Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the Bible
The publication of this book was
made possible by a gift from
In loving memory of
5766 · 2005
T h e J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society
Philadelphia
Copyright © 2005 by Marc Zvi Bretiler
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or
retrieval system, except for brief passages in connection with a critical review, without
permission in writing from the publisher:
Composition by Pageworks
Design by Pageworks
06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
Preface ix
Abbreviations xiii
1. Reading as a Jew and as a Scholar 1
2. W h a t Is the Bible, Anyway? 7
3. The Art of Reading the Bible 13
4. A Brief History of Israel 19
5. With Scissors and Paste: The Sources of Genesis 29
6. Creation vs. Creationism: Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth 37
7. The Ancestors as Heroes 49
8. Biblical Law: Codes and Collections 61
9. Incense Is Offensive to Me: The Cult in Ancient Israel 73
10. "In the Fortieth Year . . . Moses Addressed the Israelites":
Deuteronomy 85
11. "The Walls Came Tumbling Down": Reading Joshua 95
12. "May My Lord King David Live Forever": Royal Ideology
in Samuel a n d Judges 107
13. "For Israel Tore Away from the House of David":
Reading Kings 117
14. Revisionist History: Reading Chronicles 129
15. Introduction to Prophecy 137
16. "Let Justice Well U p like Water": Reading Amos 149
17. "They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares":
Reading (First) Isaiah 161
18. "I Will Make This House like Shiloh": Reading Jeremiah 173
19. "I Will Be for T h e m a Mini-Temple": Reading Ezekiel 185
20. "Comfort, O h Comfort My People": The Exile and Beyond 199
21. "Those That Sleep in the D u s t . . . Will Awake":
Zechariah, Apocalyptic Literature, and Daniel 209
22. Prayer of Many Hearts: Reading Psalms 219
23. "Acquire Wisdom": Reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes 231
24. "Being But Dust a n d Ashes": Reading J o b 243
25. "Drink Deep of Love!": Reading Song of Songs 257
26. "Why Are You So Kind . . . W h e n I Am a Foreigner?":
Reading Ruth vs. Esther 267
27. The Creation of the Bible 273
Afterword: Reading the Bible as a C o m m i t t e d Jew 279
Notes 285
Sources Cited 339
Index of Subjects 361
Index of Biblical Passages a n d Other References 372
Preface
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. Garden City: NY:
Doubleday, 1992.
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Pritchard.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1954.
AnOr Analecta Orientali
AOAT Alter Orient u n d Altes Testament
ΒΑ Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archaeologist Reader
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
B.c.E. Before the C o m m o n Era
Bib Biblica
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BZAW Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assynan Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1956.
CBNT Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series
CBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
chap. chapter
c.E. C o m m o n Era
COS The Context of Scripture. Ed. William W Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 2 .
DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Ed. K. van der Toorn et al.
Leiden: Brill, 1995.
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DtrH The Deuteronomistic History (= Deuteronomy-2 Kings)
EJ Encylcopedia Judaica
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
HALOT Koehler, L. et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Trans. M. E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 .
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
INT Interpretation
JPS Jewish Publication Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JR Journal of Religion
JSB The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 2004.
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentlische Studien
RB Revue biblique
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
TAPS Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTS Vetus Testamentum Supplements
ν.,νν. verse, verses
YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
How to Read
the Bible
Reading as a Jew and as a Scholar
Further, we each have a different conception of what the Bible is. Not sur-
prisingly, then, we each interpret biblical texts in our own way. Of the m a n y
approaches, we can describe as a "method" only those that are rigorous and
systematic.
This b o o k presents a m e t h o d of reading the Bible. It is often called "the
historical-critical approach." By highlighting this m e t h o d , I do not m e a n that it
is the only way to read the Bible. Indeed, m a n y Jews have viewed with suspicion
this way of reading, rejecting it in favor of other methods. Yet I c o m m e n d this
approach to readers because I have f o u n d it illuminating. W h e n the Bible is
viewed in the light of this m e t h o d , we see the text as meaningful, engaging, and
multifaceted.
Classical Interpretation
For m u c h of the postbiblical period, readers of the Bible have all tended to fol-
low the same m e t h o d . They have seen the Bible as a cryptic yet perfect book, of
fundamental relevance to its c o m m u n i t y of interpreters. They have assumed that
m u c h of the Bible, if not all of it, came (to some extent) from God. Hence the
Bible is a privileged text that should be interpreted using special rules. That is,
it should not be interpreted like regular, nonbiblical texts. 1
This m e t h o d developed d u r i n g the late biblical period. As we shall see in a
later chapter, one passage in the Book of Daniel explains an earlier prophecy of
Jeremiah, which t u r n e d on the phrase "seventy years." Daniel interpreted this
phrase to m e a n "seventy weeks of years," or 4 9 0 years. Normally, w h e n an an-
cient Jew promised to return a borrowed ox in seventy days, it meant just t h a t —
seventy days. Yet Daniel could u n d e r s t a n d Jeremiah's "seventy" differently be-
cause the Book of Jeremiah is a biblical text, reflecting special, divine language.
Consider, too, the ancient J u d e a n Desert c o m m u n i t y of Q u m r a n , w h i c h
thrived over a period of several c e n t u r i e s — f r o m the second pre-Christian to the
first post-Christian centuries. Their library—the part that is e x t a n t — i s w h a t we
n o w call "The Dead Sea Scrolls." Like the a u t h o r of Daniel, they believed in
interpreting biblical b o o k s in a special way. T h u s they kept a rich interpretive lit-
erature. For example, their Pesher H a b a k k u k , a type of c o m m e n t a r y o n the
p r o p h e t i c b o o k of H a b a k k u k , held that their community's leader u n d e r s t o o d the
true m e a n i n g of the b o o k better t h a n the p r o p h e t himself! The Pesher interpret-
ed the text in relation to the interpreter's o w n period, m o r e than half a millen-
n i u m after H a b a k k u k lived. 2
Classical rabbinic interpretation also shared these w o r k i n g a s s u m p t i o n s .
Even for the Torah's legal texts, it often subverted the plain sense of w o r d s for
the sake of "harmonization." That is, w h e n texts ( f r o m divergent places a n d
times) appeared to contradict each other, it "reconciled" t h e m so that they w o u l d
agree. For example, a slave law in E x o d u s 21:6 suggests that in certain circum-
stances a H e b r e w slave serves the master "in perpetuity" (le-olam). This contra-
diets Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 , w h i c h states that masters must release all s u c h slaves on
the jubilee year (every fiftieth year). However, according to the basic a s s u m p -
tions, God's w o r d m u s t be internally consistent. Therefore the rabbis insisted
that the term "in perpetuity" in E x o d u s m e a n s "practically (but not literally) for-
ever"—that is, until the jubilee year. 3 This type of interpretation is strange to the
reader u n u s e d to classical Jewish (and to a large extent Christian) interpretation.
But it is natural if w e u n d e r s t a n d the Bible as a u n i f o r m , perfect, divine w o r k ,
w h i c h may e m p l o y language in a cryptic fashion.
This is n o t to say that every traditional, p r e m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r of the Bible
t o o k every w o r d of the text a c c o r d i n g to all of these principles. Yet the few
e x c e p t i o n s prove the rule. For e x a m p l e , Rabbi A b r a h a m ibn Ezra ( 1 0 8 9 - 1 1 6 4 )
suggested that s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n Moses wrote a small n u m b e r of verses in
the To rah. Yet even as that c o m m e n t a t o r m a d e sure to i n f o r m his readers of
that u n o r t h o d o x view, he was careful to c o n d e m n it. 4 Likewise, Rabbi Samuel
b e n Meir (also k n o w n as "Rashbam"; 1 0 8 0 - 1 1 7 4 ) allowed that biblical lan-
guage is n o t cryptic; rather, its w o r d s m e a n w h a t they n o r m a l l y imply, even if
this c o n t r a d i c t s rabbinic tradition. T h u s , he alone a m o n g the extant medieval
J e w i s h exegetes did not find it necessary to "reconcile" E x o d u s 2 1 : 6 w i t h
Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 (see above). However, this o p i n i o n survives in only a single
medieval m a n u s c r i p t , a n d it h a s n o t a p p e a r e d in m o s t p r i n t e d editions. This
suggests that his a p p r o a c h s t o o d at, or even b e y o n d , the fringe of acceptable
interpretation.
O n l y in the seventeenth century, w i t h the rise of E u r o p e a n rationalism, did
scholars begin to question the u n i q u e , divine n a t u r e of the biblical text. H o b b e s
(in England) a n d Spinoza (in H o l l a n d ) led the way. C o n s i d e r the latter's magnif-
icent Theological-Political Tractate,5 w i t h its c h a p t e r called simply "Of the
Interpretation of Scripture." It replaces the earlier a s s u m p t i o n s with a single
premise that allows the Bible to be seen in a n e w m a n n e r : "I hold that the
m e t h o d of interpreting Scripture is n o different f r o m the m e t h o d of interpreting
n a t u r e , a n d is in fact in c o m p l e t e accord with it." 6 In a single sentence, Spinoza
"deprivileges" the Bible. He r e n o u n c e s the traditional f r a m e w o r k for biblical
interpretation: The Bible is not cryptic. It n o longer n e e d s to be interpreted as a
seamless whole. It is imperfect. In places it m a y be of historical interest o n l y n o
longer relevant to c o n t e m p o r a r y believers. In m o s t senses, it is a b o o k like any
other.
Basic Terminology
The N a m e in English
Alternative Arrangements
O n l y in Jewish Bibles will you find the b o o k s g r o u p e d into three sections. This
tripartite s t r u c t u r e is f o u n d in all H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s of the Bible. All c o n t e m -
p o r a r y J e w i s h translations follow its outline.
In antiquity, however, this a r r a n g e m e n t was not the only one that J e w s
e m p l o y e d . In particular, the J e w s w h o r e n d e r e d the Bible into Greek ( p r o d u c i n g
the translation k n o w n as the Septuagint m o r e t h a n 2 1 0 0 years ago) 2 0 divided it
into four sections: Torah; Historical Books; W i s d o m a n d Poetic Books; a n d
Prophetic Books. 2 1 This o r d e r is quite logical—it begins w i t h Torah, the m o s t
basic text, followed b y b o o k s a b o u t the past (Historical Books), the present
( W i s d o m a n d Poetic Books), a n d the f u t u r e (Prophetic Books). This o r d e r i n g
s c h e m e m o s t likely originated in the land of Israel before b e i n g t r a n s m i t t e d to
the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g Jewish c o m m u n i t y of Alexandria, Egypt, together w i t h the
H e b r e w texts of the biblical b o o k s themselves.
There are m a n y ways of reading the Bible. My interest, however, is in reading the
Bible like an ancient Israelite, 2 w h a t is o f t e n called reading the Bible f r o m a his-
torical-critical perspective. As n o t e d in c h a p t e r 1, "historical-critical" is an u n f o r -
tunate term; m u c h m o r e t h a n history is involved in this type of reading, a n d the
term "critical" incorrectly suggests that the "critic" is interested in s o m e h o w dis-
m a n t l i n g the Bible or any faith-based c o m m i t m e n t w i t h the Bible at its core. This
is n o t w h a t I a m a t t e m p t i n g here. Instead, I a m a s s u m i n g that the Bible, like any
ancient text, has b e e n read differently in different periods, because readers read
the Bible u s i n g their o w n c o n v e n t i o n s or rules. J a m e s Kugel, for example, has
s h o w n h o w readers in the early postbiblical p e r i o d u n d e r s t o o d the Bible; their
readings are often very strange f r o m o u r perspective, because these interpreters
lived two t h o u s a n d years ago a n d w o r k e d w i t h i n a religious a n d cultural system
that is so different t h a n o u r s . 3
W h e t h e r a particular biblical interpretation is right or w r o n g in an absolute
sense is usually impossible to say, because the validity of any reading d e p e n d s
o n its time p e r i o d a n d the c o n v e n t i o n s of that period. Everything d e p e n d s on
w h a t rules the reader uses w h e n reading the biblical text.
If Marta is smart, she will eventually figure these things out. She will learn based
o n experience w h a t j u n k mail is, h o w to read the comics, even the n a t u r e of
poetry. (Indeed, this is w h a t each of u s h a s learned to do.) It will take h e r awhile.
Yet in learning to read (in this b r o a d sense), Marta will have an advantage that
we Bible readers never have: she h a s w h a t linguists a n d anthropologists call
" i n f o r m a n t s " — r e a l , live people w h o can lead h e r d o w n the right track. We have
n o i n f o r m a n t s f r o m ancient Israel, so w e m u s t use other, less reliable criteria to
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r we are reading the ancient texts correctly. 5
W h e n it c o m e s to reading the biblical text w i t h i n its original context, m o s t
p e o p l e are hardly better t h a n Marta. Those of u s w h o have s p e n t years reading
biblical a n d o t h e r ancient Near Eastern texts, a n d trying to figure o u t their c o n -
ventions, engage in a difficult a n d always s o m e w h a t speculative venture. There
is n o certain w a y of k n o w i n g that we have the c o n v e n t i o n right, o t h e r t h a n the
fact that it allows m a n y texts to m a k e sense, w h i c h is a partly subjective criteri-
on. That begins to explain w h y this type of reading, w h i c h we call the historical-
critical m e t h o d , is so c o m m o n in the university, b u t so rare outside of it. T h e his-
torical-critical m e t h o d m a k e s t w o a s s u m p t i o n s : that biblical society is discon-
t i n u o u s w i t h o u r society a n d that the Bible s h o u l d be read according to its orig-
inal social context, n o t anachronistically. T h e Bible m u s t instead be u n d e r s t o o d
only after its ancient conventions and genres are u n d e r s t o o d , but because there
is so m u c h discontinuity, this is a most difficult task.
Not only literary conventions are important. The Bible is the p r o d u c t of a
particular society living at a particular time. Before we can begin exploring the
issues of convention and genre, it is important to offer a schematic history of
ancient Israel, so that biblical texts, genres, a n d conventions may be u n d e r s t o o d
in this light. Accordingly, history is the subject of our next chapter.
4
A Brief History of Israel
Can we blend the internal and external periodization? Yes, by noting that the
preexilic/premonarchic period was characterized by ascendancy of the Assyrians
and then the Babylonians. Babylonian ascendancy continued through almost all
of the exilic period, which ended one year after the Persian conquest of Babylon.
The postexilic period was characterized by Persian and then Greek rule.
The chart below summarizes the periodization of ancient Israel from b o t h
an internal and external perspective:
C E N T U R I E S (b.C.E.)
CRUCIAL DATE 1000 922 586 538
EXTERNAL
Egyptian Assyrian Babylonian Persian Greek
domination domination domination domination domination
INTERNAL
Premonarchic United monarchy Divided monarchy Exilic Postexilic
5
With Scissors and Paste
The Sources of Genesis
Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth
But w h a t does this unit mean? T h e structural e l e m e n t s are n o t repeated for aes-
thetic p u r p o s e s ; rather, these repetitions e n c o d e a key message of this chapter:
G o d is a highly organized, p o w e r f u l creator. He says: It is so, it is g o o d . 9 There
are n o ifs or b u t s — t h e w o r l d is completely responsive to His c o m m a n d s .
This aspect of the G o d of this creation story is f u r t h e r reflected in a n o t h e r
aspect of the story's structure: the m a n n e r in w h i c h these six days of creation
m a y be divided into two triads, w h e r e e l e m e n t s A, B, a n d C of each triad are c o n -
n e c t e d . 1 0 T h e following d i a g r a m illustrates this structure:
So you shall set apart the clean beast f r o m the u n c l e a n , the u n c l e a n bird
f r o m the clean. You shall not d r a w a b o m i n a t i o n u p o n yourselves
t h r o u g h beast or bird or a n y t h i n g w i t h w h i c h the g r o u n d is alive, w h i c h
I have set apart for y o u to treat as unclean. You shall be holy to Me, for
I the LORD a m holy, a n d I have set you apart f r o m o t h e r peoples to be
Mine, ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )
Myths, like m a n y other narrative genres, not only describe, but also prescribe.
Few are neutral, a n d most make value j u d g m e n t s . Some of the value j u d g m e n t s
m a d e by the first creation story are obvious and have been noted already: the
world is very good, and God is powerful a n d is heeded. The structure of our
chart (above) might suggest that each of the boxed elements, representing what
was created on each day, are of equal value. Is this s o — o r as a creation myth,
does the text also establish value j u d g m e n t s concerning the most important or
significant element(s) of creation?
This story highlights the creation of h u m a n k i n d . This is not surprising in a
text written by people. The creation of h u m a n k i n d is the longest section, com-
prising verses 2 6 - 3 0 . Only after people are created is the world "very good" (v.
31), rather than simply "good," as in all of the earlier days of creation. Only peo-
pie "rule" a n d "master" (v. 28). Only for people is the act of creation expressed
using the plural "Let us" (v. 26). And only with people does the text express itself
in poetry (v. 27).
These last two points require further clarification. Let us look more closely
at Genesis 1 : 2 6 - 2 7 , which reads:
And God said, "Let us m a k e m a n in our image, after our likeness. They
shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole
earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth." And God creat-
ed m a n in His image, in the image of God He created him; male a n d
female He created them.
The meaning of the first person plural "us" a n d "our" has been the focus of great
debate and polemic even in antiquity. 1 4 The suggestion that here God is speak-
ing in the "royal we" is often p r o p o u n d e d . However, this is unlikely, since such
usage is otherwise unattested with verbs in the Bible. 1 5
More likely, the text is implicitly portraying God in terms of a h u m a n king:
God is talking to his royal counselors or cabinet. 1 6 Such imagery appears clear-
ly in other biblical texts, such as J o b 1 - 2 , Isaiah 6, and especially 1 Kings 22:19:
"I saw the L O R D seated u p o n His throne, with all the host of heaven standing in
a t t e n d a n c e to the right a n d to the left of H i m . " T h e creation of people is so sig-
nificant that this creative act alone d e m a n d s that G o d consult his cabinet, c o m -
prised of angels or o t h e r heavenly figures. But as the next verse m a k e s clear via
a singular verb, consultation is their only role: G o d creates people w i t h o u t their
assistance.
In several respects, the N e w Revised S t a n d a r d Version (NRSV) translation
better c a p t u r e s the essence of Genesis 1:27 t h a n the JPS translation. T h e NRSV
p r i n t s the verse i n d e n t e d , as poetry:
Above the expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne, in
appearance like sapphire; and on top, u p o n this semblance of a throne,
there was the semblance of a h u m a n form. From what appeared as his
loins u p , I saw a gleam as of a m b e r — w h a t looked like a fire encased in
a frame; and from what appeared as his loins d o w n , I saw what looked
like fire. There was a radiance all about him. Like the appearance of the
b o w which shines in the clouds on a day of rain, such was the appear-
ance of the s u r r o u n d i n g radiance. That was the appearance of the sem-
blance of the Presence of the L O R D .
Patriarchal History?
Role Models?
This account (or more correctly combination of accounts) "cleans u p " the image
of Abraham. So d o similar sources that insist, contrary to what the biblical text
implies, that each time Pharaoh attempted to c o n s u m m a t e the relationship, an
angel protecting Sarai struck h i m . ( ״A m u c h earlier retelling of the story by
J o s e p h u s suggests: "But God thwarted his [Pharaoh's] criminal passion by an
outbreak of disease a n d political disturbance." 1 4 ) These various retellings, which
embellish the biblical text, highlight for us the questionable behavior of the bib-
lical Abraham, further suggesting that he, along with the other ancestors of
Genesis, are not intended as role models.
Given that Genesis was written over a long time period by different authors, we
may not expect all of the ancestral stories to share the same goal. For example,
in Genesis 14 Abram is presented as a great warrior, 1 6 an image that is not
shared with the rest of Abraham material—this presents a single, particular view
of Abraham in ancient Israel, which was preserved in the biblical text. Thus, the
search for a single explanation for all of these ancestral stories is futile. In fact, it
is likely that many of t h e m were reworked as they were transmitted, and their
original p u r p o s e or p u r p o s e s were obscured in the process. However, in some
cases, their goals remain visible.
Some of the stories in Genesis are symbolic, where the ancestor represents
Israel as a whole, or a group within Israel. This is evident in the story we exam-
ined above, Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 :
An Obstacle Story?
This structure corresponds to explicit statements about the divine origin of the
law, which may seem like overkill. All of this may have been necessary, howev-
er, because this conception is one of the few in which the Bible was u n i q u e with-
in its ancient Near Eastern context. 3 Elsewhere, it was not the deity but the king
w h o established law and propagated legal collections. For example, the prologue
to the famous Laws of H a m m u r a b i 4 concludes: "When the god Marduk com-
m a n d e d me to provide just ways for the people of the land [in order to attain]
appropriate behavior, I established truth a n d justice as the declaration of the
land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. At that time: If a m a n accuses
another m a n a n d charges h i m with homicide . . ." 5 The same idea is reinforced
in the epilogue that follows the laws: "These are the just decisions which
H a m m u r a b i , the able king, has established . . ." 6 Still later, H a m m u r a b i calls
himself "king of justice, to w h o m the god Shimachu has granted [insight into]
the truth. My p r o n o u n c e m e n t s are choice . . ." 7
Thus, in broadest strokes, the organization of Exodus 1 9 - 2 4 is similar to
that of H a m m u r a b i — t h e y b o t h have narrative material s u r r o u n d i n g laws.
However, in the law collection of H a m m u r a b i , the s u r r o u n d i n g material makes
it clear that these laws originate from the h u m a n king, while God as King was
u n d e r s t o o d to be the lawgiver in Israel. 8 This explains why, in contrast to sur-
r o u n d i n g societies, the Bible portrays kings as playing a relatively m i n o r role in
the creation of law, and according to some, even in the administration of justice. 9
The fact that the Bible u n d e r s t a n d s God to be the lawgiver also explains an
oddity of the biblical law collections: the way in which they combine (what we
w o u l d call) religious law a n d (what we would call) secular law, including crim-
inal law and torts. For example, the Decalogue says b o t h "You shall have n o
other gods besides Me" (Exod. 20:3) a n d "You shall not steal" (20:13). The law
collection that follows in Exodus contains laws about goring oxen ( 2 1 : 2 8 - 3 2 ) as
well as pilgrimage festivals ( 2 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . Such "religious laws" a n d "secular laws"
are often mixed together in adjacent verses (e.g., 2 3 : 1 - 4 ) .
Sometimes the Bible, in its structure, distinguishes between religious law—
laws regulating h o w God should be w o r s h i p p e d — a n d interpersonal law. The
Decalogue, for example, is divided into two sections: religious law, then inter-
personal law. Yet, even here, a law that we would consider interpersonal, h o n -
oring one's parents, is given a religious justification: ". . . that you may long
e n d u r e on the land that the L O R D your God is assigning to you" (Exod. 20:12). 1 0
Exodus 2 2 : 2 0 - 2 3 is similar:
The notion that the biblical authors u n d e r s t o o d all law as divine law 1 1
shows u p most clearly w h e n c o m p a r i n g laws of adultery in the ancient Near
East with those in the Bible. Adultery in the ancient Near East was typically treat-
ed as an offense against the wronged h u s b a n d . In certain cases, the offended
h u s b a n d h a d a role in determining the p u n i s h m e n t of his wife and her para-
m o u r — " h e shall treat her as he wishes." 1 2 T h o u g h one biblical text seems to be
familiar with this notion (Prov. 6 : 3 4 - 3 5 , w h i c h is outside the Torah), 1 3 all
biblical legal texts insist o n absolute p u n i s h m e n t — n o t h i n g is left u p to the
husband's discretion. This perspective is also f o u n d outside of legal texts; it may
be seen, for example, in Joseph's answer to Potiphar's wife w h e n she tries to
seduce him: "How then could I d o this most wicked thing, a n d sin before
God?" (Gen. 39:9). Adultery here is not u n d e r s t o o d as a crime against the
wronged h u s b a n d , b u t as a "sin before God," w h o is u n d e r s t o o d to be the source
of law.
The uniqueness of the Bible's conception explains w h y the Bible depicts rev-
elation in such detail. It also accounts for an u n u s u a l n u m b e r a n d diversity of
sources that attempt to explain this event. All of these, in turn, help us see the
underlying diversity of u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of God, and of revelation itself, that
existed within ancient Israel. 1 4 For example, most of the sources emphasize that
Moses alone h a d close access to God, a n d that the process of revelation was dan-
gerous, yet Exodus 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 notes: "Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu,
a n d seventy elders of Israel ascended; a n d they saw the God of Israel. . . . Yet He
did not raise His h a n d against the leaders of the Israelites; they beheld God, a n d
they ate a n d drank." Because the idea of divinely revealed law was so u n i q u e to
ancient Israel, an unusually large n u m b e r of diverse sources attempt to explain
this event. 1 5
The Decalogue
The legal collection that follows the Decalogue is often n a m e d the "Covenant
C o d e . " 2 7 Unlike the Decalogue, it a p p e a r s in only o n e version. F u r t h e r m o r e , it
is p r e s e n t e d as m e d i a t e d revelation that Moses is s u p p o s e d to "set before" the
Israelites (Exod. 21:1). It derives its n a m e f r o m E x o d u s 24:7, "Then he [Moses]
took sefer ha-berit ( ס פ ר ה ב ר י ת, "the record of the covenant") a n d read it aloud
to the people. A n d they said, All that the LORD h a s s p o k e n we will faithfully do!"'
W h a t the t e r m "record of the c o v e n a n t " refers to in this context is u n c e r t a i n , b u t
by c o n v e n t i o n biblical scholars use that n a m e to describe all of the p r e c e d i n g
laws f o u n d in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 .
An even better designation t h a n "the C o v e n a n t C o d e " w o u l d be "the
C o v e n a n t Collection." C o d e s are typically m e a n t to be c o m p l e t e , a n d are organ-
ized for use b y the courts. T h e material in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 is neither. It con-
tains, for e x a m p l e , n o material on h o w individuals married or divorced, n o r h o w
s h e p h e r d s fulfilled their obligations to flock o w n e r s (see Gen. 3 1 : 3 8 - 3 9 ) , t w o
areas of w i d e s p r e a d c o n c e r n in antiquity. Moreover, s o m e parts, such as
2 2 : 1 7 - 1 9 , are organized by p u n i s h m e n t :
The Goring Ox
This law, or more properly, these laws, deal with the following four cases:
(1) unexpected goring by an ox; (2) goring by a habitual gorer; (3) goring of a
minor; (4) goring of a slave. Especially given that oxen do not typically gore peo-
pie, the similarities in structure and even wording between the laws in Exodus
and H a m m u r a b i 2 5 0 - 5 2 are very striking. H a m m u r a b i reads:
For reasons of space, I cannot treat here the m a n y other laws contained in the
Covenant Collection. (This b o o k cannot substitute for a commentary, w h i c h
explains each verse.) However, m a n y of the above observations about the goring
ox law d o h o l d true for o t h e r laws in the C o v e n a n t Collection. T h a t is, m a n y of
those laws m a y be ideal, m a n y are revisions of earlier M e s o p o t a m i a n laws, b u t
t h e y avoid the s h a r p class distinctions seen in M e s o p o t a m i a .
