression to the Bible itself. (My attention was drawn to this reference by my friend and colleague, the late Dr. Raphael Weiss.) 32 Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, I, 180–181. 33 Cf. È¿r¿ã Èayyîm, “stylus of life,” 1QM xii:3. Cf. also 1QS 10:11; 1QpHab. vii: 12–14.


65

thing has been engraved before You with the stylus of remembrance.” 3. 4Q180:3,34 wehu’ È§rût ‘al låÈôt, “And it [the preordaining of the ages] was engraved upon tablets.”35 D. New Testament 1. Lk 10:20, “Nevertheless, what you should rejoice over is not that the spirits submit to you, but that your names are enrolled in heaven.” 2. Phil 4:3, “whose names are in the roll of the living.” 3. Heb 12:23, “and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven.” 4. Rev 3:5, “His name I will never take off the roll of the living.” 5. Rev 13:8, “Except those whose names the Lamb that was slain keeps in his roll of the living, written there since the world was made.” (Cf. 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27.)

34 J. M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4, DJD 5 (Oxford, 1968), 78, 180:3, and the corrected reading by J. Strugnell, “Notes en marges du Volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan’,” RQ 26 (1970), 253. The present corrected reading is very clear from the plate itself (Plate XXVII, 1). Cf., too, CD III:3–4, for which see C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1958); E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran (Munich, 1986), 70, wayyikk§tebû ’ôhabîm l§’¿l ûba‘alê berît le‘Ùl§m, “And they were written down as friends of God and His covenanters for eternity”; Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, I, 554. (References courtesy of R. Weiss.) According to J. T. Milik (“Milkî-&edeq et Milkî-Reàa‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JSS 23 [1972], 19), hû’§h hakk§tûb ‘§l§w in 11QMel 13, II:19 also refers to heavenly tablets; see also F. G. Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II, 11Q2–8, 11Q20–31, DJD 23 (Oxford, 1998), 225. Milik interprets the Melchizedek text as belonging to the same literary genre as 4Q180, but his interpretation is extremely questionable. 35 For a possible allusion to such a belief in a Punic inscription of the third–second centuries B.C.E., see Gaster, Thespis, 288–289. “Moreover, the gods (’lnm) have… my name (àmy); my mark (’ty)… along with their names have they inscribed (ktb), and the glory and [splend]or of my name (àmy) did they record from the beginni[ng] forever (l‘lm).” The text is found in M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik (Giessen, 1902), I, 164f., esp. 166–167.

66

the bible and the ancient near east E. Talmudic Literature36

1. m. ’Abot 3:20, … wehappinq§s p§tûaÈ wehayy§d kôt¿b¿t…, “[Rabbi Akiba said,]… the ledger is open and the hand writes….” (The allusion here is to a heavenly ledger in which all man’s actions are written down prior to the final day of reckoning.) 2. m. Roà Haà. 16b,37 “Three books are opened [in heaven] on the Day of the New Year: one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteous are immediately inscribed and sealed for life. The thoroughly wicked are immediately inscribed and sealed for death. The fate of the intermediate is suspended until the Day of Atonement [nine days later]: if they are found deserving, they are inscribed for life; if not found deserving, they are inscribed for death.”38 3. b. ‘Arak. 10b, “The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He, ‘Why does not Israel sing the Song [i.e., the Hallel] before You on New Year’s Day and on the Day of Atonement?’ He answered them, ‘Would that be possible—the King sitting on the throne of judgment, with the books of those destined to live (siprê Èayyîm) and destined to die (siprê m¿tîm) before Him, and Israel singing the Song [i.e., the Hallel] before Me’?” These last two passages have greatly influenced the liturgy of the Jewish High Holidays, especially in the recurrent plea, zoker¿nû leÈayyîm m¿l¿k È§p¿ß baÈayyîm wekoteb¿nû bes¿p¿r haÈayyîm, “Remember us for life, O King who delights in life, and inscribe us in the book of life,” and in the prayer U-netanneh Tokef, berÙ’à haàà§n§h yikk§t¿bû ûbeyôm ßôm kippûr y¿È§t¿mû, “On the New Year it is written down [man’s destiny for the coming year], and on the Day of Atonement it is sealed.”

36 For further references, see L. Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews, II, 175 (Levi knew how to read the celestial books written by the finger of God); V, 82 n. 27 (Adam was shown the book in which all the future generations were recorded—cf. Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, 69–73); V, 128 n. 141; 129 n. 142; VI, 55 n. 284. 37 For the determining of one’s fate by the gods in Mesopotamia at an assembly which takes place on the New Year in one of the sacred chapels of Esagila, see S. A. Pallis, The Babylonian Akîtu Festival (Copenhagen, 1926), 92–102, 183–197; Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, 69–73; Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, 125; Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 126:54–65. 38 One of the prooftexts for the above-cited passage in b. Roà Haà. 16b is Ps 69: 29.


67

The recurrent references above to a “book of life/living” ultimately hark back to Ps 69:29,39 where the expression a “book of life” or, better, a “book of the living,”40 makes its sole appearance in all of Biblical literature, yimm§Èû miss¿p¿r Èayyîm weim ßaddîqîm ’al yikk§t¿bû, “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living;41 let them not be enrolled among the righteous.” This unique expression, moreover, also has an earlier Mesopotamian counterpart. Such a heavenly ledger bearing this specific title is found in the blessing recorded in the introduction to a Neo-Assyrian tablet addressed to Esarhaddon (ABL 545):42 ana àarri b¿lija… lå àulmu ana àarri adannià adannià Nabû Marduk ana àarri b¿lija litrubå… åmu VIIkám ep¿à nikkassi43 Nabû ina l¿’iàu àa bal§ãi nikkassu àa àarri b¿lija u àa m§r¿ b¿lija [a]na åm¿ ßâti [l¿puà], “To the king, my lord…. May all be very very well with the king, my lord. May Nabu and Marduk bless the king, my lord…. The seventh day is the day of accounting. May Nabu on his tablet of life [make] the accounting of the king, my lord, and of the sons of my lord forever.”44 39

For Ps 69:29, see Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom, 764. Cf., for example, H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen2 (Göttingen, 1926), 299; E. Podechard, Le Psautier (Lyon, 1954), 275; Eissfeldt, Der Beutel, 22 n. 1, because of the parallelism with ßadîqîm, “the righteous.” 41 Cf. above, n. 16. 42 For ABL 545, see the translation in L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire (Ann Arbor, 1930), I, 386–387; E. Behrens, Assyrisch-babylonische Briefe kultischen Inhalts aus der Sargonidenzeit (Leipzig, 1906), 43. 43 For the expression ep¿à nikkassi, “to settle accounts,” see Behrens, Assyrisch-babylonische Briefe, 43; B. Landsberger, Die kultische Kalendar des Babylonier und Assyrer (Leipzig, 1915), 135; CAD, E, 214; N/II, 224–228. Cf. below, n. 44. 44 The appearance of such a blessing in an economic text and context may be explained by Volz’s comment, Eschatologie, 292 (written without any knowledge of the passage under discussion): “Für die Aufzeichnung der Handlungen (in Bücher) könnte die Vorlage im kaufmannischen Leben zu suchen sein (vgl. das Schuldbuch in Abot 3:16); das Motiv ist das Bedürfnis der gerechten Vergeltung.” Cf., too, L. Koep, Das himmlische Buch in Antike und Christentum (Bonn, 1952), 14. The economic imagery in the Mishnah referred to (and already cited in our study) is extremely bold: “He [Rabbi Akiba] used to say: All is given against a pledge, and the net is cast over all the living [so that none may forfeit paying by escaping]. The shop is open; the shopkeeper extends credit; the ledger lies open and the hand makes entries. Whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors make their rounds continually, everyday, and exact payment [of men] with their consent or without their consent, for they have that on which they can rely [i.e., God’s records of man’s debts]; 40

68


The phrase, l¿’u àa bal§ãi,45 “tablet of life/living,” is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Heb. s¿p¿r haÈayyîm. And the Akkadian is none other than a reproduction of the Sumerian phrase, im-nam-til-la, already cited at the beginning of this study.46 Postscript by W. W. Hallo At the invitation of Professor Paul, the following is added by way of amplification. (1) In the Haia-hymn (UET 6:101), lines 51f. should be translated: “Grant to prince Rim-Sin a reign all joyous and length of days! On a tablet of life never to be altered place its (the reign’s) name(s)!” Note that àu-zi… gar = àutlumu, “grant” (e.g., MSL 13, 118:132; PBS 10/4, 8:4 = C. Wilcke, “Zur Geschichte der Ammuriter in der Ur-III Zeit,” Welt des Orients 5 [1969], 2; cf. àutlumu = nad§nu, LTBA 2, 2:210) as in the comparable Warad-Sin passage: bala-Éúl-la àu-zi

And the judgment is a judgment of truth. And all is made ready for the banquet. 45 For another reference, see also KAR 109:23, in a hymn to Ba’u; E. Ebeling, Quellen zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, MVAG 23/1 (Leipzig, 1918), 50, 109:22: ina Ezida naà§t l¿’û bal§ãi inaàài r¿àa, “In Ezida [the temple of Nabu in Borsippa], she (Bau) is checking (on the living and the dead), holding the tablet of life.” For the idiom r¿àam naàû, “to check,” see CAD, R, 107. There is another text in which this phrase has been reconstructed. See E. Ebeling, Die akkadische Gebetsserie ’u-ila “Handerhebung” (Berlin, 1953), 124:13. 46 For an interesting, though sarcastic, reflection of this belief in Greek literature (Euripides), see A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1889), 523, fragment 506: “Do you believe that the sins are written in a book before Zeus, and Zeus reads it and judges men accordingly? The heavens are not large enough to write down the sins.” Gaster (Myth, Legend, and Custom, 764) cites additional evidence, “Similarly the Roman Parcae and the Teutonic Norns are said to have kept a written record of men’s fates, the latter being sometimes designated Die Schreiberinnen. In the same vein, too, Tertullian tells us that at the conclusion of a child’s first week of life, prayers were offered to Fata Scribunda.” See also his notes on p. 849. For Egyptian, Greek, and Roman analogues to the above, see Koep, Das himmlische Buch. For an interesting study of the belief in destiny and free will in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Qumran, see F. Nötscher, “Schicksalsglaube in Qumran und Umwelt,” BZ 3 (1959), 205–234. For recent publications on the subject of the heavenly tablets in Jubilees, see F. Garcia Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, A. Lange, Texte und Studien zum Antike Judentum 65 (Tübingen, 1997), 243–260 (with additional bibliography); L. Ravid, “The Special Terminology of the Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” Tarbií 68 (1999), 463–471 (Hebrew); C. Werman, “The Torah and the Te‘udah on the Tablets,” Tarbií 68 (1999), 473–492 (Hebrew).


69

ma-ni-in-gar, “He has granted me a joyous reign” (A. Falkenstein, “Eine Inschrift Waradsîns aus Babylon,”Baghdader Mitteilungen 3 [1964], 27:47). The name(s) in line 52 may well refer to the date formula(s) of RimSin. Line 5 of the same composition refers to the tablets of fate: gi-kùga àu-gál-le im-nam-tar-gal-mul-mul: “(Haia), holding the holy reed-stylus (and) the resplendent great tablets of fate.” For the entire text, see H. Steible, “Ein Lied an den Gott ›aja mit Bitte für den König RÊmsîn von Larsa,” Ph.D. dissertation (Freiburg i. Br., 1967). (2) The reference to UET 6, 2:4 should be restored: du[b-namtar-b]i abzu-àè ba-an-gi 4 , “Those tablets [of fate] returned to Abzu.” For the entire text, see B. Alster, “ ‘Ninurta and the Turtle’, UET 6/1:2,” JCS 24 (1972), 120–125. (3) The reference to the unpublished Yale text is YBC 4658:13: dub-nam-tar-ra-mu àu-z[u-à]è mu-e ? -ra-x-[…]. Cf. also IKA 146:9: ittaàûnimma iltanasû ãup àÊm§ti (dub.nam.meà) il§ni rabûti, “They (the seven apkallu’s) brought and recited the tablets of fate of the great gods.” See J. van Dijk, UVB, XVIII (Berlin, 1962), 48.

d Nin-líl-le

(4) Other references to the tablets of life occur in hymns to Ninimma: im-nam-ti-la àu?!-gál-la-me-en (ISET 1, 74 Ni. 4233: 5) and Nungal: im-nam-ti-la àu-mà mu-gál (e.g., PBS 1/2, 104: rev. 10). For the latter passage, see now the edition of the text by Å. Sjöberg (“Nungal in the Ekur,” AfO 24 [1973], 44), who adds (ad line 77) a reference to dub-nam-ti-la in a hymn to Ba’u (UET 6/1:72: 3). (5) That nam-tar and nam-ti-la are simple antonyms for death and life in all contexts may be doubted in view of such passages as: nam-tar nam-ti-la… sag-e-eà É a-ma-ab-rig 7 -ge, “May he bestow upon me a fate of life” (Warad-Sin 7:35). (6) I take this opportunity to add to Professor Paul’s “Psalm 72:5—A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of the King,” JNES 31 (1972),

70


351–355 [51–58], another parallel from Samsu-iluna’s inscriptions: nam-ti-la d Nanna-gim itu-itu-da mú-mú-da(m) = [balaãam àa] kÊma Sîn wa[rÉi]àam [uted]diàu: “A life which grows (so the Sumerian; Akkadian has: renews itself) each month like Nanna (so Sumerian; Akkadian: Sin, i.e., the moon) (the great gods bestow on me).” (LIH 2, 97:88–92 = 98:89f. = 99:89f.). For the translation of the text, see E. Sollberger and J. R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes (Paris, 1971), 220f.

wine in mesopotamian and rabbinic sources

71

CLASSIFICATIONS OF WINE IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND RABBINIC SOURCES* In a brief article, A. Demsky suggested interpreting the epigraphic notation on a wine decanter, ‫יין כחל‬, as “dark wine.”1 He cited m. Nid. 9, 11 (‫ )יין שחור‬for confirmation of the existence of such a darkcolored wine. Further references could also have been made to ‫יין‬ ‫ שחור‬in Midrash Abba Gurion to Esther 1:9, ‫חמרא אוכמא‬, Targum Sheni to that same verse,2 and ‫ יין כושי‬in b. B. Bat. 97b. “Dark-colored wine” is also known, moreover, from Mesopotamian sources. Such a wine is listed in a document from the time of Darius.3 There it is referred to by Sum. geàtin.mud, which is equivalent to Akk. kar§nu da’mu.4 The existence of a dark-colored wine is further

* The following additional abbreviations used in this article are based upon the CAD: AMT: R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (London, 1923); ARM: Archives royales de Mari; M. Birot, Textes administratifs de la salle 5 du palais: transcrits, traduits et commentés, ARM 9 (Paris, 1960); BAM: F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen (Berlin, 1963); BE: Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, XVII; H. Radau, Letters of Cassite Kings (Philadelphia, 1908); BWL: W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960); Camb.: J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cambyses (Leipzig, 1890); CT: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets at the British Museum; R. C. Thompson, CT 18 (London, 1904); CT 22 (London, 1906); Dar: J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Darius (Leipzig, 1897); Hh: The Series ›AR-ra = Éubullu Tablets, MSL 8/1; B. Landsberger, The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia (Rome, 1962); KAH: O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts, II (Leipzig, 1922); KAJ: E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1927); KAR: E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, I (Leipzig, 1915–1919); MSL: B. Landsberger, Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon (see Hh); NBN: J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonidus (Leipzig, 1889); OECT: P. E. van der Meer, Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts, IV (Oxford and London, 1938); OIP: Oriental Institute Publications, D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago, 1924); Pract. Voc. As.: B. Landsberger and O. Gurney, “Practical Vocabulary of Assur,” AfO 18 (1957–1958), 328ff.; VAB: Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, IV, S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (Leipzig, 1912); VAS: Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler, 16, O. Schroeder, Altbabylonische Briefe (Leipzig, 1917); ZA: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie; ZAW: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1 A. Demsky, “ ‘Dark Wine’ from Judah,” IEJ 22 (1972), 233–234. 2 The Yalkuã to this verse has ‫יין חיור‬, “white wine.” 3 Dar 22:11. 4 For the Sumerian, see Dar 22:11. For Akk. da’mu, see CAD, D, 74.

72


attested to by the name of a certain snake which is called a “wine snake,” muà.geàtin = ß¿r kar§nu. One of the reasons given for this peculiar name is “because its eyes are black” (àa ÊnÊàu ßalmu).5 This correlation between Mesopotamian and Rabbinic sources referring to a specific quality of wine can be further expanded by the following list of terminological analogies.6 1)

2)

3)

“red wine”7 geàtin s§mu geàtin pelû ‫יין אדום‬ ‫יין סומקא‬ ‫חמרא סומקא‬ “white wine” geàtin peßû ‫יין לבן‬ ‫חמר חיור‬ ‫חמר חיוריין‬ ‫יין בורק‬ “clear/pure wine” geàtin ellu ‫יין צלול‬8

ARM 9, 56:1; 10, 131:4; 14, 132:3. CT 18 34 111:7. m. Nid. 9, 11; y. ’abb. 8, 1, 11a. b. ’abb. 129a. b. Giã. 70a. KAJ 200:1; OECT 4 154 X 12. b. Yoma 18a; b. ZebaÈ. 78b. b. Ker. 6a. b. B. Bat. 97b. b. B. Bat. 97b; cf. also t. Men. 9, 9. VAB 4 90 I 22; 92 ii 32; BWL 60:95; NBN 247:11; 279:8. t. Ter. 4, 3;9 b. ’abb. 109a, 139b.

5 See CAD, K, 204, 1a; &, 149, 1b. Cf. Hh XIV, 28 (= MSL 8/2, p. 8). For a comparison of the darkness of wine and eyes, see Gen 49:12. 6 This list is not intended to be all-inclusive. It merely presents a sampling of terminological correspondences between Mesopotamian and Rabbinic sources pertaining to different colors and qualities of wine. The citations, too, are eclectic, and, in many instances, could easily be supplemented; see CAD, K, 205. For discussions of wine in Talmudic literature, see S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, II (Leipzig, 1911), 239–243; and I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, I (Wien and Leipzig, 1926), 94ff. For names of Egyptian wines, see R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, III (Leiden, 1955), 82 n. 24. 7 For red wine in the Bible, ‫דם ענבים‬, Gen 49:11; ‫דם ענב‬, Deut 32:14; Ben Sira 39:26; 50:15. Cf., too, Prov 23:31. See W. Herrmann, “Götterspeise und Göttertrank in Ugarit und Israel,” ZAW 72 (1960), 211 n. 23. Cf., too, Ugar. dm ‘ßm, “blood of trees/grapevines” = “red wine,” KTU2 1.4.III:44; 1.4.IV:38. For this idiom, see M. Dahood, “Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” Ras Shamra Parallels, I, Analecta Orientalia 49, ed. L. R. Fisher (Rome, 1972), 208, No. 243. For similar expressions (which do not, however, refer to wine), cf. Akk. dam er¿ni, “resin of cedar,” dam àurm¿ni, “resin of cypress,” dam qanî ã§bi, “resin of sweet reed.” 8 For the opposite of ‫יין צלול‬, ‫עכור‬, see t. Ter. 6, 10, and ‫אינו צלול‬, t. Ter. 4, 3. Compare also ‫ חמר נקי‬in ‫( חרבא דמשה‬Sword of Moses), in Studies and Texts in Folklore,

wine in mesopotamian and rabbinic sources

4)

5)

‫נקירא‬/‫יין נקידא‬ “new/fresh wine” geàtin eààu ‫יין חדש‬ (‫חמר)א( חדת)א‬ “old wine” geàtin labÊru ‫יין ישן‬10,11 ‫יין מיושן‬ ‫יין עתיק‬ (‫חמר)א( עתיק)א‬

6)

7)

8)

9)

“sweet wine” geàtin duààupu geàtin ã§bu12 ‫יין מתוק‬ ‫חמרא חלייא‬ “bitter wine” geàtin marru ‫יין מר‬ “sour wine” geàtin enßu ‫יין )ש(החמיץ‬13 ‫יין קוסס‬ Cf. ‫קיוהא דחמרא‬ “boiled wine” geàtin baàlu

73

b. Giã. 69a (see Rashi’s note, ad loc.). Camb. 252:2, 5; NBN 247:11. m. £. Yom 1, 1; b. Giã. 67b; b. Qidd. 20a. b. Nazir 38b; b. Giã. 67b; Tg. Neof., Lev 10:9; Num 6:3; Deut 29:5. CT 22 37:15. m. £. Yom 1, 2; m. ’Abot 4, 20; b. Qidd. 20a. m. B. Bat. 6, 3. b. Ker. 6a. b. ‘Abod. Zar. 66a; y. ’eq. 47a; y. ’abb. 14, 4, 14d. KAH 2 284:75; OIP 2 116 viii:76. VAS 16, 52, 14.17; ARM 7, p. 268f. b. PesaÈ. 86b; y. Ter. 8, 5, 45c. b. ‘Abod. Zar 30a. BE 17 5:20. y. Ter. 8, 5, 45c; b. ‘Abod. Zar 30a. Pract. Voc. As. 187. m. B. Qam. 9, 2; m. B. Bat. 6, 3. b. B. Bat. 97b; y. PesaÈ. 2, 7, 29c. b. Ket. 75a. BAM 152 iii:10; AMT 57, 1:7.

Magic, Mediaeval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology, III, ed. M. Gaster (New York, 1971), 44:3, and ‫ חמרא מרקא‬in b. Giã. 67b. 9 See S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãa: Zera‘im, I (New York, 1955), 340 n. 10. 10 For the difference between ‫( יין ישן‬one year) and ‫( יין מיושן‬three years), see m. B. Bat. 6, 3, and cf. Rashi’s comment on b. PesaÈ. 42b to ‫עתיק עתיקי‬. Cf. also Ben Sira 9:10 for both ‫ יין חדש‬and ‫יין ישן‬. 11 Cf. Samarian ostraca 1:2–3; 3:2–3; 5:3; 9:3; 12:3–4; 13:3; 14:3. See S. AÈituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1992), 163, 167, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, respectively (Hebrew). 12 Cf. ‫יֵין הטוב‬, Song of Songs 7:10, and the several references to Ugar. yn ãb, e.g., KTU 2 4, 213: 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22. 13 Cf. ‫חמץ יין‬, Num 6:3, and the word play in Isa 63:1–3.

74

the bible and the ancient near east m. Ter. 2, 6; t. Ter. 4, 4. ‫יין מבושל‬14 ‫חמרא מבשלא‬ y. Ter. 8, 5, 45c; b. ‘Abod. Zar 30a. 10) “good/first quality wine” geàtin reàtu KAR 60: rev. 6. ‫חמרא מעליא‬ b. B. Meß. 83a; b. B. Bat. 97b.

Though the above list pertains to different qualities of wine,15 one interesting correspondence between Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Classical sources may also be noted. In this case, reference is made to a wine named for its provenance: “wine of Helbon”—geà tin ›ulbånu, Pract. Voc. As. 18, 340:9;16 ‫יין חלבון‬, Ezek 27:18;17 and oi3noj xalubw&nioj, Strabo XV, 3, 22. 14

Cf. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãa: Zera‘im, I, 340. Though not an exact correspondence, cf. geàtin dannu, “strong wine,” AMT 66, 1:5; Pract. Voc. As. 183; ‫)יין( חד‬, y. Ter. 8, 5, 45c; and ‫טילא חריפא‬, “strong, sharp wine,” b. ‘Abod. Zar. 30a. 16 For additional references to names of wines according to provenance, see CAD, K, 205. 17 Cf. ‫יין לבנון‬, Hos 14:8. 15

nehemiah 6:19—counter espionage

75

NEHEMIAH 6:19—COUNTERESPIONAGE The pericope of Neh 6:17–19 concludes the reports of the multiple plots against Nehemiah with the correspondence of Tobiah, one of Nehemiah’s arch-enemies along with Sanballat and Geshem. Tobiah is reported to have maintained an active written correspondence with many of the prominent nobles of Judah who were bound to him by oath1 through his marital relationships. Nehemiah, nevertheless, was not unaware of these intrigues, as is evident from the concluding verse 19. Though many commentators and translators still interpret this verse as though the nobles were singing the “praises” or “good deeds” of Tobiah,2 the correct understanding of ‫ טוֹב ָֹתיו‬was noted long ago by Geiger3 and subsequently by Löw,4 who repointed the substantive ‫בּוֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ ִט‬and derived it from Aram. ‫“( ִט ָבּא‬report, rumor”).5 Compare Aram./Syr. ‫( טבא‬from ‫ )טבב‬with its cognates in Heb. ‫ִדּ ָבּה‬ (from ‫ )דבב‬and Akk. dibbu (from dab§bu).6 Thus, it becomes patently clear that they were repeating reports and rumors about Tobiah in the presence of Nehemiah and were not praising him. But the story does not end there. Nehemiah also had to reckon with double-agents, for that is precisely what the verse continues to 1 For Heb. ‫בעלי שבועה‬, which is a hapax legomenon, compare its interdialectal cognate equivalent, b¿l adê, CAD, A/I, 134. 2 Cf., e.g., D. C. Siegfried, Esra, Nehemia, und Esther (Göttingen, 1901); J. M. Myers, Ezra-Nehemia, AB 14 (Garden City, NY, 1965), first translation and p. 139; The New English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1970), translation as opposed to note. The pointing of the noun, however, probably reflects a subtle paronomasia on Tobiah’s name: ‫ טוביה‬,‫טובותיו‬. Cf. L. W. Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah (Edinburgh, 1913). 3 A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857) 44, note. 4 I. Löw, “Miscelle,” ZAW 33 (1913), 154. See, too, R. Gordis (“The Text and Meaning of Hosea XIV 3,” VT 5 [1955], 88–90), who does not refer to Geiger or to Löw. Gordis adds that Heb. ‫ דבה‬is rendered as (‫ טיבא )טבהון‬by Tg. Onq. in Gen 37:2 and ‫ טבא‬in the Tg. Jon. to Prov 10:18. He also accepts M. Seidel’s suggestion (“\eqer Millim,” Debir 1 [1923], 32–33) that ‫ טוב‬means “speech” in Hos 14:3 and Ps 39:3. 5 Cf. HALAT, 352. So, too, K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, übersetzt und erklärt, ATD 12 (Göttingen, 1954); and W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, HAT 20 (Tübingen, 1949). 6 For Akk. dibbu, “gossip, rumor,” see CAD, D, 133; and for the relationship between Akk. dibbu, Heb. ‫דּ ָבּה‬, ִ and Syr., Jewish Aram., and Mand. ‫ט ָבּה‬, ֶ see S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago and London, 1974), 42–43.

76


describe: ‫יאים לוֹ‬ ִ ‫מוֹצ‬ ִ ‫וּד ָב ַרי ָהיוּ‬. ְ Though there is no difficulty attached to the understanding or intent of this phrase, its exact linguistic nuance has been heretofore overlooked. The Hebrew expression ‫להוציא דבר‬ takes on an additional overtone when it is compared to its Akkadian interdialectal semantic equivalent amatam/awatam àußû, which is a wellknown idiom meaning “to betray, divulge secrets.” Cf. amat §liàu ult¿ßi (“He has betrayed a secret of his town”);7 àa awat b¿lÊ uàt¿nißßi u b¿lÊ liàalàunåti (“My lord should question those who always betray the secrets of my lord”);8 sinniàiàtum awat puÉrim uàt¿nißßi (“A woman will betray the affairs of the assembly”).9 Thus, here, too, the proper translation should be, “and they divulged my secrets to him.” Thus, as Rudolph comments, “es ist immer gut im Lager des Feindes sine Spione zu haben.”10 Yet this, of course, can, and usually does, work both ways. 7

E. Reiner, ’urpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (Graz, 1958),

96. 8

C.-F. Jean, Lettres diverses, transcrites et traduites, ARM 2 (Paris, 1950), 124:21. A. Goetze, Old Babylonian Omen Texts, YOS 10 (New Haven and London, 1947), 36, IV:9. Cf. also p. 34, 2b; and J. Nougayrol, “Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne,” RA 40 (1945), 68f. 10 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 139. 9

amos 3:15—winter and summer mansions

77

AMOS 3:15—WINTER AND SUMMER MANSIONS The self-indulgent life of the wealthy privileged upper-class residents of Samaria is often referred to by Amos in his severe critique of the contemporary social scene. The elite’s luxurious life of pomp, pleasure, and prosperity, along with their crimes of exploitation, oppression, and perversion of justice, are cardinal causes for the prophet’s categorical threats of the impending catastrophe of destruction and deportation, e.g., Amos 3:11–15, 4:1, 11, 6:4–6, 8:3. In one of his oracles against these voluptuaries, Amos brings his words of doom to a climax with a direct reference to the imminent annihilation of their splendid residences—their “houses of ivory” and their “winter and summer mansions” (byt hÈrp ‘l byt hqyß, Amos 3:15). Though comments are made in passing to the latter two by most exegetes, a difference of opinion still prevails as to their exact meaning. The problem is whether “winter house” and “summer house” refer to two “different parts of the same house, the upper story, if there were two, or the exterior, if there was but one story, being used for the summer” (cf. Judg 3:20; Jer 35:22),1 or to two separate dwelling places in different regions of northern Israel.2 In search of a solution to this question, recourse is usually made to the inscription of the roughly contemporary Aramean king of Sam’al, Bar-Rakib (lines 16–20): “My fathers, the kings of Sam’al, did not have a good house (palace). They had the house (palace) of Kilamuwa, which was their winter house (palace) (byt átw’) and also their summer house

1

W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh, 1905), 78. So most commentators; e.g., S. R. Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos (Cambridge, 1897); E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, KAT 12 (Leipzig and Erlangen, 1922); V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (Leiden, 1951), 70; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos2 (London, 1960), 164; H. W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton, II: Joel und Amos, BKAT 14/2 (Neukirchen, 1969) (= Amos, Hermeneia [Philadelphia, 1977]); E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Oxford, 1970); W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, KAT 23/2 (Gütersloh, 1971). See, too, H. Donner, “Die soziale Botschaft der Propheten,” Orients Antiquus 2 (1963), 237 n. 9; H. K. Beebe, “Ancient Palestinian Dwellings,” BA 31 (1968), 57. Both Wolff and Rudolph draw attention to the preposition ‘al which connects the two Hebrew expressions in the verses and which has the force of “together with.” Cf. Gen 28:9, 32:12. 2

78


(palace) (byt kyß’). But I have built this house [palace].”3 It is obvious that, until Bar-Rakib built his new palace, the one built by Kilamuwa had to suffice for both winter and summer residence4—a situation which he remedied by constructing an additional abode. Yet here and there, lingering doubt has remained as to his intention.5 Further evidence for the independent existence of at least one of these two can now be drawn from cuneiform documents. References to a bÊt kußßi, “winter house,” or ekal kußßi, “winter palace,” appear in three tablets, one from the Middle Babylonian period and two from Late Babylonian times.6 For the latter two, the sources are VAS 15 24:3, 9, 10 (bÊt kußßi), which delineates the borderlines of real estate in a sale of property)7 and BRM 2 36:9 (bÊt kußßu).8 The Middle Babylonian document, BE 14 124, is a tablet which pertains to a series of deliveries, wherein an ekal kußßi, “winter palace,” is specifically mentioned.9 A transcription and translation of the pertinent lines (5–8) is thus very significant: (5) pab (= napÉar) 11 ma (= manû) 5 gín (= àiqil) urudu (= erû) (6) àa é (= bÊt) na4kiàib (= kunukki) àa é.gal (= ekal) (7) kußßi (8) àåßa, “A total of 11 minas 5 shekels of copper which was taken out of the sealed storehouse of the winter palace.” Once again, it should be stressed that the specific mention of a winter palace implies the existence of another separate palace, i.e., the summer one. Here it is of interest to note that R. Koldewey, who excavated Babylon between 1899 and 1917, coined the expression “summer palace” to describe Nebuchadrezzar’s palace in the northeastern cor3 See KAI, I, 40, 216; II (Wiesbaden, 1964), 232–234. J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II: Aramaic Inscriptions (Oxford, 1975), 87–92; F. Rosenthal, in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), ANET2 (Princeton, 1955), 501; W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr. (eds.), The Context of Scripture, II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2000), 160–161. 4 Cf. B. Landsberger, Sam’al (Ankara, 1948), 71–72 n. 89. 5 In addition to Harper (Amos and Hosea), see G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, I, 2 (Gütersloh, 1928), 228, 473; VII (Gütersloh, 1942), 79; L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, HALAT 3, I, 119, byt 1 c. See, too, G. S. Glanzman, “Two Notes: Amos 3:15 and Hosea 11:8–9,” CBQ 23 (1961), 227. Cf., however, Gibson, Textbook, 91, note on line 17. 6 See CAD, E, 54, ekallu, 1a, 5´; K, 595, kußßu, 2c; 596, bÊt kußßi; AHw, 192, ekallu, 1b; and 516, kåßu/kußßu, 3c. 7 O. Schroeder, Kontrakte der Seleukidenzeit aus Warka, VAS 15 (Leipzig, 1916). 8 A. T. Clay, Legal Documents from Erech dated in the Seleucid Era (312–65), BRM 2 (New York, 1913). 9 Idem, Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers, BE 14 (Philadelphia, 1906).

amos 3:15—winter and summer mansions

79

ner of Tell Babel.10 “Der Palast lag hoch und frei, auf 20 m. höhem Unterbau, im Norden der Stadt, wo die von Norden her wehenden, besonders trockenen, Sommerwinde von Sippar her zuerst ihn treffen in reinem Züge aus der gewaltige Ebene, ohne durch den Dunst der Millionenstadt verunreinigt zu sein.”11 The existence of separate capitals and palaces of the Persian king, Cyrus, is reported by Xenophon: “Cyrus himself made his home in the center of his domain, and in the winter season he spent seven months in Babylon, for there the climate is warm; in the spring he spent three months in Susa, and in the height of summer two months in Ecbatana. By doing so, they say, he enjoyed the warmth and coolness of perpetual spring-time.”12 In sum, the wealthy residents of Samaria followed the example of royalty and built for themselves separate pleasure estates in accordance with the climatic conditions of their country.13 10 R. Koldewey and F. Wetzel, Die Königsburgen von Babylon, II: Die Hauptburg und der Sommerpalast Nebukadnezars in Hügel Babel, WVDOG 55 (Leipzig, 1932; repr. Osnabrück, 1969), 41–58. 11 P. 157. See, too, ibid., Die Königsburgen von Babylon, I, WVDOG 54 (Leipzig, 1931), 28; O. E. Ravn, Herodotus’ Description of Babylon (Copenhagen, 1942), 291; G. Roux, Ancient Iraq (London, 1964), 326ff.; repr. (Harmondsworth, 1966), 355ff. 12 Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII, vi 22., translation from the Loeb edition, W. Miller, Xenophon Cyropaedia, II (New York and London, 1914). Cf., too, Anabasis, III v 15, Loeb edition, C. L. Brownson, Anabasis, I–VII (New York and London, 1922): “… that the road to the eastward led to Susa and Ecbatana, where the king is said to spend his summers.” See A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948), Chapter XII: “The Three Capitals: Ecbatana, Babylon, and Susa,” 162–171. 13 For the two residences of Ahab—his “winter palace” in the warmer Jezreel Valley (1 Kings 21:1) and his other one in Samaria (1 Kings 21:18)—see B. D. Napier, “The Omrides of Jezreel,” VT 9 (1959), 366. See, too, Wolff, Dodekapropheton, II, 239–240 (= Amos, 201–202); and Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 166; S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1991), 125–126. Cf. the various statements in the Midrash to the “two palaces of Ahab’s sons, one for the winter days and one for the summer days”; Esther Rabbah 1, 12, and references cited there.

80


fishing imagery in amos 4:2

81

FISHING IMAGERY IN AMOS 4:2* This obscure verse, which abounds in lexical difficulties, has given rise to varied suggestions which attempt to understand the prophet’s vivid—yet difficult—description of the impending doom of Samaria’s privileged class. A review of the interpretations will demonstrate the perplexities of the passage. A. ‫צנות‬ (1) “Shields”1—cf. ‫( ִצנָּה‬e.g., 1 Kings 10:16; Ezek 23:24; 38:4; Ps 5:13; 91:4), ‫( צנות‬2 Chron 11:12). Compare, with slightly different variations, Aq. Qureoi=j; LXX e0n o3ploij; Tg. Jon. ‫ ;על תריסהון‬and Peshitta ‫בזינא‬. Among modern commentators, this solution is favored by Snaith and Driver.2 The latter, in addition, makes reference to an alleged Akk. qanßinnatu, which occurs in ARM 2, 50:93 and which he translates as “shields.” It should be noted at the outset, however, that the meaning

* The following works are referred to in the article by author’s name only: S. Amsler, Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Commentaire de l’Ancient Testament XIa (Neuchâtel, 1965); K. Cramer, Amos (Stuttgart, 1930); R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Book of Amos, 3rd ed. (London, 1960); A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bible, V (Leipzig, 1912); E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos (Oxford, 1970); W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh, 1905); V. Maag, Text, Wortschaft und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (Leiden, 1951); F. Nötscher, Zwölfprophetenbuch oder kleine Propheten Echter-Bibel (Würzburg, 1948); E. Osty, Amos-Osée traduits, SBJ (Paris, 1952); T. H. Robinson, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, HAT 1/14 (Tübingen, 1954); W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, KAT 13/2 (Gütersloh, 1971); E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch übersetzt und erklärt, KAT 12/1 (Leipzig, 1929); N. H. Snaith, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Amos, II (London, 1946); N. H. Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra 3/2 (Jerusalem, 1967); A. Weiser and K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten, ATD 24/1 (Göttingen, 1949); H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1977). See also S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1991). 1 Compare also the medieval exegete, MenaÈem ben Saruq, Sepher HaMaÈberet, ed. Y. Philipawaki (Yadenburg, 1854), 150, s.v. ‫צן‬, second division (Hebrew). 2 G. R. Driver, “Babylonian and Hebrew Notes,” WO 2 (1954), 20–21. 3 C.-F. Jean, Lettres divers, ARM 2 (Paris, 1950), 106. For further references in Mari, see J. Bottéro and A. Finet, Répertoire analytique des tomes I à V, ARM 15 (Paris, 1954), 270.

82


of Akk. ßinnatu is still very much in dispute.4 While Sasson5 weighs the possibility of translating “shields” in one or two of the Mari texts, Frankena6 definitively decides in its favor. However, these very same occurrences of the word are translated “lance” by von Soden (with a question mark),7 M. Birot,8 and G. Dossin.9 Most important is the latter’s note which indicates in all likelihood that the word at Mari should be read sinnatu and not ßinnatu, which, of course, invalidates its cognate relationship to the Hebrew. Furthermore, there is no precedent in the ancient Near East for Driver’s imaginative interpretation of captives being “lifted on shields for the mockery of a brutal and licentious soldiery.” Thus, Rudolph’s criticism that this image “ist allzu phantasievoll” and Wolff ’s “highly unlikely” are definitely in place. Moreover, were this the picture that the prophet had in mind, the proper preposition with the verb ‫ נשא‬would have to be ‫ על‬and not ‫ב‬10 (compare the Aramaic translation of Tg. Jon. above and Exod 19:4; Deut 32:11; Ps 91:12). Last, but not least, this proposed solution for the first hemistich would be somewhat incongruous with the remaining half of the verse. Both the mistranslation and misunderstanding were most likely influenced by the familiar Hebrew idiom, ‫נ ֵֹשׂא צנה‬, “shield bearer” (cf., 1 Sam 17:7, 41; 1 Chron 12:24; 2 Chron 14:7).

4 According to CAD, &, 201, the references in Mari should be read gizinnatu (and not gißinnatu), which “refers to a metal object used for both agricultural and military purposes…. It is possible that the word gizinnatu represents a W. Sem. form of Éaßßinnu, ‘ax’, which appears in Heb. as garzen.” However, it should be noted that Éaßßinnu does appear in Mari several times, e.g., ARM 2, 139:15, 16 (p. 228); J. Bottéro, Textes économiques et administratifs, ARM 7 (Paris, 1957), 249 (pp. 133–134), and that CAD does not have a separate listing for the word gizinnatu. Note, too, G. Dossin’s comment in G. Dossin et al., Textes divers, ARM 13 (Paris, 1964), 166, “Mais l’absence de ce déterminatif dans notre texte (56, ligne 4) comme dans ARM 1, 62, ligne 20, permet d’écarter la lecture gizinnatum suggérée dans CAD.” Cf., too, the remarks on p. 172 to line 32 of letter 144. 5 J. M. Sasson, The Military Establishments at Mari, Studia Pohl 3 (Rome, 1969), 27. 6 R. Frankena, “Some Remarks on a New Approach to Hebrew,” in Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to M. A. van Beek on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss et al. (Assen, 1974), 43–44. 7 AHw, 1047. 8 G. Dossin et al., Textes divers, 78, letter 56:4. 9 Ibid., 165–166, letter 56:4. 10 See Elieser Ben Yehuda, Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (Jerusalem, 1950), 11.5541 n. 2 (Hebrew).


83

(2) “Ropes.” This translation was suggested by Schwantes based on his interpretation of Gr. o3pla in the LXX and was further supported by his recourse to an Akkadian noun, ßinnatu, “halter, nose-rope.”11 However, as Rudolph once again perceptively observed, Gr. o3pla is never used elsewhere in the LXX with the meaning “ropes,” but is employed to translate ‫ צנה‬in Ps 5:13 and 91:4, where the Hebrew word definitely has the meaning “shield” and not “rope.” Furthermore, the alleged Akkadian counterpart, ßinnatu, appears only rarely in vocabulary lists alongside of ßerretu, “nose-rope,” and may be a phonetic variant of the latter.12 But in a literary context it is attested only once, and then in a difficult line of a Neo-Babylonian letter.13 And there its meaning is highly doubtful. (Interestingly enough, the word appears in that letter in connection with embåbu, “flute,” and both words likewise occur together in another difficult cuneiform text.)14 Thus, the proposed portrayal of captives being led in single file with ropes fastened to rings drawn through their lips, though attested in Mesopotamian pictorial representations,15 is not what the prophet had in mind here.16 (3) “Thorns.” Ibn Ezra (also Rudolph) compared ‫ צנות‬to ‫צנינים‬, “thorns” (Num 33:55; Josh 23:13) and ‫( ִצנִּ ים‬Prov 22:5). From this meaning it is only a short step to the most favored of interpretations, “hooks” (so, e.g., Harper, Sellin, Nötscher, Weiser, Maag, Robinson, Cripps, Hammershaimb, Tur Sinai, Vesco). For the semantic development from “thorn” to “hook,” compare ‫חוח‬, “thorn”17 (e.g., 2 Kings 24:9; Isa 34:13; Hos 9:6; Song of Songs 2:2), which also denotes “hook”

11 S. J. Schwantes, “Note on Amos 4:2b,” ZAW 79 (1967), 82–83, who unnecessarily goes on to emend the verse. This interpretation was accepted by Wolff. Cf. J.-L. Vesco, “Amos de Téqoa, défenseur de l’homme,” RB 87 (1980), 496. 12 CAD, &, 201, ßinnatu B. Cf., too, AHw, 1103. 13 A. T. Clay, Neo-Babylonian Letters from Erech, YOS 3 (New Haven, 1919), 142: 34. 14 For reference, see CAD, &, 201, ßinnatu A, in a late Babylonian text, E. Ebeling and F. Köcher, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, II (Berlin, 1953), 7–8. 15 G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, I (New York, 1881), 243. 16 Neither is he referring to prisoners bound to one another by the neck; cf. H. Gressmann, Altorientalischen Bilder zum Alten Testament (Berlin and Leipzig, 1927), Pls. xv:39; xxxvii:86; lvi:128; ANEP, 4:7, 8, 9; 107:325, 326. See Isa 52:2. 17 Cf. also Akk. ÉaÉÊnu, “thorny plant,” ÉiÉÊnu and ÉaÉÉu in the respective entries in CAD and AHw. For the latter, as an Aramaic loan word in Akkadian, see W. von Soden, “Aramäische Wörter in nA, nB, und spB Texten. Ein Vorbericht I,” Or 35 (1966), 9.

84


when used in connection with a captured marine creature (Job 40:26) and human captives (2 Chron 33:11). Compare, too, ‫( חח‬2 Kings 19: 28 = Isa 37:29; Ezek 19:4; 29:4; 38:4). However, outside of this verse, there is no evidence to attach either such a basic or derived meaning to ‫צנות‬,18 and the use of the verb ‫ נשא‬would also present a bit of difficulty in such a case (Tur Sinai). For further criticism, see below. (4) “Baskets.” Thus, Ibn GanaÈ,19 Ibn Bal‘am,20 and Eliezer Beaugency21 in his first interpretation, who compare Heb. ‫( צנצנת‬Exod 16: ַ “basket.”23 33).22 Note, moreover, should also be made of Aram. ‫צנָּא‬, Cf. ‫צנא דמלאי תמרי‬, “a basketful of dates” (b. Ta‘an. 9b), and ‫צנא דמלאי‬ ‫סיפרי‬, “a basketful of books” (b. Meg. 28b), a metaphor for a learned individual. Related Aramaic forms of this substantive are ‫( צינא‬Tg. Yer. to Deut 23:25), pl. ‫( ציניא‬Tg. Yer. to Deut 26:3), and ‫( צינית‬Midr. Lam 1:52 on Lam 1:17). These words are all related to Aram. ‫צינא‬, ‫צנה‬, ‫צינתא‬, “palms.”24 From these well-documented usages is derived the following meaning. (5) “Boats”—in the form of baskets (Rashi, Metsudat Zion; cf. Abarbanel) or shields (Kimchi)25 made from palms (Luria),26 an interpretation which was obviously influenced by the latter’s (incorrect) understanding of the following ‫ סירות‬as “boats” (see below). Though both Luria (and Zolli,27see below) have the guffa-boat in mind,28 it is hardly likely that the prophet conceived of a deportation by boat for the inhabitants of Samaria. All of his veiled references to future exile point to the east (thus overland), and not to the west or overseas (Amos 5:27; 7:17; 9:4, 9). And since Assyria is nowhere specifically

18 For the borrowing of the word ‫ צן‬into late Egyptian, see W. A. Ward, “Notes on Some Semitic Loan Words and Personal Names,” Or 32 (1963), 419, 435–36. 19 Yona ibn GanaÈ, Sepher Haschoraschim (Berlin, 1896), 433 (Hebrew). 20 Judah ibn Bal‘am, cited by PoznaÔski (below, n. 21), 147 n. 2. 21 Eliezer aus Beaugency, Kommentar zu Ezechiel und den XII Kleinen Propheten, ed. S. PoznaÔski (Warsaw, 1914) (Hebrew). 22 Cf., too, ben Yehuda, Thesaurus, 5541. 23 But it is not related to Heb. ‫( טנא‬Zolli, below n. 27), which is an Egyptian loan word (dnjt) in Hebrew. See Th. O. Lamdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73 (1953), 159. 24 For references, see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950), ad loc. 25 Rabbi David Kimchi, Radicum Liber (Berlin, 1947), 315 (Hebrew). 26 B. S. Luria, “Amos 4:3,” Beth Mikra 30 (1966–67), 10–11 (Hebrew). 27 E. Zolli, “Amos 4:2b,” Antonianum 30 (1955), 188–90. 28 But see below on the rarity of the guffa-boat in antiquity.


85

mentioned by name in the entire book,29 a forced crossing of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers on boat is surely not in the purview of the prophet (contrary to Luria). B. ‫סירות דוגה‬ Three principal suggestions have been offered for this unique phrase (whether or not ‫דוגה‬, a hapax legomenon, is interpreted as a mere gloss, e.g., Sellin, Weiser, Maag, Amsler). (1) “Thorns”—thus Daniel al-Kumissi30 and Ibn Ezra. Then, by extension, the entire phrase is understood by most moderns to mean “fish hooks” (e.g., Harper, Nötscher, Maag, Cripps, Hammershaimb, Tur Sinai, Rudolph). This interpretation would then complement the assumed parallel development of ‫צנות‬, i.e., “thorns” = “hooks.” But here, too, it should first be noted that the meaning “hook” is otherwise unattested for this word. Furthermore, the plural of ‫סיר‬, “thorn,” always appears in the masculine, ‫( סירים‬Isa 34:13; Hos 2:8; Nah 1:10 [?]; Eccles 7:6), and never in the feminine, ‫סירות‬, as here.31 Naturally, once the meaning “hooks” for ‫ צנות‬is excluded, the similar meaning for ‫ סירות‬would also be all but precluded. Moreover, there exists a further difficulty to this interpretation based on realia. Fishing hooks were all but unknown in Mesopotamia, at least from the third millennium on.32 Different methods and implements were employed for the catching of fresh water and marine fish. For the latter, spears, pikes, harpoons, and nets were used.33 For the former, the most common device was weir-baskets.34 Neither, however, made use of fishing hooks. Among the widely attested and documented technical terms for fishing equipment in Mesopotamia, no word even exists for fishing hooks.35 Salonen even goes so far as to suggest that the fishing hook

29 Y. Kaufmann, Toldoth HaEmunah HaYisraelit (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik, 1957), 6–7.87 (Hebrew). 30 Daniel al-Kumissi, Pitron HaShenam ‘Asar (Jerusalem, 1948). 31 This was already pointed out by Ehrlich, Randglossen, V, 238. 32 A. Salonen, Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien (Helsinki, 1939), 38. 33 Idem, Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen (Helsinki, 1970), 51ff. 34 See B. Landsberger, The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia, MSL 8/2 (Rome, 1962), 79–80. 35 Salonen, Fischerei, 55.

86


was replaced at a very early date by the weir-basket in freshwater fishing.36 Furthermore, in Egypt, where hooks were in use, baskets were still considered the “simplest method” for catching fish.37 Wolff and Rudolph, basing themselves on Dalman,38 comment that here the prophet has “harpoons” in mind and not “fish-hooks” (already suggested by Osty). But such a meaning is totally undocumented, and Dalman’s comments apply to ‫ חוח‬and not to ‫סירות‬. (2) “Boats.” So Tg. Jon. (to Isa 18:2) ‫דוגית צידין‬, Rashi, Kimchi39 (cf. Abarbanel), and Zolli. Compare Tg. Jon. to Isa 18:2, ‫כלי גמא‬, which is translated ‫דגוגין‬, and the conjectured restoration ‫]ובדגו[גין‬ ‫די נונין‬, “fishermen’s boats” in 11 QtgJob to Job 40:31.40 No one, as yet, has made reference to what would appear at first glance to be the most likely semantic counterpart of the Hebrew expression, i.e., Sum. già.ma 2 .su.ku 6 , Akk. elep b§’iri, “fisherman’s barge, skiff”41 (cf. also Sum. già.ma 2 ku 42). However, these boats in Mesopotamia were never made out of palms (as Luria contends), but of reeds, rushwood, or skins.43 Furthermore, the guffa-boat, which Zolli and Weiser specifically refer to and for which Luria brings a pictorial representation,44 is rare in Mesopotamia.45 Rare, too, is its Neo-Babylonian synonym, eleppu Éallatu.46 And scarcely does it show up pictorially.47 Mention should be made here of a section in Herodotus 1:194, which describes “the boats which ply down the Euphrates to the city. These boats are circular in shape and made of hides (kuklotere/a pa&nta sku/tina). They build them in Armenia northward of Assyria, where they cut withies and make the frames, and then stretch skins on the under side 36

Ibid., 54. Ibid., 52. 38 G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, VI (Gütersloh, 1939), 360. 39 Kimchi, Radicum Liber, 238. Cf. b. B. Bat. 73a. 40 M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat Gan, 1974), 96, col. XXXV:10. On p. 163, he states: “This conjectured restoration is based on G*: e0n ploi/oij a(li/ewn, “in boats of fishermen.” 41 For cuneiform references, see Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, 37–38; idem, Fischerei, 71–72; and CAD, E, 95, 6´. 42 Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, 34. 43 Ibid., 5, 138, 144–45. 44 Luria, “Amos,” 11. 45 Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, 13. 46 Ibid., 74. Cf. CAD, ›, 44, Éallatu B (C). 47 For representations from the time of Sennacherib, see Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, Pls. XX:1 and XXII:1; idem, Fischerei, XV:2. 37


87

of the craft. They are not fined-off or tapered in any way at bow or stern, but quite round like a shield (a)spi/doj)…. It is quite impossible to paddle the boats upstream because of the strength of the current, and that is why they are constructed of hide instead of wood.” But, as has been noted, the description given here represents a combination of different types of boats.48 In sum, it should be reiterated that a naval deportation does not fit the geographical/ideational outlook of the prophet.49 (3) “Pots.” ‫( סיר‬Exod 16:3; 2 Kings 4:38, 39, 41; Ezek 11:7), plural ‫( סירות‬Exod 27:3; 38:3; 1 Kings 7:45; 2 Kings 25:14; Jer 52:18, 19; Zech 14:20; 2 Chron 4:11, 16; 35:13); so LXX, ei0j le/bhtaj, “kettles, cauldrons,” Vulgate in ollis, “earthenware jars, pots,” Peshitta ‫בקסדא‬, “pots.” Thus, it is understood by MenaÈem ben Saruq,50 Eliezer Beaugency (first interpretation),51 and among moderns, Ehrlich,52 Cramer, Maag, and Driver,53 as “fish pots.” The immediate advantage of this interpretation is that the Hebrew word for a metal pot, ‫סיר‬, always appears with a feminine plural (see references above). After all the possibilities have been reviewed along with their criticisms, it becomes clear that the least amount of difficulties are attached to the interpretation of ‫ צנות‬and ‫ סירות‬as “baskets” and “pots,” respectively. The former is well attested by its cognates cited above, and the latter is well documented in the Bible itself. In other words, it appears that the image of the prophet is to be understood in the light of the common practice of catching, packing, and transporting fish in these receptacles.54 That baskets were predominantly employed for such purposes is amply documented in Mesopotamian sources. “Their [freshwater fishermen’s ] main device… was the weir or the sa.numun2… which was made of rushes and which served for

48 Salonen (Wasserfahrzeuge, 72), who also cites Delitzsch, in Festschrift E. Sachau (Berlin, 1915), 90ff. Cf. also Salonen’s comments on pp. 73–74. 49 The modern Hebrew word ‫סירה‬, meaning “boat,” is a comparatively new addition to the vocabulary, based, of course, on this interpretation. 50 MenaÈem ben Saruq, Sepher HaMaÈberet, 128, second division of ‫סר‬. 51 Eliezer aus Beaugency, Kommentar zu Ezechiel, ad loc. 52 See Ehrlich’s comments in Mikra Ki-Pheshuão, III (New York, 1969), 407. 53 Driver (“Babylonian and Hebrew Notes”) comments that the image of being packed tight as fish in baskets is similar to the English expression, “like sardines in a tin.” 54 Salonen, Fischerei, 51, 55ff.

88


taking the fish from the water and for transporting them overland.”55 For other “Fischkörbe,”56 cf., for example, bugin2 àu.Éa (= buginnu àa b§’iri),57 lamaqartu/lamaqurtu (àa nåni),58 and references to the pisannureceptacle,59 in which a great quantity of different types of fish were all packed into the same container.60 Moreover, there exists a picturesque description of captives in a fisherman’s basket, which is found in one of the prophetic texts from Mari.61 The god Dagan, in the course of delivering his message by means of a prophet to King Zimrilim, states: u àarr§[ni àa Binî]amina ina sussul b§’ir[i…]ài-il-àu-nu-ti-ma62 maÉrika [luàku]nàunuti, “I, [Dagan,] 55 Landsberger, Fauna, 79–80. For sa·numun , “Reuse,” see Salonen, Fischerei, 2 57–60. On p. 57 he states sa·numun 2 = sa·zi ·zi ·nigin 2 , wörtlich eine runde (Reuse) aus numun 2 -Pflanze.” 56 Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, 75–79. 57 Idem, Fischerei, 75; idem, Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen (Helsinki, 1965–66), I, s.v.; CAD, B, 31, “pail”; 306, “trough, bucket.” 58 Salonen, Fischerei, 77; Hausgeräte, II, 336–37; CAD, L, 60. 59 Salonen, Fischerei, 77–79; Hausgeräte, I, s.v.; AHw, 867–68. 60 Salonen, Fischerei, 79. 61 G. Dossin, “Une révélation du dieu Dagan à Terqa,” RA 42 (1948), 130, lines 37–38. See, too, W. von Soden, “Verkündigung des Gotteswillens durch prophetisches Wort in den altbabylonischen Briefen aus Mari,” WO (1947–52), 398, lines 37–38; AHw, 1064. 62 Three suggestions have been offered for the restoration of the reading of the verb: (a) [lu-pa-á]à-ài-il-àu-nu-ti-ma, Dossin (“Une révélation”), whose translation, “j’emménerai,” is followed by J.-G. Heintz (“Oracles prophétiques et ‘Guerre Sainte’ selon les archives royales de Mari et l’Ancien Testament,” Congress Volume: 1968, SVT 17 [Leiden, 1969], 129–30), “tirer, trainer,” from the verb paà§lu. (b) [lu-àa-a]b-ài-il-àu-nu-ti-ma, “I will have them cooked,” à-form of baà§lu / àubàulu, “to cook a meal.” This interpretation by A. Malamat (“Prophecy in the Mari Documents,” Eretz-Israel 4, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi Volume [Jerusalem,1956], 82, note to lines 37–38 [Hebrew]) is accepted by W. L. Moran in ANET, Supplement Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, 1969), 623 n. 6, and is offered as one of two possible translations by A. Marzal, Gleanings from the Wisdom of Mari (Rome, 1976), 57 and 88 n. 97. (c) [lu-àa-a]p-ài-il-àu-nu-ti-ma, from paà§lu, “creep, crawl,” used in connection with enemy captives, AHw, 841 and 1064. Von Soden translates the à-form here “zappeln lassen” (“to make writhe/wriggle”), both in WO 1 (1947–52), 398 and in AHw. His reading and translation are cited by Marzal, Gleanings, 57–58, and are followed by H. Schmökel, “Gotteswort in Mari und Israel,” TLZ 76 (1951), 53; F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel (Herzberg am Harz, 1968), 27; and A. Finet, “Citations littéraires dans la correspondance de Mari,” RA 68 (1974), 41 n. 5, “je les ferai frétiller.” This last interpretation is the one accepted here since (a) paà§lu with the meaning “to lead away” is undocumented in AHw, and (b) one does not boil or


89

will make the Benjaminite sheiks wriggle/writhe in a fisherman’s basket and deliver them in front of you.” That the correct reading and interpretation of the phrase is sussul b§’iri,” “a fisherman’s basket,” is accepted by almost all Assyriologists today.63 A further example of the use of this container with fish is found in a late Babylonian text: kî nån¿ ina sussullu indaãû…, “Should there be a shortage of fish in the basket….”64 Thus, the proposed translation for this difficult verse in Amos—“And you will be transported in baskets and the very last one of you65 in fishermen’s pots”—now adds a further image to the other symbols for the catching of fish employed in connection with captive Israel (cf. Jer 16:16 and Hab 1:14). roast (baà§lu) or cook a meal (àubàulu) in a wooden fisherman’s basket. 63 Salonen, Fischerei, 79; Hausgeräte, I, 244ff.; AHw, 96, 1063g; CAD, B, 32; S, 418. So, too, Schmökel, “Gotteswort,” 53; Ellermeier, Prophetie, 27; Heintz, “Oracles prophétiques,” 129–30; Finet, “Citations littéraires,” 41 n. 5, “la nasse.” Marzal (Gleanings, 58) compares this image with that of the divine net found in other Mari texts. “In this method of fishing a basket with a wicket is placed opposing the current of the water; when the fish have entered it, they are entrapped and unable to get out.” Dossin (“Une revelation”) reads instead of sussulu, ßußßulu, which he translated “harpoon” and compared Job 40:31. Moran (ANET, 623 n. 7) accepted this reading but translated “a fisherman’s spit” (so, too, Marzal, Gleanings, 57) and interpreted it as an instrument for cooking (again with Malamat, “Prophecy,” 82). However, the word is unattested in Akkadian. 64 A. Tremayne, Records from Erech, Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (538–521 B.C.), YOS 7 (New Haven, 1952), 90:15. Cf. CAD, B, 270–71. 65 Cf. Amos 1:7; 8:10; 9:1. See H. Gese, “Zum Verständnis des Amosbuches,” VT 12 (1962), 436–37. Cf. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 168, “nicht mit Ausnahmen zu rechnen war, ist wie 8, 10 und 9, 1 nur eine rhetorische Figur, um die Totalität der Katastrophe zu veranschaulichen.” See also Paul, Amos, 130–135.

90


an unrecognized medical idiom

91

AN UNRECOGNIZED MEDICAL IDIOM IN SONG OF SONGS 6:12 AND JOB 9:21 In Mesopotamian medical texts there appears an expression—ram§nàu la ide, “he does not know himself ”—which describes the patient’s (partial) loss of consciousness. Compare, for example, TDP 80:3,1 where the following diagnosis is recorded: àumma enåma ißbatuàu libbaàu êr2 itebbî3 (written zi-be [!]) àumma enåma ißbatuàu ramanàu la ide la itebbî, “If, when it (a certain disease called the miqtu-disease) seizes him (i.e., when the patient has such a seizure), his mind is lucid (i.e., he is mentally alert), he will recover; if, when it seizes him, ‘he does not know himself ’, he will not recover.” As Landsberger noted in commenting upon this text, the future recovery or lack of recovery of the patient is determined by whether he is “bei vollem Bewußtsein,” or “nichts von sich weiss (= keine Apperzeption hat).” He further states that the idiom ramanàu la ide4 signifies “ein noch mildere Bewußtseinsstörung.”5 1

R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux (= TDP) (Paris and Leiden, 1957). For a transcription and translation of this line, see also CAD, E, 326. 2 For Akk. libba êra, see CAD, E, 326; L, 170; AHw 3, 247a; and cf. Song of Songs 5:2, ‫לבי ער‬. See M. Held, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 15 (1961), 6, I 21 and notes on p. 13; idem, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 16 (1962), 38. 3 Akk. tebû, “to arise,” implies here the recovery of the patient and should not be translated “and can (or, cannot) move,” as is suggested in CAD, L, 170, 3b. Cf. also muruß l§ tebê, “a sickness without recovery.” See correctly the CAD reference in the previous note; B. Landsberger, “Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen,” WO 3 (1964), 55 n. 31; AHw, 1342, G ld for this specific use of tebû. For the Hebrew interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. tebû, ‫קום‬, compare the similar intransitive use of the verb in the medical context of Exod 21:19. This verse and v. 21 also have interesting analogues in Mesopotamian medical texts. Cf. TDP 162:61, àumma iàtu murßi ud.l.kam ud.2.kam itebbÊma ittanalak ana murßiàu itârma imât, “If (the sick person) for a day or two recovers from his sickness and walks about, he shall have a relapse (lit., ‘he shall return to his sickness’) and die.” Likewise in Exod 21:19, ‫ = אם יקום והתהלך‬àumma itebbÊma ittanalak. Note that both texts use the tan—frequentative form for the verb, “to walk.” (For other uses of the tan-form of al§ku in medical contexts, see CAD, A/I, 324.) And in Exod 21:21, the decisive time factor is also “a day or two,” ‫ = אך אם יום או יומים יעמד‬àumma… ud.1.kam ud.2.kam, and in the Exodus verse as well the victims dies. For the similar use of tebû (‫ )קום‬and uzuzzu (‫ )עמד‬in a medical text, see TDP 220:21, tebâ u uzuzza. 4 Cf. TDP 80:5 and passim.

92


The exact interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. ramanàu la ide is Heb. ‫לא ידע נפשו‬, an idiom which appears twice in the Bible and which connotes, as does its Akkadian counterpart, a mental disturbance—once caused by great joy and exhilaration and once by overwhelming sorrow and suffering. Such a state of loss of mind in a romantic context is found in Song of Songs 6:12—‫לא ידעתי נפשי שמתני מרכבות בת עמי‬ ‫נדיב‬. This verse has been aptly designated the hardest passage in the entire book, and for many it is “completely incomprehensible.”6 One commentator even went so far as to translate the first two words of the verse as a confession of a reader who simply states, “I do not understand it.”7 Of all the varied interpretations offered for this puzzling verse, the most intriguing and appealing is that of Tur Sinai,8 who compares Song of Songs 6:11–12 with 7:13. When both passages are placed side by side, the similarity becomes patently obvious: 6:11–12

7:13

(I went down to the nut grove to see the budding of the vale;)

(Let us go early to the vineyards;)

To see if the vines have blossomed,

Let us see if the vine has blossomed,

If the pomegranates are in bloom. ‫לא ידעתי נפשי שמתני מרכבות בת עמי‬ ‫נדיב‬

If the pomegranates are in bloom. There I will give my love to you.

5 Landsberger, “Einige unerkannt geblieben,” 55 n. 31. See also CAD, I/J, 22, 1a; R, 120, 7´. 6 For a discussion of the various interpretations, emendations, and solutions proposed for this verse, see R. Tournay, “Les Chariots d’Aminadab (Cant 6:12): Israël, Peuple Théophore,” VT 9 (1959), 288–309; R. Gordis “The Song of Songs,” Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume, English section (New York, 1953), 373–374; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7 C (Garden City, 1977), 584–592; M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison, 1985), 156; R. E. Murphy, The Song of Songs, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1990); O. Keel, The Song of Songs (Minneapolis, 1994); A. Bloch and C. Bloch, The Song of Songs (New York, 1995); T. Longman III, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids, 2001), 185–187. 7 Cited by Gordis, “Song of Songs,” 373 in the name of P. Haupt. 8 N. H. Tur Sinai, HaLashon WeHaSefer, II (Jerusalem, 1951), 385–386 (Hebrew); idem, Peshuão shel Miqra 4/2 (Jerusalem, 1968), 130–131 (Hebrew). His emendation is accepted by Gordis, op. cit., who, however, unlike Tur Sinai, does not link the last three words in the verse, ‫בת עמי נדיב‬, to 7:1. Tur Sinai, however, did not catch the nuance of the phrase under discussion and disassociated it from Job 9:21 in his commentary on Job.

an unrecognized medical idiom

93

In the light of these virtually parallel verses, Tur Sinai proposed to revocalize and divide the difficult expression ‫ שמתני מרכבות‬into ‫ָשׁם‬ ‫תּנִ י מ ֵֹרְך‬, ְ “There (in the garden) give me your myrrh (i.e., your love),” thus culminating the pericope on the same ecstatic tone as 7:13. (For the fragrance of myrrh as a symbol of love, compare 1:13, ‫צרור המֹר‬ ‫דודי לי‬, “My beloved is for me a spray of henna-blooms.”) It is clear, even if this attractive suggestion is not accepted, that the context of the passage is one of great expectation and overwhelming joy. And in the midst of this exhilarating state of mind the swain adds, ‫לא ידעתי‬ ‫נפשי‬. When ‫ נפשי‬is read together with ‫( לא ידעתי‬with many modern commentators against the Masoretic division),9 the exact Hebrew counterpart of the Akkadian idiom comes to light, that is, the “loss of one’s mental balance and normal composure,” and in this particular context may be translated, “I am beside myself with joy,”10 being “out of his mind” with the expectation of the ecstasy of love. A similar loss of mental composure can also be caused by suffering and trouble, and such is the case of Job. Out of the depths of his profound agony, he declares that he would rather forfeit his life than relinquish his integrity and claim of innocence. Thus Job declares in 9: 20–21, “Though I am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless, He (or ‘it’, i.e., my own mouth) would prove me perverse. I am blameless. ‫לא ידעתי נפשי‬, I am totally distraught/out of my mind.” Here, once again, the same idiom is encountered, and, as in Akkadian, it describes the mental disorder of a suffering individual who is totally beside himself. But here not the pangs of delight of love bring about his loss of mental equilibrium but rather the torment of frustrating spiritual anguish. 9

See Tournay, “Les Chariots d’Aminadab,” 291. Thus, Gordis (“Song of Songs”), who correctly understood the overtones of the idiom and compared it to Job 9:21, without being aware of its Akkadian analogue. (The possible occurrence of this expression in Prov 19:2 is unclear.) 10

94


1 samuel 9:7: an interview fee

95

1 SAMUEL 9:7: AN INTERVIEW FEE The tale of young Saul, who in his search for lost asses finds a royal throne, has been the subject of many studies. This note deals with a single term which appears in that narrative—a term which has puzzled translators and commentators throughout the centuries. When Saul, having tarried away from home for a longer time than anticipated, becomes anxious that his father might begin to worry more about him than the asses, his servant makes the suggestion that they seek the advice of the “man of God,” who would be able to help them on their errand. Saul, however, realizing that such aid was not granted gratis, points out that he has nothing at his disposal with which to remunerate the seer: “If we go, what can we bring the man? There is no food left in our packs and we have no1 ‫ תשורה‬to bring to the man of God. What have we got?” (1 Sam 9:7). Fortunately, the servant had a quarter-shekel of silver, and with this as a perquisite they were able to make their way to the prophet Samuel. ‫תשורה‬, a hapax legomenon, has been resolved in multiple ways by translators and commentators. The Septuagint, probably deriving the word from the Hebrew ‫שאר‬/‫שייר‬, translates plei=on (“to be in excess”): “And we having nothing more with us….” The Vulgate, in turn, has sportula (diminutive of sporta), “a little basket,” which develops into the meaning of a “gift, present.”2 The Targum Yerushalmi, on the other hand, renders ‫ומדעם דכשר‬, “nothing which is proper”—a translation based on the derivation of the word from the root ‫ישר‬, “right, proper,” as Rashi correctly noted. Amongst the modern commentators, various opinions have been expressed. Smith3 thinks that the word is cor-

Many moderns vocalize ‫ אַיִ ן‬for MT ‫אין‬. ֵ See Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (New York, 1968), 537: “The basket in which great men were accustomed to give their clients and dependents provisions or an equivalent in money, hence, a gift, present.” So, too, C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1951). Tur Sinai (Peshuão shel Miqra [Jerusalem, 1965], 139–140 [Hebrew]) draws an analogy from Greek Qhsauro/j, which means, in addition to treasure, “a receptacle for valuables, a chest, casket, offertory-box” (see H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, I [Oxford, 1948]), and thinks that the Greek word is a “Canaanite-Hebrew loanword” from ‫תשורה‬. 3 H. P. Smith, Samuel, ICC (Edinburgh, 1899). 1 2

96


rupt, while Herzberg4 states that it is a “doubtful word” and follows “Caspari5 in deriving it from ‫שאר‬, ‘that which remains’, i.e., ‘there is nothing left to bring…’.” Others, such as Segal6 and BDB, relate the verb to the root ‫שור‬, “to travel”;7 while according to Biblia Hebraica (Kittel) the word is corrupt for “perhaps ‫תמורה‬.”8 Ehrlich,9 though deriving the substantive from the root ‫שור‬, “to see,” nevertheless states, “und von diesem Verbum kann durch keine erdenkliche Wendung des Grundbegriffs ein Substantiv abgeleitet werden, das Geschenk bedeutete.” And so he comes to the conclusion that it refers to an object which is seen, i.e., “a trinket.” Despite all this difference of opinion, most commentators still correctly understand the word to mean a gift or a present (as the Vulgate), but do not offer any basis for this meaning other than that it correctly suits the general context. It is, however, to the credit not of a modern exegete but a medieval one to have understood the basic derivation and meaning of ‫תשורה‬. MenaÈem ben Saruq, in his work MaÈberet MenaÈem,10 lists the word in his fourth division of the root ‫שר‬, “to see”11 (according to him, a biconsonantal radical), and defines it as “the fee of seeing [i.e., having an interview] which they bring to the seer,” a definition which is cited and accepted by Rashi.12 Ben Saruq’s insight can now be substantiated by resort to Akkadian. For just as ‫תשורה‬, “gift,” is derived from ‫שור‬, “to see,” so, too, its interdialectal semantic equivalent, n§murtu/t§martu, “gift,” is derived from am§ru, “to see.”13 According to Postgate, this word indicates “in 4

H. W. Herzberg, I and II Samuel, OTL (Philadelphia, 1964). W. Caspari, Die Samuelbücher, KAT (Leipzig, 1925). This is only one of the possibilities suggested by Caspari. Herzberg, however, makes no mention of the LXX, which, of course, is the basis for this translation. 6 M. Segal, The Books of Samuel (Jerusalem, 1956) (Hebrew). 7 See also David Kimchi, Sefer HaShorashim (Jerusalem, 1967), 378. 8 See already A. Klostermann (Die BB Samuelis und die Könige [Nordlingen, 1887]), who suggested that the “Greek plei=on was an error for pwlei=n, ‫תמורה‬.” 9 A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, III (Leipzig, 1910), 196–197. 10 MenaÈem ben Saruq, MaÈberet MenaÈem (Wadinburg, 1854), 180. David Kimchi (Sefer HaShorashim) cites similar interpretations in the name of Y. ibn GanaÈ and Saadiah Gaon. 11 So, too, Joseph Kimchi, Sefer HaGaluy (Berlin, 1887), 156, and Yonah ibn GanaÈ, Sefer haShorashim (Berlin, 1896), 504, both of whom connect this word with the verb in Isa 57:9, as do several modern commentators. 12 See his commentary in Miqra’ot Gedolot. 13 AHw, 730, n§murtu, “(Ehren-) Geschenk”; ibid., 1313, t§martu, “Besuchsgeschenk”; CAD, N/I, 254–255, “audience gift.” 5

1 samuel 9:7: an interview fee

97

origin a gift brought to the king on the occasion of an audience with him14…. Since… the vassals, officials, or their stewards appeared in person when the gift was made, I suggest that the n§murtu was an ‘audience fee’—a payment made by the king’s subjects whenever they came to him for a favor or some kind of help….15 [The word is] related to the N-stem of am§ru… ‘to be seen (by the king)’ making them as it were ‘interview presents’…. The n§murtu in the 12th century is still therefore in essence a freely given gift. It is usually made to the king by officials (and subject rulers) on the occasion of an audience with him. The size of the gift may have depended on the nature of the favor requested….”16 This definition fits ‫ תשורה‬exactly, philologically, semantically, and contextually.17 Thus, the reservation expressed by Saul was simply that he had no “interview fee” to present the seer for services to be rendered.18 14 J. N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, Studia Pohl: Series Maior 3 (Rome, 1974), 146–162. The quote is on p. 154. Following W. J. Martin (Tribut und Tributleistungen bei den Assyrern, Studia Orientalis 8/1 [Helsinki, 1936]), he explains t§martu as the “Babylonian form” of n§murtu. 15 Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, 159. 16 Ibid., 160. See, too, M. Elath, Economic Relations in the Lands of the Bible c. 1000–539 B.C. (Jerusalem, 1977), 16 (Hebrew). 17 Though the n§murtu/t§martu was mainly given to the king, both Postgate (Taxation and Conscription) and von Soden (AHw) cite a few examples where it refers to a gift from one person to another. See, too, CAD, N/I, 255. 18 For other gifts and monetary reimbursements to prophets, see 2 Kings 5, 15ff. and Mic 3:5, 11; Ezek 22:25. A similar semantic development from the verb “to see,” to express a specific “gift,” occurs in post-Biblical Hebrew. In m. Pe’a 1:1 and m. \ag. 1:2, for example, the substantive ‫ראיה‬/‫( ראיון‬from ‫ראה‬, “to see”) is also used as a technical expression for the “pilgrim’s burnt offering.” This, of course, is eventually derived from Deut 16:16. After this note was concluded, I discovered that H. Cohen makes a passing independent reference to this equation in his Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (Missoula, 1978), 24, citing Akk. t§martu. Cf. also M. Weinfeld, “Recent Publications,” Shnaton. An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 2 (1977), 252 (Hebrew); P. K. McCarter, Jr. (I Samuel, AB 8 [Garden City, 1980], 176), who accepts this interpretation; and Sh. ben Efrat, I Samuel (Jerusalem, 1996), 138 (Hebrew). See also Isa 57:9, where a similar interpretation of bringing a gift may be implied in the verb ‫ַתּ ֻשׁ ִרי‬ ָ ‫ו‬.

98


unrecognized biblical legal idioms

99

UNRECOGNIZED BIBLICAL LEGAL IDIOMS IN THE LIGHT OF COMPARATIVE AKKADIAN EXPRESSIONS In memory of Dr. Rafi Weiss, ‫רעי וידידי‬ I. Proverbs 31:5 Manuals of instructions to kings and crown princes are well known from the literature of the ancient Near East. Compare, for example, the advice of Pharaoh Merikare (ca. end of 22nd century B.C.E.)1 and Amenemhet I, pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty (ca. 2000 B.C.E.)2 to their respective sons and successors, and the so-called “Advice to a Prince” from Babylonia.3 Only in the Bible, however, has there been preserved an admonitory set of instructions addressed to the king by his mother (Prov 31:1–9). Her words of warning are directed against two major obstacles which may impede her son’s fulfilling his designated obligations properly and clear-headedly: women and wine.4 The deleterious effects of the latter, overdrinking, are further expressed by the damage that it causes to the king’s maintenance of his legal responsibilities toward his subjects, for in a state of inebriation he is likely to deprive the underprivileged of their due rights and protection under the law. This, then, would undermine one of the cardinal duties of a “just king” as frequently defined in Mesopotamian legal collections, that is, “to make justice appear in the land.”5 As has been

1 2 3

J. S. Pritchard, ANET (Princeton, 1965), 414–418. Ibid., 418–419. W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1960), 110–

115. 4 For the power of both wine and women, see the verbal contest of the three pages in 3 Esdras 3–4. 5 Cf. Laws of Lipit-Iàtar (= LI), I:25, níg.si.[sá] kalam.ma gá.gá.dè, and Laws of Hammurapi (= LH), I:32–34, mÊàaram ina m§tim ana àåpîm. For LI, see F. R. Steele, “The Lipit-Ishtar Law Code,” AJA 52 (1948), 425–450; E. Szlechter, “Le code de Lipit-Ishtar,” RA 51 (1957), 57–82, 177–196; and RA 52 (1958), 74–90; S. N. Kramer, in ANET, 159–161; M. Civil, “New Sumerian Law Fragments,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, (Chicago,

100


demonstrated elsewhere, “the ultimate goal of the law collections was to give tangible evidence to the gods that the king was a àar mÊàarim. This could best be done by compiling a corpus to which he added his own reforms and amendments, thereby furnishing justice and equity to the four corners of the earth. Hammurapi vindicates and justifies his divine election through his legislative action which fulfills one of the main tasks for which he was chosen.”6 Thus, the king-legislator proudly declares that he provided special care and attention to the rights of all those who had no one else to protect them. The following examples illustrate this cardinal concern of the ruler: In the prologue to the Laws of Ur Nammu, the king delineates the social and economic reforms which he enacted to “establish justice in the land,” [níg.s]i.sá [kalam.ma (?) É ]u.mu.ni.gar (lines 112–113).7 One of the many ways by which he accomplished this is then later stated: (162) nu.síg lú.níg.tuku.ra (163) ba.ra.na.an.gar (164) nu.mu.un.su8 lú á.tuku.ra (165) ba.ra.na.an.gar, “I did not deliver the orphan to the rich.” (166) lú 1 gín.e (167) lú 1 ma.na.ra ba.ra.na.an.gar, “I did not deliver the man with but one shekel to the man with one mina (= 60 shekels).” Compare likewise the reforms of Urukagina9 and Gudea:10 Urukagina, Cones B and C, XII:23–25: nu.síg.nu.mu.su lú.á.tug nu.na.gá.gá.[a], “The orphan and the widow were not handed over to the powerful man.” Gudea, Statue B, VII:

1965), 1–12. For LH, see G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1960); and T. J. Meek, in ANET, 163–180. For texts and translations, see now M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, 1995). For the important role of the king in seeing that justice prevails in the land, see Driver and Miles, op. cit., II, 21–23. 6 S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, SVT 18 (Leiden, 1970), 25. Cf., too, J. J. Finkelstein, “Ammißaduqa’s Edicts and Babylonian ‘Law Codes’,” JCS 15 (1961), 103; and idem, “Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, V (Jerusalem, 1968), 611–612 (Hebrew). 7 For the Laws of Ur Nammu (=LU), see S. N. Kramer and A. Falkenstein, “Ur Nammu Law Code,” Or 23 (1954), 40–51; E. Szlechter, “Le code d’Ur Nammu,” RA 49 (1955), 169–177; O. R. Gurney and S. N. Kramer, “Two Fragments of Sumerian Laws,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, (Chicago, 1965), 13–19. See now, Roth, Law Collections, 13–22. 8 Falkenstein, “Ur Nammu Law Code,” 49–51. 9 For the text of Urukagina, see F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften (Leipzig, 1907), 44–94; P. Deimel, “Die Reformtexte Urukaginas,” Or 2 (1920), 3–31; M. Lambert, “Les ‘réformes’ d’Urukagina,” RA 50 (1956), 169–184. 10 For a study of Gudea, see M. Lambert and R. J. Tournay, “La statue B de Gudéa,” RA 45 (1951), 49–65.


101

42–43: nu.síg lú.níg.tug nu.ma.na.g~ a r nu.mu.su lú.á.tug nu.na.g~ a r, “The orphan was not handed over to the powerful man; the widow was not handed over to the powerful man.” Twice such protective measures are also mentioned in the prologue and epilogue to the Laws of Hammurapi (1:37–39): dannum enàam ana la Éab§lim, “to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak”; (XLVII 59–62): dannum enàam ana la Éab§lim ekåtam almattam àut¿àurim, “in order that the mighty not wrong the weak, to provide justice for the waif and the widow.”11 A bit later, King Ammißaduqa declares, in his mÊàarum-edict (lines 50–54): kÊma enàum ana dannim maÉar b¿lÊja la iàarraku ud. kib.nunki kaluàu lÊmurm[a?] dannu ana enàim Éab§lim x [….], “Let all Sippar see that the weak man is never, in my lord’s presence (in a legal proceeding), delivered into the power of the strong… the mighty to injure the weak.”12 And as late as Nebuchadrezzar II, the same refrain is heard when the monarch declares that only in former times dannu enàu iÉabbil.13 Thus, the mother’s advice to her son in the book of Proverbs, to provide due justice to the underprivileged (verses 8–9), was part of the time-honored obligations of every king dedicated to the task of being an equitable ruler. So, then, he is bidden not to drink, for under the influence of intoxication he may be incapable of rendering proper judgment: in vino non veritas. Now to a closer examination of the specific wording of verse 5: pn yàth wyàkÈ mÈqq wyành dyn kl bny ‘ny. The bny ‘ny here (a unique expression) are the same as the ‘ny and ’bywn mentioned in verse 9, that is, the victims of poverty and destitution.14 The verse thus states that by drinking he may forget mÈqq and yành dyn of all of his impoverished subjects. It should first be noted that most commentators have overlooked the fact that both these juridical expressions are also hapax legomena and have not commented upon them.15 The latter term, though unique to the

11 Note the comparisons made by P. Koschaker, Rechtsvergleichende Studien zur Gesetzgebung ›ammurapis, Königs von Babylon (Leipzig, 1917), 4 n. 8; and Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 18–19. For translations, see Roth, Law Collections, 76, 133. 12 J. J. Finkelstein, “Some New Misharum Material and Its Implications,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, (Chicago, 1965), 234. See CAD, ’/II, 48. 13 W. G. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice,” Iraq 27 (1965), 4, II:3. For other references, see CAD, E, 171. 14 Cf. Jer 5:28; 22:16; Ps 140:13. 15 E.g., W. Nowack, Die Sprüche, HAT (Göttingen, 1889); G. Wildeboer, Die Sprüche, KHC (Leipzig and Tübingen, 1897); C. H. Toy, Proverbs, ICC (Edinburgh, 1889); H.

102


Bible, is amply documented in Mesopotamian legal documents by its interdialectal etymological and semanic equivalent, dÊnam enû/àunnû, “to revoke, alter, change a verdict.”16 A very important example is found in the LH 5:13–16: àumma daj§num dÊnam idÊn purussâm iprus kunukkam uà¿zib wark§numma dÊnàu Êteni daj§nam àu§ti ina dÊn idÊnu enêm ukannåàuma, “If a judge renders a judgment, gives a verdict, or deposits a sealed opinion, after which he reverses his judgment, they shall charge and convict that judge of having reversed the judgment which he rendered.” The severity of “reversing his judgment” is clarified by his punishment: he has to pay twelve-fold the sum involved in the suit, is expelled from his judgeship in the assembly, and may never again sit with the judges in a lawsuit. Though several suggestions have been offered to explain the exact implication of what is meant by “reversing a judgment,”17 it is understood that a written document is involved. So, too, in most other legal cases involving the action of enû or àunnû, as the following examples make clear:18 ãuppaàunu ul innû, “They shall not alter their written agreement”;19 ãuppi itti aÉ§meà iàãuru ãuppaàunu la innû, “They wrote the document together; they shall not alter their document”;20 ana la enê àaã§ri iàt¿n-ta.àm ilteqû, “Each (of the contracting parties) took (one copy of) the document so that there should be no retracting”;21 ana la enê fPN àaã§ri taàãurma ana PN taddin, “So that there be no retracting, fPN 2 Ringgren and W. Zimmerli, Sprüche/Prediger, ATD 16/1 (Göttingen, 1962); B. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos (Tübingen, 1963); A. Barucq, Le Livre des Proverbes (Paris, 1964); R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, AB 18 (Garden City, 1965); W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL (Philadelphia, 1970). Nowack (op. cit., 166) notes that the expression here is not hãh dyn because, “denn von biswilliger Entstellung des Rechtes ist keine Rede, der Richter handelt unter dem Einfluss das Rausches, den er sich angetrunken hat.” 16 CAD, E, 174–176. See Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, II, 150. 17 See J. G. Lautner, Die richterliche Entscheidung und die Streitbeendigung im altbabylonischen Prozessrechte (Leipzig, 1922), 35–36 (for LH 5); and A. Walther, Das altbabylonische Gerichtswesen (Leipzig, 1917), 46–47 (for the penalty of removal from the bench of the judges). See, too, M. san Nicolò, Die Schlussklauseln der altbabylonischen Kauf- und Tauschverträge (Munich, 1922), 52–54; and G. Boyer, “Clauses d’irrévocabilité et clauses pénales,” Textes juridiques, ARM 8 (Paris, 1953), 65–77. 18 Cf., too, E. Chiera, Proceedings in Court, JEN 4 (Philadelphia, 1934) 333:30, kÊma dÊna iltanû; A. Ungnad, Neubabylonische Urkunde, VS 6 (Leipzig, 1908), 38:9, dÊniàunu nultannû. See the discussion of Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, I, 68–79; and Lautner, Die richterliche Entscheidung, 46–49 and notes on p. 46. For a similar expression, cf. dÊnam àubalkutu, CAD, N/II, 19. 19 SBAW (Berlin, 1889), 828, pl. 7 iii:11. 20 Ibid. (Berlin, 1918), 287, iii:16–19. 21 F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Verträge des Berliner Museum (Berlin, 1890), 91:15.


103

wrote the document and gave it to PN2”;22 ana la enê daj§ni ãuppi iàãuru, “So that there by no retracting, the judges wrote the document”;23 la innû ßindåa, “He does not reverse my laws”;24 ã¿ma àu§tu innû, “He who reverses the order”;25 àa dibbi u nidinti annÊti innûma, “He who reverses this agreement and this donation.”26 The technical legal expression àny in Nabatean funerary inscriptions (as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic documents) has also been correctly interpreted as the interdialectal equivalent of Akk. àunnû (and, very possibly, the term ’ny in those documents is the reflex of Akk. enû).27 This documentation all helps to explicate the two hapax legomena, ành dyn and mÈqq:28 the first, as shown above, is “to alter/retract/change a verdict,” and the second refers to “that which is written”;29 i.e., the record of the verdict. When justice is a cardinal principle in a society, it is no wonder that the king’s mother is so solicitous of her son’s correct behavior and her insistence that he remain sober when dispensing justice.30 II. Job 5:8 It is well known that the book of Job abounds in legal terminology, especially in the monologues of Job himself. Here attention is called to an unnoticed juridical idiom which appears in the first cycle of

22 J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cyrus, König von Babylon (538–529 v. Chr.); Babylonische Texte, VII (Leipzig, 1890), 337:17. 23 V. Scheil, “La libération judicaire d’un fils,”RA 12 (1915), 8:rev. 8. 24 S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 176, x:17 (Nebuchadrezzar). 25 V. Scheil, Textes élamites-sémitiques, 4th series, MDP 10 (Paris, 1908), Pl. 11 iii: 31 (MB kudurru). 26 Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 247:16. For other examples, see CAD, E, 174–177; Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, II, 150. 27 J. C. Greenfield, “Studies in the Legal Terminology of the Nabatean Funerary Inscriptions,” Hanoch Yalon Memorial Volume (Ramat Gan, 1974), 82–83 (Hebrew). 28 There is no reason to resort to emendation of the Hebrew text, as both A. Ehrlich (Randglossen zur hebraïschen Bibel, VI [Leipzig, 1918], 174, wyàkr mÈqq wyyàn dyn, “the legislator will become drunk and the judge will fall asleep”); N. H. Tur Sinai (Peshuão shel Miqra, IV/1 [Jerusalem, 1967], 388, wynàh, “and he will forget”) have suggested. 29 Cf. HALAT, I, 334, mÈqq, “Vorgeschriebenes.” Cf. Isa 10:1; Job 19:23. 30 For other references to mother’s instructions, see Prov 1:8; 6:20.

104


Eliphaz’s speeches. In v. 8 he declares, ’wlm ‘ny ’drà ’l ’l w’l ’lhym ’áym dbrty. The expression ’áym dbrty, a hapax legomenon, has been translated in many different ways.31 However, exegetes have not been aware of its exact analogue in Akkadian legal texts. The interdialectal semantic equivalent of this phrase is awatam àak§num, “to bring/lay a case,” before the authorities.32 The several examples cited here will be an attempt “to put this case” of interpretation before the Biblical authorities: awatim maÉar b¿lÊja aàkunma, “I have put the case before my lord”;33 atti u B¿làunu awatkunu taàkuna, “You and B¿làunu have presented your case”;34 ali’animma awatikunu àa naài§tunu maÉar wardÊ àarrim àukna, “Go up (to the palace) and present your case which you have raised before the royal officials”;35 20 àibåt §lim upaÉÉiràumma awatiàu maÉriàunu aàkunma,36 “I have assembled for him 20 elders of the city and have placed his case before them.”37

31 For example, S. R. Driver, The Book of Job, ICC (Edinburgh, 1921), “I would lay out my case”; M. Pope, Job, AB 7C (Garden City, 1973), “I would commit my cause”; R. Gordis, The Book of Job (New York, 1978), “I would entrust my cause.” 32 The following citations are found in CAD, A/II, 40, s.v. amatu, “legal case, case in court”. See also CAD, ’/I, 136. For Heb. dbr, Sum. inim, Akk. amatu, and Hit. memij(n), all with the meaning of lawsuit, see M. Weinfeld, “Judge and Officer in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” Israel Oriental Studies 7 (1977), 69 n. 20, 75 n. 65. 33 F. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres de ›ammurapi à ’amaà-Éâßir, TCL 7 (Paris, 1924), 75: 8–9; see also idem, “La correspondance de ›ammurapi avec ’amaà-Éâßir,” RA 21 (1924), 56; F. R. Kraus, Briefe aus dem Archiv des ’amaà-›§zir (Leiden, 1968), 53, “habe ich die Angelegenheiten meinen Herrn vorgelegt.” (This is not a court document.) For this reference, correct CAD, A/II, 40, from 75:8 to 75:8–9. 34 F. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne, TCL 1 (Paris, 1910), 10:25 (and not 10:20 as cited in CAD, A/II, 40); A. Ungnad, Babylonische Briefe aus der Zeit der ›ammurapi Dynastie, VAB 6 (Leipzig, 1914), 80 (letter 90). 35 H. Lutz, Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa, YOS 2 (New Haven, 1917), 10, 92: 96 = G. R. Driver, Letters of the First Babylonian Dynasty, OECT 3 (Oxford, 1924), 57 (letter 92). 36 Lutz, Early Babylonian Letters, 13f., 50:9; Driver, Letters, 47. See, too, B. Landsberger, Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon (= MSL), I (Rome, 1937), 148. 37 CAD, A/II, 40 also cites J. B. Alexander, Early Babylonian Letters and Economic Texts, BIN 7 (New Haven, 1943), 44:19. Cf. F. R. Kraus, “Nippur und Isin nach altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden,” JCS 3 (1951), 54. For this expression, see also J. G. Lautner, Die richterliche Entscheidung und die Streitbeendigung (Leipzig, 1922), 23–24. A slightly different meaning of this idiom is found in G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, Assyrian Laws (Oxford, 1935), MAL 19:82–83, p. 390 and p. 465. Cf. CAD, A/II, 33, “if someone makes an accusation (am§ta iàkun) against his fellow in secret.” Roth (Law Collections, 159) translates, “furtively spreads rumors.”


105

Once the juridical connotation of this phrase is realized, Eliphaz’s declaration takes on an additional legal nuance. He argues, “For my part, I would make my petition to God,38 and to God present my case.” Now the full irony of his statement can be appreciated, for this is what Job futilely contends that he has been trying to do, i.e., put his case before God. III. Psalms 1:5 In his study of the terminology employed in Biblical legal proceedings, Seeligmann39 drew attention to Köhler’s interpretation of the verb qwm, “to stand up,” as connoting the acquittal of the guilty party, who was assumed to have been in some type of kneeling or lying position during the conduct of his trial.40 Köhler’s primary evidence was based on Ps 1:5, ‘l kn l’yqwmw rà‘ym bmàpã, which he translated, “Darum werden die Bösen im Gericht nicht freigesprochen.” Though Köhler subsequently cast doubt on his own suggestion,41 Seeligmann considered his interpretation for Ps 1:5 “sehr erwägenswert” and attempted to adduce additional Biblical verses in support of this theory. Another interpretation of the verse is offered here, one that takes cognizance of the idiom qwm b in the verse and still seeks its understanding within the legal orbit. This can be demonstrated by resort to its Akkadian interdialectal semantic equivalent, uzzuzu, “to stand up,” which means, inter alia, “to prevail, triumph,”42 and in a juridical

38 Thus translated in The New English Bible (Oxford, 1970). Both Heb. drà and its Akkadian analogue, bu’û, overlap in a wide range of meanings. For their legal overtones, cf. HALAT, 224, ‫ ;דרש‬and CAD, B, 362–363, 365. 39 I. L. Seeligmann, “Zur Terminologie für die Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch,” Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner, SVT 16 (Leiden, 1967), 268–272. 40 L. Köhler, “Archäologisches,” ZAW 36 (1916), 27–28. 41 Idem, Die hebräische Rechtsgemeinde (Zurich, 1931), 7 (noted by Seeligmann, “Zur Terminologie,” 268 n. 3); and Der hebräische Mensch (Tübingen, 1953), 149. Köhler’s suggestion is cited by H.-J. Kraus (Psalmen 1–63, BK 15/1 [Neukirchen, 1972], 7–8), but is not accepted. 42 E.g., J. Nougayrol, “Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre,” RA 38 (1941), 83:5, m§tum àa b¿làa izÊru b¿làa eliàa itazzaz, “A country which dislikes/is hostile to its ruler, its ruler shall prevail over it.” Compare, too, the personal name Izzazkittum, “truth shall prevail,” cited by M. Held, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 16 (1962), 38 (bottom), referring to A. T. Clay,

106


context signifies prevailing over an adversary in a lawsuit. Thus, e.g., am¿lu ina dÊni eli gerîàu izzaz, “The man will prevail/triumph over his adversary in a lawsuit.”43 Note here the idiom ina dÊnim… izzaz, which is the exact analogue of the Heb. yqwmw… bmàpã. The legal nuance in Ps 1:5 can now be best rendered as “The wicked shall not prevail in the lawsuit” (or, “in the place/time of judgment”).44 IV. lbqà/ldrà myd The final idiom under discussion, though not restricted to merely legal contexts, has not yet made its entry into most Biblical lexica and has eluded many modern exegetes.45 Its Akkadian analogue, moreover, has hardly been noticed,46 and the full range of correspondence between the Hebrew and Akkadian has not yet been delineated. The idiom is lbqà myd and ldrà myd, which means “to hold responsible.” The former appears in: a) b) c) d)

Gen 31:39, ’nky ’Èãnh mydy tbqành. Gen 43:9, ’nky ’‘rbnw mydy tbqànw. 1 Sam 20:16, wykrt yhwntn ‘m byt dwyd wbqà yhwh myd ’wyby dwyd. 2 Sam 4:11, w‘th hlw’ ’bqà ’t dmw mydkm.

Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection, YOS 1 (New Haven, 1915), 95; and J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung, MVAG 44 (Leipzig, 1939), 194, 1. 43 Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 288, xi:32; cf. also 266, ii:16. For other examples of this expression, cf. P. Handcock, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, CT 31 (London, 1911), 50:21; E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, WVDOG 34 (Leipzig, 1920–23), 277, 423 r. i:54. 44 For the various explanations for ‫ משפט‬in this verse, see, in addition to the modern commentaries, H. Gunkel (Die Psalmen4, HK [Göttingen, 1926], 3); Y. Kaufmann (Toldoth Ha-Emunah Ha-Yisraelit, II [Jerusalem, 1956], 521, 701 n. 90); and M. Weiss (“Darkah shel Ha-Torah Be-Mizmor: ‘Ashrei Ha’Ish,” Maayanot 6 [1957], 206), who interpret the word to refer to the constant judgment of God’s providence and not to an eschatological judgment or a judgment at the time of death. 45 E. A. Speiser (Genesis [New York, 1956], 325) understood it correctly. 46 With the exception of M. Weinfeld (“Genesis,” S. L. Gordon’s Bible Commentaries [Tel Aviv 1975] [Hebrew]), who makes reference to this idiom in his comments to Gen 21:39 (p. 184) and 43:9 (p. 266), and by allusion in 9:5 (p. 44). I was happy to discover Weinfeld’s note after I had completed this study.


107

e) Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:8, wdmw mydk ‘bqà,47 and the latter in: f) Gen 9:5, myd kl Èyh ’drànw wmyd h’dm myd ’yà ’Èyw ‘drà ’t nfà h’dm. g) Ezek 33:6, wdmw myd hßwfh ’drà. h) Ezek 34:10, wdràty ’t ß’ny mydm. In all these citations, the meaning is to hold someone accountable or responsible for a certain obligation. The exact interdialectal semantic equivalent of this idiom in Akkadian is ina q§ti bu’û, which likewise means to hold someone accountable or responsible,48 and appears in contexts in which the deity (compare above, examples c, e, f, g, h) or a human (compare above, examples a, b, d) are the subjects. Compare, too, the employment of this expression in similar contexts. Thus, for example, in a treaty (above, c): il§ni mala àumàunu zakru ina q§tini z¿r z¿rini luba’û, “(If we violate the terms of this treaty), may as many gods as are named hold us, our offspring, and our offsprings’ offspring responsible.”49 And similar to examples e, g (deity as subject), and d (human as subject), it is used to indicate the holding of a person responsible for the blood of someone: d’amaà lu tÊdi damÊ nià¿ ba’î q§tuààu, “’amaà, you know! Hold him responsible for the blood of the people.”50 In conclusion, one additional Biblical verse should also be cited: Isa 1:12, ky tb’w lr’wt pny my bqà z’t mydkm rms Èßry. Ehrlich, who was one of the few to realize the correct meaning of this idiom, commented, “… denn die Wendung '‫ בקש מיד פ‬kann hebräisch nur heissen, einen für etwas verantwortlich halten oder dafür zur Rechenschaft ziehen [he

47 Note how this phrase almost literally duplicates its counterparts in Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:8—all four verses pertain to a similar context—with the substitution of the verb drà for bqà, both of which have a similar range of meanings. See also Ezek 33:6. 48 See CAD, B, 364–365 and the bibliography cited at the end of the entry to meaning 4; AHw, 145, bu’û, 1c, “in jmds. Händen suchen = v jmd. Rechenschaft fördern für.” Both dictionaries provide many examples of this idiom in its various contexts. Though CAD, B, 365, does note, “For the idiom in mng. 4…, cf. the corresponding use of Hebrew biqq¿à,” it would have been more correct to state, “cf. the corresponding use of Hebrew biqq¿à miyad.” It also does not cite the similar use of d§raà miyad, and none of the entries referred to in the bibliography draws this comparison. 49 D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), 67:511–512. The translation here is a correction of Wiseman’s. Also correct CAD, B, 364, to read (lines) 511–512. 50 Lambert, BWL, 218, rev. iv:14.

108


then goes on to cite other examples but does not include ldrà myd], und dieses passt in unsern Zusammenhang nicht.” He therefore emended mydkm to m’tkm, “(who required it) of you?”51 Ginsberg accepted this exegetical insight, but suggested, in turn, to read dyykm, and translated the verse as follows, “That you come to appear before me, who asked for that (my bqà z’t)? Enough (dyykm [comparing this construction with Deut 1:6, 11, 3]) of trampling my courts!” Or, alternatively, following the division found in the Septuagint, “Enough! Trample my courts no more….”52 51

Ehrlich, Randglossen, IV (Leipzig, 1912), 5. Oral communication. However, in The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation (Philadelphia, 1973), 25, for which Ginsberg wrote the Introduction, it seems that Ehrlich’s proposal was accepted, “Who asked that of you?” See NJPS, 616. 52

adoption formulae

109

ADOPTION FORMULAE: A STUDY OF CUNEIFORM AND BIBLICAL LEGAL CLAUSES* To my teacher, Prof. H. L. Ginsberg ‫אב לחכמה לדורות‬ (‫ ה"ז‬,‫)ירוש' נדרים פ"ה‬ * This article is a revision of my Hebrew article dedicated to Prof. H. L. Ginsberg in the H. L. Ginsberg Volume, Eretz Israel 14 (Jerusalem, 1978), 31–36. Alalakh AP ARM BE BIN

BMAP BR CT EG HG HSS

KAJ KBo LE LH MAL

Additional Abbreviations D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London, 1953). A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923). Archives royales de Mari, 8 = G. Boyer, Textes juridiques (Paris, 1958); 13 = G. Dossin et al., Textes divers (Paris, 1964). A. Poebel, Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon Chiefly from Nippur (Philadelphia, 1909). Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies 2 = J. B. Nies and C. E. Keiser, Historical, Religious and Economic Texts and Antiquities (New Haven, 1920); 7 = J. B. Alexander, Early Babylonian Letters and Economic Texts (New Haven, 1943). E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven, 1953). M. San Nicolò and H. Petschow, Babylonische Rechtsurkunden aus dem 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich, 1960). Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 8: T. G. Pinches (London, 1899); 29: L. W. King (London, 1910). E. Grant, Babylonian Business Documents of the Classical Period (Philadelphia, 1919). J. Kohler and A. Ungnad, Hammurabi’s Gesetz, 3: Ubersetzte Urkunden, Erläuterungen (Leipzig, 1909); 4 (Leipzig, 1910); 6, P. Koschaker and A. Ungnad (Leipzig, 1923). Harvard Semitic Series 5: E. Chiera, Excavations at Nuzi I. Texts of Varied Contents (Cambridge, MA, 1929), 9: R. H. Pfeiffer, Excavations at Nuzi II. The Archives of Shiwalteshub, Son of the King (Cambridge, MA, 1932), 19: E.-R. Lacheman, Excavations at Nuzi VIII. Family Law Documents (Cambridge, MA, 1962). E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juridischen Inhalts, WVDOG 30/1 (Leipzig, 1927). H. H. Figulla and E. F. Weidner, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi, WVDOG 30/1 (Leipzig, 1916). Laws of Eshnunna Laws of Hammurabi Middle Assyrian Laws

110


Though no laws pertaining to adoption are found in the Biblical legal corpora, and actual cases of adoption are few and mainly equivocal,1 the institution of adoption occupied a central place in Biblical theolMeissner, Beiträge B. Meissner, Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893). MSL Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon; 1: B. Landsberger, Die Serie ana ittiàu (Rome, 1937). NRVGL M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden (Glossar) (Lepizig, 1935–37). PRU Le palais royal d’Ugarit RS Ras Shamra Schorr, Urkunden M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts, VAB 5 (Leipzig, 1913). TCL G. Dossin, Lettres de la première dynastie babylonienne (Paris, 1933–34). UET Ur Excavation Texts, 1934–66; 4: H. H. Figulla, Business Documents of the Neo-Babylonian Period (London, 1949); 5, idem, Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian Period (London, 1953). VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 5 (see Schorr, Urkunden); 6: A. Ungnad, Babylonische Briefe aus der Zeit der Hammurapi-Dynastie (Leipzig, 1914). VS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler; A. Ungnad, Altbabylonische Urkunden, 7, 8 (Leipzig, 1909). YOS Yale Oriental Series 2: H. F. Lutz, Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa (New Haven, 1917); 8, D. E. Faust, Contracts from Larsa Dated in the Reign of Rim-Sin (New Haven, 1941). 1 For studies on adoption in ancient Israel, see M. David, Adoptie in het oude Israel, Med. Kon. Nederl. Akad. v. Wetensch. Let. 18 (Amsterdam, 1955); 85–103; M.-H. Prévost, “Remarques sur l’adoption dans la Bible,” Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité, 3e serie, 14 (1967), 69–77; H. Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwägungen zur Adoption im AT auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte,” OrAnt 8 (1969), 87–119; J. H. Tigay, “Adoption,” EJ, II, 298–301; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York, 1961), 51–54, 111–113. See also L. Köhler, “Die Adoptionsform von Rt 4:16,” ZAW 29 (1909), 312–314; S. Feigin, “Some Cases of Adoption in Israel,” JBL 50 (1931), 186–200; idem, Mi-Sitrei heAvar (New York, 1943), 15–24, 50–53 (Hebrew); S. Kardimon, “Adoption as a Remedy for Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs,” JSS 3 (1958), 123–126; I. Mendelsohn, “An Ugaritic Parallel to the Adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh,” IEJ 9 (1959), 180–183; F. Vattioni, “L’adopzione di Efraim e di Manasse e Ugarit,” RB 8 (1960), 69–70; Z. W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (Jerusalem, 1964), 162–164; idem, “Legal Archaeology,” Iura 17 (1966), 170–171; G. Rinaldi, “Nota,” BeO 9 (1967), 37–38; J. van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel,” JBL 87 (1968), 401–408; T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (New York, 1969), 448–449, 741–742. For a consideration of why adoption played an insignificant role in Israelite society, see esp. Tigay, op. cit., 300, and Donner, op. cit., 112. For adoption in Mesopotamia, the primary study is M. David, Die Adoption im altbabylonischen Recht (Leipzig, 1927). See also E. M. Cassin, L’adoption à Nuzi (Paris, 1938); E. Cuq, Études sur le droit babylonien (Paris, 1929), 46–57; B. Landsberger, MSL 1, 51–57; M. David, “Adoption,” RLA I, 37–39; G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (Oxford, 1960), I, 383–405; G. Boyer, “Sur quelques emplois de la

adoption formulae

111

ogy, playing a significant role in the description of the relationship which prevailed between both God and the king and God and Israel. The concept of the king as the offspring of a deity is a well-known feature of ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography.2 In Israel, however, where no claims were ever made for the deification of the king, this idea, though literally rejected, was nevertheless reinterpreted metaphorically to signify divine election and legitimation, thereby establishing a personal, intimate relationship between

fiction dans l’ancien droit oriental,” Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité, 3e serie, 1 (1954), 73–100 = Mélanges d’histoire du droit oriental (Paris, 1965), 87–109; V. Koroàec, Keilschriftrecht = Handbuch der Orientalistik. Ergänzungsband, III: Orientalisches Recht (Leiden, 1964), 49–219 (see references in index to adoption); R. Yaron, “Varia on Adoption,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 15 (1965), 171–183; E. Szlechter, “Des droits successoraux dérivés de l’adoption en droit babylonien,” Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité, 3e serie, 14 (1967), 79–106 (additional bibliography on p. 79); F. R. Kraus, “Vom altmesopotamischen Erbrecht,” Essays on Oriental Laws of Succession, Studia et Documenta 9 (Leiden, 1969), 1–17; idem, “Erbrechtliche Terminologie im alten Mesopotamien, mit einem kritischen Beiträg von B. Landsberger,” op. cit., 18–57. Cf. also J. J. Rabinowitz, “Semitic Elements in the Egyptian Adoption Papyrus Published by Gardiner,” JNES 17 (1958), 145–146; H. Hoffner, “Birth and Name-Giving in Hittite Texts,” JNES 27 (1968), 198–203, esp. 201–202, and note 27 on p. 201; E. R. Lacheman, “Real Estate Adoption by Women in the Tablets from URU Nuzi,” Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. H. A. Hoffner, Jr., AOAT 22 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973), 99–100. For adoption in the New Testament, see W. H. Rossell, “New Testament Adoption—Graeco-Roman or Semitic,” JBL 71 (1952), 233–234; F. Lyall, “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—Adoption,” JBL 88 (1969), 458–466 (includes additional bibliography). 2 For the differing views on this subject, see Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom, 741–742, and bibliography on p. 839; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 111–113; R. Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1939). I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala, 1943); H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, 1948); C. J. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient Near East (Oxford, 1948); A. R. Johnson, “Divine Kingship and the Old Testament,” Expository Times 62 (1950), 36–42; idem, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff, 1955); S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford, 1956); J. de Fraine, L’aspect religieux de la royauté israélite. L’institution monarchique dans l’ancien testament et dans les textes mésopotamiens (Rome, 1954); G. Widengren, Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum (Stuttgart, 1955); S. H. Hooke (ed.), Myth, Ritual and Kingship. Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (Oxford, 1958); S. Mowinckel, “General Oriental and Specific Israelite Elements in the Israelite Conception of the Sacral Kingdom,” The Sacral Kingship, Numen, Supp. IV (Leiden, 1959), 285–293. For Ugarit, see J. Gray, “Sacral Kingship in Ugarit,” Ugaritica, VI, ed. C. F. A. Schaeffer (Paris, 1969), 289–302, esp. p. 295; J. Coppens, “L’idéologie royale ougaritique,” Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae, Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liaghre Böhl Dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek et al. (Leiden, 1973), 80–89.

112


God and king.3 M. Weinfeld has convincingly shown that the model for this metaphor is rooted in the promissory type of covenant, the royal grant, which was prominent in suzerain-vassal relations in the ancient Near East, especially among the neo-Assyrians and the Hittites. These unconditional grants of land and “house” (= dynasty) were legitimized by juridical declarations which were ultimately rooted in Near Eastern family law.4 Such employment of familial metaphors to express political ties was, moreover, a well-known phenomenon in the diplomatic lexicon of the second millennium. Thus, abbåtu, “fathership,” signifies suzerainty, m§råtu, “sonship”—vassalship, and aÉÉåtu, “brotherhood”—parity relations.5 In the Bible, the unique relationship between God and the king is often expressed by means of a father-son imagery, which, in turn, can be traced back to the nomenclature of adoption. Thus, the statement, 3 Cf. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 112–113; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 37, 78, 162, and esp. p. 294; H. Gunkel, Ausgewählte Psalmen, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1904), 9; A. Weiser, Die Psalmen, I (Göttingen, 1935), 27; M. Noth, “Gott, König, Volk, im Alten Testament,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 47 (1950), 157–191, esp. pp. 184–186 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich, 1960), 188–299, esp. pp. 222–225; G. von Rad, “Das judäische Königsritual,” TLZ 72 (1947), 211–216 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich, 1958), 205–213, esp. p. 209; G. Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 (1961), 202–225; K.-H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der altorientalischen Königs-ideologie im AT (Leiden, 1961), 74–79, 84–88; H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, I, BKAT XV (1968), 17–20 (= Psalms 1–59, Continental Commentary [Minneapolis,1988], 129–132); A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina (Leipzig, 1930), 76 = Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 3 vols. (Munich, 1959), II, 63; idem, “Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” VT 1 (1951), 2–22 = Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, 116–134; idem, “Jesaja 8, 23–9, 6. Befreiungsnacht und Krönungstag,” Festschrift A. Bertholet, ed. W. Baumgartner, O. Eissfeldt, K. Elliger, and L. Rost (Tübingen, 1950), 29–49 = Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, 206–225. See also S. E. Loewenstamm (“Beloved is Man for He was Created in the Image [of God],” Tarbií 27 [1958], 1–2 [Hebrew]) for the ideological adaption of the concept of the king as the son of a deity in Mesopotamia and to the entire people of Israel as sons of God (e.g., in Deut 14:1). So, too, all other references to God-Israel as fatherson, e.g., Exod 4:22; Deut 32:6, 19; Hos 11:1; Isa 1:2; 30:1; 43:6; 45:10; 63:16; Jer 3:14, 19; 31:9; Mal 1:6; 2:10. See, too, G. Brin, “The History of the Formula ‘He Shall be to Me a Son and I Will be to Him a Father’,” Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, ed. B. Uffenheimer (Tel Aviv, 1971), 57–64 (Hebrew). 4 M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970), 184–203, esp. pp. 189–195; idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), 77–81. 5 J. Munn-Rankin, “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium BC,” Iraq 18 (1956), 68–110.

adoption formulae

113

“I will be His [David’s] father and he shall be My son” (2 Sam 7:14; cf. 1 Chron 17:13; 22:10) is generally acknowledged to be an adoption formula, which serves to provide the legal basis for the grant of eternal dynasty to the Davidic line (2 Sam 7:8–16).6 Similarly, the declaration in Ps 2:7–8, “The Lord said to me [the king], ‘You are My son, this day7 have I begotten you’,” both establishes the adoptive tie and legitimizes the Davidic inheritance of nations: “Ask of me and I will give you nations as your patrimony and the ends of the earth as your possession.” Just as on the personal level, the terms “son,” “first-born” (Ps 89: 28),8 and “father” (Ps 89:27) (applied to David, the Davidic king, and God) hark back to the descriptive phraseology of adoption terminology, so, too, on a national level, these metaphors are employed to express the bond which exists between God and Israel. The nation, “adopted” by God, is called, “Israel, My first-born son” in Exod 4:22; and in Jer 31:9 God declares, “I have become a father to Israel and Ephraim is My first-born.” Moreover, as a father bequeaths his inheritance to his son (as above, eternal dynasty and gift of nations to the Davidic king), so God allots and validates his gift of the land of Israel to His “sons,” the children of Israel (see below regarding Jer 3:19).9 This metaphorical adaptation of the concept of adoption to two of the cardinal foci of Biblical thought is expressed by means of juridical formulations well known from Mesopotamian documents. The follow-

6

Cf., e.g., Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 190. Ibid., 190 n. 55. For the possible symbolism of adoption in Ps 2:7, cf. p. 192 and nn. 70–71. 8 For a consideration of the ideological significance of the change from the term “son” in 2 Sam 7:14 to “first-born” in Ps 89:28, see Brin, “History of the Formula.” For the midrashic relationship between Psalm 89 and 2 Samuel 7, see N. M. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, 1963), 29–46; esp. p. 38 n. 1. For Psalm 89, see E. LipiÔski, Le poème royal du Ps 89 (Brussels, 1967). On pp. 58–66, he interprets the father-son imagery in the political terms of suzerain-vassal. So, too, R. de Vaux, “Le roi d’Israël, vassal de Yahvé,” Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, I (Vatican, 1964), 119–133. For the image of “first-born” in the Bible and in the New Testament, see P. G. Bretscher, “Exodus 4:22–23 and the Voice from Heaven,” JBL 87 (1968), 301–311. Documents from Nuzi, Alalakh, and Ugarit show that the pater familias was not bound by the laws of primogeniture and could elevate any son of his choice to the position of first-born with the accompanying preferential share in the family inheritance. Cf. I. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 (1959), 38–40. 9 Cf. Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,”, 194. 7

114


ing is a review of those cuneiform expressions relating to adoption, with special attention being given to their interdialectal equivalents, some of which have not yet been recognized. The creation and dissolution of adoptive ties were accompanied by solemn declarations (as was also the case in the field of marital relations).10 M. David11 referred to the usage of such an expression in LH 170:45, m§råa, “You are my sons” (here, as an act of legitimation)12 and VS 7:10–11 (= HG 3, 32 = Schorr, Urkunden, 78), lu m§ruki, “He is your son.” Reference may also be made to a political document, the Hittite-Akkadian bilingual (text one, lines 2–4), àarru [al]siàu m§ram, “I, the king, called him my son,” and line 37, anumma Muràili m§rÊ, “Behold, Muràilià is now my son.”13 A much later example of such a declaration, establishing an adoptive tie, is found in an Aramaic papyrus, ‫ברי יהוה‬, “My son, he shall be.”14 The recision of the adoptive tie,15 on the other hand, is formulated

10 For solemn declarations, see David, Die Adoption, 47–48, 79–80, 90–91; and Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 403. For similar declarations in marriage and divorce, ul mutÊ atta, “You are not my husband”; ul aààatÊ atti, “You are not my wife,” cf. ibid., 402 n. 2; David, Die Adoption, 48 n. 35; and the Biblical counterpart in Hos 2:4 (cf. 1: 9; 2:25); and in Elephantine Aramaic documents, ‫הי אנתתי ואנה בעלה‬, BMAP 2:3–4; 7:4 and AP 15:4. On BMAP 2:3–4, see B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 206 and n. 28. For the negative expression, cf. BMAP 7:22, 25. See also R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford, 1961), 46–47. In b. Qidd. 5b, the declarations: ‫הריני אישך‬, “I am your man,” ‫הריני בעלך‬, “I am your husband,” and ‫איני אישך‬, “I am not your man,” ‫איני בעלך‬, “I am not your husband,” are not considered acceptable formulae. The most common formula, appearing (with some variation) some fifteen times in the Bible, is: ‫אני אהיה להם‬/‫והיו לי לעם ואנכי‬ ‫( לאלהים‬cf., e.g., Jer 24:7; for the opposite, Jer 31:32). On this legal formula, see Y. Muffs, “Studies in Biblical Law IV: The Antiquity of P,” Lectures in the Jewish Theological Seminary (New York, 1965), 4–8. For the expression: ‫היה ל‬, see Cooke, “Israelite King,” 207; and Brin, “History of the Formula.” Cf. Exod 2:10. 11 David, Die Adoption, 48 n. 5. 12 According to Driver and Miles (Babylonian Laws, 384), the Babylonians seem to have made no distinction between adoption and legitimation; cf., too, Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation?” 13 F. Sommer and A. Falkenstein, Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattuàili I (Labarna II), Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.hist. Abt., N. F. 16 (Munich, 1938). See also p. 33. This reference was already noted by Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 191. So, too, E. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi, BoghazköiStudien, 8–9 (Leipzig, 1923), 40–41, cf. No. 2:24–26. 14 BMAP 8:5 (p. 226). See Yaron, Introduction, 40. 15 Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 348–350, 395–405; S. Greengus, “The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract,” JAOS 89 (1969), 517–520.

adoption formulae

115

in a negative fashion: Sum. dumu nu·me·en,16 Akk. ul m§runi atta, “You are not our son,” cf., e.g. VS 8,17 127:17–19 (= VAT 926 = HG 3, 17 = Schorr, Urkunden, 8). Thus, too, in the Hittite-Akkadian bilingual, 1:14, ul m§rÊ àu, “He is not my son” (cf. HG 3:24–25; and VS 8, 127:24–25, which reads ul m§runi atta, “You are not our son”; cf. Meissner, Beiträge, 93:11; ARM 8, 1:9). The familial relationship may also be dissolved once the adoptive son makes a formal declaration disowning his parents: Sum. nu ad·da·mu, nu ama·mu or ad·da·mu nu·me·en, ama·mu nu·me·en; Akk. ul abÊ atta ul ummÊ atti,18 “You are not my father”; “You are not my mother” (VS 8, 127: 17–18; cf. Meissner, Beiträge, 93:11; LH 192:6–7; ARM 8, 1:15–16).19 Similarly, the Hebrew declaration, “You are/he is My son(s),” cited above from Biblical sources, juridically establishes the sonship-fathership ties which bind God to the king and to Israel. The actual expression, “to adopt,” was formulated in several different ways in cuneiform literature:20 a) ana m§ri ep¿àu, literally, “to make as a son,” e.g., m§ra àanâm ina muÉÉiàu àa PN la ippuà, “He shall not adopt another son besides PN,” HSS 9, 22:16–17; cf. HSS 5, 60:14–15. b) ana m§råti ep¿àu, literally, “to make into the status of sonship,” e.g., ana m§råtÊya ¿puàkami, “I shall make you my son” (KBo 1, 3:24 [treaty]).21 Likewise, the son may adopt an adult as his father: ana abuàu Êpuà, “He adopted him as his father” (Alalakh, 16:3);22 and “He [the adoptive father] made PN [his wife],” ana abbåti ana PN2 Êtepuà, assume the status of ‘fatherhood’ with regard to PN2 [the adopted son]” (HSS 5, 7:17). This formal terminology appears also in its interdialectal Phoenician equivalent in the Azitawadda inscription: ‫ואף באבת פעלן כל מלך‬, “And every king accepted (literally, “made”) me as a father,” Phoen. ‫באבת‬

16

MSL 1, 7 III:34, 42. David, Die Adoption, 43–48. 18 Ibid., 79; MSL 1, 7 III:244, 30. 19 For a discussion of ARM 8, 1, see G. Boyer’s comments on pp. 178–182 in that volume. 20 For a nominal sentence referring to adoption, see ARM 8, 1:1–3 and Boyer’s comments on pp. 178–179. 21 For other examples, cf. AHw, 227, ep¿àu, II, 7b, d (ana m§rtåti ep¿àu); CAD, M/II, 320. 22 D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London, 1953). See also Yaron, “Varia,” 175–179; and Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation?” 100 n. 10; the latter suggests the reading: a-na a-bu--àu. 17

116


‫ פעלן‬being semantically equivalent to Akk. ana abbåti ep¿àu.23 c) ana m§råti leqû,24 literally, “to take into the status of sonship,” cf. LH 185:34–35; 186:41; 190:67–68, and its Sumerian equivalent, nam·dumu·ni·àè àu·ba·an·ti·eà,25 “to take into sonship.” Compare, too, the nominal formations, lÊqu, “adoption,” KAJ 167:4;26 liqûtu, “adoptive child,” YOS 2, 50:6; l¿qû, “adopter, foster father,” LE 35: 12, 22;27 leqû, “adopted child, adoptee,” CAD, L, 130–131. The similarity between the phrases ana m§råti leqû and ‫לקחהּ )מרדכי‬ ‫( לו( לבת‬Esth 2:7, cf. v. 15), which is employed in the Esther narrative when Mordecai takes Esther into his custody after the death of her father and mother, is striking and has already been recognized.28 Note, too, the description of Esther as one who “has no father or mother,” ‫( אין לה אב ואם‬Esth 2:7), and the identical legal definition of an orphan 23 For the Azitawadda inscription, see KAI, 26A I:12 (p. 5). Cf. also N. H. Tur Sinai, Halashon weHasefer, I (Jerusalem, 1954), 76 (Hebrew); Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 184 n. 90. Both the latter made reference to Jer 3:19. The exact correspondence was independently noted by Donner (“Adoption oder Legitimation?” 100), who stressed that Phoen. ‫ אבת‬was an abstract formation, similar to Akk. abbåtu. Cf., too, KAI, 2 (p. 40). H. L. Ginsberg, however, opines that ‫ אבת‬is simply the plural of ‫אב‬, and the preceding ‫ ב‬preposition is identified as ‫ ב‬essentiae; see his remarks in “Ugaritico-Phoenicia,” The Gaster Festschrift, ed. D. Marcus = JANES 5 (1973), 138, and Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1960), 52 n. 4. Cf. also M. Dahood (“Karatepe Notes,” Biblica 44 [1963], 70–73; Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology [Rome, 1963], 25 n. 2; Psalms III [New York, 1970], 104), who considers Phoenician ‫ אבת‬a plurale excellentiae. Cf., too, A. Caquot and E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en Grec (Paris, 1967), 72 2. 24 For other examples, cf. CAD, L, 137–138; M/I, 319. 25 See EG 68:7 = YOS 8:152; Meissner, Beiträge, 96:4 = HG, 3, 22; BIN 2, 75:5 = HG, 6, 1425. Cf. also the similar Sumerian expression for “to adopt,” nam·dumu·ni·àè ba·da·an·ri. 26 See, too, M. David and E. Ebeling, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 44 (Stuttgart, 1929), no. 7. 27 Cf. A. Goetze, The Laws of Eshnunna (New Haven, 1956), 93; and R. Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna (Jerusalem, 1969), 106–108. Cf. MSL 1, III, IV:3, lú·ba·an·[da·ri·b]i: le-qu-àu, “adopter,” and III, IV:6, a·bar·[ra·a·ni]: le-qu-àu-ma, “adoptee.” 28 Cf. Rinaldi, “Nota,” 37–38. But according to Donner (“Adoption oder Legitimation?”), this is not a case of adoption or arrogation, but rather the taking into custody of a ward and foster child. Exod 2:10 has often been cited as a further case of adoption, the infant Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter. (In both verses, in Exodus and Esther, the Vulgate (Biblia Sacra, Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, I [Stuttgart, 1969] translates the pertinent expressions adoptavit.) Some, however, interpret this as an example of fosterage. For the giving of an infant for nursing (Exod 2:7–9), cf. Akk. ana àånuqum, “for nursing, give for suckling”; cf., e.g., LE 32:11, 13. See also CAD, E, 165–166. On the natural mother receiving compensation from the adopting parents for nursing the infant, see Schorr, Urkunden, 8:28–29; 83:6–8.

adoption formulae

117

in ana ittiàu, MSL, I, 111:28–29, ad·da ù ama nu·un·tuk·a = àa aba u umma la iàû, “who has no father or mother.”29 d) ana m§råti er¿bu, “to enter into sonship,” e.g., VAB 6, 164:9–11; CT 29, 7a, 10, 11, 17–18; VAT 8946:5 = KAJ 2;30 VAT 8956:7 = KAJ 431 (a[na m§]råtiàu ¿rub). e) ana m§ri/m§råti rak§su, “to bind into son/sonship.” The use of rak§su, “to bind,” to express adoption ties is limited, so far, to Ugaritic Akkadian documents.32 Note, however, that there, too, the expression ana m§ri leqû also appears (RS 16:200 = PRU 3, 64:3–4; and RS 21.230:2–4 = Ugaritica, 5, 173.33 f) ana m§råti nad§nu, “to appoint/designate for sonship.”34 Cf. ARM 13, 101:18; KAJ 1:16 (= VAT 8947);35 NRVGL 95; BR 6, 4:7, 5:7; UET 4, 1:15; and ana m§rtåti nad§nu, “to appoint/designate for daughtership,” e.g., HSS 19, 88:14.36 Similarly, in Psalm 89, in connection with the adoption of the Davidic king, God declares, “He shall call me, ‘You are my father’” (v. 27), “and I, for my part shall designate him first-born,” ‫( אף אני בכור אתנהו‬v. 28). Heb. ‫ בכור אתנהו‬is the Hebrew interdialectal counterpart of Akk. ana m§råti (aplåti) nad§nu. g) ana m§råti àaã§ru, “to record (on a tablet) for sonship,”37 PN àa ana m§råti ana PN2 àaãru (KAJ 6:6–7 = VAT 8802).38 Cf. CT 8 49a (= Schorr, Urkunden, 14 = HG 111, 676) ana m§rtiàa iàãuru. The exact same

29

MSL 3 III:28–29; cf. Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation?” 105 n. 87. See also David, Die Adoption, 104. 31 Ibid., 105. 32 For Ugaritic references, see PRU, III, 55:5–6 (RS XV, 92:5–6); 71:10 (RS XVI: 295); 75:5–6 (RS XVI:344): ina aÉÉåti rak§su; C. F. A. Schaeffer (ed.), Textes suméroaccadiens des Archives et Bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit (= Ugaritica 5) (Paris, 1968), RS XVII: 21:3 (p. 3); XX, 226:4–6 (p. 176). (However, the expressions ana aààåti/aÉÉåti rak§su and ãuppi riksi are both well attested in Mesopotamian documents.) For comments on these adoption texts in PRU, III, see G. Boyer, “La place des texts d’Ugarit dans l’histoire de l’ancien droit oriental,” PRU, III, 302–304; CAD, R, 100. 33 On p. 173 n. 2 in Textes suméro-accadiens, J. Nougayrol suggests that the scribes hesitated to use the verb rak§su when the adoptee was a female. 34 See CAD, M/I, 319–320. 35 See also David and Ebeling, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden, no. 2; and David, Die Adoption, 101. 36 See CAD, M/I, 306. 37 For ana tartennu àaã§ru, see A. Pohl, “Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus den Berliner Staatliche Museen, I,” AnOr 8 (1933), 44. See also M. San Nicolò, “Parerga Babilonica XV–XVI,” ArOr 7 (1935), 16. 38 For KAJ 6, see also David and Ebeling, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden, no. 3; and David, Die Adoption, 102. Cf. also MAL 28:5: ãuppu àa m§råtiàu la àaãrat. 30

118


turn of expression in the context of adoption terminology appears in Jubilees 2:19–20,39 ‫ ואכתבהו לי‬...‫והיו לי לעם ואני אהיה להם לאלהים‬ ‫לבן בכור‬, “And they shall be My people, and I shall be their God… and I shall record him as My firstborn son.” Heb. ‫ = כתב לבן‬Akk. ana m§råti àaã§ru. h) ana m§råti àak§nu (VAB 5, 29:5; TCL 18, 153:21)40 and ana aplåti àak§nu (TCL 17, 29:21),41 “to establish for the status of heir,” and their Sumerian counterparts: nam·dumu·ni·à è in·gar (cf. Meissner, Beiträge, 97:5 = HG, 3:23 = Schorr, Urkunden, 10), and nam·ibila·a·ni·àù in·gar·ri·eà (cf. BE VI, 2, 24:6 = HG IV, 790 = Schorr, Urkunden, 20); nam·ibila·ni·àè in gar (BIN 7, 187:3); and nam·dumu·ni·àè àu·ba·an·ti nam·ibila·ni·àè in·gar (EG 45: 4–5 = YOS 8,42 120:4–5,43 = HG 6:1421). A reflex of this formula is found in 4QDibHama 3:4–6:44 ‫( רק בשמכה ]הז[כרנו ולכבודכה ברתנו ובנים‬4 ‫( שמתנו לכה לעיני כול הגוים כיא קרתה‬5 ...‫( ]ל[ישראל בני בכורי‬6 We have [in]voked only Your name; and for Your glory You have created us. And You have established us as sons for You in the sight of all the nations, for You have called Israel “My son, My first-born.” Heb. ‫ שים בנים‬is the semantic equivalent of Akk. (ana) m§råti àak§nu. This formulaic expression also has a Biblical counterpart, which likewise appears in the context of adoption. As alluded to above, the formal adoption of Israel by God was for the purpose of validating the 39

A. Kahana, HaSefarim HaHißonim, I (Tel Aviv, 1956), 225 (Hebrew). For TCL 18:153, see also M. David, “Kritik an einem Rechtspruch aus Larsa,” Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae F. M. T. de Liaghre Böhl Dedicatae (Leiden, 1973), 90–94. 41 For the texts cited in TCL 17 and 18, see E. Ebeling, Altbabylonische Briefe der Louvre-Sammlung aus Larsa, Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft, 15/I–II (Leipzig, 1942). 42 For YOS 8:120, see also G. Boyer, Contribution à l’histoire juridique de la 1re dynastie babylonienne (Paris, 1928), 1. 43 For other references, cf. UET 5, 92:8; 96:4; Meissner, Beiträge 97:5 (= Schorr, Urkunden 10 = HG, 3, 23); C.D. Grant, Cuneiform Documents in the Smith College Library (Haverford, 1918), 260:10–11: ana m§ri§ni àakin. For another legal idiom, see Szlechter (“Des droits successoraux,” 84 n. 11), who refers to MSL 1, 3 III:61: nam·dumu·a·ni ba·an·na·ni·in·ri: ana (m§råtiàu) itråàu. For Akk. tarû, “to take,” he refers to Schorr, Urkunden 146:16 = HG, 3, text 531, p. 146 n. 2. See AHw, 1336. 44 M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4 III, DJD 7 (Oxford, 1982), 141. 40

adoption formulae

119

gift of the land of Israel for His chosen people. This is directly stated in Jer 3:19, ‫ אשיתך בבנים ואתן לך ארץ חמדה נחלת צבי‬45‫ואנכי אמרתי איך‬ ‫( צבאות גוים ָוא ַֹמר אבי תקראו לי ומאחרי לא תשובו‬read with qere: ‫תקראי‬ and ‫)תשובי‬. The unique technical expression ‫ אשיתך בבנים‬in this verse is none other than the Hebrew interdialectal semantic equivalent of its Mesopotamian counterparts: Akk. ana m§råti àak§nu and Sum. nam·dumu·ni·àu·in·gar, “to establish sonship relations,” i.e., “to adopt.” The passage itself now takes on legal significance: “I thought I will surely adopt you as My child and give you a desirable land, the most beautiful heritage of the nations. Then I reckoned you would call Me ‘Father’, and you would never cease to be loyal to Me.” According to the prophet, God thought that in order to gain the undivided loyalty of His people all He had to do was to establish an adoptive relationship between them46 and then bequeath to them—as a father to his child—a very precious gift, in this case the gift of the land of Israel. However, as the next verse (v. 20) clearly indicates, He once again was thwarted in His good intentions. In sum, the intimate bond between God and Israel was sealed and ratified by the employment of technical clauses familiar from ancient Near Eastern family law.47 45 A. Ehrlich (Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, IV [Leipzig, 1912], 246) suggests reading ‫ אך‬instead of ‫איך‬. 46 This evidence now confirms Prof. Ginsberg’s insightful interpretation of the verse; see above, note 23. 47 Feigin (“Some Cases of Adoption in Israel,”) suggested that the expression ‫ וישימו בנים‬in Ezra 10:44 implies adoption, however he made no reference to the Mesopotamian documentation. Though the verse is a very difficult one to interpret, if this expression is correct, it would be a suitable counterpart to the cuneiform legal idiom. For a somewhat similar use of Heb. ‫שים‬, cf. Gen 45:8, ‫וישימני לאב לפרעה‬, and the comment of Tur Sinai, Halashon weHasefer, I, 74.

120


psalm 27:10 and the babylonian theodicy

121

PSALM 27:10 AND THE BABYLONIAN THEODICY The second half of Ps 27,1 vv. 7–14, contains the prayer of an individual who, in his loneliness and deep distress, turns to god. In extremis, beset by harsh opponents and false witnesses, he clings to God who is his sole refuge and support. He prays to Him for guidance and protection, that He may not turn away or forsake him. As part of the description of his travail, he laments: ’by w’my ‘zbwny, “My father and mother abandoned me.” Nevertheless, he still remains confident that, yhwh y’spny, “The Lord will take me into His protection.” Most commentators interpret the first half of the verse to mean that his parents have completely abandoned him. Ibn Ezra, however, understood the phrase to mean that his parents “left me when they died.”2 The insight of this medieval exegete may now be corroborated by a passage from the literature of Mesopotamia, i.e., the Babylonian Theodicy,3 an acrostic poem which is “a dialogue between a sufferer who expresses the evils of current social injustice, and a friend, who tries to reconcile these facts with established views on the justice of the divine ordering of the universe.”4 The sufferer in this tale of woe recounts, inter alia, that his parents have left him as an unprotected child. The pertinent lines are 9–11: aÉurrâkuma5 z§rû àÊmtu ubtil,6 “When

1 For the question whether Ps. 27 consists of one or two independent compositions, see the standard modern commentaries. 2 See his commentary in the standard editions of Miqraoth Gedoloth. Cf. also A. B. Ehrlich, Die Psalmen (Berlin, 1905), 58: “weil diese sterben und ihn verlassen müssen….” 3 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1967), 63–91. See also B. Landsberger, “Die babylonische Theodizie,” ZA 43 (1936), 32–76. 4 Lambert, BWL, 63. 5 For aÉurrû, “youngest son,” see CAD, A/I, 216, which translates: “(when) I was still a child, the youngest in the family.” Lambert, in turn, translates: “I was a youngest child.” It appears, however, that the function of the enclitic particle ma has not been rendered adequately. It may have an emphatic connotation or, when attached to a stative or noun, may have a predicative force. For the latter, see W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (= GAG) (Rome, 1952), §§126, 180–181. The thought here may possibly be that, “I am truly a child of old age, for no sooner was I born than my father died.” 6 For the idiom àÊmtu ab§lu, a euphemism for “to die,” see CAD, A/I, 17, 4b, 2; ’/III, 17, b. There is, however, a difficulty with the grammatical form of the verb

122


I was still a very young child, fate carried off my father”; agarinnu §littÊ i-ta-ar7 erßet la t§ri, “My mother who gave birth to me had gone away to the Land-of-No-Return”; abÊ u b§ntÊ8 Êzibu’innima bal tarûa,9 “My father and my mother have left me behind without anyone to be my guardian.”10 It is patently clear from the context that the expression “my father and mother have left me behind” refers to the demise of both parents, as is spelled out in the immediate former lines. This unambiguous understanding of the intention of the author is of singular importance

here. For possible solutions, see CAD, A/I, 29: “may best be explained as influenced by bullû, “to extinguish”; Lambert, BWL, 303: “It is best to regard… ubtil as a second perfect formed in the analogy of ipqid: iptaqid, or of imåt: imtåt”; Landsberger, “Die babylonische Theodozie,” 72, note to line 8, followed by AHw, 137, bullu, translate “wegraffen.” See also the similar anomalous form in Erra IV:101; L. Cagni, L’Epopea Di Erra (Rome, 1969), 114. According to W. W. Hallo, the implication is ablative whether it is a lexical or a grammatical “t” form (oral communication). 7 The verb i-ta-ar has been subject to several different interpretations. According to Lambert (BWL, 303 n. 10), it is “tentatively taken as a I/1 perfect of a’§ru ‘to go’ (GAG, §106f).” He notes, however, that it is “usually construed with ana, though the possibility of its taking a simple accusative cannot be excluded.” In view of the commentary to this line by Lambert, who apparently derives the verb from an infinitive târu, with the meaning of al§ku, “to go, proceed,” C. Cohen (oral communication) raised the possibility of positing an ad hoc by-form târu from wâru, “to go, proceed.” This by-form (which would probably be a neologism) would be in no way different from other analogous by-forms, e.g., taà§bu, tab§lu, and even tarû (see below, n. 9), of the primae-w verbs, waà§bu, wab§lu, and w§ru. (see von Soden, GAG §103d.) The reservation made by Lambert (concerning the use of the verb with ana) would, nevertheless, still be pertinent. Landsberger (“Die babylonische Theodozie,” 72 note to line 10), on the other hand, interprets the verb to be a 1/2 preterite of nêru/nâru: “The Land-ofNo-Return killed my mother.” Despite these linguistic difficulties, the purpose of the author’s using (or, most likely, inventing) such an anomalous form is clear—it served his literary needs for an expanded alliteration: i-ta-ar (erßet la) târi (line 10), and tarûa (line 11), thereby creating a very impressive example of paronomasia. See, however, AHw, 1336, tarû, “(weg)holen,” and its use with àÊmtu, ibid., 1239, D 2. 8 For the rare noun b§ntu, lit., “creator, begetter,” derived from banû, see CAD, B, 80. 9 For Akk. t§rû, see AHw, 1336. The noun is derived from tarû, a secondary root of warû (see above, n. 7). Lambert (BWL, 314 n. 45) states that “the 1/3 of this verb is common in religious texts for a god caring for his people.” For this usage, see CAD, A/II, 315, b. Cf., for example, kÊma abÊ u ummÊ ittanarråni, “They (the gods) are directing/guiding me like my father and mother”; F. M. T. Böhl, Akkadian Chrestomathy (Leiden, 1947), 25:18. The final a in tarûa may be translated as “my,” or may have been added to conform with the trochaic line ending, thus placing the accent on the next to the last syllable. 10 See CAD, E, 418; A/I, 68; and Landsberger’s translation. Lambert’s translation apparently disregards the force of the enclitic ma suffixed to the verb.

psalm 27:10 and the babylonian theodicy

123

when applied to the verse in Psalms, for the Akkadian phrase abÊ u b§ntÊ Êzibu’innima bal tarûa is the exact semantic and (partial) etymological interdialectal equivalent of Heb. ’by w’my ‘zbwny: abÊ = ’by; b§ntÊ = ’my; Êzibu’inni = (>ez¿bu) = ‘zbwny. However, unlike the plight of the sufferer in the Babylonian Theodicy who, after his parents’ decease, was deprived of the care and protection of a guardian and was left without anyone to whom to turn,11 the author of Psalm 27, though also left without parents, can still pray that he will not be totally abandoned, for yhwh y’spny. The Hebrew verb ’sp here, as in other verses, bears the nuance of “to take up, care for, provide protection.”12 The author of this individual lament still has the Lord as his guardian.13 11 For the nuance of Akk. ez¿bu and Heb. ‘zb, “to leave exposed without any protection,” see C. Cohen, “Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies,” JANES 4 (1972), 49. 12 Cf. H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen4, HAT (Göttingen 1926), 117: “der Ausgestossenen, Hilflosen usw. bei sich aufnehmen, in Schutz nehmen.” Gunkel refers to the following verses: Num 12:14f.; Deut 22:2; Josh 20:4; Judg 19:15. Cf. also Josh 2:18; 2 Sam 11: 27. Thus, ’sp is the fitting verbal contrast of ‘zb; see above, n. 11. Compare NEB: “The Lord will take me into His care.” 13 W. W. Hallo (“Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition,” Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo, AOS 53 [New Haven, 1968], 78 n. 53 [= JAOS 88]) makes reference to Ps 27:10 in the course of his discussion of the neo-Sumerian literary genre of letter-prayers. In these, a “form of complaint is to stress the loss of… protection or patronage… ‘I have no protector… I am an orphan’,” which recalls Gudea’s moving plaint to Gatmudu: “I have no mother—you are my mother; I have no father—you are my father”; Cylinder A iii 6f. For the image of the deity as a parent, see idem, “The Coronation of Ur-Nammu,” JCS 20 (1966), 136 n. 53, and esp. T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven and London, 1976), 147–164, esp. 157–160.

124


two cognate semitic terms for mating and copulation 125

TWO COGNATE SEMITIC TERMS FOR MATING AND COPULATION: GEN 31:10, 12 AND AMOS 2:7 1. Gen 31:10, 12 Jacob, prior to his flight from the house of Laban, relates to his two wives a dream communication which he had received from God. His account begins as follows: “Once at the mating time of the flocks, I saw in a dream that the he-goats mounting the flock were….” The verb “to mount” is the common Hebrew verb ‘lh (with the preposition ‘l, “upon”), employed here with the specific nuance of the mating of animals. It is of interest to note that both the Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates of this verb share this very same meaning which, as in Hebrew, is only rarely attested and is limited solely to the mating of animals. In Akkadian, the verb elû is documented in both the G and ’-stems. For the former (G), e.g., sÊsû tÊbû [ina muÉ]Éi at§ni parê kî ¿lû,1 “A rutting horse,2 as he is mounting a hinny mare…”; kÊma lillidi àaÉî ßeÉru àa ina muÉÉi sinniàtiàu ¿lû,3 “Like a young offspring of a pig that has mounted his female.” On the basis of this usage, the verb has been correctly supplied in the following proverb: kalbu ina muÉÉi sinniàtiàu kî [¿lû],4 “When the dog [mounted] his mate….” In all these examples, Akk. ina muÉÉi ¿lû = Heb. ‘lh ‘l. And for the latter (’-stem), cf. 1 alap ritti5 ina q§t PN PN2 ana àulî imÉurma,6 “PN2 received from PN one ‘hand’-ox for mounting (= breeding).” There is also one clearly attested example of the verb ‘ly in the shaph‘el

1 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960) (= BWL), 218:15. See CAD, E, 119 (top), 1b–2´; A, II, 482. For translations, see CAD, S, 328. 2 For t¿/Êbû, cf. BWL, 216:17, pi’azu tÊbû, “a lusty mouse”; and E. F. Weidner, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (Berlin, 1922) = KUB 4, 48 i 18–19, rupuàti gud t¿bî, “saliva from a sexually excited bull”; rupuàti udu t¿bî, “saliva from a rutting sheep.” 3 W. von Soden, “Die Unterweltvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen,” ZA 43 (1936), 18:70. See CAD, E, 119 (top), and L, 189, 2d. 4 BWL, 216:29; CAD, S, 288, 3´b. 5 For the enigmatic alap ritti, see CAD, A/I, 368:4´, “mng. uncertain, MB only”; AHw, 990, “ein Pflugrind?” 6 See CAD, E, 130, 9e. The cross reference to this text in CAD, E, 119, should read “mng. 9e” and not “mng. 7e.”

