JBL1301

J OU R N A L OFBIBLICAL LITERATURE SPRING 2011 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 VOLUME 130, NO. 1 US ISSN 0021-9231 Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate Vincent L. Wimbush 5–24 CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13 Joshua Berman 25–44 A Rejoinder concerning 1 Samuel 1:1 Shalom M. Paul 45 The “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform Nadav Na’aman 47–62 Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job C. L. Seow 63–85 Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation? Jason Gile 87–108 A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase vam ha ! 'a ! res i in the Hebrew Bible John Tracy Thames, Jr. 109–125 Waiters or Preachers: Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan Table Fellowship Motif David W. Pao 127–144 Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30 Ilaria L. E. Ramelli 145–163 Eating with Honor: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary Association Meal Practices Rachel M. McRae 165–181 The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism Juan Hernández Jr. 183–196 J O U R N A L O F B I B L I C A L L I T E R A T U R E JBLcoverspring2011_JBLcover2007.qxd 3/1/2011 9:03 AM Page 1 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE (Constituent Member of the American Council of Learned Societies) EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL General Editor: JAMES C. VANDERKAM, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 EDITORIAL BOARD Term Expiring 2011: ELLEN B. AITKEN, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5 Canada MICHAEL JOSEPH BROWN, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 JAIME CLARK-SOLES, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 STEVEN FRIESEN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 JENNIFER GLANCY, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 ROBERT HOLMSTEDT, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1 Canada ARCHIE C. C. LEE, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin New Territories, Hong Kong SAR MARGARET Y. MACDONALD, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5 Canada SHELLY MATTHEWS, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613 RICHARD D. NELSON, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275 DAVID L. PETERSEN, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 MARK REASONER, Marian University, Indianapolis, IN 46222 YVONNE SHERWOOD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542 PATRICIA K. TULL, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY 40205 2012: DAVID L. BARR, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 COLLEEN CONWAY, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079 MARY ROSE D’ANGELO, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 THOMAS B. DOZEMAN, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, OH 45406 J. ALBERT HARRILL, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 PAUL JOYCE, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3LD, United Kingdom ELIZABETH STRUTHERS MALBON, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 TURID KARLSEN SEIM, University of Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway CAROLYN SHARP, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520 BENJAMIN D. SOMMER, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027 LOUIS STULMAN, University of Findlay, Findlay, OH 45840 DAVID TSUMURA, Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo 205-0017, Japan MICHAEL WHITE, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 2013: JO-ANN BRANT, Goshen College, Goshen, IN 46526 BRIAN BRITT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 JOHN ENDRES, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94709 MICHAEL FOX, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 STEVEN FRAADE, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8287 MATTHIAS HENZE, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251 STEPHEN MOORE, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 LAURA NASRALLAH, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA 02138 EMERSON POWERY, Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027 THOMAS RÖMER, Collège de France, Paris, and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0337 DAVID WRIGHT, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 Editorial Assistants: Monica Brady and Sarah Schreiber, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 President of the Society: Carol Newsom, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322; Vice President: John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60604; Chair, Research and Publications Committee: Adele Reinhartz, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada; Executive Director: John F. Kutsko, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329. The Journal of Biblical Literature (ISSN 0021–9231) is published quarterly. The annual subscription price is US$40.00 for members and US$180.00 for nonmembers. Institutional rates are also available. For information regarding subscriptions and membership, contact: Society of Biblical Literature, Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 866-727-9955 (toll free) or 404-727-9498. FAX: 404-727-2419. E-mail: [email protected]. For information concerning permission to quote, editorial and business matters, please see the Spring issue, p. 2. The Hebrew and Greek fonts used in JBL are SBL Hebrew and SBL Greek; they are available from www.sbl- site.org/Resources/default.aspx. The JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE (ISSN 0021–9231) is published quarterly by the Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329. Periodical postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Society of Biblical Literature, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Concordia Commentary Series “I have a great deal of respect for this series. It takes serious regard of the biblical text in its original language, and deals with both textual difficulties and theology—an impressive feat at a time when many commentaries are trying to avoid difficult details.” David Instone-Brewer, University of Cambridge “Pastors and scholars alike will find plenty of helpful insights . . . in the series as a whole.” Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Bibliotheca Sacra “One of the best commentary series currently available for those seeking an exposition of the biblical text that balances the academic with the pastoral.” David W. Jones, Faith and Mission, Southeastern Baptist Teological Seminary Contributors to the Concordia Commentary series provide greater clarity and under- standing of the divine intent of the text of Holy Scripture. Each volume is based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek with sensitivity to the rich treasury of language, im- agery, and themes found throughout the broader biblical canon. Further light is shed on the text from archaeology, history, and extrabiblical literature. Tis landmark work from Lutheran scholars will cover all the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament. Two new volumes are released each year. Subscriptions Available for Libraries and Individuals Become a subscriber today and commentaries are shipped automatically to you. Your subscription starts with the newest volume, and you continue to receive each new volume until the series is complete. (You can request the existing volumes.) Subscriptions are available in three ways: Complete series • Hebrew Scriptures volumes • Greek New Testament volumes © 2 0 1 1 C o n c o r d i a P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e P r i n t e d i n t h e U S A 5 1 1 5 1 6 - 0 1 CURRENT VOLUMES Leviticus by John W. Kleinig Joshua by Adolph L. Harstad Ruth by John R. Wilch Ezra and Nehemiah by Andrew E. Steinmann Proverbs by Andrew E. Steinmann Ecclesiastes [forthcoming] by James Bollhagen Te Song of Songs by Christopher W. Mitchell Isaiah 40–55 [forthcoming] by R. Reed Lessing Ezekiel 1–20 Ezekiel 21–48 by Horace D. Hummel Daniel by Andrew E. Steinmann Amos by R. Reed Lessing Jonah by R. Reed Lessing Matthew 1:1–11:1 Matthew 11:2–20:34 by Jeffrey A. Gibbs Luke 1:1–9:50 Luke 9:51–24:53 by Arthur A. Just Jr. 1 Corinthians by Gregory J. Lockwood Colossians by Paul E. Deterding Philemon by John G. Nordling Revelation by Louis A. Brighton Founded in 1869, Concordia is the publishing house of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. www.cph.org • 1-800-325-3040 incov rev_incov.qxd 3/1/2011 8:35 AM Page 1 Journal of Biblical Literature Volume 130 2011 GENERAL EDITOR JAMES C. VANDERKAM University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 A Quarterly Published by THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE EDITORIAL BOARD Term Expiring 2011: ELLEN B. AITKEN, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5 Canada MICHAEL JOSEPH BROWN, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 JAIME CLARK-SOLES, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 STEVEN FRIESEN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 JENNIFER GLANCY, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 ROBERT HOLMSTEDT, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1 Canada ARCHIE C. C. LEE, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin New Territories, Hong Kong SAR MARGARET Y. MACDONALD, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5 Canada SHELLY MATTHEWS, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613 RICHARD D. NELSON, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275 DAVID L. PETERSEN, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 MARK REASONER, Marian University, Indianapolis, IN 46222 YVONNE SHERWOOD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542 PATRICIA K. TULL, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY 40205 2012: DAVID L. BARR, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 COLLEEN CONWAY, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079 MARY ROSE D’ANGELO, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 THOMAS B. DOZEMAN, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, OH 45406 J. ALBERT HARRILL, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 PAUL JOYCE, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3LD, United Kingdom ELIZABETH STRUTHERS MALBON, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 TURID KARLSEN SEIM, University of Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway CAROLYN SHARP, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520 BENJAMIN D. SOMMER, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027 LOUIS STULMAN, University of Findlay, Findlay, OH 45840 DAVID TSUMURA, Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo 205-0017, Japan MICHAEL WHITE, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 2013: JO-ANN BRANT, Goshen College, Goshen, IN 46526 BRIAN BRITT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 JOHN ENDRES, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94709 MICHAEL FOX, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 STEVEN FRAADE, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8287 MATTHIAS HENZE, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251 STEPHEN MOORE, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 LAURA NASRALLAH, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA 02138 EMERSON POWERY, Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027 THOMAS RÖMER, Collège de France, Paris, and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0337 DAVID WRIGHT, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 Editorial Assistants: Monica Brady and Sarah Schreiber, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 Articles are indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals; book reviews in Index to Book Reviews in Religion, American Theological Library Association, Evanston, Illinois. Both indexes are also found in the ATLA Religion Database on CD-ROM. EDITORIAL MATTERS OF THE JBL 1. Contributors should consult the Journal’s Instructions for Contributors (http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/Pub- lishingWithSBL/JBL_Instructions.pdf). 2. If a MS of an article is submitted in a form that departs in major ways from these instructions, it may be returned to the author for retyping, even before it is considered for publication. 3. Submit two hard copies of the MS of an article or critical note. Manuscripts will not be returned. 4. Manuscripts and communications regarding the content of the Journal should be addressed to James C. VanderKam at the address given on the preceding page (or correspondence only at the following e-mail address: [email protected]). 