Moreover, m a n y of o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the status of the C o v e n a n t
Collection are equally true of law elsewhere in the Bible. C o n s i d e r the o t h e r legal
collections: the Holiness Collection of Leviticus 1 7 - 2 6 a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c
Law Collection in D e u t e r o n o m y 1 2 - 2 6 . N o n e of these is organized like a law
code; n o n e is c o m p r e h e n s i v e . T h e y all c o n t a i n repetitions of the s a m e laws.
S o m e of their laws, m a n y scholars believe, are ideal rather t h a n real: the J u b i l e e
year (Leviticus 25); the cheirem (•")Π, "proscription" or "ban") of the C a n a a n i t e s
(Deut. 2 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) ; a n d o t h e r s . 3 9 These features distinguish biblical law f r o m
law as we n o r m a l l y e x p e r i e n c e or u n d e r s t a n d it. T h u s those "laws" m a y have
f u n c t i o n e d in ancient Israel differently t h a n d o today's laws as they a p p l y to o u r
o w n lives.
F u r t h e r m o r e , if we look at all of these law collections together, w e see a n o t h -
er reason to b e c a u t i o u s w h e n we s p e a k of biblical "law." As I will s h o w in c h a p -
ters 9 a n d 10, each of these collections c o m e s f r o m a different time p e r i o d a n d
reflects a different ideological perspective. ( A l t h o u g h the date of the C o v e n a n t
Collection is u n c e r t a i n , it is likely the earliest of the three collections. In contrast
to the others, it reflects a largely n o n u r b a n p e r s p e c t i v e . 4 0 ) W h e n dealing
w i t h the s a m e issue, the three collections o f t e n differ significantly. F o r e x a m p l e ,
E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y recognize that an Israelite m a y enslave another
Israelite "forever" ( 2 1 : 5 - 6 a n d 1 5 : 1 6 - 1 8 , respectively), w h e r e a s Leviticus insists
that Israelite slaves m u s t be released every fiftieth year, e x p l a i n i n g that "they are
My servants, w h o m I freed f r o m the l a n d of Egypt; they m a y n o t give themselves
over into servitude" ( 2 5 : 4 2 ; cf. w . 3 9 - 4 3 ) . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e : E x o d u s calls its fall
festival "the festival of ingathering" a n d n o t e s that it s h o u l d b e c o m m e m o r a t e d
"at the e n d of the year" for an u n s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d ( 2 3 : 1 6 ) . D e u t e r o n o m y k n o w s
the s a m e festival as the feast of b o o t h s (sukkot), c o m m e m o r a t e d for seven days
( 1 6 : 1 3 - 1 5 ) . Leviticus describes a feast of b o o t h s that begins in the seventh
m o n t h , a n d it is c o n c l u d e d by a s o l e m n g a t h e r i n g o n the eighth day ( 2 3 : 3 3 - 3 6 ) !
S u c h differences a m o n g the various legal c o r p o r a are the n o r m rather t h a n
the exception. Nevertheless, certain p o s t u l a t e s s e e m to s t a n d b e h i n d all biblical
laws. T h e y i n c l u d e an attitude t o w a r d h u m a n life that m a k e s capital p u n i s h m e n t
less f r e q u e n t in the Bible t h a n in H a m m u r a b i ' s laws, a n d that shies away
f r o m vicarious p u n i s h m e n t , that is, p u n i s h m e n t for a crime c o m m i t t e d by
a n o t h e r family m e m b e r . 4 1 Nevertheless, the internal differences in detail are
large a n d f r e q u e n t e n o u g h to w a r r a n t a v o i d i n g s e n t e n c e s that begin, "Biblical
law suggests . . . "
9
"Incense Is Offensive to Me"
The Cult in Ancient Israel
(10) Hear the word of the Lord, / You chieftains of Sodom; / Give ear to
our G o d s instruction, / You folk of Gomorrah! / ( 1 1 ) "What need have
I of all your sacrifices?" / Says the Lord. / "I am sated with burnt offer-
ings of rams, / And suet of fatlings, / And blood of bulls; / And I have
no delight / In lambs and he-goats. / (12) That you come to appear
before Me— / W h o asked that of you? / Trample My courts (13) n o
more; / Bringing oblations is futile, / Incense is offensive to Me. / New
m o o n and sabbath, / Proclaiming of solemnities, / Assemblies with iniq-
uity, / I cannot abide. / (14) Your new m o o n s and fixed seasons / Fill Me
with loathing; / They are become a b u r d e n to Me, / I cannot endure
them. / (15) And w h e n you lift u p your hands, / I will t u r n My eyes
away from you; / T h o u g h you pray at length, / I will not listen. / Your
h a n d s are stained with c r i m e — ( 1 6 ) Wash yourselves clean; / Put your
evil doings / Away from My sight. / Cease to d o evil; / (17) Learn to do
good. / Devote yourselves to justice; / Aid the wronged. / U p h o l d the
rights of the o r p h a n ; / Defend the cause of the widow."
The Bible scholar J a c o b Milgrom gives a compelling explanation of the first set
of rituals, relating t h e m to w h a t he calls "The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray.'" 1 4
The Sanctuary (the Priestly author's representation of the J e r u s a l e m Temple) is
like the painting in Oscar Wilde's story, w h i c h changes as a result of various
h u m a n activities. Here the Priestly c o n c e p t i o n seems to a s s u m e that the Temple
absorbs different types of impurities at different loci. For example, "wanton
u n r e p e n t e d sin" pollutes certain parts of the Temple, i n c l u d i n g the Holy of
Holies. The Temple absorbs s u c h impurities, w h i c h build u p as they are stored
there. T h u s the Temple m u s t o n occasion be ritually purified.
The b u i l d u p of these impurities is, f r o m the Priestly perspective, a threat to
national security. The priest Ezekiel evinces this c o n c e r n in the first p o r t i o n of
the p r o p h e t i c b o o k that bears his n a m e . Ezekiel p r o p h e s i e d in Babylon after
being exiled there f r o m Jerusalem in 597 B.c.E. 15 The first eleven chapters of his
b o o k portray "divine a b a n d o n m e n t , " a motif frequent in ancient Near E a s t e r n —
particularly Assyrian—literature. 1 6 According to Ezekiel, G o d — o r m o r e pre-
cisely, kevod YHWH ( H I T ] כ ב ו ל, "the Presence of the LORD")—exited the Temple.
The Presence first left the p l a t f o r m of the Temple ( 1 0 : 1 8 ) a n d t h e n "ascended
f r o m the midst of the city a n d stood o n the hill east of the city" (11:23). This
a b a n d o n m e n t of the Temple by the divine Presence is w h a t ultimately allowed it
to be destroyed. Ezekiel also explains w h y G o d left: "And [God] said to m e ,
'Mortal, d o you see w h a t they are doing, the terrible a b o m i n a t i o n s that the
H o u s e of Israel is practicing here, to drive Me far f r o m My Sanctuary?"' (8:6).
C h a p t e r 8 describes a wide range of "abominations" ( i m p r o p e r acts), i n c l u d i n g
w o r s h i p of the s u n (v. 16). These activities polluted the Temple, says Ezekiel,
a n d caused G o d to a b a n d o n it. Similar t h i n k i n g stands b e h i n d Leviticus 16 as
well. Here the rituals are p l a n n e d to p u r i f y the Temple f r o m like pollutants,
thereby assuring c o n t i n u e d divine presence a n d blessing.
P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g o f the I n s i d e R i t u a l
Ν
w
κ- _ 100 cubits _
-h
Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting j
(on frame of planks [gold]) ;
ז
15 cubits
bronze)) , ' ׳
Incense Curtain (9° l d altar
altar (bronze)
(gold) J OUUI
i
Posts (bronze) -Enclosure (courtyard) of the Tabernacle-
Illustration of the Tabernacle from The Jewish Study Bible, copyright © 2004 by Oxford
University Press, Inc. Used by permission.
• Ha-kodesh ( ה ק ד ש, "the holy area"), typically translated as "Shrine" in the
JPS translation, h o u s e s the l a m p s t a n d , the table for the b r e a d of display,
a n d the altar of incense. O n l y (ritually p u r e ) priests m a y enter this area.
• T h e Holy of Holies is b e h i n d this area. It m a y be e n t e r e d only b y the
high p r i e s t — A a r o n or f u t u r e high priests d e s c e n d e d f r o m h i m — w h e n
p u r i f y i n g the Temple (Lev. 1 6 : 2 - 3 ) . This area, a c c o r d i n g to Priestly tra-
dition, c o n t a i n e d the Ark, w h i c h was covered by a kapporet ()כפרת.
Scholars d e b a t e the n a t u r e a n d translation of this w o r d , a n d h o w it is
related to the root k-p-r; the JPS translation r e n d e r s it as "cover"; o t h e r s
r e n d e r it as "mercy seat." A c c o r d i n g to Priestly a c c o u n t s , a "curtain" sep-
arates the Holy of Holies f r o m the Shrine.
The function of the previous ritual was to purify various holy places a n d objects;
the p u r p o s e of this scapegoat ritual is clarified in Leviticus 16:21: "Aaron shall
lay b o t h his h a n d s u p o n the head of the live goat a n d confess over it all the iniq-
uities a n d transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting t h e m on
the head of the goat; a n d it shall be sent off to the wilderness t h r o u g h a desig-
nated man."
There may be s o m e r e d u n d a n c y between this ritual a n d the previous offer-
ings a n d blood ritual, or this may be seen as a totally different ritual, purging the
Israelites of intentional sins, w h i c h may n o t have been covered by the previous
set of rituals. At any rate, the goat is literally carrying off the sins of the people,
removing t h e m to an area outside of civilization, to "an inaccessible region" (Lev.
16:22). The actions of Aaron highlight the role of the goat. For other sacrifices,
the person offering the animal is told to place one h a n d on the sacrifice (3:8, 13;
4:4, 29, 33) as an indication that this is his or her animal. Here, however, Aaron
places b o t h of his h a n d s o n the animal—a u n i q u e act within the Bible—through
w h i c h he transfers the sins o n t o the animal.
The w o r d "Azazel" appears four times in Leviticus 16 (w. 8, 10 [twice], 26).
It is etymologically difficult to explain, not fitting the three-letter pattern typical
of H e b r e w roots. N o r is context particularly helpful in clarifying its precise
meaning. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Bible) u n d e r s t o o d it to
m e a n "scapegoat," w h i c h is quite suitable for verses 8 a n d 10a, b u t less likely for
10b a n d 26. Some u n d e r s t a n d it to be a place-name. Alternatively, some u n d e r -
stand Azazel to m e a n "for the elimination of divine anger." 2 0 This may be more
satisfactory from a m o d e r n theological perspective, but is etymologically unlike-
ly. The most likely explanation derives f r o m the parallelism of verse 8, "one
m a r k e d for the L O R D a n d the other m a r k e d for Azazel," w h i c h s u p p o r t s the
ancient t r a d i t i o n — f o u n d in a w i d e range of s o u r c e s — t h a t Azazel was the n a m e
of a d e m o n . 2 1 This ritual w o u l d t h e n be a r e m n a n t of an older prebiblical ritu-
al, s o m e w h a t "Israelitized," p r o p i t i a t i n g a malevolent wilderness d e m o n .
T h e definition of Azazel is likely an intractable p r o b l e m . Nevertheless, it is
clear that the ritual p e r f o r m e d in Leviticus 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 2 c o m p l e m e n t s the earlier
ritual, s u p p l e m e n t i n g the purification of the Temple with the purification of
Israel t h r o u g h this rite of elimination.
The rest of this section is anticlimactic, tying together loose ends.
Specifically, it deals with final actions of all of the participants in the rituals—
Aaron, w h o p u r g e d the Temple (Lev. 1 6 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) , the person w h o led the scape-
goat (v. 26), a n d the person w h o b u r n e d the carcasses of the animals w h o s e
b l o o d w a s u s e d for purification ( w . 2 7 - 2 8 ) . All of these people c a m e into c o n -
tact w i t h either s u p e r c h a r g e d holiness, s u p e r c h a r g e d impurity, or b o t h , a n d t h u s
they require ritual purification before r e s u m i n g n o r m a l life.
(18) T h u s said the Lord GOD: O n the first day of the first m o n t h , you
shall take a bull of the herd without blemish, a n d you shall cleanse the
Sanctuary. (19) The priest shall take some of the blood of the purifica-
tion offering and apply it to the doorposts of the Temple, to the four
corners of the ledge of the altar, a n d to the doorposts of the gate of the
inner court. (20) You shall d o the same on the seventh day of the m o n t h
to purge the Temple from uncleanness caused by unwitting or ignorant
persons.
If b o t h this and the Leviticus 16 ritual were performed, the Temple would be
cleansed twice annually, helping to assure the presence of the Presence, with the
attendant protection of all Israel.
There is n o such thing as the typical biblical ritual. Therefore the discussion of
the structure and meaning of Leviticus 16 cannot be applied to all other rituals.
However, we analyzed this example to show that rituals—even those involving lots
of elements and lots of blood—are not meaningless prescribed actions. Rather,
they are a series of activities that have meaning and serve particular functions.
Other rituals should be analyzed similarly. In some cases, their p u r p o s e is
fairly transparent from the immediate biblical context alone. Consider the ritual
in Deuteronomy 2 1 : 1 - 9 concerning expiation for a homicide w h e n the m u r d e r -
er cannot be found. It uses blood to cleanse the land: "do not let guilt for the
b l o o d of the i n n o c e n t remain a m o n g Your p e o p l e Israel" (v. 8). W i t h this in
m i n d , it is relatively easy to u n d e r s t a n d m u c h of the s y m b o l i s m of the ritual. 2 4
However, m a n y rituals d o not detail their f u n c t i o n so clearly. Their m e a n i n g
r e m a i n s m o r e o p a q u e w i t h o u t recourse to o t h e r types of analysis. 2 5
Leviticus in particular is full of rituals. In contrast to m a n y rituals f o u n d in
o t h e r biblical b o o k s , these m u s t be p e r f o r m e d at the sanctuary. This is because
Leviticus is a Priestly b o o k , a n d the priests' lives centered o n the Temple. There
is a strong sense, often a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h repetition, that these rituals m u s t
be p e r f o r m e d exactly as prescribed. This is m i r r o r e d in the highly repetitive sec-
tions of E x o d u s 2 5 - 3 1 , 3 5 - 4 0 , w h i c h detail the instructions for the Tabernacle
a n d their fulfillment, a n d w h i c h c u l m i n a t e with:
F r o m the perspective of the Priestly author, the rituals prescribed are divine
c o m m a n d m e n t s , a n d therefore it is crucial to follow their instructions exactly,
i n s u r i n g divine satisfaction, a n d t h u s h u m a n success. In the w o r d s of E x o d u s
25:8, "Let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary that I m a y dwell a m o n g t h e m . " This
explains w h y such rituals play s u c h a crucial role in ancient Israelite society, a n d
in the societies of its n e i g h b o r s .
Many of these passages lack an ethical or m o r a l c o m p o n e n t , a n d we m i s u n -
d e r s t a n d (or "anachronize") t h e m if we claim that s u c h a c o m p o n e n t is implicit.
We also m i s u n d e r s t a n d the f u n c t i o n of ritual in the ancient world. T h e texts are
quite clear: If the rituals are a c c o m p l i s h e d properly, if the b l o o d is sprinkled the
right n u m b e r of times in the correct place, a n d the scapegoat b e a r i n g the sins is
safely b r o u g h t to the wilderness, t h e n the Temple will be cleansed, a n d the peo-
p i e s sins will be annulled. N o prayer, contrition, or r e p e n t a n c e is n e c e s s a r y —
the ritual by itself, if properly p e r f o r m e d , assures the divine Presence a n d divine
blessing. 2 6
T h e belief that ritual prescriptions, if carefully followed, will m a i n t a i n the
divine Presence is a peculiarly Priestly view. It is easy to u n d e r s t a n d h o w this
view might d e v e l o p w i t h i n a g r o u p that h a d the Temple a n d its rituals as their
center. At the same time, as we shall see later, different g r o u p s h a d o t h e r views
c o n c e r n i n g w h a t w o u l d lead to divine blessing. 2 ׳
10
"In the Fortieth Year . . . Moses
Addressed the Israelites"
Reading Deuteronomy
A Pious Fraud
(1) These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other
side of the J o r d a n — t h r o u g h the wilderness, in the Arabah near Suph,
between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab, (2) it is
eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea by the Mount Seir r o u t e —
(3) it was in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh m o n t h ,
that Moses addressed the Israelites in accordance with the instructions
that the L O R D h a d given him for them, (4) after he had defeated Sihon
king of the Amorites, w h o dwelt in Heshbon, a n d King O g of Bashan,
w h o dwelt at Ashtaroth and Edrei, (5) on the other side of the Jordan,
in the land of Moab, Moses u n d e r t o o k to e x p o u n d this Teaching; he
said: (transi, adapted).
The long list of details given here has a simple function: to legitimize the book
as a whole. It is another way of saying: "I am authentic." There is a good reason
that Deuteronomy in particular needs to be legitimated in this way so m u c h of
the b o o k repeats narratives and legal material from earlier in the Torah.
Deuteronomy 5, for example, recounts the Decalogue of Exodus 20. The second
half of chapter 1 retells the story of the spies, found in N u m b e r s 1 3 - 1 4 . Its fes-
tival calendar in chapter 16 resembles the one f o u n d in Exodus 2 3 : 1 4 - 1 9 . For
good reason, the book is called in English D e u t e r o n o m y — f r o m the Greek
deutero-nomos, "second l a w " — a n d in rabbinic sources mishnei torah, "a repetition
of the Torah." At first b l u s h , that is precisely w h a t the b o o k is: Moses' repetition
of selected earlier laws a n d narratives as his valedictory address.
T h e repetition, however, is far f r o m exact. Even the Decalogue, w h i c h claims
to be the w o r d s that the LORD s p o k e ("those a n d n o m o r e — t o y o u r w h o l e con-
gregation at the m o u n t a i n " ; Deut. 5:19), d o e s n o t replicate exactly the w o r d s
f o u n d in E x o d u s 20. Most especially in the Sabbath utterance, b u t n o t only
there, the text of D e u t e r o n o m y deviates significantly f r o m E x o d u s . 1 In fact, that
u t t e r a n c e h a s b e e n " D e u t e r o n o m i z e d , " that is, m a d e to fit the theology a n d lan-
guage of the b o o k of Deuteronomy, w h i c h has n o k n o w l e d g e of the seven-day
creation m e n t i o n e d in Genesis 1 a n d E x o d u s 20, b u t is full of references to the
E x o d u s , a m a j o r t h e m e in D e u t e r o n o m y . 2
T h e so-called spy story is also revised in a n u m b e r of significant ways. For
e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to N u m b e r s 13:2, it w a s G o d w h o initiated the s e n d i n g of
the scouts, while a c c o r d i n g to D e u t e r o n o m y 1 : 2 2 - 2 3 , this w a s the people's idea,
w h i c h Moses a p p r o v e d . According to N u m b e r s 13:2, each tribe's chieftain was
sent, while D e u t e r o n o m y 1:23 notes only that "one f r o m each tribe" w a s sent.
M a n y o t h e r differences m a y be cited.
Legal traditions are equally flexible. T h o u g h there are m a n y similarities
b e t w e e n the festival calendars in E x o d u s 2 3 a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 16, there are
m a n y differences as well. T h e similarities include a notice that there are only
three pilgrimage festivals, i n c u m b e n t u p o n males only. E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 7 reads,
"Three times a year all y o u r males shall a p p e a r before the Sovereign, the LORD,"
compared to D e u t e r o n o m y 16:16, "Three times a y e a r — o n the Feast of
U n l e a v e n e d Bread, o n the Feast of Weeks, a n d o n the Feast of Booths—all y o u r
males shall a p p e a r before the LORD y o u r G o d in the place that He will choose."
In b o t h there is n o m e n t i o n of Rosh H a s h a n a h ( N e w Year) or Yom K i p p u r (the
Day of A t o n e m e n t ) , f o u n d in the Priestly c a l e n d a r of Leviticus 23. T h e differ-
ences are also quite striking. For e x a m p l e , the fall festival is n o t e d in quite brief
t e r m s in E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 6 , "and the Feast of Ingathering at the e n d of the year,
w h e n y o u gather in the results of y o u r w o r k f r o m the field." It is r e n a m e d ,
e x p a n d e d , a n d c h a n g e d quite significantly in D e u t e r o n o m y 16:
Exodus 21 Deuteronomy 15
The formal similarities in content and structure support the notion that these
texts are genetically connected; in this case, that Deuteronomy k n e w and revised
Exodus. Some of the revisions are minor, a n d may be stylistic only, for example,
the difference between the slave's being "acquired" in Exodus, a n d being "sold to
you" in Deuteronomy. Many, however, are quite major, including the way in
which the female slave is discussed: she is in her own category in Exodus, while
in Deuteronomy she is treated the same as the male.
Several differences between these texts are especially important. Deuteron-
omy omits the subcases dealing with the slave's w i f e — p e r h a p s it did not agree
with the idea that a bought slave could be used to sire future slaves for the mas-
ter, as Exodus 21:4 implies. 1 1 In fact, at the very place where that legislation was
expected, Deuteronomy notes: "(13) W h e n you set h i m free, d o not let him go
e m p t y - h a n d e d : (14) Furnish h i m out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with
which the L O R D your God has blessed you. ( 1 5 ) Bear in m i n d that you were
slaves in the land of Egypt and the L O R D your God redeemed you; therefore I
enjoin this c o m m a n d m e n t u p o n you today." This introduces two major themes
of Deuteronomy: its humanitarianism, a n d the importance of the Exodus from
Egypt—which is used as a motive clause in m a n y laws. 1 2
The subcase of the slave w h o wants to stay with his master appears in b o t h
books, with a significant change: the ritual of piercing the ear (not the earlobe!)
with an awl in Exodus transpires "before God" (v. 6), while in Deuteronomy it
takes place at "the [master's] door" (v. 17). Exodus allows God to be worshipped
at a plurality of sanctuaries; in the w o r d s of Exodus 20:21 : "Make for Me an altar
of earth and sacrifice on it your b u r n t offerings and your sacrifices of well-being,
your sheep a n d your oxen; in every place where I cause My n a m e to be m e n -
tioned I will come to you and bless you." This fits with many traditions found
in Genesis, where the ancestors built altars for God in a variety of places (see,
e.g., 22:13; 46:1). In contrast, a cornerstone of Deuteronomy's theology is that
God must properly be w o r s h i p p e d only in the one place that God has chosen for
his n a m e to dwell. This is not only the core theme of the first legal section in
Deuteronomy (chap. 12), but also manifests in the subsequent revision of many
earlier laws. 1 3 Thus, returning to the slave laws, it is n o w clear why Deuter-
o n o m y converts a ritual that was taking place at local sanctuaries into a private,
h o m e ritual: it does not want to trouble the slaveowner and slave to travel to
Jerusalem to perform the rite. 1 4
Deuteronomy has also changed the way in which the female slave is treated.
Although the nature of the case in Exodus is not certain, it is likely to be that of
a m i n o r daughter w h o is sold into slavery by her f a t h e r . ^ By omitting this case,
and instead insisting twice (w. 12, 17) that the female should be treated as the
male, Deuteronomy is removing this possibility.
Finally, the end of Deuteronomy's text provides a motive for why the master
should not feel bad w h e n releasing a slave at the e n d of the seventh year—"for
in the six years he has given you double the service of a hired m a n " — i n other
words, the slave was already a good buy, so do not be tempted to take further
advantage of the situation. The argument to release the slave here is secular and
logical rather than religious and symbolic.
This c o m p a r i s o n brings into focus several f u n d a m e n t a l features of
Deuteronomy: its focus on centralization of worship, its humanitarianism, its
betterment of the status of w o m e n , and its attempt to use secular logic to con-
vince Israelites to follow divine law. Is there any social or historical set of events
that can help explain these remarkably diverse changes?
Deuteronomy as a Treaty
Deuteronomy offers a final clue that might help u n d e r s t a n d its origin and mean-
ing: its structure, which is unlike that of any other biblical book. Initially its
format looks similar to Leviticus: b o t h books are comprised predominantly of
laws, and b o t h have long passages toward the end that outline the results of
following—and in m u c h greater detail, abrogating—these laws (Leviticus 26;
Deuteronomy 28). However, the two structures differ greatly as well: Leviticus
begins with laws, whereas the main legal section of Deuteronomy begins in
chapter 12. Furthermore, while these two books' laws overlap somewhat (espe-
daily the laws concerning permitted and prohibited animals in Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14, the laws of keeping kosher, as they are called in postbiblical
literature), their differences are far greater. (Partly for this reason, critical schol-
ars have concluded that these books have different sources from different time
periods, and more important, they arise from different social groups.)
O n the crudest scale, then, D e u t e r o n o m y may be analyzed as Introduction
(chaps. 1 - 1 1 ) , Legal Core ( 1 2 - 2 6 ) , and Conclusion ( 2 7 - 3 4 1 6 ) . This structure is
similar to that of the Laws of H a m m u r a b i , w h i c h is c o m p r i s e d of laws flanked
by an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d conclusion. However, the c o n t e n t s a n d f u n c t i o n of
H a m m u r a b i ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n are vastly different in c o n t e n t , goal,
a n d vocabulary f r o m that f o u n d in Deuteronomy, so it is unlikely they influ-
e n c e d this biblical text.
Half a c e n t u r y ago, George E. M e n d e n h a l l n o t e d that D e u t e r o n o m y shared
the s t r u c t u r e of second-millennium-B.C.E. Hittite treaties. 1 7 T h e Hittites, w h o
lived in part of the area of m o d e r n Turkey, were a m a j o r p o w e r of the s e c o n d
m i l l e n n i u m , h a v i n g s u b j u g a t e d a n u m b e r of Near Eastern states. It e n t e r e d into
treaties w i t h these states that cast the Hittite king as overlord (or "suzerain") a n d
the v a n q u i s h e d state as vassal. As M e n d e n h a l l observed, these treaties h a d sig-
nificant structural similarities to Deuteronomy, w i t h b o t h c o n t a i n i n g the follow-
ing elements: p r e a m b l e , historical prologue, treaty stipulations, provisions for
deposit in the t e m p l e a n d periodic readings, witnesses, a n d curses a n d blessings.
This suggested to M e n d e n h a l l that the early Israelites b o r r o w e d the covenant
f o r m f r o m the Hittites.
In o t h e r w o r d s , D e u t e r o n o m y n e e d s to be u n d e r s t o o d as a theologized
treaty—in w h i c h G o d is the overlord a n d Israel is the vassal. Of course, s o m e
features of the Hittite treaties were m o d i f i e d ; for e x a m p l e , rather t h a n calling
u p o n a variety of gods to witness the treaty, D e u t e r o n o m y calls u p o n heaven a n d
earth (4:26; 32:1), but s u c h a d a p t a t i o n s d o not negate the claim that Deuter-
o n o m y is the religious t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a political d o c u m e n t . T h e fact that the
w o r d berit ( ) ב ר י תm a y be u s e d b o t h for a treaty b e t w e e n Israel a n d o t h e r
nations, a n d as a technical t e r m for the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n Israel a n d G o d , s u p -
p o r t s Mendenhall's idea.
Most biblical scholars accept the insight that D e u t e r o n o m y n e e d s to be
u n d e r s t o o d as a treaty. Since Mendenhall's article was p u b l i s h e d , however, a
n u m b e r of first-millennium Assyrian vassal treaties have also b e e n p u b l i s h e d .