126


in Ugaritic with this specific nuance, i.e., mating with an animal. In the Baal epic it is recounted that “Baal makes love to a heifer (‘glt) in …, àkb ‘mnh·àb‘·làb‘ym tà[‘]ly·tmn·ltmnym,7 “He lies with her seventy-seven times; she was mounted eighty-eight times.”8

2. Amos 2:7 Though the difficulties involved in the identification of the young lady (hn‘rh) who is frequented by both father and son are well known to students of Amos,9 there is no doubt as to the purpose of their assignation. It was left, however, to the discerning eye of Ehrlich10 to note the special nuance of the verbal expression (ylkw ’l) employed by the prophet: “Uebrigens ist ylkw hier wahrscheinlich nicht vom blossen Gange zu verstehen, dann hlk kann auch heissen, sich mich jemandem einlassen; vgl. zu Num. 22, 13 und Pr. 1, 11. Hier ist das Verbum speziell vom Einlassen des Mannes mit einem fremden Weibe gebraucht; vgl. Midrasch Rabba Num. Par. 10, wo zu lessen ist: hnw’p hzh hwlk ’l11 ’àt ’yà why’ mt‘brt hymnw = der Ehrbrecher lässt sich mit dem Weibe des Nächten ein, und sie wird von ihm schwanger.” He then goes on to bring further modern analogies for “ ‘gehen’ mit ‘zu’ konstruiert, den unehelichen Verkehr des Mannes mit einem Weib.”12 His exegetical insight can now be corroborated from Akkadian,

7 KTU 2 1.5.V:19–21. P. J. van Zijl, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (Neukirchen, 1972), 300, in his paragraph on “Terminology of Sexual Intercourse,” does not mention à‘ly; but, then, Baal is not the subject here. 8 After concluding this note, I discovered that both U. Cassuto (Biblical and Canaanite Literaturres [Jerusalem, 1972], 239 [Hebrew]) and J. C. de Moor (The Seasonal Patterns in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba‘lu [Neukirchen, 1971], 187) independently made passing reference to the linguistic relationship between the verse in Genesis and the Ugaritic passage. (The latter also refers to CAD for the Akkadian.) Neither, however, notes that in all three languages the idiomatic usage is restricted to the animal world. 9 For a full discussion, see S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1991), 81–82. 10 Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, V (Leipzig, 1912), 232. 11 Though the standard editions of this midrash have the reading ’ßl and not ’l, the interpretation remains the same. 12 Another example of this idiom, Heb. hlk ’l, is found in Midrash TanÈuma 5 (ed. S. Buber [New York, 1946], 16). See also N. M. Broznick, “More on hlk ’l,” VT 35 (1985), 98–99; and also S. Abramson, “On the Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud,” Archive of the New Dictionary of Rabbinic Literature, ed. M. Kadosh (Ramat Gan, 1974), II,

two cognate semitic terms for mating and copulation 127 where the expression ana X al§ku, the interdialectal semantic and partial etymological equivalent of Hebrew hlk ’l has the same idiomatic meaning, “to have sexual intercourse.”13 Note the following passages: àumma amÊlu ana sinniàti ina al§ki ikkal, “If a man eats during intercourse with a woman…”; àumma amÊlu ana sinniàti al§ka muããu, “If a man is unable to have intercourse with a woman”; ana nin·dingir iliàu lu illik, “If he had intercourse with the priestess of his god.” A final reference can be made to Middle Babylonian dream omens: àumma amÊlu ana sal·tur ill[ik],14 “If a man has intercourse with a sal·tur….” The various Akkadian equivalents of Sum. sal·tur, ßiÉirtu, “girl,” ßuÉartu, “young woman,” and batåltu, “adolescent,”15 are all fitting chronological analogues to the age group into which hn‘rh in our verse would very well fit. 12–13; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2002), 101, II 1; idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 44 1b. 13 See CAD, A/I, 321, 7´, for the present citations as well as for additional examples. Compare also A. T. Clay, Epics, Hymns, Omens and Other Texts (New Haven, 1923), BRM 4, 20:57, sinniàtu ana al§ku, “(propitious) for having intercourse with a woman”; and CAD, M/I, 434, c, for other examples. 14 V. Scheil, Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane: Textes élamites-sémitiques, MDP 14 (Paris, 1913), 55 iii:9. 15 For discussion, see CAD, B, 174; &, 185; and B. Landsberger, “Bemerkungen zu San Nicolò und Ungnad,” Neubabylonische Rechts- und Vergaltungsurken übersetzt und erläutert, Band I,” ZA 39 (1929–30), 290–291.

128


job 4:15—a hair-raising encounter

129

JOB 4:15—A HAIR-RAISING ENCOUNTER Job 4:12ff. recounts a revelation on high in the form of a terrifying vision which took place in the dead of night. This dreadful encounter with a supernatural being caused fear and trembling and resulted in a horrifying shudder which thoroughly wracked the entire frame of the party involved.1 One of the direct physical effects of this eerie experience with the numinous apparition is described in the second half of v. 15: ‫ֲרת בשרי‬ ַ ‫תּ ַס ֵמּר ַשׂע‬. ְ This stich has been interpreted in two different ways, both based upon the exegesis of the noun ‫ֲרת‬ ַ ‫שׂע‬: ַ 1. ‫סערה–שׂערה‬, “storm.” Such a spelling, with a ‫ שׂ‬instead of a ‫ס‬, does occasionally occur both for the noun, e.g., Isa 28:2, Nah 1:3, and for the verb, e.g., Ps 50:3, 58:10; Job 27:21; Dan 11:4. Tg. Jon. understood the noun precisely in this matter when it translated it by ‫עלעולא‬, “the whirlwind”2 (cf., too, Job 38:1, 40:6). Such an interpretation also accords well with the subject of the first half of the verse, ‫רוח‬, for ‫ רוח‬and ‫ שׂערה‬are a familiar pair appearing in both parallelism and in the construct state, e.g., Isa 41:16; Ezek 1:4, 13:11, 13; Ps 107:25, 148:8. ‫ שׂערת‬would then be the subject of the sentence to be “construed as the older form of the absolute with Tav.”3 Last, but 1 Since this vision is found in chapter four, which records the first speech of Eliphaz, it naturally is understood by almost all commentators as a description of his own personal experience. Tur Sinai, however, made a very striking and persuasive argument to attribute this revelation to Job; see N. H. Tur Sinai, The Book of Job—A New Commentary (Jerusalem, 1957). He was also followed by H. L. Ginsberg (“Studies in the Book of Job,” Leàonénu 21 [1967], 1–2, 4–5 [Hebrew]; idem, “Job the Patient and Job the Impatient,” Congress Volume: Rome, 1968, SVT 17 [Leiden, 1969], 98–107), who added additional impressive evidence to attribute 4:12–20 to Job. For attempts to criticize these views, see R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, Special Studies (New York, 1978), 518–519; and M. Weiss, HaMiqra Kidmuto (Jerusalem, 1962), 250–253 (Hebrew). The present note is obviously equally applicable to either view. 2 ‫מצלהבא עלעולא בסרי‬. Cf., too, Tg. Jon. to Ps 119:120. For the derivation of the Aramaic verb ‫צלהב‬, “to redden, burnish, glow, heat,” see M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950), 1282; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 464. 3 Gordis, Book of Job, 49; Tur Sinai, Book of Job. See W. Gesenius and E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, 1957), 223, sec. 80f; H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Hildesheim, 1922), 510–511, sec. 62, v.

130


not least, a storm (‫ )סערה‬is the actual vehicle for a divine revelation in the book of Job itself, cf. 38:1 and 40:6. The rare verb, ‫סמר‬, is a dislegomenon appearing here in the pi‘el and in Ps 119:120 in the qal, and is almost unanimously interpreted as a denominative verb of ‫מסמר‬, “nail,”4 connoting some very strong physical effect upon the body. Thus the translation, “A storm made my body bristle,”5 or “A tremor shook my frame.”6 2. Others, however, view ‫ שֹערת‬as the construct state of the Hebrew noun ‫שֹערה‬, “hair,”—so already LXX, tri/xej and Vulgate, pili. The feminine singular here is then understood as a generic term for all of the body hair and not as a nomen unitatis.7 The subject of the verb ‫תסמר‬ (similarly understood as above) could then be ‫ רוח‬of the first half of the verse, the noun being masculine in the first stich (‫ )יחלף‬and feminine in the second stich (‫—)תסמר‬a grammatical phenomenon attested also in Job 1:19 and 1 Kings 19:11, resulting in the translation, “A spirit made the hair of my body bristle.”8 Or the verb could be interpreted as an intransitive (as it is in Ps 119:120), with ‫ שׂערת בשרי‬as its subject: “The hair of my body bristled.”9 This second line of exegesis, “hair standing on end,” is either mentioned by commentators without any linguistic proof or is otherwise summarily dismissed.10 The purport of this note is to adduce evidence for such an expression from Mesopotamian medical and literary texts, and to note that such an effect upon the body is usually (as in Job) a concomitant result of a horrifying encounter with a supernatural being. This physical phenomenon is expressed by several different Akkadian verbs:

4 5

120.

Thus most medieval and modern exegetes. So, too, M. Dahood, Psalms, III, AB 17 A (New York, 1970), 186 on Ps 119:

Ginsberg (“Job the Patient,” 106) emends ‫ שׂערת‬to ‫שׂערה‬. This offsets the criticism of A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, VI (Leipzig, 1918), 193–194 (who prefers to emend to [‫)תסמר שׂערה את ]בשרי‬, and Gordis, Book of Job, ad loc. For the use of nomen unitatis, see Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik, 511, sec. 62, z. G. Fohrer (Das Buch Hiob, KAT2 XVI [Gütersloh, 1963], 128) suggests to revocalize as a plural, ‫ֲרת‬ ַ ‫שׂע‬. ַ 8 E.g., Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Gordis. 9 E.g., S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, Job, ICC (Edinburgh, 1971); M. H. Pope, Job, AB 15 (New York, 1973), ad loc. For ‫בשר‬, “body,” cf. Ezek 11:19, 36:26; Ps 63:2; Prov 5:11; Eccles 12:12. 10 So Tur Sinai, Book of Job, ad loc. 6 7

job 4:15—a hair-raising encounter

131

1. zaq§pu (G):11 àumma à§rat qaqqadiàu kÊma ßib§ri zaqpat, “If the hair of his head stands on edge like (that of) a….” zuqqupu (D):12 [àumma marßu] à§rat qaqqadiàu u zumriàu zuqqupat, “[If a patient’s] hair, on his head and body, stands on end.” Note especially the following text which describes an encounter with an eãemmu-ghost: àa… à§rat muÉÉija uzanaqqapu, “who makes the hair of my head stand up.” 2. uzzuzu (G):13 à§rtu izzaz, “The hair will remain standing.” àuzzuzu (’): [àa]… à§rat zumriàu uàzizzu, “It (the evil demon) causes the hair of his body to stand up.”14 Similarly compare, àa r§bißu lemnu à§rat zumriàu uàzizzu (var. uàaÉÉiÉu), “Whose hair on his body the evil r§bißu demon has made stand on end” (var. “has made fall out”).15 Note, too, that in several of the above-cited examples it is precisely the à§rat zumriàu, “hair of his body,” that is affected, for this is the exact Akkadian analogue of Heb. ‫שֹערת בשרי‬. Nevertheless, it must also be seriously considered that the author’s choice of spelling the noun in question with a ‫ שׂ‬was deliberate, thereby raising the intriguing possibility of a dual interpretation (“storm” and “hair”) and thus producing an extremely clever double entendre.16 11 CAD, Z, 53, e, 2´, “to point upward… said of part of the body.” Citations are taken from this volume. For further citations, see CAD, ’/II, 126, 2a. Note also there: [i]tiq pirtiàu zaqpat, “The locks of his hair stand on edge.” See also E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (= KAR) (Leipzig, 1923), 267:12ff. 12 CAD, Z, 54, 3, 2´, “to make (hair) stand on end.” For additional citations, see CAD, ’/II, 126, 2a. 13 KAR 202:17. See also R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (London, 1923), 3:2; 31:1; 46:3; 59:1; R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux (Paris, 1951), XXVI:32. For a similar phenomenon with animals, see KAR 477:3. 14 T. G. Pinches, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, V (London, 1909), plate 50:52. See also P. Haupt, Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte (Leipzig, 1882), 82–83, 11:6, à§rat zumri àuzuzzû. 15 JCS 21 (1967), 4:26. For the variant, ZA 61 (1971), 85. For àaÉ§Éu, see AHw, 1003; CAD, ’/I, 75–76. 16 See S. M. Paul, “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a,” VT 39 (1989), 495–497 [155–157]; idem, “Polysensuous Polyvalency in Poetic Parallelism,” “Sh‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, IN, 1992), 147–163 [457–476]; idem, “Polysemous Pivotal Punctuation: More Janus Double Entendres,” Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1996), 369–374 [477–483]; idem, “An Overlooked Double Entendre in Jonah 2:5,” The Honeycomb of the Word: Interpreting the Primary Testament with André LaCocque, ed. W. D. Edgerton (Chicago, 2001), 155–157 [485–487].

132


daniel 3:29: a case of “neglected” blasphemy

133

DANIEL 3:29: A CASE STUDY OF “NEGLECTED” BLASPHEMY The literary genre of the martyr tale is exemplified in chapter 3 of Daniel by the account of three Jews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who, after refusing to worship the golden image erected by Nebuchadnezzar, are miraculously saved from the fiery furnace to which they have been condemned. After witnessing this miracle, the Babylonian king utters praise to their God who sent an angel to deliver his servants, who remained faithful even unto the point of death. He then issues a decree (v. 29) that anyone “who ‫יאמר שלה‬ against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego” shall be severely punished. Many medieval and modern commentators still prefer the qere, ‫( שלו‬found also in Ezra 4:22; 6:9), which means “negligence.” This Aramaic word is well attested and is used in the Aramaic Targums to translate Heb. ‫שכח‬, “to neglect, forget” (e.g., Ps 9:13; Job 8:13; 39:15) and ‫שגג‬/‫שגי‬, “to err, make a mistake” (e.g., Lev 4:2; 5:18; Job 6:24; 12:16). It also enters Neo- and Late Babylonian texts, both as a verb, àelû, “to be negligent,” and as a noun, àilûtu, “negligence.”1 In Daniel, however, this meaning surely does not apply and is simply out of the question. So to translate “to speak anything amiss,” lit., “any neglect or error,” is nothing but an exercise in tortuous semantics.2 It is therefore surely not amiss to point out that almost all commentators on Daniel have been remiss in neglecting annotations to this substantive found in several studies on lexicography. An attempt in the right direction was already taken by Perles in 19163 (repeated in

1 CAD, ’/II, 453 (for the noun); 274–275 (for the verb). See also W. von Soden, “Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten: Ein Vorbericht II,” Or 37 (1968), 268. 2 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge, 1912), 45. See also the following ad loc.: G. Behrmann, Das Buch Daniel, HAT 3/3, 2 (Göttingen, 1894); K. Marti, Das Buch Daniel, KHAT 18 (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1901); J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, ICC (New York, 1927); A. Jeffery, The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Exegesis, IB 6 (Nashville, 1956); and G. Fohrer, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament (London, 1973), 330. 3 F. Perles, OLZ 19 (1916), 82.

134


1918),4 when he transmitted an oral communication from S. Schiffer, who related the noun in Daniel with the Akkadian word sillatu (referring to Muss-Arnolt).5 The right direction but the wrong exit, for the word was incorrectly translated “Empörung.” (Previously, in 1906, Perles attempted to relate the word to Syr. ‫שׂלי‬, “abuse, slander.”)6 In 1927, Baumgartner7 wrote that the qere, ‫שלו‬, “negligence,” though favored by most exegetes, was too weak. Another suggestion offered was that ‫ שאלה = שלה‬was correctly seen to be “farblos.”8 He, too, opted for Schiffer’s suggestion, which eventually was cited in KBL under the entry ‫שׁלה‬, supposedly derived from sillatu > salå, “throw off (yoke), insolence, rebellion,”9 thereby unfortunately repeating the mistranslation and adding an incorrect etymology. Only in 1930 did G. R. Driver, vocalizing the word according to the ktib, ‫שׁ ָלּה‬, ִ correctly connect it with Akk. àillatu, “blasphemy,” a meaning “singularly suitable” to this context.10 Driver’s insight, however, was “singularly” overlooked. It only entered a Biblical lexicon in 1971, when Vogt

4

idem, “Ergänzungen zu den ‘Akkadischen Fremdwörten’,” OLZ 21 (1918),

71. 5

W. Muss-Arnoldt, Assyrische-Englisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch (Berlin, 1905), 764a. Interesting enough, the dictionary lists two meanings under s(à)illatu, “Vermessenheit” and “Empörung” (“impudence” and “rebellion”); only the first is correct. 6 F. Perles, “ ‘I tremble in every nerve’ (‘The Fourteenth Edition of GeseniusBuhl’s Dictionary’),” JQR 18 (1905/6), 387. He was not aware, however, of the possible Akkadian cognate, sal§’u. See CAD, S, 97–98, “to cheat, lie, deceive; sal’å, ibid., 106, “fraud” (?); sullû, ibid., 366, “disloyal speech.” Perles’s interpretation was also preferred by W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (Leipzig, 1921), 927. 7 W. Baumgartner, “Das aramäische im Buche Daniel,” ZA 45 (1927), 90. 8 Baumgartner (loc. cit.) refers to the commentaries of Hitzig, Bevan, Marti, Strack, and Torrey. It is also cited by O. Plöger (Das Buch Daniel, KAT 18 [Gütersloh, 1965]), who nevertheless translates “uneherbietig”; and by A. LaCocque (The Book of Daniel [Atlanta, 1979], 68), who opts for “speaks against” (p. 67). 9 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1968), 1127. In idem, Supplementum ad Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1968), 207, however, under the entry ‫שׂלה‬, a cross-reference is made to W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Rome, 1952), 30, par. 30e. Though the note is correct—von Soden refers to à/sillatu, “Freckheit”—the dictionary meaning is not corrected accordingly. See now J. J. Stamm and B. Hartmann, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, V (Leiden, New York, and Köln, 1995), 1785–1786, under the entry ‫שׁ ָלּה‬, ִ where they conjecturally derive the noun from Akk. àillatu (incorrectly written, àill§tu) and translate, “Schämung aussprechen.” 10 G. R. Driver, “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament Text,” JThS 31 (1930), 282–283.


135

(not citing Driver) translated it as “blasphemy”11 and most recently appeared in Kaufman’s work as “vulgarity, blasphemy” (again, without reference to Driver).12 What should be emphasized is that Akk. àillatu is part of the “Akkadian stock of terms for sinful speech.”13 Such improper speech, when directed against God, is blasphemy, and, when uttered against a human being, slander, insolence, impudence, and effrontery. The following sampling of citations from different literary genres will demonstrate its range of meaning.14 1. Against a god: a) ana diàtaràina iqabbâ àillatu rabÊtu, “They will utter grievous blasphemy against their goddess.”15 b) àumma sinniltu lu aààat a’Êle lu m§rat a’Êle àillata taqtibi, “If a woman, either a man’s wife or a man’s daughter, should utter blasphemy….”16 c) PN1 u PN2 (àa eli) dAààur ili b§nîja iqbû àillatu rabÊtu lià§nàun aàlup aàÉuãa maàakàun, “PN1 and PN2, who spoke gross blasphemy against Assur, my god who has created me, I ripped out their tongues and skinned them alive.”17

11 E. Vogt, Lexicon Linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti (Rome, 1971), 161, “insolentia, blasphemia.” 12 S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influence on Aramaic, AS 19 (Chicago, 1974), 102. In n. 358, he refers to Perles, “Ergänzungen,” 71 and KBL, 1127. He correctly adds that it is “no coincidence that precisely where the context demands ‘insolence’ or ‘blasphemy’ and not ‘negligence’, the ktiv has àlh instead of the usual àlw; read àillâ; correct Babylonian form is àillatu.” 13 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1960), 312 n. 28. Under àillatu he notes the connection with àlh in Daniel 3:29. 14 For àillatu, see CAD, ’/II, 445–446. 15 L. Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra, Studi Semitici 34 (Rome, 1969), 92, III:12. The translation is taken from idem, The Poem of Erra (Malibu, 1977), 42. 16 G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford, 1935), 380–381 = MAL A 2:14–16. See note on p. 458. Cf., too, G. Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes (Paris, 1969), 96. Both translate “blasphemy” and refer to Dan 3:29. See now M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, 1995), 155. For the same idiom in the context of an accusation of blasphemy during a quarrel, see MAL, Tablet N 1:2–3; N 2:6–7; Roth, Law Collections, 190; and E. F. Weidner, “Das Alter der mittelassyrischen Gesetzestexte,” AfO 12 (1937–39), 53, “Gotteslästerung.” 17 E. F. Weidner, “Assyrische Beschreibungen der Kriegsreliefs Aààurbanipals,” AfO 8 (1932–34), 184:28. See also M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergangs Nineveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 38 iv:69.

136


Note that in all these instances the Akkadian expression àillata qabû,18 which is the cognate equivalent of Aram. ‫אמר ִשׁ ָלּה‬, means “to speak blasphemy,” and should be translated as such in Dan 3:29.19 Interestingly enough, the correct meaning of this noun was known in antiquity and was preserved in both the Latin and Greek translations to 3:28: blasphemiam (Vulgate), blasfhm/sh|| (LXX), blasfhmi/an (Theodotion). 2. Against a human being:20 a) àumma mimma arnam u àillatam teppaàa, “If she (the slave woman) commits an offense or an act of insolence….”21 b) ana àakkanakki z§nin m§É§zÊàunu iqabbû àillatu rabÊtu, “Against the governor, the provisioner of their centers of worship, they utter grossly insolent words.”22 c) àillatum magrÊtum lu ikkibåka, “Let insolence and slander be abhorrent to you.”23 In view of the application of àillatu as a verbal offense against humans24 as well as deities, it may be well to consider the other pos-

18

For other examples of àillatam dab§bu, see CAD, loc. cit. L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella (The Book of Daniel, AB 23 [Garden City, NY, 1978], 156) translate “utter blasphemy,” reading “àill§h with the ketib,” but have no remarks on either the word or its derivation. I was happy to note that J. J. Collins (Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, 1993], 178 n. 67) accepts my interpretation here and incorporates it in his commentary. 20 Note the comment by A. L. Oppenheim (The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East [Philadelphia, 1956], 283 n. 110); Lambert (BWL, 312, under àillatu, “the equation [in]im.é.gal = àillatu (Erim.huà 1.282: CT 18 48 iv:21) suggests that it means “seditious speech,” i.e. “word of (against?) the palace.” 21 H. Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion, AfO Beiheft 3 (Graz, 1961), 27a:9 (p. 74). The text is found in F. Hrozný, Inscriptions cunéiformes du Kültépé, I (Prague, 1952). See also idem, 27b:13. In CAD, E, 203, correct the first reference under arnu to 27b:13, and translate “improper speech” instead of “blasphemy.” 22 Cagni, L’Epopea, 104, IV:12, and his translation, Poem of Erra, 48. 23 Lambert, BWL, 100:28; but Lambert translates it here as “blasphemy.” For another example of àillatam qabû in parallel to ikkibu in a secular context (CAD, I/J, 56), see E. Ebeling, “Hymnus auf die Suprematie des Sonnengottes,” Or 23 (1954), 214:11–12 = KBo 1, 12: rev. 11–12, ina [så]qi ài[latta] iqabbÊma ikkab amassu. 24 For other citations, see CAD, ’/II, 444–446; and Hirsch, Untersuchungen, 74 n. 409, “Gemeinheit.” A further example appears in J. Lewy, Die altassyrischen Texte von Kültepe bei KaisarÊje (Constantinople, 1926), 37a:20, and is quoted in CAD, A/I, 220: “Heaven forbid that the package (of silver) should be found in the caravan, and that abÊ ana àillitim rabÊtim ¿ addi.” CAD translates, “and that I cause (?) my father to (utter) a terrible blasphemy.” It seems, however, that in this case, AHw, 1136 has a preferable 19


137

sible appearance of the noun in Dan 6:5. When the chief ministers and satraps attempted to find grounds for accusation against Daniel, they were unsuccessful, “since he was trustworthy, no ‫ ָשׁלוּ‬nor ‫שחיתה‬ could be discovered against him.”25 In this context, it is tempting to understand ‫ שלו‬as another incorrect reading of ‫שׁ ָלּה‬, ִ and to compare the expression to the Akkadian phrase cited above, arnu u àillatu.26 The correct meaning would be that they were unable to find any “improper speech” (‫)שׁ ָלּה‬ ִ or “corruption” (‫ )שחיתה‬against Daniel. The two words would then constitute a merism—in both speech and deed Daniel remained faithful to the king. translation of nadû, “ich will nicht fallen lassen.” Thus, “I will not let an improper accusation befall my father.” 25 The final clause of this verse is omitted in both the Greek translations of LXX and Theodotion. (It is, however, found in the Vulgate translation, to 6:4(!): “et omnis culpa et suspicio non inveniretur in eo.”) Could it originally have been a doublet or variant reading of the first clause, i.e., ‫?שלו ושחיתה = ִע ָלּה ושחיתה‬ 26 Hrozný, Inscriptions cunéiformes, I 27a:9; see Hirsch, Untersuchungen, 74.

138


dan 6:8: aramaic reflex of assyrian legal terminology 139

DAN 6:8: AN ARAMAIC REFLEX OF ASSYRIAN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY In his study of the Aramaic legal papyri from Elephantine, Y. Muffs established the Neo-Assyrian provenience of the Aramaic formularies at Elephantine.1 In the course of his investigation he referred to Neo-Assyrian deeds from the ninth century which are provided with brief Aramaic summaries or dockets introduced by the word ‫דנת‬, which he correctly identified as a loan translation2 from Assyr. dannatu, “valid deed.”3 A similar semantic development from this root, which primarily denotes “strength” to that which is “legitimate, binding,” is also evidenced in the corresponding adjective, dannu,4 as well as in the feminine plurale tantum, dann§tu.5 All three may refer to a “binding agreement.” Muffs,6 Greenfield,7 Loewenstamm,8 and Kaufman,9 further suggested that the Nabatean ‫תקף‬, “valid document,”10 is a calque of this 1 Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden 1969), 179–189. 2 Ibid., 187. On p. 196, he also refers to Middle Babylonian analogues of the ãuppu dannatu as cited in L. Oppenheim, “Ein Beitrag zum Kassitenproblem,” AnOr 12 (1935), 266–274. 3 For dannatu, see CAD, D, 90–91, 8, “valid tablet.” 4 For dannu, see CAD, D, 95, 2, “valid.” 5 For dann§tu, see CAD, D, 91, 2, “binding agreement.” 6 Muffs, Studies, 208. 7 J. Greenfield is cited as reaching the same conclusion independently (oral communication) in ibid., 208. See Greenfield’s note in his “Studies in the Legal Terminology of the Nabatean Funerary Inscriptions,” Sefer Hanoch Levin (Ramat Gan, 1974), 73 n. 49 (Hebrew), where he, in turn, refers back to Muffs, Studies, 208. Greenfield brings examples of the Nabatean terms ‫( כתב תקף‬197:2–3; 222:3–4), ‫( כתב או תקף‬224:2–3; cf. 207: 5–6) and concludes that the two are very similar, with possibly only a small distinction between them. 8 S. E. Loewenstamm, “Esther 9:29–32: The Genesis of a Late Addition,” HUCA 42 (1971), 119–120. He views the two as participating in a parallel semantic development. 9 S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago, 1974), 46. He does question, however, on that page, n. 72, Muffs’ reference to AP 10:23 = A. Cowley, The Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923). This document is referred to by Muffs (Studies, 189) and not as cited by Kaufman (op. cit., 184). 10 For Nabatean ‫תקף‬, see C. F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest (= DISO) (Leiden, 1965), 333, ‫ תקף‬I, adj. “valable, légitime,” ‫כתב‬

140


very same Assyrian dannatu, again demonstrating the identical internal development from its base meaning, “strength,” to a “strong,” i.e., “valid and binding document.” The latter two then compared this substantive to its counterpart in Biblical Hebrew, ‫תּ ֶֹקף‬, in Esth 9:29.11 In this passage, most exegetes interpret the phrase ‫ כל תּ ֶֹקף‬as meaning “with all power/strength” or “with full authority,”12 and translate the verse, “Then Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail and Mordecai the Jew, wrote a second letter of Purim for the purpose of confirming with full authority the aforementioned one of Mordecai the Jew.”13 This verse is part of the pericope of Esth 9:29–32 which is considered by many scholars as being a later interpolation.14 Loewenstamm, concurring with the majority opinion, subjected this unit to a minute textual analysis in order to reconstruct the assumed complex process leading to its final redaction.15 After outlining the internal problems of v. 29 and comparing the MT with the LXX translation, he suggests that ‫ תּ ֶֹקף‬must refer to something written.16 If the meaning were “with full authority,” one would expect the presence of the preposition ‫ב‬, ‫בכל תקף‬, and not ‫את כל תקף‬, as it appears in the MT.17 Hence, he concludes that the noun here means a “deed of legal strength” and, en passant, refers to Assyr. dannatu and Nab. ‫תּ ֶֹקף‬.18 He then goes on to translate the verse as follows: “Esther and Mordecai wrote the whole valid deed of this Purim epistle,” i.e., “the epistle recorded in verse 26.” According to Loewenstamm, neither the Greek translator nor the last redactor of the MT was aware of this special meaning of ‫תּ ֶֹקף‬. The scribe, he suggests, understood it not as a comment on v. 26 but as

‫( תקף‬CIS ii 197:3; 215:3; 224:4), “un document légitime”; ‫ תקף‬II, noun, “titre valide” (CIS ii 207; 3, 6; 210:4; 224:3, J 5:3, 6). 11 Loewenstamm and Kaufman, loc. cit. 12 See the standard translations. C. A. Moore (Esther, AB 7 B [Garden City, NY, 1971], 95) translates, “with full authority,” lit., “with full power,” but does note the occurrence of ‫ תקף‬in Nabatean inscriptions. E. Würthwein (Die fünf Megilloth, HAT 18 [Tübingen, 1969], 196), on the other hand, totally misunderstood the import of the verse. 13 So NJPS. 14 For the different opinions, see Loewenstamm, “Esther,” 118. 15 Ibid., 118–120. 16 Ibid., 119. 17 Already noted by P. Haupt and referred to by Loewenstamm, “Esther,” 118 n. 4. 18 On p. 119 n. 11, Loewenstamm (ibid.) also brings the Nabatean evidence for ‫ תקף‬and regards ‫“ כתב תקף‬as a hendiadys, ‫ תקף‬as a shortened expression.”

dan 6:8: aramaic reflex of assyrian legal terminology 141 a second act of legislation confirming the first. He thus assumes that both ‫ לקיים‬and ‫ השנית‬in this verse are secondary additions.19 Though we agree with him that ‫ תּ ֶֹקף‬refers here to a “valid document,” we would like nevertheless to suggest another line of interpretation for the remainder of the sentence: ‫לקיים את אגרת הפורים‬ ‫הזאת השנית‬. It should be noted that in those very same Neo-Assyrian deeds which are accompanied by Aramaic summaries, eleven dockets are introduced by the noun 20‫ דנת‬and one by ‫ = אגרת‬Akk. egirtu.21 The origin of this substantive and its direction of borrowing (from Neo-Assyrian into Aramaic or vice versa) are still the subject of much scholarly discussion.22 Irrespective of which language is proven to be the ultimate source, it is patently clear that in these Aramaic documents ‫ אגרת‬alternates with and has the same approximate meaning as ‫דנת‬. Thus, ‫אגרת כספא זי על זבן‬23 is to be translated, “The legal deed24 of (= concerning) the money which Z. owes.” In Neo-Assyrian documents as well, egirtu at times specifically refers to a “legal document”:25 egirtu àa dÊni ina birtuàunu issaãru, “They drew up a legal document concerning the agreement between them.” Compare also: 5 manê ina libbi egirti issaãar, “Five minas (of silver) were recorded in a contract.”26 The verse in Esther should now be reconsidered in the light of this evidence, for in this very same passage there appear Heb. ‫תּ ֶֹקף‬ (= Assyr. dannatu, Aram. ‫דנת‬, Nab. ‫ )תקף‬and Heb. ‫ =( אגרת‬Assyr. egirtu, Aram. ‫)אגרת‬, both substantives which may refer to legally valid documents in this period. It may be conjectured that these two terms were originally variants of one another, both of which were eventually preserved in the same verse and thus necessarily subsequently

19 He even thinks that different scribes were responsible for the insertion of each of these words and “that the final text arose from a conflation of both additions” (ibid., 120). 20 See L. Delaporte, Épigraphes araméens (Paris, 1912), documents 8–18. 21 Ibid., 38, document 19, also referred to by Muffs (Studies, 187 and n. 4). 22 See Kaufman’s discussion, Akkadian Influences, 48 and n. 81, and Muffs, Studies, loc. cit. 23 Delaporte, Épigraphes araméens, 38. 24 ‫ אגרת‬here refers to a “legal deed” and not a “letter”; so correctly Muffs, Studies, loc. cit.; and Jean and Hoftijzer, DISO, 4, “contrat,” referring to the same documents; but incorrectly by Delaporte, Épigraphes araméen, “lettre.” 25 CAD, E, 46, 2a See also J. N. Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents (Warminster, 1976), 166–168, 48:4–5. 26 Both references are cited from CAD, loc. cit.

142


reinterpreted.27 This suggestion may help explain the puzzling last work, ‫השנית‬, “the second,” that is an editorial attempt to reconcile an apparent duplication in terminology.28 The purpose of this note, however, is to extend the scope of the investigation from the noun ‫ תּ ֶֹקף‬to the verb ‫תּ ֵקּף‬, ַ which appears in Dan 6:8. In this passage, the political and administrative hierarchy of the Persian government in collusion persuade King Darius29 to publish a royal edict forbidding all to address any request or prayer to any god or human being except to the king himself, upon the penalty of being tossed into the lions’ den. The legal wording of the Aramaic, ‫ לקימה קים מלכא לתקפה אסר‬is yet another example of the literary phenomenon of parallel phrases which exemplify rhetorical elements in the prose passages of Daniel (e.g., 4:16; 5:10).30 The first half of this expression: ‫לקימה קים מלכא‬, means “to establish/confirm/publish31 a

27 Or could ‫ אגרת‬have originally served as an explanatory gloss for ‫ֹקף‬ ֶ ‫תּ‬, which in its nominal and adjectival forms in all other Biblical verses refers to “strength”? Cf. Esth 10:2 and Dan 11:17. (For Aramaic, cf. Dan 2:37, 40, 42; 3:33; 4:27; 7:7; Ezra 4:20.) Only here does it appear with the meaning of a legally valid document. 28 Heb. ‫ השנית‬does not appear in LXX or Peshitta, and many scholars either delete it as a gloss or emend it. The suggestion in BH3, ‫לקיים תקף אגרת‬, would be very similar to the expression ‫ כתב תקף‬in the Nabatean inscriptions; see above, n. 7. 29 As for the actual identification of this non-existent “Median” Darius, see the modern commentaries. 30 J. Greenfield, “Early Aramaic Poetry,” JANES 11 (1979), 47 = S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick (eds.), ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, I (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2001), 169. 31 For the legal nuance of Heb. ‫)להקים( לקים‬, see the various notes of M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970), 188 and n. 33; “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 (1973), 197; and “‫ברית‬,” TWAT, I, 788. For the distinction between the hiph‘il, ‫להקים‬, and pi‘¿l, ‫לקים‬, see A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris 1982), 32–35. Hurvitz shows, by means of his diachronical study, that the pi‘¿l is the distinctively later form, evident in late Biblical texts and in Rabbinic literature. For another occurrence of this very same idiom, ‫קיים קים‬, see 11QTg Job 35: 6–7, ‫היקים קים עמך‬, which is the Aramaic Targum to Job 40:28, ‫היכרת ברית עמך‬, “Will it make an alliance/covenant with you?”; J. A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome, 1978), 42. See also M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat Gan, 1974), 96. His comment on p. 162, “On the basis of BA (D 68) and TO (e.g., Dt 818), yqym should be analyzed as qwm (pa.),” would be additional support for Hurvitz’s comments above on this verbal form. Note that adjective ‫ קים‬also appears in Nabatean inscriptions with the meaning “valable, légitime.” Cf. ‫כתב תקף מן יד עידו קים לה‬, “un document authentique de la main de A. valable pour lui” (Jean and Hoftijzer, DISO, 258).

dan 6:8: aramaic reflex of assyrian legal terminology 143 royal edict.” For the legal nuance of this verb, cf. Heb. ‫לקים‬, Esth 9: 29, 31 and Ruth 4:7, as well as its occurrence in an Aramaic inscription from Assyria.32 The exact nuance of the second half, ‫ל ַת ָקּ ָפה ֱא ָסר‬, ְ has been almost overlooked. Usually it is rendered, “to make strong a prohibition,” “to issue a strong prohibition,” or “to put into force an interdict.”33 But actually ‫תּ ָקּ ָפה‬, ַ the pa‘¿l infinitive of ‫תקף‬, is none other than the interdialectal semantic equivalent of the Assyrian verb dunnunu. This latter verb, similar to the semantic development of the nominal form, dannatu, just described above, also develops from its basic meaning, “to strengthen,” a legal connotation, “to make valid and binding.”34 This technical meaning is already attested in Old Assyrian, ãuppåàu ludanninma, “Let him make his tablets binding.”35 And it reappears in Neo-Assyrian documents, e.g., udannina riks§te, “He made the treaty binding,”36 and it is documented several times in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, e.g., adê ina muÉÉÊàu issÊkunu udanninåni iàkunåni.37 The translation here should not be, “And concerning whom he has firmly imposed the treaty upon you,”38 but rather, “And concerning whom he has made the treaty binding upon you.” In Daniel, as well, the correct legal nuance of ‫ ַת ָקּ ָפה‬is “to make valid and binding.” Thus, the Aramaic ‫ ַת ָקּ ָפה ֱא ָסר‬is the exact cognate equivalent of Assyrian riksa dunnunu, in which both the nouns ‫ ֱא ָסר‬and riksu represent terms for “obligatory bonds,” and both verbs, ‫ תקף‬and dunnunu, signify “to ratify.”39 In sum, alongside the manifold influences

32 KAI, I, 46, 233:9. See Vol. II, 283 for translation, and p. 285 for note. It was overlooked, however, that the same sequence of verbs appears in this inscription as well as in Esth 9:29 (‫ קים‬...‫ )כתב‬:‫ כתבת וקימת‬:‫ לקיים‬...‫ותכתב‬. 33 See the standard modern translations. 34 For dunnunu, see CAD, D, 85 2´ d; AHw 159b, 7d. 35 Cited as one of the examples in CAD, loc. cit. However, as the following citations show, the use of dunnunu, “to make valid, binding,” is not limited to Old Assyrian texts, as CAD states, but is current in Neo-Assyrian as well. AHw cites the Neo-Assyrian but translates, “verstärken.” The Old Assyrian citations are listed, loc. cit., under D 8, but not with their correct legal nuance. 36 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7/2 (Leipzig, 1916), 4, 1:22. 37 D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), 33:64–65. See also lines 23–24 and 286–287 for the same usage of the verb. 38 Ibid., 34, and the corresponding translations to the other lines cited in the above note. 39 After completing this study, it was a pleasant surprise to discover that one

144


of Neo-Assyrian legal vocabulary upon Aramaic can now be added the verb dunnunu = ‫תּ ֵקּף‬, ַ “to make a document legally binding and valid.” scholar had made note of this correspondence. See Weinfeld, “‫ברית‬,” TWAT, I, 784; “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon – An Annotated Translation,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, I (Jerusalem, 1975), 89 n. 5 (Hebrew); idem, “The Counsel of the Elders to Rehoboam,” Leàonénu 36 (1971), 10–11 n. 49 (Hebrew); and in his expanded English version, “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and its Implications,” Maarav 3/1 (1982), 46–48 n. 95.

hosea 8:8–10 and ancient near eastern royal epithets 145

‫משא מלך שרים‬ HOSEA 8:8–10 AND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN ROYAL EPITHETS* In the short pericope of Hosea 8:8–10,1 the prophet commences by lamenting the plight of his people who have “now become like an unwanted vessel among the nations.”2 The cause for such a denigrating description is patently clear—the vacillation of their political pendulum which ever sways to and fro between the major powers3 in a never-ending search for assistance.4 “They have gone up to Assyria…;5 * This is an updated revision of my Hebrew article which appeared in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Y. Avishur and Y. Blau (Jerusalem, 1978), 309–317. The commentaries referred to below appear by author’s name only. All references are to the verses under discussion. F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24 (Garden City, NY, 1980); T. K. Cheyne, Hosea with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge, 1884); A. Deissler and M. Delcor, Hosea-Jona (Freiburg, 1961); A. B. Ehrlich, Miqra’ Kipheshuto, III (New York, 1969) (Hebrew); idem, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, V (Leipzig, 1912); C. van Gelderen and W. H. Gispen, Het Boek Hosea (Kampen, 1953); F. Hitzig, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (Leipzig, 1838); A. van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes, Études Bibliques (Paris, 1908); C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1888); J. Mauchline, Hosea, IB 6 (New York, 1956); J. L. Mays, Hosea, OTL (Philadelphia, 1969); F. Nötscher, Zwölfprophetenbuch, Echter-B (Würzburg, 1948); W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten3, KAT 3/4 (Göttingen, 1922); H. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuch (Uppsala, 1935); A. Oettli, Amos und Hosea (Gütersloh, 1901); H. Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes quibis in Vetere Testamento (Leiden, 1900); C. von Orelli, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten3 (Munich, 1908); W. Rudolph, Hosea, KAT 13/1 (Gütersloh, 1966); E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch2, KAT 12/1 (Leipzig, 1929); N. H. Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra’, II (Jerusalem, 1965); A. Weiser, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, I, ATD 24 (Göttingen, 1949); J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten (Berlin, 1892; 4th ed. 1963); H. W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton, I: Hosea2, BKAT 14/1 (Neukirchen, 1965) = Hosea, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1974); Rashi, ibn Ezra, and Kimchi appear in Miqra’ot Gedolot (New York, 1951); Abarbanel, in Abarbanel’s Commentary to the Latter Prophets (Jerusalem, 1957) [Hebrew]. 1 The root ‫ בלע‬connects the beginning of this unit (8:8) with the end of the preceding one (8:7) by means of the catchword principle. Andersen and Freedman, 482ff., however, attach v. 8 to the former pericope, vv. 1–7. See their own cautious reservations on p. 482. 2 Cf. Jer 22:28; 48:38. For another description, see Hos 7:8. 3 For the shifting back and forth between Assyria and Egypt, cf., e.g., Hos 5: 13; 7:11. In the latter, Ephraim, engaging in similar diplomatic activity, is called a “silly dove.” 4 For the historical allusions, consult the various commentaries, and H. Tadmor,

146


Ephraim6 has given gifts7 of love.” Once again Hosea resorts to the metaphor of harlotry to denounce Israel’s faithlessness.8 But now he adds an ironic twist to his familiar image: Israel is berated as one who has to give away her favors as gifts, who has to pay (rather than receive) the harlot’s hire in her frantic quest to enamour political allies. Yet she will soon bear the consequences of her foreign policy. For “even if9 they send their harlot’s gifts10 among the nations, I will hold them fast (?) (lit., ‘I will gather them up’).”11 Since they have affiliated themselves shamefully with the nations of their own volition, God will not allow them to extradite themselves with impunity. The next half of verse 10 bristles with difficulties—due, at first, to the uncertainty of the meaning of the first verb, ‫ָחלּוּ‬ ֵ ‫ ַויּ‬, which has been

“The Historical Background of the Prophecy of Hosea,” YeÈezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1961), 84–85 (Hebrew). 5 Heb. ‫פרא בודד לו‬, “a lonely wild ass,” presents a bit of a contextual difficulty at this spot, and exegetes are even at odds at explaining to whom it refers: Assyria (Ehrlich, Hebrew) or Ephraim (most commentators). However, the paronomasia ‫ פרא–אפרים‬makes it obvious that Ephraim is being described in terms somewhat similar to the above “unwanted vessel.” (For other puns on the name Ephraim, see Hos 9:16; 14:9. Graetz emended ‫ בודד‬to ‫נודד‬, “wandering,” and Tur Sinai to ‫בורר‬, “chooses” (to whom to turn). For the straying of a wild ass, see Jer 2:24. 6 Instead of ‫אפרים‬, “Ephraim,” Wellhausen and many modern commentators read ‫מצרים‬, “Egypt,” for a “political” parallelism. The emendation, however, is unnecessary, since in 5:13 as well, the entire verse refers only to Assyria. (Cf. also 8:13, where Egypt is mentioned alone.) The equivalent in that passage of ‫מלך ירב‬, “the great king” of Assyria, is, as will be seen, ‫ מלך שרים‬in the verse under discussion here. The intended pun of ‫ פרא–אפרים‬also speaks against the emendation. Andersen and Freedman, 503, 505, refer the plural subject to the kings and princes of Ephraim who are engaged in this shuttle diplomacy. 7 Heb. ‫ ִה ְתנוּ‬is a denominative verb derived from ‫א ְתנָה‬, ֶ “whore’s wages” (2:14; 9:1). See, for example, Rashi, ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, Ehrlich (Randglossen), Tur Sinai, and J. A. Montgomery, “Hebraica,” JAOS 58 (1938). For ‫א ָה ִבים‬, ֲ see Prov 5:19. 8 Cf. Hos 4:10–19; 5:3–4; 9:1. 9 Heb. ‫ ;גם כי‬cf. Hos 9:16; Isa 1:15; Ps 23:4. 10 Point here ‫ַתנוּ‬ ְ ‫י‬, similar to the preceding denominative verb; cf. Rashi, Ehrlich (Randglossen). This is preferable to the interpretation of others, ‫יִ ְתנוּ‬, “to receive a harlot’s wages”; cf. Nyberg, van Gelderen and Gipsen, Wolff; or “they have hired them [lovers],” Andersen and Freedman. 11 For this specific use of Heb. ‫ קבץ‬to express divine punishment, compare Hos 9:6, where it parallels ‫קבר‬, “to bury.” Some have explained the verb as a “gathering” for judgment; cf. Zeph 3:8; Joel 4:2 (e.g., Wolff, Mays). Others emend to ‫אפיצם‬, “I shall scatter them” (e.g., Oettli). According to Y. Kaufmann (The History of Israelite Religion, VI [Jerusalem, 1957], 143 n. 73 [Hebrew]), ‫ קבץ‬is a dialectical variant of ‫ קפץ‬and connotes “destruction”; cf. Job 24:24. Tur Sinai, by means of metathesis, suggest the reading ‫אָקץ ָבּ ֶהם‬, ֻ “I shall despise them.”

hosea 8:8–10 and ancient near eastern royal epithets 147 variously interpreted as being derived from verbal roots meaning “to begin” (‫)חלל‬, i.e., “they shall begin (to diminish/grow few)”;12 “to become weak/sick” (‫;)חלה‬13 “to implore” (‫;)חלה‬14 “to hope” (‫;)יחל‬15 “to profane” (‫;)חלל‬16 “to have labor pains/writhe” (‫)חיל‬.17 To all these should be added the LXX, based apparently on the reading ‫חדל‬, “to stop,”18 and ‫משח‬, “to anoint,”19 for ‫משא‬: “They soon will stop anointing kings and princes.” Though this reading has become very popular, it is impossible to accept for several reasons.20 The prophet’s denunciation here is directed solely at Israel’s foreign affairs policy. Thus, a threat aimed at upsetting their internal domestic policy would be somewhat of a non sequitur in the present context, since there is no indication here of the dethroning of political figures (as there is, for example, in 8:4). Furthermore, the custom of anointing princes is itself totally unattested in all of Biblical literature. And last, but not least, it should be emphasized that the copula between “king” and 21 “princes” does not exist in the Hebrew text.22 A cultic interpretation23 of this verse is also unacceptable.24 According to Cazelles (who does not accept the LXX translation), the first verb should be repointed from the root ‫חלל‬, “to desecrate/profane,” and the word ‫ משא‬refers to the cultic carrying of foreign statues in a triumphal procession. ‫ מלך‬would then represent the idol of the 12 E.g., Kimchi, Keil, Tur Sinai, and A. Caquot (“Osée et la royauté,” RHPhR 41 [1961], 138–139). See Ezek 9:6. 13 E.g., van Hoonacker, and J. Halévy (“Le livre d’Osée,” RevSém. 10 [1902], 115), who accept the LXX reading. 14 Cf. Aquila, litaneu&sousin. 15 Thus van Gelderen and Gipsen. 16 H. Cazelles, “The Problem of the Kings in Isa 8:4,” CBQ 11 (1949), 14–25. Cf. Ezek 28:16. 17 E.g., Deissler and Delcor, Rudolph, Wolff, Mays, Andersen and Freedman. Cf Deut 2:25; 1 Sam 31:3; Jer 5:22; Joel 2:6; 1 Chron 10:3. 18 Gr. kai\ kopa&sousin. Cf. Theodotion kai\ dialei/yousin. E.g., Wellhausen, Orelli, Nowack, Oort, Sellin, Mauchline, Nötcher, Weiser. 19 Almost all commentators who have accepted the reading “to stop” have also accepted the reading “anoint,” based on the translations of the LXX and Theodotion. 20 See the comments of van Hoonacker, van Gelderen and Gipsen, Nyberg, Cazelles, Rudolph, Wolff. 21 Also appears in other versions. 22 This is usually overlooked by commentators, but, as will be seen, is of primary significance. 23 Cazelles, “Problem of the Kings,” esp. p. 21. 24 See the criticism of Wolff.

148


god-“king” Aààur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon, and ‫שרים‬, the subordinate divine “princes”: “They will soon desecrate themselves by being obliged to bear in procession the statue of King Aààur and the images of secondary gods.” This passage is then related to Amos 5:26, where, according to Cazelles, a similar pageant of idols is being described. However, it is very unlikely that the prophet would threaten the worship of foreign gods as the divine punishment for Israel’s political vagaries. In addition, the word ‫מלך‬, “king,” always refers to a political figure in the book of Hosea and never to a divine one. Furthermore, the verse in Amos is itself a well-known crux, and does not help to enlighten matters here25—an example of ignotum per ignotius. Thus, it is suggested that a solution should be sought in another direction, and for this, the proposals for the first verb: “they will begin (to bear)”; “they will grow weak/sick”; “they will grow sick and diminish”;26 or “they will shortly writhe”—are all possible options. What, however, is meant by the last three words: ‫?)מ(משא מלך שרים‬ It is the contention of this paper that the few commentators who interpreted ‫ משא‬specifically as “tribute” rather than generally “burden,” were on the right track.27 (The exact same nuance also appears in 2 Chron 17:11.) However, they did not realize that Heb. ‫ משא‬is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. biltu, one of the several technical terms in Akkadian for “tribute.”28 (The noun is derived from the Akkadian verb, wab§lu, “to bring/carry,” just as Heb. ‫משא‬ stems from the root ‫נשא‬, “to carry.”) The prophet is thus declaring 25 Such a criticism should also be leveled at Tur Sinai’s interpretation (pp. 111–112) of ‫ מלך‬as Molech, and at Nyberg’s interpretation (p. 39) of ‫מלך שרים‬ as a designation of the God of Israel surrounded by his pantheon: “Dass melek im Hoseabuch fast durchgängig der bekannte Gottesname zu sein scheint.” He then translates the passage: “haben sie wenig zu holen von der Aussage des Melêk Sârîm.” Not only does Nyberg give a totally unattested meaning to the verb (“to solicit”), but he also interprets ‫ משא‬here to mean “oracle,” which in the context is totally out of the question. H. H. Hirschberg (“Arabic Etymologies,” VT 11 [1961], 382) also understood ‫ מלך‬to represent a Molech-offering, but his sexual interpretation of the verse is patently unacceptable. 26 This is Kaufmann’s suggested reading (History of Israelite Religion, VI, 143 n. 73). Heb. ‫ מעט‬also presents a bit of a problem. It can be translated either as “a little bit” or “a little while.” 27 Cf. Kimchi; Caquot, “Osée et la royauté,” 138–139; Wolff, “burden of tribute”; Mays. Rudolph expands the meaning to include all types of oppressive measures imposed on a subjugated nation. (With an interesting Midrashic twist, ‫ משא‬in this verse is interpreted in the Talmud as a “poll tax”; see b. B. Bat. 8a.) 28 See CAD, B, 234–236, “tribute paid by subject rulers.”

hosea 8:8–10 and ancient near eastern royal epithets 149 that the Ephraimites would shortly be made to bear “tribute” to ‫מלך‬ ‫שרים‬. Though the juxtaposition of these two nouns is very common in Hosea, it is worthy of note that only in this verse do they occur neither in poetic parallelism nor are they connected by a copula—an omission which was intentional.29 For Hosea, in his mastery of the use of double entendres, is referring not to Israelite “kings” and “princes,” as he is in his other oracles, bur rather to the great king of Assyria. It is here proposed30 that the Hebrew expression is a reflex of the extremely common Mesopotamian royal title, àar àarr§ni,31 “king of kings,” and is applied in this context to the then reigning Assyrian monarch, Tiglathpileser III. Hosea’s knowledge and employment of technical terminology drawn from the Akkadian linguistic orbit has been demonstrated on other occasions.32 Thus, to cite just two

29

Cf. Hos 3:4; 7:3; 8:4; 13:10. Also with varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty; cf. Hitzig, Keil, Cheyne, Caquot (“Osée et la royauté,” 138–139), van Gelderen and Gipsen, Rudolph, Wolff, Andersen and Freedman. 31 For Akk. àar àarr§ni, see M.-J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris, 1967), 318–319. This title is applied in Neo-Assyrian times to Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Though the Biblical reference would be (at present) the sole attestation of the title as applied to Tiglathpileser III, this does not present any difficulty and is not unparalleled. The extremely common Mesopotamian epithet “king of kings” is found in connection with Nebuchadrezzar only in Biblical passages, Ezek 26:7 and Dan 2:37. For the use of the royal epithet “king of kings” in Egyptian documents from Amosis I to Hellenistic times, see F. Bilabel, Geschichte Vorderasiens und Ägyptens von 16 Jahrhundert auf die Neuzeit (Heidelberg, 1927), 207–214. 32 For parallels in Akkadian and related literature to the oft-cited technical divorce formula and the punishment of the stripping of the divorced woman (Hos 2:4–5), see C. Kuhl, “Neue Dokumente zum Verständis von Hos. 2:4–15,” ZAW 52 (1934), 102–109; and C. Gordon, “Hos. 2:4–5 in the Light of New Semitic Inscriptions,” ZAW 54 (1936), 277–280. For an interesting correspondence with Ugaritic political terminology, compare the use of ‫ יובל‬and ‫( מנחה‬10:6) with KTU2 3.1:24–26: argmn. nqmd. mlk ugrt. dybl. làpà mlk. rb. b‘lh, “The tribute which Niqmadu, king of Ugarit, will bring to his Majesty (Shuppiluliumash), the great king, his lord.” Cf. also KTU2 1.2:37–38: ybl argmnk…mnÈyk. See also KTU2 4.91:14, 4.123:9 (mnÈ), and 3.1:18 (ybl). For Heb. ‫מנחה‬, “tribute,” see Gen 32:14; Judg 3:15, 17f.; 2 Sam 8:2, 6; 2 Kings 17:3f.; 1 Chron 18:2, 6; 2 Chron 17:11; 26:8. For the technical use of Heb. ‫ יבל‬with another word for tribute, ‫שי‬, see Isa 18:7; Ps 68:30; 76:12. See J. C. Greenfield, “Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology in the Bible,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, I (Jerusalem, 1967), 117–118 (= S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick (eds.), ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield in Semitic Philology, II (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2001), 902. Another possibility would be to view ‫ מלך שרים‬as a reflex of Akk. àar kal malkÊ, “king of all the kings,” a title borne only by the Assyrian kings Tiglathpileser I and 30

150


examples: his expertise in the baker’s jargon was demonstrated by his use of the hapax legomenon ‫יתבולל‬, cognate to Akk. bal§lu, “to knead” (7:8), and the idiom ‫( שיבה זרקה‬7:9), which is the Hebrew semantic equivalent of Akk. àiba nadû, “to grow moldy”—similarly used in the context of the baking of cakes in Gilgamesh XI:217.33 Yet of far greater significance for the present inquiry is the double appearance of the phrase ‫( מלך ירב‬5:13; 10:6), long recognized as the Hebrew equivalent (through Aramaic channels?) of the well-known Mesopotamian royal epithet àarru rabû, “great king,” which is also applied to the Assyrian ruler.34 It would be expected prima facie that in Hebrew the epithet “king of kings” would be translated as ‫מלך המלכים‬, as in Ezek 26:7—referring to the king of Babylonia (cf. Ben Sira 51:34); cf. Aramaic ‫מלך מלכיא‬, Dan 2:37—referring to Nebuchadrezzar, and Ezra 7:12—referring to Artaxerxes.35 Yet one must always take into account Hosea’s unique

Assurnaßipal II (Seux, Épithètes royales, 304), but it is very rare and does not appear in neo-Assyrian inscriptions. 33 S. M. Paul, “The Image of the Oven and the Cake in Hosea VII 4–10,” VT 18 (1968), 114–120 [3–9]. Note, too, the adept use of the double entendre with the verb ‫בלל‬, which is also employed in political terminology for the missing of populations. E.g., nià¿ m§t Aààur u m§t Mußur itti aÉ§meà ablulma, “The Assyrians and the Egyptians I mingled together.” See Paul, op. cit., 118 [7], for another example. 34 Akk. àarru rabû is extensively used in Hittite, Mittanian, Assyrian, and Babylonian royal inscriptions. See Seux, Épithètes royales, 298–300. For its use as a divine epithet with ’amaà, see KTU2 3.1:43. For Ugarit, see the text cited above, KTU2 3.1:25–26 and KTU2 2.23:23–24, mlk. rb, referring to the Hittite king, Shuppiluliumash (cf. also line 17). For Aramaic, compare the Sefire Treaty of Bar Ga’yah, I B:7, ‫מלך רב‬. See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre (Rome, 1967), 61; and H. Donner and W. Röllig, KAI, II, 253. So, too, the title of the Iranian rulers, ‫ מלכא רבא‬in inscriptions from the Parthian and Sassanian periods (CIS ii 3946:1; 3971:2, 6). See Greenfield, “Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,” 118 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, 903. Compare the Old Aramaic inscription of Bar Rakib of Sam’al: ‫במצעת מלכן רברבן‬, “in the midst of great kings,” KAI, I, 40, text 216:9–10, 13–14. Cf. also Dan 2:10; see below, n. 39. The relation of ‫( מלך ירב‬5:13; 10:6) to àarru rabû was already cited by W. M. Müller (ZAW 17 [1897], 334–336) and is widely accepted today. The redivision of the letters to read ‫מלכי רב‬, however, is unnecessary, since ‫ ירב‬is the equivalent of ‫רב‬, and in Syriac yireb means “to be great.” According to G. R. Driver (“Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament,” JTS 36 [1935], 295), this is an “Aramaizing form” of the Akkadian. See also J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1968), 123, and Greenfield, “Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,” 119 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, 904. 35 For examples of the epithet àar àarr§ni in the inscriptions of Artaxerxes, see Seux, Épithètes royales, 319.

hosea 8:8–10 and ancient near eastern royal epithets 151 beguiling dialectical mastery of the Hebrew idiom, often employed to the frustration of the exegete. Moreover, his choice of ‫ שרים‬to reproduce Akk. àarr§ni may not be without rhyme or reason. It may have been predicated upon an intentional linguistic tour de force in order to give a new meaning to the oft-cited use of precisely these two terms in another context.36 Furthermore, there may even exist a parallel to this usage. It has been suggested that the prophet Isaiah, in 10:8, employed this same word in a deliberate pun when referring to the Assyrian kings. According to Saggs, “Isaiah was showing his linguistic erudition in that the Akkadian word for ‘king’ was in the Assyrian dialect of Isaiah’s time a homophone for ‘commanders’; so that to call an Assyrian field-commander by his proper title in Hebrew was to call him a king in his own language.”37 Thus, the caustic bite of the prophet’s words actually implies the retributive principle of measure for measure. Those who willingly flirt and court foreign masters will eventually be made to bear the yoke of these very rulers. Since Israel renders her favors to Assyria, she will be punished by having to render the heavy tribute of the “king of kings”—the king of Assyria. The expression ‫ מלך שרים‬can now be added to the growing list of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician equivalents of Mesopotamian royal epithets. Above, mention was already made to Hosea’s unique use of ‫( מלך ירב‬5:13; 10:6), which is but one way whereby Hebrew renders Akk. àarru rabû, “great king.” Two other expressions are ‫מלך‬ ‫גדול‬,38 e.g., 2 Kings 18:19, 28; Isa 36:4, 13: ‫המלך הגדול מלך אשור‬, which is a calque on àarru rabû39 àar Aààur, “the great king, the king of Assyria” (cf. Jer 25:14; 27:7; Ps 136:17; Eccles 9:14) and ‫( מלך רב‬Ps

36

See above, n. 29. H. W. F. Saggs, Assyriology and the Study of the Old Testament (Cardiff, 1969), 5. Cf. also H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, BKAT 10 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972), I, 397. Compare also the Akkadian royal title àar mÊàarim and its Hebrew semantic equivalent which appears in the personal name of the king of Jerusalem, ‫( מלכיצדק‬Gen 14:18 and Ps 110:4). 38 See Greenfield (“Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,” 118 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, 904), who also drew attention to the title ‫ מלך גדל‬in a Hebrew inscription found at Nimrud in 1961. See A. R. Millard, “Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud,” Iraq 24 (1962), 45–49, line 2; and E. LipiÔski, La royauté de Yahwé dans la poésie et le culte de l’ancient Isräel (Brussels, 1968), 414 n. 1. 39 For àarru rabû, see above, n. 34. Greenfield (“Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,” 118 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, 904) already noted this correspondence. 37

152


48:3—applied to God); and in Aramaic, cf. Dan 2:10, ‫ כל מלך רב‬and Ezra 5:11, ‫מלך לישראל רב‬. Another very popular Mesopotamian royal title, àarru dannu,40 also has several different equivalents in Hebrew and Aramaic. Isaiah, when referring to the Assyrian king, designates him as ‫מלך עז‬, “powerful/ ruthless king” (Isa 19:4). Dan 2:10 employs the dual title of ‫מלך רב‬ ‫ = ושליט‬àarru rabû u dannu. This epithet may also be reflected in Ezra 4:20: ‫מלכין תקיפין‬, referring to Judean kings. (Cf. also ‫ מלך גבור‬in Dan 11:3.) Phoenician inscriptions also contain a corresponding semantic equivalent, ’dr. Thus, Eshmunazor (line 19): “May the holy gods deliver him to “a mighty king (‫ )ממלכ>ת< אדר‬who will rule over them.”41 Cf., too, Kilamuwa ((lines 5–6), ‫מלכם אדרם‬,42 and Ma‘ßub (lines 5–6), ‫אדן‬ ‫מלכם האדר‬43 (cf. Ps 136:18). When Ezra reviews the continual phases of the subjugation of his people, he remarks that they were handed over to ‫( מלכי הארצות‬9:7), an expression which is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. àar/àarri m§t§ti,44 “king of lands,” which composes part of the official titulary of the Persian kings Cyrus, Darius I, and Xerxes. (Cf. Ps 76: 13; 89:28; and 2 Chron 9:22–33.) Since royal and divine epithets often overlap45 (as above, ‫מלך גדול‬, when applied to the God of Israel—e.g., Mal 1:14; Ps 47:3; 95:3), compare Heb. ‫( מלך עולם‬Jer 10:10; Ps 10:16) applied to the God of

40 For Akk. àarru dannu, see Seux, Épithètes royales, 293–296. For the various ranges of meaning of dannu when applied to gods and kings, see CAD, D, 95–96; e.g., “strong, powerful, mighty, great, fierce, savage, tyrannical.” 41 For the Eshmunazor inscription, see KAI, I, 3, 14:9. Compare J. C. Greenfield (“Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions,” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke [Baltimore and London, 1971], 264 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, 264), who, among others, drew attention to the similarities between Eshmunazor and Isaiah, although the prototype àarru dannu was not mentioned. 42 For the Kilamuwa inscription, see KAI, I, 4–5, 24:5–6. 43 For the Ma‘ßub inscription, see KAI, I, 4, 19:5–6. The next epithet of the king, p‘l n‘m, is interpreted in KAI, II, 28 as a literal translation of Gr. eu)erge/thj. May this, however, not reflect, in turn, the Akkadian title ¿pià damq§ti, applied to Neriglissar and Nabonidus (Seux, Épithètes royales, 84) or ¿pià ã§bti, “doer of good deeds/benefactor,” applied to Assurbanipal (Seux, Épithètes royales, 86)? For the former, cf. CAD, E, 206, and for the latter, ibid., 223. 44 For Akk. àarri m§t§ti, see Seux, Épithètes royales, 315–316. 45 The ground is still very fertile in this area of research. (Cf., e.g., above, n. 34, for the use of àarru rabû as a divine epithet.) In the meantime, references may be made to LipiÔski, La royauté de Yahwé. For àar m§ti as a divine epithet, see ibid., 420–422.

hosea 8:8–10 and ancient near eastern royal epithets 153 Israel,46 corresponding to Akk. àarru d§rû,47 “eternal king,” which is applied to Nabonidus. Another royal title describing an Assyrian king appears in Aramaic inscriptions. Thus, in Bar Rakib:48 “I am Bar Rakib, son of Panamuwa, king of Samal, servant of Tiglathpileser, ‫ארקא‬.‫רבעי‬.‫מרא‬.” This last expression is none other than a loan translation from the Akk. àar kibr§t arba’i(m) (or erbetti[m]),49 “king of the four quarters of the earth,” a title actually applied to Tiglathpileser III in his inscriptions.50 Attention has also been drawn to a later but similar Aramaic epithet, ‫רבעת‬ ‫עלמא‬, in Memar Marqa 2:17.51 One further Aramaic equivalent of a Mesopotamian royal title, which, however, is subject to scholarly dispute, is ‫מרא מלכין‬, found in Dan 2:47 and ‫ מרא מלכן‬in the Aramaic letter of Adon addressed to an Egyptian pharaoh.52 According to Ginsberg,53 Aramaic ‫מלכין‬ should be pointed ‫ ָמ ְל ִכין‬or ‫מ ְל ִכין‬, ֻ equivalent to Phoen. and Ugar. mlk and Arab. mulk, “kingdom/kingship,” and should be interpreted as the Aramaic linguistic equivalent of Gr. ku&rioj basilei=wn, “lord of kingdoms/kingships,” which was the official designation of the Ptolemies. “Just as the pre-Hellenistic rulers of world empires were desig-

46 Note also Ugar. mlk. ‘lm, “eternal ruler,” which describes the god Rpu (KTU2 1.108:4–5, 6, 7) and is also used as a title of Amenophis III, called Nmry–Nimmuria (KTU2 2.42:9). For the further development of the Hebrew divine appellative, see J. Blau and J. C. Greenfield, “Ugaritic Glosses,” BASOR 200 (1970), 12 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, II, 886. For the combination of ‫ מלך‬and ‫ עלם‬in Ugaritic and in the Bible, see M. Dahood’s contribution to Ras Shamra Parallels, ed. L. R. Fisher (Rome, 1972), I, 266, with bibliography. 47 For Akkadian àarru d§rû, see Seux, Épithètes royales, 297. 48 For the Bar Rakib inscriptions, see KAI, I, 40, 216:1–4. Cf. 215:14; 217:2. See also J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II: Aramaic Inscriptions (Oxford, 1975), 87–83. 49 For Akk. àar kibr§t(im) arba’i(m)/erbetti(m). See Seux, Épithètes royales, 305–308; and for a similar epithet, àar kullat kibr§t arba’i, see ibid., 313–314. See also CAD, K, 331–332. 50 KAI, II, 228. 51 See Z. Ben-\ayyim, The Literary and Oral Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, III (Jerusalem, 1967), 148 (Hebrew). Cf. Greenfield’s review of this volume in Biblica 50 (1969), 100, and his comments in Leàonénu 32 (1968), 364 (Hebrew). 52 KAI, I, 51, 266:1. 53 H. L. Ginsberg’s explanation appear in his review of Z. S. Harris, The Grammar of the Phoenician Language, in JBL 56 (1937), 142–143; “ ‘King of Kings’ and ‘Lord of Kingdoms’,” AJSL 57 (1940), 71–74; Studies in Daniel (New York, 1948), 1; and “An Aramaic Contemporary to the Lachish Letters,” BASOR 111 (1948), 25 n. 5. The quote is taken from his article in AJSL.

154


nated “king of kings,” in both Canaanite and Aramaic, so Ptolemaic rulers were addressed as “lord of kingdoms” in both language groups—a title which first arose only under Ptolemaic rule.” However, others54 maintain the MT vocalization ‫ ַמ ְל ִכין‬and explain both the Aramaic and its Phoenician equivalent, ‫( אדן מלכם‬Eshmunazor, line 18),55 as reflexes of the earlier Akkadian title b¿l àarr§ni,56 “lord of kings.” 54 Cf. KAI, II, 23; K. Galling, “Eschmunazer und der Herr der Könige,” ZDPV 79 (1963), 145–151; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Letter of King Adon to the Egyptian Pharoah,” Biblica 45 (1965), 45–47. See also B. Porten, “The Identity of King Adon,” BA 44 (1981), 36–52, esp. p. 39. 55 For the Eshmunazor inscription, see KAI, I, 3, 14. 56 For Akk. b¿l àarr§ni, see Seux, Épithètes royales, 56. In his additional note 73 on page 56, he remarks that the epithet is always employed to designate the king by those who address themselves to him and is not used by the king himself.

technical expression from archery in zechariah 9:13a 155

A TECHNICAL EXPRESSION FROM ARCHERY IN ZECHARIAH 9:13A Exegetes and translators over the ages have grappled with the difficulty of whether the Hebrew substantive, qeàet, in Zech 9:13a belongs to the first or second stich of that verse: kÊ-d§raktÊ lÊ yehud§ qeàet mill¿’tÊ ’eprayim.

The problems besetting the exegetes and translators are best demonstrated by citing three representative but totally different English translations of this verse:1 New English Bible, 1970: “For my bow is strung, O Judah; I have laid the arrow to it, O Ephraim.” Revised Standard Version, 1973: “For I have bent Judah as my bow; I have made Ephraim its arrow.” New Jewish Publication Society, 1978: “For I have drawn Judah taut and applied [My hand] to Ephraim as to a bow.”2 In the Assyrian Dream Book, it is stated: “If (a man in his dream) qaàta umalli, nocks [i.e., fits an arrow on the string of] a bow….”3 Compare also the following from the Annals of Asshurbanipal:4 “Their sharp lances were laid to rest, their nocked bows (Akk. qaà§t¿àunu malâti)

1 For earlier views of commentators who grappled with this problem, see H. G. Mitchell, Haggai and Zechariah (Edinburgh, 1912), 283. Note that according to the Masoretic accentuation the word is attached to the second stich. 2 This translation is most likely influenced by the idiom which appears in 2 Kings 9:24, where it is stated that Jehu mill¿’ yadÙ baqqeàet, “filled his hand with the bow,” i.e., “he drew his bow.” See below, n. 9. 3 A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia, 1956), 286, line 12 and note 132. For the Akkadian text, see ibid., 329, rev. ii:12. 4 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 260 ii 17.

156


were loosened.”5 Akk. qaàta mullû 6 is the interdialectal etymological and cognate equivalent of the Hebrew hapax legomenon, mill¿’ qeàet, and means: “to fill,” i.e., “to nock the bow.”7 In the light of this technical idiom, one can fully appreciate the skillful construction of this passage, for it now becomes evident that the substantive qeàet actually occupied a central, pivotal position, serving both verbs of the verse.8 On the one hand, it is the object of d§rak, “to bend the bow”; cf., e.g., Ps 7:13; 37:14; Lam 2:4; 3:12 (the expression appears 18 times in the Bible). On the other hand, it is also the object of mill¿’, thereby creating an idiom from the realm of archery attested in Akkadian literature.9 Thus, “For I have bent Judah, my bow; I have nocked my bow, Ephraim.”

5 For Akk. qaàta àupàuÉu, referring to the releasing of the string after shooting, see Oppenheim, Interpretation of Dreams, 286 n. 132. 6 For other references, see B. Landsberger, The Series ›AR-ra = Éubullu Tablets V-VII, MSL 6 (Rome, 1957), 109:63; R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (= AMT) (London, 1923), 73, 2:8; L. Cagni, L’epopea di Erra (Rome, 1969), 104, IV:8, malât qassu. (Cagni’s reference to AHw on p. 226 should be corrected to read AHw 597a.) His Italian translation, “il suo arco è in azione” (p. 105), is not as apt as his English one, “his bow is tensed.” See idem, The Poem of Erra (Malibu, 1977), 48. CAD, M/I, 148, 1a, correctly translates, “has his bow nocked.” Cf. also R. Borger (“Die Waffenträger des Königs Darius,” VT 22 [1972], 397), who also refers to this idiom and cites an unpublished Akkadian ritual text along with evidence from Syria. 7 Another way of expressing this in Akkadian is mulmullum uàtarkiba, “He nocked the arrow (on the bow),” Enuma Elish iv:36. Cf. also 2 Kings 13:16, where the hiph‘il of rkb (= the àaf‘¿l of Akk. rak§bu cited in the above text) also appears in connection with a bow. 8 Note that The New English Bible cited above is the closest to this idiom. Compare also The New King James Version, 1982, which correctly translated “bow” in both cola: “For I have bent Judah, my bow; Fitted the bow with Ephraim.” Cf. also the commentaries of Rashi, ibn Ezra, and the comment of E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, KAT 12 (Leipzig, 1922), 502, “qeàet gehört als zweiter Akkusativ zu d§raktÊ und ist zugleich auch wieder als erster Akkusativ zu mill¿’tÊ zu ergänzen.” For the literary phenomenon of pivotal polysemy, see S. M. Paul, “Polysensuous Polyvalency in Poetic Parallelism,” “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, IN, 1992), 147–163 [457–476]; idem, “Polysemous Pivotal Punctuation: More Janus Double Entendres,” Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem Haran, ed. M. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1996), 369–374 [477–483]; S. M. Paul and W. Horowitz, “Two Proposed Janus Parallelisms in Akkadian Literature,” N.A.B.U. (1995), 11–12 [253–255]. 9 After this note was submitted for publication (in 1988) there appeared the commentary of M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City, NY, 1988). On p. 110, commenting on 2 Kings 9:24, they cite I. Eph‘al (oral communication), who noted the connection between Zech 9:13 and the Akkadian lexical entry appearing

technical expression from archery in zechariah 9:13a 157 Heb. qeàet as well as Akk. qaàtu may also be employed figuratively, as a metaphor for male potency. For Akkadian, compare aj i[rÊq]a [ià]patu [aj irmâ] qaàtu, “May the quiver not be empty. May the bow [qaàtu] not be slack.”10 And for its Hebrew equivalent, compare cf. Job 29:20:11 “My glory fresh within me, and my bow [qaàti] ever new in my hand.”12 in Landsberger, Series ›AR-ra = Éubullu, 109:63, qaàtu malÊtu, referred to in CAD, Q, 147b. His reconstructed Hebrew idiom, however, is unnecessary in the light of the sources cited in this paper. See also B. L. Eichler (“Of Slings and Shields, ThrowSticks and Javelins,” Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. J. M. Sasson, JAOS 103 [New Haven, 1983], 101 n. 45), who also cites the entry qaàtum malÊtum from the HAR-GUD commentary, in Landsberger, Series ›AR-ra = Éubullu, 89:78. 10 I was pleased to note that C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers (Zechariah 9–14, AB 25 C [Garden City, NY, 1993], 146) have accepted and incorporated this note into their commentary. 11 R. Gordis, The Book of Job (New York, 1978), 322. Cf. also M. H. Pope, Job, AB 15 (Garden City, NY, 1973), 208. 12 For a fuller treatment of this symbol, see S. M. Paul, “The Shared Legacy of Sexual Metaphors and Euphemisms in Mesopotamian and Biblical Literature,” Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001, II, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki, 2002), 493–494 [306].

158


biblical analogues to middle assyrian law

159

BIBLICAL ANALOGUES TO MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAW Full-scale studies dedicated to the comparison of Biblical and Middle Assyrian laws began with the almost simultaneous publication of two independent works by E. Jacob and E. Ring.1 Ever since the discovery of MAL, reference to these laws has been made in Biblical commentaries, primarily comparing them to legal provisions in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Among the most widely discussed and compared laws may be mentioned, for example, Exod 21:22–25 and MAL A:21 and 50–52 (the case of an assault causing the miscarriage of a pregnant woman); Exod 22:15–16 and Deut 22:23ff. and MAL A:55–56 (the laws of seduction and rape); Lev 20:13 and MAL A:20 (homosexuality); Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22 and MAL A:14–16 and 22–24 (adultery); Deut 22:13ff. and MAL A:18 (slander). Comparisons to some of these as well as to other analogues, with linguistic and formulistic notes, can also be found in my book, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law.2 Moshe Weinfeld also makes an occasional remark on the relation between MAL and Deuteronomy: Some of these humanistic laws have their parallels in the ancient NearEastern Codes but without the special overtones found in Deuteronomy. Especially salient in this respect are the affinities to the Assyrian Laws, a fact which may not be without significance for the background of the composition of Deuteronomy…. Unlike other Biblical codes, Deuteronomy preserved a series of family laws similar to those in the MiddleAssyrian laws.3

1 E. Jacob, “Die altassyrischen Gesetze und ihr Verhältnis zu den Gesetzen des Pentateuch,” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtwissenschaft 41 (1925), 319–387; E. Ring, Israels Rechtsleben im Lichte der neuentdeckten assyrischen und hethitischen Gesetzesurkunden (Leipzig, 1926). Middle Assyrian Laws (hereafter: MAL) are numbered in accordance with the text and translation in M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, 1995). On MAL, see also G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford, 1935; repr. with corrections, Darmstadt, 1975), 380–453; G. Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes (Paris, 1969). See also P. Koschaker, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den altassyrischen Gesetzen, Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft 26/3 (Leipzig, 1921), 24; and Ring, Israels Rechtsleben, 37–38. 2 S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, SVT 18 (Leiden, 1970), 39–40, 62, 71–73, 96–98, 113. 3 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), 292 and n. 2.

160


Despite the above-mentioned remarks pertaining to comparisons, it seems that the general conclusions drawn by Ring still ring true: Though there are “mehr oder weniger stark analogue Zeuge” between Biblical and Middle Assyrian legal collections, nevertheless there are very few that are actually identical.4 He continues, “Irgend welche Übereinstimmungen zwischen den in Frage kommenden Gesetzen in rein formeller Hinsicht sind nicht vorhanden, sondern die Analogien umfassen ausschliesslich die reele Seite der Bestimmungen.” The purpose of this paper is not to rediscuss the examples cited above but rather (1) to draw further attention to a legal case cited in Deuteronomy, (2) to extend the scope of inquiry to prophetic literature, where the background of two verses will be interpreted in the light of laws from the Middle Assyrian compilation, and (3) to draw a previously unnoticed comparison between a legal precedent in Leviticus and a Middle Assyrian harem edict. Deuteronomy 25:11–12 and MAL A:8 One of the Biblical laws frequently noted as being analogous to MAL is found in Deut 25:11–12:5 Kî-yinn§ßû ’¨n§àîm yaÈd§w ’îà wÀ’§Èîw wÀq§rÀbâ ’¿àet h§’eÈ§d lÀhaßßîl ’et-’îà§h mîyad makk¿hû wÀà§lÀÈâ y§d§h wÀheÈÀzîqâ bimÀbuà§yw. WÀqaßßÙtâ ’et-kapp§h lÙ’ t§Èôs ‘ênek§. If two men get into a fight with each other and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.6

The uniqueness of this prescription lies in its being the only specific

4 Ring, Israels Rechtsleben, 111. For additional notes on the relationship between the Bible and MAL, see R. Yaron, “Les Lois Assyriennes, by G. Cardascia (review),” Biblica 51 (1970), 549–557. 5 Cf. also the last law discussed in this paper, Lev 24:10, and also Exod 21:22. 6 Note the paronomastic repetition of yad. The verb heÈÀzîq + b signifies some sort of violent seizing or grasping. The position of this law immediately after the case of the nonconsummated Levitical marriage may partially be due to a similarity in phrasing: v. 5: (kî-y¿àÀbû) ’aÈim yaÈd§w and v. 11: (kî-yinn§ßû) ’anaàîm yaÈd§w ’îà wÀ’§Èîw; v. 5: ’¿àet-hamm¿t and v. 11: ’¿àet h§’eÈad. For other semantic ties within Deut 25:4–12, see C. M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, 1974), 232–240; and idem, “Treading in the Book of Ruth,” ZAW 92 (1980), 248–266. For a uniquely untenable interpretation of the connection of the laws, see J. T. Norman, Jr., “The Muzzled Ox,” JQR 70 (1980), 172–175.


161

example of the application of corporeal mutilation mentioned in Israelite law outside of the thrice-repeated lex talionis (Exod 21:23–25; Lev 24:19–20; Deut 19:19, 21)7 and the punishment of forty lashes (Deut 25:2). One scholar has contended that, strictly speaking, the principle of retaliation is not involved here since the female offender is not punished by the same injury that she inflicted.8 According to a different view, the reason that her hand is cut off is because it is assumed that she is still holding on to the scrotum and refuses to let go.9 Yet another commentator argues that the punishment actually does apply the principle of retaliation since the kap of the woman is interpreted as referring to the corresponding male genitalia in two other passages: Gen 32:26, 33 and to the female scrotum or labia in Song of Songs 5:5.10 All of these very dubious interpretations can be rejected out of hand. This regulation is actually an example of talionic extension or vicarious talionic punishment of the peccant member. For other examples, see LH 116, 195, 210, and 230 and MAL A:50 and 55. Since the “injury of the testes cannot be applied to the woman…, the jus talionis is modified in the sense that the same member of the attacker is punished which directly caused the injury.”11 The incident itself is obviously not one of frequent occurrence and its applied punishment is, as stated above, unique to Biblical legislation. But it does have its analogy in MAL, where a similar law appears:

7 However, punishment by mutilation of the hand is applied in LH 195 to a son who struck his father; LH 218, to a physician who caused a patient’s death or destroyed his eye; LH 226, to a brander who cut off the slave mark from someone else’s slave without the consent of the latter’s owner; and LH 253, to one who was hired to cultivate another’s field and stole the seed and fodder. For lex talionis, see Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 73–77. 8 B. S. Jackson, Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (Leiden, 1975), 83 n. 57. 9 Jacob, “Die altassyrischen Gesetze,” 362. 10 L. Eslinger (“The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy XXV 11–12,” VT 31 [1981], 269–281, esp. 272–273, 277) interprets this law in a novel fashion, as the Deuteronomic moralistic comment upon Jacob’s wrestling match by the Jabbok River. See also idem, “More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws,” VT 34 (1984), 221–226. 11 E. Roth, “Does the Thorah Punish Impudence? Notes to Deuteronomy XXV 11–12,” Études orientales à la mémoire de Paul Hirschler, ed. O. Komlós (Budapest, 1956), 20.

162

the bible and the ancient near east If a woman should lay a hand upon a man [àumma sinniltu q§ta ana a’Êle tattabal—note the cognate expressions: Assyrian q§ta ana… wab§lum and Hebrew à§lÀÈâ y§d b], and they prove the charges against her, she shall pay thirty minas of lead. They shall strike her twenty blows with rods (MAL A:7). If a woman should crush a man’s testicle in an affray [ina ßalte = Hebrew yinnaßû], they shall cut off one of her fingers. And even if a physician should bandage it, but the second testicle thus becomes affected along with it and becomes inflamed,12 or if she should crush the second testicle in the affray, they shall gouge out [inappulu] both [kilallån] her… (MAL A:8).

Since the text is broken at this very point, the identification of the exact member of her body that is subject to mutilation is open to question. The guidelines for resolving the issue are to be found in the Assyrian kilallån, “both,” a nominative dual, and the verb that designates the punishment, nap§lu, “to gouge out,” otherwise employed in connection with the gouging out of the eyes.13 Thus, Ebeling, followed by Meek, assumes that the text originally had [in¿]àa, “both her eyes.”14 However, much more preferable, due to the sexual injury involved, is the restored reading of V. Scheil, followed by G. Cardascia, [tul¿]àa, “her breasts.”15 The severity of the punishment in MAL A:8 is most likely due to the fact that she has destroyed the man’s procreative ability.16 She,

12

For the various other possibilities of translation, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 385, 460; Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 108; CAD, E, 295 (erimu); AHw, 241 (eri[m]mu). See also Koschaker, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, 24; and Ring, Israels Rechtsleben, 37–38. 13 See CAD, N/I, 273, 275 for nap§lu and nuppulu. 14 E. Ebeling, “Altassyrische Gesetze,” in Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament, ed. H. Gressmann (Berlin, 1926), 412–422; T. J. Meek, “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” in ANET3, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1969), 181. 15 V. Scheil, Recueil de lois assyriennes (Paris: Geuthner, 1921), 10; Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 108–109; so, too, CAD, K, 356, which inadvertently omits putting the word “breasts” in brackets. The problem with Driver and Miles’s restoration, [dÊd¿]àa, “her [nipples],” is that dÊdå does not appear in Akkadian with the meaning of either “breasts” or “nipples,” nor “does it appear in vocabularies among parts of the body” (CAD, D, 135–136). 16 The punitive severing of the breasts is also found in LH 194, which pertains to a wet nurse who, after a child has died in her care, undertakes to nurse yet another child without the knowledge of the child’s parents. The verb there, however, is nak§su, “to sever,” and not nap§lu, “to gouge out.” Cf. Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 109; Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 30–31.


163

in turn, is made to suffer in retaliation the mutilation of her sexual organs. Despite the somewhat external similarities of the Biblical and Assyrian laws—a woman grabbing the male private parts during a brawl and her punishment by the mutilation of a hand or a finger17—several significant differences still exist between them. In MAL, the woman is directly involved in the brawl from the outset, and the law is primarily concerned with the injury itself.18 The Deuteronomic legislation, on the other hand, pertains to a woman who enters the fight at a later stage and then only in order to save her husband, who is one of the combatants. The law is not concerned whether or not she has caused any permanent damage to the male.19 Its emphasis is placed upon a “breach of modesty.”20 She has touched the male’s pudenda, referred 17 The severing of a finger is also found in MAL A:9, where a man has assaulted a married woman, and in MAL B:8, where a man has encroached upon his neighbor’s boundary. For the latter, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 303. For the cutting off of the kappu, “arm, hand” (= Heb. kap), in Mesopotamian royal documents, see CAD, K, 187. 18 For a possible example of the application of this injunction, see C. H. Gordon (“A New Akkadian Parallel to Deuteronomy 25:11–12,” JPOS 15 [1935], 29–34), who refers to E. Chiera, Excavations at Nuzi, Harvard Semitic Series 5 (Cambridge, 1929), 43. See also A. Saarisalo, New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Slaves, Studia Orientalia 5/3 (Helsinki, 1934). In this tablet, the wife of a slave intervenes in a fight between two men and inflicts a bodily injury on one of them. After the injured party indicts her, and four witnesses testify against her, she refuses to undergo the ordeal of the oath of the gods and is found guilty. Her punishment, along with the standard fine of livestock, is the amputation of one of her fingers. The similarities are very apparent. The only questionable item is the member of the male body she injured. The text states that, “She put her hand on the aÉu [of the male] and blood was let.” Gordon translates this as “loin” and is followed by S. E. Loewenstamm (Encyclopaedia Biblica [Jerusalem, 1962], IV, 610–611 [Hebrew]), who interprets aÉu (literally, “arm, side”) as a euphemism. It must be admitted, however, that such a euphemism is otherwise undocumented. Driver and Miles’s interpretation of aÉu as “brother” is highly untenable; see their “Ordeal by Oath at Nuzi,” Iraq 7 (1940), 135. 19 Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 292–293) correctly criticizes Loewenstamm’s assumption as to the inner connection of MAL A:7 and 8, explaining the one by the other. MAL A:7 does not mention the male privy parts, and only MAL A:8 states that the incident occurred during an affray. 20 See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 292. See also the quote by A. Dillmann in S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC (Edinburgh, 1895), 285: “Immodesty, even when extenuating circumstances are present, is to be checked as stringently as possible.” Cf. D. Daube (“The Culture of Deuteronomy,” Orita [Ibadan] 3 [1969], 36–37), who cites this law as part of the book’s “shame culture.” So, too, Carmichael (Laws of Deuteronomy, 234) states that Deuteronomy is “only concerned with the shamefulness of the woman’s act.” Cf. idem, “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a

164


to euphemistically as mÀbuà§yw, and thus her crime is considered so shameful and so severe that the law ends with the expression lÙ’ t§Èôs ‘ênek§, “show [her] no pity.” This injunction also appears as a part of three other laws in Deuteronomy: 13:9 (regarding idol worship), 19: 13 (one who premeditatively commits murder and flees to an asylum), and 19:21 (one who testifies falsely); cf. also Deut 7:16. As Weinfeld states, “Whenever there is a danger that the punisher would be lenient or even unwilling to perform the punishment, the author uses ‫לא תחוס‬ ‫עינך‬, “You must show no pity.”21 The purpose of all these laws is to purge Israel of all “evil things.” Isaiah 47:1–4 and MAL A:40 In Chap. 47, Deutero-Isaiah launches into a satiric tirade and taunt song against “Fair Maiden Babylon” (v. 1). This “Mistress of Kingdoms” (v. 5), who in her undaunted and supercilious arrogance presumptuously declares, “I am, and there is none but me” (vv. 8, 10), believes that she “shall always, forever and ever, be the mistress” (v. 7).22 Led astray by her very own sagacity, she is destined to be dethroned, humiliated, despised, and reduced to the lowest of all menial classes: Get down, sit in the dust, Fair Maiden23 Babylon.24 Sit25 dethroned on the ground,26

Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt,” JBL 96 (1977), 332: “The law is not concerned, unlike some Assyrian laws, with any damage the woman may do to the genitals of her husband’s opponent. Its concern is solely with the shamefulness of her deed.” 21 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 2. 22 Read g¿v§ret ‘ad as one expression, against the Masoretic division: ‘ad parallels lÀ‘ôl§m. See D. N. Freedman, “Mistress Forever, A Note on Isaiah 47:7,” Biblica 51 (1970), 538. 1QIsaa reads ‘ôd for ‘ad. 23 On bÀtûl§, see S. M. Paul, “Virgin, Virginity,” EJ (Jerusalem, 1971), XVI, 160–161. The description is also applied to Zion, 2 Kings 19:21, Isa 37:22, Lam 2: 13; to Judah, Lam 1:15; to Israel, Jer 18:13, 31:4, 21; Amos 5:2; to Egypt, Jer 46: 11; and to Sidon, Isa 23:12. 24 For Hebrew b§bel in parallel to kaádîm, see Isa 48:20. 25 Note the repeated imperative àÀbî, “sit,” for emphasis in v. 1. 26 Compare similarly the Baal text in Ugaritic: apnk.lãpn.’il dpi’d.yrd.lksi.ytb lhdm.wl.hdm.ytb l’arß: “Straightway Kindly El Benign descends from the throne, sits on the footstool, from the footstool, sits on the ground” (KTU 2 1.5.VI:11–14). Note the similarity of the theme and wording in the Hebrew and Ugaritic: rdy (Hebrew)


165

Daughter of the Chaldeans. Nevermore27 shall they call you “Tendered and Pampered” (v. 1).28

Nothing other than “The Decline and Fall of the Babylonian Empire” is being described here. Or, as the Talmudic adage would have it, “from the loftiest height to the pits [lit., ‘deepest pit’]” (b. \ag. 5b). Yet, even with this precipitous descent, she has not yet reached the nadir of her disgrace. The prophet continues to address the former queen sarcastically with the following desultory description, all uttered in the form of short and succinct commands: Grasp the handmill and grind meal! Uncover29 your veil! Strip off your train! Bare your thigh! Wade through rivers! Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your shame shall be exposed.30 I will take vengeance,31 I shall not be entreated,32 says33 our Redeemer—Lord of Hosts is His Name— the Holy One of Israel (vv. 2–4).

A review of the catalogue of the maiden’s menial duties reveals the following: 1. QÀÈî r¿Èayim wÀãaÈ¨nî q§maÈ:34 “Grasp the handmill and grind meal!” The grinding of grain is one of the allotted tasks of a slave, for both a male (Samson, Judg 16:21) and a female: “And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the first-born of the slave girl who is behind the mill-stone” (Exod 11:5). Note once again the polar opposites: from throne to stone! (cf. Job 31:10; Lam 5:13). and yrd (Ugaritic), ks’ and ksi, àby and ytb (each twice), and àby l’rß and ytb l’arß. This is then followed in the Ugaritic myth by a series of mourning rites. 27 Kî is probably emphatic here. 28 Cf. Deut 28:54, 56. 29 Gallî also appears twice in v. 2. It means to “uncover, reveal.” Then comes the climactic third occurrence, tigg§l, in v. 3. 30 Cf. Isa 20:4; Jer 13:22, 26; Nah 3:5. 31 For the idiom l§qaÈ n§q§m, see also its only other occurrence, Jer 20:10. 32 Read lÙ’ ’epp§ga‘. For pg‘ with this meaning, cf. Gen 23:8; Isa 53:12; Jer 7:16, 27:18; Job 21:15; Ruth 1:16. 33 For ’§d§m, read ’§mar, and cf. LXX. 34 Note that the letter È appears in each of these four words.

166


2. \eápî-àÙbel35 gallî-àôq ‘ibrî nÀh§rôt: “Strip off your train! Bare your thigh! Wade through rivers!” The reference here is to the degradation endured by the captives deported to alien lands. As they demeaningly trip across the waters, instead of being ferried across as befits royalty, they raise their skirts on high, thus uncovering their shame to all. Compare the illustration on the bronze doors of Balawat of the women of Dabigi who, as they are being led away captive by Shalmaneser III, are portrayed as lifting their skirts.36 Thus, from head (gallî ßamm§t¿k) to toe their body will be uncovered and revealed. 3. Tigg§l ‘erw§t¿k gam t¿r§’eh Èerp§t¿k: “Your nakedness shall be uncovered and your shame shall be exposed.” The fair maiden is further demeaned and debased by having to suffer the public humiliation of an adulteress. Compare Ezek 16:35–37 (discussed further below): “Now then, O harlot… because your nakedness was exposed in your harlotry with all your lovers… I am gathering all your lovers… all you loved and all you loathed. I am gathering them against you from all around. I will exposed your nakedness to them and they shall gaze upon your entire nakedness.” Thus, measure for measure, or member for member: Since she is accused of wattigg§leh ‘erw§t¿k, her punishment shall be wÀgillêtî ‘erw§t¿k (cf. also Hos 2: 12). In the midst of these humiliating punishments, the prophet also commands Maiden Babylon: gallî ßamm§t¿k,37 “Remove/uncover your veil!” For the significance and understanding of this act, one must turn to the Mesopotamian legal sphere. Though no mention of the practice of veiling is found in Babylonian texts, it is the subject of MAL A: 40, marking the distinction of different social classes of women.38

35 1QIsaa has simplified the hapax legomenon by reading Èáwpy àwlyk. For àÙbel, see G. R. Driver’s suggestion (“Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley [Edinburgh, 1950], 58): “flowing tresses.” 36 See A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients3 (Leipzig, 1916), 640, Illustration 281. 37 For ßammâ, see Song of Songs 4:1, 3; 6:7. 38 See the discussion of this law in Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 126–134. On p. 127 they state that although there is “no corresponding law in the Babylonian code, [the] veiling, if it was obligatory in Babylonia, must have been part of the customary but unwritten law of the land.”


167

Married women and women of the upper classes must be veiled in public (lines 42–57), for veiling is the privilege of the respectable and distinguished lady. So, too, a concubine, esirtu, must be veiled when she accompanies her mistress in public (lines 58–60).39 A qadiltu-woman,40 on the other hand, is forbidden to veil herself unless she is married, and then it becomes obligatory (lines 61–65). However, a common prostitute, Éarimtu (lines 66–76), and an ordinary slave girl, amtu (lines 88–93), are not permitted to be veiled under any circumstances. If they do veil themselves, they are severely punished: The man who arrests her (the prostitute) shall take her clothing (but not her jewelry); she is beaten with the rod fifty times, and pitch is poured over her head. (The last is a “mirroring punishment” reflecting her crime: the pitch covering her face represents the veil that she illegally donned.)41 One who has seen a veiled harlot and has not arrested her is himself, in turn, punished. He is beaten with the rod fifty times, his clothing taken, his ears pierced, a cord is passed through them and tied behind him, and he must do a full month’s labor for the king (lines 77–87, 94–106). As for the slave girl who veils herself, she shall have her ears cut off and her clothing taken from her. One who has seen a veiled slave girl and has not apprehended her suffers the same punishments as mentioned above. The intention of the laws is quite clearly to distinguish the respectable women from the harlots and slave girls.42 The latter, as a sign

39

This is “not intended as a privilege for the girl but obviously as a protection for the mistress”; Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 128. Cf. Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 204. 40 See the comments in CAD, Q, 48–50, which refrain from translating qadiàtu as “hierodule,” as is commonly accepted, but rather, “a woman of special status.” 41 Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 130; Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 205. 42 On veiling in the ancient Near East, see M. Jastrow, “Veiling in Ancient Assyria,” Revue Archéologique, 5th series, 14 (1921), 209–238; A. Jeremias, Das Schleir von Sumer bis Heute, AO 31, 1/2 (Leipzig, 1931). R. de Vaux (“Sur le voile des femmes dans l’orient ancien,” RB 44 [1935], 397–412) concludes his study: “Le voile est donc à la fois un signe d’appartenance et une garantie” (p. 411). Tamar in Gen 38:14–15 wore a veil not because it was a custom of prostitutes, but simply in order not to be recognized. For a study of the practice in Greece, see C. M. Galt (“Veiled Ladies,” AJA 35 [1931], 373–393), who, upon examining the archaeological evidence, concludes that veiling was the prevailing custom in Athens: “Greek ladies were veiled as brides when walking in the street, in certain religious acts, and in mourning.” He refers also to the comment of Plutarch (Moralia 232c), concluding that the “real

168


of their inferior status, must remain unveiled at all times. This, then, is precisely what is being referred to by the prophet. In between the catalogue of punishments that designate a slave’s status and a harlot’s status, he declares that Maiden Babylon must remove her veil, which characterized her former position of dignity as a free woman. Now she is categorically reduced to the shameful status of both a common harlot and slave alike.43 Ezekiel 23:24–25 and MAL A:4 Ezekiel 23 is an allegory featuring two female dramatis personae who represent the two kingdoms of Israel: Oholah personifies Samaria and Oholibah, Jerusalem. These two degenerate sisters have dedicated themselves from their youth to the practice of harlotry—harlotry being the metaphor for constantly changing alliances with foreign nations. Their biography consists of one unmitigated and unrelenting tale of lascivious adultery. Though the elder sister’s whoredom eventually brought about her own demise, her young sibling did not heed the lesson of history, but rather persisted in her reckless and feckless conduct unabatedly. Her wanton and unbridled lust impels her to consistently change allies as a prostitute switches lovers. Yahweh, in utter disgust, repudiates her in the same manner that He did her younger sister. This, however, only adds more fuel to the heat of her burning desire for indulging in harlotry. Yet the day of eventual reckoning is not far off. Her sentence and punishment are imminent. Since she has degraded herself to the practice of heathens, Yahweh shall hand her over to her heathen paramours, who, as her judges, shall execute judgment according to their own prescriptions of law. Yahweh declares: I will entrust your punishment to them, and they shall inflict their punishments on you…. They shall cut off your nose and ears…. They shall strip you of your clothing and take away your dazzling jewels…. They shall take away all you have earned and leave you naked and bare….

motive for veiling was the desire on the part of husbands to hide a possession from the gaze of other men.” 43 The study by R. Martin-Achard (“Esäie 47 et la tradition prophétique sur Babylone,” Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer, ed. J. A. Emerton, BZAW 150 [Berlin, 1980], 83–105) does not refer to this practice at all.


169

They shall punish them with the punishment for adulteresses… for they are adulteresses (Ezek 23:24–26, 29, 45).

It should first be noted that several of these themes are already present in Chap. 16—the parable of the unfaithful wife portrayed in the metaphor of a nymphomaniacal adulteress.44 Since she indulged in fornication, she shall be indicted and sentenced to a violent death. The prophet declares, in the name of Yahweh, that he is gathering about her all of her lovers, those whom she has both loved and loathed. She will be publicly degraded by being exposed in her nakedness (Ezek 16:37). Then, following her conviction, she will be handed over to her former paramour peers who shall act as her executioners. They shall first strip her of clothing and jewelry and then summarily execute her by stoning and, finally, hack and sever her corpse limb by limb (vv. 39–40).45 The public naked exposure of a harlot is also attested elsewhere in the Bible (Jer 13:22, 26; Ezek 23:10; Hos 2:12; and Nah 3:5). Furthermore, the stripping of a wife who leaves her husband for another man is well known from Nuzi.46 A Jewish Aramaic incantation sending forth Lilith naked, thereby divorcing her, has also been frequently cited in this connection.47 The punishment upon which we would like to focus our attention is the corporeal mutilation of the nose and ears of the adulteress—a punishment unknown from Israelite law but quite common in Mesopotamia, documented both in the legal corpora as well as in the Assyrian military annals.48 44

See M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22 (Garden City, NY, 1983), ad loc. Stoning is “a public mode of punishment expressing the outrage of the community” (Greenberg, ibid., 287, citing the Hebrew study of H. Cohen, ‫”על עונש‬ “‫[ הסקילה‬Ramat Gan, 1962]). For the stoning of an adulteress, see Deut 22:21, 24 and Ezek 23:47. See also S. E. Loewenstamm, “‫מיתות בית דין‬,” Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1962), IV, 947–948 (Hebrew). 46 See C. Kuhl, “Neue Dokumente zum Verständnis von Hos. 2:4–15,” ZAW 52 (1934), 102–109; C. H. Gordon, “Hos. 2:4–5 in the Light of New Semitic Inscriptions,” ZAW 13 (1936), 277–280. 47 J. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia, 1913), 190 (no. 17). The practice is also reported by Tacitus to have been current among the ancient Germans (Germania 19). 48 For mutilation and other corporeal punishments, see R. Haase, “Körperliche Strafen im altorientalischen Recht,” Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité (3e série) 10 (1973), 55–75. Compare also the Egyptian “Judicial Papyrus of Turin,” dated to the end of the reign of Rameses III (ca. 1164 B.C.E.), where in a trial for conspiracy the accused had their noses and ears cut off “because they had abandoned the good 45

170


The dismemberment of both the nose and the ears is found twice in the Hittite Laws (= HL): HL 95 prescribes it as the punishment for a slave caught stealing goods from a house; and HL 99, for a slave who sets a house on fire.49 LH 205 exacts the punishment of cutting off the ear only in the case of a slave who strikes the cheek of a free man. Mutilation of the nose and/or ears is also prescribed several times in MAL. According to MAL A:4, if a slave received property stolen by a woman from her husband, “They shall cut off the nose [and] ears of the male or female slave.” The husband, in turn, shall cut off his wife’s ears as well. If, however, he lets her go free without cutting off her ears, the slave likewise is released from the similar punishment. MAL A:5 stipulates that if a married woman steals property over the value of five minas of lead from the house of another, her husband may ransom her, but he also cuts off her ears. If he does not opt to ransom her, the owner of the stolen property cuts off her nose. MAL A:24 pertains to the case of a woman who deserts her husband and enters the house of another Assyrian and stays with the mistress of that house for three or four nights without the master of the house being aware of her presence. If the woman is subsequently caught, her husband may take her back, but he still cuts off her ears. The woman with whom she stayed is also mutilated. MAL A:40 similarly prescribes cutting off the ears of a female slave who veils herself. The final law in the first tablet of MAL, A:59, also mentions penalties that the husband may inflict upon his wife, including mutilating her ears. Of special importance, moreover, is MAL A:15: If a man has caught his wife with another man in flagrante delicto, and he is prosecuted and convicted, both are put to death, without attaching any liability to the deceived husband.50 If, however, he brings the couple instructions given to them” (J. A. Wilson, “Egyptian Documents,” ANET, 215). For one of the multiple examples of mutilation in Assyrian war annals, see R. Borger (Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien [Graz, 1956], 106:24), “I cut off the[ir hands] (of the fugitives). I took from them nose, eye(s), (and) ears.” See also the multiple references to military inscriptions under the entries “bat§qu,” “ek¿mu,” and “nak§su” in the corresponding volumes of CAD. For another example of the mutilation of the ear in Assyrian legal practice, see E. Weidner, “Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischen Könige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,” AfO 17 (1954–56), 287:104, edict 21; Roth, Law Collections, 206. For the amputation of both the nose and ears, see edict no. 5 (273:26). Cf. also MAL A:4. 49 See A. Goetze, “The Hittite Laws,” ANET, 193. 50 For MAL A:15, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 45–46; and Koschaker, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, 39–42.


171

to the king or to the judges and they are convicted, the husband has three options from which to choose: he may put his wife to death and then kill the lover; he may allow his wife to go free and thereby pardon the paramour as well; or—and this is very significant—he may employ the punishment of mutilation, cutting off his wife’s nose and then, correspondingly, make her swain a eunuch.51 The reason for the disfigurement of the nose is apparently to make her the object of abhorrence, since any damage to her ears can be concealed by her hair.52 Thus, it becomes clear that according to MAL one of the ways to punish adultery is by the mutilation of the nose.53 This, then, is of

51

Cf. LH 129, where if the two are caught in actu, they are bound together and thrown into the water. If the husband spares his wife, the king may spare his subject (cf. also LH 130–132, 155–156). For the corresponding Hittite laws, see nos. 197–198, where the husband also may kill or spare the adulterers. For the practice in Greek and English legal systems, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 46 n. 5. For the stringent Biblical laws on the subject of adultery, which make the crime an absolute wrong incapable of pardon by human agency (cf. Lev 20:10; Deut 22: 23–24), see M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1960), 11–12 (= Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought [Philadelphia, 1995], 29–30). See also Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 37 and n. 5, with additional bibliography. 52 So Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 48. See the quotation from Diodorus Siculus below, n. 53. 53 On facial mutilation of women, see Diodorus Siculus’s statement concerning the Egyptians: “Severe also were their laws touching women. For if a man had violated a free married woman, they stipulated that he be emasculated, considering that such a person by a single unlawful act had been guilty of the three greatest crimes, assault, abduction, and confusion of offspring. But if a man committed adultery with the woman’s consent, the laws ordered that the man should receive a thousand blows with the rod, and that the woman should have her nose cut off, on the ground that a woman who tricks herself out with an eye to forbidden license should be deprived of that which contributes most to a woman’s comeliness” (Diodorus of Sicily, trans. C. H. Oldfather; Loeb Classical Library [London, 1933], 271, §I:78:4–5). For studies on adultery, see W. Kornfeld, “L’adultère dans l’Orient Antique,” RB 57 (1950), 92–109; D. Daube, “Origin and Punishment of Adultery in Jewish Law,” in Studia Patristica, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross; Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literature 64 (Berlin, 1957), II, 109–113; S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Laws of Adultery and Homicide in Biblical and Mesopotamian Law Corpora,” Beth Miqra 13 (1962), 55–59; 19 (1964), 77–78 (Hebrew; Eng. trans. in idem, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures, AOAT 204 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980), 146–153, 171–172); M. Weinfeld, “Israelite and Non-Israelite Concepts of Law,” Beth Miqra 17 (1964), 58–63 (Hebrew); M. Falasca, “L’evoluzione della pena dell’adulterio del diritto penale ebraico,” Euentes Docete 18 (1965), 246–265. Loewenstamm raises some serious reservations against Greenberg’s view (“Some Postulates”), both from the Mesopotamian as well as the Biblical texts.

172


significance for the understanding of the passage in Ezekiel, for there it is explicitly stated that the adulteress is to be punished according to the laws of her paramours (23:24). And one of the nations frequently listed as consorting with both sisters is Assyria (in vv. 5, 7, and 9 with Oholah; in vv. 12 and 23 with Oholiba—cf. also 16:28). Israel is thus condemned to suffer for the crime of adultery, a punishment meted out by her very lover, the Assyrians.54 Leviticus 24:10–23 and Assyrian Harem Edicts Lev 24:10–23 is an independent pericope within the Holiness Code that consists of a narrative framework (vv. 10–13, 23) embodying a series of legal statutes (vv. 14–22).55 The narrative, set within the desert sojourn of Israel, recounts a specific incident and its ad hoc judgment, which serves as a legal precedent normative for all similar cases in the future.56 The test case involves a brawl that broke out (wayyinn§ßû) between a full-Israelite and a half-Israelite (one whose mother was an Israelite but whose father was an Egyptian).57 During the affray, the half-Israelite uttered blasphemy, and for this offense he was brought 54 In view of the fact that this is an established Assyrian practice, it would seem to be a bit hasty to delete the phrase kol-bÀnê ’aààur, “all the Assyrians,” from v. 23 as an “interpretive” or “elaborative addition,” as do W. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, Hermeneia [Philadelphia, 1979], 474–475, 486, 488) and many other moderns. From another perspective entirely, see R. Zadok, “West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources—Appendix II: The Unger Prism (‘Nebuchadnezzar’s Court Calendar’) and Ezek XXIII, 23ff.,” Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East, Presented to S. E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau (Jerusalem, 1978), 178–179 (English vol.). Zadok points out that the arrangement of the Babylonian regions in the Unger Prism correspond in general to those mentioned in Ezekiel 23. He comments, “ ‘All the sons of Assyria’ possibly refers to the greater area of Assyria which was in Babylonian hands.” He further remarks that the term “all the sons of Assyria,” rather than merely “Assyria,” is “probably due to the fact that this geographical designation is much wider than Assyria proper and includes Upper Mesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine as well” (p. 178). 55 See the standard critical commentaries on Leviticus. K. Elliger (Leviticus, HAT 4 [Tübingen, 1966], 330) calls it a “Gesetzesätiologie.” 56 See J. Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” VT 22 (1972), 11–123, and the comments on the article by J. B. Gabel and C. B. Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand in the Blasphemy Pericope of Leviticus XXIV,” VT 30 (1980), 227–229. Both studies pertain to whether the P redactor extended or narrowed the definition of blasphemy in his legislation. For an earlier study, see H. Mittwoch, “The Story of the Blasphemer Seen in a Wider Context,” VT 15 (1965), 386–389. 57 Cf. the similar procedure recounted in another test case, Num 15:32–36.


173

to Moses and then placed under custody until a divine oracle would decide the proper judgment. The verdict was as follows: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head, and let the whole community stone him to death” (Lev 24:14). According to this ruling, blasphemy affects not only the speaker but infects the hearers as well.58 This contamination is transferred back to the guilty party by the ritualistic laying of hands upon him. He is then summarily executed by stoning—a public execution that eradicates the stain from the community. The definitive general prescription is then handed down. It differentiates in severity between one “who blasphemes his God” (yÀqall¿l ’ÀlÙh§yw) and one who “pronounces the name YHWH” (wÀnÙq¿b àemYHWH); the former “shall bear his guilt/be liable for his penalty” and the latter “shall be put to death” (vv. 15–16). This is followed, in turn, by a series of lex talionis legislations and concludes by reporting the execution of the blasphemer in accordance with the principles cited above (vv. 17–23). At the very beginning of this case it is stated that the half-Israelite “pronounced the Name in blasphemy” (v. 11).59 The difficulty of the first verb, wayyiqqÙb (whether it is to be derived from nqb, “to mark, specify, designate,” or from qbb, “to curse”60) is resolved by reference to v. 16, where the root nqb appears twice: “He who enunciates/ designates [wÀnÙq¿b] the name YHWH,” and “when/if he has enunciated [bÀn§qÀbô] [the] Name.”61 Note that LXX and Vulgate add YHWH

58 See J. Milgrom, “Leviticus,” The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. C. M. Laymon (Nashville, 1971), 83–84. 59 “Because of the derogatory context, the P author does not even write ‘Yahweh’ and substitutes ‘Name’ ” (Milgrom, “Leviticus,” 82). This is the only place in the Bible where “the Name” stands as a surrogate for the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, except for a partial exception in Deut 28:58. It becomes a standard substitute in Rabbinic literature. See below, n. 63. For a comprehensive study of this entire literary unit, see idem, Leviticus 23–27, AB 36 (New York, 2001), 2101–2119. 60 Most commentaries and translations interpret the verb as “he cursed,” either deriving it from qbb or assuming that nqb is an alloform of qbb. See also W. Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 30 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), 28. For the Talmudic discussion on whether to derive the verb from nqb or qbb, see b. Sanh. 56a. On nqb, see HALAT, III (Leiden, 1985), 678–679. 61 For nqb + à¿m (within different contexts), see Num 1:17; Isa 62:2; Ezra 8:20; 1 Chron 12:32, 16:41; 2 Chron 28:15, 31:19. Compare, similarly, Nabatean nqwbyn bàmhn; see J. J. Rabinowitz, “A Clue to the Nabatean Contract from the Dead Sea Region,” BASOR 139 (1957), 14.

174


after “Name”; and the Samaritan reads hàm, “the Name.”62 This specific and deliberate enunciation of the unique name of YHWH takes place as part of the individual’s “curse”63 and thus forms a hendiadys—the supreme blasphemy, a curse in which the name of YHWH is specifically pronounced.64 A remarkable and as yet unnoticed parallel to this prescription (which may also shed light on the antiquity of the Biblical material) is found in the Assyrian harem edicts from the time of King Ninurta-apil-Ekur (1192–1180 B.C.E.).65 These edicts afford an interesting behind-thescenes look into harem life and its concomitant female squabbles. The king issued the following decree for his palace: lu aàà§t àarre lu sinnià§tu m§d§tu66 [àa ekalle àa…] aÉ§’ià idåk§ni 67 ina ßaltiàina àu[m il]e ana masikte68 tazzakråni… napà§te àa Aààur it[…]69 inakkisu (lines 56–58).

62 See also the comments of A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel2 (Frankfurt, 1928), 273–274; Elliger, Leviticus, 330, 333–334. 63 Cf. Tg. Onq. wpryà and LXX o)noma&zwn. Cf. m. Sanh. 7:5: “The blasphemer is not culpable until he expressly pronounces [yprà] the Name.” The expression àm hmpwrà becomes a standard surrogate for YHWH in Rabbinic literature. 64 For other related prescriptions regarding the misuse of YHWH’s name and the “cursing” of God, see Exod 20:7 and 22:27. H. C. Brichto (The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible [Philadelphia, 1963], 143–147), in the course of his discussion of the stem qll, misconstrues the target of abuse and assumes that it is not the deity but the full Israelite. He later concludes (p. 164) that there is a total absence of blasphemy in the Bible (cf., however, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 241 n. 2). From a different perspective altogether, see S. M. Paul, “Daniel 3:29—A Case Study of ‘Neglected’ Blasphemy,” JNES 42 (1983), 291–294 [133–137]. 65 Weidner, “”Hof- und Harems-Erlasse,” 279–280, edict 10. For this and the following edict, see Roth, Law Collections, 201–202. 66 Weidner (ibid.) reads: ma-ãa-a-tu and translates, “niedere [Frauen].” He is followed by AHw, 635 (maãû). This, however, would create an unnecessary hapax legomenon since the feminine of the adjective maãû is maãÊtu, “low in status.” The correct reading is cited several times in CAD; cf. A/I, 164 (aÉ§meà); A/II, 464 (aààatu); M/I, 22 (m§du, “several, many”). Compare, for example, G. Dossin and A. Finet, Correspondance féminine, ARM 10 (Paris, 1978), 129:9, 19: sinnià§tim m§d§tim ittiàama isabbik, “[The sick woman] infects (?) many women with her.” See AHw, 999; CAD, S, 2. 67 For the idiom, dâku (itti) aÉ§meà, “to fight,” see CAD, D, 42. 68 For masiktu, see CAD, M/I, 323–324. For the use of the verb in the reviling of someone’s name, see F. W. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne, TCL 1 (Paris, 1910), I, 29:39, aran àumni damqam ina §lini umassaku, “as punishment for reviling our good reputation in our city.” 69 Weidner (“Hof- und Harems-Erlasse,” 280) reconstructs it-t[a-re-ra-ni] from ar§ru, which he admits, “ist nur ein Versuch.” However, Akk. ar§ru does not refer to an offense committed by a human against a deity. The same is also true of Heb.


175

[Any royal women], either the wives of the king or other women [of the palace…] fight with each other, and during their quarrel swear by the name of the god blasphemously…, they shall cut the throat of the one who has [cursed (?)] the god Ashur.

Note the very interesting similarities between the Akkadian and Biblical accounts. First, the two protagonists, male or female, are engaged in a brawl: Hebrew wayyinn§ßû, from the root nßy, is the semantic cognate equivalent of Akkadian ßaltu. Second, in both, one invokes the name of his/her god, first mentioned by Hebrew haààêm and Akkadian àum ile and then explicated as YHWH or Aààur, in a blasphemous fashion (Hebrew wayyiqqÙb… ’et-haàà¿m wayqall¿l is analogous to Akkadian àum ile ana masikte tazzakråni). And third, both offenders are punished by death—one by stoning, the other by having his throat cut.70 Another decree of this same Assyrian king that has Biblical echoes is found in the very next edict, which extends the crime invoking the name of a god to include that of the king as well:71 [àu]m àarre ina ßalte la [izakkar àu]m ile lu la izakkar… àum ile ana la kitte [… tazakk]rum […] la uballuãuài (lines 61–63). One must not [swear by the na]me of the king in a quarrel. One must verily not [note the emphatic lu la] swear by the name of the god [in a quarrel]… [If one swear]s by the name of the god falsely, they shall not spare her life.

This combination of blasphemy and reviling involving God and king is also found in 1 Kings 21, where Naboth is falsely accused of “reviling God and king” (b¿rakt§ ’ÀlÙhîm w§melek, vv. 10, 13), for which crime he is subsequently stoned. Such a coupling of lèse-majesté humaine can be found also in MAL.72 Immediately following MAL A:1 (which pertains to the crime of sacrilege, that is, stealing from the temple), MAL A:

’rr, which only has the deity as the subject, never as the object (compare esp. Exod 22:27, where one is forbidden to qll God and to ’rr a chieftain). See Brichto, Problem of “Curse”, 77–117, esp. 115: “The subject of the active verb ’rr is always the Deity or an agency endowed by God or the society with unusual power” (cf. p. 217; for the Akkadian, see pp. 115–117). Weidner’s other suggestion, however, based on the verb tamû, “to swear,” is possible. E. Reiner, on the other hand, suggests deriving the verb from Akkadian naz§ru, “to blaspheme, to curse the gods” (oral communication; see CAD, N/II, 130). 70 Stoning represents a communal public execution throughout the Bible. 71 Weidner, “Hof- und Harems-Erlasse,” 280–281, edict 11. 72 On the topical association of arrangement, see Driver and Miles, Assyrian Laws, 20; and Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 47.

176


2 continues with a law prescribing that “if a woman… should speak something disgraceful [àillata taqtibi]73 or utter a blasphemy [mikit pê tartiài],74 that woman alone bears responsibility for her offense [aranàa tanaàài = Heb. n§á§’ ÈeãÀ’ô of Lev 24:15].75 73 For this idiom and its Biblical counterpart, see the discussion of Dan 3:29 in my article cited above, n. 64. 74 For this idiom, see O. R. Gurney, “A Tablet of Incantations against Slander,” Iraq 22 (1960), 226 n. 6 (line 12); W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1960), 312–313; CAD, M/II, 105; and AHw, 657 (line 5). 75 For yet another accusation of blasphemy that is uttered during a brawl, see MAL, Tablet N:1. The law refers to one who has blasphemed and pilfered from the temple. If he is proven guilty, his punishment is, along with corvée duty plus 40 ina Éaããe imaÉÉußuà, “They shall strike him 40 blows with rods.” For this exact punishment, compare MAL A:18 and Deut 25:3 (’arb§‘îm yakkennû). If, however, the charge is not proven (MAL N:2), the accuser suffers the same punishment in a retaliatory fashion. See E. Weidner, “Das Alter der mittelassyrischen Gesetzestexte,” AfO 12 (1937–39), 53; Cardascia, Les Lois Assyriennes, 334–335; and the notes of Koschaker cited in both. See also CAD, B, 127–130 (barû/burrû).

exodus 1:21: to found a family

177

EXODUS 1:21: “TO FOUND A FAMILY”: A BIBLICAL AND AKKADIAN IDIOM The fact that the Bible records the names of the two midwives who serviced the Hebrew women in Egypt, Shiphrah and Puah (Exod 1: 15), is a clear indication of their central importance to the narrative.1 At the risk of their own lives, they deftly defied2 the order of Pharaoh to put to death the newly born Israelite male children (v. 19). Their deceptive disobedience of the tyrant’s law was rooted in their pious obedience to the moral law of God—they “feared God” (vv. 17, 21).3 For their meritorious and virtuous action they were rewarded in kind by the deity. “Since they had helped to make the houses of the Israelites great and numerous, He requited them… measure for measure”:4 “God established households for them” (‫ויעש להם בתים‬, v. 21). Several commentators have captured the correct nuance of this phrase as referring to their being blessed with their own families5 and have made reference to the identical expression found in 2 Sam 7: 11 and 1 Kings 2:24.6 What has not been noted, however, is that the Hebrew expression ‫ עשה בית‬is the interdialectal cognate and partial

1 For the problem of their ethnic affiliation, see the latest commentaries to Exodus. 2 B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL (Philadelphia, 1974), 17: “Once again, the frail resources of two women have succeeded in outdoing the crass power of the tyrant.” For their piety as a reflection of the religious ideal of wisdom circles, see idem, “The Birth of Moses,” JBL 84 (1965), 120. 3 See N. M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York, 1986), 25. 4 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1974), 15. 5 Cf., e.g., Abraham ibn Ezra in his shorter commentary to Exodus (Prague, 1840), 6, and in his longer commentary (Vienna, 1856), ad loc.; S. D. Luzzatto, Commentary to the Pentateuch (Tel Aviv, 1965), 215–216 (Hebrew); M. Noth, Exodus, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (Philadelphia, 1962), 20 (who correctly translates the phrase but thinks that it is secondary; ibid., 24). The standard Rabbinic tradition interprets the phrase to mean Levitical, priestly, and royal households. See b. Soãa 11b. 6 Cf., e.g., the following commentaries to Exodus: C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar A.T. 1/1 (Leipzig, 1866); H. Holzinger, KHC 2 (Tübingen, 1900); A. H. McNeile (London, 1908); W. H. Schmidt, BK 2/1, 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974). For the verse in Kings, see J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia, 1963), 104.

178


etymological equivalent of the Akkadian idiom, bÊtam ep¿àu, “to found a family,”7 attested at Mari and elsewhere. In a letter to IasmaÉ-Addu, King ’amài-Addu advises his son, ina Tuttul aàar qinnam taqannanu u bÊtam teppeàu àib, “Settle in Tuttul, where you can establish a homestead and found a family.”8 His counsel is then repeated a few lines later: aàr§num àibma bÊt awÊlÊ epuà u qinnam qunnun, “Settle there! Found a family fitting for a gentleman and establish a homestead!”9 The expression is also present twice in a first millennium love lyric between Marduk and Ishtar: atti emuqti b[Ê]ta epàÊ, “You are the good housewife—create a family”; epàÊ bÊta ana mutÊki, “Create a family for your husband.”10 The same idiom may be found as well in the popularly misnomered “Dialogue of Pessimism,” when the master declares to his slave (line 37), kî kî låpuà bÊta, “So, so, I will found a family.” The slave, however, counters, bÊta ¿ t¿puà, “Do not found a family” (for “a man who follows this course breaks up his father’s home” [line 38]).11 Though the Akkadian expression, bÊtam ep¿àu, can also mean “to build a house”12 (which is conjecturally assumed to be referred to in line 30 by the regular verb, “to build,” banû: lubnî [bÊta luràî m§]ru, “I am going to set up [a home and have child]ren”),13 Lambert remarks that this section,

7

See CAD, E, 205, c´; AHw, 225, 5. ARM, I, 18:22–24. For qan§nu, “to establish a homestead,” see CAD, Q, 81; for qinnu, “family,” ibid., 258–259. Akk. bÊtu also means “family”; see CAD, B, 293–295. 9 G. Dossin, Correspondance de ’amài-Addu et de fils, ARM, I (Paris, 1950), 18:28–29. The translation “fitting for a gentleman” was suggested to me by Prof. A. Shaffer. G. Dossin (op. cit., 54–55) was puzzled by bÊt awÊlim, “une demeure seigneuriale (?),” and CAD, E, 205, c´, “(found a family) as men do,” does not seem to capture the exact nuance. For amÊlu, “gentleman,” see CAD, A/II, 55. For another example of bÊtu and qinnu appearing in conjunction, cf. bÊssu la isappuÉu qinnaàu la iparruru, “May his family not be scattered, his family not dispersed”; see CAD, Q, 258, 2´. 10 The text was published by W. G. Lambert, “The Problem of the Love Lyrics,” Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore and London, 1975), 98–135. The lines referred to, 19 and 24, appear on pp. 108 and 110, respectively. Akk. emuqtu (see CAD, E, 157) and ¿miqtu (ibid., 149–150) are derived from emqu, “experienced, skilled, educated” (ibid., 151–152), and are translated “housekeeper” (lit., “prudent woman”) (ibid., 157). 11 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1960), 146. For the expression bÊta Éepû, meaning “to break up the family circle,” comparable to bÊta suppuÉu, see Lambert (BWL, 326 n. 38), who cites ’urpu II 53, qinna puÉurta usappiÉu, “He broke up a close-knit clan.” See also CAD, S, 154, b; B, 293, 6b; 294, 6f. 12 CAD, E, 197–198, b, 3´. 13 Lambert, BWL, 144–145. Cf. also E. A. Speiser, “The Case of the Obliging 8

exodus 1:21: to found a family

179

i.e., lines 37–38, “refers to having a family, not to building a material house.” He cites, in turn, LH 191:80 where, according to him, the expression bÊtam ep¿àu also means “to set up a family” rather than “to erect a building”:14 “If a man, who adopted a boy and reared him, set up a family of his own….”15 The two Hebrew expressions, ‫בנה בית‬16 (= Akk. bÊtam banû) and ‫עשה בית‬17 (= Akk. bÊtam ep¿àu) are also employed very skillfully in 2 Samuel 7, as has been noted by many exegetes (even without knowledge of the Akkadian idiom discussed above). In v. 5, the prophet Nathan informs the king that the Lord rejected David’s proposal to construct a house, i.e., a temple, for him: “Are you the one to build a house (‫ )תבנה בית‬for me to dwell in?” However, in v. 11 David is promised that the Lord will establish a family, i.e., a dynasty, for him (‫)בית יעשה לך‬. That this is the intention is made explicitly clear in the next verse (v. 12): “When your days are done and you will lie with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own

Servant,” JCS 8 (1954), 98–105, reprinted in Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (Philadelphia, 1967), 344–366. See Speiser’s comments on pp. 355–356. He, however, translates line 37: “How can I build a house!” and compares the expression of kî kî with Gilgamesh XI, 170. For kî as a conjunction, see CAD, K, 316–320; and as an interrogative, ibid., 320–322. It is interesting to note that the same sequence of bÊtam epàu followed by m§rÊ raàû is also found in LH 191:80–82. 14 Lambert, BWL, 325, note to lines 29–38. 15 This is Meek’s translation in ANET, 175. M. David (Die Adoption im altbabylonischen Recht [Leipzig, 1927], 39–40) also interprets the idiom to mean “he has founded a family.” So, too, V. Scheil, Textes élamites-sémitiques. Délégation en Perse. Mémoires, IV (Paris, 1902), ad loc., “fonde une proper famille.” See, however, the dissenting view of G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles (The Babylonian Laws [Oxford, 1960], I, 247 and II, 396–398), who interpret the expression to mean “that the father has provided him, the boy now adult, with his own home in the literal sense” (I, 247). In AHw, 227, 5, von Soden also understands the expression in LH 191:80 to mean, “Familie gründen.” As another example of this phrase, he incorrectly cites LH 148:79, where it means “to build a house. (Cf. also LH 176:81; 228:57–58; 229:66, 69; 232:87; 233:94, for building or setting up a house.) CAD, E, 205, translates the idiom bÊtam ep¿àu, in both LH 148:79 and 191:80, as “to accept into the household,” while M. T. Roth (Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor [Atlanta, 1995], 119) renders “establishes his household.” 16 This expression may also mean “to build a family”; cf. Deut 25:9; 1 Kings 11: 38 (a dynasty); Ruth 4:11. Cf. also Prov 24:27 and the additional references cited by W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL (Philadelphia, 1970), 576. For Heb. ‫בית‬, “family,” see KB, 120, 4. For Aramaic, Moabite, and Phoenician, see C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest (Leiden, 1965), 36. 17 For the exact interchange of the two, cf. 1 Sam 25:28 and 1 Kings 11:38.

180


issue, and I will establish his kingdom.” As McCarter judiciously comments, the deity rejected the house planned for him by David since “Yahweh is David’s patron, not the reverse…. the issue being raised is the propriety of human initiative in the relationship between Yahweh and the king.”18 The deity, though not accepting David’s offer, promises, nevertheless, to set up a house, i.e., a dynasty, for him.19 David’s offspring, in turn, will build a house (temple) for the deity (v. 13a). McCarter, at the same time, however, unnecessarily emends the Masoretic text of v. 11 from ‫ בית יעשה לך‬to ‫בית יבנה לך‬,20 based on 2 Chron 17:10, LXXL and LXXB and the reading preserved in 4QFlorilegium = 4Q174, line 10 (‫)בית יבנה לכה‬.21 In this he follows Cross, who reads ‫אבנה‬, “I shall build,” relying also on v. 27.22 Once it is realized, however, that the narrator is paronomastically employing an attested idiom which means “to found a family,” in this case a dynasty, the correction becomes superfluous. Thus, once again with the aid of a comparative Akkadian expression, a heretofore unrecognized Biblical idiom comes to light and helps to enhance our appreciation of the deft artistry of the writers of both the sections in Exodus and 2 Samuel.23 18 P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (Garden City, 1984), 198. See his extensive remarks on this entire pericope on pp. 209–231. 19 According to Lambert (BWL, 325, note to lines 29–38), “the pun probably arose from a folk-etymological derivation of ‫ בן‬from ‫בנה‬.” This is clearly evident in Gen 16:2; 30:3, but is not cited by him. On the theme of the unconditional grant of a “house” (= dynasty) to David and its ancient Near Eastern counterparts, see M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970), 184–203, esp. 189–196. 20 McCarter, II Samuel, 194. 21 J. M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4 I, DJD 5 (Oxford, 1968), 53–55. 22 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA, 1973), 256 n. 160: “M y‘áh appears to be a prosaizing correction of (corrupt) ybnh, the reading in 1 Chron. 17:10.” Both Cross (ibid.) and McCarter (II Samuel, 194) emend the final word of the verse, the Tetragrammaton, to a verb, ‫והיה‬, and connect it to the next verse (v 12). Cf. LXX and 1 Chron 17:10–11. 23 See, e.g., S. M. Paul, “Unrecognized Biblical Legal Idioms in the Light of Comparative Akkadian Expressions” RB 86 (1979), 231–239 [99–108]. For the verse in Exodus, see now W. H. C. Propp (Exodus 1–18, AB 2 [New York, 1998], 141), who accepts the above interpretation.

gleanings from the biblical and talmudic lexica

181

GLEANINGS FROM THE BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC LEXICA IN LIGHT OF AKKADIAN To Professor Nahum Sarna—a gentleman and scholar (‫ כג‬,‫טוב )משלי טו‬-‫דבר בעתו מה‬ 1. 1 Samuel 24:13 and ARM 1, 5:10—“As the Ancient Proverb Says” The employment of the substantive “dog” (Akk. kalbu, Heb. ‫ )כלב‬as a term of self-disparagement and as an invective is well known from both Mesopotamian and Biblical sources.1 This expression of insignificance and abasement is further intensified when one refers to himself or is referred to by others as a “dead dog.” Compare the following from neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian epistolary literatures:2 lapnu m§r lapni kalbu mÊtu an§ku, “I was a poor man, son of a poor man, a dead dog” (ABL 1285:13–14). àa kalbi mÊti m§r la mamma an§ku àarru b¿lâ uballiãanni, “I, who was a dead dog, the son of a nobody, the king, my lord, gave me life” (ABL 521:6–7). kalb§ni mÊtåtu anÊni àarru b¿lÊ uballiãannâài, “We were dead dogs; the king, my lord, gave us life” (ABL 771:5). manna anÊni kalb§ni mÊtåtu àa àarru àumani idu, “Who are we? Dead dogs whose names the king knows” (ABL 454:18; cf. also ABL 831:5; 992: rev. 15; 1289: rev. 4).

This canine epithet appears in the Bible three (or four) times. After David, out of respect for his deceased friend Jonathan, extends the hospitality of the court to his son, Mephibosheth, the latter disparagingly

1 See D. Winton Thomas (“Kelibh, ‘Dog’: Its Origin and Some Usages of It in the Old Testament,” VT 10 [1960], 410–427), who also cites the examples found in the Lachish Letters, 2:4; 5:4; 6:3. The Akkadian evidence can be found in CAD, K, 72. For another example not cited there, cf. kÊma kalbi da’ati ul taàâli, “You did not care for me any better than for a dog!”; F. R. Kraus, Briefe aus dem Istanbuler Museum, AbB 5 (Leiden, 1972), no. 160, r. 6; also 35:3. 2 The citations are all taken from ABL (= R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters [London and Chicago, 1892–1914]). ABL 1285 has now been collated and re-edited by S. Parpola (“The Forlorn Scholar,” Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton (New Haven, 1987), 257–278. Instead of an§ku, Parpola (p. 160, line 14) reads [qul-l]ul-lu, “a vile person.”

182


says of himself, “What is your servant, that you should show regard for a dead dog (‫ )הכלב המת‬like me?” (2 Sam 9:8). Abishai, son of Zeruiah, defending the abused honor of David against the verbal vilification of Shimei, son of Gera, vehemently exclaims, “Why let that dead dog (‫ )הכלב המת‬abuse my lord, the king? Let me go over and cut off his head!” (2 Sam 16:9). Another instance of this phrase is preserved only in the Septuagint’s translation of 2 Kings 8:13. When Elisha predicts to Hazael the brutal punishments which the latter will inflict upon Israel, Hazael replies, “But how can your servant, who is a mere dog (lxx: o( ku&wn o( teqnhkw&j, ‘a dead dog’) perform such a mighty deed?” The fourth example is attested in 1 Sam 24:15, when David cries out to King Saul, “Against whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog (‫ ?)כלב מת‬A mere flea?” This emotional outburst is preceded by David’s self-vindication that he had never wronged Saul nor had he ever harbored any thoughts of violence or treachery against him (v. 12). He solemnly declares, “May the Lord judge between you and me! And may He take vengeance upon you for me, but my hand will never touch you” (v. 13). David then cites “the ancient proverb (‫)משׁל הקדמֹני‬: ְ ‘Wicked deeds come from wicked men’!” (v. 14). This is the sole instance in the Bible where an aphorism is referred to in this manner, and it has been conjectured that ‫ ְמשׁל הקדמֹני‬should actually be read ‫( ְמשׁל הקדמֹנים‬the final mem having been erroneously omitted by haplography caused by the mem beginning the next word, ‫)מרשׁעים‬, “the proverb of the ancients”—a reading now attested in 4QSama, ‫]הקד[מוניים‬.3 Some three decades ago, I noted that this very same expression also appears once in Mari, where it, too, is followed by the citation of a pertinent proverb. In a letter from ’amài-Adad I, king of Assyria, to his son, YasmaÉ-Addu, governor of Mari,4 the king introduces a maxim5 by saying, kÊma t¿ltim ullÊtim àa umm§mi, “As the ancient proverb which says….” The Akkadian is not only the exact interdialectal semantic

3

See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City, NY, 1980), 382. G. Dossin, Correspondance de ’amài-Addu et de ses fils, ARM 1 (Paris, 1950), 5:10. 5 For the interpretation of this proverb, see A. Finet, “Citations littéraires dans la correspondance de Mari,” RA 68 (1974), 44–45; A. Marzal, Gleanings from the Wisdom of Mari, Studia Pohl 11 (Rome, 1976), 15–23; W. L. Moran, “Puppies in Proverbs—From ’amài-Adad I to Archilochus?” Eretz-Israel, XIV (H. L. Ginsberg Volume), ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1978), 32*–47*. 4


183

and cognate equivalent of ‫ כאשׁר יאמר ְמשׁל הקדמֹני‬in Samuel,6 but it also helps to confirm the Masoretic Hebrew text, which speaks of “the ancient proverb” and not “the proverb of the ancients.” 2. The Symbolic Gesture of “Taking Hold of the Hem of a Cloak” in Zechariah 8:23 In an eschatological vision, the prophet Zechariah foresees a time when many nations and peoples will acknowledge the universal supremacy and authority of the God of Israel:7 “In those days, ten men8 from nations of every tongue will take hold—they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’ ” (Zech 8:23).9 The Hebrew expression ‫החזיק בכנף‬, “to take hold of a corner/the hem of a cloak,” is a symbolical gesture of a suppliant to a superior,10 whose significance has not been definitively clarified in this passage. Whereas Rudolph, quoting Horst, terms it a “rechtssymbolischer Ausdruck,” which designates “des Ersuchens um ein Schutzverhältnis,”11 Meyers and

6

After this note was written, I was happy to discover that C. Cohen (“New Akkadian Evidence for the Meaning and Etymology of the Term ‘Mashal’ in the Bible,” Y. M. Grintz Memorial Volume [Tel Aviv, 1962], 319 and 323 n.51 [Hebrew]) refers to an oral communication from Moshe Held, who also compared the expression in the Mari letter to this verse in Samuel. Subsequently, I discovered Held’s own written remarks, which appeared in “Marginal Notes to the Biblical Lexicon,” Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser (Winona Lake, IN, 1985), 95. 7 Compare similarly Isa 2:2–3; 45:14–15, 22–25; 56:6–7; 66:23; Mic 4:1–2; Zech 14:9, 16. 8 The symbolic nature of the number ten representing a complete number has been recognized by most commentators. See, in addition to the bibliography usually cited in commentaries, Y. Avishur, “The Forms of Repetition of Numbers Indicating Wholeness (3, 7, 10)—in the Bible and in Ancient Semitic Literature,” Beer-Sheva 1 (1973), 1–55 (Hebrew). 9 NJPSV (= The New Jewish Publication Society of America: The Prophets [Philadelphia, 1978]), 882. 10 This was totally missed by D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, OTL (Philadelphia, 1980), 318–320, and not dealt with at all by E. LipiÔski, “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie,” VT 20 (1970), 42–46. The latter assumes that this verse refers to the Diaspora Jews and not to the foreign nations. For a correct critique of this view, see W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8; Sacharja 9–14; Maleachi, KAT 13.4 (Gütersloh, 1976), 153. For a brief review of the various symbolic aspects relating to the hem of a garment, see R. A. Veneer, “Hem,” IDBSupp (Nashville, 1976), 401–402. 11 Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja, 152.

184


Meyers,12 citing McCarter,13 interpret this act as one of “supplication, submission, importuning.” Meyers and Meyers further remark that the “taking hold of the hem… conjures up a picture of rapprochement, submission, loyalty…. By taking hold of the garment, the non-Yehudite signifies his willingness to accept the supremacy of the God of Israel.”14 What, then, is the exact nuance of this phrase—supplication, importuning, submission, acceptance, loyalty? Although neither Meyers and Meyers nor McCarter cite any ancient Near Eastern textual documentation, the latter relies on a study of Brauner, who, in an article devoted to 1 Sam 15:27, concludes from a comparison of both the Akkadian (sissikta ßab§tu) and Aramaic (‫)אחז בכנף‬ interdialectal semantic and cognate equivalents of ‫ החזיק בכנף‬that the expression refers to “supplication” or to “submission to a superior.”15 (In a later study, Brauner adduces another Aramaic example as well as one from Ugaritic.)16 The three texts which he cites, as well as additional ample documentation, should all be interpreted, however, not merely as submission but as an act of declaring allegiance to the god whose hem of the garment is grasped: [asÉur]ki aà’¿ki17 sissiktaki aßbat kÊma sissikti ilÊja u iàtarija, “I [turned to] you and sought you. I grasped your hem (i.e., was loyal to you) as if it were the hem of my own god and goddess.”18 sissikti ilåtiàu rabÊti aßbat aàte’â aàr§teàu, “(When Marduk entrusted the rule of Assyria to me), I grasped the hem of his divine majesty (i.e., pledged allegiance). I sought his shrine.”19 12 C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AB 25 B (Garden City, NY, 1987), 441. 13 McCarter, I Samuel, 268. (In a typographical error, Meyers and Meyers [Haggai, Zechariah, 441] incorrectly cite p. 208.) 14 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, 441–442. 15 R. A. Brauner, “ ‘To Grasp the Hem’ and 1 Samuel 15.27,” JANES 6 (1974), 35–38. The quotes are found on pp. 37–38. 16 Idem, “Aramaic and Comparative Semitic,” Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies, VI, ed. R. A. Brauner and N. M. Waldman (Philadelphia, 1977), 25–33. See esp. pp. 25–27. For comments, see below, n. 33. 17 For the verbs saÉ§ru and àe’û, which often are paired together, see M. Held, “Two Philological Notes on Enåma Elià,” Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler, AOAT 25 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976), 233. 18 E. Ebeling, Die akkadische Gebetsserie “Handerhebung” von neuem gesammelt und herausgeben (Berlin, 1953), 30:7 (=Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, ed. L. W. King [London, 1896], 4:29). 19 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 262:27.