Many n o w believe that the E s a r h a d d o n treaties of the early seventh c e n t u r y
( p u b l i s h e d in 1958) have closer a n d m o r e direct c o n n e c t i o n s to D e u t e r o n o m y
t h a n the earlier Hittite treaties. 1 8 In particular, the curses f o u n d in D e u t e r o n o m y
2 8 (but n o t in Leviticus 26) s h o w striking similarities to the Vassal Treaties of
E s a r h a d d o n (abbreviated VTE). For e x a m p l e , D e u t e r o n o m y 2 8 : 2 3 reads: "The
skies above y o u r head shall be c o p p e r a n d the earth u n d e r you iron," a n d VTE
5 2 8 - 3 1 reads: "May they [the gods] m a k e y o u r g r o u n d like iron so that n o o n e
can p l o u g h [cut] it. Just as rain d o e s n o t fall f r o m a brazen heaven, so m a y rain
a n d d e w n o t c o m e u p o n y o u r fields a n d pastures." 1 9
J u d a h was a vassal of Assyria for m u c h of the seventh century. Although n o
vassal treaties b e t w e e n J u d a h a n d Assyria have b e e n u n e a r t h e d , it is likely that
the type of language q u o t e d above w o u l d have b e e n u s e d in treaties w i t h J u d a h ,
a n d t h u s c o u l d have b e e n b o r r o w e d f r o m there for Deuteronomy.
This p r o p o s e d context suggests a c o u p l e of conclusions. First, s u c h treaties
probably w o u l d have b e e n k n o w n only a m o n g the m o r e e d u c a t e d class or royal
scribes, w h i c h m e a n s that this class m a y have b e e n responsible for writing
Deuteronomy. (The n a t u r e of the author[s] is often discussed in t e r m s of the
" W i s d o m " influence o n D e u t e r o n o m y . 2 0 ) S e c o n d , if D e u t e r o n o m y is a religious
a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a political f o r m , its p o i n t m a y be polemical: true allegiance
b e l o n g s to the G o d of Israel—not to the Assyrian overlords a n d their gods.
In this c o n n e c t i o n , let u s recall that D e u t e r o n o m y is often u n d e r s t o o d as the
"book" discovered in the Temple in the late seventh century. As I said earlier,
J u d a h w a s a vassal of Assyria for the p r e c e d i n g decades, d u r i n g w h i c h s o m e f o r m
of D e u t e r o n o m y m i g h t have b e e n written. It m a y have even b e e n m e a n t to attack
the type of Assyrian w o r s h i p i n t r o d u c e d in the early seventh c e n t u r y by King
Manasseh, the great apostate king. By later in the seventh century, when
D e u t e r o n o m y w a s " f o u n d , " J u d a h w a s n o longer a vassal of Assyria, w h i c h was
b u s y fighting a losing series of wars against the a s c e n d a n t Babylonians. It is easy
to u n d e r s t a n d in this context w h y the b o o k argues that G o d (rather t h a n s o m e
M e s o p o t a m i a n p o w e r ) is the true overlord, a n d that the f o r m s of w o r s h i p intro-
d u c e d by Manasseh u n d e r Assyrian influence are offensive. 2 1
You shall love the L O R D your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your might: Take to heart these instructions
with which I charge you this day—impress t h e m u p o n your chil-
dren, recite t h e m w h e n you stay at h o m e and w h e n you are away,
w h e n you lie d o w n and w h e n you get up; bind them as a sign on
your h a n d and let t h e m serve as a symbol on your forehead;
inscribe t h e m on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Conclusion
Joshua as History
As n o t e d earlier, the present state of the evidence does not enable historians to
reconstruct exactly h o w the people Israel c a m e into being, a n d h o w they came
to possess their l a n d . 2 This m u c h , however, is generally c o n c e d e d :
Contradictory Assessments
A tale of swift a n d total victory, however, is n o t the only story that J o s h u a tells. 1 2
For instance, we also read: "Joshua waged war w i t h all those kings over a long
p e r i o d " ( 1 1 : 1 8 ) — a s h a r p contrast to o t h e r passages' portrayal of a sort of ancient
Six-Day War. More important, immediately after chapter 12's s u m m a r y of the
completed conquest, we read:
As a glance at any Bible atlas indicates, this "land that remains" is substantial! In
other words, this passage directly conflicts with the account given a few verses
earlier. 1 3
W h a t are we to make of the fact that this book presents more than one idea
concerning basic notions such as how the land was conquered and what its
boundaries are? Like many other scholars, I conclude from its internal contradic-
tions that the Book of Joshua is not the work of a single author. Rather, it is a com-
posite book. Either it has gone through several stages of editing and redaction, or
it was written by an author w h o (for some u n k n o w n reason) incorporated earlier
sources—even though they did not agree with the author's point—or both.
Further evidence for the book's composite nature comes into view w h e n we
consider what critical scholars call the Deuteronomistic History.
W h a t is the relationship of the first several books of the Bible to each other?
Scholars have grouped t h e m in various ways. 1 4 The canon has joined the first
five b o o k s together as the Torah or Pentateuch, literally "five books." This unit
e n d s with the death of its main protagonist, Moses. Yet Moses is absent from
Genesis, and one could argue that the theme of entry into the promised l a n d —
w h i c h begins in Genesis 1 2 — m o r e accurately characterizes these books. This
t h e m e , however, is n o t fulfilled until J o s h u a . T h u s m a n y scholars, especially
t h r o u g h the m i d d l e of the t w e n t i e t h century, saw the first six b o o k s of the Bible,
the H e x a t e u c h (six b o o k s ) as a literary unit. They believed that the Pentateuchal
sources—collectively termed "JEPD"—spill over into J o s h u a (though not
b e y o n d ) , justifying the s t u d y i n g of these six b o o k s as a unit.
In 1943, the G e r m a n biblical scholar Martin N o t h p r o p o s e d a n e w m o d e l . 1 5
Building o n the w o r k of others, he e m p h a s i z e d the fact that the b o o k s of
Deuteronomy, J o s h u a , J u d g e s , Samuel, a n d Kings share similar vocabulary a n d
theology. N o t h c o n c l u d e d that those b o o k s f o r m a literary unit that he n a m e d
the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History (abbreviated "DtrH"). He suggested that this w o r k ,
w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e d earlier sources, w a s c o m p o s e d d u r i n g the Babylonian exile.
W i t h certain modifications, this h y p o t h e s i s h a s gained w i d e assent.16
Scholars have q u e s t i o n e d Noth's claim that there was a single D e u t e r o - n o m i s t i c
"historian." M a n y n o w believe that there were two: one w o r k i n g d u r i n g the reign
of Josiah (late seventh c e n t u r y B.C.E.) a n d the o t h e r d u r i n g the Babylonian exile
( 5 8 6 - 5 3 8 ) , w h o m a y be distinguished o n the basis of vocabulary a n d ideology. 1 7
Still o t h e r s have suggested additional historians, seeing these historians' w o r k as
e x t e n d i n g into the postexilic p e r i o d . 1 8 Despite the m a n y c o m p e t i n g reconstruc-
tions of h o w the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History arrived at its present form, a b r o a d
e n o u g h c o n s e n s u s exists that we can s p e a k of D e u t e r o n o m y t h r o u g h Kings as a
"collection."
W h y we s h o u l d c o n s i d e r J o s h u a a part of this collection is clear: it shares
m a n y features of Deuteronomy. For e x a m p l e , the establishment of altars o n
M o u n t Ebal a n d the curse c e r e m o n y p e r f o r m e d there in J o s h u a 8 : 3 0 - 3 4 fulfill a
ritual prescribed in D e u t e r o n o m y 17. In 8:29, the i m p a l e d corpse of the King of
Ai is r e m o v e d at s u n s e t — t h i s a s s u m e s D e u t e r o n o m y 2 1 : 2 3 . J o s h u a takes for
g r a n t e d that the n a t i o n s of C a n a a n n e e d to be proscribed or k i l l e d — t h i s insti-
t u t i o n is f o u n d in D e u t e r o n o m y only ( 2 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) . A sefer ha-torah (התורה ספר,
"Book of the Torah") is m e n t i o n e d twice in J o s h u a (1:8; 8:34); in the Torah, it is
a p p e a r s only in D e u t e r o n o m y ( 2 8 : 6 1 ; 2 9 : 2 0 ; 30:10). I could a d d u c e f u r t h e r
evidence that links J o s h u a n o t only to Deuteronomy, b u t also to J u d g e s , Samuel,
a n d Kings, 1 9 suggesting that the h y p o t h e s i s of a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History is
quite robust.
T h e D t r H h y p o t h e s i s is i m p o r t a n t for reading J o s h u a properly. It helps to
explain significant c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the text: these are the result of the c o m p l e x
evolution of the overall text. It also explains w h y the b o o k is so inaccurate as a
history of the p r e m o n a r c h i c a l period: the b o o k w a s n o t written until m a n y cen-
turies later.
Revising History
In antiquity, a storyteller typically related details about a past event because they
were important, not because they were true. 2 0 The opening of the Book of
Joshua illustrates this principle, while showing h o w a Deuteronomistic historian
could revise earlier materials to keep t h e m relevant for the (exilic) community:
(1) After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to
J o s h u a son of N u n , Moses' attendant: (2) "My servant Moses is dead.
Prepare to cross the Jordan, together with all this people, into the land
that I am giving to the Israelites. (3) Every spot on w h i c h your foot
treads I give to you, as I promised Moses. . . . (5) No one shall be able
to resist you as long as you live. As I was with Moses, so I will be with
you; I will not fail you or forsake you. (6) Be strong a n d resolute, for
you shall apportion to this people the land that I swore to their fathers
to assign to them. (7) But you must be very strong a n d resolute to
observe faithfully all the Teaching that My servant Moses enjoined u p o n
you. Do not deviate from it to the right or to the left, that you may be
successful wherever you go. (8) Let not this Book of the Teaching cease
from your lips, but recite it day and night, so that you may observe
faithfully all that is written in it. Only then will you prosper in your
undertakings and only then will you be successful. (9) I charge you: Be
strong and resolute; d o not be terrified or dismayed, for the LORD your
God is with you wherever you go." (10) Joshua thereupon gave orders
to the officials of the people: (11) "Go through the c a m p a n d charge the
people thus: Get provisions ready, for in three days' time you are to
cross the J o r d a n . . . "
Origins
T h e biblical a u t h o r s h a d little interest in the past for its o w n sake. Typically they
retold or fashioned stories a b o u t the past for didactic, theological, or political
reasons. T h u s , it is significant that J o s h u a d o e s not e n d w h e n we reach the s u m -
m a r y in 2 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 ( q u o t e d above), w h i c h e n d s , " Not one of all the g o o d things
w h i c h the LORD h a d p r o m i s e d to the H o u s e of Israel was lacking. Everything w a s
fulfilled." This w o u l d have b e e n an ideal e n d i n g for the b o o k if it w e r e c o n -
c e r n e d only w i t h l a n d - t e n u r e a n d justifying the later Israelite's possession of the
land. But Joshua is about more than that. In the b o o k s final form, its last three
chapters proceed to make its m a i n point. They focus, in different ways, on obe-
dience to God.
This theme is most explicit in Joshua 23, which concludes:
(12) For should you t u r n away and attach yourselves to the remnant of
those n a t i o n s — t o those that are left a m o n g y o u — a n d intermarry with
them, you j o i n i n g t h e m a n d they joining you, (13) k n o w for certain that
the L O R D your God will not continue to drive these nations out before
you; they shall become a snare and a trap for you, a scourge to your
sides and t h o r n s in your eyes, until you perish from this good land that
the L O R D your God has given you. ( 1 4 ) "I [Joshua] am n o w going the
way of all the earth. Acknowledge with all your heart and soul that not
one of the good things that the L O R D your God promised you has failed
to h a p p e n ; they have all come true for you, not a single one has failed.
( 1 5 ) But just as every good thing that the L O R D your God promised you
has been fulfilled for you, so the L O R D can bring u p o n you every evil
thing until He has wiped you off this good land that the L O R D your God
has given you. ( 1 6 ) If you break the covenant that the L O R D your God
enjoined u p o n you, and go a n d serve other gods and b o w d o w n to
them, then the LORD'S anger will b u r n against you, and you shall quick-
ly perish from the good land that He has given you."
These verses, like the rest of the chapter, are bursting with Deuteronomistic ter-
minology. 2 8 Here the promise of the land is conditional. The final chapter again
displays these features. There a historical reprise emphasizes God's salvation of
Israel from the time of Abraham until the entry into the land ( 2 4 : 3 - 1 3 ) .
Immediately following that passage, however, is one in which Joshua gives the
nation a choice as to which god they want to follow (w. 1 4 - 1 5 ) . And that, in
t u r n , is followed by a warning that if Israel forsakes God, "He will t u r n and deal
harshly with you a n d make an e n d of you" (v. 20).
It is not only the end of the book that reframes the conquest account that is else-
where so positive a n d optimistic. Nor is it only the Deuteronomistic historian
w h o h a d a h a n d in reworking these earlier traditions into one that w o u l d be reli-
giously meaningful for later generations. As noted earlier, the other great stream
that provided biblical material is the Priestly Tradition. These are the authors
w h o seem to have h a d the final h a n d in editing the Pentateuch, placing their ere-
ation story first, so that all that follows might be read through that lens. It is they
w h o provided a significant narrative and legal framework for most of the
Pentateuch. While they did not have a m a j o r role in structuring the Deuteron-
omistic History, they are not totally absent from it.
For example, a narrative near the beginning of the book, concerning the cir-
cumcision at Gilgal (Josh. 5 : 2 - 9 ) , is (largely) Priestly in origin. That is, this pas-
sage features a characteristically Priestly concern. Of all the Torah's legislation,
the rite of circumcision is m e n t i o n e d only in Priestly laws; it is absent from the
Covenant Collection and the laws of Deuteronomy. 2 9 Only in Ρ is circumcision
of p a r a m o u n t importance, so m u c h so that, according to Genesis 17:
Similarly, the Priestly law in Exodus 12:48 emphasized that only males w h o
are circumcised may eat of the Pascal offering—which, as Joshua 5:10 indicates,
is the b a c k d r o p for the story found here. A Priestly author has reworked mate-
rial in order to reinforce one of his key institutions—circumcision—by m e n -
tioning it at the beginning of the conquest narrative. 3 0
Conclusion
We have seen that the concern in Joshua is not with "real" history, b u t with the
power of traditions about the past to teach a n d enlighten. In this book, b o t h the
Priestly a n d Deuteronomistic schools wrote n e w traditions. Both reframed older
traditions—thereby revising their meaning. Through etiological tales they m a d e
existing places and practices more meaningful.
The historical-critical m e t h o d allows us to recover these creative steps, so
that we may see the traditions both before their reworking and after their revi-
sion. This offers a powerful model for u n d e r s t a n d i n g later Judaism, which in a
similar way has reworked and revised earlier traditions and texts. Such creativi-
ty has allowed Judaism to remain a dynamic, living religion.
12
"May My Lord King David
Live Forever"
Royal Ideology in Samuel and Judges
(55) W h e n Saul saw David going out to assault the Philistine, he asked
his army c o m m a n d e r Abner, " W h o s e s o n is that boy, Abner?" A n d
A b n e r replied, "By y o u r life. Your Majesty, I d o not know." (56) "Then
find out w h o s e son that y o u n g fellow is," the k i n g ordered. (57) So
w h e n David r e t u r n e d after killing the Philistine, Abner took h i m a n d
b r o u g h t h i m to Saul, w i t h the h e a d of the Philistine still in his h a n d .
(58) Saul said to h i m , " W h o s e son are y o u , m y boy?" And David
a n s w e r e d , "The son of y o u r servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."
C h a p t e r 17 fits poorly with w h a t follows as well. In the next story, Saul twice
suggests to David that he m a r r y one of his d a u g h t e r s in exchange for certain
d e e d s (1 Sam. 18:17, 25). That unit s h o w s n o awareness of 17:25, w h i c h h a d
promised the king's d a u g h t e r to the p e r s o n w h o could slay Goliath. These ten-
sions all suggest that a later h a n d inserted the David a n d Goliath story into the
rest of 1 Samuel.
W h e r e did that later story c o m e from? Probably from storytellers w h o
e x p a n d e d o n the traditions f o u n d in the a p p e n d i x to Samuel m e n t i o n e d above.
Both passages share a couple of u n u s u a l features. O n e is the o d d simile that
Goliath's spear "had a shaft like a weaver's bar" (1 Sam. 17:7; 2 Sam. 21:19); it
appears in the Bible only in these two p l a c e s — a n d their parallels in Chronicles.
A n o t h e r is the m e n t i o n of a giant w h o "taunts" Israel (1 Sam. 17:10, 25, 26, 36,
45; 2 Sam. 21:21); this root ( ח ר ף, ch-r-p) is f o u n d n o w h e r e else in Samuel. These
clues suggest that the David a n d Goliath story grew f r o m 2 Samuel 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 2 , a
short unit describing the exploits of "David a n d his men," the giant-slayers.
The suggestion that the David a n d Goliath story is a late, s e c o n d a r y addi-
tion to Samuel raises f u r t h e r questions: W h y did s o m e o n e write this episode?
W h y did s o m e o n e insert it here? T h e answer to those questions will help u s
u n c o v e r the m a i n p u r p o s e of the Book of Samuel.
Bright simply paraphrased the biblical text and removed divine causality. Thus,
according to Bright, it was not God w h o afflicted Saul (1 Sam. 16:14, "an evil
spirit from the LORD began to terrify him") b u t some unspecified mental malady.
Happily, scholars n o w widely recognize h o w u n s o u n d this type of history
writing is. It fails to address the most basic questions about its sources, such as:
W h e n was this text written? W h o wrote it? W h a t was the purpose in writing it?
Obviously, n o one can answer these questions definitively and precisely. We will
not be able to say that this part of Samuel was drafted by some physician n a m e d
J o s e p h w h o lived in Gilgal and, after having visited King Saul on what we n o w
reckon as May 5, 1003 B.C.E., wrote it u p as case notes the next day. However,
by listening for internal hints in the text—by exploring rhetorical features a n d
interpreting them, as I demonstrated earlier in this b o o k — w e can answer some
of our questions, even if the answers m u s t be tentative. O u r answers will deter-
mine h o w we read this unit: as an accurate historical record of the past, or as a
w o r k c o m p o s e d with some other goal in m i n d .
The material from 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8 forms a literary unit. 3 The
character of this material suggests that its main goal is to delegitimate Saul as
king and to legitimate David as Saul's proper successor. The text conveys this
message in a n u m b e r of ways. O n e way is by depicting David as Saul's son, w h o
thus has a "legal" claim to the throne. Portraying David (the J u d e a n ) as the actu-
al son of Saul (the Benjaminite) would exceed the creativity that the audience of
a narrative about the past can tolerate. But the text points to David's "filial" rela-
tionship with Saul by emphasizing that he was the king's son-in-law.
In addition, clothing imagery plays a role in the motif of legitimacy. The
w o r d i n g is even somewhat awkward, so that the point will not be missed:
"Jonathan took off the cloak he was wearing and gave it to David, and his tunic,
including his sword, including his bow, a n d including his belt" (1 Sam. 18:4,
transi, adapted). 4 Thus, J o n a t h a n symbolically t u r n s David into himself—the
eldest son of Saul a n d crown prince. Indeed, m u c h later J o n a t h a n says as m u c h
to David: "You are going to be king over Israel" (1 Sam. 23:17).
Moreover, the text p u t s the actual w o r d s "my father" a n d "my son" into the
m o u t h s of David a n d Saul, r e s p e c t i v e l y — a l t h o u g h in context those w o r d s ' plain
sense is n o t their literal m e a n i n g . In 1 Samuel 24, David addresses Saul, "Please,
,
avi ( 2 4 : 1 2 )".. . ()אב. True to its translation a p p r o a c h , the JPS t
ders avi contextually as the honorific "sir," while a d d i n g a footnote: "Lit. '[my]
father.'" In this way, the translators allow that the w o r d i n g has a d o u b l e m e a n -
ing—namely, it f u r t h e r serves to suggest k i n s h i p b e t w e e n David a n d Saul. As the
c h a p t e r c o n t i n u e s , Saul is m a d e to say w i t h a p p a r e n t t e n d e r n e s s , "Is that y o u r
voice, beni ( ב ל, ' m y son') David?" (v. 17). Saul asks the same q u e s t i o n again in
an alternative version of this story (what scholars call a "doublet"; 26:17), rein-
forcing the p a t t e r n of the earlier chapter.
In short, b y c o m b i n i n g passages that in different ways create w h a t m i g h t be
called a pseudogenealogical relationship w i t h Saul, an editor has legitimated
David, m a k i n g h i m into the c r o w n prince rather t h a n a u s u r p e r .
Meanwhile, the text p o r t r a y s David a n d Saul as o p p o s i t e s — i n particular, as
c o n t r a s t i n g positive a n d negative figures. 5 This is true in several ways, starting
w i t h their p h y s i q u e . Saul is described twice as "a h e a d taller t h a n all the people"
(1 Sam. 9:2, 10:23). In contrast, David is twice called ha-katan QûÌ?H; 16:11,
17:14). In context, the plain sense of this w o r d is "the youngest" ( w h i c h is h o w
the JPS translation r e n d e r s it). However, it can also m e a n "the smallest/shortest,"
w h i c h resonates in this story w h e n j u x t a p o s e d w i t h b o t h the giant Goliath a n d
the tall Saul. Descriptions of physical attributes are rare in the Bible; usually
w h e n they appear, it is i m p o r t a n t for the plot. In this case, two p u r p o s e s are
served by the implicit contrast in size. First, it alerts the reader to the subtler
contrasts b e t w e e n David a n d Saul. S e c o n d , it casts a s h a d o w over Saul: he is the
o n e w h o s h o u l d have c o n f r o n t e d Goliath, b u t instead the k i n g lets s o m e y o u n g -
ster w i t h less stature d o so.
Again, clothing imagery conveys a similar message. In 1 Samuel 17, David
tries o n Saul's clothes, b u t they d o n o t fit—David will n o t b e c o m e a n e w Saul.
However, the m a i n set of contrasts b e t w e e n David a n d Saul centers o n m u r d e r .
Specifically, Saul is o n e w h o kills the i n n o c e n t , while David spares even the
guilty. T h u s , Saul tries twice to have David killed by the Philistines (chap. 18).
Moreover, the n a r r a t i o n c o n t i n u e s , "Saul urged his s o n J o n a t h a n a n d all his
courtiers to kill David" (19:1) a n d r e c o u n t s two a t t e m p t s o n David's life ( w .
1 0 - 1 7 ) . Saul even tries to kill his o w n son J o n a t h a n (14:44, 2 0 : 3 3 ) a n d orders
the m u r d e r of the priests of the city of N o b (chap. 22). Saul personally chases
David in a t t e m p t s to kill h i m in c h a p t e r s 23, 24, a n d 26.
In contrast, David h a d easy o p p o r t u n i t i e s to take Saul's life in 1 Samuel 2 4
a n d 26; b u t a l t h o u g h the king was trying to h u n t h i m d o w n , David refused to
kill "the LORD'S anointed" (24:7; 26:11). Likewise, David did not want A b n e r —
Saul's relative and former army officer—killed (2 Sam. 3). He p u n i s h e d those
w h o killed Ish-Bosheth, a son of Saul (chap. 4). Thus, David has compassion
even for those w h o threaten his kingship.
O u r unit further contrasts the two anointed figures by juxtaposing their
treatment of Amalekites. According to legislation in Deuteronomy (25:19), the
Amalekites must be exterminated. In 1 Samuel 1 5 : 2 - 3 , Samuel c o m m a n d s Saul
to carry this law out by killing the Amalekites along with all their cattle. Saul,
however, leaves their king and some of their cattle alive. In contrast, the person
w h o finished off Saul on Mt. Gilboa "just h a p p e n e d " to be an Amalekite (2 Sam.
1:13), a n d David arranges for h i m to be killed immediately. David follows the
law of the ban that Saul had ignored.
O n e of the strongest contrasts between the two characters is that David
receives God's spirit while Saul loses it. At a crucial m o m e n t , Saul is incapable of
receiving a divine oracle (1 Sam. 28), while all David needs to d o is to ask, a n d
the oracle is received (1 Sam. 23:2; 3 0 : 7 - 8 ; 2 Sam. 2:1). Furthermore, David's
oracles are positive, and he defeats his enemies (1 Sam. 23; 2 7 : 7 - 1 2 ; 30), where-
as after a negative oracle Saul a n d m u c h of his family fall to the Philistines
(1 Samuel 28; 31). This pattern, in conjunction with the others, underscores the
narrator's statement that "the spirit of the L O R D gripped David . . . [and] depart-
ed from Saul" (1 Sam. 16:13-14).
I have asserted that this part of Samuel (1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8) is
a highly ideological text legitimating David as king. Can I prove this interpreta-
tion? No, not in the sense that a scientific fact can be proven. The only "evi-
dence" that we have is the biblical text, whose statements and literary features
need to be explained. O n e explanation is that the text is "simply" recording facts
and events. I reject that explanation for several reasons. Premodern texts, includ-
ing the Bible, show little antiquarian interest and rarely record facts for their o w n
sake. In addition, the structure and other literary features of this material sug-
gest that it seeks something other than the actual past.
Different explanations for a given biblical text need to be weighed against
each other. I believe that the purpose suggested here makes sense of content and
the current of the passage in question better than any other explanation.
Judges as History
W h e n we are confronted with a story that is set in the past yet seems not to be
portraying the "real" past, we always need to ask: W h y has this story been
shaped in this fashion? Fortunately, the Book of Judges provides ample clues,
both in its stories and in h o w they are combined. Consider another story in
Judges that is clearly not historical:
(3:7) The Israelites did what was offensive to the LORD; they ignored the
LORD their God and worshiped the Baalim and the Asheroth. (8) The
LORD became incensed at Israel and surrendered t h e m to King C u s h a n -
rishathaim of Aram-naharaim; and the Israelites were subject to
Cushan-rishathaim for eight years. (9) The Israelites cried out to the
LORD, a n d the LORD raised a c h a m p i o n for the Israelites to deliver them:
Othniel the Kenizzite, a younger k i n s m a n of Caleb. (10) The spirit of
the LORD descended u p o n him and he became Israel's chieftain. He went
out to war, a n d the LORD delivered King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram
into his hands. He prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim, (11) and the land
had peace for forty years; then Othniel the Kenizzite died, (transi, of v.
11 adapted)
Cushan-rishathaim, the n a m e of the king of Aram-naharaim (often translated as
"Aram of the two rivers"—the Tigris and Euphrates) calls attention to itself: it is
metrically balanced and rhymes with the n a m e of his realm, a quite unusual fea-
ture. More tellingly, the n a m e means "the dark double-wicked one." In ancient
Semitic cultures, names were given by parents at the time of birth, often express-
ing parental feelings u p o n the child's birth—it is hard to u n d e r s t a n d w h y a par-
ent would n a m e a child "the dark double-wicked one." In addition, Aram is to
the n o r t h of Israel, while the judge, Othniel, is a Kenizzite, and t h u s from the
tribe of J u d a h , from the south of Israel. It is hard to grasp why he would fight
against an Aramean—this is like saying that a Texan was the first to defend the
United States after Canada attacked it.
The misplaced geography a n d the oddness of the n a m e of Cushan-
rishathaim would have suggested to ancient readers that this story is something
other than straightforward history. In fact, it is best read as a story about an ideal
J u d e a n defeating pure evil. As the book's first story about a chieftain, it is appro-
priately simple and to the point: all starts out well w h e n J u d a h is in charge.
As m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s have noted, most of the other chieftains in Judges
are quite imperfect heroes. A m o n g other things, they d o u b t God, sacrifice a
daughter, cavort with Philistine w o m e n , a n d break religious vows. In fact, the
chieftains form a pattern: as the narrative progresses from Othniel (of J u d a h , in
the south) to Samson (of Dan, which eventually was the n o r t h e r n m o s t tribe)—
the chieftains become worse a n d worse. This pattern functions to denigrate
n o r t h e r n judges. All told, these stories sharpen the message from the Othniel
account: only J u d e a n leadership is satisfactory.
The beginning and end of Judges together amplify that message. These sec-
tions d o not contain stories about chieftains. Rather, the initial chapters recount
the conquest of the land, in which J u d a h plays a crucial role, defeating those in
its territories—whereas other tribes fail to d o so. Near the e n d of the book, chap-
ters 1 7 - 1 8 depict in a derogatory fashion the origin of worship in the north. The
last three chapters, about the concubine of Gibeah, are a prequel to the set of
stories about Saul in 1 Samuel, which we discussed above. Saul would come
from Gibeah in Benjamin, w h e r e — s o Judges tells u s — t h e people behave in a
h o r r e n d o u s manner. The concubine husband's act (mustering the troops by
c h o p p i n g u p her b o d y a n d sending its pieces to all the tribes) will surely come
to m i n d w h e n we read of Saul's later act: "He took a yoke of oxen and cut them
into pieces, which he sent by messengers throughout the territory of Israel, with
the warning, 'Thus shall be d o n e to the cattle of anyone w h o does not follow
Saul and Samuel into battle!'" (1 Sam. 11:7). By denigrating Gibeah (Saul's birth-
place), Benjamin (Saul's tribe), and Jabesh Gilead (a city closely associated with
Saul), the concubine of Gibeah story is suggesting that there is n o chance that
Saul will be a good king.
Judges does not describe accurately the period between Joshua and Saul.
Instead, it parallels the Book of Samuel. Several times it raises the issue of king-
s h i p — b y discussing the possibility of Gideon becoming king (8:22), by high-
lighting Abimelech's role as king of Shechem (chap. 9), and by repeating the for-
mula "in those days there was n o king in Israel" four times in its final five chap-
ters. In this vein, it makes a clear value j u d g m e n t about w h o the proper king is:
he must be an Othniel-like figure w h o hails from J u d a h . He cannot be northern.
He cannot be a Benjaminite—certainly not one from Gibeah like Saul. The peo-
pie of Israel do not ask for a king to replace Samuel, the last chieftain, until
1 Samuel 8. Yet by that point, the Deuteronomistic Historian has already condi-
tioned readers to think that J u d e a n , Davidic kingship is the only legitimate kind.
My title for the present chapter, "May My Lord King David Live Forever,"
reflects I Kings 1:31, the book that follows Samuel. Yet that statement really is
the message of both Judges and Samuel. Reading these two books as factual,
rather than as royal propaganda bolstering the Davidic dynasty and state, would
be a serious error. It w o u l d be like opening a newspaper and reading the edito-
rial pages as factual news.
13
"For Israel Tore Away from the
House of David"
Reading Kings
T hus far I have emphasized that m u c h of what looks like history in the Bible
is really mythological. That is, biblical texts are interested in expressing or
p r o m o t i n g particular views about issues of collective importance (see "Genesis
1 - 3 as Myth" in chapter 6). The issues that these texts explore are sometimes
political and sometimes theological; often they are a combination of both. At
times, these stories incorporate earlier historical traditions, but rarely, if ever, are
those traditions present for their own sake—for what is called "antiquarian
interest." 2 At first glance, the Book of Kings looks different from the rest of this
material.
We will return to Samuel one more time to underline these differences. In
one of Samuel's most central texts, N a t h a n offers David a divine promise con-
cerning his son:
Although Kings shares some of these same ideas, it narrates them in a very
different manner. Instead of long, well-styled 3 character studies, most of the
accounts in Kings are short. They also contain different types of details than
Samuel—details of chronology, of tribute paid, of royal building projects, etc. In
other words, the structure and style of the book are unlike the books of the early
prophets that precede it. This raises the question of whether we should give the
traditions it contains the benefit of the d o u b t , and if we should treat Kings as
history, in our m o d e r n sense. The answer is that Kings is like the other books of
the Bible we have examined: it presents historical information for the sake of
other agendas. The following sections will explain why.
If Zimri only reigned for seven days, a n d began to reign during the twenty-sev-
enth year of King Asa (v. 15), h o w did his successor, Omri, begin to reign in the
thirty-first year of King Asa (v. 23)? If O m r i became king in the thirty-first year
of Asa and reigned for twelve years (v. 23), h o w is it possible that his son, Ahab,
began to reign in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (v. 29)? There is n o obvious way
to solve this arithmetic problem. Some scholars speculate that two kings reigned
for the same time and their regnal years counted for both kings. 5 Unfortunately,
the biblical text itself attests only rarely to such "co-regencies" and justifies t h e m
w h e n they were necessary (e.g., the first king became seriously ill).
A closer look at this section reveals other types of problems, that is, issues that
m o d e r n historians might be curious about, but that the text does not address.
For example: W h o favored Zimri and w h o favored Omri? Likewise, w h o favored
Tibni over Omri (1 Kings 16:21)? H o w and w h y did O m r i s faction win (v. 22)?
W h y did Omri move his capital, a n d why did he choose Samaria (v. 24)? The
biblical historian shows little interest in these sorts of questions, which would
preoccupy the m o d e r n historian.
Instead, the DtrH is mostly interested in evaluating each of these kings and
noting their negative behavior. This is especially remarkable concerning Zimri,
w h o reigned only for seven days, yet is c o n d e m n e d "because of the sins w h i c h
he committed a n d caused Israel to commit, doing what was displeasing to the
L O R D a n d following the ways of Jeroboam" ( 1 Kings 1 6 : 1 9 ) . The sin is King
Jeroboam's building of cult sites with golden calves in Bethel a n d Dan
( 1 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) , an action seen as horrific by the DtrH, since these sites c o m p e t e d
with Jerusalem, site of the Temple a n d royal house. But h o w m u c h worship
could Zimri have d o n e in seven days, especially while he was engaged in a civil
war? Rather, the c o m m e n t in 1 Kings 16:19 is part of the stereotyped evaluation
of each n o r t h e r n king by the DtrH, a J u d e a n , w h o will not miss a chance to den-
igrate the north.
Although we k n o w of only a small n u m b e r of extrabiblical sources that bear
directly on the Bible, a n u m b e r of these cluster a r o u n d the reign of Omri. The
Mesha Inscription, written in Moabite (a Semitic language very close to Hebrew),
notes: "Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for m a n y days, for
C h e m o s h was angry with his land." 6 (Incidentally, the Moabites attributed the
oppression of Moab to the anger of C h e m o s h , their high god. Israel was n o t
alone in the ancient Near East in believing that deities directly participated in
history.) In addition, Assyrian records from more than a century after the time of
O m r i — a n d even after the end of his d y n a s t y — c o n t i n u e to call N o r t h e r n Israel
"the house of Omri." 7 This suggests that b o t h O m r i a n d the dynasty he estab-
lished were militarily powerful. Yet, the biblical text barely mentions this.
Although the closing notice in 1 Kings 16:27 m e n t i o n s Omri's "actions" (or, "his
mighty deeds"), it offers n o details.
In s u m , Kings is not fundamentally different from the previous "historical
books" we have examined. It may look a bit different, and may preserve a high-
er percentage of correct traditions, b u t this is a difference of extent, not of kind.
As the following examples will show, Kings is not interested in the past for its
o w n sake, b u t for m u c h more important reasons—for teaching ideological a n d
theological lessons.
Solomon
The Solomon material in Kings closely fits this description. Even a cursory read-
ing of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 suggests that its perspective differs from that of a m o d e r n
historian of antiquity. The text tells us almost n o t h i n g about Solomon before he
accedes to the throne other than the fact that "the L O R D favored him" ( 2 Sam.
1 2 : 2 4 ) . Many passages in Kings deal with his building projects in exacting detail;
nevertheless, these passages contain contradictions. For example, 1 Kings 5:27,
in discussing Solomon's b u i l d i n g projects, says that "King S o l o m o n i m p o s e d
forced labor on all Israel," while 9 : 2 0 - 2 2 claims, "All the people that were left of
the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, a n d Jebusites w h o were n o t of the
Israelite stock . . . of these S o l o m o n m a d e a slave force, as is still the case. But
he did n o t r e d u c e any Israelites to slavery . . .." Did S o l o m o n use Israelite forced
labor or not?
O t h e r details in the story seem to be extremely unlikely, for e x a m p l e the
suggestion that the u s u r p e r A d o n i j a h asked for Abishag the S h u n a m m i t e , w h o
w a r m e d David in his old age (1 Kings 1), as a wife. This w o u l d have b e e n tan-
t a m o u n t to asking for the late king's wife, or at the very least, to asking to m a r r y
a senior m e m b e r of the f o r m e r royal court. It w o u l d have suggested to S o l o m o n
that A d o n i j a h still w a n t e d to be king, in c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h h i m . 8 Certainly,
A d o n i j a h s h o u l d have k n o w n that S o l o m o n w o u l d view his request as an
a t t e m p t to u s u r p the t h r o n e , a n d that he w o u l d be p u n i s h e d with d e a t h (see v.
25). It is likely that the reason for this story is that the n a r r a t o r w a n t e d to get rid
of A d o n i j a h w i t h o u t m a k i n g S o l o m o n responsible, a n d creating this incident
p r o v i d e d the ideal way to d o it.
If the material a b o u t S o l o m o n was not arranged chronologically, a n d if it is
not interested in a complete, balanced, or objective picture of Solomon's life,
h o w is it arranged, a n d w h a t is it interested in doing? 9
In o r d e r to a n s w e r these q u e s t i o n s we will first look at the structure of the
text. T h e following sets of verses parallel each o t h e r in c o n t e n t a n d structure,
a n d will h e l p u s to divide the first eleven c h a p t e r s into sections:
1 Kings 3 1 Kings 9
Accession of S o l o m o n to the t h r o n e ( 1 - 2 ) 1 0
S o l o m o n follows G o d a n d is blessed ( 3 : 1 - 9 : 2 3 )
S o l o m o n does n o t follow G o d a n d is cursed ( 9 : 2 6 - 1 1 : 4 0 )
Typical D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c c o n c l u s i o n f o r m u l a ( 1 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 )
Jerusalem in 701
The next verse notes, "that night an angel of the L O R D w e n t out a n d struck
d o w n one h u n d r e d and eighty-five t h o u s a n d in the Assyrian c a m p , a n d the fol-
lowing m o r n i n g they were all dead corpses." The following chapter, beginning
in verse 12, describes a visit by the Babylonian king Berodach-baladan (also
called Merodach-baladan) to Hezekiah. That episode is clearly out of order, since
the passage is actually describing a Babylonian visit to J u d e a to help form a coali-
tion to fight against Assyria a n d t h u s is earlier than 7 0 1 . 2 2
M o d e r n scholars' analysis of this material about the events of 701 has taught
us a great deal about the writing of historical texts a n d h o w to read them. The
texts employ multiple sources for the same event. They mix fact with fiction or
highly embellished history. We see again that chronology was n o t the most
important organizing factor for these historians writing texts about the past. We
also witness h o w theology enters h i s t o r y — t h e main object of the text in its final
f o r m is to emphasize the inviolability of Jerusalem. Perhaps we can m a k e o u r
point typographically, c o m p a r i n g three versions of the campaign. Nowadays a
good historian recounting the events w o u l d write:
The Assyrian army destroyed m a n y J u d e a n cities a n d towns b u t did not cap-
ture Jerusalem.
However, what the Assyrian annals wrote a m o u n t s to:
The Assyrian army destroyed many Judean cities and towns but did not capture
Jerusalem.
In short, readers w o u l d d o well not to underestimate the role of this—or any
other—historian in emphasizing one event at the expense of another.
An Unpropitious Beginning
(1 Chron. 5:1) The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel. (He was the
first-born; b u t w h e n he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given
to the sons of J o s e p h son of Israel, so he is not reckoned as first-born in
the genealogy; (2) t h o u g h J u d a h became more powerful than his broth-
ers and a leader came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.)
A Made-up Genealogy
The Chronicler also creates genealogies to solve problems in his sources. O n e
problem presented by Samuel and Kings is the claim that the main J u d e a n priest
at the time of David was Zadok, yet Z a d o k s genealogy is never given. Some
scholars posit—for the text n o w h e r e states this—that originally, Zadok officiât-
ed at a Canaanite shrine in Jerusalem; he was "inherited" by David w h o , as
Israel's king, c o n q u e r e d that city. 5 For the Chronicler, however, the idea that a
high priest h a d n o legitimate genealogy was impossible. Given the importance
of having proper priests in his period, he h a d to "find" a proper genealogy for
Zadok, connecting him to Aaron, the first priest and brother of Moses.
According to most scholars, the Chronicler accomplishes this by m a k i n g u p a
genealogy, w h i c h asserts that Zadok is directly descended from Aaron:
This fabricated genealogy "solves" the problem of the earlier books of Samuel
and Kings.
Rewriting History
(2 Chron. 33:11) So the LORD brought against them the officers of the
army of the king of Assyria, w h o took Manasseh captive in manacles,
b o u n d h i m in fetters, a n d led him off to Babylon. (12) In his distress,
he entreated the LORD his God and h u m b l e d himself greatly before the
God of his fathers. (13) He prayed to Him, and He granted his prayer,
heard his plea, a n d returned him to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then
Manasseh k n e w that the LORD alone was God. (14) Afterward he built
the outer wall of the City of David west of Gihon in the wadi on the way
to the Fish Gate, and it encircled Ophel; he raised it very high. He also
placed army officers in all the fortified towns of J u d a h . (15) He removed
the foreign gods a n d the image from the House of the LORD, as well as
all the altars that he had built on the Mount of the House of the LORD
a n d in Jerusalem, and d u m p e d t h e m outside the city. (16) He rebuilt the
altar of the LORD and offered on it sacrifices of well-being and thanks-
giving, and c o m m a n d e d the people of J u d a h to worship the LORD God
of Israel.
The Chronicler makes a second type of change as well. For the Deuteronomistic
Historian w h o wrote Kings, the book of Deuteronomy was the "canonical" Torah
work. The n o r m s or laws we read about in Kings follow Deuteronomy, and on
the rare occasion w h e n a source f o u n d in the Torah is cited, it is cited from
D e u t e r o n o m y The story of King Amaziah (son of King Joash) of J u d a h illustrates
this point:
(2 Chron. 7:8) At that time Solomon kept the Feast for seven days—all
Israel with h i m — a great assemblage from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of
Egypt. (9) O n the eighth day they held a solemn gathering; they
observed the dedication of the altar seven days, and the Feast seven
days. (10) O n the twenty-third day of the seventh m o n t h [counting
f r o m the b e g i n n i n g of seven-day festival o n the 15th to the 21st, fol-
lowed by a solemn assembly on the 2 2 n d ] he dismissed the people to
their h o m e s .
D: "You shall boil a n d eat it at the place that the LORD y o u r G o d will
choose" (Deut. 16:7).
P: "They shall eat it wasted over the fire, with u n l e a v e n e d bread a n d w i t h
bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or boiled in any way w i t h water,
b u t roasted—head, legs, a n d entrails—over the fire" (Exod. 1 2 : 8 - 9 ) .
Is Chronicles Typical?
The picture developed throughout our discussion of biblical history writing may
be disturbing to some. I have c o n t e n d e d that authoritative writers fabricate his-
tory, m a k i n g u p their sources. Further, I have argued, it was more important to
the biblical writers to be relevant than to be true. I do not k n o w h o w typical the
Chronicler was of the other biblical authors. I have highlighted Chronicles sim-
ply because its sources are extant, so that scholars could develop a good sense
of h o w its a u t h o r reworked earlier sources, and h o w radical he was. Even if some
of the earlier historians preserved in the Bible were more conservative, we
should r e m e m b e r that for all of them, their greatest concern was not getting the
past "correct." Rather, it was to collect, revise, a n d compose traditions in order
to produce texts about the past that would be meaningful to their communities.
15
Introduction to Prophecy
You might w o n d e r h o w it is that this preacher presumes to speak for God. You
might also be puzzled about why the preacher suddenly decided to speak in
poetry rather than prose. Yet this imagined s e r m o n is a paraphrase of one of the
prophet Amos' oracles against the nations—oracles that grabbed his audience's
attention—such as:
Finally, imagine that you are traveling on a public bus. In the seat right
behind you, two people are conversing. You overhear one of them telling the
other about a recent incident:
(Zech. 5:9) I looked u p again and saw two w o m e n come soaring with
the wind in their wings—they h a d wings like those of a s t o r k — a n d
carry off the tub between earth and sky. (10) "Where are they taking the
tub?" I asked the angel w h o talked with me. (11) And he answered, "To
build a shrine for it in the land of Shinar; a stand shall be erected for it,
a n d it shall be set d o w n there u p o n the stand."
Would you change your seat?
These three examples give us an idea 01 h o w different biblical prophecy is
from our everyday experiences. We cannot read the prophetic texts as m o d -
e m s — t h e y would come across as too weird. Before we look at such texts again,
we need more background, so that we can u n d e r s t a n d t h e m more sympatheti-
cally, within their original context.
The texts interpret some conditions on the basis of word association; others, on
the basis of w h e t h e r certain signs seemed o m i n o u s or propitious. Still others use
criteria that we have not been able to decipher.
In any event, both the people and their leaders invested time and effort into
interpreting omens. They gleaned those o m e n s from a huge range of p h e n o m e -
na, b o t h celestial and terrestrial, b o t h normal and unusual. The o m e n texts show
that the populace believed that they could discern the divine will—although it
might take an expert to d o so reliably.
Archaeologists have excavated more than 130 Mesopotamian texts that bear on
prophecy. Strangely, all of them come from just two sites out of the dozens in the
region: 5 Mari on the Tigris River (circa the eighteenth century B.C.E.), and in
Assyria d u r i n g the reigns of E s a r h a d d o n ( 6 8 0 - 6 6 9 ) a n d A s h u r b a n i p a l
( 6 6 8 - 6 2 7 ) . This concentration of evidence for a social institution is unusual. It
raises an obvious question: did prophecy exist in Mesopotamia throughout its
history (and the relevant texts simply have been lost)? O r was prophecy impor-
tant only in these two distinct periods and locales? If the latter is the case, then
Mesopotamian prophecy probably could not have influenced the development
of Israelite prophecy.
Here are two examples of a Mesopotamian prophecy. The first, from Assyria,
is an oracle from the w o m a n Ishtar-la-tashiat of Arbela. The second one comes
from Mari:
Esarhaddon, king of lands, fear not! That wind which blows against
y o u — I need only say a word and I can bring it to an end. Your enemies,
like a [young] boar in the m o n t h of Simanu, will flee even at your
approach. I am the great Belet—I am the goddess Ishtar of Arbela, she
w h o has destroyed your enemies at your mere approach. W h a t order
have I given you which you did not rely upon? I am Ishtar of Arbela! I
lie in wait for your enemies, I shall give t h e m to you. I, Ishtar of Arbela,
will go before and behind you fear not! You w h o are paralyzed [saying],
"Only in crying Woe can I either go u p or sit d o w n . " 6
Moreover, the day I sent this tablet of mine to my lord, [an ec]static of
Dagan came and addressed me as follows: "The god sent [me]. Hurry,
write to the ki[ng] that they are to offer the mortuary-sacrifices to the
sha[de] of Yahdun-Li[m]." This is w h a t this ecstatic said to m e , a n d I
have therefore w r i t t e n to m y lord. Let m y lord d o w h a t pleases h i m . '
T h e latter g r o u p is c o m p r i s e d of i n d i v i d u a l s like N a t h a n a n d G a d ( t e n t h
c e n t u r y B.C.E.), a n d Elijah a n d Elisha ( n i n t h c e n t u r y B.C.E.). Some of t h e m
r e m a i n nameless, a n d s o m e are female. M a n y scholars have referred to t h e m as
"preclassical" p r o p h e t s . However, I avoid that t e r m for t w o reasons. First, we d o
not k n o w w h e n prophets of the classical type first developed. Perhaps they exist-
ed in earlier eras t o o — b u t their speeches went unrecorded or were lost. (Nor do
we k n o w what factors in the social, religious, or economic life of ancient Israel
first p r o m p t e d classical prophecy and its records.) 1 3 Second, we do k n o w that
prophets of the type like Elijah continued to exist side by side with the classical
prophets.
For both reasons, the term "preclassical" is misleading. "Nonclassical" is a
better term, though it too is somewhat misleading, since the prophets within this
group are so different from each other. Indeed, we can subdivide this group of
prophets usefully, either by w h e t h e r they perform magical acts (e.g., Elijah and
Elisha), or by w h e t h e r they critique the monarchy (e.g., Elisha) or support it
(e.g., N a t h a n ) . 1 4
Those w h o support the king are the earliest Israelite prophets that the Bible
writes about. They are m u c h like other ancient Near Eastern prophets. It is easy
to locate them within this context, even if we d o not know the lines of influence
(see above, "Prophecy, Mesopotamian Style"). But we know precious little about
h o w prophecy developed in Israel.
The remainder of this chapter will focus on the main characteristics of the
nonclassical prophets. Often it will clarify their role by contrasting it with that
of the classical prophets. Each of the next several chapters will then spotlight a
leading classical prophet.
P r e p a r i n g to Receive T h e i r Message
Doing Wonders
The Bible suggests that a primary role of nonclassical prophets was to prophesy
to the king. Thus, the Elijah unit opens with "Elijah the Tishbite, an inhabitant
of Gilead" speaking to Ahab, king of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 17:1). Even
the famous confrontation between Elijah and the priests of Baal opens: "Much
later, in the third year, the word of the LORD came to Elijah: 'Go, appear before
Ahab; then I will send rain u p o n the earth'" (chap. 18). The focus on speaking
to the king contrasts sharply with classical prophecy, which typically addresses
itself to a broad group of people, even though sometimes classical prophets
inveigh against the king; they do so as part of their mission to the people.
Both kinds of prophets engage in rebuking the powerful, but the nonclassi-
cal prophets typically rebuke the king only using short, prosaic condemnations.
For example, Elijah's famous rebuke of Ahab by Elijah, after Ahab has Naboth
killed in order to appropriate Naboth's vineyard, reads: "Thus said the LORD:
Would you m u r d e r and take possession? T h u s said the LORD: In the very place
where the dogs lapped u p Naboth's blood, the dogs will lap u p your blood too"
(1 Kings 21:19). Classical prophets, on the other h a n d , speak to all classes, often
in long poetic speeches.
Making Predictions
Nonclassical prophets d o predict the future. However, they d o not dwell on it.
Rather, they offer short, final p r o n o u n c e m e n t s , such as Elijah's word to King
Ahab: "As the LORD lives, the God of Israel w h o m I serve, there will be n o dew
or rain except at my bidding" (1 Kings 17:1). According to Kings, that one-
sentence message turned out to be the start of a three-year drought a n d famine.
In contrast, w h e n the classical prophet predicts d o o m , most often it is condi-
tional, functioning as a call to repent.
According to the Bible, the populace believes that both nonclassical a n d classi-
cal prophets can convey the divine will. Both types serve as intermediaries
between the people and their God. Yet the differences between the types are
e n o r m o u s — i n terms of their audience and communication style, the reason for
their odd actions, and their use of predictions. Given such differences, one may
reasonably w o n d e r whether the same title of "prophet" should apply to both
groups!
The following table compares and contrasts the classical and nonclassical
prophets.
Few of us like to be told in public that our actions and core beliefs are b o t h
w r o n g h e a d e d and dangerous. So h o w did the p r o p h e t s get the people to listen
to such condemnations? The c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a p p r o a c h — t h a t is, the rhetoric—
used by each prophet must have m a d e a big difference to listeners. Here, too,
not all prophets were identical; for example, Isaiah used fancy poetry w h e n he
prophesied; but Amos did n o t . ' Different p r o p h e t s used rhetorical devices that
probably reflected their own skills and preferences, as well as their different
audiences. Since the devices used by Amos are not fancy, we may guess that he
was not speaking, by and large, to a highly educated, poetry-loving audience.
Amos induces the Israelites to listen to him w h e n he begins by prophesying
against all of their enemies—Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, etc. O n e can almost hear the
Israelites cheering as Amos c o n d e m n s e n e m y after e n e m y for its behavior. His
targets alternate between north a n d south; they get closer a n d closer to h o m e ,
until the a u d i e n c e — n o w listening attentively—hears: "Thus said the LORD: For
three transgressions of Israel, / For four, I will not revoke it" (2:6).
In addition, Amos also lures his audience with rhetorical questions, espe-
dally in 3 : 3 - 6 :
(3) Can two walk together / Without having met? (4) Does a lion roar
in the forest / W h e n he has n o prey? / Does a great beast let out a cry
f r o m its d e n / W i t h o u t h a v i n g m a d e a capture? (5) Does a bird d r o p o n
the g r o u n d — i n a t r a p — / W i t h n o snare there? Does a trap s p r i n g u p
f r o m the g r o u n d / Unless it h a s caught s o m e t h i n g ? (6) W h e n a r a m s
h o r n is s o u n d e d in a t o w n , / Do the people not take alarm? Can mis-
f o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the LORD h a s not caused it?
Most of the classical prophets, including the prophet Amos, make the following
five points:
A Universal God
Most ancient Near Eastern peoples were polytheistic. Typically they wor-
s h i p p e d — a m o n g other more personal or familial deities—a high god or goddess
w h o was especially responsible for their city-state. Thus, Ashur was the high god
of the Assyrians; Marduk, of the Babylonians; C h e m o s h , of the Moabites;
Milcom, of the Ammonites; and in pre-Israelite times, Baal (superceding II or El)
of the Canaanites. T h u s the Moabites would have shrugged off Amos' c o n d e m -
nation of Moab—"Because he b u r n e d the bones / Of the king of Edom to lime"
(2:1)—for they would have seen this as a matter of concern for their deity,
C h e m o s h , or for the Edomite high god, Qaus, but not for the god of their
Israelite neighbors.
Amos, however, insists that the God of Israel has jurisdiction over more than
just the land of Israel. This deity cares about more than what the people Israel
d o — o r what is d o n e to them. Indeed, God is the sole deity, and is universal,
punishing all nations everywhere for infractions of basic h u m a n decency.
Accountability
Although this Israelite deity held sway everywhere, the relationship with the
people Israel was a special one. They were supposed to be following divine laws
that a p p l y to t h e m alone. T h u s , after c o n d e m n i n g o t h e r n a t i o n s in 1 : 3 - 2 : 3 ,
A m o s indicts only J u d a h because "they have s p u r n e d the Teaching of the LORD /
A n d have not observed His laws" (2:4). In 2 : 6 - 8 , he c o n d e m n s the N o r t h e r n
K i n g d o m for violating n o r m s that the Israelites t h o u g h t of as b i n d i n g on the peo-
pie Israel specifically.