185

àa Sin àar ilÊ sissiktaàu aßbatma, “I grasped the hem of Sin, king of the gods (night and day).”20

Although many more citations can be quoted,21 one more will suffice: aààum sissikti Marduk b¿lija ßabt§kuma Marduk b¿lÊ jâti irammannima, “Because I grasped the hem of Marduk, Marduk, my lord, loves me.”22

This concept of allegiance and attachment to a god or a king can be further substantiated by the parallel Akkadian expressions qannam ßab§tu, “to grasp the hem,” and qaran ßub§ti ßab§tu, “to grasp the hem of a garment”:23 kurbi ana RN ß§bit qanniki, “(Ishtar), pronounce your blessings over Sargon who grasps your hem.”24 iàtu åmim àa qaran ßub§tija ißbatu matima ina m§tiàu25 kaspam… mimma ul alqut, “Ever since he grasped the hem of my garment [i.e., gave me his allegiance], I have never exacted any silver (cattle, sheep, or barley) from his country.”26 ana qabê m§tija qaran ßub§t b¿lija aßbat b¿lÊ q§tÊ la inappaß,27 “At the request of my land, I grasped the hem of my lord’s garment. May my lord not reject me.”28 20 C. J. Gadd, “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus,” AnSt 8 (1958), 46.i:17; cf. also 46.i:12; 48.ii:23. 21 See CAD, S, 324, d, which also translates the expression “referring to the hem of the god’s garment” as “a gesture of confidence and allegiance.” 22 S. K. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 110.iii:25 and 142.ii:7. 23 See CAD, Q, 84, c, from where the quotes are taken. For a thorough study of these terms, see M. Malul, “ ‘Sissiktu’ and ‘Sikku’—Their Meaning and Function,” BiOr 43 (1986), 19–35; idem, “Studies in Biblical Legal Symbolism—A Discussion of the Terms kanaph, Èéq, and Èoßen/Èeßen, Their Meaning and Legal Usage in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” Shnaton 9 (1985), 191–210 (Hebrew); idem, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, AOAT 221 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1988), 286–309, 420–422. According to Malul, qannu/qarnu ßub§ti is not the “hem of a garment” but rather the “horn-corner of a garment”; and sissiktu/sikku refers to an “undergarment covering one’s private parts.” He also discusses sÊqu, especially in the personal name Uk§l-sÊqi-Aààur, “I am/he is holding the sÊqu of Assur.” For sikku, see also CAD, S, 254–255; and for sÊqu, ibid., 305. 24 J. A. Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, I (Leipzig, 1895), 54, iv:18. 25 Note the paronomasia of matima and m§tÊàu. 26 The citation is taken from the Shemshara letter quoted in In Memoriam Eckhard Unger: Beiträge zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion der Alten Orients, ed. M. Lurker (BadenBaden, 1971), 191:25. 27 For the idiom q§tam nap§ßum, “to refuse, reject, push back,” see CAD, N/I, 286. 28 J.-R. Kupper, Correspondance de BaÉdi-Lim, préfet du palais de Mari, ARM 6 (Paris, 1954), 42, 26:r. 8´–9´.

186

the bible and the ancient near east àumma qaran ßub§t RN uwaààaruma qaran ßub§t àarrim àanim ißabbatu ina §l§ni u eperÊ it[taßß]i, “If he lets go of the hem of Abban’s garment and takes hold of the hem of another king’s garment (i.e., exchanges his allegiance), he for[feits] his cities and territories.”29

And one more felicitous quote: ßabt§kuma kî tÊri ina qannika, “I am attached to your hem like a courtier (i.e., loyal as a dog).”30

This same meaning applies to the Old Aramaic expression, ‫אחז‬ ‫בכנף‬.31 In the inscription from Zenjirli which Bar-Rakib erected to his father, Panammuwa II, the son remarks upon the loyalty of his father to Tiglath-pileser III:32 [‫פי אחז בכנף מראה מלך אשׁור ר]ב‬, “And he grasped the hem of his lord, the [gre]at king of Assyria.”33

In conclusion, the expression in Zech 8:23 fits very well into the same context as the above and refers accordingly to a symbolic gesture of loyalty.34

29

D. J. Wiseman, “Abban and Alalah,” JCS 12 (1958), 126:47–48. Ebeling, Handerhebung, 92:9–10. 31 Cited by Brauner, “ ‘To Grasp the Hem’,” 38. 32 KAI, I, 40, 215:11; idem, KAI, II, 227, note to line 11, refer to this as an “Ausdruck des Vasallenverhältnisses.” Cf. also B. Landsberger, Sam’al (Ankara, 1948), 69 n. 178, “Anhänglichkeit an die Gottheit”; and C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest (= DISO) (Leiden, 1965), 10, entry 2, under ‫אחז‬, “il s’est soumis à son seigneur, il s’est mis sous la protection de son seigneur.” The inscription is written in Samalian Aramaic. See J. C. Greenfield, “The Dialects of Early Aramaic,” JNES 37 (1978), 94 (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, I (Jerusalem, 2001), 161. 33 The expression “to take hold of the hem of a garment” also has specific legal connotations in Mesopotamian texts. See CAD, S, 17, 2´, A. So, too, sikka ßab§tu, “to grasp the hem.” See Malul, “Studies in Biblical Legal Symbolism.” See also CAD, S, 254–255. For qaran ßub§ti ßab§tu, see CAD, Q, 83, b, 1´. (Thus, n. 1 on p. 31 of Brauner’s “Aramaic and Comparative Semitic” should be made more explicit. The idiom sikka ßab§tu is not the same as the others discussed in this article. For its legal significance, see also H. Petschow, “Gewand(saum) im Recht,” RLA, III [Berlin and New York, 1957–71], 320–321.) For its appearance in prayers and royal inscriptions, see W. Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen ‘Gebetsbeschwörungen’, Studia Pohl: Series Maior 5 (Rome, 1976), 147–149; and M.-J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris, 1967), 327 n. 330. 34 The interpretation of the Aramaic expression ‫ אחד בכפני לבשׁך‬in Ahiqar 77: 171–172 still remains to be solved. Though it definitely should not be forced to comply with the meanings discussed above in this article, contra Brauner (“Aramaic and Comparative Semitic,” 26), there still remain two possible options. J. M. Lin30


187

3. Song of Songs 8:2: A Sexual-Textual Nuance The poetic ambiguity of the verb ‫ ְתּ ַל ְמּ ֵדנִ י‬in Song of Songs 8:2 has baffled commentators in regard to both its referent and the exact nuance of its meaning. The verbal form may be interpreted grammatically either as a third-person feminine singular, referring to the young woman’s mother just previously mentioned in the verse—“I would lead you, I would bring you to the house of my mother; she will teach me”—or it may be understood as a second-person masculine singular, referring to her lover whom she arduously and avidly addresses in vv. 1–2a—“If only you were my own true brother that sucked my mother’s breast, then I could kiss you when I met you in the street…. I would bring you to the house of my mother; you will teach me.” An additional problem is presented by LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta, which, instead of rendering the verb ‫תּ ַל ְמּ ֵדנִ י‬, ְ all reflect the Hebrew clause, ‫ואל חדר הורתי‬, “and to the room of she who bore

denberger (The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar [Baltimore and London, 1983], 174–175), following J. Halévy (“Les nouveaux papyrus d’Eléphantine,” RevSém 20 [1912], 75), opts for a legal context, i.e., taking the garment and holding it as a pledge. This approach has been duly criticized by J. C. Greenfield (“Two Proverbs of Ahiqar,” Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller [Atlanta, 1990], 195–201 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, I, 313–319), who, in the course of his study of this idiom in Ahiqar, concludes that this “familiar expression” is employed there “in a neutral manner, that is, without necessarily implying any of its current meanings.” He interprets the lines to mean “that if a wicked man tries to get control of your possessions, do not wrangle with him, but turn to Shamash, the god of justice” (p. 198 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, op. cit., 316). It is interesting to note that the same sequence of grabbing one’s garment and then leaving it behind in the hands of the person who grabbed it is found both in Ahiqar, ‫ שׁבק בידה‬...‫ יאחד בכנפי לבשׁך‬and in Gen 39:12, ‫ותתפשׂהו‬ ‫ ויעזב בגדו בידה‬...‫( בבגדו‬note the Aramaic Targum’s translation, ‫ואחדתה בלבושׁה ושׁבקה‬ ‫ללבושׁה בידה‬, where the exact same two verbs appear as in Ahiqar, ‫ שׁבק ביד‬,‫אחד‬, within, of course, entirely different contexts). The Ugaritic example cited by Brauner (“Aramaic and Comparative Semitic,” 26, from KTU 2 1.6.II:9–11) has also been noted by E. L. Greenstein, “ ‘To Grasp the Hem’ in Ugaritic Literature,” VT 32 (1982), 217–218: tiÉd·m[t] bsin·lpà·tàßq[nh] bqß·all, “She (Anat) grabs Mot by the hem of (his) garment, holds [him] tight by the edge of (his) robe.” (For Ugar. s’n and its Akkadian etymological equivalent, sånu, see Malul, “ ‘Sissiktu’ and ‘Sikku’,” 24 n. 25, 26 n. 43.) Though Greenstein does not cite Brauner, they both conclude that this is a gesture of supplication. See already T. H. Gaster, Thespis, 2nd ed. (New York, 1961), 220, note. However, in the light of the continuation of this tablet, it becomes obvious that Anat is threatening Mot and not supplicating him. So, too, Greenfield, “Two Proverbs of Ahiqar,” 197 n. 12 (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, op. cit., 315 n. 12); and Malul, “Studies in Biblical Legal Symbolism,” 207.

188


me,” thus harmonizing this verse with the similar one found in 3:4. Partially relying on these ancient versions, several exegetes are prone to emend the verb to ‫ ֵתּ ְל ֵדנִ י‬35 or ‫יְ ָל ָד ְתנִ י‬,36 “who bore me” (cf. 6:9; 8: 5). Pope, who accepts the emendation ‫תלדני‬, further assumes “that a parallel to 8:2a is missing,” and restores a conjectured stich, “to the chamber of she who bore me” (obviously influenced by, but not citing, the versions).37 Gordis, on the other hand, cleverly conjectures that maybe ‫ תלמדני‬was written by a scribe who mistook the substantive ‫( הורתי‬3:4) as being derived from the root ‫ירי‬, “to teach,” rather than from ‫הרי‬, “to bear,” and “then incorporated his erroneous synonym into the text.”38 However, once the sexual-textual nuance of the verb ‫ למד‬is correctly understood within the sensuous context of the text, all the above become superfluous.39 Gerleman was on the right track when he observed, “Der Zusammenhang lässt ahnen, dass ‘lehren’ hier einen erotischen Hintersinn hat.”40 Although his reference to the problematical verse in Jer 13:21 is extremely dubious, and his alleged Egyptian parallel from the Turin papyrus has been contested by Keel (who nevertheless supports the erotic interpretation),41 his insight can now be corroborated by resort to Akkadian. In both Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian texts, the verb lam§du (the interdialectal etymological and semantic cognate of Heb. ‫ )למד‬also has the meaning, “to know sexually.”42 Cf., for example, the LH 154:69, “If a man should have intercourse (iltamad)

35

G. Kuhn, Erklärung des Hohen Liedes (Leipzig, 1926), 50–51; W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohelied, Die Klagelieder, KAT 17.1–3 (Gütersloh, 1962), 178; E. Wurthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth: Ruth, Das Hohelied, Esther, HAT 18 (Tübingen, 1969), 66. 36 A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, VII (Leipzig, 1914), 17. 37 M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7 C (Garden City, NY, 1977), 653, 659. M. V. Fox (The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs [Madison, 1985], 166), on the other hand, cites the versions and also favors restoring the phrase here. 38 R. Gordis, The Songs of Songs and Lamentations (New York, 1974), 98. 39 Compare also the suggestion of J. N. Epstein to interpret the verb from one of the meanings of this root in Mishnaic Hebrew and Syriac, “to join,” in Introduction to Tannaitic Literature, ed. E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957), 474 (Hebrew). 40 G. Gerleman, Ruth, Das Hohelied, BKAT 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965), 212. He attaches this verb to the following clause, interpreting it “als Vordersatz eines Bedingungssatzes: wenn du mich ‘lehrst’, werde ich dir zu trinken geben” (pp. 212–213). 41 O. Keel, Das Hohelied, Zürcher Bibelkommentar AT 18 (Zurich, 1986), 240 and n. 165 (= The Song of Songs, Continental Commentary [Minneapolis, 1994], 234). 42 Compare similarly both Heb. ‫ ידע‬and Akk. idû. For the latter, see CAD, I/J, 28.


189

with his daughter….”; LH 155:75, “If a man selects a bride for his son, and his son has intercourse with her (m§ruàu ilmassi)….” (cf. also LH 156:6).43 Thus, the fantasizing wishes of the young female to be “taught” by her lover,44 to whom she will respond in kind by offering her own erotic mixtures of libations (see the continuation of this verse),45 turn out to be none other than a “lesson” in the discourse of intercourse.46 4. Daniel 9:27: A Reflex of Legal Terminology In an article pertaining to Dan 6:8, it was shown that ‫ְל ַת ָקּ ָפה ֱא ָסר‬ ְ was an Aramaic reflex of Assyrian legal terminology.47 Aram. ‫ל ַת ָקּ ָפה‬, the pa‘el infinitive of ‫תקף‬, is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of the Assyrian verb dunnunu. This verb evinces a semantic development similar to its nominal form, dannatu (cf., too, Aram. ‫דנת‬, which is a loan translation), which, from its basic root meaning, “strength,” comes to mean a “legitimate, valid, binding document” (so, too, its Nabatean calque, ‫תקף‬, which helps explain, in turn, Heb. ‫ תּ ֶֹקף‬in Esth 9:29). The technical legal meaning of the verb dunnunu is attested as early as Old Assyrian, tuppåàu ludanninma, “Let him make his tablets binding,” and continues into neo-Assyrian times, e.g., adê ina muÉÉiàu issikunu udanninuni iàkununi, “And concerning whom he has made the treaty binding upon you.” The Aramaic expression ‫ תקפה אסר‬is none

43

For additional examples, see CAD, L, 55–56. Compare the Hebrew commentary to the Song of Songs written by an anonymous thirteenth-century French exegete whose work is brimful with penetrating and important insights into the understanding of the book. It was edited by H. J. Matthews, “An Anonymous Commentary on the Song of Songs,” Festschrift zum 80en Geburtstag Moritz Steinschneider’s (Leipzig, 1896), 164–185. Commenting on the meaning of ‫תלמדני‬, he adds a mere two words, ‫משׁפט החושׁקים‬, “the manner of lovers” (p. 83). 45 R. E. Murphy (The Song of Songs, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, 1990], 189) caught the nuance, but not the exact meaning, “… where he would ‘teach’ her to prepare for him a drink of wine and pomegranates [which]… must symbolize the delights of love….” 46 This would add, along with Heb ‫ = עלי‬Akk. elû, “to mount” (Gen 31:10, 12) and Heb. ‫ = ללכת אל‬Akk. ana… al§ku, “to have intercourse with,” yet another verb to the Biblical terminology for copulation. See S. M. Paul, “Two Cognate Semitic Terms for Mating and Copulation,” VT 32 (1982), 492–494 [125–127]. 47 See idem, “Daniel 6:8: An Aramaic Reflex of Assyrian Legal Terminology,” Biblica 65 (1984), 106–110 [139–144]. The quotations and documentation are all taken from that article. 44

190


other than the cognate equivalent of Assyrian riksa dunnunu, in which the nouns ‫ אסר‬and riksu represent terms for “obligatory bonds,” and the verbs ‫ תקף‬and dunnunu signify “ratification”—hence, “to make a document legally binding and valid.” It can be shown that yet another reflex of this idiom makes its appearance in the book of Daniel. At the very end of chap. 9, where the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes IV and his profanation of the Temple during the last “week of years” are being described to Daniel, v. 27 commences with the statement, “For one week he [i.e., Antiochus] will ‫ הגביר ברית‬with the many.” The exact nuance of this expression, however, has not been thoroughly understood. Heb. ‫הגביר‬48 is the cognate semantic equivalent of Akk. dunnunu and Aram. ‫ ַתּ ֵקּף‬49 and, in the present context of a ‫ברית‬, “covenant,” shares with them the legal meaning of “binding.”50 Thus, it should be translated, “He contracted a legally binding covenant with the many,” which apparently refers to the relationship between the Greek king and the Hellenizers of that period, as echoed in 1 Macc 1:11–14. 5. Hebrew ‫ ַמ ֲה ָלְך‬and Akkadian m§laku One of the many terms investigated in A. Hurvitz’s monograph on the linguistic relationship between Ezekiel and the Priestly source

Except for this occurrence, the hiph‘il of Heb. ‫ גבר‬appears elsewhere only in Ps 12:5, in an entirely different context. The Akkadian and Aramaic verbs appar in the D-form and pa‘el, respectively. 49 If one were to follow the intriguing suggestion of H. L. Ginsberg, that the Hebrew chapters of the second part of Daniel (8–12) are a translation from an Aramaic original, one might venture to suggest that the expression ‫ קים יתקף‬was the Vorlage of Heb. ‫הגביר ברית‬. For Aram. ‫ קים‬as the translation of Heb. ‫ברית‬, cf., e.g., Tg. Onq. to Gen 9:9, 11. Interestingly enough, R. H. Charles (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Oxford, 1929], ad loc.) actually made this exact same proposal, based on the double sense of ‫קים‬, “covenant” and “statute.” A. LaCocque (The Book of Daniel [Atlanta, 1979], 198), in turn, assumes that the latter was the intention of the author and concludes that Heb. ‫ ברית‬is “an erroneous but not a corrupt translation from the original Aramaic.” Since he did not recognize, however, the legal force of the verb, he was led to interpret the expression incorrectly as “proclaiming a harsh law against the multitude.” 50 There is, therefore, no need to resort to any of the many proposed emendations. For a listing, see J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh, 1964), 389. See J. J. Collins (Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, 1993], 357 n. 101), who accepts this interpretation. 48


191

was Heb. ‫מהלך‬.51 He clearly demonstrated that this late substantive52 replaces an earlier term, ‫דרך‬, in narrative descriptions (cf., e.g., Num 9:10; 11:31; 33:8 as contrasted to Jon 3:3, 4; Neh 2:6), is often present in post-Biblical sources (cf., e.g., m. Ma‘aá. ’. 5:2; m. Roà Haà. 1:9; t. Pes. 8:3), and is found at times in Targumic Aramaic as the translation for Heb. ‫( דרך‬cf., e.g., Tg. Onq. to Exod 3:18 and Deut 1:2). Its employment in Ezek 42:4, though also of late vintage, is to be separated, however, from the above, for in that verse it functions as a technical term, meaning “areaway, pathway.” What was not pointed out in Hurvitz’s study and has been generally overlooked in most modern commentaries is that Heb. ‫ מהלך‬is the etymological and semantic cognate equivalent of Akk. m§laku (both being derived from the verb “to go,” Akk. al§ku, Heb. ‫)הלך‬, which bears the identical meanings:53 1. For the usage in Ezek 42:4 pertaining to the Temple complex, compare the passage in a text from the time of Nebuchadrezzar, a contemporary of Ezekiel, “I improved greatly the way to the sanctuary and the pathway to the temple (m§lak bÊti).”54 Compare also the statement in one of Darius’s inscriptions, “A house which is situated in the pathway to the temple of M§r-bÊti (ina m§laka àa bÊt M§r bÊti).55 2. In Neh 2:6, when Nehemiah requests to be sent to Jerusalem in order to rebuild it, Axtaxerxes, the Persian king, asks, “How long will be ‫‘( מהלכך‬your trip’, ‘journey’, lit., ‘your going’) and when will you return?” Somewhat similar, Akk. m§laku also means “march, marching, advance, course,” lit., “one’s going.” Compare, “He saw from afar the advance (m§lak) of my campaign”;56 and “The enemy will intercept the course (m§lak) of my troops.”57 51 A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 20 (Paris, 1982), 91–94. 52 The substantive appears four times in the singular and once in the plural, Zech 3:7; the latter is not dealt with in this note. 53 See CAD, M/I, 158–159, from which all the citations are taken. See also Held (“Two Philological Notes in Enåma Elià,” 238), who notes the various usages of m§laku as a physical road or course, but does not make reference to its Biblical counterpart. 54 Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 128, iii:55; cf. also 158, vi:38. 55 J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Darius, König von Babylon (Leipzig, 1887), 378: 10, 33; cf. 378:1; 428:2. 56 F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon, TCL 3 (Paris, 1912), 82. 57 R. C. Thompson, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, CT 20 (London, 1904), 26:5.

192


3. The Akkadian noun, moreover, has the additional meaning of “distance,” which is expressed in units of time. Compare, “For a distance (m§lak) of one month and twenty-five days I devastated the provinces of Elam”;58 “Where lands are situated at a distance (m§lak) of seven days out in the middle of the Western Sea”;59 “There was a distance (m§lak) of one day between them.”60 This, of course, is identical to Jon 3:3–4, “Nineveh was an enormously large city, a three days’ walk (‫ )מהלך‬across. Jonah started out and made his way into the city the distance of one day’s walk (‫…)מהלך‬.” One further passage, though extremely problematical, may be considered in this connection. In Isaiah 35, the prophet rhapsodically proclaims the future deliverance of the people from exile. Through the desert, transformed into a fertile and well-watered land, there will run a “highway (‫ )מסלול ודרך‬which shall be called the ‘Sacred Way’.61 No one unclean shall pass along it; and it ‫( ”והוא למו הלך דרך‬v. 8). Driver has very plausibly suggested combining the letters of the two words ‫למו‬ ‫ הלך‬to read ‫למהלך דרך‬, “and it shall be a processional road.”62 This very same meaning is also attested in Akkadian: compare, “I stand up like a healthy tree at the gate of the processional roads (m§lak§ni)”;63 “At sunrise and sunset he (Marduk) placed the lum§àu-stars and granted them (?) a path (Éarr§nu m§la[ku(?)]”).64 The last two Akkadian words (if the proposed restoration is correct) would also be the exact equivalent, but in reverse order, of Heb. ‫מהלך דרך‬.

58

Streck, Assurbanipal, 56, vi:77; cf. 24, iii:2. D. G. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s, Königs von Assyrien (722–705 v. Chr.), Assyriologische Bibliothek 5 (Leipzig, 1883), 14:28. 60 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London, 1956), 72: rev. 19. 61 For highways bearing special names, cf. CAD, ›, 108. 62 G. R. Driver, “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,” L’ancien testament et l’orient, Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 1 (Louvain, 1957), 126. On such roads, see W. Andrae, Alte Feststrassen im Nahen Osten (Stuttgart, 1964). 63 O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets, I (London, 1957), 360: rev. 16. See K. Deller (“Neuassyrisches aus Sultantepe,” Or 34 [1965], 466), who also cites M. san Nicolò (Babylonische Rechtsurkunden [Munich, 1951], 43 n. 8) for this same meaning. 64 Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, I, 31:9, cited also in CAD, L, 245, meaning 2. See CAD, M/I, 158–159, meaning 3, for additional examples. 59


193

6. “To Throw” = “To Put On” Jewelry and Wearing Apparel One final lexical note is the interesting semantic development which occurs in several Semitic verbs whose basic meaning is “to throw” and then, by extension, “to put on” jewelry as well as other wearing apparel. (Cf. Eng. “to throw” > “to throw on” = to put on hastily, and German werfen [“to throw”], ich warf mich in meine Kleider, “I threw on my clothes.”) Only a few selected examples for each verb will be cited: 1. Akkadian, nadû: a. Several craftsmen wrapped in a ßibtu-garment and having put on (nadû) two belts”;65 b. “He placed on (iddi) her neck an irimmu-necklace”;66 c. “May the maninnu-necklace be placed around (nadi) my brother’s neck for a hundred thousand years”;67 d. “She (Ninsun) placed on (ittadi) the neck of Enkidu indujewelry.”68 2. Akkadian, ramû: a. “She is sumptuously arrayed; irimmu-jewelry is placed on (ramû) her head”;69 3. Akkadian, kar§ru: a. “You place around (takarrar) her shoulders (lit., ‘her neck’) a Éull§nu-garment”;70 b. “They cut the seal cylinders from their necks and put them on (ikterrå)”;71 c. “The king should wear these bandages around (likrur) his neck”;72 d. “You put it like a seal around (taktararàu) your neck”;73 4. Aramaic, ‫ =( רמי‬Akk. ramû): a. “(Rabbi Aqiba said to his wife, Rachel), ‘If I could only afford

65

CAD, N/I, 82, nadû, 2, 4´, where other examples are cited. Cf. also ibid., M/II, 46, m¿zeÉu, b). 66 Ibid., I/J, 117, irimmu; N/I, 82, 9´. 67 Ibid., N/I, 82, 9´. 68 Ibid., N/I; I/J, 110, imdu, 3. 69 Ibid., I/J, 177, irimmu. For other examples (though rare), see AHw, 952, ramû, II, 1). 70 CAD, K, 448, kià§du, 1; 208, kar§ru A, c), 1´. 71 Ibid., K, 448, 1´. 72 Ibid., K; M/II, 14, mêlu. 73 Ibid., K, 208.

194


it, I would attire you (‫ )רמינא‬with a Jerusalem of Gold’ ”;74 “Rabbah put on (‫ )רמי‬fine shoes for prayer, saying, ‘Prepare yourself to meet your God’ [Amos 4:12].”75 5. Ugaritic, ndy: a. The Ugaritic evidence is ambiguous. The corresponding verb ndy appears four (and most likely five) times in KTU2 1.17.I:4, 5, 14, 15, where it describes, however, the “taking off” of a garment. b.

74 b. Ned. 50a. For the mural crown called “Jerusalem of Gold,” see S. M. Paul, “Jerusalem—A City of Gold,” IEJ 17 (1967), 259–263; idem, “Jerusalem of Gold—A Song and an Ancient Crown,” BAR 3 (1977), 38–41; idem, “Jerusalem of Gold—Revisited,” “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (Ps 28:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN, 2005) [333–342]. 75 b. ’ab. 10a.

decoding a ‘joint’ expression in daniel 5:6, 16

195

DECODING A “JOINT” EXPRESSION IN DANIEL 5:6, 16* In his classic study on dreams and their interpretation, Oppenheim states that “ominous phenomena… are considered warnings issued by the gods to those who observe and understand them.”1 These divine omina, which may be meant for a king, country, city, or any ordinary individual, may, if they presage ill tidings, be circumvented by specified apotropaic rituals. In one recorded instance, in a “typical vaticinatio post eventum,” the divine will is revealed in a warning dream to King Assurbanipal by means of writing appearing on the pedestal of an image of Sin, the moon god.2 Similarly, though not in a dream but rather in a waking state, King Belshazzar received a supernatural forewarning in writing when “the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace opposite the lampstand”3 (Dan 5:5). Upon witnessing this ominous revelation, and realizing that “once the moving finger having writ…,” the king becomes panic-stricken and, in great alarm, summons his coterie of mantic professionals4 to read and “decipher” the written omen, promising them attractive perquisites for a successful decipherment (v. 7). His trepidation and perturbation are described in the familiar imagery of a person’s reaction upon receiving foreboding alarming news. This well-attested literary convention has been discussed briefly by Hillers.5 His lead text was drawn from the Baal epic,6 where it is

* ‫ והיו ערבים‬...‫ליוחנן—היושב וחורז בדברי תורה ומתורה לנביאים ומנביאים לכתובים‬ (‫ י‬,‫כעיקר נתינתם )שהש"ר א‬ 1 A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia, 1956), 239. 2 Ibid., 201–202, 249–250. 3 For a discussion of the etymology of ‫תּא‬ ָ ‫ֶב ַר ְשׁ‬ ְ ‫נ‬, “lampstand” (Persian or Akkadian), see A. R. Millard, “The Etymology of Nebraàt§, Daneil 5:5,” Maarav 4 (1987), 87–92. 4 See H.-P. Müller, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptic,” Congress Volume: Uppsala 1971, SVT 22 (Leiden, 1972), 268–293; and the remarks of M. Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford, 1989], 455, 512) on mantic wisdom and oneiromantic services in royal courts. 5 D. R. Hillers, “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News,” ZAW 77 (1965), 86–89. 6 KTU2 1.3.III:32–35.

196


reported that the goddess Anat, being full of dread at the approach of Baal’s messengers, panicked: “Her feet [shake] (p‘nm tãã).7 Behind, her tendons [snap] (b‘adn·ksl 8 ttbr); [above,] her face sweats (‘ln·pnh td‘). Bent are the [joints of her sin]ews (tÇß·[pnt ks]lh); weakened are those [i.e., tendons] of [her] back (anà·dt·írh).” Though Hillers9 cited other similar examples from both Ugaritic10 and Biblical literature (but not from Daniel), as well as from the Hodayot scroll from Qumran, evidence for such a literary topos of physiological reactions to fear and anxiety could also have been brought from Mesopotamian sources. Compare, for example, Esarhaddon’s statement in his famous “Gottesbrief”:11 “(When) he [the king] heard my [Esarhaddon’s] royal message, which burns the enemies like a flame (àû naàparti àarråtija àa kÊma nabli iqammû aj§bi iàm¿ma), his hips collapsed (qabalàu12 imqussuma), his heart was seized (by fear) (libbaàu ßabitma),13 his legs trembled (itarura iàd§àu)… his countenance looked bad (zÊmåàu ulamminma).” Returning to Daniel, Belshazzar, overwhelmed by anxiety upon witnessing this esoteric writing, exhibits bodily symptoms characteristic of extreme fear and trembling (compare also vv. 8, 10), which are listed succinctly in descending corporeal order. First it is reported that ‫נוֹהי‬ ִ ‫יוֹהי ְשׁ‬ ִ ‫ז‬,ִ 14 an expression which occurs three more times in 7 Ugar. nãã = Heb. ‫( נוט‬an example of the well-known interchange of medial waw and double ‘ayin verbs). Cf. Ps 99:1, where the verbs ‫ נוט‬and ‫ רגז‬appear in parallel cola. 8 For Ugar. ksl = Akk. kislu = Heb. ‫סל‬ ֶ ‫כּ‬, ֶ “sinew, tendon,” see M. Held, “Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, AS 16 (Chicago, 1965), 401–406. 9 Hillers, “Convention.” 10 For Ugaritic, Held (“Studies,” 405 nn. 135–136) cites earlier studies of Cassuto and Ginsberg. 11 R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddon Königs von Assyrien (Graz, 1956), 102, II, i: 1–4. 12 Ibid., following the suggested emendation of T. Bauer (Akkadische Lesestücke [Rome, 1953], 2:55), weighs the possibility of reading Éaããu. However, in light of the use of the verb maq§tu, “to collapse,” in connection with various other parts of the body (see CAD, M/I, 245), the expression “collapsing of the hips” as one of the physiological reactions to fear is perfectly in order. For the employment of Heb. ‫נפל‬ (= Akk. maq§tu) with a limb of the body (Heb. ‫ָרְך‬ ֵ ‫י‬, “thigh”) in a different context, see Num 5:21–22, 27. 13 CAD, &, 7, translates: “His insides were affected.” Cf. also the medical expression ßibit libbi, “seizure of the belly (probably referring to an intestinal disorder),” ibid., 164. The use of the verb ßab§tu, “to seize,” with libbu may be a cleverly veiled paronomasia, since a certain disease called li’bu (see CAD, L, 181) often appears in conjunction with this verb—li’bu ßab§tu, “being seized by the li’bu disease.” 14 Many commentators read ‫ֲלוֹהי‬ ִ ‫שׁנוֹ ע‬. ְ


197

the book: 5:9, ‫ֲלוֹהי‬ ִ ‫יוֹהי ָשׁנַיִ ן ע‬ ִ ‫ ;וְ ִז‬5:10, ‫יִ ְשׁ ַתּנּוֹ‬-‫ ;וְ ִזיוָיְך אַל‬7:28, ‫וְ ִזיוַי יִ ְשׁ ַתּנּוֹן‬ ‫ֲלי‬ ַ ‫ע‬.15 Aram. ‫ ִזיו‬is a loanword from Akk. zÊmu, “appearance, looks, countenance, luster,”16 which appears together with several verbs signifying a “changed countenance.” Especially to be noted is the use of the Akkadian verb ewû, “to change,” which is the exact semantic equivalent of Aram ‫שני‬.17 Compare in the àaf‘el: namråtum zÊmåka ukkulià tuà¿ma, “You have changed your beaming appearance into a somber one.”18 And [Ên§àu pard]â zÊmåàu àunnâ, “[His eyes are frighten]ed, his

15 M. Gruber (Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, Studia Pohl 12/1–2 [Rome, 1980], I, 358–365), in his discussion of a “gloomy face” as characteristic of depression or sadness, makes reference (364–365 n. 1) to ‫ ר ַֹע ָפּנִ ים‬in Eccles 7:3 and ‫ ָפּנִ ים ָר ִעים‬in Gen 40:7; Neh 2:2, “badness of face/the face is bad,” which indicates sadness and dejection. Further corroboration for this meaning may be found in the very same verse (Neh 2:2): “The king said to me, ‘How is it that you look bad (‫פּנֶיָך ָר ִעים‬, ָ i.e., depressed and dejected) though you are not ill? It must be bad thoughts (‫’…)ר ַֹע ֵלב‬.” Thus, a “bad = sad mien” means that one is either sick or harbors ill thoughts. For one’s inner disposition being reflected externally on one’s facial expression, see also below. Nehemiah then explains the reason for his severe depression (v. 3): “How should I not look so dejected (‫ֵרעוּ ָפנַי‬ ְ ‫)י‬, since….” It should be noted that the Akkadian interdialectal equivalent of Heb. ‫הרע פנים‬, zÊmu lem¿nu/lummunu, also refers to “making someone look or feel bad.” Cf., e.g., ana ir¿à à¿ri u àikari r¿àtî lummunu zÊmåàu, “His looks are emaciated (i.e., he looks terribly bad) with craving for meat and fine beer”; O. R. Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets (continued): The Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur,” AnSt 6 (1956), 150:8. For panå lemnu = Heb. ‫פּנִ ים ָר ִעים‬, ָ cf. maàÉultuppû àa panåàu lemnu, “The scapegoat whose face/ appearance is bad/unlucky/evil”; G. Meier, “Die zweite Tafel der Serie bÊt m¿seri,” AfO 14 (1942), 146:19. For Heb. ‫רֹע ֵלב‬/‫הרע ֵלב‬, “be sad,” Deut 15:10; 1 Sam 1:8; Neh 2:2, compare its Akkadian semantic equivalent, libbu lem¿nu, which also carries the nuance of “becoming depressed”; e.g., nÊà libbiàu eãir libbiàu iltenemmin, “His libido is gone (and) he becomes depressed again and again”; F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen (= BAM) (Berlin, 1964), III, 319:4. 16 For Akk. zÊmu, see CAD, Z, 119–122; S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, AS 19 (Chicago, 1974), 113. Since both zÊmu and ‫ ִזיו‬also mean “luster,” there is no reason to assume, contra Gruber (Aspects, II, 577 n. 2), that in the description of the enormous statue seen by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream that (‫ַתּיר‬ ִ ‫( ִזיוֵהּ )י‬Dan 2:31) “corresponds to Akk. melammu, “aura, glow, splendor.” Aram. ‫ַתּיר‬ ִ ‫ ִזיוֵהּ י‬means its “brightness/splendor was surpassing.” Compare similarly kÊma åmu immeru zÊmåàu m§dià, “(When Marduk heard this), brightly glowed his features like the day”; Enuma Elià VI:56. Akk. zÊmåàu m§dià corresponds semantically to Aram. ‫ַתּיר‬ ִ ‫זיוֵהּ י‬.ִ For zÊmå in connection with gods and stars, see CAD, Z, 119–120. In Aramaic, one’s changed countenance “returns” to normal, ‫( ָתּב ִזיב‬Dan 4:33). 17 Gruber (Aspects, I, 358–362) discusses this expression, citing some cognate semantic equivalents: Akk. zÊmu nak§ru; Heb. ‫ ;שנה פנים‬Ugar. ‘tq bbt/ap. 18 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) ((Oxford, 1967), 70:15 (“Theodicy”).

198


countenance changed.”19 The same Aramaic expression appears in Tg. Onq. to Deut 34:7, where Heb. ‫ וְ ֹלא נָס ֵלחֹה‬is interpreted as ‫וְ ָלא‬ ‫אַפּוֹהי‬ ִ ‫שׁנָא ִזיו יְ ָק ָרא ְד‬. ְ The Hebrew interdialectal cognate equivalent, ‫שנ"י פנים‬, appears in Job 14:20: “You overpower him forever and he perishes. His face is altered (‫)מ ַשׁנֶּה ָפנָיו‬ ְ 20 and you dispatch him.” And, once again, in the riddle of Eccles 8:1: “Who here is wise [dividing and revocalizing ‫ ְכּ ֶה ָח ָכם‬as ‫כֹּה ָח ָכם‬, per Ginsberg21], and who knows the meaning of the adage: ‘A man’s wisdom22 lights up his face, but anger23 changes his face’” (revocalizing as a pi‘el verb, as in the Vulgate, ‫יְ ַשׁנֶּא ָפּנָיו‬, contra Masoretic pu‘al, ‫)יְ ֻשׁנֶּה‬.24 Compare, too, Ben Sira 12:18, who states that when misfortune befalls someone, a false friend makes all types of obscene gestures of contempt: “Then he will nod his head and shake his fist and hiss repeatedly, and show his true face” (lit., “change his face,” ‫)יְ ַשׁנֶּה ָפנִ ים‬.25 That one’s inner disposition is reflected externally in one’s facial appearance is also commented upon by that same sage in 13:25: “The heart of a person changes his looks either

19 O.R. Gurney, P. Hulin, and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets (London, 1957), I, 24:6´. 20 Most commentaries and translations emend the participle to the second person singular, ‫תּ ַשׁנֶּה‬. ְ 21 H. L. Ginsberg, Koheleth (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, 1961), 104–105 (Hebrew). 22 Though Ginsberg emends ‫מת‬ ַ ‫ ָח ְכ‬to ‫ח ְדוַת‬, ֶ “joy,” this does not affect the idiom under discussion. In this verse as well, one’s inner disposition is reflected facially. 23 For Heb. ‫עֹז‬, “anger,” Ginsberg refers to Ezra 8:22. He is followed, in turn, by Y. Muffs (“Two Comparative Lexical Studies,” JANES 5 [1973] = T. H. Gaster Festschrift, 296–298), who relates it to Akk. ezzu, “anger, wrath.” 24 “Changes his face” means, in this instance, “makes his face sad and gloomy,” the exact antithesis of the first colon, ‫תּ ִאיר ָפּנָיו‬, ָ “makes his face shine and cheery” (cf. Ugar. nr pnm, “face shines” = Akk. panå nam§ru; CAD, N/I, 213–214. For the latter, cf., e.g., nak§ru, which means “to change (primarily for the worse)” and with facial expressions, “to have an unhealthy appearance”; ibid., 163. See also nukkuru with lamassu and bunnannû; ibid., 169. However, more to the point are the following verbs: ek¿lu/ukkulu (CAD, E, 64); er¿pu (ibid., 279); eãu/uããû (ibid., 412–413)—all basically meaning (with slightly different nuances), “to be dark” (see below, n. 29). To these may be added, on the one hand, nab§ãu/àunbuãu, “to shine brightly, become bright” (CAD, N/I, 22–24); and, on the other ad§ru, “to be worried, obscure, eclipsed, dark, sad” (CAD, A/I, 103–107); qat§ru/qutturu, “to become gloomy, dejected, dull, despondent” (CAD, Q, 166–168); cf. also aà§àu, “to become worried, disturbed” (CAD, A/II, 422–424)—all with references to facial expressions. 25 Cf., too, in Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫עדיין לא בא בני בזיוו שנשתנה מחליו‬, “My son has not yet recovered his bright looks which changed due to his illness” (Song of Songs Rab. 2:2).


199

for good or for evil.”26 (He then goes on to explicate in v. 26: “The sign of a good heart is a radiant look” [lit., “a shining face”]….”)27. A woman’s wickedness also makes itself noticeable by her countenance (25:17): “The wickedness of a woman blackens the appearance (‫ַשׁ ִחיר‬ ְ‫י‬ 28 ‫)מ ְר ֶאה‬ ַ of (her) husband, and it [her wickedness] darkens her face (‫ֶיה‬ ָ ‫ַק ִדּיר ָפּנ‬ ְ ‫ )וְ י‬like a bear” (according to the Hebrew text).29 The Greek translation, however, instead of “blackens the appearance,” renders a)lloioi= th_n o#asin a)uth~j, “(Wickedness) changes her looks,” reflecting Heb. ‫יְ ַשׁנֶּה ַמ ְר ֶא ָה‬.30 In yet another frightening experience, Daniel states (10:8): “So I was left alone to see this great vision. I was drained of my strength,”31 ‫ֶה ַפְּך ָע ַלי ְל ַמ ְשׁ ִחית‬ ְ ‫הוֹדי נ‬ ִ ְ‫—ו‬where ‫ֶה ַפְּך ָע ַלי‬ ְ ‫הוֹדי נ‬ ִ is none other than another Hebrew cognate equivalent of this very same expression. Ginsberg, as part and parcel of his interpretation that the Hebrew sections of the book are a translation of an Aramaic original, suggests that Heb. ‫הוֹדי‬ ִ ‫ֶה ַפְּך‬ ְ ‫ נ‬was actually a mistranslation of an original Aram. ‫זיוַי יִ ְשׁ ַתּנּוֹ‬,ִ for Aram. ‫( ִזיו‬as well as Akk. zÊmu, see above) means both “appearance” and “splendor.” The translator, however, erroneously opted for the

26

This verse is cited in Gen. Rab. 73:12 (end), in the name of Ben-Sira. The Hebrew text of v. 26b is problematic. For an interesting emendation, see Ginsberg, Koheleth, 105. 28 Most commentators, based on the Greek, a Hebrew ms., and the parallel colon, delete “(her) husband” and transfer the word to v. 18a. See P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City, NY, 1987), 346. 29 For the variant figurative expressions found in the versions, see ibid., 347. For cognate equivalents in Akkadian, panå ukkulå, bånu uããû, see Gruber, Aspects, I, 364. 30 The Syriac reads, “The wickedness of a woman turns her husband’s face green.” For the same expression in Hebrew, see Jer 30:6: ‫ֵרקוֹן‬ ָ ‫פּנִ ים ְלי‬-‫ל‬ ָ ‫ֶה ְפכוּ ָכ‬ ֶ ‫וְ נ‬, “All faces turned pale”—in consequence of fear. For the Akkadian interdialectal equivalent, panå ar§qu, “the face pales,” see CAD, A/II, 232, s.v. ar§qu, “to become green or yellow, to turn pale”; several of the cited examples are related to fear. These cognates were all overlooked in W. L. Holladay’s commentary to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, 1989], 150, 172). For the continued use of this idiom in Rabbinic Hebrew, cf. ‫מוֹריקוֹת‬ ִ ‫פנִ ים‬, ָ e.g., m. Soãah 3:4; Sifre Num. 8 (end); t. Soãah 3:3; and in Aramaic, cf. ‫אוֹריק‬, e.g., Tg. Jon. to Num 31:18; Tg. Jon. to Ps 113:9. For examples of the Hebrew verb ‫ הפך‬with colors (but not facial ones), see Lev 13: 16; 17:55. Compare also Dan 10:8. For other idioms of change of color in one’s countenance due to fear, see Isa 13:8; Joel 2:6; Nah 2:11. 31 The unusual term ‫מ ְשׁ ִחית‬ ַ was, according to Ginsberg, borrowed from Isa 52: 14, where the verbal term refers to the disfigured appearance of the Servant of the Lord. For the Akkadian semantic equivalent of destroying (‫ ְ)ל ַמ ְשׂ ִחית‬one’s features, cf. tu’abbiti bunnann¿a, “You have obliterated my features”; E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (= KAR), II, 226:5. 27

200


latter rather than the former.32 Note also the similar formulation in Jer 30:6: ‫ֵרקוֹן‬ ָ ‫פּנִ ים ְלי‬-‫ל‬ ָ ‫ֶה ְפכוּ ָכ‬ ֶ ‫וְ נ‬,33 where the verb ‫הפך‬, “to change,” is also employed in the nif‘al, with the particle ‫ ל‬referring to a change in countenance. This, in turn, should be compared to similar Akkadian expressions employing the verb àupêlu, “to change”;34 e.g., bunnannê àupêlu: “You [the Lamaàtu demon] make the face pale (zÊmu turraqi), you bring about a change in face” (bunnannê tuàpelli).35 So, too, the verb nak§ru, in the expression panå/zÊmu nak§ru, “to change (for the worse) one’s appearance, to have an unhealthy appearance, to look bad”;36 e.g., ina la m§kalê zÊmåa itta[kru], “Through a lack of food my countenance looks b[ad]”;37 àumma §littu panåàa ikkiru, “If a pregnant woman looks unhealthy.”38 Though there are obviously many reasons for one’s “countenance to change,” in all of the passages cited above from Daniel the direct cause is a frightening supernatural experience bringing on fear and trembling. The overwhelming “terrible” effect is further described in the continuation of the verse, Dan 5:6. The king not only had a change of face, i.e., blanched, but, in addition, “his thoughts terrified him39… and his knees knocked together.”40 This description is heightened by the Aramaic clause appearing between these two phrases: ‫וְ ִק ְט ֵרי ַח ְר ֵצהּ‬ ‫מ ְשׁ ָתּ ַריִ ן‬, ִ “the joints of his loins41 were loosened.”42 (The reason for 32 See H. L. Ginsberg (Studies in Daniel [New York, 1948], 41), who also credits F. Zimmermann, in the latter’s articles which appeared in JBL 57 (1938), 258–72; 58 (1939), 349–54. 33 See above, n. 30. 34 See AHw, 1279–1280; CAD, ’/III, 322. For a discussion of the verb, see E. A. Speiser, “The ‘Elative’ in West-Semitic and Akkadian,” JCS 6 (1952), 81–92; reprinted in Oriental and Biblical Studies, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (Philadelphia, 1967), 465–493. The pertinent remarks are found on pp. 487–490. 35 See CAD, B, 318. 36 Ibid., N/I, 163. 37 Lambert, BWL, 44:91 (Ludlul). 38 R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics medicaux (= TDP) (Leiden, 1951), 206:77. 39 See also vv. 9–10. 40 For the “buckling” of the knees as a sign of extreme fright, cf. Nah 2:11, where three of the same body parts, similar to those in Daniel, are also said to be severely affected: knees, loins, and face. For loins, see also Isa 21:13; Ezek 21:11; Ps 69:24. 41 Cf. Ugar. pnt ksl, cited above. For ‫ קטר‬meaning “joint,” see also y. Ma‘aá. 4, 51b, “the joints of his fingers.” 4QDana has a phonetic variant, ‫חלצה‬, for MT ‫חרצה‬. See E. Ulrich et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XI, DJD 16 (Oxford, 2000), 247. 42 It would appear that the same Aramaic expression is present in Tg. Jon. to Gen 50:11, ‫קטרי חרצהון אשתריין‬. However, the noun there should not be read ‫ק ְט ִרין‬, ִ


201

the selection of this specific wording will be explained below.) Such a physiological phenomenon is also attested and expressed in Akkadian texts by the interdialectal cognate equivalents of Aram. ‫ק ְט ִרין ִמ ְשׁ ָתּ ַריִ ן‬, ִ Akk. kaslå (plural) and rikså (plural) puããuru.43 Aram. ‫ ִק ְט ִרין‬as well as Akk. rikså literally mean that which is “bound, knotted together.” The former refers to “joints”; the latter, as well as kaslå, designates “sinews, tendons”; cf. Ugar. ksl, above. Akk. paã§ru/puããuru,44 on the other hand, is the semantic cognate of Aram. ‫שרי‬, “to loosen, untie.”45 For kaslå, compare: “If a… baby’s sinews from its neck to its backbone are loosened (kaslåàu puããurå), it will die.”46 The other phrase can be documented from the description of the anguished sufferer who, in his tormented outburst due to his manifold agonies, adds: “Through twisting, my sinews are loosened” (puããurå riksåa).47 Why this highly specific picturesque imagery? The clue to this “knot” can be unraveled further on in the text itself. The author reports that all the king’s men and all the king’s … magicians, exorcists, diviners, astrologers, and other sundry sages were unable to supply the king with either the correct reading or interpretation of the handwriting on the wall. In the midst of this perplexing and frustrating quandary, the queen (or queen mother) comes to the rescue.48 She reminds him “knots,” i.e., “joints,” but rather ‫טוֹרין‬ ִ ‫ק‬, ְ “knots,” i.e., “band, belt.” (For ‫טוֹרא‬ ָ ‫ק‬, ָ see also, e.g., Tg. Jon. to Deut 18:4.) The “loosening of the waist bands” is a symbolic gesture of participation in mourning. Its Hebrew equivalent, which influenced the Targum, ‫ֵיהם ִה ִתּירוּ‬ ֶ ‫זוֹרי ָמ ְתנ‬ ֵ ‫א‬, ֲ is cited on this verse in Gen. Rab. 100:6; see also ibid., 90:7. In many editions of the Targum, the verb ‫ שׁרי‬has been graphically misprinted as ‫שׁדי‬. For various manuscript readings and references, see D. Rieder, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Torah (Jerusalem, 1984), I, 100 (Hebrew). However, the identical expression does appear in Targum Sheni to Esth 6:10 (not cited by Rieder), where the text is a conflate of various physiological symptoms, several of them directly adapted from Daniel: ‫ורעֲיוֹנוֹי‬ ַ (was twisted, distorted) ‫וּפוּמי ִא ְס ְתּ ִליף וְ ַק ְט ֵרי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִזיוֵי ִא ְשׁ ְתּנֵי וְ ֵעינוֹי ִא ְת ַח ְשׁ ָכה‬ ‫ַק ָשׁן‬ ְ ‫כּוּב ֵתיהּ ָדּא ְל ָדּא נ‬ ָ ‫אַר‬ ְ ְ‫ישׁ ַתּ ְריָין ו‬ ְ ‫( ַח ְר ֵציהּ ִא‬were confused, perplexed) ‫ִא ְשׁ ְתּ ִגישׁו‬ 43 See Held, “Studies,” 402–403. 44 For the multiple usages of paã§ru/puããuru, see AHw, 849–851. 45 Contrast Dan 3:24, ‫מ ַכ ְפּ ִתין‬, ְ “bound,” to 3:25, ‫שׁ ַריִ ן‬, ְ “untied, released.” For Aram. ‫שׁרי‬, “to release from a spell,” see also y. Mo‘ed Qaã. 3, 81d; y. Sanh. 7, 25d. 46 Held, “Studies,” 403. See also CAD, K, 425: “If a baby has spina bifida (lit., its transverse processes are open from its neck to its spine), it will die.” The medical text is found in Labat, TDP, 222:41. Compare also meàrêtu lipteããira lirmû àer§ni, “Let the limbs loosen up, the sinews slacken”; Köcher, BAM, 248, ii:53, 66. 47 Lambert, BWL, 44:104 (Ludlul). 48 For the explanation of the initial absence of the queen (and Vashti as well in the book of Esther) at this time of the festivity, see E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible (New York, 1967), 185–186. For the interpretation “queen mother,” see J. J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1993), 248.

202


that during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, his father, there was “a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him” (v. 11). Since Daniel possessed such “extraordinary spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams (‫)מ ַפ ַשּׁר ֶח ְל ִמין‬, ְ 49 to explain riddles,50 and ‫”מ ָשׁ ֵרא ִק ְט ִרין‬ ְ (v. 12), he was appointed then to be in charge of all the other mantics who served in the royal court. Therefore, she advised Belshazzar to summon him for consultation. The king, after a bit of appropriate royal flattery, accompanied by promises of gifts galore and a substantial promotion, requests Daniel ‫ ִפּ ְשׁ ִרין ְל ִמ ְפ ַשׁר‬and ‫( ִק ְט ִרין ְל ִמ ְשׁ ֵרא‬v. 16). The first expression has been definitively clarified by Oppenheim, in his study of its Akkadian etymological and semantic equivalent, paà§ru, meaning “to release, remove, dispose of, relax, loosen, solve.”51 Thus, it is very similar in meaning to the verb paã§ru/puããuru. The second phrase, moreover, is none other than the identical one employed above to describe the king’s panic. Here, however, in a very deft artistic play-on-expressions, it refers not to a physiological condition but rather to the mantic expertise of Daniel in “untying, unraveling, loosening knots.” This, in turn, has been interpreted in two ways. It may refer to Daniel’s skill and ability to loosen knots, i.e., break magical spells and charms, which is very common in magical texts and incantations, where the “knots” tied by the sorcerer (or his apprentice), to symbolically bind the intended victim, had to be untied by the appropriate counter-magic. Compare one of the two interdialectal expressions referred to above, kißrå paã§ru/ puããuru,52 which oft-times appears also in magical contexts;53 e.g., ana

49 Vocalize ‫שׁר‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ְפ‬and ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ֵרא‬as infinitives, rather than as participles according to MT. 50 See H.-P. Müller, “Der Begriffe ‘Ratsel’ im Alten Testament,” VT 20 (1970), 465–489, esp. 474–475. 51 Oppenheim, Interpretation, 217–220. “The interpreting is, therefore, a necessity, not performed primarily for the sake of establishing the content of the dream, but intended to rid (paà§ru) the ‘patient’ of the impact of the enigma…. The modern expert ana-lyses the dream which means, etymologically, he ‘dis-solves’ the dream; his Mesopotamian colleague ‘solves’ the dream” (p. 219). The verb is also used in connection with “dis-spelling” magic (kiàpu); see CAD, K, 456. 52 E. Reiner, ’urpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations, AfO Beiheft 11 (Graz, 1958), V–VI:183. For a study of the Akkadian verb kaß§ru and noun kißru, see N. M. Waldman, “Akkadian kaß§ru and Semantic Equivalents,” JNES 28 (1969), 250–254. For another reaction to fear—awestruck silence—see idem, “A Comparative Note on Exodus 15:14–16,” JQR 66 (1975–76), 189–192. 53 For the textual citations, see CAD, K, 437. Note that paà§ru also appears in


203

kißir lumni àa ikßuråàu paã§ri, “to untie the evil knots which they have tied against him”; kißråàa puããurå, “Her (magic) knots are untied”; kißrÊ àunåti àa isÉuråni puããir, “Untie these (magic) knots which have encircled me.” Similar examples of the use of the root ‫קטר‬, both nominally and verbally, with this same meaning can be documented from Aramaic54 and Syriac texts.55 The other, much blander, interpretation relegates the “untying of knots” to the “solving of knotty difficulties,”56 applying an extended figurative sense to the expression. Obviously that is what Daniel was requested to do, but in the light of his having been invited to the court on the basis of his reputation as the mantic par excellence in the kingdom, it seems that the original literal interpretation is at the root of the matter here. The king was taking no chances. He desired that the handwriting be “spelled” out so that his “charmed” existence might continue unharmed. connection with the “loosening of knots.” See AHw, 842, G 9b, S 3, N 7c, esp. with pitiltu; ibid., 869. 54 See J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia, 1913), text 7:13 (‫)קיטרי‬, and also possibly ‫עיקדי‬, “knots” (text 34:10). For additional references, see C. D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, SBLDS 17 (Missoula, 1975), 91, text 36:5; 107, text 46:4; 114, text 50:1, 5 (‫)קיטרא‬. The last citation, text 50:5, reads: ‫דלא מישתרי קיטריה‬, “whose (magic) knots cannot be untied.” Cf. also 1 Enoch 8:13, “the loosening of magical charms,” in J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qûmran Cave 4 (Oxford, 1976), 157, and his comments (p. 160) on the Greek variants. 55 See R. Payne Smith (Thesaurus Syriacus [Oxford, 1890], col. 3591), who cites many examples of this usage in magical contexts. He also refers to Arab. ‘aqd, for which cf. Aram. ‫עיקדי‬, above, n. 54. 56 Müller (“Begriffe,” 276–277 n. 4) thinks that it lost its original magical meaning, “Zauberknoten,” and came to connote “Geheimnisse enträtseln, schwierige Aufgabe lösen.” He also adduces Egyptian uÈ‘ tss.t, “das Verknotete lösen,” with the meaning, “Schwierigkeiten beseitigen.” See A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, 2nd ed. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1957), I, 348. Cf. also S. R. Driver, Daniel (Cambridge, 1912), 66; L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY, 1978), 184; and A. LaCocque, The Book of Daniel (Atlanta, 1979), 96—all of whom weigh both possibilities but opt for the second. For the latter suggestion, some of the above exegetes refer to the substantive ‫ קיטר‬with the supposed meaning, “difficulty,” in b. Yeb. 61a, 107b. However, in both these instances the noun means “conspiracies.” Those who favor this less “charm-ing” interpretation usually follow Marti (cited by Montgomery, Daniel, 259), “an Zauberei denkt der Verfasser kaum.” Subsequent to submitting this article for publication in 1992, there appeared a critical note by A. Walters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” JBL 110 (1991), 117–122, which pertains to the same passage dealt with in the present study. Though his approach to the subject is entirely different from mine, it should be noted that he, too, caught the double entendre in the text.

204


from mari to daniel

205

FROM MARI TO DANIEL: INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF SERVANTS INTO THE ROYAL COURT Among the letters addressed to ’ibtu, the consort of Zimrilim, king of Mari, is ARM 10, 126, sent by the king and containing directions concerning the selection of weavers and their instruction in a certain style of singing.1 The letter reads as follows: To ’ibtu say: Thus says our lord: I have now sent you the weavers. Among them are ugbabtum-priestesses.2 Pick out the ugbabtum-priestesses and consign them (i.e., the weavers3) to the house of the weavers. From among these weavers and the former weavers4 choose thirty—or as many as need be chosen—beautiful women who are without blemish (?)5 from the (toe-)nail to the hair of the head, and consign them to Warad-iliàu, so that Warad-iliàu can instruct them in the Subarian style of singing.6

1 For the letters to and from ’ibtu, see G. Dossin, La correspondance féminine, ARM 10 (Paris, 1967). For transcriptions and translations, see G. Dossin and A. Finet, Correspondance féminine, ARM 10 (Paris, 1978) [for no. 126, see pp. 184–187, 276]. The line numbers of ARM 10, 126, are cited according to the Akkadian text. For studies on these texts, see W. H. Ph. Römer, Frauenbriefe über Religion, Politik und Privatleben in Mari, AOAT 12 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971), 70–71; B. F. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari (Baltimore and London, 1974), 26–27. For a partial survey, see P. Artzi and A. Malamat, “The Correspondence of ’ibtu, Queen of Mari in ARM X,” Or 40 (1971), 78–89. 2 For nin.dingir.ra = ugbabtum, a type of priestess, see AHw, 1403. 3 From the text it would seem that the ugbabtum-priestesses were consigned to the house of the weavers. 4 For the reading pa!-ni-tim instead of an-ni-tim (line 8), see Batto, Studies; J.-M. Durand, Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari, ARM 21 (Paris, 1983), 425. 5 The meaning of àummannum, “blemish” (line 15), is deduced from the context. Cf. Dossin and Finet: “défaut”; Batto: “blemish”; Römer: “Markel”; CAD, ’/III, 146, 280: “physical defect.” For an additional attempt to explain this noun, which in other contexts is translated “Halteseil,” “a tethering rope,” by AHw, 1273, see S. Paley, “ARMT X reviewed,” BiOr 36 (1979), 292. These two words, however, are homonyms and should not be interchanged; see CAD, ’/III, 279–280. 6 I.e., in the style of the north, the Assyrian style. For this interpretation of the difficult phrase àiãram àubarêm (line 17), see Dossin and Finet (Correspondance féminine, 276, note to letter no. 125, lines 4, 10, 19) and Paley (“ARMT X reviewed,” 290–291), who note other texts from Mari in which both words or àiãrum alone occur. ’iãrum in the present text and related contexts must be distinguished from àiãrum, “veil.” See below, n. 24. For the translation, “in the Subarian àÊãru-song,” see CAD, ’/III, 146.

206

the bible and the ancient near east Their (personal) documents are also to be changed (i.e., from weavers to singing girls).7 Pay attention to their food allotments, so that they should not look unhealthy (lit., “their countenance not change”). And when you choose the weavers, let Warad-iliàu be [present (?)/the one who examines them (?)/the one who guards them (?)].8 And [instruct]9 Mukanniàum that the [other (?)/chosen (?)]10 weavers whom you consigned to him should not look unhealthy (lit., “that their countenance not change”).

The instructions given in this letter from Mari are remarkably similar to certain points of the narrative regarding the selection of Daniel and his three companions in the first chapter of the book of Daniel: 1. The candidates were chosen from among captives who were taken from the spoils of war and brought to the capital (Babylon/Mari). With respect to the letter from Mari, this situation is clarified by an earlier letter (ARM 10, 125), which also concerns weavers and their connection to Subarian music.11 Letter 125 explicitly reads: aààum ßuÉ§r§t àiãrim ina àallatim àa uà§rêm bêrim, “with respect to the selection of the young women for àiãrum-singing that I sent from the booty” (lines 4–6), and mimma ina àallatim àâti ßuÉ§r§tim àiãram la ibirru, “From that booty they shall not choose any of the girls for àiãrum-music” (lines 9–10). Cf. also lines 15 and 17, where the word àallatum, “spoils, captives,” again occurs. Without becoming involved in the chronological difficulties,12 the first verses of the book of Daniel concern the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the exile to Babylon of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, along with part of the inhabitants of the city and the vessels of the Temple. Daniel and his three companions are explicitly named among the captives who were brought to Babylon. See also Dan 2:25; 5:13; 6:14. 7 For this meaning of te/immenu(um) (line 18), see Römer (Frauenbriefe, 71), who explains the word by the semantic development “Grundstein” > “Gründingsurkunde” > “Urkunde.” Cf. also AHw, 1346, which translates “Beurkundungspfahl,” following Römer. 8 Three reconstructions have been proposed for this line: li-i[z-zi-iz] (Dossin and Finet); li-i[s-ni-iq] (Römer); li-i[ß-ßu-ur-ài-na-ti] (Batto). 9 Römer proposed reconstructing [wu-e-ri-ma), whereas Batto suggests [nu-uÉ-Éidi-ma]. Both reconstructions have the same meaning. 10 Two reconstructions have been proposed: àa-bi?-r[i?-i]m, “à choi[sir (?)]” (Dossin and Finet); àa-n[e-t]im, “the other” (Batto). 11 See above, n. 6, and below, n. 23. 12 See the commentaries to Daniel.

from mari to daniel

207

2. In each case, the selected captives were endowed with special skills. The letter from Mari states that among the captives were professional weavers (uà.bar.meà = iàpar§tum). In Daniel, the young Judaeans were ‫משׂכילים בכל חכמה ויֹדעי דעת ומביני מדע ואשר כֹח‬ ‫בהם לעמֹד בהיכל המלך‬, “proficient in all wisdom, knowledgeable and intelligent, and capable13 of serving in the royal palace” (1: 4).14 3. The young women (Mari) and the young men (Daniel) who were selected excelled not only in their personal skills, but in their physical appearance as well. The letter from Mari states (lines 12–15): damq§tim àa iàtu ßuprim adi à§rti àa qaqqadim àummannam la iàâ,15 “(The

13 Heb. ‫ כח‬with the meaning “ability, skill” is found primarily in the later books of the Bible: Ezra 10:13; 1 Chron 26:8; 2 Chron 2:5; 29:14. The semantic development “strength” > “ability, skill” is paralleled by its Akkadian interdialectal semantic cognate emåqu, “strength, ability.” Cf., for example, ina emåqa ram§nija, “by my own ability.” For further examples, see CAD, E, 161; and compare la emåqa, “incapable”; ibid., 161–162. 14 The expression is (‫לעמֹד ב)היכל המלך‬, “to serve [lit., to stand before]”; see v. 1, and compare, for example, Gen 41:46; 1 Sam 16:22; 1 Kings 1:2; 10:8; 12:8; Jer 52:12). For the Akkadian parallel to the former expression, cf. (aààum m§r iààakki àa) ina b§b ekallim izazzu, “(as regards the iààakku-farmers who) serve [lit., stand] at the gate of the palace” (F. Thureau-Dangin, “La correspondance de ›ammurapi avec ’amaà-›âßir,” RA 21 [1924], 10:1–4, 15–16. The Akkadian parallel to the latter expression is maÉrià/ana/ina panÊ uzuzzu, “to serve [lit., to stand before],” for which see AHw, 409, 2a–b. The word manzazu, “courtier, personal attendant,” derived from the verb uzuzzu, “to stand,” similarly occurs in collocation with maÉru and panå. For numerous examples, see CAD, M/I, 233–234. 15 For additional examples of merisms referring to the entire human body by its two extremities, cf. ultu qaqqadiàu adi kibis à¿p¿àu, “(He beat him severely) from his head to the soles of his feet” (O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets [London, 1957], 38:102, 134, 155); ulti qaqqadiàu adi à¿p¿àu l§nàu…liÉÊ[b], “May he purify his body… from his head to his feet” (O. R. Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets: The Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur,” AnSt 6 [1956], 154f.; cf. CAD, Q, 105); iàtu p§ã qaqqadiàu adi appi ub§n§tiàu ittanaplasåàu, “They examine him (thoroughly) from the top of his head to the tips of his toes” (R. Borger, “Die Weihe eines EnlilPriesters,” BiOr 30 [1973], 164:11–12). Such expressions are particularly common in medical texts. See, for example, bulãÊ iàtu muÉÉi adi ßuprÊ liqti aÉiåti, “A collection of non-canonical prescriptions (arranged) from the head to the (toe-)nails” (F. Küchler, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der assyrisch-babylonischen Medizin [Leipzig, 1904], Pl. 5, iv:59 [// Pls. 13:59; 20:51]). Similar expressions occur in instructions for the examination of animals to be sacrificed to the gods. For example, with respect to the daily sacrifices in the temple of Anu in Uruk: ebbåti àa qarnå u ßuprå àuklulå, “(The animals must be) pure, with complete horns and hoofs” (F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens [Paris, 1921], 79:29, 32); àuklulå ßalmu àa qarnÊ u ßuprÊ àalmå ultu qaqqadiàu adi appi zibbatiàu ummanu ittanaplassuma,” “An expert will (thoroughly) examine the black, uncastrated

208


weavers must be) beautiful women who have no blemish (?) from the (toe-)nail to the hair of the head.”16 Similarly, in Daniel, the young men who are chosen to serve the king are said to be ‫אין‬ (‫בהם כל מואם )= מום‬, “without blemish,”17 and ‫טובי מראה‬, “handsome” (1:4). 4. In both texts, the chief officer who is appointed to care for the young women/men is mentioned by name: Warad-iliàu18 in the Mari letter, and Ashpenaz,19 the ‫רב סריס‬, “chief officer,” in Daniel (1:3).20 In addition, at the end of the Mari letter, another func-

bull, whose horns and hooves are complete, from its head to the end of its tail” (ibid., 10:2–3). Cf. Lev 22:18–25. 16 See above, n. 5. For an additional example of beautiful and healthy-looking (nawru) singers, see G. Dossin, Correspondance de ’amài-Addu et de ses fils, ARM 1 (Paris, 1950), 83:10. Cf. also the Biblical stories of the lives of Joseph and Esther, who were both chosen because of their comely appearance and superior intelligence. 17 The spelling ‫ מאום‬occurs once again in Job 31:7, but there it is a by-form of ‫מאומה‬, “nothing.” Cf. ‫וכאבשלום לא היה איש יפה בכל ישראל להלל מאד מכף רגלו ועד‬ ‫קדקדו לא היה בו מום‬, “No one in all Israel was as handsome as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head he was without blemish” (2 Sam 14:25). For the variant reading of the beginning of the verse in 4QSamc, see P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (Garden City, NY, 1984), 342. It may be noted that ‫ לא‬...‫יפה‬ ‫היה בו מום‬, “handsome… he was without blemish,” in this verse is paralleled by ‫ֻלְּך‬ ָ‫כּ‬ ‫ָתי ומוּם אין בך‬ ִ ‫יפה ַר ְעי‬, “Every part of you is lovely, my darling, there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7); and in the Mari letter by damq§tim… àummannam la iàâ, “beautiful women, who have no blemish (?)” (lines 12–15). For the merism ‫מכף רגלו ועד‬ ‫קדקדו‬, “from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head,” cf. the Akkadian medical texts quoted above and Lev 13:12: ‫ואם פרוח תפרח הצרעת בעור וכסתה הצרעת את כל עור‬ ‫הנגע מראשו ועד רגליו לכל מראה עיני הכהן‬, “If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to feet, wherever the priest can see”; cf. also Job 2:7. Note also the curse in Deut 28:35: ‫יככה ה' בשחין רע‬ ‫על הברכים ועל השֹׁקים אשר לא תוכל להרפא מכף רגלך ועד קדקדך‬, “The Lord will afflict you at the knees and thighs with a severe inflammation, from which you shall never recover—from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head.” A prerequisite for the Temple service of a priest in Israel was that he had no physical blemish (see Lev 21:17–23). Cf. Isaiah’s rebuke of Israel, where he created a skillful wordplay based on expressions such as those in 2 Sam 14:25, but replacing ‫מום‬, “blemish,” with ‫מתֹם‬, ְ “sound spot”: ‫מכף רגל ועד ראש אין בו מתם‬, “From head to foot no sound spot is found” (Isa 1:6). 18 See ARM 10, 276, note to lines 4, 10, 19. 19 For the meaning of this Persian personal name and its occurrence (as ‫)אספנז‬ in an Aramaic incantation bowl, see W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräische und aramäische Lexikon zum Alten Testament (= HALAT), I (Leiden, 1983), 93. 20 The Hebrew expression ‫רב סריסים‬, “the head of the court officials,” occurs only here. The equivalent expression ‫שר סריסים‬, “the commander of the court officials,” appears in Dan 1:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 18. Cf. also ‫רב סריס‬, “the chief court official” (2 Kings 18:17; Jer 49:3, 13). The expression is borrowed from Akk. rab àa

from mari to daniel

209

tionary who is involved in the care of the weavers, Mukanniàum, well known from the Mari correspondence,21 is also mentioned, as is the ‫מלצר‬, “guard,”22 in Daniel (1:11), who is responsible for Daniel and his three companions. 5. The purpose of the selection of the young men/women is the same in each case: to instruct (àåÉuzu, ‫)ללמד‬23 them in a new occupation. The Mari letter reads (line 17): ana Warad-iliàu piqdÊ u Warad-iliàu àiãram àubarêm lià§Éissin§ti, “Consign them to Warad-iliàu so that Warad-iliàu may teach them the Subarian style of singing.”24 And in Daniel: ‫ וללמדם ספר ולשון כשדים‬...‫ויאמר המלך לאשפנז‬, “Then the king ordered Ashpenaz… and to teach them the writings and the language of the Chaldeans” (1:3–4). 6. After they are selected, the status of the young women/men is

r¿ài, “head, commander of the court attendants or officers,” the title of a high-level military or administrative functionary (see CAD, R, 289–290). See further M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, “Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh in 2 Kings 18,” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN, 1983), 279–285; D. Sperling, “Rab-Saris and Rab-Mag,” EJ, XIII, 1481; A. L. Oppenheim, “A Note on àa r¿ài,” The Gaster Volume, JANES 5 (New York, 1973), 325–334. For the interchange of ‫ רב‬and ‫ שר‬in other calques, cf. ‫רב טבחים‬ (2 Kings 25:15 and 20 additional passages, for which see the concordances), which is the equivalent of ‫( שר הטבחים‬Gen 37:36 and five other passages). See Cogan and Tadmor (“Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh,” 318–319), who, like many scholars before them, related the Hebrew term to Akk. rab nuÉattimu, lit., “chief cook.” Nevertheless, one should also note the exact Akkadian etymological and semantic equivalent rab ãabiÉu (perhaps a late borrowing into Akkadian?). See AHw, 1376. For the interchange of ‫ רב‬and ‫שר‬, cf. also ‫רבי המלך‬, “the officials of the king” (Jer 41:1); ‫שרי המלך‬, “the officials of the king” (Esth 1:18; Ezek 7:28); and ‫רבי מלך בבל‬, “the officials of the king of Babylon” (Jer 39:13); ‫שרי מלך בבל‬, “the officials of the king of Babylon” (Jer 38:17, 18, 22; 39:3). 21 See, for example, ARM 10, 12:15; 18: rev 11´; 61:1; 82:7, and the 23 letters that he published in Textes Divers, ARM 13 (Paris, 1964), 2–24. See also J. Sasson, “Some Comments on Archive Keeping in Mari,” Iraq 34 (1972), 59–60. 22 Heb. ‫מלצר‬, “guard” (1:11, 16), is borrowed from Akk. maßßaru, “guardian, watchman.” For the Akkadian term, see CAD, M/I, 341–342, and cf. maßßartu, “guard” (ibid., 333–334). 23 For another example of the use of the Akkadian verb àåÉuzu, “to instruct,” in a musical context, see nâråtam lià§Éizåàin§ti, “Let them instruct them (the daughters of JaÉdunlim) in the craft of the musician” (ARM 1, 54: rev. 7). For additional references, see CAD, N/I, 382. 24 See above, n. 6. For the relationship between àiãrum and a type of singing referred to as aàtal¿tu (CAD, A/II, 473), see ARM 13, 22:40. (The editors, however, as well as AHw, 1252, mistranslated “veil,” i.e., àitri instead of àiãri. See ARM 13, 22 n. 41.) Paley (“ARMT X reviewed,” 291) considers àiãrum to be cultic songs (in the Emesal dialect) that were in use in northern Mesopotamia.

210


officially changed. According to the Mari letter (lines 18–19): timmanåàina [l]u nukkurå, “Their (personal) documents are also to be changed (from weavers to singing girls),”25 whereas in Daniel, after three years of study, the young men clearly advance to a new position, that of servants in the royal court (1:5): ‫יעמדו לפני המלך‬, “They were to enter the king’s service.”26 7a. Both the Mari letter and Daniel record the concern of the king for the proper nourishment of the candidates during their time of induction. The Mari letter states (lines 19–20): ana kurummatiàina nu’idima, “Pay attention to their food allotments!”, and in Daniel (1:5): ‫פג המלך ומיֵין משתיו‬-‫וימן להם המלך דבר יום ביומו מפת‬, ַ “The king allotted daily rations27 to them from the king’s food and from the wine he drank.”28 7b. The explicit goal of this special attention is in each case the same: to assure a healthy appearance. In the Mari letter, this is mentioned twice: ana kurummatiàina nu’idima zÊmåàu la inakkirå, “Pay attention to their food allotments so that they should not look unhealthy (lit., their countenance should not change)” (lines 20–21); zÊm… la inakkir, “(And [instruct] Mukanniàum that the [other (?)/chosen (?)] weavers whom you consigned to him should not look unhealthy (lit., “their countenance should not change”) (lines 25–28).29 In Daniel, the chief functionary feared that the decision by Daniel and his companions not to eat their daily rations ‫בג המלך ומיין משתיו‬-‫מפת‬, “from the king’s food and from the wine he drank,” and to restrict 25 For te/immenu(m), see above, n. 7. One should note that the same verb, nak§ru (here in the D-stem, nukkuru), occurs again in the context of a “change” in the appearance of the countenance of the young women in lines 21, 28. 26 See above, n. 14. 27 For the expression ‫דבר יום ביומו‬, see also 2 Kings 25:30 (= Jer 52:34) in the context of the daily food allotment of the imprisoned King Jehoiachin. For the Babylonian administrative document itemizing the rations provided to Jehoiachin and his five sons, see E. F. Weidner, “Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten,” Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, II (Paris, 1939), 923–935. 28 The term ‫בג‬-‫פת‬, found only in the book of Daniel (1:5, 8, 13, 15, 16; 11:26), is borrowed from Persian patibaga and refers to rations provided by the authorities. See HALAT, III, 984. 29 The Aramaic semantic and (partial) etymological equivalent of zÊmåàu inakkirå, “His countenance will change,” is ‫( זיוהי שנין‬Dan 5:9, 10; 7:28; cf. Heb. ‫הודי נהפך‬ ‫ עלי‬in Dan 10:8). See S. M. Paul, “Decoding a ‘Joint’ Expression in Daniel 5:6, 16,” Comparative Studies in Honor of Yochanan Muffs, ed. E. L. Greenstein and D. Marcus, JANES 22 (New York, 1993), 121–127 [195–203]; and cf. also M. I. Gruber, Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, Studia Pohl 12/1 (Rome, 1980), 358–365.

from mari to daniel

211

their diet to vegetables and water so as not to be defiled, would cause them to look unhealthy: ‫אשר למה יראה את פניכם זֹעפים מן‬ ‫הילדים אשר כגילכם‬, “lest he (the king) sees you looking dejected,30 unlike the other youths of your age” (1:10), and then he himself would be held directly responsible: ‫ַב ֶתּם את רֹאשי למלך‬ ְ ‫וחיּ‬, ִ “And you will put my life in jeopardy with the king” (ibid.). However, after ten days of their vegetarian diet, ‫נראה מראיהם טוב ובריאי‬ ‫בשר‬, “They looked better and healthier” (1:15) than all the other youths who partook of the king’s delicacies. It is thus interesting to discern in the book of Daniel, the latest book of the Bible, yet another tie to Mesopotamian culture31—this time a literary topos based on an ancient custom of the royal court. 30 The word ‫ זעפים‬interchanges with the expression ‫ פניכם רעים‬in Gen 40:6, 7, and the meaning of both terms is “a sad, depressed, and downcast appearance.” Cf. also Neh 2:2–3: ‫ֵרעוּ פני‬ ְ ‫ מדוע לא י‬...‫מדוע פניך רעים ואתה אינך חולה אין זה כי אם ר ַֹע לב‬, “Why do you look so depressed, for you are not ill? It can be nothing but unhappiness…. How should I not look unhappy…?” It should be noted that the faces of people who are ill or unhappy are said to be ‫ זעפים‬or ‫רעים‬. See HALAT, I, 277, where the verb ‫ זעף‬II, “looking poor, thin,” in Genesis and Daniel is related to Arab. ãa‘afa, “to be weak,” and ãa‘Êf, “thin, lean.” This root is a homonym of ‫ זעף‬I, “to rage” (ibid., 277). In the book of Daniel, not only are the faces of Daniel and his companions not ‫זעפים‬, but they appear marvelously better and healthier than the rest of the youths (1:15). The expression ‫( סר וזעף‬1 Kings 20:43; 21:3) may also be related to this verb. Cf. NJPS, ad loc.: “dispirited and sullen”; and A. B. Ehrlich, Miqra Ki-Pheshuão, II (New York, 1969), 321; and idem (Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, VII [Leipzig, 1914], 273), who translates ‫ סר‬as “gekrankt” and notes that its antonym is ‫( וְ יִ ַטב לבך‬1 Kings 21:7). HALAT, III, 768, renders ‫ סר‬as “ill-humoured,” but translates ‫ָעף‬ ֵ ‫ ז‬in this expression as “furious” (ibid., 277), relating the term to ‫ זעף‬I. 31 For additional parallels, see the studies of S. M. Paul: “Daniel 3:29—A Case of Neglected Blasphemy,” JNES 42 (1983), 291–294 [133–137]; “Daniel 6:8: An Aramaic Reflex of Assyrian Legal Terminology,” Biblica 64 (1984), 106–110 [139–144]; and “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, I, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2001), 55–68 [285–297]. See also K. van der Toorn, “Scholars at the Oriental Court: The Figure of Daniel against Its Mesopotamian Background,” ibid., I, 37–54; J. Walton, “The Anzu Myth as Relevant Background for Daniel 7?” ibid., 69–89.

212


euphemistically ‘speaking’ and a covetous eye

213

EUPHEMISTICALLY “SPEAKING” AND A COVETOUS EYE To Reuben Aharoni, in friendship Euphemisms abound in both Biblical1 and Rabbinic literature.2 In the latter there exist three different technical terms to express these “good words”: ‫לשון סגי נהור‬,3 (‫לשון נקי)ה‬,4 ‫לישנא מעליא‬.5 Less studied, however, is their appearance in Mesopotamian literature (outside of the genre of love poetry).6 Note, for example, the following three substitutions for otherwise indelicate expressions: 1) Akk. maàrû, “wealth, prosperity, riches”7 is employed in a medical text as a surrogate for “excrement”: b§b maàrÊàu àamna tapaààaà, “You smear his anus (i.e., ‘the opening for his excrement’) with oil”.8 So, too, in a medical commentary, maà-ri-àu is equated with Sum. àè (dúr)-àu, which represents Akk. zû, “excrement.”9 1

S. M. Paul “Euphemism and Dysphemism,” EJ, VI (Jerusalem, 1971), 959–

961. 2 I. L. Rabinowitz, “Euphemism and Dysphemism in the Talmud,” EJ, VI (Jerusalem, 1971), 961–962; E. Z. Melamed, “Euphemisms and Textual Alterations of Expressions in Talmudic Literature,” Benjamin De Vries Memorial Volume, ed. E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem, 1968), 119–148 (Hebrew); idem, “Euphemisms and Textual Alterations in the Mishnah,” Leàonénu 47 (1983), 3–17 (Hebrew). 3 Aram. ‫ סגי נוהריה‬,‫סגי נהור‬, “one much of light,” is a euphemistic expression for a “blind man”; e.g., b. Ber. 58a; Lev. Rabb. 34, 13; y. Pe’ah 8, 21b (end). 4 y. Mo‘ed Qaã. 1, 80d; Soãa 1, 16c; Ketub. 1, 25c (end). See S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), 34 n. 39. 5 b. Giã. 76b; Ketub. 65b; Tem. 30b. 6 S. M. Paul, “The ‘Plural of Ecstasy’ in Mesopotamian and Biblical Love Poetry,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 585–597 [239–252]. 7 CAD, M/I, 385–387. 8 CAD, B, 24, 3c, 1´; M/I, 3875. The citation is taken from R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (= AMT) (London, 1923), 40, 5:8. This meaning of maàrû is not cited in AHw, 629 or on p. 95, under b§bu. 9 CAD, M/I, 387.The text is cited from F. Köcher (Keilschrifttexte zur assyrisch-babylonischen Drogen- und Pflanzenkunde [Berlin, 1955], 9, 32b iii:10). Compare the employment of Akk. åru, “nakedness,” as a euphemism for female genitalia. See S. M. Paul, “The Shared Legacy of Sexual Metaphors and Euphemisms in Mesopotamian and Biblical Literature,” Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, II, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki, 2002), 497–498 [312].

214


2) The Akkadian phrase damqam-Ênam, lit., “beautiful eyes,” serves as a euphemism for an abnormal condition of the eyes (either blindness10 or albinism11) in the following omen: àumma sinniàtu damqam-Ênim ålid, “If a woman gives birth to a blind (?) child”.12 This should be compared, in turn, with the Rabbinic euphemism for a blind person, ‫סגי‬ ‫נהור‬, “full of light.”13 3) One of the many ways in which “to die” is expressed is by the euphemism, àÊmtu wab§lu (lit., “to be carried off by fate”), e.g., ark§nià àÊmti ubilàunåti, “Later they (the kings of Babylon) died.”14 4) Another euphemism employs the Akkadian verb, dekû, “to arouse (from sleep or rest),” meaning “to disturb the dead.”15 I. Euphemisms Regarding “Speaking” Euphemisms, moreover, are often resorted to in order to express intimate relations between a man and woman. Thus, in both Akkadian and in Rabbinic Hebrew, the expression “talking with” the opposite sex—Akk. itti sinniàti dab§bu, “to talk with a woman,” and Heb. /‫לדבר‬ ‫לספר עם‬, “to talk with…”—may, at times, refer to sexual intercourse. As for the Akkadian, compare: (a) àumma am¿lu itti sinniàti ina muÉÉi erài idbubma ultu eli erài itbÊma zikaråtam epuà am¿lu àu§tu ãåb libbi u rià§tum iààakanàu aàar illaku kalià magir irnittaàu iktanaààad, “If a man ‘talks’ in bed with a woman (i.e., has sexual intercourse), and when he rises from the bed has an erection

10 T. Jacobsen, “The Sister’s Message,” JANES 5 (= The Gaster Festschrift) (New York, 1973), 210. 11 CAD, D, 67. 12 S. P. Handcock, CT 27 (London, 1910), 6: rev. 1. 13 See above, n. 3. For the grammatical construction of the Akkadian, see E. Reiner, “Damqam-^nim Revisited,” Studia Orientalia 55 (1984), 177–182. 14 S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 291 iii:7. For other examples, see CAD, A/I, 17. For the various ways in which premature death is expressed in the Bible and in the ancient Near East, see S. M. Paul, “Untimely Death in the Semitic Languages,” The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, ed. S. Japhet (Jerusalem, 1994), 575–586 (Hebrew) [223–238]. 15 A. Livingstone, “To Disturb the Dead: Taboo to Enmeàarra?” N.A.B.U. 1 (1991), 1; W. W. Hallo, “Disturbing the Dead,” MinÈah le-NaÈum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, JSOT Suppl. Series 154, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane (Sheffield, 1993), 183–192.


215

(i.e., maintains his sexual potency),16 contentment and joy will be in store for that man. Wherever he may go he will find acceptance in every respect. He will constantly attain his desire.”17 (b) [u] itti sinniàti ina maj§li idabbub, “[If] he ‘talks’ with a woman in bed….”18 It is possible that this same verb, dab§bu, in the àaf¿l, may also have euphemistic sexual overtones. In one of the Mesopotamian love charms there is a prescription for a ritual “to make a woman talk”: ana (!) sinniàti àudbubi… sinniàtu àî ¿ma illaku iqabbâku la ikalla tarâmài, “To make a woman ‘talk’ (you perform the following ritual). That woman, wherever she may go, will not be able to refrain from speaking to you. You can make love to her.”19 It must be noted, however, that this ritual incantation has also been interpreted in a non-erotic literal fashion, based on the analogy of a spell found in a Greek magical papyrus pertaining to “making a woman talk in her sleep.”20 The euphemism may also exist in Sumerian: “[May] he (i.e., Enmerkar) see a dream with Inanna at night.21 I (i.e., EnsuÉkeàdanna) will ‘converse with’ Inanna at her ‘shining feet’ ” (gá-e d inanna-da gìri babbar-ra-na inim mu-da-bal-e).22 Klein,23 who translated these lines, states in his footnote that the verb inim-bal, “to converse,” lit., “to exchange words,” is, “according to Å. Sjöberg (by oral communication), a euphemism for sexual intercourse…. In the present context, it could indicate intimate discourse.”

16

For the idiom zikaråtam ep¿àu, see CAD, E, 225. For zikaråtu/zikråtu, see CAD, Z, 117, “referring to sexual potency”; AHw, 1527, “Mannheit… für coitus.” 17 C. J. Gadd, CT 39 (London, 1927), 44:18–20. 18 E. Ebeling, Keilschriftteste aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (= KAR), I, WVDOG 28 (Leipzig, 1915–19), 211:20; CAD, M/I, 119. 19 R .D. Biggs (’À.ZI.GA. Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations [Locust Valley, NY, 1967], 71:22, 25) remarks that the verb has a “special colloquial meaning, perhaps ‘to make (a woman) agree (to make love)’.” 20 E. Reiner (“Nocturnal Talk,” Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, Harvard Semitic Series 37, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller [Atlanta, 1990], 421–424) first cites, but does not accept, those who suggest the erotic interpretation, including Biggs (see n. 19 above). 21 Cf. E. Chiera, Sumerian Epics and Myths (= SEM) (Chicago, 1934), 19, I:31–32; II:26–27. 22 Ibid. 23 J. Klein, “’ulgi and Gilgameà: Two Brother-Peers (’ulgi O),” Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, and Å. W. Sjöberg (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976), 287 n. 22.

216


Another euphemistic expression for copulation related to an oral activity is Sum. eme-ak, “to make tongue.” In an emotional soliloquy, Inanna describes her coital marathon with her brother-lover Dumuzi: The brother brought me into his house And laid me down on a fragrant honey-bed. My precious sweet, lying by my heart, One after another, “tongue-making” (eme-ak), one after another My brother, of fairest face, made fifty times.24

This phrase, with its specific sexual connotations, is also present in a collection of Sumerian proverbs describing various social “bad manners”: To banquet without washing the hands, To spit without stamping (upon the spittle), To blow the nose without returning (the mucus) to the dust, To “make tongue” (i.e., to cohabit) at noon without providing shade— These are the abominations of Utu (the sun god).25

Compare also, “My donkey was not created for racing; he was created for ‘making tongue’.”26 24 S. N. Kramer, Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts, PAPS 107 (Philadelphia, 1963), 509:26–30; idem, The Sumerian Marriage Rite (London, 1969), 104. For the text and another translation, see Jacobsen (“The Sister’s Message,” 200–202; The Treasures of Darkness [New Haven and London, 1976], 27–28), who interprets the relevant passage as the words of Geshtinanna, Dumuzi’s sister, who relates to her Inanna’s love-sickness for him. For another example, of a fifty-fold sexual union, see Biggs, ’A.ZI.GA, 30:18–19, “[Like a ram eleven times], like a weaned twelve times, like a partridge (?) thirteen times [make love to me, like a] pig fourteen times, like a wild bull fifty , like a stag fifty !” 25 For this translation, see W. W. Hallo, “Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos,” JQR 76 (1985), 27. The Sumerian proverb is found in R. S. Falkowitz, “The Sumerian Rhetoric Collection,” unpublished doctoral thesis (University of Pennsylvania, 1980), 156, where he remarks that the expression “… seems to be a verb phrase with a sexual denotation.” He remarks that “the only clue to its meaning is that the object of the phrase may have a prominent part which resembles the tongue (eme).” M. S. Geller (“Taboo in Mesopotamia” [review article of K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia], JCS 42 [1990], 107) translates, “using the tongue (intercourse?) at noon without having shade.” See also B. Alster, “Marriage and Love in the Sumerian Love Songs,” The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, MD, 1993), 23: “ ‘Make tongue’ is a double entendre. First of all one would here think of making sweet words (or what is more), but it also means to cast a shade.” 26 For this citation of eme-ak as a “euphemism for intercourse, sexual relations,”


217

An additional Sumerian verb may also have similar overtones. In the hymnal prayer of Enheduanna—“The Exaltation of Inanna”27— when Inanna, the goddess of love and fecundity, abandons her city, all lovemaking and cohabitation between husbands and wives cease (lines 55–56): “Its (i.e., the city’s) woman no longer speaks of love with her husband. At night, ad-na-an-di-ni-ib-gi 4 -gi 4 .” The Sumerian verb ad-gi 4 -gi 4 is translated by Kramer,28 “She whispered not (tenderly) with him.” Hallo and van Dijk,29 on the other hand, render, “They no longer have intercourse,” adding in a footnote30 that the verb is an “apparent double entendre which can imply ‘taking counsel’ and ‘consorting together’.”31 Similarly, in Rabbinic Hebrew both ‫ ִד ֵבּר עם‬32 and ‫ס ֵפּר עם‬, ִ “talking/ conversing with,” are occasionally employed or interpreted euphemistically to express sexual intimacy. 1) ‫ִד ֵבּר עם‬ a) m. Ketub. 1:8: ‫ הרי זו בחזקת בעולה‬...‫ רבי יהושע אמר‬...‫ראוה מדברת עם אחד‬ “[If] they saw her (an unmarried woman) talking with someone…. Rabbi Joshua said: … ‘She is in the presumption of having had intercourse’.” Moreover, in the ensuing Talmudic discussion in connection with the meaning of the expression ‫מדברת עם‬, it is specifically stated by

see J. Klein and Y. Sefati, “The Concept of ‘Abomination’ in Mesopotamian Literature and the Bible,” Beer-Sheva 3 (1988),138 n. 28 (Hebrew). They also bring another example from H. H. Figula, CT 42 (London, 1959), No. 23, Pl. 36, face A. 27 W. W. Hallo and J. J. A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna (New Haven and London, 1968). See also W. W. Hallo, “The Exaltation of Inanna,” The Context of Scripture, I, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1997), 518. 28 ANET 3, 580. 29 Hallo and Dijk, Exaltation of Inanna, 22. 30 Ibid., 53 n. 20. 31 See also ibid., 70. 32 Lieberman (Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 34, n. 39) conjectures that the use may be of “Judean origin” based on the names of the rabbis mentioned in the cited sources. He also refers to m. Soã. 1, 2. Cf. M. Jastrow (Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature [New York, 1903], 278), who interprets the verb both in m. Ketub. 1, 8 and 7, 6 as “being on terms of intimacy with a man.” See also D. Halivni, Meqorot u-Mesorot, I (Tel Aviv, 1968), 215–217. For both euphemistic expressions, see also Melamed, “Euphemisms and Textual Alterations in Talmudic Literature,” 140; idem, Euphemisms and Textual Alterations in the Mishnah,” 7–8.

218


Rabbi Assi that this is a euphemism: .‫ נסתרת‬:‫מהי 'מדברת'? זעירי אמר‬ ‫ לישנא מעליא‬...‫ נבעלה‬:‫רב אסי אמר‬, “What is meant by ‘talking’? Zeiri said, ‘She was hidden’ (with a man). Rabbi Assi said, ‘She had intercourse’. (But according to Rabbi Assi, why [does it say] ‘talking’?) [It is] a euphemistic expression (lit., ‘a good, more appropriate expression’)” (b. Ketub. 13a). The same response is also given in the Jerusalem Talmud, where a variant term is employed: ‫ ולמה‬.‫מהו 'מדברת'? נבלעת‬ ‫תניתן 'מדברת'? לשון נקי‬, “What is the meaning of ‘talking’? It means having sexual relations. Why, then, does the Mishnah state, ‘talking’? It is a euphemism (lit., ‘clean, pure speech’)” (y. Ketub. 1, 25c). b) m. Ketub. 7:6: ‫ ואיזוהי דת‬...‫ העוברת על דת משה ויהודית‬:‫ואלו יוצאות שלא בכתובה‬ ‫ איזוהי‬.‫ אף הקולנית‬:‫ר' טרפון אמר‬...‫ ומדברת עם כל אדם‬...?‫יהודית‬ .‫קולנית? לכשהיא מדברת בתוך ביתה ושכיניה שומעין קולה‬ “These are to be divorced without receiving their ketubah: A wife who transgresses upon Mosaic and Jewish practice…. And what is (meant by) Jewish practice?… One who talks with every man…. Rabbi Tarfon said, ‘Also one who screams’. Who is regarded a ‘screamer’? A woman whose voice can be heard by her neighbors when she ‘speaks’ inside her house.” In the following comments to this mishnah in b. Ketub 72b, the expression “talking with,” though not termed a euphemism, as above, is nevertheless interpreted with an overtone of dalliance: ‫ במשחקת עם‬:‫ אמר ר' יהודה אמר שמואל‬.'‫'מדברת עם כל אדם‬ .‫בחורים‬ “Rabbi Judah in the name of Samuel explained ‘talking with every man’ as one who sports with young men.”33 As for the interpretation of “screamer,” b. Ketub. 72b remarks, ‫א"ר‬ ‫ במשמעת קולה על עסקי תשמיש‬:‫יהודה אמר שמואל‬, “Rabbi Judah said in the name of Samuel, ‘One who makes her voice heard on matters of intercourse’ ”; and y. Ketub. 7, 31b–c adds:

33 See S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãah, VI (New York, 1967), 291–292, for the different interpretations of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and the Tosefta here. For the related Hebrew verb ‫ שׂחק‬with sexual connotations, see Gen 26:8; 39:14, 17, and compare its Akkadian cognate, ßâÉu, CAD, &, 65; ßÊhtu, “amorous dalliance,” ibid., 186; ßåhu, “lovemaking,” ibid., 237. See Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 489–498 [299–314].


219

‫ כל שקולה הולך ממיטה למיטה בשעת‬:‫ רב אמר‬...?‫איזו היא קולנית‬ .‫תשמיש‬ “Who is a ‘screamer’?… Rab said: ‘Anyone whose voice may be heard from one bed to another in the course of intercourse’.”34 2) ‫ ִס ֵפּר עם‬35 This verb occurs as a euphemism in the following two passages: a) ‫ תינוק יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה‬...‫ שלישית‬...‫ר' אליעזר‬ “(According to) Rabbi Eliezer, (the night has three [not four] watches. On) the third… the infant sucks his mother’s breast and the wife ‘converses’ with her husband” (b. Ber. 3a).36 b) ‫ אינו מספר עמי לא בתחילת הלילה‬:‫מפני מה בניך יפיפין ביותר? אמרה להן‬ ,‫ מגלה טפח ומכסה טפח‬,‫ולא בסוף הלילה אלא בחצות הלילה; וכשהוא מספר‬ ‫ודומה עליו כמי שכפאו שד‬ “(They asked Imma Shalom [wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and sister of Rabban Gamaliel II, who was affectionately called ‘Imma’, ‘mother’]): ‘Why are your children so exceedingly beautiful?’ She replied to them: ‘(Because) he (my husband) “converses” with me neither at the beginning nor at the end of the night, but (only) at midnight; and when he “converses,” he uncovers a handbreadth and covers a handbreadth, and it is as though he were compelled by a demon’ ” (b. Ned. 20b).37 Thus, both “speaking” and “conversing” serve as part of the “discourse” of intercourse.

For ‫קולנית‬, see also J. N. Epstein, “In the Light of the Geniza,” Tarbií 2 (1930–31), 412–414 (Hebrew). Though there are various different interpretations of ‫קולנית‬, it is of interest to note that several of the later Talmudic commentators (e.g., ‫ רי"ף‬and ‫ )רא"ש‬explain the term to refer to one who demands sexual intercourse in a loud voice. 35 Heb. ‫ ִס ֵפּר‬means “to converse, talk” in Rabbinic literature; cf., e.g., b. Ber. 18b: ‫ושמע שתי רוחות שמספרות זו לזו‬, “He heard two spirits conversing with one another”; TanÈuma, Balak, 25: ‫אדם ראשון בלשון ארמי ספר‬, “Adam spoke in Aramaic.” 36 See the very cautious note of Melamed, “Euphemisms and Textual Alterations in Talmudic Literature,” 140 n. 190. 37 See also Ch. Kohut, Arukh Ha-Shalem, VI (New York, 1966), 114. 34

220

the bible and the ancient near east II. Euphemisms regarding a Covetous Eye

The expression “to lift the eye(s) toward” in both Akkadian, ana… Êna (singular)/Ên§ (plural) naàû,38 and Hebrew, ‫נשא עינים אל‬,39 has several different connotations, among which is the idiomatic meaning, “to covet, desire.” In the Akkadian, the object of the covetous glance ranges far and wide, from anything in general, e.g., “If you are truly (like a) father to me,” ana mimmåàu Ênka la tataàài, “do not covet anything belonging to him”;40 to an “orchard” (kirû);41 “manors” (§l§ni);42 “household goods” (num§tu);43 “money” (kaspu);44 “valuables” (makkåru),45 etc. It is also employed when the object of the libidinous desire is a member of the opposite sex. Thus, Gilgamesh, after having killed the monster Humbaba and cut down the cedar trees, bathes, dresses in fresh clothes, and immediately becomes the object of Ishtar’s sedulous and seductive ardor: ana dumqi àa Gilg§meà Êna (vars. ÊnÊ, igi.meà) ittaài rubåtu Iàtar, “Ishtar, the princess, looked covetously at the beauty of Gilgamesh” (VI:6; cf. ibid., lines 23, 88). With unabashed forthrightness, she gives vent to her cupidity: “Come to me, Gilgamesh, be my lover! Give me your fruit (inbÊka)46 as a gift!” (VI:7–8). Gilgamesh

38 CAD, N/II, 104–105, b; AHw, 762, 2, c, β; A. L. Oppenheim, “Idiomatic Akkadian,” JAOS 61 (1941), 259–2600; M. I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, Studia Pohl 12/II (Rome, 1980), 595–596 n. 1. 39 HALAT, III (Leiden, 1983), 685, 7; 773; BDB, 670, 4. Neither dictionary covers the full range of nuances. See also E. Jenni and C. Westermann, (eds.), TheologischesHandwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, II (Zurich, 1979), 112, 263. 40 G. Dossin, Lettres de la première dynastie babylonienne, TCL 18 (Paris, 1933–34), 122:21. 41 G. Dossin, Lettres de la première dynastie babylonienne, TCL 17 (Paris, 1933–34), 15:12. 42 V. Scheil, Textes élamites-sémitiques, MDP 10 (Paris, 1908), Pl. 11 ii 25. 43 G. R. Driver, and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, I (Oxford, 1960), 25:57–59 (p. 20). See also ibid., II, 161, note to line 59, for other references to coveting in Mesopotamian sources. 44 F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon, TCL 3 (Paris, 1912), 39:11. 45 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1967), 102: 85–86. 46 For inbu as a euphemism for sexual attractiveness and virility, see CAD, I/J, 146–147. This is discussed further in S. M. Paul, “A Lover’s Garden of Verse: Literal and Metaphorical Imagery in Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry,” Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN, 1997), 100 n. 1 [271–272]; idem, “Shared Legacy,” 490–491 [300– 302]. See also the important study of W. G. L. Lambert, “Devotion: The Languages of


221

rejects her amorous dalliances first by heaping on her insult upon insult and then by recalling the tragic denouement and metamorphosis of all her previous lovers. A similar fate also befell Ishullanu, her father’s gardener, the only one who previously had the audacity to reject her delectable desire: “You looked at him desirously (Êna tattaàÊàumma) and came to him: ‘My Ishullanu, let us taste your strength (kiààåtaki).47 Stretch forth your “hand” (q§tka)48 and touch our vulva (Éurdatni)” (VI:67–69).49 The idiom is also found in the Shamash Hymn: àa ana alti tappÊàu iààû [ÊnÊàu], “He who coveted his friend’s wife.”50 And, vice versa: sinniàti ana iàari àanîmma Ên§ (var. Êna) la naàê, “for a man’s wife not to covet the penis of anyone else” (i.e., not to look with desire at another).51 Compare similarly the following Akkadian potency incantation:52 àumma sinniàtu Êna ana iàari awÊli inaàài, “If a woman looks desirously upon a man’s penis (the following ritual is prescribed): You recite the incantation three times either an apple or to a pomegranate.53 You give (the fruit) to the woman and have her suck the juices. That

Religion and Love,” Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough (London, 1987), 25–39. 47 Words meaning “power, might, physical strength” (e.g., kiààåtu, CAD, K, 461–462) also have sexual nuances. Compare Heb. ‫כח‬, “strength,” with the connotation of coition in b. Yeb. 34a. See Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 492 [304]. 48 In addition to the Akkadian word for “hand,” q§tu, Heb. ‫יד‬, Ugar. yd, and Egyp. drt also refer to the membrum virile. See Paul, “ ‘Plural of Ecstasy’,” 593 n. 30 [247 n. 32]; idem, “Shared Legacy,” 491 [302–303]. 49 The rare Akkadian noun, Éurdatu, “vagina,” also appears in a medical commentary (M. Civil, “From Enki’s Headaches to Phonology,” JNES 32 (1973), 332: 40), in a secular love song (J. G. Westenholz, “A Forgotten Love Song,” Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, American Oriental Series 67, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton [New Haven, 1987], 417:13´), and in a lewd ditty of Ishtar (W. von Soden, “Ein spät-altbabylonisches parum-Preislied für Iàtar,” Or 60 [1991], 340:11). This erotic poem has also been studied in detail by V. A. Hurowitz (“An Old Babylonian Bawdy Ballad,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff [Winona Lake, IN, 1995], 543–548). 50 Lambert, BWL, 130:88. 51 A. T. Clay, Epics, Hymns, Omens, and Other Texts, BRM 4 (New Haven, 1923), 20:21; duplicate 19:10. See Biggs, ’A.ZI.GA, 71. CAD, N/II, 105, 6b, erroneously omitted the word “penis” from its translation. 52 The text cited is KAR 61. On p. 71, note to l. 67, Biggs (’A.ZI.GA) cites Gilgamesh VI:6 and also notes BRM 4, 20:21. 53 Apples and pomegranates often function as aphrodisiacs in Mesopotamian love poetry and in the Song of Songs. See Paul, “ ‘Plural of Ecstasy’,” 589 [243 n. 14]; idem, “Shared Legacy,” 490–491 [301–302].

222


woman will come to you. You can make love to her.”54 The sexual connotation of this idiom is also attested in Biblical Hebrew. The most blatant example is found in the unsuccessful seduction scenario between Joseph and his Egyptian “master’s wife.” In a manner worthy of flirtatious Ishtar herself, she brazenly and brusquely tempts Joseph: “After some time, his master’s wife covetously eyed (‫ את עיניה אל‬...‫ )ותשא‬Joseph and said, ‘Lie with me’!” (Gen 39:7).55 (Note the exact same sequence of coveting and propositioning as in the Ishtar soliloquies above.) Yet another possible occurrence of this expression may be found in Ezekiel. Though the prophet usually relates the expression ‫נשא עינים‬ ‫ אל‬to ‫גלולים‬, “fetishes” (18:6, 12, 15; 33:25;56 cf. somewhat similarly, 6:9; 20:24), in one passage there still echo overtones of the sexual nuance: “I will put an end to your wantonness and to your whoring in the land of Egypt. You shall no longer covet them (‫ולא תשאי עיניך‬ ‫)אליהם‬,57 nor remember Egypt anymore” (23:27). Though changes in linguistic taste and convention are prevalent in all languages and periods, it is always of interest to note how some euphemistic expressions, in particular those which pertain to discreet intimate relations, cross linguistic, cultural, and chronological boundaries—as exemplified by the examples cited above.

54

Biggs, ’A.ZI.GA, 70:7–10. Most commentators and translators either render the expression literally or paraphrase it without defining its exact meaning of desiring and coveting and without being aware of its Akkadian cognate. For rare exceptions, see Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, II, 161, note to line 59; M. Weinfeld, Genesis (Tel Aviv, 1975), 242 (Hebrew). 56 In all these verses, the nuance is “looking for help”; see also Ps 120:1 and 123: 1. Compare B. Jacob (Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis [Berlin, 1934], 729), who, on Gen 39:7, remarks: “ihre Augen zu ihm erhob, im Verlangen” and cites these verses along with others in Ezekiel. Compare also the Aramaic cognate ‫ נטל עינים‬in Dan 4: 31; Ahiqar 169; and Ugar. nà’ ‘n. 57 This is alluded to by Gruber (Aspects of Nonverbal Communication, 595–596 n. 1). W. Zimmerli (Ezekiel, I, Hermeneia [Philadelphia, 1979], 476, note to v. 27) remarks: “For the usage here, cf. Gen. 39:7.” 55

untimely death in the semitic languages

223

UNTIMELY DEATH IN THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES In memory of Sarah, who was snatched away in her prime. “At the very moment when life is given to us, it begins to be taken from us.” (Seneca)

The literature of the ancient Near East and the Bible contains much evidence for the widespread belief that death is the end of life and that humans are mortal creatures.1 Existential reflections on this very subject are expressed by the innkeeper Siduri in her speech to Gilgamesh: Gilgameà êà tidal bal§ãam àa tasaÉÉuru la tuttâ inåma il§ni ibnû awÊlåtim bal§ãim ina q§tÊàunu ißßabtu O Gilgamesh, where are your wandering? The life that you seek you will never find. When the gods created mankind, Death they dispensed to mankind, Life they kept for themselves.2

Similarly in the Ugaritic epic of Aqhat, who—in his sober response to the enticing offer of Anat, who promised him eternal life in return for his wonderful bow—proclaims: ’al.tàrgn.ybltlm. dm.lÇzr àrgk.ÉÉm. mt.’uÉryt.mh.yqÈ mh.yqÈ.mt.’atryt. spsg.ysk [l]rià.

1 For a detailed bibliography on the subject of death, see K.-J. Illman, “‫מות‬,” TWAT, IV (Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, and Mainz, 1984), 763–786. Virtually all studies ignore the subject discussed in the present article. Cf., for example, L. Wächter, Der Tod im Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1967); in the 234 pages of that study, only two lines (on p. 35) are devoted to this subject. 2 The Epic of Gilgamesh (OB version), X.iii:1–4. Translation follows A. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh (London, 1999), 124. Cf. also ANET, 90.

224

the bible and the ancient near east Èrß.lír.qdqdy [’ap] mt.kl.’amt. w’an.mtm.’amt Don’t lie to me, girl your lies are despicable to a real man. What after(life) can one obtain? what can a man obtain hereafter? (For) they will pour glaze [on] (my) head, white stuff over my cranium. [And] I will die the death of every man. I, too, shall die and be dead.3

The woman from Tekoa likewise tells King David: ‫כי מות נמות וכמים‬ ‫הנגרים ארצה אשר לא יאספו‬, “We must all die. We are like water that is poured out on the ground and cannot be gathered up” (2 Sam 14:14). God has fixed a limit to the human lifespan: ‫לא ידון רוחי באדם לעלם‬ ‫בשגם הוא בשר והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה‬, “My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he, too, is flesh. Let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years” (Gen 6:3). Nevertheless, one often finds effusive requests for longevity, as exemplified in the following examples selected from Mesopotamian literature: àÊbåtu lillik likàuda littåtu, “May he become old; may he attain extreme old age”;4 bal§ã åm¿ råqåte àÊbåtu littåtu ana àarri… liddinu, “May they (the gods) grant the king a life of many days, old age, and extreme old age”;5 bal§ã ãåb libbim d§riam, “an everlasting life of happiness”;6 adi åm adanni iballuã arku adanniàu imât, “He will live until the predetermined day. After his time is up, he will die”;7 lalê l[ittåtim] u àÊbåtim liàebbÊka, “May he (Marduk) give you your fill of extreme old age.”8 3

KTU2 1.17.VI:34–38. Translation follows D. Pardee, “The ‘Aqhatu Legend,” The Context of Scripture, I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo (Leiden, New York, and Köln, 1997), 347. 4 A. G. Lie, The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria, Part I: The Annals (Paris, 1929), 82:6. See also S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 31:7: àÊbåti likàud luàbâ littåti, “May he attain old age; may he fully enjoy extreme old age.” 5 R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (= ABL) (London and Chicago, 1892), I, 76:10; 353:7. For additional examples of the attainment of a ripe old age, see CAD, K, 279; L, 220–221. 6 F. J. Stephens, Votive and Historical Texts from Babylonia and Assyria, YOS, Babylonian Texts 9 (New Haven, 1937), 36:108. 7 P. Handcock, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, CT 31 (London, 1911), 36:9. 8 F. R. Kraus, Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, I: Briefe aus dem


225

According to the accepted Biblical belief, longevity is awarded in return for observing divine ordinances,9 and particular figures who attained extreme old age are mentioned by name.10 The proper fulfillment of one’s days is considered a divine blessing: ‫את מספר ימיך‬ ‫אמלא‬, “I will let you enjoy the full count of your days” (Exod 23:26),11 and with poetic flair Eliphaz promises Job: ‫תבוא בכלח אלי קבר כעלות‬ ‫גדיש ְבּ ִעתּוֹ‬, “You will come to the grave in ripe old age, as shocks of grain are taken away in their season” (Job 5:26). However, not all obtain such divine favor. The question is not only who will live and who will die, but also when one will die: àa ina amàat ibluãu imåt uddià, “He who was alive yesterday is dead today.”12 Likewise, iàtaknu måta u bal§ãa àa måti ul uddû åm¿àu, “Both death and life they [the gods] have established; but the day of death they do not disclose.”13 The following are various ancient Near Eastern expressions which convey the concept of untimely or sudden death. British Museum, Cuneiform Texts from the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, CT 43 and 44 (Leiden, 1964), 105:2. Compare the expression bal§ãam luàbi, “May I enjoy life fully.” Compare also the entries lab§ru, “to last, endure (referring to persons),” and lubburu, “to prolong, to make last a long time (referring to persons),” in CAD, L, 14–16. 9 See, for example, Exod 20:12; 23:26; Deut 4:40; 5:16, 30; 6:2; 11:9, 21; 17:20; 25:15; 30:20; 1 Kings 3:14; Jer 35:7; Ps 91:16; Prov 3:2, 16; 4:10; 9:11; 10:27. 10 Cf., for example, Gen 15:15; 25:8; 35:29; Deut 34:7; Judg 8:32; 1 Chron 23: 1; 29:28; 2 Chron 24:15. See, in general, L. Dürr, Die Wertung des Lebens im Alten Testament und im antiken Orient (Münster im Westf., 1926). For an excellent survey of the Biblical and Akkadian sources, as well as the relevant Aramaic and Phoenician inscriptions (with references to Hittite and Egyptian documents), see A. Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” 28. Rencontre assyriologique internationale in Wien, 6.-10 Juli 1981, AfO Beiheft 19 (Horn, Austria, 1982), 215–224. See also H. Tawil, “Some Literary Elements in the Opening Sections of the Hadad, Z§kir, and N¿rab II Inscriptions in the Light of East and West Semitic Royal Inscriptions,” Or 43 (1974), 48–50. 11 Cf. also 2 Sam 2:7, 12; Isa 65:20; 1 Chron 17:11. The Akkadian etymological equivalent of Heb. ‫מלא ימים‬, åmå malû, does not refer to attaining old age. See CAD, M/I, 180–181. However, in other contexts Heb. ‫ מלא ימים‬corresponds semantically to Akk. åmå malû. Compare, for example, Heb. ‫קרב קצינו מלאו ימינו כי בא קצינו‬, “Our doom is near, our days are done—Alas, our doom has come!” (Lam 4:18) to Akk. åmå imlû ukkipa adannu, “The days are over, the appointed time has drawn near”; M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1926), 178:15. Cf. also R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, König von Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9 (Graz, 1956), 45, ii:5. In the context of death, compare iàtu åm imlû, “When (his) day(s) are over”; Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 267, IV:35. 12 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1960), 40:39. 13 The Epic of Gilgamesh (SB version), X.vi:39–40. Translation follows George, Epic of Gilgamesh, 87. Cf. ANET, 93.

226


Untimely Death: I. “before his (allotted) day” A. Hebrew: ‫בלא יומו‬ In the course of a picturesque description containing metaphors derived from the plant kingdom (Job 15:30–33),14 Eliphaz describes the fateful death of the wicked before his time: ‫בלא יומו ִתּ ָמּ ֵלא וכפתו לא רעננה‬, “He will wither before his time, his boughs having never flourished” (v. 32).15 A timely death, on the other hand, is described as follows: ‫“ או יומו יבוא ומת‬Or his time will come and he will die” (1 Sam 26:10). B. Akkadian: ina la åm¿àu 1. ina la åm¿àu ãar[du], “(The infant) that was tak[en] before his (allotted) day.”16 2. ina la åm¿àu imât, “He will die before his (allotted) day.”17 C. Aramaic: ‫לא ביומיך‬ ‫ זעיר כצפה מן‬.‫חזי קדמתך מנדעם קשה ]על[ אנפי מ]ל[ך אל תקום‬ ‫ אל יחזנהי על אמריך ותהך ]ו[לא ביומיך‬.‫ אנת אשתמר לך‬.‫ברק‬, “See before you a hard (= severe) thing: [Against] the face of a k[in]g do not stand. His rage is swifter than lightning. You, watch yourself. Let him not show it (= his rage) because of your sayings (= utterances), and you go (= lest you die) not in your days (= prematurely).”18 14

See R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies (New York, 1978), 158, 165–166. 15 There is scholarly consensus that the verb ‫מּ ֵלא‬ ָ ‫ ִתּ‬is derived from the root ‫מל"ל‬ (see Job 14:2; 18:16; 24:24), the meaning of which is “to dry up, shrivel,” and the text is to be emended to ‫( ִתּ ָמּל‬for a different interpretation, also based on the root ‫מל"ל‬, see Gordis, Book of Job, ad loc.). The present orthography, reflecting the root ‫מל"א‬, was apparently influenced by the well-known expression ‫מלא ימים‬, discussed above (n. 11). The feminine form of the verb is usually explained as according with the noun ‫מּוּרתוֹ‬ ָ ‫תּ‬, ִ “his date palm,” which is reconstructed at the beginning of the verse based on the last word of the preceding verse, ‫מוּרתוֹ‬ ָ ‫תּ‬. ְ Cf., for example, M. H. Pope (Job, AB 15 [Garden City, NY, 1973]), 119), who cites the proposal by N. H. Tur Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Jerusalem, 1957), 259. See now S. M. Paul, “A Double Entendre in Job 15:32 in the Light of Akkadian,” Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul et al. (Leiden and Boston, 2003), 755–757 [315–317]. 16 L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, CT 15 (London, 1902), 45:36. 17 C. J. Gadd, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, CT 38 (London, 1925), 28:29. Cf. also ibid., 40 (London, 1927), 40:71. The expression is extremely common. 18 Proverbs of AÈiqar, lines 85–86. The reading and translation follow B. Porten


227

A similar expression, [‫בלא שני]ה‬, “not in his years,” occurs in Rabbinic literature: ‫שב שני הוה מותנה ואיניש בלא שני]ה[ לא‬ ‫אזיל‬/‫שכיב‬, “There was a plague for seven years, (but) no one died/passed (away) before his years [i.e., before his time].”19 II. “before his time” A. Hebrew: ‫ולא עת‬/‫ב‬ 1. Qohelet warns: ‫אל תרשע הרבה ואל תהי סכל למה תמות בלא‬ ‫עתך‬, “Do not overdo wickedness and do not be a fool, or you may die before your time” (Eccles 7:17). 2. Eliphaz, describing the recompense of the wicked, asks Job: ‫הארח עולם תשמור אשר דרכו מתי און אשר ֻקמטו ולא עת‬, “Have you observed the immemorial path that evil men have trodden; how they shrivel up before their time?” (Job 22:15–16).20 The verb ‫קמטו‬, ֻ “shrivel,” serves here as a metaphor for “death.”21

and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, III: Literature, Accounts, Lists (Jerusalem, 1993), 36–37. Some scholars reconstruct the preposition ‫ ב‬before the negation, i.e., ‫]ב[לא ביומיך‬, but this is unnecessary. See J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore and London, 1983), 83. The Aramaic verb ‫ תהך‬is derived from the root ‫הל"ך‬, “to go,” and means “to die” in the present context. Compare Heb. ‫הלך‬, i.e., “to die,” in the following passages: Gen 15:2; Josh 23:14; 1 Kings 2: 2; Ps 39:14; Job 10:21; 14:20; 16:22; 2 Chron 21:20. The Akkadian cognate al§ku, “to go,” similarly refers to dying in the expression ina/ana/arki àÊmtiàu al§ku, “to go to / after one’s fate.” See CAD, A/I, 321. Aramaic ‫אזל‬, “to go,” can likewise mean “to die.” See M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950), 37; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat Gan, 1990), 45, 4. For additional examples of ‫ הלך‬and ‫אזל‬ with the meaning “to die,” see S. Lieberman, Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto, I/1 (Jerusalem, 1934), 181–182; J. N. Epstein, “Some Variae Lectiones in the Yerushalmi, I. The Leiden ms. (cont.),” Tarbií 6 (1934, 46 (Hebrew). These two scholars, whose studies appeared in the same year, both cite M. Schwabe’s study, “ i0e/nai ‘lamut’ bamidraà. Leàimuà pe‘alim domim biktovot,” Yedi‘ot ha-\evra ha-‘Ivrit le-\aqirat ‘Ereß Yiára’el ve‘Atiqoteha 2 (1933), 30. Lieberman adduced additional examples in Tosefta ki-Fshuãah, VIII: Order Nashim (New York, 1973), 720 n. 4. See also \. Yalon, “Comments to D. Leibel’s Article ‘‫’יעבר בשלח‬,” Tarbií 33 (1964), 403–404 (Hebrew) = H. Yalon, Studies in Hebrew Language [Jerusalem, 1971], 425–426 [Hebrew]). I am indebted to Prof. Shamma Friedman for calling my attention to these studies. 19 b. Sanh. 29a; Yebam. 114b. The same phrase is also documented in Mandaic, ‫בלא שנאי‬. See M. Lizbarski, Ginzaa: Der Schatz oder das grosse Buch der Mandaeer (Leipzig, 1925), 428:22 (courtesy of J. N. Ford). 20 Some Hebrew manuscripts and Tg. Jon. read ‫ בלא עת‬instead of ‫ולא עת‬. 21 For the various nuances of the Hebrew root ‫( קמ"ט‬see also Job 16:8) and its cognates in Arabic, Aramaic, and Syriac, as well as its usage as a verb in Rabbinic

228

the bible and the ancient near east In Rabbinic literature, the expressions ‫בעונתה‬, “in her due time,” and ‫שלא בעונתה‬, “before her due time,” occur in a parable on the death of old people and youths.22 B. Phoenician: ‫בל עת‬ The funerary inscription of Eshmunazor, king of Sidon,23 reads: ‫נגזלת בל עתי‬, “I was snatched away before my time.”24 C. Akkadian: There are three similar Akkadian expressions: 1. ina åm la àÊmtiàu/àÊm§tiàu a. ina åm la àÊmtiàu urruÉià imtåt, “He died suddenly, on a day not (in accordance with) his destiny”;25 b. girrià ina åm la àÊm§ti iqamm¿àu malku, “The king will burn him on a day not (in accordance with his) destiny.”26 The opposite of death “not (in accordance with his) destiny” is ina àÊm§tiàu mâtu, “to die (in accordance with) one’s destiny.”27

Hebrew, see Gordis, Book of Job, 240; Pope, Job, 164; J. C. Greenfield, “Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions,” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke (Baltimore and London, 1971), 260 n. 25 (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield, II, ed. S. M. Paul et al. (Jerusalem, 2001), 711 n. 25. Greenfield interprets the root ‫ קמ"ט‬here as “be snatched away.” He notes Tg. Jon.: ‫ ;אתבטילו‬Vulgate: sublati; Peshitta: ‫ ;אתכליו‬Sa‘adya: ’uÈßå; compare also the modern translations: NJPS, RSV, and NEB. 22 See Gen. Rab. 62:2 (Theodor and Albeck, pp. 673–674); Song of Songs Rab. 6:2; Eccles. Rab. 5:11; and cf. y Ber. 8, 2, 5c. 23 KAI, I, 14:2–3, 12; compare Y. Avishur, Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible (Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 2000), 137. 24 For the Phoenician root ‫גז"ל‬, “to snatch,” compare the use of the Hebrew cognate in Mic 3:2; Prov 4:16. The related Hebrew roots ‫ גז"ר‬and ‫ גר"ז‬also refer to death. For ‫גז"ר‬, see Isa 53:8; Ps 89:6. For ‫גר"ז‬, which is a hapax legomenon, see Ps 31:23. Cf. also Greenfield, “Scripture and Inscription,” 259–260 (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, 710–711). For the Phoenician expression ‫בנ מסכ יממ אזרמ‬, which occurs in the continuation of the same line in the Eshmunazor inscription, and is translated by P. Kyle McCarter (The Context of Scripture, II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World [Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2000], 182) as “a man of a limited number of days,” compare the expression ‫ימים מעטים‬, “few days,” discussed below. 25 D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago, 1924), 41:r.13. See also R. D. Biggs, “More Babylonian ‘Prophecies’,” Iraq 29 (1967), 129:10. 26 See Lambert, BWL, 74:64. 27 See G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, II (Oxford, 1960), 115:33–34 and the notes to these lines on p. 206. See also M. Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel,” HUCA 32 (1961), 199–201. Tsevat also adduces a parallel


229

2. ina la adanniàu28 The expression ina la adanniàu occurs in parallelism with ina la åm¿àu (see above): ina la åm¿àu arrat nià¿ ikaààassu / ina la adanniàu iààâl 29 iraàài bilta,30 “Before his days (are up) the curse of the people will overtake him. Before his appointed time there will be guilt upon him (?) / he will be punished (?).”31 The expressions “the curse of the people will overtake him” and “there will be guilt upon him (?) / he will be punished (?)” imply that the person who deceitfully lends money will receive a grievous punishment leading to an early death. Lambert, in spite of the fact that he noted the parallelism, assumed that adannu in this context is to be interpreted as a technical term of commerce: “The date on which repayment of a loan has to be made… suits the larger context. Either the parallelism between 114 and 115 is a coincidence, or the writer did not recognize the commercial sense of adannu.”32 He thus translated: “If he demanded repayment before the agreed date….”33 Nevertheless, in the two parallel lines one can easily discern expressions indicating both the time and the substance of the threatened punishment—death before one’s time. The following lines as well presuppose the death of the

from Greek literature (ibid., 200–201 n. 39): Antigone laments that she is fated to descend to Hades pri/n moi/ moi=ran ‘ech&kein Bi/ou, “before the fate of my life reached me.” See R. D. Dawe, Sophoclis Tragoediae, II (Leipzig, 1979), 92:896. For additional examples of àÊmtu in idioms referring to death, dying day, and premature death, see CAD, ’/III, 16–18. 28 See CAD, A/I, 97, 98, c, s.v. adannu: “a moment in time at the end of a specified period [also] referring to the natural end of human life.” 29 For àâlu (N), see CAD, ’/I, 282. 30 The expression iraàài bilta is problematic. See Lambert, BWL, 321, note to line 115. For the translation, “He will be punished,” see CAD, A/I, 98, d. The translation, “There will be guilt upon him,” is that of Lambert, BWL, 133. In the light of this uncertainty, one may be justified in reading the first sign of the noun serving as the direct object of iraàài as pil instead of bil, i.e., iraàài pÊlta, “He will be shamed” (proposed by Prof. Victor Hurowitz and the present author). See AHw, 869: pÊàtu/ pÊltu, “Beschimpfung, Beleidigung.” It is interesting to note that the word pÊàtu/pÊltu also occurs elsewhere in collocation with arratu, “curse.” See, for example, Epic of Gilgamesh, VI:73, 86, 91; ARM, X, 43:9. 31 Lambert, BWL, 132:114–115. 32 Ibid., 321. 33 Ibid., 133.

230

the bible and the ancient near east lender: makkåràu ul ibêl apalàu ana bÊtiàu ul irrubu àunu aÉÉåàu, “His heir will not control his possessions, and his brothers will not inherit his estate.”34 The word adannu also occurs in the context of the end of life in combination with ußurtu, “designs, plans, ordinances (of the gods)”:35 ußurat adanni ikàudaààumma illika uruÉ måti, “The appointed moment came upon him and he went the road of death.”36 Similarly, in the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta, it refers to untimely death: tatbal umm§n§t Aààur… ina måt la àÊmti kaj§na sukkupu […] ina adan la (a)ßurti alman§àina…., “You carried off the armies of Aààur…. Forever in premature death they (the men of Assyria) are laid to rest… Their widows before their appointed time….”37 3. ina la simaniàu The expression ina la simaniàu, “before his right time,”38 also indicates an event that occurs before its appointed time, although it usually does not refer to death or dying. The following example is particularly interesting because of the occurrence of ina la åmåja, “before my (allotted) day” (see above), in the preceding parallel column (in a difficult context): àÊbåte ina la simenija tussÊlanni ina erài, “Old age has laid me in bed before my time.”39

III. “in his prime” A. Hebrew: ‫בדמי ימים‬ 1. ‫אני אמרתי ִבּ ְד ִמי ימי אלכה בשערי שאול פֻקדתי יתר שנותי‬, “I had thought: I must depart in the middle of my days. I have been consigned to the gates of Sheol for the rest of my years” (Isa 38:10).40 Although many diverse 34

Ibid., 132:116–117. AHw, 1440, B, 5. 36 H. Winckler, Die Keilinschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig, 1889), Pl. 34, no. 72:9. 37 See E. Ebeling, Bruchstücke eines politischen Propagandagedichtes aus einer assyrischen Kanzlei, Mitteilungen der altorientalischen Gesellschaft 12/2 (Leipzig, 1938), 14, iii–iv:7–8. 38 See CAD, S, 269, b, s.v. simanu: “proper time… referring to phases of human life.” 39 O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets, I (London, 1957), 65:11–12. Cf. W. G. Lambert, “The Sultantepe Tablets: A Review Article,” RA 53 (1959), 130–131. 40 For the meaing of ‫הל"ך‬, see above, n. 18. 35


231

explanations have been proposed for the hapax legomenon ‫בדמי ימי‬, there is a scholarly consensus that the expression refers to the prime, or middle, years of one’s life.41 B. Akkadian: lalû One of the meanings of lalû is “prime of (one’s) life.”42 This meaning is exemplified by the Akkadian list of the decades of a person’s life from age forty to ninety, which states: 40 lalûtum, “40 (are the) prime years (of a man).”43 The expression ina lalîàu, “in his prime,” also occurs as a variant of the expression ina la åm¿àu [var. ina lalîàu] imât, “He will become rich; he will die before his day [var. in his prime].”44 Cf. also teleqqi45 eãla ina ãåb lalîàu, “You take the young man in the height of his prime”;46 ina lalîàu imât, “He will die in his prime”;47 ina lalîàu 41 See the comments of S. D. Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia (Padova, 1867), 435: “Scheid translated appropriately based on Arabic, which designates the noontime dumat aà-àams, since the sun appears to be standing silently above the middle of the sky…. Thus ‫ בדמי ימי‬is like ‫חצי ימי‬, ‘in the middle of my days’.” For a different interpretation, see the translation of this verse by Sa‘adya: ‫בטראה איאמי‬, “in the freshness of my days.” Ibn Bal‘am paraphrases this translation by Sa‘adya and adds: ‫אי פי שבאבי‬, “viz. in my youth.” For the translation by Sa‘adya, see Y. Ratzaby, Saadya’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah (Qiryat Ono, 1993), 81 (Hebrew); for the interpretation of Ibn Bal‘am, see M. Goshen-Gottstein, R. Judah Ibn Bal‘am’s Commentary on Isaiah (Ramat Gan, 1992), 172 (Hebrew). 42 See CAD, L, 50–51. For the same meaning, see ibid., 52, s.v. lalûtu. 43 See O. R. Gurney and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets, II (London, 1964), 400. The present sentence occurs in line 45. For studies and notes on this text, see J. Nougayrol, “Notes Brèves,” RA 62 (1968), 96; A. W. Sjöberg, “Der Examenstext A,” ZA 60 (1974), 164; M. Weinfeld, “Ben ’iv‘im le- eva, Ben ’emonim li-Gvura: Maqbila Mesopoãamit,” Sefer Dr. Barukh Ben-Yehuda: MeÈqarim ba-Miqra u’ve-MaÈàevet Yiára’el (Tel Aviv, 1981), 312–317; A. Malamat, “Longevity.” Weinfeld and Malamat compare this text to the similar list in Pirqei Avot 5:21. 44 F. R. Kraus, Texte zur babylonischen Physiognomatik, AfO Beiheft 3 (Berlin, 1939), 6:6. 45 The verb teleqqi, “you take,” is an abbreviation of the standard expression napiàtam leqû, “to take away life.” Compare, for example, iàqânni maàqûssu àa leqê napiàti, “She has given me a potion to drink to take away life” (A. T. Clay, Epics, Hymns, Omens, and Other Texts, Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan 4 (New Haven, 1923), 18:3 (cf. also line 13). See also the usage of this verb in the Epic of Gilgamesh, XI:196 (see ANET, 95). The “taking” of Utanapiàtim and his wife expresses their deification. Compare similarly the verb ‫לקחת‬, “to take,” in Gen 5:24; 2 Kings 2:3. See also Ps 49:16; 73:24; and the expression ‫ לקחת נפש‬in 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Jonah 4:3; Ps 31:14; Prov 1:19. 46 E. Ebeling and F. Köcher, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur (Berlin, 1953), 37: 6. 47 For this and additional examples, see CAD, L, 50–51.

232

the bible and the ancient near east iqatti, “He will come to an end in his prime.”48

IV. “in good health” A. Akkadian: bulãu A certain liver omen is interpreted as follows: amåt dLuÉuàîm àa awÊlum ina bulãiàu mîtu, “The liver referring to the demon LuÉuàu, meaning that a man will die though (apparently) completely healthy.”49 V. “in his youth” A. Hebrew: ‫ַבּנּ ַֹער‬ Elihu, in his speech on the punishment of the ‫חנפי לב‬, “impious,” says: ‫לא יְ ַשׁוְּ עוּ כי אסרם ָתּמֹת ַבּנּ ַֹער נפשם‬, “They do not cry for help when He afflicts them. They die in their youth” (Job 36:13–14).50 B. Akkadian The following description occurs in the Epic of Gilgamesh (SB version): am¿låtum àa kÊma qanî api Éaßip àumàu eãla damqa ardata damiqtum ur[tammu in]nenda måti, “Man is snapped off like a reed in a canebrake—whoever he be! The comely young man, the pretty woman, while mak[ing love, together fa]ce death.”51 VI. “in the middle of (his) days” A. Hebrew: ‫ חצ"י ימים‬/ ‫בחצי ימי‬52 1. ‫תּוֹר ֵדם לבאר שחת אנשי דמים ומרמה לא יחצו‬ ִ ‫ואתה אלהים‬ ‫ימיהם ואני אבטח בך‬, “For You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost Pit—those murderous, treacherous men. They shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Ps 55:24).

48 A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book (Philadelphia, 1956), 323 I y + 15. 49 A. Goetze, Old Babylonian Omen Texts, YOS, Babylonian Texts 10 (New Haven and London, 1947), 11, iii:1–2. 50 The noun ‫ֹער‬ ַ ‫ נ‬also occurs in Ps 88:16; Prov 29:21; Job 33:25. 51 Tablet X, vi:10–12. Reconstruction and translation follows R. J. Tournay and A. Shaffer, L’épopée de Gilgamesh (paris, 1998), 217. Cf. W. G. Lambert, “The Theology of Death,” Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen, 1980), 54–55 and the notes on p. 57; and George, Epic of Gilgamesh, 86. 52 For this expression, see also Jer 17:11.


233

2. ‫א ַֹמר ֵא ִלי אל תעלני בחצי ימי‬, “I say, ‘O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days” (Ps 102:25). The root ‫ על"י‬occurs here in the hiph‘il stem with the meaning “to destroy.”53 Similarly in Job 36:20, where Elihu warns Job not to hope for the shelter of the night: ‫אל תשאף הלילה‬ ‫לעלות עמים תחתם‬, “Do not long for the night, when peoples vanish where they are,” i.e., at night peoples are destroyed and disappear.54 The Akkadian semantic and etymological equivalent, elû (’), has the same meaning. Cf. apilàu n§qa mêàu lià¿li, “May he (Ninurta) remove his heir, who libates water for him”;55 z¿ràu ana àålî aj iràû nÊd aÉi, “May they (the gods) not tarry to remove his offspring”;56 iàissu lissuÉu liÉalliqu piri’àu lissuÉu lià¿lû nannabàu, “They (the great gods) shall uproot him, destroy , tear out his offspring, remove his progeny.”57 VII. “to shorten days/years” A. Hebrew: ‫קצר ימים‬ 1. ‫ כּ ִֹחי( ִק ֵצּר ימי‬:‫ענָּה בדרך כחו )קרי‬, ִ “He drained my strength in mid-course; He shortened my days” (Ps 102:24). 2. ‫אדם ילוד אשה ְק ַצר ימים ושבע רֹגֶז‬, “Man born of woman is short-lived (lit., short of days) and sated with trouble” (Job 14:1). 3. ‫יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים ִתּ ְקצ ְֹרנָה‬, “The fear of the Lord prolongs life, while the years of the wicked will be shortened” (Prov 10:27). B. Akkadian: åm¿ kurrû åm¿àu likarrÊma aj ikàuda littåta, “May he (Nabû) shorten his days. May he not reach old age.”58

53

See Rashi, A. Ibn Ezra, and D. Kimchi (the latter compares Job 5:26). See Pope, Job, 272. 55 L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum (London, 1912), 8, iv:20. 56 V. Scheil, Textes élamites-sémitiques: Mémoires de la delegation en Perse, II (Paris, 1900), Pl. 17, iii:27/29. 57 King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, 8, iii:30. 58 Ibid., 11, iii:8–9. Cf. A. T. Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Col54

234 VIII.

the bible and the ancient near east “few days” A. Hebrew: ‫ימים מעטים‬59 1. Job, in an emotional outburst, cries out bitterly: ‫הלא‬ (‫ וחדל‬:‫מעט ימי יחדל )קרי‬, “My days are few, so desist!” (Job 10:20). 2. The Psalmist prays that God will requite the wicked who surround him as they deserve: ‫יהיו ימיו מעטים‬, “May his days be few” (Ps 109:8).60 B. Akkadian: åm¿ Êßåti 1. åm¿ Êßåtim à§n§t ÉuàaÉÉim… ana àÊmtim liàÊmàum, “May he (Enlil) destine for him… (a life of) few days (and) years of famine.”61 2. adi åmÊ Êßåti àa balãa liqtÊma, “May he come to an end after a life of but a few days.”62

Sudden Death: I. “in the twinkling of an eye” A. Akkadian: niãil Ênim måt niãil Ênim ana àÊmtim liàÊmàum, “May he (Enlil) destine for him a death (in) the twinkling of an eye.”63 lection, YOS, Babylonian Texts 1 (New Haven, 1915), 43:18. For additional examples, see CAD, K, 230. For the expression “short/numbered years,” which occurs in Hittite documents with reference to a short lifespan, see H. A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite Terms for the Life Span,” Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford, CT, 1987), 54. 59 See also Ps 109:8; Job 10:20. 60 The second colon reads: ‫ק ָדּתוֹ יקח אחר‬ ֻ ‫פּ‬, ְ “Another one will assume his destiny.” Heb. ‫ פקדתו‬is the interdialectal equivalent of Akk. àÊmtiàu, “his destiny”; see above and cf. Num 16:29. 61 LH XXVIb:65–72. See Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, II, 100. 62 King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, 5, iii:40. 63 LH XXVIb:70–72 (Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, II, 100). For this expression and for similar ones occurring in Akkadian and Hebrew, the meaning of which is “immediately,” see M. Held, “ ‘Iyyunim ba-Leqsiqografiya ha-Miqra’it le-’Or ha-’Akkadit, Part 2,” Studies in Bible Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth, ed. S. E. Loewenstamm (Jerusalem, 1987), 104–114. Held mentions another Akkadian expression related to the eye, petê u kat§mi, “opening and closing (of the eyes),” as well as the Hebrew expression ‫טורף עין‬, “in the blink of an eye” (ibid., 113–114). For the latter expression, see also Z. Ben-Hayyim, “Le-‘Erkhe Millim,” Sefer ’emu’el Yeivin: MeÈqarim ba-Miqra, Archeologiya, Laàon we-Toledot Yiára’el, ed. S. Avramsky et al. (Jerusalem, 1970), 428–439. For the correct interpretation of niãil Ênim, as noted by Held, see also A. Ungnad, Hammurabi’s Gesetze (Leipzig, 1909), 153: “Tod des Augenblicks.” The same expression is found in 1 Cor 15:52, where Paul says: “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye [’em ‘riph~| ’ofqalmou~].”

untimely death in the semitic languages II.

235

“suddenly, immediately” A. Hebrew 1. ‫ ֶרגַע‬64 The word ‫ רגע‬describes the sudden death of the wicked: ‫ָמתו וחצות לילה‬ ֻ ‫רגע י‬, “Some die suddenly in the middle of the night” (Job 34:20). Cf. Ps 73:19: ‫איך‬ ‫היו לשמה כרגע ספו תמו מן בלהות‬, “How suddenly are they ruined, wholly swept away by terrors.”65 2. ‫פתאם‬/‫פתע‬ a. ‫וכי ימות מת עליו בפתע פתאם‬, “If a person dies suddenly near him” (Num 6:9).66 b. ‫ותבֹא עליך פתאם שואה לא תדעי‬, ָ “Evil is coming upon you which you do not know” (Isa 47:11). c. ‫אם שוט ימית פתאם‬, “When suddenly a scourge brings death” (Job 9:23). d. Qohelet describes ‫עת רעה‬, “time of calamity,” i.e., death, as “falling” upon humans just as a trap falls upon a fish or a bird: ‫ֵדע‬ ַ ‫כי גם לא י‬ ‫האדם את עתו כדגים שנאחזים במצודה רעה וכצפרים‬ ‫ָה ֲא ֻחזוֹת בפח כהם יוקשים בני האדם לעת רעה כשתפול‬ ‫עליהם פתאם‬, “And a man cannot even know him destined time. As fishes are enmeshed in a fatal net, as birds are trapped in a snare, so men are caught at the time of calamity, when it comes upon them without warning” (Eccles 9:12).67 B. Akkadian: arÉià 68 / Éanãià 69 / Éarpià 70 (imât)

64 In the context of the previous note, it may be added that in Rabbinic literature ‫ רגע‬was defined as ‫הרף עין‬, “a wink of the eye, instantaneously”; see y Ber. 1, 1, 2d; Lam. Rab. 2:19. For the relationship between the word expressing “suddenness” (,‫פתאום‬ ‫ רגע‬,‫ )פתע‬and “disaster,” see D. Daube, The Sudden in the Scriptures (Leiden, 1964). 65 For additional examples, see Exod 33:5; Num 16:21; 17:10; Isa 47:9. The word ‫ רגע‬also occurs in Job 21:13, but there the vocalization ‫ רֹגַע‬has been proposed (cf. Tg. Jon.: ‫)מרגוע‬. See Pope, Job, 155, 158; Gordis, Book of Job, 225, 229–230; Tur Sinai, Book of Job, 196–197. For the interpretation of the expression ‫ יכלו( בטוב ימיהם‬:‫יבלו )קרי‬ in the first part of this verse, see M. Held, “Studies in Biblical Lexicography in the Light of Akkadian,” Eretz-Israel 16 (1982), 77–78 (Hebrew); and cf. also Job 36:11. 66 For the same emphatic phrase ‫ פתע פתאום‬in other contexts, see Isa 29:5; 30: 13. 67 See R. Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York, 1955), 298: “The comparison with the fishes and the birds more naturally stresses the suddenness of their capture rather than their lack of foreknowledge of the events.” 68 Gadd, Cuneiform Texts, CT 38, 17:96.

236

the bible and the ancient near east In addition to the references in the previous notes, cf. àa kaàà§pija u kaàà§ptija [ar]Éià Éanãià napiàtaàunu liblÊma, “May the life of my sorcerer or sorceress come quickly and [prom]ptly to an end.”71

III.

69

“while unaware” A. Hebrew 1. (‫ לא ידע)ו‬/ ‫)ב(בלי דעת‬ The expressions (‫ לא ידע)ו‬and ‫ )ב(בלי דעת‬sometimes occur with the meaning “without advance knowledge, unexpectedly,” as in Job 9:5: ‫המעתיק הרים ולא ידעו‬ ‫אשר הפכם באפו‬, “He who moves mountains without their knowing it; who overturns them in His anger.” Here the reference is to an event that occurs unexpectedly and without warning.72 I would suggest that the same meaning occurs in Job 36:12: ...‫ואם לא ישמעו‬ ‫ויגועו בבלי דעת‬, “But if they are not obedient… they shall die unexpectedly.” This interpretation accords well with what is said in the preceding verse, which describes the alternative possibility (v. 11): ‫אם ישמעו‬ ‫ויעבדו יכלו ימיהם בטוב ושניהם בנעימים‬,73 “If they will serve obediently, they shall spend their days in happiness, their years in delight,” as well as what is said in v. 14, which returns to the subject of untimely death: ‫תּמֹת ַבּנּ ַֹער נפשם‬, ָ “They die in their youth.”74 2. ‫מבלי משים‬ In Job 4:19–20, Eliphaz describes the shortness of man’s days: ‫ֻכּתּוּ מבלי משים‬ ָ ‫ידכאום לפני עש מבקר לערב י‬ ‫לנצח יאבדו‬, “Who are crushed like a moth, shattered between daybreak and evening, perishing forever, unnoticed.”75

R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux (Leiden, 1951), 8:18. V. Scheil, “Nouveaux presages tirés du foie,” RA 27 (1930), 142:4. 71 G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû, AfO Beiheft 2 (Berlin, 1937), II:16. 72 S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray (Job, ICC [New York, 1921], 85) comment on ‫לא‬ ‫ ידעו‬in Job 9:5 as follows: “so quickly is it done.” They compare similar expressions in Ps 35:8; Isa 47:11; Prov 5:6; Jer 50:24. 73 For ‫יכלו ימיהם‬, see Held, “Studies in Biblical Lexicography,” 77–78. 74 See the discussion above. 75 One should, however, note that H. L. Ginsberg (in lectures at the Jewish Theo70


237

B. Akkadian: la idû The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary lists the following meanings for the expression la idû: “unwittingly, unconsciously, in a daze.”76 The phrase la idû can, however, also refer to an unexpected event: b¿l bÊti àu§ti ina la idû imât, “The owner of this house will die unexpectedly.”77 Cf. also ana la idê iàtan§ru, “He will become rich unexpectedly.”78 Finally, one last possible example should be mentioned, not because of its certainty, but because of its singularity. In Isa 51:6, the prophet contrasts the destruction of the earth and its inhabitants with the Lord’s eternal salvation: ‫שאו לשמים עיניכם והביטו אל הארץ מתחת כי‬ ‫שמים כעשן נמלחו והארץ כבגד ִתּ ְב ֶלה ויֹשביה כמו כן יְ מותון וישועתי לעולם‬ ‫תהיה וצדקתי לא ֵת ַחת‬, “Raise your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: though the heavens should melt away like smoke, and the earth wear out like a garment, and its inhabitants die out ‫כמו כן‬. My victory shall stand forever, My triumph shall remain unbroken.” The similes of smoke and a garment as objects that are dissipated/destroyed need no explanation. But what was the intention of the prophet when he said that the inhabitants of the earth “will die out ‫ ”? כמו כן‬Some scholars interpret the passage as meaning, “They will likewise die.” Others suggest that this is a case of haplography, and reconstruct ‫כמו כנים ימותון‬, “They will die like lice” (or, if the singular ‫ ֵכּן‬exists [Num 13:33 (?), 13b, 14b; Ps 105:31], there would be no need to resort to haplography). One should nevertheless note the unique interpretation of Luzatto: “In my opinion, the meaning of ‫ כמו כן‬is ‘in a moment’, i.e., in the time it takes one to pronounce the short word ‫כן‬. Maybe that is also the reason for the German idiom ‘in einem Nu’ ”79 [the meaning of the German expression is

logical Seminary in New York) interpreted both ‫ עש‬at the end of v. 19 and ‫ משים‬in v. 20 based on the parallel roots in Arabic, the meaning of which is “evening” and “dusk,” respectively. According to his interpretation, these are continuations of the metaphors describing passing time. 76 CAD, I/J, 29–30. 77 Gadd, Cuneiform Texts, CT 38, 42:50. 78 F. Köcher and A. L. Oppenheim, “The Old-Babylonian Omen Text VAT 7525,” AfO 18 (1957–58), 66, iii:17. CAD, I/J, 30, translates, “without setting his mind to it.” 79 Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia, 535–536.