At s o m e point in history, Israelites b e g a n to u n d e r s t a n d this relationship as
a bent ( ) ב ר י ת, a covenant or c o m p a c t . 1 0 But this m e t a p h o r was a m b i g u o u s , for
political c o v e n a n t s in the ancient Near East were of two types. In a covenant of
grant, one party u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y gave s o m e t h i n g to a n o t h e r party. In contrast, a
suzerainty treaty recorded the agreement reached by two u n e q u a l parties, a vas-
sal a n d a suzerain (overlord). Usually the suzerain u n d e r t o o k to protect the vas-
sal, while the vassal h a d to pay tribute to the suzerain. 1 1
A variety of polemical p r o p h e t i c texts tell u s that m a n y people in Israel
viewed their covenant with G o d as a covenant of grant: G o d w o u l d protect t h e m
unconditionally. A m o s a n d o t h e r classical p r o p h e t s , however, m a i n t a i n e d that
G o d was suzerain, a n d Israel w a s a vassal. T h u s G o d will protect Israel only if
they observe the treaty s t i p u l a t i o n s — t h a t is, h e e d God's w o r d . This is the i m p o r t
of 9:7: "To Me, Ο Israelites, y o u are / Just like the E t h i o p i a n s 1 2 — d e c l a r e s the
LORD—True, I b r o u g h t Israel u p / F r o m the land of Egypt, / But also the
Philistines f r o m C a p h t o r / A n d the A r a m e a n s from Kir." G o d has m o v e d m a n y
peoples a r o u n d , not only this one. Israel's w o n d r o u s liberation in the past does
not imply u n c o n d i t i o n a l divine protection in the future. F u r t h e r m o r e , to the
extent that this relationship is special, it is o n e that m a k e s d e m a n d s : "You alone
have I singled out [literally: k n o w n ] / Of all the families of the e a r t h — / That is
w h y I will call you to account / For all y o u r iniquities" (3:2).
These verses (the last of w h i c h Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. featured in his f a m o u s
"I have a d r e a m " speech) are o p e n to t w o interpretations. If taken literally, they
suggest that religious or cultic rites are u n i m p o r t a n t ; only justice a n d righteous-
ness matter. This has b e e n a f r e q u e n t Protestant interpretation of this (and sim-
ilar) passages; classical Reform J u d a i s m a n d the Society for Ethical Culture also
e m p h a s i z e d this reading.
A n o t h e r reading u n d e r s t a n d s that the p r o p h e t is exaggerating for effect. His
point is that ritual alone is n o t efficacious. This is a m o r e typical J e w i s h reading
of the passage. In c o n d e m n i n g unethical behavior, A m o s dwells o n the o p -
pression of the lower class by the u p p e r class, w h o "lie o n ivory b e d s , 1 4 / Lolling
o n their c o u c h e s , / Feasting o n l a m b s f r o m the flock / A n d o n calves f r o m the
stalls" (6:4).
T h e Day Will C o m e
(9:11) In that day, I will set u p again the fallen b o o t h of David: I will
m e n d its breaches a n d set u p its r u i n s anew. I will build it firm as in the
days of old, (12) So that they shall possess the rest of E d o m / A n d all
the n a t i o n s once attached to My n a m e — d e c l a r e s the LORD w h o will
b r i n g this to pass. (13) A time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the LORD— / W h e n
the p l o w m a n shall meet the reaper, / A n d the treader of grapes / H i m
w h o h o l d s the b a g of seed; / W h e n the m o u n t a i n s shall d r i p wine / And
all the hills shall wave with grain. (14) I will restore My people Israel.
They shall rebuild r u i n e d cities a n d inhabit t h e m ; / They shall plant
vineyards a n d d r i n k their wine; / They shall till gardens a n d eat their
fruits. (15) A n d I will plant t h e m u p o n their soil, / N e v e r m o r e to be
u p r o o t e d / F r o m the soil I have given t h e m — s a i d the LORD y o u r God.
We can be sure that the p r o p h e t A m o s of the eighth c e n t u r y could not have said
these verses, for two reasons. First, A m o s otherwise s h o w s n o c o n c e r n for the
Davidic h o u s e , yet s u d d e n l y verse 11 m e n t i o n s that dynasty. Second, in contrast
to the adjective in that verse ("the fallen b o o t h of David"), d u r i n g Amos' time the
Davidic house was strong. So w h y is this passage here? Typically the Bible's edi-
tors e n d e d its books on a positive note. And that underscores m y point: Only
someone in the Southern K i n g d o m — n o t the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m — w o u l d have
perceived this closing note as unabashedly "positive"!
Although the language of Amos is n o t so difficult, reading his book is not easy.
Prophecy is a genre that is foreign to us. As the historical-critical m e t h o d has
taught us, a text like Amos is quite different from most books that we encounter.
In particular, the text makes more sense w h e n we grant that the words of the real
p r o p h e t Amos are not necessarily the same as the w o r d s in the b o o k that bears
his n a m e and that this b o o k grew over time.
In contrast to other prophetic b o o k s — i n c l u d i n g Isaiah, the focus of the next
c h a p t e r — A m o s is simple. In imagining h o w this little book developed, and h o w
its oracles functioned in various settings over time, we have taken a step toward
u n d e r s t a n d i n g m u c h longer, more complex prophetic books.
17
"They Shall Beat Their Swords
into Plowshares"
Reading (First) Isaiah
The b o o k s history is complex: it embodies the work not of a single prophet, but
of at least two prophets a n d more likely three—or more.
The earliest of these poets, prophesying during the eighth century, is Isaiah
son of Amoz (not to be confused with the earlier Amos). Scholars sometimes
refer to him as First Isaiah; his work comprises m u c h of chapters 1 - 3 9 .
The second prophet, w h o m scholars call Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah),
prophesied in Babylonia h u n d r e d s of years later, during the Babylonian exile.
That work has become chapters 4 0 - 5 5 in the book as we n o w have it.
The third figure, w h o m some scholars call Trito-Isaiah (Third Isaiah),
prophesied in Israel shortly after the return from exile. That prophet's work
comprises chapters 5 6 - 6 6 .
However, distinguishing between their oracles is not simply a matter of
dividing u p the chapters. Just as not all of the book of Amos came from the
prophet Amos (see "The Formation of the Book of Amos" in chapter 16), so not
all of Isaiah 1 - 3 9 is by Isaiah son of Amoz. Deutero-Isaiah and other later, anon-
y m o u s figures a p p a r e n t l y inserted s o m e of their o w n w o r k there. 2 M a n y schol-
ars also believe that s o m e o n e copied c h a p t e r s 3 6 - 3 9 f r o m the Book of Kings. 3
W o r d s Without Peer
(13:6) Howl! For the day of the LORD is near; / It shall c o m e like
havoc from Shaddai. / (7) Therefore all h a n d s shall grow limp,/
And all men's hearts shall sink; / (8) And, overcome by terror,/
They shall be seized by p a n g s a n d throes, / Writhe like a
w o m a n in travail. / They shall gaze at each other in horror, /
Their faces livid with fright. / (9) Lo! The day of the LORD is
c o m i n g / W i t h pitiless fury a n d w r a t h , / To m a k e the earth a
desolation, / To wipe out the sinners u p o n it. / (10) The stars
and constellations of heaven / Shall not give off their light; /
The s u n shall be dark w h e n it rises, / And the m o o n shall dif-
fuse n o glow. / ( 1 1 ) "And I will requite to the world its evil, / And
to the wicked their iniquity; / I will put an e n d to the pride of
the arrogant / A n d h u m b l e the haughtiness of tyrants . . ."
It is a sign and a portent for Egypt and Nubia. Just as My servant Isaiah
has gone naked a n d barefoot for three years, so shall the king of Assyria
drive off the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Nubia, y o u n g and old,
naked a n d barefoot and with bared b u t t o c k s — t o the shame of Egypt!
(w. 3 - 4 ) .
(31:5) Like the birds that fly, even so will the LORD of Hosts shield
Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting and rescuing. . . . (8) Then
Assyria shall fall, / Not by the sword of m a n ; / A sword not of h u m a n s
shall devour him. / He shall shrivel before the sword, / And his y o u n g
m e n pine away. (9) His rock shall melt with terror, / And his officers
shall collapse from weakness—Declares the LORD, w h o has a fire in
Zion, / W h o has an oven in Jerusalem.
Was this Isaiah predicting the future, or were these words written later, after
S e n n a c h e r i b h a d left J e r u s a l e m alone? Surely, biblical a u t h o r s s o m e t i m e s c o m -
p o s e d an oracle after the event that it refers to, in order to interpret for the a u d i -
ence w h a t h a d occurred. (Scholars call this vaticinium ex eventu, " p r o p h e c y after
the event.") Today, however, we have n o way to distinguish p r o n o u n c e m e n t s
w r i t t e n in that situation.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the eschatology depicted in Isaiah—his view of the ideal
f u t u r e — i s highly developed c o m p a r e d with A m o s (see 9 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) . Isaiah 1 - 3 9
presents n o single picture of the ultimate future, either because Isaiah's views
evolved d u r i n g the apparently long period that he prophesied, or because s o m e of
that material postdates Isaiah son of Amoz. The most famous of these visions is:
(11:1) But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse [Davids father], / A twig
shall s p r o u t f r o m his stock. / (2) T h e spirit of the LORD shall alight u p o n
h i m : / A spirit of w i s d o m a n d insight, / A spirit of counsel a n d valor, /
A spirit of d e v o t i o n a n d reverence for the LORD. / (3) He shall sense the
t r u t h b y his reverence for the LORD: / He shall not j u d g e by w h a t his
eyes b e h o l d , / N o r decide b y w h a t his ears perceive. / (4) T h u s he shall
j u d g e the p o o r w i t h equity / A n d decide with justice for the lowly of
the land. / He shall strike d o w n a land w i t h the rod of his m o u t h / A n d
slay the wicked with the b r e a t h of his lips. / (5) Justice shall be the gir-
die of his loins, / A n d faithfulness the girdle of his waist. / (6) T h e wolf
shall dwell w i t h the lamb, / T h e leopard lie d o w n w i t h the kid; / The
calf, the beast of prey, a n d the failing together, / W i t h a little b o y to h e r d
t h e m . / (7) T h e c o w a n d the b e a r shall graze, / Their y o u n g shall lie
d o w n together; / A n d the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw. / (8) A babe
shall play / Over a v i p e r s hole, / A n d an infant pass his h a n d / O v e r an
adder's d e n . / (9) In all of My sacred m o u n t / N o t h i n g evil or vile shall
be d o n e ; / For the land shall be filled w i t h devotion to the LORD / As
water covers the sea.
Of all the prophetic works, that of First Isaiah is the most beautiful yet also the
most abstruse. Given its difficulty, I find it remarkable that this b o o k was pre-
served at all. Clearly, some g r o u p with a fine sense of poetry a n d s y m p a t h y to
Isaiah's message took responsibility for this.
The fact that the b o o k proclaimed the inviolability of Jerusalem, and that
Sennacherib did not c o n q u e r the city, certainly helped its prestige at first. In that
sense, chapters 3 6 - 3 9 , w h i c h describe these events, had the same impact as the
verses in Amos about the q u a k i n g g r o u n d (see "The Formation of the Book of
Amos" in chapter 16). Such notices vindicated the p r o p h e t as a true p r o p h e t —
namely a p r o p h e t whose w o r d s came true (see Deut. 1 8 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) . Yet a main
t h e m e of Isaiah, the inviolability of Jerusalem, was disproved with the destruc-
tion of the Temple and the exile of 586. O n e might have t h o u g h t that after this
t u r n of events the b o o k w o u l d have been treated as false p r o p h e c y — a n d con-
signed to oblivion. However, by that point, Isaiah had probably been authorita-
tive for more than a century. Presumably its sublime style a n d evocative message
about a better future maintained the interest of readers a n d scribes—and ulti-
mately assured its place in the canon.
18
Primary Reading: Jeremiah 1,3, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36, 52.
Background
Organizing Principles
The content of Jeremiahs book differs from that of Isaiah's. Scholars attribute
some of these differences to the distinct historical contexts noted earlier. We can
also point to the impact of each figure's o w n personality a n d style. Disparate edi-
torial processes may account for still other differences in content.
The biggest factor, however, is that the two books wish to convey different
messages. A m a j o r theme of Isaiah is the inviolability of Jerusalem: "the L O R D of
Hosts [will] shield Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting and rescuing"
(Isa. 31:5). In contrast, Jeremiah's major theme is the p e n d i n g destruction of
J e r u s a l e m — a n d of its Temple. The w o r d s of 26:6 refer to both disasters: "then I
will m a k e this House like Shiloh [the sanctuary site that the Philistines had
destroyed centuries earlier], a n d I will make this city a curse for all the nations
of earth." Furthermore, as the previous chapter noted, Isaiah focused more on
explaining devastating events than on convincing the people to repent. In con-
trast, in m u c h of Jeremiah, the prophet calls for repentance, as in 3:14: "turn
back, rebellious children—declares the L O R D . " 4
Reworking Isaiah
(Recall that classical prophecy saw the God of Israel as a universal deity.) God,
however, w o u l d "punish the majestic pride and overbearing arrogance of the
king of Assyria" (v. 12); the passage had gone on to describe this p u n i s h m e n t in
great detail.
That prophesy of Isaiah's may serve as the basis of Jeremiah 25, which
describes the destruction of J u d a h through the agency of Babylon, which has
since succeeded Assyria as a great power. Jeremiah views Babylon as a new
Assyria, as God's new instrument. However, Babylon's impact will be m u c h
greater than Assyria's; it will not only p u n i s h J u d a h , it will also destroy the
Temple and exile m u c h of the populace.
Code Words
Points of Similarity
This is a highly poetic restatement of the idea found in Amos 3:8: "My Lord GOD
has spoken, / W h o can but prophesy?"
Often Jeremiah identifies with the people w h o m he is supposed to rebuke.
For example:
Reading Jeremiah
This section's style is typical of Ezekiel. It begins with "O mortal," ben adam
(.)בךאךם, literally "son of m a n " but better understood as " m e m b e r of
7
h u m a n k i n d , " a n d t h u s "mortal." T h e text c o n t i n u e s by q u o t i n g a p o p u l a r
p r o v e r b that the people are f o n d of s a y i n g — t h i s is also typical for Ezekiel.
However, the e n d of verse 16 is quite o d d : "I have b e c o m e to t h e m a d i m i n i s h e d
sanctity in the c o u n t r i e s w h i t h e r they have gone."
The p h r a s e "a d i m i n i s h e d sanctity" r e n d e r s mikdash me'at (מעט )מקדש.
Given that the Bible f r e q u e n t l y uses the term mikdash for the Temple in
J e r u s a l e m , m a n y scholars once t h o u g h t that this verse referred to the origins of
the synagogue as an institution. Instead of w o r s h i p p i n g at the full-scale Temple
in Jerusalem, they suggested that in Babylon, Ezekiel instituted the synagogue as
a kind of mini-Temple. 8 The verse, however, is better translated: "I [God] will be
for t h e m a mini-Temple in the countries whither they have gone." The sentiment
is striking: we d o not need a physical building—a Temple—because the divine
presence is with us, even if that presence is not h o u s e d in a building. (This sen-
timent contrasts strongly with Exod. 25:8, "And let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary
that I may dwell a m o n g them.") Similarly, God said to Jacob w h e n he left Israel
for Egypt, "I Myself will go d o w n with you to Egypt, a n d I Myself will also bring
you back" (Gen. 46:4).
The historical a n d geographical setting of Ezekiel also explains a great deal
about the chapters that follow Ezekiel's initiation. Most classical prophets went
out to the people, but in Ezekiel's case it seems that the people came to him:
"Certain elders of Israel came to me a n d sat d o w n before me" (14:1; cf. 20:1).
Consider too his habit of m a k i n g odd symbolic gestures (see especially chapters
4 - 5 ) : such actions would have conveyed their message only if people were com-
ing to his h o u s e — s o as to hear his n e w oracles and to watch his latest weird
activity.
Because Ezekiel began his career after the exile of 597 in Babylon, m u c h of
his audience believed in the truth of the prophecies of retribution by Jeremiah
and others (that the Temple was about to be destroyed a n d that another exile
was inevitable). Thus, Ezekiel had a certain cachet as a p o s t - 5 9 7 prophet-in-
exile, something that Jeremiah lacked in Israel—where the population seemed
more blithe (see, e.g., Jeremiah 28). In addition, the exiles probably were feeling
cut off from God. T h u s they would go visit Ezekiel to hear the latest divine news.
This "news" he typically c o m m u n i c a t e d in a straightforward, mostly prosaic
fashion. Ezekiels c o m m u n i c a t i o n style again suggests that he did not face the
challenge of the earlier prophets, w h o h a d to go out to the people and win them
over with clever rhetoric.
In s u m , m a n y u n i q u e features of Ezekiel's prophecies make sense if we read
t h e m with the proper historical and geographical background. Thus, the open-
ing passage is not a model of an alien spacecraft, as some have suggested. 9 Nor
does it point to the lingering affect of childhood psychological trauma. 1 0 Rather,
it reflects Ezekiel's successful campaign to show that he was a true prophet even
t h o u g h he was outside the land of Israel.
(12:22) Ο mortal, what is this proverb that you have in the land of
Israel, that you say, "The days grow m a n y and every vision comes to
naught?" (23) Assuredly, say to them, T h u s said the Lord GOD: I will put
an end to this proverb; it shall not be used in Israel any more. Speak
rather to them: The days draw near, and the fulfillment of every vision.
(24) For there shall n o longer be any false vision or soothing divination
in the House of Israel. (25) But whenever I the L O R D speak what I speak,
that word shall be fulfilled without any delay; in your days, Ο rebellious
breed, I will fulfill every word I speak—declares the Lord GOD.
The same pattern we saw in chapter 11 appears here: "O mortal," followed by
the proverb, and then by the rebuttal. This unit likewise e n d s with the c o m m o n
prophetic formula "declares the Lord GOD," which typically concludes an oracle.
Much more significant is the proverb that he rebuts in chapter 18. There we
read:
(18:1) The word of the L O R D came to me: (2) What do you mean by
quoting this proverb u p o n the soil of Israel, "Parents eat sour grapes a n d
their children's teeth are blunted"? (3) As I live—declares the Lord
GOD—this proverb shall n o longer be current a m o n g you in Israel.
(4) Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the
child are both Mine. The person w h o sins, only he shall die.
The proverb "Parents eat sour grapes and their children's teeth are blunted"
might be rendered into m o d e r n English as "The parents eat Snickers® a n d the
children get cavities." It must have been popular, since it appears also in
Jeremiah 31:29: "In those days, they shall n o longer say, 'Parents have eaten sour
grapes and children's teeth are blunted.'" The two prophetic books, however,
give a different meaning to this proverb's disuse. In Jeremiah, the proverb will
only become false in the f u t u r e — i n the idealized time of the eschaton. But
according to Ezekiel, the proverb is already false; he understood God to say that
now, in his o w n time, "all lives are Mine [and will be j u d g e d so individually]; the
life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine [as individuals]. The per-
son w h o sins, only he shall die" (v. 4).
Ezekiel therefore refutes the proverb at length. First, he treats the case of a
righteous m a n w h o begets a wicked son, w h o in turn begets a righteous m a n
( 1 8 : 5 - 2 0 ) . From this case he concludes: "The person w h o sins, he alone shall
die. A child shall not share the b u r d e n of a parent's guilt, n o r shall a parent share
the b u r d e n of a child's guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be account-
ed to him alone, a n d the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him
alone" (18:20). Then, he proceeds to telescope these three generations into one,
teaching that w h e n wicked people repent, or righteous people become wicked,
God will j u d g e them according to their later behavior. This is another way of say-
ing: Even t h o u g h you have been exiled for your sins, all is not lost. Indeed, "it
is not My desire that anyone shall die—declares the Lord GOD" (V. 32). This leads
to the unit's grand conclusion: "Repent, therefore, and live!" (ibid.).
We can imagine that the exile c o m m u n i t y was feeling a huge b u r d e n of guilt.
If so, this unit (chap. 18) must have meant a lot to them.
Ezekiels address is so long, detailed, and repetitive because he is refuting
not only a popular proverb, but also an authoritative set of beliefs. 1 2 We saw ear-
lier that the Decalogue presumes intergenerational p u n i s h m e n t , describing God
as "an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents u p o n the children, u p o n
the third and u p o n the fourth generations of those w h o reject Me" (Exod. 20:5;
see "The Decalogue" in chapter 8). Other biblical texts suggest that retribution
functions on a corporate level, so that the c o m m u n i t y as a whole receives
rewards and p u n i s h m e n t s (e.g., Deut. 1 1 : 1 3 - 2 1 ; see "Deuteronomy as a Treaty"
in chapter 10). Genesis adopts such a view concerning Sodom, where the issue
is not whether the righteous people will be saved, but h o w many are needed to
save the city ( 1 8 : 2 2 - 3 3 ) . According to these views, individuals cannot change
their destiny in the face of family or c o m m u n i t y evil. Thus, Ezekiel is arguing
against two beliefs f o u n d in a variety of biblical texts—intergenerational p u n -
ishment, and corporate (communal) responsibility and retribution. That is why
he needs to m a k e his point so forcefully.
Likewise, an oracle in Ezekiel 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 3 makes this point repeatedly, stating
that if a city were wicked, "should Noah, Daniel, a n d Job be in it, as I live—
declares the Lord GOD—they w o u l d save neither son nor daughter; they would
save themselves alone by their righteousness" (v. 20; cf. w . 14, 18). The Daniel
mentioned here is not the same as the one in the biblical b o o k of that n a m e —
the n a m e s are spelled differently; the Daniel there is later than the Daniel of
Ezekiel. Here the reference is to Danel, a righteous Canaanite w h o features in an
Ugaritic epic. 1 3 Thus, "Noah, Dan[i]e1, a n d Job" represent three righteous n o n -
Israelites w h o lived long before Ezekiel. Following the principle expressed in
chapter 18, "they would save themselves alone by their righteousness." Because
retribution is personal and not corporate, their meritorious deeds w o u l d not
benefit the c o m m u n i t y as a whole.
Ezekiel did not need to use lofty poetry or rhetoric, because (as noted earlier)
people w a n t e d to hear him: he was their primary connection with God in a soci-
ety w i t h o u t a Temple. He listened to people's belief that God had a b a n d o n e d
them; then he replied so as to contradict their despair. Yet to suggest that it was
his theological message alone that attracted people would be an exaggeration. In
33:32, God is portrayed as saying to Ezekiel: "To them you are just a singer of
b a w d y songs, w h o has a sweet voice and plays skillfully." This suggests that
Ezekiel attracted listeners as m u c h because of his style as because of his message.
Calling Ezekiel a "bawdy" (or "erotic") poet is striking, b u t it does fit the
content of Ezekiel 16 a n d 2 3 . 1 4 Many scholars actually consider these chapters
to be p o r n o g r a p h i c — a l t h o u g h this term is difficult e n o u g h to define in m o d e r n
times, let alone for ancient texts from different cultures. In any case, these two
chapters are sexually explicit. C h a p t e r 16 uses the root z-n-h (HJT), "to whore,
fornicate," thirteen times; chapter 23, seven times. O n e passage claims, "At every
crossroad you built your height and you m a d e your beauty abominable by o p e n -
ing y o u r legs to anyone w h o passed by. Increasing your harlotry, you harloted
with the Egyptians, your b i g - m e m b e r e d neighbors . . ." ( 1 6 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) 1 5 while
another describes the J u d e a n s ' behavior in this m a n n e r : "They harloted in Egypt,
in their y o u t h they harloted; there their breasts were squeezed, there they
pressed their virgin nipples" (23:3). Such "bawdy" talk probably attracted some
of Ezekiel's audience.
The Book of Ezekiel is m u c h more orderly than the two other large prophetic
books. Its chronological setting d u r i n g the Babylonian exile may have con-
tributed to this. In addition, its editor may have been better, or that person
redacted more lightly, so that it contains fewer insertions that disrupt earlier lit-
erary units. Two ordering principles are evident in the book: a chronological
structure, and a collation of material into large thematic units that fit the
chronology.
The oracles of Ezekiel are arranged chronologically (with one exception)
a n d can be dated in this way: 1 6
A second pattern overlaps with this first one: two "watchman" oracles frame
a large section of the b o o k between them. Both of t h e m charge Ezekiel with
forewarning b o t h the wicked a n d the righteous a m o n g the people. The first ora-
cle reads:
These same two chapters also deal with Ezekiel's silence—an issue that bib-
lical scholars d o not fully u n d e r s t a n d , since the voluble Ezekiel is nowhere
directly depicted as being silent! 1 7 Yet God suggests as m u c h in telling him: "And
I will m a k e your tongue cleave to your palate, and you shall be d u m b ; you shall
not be a reprover to them, for they are a rebellious breed" (3:26), while the other
passage notes:
(33:21) In the twelfth year of our exile, o n the fifth day of the tenth
m o n t h , a fugitive came to me from Jerusalem a n d reported, "The city
has fallen." ( 2 2 ) N o w the h a n d of the L O R D h a d come u p o n me the
evening before the fugitive arrived, a n d He o p e n e d my m o u t h before he
came to me in the morning; thus m y m o u t h was opened a n d I was n o
longer speechless.
Thus, Ezekiel's hearing of the destruction of the city and the Temple in 586 rep-
resents a turning point in the book.
Taking into account these factors—the "watchman" frame a n d the trope of
silence—we can outline the book's structure as follows:
I. 1:1-3:15 Dedication as p r o p h e t
Π. 3:16-24:27 Oracles of retribution against Israel
III. 25-32 Oracles against the nations
IV 33-48 Oracles of consolation (after the fall of Jerusalem
in 586)
This outline captures the ironic arc of the book: until the Temple was destroyed,
Ezekiel was a prophet of retribution, explaining to the exiles w h y the destruc-
tion was about to transpire, even t h o u g h he stressed the opportunity to repent
(in contrast with Jeremiah 25). Once the news of the destruction arrived, Ezekiel
changed course; indeed, he shifted his tack by 180 degrees. He became a
p r o p h e t of consolation.
Next we will examine Ezekiel's transformation, highlighting the contrasting
themes between sections II-III a n d section IV Although 3 : 1 6 - 2 4 : 2 7 a n d 3 3 - 4 8
are distinct parts of the book, they are best read and u n d e r s t o o d juxtaposed to
one another.
(11:22) Then the cherubs, with the wheels beside them, lifted their
wings, while the Presence of the God of Israel rested above them.
(23) The Presence of the LORD ascended from the midst of the city and
stood on the hill east of the city.
Once the Presence had left the Temple, the Babylonians could destroy it.
These chapters, however, not only describe "divine a b a n d o n m e n t , " but also
justify in detail why God is leaving. God is furious, although the focus of divine
anger—unlike in Amos and Isaiah—is not ethical concerns. True, some moral
considerations are highlighted: "The iniquity of the Houses of J u d a h a n d Israel
is very very great, the land is full of crime and the city is full of corruption" (9:9;
see also chap. 22). More typical, however, are texts such as this one:
(8:6) And He said to me, "Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the
terrible abominations that the House of Israel is practicing here, to drive
Me far from My Sanctuary? You shall yet see even greater abomina-
tions!" (7) Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I
looked, a n d there was a hole in the wall. (8) He said to me, "Mortal,
break through the wall"; so I broke through the wall and f o u n d an
entrance. (9) And He said to me, "Enter and see the vile abominations
that they are practicing here." (10) I entered and looked, and there all
detestable forms of creeping things and beasts and all the fetishes of the
House of Israel were depicted over the entire wall. (11) Before t h e m
stood seventy m e n , elders of the House of Israel, with Jaazaniah son of
Shaphan standing in their midst. Everyone h a d a censer in his h a n d ,
a n d a thick cloud of incense smoke ascended.
Primary Reading: Isaiah 40, 41, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 55, 63; Haggai 2; Ezra
9-10; Nehemiah 8, 13.
Historical Background
A d o c u m e n t called the Cyrus Cylinder sheds a great deal of light on the rise of
Cyrus. 2 It is written in Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians. It describes
the failing of King N a b u n a i d (Nabonidus), "[an] incompetent person" w h o "did
away with the worship of Marduk, the king of gods; he continually did evil
against his [Marduks] city." The cylinder goes on to describe h o w Marduk
responded to the situation:
U p o n [hearing] their cries, the lord of the gods [Marduk] became furi-
ously angry [and he left] their borders. . . . Marduk [ ] turned [?] toward
all the habitations that were a b a n d o n e d and all the people of Sumer and
Akkad w h o had become corpses; [he was r e c o n c i l e d and had mercy
[upon them]. He surveyed a n d looked throughout all the lands, search-
ing for a righteous king w h o m he could support. He called out his
name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he proclaimed his n a m e to be king over
all [the world], . . . He [Marduk] ordered him to march to his city
Babylon. . . . He m a d e him enter his city Babylon without fighting or
battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the
king w h o did not revere him, into his hands.
The phrase "I call you by name" (v. 4) is especially evocative, matching exactly
the statement in the Cyrus Cylinder: "He [Marduk] called out his name: Cyrus,
king of Anshan; he proclaimed his name." As we shall see, the polemic between
those backing Marduk the high-god of the Babylonians, and those backing the
God of the Jews, extended far beyond these two passages.
The two prophecies cited above derive from an a n o n y m o u s prophet whose
oracles have been a p p e n d e d to Isaiah 1 - 3 9 . We do not k n o w if Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6
represents the w o r k of a single p r o p h e t or of more than one. Most scholars sup-
pose that two authors c o m p o s e d this section; they call the author of chapters
4 0 - 5 5 "Deutero-Isaiah," and the a u t h o r of chapters 5 6 - 6 6 "Trito-Isaiah." 3 (See
"Out of Many, One" in chapter 17.) Scholars have reached this conclusion in part
because 4 0 - 5 5 is almost entirely consolation, and does not reflect the return to
Israel, whereas 5 6 - 6 6 does reflect this return a n d includes substantial rebuke.
Exactly h o w a n d why someone attached these oracles to those of an earlier
prophet is u n k n o w n ; 4 scholars are certain, however, that 4 0 - 6 6 does not reflect
the w o r k of the eighth-century Isaiah son of Amoz.
The following sections will treat Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 as one unit, even though the
same h a n d may not have written all of that section.
(44:9) The makers of idols / All work to n o purpose; / And the things
they treasure / Can d o n o good, / As they themselves can testify. / They
neither look n o r think, / And so they shall be shamed. / (10) W h o
w o u l d fashion a god / O r cast a statue / That can d o n o good? / ( 1 1 ) Lo,
all its adherents shall be shamed; / They are craftsmen, are merely
h u m a n . / Let them all assemble a n d stand up! / They shall be cowed,
and they shall be shamed. / (12) The craftsman in iron, with his tools, /
Works it over charcoal / And fashions it by h a m m e r i n g , / Working with
the strength of his arm. / Should he go hungry, his strength would ebb; /
Should he drink n o water, he w o u l d grow faint. / 1 3 ) The craftsman in
w o o d measures with a line / And m a r k s out a shape with a stylus; / He
forms it with scraping tools, / Marking it out with a compass. / He gives
it a h u m a n form, / The beauty of a m a n , to dwell in a shrine. / (14) For
his use he cuts d o w n cedars; / He chooses plane trees and oaks. / He
sets aside trees of the forest; / O r plants firs, and the rain makes them
grow. / (15) All this serves m a n for fuel: / He takes some to w a r m h i m -
self, / And he builds a fire a n d bakes bread. / He also makes a god of it
and worships it, / Fashions an idol a n d bows d o w n to it! / (16) Part of
it he b u r n s in a fire: / O n that part he roasts meat, / He eats the roast
and is sated; / He also w a r m s himself and cries, "Ah, / 1 am warm! I can
feel the heat!" / (17) Of the rest he makes a g o d — h i s own carving! / He
bows d o w n to it, worships it; / He prays to it a n d cries, / "Save me, for
you are m y god!" / (18) They have n o wit or j u d g m e n t : / Their eyes are
besmeared, a n d they see not; / Their minds, and they cannot think. /
(19) They do not give thought, / They lack the wit and judgment to say: /
"Part of it I b u r n e d in a fire; / I also baked bread on the coals, / I roast-
ed meat a n d ate it— / Should 1 m a k e the rest an abhorrence? / Should
1 b o w to a block of wood?" / (20) He pursues ashes! / A deluded m i n d
has led him astray, / And he cannot save himself; / He never says to him-
self, / "The thing in my h a n d is a fraud!"
This passage, like others in the b o o k , is unfair—it confuses the deity with the
representation of the deity. The Mesopotamians w h o w o r s h i p p e d the statue of
Marduk did not believe it was really Marduk. In their eyes, the statue stood for
Marduk, and Marduk might have been especially present in it, b u t the god was
not confined to the statue, and the statue was not the god. ׳Nonetheless,
Deutero-Isaiah depicts other gods in this polemical fashion in order to argue
against the existence of all other deities.
Deutero-Isaiah also emphasized that the God of Israel—the only G o d — i s
extremely powerful. O n e oracle uses the complex image of God the warrior, w h o
tramples enemies as farmers trample grapes to make wine:
(63:3) I trod out a vintage alone; / Of the peoples n o man was with Me. /
I trod t h e m d o w n in My anger, / Trampled t h e m in My rage; / Their life-
blood bespattered My garments, / And all My clothing was stained. /
(4) For 1 had planned a day of vengeance, / And My year of r e d e m p t i o n
arrived. / (5) Then I looked, b u t there was n o n e to help; / I stared, but
there was n o n e to a i d — / So My own arm wrought the t r i u m p h , /
And My own rage was My aid. / (6) I trampled peoples in My anger, / I
m a d e t h e m d r u n k with My rage, / And I hurled their glory to the
ground.
Time and again the prophet repeats the theme of YHWH'S power, in order to
convince the people that God does have the ability to return t h e m to the land of
Israel. Other texts recall G o d s past accomplishments, as a prelude to their repe-
tition in the near future:
(49:14) Zion says, / "The L O R D has forsaken me, / My Lord has forgot-
ten me." / (15) Can a w o m a n forget her baby, / Or disown the child
of her womb? / Though she might forget, / I never could forget you. /
(16) See, I have engraved you / O n the palms of My hands, / Your walls
are ever before Me.
Here God is "The Excellent Mother" w h o cares for her children so m u c h that
their picture is engraved or tattooed on her palms. Certainly, such a devoted
m o t h e r deserves great trust!
Some of the most remarkable passages in Deutero-Isaiah help Israel to
u n d e r s t a n d w h y it deserves to be redeemed, especially passages concerning a
"suffering servant." That servant's identity may not be consistent in all of the pas-
sages that invoke this image. The longest such passage would later play a signif-
icant role in early Christianity a n d has been a part of Jewish-Christian polemics
throughout the ages. It reads:
Here the prophet does not specify the identity of the servant. Given that
Deutero-Isaiah often calls Israel "my servant" (e.g., "But hear, now, Ο Jacob My
servant, / Israel w h o m I have chosen!" in 44:1), the servant might be Israel as a
whole. 1 2 But other readings are also plausible. Is the p r o p h e t referring to a past,
present, or future figure? Is an individual meant, or a collective? These questions
have been the subject of heated debate for centuries. Definitive answers seem to
be beyond our reach.
In any case, the text newly emphasizes a type of vicarious p u n i s h m e n t . That
the u n n a m e d servant suffered for the sake of others (53:4) and was injured (v.
5) in p u n i s h m e n t for their guilt (w. 6, 1 1 - 1 2 ) is an extreme version of the con-
cept that Ezekiel so firmly rejected (see "Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19).
F r o m a historical perspective, it is likely that the exiles' excessive guilt is what
evoked this theological idea. As with the annual scapegoat ritual in the now-van-
ished Temple (see Leviticus 16), they could u n d e r s t a n d their guilt as having
been transferred onto another party.
Cognitive Dissonance
As we have seen, some of the prophecies in Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 did come true, espe-
dally those concerning Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon w h o redeemed the
exiled Judeans. However, m a n y oracles did not come true. For example, most of
the J u d e a n s did not return to their ancestral land. Those w h o did often did not
enjoy the easy j o u r n e y that the p r o p h e t predicted:
(40:3) A voice rings out: "Clear in the desert / A road for the LORD! /
Level in the wilderness / A highway for our God! / (4) Let every valley
be raised, / Every hill and m o u n t m a d e low. / Let the rugged ground
become level / And the ridges become a plain. / (5) The Presence of the
L O R D shall appear, / And all flesh, as one, shall b e h o l d — / For the L O R D
Himself has spoken." . . . / (9) Ascend a lofty m o u n t a i n , / Ο herald of
joy to Zion; / Raise your voice with power, / Ο herald of joy to
J e r u s a l e m — / Raise it, have n o fear; / A n n o u n c e to the cities of J u d a h : /
Behold your God! / (10) Behold, the Lord GOD comes in might, / And
His arm wins t r i u m p h for Him; / See, His reward is with Him, / His rec-
ompense before Him. / (11) Like a shepherd He pastures His flock: / He
gathers the lambs in His arms / And carries t h e m in His bosom; / Gently
He drives the m o t h e r sheep.
For the hard-pressed returnees, the gap between that prophecy a n d their reality
m u s t have been unsettling, p r o m p t i n g not only disappointment b u t cognitive
dissonance. 1 3
The prophetic texts we will n o w consider use several approaches to combat
the perceived dissonance. O n e approach is to reinterpret the prophecies of con-
solation so that they remain true. A simple instance of this appears in the sec-
ond chapter of Haggai, one of the "minor" (that is, short) prophetic texts (see n.
18 in chapter 2). He explicitly recognizes the failures of the restoration: "Who is
there left a m o n g you w h o saw this House in its former splendor? How does it
look to you now? It must seem like nothing to you" (2:3). Yet, he continues by
giving a promise:
(2:6) For thus said the L O R D of Hosts: In just a little while longer I will
shake the heavens a n d the earth, the sea and the dry land; (7) I will
shake all the nations. And the precious things of all the nations shall
come here, and I will fill this House with glory, said the L O R D of Hosts.
(8) Silver is Mine a n d gold is Mine—says the L O R D of Hosts. (9) The
glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former one,
said the L O R D of Hosts; and in this place 1 will grant prosperity—
declares the LORD of Hosts.
The key phrase here is "In just a little while longer"—the ideal future has clear-
ly not arrived, but it is around the corner. 1 4 Haggai's early prophecies seem to
have been instrumental in spurring the rebuilding the Second Temple. (We will
examine more examples of the reinterpretation of earlier oracles in the next
chapter on Daniel and apocalyptic literature.)
A second approach to relieve cognitive dissonance is to ignore the discrep-
ancies, focusing instead on the theme of retribution. This is especially obvious
in E z r a - N e h e m i a h . ^ For example, w h e n N e h e m i a h saw that the Jews were not
properly observing the Sabbath, he "censured the nobles of J u d a h , saying to
them, W h a t evil thing is this that you are doing, profaning the sabbath day! This
is just what your ancestors did, and for it God brought all this misfortune on this
city; and n o w you give cause for further wrath against Israel by profaning the
sabbath!'" (Neh. 1 3 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . These verses most likely allude to Jeremiah 17:27:
"But if you d o not obey My c o m m a n d to hallow the sabbath day and to carry in
n o b u r d e n s through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will set fire
to its gates; it shall c o n s u m e the fortresses of Jerusalem and it shall not be extin-
guished." Ezra-Nehemiahs emphasis is not on the consolations but on the
prophecies of retribution of previous prophets, and its main concern is m a k i n g
sure that already fulfilled prophecies will not have a reason to be fulfilled again.
In their concern with retribution, the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah were some-
times stringent, "making a fence a r o u n d the Torah" (see "Solomon" in chapter
13). Ezra's blanket proscription of intermarriage is a strong example of this.
Earlier sources had forbidden various specific groups as marriage partners
(ibid.); n o such text had advocated expelling the children of an intermarried
couple from the community. But Ezra 9:2 notes: "They have taken their daugh-
ters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed has become
intermingled with the peoples of the land." 1 6 According to that book, the Jews
m a d e a covenant to expel not only these foreign wives, b u t also "those w h o have
been b o r n to them" (Ezra 10:3). This decision grew out of a close study of Torah
and prophetic texts, 1 7 combined with a great concern by some that the exile and
the destruction of the Temple not be repeated.
This survey of postexilic literature suggests that the people in that period stud-
ied Torah and other texts closely. This image is corroborated by the description
in Nehemiah of the great covenant m a d e in Jerusalem, where
(8:1) the entire people assembled as one m a n in the square before the
Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the scroll of the
Teaching of Moses with which the L O R D had charged Israel. . . . ( 5 ) Ezra
o p e n e d the scroll in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the
people; as he o p e n e d it, all the people stood up. . . . (8) They read from
the scroll of the Teaching of God, translating it and giving the sense; so
they understood the reading.
As the passage continues, we learn that specific sections were read and lis-
tened to carefully, a n d then implemented. For example, the people celebrated
dwelling in b o o t h s d u r i n g Sukkot, after the scribes read aloud the section about
the relevant rites: "They found written in the Teaching that the L O R D had com-
m a n d e d Moses that the Israelites must dwell in booths d u r i n g the festival of the
seventh m o n t h " (v. 14).
To u n d e r s t a n d the divine will, such texts suggest, prophecy was n o longer
necessary. Old, authoritative texts—the Torah and the prophetic books, which
became so important in the exilic period—retained their importance a n d could
be studied to determine the divine will as it applied to the contemporary situa-
tion. The prophetic impulse did not stop at that point, 1 8 but, as we will see in
the next chapter, prophecy went through remarkable changes.
21
Z e c h a r i a h a n d the B e g i n n i n g s o f A p o c a l y p t i c L i t e r a t u r e
Daniel
T h e m e s in the Stories of D a n i e l
(31) I blessed the Most High, a n d praised and glorified the Ever-Living
One, / W h o s e d o m i n i o n is an everlasting d o m i n i o n / And whose king-
d o m e n d u r e s t h r o u g h o u t the generations. / (32) All the inhabitants of
the earth are of n o account. / He does as He wishes with the host of
heaven, / And with the inhabitants of the earth. / There is n o n e to stay
His h a n d / O r say to Him, "What have You done?"
(6:26) Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every lan-
guage that inhabit the earth, "May your well-being abound! (27) I have
hereby given an order that throughout m y royal domain m e n m u s t
tremble in fear before the God of Daniel, for He is the living God w h o
e n d u r e s forever; His kingdom is indestructible, and His d o m i n i o n is to
the e n d of time; (28) He delivers a n d saves, and performs signs and
w o n d e r s in heaven and on earth, for He delivered Daniel from the
power of the lions." (29) T h u s Daniel prospered during the reign of
Darius and d u r i n g the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Primary Reading: 1 Samuel 1-2; Psalms 1, 3, 6, 14, 15, 24, 53, 118.
What Is Psalms?
Like almost one h u n d r e d other biblical prayers, this one is prose. 2 (It lacks par-
allelism and figuration, and it employs plain language.) Its three-part structure
is clear: an invocation of God, a long request, and a motivation—why God
should heed this request). The following table shows these e l e m e n t s 3
In terms of its structure and elements, this psalm resembles Hannah's prose
prayer in 1 Samuel 1: invocation of God, requests, and motivations (why God
should heed this prayer).
Assigning a Genre
A Collection of Collections
We have established that the Book of Psalms c a m e together over a long period
of time. F u r t h e r evidence c o m e s f r o m the n o t a t i o n a b o u t halfway t h r o u g h the
b o o k , "End of the prayers of David son of Jesse" (72:20), w h i c h m u s t m a r k the
conclusion of an earlier edition of the Psalter. T h e book's d e v e l o p m e n t over time
has left traces in its present structure. C o m p a r e Psalms 14 a n d 53:
Psalm 14 Psalm 53
(1) For the leader. Of David. (1) For the leader; o n mahalath. A
T h e b e n i g h t e d m a n thinks, maskil of David.
"God does n o t care." (2) T h e b e n i g h t e d m a n thinks, "God
Man's d e e d s are c o r r u p t a n d does n o t care." Man's w r o n g d o i n g
loathsome; n o o n e d o e s good. is c o r r u p t a n d loathsome; n o o n e
(2) The LORD looks d o w n f r o m does good.
h e a v e n on m a n k i n d to find a m a n (3) G o d looks d o w n f r o m heaven o n
of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , m a n k i n d to find a m a n of
a m a n m i n d f u l of God. u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a m a n m i n d f u l of
(3) All have t u r n e d b a d , altogether God.
foul; there is n o n e w h o does g o o d , (4) Everyone is dross, altogether foul;
n o t even one. there is n o n e w h o does good,
(4) Are they so witless, all those n o t even one.
evildoers, w h o d e v o u r m y p e o p l e (5) Are they so witless, those
as they d e v o u r food, a n d d o n o t evildoers, w h o d e v o u r m y people
invoke the LORD? as they d e v o u r food, a n d d o n o t
(5) There they will be seized w i t h invoke God?
fright, for G o d is present in the (6) There they will be seized w i t h
circle of the righteous. f r i g h t — n e v e r w a s there s u c h a
(6) You m a y set at n a u g h t the c o u n s e l f r i g h t — f o r G o d has scattered the
of the lowly, b u t the LORD is his b o n e s of y o u r besiegers; y o u
refuge. have p u t t h e m to s h a m e , for G o d
(7) Ο that the deliverance of Israel h a s rejected t h e m .
m i g h t c o m e f r o m Zion! W h e n the (7) Ο that the deliverance of Israel
LORD restores the f o r t u n e s of His m i g h t c o m e f r o m Zion! W h e n
people, J a c o b will exult, Israel G o d restores the f o r t u n e s of His
will rejoice. people, J a c o b will exult, Israel
will rejoice.
Given the evidence surveyed in the previous section, perhaps Psalms is not real-
ly a b o o k at all; it w o u l d seem to be a hodge-podge. We can n o longer determine
w h y each psalm is in its place. Even so, we can discern some general principles
of ordering for Psalms. That order is sufficient to consider Psalms a true b o o k . 1 7
O n the simplest level of organization, we see that the laments predominate
at the beginning of the Psalter, whereas the h y m n s appear mostly at its end.
Thus, Psalms moves from complaint to thanksgiving, from being troubled to
being joyful. That is a c o m m o n biblical structure, as in prophetic books that
begin with rebuke a n d end with consolation (see esp. Ezekiel).
The structure of Psalms is more complex as well. A formula that praises God
(what scholars call a "doxology") occurs four times, with only slight variation:
Blessed is the LORD, God of Israel, / from eternity to eternity. / Amen and
Amen. (41:14)
Blessed is His glorious n a m e forever; / His glory fills the whole world. /
Amen and Amen. / End of the prayers of David son of Jesse. ( 7 2 : 1 9 - 2 0 )
Functionally speaking, these formulas divide the b o o k into five parts. Linguistic
a n d contextual evidence suggests that these formulas are not an original part of
the book. In other words, a later editor inserted t h e m so as to create a five-part
composition.
The book's conclusion reinforces that five-part structure, for it exuberantly
underscores the earlier praise formulas (we might call it a "megadoxology"):
(150:1) Hallelujah. Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the sky,
His stronghold. (2) Praise H i m for His mighty acts; praise Him for His
exceeding greatness. (3) Praise Him with blasts of the h o r n ; praise Him
w i t h h a r p a n d lyre. (4) Praise H i m w i t h timbrel a n d dance; praise H i m
w i t h lute a n d pipe. (5) Praise H i m w i t h r e s o u n d i n g cymbals; praise H i m
w i t h loud-clashing cymbals. (6) Let all that b r e a t h e s praise the LORD.
Hallelujah.
Primary Reading: Proverbs 1,3,6, 7, 10, 22, 23, 30, 31; Ecclesiastes 1-3,
7-8, 10,12.
God
(15:9) Beware lest you h a r b o r the base t h o u g h t , "The seventh year, the
year of remission, is a p p r o a c h i n g , " so that y o u are m e a n to y o u r n e e d y
k i n s m a n a n d give h i m n o t h i n g . He will cry o u t to the LORD against y o u ,
a n d y o u will i n c u r guilt. (10) Give to h i m readily a n d have n o regrets
w h e n y o u d o so, for in r e t u r n the LORD y o u r G o d will bless y o u in all
y o u r efforts a n d in all y o u r u n d e r t a k i n g s . (11) For there will never cease
to be n e e d y o n e s in y o u r land, w h i c h is w h y I c o m m a n d you: o p e n y o u r
h a n d to the p o o r a n d n e e d y k i n s m a n in y o u r land.
Likewise, Amos, a prophetic text, shows a strong concern for the poor:
(2:6) T h u s said the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, / For four, I
will not revoke it: / Because they have sold for silver / Those whose
cause was just, / And the needy for a pair of sandals. / (7) Ah, you w h o
trample the heads of the poor / Into the dust of the ground . . .
In contrast, Proverbs chides one w h o has bothered to help out a poor per-
son by cosigning a loan:
(6:1) My son, if you have stood surety for your fellow, / Given your
h a n d for another, / (2) You have been trapped by the words of your
m o u t h , / Snared by the words of your m o u t h . / (3) Do this, then, my
son, to extricate yourself, / For you have come into the power of your
fellow: / Go grovel—and badger your fellow; / (4) Give your eyes n o
sleep, / Your pupils n o slumber. / (5) Save yourself like a deer out of the
h a n d of a hunter, / Like a bird out of the h a n d of a fowler.
It is hard to believe that Proverbs—with its practical yet less compassionate atti-
tude toward the p o o r — a p p e a r s in the same Bible as Deuteronomy a n d Amos!
Even in cases where all biblical books agree that something is b a d or good,
Proverbs presents the issue in a distinctive manner. For example, the entire Bible
is anti-adultery. (The Bible defines adultery as a m a n s having sexual intercourse
with a w o m a n w h o is married to another man.) In the Torah, adultery is a cap-
ital offense: "If a m a n is f o u n d lying with another man's wife, both of t h e m . . .
shall die. T h u s you will sweep away evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22). In the
Torah's narrative, Joseph recognizes the seriousness of adultery w h e n he says to
Mrs. Potiphar: "How then could I do this most wicked thing, a n d sin before
God?" (Gen. 39:9). In contrast, Proverbs c o n d e m n s adultery as an offense not
against God b u t rather against the woman's h u s b a n d :
In this respect, Proverbs' view of adultery is like that in the rest of the Near
Eastern world.
Indeed, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b are more international in their
purview than other books in the Bible. This is most obvious in the sections of
Proverbs that e c h o an earlier Egyptian text called The Instruction of Amenemope,
as we shall see below. But all three b o o k s s h o w m a n y m o r e similarities—in style
a n d in specific p h r a s e s a n d l i n e s — t o pre-Israelite literature. Apparently the
a u t h o r s of these biblical b o o k s h a d access to this non-Israelite m a t e r i a l — a n d
saw fit to m a k e use of it.
Given the similarities a m o n g these three b o o k s , a n d their differences f r o m
the rest of the Bible, scholars c u s t o m a r i l y refer to t h e m t o g e t h e r as " W i s d o m
Literature." 4 N o t all scholars agree that this is the best t e r m . 5 At the s a m e time,
m a n y scholars believe that the s c o p e of this literature e x t e n d s b e y o n d these
three b o o k s . 6 Yet in the s a m e w a y that Leviticus a n d D e u t e r o n o m y m a y be
s t u d i e d t o g e t h e r usefully as Torah, or that Isaiah a n d Ezekiel m a y be s t u d i e d
together effectively as classical prophecy, the three books of Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b can be e x a m i n e d p r o d u c t i v e l y w i t h regard to each other.
Also, given their i n t e r n a t i o n a l flavor, it is o f t e n h e l p f u l to read t h e m against
o t h e r ancient Near Eastern texts, r a t h e r t h a n in light of the Torah or Israelite
p r o p h e t i c texts.
What Is Proverbs?
The horse is readied for the day of battle, / But victory comes from the
LORD (21:31).
For by stratagems you wage war, / And victory comes with m u c h plan-
ning (24:6).
The first proverb holds that God causes all ("theonomy"), whereas the second
one suggests that h u m a n s control their own fate ("autonomy").
Thus, proverbs in Proverbs seem to have two very different perspectives:
God is either the m a j o r player or else ignored altogether. The first type e m p h a -
sizes "fear of God," "righteousness," and "wickedness," while the second type
highlights "wisdom," "being wise," a n d "being foolish." Words that characterize
one type rarely appear together with words that typify the other type. 9 Some
scholars believe that these two types reflect different worldviews: 1 0 in one, God
micromanages; in the other, things just h a p p e n . 1 1 Alternately, the same person
may have u p h e l d each of these views at different times. But at any rate, each
proverb presents only one point of view.
T h e Central Section
T h e b u l k of Proverbs ( 1 0 : 1 - 2 2 : 1 6 ) is c o m p r i s e d of t w o - p a r t sayings in w h i c h
the s e c o n d part o p p o s e s the first part (a poetic f o r m called "antithetical paral-
lelism"; see c h a p t e r 17). These sayings seem to have n o c o n n e c t i o n one to the
next. Here is a typical three-verse-long passage f r o m this section of the b o o k :
T h e First Section
T h e T h i r d Section
Reading Proverbs
Each section of Proverbs presents particular challenges. The first nine chapters,
with their caricature of a "foreign w o m a n , " is by todays egalitarian standards
offensive. In the second, central section, m a n y proverbs are too obvious to
excite, such as: "A wise son brings joy to his father; / A dull son is his mother's
sorrow" (10:1). They p r o m p t unanswerable questions, such as: For w h o m were
these words intended? Were they meant for educating children? 1 8 Other sayings,
however, are colorful and surprising; like the best of m o d e r n proverbs, they pro-
voke the reader to think about the associations that they make. For example: "A
gold ring in the snout of a pig. / A beautiful w o m a n bereft of sense" (11:22;
transi, a d a p t e d ) . 1 9
Perhaps the most challenging part of reading Proverbs is taking it on its own
terms, removed from other biblical literature. Most interpreters have failed to do
so. Thus, Yeshua (Joshua) Ben-Sirach, a sage living in the second century B.C.E.,
identified "wisdom" with "fear of the LORD," conflating what in Proverbs had
been two distinct ideas (see above, "Patterns That Reveal the Book's Nature").