238


“immediately, in an instant,” i.e., in the short time that it takes for one to say the monosyllabic word “Nu”].80 In conclusion, the expressions for untimely or sudden death in the ancient Semitic languages are many and varied. Sadly, “untimely death” describes the bitter fate of the one to whom this article is dedicated in memoriam. 80

Compare the British and American expression, “Before one can say, ‘Jack Robinson’,” which, according to The Oxford English Dictionary (VIII [Oxford, 1989], 164), was first attested in 1778.

the ‘plural of ecstasy’ in love poetry

239

THE “PLURAL OF ECSTASY” IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND BIBLICAL LOVE POETRY* A very rare but misunderstood grammatical feature that occasionally appears in ancient Near Eastern and Biblical love poetry is the employment of the first-person plural in ecstatic amatory discourse.1 This sensual psychological phenomenon, which I would like to designate the “plural of ecstasy,” replaces the otherwise expected first-person singular in rapturous utterances of the female lover.2 Though its presence in Akkadian may be clearly demonstrated, its first attestations are apparently found in Sumerian love songs. The sudden and unexpected transition from singular to plural, which has baffled schol-

* This study is dedicated to my very dear friend, Jonas, whose “plurality” of interests and disciplines spans the entire realm of ancient Near Eastern and Biblical literature. I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to Professor Jacob Klein for his thorough examination of the translation of the Sumerian love poems cited in this study and for his helpful annotations. 1 After independently reaching my own conclusions, I discovered that this phenomenon was noted in passing by J. Goodnick Westenholz (“Love Lyrics from the Ancient Near East,” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, IV, ed. J. M. Sasson [New York, 1995], 2474): “One noteworthy feature of the discourse is that female lovers commonly employed the first-person plural instead of the first-person singular especially when referring to bodily features, perhaps in the sense that they are sharing them with their lovers.” Compare, too, her similar comments in “A Forgotten Love Song,” Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton, AOS 67 (New Haven, 1987), 417. See also M. H. Pope (Song of Songs, AB 7 C [Garden City, NY, 1977], 304) citing S. N. Kramer (The Sacred Marriage Rite, hereafter SMR [Bloomington and London, 1969], 92), who states: “… there appears to be a common tradition of enallage in the sacred marriage songs, whatever the explanation, and it is the bride who refers to herself with plural pronouns in begging the love of the groom. Since the female in the sacred rite represented the great goddess, it may be that the shift to the plural was intended to suggest the excellence of divinity. Or, perhaps the priestess as surrogate both for the goddess and for mortal females speaks for those who vicariously share her joy in the love of the king who represents the god.” Since Pope did not take into account, however, that this plural also appears in secular poetry, the above explanations are not entirely tenable. For other ad hoc suggestions, see below, nn. 7, 8, 10, 19, and 29. 2 The female point of view is predominant in general in these love songs (as well as in the other collections cited in this study). See J. S. Cooper, “Enki’s Member: Eros and Irrigation in Sumerian Literature,” Dumu-e 2 -dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Å. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens (Philadelphia, 1989), 87–89.

240


ars, has usually been interpreted as reflecting the accompaniment of a female entourage which functioned as a lyric chorus. Though the presence of such an ensemble is attested occasionally in these love lyrics, it seems that it has been resorted to only in order to resolve these very few intriguing and puzzling passages. I would like to offer here an alternate solution to the problem, which may help shed new light on these passages (and perhaps on others as well). It seems that when a female lover gives ardent expression to her highly charged emotional state, she at times articulates her sensuous feelings in the persona pluralis. Possible examples of such a plural are found in the following excerpts from sacred and secular love poetry.3 Sumerian SRT 54 This sacred marriage song relates how the goddess Inanna, while preparing herself by bathing and by donning her finery in fervent anticipation of her bridegroom’s arrival in the bridal chamber, extols with intense excitement her recently attained youthful nobility: 39. Now our breasts (gaba-me) have become firm.5 40. Now hair has sprouted on our vulva (gal 4 -la-me)!6

3 Because of the intrinsic difficulties in understanding the genre of love poetry, the translations of these Sumerian poems often differ from one scholar to the next. This fact does not affect, however, the essential point of this paper, for the plural translation of the terms involved is not in question. 4 E. Chiera, Sumerian Religious Texts (= SRT) (Upland, PA, 1924). For duplicate, see S. N. Kramer, “Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts,” PAPS 107 (1963), 521, N 4305: rev. ii. For translations (partial and complete), discussions, and comments, see idem, SMR, 97–98; B. Alster, “Sumerian Love Songs,” RA 79 (1985), 146–152; A. Falkenstein, “Untersuchungen zur sumerischen Grammatik,” ZA 45 (1939), 169–173; T. Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore and London, 1975), 83; idem, The Harps that Once… (New Haven, 1987), 16–18; Y. Sefati (Love Songs in Sumerian Literature [Ramat Gan, 1998], 132–150), who cites additional literature on p. 132. 5 ba-gub-gub. Sum. gub = Akk. zaq§pu. Cf. KAR, II (Leipzig, 1923), 472 ii:3: àumma sinniàtu tul§àa zaqpå, “If a woman’s breasts are erect.” For analogous Hebrew expressions, cf. ‫( שדי ָנכֹנוּ‬Ezek 16:7); ‫( ושדי כמגדלות‬Song of Songs 8:10). Note the variant text, “my breasts” (gaba-mu). 6 For sal-la = gal -la = qallû, “vulva,” see Falkenstein, “Untersuchungen,” 173. 4 Note that in the passage from Ezekiel, which also describes the sexual maturation


241

Though Kramer, Jacobsen, and Sefati7 refer this unexpected plural in her soliloquy to the supposed presence of female companions of the goddess,8 the context clearly indicates that Inanna herself is speaking and, prior to the consummation of her union with her lover, is taking delightful exuberant pride in her own pudenda, which she refers to as “our breasts” and “our vulva.”9 PBS 12/I, 52: obv. II–rev. 110 This royal love song begins and repeatedly reiterates mí-ús-sá-me,

of a female (‫)ותרבי ותגדלי‬, the mention of the “well-formed breasts” is followed by “your (pubic) hair has sprouted” (‫ ;ושערך ִצ ֵמּ ַח‬Ezek 16:7). The connection with the Sumerian passage was also seen by M. Greenberg, Ezekiel, AB 22 (Garden City, NY, 1973), 276. Note here also the variant text, “my vulva” (gal 4 -la-mà). 7 Kramer, SMR, 98; Jacobsen, Harps, 18; Sefati, Love Songs, 69. Sefati has noted this interchange on several occasions. At times he suggests that “-me” may be an Emesal variant for “-mu” (p. 84). In other instances, he relates the plural to a female chorus accompanying the bride on her way to meet the groom. See, however, pp. 83–84, where he cites other, not strictly amatory, passages in which the plural is seemingly inexplicable, since the reference is entirely to Inanna herself. 8 Note that “musicians” (nar-e-ne) appear in passing only once in the text, in line 28. 9 Alster (“Sumerian Love Songs,” 146) notes and accepts the variant text, which renders both substantives as singular, ga-ba-mu, “my breasts,” and gal 4 -la-mà, “on my vulva.” This is a significant variant, since it proves that Inanna herself is the sole referent. (Could the scribe have deliberately emended the text to avoid the otherwise baffling plural and thereby harmonize these lines with the singular in line 43: [a] gal 4 -la-mà-ke 4 -eà/[b] gal 4 -la-mu-àè? In such a case, our lectio difficilior definitely praeferendum est.) He also assumes (pp. 151–152) that the ensuing lines are all recited by the goddess alone: (41) Going to the lap of (my) bridegroom, let us rejoice! (42) Dance! Dance! (43) O Bau, let us rejoice over my vulva! (44) Dance! Dance! (45) (Until) the end, it will please him, it will please him! Note that he omits from his translation ba-ba (line 41), which he explains “as an exclamatory expression,” and d ba-u (line 43) is interpreted as a “scribal joke rendering this [i.e., ba-ba] expression.” For interpretations of Baba, a pet name for Inanna and actually the wife of Ningirsu, see Jacobsen, Harps, 18; idem, The Treasures of Darkness (New Haven and London, 1976), 27–28, 81, 82, 156; Kramer, SMR, 152 n. 29; Falkenstein, “Untersuchungen,” 169–171. As for Bau, the city goddess of Uruk, whose name is an onomatopoetic imitation of a dog’s bark, “bow-wow,” see T. Jacobsen, “Mesopotamian Gods and Pantheons,” Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. W. L. Moran (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 33. 10 S. Langdon, Sumerian Grammatical Texts (Philadelphia, 1917). For translations and discussion, see Alster, “Sumerian Love Songs,” 128–135; Jacobsen, Harps, 90–92;

242


“our son-in-law” (lines 9, 10, 13–14, 31), which Jacobsen explains as “a way of saying my betrothed.”11 Subsequently, the amoreuse, growing rapturous over her beloved’s multilayered mane of hair, exclaims: 34. My one adorned with the mane, my one adorned with the mane, 35. My sweet one, my one adorned with the mane, 36. Like a palm tree, my one adorned with the mane, 37. My one of a shaggy neck, my one adorned with the mane like a tamarisk. Then, desirous of his close physical contact, she exclaims: 38. My bridegroom, your mane fit for the assembly, 39. My sweet, press it to our bosom (gaba-me-a). 40. Lover, your mane honored in the assembly, 41. My brother of beautiful eyes, press it to our bosom (gaba-mea). Though Kramer remarks, “It is not clear why the plural pronoun is used here,”12 he does not resort to the assumption of a chorus, which is nowhere present. It is obvious that she is expressing her own rapturous state by means of the plural. CBS 853013 In a love song dedicated to the goddess Nan§ja (= Inanna), a very erotic passage appears, replete with metaphors for sexual intercourse (obv. I 21–23): Kramer, SMR, 99–100; Sefati, Love Songs, 267–280, whose translation is followed here. See also Westenholz, “Forgotten Love Song,” 417 n. 11. Kramer relates the plural to the parents of the girl; Alster—to a group of women. 11 Jacobsen (Harps, 87) states that this term “stresses that he had been accepted by the family”: 30. Here stands our parapet, destroy our parapet! 31. Our son-in-law, exert yourself exceedingly! 32. When you touch (our) hair with your hand, what are you to us! (ta-me muun-gál) (or: then you are honey to us—reading the sign “ta” as “làl”). 33. When they have set you free, come to our house (é-me-eà-e)! 12 Kramer, SMR, 152 n. 31. 13 See B. Alster, “Marriage and Love in the Sumerian Love Songs,” The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, 1993), 15, 20. The text first appeared in Å. W. Sjöberg, “Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts II,” JCS 29 (1977), 21, but several of the restorations were made by Alster. For a similar metaphor of a “canal” in Egyptian love poetry, see below, n. 32.


243

Do not dig a canal, let me be your canal! Do not plough a field, let me be your field! Farmer, do not search for a wet place! (My precious sweet one), let me be your wet place (i.e., vagina)! She then continues (lines 24–26): The [ditch (?)] is your furrow. Our little apples (i.e., breasts) (ÉasÉur tur-tur-me)14 are your desire! Ni 246115 This epithalamium is dedicated to ’uàin (the fourth ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur),16 perhaps by his bride and reigning queen, Kub§tum:17 9. Bridegroom, let me make all things sweet! (Jacobsen: O! that you would do all the sweet things to me!) 10. My precious sweet, honey let me bring (Jacobsen: My sweet dear one, you bring that which will be honey sweet!)18 11. In the bedchamber, honey filled, (Jacobsen: In the bedroom’s honey-sweet corner,) 12. Let us enjoy (ga-ba-Éúl-Éúl-le-en-dè en) your sweet appeal (Éi-li-èm-zé-ba-zu)! (Jacobsen: Let us enjoy over and over your charms and sweetnesses!) 13. Bridegroom, let me make all things sweet! (Jacobsen: O! that you would do all the sweet things to me!) 14 For the erotic connotation of apples, see S. M. Paul, “A Lover’s Garden of Verse: Literal and Metaphorical Imagery in Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry,” Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN, 1997), 100 n. 1 [271–272 n. 1]. 15 See S. N. Kramer, M. ÇiÆ, and H. Kizilyay, “Five New Sumerian Literary Texts,” Belleten 16 (1952), 360–363. Cf. Kramer, SMR, 92–93; idem, The Sumerians (Chicago, 1963), 254; Sefati, Love Songs, 353–359. The first translation is based on Kramer et al., op. cit., and on Alster, “Sumerian Love Songs,” 135–138, and is followed by Jacobsen’s Harps, 88. For other translations, see Jacobsen, “Love Song to Shu-Suen,” Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. W. L. Moran (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 171. 16 Alster (“Sumerian Love Poetry,” 135) assumes that the name ’usin does not refer to the king himself, but only serves as a metaphor employed by the woman for the man she loves. 17 For Kub§tum, see Jacobsen, “The Reign of Ibbi-Suen,” JCS 7 (1953), 46–47; P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” ASJ 3 (1981), 80. For the identification of the bride who speaks here with Kub§tum, see Jacobsen, “Love Song to Shu-Suen,” 171–172. 18 For the erotic connotations of honey, see Paul, “Lover’s Garden of Verse,” 106–107 n. 45 [280 n. 45].

244


Within the literary inclusio of lines 9 and 13, “Bridegroom, let me make all things sweet!” (Jacobsen: “O! that you would do all the sweet things to me!”), which the bride addresses directly to her beloved spouse, she adds in the excitement of erotic ecstasy (line 12): “Let us (i.e., me) enjoy your sweet appeal!” (Jacobsen: “Let us enjoy your charms and sweetnesses!”). The Sumerian word É i-li, as well as its Akkadian equivalent kuzbu, refer to attractive charm and sexual vigor. The mere thought of sharing his amatory delights explains this momentary passion-packed plural. N 3560 and duplicates19 The conclusion of another love song dedicated to ’uàin may preserve an echo of this same use of the plural. His beloved pronounces an emotional blessing for his long life: 18. You are truly our lord! You are truly our lord (ù-mu-un-me)! 19. Silver wrought with lapis lazuli! You are truly our lord! 20. You are truly our farmer bringing in much grain! 21. He being the apple of my eye, being the lure of my heart, 22. Many days of life dawn for him! May Shu-Suen [live long years]! Though one cannot exclude the possibility of the presence of a chorus, the interchange between “our” and “my” is an indication of an individual speaker. Yet another example of this interplay between the singular and plural may be found in the following Sacred Marriage song, TMH 3, No. 24.20 Here Inanna, who appears alone in this song, addresses Amauàum, the name of Dumuzi as god of the dates:21

19 For translations and discussion, see Jacobsen (Harps, 93), whose translation is followed here; Kramer, “Cuneiform Studies,” 508; idem, SMR, 95; idem, “Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts,” ANET, 644; Sefati, Love Songs, 360–364 (on p. 361, he relates the plural, once again, to female companions). 20 O. Krückmann, Neubabylonischen Rechts-und Verwaltungstexte (Leipzig, 1933). For duplicate, see Kramer, “Cuneiform Studies,” 524, Ni 4552 rev. For translations and discussions, see S. N. Kramer and I. Bernhardt, Sumerische literarische Texte aus Nippur, I: Mythen, Epen, Weisheitsliteratur und andere Literaturgattungen (Berlin, 1961), 14; Kramer, “Cuneiform Studies,” 524; Alster, “Sumerian Love Poetry,” 152–155; Sefati, Love Songs, 281–285. 21 For Amauàum, see Falkenstein, “Untersuchungen,” 170 n. 2; Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 26, 30–39; idem, “Toward the Image of Tammuz,” 493 and passim.


245

Col. III Come, rejoice to play, may you be our sun (d utu-me)!22 My Amauàum, let us embrace! Come, rejoice to play, may you be our sun! (ud-me-en-dè-en) Friend of An, lord of my choice (lit., my lord of heart), (In your pleasant mood, rejoice! May you be our sun (d utume)! Let me go to the lord; let me talk to him!

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Akkadian The examples from Akkadian love poetry for the “plural of ecstasy” are also few and far between but are indisputably documented. PRAK 472, i:9´–12´23 Jewelry is not only an indication of opulence and social status; it may also serve as a sexual allurement.24 In this Old Babylonian poem, the woman, in the course of extending an amorous invitation to her beloved for an erotic dalliance, portrays herself, in waßf-like fashion, as being fully bedecked with the most precious of jewels. In this vivid and visual foreplay she tells her lover: 6´. Your lovemaking is sweet (d§dåka ã§bå).25 7´. Waxing luxuriantly is your fruit (muÉtanbå inbåka),26 8´. (Of incense, my bed). Then, proceeding downwards, limb by limb, she excitedly exclaims: 9´. O by the diadem of our head (r¿àÊni), the rings of our ears (uznÊni), 10´. The mountains of our shoulders (bådÊni), the charms of our bosom (irtÊni),

This is a term of endearment; cf. likewise Akk. àamàu, CAD, ’/I, 337, 3´. H. de Genouillac, Premières recherches archéologiques à Kich (Paris, 1924), I. For a study of this poem, see Westenholz, “Forgotten Love Song,” 415–425. 24 For the metaphor of jewelry, see J. G. Westenholz, “Metaphorical Language in the Poetry of Love in the Ancient Near East,” La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancient: Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès (Paris, 1992), 383–387. 25 Cf. Song of Songs 1:2, (‫טובים דֹדיך )מיין‬. 26 “Fruit” has clear sexual overtones in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew love lyrics. Cf., e.g., W. G. Lambert, “Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love,” Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mendlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough (London, 1987), 29ff.; Paul, “Lover’s Garden of Verse,” 100 n. 1 [271–272 n. 1]. 22 23

246


11´. The bracelet of date spadix charms of our wrists (q§tÊni), 12´. The belt of frog charms of our waist (qablÊni). All these personal adornments and allurements serve merely as a descriptive prelude to the “consummate” pièce de résistance: 13´. Reach forth with your left hand and “honor” our vulva (Éurdatni )!27 14´. Play with our breasts (tulÊni)! Gilgamesh VI: (6–9, 13–15), 68–69 Ishtar, totally stricken with the virile beauty of Gilgamesh, sensuously and brazenly offers herself to him, first as his lover and then as his wife: 6. Ishtar the princess looked covetously28 on the beauty of Gilgamesh. 7. Come to me, Gilgamesh, be you (my) lover! 8. First give, O give me freely, your fruits of love! 9. You shall be my husband and I will be your wife. Gilgamesh sarcastically rejects her seductive solicitations and her grandiose offer of sumptuous gifts by recalling, one by one, the dire fortunes of all his ill-fated predecessors who succumbed to the goddess’s enticement. In this catalogue of forlorn and forsaken paramours, he also mentions Ishullanu, her father’s orchardman, the only one prior to Gilgamesh who had the audacity to withstand her appeal—only

27 For Akk. Éurdatu, see Gilgamesh VI:69 (discussed below); M. Civil, “Medical Commentaries from Nippur,” JNES 33 (1974), 332:40–41: Éurdatu: åru àa sinniàti, “vagina/vulva/pudendum of a woman” (note that the continuation of line 41 in this medical commentary contains the quotation from Gilgamesh VI 69); W. von Soden, “Ein spät-altbabylonisches p§rum-Preislied für Iàtar,” Or 60 (1991), 340:11: alkÊ lulappit Éurdatki, “Come, let me pet your vulva!”; line 18: àukn§ eãlåtum ana Éurdati damiqtimma, “Put it (i.e., insert the penis) into the pretty vagina, young men!” For a further study and commentary on this blatantly pornographic piece, see V. Hurowitz, “An Old Babylonian Bawdy Ballad,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 543–558. 28 For the idiomatic expression, ana… Êna/Ên§ naàû, here and in line 67, and its Biblical interdialectal etymological and semantic cognate, ‫נשא עינים אל‬, “to look at covetously,” see S. M. Paul, “Euphemistically ‘Speaking’ and a Covetous Eye,” Biblical and Other Studies in Honor of Reuben Ahroni, on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. T. J. Lewis, HAR 14 (Columbus, OH, 1994), 193–204 [213–222].


247

to meet with a tragic end for which there was no appeal. Gilgamesh then quotes her shameless proposal: 68. My Ishullanu, let us have a taste (i nÊkul)29 of your strength (kiààåtaki)!30 69. Stretch out31 your hand (q§tka)32 and touch33 our vulva (Éurdatni)!34 29 B. Foster (“Gilgamesh: Sex, Love, and the Ascent of Knowledge,” Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good [Guilford, CN, 1987], 35) attempts to explain this plural “as a term of endearment.” According to him, “Ishtar begins with a first-person singular, but in an effort to preserve her dignity, turns to the first-person plural cohortative at the end.” For the corresponding sexual overtones of Heb. ‫אכל‬, cf. Prov 30:20; Song of Songs 5:1. For other examples of “eating” as an erotic metaphor in Akkadian literature as well as in Rabbinic Hebrew, see Paul, “Lover’s Garden of Verse,” 106 n. 44 [279 n. 44]. Note, too, that Song of Songs 5:1, which abounds in sexual innuendos, begins: “I came to my garden (a well-established metaphor in love lyrics for feminine sexuality); I plucked (‫ )אריתי‬my myrrh with my spice.” For the figurative use of “plucking” (Heb. ‫ ;ארי‬see also M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, Midrashic Literature and Targumim [Philadelphia, 1903], 118, “to pluck, esp. figs”), compare the employment of Akk. qat§pu, “to pluck,” in the love song of Nabû and Taàm¿tu: qat§pu àa inbÊka ¿n§ja lÊmurma, “May my (Taàm¿tu’s) eyes behold the plucking of your (Nabû’s) sexual charm (lit., ‘fruit’)!” The Neo-Assyrian text is found in TIM 9 54:20 (cf. line 30). See A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3 (Helsinki, 1989), 35–37. 30 Note the unusual use of the feminine pronominal suffix, -ki. For words in Akkadian and Hebrew denoting “strength,” which, by extension, come to mean “sexual vigor,” see S. M. Paul, “The Shared Legacy of Sexual Metaphors and Euphemisms in Mesopotamian and Biblical Literature,” Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, I, ed. S. Parpola (Helsinki, 2002), 492 [304]. 31 For the reading lià(!)t¿ßamma, see W. von Soden, “Beiträge zum Verständnis des babylonischen Gilgameà-Epos,” ZA 53 (1959), 26; cf. also CAD, A/II, 371, 5´; CAD, L, 84. Foster (“Gilgamesh,” 35) also accepts this reading but remarks that the collation by P. Machinist and C. B. F. Walker favors the reading àú (i.e., àåßâmma). This reading is followed by Westenholz, “Forgotten Love Song,” 417. for a duplicate, àu-ßa-am-ma, see R. Frankena, “Nouveaux fragments de la sixième tablette de l’épopée de Gilgameà,” Gilgameà et sa légende: Études recueilles par Paul Garelli à l’occasion de la VII e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 1958) (Paris, 1960), 120, ii:35. 32 Akk. q§tu, as well as Heb. ‫יד‬, Ugar. yd, and most likely Egyptian dr.t may also serve as euphemisms for the membrum virile. For Gilgamesh this was already noted by B. D. Eerdmans, “Der Ursprung der Ceremonien der Hosein-Feste,” ZA 9 (1894), 297–298; P. Jensen, OLZ 29 (1926), 650. See, too, R. Campbell Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamesh (Oxford, 1930), 81, sub-line 69; T. Jacobsen, “Two bal.bal.e Dialogues,” Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford, CN, 1987), 61 n. 19. Cf. also CT 58, 13 (BM 88318), obv. 6–7: gal 4 -la-mu… àu d[è-in-mar] cited by Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 20. (This, of course, does not apply when the specific hand is designated in these erotic passages. For the “left hand ‘honoring’ the vulva,” see the text from

248


In her enraptured and transported state, Ishtar’s erotic desire is here expressed by the “plural of ecstasy.”35 PRAK, quoted above. For the “right hand,” cf. SRT 5, 31:21–22: “Your right handshould be placed on my vulva [àu-zi-da-zu gal 4 -la-mà dè-em-mar]; your left hand [gùb-bu-zu] should be laid on my head,” cited by Y. Sefati, “An Oath of Chastity in a Sumerian Love Song [SRT 31]?” Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to PinÈas Artzi, ed. J. Klein and A. Skaist [Ramat Gan, 1990], 52–53; cf. pp. 58–59); idem, Sumerian Love Songs, 129–130. For Biblical Hebrew, cf. Isa 57:8, 10 and Song of Songs 5:4. See, e.g., Pope, Song of Songs, 517–519; and many other modern commentators; cf., too, M. Delcor, “Two Special Meanings of the Word ‫ יד‬in the Hebrew Bible,” JSS 12 (1967), 230–240. For its appearance in Qumran Hebrew, see 1QS VII:13–14: ‫ואשר יוציא ידו מתוחת בגדו‬ ‫והואה פוח ונראתה ערותו ונענש שלושים יום‬, “He who puts out his ‘hand’ (note that Heb. ‫ יוציא יד‬is the exact interdialectal cognate and semantic equivalent of the Akkadian expression found here, q§tam àåßû) from beneath his clothing, which is torn (others translate, ‘or if these are rags’), and his nakedness is exposed, will be punished for thirty days.” See F. G. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, I (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1997), 86–87. For Ugaritic, see “The Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods,” KTU 2 1.23: 33–35, 37: 33. tirkm.yd.il.kym, “The organ (lit., ‘hand’) of El is as long as the sea.” 34. wydil.kmdb.ark.yd.il.kym, “And the organ of El is like the ocean; the organ of El is like the sea.” 35. w.yd.il.kmdb, “And the organ of El is like the ocean.” Nevertheless, the “long” and “short” of it is that El was not “up” to it, for the two females despondently remark: 37. il.Éãh.nÈt.il.ymnn.mã.ydh, “El, his ‘rod’ is down, his ‘love-staff’ droops” (see also lines 46–47). For the ribald double entendres here, see T. H. Gaster, Thespis (Garden City, NY, 1961), 428–430, notes. Such a meaning has also been suggested for the passage KTU2 1.13, by J. C. de Moor, “An Incantation against Infertility (KTU 1.13),” UF 12 (1980), 306, 310, but his reconstructed text and interpretation are problematical. For Egyptian, see A. Schott, Altägyptische Liebeslieder (Zurich, 1950), 56; M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Wiesbaden, 1985), 26, no. 18 (c): “Pleasant is the ‘canal’ within it, which your ‘hand’ scooped out.” On p. 28, Fox remarks, “ ‘Digging out’ the blocked canal suggests defloration.” Cf. also O. Keel, Das Hohelied (Zurich, 1986), 162 (= The Song of Songs [Minneapolis, 1994], 192). See also above, n. 13. 33 Akk. luput. For another example of the sexual overtones of lap§tu, see above, n. 27. See also J. Bottéro and S. N. Kramer, Lorsque les dieux faisaient l’homme: Mythologie mésopotamienne (Paris, 1989), 272: “Avance donc ta ‘main’ et me ‘touche’ la vulve!” Cf. p. 274: “… elle lui present son sexe à ‘toucher’, en akkadien: lap§tu—euphemisme transparent….” For the Hebrew semantic equivalent, ‫נגע‬, with similar erotic overtones, see Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 491–492 [303]. 34 For Akk. Éurdatu, see above, n. 27. 35 Foster (“Gilgamesh,” 35) remarks, “another royal plural”; but he also realizes, correctly, that there is an “intensification of Ishtar’s desire.” For an interpretation of the Ishtar section in general, see T. Abusch, “Ishtar’s Proposal and Gilgamesh’s Refusal: An Interpretation of The Gilgamesh Epic Tablet


249

Late Babylonian Incipits Two possible additional examples may be surmised from the incipits of the following Late Babylonian love poems;36 but because they are incipits, it is impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion: KAR 158 rev. ii:29 (p. 274) atta m§ru37 r§’imu d§dÊni, “You are the darling who is fond of our lovemaking.” KAR 158 rev. ii:20 (p. 273) The incipit àamàa38 aàni b¿lani is very enigmatic, except for the final word, bel§ni,39 “our darling lover”40 (lit., “our lord”).41 B¿lå is a well-attested term of endearment and is found in several other incipits:42

6, Lines 1–79,” History of Religions 26 (1986), 143–187. For the personality of Ishtar here, see R. Harris, “Images of Women in the Gilgamesh Epic,” Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller (Atlanta, 1990), 219–230, esp. pp. 226–228; and, in general, idem, “Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Opposites,” History of Religions 30 (1991), 261–278. 36 E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, I (= KAR), WVDOG 28 (Leipzig, 1919). See idem, Ein Hymnen-Katalog aus Assur (Berlin, 1922). These incipits were employed by T. J. Meek in his studies on the Song of Songs: “Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, AJSL 39 (1922–23), 1–14; “Babylonian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JBL 43 (1924), 245–252; “The Song of Songs and the Fertility Cult,” A Symposium on the Song of Songs, ed. W. H. Schoff (Philadelphia, 1924), 48–79; The Song of Songs: Introduction and Exegesis, IB 5 (New York and Nashville, 1956), 89–148. His entire theory, that the Song of Songs is a revised religious composition originally connected with the cult of Tammuz, has been completely refuted. For six other (partial) incipits, probably going back to the Old Babylonian period, see I. L. Finkel, “A Fragmentary Catalogue of Love Songs,” ASJ 10 (1988), 17–18. 37 For Akk. m§ru, “darling, lover,” see CAD, M/I, 314. M. Held (“A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 15 [1961], 13) compares it to Heb. ‫דוד‬, Song of Songs 1:13, 14, 16; etc. 38 For àamàu as a term of endearment, see CAD, ’/I, 337. 39 For the pronominal suffix –ni (-ani) in Neo- and Late Babylonian, see W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (= GAG) (Rome, 1952), 44, §42j, n. 12. 40 For Akk. b¿lu as a term of endearment, see Held, “Faithful Lover,” 13–14. For other examples in love poetry, see B. Foster, Before the Muses, I (Bethesda, 1993), 98:11 (“Love Lyrics of Rim-Sin”); II, 902:15 (“Love Lyrics of Nabû and Taàm¿tu”); and CAD, B, 196, e. 41 The incipit is cited in CAD, ’/I, 338, under àamàu, “sun,” and on p. 400, under the verb àanû, but is left untranslated both times. 42 For examples, see Held, “Faithful Lover,” 5, 13–14.

250

the bible and the ancient near east matima b¿lu t¿ruba inanna, “When, O darling? Just now you have arrived!” (KAR 158 rev. ii:10). sammåt er¿ni râmka b¿lu, “Your love, O darling, is the fragrance of cedar” (KAR 158 rev. ii:21). salÊmka b¿lÊ d§riam eleqqe nadnam, “I will win your favor, my darling, as a lasting gift.”43 b¿lÊ ßummâku râm[ka], “My darling, I thirst for your love!”44

The plural “our darling” in KAR 158 rev. ii:20 may similarly be a “plural of ecstasy.” Hebrew This same phenomenon is also apparently present once or twice in the Song of Songs. However, since the reason for the enigmatic enallage45 (i.e., shift in person) in these verses is not clear, Biblical commentators, similar to their Sumerological colleagues, attempt to explain it by the sudden appearance of female companions who supposedly function as a chorus in these otherwise personal intimate and ecstatic moments. Song of Songs 1:4 This grammatically rapidly shifting verse commences with the young woman’s rapturous plea: “Draw me after you, let us run!” Immediately following this direct second-person address to her lover, the next stich switches to the third-person: “The king brought me to his chambers.” (Heb. ‫ מלך‬is to be understood as a term of endearment,46 similar to

43

Ibid., 6, I:25–26; Foster (Muses, I, 93, line 25) translates: “I shall have your eternal good will, darling, freely given.” 44 Held, “Faithful Lover,” 8, III:12. For the similar metaphorical employment of Heb. ‫צמא‬, see Ps 42:3, 63:2. Note, however, that von Soden (AHw, 1536, sub zummû[m], II, 2) reads zummâku, “I am deprived.” So, too, CAD, Z, 156, “I miss your love.” 45 For the phenomenon of enallage in Hebrew and Egyptian love poetry, see Fox, Song of Songs, 265–266. For Sumerian, see Sefati, Love Songs, 84, 283; Kramer, SMR, 92. Compare also Pope, Song of Songs, 304. 46 Fox (Song of Songs, 98) compares it to the similar terms, “my prince,” “prince of


251

Akk. b¿lu, mentioned directly above, and especially to Akk. àarru, “king,” which is similarly employed in Babylonian love poetry incipits.47 Cf. ÉadÊà akàa àarru, “Come here joyfully, O beloved [lit., O king]!” and §rid kirî àarru É§ßibu er¿ni, “The beloved [lit., the king] who goes down to the garden; he who trims the cedars”.48 The very thought or act of her lover’s taking her to his private abode so arouses her passion that she joyously ejaculates: “Let us delight and rejoice in you (‫נגילה ונשמחה‬ ‫!)בך‬49 We will praise (or, inhale)50 your lovemaking more than wine (‫”!)נזכירה דֹדיך מיין‬51 Obviously, this passionate damsel, in her fit of ecstasy, is referring solely to the sexual joys she alone will experience with her mate. Song of Songs 2:15 The enigmatic but patently erotic overtones of this verse are palpable, ‫לנו ֻשׁעלים ֻשׁעלים קטנים מחבלים כרמים‬-‫אחזו‬, “Catch us foxes, little foxes, that spoil vineyards,” especially when it is realized that ‫כרם‬, “vineyard,” is a well-attested poetic symbol for the female body,

my heart,” in Egyptian love poetry: “The lovers are called kings, princes, and queens because of the way love makes them feel about each other and about themselves.” 47 See J. A. Black, “Babylonian Ballads: A New Genre,” JAOS 103 (1983), 25–34, esp. 29 n. 7 and 33 n. 19, for examples “of the use of àarru as an epithet of the male beloved in Babylonian amatory verse.” See also Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 16. 48 For Akk. kirû as a euphemism for the female pudenda, see Jacobsen, “bal.bal.e Dialogues,” 62–63; Paul, “Lover’s Garden of Verse,” 99–108 [271–281]. For the idiom of “going (down) to the garden” in Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Hebrew love poetry, see Westenholz, “Metaphorical Language,” 382; idem, “Love Lyrics.” 49 Cf. the similar Sumerian expression in the love songs cited above (p. 589), ga-ba-Éúl-Éúl-le-en-dè-en. For the parallel pair, ‫ גיל‬and ‫שמח‬, cf. Isa 25:9; 66: 10; Joel 2:21, 23; etc. The two verbs also appear together in line 6 of the Ammonite Tell Siran inscription from ca. 600 b.c.e., ‫יגל וישמח‬. See K. P. Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age (Chico, 1983), 35–44; W. E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Lewiston, 1989), 203–211. The pair also appears in Ugaritic, KTU2 1.16.I: 14–15; II:36–37: nàmÉ…ngln. 50 See R. Gordis (The Song of Songs and Lamentations [New York, 1974], 78), who translates Heb. ‫ נזכירה‬as “inhale” and compares Lev 24:7, Isa 66:3, Hos 14:8, and Ps 20:4, citing medieval commentators. 51 R. E. Murphy (The Song of Songs, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, 1990], 127) notes the “ambiguity. It is not certain whether she is associating the ‘maidens’ with herself, or (more likely) speaking only of herself and the man she calls ‘king’.” On p. 128, he states, “The woman… involves the maidens.” Murphy (ibid., 139, 141) again resorts to a “plural group.” Fox (Song of Songs, 114) conjectures that it “may be a ‘plural of composition’ referring to one girl’s body” and cites Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, 1957), 397, §124b. See, however, Fox’s note 23 (p. 248, citing Westenholz).

252


well-documented in Sumerian and Akkadian poetry as well as in the Songs of Songs itself (1:6; 8:12).52 Thus, it is possible that the “us” (‫ )לנו‬in the playful invitation, “Catch us,” is the young lady’s way of referring to herself in her enraptured state. This becomes clear in the verse’s amatory conclusion, when she pointedly teases, “Our vineyard (‫ )כרמנו‬is in blossom.” In sum, in some very rare instances in Mesopotamian and Biblical love poetry, there exists an unexpected shift from singular to plural that is occasioned by the passionate outburst of a female lover. Hopefully, others, in their examination of these love songs, will find additional examples to substantiate further this unique “plural of ecstasy.”53 52 “Vineyard” is also used in love poetry similarly to “garden” to refer to the female pudenda. See Paul, “Lover’s Garden of Verse,” 108–110 [282–283]. 53 Could the following passage, taken from a Palestinian love song, reflect this same grammatical phenomenon? Examine me, O physician, as to what I suffer on behalf of the beloved one (min il-Èabîb). By God, O Lord, this is a wondrous thing! Yet my heart melted for the beloved ones! (‘ala l-aÈbâb). The verses, cited by Gordis (Song of Songs, 34 and 88) in connection with Song of Songs 5:1, are taken from St. H. Stephan, Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs (Jerusalem, 1926), 80.

proposed janus parallelisms in akkadian literature

253

TWO PROPOSED JANUS PARALLELISMS IN AKKADIAN LITERATURE In recent years the topic of Janus parallelism has attracted the attention of scholars of Biblical and Mesopotamian literature. Janus parallelism in the Bible was studied and amply documented in my 1992 article, “Polysensuous Polyvalency in Poetic Parallelism,”1 and attempts have also been made in the 1990’s to identify examples of Janus parallelism in Akkadian.2 Here we would like to propose two examples of this poetic tour de force in Akkadian literature: I. Shamash Hymn, 171–173:3 171. laÉmå à[åt tâm]ti àa malû puluÉta 172. e-ri-ib tâ[m]ti àa apsâ iba’û 173. miàirti4 n§ri àa irteddû ’amaà ina maÉrik[a] 171. The laÉmå-monsters5 o[f the se]a who are filled with fearsomeness, 1

In Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov (Winona Lake, IN, 1992), 147–163 [457–476]. See also idem, “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a,” VT 39 (1989), 495–497 [155–157]; idem, “Polysemous Pivotal Punctuation: More Janus Double Entendres,” Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1996), 369–374 [477–483]; idem, “An Overlooked Double Entendre in Jonah 2:5,” The Honeycomb of the Word: Interpreting the Primary Testament with André LaCocque, ed. W. D. Edgerton, (Chicago, 2001), 155–157 [485–487]; S. B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job, JSOT Suppl. Series 223 (Sheffield, 1996). 2 S. B. Noegel, “A Janus Parallelism in the Gilgamesh Flood Story,” ASJ 13 (1991) 419–421; idem, “An Asymmetrical Janus Parallelism in the Gilgamesh Flood Story,” ASJ 16 (1994) 306–308 ; J.- G. Heintz, “Myth(olog)èmes d’époque amorrite et amphibologie en ARMT XXVI, 419, ll. 3´–21´?” N.A.B.U. 68 (1994), 59; cf. J. Sasson, “Divine Divide: re FM 2.71.5,” N.A.B.U. 68 (1994), 39–40. For additional extra-Biblical examples, see Noegel, Janus Parallelism, 156–182. 3 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1967), 136. 4 For the reading miàirtu, see CAD, M/II, 124–125. Previously the word was read miÉirtu/meÉertu (BWL, 323 n. 173; AHw, 640). AHw, 1575, now also reads miài/ertum. 5 For laÉmu, see W. G. Lambert, “The Pair LaÉmu-LaÉamu in Cosmology,” Or 54 (1985) 189–202; G. C. Heider, “Lahmu,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn et al. (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1999), 502; CAD, L, 41–42.

254

the bible and the ancient near east 172. the erib tâmti which passes through the Deep,6 173. the abundance of the river which moves, O Shamash, are before yo[u.]

Here in the Shamash Hymn, 171–173, the Akkadian author achieves a Janus parallelism by means of a pun on the pivotal first two words of the middle stich of a tristich, erib tâmti (line 172). When facing forward, erib tâmti, should be translated, “gifts of the sea,” providing an apt parallel to miàirti n§ri, “abundance of the river” in line 173. In this case, erib (tâmti) is derived from erbu/irbu/urbu, “gifts, income” (CAD, I/J, 173). These lines, 172–173, may then be compared with the bilingual hymn to Marduk 4R 20 + dupl., where miàirtu also occurs with erbu/irbu (see CAD, M/II, 123). However, when pivoting backwards, erib tâmti must be the homonym, “locust of the sea” (shellfish), from Akkadian erbu/erebu/aribu, “locust” (see CAD, E, 256, 290).7 Here “locust of the sea” parallels “laÉmu-monsters of the sea” in line 171, thereby creating, in addition, a merism including all the creatures of the sea, great and small, from the fearsome laÉmu to the humble shellfish. II. Enuma Elish I, 99–102: 99. 100. 101. 102.

6

ulluma ina il§ni meàrêtåàu àuttuÉ§ m§riåtu m§ri àamài

àåtur l§n[àu] i-lit/li-ta àåtur m§riåtu àamài àa il§ni

Although apsû and tâmtu, “sea,” are normally two separate bodies of water in Mesopotamian cosmography, apsû does occur on a few occasions, as in the Shamash Hymn, 171–173 (BWL, 137), in the context of the depths of the sea (tâmti). Note, for example, a parallel in lines 37–38 of the Shamash Hymn (BWL, 128), where the rays of Shamash that descend into apsû are seen by the laÉmu-monsters of the sea (tâmti), and Gilgamesh XI:271–276, where Gilgamesh dives down into apsû and emerges on the shore of the sea, tâmtu. The cosmographies of the sea and Apsu are clarified by W. Horowitz (Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography [Winona Lake, IN, 1998], 301–306, 340–347). 7 For buru a.ab.ba = erib tâmti, “locust of the sea” = “crustacean,” see Penn5 sylvania Sumerian Dictionary, II, B, 209. Also note AHw, 234; F. Wiggermann, “Review of A. W. Sjöberg, ed., The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, II, B,” BiOr 44 (1987), 171–172; A. Salonen, Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen (Helsinki, 1970), 174–175.

proposed janus parallelisms in akkadian literature 99. 100. 101. 102.

255

(He was) exalted among the gods, surpassing was [his] stature. His limbs were long, he was surpassing as to his i-lit/li-ta. m§ri’åtu, m§ri’åtu, Son of the Sun, Sun of the gods.”8

The Janus parallelism in En. El. I, 99–102 pivotally revolves around i-lit/li-tu in line 100.9 When facing forward towards lines 101–102, the word may be understood as ilittu (double t, from the root wal§du), “offspring”.10 Here ilittu parallels m§ru, “son,” which occurs three times in lines 101–102. However, when facing backwards, the word may be derived from ilÊtu (with single t, from the root elû), “upper part (of something),”11 in this context, the upper part of Marduk’s physique. Here ilÊta àåtur, “surpassing in his upper parts,” in line 100 creates a chiasm with àåtur l§n[àu], “surpassing in stature,” in the second half of line 99, and echoes the II stative ullû from elû in the first half of line 99.12 Thus, the author of Enuma Elish has artistically employed a Janus parallelism based on homonyms derived from two different roots whose meanings are determined by the direction in which they face. 8 On this pun in En. el. I, 101–102, see E. A. Speiser, Pritchard, ANET3, 62 n. 35 with further bibliographical references. 9 See AHw, 371, ilittu, for variant writings with and without double t (i-lit/li-ta/tu) in En. el. I:100. 10 See AHw, 371, ilittu 1). CAD, I/J, 72–73 does not list En. el. I,:100 under ilittu. 11 See CAD, E, 98–99; AHw, 202. Neither dictionary lists this passage in their entries. 12 A derivation of i-lit/li-ta from the root elû has already been anticipated by a number of translators of Enuma Elish. See E. A. Speiser, Pritchard, ANET3, 62; E. Ebeling, Das Babylonische Weltschopfungslied (Breslau, 1921), 21; A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago, 1942), 22; R. Labat, Le poème babylonien de la Création (Paris, 1935), 87; idem, Religions du Proche-Orient (Paris, 1970), 41; S. Langdon, The Babylonian Epic of Creation (Oxford, 1923), 81. Note also S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford, 1989), 236 (“his height [?] outstanding”); B. Foster, Before the Muses, I (Bethesda, MD, 1993), 357.

256


hosea 7:16: gibberish jabber

257

HOSEA 7:16: GIBBERISH JABBER To Jack—Friend and Colleague By the second half of the eighth century, the Northern Kingdom of Israel was in a sick and sullen state, demoralized by intrigues, beset by political crises, torn asunder by domestic anarchy, and witness to successive regicides. Ephraim, in a stumbling search for succor, was continuously vacillating on a political pendulum between Egypt and Assyria. Hosea, the harbinger of the final fall of Northern Israel, incessantly denounced the sick state of the union and upbraided its leaders and inhabitants for their frantic and frenetic flight to their northern and southern neighbors in a vain search for a political panacea: “When Ephraim became aware of his sickness…; Ephraim went to Assyria. He sent envoys to the Great King.”1 But the prophet warns, “He is unable to cure you and will not heal your sores” (5:13). Since they are unaware that their “illness” is of their own making, they keep flitting and flying between the two major powers: “Ephraim is a silly dove without sense, now appealing to Egypt, now going to Assyria” (7:11).2 Who would want to be associated or allied with such a faithless, fickle flirt! Thus Israel “has become like an unwanted vessel among the nations. They have gone up to Assyria—a lonely wild ass—Ephraim has given gifts of love” (8:8–9).3 They proliferate in making pacts for pax: “They conclude agreements and make covenants with false oaths” (10:4), “making a covenant with Assyria and carrying oil to Egypt” (12:2).4 But they shall pay dearly for their amorous political See S. M. Paul, “‫משא מלך שרים‬: Hosea 8:8–10 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Epithets,” Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau (Jerusalem, 1978), 313–314 and n. 34 (Hebrew) = Studies in Bible, ed. S. Japhet, Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (Jerusalem, 1986), 199 and n. 34 (English) [150 n. 34]. 2 Hosea once again resorts to ornithological imagery to describe flying in the opposite direction: “ ‘They shall hastily flutter out of Egypt like birds, from the land of Assyria like doves, and I will settle them in their homes’, declares the Lord” (Hos 11:11). 3 For an explication of this verse, see Paul, “Hosea 8:8–10,” 309 and nn. 5–7 (Hebrew) = 194 nn. 5–7 (English) [146 nn. 5–7]. 4 For this description of covenant-making, see D. J. McCarthy, “Hosea XII 2: Covenant by Oil,” VT 14 (1964), 215–221. 1

258


dalliances—measure for measure: “Ephraim shall return to Egypt [as their punishment] and shall eat unclean food in Assyria” (9:3; cf. also Isa 8:13; 11:3, 5). Not only are the inhabitants thus threatened, but their primary cult object as well: “It, too [the calf of Beth-aven], shall be brought to Assyria (as) tribute to the Great King” (10:6). Moreover, they, themselves, will also have to render “tribute to the king of kings” (i.e., the king of Assyria) (8:10).5 Ultimately, they who return to Egypt will be terminally interred there: “Egypt shall gather them in;6 Memphis shall be their grave” (9:6). Hosea not only berates and bemoans their constant search for allies, he also adds insult to injury by injecting a modicum of satire into his denunciation of their incorrigible foreign “affairs” and their reprehensible international “relations.” At the end of chap. 7, he threatens, “…Their officers shall fall by the sword, because of ‫ַעם ְלשׁוֹנָם זוֹ ַל ְעגָם‬ ַ‫ז‬ in the land of Egypt.” The accepted meanings of the substantive ‫ַעם‬ ַ ‫ז‬, “wrath, imprecation,”7 obviously do not apply here.8 Ehrlich, in his Hebrew commentary,9 related the root to its Arabic cognate, ‫زﻏﻢ‬,10 which refers to the “groaning” of a camel, and from which he surmised that the concept of anger and wrath was derived in both Arabic and Hebrew. However, this same Arabic root, as Rudolph insightfully noted, also has the meaning “to stutter” (cf. ‫زﻏ ُﻤﻮم‬ ُ “stammerer”): “Arab. ْ ‫زﻏﻮم ُو‬, zaÇåm, ‘Laller, Stammler’ führt auf ‘stammeln’ im Sinn des Radebrechens einer fremden Sprache.”11 Such a semantic linguistic development of words, which originally described speech impediments and 5 See Paul, “Hosea 8:8–10,” 312–314 (Hebrew) = 197–200 (English) [148–151], for the Assyrian equivalents of the Hebrew expressions in this verse. 6 Paul, “Hosea 8:8–10,” 310 n. 11 (Hebrew) = 194–195 n. 11 (English) [146 n. 11]. 7 See the standard Biblical dictionaries. The substantive is employed only in connection with the deity, except for Jer 15:17; Dan 8:19. The verb, however, appears with both the deity and human beings as its subject. 8 Notwithstanding the tortuous attempts of almost all commentators. Cf., e.g., W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh, 1966), 307–308; H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1974), 128; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24 (Garden City, NY, 1980), 479. 9 A. B. Ehrlich, Miqra ki-Pheshuto (New York, 1969), III, 375 (Hebrew). In his later German commentary (Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel [Leipzig, 1912], V, 187), he unfortunately retracts his comments and remarks that the concluding words of this verse “sind heillos verderbt.” 10 For this verb, see J. G. Hava, Arabic-English Dictionary (Beirut, 1951), 290. 11 W. Rudolph, Hosea, KAT 13/1 (Gütersloh, 1966), 152, note. See also NJPSV, 777, note k on Hos 7:16; and NEB, 1096, note b, “stammering speech.”


259

impairments and then came to express the unintelligibility of foreign languages,12 is well documented in many languages: compare Greek, ِ ‫ﻃ ْﻤ‬ ِ and ‫ﻢ‬ ba&rbaroj; Arabic, ‫ﻢ‬ َ Talmudic Aramaic, ‫( פסילוס‬a ٌ ‫ﻄ‬ ٌ ‫ﺠ‬ َ ‫;ﻋ‬ Greek loanword, yello&j)—all of which are related to roots referring to “stammering” and “defective speech.”13 This same phenomenon is also attested in both Sumerian and Akkadian. A bilingual inscription describes peoples who live far off as kur.bì bad.rá eme.bi gilim.ma: àa àadûàunu nesû lià§nàunu egrå, “(Elam, Gutium, Subartu, and Tukrià), whose mountains are far away, whose languages are twisted (= confused).”14 As Tigay notes, “Both Sumerian gil(im) and Akkadian eg¿ru are used elsewhere for physical disabilities, including lameness and speech defect; here the nuance is ‘unintelligible’.”15 A further example of the employment of eg¿ru, “to twist, cross,” to describe foreign languages (which to nonnative speakers of that language would sound garbled) is, […l]ià§nam egram, “twisted (i.e., unintelligible foreign) speech.”16 So, too, foreign languages are said to be “strange” and “diverse”: ba’ul§t arba’i lià§nu 12 See J. H. Tigay, “ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’: On Moses’ Speech Difficulty,” BASOR 231 (1978), 57–67. His pertinent examples of this phenomenon, drawn from the various languages cited above, are to be found on p. 58, along with the accompanying notes. See also D. Sperling, “Ègr I and Ègr II,” JANES 3 (1970–71), 121–128; esp. pp. 126–127; H. Tawil, “Some Literary Elements in the Opening Sections of the Hadad, Z§kir, and the N¿rab II Inscriptions in the Light of East and West Semitic Royal Inscriptions,” Or 43 (1974), 61–63. 13 See Tigay, “ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’,” 58, for references and sources. For the Greek loanword into Aramaic, ‫פסילוס‬, see S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (Berlin, 1899), II, 469. Compare also Mandaic, ’n’sy’ l’g’yy’, “barbarians.” See J. N. Ford, “The Ugaritic Incantation against Sorcery RIH 78/20 (KTU 2 1.169),” UF 34 (2002), 188 and note 182. 14 For this bilingual Hammurapi inscription, see C. J. Gadd, L. Legrain, and S. Smith, Ur: Royal Inscriptions, UET 1 (London, 1928), 146, iii:6 and iv:5–7. See also J. J. Finkelstein (“Subartu and Subarians in Old Babylonian Sources,” JCS 9 [1955], 6 n. 53), where he states that this refers to the “unfamiliarity with the distinctions of various mountain dialects.” 15 Tigay, “ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’,” 58. See CAD, E, 41–42. For an example of its employment in describing a speech defect, see meaning 2´. 16 CAD, E, 47, egru, 1. For Aram. ‫חגר‬, the interdialectal semantic and etymological equivalent of Akk. eg¿ru, meaning “to be twisted, crooked,” which also describes a speech defect, see Sperling, “Ègr I and Ègr II”; and Tawil, “Some Literary Elements.” Tigay (“ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’,” 58) also cites the use of Sum. dugud, “heavy,” in reference to physical afflictions and the inability to pronounce Sumerian correctly. In a Sumerian text describing a student’s taunt of his fellow schoolmate’s musical deficiencies, it is stated, “In the Sumerian tongue he is heavy (dugud). He cannot keep his tongue straight.” Compare also the translations of

260


aÉÊtu atmê la mitÉ§rti §àibåt àadê u m§ti, “Peoples of the four [ends of the earth], of strange/alien languages (or ‘diverse/conflicting speech’) living in mountains and flat lands.”17 See also lià§nu aÉÊtu Amurru ibêl, “A foreign tongue [= nation] will rule Amurru.”18 In this same category of terms for defective and impeded speech, which came to describe the unintelligibility of foreign languages, is Hebrew ‫ל ַעג‬: ַ 19 Isa 28:11, “Truly as one who speaks in a stammering jargon (‫)בּ ַל ֲעגֵי ָשׂ ָפה‬ ְ and in an alien/strange tongue (‫וּב ָלשׁוֹן‬ ְ 20 And Isa 33:19, “You will no longer see that barbarian folk ‫)אַח ֶרת‬.” ֶ (‫נוֹעז‬ ָ ‫)עם‬, ַ 21 that people of speech too obscure (‫ ִ)ע ְמ ֵקי ָשׂ ָפה‬22 to compreS. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago, 1963), 223: “You stutter (your) Sumerian, can’t make a straight speech”; and Å. W. Sjöberg, “The Old Babylonian Eduba,” Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. S. J. Lieberman, AS 20 (Chicago, 1976), 162: “He is ‘heavy’ for the Sumerian language. He cannot move his tongue correctly.” For the same meaning of “heavy” in connection with physical symptoms of the body and speech difficulties in Akkadian (dannu, kabtu) and Hebrew (‫)כבד‬, see Tawil, “Some Literary Elements,” 62; and Tigay, “ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’,” 58–62. It is of interest to note that the antonym of “to be twisted, crooked,” is “to straighten out,” which is employed in both Akk. eà¿ru/àåàuru and Aram. ‫ ;פשט‬see Sperling, “Ègr I and Ègr II,” 126. 17 H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig, 1889), Pl. 43:72; cf. D. G. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s Königs von Assyrien (722–705 v. Chr.) (Leipzig, 1883), Pls. 11:72, 18:92–93. 18 R. C. Thompson, The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon (London, 1900), 77:3. 19 See HALAT 506a, for cognates. In Syriac the root means “to stutter.” 20 For Heb. (‫אחר)ת‬, “another,” meaning “strange, alien,” see the standard dictionaries. With this meaning it functions as the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Akk. aÉû, aÉÊtu, which is the very adjective employed in the last two Akkadian quotations cited in the text above. These expressions are cited in 1QHa XII:16, also in a satirical fashion. See F. G. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1997), II, 169. There is a great deal of literature on the preceding v. 10 (and also v. 13), where the expressions ‫ ַקו ָל ָקו‬and ‫צו ָל ָצו‬, ַ which the prophet is calling “a stammering jargon” and “an alien tongue,” appear. For the multiple explanations offered to explain these enigmatic words, see, in addition to the modern commentaries on Isaiah, B. Halpern, “ ‘The Excremental Vision’: The Doomed Priests of Doom in Isaiah 28,” HAR 10 (1986), 109–121. According to one line of exegesis, these words are reflexes of the Assyrian language, which Isaiah is supposedly mocking because of their unintelligibility to his audience. Whatever interpretation is accepted, it is clear that the prophet is engaged in a bitter satire. 21 Rashi, who, with many modern exegetes, connects ‫ נועז‬with ‫( לועז‬Ps 114:1). 22 For this expression (see also Ezek 3:5), cf. Tawil, “Some Literary Elements,” 62: “… corresponds to Akk. d§n, ‘heavy’ (lit., ‘strong’), employed with dab§bu, ‘to speak’ and am§tu, ‘words’.” Tigay (“ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’,” 63


261

hend, whose stammer/stuttering tongue (‫ )נִ ְל ַעג ָלשׁוֹן‬is unintelligible.” The root ‫ לעג‬in its metathesized form, ‫עלג‬, also means “to stutter.” See Isa 32:4, where “the tongues of mumblers” (‫ ְ)לשׁוֹן ִע ְלּ ִגים‬23 is contrasted to those who “shall speak with fluent eloquence (‫)צחוֹת‬.” ָ 24 The characterization of distant nations by their unintelligible speech is also found in Isa 18:2 (and 7), “Go, swift messengers, to a nation far and remote, to a people thrust forth and away, a nation of gibber and jabber”;25 Jer 5:15, “A nation whose language you do not know. You will not understand what they say” (cf. Deut 28:49); Ezek 3:5–6, “For you are sent, not to a nation of unintelligible speech (‫ִ)ע ְמ ֵקי ָשׂ ָפה‬ and difficult language (‫)וְ ִכ ְב ֵדי ָלשׁוֹן‬, but to the House of Israel. Not n. 10) refers to A. Wieder (“Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicographical Notes,” JBL 84 [1965], 163), who connects Heb. ‫ עמק‬with Ugar. ‘mq, “strong,” and Akk. emåqu, “strength.” Cf. also J. C. Greenfield, “Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes,” JCS 21 (1967), 89 (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield in Semitic Philology, II, ed. S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick [Jerusalem, 2001], 855–856) for this meaning of ‫ עמק‬in Aramaic. This, then, would confirm Tawil’s conclusion stated above. Tigay (loc. cit.) adds further, “In English idiom, the meaning would be ‘hard’, as in ‘hard of hearing’.” Cf., too, his reference to the Midrash, which interprets the name of the prophet Amos as being derived from the verb ‫עמס‬, “laden,” meaning “heavy of tongue, impeded of speech” (pp. 58 and 63 n. 9). 23 For Heb. ‫עלג‬, see BDB, 748; and HALAT, 783a. It is of interest to note that the LXX translates ‫ עלג‬here by yello&j, “stammerer.” See above, n. 13, and Tigay, “ ‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’,” 63 n. 9. For the root ‘lg in Ugaritic, see KTU2 1.93:1–3; and for bibliography, see HALAT, 783a. In KTU 2 1.169:11–12, we find the Ugaritic equivalent to this expression, t‘lg lànk, “Your tongue shall stammer.” See Ford, “Ugaritic Incantation,” 155, 188. 24 For “clear” speech, see also Job 33:3, ‫תי ָבּרוּר ִמ ֵלּלוּ‬ ַ ‫שׂ ָפ‬. ְ The same adjective appears in Zeph 3:9, “For then I will make the peoples pure of lips (‫רוּרה‬ ָ ‫)שׂ ָפה ְב‬, ָ so that they all invoke the Lord by name and serve him with one accord.” This means that the nations will no longer invoke with their lips the names of foreign deities, but shall worship the Lord alone in unison. For the Akkadian interdialectal cognate equivalent, àaptu ellu, “clean/pure lips,” see Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, Pls. 36:192; 40:145/146: ina àaptiàu ell¿ti lÊßâ, “With his pure lips may it be uttered.” Cf., too, in a prayer to the gods of the night, ella àapt§ja mesâ qat§ja, “My lips are clean/ pure; my hands are washed”; A. L. Oppenheim, “A New Prayer to the ‘Gods of the Night’,” Studia Biblica et Orientalia, III: Oriens Antiquus, AnBib 12 (Rome, 1959), 283, line 35. In lines 33–34, the prayer says, “I have called you and besought you and extolled you from among all [the other deities].” For a discussion of this text, along with many other Akkadian documents referring to mouth purification and purity, and their significance for the understanding of Isaiah’s “throne vision” in chap. 6, see V. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA 60 (1989), 39–89. 25 Once again the expression is ‫קו‬-‫ו‬ ָ ‫ק‬. ָ Note H. Donner (Israel unter den Völkern, SVT 11 [Leiden, 1964], 122), who interprets ‫קו‬-‫“ קו‬as an onomatopoetic stammered form to characterize a strange, incomprehensible language.”

262


to the many peoples of unintelligible speech (‫ ִ)ע ְמ ֵקי ָשׂ ָפה‬and difficult language (‫)וְ ִכ ְב ֵדי ָלשׁוֹן‬, whose talk you cannot understand”;26 Ps 81:6, “He imposed it as a decree upon Joseph when he went forth from the land of Egypt. I heard a language I knew not.” And once more Egypt is called the country of an alien tongue in Ps 114:1, “When Israel went forth from Egypt, the House of Jacob from a people of strange speech (‫ֹלעז‬ ֵ ‫)עם‬.” ַ 27 The phrase ‫ַעם ְלשׁוֹנָם‬ ַ ‫ ז‬in Hosea may now be translated “their gibberish jabber.” This is immediately followed by the phrase ‫זוֹ ַל ְעגָם‬. Since, as has been seen above, the root ‫ לעג‬refers to “stammering/ stuttering,” which, by the process of semantic development, extends its meaning to describe the incomprehensibility of foreign languages, it is very probable that this well-attested Biblical root functions here ַ ‫ז‬. as a gloss, introduced by ‫זוֹ‬,28 to explain the unique phrase ‫ַעם ְלשׁוֹנָם‬ Once again, Rudolph’s exegesis is right on target: “Die erklärende Glosse ‘das bedeutet: ihr Gestotter’… ist also durchaus richtig: sie erläutert das dem nordisraelitischen Dialekt eigentumliche ‫ זעם‬durch das gewöhnliche ‫לעג‬.”29 Hosea, therefore, is actually mocking the political negotiations that the Israelite ambassadors (‫)שׂ ִרים‬ ָ were conducting in the Egyptian language. Compare Ehrlich, who perceptively noted that “‫ לעג‬functions as a parallel to ‫…זעם לשונם‬. The explanation of this verse is that their officers shall fall by the sword because of their negotiations with foreigners and because, in their request for help from Egypt, they do not speak in their native tongue. It can be translated into German as ‘ob ihrer barbarischen Rede, ob ihres Kauderwälschens in Ägypten’.”30 26 Cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1979), 137: “unintelligible speech of the Assyrian overlords.” 27 For Heb. ‫לעז‬, see HALAT, 506a–b, which refers to Arabic ‫ﻟﻐﺰ‬, “zweideutig, in Rätseln reden.” Compare also BDB, 541. 28 The feminine demonstrative pronoun spelled ‫ זוֹ‬appears only here (in Ps 132: 12, the only other occurrence of this spelling, it serves as a relative pronoun). (With the spelling ‫זֹה‬, it appears eight other times; see concordances.) Though there are a few passages where its masculine counterpart, ‫זֶה‬, has been interpreted by some commentators as functioning as a gloss (see G. F. Moore, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Judges, ICC [Edinburgh, 1898], 142, for some dubious examples, as well as I. L. Seeligmann, “A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times,” VT 14 [1964], 80 n. 1; E. Vogt, “ ‘Die Himmel troffen’ [Ps 68, 9]?” Biblica 46 [1965], 208), the evidence is very weak. The use of ‫ זוֹ‬as a gloss is probably another unique feature of the Northern Israelite dialect. 29 Rudolph, Hosea, 152 n. c to v. 16. 30 Ehrlich, Miqra, III, 375.

‘emigration’ from the netherworld

263

“EMIGRATION” FROM THE NETHERWORLD IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST According to both Biblical and Mesopotamian thought, death was not total annihilation.1 There still remained some kind of non-corporeal existence even after one breathed one’s last breath. The deceased, who descended into the subterranean realm of the netherworld,2 still survived in an ethereal form best described as a spirit, breath, ghost, or phantom. In Akkadian, this nebulous airy state of being was designated by several different terms: mÊtu, “spirit of the dead”;3 ardan§n mÊti, “double/substitute of the dead person”;4 à§ru, “breath”;5 zaqÊqu, “phantom, ghost”;6 occasionally, ilu, “supernatural being”;7 1

For the various concepts of death and the netherworld in Mesopotamia, see A. Jeremias, Die babylonisch-assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode (Leipzig, 1887); idem, Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern2 (Leipzig, 1903): J. Bottéro, “La mythologie de la mort en mésopotamie ancienne,” Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen, 1980), 25–52; idem, “Les morts et l’au-delà dans les rituals en accadien contre l’action des ‘revenants’,” ZA 73 (1983), 153–203; M. Hutter, Altorientalische Vorstellungen von der Unterwelt, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 63 (Göttingen, 1985); W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 334–362. For Israel, see W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, II (Philadelphia, 1967), 210–228; N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament, Biblica et Orientalia 21 (Rome, 1969); M. S. Smith and E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Death and After Life in Ugarit and Israel,” JAOS 108 (1988), 277–284, a critical review article of K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East, AOAT 219 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986). For the various names for the underworld in Sumerian and Akkadian, see W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 268–295; K. L. Tallqvist, Sumerish-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt (Helsinki, 1934); N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, 21–79. For Ugarit, see M. C. Astour, “The Netherworld and Its Denizens,” Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen, 1980), 228–229. The most common term for this realm is Akk. erßetu, Ugar. ’rß, Heb. ‫ארץ‬. 2 Note should also be made of the verb ed¿pu (CAD, E, 28–29), which describes the blowing away of the spirit from the body. Compare also Sum. ba·bar, gi 4 , which is used as a formula for the releasing of this spirit, permitting it to go to the netherworld (CAD, E, 29). For the extremely rare exceptions to the descent to the netherworld, see W. Horowitz and P. J. Watson, “Further Notes on Birmingham Cuneiform Tablets Volume I,” Acta Sumerologica 13 (1991), 411–416. 3 CAD, M/II, 142–143. 4 CAD, D, 150, “wraith.” 5 CAD, ’/II, 139. 6 CAD, Z, 58–59. See also A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia, 1956), 233–235.

264


once, utukku, “spirit of the dead”;8 and most often, eãemmu, “spirit of the dead, revenant, ghost, specter.”9 Within this sad, dark, and gloomy kingdom of the dead, where silence and stillness reigned,10 the shadowy image of the dead person resided.11

7 Akk. ilu is also employed in “substitute names” to describe the dead relative for whom the new child serves as a replacement, e.g., itårilum, “The god (i.e., the deceased) has returned.” See CAD, I/J, 102:6. Like demons, ghosts are also sometimes given a divine determinative. See G. Meier, “Ein akkadisches Heilungsritual aus BoÆazköy,” ZA 45 (1939), 206, IV:2, citing KTU2 29, p. 58: ileãemmu ßabtuà ileãem kimti ßabtuà, “The ghost seized him; the family ghost seized him”; line 3: la idû ileãemmu muttaggiàu ßabtuà, “Without his knowing it, suddenly a roaming ghost seized him”; line 4: la idû ileãemmu murtappidu ßabtuà, “Without his knowing it, suddenly a roving ghost seized him.” In a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian incantation (R. C. Thompson, Zweisprachige Beschwörungen, CT 17 [London, 1903], 37:1ff.), the spirits of the dead are referred to as, “Imprisoned evil spirits (Sum. dingir, Akk. ilu) have come out of the grave; the evil ghosts (Akk. zaqÊqå) have come out of the grave.” See A. Tsukimoto, Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien, AOAT 216 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985), 148. For another example of ilu used of a dead person, see M. Bayliss, “The Cult of the Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia,” Iraq 35 (1973), 117 n. 19. For the combination of “gods” and “dead” in Emar, see D. Fleming, “N§bû and Munabbi§tu: Two New Syrian Religious Personnel,” JAOS 113 (1993), 177–178. And for Nuzi, see ibid., 178; H. Rouillard and J. Tropper, “Trpym, rituals de guérison et culte après 1 Samuel XIX 11–17 et les textes parallèles d’Assur et de Nuzi,” VT 37 (1987), 354 n. 386; K. van der Toorn, “The Nature of Biblical teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence,” CBQ 52 (1990), 203, 222. See also H. Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion, AfO Beiheft 13–14 (Berlin, 1961), 37 n. 193; 71. For a comparable use of Ugar. ’il, see T. J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Harvard Semitic Monographs 39 (Atlanta, 1989). He refers on p. 49 to the divine determinative before names of deceased kings in KTU2 1.113:13´–26´ and to the four synonymous terms referring to the deceased in KTU2 1.6.VI:45–48, rpim, ’ilnym, ’ilm, mtm. (For this text, see also Astour, Netherworld and Its Denizens, 232–233.) On p. 50, Lewis remarks that this use of ilu is an attempt to describe “some type of transcendent character…. preternatural.” For a similar appearance of ’lm in a Phoenician inscription referring to the deceased, see G. N. Knoppers, “ ‘The God in His Temple’. The Phoenician Text from Pyrgi as a Funerary Inscription,” JNES 51 (1992), 105–120. The word appears in line 9 of the inscription, discussed on pp. 114–116. For similar employment of Heb. ‫אלהים‬, see 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19 discussed in the present article. For the problem of dying gods, see Bottéro, La mythologie, 45 n. 17; W. G. Lambert, “The Theology of Death,” Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen, 1980), 64–65. 8 This is how the ghost of Enkidu is referred to as it comes out of the netherworld in Gilgamesh XII:80, 84. 9 CAD, E, 339, 2. Its Sumerian equivalent is gidim. 10 In exceptional cases this silence may be broken; see Isa 14:9ff. 11 The dead were not always in a supine position. For some, chairs were avail-


265

In general, it was believed that one who descended (Akk. war§du,12 Ugar. yrd,13 Heb. ‫ירד‬14) to the world below never returned.15 Thus, in the Sumerian myth of “Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld” (lines 82–83): “Why have you come to the land of no return, on the road whose traveler returns not?”16 This, in turn, served as the predecessor and prototype of the Akkadian “Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld,” where Ishtar is described as setting out “to the land of no return…, to the house which none leaves who has entered it, to the road from which there is no way back” (lines 1, 5–6).17 The netherworld was erßet/aàar/m§t la t§ri.18 So, too, in the Bible: Compare 2 Sam 12:23, “But now that he (i.e., the first born child of David and Bathsheba) is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him; but he will never come back to me”; Job 7:9–10, “As a cloud fades, so whoever goes down (‫ )יורד‬to Sheol does not come up (‫)יעלה‬. He returns no more to his home. His place does not know him”; 10:21: “Before I depart, never to return, for the land of deepest gloom”; 16:22, “For a few more years will pass, and I shall go the way of no return.” The dead, moreover, are considered to be bereft

able. Cf. ana eãemmÊ kimtiàu… kussâ tanaddi, “You set up a chair for the ghosts [of the deceased] of his family” (H. Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, II [Leipzig, 1901] = BBR 52:12); già.gu.za.gidim = kussî eãemmi (B. Landsberger, The Series ›AR-ra = Éubullu Tablets I–IV, MSL 5 [Rome, 1957], IV:93). Of course, the gods of the netherworld have their own thrones. Cf.: “He [Nergal] seized her [Ereshkigal] by the hair and pulled her down from the throne (iàtu kussî)” (J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, VAB 2 [Leipzig, 1915], 357:78); “Bring forth the Annunaki and seat [them] on thrones of gold (ina kussî Éur§ßi)” (L. W. King, CT 15 [London, 1902], 47: rev. 33). This, in turn, explains the imagery of Isa 14:9: “Sheol below was astir to greet your coming—rousing for you the shades of all the earth’s chieftains, raising from their thrones all the kings of the nations.” 12 For Akk. ar§du, “to descend into the grave, the netherworld,” see CAD, A/II, 216. 13 See, e.g., KTU2 1.161:21–22: ’arß rd, “Descend to the netherworld!”; KTU2 1.6.1:7–8: nrd b’arß; cf. also KTU2 1.5.6:25: ’rd barß. 14 See, e.g., Gen 37:35; Num 16:30, 33; Ezek 32:27; for multiple other examples, consult the standard biblical lexical. 15 For myths of descent in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic literature, see Hutter, Altorientalische Vorstellungen. For Mesopotamian texts, see also J.-M. Aynard, “Le jugement des morts chez les Assyro-Babyloniens,” Le Jugement des Mort, Sources Orientales IV (Paris, 1961), 88–95; and for Ugarit, see Lewis, Cults of the Dead. 16 See W. R. Sladek, Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld, University Microfilms 74-27, 928, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, 1974), 138–139; ANET, 107. 17 Ibid. 18 For references, see the corresponding entries in CAD and AHw.

266


of all knowledge. Cf. Job 14:21, “His sons attain honor and he does not know it. They are humbled, and he is not aware of it.” Eccles 9:5, “The living know they will die, but the dead know nothing”; v. 10, “For there is no action, no reasoning, no learning, no wisdom in Sheol where you are going.” It is veritably the “land of oblivion” (Ps 88:13b) personified. Nevertheless, even in the domain of the deceased, consistency is not always the rule, for some roving and roaming spirits19 may, and occasionally do, return, either as malevolent agents to haunt and persecute the living,20 especially when their proper post-mortem rites are not maintained, or as benevolent intercessors on behalf of their living relatives. Moreover, while in the netherworld, they can also be enquired and consulted by necromancers and mediums21 in order to obtain information about their present abode or concerning future events. The repeated injunctions in the Bible against these professional practitioners highlight their popularity amongst the common folk. Compare, for example, Lev 19:31; 20:6, 26; Deut 18:11; 2 Kings 23:24; 2 Chron 10:13. The parade tirade against them is portrayed in Isa 8: 19–20,22 when the prophet mockingly ridicules, “Now, should people say to you, ‘Inquire [‫]דרשו‬ ִ 23 of the ghosts and familiar spirits’—that 19

See CAD, M/II, 227, murtappidu, and 303, muttaggiàu, respectively. For a similar concept in Rabbinic literature, see S. Lieberman, “After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature,” Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, II, English section (Jerusalem, 1965), 499–500. 20 In such a case one may have recourse to special expiatory rites to propitiate ghosts or exorcise them; see G. Catellino, “Rituals and Prayers against ‘Appearing Ghosts’,” Or 24 (1955), 240ff. For corresponding rituals, see I. L. Finkel, “Necromancy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” AfO 29–30 (1983–84), 1–17; Bayliss, “Cult of the Dead Kin.” For benevolent and dangerous ghosts, see also A. Skaist, “Ancestor Cult and Succession in Mesopotamia,” Death in Mesopotamia, ed. B. Alster, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen, 1980), 126–127. 21 See J. Ebach and U. Rüterswörden, “Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament,” Part I, UF 9 (1977), 57–70; Part II, UF 12 (1980), 205–220, where there is a detailed analysis of Heb. ‫ אֹב‬and Hit. apu. See also H. Wohlstein, “Zu den altisraelitischen Vorstellungen von Toten- und Ahnengeistern,” BZ 5 (1961), 30–38; J. Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” Studies in Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers, SVT 26 (Leiden, 1974), 133–142, for ‫ אֹב‬and ‫ידעֹני‬. 22 For a discussion of this passage and the various ways it has been translated, see Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 128–132. Our understanding of the passage follows the translation (in Italian) and the commentary (in Hebrew) of S. D. Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia (Padova, 1867), 124–125 (not cited by Lewis). See also Ebach and Rüterswörden, “Unterweltsbeschwörung,” Part I, 64–67. 23 For this technical term used in necromancy, as well as Heb. ‫שאל‬, see, e.g., Deut


267

chirp and moan24—‘for a people may inquire of its divine beings’ [‫ ;אלהיו‬that is, the shades of the dead]25—of the dead on behalf of the living!—‘for instruction and message’. Surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn.” Similarly, Isaiah (19:3) sarcastically chides Egypt that they will lose all counsel and reason, “Egypt shall be drained of spirit, and I will confound its plans. So they will consult the idols and the shades, the ghosts and the familiar spirits.” (Note, in particular, that the word translated “shades,” ‫א ִטּים‬, ִ a hapax legomenon, is a direct borrowing from Akk. eãemmu.)26 The most detailed portrayal of this practice is found in 1 Sam 28, in the well-known séance at En-dor,27 where the spirit of Samuel, described as ‫אלהים‬, “a supernatural being” (cf. Isa 8:19 and Akk. ilu),28 is conjured up by the female necromancer at the behest of Saul, so that the departed may impart information pertaining to the outcome of the imminent battle between the Israelites and the Philistines. What has been overlooked in this oft-studied episode is the technical use of the Hebrew verb ‫עלה‬, especially in the hiph‘il. In v. 8, Saul requests, “Bring up for me (‫ )העלי לי‬the one I shall name you.” Upon asking (v. 11), “Whom shall I bring up for you (‫?)אעלה לך‬,” he answers, “Bring up Samuel for me (‫)העלי לי‬.” When Samuel’s apparition appears and Saul inquires (v. 13), “What do you see?,” she responds, “I see a supernatural being (‫ )אלהים‬coming up (‫ )עֹלים‬from the netherworld (‫)ארץ‬.”29 Samuel then

18:11; 1 Sam 28:18; 1 Chron 10:13. For Akk. àâlu, see Oppenheim, Interpretation of Dreams, 223; CAD, ’/I, 278. 24 See similarly Isa 29:46: “Your voice shall sound like a ghost from the netherworld. Your words shall chirp from the sod.” For the chirping sound of demons in Mesopotamia, compare the bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian text: “They (the åmudemons)… twitter below” (ki·ta gù·bal·bal·a·meà//àaplià ißabburu àunu), CAD, &, 3, lexical listing; ’/I, 63, lexical listing. 25 See above, n. 7. For the “preternatural” character of the apparition, see Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 116. 26 See already F. Perles, “Eãimmu in Alten Testament,” OLZ 17 (1914), 108–109, 232. See, too, S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, Assyriological Studies 19 (Chicago and London, 1974), 50; H. R. (Chaim) Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, SBL Diss. Ser 37 (Ann Arbor, 1978), 42. 27 For analyses of this chapter, see the modern commentaries to Samuel. Both Lewis (Cults of the Dead,104–117) and Ebach and Rüterswörden (“Unterweltsbeschwörung,” Part I, 59–61) also discuss this séance. 28 See above, nn. 7 and 25. 29 For seeing and speaking with a dead spirit, see Finkel, “Necromancy,” 10: “You recite the incantation three times and you anoint your eyes (with it), and you will see the ghost. He will speak with you. You can look at the ghost; he will talk to you.”

268


directly addresses Saul (v. 15), “Why have you disturbed me30 and brought me up (‫”?)להעלות א ִֹתי‬ From here one learns that just as the dead “descend” to the underworld, so, too, they may also “ascend” from the “land of no return.” Compare similarly lines 284–288 in “Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld,” where Sum e11, the standard equivalent of Akk. elû, “to ascend,”31 repeatedly occurs: “Inanna… was ascending from the netherworld. However, as she was going up, the Annunaki seized her [saying]: ‘Who has ever risen from the netherworld? Who has ever risen from the netherworld alive? If Inanna wants to rise from the netherworld…’.”32 And though in its Akkadian counterpart, “Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld,” at first Iàtar ana erßetim urid ul ilâ, “Ishtar descended to the netherworld and did not ascend” (rev. 5), she eventually was successful in extricating herself from the clutches of Ereshkigal, queen of the subterranean kingdom. The myth concludes with Ishtar’s wish (rev. 56–58), “On the day that Tammuz comes up to me (ellâni)…, may the dead rise (lÊlûnimma) and smell the incense”.33 Furthermore, in the twelfth tablet of Gilgamesh, though Ereshkigal initially did not allow “Enkidu to ascend from the netherworld” (ultu erßetim ana e[lî], line 50), his spirit finally did issue forth to share with Gilgamesh his knowledge of that dark and dusty domain.34 Compare also the following bilingual text: gidim kur-ta e11: lu eãemmu àa iàtu bÊt erßetim illâ, “a ghost who comes up from the netherworld.”35 What is significant to point out is that in Akkadian lexical lists such necromancers36 were actually called muà¿lû eãemmi or muà¿lû ßilli, “one

30 For the use of the verb ‫ רגז‬in connection with “disturbing” the dead, cf. Isa 14:9 and the fifth-century B.C.E. Phoenician epitaphs of King Tabnit of Sidon, KAI, I, 13:4, 6, 7, pp. 2–3; and the son of King Shipiã-Baal of Byblos, KAI, I, A 9:5, p. 2. See also W. W. Hallo, “Disturbing the Dead,” MinÈa le-NaÈum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane, JSOT Supp. Ser. 154 (Sheffield, 1993), 190–191. 31 For the Hittite equivalent of Akk. elû and Heb. ‫עלה‬, see Ebach and Rüterswörden, “Unterweltsbeschwörung,” Part II, 208. Another verb employed for the departure of the spirit from the netherworld is aßû, “to depart.” 32 Sladek, Inanna’s Descent, 138–139. 33 ANET, 109. Cf. also ibid., 107, line 19. 34 Ibid., 98. See A. Shaffer, Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgameà, University Microfilms 63-7085 (Philadelphia, 1963), 149:241. 35 R. C. Thompson, Zweisprachige Beschwörungen, CT 16 (London, 1903), 10, iv: 42F. 36 Two other divination experts who also practiced necromancy are the à§’ilu


269

who makes the ghost/shadow ascend.”37 Compare OB Lu A:357, muà¿lû eãemmi, and line 359, muà¿li ßilli.38 See also Lu II iii:27´, muà¿lû [eãemmi]; Lu Excerpt I:183, [muà¿lû] eãemmi;39 Hg. B IV:149, muà¿lû eãemmu;40 OB Lu C4:4, muà¿lî ßilli.41 To be noted as well is the presence of a female necromancer listed in Lu Excerpt II:19, muà¿lÊtum, who, of course, reminds one of her counterpart in 1 Sam 28.42 These diviners, as their names specifically designate, know the art of how àålû àa eãemmi, “to raise, said of a ghost.”43 And to such a diviner one would turn with the request, [eãemmu eãå]ti lià¿lâni, “May he raise up for me [a ghost from the dark]ness”44—just as Saul did (1 Sam 28:9, 11): “Bring up for me (‫( )העלי לי‬the one I shall name you/Samuel).”45 An extended metaphorical use of this term should also be noted. Descriptions of one being in extremis, whether due to oppression, sickness, or onslaught of enemies, are often portrayed poetically as one having descended to the netherworld, experiencing, so to speak, a form of death.46 When confronted by such mortal danger, one can only rely on God to “raise up” the sufferer from his anguished state of being. Cf., e.g., 1 Sam 2:6, “The Lord deals death and gives life. He casts down into Sheol and raises up (‫)מעלה‬.” Jonah 2:7, “I sank to the base of the mountains. The bars of the earth closed upon me

and his female counterpart, à§’iltu (CAD, ’/I, 110–111), and the b§rû, along with his female counterpart, b§rÊtu (CAD, B, 121ff.). For the former, see Oppenheim, Interpretation of Dreams, 221–223. Compare, in particular, H. de Génouillac, Tablettes de Dréhem publiées avec inventaire et tables, TCL 2, 5 (Paris, 1911). 37 For all the lexical listings, see CAD, M/II, 265. 38 See M. Civil, Lu-sa and Related Texts, MSL 12 (Rome, 1969), 168. 39 Ibid., 120. 40 Ibid., 226. 41 Ibid. 194. 42 Compare likewise the à§’iltu and b§rÊtu diviners above, n. 36. 43 See the lexical entry in CAD, E, 397. 44 See Finkel, “Necromancy,” 9, obv. ii:9; cf. also p. 12 n. 48. 45 So, too, in Aramaic, where the ’aphel of the verb ‫סלק‬, “to cause to raise up,” is employed in connection with the raising of the dead. Thus, in the Targum Neophyti (A. Diez-Macho, ed., The Neophyti Targum of the Pentateuch (Madrid-Barcelona, 1968–78) to Deut 18:11, the necromantic diviners (Heb. ‫ )הידעֹנים‬are called ‫מסקי זכורין‬. For further references (and its Syriac counterpart), see M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 176–177; cf. also p. 380, entry 10; idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2002), 815. 46 This constitutes a familiar topos in psalms of both lamentation and thanksgiving.

270


forever. Yet you brought my life up (‫ )ותעל‬from the pit (‫)מ ַשּׁ ַחת‬, ִ 47 O Lord my God.” Ps 30:4, “O Lord, you brought me up (‫ )העלית‬from Sheol, preserved me from going down into the pit”; 40:3, “He lifted me up (‫ )ויעלני‬out of the miry pit”; 71:20, “You, who have made me undergo many troubles and misfortunes, will revive me again and will raise me up (‫ )ותעלני‬from the depths of the netherworld.” 47 Cf., similarly, iàtu qiri[b àutt]ati [annÊ]te àålâni, “Get me up from this pit,” E. Ebeling, “Ein mittelassyrische Bruchstück des Etana-Mythus,” AfO 14 (1941–44), Pl. 11:11, 17 (SB Etana). So, too, the expression, ina Éaàti àålû (variant, àålî), “to bring up from the pit” (E. Reiner, ’urpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations [Graz, 1958], IV:43)—which parallel “to save from hardship” (line 42), and “to rescue from the brink of annihilation” (line 44)—means “to bring one up from the depths of despair.” Heb. ‫ שחת‬in Jonah 2:7 is the metathesized interdialectal equivalent of Akk. Éaàtu. See M. Held, “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew,” The Gaster Festschrift, ed. D. Marcus (= JANES 5 [1973]), 173–190, where he demonstrates the correspondence between Éaàtu-àuttatu and ‫שחת‬-‫שוחה‬.

a lover’s garden of verse

271

A LOVER’S GARDEN OF VERSE: LITERAL AND METAPHORICAL IMAGERY IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LOVE POETRY* In love poetry, amatory allusions abound, and words, expressions, and images oft-times bear deft erotic double entendres, both literal and metaphorical. Here, two very popular motifs from the realm of horticulture will be examined: the garden/orchard and the vineyard.1 * To Moshe Greenberg, a fellow-gardener in the orchard of Torah. Abbreviations: ISET S. N. Kramer, M. ÇiÆ, and H. Kizilyay, Sumerian Literary Tablets and Fragments in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul (Ankara, 1969) LH Laws of Hammurapi MAD 5 I. J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (Chicago, 1970) MAL Middle Assyrian Laws Ni Tablets excavated at Nippur in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul SMR S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington, 1969) TCL 15 H. de Genouillac, Textes religieux sumériens du Louvre (Paris, 1930) TCL 17, 18 G. Dossin, Lettres de la première dynastie babylonienne (Paris, 1933–34) TIM Texts in the Iraq Museum UET 6 C. J. Gadd and S. N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts (London, 1963) For additional studies on love poetry in the ancient Near East, see J. Goodnick Westenholz, “Metaphorical Language in the Poetry of Love in the Ancient Near East,” La circulation des biens, des personages et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien: XXXVIII e rencontre assyriologique internationale (Paris, 1992), 381–387; idem, “Love Lyrics from the Ancient Near East,” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson (New York, 1995), IV, 2471–2484; W. G. Lambert, “Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love,” Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlen, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough (London, 1987), 25–39; V. Afanasieva, “Zu den Metaphern in einem Lied der heiligen Hochzeit,” Societies and Langues of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of I. M. Diakonoff, ed. M. A. Dandamayev (Warminster, 1982), 15–21; H.-P. Müller, Vergleich und Metapher im Hohenlied (Göttingen, 1984); O. Keel, Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 114–115 (Stuttgart, 1984). For other examples of the “complex interplay between literal and figurative rites and actions,” see I. Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 118–143 and notes, pp. 172–176. See also R. Alter (The Art of Biblical Poetry [New York, 1985], 185–203) for his description of the “enchanting interfusions between the literal and metaphorical realms” (p. 202) throughout Song of Songs. See also M. Nissinen, “Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love,” Mythology and Mythologies, ed. R. M. Whiting, Melammu Symposia 2 (Helsinki, 2001), 93–136, with additional bibliography. 1 The same double entendre is present in the erotic metaphor of fruits and trees in

272

the bible and the ancient near east Garden/Orchard

The motif of the garden/orchard in Sumerian (già kiri 6), Akkadian (kirû),2 Egyptian (ànw, dd), and Hebrew (‫)גן‬3 love lyrics functions not only as a favorite assignation (with its esthetic and sensual delights and hideaways) for lovers’ trysts and amore alfresco, but may simultaneously allude to female sexuality and fertility in general4 and to the pudenda in particular.5 general and the apple and apple tree in particular. For fruits and trees as aphrodisiacs, see Lambert, “Devotion,” 27–29; M. Held, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 15 (1961), 30. For the apple and apple trees and the problem of whether ÉaàÉåru refers to an apple or not, see Lambert, “Devotion,” 29–31; R. D. Biggs, ’À.ZI.GA.: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations (Locust Valley, NY, 1967), 70 (= KAR 61:8–10), 74 (= KAR 69:4–5), love incantations that prescribe the sucking of the juice of an apple or pomegranate. For these two fruits, see also the tale of Enki and Ninhursag, T. Jacobsen, The Harps that Once…: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven, 1987), 183–204; S. N. Kramer and J. Maier, Myths of Enki, the Crafty God (New York, 1989), 23–30. B. Alster (“Marriage and Love in the Sumerian Love Songs with Some Notes on Manchester Tammuz,” The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg [Bethesda, MD, 1993], 18 n. 33, 20 n. 43) follows this identification based on the study of M. A. Powell (“The Tree Section of ur 5 [= ÉA R ]-ra = Éubullu,” Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 3 (1987), 153–156. See also B. Groneberg, “Brust (irtum)=Gesänge,” Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger, ed. B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, and T. Richter, AOAT 267 (Münster, 1999), 177–181; M. Civil, “Studies on Early Dynastic Lexicography III,” Or 56 (1987), 241; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C (Garden City, NY, 1977), 663. For the possible appearance of the apple in Ebla (du-bù-u), see E. Zurro, “Notes de lexicografía eblaíta: Nomres de árboles y plantas,” Aula Orientalia 1 (1983), 268–269. For fruit as designating sexual vigor in love poetry, see Gilgamesh VI:8, “Give me, O give me of your fruits of love!” (see S. M. Paul, “The ‘Plural of Ecstasy’ in Mesopotamian and Biblical Love Poetry,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield [Winona Lake, IN, 1995], 592 [246]). Compare also Maqlu III: 8–10, “She robs the handsome man of his vitality. She takes the pretty girl’s fruit. With her glance, she steals her sex appeal” (compare also lines 11–12; G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû, AfO Beiheft 2 [Berlin, 1937]). So, too, in an Old Babylonian text from Kish, B 472 I:7´: muÉtanbå inbåka, “growing luxuriantly is your ‘fruit’.” See J. Goodnick Westenholz, “A Forgotten Love Song,” Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. RochbergHalton AOS 67 (New Haven, 1987), 415–425. 2 Goodnick Westenholz, “Love Lyrics,” 2482; Lambert, “Devotion,” 28; Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 7 n. 26; G. Leick, Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature (London, 1994), 73–75. The garden connected to the temple may even have served as the setting for the sacred marriage ritual. 3 So, too, ‫פרדס‬, Song of Songs 4:13. 4 For “love poetry as an expression of female sexuality,” see J. S. Cooper, “Enki’s Member: Eros and Irrigation in Sumerian Literature,” in Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. (Philadelphia, 1989), 88.


273

Sumerian6 The figurative erotic connotations of the garden are well attested in Sumerian Sacred Marriage songs: a. CT 58:137 24. “He (Dumuzi) made me (Inanna) enter, he made me enter, 25. (My) brother8 [lit., ‘the brother’] made me enter his garden. 26. Dumuzi made me enter his garden, 27. To lie with him at his standing tree; 28. He made me stand with him at his lying tree.9 29. By an apple tree,10 I kneeled as is proper.” So, too, with the same arbor ardor: b. Ni 4569 iii = ISET, I 119/6111 11. “The brother b[rought me] into his garden. 12. [Let] me raise his standing tree; 13. [Let] me lay down his lying tree.”12 c. Ni 9602 = ISET, II, plate 16, col. iii13

5

Lambert, “Devotion,” 28; Goodnick Westenholz, “Love Lyrics,” 2477–2478; Pope, Song of Songs, 324. Greek kh~poz and Latin hortus also serve a dual function. For the Greek, see the reference to Diogenes Laertius 2.46, cited in H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1940), I, 947–948, meaning III, “pudenda muliebria.” For the Latin, see the reference in Sir W. Smith (A Latin-English Dictionary [London, 1926], 508), who compares it to the Greek. See, too, J. Atkins, Sex in Literature (London, 1978), III, 222ff. 6 As is well known, Sumerian abounds with enigmatic difficulties and, as a result, the various translations at times differ greatly one from the other. A few of these divergencies will be noted; for the others, one should consult the bibliography appended to each song. 7 See Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 21; Kramer, SMR, 101; idem, “BM 88318: The Ascension of Dumuzi to Heaven,” Receuil de travaux de l’association des études du Proche-Orient Ancien (Montreal, 1984), II, 5–9. 8 “Brother” in these love lyrics serves as a term of endearment. 9 The “standing” and “lying” tree are metaphors for the male member. 10 See above, n. 1. 11 See Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 21; Kramer, SMR, 101. 12 This is Alster’s translation, “Marriage and Love,” 21. Y. Sefati (Love Songs in Sumerian Literature [Ramat Gan, 1977], 320–321) translates, “I stood with him among his standing trees. I lay down with him among his lying trees.” J. Klein suggests, in turn, another tentative translation: “[Let] me stand with him wherever he stands. [Let] me lie with him wherever he lies” (written communication). 13 Dumuzi-Inanna P. See S. N. Kramer, “Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts,” PAPS 107 (1963), 505–507;

274

the bible and the ancient near east “[At her rising from] the pure lap,14 The shoots and buds [rose up with her]. At her rising from the king’s lap, The flax rose up with her, the barley rose up with her. The plain has been filled (with abundance) with her like a blossoming garden.”15 d. TCL 15:2016 1. “It sprouts, it sprouts, sprouts. It is the lettuce (i.e., pubic hair)17 he watered. 2. In the garden of deep shade, bending down his neck, My darling of his mother, 3. My one who fills the grain in their furrows with beauty, It is the lettuce he watered/flooded. 4. My apple tree (i.e., male member)18 bearing fruit at its top (i.e., seminal emission),19 It is the garden he watered.” 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

idem, SMR, 59; T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven, 1976), 46. The present translation is based on a revised edition of the text by Sefati, Love Songs, 225. 14 For Sum. úr, the lap or genital area of men or women, see Enki and Ninhursag, lines 180, 182: “He embraced her; he lay in her lap” (ANET, 40). For “the bed of the sweet lap,” CT 58:18–19, see W. H. P. Römer, Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit (Leiden, 1965), 191–192. For the equivalent Akkadian expression, sånu, as a euphemism for sexual parts, see CAD, S, 387–388. For these and other sexual euphemisms, see S. M. Paul, “The Shared Legacy of Sexual Metaphors and Euphemisms in Mesopotamian and Biblical Literature,” Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, Part 1, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki, 2002), 489–498 [299–314]. 15 Here the garden is a simile for fertility. 16 Compare duplicates: UET 6/1, rev. 121; TIM IX, 14; Ni 9846 (= ISET, II, 87). See Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 21; Kramer, “Cuneiform Studies,” 508–509; idem, SMR, 95–96; Jacobsen, Harps, 94. Sefati’s translation in Love Songs (p. 166) differs radically from the above. He renders: “(1) It grows, it flourishes, (like) well-watered lettuce. (2) My shaded garden of the steppe, richly blooming, favorite of his mother. (3) My barley full of allure in its furrows, (like) well-watered lettuce. (4) My choice apple-tree, bearing fruits, (like) well-watered lettuce.” According to him, Inanna is describing her beloved’s beauty. Leick (Sex and Eroticism, 121–123) interprets: “ ‘it’ = the garden, as the vulva which ‘swells’ till it reaches an orgasmic climax.” 17 Jacobsen, Harps, 94. For the symbolism of lettuce, see Leick, Sex and Eroticism, 123. 18 Ibid. For the apple tree, see also above, n. 1. 19 T. Jacobsen, “Two BAL-BAL-E Dialogues,” Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford, CT, 1987), 62 n. 29. See also A. Falkenstein, “Sumerische religiöse Texte,” ZA 56 (1964), 116, 121–122, and corresponding notes.


275

e. Ni 4171 = ISET, I, plate 24 (= p. 82)20 rev. 10. “My (?) sister (Inanna), I (King ’ulgi) would go with you to my garden. 11. My fair sister, I would go with you to my garden. 12. My sister, I would go with you to my garden…. 13. My sister, I would go with you to my apple tree.21 14. May the… of the apple tree be in my hand. 15. My sister, I would go with you to my pomegranate tree… 17. My sister, I would go with you to my garden. 18. Fair sister, I would go with you to my garden.” f. SRT 3122 27. “O my budding one, my budding one, sweet is your allure! 28. My budding garden of the apple trees, sweet is your allure! 29. My fruitful garden of the celtis-trees, sweet is your allure!” The metaphor of the garden symbolizing the female also appears in other love lyrics: g. “The Message of Lú·dingir·ra”23 In the third of the five signs that Ludingira gives to a royal cou-

S. N. Kramer, “Inanna and ’ulgi: A Sumerian Fertility Song,” Iraq 31 (1969), 18–23; idem, SMR, 100. 21 Once again, the tree in the garden is a metaphor for sexual congress. 22 Jacobsen, “Two BAL-BAL-E Dialogues,” 61–62; idem, Harps, 98; Kramer, SMR, 104–106; B. Alster, “Sumerian Love Songs,” RA 79 (1985), 146; Y. Sefati, “An Oath of Chastity in a Sumerian Love Song (SRT 31)?” Bar Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to PinÈas Artzi, ed. J. Klein and A. Skaist (Ramat Gan, 1990), 45–63; idem, Love Songs, 130. Jacobsen, “Two BAL-BAL-E Dialogues,” 61 n. 29: “Lines 27–32 raptly contemplate, as noted, the growing sexual excitement of the customer…. Metaphor for the male member is here the apple tree (lines 28–29).” Compare also the ensuing lines, 31–32, in this poem—“O my clear pillar, my clear pillar, sweet are your charms! Pillar of alabaster set in lapis-lazuli, sweet are your charms” (where “pillar of alabster” and “lapis-lazuli” serve as metaphors for the male and female genitalia)—with Song of Songs 5:14b–15a: “His belly is a tablet of ivory adorned with sapphires. His legs are like marble pillars set in sockets of fine gold.” 23 The text is known from four tablets of the Old Babylonian period and a couple of trilingual fragments (Summerian-Akkadian-Hittite), one of which was found at Ugarit. See M. Civil, “The ‘Message of Lú-dingir-ra to His Mother’ and a Group of Akkado-Hittite ‘Proverbs’,” JNES 23 (1964), 1–11; J. Nougayrol, “Signalement Lyrique (R.S. 25.421),” Ugaritica 5 (1968), 313, 315. For additional bibliography, see Goodnick Westenholz, “Metaphorical Language,” 384 nn. 15–19. 20

276


rier describing the charms and beauty of his mother, ’§t Iàtar, he exclaims, 35. “O garden of delight (già kiri 6 -la-la = Akk. kirî lalê), full of joy.” h. Gudea Cyl. B V:14–1524 14. “As she (the goddess Baba) sat down at the side of her…, 15. She was the mistress, the daughter of holy An, a charming garden (già kiri 6 -nisi-ga), bearing fruit (kùrun íl-laàm).” The erotic nature of the “garden” is also a familiar theme in both Akkadian and Egyptian love poetry: Akkadian a. MAD 5:825 6. “…, you two beautiful maidens, 7. Blooming are you. 8. Send / go down to the garden (kirîàum), 9. Send / go down to the garden (kirî).” ................................. 17–18. “I leaped into the garden of Sin (aàÉiã kirîà Sin)” (i.e., the moon-god, representing the crescent-shaped female pubic triangle).26 b. TIM IX:54 A late Assyrian love lyric dialogue between Nabû and Taàm¿tu:27

24 M. Lambert and R. Tournay, “Le cylinder B de Gudéa,” RB 55 (1948), 520–543; A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (= SAHG) (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1953), 169–170; Jacobsen, Harps, 429 (translation in agreement with Falkenstein). See also Sefati, “Oath,” 61. See also E. Jan Wilson, The Cylinders of Gudea (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1996), 142–143. 25 This late third-millennium Old Akkadian incantation for love-magic was published by I. J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, MAD 5 (Oxford, 1970), 7–12. See also J. and Å. Westenholz, “Help for Rejected Suitors: The Old Akkadian Love Incantation MAD V 8,” Or 46 (1977), 198–219; J. M. Sasson, “A Further Cuneiform Parallel to the Song of Songs?” ZA 85 (1973), 359–360. CAD, K, 413, follows Gelb in reading ãurdam, “send”; J. and Å. Westenholz, on the other hand, favor turd§, the second personal dual of war§du, “go down.” 26 See Jacobsen, “Two BAL-BAL-E Dialogues,” 63 n. 29. 27 A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3 (Helsinki, 1989), 36–37; E. Matsushima, “Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû,” Acta Sumerologica 9 (1987), 143–149. See also Nissinen, “Akkadian Rituals,” 97–99, 114–115.


277

13. “[Nabû], my lord, put an earring on me. 14. Let me give you pleasure in the garden (qereb kirî lulallÊka). ................................. rev. 15. For what, for what, are you adorned, my Taàm¿tu? 16. So that I may [go] to the garden with you, my Nabû. 17. Let me go to the garden, to the garden and [ ]. 18. Let me go alone to the very beautiful garden (ana kirî banbanât).”28 c. BM 41005: obv. ii29 9. “As I [went down] into the garden of your (fem.) love30 ................................. 13. Zarp§nÊtum will go down to the garden.” d. KAR 158:VII (incipits from love poetry)31 26. “She seeks the beautiful garden of your (male) charms (kirî lalÊka).” 28. “The king32 goes down to the garden (§rid kirî àarru)….” 35. “The chief gardener of the pleasure garden33 (àandanak kirî ßÊÉ§ti).”

28 The adjective, banbanâtu, which also appears in rev. line 24 and in Livingstone, Court Poetry, 13, rev. line 1, is a rare variant of the adjective babbanû, fem. babbanÊtu, “of good quality, beautiful, excellent” (for the latter, see CAD, B, 7). The reduplication here indicates intensification. Compare Akk. dandannu, “almighty” (CAD, D, 87), kaàkaààu, “overpowering” (CAD, K, 290). See W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, AnOr 33 (Rome, 1952), 71, §57b. It would then be the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫פיָּה‬-‫ה‬ ִ ‫יְ ֵפ‬, Jer 46:20; ‫ָפית‬ ִ ‫ָפי‬ ְ ‫י‬, Ps 45:3. See also Matsushima, “Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû,” 173 n. 18. 29 W. G. Lambert, “The Problem of the Love Lyrics,” Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore, 1975), 104. 30 For the idiom “to go down to the garden,” see the examples cited by J. and Å. Westenholz, “Help for Rejected Suitors,” 212–213. As a metaphor for sexual congress, see Jacobsen, “Two BAL-BAL-E Dialogues,” 62 n. 29; Leick, Sex and Eroticism, 191, 196. For its appearance in Hebrew, see the quotations cited from Song of Songs below. 31 See E. Ebeling, Ein Hymnenkatalog aus Assur, Berliner Beiträge zur Keilschriftforschung 1/3 (Berlin, 1922). 32 For the use of “king” as a term of endearment for a lover, see Paul, “ ‘Plural of Ecstasy’,” 595–596 [250–251]. 33 See Held, “Faithful Lover,” 20; CAD, ’/I, 374–375.

278


Egyptian34 a. “I am headed to the ‘Love Garden’ (dd), My bosom full of persia (branches/fruits; i.e., allusion to her own fertility), my hair laden with balm.”35 b. “The goose soars and alights, While the ordinary birds circle. He has disturbed the garden (ànw).”36 (The “goose” = the young male lover; “ordinary birds” = the other boys; the “garden” = the young girl.) c. “I am yours like the field, Planted with flowers and all sorts of fragrant plants.37 ................................. A lovely place for strolling about, With your hand upon mine.”38 Hebrew In Song of Songs 4:12–5:1, the female is referred to five times by the term “garden”: a. 4:12. “A garden locked (‫ )גן נעול‬is my sister, my bride, a fountain locked, a sealed spring.” The “locked garden (as well as the fountain and spring) symbolizes her virginity.39 (In contrast, Heb. ‫פתח פתוח‬, “an opened opening” [cf. b. Ketub. 9a–b, 10a, 36b] and colloquial Arab. maftûÈa(t), “opened,” are euphemisms for a deflowered virgin.40) In v. 13, she is compared 34

M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison, 1985), 283–284. On p. 283, Fox remarks on the theme of the garden/orchard as the setting of lovemaking: “This garden provides privacy and fresh, natural beauties that appropriately frame the lovemaking and are congruent with the lovers’ state of mind.” On pp. 285–286, he also discusses various motifs of the garden theme in Song of Songs. 35 Ibid., 15, Song 8 and nn. m and n. 36 Ibid., 20–21, Song 11. “The goose landing in a garden… represents the boy falling in love with the girl” (p. 21). 37 Cf. Song of Songs 4:13–14. 38 Fox, Song of Songs, 26, Song 18. 39 Ibid., 137, “The locked garden image both expresses the boy’s desire for greater intimacy… and praises the girl’s modesty and sexual exclusiveness.” See also Kramer, SMR, 152 n. 17; Pope, Song of Songs, 488. 40 See S. H. Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JPOS


b. 4:15.

c. 4:16.

d. 5:1.

279

to an exotic ‫פרדס‬, “orchard.” She, in turn, responds accordingly by reiterating his imagery: “The spring in my garden ([‫ )מעין גני]ם‬is a well of fresh water, a rill of Lebanon,” referring to her sexuality.41 And she then extends a delectable invitation to her lover to enter her scented “garden” and enjoy her sexual charms: “Awake, O north wind! Come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden (‫ )גני‬that its perfumes may pour forth! Let my beloved come to his garden (‫)גנו‬ And eat42 its luscious fruits.” He, in turn, immediately responds to her rapturous call for this carnal encounter: “I have come to my garden (‫)גני‬, my sister, my bride, I have plucked43 my myrrh with my spices, Eaten44 my honey and my honeycomb,45

2 (1922), 214. For the similar use of ‫ פתח‬referring to an animal in Rabbinic literature, cf. b. Giã. 69b, ‫צפירתא דלא איפתח‬, “a virgin she-goat” (lit., “one who has not been opened”). So, too, Akk. la patÊtum/petÊtim refers to an “unopened,” i.e., virgin, animal (see AHw, 858, 5), as well as to a woman who has not had intercourse (op. cit., 860, 17). 41 The final mem in ‫ גנים‬is enclitic.For this literary section, see J. S. Cooper, “New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JBL 90 (1971), 161–162. 42 For “eating,” see below, n. 44. 43 For the symbol of “plucking,” see the comment on Song of Songs 6: 2 below. 44 For “eating” (‫ )אכל‬and “drinking” (‫ )שתה‬as erotic metaphors, compare Prov 5:15, 19; 30:20. For the last verse, see Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 495–496 [308–310]. “Eating” is also employed in a similar fashion in Rabbinic Hebrew. In b. Ketub. 65b, commenting on the Mishnah, “She is to eat with him on the night of every Sabbath (= every Friday night),” R. Assi interprets “eating” as ‫לישנא מעליא‬, “a euphemism” for sexual intercourse and refers to Prov 30:20. For additional examples, see E. Z. Melamed, “Euphemisms and Textual Alterations in the Mishnah,” Leàonénu 47 (1983), 8 (Hebrew). So, too, in Mesopotamian poetry. Cf. Gilgamesh VI:68: “Let us eat (i nÊkul) of your strength!” (also a euphemism for male potency). See Paul, “ ‘Plural of Ecstasy’,” 592 n. 27 [247 n. 29]. See, too, the Seleucid astrological tablet, VAT 7847 + AO 6648: rev. C: “Pisces: Joy of heart. He should make love to his wife, eat fruit, his garden…”; F. Weidner, “Gestirnsdarstellung auf babylonischen Tafeln,” Sitzungsberichte Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 254/2 (Graz, 1967), 32. Compare also T. Jacobsen’s comments in Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays in Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. W. L. Moran (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 79–80.

280

the bible and the ancient near east Drunk my wine and my milk.” The rapid succession of the verbs “pluck,” “eat,” and “drink” all allude to his sexual “culinary” enjoyment (cf. also Prov 5:15, 19; 30:20). e. 6:2. “My beloved has gone down into his garden (‫ירד‬ ‫)לגנו‬46 to the bed of spices, To graze47 in my garden ([‫)בגני]ם‬,48 and to pick lilies.”49 Note the very same figure of speech, “going down into the garden,” with the very same sexual overtones as in the Akkadian citations above, 2c, d. The erotic verbal metaphor of the “picking” (‫ )לקט‬of lilies here and the “plucking” (‫ )ארי‬of spices (5:1) is also paralleled in an Akkadian love lyric: “May my (Taàm¿tu’s) eyes behold the plucking of your (Nabû’s) fruit” (qat§pu àa inbÊku),50 where “fruit”51 represents the male’s sexuality.

45

For the erotic connotations of honey (Sum. làl, Akk. diàpu), see Lambert, “Devotion,” 21; Alster, “Marriage and Love,” 16 n. 7, and p. 22, citing several examples in Sumerian; Kramer, SMR, 92–93, 96; Lambert, “Devotion,” 21; idem, “Divine Love Lyrics from the Reign of Abi-eàuÉ,” MIO 12 (1966), 48:9–10, 51: duààupu d§dåka diàpa iàeb[bi kuz]ub râmika, “Your lovemaking is sweet; the [appea]l of your love is sat[ed] with honey.” For the expression “to taste the honey plant” as an expression for intercourse, see Leick, Sex and Eroticism, 121, 123–124. Compare also KAR 3, 144: rev. 3–4; see E. Ebeling, “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Beschwörungsserie Namburbi,” RA 49 (1955), 182:3–4; H. Zimmern, “Der Schenkenliebeszauber,” ZA 32 (1918–19), 174–175: rev. 48–50, àap§tja lu lall§ru q§t§ja lu kuzbu àap§t kipattija lu àap§t diàpi, “May my lips be white honey; may my hands be all charm; may the lips of my pudenda be lips of honey.” 46 For “going down to the garden” as a metaphor for sexual intercourse, see above, n. 30. Compare also Song of Songs 6:11. See J. and Å. Westenholz, “Help for Rejected Suitors,” 213. 47 For “grazing/browsing” as a metaphor for lovemaking, see Fox, Song of Songs, 143, 313. 48 The final mem here, as in 4:15, is most likely enclitic. For other interpretations of the plural form, see ibid., 149. 49 See R. Gordis (The Song of Songs and Lamentations [New York, 1974], 92), who compares the “imagery of the garden as the symbol of the delights of love, which the lover would rather not share with others,” with a Viennese soldier’s song, cited by T. Reik, The Haunting Melody (New York, 1953), 83: “Was nutzet mir ein Rosengarten wenn and’re drin spazieren gehen?” (“What use to me [is] a rose garden when others go walking in it?”). 50 Livingstone, Court Poetry, 37 (= TIM IX, 54), rev. 20; see also rev. 30. 51 For the metaphor of “fruit,” see above, n. 1.


281

“I went down to the nut garden (‫אל גנת אגוז‬ ‫)ירדתי‬,52 To see the budding of the vale, To see if the vines had blossomed, If the pomegranates were in bloom.” That “going down to the garden” (this time to a “nut grove”) in order to verify the vernal horticultural blossoming has sexual overtones becomes patently clear from the next verse (v. 12), where the lover falls into an amorous ecstatic state.53 Compare similarly 7:12–14. g. 8:13. “O you, who linger in the garden (‫)היושבת בגנים‬, Lovers are listening. Let me hear your voice!” Here the garden serves as the preferred venue for the couple in love.

f.

6:11.

The motif of the garden becomes very predominant in medieval secular poetry, both Hebrew and Arabic,54 and also appears in Palestinian love songs.55 Compare, for example: 1. “The garden (bistân) of your beauty in its bloom Is fairer and more resplendent than a flower garden (bistân).” 2. “Your breast, O you, is like a pomegranate fruit, And your eyes have captured us, By God and (by) the Merciful One. Your cheek shines as it were a Damascene apple. How sweet to pluck it (ganâh)56 in the morning And to open the garden (il-bistân; i.e., enjoy with you connubial bliss!).”

52

See Pope, Song of Songs, 574–579, for the symbolism of “nuts,” which is also employed as a figure of speech for the female genitalia (p. 579). For this verse in Song of Songs, see also Müller, Vergleich und Metapher, 40. 53 S. M. Paul, “An Unrecognized Medical Idiom in Song of Songs 6, 12 and Job 8, 21,” Biblica 59 (1978), 545–547 [91–93]. 54 M. Itzhaki, Towards the Garden Beds: Hebrew Garden Poems in Medieval Spain (Tel Aviv, 1988) (Hebrew); H. Peres, La poésie andaluse en Arabe classique au XIème siècle (Paris, 1953). 55 Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels,” 214. Both citations are educed by Pope (Song of Songs, 488). 56 For the image of “plucking,” see above, nn. 43 and 50.

282

the bible and the ancient near east Vineyard 57

Heb. ‫כרם‬, “vineyard,” also serves a dual role in the Song of Songs, both literally, as a delightful and appealing outdoor site for a rendezvous, and figuratively, as a symbol of female sexuality. Its literal meaning appears in: 1. 1:6b. “My mother’s sons were incensed with me. They made me guard the vineyards.”58 2. 1:14. “My beloved to me is a spray of henna blooms from the vineyards of En-gedi.” 3. 8:11. “Solomon has a vineyard in Baal-hamon. He posted guards in the vineyard.”59 Its figurative erotic usage as a metaphor for female sexuality is present in: 1. 2:15. The young woman’s enigmatic yet provocative call, symbolizing her ripe bodily charms:60 “Catch us the foxes, The little foxes that ruin vineyards, For our vineyard is in blossom!” 2. 7:13.

57

(which reminds one of the similar description of going down to the nut garden, 6:11) symbolizes the girl’s budding sexuality as well as the site of excitement:

See Müller, Vergleich und Metapher, 47; Fox, Song of Songs, 102; O. Keel, Das Hohelied, Zürcher Bibelkommentare (Zurich, 1986), p. 56 on 1:6; p. 99 on 2:13; and p. 104 on 2:15 = Canticles, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis, 1994), 49, 101, 110, respectively. 58 For the Ugaritic interdialectal equivalent, nÇr krm in a roster of royal personnel (KTU2 4.609:12 [p. 422]) and in a mythological fragment (KTU2 1.92:23 [p. 110]), see Pope, Song of Songs, 325. 59 Here one must also be sensitive to a double entendre, for the vineyards may also symbolize, as several commentators have noted, nubile women; see Fox, Song of Songs, 174–175; Pope, Song of Songs, 686, 689; Keel, Das Hohelied, 254 = Canticles, 281; G. Gerleman, Ruth: Das Hohelied, BKAT 18/2–3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965), 222; R. E. Murphy, The Song of Songs, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1990), 199. See also M. Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible (Sheffield, 1992), 133. 60 See D. Lys, “Notes sur le Cantique,” Congress Volume: Rome, 1968, SVT 17 (Leiden, 1969), 171–172; Fox, Song of Songs, 114; Keel, Das Hohelied, 104 = Canticles, 110; W. Rudolph, Das Hohe Lied, KAT 27/1–3 (Gütersloh, 1962), 135; Gerleman, Ruth, 127; Murphy, Song of Songs, 141; Gordis, Song of Songs, 83.


283

“Let us go early to the vineyards. Let us see if the vine has flowered, If its blossoms have opened, If the pomegranates are in bloom. There I will give my love to you.”61 3. 8:12. After its literal usage in the previous verse (v. 11), the young girl contrasts Solomon’s thousand vineyards (which may also be a sexual reference to a harem) to her very own, that is, her own body: “I have my very own vineyard….”62 4. 1:6. She explains that she was punished by her brothers, who made her guard their vineyards (literally), because “My own vineyard I did not guard (‫—”)כרמי שלי לא נטרתי‬where “wineyard” serves as a metaphor for her pudenda.63 There is an additional nuance here that can be clarified in the light of Akkadian. The verb ‫נטר‬, which is an Aramaism for Heb. ‫נצר‬, is also the interdialectal etymological and semantic cognate of Akk. naß§ru, which likewise means “to stand guard, watch” fields and gardens.64 Compare, for example, an§ku eqlamma anaßßarma, “I will guard the field.”65 It is likewise employed in reference to taking care and protecting oneself (usually with ram§nu or pagru as its object); compare, for example, ram§nka66/pagarka ußur,67 “Take care of yourself !” But of particular significance is its employment, with or without an object, in connection with a woman guarding and preserving her chastity. Thus, LH 142: “If a woman repudiates her husband and declares, ‘You will not have marital relations with me’—her circumstances shall be investigated by the authorities and her city ward, and if she has kept herself chaste (naßrat)… that woman will not be subject to any penalty.”

61

See Fox, Song of Songs, 162; Pope, Song of Songs, 646. But see above, n. 59. 63 See Pope, Song of Songs, 323–324, 326; Rudolph, Das Hohe Lied, 124; Gerleman, Ruth, 101; Keel, Das Hohelied, 56 = Canticles, 49–50; Fox, Song of Songs, 102. 64 CAD, N/II, 39. 65 TCL 17, 38:rev. 9. See also CAD, N/II, 35–36. 66 TCL 18, 94:7. 67 G. Dossin and A. Finet, Correspondance féminine, ARM 10 (Paris, 1978), 7:11; 80:22; 107:10. 62

284


Conversely, LH 143: “If she has not kept herself chaste (la naßrat)… they shall cast that woman into the water.”68 Compare also LH 133: “If a man should be captured…. If that woman (i.e., his wife) does not keep herself chaste (pagaràa la ißßurma)… they shall cast her into the water.”69 So, too, MAL A 12: “If a wife of a man should walk along the thoroughfare and should a man seize her and say to her, ‘I want to have sex with you!’—she shall not consent but shall keep herself chaste (tattanaßßar70)….” It is also of interest to note that this very same Aramaic verb, ‫נטר‬, is employed with identical meaning in b. Ketub. 37a, in the course of a discussion concerning how long one must wait before having intercourse with a proselyte and a woman who had been a captive. The opinion of one of the sages is: ‫ שבויה מנטרא נפשה‬,‫גיורת לא מנטרא נפשה‬, “A proselyte does not remain chaste (lit., does not protect herself), a captive woman does.” Thus, returning to Song of Songs 1:6, the young woman is employing “vineyard” both figuratively (my bodily self, ‫לא נטרתי‬, “I have not guarded,” meaning “I have not kept myself chaste”) and literally (to explain the reason for the punishment inflicted upon her by her brothers). 68 For a discussion of this section, see G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (Oxford, 1960), I, 299–303. The translations here are adapted from M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, 1995), 108. 69 Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 284–286; Roth, Law Collections, 106. 70 For the iterative tan-form, see CAD, N/II, 46. Cf. also AHw, 756b, sub Gtn 3: elliptic, lit., “she continues to guard (herself).” For other translations, cf. G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford, 1975), 387, “strenuously defends herself”; G. Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes (Paris, 1969), 115, “se défend énergiquement”; T. Meek, ANET, 181, “kept defending herself”; Roth, Law Collections, 157, “she shall protect herself.”

the mesopotamian background of daniel 1–6

285

THE MESOPOTAMIAN BACKGROUND OF DANIEL 1–6 The book of Daniel, though authored and compiled at a very late date (with Dan 1–6 dating from the Hellenistic period and chapters 7–12 from the eve of the Macabbean revolt),1 nevertheless bears noticeable linguistic, philological, and typological Mesopotamian imprints. The following examples, several of which are drawn from my own prior research,2 shed interesting light on this relatively neglected field of study. 1. Daniel 3:293 The literary genre of the martyr tale is exemplified in chapter 3 by the miraculous rescue of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace to which they had been condemned when they refused to worship the golden image erected by Nebucharezzar. The Babylonian king, upon personally witnessing this miracle, utters praises to their God and issues a decree to the effect that anyone who ‫יאמר שׁלה‬ [qere: ‫]שׁלוּ‬ ָ against their God shall be severely punished by dismemberment.4 The Aramaic expression in question is the interdialectal semantic and (partial) etymological equivalent of Akk. àillata(m) qabû/ dab§bu,5 “to speak àillaltu(m),” which is one of a number of words used to express improper speech,6 and when uttered against a deity designates blasphemy. Compare the following examples: ana iàtariàina

1 From the wealth of recent commentaries and studies in Daniel, much information can be especially culled from L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY, 1978); and J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1993). 2 For a complete discussion of the issues involved, along with the corroborative evidence drawn from the cuneiform material, one must consult the articles themselves. 3 See S. M. Paul, “Daniel 3:29—A Case Study of ‘Neglected’ Blasphemy,” JNES 42 (1983), 291–294 [133–137], for this and the following paragraph. 4 Such a punishment is very well attested in Mesopotamian sources. See B. Meissner, Babyloniens und Assyriens (Leipzig, 1925), I, 176–77. 5 See CAD, ’/II, 445–246. 6 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature = BWL (Oxford, 1960), 312 n. 28.

286


iqabbâ àillatu rabÊtu, “They will utter grievous blasphemy against their goddesses”;7 àa ina muÉÉi Aààur ilija b§nÊja iqbû àillatu rabÊtu lià§nàunu aàluq aàÉuã maàakàunu, “(Those Babylonians) who spoke gross blasphemy against Assur, my god, who has created me, I ripped out their tongues and skinned them alive.”8 Thus, here, too, in Daniel, the correct translation is “to utter blasphemy.” 2. Daniel 6:5 When this verbal offense is directed against human beings, moreover, it connotes slander, insolence, impudence, and/or effrontery. Such a case may be reflected in Dan 6:5, when the chief ministers and satraps were unsuccessful in finding any grounds for accusation against Daniel, “since he was trustworthy, no ‫ ָשׁלוּ‬or ‫ שׁחיתה‬could be discovered against him.” It is possible to interpret Aram. ‫ ָשׁלוּ‬as “negligence” (which is well attested in the Tg. Jon. as the translation for Heb. ‫שׁכח‬, “to neglect, forget” [Ps 9:13; Job 8:13; 39:15] and ‫שׁגג‬/‫שׁגה‬, “to err, make a mistake” [Lev 4:2; 5:18; Job 6:24; 12:16], a word which enters neo- and late Babylonian texts9 as a verb, àelû, “to be negligent, careless,”10 and as a noun, àilûtu, “negligence.”11 However, in its present context it may also reflect Akk. àillatu, and thus the two nouns, ‫ ָשׁלוּ‬and ‫שׁחיתה‬, would be the cognate equivalents of Akk. arnu u àillatu, “crime and/or improper speech.” Compare, e.g., àumma mimma arnam u àillatam teppaàa, “If she (i.e., the slave woman) commits any offense or insult (the buyer may sell her).”12 The intention in Daniel, then, would be that all those who conspired against Daniel were unsuccessful in discovering any “improper speech” or “corruption” against him. The two substantives would thereby constitute a merism—in both speech and deed Daniel remained a loyal and trustworthy servant to his king. 7 L. Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra, Studi Semitici 34 (Rome, 1969), 92, III:12 (Eng. trans., The Poem of Erra [Malibu, 1977], 42). 8 E. F. Weidner, “Assyrische Beschreibungen der Kriegs-Relief Aààurbanipals,” AfO 8 (1932–34), 175–203, esp. p. 184, line 28. 9 W. von Soden, “Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten: Ein Vorbericht II,” Or 37 (1968), 268. 10 CAD, ’/II, 274–275. 11 Ibid., 453. 12 H. Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion, AfO Beiheft 3 (Graz, 1961), 74.


287

3. Daniel 6:813 Chapter 6 reports the collusion of the political and administrative hierarchy of the Persian government to persuade King Darius14 to publish an edict prohibiting the entire population from addressing any request or prayer to any human being or god, except to the king himself, upon the penalty of being hurled into the lions’ den. The wording of the Aramaic, ‫לקימה קים מלכא ולתקפה ֱא ָסר‬, exemplifies the literary phenomenon of parallel phrases in prose passages of Daniel (cf. 4:16; 5:10).15 The first half of the expression, ‫לקימה קים מלכא‬, means “to establish/confirm/publish a royal edict.” For the legal nuance of the Aramaic term ‫לקימה‬, compare its occurrence in an Aramaic inscription from Assyria from the middle of the seventh century BCE16 and in the Qumran Targum (11Qtg Job 35: 6–7) to Job 40:28–29, where Heb. ‫היכרת ברית עמך‬, “Will he make a covenant with you?,” is translated ‫היקים קים עמך‬.17 (For Hebrew, compare similarly the use of ‫ לקים‬in Ruth 4:7; Esth 9:31.) However, the nuance of the second half of the expression, ‫ולתקפה‬ ‫א ָסר‬, ֱ has usually been misinterpreted by commentators. The Aramaic pa‘¿l infinitive, ‫ל ַת ָקּ ָפה‬, ְ is none other than the interdialectal cognate equivalent of the Akkadian verb dunnunu,18 which parallels the semantic development of its nominal form, dannatu, and its Aramaic loan translation, ‫דנת‬, which appears in ninth-century neo-Assyrian legal dockets with the meaning, “a valid deed/tablet.”19 A similar development from this root, which primarily denotes “strength,” to that which is

13 S. M. Paul, “Dan 6, 8: An Aramaic Reflex of Assyrian Legal Terminology,” Biblica 65 (1984), 106–110 [139–144]. 14 As for the identification of this non-existent “Median” Darius, see the commentaries. 15 J. C. Greenfield, “Early Aramaic Poetry,” JANES 11 (1979) (= Near Eastern Studies in Memory of M. M. Bravmann, ed. E. L. Greenstein), 45–51, esp. p. 47 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, I, ed. S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2001), 167–173, esp. p. 169. 16 H. Donner and W. Röllig, KAI, 46, 233:9. 17 J. A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome, 1978), 42; M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat Gan, 1974), 96; F. G. Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II, DJD XXIII (Oxford, 1998), 163. For ‫קים‬, see also M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2003), 77. 18 CAD, D, 90–91. 19 Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden, 1969) 187.

288


legitimate, valid, and binding, is evidenced both in the corresponding adjective dannu,20 and in the feminine plurale tantum, dann§tu,21 “binding agreement.” The verb dunnunu, as well, also carries the legal connotation “to make valid and binding.”22 This is already documented from Old Assyrian, tuppåàu ludanninma, “Let him make his tablets binding,”23 through NeoAssyrian, adê…udanninuni, “He made the treaty binding”;24 udannina riks§te, “He made the treaty binding.”25 Thus, the expression ‫ לתקפה ֱא ָסר‬should now be understood as the Aramaic calque of Assy. riksa dunnunu, in which both the nouns, ‫ֱא ָסר‬ and rikså,26 which derive from the root meaning “to bind,” represent technical legal terms for “obligatory bonds,” and the verbs ‫ ַתּ ֵקּף‬and dunnunu signify “to ratify”—i.e., to make a document legally binding. Compare also Nabatean ‫תקף‬27 and Hebrew ‫( תּ ֶֹקף‬Esth 9:29), both meaning a valid deed.28 4. Daniel 9:27 29 Another reflex of this very same expression, in a Hebrew guise, appears in the section describing the religious persecutions of Antiochus IV and the profanation of the Temple during the last “week of

20

CAD, D, 95. Ibid., 91. 22 Ibid., 85. 23 Ibid., 85. 24 D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958) 33:64–65; see also 31:23 and 49:283–287 for the same usage of the verb. 25 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergangs Niniveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), II, 4:22. 26 CAD, R, 353–355. 27 C. F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest (= DISO) (Leiden, 1965) 258, 333. See Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri, 208; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Esther 9:29–32: The Genesis of a Late Addition,” HUCA 42 (1971), 117–124; J. C. Greenfield, “Studies in the Legal Terminology of the Nabatean Funerary Inscriptions,” Sefer Hanoch Levin (Ramat Gan, 1974), 73 n. 49 (Hebrew); S. A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago, 1974), 46 n. 72. 28 Lowenstamm, “Esther”; Kaufman, Akkadian Influences; Paul, “Dan 6, 8,” 107–108. 29 S. M. Paul, “Gleanings from the Biblical and Talmudic Lexica in Light of Akkadian,” MinÈah le-NaÈum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, JSOT Suppl. 154 (Sheffield, 1993), 242–256, esp. pp. 251–253 [189–190]. 21


289

years”: “For one week he [Antiochus] ‫ הגביר ברית‬with the many.” The Hebrew verb, whose root ‫ גבר‬in the qal means “to be strong” and in the hip‘il, as here, means “to make strong,” is none other than the semantic equivalent of Akk. dunnunu and Aram. ‫תקף‬, and shares with its cognates the legal meaning “to make valid and binding.” Thus, what is meant in 9:27 is that Antiochus “contracted a legally binding contract with the many,” referring most likely to his relations with the Hellenizers of the period as echoed in 1 Macc 1:11–14. 5. Daniel 5:6, 16 30 This chapter recounts how Belshazzar received a supernatural forewarning when “the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace opposite the lampstand” (5:5). Upon witnessing this foreboding revelation and realizing that “once the moving finger having writ…,” he becomes panic-stricken and immediately summons his coterie of mantic professionals to read and decipher the written omen. The king’s trepidation and perturbation are vividly described in imagery drawn from the familiar ancient Near Eastern topos of physiological reactions to alarming news. This literary convention, which has been studied in reference to both Ugaritic and Biblical literature,31 can also be documented from Mesopotamian texts, some of whose expressions are precisely the same as those in the Aramaic passage of Daniel. The bodily symptoms of overwhelming fear and trembling which attack Belshazzar are detailed in a corporeal waßf-like descending order. First it is reported that ‫שנוהי זיוהי‬32 (cf. also 5:9, 10; 7:28). Aram. ‫ זיו‬is a loanword from Akk. zÊmu, “appearance, looks, countenance, luster,”33 which appears with several verbs signifying a “changed countenance34—one of which, ewû, “to change,”35 is the exact semantic equivalent of Aram. ‫שׁני‬. Thus, zÊmåàu àåmû (the àap‘el

30

Idem, “Decoding a ‘Joint’ Expression in Daniel 5:6, 16,” JANES 22 (Comparative Studies in Honor of Yochanan Muffs), ed. E. L. Greenstein and D. Marcus (New York, 1993), 121–127 [195–203]. 31 D. R. Hillers, “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News,” ZAW 77 (1965), 86–89. 32 Many exegetes read: ‫ֲלוֹהי‬ ִ ‫ְשׁנוֹ ע‬ 33 CAD, Z, 119–121; Kaufman, Akkadian Influences, 113. 34 Cf. also, e.g., nak§ru, CAD, N/I, 163; Z, 120–121. 35 CAD, E, 413–414.

290


of ewû) means “his countenance changed.”36 This exact expression still appears in Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫זיווֹ שׁנשתנה‬,37 and for its corresponding Biblical Hebrew interdialectal cognate equivalents, compare ‫שׁנה פנים‬, Job 14:20; Eccles 8:1; Ben Sira 12:18; and ‫הודי נהפך‬, Dan 10:8.38 In sum: “change of face” means that his countenance blanched. As the text goes on to detail the “terrible” effects of his condition, between his “terrified thoughts” and “his knees knocking together,”39 it is written ‫וקטרי חרצה משׁתרין‬, “the joints40 of his loins were loosened.” This identical physiological phenomenon is expressed in Mesopotamian documents by the Akkadian interdialectal cognate equivalents, kaslå (or) rikså (both in the plural) puããurå. Aram. ‫קטרין‬, similar to Akk. rikså, literally means “bound, knotted together.” The former refers to “joints,” while the latter, along with kaslå, designates “sinews, tendons.”41 Akk. puããuru (D-form of paã§ru)42 is the semantic cognate of Aram. ‫שׁרי‬, “to loosen, untie.”43 Compare, for example, “If a… baby’s sinews are loosened (kaslåàu puããurå) from its neck to its backbone, it will die.”44 For the use of the verb with riksu, compare the description of the anguished sufferer: “Through twisting, my sinews are loosened” (puããurå riksåa).45 36 O. R. Gurney, P. Hulin, and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets, I (London, 1957), 24:6. 37 Song of Songs Rabbah to Song of Songs 2:2. See also M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 175. 38 H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York 1948) 41. For a similar idiom, see Jer 30:6. 39 For the “buckling” of the knees as a sign of extreme fright, cf. Nah 2:11. Somewhat similarly, see the expression itarrura isd§àu, “his legs trembled,” which is just one of the many physical reactions of the panic of a king upon hearing Esarhaddon’s royal message. In addition, it is recorded that “his hips collapsed, his heart was seized (by fear) (or: ‘his insides were affected’), and his countenance looked bad.” See R. Borger, Die Inscriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, AfO Beiheft 9 (Graz, 1956), 102, ii:1–4. 40 For Aram. ‫ =( קטר‬Heb. ‫)קשר‬, “knot,” meaning “joint,” see y. Ma‘aá. 4.51b, “the joints of his fingers.” 41 Compare the terrified reaction of the goddess Anat in the Baal epic (KTU2 1.3, III:32–35): “Her feet wobble. Her tendons (ksl) break about her; above, her face sweats. Bent are the joints [lit., “corners”] of her sinews (kslh); weakened those [i.e., tendons] of her back.” For Ugar. ksl = Akk. kislu = Heb. ‫כּ ֶסל‬, ֶ “sinew, tendon, see M. Held, “Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography,” Studies In Honor of Benno Landsberger On His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (Chicago, 1965) 401–406. 42 AHw, 849–851. 43 Contrast Dan 3:24, ‫“( ְמ ַכ ְפ ִתין‬bound”) with 3:25, ‫“( ְשׁ ַריִ ן‬untied, loosen”). 44 Cited by Held, “Studies,” 402–403, from R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics medicaux (= TDP) (Leiden, 1951), 222:41. 45 BWL, 44:104 (Ludlul ).


291

This specific picturesque imagery was deftly chosen, moreover, in order to recall what was referred to earlier in the chapter. There, after the frustrating impotence of all the court personnel—magicians, exorcists, diviners, and astrologers—to read and decipher the ominous handwriting, the queen (mother) enters and reminds the king that during the reign of Nebucharezzar, his father, there was a man who possessed an “extraordinary spirit, knowledge, and understanding, which enabled him to interpret dreams, to explain riddles, and ‫משרא‬ ‫( ”קטרין‬vv. 11–12). The king then immediately summoned Daniel and requested him ‫ =( פשרין למפשר‬Akk. paà§ru, “to release, loosen, solve,” similar in usage to paã§ru/puããuru), and ‫קטרין למשרא‬, which is the identical phrase employed to describe the king’s panic (v. 16). Here, however, it does not describe Daniel’s physiological condition but rather his mantic expertise in “untying, unraveling, loosening knots,” which refers either to his ability to break spells and charms, where “knots” in magical texts and incantations, tied by the sorcerer (or by his apprentice) to bind the victim symbolically, had to be untied by corresponding counter-magic (Akk. kißru paã§ru/puããuru/paà§ru);46 or “untying knots” refers simply to solving knotty difficulties. And, as so often happens, it may very well serve as a clever double entendre, whereby the king desired to have the enigmatic code “spelled” out, so that his “charmed” existence would remain unharmed.47 6. Daniel 1 48 This chapter shares a remarkable stage by stage correlation with a letter from Mari sent to ’ibtu, the wife of King Zimrilim, describing the procedure of induction into court service:49

46 For the textual citations of kißru, see CAD, K, 437; for the textual citations of paà§ru, see AHw, 842, G, 9b; ’, 3; N, 7c; and for puããuru, ibid., 850, D, 11. For Aram. ‫שרי‬, “to release from a spell,” see y. Mo‘ed Qat. 3.81d; y. Sanh. 7.25d. 47 See, too, A. Wolters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” JBL 110 (1991) 117–122. 48 S. M. Paul, “From Mari to Daniel: Instructions for the Acceptance of Servants into the Royal Court,” EI 24 (Abraham Malamat Volume), ed. S. AÈituv and B. A. Levine (Jerusalem, 1993) 161–163 (Hebrew) [205–211]. 49 For this text, see G. Dossin, Archives royales de Mari: La correspondance féminine, ARM 10 (Paris, 1967), text 126. For its translation and transliteration, see G. Dossin and A. Finet, Correspondance féminine (Paris, 1976). For the latest study of these texts, in addition to those cited in my article, see now N. Ziegler, Le harem de Zimri-Lîm =

292


(a) In both the candidates (female in the Mari letter; male in Daniel: he and his three companions) were selected from amongst captives taken as war booty and brought to the capital city (Mari in the latter, Babylon in Daniel).50 (b) In both texts the selected candidates already possessed their own unique skills (Mari: weavers; Daniel [v. 4]: “proficient in all wisdom, knowledgeable and intelligent”). (c) Their superiority was evinced also by their outstanding physical features (Mari [lines 12–15]: damq§tim àa iàtu ßuprim adi à§rti àa qaqqadim àummannam la iàâ,51 “Beautiful women who, from the tip of their toe to the hair on their head, have no blemish”; Daniel [v. 4]: “youths without blemish and handsome”). (d) The names of the officials appointed to supervise over them are specifically mentioned (Mari: first Waradiliàum and then Mukanniàum; Daniel: ‫[ אשפנז‬v. 3] and then ‫[ המלצר‬vv. 11, 16], a loan word from Akk. maßßaru/maßßartu, “watcher, supervisor”).52 (e) The purpose of the selection, in both cases, was to instruct (Akk. àåÉuzu; Heb. ‫ )ללמד‬the youthful candidates in a new profession (Mari [lines 17–18]: “to become adept at singing ’ubarean music”; Daniel [vv. 3–4]: “to teach them the writings and the language of the Chaldeans”). (f) Afterwards their status was officially changed (Mari [lines 18–19]: temmanåàina lu nukkurå,53 i.e., from weavers to singers; Daniel [v. 5]: “they entered the king’s service”).54 (g) During their “residency” training period, there is explicit mention made of the specific food portions they were to be given. Compare Mari: ana kurummatiàina nu’idima, “Pay heed to their food allotment”;

Florilegium marianum (Paris, 1999), whose work I have not been able to see. 50 See ARM 10, 125:4–6, 9–10; cf. lines 15, 17; and Dan 1:1ff. 51 CAD, ’/III, 280. For the corporeal merism, see Paul, “From Mari to Daniel,” 162 n. 15 [207 n. 15]. 52 CAD, M/I, 333–334, 341–342. 53 Von Soden (AHw, 1346) refers to W. H. Ph. Römer (Frauenbriefe über Religion, Politik und Privatleben in Mari, AOAT 12 [Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971], 71 n. 5), who questions whether Akk. te/immenu(m) may be explained by a semantic development from “Grundstein > Gründungsurkunde > Urkunde,” and thus translates, “Beurkundungspfahl.” However, CAD, T (courtesy of Prof. Martha Roth), states that meaning of this word is “uncertain.” 54 For the Hebrew idiom, its analogues, and Akkadian cognates, see Paul, “From Mari to Daniel,” 162 n. 14 [207 n. 14].


293

and Daniel (v. 5): they were initially to receive “daily rations from the king’s food” (Heb. ‫ פתבג‬is a loanword from Pers. patibaga, “portions of food provided by the authorities”) “and from the wine he drank.” However, since they wanted to avoid becoming polluted cultically, they requested and received lentils as their culinary substitute (v. 12). (h) The stated purpose, in both texts, for their special food allotments was to enable them to maintain their “healthy appearance” Compare Mari: zÊmåàina la inakkirå, lit., “so that their countenance does not change”; and Daniel (v. 10): the supervisor feared that if they became vegetarians, “their face would look languid” (‫)זועפים‬,55 and this would eventually cost him his life. The results, however, were very positive. Though maintaining their strict diet, Daniel and his friends nevertheless “looked better and healthier than all the youths who were eating of the king’s food” (v. 15). The following additional analogues should also be noted: 1. The formula “O king, live forever!” (Dan 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:7, 22) is well documented in ancient Near Eastern literature.56 2. The three references to heavenly books, Dan 7:10; 10:21; 12:1, are ultimately traceable to Mesopotamian origins.57 3. The Babylonian provenance of chapters 1–6 is evidenced by many Akkadianisms.58 4. Aramaic ‫( מלך מלכיא‬Dan 2:37) is a calque of Akk. àar àarr§ni, “king of kings,” referring here to Nebuchadnezzar.59 5. The fact that the name Belshazzar, which was not preserved in classical sources, is found in Daniel 5, strongly suggests that the ultimate origin of this story comes from a neo-Babylonian milieu.60

55

For the word, compare Gen 40:6, 7. It is cognate to Arab. ãa‘if, ãa‘afa, “to be lean.” 56 See S. M. Paul, “Psalm 72:5—A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of the King,” JNES 31 (1972), 351–355 [51–58]. 57 S. M. Paul, “Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life,” JANES 5 (The Gaster Volume), ed. D. Marcus (New York, 1973) 345–353 [59–70]. 58 See K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman, T. C. Mitchell, R. Joyce, W. J. Martin, and K. A. Kitchen (London, 1965) 31–79, esp. pp. 34–35. 59 M.-J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris, 1967), 318–339; S. M. Paul, “Hosea 8:8–10 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Epithets,” Studies in Bible, Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (Jerusalem, 1986), 193–204 [145–154]. For the Hebrew equivalent, ‫מלך מלכים‬, referring to the Babylonian king, see Ezek 26:7. For another example of the Aramaic, see Ezra 7:12. 60 Collins, Daniel, 32–33, 48.