For example, Ben-Sirach opens his book with the observation that "all wisdom
is from the LORD," and elsewhere it notes that "the whole of w i s d o m is fear of the
Lord" (19:20). 2 0 This identification of w i s d o m and righteousness became stan-
dard in later J u d a i s m — s o m u c h so that later generations took the word "wis-
dorn" in Proverbs to mean "Torah." T h u s Jewish tradition has long understood
Torah, a n d not simply wisdom, to be the subject of the famous verse, "She is a
tree of life to those w h o grasp her, / And whoever holds on to her is happy"
(Prov. 3:18; compare v. 13). Historical-critical study encourages us to strip away
such later identifications, and to u n d e r s t a n d such texts on their own terms—that
is, in reference to secular wisdom.
Ecclesiastes: Utter Futility!
(2:15) "The fate of the fool is also destined for me; to w h a t advantage,
t h e n , have I been wise?" A n d I c a m e to the conclusion that that too was
futile, (16) because the wise m a n , j u s t like the fool, is n o t r e m e m b e r e d
forever; for, as the s u c c e e d i n g days roll by, b o t h are forgotten. Alas, the
wise m a n dies, j u s t like the fool!
The point is that God has determined what these "seasons" should be; n o t h i n g
that h u m a n s do can change t h e m . 2 5 People are powerless to change what God
has determined. Moreover, they cannot even k n o w w h e n those seasons occur. As
the same passage p u t s it: "I have observed the business that God gave m a n to be
concerned with: He brings everything to pass precisely at its time; He also p u t s
eternity [= the desire to k n o w the future] in their m i n d , b u t without m a n ever
guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass" (w. 1 0 - 1 1 ) .
Such extreme determinism distinguishes Ecclesiastes from the rest of the Bible. 2 6
O n e might think that people's reaction to a world in which they are pawns,
in which God "holds all the cards," would cause suicidal pessimism. However,
this same passage tells us that "the only worthwhile thing there is for them is to
enjoy themselves a n d d o what is good in their lifetime; also, . . . whenever a m a n
does eat and drink a n d get e n j o y m e n t out of all his wealth, it is a gift of God"
(w. 12-13). Irony of ironies: try to be happy, b u t it is God w h o will decide if you
will be h a p p y or not.
This leads us to the book's third key: happiness is one of its major themes. 2 7
Koheleth concludes that "the only good a m a n can have u n d e r the sun is to eat
and drink and enjoy himself. That m u c h can accompany him . . . through the
days of life that God has granted h i m u n d e r the sun" (8:15). Elsewhere the Bible
has n o problems with happiness. W h a t makes Ecclesiastes exceptional is its giv-
ing a central role to happiness, "the gift of God" (3:13; 5:18).
More Wisdom
The theme of wisdom will continue in the next chapter, as we explore Job. Like
Proverbs and Koheleth, J o b emphasizes the importance of experience in u n d e r -
standing h o w the world functions. Yet the experience of the author of J o b seems
to have differed remarkably from that of the authors of the other two works,
yielding a m u c h more enigmatic and p r o f o u n d work.
24
"Being But Dust and Ashes"
Reading Job
Beyond Difficult
1. Narrative i n t r o d u c t i o n
2. Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad, Z o p h a r
3. Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad, Z o p h a r
4. Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad
5. Speeches by Elihu
6. God's speeches
7. Narrative conclusion
Certain asymmetries here are puzzling. Why, for example, is there n o speech by
Zophar in the third set of speeches (section 4)? If Zophar's third speech is miss-
ing, what does this mean? Perhaps it is not really m i s s i n g — p e r h a p s the words
"Zophar the Naamathite said in reply" simply fell out somewhere, skipped by a
distracted scribe; but if so, at what point should we reinsert them? W h e t h e r we
read a particular section as said by Job, or by Zophar, makes a big difference.
Aside from the strange structure, none of the friends has a distinct person-
ality, as might be expected. 3 More unsettling is the unfulfilled promise w h e n
each speech cycle is repeatedly p u n c t u a t e d by the phrase "X said in reply."
This suggests that we are reading a true dialogue, yet we never get one. Indeed,
the characters not only talk past each other (as we shall see below), they also
attempt to define the other's position. For example, Eliphaz says: "You [Job] say,
'What can God know? / Can He govern through the dense cloud? / The clouds
screen Him so He cannot see / As He moves about the circuit of heaven'"
( 2 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . These words Eliphaz p u t s into Job's m o u t h — a n d they misconstrue
Job's argument!
The threefold cycle of speeches is followed by Elihu's lone speeches in chap-
ters 3 2 - 3 7 . His presence is a surprise. He is m e n t i o n e d neither in the book's pro-
logue (2:11) n o r its epilogue (42:7, 9), where Job has only three other friends.
W h a t is Elihu doing here? W h y does he offer four speeches in a row? Even
stranger than this, he depicts himself as a b u m b l e r w h o talks a lot but says lit-
tie: "For I am full of words; / The wind in my belly presses me. / My belly is like
wine not yet opened, / Like j u g s of n e w wine ready to burst. / Let me speak,
then, a n d get relief; / Let me o p e n my lips a n d reply" ( 3 2 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) . To make
matters more confusing, what God says later on is m u c h like what Elihu says
here. W h a t does this tell us about God? If Elihu is a b u m b l i n g idiot, then his
speeches may foreshadow God's speeches, hinting that even God's answers are
not satisfactory. 4
God's speeches to Job have their o w n difficulties, as we shall see below. For
n o w we can ask: W h y does God need to speak twice? W h a t is the difference
between Job's two answers to God, a n d w h y is this difference so important that
God is satisfied with Job's second response, but not with his first? Most signifi-
cantly, does God really answer Job's challenge?
These problems are easily multiplied, for the Book of Job is an enigma.' 5 This
great w o r k of literature is not o p e n to a simple, authoritative explanation.
A Partial Resolution
Despite the extreme challenges, we can make several definitive statements about
parts of Job. Once these are considered, we can make some sense out of the book
as a whole.
The Book of Job is comprised of two main parts: a prose frame around a
poetic center. 6 The prose is n o w marked as chapters 1 - 2 and 4 2 : 7 - 1 7 . The rest
of the b o o k ( 3 : 1 - 4 2 : 6 ) is poetry. Each part also prefers different divine names.
Yet the difference between the two parts is more than a matter of linguistic style.
Each of the two sections tells a fundamentally different story. In the prose part,
Job's misfortunes arise from a discussion between God and the Adversary, a char-
acter w h o is absent from the poetic part. The afflictions of Job in the prose and
poetry are also different. In the prose, all his children are killed, b u t in the poet-
ry they are alive: "My odor is repulsive to m y wife; / I am loathsome to my chil-
dren" (19:17). Finally, it is the prose that depicts what scholars have called "Job
the patient." The poetry portrays a distinct temperament, "Job the impatient." 7
However, in contrast to what we f o u n d through source-analysis of the
Torah, w h e n we contrast the two parts of Job, we must conclude that they d o not
represent two separate sources. For neither section is complete without the
other. For example, the prose epilogue assumes that some sort of dialogue had
occurred between the friends and Job: "After the L O R D h a d spoken these words
to Job, the L O R D said to Eliphaz the Temanite, '1 am incensed at you a n d your
two friends'" (42:7). Nor could a poetic composition have stood on its
own."Afterward, J o b began to speak and cursed the day of his birth" (3:1)—as a
beginning, this statement assumes too m u c h .
Although the two parts belong together, they are each distinct e n o u g h that
it is worth examining each one in turn, to grasp their internal coherence. Then
we will be better able to perceive what each part contributes to the overall story.
The opening and closing passages in the b o o k — t h e two prose sections (chaps.
1 - 2 and 4 2 : 7 - 1 7 ) — f i t together quite neatly. 8 Consider the following verses near
the end: "Thus the LORD blessed the latter years of Job's life more than the former.
He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of
oxen, and one thousand she-asses. He also had seven sons and three daughters"
( 4 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . That is, Job receives double the property that he owned at the start
of the book, and his children are "replaced" by the same n u m b e r as he originally
h a d . (Perhaps d o u b l i n g property is a blessing, while having twenty children
w o u l d not be!) According to s o m e scholars, the style of these passages resembles
that of an epic, p e r h a p s even of a fairy tale. T h u s the narrator treats u s to a mea-
sured account, featuring patterns of repeating phrases a n d events. We find m a n y
g r o u p s of f o u r s — f o r example, four attributes of J o b ("blameless," "upright,"
"feared God," a n d " s h u n n e d evil") a n d four catastrophic sets of deaths (those
t e n d i n g the cattle, t h e n the sheep, t h e n the camels, a n d finally Job's children).
T h e s t r u c t u r e of the o p e n i n g itself is highly symmetrical, n a r r a t i n g first w h a t
h a p p e n s on the earth, t h e n in heaven, t h e n o n earth, t h e n in heaven, t h e n again
o n earth (as scholars w o u l d d e n o t e it: ABABA). Meanwhile, the descriptions of
the heavenly scene in c h a p t e r s one a n d t w o are very similar. T h e exact repetition
of the p h r a s e s "1 alone have escaped to tell y o u " ( w . 15, 16, 17, 19) a n d "This
o n e w a s still s p e a k i n g w h e n a n o t h e r o n e c a m e a n d said . . ." ( w . 16, 17, 18) ere-
ates an eerie, breathless narrative. It is especially telling that three c o l u m n s of
C h a l d e a n s strike in the third catastrophe (1:17), while in the f o u r t h , "a m i g h t y
w i n d . . . s t r u c k the four c o r n e r s of the h o u s e " ( 1 : 1 9 ) — t h i s is the structure of
imaginative literature, s u c h as fairy tales.
R u n n i n g like a t h e m a t i c t h r e a d t h r o u g h this i n t r o d u c t i o n is the verb b-r-kh
( 9,2:5;1 ,21,10,1:5;)ברך.Typically in biblical Hebrew, it m e a n s "to bless,"
yet this passage e m p l o y s it e u p h e m i s t i c a l l y — r e f e r r i n g to its opposite: "to curse."
W i t h reference to G o d , c u r s i n g m e a n s "to b l a s p h e m e , " a locution that the a u t h o r
s e e m s to w a n t to avoid stating o u t r i g h t . 9 In b o t h senses taken together, this w o r d
unifies the o p e n i n g prose section, leaving u s to w o n d e r : after b e i n g struck
w i t h s u c h horrible afflictions, w h a t will J o b d o — b l e s s G o d , or "bless" (curse)
God?
T h e book's final prose passage m a k e s it clear that J o b does n o t curse God. It
begins: "After the LORD h a d s p o k e n these w o r d s to J o b , the LORD said to Eliphaz
the Temanite, '1 a m incensed at you a n d y o u r t w o friends, for you have n o t spo-
k e n the t r u t h a b o u t Me as did My servant J o b ' " (42:7). Here the imaginary qual-
ity of the w o r k continues. In verse 11, each of Job's friends give h i m "one kesi-
iah," an old unit of weight m e n t i o n e d in the Bible only in Genesis 3 3 : 1 9 a n d
J o s h u a 24:32; its use here suggests a distant, "long, long ago" setting. T h e e n d of
this narrative section is remarkable: "Afterward j o b lived o n e h u n d r e d a n d forty
years to see four generations of s o n s a n d g r a n d s o n s . So J o b died old a n d con-
tented" ( w . 1 6 - 1 7 ) . In o t h e r w o r d s , "he lived h a p p i l y ever after."
This e n d i n g , along with the surrealistic p a t t e r n s in c h a p t e r s 1 - 2 , suggests
that rather t h a n viewing the prose p o r t i o n as an e p i c , 1 0 we s h o u l d characterize
it as b e i n g like a fairy tale. That is to say, the storyteller gives u s a m p l e clues to
convey that we s h o u l d n o t take the story as historically true, yet p r o m p t s u s by
those same finely crafted features to listen for a message of t r u t h . This o p i n i o n
is a m o n g those in the Babylonian T a l m u d , w h e r e one u n n a m e d rabbi states that
"Job never existed, b u t is a parable." T h e c o n t e m p o r a r y translator S t e p h e n
Mitchell a d o p t s this view w h e n he o p e n s his translation with "Once u p o n a time
in the land o f U z . " 1 1
The Adversary
(22:5) You k n o w that your wickedness is great, / And that your iniqui-
ties have n o limit. / (6) You exact pledges from your fellows without rea-
son, / And leave t h e m naked, stripped of their clothes; / (7) You do not
give the thirsty water to drink; / You deny bread to the hungry.
Job's speeches point to the escalation even more clearly. After rebutting his
friends time a n d time again, after d e m a n d i n g a hearing from God and getting n o
meaningful response, J o b seems ready to give up. He says, "I cry out to You, b u t
You d o not answer me; / I wait, but You do not consider me" (30:20). Ultimately
J o b does the one thing left to h i m — h e calls d o w n a curse u p o n himself if he is
guilty (chap. 31). In this powerful passage he invokes measure-for-measure ret-
ribution: "If I raised my h a n d against the fatherless, / Looking to m y supporters
in the gate, / May my arm d r o p off m y shoulder; / My forearm break off at the
elbow" (w. 2 1 - 2 2 ) . The ancients took such imprecations very seriously. For this
reason, they serve as a fitting e n d to Job's speech. After he has taken these m u l -
tiple curses u p o n himself in protestation of innocence, what more can be said?
T h u s his friends are unwilling to challenge him further. 1 9
(10:3) The Lord will not let the righteous go hungry, / But He denies the
wicked w h a t they crave.
(12:21) N o h a r m befalls the righteous, / But the wicked have their fill
of misfortune.
(13:25) The righteous m a n eats to his heart's content, / But the belly of
the wicked is empty.
This is a traditional perspective. Eliphaz in his last speech makes his similar
point in a more complex fashion:
(22:4) Is it because of your piety that He arraigns you, / And enters into
j u d g m e n t with you? / (5) You k n o w that your wickedness is great, /
And that your iniquities have n o limit. . . . / (10) Therefore snares are
all a r o u n d you, / And s u d d e n terrors frighten you, / ( 1 1 ) O r darkness,
so you cannot see. . . . / (23) If you return to Shaddai you will be
restored . . .
(5:8) But I would resort to God; / I would lay my case before God, /
(9) W h o p e r f o r m s great deeds w h i c h cannot be fathomed, / W o n d r o u s
things without n u m b e r ; / (10) W h o gives rain to the earth, / And sends
water over the fields; / ( 1 1 ) W h o raises the lowly u p high, / So that the
dejected are secure in victory; / (12) W h o thwarts the designs of the
crafty, / So that their h a n d s cannot gain success; / (13) W h o traps the
clever in their o w n wiles; / The plans of the crafty go awry. / (14) By day
they e n c o u n t e r darkness, / At n o o n they grope as in the night. / (15) But
He saves the needy from the sword of their m o u t h , / From the clutches
of the strong.
Job, in contrast, suggests that this powerful God "abuses" power, wielding it
recklessly against J o b and others:
(25:2) Dominion and dread are His; / He imposes peace in His heights. /
(3) Can His troops be numbered? / O n w h o m does His light not shine? /
(4) H o w can m a n be in the right before God? / H o w can one b o r n of
w o m a n be cleared of guilt? / (5) Even the m o o n is not bright, / And the
stars are not pure in His sight. / (6) H o w m u c h less man, a w o r m , / The
son-of-man, a maggot.
As stated earlier, the friends and J o b disagree on the basis of their experiences.
Experience, both personal and as related by others, plays a crucial role in wis-
d o m literature. But everyone has different experiences. This fact explains w h y
each "side" in Job tries to establish that its experience is superior. For example,
Eliphaz claims: "See, we have inquired into this a n d it is so; / Hear it and accept
it" (5:27); and Bildad notes: "Ask the generation past, / Study what their fathers
have searched out" (8:8). To this, Job counters that his w i s d o m is at least as good
as theirs: "You must have consulted the wayfarers; / You cannot deny their evi-
dence" (21:29), and even, "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; / The
birds of the sky, they will tell you, / Or speak to the earth, it will teach you; / The
fish of the sea, they will inform you" ( 1 2 : 7 - 8 ) .
In s u m , although the friends and Job share some premises, they reach dif-
ferent conclusions from them, because their base of experience is different. But
as readers, we must w o n d e r after the arguments conclude and the dust has set-
tied: W h o is right?
After Elihu's speeches, God finally answers Job. But the only thing that is clear
about these speeches is their structure:
A Nonanswer
God's first response ( 3 8 : 1 - 4 0 : 2 ) does not answer Job's questions—at least not in
any direct fashion. Job had wanted to k n o w the charges against him, to u n d e r -
stand w h y he was being p u n i s h e d ; 2 2 he had also insisted on u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w
God practices retribution. God does not address these issues. Instead, God treats
us to the longest list of rhetorical questions in the Bible: "Where were you,"
"Have you," "Which," "Can you," "Do you," "Is it?" and so on. The examples all
involve the world of nature, not of h u m a n society or behavior.
Some scholars infer from the extravagance of God's list of questions that its
purpose is to overwhelm J o b . 2 3 Others suggest that God mediates between the
position of the friends (who said that God is powerful a n d good) and Job (who
said that God is powerful and abusive) by answering simply: "God is power-
fui." 2 4 A third perspective observes that the depiction of nature here is negative
and chaotic—concluding tellingly with the h a w k , whose "young gulp blood; /
W h e r e the slain are, there is he" (39:30). H u m a n concepts of justice are not part
of this picture.
An Obscure Answer
Not satisfied with Job's response, God delivers a second speech, which we might
expect to be more clear. Indeed, this speech, in both structure and content, is
quite different from the first. The structure is best u n d e r s t o o d as follows:
I. 40:7-14 Justice
II. 40:15-24 Behemoth
III. 40:25-41:26 Leviathan
The paragraphing and layout in the JPS translation do not reflect this structure,
and therefore they obscure the m e a n i n g of this speech. Even so, we cannot be
sure what these sections m e a n a n d h o w they fit together. Most likely this
Behemoth is a mythological figure based on a h i p p o p o t a m u s , while Leviathan
resembles various sea-creatures k n o w n from Ugaritic mythology. 2 i But h o w are
they germane? H o w do they relate to what God was saying about justice?
We may apply here the same interpretations that we applied to God's first
speech. For example, we may u n d e r s t a n d these sections as a continuation of
God's overwhelming Job. God may be displaying power by pointing to the abil-
ity to control these mythological beasts.
Alternatively, God may be saying something quite different. This speech may be
conceding that even God cannot control these two creations. By this reading, the
verse "See, any h o p e of capturing [Leviathan] must be disappointed; / O n e is
prostrated by the very sight of him" (41:1) includes God as one of the prostrat-
ed. Similarly, "Divine beings are in dread as he rears up; / As he crashes d o w n ,
they cringe" (41:17) would apply also to God.
If so, we can go back and apply this interpretation to God's introductory
speech. Rather than being sarcastic (as m a n y take it), God may actually be
admitting weakness:
(40:10) Deck yourself now with grandeur and eminence; / Clothe your-
self in glory a n d majesty. / (11) Scatter wide your raging anger; / See
every p r o u d m a n and bring him low. / (12) See every p r o u d man a n d
h u m b l e him, / And bring t h e m d o w n where they stand. / (13) Bury
t h e m all in the earth; / Hide their faces in obscurity. / (14) Then even I
would praise you / For the t r i u m p h your right h a n d w o n you.
That is, God is really saying to Job: "I'm not perfect. But can you do any better?
Then stop criticizing!"
J o b Responds Again
The b o o k spotlights Job's second reply to God. These are the last words of
poetry. Unlike his first reply, God does not respond back afterward—indicating
satisfaction that Job has n o w u n d e r s t o o d . The JPS translation takes Job's words
to mean:
(42:2) I k n o w that You can d o everything, / That n o t h i n g you p r o p o s e
is impossible for You. / (3) W h o is this w h o o b s c u r e s counsel w i t h o u t
knowledge? / I n d e e d , I s p o k e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g / Of things
b e y o n d m e , w h i c h I did n o t know. / (4) Hear now, a n d I will speak; / 1
will ask, a n d You will i n f o r m m e . / (5) I h a d h e a r d You w i t h m y ears, /
But n o w I see You with m y eyes; / (6) Therefore, I recant a n d relent, /
Being b u t d u s t a n d ashes.
(42:1) J o b said in reply to the LORD: (2) I k n o w that You can d o every-
thing, / That n o t h i n g you p r o p o s e is impossible for You. (3) W h o is this
w h o o b s c u r e s counsel without knowledge? [38:2; 4 2 : 3 ] — / I n d e e d , I
s p o k e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g / Of things b e y o n d me, w h i c h I did not
know. / (4) Hear now, and I will speak; I will ask, and You will inform me
[38:3; 4 2 : 4 ] — / (5) I h a d heard You with m y ears, / But n o w I see You
w i t h m y eyes; / (6) Therefore, I recant a n d relent, / Being b u t d u s t a n d
ashes.
By this point, my earlier statement about J o b being the most difficult book of the
Bible should make sense. With the p r o f o u n d issues that this book addresses, and
its potent rhetoric, it p r o m p t s us to ask: W h a t does it all mean? In particular,
w h o is right—God? The friends? Job? In particular, h o w might we read the book
as a whole, considering both the poetry and the prose?
At least one thing is clear: according to the way the book has been put
together, the friends—with their "traditional" w i s d o m answers—are wrong. The
epilogue begins: "After the L O R D had spoken these words to Job, the L O R D said
to Eliphaz the Temanite, '1 am incensed at you and your two friends, for you
have not spoken the truth about Me as did My servant Job'" (42:7). However, the
ambiguity of 42:6 still leaves open the possibility that Job's earlier arguments
were right. (That possibility looks more likely if we take seriously the idea that
Elihu's speeches u n d e r m i n e God's position.) Thus, the book may be saying that
the way God r u n s the world, the innocent d o indeed suffer.
Alternatively, its editor may have structured the book so that n o single
answer wins the debate; instead, this w o r k offers a variety of plausible answers,
each of which has some basis in experience. 2 8 Perhaps it is appropriate that we
cannot find a clear answer to our questions, given the very serious and person-
al issues that the Book of J o b confronts.
25
"Drink Deep of Love!"
Reading Song of Songs
A Collection
(2:7) I a d j u r e y o u , Ο m a i d e n s of J e r u s a l e m , / By gazelles or by h i n d s of
the field: / Im [ א ם, "Do not"] w a k e or rouse / Love until it please!
(4:1) Ah, y o u are fair, m y darling, (6:4) You are beautiful, m y darling,
Ah, y o u are fair. as Tirzah,
Your eyes are like doves C o m e l y as Jerusalem,
Behind y o u r veil. Awesome as b a n n e r e d hosts.
Your hair is like a flock of goats (5) Turn y o u r eyes away f r o m m e ,
Streaming d o w n M o u n t Gilead. For they o v e r w h e l m me!
(2) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes Your hair is like a flock of goats
C l i m b i n g u p f r o m the w a s h i n g pool; Streaming d o w n f r o m Gilead.
All of t h e m bear twins, (6) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes
A n d n o t o n e loses h e r y o u n g . C l i m b i n g u p f r o m the w a s h i n g pool;
(3) Your lips are like a c r i m s o n thread, All of t h e m bear twins,
Your m o u t h is lovely. A n d n o t o n e loses her y o u n g .
Your b r o w b e h i n d y o u r veil (7) Your b r o w b e h i n d y o u r veil
Gleams like a p o m e g r a n a t e split o p e n . Gleams like a p o m e g r a n a t e split
(4) Your n e c k is like the Tower of open.
David, (8) There are sixty q u e e n s ,
Built to h o l d w e a p o n s , A n d eighty c o n c u b i n e s ,
H u n g w i t h a t h o u s a n d shields — And damsels without number.
All the quivers of warriors. (9) O n l y o n e is m y dove,
(5) Your breasts are like t w o fawns, My perfect one,
Twins of a gazelle, T h e only one of her m o t h e r ,
Browsing a m o n g the lilies. T h e delight of her w h o bore her.
(6) W h e n the day b l o w s gently Maidens see a n d acclaim her;
A n d the s h a d o w s flee, Q u e e n s a n d c o n c u b i n e s , a n d praise
I will betake m e to the m o u n t of her.
myrrh,
To the hill of frankincense.
(7) Every part of you is fair, m y darling,
There is n o b l e m i s h in you.
Most often, the Song is described as love poetry, sensual poetry, or erotic poetry.
W h a t is m e a n t by these t e r m s is rarely discussed; p e r h a p s the reticence is based
o n the awareness that we have too little evidence to define these genres for
ancient Israel. Some u n i t s in the Song can safely be categorized as "love poetry"
based o n the use of the root '-h-v ( א ה ב, "to l o v e " ) — f o u n d , surprisingly, only
seven times in the w h o l e b o o k .
Similarly, the label "sensual" is appropriate for passages in w h i c h the senses
are evoked, b o t h directly and indirectly: "I have c o m e to m y garden, / My own,
m y bride; / I have p l u c k e d m y m y r r h a n d spice, / Eaten m y h o n e y a n d honey-
c o m b , / D r u n k m y wine a n d m y milk. / Eat, lovers, a n d drink: Drink d e e p of
love!" (5:1).
T h e t e r m "erotic poetry," however, is m o r e slippery: if w e u n d e r s t a n d this
t e r m to m e a n w o r d s i n t e n d e d to sexually arouse, all we k n o w is that certain sec-
tions of the Song have this effect o n s o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y readers. However, we
have n o way to tell w h e t h e r its p o e t r y h a d the effect of sexual arousal in its set-
ting in antiquity. W i t h o u t k n o w i n g m o r e a b o u t its original setting a n d i n t e n d e d
p u r p o s e , we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h i c h of these genres applied to the Song of
Songs in ancient times.
Like the Song, b u t unlike the rest of biblical literature, this p o e m refers to the
female lover as "sister." Like all b u t o n e of the wasfs in the Song, the Egyptian
a u t h o r describes the b o d y f r o m t o p to b o t t o m , describing m a n y of the same
b o d y parts m e n t i o n e d in the biblical b o o k . T h e c o m p a r i s o n s are equally o d d (by
m o d e r n Western sensibilities)—the Egyptians extol blue hair ("Hair true lapis
lazuli") while the Israelites desire elongated n o s e s ("Your nose like the L e b a n o n
t o w e r / That faces toward Damascus"; 7:5). T h e wasfs in b o t h cultures m o v e
f r o m describing the b o d y to d r a w i n g implications f r o m that description. T h u s
the Egyptian text states: "With graceful steps she treads the g r o u n d , / C a p t u r e s
m y heart by her m o v e m e n t s . / She causes all men's n e c k s / To t u r n a b o u t to see
her." Similarly, the Israelite p o e m c o n t i n u e s : "I say: Let m e climb the p a l m , / Let
m e take h o l d of its b r a n c h e s ; / Let y o u r breasts be like clusters of grapes, / Your
b r e a t h like the fragrance of apples" (7:9). O n e c o u l d argue that s o m e of the
a u t h o r s of the wasfs in the Song were aware of the Egyptian traditions.
M e s o p o t a m i a n sources, m e a n w h i l e , preserve a significant collection of
p o t e n c y incantations; they, too, can h e l p u s d r a w a picture of ancient Near
Eastern sexuality. O n e of the m o r e t a m e incantations goes like this:
These literatures clearly are concerned with real lovers, they are secular, and they
are avidly sexual. Their similarity to the Song suggests that we should read it in
the same manner.