294


This is irrespective of the erroneous data, since he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabonidus, and he never was actually the king of the empire, but rather co-regent while his father was abiding in Teima. It might also be added that the plot of chapter 4 also ultimately harks back to the reign of Nabonidus (rather than to Nebuchadnezzar, as the text states) as is now seen from the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242 [4QprNab ar]) discovered at Qumran.61 6. Mention should also be made of the composition called the “Dynastic Prophecy,” which contains vaticinia ex eventu, pseudo-prophecies referring to the rise and falls of kings (and empires) from neoBabylonian times until the Seleucid period, and which is very similar both in its literary style and thematically to Dan 8:23–25 and 11:2–45 (whose relation to apocalyptic literature has been well discussed).62 Both the Akkadian text and the book of Daniel (11:45) also conclude with an actual attempt to predict future events: the former foretelling the downfall of the Seleucid dynasty, the latter the demise of Antiochus.63 The colophon at the end of the “Dynastic Prophecy” (col. IV:7–9), though mostly broken, refers to the secret nature of this work: “You must not show it [to the uninitiat]ed,” and may be compared with the command given to Daniel to keep his book sealed, ‫ְסתֹם הדברים‬ ‫ַחתֹם הספר‬ ֲ ‫( ו‬12:4).64 Conclusion The question naturally arises as to how one can account for the above reflexes in such a late Biblical composition. These influences on Daniel, however, are just one facet of the remarkable continuity of Babylonian cultural, societal, and linguistic norms that were preserved and maintained not only in their original cuneiform garb, 61

J. Collins, Qumran Cave 4.XVII, DJD XXII (Oxford, 1996), 83–93; for a discussion of this work, see Collins, Daniel, 51, 217–219. 62 A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto, 1975), 24–37. For discussion, see pp. 17–24. 63 For the latest attempt to find analogues between Mesopotamian literature and Daniel, see H. Avalos, “Dan 9:24–25 and Mesopotamian Temple Rededications,” JBL 117 (1998), 507–11; E. C. Lucas, “Daniel: Resolving the Enigma,” VT 50 (2000), 66–80. 64 See S. M. Paul, “Daniel 12:9: a Technical Mesopotamian Scribal Term,” Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed. C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul (Winona Lake, IN, 2004), 115–118 [319–321].


295

but were also transferred and transformed into Aramaic, the new lingua franca. There was no break in the vitality of the cultural milieu after Cyrus’ conquest of the neo-Babylonian empire, as the everexpanding documentation of texts through the Hellenistic period so amply demonstrates. Some have even called the Seleucid period the “final flowering of Babylonian culture.” This late period, from Cyrus through the Seleucid period, witnessed the composition and/or copying in cuneiform of historiographical sources (chronicles and royal inscriptions), astronomical texts (the latest known tablet is an astronomical almanac dated to 75 CE), business documents, juridical and administrative contracts, letters, omens, incantations, lexical lists, ritual texts, and even belles lettres: a collection of Emesal hymns in the Berlin Museum which, according to the colophon, were copied in the first century BCE. The best description of the Akitu festival celebrated in Babylon comes from the Seleucid period. And the temples in Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk, Kish, and Nippur were still functioning well into this period with a fully staffed personnel. To cite just a few examples: the Cyrus cylinder, the Persian Verse Account (containing the vilification of Nabonidus and the adulation of Cyrus), and the Bisitun inscriptions all reflect a Babylonian ideological framework and show that the Achaemenid kings did not usher in a new imperial policy; the Uruk King List ends with Seleucus II; a British Museum text refers to Arses and possibly to Alexander; astronomical diaries contain lunar eclipse reports and relate long-term observation of specific planets (from 600–300 BCE); horoscopes are developed (the earliest from the late fifth century BCE); terrestrial (àumma §lu) and astral omens (enåma Anu Enlil) appear in Buddhist texts in the fourth and third centuries BCE, exemplifying widespread cultural penetration between distant geographical areas. A vast quantity of business documents exists, in particular the Murashu archive from the second half of the fifth century BCE, from year 10 of Artaxerxes I to year 8 of Darius II, recording the family firm’s purchase and sale of real estate and moveable property, lease of land, and payment of feudal dues. Other collections include the transactions of the Egibi family and the family and private archives from Babylon, Dilibat, Ur, Borsippa, as well as Sippar, Uruk, and Nippur.65

65 For a complete discussion and documentation, with extensive bibliography of all the documents cited, see A. Kuhrt, “Survey of Written Sources Available for the

296


In addition to all the above written in Akkadian, one must also take into serious account the Aramaic conduit, so starkly evidenced in the cuneiform legal traditions (clauses, terms, and vocabulary) preserved in the Aramaic formulary of Elephantine, which reads like a palimpsest of earlier cuneiform documents. These documents contain a late and provincial reflex of the neo-Assyrian docket tradition66 (i.e., ninth century neo-Assyrian deeds were provided with short Aramaic summary dockets introduced by ‫דנת‬, which is a loan-translation from Akk. dannatu, “valid deed/tablet”).67 As for belles lettres, witness in particular the introduction to the Aramaic proverbs of Ahiqar discovered at Elephantine, which, for all its folkloristic features, is most likely based on a historical personality. According to Mesopotamian tradition, Ahiqar was the last of the umm§nu (counselors, scholars, authors, high officials) who served in the Assyrian court of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon.68 Then, in the 1959–60 excavations of Warka (Uruk), a document from the Seleucid period (but reflecting an older tradition) containing a list of court scholars was discovered, in which it was recorded that “in the time of king Assurahiddina, Aba’enlildari, whom the Ahlameans [= Arameans] call Ahiqar (a-Éu-’u-qa-a-ri), was umm§nu.”69 In the History of Babylonia under the Later Achaemenids,” Achaemenid History, I: Sources, Structures and Synthesis, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt (Leiden, 1987), 147–157; G. van Driel, “Continuity or Decay in the Late Achaemenid Period: Evidence from Southern Mesopotamia,” Achaemenid History, I: Sources, Structures and Synthesis, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt (Leiden, 1987), 159–181; A. Kuhrt, “Achaemenid Babylonia: Sources and Problems,” Achaemenid History, IV: Centre and Periphery, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt (Leiden, 1996), 177–194; M. J. Geller, “The Last Wedge,” ZA 87 (1997) 43–95. Cf. also J. Oelsner, “Kontinuität und Wandel in Gesellschaft und Kultur Babyloniens in hellenistischer Zeit,” Klio 60 (1978), 101–116; L. Cagni, “La fonti mesopotamischi dei periodi neo-babilonese, achemenide e seleucide (VI–VII sec. a. C.),” RivB 34 (1986), 11–53; A. Kuhrt, “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes,” Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Eng., 1988), IV,112–138; idem, “The Achaemenid Empire: A Babylonian Perspective,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 214 (n.s. 34; 1988), 60–76. 66 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri, 13–15, 179–189. See already M. San Nicolò, Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte im Bereich der Keilschriftlichen Rechtsquellen (Oslo, 1931), 53. E. Ebeling (Das aramaisch-mittelpersische Glossar [Leipzig, 1941], 86–112) a long time ago pointed out that a late Aramaic-Persian glossary was based on HAR.ra = Éubullu and SIG.ALAM = nabnÊtu lists, which still combined Assyrian terms. 67 See above, n. 19. 68 See E. Reiner, “The Etiological Myth of the ‘Seven Sages’ Zweisprachig,” Or 30 (1961), 1–11. 69 J. C. Greenfield, “The Background and Parallel to a Proverb of Ahiqar,” Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, ed. A. Caquot and M. Philonenko (Paris, 1971), 49–59 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, I, 93–103.


297

prose framework of this composition, written in “official” Aramaic and whose very theme of the disgrace and rehabilitation of a cabinet minister (combined with an “ungrateful nephew”) appears in Akkadian “bilingual proverbs,”70 there are Akkadianisms as well as Akkadian proper names. And the background of one of the proverbs (line 156) reflects a well-attested Mesopotamian penalty clause—the mutilation of the tongue.71 Thus, as now can be readily appreciated, the millennia-old cuneiform stream of tradition continued to flow and be diffused throughout the last centuries before the Common Era, exerting its influence upon various literary works, including the book of Daniel.72 70

Reiner, “Etiological Myth,” referring to BWL, 239–240, ii:50–63. Greenfield, “Background and Parallel,” 58 (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah, I, 102). See also above, n. 8. For the text of Ahiqar, see J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore and London, 1983). 72 See also K. van der Toorn, “Scholars at the Oriental Court: The Figure of Daniel against its Mesopotamian Background,” The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, I, ed. J. J. Collins and P. Flint, SVT 83 (Boston, Leiden, and Köln, 2001), 37–54. 71

298


the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 299

THE SHARED LEGACY OF SEXUAL METAPHORS AND EUPHEMISMS IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND BIBLICAL LITERATURE In love poetry, metaphors and euphemisms abound, and very wellattested lexemes come to bear erotic overtones and innuendos. In this study, I will add many new examples to those already examined in my previous articles.1 The Akkadian verb tebû, “to rise/stir up,” in this genre has the meaning “to have an erection, to excite sexually,” and its corresponding noun, tebûtu, means “erection, sexual excitement.”2 Thus, in a divine love lyric from the reign of Abi-eàuÉ, we read, kuzbÊ annû tibi lurtâmi, “Here is my sex appeal. Get aroused that I may make love to you!”3 Compare likewise the following incantations to restore male sexual virility: tibâ…kÊma ajali tibâ, “Get aroused… get aroused like a stag! Get an erection (tibâ) lik[e a wild bull]! Let a lion get an 1 S. M. Paul, “Gleanings from the Biblical and Talmudic Lexica in Light of Akkadian,” Min·ah le-Na·um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane, JSOT Supplementary Series 154 (Sheffield, 1993), 242–256, esp. 249–251 [181–194, esp. 187–189]; “Two Cognate Terms for Mating and Copulation,” VT 32 (1982), 492–493 [125–127]; “Euphemistically ‘Speaking’ and a Covetous Eye,” Biblical and Other Studies in Honor of Reuben Ahroni, On the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. T. J. Lewis, HAR 14 (Columbia, OH, 1994), 193–204 [213–222]; “The ‘Plural of Ecstasy’ in Mesopotamian and Biblical Love Poetry,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 585–597 [239–252]; “A Lover’s Garden of Verse: Literal and Metaphorical Imagery in Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry,” Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN, 1997), 99–110 [271–284]. In addition to the extensive bibliography cited in the last two works, mention should also be made of M. Nissinen, “Love Lyrics of Nabû and Taàmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs,” “Und Mose schrieb dieste Lied auf.” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebenjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottspier, AOAT 250 (Münster, 1998), 585–633; and both S. Schorsch (Euphemismen in der hebräischen Bibel, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 12 [Wiesbaden, 2000]) and R. A. Veenker (“Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors,” HUCA 70–71 [1999–2000], 57–73), who also cite independently some of the lexemes mentioned in this present study. 2 See R. D. Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations (Locust Valley, NY, 1967), 9–10. 3 W. G. Lambert, “Divine Love Lyrics from the Reign of Abi-eàuÉ,” MIO 12 (1966), 50:14.

300


erection along with you (litbâ)!”4 And, “Let your strength (emåqan) rise for you (litbâ)! Let your tired knees (birk§ka) rise for you (litbâ)! [Let] your limbs (minâtuka) [rise for you] [litbâ]! [Let] your members (meàr¿tuka) [rise] for you [litbâ]!”5 (The nouns “knees,” “limbs,” and “members” function here as euphemisms for the membrum virile, as will be discussed further on.) So, too, in the epic of Gilgameà, Enkidu’s dalliance with ’amÉat is described: “For six days and seven nights Enkidu remained aroused (tebÊma) and lay with ’amÉat” (I IV 21). And the noun appears in a love incantation concerning the ritual of how “to bring about an erection (tebûtu) for a man.”6 These sexual connotations are also present in the Hebrew interdialectal semantic equivalent, ‫עי"ר‬, which, similar to tebû, in addition to its regular meaning of “arousing/stirring someone to action,” also refers to erotic arousal and sexual excitation in the Song of Songs, when the “maidens of Jerusalem” are twice adjured (2:7; 3:15), ‫עוֹררוּ‬ ְ ‫וּמה ְתּ‬/‫ם‬ ָ ‫מה ָתּ ִעירוּ וְ ִא‬/‫ם‬ ָ ‫ִא‬ ‫אַה ָבה ַעד ֶשׁ ֶתּ ְח ָפּץ‬ ֲ ‫את ָה‬, ֶ “Do not sexually arouse or excite love until it pleases/is willing.” (The same linguistic combination of ‘yr with ahbt appears in Ugaritic, when El greets Aàerah, who comes to intercede for Baal, offers him food and drink, and says, “Does not the ‘hand’ [yd—which means affection and also serves as a euphemism for the male member]7 of El, the king, excite you [yÉssk], the love [ahbt] of the Bull arouse you [t‘rrk]?” (KTU2 1.4.iv:38–39). In particular, note should be made of Song of Songs 8:5: ‫עוֹר ְר ִתּיָך‬ ַ ‫פּוּח‬ ַ ‫תּ ַחת ַה ָתּ‬, ַ “Beneath the apple tree I erotically aroused you.” And as the verse continues, the fair damsel is merely following in the “love”-steps of his mother: “It was there (under the shade of the ‘old apple tree’) that your mother conceived you, there she who bore you, conceived you.” There are two spin-offs from the last two verses cited from the Song of Songs. First, the adjuration that the young girl makes is “by the hinds of the fields” (‫)בּאַיְ לוֹת ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ְ (2:7; 3:5), whose male counterpart, “young stag” (‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫( )ע ֶֹפר ָהאַיּ‬8:14), in Akkadian, ajalu, represents an amorous animal embodying the epitome of sexual potency, as is documented in the following incantation: “With the love-making (râm) of a stag (ajalu) seven times… make love to me (râmanni).”8 Secondly,

4 5 6 7 8

Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA, 22, no. 6:1–3. Ibid., 31, no. 13:48–p. 32:1. Ibid., 9. See below. Ibid., no. 9, 26:4–5. For the other animal personification of amatory delight

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 301 mention should be made of the choice of the “apple tree” (8:2) as the site of the love tryst, for both “apples” and “apple trees” (‫פּוּחים‬ ִ ‫)תּ‬ ַ are well known from this literature for their aphrodisiac qualities.9 In Song of Songs 2:5, “apples” are specifically referred to as stimulants in a quasi-love ritual: “Refresh/sustain me with apples”; and once again, in 2:3: “Like an apple tree amidst the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the youths. I delight to sit in his shade, and his fruit is sweet to my mouth.” And last, but not least, in 7:9: “Your breath is like the fragrance of apples.” The apple (Sum. ÉaàÉår, Akk. ÉaàÉåru) as a sexual stimulant and the apple tree as a favorite setting for amatory delights are already present in Sumerian literature. In the Enki and Ninhursag myth, apples are among the fruits that Enki presents to Uttu prior to copulating with her.10 Furthermore, in a divine love song Inanna declares, “[He] (Dumuzi) brought joy into the garden…. Into the garden of apple trees he brought joy. For the shepherd (?) the apples in the garden are loaded (?) with attractiveness. Into the garden of grapes he brought joy.”11 Similarly, “My blossoming garden of apple trees, sweet is your allure!”12 And, “It grows, it flourishes… my choice apple tree, bearing fruits.”13 So, too, in the àà.zi.ga incantations: “The beautiful woman has brought forth love. Inanna, who loves apples and pomegranates, has brought forth potency…. Incantation: If a woman looks desirously upon the penis of

mentioned in the oath, ‫צ ָבאוֹת‬, ְ “gazelles,” compare the love dialogue between Nabû and Taàm¿tu, “[whose] thighs are like a gazelle (Sum. maà, Akk. ßabÊtu) in the plain.” See E. Matsushima, “Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû,” Acta Sumeriologica 9 (1987), 145:5; A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3 (Helsinki, 1989), 35:5. For “gazelle” as a metaphor for the beloved, both male and female, in Song of Songs, see 2:9, 17; 8:14 (for the former) and 4:5; 7:4 (as part of the description of the latter). For the carnal love embrace mentioned in Song of Songs 2:6: “His left hand was under my head, his right arm embraced me,” compare the Sumerian counterpart: “Your right hand on my nakedness should be placed, your left hand on my head should be laid.” See Y. Sefati, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature (Ramat Gan, 1998), 130:21–22. See also the discussion below on “nakedness.” 9 For a comprehensive bibliography and additional citations, see Paul, “Lover’s Garden,” 100 n. 1 [271–272 n. 1]. 10 ANET2, 37–41:149, 166, 172, 176. 11 B. Alster, “The Manchester Tammuz,” Acta Sumeriologica 14 (1992), 8:3–6 (translation on p. 18). 12 Sefati, Love Songs, 130:28. 13 Ibid., 166:1–4. Cf. Th. Jacobsen, The Harps that Once… (New Haven and London, 1987), 94: “Vigourously he sprouted and sprouted…. Did my one…. A very apple tree bearing fruit at the top.” The “apple tree” here is a euphemism for the penis.

302


a man.14 Its ritual: You recite the incantation three times (var. seven times) over an apple (ÉaàÉåru) or a pomegranate (nurmû). You give (the fruit) to the women (and) have her suck their juices. That woman will come to you. You can make love to her.”15 It should be noted in this context that the pomegranate (‫)רמּוֹן‬ ִ also appears as an erotic symbol and stimulant several times in the Song of Songs, in 4:3 (= 6:7); 4: 13; 6:11; 7:13. And in 8:2, prior to the love adjuration, the young lass provocatively proclaims, “I would let you drink the spiced wine of my pomegranate juice” (Heb. ‫)מ ָע ִסיס ִרמּוֹנִ י‬, ֵ which is the cognate and partial etymological equivalent of Akk. mê nurmî in the incantation just cited. Back again to the apple—this fruit, interestingly enough, may also refer to female charms, as in a balbale of Inanna: “My precious, sweet (Dumuzi), let me (Inanna) be your wet place (i.e., vagina)…. Let our little apples (i.e., breasts) be your desire!”16 And in a Sumerian love incantation: “When the young girl sits down, she is a blossoming orchard of apple trees.”17 In an erotic dream fantasy in the Song of Songs, the young girl imagines that her beloved “stretched his ‘hand’ (‫ )יָד‬through (or, according to another interpretation, ‘removed his hand from’) the latch.” Heb. ‫ יָד‬functions here, as it does in Isa 57:8, 10, as a euphemism for the penis. Similarly in Gilgameà, when Iàtar, in her vain but vainglorious attempt to seduce him, brazenly states: q§tka lià(!)t¿ßamma luput Éurdatni, “Stretch forth your ‘hand’ and pet our vulva” (vi:69). The euphemistic employment of “hand” for the membrum virile appears also in the Ugaritic poem, “The Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods” (KTU 2 1.23:33–35, 37): tirkm.yd.il.kym, “The ‘hand’ of El is as long as the sea.” wyd il.kmdb.ark.yd il.kym, “And the ‘hand’ of El is like the ocean; the ‘hand’ of El is as long as the sea.” Unfortunately, however, El was not “up” to it, since the text goes on to state: “El, his rod is down” or, according to another interpretation, “El lowers his rod” (il.Éãh.n·t); El, his love-staff droops” (il.ymnn.mã.ydh) (see also lines 46–47). It most probably is found also in KTU 2 1.13:31, “Her 14 See Paul, “Euphemistically ‘Speaking’,” 198–200 [220–222], for Akk. ana…Êna/ Ên§ naàû and Heb. ‫נש"א ֵעינָיִ ם ֶאל‬, “to look covetously.” 15 Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA, 70:1–10; 74:4–5. 16 B. Alster, “Marriage and Love in the Sumerian Love Songs,” The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, 1993), 15, 20:23–26. 17 A. Falkenstein, “Sumerische religöse Texte,” ZA 56 (1964), 116:7–8; and see note on pp. 121–122.

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 303 womb had not known pregnancy, [nor] her breasts nursing. [But] there was no [sli]t which he could open; his member (ydh) [found it (?)] too small.”18 Heb. ‫ יָד‬also appears in Qumran Hebrew with this meaning: “He who puts out his member (Heb. ‫יוֹציא יָד‬, ִ which is the exact interdialectal semantic equivalent of q§tam àußû in Gilgameà) from beneath his clothing… and his nakedness is exposed, will be punished for thirty days” (1QS VII:13).19 The very same expression in the Gilgameà passage, Éurdatam lap§tum, also appears in a lewd Old Babylonian lyric to Iàtar: alkÊ lulappit Éurdatki, “Come, let me caress your vulva” (line 11),20 which is parallel to kuzbam lap§tum, denoting “foreplay” in an Ardat-Lili incantation.21 The Hebrew semantic verbal equivalent of lap§tum, ‫נג"ע‬, has a similar erotic meaning in Gen 20:6, when God appears to Abimelech in a dream and restrains him from consummating relations with Sarah: “I have not allowed you to ‘touch’ her” (‫יה‬ ָ ‫)לנְ ג ַֹע ֵא ֶל‬. ִ And in Prov 6: 29: “It is the same with one who sleeps with his fellow-wife. Anyone who ‘touches’ her (‫ֵע ָבּהּ‬ ַ ‫ )נֹג‬will not go unpunished.” Continuing with the Song of Songs, there is a provocative and evocative passage which paradoxically can be interpreted in two opposite ways. In 2:15, the female protagonist ambiguously exclaims, “Catch us (‫)א ֱחזוּ‬, ֶ the foxes, the little foxes, that despoil vineyards (‫—)כּ ָר ִמים‬for ְ our vineyard is in blossom.” Heb. ‫כּ ֶרם‬, ֶ “vineyard,” similar to ‫גַּן‬, “garden,” as is well known from love literature, refers both to the female per se, as well as to her pudenda.22 Thus, on the one hand, she may be requesting to apprehend those “little foxes,” so that they won’t ruin her “vineyard.” However, on the other hand, she may actually be coquettishly coaxing those “foxes” to “catch” her: “Catch us, foxes,” thereby inviting them to engage in amatory delights with her, since 18 See J. C. de Moor, “An Incantation against Infertility (KTU 2 1.13),” UF 12 (1980), 306, 310. 19 F. G. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, I (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1997), 87. For a discussion of the euphemism “hand,” representing the membrum virile, see Paul, “Plural of Ecstasy,” 593 n. 30 [247 n. 32]. 20 W. von Soden, “Ein spät-babylonisches p§rum-Preis für Iàtar,” Or 60 (1991), 339–343; V. A. Hurowitz, “An Old Babylonian Bawdy Ballad,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (Winona Lake, IN, 1995), 543–558. 21 S. Lachenbacher, “Note sur l’Ardat-Lili,” RA 65 (1971), 119–154, esp. p. 136. For other references, see CAD, K, 614, kuzbu (lexical section); L, 83, lap§tu (lexical section). 22 See Paul, “Lover’s Garden,” 99–110 [271–284].

304


Akk. aÉ§zu is also employed as a euphemism for intercourse. Thus, in LH 142:61: “If a woman repudiates her husband and declares, ‘You shall not “touch” me’! (i.e., “have marital relations with me”) (ul taÉÉazanni ).” So, too, in a Babylonian business document23 it is stated that a man swears that he has not “approached” (ãeÉû)24 a woman (which, similar to qer¿bu,25 means to have sexual relations with a woman, as do its Hebrew semantic equivalents: ‫[ קר"ב‬Gen. 20:4; Lev. 37 (multiple times); Isa 8:3; Ezek 18:6]; and ‫[ נג"שׁ‬Exod 19:15: “And he (Moses) said to the people (at Mt. Sinai), ‘Be ready for the third day. Do not go near (‫)תּ ְגּשׁוּ‬ ִ a woman’ ”], and has not “taken her” (aÉ§zu). Male potency is expressed also in Mesopotamian literature by several nouns for “strength.” Thus, in Iàtar’s erotic invitation to Gilgameà cited above, the goddess audaciously implores: kiààåtaki i nÊkul, “Let us enjoy your ‘strength’ ! ” (VI:68). And in the incantation previously cited, along with other euphemisms for the penis, it is written, emåqan ittika litbâ, “Let your ‘strength’ rise for you!”26 So, too, in Biblical Hebrew, the corresponding nouns ‫ כּ ַֹח‬and ‫אוֹן‬, “strength, vigor,” also refer to male potency. Thus, in Jacob’s last will and testament, the patriarch addresses Reuben: ‫אשׁית אוֹנִ י‬ ִ ‫אַתּה וְ ֵר‬ ָ ‫כּ ִֹחי‬, “You are my strength and the first fruit of my manly vigor” (Gen 49:3), meaning, “You are the prime part of my procreative powers” (cf., too, Deut 21:17; Ps 78:17; and for the parallel pair of ‫ כּ ַֹח‬and ‫ אוֹן‬in non-sexual contexts, see Isa 40:26, 29; Job 40:16). The erotic background is further stressed by the very next verse, when Jacob accuses Reuben of being ‫ ַפּ ַחז( ַפּ ַחז ַכּ ַמּיִ ם‬in post-Biblical Hebrew, Palestinian Aramaic, and Syriac means “wanton, lascivious”),27 “… for when you mounted your father’s bed (‫ית‬ ָ ‫ִכּי ָע ִל‬ ‫אָביָך‬ ִ ‫)מ ְשׁ ְכּ ֵבי‬, ִ you brought disgrace (‫—)ח ַל ְל ָתּ‬my ִ couch he mounted (‫צוּעי ָע ָלה‬ ִ ְ‫)י‬.” For exact linguistic parallels, compare Ugaritic: l‘ràh y‘l, “Let him (Danel) mount his couch… in kissing his wife [conception]; in embracing her pregnancy!” (KTU 2 1.17.I:38–40). And in Akkadian: “The slaves will mount the bed (ana maj§l illû) of their masters and will

23

E. Grant, Babylonian Business Documents of the Classical Period (Philadelphia, 1919),

7:67. 24

AHw, 1384. CAD, Q, 233. 26 Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA, 31, no. 13:48. 27 J. C. Greenfield, “The Meaning of ‫פחז‬,” ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Essays of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, II, ed. S. M. Paul et al. (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2001), 725–730. 25

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 305 marry/cohabit with their hirers (i.e., ‘their mistresses’).”28 For Heb. ‫מ ְשׁ ָכּב‬, ִ “place of lying, couch,” in connection with the act of copulation, see Lev 18:22; 20:13; Num 31:17, 18, 35; Judg 21:11, 12; Isa 57:8; Ezek 23:17. For its Akkadian cognate, maj§lu, with reference to sexual intercourse, see CAD, M/I, 119. And for Heb ‫על"י‬, which also refers to the mating of an animal (Gen 21:10, 12), compare its etymological equivalents: Akk. elû and Ug. ‘ly, both meaning “mating, copulating.”29 (For the Heb. verb ‫ חלל‬in the factitive, referring to sexual depravity, see Lev 19:29; 21:9; Amos 2:7.) One can also refer to the extended semantic use of “arm,” Sum. á, Akk. idu, which comes to mean “strength, power” and also “sexual potency.” Thus, in a lexical list: “Give your ‘strength’ (á.zu//idka) to Iàtar, the young woman whom you have loved” (temnûài).30 And an impotent individual is euphemistically designated as: idi la iàû, “One who has no ‘strength’.”31 The same applies to Talmudic Aramaic; cf. b. Nid. 64b: “ ‘ I (Shemuel) could perform a number of acts of intercourse without causing any bleeding’. Shemuel is different from ordinary people since his sexual potency (‫)גּוּב ֵריהּ‬ ְ was great.” And the Heb. noun ‫ֶבר‬ ֶ ‫ גּ‬euphemistically means “penis” in the expression ‫ַבּ ַעל‬ ‫ֶבר‬ ֶ ‫גּ‬, “A man with an abnormally large membrum” (y. Bek. 7, 5, 44b). Another way of expressing male potency is by the descriptive term of a taut “bow.” In an Akkadian potency incantation we read: “May the [qu]iver not become e[mpty]! May the bow (qaàtu) not become slack!”32 Qaàtu, referring to “masculinity,” is also found in an Assyrian malediction that the enemy troops turn into women and lose their virility: “May the mistress of women (i.e., Iàtar) take away their bow(s) (qaàassunu).”33 Parpola34 also notes that whereas in Enuma Elià Marduk defeats Tiamat with his bow (IV:101), in a cultic commentary he vanquishes her with his “penis” (uà§ru), 35 thereby equating “bow”

28

C. Virolleaud, L’astrologie chaldéene, Supp. Iàtar (Paris, 1908), 40:20. Paul, “Two Cognate Semitic Terms,” 492 [125–126]. 30 F. Thureau-Dangin, Tablettes d’Uruk à l’usage des prêtes du temple d’Anu au temps des Seléucides, TCL 6 (Paris, 1922), 51:13f. 31 CAD, I/J, 15. 32 Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA, 37, no. 18:3. 33 E. F. Weidner, “Die Staatsvertrag Aààurnirâris VI. von Assyrien mit Mati’ilu von Bit-Agusi,” AfO 8–9 (1932–34), 22, V:12–13. For further examples, see Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA, 37–38. 34 S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki, 1997), XCI n. 114. 35 Livingstone, Court Poetry, 34, 37:18. 29

306


with “penis” in this text. For bows and arrows as symbols of male virility, compare the Hittite ritual of the sorceress Paàkuwatti to cure sexual impotence: “When he comes [for]th through the gate, I shall take the mirror (and) its distaff away from him [i.e., the symbols of femininity].36 I shall [gi]ve him a bow (and arrows), and while doing so I shall speak as follows: ‘See, I have taken womanliness away from you and given you manliness. Cast off the ways of a woman; now (show) the ways of a man’!”37 Furthermore, in a prayer to Iàtar of Nineveh to destroy the masculinity and battle prowess of the enemy, it is stated: “Take away the men’s masculinity… bows, arrows, and dagger(s) …! Place in their hands the spindle and mirror of a woman! Dress them as women!”38 Compare likewise the same description in the Hittite soldier oath.39 Similarly, in Job’s extended closing soliloquy, when he narrates God’s favors to him in the past, which include his happiness, affluence, and influence, he adds his hopeful expectation that he would live to a ripe old age in full manly vigor, which he describes as: “My vigor/glory refreshed, my ‘bow’ (‫)ק ְשׁ ִתּי‬ ַ ever new in my grasp” (29:20). His “bow” symbolizes his masculine potency.40 For Talmudic literature, see b. Soãa 36b, commenting on Gen 49:24: “ ‘Yet his bow (‫)ק ְשׁתּוֹ‬ ַ remained taut’, Rabbi YoÈanan in the name of Rabbi Meir remarks, ‘His “bow” (‫ק ְשׁתּוֹ‬, ַ i.e., his penis,) subsided’.” And in y. Hor. 2, 46d, “Rabbi Shemuel says, ‘His “bow” (‫)ק ְשׁתּוֹ‬ ַ stretched forth and retracted’.” Akk. birku, “knee,” cited above as a euphemism for the membrum virile: “Let your tired knees (birk§ka) rise up for you,”41 represents the male as well as the female genitalia. For a male: “PN, a man of low standing, àa la iàû birk‰, “who is impotent” (lit., “who has no knees”).42

36

Cf. 2 Sam 3:29. ANET2, 349:20–29. 38 KBo II 19 i 25–30. See H. A. Hoffner, Jr., “Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity: Their Use in Ancient Near Eastern Sympathetic Magic Rituals,” JBL 85 (1966), 331. 39 ANET2, 354:42–45. 40 In the Ugaritic epic of Aqhat, the bow also plays a significant role, symbolizing either his masculinity or virility. Anat’s “longing” (Ugar. ãsb) for his “bow” (qàt) has blatant sexual associations (KTU2 1.17.VI:13). See D. R. Hillers, “The Bow of Aqhat: The Meaning of a Mythological Theme,” Orient and Occident, ed. H. A. Hoffner, Jr., AOAT 22 (Neukirchen, 1973), 71–80; H. H. P. Dressler, “Is the Bow of Aqhat a Symbol of Virility?” UF 7 (1975), 217–220. 41 Biggs, ’À·ZI·GA, 31, no. 13:48. 42 D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago, 1924), 241 v 21. 37

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 307 So, too, “You bring forth from a man’s loins (birkÊàu) the offspring that is to be born.”43 Compare as well kalÊt birk‰, “testicles.”44 And referring to a female: “The witch who gags the mouth of gods (k§mÊtu àa pî ilÊ) [and] stops the womb of goddesses” (k§sÊtu àa birki iàtar§ti).45 Similarly in Hebrew, ‫ ִבּ ְר ַכּיִ ם‬can represent the female privy parts, as in Judg 16:19: “She (Delilah) lulled him (Samson) on her ‘lap’ ” (‫יה‬ ָ ‫;)בּ ְר ֶכּ‬ ִ or, according to the LXX and Peshitta versions, “between her ‘knees’.” And as for the male, the word appears twice in Ezek 7:17; 21:12 in the expression: ‫וְ ָכל ִבּ ְר ַכּיִ ם ֵתּ ַל ְכנָה ָמּיִ ם‬, “And all ‘knees’ will run water”—where ‫ ִבּ ְר ַכּיִ ם‬is a euphemism for “penis,” and ‫מיִ ם‬, ָ for “urine,” which also serves as the qere: ‫ימי ַר ְג ָליִ ם‬ ֵ ‫מ‬, ֵ in 2 Kings 18:27 (= Isa 36:12) for the actual written word for “urine,” ‫שׁיניהם‬.46 Heb. ‫ ַר ְג ָליִ ם‬also functions as a euphemism for the female organ in the curse of cannibalism found in Deut 28:57: “The afterbirth that issues from between her ‘legs’ (‫יה‬ ָ ‫…)מ ֵבּין ַר ְג ֶל‬ ִ she shall eat them secretly, because of the utter want in the desperate straits to which your enemy shall reduce you in your towns.”47 This expression is the cognate equivalent of Akk. birÊt purÊdi, which likewise refers to the woman’s private organs.48 Somewhat similar is Sum. úr, Akk. sånu, “lap, crotch,” which serves as a euphemism for the genital area, especially in the expressions ina såni nâlu/ßal§lu/utålu, meaning “to have sexual relations.”49 This may

43

W. G. Lambert, “Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians,” AfO 19 (1959–60),

66:10. 44

CAD, K, 74. G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû, AfO Beiheft 2 (Berlin, 1937), 23, III:51. 46 Cf. Akk. mê purÊdi. Cf. also Akk. kÊma àÊn§ti ina birÊt purÊdi “like urine between the legs.” F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin (Berlin, 1963), 398:rev. 13; O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets, II (London, 1964), 136:43. So, too, in the Talmudic expressions: ‫ל ַה ִטּיל ַמיִ ם‬, ְ “to urinate” (m. Yoma 3:2). 47 Cf. G. R. Driver, “Some Hebrew Medical Expressions,” ZAW 65 (1953), 260. 48 AHw, 128, 880; CAD, B, 254, 3 4´ b); M/II, 154, 2 1´ a). 49 CAD, S, 387–388. For Sum. úr as a euphemism for female genitalia, see the hymn to Inanna where King Iddin-Dagan approaches the “holy/pure lap” of the goddess; D. Reisman, “Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn,” JCS 25 (1973), 191: 180–186. For sånu referring euphemistically to the “lap” of the male, see the Old Babylonian love song, “Rise and let me make love to you! In your delicious lap, the one for love-making. Your passion is sweet, growing luxuriantly is your fruit”; J. G. Westenholz, “A Forgotten Love Song,” Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton, AOS 67 (New Haven, 1987), 422–423. 45

308


be compared to Heb. ‫חיק‬, ֵ “bosom,” in the similar expression: ‫שׁ ֶֹכ ֶבת‬ ‫יקָך‬ ֶ ‫ח‬, ֵ “She who lies in your bosom”; for ‫ ֵחיק‬alone, cf. Gen 16:5; 2 Sam 12:8. Compare, too, Akk. kirimmu, which also means “bosom” in the passage from Gilgameà (I:163–64), “There he [Enkidu] is, ’amÉat! Bare your bosom (kirimmiki)! Open your vagina (årki)! Let him take your sexual charms (kuzubki)!” Yet another metaphor for the male member, “pillar,” appears in a Sumerian love song: “O my clear pillar, my clear pillar, sweet are your charms! Pillar of alabaster set in lapis-lazuli, sweet are your charms!”50 To which one may likewise compare the waßf in Song of Songs 5:15, where the female describes her beloved: “His legs are like marble, ‘pillars’ set in sockets of fine gold.” In Prov 30 there are a series of proverbs based on the literary device of the escalating number pattern. In vv. 18–19 we read: “Three things are beyond me. Four I cannot fathom: How an eagle makes its way over the sky. How a snake makes its way over a rock. How a ship makes its way through the high seas. And how a man has his ‘way’ with a maiden.” Heb. ‫דּ ֶרְך‬, ֶ “way,” in this last stich serves as a double entendre with obvious carnal overtones, as is further attested by the ensuing v. 20, which is associatively attached to it by the catchword principle: “Such is the way (‫)דּ ֶרְך‬ ֶ of an adulteress. She eats (‫)אָכ ָלה‬, ְ wipes her ‘mouth’ (‫יה‬ ָ ‫)פּ‬, ִ and says: ‘I have done no wrong’ ”—humorously voicing her immoral apathy. First it should be stressed that “eating” is a euphemism for sexual dalliance, as in the Song of Songs, where after the damsel invokes the north and south winds to blow upon her spiced “garden” so that her beloved will come to her “garden” and “eat” its luscious “fruits”51 (4:16), he ardently exclaims, “I have come to my ‘garden’, my own, my sister, my bride. I have ‘plucked’ (‫יתי‬ ִ ‫)אָר‬ ִ 52 my 50

Alster, “Sumerian Love Songs,” RA 79 (1985), 146:31–32; Th. Jacobsen, “Two BAL-BAL-E Dialogues,” Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guildford, CN, 1987), 62–63 n. 29; Y. Sefati, “An Oath of Chastity in a Sumerian Love Song (SRT 31)?” Bar Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pin·as Artzi, ed. J. Klein and A. Skaist (Ramat Gan, 1990), 45–63. 51 For “fruit,” Heb. ‫ ְפּ ִרי‬and Akk. inbu, as an erotic metaphor, see Paul, “Lover’s Garden,” 100 n. 1 [271–272 n. 1]; B. Groneberg, “Brust(irtum)-Gesänge,” Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger, ed. B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, and T. Richter, AOAT 267 (Münster, 1999), 182–184. 52 For sensual overtones of Heb. ‫אר"י‬, “to pluck,” cf. the love song of Nabû and Taàm¿tu: “May my (Taàm¿tu’s) eyes behold the ‘plucking’ of your (Nabû’s) ‘fruit’ ” (qat§pu àa inbÊka), where “fruit” represents the male’s sexuality. See Livingstone, Court

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 309 myrrh and spice, ‘eaten’ (‫)אָכ ְל ִתּי‬ ַ my honey and honeycomb, ‘drunk’ my wine and my milk” (5:1, which actually is the culmination and “climax” of the previous song). The congruence of “eating” and sexual activity is already present in Enki and Ninhursag. When the former, overcome with desire and curiosity, asks Isimud to name the plants, he proceeds to eat them one by one. Having consumed them, he knows their “hearts” (lit., “their insides,” Sum. àà, synonymous with “womb”), which reminds one of his behavior with the young goddess whose “insides” he also “knows,”53 recalling the Akkadian and ַ ‫ )י‬a woman” (Gen 4:1; 24:16; 38: Biblical idiom, “to know (idû,54 ‫ָדע‬ 26; 1 Kings 1:4). Interestingly enough, “eating” is also employed in a sexual manner in Rabbinic literature by combining two separate, but similar, verses in the Joseph narrative and interpreting the former by the latter. In Gen 39:6, it is stated: “He (Potiphar) left all that he had in Joseph’s hands, and with him there, he paid attention to nothing save the food that he ate” (‫אוֹכל‬ ֵ ‫)כּי ִאם ַה ֶלּ ֶחם ֲא ֶשׁר הוּא‬. ִ Then, in v. 9, Joseph refuses the blatant advances of his master’s wife by telling her: “He (Potiphar) has withheld nothing from me except yourself, since you are his wife.” The midrash equates “food” with “wife,” and referring to this very same verse in Prov 30:20, interprets it to mean sexual intercourse (Genesis Rabbah 86:6).55 The same verse is also cited in the Talmudic discussion in b. Ketub. 65b in connection with m. Ketub. 5:9, which states, “She is to eat (‫)אוֹכ ֶלת‬ ֶ with him on the night of every Sabbath.” Rabbi Ashi explains this to mean “marital intercourse” by interpreting ‫אוֹכ ֶלת‬ ֶ euphemistically as in Proverbs. So, too, referring to Num 11:4–5, when the Israelites in the desert looked back nostalgically to their sojourn in Egypt and said, “If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat (‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ )נ‬free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic,” there is a discussion in b. Yoma 75a between Rav and Shemuel, one of whom says that ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ נ‬is a euphemism for intercourse. Compare also the Rab-

Poetry, 37: rev. 20; cf. also rev. 30; Matsushima, “Le rituel hiérogamique,” 146:20´. 53 ANET2, 40:217. Note, too, the verb “pluck” in this context in lines 204, 208, 212, 216. See G. Leick, Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature (London and New York, 1994), 35 and 280 n. 21. 54 See CAD, I/J, 28. Compare similarly, Akk. lam§du and Heb. ‫ ;למ"ד‬Paul, “Gleanings,” 249–251 [187–189]. 55 J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, II (Jerusalem, 1965), 1059 (Hebrew).

310


binic discussion of the word ‫ל ֶחם‬, ֶ “bread,” in Prov 6:26: “The loaf of bread will go for a harlot,” which is interpreted in like manner in b. Ketub. 65b, as is Prov 9:17: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten furtively is tasty,” which has carnal connotations according to b. Ned. 91b and the Midrash on Proverbs on this verse. And in Exod 2:20, when Jethro asks his daughters to invite Moses to his abode so that “he may eat bread” (‫ֹאכל ָל ֶחם‬ ַ ‫)וְ י‬, according to Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1: 32 the innuendo is sexual.56 This is also clear from a statement found in Ben Sira 23:17, “To the adulterer all bread is sweet.” See also the Rabbinic use of the euphemism of ‫ ֶל ֶחם‬in b. ’abb. 62b. Returning to Prov 30:20, what has not been noticed by Biblical commentators is that Heb. ‫“( ֶפּה‬she wipes her ‘mouth’ ”) has its counterpart in Sum. ka and Akk. pû, which function as euphemisms for the pudenda. Thus, [ka.zu.gi]n 7 gal 4 .la.zu// kÊma pÊki bißßår[ki], “Like your ‘mouth’—your genitals.”57 And in an incantation, “I have bound you by the hairs (à§r§tim) of my ‘mouth’,” which is then explained, ina årÊja àa àin§tim, “In my pudenda of urine.”58 Compare also the Sumerian riddle: “The ‘mouth’ (ka) has vanquished the fortress, so that I can embrace it (?). Solution: the vagina” (gal 4 .la.[am 3 ]).59 The same euphemistic use of “mouth” is present in Ben Sira 26:12, describing an “unruly wife” (vv. 10–11), “As a thirsty traveler with an eager ‘mouth’ (‫)פּה‬ ֶ drinks from any water he finds (i.e., a metaphor for illicit relations; for the opposite see Prov 5:15), so she sits down (= lies) before every tent peg and opens her quiver for every arrow.” So, too, in Rabbinic literature, in the following expressions: ‫ל ַה ִתּיר ֶפּה ֶשׁל ַמ ָטּה‬, ְ “to open the lower ‘mouth’ (= the womb of the childless)” (b. Sanh. 100a); ‫ֲקרוֹת‬ ָ ‫ל ַה ִתּיר ֶפּה ע‬, ְ “to open the ‘mouth’ of barren women” (b. MenaÈ. 98a); ‫עד ֶשׁ ַהרוֹק ְבּתּוְֹך ַה ֶפּה‬, ַ “while the ‘spittle’ (a euphemism for ‘semen’) is yet in the ‘mouth’(= vagina)” (b. Nidd. 16b); ‫ָכּל ְז ַמן ֶשׁ ַהרוֹק‬ ‫מצוּי ְבּתּוְֹך ַה ֶפּה ֵמ ָח ַמת ַתּ ְשׁ ִמישׁ‬, ָ “As long as the ‘spittle’ (= semen) is found

56

A. Shinan, Midrash Exodus Rabbah: Chapters I–IV (Jerusalem, 1984), 97 (Hebrew). 57 UM 29-15-179:2´f. and duplicate OECT 1 pl. 13; A. Deimel, Schultexte aus Fara, WVDOG 43 (Leipzig, 1923), no. 26–27. 58 C. Wilcke, “Liebesbeschwörungen aus Isin,” ZA 75 (1985), 198:16–17, 19. However, W. G. Lambert (“Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love,” Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wainsbrough [London, 1987], 25–39) interprets à§r§tim as the plural of à§ru, “breath.” 59 M. Civil, “Sumerian Riddles: A Corpus,” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987), 26.

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 311 in the ‘mouth’ (= vagina) due to intercourse” (b. Nidd. 64b); ‫ֲלה‬ ָ ‫רוֹק ְל ַמע‬ ‫ ֵתּ ֵצא‬,‫כוֹער ַה ָדּ ָבר‬ ָ ‫וּמ‬ ְ ‫הוֹאיל‬...‫ה‬ ִ ‫יל‬ ָ ‫מן ַה ִכּ‬, ִ “ Spittle (= semen) on the upper part of the curtained bed… since this thing is ugly, she must go out (= leave without her marriage writ)” (b. Yeb. 24b). And for “spittle” as a possible euphemism for female secretion in Akkadian, compare: “I have seized your urine-yielding genitals with my spittle-laden mouth (ina pÊja àa ruÉ§tim), with my urine-yielding genitals.”60 Moreover, just as “mouth” refers euphemistically to the female organ, so, too, do “lips”: àumma aààata àap§tiàa kabbara/qattana, “If a woman’s ‘lips’ are thick/thin”;61 and non-euphemistically: àap§t kipattiya lu àap§t diàpi, “May the lips of my pudenda be lips of honey.”62 Likewise in Talmudic literature, compare ‫בּין ַה ְשׂ ָפ ִתים‬, ֵ “between the ‘lips’ (of the vagina)” (y. Yebam. 6, beg. 7b). For yet another part of the female body which euphemistically refers to the vagina, compare àapru, “thigh,” in a text dealing with the water ordeal in Mari: àapar b¿ltiki iptû, “Did he open the ‘thigh’ of your mistress?”63 So, too, in Talmudic literature, the “thigh” refers to female sexuality. Cf. b. Meg. 13a: “A woman is only jealous of the ‘thigh’ (‫ָרְך‬ ֵ ‫ )י‬of another.” Another euphemism is Sum. gal 4 .la, Akk. åru, “nakedness,” which

60 Wilcke, “Liebesbeschwörungen,” 198:18. On p. 206 he remarks that this is “sicher eine Bezeichnung des Scheidensekrets,” and compares p§ki àa ru-ga-tim (MAD, V, Nr. 8:12). See Lambert, “Devotion,” 37–38; and Å. and J. Westenholz (“Help for Rejected Suitors: The Old Akkadian Love Incantation, MAD V 8,” Or 46 [1977], 201:12), who translate incorrectly, “so far away.” CAD, R, 437, translates “with my drooling mouth.” 61 F. R. Kraus, Texte für babylonische Physiognomatik, AfO Beiheft 3 (Berlin, 1939), 11b viii 4–5. 62 KAR 144:rev. 4. See H. Zimmern, “Der Schenkenliebeszauber,” ZA 32 (1918–19), 174:50. 63 J.-M. Durand, Archives Épistolaires de Mari 1/1, ARM 26 (Paris, 1988), 528, 249:40–41; 529, footnote. See also ina kilallÊn àapriàu in Archives Épistolaires de Mari 1/2, ARM 26 (Paris, 1988), no. 424:38. Cf., too, the use of àapru in the following medical text: àumma sinniàtu Éáà àap-ra gig, “If a woman suffers in her àapru,” and the comment, Éáà àub àa.tu[r], “Éáà is the obstruction/clogging of the uterus”; see F. Köcher, Keilschrifttexte zur assyrisch-babylonischen Drogen- und Pflanzenkunde (Berlin, 1955), 22 II 4. For another word for thigh, ‫( פחד‬cf. Arab. faÉid, faÉd, fiÉd; Syr. puÈd§), which refers to the private parts; see Gen 31:53; Job 40:17; Tg. Onq. to Lev 21:20. See S. B. Noegel, “Drinking Feasts and Deceptive Feats,” Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, ed. S. B. Noegel (Bethesda, 2000), 171 n. 29, 172.

312


may refer to either female or male genitalia. Thus, an elderly prostitute, defending her ability to continue her time-honored profession, declares, “My vagina is still attractive (gal 4 .la.mu al.àa//årimi da[miq]); yet it is said among my people that it is worthless for me” (Sum., “I am told, ‘It has ceased for you’.”).64 And in a love incantation, “I seized your pudenda, (the place) of urine” (§huz årki àa àin§tim).65 Similarly, in Gilgameà we read, “Open your vagina (årki) so that he can take your charms” (I:164; cf. line 172). Furthermore, in a bawdy Old Babylonian ballad: “Sixty and sixty more (young men) keep spending themselves between her ‘thighs’ (årÊàa).”66 And in a medical prescription, “Hair from the genitalia (sal.la, åru) of a àugitû-priestess.”67 Compare, too, the picturesque description, “A liar chases vaginas (årÊ).”68 In a lexical list, moreover, Éurdatu is defined as petû àa årÊ.69 And as for a male, see “[If a man]’s semen (riÉåssu) discharges, and he is unaware of it, his entire pubic area (årÊàu) [hurts him].”70 The Hebrew etymological cognate lexeme of Akk. åru, ‫ע ְרוָה‬, ֶ “nakedness,” also refers to female and male genitalia, especially in the expression ‫לגַלּוֹת ֶע ְרוָה‬, ְ “to uncover nakedness” (i.e., one’s private area), which is a euphemism for having intercourse with a woman. See, in particular, Lev 18, where it recurs multiple times (in vv. 6–17) and in other passages as well. For ‫ ֶע ְרוָה‬meaning the female organ, see, e.g., Hos 2:11; Ezek 16:37; 23: 10; and for the male, e.g., Gen 9:22–23; Lev 20:17. Compare, too, its cognates: ‫( ַמ ְע ֵרְך‬Nah 3:5) and ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫עוֹר‬ ֵ ‫( ְמ‬Hab 2:15). The lexeme “well,” Sum. pú, can also refer to the female organ, as is shown by the Sumerian riddle, “One has d[ug] (or o[pened]) a well. Two look at it. Solution: A flaccid penis in vi[ew?].”71 So, too, Heb. ‫ בּוֹר‬and ‫ ְבּ ֵאר‬in Prov 5:15, “Drink water from your own cistern (‫בּוֹרָך‬ ֶ ‫)מ‬, ִ running water from your own well (‫)בּ ֵא ֶרָך‬,” ְ referring to the sage advice to remain faithful to one’s wife alone.72 Similarly in Ugaritic: krtqt mrÇt,

64 W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford, 1967), 242:14; cf. 255:8. See also above, n. 8. 65 Westenholz, “Help for Rejected Suitors,” 201:15–16. 66 Hurowitz, “Old Babylonian Bawdy Ballad,” 545:16. 67 F. Küchler, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der assyrisch-babylonischen Medizin, Assyrologische Bibliothek 18 (Leipzig, 1904), Pl. 9 ii. 68 BWL, 255:7–10. 69 MSL, 14, 269:16. Cf. Gilgameà I:164. 70 R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts (Oxford, 1923), 61, 1:9. 71 Civil, “Sumerian Riddles,” 29. 72 Cf. also Song of Songs 4:15.

the shared legacy of sexual metaphors and euphemisms 313 “Because the wife [Ugar. mrÇt = Akk. marÉÊtu) is closed up”; kdlbàt b’ir, “because the ‘well’ is covered up” (KTU 2 1.13:24–25).73 Another euphemism found in incipits of love ditties is Akk. ßâÉu/ ßi§Éu, “to laugh, smile,” and the noun ßiÉtu, “laughter,” in the sense of “entice, engage in amorous dalliance.”74 Thus, “Your love is truly obsidian; your love-making (ßiÉ§tuka) is verily gold.”75 So, too, kê ßÊÉ§ku ana naÉài, “I enticed (my) lusty boy.”76 And waraÉ ßÊÉ§ti, “the month of amorous dalliance.”77 This is also the meaning of its Hebrew interdialectal semantic equivalent, ‫צח"ק‬. In the description of the religious orgy surrounding the golden calf, it is written, “They sat down to eat and drink, and then rose ‫”ל ַצ ֵחק‬ ְ (Exod 32:6), which has decidedly sexual connotations, as is later confirmed a bit further on in the chapter (v. 25), where it states: “Moses saw that the people were out of control” (‫ֻע הוּא‬ ַ ‫—כּי ָפר‬for ִ ‫פר"ע‬, compare its Arab cognate, faraÇa, “lose control, restraint”; cf. Prov 19:18, “For lack of vision, the people lose restraint [‫)”]יִ ָפּ ַרע‬. Similarly in Gen 26:8, “Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looking out of the window, saw Isaac fondling (‫)מ ַצ ֵחק‬ ְ his wife Rebecca.” It most likely has this same meaning also in Gen. 39:14, when Potiphar’s wife calls out to her servants and complains, “Look, he (my husband) brought us a Hebrew to sport (‫ ְ)ל ַצ ֶחק‬with us!” And when she recounts her failed romantic escapade to Potiphar, she accuses Joseph, “The Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house to toy (‫ ְ)ל ַצ ֶחק‬with me” (v. 17). Last, but not least, I will conclude this study with an “opening,” which serves as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, both in Akkadian (petû) and Hebrew (‫)פתח‬. In an Old Babylonian erotic love poem,78 the young woman quite brazenly invites her beloved, “Reach out (and) with your left hand ‘honor’ our vulva (Éurdatni), fondle our breasts (tul‰ni).79 Enter! I have opened (my) thighs.”80 Compare likewise the threefold use of ‫ פת"ח‬in Song of Songs 5:2–6, which bears distinct erotic overtones, as the male attempts to persuade his desired one 73

See de Moor, “Incantation against Infertility,” 306. CAD, &, 65, 186. 75 KAR, 158, rev. ii:44. 76 Ibid., rev. ii:7. 77 Ibid., 158, rev. ii:31. 78 Westenholz, “Forgotten Love Song,” i 13´–15´. 79 For the use of the plural here, see Paul, “ ‘Plural of Ecstasy’,” 585–597 [239–252]. 80 For other examples of the use of petû, see AHw, 860, 17. 74

314


to “Let me in (‫)פּ ְת ִחי ִלי‬, ִ my sister, my darling, my dove, my perfect one!” When, however, she physically and emotionally is ready to “let in” her beloved, she discovers that he has turned and gone away. For a metaphorical-erotic use of this verb, see Isa 45:8, “Pour down, O skies from above! Let the heavens rain down victory! Let the earth open up (‫)תּ ְפ ַתח‬ ִ and triumph sprout!” This sexual innuendo is noted in Talmudic literature81 as the earth’s “opening” and compared to “a female who opens herself (‫)פּוֹת ַחת‬ ַ to a male.” 81

Genesis Rabbah 13:13; y. Ta‘an. 1, 64b (top).

a double entendre in job 15:32

315

A DOUBLE ENTENDRE IN JOB 15:32 IN THE LIGHT OF AKKADIAN* The Hebrew phrases ‫ מלא ימים‬and ‫מלא שנה‬,1 and their interdialectal semantic and etymological cognates in Akkadian: åm¿/àan§ti malû/ mullû,2 and Ugaritic: ànt mla,3 are well known expressions meaning “to reach fullness in time.” It is interesting to note, moreover, that in both Hebrew as well as Akkadian the term is employed to refer to the forthcoming demise of an individual. Compare 2 Sam 7:12 (= 1 Chron 17:11): “When your days are complete (‫[מּ ְלאוּ ימיך‬ ָ ִ‫ )כי ]י‬and you lie down (‫)ושכבת‬4 with your forefathers,5 I will raise up your offspring after you (‫)אחריך‬,6 one of your own issue, and I will establish his kingship”; Lam 4:18, “Our end is near (‫)קרב ִק ֵצּנוּ‬, our days are complete (‫)מלאו ימינו‬.”7 Compare similarly in Assyrian royal inscriptions, åm¿[ka imlû àan§t(ka)] ikàudamma ukkipu adanka, “The days [of your life are complete, the years of (your death)] have arrived; your appointed time

* It was my great privilege to be a member of the Editorial Committee of this volume, as well as to dedicate this brief contribution to Emanuel Tov, friend and colleague, whose scholarly mastery encompasses the LXX, Qumranic texts, and the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 1 ‫—מלא ימים‬amongst the many examples that may be cited, see Gen 50:3; Lev 8:33; Num 6:5; Ezek 5:2; Esth 1:5; and for ‫מל)ו(את שנה‬, see Lev 25:30; Jer 25:12; 29:10. 2 CAD, M/II, 180, 186. 3 KTU 2 1.12.II:44–45, àb#.ànt…mla wtmn.nqpnt, “Seven years… have been filled, eight cycles.” For other possible translations, see N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit (London and New York, 2003), 166 and nn. 28–29. 4 For the verb ‫שכב‬, “to lie down,” which euphemistically means “to die,” see Isa 14:8; 43:17; Ezek 31:18, 32:21, 27, 30; Job 3:13, 14:12. Cf. also its Akkadian interdialectal equivalents: nâlu (CAD, N/I, 204–206), sak§pu (= ‫( )שכב‬CAD, S, 74), and ßal§lu (CAD, &, 68–69. For similar euphemisms, see W. W. Hallo, “Disturbing the Dead,” MinÈah le-NaÈum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday, ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane, JSOT 154 (Sheffield, 1993), 183–192. 5 This last phrase is absent from the Chronicles’ passage. 6 Heb. ‫אחריך‬, similar to its Akkadian semantic and etymological cognate, (w)arki, has the connotation of “after one’s demise.” Cf. LH 150:17, 157:19; 158:25. For additional examples, see CAD, A/II, 279. 7 Cf., somewhat similarly, Jer 25:34, “For the day of your slaughter draws near (‫)מלאו ימיכם לטבוח‬.”

316


has drawn near” (Esarhaddon)8; åm¿ imlû ukkipu adannu,9 “The days are complete, the appointed time has drawn near” (Aàurbanipal).10 These two royal inscriptions contain the exact two equivalent phrases as found in the passage from Lamentations cited above: ‫קרב ִק ֵצּנוּ‬11 = ukkipu adannu/adanka and ‫ = מלאו ימינו‬åm¿(ka) imlû, parallel expressions for indicating the imminent death of the persons involved. So, too, the following neo-Babylonian inscription of Nabonidus: “When (his) day was complete (iàtu åm imlû), Labaàti-Marduk, his son, succeeded to the throne.12 In light of the above, we can now further appreciate the deft play on words found in Job 15:32 as part of the second discourse of Eliphaz, who picturesquely depicts the premature doom of the wicked man: ‫בלא יומו ִתּ ָמּ ֵלא וְ ִכ ָפּתוֹ לא רעננה‬. The second half of the verse, “his frond13 never having flourished,”14 begins the botanical imagery that continues in the next verse (33): “He will be like a vine that sheds its unripe grapes, like an olive tree that drops its blossoms.” The first half of the verse, however, is problematic, since there is no feminine antecedent for the verb ‫תּ ָמּ ֵלא‬. ִ Thus most commentators assume that the last word of the preceding verse (31), ‫מוּרתוֹ‬ ָ ‫תּ‬, ְ either dropped out by haplography or should be read at the beginning of v. 3215 with a change of vocalization, ‫מוֹרתוֹ‬ ָ ‫תּ‬, ִ meaning “his palm tree.”16 Others suggest that the female referent is ‫ַקתּוֹ‬ ְ ‫יֹנ‬, “his shoots,” which appears

8

R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Graz, 1956), 105, i:32. For Akk. ek¿pu, “to draw near, to approach,” see CAD, E, 69; and for Akk. adannu (= Aram. ‫)ע ָדּן‬, ִ “a moment in time at the end of a specific period,” see CAD, A/II, 97–98. For its use in reference to the natural end of human life, see ibid., 98. It, too, is employed with the verb malû, “to be fulfilled, ended in time” (but not in reference to death; see ibid., 99). 10 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 178:15. 11 For Heb. ‫קץ‬, ֵ referring to the appointed time for the end of life, see Gen 6:13; Jer 51:13; Amos 8:2; Ezek 7:2 (twice), 3, 6 (twice); and elsewhere. 12 S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 276, i:26; iv:35. 13 For Heb. ‫כפה‬, in connection with palm trees, see Lev 23:40, ‫( ַכּפֹּת תמרים‬which some commentators vocalize: ‫)כּפֹּת תמרים‬. ִ 14 Heb. ‫רעננה‬, accented on the penult, is the only example of the employment of this word as a verb. All other occurrences relate to the adjective. This translation follows the NJPS. 15 Thus, M. H. Pope, Job, AB 15 (Garden City, NJ, 1973), 119. 16 N. H. Tur Sinai The Book of Job (Tel-Aviv, 1954), 157 (Hebrew). See also S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray (The Book of Job [Edinburgh, 1971], 102, notes), who compare 9

a double entendre in job 15:32

317

ִ most read ‫( ִתּ ָמּל‬niph‘al of in v. 30.17 And as for the verb itself, ‫תּ ָמּ ֵלא‬, the geminate verb, ‫ ;מלל‬cf. Job 14:2, ‫ יִ ָמּלוּ‬,24:24 ;‫ )וַיִּ ָמּל‬or ‫תּ ָמּ ֵלּל‬, ִ “shall wither,”18 thereby creating a parallel to ‫ לא רעננה‬in the parallel stich. It is suggested here, however, that the form ‫ ִתּ ָמּ ֵלא‬was deliberately written in order to create a clever double entendre. On the one hand, the verb is related to the geminate ‫ מלל‬and thus commences the ensuing botanical description. But with the addition of the aleph, which derives the verb from the stem ‫מלא‬, the scribe also intended to allude to the expression ‫מלא ימים‬, with the meaning attested above in both Hebrew and Akkadian, “to reach the end of one’s days, to die,”19 in this case, “prematurely” (‫)בלא יומו‬.20 This, in turn, is the exact opposite of the blessings found in Exod 23:26, ‫את מספר ימיך אמלא‬, “I will grant you the full span of your days (i.e., of your life)”; and Isa 65:20, “No more shall there be an infant or old man who does not live out his days (‫)אשר לא יְ ָמ ֵלּא את ימיו‬.” the Peshitta translation, ‫מוֹעיתא‬. For Heb. ‫תּמ ִֹרים‬, ִ referring to “palm trees,” see Ezek 41:18, 19 (twice) and elsewhere. 17 See Driver and Gray, Book of Job, 102, notes. 18 Most commentators read ‫מּל‬ ָ ‫;תּ‬ ִ for ‫תּ ַמּ ֵלל‬. ְ See, for example, Y. ibn GanaÈ, Sepher Haschoraschim (Berlin, 1896), 261. 19 Cf. also the various suggestions offered by D. Kimchi, Radicum Liber (= ‫ספר‬ ‫)השרשים‬, ed. H. R. Biesenthal and F. Lebrecht (photocopy of Berlin edition, 1847; Jerusalem, 1965), 192 (Hebrew). 20 See S. M. Paul, “Untimely Death in the Semitic Languages,” The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, ed. S. Japhet (Jerusalem, 1994), 575–586 (Hebrew) [223–238]. For additional double entendres based on punctuation, see idem, “Polysemous Pivotal Punctuation: More Janus Double Entendres,” Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1996), 369–374 [477–483].

318


daniel 12:9: a technical mesopotamian scribal term

319

DANIEL 12:9: A TECHNICAL MESOPOTAMIAN SCRIBAL TERM* At the conclusion of the vision of the ram (symbolizing the Median and Persian Empires) and the he-goat (representing the Greek kingdoms and Alexander the Great), Daniel is commanded (8:26): ‫ְסתֹם החזון‬ ‫כי לימים רבים‬, “Keep the vision a secret, for it pertains to the distant future” (lit., “to far-off days”).1 The text goes on to record (8:27) that “Daniel was perplexed by the vision and no one could explain it” (lit., “there was no understanding it”). Daniel’s lack of understanding of the revelation is a clear indication of its esoteric nature. Then, again in chap. 12 at the conclusion of the visions (12:4), he is ordered to “keep the words secret (‫)סתֹם‬ ְ and seal (‫ַחתֹם‬ ֲ ‫ )ו‬the book until the time of the end,” which is an overt reference to the author’s own time. This command to keep the book secret is understandable in light of the fact that the visions were supposedly seen by Daniel during the reign of Belshazzar, king of Babylon (chaps. 7–8), Darius, king of Media (chaps. 9, 11), and Cyrus, king of Persia (chap. 10) and were to remain classified until the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, which was the actual period of the composition of the second half of the book of Daniel (chaps. 7–12). At that time, they were to be made public for the consolation of the people suffering under the hardships of Greek monarchical persecutions.2 When Daniel again remarks, “I heard but did not understand,” he further inquires, “My Lord, what will be the outcome of these things?”

* It is my great privilege to be a member of the Editorial Committee of this volume, as well as to dedicate this small contribution to Moshe Weinfeld, friend, colleague, and master of Biblical and Mesopotamian literature. 1 The Hebrew expression ‫ ימים רבים‬appears once more, in Ezek 12:27, and in a seventh-century B.C.E. Ammonite inscription from Tell Siran (lines 6–8): ‫יגל‬ ‫וישמח ביומת רבם ובשנת רחקת‬, “May he [Amminadab, king of the Ammonites] rejoice and be happy for many days and in years far off.” See K. P. Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age, Harvard Semitic Monographs 27 (Chico, 1983), 35–44. The verse itself is based on Hab 2:3, as are Dan 8:17; 10:14; 11:27, 35. 2 For two very fine commentaries on the book of Daniel, see L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY, 1978); J. J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1993).

320


(12:8). The angelic figure responds, in turn, “Go, Daniel, for these words are hidden and sealed (‫ַח ֻת ִמים‬ ֲ ‫)ס ֻת ִמים ו‬ ְ until the time of the end” (v. 9). As Ginsberg perceptively noted, “the words ‘hidden and sealed’, borrowed from v. 4, where they mean just that, have acquired (in 12:9) the figurative sense of ‘obscure and mysterious’.”3 Ginsberg’s acute exegetical insight can now be corroborated in light of a Mesopotamian scribal practice, where the terms kakku sakku (the first, derived from the Akk. verb kan§ku, ‘to seal’,4 and the second, from sak§ku, ‘to be clogged, stopped up [said of the ears]’5) occasionally appear together in a technical usage referring to a category of literary compositions or individual references that are “sealed (= hidden) and obscure.” The textual documentation, though sparse, is as follows: 1) […]. kakku sakku àû libittu àû, “It is hidden and obscure. It is a brick.”6 2) mulãu u muà§lu àa ina q§t¿àu kakku sakku àû muààulu àa muladda, “The comb and the mirror that are in her [the goddess Aàratu’s] hands—it is obtuse and obscure—is a representation of the Corpse Star.”7 3) ÉÊt§ku miÉilti 8 abnÊ àa l§m abåbi 9 àa kakkå sakkå ballå, “I [Ashurba3

H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York, 1948), 31. CAD, K, 136–42. 5 CAD, S, 68. 6 See A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford, 1986), 68–69:5 (with commentary on p. 70); CAD, K, 153; S, 78. 7 Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 61:11 (with commentary on p. 62); CAD, K, 153; M/ II, 257; S, 78. The text was published by J. Epping and J. N. Strassmaier, “Neue babylonische Planeten-Tafeln,” ZA 6 (1891), 242:11–12. See also M. Falkner, “Die Relief des assyrische Könige,” AfO 16 (1952–53), 28. 8 For the reading miÉilti (for the logogram gù.sum) in this NA text, as opposed to miÉiàti (CAD, B, 41; K, 137) or miÉißti (CAD, S, 78), see W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-›asÊs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford, 1969), 26, where many occurrences of the phrase l§m abåbi, “before the flood,” are quoted and discussed (pp. 25–27). For the phonetic change miÉißtu > miÉiàtu > miÉiltu as an example of the general phonetic shift (partial assimilation) ßt > àt > lt, see M. Held, “mÉß/*mÉà in Ugaritic and Other Semitic Languages,” JAOS 79 (1959), 173. 9 The Akkadian expression, l§m abåbi, appears as a calque in Hebrew in Ps 29: 10: “The Lord sat enthroned from before the Flood (‫)למבול‬. The Lord sits enthroned, King forever.” See D. T. Tsumura, “ ‘The Deluge’ (mabbûl) in Psalm 29:10,” UF 20 (1988), 351–355; C. Cohen, “‫( ה' למבול ישב‬Ps 29:10)—A New Interpretation,” Leàonénu 53 (1989), 193–201 [Hebrew]; idem, “The ‘Held Method’ for Comparative Semitic Philology,” JANES 19 (1989), 18–20; W. W. Hallo, “The Limits of Skepticism,” JAOS 110 (1990), 195 and n. 97. 4

daniel 12:9: a technical mesopotamian scribal term

321

nipal, king of Assyria] have examined the inscriptions on stone (dating) from before the Flood that were sealed, obscure, and confused.”10 4) 1 3 kakkå sakkå, “One set of three (writing tablets) of the sealed, obtuse (compositions).”11 Parpola, who first commented on these texts, assumed that since the last-cited reference occurred in the line before bulã¿, ‘medical recipes’ (l. 17´),12 it “possibly refers to a medical or exorcistic compendium,” but he acknowledged that its appearance in “other passages suggests a different interpretation.”13 One should note, moreover, that in line 4´ of this same text there is a reference to 3 kamm§ni, ‘three k. texts’,14 which “could be a general term for ‘esoteric compositions’.”15 Thus, here, too, kakku sakku may have a similar meaning. Lambert, in his response to Parpola, did not accept the latter’s interpretation of the term as referring to medicinal plants, although he did agree that it was a “descriptive title of a kind of text.”16 This descriptive scribal terminus technicus can now be shown to be present in Dan 12:9 as well, where Heb. ‫ַח ֻת ִמים‬ ֲ ‫ ְס ֻת ִמים ו‬are none other than the semantic equivalent of the very same Akkadian literary expression, kakku sakku: kakku = ‫ח ֻת ִמים‬, ֲ ‘sealed up’, and sakku = ‫ס ֻת ִמים‬, ְ ‘obscure’, which together connote a cryptic esoteric text that pertains to the mysterious incomprehensible vision whose interpretations would be revealed only at the end of days.17 10

M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7/2 (Leipzig, 1916), 256:18. See also T. Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals vervollständigt und neu bearbeitet, II (Leipzig, 1933), 84 n. 3; CAD, B, 41; K, 137; S, 78. 11 See S. Parpola, “Assyrian Library Records,” JNES 42 (1983), 12:16´ (with commentary on p. 22); CAD, S, 78. 12 CAD, B, 312. 13 Parpola, “Assyrian Library Records,” 22. 14 Ibid., 12:4´ (with commentary on p. 22). 15 See CAD, K, 125–26, “tablet, literary composition,” for references. 16 W. G. Lambert, “A Late Babylonian Copy of an Expository Text,” JNES 48 (1989), 220–221. 17 For additional Mesopotamian influences on Daniel, see S. M. Paul, “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, I, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, SVT 83 (Leiden, 2001), 55–68 [285–297].

322


hebrew (‫יר)ים‬ ִ ‫ ִצ‬and its interdialectal equivalents

HEBREW

323

(‫יר)ים‬ ִ ‫ ִצ‬AND ITS INTERDIALECTAL EQUIVALENTS*

Heb. ‫ ִציר‬is a polysemous lexeme comprised of four different substantives, not all the cognates and meanings of which have been sufficiently explicated. 1. “Pivot of a Door” This hapax legomenon1 appears in Prov 26:14, “The door turns on its hinge (‫ירהּ‬ ָ ‫)צ‬ ִ and the sluggard on his bed,” i.e., as the turning door revolves perpetually on its hinge, so does the lazy man turn over again and again on his bed without getting out of it. For a similar description, cf. Prov 6:9, “How long will you lie abed, lazybones, when will you wake2 from your sleep” (cf. also Prov 24:33). The word ofttimes appears in Targumic Aramaic, ‫ירא‬ ָ ‫צ‬/‫א‬ ִ ‫יר ָתּ‬ ְ ‫צ‬, ִ and in Rabbinic Hebrew, ‫ציר‬, ִ 3 and is the etymological and semantic cognate of Syr. ‫ַר ָתּא‬ ְ ‫צי‬, ָ Arab. ß§’irat/sijj§rat, and Akk. ßerru. For the last, note the statement by Sennacherib, king of Assyria: “I brought back with me a costly stone from Gaàur (quarried) in faraway mountains and set it up under the pivots (ßerrÊ) of the door leaves of my palace gates.”4

* To my dear friend, ‫יעקב‬, apkallu aàaridu eràu mudû. 1 It was overlooked by F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew, SBLDS 24 (Chico, 1984). 2 Heb. ‫תּקוּם‬ ָ is usually emended to ‫תּ ִקיץ‬, ָ based on LXX εγερδη/ση/, and comparing Prov 6:22, where ‫יצוֹת‬ ָ ‫ַה ִק‬ ֲ ‫ ו‬is contrasted to ‫בּ ָשׁ ְכ ְבָּך‬. ְ For the expression, ‫)י(קץ‬ ַ ִ‫וַיּ‬ ‫מ ְשּׁנָתוֹ‬, ִ see Gen 28:16; Judg 16:14, 20. Cf. also Jer 31:26; 51:39, 57; Job 14:12. Note, moreover, that in the last verse we find the verbal parallelism ‫ולא יקום || לא‬ ‫יקיצו || ולא ֵיעֹרוּ‬, indicating that any one of these three verbs would be appropriate in such a context. 3 See M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York, 1971), 1280; and M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 464. Cf. A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923), 30:10–11, also cited by C. H. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, SBLDS 37 (Missoula, MT, 1979), 140 n. 79. 4 D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago, 1924), 127 I 13: 3–6. For other references, see CAD, &, 137; AHw, 1093; and A. Salonen, Die Türen des alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1961), 66–67.

324


ִ ‫( ִצ‬only in the plural)—“Birth Pangs” 2. ‫ירים‬ Cf. 1 Sam 4:19, “She was seized by labor pains (‫יר ָה‬ ֶ ‫)צ‬, ִ and she crouched down and gave birth”; Isa 13:8, “And overcome by terror, they shall be seized by pangs (‫ירים‬ ִ ‫)צ‬ ִ and throes and writhe like a woman in travail”; Isa 21:3, “Therefore my loins writhe with trembling. I am gripped by pangs (‫ירים‬ ִ ‫)צ‬ ִ like a woman in travail (‫יוֹל ָדה‬ ֵ ‫ירי‬ ֵ ‫)כּ ִצ‬.” ְ These last two verses exemplify the classic literary convention of the physiological reaction to alarming news, documented in Biblical, Ugaritic, and Mesopotamian literature.5 Compare also Dan 10:16, “My lord, ַ ‫)צ‬ ִ because of the vision (‫)מ ְראָה‬ ַ 6 I have been seized with pangs (‫ירי‬ and cannot summon strength.”7 3. “Envoy” Heb. ‫ ִציר‬with this meaning is a loanword from Akk. ßÊru, which is documented from the eighth century B.C.E. on in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian records, usually referring to foreign envoys bearing tribute, but also to those who fulfill ambassadorial functions.8 Its first appearance is found on a banquet stele of Aààurnaßirpal II:9 5000 ßÊr§ni àapr§te10 àa m§t SuÉi, “5000 messenger-envoys from the land of SuÉu.”

5

See D. R. Hillers, “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News,” ZAW 77 (1965), 86–89, for Biblical and Ugaritic references; and S. M. Paul, “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, I, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden, 2001), 59-62 [289–291], for Mesopotamian sources. 6 Similarly, the convulsive reaction of the prophet in Isa 21:3 is due to a ‫חזוּת‬ ָ ‫ק ָשׁה‬, ָ “a grim vision” (v. 2). 7 For its employment in Rabbinic Hebrew, see Jastrow, Dictionary, 1280. 8 See CAD, &, 213; J. N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Rome, 1974), 123–125. See also P. Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983), 730 n. 65; H. Tadmor, “Was the Biblical s§rîs a Eunuch?” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1995) 323–324 n. 7. See D. Elgavish, The Diplomatic Service in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Sources (Jerusalem, 1998), 36–38 (Hebrew); P. V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN, 2000), 132–133. 9 D. J. Wiseman, “A New Stele of Aààur-Naßir-Pal II,” Iraq 14 (1953), 44:143. Cf. Elgavish, Diplomatic Service, 36; Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords, 132. 10 For the Hebrew interdialectal equivalent, ‫מלאכים‬, of Akk. àapr§te, the plural of àapru, “messenger,” derived from the root àap§ru, “send,” see the citations from Isa 18:2; 57:9; Prov 13:17 in this article.


325

There are five references to this technical term in Biblical sources: In Isa 18:2 (as well as Prov 13:17) it appears parallel to its equivalent Heb. term, ‫מלאכים‬/‫מלאך‬,11 which, in turn, is derived from the Ugar. verb, l’k, “send,” hence mlak (see, e.g., KTU 2 1.14, III:20, 33, mlakm, “two messengers”). In the Isaiah verse, the ‫ מלאכים‬are described as being ‫ק ִלּים‬, ַ “swift.” Compare its etymological and semantic interdialectal equivalent, qallu, “swift,” as it, too, applies to messengers.12 Similar expressions are Akk. naàpari13 Éanãu, “swift envoy (of the great gods)”14; and all§ku Éanãu, “swift messenger.”15 The other occurrences of Heb. ‫ ִציר‬are in Isa 57:9; Jer 49:14; Obad 1:1 (all three with the verb ‫של"ח‬, “send”); and Prov 25:13 (which, like Prov 13:17, mentions a “faithful/trustworthy messenger,” Heb. ‫אמוּנִ ים‬/‫ן‬ ֱ ‫ֶא ָמ‬ ֱ ‫)ציר נ‬. ִ One other Biblical reference, Isa 63:8b–9, can be reconstructed with the aid of the LXX, which offers a different verse division and presupposes a different vocalization from that of the MT: “He was their deliverer in all their troubles. No [ketib: ‫ ]לא‬angel [‫ ]מלאך‬or ִ rather than MT: ‫]צר‬, ָ His own Presence messenger16 [vocalize ‫צר‬, delivered them.”17

11

For the same parallel pair in Isa 57:9, see below. For references, see CAD, Q, 62. For Rabbinic Hebrew references to ‫ציר‬, ִ see Jastrow, Dictionary, 1281. 13 Akk. naàparu, too, is derived from the verb, àap§ru, “send.” For other references, see CAD, N/II, 77. 14 S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1911), 251 i:8. 15 M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, VAB 7 (Leipzig, 1916), 8 i:62. For additional references to Akk. all§ku, derived from al§ku, “go,” see CAD, A/I, 353. 16 Gr. πρε/σβυς. Once again, Heb. ‫מ ְלאְַך‬ ַ is coupled with ‫ציר‬. ִ 17 Cf. BHS. This is none other than a polemic which the prophet is waging against the belief, reflected in certain Biblical traditions, that it was an angel, and not God Himself, who was responsible for leading the Israelites in their trek through the desert on their way to the promised land. See Exod 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:44; Num 20:16. On the other hand, for God’s Presence (‫)פּנִ ים‬ ָ leading them, see Exod 33: 14–15; Deut 4:37. This polemic is also found in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bo’, 7 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, 23); cf. y. Sanh. 2.1.20a; y. Hor. 3.1.47a. 12

326

the bible and the ancient near east 4. “Idol”

This hapax legomenon18 is mentioned in Isa 45:16 as part of his vitriolic and satirical polemic against ‫ירים‬ ִ ‫ח ָר ֵשׁי ִצ‬, ָ “those who fabricate idols.”19 The substantive is derived from Akk. ußurtu (ßurtu),20 which refers to the form and shape of cult statues.21 The prophet’s use of this word actually creates a deft and ironic double entendre with its homonym ‫ירים‬ ִ ‫צ‬, ִ listed above also in the plural, for all that the fashioners of idols are actually accomplishing is merely the fabrication of pains and pangs.22 The same Akkadian word is also the source for Rabbinic Heb. ‫צוּרה‬ ָ and Aram. ‫צוּרא‬, ָ which likewise refer to the shapes of idols.23 Heb. ‫צוּרה‬ ָ is also found in Ezek 43:11 (four times), referring to the “plan of the Temple” and its “layout” (Heb. ‫)תּכוּנָה‬. ְ The first and last occurrences in that verse are in the singular: ‫צוּרתוֹ‬/‫ת‬ ָ ִ‫צוּרת ַה ַבּי‬, ַ whereas the middle two are written in the singular, ‫צוּרתוֹ‬, ָ but the qere is in the plural: ‫צוּר ָֹתיו‬. These, too, are reflexes of Akk. ußurtu, plural ußur§tu, which also refer to the plan(s)/pattern(s) of temples.24 Its interdialectal

18 This word was overlooked by both Greenspahn (Hapax Legomena) and Mankowski (Akkadian Loanwords), nor is it listed in Cohen (Biblical Hapax Legomena), since the root involved is present elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew (see in the text above). 19 For Heb. ‫ חרשׁ‬in connection with the making of idols, see Isa 40:19, 20; 41: 7; 44:11, 12, 13. 20 AHw, 1440. 21 See S. Cohen and V. A. Hurowitz, “‫( חקות העמים הבל הוא‬Jer 10:3) in Light of Akkadian Parßu and ZaqÊqu Referring to Cult Statues,” JQR 89 (1999), 280 n. 11. It is interesting to note that this is the way the word was interpreted already by Rashi, Joseph Karo, Eliezer of Beaugency, Isaiah of Trani, and Joseph Kaspi. See M. Cohen (ed.), Miqra’ot Gedolot Haketer (Ramat Gan, 1996), 298–299; S. D. Luzzatto, Isaiah (Padua, 1867) 499. 22 This is the way the word was interpreted by David Kimchi (Cohen, Miqra’ot Gedolot Haketer [Ramat Gan, 1996], 298); Judah ibn Bal‘am (M. Goshen-Gottstein [ed.], R. Judah ibn Bal‘am’s Commentary to Isaiah [Ramat Gan, 1992], 190); Yonah ibn GanaÈ (Sefer Ha-Shorashim [Jerusalem, 1966], 429). Luzzatto (Isaiah) already surmised that there was a double entendre here. 23 See m. Abod. Zar. 3:3, “‫צורת חמה צורת לבנה וצורת דרקון‬,” “the form of the sun, the form of the moon, and the form of the dragon,” and the ensuing Talmudic discussion in b. Abod. Zar. 42b. Cf., e.g., Tg. Onq. Exod. 26:1, 31; 36:8, ‫רוּבין‬ ִ ‫צוּרת ְכּ‬ ַ (Heb. ‫ֻבים‬ ִ ‫;)כּר‬ ְ Tg. Jon. Exod 26:31, ‫רוּבין‬ ִ ‫צוּרין ְכּ‬ ִ (Heb. ‫ֻבים‬ ִ ‫;)כּר‬ ְ Tg. Onq. Deut 4:16, ‫צוּרא‬ ָ (Heb. ‫;)ס ֶמל‬ ָ Tg. Jon. Exod 20:4, ‫צוּרה‬ ָ ְ‫( ְצ ַלם ו‬Heb. ‫)צלם וצורא‬. ‫ ֶפּ ֶסל‬is also found in Tg. Neof. as the Aramaic translation of Heb. ‫ ֶפּ ֶסל‬in Deut 4:16, 23, 25 (A. Diez-Macho [ed.], Neophyti 1, V: Deuteronomio [Madrid, 1978]). A bi-form of this same word, ‫ציוּר‬, ִ is found in Tg. Jon. Exod 26:1. 24 Cf. CAD, B, 138, baàimu ußur§t eàr¿ti, “He who designs the plans for sanctuar-


327

Hebrew semantic equivalent is ‫ ַתּ ְבנִ ית‬25, which appears in Exod 25: 9, 40 in connection with the ‫;מ ְשׁ ַכּן‬ ִ in 1 Chron 28:11 in reference to the ‫;אוּלם‬ ָ in Ps 144:12, ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫;ה‬ ֵ in Exod 25:9, ‫;כּ ִלים‬ ֵ in Josh 22:28, ‫ִמ ְז ַבּח‬ '‫ ;ה‬etc. Compare also Isa 44:13, ‫תּ ְבנִ ית ִאישׁ‬, ַ referring to the anthropomorphic shape of the idols. For the meaning “form,” referring to a bodily form, see the difficult verse in Ps. 49:15, where the ketib is ‫ צירם‬and the qere is ‫צוּרם‬. ָ A similar derogatory double entendre based on homonyms is the hapax ‫ָע ְצ ִבּי‬ (‫ )*ע ֶֹצב‬in Isa 48:5, referring to idols, along with ‫ ִפּ ְס ִלי‬and ‫( נִ ְס ִכּי‬cf. the plural, ‫ֲצ ִבּים‬ ַ ‫ע‬, a common term for divine effigies [see, e.g., Hos 4: 17], derived from the root ‫עצ"ב‬, “to shape” [see Job 10:8, parallel to ‫)]עש"י‬, which alludes as well to ‫( ע ֶֹצב‬see Isa 14:3, Ps 139:24; 1 Chron 4:9), meaning “pain” (derived from the homonymic root, ‫)עצ"ב‬, and compare Gen 3:16, ‫ ֶע ֶצב‬and ‫ע ָצּבוֹן‬, ִ and Ps 16:4, ‫ע ֶצּ ֶבת‬. ַ 26 ies”; and cf. the expression ußurtam eß¿ru, “to draw up ground plans”; CAD, E, 347; and see also AHw, loc. cit. 25 Cf. also Ezek 28:12, where Heb. ‫תּ ְכנִ ית‬ ָ (‫)חוֹתם‬ ֵ is translated by LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate as though they read, ‫)חוֹתם( ַתּ ְבנִ ית‬, ֵ and by Tg. Jon. as ‫צוּר ָתא‬, ָ similar to his translation of 1 Chron 28:12, 18, 19. For further allusions to this phrase, see M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 2137–, AB 22 A (New York, 1997), 581. 26 See Kimchi, who draws this comparison in his comments to Isa 45:16 (see above, n. 22).

328


daniel 6:20: an aramaic calque

329

DANIEL 6:20: AN ARAMAIC CALQUE ON AN AKKADIAN EXPRESSION* In Chapter 6 of the book of Daniel, which pertains to the miraculous rescue of Daniel from the lions’ den, it is reported that the king, perturbingly pondering Daniel’s precarious position, spent a sleepless night (vs. 19),1 and “at the very break of dawn’s first light hurriedly arose” to see what had befallen him (vs. 20): ‫אדיִ ן ַמ ְל ָכּא ִבּ ְשׁ ַפּ ְר ָפּ ָרא‬ ַ ‫ֵבּ‬ 2 ‫וּב ִה ְת ְבּ ָה ָלה‬ ְ ‫יְ קוּם ְבּנ ְָג ָהא‬. In this verse there appear two nouns, ‫ְשׁ ַפּ ְר ָפּ ָרא‬ and ‫נ ְָג ָהא‬, which are hapax legomena in Biblical Aramaic. The first of the two, ‫( ְשׁ ַפּ ְר ָפּ ָרא‬written, according to the Masoretic text, first with a minuscule ‫ פּ‬and then with a majuscule ‫)פּ‬, is formed by a reduplication of the last two consonants of a tri-consonantal root, ‫שפר‬,3 which appears in Syriac, ‫ ַשׁ ְפ ָרה‬and ‫שׁ ְפ ָרה‬, ֻ meaning Aurora,4 and is the interdialectal etymological equivalent of Arabic ‫( ﺳ َﻔ َﺮ‬safara), “to shine,” referring to the dawn (cf. also ‫َﺳ َﻔ َﺮ‬ ْ (asfara). It appears5 in Tg. Jon. to Isa 58:8, ‫( ְב ֵכן יתגלי כשפרפרא נהורך‬Heb. ‫;)אז יִ ָבּ ַקע כשחר אורך‬ ֵ ‫ ;)עד י‬Ps 119:147, 62:1, ‫( עד יתגלי כשפרפרא נהורא‬Heb. ‫ֵצא ַכנֹּגַה ִצ ְד ָק ּהּ‬ ‫( אקדמית בשפרפרא‬Heb. ‫ ;)קדמתי בנשף‬Job 3:4, ‫( לא ִתּ ַפע עלוי שפרפרא‬Heb. ‫תּופע עליו נְ ָה ָרה‬ ַ ‫ ;)אל‬7:4, ‫( עד עידן שפרפרא‬Heb. ‫;)]שבעתי נדֻדים[ עדי נשף‬ ֵ Lam 2:19, ‫מטרתא דשפרפרא‬, and in Version 2 of that Targum, ‫בשׁרוּי‬ ֻ ‫ ;)ראש‬and also in an appendix at the end ‫( מטרת שפרפרא‬Heb. ‫אשמרות‬ of the book of Esther (10:3) in both Aramaic Targums: ‫הוא מרדכי‬ ‫בעדן צפרא‬ ִ ‫דמ ְזהר ביני כוכביא ודמי לשפרפרא דנפק‬ ַ ‫ד ֵמי לכוכב נוגהא‬, ַ “He, Mordecai is comparable to the planet Venus that shines amongst the stars and resembles the dawn that comes forth at morning time.”

* To Yeshoshua Gitay, friend and colleague 1 Compare the similar motif and wording in Esth 6:1. 2 In 4QDanb, the reading is: [‫באדין מל]כא בשפרפ[רא בנגהא ובאתבה]לה‬. According to the spacing, it is apparent that ‫ יקום‬was omitted. See E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4·XI: Psalms to Chronicles, DJD 16 (Oxford, 2000), 261–262. 3 Compare similarly, e.g., ‫אדמדם‬, Lev 13:42; 14:49; ‫שחרחֹרת‬, Song of Songs 1: 6; ‫הפכפּך‬, Prov 21:8; ‫חפרפּרת‬, Isa 2:20. See E. Kautsch and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar2 (Oxford, 1957), 234–235, 84b. 4 G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräische Handwörterbuch2 (Frankfurt am Main, 1922), 433a; C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum2 (Halle, 1928), 797a. 5 For citations, see A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, III (Leiden, 1962), ad loc. (Hebrew).

330


The second noun, ‫נגהא‬,6 which is well attested not only in Biblical Hebrew both as a verb, “to shine,” in the qal, Isa 9:1; Job 18:5; 22:28; and in the hiph‘il, 2 Sam 22:29 = Ps 18:29; Isa 13:10; and as a noun, “brightness, light of heavenly bodies,” in the singular twenty times, e.g., Amos 5:20; Isa 50:12; 60:19; 62:1; Ezek 1:13; Hab 3:11 (compare also the Deir Alla inscription, first combination, lines 6–7: ‫;)נגה‬7 and once in the plural, ‫נְ גֹהוֹת‬, Isa 59:9; but also in Rabbinic Hebrew,8 designating, in addition, the planet Venus, ‫( כוכבא נוגהא‬compare the reference above to the two Targums to the book of Esther).9 Because of the unusual combination of these two synonymous nouns in one and the same verse, commentators have assumed that the second, ‫בנגהא‬, functions as an Aramaic gloss which was inserted to clarify the rare substantive, ‫בשפרפרא‬, similar to what has been suggested for Dan 4:12, where the phrase ‫ֲשׂב ארעא‬ ַ ‫ ַבּע‬appears at the end of the same verse containing ‫בּ ִד ְתאָא די ברא‬. ְ This latter example, however, is most likely not a misplaced gloss (since there would be no reason to gloss this clearly understandable expression), but rather is an example of a textual doublet, created by the preservation of two variant synonymous readings.10 It is here suggested that in Dan 6:20 ‫ בנגהא‬is also not a gloss but rather an Aramaic calque on the Akkadian expression, ina/ana mimmû à¿ri ina nam§ri, “When the first light of dawn shone,” which occurs several times in Gilgamesh VI:88; VIII:1, 64, 90, 206; XI:48, 97, which is comprised of the Akkadian verb, nam§ru, ַ ‫)נ‬, “daybreak, “to dawn, shine brightly,”11 and the noun, à¿ru (= ‫ֹגהּ‬ 12 daylight.” Furthermore, if the reconstruction of the citation from

6 The root appears both in Syriac, ‫הא‬ ָ ‫נוג‬, ְ and in the Ugaritic epic of Kirta (KTU2 1.16.I:37): wtgh nir rbt, “the shining of the great light” (an epithet of the sun). See D. Pardee, “The Kirta Epic,” The Context of Scripture, I, ed. W. W. Hallo (Leiden, New York, and Köln, 1997), 340. 7 See B. A. Levine, “The Deir-‘Alla Plaster Inscriptions,” The Context of Scripture, II, ed. W. W. Hallo (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2000), 143. 8 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 340; idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2002), 728–729; M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York, 1950), 872–873. 9 Jastrow, Dictionary, 619. 10 For textual doublets, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, 1992), 241–243. 11 CAD, N/I, 209–218. Compare also the noun form, nam§rÊtu, “dawn,” ibid., 208. 12 CAD, ’/II, 331.

daniel 6:20: an aramaic calque

331

Gilgamesh VIII:64 is correct: ina mimmû à¿ri ina nam§ri Gi[lgameà itbÊma], “When the first light of dawn shone, Gi[lgamesh arose],” this would supply an exact cognate equivalent to our verse.13 In light of this, there is also the further possibility that the word ‫ בנגהא‬was incorrectly copied and should be vocalized as an infinitive, ‫בּנ ְָג ֵההּ‬, ְ thus creating an exact parallel to the Akkadian verb, nam§ru. This, then, would add yet another example to the multiple influences of Akkadian words and phrases upon the Aramaic of the book of Daniel.14 13 For a citation from a neo-Babylonian text, without the substantive mimmû (literally, “any”): ina à¿ri ina nam§ri, see W. G. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice,” Iraq 27 (1965), 6:26. 14 See S. M. Paul, “The Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, I, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 2001), 55–68 [285–297], with additional bibliography. After this article was submitted for publication, Dr. Sol Cohen brought to my attention further attestations of this substantive in Christian Palestinian Aramaic. See H. Duensing, Christliche-Palästinisch-Aramäische Texte und Fragmente Göttingen 1906 (Jerusalem, 1971), 115; A. Kohut, Arukh ha-Shalem2, VIII (Vienna, 1926), 139.

332


jerusalem of gold–revisited

333

JERUSALEM OF GOLD—REVISITED* In an article published over thirty-five years ago,1 I discussed the meaning of the unique Sumerian phrase uru kù·gi which appeared in line 4 of an inventory list of the trousseau of AÉatmilku, queen of Ugarit (mid-fourteenth century bce):2 1 uru kù·gi (= Akk. §l Éur§ßi) ki·lá·bi (= Akk. àuqultaàu) 2 me’at 15, “one city of gold whose weight is 215 (sheqels).”3 Though Nougayrol provisionally translated this item as a “couronne murale,” he was unable to bring any additional epigraphic evidence for the identification of this piece of jewelry. He supported his assumption, however, by referring to iconographic representations that depict such a crown on the heads of female deities and queens. I, in turn, drew documentary support from Rabbinic literature for such a mural crown worn by women, where the Hebrew interdialectal semantic and partially etymological cognate, ‫עיר של זהב‬, was well attested. Thus, in m. Kelim 11:8 it is stated: :‫כל תכשיטי נשים טמאים‬ ‫עיר של זהב‬, “All women’s ornaments are susceptible to impurity (e.g.,) a city of gold.” Compare also m. ’abb. 6:1, ‫בעיר של זהב‬...‫לא תצא אשה‬, “A woman may not go out (to the public domain on the Sabbath

* To Ami Mazar, a dear colleague. 1 S. M. Paul, “Jerusalem: A City of Gold,” IEJ 17 (1967), 259–263 (= “Jerusalem of Gold: A Song and an Ancient Crown,” BAR 3 [1977], 38–41). See H. A. Hoffner, Jr. (“The ‘City of Gold’ and the ‘City of Silver’,” IEJ 19 [1969], 178–180), who presents additional Hittite evidence for a uru.lum kù·babbar, a “silver city” mural crown, as well as data from Greek and Roman texts for the use of the term “crown” to designate walls and turrets of a city, and “turreted” as an epithet for several deities. 2 J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, III (Paris, 1955), no. 16.146 + 161, 182–186, and Pl. 51 in the companion volume of plates. 3 According to Nougayrol (Palais Royal, III, 183), the corresponding weight would be 1.935 kg. It should also be noted that in a namburbi text, as part of the elaborate ritual that was performed to rid a person of the evil forecasted by the birth of a malformed baby or animal, it is stated: “You place an aà.gur àa Èuraßi on the head of the anomaly.” The editor of this text, S. M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung (Mainz am Rhein, 1994), 338 n. 6 to line 11, suggested that in two of the copies Sum. aà.gur should possibly be read as uru, thus rendering its translation as “a city of gold” (p. 342), even though he did not know why this specific object was employed. His suggested reading has been followed and accepted by M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting (Groningen, 2000), 165–166.

334


wearing)… a city of gold.”4 That this article of jewelry was worn only by women of a high and wealthy status is shown by the following statements: b. ’abb. 59b, ‫ר' אלעזר סבר מאן דרכה למיפק בעיר של זהב? אשה‬ ‫חשובה‬, “Rabbi Elazar was of the opinion, ‘Who is accustomed to go out (wearing) a city of gold? A women of high standing’ ”; y. ’abb. 6, 1, 7d, ‫ חמתיה איתתיה דרבן גמליאל‬.‫מעשה בר"ע שעשה לאשתו עיר של זהב‬ ‫ הכין הוית עבדת לי כמה דהוות‬:‫ אמר לה‬.‫ אתת ואמרת קומי בעלה‬.‫וקניית בה‬ ‫ והוא לעי באורייתא‬,‫ ויהבת ליה‬5‫ דהוות מזבנה מקליעתא דרישא‬,‫עבדת ליה‬, “Rabbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. The wife of Rabban Gamaliel (the patriarch) saw it and became jealous of her. She came and reported this in front of her husband. He replied, ‘Have you done for me what she has done for him? She sold the very braids on her head and gave (the money) to him, so that he might be able to study Torah’.” Rabban Gamaliel’s wife was reacting to the gift that Rabbi Aqiba gave to his wife, Rachel, after he had amassed a considerable amount of wealth:6 ‫ לא נפטר )ר"ע( עד שהיו לו שולחנות של כסף וזהב ועד שעלה על מטתו‬:‫אמרו‬ :‫ אמרו לו תלמידיו‬.‫ ובעיר של זהב‬7‫ היתה אשתו יוצאה בקרדוטין‬.‫בסולמות של זהב‬ .‫ הרבה צער נצטערה עמי בתורה‬:‫ אמר להם‬.‫ ביישתנו ממה שעשית לה‬,‫רבי‬ They said that before (Rabbi Aqiba) died he owned tables of silver and gold and mounted his bed on ladders of gold. His wife used to go about (wearing) sandals of gold and a city of gold. His disciples said to him: “Master, you put us to shame for what you have done for her.” He answered them, “Much did she suffer for my sake that I might study Torah.”

The actual identification of this article of jewelry becomes apparent from the variant version of this midrash, which substitutes the reading 4 Cf. m. ‘Ed. 2:7; b. Sanh. 135a; t. ’abb. 4.6; and Midr. TanÈuma (ed. Buber, 169–170). 5 MS Leiden’s reading is ‫ ;מקליעתא דשערא‬cf. y. Soãa 9, 16, 24c: ‫מקלעיתה‬ ‫דשערה‬. 6 ’Abot R. Nat. Version A, chap. 6 (ed. Schechter, 29–30). For a scholarly treatment of this tradition, as well as others associated with Rabbi ‘Akiba in Talmudic literature, see S. Friedman, “A Good Story Deserves Retelling—The Unfolding of the Akiva Legend,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 3 (2004), 1–39. 7 The reading in Version B is ‫קורדיקוס‬. For other variant readings, see ’Abot R. Nat. (ed. Schechter, 30 and Addenda, p. 138). Cf. also L. Finkelstein, Mabo le-Massektot Abot ve-Abot d’Rabbi Nathan (New York, 1950), 135. For the correct interpretation of this word, see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãah, III: Mo‘ed (New York, 1962), 68, lines 39ff.


335

‫כתר של זהב‬, “crown of gold,” for ‫עיר של זהב‬, “city of gold.”8 That this is the correct interpretation of the phrase is further substantiated by the following passage in b. Soãa 49b: ‫מאי עטרות כלות? עיר של זהב‬, “What is meant by bridal crowns? A city of gold.”9 In sum, Rabbinic sources clearly demonstrate that ‫ עיר של זהב‬was an expensive golden crown donned by prominent women, which accords very well with the uru kù·gi found in Queen AÉatmilku’s inventory. This very same crown, moreover, bore another name in Rabbinic literature: ‫ירושלים דדהבא‬, “Jerusalem of gold,” since, according to the Rabbis, the term “city” referred to their city par excellence, Jerusalem.10 Thus, we read in b. ’abb. 59a–59b, ‫מאי עיר‬ ‫ ירושלים דדהבא כדעבד ליה רבי עקיבא‬:‫של זהב? רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן‬ ‫לדביתהו‬, “What is meant by a ‘city of gold’? Rabbah bar Bar \annah said in Rabbi YoÈanan’s name: ‘A Jerusalem of gold like (the one) Rabbi Aqiba made for his wife’.” Moreover, by giving his wife such a crown, Rabbi Aqiba actually fulfilled a promise he had made to her in his early years, as it is stated in b. Ned. 50a: ‫ אי הואי לי‬:‫אמר לה‬ ‫רמינא ליך ירושלים דדהבא‬, “He said to her, ‘If I could only afford it, I would attire you with a Jerusalem of gold’.” The reason this specific crown was called “city” is because a city was defined by its surrounding walls, along with its distinctive battlements and turrets.11 And this can be corroborated by yet another Rabbinic 8

’Abot R. Nat. Version B, chap. 12 (ed. Schechter, 30). See also Tosafot to b. ’abb. 59a, last comment. Such a crown may also be alluded to in Ps 137:6. 10 For other identifications of ‫ עיר‬as “the city,” i.e., Jerusalem, see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãah, III: Mo‘ed, 62. Compare similarly Akk. §lu, “city,” which referred to Ur and Nippur in the neo-Sumerian period, and thereafter to Aààur, Isin, Larsa, and Babylon. See W. W. Hallo, “Antediluvian Cities,” JCS 23 (1970), 60. 11 See E. Porada, “Battlements in the Military Architecture and in the Symbolism of the Ancient Near East,” Essays in the History of Architecture Presented to Rudolf Wittkover on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, I, ed. D. Fraser et al. (London, 1967), 11. Compare also E. D. van Buren (“The ßalmê in Mesopotamian Art and Religion,” Or 10 [1941], 85–86), who draws attention to the bas-reliefs at Khorsabad, where priests and temple attendants are shown “carry(ing) in one or both hands objects resembling models of buildings with towers crowned by square turrets at intervals. Professor Dr. A. Pohl, S.J., has proposed to identify these objects with the ßalmê §l§ni (‘images of cities’). It is noteworthy that in appearance the models are precisely alike, a wall, presumably forming a square, surmounted by four towers; therefore a model never portrayed the aspect of any particular city, but was a generic conception of a city. Possibly every model was inscribed with the name of the city it represented symbolically, thus theoretically differentiating the images” (Fig. 5). Cf. V. Place, Ninive et l’Assyrie, III (Paris, 1867), Pl. 48, Fig. 1; G. Loud, Khorsabad, I: The Excavations in the Palace and at a City Gate (Chicago, 1936), Figs. 34, 35, 43, 55; P. Abenda, The Palace of Sargon, 9

336


source, where the Jerusalem of gold crown is described by the rabbis of Caesarea as ‫( פרושטוקטקלין‬y. ’abb. 6, 1, 7d). In the Arukh,12 however, there is a variant reading: ‫פרוסטוקטולין‬, which Lieberman correctly emended to ‫כרוסוקסטולין‬, i.e., χρυσοκαστε/λλιον, “turret of gold,”13 which serves as an accurate description of this diadem, and which can be further supported by iconographic evidence. Such a distinctive turreted/battlemented crown is found, for the first time, on the heads of Hittite female deities on the rock sanctuary of Yazilikaya (1250–1200 bce), some 1.5 miles northeast of Hattusha, built by King TudÈaliya IV (Fig. 1).14 Compare also the crown on the head of an Elamite queen on a relief from the neo-Elamite period (ninth–seventh centuries bce) (Fig. 2),15 and the crown worn by two prominent Assyrian women: Naqia, the mother of Esarhaddon (Fig. 3),16 and Aààuràarrat, the wife of Aààurbanipal (Fig. 4)17—both from the seventh century.18 King of Assyria (Paris, 1986), Pls. 24, 29–33, Figs. 29, 79. 12 An eleventh-century Talmudic dictionary compiled by Rabbi Nathan ben Rabbi YeÈiel of Rome, Sefer HaArukh (Berlin, 1927), 131–132. 13 S. Lieberman (Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto I/1 [Jerusalem, 1934], 102) first emended the corrupt Greek to κρυσοστε/fανος, “a crown of gold.” For his subsequent reading, see idem, Tosefta Ki-Fshuãah, VIII: Nashim (New York, 1973), 767. This reading is preferable to the one suggested by S. Abramson (“Divrey \achamim ve-\idotam,” Leàonénu 25 [1955] 75–76), who suggested the reading ‫טריסטוקולין‬, Gr. trei=j tò κο/λλιον, i.e., a crown of “three tiers welded together.” This misinterpretation was followed by E. E. Urbach, “Heavenly and Earthly Jerusalem,” Jerusalem through the Ages, ed. J. Aviram (Jerusalem, 1968) 166–167 (Hebrew). Lieberman also called attention in his later work to the comment of the thirteenth-century Rabbi, Riaz (= Rabbi Isaiah ben Elijah of Trani, known as Riaz the Younger), who, in his book, Me‘at Devash (ed. D. Sassoon [Oxford, 1928], 24), stated: ‫שלא לעטר את הכלות בעטרות‬ ‫ שהן דומות לחומות העיר‬,‫של זהב‬, “not to crown the brides with diadems of gold [see below], which resemble the city walls.” 14 K. Bittel, Die Felsbilder von Yazilikaya (Bamberg, 1934), Pl. 12; K. Bittel, R. Naumann, and H. Otto, Yazilikaya: Architektur, Felsbilder, Inschriften und Kleinfunden, WVDOG 61 (Osnabreuch, 1941), 116–118, Fig. 46; E. Akurgal, Späthethitische Bildkunst (Ankara, 1949), 10–12; idem, The Art of the Hittites (London, 1962), 111–112, Fig. 19 and Pls. 76–77. 15 E. Porada, Ancient Iran: The Art of Pre-Islamic Times (London, 1965), 66–67, Fig. 42; 234 n. 46. 16 A. Parrot, The Arts of Assyria (New York, 1961), 118, Fig. 133. 17 H. Frankfort, Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Harmondsworth, 1954), Pl. 114, the “garden scene at Küyunjik”; W. Andrae, Die Stelenreihe in Assur, WVDOG 24 (Leipzig, 1913), 7, Fig. 3 and Pl. X, Stèle 1. For another depiction of a mural crown worn by Queen Aààuràarrat (Fig. 6). See also T. Kwasman and S. Parpola (eds.), Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon, SAA 6 (Helsinki, 1991), 70, Fig. 16, taken from R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, “The Site of the Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, excavated in 1929–30 on behalf


337

It is interesting to note that such a crown is also mentioned in the Tg. Yer., in its interpretation of Exod 32:25: ‫כלילא דדהבא‬, “diadem of gold”19 (so, too, Tg. Neof.: ‫)כלילא דדהבא‬,20 and in the plural in Num 31:50: ‫קורייא דדהבא‬, “cities of gold”21 (Tg. Neof.: ‫קריה כלילייה‬ ‫)דדהבה‬.22 The missing epigraphical link between the occurrence of this phrase in the Ugaritic text and its reappearance in Talmudic and Targumic sources can now be supplied from an Aramaic tablet from neo-Assyrian times.23 In a legal document describing the sale of a slave, it is stated that if anyone contests the case, he shall have to give a ‫קרית‬ ‫זהב‬, a “city of gold,” to the goddess Nikkal, who was the wife of the moon god, Sahar (= Sin)—a fitting gift to the goddess, since, as shown above, the crown was worn by both goddesses and queens alike.24 of the British Museum,” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 18 (1931), 79–112, Pl. XXXI (Fig. 7). See now T. Ornan, “The Queen in Public: Royal Women in NeoAssyrian Art,” Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East = Proceedings of the XLVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. S. Parpola and R. H. Whiting, The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Institute for Asian and African Studies (Helsinki, 2002), 474–477. 18 For a comprehensive collection and typology of the iconographic evidence for such crowns from the thirteenth century bce to the thirteenth century ce, see S. Pougatsch (“Mural Crowns from Antiquity to the Middle Ages” [Masters thesis; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1974], who documents these crowns from Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Iran, Greece (special attention to Tyche), Rome, and in Byzantine and medieval art (see, e.g., Fig. 8). See also P. Calmeyer, “Mauerkrone,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7, ed. E. Ebeling (Berlin and New York, 1987–90), 595–596. 19 M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (= Targum Sheni la-Torah) (Berlin, 1899), 44. 20 A. Díez Macho, Neophyti I 2: Exodo (Madrid, 1970), 215. 21 Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum, 59. 22 Díez Macho, Neophyti I 4: Números (Madrid, 1974), 295. Heb. and Aram. ‫א‬/‫כליל‬, “crown, garland,” are the cognate equivalents of Akk. kilÊlu, “circlet, headband, battlements,” and kulålu, “part of a headdress (turban), cornice (as an architectural term)” (CAD, K, 358, 527–528). 23 A. Lemaire, Nouvelles Tablettes Araméennes (Geneva, 2001), 33–41; see especially pp. 36–37. The term appears on line 7 of the document. I would like to personally thank A. Lemaire for bringing this text to my attention. Another possible occurrence may be found in the Adad-Guppi stele from the time of Nabonidus, the last king of the neo-Babylonian period (mid-sixth century bce). In the description of the items that he placed in her grave, there is mentioned an a-lu kù·si 22 , which H. Schaudig (Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon u Kyroà des Grossen [Münster, 2001], 508, col. III: 29´, exemplar 2) suggests to translate “Mauerkrone aus Gold” (n. 742). 24 It should be noted that the only Jewish queen who is represented as wearing a “city of gold” is Esther, as she is portrayed on the western wall, center register, of the late second century ce synagogue at Dura Europos in Syria (Fig. 9). See E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period 9, Bollingen Series 37 (New York, 1964), 179.

338


Fig. 1. Depiction of the heads of Hittite female deities at the rock sanctuary of Yazilikaya (after K. Bittel, Die Felsbilder von Yazilikaya [Bamberg, 1934], Pl. 12).

Fig. 2. Crown on the head of an Elamite queen on a relief from the Neo-Elamite period (9th–7th centuries) (after E. Porada, Ancient Iran: The Art of Pre-Islamic Times [London, 1965], 67, Fig. 42).


339

Fig. 3. Crown worn by Naqia, mother of Esarhaddon, 7th century (after A. Parrot, The Arts of Assyria [New York, 1961], 118, Fig. 133).

Fig. 4. Crown worn by Aààuràarrat, wife of Aààurbanipal, 7th century (after H. Frankfort, Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient [Harmondsworth, 1954], Pl. 114, the “garden scene at Küyunjik”).

340


Fig. 5. Bas-relief from Khorsabad, depicting a priest or temple attendant carrying in both hands objects resembling models of buildings with towers crowned by square turrets (after E. D. van Buren, “The ßalmê in Mesopotamian Art and Religion,” Or 10 [1941], 85–86).

t

Fig. 7. Depiction of a mural crown worn by Queen Aààuràarrat (after T. Kwasman and S. Parpola eds., Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon, SAA 6 [Helsinki, 1991], 70, Fig. 16, taken from R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, “The Site of the Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, excavated in 1929–30 on behalf of the British Museum,” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 18 [1931], 79–112, Pl. XXXI).


341

Fig. 6. Depiction of a mural crown worn by Queen Aààuràarrat (after W. Andrae, Die Stelenreihen in Assur, WVDOG 24 (Leipzig, 1913), 7, Abb. 3, Stele 15756/8.

342


Fig. 8. Greek goddess adorned with a mural crown (after S. Pougatsch, “Mural Crowns from Antiquity to the Middle Ages” [Masters thesis; unpublished, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1974]), II, Fig. 46.

Fig. 9. Queen Esther wearing a “city of gold,” as portrayed on the western wall, center register, of the late 2nd-century CE synagogue at Dura Europos, Syria (after E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, XI, Bollingen Series 37 [New York, 1964], Pl. VI).

two cosmographical terms in amos 9:6

343

TWO COSMOGRAPHICAL TERMS IN AMOS 9:6* The doxological hymn in Amos 9:5–6, the third of three laudatory proclamations glorifying God (see also 4:13; 5:8–9), exalts His mighty deeds by depicting a cosmic upheaval of the sea and dry land, its concomitant results upon man (v. 5), and the deity’s construction work in heaven (v. 6). In v. 6: ‫ֻדּתוֹ על הארץ‬ ָ ‫ַאג‬ ֲ ‫ מעלותיו( ו‬:‫הבונה בשמים מעלותו )קרי‬ ‫יְ ָס ָדהּ‬,1 there are two technical terms whose meanings are problematic (‫ֻדּתוֹ‬ ָ ‫ ֲאג‬,‫מעלותיו‬/‫)מעלותו‬.2 Some commentators interpret the first in accordance with the established meaning of ‫מעלות‬/‫מעלה‬, “steps” (see, e.g., Exod 20:26; 1 Kings 10:9; 2 Kings 20:9; Ezek 40:22, to which may be compared its Akkadian interdialectal etymological and semantic equivalent, m¿lû, “stairs or rungs on a ladder),”3 on which the deity ascends from one level of heaven to the next. Others suggest that the first letter of this word, ‫מ‬, is none other than a dittography of the last letter of the previous word, ‫)שמי(ם‬, and one should read, ‫עליותיו‬/‫עליתו‬, “upper chamber(s)” (cf., e.g., Judg 3:23; 1 Kings 17:19; 2 Kings 4:11).4 Both explanations are predicated upon the same basic premise, i.e., that there is more than one level in heaven, a concept which can be substantiated by other references relating to the plurality of heavens, e.g., ‫( שמי השמים‬Deut 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; Ps 148: 4; Neh 9:6; 2 Chron 2:5; 6:8). In the passages from Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, and 2 Chron, the expression is ‫ ;)ה(שמים ושמי השמים‬cf. also Ps 68:34, ‫בּ ְשׁ ֵמי ְשׁ ֵמי ֶק ֶדם‬. ִ Such a notion can be corroborated by Mesopotamian cosmographic texts which explicitly mention two5 or three heavens, one above the

* To Sara, dear friend and colleague for over thirty years. 1 For the ketib in the singular, ‫מעלותו‬, compare LXX: a)na&basin a)utou, and the Vulgate: ascensionem suam. It is also attested in the fragment of Amos found in Wadi Murabba‘at, Mur XIII [88], 8:16. See P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât, DJD 2 (Oxford, 1961), 183. For the qere in the plural, ‫מעלותיו‬, see the Peshitta: ‫מסקנוהי‬. 2 For the different interpretations of these two terms, see S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1991), 280. 3 CAD, M/II, 14. 4 In one passage, 2 Chron 9:4, the term refers to “stairs”: ‫ועליתו אשר שיעלה בית‬ '‫ה‬, “And the stairs by which he went up to the house of the Lord.” 5 W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, IN, 1998), 244.

344


other, along with an additional reference to seven heavens.6 This division of the heaven into three firmaments7—the topmost, middle, and lower—parallels the similar tripartite stratification of the earth: the upper earth, directly beneath the heavens; the middle earth, also called Apsu; and the lowest earth, the bottom level of the universe, i.e., the underworld.8 For examples of this trifold division of the heavens, compare the following: 1) En. El. IV:145–146.9 The highest heaven, called àamû / àam§må, the portion of Anu;10 the middle heaven: eàharra, the domain of Enlil;11 and the lower firmament, in which the starts are found.12 2) KAR 307:30–33.13 The three heavens which serve as the dwelling places of the gods (as cited above) are also identified by types of stones: “The Upper Heaven (àamû elûti) (is made) of lulud§nitu14-stone [a multicolored stone]. It belongs to Anu…. The Middle Heaven (àamû qablûti) is of saggilmud15-stone [a blue stone]. It belongs to the Igigi gods. The god Bel sat on the high dias inside, in the lapis lazuli16 sanctuary…. The Lower Heaven (àamû àaplûti) is of aàpû17-stone [jasper]. It belongs to the stars.” 3) AO 8196 IV:20–22: “The Upper Heaven (àamû elûti) is of lulud§nitustone. It belongs to Anu. The Middle Heaven is of saggilmud-stone. It belongs to the Igigi gods. The Lower Heaven is of aàpû-stone. It belongs to the stars.”18

6

Ibid., 208–220. Ibid., 3–4, 8–9, 125–127, 243–244. For three heavens, see also 2 Cor. 12:2. 8 Ibid., 16–18. 9 Ibid., 113–114. 10 Ibid., 244–246, and the multiple references on p. 374. 11 Ibid., 3–4, 8–9, 13–15, 125, 147, 243, 246–247, 258. 12 Ibid., 3–4, 8–9, 13–15, 125, 147, 243, 258. 13 E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (= KAR), WVDOG 34/II (Leipzig, 1920–23), 253; Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 3–4. See also A. L. Oppenheim, “Man and Nature in Mesopotamian Civilization,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. C. C. Gillispie (New York, 1978), 640–641 and 657 nn. 80–83. 14 CAD, L, 243. 15 CAD, S, 23–24. 16 Compare the similar description in Exod 24:10, “And they (Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and the seventy elders of Israel) saw the God of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of lapis lazuli, like the very sky for purity.” Compare also Ezek 1:26. 17 CAD, I/J, 328. 18 Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 3. 7


345

4) The second tablet of the BÊt M¿seri series: “I have purified the three heavens (àamê àalatiàunu) for you, Lugalgirra, that of Anu, that of Enlil, and that of Ea.”19 There are, however, two other ways to possibly identify the cosmographic term ‫מעלותיו‬/‫מעלותו‬. It may be identical to the Akkadian hapax legomenon noun, m¿litu20 (derived from the verb elû, “to ascend”), which refers to a “stairway” which leads from heaven to the underworld in the royal inscription of the Babylonian King Nabopolassar, in the context of the building of the city wall of Babylon (called Imgur Enlil): m¿lit àam§mÊ simmilat ganzir,21 “A stairway of heaven, a ladder to the underworld.”22 Akk. m¿litu is synonymous in this passage with simmiltu,23 “ladder/stairway,” the latter also being documented in Mesopotamian literature as reaching into heaven.24 Compare:

19 G. Meier, “Die zweite Tafel der Serie bÊt m¿seri,” AfO 14 (1941–42), 142: 43–44. 20 This word is not listed in either CAD or AHw. Compare, however, Akk. m¿lû, “stairs or rungs in a staircase or ladder,” CAD, M/II, 14. 21 CAD, G, 43. 22 F. N. H. Al-Rawi, “Nabopolassar’s Restoration Work on the Wall IMGURENLIL at Babylon,” Iraq 47 (1985), 4:15. For a discussion of this text (but without any reference to the issue here), see P. A. Beaulieu, “Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon,” Eretz Israel 27 (Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume), ed. I. Ephal, A. Ben-Tor, and P. Machinist (Jerusalem, 2003), 1*–9*. 23 CAD, S, 273–275. Compare also bÊt simmilti, “staircase,” ibid., 275, and a lexical listing for the denominative verb, summulu, “to form a stairway,” ibid., 381. For the connection between the Hebrew hapax legomenon ‫( ֻס ָלּם‬Gen 28:12) and Akk. simmiltu, see B. Landsberger, “Lexikalisches Archiv (Nr. 50),” ZA 41 (1933), 230–231; H. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (Missoula, 1978), 34; P. V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, Harvard Semitic Series 47 (Winona Lake, IN, 2000), 114–118. 24 For the connection between the account of Jacob’s dream, in which he saw a ladder reaching up to heaven (Genesis 28) and the Tower of Babel narrative (Genesis 11), see A. R. Millard, “The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Genesis XXVIII, 12, 17),” Expository Times 78 (1966–67), 86–87; C. Coheh, “The Literary Motif of Jacob’s Ladder (Gen 28:12) according to A. ibn Ezra’s Commentary and in Light of Its Parallels in Akkadian Literature,” Shai Le-Hadassah: Studies in the Hebrew Language and in the Languages of the Jews, ed. Y. Ben-Tulilah (Beersheva, 1997), 15–26 (Hebrew); Y. Elizur, “Tower of Babel and Jacob’s Ladder,” Israel and the Bible: Geographical, Histroical, and Philosophical Studies, ed. Y. Elizur and A. Frisch (Ramat Gan, 2000), 44–48 (Hebrew); V. A. Hurowitz, “Babel in Bethel—New Light on Jacob’s Dream,” Teshûrôt LaAvishur: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Hebrew and Semitic Languages Dedicated to Professor Yitzhak Avishur on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. M. Heltzer and M. Malul (Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 2004), 185–194 (Hebrew). In the latter articles (which came to my attention only after this article was submitted for publication) there is a discussion of the Akkadian text I am referring to here.

346


1) In the Akkadian myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal from Sultantepe, it is recorded that “Namtar ascended the length of the stairway of heaven (simmilat àam§[mÊ].”25 2) An Old Babylonian hepatoscopic tablet describes the daily route of Shamash, who travels from the horizon in the east to the zenith and ascends to heaven on a ladder: “Shamash…, you ascended the ladder of (simmilat) pure lapis.”26 If this suggestion is accepted, ‫ מעלותו‬would then refer to a ladder/ stairway to heaven. There is yet another possibility to consider, that which relates the reading ‫ עליותיו‬to Akk. elâtu, “upper regions, heights,” which at times refers to the heaven or the upper parts of the highest heaven.27 Compare the following examples: 1) In the Middle Assyrian Epic of Etana, Etana flies up to the “heaven (elâtu) of Anu” on the back of an eagle.28 2) In En El. V:11, it is stated that Marduk “established in her (Tiamat’s) liver the zenith (elâti).”29 3) In a bilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian) incantation, Shamash is described as shining in “heaven” (elâtu).30 4) In the Akkadian version of the Exaltation of Ishtar, Ishtar is invited to sit on the dais of Anu: “Come up to my (Anu’s) royal dais; sit in the heights/heaven (elâtu).”31 Furthermore, there is an Akkadian expression, elât àamê,32 which denotes the highest portion of heaven, the zenith (as opposed to àapl§n àamê, the lowest region of heaven, the horizon where heaven and

25

O. R. Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets (continued) VII: The Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal,” AnSt 10 (1960), 124, II:42. For additional accounts of the ascending and descending of deities and their messengers on this ladder, see ibid., 108, I:16; 110, I:53; 118, IV:26; 122, V:13; 124, V:42; 126, VI:18. 26 I. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner (Malibu, 1983), 30: 9 (Akkadian); 37:9 (English). 27 CAD, E, 77–78. 28 J. V. Kinnier Wilson, The Legend of Etana: A New Edition (Warminster, 1985), 64, I/G:2´; 66:10´. 29 B. R. Foster, “Epic of Creation,” The Context of Scripture, I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (Leiden, New York, and Köln, 1997), 399. 30 A. Falkenstein, Vorlaufiger Bericht über die... Ausgrabungen in den Uruk-Warka, UVB 15 (Berlin, 1959), 36:5. 31 B. Hruska, “The Exaltation of Iàtar,” ArOr 37 (1969), 484:37–38. 32 CAD, E, 79; Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 233–238.


347

earth meet). Here it should be noted that Tiglath Pileser III,33 king of Assyria, and Nebuchadnezzar II34 and Neriglissar,35 kings of Babylon, pride themselves in their inscriptions that they ruled the entire world “from the base of heaven (iàid àamê)36 to the heights of heaven (elât àamê), wherever the sun rises.” Compare similarly the letter from Sultantepe ascribed to Gilgamesh, “who rules in all lands from the base of heaven (iàid àamê) to the heights of heaven (elât àamê).”37 In these texts, the “base of heaven” represents the horizon and the “heights of heaven,” the zenith—together constituting a cosmic inclusio denoting the entire universe. If, then, ‫ עליותיו‬is to be related to elâtu (both plural nouns), it would then refer to the highest part of heaven, the zenith. Many commentators relate their reading of ‫ עליותיו‬in Amos to Ps 104:3, ‫ֲליוֹתיו‬ ִ ‫ה ְמ ָק ֶרה במים ע‬, ַ where it also refers to the heavens. However, instead of the parallel verbs ‫ הבונה‬and ‫ יְ ָס ָדהּ‬in Amos, the psalmist employs another architectural term, ‫ה ְמ ָק ֶרה‬, ַ “lay beams,” a denominative verb from ‫קורה‬, “beam” (see Neh 2:8; 3:3, 6, in the context of gates; and 2 Chron 34:11, referring to houses). It may very well be that the selection of this specific verb was intended to allude to a similar deed recorded in En El. IV:138, where Marduk, after defeating Tiamat, rent her corpse in twain and “one half of her he set up and made as a cover, heaven.”38 The Akkadian verb here for “to cover,” is ßullulu39 (derived from ßillu, “shade, awning, covering”40; one should also note the nominal formation taßliltu/taßlÊlu, “beam, girder”).41 This, then, would be a polemical allusion on the part of the psalmist, who is stating that the act of covering/roofing the heavens is to be ascribed not to Marduk, but rather to the God of Israel. For a possible additional piece of evidence for this polemic,

33

H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem, 1994), 158:4; 194:4. 34 S. H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, VAB 4 (Leipzig, 1912), 120, iii:52; 140, x:13. 35 Ibid., 214, ii:37. 36 Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 234–235. For other similar designations, e.g., àupuk/àipik àamê/buråm¿, see ibid., 239–241. 37 O. Gurney, “The Sultantepe Tablets VI: A Letter of Gilgamesh,” AnSt 7 (1957), 128:4; F. Kraus, “Der Brief des Gilgameà,” AnSt 30 (1980), 109:4. 38 Foster, “Epic of Creation,” 398. 39 CAD, &, 239. 40 Ibid., 190. 41 AHw, 1337.

348


one should compare the following lines in En El. IV:139–140: “He (Marduk) stretched out (iàdud) the hide (of Tiamat), stationed guards, and ordered them not to let her waters escape,”42 with the former verse in Ps 104:2: “He stretches out the heavens like a curtain,” for this is the only place in the Bible where the heavens are referred to as ‫יריעה‬, “curtain,” and thus would be similar to the noun formation àiddu, “curtain” derived from the Akkadian verb àad§du.43 Again, this is ascribed to Yahweh and not to Marduk. In order now to explicate the second term, ‫ֻדּתוֹ‬ ָ ‫אג‬, ֲ in light of the above, it is possible that it refers to the lower part of heaven, similar to iàid àamê, “base of the heaven.” One can then connect it to its Arabic etymological cognate ‫ ﺟ‬, “foundation of a building,”44 which would then create a merism: God “built” and “established” the heavens from the “zenith” (‫)עליותיו‬45 to the “horizon” (‫)אגדתו‬. However, in view of the cosmological conception of the Mesopotamians, according to which the shape of the heavens was thought to be circular46 (and similarly the earth and sea,47 as shown by a late Babylonian mappa mundi),48 there exists yet another way to interpret this word. In Akkadian, the circular shape of heaven is called kippat àamê, “circle of the sky,”49 or kippat buråm¿, “circle of the night sky.”50 Compare the following two hymns to Shamash: “You are their (mankind’s) light in the circle of the distant heavens.” And, “[You are the direc]tor of

42 Foster, “Epic of Creation,” 398. This, of course, recalls what is written in Gen 1:6–7, which itself is another Biblical polemic against Enuma Elish. 43 For the noun, see CAD, ’/I, 22, “to draw a curtain”; and for the verb, CAD, ’/II, 407–408. There is actually a cuneiform text from the Seleucid period that refers to àiddu in connection with the sky, but the context is not entirely clear. See O. Neugebauer, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (London, 1955), 495–496. 44 T. H. Gaster, “An Ancient Hymn in the Prophecies of Amos,” Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society 19 (1935), 25. 45 I. Willi-Plein (Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des AT’s, BZAW 123 [Berlin and New York, 1971], 517 n. 80) translated this word as “zenith,” but he did not provide any evidence for it. 46 Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 256, 261, 264–265. 47 Ibid., 334. 48 Ibid., 20–30. 49 For kippatu, see CAD, K, 397–399; and for kippat àamê, see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 178, 206, 260, 264. 50 For buråmå, “firmament of heaven,” see CAD, B, 344–345. The Akkadian verb, bar§mu (CAD, B, 103) means “to be speckled.” The skies are thus called by that name since the stars appear to be speckled points on the backdrop of the dark sky. For kippat buråm¿, see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 206, 226–227, 260, 264.


349

people in the circle of heaven.”51 The Hebrew interdialectal semantic equivalent term is ‫חוג‬, “circle,” which appears in similar contexts in Isa 40:20, “It is He who is enthroned above the circle of the earth”;52 Prov 8:27, “I (= Wisdom) was there when He fixed the circle upon the face of the deep”; Job 22:14, “… as He moves about the circuit of heaven”; 26:10, “He drew a circle on the face of the waters.” It is therefore possible to suggest, especially in light of the preposition ‫על‬ (‫)ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה‬, that ‫ֻדּה‬ ָ ‫ ֲאג‬53 is an alternate term for the “circle” that is “upon the earth,” and thus denotes the dome of heaven. This, then, can be related to Arab. ‫ﺟﺪ‬, “bow, dome,”54 for which one can compare the explanation of Al-Kumissi, in his commentary, ad loc., “‫ ואגדתו‬is circular, like the circularity of the heaven.”55 51

Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 264. Heb. ‫חוג הארץ‬, is the interdialectal cognate of Akk. kippat erßeti. For the latter, see ibid., 272, 334. 53 For Heb. ‫ֻדּה‬ ָ ‫אג‬, ֲ derived from the stem ‫אג"ד‬, meaning “to bind,” see Exod 12:22; 2 Sam 2:25; Isa 58:6. Though one can possibly explain this word in Amos as an arch which is tightly bound together, it is more probable that it is actually a homonym. 54 G. R. Driver, “Two Astronomical Passages in the Old Testament,” JThS 4 (1953), 208–212. 55 D. Al-Kumissi, Pitron Shenem ‘Asar, ed. Y. D. Markon (Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 2004), 38 (Hebrew). 52

350


amos 1:3–2:3: a concatenous literary pattern

BIBLICAL STUDIES

351

352

biblical studies


353

AMOS 1:3–2:3: A CONCATENOUS LITERARY PATTERN Commentators on the book of Amos have had to come to grips with the historical, chronological, and literary problems of the first seven oracles against the nations of Aram, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah.1 Are the historical events alluded to

1

A. Commentaries: J. C. W. Dahl, Amos (Göttingen, 1795); G. Baur, Der Prophet Amos (Giessen, 1847); S. R. Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos (Cambridge, 1897); W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh, 1905); E. Sievers and H. Guthe, Amos, metrisch bearbeitet (Tübingen, 1907); E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch übersetzt und erklärt, KAT 12/1 (Leipzig, 1922); A. Weiser, Die Profetie des Amos, BZAW 53 (Giessen, 1929); J. Theis and J. Lippl, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, HS 8/3/1 (Bonn, 1937); T. H. Robinson, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, HAT 1/14 (Tübingen, 1938); N. H. Snaith, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Amos, part I (London, 1945); part II (1946); A. Neher, Amos. Contribution à l’étude du prophétisme (Paris, 1950); V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (Leiden, 1951); R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos2 (London, 1955); H. W. W. Fosbroke, Amos, IB (New York and Nashville, 1956); H. Frey, Das Buch des Ringens Gottes um seine Kirche (Stuttgart, 1958); A. Weiser and K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, ATD 24/1 (Göttingen, 1959); E. Osty, Amos-Osée traduit2, SBJ (Paris, 1960); S. Amsler, Amos, Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament IXa (Neuchâtel and Paris, 1965); H. W. Wolff, Das Dodekapropheton, II: Joel und Amos, BKAT 14/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969) (= Joel and Amos, Hermeneia [Philadelphia, 1977]); H. Werner, Amos (Göttingen, 1969); J. L. Mays, Amos, OTL (London, 1969); E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1970). See also W. Rudolph, Joel-AmosObadja-Jona, KAT XIII/2 (Gütersloh, 1971); J. A. Soggin, The Prophet Amos (London, 1987); F. L. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos, AB 24 A (New York, 1989); S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1991); M. Weiss, The Book of Amos, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1992) (Hebrew). B. Selected Studies: R. Gordis, “The Composition and Structure of Amos,” HTR 33 (1940), 239–251; E. Würthwein, “Amos-Studien,” ZAW 74 (1950), 10–52; A. S. Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos2 (Oslo, 1961); H. G. Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos (Göttingen, 1962), 56–75; W. H. Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches,” ZAW 74 (1965), 174–178; J. D. W. Watts, Studying the Book of Amos (Nashville, 1966); D. L. Christensen, “The Prosodic Structure of Amos 1–2,” HTR 67 (1974), 427–436; G. Pfeifer, “Denkformenanalyse als exegetische Methode, erläutert an Amos 1, 2–2, 16,” ZAW 88 (1976), 56–71. C. Selected Introductions: S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York, 1897); J. A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (New York, 1922); W. Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York, 1964); G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, 1968); A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1968); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1969).

354

biblical studies

here contemporaneous with the prophet Amos,2 or do they represent heinous crimes of the past, i.e., are they pre-Jeroboam II?3 Are the oracles against Tyre, Edom, and Judah original or secondary,4 and, if secondary, are they exilic or post-exilic? Were these prophecies originally independent self-contained units,5 or were they from the very beginning a single literary unit?6 The majority of scholars have so concentrated their attention on these admittedly weighty issues that an important literary problem has gone all but unnoticed (except for a few commentators)—whether the first six prophecies against the foreign nations are ordered in any recognizably logical fashion. The only one to deal with this problem specifically was Bentzen, whose thesis is that the prophecies are “modeled on a cultic pattern, resembling the ritual behind the Egyptian Execration texts,” in which the nations are enumerated in a fixed order, culminating in the mention of Egypt.7 His thesis, which has gained only a limited number of adherents—including some with serious reservations8—has been

2 M. Haran, in several studies, relates the events to the earlier years of Jeroboam’s reign: “Observations on the Historical Background of Amos 1:2–2:16,” BIES 30 (1966), 56–69 (Hebrew) (= IEJ 18 [1968], 201–212); idem, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam II,” Zion 31 (1966), 18–38 (Hebrew); idem, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” VT 17 (1967), 266–297. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton, II, 182–184 (= Joel and Amos, 148–152). 3 Cf. Y. Kaufmann, Toldot HaEmunah HaYisraelit, VI (Jerusalem, 1956), 63. 4 Almost all the commentators cited above view them as secondary. See, e.g., Wolff, Dodekapropheton, II, 170–171 (= Joel and Amos, 140–141); H. Werner, Amos, 58–59; Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 58ff. Haran and Kaufmann are two notable exceptions. For the problem of Judah, see Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” 274 and n. 2. 5 See, e.g., Sievers-Guthe, Amos, 72; S. Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition (Oslo, 1946), 57; Robinson, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 76; Würthwein, “Amos-Studien,” 57 n. 7, “the work of a redactor’s hand.” 6 Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 58; J. G. Botterweck, “Zur Authentizität des Buches Amos,” BZ 2 (1958), 178. 7 A. Bentzen, “The Ritual Background of Amos I 2–ii 16,” OTS 8 (1950), 85–99; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen, 1952), 140–141. 8 H. Ringgren, Israelitische Religion (Stuttgart, 1963), 241 (= Israelite Religion [Leiden, 1966], 263); Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos, 19–20; idem, “New Ideas in Amos,” Congress Volume: Génève, 1965, SVT 15 (Leiden, 1966), 197ff.; A. Weiser, Die Profetie, 135; G. Fohrer, “Prophetie und Magie,” ZAW 78 (1966), 40–42 (= Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, BZAW 99 [1967], 257–259); idem, Introduction to the Old Testament, 434. Cf. also Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 64; F. C. Fensham, “The Treaty between the Israelites and the Tyrians,” Congress Volume, Rome, 1968, SVT 17 (Leiden, 1969), 82. Cf. the remarks of Amsler (Amos, 170), who accepts the cultic framework of the


355

successfully refuted by both Wolff and Weiss.9 The latter has shown that (1) The constant order in the execration texts—south (Nubians), north (Asiatics), west (Libyans), and, lastly, Egypt—is not unique to these texts but is the conventional sequence in which these nations were listed in all Egyptian documents, magical or otherwise; (2) This fixed order was not due to “any inherent magical design but to the fact that it was the natural expression of the Egyptian outlook,” i.e., Egypt was south-oriented due to the fact that its whole existence was dependent upon and influenced by the course of the Nile, which flowed from the south to the north; (3) The directional order of the nations in Amos is entirely different: northeast (Aram), southwest (Philistia), northwest (Tyre), southeast (Edom, Ammon, Moab), and, finally, Judah and Israel. In the execration texts, the directions are south, north, west, and then Egypt. Fohrer, who accepted Bentzen’s thesis that the “sequence of the nations themselves is determined by the model of the Egyptian Execration texts,” but who admits that it is hardly likely that the Egyptian ritual was imitated, eliminated the Tyre and Edom passages and wound up with an orientational sequence of N, W, E, and center, which obviously does not dovetail with the order of S, N, W, and center in the execration texts.10 Kaufmann, on the other hand, proposed that the order of the nations was to be understood as an alternate listing of the enemies of Israel and Judah respectively.11 The sequence began with the Arameans, the classic enemy of Israel at that time, proceeded to the Philistines, the

oracles but points out that: (1) The feature of a particular motivation for the punishment of each nation, as found in Amos, is absent from the Egyptian texts; (2) When evil acts are enumerated in those texts, the purpose is to protect the country magically and not to condemn it; (3) The verdict of condemnation is lacking in the execration texts. In place of the magical act of breaking vases or figurines bearing the names of the enemies, the prophetic oracles substitute an explicit word which announces the personal intervention for a liturgical ceremony, but with a new purpose. Cf. also Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 64. Wolff (Dodekapropheton, II, 175–177) (= Joel and Amos, 145–148) points out four differences between the Egyptian texts and Amos. 9 See Wolff (Dodekapropheton, II, 177–178) (= Joel and Amos, 146) and M. Weiss (“The Pattern of the ‘Execration Texts’ in the Prophetic Literature,” IEJ 19 (1969), 150–157). Weiss also rejects Wolff’s points of criticism. See also his commentary listed above, n. 1. 10 See Fohrer, Die Profetie, 40. Cf. Weiss’ criticism (“Pattern of the ‘Execration Texts’ ”) of this study as well. 11 See Kaufmann, Toldot HaEmunah HaYisraelit, VI, loc. cit. Cf. Weiser, Die Profetie, 112; Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” 273.

356

biblical studies

foes of Judah, and continued with the Tyrians, the enemy of Israel, the Edomites, the enemy of Judah, the Ammonites, the enemy of Israel, and, finally, the Moabites, who attacked Edom (the supposed allies of Judah). This north-south orientation is correct, but (1) It presupposes that all the prophecies are of national significance, crimes against Israel or Judah—which is still a moot question12 and which still leaves the last prophecy concerning the conflict of Moab against Edom (and not against Judah) very difficult to reconcile;13 and (2) It is very possible (as will be mentioned below) that the Philistines in this case are described as attacking Israel and not Judah, and hence the entire alternate sequence would be thrown out of order. However, what is remarkable is the fact that not one of these scholars has discerned the systematic, coherent literary ordering of all the individual nations.14 I stress literary ordering, for attempts at a historical and geographical ordering have been made by a few commentators yielding some positive results. Thus, the coupling of the first two, Aram and Philistia, is also found in Amos 9:7b, ‫הלוא את ישראל‬ ‫העליתי מארץ מצרים ופלשתים מכפתור וארם מקיר‬, “Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arameans from Kir?” But, historically speaking, the importance of the interrelationship of these two nations is only realized once the

12 See, e.g., Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 68ff.; N. K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth (New York and London, 1964), 107 n. 24. 13 Unless, of course, one accepts Tur Sinai’s interpretation of the words ‫מלך אדום‬ (2:1) as referring to the Punic expression ‫מלך אדם‬, “a human sacrifice.” See his The Language and the Book, I (Jerusalem, 1954), 84ff. (Hebrew). Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff (Halle, 1935). 14 This problem is entirely ignored by almost all the commentators cited above. Sievers-Guthe (Amos, 72) refers in passing to the “Verwandtschaft des Inhalts,” but does not explicate. Schmidt (“Die deuteronomistische Redaktion,” 178 n. 29) posits a north-south grouping, but only after he omits Tyre and Edom as deuteronomistic redactions. Harrison (Introduction to the Old Testament, 888) links the last three nations together as blood relations to Israel (cf. Theis, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 114), but is silent regarding the others. Kaufmann (Toldot HaEmunah HaYisraelit, VI, loc. cit.) sees an alternate grouping of the enemies of Israel and Judah respectively, but he does not explain the specific internal order itself. Weiser (Die Profetie, 86) thought that the order was psychologically arranged, starting with the mightiest and most important nations. Cf. the criticism of Wolff, Dodekapropheton, II, 175 (= Joel and Amos, 145–147). This might explain the primary importance of Aram, but why necessarily the descending order of the others? For a geographical order of the events in Assyrian historiography, see H. Tadmor, “Sargon’s Khorsabad Annals and Display Inscription,” JCS 12 (1958), 36.


357

influence of Amos 4:10–12 upon Isa 9:7ff. is taken into account. This penetrating insight was made by H. L. Ginsberg, who pointed out that the former verses served as the historical backdrop for Isaiah’s review of past punishments against Israel, and that in Isa 9:11 the Arameans and the Philistines are coupled in a mutual attack against Israel.15 The next two nations, Philistia and Tyre, are both in close proximity to one another on the Mediterranean littoral and are often cited together (see Joel 4:4–8; Jer 47:4; Ezek 25:16–17, 26; Zech 9:3–6; Ps 93:5). Haran pointed out this close relationship and added that this traditional coupling would prove that the oracle against Tyre was an integral part of the original prophecy and not a later addition.16 As for the argument advanced by those who consider the Tyre oracle a late interpolation, because it contains an almost literal repetition of the crime listed against Philistia, he countered that this is a natural way in which to express complicity in a similar crime.17 (Note that in Joel 4:4–8 the two are again accused of the same crime of selling slaves, this time to the Greeks.) Furthermore, according to him, no later editor would have accused Tyre of a breach of covenant since during the time of the destruction of the Temple, Tyre remained loyal to the rebels and did not make peace with Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek 26: 7ff.; 29:17–18; Josephus, Ant. 10:11, 1; AgAp 1.21).18 It should also be added that he reads ‫ ארם‬instead of ‫ אדום‬in both verses 6 (Philistia) and 9 (Tyre),19 which, if correct, would add yet another link between the two, the presence of Aram in both oracles. As for the grouping of the three southeastern nations, it has been pointed out by Weiss that the three are bound by geographical proximity, historical relationships, and by consanguineous and ethnic ties to Israel.20 Compare the mention of the three together in Deut 23:

15 H. L. Ginsberg, “From Isaiah’s Diary,” ‘Oz LeDavid (Jerusalem, 1964), 347–348 (Hebrew). 16 Haran, “Observations,” BIES 30 (1966), 56–69 (Hebrew) (= IEJ 18 (1968), 201–212). Cf. O. Eissfeldt, “Philister und Phönizer,” AO 34 (1936), 31–36. 17 Haran, “Observations,” 58. 18 Ibid., 58–59. 19 Many commentators accept the reading of ‫ ארם‬for ‫ אדום‬in the oracle against Tyre, with the sole exception of P. Haupt (“Scriptio Plena des emphatischen la- im Hebräischen,” OLZ 10 [1907], 308; “Heb. galût, a Peaceful Colony,” JBL 35 [1916], 288–290); Haran is alone in suggesting it in the oracle against Philistia. 20 Weiss, “Pattern of the ‘Execration Texts’,” 151. See Harrison’s opinion above, n. 14.

358

biblical studies

4–8; Isa 11:14; Jer 48–49; Ezek 25:2–14; Dan 11:41; and of Ammon and Moab in Gen 19:37–38; Zeph 2:8–11; Neh 13:1ff. These important insights, however, did not lead to any further understanding of the overall pattern used by Amos. The question may still be posed: Why does Philistia come immediately after Aram, and why is it followed by Tyre, which is succeeded in turn by Edom, Ammon, and Moab? For, despite the correctness of the historical and geographical couplings just mentioned, the internal order of the last three nations could still have been rearranged in any number of possible ways; e.g., Edom–Moab–Ammon (cf. Isa 11:14; Dan 11:41); Moab–Ammon–Edom (Jer 48–49); or even Ammon–Moab–Edom (Ezek 25:2–14).21 It is the main point of this study to demonstrate that any other ordering is simply out of the question because of an internal literary order which weaves the various units into a coherent whole. Each link in this chain of prophecies is tied to one another by an indissoluble bond, occasioned by the well-known literary mnemonic device of the concatenation of similar catch words, phrases, or ideas common to only the two units contiguous to one another.22 But first a few remarks about the general literary traits common to all six of the oracles:23 (1) They are all introduced by the “messenger formula” (Botenformel): '‫כה אמר ה‬, “Thus said the Lord,” characteristic of prophetic oracles. (2) This opening address is followed by the staircase numerical pattern:24 ‫ ועל ארבעה‬...‫על שלשה פשעי‬, “for three sins 21 One should also note that Moab and Ammon always appear together and are never separated by Edom. 22 For an extensive treatment of this entire unit, see Paul, Amos, 45–74. 23 Cf. Amsler, Amos, 169. See also “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion,” 174; Frey, Das Buch des Ringens Gottes, 41–42; Wolff, Dodekapropheton, II, 164–169 (= Joel and Amos, 134–139); Werner, Amos, 43–58; Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 56–58. 24 H. L. Ginsberg, “Towards the History of the Graded Number Sequence,” MinÈa LeDavid: Dedicated to David Yellin (Jerusalem, 1935), 78–81 (Hebrew); U. M. D. Cassuto, “Biblical and Canaanite Literature,” Tarbií 13 (1942), 203–205 (Hebrew); W. M. W. Roth, “The Numerical Sequence x/x + 1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962), 300–311; S. Gevirtz, Patterns of the Early Poetry of Israel (Chicago, 1963), 15–24. For a re-examination of this particular numerical sequence in Amos, see M. Weiss (“The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2,” JBL 86 [1967], 416–423), who presents a thorough discussion of the subject. See also G. Sauer, Die Sprüche Agurs (Stuttgart, 1963), 24–91; Y. Zakovitch, “For Three… and for Four”: The Pattern of the Numerical Sequence in the Bible, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1979) (Hebrew); M. Haran, “Biblical Studies: The Literary Application of the Numerical Sequence x/x + 1 and Their Connections with the Patterns of Parallelism,” Tarbií 39 (1970), 109–136 (Hebrew) (=


359

of X and for four,” with only the name of the nation varying in each case. (3) Thereupon follows the absolute irrevocability of the divine decision: ‫לא אשיבנו‬, “I shall not revoke it” (i.e., the punishment).25 (4) The particular crime of each is then introduced by ‫על‬. (5) The oracles are concluded by a verdict in which the deity speaks in the first person and condemns each nation to punishment by fire: ‫( ושלחתי אש‬1:4, 7, 10, 12; 2:2 [1:14 contains a slight variant, ‫)]והצתי אש‬. In addition to these common denominators, there are specific agglutinous elements which link the nations together in a cohesive pattern and which are responsible for the sequential arrangement of these prophecies. The pattern is outlined below: (‫און( ותומך שבט מ)בית עדן‬-‫והכרתי יושב מ)בקעת‬ (‫והכרתי יושב מ)אשדוד( ותומך שבט מ)אשקלון‬ ‫הגלותם גלות שלמה להסגיר לאדום‬-‫על‬ ‫הסגירם גלות שלמה לאדום‬-‫על‬ ‫ולא זכרו ברית אחים‬ ‫אחיו‬ ‫רדפוֹ בחרב אחיו ושחת רחמיו‬-‫על‬ ‫בקעם הרות הגלעד‬-‫על‬ ‫בתרועה‬ ‫ושריו‬ ‫בתרועה‬ ‫שריה‬

(1:5) (1:8) (1:6) (1:9) (1:9) (1:11) (1:11) (1:13) (1:14) (1:15) (2:2) (2:3)

‫ארם‬ ‫עזה‬ ‫צור‬ ‫אדום‬ ‫עמון‬ ‫מואב‬

One of the punishments against Aram (v. 5) is ‫והכרתי יושב מ)בקעת‬ (‫און( ותומך שבט מ)בית עדן‬, a threat which is literally repeated (except for the obvious change in cities) only in the next unit, the prophecy against Philistia (v. 8): (‫והכרתי יושב מ)אשדוד( ותומך שבט מ)אשקלון‬. Furthermore, “exile” is mentioned in both: for Aram, the punishment [v. 5]; for Philistia, the crime [v.6]; cf. also Tyre [v. 9]. The prophet’s accusation against the Philistines, in turn, ‫על הגלותם גלות‬ ‫( שלמה להסגיר לאדום‬v. 6), is precisely the same as the one leveled against the next nation, Tyre (v. 9), ‫על הסגירם גלות שלמה לאדום‬, both

“The Graded Numerical Sequence and the Phenomenon of ‘Automatism’ in Biblical Poetry,” Congress Volume: Uppsala, 1971, SVT 22 [Leiden, 1972], 238–267); W. M. W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament, SVT 13 (Leiden, 1965). 25 See R. P. Knierim, “ ‘I Will Not Cause It to Return’ in Amos 1 and 2,” Canon and Authority, ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Lang [Philadelphia, 1977], 163–175).

360

biblical studies

singling out Edom, which, in turn, is the next nation in line. The prophecy against Tyre continues with a statement about the breach of a “brotherly” political covenant (v. 9),26 ‫לא זכרו ברית אחים‬, which, by its key word, “brother,” leads to the next prophecy against Edom, which also mentions a major offense against his “brother” (v. 11), ‫על‬ ‫רדפו בחרב אחיו‬. The link between Edom and Ammon is admittedly the only one which does not contain an exact word or phrase. But it is here suggested that the common denominator between the two which helped lead to their present juxtaposition is the nature of the crimes involved: both were committed with a sword. The former pursued his “brother” with a sword (v. 11); the latter ripped open the bellies of pregnant women, obviously with a sword (v. 13).27 Moreover, there is most likely another element common to the two, hidden in the phrase ‫( וְ ִשׁ ֵחת ַר ֲח ָמיו‬v. 11). This phrase has been the subject of an article in which the translation, “his allies,” has been proposed for ‫רחמיו‬.28 The fact that one would expect a concrete noun to be parallel to ‫אחיו‬, “his brother,” rather than an abstract one, “affection,”29 coupled with the untenability of the prevalent translation of ‫שחת‬, “he stifled/suppressed”—which offers an otherwise unattested meaning for this verb, forced upon it by the difficulty of the passage30—leads one to suspect that ‫ רחמיו‬does, in truth, refer to a certain part of the population that was “destroyed” (Heb. ‫ )שחת‬by their Ammonite enemy. The problem with the translation “his allies” for ‫ רחמיו‬is that it is based on an incorrect analogy with the Akkadian verb ra’§mu. The interdialectal etymological and semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫רחם‬ is Akk. r¿mu, and not ra’§mu, and r¿mu is not the verb used in the

26

See J. Priest, “The Covenant of Brothers,” JBL 84 (1965), 400–406. For such an actual atrocity committed during the time of war, see Paul, Amos, 68–69. 28 M. Fishbane, “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters,” JBL 89 (1970), 313–318. 29 Both LXX (Walton: mh&tran) and Jerome (in his commentary: vulvam eius) understood the word concretely as “womb.” See M. Rahmer, “Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus,” MGWJ 6 (1898), 6–7; Ibn Ezra, ad loc. On the basis of this, both Döderlein and Dathe (apud Dahl, Amos, 82–83) interpreted the word to mean “in mulieres gravidas” by synecdoche. Snaith (Notes, part II, 25–26) thinks that it is a very late Hebrew word for “his friends.” Cf. Baur (Der Prophet Amos, 243–244), who translated, “Brüdervolk.” 30 The one possible exception would be Ezek 28:17. For the verb ‫ שחת‬in combination with the root ‫רחם‬, see Jer 13:14; Ps 78:38. 27


361

extra-Biblical treaty contexts to denote love, i.e., fidelity.31 This linguistic dilemma calls for another approach. It is here suggested, with all due reserve, that the noun ‫ רחמיו‬may be none other than the same substantive ‫ ַר ַחם ַר ֲח ָמ ָתיִ ם‬found in Judg 5:30, meaning “girl, woman.”32 This noun is attested in the Moabite Mesha inscription: · ‫( · ורחמת כי‬17) ...‫ · וגברת‬... · ‫(זה · ואהרג · כלה · שבעת · אלפן · ג]ב[רן‬16)‫ואח‬ ‫לעשתר · כמש · החרמתה‬ So I captured it [Nebo] and slayed all in it, seven thousand men and women and young girls, for I had devoted it to destruction to AshtarChemosh.33

Furthermore, rÈm34 is a common word in Ugaritic for “girl” and is synonymous with Ugar. btlt. Cf. rÈm ‘nt (KTU2 1.6.II:27), which is equivalent to btlt ‘ant (e.g., KTU 2 1.6.II:14). If this proposal is correct, it would add yet another feature to the mutual crimes of Edom and Ammon. Both wielded the sword in order to kill womenfolk.35 The last two nations, Ammon and Moab, are once again linked by key phrases which appear nowhere else in the other oracles: ‫בתרועה‬ (1:14; 2:2); ‫( שריו‬1:15), ‫( שריה‬2:3); ‫( מלכם‬1:15), ‫( מלך‬2:1). And the entire unit is framed within a literary inclusio, beginning and ending with the verb ‫( והכרתי‬1:5; 2:3). 31 For a study of the concept of love implying fidelity in treaty literature, see W. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963), 77–87. See also R. B. Coote, “Amos 1:11: R\MYW,” JBL 90 (1971), 206–208; Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden, 1969), 132 n. 2; G. Schmuttermayr, “R\M—Eine lexikalische Studie,” Biblica 51 (1970), 499–532. 32 See already Y. ibn GanaÈ, Sepher Haschoraschim, ed. W. Bacher (Berlin, 1896), 477. Cf. Y. Kaufmann, The Book of Judges (Jerusalem, 1962), 145–146 (Hebrew). This is mentioned in passing by Fishbane (“Treaty Background,” 313), who also cites the Mesha inscription, but immediately discounts it. A variant of this same word is to be found in Isa 49:15, ‫מרחם‬. See M. Dahood, “Denominative riÈÈam, “to conceive, enwomb,” Biblica 44 (1963), 204–205; R. Gordis, “Studies in the Book of Amos,” American Academy for Jewish Research 1 (1980), 210–211; M. I. Gruber, “The Motherhood of God in Second Isaiah,” in idem, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Atlanta, 1992), 10–11. 33 For the Mesha inscription, see KAI, I:30. Cf. S. Segert, “Die Sprache der moabitischen Königsinschrift,” ArOr 29 (1961), 244. 34 Cf. also the female divine name rÈmy, KTU2 1.23:13, 16, 28; 1.15.II:6. 35 For the use of ‫ שחת‬in connection with the destruction of human beings, see Gen 6:17; 9:15; I Sam 26:15; II Sam 1:14; 20:20 (?).

362

biblical studies

It should be added, as a final note, that whether one explains such a sequential concatenous pattern as being comprised of originally independent units (of varying dates) welded together by Amos or by a later editor, or as a single literary composite, the process of internal associative reasoning provides the key to its final interrelationship.36

36

For an example of a concatenous pattern in legal material, see S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, SVT 18 (Leiden, 1970), 106–111.

prophets and prophecy

363

PROPHETS AND PROPHECY In the Bible Classifications. The second division of the Hebrew Canonical Scriptures is today subdivided into “The Former Prophets,” i.e., the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and “The Latter Prophets,” i.e., the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. This division is basically a chronological one. A preferable nomenclature would be the pre-classical prophets and the classical, or literary, prophets. The latter terminology is reserved for those prophets whose oracles were preserved in writings either by themselves, their disciples, or their scribes (e.g., Jer 36:4, 18). The primary literary remains of the pre-classical prophets, on the other hand, are the stories and accounts of their lives transmitted at first, no doubt, orally by followers and admirers. Though several third-person biographical accounts of the classical prophets have also been preserved in their respective books (e.g., Isa 36–39; Jer 26ff.; Amos 7:10–17), these stories are secondary to their prophetic pronouncements. The terminological division, however, is merely a formal external criterion for distinguishing between the two. Of far greater significance are the essential internal differences which decisively mark off the literary prophets from their forebears. Nature of Prophecy. The institution of prophecy is predicated on the basic idea that God reveals His will to chosen individuals in successive generations. A prophet is a charismatic individual endowed with the divine gift of both receiving and imparting the message of revelation. As the spokesman for the deity, he does not choose his profession but is chosen, often against his own will, to convey the word of God to His people regardless of whether or not they wish to hear it (Ezek 3:11). A prophet does not elect to prophesy, nor does he become a prophet by dint of any native or acquired faculty on his part. Prophecy is not a science or an art that one may learn or master. There is no striving to be one with God, no unio mystica, no indwelling of God within the spirit of the prophet through rapture, trances, or even spiritual contemplation. The prophet is selected by God and is irresistibly compelled to deliver His message and impart His will, even if he personally disagrees with it. He is consecrated to be set apart from

364

biblical studies

his fellowmen and is destined to bear the responsibility and burden of being chosen. The prophet stands in the presence of God (Jer 15:1, 19) and is privy to the divine council (Isa 6; Jer 23:18; Amos 3:7). He speaks when commanded, but once commanded, must speak (Amos 3:8). Appointed messenger, he translates his revelatory experience into the idiom of the people. For though the prophet is overwhelmed by the divine word and becomes “word possessed,” he does not lose his identity nor does he suffer from any effacement of personality. The “word of YHWH” and not His “spirit” is the primary source of prophecy. The “spirit” may prepare the prophet to receive divine revelation, may evoke the revelatory state of mind, but the “word” is the revelation itself. What makes him a prophet is not the spirit which envelops or moves him—for this spirit also motivated elders, judges, Nazirites, and kings—but the word which he has heard and which he transmits to others. In fact, the “spirit” or the “hand” of God (see below) is mentioned only occasionally in the writings of the classical prophets (a major exception being Ezekiel), and then it constitutes the stimulus, not the content, of revelation. The prophet, although conscious of being overwhelmed by the divine word and of being involved in an encounter with God, is still capable of reacting and responding and may even engage God in a dialogue. Divine constraint does not exclude the prophet’s personal freedom; his individuality is maintained, and the divine message is accented by his own tones. The prophetic experience is one of confrontation. The prophet is both a recipient and a participant. Armed solely with the divine word and as conveyor of the divine will, he becomes a radical iconoclast who views the world sub specie dei. He is concerned not with the being of God but with the designs of God. He has knowledge not about God but from God concerning His actions in history. The prophet is neither a philosopher nor a systematic theologian, but a covenantal mediator who delivers the word of God to his people in order to shape their future by reforming their present. He is neither the ultimate source of the message nor its final addressee, but rather the middleman who has the overpowering experience of hearing the divine word, and who must perform the onerous task of bearing it to a usually indifferent if not hostile audience. The individuality of the prophet is never curtailed. No two prophets prophesied in the same style. Their unique literary styles, whether expressed in prayers, hymns, parables, indictments, sermons, dirges, letters, mocking and drinking songs, or legal pronouncements, bear


365

the mark of independent creativity. The divine message is refracted through the human prism. This is dramatically brought out by the striking image of the prophets’ receiving, literally eating, God’s word, and then bringing it forth (Jer 15:16ff.; Ezek 3:1ff.). God speaks to the prophet and the prophet speaks out. The divine revelation is delivered through the conduit of a human agent. Origin and Function. The Hebrew term for a prophet, navi’, cognate of the Akkadian verb nabû, “to call,” literally meaning “one who has been called (by God),” is first applied to Abraham. He merits this title because of his role as an intercessor (see below): “But you [Abimelech] must restore the man’s wife [Sarah]—since he is a prophet, he will intercede for you—to save your life” (Gen 20:7). The origin of the office of prophecy, according to Deuteronomy, is rooted in the relevation at Sinai. Since the people were afraid of receiving God’s word directly in a public theophany, they requested Moses to “go closer and hear all that our Lord our God tells you... and we will willingly do it” (Deut 5:24). This is corroborated by the personal description of Moses: “I stood between the Lord and you at that time to convey the Lord’s word to you, for you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain” (Deut 5:5; cf. Exod 19:19). Thus Moses became the spokesman for God to the people. The term navi’, translated in LXX proFh&ths, proph¿t¿s (“prophet”), which means “one who speaks on behalf of” or “to speak for” (rather than “before”), is a “forthteller” and spokesman as well as a “foreteller” and prognosticator. He is God’s mouthpiece (Jer 15:19); the one to whom God speaks, and who, in turn, speaks forth for God to the people. This, indeed, is the very definition of the prophet’s role as found in several places in the Bible. In Exod 4:15–16 the roles that Moses and Aaron are to assume before Pharaoh are delineated: “You [Moses] shall speak to him [Aaron] and put the words in his mouth..., and he shall speak for you to the people. Thus he shall be your mouthpiece, and you shall be the God he speaks for.” In Exod 7:1, “The Lord replied to Moses, ‘See I have made you like a god for Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your spokesman’ [navi’].” So, too, in Deut 18:18, “I will raise up a prophet for them among their own people, like yourself. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.” Dreams. Moses, though he is called a navi’ for the first time only in Deuteronomy (18:15; 34:10), is cast as the prophet par excellence. He is distinguished by God’s revealing Himself directly to him, “mouth

366

biblical studies

to mouth, plainly and not in riddles,” while to other prophets, God revealed Himself only in visions or dreams (Num 12:6–8). This distinction between dreams and prophecy is made because of the universal belief that gods communicate their will to man through the medium of dreams. Several instances of divine revelation through dreams are attested in the Bible, e.g., the dreams of Abimelech (Gen 20:3; cf. Gen 31:10–13); Solomon (I Kings 3:5–14); Joel (3:1); and Job (33:14–18). In Deut 13:2ff. dreams are directly linked to prophecy. It is no wonder, then, that they are considered a possible means for determining the will of God, e.g., 1 Sam 28:6 (cf. 28:15). Nevertheless, this means for revealing the will of God fell into disrepute and was frowned upon by later prophets (see Jer 23:28; 27:9; Zech 10:2; cf. Jer 29:8). Furthermore, with the exception of Joseph and Daniel, both of whom served in foreign courts, but, nevertheless, related their knowledge of dream interpretations directly to God, there existed in Israel no science of dream interpretation such as that prevalent in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Divination. In the aforementioned quotations from the books of Jeremiah and Zechariah, the medium of dream communication is coupled with that of divination, a science that was well known and widely spread throughout the entire ancient Near East. It was a highly specialized skill, which enabled the expert practitioner to peer into the world of the future by fathoming the inexplicable will of the gods. The art of divination was extremely elaborate and encompassed many different fields, including hepatoscopy, extispicy, lecanomancy, libanomancy, necromancy, belomancy, bird omens, astrology, hydromancy, and oleomancy. Against these common practices of Israel’s neighbors the Bible inveighs, “You shall not practice divination or soothsaying” (Lev 19:26); “Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits” (Lev 19:31; cf. also 20:6, 27). The most comprehensive prohibition is found in Deut 18:10–11: “Let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or who inquires of the dead.” All of these injunctions are leveled against the divinatory practices of the Canaanites. But the Bible is well aware of its occurrence in other nations as well, e.g., Philistines (1 Sam 6:2; Isa 2:6); Babylonians (Isa 47:9, 12–13; Jer 10:2; 50:35; Ezek 21:26–28), and Egyptians (Isa 19:3). Though there are several Biblical analogues to various forms of divination, e.g., hydromancy or oleomancy (Gen 44:5, 15), communica-


367

tion through dead spirits (I Sam 28), and tree oracles (2 Sam 5:24), the Biblical injunctions cited above categorically ban their practice—even in time of dire stress as Isaiah mockingly comments (9:18)—since they are all assumed to be illegal means of discovering the will of God (cf. also 1 Sam 28:3, 9; 2 Kings 23:24; Isa 2:6; 8:19; 44:25; Ezek 13:17ff.). They all are premised on an art or a science and rely on human skill to penetrate divine mysteries. Divination is pagan in origin, and its practitioners are linked with the false prophets (Mic 3:6–7; Jer 27:9; 29:8; Ezek 13:9, 23), for through technical expertise man attempts to initiate the action. In prophecy, on the other hand, the initiative is taken entirely by God, who communicates His intentions through visions and auditions, and who cannot be coerced by any humanly devised means to reveal His designs. There are, nevertheless, several Biblically sanctioned, legitimate means through which God discloses His will other than prophecy: dreams (1 Sam 28:6; see above), the Urim and Thummim placed in the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21; 1 Sam 14: 41; Ezra 2:63), and the ephod (1 Sam 23:9ff.). In fact, it seems that the earlier prophets may have, at times, fulfilled the same function as the last two. This is suggested by the manner of framing questions in the simple form of alternatives in 1 Sam 14:37, 42 (cf. LXX); 23:11, and 1 Kings 22:6. Lots (Num 26:55–56) and the a water ordeal (Num 5:11–31) were also occasionally resorted to. All of these, however, are not heard of again after the time of David. From then on, the only legitimate form of revelation was the one which came from God through His chosen prophets: “For God does not do anything unless He has first revealed His plans to His prophets” (Amos 3:7). Pre-classical Prophets. Terminology. The pre-classical prophets are referred to by four different names: Èozeh, ro’eh, both meaning “seer”; ’ish ha-’Elohim, “man of God” (1 Kings 13:1; Elijah, 1 Kings 17:18, 24; 2 Kings 1:10; Elisha, 2 Kings 4:7, 9, 21; 8:4, 8, 11; 13:19; cf. Moses, Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; Ps 90:1; Ezra 3:2; 1 Chron 23:14; 2 Chron 30:16); and navi’, “prophet.” (The last is also the standard term for the classical prophets.) The seer was one who possessed the ability to reveal that which was concealed from ordinary mortals; he was able to foretell the future. The term ro’eh is first applied to Samuel in 1 Sam 9, when Saul, in search of his father’s asses, seeks the aid of the seer Samuel and is prepared to pay a fee of one-quarter of a shekel. Samuel, who in this narrative (9:6) is also called ’ish ha-’Elohim, and who had been previously informed by the Lord of Saul’s arrival,

368

biblical studies

provides the necessary information and, in addition, anoints Saul king of Israel (1 Sam 10). He then informs Saul of the events which are about to befall him on his way home. It is within this account that the editor of the narrative adds an important historical-chronological footnote (9:9): “He who now is called navi’ was formerly called ro’eh.” The title ro’eh is later applied to Samuel in 1 Chron 9:22; 26:28; and 29:29. The only other one clearly designated by this title is Hanani (2 Chron 16:7, 10; some also attribute it to the priest Zadok [2 Sam 15: 27], but this is highly dubious). In 1 Chron 29:29 the three diversely titled prophets of the period of David, Samuel the ro’eh, Nathan the navi’ and Gad the Èozeh, are named together. The title Èozeh is first applied to Gad in 2 Sam 24:11, where he is called the Èozeh of David (so, also in 1 Chron 21:9), when he once again is distinguished by protocol from Nathan the navi’. (On the interchangeability of these two terms, however, one may note that Gad is also called navi’ in 1 Sam 22:5, and in 2 Sam 24:11 he is accorded the dual title navi’ and Èozeh.) According to Chronicles, several other kings kept in their courts men who bore the title Èozeh: 1 Chron 25:5, Heman is mentioned as a Èozeh for David; 2 Chron 9:29, Jedo (Iddo) for Jeroboam (in 2 Chron 12:15, he is distinguished from Shemaiah the navi’); 2 Chron 19:2, Jehu son of Hanani, for Jehoshaphat; 2 Chron 33:18, anonymous men for Manasseh; and 2 Chron 35:15, Jeduthun, Heman, and Asaph for Josiah. Since only the term Èozeh (and not ro’eh or navi’) is found when reference is made to a king (Èozeh ha-melekh), it most probably indicates that the seers who bore this title were officially attached to the court, the so-called court prophets. The term Èozeh was at times also connected with navi’: positively, in 2 Sam 24:11 and 2 Kings 17:13, and negatively, in Isa 29:10 (cf. 28:7); Amos 7:12; and Mic 3:7. That this technical term was not confined to Israel, but was a common West Semitic title for such seers, is attested by the Aramaic inscription of King Zakir of Hamath (early eighth century b.c.e.), who states, “I lifted up my hands to Baalsha[may]n and Baalshamayn answered me [and spoke] to me through seers [‫]חזין‬ and envoy messengers” (see J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, II: Aramaic Inscriptions [Oxford, 1975], 8–9:11–12; KAI, I, 202:11–12). Group Prophecy. The first story in the Bible which makes reference to a seer also mentions bands of prophets. When Saul consults the seer Samuel as to the whereabouts of his father’s lost asses, he is told that he is to become “prince over his people Israel” (1 Sam 10:


369

1). To substantiate the authenticity of this prediction, he is informed that upon arriving at Gibeah he will meet “a band of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, and lyre before them.” And when he did subsequently meet them, a “spirit of God came mightily upon him and he spoke in ecstasy among them.” This encounter became the source for the proverbial question, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Sam 10:12). 1 Sam 19:18–24 relates this proverb to another instance of the contagious nature of group prophecy: Saul sends men to capture David, who was then in the company of Samuel. However, when the men “saw the company of prophets with Samuel standing as head over them, the spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul and they also prophesied.” This incident is repeated two more times as subsequent messengers are overcome by their contact with the band of prophets. Finally, Saul himself goes to capture David, but the spirit of God comes upon him and he, too, prophesies before Samuel, strips off his clothes, and lies naked all that day and night. Hence, it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” Ecstasy. The ecstatic nature of these groups of prophets is already foreshadowed in Num 11:16ff., where it is reported that Moses gathered 70 of the people’s elders and stationed them around the Tent of Meeting: “Then the Lord came down in a cloud and spoke to him. He drew upon the spirit that was on him and conferred it upon the seventy elders. And when the spirit rested upon them they fell into prophetic ecstasy” (11:25; cf. 11:16–27). Another instance of group ecstasy is found in 1 Kings 22, where some four hundred prophets rage in ecstasy before Kings Jehoshaphat and Ahaz on the eve of their attack against Ramoth-Gilead. This feature of collective Dionysiac frenzy is not confined to early Israelite prophets. In 1 Kings 18 it is recorded that four hundred and fifty Canaanite prophets of Baal (and four hundred prophets of Asherah, v. 19) “cried aloud and gashed themselves after their manner with swords and lances till the blood gushed out upon them. And it was so, when midday was past, that they prophesied in ecstasy until the time of the evening offering...” (18:28–29). Ecstatic seizures, moreover, were not limited to groups; individuals, too, could also be affected. Thus, the seizure of Elijah: “The hand of the Lord was upon Elijah..., and he ran before Ahab[‘s chariots]” (1 Kings 18:46). An extra-Biblical ecstatic prophet is attested in the 11th-century tale of the Egyptian Wen-Amon, which takes place in Byblos. It relates

370

biblical studies

that “while he [Zakar-Baal, king of Byblos] was making offering to his gods, the god seized one of his youths and made him possessed. And he said to him, ‘Bring up [the] god! Bring the messenger who is carrying him! Amon is the one who sent him out! He is the one who made him come!’ And while the possessed [youth] was having his frenzy on this night...” (ANET, 26). Additional examples of this phenomenon are to be found among the Hittite àiunianza and the pre-Islamic k§hins. In such a state one turns, as Saul did, into “another man” (1 Sam 10:6) and may behave madly, as witnessed by Saul’s attempt to take the life of David in 1 Sam 18:10ff. The irrational and ecstatic behavior of such possessed individuals makes them appear to be madmen. Thus, when Elisha goes to Ramoth-Gilead to anoint Jehu king of Israel, Jehu was asked, “Is all well? Why did this madman come to you?” (2 Kings 9:11). A juxtaposition of “madman” and “ecstatic prophet” is found in Jer 29:26; and in Hos 9:7 the parallel to “prophet” is “madman.” (The Hebrew term for madman, meshugga‘, in these verses may very well be a terminus technicus related to the Akkadian cognate muÉÉûm, “ecstatic prophet,” found in Mari; see below.) In Israel an ecstatic seizure might be induced by external means, e.g., music. In 2 Kings 3:15 Elisha requests a musician, “and when the musician played, the power of the Lord came upon him.” Specific mention of various musical instruments of the band of prophets is found in 1 Sam 10:5 and 2 Chron 35:15. (Dancing in order to induce a prophetic frenzy is mentioned only in connection with the Canaanite prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18:26.) Nevertheless, this seizure is always conceived of as dependent on God. It is ascribed directly to Him and is caused either by “the hand (yad) of YHWH,” “the spirit (ru’aÈ) of YHWH” or “the spirit (ru’aÈ) of God.” The term “the hand of YHWH” to indicate divine inspiration is employed when Elisha resorts to music to help induce this state (2 Kings 3:15). It is also found in 1 Kings 18: 46 in the description of Elijah in an ecstatic fit running before Ahab’s chariot (cf. Jer 15:17). The term “the spirit of God” appears in both 1 Sam 10:6, 10 and 19:20, 23, where the spirit “came mightily” upon Saul and his messengers (cf. 1 Sam 18:10). In 1 Kings 22:21–24 the “spirit” is responsible for the inducing of false prophecy. Azariah son of Oded in 2 Chron 15:1 and Jahaziel son of Zechariah in 2 Chron 20:14 are both inspired by “the spirit of God/YHWH,” which comes upon them (cf. Neh 9:30). It is important to note, moreover, that the “spirit” is not conceived of as the divine revelation itself but only as


371

the psychological precondition for the reception of revelation. Group Life of Prophets. The pre-classical prophets as a group were distinguished by several prominent personalities, e.g., Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha, and by their number, at times in the hundreds. They were often banded together in groups of “disciples of the prophets” (Heb. benei ha-nevi’im) who may or may not have been located at a shrine. Such groups first appear when Saul encounters a “band of prophets” (1 Sam 10:5, 10) and reappear in the Elijah and Elisha cycles. Though in 2 Kings 4:38 it is stated that they have their meals in common, some of their members were married and have families. Elisha performed a miracle for the widow of one of the members of this order (2 Kings 4:1–7). Some of them owned their own houses (1 Kings 13:15ff.). One group was found at Bethel, and another at Jericho, the latter consisting of fifty members (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7, 15). Elisha performed miracles on behalf of his coterie at Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38–44, where one hundred are mentioned), and sent one of them to anoint Jehu (2 Kings 9:1ff.). He is also called their master (lit., “father,” 2 Kings 6:21). Obadiah, the chief steward of Ahab, saved one hundred of them, during the siege of Jezebel (1 Kings 18:3–4, 13), and Kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat consulted some four hundred prophets prior to their attack against Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22:6). There is also one possible, but far from certain, indication that heredity may have played some role in such circles, for Jehu, the Èozeh, was a son of Hanani, presumably the same Hanani who was himself a ro’eh (1 Kings 16:1, 7; 2 Chron 16:7; 19:2). Some of these prophets had attendants in their service. Elisha ministered to Elijah (1 Kings 19:21), and Elisha had an attendant (mesharet) himself (2 Kings 4:43; 6:15). A synonymous term, na‘ar is also employed for the servants of Elijah (1 Kings 18:43; 19:3), of Elisha (2 Kings 4: 38; 9:4), who was also attended by Gehazi (2 Kings 4:12, 25; 5:20; 8: 4), and of the attendant of the “man of God” in 2 Kings 6:15. Role in Society. These early prophets played a prominent role in communal affairs and were often sought out and consulted for advice and asked to deliver oracles in the name of God. In I Kings 14:5, the wife of Jeroboam turns to Ahijah; in 1 Kings 22:8, Jehoshaphat and Ahab to Micaiah (cf. verses 5ff.); in 2 Kings 3:4ff., Jehoshaphat and Jeroboam to Elisha; in 2 Kings 8:8, Ben-Hadad (king of Aram!) to Elisha; and in 2 Kings 22:13, Josiah to Huldah. There are several references to remunerations for such services, sometimes amounting to as little as one quarter of a shekel (1 Sam 9:8) or ten loaves of bread,

372

biblical studies

some cakes, and a jar of honey (1 Kings 14:3); or as much as 40 camels bearing the treasures of Aram (2 Kings 8:9). Prophets delivered their oracles whether asked to or not. In 2 Kings l:3ff. Elijah stops Ahaziah’s messengers on their way to inquire of Baal-Zebub; Ahijah the Shilonite tears his new garment when he confronts Jeroboam and announces the division of the United Kingdom (1 Kings 11:29ff.); and Shemaiah announces to that same king that he should not go to war against his kinsmen of Israel (1 Kings 12:22ff.). Politics. These early prophets greatly influenced the political destiny of Israel. Samuel chose both Saul (1 Sam 9) and David (1 Sam 16) to be kings over Israel. Nathan castigated David for his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and for causing the death of her husband, Uriah (2 Sam 12:7ff.), and later instigated the scheme to have David recognize her son, Solomon, as the next king (1 Kings 1:8ff.). Ahijah proclaimed both the selection and the rejection of Jeroboam I as king of northern Israel (1 Kings 11:29–39; 14:1–18; 15:29). Another “man of God” declared to Jeroboam the future birth of Josiah, who would destroy the idolatrous priests of the high places (1 Kings 13:1–2). Shemaiah, mentioned above, forbade that king to attempt to regain the ten tribes of the North (1 Kings 12:22–24; 2 Chron 11:2–4). Azariah son of Oded influenced King Asa to institute a reform in Judah and to rely on God (2 Chron 15:1ff.), but the seer Hanani reprimanded Asa for requesting Ben-Hadad’s aid against the blockade set up by Baasha, king of Israel (2 Chron 16:1ff.). Jehu denounced Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for allying himself with Ahab (2 Chron 19:2–3). (He also chronicled that king’s career, 2 Chron 20:34.) In 1 Kings 22 both Ahab and Jehoshaphat turn to prophets for an oracle to instruct them whether or not to go out to war, and they receive an answer from Micaiah. (“Shall I go to battle against Ramoth-Gilead, or shall I forbear” [v. 6]; the alternative form of this question is reminiscent of the type formerly addressed to the Urim and Thummim.) Elisha foretold the defeat of Moab by Kings Jehoshaphat and Jehoram (2 Kings 3:16ff.). Elisha has one of his colleagues anoint Jehu king of Israel, inspires the latter’s rebellion against Jehoram (2 Kings 9), and later (2 Kings 13: 14ff.) by means of a symbolic act (see below) helps insure the victory of Joash over the Arameans. Prophets were so important to the crown that several kings had their own court prophets. Both Nathan (2 Sam 7; 1 Kings 1:8ff.) and Gad (1 Sam 22:5; 2 Sam 24:11; 1 Chron 21:9; 29:29; 2 Chron 29:25) served with David. Also in David’s court were the sons of Asaph, Heman,


373

and Jeduthun “who prophesied to the accompaniment of lyres, harps, and cymbals” (1 Chron 25:1ff.; 2 Chron 29:30; 35:15—the interesting connection between the prophets and musical guilds should be noted). According to the Chronicler, both Nathan and Ahijah wrote accounts of Solomon’s career (2 Chron 9:29); Jedo (Iddo) wrote of either Solomon or Jeroboam (2 Chron 9:29); Iddo and Shemaiah recorded Rehoboam’s acts (2 Chron 12:15); and Iddo did the same for Abijah, Rehoboam’s successor (2 Chron 13:22). Clairvoyance and Prediction. These prophets were clairvoyant, capable of foreseeing future events. For example, Ahijah predicted the overthrow of Jeroboam’s dynasty and the death of his son (1 Kings 14:6ff.); Elijah predicted a drought (1 Kings 17:1), and the death of Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:4); and Elisha foretold a famine that would last for seven years (2 Kings 8:1). The prophetic groups in Bethel and Jericho knew that the Lord would take Elijah away that very day to die (2 Kings 2:3ff.). Elisha was aware that Gehazi had accepted a remuneration, for “did I not go with you in spirit when the man turned from his chariots to meet you? Is it a time to receive money...?” (2 Kings 5:26). He also knew where the Arameans were encamping (2 Kings 6:9) and hears their very words (6:12). Only in exceptional cases does he not foresee events, e.g., when the Shunamite’s son died and he declared, “the Lord has hid it from me and did not tell me” (2 Kings 4:27). Elisha even falls into a trance and foretells the future harm that Hazael, king of Aram, is going to cause Israel (2 Kings 8: 11ff.). Even if some of these events are vaticinium ex eventu, “prophecy after the events,” the narratives make it abundantly clear that the people believed in the prophet’s ability to foresee the future. Some prophets are also visionaries, e.g., in 1 Kings 22:19ff., Micaiah sees God enthroned on high; in 2 Kings 6:17, Elisha sees a mountain full of horses and chariots. Symbolic Acts. The prophets, moreover, did not merely predict the future. They often performed symbolic acts which dramatized and concretized the spoken word. Though the dynamism of the spoken word is considered to have a creative effect in and of itself, it is given further confirmation by this act, which is efficacious and actually plays the role of prime mover in actualizing the event itself. Ahijah rends his garment into twelve pieces and bids Jeroboam I to take ten of them for “thus says the Lord of Israel: ‘Behold I will rend this kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes, but he shall take one tribe for my servant David’s sake…’ ” (1 Kings

374

biblical studies

11:29ff.). Elisha, in turn, orders Joash to take bow and arrows, open the window eastward, and shoot: “The Lord’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram! For you shall defeat the Arameans utterly in Aphek” (2 Kings 13:14ff.). Miracles. These prophets were also miracle workers. The two most famous are Elijah and Elisha. Elijah causes a jar of meal and a cruse of oil not to fail the widow of Zarephath, “according to the word of the Lord which he spoke” (1 Kings 17:8ff.); later, he brought her son back to life (17:17–24). He succeeded in bringing fire down from heaven in his famous contest with the Canaanite prophets (1 Kings 18); split the Jordan River by striking it with his mantle (2 Kings 2:8); and was swept up on high into heaven by a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11). His successor, Elisha, was no less successful in performing miracles. He, too, split the waters of the Jordan into two with Elijah’s mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14), made a single jug of oil fill many larger vessels (4: 1–7), and revived the son of a Shunammite woman (4:8ff.). When the inhabitants of Jericho complained that “the water is polluted and the land is unfruitful,” he requested a new bowl and some salt, which he then threw into the water and said, “Thus says the Lord: ‘I have healed these waters; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.’ And so the waters were healed” (2 Kings 2:19–22). Once in Gilgal during a famine, the prophetic guild complained that the pottage they were eating had the taste of death. By pouring some flour into the pottage, he effected a miracle and made the food edible (2 Kings 4: 38–41). In yet another miracle which he performed, he made a small allotment of food to suffice for one hundred men, “For thus says the Lord, ‘They shall eat and leave some’ ” (4:42–44). His potency for producing miracles continued even after his death. A dead man was reported to have come back to life when his corpse was thrown into Elisha’s grave and touched his bones (2 Kings 13:20–21). It is of the utmost significance to realize that most, though not all, of these interventions into public affairs, feats of clairvoyance, predictions of the future, symbolic acts, and miraculous signs and deeds are related to the will of God and are ultimately ascribed to Him. There are no supernatural or impersonal powers invoked to accomplish the desired results. No native abilities or faculties aid the prophet. Only the will of God is operative in both their words and deeds. There is no magical or occult art which they must master; revelation proceeds directly from God. God stands behind the prophet and it is to God alone to whom the prophet prays and asks for intercession, e.g., when


375

Jeroboam’s hand is restored (1 Kings 13:4ff.); when the sons of the wives of Zarephath and Shunem are restored to life (1 Kings 17:20ff.; 2 Kings 4:32ff.), and when fire comes from heaven as answer to Elijah’s prayer to God (1 Kings 18:36). These prophets did not always enjoy the security and immunity that their prophetic position should have assured them. Ahab persecuted or permitted Jezebel to persecute Elijah (1 Kings 17ff.); Micaiah was put into prison because he foretold the defeat of Israel and the death of Ahab (1 Kings 22:27); and Asa, king of Judah, condemned Hanani, the seer, to the stocks, because the prophet reprimanded him for not relying on God but accepting the help of the king of Aram (2 Chron 16:7–10). Extra-Biblical Prophecy. The earliest documentation of prophetic texts comes from the eighteenth-century b.c.e. city of Mari, located on the Euphrates River in Syria. On approximately sixty cuneiform tablets there are references to charismatic individuals (male and female) who spontaneously appear before the king to deliver an oral message in the name of various deities. These god-inspired individuals are called by the Akkadian terms muÉÉûm (fem. muÉÉåtum), lit., “frenzied, mad, ecstatic” (cf. Heb. meshugga‘, 2 Kings 9:11; Jer 29:26; Hos 9:7) and §pilum (fem. §piltum), lit., “answerer.” The latter also appear at times in groups, similar to the band of prophets mentioned in the Bible. Alongside these “professional” prophets are lay persons who are also recorded as delivering messages in the name of the deity. The established introductory formula of their prophetic announcements is the well-known “messenger formula”: “Thus he spoke to me; The God [personal name] sent me.” The Bible frequently uses similar expressions, e.g., “Thus says YHWH”; “YHWH the God of the Hebrews sent me” (Exod 7:16); and “YHWH has sent me” (Jer 26:12). The prophet at Mari delivers the word of his god, which is sometimes revealed to him in a dream (cf. Num 12:6; Deut 13:2; 1 Sam 28:6, 15; Jer 23:25ff.; 29:8; Zech 10:2), to the king and demands that he fulfill the will of his/her god. In these tablets there are two examples of prophecies directed against the nation of Babylon (whose king, Hammurapi, ultimately conquered Mari) (G. Dossin, Textes Divers, ARM 13 [Paris, 1964], 23, 114) and also one which directs a scribe to record the words of the prophet (D. Charpin et al., Archives épistolaires de Mari, I/2, ARM 26/2 [Paris, 1988], 414), as well as one instance in which the frenzied prophet actually performs a symbolic act based on an Akkadian play on words. He is commanded “to tear asunder and

376

biblical studies

“eat” (Akk. ak§lu) a live sheep in order to exemplify that a “pestilence” (ukultu) will break out in the city (J.-M. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari, I/1, ARM 26/1 [Paris, 1988], 206). Though the Mari documents, which date to the last five to ten years of the last king of Mari, Zimrilim, contain by far the closest parallels to early Biblical prophecy, there are several salient differences between them: (1) Unlike Israelite prophecy, the prophet at Mari (except in one extraordinary case) does not come with any social or ethical demands but concerns himself with cultic and political affairs of limited significance. (There is now, however, one instance in which a prophet sounds an ethical demand: “When somebody who cries out to you for judgment says: ‘They wronged me’, stand up and let [his case be] judged. Render him judgment. This is what I desire of you,” J.-M. Durand, “Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie,” MARI 7 [1993], document A.1968); (2) His message is primarily to the king and is usually intended to gain the king’s favorable attention to the cult of the god who sent him. Very rarely does he address himself to the people; (3) No religious ideology like that of the Israelite prophets characterizes his activity, nor is there any proclamation of divine involvement in the course of human history; (4) In the Mari documents there are several instances in which the final decision is left to the discretion of the king; the prophet’s word is not absolute; (5) The practice at Mari of sending a lock of hair or the fringe of the prophet’s tunic as a personal identity check and as a guarantee of his veracity is completely unattested in the Bible, where the prophet’s word is his sole and absolute attestation; (6) Even with these signs of verification, the prophet’s word at Mari is occasionally submitted to further divinatory means for authentification. Unlike the words of the prophets of the Bible, those of the Mari prophets do not command unqualified acceptance and are not absolutely authoritative; (7) There is, in addition, no analogy to the Israelite chain of prophecy (cf. Isa 30:10; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 29:19; Hos 6:5; 12:11; Amos 2:11–12; 3:7), which produced a successive line of prophets spanning three centuries (ca. 750–450 b.c.e.) who guided and taught the people, reproved and censured them for their sins, and threatened impending destruction or promised future restoration. Nevertheless, the prophets at Mari may still be compared with the early Israelite court and cult prophets who primarily addressed themselves to the reigning monarch. Herein lies the common Near Eastern background of this institution. (See A. Malamat, Mari and the


377

Bible [Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1998], 59–162.) There then follows about a one thousand-year hiatus before the next appearance of prophetic individuals, this time in a small corpus of some twenty-eight neo-Assyrian oracles from the seventh century b.c.e., during the reigns of Kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. In these texts, seers—primarily women—deliver encouraging messages to the king or queen-mother, as the direct mouthpiece of the goddess Ishtar. These tablets were collected and preserved in the royal archives. (See A. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 [Helsinki, 1997].) Comparison of Pre-classical and Classical Prophets. The pre-classical prophets, after having been compared to their predecessors at Mari, should also be viewed in the light of their successors, the classical prophets. A broad consensus of scholarship draws the following main distinctions between the two: (1) The classical prophets rejected the cult and ritual and called for ethical monotheism; (2) They rejected the nationalistic outlook of the pre-classical prophets and replaced it with their concept of universalism; (3) The pre-classical prophets were primarily mantic; their main function was predicting the future. The classical prophets, on the other hand, were interested in reproving their people in order to save them; (4) Whereas the pre-classical prophets functioned as part of guilds, the classical prophets always appear alone (e.g., Amos 7:14); (5) The popular prophets were ecstatics, given to intoxication of the senses (1 Sam 19:20–24), and they might employ musical accompaniment to induce or heighten their frenzy (2 Kings 3:15). The classical prophets, however, for the most part pronounced their oracles soberly in clear control of their senses (the one major exception being Ezekiel); (6) These prophets at times also received remuneration for their services (cf. 1 Sam 9:7–8; 1 Kings 13:7–8; 14: 3; 2 Kings 5:16–17; 8:9; Mic 3:11; as did the prophets at Mari). It was thought that there was an unbridgeable gap between the two, and with Amos, the first of the literary prophets, the watershed was reached. True, there is an element of greater or lesser truth in all the above-mentioned criteria. However, it will be seen that the break was not total, and that there are many points of contact and continuation in the lives and writings of the classical prophets. Classical prophecy, like every other institution in ancient Israel, did not exist in a vacuum but came into being bearing clouds of ancestral glory behind it. The classical prophets were indebted in many ways to the heritage of their predecessors. The technical title navi’ is applied to both. Both speak solely in the name of the God of Israel, who reveals His will directly

378

biblical studies

to them. They are both sent by God, hear the divine word, and are admitted into His council; their messages are rooted in the Covenant. These and the following considerations lead to the conclusion that there was one continuous religious tradition. Ritual versus Morality. A clear-cut dichotomy between the pre-classical and the classical prophets on this issue should not be made. The prophet Nathan rebukes King David for adultery and homicide (2 Sam 12:1ff.), and Elijah takes King Ahab to task over being an accessory in the appropriation of Naboth’s vineyard and in the latter’s death sentence (1 Kings 21:1ff.). True, both indictments concern a primary breach of the moral law, adultery and murder, and are leveled against kings; but they are still an integral part of the ethical-moral dimension. Here, too, may be added Samuel’s rebuke of Saul “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as He desires obedience? Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam 15:22). The classical prophets, on the other hand, do not reject the cult per se any more than they absolutely reject prayer or any other type of worship. To them, as will be seen, the cultic obligations are secondary to, and dependent upon, the fulfillment of the moral code of behavior. There is a decided change in the degree of emphasis but not in the principle. Moreover, the words of castigation leveled against the cult are primarily found in the writings of the pre-Exilic prophets. In the books of the Exilic and post-Exilic prophets, on the other hand, the ritual is often highly accented and favorably viewed (see below). Nationalism versus Universalism. Nationalistic as well as universalistic tendencies are present in greater or lesser degree in both. This can be seen in Elijah’s command that Elisha anoint Hazael king of Aram (1 Kings 19:15), for YHWH is considered the God of Aram as well as of Israel. Other universalistic themes in the early prophets are exemplified in 1 Kings 20:28, in which a man of God says to the king of Israel, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Because the Arameans have said, “The Lord is a god of the hills but he is not a god of the valleys”; therefore I will deliver all of this great multitude into your hands, and you shall know that I am the Lord’.” And in 1 Kings 5:15 in which Naaman, the commander of the Aramean army, after being cured by immersing himself in the Jordan River as prescribed by Elisha, confesses, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the world but in Israel.” The universalistic prophecies of the classical prophets on


379

the other hand, do not preclude, of course, their predominate number of nationalistic oracles. Mantics versus Reprovers. Mantic behavior was not restricted to the popular prophets. For example, Isaiah foretells the future for Hezekiah (Isa 37:1ff.; 38:1ff.), and Jeremiah, for Zedekiah (Jer 32:4–5, and see below). The latter also predicts the death of his prophetic rival, Hananiah (Jer 28:16–17). On the other hand, the early prophets Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha do not restrict their activity to merely predicting the future and the answering of queries, but are themselves messengers, reprovers, and chasteners who deliver the word of God to the king. Group versus Individuals. Although Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha are followed by bands of prophets, when they fulfill their missions, they do it alone as individuals just as the later prophets do. The latter, too, may have had their followers (e.g., the controversial verse, Isa 8: 16), for it is most likely that it was the disciples of these prophets who recorded their masters’ words (e.g., Jer 36:4). Ecstatics versus Non-Ecstatics. Ecstasy, too, is not limited to the pre-classical prophets. The classical prophets had visions and unnatural experiences during their prophetic “seizures.” Ezekiel, in particular, was prone to various ecstatic fits; Hosea is called a “madman” (Hos 9:7), and so, too, by direct implication, is Jeremiah (Jer 29:26). Role in Society. The classical prophets played an extremely important role in the Israelite society, as is well known. Like the earlier prophets, they were consulted by those who wanted information from God. Jeremiah is requested by King Zedekiah’s messengers to “inquire of the Lord for us, for Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, is making war against us...” (Jer 21:1–2; cf. similar requests in Jer 37: 7ff.; 42:1ff, and the advice given in Jer 23:33ff.; Ezek 8:1ff.; 14:1ff.; 33:30ff.; and conversely, Isa 30:1–2). Symbolic Acts. The classical prophets, too, performed significant symbolic acts which not only presaged future events but were efficacious in initiating their process of realization. These acts, it should be stressed, are different from magic in that they do not depend on any occult art or science but derive directly from God’s will and always serve to fulfill His plans and purposes. In this category may be included the symbolic names which Isaiah gave his children: “A remnant shall return” (Isa 7:3), and “Pillage hastens, looting speeds” (Isa 8:3.), and most probably his own name (Isa 8:18; cf. the child’s name, “God is with us,” Isa 7:14). Isaiah walked about naked and barefoot for three

380

biblical studies

years as a sign that the king of Assyria would lead the Egyptians and Ethiopians naked into exile (Isa 20:2ff.). Jeremiah (16:1ff.) was commanded to refrain from marrying and having children as a portent that both the parents and children of Israel would perish by the sword and famine. He buys a linen waistcloth, wears it, and then buries it in a cleft of the rock, and later upon recovering it, he finds that it has become spoiled, “good for nothing”: “Thus will I spoil the pride of Judah and Jerusalem… whom I bound to Myself…, but they did not obey” (Jer 13:1ff.). He buys a potter’s earthen flask and promptly smashes it to signify that the Lord “will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel so that it can never be mended” (Jer 19:1ff.). He is commanded by the Lord to make thongs and yoke bars and put them on his neck as a portent that any nation or kingdom which does not put its neck under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, will be punished, and only those who submit will be left alone to till their own land (Jer 27:2ff.; cf. the same act performed by Zedekiah, 1 Kings 22:11). The “false” prophet Hananiah, as a symbolic act of his own, breaks these very bars and says, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Even so will I make the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon break from the neck of all the nations within two years’.” Jeremiah subsequently replaces his wooden yoke with one of iron and repeats the same message (Jer 28). During the very last months of the siege of Jerusalem, he purchases a field from his uncle as a sign that “houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (Jer 32:6ff.). In Jer 43:8ff. the prophet is commanded to take large stones and hide them in the mortar in the pavement which is at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes as a sign that the Lord will set the throne of Nebuchadnezzar over these stones. In Jer 51:61–64, when Seraiah comes to Babylon, Jeremiah commands him to read the book he has written concerning all the evil that would befall Babylon. He is then to bind a stone to it and cast it into the Euphrates and say, “Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more, because of the evil I am bringing upon her.” Both the recitation of curses and the sinking of the scroll portend the final downfall of Babylon. Ezekiel (4:1ff.) takes a brick, incises upon it the city of Jerusalem, puts siege works against it, builds a siege wall, casts a mound, sets camps against it, and plants battering rams round about. He then takes an iron plate and places it as an iron wall between himself and the city and presses the siege against the city, “a sign for the house of Israel.” He also lies alternately on his left and right


381

sides for an extended period of time, presaging the oncoming days of punishment of Israel and Judah. He eats and drinks during those days only a very small amount of food including barley cake baked on human dung to symbolize that the people of Israel and Jerusalem “shall eat their bread unclean among the nations” and “shall eat bread by weight... and water by measure” (Ezek 4:9ff.). In chapter 5 he takes a sharp knife, uses it as a barber’s razor to cut the hair of his head and beard, takes balances and weights, and divides the hair into three parts for impending judgment. And in chapter 12 he conspicuously prepares for exile in full sight of his people. In sum, though the sole power of the classical prophet, his “weapon of war,” resides in the creative force of the spoken word, this word is occasionally reinforced dramatically, as it was by the pre-classical prophets, by the self-fulfilling power of the symbolic act. Signs and Wonders. The literary prophets, following their predecessors, also resorted to the use of signs and wonders to authenticate their prediction of impending events. Isaiah tells King Ahaz that since the latter did not put his complete confidence in the Lord in order to withstand the Syro-Ephramite coalition, “The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold a young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall call his name, Immanuel.” Before this lad reaches maturity, both the kingdoms of Aram and Ephraim would be destroyed (Isa 7: 10–25). The same prophet gives a sign to King Hezekiah in order to convince him that the Lord has heard his prayer. Fifteen years would be added to his life, and he would be delivered from the hand of the king of Assyria: “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: Behold I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps” (Isa 38:5–8). He also cures the king by rubbing a cake of figs over his inflammation (Isa 38:21–22; 2 Kings 20:7). In the previous chapter he gives the following sign to that same king: “And this shall be the sign for you: This year eat what grows of itself, and in the second year what springs of the same; then in the third year sow and reap, and plant vineyards” (Isa 37:30). This is a sign that the surviving remnant of Judah would take root and bear fruit. Jeremiah, in an embarrassing confrontation with the “false” prophet Hananiah, who smashed the wooden yoke bars of Jeremiah and subsequently replaced them with bars of iron, says, “Thus says the Lord..., ‘This very year you shall die, because you have uttered rebellion against the Lord’.” The next verse states that in that very year Hananiah

382

biblical studies

died (Jer 28:15–17). In one instance Ezekiel himself becomes a sign to the people, when God predicts and then executes the death of the prophet’s wife and forbids him to mourn for her as an omen of what the people are about to experience (Ezek 24:15ff.). Visions. Both the pre-classical and classical prophets share the common oracular terminology, “Thus says YHWH.” Though the latter are more “hearers” than “seers,” they, too, often report visions, e.g., those of Amos (7:1–9; 8:1–3; 9:1ff.); Isaiah (6); Jeremiah (1:11ff.; 24: 1ff.), and the extraordinary visions of Ezekiel (particularly in chapters 1–3, 8–10); and Zechariah (5–6). Indeed, visions play an important role in the classical prophetic writings, as the following quotations further attest: I spoke to the prophets; It was I who multiplied visions (Hos 12:11). And it shall come to pass in the future that I will pour out My spirit on all flesh; your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions (Joel 3:1). For they are a rebellious people, lying sons, sons who will not hear the instruction of the Lord; who say to the seers, ‘See not!’ and to the prophets, ‘Prophesy not to us what is right’ (Isa 30:9–10; cf. Isa 29:10; Amos 7:12 in negative contexts).

Similar to their pre-classical forerunners, the literary prophets occasionally employ the terms “the hand of YHWH” (Isa 48:16; 59:21; 61:1; Joel 3:1; Mic 3:8; Zech 7:12; cf. Isa 11:2; Hos 9:7) and “the spirit of YHWH” (e.g., Isa 61:1; Ezek 11:5; Mic 3:8) to describe the power that activates and evokes their revelatory state of mind. The ecstatic character of literary prophecy is exceptionally documented in the various trances of Ezekiel. Finally, classical prophets also, at times, bore the consequence of their dire predictions. Just as Ahab persecuted Elijah (1 Kings 17ff.) and had Micaiah imprisoned, because he foretold the destruction of Israel and the death of the king (1 Kings 22:27), so too Jeremiah was put into the stocks (Jer 20:2) as well as in prison (Jer 32ff.), and Uriah was put to death (Jer 26:20–23). Classical Prophecy. The classical prophets, thus, cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of their antecedents. They developed within the framework of Israelite monotheism. They considered themselves successive links in the chain of divine messengers extending back to Moses. Some prophets were greatly influenced by the literature


383

of the Torah, e.g., Jeremiah by Deuteronomy and Ezekiel by the Priestly Code, and were indebted to many of the earlier traditions concerning Exodus, David, and Zion. Nevertheless, they cannot be entirely explained by their predecessors or by earlier traditions. For in the middle of the eighth century b.c.e., a new dimension was added to Israelite religion which definitively shaped the character of the nation. Commencing with Amos, a herdsman from Tekoa, there arose a series of great religious teachers and thinkers, inspired spokesmen who became the passionate bearers of the word of God. Historical Scope. Their appearance was engendered by specific historical and political events. The temporal limits of the classical apostolic prophets can be placed within a historical framework extending over some three hundred years and highlighted by two cataclysmic events. The first prophets appeared a few decades before the fall of Northern Israel (722 b.c.e.), after the conclusion of the one hundred-year war with the Arameans—a war which produced a vast societal cleavage between the impoverished masses and the wealthy minority, and they disappeared approximately a century following the destruction of Jerusalem (587/6 b.c.e.). Within this period three major empires successively dominated the world scene: Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia. The prophets, however, always addressed their message to the contemporary situation. Amos, living in the time of Jeroboam II before the rise of Tiglath-Pileser III (745 b.c.e.) and the neo-Assyrian empire, foretold exile and destruction for Israel, but he never indicated that it would be executed by Assyria. Hosea (chs. 4–14), a somewhat later contemporary, also foresaw destruction, but although he was aware of both pro-Egyptian and pro-Assyrian factions, he did not designate Assyria as the enemy par excellence. Isaiah’s call, on the other hand, came at the time of the peak of Assyrian ascendancy. He called that nation the “rod of God’s wrath” (Isa 10:5) and considered it the last of the world powers. Simultaneous with the fall of Assyria would come the demise of arrogance, the root of man’s idolatrous behavior. Micah and Zephaniah, too, knew of the Assyrian menace, but except for one late interpolation in the former (Mic 4:10), they, like Isaiah, did not include Babylonia within their historical purview. Nahum, coming a bit later, rejoiced over the fall of Assyria, but was silent about Babylonia. The book of Habakkuk reflects the transition period between Assyrian and Babylonian hegemony. Jeremiah, who received his call to prophecy in 627 b.c.e., identified the enemy described as the “nation from

384

biblical studies

the north” with Babylonia only after the battle of Carchemish in 605 b.c.e. (Jer 25:9). When he portrays the eventual defeat of Babylonia, however, he once again resorts to his initial image of a “nation from the north” (Jer 50:3, 41). Persia is never mentioned as the successor to Babylonia in Jeremiah. Ezekiel, living in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, prophesied the fall of Babylonia but never specified Persia as the conqueror. (Persia is mentioned only once in this connection and then incidentally, 38:5.) Only with the advent of the anonymous prophet of the Exile who is called Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40ff.), was Cyrus, king of Persia, specifically mentioned and then favorably so as God’s “anointed one,” who would release the nation from captivity and allow them to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple (Isa 44:28; 45:1). The three last prophets of Israel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, were active during the post-Exilic period under the Persian rule and were not aware of the future ascendancy of the Greek Empire. Except for an occasional later supplement or interpolation, the oracles of the prophets are oriented to their own contemporary situation. Thus, classical prophecy arose and reached its zenith during the rise and fall of three great world empires. In the period of the pre-classical prophets, the political-historical horizon was of limited local significance. The enemies of those days—Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines, and Arameans—did not strive for world dominion. The age that witnessed the emergence of great empires bore witness to the unique religious phenomenon of the appearance of classical prophets who interpreted these world-shaking events in the light of an entirely new theological viewpoint. The Lord of Israel was seen as the director of the drama of world history. His ever-changing cast included the leading historical figures of those days—Sargon, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus—but his attention was continually focused on Israel; her destiny within the divinely controlled arena of world politics was His main concern. The prophets provided an answer to the “why” of the destruction of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms and the “how” of the future restoration. Dedication and Commissioning of the Prophet. The dedication and commissioning of a prophet created a new literary genre, the account of his being called. Such commissioning or recommissioning accounts are found in Isaiah 6 (which apparently does not describe the prophet’s original call to prophecy, but rather his recommissioning); Jer 1:4ff. and 15:19–21 (the latter, too, being a re-dedication; see


385

below); Ezek 1–3; and perhaps Deutero-Isaiah 40:6–8. The first description of a prophetic dedication, that of Moses, foreshadows several motifs which recur from time to time in the descriptions of the dedication of other prophets: (1) the humble occupation of the prophet (so, too, Amos, who was taken from his flocks to become a prophet, Amos 7:14); (2) the human response; (3) a protest of inadequacy for the mission; and (4) the divine reassurance. Moses made several attempts to dissuade God from selecting him, since he felt that he did not possess sufficient credentials for his mission. He pleaded inadequacy: “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and free the Israelites from Egypt” (Exod 3:11), and “Please, O Lord, I have never been a man of words... I am slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Exod 4:10). Isaiah, in chapter 6, which describes his re-dedication to the prophetic office, after complaining of “unclean lips,” first has his mouth sanctified, and then upon hearing God’s question, “Whom shall I send?” volunteers his services, “I am ready, send me.” (In an augural vision, the prophet would most likely not be asked to volunteer but would be compelled to go willy-nilly.) Jeremiah, who was prenatally designated and consecrated for his calling, recounts how God touched his mouth, too, and put His words into his mouth (Jer 1:9). Ezekiel describes his consecration as the devouring of a scroll written by God (Ezek 3:1ff.). The organ of speech is specifically mentioned in all of these prophetic accounts, because the prophet becomes, upon dedication, God’s “mouthpiece.” Not only the lips, however, but the prophet’s whole being becomes dedicated to the service of God. His Reluctance and God’s Reassurance. Several of the prophets, however, were reluctant to accept their calling because their task was unenviable and overly burdensome. The most dramatic example by far is the unsuccessful flight of Jonah. The unwillingness of Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah to accept the divine call is also concentrated on their organ of speech: “I have never been a man of words” (Exod 4: 10); “Woe is me, for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips” (Isa 6:5); “Alas, Lord God, I do not know how to speak, for I am inexperienced” (Jer 1:6). God, in turn, responds with encouraging assurances, for Moses (Exod 4:11), for Isaiah (Isa 6:7), and, in particular, for Jeremiah, “Gird up your loins... Do not be dismayed... They will fight against you; but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, says the Lord, to deliver you” (Jer 1:17–19; cf. 15:19–21). Life of the Prophet. Why such initial opposition? Why, too, such

386

biblical studies

an outpouring of divine encouragement? The prophet’s distinction of being chosen by God was matched only by his frustration and rejection on the part of his fellowmen. The prophetic office was not easy to bear. The description of the prophet’s emotional experience upon receiving a “stern vision” (Isa 21:2) is at times overwhelmingly frightening: his loins are filled with anguish; his pain is comparable to birth pangs; he is tortured, anguished, terror-stricken; he reels, and he is filled with the wrath of God (Isa 21:3–4; Jer 4:19; 6:11; 15:17; Hab 3:16). Of far greater significance, however, is the fact that such a selected messenger becomes a solitary individual, whose life is marked by loneliness and bitterness: “I sat not in the company of merrymakers, nor did I rejoice. I sat alone because Your hand was upon me” (Jer 15: 17); “Oh that I had a lodge in the wilderness that I might leave my people and go away from them, for they are all adulterers, a troop of treacherous men” (Jer 9:1). Jeremiah, whose personal tribulations and confessions are better known than those of any other prophet, became the paradigm of one who suffers for his mission. It is no wonder that he was not euphoric about being selected for such a task. Rejected and spurned, he bemoans his fate, “Woe unto me, my mother, that you bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land. I have neither a lender nor borrower been, yet everyone belittles me” (15: 10). Even his own kinsmen and family are counted among his chief antagonists (12:6; cf. 20:10). Enemies were continually plotting against his life (11:19). Eventually, he was even drive to curse his fate, “Cursed be the day on which I was born. Let the day my mother bore me not be blessed.… Why did I come forth from the womb to experience trouble and grief and to end my days in shame” (20:14–18). The prophets were fated to become harbingers of their nation’s downfall. Messengers of doom, they were doomed to suffer from their very message: “Lord, how long!” (Isa 6:11); “Let me weep bitterly. Seek not to comfort me for the destruction of the daughter of my people” (Isa 22:4); “For this I will lament and wail. I will go stripped and naked.… For incurable are her blows, for it has come to Judah, has reached the gate of my people, to Jerusalem” (Mic 1:8–9); “O that my head were water and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people” (Jer 8:23). The prophet bemoans their imminent tragedy and weeps over their tragic rejection of his words: “But if you will not listen, I will weep in secret for your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with


387

tears because the Lord’s flock has been taken captive” (Jer 13:17; cf. 10:19ff.; 14:17–18). The life story of a prophet is liable to be one of anguish, fear, rejection, ridicule, and even imprisonment (Isa 28:9–10; Jer 11:18–23; 12:1ff.; 15:10, 15; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–18; 37: 12–21; Ezek 21: 11–12; Hos 9:8; Amos 7:12–13; Mic 2:6). Some did not escape their assassins (Uriah, Jer 26:20–23). Though the prophet weeps with his destined victims and takes up the cry of his compatriots, he is not understood by them. Great yet unbearable is the fate of one who claims that he was seduced, even forced into his role: “O Lord you have seduced me, and I was seduced. You have overpowered me, and have prevailed” (Jer 20:7). Nevertheless he cannot cease from being a prophet: “If I say, ‘I will not mention Him or speak any more His name,’ there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am not able to hold it in” (Jer 20:9). Yet paradoxically when he does prophesy, he may be silenced by God (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11) or mocked and spurned by man. Jeremiah is eventually led to curse his people and demand vengeance against his adversaries (Jer 11:20b; 12:3b; 15:15a; 18:21–23). Nevertheless, the prophets did not shrink from their divine calling but persisted to remonstrate against their people, even at the price of great personal danger. Reproaching God. He is even driven in extremis to reproach God Himself: “Why are You like a man dumbfounded, like a mighty man who cannot save?” (Jer 14:9); “You are to me like a deceitful stream, like waters that fail!” (15:18). With this last outburst the prophetic protest reached its ultimate, as is indicated by the response of God, “If you return, I will restore you, and you shall stand before Me” (15:19). Paradoxically, he who dedicated his life to persuading the people to return must now “return” himself. And why? So that he can once again perform the role of God’s emissary, “You shall be My spokesman” (15:19). Thus, it seems that for a short period of time Jeremiah had actually lost his prophetic status. This “demotion” is further substantiated by the remainder of God’s response, where He repeats in almost exactly the same words the original encouragement at the time of the prophet’s initial call, “I will make you before this people an impregnable wall of bronze. They will attack you, but they will not prevail over you, for I am with you to save you and deliver you, says the Lord” (15:20). Jeremiah, after his defiant outcry of reproach, was recommissioned to deliver the word of God. False Prophets. The problem of how to distinguish a prophet who

388

biblical studies

was truly commissioned by God from a “false” prophet is perplexing, since there is no specific term for a false prophet in the Bible. The distinction, which is found in Rabbinic literature, was introduced by LXX into some verses in the books of Jeremiah (6:13; 26 [= LXX 33]; 7, 8, 11, 16; 27; [= LXX 34]: 9; 28 [= LXX 35]:1) and Zechariah (13:2), as pseudoproph¿t¿s. In the Hebrew Bible, however, both “false” and “true” prophets are called navi’, and both claim inspiration and a mission. In Deuteronomy there are several, not too successful, attempts to provide definitive criteria for distinguishing between them. Deut 18:20–22 states, “Any prophet who presumes to speak in My name an oracle which I did not command him to utter, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet shall die. And should you ask yourselves, ‘How can we know that the oracle was not spoken by the Lord?’—if the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the word does not come true, that word was not spoken by the Lord; the prophet has uttered it presumptuously. Do not stand in dread of him.” Deut 13:2ff. goes one step further: even if the prophet gives oracles which are subsequently confirmed by signs, should his message be to worship other gods, that prophet, too, is not to be heeded, since his appearance is only a test to determine whether the people really love and revere the Lord alone. However, examples of an Israelite prophet delivering his message in the name of another god are rare (Jer 2:8; 23:13) and not one demands that an alien god be worshiped. Most of them spoke, apparently with sincerity and conviction, in the name of God. As for the criterion of the fulfillment of the oracle, this was of no value whatever at the moment the prophecy was uttered. How could the people suspend judgment if Hananiah told them not to submit to the king of Babylon and foretold the release from Babylonian captivity within two years, while Jeremiah declared that it was God’s plan that Israel surrender and remain in exile for 70 years (Jer 27–28)? Jeremiah, himself, was completely perplexed and left the scene of confrontation without further contradicting Hananiah (28:11). Furthermore, several occasions are specifically recorded in which an oracle delivered by an acknowledged true prophet did not materialize in the manner in which he foretold—even within his own lifetime! Only a few examples of unfulfilled prophecies need be cited: Jeremiah predicted an ignominious end for King Jehoiakim (Jer 22:19); yet 2 Kings 24:6 clearly belies this oracle. Ezekiel predicted the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar


389

(26:7–14), but later he acknowledged that the king’s siege of the city was unsuccessful, but the Babylonian king would be compensated by the future conquest of Egypt (29:17–20). Both Haggai’s (2:21–23) and Zechariah’s (4:6–7) glorious anticipations and designs for Zerubbabel never materialized. Jeremiah sought another objective criterion for distinguishing between a true and false prophet when he was dramatically confronted and confuted by Hananiah son of Azzur (Jer 28). Hananiah declared in the name of YHWH that the Lord was going to break the yoke of Babylon, and that within two years (as opposed to Jeremiah’s oracle of 70 years of captivity) the exiled community in Babylon and their king, Jehoiachin, would return to Israel. Jeremiah sincerely wished that Hananiah’s words were true. He did not question his sincerity nor did he call him a false prophet, but he merely pointed out that “the prophets who were of old, before my time and yours, prophesied against many countries and great kingdoms of war, disaster, and plague.” Only the future would vindicate the prediction of a prophet who foresaw peace; “As for the prophet who prophesies of well-being, when that prophet’s word comes to pass, then it can be acknowledged that he is the prophet whom YHWH really sent.” But then again how could one suspend judgment until history decided? Jeremiah, more than any other prophet, was in constant conflict with these prophets. He attacks three different types of false prophets (Jer 23): (1) those who have dreams and report them as though they were the word of God and thus mislead the people, “The prophet who has a dream, let him tell his dream”; (2) those who are plagiarists “who keep stealing My words from one another” and pretend that they have had direct revelation; and (3) those “who using their own speech” concoct their own oracles and pass them off as prophecy. Nevertheless, when prophet clashed with prophet not only were the people confounded, but Jeremiah himself, in the case of Hananiah, was left speechless, and was unable to point to any irrefutable objective standard by which to verify or disqualify his opponent (Jer 28). To confound matters even more, a true prophet might be misled by a “false” prophet (1 Kings 13), and false prophecy might even be inspired by God in order to deceive and entice Israel (1 Kings 22:21ff.). According to Ezek 14:9–11, moreover, God might actually seduce a bonafide prophet to deliver a false message! If the individual prophet had a questionable moral character—if he was a drunkard (Isa 28:7), an adulterer, or a liar (Jer 23:14); if he

390

biblical studies

used his office to make a living by telling the people what they wanted to hear and not what they ought to hear (Mic 3:11); or if he was a “professional” prophet attached to the staff of temple personnel (the joint denunciation of priest and prophet may be noted in Isa 28:7; Jer 23:11, 34; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:2–3), his veracity obviously would be highly dubious. But what of the others? If there was no difference in the technical form of the prophecy, what of the contents? Apparently the only, and by no means infallible, criterion would be the nature of the message, whether it was one of weal or woe. Proclamations of national-religious salvation were suspect for over two hundred and fifty years (cf. 1 Kings 22:11ff.; Jer 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 23:17; 28:2ff.; Ezek 13:16; Mic 3:5ff.). It is also possible that such prophecies were related to the national interests of the crown and the cult—Hananiah predicted the early return of the cult vessels (Jer 28:3). But this, too, was not an absolute definition, for both pre-Exilic, e.g., Nah 2:1, Jer 30–33 (if these chapters stem from the early part of his career), and Exilic, e.g., Deutero-Isaiah, as well as post-Exilic prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, brought messages of comfort, and some also took a positive view of the cult (see below). Hence, the falsity or veracity of prophecies could not be determined on the external basis of form or content. They could be judged only by one who truly had been granted divine revelation and who stood in the Lord’s council (Jer 23:18), for only a prophet “who has My word, let him faithfully speak My word. What has straw to do with wheat?... Is not My word like fire...like the hammer that shatters the rock” (Jer 23:28–29). The Prophet as Intercessor. The irresistible character that such a religious experience has upon a “God-intoxicated” individual (Jer 23:9), “who has stood in YHWH’s council and seen and heard His word...” (Jer 23:18), not only forces him to deliver the divine message but compels him, at times, to intercede on behalf of his people. Herein lies a possible means of distinguishing between the two kinds of prophets: the function of the prophet as an intercessor. In this role, as distinct from his role as a messenger, the prophet attempts through prayer to defend his people against their impending doom. He serves not only as God’s “district attorney” to condemn the people, but also acts as the “defense attorney” for his people. The first individual in the Bible to be designated a prophet, Abraham, does not merit this title because he delivered oracles in the name of God, but because he interceded for Abimelech when the latter had taken Sarah into his household:


391

“Since he is a prophet, he will intercede for you to save your life” (Gen 20:7). Abraham, with unbridled daring, also challenged God in a futile attempt to save the twin cities of evil, Sodom and Gomorrah: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly” (18:25). The paragon of prophets, Moses, paradigmatically and eloquently exemplifies this intercessory role several times: (1) After the incident of the golden calf, “Let not Your anger, O Lord, blaze forth against Your people, whom You delivered from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand.… Turn from Your blazing anger, and renounce the plan to punish Your people. Remember Your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, how You swore to them by Your Self and said to them: ‘I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and I will give to your offspring this whole land of which I spoke, to possess for ever’ ” (Exod 32:11–13). Moses’ plea was successful. “And the Lord renounced the punishment He had planned to bring upon His people” (Exod 32:14); (2) At Taberah, “The people cried out to Moses. Moses prayed to the Lord and the fire died down” (Num 11:2); (3) After the incident of the spies, Moses prayed, “Therefore, I pray, let my Lord’s forbearance be great... Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to Your great kindness, as You have forgiven this people ever since Egypt” (Num 14:13ff.). Once again he met with success, “And the Lord said, ‘I pardon, as you have asked’ ” (Num 14:20). (For Moses’ personal intervention on behalf of Miriam and Aaron, see Num 12:13 and Deut 9:20, respectively.) Next in line in the tradition of prophetic intercession stands Samuel, who prayed on behalf of his people after their defeat by the Philistines (1 Sam 7:5–9), intervened after their request for a king, which so embittered God (1 Sam 12: 19, 23), and on behalf of Saul after God rejected his election as king of Israel (1 Sam 15:11). In the book of Jeremiah, both Moses and Samuel are singled out as the exemplars of great intercessors on behalf of their people (Jer 15:1; cf. Ps 99:6). Jeremiah proved a worthy, though unsuccessful, successor to these two. He pleaded with and prayed to God on behalf of his nation several times, e.g., in a time of drought, when he was driven by the enormity of his task to defy God, “Why are You like a man confused, like a mighty man who cannot save” (Jer 14:1ff.; cf. his words in 4:10; 15:11; and his confession in 18:20, “Remember how I stood in Your presence speaking good on their behalf so as to avert Your anger from them”). Even more impressive are God’s express commands to Jeremiah not to intercede! “Do not pray for this people, or lift up cry

392

biblical studies

or prayer for them, and do not intercede with Me, for I do not hear you” (Jer 7:16; cf. 11:14). When God attempts to silence Jeremiah in 14:11–12, the prophet, nevertheless, utters a plea on their behalf (v. 13). But once the die had been cast; the nation’s doom became irrevocable. Even Moses and Samuel would be helpless in such a situation (Jer 15: 1). Intercession would no longer avail, or more properly stated, God would not permit any further intercession, because it just might be successful in diverting Him from His self-prescribed course. The passages cited above and the pleas of Amos (Amos 7:1–3, 4–6) make it patently clear that a prime function of the prophet was to defend his people and to act as mediator on behalf of his nation. Kings Hezekiah and Zedekiah also requested Isaiah (Isa 37:2ff. = 2 Kings 19) and Jeremiah (Jer 37:3; cf. 42:2, 20) respectively, to intercede on behalf of Israel in the face of an enemy onslaught. Intercession, thus, is an integral component of the true prophet’s mission. To be a prophet means to speak for the people to God, represent their case, and intercede on their behalf. Should one shirk from such a duty by refusing to engage God in polemics and confine himself to merely speaking to the people for God, he would be belying his prophetic call. He would then be a “false” prophet. This interpretation finds confirmation in Ezekiel, who himself carries on the tradition of intercession (cf. 9:8; 11:13). In Ezek 13:4–5, God declares, “Your prophets have been like foxes among ruins, O Israel. You have not gone up into the breaches and made a fence about the house of Israel, so that they can stand firm in battle on the day of the Lord.” The prophet’s mission was to stand in the breach of the nation’s wall, a breach caused by the sin of his people, and to defend them, even against God. He was to prevent God from entering; for entrance spelled doom and destruction. This is explicitly stated in Ezek 22:30–31, “I sought among them a man who would build a fence and who could stand in the breach before Me on behalf of the land so that I would not destroy it; but I found none. Thus I poured out my rage upon them and utterly destroyed them in the fire of My wrath.” It is of interest to note that the very same imagery is employed in Psalms 106:23. In sum, though some of the “false” prophets did have revelations and visions, performed symbolic actions (Jer 28:10ff.), imparted oracles (23:31), and prophesied in YHWH’s name (14:14; 29:9), since they promised good fortune and prosperity and thereby lulled the people into false security (6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 23:17; 28: 2ff.), they were accused


393

by Jeremiah of not having been sent by God (14: 14–15; 23:21, 32; 28:15; 29:9), of not having been admitted to the divine council (23: 18), and of not interceding with God on behalf of the people (27:18). However, the final verdict could only be given by a true prophet, and even he was not always completely certain. History Universalism and Election. To the prophets, events of history disclosed the finger of God. God revealed Himself in the language of history. It is true that other nations in the ancient Near East also regarded their gods as being active in history on significant occasions, but none of them conceived of a panoramic world outlook in which all of history was seen to be governed by the will of one God, nor did they interpret the history of their nation as a unified sequence governed by one, all-encompassing divine plan. Though the God of Israel addressed Himself to all men (see, e.g., Isa 13:23; Jer 27:2ff.; 28:8; 46–51; Ezek 25–32; Amos 1:3–2:3; 9:7; Obad. 1; Nah 3), the concept of covenantal election was unique to Israel: “Only you have I chosen from amongst the nations; therefore I shall punish you for all your sins” (Amos 3: 2). Some prophets actually fought against this popular conception of inviolability (e.g., Isa 28:15; Jer 5:12; Amos 5:14). The consequence of being chosen was not a bona fide guarantee of immunity but rather an obligation for heightened responsibility. Whereas the nations of the world were held culpable solely for gross violations of the established order, Israel alone was taken to task for each and every infringement of the moral and ethical code of behavior. Indeed, one of the distinctive characteristics of the writings of the classical prophets is their insistent and adamant denunciation of corruption in the moral, ethical, and social fields. No one was impervious to their attack: neither kings, priests, prophets, judges, women, creditors, wealthy landowners, nor even the poorer classes. They leveled severe castigations against murder, juridical corruption, violence, cruelty, dishonesty, greed, oppression, exploitation, bribery, harlotry, degeneracy, debauchery, arrogance, luxury, callousness, apathy, lust for power, and militarism. Each and every one of these vices exemplifies a “forgetting of God,” which leads to the disintegration and the eventual condemnation of the nation (e.g., Isa 3:14–15, 16–24; 5:8, 11–12, 18–19, 20–23; 9:8–9, 16; 31:1; Jer 5:26; 7:9; Ezek 22; Hos 1:7; 4:2, 6, 11–13; 6:8–10; 7:1–7; 8:14; 10:13; 12:8–9; 13:6;

394

biblical studies

Amos 2:6–8; 3:10–11; 4:1; 5:7; 6:1–7, 13; Mic 3:1–3, 11; Zeph 1:12). Idolatry and idolatrous practices, too, were subjected to their usual severe criticism (e.g., Isa 65:3–4; Jer 7:18, 30–31; 19:4–5; Ezek 8; Hos 2:15; Amos 8:14; Zeph 1:4–6). Supremacy of Morality. Special attention should be given to the prophets’ new evaluation of the cult and their novel idea of the supremacy of morality. The problem of the relationship of the prophets to cultic worship has gone through several stages of interpretation. One of the basic axioms of Biblical scholarship was the notion that the priest and prophet were fundamentally opposed to one another. The major contribution of the prophets was considered to be the de-ritualization of religion. The basic message of the prophets was “ethical monotheism,” with the stress on morality rather than ritual. Thus, it was thought that the independent spirit of the prophet conflicted head-on with the priest, the professional officiant of organized religion. The former was interested in right; the latter in rites. The prophet was “word-possessed”—he brought the word of God to man. The priest was “cult-possessed”—he raised man’s sacrifice to God. The development of form-critical studies brought about a partial scholarly reversal, and the attempt was made to demonstrate the positive attitude of the prophets toward the cult. Their utterance of divinely inspired oracles was supposed to be an integral component of Israelite worship. The time, and later even the content, of these oracles were understood to be liturgically fixed. The prophets were identified as members of the cultic personnel. Both views, especially the latter, are extreme and are constantly being debated. What can be said with certainty is that the prophetic attacks on the cult did introduce a new principle into the religion of Israel: The essence of God’s demand is not to be found in the cult but in the moral and ethical spheres of life. In the Torah and pre-classical prophetic literature there is no sharp distinction between cultic and moral prescriptions. Both are equally important, and both are essential to the continued existence of the nation. With the words of the classical prophets, however, a new aspect was introduced. While Samuel argued for the primacy of obedience over sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22), Amos and his fellow prophets stressed the primacy of morality (Isa 1: 11–17; 66:1ff.; Jer 6:20; 7:21–23; 14:12; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–25; Mic 6:6–8). The prophets were no more unequivocably opposed to the cult than they were to song and psalm (Amos 5:23) or prayer, festival, and Sabbath (Isa 1:13–15), all of which they mentioned in their attacks.


395

On the contrary, Isaiah’s call came apparently while he was in the Temple (Isa 6). The Exilic (Isa 44:28; 52:11; 66:20–24; Jer 33:11, 18; Ezek 20:40–44; 22:8, 26; 40–48), as well as the post-Exilic prophets Haggai and Zechariah, had a very positive attitude toward the Temple and its cult. They advocated the rebuilding of the sanctuary, with the restoration of sacrificial worship, and stressed ceremonial law. The prophets did not denounce the practice of sacrifice per se, but they did adamantly oppose the absolutization of the cult. Attitude Toward Ritual. In Israel, ritual is conceived of as God’s gift to the people, an act of grace intended for their good. It affords one a means by which he can draw closer to God. Worship and ritual are means, justice and righteousness are ends. “God requires devotion, not devotions” (S. Spiegel, Amos versus Amaziah [New York, 1957], 43), right not rite. When cult becomes a substitute for moral behavior, it is to be condemned. Religion is not to be equated with formal worship, nor is it to be restricted to certain specified times during the calendar year; it is to encompass the whole life of man. Hence, any cultic act performed by a worshiper whose moral or ethical probity is not beyond reproach is considered an abomination to God. Ritual now became contingent on the individual’s personal behavior. It is no wonder that, after disparaging independent importance of the cult, the prophets clashed with the acknowledged heads of established religion, the priests. Clashes such as of Amos with Amaziah (Amos 7:10ff.), Jeremiah with Pashhur (Jer 20), or with Zephaniah son of Maaseiah (Jer 29:25ff.), are unheard of in pre-classical times. In the dramatic, near tragic confrontation of Jeremiah with his antagonists (Jer 26) the priests are among the forefront in demanding the death sentence for the prophet, who was accused of “blasphemy” for repudiating the inviolability of the Temple (Jer 7). Moreover, it should be recalled that in all other religions of the ancient Near East the correct observance of the cult was of paramount importance, since it was thought that the welfare of the gods was dependent on both the maintenance of their temples and the daily upkeep of their sacrifices. The prophets, however, devaluated the intrinsic significance of ritual, and stressed God’s ultimate concern with correct behavior. Justice, righteousness, kindness, integrity, and faithfulness were among God’s chief demands (e.g., Jer 9:22–23; 22: 15–16; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:15, 24; Mic 6:8). Morality and Destiny. The prophets took yet another step. Not only did they stress the primacy of morality, which was the essence and

396

biblical studies

quintessence of God’s demand, but it now became the decisive factor in determining the national destiny of Israel. This was a shift from the older tradition expressed in the Torah literature and in the Former Prophets, according to which the sin of idolatry (or the desecration of the Sabbath) was the primary transgression. Not only were the cardinal sins of murder and incest denounced as before but the everyday immoral acts of society were condemned as well. With the emergence of the classical prophets a new criterion became operative—moral rectitude. The destiny of the nation was bound up with it, and unrighteousness would spell the end of Israel. Repentance. The prophets consistently pleaded with Israel to seek God that they might live (Amos 5:4, 14). They demanded piety and wholehearted faithfulness to the covenant between God and Israel, and threatened punishment and fulfillment of the covenant’s curses for those who were disloyal to it. Yet all of their denunciations and frightful maledictions were not meant as ends in themselves. They were, rather, a vain attempt to arouse man from his lethargic status quo; they were didactic means to achieve the desired end—repentance. The objective of the prophetic threat of dire punishment was that it should not take place. Paradoxically, the prophets wished to make their own calling self-defeating by persuading man to return to God. They censured, warned, and admonished the people to forsake their immoral ways so as to avoid imminent destruction. They addressed a nation which had been granted the supreme blessing of the freedom and the ability to repent. The prophets were not always ready to accept the finality of divine judgment (for Amos and Jeremiah, see above). They prayed that repentance would have the desired effect: “Who knows, God may yet have a change of heart and turn from His fierce anger so that we shall not perish” (Jonah 3:9, the words of the king of Nineveh expressing the prophetic sentiment; cf. the “perhaps” of the sailors in 1:6). There are other examples: “Who knows whether He will not turn and change His decision and leave a blessing behind Him” (Joel 2:14). “It may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph” (Amos 5:15). “Perhaps you may find shelter on the day of the Lord’s anger” (Zeph 2:3). Divine plans are not immutable but may be revocable; for one’s actions may tip the scales of justice and mercy: “If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and pull it down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that


397

I intended to do it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in My sight, not listening to My voice, then I will repent of the good which I intended to do to it” (Jer 18:7–10; cf. Ezek 3:17–21; 33:7–20). Even the possibility of a “divine turning” not predicated upon the prior repentance of the people was contemplated, “How can I give you up, Ephraim! [How can I] hand you over, Israel! How can I treat you like Admah or make you like Zeboim! My heart is changed within Me; My compassion grows warm and tender, I will not execute My fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim” (Hos 11:8–9). Compassion may overcome wrath (cf. Jer 33:8; Mic 7:18–19). Suspension of Freedom and God’s Inaccessibility. Yet the prophets were not often so optimistic. They knew very well the futility of chastisement (e.g., Amos 4:6–11; Isa 1:5ff.; 9:12; Jer 2:30; 5:3). This incurable stubbornness and hardheartedness of the people (Isa 42: 18–20; 43:8; 46:12; Jer 5:21; 6:10, 17; 9:25; Ezek 2:4; 12:2) led one prophet to take the most radical step of all: the suspension of freedom. Isaiah was commissioned to “make the heart of this people fat, their ears heavy, and their eyes dim, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isa 6:10). The prophet became God’s messenger to harden their hearts and thereby to prevent the people from repenting! Since Israel had so often spurned the words of God and since they had not returned to Him, the privilege of repentance was to be denied them. The only “cure” for obdurate hardness was to intensify it. At other times God would make Himself inaccessible to the people as a punishment (e.g., Hos 5:6; Amos 8:11–12), or to the prophet himself (Isa 8:17). Jeremiah had no immediate answer for Hananiah (Jer 28:11) and had to wait once for ten days for the word of God (Jer 42:7). New Covenant. The frustration of waiting for the people’s response and the realization that they by their own efforts could not effect a total return to God led to the development of an entirely new theological concept. If the nation would not initiate the process, God would. He would not only initiate it but finalize it as well. This is the thought implicit in the “new covenant.” Since the Sinaitic covenant had been broken, God, despairing of further futile warnings and punishments, would implant His will directly on their hearts by a divine “grafting.” Their heart of stone would be circumcised and turned into a heart of flesh. Their entire being would be filled with the “knowledge of

398

biblical studies

God.” This new covenant would be unbreakable and would presage final redemption (Isa 55:3; Jer 24:7; 31:30–33; 32:38–41; Ezek 16:60; 34:25ff.; 36:26ff.; 37:26ff.; cf. Deut 30:6; Isa 11:9; 54:13). Future of Israel. With the covenant renewed, the future community of Israel, constituted by the remnant (e.g., Isa 4:3–4; 8:16–17; 10: 20–21; Jer 31:31ff.; Amos 9:8ff.; Mic 7:8; Zeph 2:3, 9), which will have survived the “Day of the Lord,” would live in peace, no longer troubled by oppression, injustice, or war (e.g., Isa 2:1–5; 10:27; 11: 1–9; 60:5–16; 61:4–9; Hos 2:21ff.; Mic 4:3–4). It would be an age in which God’s ineffable Presence would be manifested for all humankind (Isa 40:5), and so all the nations would come to reject idolatry and recognize and revere the God of Israel alone (Isa 19:18–25; 45:22ff.; Jer 3:17; 12:16; Ezek 17:24; Mic 7:16ff.; Hab 2:14; Zeph 2:11; Zech 2:15; 8:20–23; 14:16–21). Jerusalem would become the spiritual and juridical center of the world (Isa 2:2), from which God’s instruction would be disseminated to the entire world (Isa 2:3; 51:4ff.). Israel, would, according to Deutero-Isaiah, become a prophet nation (49: 2–3; 51:16; 59:21), spreading the teaching of God to all humanity (42:1–4) and recounting His glory (43:21). It would become “a light to the nations” (42:6; 49:6), bringing God’s blessing and beneficence to the ends of the earth (45:22–24).

literary and ideological echoes of jeremiah

399

LITERARY AND IDEOLOGICAL ECHOES OF JEREMIAH IN DEUTERO-ISAIAH The anonymous prophet of the exile, Deutero-Isaiah, was greatly influenced by a wide range of literary sources, both Biblical1 and extra-Biblical.2 This paper is devoted to an examination of one of these sources, the writings of the prophet Jeremiah. The preponderant influence of Jeremiah throughout the entire book of Deutero-Isaiah is witnessed not only in expressions and verses which were adopted verbatim, but also in Deutero-Isaiah’s more subtle and artistic adapting and refashioning of material from Jeremiah in order to create a totally new pattern of imagery. Scholars have at times drawn attention to some occasional Jeremian sources of inspiration upon Deutero-Isaiah,3 but their remarks have been far from complete for several reasons:

1 For the influence of Psalms on Deutero-Isaiah, see M. Seidel, “Parallels in the Books of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms,” MinÈah le-David (Jerusalem, 1935), 39–47 (Hebrew). For additional studies, see O. Eissfeldt, “The Promise of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5,” Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honour of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and L. W. Harrelson (New York, 1962), 196–207; H. L. Ginsberg, “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody,” Eretz-Israel, IX (W. F. Albright Volume), ed. A. Malamat (Jerusalem, 1969), 45–50; B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, 1998), 108–127. 2 See my study, “Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions,” Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo, AOS 53 (New Haven, 1968) = JAOS 88 (1968), 180–186 [11–22]. 3 Some have even gone so far as to identify the Servant of the Lord with Jeremiah himself. The first one to do so was Saadia Gaon, as cited by Abraham ibn Ezra in his commentary to Isa 52:13: “The Gaon, Rav Saadia, may his memory be for a blessing, interpreted the whole chapter as referring to Jeremiah and well he interpreted” (M. Friedlander, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah, I [London, 1873], 240). Yefeth ben Ali, Saadia’s formidable Karaite opponent, did not share these same sentiments: “(He) (= Saadia) lost his senses in applying it to the prophets generally or, according to some authorities, in supposing that it referred to Jeremiah in particular. His explanation is not indeed of a kind towards which anyone would feel attracted, and we shall show the manner in which it may be refuted…” (apud S. Blank, Prophetic Faith in Isaiah [Detroit, 1967], 101). Blank himself, though not identifying the two, does conclude that “Jeremiah must sit as a model for his portrait of God’s servant-prophet” (p. 100). “The servant shares so many features with Jeremiah that we are constrained to agree that Deutero-Isaiah had that prophet in mind when he described God’s servant” (p. 101). “That Jeremiah served as a model

400

biblical studies

1. They have noted sporadic surface parallels4 between the two without subjecting the corresponding contextual relationship and linguistic overtones to further analysis. 2. Their remarks are usually scattered throughout their commentaries and are not presented in a systematic fashion, which would enable one to appreciate the full extent of the influence. 3. Many points of contact, to the best of my knowledge,5 have been overlooked so far. The following study will be based primarily on the order of the chapters and verses in Deutero-Isaiah. In 40:2, the prophet proclaims, ‫דברו על לב ירושלם וקראו אליה כי‬ ‫מלאה צבאהּ כי נרצה עֲוֹנָהּ כי לקחה מיד ה' ִכּ ְפ ַליִ ם בכל חטֹאתיה‬, “Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her time of service is ended, her penalty is paid, for she has received at the hand of the Lord double measure for all her sins.” Since she has suffered a double punishment, she will be duly compensated, as is written in Isa 61:7, “Because your shame6 was double (‫…)מ ְשׁנֶה‬ ִ therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion (‫)מ ְשׁנֶה‬.” ִ A clear case of measure for measure. Jerusalem has suffered twofold for her iniquities, hence she will be doubly rewarded. But what is the source of this anomalous idea of a twofold punishment? It is none other than Jeremiah 16: 18, where the Lord says, “Since they have defiled My land with the

for the servant is established” (p. 103). O. Eissfeldt (Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja [Halle, 1933], 17) thinks that Jeremiah served as a “godfather” to the servant. For other views, see H. H. Rowley, Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1965), 1–93. 4 Including incorrect parallels, e.g., Blank, Prophetic Faith, 219–220. 5 The commentaries to Deutero-Isaiah consulted in this study were those of A. Dillmann, Das Buch Jesaja (Leipzig, 1890); B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, GHAT 3 (Göttingen, 1922); A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, IV (Leipzig, 1912); E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, I–II (Dublin, 1943); S. D. Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia (Padova, 1867) (Hebrew); J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (New York, 1968); K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja erklärt (Tübingen, 1900); J. Muilenburg, The Second Isaiah, IB 5 (Oxford, 1956); C. R. North, The Second Isaiah (Oxford, 1967); C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah (New York, 1928); P. Volz, Jesaja II, KAT 9 (Leipzig, 1932). For Jeremiah, the two commentaries most consulted were W. Rudolph, Jeremia, HAT 1/12 (Tübingen, 1958); and J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (New York, 1965). For insightful comparisons of Jeremiah on Deutero-Isaiah, see also Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 32–72. 6 Probably read ‫ בשתם‬for ‫בשתכם‬. IQIsaa harmonizes by rendering second-person masculine plural throughout. For the other exegetical problems, consult the commentaries.


401

carcasses of their detestable idols and have filled My inheritance with their abominations, I will repay in full (‫ )ושלמתי ראשונה‬their iniquity and sin twofold (‫)מ ְשׁנֶה‬.” ִ 7 That Deutero-Isaiah borrowed the word and the notion of ‫משנה‬ from this passage is made even more probable by the fact that he also employs the phrase ‫שלמתי ראשונה‬, an expression which, outside of the verse in Jeremiah, appears only in Isa 65:6–7, where for a similar offense of defilement and desecration it is written, “I will repay (‫ )ושלמתי‬into their bosoms your8 iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together, says the Lord, because they have burnt incense upon the mountains and reviled me upon the hills. I will measure out their recompense in full (‫ )ראשונה‬into their bosoms.”9 In 40:9, the prophet invites the harbinger of good news to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah to ascend a high mountain and raise her voice to announce the coming of the Lord: “Behold His reward is with Him and His recompense before Him (‫( ”)שכרו אתו ופעֻלתו לפניו‬v. 10).10 What are the “reward” (‫ )שכר‬and “recompense” (‫ֻלּה‬ ָ ‫ ְ)פּע‬alluded to here? Not one that the Lord receives, but one which He bestows on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. The following verse, which likens the Lord to a shepherd who tends his flock, gathers the lambs in his arms, carries them in his bosom, and gently leads those who are with young, is obviously a simile for the loving care with which He will bring back the exiles.11 If verification for this interpretation were needed, it is afforded by Jer 31:16–17, where the prophet consoles lamenting Rachel with the comforting words, “Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for compensating you (‫)שכר לפעֻלתך‬.” This is the only other place where the two words ‫שכר‬ and ‫ פעֻלה‬are juxtaposed in connection with the return of the exiles,12 a promise which is then specifically mentioned by Jeremiah, “They

For another instance of the use of ‫משנה‬, see Jer 17:18. The versions read third-person plural. 9 It is here suggested that Heb. ‫ שלמתי ראשונה‬is analogous to ‫( שלם בראש‬Lev 5:24), which means, “to pay in full.” Compare the cognate Akkadian expression, qaqqadam àullumu (CAD, ’/I, 227). 10 Cf. Isa 62:11. 11 Contra Muilenburg (Second Isaiah, 433), who thinks that it refers to “the booty and spoil which Yahweh has won from His victory.” 12 With the exception, of course, of Isa 62:11, just cited. For the only other instances of such a juxtaposition, but in entirely different contexts, see Ezek 29:19–20 and 2 Chron 15:7, a verse which has other Jeremian overtones. 7 8

402

biblical studies

shall return from the land of the enemy… your children shall return to their own country.”13 In Jeremiah, Rachel gets back her exiled lost children in return for her weeping. So, too, Jerusalem (and the cities of Judah) shall get back their exiled population as a “reward” for doubly suffering their absence. (Most likely, the other Deutero-Isaianic passages which console bereaved Zion with the imminent return of her children [49:14ff.; 54:1ff.] are indirectly inspired by the same words of comfort to Rachel.) As has just been noted, the return to Zion in Deutero-Isaiah is compared to the ingathering of sheep.14 The Lord “will pasture His flock like a shepherd (‫)כרועה עדרו‬. In His arms He will gather (‫ )יקבץ‬the lambs” (v. 11). So, also, in the very chapter of Jeremiah cited above (31:10), the exact same imagery is employed to express the ingathering of the exiles: “He who scattered Israel will gather him (‫ )יקבצנו‬and will guard him as a shepherd his flock (‫)כרועה עדרו‬.”15 Jeremiah elaborates further (31:8): “Behold, I will bring them from the north land and gather them from the ends of the earth, among them the blind and the lame (‫וּפ ֵסּ ַח‬ ִ ‫)עוֵּר‬.” ִ This wondrous return of the blind and the lame16 from exile is repeated in the description of the homecoming found in Isaiah 35, a chapter which most scholars today attribute (along with Chapter 34)17 to Deutero-Isaiah.18 In 35: 13

Cf. North and Volz. Cf. Isa 49:9–10; 56:8; 63:11. 15 Cf. Mic 2:12. For the same imagery in Ezekiel, cf. Ezek 34:11ff. “As a shepherd seeks out his flock (‫ …)רועה עדרו‬I shall gather them (‫)וקבצתים‬.” Cf. Volz, Marti, Dillmann, and Muilenburg. For the continuation of Ezekiel (v. 14), “… Upon the mountain heights of Israel (‫ )מרום ישראל‬shall be their pasture,” cf. also the continuation of Jeremiah’s thought (31:12), “They shall come and sing aloud on the heights of Zion (‫)במרום ציון‬.” 16 For the mention of these two in other passages, cf. Lev 21:18; Deut 15:21; 2 Sam 5:6, 8. 17 In Chapter 34 there are several apocalyptic motifs which Deutero-Isaiah shares with Jer 46; 50–51 (these last two chapters in Jeremiah, however, are admittedly late): (1) Isa 34:8: “For the Lord has a day of vengeance ('‫)נקם לה‬, a year of retribution (‫ֻמים‬ ִ ‫)שׁלּ‬ ִ for the cause (‫ )לריב‬of Zion.” Jer 50:15: “This is the Lord’s vengeance ('‫)נקמת ה‬. Take vengeance (‫ָקמוּ‬ ְ ‫)הנּ‬ ִ upon her.” Jer 50:34: “He will surely champion their cause (‫)ריב יריב את ריבם‬.” Jer 51:6: “For this is the time of the Lord’s vengeance ('‫)נקמת ה‬, the retribution He is rendering (‫ )משלם‬her.” (2) Both Isa 34:9–10 and Jer 50:32 refer to the motif of destruction by fire. (3) Both Isa 34:13 and Jer 50:39 see the desolate places inhabited by ‫בנות יענה‬, 14


403

5–6, the prophet declares, “Then the eyes of the blind (‫ ִ)עוְ ִרים‬shall be opened…, then shall the lame (‫ ִ)פּ ֵסּ ַח‬leap like a deer.” Though each verse is to be interpreted within its own unique context, the point here is that both prophets make special note of the return home of these two types of invalids. Other miracles that will occur in the realm of nature on this momentous occasion are further described by Deutero-Isaiah in that same chapter. In addition to an express highway (‫ )מסלול ודרך‬run-

“ostriches” (Isa 34:14 and Jer 50:39), ‫ציים‬, “wildcats,” and ‫איים‬, “hyenas.” (These three, whose exact identification is still a matter of controversy, are also found in the description of the downfall of Babylon in Isa 13:21–22. But Isa 34:14, ‫ופגשו ציים את‬ ‫איים‬, is very similar to Jer 50:39, ‫יֵשבו ציים את איים‬.) (4) Isa 34:5: “For My sword (‫ )חרבי‬has drunk its fill (‫)רוְּ ָתה‬ ִ [IQIsaa: ‫תראה‬, cf. Tg. Jon., ‫תּ ְת ְג ֵלי‬, ִ ‘will be seen’] in the heavens….” (6) “The Lord has a sword (‫ ;)חרב‬it is sated with blood (‫ …)דם‬For the Lord has a sacrifice (7) ”.…('‫“ )זבח לה‬Their land shall be soaked with blood (‫)וְ ִרוְּ ָתה מדמם‬.” Jer 46:10: “For this day is the day of the Lord of Hosts, a day of vengeance (‫ )נקמה‬to avenge (‫ )להנקם‬Himself on His foes. The sword (‫חרב‬, or read ‫חרבו‬, “His sword”) shall devour till it is sated, till it drinks its fill of their blood (‫)וְ ָרוְ ָתה מדמם‬. For the Lord God has a sacrifice ('‫)זבח לה‬.” (Cf. also Jer 50:27; 51:40; Zeph 1:7; Ezek 17:20.) The expression ‫ רותה מדמם‬appears only in Jeremiah and Isaiah. For some of these comparisons, cf. Dillmann, Das Buch Jesaja, 303 n. 4; Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, 243 n. 4; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, I, 375. 18 For a representative view, see McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 6: “This poem [chap. 34], and the poem following, belong in style and content with Isa 40–66….” Cf. also Y. Kaufmann, Toldot Ha-emunah Ha-Yisraelit, VIII (Tel Aviv, 1957), 150–151. A word should also be mentioned here about the parallels drawn from Jer 30–31. Because the style is remarkably similar at times to the writings of Deutero-Isaiah, some scholars have argued against the authenticity of those passages and have posited DeuteroIsaianic interpolations in the book of Jeremiah. While, of course, later additions are possible and may explain away some of the examples cited in the paper, it should nevertheless be said that these very chapters contain much that is now taken to be genuine utterances of Jeremiah. According to Bright (Jeremiah, 284–287), “Some scholars, indeed (especially Rudolph, building on Volz), go so far as to argue that the greater part of chapters 30–31 is to be understood in this way [i.e., to refer to a relatively early period of Jeremiah’s career], and that the section as a whole provides us, a few non-genuine sayings having been subtracted, with words of Jeremiah addressed to northern Israel during Josiah’s reign. Stylistic similarities to Second Isaiah are explained on the supposition that both prophets made use of the same conventional forms of address.” [This, of course, is a possibility; but, as our study attempts to show, the bulk of examples cited are drawn from expressions uniquely Jeremian.] “This is an attractive suggestion. But it is, nevertheless, open to certain objections. It fails to explain why style of this type just mentioned is found only in a few places… not generally throughout these chapters or elsewhere in the book…” [As Bright was unaware of the multiple examples of influence drawn from many different sections of the book, this objection is no longer tenable.] Bright himself nevertheless concludes that most of the material is genuine with certain cases of subsequent expan-

404

biblical studies

ning straight through the wilderness (v. 8),19 he adds: “Waters shall break forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert” (v. 6), and “the burning sand shall become a pool and parched land, springs of water” (v. 7). This description of an abundance of water along the route is often repeated and elaborated upon by the prophet, e.g., 41: 18: “I will open rivers on the bare heights,20 and fountains in the midst of the valleys. I will turn the wilderness into pools of water21 and the arid land into ponds of water”; 43:19–20: “See, I shall make a new thing;22 now it bursts forth—do you not perceive it? Indeed, I will make a road (‫ )דרך‬through the wilderness and paths23 in the desert… I shall furnish water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert to give drink to My chosen people”; 49:9–11: “They shall feed24 along the roads25 and on all bare heights shall be their pasture. They shall neither hunger nor thirst, neither scorching wind nor sun shall smite them, for He who loves them will lead them and by springs of water will guide them. I will turn all my mountains into a road (‫ )דרך‬and my highways (‫ )מסלתי‬will be built up.”26 This very picture of a highway in the desert, ridged with springs and sion and supplementation. Even in some of the most “pronounced” sections which have affinities to Deutero-Isaiah, he still posits a Jeremian nucleus. One consequence of our presentation is that in the light of the overall influence of completely different sections of the writings of Jeremiah (including those chapters here under discussion) upon the entire book of Deutero-Isaiah, many of the heretofore suspect passages may be restored to their original author, Jeremiah. Cf. the similarities noted by Bright (Jeremiah) on p. 281, and his remark on p. 282 n. 21: “Although the thought of the highway home from exile was given its fullest development by Second Isaiah…, we see that it was already present in Jeremiah’s mind” (my italics). See also p. 279 n. 11. Cf. Rudolph, Jeremia, 172ff.; and Bright, Jeremiah, 281 nn. 8–9. 19 Cf. the similar thought in Isa 40:3: ‫ ְמ ִס ָלּה‬...‫ ;דרך‬v. 16: ‫ נתיבות‬...‫דרך‬. This, of course, is a repetition of the Exodus motif; cf. Isa 43:16. The liberation of Israel shall now become the new Exodus. 20 The use of the plural ‫ שפיים‬is limited to Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah: Jer 3: 2, 21; 4:11; 7:29; 12:12; 14:16; and Isa 41:18; 49:9. 21 Heb. ‫מים‬-‫לאגם‬. The suggested emendation ‫ לאגמים‬is unnecessary in light of Ps 107:35 and 114:8. 22 Heb. ‫חדשה‬, as contrasted to the ‫ראשנות‬, “former events,” i.e., a dry path through the sea. The “new thing” is a watered path in the desert. 23 Read ‫נתיבות‬, according to IQIsaa, instead of ‫נהרות‬, “rivers,” which is a case of anticipation from the next verse, and compare 42:16 for the exact parallelism ‫דרך–נתיבות‬, and 43:16. For the use of plural ‫ נתיבות‬with singular ‫דרך‬, cf. also Jer 18:15. 24 Cf. Isa 40:11. 25 Cf. the variant reading in IQIsaa, ‫כול הרים‬. LXX also reads pa&saij, ‫כל‬. 26 For a similar description, cf. Isa 40:3–4; 44:3; 48:21 (and 30:25).


405

pools of water, is first found in Jer 31:9: “I will lead them to streams of water, by a level road (‫ )דרך‬on which they shall not stumble.” And later on in that chapter he adds, “Set up waymarks for yourself, make yourself guideposts. Consider well the highway (‫)מ ִס ָלּה‬, ְ the road (‫)דרך‬ which you will go” (v. 21). Then, in the words of Deutero-Isaiah (35:10 = 51:11), “The ransomed of the Lord ('‫ )פדויי ה‬shall return and come to Zion with shouting (‫”)ובאו ציון ברנה‬. And the exultant cheers of these returnees are none other than an echo from Jer 31:11–12: “For the Lord has ransomed ('‫ )פדה ה‬Jacob…. They shall come and shout aloud on the height of Zion (‫ורננו במרום ציון‬ ִ ‫”)ובאו‬.27 In my study of Deutero-Isaiah and cuneiform royal inscriptions,28 attention was drawn to the manner in which Deutero-Isaiah creatively readapted a formulaic expression which was found in the chapter describing the call and commission of Jeremiah. In Jer 1:5 the Lord says, “Before I created you (‫ )אצרך‬in the womb, I selected you…. I appointed you (‫ )נתתיך‬a prophet to the nations (‫)לגוים‬.” Likewise in Deutero-Isaiah, the Lord addresses His selected servant in the exact same words (42:6): “I have created you and I have appointed you (‫)ואצרך ואתנך‬29 a covenant people, a light to the nations (‫”)לאור גוים‬.30 Deutero-Isaiah, however, expanded this mission to include not only

27

Cf. Ezek 34:14. Jeremiah further elaborates upon this joyful event in the next verse (31:13): “Then shall maidens rejoice in dance, young men and old alike [Heb. ‫ַח ָדּו‬ ְ ‫ ;י‬LXX xarh/sontai, “shall be merry,” is based on the vocalization ‫ֶחדּוּ‬ ְ ‫]י‬, for I will turn their mourning to joy (‫)לששון‬. I will comfort them (‫ )ונחמתים‬and cheer them in their grief (‫)ושמחתים מיגונם‬.” Deutero-Isaiah (35:10 = 51:11) also jubilantly declares that the exiles will return in song “crowned with everlasting joy. They shall attain joy and happiness (‫)ששון ושמחה‬, and sorrow (‫ )יגון‬and sighing shall flee” (cf. Volz, Jesaja II, 112). Similarly in Isa 51:3, “For the Lord has comforted (‫ )נחם‬Zion, comforted (‫)נחם‬ all her ruins…. Joy and happiness (‫ )ששון ושמחה‬will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of music ([‫)תודה וקול ]זמרה‬.” (IQIsaa adds ‫נס יגון ואנחה‬, harmonizing this verse with 35:10 and 51:11.) Cf. Jer 30:19: “From them shall come thanksgiving (‫ )תודה‬and the sound (‫ )קול‬of those who make merry”; and 33:11: “The sound of mirth (‫ )קול ששון‬and the sound of gladness (‫…)קול שמחה‬, the sound of those who sing, ‘Give thanks (‫ )הודו‬to the Lord of Hosts’….” Cf. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, 337. 28 S. M. Paul, “Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions,” 180–186, esp. 185–186 [11–22, esp. 19–22], for a fuller treatment of the passages under study. 29 The verb is derived from the root ‫יצר‬, “to create.” For ‫נתן‬, “appoint, dedicate,” see E. A. Speiser, “Unrecognized Dedication,” IEJ 13 (1963), 69–73. 30 Cf. also Isa 49:1, 5, 8, ‫אצרך ואתנך‬, and 43:1; 45:2, 24; 46:3. See also W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God, Studies in Biblical Theology 20 (Naperville, Ill., 1957), 29.

406

biblical studies

the prophet, who was to be in Jeremiah’s words a ‫נביא לגוים‬, but all of Israel, who were to become ‫אור לגוים‬, “a light to the nations,” that is, to bring divine blessing to the nations by instructing them in the teaching of the Lord (42:1–4; 41:4). In the same chapter which describes the consecration and dedication of Jeremiah, the prophet is encouraged by God (1:8):31 “Have no fear (‫ …)אל תירא‬for I am with you (‫)כי אתך אני‬.” This familiar formula of encouragement32 is also employed by Deutero-Isaiah33 when Israel is addressed (41:10): “Have no fear (‫ )אל תירא‬for I am with you (‫”)כי עמך אני‬.34 Compare also 43:5, ‫אל תירא כי אתך אני‬, and the expanded formulation in 44:2, “Have no fear, Jacob My servant (‫”)אל תירא עבדי יעקב‬. The latter phrase is also found in Jer 30:10, ‫ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב‬, the only other place where it occurs.35 In that very same verse (30:10), Jeremiah goes on to say, “Be not dismayed, Israel, for I will save you from afar (‫ )מושיעך מרחוק‬and your offspring (‫ )זרעך‬from the land of their captivity…. (11) For I am with you (‫אתך‬ ‫ )אני‬to save you (‫ )להושיעך‬says the Lord.”36 Its echo is overheard in Isa 43:1ff.: “Fear not (‫…)אל תירא‬. (2) I am with you (‫( …)אתך אני‬3) for I the Lord am your God, the Holy One of Israel, your deliverer (‫…)מושיעך‬. (5) Fear not (‫)אל תירא‬, for I am with you (‫)כי עמך אני‬, from 31

Cf. Jer 1:17, 19. It is also found in cuneiform sources, especially in neo-Assyrian texts. See S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki, 1997), LXVI; M. Nissinen, “Die Relevanz der neuassyrische Prophetie für die alttestamentliche Forschung,” Mesopotamia, Ugaritica, Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (Neukirchen, 1993), 217–258; idem, “Fear Not. A Study on an Ancient Near Eastern Phrase,” The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, ed. M. A. Sweeney and E. B. Zvi (Grand Rapids, 2003), 122–161. It is also present in the Aramaic Zakir inscription, ‫ ]ואנה אק[ם עמך‬...‫אל תזחל‬, KAI 1, 202:13–14. 33 Cf. M. Haran, Between RI’SHONÔT (Former Prophecies) and HADASHÔT (New Prophecies). A Literary-Historical Study in the Group of Prophecies Isaiah XL–XLVIII (Jerusalem, 1963), 33 n. 34. For the motif of ‫אל תירא‬, see H. G. Reventlow, Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia (Gütersloh, 1963), 48ff.; K. W. Neubauer, “Erwägungen zu Amos 5:4–15,” ZAW 78 (1966), 296–302. 34 Cf. Isa 41:13, 14; 43:1. 35 Except for the repetition of this verse in Jer 46:27–28. According to Prof. M. Goshen-Gottstein (oral communication), this expression is a midrash on Gen 46: 2–4. In v. 2, the Lord calls, “Jacob, Jacob” (‫ )יעקב יעקב‬and continues (v. 3), “Fear not (‫ )אל תירא‬to go down to Egypt… (v. 4) I myself will go down with you to Egypt (‫ עמך‬...‫…)אנכי‬.” 36 Bright, Jeremiah, 279: “Although the first line of vs. 11, like vs. 10, exhibits a style characteristic of Second Isaiah, vs. 11 also has a number of typical Jeremianic expressions: ‘I am with you to come to your rescue’ (cf. 1:8; 15:20)….” 32


407

the east I will bring your children (‫( …)זרעך‬6) Bring my sons from afar (‫)מרחוק‬.”37 Yet another example may be brought to show the influence of this dedication scene of Jeremiah upon Deutero-Isaiah. In Jer 1:9 it is written, “The Lord put forth his hand (‫ )ידו‬and touched my mouth (‫)פי‬. And the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth’ (‫)נתתי דברי בפיך‬.” This, then, has its later echoes in Isa 51:16: “I have put My words in your mouth (‫)דברי בפיך‬, and have sheltered you in the shadow of my hand (‫)ידי‬,”38 and in 49:21: “My words which I have put in your mouth (‫)ודברי אשר שמתי בפיך‬.”39 Deutero-Isaiah, in his polemic against the efficacy of idol worship, argues that the gods of the nations can neither foretell the future nor deliver true oracles. But, he does contend, on the other hand, that the God of Israel is able to forecast the future and shape the course of world events in accordance with his predictions. Thus, for example, in 41:25, when alluding to the coming of Cyrus and the imminent downfall of Babylon, he says, “I have roused (‫ )העירותי‬one from the north (‫ )מצפון‬and he has come.” Attention has already been drawn to the dependency of this thought on Jer 50:41, where the prophet states that the destroyer of Babylon will come from the north (‫)מצפון‬ and where, in the same context, he employs the same verb, ‫העיר‬, to describe the sending of the enemy.40 In Isa 45:13, the prophet also says of Cyrus, “I have roused him (‫)ה ִעיר ִֹתהוּ‬ ַ for victory.” This declaration is preceded, moreover, with an introductory panegyric (v. 12), “I made the earth (‫)אנכי עשיתי ארץ‬ and created man (‫ )אדם‬upon it. I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens and commanded all their hosts.” The Lord declares that he created the universe and directs the course of history by controlling the destiny of all, including, in particular, His appointed one, Cyrus. The same thought sequence, coupled with a partially identical

37

Cf. Isa 49:12. Cf. Isa 49:2. 39 Cf. Haran, Between RI’SHONÔT and HADASHÔT, 35 n. 35. 40 See ibid., 43 n. 4, for a complete discussion on this point. Haran also sees the influence of Jeremiah upon Deutero-Isaiah and not vice versa. (Incidentally, the same expression is used in Ezra 1:1 = 2 Chron 36:22 when referring to Cyrus, ‫העיר ה' את‬ ‫רוח כורש‬.) For other similarities, e.g., the epithet of the servant of the Lord, and the suddenness of the downfall of Babylon (Jer 51:8; Isa 47:11; 58:3, see Haran, Between RI’SHONÔT and HADASHÔT, 36 n. 37, and 65 n. 35, respectively. For the Akkadian cognate, àutebû, of Heb. ‫העיר‬, with the same meaning, see AHw, 1343. 38

408

biblical studies

phraseology, first appears in Jer 27:5–6, where the king referred to is Nebuchadnezzar. The Lord says, “It is I who, by My great power and My outstretched arm, have made the earth (‫)אנכי עשיתי את הארץ‬, and man (‫ )האדם‬and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever it seems right to Me. Now I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar….”41 The creator of the universe is the controller of history, and both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus are accorded leading roles in the execution of the divine plan. Another example of literary correspondence in that same chapter of Deutero-Isaiah is 45:18: “For thus says the Lord, the creator of the heavens, who alone is God, who formed (‫ )י ֵֹצר‬the earth and made it (‫)וְ ע ָֹשׂהּ‬, He set it firm (‫)כוננהּ‬.” Compare the same combination of expressions in Jer 33:2: “Thus says the Lord who made it (‫)עשׂהּ‬,42 the Lord who formed it (‫ )יוצר אותה‬so as to set it firm (‫—)להכינהּ‬the Lord is His name.” (Here, Deutero-Isaiah aids one in understanding the laconic verse in Jeremiah.)43 Further coincidental correspondences are found in Chapter 48: (1) 48:1–2: “Listen to this, House of Jacob…, who swear by the name of the Lord ('‫ …)הנשבעים בשם ה‬but not in truth and not in sincerity (‫)לא באמת ולא בצדקה‬.” This formulation of taking an oath “in truth and in sincerity” is also found in Jer 4:2: “If you swear (‫)ונשבעת‬, ‘As the Lord lives’, in truth (‫)באמת‬, in justice, and in sincerity (‫)ובצדקה‬.”44 (2) The picture of assaying and refining the people as one does metal is found in Jer 6:27–30 and in 9:6. In the latter it is written, “Behold, I will refine and assay them (‫)צורפם ובחנתים‬. For what else can I do (‫”?…)איך אעשה‬45 And their mettle was tested, for as we

41

I owe this reference to M. Weinfeld. LXX reads poiw~n gh~n, “the earth.” Ehrlich (ad loc.), however, thinks that the present text is preferable and that the suffixes are to be understood as neuters. 43 Although it is difficult to determine here who influenced whom, the next verse in Jeremiah, Jer 33:3, has clear Deutero-Isaianic overtones: “Call to Me and I will answer you (‫ )קרא אלי ואענך‬and I will tell you wondrous and hidden things (‫גדֹלות‬ ‫)וּבצֻרוֹת‬ ְ of which you have not known (‫)ולא ידעתם‬.” Some manuscripts actually read ‫ נצרות‬in Jeremiah as well. Ehrlich (ad loc.) vocalizes ‫ נ ָֹצרוֹת‬in both instances but interprets the word to be a passive participle from the stem ‫יצר‬. Could the unusual use of ‫וּבצֻרוֹת‬ ְ in Jeremiah (‫וּבצֻרוֹת‬ ְ ‫ )גדֹלות‬have been influenced by the well-known expression ‫וּבצֻרוֹת‬ ְ ‫ גדולות‬used in reference to walled cities in Deut 1:28; 9:1; Josh 14:12? Cf. also Num 13:28: ‫בצֻרות גדֹֹלת‬. 44 Cf. North, 64; and Zech 8:8, where the same words are found. 45 For the various resolutions of the difficulty at the end of this verse, see the commentaries. 42


409

later hear in Deutero-Isaiah 48:10–11, “Behold, I have refined you (‫ )צרפתיך‬but not as silver;46 I have assayed you (‫)ובחרתיך‬47 in the furnace of affliction. For My sake, for My own sake, I will do it (‫)אעשה‬, for how (‫ )איך‬can I let it48 be profaned?”49 (3) At the end of both the first and second sections of Deutero-Isaiah (48:22; 57:21) we find the same concluding phrase: “There is no peace, says the Lord, for the wicked (‫ אלהי לרשעים‬/ '‫)אין שלום אמר ה‬.”50 It is clear that this verse is original to 57:21, for there it fits perfectly within the context: “But the wicked are like the tossing sea which cannot rest, whose waters toss up mire and mud.” Thus “there is no peace, says my God, for the wicked.” This verse was subsequently transferred as a mechanical marker to the end of Chapter 48 to indicate the conclusion or epilogue of another literary unit, even though contextually it was totally out of place, being unrelated to the preceding verses. Additional light can be shed, moreover, on the original linguistic setting of this “epilogue.” For when the literary unit of 57:17–21 is viewed in its entirety, its textual difficulties notwithstanding,51 it 46 Heb. ‫ בכסף‬is usually emended to ‫ככסף‬. However, Luzzatto, Ehrlich, North, and Haran still prefer the reading with ‫ב‬, and understand it to be either the ‫ ב‬which serves as a predicate nominative (cf. Num 18:10; Josh 13:6, “but not as silver is tested” [i.e., through fire]—Ehrlich and Luzzatto; ‫ ב‬of price, “not for any silver,” i.e., not for any pleasure or profit—North; or (‫ב)כור‬, “not in the furnace of silver,” i.e., supplying the thought from the second colon, according to Haran. 47 Heb. ‫ בחרתיך‬is an Aramaism for ‫בחנתיך‬. Similarly in Zech 13:9, where ‫וּצרפתים‬ (‫ )כצרֹף את הכסף‬is parallel to (‫ובחנתים )כבחֹן את הזהב‬. Tg. Jon. for the latter is: ‫אבחרנון‬ ‫ ;כמה דבחרין ית דהבה‬and in Gen 42:16: ‫וְ יִ ָבּ ֲחנוּ‬, Tg. Jon. renders ‫ויתבחרון‬. See Yonah ibn GanaÈ, Sepher Haschoraschim, ed. W. Bacher (Jerusalem, 1966), 61. The scribe of IQIsaa “re-Hebraicized” and wrote ‫בחנתיך‬. 48 I.e., ‫שמי‬, “my name”—refers back to v. 9. 49 The influence of Ezekiel, e.g., Ezek 20:9, 14, 22, is also very much in evidence here. It is of interest to note that, based on such verses as these which describe the profanation of God’s name, H. L. Ginsberg has emended Isa 43:28, ‫ואחלל ָשׂ ֵרי קֹדש‬, to read: ‫ואחלל ֵשׁם קדשי‬, in particular in view of ‫למעני‬, v. 25; cf. Isa 48:9, 11; Ezek 36:20, 21, 22, 23 (oral communication). 50 Cf. Haran, Between RI’SHONÔT and HADASHÔT, 71 n. 50. 51 A possible reconstruction of the difficult Hebrew text (as proposed by Ginsberg) is as follows: (17) ‫)בּ ִד ְכדוְּך( לבו‬ ְ ‫ וילך ָשׁבוּר ְבּ ִדכּוּי‬.‫( בעון בצעו קצפתי ואכהו ַה ְס ֵתּר ואקצף‬18) ‫( בורא ניד שפתים‬19) ‫ ולאבליו‬,‫נחמים לו‬ ֻ ‫ַא ַחייהו ואשלם‬ ֲ ‫דּכּוּיֹו ראיתי וארפאהו ו‬, ִ “For his sinful greed, I struck him in anger, hiding (my face) in anger. When he has walked broken in the contrition of his heart, I have noted his contrition, and I will heal him. I will revive him, as I mete out solace to him, and to his mourners the strengthening of comforting words.” For ‫ואחייהו‬, cf. v. 15. For ‫בורא‬, lit., “the vigor of,” cf. Eccles 12:1, and post-Biblical ‫בּ ִרי‬. ָ For ‫נוד( ניד שפתים‬, “to console”—Job 2:11, ‫לנוד‬ ‫)לו ולנחמו‬, cf. Job 16:5.

410

biblical studies

becomes obvious that Deutero-Isaiah was drawing his inspiration directly from Jeremiah and was artistically readapting a popular saying coined by the latter in order to create an entirely new image. For the ‫ אין שלום‬of v. 21 is none other than the counterpart and completion of the ‫ שלום שלום‬of v. 19, and this, of course, is taken directly from Jeremiah’s famous cliché, ‫( שלום שלום ואין שלום‬Jer 5:14 = 8:11). This and more. When the two literary units are superimposed as a palimpsest one upon the other, a remarkable similarity in linguistic expression immediately becomes evident. In Jeremiah’s words (6:13–14 = 8:10–11), “For from the youngest to the oldest everyone is greedy for gain (‫…)בוצע בצע‬. They [i.e., the false prophets and priests] heal (‫ )וירפאו‬the wound (‫ )שבר‬of My people superficially by saying, ‘All is well, all is well’. But all is not well.” Common to both prophets are the words ‫בצע‬: ‫ בעון ִבּ ְצעוֹ‬and ‫רפא ;בוצע בצע‬: ‫ ורפאתיו‬/ ‫וארפאהו‬ ֶ and ‫וירפאו‬. (Incidentally, in the light of this overall correspondence, an emendation of H. L. Ginsberg [see n. 51] now takes on greater probability. He has suggested the reading of ‫ שבור‬for ‫ שובב‬in the Deutero-Isaiah passage. This would then add another similarity between the two passages: ‫ שבור‬and ‫שבר‬, and both passages would treat of the curing [‫ ]רפא‬of wounds.)52 Another example of a Deutero-Isaianic recreation modeled on a Jeremian original is Isa 49:15ff.: “Can a mother forget (‫ )התשכח‬her nursling or a woman53 the child of her womb? Even these may forget (‫)תשכחנה‬, yet I will not forget you (‫…)אשכחך‬. (18) You will clothe yourself with all of them [your children] like a jewel (‫)כעדי‬, and you shall bind them like a bride (‫)ותקשרים ככלה‬.”54 The inspiration for this imagery was provided by Jer 2:32, where the prophet incorporates the identical vocabulary but in a different setting: “Can a maiden forget her jewels (‫ ֶע ְדיָהּ‬...‫ )התשכח‬or a bride her sash (‫ ?)כלה קשוריה‬Yet My people have forgotten Me (‫ )שכחוני‬days without number.”55 For the use of ‫ רפא‬as a cure for ‫שבר‬, cf. e.g., Jer 51:8; Ps 147:3a, ‫הרופא לשבורי‬ ‫( לב‬cf. also Ps 147:3b with Isa 61:1); Prov 6:15 and 29:1, ‫יִֹשּ ֵבר ואין מרפא‬ ָ ‫פתע‬. 53 Heb. ‫חם‬ ֵ ‫מ ַר‬. ֵ Today, many commentators interpret this to be a denominative verb from ‫רחם‬, “woman” (cf. Judg 5:30 and Ugar. rÈm, “young woman”) and revocalize accordingly. See, e.g., M. J. Dahood, “Denominative riÈÈam, ‘to conceive, enwomb’,” Biblica 86 (1963), 204–205; M. I. Gruber, “The Motherhood of God,” The Motherhood of God and Other Studies, ed. M. I. Gruber (Atlanta, 1992), 10–11. 54 Cf. Isa 61:10. 55 Cf. Dillmann, Marti, and Volz. All, however, overlooked the additional correspondence of the word ‫התשכח‬. For the general setting, cf. also Luzzatto on Isa 49:18. 52


411

An enigmatic verse in Deutero-Isaiah, which may be solved using this method, i.e., by realizing that the prophet was adapting an original image of Jeremiah’s to express his own figure of speech, is 51: 14: ‫מ ַהר צ ֶֹעה להפתח ולא ימות לשחת ולא יחסר לחמו‬. ִ The difficulty of understanding this passage is further compounded by the fact that it does not seem to be related in any way to the previous verse. V. 13 states, “You have forgotten the Lord your Maker who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, and you fear continually and constantly because of the fury of the oppressor when he readies himself to cut (you) down. But where is the fury of the oppressor?” And then comes the cryptic verse which obviously should in some way continue the thought sequence of the prophet. It should, and it does, as will become apparent when it is compared to Jer 11:19. In this passage Jeremiah, in a personal lament, describes plots against his life: “For I was like a docile lamb led to the slaughter, not realizing that it was against me they hatched their plots: ‘Let’s destroy the tree with its fruit (‫)נשחיתה עץ בלחמו‬.56 Let us cut him off from the land of the living’ (‫)ונכרתנו מארץ חיים‬.” Jeremiah is compared here to a tree and his words to the fruit of the tree which his enemies are intent on chopping down. This, then, is the source for Deutero-Isaiah’s image. The only reason that it was overlooked was because of a slight error that took place in the text.57 The hapax legomenon ‫ צ ֶֹעה‬in this verse is none other than a metathesis of ‫העץ‬, the letters having been reversed. Now the sentence as well as the context becomes patently clear. The prophet is saying that every time the oppressor gets ready ‫להשחית‬, “to destroy,” i.e., “to cut down a tree,”58 ‫מהר העץ להפתח‬,59 “the tree [i.e., in this context, Israel] quickly bursts into bloom and does not die though cut down (‫)לשחת‬, neither is its fruit (‫)לחמו‬60 lacking.” For thus the Lord faithfully and zealously guards His people Israel. (It is interesting to note that the very next verse in Deutero-Isaiah

56 There is no need to emend ‫בלחמו‬, “its fruit,” to ‫בּ ֵלחוֹ‬, ְ “in/with its sap.” See A. Guillaume (in: Rudolph, Jeremia, 74 n. 1), who compares Arab. laÈm. But this interpretation was already noted long ago by both ibn GanaÈ (Sepher Haschoraschim, 244) and Luzzatto, ad loc. See below, n. 60. 57 This interpretation I owe to H. L. Ginsberg (oral communication). 58 Cf. Deut. 20:19, ‫לא תשחית את עצהּ‬, and 20:20, ‫תּ‬ ָ ‫ אֹתוֹ תשחית וְ ָכ ָר‬...‫רק עץ‬. 59 Ginsberg further emends ‫ להפתח‬to ‫ להפריח‬and compares Job 14:9, where a tree is also the subject of the image. Cf. also ‫יָמוּת‬, Job 14:8. 60 This further confirms the correctness of the reading in the verse of Jeremiah. See above, n. 56.

412

biblical studies

[51:15], “For I the Lord am your God who stirs up the sea so that its bellows roar—the Lord of Hosts is His name,” is also literally found in Jer 31:35: “Thus says the Lord who stirs up the sea so that its bellows roar—the Lord of Hosts is His name.”)61 Deutero-Isaiah once again draws upon the same verse in Jeremiah (11:19) when he comes to describe the anguish of the suffering servant (53:7–8): “He was oppressed submissively,62 yet he opened not his mouth. Like a lamb he was led to the slaughter (‫ יובל‬63 ‫…)כשה ַל ֶטּ ַבח‬, for he was cut off from the land of the living (‫)נגזר מארץ חיים‬.” Compare the pertinent Jeremian source: “I was like a docile lamb led to the slaughter (‫…)כשה יובל לטבוח‬. ‘Let us cut him off from the land of the living’ (‫)ונכרתנו מארץ חיים‬.”64 Also worthy of note in this context is Isa 53: 4: “But it was our sickness he was bearing (‫)אכן חלינו הוא נשא‬,” for the Hebrew expression ‫ נשא חלי‬is elsewhere found only in Jer 10:19, where the prophet states, “But, I thought, this is a sickness which I must bear (‫)אך זה חלי ואשאנו‬.” Y. Kaufmann provides another instance where a difficult verse in Deutero-Isaiah, 59:18: ‫ גמול ישלם‬...‫כעל ְגּ ֻמלוֹת כעל ישלם‬, may be corrected and clarified in the light of Jeremiah’s idiom.65 The problem of the second ‫ כעל‬in this verse is usually ignored by commentators.66 Kaufmann, however, refers to similar statements in Jeremiah, e.g., 25: 14: ‫ושלמתי להם כפעלם‬, “I will repay them according to their deeds”; 50:29: ‫שלמו לה כפעלה‬, “Pay her back for her deeds”; 51:6: ‫גמול הוא‬ ‫משלם לה‬, “He is paying her full recompense”; 51:56: '‫כי אל ְגּ ֻמלוֹת ה‬ ‫שׁ ֵלּם ישלם‬, ַ “For the Lord is a God of recompense. He will surely requite”; and suggests the following reading in Deutero-Isaiah: ‫ישלם‬ 67 ‫ֹעל‬ ַ ‫כי אל ְגּ ֻמלוֹת פּ‬, “For the God of recompense shall render a requital.” 61 Cf. Dillman, Kissane, Luzzatto, Marti, North, and Volz. Note that even though this verse is found in Chapter 31 of Jeremiah (see above, n. 18), Rudolph comments, “in Jes. 51:15 nachgeahmt.” For the next verse in Deutero-Isaiah, 51: 16, see discussion above in text. 62 Or, “with himself submitting/unprotesting.” Heb. ‫ענֶה‬ ֲ ‫ והוא ַנ‬is a circumstantial clause. Cf. Ehrlich and Luzzatto for the meaning of the root ‫ ענה‬here. 63 IQIsaa reads ‫לטבוח‬, exactly as the verse in Jeremiah. 64 Dillman, Marti, and North compared Isa 53:7 to Jer 11:19 but did not note the continuation of the image in Isa 53:8. 65 Kaufmann, Toldot Ha-emunah Ha-Yisraelit, VIII, 149 n. 133. 66 So Kissane and McKenzie. Dillmann at least deals with the problem of the verse (and compares Jer 51:56) before removing ‫ כעל‬from the text. For other interpretations, see Duhm and Torrey. 67 Or, more likely, ‫בעל‬.


413

The term “new covenant” appears only once in the Bible, in Jer 31:31:68 “I will make a new covenant (‫ )ברית חדשה‬with the House of Israel and the House of Judah…. (33) But this is the covenant… I will put My teaching into their inmost being (‫)תורתי בקרבם‬, and I will inscribe it upon their hearts (‫)ועל לבם‬.” A similar expression, “everlasting covenant,” appears in Jer 32:40: “I will make an everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬69 with them… and I will put fear of Me in their hearts (‫…)בלבם‬.”70 This concept exercised a profound influence upon both Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel.71 As for the former, cf. 51:7: “A people in whose heart is My teaching (‫ ;”)תורתי בלבם‬55:3: “I shall make with you an everlasting covenant (‫;”)ברית עולם‬72 and 61:8: “I will make an everlasting covenant (‫ )ברית עולם‬with them.” The covenant will be eternal because all the people will be “disciples of the Lord” (54:13). In this same literary unit of Deutero-Isaiah (chap. 51) there is another combination of expressions which appears elsewhere only in the book of Jeremiah: Isa 51:19: “These two disasters have befallen you, who can commiserate with you (‫)מי ינוד לך‬73—devastation and destruction (‫)השד והשבר‬, famine and sword (‫)והרעב והחרב‬, who can comfort you?”74 This reminds one of a threat found in Jer 15:2: “Those marked for the sword (‫—)לחרב‬to the sword (‫)לחרב‬, those marked for famine (‫—)לרעב‬to famine (‫)לרעב‬75…. (5) Who will take pity upon you, Jerusalem? Who will commiserate with you (‫”?)ומי ינוד לך‬ The combination of the two words, ‫ שֹׁד‬and ‫שׁ ֶבר‬, ֶ is also unique to these two books: Jer 48:3 (cf. 4:20) and Isa 59:7; 60:18. A similar expression, ‫חמס ושֹׁד‬, though present also in Amos 3:10, Jer 20:8, Ezek 45:9, and Hab 1:3 (‫)ושֹׁד וחמס‬, appears in Deutero-Isaiah (60:18) in a context which reverses a statement of Jeremiah: “Violence (‫)חמס‬ shall no longer be heard in your land (‫ )לא יִ ָשׁ ַמע בארצך‬nor devastation (‫ )שֹׁד‬and destruction (‫)שׁ ֶבר‬ ֶ within your borders.” This is the exact 68

Cf. Deut 30:6. Cf. 2 Sam 23:5. 70 Cf. Jer 24:7. 71 Cf. Ezek 11:19; 16:60; 34:25; 36:26–27; 37:26. 72 Compare this entire verse to Ps 89:29. Cf. also Isa 54:10, ‫ברית שלומי‬, with Num 25:12; Ezek 34:25; 37:26. 73 Cf. Job 2:11; 42:11; Ps 69:21. 74 Heb. ‫מי אנחמך‬. Read: ‫מי ינחמך‬, with IQIsaa and versions supported by parallelism (‫)ינוד‬. 75 “Sword” and “famine” are often found in combination, e.g., Jer 14:12, 13, 15, 16, 18; Ezek 14:21, but only in these two instances are they juxtaposed with ‫מי‬ ‫ינוד לך‬. 69

414

biblical studies

opposite of the words of Jeremiah 6:7: “Violence and devastation (‫ )חמס ושֹׁד‬are heard within her (‫)יִ ָשּׁ ַמע בה‬.”76 Another verse common to both of these prophets is Jer 12:9: “Go, assemble all the beasts of the field (‫)כל חית השדה‬, bring them to devour (‫)ה ָתיוּ לאכלה‬.” ֵ 77 Cf. Isa 56:9: “All the beasts of the field (‫)כל ַחיתוֹ שדי‬, come to dine (‫)א ָתיוּ לאכל‬.” ֵ 78 A further example of a creative adaptation of a verse in Jeremiah is found in Isa 63:15–16. In Jer 31:20, the Lord’s compassion for Ephraim is plaintively heard: “Is Ephraim My dear son (‫?)ה ֵבן‬ ֲ Is he My darling child? For as often as I disown him,79 I am constantly reminded of him. That is why My heart yearns for him (‫)המו מעי‬. I am filled with love for him (‫)ר ֵחם ארחמנו‬, ַ says the Lord.” Deutero-Isaiah not only draws his inspiration from this compassionate sentiment, but actually directs a poignant question to God on this very point by quoting His exact words! (63:15): “Where are Your zeal and Your might?80 The yearning of Your heart and Your love (‫)המון מעיך ורחמיך‬81 are withheld from me.82 (16) For it is You who are our Father (‫…)אבינו‬.”83 Finally, it might be of interest to cite some more of the many features which, though they do not in any way prove a dependence of one prophet upon the other, do happen to appear in these two books.

76 In the light of these examples, I would suggest reading in Jer 51:35: ‫חמסי ושֹׁדי‬ for the difficult MT, ‫חמסי ושארי‬, an otherwise unattested expression. This is further substantiated by the parallelism in this verse between ‫ חמסי ושֹׁדי‬and ‫ד ִמי‬, ָ for which compare Hab 2:17: ‫ ִמ ְדּ ֵמי אדם וחמס ארץ‬...‫ וְ שֹׁד בהמות‬...‫כי חמס לבנון‬. Cf. I. L. Seeligmann, “Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch,” Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80.Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner, SVT 16 (Leiden, 1967), 257–258. See also p. 269 n. 2. 77 Rudolph emends the two verbs to ‫אָספוּ‬ ְ ‫ה‬, ֵ “assemble,” and ‫א ָתיוּ‬, ֵ “come,” i.e., of themselves. 78 Cf. Dillman, Kissane, North, and Volz. Compare the continuation of the description in Jer 12:10 and Isa 56:11, where both deal with “shepherds.” Cf. also Ezek 34:5, 8. 79 Heb. ‫;דּ ְבּ ִרי בו‬ ַ for -‫דבר ב‬, “to speak against,” cf. Num 12:1. 80 End the stich here; cf. Volz, Jesaja II, 273. 81 Note how Deutero-Isaiah deftly changed the verbs in Jeremiah (‫ המו )מעי‬and ‫ ַר ֵחם ארחמנו‬into nouns (‫ המון )מעיך‬and ‫רחמיך‬. 82 Heb. ‫ אלי התאפקו‬is usually emended to either ‫ אל נא תתאפק‬or ‫אל תתאפק‬. For Heb. ‫אלי‬, LXX reads h(mw~n. Torrey emends ‫ אל תתאפק‬and begins v. 16 with these words. Cf. Isa 64:11. 83 Since God addresses Israel (in Jeremiah) as ‫בן‬, they naturally turn to Him as ‫אבינו‬.