Despite this, tradition has tamed the Song by allegorizing it in a variety of ways.
Thus, the Targum, the ancient Aramaic translation of the Bible, views the Song
as a historical allegory about the "marriage" between God and Israel. Consider the
provocative exclamation, "I have taken off my robe— / Should I d o n it again? /
I have bathed my feet— / Should I soil them again?" (5:3; transi, adapted). The
w o m a n is a n n o u n c i n g to the m a n outside that she is naked in bed. The Targum
renders this verse as an expression of national guilt a n d moral j u d g m e n t :
Even Abraham ibn Ezra, considered one of the more liberal medieval inter-
preters (because of Spinoza's advocacy of his work), w h o himself authored sec-
ular love poetry, was a d a m a n t that the Song must be interpreted allegorically. In
his introduction to the Song, he states: "The Song of Songs is certainly not a
p o e m about desire," adding, "do not be surprised that the bride is a parable for
Israel, and her groom is God, for such is the habit of the prophets." Ibn Ezra then
brings a set of five prophetic examples and one example from Psalms that use
parables of lovers to represent Israel and God (including Ezekiel 16; see
"Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19). However, all of the passages that Ibn
Ezra cites clearly indicate that the units are parables. For example, while Isaiah
5 begins, "Let me sing for my beloved / A song of my lover about his vineyard,"
verse 7 spells out w h o the players are: "For the vineyard of the L O R D of Hosts /
Is the House of Israel, / And the seedlings he lovingly tended / Are the men of
J u d a h . " In contrast, n o similar statement in the Song suggests that it is allegori-
cal, n o r that the male lover is God, a n d the female lover Israel. In fact, the Song
c o n t a i n s n o references to G o d at all. 1 2
As I have argued, the secular Near Eastern love p o e m s to w h i c h it is so
similar suggest that the Song was originally a secular w o r k , dealing with two
u n m a r r i e d lovers. 1 3 The Song itself gives n o indication that it i n t e n d s its w o r d s
differently.
Ambiguities
Double Entendre
T h e Song's Conclusion
Conclusions
Surface Similarities
Ruth, at least in its final form, dates f r o m m u c h later t h a n "the days of the chief-
tains [judges]," the p e r i o d m e n t i o n e d in its o p e n i n g verse. This is certain
because it i n t r o d u c e s the c e r e m o n y in 4:7 w i t h the w o r d s " N o w this was for-
merly d o n e in Israel in cases of r e d e m p t i o n or exchange." In o t h e r w o r d s , the
n a r r a t o r n e e d e d to explain a c e r e m o n y that h a d long since b e c o m e d e f u n c t . 2
A l t h o u g h a w o r k that has literary merit m a y also be historical, 3 R u t h is m o r e
easily labeled as literature t h a n history. It is r e m a r k a b l y well f o r m e d f r o m a lit-
erary or rhetorical perspective ( t h o u g h s u c h features d o n o t always c o m e
t h r o u g h clearly in the translation). In this story, a gibbor chayil ( " ח י לlÎZtë, "a
valiant w a r r i o r or gentleman"; translated as " p r o m i n e n t rich m a n , " 2:1) m e e t s an
eshet chayil ( א ש ת ח י ל, "valiant w o m a n " ; translated as "worthy w o m a n , " 3:11),
a n d they live h a p p i l y ever after. T h e story also highlights Ruth's m o v e m e n t
f r o m being u n d e r God's general protection to b e i n g e s p o u s e d by Boaz, by play-
ing o n two senses of the w o r d kanaf ( כ נ ף, "extremity"): lachasot tachat kenafav
( ל ח ס ו ת ת ח ת ״ כ נ פ י ו, " u n d e r w h o s e w i n g s y o u have s o u g h t refuge," 2:12) a n d u-
farasta khenafekha ( ו פ ר ש י ! כ נ פ ך, "spread y o u r robe," 3:9). In o t h e r w o r d s , Boaz
resolves the difficulties facing N a o m i a n d Ruth by acting as a surrogate for God.
S u c h verbal links suggest that g o o d storytelling is the goal of the b o o k , rather
t h a n history.
The b o o k gives additional hints that it is n o t historical. It begins w i t h an
image that ancient readers w o u l d have f o u n d i r o n i c — a famine in Bethlehem
( • ) ב י ת ל ח, literally "house of bread." More significantly, w i t h the exception of
the n a m e Ruth, the personal n a m e s at the start of the b o o k d o n o t fit p a t t e r n s
we find elsewhere in the Bible. Instead, they are clearly symbolic: N a o m i m e a n s
"sweetness"; her s o n s w h o die y o u n g are n a m e d M a h l o n ("Illness") a n d Chilion
("Cessation"); a n d the d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w w h o follows N a o m i only p a r t w a y to
Israel is n a m e d O r p a h — l i t e r a l l y "back of the neck," m e a n i n g "back-turner." In
ancient Israel, n o p a r e n t s w o u l d have n a m e d their c h i l d r e n M a h l o n a n d Chilion.
Surely the a u t h o r e m p l o y s those n a m e s so as to signal that the b o o k s h o u l d be
read symbolically a n d not as straightforward history.
T h e Book of Esther
My intention here is not to explain why Ruth and Esther were written. Instead,
considering b o t h works to be mainly imaginative rather than factual, I will com-
pare h o w they each imagine two themes: the role of w o m e n , a n d the Israelite
attitude toward foreigners.
Discerning the role of w o m e n according to the Book of Esther is not at all
straightforward. Partly this derives from the fact that the b o o k is comedy. With
comedy, it is normally difficult to untangle what the author really believes from
what is meant tongue-in-cheek. O n one h a n d , Esther is a model of bravery w h e n
she approaches the king to plead for the Jews because she believes that merely
by doing so she risks being p u t to death (4:11). O n the other h a n d , Esther does
not risk her life on her own initiative, so arguably she is an agent 8 rather than a
p r i m a r y character or hero. The book's true stance is likely revealed in its final
verse, f r o m w h i c h Esther is missing: "For Mordecai the J e w r a n k e d next to King
A h a s u e r u s a n d was highly regarded by the J e w s a n d p o p u l a r w i t h the m u l t i t u d e
of his b r e t h r e n ; he sought the good of his people a n d interceded for the welfare
of all his k i n d r e d . " In o t h e r w o r d s , Esther plays a crucial role at one j u n c t u r e —
a role she is able to play because h e r b e a u t y m o v e s the k i n g (in 2:17: "she w o n
his grace a n d favor"; in 5:2: "she w o n his f a v o r " ) — b u t the b o o k could j u s t as
well have b e e n n a m e d the Book of Mordecai.
In contrast, Ruth depicts a very different w o r l d , in w h i c h a c o m m u n i t y of
w o m e n exists in parallel w i t h that of m e n . Its protagonists are t w o w o m e n w h o
face a p r o b l e m largely defined by the society's g e n d e r roles: because w o m e n m a y
n o t inherit ancestral land h o l d i n g s outright, they m u s t find an a p p r o p r i a t e m a n ,
a "redeemer," w h o can give t h e m access to the field b e l o n g i n g to Naomi's
deceased h u s b a n d , Elimelech. They d o n o t n e e d a m a n to tell t h e m h o w to d o
t h i s — N a o m i advises the y o u n g e r Ruth, a n d Ruth follows her mother-in-law's
instructions. Ruth also s h o w s her o w n initiative w h e n she improvises w h a t to d o
at Boaz's granary.
T h e Book of Ruth also highlights the larger c o m m u n i t y of w o m e n in w h i c h
Ruth a n d N a o m i f u n c t i o n . After their h u s b a n d s die, N a o m i begs each daughter-
in-law, "Turn back, each of y o u to her mothers h o u s e " (1:8; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
In 4:17, it is not the father b u t rather the w o m e n n e i g h b o r s w h o n a m e Ruth's
child. A few verses earlier, the p e o p l e bless Ruth in the n a m e of Israel's great
Matriarchs:
Let's imagine that we could place the authors of Esther and Ruth in the same
room together. W h a t might their conversation s o u n d like? In the dialogue that
follows, I play u p the apparent differences in their perspective. "R" represents the
a u t h o r of Ruth, and "E" that of Esther.
E: How can you stand being married to your Moabite wife? Don't you
k n o w that Moabites are the w o r s t — t h e y sin and cause others to sin!
And if that isn't enough, they are all the result of incest! You are going
to dilute our "holy seed" by having children with her!
R: Moabites, shmoabites! People are what they become, not h o w they are
born. A Moabite w o m a n w h o p e r f o r m s acts of kindness is better than a
Jewish m a n w h o doesn't. Don't listen to that fanatic "holy seed"
notion—it is just plain wrong. And, while we are at it, your tone makes
you s o u n d like you don't like w o m e n too m u c h either.
E: That's an overstatement. Some w o m e n are w o n d e r f u l to look at, and
w h e n they listen to their h u s b a n d s and other male relatives, good things
h a p p e n . But beware the w o m a n w h o shows i n d e p e n d e n t initiative. She
is "the highway to Sheol [hell]" (Prov. 7:27) —stay away from her!
R: That view s o u n d s shortsighted: "Beauty is illusory" (Prov. 31:30). But
more important, it's u n d u l y harsh and judgmental. 1 prefer to judge
w o m e n as we j u d g e foreigners—by what they do, not by what they are.
Don't you k n o w that a Moabite w o m a n was the ancestor of King David?
E: You don't expect me to believe that myth, d o you?
You might expect any person w h o heard such a debate to choose one side
over the other. W h a t is most remarkable about the Bible is that, here and in
many areas, it takes n o sides. Instead, diametrically o p p o s e d positions on such
f u n d a m e n t a l issues as "How do we relate to outsiders?" or "How d o we view gen-
der?" are included in one collection of books. This leads us to the overall ques-
tion of the next chapter: How did the Bible come to be formed out of so many
texts filled with conflicting viewpoints?
27
The Creation of the Bible
An Abundance of Ignorance
The Canon
For the many centuries before Jewish scribes published books in codex form,
they preserved b o o k s in the form of separate scrolls. 2 0 In certain cases, the
scribes put several books in a single scroll—and in a particular order. O n e such
book was the Torah, which needed to be ordered because Jews read it ritually in
order as part of the lectionary. Similarly, they grouped Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
and Kings in sequence, since they tell a more or less c o n t i n u o u s story in chrono-
logical order. However, for the rest of the Bible, its books fall into no particular
order.
Certain people a n d groups (especially professional scribes!) love order.
Mesopotamian scribes often copied series of cuneiform tablets (such as lexical
lists) in arbitrary but standard orders. The resulting predictability made it easier
for readers to find what they were looking for, n o matter which copy they con-
suited. Similarly, perhaps ancient Israelite librarians may have kept biblical
scrolls in ordered cubby holes, so that they could locate the right text easily. This
may be the original function of ordering the b o o k s of the Bible. 21
The Bible shows evidence of ordering at b o t h the macro a n d the micro level.
O n the microlevel, its text is divided into books—typically, what can fit on a
scroll. (Thus, the twelve "Minor" Prophets comprise a single book or scroll, even
though it is m a d e u p of m a n y books.) 2 2
O n the macrolevel, this large collection comprises smaller collections.
Exactly h o w and w h e n this was d o n e is the subject of intense current debate:
How early is the three-part division of the Bible into Torah, Nevi'im, and
Kethuvim? W h e n a n d w h y did this tripartite division develop? Rabbinic
s o u r c e s — t h o u g h not any of the earliest such sources—do attest to a three-part
(what scholars call a "tripartite") Bible. 2 3 Scholars have f o u n d allusions to this
structure in the New Testament and a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, these
references d o not decisively prove that the Bible was organized into three parts
as early as the first century c . E . 2 4 Indeed, Jews clearly employed a variety of
orders a n d ordering schemes in the Second Temple period, 2 5 and the tripartite
ordering was likely one of them.
The tripartite ordering was likely one of the early ordering schemes, for its
classifications are not obvious ones. As noted earlier, Daniel properly belongs
with the latter prophets; meanwhile, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, and perhaps
some other books belong with the former p r o p h e t s (see "Name a n d Structure"
in chapter 2). Thus, their present classification seems to reflect an evolution: by
the time those later books came along, the set of b o o k s k n o w n as Prophets had
already been determined, so they could not be included in that section. That is,
over time the Torah became authoritative first, then Nevi'im, and finally
Kethuvim. 2 6
This hypothesis for the evolutionary development of the tripartite canon
would also explain the stability—and lack of stability—of order within each sec-
tion. The Torah—authoritative first—is fully stable: all manuscripts have the
order as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, N u m b e r s , Deuteronomy. (Of course, given
the contents of these books, their order is not really flexible.) Within Nevi'im,
the same is true for the Former Prophets. Concerning the order of the Latter
Prophets, there is more flexibility; most manuscripts do not follow the Talmudic
order. Within Kethuvim, manuscripts show a t r e m e n d o u s variation of the order
of its b o o k s . 2 7 This accords with its p r e s u m e d status as the section becoming
authoritative latest. Quite surprisingly, the ancient sources d o not show even a
broad consensus on what the last—culminating—book of the Bible should be!
A book may be authoritative even t h o u g h it does not have a fixed text. The
spelling of its words, certain whole words themselves—even whole verses—
such things could and did vary from one written copy to another. Thus, I con-
sider the issues of canonization and textual stabilization separately. Indeed, it is
highly likely that the biblical text became stable only in the early rabbinic peri-
od. By then, Jews already had a relatively clear idea as to which texts were "in"
and which were "out," and they had devised certain m e t h o d s of midrashic inter-
pretation (namely, m e t h o d s of interpretation that read the text carefully, and
even base their deductions on fine spelling variants). Functionally speaking, the
latter development allowed for fluid meaning even as the text became fixed.
As we have seen, the Dead Sea Scrolls c o m m u n i t y considered authoritative
a Bible of sorts, yet they did not have a single stable text for its b o o k s . 2 8 That
ancient desert c o m m u n i t y still proceeded to e x p o u n d their texts—sometimes in
versions that are quite different from those f o u n d in (what later crystallized as)
the Masoretic text. 2 9 In fact, in at least one case, they seem to be interpreting two
different versions of the same verse. In other words, just because they believed
a certain work to be holy and inspired did not imply that it had to exist in a sin-
gle version. 3 0 In the words of the c o n t e m p o r a r y scholar Moshe Greenberg, "Piety
is not always accompanied by a critical sense." 3 1
Based on the textual witnesses available to us, we can say that the Bible's
(consonantal) text largely stabilized by the second century C.E. We do not k n o w
exactly h o w this h a p p e n e d ; perhaps someone m a d e a master edition or recen-
sion from which other scribes copied. 3 2 Perhaps the destruction of the Second
Temple in 70 c.E. and the failure of the revolt of 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 (the Bar Kokhba
Rebellion) created a crisis that served as an impetus for creating an authoritative
text. The development of a midrashic approach (in the early second century
C . E . ) 3 3 that treated the exact spelling of each word as important may have been
influential as well in stabilizing the text.
Considering the wider range of ancient versions (and the opportunities
meanwhile for scribal errors in transmission), medieval biblical texts show
remarkably few variants. However, even that era k n e w occasional, significant
textual variants, including readings in the Babylonian Talmud that differ from
most of o u r biblical manuscripts. 3 4 The stabilization of the consonantal text con-
tinued until well after the advent of printing in the late 1400s. Even so, to this
day, a few variant spellings remain. (Of course, printing c o u l d — a n d did!—intro-
duce new errors into the text.) 3 5
Today, were we to open two texts of the Hebrew Bible, they would contain the
same books, grouped into three m a j o r parts, appearing mostly (if not entirely)
in the same order, with a well over 99% agreement on the consonants and vocal-
ization (vowels and cantillation). 1 h o p e that it is n o w clear that this consisten-
cy was the result of a long and complicated process that took place largely
behind the scenes, obscured from our view. At the beginning of the process came
the idea of a "Bible" itself. Most likely the Torah (which itself developed over
time) became authoritative first. Later, a larger Bible coalesced around the Torah,
though different groups at different times viewed the contents of this Bible dif-
ferently, ordered its books differently, and grouped it variously into major divi-
sions. In the late first or early second century, scribes seemed to stop copying all
but one particular consonantal text of this incipient Bible.
More than half a century later, guardians of the biblical text devised various
systems of marking the proper vocalization of the consonantal text. By the late
first millennium, the vocalization system associated with Aaron Ben-Asher and
with the city of Tiberius in the Galilee "won" over competing systems, giving us
the Bible as we n o w have it. 3 6 This means that in its current form (with vowels),
the Bible is only a little more than 1,000 years old!
Afterword
Reading the Bible as a Committed Jew
In a nutshell, here is m y view of the Bible as a Jew: The Bible is a sourcebook that
I—within my community—make into a textbook. I do so by selecting, revaluing, and
interpreting the texts that I call sacred.
"Sourcebooks" are n o t the s a m e as "textbooks." A s o u r c e b o o k , by n a t u r e ,
p r e s e n t s m a n y perspectives, w h e r e a s a t e x t b o o k — i n o r d e r to be c o g e n t — a d o p t s
a particular p o i n t of view. An e c o n o m i c s t e x t b o o k that was b o t h Keynesian a n d
Marxist, or an i n t r o d u c t o r y literary t e x t b o o k that was b o t h new-critical a n d
deconstructivist, w o u l d be c o n f u s i n g , as c o n f u s i n g , i n d e e d , as the Bible itself.
However, a b r o a d - m i n d e d professor t e a c h i n g " I n t r o d u c t i o n to Economics" c o u l d
create a s o u r c e b o o k s h o w i n g a variety of a p p r o a c h e s , i n c l u d i n g the Keynesian
a n d the Marxist. Likewise, a g o o d literature professor m i g h t c o m p i l e readings
that e n c o u r a g e d s t u d e n t s to analyze the same text f r o m c o m p e t i n g theoretical
perspectives.
The Bible as it presents itself, "off the shelf," is a s o u r c e b o o k . It c o m e s f r o m
m a n y places a n d times; it conveys the interests of m a n y different groups. W i t h i n
it, we can find m o r e t h a n o n e o p i n i o n o n almost any single item of i m p o r -
t a n c e — t h e n a t u r e of G o d , the corporeality of G o d , intergenerational p u n i s h -
m e n t , the relationship b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n , the attitude t o w a r d foreigners,
retribution, etc. In this sense, the Bible is surely m o r e s o u r c e b o o k t h a n text-
book.1
Yet, in o r d e r to take the Bible seriously in m y religious life—as a guide for
various issues—1 m u s t m a k e it into s o m e t h i n g m o r e authoritative. G u i d e b o o k s
d o n o t say: at the fork in the road, take either a right, a left, or t u r n a r o u n d .
Rather, they m a k e decisions, they c h o o s e b e t w e e n options. T h u s , w h e n I con-
front the Bible as a practicing Jew, I t r a n s f o r m it into a m o r e m o n o l i t h i c b o o k .
Selection
Revaluation
Interpretation
Final Words
The approach that I have laid out here allows me to walk something of a
tightrope between being a serious historical-critical Bible scholar, emphasizing
prerabbinic n o r m s of biblical interpretation and taking the Bible seriously as a
Jew, incorporating postbiblical, rabbinic norms. Many feel that these roles are
mutually incompatible. Yet, as m y s u p p o r t i n g examples show, this approach has
roots in b o t h biblical a n d rabbinic texts. J u d a i s m as it has evolved is more than
biblical religion, just as Jews are more than only Karaites—and even Karaites
have adopted m a n y practices not mentioned in the Bible. 5 Yet we retain some
continuity in our approaches to a text that we hold sacred.
The historical-critical m e t h o d , with its emphasis on the prerabbinic mean-
ing of diverse texts, might seem to be antirabbinic. Not so. Classic rabbinic texts
are typically p u n c t u a t e d with the p h r a s e davar acher ( ד ב ר א ח ר, "another o p i n -
ion"), used to separate distinct opinions. Frequently, rabbinic texts offer as m a n y
diverse o p i n i o n s as biblical texts d o . 6 In o t h e r w o r d s , the Bible is really m u c h
m o r e like a rabbinic text t h a n people t h i n k — i t is full of cases of "another o p i n -
ion." The m a i n difference between the Bible a n d classic rabbinic texts is that the
Bible m a r k s its distinct o p i n i o n s less forthrightly. Yet in light of the historical-
critical m e t h o d , the Bible a p p e a r s as a compilation of diverse s o u r c e s — t h a t is,
closer to the s t r u c t u r e of m u c h of rabbinic literature.
I n d e e d , a small n u m b e r of rabbinic texts seem to recognize the c o m p o s i t e
n a t u r e of the Torah. Certainly, n o rabbinic text says that the Torah w a s written
by J, E, D, a n d P. However, an early medieval m i d r a s h i c w o r k , Pesikta de-Rav
Kahana, describes the revelation at Sinai, suggesting that it was not monolithic:
"R. H a n i n a bar Papa said: T h e Holy O n e a p p e a r e d to Israel with a stern face,
w i t h an e q u a n i m o u s face, w i t h a friendly face, w i t h a j o y o u s face . . ."—all of
w h i c h , w i t h the same authority, r e p r e s e n t e d the same G o d . ' The m i d r a s h pro-
ceeds to present a n o t h e r tradition describing G o d at the m o m e n t of revelation
as "a statue w i t h faces on every side." In o t h e r w o r d s , each individual present
gained a u n i q u e l y personal view of God.
The historical-critical m e t h o d exemplified in the b o o k a s s u m e s that we can
n o longer recover the single t r u t h of w h a t the Torah describes as Revelation, n o r
of o t h e r religious issues that the ancient H e b r e w texts address. The most we can
d o is to recognize the "faces on every side"—the multiple ancient p e r c e p t i o n s of
God, preserved in o u r c o m p o s i t e Bible.
Notes
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 1 0
Chapter 11
C h a p t e r 12
C h a p t e r 13
C h a p t e r 15
C h a p t e r 16
C h a p t e r 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 1 9
Chapter 2 0
Chapter 2 1
1. Most scholars agree that the latter part of Zechariah is a later addition. See
M. Saeb0, "Zechariah, Book of," in J o h n H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation, 666-69.
2. Similar to Z e c h a r i a h s visions w i t h an angelic g u i d e — a n d close to t h e m
chronologically—is Ezekiel's vision featuring a s u p e r n a t u r a l guide, "a m a n
w h o s h o n e like c o p p e r " (Ezek. 40:3).
3. This is cited f r o m Semeia 14 in the survey of J o h n J. Collins, The Apocalyptic
Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2 n d ed. ( G r a n d
Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1998), 5. For a different definition, see Klaus Koch,
" W h a t Is Apocalyptic? An A t t e m p t at a Preliminary Definition," in Paul D.
H a n s o n , ed., Visionaries and Their Apocalypses (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983),
16-36.
4. For a m o r e extensive exposition of these c h a p t e r s as apocalyptic, f r o m a dif-
ferent starting p o i n t , see S t e p h e n L. C o o k , Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The
Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 1 2 3 - 6 5 .
5. These b o o k s are e x a m i n e d in detail in Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination.
6. The Persian influence is hard to trace because o u r earliest extant m a n u -
scripts of b o t h literatures tend to date f r o m m u c h later t h a n this period.
Therefore we c a n n o t tell the difference b e t w e e n early a n d late develop-
m e n t s . For various suggestions c o n c e r n i n g the origin of apocalypticism, see
the essays in J o h n J. Collins, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1, The
Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m ,
1998), 3 - 1 6 1 .
7. See the essays in Collins, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1, 2 6 7 - 4 1 4 .
8. For m o r e details on these a n d o t h e r i n t r o d u c t o r y issues, see J o h n J. Collins,
Daniel, H e r m e n e i a (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 1 - 1 2 3 .
9. For the definition of apocalyptic literature, see o u r discussion of Zechariah
earlier in this chapter.
10. See Collins, Daniel, 3 3 1 .
11. Again, j u s t to be clear: the basis for this reinterpretation is the d o u b l i n g of
the w o r d sh-v-'-m ( — ש ב ע י םH e b r e w w a s written w i t h o u t vowels in this peri-
od), once as "seventy" ( — ש ב ע י םs h i v ' i m ) a n d once as "weeks" ( ב ע י ם$ —
shavu'im).
12. This term is b o r r o w e d f r o m the Israeli scholar J o s e p h H e i n e m a n n , w h o s e
m a j o r w o r k has n o t b e e n translated into English.
13. See Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 18: "The first a s s u m p t i o n that all ancient
interpreters seem to share is that the Bible is a f u n d a m e n t a l l y cryptic d o c u -
ment."
14. See Michael F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford:
C l a r e n d o n , 1985). A c o n d e n s e d version of this is Michael Fishbane, "Inner
Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel" in
Midrash and Literature, ed. Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick ( N e w
Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1986), 1 9 - 3 7 .
15. See Leonard J. G r e e n s p o o n , "The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection," in
Baruch H a l p e r n a n d J o n D. Levenson, eds., Traditions in Transformation:
Turning Points in Biblical Faith ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981),
2 4 7 - 3 2 1 ; Klaas S p r o n k , Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East, AOAT 2 1 9 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1986).
16. The origins of the d o c t r i n e of resurrection are n o t clear. It m i g h t be a reac-
tion to the historical events b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164, w h e n J e w s were first
p u n i s h e d for their specific religious beliefs, w h i c h m a y have led to the idea
that G o d w a s p o s t p o n i n g the reward for faithfulness, to a time after death.
Alternatively, it m i g h t reflect Greek influence; see m y "Is There M a r t y r d o m
in the H e b r e w Bible?" in Margaret C o r m a c k , ed., Sacrificing the Self: Perspec-
fives on Martyrdom and Religion ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 3 - 2 2 ,
esp. 15.
17. In a d d i t i o n to c o m m e n t a r i e s o n Daniel, the following three b o o k s are espe-
cially helpful: D a n n a N o l a n Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in
Daniel 1-6, J S O T S u p 72 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988);
Pamela J. Milne, Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical
Narrative (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1988) a n d Lawrence M. Wills, The
Jew in the Foreign Court, H D R 26 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990).
18. This is the only biblical reference that suggests that G o d requires m e m b e r s
of the C o v e n a n t to d r i n k special wine. (It w o u l d be anachronistic to use the
w o r d "kosher" in reference to the food that Daniel a n d his four friends eat.)
19. See the discussion of the "royal tale" genre in the w o r k s cited in n. 17,
above, a n d in Collins, Daniel, 38-52.
20. O n the ahistorical character of the Book of J o n a h , see A m o s F u n k e n s t e i n ,
Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1993),
64-70.
21. See W Lee H u m p h r e y s , "A Life-Style for Diaspora: A S t u d y of the Tales of
Esther a n d Daniel," JBL 9 2 (1973), 2 1 1 - 2 3 . The Septuagint version of Esther,
w h i c h has m a n y additions relative to the H e b r e w text, tells a similar story.
Chapter 2 2
Chapter 2 3
To e v e r y t h i n g — t u r n , t u r n , t u r n
There is a s e a s o n — t u r n , t u r n , t u r n
A n d a time for ev'ry p u r p o s e u n d e r h e a v e n
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to r e n d , a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace: I swear it's n o t too late!
Chapter 2 4
Chapter 2 5
Chapter 2 7
Afterword
Nehemiah
Bava Batra
8:1-8 208 14b-15a 289
8:13-18 82
8:14 208 Midrash
9:6 47
Genesis Rabbah
13:17-18 207
40:6