415

1. Both prophets refer to the Babylonian diviners as ‫בדים‬: Jer 50: 36; Isa 44:25. (Read in both verses, ‫ = ברים‬Akk. b§rû, “diviners.” See CAD, B, 121ff.) 2. Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles contains several features which are also in Deutero-Isaiah: Jer 29:5, “Build houses (‫)בּנוּ בתים‬ ְ and dwell in them (‫ ;)וְ ֵשׁבוּ‬they shall plant (‫ )ונִ טעו‬vineyards and eat their fruit (‫)ואכלו את ִפּ ְריָן‬.” ִ That these words of encouragement are no more than a well-known stereotypic formula for future bliss can be shown by their appearance in the “epilogue” to the book of Amos (9: 14). Deutero-Isaiah, however, does share two additional points with Jeremiah which are absent from the book of Amos; cf. Jer 29:6 with Isa 65:23, and Jer 29:12 with Isa 65:24. 3. Compare the satirical cry of the two prophets when they address themselves to the futility of both idols and diviners: Jer 2:28 and Isa 47:13. 4. The expression ‫גן ָרוֶה‬, “a well-watered garden,” is found only in Jer 31:12 and Isa 58:11. 5. Though many verbs are employed with the substantive ‫נקם‬, “revenge”—‫ נקם‬,‫ השיב‬,‫ עשה‬,‫ נתן‬,‫—ראה‬only in Jer 20:10 and Isa 47: 3 does the verb ‫ לקח‬appear. If, in true Biblical fashion, two witnesses are sufficient to validate evidence, there is obviously no need to emend the verb in either passage (contra Dillmann, Marti, and Ehrlich). 6. There are, as is well known, multiple similarities between the detailed descriptions of making an idol in Jer 10:2–5, 8–9, 14 and in Isa 40:19–20; 41:6–7; 44:9–14; (46:6–7): (a) Jer 10:3—Isa 44:12, 14; (b) Jer 10:4—Isa 40:18; 41:7b; (c) Jer 10:14—Isa 44:11; (d) Jer 10: 14—Isa 44:20; (e) Jer 10:5—Isa 41:23. In this last example, Jeremiah encourages his people not to fear the idols: “Fear them not (‫)אל תיראו‬, they can do no harm, neither is it in them to do any good (‫ָרעוּ וגם‬ ֵ ‫לא י‬ ‫)היטיב אין אותם‬.” Deutero-Isaiah, in turn, seems to mock the same sentiment when he chides the idols (41:23): “Do something, either good or ill (‫ות ֵרעוּ‬ ָ ‫ )תיטיבו‬that we may be terrified and stand in awe ([‫ )ונרא]ה‬all together.” It must be borne in mind, however, that it is almost unanimously agreed that Jer 10:1–16 is post-Jeremian and that the ultimate source here may very well be Deutero-Isaiah himself. Though the question of literary borrowing is a very complex one and is compounded in this case by both the problem of the authenticity of some of the verses cited in Jeremiah and the ever-present possibility of independent coincidental similarities of the two nearly contemporaneous prophets (and thus all of the examples cited above

416

biblical studies

cannot be given equal weight), those passages which are clearly recognized as stemming from Jeremiah and which in some way or form were adapted by Deutero-Isaiah establish the writings of the former as a very important source for the literary creativity of the latter.

a literary reinvestigation of the authenticity

417

A LITERARY REINVESTIGATION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ORACLES AGAINST THE NATIONS OF AMOS* In a study of Amos 1:3–2:3, it was shown that the oracles against the nations were arranged in a cohesive concatenous pattern whose sequential ordering was determined by the literary mnemonic device of catch words, phrases, and ideas common to the two units contiguous to one another.1 Here we wish to offer additional literary criteria in order to demonstrate the basic unity and originality of these oracles. But first the question of whether any of these oracles is a secondary later interpolation must be dealt with. Just one introductory note should be added: since the question of the exact historical circumstances referred to in each oracle is a moot one and is still subject to a wide range of differing opinions for and against authenticity, the various views on the matter will not be reviewed here except in one instance (Edom), where the historical argument is a basic and decisive one for those who deny the authenticity of that oracle. The following prophecies have been deemed by some or most commentators as not being original: 1. The prophecy against the Philistines (Gaza) 2 This, though a minority view, is posited on the following arguments: a) The prime reason for doubting this oracle is the absence of Gath3—the only city of the Philistine pentapolis not mentioned in this

* To Prof. Henri Cazelles, a great scholar and a warm human being. 1 S. M. Paul, “Amos 1, 3–2, 3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90 (1971), 397–403; idem, Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1991), 397–403 [353–362]. 2 Most commentators today do not question the authenticity of this oracle. For earlier opinions, see K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton erklärt, KHAT 13 (Tübingen, 1904), 160; W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt, GHAT3 3/4 (Göttingen, 1922), 123. 3 For different opinions on the identity of Biblical Gath, see B. Mazar, “Gath and Gittaim,” IEJ 4 (1954), 227–235, reprinted in idem, Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel (Jerusalem, 1975), 101–109 (Hebrew); H. E. Kassis, “Gath and the Structure of the

418

biblical studies

pericope. The underlying assumption is that this prophecy must have been added later, that is, after 712, when the city was captured by Sargon II. It is important to note at the outset that there is no oracle against Philistia anywhere in prophetic literature in which all five names of the Philistine cities are recorded.4 In 2 Sam 1:20, only Gath and Ashkelon appear, in Jer 47:5, only Gaza and Ashdod; and in Jer 25:20, Zeph 2:4, and Zech 9:5–6, Gath alone is against conspicuous by its absence (for possible reasons, see below). Obviously, however, none of these oracles was meant to be all-inclusive. b) Gath was not the only Philistine city which fell in this campaign of Sargon II. The Assyrian king, on his way to quell a revolt which broke out in Ashdod, captured Ekron (alAmqa[r]nuna) and a couple of other cities which had joined the rebellion,5 and then recounts, alAsdudu, alGimtu alAsdudimmu alme akàud, “The cities of Ashdod, Gath, and Ashdod-Yam. I besieged (and) conquered.”6 Thus, at least for consistency’s sake, those who explain the absence of Gath due to its capture, should logically expect to find Ekron and Ashdod also missing from this oracle.7 Yet they are clearly present. c) Even more significant is the fact that the city was not wiped off the face of the Philistine map as a result of its being captured. For Sargon goes on to declare that “I restored those cities (i.e., Ashdod, Gath, and Ashdod-Yam), and I settled therein people of the lands my hands had conquered.” Gath, though annexed by Sargon to the newly

‘Philistine’ Society,” JBL 84 (1965), 259–271; A. F. Rainey, “The Identification of Philistine Gath,” EI, XII (= Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume) (Jerusalem, 1975), 63*–76*; K. A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford, 1973), 62–63. See below, n. 15. 4 Cf. Y. Kaufmann, Toledoth HaEmunah HaYisraelith, VI (Tel Aviv, 1956), 61 n. 11; J. L. Mays, Amos, OTL (Philadelphia 1969), 33. The satirical allusion to Gath in Mic 1:10 “shows that such a proverb as ‘Tell it not in Gat’ had long since taken root in Israelite oral and written tradition” (Rainey, “Identification,” 74). 5 H. Tadmor, “The Assyrian Campaigns to Philistine,” in The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times, ed. J. Liver (Jerusalem, 1964), 274–275 (Hebrew). See also his studies, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study,” JCS 12 (1958), 33–39; and “Philistia under Assyrian Rule,” BA 29 (1966), 86–102. 6 For the Display Inscription, see H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig, 1889), Pl. 33:104–107. 7 Cf. Y. Hoffman, “The Prophecies against the Foreign Nations in the Bible,” doctoral dissertation (Tel Aviv, 1973), 190 (Hebrew); M. Haran, Ages and Institutions in the Bible (Tel Aviv, 1972), 294 (Hebrew); W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, KAT 13/2 (Gütersloh, 1971), 132.


419

established province of Ashdod,8 was no longer of any major political significance (which is true even before its becoming subsidiary to Ashdod), but it nevertheless continued to exist and was repopulated. d) As for the arguments which deny its originality based on style and content—its similarity to the preceding oracle against Aram—it was demonstrated in the above-mentioned article that this similarity is intentional and deliberate and is the specific literary reason for its present position after Aram.9 e) And as for the contention that this oracle upsets an assumed geographical order and thus is a later addition, one may simply ask, whose geographical order? Not only have various scholars superimposed their own preconceived arrangement,10 but one must realize that this argument may work both ways. Thus, for Bentzen11 this precise geographical slot reserved for Philistia is part of the evidence (according to his theory) that the oracle is original!12 Nevertheless, as has been demonstrated, geography is only one but not the most important factor in determining the order of Amos’ roll-call of nations. Why, then, is Gath left unmentioned? Several solutions have been offered by those who do not deny this oracle’s authenticity: “probably an accident”;13 Gath is implied in the concluding phrase “the remnant of the Philistines”;14 it probably was no longer independent—being under Aramean rule when Hazael expropriated it during the latter part of the ninth century from the Judeans as part of his campaigns in the West (2 Kings 12:17–18);15 it was under Judean control when Uzziah recaptured the city (2 Chron 26:6);16 or it may already have 8

H. Tadmor, “Assyrian Campaigns,” 275. Paul, “Amos 1, 3–2, 3.” 10 Marti, Das Dodekapropheton; B. Duhm, “Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten,” ZAW 31 (1911), 81–110. 11 A. Bentzen, “The Ritual Background of Amos i 2–ii 6,” OTS 8 (1950), 90, as well as the oracles against Tyre and Edom. 12 So correctly Hoffman, “Prophecies.” 13 Mentioned as a possibility by Kaufmann, Toledoth; and E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos (Oxford, 1970), 29. 14 Suggested by Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 29–30, and Rudolph, Joel-AmosObadja. 15 Cf. Mays, Amos. A. M. Maier (“The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archeological Perspective from Tell es-SâfÊ/Gath,” VT 54 [2004], 319–334) has now shown in his excavations at Tell es-Safi (Biblical Gath) that Gath was destroyed in the late ninth/early eighth century B.C.E., probably by Hazael, and that this supports an early dating for the passage here. 16 Cf. Rainey, op. cit.; Mays, Amos; and also listed as a possibility by H. W. Wolff, 9

420

biblical studies

been subservient to Ashdod before 712.17 Of course, the solution selected is determined by one’s historical dating of the oracle, but no matter when that be, the city was obviously no longer of any major significance18 and thus could easily be omitted. However, it is clear that there is no reason, on chronological or other grounds, to deny the authenticity of the passage to Amos, and “it would have been very strange of Amos himself had he not included the Philistines in his threats against the surrounding people.”19 2. The prophecy against Tyre20 a) The authenticity of this oracle has been doubted on the grounds of its being a mere “echo of the one against Gaza”21 (which, as was Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1977), 158; and Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja. 17 Haran, Ages and Institutions, 293–294. 18 Ibid., 293. 19 Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 30. Cf. Mays, Amos: “Its absence here is hardly serious evidence against the authenticity of the saying”; and Rudolph, Joel-AmosObadja. 20 The authenticity is doubted by many. In addition to those commentaries listed above (Nowack, Die Kleinen Propheten, 123–124; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, 160; Mays, Amos, 34; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140), one may add the following (without pretensions to be all-inclusive): J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt3 (Berlin, 1898; reprint 1963) 69–70; M. Löhr, Untersuchungen zum Buche Amos, BZAW 4 (Giessen, 1901), 2–4; E. Baumann, Der Aufbau der Amosreden, BZAW 33 (Giessen, 1903), 87–88; W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh, 1905), cxxxi–cxxxii, 28; A. S. Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos2 (Oslo, 1961), 24; W. H. Schmidt, “Die deuteronomische Redaktion des Amosbuches,” ZAW 77 (1965), 174–178; G. Fohrer, Theologische Rundschau 20 (1952), 261; and J. Morgenstern, “Jerusalem 485 B.C.,” HUCA 27 (1956), 42–43. On the other hand, there is a growing list of those who tend to accept its originality; cf. S. R. Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos (Cambridge, 1897); E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch3, KAT 12/1 (Leipzig, 1930), 165; H. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea)2, SAT 2/1 (Göttingen, 1921), 333–336; Th. H. Robinson and F. Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten2, HAT 1/14 (Tübingen, 1964), 76; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos2 (London, 1955), 127–128; S. Amsler, Amos (Paris, 1965), 173–174; K. Cramer, Amos, BWANT 51 (Stuttgart, 1930), 190; C. Van Gelderen, Het Boek Amos (Kampen, 1933), 20ff.; A. Neher, Amos: Contribution à l’étude du prophétisme, (Paris, 1950); H. Schmidt, Der Prophet Amos (Tübingen, 1917), 43; E. Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 35; V. Haag, Text, Wortschaft und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (Leiden, 1951), 120. Cf. also O. Eissfeldt, “Philister und Phönizer,” AO 34/3 (1936), 8; K. Budde, “Zum Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos,” JBL 43 (1924), 61; A. Carlson, “Profeten Amos och Davidsriket,” Religion och Bibel 25 (1966), 57–58; A. Beek, “The Religious Background of Amos 2, 6–8,” OTS 5 (1948), 132–141; J. Priest, “The Covenant of


421

noted above, was considered by some to be a repetition of the oracle against Aram!). And this “almost verbatim” similarity is deemed to be inconsistent with Amos’ skill in poetic variation, and thus marks the Tyre oracle as secondary. Here, too, as demonstrated in my former study, the literary and contextual similarity is intentional, produced by the mnemonic device of “associative reasoning,” and thus is an important argument for its originality.22 Furthermore, its almost literal repetition of the charge against Philistia is of singular importance, i.e., it means to convey specifically complicity in a similar crime.23 b) Its originality is further contested on its being a “pale generalization” in comparison to the other oracles. Even though this argument itself may be called a “pale generalization”—for specific charges are leveled against Tyre—one may ask why this imaginary latter day interpolator wished to leave matters so “vague.” He obviously could have been as specific as he desired even given the circumscribed framework in which he worked.24 c) Tyre’s guilt is her engaging in slave trade, and this accusation reappears only in exilic or post-exilic texts (Ezek 27:13; Joel 4:6–7); ergo, here, too, we have a reflection of later times.25 But obviously this argument may also be reversed, and Amos provides us here with the earliest evidence of a “business practice” which became a Tyrian profession lasting for a couple hundred of years. Her traffic in slaves need not have started after the fall of the Temple.26 d) A repeated argument is a form-critical one: the literary formulation here, on one hand, is rather different from the “undisputed” oracles and, on the other hand, is similar to the oracles against Edom

Brothers,” JBL 84 (1965), 400–401; G. J. Botterweck, “Zur Authentizität des Buches Amos,” BZ 2 (1958), 179–180; F. C. Fensham, “The Treaty between the Israelites and Tyrians,” SVT 17 (1969), 71–87; K. N. Schoville, “A Note on the Oracles against Gaza, Tyre, and Edom,” SVT 26 (1974), 55–63; and the works of Haran and Kaufmann cited above (nn. 4 and 7). 21 Mays, Amos, 34; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140, 158. But one must not forget that a new and significant point is made in the second half of v. 9. 22 Paul, “Amos 1, 3–2, 3.” 23 Haran, “Observations on the Historical Background of Amos 1, 2–2, 6,” IEJ 18 (1968), 201–207; and Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 120 (who also calls attention to the similarity of 1:3 and 1:13). 24 Hoffman, “Prophecies,” 190. 25 Cf., e.g., Mays, Amos, 34. 26 Cf. the comments of Y. M. Grintz, “Because They Exiled an Entire Population to Edom,” Beth Miqra 32 (1968), 24–27 (Hebrew).

422

biblical studies

and Judah, whose originality are, in turn, sorely contested on this and other grounds (see below). The shared literary traits of all the oracles are: (1) an opening address by means of “messenger formula” (Botenformal), “Thus says the Lord”; (2) followed by the staircase numerical pattern, “for three sins of X and for four”; (3) the proclamation of the absolute irrevocability of the divine decision, “I shall not revoke it”; (4) the specification of the particular crime introduced by the word ‘al; (5) the conclusion of the verdict, in which the deity speaks in the first person, condemning each nation to a punishment by fire. However, whereas the infinitival clause referring to crimes is elaborated by one (1:9) or more verbal clauses (1:11; 2:4), thus expanding upon the indictment (unlike the other four “original” oracles), the pronouncement of punishment is greatly abbreviated, being reduced merely to the announcement of punishment by fire (again unlike the others, whose punishment is much more detailed). And, lastly, the concluding formula, “said the (my) Lord/God,” is omitted.27 The commentators who attempt to defend the originality of this oracle, as a rule, have mostly overlooked, or have not contended with, this form-critical argument. Reventlow does make note of it, but his claim for “uniformity of form” is based upon his own prior assumption: The charge as well as the punishment in each oracle originally comprised a single sentence. This, in turn, leads him to make a large number of emendations and deletions28 which, as correctly stated by Wolff, is “too high a price to pay for the uniformity in form of all the individual oracles.”29 As will be seen below, these variations in form are explainable on other grounds. But the basic argument itself—that if there is so much similarity, any variation from the scheme necessarily and obviously reveals a later hand—must be decisively rejected. Here it would be best to recall the observation made by Rudolph in connection with the minor variations evidenced in several of the “authentic oracles”: Wir stehen hier vor der grundsätlichen Frage, ob ein Prophet, der bei einer bestimmten Gelengenheit dar, was er sagen will, nach einem bestimmten Schema ordnet, verpflichtet ist, keinen Schritt vom Schema abzuweichen, oder ob er sich bei aller Bindung an eine allgemein Rahmenordnung 27

E.g., Harper, Amos and Hosea, 28; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140. H. Graf Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, FRLANT 80 (Göttingen, 1962), 62. 29 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140; and Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 120. 28


423

vom einzelnen Freiheit erlauben kann, m.a.W.: Überschreitet die formgeschichtliche Betrachtung nicht ihre Kompetenz, wenn sie einen Propheten in einter Zwangsjacke steckt? Die Antwort kann nich schwerfallen, und dass sich der Prophet nicht sklavish bindet lässt sich beweisen… haben wir es hier mit einter willkurlichen Ausdrucksvariation zu tun…. Kurz: Amos schematisiert nicht.”

And in reference to the form-critical differences of these oracles: Ebenso muss man ihm die Freiheit zubilligen, sich beim Schuldaufweis und bei der Strafankündigung bald knapper, bald ausfühlicher zu äussern. So besteht rein vom formellen her kein Anlass, die Echtheit der drei genannten Sprüche unzuzweifeln.30

(For further considerations relating to this point, see below.) e) Another reason for its being considered a late addition is the supposed Deuteronomistic vocabulary in this oracle, especially the express zkr bryt, “to remember the covenant,” which, it is argued, “is unattested in pre-exilic material but is relatively frequent in the priestly work….” And thus it is concluded that “the whole sentence corresponds to the theological and salvation-historical language and thought of circles trained in the Deuteronomistic tradition.”31 However, as Cazelles correctly noted, Wolff’s remarks pertain to the theological concept of brit but not to the unique phrase brit ’aÈim, “a brotherly covenant,” which, as has been observed, is an adaptation of a Mesopotamian political term signifying a parity treaty and has nothing to do with the unique Israelite concept of a covenant made between God and Israel.32

30

Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 119. So, too, Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 35: “Finally it is a bad principle to lay down rules for what verse patterns and strophe formations Amos could have used. He varies the verses freely as he wishes to, and not according to the rules of European metre.” Cf. also Priest, “Covenant of Brothers,” 405 n. 21; and Fensham, “Treaty,” 81. 31 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 159–160. 32 H. Cazelles, “L’Arrière-Plan historique d’Amos 1, 9–10,” The Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, I (Jerusalem, 1977), 74; Fensham, “Treaty,” 81. See especially Priest, “Covenant of Brothers.”

424

biblical studies 3. The prophecy against Edom33

a) For the form-critical arguments, see above 2d. “The variation in the patterns of strophes is not a criterion against their genuineness.”34 b) The main argument presented here by almost all scholars is its supposed post-exilic background. They contend that throughout the period of the monarchy Israel was in control of Edom, with the exception of a brief period under the reign of Joram, when the Edomites rebelled and installed a king of their own (2 Kings 8:20–22). So how and when could Edom have persecuted Israel?35 They only had their revenge with the fall of Jerusalem. “In this period alone are there supporting statements elsewhere” (cf. Isa 34:5–17; 63:1–6; Jer 49: 7–22; Ezek 25:12–14; 35:1–15; Joel 4:19; Obad 10–14; Mal 1:4; Ps 137:7; Lam 4:21–22). Thus, “only in this later period was it especially appropriate to expect that ‘pity’ might be shown by Edom.”36 However, as others have correctly noted, this reservation against its authenticity is highly dubious, to say the least. Since skirmishes between Israel and Edom must have occurred for hundreds of years before Amos, “there could have been circumstances which would justify Amos in using language like that of these verses.”37 So even though one cannot identify the specific event referred to here, this is no reason for deciding that the oracle is necessarily late. One must

33 For those who deny the authenticity of this oracle, see above, n. 20. In addition, the following may be added: M. Haller, “Edom im Urteil der Propheten,” Vom Alten Testament: Karel Marti zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet, BZAW 41 (Giessen, 1925), 112; J. Rieger, Die Bedeutung der Geschichte für die Verkündigung des Amos und Hosea (Giessen, 1929), 20, 29; H. E. W. Fosbroke, Amos, IB 6 (New York, 1956), 782; J. Morgenstern, “Jerusalem 485 B.C.,” HUCA 27 (1956), 115 n. 38; idem, “Amos Studies IV. The Address of Amos—Text and Commentary,” HUCA 32 (1961), 340–341; Mays, Amos, 36; Budde, “Zum Text und Auslegung,” 57–59, 65–66; R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, II (Copenhagen, 1948–49), 141. To the few who see it as original, add: F. Bühl, Geschichte der Edomiter (Leipzig, 1893), 66–67; and the comments of B. Margulis (on Edom and Tyre), Studies in the Oracles against the Nations, University Microfilms 67-16, 566 (1967), 116: “Why should the alleged interpolator(s) be capable of doing what Amos allegedly could not have done? There are, moreover, no anachronisms, no self-contradictions, indeed no serious implausibilities which rule out Amosian authorship of these oracles.” 34 Mays, Amos, 38. 35 Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 37. Cf. J. R. Bartlet, “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom,” JThS 20 (1969), 13–18. 36 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 160. 37 Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 38.


425

confess, “wie spärlich die Quellen sind,”38 and realize that we do not have a complete history of the relations of the two nations. Even if the statement were correct, that national enmity between Edom and Israel was unknown before the destruction of the First Temple,39 should Amos—if he did have some harsh words to utter against Edom—have moderated his tone, since in a couple hundred of years Edom would be worthy of an even sharper invective?40 On the other hand, scholars have made suggestions for the possible early historical dating of this oracle;41 but it must be recalled that Amos, in all of his charges, is recalling incidents and episodes and not entire periods.42 And such an episode could have obviously occurred innumerable times. Finally, it should be added that if the event referred to took place in the sixth century, two characteristic elements of that period are lacking here: (1) There is no hint as to Edom’s aiding in the destruction of Judah, as is specifically stated in the undeniably late passages referred to above in the other Biblical books; and (2) There is no reference here to Edom’s appropriation of territory and domination of southern Judea after its collapse.43 And it would be indeed strange if Edom would be the only one of the traditional triad of Edom, Moab, and Ammon to have been missing from this series. 4. The prophecy against Judah44 Most scholars are in agreement that the oracle against Judah (in its entirety or at least the second part of verse 4) does not belong to the original series. They call upon the following points to prove their case: a) Amos was summoned to prophesy only against Israel (7:15) and is otherwise unconcerned with the crimes and fate of Judah. (The 38 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 134, who thinks, however, that the end of v. 11 is a later addition after the fall of Jerusalem. 39 Haller, “Edom,” 112; and the studies of Morgenstern, “Jerusalem 485 B.C.” 40 Hoffman, “Prophecies,” 191–192. 41 E.g., Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 282–283; Haran, “Observations,” 207–212; Kaufmann, Toledoth. 42 Hoffman, “Prophecies,” 192. 43 Ibid. 44 Only a few maintain its authenticity, including Haran, Kaufmann, Hoffman, Hammershaimb, Rudolph (except for the second half of v. 4).

426

biblical studies

problem of other references to Judah in 1:2; 5:1; 7:12; and 9:11 will not be discussed here.) To this one may reasonably counter that he was also not commissioned to level indictments against the foreign nations either.45 And even if one concludes that the few other brief references to Judah are spurious, one must also admit that the book of Amos is almost completely devoid of any other references to the nations as well. Moreover, were he to have omitted an accusation against Judah, “so wäre bei dem ganzen tour d’horizon die Auslassung von Juda befremdlich gewesen; sie hätte gar zu leicht bei den nordisraelitischen Hörern den Eindruck nationalistischer Parteilichkeit erweckt.”46 Since Amos does not spare even his own fellow Judean citizens from a severe reproach, his impact would be made all the stronger. b) It is further reasoned that an oracle against Judah would have led his hearers to anticipate and suspect a forthcoming one against Israel and thereby would have weakened his pièce de résistance, leaving it as a mere anti-climax: “Durch das Dazwischentreten Judas die Überraschung abgeschwächt wird, dass das Gewitter schliesslich in Israel selbst einschlägt.”47 Here, too, it is best to counter this psychological presupposition with the words of Rudolph: “So ist das nicht stichhaltig, weil die ephraimitische Hörerschaft die Bescheltung und drohende Bestrafung Judas sicher mit derselben Genugtuung vernahm wie die Wörte gegen die Fremdvölker.”48 c) “Nor can we say that, because the formula is filled out in a different way from the majority of the oracles, the Judah oracle is spurious. The statistics show four long forms (Damascus, Gaza, Ammon, Moab) against three short (Tyre, Edom, Judah); out of seven only one type could have the majority. And who can be certain that Amos was bound to a rigid consistency of form?”49 d) The prophecy here is unique in that no moral or ethical crimes against human beings are listed, only those of a religious nature, i.e., the rejection of God’s laws and the worship of idols. However, a religious denunciation per se obviously does not certify lateness.

45

Cf. Hammershaimb, Book of Amos, 45–46. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 121. 47 Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten, 71, quoted by Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 121 n. 9. 48 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, who also refers to W. H. Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion,” 177 n. 28. 49 Mays, Amos, 41, who nevertheless doubts its authenticity. 46


427

This conceptual and the following literary arguments are nevertheless linked together by most scholars, pointing to a single later source—the Deuteronomistic school. True, the combination of the repudiation of God’s instructions and the following of other gods is typical and characteristic of this school (e.g., Deut 11:18; 2 Kings 17:15). But one must also reckon with the possibility that, in the eyes of Amos, apostasy was the cardinal sin of Judah.50 Furthermore, though the indictment is of a general character, theological in nature, and does not cite specific wrongs (as in the other oracles), this accusation “die das übel in seiner Wurzel aufdeckt, und alle Sünden, auch die auf dem sittlichen und sozialen Gebiet, in sich schliesst.”51 e) The above point for denying authenticity to this oracle is reinforced by recourse to the argument that the unique vocabulary and phraseology of this unit is characteristic of the Deuteronomistic school.52 Herein, it is admitted, is a strong point for those who argue the lateness of the oracle. Yet, here again, Rudolph’s comments are insightful: “Natürlich haben wir hier Ausdrücke, die auch der deuteronomistischen Literatur geläufig sind…, aber der deuteronomistische Stil war ja nicht eines Tages plötzlich da, sonder hat sich entwickelt.”53 For the style which later became the hallmark of the Deuteronomist had precedents and does appear occasionally in earlier sources (though, of course, not in a concentrated form). A review of the most often cited expressions is nevertheless in order: (1) tÙrat yhwh, “the instruction of Yahweh,” is also found in Isa 5: 24 and 30:9—verses which are not considered to be secondary or under any Deuteronomistic influence. (Cf., too, Isa 1:10, tÙrat ’elÙh¿nå.) Furthermore, the expression does not appear in Deuteronomy and is not considered to be characteristic of a Deuteronomistic style. Torah here is not, as it is conceived in later literature, the written Torah by Moses, but rather “instructions.” (Cf. also Josh 24:26; Isa 1:10.) (2) The verb àmr, along with the plural noun Èuqqim, is very frequent

50

So Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 121, who also compares Van Gelderen, Het Boek Amos, 30, and Botterweck, “Zur Authentizität,” 181. 51 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja, 121. 52 Almost all commentators since B. Duhm (Die Theologie der Propheten [Bonn, 1875], 119). See especially Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion,” 174–177. 53 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja; cf. G. Farr, “The Language of Amos, Popular or Cultic?” VT 16 (1966), 318.

428

biblical studies

in Deuteronomy (e.g., 4:6; 6:24; 16:12) and in the Deuteronomic literature, but is also found in other passages which are definitely not related to this literature.54 (3) Another expression characteristic of this school is hlk ’aÈry, “to follow (foreign gods)”; but here, too, it is attested in predeuteronomic literature (Hos 2:7, 15; 5:11; 11:10). Weinfeld has further pointed out that “Deuteronomy and deuteronomic literature abound with terms originating in the diplomatic vocabulary of the Near East.”55 And as an example he brings the cognate semantic and etymological Akkadian expression, al§ku arki, a phrase which obviously predates the Deuteronomic school. (4) kzbm, “lies,” a cacophemism employed here for “false gods/idols.” True, the expression is similar to other denigrating terms for idols known from this school, e.g., hebel, “vanity” (Deut 32:21; 1 Kings 16:13, 26; 2 Kings 17:15; Jer 2:5; 8:19; 14:22); àiqqåßim, “detestable things”; gilålim, “fetishes,” tÙ‘¿bah, “abomination,” tÙhå, “nothingness.”56 But it should be emphasized that this disparaging expression for idolatry is unique to Amos and is unattested anywhere else in the Bible. Hence, one should be cautious about far-reaching conclusions based on such a singular term. In sum, it is true that the overall phraseology does resemble this later school of literature, and has even been termed “protoDeuteronomistic,”57 but when the terms are examined individually, the results are far from being conclusive. Thus, the cautious remark of Hammershaimb bears repeating: “Finally, it is not certain that Amos is dependent on Deuteronomy in these verses.”58 And even if there is a later Deuteronomistic touch here or there, this does not mean that the oracle per se is not basically an integral part of the original series. f) Finally, there are a few who argue, somewhat similar to point b) above, that without the oracle on Judah there would be a total of seven prophecies, with Israel being the seventh, a symbolic number familiar to all representing climax, totality, and completion.59 However, if Judah

54

For a list, see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), 336. 55 Ibid., 83, 332. 56 Ibid., 323. 57 Haran, Ages and Institutions, 291. 58 Ibid., 46. 59 Cf. F. Hehn, “Zur Bedeutung der Siebenzahl,” BZAW 41 (1925), 128–136.


429

were included in the original pattern, it would make the oracle against Israel, number eight, a number of seemingly no symbolic significance, and thereby would upset the well-attested pattern of a repeated sixfold series reaching its culmination in the seventh round.60 And it is clear from other units in the book that Amos had a great fondness for expressing himself in literary patterns which comprise a heptad.61 However, it should be pointed out that there is an alternate literary device well attested in the Bible and in Ugaritic which serves the same purpose, that is, the pattern of seven–eight, in which the number eight serves as the paired number, with seven in the ascending staircase parallelism,62 and may even, as seven itself does, express the concept of culmination or climactic finish. Compare the following few examples: (1) The period of Aaron’s ordination lasted seven days: “You shall not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days…. For your ordination will require seven days” (Lev 8:33–35). And immediately thereafter, “on the eighth day…. For today the Lord will appear to you” (Lev 9:1–4). (2) “You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks; seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exod 22:20). (3) “Seven days you shall bring offerings by fire to the Lord. On the eighth day you shall observe a sacred occasion…; it is a solemn gathering” (Lev 23:36). Cf. Lev 14:9–10; 15:13–14; Num 6:9–10; 29: 12–35; Neh 8:18; 2 Chron 7:9. Note also that the rite of circumcision takes place on the eighth day (Gen 17:12).

60

See the many examples collected by Y. Avishur, “The Forms of Repetition of Numbers Indicating Wholeness (3, 7, 10)—in the Bible and in Ancient Semitic Literature,” Beer Sheva 1 (1973), 1–55 (Hebrew). 61 R. Gordis (“The Composition and Structure of Amos,” HTR 33 [1940], 242– 243) accepts the authenticity of all the oracles; idem, “The Heptad as an Element of Biblical and Rabbinic Style,” JBL 62 (1943), 17–26. For a list of further studies, see M. Weiss, “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2. A Re-Examination,” JBL 86 (1967), 420. 62 One of the few to take note of this alternate scheme was S. E. Loewenstamm (The Tradition of the Exodus in Its Development [Jerusalem, 1965], 33 n. 31 [Hebrew]), who cites a few examples and also refers to C. H. Gordon, “Ugarit as a Link between Greek and Hebrew Literatures,” RSO 29 (1954), 168. Cf., too, W. M. W. Roth, “The Numerical Sequence x/x + 1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962), 300–311; and Y. Avishur (Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible, I [Jerusalem, 1979], 53–54 [Hebrew]), who lists the recent studies on staircase parallelism on p. 53 n. 48; Paul, Amos, 22–24.

430

biblical studies

(4) And in a non-cultic framework, according to 1 Sam 16:10–11; 17:12, David was the eighth and youngest of his family (unlike 1 Chron 2:13–15:12, where he is presented as being the seventh). The number eight in all the above passages represents the climax. but it also serves the function of being the consecutive numerical parallel counterpart of seven, thereby representing a totality: – Mic 5:4: “We shall raise against him [= Assyria] seven shepherds, eight princes of men.” – Ps 90:10: “Seventy years is the span of our life, and, given the strength, eighty years.” – Eccles 11:2: “Distribute portions to seven or even63 to eight.” This sequential literary scheme was just one of the many which the Canaanite literature bequeathed to its Biblical heirs. Compare the following examples from Ugarit: – ‘mk·àb‘t Ålmk·tmn·Énzrk, “with you your seven lads, your eight officers” (KTU 2 1.5.V:8–9). – àkb ‘mnh·àb‘·làb‘m tà[‘]ly·tmn·ltmnym, “He lies with her seven and seventy (times); she made him mount eight and eighty-eight (times)” (KTU 2 1.5.V:19–21).64 – àb‘·ànt yßrk·b‘l tmn·rkb ‘rpt, “Seven years Baal has failed, eight [years] the Rider of Clouds” (KTU 2 1.19.I:42–44). – “The house of the king perished,” dàb‘ [’]Ém·lh·tmnt·bn ’um, “who had seven [bro]thers, eight siblings” [lit., “sons of a mother] (KTU 2 1.14.I:8–9). – tld·àb‘ bnm·lk wtmn tttmnm, “She shall bear you seven sons; even eight shall she produce for you” (KTU 2 1.15.II:23–24). It is also attested in Akkadian:65 “The goddess of MÁ’ wept, whose seven brothers were slain (7 aÉÉ¿àu dÊkå), whose eight brothers-in-law 63 H. L. Ginsberg (Koheleth [Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, 1961], 126 [Hebrew]) suggests the possibility of emending MT gam to the verb gemol, “render,” thereby creating a direct parallelism. 64 For other examples, see Avishur, Phoenician Inscriptions, I, 54. 65 M. G. Lambert, “A Neo-Babylonian Tammuz Lament,” in Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East, by Members of the American Oriental Society Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. J. M. Sasson (= JAOS 103 [1983], 211–215). The passage is found on p. 212, line 7.


431

were laid out in burial (8 Éat§nàu àunålå)”; in Phoenician (KAI 27: 17–18):66 àb‘ ßrty wàmnh ’àt b‘l, “His seven co-wives and eight wives of Baal”; and in a sixth-century CE Aramaic incantation text from Nippur:67 bàyb‘ ’yáryn dy l’ myàtryn || wbtmnyh Ètmyn dy l’ mytbryn, “with the seven spells which may not be loosed; and the eight seals which may not be broken.” In sum, it may very well be that Amos resorted to this alternate literary pattern for two complementary reasons. First, it, too, expressed finality and climactic culmination. But since the more usual scheme was to end with seven, his captive northern Israelite audience, who must have been enjoying every minute of it, would psychologically be in a state of mind which would lead them to believe that he had reached his climax with his fulmination against Judah. The moment he continued with his eighth and unexpected oracle, for him the sole purpose of this extended prolegomenon, they would have been taken completely unawares, and Amos, who delighted over and over again in making use of surprise endings,68 would have forcefully and compellingly leveled his final indictment. Conclusion All the above complements and supplements the original study on the concatenous pattern evidenced in the oracles against the nations and supplies literary and psychological criteria for accepting the authenticity of the oracle against Judah. Additional literary form-critical analysis helps to further substantiate this conclusion: 1) In a study, “The Forms of Repetition of Numbers Indicating Wholeness (3, 7, 10)—in the Bible and in Ancient Semitic Literature,” Avishur examined the formal phenomenon of having schemes, formulae, phrases, expressions, words, and particles repeated three, seven, or ten times in a literary unit in Biblical and ancient Near Eastern

66

H. Donner and W. Röllig, KAI, I, 6, 27:17–18 (read ßrty, not ßrßy; cf. II, 46); Avishur, Phoenician Inscriptions, II, 254. T. H. Gaster, in his study of this incantation from Arslan Tash (“A Canaanite Magical Text,” Or 11 [1942], 41–79), also cites a Mandean amulet with this same literary scheme (p. 63). 67 J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia, 1913), 195–200 and 105. 68 This is one of the chief characteristics of Amos’ style; cf. Amos 3:2.

432

biblical studies

literature.69 Though each number by itself represents a totality, the smaller ones may also appear within the larger patterns. He correctly observes that emphasis on these repetitions has implications for the formal aspects of the literary units. And one of the literary units he presents is Amos 1:3–2:5. His analysis of the numerical patterns is followed here, along with his diagrammatic presentation of the literary unit:

DAMASCUS

GAZA

TYRE

“I will send fire”

“I will send fire”“I will send fire”

EDOM

AMMON

MOAB

“I will send fire”

“I will set fire” “I will send “I will send fire” fire”

“upon the dynasty “upon the wall “upon the wall “upon Teman” “to the wall of “upon of Hazael” of Gaza” of Tyre” Rabbah” Moab” “and it shall devour”

“and it shall devour”




JUDAH

“upon Judah”

“and it shall “and it shall devour” devour”

“the fortresses of “its fortresses” “its fortresses” “the fortresses “its fortresses” “the “the Ben Hadad” of Bozrah” fortresses of fortresses of Kerioth” Jerusalem” “I shall wipe out “I shall wipe out the ruler from the the ruler from Vale of Aven” Ashdod”

“I shall wipe out the ruler from within her”

This artful interweaving of the repetition of a three-fold pattern within a larger seven-fold pattern provides an additional literary criterion for determining the structural integrity and wholeness of this entire unit. There is yet another way to investigate, from a literary point of view, the authenticity of all these oracles. One of the reasons oft-cited in commentaries against the originality of some of the units is that they exhibit variations in structure, phraseology, or style, and it is assumed that deviation from a formal scheme must imply different authorship. Here, then, let us reexamine only those oracles which, according to all scholars, are assumed to be the “original” ones: Damascus, Gaza,70

69 70

Avishur, “Forms of Repetition,” 12–13. Since the oracle against the Philistines is accepted as original by most scholars


433

Ammon, and Moab. A close reading of these four will disclose many different structural variations themselves: Damascus (1:4): Gaza (1:6): Ammon (1:14): Moab (2:2):

“I will send fire upon the dynasty of Hazael.” “I will send fire upon the wall of Gaza.” “I will set fire to the wall of Rabbah.” “I will send fire upon Moab.”

Note that in Damascus the fire is sent against the dynasty; in Gaza and Ammon, against the capital city; and in Moab, against the country. Furthermore, whereas in Gaza and Ammon the fire is set against the wall(s) of the city, in Aram it is ignited against the house (i.e., the dynasty), and neither of these two is mentioned in Moab. The verb for “setting fire” also varies:71 three times the verb is the pi‘el form of àlÉ (1:4, 7; 2:2) and once the hiph‘il form of yßt (1:14). 2) The fire in two instances (Gaza and Ammon) devours “its fortresses,” i.e. those of the nation; in one (Aram) the object is the fortresses of the dynasty, and in the other (Moab) the fortresses of a leading city now designed by name: Damascus: Gaza: Ammon: Moab:

“and it shall devour the fortresses of Ben Hadad.” “and it shall devour its fortresses.” “and it shall devour its fortresses.” “and it shall devour the fortresses of Kerioth.”

3) The introduction to the oracles against these four nations also differs: Damascus: Gaza:

“For three transgressions of Damascus,” i.e., the capital of Aram. “For three transgressions of Gaza,” i.e., a leading Philistine city.

today, and since formally it is constructed similarly to the other three (and thus different from Tyre, Edom, and Judah), it is included here as authentic. 71 Variation only for avoidance of monotony; the meaning remains the same. Cf. Margulis, Studies, 85: “The variations—especially those of a ‘lexical’ nature—do serve, however, an important function, viz. to define the ‘limits’ of ‘stereotypness’. The most highly-stereotyped expression may be said to co-exist with a number of stylistic variants, in which form it is transmitted in tradition.”

434 Ammon: Moab:

biblical studies “For three transgressions of the Ammonites,” i.e., the people. “For three transgressions of Moab,” i.e., the country.

4) In three of the four oracles, the reason or motivation for the crime is indicated and introduced by the particle l-: Gaza: Ammon:

Moab:

“They exiled an entire population” (l ehasgir) “to deliver up to Edom.” “They ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead” (l ema‘an) “in order to enlarge their own territory.” “He burned the bones of the king of Edom for lime (l esid).”72

However, in the oracle against Aram such a result clause is totally absent. 5) The indictment three times is worded in the plural—Damascus: “because they threshed”; Gaza: “because they exiled”; Ammon: “because they ripped open”; but appears only once in the singular—Moab: “because he burned.” 6) The concluding formula also varies three times (Aram, Ammon, and Moab), “said the Lord”; but only once there is an addition (Gaza): “said the Lord God.” 7) Only in Moab are those to be punished not the subject of the final clause, but the object: “I will wipe out the ruler from within her and slay all her officials along with him.” Contrast this to: (1) Damascus: “And the people of Aram shall be exiled to Kir”; (2) Gaza: “And the Philistines shall perish to the last man”; (3) Ammon: “Their king and his officers shall go into exile together.” 8) As part of the punishment, in three of the oracles (Aram, Philistine, Moab) the verb vehikrati, “I will wipe out,” is employed; this verb is absent, however, in the oracle against Ammon. The point here is that not one of the assumed four “authentic” 72

There are difficulties involved in translating this as “to lime,” as many commentators do. On the other hand, when understood as a result clause, it makes perfect sense and is structurally similar to the other two oracles.


435

oracles is identical to the other. The prophet set for himself a fixed literary framework, but within this framework he was free to make minor stylistic variations. Whereas variations do not change the intent or meaning, they do help to offset a monotonous (if not boring) verbatim repetition of each oracle. And this feature of internal variations within a schematic pattern is also a well-known literary device in ancient Near Eastern literature.73 In sum, variety in form does not necessarily point to different authorship and must not be used as a yardstick here for assuming lateness in oracles. On the other hand, were some of the oracles actually introduced later, we would naturally expect them to be stylistically harmonized amongst themselves, as well as with the “authentic” oracles. Yet here, too, differences crop up: (1) The oracle against Tyre is against the city (obviously by metonymy representing the country), whereas the ones against Edom and Judah are directed against the country proper. (2) The punishments display minor stylistic variations: Tyre: Edom: Judah:

“I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, and it will devour its fortresses (1:10). “I will send fire against Teman, and it will devour the fortresses of Bozrah” (1:12). “I will send fire against Judah, and it will devour the fortresses of Jerusalem” (2:5).

(3) One of the crimes of Tyre was, “because they handed over an entire population…” (1:9); and of Judah, “because they have spurned…” (2:4). But the indictment against Edom is worded in the singular, “because he pursued his brother…” (1:11). If a later editor were responsible for these additions, he naturally could have harmonized these differences and produced a total literary unity. But the stylistic variations are an integral part of the original corpus and thus are not to be used as a criterion here for determining interpolations. Note, too, that some of the variations of the supposed “interpolated” oracles are exactly the same as those of the “authentic” ones. 73

See Avishur, “Forms of Repetition.”

436

biblical studies

Last, but not least, another form-critical argument most often resorted to as a criterion for establishing the lack of authenticity of these three oracles is that their overall construction is decidedly different from the other four. And this is a correct and basic observation, as already noted above, in 2.d. But, in addition to the point made above, how else can one explain that only in these three are multiple indictments made—instead of only one charge, as found in the other four; and the announcement of punishment is reduced to the basic formula (“to set fire upon”)—instead of the descriptive enlargement characterizing the threats against the other four? First, it must be repeated that “it is not probable that any Hebrew prophet wrote with the fear of the standards of German literary criticism before his eyes.”74 Thus, we should not put him into a preconceived literary “straight-jacket.” Furthermore, even this definite deviation has been explained as part of an intentional literary device by the prophet. Ward75 finds here a “perfectly patterned alternation between two similar forms,” which he designates “type A and type B.” Type A are those oracles whose accusation contains one line and whose announcement of punishment comprises three lines with a concluding formula. Type B are those whose accusation consists of two lines and whose announcement of punishment contains one line and no concluding formula. Thus, two oracles, Damascus and Gaza, belonging to type A, are followed by two, Tyre and Edom, which are type B. These are then followed by two more type A oracles, Ammon and Moab, and then by two type B oracles, Judah and Israel (the latter he designates, “expanded type B”). There is no compelling reason, or even convincing one, to doubt the originality of this alternate pairing of similarly styled oracles. This argument may also be restated in other terms which, once again, will point to an intentional difference for the internal formulation of these oracles. Amos, from within his set literary pattern, alternated his accusation from emphasis on the punishment to emphasis on the crimes. Thus, he commences by elaborating on the punishment twice, continues with a descriptive expansion of the crimes of the next two nations, follows with two expanded threats, and concludes with an extensive listing of the crimes committed by Judah and Israel.

74 75

W. F. Lofthouse, cited by Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 282. J. M. Ward, Amos and Isaiah (Nashville and New York, 1969), 98–99.


437

Variety, thus, is the spice of Amos’ style. And the pericope in toto should once again be recognized as the unique creation of the first of the literary prophets, whose poetic devices and rhetorical skill are ever a source of admiration.76 76

For a full treatment of this subject, see Paul, Amos, 16–27.

438

biblical studies

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 439

AMOS 3:3–8: THE IRRESISTIBLE SEQUENCE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT By means of a series of rhetorical questions characterized by analogies drawn from common experience and well-known empirical phenomena, the prophet Amos logically and skillfully draws his unsuspecting audience into the flow of a persuasive and penetrating presentation of the inextricable relationship of all events and happenings.1 This didactic device, drawn from folk wisdom, is anchored in the premise that every event has its immediate cause and that every cause, in turn, leads to its own concomitant result.2 Once the people are cognizant of the fact that nothing is accidental, and that there is an indissoluble and inevitable interrelationship between cause and effect in both the animal and human spheres of existence, they would then be unable to deny that an identical sequence exists between the direct command of God to the prophet to speak (the cause) and the ensuing words of the prophet (the effect)—a necessary conclusion which thus applies and expands the law of causality from the natural and social realms to the religious sphere. Amos is hereby presenting an “apologia” for his (and every prophet’s) calling. He justifies and legitimizes his prophetic commission3 by explaining its authority and authenticity as well as

1 See the annotations of R. Gordis (“Studies in the Book of Amos,” American Academy for Jewish Research Jubilee Volume. 1928/1929–1978/1979, ed. S. W. Baron and I. E. Barzilay [New York and London, 1980], 218–219), to whom it is a privilege to dedicate this article. For a rhetorical analysis of this entire chapter, with special emphasis upon this pericope, see Y. Gitay, “A Study of Amos 3:1–15,” CBQ 42 (1980),293–309. B. Renaud (“Genèse et Théologie d’Amos 3, 3–8,” Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT 212 [Paris, 1981], 353–372) proposed a reconstruction of the unit in the following three stages: vv. 4–5, 6b, and v. 8 as two independent sections representing the original unity, to which were later added vv. 3 and 6a, and subsequently v. 7, each with its own different theological outlook. His analysis and conclusions are very difficult to accept. See also Y. Zakovitch, “The Pattern of the Numerical Sequence Three-Four in the Bible,” Ph.D. diss. (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1977) (Hebrew). 2 Cf. Renaud (“Genèse et Théologie,” 365): “L’effet visible permet de remonter à la cause invisible.” 3 E. Hammershaimb, Amos (Oxford, 1970); R. Fey, Amos und Jesaja: Abhängigkeit und Eigenständikeit des Jesaja, WMANT 12 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1963), 41; J. M. Ward, Amos and Isaiah (Nashville and New York, 1969), 39; J. L. Mays, Amos, OTL (Philadelphia,

440

biblical studies

its absolute force and necessity. By such compelling and commanding reasoning, Amos responds to the attacks and protests which must have been leveled against him and his message.4 His (as well as other prophets’) right to speech had been challenged (2:12) and his words and ideas impugned. In defense of his previous oracle announcing impending punishment of the elected people (3:1–2), he forcefully and cogently argues that prophecy is not a self-generating act, but that the prophet is irresistibly compelled to deliver God’s words: “A lion has roared, who can but fear? My Lord God has spoken, who can but prophesy?” (3:8). Though, as has been oft-noted, Amos adopted and adapted the style of the wisdom teacher in this pericope,5 his composition nevertheless remains unique both in its form and content as well as in its comprehensive presentation and internal development. The purpose of this study is to highlight the literary artistry of this unit, in addition to commenting on pertinent lexical and contextual matters. It should be noted at the outset that Amos has a decided predilection for delivering his oracles seriatim. The book commences with a catalogue of prophecies against foreign nations, and in the ensuing chapters further examples are clearly attested.6 This formal literary device, moreover, is skillfully used by him here and in chapters 1–2 1969), 89; W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, KAT 13/2 (Gütersloh, 1971) 154; H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1977), 183. 4 Cf. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 151; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 181. See, too, R. F. Melugin, “The Formation of Amos: An Analysis of Exegetical Method,” SBL 1978 Seminar Papers, I (Missoula, 1978), 381. For the appeal to reason and method of analogy, see Gitay, “Study of Amos 3:1–15,” 298. 5 Cf. J. Lindblom, “Wisdom in the Old Testament Prophets,” Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas, SVT 3 (Leiden, 1955), 201; H. Gese, “Kleine Beiträge zum Verstandnis des Amosbuches,” VT 12 (1962), 424–427; S. Terrien, “Amos and Wisdom,” Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York, 1962), 111–115; G. R. Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, FRLANT 80 (Göttingen, 1962), 27–30; E. J. Amsler, Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 11a (Neuchâtel, 1965), 187; Mays, Amos, 60; Ward, Amos and Isaiah, 40; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 154; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 93, 183. See also S. Mittmann, “Gestalt und Gehalt einer prophetischen Selbstfertigung (Am 3, 3–8),” Theologische Quartalschrift 151 (1971), 141–143. For analogous Mesopotamian rhetorical questions, see W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (= BWL) (Oxford 1967), 241:II, 40–42: ina la nâkimi erâtme, ina la ak§lime kabrat, “Has she become pregnant without having had intercourse? Has she become fat without eating?” 6 For the presentation in a series, cf. the litany of punishments with their stereotypic refrain in chapter 4:6–11, and the sequence of visions in chapters 7–8.

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 441 for an additional psychological purpose. He first attracts the attention of his listeners by deftly drawing them into his orbit of thinking by means of statements which they can readily and favorably accept, and then suddenly and dramatically he confronts his already captive audience with a totally unexpected and climactic finale. The literary genre of the prophecies against foreign nations served him as an apt prelude to his surprise denunciation of Israel.7 And now by employing another genre, this time drawn from the sphere of wisdom literature, he gradually yet persuasively leads his opponents step by step into the vortex of a seemingly innocuous process of reasoning. He commences by bringing an example from an everyday normal occurrence and then carefully continues to describe crisis situations which take place in both the animal and human worlds—all of which merely serve as a cohesive prolegomenon to his essential and final point: the phenomenon of prophecy is likewise a product of this same irresistible sequence of cause and effect. Another literary similarity exists between Amos’ use of these two different genres (in chapters 1–2 and here). Not only are they presented in a series, but both skillfully employ the well-known pattern of the graduated ascending number scheme, 7/8, in which the eighth oracle and the eighth rhetorical question (and not the seventh) bring the respective pericopes to their climactic and unexpected conclusion.8 The first seven oracles as well as the seven rhetorical questions serve as an effective decoy for his ultimate trap; they are preclimactic. His audience, which most probably assumed that the seventh oracle (against Judah)9 and the seventh question (“Can misfortune come to a town if the Lord has not caused it?”) would be the final one, is thus completely caught off guard when the prophet adds his eighth and last thrust. The effect is even more poignant when it is recalled that Amos himself also had a literary penchant for expressing himself in heptads (cf. 2:14–16),10 and when it is further noted that the personal name 7

See S. M. Paul, “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90 (1971), 397–403 [353–362]; idem, “A Literary Reinvestigation of the Authenticity of the Oracles against the Nations in Amos,” De la Tôrah au Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, ed. J. Doré, P. Grelot, and M. Carrez (Paris, 1981), 189–204 [417–437]. 8 Paul, “Literary Reinvestigation,” 196–197 [429–431], for examples from Ugaritic and the Bible. 9 For a discussion of the originality of this oracle, see ibid. 10 R. Gordis, “The Heptad as an Element of Biblical and Rabbinic Style,” JBL 62 (1943), 17–26; idem, “Studies in the Book of Amos,” 218. Zakovitch (“Pattern

442

biblical studies

of the God of Israel, YHWH, appears for the first time specifically in the seventh question—two impressive reasons which would naturally lead one to conclude that the prophet had reached the apogee of his presentation with his seventh pronouncement. All the more startling, then, that he immediately confounds his by now unsuspecting listeners with his dramatic dénouement. Such surprise finales are yet another literary device utilized with great dexterity by this prophet in order to upset and reverse firmly established beliefs and principles held by the people of Israel, e.g., 3:2; 5:18; 9:7. The internal logical development of the subject matter itself is also well designed. After a general and logical all-inclusive introductory question (v. 3, see below), he continues first with a pair of examples drawn exclusively from the animal world—a lion and its prey (v. 4), and then proceeds by presenting two rhetorical questions rooted in the antagonistic relationship between the animal (birds) and human worlds—the latter setting traps for the former (v. 5). Thereupon he progresses to the interpersonal realm, where man’s hostility is directed against his fellowman (v. 6a); and then, finally, he ascends to the human-divine sphere of interaction—catastrophes on earth are divine acts (v. 6b). Then, and only then, after all areas of existence are acknowledged to fall within the same preconceived pattern of cause and effect, does he add his last link, i.e., the unique causal relationship between YHWH and the prophet (v. 8b). An additional emotional dimension in this literary unit (after the first innocuous introductory question) is the ominous feeling of no exit, no escape. The examples all depict the parties involved as being in situations where they are ensnared or overpowered by some stronger force, be it animal, human, or divine. This physical or psychological entrapment provides a very apt analogue to the end of the previous chapter, where Amos describes the imminent defeat of Israel in terms of complete and total inescapability. With the aid of a heptad to express completeness, he powerfully portrays the paralysis of all the military units and divisions of the Israelite army (2:14–16). This

of the Numerical Sequence,” 195) sees here a pattern of 3–4 (actually one question followed by three pairs of questions) within a larger pattern of six–seven, and brings examples from Biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature (p. 547). Although he does not accept the originality of vv. 7 and 8, he understands correctly the internal structural and contextual order of the unit leading up to the seventh question (pp. 198–199).

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 443 theme of total inescapability, it should be noted, also recurs in a later chapter, 9:1–4. Another unique facet of this pericope, which has all but escaped the attention of commentators, is the novel way in which Amos employs the literary device of the double rhetorical question. The particle ‫אם‬ which introduces v. 6 is not, as many have thought, a more intensive form of the question, but is rather the standard correlative and complement of the interrogative particle ‫ה‬, which is employed in the previous verses. Though there are some dozen different ways of posing and composing double questions in Biblical Hebrew,11 this specific pattern—five consecutive questions introduced by ‫ ה‬followed by two introduced by ‫אם‬12—is unparalleled and can be attributed to the innovative literary creativity of the prophet himself. Once this literary device is recognized, it is intriguing to see whether it can be pursued yet one step further. Biblical Hebrew also has several different ways of formulating a triple question. The two most attested are ‫ מדוע‬...‫ אם‬...‫( ה‬e.g., Jer 2:14, 31; 8:4–5; 16:19; 49:1; cf. Isa 50:2) and ‫ כי‬...‫ אם‬...‫( ה‬e.g., Num 11:12; Isa 66:8; Jer 18:14–15; 31:20; [48:27]; Amos 6:12; Mic 4:9; Hab 3:8; Job 7:12; 10:5–6; and a possible conflate of both forms in Jer 8:22). In the latter form, the particle ‫ כי‬introduces the logical conclusion of the two preceding ...‫ה‬ ‫ אם‬questions.13 This very tripartite pattern is also attested once in the book of Amos, 6:12. Thus, is it only merely a coincidence that in this unit directly after the double ‫ אם‬...‫ ה‬questions in vv. 3–6, v. 7 begins with ‫כי‬, the particle which so often functions as the introduction to the third part of this conventional literary pattern? If this verse is a later interpolation, as most—but not all—modern commentators think14 (see below), it should at least be noted that 11

Y. Avishur, “Patterns of the Double Question in the Bible and in Ugarit,” Zer L’Gevurot: The Zalman Shazar Jubilee Volume, ed. B. Z. Luria (Jerusalem, 1973), 421–464 (Hebrew). See also M. Held, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” Eretz-Israel, IX, ed. A. Malamat (= W. F. Albright Volume (Jerusalem, 1969), 71–79. For the device of rhetorical questions in influencing people, cf. Gitay, “Study of Amos 3:1–15,” 296, 302. 12 For other examples of two consecutive interrogatives introduced by ‫אם‬, cf. Jer 48:27 and Job 6:12. 13 Cf. Avishur, “Patterns of the Double Question,” loc. cit., for the distinction between ‫ מדוע‬and ‫כי‬. For ‫ כי‬after two initial series of rhetorical questions, see Job 10:4–6 (and, partially, Hab 3:8). Zakovitch (“Pattern of the Numerical Sequence,” 199) also remarks upon ‫ כי‬in this rhetorical sequence, but discounts the originality of v. 7. 14 For it being a later literary addition, see, e.g., K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton

444

biblical studies

formally and externally (if admittedly not contextually), the addition conforms to the distinctive style of the Biblical formulation of the triple question. A further point: In the first five questions, all of which are introduced by the interrogative ‫ה‬, the effect precedes the cause: “Can two walk together” (effect) “without having met?” (cause); “Does a lion roar in the forest” (effect) “when he has no prey?” (cause); “Does a great beast utter a cry from its den” (effect) “without having made a capture?” (cause); “Does a bird swoop to the ground into a trap” (effect) “with no bait?” (cause); “Does a trap spring up from the ground” (effect) “unless it has caught something?” (cause). However, in the first half of verse 6, the prophet deliberately reverses his train of thought and states the cause prior to the effect:15 When a ram’s horn is sounded in a town” (cause) “do people not take alarm?” (effect). And at this juncture, the change of formal presentation coincides with a change of formulation—or precisely here the prophet introduces his rhetorical questions for the first time with the interrogatory particle ‫אם‬. Change of order of reasoning, change of formal expression is a delicate additional literary touch. Then, in v. 6b, he continues using the ‫ אם‬particle but reverts to his original pattern of effect preceding cause: “Can misfortune come to a town” erklärt, KHC 13 (Tübingen, 1904); B. Duhm, “Anmerkungen zu den zwölf Propheten,” ZAW 31 (1911), 5; M. Löhr, Untersuchungen zum Buch Amos, BZAW 4 (Giessen, 1901); W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt3, HK 3/4 (Göttingen, 1922); E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch3, KAT 12/1 (Leipzig, 1930); A. Weiser, Die Prophetie der Amos, BZAW 53 (Giessen, 1929); S. Lehming, “Erwägungen zu Amos,” Zeitschrift für Theologische Kirche 55 (1958), 145–169; E. Baumann, “Eine Einzelheit,” ZAW 64 (1952), 62; Gese,”Kleine Beiträge,” 424–427; W. H. Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches,” ZAW 77 (1965), 168–193; Ward, Amos and Isaiah, 39; Wolff, Joel and Amos; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona. On the other hand, cf. W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh 1905); H. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels2, SAT 21 (Göttingen, 1921); J. Theis and J. Lippel, Die zwölf kleine Propheten, I, HS 8/3 (Bonn, 1937); T. H. Robinson and F. Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten3, HAT 1/14 (Tübingen, 1963); V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos (Leiden, 1951), 14; R. S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos3 (London, 1960); Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, 27; Terrien, “Amos and Wisdom,” 112; Hammershaimb, Amos, 70, “can be interpreted not as superfluous.” Gitay (“Study of Amos 3:1–15, 304–305) bases the verse’s authenticity on its rhetorical function. 15 This point was seen by many commentators; e.g., Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 155; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 183; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 154; but they do not indicate that this is an intentional reversal of the train of thought, nor do most of them connect it with the change in rhetorical formulation.

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 445 (effect) “if YHWH has not caused it?” (cause). By thus alternating the cause-effect sequence (6a) with the immediately preceding and following effect-cause sequence (5b and 6b), the prophet artfully varies a stereotypic formal pattern and creates thereby a very effective chiastic word order. One more feature accompanies this stylistic formal change from ‫ ה‬to ‫אם‬. In the first five ‫ה‬-questions, the subject matter remains the same in the single or double cola (i.e., individuals, lions and prey, birds and traps). But in v. 6, where the two ‫אם‬-questions appear, two different subjects or themes are present in each of the separate cola: the sounding of a “ram’s horn” (6a) and a “catastrophe” in the city (6b)—the former makes the people tremble, the latter is the Lord’s doing. It is also of interest to note that in his application of the process of cause and effect, Amos relies on both the senses of seeing and hearing—and these two are employed in an alternating pattern. One reaches the obvious conclusion when one sees two walking together (v. 3); when one hears the roar of a lion (v. 4); when one sees a bird swooping down or caught in a trap (v. 5) and when one hears the blast of a ram’s horn (v. 6a). All these sights and sounds together demonstrate the inevitable and indissoluble connection between cause and effect. An internal literary pattern characterized by symmetry and concatenation is also discernible within this section: 3 4 5 6 7 8

‫לכד‬-‫בלתי אם‬ ‫ולכוד לא ילכוד‬ ‫וה' לא עשה‬ ‫הנביאים‬ ‫ָבא‬ ֵ ‫מי לא יִ נּ‬

‫נועדו‬-‫הילכו שנים יחדו בלתי אם‬ ‫ֲהיתן כפיר קולו ממעֹנתו‬ ‫וטרף אין לו‬ ‫פח מן האדמה‬-‫ומוקש אין לה ֲהיעלה‬ ‫תהיה רעה בעיר‬-‫ועם לא יחרדו אם‬ ָ ‫עבדיו‬-‫כי אם גלה סודו אל‬ ‫אדני ה' דבּר‬ ‫מי לא יירא‬

‫ֲהישאג אריה ביער‬ ‫פח הארץ‬-‫ֲהתפֹל צפור על‬ ‫אם יִ ָתּקע שופר בעיר‬ ‫כי לא יעשה אדני ה' דבר‬ ‫אריה שאג‬

1. The negative expression ‫ בלתי אם‬appears before a verb only twice in the entire Bible, and these two sole occurrences are in the consecutive verses 3 and 4b.16 (Interestingly enough, the word ‫ אם‬itself is employed in three different ways in these series of questions—as part of a negation (vv. 3, 4b), as the correlative of ‫ ה‬in a double rhetorical In both Gen 47:18 and Judg 7:14, ‫ בלתי אם‬is employed before a substantive. For extra-Biblical occurrences of ‫בלת‬, cf. the Phoenician inscription of Tabnit, line 5, ‫בלת אנך שכב‬, KAI, I, 13:5. For Ugaritic, blt, see C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome, 1965), 466 and 479. Cf. C. J. Labuschagne, “Ugaritic BLT and BILTÎ in Isa x 4,” VT 14 (1964), 97–99. 16

446

biblical studies

question (v. 6), and simply as a particle (v. 7). Note also the alternating formulations of ‫( בלתי אם‬v. 3), ‫ ו‬...‫( ה‬v. 4a), ‫ בלתי אם‬...‫( ה‬v. 4b), ‫ ו‬...‫ה‬ (v. 5a), followed once by ‫ לא‬...‫ ה‬and twice by ‫ לא‬...‫אם‬. 2. In addition to ‫בלתי אם‬, there are several other negative formulations, all of which appear in set pairs: ‫( וטרף אין לו‬v. 4a) ‫( ועם לא יחרדו‬v. 6a) ‫( מי לא יירא‬v. 8a)

a) b) c)

‫( ומוקש אין לה‬v. 5a) 17‫( וה' לא עשה‬v. 6b) ‫ָבא‬ ֵ ‫( מי לא יִ נּ‬v. 8b)

3. The verb ‫ לכד‬appears in two consecutive final cola, vv. 4b and 5b. 4. Since in vv. 4–6 the place or instrument in question is always specifically mentioned in both cola, and since the same word, ‫בעיר‬, is repeated twice in v. 6, more caution should be taken before concluding (as most commentators do) that the word ‫ פח‬in v. 5a is a socalled redundant intrusion from v. 5b. (See below for further evidence regarding the originality of this word in v. 5a.) 5. V. 7a is directly linked to the immediately preceding v. 6b by the identical three words, ‫ ה' לא עשה‬...'‫לא יעשה ה‬, which are arranged chiastically. 6. V. 8, in turn, contains two specific features which link it directly with v. 7: (a) Three identical words: ‫( אדני ה' דבר‬v. 7a) and ‫אדני ה' דבר‬ (v. 8b). (Of course, ‫ ָד ָבר‬in v. 7a is a noun and ‫ ִד ֵבּר‬in v. 8b is a verb. However, the appearance of this base root twice in conjunction with the rare expression '‫ אדני ה‬is very striking and obviously meant to be intentional.) (b) Only in these two verses is there a specific mention of the prophets, ‫( הנביאים‬v. 7b), and their prophecy, ‫ָבא‬ ֵ ‫( יִ נּ‬v. 8b). (For the significance of these last two points, 5 and 6, in determining the originality of v. 7, see below.) 7. A chiastic inclusio exists between ‫( הישאג אריה‬v. 4a) and ‫אריה‬ ‫( שאג‬v. 8a). 8. Another (editorial) inclusio can also be detected in the phrase ‫דבר‬ '‫( ה‬v. 1) and ‫( אדני ה' ִדּ ֵבּר‬v. 8). (Although the first two verses of chapter 3 are an independent literary unit, they formally serve as the contextual background for the ensuing justification of the prophet’s mission.)18

17 18

The ‫לא‬-negation is already introduced in v. 5b. Gitay (“Study of Amos 3:1–15,” 295) suggests that a rhetorical analysis of the

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 447 9. Finally, as a literary aside, attention should also be drawn to the chapter’s overall embracive inclusio: ‫ אפקד‬...‫( שמעו‬vv. 1–2) and (‫)ופקדתי‬ ‫ אפקד‬...‫( שמעו‬vv. 13–14). Annotations to the verses: Verse 3:

‫בלתי אם נועדו‬

‫הילכו שנים יחדו‬19

“Can two walk together without having met?” Doubt has been cast by some commentators on the authenticity of this verse in relation to the entire literary unit.20 The main arguments are: (1) This is the only verse in the composition which lacks a complementary poetic colon; (2) A plural verb is found only in this sentence; (3) Unlike all the other verses, the image portrayed here is a peaceful one, bearing no overtones of a threatening situation. However: (1) Since the pericope consists of a heptad of introductory questions, and since seven is an odd and not an even number, one verse by necessity must contain only a single and not a double question; (2) The plural verb is necessitated by the subject ‫שנים‬, “two.” Moreover, the anonymity of “two walking together” makes this theme an appropriate continuation of the dual relationship just described between Israel and God (vv. 1––2),21 on the one hand, and serves in addition as a convenient all-purpose various units of this chapter suggests their being “mutually related”… “are part of a single discourse.” See also p. 306. 19 Cf. the striking verbal similarity to Gen 22:6, 8. Note, too, the iterative or frequentative force of most of the verbs in this pericope. The prophet, as so often throughout his prophecies, draws upon his own personal experiences for most of his examples. 20 E.g., Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton erklärt; Gese, “Kleine Beiträge,” 425; Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion,” 183; Renaud, “Genèse,” 357–359. Marti and Gese consider this verse to be a gloss supplying the motif for the punishment announced in 3:2b. See also H.-J. Stoebe, “Ueberlegungen zu den geistlichen Voraussetzungen der Prophetie Amos,” Festschrift W. Eichrodt: Wort-GebotGlaube, ed. H.-J. Stoebe (Zurich, 1970), 217ff.; and W. Eichrodt, “Die Vollmacht des Amos. Zu einer schwierigen Stelle im Amosbuch,” Festschrift für W. Zimmerli, ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend (Göttingen, 1977), 125. However, according to Wolff (Joel and Amos, 184), “Verse 3 belongs to the original series of questions, even though this sentence differes in tone from those that follow.” See also his note b on pp. 180–181, “Verse 3 gives the impression of being a preface”; cf. also Mittmann, “Gestalt und Gehalt,” 135–137. Renaud (“Genèse,” 354) is correct, however, in his observation that vv. 1–2 concern the election of Israel; vv. 3–8—that of the prophet. The first two verses are the words of Yahwe, the next, the words of the prophet. 21 Cf. Gitay, “Study of Amos 3:1–15,” 295; R. Koch, Amos, II, AOAT 30 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976), 16.

448

biblical studies

introduction to the remaining six questions of “bilateral” relations, on the other; (3) The citing of a “neutral” or “normal” life situation and not one which alludes to a specific threat or crisis is intentional in order to lure the audience into the prophet’s train of thought. By capturing their attention with such a “banal” and everyday event with which they can readily identify, Amos “Socratically” and psychologically weaves the first thread in the web which will eventually bind them to his own pre-planned conclusion. Linguistically, too, this verse bears a distinctive “trademark” of Amos, i.e., the expression ‫בלתי אם‬ preceding a verb, as noted above, appears only in this book. The verb ‫ נועדו‬here means merely “to meet,” without any overtones of “by plan” or “by design.” Neither does it imply meeting “by agreement” or “by making an appointment.” For it is natural, as well as obvious, that people do bump into one another by chance without prearranging either the time or the place of the liaison.22 Were the prophet to have asked whether two people walk together only by predesignation, he would have defeated his purpose from the very outset, for the answer to such a question is, of course, they do: sometimes two individuals do walk together by chance. But his examples are geared toward an absolute negative response without room for any exception. And so it is impossible to disagree with him, for what he describes is so self-evident. If two people are seen walking together, it is clearly because they have met. Quod erat demonstrandum. As Rudolph (p. 155) so correctly comments on this verse, “Je unbestreitbarer seine Beispiele sind, desto brauchbarer für die Absicht, die er mit ihnen verfolgt.” For ‫יעד‬, “to meet,” compare ‫אוהל מועד‬, the “Tent of Meeting”; and

22

See Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 151 n. 3a, with additional bibliographical references and discussion, especially to Gese, “Kleine Beiträge,” 425. Cf. also N. H. Tur Sinai, Peàutô shel Miqra, III/2 (Jerusalem, 1967), 458. The LXX reading (e0a_n mh_ gnwri/swsin e9autou&j) = ‫נודעו‬, “unless they knew one another,” is due to the influence of the verb ‫ ידע‬in verse 2a and is not to be accepted. So Rudolph (Joel-Amos, ObadjaJona, 151 n. 3a) and Wolff (Joel and Amos, 179 n. a) against Marti (Das Dodekapropheton erklärt), Nowack (Die kleinen Propheten), and Cripps (Critical and Exegetical Commentary). D. W. Thomas (“Note on ‫ נועדו‬in Amos III, 3,” JTS 7 [1956], 69–70), on the other hand, followed this reading but derived the root from the Arabic cognate, wd‘, “to be reconciled, to make peace”—which misrepresents the intention of the question. The Masoretic text is independently confirmed by two other Greek translations, Aquila sunta&zwntai, “agree to come together,” and Theodotion, sune/lqwsin, “meet one another,” as well as by the Vulgate, convenerit eis, “they have agreed,” and Tg. Jon., ‫אזדמנו‬. There are times, however, when a pre-arranged agreement is referred to, e.g., Job 2:11; Neh 6:2.

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 449 for the verb in the niph‘al, e.g., Exod 25:22: ‫ ;ונועדתי‬30:6, 36: ‫ָעד‬ ֵ ‫אוּ‬, ִ to describe the meeting of Moses with God.23 Verse 4

‫הישאג אריה ביער וטרף אין לו‬ ‫היתן כפיר קולו ממעֹנתו בלתי אם לכד‬

“Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Does a great beast let out a cry from its den without having made a capture?” These two rhetorical questions most likely refer to two different stages in the hunt. The initial roar of the lion24 issues from the forest (‫)ביער‬,25 when he first locates and confronts his prey, but before he makes the kill. The second roar is the sound of victory and contentment which he emits from his den (‫)ממעֹנתו‬,26 after he has successfully captured and consumed his victim. For other references to roars before or after the catch, cf., e.g., Isa 5:29; 31:4; Ezek 22:25; Ps 22:14; 104:20–21.27 For ‫כפיר‬, “great beast,” rather than its usual translation, “young lion,” see Ezek 19:3, “She raised up one of her cubs; he became a great beast (‫)כפיר‬.”28 Verse 5

‫התפֹל צפור על פח הארץ ומוקש אין לה‬ ‫ ולכוד לא ילכוד‬29‫היעלה פח מן האדמה‬

23 This does not mean to imply that in Amos, however, the verb has “une portée théologique,” or “une allusion à l’expérience de Moïse (Renaud, “Genèse,” 359) or that there is an allusion to the covenant (Stoebe, “Ueberlegungen,” 221). 24 Cf. Amos 1:2, 3:8. The lion is also mentioned in Amos 3:4, 8, 12. 25 For other examples of an ‫ אריה‬in the ‫יער‬, see, e.g., Jer 5:6; 12:8. 26 The ‫ מעֹנה‬or ‫ מעון‬is the den of lions (Nah 2:12–13; Ps 104:21–22; Job 38: 39–40; Song of Songs 4:8); jackals (Jer 5:10; 10:22; 49:33; 51:37); adder (Isa 11:8); and other wild animals (Job 37:8). The word has not been added, but, as seen from all the comparable place-names in the other cola, is original; contra Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 154; and Wolff, Joel and Amos, 180. 27 For the interpretation of two different stages in the catch, cf. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, 132; Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, 214; Theis and Lippel, Die zwölf kleine Propheten, I, 120; Hammershaimb, Amos, 58; Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 153; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 155. See especially J. Braslavi (“Does a Lion Roar in the Forest When He Has No Prey?” Beth Miqra 30 [1967], 12–16 [Hebrew]), who also refers to W. Kahle, Der kleine Brehm: Ausgewählte Tiertypen, I (Leipzig, 1935), 586. 28 For the roar of a ‫כפיר אריות‬, cf. Judg 14:5. 29 For the word pair ‫ אדמה‬...‫ארץ‬, see R. Weiss, Studies in the Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem, 1981), 138 (Hebrew).

450

biblical studies

“Does a bird swoop down upon a trap on the ground if there is no bait? Does a trap spring up from the ground unless it has caught something?” The two antithetical verbal expressions in the separate cola, ‫נפל‬ ‫ על‬and ‫עלה מן‬, also represent two different stages in the capture of a bird before and after it is trapped, for the meaning of ‫ נפל על‬is not the same as -‫ ;נפל ב‬only the latter means “fall into” (a trap into which most translators and exegetes have themselves inadvertently fallen here). The phrase ‫נפל על‬, as the preposition itself indicates, means to “swoop” or “plunge down upon.”30 Amos is theoretically posing the following question: Does a bird swoop down upon a ground trap (‫)פח‬ unless there is a ‫ ?מוקש‬The question now is what is exactly meant by ‫מוקש‬. Since it is usually assumed that ‫ מוקש‬is synonymous with ‫פח‬, and since, to further compound and confound the issue, the Septuagint reflects a reading ‫( על פני‬e0pi/ th\n gh~n), “upon” instead of ‫על פח‬, many commentators conclude that the noun ‫ פח‬in the first colon has been incorrectly repeated from the second colon and consequently should be deleted.31 On the other hand, the few commentators who defend the correctness of the Masoretic text and who also make a distinction between the nouns ‫ פח‬and ‫מוקש‬, conclude that a ‫ מוקש‬refers to either a “throwing stick/boomerang”32 or to a “striker,” i.e., the moveable part of a trap which strikes and paralyzes the ensnared bird.33 However,

30 This nuance has been almost universally overlooked. For a rare exception, see E. Vogt, “Ihr Tische werde zur Falle (Ps 69, 23),” Biblica 43 (1962), 80. “Fall upon,” by extension, means “attack.” Cf. e.g., Isa 16:9; Jer 48:32; and Akk. ana X maq§tu, “to fall upon,” and “to attack,” CAD, M/I, 247–248. 31 So most commentators; cf. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 180 n. d. A few commentators, on the other hand, interpret ‫ פח‬as a corruption of the original ‫( פני‬with the LXX); so A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, V (Leipzig, 1912), 234; Harper, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 69, following F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1895). 32 E.g., Wolff (Joel and Amos, 185), who refers to M. von Oppenheim, Der Tell Halaf (Leipzig, 1931), 93–94 and plates 9b, 17b). Hammershaimb (Amos, 58) brings his evidence from A. Erman and H. Ranke, Ägypten und ägyptisches Leben im Altertum (Tübingen, 1923), 264. 33 G. R. Driver, “Reflections on Recent Articles,” JBL 73 (1954), 131–136. (Driver’s Akkadian equivalents, however, must be viewed with a great deal of caution.) On the subject of traps and snares, see G. Gerleman, “Contributions to the Old Testament Terminology of the Chase,” Bulletin de la Société Royale des Lettres de Lund (Ärsberattelse, 1945–46), 79–90. (On p. 81, ‫מוקש‬, “a manned clap net,” and on p. 82, ‫פח‬, “automatic bird trap.”); and L. E. Toomb, “Traps and Snares,” IDB,

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 451 these same commentators unfortunately overlooked the correct nuance of Heb. ‫ נפל על‬and themselves “fell into” a translation trap. That which is being described in this verse is the cause for a bird’s sudden and swift descent. Why does a bird swoop down upon a trap? It is because of the ‫מוקש‬, which is obviously none other than the “bait” or “decoy” which is attached to the trap.34 For this meaning of ‫מוקש‬, compare 1 Sam 18:21, “Saul thought, ‘I will give her [Michal] to him [David]; let her be the bait [‫ ]מוקש‬that lures him to his death at the hands of the Philistines’ ” (so correctly NEB). (By pars pro toto, ‫מוקש‬, which is the “bait” of a trap, comes to signify the “trap” itself.) The bait or decoy first lures the unsuspecting bird to plunge down from on high (v. 5a), and then the trap itself springs up to ensnare its victim (v. 5b). Verse 6

‫אם יתקע שופר בעיר ועם לא יחרדו‬ ‫אם תהיה רעה בעיר וה' לא עשה‬

“When a ram’s horn is sounded in a town, do the people not take alarm? Can misfortune come to a town if the Lord has not caused it?” Here the locus changes, and the focus is set upon events which take

IV (New York, 1962), 687–688. For the combination of ‫ צפור‬and ‫פח‬, see Ps 124:7; Prov 7:23; Eccles 9:12. For ‫ פח‬and ‫מוקש‬, see Josh 23:13; Isa 8:14; Ps 69:23; 141:9. Compare, too, Ugaritic yqàm, “bird catchers” (KTU2 4.99:6; 4.114:8; 4.126:25). Cf. Hos 9:8, ‫ ;פח יקוֹש‬Ps 91:3, ‫ פח יוקשים‬,124:7 ;‫פח יקוּש‬. 34 For the meaning “bait,” see Driver, “Reflections”; Harper, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 71; Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 144–154; Vogt, “Ihr Tische”; and Rudolph (Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 151 n. 5a), who also cites A. van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits Prophètes (Würzburg, 1908); C. van Gelderen, Het boek Amos (Kampen 1933); Robinson and Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten; N. H. Snaith, Amos (London, 1945); and Amsler, Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas. See also H. Heller, “New Biblical Interpretations,” Z. Karel Memorial Volume, ed. A. Weiser and B. Z. Luria (Jerusalem, 1960), 51 (Hebrew); and D. Ashbel, “Does the Lion Raise His Voice from His Lair, Unless He Has Caught Something?” Beth Miqra 11 (1966), 103–104 (Hebrew). Interestingly enough, the Targum translates Heb. ‫ מוקש‬by ‫ציִ ד‬, ַ “provision, game.” See, too, Vogt (“Ihr Tische,” 79–90) and Rudolph (Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona), both of whom also add Ps 69:23. For an example of a bird (Heb. ‫ = צפור‬Akk. ißßuru) being caught (Heb. ‫ = לכד‬ßab§tu) in a trap or decoy, compare the following curse in D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), 73, line 582: kî àa ißßuru ina tub§qi ißßabatuni, “just as a bird is caught in a ???.” For Akk. tub§qi, cf. Wiseman, “trap”; CAD, I/J, 209, ißßur tub§qi, “decoy”; AHw, 1364, tub§qu, “ein Gebusch?” Cf. also Akk. arru, “bird used for decoy,” and arråtu, “use as decoy,” CAD, A/II, 305–306.

452

biblical studies

place within a town or city (‫)בעיר‬.35 The questions are introduced by the interrogative ‫( אם‬see above), and in v. 6a the cause precedes the effect (see above).36 This sequence not only produces its own literary effect but is also contextually necessary, for there are many possible reasons which would result in a people’s taking alarm.37 Here, however, the alarm is specifically caused by the ram’s horn heralding the imminent danger of an approaching enemy.38 (For a similar alarming effect of such a blast upon the people—within the context of Moses’ prophetic mission—cf. Exod 19:18–19, ‫ ויחרד העם‬...‫)שופר‬. The second half of v. 6 returns to the effect–cause sequence, thereby creating an internal chiastic order. In v. 6b, the finale to his interrogatory overture, Amos indulges in yet another polemic, this time against the popular belief that the Lord will not bring any misfortune or catastrophe upon his chosen people.39 Having been elected and selected, they naively believed that YHWH, the God of Hosts, was truly with them (5:14), and that “the Day of the Lord” would be one of light for them (5:18). They therefore feel secure enough to confidently boast, “Never shall the evil (‫ )הרעה‬overtake us or come near to us” (9:10). (For similar sentiments, cf. Mic 3:11, “The Lord is in our midst; no calamity [‫ ]רעה‬shall overtake us”; and Jer 5:12, “No trouble [‫ ]רעה‬shall come upon us.”) Here, as in the other sections, Amos demolishes these popular sentiments and time-honored beliefs and reaches completely opposite conclusions.40

35 By the locus now being the “city,” the prophet “progressively zeroes in on the world of experience of his hearers [in Samaria]” (Wolff, Joel and Amos, 186). For the use of ‫ ַעם‬with a plural verb, cf. Exod 20:18. 36 Cf. above, n. 15. There is no reason either to reverse the two stichs, as suggested by W. Baumgartner (“Amos 3, 3–8,” ZAW 33 [1913], 78–80), or to view 6a as “une intervention rédactionnelle” (Renaud, “Genèse,” 359). 37 Compare Rudolph (Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 156), “… weil hier die Fortsetzung des bisherigen Schemas zu Unrichtigkeiten geführt hätte: Das Erschrecken der Menschen kann vielerei Anlässe haben…, nicht nur den hier genannten.” 38 E.g., Hos 5:8; 8:1; Joel 2:15; Jer 6:1, 17; Ezek 33:3. 39 For ‫רעה‬, “misfortune, calamity,” see Amos 6:3; 9:4, 10. Cf. Deut 32:23; 1 Sam 6:9; 2 Kings 6:33; Isa 45:7; Jer 1:14; 18:8; Ezek 7:5; Job 2:10. For ‫לעשות רעה‬, cf. Exod 32:14. In Akkadian, the same semantic development also occurs: lemnu, “morally bad, evil”; lemuttu, “misfortune, calamity.” Cf. Enlil lemutta ina m§ti iààakan, “Enlil will inflict a calamity upon the country,” E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte als Assur religiösen Inhalts, II (= KAR) (Leipzig, 1923), 384: rev. 11. See CAD, L, 128, for examples. 40 Cf. Gitay, “Study of Amos 3:1–15, 296–297; and A. S. Kapelrud, “New Ideas in Amos,” Congrress Volume, Génève, 1965, SVT 15 (Leiden, 1966), 198.

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 453 Verse 7

‫כי לא יעשה אדני ה' דבר‬ ‫כי אם גלה סודו אל עבדיו הנביאים‬

“Indeed41 my Lord God does nothing42 without having revealed His purpose43 to His servants, the prophets.” Most commentators regard this verse as a later interpolation.44 It is a prose didactic declarative dogmatic assertion (not a rhetorical question), and it is contended that it is “reminiscent of Deuteronomistic history writing”45 or is a “Deuteronomic cliché.”46 Though the expression ‫עבדיו הנביאים‬, “His servants, the prophets,” is typical of that school of expression—e.g., 2 Kings 9:7; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4 (cf. Ezek 38:17; Zech 1:6; Ezra 9:11; Dan 9:6, 10)—it does not inevitably and absolutely follow that the prophet could not have expressed himself in this manner. “The fact that the representation of the prophets as the servants of YHWH occurs especially in Jeremiah and the later prophets is not sufficient proof that Amos could not have used this image.”47 Or, as succinctly stated by Rudolph in another connection, “Natürlich haben wir hier Ausdrücke, die auch deuteronomistischen Literatur geläufig sind…, aber der deuteronomische Stil war ja nicht eines Tages plötzlich da, sondern hat sich entwickelt.”48 And it is obviously more than a bit 41 The ‫ כי‬is asseverative. Note, moreover, the use of ‫ כי‬twice, corresponding to the double occurrence of ‫ אם‬in the former verse. 42 ‫ דבר‬...‫לא‬, “anything, nothing”; cf. Exod 9:4; 1 Kings 5:7; 10:3; Isa 39:2. Compare also the prophet’s ironic use of this expression as a double entendre in 6:13. For ‫לעשות דבר‬, cf. Akk. amatu ep¿àu, to perform an act”; CAD, E, 202. 43 ‫גלה סוד‬, Prov 11:13; 20:19; 25:9. Wolff (Joel and Amos, 187) agrees that “the expression, ‘to reveal a plan’, is otherwise at home in proverbial wisdom,” yet does not interpret it by “reference to its wisdom background,” against Terrien, “Amos and Wisdom,” 112–115. For the relation between ‫ סוד‬and the prophets, see Lindblom, “Wisdom,” 112–115. 44 See above, n. 14. Cf. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 181, “It can be asserted with considerable assurance that 3:7 is a later literary addition.” See, too, Renaud, “Genèse,” 354–355; and I. Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innherhalb des Alten Testaments, BZAW 123 (Berlin, 1971), 21–23. 45 Cf. Weiser, Die Prophetie der Amos, 128; Lehming, “Erwägungen zu Amos,” 152; Mays, Amos, 61; Fey, Amos und Jesaja, 42; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 187; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 107, with certain reservations. Cf. especially Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion,” 185–188. 46 W. Zimmerli, The Servant of God (London, 1957), 22–23. 47 Hammershaimb, Amos, 60. 48 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 121. Nevertheless, he does consider the verse here to be secondary.

454

biblical studies

exaggerated to declare that the “theology seems very unlike the thinking of Amos.”49 The notion expressed here is intrinsically rooted in the Biblical concept of prophecy. The prophet stands in the presence of God (Jer 15:1, 19), is privy to the divine council (Isa 6; Jer 23:18, 22), and, as the spokesman for the deity, is apprised in advance as to the plans of his god. The institution of prophecy is founded on the basic premise that God makes His will known to chosen individuals, as is already clearly stated in Gen 18:17. If the verse is a later interpolation, it must be admitted that it was inserted with great adroitness and artistry, for—as the above diagram shows—v. 7a is chiastically interrelated with v. 6b by the identical phrase, '‫ לא יעשה ]אדני[ ה‬/ ‫ה' לא עשה‬, and is related to v. 8b by the words, ‫אדני ה' דבר‬. Verse 7b is also connected to v. 8b by the common theme of prophecy. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the formal literary framework is the ‫ כי‬...‫ אם‬...‫ ה‬pattern, even though the particle ‫ כי‬here is used differently. Thus, Hammershaimb’s cautious comment (reached without the aid of the above literary connections) should be taken very seriously: “Verse 7 can, however, be interpreted as a far from superfluous element in the context.”50 The verse definitely establishes the credibility of the prophet, per se. Verse 851

‫ לא יירא‬52‫אריה שאג מי‬ ‫ָבא‬ ֵ ‫אדני ה' דבר מי לא יִ נּ‬

“A lion has roared, who can but fear? My Lord God has spoken, who can but prophesy?” Amos finally reaches the climax and ultimate purpose of his oratorical presentation. Literarily, as seen above, the first two words (which are identical to 1:2) form a chiastic inclusio with v. 4.53 The style of

49

Mays, Amos, 61–62. So, too, Renaud, “Genèse,” 355. Hammershaimb, Amos, 59; cf. Gitay, “Study of Amos 3:1–15,” 299. 51 Some exegetes consider this verse as a separate oracle. An argument has been made based on meter by D. K. Stuart (Studies in Early Hebrew Meter [Missoula, 1976], 201). Cf. also Renaud, “Genèse,” 350. See, however, Wolff, Joel and Amos, 181–182; and Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 154 n. 13. 52 See O. R. Schwarzwald, “Complementary Distribution and Shift in the Syntax of ‘Who’ Abstract,” Beth Miqra 24 (1979), 81–88 (Hebrew). 53 For other examples of sections which begin and end with the same root words, cf. 2:14, 16 (‫ אמץ‬,‫ גבור‬,‫ )נוס‬and 9:1, 4 (‫ הרג‬,‫)חרב‬. 50

amos 3:3–8: irresistible sequence of cause and effect 455 this verse is also distinct:54 a declarative statement of fact followed by a rhetorical question. The prophet thereby artfully concludes his thought in the same stylistic manner in which he began by employing the device of a rhetorical question to express a consequential relationship. The staccato-like effect of the entire sentence highlights and emotionally reflects his own existential situation. The prophet acts under divine compulsion. “A prophet does not choose his profession but is chosen, often against his own will…. A prophet does not elect to prophesy but is selected by God and is irresistibly compelled to deliver his message.”55 Thus, it is useless for the populace to demand or even threaten him to remain silent (2:12).56 The prophet speaks when commanded but, once commanded, must speak.57 54 Gitay (“Study of Amos 3:1–15,” 306) suggests that the prophet “breaks the stylistic pattern in order to attract attention. The usage of mixed ‘genres’ 3–6, 7, 8… is effective.” 55 S. M. Paul, “Prophets and Prophecy,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, XIII (Jerusalem, 1971), 1150–1175 [363–398]. See also Cripps, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 157–158; Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 156. Cf. Jer 20:7–9. 56 Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, 156, “Und wie man da nicht überlegen kann: soll ich zittern oder soll ich nicht zittern?—man zittert eben—genauso ist es, wenn der Ruf Jahwes ergeht.” Cf. H. Junker, “Leo rugit, quis non timebit! Deus locutus est, quis non prophetabit!” Trier Theologische Zeitschrift 59 (1950), 4–13. 57 Paul, “Amos 1:3–2:3,” loc. cit. For an updated and fuller treatment of this pericope, see S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 1991), 104–114. For other studies, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos, AB 24 A (New York, 1989), 384–401; M. Weiss, The Book of Amos (Jerusalem, 1992), I, 77–83; II, 119–132 (Hebrew).

456

biblical studies

polysensuous polyvalency in poetic parallelism

457

POLYSENSUOUS POLYVALENCY IN POETIC PARALLELISM* A fundamental feature of human speech inherent in the basic structure of language is the polyvalency of words.1 Lexical polyvalency may be subdivided into two different, but at times overlapping, categories: homonymy, two words identical in sound (i.e., homophony, similarly sounding but different in meaning: e.g., bow/bough)2 or in spelling (i.e., homography, identical spelling but different in meaning: e.g., the noun “can,” a metal container, and the verb “can,” to be able),3 and polysemy, one word which bears several meanings.4 A polysensuous word refers to one thing while alluding to yet another within the same single context; it has both an explicit and implicit meaning. This rhetorical phenomenon, which has been described as “accumulated intension,”5 has been called by many names: ,‫מלתא דמשתמעה לתרי אפי‬ ‫משנה הוראה‬, a)mfiboli/a, a)ntana&klhsij, ambiguitas, dilogia, tawriyya,6

* To Professor Shemaryahu Talmon: ‫יערף כמטר לקחך ותזל כטל אמרתך‬. 1 See, in general, the works of J. Ullman: Words and Their Use (London, 1951), 46–46; Language and Style (Oxford, 1964), 75–77; Principles of Semantics (Oxford, 1967), 117–125 (for additional literature on the topic of polysemy, see pp. 118–119 n. 3); Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford, 1970), 156–192; Meaning and Style (Oxford, 1973), 54–55. See also W. Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New York, 1966). 2 Cf. also, e.g., Molière, Les Femmes Savantes, act 2, scene 6: “Belise: Veux-tu toute ta vie offenser la grammaire? Martine: Qui parle d’offenser grand-mère ni grandpère” (Oeuvres de Molière [Paris, 1925], IX, 98–99). 3 See the marvelous little poem by E. Merriam, “Nym and Graph,” It Doesn’t Have to Rhyme (New York, 1965), 54–55, where she creates a contest dialogue between “a sound-alike homophone” and “a spell-alike homograph.” 4 In Proust’s Le Côté de Guermantes (Paris, 1949), 26, the maid Françoise believes that the Guermantes are “une grande famille,” because of both their illustriousness and their many members: “Car m’ayant que ce seul mot de ‘grand’ pour les deux choses, il lui semblait qu’elles n’en formaient qu’une seule” (cited by Ullman, Language and Style, 237). 5 W. M. Urban, Language and Reality (London, 1938), 112–113. 6 See E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (London, 1893), VIII, 3052: , ََ which signifies the use of a word, expression, or phrase that has an obvious meaning, thereby intending another meaning to which it applies, but which is contrary to the obvious one. He also compares

ً ‫ِﻌﺮ‬ َ ‫ﻣ‬, which is “an oblique, indirect, obscure, ambiguous, or equivocal mode of speech” (V, 2012).

458

biblical studies

talÈin,7 double entendre. Since this stylistic device is a fertile source for intentional ambiguity, it has been the subject of severe criticism ever since the time of Aristotle, who wrote in The Art of Rhetoric: “Words of ambiguous meaning are chiefly useful to enable the sophist to mislead his hearers.” However, it also may be the source of a bountiful wellspring for the talented writer who wishes to display his artful and clever literary propensities.8 Its presence has also been noted in several studies of Biblical poetry.9 Needless to say, the recognition of

7 See ibid., VIII, 3009, under ‫لﺤ‬ َ ْ َ : “An oblique, or ambiguous, mode of speech: … an inclining of speech to obliqueness, or ambiguity… equivocal allusion.” See also R. Gordis, A Commentary on the Book of Lamentations (New York, 1968), 16: “In talÈin the author’s choice of a particular word instead of its synonym is dictated by his desire to suggest both meanings simultaneously to the reader. The one serves as the primary or dominant meaning, and the other as the secondary concept, thus enriching the thought or emotion of the reader.” 8 Here are some other clever examples: Where Bentley late tempestuous wont to sport In troubled waters, but now sleeps in Port (Pope, Dunciad, Book 4, lines 201–202)

When Oliver Twist was told by Rumble that he should “bow to the board… seeing no board but the table, [he] fortunately bowed to that” (Dickens, Oliver Twist (ed. K. Tollotson [Oxford, 1966], 8) Come, thick Night, And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of Hell, That my keen knife see not the wound it makes, Nor Heaven peep through the blanket of the dark, To cry, “Hold, hold!” (Shakespeare, Macbeth, act 1, scene 5, lines 50–54) Oh, Nelly Gray! Oh, Nelly Gray! Is this your love so warm? The Love that loves a scarlet coat, Should be more uniform. (Thomas Hood, “Faithless Nelly Gray,” The Works of Thomas Hood [London, 1862], I, 277) 9 Most of these studies have been published only in modern Hebrew: D. Yellin, “Mishne Hora’ah be-Tanach,” Tarbií 5 (1934), 1–17; idem, Ketavim NivÈarim (Jerusalem, 1939), II, 86–100; A. Weiser, “Mishneh Hora’ah BeSefer Mishle,” Sefer Niger, ed. A. Biram et al. (Jerusalem, 1959), 140–147; idem, “Mishneh Hora’ah BeSefer Yeshayahu,” Beth Miqra 20–21 (1964), 25–32; R. Gordis, “Lisegulot Ha-Melißah BeKitve HaQodesh,” Sefer Seidel (Jerusalem, 1962), 253–266; Y. Kutscher, Words and Their History (Jerusalem, 1961), 85–89; R. Weiss, Mishuã BaMiqrah (Jerusalem, 1976), 186–189 (for additional bibliography on paronomasia, see p. 163 n. 9); M. Paran, “LeMishneh Hora’ah BaMiqrah,” Beer-Sheva 1 (1973), 150–161. Though the device


459

polysemy helps one achieve a fuller and richer understanding and appreciation of the Biblical text.10 This present article, which is part of a study of polysensuous double entendres,11 will concentrate on what has been called Janus parallelism. Named after the Roman deity who is represented with two faces looking in opposite directions, Janus parallelism is a specialized use of the phenomenon of polysemy. Here a single word is found in a pivotal position which parallels what precedes it with one meaning and what follows it with yet another meaning. It literally faces both ways, but in a polysensuous fashion. An example may be supplied from the Qur’§n, Såra 55:5–6: “The sun and the moon run their courses, and the ‫ ذﺠﻢ‬and trees bow in

had been noted by E. König, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Literatur (Leipzig, 1900), 10–12, it is hardly mentioned, if at all, in most recent works on Biblical poetry. For rare exceptions, and then only en passant, cf. W. G. E. Watson, “An Example of Multiple Wordplay in Ugaritic,” UF 12 (1980), 443–444; idem, Classical Hebrew Poetry; JSOT Suppl. 26 (Sheffield, 1984), 237, 242; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York, 1985), 197–202, who calls it double entente. See also E. L. Greenstein, “Two Variations of Grammatical Parallelism in Canaanite Poetry and Their Psycholinguistic Background,” JANES 6 (1974), 88–89; idem, “How Does Parallelism Mean?” A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature, Papers from a Symposium at the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, May 11, 1982 (Winona Lake, IN, 1983), 50–51. (I was unable to see the doctoral dissertation of W. Herzberg, “Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible” [New York University, 1979].) There is a wealth of examples primarily in the Hebrew works cited above and in the various commentaries to Biblical books, to which the reader is directed. Obviously, not all the passages cited will be met with general agreement. The rhetorical device examined here is a literarily sensitive one and is open to multiple opinions. Paran (“LeMishneh Hora’ah BaMiqrah”) attempted to clarify the issue by establishing some rules to help determine the validity of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision must be made by the exegete on each individual verse. For an excellent treatment of this phenomenon in medieval Hebrew and Arabic poetry with many superb examples, see D. Yellin, Introduction to the Hebrew Poetry of the Spanish Period (Jerusalem, 1972), 243–251 (Hebrew). 10 For the sake of convenience, most of the English translations of the Biblical verses are drawn from NJPS (and occasionally NEB). The references to Rashi, ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Ramban, Meßudat Zion, Meßudat David, MinÈat Shai, and the Aramaic translations are all taken from the standard editions of the Rabbinic Bible, Mikra’ot Gedolot. For Y. ibn GanaÈ, see Sepher Haschoraschim (Berlin, 1896) (Hebrew); for D. Y. Abarbanel, see Commentary to the Latter Prophets (Jerusalem, 1957) (Hebrew); for S. D. Luzzatto, see Il Profeta Isaia (Padua, 1867) (Hebrew). 11 See S. M. Paul, “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a,” VT 39 (1989), 495–497 [155-157]; idem, “Polysemous Pivotal Punctuation: More Janus Double Entendres,” Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN, 1996), 369–374 [477-483].

460

biblical studies

adoration.” The substantive means both “stars” (and thus retrospectively continues the list of celestial bodies) and “sprouts/herbs” (which prospectively joins the “trees” bowing in adoration.)12 Only recently has this unique “two-faced” stylistic device become a subject of scholarly discussion in Biblical circles. Song of Songs 2:12 The blossoms have appeared in the land, the time of the ‫ זמיר‬has come, And the cooing of the turtledove is heard in our land.

This first example was proposed by C. H. Gordon.13 Retrospectively, the hapax legomenon ‫ זמיר‬evokes the agricultural imagery of the first stich and means “pruning” (cf. LXX, Aquila, Peshitta, Vulgate, Tg. Jon., Rashbam; for the verb, cf. Lev 25:3–4, Isa 5:6, Gezer Calendar, line 6: ‫)זמר‬. And prospectively, alluding to the cooing of the turtledove, it refers to “singing” (cf. e.g., Rashi, ibn Ezra, Kimchi; for the root, cf. 2 Sam 23:1; Isa 24:16, 25:5; Ps 95:2, 119:54; Job 35:10). Genesis 49:26 The blessings of your father Surpass the blessing of ‫הורי‬ To the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills.

The second example was the subject of an article by G. Rendsburg.14 Hebrew ‫( הורי‬which Rendsburg connects with the following word, ‫עד‬, against the Masoretic division) restropectively is related to the prior

12 This example is quoted by J. Finkel, “An Interpretation of an Ugaritic Viticultural Poem,” Joshua Starr Memorial Volume: Studies in History and Philology (New York, 1953), 35. For the dual meaning of Arabic ‫ﻧﺠﻢ‬, see Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, VIII, 3028. Compare also the following translations of this word in this sura: G. Sale, The Koran (London, 1877), 513: “vegetables”; R. Bell, The Quran (Edinburgh, 1909): “star”; M. M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York, 1953), 549: “the stars”; A. Y. Ali, The Holy Quran (New York, 1946), 1472: “herbs,” but adds in a note, “Najm: may mean stars collectively, or herbs collectively; perhaps both meanings are implied.” 13 C. H. Gordon, “Asymmetric Janus Parallelism,” Eretz-Israel 16 (= Harry M. Orlinsky Volume), ed. B. A. Levine and A. Malamat (Jerusalem, 1982), 80*–81*. Cf. also W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder2, KAT 17/1–3 (Gütersloh, 1962), 133; G. Gerleman, Ruth, Das Hohelied, BKAT 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965), 124; E. Würthwein, Die Fünf Megilloth2, HAT 18 (Tübingen, 1969), 45; O. Keel, Das Hohelied, BKAT 18 (Zurich, 1986), 98 (= Song of Songs [Minneapolis, 1994], 101). 14 G. Rendsburg, “Janus Parallelism in Gen 49:26,” JBL 99 (1980), 291–293.


461

stich, paralleling “father,” and means “parents” (cf. Hos 2:7; Song of Songs 3:4), that is, “progenitors of old” (cf. Tg. Onq. and Tg. Jon.: ‫ ;אבהתי‬Vulgate: patrium eius). Then prospectively, paralleling ‫גבעֹת עולם‬, “everlasting hills,” it also means “everlasting mountains” (‫)הרי עד‬.15 Compare LXX: o)re/wn moni/mwn, “steadfast mountains”; Rashbam: ‫כי הורי לשון כפל של גבעת עולם‬...‫ברכות אביך גברו על ברכות הרים‬. For the set pair, “hills–mountains,” see Deut 33:15. Both interpretations were skillfully interwoven by Tg. Yer.: ‫ברכתא דאבוך יתוספן עלך על ברכתא‬ ‫דבריכו יתי אהבתך אברהם ויצחק מטולין לטוריא‬: May the blessings of your father be added to the blessings wherewith your fathers, Abraham and Isaac, who are like mountains, blessed you.

To the above may be added the following examples of Janus polysemy.16 Isaiah 7:11 The Lord spoke further to Ahaz: “Ask [‫ ]שאל‬for a sign from the Lord your God, ‫העמק שאלה‬, or up to the sky.”17

Retrospectively, ‫אָלה‬ ָ ‫ ְשׁ‬is to be interpreted as a lengthened pausal imperative (cf. Dan 9:19: ‫אָלה‬ ָ ‫ ְשׁ‬,‫)ס ָל ָחה‬ ְ reinforcing the initial imperative ‫שאל‬, and means “ask profoundly, deeply” (cf. Rashi, ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Luzzatto [who is aware of the alternate interpretation found in the versions], Ehrlich).18 Yet in the context of the end of the verse, “or up to the sky,” the word, when interpreted as a locative (vocalized 15

For the translation “mountains,” see also E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City, NY, 1964), 369. 16 See also S. B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job, JSOT Supp. Ser. 223 (Sheffield, 1996). Other examples which have been cited, but are totally unconvincing, are E. Zurro, “Disemia de brÈ y paralelismo bifronte en Job 9,25,” Biblica 62 (1981), 546–547 (Hebrew ‫ ברח‬simply does not mean “ser malo”); G. Rendsburg, “Double Polysemy in Genesis 49:6 and Job 3:6,” CBQ 44 (1982), 48–51; D. T. Tsumura, “Janus Parallelism in Nah 1:8,” JBL 102 (1983), 109–111 (who misunderstands Heb. ‫ ;)מקומהּ‬D. Grossberg, “Pivotal Polysemy in Jeremiah XXV 10–11a,” VT 36 (1986), 481–485, where the suggested ‫אור‬, “tilled land,” is totally unfounded. For examples from ancient Near Eastern literature, see S. M. Paul and W. Horowitz, “Two Proposed Janus Parallelisms in Akkadian Literature,” N.A.B.U. (1995), 11–12 [253–255]; and Noegel, “Janus Parallelism,” 156–182. 17 Cf. Yellin, Ketavim NivÈarim, 93–94, who did not, however, catch the Janus construction. 18 A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, IV (Leipzig, 1912), 29, vocalizes the word as a substantive, ‫שׁ ֵא ָלה‬. ְ

462

biblical studies

‫)שׁא ָֹלה‬, ְ prospectively creates an artistic merism: “Ask [anywhere] from as deep as Sheol up to the highest heaven” (cf. Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus: ei0j a#dhn; Vulgate: in profundum inferni).19 For the set pair ‫שמים–שאול‬, see Amos 9:2 and Job 11:8; for the “depths of Sheol,” see Prov 9:18, 25:3. Isaiah 9:3 For the yoke [‫ ]ע ·ל‬that they bore, And the ‫ מטה‬on their back, The rod [‫ ]שבט‬of their taskmaster, You have shattered as on the day of Midian.

Prospectively, the Hebrew substantive ‫מטה‬, “staff,” parallels the following ‫שבט‬, “rod.” For this set pair in Isaiah, see Isa 10:5, 24; 14:5 (cf., e.g., Kimchi, Abarbanel). However, the very same ‫ מטה‬can also be interpreted as a verbal participle from the root ‫נטי‬, “that which bends (the back),” and thus retrospectively would be a direct continuation of the first colon: “For the yoke that they bore which bends their back….”20 Compare Rashi: ‫ שהיה מטה את שכמו למשא כבד‬...‫ ;עול‬and Ehrlich: ‫ ולא שם; ופירוש הדברים האויב‬,‫ כמו שפירש רש"י‬,‫מטה זה פועל‬ ‫שהיה מטה את שכמם לסבול עולו‬.21 The imagery is drawn from the work animal that bears a heavy yoke on the back of its shoulders (cf. Gen 49:15; Isa 10:27, 14:25; Ps 81:7). Isaiah 19:10 And ‫ שתתיה‬shall be crushed, And all ‫ עשי שכר‬shall be despondent.

The multiple difficulties inherent in this passage are readily apparent upon comparing three different translations: Her foundations shall be crushed, And all who make dams shall be despondent. (NJPSV)

19

Cf. N. H. Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/1 (Jerusalem, 1967), 24; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York, 2000), 229. Many modern commentaries simply translate “Sheol” or “the underworld.” The Masoretic vocalization ‫אָלה‬ ָ ‫ ְשׁ‬creates an assonance with the following ‫;ל ָמ ְע ָלה‬ ְ see G. B. Gray, Isaiah, ICC (Edinburgh, 1912), 122, 132. 20 Paran (“LeMishneh Hora’ah BaMiqrah,” 155–156) cites this verse but did not note the pivotal Janus construction. 21 A. B. Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, III (New York, 1969), 22; cf. idem, Randglossen, IV, 37.


463

(NJPSV adds this note: “Meaning of verse uncertain; emendation yields “Her drinkers shall be dejected, / And all her brewers despondent.”) Egypt’s spinners shall be downcast, and all her artisans sick at heart. (NEB) And the nobles shall be depressed, And they that work for hire grieved in soul.22

Since the previous verses (8–9) describe the various professional classes in Egypt who will suffer and lament because of the severe drought—“the fishermen” (‫)הדיגים‬, “all who cast lines in the Nile” (‫)משליכי ביאור חכה‬, “those who spread nets on the water” (‫פרשׂי‬ ‫)מכמרת על פני המים‬, “the flax workers” (‫)עֹבדי פשתים‬, “women carders” (‫)שריקות‬, and “weavers” (‫—)ארגים‬it is perfectly logical that here, too, two further professions are added to the list.23 Following the MT vocalization, ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ָשׁת ֶֹת‬could refer to the “pillars or foundations” (cf. Ps 11:3) of the society, that is, the nobles or landowners, who, along with ‫ע ֵֹשׂי ֶשׂ ֶכר‬, “the hired laborers” (those who work for ‫שכר‬, “hire,” i.e., the working classes) are crushed and despondent (cf. Kimchi, Luzzatto).24 The first substantive, however, has also been interpreted as referring to yet another specific profession, “weavers” (reading ‫יה‬ ָ ‫שׁ ֶֹת‬, “her weavers”). This is based on Hebrew and Aramaic ‫שׁ ִתי‬, ְ “warp” (cf. also Akkadian àutû, CAD, ’/III, 408); see Lev 13:48–49, 51–53, 56–59 (cf. Tg. Jon.: ‫משתיתא‬, “web,” which renders Hebrew ‫ מסכת‬in Judg 16:13–14; and Arabic: ‫ﺳ ًدى َﺴﺗًﻰ‬ َ , “to set the warp”), and explains LXX: oi/ diazo&menoi a)uta_, derived from the verb dia&zomai, “to set the warp in the loom.” Yet another possibility exists if one understands ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ שׁ ֶֹת‬as “her drinkers” (Vulgate: inrigua eius; cf. ‫ שֹׁתי מים‬in Ezek 31:14, 16; ‫שֹׁתי יין‬ in Joel 1:5; and ‫ שֹׁתי שכר‬in Ps 69:13)25 or “those who make drinking utensils,”26 which, in turn, would create an apt parallel to ‫עשי שכר‬, if vocalized ‫שׁ ָכר‬, ֵ “strong drink,” hence “her brewers” (cf. LXX: oi[ to\n zu&qon poiou~qej and Peshitta). Luzzatto, after commenting on the

22

E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah (Dublin, 1960), I, 204; cf. pp. 208–209. For this verse, see also Weiser, “Mishneh Hora’ah BeSefer Yeshayahu,” 26. 24 Cf. the commentaries of Buhl, Duhm, and Marti; it is also mentioned as a possibility by Luzzatto. 25 Cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen, IV, 70. 26 Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/1, 59. 23

464

biblical studies

verse, adds, ‫ ולפי זה יתכן לפרש גם שתתיה העשים מיני‬,‫ואין הדבר רחוק‬ ‫שתיה‬. Cf. Tg. Jon.: ‫אתר בית שתי‬, “the place of drinking.” It is also of interest to note that Kimchi interprets ‫ שתתיה‬as “nets,” referring to Aramaic ‫שותא‬, apparently a loan word from Akkadian à¿tu;27 while ibn Ezra understands the word to mean “fish ponds.” Both, in turn, connect ‫ שכר‬to the verb ‫( סכר‬cf. Gen 8:2), meaning “to dam,” thus continuing their exegesis of fish imagery. They also explain the other difficult hapax legomenon phrase at the end of this verse, ‫אגמי‬ ‫( נפש‬usually explained as a byform of ‫ ;עגם נפש‬see Job 30:25), in a like manner, by understanding ‫ אגם‬as “pool, pond” (so, too, Rashi) and ‫נפש‬, as the “fish” in the ponds; compare Vulgate: omnis qui faciebant lacunas ad capiendos pisces. In the light of these multifarious interpretations, it may be conjectured that the prophet’s choice of ‫ שתתיה‬was deliberate. For retrospectively, in connection with the previous verse, it could refer to another class of weavers (‫ )ארגים‬and prospectively, in the present verse, it would create a parallel with ‫( עשי שכר‬vocalized ‫)שׁ ָכר‬. ֵ Isaiah 27:12 And on that day the Lord will beat out the grain [i.e., the people like grain] from the ‫ שבלת‬of the Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt; and you shall be gleaned one by one, O children of Israel.

Heb. ‫מ ִשּׁבּ ֶֹלת הנהר‬, ִ when paired with the followed ‫נחל מצרים‬, “the Wadi of Egypt,” explicitly refers to “the stream of the Euphrates” (cf. Judg 12:6; Ps 69:3, 16); thus LXX, Vulgate, Saadia, ibn GanaÈ, Kimchi, Luzzatto, Ehrlich.28 However, in view of the agricultural imagery in this verse, retrospectively in relation to the verb ‫חבט‬, “to beat out” (employed in the process of threshing a quantity of corn with a stick; cf. Judg 6:16, Isa 28:27, Ruth 2:17), and prospectively with the verb ‫לקט‬, “to glean,” ‫ שבלת‬implicitly refers to “ears of grain” (cf. Job 24:24). For the combination of the latter verb, ‫לקט‬, with “ears of grain” (in the masculine, ‫)שבלים‬, see Ruth 2:2. Compare also the simile for the devastation of the land employed in Isa 17:5: “As when the harvester gathers up the standing grain and reaps the

27 CAD, ’/II, 340–341; see M. Held, “Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew,” JANES 5 (= The Gaster Volume), ed. D. Marcus (New York, 1973), 187. 28 Ehrlich, Randglossen, IV, 97.


465

ears [‫]שבלים‬, or as when a man gleans the ears [‫ ]כמלקט שבלים‬in the Valley of Rephaim.”29 Isaiah 52:2 Shake off the dust, arise, ‫ שבי‬Jerusalem! Loose the bands from your neck, O captive daughter [‫ ]שביה‬of Zion!

Retrospectively, the feminine imperative ‫ ְשׁ ִבי‬refers to personified Jerusalem, who is commanded to “arise” (‫ )קומי‬and “sit” (‫ )שבי‬once again on her throne (cf. Tg. Jon., Saadia, Rashi, ibn Ezra. For the opposite order in reference to the dethroning of personified Babylon—from the throne to sitting in the dust, see Isa 47:1). For the complementary pair of verbs, see 1 Sam 28:23: ‫ויקם וישב‬. Prospectively, ‫ שבי‬also implicitly alludes to the female ‫שׁ ִביָה‬, ְ at the end of the verse, and thus takes on the overtones of her masculine counterpart, “captive one” (cf. Kimchi; NEB translates “captive Jerusalem”).30 Though there are several examples in the Bible of the employment of masculine nouns counterbalanced by their feminine counterparts (e.g., Jer 48:46: ‫שביה‬/‫שבי‬, as in this present verse; Nah 2: 13: ‫טרפה‬/‫ ;טרף‬cf. also Jer 23:19, Ezek 25:15),31 the pairing of masculine ‫ שבי‬with feminine ‫שביה‬, both relating to Jerusalem, is anomalous. Yet in this unprecedented fashion, the prophet creates a Janus-like poetic construction. Compare the remark of Luzzatto: ‫ואמר "שביה" בת ציון‬ ‫ לשון דומה למלת "שבי" שהזכיר‬,‫דרך צחות‬. Isaiah 57:8 …. ‫כי מאתי ִגּ ִלּית ותעלי‬ …. You have gone up [‫ ]ותעלי‬on the couch you made so wide. Though this verse is a classic example of a multiple crux interpretum,32 29 See also Yellin, Ketavim NivÈarim, 95; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Edinburgh, 1890), I, 457–458. 30 Cf. Paran, “LeMishneh Hora’ah BaMiqrah,” 155–156. For this verse, see also M. Dahood, “Some Ambiguous Texts in Isaias,” CBQ 20 (1958), 43–45. 31 For this literary device, see U. Cassuto, “Milim Maqbilot beIvrit U’beUgaritit,” Leàonénu 15 (1947), 102; idem, The Goddess Anat (Jerusalem, 1965), 37 (Hebrew). 32 For a brief comment on the possibility of polysemy here, see Weiser, “Mishneh Hora’ah BeSefer Yeshayahu,” 30.

466

biblical studies

the predominant erotic context of the various idolatrous practices conducted on the high places makes the meaning of “stripped” for ‫ ִגּ ִלּית‬very plausible—whether the stripping refers to the participants in the cult (e.g., McKenzie,33 NEB) or the stripping of the couch (e.g., Westermann).34 For the various nuances of uncovering or stripping, see Rashi, ibn Ezra, Luzzatto, Ehrlich.35 The pi‘¿l of the root ‫גלי‬, moreover, is the standard way of expressing immodesty and “uncovering” nakedness (cf. Lev 18:6–19, 20:11–21; Ezek 22:10, 23:18), though only here is it employed without an object. This, in turn, provides a lead to a further possibility of exegesis. For the verb ‫—גלית‬vocalized as a qal, ‫ָלית‬ ִ ‫גּ‬, and combined with the initial two words in this verse, ‫כי מאתי‬, “for from me”—can also be interpreted as meaning “you have removed yourself from me, you have abandoned me” (cf. NJPS). Thus, a clever Janus entendre is created: when vocalized as a qal,36 retrospectively it describes the act of abandoning God; and when vocalized as a pi‘¿l, it describes yet one more of the licentious activities indulged in by the people, as further amplified by the continuation of this difficult passage. This phenomenon of polysemy, mirabile dictu, extends to the next verb as well, ‫ותעלי‬. On the one hand, as the continuation of the former stich, it, too, expresses the concept of “departing”; see Rashi: ‫ותעלי מאצלי‬ (so, also, Meßudat Zion: ‫ ;ענין הסתלקות‬and Meßudat David); Luzzatto: (‫ כד‬,‫"ה ָעלוּ מסביב למשכן קֹרח" )במדבר טז‬ ֵ ‫;ומלת "ותעלי" ענין התרחקות כמו‬ Ehrlich: “‫ עלה מן‬in der Bedeutung ‘plotzlich verschwinden’ ” (cf. Gen 17:22). However, when examined in connection with the continuation of this very same stich, ‫ותעלי )הרחבת( משכבך‬, the verb also refers to the “going up on the couch/mounting a bed”—an idiom attested in Gen 49:4 and Ps 132:3, and thereby continues the description of the nation’s licentious behavior.

33 34 35 36

J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (Garden City, NY, 1968), 156. C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (Philadelphia, 1969), 323. Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, III, 137; idem, Randglossen, IV, 203. Cf. Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/1, 138.


467

Isaiah 57:9 ‫ וְ ָתּ ֻשׁ ִרי‬the king with oil …. As the direct continuation of the former verse, just partially examined above, the present verse, too, commences with a difficult clause.37 The initial verb, ‫ַתּ ֻשׁ ִרי‬ ָ ‫ו‬, has been the subject primarily of two different interpretations (irrespective of whether one reads the following word as ‫ל ֶמּ ֶלְך‬, ַ “to the king,” or ‫למּ ֶֹלְך‬, ַ “to Molech”): (a) “to travel, journey,” Hebrew ‫( שור‬cf., e.g., BDB 1003: “journey”; NJPSV: “approach”; and already Kimchi and Luzzatto—both relating the verb to Song of Songs 4:8 and post-Biblical ‫שיירה‬, “caravan”); (b) “to behold,” also derived from the homonymous Hebrew verb ‫( שור‬cf., e.g., Num 23:9, 24:17; Job 24:15), which, in turn, is attested in the substantive, ‫תשורה‬, “an interview fee/gift”38 (1 Sam 9:7; cf. Rashi, ibn Ezra, and Kimchi, who also cites Saadia). It appears that, in the present context, both meanings may have been intended as a multiple entendre.39 Retrospectively, the verb, when derived from ‫( שור‬b), may be related to the last verb in the previous verse (v. 8), ‫חזית‬, “to look”; and, prospectively, when derived from ‫( שור‬a), two additional possibilities exist: (1) since v. 9b states, “You have sent your envoys afar,” hence “to travel”; and/or (2) since “oil” is the direct object of the verb ‫ותשרי למלך בשמן‬, the reference may very well be to the custom attested in treaty traditions of the sending of oil to the overlord. Compare Hos 12:2: “Now they make a covenant with Assyria, / Now oil is carried to Egypt.”40 Thus, ‫ ותשרי‬could then be interpreted as a denominative from ‫תשורה‬, and thus would paral-

37

Cf. Weiser, “Mishneh Hora’ah BeSefer Yeshayahu,” 31. See S. M. Paul, “I Samuel 9:7: An Interview Fee,” Biblica 59 (1978), 542–544 [95–97]. 39 For yet another possibility, see P. Wernberg-Møller (“Two Notes,” VT 8 [1958], 307–308), who, based on LXX e0plh&qunaj, “to become full of” (from pi/mplhmi) and Arabic ‫ﺸﺮا‬, interprets the verb to mean “multiply.” He, in turn, is followed by Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 323. Compare also G. R. Driver, “Isaianic Problems,” Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers, ed. G. Wiessner (Wiesbaden, 1967), 54–55: “You drenched your tresses (vocalizing, ‫מ ֵלְּך‬/‫ְך‬ ִ ‫)מ ֵלּ‬ ַ in oil.” This, then, may be compared to Akk. malû, “unkempt hair,” CAD, M/I, 173–174. See also Song of Songs 7:6, where it has also been suggested to revocalize ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך‬to ‫מ ֵלְּך‬, ַ with the same meaning. 40 See D. J. McCarthy, “Hosea XII 2: Covenant by Oil,” VT 14 (1964), 215–221; CAD, ’/I, 326. See also Weiser, “Mishneh Hora’ah BeSefer Yeshayahu,” 31. 38

468

biblical studies

lel the next stich: “You have provided many perfumes.” Compare the insightful remarks of Ehrlich (who unnecessarily emends the verb to ‫ַתּ ְשׁ ֲח ִדי‬ ִ ‫ו‬, “you send a gift payment”): “Demgemäss sind aber auch die darauf erwähnten Spezereien bloss als Landesprodukte genannt, mit denen man gleichfalls fremde Könige beschenkte; vgl. Kimchi…. Danach handelt es sich hier nicht mehr um Götzendienst, sondern um politische Beziehungen zu heidnischen Völkern und Bündnisse mit solchen.”41 Isaiah 57:18 Then I considered his ways [‫ ]דרכיו‬and will heal him [‫;]וארפהו‬ ‫וְ אַנְ ֵחהוּ‬, And mete out solace [‫ ]נחומים‬to him…

This Janus construction hinges upon the dual meaning of ‫ואנחהו‬. The verb, as presently vocalized, ‫וְ אַנְ ֵחהוּ‬, is the hiph‘il of the root ‫נחי‬, “to lead, guide.” Thus, retrospectively, it is attached to the prior ‫דרכיו‬, “his ways,” and refers to guiding and leading the people. Compare, for example, Rashi: ‫ ;אוליכו בדרך מרפא‬Kimchi: ‫ ;ואנחהו בדרך הטוב‬and Luzzatto: ‫להנחותו בדרך הטובה‬. However, the verb may also be vocalized ‫ַאנִ ֵחהוּ‬ ֲ ‫ו‬, which is the hiph‘il of the root ‫נוח‬, meaning “to give rest, relief,” and thus would be parallel both retrospectively to “will heal him” and prospectively to “mete out solace to him.” Compare Rashi, who caught sight of both the above possibilities: ‫אוליכהו בדרך מרפא או ואנחהו לשון הנחה‬. Ehrlich, on the other hand, suggests yet another possibility: ‫וכבר אמר‬ ‫ ופירושו נתתי לו מנוחה; ולי‬,‫יחהוּ‬ ֵ ִ‫ַאנ‬ ֲ ‫חכם אחד מחכמי הגוים שדין תיבה זו ו‬ ‫ ופירושו הרפיתי ממנו מיסרו‬,‫נראה שדינו וְ אַנִּ ֵחהוּ‬. (For this dual hiph‘il form [ ‫יח‬ ַ ִ‫ ִהנּ‬,‫יח‬ ַ ִ‫]הנ‬, ֵ both derived from the root ‫נוח‬, but with different meanings, see HALAT 628.) This same polysemy is also present in Isa 63:14: “The spirit of the Lord ‫יחנּוּ‬ ֶ ִ‫[ ְתּנ‬interpreting, along with most commentators, the suffixal ending ‫ נו‬as a ligature for the suffix mem [‫]ם‬,42 i.e., ‫יחם‬ ֵ ִ‫תּנ‬, ְ “gave them rest”; compare ibn Ezra: ‫והנה תניחנו תחת תניחם‬, Kimchi, and Luzzatto. However, others, for example, Rashi, ibn Ezra, NEB, NJPS margin, interpret the verb as being derived from the root ‫נחי‬, ‫( ַתּנְ ֶחנּוּ‬or ‫)תּנְ ֵחם‬, ַ “guided us [or: them].” Thus Kimchi remarks: [‫]מ ַדּ ְבּ ָרא‬ ִ ‫ויונתן תרגם‬ 41

Ehrlich, Randglossen, IV, 204. For this phenomenon, see R. Weiss (“On Ligatures in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 82 [1963], 188–194), who, however, does not cite this example. 42


469

‫תניחנו כמו תנחנו מן נחה את העם‬. This, in turn, would complement the verbs ‫ מוליכם‬in v. 13 and ‫נהגת‬, the next verb in v. 14, both referring to God’s leading Israel. See also Ehrlich and Tur-Sinai, who both vocalize ‫תּנְ ֶחנּוּ‬. ַ 43 Isaiah 60:5 Then you will ‫ תראי‬and you will glow [‫;]ונהרת‬ Your heart will ‫ פחד‬and thrill [‫]רחב‬.

Yellin discussed the dual meaning of the verb ‫ תראי‬in this verse.44 It already appears in the previous verse (v. 4), ‫שאי סביב עיניך וראי‬, “Raise your eyes and look about,” and complements the second verb in this verse, ‫ונהרת‬, “You will look in astonishment, you will glow/beam.” However, in light of the reading of many medieval manuscripts, ‫יר ִאי‬ ְ ‫( ִתּ‬cf. ibn Ezra, Kimchi, MinÈat Shai), the meaning would be “you shall be in awe,” thus creating an apt parallel to the verb ‫פחד‬ in the next stich. This phenomenon of a different retrospective and prospective interpretation can also be attached to the verb ‫פחד‬. When connected with the reading ‫תיראי‬, it, too, refers to trembling from fear. But when understood in relation to the following, ‫ורחב לבבך‬, “your heart shall thrill/be enlarged/expand,”45 it expresses a very positive emotional experience, trembling with joy. For this usage, see also Hos 3:5 and Jer 33:9.46 Jeremiah 9:3 Beware, every man of his friend! Trust not even a brother! For every brother ‫עקוב יעקב‬, Every friend is base in his dealings/slanders.

The Hebrew expression ‫ַעקֹב‬ ְ ‫ ָעקוֹב י‬means “to act craftily, to deceive,” and thus prospectively parallels the final stich, “to act basely/slander.”

43 Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, III, 154; Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/1, 147; see, too, McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 189. For a discussion of this verse, see J. S. Kselman, “A Note on w’nÈhw in Isa 57:18,” CBQ 43 (1981), 539–542. 44 Yellin, Ketavim NivÈarim, 100. 45 Cf. also the Akkadian interdialectal cognate equivalent: libbu rapàu; e.g., rapaà libbaàu in Enuma Elià vi:138; see AHw 547 A4f, 957 4c. 46 For this nuance, see Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/1, 143.

470

biblical studies

Yet retrospectively, when read in connection with “Trust not even a brother!” it constitutes a skillful pun on the personal name Jacob (‫) ַי ֲעקֹב‬47 and clearly alludes to his own acts of deceiving his brother. Compare Gen 27:36: ‫הכי קרא שמו יעקב ויעקבני זה פעמים‬, “[Esau replied], ‘Did they name him Jacob [‫ ]יעקב‬so that he should cheat/ supplant me [‫ ]ויעקבני‬twice’?”48 See also Hos 12:4, where the verb ‫ עקב‬occurs once again in connection with ‫( יעקב‬v. 3). Ehrlich caught this nuance perfectly: ‫הקורא המבין יקרא את המקרא הזה וישמע מתוכו קול דברים ככתוב‬ 49.(‫ ד‬,‫ "בבטן עקב את אחיו" )הושע יב‬,‫האומר כנגד יעקב‬ And Bright deftly translated: “For every brother’s as crafty as Jacob.”50 Hosea 2:18–19 And on that day, declares the Lord, You will call Me, “My husband” [‫]אישי‬, And no more will you call Me “‫בעלי‬.” For I will remove the names of the Baalim [‫ ]בעלים‬from her mouth, And they shall nevermore be mentioned by their name.

In this well-known example,51 Hebrew ‫ בעלי‬pivots both ways: retrospectively it parallels ‫ אישי‬and means “my husband” (cf. Exod 21:3, 22; Deut 24:4, 22:22), and prospectively it creates a polemical diatribe against the mention of the idol Baal. Amos 1:11 …. Because he pursued his brother with the sword, And destroyed ‫רחמיו‬. His wrath seethed ceaselessly, And his fury raged incessantly. 47

For the difference in vocalization, see Kimchi. Cf. W. McKane, Jeremiah, ICC (Edinburgh, 1986), I, 200. 49 Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, III, 193. 50 J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (Garden City, NY, 1965), 67, 71–72. See also Weiss, “Ligatures in the Hebrew Bible,” 188. 51 Many medieval (e.g., Kimchi) and modern commentators were cognizant of this paronomasia, but did not relate it to a Janus polysemy. Cf. H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1974), 49. For a discussion of this verse, see M. A. Friedman, “Israel’s Response in Hosea 2:17b: ‘You Are My Husband’,” JBL 99 (1980), 199–204. 48


471

In an article pertaining to the concatenous literary pattern of the oracles against the nations in Amos 1:3–2:2, I pointed out that the unique expression in v. 11, ‫שׁ ֵחת ַר ֲח ָמיו‬, ִ was to be interpreted as Edom’s having “destroyed the female population” of their enemy.52 The Hebrew substantive ‫ר ֶחם‬, ֶ “womb,” > “young woman,” is attested in Judg 5:30 (‫)ר ַחם ַר ֲח ָמ ָתיִ ם‬ ַ and also in Isa 49:15: ‫עוּלהּ מרחם‬ ָ ‫התשכח אשה‬ ‫אלה תשכחנה‬-‫בטנה גם‬-‫בן‬..., “Can a woman forget her infant, a young woman the child of her womb? Even these forget…” (cf. NEB).53 It also appears in the Moabite Mesha inscription, ‫( רחמת‬line 17), and in Ugaritic, where rÈm appears as a synonym for btlt, both with the meaning “a young woman”: btlt ‘nt and rÈm ‘nt (cf., e.g., KTU2 1.6.II: 14, 27). This, in turn, provides the contextual literary link between the crimes which Edom and Ammon have in common: both nations are accused of wielding a sword to decimate the female population. By selecting this rare poetic substantive, Amos created a very clever Janus construction. When related to the prior colon, ‫ רחמיו‬together with ‫אחיו‬, “his brethren,” constitutes a literary merism: the entire population, both male and female, was annihilated. But prospectively, when read in light of the following, it implicitly bears another meaning. For Amos continues his accusation against Edom by condemning their “wrath and fury” (‫ ועברתו‬...‫ )אפו‬which “seethed and raged” (...‫ויטר‬ ‫)שמרה‬54 “incessantly forever” (‫ נצח‬...‫)לעד‬. Thus, he is clearly implying that the enemy had subdued all sparks of “his mercy” (‫)רחמיו‬. Hence, Hebrew ‫ רחמיו‬occupies a pivotal position, primarily meaning “his young women” and by secondary anticipation, “his mercy.” For the employment of both these root words in two other passages, see Jer 13:14: ‫לא ארחם מהשחיתם‬, “I will show no mercy, but will destroy them”; and, especially, Ps 78:38, which contains no less than three of the key terms found in the verse in Amos (within, of course, an entirely different context).

52 S. M. Paul, “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90 (1971), 397–403 [353–362]. 53 Cf. M. Dahood, “Denominative riÈÈam, ‘to conceive, enwomb’,” Biblica 44 (1963), 204; M. I. Gruber, “ ‘Will a Woman Forget Her Infant?’ Isa 49:15,” Tarbií 51 (1982), 491–492 (Hebrew); and already R. Gordis, “Studies in the Relationship of Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew,” Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. S. Lieberman et al. (New York, 1946), 186. 54 See M. Held, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” EretzIsrael 9 (= W. F. Albright Volume), ed. A. Malamat (Jerusalem, 1969), 73 n. 19.

472

biblical studies

But he, being merciful, forgave iniquity And would not destroy. He restrained his wrath time and again And did not give full vent to his fury.

‫כי הוא רחום יכפר עון‬ ‫ולא ישחית‬ ‫והרבה להשיב אפו‬ ‫ולא יעיר כל חמתו‬

(A fourth correspondence may also be cited since ‫ ֲח ָמתוֹ‬in Psalms is the exact equivalent of ‫ ֶע ְב ָרתוֹ‬in Amos.) Nahum 3:6–7 6) I will throw loathsome things [‫]שׁ ֻקּ ִצים‬ ִ on you. I will disfigure you [‫]ונבלתיך‬, And will make you like ‫ר ִֹאי‬. 7) All who will see you [‫ ]רֹאַיִ ְך‬will recoil from you.

The root ‫רֹאי‬, meaning “excrement, filth,” has already been noted in Zeph 3:1 (‫( )מוראה‬cf. Lev 11:16).55 It is common in post-Biblical Hebrew, written either ‫ ראי‬or ‫רעי‬.56 This interpretation fits very well retrospectively in the present verse, where ‫ ְכּר ִֹאי‬constitutes the third in a series of punishments by which the Lord will humiliate Nineveh: (1) “I will throw loathsome things on you”; (2) ‫ונבלתיך‬: “I will treat you with contumely” (BDB 614) / “I will count you obscene” (NEB) / “I will disfigure you” (NJPS); and (3) then last, but not least, “I will make/treat you like excrement/filth.” Cf. Rashi: ‫ ;כזבל‬ibn Ezra: ‫ ;כטנוף‬and Tur Sinai.57 But prospectively, the substantive serves yet another exegetical role. For when it is related to the beginning of the next verse (v. 7), “All who see you [‫…]ר ֶֹאיָך‬,” ‫ ר ִֹאי‬may also be interpreted as, “I will make a spectacle / showpiece of you.” Note that Tg. Jon. incorporated both meanings by translating, ‫ואשויניך מכערא לעיני כל חזך‬. Zephaniah 3:3 The officials within her are roaring lions; Her judges are wolves of the ‫ערב‬. They leave no bone until morning [‫]בקר‬. 55

For Zeph 3:1, see Rashi, ibn GanaÈ, ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and Tur Sinai (Peshuão shel Miqra, III/2, 531). In The Book of Job (Tel-Aviv, 1954), 285 (Hebrew), Tur Sinai suggested that it also appears in Job 33:21. 56 M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashi Literature (New York, 1950), 1436, 1487; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), 527. 57 Tur Sinai, Peshuão shel Miqra, III/2, 511.


473

Most versions (Tg. Jon., Vulgate, and Peshitta [and cf. Gen 49:27], with the exception of LXX: th~j 0Arabi/aj, “[wolves] of Arabia”) interpret ‫ ערב‬in its usual sense, “evening,” that is, “wolves of the evening,” which, prospectively, correlates with the following reference to “morning.” However, since it is unprecedented (but not impossible) that an animal is referred to in the Bible by a temporal description (the referent is always spatial: ‫ ְקאַת מדבר‬in Ps 102:7; ‫ חיתו יער‬in Ps 50:10, 104:20; ‫ בהמות יער‬in Mic 5:7; ‫ חיתו שדה‬in Isa 56:9, Ps 104:11; with the exception of Hab 1:8, where the same expression as Zeph 3:3 appears), the substantive ‫ ערב‬may also mean “plain/steppe,” that is, “wolves of the steppes” (cf. Jer 5:6: ‫)זאב ערבות‬.58 Thus, retrospectively, it creates a description of the wolves, as the prior stich describes the lions. There is, moreover, no need to emend ‫( ערב‬contra Ehrlich: ‫ערבות‬/‫)ערבה‬,59 since the prophet intentionally resorted to the singular here in order to create this dual impression. Lamentations 1:1 How solitary sits the city once great [‫]ר ָבּ ִתי‬ ַ with people. She that was ‫ ַר ָבּ ִתי‬among nations, Has become like a widow. The queen/princess [‫]שׂ ָר ִתי‬ ָ among provinces, Has become a thrall.

This Janus construction revolves around the second occurrence of ‫ר ָבּ ִתי‬. ַ Retrospectively parallel to the identical word in the first stich, it, too, means “great, having many [people]: (cf. 1 Sam 2:5: ‫)רבת בנים‬. But, at the same time, the second stich complements the fourth stich:

58

Cf. Yellin, Ketavim NivÈarim, 102–103; NEB. For a representative list of the various translations of this expression in Zephaniah, see A. Berlin, Zephaniah, AB 25A (New York, 1994), 128–129. 59 Ehrlich, Randglossen, V, 315. Cf. as well HALAT, 831, which also provides a bibliographical list; and L. Sabottka, Zephanja, Biblica et Orientalia 25 (Rome, 1972), 104 n. 11, 105 n. 13. For additional discussions of this verse, see K. Elliger, “Das Ende der ‘Abendwölfe’ Zeph 3,3, Hab 1,8,” Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. W. Baumgartner et al. (Tübingen, 1950), 158–175; M. Stenzel, “Zum Verständnis von Zeph iii 3b,” VT 11 (1951), 303–305; B. Jongeling, “Jeux de mots en Sophonie III 1 et 3?” VT 21 (1971), 541–547; A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zu einigen umstrittenen Stellen in Zwölfprophetenbuch,” Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor; AOAT 212 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), 496; C. Cohen, “The ‘Widowed’ City,” JANES 5 (The Gaster Festschrift), ed. D. Marcus (New York, 1973), 81 n. 57c; and the very clever note and translation of L. Zalcman, “Di Sera, Desert, Dessert,” Expository Times 91 (1980), 311.

474

biblical studies

“She that was ‫ ַר ָבּ ִתי‬among nations has become….” || “The queen/ princess among provinces has become…,” and thus ‫ ַר ָבּ ִתי‬and ‫ָשׂ ָר ִתי‬ constitute a word pair. For the employment of ‫ רב‬and ‫ שׂר‬as titles of officials of high status, compare ‫( רב ביתו‬cf. Akkadian r§b bÊti) in Esth 1:8, ‫ שר וגדול‬in 2 Sam 3:38, and especially the interchangeability of the two, ‫ שר הטבחים‬in Gen 37:36 and ‫ רב הטבחים‬in 2 Kings 25:2.60 Thus, prospectively the translation would be: “She that was noble among the nations.” This pair of epithets has been further elucidated by the Ugaritic interdialectal semantic and cognate equivalents rbt and trrt. Greenfield adduces ample evidence of the employment of these two as epithets of the cities Udm (KTU2 1.14.III:4–5, 29–30; IV:47–48; V:41–42; VI: 11–12) and ›br (KTU2 1.15.IV:8–9, 19–20), and explains trrt as a transcription of Akkadian àarratu, “queen, noble lady,” an epithet also applied to cities.61 Lamentations 1:7–8 7) Enemies look on her and gloated [‫ ]שׂחקו‬over her downfall. 8) Jerusalem has greatly sinned, Therefore she has become ‫נידה‬. All who honored her despised her/held her in contempt [‫ילוּה‬ ָ ‫]ה ִזּ‬, ִ For they have seen her nakedness.

The end of v. 7 (“Enemies looked on her and gloated [‫ ]שׂחקו‬over her downfall”) and the middle of v. 8 (“All who honored her despised her/held her in contempt”) describe the scorn and derision of Israel’s enemies over the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, the hapax legomenon 60 See A. Berlin (“On the Meaning of rb,” JBL 100 [1981], 90–93), who also translated, “noble among nations.” 61 See J. C. Greenfield (“The Epithets rbt || trrt in the KRT Epic,” Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday, ed. E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing [Winona Lake, IN, 1987], 35–37 = ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, II, ed. S.M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick [Jerusalem, 2001], 898–900), who compared these city epithets in the Ugaritic epic of Kirtu to Lam 1:1, and also brought evidence there for yet another city, AràÉ. Compare also D. R. Hillers (Lamentations; AB 7A [Garden City, NY, 1972], 6), to whom Greenfield also referred; and T. M. McDaniel, “Philological Studies in Lamentations,” Biblica 49 (1968), 29–31. See also F. M. Cross, “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of Lamentations 1:1–22,” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN, 1983), 136.


475

‫ נידה‬relates elliptically to the “derisive shaking of the head”; Jerusalem has become an object of scorn. This line of exegesis is followed, for example, by ibn Ezra, Rudolph, Gordis, all referring to the idiom ‫ להניד ראש‬in Jer 18:16 and ‫ מנוד ראש‬in Ps 44:15.62 Compare Jer 48: 27, where ‫שׂחֹק‬, ְ “laughingstock,” parallels the verb ‫תתנודד‬, “you shake (your head in derision).” But prospectively, when interpreted as a unique plene spelling of ‫נִ ָדּה‬, “an unclean, menstruating woman” (so Aquila and Peshitta; see also 1:17), it is connected as well to the final stich: “They have seen her nakedness.”63 For the association of the exposure of nakedness and uncleanness, see, for example, Lev 20:21 and Ezek 22:10. Job 9:30–31 30) If I washed myself with soap [‫]מי שלג‬, Cleaned my hands in ‫בֹּר‬, 31) You would dip me in ‫שחת‬, Till my clothes would abhor me.

Hebrew ‫בֹּר‬, parallel to ‫מי שלג‬, “soap, nitre,” retrospectively refers to the cleansing vegetable alkali, “lye” (cf. Isa 1:25), and is identical with ‫ בּ ִֹרית‬in Jer 2:22 and Mal 3:2. Prospectively, however, when read in connection with the beginning of v. 31, ‫( בֹּר‬or ‫בור‬, according to Rashi and other manuscript readings recorded in MinÈat Shai) constitutes a synonym of ‫שחת‬, “pit”; for the parallel pair, see Ps 7:16. The implicit meaning would be, “If I cleaned by hands in one pit, you would dip me in another.”64 There may very well be an additional double entendre in connection with ‫שחת‬. Paralleling ‫בֹּר‬, it maintains its usual meaning, “pit.” However, in light of a tradition preserved in LXX: e0h rupo&, “in mud,” and Vulgate sordibus, and taking into consideration the Syriac noun ‫שוחתא‬, “rust” (as noted by Epstein on this verse),65 it may also have an additional

62

Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, 306; Gordis (Lamentations, 8), also raises the possibility of this being an example of talÈin. 63 See also Hillers, Lamentations, 23. Cross (“Prosody of Lamentations 1:1–22,” 141) prefers the reading ‫ לנוד‬as found in 4QLam. See also F. M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4·XI: Psalms to Chronicles, DJD 16 (Oxford, 2000), 232, line 6, and note on p. 233 to 1:8. 64 See Yellin (Ketavim NivÈarim, 104), who did not realize the Janus construction; and M. Greenberg, “Job,” The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode (Cambridge, 1987), 302. 65 Quoted by Yellin, Ketavim NivÈarim, n. 69. Cf. also Akkadian àuÉtû; see CAD,

476

biblical studies

implicit overtone of “filth,”66 thus NEB’s translation: Thou wilt thrust me into the mud and my clothes will make me loathsome. ’/III, 309. There is no need, therefore, to emend to ‫בּ ֻסּחוֹת‬/‫ה‬ ַ ‫בּ ֻסּ ָח‬/‫ה‬ ַ ‫בּ ֻשׂ ָח‬, ַ as suggested by some commentators, including Ehrlich, Randglossen, V, 219. 66 See M. H. Pope, “The word ‫ שחת‬in Job 9:31,” JBL 83 (1964), 269–278 (= Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature: Collected Essays, Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 10, ed. M. S. Smith [Münster, 1994], 133–143); idem, Job, AB 15 (Garden City, NY, 1979), 72–74. For a poignant criticism of Pope, see Held, “Pits and Pitfalls,” 188–190.

polysemous pivotal punctuation

477

POLYSEMOUS PIVOTAL PUNCTUATION: MORE JANUS DOUBLE ENTENDRES* To Menahem: Friend and Colleague Isaiah 49:7 In Isa 49:7 there appears a vivid depiction of the radical metamorphosis that is to take place in Israel’s fortunes. The prophet, comforting the enslaved nation, proclaims that in the future kings will rise in their presence and nobles will prostrate themselves before them, “because of the Lord who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen you.” Their present state, described by a triad1 of couplets, is, however, extremely pathetic, for they are: 1. ‫בּזֹה נפש‬, ְ which, according to almost all commentators (medieval and modern alike, should be understood as ‫בּזוּי נפש‬, ְ 2 “one whose * I have written on the phenomenon of Janus parallelism in the Bible in: “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a,” VT 39 (1989), 495–497 [155–157]; “Polysensuous Polyvalency in Poetic Parallelism,” “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, IN, 1992), 147–163 [457–476]. This poetic device has now been identified in Akkadian literature as well. See S. B. Noegel, “A Janus Parallelism in the Gilgamesh Flood Story,” Acta Sumerologica 13 (1991), 419–421; W. Horowitz and S. M. Paul, “Two Proposed Janus Parallelisms in Akkadian Literature,” N.A.B.U. (1995), 11–12 [253–255], with additional bibliography. See also S. B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job, JSOT Suppl. Series 223 (Sheffield, 1996). 1 Triads are one of the most characteristic devices of Second Isaiah’s poetic style. 2 All commentators, whether they (1) assume that the Masoretic pointing is based on the vocalization of the Aramaic passive participle ‫( ְבּזֵה‬e.g., Dan 2:23; 3: 19; Ezra 5:11; see S. D. Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia [Padua, 1855], 523; cf. already the comment of Ibn Bal‘am, in M. Goshen-Gottstein, R. Judah Ibn Bal‘am’s Commentary on Isaiah [Ramat Gan, 1992], 199 [Hebrew]); or (2) regard it as an adjective (cf. Tg. Jon., Rashi, Ibn Ezra); or (3) consider it a qal infinitive construct (cf. Y. Ibn GanaÈ, Sefer HaRiqmah [Jerusalem, 1994], 323–324; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah [Oxford, 1967], 190; see also E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll [Jerusalem, 1959], 267 [Hebrew], who still interpret it as being equivalent to ‫בּזוּי‬, ְ the qal passive participle).

478

biblical studies

being is despised,” a reading now supported by 1QIsaa and 4QIsad; cf. also Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Peshitta. 2. ‫מ ָת ֵעב גוי‬, ְ repointed by most as ‫מת ַֹעב גוי‬, ְ 3 “abhorred of 4 nations.” 3. ‫עבד מֹשלים‬, “slave of rulers.” The middle stich, “abhorred of nations,” correlates well with the following, “slave of rulers,” since both substantives, ‫ גוי‬and ‫מֹשלים‬, are well-attested political terms.5 It is here suggested, moreover, that ‫גּוֹי‬ may also be revocalized ‫גֵּ)י(ו‬, “back,” “body.”6 Of the six occurrences of ‫( גֵּו‬Isa 38:17; 50:6; 51:23; Prov 10:13; 19:29; 26:3), note should be made in particular of Isa 51:23, where the substantives ‫ נפש‬and ‫ גֵּו‬appear in close conjunction: “I will put it (i.e., the cup of God’s wrath) in the hands of your tormentors, who have commanded you (‫)לנפשך‬, ‘Bow down that we may walk over you’. So you made your back/body (‫ ) ֵגּוְֵך‬like the ground, like a street for passers-by.” Compare, too, this same meaning for ‫ גֵּו‬in Job 20:25: “It (the arrow from the ‘bow of bronze’) is drawn forth and runs through his body (reading ‫ ִמגֵּוֹה‬for Masoretic ‫)מ ֵגּוָה‬. ִ 7 Its blade, through his gall, strikes terror in him.” When revocalized, the expression ‫ ְמת ַֹעב גֵּ)י(ו‬would mean 3

Cf. LXX and Vulgate. See Y. Ratzaby, Saadya’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah (Jerusalem, 1993), 111 (Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic); Ibn GanaÈ, Sefer HaRiqmah, 325; Ibn Bal‘am, in Goshen-Gottstein, R. Judah Ibn Bal‘am’s Commentary, 199; Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia, 523; and all modern exegetes. For 1QIsaa ‫מתעבי‬, see the suggestion by P. Skehan, “The Text of Isaias at Qumrân,” CBQ 17 (1955), 158. 4 Heb. ‫ גוי‬is a collective. 5 See E. A. Speiser, “ ‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel,” JBL 79 (1960), 157–163, repr. in Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (Philadelphia, 1967), 160–170. His comment in the latter (p. 164) is worth noting: “A word, like a person, is sometimes typified by the company he keeps.” Regarding ‫גוי‬, compare its other correlates: ‫ממלכה‬: Exod 19:6; 1 Kings 18: 10; Jer 18:7, 9; 2 Chron 32:15; ‫ל ֻא ִמּים‬: ְ Ps 149:7; and especially ‫מלכים‬: Jer 50:41. 6 This may be a case of metathesis, ‫גֵּיו>גוי‬, though ‫ גֵּו‬is never written with a yod. It is of interest to note that Aram. ‫גֵּו‬, “belly, innermost,” is sometimes written ‫ ;גֵּיו‬see M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2002), 263–264. This possibility was independently suggested by N. H. Tur Sinai, Peshuto shel Miqra (Jerusalem, 1957), III/1, 126. See also R. J. Clifford (Fair-Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah [New York, 1984], 147 n. 3), who follows the suggestion of the NJPSV that gôy be repointed gÀwîyyâ, “body.” Compare also the other biforms of ‫גו‬, meaning “body”: ‫גַּו‬: 1 Kings 14:9; Ezek 23:35; Neh 9:26; ‫גֵּב‬: e.g., Ezek 10:12; Ps 129:3; and ‫גּוִ יָּה‬,ְ which refers to both a living “body,” e.g., Gen 47:18; Dan 10:6; Neh 9:37; and a dead “body,” e.g., 1 Sam 31:10, 12; Nah 3:3. 7 Thus many of the modern commentaries to Job.


479

“whose body is detested” and would thus be analogous to the previous description, ‫בּזוּי נפש‬, ְ “whose being is despised.” Heb. (‫ גו)י‬thus functions as a double entendre in a pivotal role. When pointed ‫גּוֹי‬, “[abhorred of] nations,” it complements the following expression, “slave of rulers,” and when pointed ‫גֵּ)י(ו‬, “whose body [is abhorred],” it correlates with the previous ‫בּזוּי נפש‬/‫ֹה‬ ָ ‫בּז‬, ְ “whose being is despised”—in true Janus-like fashion. Isaiah 49:17 In another pericope in this same chapter, Isa 49:14ff., the Lord announces His incontrovertible decision never to abandon Zion (personified as a mother) and proclaims her forthcoming rebuilding, restoration, and repopulation. The transition from present destruction to future reconstruction is succinctly depicted in v. 17: ‫מהרו בניך‬ ‫מהרסיך ומחריביך ממך יצאו‬. The pivotal word that functions as a double entendre here is ‫בניך‬. As vocalized in the Masoretic text, ‫בּנָיִ ְך‬, ָ the verse may be translated, “Swiftly your children (‫)בּנָיִ ְך‬ ָ are coming. Your destroyers and those who laid you waste shall depart from you.” This reading is supported by Symmachus, the Peshitta, and one version of Tg. Jon. (‫)בניכי‬. It is also substantiated contextually by the children motif used throughout the literary unit: v. 15, “Can a woman forsake her suckling babe (‫)עוּלהּ‬, ָ a young woman8 the child of her womb (-‫בן‬ ‫ ;”?)בטנהּ‬v. 20, “The children of your bereavement (‫שכוליך‬-‫ )בני‬shall yet say in your hearing…”; v. 21, “And you will say to yourself, ‘Who bore these for me…? By whom, then, were these raised’?” The next pericope also continues this same theme: v. 22, “And they shall bring your sons (‫ )בניך‬in their bosoms and carry your daughters (‫)בנותיך‬ on their shoulders”; v. 23, “Kings shall be your foster-fathers; their queens shall be your nurses….”

8 For this interpretation of Heb. ‫מרחם‬, see the studies of M. I. Gruber: “Will a Woman Forget Her Infant…?” Tarbií 51 (1982), 491–492 (Hebrew); “The Motherhood of God in Second Isaiah,” RB 90 (1983), 355–356, now reprinted in his The Motherhood of God and Other Studies, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 57 (Atlanta, 1992), 3–15; “Feminine Similes Applied to the Lord in Second Isaiah,” Beer Sheva 2 (1985), 81 (Hebrew); and those of R. Gordis: “Studies in the Book of Amos,” American Academy for Jewish Research Jubilee Volume, I (Jerusalem, 1980), 211; “On mrÈm bn bãnh in Isaiah 49:15,” Tarbií 53 (1983), 137–138 (Hebrew); and E. Qimron, “A Note to ‫ = מרחם‬Women, Mother,” Tarbií 52 (1982–83), 509 (Hebrew).

480

biblical studies

It is well known, however, that according to another tradition the word was interpreted as being vocalized ‫בֹּנָיִ ְך‬, “your builders.”9 This is the way it was understood by Aquila, Theodotian, the Vulgate, and a version of the Aramaic Targum (‫ ;)יבנון‬compare also LXX: o)ikodomhqh&sh|, “you will be built,” and this is now attested in 1QIsaa, ‫בוניך‬.10 Contextual support for such a reading may be drawn from the second stich of this very same verse: “Swiftly your builders (‫ )בֹּנָיִ ְך‬are coming. Your destroyers and those who laid you waste shall depart from you.” “Your builders” stands in sharp contrast to “your destroyers” and “those who laid you waste.” Thus, the prophet employs the substantive ‫ בניך‬in a skillful Janus construction. Within the context of the repeated imagery of children that appears in the preceding verses, the vocalization ‫בּנָיִ ְך‬, ָ “your children,” is most apt. However, in direct conjunction with the second half of this verse, which pertains to the theme of destroyers, ‫בֹּנָיִ ְך‬, “your builders,” is also very fitting. Pivoting both ways, Zion’s returning “children” are to be her future “builders.” This very same double entendre (though not a Janus polysemy) is also present in Isa 54:13, ‫וכל בניך למודי ה' ורב שלום בניך‬, where, according

9 This is also accepted by some medieval commentators, for example, Saadiah and Ibn \afni. It is cited but rejected by Ibn Bal‘am (in Goshen-Gottstein, R. Judah Ibn Bal‘am’s Commentary, 200); and Luzzatto, Il Profeta Isaia, 525. 10 Many modern exegetes prefer the Qumran reading; cf., e.g., J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (Garden City, NY, 1968), 110; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (Philadelphia, 1969), 217; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (Grand Rapids, 1981), 144; North, Second Isaiah, 195; Tur Sinai, Peshuto shel Miqra, 127; A. Ehrlich, Mikra ki-Pheshuto, III (New York, 1969), 118; idem, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, IV (Leipzig, 1912), 180. For a discussion of this passage, see H. M. Orlinsky (“Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, VII,” Tarbií 24 [1954], 4–8 [Hebrew]), who cites earlier scholars who emended to ‫ בֹּנַיִ ְך‬before the discovery of the Isaiah Scroll but who himself still accepts ‫ ָבּנָיִ ְך‬as the original reading. D. Flusser (“The Text of Is. 49:17 in the DSS,” Textus 2 [1962], 140–142) concludes that the reading of LXX is based on the vocalization reflected in the Isaiah Scroll and this, in turn, was paraphrased in the Epistle of Barnabas 16:3. Accepting also the reading ‫( מהורסיך‬qal participle preceded by mem) in the Isaiah Scroll (for Masoretic ‫מהרסיך‬, pi‘el participle) as a “classical example of a lectio difficilior,” Flusser concludes that the “rebuilding will be accomplished even more quickly than the destruction,” that is, ‫מהרו בֹּנַיִ ְך ֵמהורסיך‬, “Your builders outstrip (lit., make more haste than) your destroyers.” So, too, RSV; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 144; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (New York, 2002), 307, 309. Compare with the NEB, “Those who are to rebuild you make better speed than those who pulled you down.” For pertinent objections to this interpretation, see Kutscher (Language and Linguistic Background, 391), who still accepts ‫בּנָיִ ְך‬. ָ


481

to the Masoretic text, the word is twice vocalized ‫בּנָיִ ְך‬, ָ “And all your children shall be disciples of the Lord and great shall be the prosperity of your children.”11 However, in the second occurrence of this substantive in 1QIsaa, a suspended waw has been appended between the bet and nun, ‫בוניכי‬, that is, “your builders.”12 Here, too, both readings are perfectly suitable. On the one hand, the repetition of the same substantive in both stichs, ‫בּנָיִ ְך‬, ָ is a feature of Biblical poetry, and, on the other hand, ‫ בֹּנָיִ ְך‬fits admirably well into the present context. It is first preceded in vv. 11–12 by a description of the future rebuilding of Zion, depicted in terms of her “building stones,” “foundations,” “battlements,” and “gates.” Then it is immediately followed in v. 14 by the phrase ‫בצדקה‬ ‫תכונני‬, “You shall be established in righteousness,” where the root ‫ כון‬constitutes the second half of a set-pair poetic parallelism with ‫בני‬ (compare Num 21:27, Hab 2:12, Prov 24:3). This reading, ‫בֹּנָיִ ְך‬, is also reflected in a statement recorded in b. Ber. 64a:13 :'‫ שנא‬,‫ תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם‬:‫אמר ר' אליעזר אמר ר' חנינא‬ ."‫ אל תקרי "בניך" אלא "בוניך‬."‫"וכל בניך למודי ה' ורב שלום בניך‬ Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: “The students of the sages increase peace in the world, as it is said: [Isa 54:13 is cited here].” Do not read ‫בּנָיִ ְך‬, ָ “your children,” but ‫בּוֹנָיִ ְך‬, “your builders.”14

Song of Songs 7:6 The final waßf that appears in the Song of Songs depicts the female body from foot to head (7:2ff.).15 Verse 6, which provides the descrip-

11 Though LXX translates the repetition of ‫ ָבּנָיִ ְך‬by two different nouns, ni9ou&j and te/kna, respectively, both have the same meaning and were only employed for internal Greek variation. 12 It is of interest to note that some exegetes have read ‫ בֹּנַיִ ְך‬for the first ‫;בּנָיִ ְך‬ ָ cf. S. Krauss, Sefer Isaiah (Budapest, 1904), 110; and North (Second Isaiah, 67), who incorrectly states, however, that “Qa has ‫‘( בוניכי‬your builders’) for the first…” (p. 251). 13 Cf. also Yalqut Shimoni, §579, on Isa 54:7. 14 For a similar paronomasia, see Exodus Rabbah 23:10, on Song of Songs 1:5: ‫ אל תהי קורא ְ'בּנוֹת ירושלים' אלא 'בֹּנוֹת‬:‫ אמרו רבותינו‬.'‫" ' שחורה אני ונאוה ְ'בּנוֹת ירושלם‬ " '‫ירושלים‬. 15 There are some commentators who think that this is part of an overall description drawn from the model of a sculpture. See G. Gerleman, Ruth, Das Hohelied BKAT 18/2–3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965), 69–71; H. P. Müller (Vergleich und Metapher im Hohenlied, OBO 56 [Göttingen, 1984], 23), who follows, in general, W. Hermann,

482

biblical studies

tion and portrayal of the woman’s head and hair, abounds, however, in difficulties, especially replete in the final clause. Attention here will focus only on the first two cola of this verse: “Your head (‫ )ראשך‬upon you is like ‫ ;כרמל‬the locks of your hair (‫ )ראשך‬are like purple.” The comparison to ‫כרמל‬, usually understood to mean Mount Carmel (so the LXX and Vulgate), is related to the ambiguous meaning of ‫ראשך‬, either “your head” or “your head of hair” (as in the second stich).16 Those who favor the former would tend to translate the stich in the manner of the NEB, “You carry your head like Carmel,” thus denoting and connoting the height, stateliness, and majesty of the image. Those who accept the latter apply the forested mountain region to the luxuriant growth of her thick and bountiful tresses. There are, on the other hand, exegetes who favor revocalizing ‫ ַכּ ְר ֶמל‬to ‫כּ ְר ִמל‬, ַ “crimson” (a late borrowing into Biblical Hebrew from Sanskrit, appearing also in 2 Chron 2:6, 13; 3:14), which would then apply to either the color, dye, or brilliant sheen of her hair.17 It is here suggested that the author had both meanings in mind and thereby created a very effective Janus double entendre. The substantive as vocalized ‫כּ ְר ֶמל‬, ַ Mount Carmel, according to the MT, would provide an apt sequence to the names of the other northern locales immediately cited in the previous verse (v. 5): Heshbon, Lebanon, and Damascus. And when interpreted as ‫כּ ְר ִמל‬, ַ “crimson,” it creates a very

“Gedanken zur Geschichte des altorientalischen Beschreibungsliedes,” ZAW 75 (1963), 176–197. The latter still interprets it as Mount Carmel. 16 For both opinions, consult the medieval and modern commentaries, esp. M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7 C (Garden City, NY, 1977), 629–630. 17 For ‫כּ ְר ִמל‬, ַ see A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, JSOT Suppl. Series 21 (Sheffield, 1982), 24–25, 138, 144; E. Bilik, “‫כרמל‬,” Encyclopedia Biblica, IV, 322–323 (Hebrew); R. Pines, “‫צבעים‬,” Encyclopedia Biblica, VI, 669 (Hebrew); R. Gradwohl, Die Farben im Alten Testament, ZAW Beiheft 83 (Berlin, 1963), 72–73. For its etymology, see C. Rabin, “Indian Words,” Leshonenu LaAm 14 (1963), 241–242 (Hebrew); L. Koehler and J. W. Baumgartner, HALAT, II (Leiden, 1974), 474. 18 For ‫ארגמן‬, see Brenner, Colour Terms, 145; Gradwohl, Die Farben, 66. For Akk. argamannu, which means both “red purple wool” and “tribute,” see CAD, A/II, 253. The latter is also its meaning in Ugar. argmn. There are, however, some scholars who think that the Ugaritic word also occasionally designates “red purple wool.” For the various opinions concerning the expression rià arg[mn] in KTU2 1.87:4–5, see M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, “Die Texteinheiten in RS 1.2 = CTA 32 and RS 17.100 = CTA Appendice I,” UF 7 (1975), 145; J. Sanmartín, “RI’ ARGMN in den Ug. Ritualen,” UF 10 (1978), 455–456. As tempting as it may appear, there is no connection between Heb. ‫ )דלת( ראשך כארגמן‬and Ugar. rià argmn.


483

fine parallel with ‫ארגמן‬, “purple,”18 in the following colon.19 19

Some ancient translations, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshitta, as well as modern commentators, attach the next word in the verse, ‫מלך‬, to ‫ ארגמן‬and translate “royal purple.” See, for example, Gerleman, Ruth, 194, 199, 200; Y. Feliks, Song of Songs (Jerusalem, 1974), 109 (Hebrew); Brenner, Colour Terms, 145. See, in general, L. B. Jensen, “Royal Purple of Tyre,” JNES 22 (1963), 104–118. However, Heb. ‫מלך‬, vocalized as ‫מ ֵלְּך‬, ַ may also be a loanword from Akk. malû, “unkempt hair” (CAD, M/I, 173–174) and thus parallel to ‫ֹאשְׁך‬ ֵ ‫ר‬.

484

biblical studies

an overlooked double ententre in jonah 2:5

485

AN OVERLOOKED DOUBLE ENTENDRE IN JONAH 2:5 Professor LaCocque’s analysis of the book of Jonah, The Jonah Complex (co-authored with his son, Pierre-Emmanuel LaCocque),1 in which he combines his exegetical skills along with theological, hermeneutical, and psychological insights, is a significant contribution to the multidimensional interpretation of the prophet’s message. Here I would like to offer a small literary note, which sheds additional light on one of the verses of the psalm in chapter two, aptly called a “musical pause” by LaCocque.2 According to the psalm, Jonah, after having been tossed into the depths of the sea, exclaims: “You cast me into the depths, into the heart of the sea. The flood engulfed me.3 All your breakers and bellows swept over me” (v. 4).4 “The waters encompassed me up to my neck; the deep engulfed me. Weeds twined around my head” (v. 6). In the intervening verse (5) we hear the desperate and despairing meditation of the drowning man: “I thought I was thrust (‫ )נגרשׁתי‬out of Your sight. Would I ever gaze again upon Your holy Temple?” This verse has been often compared to two similar ones: Ps 31:23, “Alarmed, I had thought, ‘I am thrust out (‫ )נגרזתי‬of Your sight’ ”; and, even more appropriate thematically because of the water motif, Lam 3:54, “Waters flowed over my head; I said, ‘I am lost’ (‫)נגזרתי‬.” In Jonah, however, neither the root ‫ גרז‬nor ‫גזר‬5 is employed, but rather ‫גרשׁ‬. Though this verb, which means “to be thrust out, banished,” fits the situation well, it should be noted that it also appears three other times in “maritime” contexts: Isa 57:20, “But the wicked 1

A. LaCocque and P.-E. Lacocque, The Jonah Complex (Atlanta, 1981). It is not my intention to deal with the problem of the presence of the psalm here. The philological point made in this article is independent of the original or, most likely, secondary nature of the composition. 3 For the parallelism between (‫ ים )ימים‬and ‫נהר‬, see Isa 50:2; Nah 1:4; Hab 3:8; Ps 24:2; 93:3–4. It is also found in Ugaritic: ym–nhr. See, e.g., KTU2 1.2.IV:14–15, 16–17, 22, 24–25, 27, 29–30. 4 For the parallelism between ‫ מים‬and (‫תהום )תהֹמות‬, see Exod 15:8; Hab 3:10; Job 38:30; Ps 33:7; 17:17; 104:6. 5 For an analysis of these two roots and their respective renderings in the ancient translations, see L. Delekat, “Zum hebräischen Wörterbuch,” VT 14 (1964), 11–13. 2

486

biblical studies

are like the troubled (‫ )נגרשׁ‬sea, which cannot rest, whose waters toss up (‫)ויגרשׁו‬6 mire and mud”; Amos 8:8, “Shall not the earth shake for this?… Shall it not all seethe and surge (‫ )ונגרשׁה‬like the Nile and subside like the Nile of Egypt?”7 And, as has been insightfully demonstrated by Blau, the verb in these latter two verses is not to be connected with ‫גר"שׁ‬,8 but rather is derived from a homonymous stem describing the tossing, swirling, and surging of the sea.9 So, too, the substantive in Ezek 27:28: “At the outcry of your helmsmen, the billows (‫)מ ְג ְרשׁות‬ ִ heave.” Further attestation for its occurrence may be adduced from the Hodayot Hymns from Qumran:10 IQHa X:12–13: “The assembly of the wicked is roused against me. They roar like the breakers of the seas when their waves rage and stir up (‫ )יגרושו‬mud and mire.” IQHa XI:32: “The schemers of the deep roar with the din of those stirring up (‫)גורשׁי‬ mud.” IQHa XVI:15: “But I had become the mockery of the raging torrents, which stir up (‫ )גרשׁו‬their mire over me.”

The verb is also found in Rabbinic Hebrew: Sifre, Deuteronomy 39; Yalqut Shim‘oni 859: “You might suppose the (rain) water will stir up (‫ )גורשׁים‬the (fat) ground of the valley….” See also Midrash Alpha-Beta de Rabbi ‘Aqiba, in: A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, III (Jerusalem, 1938),

IQIsaa has a variant reading in the hitpa‘el, ‫יתגרשׁו‬. The interrogative ‫ העל‬creates a play on words with the verb ‫ עלתה‬in this verse. Heb. ‫ ָכאֹר‬is a copyist’s error for ‫כיְ אֹר‬, ַ which was most likely influenced by the expression ‫ ביום אור‬in the next verse. And the qere, ‫ונשקעה‬, is to be preferred to the ketib, ‫ונשקה‬. 8 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräische und aramäische Lexikon zum Alten Testament (= HALAT), I (Leiden, 1967), 196. 9 J. Blau, “Über Homonyme und angeblich Homonyme Wurzeln, I,” VT 6 (1956), 245–246, who also compares Arab. baÈr maàgår, “an undulating sea.” The correct meaning of this verb was already noted by Y. ibn GanaÈ, Sepher Haschoraschim, ed. W. Bacher (Berlin, 1896), 101, and by H. Yalon, in his review of E. L. Sukenik’s Dead Sea Scrolls, in Kiryath Sepher 26 (1950), 246 (Hebrew). 10 It is obvious that all these passages are influenced by the verse in Isa 57:20. The references to Hodayot are taken from F. G. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, I (Leiden, Boston, and Köln, 1997), 162, 166, 181. 6 7

an overlooked double ententre in jonah 2:5

487

13 (Hebrew): “Its waters stir up (‫ )מתגרשׁים‬mud and mire.”11 Now, then, we can better appreciate the clever double entendre of Jonah 2:5. The author has Jonah plaintively declare that he was “banished” (‫ )נגרשׁתי‬from God’s presence. But in the present context between v. 4 (which describes his drowning in the “depths, into the heart of the sea. The flood engulfed me. All your breakers and waves swept over me”) and v. 6 (which emphasizes the “waters” and “the deep”), his choice of this particular verb, whose homonymous stem also connotes the turbulent undulation of waves tossing and turning, swirling and surging all about him, adds a poignant descriptive dimension to his distressful cry.12 Compare also Samaritan ‫גרושׁה‬, “waves,” in A. E. Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford, 1909), 262, 263. 12 A similar play on words may also lie behind the name of one of the two clubs which, in the Ugaritic epic of Baal, Kothar, the craftsman god, gives to Baal in his combat against Yam, the god of the sea: “Your name, yours, is Yagarrish: Yagarrish, drive out Yam! Drive Yam from his throne!” (àmkat ygrà.ygrà.gràym gràym.lksih), KTU2 1.2.IV:11–12. 11

488

biblical studies

contents

489

ADDITIONAL WRITINGS OF SHALOM M. PAUL Books Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, Supplement, Vetus Testamentum 18 (Leiden, 1970) 000 Amos, Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia, 1991) A Commentary to Amos, ed. S. AÈituv, Mikra Leyisra’el (Jerusalem, 1994). Hebrew. Commentary to Second Isaiah, ed. S. AÈituv, Mikra Leyisra’el (Jerusalem, forthcoming). Hebrew. Second Isaiah, The Eerdmans Critical Commentary, ed. D. N. Freedman and A. B. Beck (Grand Rapids, forthcoming). Monograph Biblical Law: Bibliographical Introduction to Legal History and Ethnology, ed. J. Gilissen (Brussels, 1974). Books Edited Biblical Archaeology, co-edited with W. G. Dever (Jerusalem, 1973). The Bible and Civilization, by G. Sivan (Jerusalem, 1973). Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible, co-edited with B. T. Viviano, E. Stern, and E. Wigoder (New York, 1986); also appears in Hebrew, 4 vols. (Jerusalem, 1987), German, Jerusalemer Bibel-Lexikon (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1990), and Japanese (Japan, 1991). The Almanac of the Bible, co-edited with G. Wigoder and B. T. Viviano (New York, 1991). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, eds. R. J. Z. Werblowsky and G. Wigoder (New York, 1997). ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, 2 volumes, co-edited with M. E. Stone and A. Pinnick (Jerusalem, 2001). Book Reviews “W. F. Albright, History, Archaeology and Christian Humanism,” Jewish Social Studies 27 (1965), 117–118. “R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah XL 13–14,” Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972), 191. “Eretz-Israel XIV: H. L. Ginsberg Volume,” Immanuel 10 (1980), 25–30.

490

additional writings of shalom m. paul

Encyclopaedic Entries Encylopaedia Biblica (Hebrew) “‫משפתים‬,” V (Jerusalem, 1968), 637–638. “‫נסמן‬,” V (Jerusalem, 1968), 886–887. “‫צבתים‬,” VI (Jerusalem 1972), 673. “‫צינוק‬,” VI (Jerusalem, 1972), 731. “‫צלמות‬,” VI (Jerusalem, 1972), 735–736. “‫שיר השירים‬,” VII (Jerusalem, 1976), 645–655. Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1978) “Book of the Covenant,” IV, 1214–1217. “Book of Life,” IV, 1217–1218. “Book of the Wars of the Lord,” IV, 1218–1219. “Chebar,” V), 368–369. “Creation and Cosmogeny,” V, 1059–1063. “Ecstasy,” VI, 358–359. “Euphemism and Dysphemism,” VI, 959–961. “Nuzi,” XII, 1287–1291. “Virgin, Virginity,” XVI, 160–161. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible “Mnemonic Devices,” Supplementary Volume (Nashville, 1976), 600–602.

source index

491

SOURCE INDEX Hebrew Bible Gen 1:6–7 3:16 4:1 5:24 6:3 6:13 6:17 7:11 8:2 9:5 9:15 9:22–23 11 14:18 15:2 15:15 16:2 16:5 17:12 17:22 18:17 18:25 19:37–38 20:3 20:4 20:6 20:7 21:10 21:12 21:23 21:39 22:6 22:8 23:8 24:16 25:8 26:8 27:36 28 28:8 28:9

348 n. 42 327 309 231 n. 45 224 316 n. 11 361 n. 35 23 n. 4 464 106 n. 46, 107 361 n. 35 312 345 n. 24 13 n. 18, 151 n. 37 227 n. 18 225 n. 10 180 n. 19 308 429 466 454 391 358 366 304 303 365, 391 305 305 57 n. 27 106 n. 46 447 n. 19 447 n. 19 165 n. 32 309 225 n. 10 218 n. 33, 313 470 345 n. 24 27 n. 2 77 n. 2

28:12 28:16 30:3 31:15 31:2 31:10–13 31:10 31:12 31:39 31:53 32:12 32:14 35:29 37:7 37:35 37:36 38:14–15 38:26 39:6 39:7 39:9 39:12 39:14 39:17 40:6 40:7 41:46 42:16 43:9 44:5 44:15 45:8 46:2–4 47:18 49:3 49:4 49:11 49:12 49:15 49:24 49:26 49:27 50:3

345 n. 23 323 n. 2 180 n. 19 28 n. 5 189 n. 46 366 125–126, 189 n. 46 125–126 106 311 n. 63 77 n. 2 149 n. 32 225 n. 10 222 n. 56 265 n. 11 209 n. 20, 474 167 n. 42 309 309 222 309 187 n. 34 313 313 211 n. 30, 293 n. 55 197 n. 15, 211 n. 30, 293 n. 55 207 n. 14 409 n. 47 106 366 366 119 n. 47 406 n. 35 445 n. 16, 478 n. 6 304 466 72 n. 7 72 n. 4 462 306 460–461 473 315 n. 1

492 Exod 1:15 1:17 1:19 1:21 2:7–9 2:10 2:20 3:11 4:10 4:11 4:15–16 4:22 7:1 7:16 9:4 9:14 11:5 12:22 14:19 15:8 16:3 16:33 19:4 19:6 19:15 19:18–19 19:19 20:7 20:12 20:26 21:3 21:7–11 21:10 21:13 21:17 21:19 21:21 21:22–25 21:22 21:23–25 21:28 21:31 21:36 22:15–16 22:15 22:20 22:21 22:27 23:12

source index

177 177 177 177–180 116 n. 28 114 n. 10 310 385 385 385 365 112 n. 3, 113 365 375 453 n. 42 51 n. 2 165 349 n. 53 325 n. 17 485 n. 4 87 84 82 50, 478 n. 5 304 452 365 174 n. 64 225 n. 9 343 470 27–29 27–35 42 n. 18 40, 44 91 n. 3 91 n. 3 159 160 n. 5, 470 161 39 28 n. 7, 43 43 159 27 n. 3 429 49 174 n. 64, 175 n. 69 40

23:20 23:23 23:26 25:9 25:22 25:40 27:3 28:30 29:2 30:6 30:36 32:6 32:11–13 32:14 32:32–33 32:44 33:5 33:14–15 38:3

325 n. 17 325 n. 17 225, 317 327 449 327 87 367 6 n. 19 449 449 313 391 391, 452 n. 39 61 325 n. 17 235 n. 65 325 n. 17 87

Lev 2:5 4:2 5:18 5:24 8:8 8:33–35 8:33 9:1–4 11:16 13:12 13:16 13:42 13:48–49 13:51–53 13:56–59 14:9–10 14:15 14:49 15:13–14 17:55 18 18:6–19 18:6–17 18:22 19:15 19:20 19:23 19:26 19:29 19:31

6 n. 19 133, 286 133, 286 401 n. 9 367 429 315 n. 1 429 472 208 n. 17 199 n. 30 329 n. 3 463 463 463 429 176 329 n. 3 429 199 n. 30 44, 47 466 312 305 40 27 n. 3, 40 40 366 305 266, 366

source index 20:10 20:11–21 20:13 20:17 20:21 20:6, 26 20:26 20:27 21:9 21:17–23 21:18 23:36 24:7 24:10–23 24:10 24:19–20 24:23 25:3–4 25:30 37

41, 159 466 159, 305 312 475 266, 266 266 366 305 208 n. 17 402 n. 16 429 251 n. 50 172–176 160 n. 5 161 172 n. 54 460 315 n. 1 304

Num 1:17 5:11–31 5:21–22, 27 6:3 6:5 6:9–10 6:9 7:13 9:10 11:2 11:4–5 11:12 11:16–27 11:25 11:31 12:1 12:6–8 12:6 12:13 12:14f. 13:14 13:28 13:33 14:13ff. 14:20 15:32–36 16:5 16:21 16:26

173 n. 61 367 196 n. 12 73 315 n. 1 429 235 6 n. 19 191 391 309 443 369 369 191 414 n. 79 366 375 237, 391 123 n. 12 237 408 n. 43 237 391 391 172 n. 57 4 n. 12 235 n. 65 234 n. 60

493

16:30 16:33 17:10 18:10 20:16 21:27 23:9 24:17 25:12 26:55–56 27:21 29:12–35 31:17, 18, 35 33:8 33:55

265 n. 11 265 n. 11 235 n. 65 409 n. 46 325 n. 17 481 467 467 413 n. 72 367 367 429 305 191 83

Deut 1:6 1:11 1:28 1:37 2:25 4:6 4:21 4:37 4:40 5:5 5:16 5:24 5:30 6:2 6:24 7:16 9:1 9:8 9:20 10:14 11:9 11:18 11:21 13:2ff. 13:2 13:19 14:1 15:10 15:21 16:12 16:16 17:20 18:10–11 18:11

108 108 408 n. 43 3 n. 4 147 n. 17 428 3 n. 4 325 n. 17 225 n. 9 365 225 n. 9 365 225 n. 9 225 n. 9 428 164 408 n. 43 3 n. 4 3 n. 4, 391 343 225 n. 9 427 55 n. 19, 225 n. 9 366, 388 375 164 112 n. 3 197 n. 15 402 n. 16 428 97 n. 18 225 n. 9 366 266–267

494 18:15 18:18 18:20–22 19:13 19:15 19:19 19:21 20:19–20 21:17 22:2 22:8 22:13ff. 22:21 22:22 22:23ff. 22:23 22:24 22:25 22:27–28 23:4–8 24:4 25:2 25:3 25:4–12 25:5 25:9 25:11–12 25:15 27:15–26 27:17 28:35 28:49 28:54 28:56 28:57 28:58 29:5 30:6 30:20 32:6 32:11 32:19 32:21 32:23 33:1 33:15 34:7 34:10 43:14

source index 365 365 388 164 40 161 161, 164 411 n. 58 304 123 n. 12 40 159 169 n. 45 159, 470 159 27 n. 3 169 n. 45 27 n. 3 27 n. 3 357–358 470 161 176 n. 75 160 n. 6 160 n. 6 179 n. 16 160–164 225 n. 9 44 40 208 n. 17 261 165 n. 28 165 n. 28 307 173 n. 59 73 398, 413 n. 68 225 n. 9 112 n. 3 82 112 n. 3 428 452 n. 39 367 461 225 n. 10 365 72 n. 7

Josh 2:18 13:6 14:6 20:4 22:28 23:13 23:14 24:26 42:12

123 n. 12 409 n. 46 367 123 n. 12 327 83, 451 n. 33 227 n. 18 427 408 n. 43

Judg 3:15, 17f. 3:20 3:23 5:30 6:16 7:14 8:32 9:23 12:6 13:5 14:4 16:14, 20 16:19 16:21 19:15 21:11, 12

149 n. 32 77 343 361, 410 n. 53, 471 464 445 n. 16 225 n. 10 28 n. 6 464 20 n. 62 449 n. 28 323 n. 2 307 165 123 n. 12 305

1 Sam 1:8 1:16 2:5 2:6 4:19 6:2 6:9 7:4–17 7:5–9 9 9:6 9:7–8 9:7 9:8 9:9 10 10:1 10:5 10:6 10:10 10:12

197 n. 15 52 473 269 324 366 452 n. 39 54 n. 17 391 372 367 377 95–97, 467 371 368 368 368–369 370–371 370 370–371 369

source index 12:19, 23 14:37 14:41 14:42 15:1 15:22 15:27 16 16:10–11 16:22 17:7 17:12 18:10ff. 18:10 18:21 19:18–24 19:20–24 19:20 19:23 20:16 22:5 23:9ff. 23:11 24:13 24:14 24:15 25:28 25:29 26:10 26:15 28 28:3 28:6 28:8 28:9 28:11 28:13 28:15 28:18 28:23 31:3 31:10 31:12 41:1

391 367 367 367 391 378, 394 184 372 430 207 n. 14 82 430 370 370 451 369 377 370 370 106 368, 372 367 367 181–183 182 182 179 n. 17 63 226 361 n. 35 269, 367 367 366–367, 375 267–268 267–269, 367 267–269 264 n. 7, 267–268 48, 267–268, 366, 375 267 n. 23 465 147 n. 17 478 n. 6 478 n. 6 82

2 Sam 1:14 1:20 2:7 2:12

361 n. 35 418 225 n. 11 225 n. 11

495

2:25 3:29 3:34 3:38 4:11 5:6 5:8 5:24 7 7:1 7:5 7:8–16 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:16 7:27 8:2 8:6 9:8 11:27 12:1ff. 12:7ff. 12:8 12:20 12:23 14:14 14:25 15:27 16:9 20:20 22:29 23:1 23:5 23:6 24:11

349 n. 53 306 n. 36 52 474 106 402 n. 16 402 n. 16 367 113 n. 8 372 179 113 177, 179–180 179, 315 180 113 54 n. 11,17 180 149 n. 32 149 n. 32 182 123 n. 12 378 372 308 35 n. 45 265 224 208 n. 17 368 182 361 n. 35 330 460 413 n. 69 4 n. 11 368, 372

1 Kings 1:2 1:4 1:8ff. 2:2 2:24 3:5–14 3:14 5:7 5:15 5:22 5:24 6:15, 34

207 n. 14 309 372 227 n. 18 177 366 225 n. 9 453 n. 42 378 15 15 15

496 7:45 8:27 8:46 9:11 10:3 10:8 10:9 10:16 11:9 11:29ff. 11:29–39 11:38 12:8 12:22ff. 12:22–24 13 13:1–2 13:1 13:4ff. 13:7–8 13:15ff. 14:1–18 14:3 14:5 14:6ff. 14:9 15:29 16:1 16:7 16:13 16:26 17ff. 17:1 17:8ff. 17:17–24 17:18 17:19 17:20ff. 17:24 18 18:3–4 18:10 18:13 18:26 18:28–29 18:36 18:43 18:46 19:3 19:10, 14 19:11

source index 87 343 3 n. 4 15 453 n. 42 207 n. 14 343 81 3 n. 4 372–374 372 179 n. 16,17 207 n. 14 372 372 89 372 367 375 377 371 372 372, 377 371 373 478 n. 6 372 371 371 428 428 375, 382 373 374 374 367 343 375 367 369, 374 371 478 n. 5 371 370 369 375 371 369–370 371 231 n. 45 130

19:15 19:21 20:28 20:43 21:1ff. 21:1 21:3 21:7 21:10 21:13 21:18 22 22:5ff. 22:6 22:8 22:11 22:19ff. 22:21ff. 22:21–24 22:27

378 371 378 211 n. 30 378 79 n. 13 211 n. 30 211 n. 30 175 175 79 n. 13 369 371 367, 371–372 371 380 373 389 370 375, 382

2 Kings 1:3ff. 1:4 1:10 2:3ff. 2:3 2:5 2:7 2:8 2:11 2:13–14 2:15 2:19–22 3:4ff. 3:15 3:15 3:16ff. 4:1–7 4:7 4:8ff. 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:21 4:25 4:27 4:32ff. 4:38–41 4:38–43 4:38

372 373 367 373 231 n. 45, 371 371 371 374 374 374 371 374 371 370 377 372 371, 374 367 374 367 343 371 367 371 373 375 374 371 87, 371

source index 4:39 4:41 4:42–44 4:43 5:15ff. 5:16–17 5:20 5:26 6–7 6:9 6:12 6:15 6:17 6:21 6:33 7:2, 19 8 8:1 8:4 8:8 8:9 8:11ff. 8:11 8:13 8:20–22 9:1ff. 9:4 9:7 9:11 9:17 9:24 12:17–18 13:14ff. 13:16 13:19 13:20–21 15:10–14 17:3f. 17:13 17:15 17:18 17:23 17:24–28 17:27 17:28 18:17 18:19 18:27 18:28 19 19:21

87 87 374 371 97 n. 18 377 371 373 15 n. 25 373 373 371 373 371 452 n. 39 23 n. 4 372 373 367, 371 367, 371 372, 377 373 367 182 424 371 371 453 370, 375 18 n. 50 155 n. 2, 156 n. 9 419 372, 374 156 n. 7 367 374 5 n. 18 149 n. 32 368, 453 427–428 3 n. 4 453 37 37–38 38 208 n. 20 151 307 151 392 164 n. 23

497

19:28 20:7 20:9 21:10 22:13 23:24 24:2 24:6 24:9 25:2 25:14 25:15 25:20 25:30

84 381 343 453 371 266, 367 453 388 83 474 87 209 n. 20 209 n. 20 210 n. 27

Isa 1:2 1:5ff. 1:6 1:10 1:11–17 1:12 1:13–15 1:15 1:25 2:1–5 2:2–3 2:2 2:3 2:6 2:20 3:14–24 4:3–4 4:3 5:6 5:8 5:11–12 5:18–19 5:20–23 5:24 5:29 6 6:5 6:7 6:10 6:11 6:17 7:3 7:10–25 7:11 7:14

112 n. 3 397 208 n. 17 427 394 107–108 394 146 n. 9 475 398 183 n. 7 398 398 366–367 329 n. 3 393 398 61 460 393 393 393 393 5 n. 15, 427 449 364, 395, 454 385 385 397 386 397 379 381 461–462 379

498 8:3 8:13 8:14 8:16–17 8:17 8:19–20 8:19 9:1 9:3 9:7ff. 9:8–9 9:12 9:16 9:18–19 9:18 9:25 10:1 10:4 10:5 10:8 10:20–21 10:24 10:27 11:1–9 11:2 11:3 11:5 11:8 11:9 11:14 11:19 12:1 13:8 13:10 13:17 13:21–22 13:23 14:3 14:5 14:8 14:9ff. 14:9 14:10 14:22 14:25 16:9 17:5 18:2 18:7 19:3

source index 304, 379 258 451 n. 33 398 397 266–267 264 n. 7, 267, 367 330 462 357 393 397 393 5 n. 15 367 397 103 n. 29 462 383 151 398 462 398, 462 398 382 258 258 449 n. 26 398 358 412 3 n. 4 199 n. 30, 324 330 4 n. 7 403 n. 17 393 327 462 315 n. 4 264 n. 10 265 n. 11, 268 n. 30 51 n. 2 57 n. 27 462 450 n. 30 464 261, 324 n. 10, 325 149 n. 32, 261 267, 366

19:4 19:8–9 19:10 19:18–25 20:2ff. 20:4 21:2–3 21:2 21:3–4 21:3 21:13 22:4 23:12 24:16 25:5 25:9 27:12 28:2 28:5 28:7 28:9–10 28:10 28:11 28:13 28:15 28:27 29:10 29:46 30:1–2 30:1 30:9–10 30:9 30:10 30:13 30:26 31:1 31:4 31:9 32:2ff. 32:4 33:19 34–35 34:5–17 34:5 34:8 34:9–10 34:13 34:14 35:5–6 35:6 35:8

152 463 462–463 398 380 165 n. 30 324 n. 6 386 386 324 200 n. 40 386 164 n. 23 460 460 251 n. 49 464–465 129 235 n. 66 368, 389–390 387 260 n. 22 260 260 n. 22 393 464 368, 382 267 n. 24 379 112 n. 3 382 427 376 235 n. 66 404 n. 26 393 449 4 n. 10 392 261 260 402 424 403 n. 17 402 n. 17 402 n. 17 83, 85, 402 n. 17 403 n. 17 402–403 404 192, 404

source index 35:10 36–39 36:4 36:12 36:13 37:1ff. 37:22 37:24 37:29 38:1ff. 38:5–8 38:10 38:17 38:21–22 39:2 40ff. 40–48 40:2 40:3–4 40:3 40:5 40:6–8 40:9–10 40:11 40:16 40:18 40:19–20 40:20 40:23 40:26 40:29 41–49 41:4 41:6–7 41:7 41:8 41:9 41:10 41:13–14 41:19 41:13 41:16 41:18 41:20 41:23 41:25 42:1–4 42:1 42:6

405 363 151 307 151 379 164 n. 23 15 n. 30 84 379 381 230 478 381 453 n. 42 384 11 400 404 n. 26 404 n. 19 398 385 401 402, 404 n. 24 404 n. 19 415 12, n. 4, 326 n. 19, 415 349 5 n. 16 304 304 20 406 415 326 n. 19, 415 12, 13 n. 10,11 13 n. 10,19 13–14 n. 19, 406 14 n. 19, 406 n. 34 15 n. 24,28 13 n. 19 129 404 15 n. 24 15, n. 24, 415 407 22, 398, 406 12–13 12 n. 7, 13–14, 21, 398, 405

42:7 42:13 42:16 42:18–20 42:20 43:1–6 43:1 43:4 43:5 43:6 43:8 43:10 43:12 43:16 43:17 43:19–20 43:20 43:21 43:25 43:28 44:1 44:2 44:3 44:8 44:9–14 44:11 44:12 44:13 44:14 44:20 44:21 44:25 44:28 44:28 45:1 45:2 45:3 45:4 45:7 45:8 45:10 45:12 45:13 45:14–15, 22–23 45:16 45:18 45:21 45:22–24 45:22ff.

499 14 4 n. 7 404 n. 23 397 14 n. 22 406–407 12, 405 n. 30, 406 n. 34 12 n. 9 406 112 n. 3 397 13 n. 10,11, 22 22 404 n. 19 315 n. 4 404 13 n. 10 22, 398 409 n. 49 409 n. 49 13 n. 10,11 13 n. 10, 14 n. 19, 406 404 n. 26 22 415 326, n. 10, 415 326 n. 10, 415 326 n. 10, 327 15 n. 27, 415 415 13 n. 11 367, 415 13, 384 395 13 n. 19, 384 405 n. 30 12 n. 7 12, n. 7, 13 n. 10,11 452 n. 39 314 112 n. 3 407 407 183 n. 7 326 408 15 n. 24 22, 398 398

500 45:24 46:3 46:6–7 46:12 47:1–4 47:1 47:3 47:5 47:7 47:8 47:9 47:10 47:11 47:12–13 48:1–2 48:5 48:9 48:10–11 48:12 48:11 48:14 48:16 48:20 48:21 48:22 49:1 49:2–3 49:2 49:5–6 49:5 49:6 49:7 49:8 49:9 49:9–11 49:9–10 49:12 49:14ff. 402, 479 49:15–18 49:15 49:17 49:20–23 49:21 50:2 50:6 50:12 51:3 51:4ff 51:6

source index 405 n. 30 405 n. 30 415 397 164–168 164, 465 415 164 164 164 235 n. 65, 366 164 236 n. 72, 407 n. 40 366 408 327 409 n. 49 409 12 n. 7 409 n. 49 12 n. 9 382 164 n. 24 404 n. 26 409 12, 20, 405 n. 30 21, 398 407 n. 37 21 13 n. 11, 20, 405 n. 30 22, 398 13 n. 10, 477–479 21, 405 n. 30 404 n. 20 404 402 n. 14 407 n. 37 410 471, 479 479–481 479 407 443, 485 n. 3 478 330 405 n. 27 398 237

51:7 51:11 51:13 51:14 51:15 51:16 51:19 51:23 52:2 52:11 52:14 53:4 53:7–8 53:7 53:8 53:10 53:12 54:1ff. 54:10 54:11–12 54:13 54:14 55:3 55:4 56:6–7 56:8 56:9 56:11 57:8 57:9 57:10 57:11 57:15 57:17–21 57:18 57:20 57:21 58:3 58:6 58:8 58:11 59:7 59:9 59:17 59:18 59:21

413 405 411 411 412 21–22, 398, 407, 412 n. 61 413 478 83 n. 16, 465 395 199 n. 31 412 412 412 n. 64 228 n. 24, 412 n. 64 53 n. 9 165 n. 32 402 413 n. 72 481 398, 413, 480–481 481 398, 413 22 183 n. 7 402 n. 14 414, 473 414 n. 78 302, 248 n. 32, 305, 465–467 96 n. 11, 97 n. 18, 324 n. 10, 325, 467–468 248 n. 32, 302 235 409 n. 51 409–410 468–469 485 409 407 n. 40 349 n. 53 329 415 413 330 11 n. 3 412 21–22, 382, 398

source index 60:4 60:5–16 60:5 60:6 60:13 60:18 60:19 61:1 61:3 61:4–9 61:7 61:8 61:10 62:1 62:2 62:11 63:1–6 63:1–3 63:8–9 63:11 63:13–14 63:14 63:15–16 63:16 64:11 65:3–4 65:6–7 65:6 65:9 65:15 65:20 65:22 65:23 65:24 66:1ff. 66:1 66:10 66:20–24 66:20 66:3 66:8 66:23

469 398 469 17–18 15 413 330 14, 382, 410 n. 52 35 n. 45 398 400 413 410 n. 54 329–330 173 n. 61 401 n. 10,12 424 73 n. 13 325 402 n. 11 469 468 414 112 n. 3 414 n. 82 394 401 62 13 n. 10 13 n. 10 225 n. 11, 317 13 n. 10 415 415 394 15 n. 23 251 n. 49 395 17 251 n. 50 443 183 n. 7

Jer 1:4ff. 1:5 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:11ff. 1:14

384 20–21, 405 385 406 385, 407 382 452 n. 39

1:17 1:17–19 1:19 2:2 2:5 2:8 2:14 2:22 2:23 2:24 2:30 2:31 2:32 3:2 3:9 3:11–12 3:14 3:17 3:19–20 3:19 3:21 4:2 4:10 4:11 4:19 4:20 5:3 5:6 5:10 5:12 5:14 5:15 5:22 5:26 5:28 6:1 6:7 6:11 6:13–14 6:14 6:17 6:20 6:27–30 7 7:9 7:16 7:18 7:21–23 7:25 7:29

501 406 n. 31 385 496 n. 31 63 n. 26 428 388 443 475 18 n. 51 146 n. 5 397 443 410 404 n. 20 116 n. 23 405 112 n. 3 398 119 112, n. 3, 113 404 n. 20 408 391 404 n. 20 386 413 397 449 n. 25, 473 449 n. 26 393, 452 410 261 147 n. 17 393 101 n. 14 452 n. 38 414 26 n. 23, 386 410 390, 392 452 n. 38 394 408 395 393 165 n. 32, 387, 391–392 394 394 376, 453 404 n. 20

502 7:30–31 8:4–5 8:10–11 8:11 8:19 8:22 8:23 9:1 9:3 9:6 9:11 9:20 9:22–23 10:1–16 10:2 10:2–5 10:3 10:4 10:5 10:8–9 10:10 10:14 10:19ff. 10:19 10:22 11:14 11:18–23 11:19 11:19 11:20 12:1ff. 12:3 12:6 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:12 12:16 13:1ff. 13:14 13:17 13:21 13:22 13:26 14:1ff. 14:9 14:11–12 14:11 14:12 14:13 14:14–15

source index 394 443 410 390, 392, 410 428 443 386 386 469–470 408 55 n. 20 23–26 395 415 366 415 415 415 415 415 152 415 387 412 449 n. 26 387, 392 387 386, 411 412 n. 64 387 387 387 386 449 n. 25 414 414 n. 78 404 n. 20 398 380 360 n. 29, 471 386–387 188 165 n. 30, 169 165, n. 30, 169 391 387 392 387 394, 413 n. 75 390, 392, 413 n. 75 393

14:14 14:15 14:16 14:17–18 14:18 14:22 15:1 15:2 15:5 15:10 15:10 15:11 15:15 15:16ff. 15:17 15:18 15:19 15:19–21 15:20 16:1ff. 16:16 16:18 16:19 17:11 17:13 17:14–18 17:18 18:7–10 18:7 18:8 18:9 18:13 18:14–15 18:15 18:16 18:18–23 18:20 18:21–23 19:1ff. 19:4–5 20 20:2 20:7–18 20:7–9 20:7 20:8 20:9 20:10 20:14–18 21:1–2

392 413 n. 75 404 n. 20, 413 n. 75 387 413 n. 75 428 364, 392, 454 413 413 386 387 391 387 365 258 n. 7, 370, 386 387 364–365, 387, 454 384–385 387 380 89 400 443 232 n. 52 62 387 401 n. 7 397 478 n. 5 452 n. 39 478 n. 5 164 n. 23 443 404 n. 23 475 387 391 387 380 394 395 382 387 455 n. 55 387 413 387 165 n. 31, 386, 415 386 379

source index 22:15–16 22:16 22:19 22:28 22:30 23 23:9 23:11 23:13 23:14 23:17 23:18 23:19 23:21 23:22 23:25ff. 23:28–29 23:28 23:31 23:32 23:33ff. 23:34 24:1ff. 24:7 25:4 25:9 25:12 25:14 25:20 25:34 26ff. 26 26:5 26:12 26:20–23 27–28 27:2ff. 27:5–6 27:7 27:9 27:18 28 28:2ff 28:2ff. 28:3 28:8 28:10ff. 28:11 28:15–17 28:15

395 101 n. 14 388 145 n. 2 62 389 390 390 388 389 390, 392 364, 390, 454 465 393 454 375 390 366 392 393 379 390 382 114 n. 10, 398, 413 n. 70 376, 453 384 315 n. 1 151, 412 418 315 n. 7 363 395 453 375 382, 387 388 380, 393 408 151 366–367 165 n. 32 380, 389 390 392 390 393 392 388, 397 381–382 393

28:16–17 29:5 29:6 29:8 29:9 29:10 29:12 29:19 29:25ff. 29:26 30–33 30–31 30:6 30:10–11 30:19 31:4 31:8 31:9 31:10 31:12 31:13 31:16–17 31:20 31:21 31:26 31:30–33 31:31ff. 31:31–33 31:32 31:34–36 31:35 32ff. 32:4–5 32:6ff. 32:38–41 32:40 33:2 33:3 33:8 33:9 33:11 33:18 33:20–21 35:6–7 35:7 35:15 35:22 36:4 36:18 37:3

503 379 415 415 366–367, 375 392–393 315 n. 1 415 376, 453 395 370, 375, 379 390 403 n. 18 199 n. 30, 200, 290 n. 38 406 405 n. 27 164 n. 23 402 112 n. 3, 113, 405 402 402 n. 15, 415 405 n. 27 401 414, 443 164 n. 23, 405 323 n. 2 398 398 413 114 n. 10 54 n. 10 412 382 379 380 398 413 408 408 n. 43 397 469 395, 405 n. 27 395 54 n. 10 47 225 n. 9 453 77 363, 379 363 392

504 37:7ff. 37:12–21 38:17–18 38:22 39:3 39:13 41:1 42:1ff. 42:2 42:7 42:20 43:8ff. 44:4 46–51 46 46:10 46:11 46:20 46:27–28 47:4 47:5 48–49 48:3 48:27 48:32 48:38 48:46 49:1 49:3 49:7–22 49:13 49:14 49:33 50–51 50:3 50:15 50:24 50:27 50:29 50:32 50:34 50:35 50:36 50:39 50:41 51:6 51:8 51:13 51:35 51:37

source index 379 387 209 n. 20 209 n. 20 209 n. 20 209 n. 20 209 n. 20 379 392 397 392 380 453 393 402 n. 17 403 n. 17 164 n. 23 277 n. 28 406 n. 35 357 418 358 413 443, 475 450 n. 30 145 n. 2 465 443 208 n. 20 424 208 n. 20 325 449 n. 26 402 n. 17 384 402 n. 17 236 n. 72 403 n. 17 412 402 n. 17 402 n. 17 366 415 402–403 n. 17 384, 407, 478 n. 5 402 n. 17, 412 407 n. 40, 410 n. 52 316 n. 11 414 n. 76 449 n. 26

51:39 51:40 51:56 51:57 51:61–64 52:12 52:18 52:19 52:34

323 n. 2 403 n. 17 412 323 n. 2 380 207 n. 14 87 87 210 n. 27

Ezek 1–3 1:4 1:13 1:26 2:4 3:1ff. 3:5–6 3:5 3:11 3:17–21 3:18 3:20 4:1ff. 4:9ff. 5 5:2 6:9 7:17 7:2 7:3 7:5 7:6 7:28 8–10 8 8:1ff. 9:8 10:12 11:5 11:7 11:13 11:19 12 12:2 12:27 13:4–5 13:9 13:11 13:13 13:16

382, 385 129 330 344 397 365, 385 261 260 n. 22 363 397 107 107 380 381 381 315 n. 1 222 307 316 n. 11 316 n. 11 452 n. 39 316 n. 11 209 n. 20 382 394 379 392 478 n. 6 382 87 392 130 n. 9, 413 n. 71 381 397 319 n. 1 392 63, 367 129 129 390

source index 13:17ff. 13:23 14:1f. 14:9–11 14:21 16:7 16:18–19 16:28 16:35–37 16:37 16:39–40 16:60 17:20 17:24 18:6 18:12 18:15 19:3 19:4 20:9 20:14 20:22 20:24 20:40–44 21:11–12 21:11 21:12 21:26–28 22 22:8 22:10 22:25 22:26 22:30–31 23 23:5 23:7 23:8 23:10 23:12 23:17 23:18 23:22 23:23 23:24–26 23:24–25 23:24 23:27 23:29 23:35 23:45

367 367 379 389 413 n. 75 240 n. 5, 241 n. 6 35 n. 45 172 166 169, 312 169 398, 413 n. 71 403 n. 17 398 222, 304 222 222 449 84 409 n. 49 409 n. 49 409 n. 49 222 395 387 200 n. 40 307 366 393 395 466, 475 97 n. 18, 449 395 392 168 172 172 172 169, 312 172 305 466 4 n. 7 172 168–169 168–172 81, 172 222 168–169 478 n. 6 168–169

23:47 24:15ff. 25–32 25:2–14 25:12–14 25:15 25:16–17, 26 26:7ff 26:7–14 26:7 26:10 27:13 27:18 27:28 28:3 28:12 28:17 29:4 29:17–20 29:17–18 29:19–20 31:2 31: 8 31:14 31:16 31:18 32:21 32:27 32:30 33:3 33:6 33:7–20 33:8 33:25 33:30ff. 34:10 34:11ff. 34:14 34:25ff. 34:25 35:1–15 36:20–23 36:26ff. 36:26–27 36:26 37:26ff. 37:26 38:4 38:5

505 169 n. 45 382 393 358 424 465 357 357 388–389 149 n. 31, 150, 293 n. 59 18 n. 50 421 74 486 51 n. 2 327 n. 25 360 n. 29 84 389 357 401 n. 12 51 n. 2 52 463 463 18, 315 n. 4 315 n. 4 265 n. 11, 315 n. 4 315 n. 4 452 n. 38 107 397 107 222 379 107 402 n. 15 402 n. 15, 405 n. 27 398 413 n. 71,72 424 409 n. 49 398 413 n. 71 130 n. 9 398 413 n. 71, 72 81, 84 384

506 38:17 40–48 40:22 41:18–19 42:4 43:11 45:9 Hos 1:7 1:9 2:4 2:4–5 2:7 2:8 2:10–11 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:18–19 2:21ff. 2:25 3:4 3:5 4–14 4:2 4:6 4:10–19 4:11–13 4:17 5:3–4 5:5 5:6 5:8 5:11ff. 5:11 5:13 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8–10 7:1–7 7:3 7:4–10 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:8–9

source index 453 395 343 317 n. 16 191 326 413 393 114 n. 10 114 n. 10 149 n. 32 34, 428, 461 85 34–35 312 166, 169 146 n. 7 394, 428 470 398 114 n. 10 149 n. 29 469 3, 5 n. 18, 282 393 393 146 n. 8 393 327 146 n. 8 8 n. 32 397 452 n. 38 9 n. 33 428 145 n. 3, 146 n. 6, 150, 151, 257 376 394–395 28 n. 6 393 393 149 n. 29 3–9 3–4 3 n. 3 4 5 5–6

7:8 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:16 8:1–7 8:1 8:4 8:7 8:8 8:8–10 8:8–9 8:10 8:13 8:14 9:1 9:3 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:16 10:3 10:4 10:6 10:7 10:13 11:1 11:8–9 11:9 11:10 11:11 12:2 12:3–4 12:8–9 12:11 12:12 13:6 13:10 14:3 14:8 14:8 14:9 Joel 1:5 2:6 2:9 2:14

6–7, 9, 145 n. 2, 150 7–9, 150 8 145 n. 3, 257 257–262 145 n. 1 452 n. 38 3 n. 2, 149 n. 29 145 n. 1 145 n. 1 145–154 257 258 146 n. 6 393 146 n. 7,8 258 83, 146 n. 11, 258 370, 375, 382 387, 451 n. 33 146 n. 5,9 3 n. 2 257 149 n. 32, 150–151, 258 3 n. 2 393 112 n. 3 397 4 n. 7 428 257 n. 2 467, 257 470 393 376, 382 9 n. 33 393 149 n. 29 75 n. 4 251 n. 50 74 n. 17 35 n. 45, 146 n. 5 463 199 n. 30, 147 n. 17 24 396

2:15 2:21 2:23 3:1 4:2 4:4–8 4:6–7 4:19 Amos 1–2 1:2 1:3–2:2 1:3–2:3 1:3–2:5 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15 2:1 2:3 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6–8 2:7 2:7 2:11–12 2:12 2:14–16 2:14 2:16 3:1–2 3:2 3:3–6 3:3–7 3:3–8 3:3 3:4

source index

507

3:5 3:6–8 3:6 3:7

449–451 454 443–444, 451–452 364, 367, 376, 443 n. 13, 453 440, 442, 449 n. 24 394 413 77 449 n. 24 447 77–79 77, 394 81–89 397, 440 n. 6 357 77 343 426 164 n. 23 396 394 343 393, 396, 452 395–396 442, 452 330 394 394 395 84 394 452 n. 39 77 443 394, 453 n. 42 440 n. 6 382 392 392 363 387 368, 382, 426 377, 385 425 84 382 316 n. 11 77 486 89 n. 65

452 n. 38 251 n. 49 251 n. 49 366, 382 146 n. 11 357 421 424 441 426, 449 n. 24, 454 471 353–362, 393, 417 432 359, 433 359, 361 357, 359, 433 89 n. 65, 359, 433 357, 359 359–360, 422, 435 359, 435 359–360, 422, 435, 470–471 359, 435 360 359, 361, 433 359, 361 356 n. 13, 361 5 n. 16 359, 361, 433 359, 361 422, 425, 435 435 394 126–127 305 376 440, 455 441–442 454 n. 53 454 n. 53 440, 447 393, 431 n. 68, 442, 448 n. 22 442 443 439–455, 445, 446, 447 n. 20 447 449, 454

3:8 3:10–11 3:10 3:11–15 3:12 3:13–14 3:15 4:1 4:2 4:6–11 4:10–12 4:11 4:13 5:1 5:2 5:4 5:7 5:8–9 5:14 5:15 5:18 5:20 5:21–25 5:23 5:24 5:27 6:1–7 6:3 6:4–6 6:12 6:13 7–8 7:1–9 7:1–4 7:4–6 7:10–17 7:12–13 7:12 7:14 7:15 7:17 8:1–3 8:2 8:3 8:8 8:10

508 8:11–12 8:14 9:1–4 9:1ff. 9:1 9:2 9:4

source index

9:5–6 9:6 9:7 9:8ff. 9:9 9:10 9:11

397 394 443 382 89 n. 65, 454 n. 53 462 84, 452 n. 39, 454 n. 53 343 343–349 356, 393, 442 398 84 452 426

Obad 1 1:1 1:10–14

393 325 424

Jonah 1:6 2:4–6 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 3:3–4 3:9 4:3

396 485 487 485–487 487 269, 270 n. 47 191–192 396 231 n. 45

Mic 1:8–9 2:1 2:6 2:12 3:1–3:11 3:2 3:5ff. 3:5 3:6–7 3:7 3:8 3:11 4:1–2 4:3–4 4:9 4:10 5:4

386 5 n. 14 387 402 n. 15 394 33 n. 32, 228 n. 24 390 97 n. 18 367 368 382 97, n. 18, 377, 390, 452 183 n. 7 398 443 383 430

5:7 6:6–8 6:8 7:8 7:16ff. 7:18–19 Nah 1:3 1:4 1:10 2:1 2:11

473 394 395 398 398 397

2:12–13 2:13 3 3:3 3:5 3:6–7

129 485 n. 3 85 390 199 n. 30, 200 n. 40, 290 n. 38 449 n. 26 465 393 478 n. 6 165 n. 30, 169, 312 472

Hab 1:14 1:3 1:8 2:3 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:17 3:8 3:10 3:11 3:16

89 413 473 319 n. 1 481 398 312 414 n. 76 443, 485 n. 3 485 n. 4 330 386

Zeph 1:4–6 1:7 1:12 2:3 2:4 2:8–11 2:9 2:11 3:1 3:3 3:8

394 403 n. 17 394 396, 398 418 358 398 398 472 472–473 146 n. 11

Hag 2:21–23

389

source index Zech 1:6 2:15 4:6–7 5–6 7:2–3 7:12 8:8 8:20–23 8:23 9:3–6 9:5–6 9:13 10:2 13:2 13:9 14:9 14:16 14:16–21 14:20

453 398 389 382 390 382 408 n. 44 398 183–186 357 418 155–157 366, 375 388 409 n. 47 183 n. 7 183 n. 7 398 87

Mal 1:4 1:6 1:14 2:10–11 2:10 2:14–15 3:2 3:11 3:16

424 112 n. 3 152 28 n. 6 112 n. 3 28 n. 6 475 23 n. 4 62

Ps 1:5 2:7–8 2:7 2:12 5:4 5:13 7:13 7:16 9:13 10:16 11:3 12:5 16:4 17:17 18:29 20:4 21:5 22:14

105–106 113 113 n. 72 3 n. 4 4 n. 12 81, 83 156 475 133, 286 152 463 190 n. 48 327 485 n. 4 330 251 n. 50 45 n. 12 449

23:4 23:5 24:2 27:7–14 27:10 28:1 29:10 30:4 31:14 31:23 33:7 35:8 37:14 39:14 40:3 40:8 42:3 44:15 45:3 45:8 47:3 48:3 48:14 49:13 49:15 49:16 49:21 50:3 50:10 55:24 56:9 58:10 60:3 63:2 64:4 68:30 68:34 69:9 69:3 69:13 69:16 69:21 69:23 69:24 69:29 71:20 72 72:5–17 72:5 72:17

509 146 n. 9 35 n. 45 485 n. 3 121 121–123 51 n. 2 320 n. 9 270 231 n. 45 228 n. 24, 485 485 n. 4 236 n. 72 156 227 n. 18 270 62 251 n. 44 475 277 n. 28 35 n. 45 152 151–152 26 n. 24 51 n. 2 327 231 n. 45 51 n. 2 129 473 232 62 129 3 n. 4 130 n. 9, 251 n. 44 51 n. 2 149 n. 32 343 28 n. 5 464 463 464 413 n. 73 451 n. 33,34 200 n. 40 61 n. 16, 66 n. 38, 67 270 51 51 51–58 57

510 73:5 73:19 73:23 73:24 76:12 76:13 78:17 78:20 78:38 78:57 79:5 81:6 81:7 82:7 85:6 87:6 88:5 88:13 88:16 89 89:5 89:6 89:27–28 89:27 89:28 89:30 89:37–38 89:38 90:1 90:10 91:3 91:4 91:12 91:16 93:3–4 93:5 95:2 95:3 99:1 99:5 99:6 102:7 102:24 102:25 104:2 104:3 104:6 104:11 104:19 104:20–21

source index 51 n. 2 235 13 n. 19 231 n. 45 149 n. 32 152 304 33 n. 32 4 n. 7, 360 n. 29, 471–572 51 n. 2 3 n. 4 262 462 51 n. 2 3 n. 4 62 51 n. 2 266 232 n. 50 54, n. 17, 113 n. 8 54 n. 17 228 n. 24 117 113 113, 152, 413 n. 72 54, 55 n. 19 51 n. 2, 54 55 n. 19 367 430 451 n. 33 81, 83 82 225 n. 9 485 n. 3 357 460 152 196 n. 7 15 n. 23 391 473 233 233 348 347 485 n. 4 473 56 n. 25 449

104:20 104:21–22 105:31 106:6 106:23 107:25 107:35 109:8 109:13 110:1 110:4 114:1 114:8 119:54 119:120 119:147 120:1 120:4 122:7 123:1 124:7 129:3 132:3 132:7 132:12 136:17 136:18 137:6 137:7 139:16 139:24 140:4 140:13 141:9 143:7 144:12 147:3 148:4 148:8 149:7

473 449 n. 26 237 51 n. 2, 52 392 129 404 n. 21 234 61 n. 16 15 n. 23 13 n. 18, 151 n. 37 260 n. 21, 262 404 n. 21 460 130 329 222 n. 56 51 n. 2 26 n. 24 222 n. 56 451 n. 33 478 n. 6 466 15 n. 23 262 n. 28 151 152 335 n. 9 424 62 327 51 n. 2 101 n. 14 451 n. 33 51 n. 2, 52 n. 3 327 410 n. 52 343 129 478 n. 5

Prov 1:8 1:19 3:2 3:16 3:27–30 4:10 4:16 5:6 5:11

103 n. 30 231 n. 45 225 n. 9 225 n. 9 47 225 n. 9 228 n. 24 236 n. 72 130 n. 9

source index 5:15 5:19 6:9 6:15 6:20 6:22 6:26 6:29 8:27 9:11 9:17 9:18 10:13 10:27 11:13 13:17 19:2 19:18 19:29 20:19 21:8 22:5 23:31 24:3 24:27 24:33 25:3 25:9 25:13 26:3 26:14 29:1 29:21 30:18–19 30:20 31:1–9 31:5 31:8–9 Job 1:19 2:7 2:10 2:11 3:4 3:13 3:24 4:12ff. 4:15

279, n. 44, 310, 312 146 n. 7, 279 n. 44 323 410 n. 52 103 n. 30 323 n. 2 310 303 349 225 n. 9 310 462 478 225 n. 9, 233 453 n. 43 324 n. 10, 325 93 n. 10 313 478 453 n. 43 329 n. 3 83 72 n. 7 481 179 n. 16 323 462 453 n. 43 325 478 323 410 n. 52 232 n. 50 308 247 n. 29, 279 n. 44, 310 99 99–103 101 130 208 n. 17 452 n. 39 409 n. 51, 413 n. 73, 448 n. 22 329 315 n. 4 52 129 129–131

4:19–20 4:19 5:8 5:26 6:12 6:24 7:9–10 7:12 8:13 8:16 9:5 9:20–21 9:21 9:23 9:26 9:30–31 10:4–6 10:5–6 10:8 10:20 10:21 11:8 12:16 14:1 14:2 14:8 14:9 14:12 14:20 14:21 15:13 15:30–33 15:31 15:32 15:33 16:5 16:8 16:22 18:5 18:16 18:19 19:23 20:25 21:13 21:15 22:14 22:15–16 22:28 24:15 24:24

511 236 52 n. 6 103–105 225 443 n. 12 133, 286 265 443 133, 286 52 n. 6 236 93 91–93 235 51 n. 2, 52 475–476 443 n. 13 443 327 234 227 n. 18, 265 462 133, 286 233 226 n. 15, 317 411 n. 59 411 n. 59 315 n. 4, 323 n. 2 198, 227 n. 18, 290 266 317 226 316 226, 315–317 316 409 n. 51 227 n. 21 227 n. 18, 265 330 226 n. 15 57 n. 27 103 n. 29 478 235 n. 65 165 n. 32 349 227 330 467 146 n. 11, 226 n. 15, 317. 464

512 26:10 27:21 29:18 29:20 30:25 31:7 31:10 33:3 33:14–18 33:25 34:20 35:10 36:11–12 36:11 36:13–14 36:14 36:20 37:8 37:18 38:1 38:30 38:39–40 39:15 40:6 40:16 40:17 40:26 40:28–29 42:11 48:27 Song of Songs 1:4 1:6 1:13 1:14 1:16 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:9 2:12 2:15 2:17 3:4 3:5 3:15 4:1

source index 349 129 51 n. 2 157, 306 464 208 n. 17 165 261 n. 24 366 232 n. 50 235 460 236 235 n. 65 232 232 233 449 n. 26 51 n. 2 129–130 485 n. 4 449 n. 26 133, 286 129–130 304 311 n. 63 84 287 413 n. 73 443 n. 12 251–252 252, 282–284, 329 n. 3 93, 249 n. 37 249, n. 37, 282 249 n. 37 83 301 301 301 n. 8 300 301 n. 8 460 251–252, 282, 303 300, 301 n. 8 188, 461 300 300 166 n. 37

4:3 4:5 4:7 4:8 4:12–5:1 4:13 4:14–15 4:15

8:1–2 8:2 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14

166 n. 37, 302 301 n. 8 208 n. 17 449 n. 26, 467 278–280 272 n. 3, 302 275 n. 22 280 n. 48, 312 n. 72 308 247 n. 29, 252 n. 53, 309 313 248 n. 32 161 308 279 n. 43, 280 166 n. 37, 302 188 92–93 280 n. 45, 281, 302 91–93, 281 92 n. 8 481 301 n. 8 482 481–483 301 73 n. 12 281 92–93, 282–283, 302 187 187–189, 300–302 240 n. 5 282 252, 283 281 300, 301 n. 8

Ruth 1:16 2:2 2:17 3:3 4:7 4:11

165 n. 32 464 464 35 n. 45 143, 287 179 n. 16

Lam 1:1 1:7–8

473–474 474–475

4:16 5:1 5:2–6 5:4 5:5 5:15 6:2 6:7 6:9 6:11–12 6:11 6:12 7:1 7:2ff. 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:9 7:10 7:12–14 7:13

source index

513

1:1 1:3–4 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:8

206 209 208, 292 207, 292 210, 292–293 208 n. 20 208 n. 20, 210 n. 28 208 n. 20 208 n. 20, 211, 293 209 n. 22, 292 293 210 n. 28 210, n. 28, 211, 293 209 n. 22, 210 n. 28, 292 208 n. 20 293 150 n. 34, 152 477 n. 2 207 293 197 n. 16 142, n. 17, 149 n. 31, 150 142 n. 27 142 n. 27 293 477 n. 2 201 n. 45, 290 n. 43 290 n. 43 133–137, 176 n. 73, 285 51 n. 2, 142 n. 27 153 294 330 142, 287 51 n. 2, 222 n. 56 197 n. 16 195, 200, 289 195–203, 289–291 196 200 n. 39 197, 210 n. 29, 289 142, 196–197, 210 n. 29, 287, 289, 293 291 202 202

1:15 1:17 2:1 2:2 2:4 2:13 3:12 3:54 4:10 4:18 4:21–22 5:13

164 n. 23 84, 475 15 n. 23 329 156 164 n. 23 156 485 25 n. 14 225 n. 11, 315 424 165

Eccles 1:11 2:16 6:2 7:3 7:6 7:11 7:15 7:17 8:1 8:12 9:5 9:7–8 9:10 9:12 9:14 11:2 12:1 12:12

52 n. 4 51 n. 2, 52 28 n. 5 197 n. 15 85 52 n. 4 53 n. 9 227 198, 290 53 n. 9 266 35 73 n. 10, 266 235 151 430 409 n. 51 130 n. 9

Esth 1:5 1:8 1:18 2:7 2:15 6:1 9:26 9:29–32 9:29

1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:15 1:16 1:18 2:4 2:10 2:23 2:25 2:27 2:31 2:37 2:40 2:42 3:9 3:19 3:24 3:25 3:29

9:31 10:2

315 n. 1 474 209 n. 20 116 116 329 n. 1 140 140 140, 143 n. 32, 189, 288 143, 287 142 n. 27

3: 33 3:47 4 4:12 4:16 4:31 4:33 5:5 5:6 5:8 5:9–10 5:9 5:10

Dan 1–6 1 1:1ff.

285–297 291–294 292 n. 50

5:11–12 5:11 5:12

514 5:13 5:16

source index

6:14 6:19–20 6:20 6:22 7–12 7:7 7:10 7:28 8–12 8:17 8:19 8:23–25 8:26 8:27 9:6 9:10 9:19 9:27 10:6 10:8 10:14 10:16 10:21 11:2–45 11:3 11:4 11:17 11:26 11:27 11:35 11:41 11:45 12:1 12:4 12:8 12:9

207 195–203, 202, 289–291 137, 286 293 139–144, 189, 287–288 207 329 329–331 293 319 142 n. 27 62, 293 197, 210 n. 29, 289 190 n. 49 319 n. 1 258 n. 7 294 319 319 453 453 462 189–190, 288–289 478 n. 6 199, 210 n. 29, 290 319 n. 1 324 62, 293 294 152 129 142 n. 27 210 n. 28 319 n. 1 319 n. 1 358 294 63, 293 294, 319–320 319–320 319–321

Ezra 1:1 2:63 3:2 4:20 4:22 5:11

407 n. 40 367 367 142 n. 27, 152 133 152, 477 n. 2

6:5 6:7 6:8

6:9 7:12 8:20 8:22 9:7 9:11 9:14 10:3 10:44

133 150, 293 n. 59 173 n. 61 198 n. 23 152 453 3 n. 4 207 n. 13 119 n. 47

Neh 12:22f. 13:1ff. 13:14 2:2–3 2:2 2:3 2:6 2:8 3:3 3:6 6:2 6:17–19 6:19 7:5f. 8:18 9:6 9:26 9:30 9:37

63 n. 25 358 63 n. 26 211 n. 30 197 n. 15 197 n. 15 191 347 347 347 448 n. 22 75–76 75–76 63 n. 25 429 343 478 n. 6 370 478 n. 6

1 Chron 2:13–15:12 4:9 9:22 10:3 10:13 12:24 12:32 16:41 17:3–15 17:10–11 17:11 17:12 17:13 17:14 18:2 18:6 21:9 22:10 23:1

430 327 368 147 n. 17 267 n. 23 82 173 n. 61 173 n. 61 54 n. 17 180 n. 22 225 n. 11, 315 54 n. 17 113 54 n. 17 149 n. 32 149 n. 32 368, 372 113 225 n. 10

source index 23:14 25:1ff. 25:5 25: 8 26:8 26:28 28:2 28:11 28:12 28:18–19 29:28 29:29

367 373 368 51 n. 2, 52 207 n. 13 368 15 n. 23 327 327 n. 25 327 n. 25 225 n. 10 368, 372

2 Chron 2:5 2:6 2:13 3:14 4:11 4:16 6:8 6:36 7:9 9:4 9:22–23 9:29 9:29 10:13 11:2–4 11:12 12:15 13:22 14:7 14:10 15:1 15:7 16:1ff. 16:7–10 16:7 16:10 17:10 17:11 19:2–3 19:2 20:14 20:34 21:20 24:15 26:6 26:8 28:15

207 n. 13, 343 482 482 482 87 87 343 3 n. 4 429 343 n. 4 152 368, 373 373 266 372 81 368, 373 373 82 51 n. 2 370 401 n. 12 372 375 368, 371 368 180 148, 149 n. 32 372 368, 371 370 372 227 n. 18 225 n. 10 419 149 n. 32 35 n. 45, 173 n. 61

29:14 29:25 29:30 30:16 31:19 32:15 33:11 33:18 34:11 35:13 35:15 36:22

515 207 n. 13 372 373 367 173 n. 61 478 n. 5 84 368 347 87 368, 370, 373 407 n. 40

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Zephaniah 1:9–11 64 2:14–17 64 Ben Sira 9:10 12:18 13:25 13:26 23:17 25:17 26:12 39:26 45:15 51:34

73 198, 290 198–199 199 310 199 310 72 54 n. 11 150

1 Enoch 8:13 47: 3 81:1f. 103: 2 104:1 104:7 108:3 108:7

203 n. 54 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

1 Esdras 3–4

99 n. 4

Jubilees 2:19–20 30:19–23

118 63

1 Macc 1:11–14

190

516

source index

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa (Hodayot) IX:23–24 X:12–13 XI:32 XII:16 XVI:15 1QIsaa 18 n. 49 27:2 34:5 43:19 48:10 49:7 49:9 49:17 51:3 51:19 53:7 57:20 61:7 1QM xii:3

64–65 486 486 260 n. 20 486

166 n. 35 403 n. 17 404 n. 23 409 n. 47 478 404 n. 25 480 405 n. 27 413 n. 74 412 n. 63 486 n. 6 400 n. 6 64 n. 33

4QIsad 49:7

478

4QLam 1:8

475 n. 63

4QSama 1 Sam 24:14

182

4QSamc 2 Sam 14:25

208 n. 17

11QMel 13, II:19

65 n. 34

11QtgJob 35:6–7 40:31

142 n. 31, 287 86

Damascus Scroll CD–B, 20:19 CD III:3–4

62 n. 22 65 n. 34

Wadi Murabba’at, Mur XIII [88] 8:16 343 n. 1 Bible Translations

1QpHab. vii:12–14

64 n. 33

1QS VII:13–14 VII:13 10:11

248 n. 32 303 64 n. 33

4Q180 3

65

4Q242 [4QprNab ar] 294 4QDana 5:6

200 n. 41

4QDanb 6:20

329 n. 2

4QDibHama (=4Q504) 1–2.iii:4

64 118

4QFlorilegium=4Q174 101 180

LXX Gen 49:26 Lev 24:11 Judg 16:19 1 Sam 9:7 1 Sam 14:37 1 Sam 14:42 2 Sam 2:11 2 Sam 7:11 2 Kings 8:13 Isa 19:10 Isa 27:3 Isa 27:12 Isa 49:7 Isa 49:9 Isa 49:17 Isa 63:8–9 Isa 63:15 Jer 31:13 Jer 33:2 Ezek 28:12 Hos 8:10 Amos 1:11

461 173–174 307 95 367 367 180 n. 22 180 182 463 165 n. 33 464 478 n. 3 404 n. 25 480 325 414 n. 82 405 n. 27 408 n. 42 327 n. 25 147 360 n. 29

source index Amos 3:3 Amos 3:5 Amos 4:2 Amos 9:6 Zeph 3:3 Ps 72:5 Ps 72:17 Prov 6:9 Job 4:15 Job 9:30 Song of Songs 2:12 Song of Songs 7:6 Song of Songs 8:2

448 n. 22 450 81, 83, 87 343 n. 1 473 53 57 23 n. 2 130 475 460 482 187

Aquila Isa 49:17 Isa 7:11 Hos 8:10 Amos 4:2 Amos 3:3 Song of Songs 2:12 Lam 1:8

480 462 147 n. 14 81 448 n. 22 460 475

Symmachus Isa 7:11 Isa 49:17

462 479

Theodotion Hos 8:10 Hos 8:10 Isa 7:11 Isa 49:17 Amos 3:3

147 n. 18 147 n. 18 462 480 448 n. 22

Tg. Onq. Gen 9:9 Gen 9:11 Gen 27:2 Gen 49:26 Exod 3:18 Exod 26:1 Exod 26:31 Exod 36:8 Lev 21:20 Lev 24:11 Deut 1:2 Deut 4:16 Deut 34:7

190 n. 49 190 n. 49 75 n. 4 461 191 326 n. 23 326 n. 23 326 n. 23 311 n. 63 174 n. 63 191 326 n. 23 198

Tg. Jon. Gen 42:16

409 n. 47

517

Gen 49:26 Gen 50:11 Exod 20:4 Exod 26:1 Exod 26:31 Num 31:18 Deut 18:4 Judg 16:13–14 Isa 18:2 Isa 19:10 Isa 34:5 Isa 52:2 Isa 58:8 Isa 62:1 Amos 3:3 Amos 4:2 Zeph 3:3 Zech 13:9 Ps 113:9 Ps 119:120 Ps 119:147 Prov 10:18 Job 3:4 Job 4:15 Job 7:4 Job 16:8 Job 21:13 Lam 2:2 Song of Songs 2:12 Esther 10:3

461 200 n. 42 326 n. 23 326 n. 23 326 n. 23 199 n. 30 201 n. 42 463 86 464 403 n. 17 465 329 329 448 n. 22 81–82 473 409 n. 47 199 n. 30 129 n. 2 329 75 n. 4 329 129 329 228 n. 21 235 n. 65 329 460 329

Tg. Yer. Gen 49:26 Exod 32:25 Num 31:50 Deut 23:25 Deut 26:3 1 Sam 9:7

461 337 337 84 84 95

Tg. Neof. Exod 32:25 Lev 10:9 Num 31:50 Deut 4:16, 23, 25

337 73 337 326 n. 23

Targum Sheni to Esther 1:9 71 6:10 201 n. 42 Vulgate Gen 49:26

461

518

source index

Lev 24:11 1 Sam 9:7 Isa 7:11 Isa 19:10 Isa 27:12 Isa 49:7 Isa 49:17 Ezek 28:12 Amos 4:2 Amos 9:6 Zeph 3:3 Ps 72: 17 Song of Songs 2:12 Song of Songs 7:6 Song of Songs 8:2 Job 9:30 Job 16:8 Dan 6:4

173–174 95 462 463 464 478 n. 3 480 327 n. 25 87 343 n. 1 473 57 460 482 187 475 228 n. 21 137 n. 25

Peshitta Judg 16:19 Isa 19:10 Isa 49:17 Ezek 28:12 Amos 4:2 Zeph 3:3 Job 16:8 Song of Songs 2:12 Song of Songs 8:2 Lam 1:8

307 463 479 327 n. 25 81, 87 473 228 n. 21 460 187 475

Samaritan Lev 24:11

174

New Testament Lk 10: 20

65

1 Cor 15:52

234 n. 63

2 Cor 12:2

344

Phil 4: 3

65

Rev 3: 5 13: 8

65 65

17: 8 20:12 20:15 21: 27

65 65 65 65

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Pe’a 1:1 Ter. 2:6 Ma‘aá. ’. 5:2 ’abb. 6:1 Roà Haà. 1:9 Roà Haà. 16 Yoma 3:2 \ag. 1:2 Ketub. 1:8 Ketub. 5:9 Ketub. 7:6 Soãa 3:4 B. Qam. 9:2 B. Bat. 6:3 Sanh. 7:5 ‘Ed. 2:7 ‘Abod. Zar. 3:3 ’Abot 3:20 ’Abot 4:20 Kelim 11:8 Nid. 9:11 T. Yom 1:1–2 Yad. 4:4

97 n. 18 74 191 333–334 191 66 307 n. 46 97 n. 18 217 309 218 199 n. 30 73 73 174 n. 63 334 n. 4 326 n. 23 66, 67–68 n. 44 73 333 71–72 73 6 n. 24

Tosefta Ter. 4:3 Ter. 4:4 Ter. 6:10 Ter. 9:14 ’ab. 4:6 ’ab. 6:4 PesaÈ. 8:3 Soãa 3:3 MenaÈ. 9:9

72 74 72 n. 8 33 n. 37 334 n. 4 26 n. 25 191 199 n. 30 72

Talmud Yerushalmi Ber. 1, 1, 2d Ber. 8, 2, 5c Pe’a 8, 21d Ter. 8, 5, 45c Ma‘aá. 4, 51b ’ab. 6, 1, 7d ’ab. 8, 1, 11a

235 n. 64 228 n. 22 213 n. 3 73–74 200 n. 41 336 72

source index ’ab. 14, 4, 14d PesaÈ. 2, 7, 29c ’eqal. 47a Ta‘an. 1, 64b Mo‘ed Qaã. 1, 80d Mo‘ed Qaã. 3, 81d Yeb. 6, 7b Ketub. 1, 25c Ketub. 7, 31b–c Soãa 1, 16c Soãa 9, 16, 24c Soãa 2, 1, 20a Sanh. 7, 25 Sanh. 7, 25d Hor. 2, 46d Hor. 3, 1, 47a Bek. 7, 5, 44b Talmud Bavli Ber. 3a Ber. 18b Ber. 58a Ber. 64a ’abb. 10a ’abb. 59 ’abb. 59b ’abb. 62b ’abb. 109a ’abb. 129a ’ab. 139b PesaÈ. 86b Yoma 18a Yoma 75a Roà Haà. 23a Ta‘an. 9b Meg. 13a Meg. 28b \ag 5b Yebam. 114b Yebam. 24b Yebam. 34a Yebam. 61a Yebam. 107b Ketub. 9 Ketub. 10a Ketub. 13a Ketub. 37a Ketub. 47b–48a Ketub. 65b Ketub. 72b

73 73 73 314 213 n. 4 201 n. 45, 291 n. 46 311 213 n. 4, 218 218–219 214 n. 4 334 n. 5 325 n. 17 291 n. 46 201 n. 45 306 325 n. 17 305 219 219 n. 34 213 n. 3 481 194 335 334 310 72 72 72 73 72 309 16 84 311 84 165 227 311 221 n. 47 203 n. 56 203 n. 56 278 278 218 284 33 n. 34 213 n. 5, 279 n. 44, 309–310 218

519

Ketub. 75a Ned. 20b Ned. 50a Nazir 38b Soãa 11b Soãa 49b Soãa 36b Giã. 67b Giã. 69a Giã. 69b Giã. 70a Giã. 76b Qidd. 20a B. Me%. 83a B. Bat. 8a B. Bat. 80b Sanh. 14a Sanh. 29a Sanh. 56a Sanh. 100a Sanh. 135a ‘Abod. Zar. 8b ‘Abod. Zar 30a ‘Abod. Zar. 42b ‘Abod. Zar. 66a Zeba∙. 78b Mena∙. 98a ‘Arak. 10b Ker. 6a Nid. 16b Nid. 64b

73 219 193–194, 335 73 177 n. 5 335 306 73 73 279 n. 40 72 213 n. 5 73 74 148 n. 27 16 7 n. 27 227 173 n. 60 310 334 n. 4 7 n. 27 73–74 326 n. 23 73 72 310 66 72–73 310 305, 310–311

Midrash Rabbah Gen. Rab. 13:13 62:2 73:12 86:6 90:7 100:6

314 228 199 n. 26 309 201 n. 42 201 n. 42

Exod. Rab. 1:32 23:10

310 481 n. 14

Lev. Rab. 34:13

213 n. 3

Num. Rab. 10

126 n. 11

520 Song of Songs Rab. 2:2 6:2

source index

198 n. 25, 290 228

Lam. Rab. 2:19

235 n. 64

Esther Rab. 1:12

79 n. 13

Midrash Tan·uma 5 169–170

126 n. 12 334 n. 4

Sifre Num 8 Deut 39

199 n. 30 486

Yalqut Shim‘oni Esther 1:9 859

71 n. 2 486

’Abot R. Nat. Version A, chap.6 334 n. 6 Version B, chap.12 335 Midrash Abba Gurion Esther 1:9 71 Midrash Alpha-Beta de Rabbi ‘Aqiba III:13 486–487 Non-Rabbinic Literature Sword of Moses 44:3

73 n. 8

42:21–22

28 n. 7

AbB 1, 105:2 5, 35:3 5, 160:r.6

224 181 n. 1 181 n. 1

ABL 76:10 353:7 454:18 521:6–7 545 771:5 831:5 992:r.15 1285:13–14 1289: r.4

224 224 181 181 67 181 181 181 181 181

AfO 8, 22, v:12–13 8, 184:28 9, 244, iii:20–24 12, 24:3–10 14, pl. 11:11, 17 (Etana) 14, 142:43–44 14, 146:19 17, 279–280:56–58 17, 280–281:61–63 17, 287:104 18, 66, iii:17 19, 54:212–213 19, 66:8 19, 66:10 29–30, 9, ii:9

305 135 55 26 n. 25 270 n. 47 345 197 n. 15 174–175 175 170 n. 48 237 14 n. 21 14 n. 21 307 269 n. 44

4R 11: r.48 4R 20+ 4R 56 i:8 5R 50:52

61 n. 14 254 57 n. 29 131

Alster, “Marriage and Love in the Sumerian Love Songs,” The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo 15:21–23 (CBS 8530) 242–243 15:23–26 302

AASOR 16 23 23:12–13 30 33 42

29 29 n. 12 29 29 n. 12 29 n. 12

AMT 3:2 31:1 40, 5:8 46:3 57, 1:7

Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite Texts

131 131 n. 13 213 131 n. 13 73

source index 59:1 66, 1:5 72, 2:8

131 n. 13 74 n. 15 156 n. 6

Ana itti$u 3, iii:47–50

31

AnSt 6, 150ff. (Poor Man of Nippur) 150:8 197 n. 15 154f. 207 n. 15 AnSt 8 46, i:12 46, i:17 48, ii:23

185 n. 20 185 185 n. 20

AO 8196 iv:20–22 344 AOAT 5/I 96:5ff. 98:28, r.2 ARM 1, 5:10 1, 18:22–24 1, 18:28–29 1, 54: r.7 1, 83:10 2, 50:9 2, 124:21 2, 139:15–16 3, 22:40 6, 26:r.8’–9’ 7, 249 8, 1:1–3 8, 1:9 8, 1:15–16 9, 56:1 10, 7:11 10, 12:15 10, 18:r.11’ 10, 43:9 10, 61:1 10, 80:22 10, 82:7 10, 107:10 10, 125:4–6 10, 125:9–10 10, 125:15 10, 125:17 10, 126 10, 126:12–15

56 n. 24 56 181–183 178 178 209 n. 23 208 n. 16 81 76 n. 8 82 n. 5 209 n. 24 185 82 115 n. 20 115 115 72 283 209 n. 21 209 n. 21 229 n. 30 209 n. 21 283 209 n. 21 283 206, 292 n. 50 292 n. 50 206, 292 n. 50 206, 292 n. 50 205–211, 291–292 292

10, 126:17–18 10, 126:18–19 10, 129:19 10, 129:19 10, 131:4 13, 23 13, 56:4 13, 101:18 13, 114 14, 132:3 26, 206 26, 249:40–41 26, 414 26, 424:28

521 292 292 174 n. 66 174 n. 66 72 375 82 117 375 72 375–376 311 375 311 n. 63

ArOr 37, 484:37–38 (Exaltation of Ishtar) 346 ASJ 14, 8:3–6

301

Aula Orientalis 5 26 5, 29

310 312

Baghdader Mitteilungen 3, 27:47 68–69 BAM 152 iii:10 248 ii:5 248 ii:66 298:r.13 319:4

73 201 n. 46 201 n. 46 307 n. 46 197 n. 15

BE 6, 2 24:6 14 124:5–8 17 5:20

118 78 73

Biggs, ’À.ZI.GA 22:1–3 26:4–5 30:18–19 31:48–32:1 31:48 37:3 70:1–10 70:7–10 71:22, 25 75:4–5

300 300 216 n. 24 300 304, 306 305 302 222 215 302

522 BIN 2, 75:5 7, 44:19 7, 187:3

source index

116 n. 25 104 n. 27 118

BiOr 30, 164:11–12 207 n. 15 Boisser, Choix de texts divinatoires, II, 31, 10 61 n. 17 Borger, Asarhaddon (AfO Beiheft 9) 9:11 13 12:13–14 19 n. 58 15:2–11 62 n. 19 45:ii:5 225 n. 11 80:18 13 102:1–4 196, 290 n. 39 105, i:32 316 106, 24 170 n. 48 115:7–10 19 119:12–14 19 n. 56 BR 6, 4:7 6, 5:7 BRM 2, 36:9 4, 18:3, 13 4, 19:10 4, 20:21 4, 20:57

117 117

117 117 117 117 224 106 n. 43 60 n. 11 235 226 237 215 226 n. 17 217 n. 26 247 n. 32 273

Cyrus Cylinder (Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden) 2:12 13 n. 19 Dialogue of Pessimism (Lambert, BWL, 139–149) 144:30 178 145:37–38 178 Dynastic Prophecy iv:7–9 294

78 231 n. 45 221 221 127 n. 13

Chiera, Sumerian Epics and Myths (=SEM) 19, i:31–32 215 19, ii:26–27 215 Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts I, 31:9 192 I, 54, iv:18 185 CT 8, 49a 15, 45:36 15, 47:r. 33 16, 10, iv:42 17, 37:1ff. 20, 26:5 22 37:15 27, 6: r. 1

29, 7a 29, 10 29, 11 29, 17–18 31, 36:9 31, 50:21 34, 20:50 38, 17:96 38, 28:29 38, 42:40 39, 44:18–20 40, 40:71 42, 23 A 58, 13:6–7 58, 13:24–29

117 226 265 n. 11 268 264 n. 7 191 73 214

Ebeling, Handerhebung 30:7 184 92:9–10 186 124:13 68 n. 45 Erra II:12 III:12 IV:8 IV:12 IV:101

135 286 156 n. 6 136 122 n. 6

EG 7:67 45:4–5 68:7

304 118 116 n. 25

Enuma Elish I:99–102 IV:36 IV:101 IV:138 IV:139–140

254–255 156 n. 7 305 347 348

source index IV:145–146 V:11 VI:56 VI:138

344 346 197 n. 16 469 n. 45

Falkenstein, UVB 15, 36:15 346 Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden 8:4–10 31 16 30 n. 17 74:5 28 n. 7 178:15 28 n. 7 Gilgamesh I iv:21 I:163–164 I:164, 172 VI:6–9 VI:6 VI:7–8 VI:13–15 VI:23 VI:67–69 VI:67 VI:68–69 VI:68 VI:69 VI:73 VI:86 VI:88 VI:91 VIII:1 VIII:64 VIII:90 VIII:206 X iii:1–4 (OB) X vi:10–12 X vi:39–40 XI:48 XI:97 XI:170 XI:196 XI:201 XI:207 XI:210–211 XI:215–218 XI:217 XI:225 XI:246 XI:271–276

300 308 312 246–247 220, 221 n. 52 220 246–147 220 221 246 n. 28 246–247 304 246 n. 27, 302 229 n. 30 229 n. 30 22, 330 229 n. 30 330 330–331 330 330 223 232 225 330 330 179 n. 13 231 n. 45 7 7 7 8 150 8 n. 30 8 n. 30 254 n. 6

XII:50 XII:80 XII:84

523 268 264 n. 8 264 n. 8

Frankena, “Nouveaux fragments de la sixième tablette de l’épopée de Gilgameà,” Gilgameà et sa légende 120, ii:35 247 n. 31 Grant, Cuneiform Documents in the Smith College Library, 260:10–11 118 n. 43 Gudea Statue B vii:42–43 100–101 Cylinder A iii:6f. 123 n. 13 Cylinder B v:14–15 276 Goodnick Westenholz, “A Forgotten Love Song,” Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner 415–425 i:7’ 272 n. 2 415–425 i13’–15’ 313 Hirsch, AfO Beiheft 3 27:9 136 27:13 136 n. 21 Hittite Laws (HL) 48 50–52 50–51 50 54–56 56 95 99 167 178 178–183 181–186 185:15 185A

41 n. 12, 42 n. 17 41 n. 12,18 42 n. 17 41 41 n. 12 42 n. 17 170 170 41 n. 12 41 n. 12 42 41 n. 12 42 n. 18 42

HSS 5, 7:17 5, 60:14–15 9, 22:16–17 19, 88:14

115 115 115 117

524

source index

Hurowitz, Studies Greenfield, 545:16

312

IKA 146:9

69

Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld 82–83 265 284–288 268 Iraq 14, 44:143 18, 126:21 25, 86–100 33 27, 4, ii:3 27, 6:26 47, 4:15

2 284:75

73

KAJ 1:16 2 4 6:6–7 167:4 200:1

117 117 117 117 116 72 74 221 272 n. 1 272 n. 1 68 n. 45 311 313 250 249–250 250 249 313 277 277 277 131 215 199 n. 31 131 n. 11 344 452 n. 39 106 n. 43 240 n. 5 131 n. 13

JAOS 103, 205:9 103, 212:7

18 n. 53 430–431

KAR 60 r.:6 61 61:8–10 69:4–5 109:23 144:r.4 158 r.ii:7 158 r.ii:10 158 r.ii:20 158 r.ii:21 158 r.ii:29 158 r.ii:31 158, vii:26 158, vii:28 158, vii:35 202:17 211:20 226:5 267:12ff. 307:30–33 384 r:11 423 r.i:54 472 ii:3 477:3

JCS 12, 34 12, 126:47–48 21, 4:26 25, 191:180–186

6 n. 24 186 131 307 n. 49

KB 1 108:88–89 109:89 188:2 190:1

16 16 19 n. 58 19 n. 58

JEN 4, 333:30

102 n. 18

KB 4 44:7 44:11 138:21

32 32 61 n. 12

KBo 1, 12 r.:11–12 1, 3:24 2 19 i:25–30

136 n. 23 115 306

ISET I, 24. r.:10–18 I, 61:11–13 I, 74:5 II, 16, iii:7–11 II, 878

324 18 101 331 n. 13 345 275 273 69 273–274 274 n. 16

I$tar’s Descent to the Netherworld 5–6 265 r.5 268 r.56–58 268 Izre'el, Adapa and the South Wind, 21: 61’–65’ 35 n. 46

JNES 33, 332:40–41 42, 12:4’ 42, 12:16’ KAH 2, 91:9

246 n. 27 321 321 18 n. 53

source index King, Babylonian Boundary Stones 5 iii:40 234 8 iii:30 233 8 iv:20 233 11 iii:8–9 233 47 iv:7–11 56 n. 25 Kinnier Wilson, Etana 64, I/G:2 346 66:10’ 346 Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, VAB 2, 357:78 265 n. 11 Köcher, Keilschrifttexte zur assyrischbabylonischen Drogen- und Pflanzenkunde 9 32b iii:10 213 22 II 4 311 n. 63 Kramer, PAPS 107 509:26–30 216 521: r.ii 240 n. 4 Kraus, AfO Beiheft 3 6:6 231 11b viii 4–5 311 KUB 4, 48 i 18–19 125 n. 2 Küchler, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der assyrischbabylonischen Medizin Pl. 5 iv:59 207 n. 15 Pl. 9 ii 312 Pl. 13:59 207 n. 15 Pl. 20:51 207 n. 15 Labat, TDP 8:18 26:32 80:3 80:5 162:61 206:77 220:21 222:41

236 131 n. 13 91 91 n. 4 91 n. 3 200 91 n. 3 201 n. 46, 290 n. 44

Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (BWL) 100:28 136 102:85–86 220

110–115 216:17 216:29 218:15 21814 239–240:50–63 241:40–42 242:14 255:8

525 99 125 n. 2 125 125 107 297 n. 70 440 n. 5 312 312

Lambert, Unity and Diversity 104:ii9 277 104:ii14 277 108:19 178 108:24 178 Langdon, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften 21 ii:37 347 31:7 224 n. 4 90 i 22 72 92 ii 32 72 100 ii:23–25 60 110 iii:25 185 120 iii:52 347 122:23–27 20 128 iii:55 191 140 x:13 347 142 i:14 13 n. 12 142 ii:7 185 148 iii:15–18 15 158 vi:38 191 n. 54 176 x:17 103 214:20 13 n. 11 218:1–5 20 234:15 13 247:16 103 251 i:8 325 266 ii:16 106 n. 43 267 iv:35 225 n. 11 276 i:26 316 276 iv:35 316 288 xi:32 106 291 iii:7 214 Laws of Eshnunna (LE) 8 41–42 9 31 n. 22, 42 n. 16 12 42 n. 18 13 42 16 42

526 17 19 32 32:11 32:13 35:12 35:22 41–52 43 51–52

source index 42 42 n. 18 31 116 n. 28 116 n. 28 116 116 42 n. 18 42 42 n. 17

Laws of Hammurapi (LH) xxivb:6–8 38 n. 3 xxvib:65–72 234 xxvib:70–72 234 1:32–34 99 n. 5 5:17–18 38 n. 3 1:37–39 101 5:13–16 102 25:57–59 220 36 41, n. 12, 42 n. 17 39 41 n. 12, 42 n. 17 40 41, 42 n. 17 115:33–34 228 116 161 129 171 n. 51 130–132 171 n. 51 133 284 142 283 142:61 304 143 284 148:79 179 n. 15 150:17 315 n. 6 154:69 188–189 155–156 171 n. 51 155:75 189 156:6 189 157:19 315 n. 6 158:25 315 n. 6 170:45 114 176:81 179 n. 15 178 31–32 185:34–35 116 186:41 116 187 41 n. 12, 42 n. 17 190:67–68 116 191:80–82 179 n. 13 191:80 179 192:6–7 115 194 162 n. 16 195 161

205 210 218 226 228:57–58 229:66 229:69 230 232:87 233:94 253

170 161 161 n. 7 161 n. 7 179 n. 15 179 n. 15 179 n. 15 161 179 n. 15 179 n. 15 161 n. 7

Laws of Lipit–Ishtar (LI) 1:25 99 n. 5 27 30 28 28 n. 8, 30 148 30 Laws of Ur-Nammu (LU) 112–113 100 162–167 100 Lehmann, §ama$$umukin König von Babylon 7:6–8 19 10:23 60 Letter of Gilgame$ (AnSt 7, 128:4; AnSt 30, 109:4) 347 Lie, The Inscriptions of Sargon II, I, 82:6 224 LIH 2, 97:88–92 2, 98:89f. 2, 99:89f.

70 70 70

Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars 61:11 320 68–69:5 320 Livingstone, SAA 3 34, 37:18 305 35:5 301 n. 8 37:r.20 308–309 n. 52 37:r.30 308–309 n. 52

source index LKA 2:7–8 37:6 146 146:9

83 n. 14 231 60 n. 5 59

LKU 32:13 33:24–26

25 25–26

LTBA 2, 2:210

68

Lu II iii:27’ Lu Excerpt I:183 Lu Excerpt II:19

269 269 269

Luckenbill, OIP 2 24:25 25:51–52 28:20–21 33:25 41:r.13 51:29 110:36–37 116 viii:76 117:3 127:3–6 241 v:21

17 17 17 17 228 17 n. 44 16 73 19 323 306

Ludlul (Lambert, BWL, 21–62) 40:39 225 44:104 201 n. 47 44:104 290 44:91 200 60:83 61 n. 17 60:95 72 Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s, Königs von Assyrien 12:74 37 14:28 192 18:95–97 37 pl. 11:72 260 n. 17 pl. 18:92–93 260 n. 17 MAD 5 8:6–9 8:12 8:17–18

276 311 n. 60 276

527

MAOG 10/1, 27 8. n. 30 12/2, 14, iii–iv:7–8 230 MARI 7, 43–45, A.1968

376

MDP 2, 17, iii:27–29 10, 11 ii 25 10, 11 iii:31 14, 55 iii:9

233 220 103 127

Meier, AfO Beiheft 2 II:16 236 III:51 307 Meissner, Beiträge 93:11 96:4 97:5

115 116 n. 25 118 n. 43

Message of Lú-dingir-ra: 35 275–276 Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) A1 175 A2 175–176 A4 168–172 A 2:14–16 135 A5 170 A 7–8 163 n. 19 A7 162 A8 160–164 A9 163 n. 17 A 12 284 A 14–16 159 A 15 170–171 A 18 159, 176 n. 75 A 20 159 A 21 159 A 24 170 A 36:86 32 A 40 41, 42 n. 17, 164– 168, 170 A 40:42–45 42 n. 18 A 40:63–65 42 n. 18 A 41 41 n. 12 A 41:6–10 42 n. 18 A 42–43 34 n. 40 A 43:21 27 n. 3 A 46:99 28 n. 8

528 A 47 A 47:7–13 A 50–52 A 50 A 55–56 A 55 A 57–59 A 58–60 A 59 A 61–62 A 68–76 A 89–93 B6 B8 F2 F2 N1 N 1:2–3 N2 N 2:6–7 MIO 12, 48:9–10, 51 12, 50:14

source index NBN 247:11 279:8

41 n. 12 42 n. 18 159 161 159 161 41 n. 12 42 n. 18 170 42 n. 18 42 n. 18 42 n. 18 41 n. 12 163 n. 17 41 n. 12 42 n. 17 176 n. 75 135 n. 16 176 n. 75 135 n. 16

Nergal and Ereshkigal (Gurney, AnSt 10, 108ff.) I:16 346 n. 25 I:53 346 n. 25 II:42 346 IV:26 346 n. 25 V:13 346 n. 25 V:42 346 n. 25 VI:18 346 n. 25 NRVGL 95

280 n. 45 299

118 n. 43 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 115 115 115 115 117 117 265 n. 11 157 n. 9 156 n. 6, 157 n. 9 72 n. 5 68

MVAG 23/1, 50, 109:22

117

OB Lu A:357, 359 269 OB Lu C4:4 269

MÊ$arum – Edict of Ammi%aduqa (Finkelstein, “Some New Misharum Material and Its Implications,” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His SeventyFifth Birthday, April 21, 1965) 234:50–54 101 MSL 1, 3 III:61 1, 3 IV:3 1, 3 IV:6 1, 7 III:24 1, 7 III:30 1, 7 III:34 1, 7 III:42 1, 111:28–29 3, III:28–29 5, IV:93 6, 89:78 6, 109:63 8/2, 8:28 13, 118:132

72–73 72

68 n. 45

OECT 1, pl. 13 4, 154 x 12

310 72

OLZ 7, 39

32

Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East 329 r. ii:12 155 323, i y+15 231–232 Or 23, 338:8 46, 201:12 46, 201:15–16 60, 339–343:11 60, 340:11 69, 349:18

26 n. 23 311 n. 60 312 303 246 n. 27 246 n. 27

PBS 1/II 104:r.10 (Nungal Hymn) 59–60, 69 1/II 113 i:2 57 n. 29 8/II 28 32, 34 8/II 48 32 8/II 48:31 34 8/II 116:8–9 32 8/II 116:11 32 8/II 153:19–20 32, 34 10/IV 8:4 68 12/I 52:ii–r.i 240–242

source index

529

Peiser, Babylonische Vorträge des Berliner Museum 91:15 102

Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros des Grossen 508, iii:29’ 337 n. 23

Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents 48:4–5 141 n. 25

Scheil, Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Perse, XXIV 332:17–18 34 332:r.18 34 333:13–15 34 333:r.16 34

Pract. Voc. As. 18, 340:9 183 187

74 74 n. 15 73

PRAK 472, i:6’–14’ 245–246 PRU 3, 64:3–4 3, 55:5–6 3, 71:10 3, 75:5–6

117 117 n. 32 117 n. 32 117 n. 32

RA 12, 8:r.8 18,163:r.17 21, 10:1–4 21, 10:15–16 26, 104–107 27, 142:4 38, 83:5 42, 130:37–38 49, 182:3–4 79, 146:31–32

103 25 207 n. 14 207 n. 14 32 236 105 n. 42 88–89 280 n. 45 308

Reiner, §urpu, AfO Beiheft 11 27:78–80 61 n. 13 96 76 n. 7 IV:42–44 270 n. 47 V–VI:183 202 Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, I, 26:157 18 RS XV, 92:5–6 XVI, 295 XVI, 344 SBAW 287, iii16–19 828, iii:11

117 n. 32 117 n. 32 117 n. 32 102 102

Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivilund Prozessrechts 8:28–29 116 n. 28 19:33–34 33 n. 33 19:35 33 29:5 118 65:15 33 78:7 33 n. 33 83:6–8 116 n. 28 125:12 33 146:16 118 n. 43 223:7 33 242:6 33 n. 33 Sefati, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature 130:21–22 301 n. 8 130:28 301 166:1–4 301 353–359:9–13 243–244 360–364:18–22 244 Shamash Hymn (Lambert, BWL) 128:37–38 254 n. 6 130:88 221 132:114–115 229 132:116–117 229–230 136:171–173 253–254 Sommer and Falkenstein, Die hethitischakkadische Bilingue des Hattu$ili I 1:2–4 114 1:14 115 1:37 114 SRT 5:39–40 31:21–22 31:27–29

240 248 n. 32 275

530

source index

Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner 30:9 346 Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cyrus 337:17 103 378:1 191 n. 55 378:10 191 378:33 191 428:2 191 n. 55 Streck, Assurbanipal 1:22 2:1–5 2:3 4:22 8 i:62 24, iii:2 38 iv:69 46:61 56 vi:77 70:59 100:32 100:68 110:2 170:46 178:15 228:18 240:18 242:44–45 246:58–60 246:73–74 256:18 252–254:1–6 260 ii:17 262:27 275:15–16 347:21

143 19 19 n. 58 288 325 192 n. 58 135 n. 17 17 192 14 n. 19 14 n. 19 14 n. 19 14 n. 19 16 n. 40 225 n. 11, 316 54 54 54 16 n. 40 54 321 19 n. 57 155 184 60 n. 9 60

Gurney, Finkelstein, and Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets 24:6 290 25:6’ 198 38:102 207 n. 15 38:134 207 n. 15 38:155 207 n. 15 65:11–12 230 136:43 307 n. 46 360: r.16 192 400:45 231

Studia Biblica et Orientalia, III: Oriens Antiquus, AnBib 12 283:33–35 261 n. 24 Studies Unger 191:25

185

Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III 158:4’ 347 194:4’ 347 TCL 1, 10:25 1, 29:39 3, 39:11 3, 82 6, 51:13f. 7, 75:8–9 17, 15:12 17, 29:21 17, 38:r.9 18, 94:7 18, 122:21 18, 153:21

104 174 n. 68 220 191 305 104 220 118 283 283 220 118

Theodicy (Lambert, BWL) 63:9–11 121–122 70:15 197 n. 18 74:64 228 Thompson, The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon 77:3 260 Thureau-Dangin, Rituals accadiens 77:45 6 n. 20 79:29, 32 207 n. 15 TIM 9, 14

274 n. 16

TIM 9, 54 (Livingstone, SAA 3, 36–37) 54:13–18 276–277 54:20 247 n. 29 54:30 247 n. 29 54:r. 20 280 54:r. 30 280 n. 50 Texte und Materialien (Krückmann) 3, 24: iii4–9 244–245

source index UET 1, 146, iii:6 1, 146, iv5–7 4, 1:15 5, 92:8 5, 96:4 6, 2:4 6, 72:3 6, 101:5 6, 101:51f. 6, 101:52 6, 101:51f. Ugaritica 5, 21:3 5, 173 5, 226:4–6

Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings 72: r.19 192

259 259 117 118 n. 43 118 n. 43 59, 69 69 69 59, 68 69 59

Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon 33:23–24 143 33:64–65 288 33:286–287 143 67:511–512 107 73:582 451 n. 34 1105:r.8–12 56 n. 25

117 n. 32 117 117 n. 32

UM 29–15–179:2’f 310 Ungnad, Babylonische Briefe aus der Zeit der Hammurapi Dynastie 80, letter 90 104 164:9–11 117 Urukagina, Cones B and C, XII:23–25 100 VAT 7847+AO 6648, rev. C 279 n. 44 VS 6, 38:9 7:10–11 8, 127:17–19 8, 127:17–18 8, 127:24–25 15, 24:3 15, 24:9–10 15, 26:17

102 n. 18 114 115 115 115 78 78 61 n. 12

Virolleaud, L’astrologie chaldéene, Supp. Ishtar 40:20 305 Weidner, AfO Beiheft 12, 54:1–3 18 Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien 2:24–26 114 n. 13 Wiseman, Alalakh 16:3

531

115

Winckler, Die Keilinschrifttexte Sargons 33:104–107 418 36:192 261 n. 24 40:145–146 261 n. 24 43:72 260 42:253 17 48:280 17 58–60:359–360 14 n. 21 70:419 16 76:440 17 90:72 16 72:9 230 122–124:134–135 14 128:158–159 16 132:183–185 17 144:31–32 16 WO 1, 398:37–38 2, 40:17–18

88–89 15 n. 30

YBC 4658:13

59, 69

YOS 1, 43:18 1, 95 2, 10, 92:96 2, 13f., 50:9 2, 50:6 3, 142:34 7, 90:15 8, 120:4–5 8, 152 9: 35:148–154 9, 35:148–150 9, 36:108 10, 11, iii1–2 10, 36, iv:9

233–234 n. 58 106 n. 42 104 104 116 83 89 118 116 n. 25 55–56 51 n. 2 224 232 76 n. 9

532

source index

ZA 6, 242:11–12 320 n. 7 32, 174–175: r. 58–50 280 n. 45 56, 116:7–8 302 75, 198:16–17, 19 310 75, 198:18 311 Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion 52:12 265 n. 11 116:8 61 n. 12 124:5 61 n. 13 ZVRW no. 2 no. 3 no. 5 no. 7

117 n. 35 117 n. 38 28 n. 7 116 n. 26

46:4 60:1 60:5

203 n. 54 203 n. 54 203 n. 54

KAI I 266:1 266:2–3

153 54–55

Lemaire, Nouvelles Tablettes Araméennes, 33–41 337 Lizbarski, Ginzaa: Der Schatz oder das grosse Buch der Mandäer 428:22 227 n. 19 Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur 7:13 203 n. 54 34:10 203 n. 54

Aramaic Ahiqar XI:171–172 85–86 169

186 n. 34 226 222 n. 56

Bar Rakib Inscription (KAI I, 216) 1ff. 77–78 1–4 153 9–10 150 n. 34 13–14 150 n. 34 BMAP 2:3–4 7:4 7:22 7:25 8:5

114 n. 10 114 n. 10 114 n. 10 114 n. 10 114

Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. 10:16–17 27 n. 4 30:10–11 323 n. 3 Delaporte, Épigraphes araméens 8–18 141 n. 20 19 141 n. 21 Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls 36:5 203 n. 54

Sefire Treaty I B:7 III:4

150 n. 34 62 n. 18

Zakir Inscription (KAI I, 202) 13–14 406 n. 32 11–12) 368 Ugaritic KTU2 1.2.IV:11–12 1.2.IV:14–17 1.2.IV:22 1.2.IV:24–25 1.2.IV:27 1.2.IV:29–30 1.2:37–38 1.3.III:32–35 1.4.III:44 1.4.IV.38 1.4.V:61–62 1.4.VII:17–18, 25–27 1.4.VII:25–27 1.5.V:8–9 1.5.V:19–21 1.5.VI:11–14 1.5.VI:25 1.6.I:7–8 1.6.I:50–52

487 n. 12 385 n. 3 385 n. 3 385 n. 3 385 n. 3 385 n. 3 149 n. 32 195, 290 n. 41 72 n. 7 72 n. 7 23 23 24 430 126, 430 164 n. 26 265 n. 11 265 n. 11 51 n. 2

source index 1.6.II:9–11 1.6.II:14 1.6.II:27 1.6.VI:45–48 1.10.II:20 1.12.II:44–45 1.13 1.13:24–25 1.13:31 1.14.I:8–9 1.14.III:4–5 1.14.III:20 1.14.III:29–30 1.14.III:33 1.14.IV:38–39 1.14.IV:47–48 1.14.V:41–42 1.14.VI:11–12 1.15.II:6 1.15.II:23–24 1.15.IV:8–9 1.15.IV:19–20 1.16.I:14–15 1.16.I:37 1.16.II:36–37 1.17.I:38–40 1.17.I:4–5 1.17.I:14–15 1.17.VI:13 1.17.VI:28–29 1.17.VI:34–38 1.17.VI.36–37 1.19.I:42–44 1.23:13 1.23:16 1.23:28 1.23:33–35 1.23:37 1.23:46–47 1.24:38–39 1.72:28 1.87:4–5 1.92:23 1.108:4–7 1.108:25–27 1.113:13’–26’ 1.161:21–22 1.169:11–12 2.23:23–24 2.42:9 3.1:18

187 n. 34 361, 471 361, 471 264 n. 7 53 n. 9 315 248 n. 32 313 302–303 430 474 325 474 325 300 474 474 474 361 n. 34 430 474 474 251 n. 49 330 n. 6 251 n. 49 304 194 194 306 n. 40 52 223–224 8 n. 31 430 361 n. 34 361 n. 34 361 n. 34 248 n. 32 248 n. 32, 302 302 53 n. 9 16 n. 40 482 n. 18 282 n. 58 153 n. 46 56 264 n. 7 265 n. 11 261 n. 23 150 n. 34 153 n. 46 149 n. 32

3.1:24–26 3.1:25–26 3.1:43 3.213:4 3.213:6 3.213:9 3.213:11 3.213:14 3.213:16 3.213: 20 3.213: 22 4.91:14 4.99:6 4.114:8 4.123:9 4.126:25 4.158:20 4.609:12

533 149 n. 32 150 n. 34 150 n. 34 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 73 n. 12 149 n. 32 451 n. 33 451 n. 33 149 n. 32 451 n. 33 16 n. 40 282 n. 58

North-West Semitic Ammonite Tell Siran Inscription: 6–8 (Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age, 35–44) 319 n. 1 Hebrew Gezer Calendar: 6 460 Lachish Letters 2:4 5:4 6:3

181 n. 1 181 n. 1 181 n. 1

Samarian Ostraca 1:2–3 3:2–3 5:3 9:3 12:3–4 13:3 14:3

73 n. 11 73 n. 11 73 n. 11 73 n. 11 73 n. 11 73 n. 11 73 n. 11

Moabite Mesha Inscription (KAI I, 30): 15–17 361 Phoenician Ahiram Inscription (KAI I, 2) 61 n. 16

534

source index

Arslan Tash Incantation (KAI I, 27):17–18 431 Azitawadda Inscription (KAI I,26) A I:12 116 A IV:2–3 54 C V:5–6 54 CIS II 3946:1 II 3971:2 II 2971:6

150 n. 34 150 n. 34 150 n. 34

Eshmunazor Inscription KAI I, 14 2–3 228 9 152 12 228 KAI I 46, 233:9

143, 287

Kilamuwa Inscription (KAI I, 24):5–6 152

Transjordanian, Gileadite Deir Alla Inscription, first combination: 6–7 330 Greek and Roman Texts Anabasis, III v 15

79 n. 12

Dawe, Sophoclis Tragoediae, II, 92:896 229 n. 27 Diodorus of Sicily §I:78:4–5 171 n. 53 Diogenes Laertius 2.46

Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 523, fragment 506 68 n. 46 Ovid, Amores, I, xv:16

57 n. 29

Josephus, AgAp 1.21 357 Josephus, Ant. 10.11, 1

Ma‘sub Inscription (KAI I, 19):5–6 152 Tabnit Inscription (KAI I, 13) 3–4 4 5–6 5 6–7

Strabo XV, 3, 22

74

Xenophon, Cyropedia, VIII, vi 22 79 48 268 n. 30 48 445 n. 16, 268 n. 30 268 n. 30

273 n. 5

Qur’an Sura 55:5–6

459–460

357

‫‪535‬‬

‫‪lexeme and expression index‬‬

‫‪LEXEME AND EXPRESSION INDEX‬‬ ‫הל"ך אל‬ ‫זמיר‬ ‫זעם לשונם‬ ‫זע"ף‬ ‫חיק‬ ‫חצ"י ימים‬ ‫חת"ם‬ ‫יד‬ ‫יד"ע‬ ‫יין חלבון‬ ‫ימים מעטים‬ ‫יע"ד‬ ‫יר"י משפט‬ ‫ירך‬ ‫כח‬ ‫כרכרות‬ ‫כרם‬ ‫כרמל‬ ‫כת"ב ְלבן‬ ‫לא יד"ע נפש‬ ‫ֶל ֶחם‬ ‫למ"ד‬ ‫לעג‬ ‫לפני‬ ‫לפני ירח‬ ‫לק"ח לבת‬ ‫לק"ט‬ ‫ְל ַקיֵּם‬ ‫מבלי משֹים‬ ‫ַמ ֲה ָלְך‬ ‫מוקש‬ ‫ְמ ֻח ָקּק‬ ‫מל"א‬ ‫מל"א ימים‬ ‫מל"א קשת‬ ‫מל"א שנה‬ ‫מלאך‬ ‫ֶמ ֶלך‬ ‫מלך גדול‬ ‫מלך ירב‬ ‫מלך עולם‬

‫‪126–127‬‬ ‫‪460‬‬ ‫‪258–262‬‬ ‫‪211 n. 30‬‬ ‫‪308‬‬ ‫‪232–233‬‬ ‫‪319–321‬‬ ‫‪247 n. 32, 302–303‬‬ ‫‪309‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪234‬‬ ‫‪27 n. 3‬‬ ‫‪37–38‬‬ ‫‪311‬‬ ‫‪304‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪282–283, 303‬‬ ‫‪482–483‬‬ ‫‪118‬‬ ‫‪92–94‬‬ ‫‪309–310‬‬ ‫‪188–189‬‬ ‫‪260–262‬‬ ‫‪51–52‬‬ ‫‪52–53‬‬ ‫‪116‬‬ ‫‪280‬‬ ‫‪142–143, 287‬‬ ‫‪236‬‬ ‫‪190–192‬‬ ‫‪449–451‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪316–317‬‬ ‫‪315–317‬‬ ‫‪155–157‬‬ ‫‪315‬‬ ‫‪325‬‬ ‫‪250–251‬‬ ‫‪151‬‬ ‫‪150‬‬ ‫‪152‬‬

‫ֻדּה‬ ‫ֲאג ָ‬ ‫אוֹן‬ ‫אכ"ל‬ ‫אלהים‬ ‫אר"י‬ ‫ארמון‬ ‫ְבּ ֵאר‬ ‫בדמי ימים‬ ‫בור‬ ‫בית החרף‬ ‫בית הקיץ‬ ‫ֶבּ ֶכר‬ ‫בל"ל‬ ‫בלא יומו‬ ‫בלא עת‬ ‫בלי דעת‪/‬לא יד"ע‬ ‫בנ"י בית‬ ‫ָבּניך‪/‬בֹניך‬ ‫ַבּנּ ַֹער‬ ‫בעל‬ ‫ֶבר‬ ‫ַבּ ַעל גּ ֶ‬ ‫בק"ש מיד‬ ‫בֹּר‬ ‫ברוש‬ ‫ברכים‬ ‫ֶבר‬ ‫גֶּ‬ ‫גוי‪/‬גֵּיו‬ ‫גל"י צמה‬ ‫ָלית‬ ‫ִגּ ִלּית‪/‬גּ ִ‬ ‫גן‬ ‫גר"ש‬ ‫ִד ֵבּר ִעם‬ ‫ֶדּ ֶרך‬ ‫דר"ש מיד‬ ‫האיר פנים‬ ‫הגביר ברית‬ ‫הוציא דבר‬ ‫הורי‪/‬הרי‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫הזכיר שם‬ ‫החזיק בכנף‬

‫‪Hebrew‬‬ ‫‪348–349‬‬ ‫‪304‬‬ ‫‪247 n. 29, 308–310‬‬ ‫‪264 n. 7, 267‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪312‬‬ ‫‪230–231‬‬ ‫‪312‬‬ ‫‪77–79‬‬ ‫‪77–79‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪6–7‬‬ ‫‪226‬‬ ‫‪227–228‬‬ ‫‪236‬‬ ‫‪179–180‬‬ ‫‪479–481‬‬ ‫‪232‬‬ ‫‪470‬‬ ‫‪305‬‬ ‫‪106–108‬‬ ‫‪475‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪307‬‬ ‫‪305‬‬ ‫‪478–479‬‬ ‫‪166–167‬‬ ‫‪465–466‬‬ ‫‪278–281, 303‬‬ ‫‪485–487‬‬ ‫‪214, 216–219‬‬ ‫‪308‬‬ ‫‪106–108‬‬ ‫‪198 n. 24‬‬ ‫‪190, 289‬‬ ‫‪76‬‬ ‫‪460–461‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪183–186‬‬

‫‪lexeme and expression index‬‬ ‫פתע‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫(צ ֶדק‬ ‫)בּ ֶ‬ ‫צורה‬ ‫צח"ק‬ ‫ציר‬ ‫ִצנה‬ ‫קב"ב‬ ‫קו"ם במשפט‬ ‫קצ"ר ימים‬ ‫קר"א בשם‬ ‫קר"ב‬ ‫קר"ב קץ‬ ‫קשת‬ ‫ר ִֹאי‬ ‫רב סריסים‬ ‫רוֹק‬ ‫ַר ָבּ ִתי‬ ‫רגלים‬ ‫רגע‬ ‫רח"ם‬ ‫רחמיו‬ ‫רמון‬ ‫ה‪/‬שׁא ָֹלה‬ ‫אָל ְ‬ ‫ְשׁ ָ‬ ‫ְשׁ ִבי‬ ‫ִשׁבּ ֶֹלת‬ ‫)תּ ֻשׁ ִרי(‬ ‫שו"ר ָ‬ ‫שׂר סריסים‬ ‫ַשׁ ַחת‬ ‫שי"ם בנים‬ ‫שי"ם דבר‬ ‫שי"ת בבנים‬ ‫שׂיבה זרקה‬ ‫של"ם ִראשונה‬ ‫שנ"י דין‬ ‫שנ"י זיו‬ ‫שנ"י פנים‬ ‫ַשׂע ַ‬ ‫ֲרת בשרי‬ ‫שׂפתים‬ ‫ָשׂ ָר ִתי‬ ‫שת"י‬ ‫יה‬ ‫ָשׁת ֶֹת ָ‬ ‫תאשור‬ ‫תדהר‬ ‫תפוחים‬ ‫תּ ֶֹקף‬ ‫תראי‪/‬תיראי‬

‫‪235‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪326‬‬ ‫‪313‬‬ ‫‪323–327‬‬ ‫‪81–85‬‬ ‫‪173‬‬ ‫‪105–106‬‬ ‫‪233‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪304‬‬ ‫‪316‬‬ ‫‪305–306‬‬ ‫‪472‬‬ ‫‪208–209 n. 20‬‬ ‫‪310–311‬‬ ‫‪473–474‬‬ ‫‪307‬‬ ‫‪235‬‬ ‫‪360–361‬‬ ‫‪360–361, 470–472‬‬ ‫‪302‬‬ ‫‪461–462‬‬ ‫‪465‬‬ ‫‪464–465‬‬ ‫‪467–468‬‬ ‫‪208–209 n. 20‬‬ ‫‪475–476‬‬ ‫‪118‬‬ ‫‪104–105‬‬ ‫‪119‬‬ ‫‪7–8‬‬ ‫‪401‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪290‬‬ ‫‪198‬‬ ‫‪129–131‬‬ ‫‪311‬‬ ‫‪474‬‬ ‫‪279 n. 44‬‬ ‫‪462–464‬‬ ‫‪16–17‬‬ ‫‪16–17‬‬ ‫‪301‬‬ ‫‪140‬‬ ‫‪469‬‬

‫מלך רב‬ ‫מלך שׂרים‬ ‫מל"ל‬ ‫מנחה‬ ‫מעלות‬ ‫משׂא‬ ‫ִמשכב‬ ‫משל הקדמני)ם(‬ ‫נג"ע‬ ‫נג"ש‬ ‫נִ ָדּה‪/‬נידה‬ ‫נהפך הוד‬ ‫)אנִ ֵחהוּ(‬ ‫נו"ח ֲ‬ ‫נו"ן שמו‬ ‫נט"ר‬ ‫נח"י )אַנְ ֵחהוּ(‬ ‫)מ ֵטּה(‬ ‫נט"י ַ‬ ‫נש"א עינים אל‬ ‫נת"ן בכור‬ ‫סירות דוגה‬ ‫סמ"ר שׂערה‬ ‫ספר החיים‬ ‫ִס ֵפּר עם‬ ‫סת"ם‬ ‫וחתמים‬ ‫סתמים ֻ‬ ‫ֻ‬ ‫עֻגה הפוכה‬ ‫עז"ב‬ ‫עי"ר‬ ‫עיר של זהב‬ ‫על"ג‬ ‫על"י‬ ‫עליות‬ ‫ִעם‬ ‫ִעם שמש‬ ‫ָתהּ‬ ‫עֹנ ָ‬ ‫עצ"ב‬ ‫עקוב יעקב‬ ‫ערב‬ ‫ערוה‬ ‫עש"י בית‬ ‫ר‪/‬שׁ ָכר‬ ‫ע ֵֹשׂי ֶשׂ ֶכ ֵ‬ ‫פה‬ ‫פק"ח עינים‬ ‫פקח‪-‬קוח‬ ‫פת"ח‬ ‫פתאם‬

‫‪536‬‬ ‫‪151–152‬‬ ‫‪150–151‬‬ ‫‪317‬‬ ‫‪149 n. 32‬‬ ‫‪343–346‬‬ ‫‪148–149‬‬ ‫‪304–305‬‬ ‫‪182–183‬‬ ‫‪303‬‬ ‫‪304‬‬ ‫‪475‬‬ ‫‪199‬‬ ‫‪468–469‬‬ ‫‪57‬‬ ‫‪283‬‬ ‫‪468–469‬‬ ‫‪462‬‬ ‫‪220, 222‬‬ ‫‪117‬‬ ‫‪85–89‬‬ ‫‪129–131‬‬ ‫‪66–67‬‬ ‫‪214, 219‬‬ ‫‪319–321‬‬ ‫‪320–321‬‬ ‫‪6–7‬‬ ‫‪123‬‬ ‫‪300‬‬ ‫‪333–337‬‬ ‫‪261‬‬ ‫‪125–126‬‬ ‫‪346‬‬ ‫‪51–52‬‬ ‫‪52–53‬‬ ‫‪33–35‬‬ ‫‪327‬‬ ‫‪469–470‬‬ ‫‪472–473‬‬ ‫‪312‬‬ ‫‪177–180‬‬ ‫‪462–464‬‬ ‫‪310‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪313–314‬‬ ‫‪235‬‬

lexeme and expression index 95–97 Aramaic 141 186 n. 34 285–286 78 77 227 305 139 335 337 54 n. 11 226 142–143, 287 293 152 153–154 153 329–331 323 84 193–194 286 133–134, 137 286 197–198, 289 329 201, 290 139–140, 190 143, 189–190, 287–288 Moabite 471

‫תשורה‬ ‫אגרת‬ ‫אח"ד בכנף‬ ‫אמ"ר ָשׁלֻה‬ ‫בית כיצא‬ ‫בית סתוא‬ ‫בלא שניה‬ ‫גּוּב ֵריהּ‬ ְ ‫דנת‬ ‫ירושלים דדהבא‬ ‫קורייא דדהבא‬ ‫כיומי שמין אמין‬ ‫לא ביומיך‬ ‫ָמה‬ ָ ‫ְל ַקיּ‬ ‫מלך מלכיא‬ ‫מלך רב‬ ‫מרא מלכין‬ ‫מרא רבעי ארקא‬ ‫נגהא‬ ‫צירא‬/‫צירתא‬ ‫צנא‬ ‫רמ"י‬ ‫שחיתה‬ ‫שׁ ָלּה‬/‫ֻה‬ ִ ‫ָשׁל‬ ‫ָשׁלוּ‬ ‫שנ"י זיו‬ ‫שפרפרא‬ ‫שר"י קטרין‬ ‫ַתּ ֵקּף‬ ‫תקפה אסר‬

‫רחמת‬

Phoenician 154 115–116 228 56 56–57

‫אדן מלכם‬ ‫באבת פעל‬ ‫בל עת‬ ‫כמ שמש וירח‬ ‫שם יכן לעלם‬

Punic 55

‫כמ הככבם אל‬

Ugaritic ’Éd bs’in b’ir btlt dprn grà yd ymt àpà wyrÉ ml’ak mlk ‘lm mlk rb mnÈ ndy nr pnm ‘ly (’) ‘m rbt rÈm ànt ml’a trrt Sumerian á ad-gi4-gi4 eme-ak -en-dè-en (1st person pl. verb) gal4-la ÉaàÉur im-nam-til-la inim-bal ka giàkiri -me (1 person pl. noun) nam-dumu-ni-àègar nam-ibila-ni-àè-gar nam-ti dNanna dUtu-bi-gim-nam nam-tar pú àà àu úr uru kù-gi

537

187 n. 34 313 361 16 n.40 487 n. 11 247–248 n. 32, 302–303 56 325 153 n. 46 150 n. 34 149 n. 32 194–195 198 n. 24 126 51 n. 2, 52 474 471 315 n. 3 474

305 217 216 243, 245 311–312 243, 301 59, 68–69 215 310 272–276 240–243, 245 118 118 55 312 309 247–248 n. 32 307 333, 335

538

lexeme and expression index

Akkadian 315 adanna ukkupu 304 aÉ§zu 300 ajalu 333 §l Éur§ßi 127 ana X al§ku ana X Êna/Ên§ naàû 220–222 115–116 ana abbåti ep¿àu ana m§ri/m§råti ep¿àu 115 117 ana m§råti er¿bu 116 ana m§råti leqû ana m§råti nad§nu 117 117 ana m§ri/m§råti rak§su 118 ana m§råti àak§nu 117–118 ana m§råti àaã§ru 235 arhià mâtu 104 awata àak§nu 76 awata àåßû 18 bakru 6 bal§lu 154 b¿l àarr§ni 148 biltu 306–307 birku 178–179 bÊta banû 178–179 bÊta ep¿àu 78 bÊt kußßi 245 bådå 232 bulãu 15–16 bur§àu 245, 249 d§då 214–215 dab§bu 214 damqam-Ênim 139–140, 143, 189, dannatu 287, 296 214 dekû 102 dÊna enû/àunnû 143–144, 190, dunnunu 288–289 16–17 dupr§nu 259 eg¿ru 141 egirtu 78 ekal kußßi elâtu 346 346–347 elât àamê 268–269 elû

152 n. 44 152 n. 43 254 235 235 272 n. 1, 301–302 221 n. 49, 246 n. 27, 312–313 302–303 Éurdata lap§tu 305 idu 188, n. 42, 309 idû 255 ilÊtu/elÊtu/ilittu 105–106 ina dÊnim uzzuzu 229 ina la adanniàu 229–230 ina la simaniàu 226 ina la åm¿àu 18 ina libbi agarinni 19–20 ina libbi ummi 107 ina q§ti bu’û ina àasurri agarinni 19 ina à¿ri ina nam§ri 330–331 ina åm la àÊm(§)tiàu 228 245 inbå 346–347 iàid àamê 54 itti àamê u erßeti 12 itût ili 320–321 kakku sakku 193 kar§ru 201, 290 kaslå puããuru 55 kÊma Sîn u ’amaà 18–19 kÊnià 348 kippat àamê 251, 252, 276–277 kirû kißra paã§ru/puããuru 202–203 237 la idû 231 lalû 188–189, 309 n. 54 lam§du 303 lap§tu 67–68 l¿’û àa bal§ãi 116 lÊqu 116 liqûtu 259–260 lià§nu eg¿ru 190–192 m§laku 213 maàrû 345 m¿lÊtu 343 m¿lû

¿pià damq§ti ¿pià ã§bti erib tâmti Éanãià mâtu Éarpià mâtu ÉaàÉåru Éurdatu

lexeme and expression index migir ili nadû n§murtu nar§m libbi naß§ru ni- (1st person pl. verb) -ni (1st person pl. noun) niãil Ênim nåra kullumu nurmû pal§É ili p§nu nam§ru paà§ru paã§ru/puããuru petû piààatu pû qablå qanna ßab§tu qaran ßub§ti ßab§tu qaàtu qaàta mullû qat§pu q§tu qer¿bu r§b àa r¿ài r§b ã§bihu ramanàu la idû râmu ramû r¿mu r¿àu riksa dunnunu rikså puããuru sikka ßab§tu simmiltu sinnatu/ßinnatu sissikta ßab§tu sånu ßâÉu ßerru ßibitta àåÉuzu ßÊru

12 193 96–97 12 283–284 247 245–249 234 14 302 37–38 198 n. 24 291 291 313 30–32 310 246 185–186 185–186 157, 305 155–156 247 n. 29, 280 247 n. 32, 302–303 304 208–209 n. 20 209 n. 20 91–92 360 193 360 245 143, 189–190, 288 201, 290 186 n. 33 345–346 81–85 184 307 313 323 37–38 324–325

àan§ti malû/mullû àap§tu àaplan àamê àapru àarru àarru dannu àarru d§rû àarru rabû àar kibrat arba’i/ erbetti àar mat§ti àar àarr§ni à§rtu uzzuzu à§rtu zaq§pu àelû àÊba nadû àillatu àillata qabû/dab§bu àilûtu àÊmtu ab§lu àiãru àuma nabû àuma zak§ru àurm¿nu t§martu tebû tebûtu têltu ullÊtu ãeÉû ãuppi il§ni ãuppi àÊm§ti uddû åm¿ Êßåti åm¿ kurrû åm¿ malû/mullû åru ußurtu zÊmu ewû zÊmu nak§ru zÊmu àunnû zÊmu àupêlu Egyptian ànw dd

539 315 311 346 311 251 152 153 150–152 153 152 149 131 131 286 7–8 134–137, 286 285–286 286 121–122 n. 6, 214 205 n.6, 209 n. 24 12 12 16–17 96–97 299–300 300 182 304 61 n. 12 60, 69 27 n. 3 234 233 225 n. 11, 315–316 213 n. 9, 311–312 326 197, 289–290 200, 293 197 200

278 278

540

lexeme and expression index

Bible. Divrei Shalom Collected Studies by Shalom Paul on Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967 2005

Recommend Documents