5. Permission to quote more than 500 words may be requested from the Rights and Permissions Department, Soci- ety of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA (E-mail: [email protected]). Please specify volume, year, and inclusive page numbers. BUSINESS MATTERS OF THE SBL (not handled by the editors of the Journal) 1. All correspondence regarding membership in the Society, subscriptions to the Journal, change of address, renewals, missing or defective issues of the Journal, and inquiries about other publications of the Society should be addressed to Society of Biblical Literature, Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 866- 727-9955 (toll-free) or 404-727-9498. FAX 404-727-2419. E-mail: [email protected]. 2. All correspondence concerning the research and publications programs, the annual meeting of the Society, and other business should be addressed to the Executive Director, Society of Biblical Literature, The Luce Center, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329. (E-mail: [email protected]). 3. Second Class postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia, and at additional mailing offices. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Presidential Address by Vincent L. Wimbush President of the Society of Biblical Literature 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature November 20, 2010 Atlanta, Georgia Introduction given by Carol Newsom Vice President, Society of Biblical Literature I first met Vincent Wimbush long ago and far away, when we were both graduate students at Harvard University in the late 1970s. Even then it was evident that he was someone who would make his mark in the discipline of biblical studies, but I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the profoundly transformative impact that his career has had and continues to have in our field. Some of you will know him as a scholar of asceticism in Greco-Roman and early Christian cultures, for he is the author or editor of some six important books on that topic. Although asceticism continues to be an active part of his research agenda, Vincent’s intense focus on asceticism took place in the 1980s and 1990s, as part of a fundamen- tal and transformative reevaluation of that phenomenon. But even as he was making a distinguished reputation for himself in what many might consider a rather traditional field, Vincent was simultaneously developing a critique of the assumptions of the dom- inant models for doing biblical studies as a narrowly historical-critical enterprise. The insight that has guided his thinking throughout his career was already expressed in an early essay in 1989. He was describing what had drawn him to biblical studies: “It was neither antiquarian interests nor theological sensibilities, but first the recognition of the function of the Bible among African Americans in every aspect of their existence, in every period of their history, which attracted me to biblical studies.”* The word function is emphasized in the text. But Vincent’s observation was not just autobiographical. From his situatedness as an African American who had become a biblical scholar, he saw more broadly the need for a profound transformation of the 3 * Vincent Wimbush, “Historical Study as Cultural Critique, Theological Education 25 (1989): 30. field of biblical studies itself. He continued: “Failure to address the matter of the his- torical and contemporary cultural functions of the bible is to fail not only to provide for the culture of intelligent lay persons a reason to engage and be influenced by biblical scholarship, it is also to fail to provide for the guild of biblical scholars any clear and compelling reason for its being” (p. 32). That was perhaps a more startling claim in 1989 than it is today, though even those who are inclined to agree with it often see the accomplishment of such a goal as far beyond their capacities as biblical scholars. Not Vincent. He embarked upon an extraor- dinary series of collaborative research projects, first at Union Theological Seminary and later at Claremont Graduate School, designed to bring such a vision of what it means to study Scripture into being. And Vincent did not think small. From 1996 to the present he has received grants from the Lilly Endowment, the Henry W. Luce Founda- tion, and the Ford Foundation totaling by my count $2,123,000 (not counting the small change). This vision is currently embodied in institutional form in the Institute for Sig- nifying Scriptures at Claremont Graduate University. Vincent likes to refer not so much to the phenomenon of “Scriptures” as the object of study but to “scripturalizing,” that is, to the social scripting, psycho-social formation, and power dynamics of which Scrip- tures are always and everywhere a part. The conferences, book series, documentary films, and visiting scholar program sponsored by the Institute are bringing into being striking new ways of conceptualizing our field. If Vincent has been integral to the transformation of the study of asceticism and to the conceptualization of scriptural and biblical studies, he has been no less instru- mental in the transformation of the Society of Biblical Literature itself. Although he has served in many, many capacities—on the council, as president of a region, as the SBL delegate to the ACLS—he has remarked that he is proudest of having been the first chair of the Committeee on Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the Profession (1991–95). The SBL is a very different institution than it was when Vincent and I first came to its meetings. It is dramatically more diverse, not only in its ethnic, gender, and national composition but also in its thinking, and he has had a significant role in that process. In the current SBL newsletter, Vincent opens his reflections with the following statement, “I am not sure what SBL (or any other observers) should make of the elec- tion of the first person of color as president.” I suspect that it will take us some time to grasp what this moment “signifies,” or rather, to borrow Vincent’s own terms, how it has provided us with an opportunity for “signifying” the SBL in a new way. But that trans- formative work has begun. Finally, it is highly fitting that his presidential address should be given in the city of Atlanta, for Atlanta is Vincent’s hometown, and he is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Atlanta’s Morehouse College. It is my honor to present our distinguished colleague and president, Vincent Wimbush, who will speak on “Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/ Runagate.” 4 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Interpreters—Enslaving/ Enslaved/Runagate vincent l. wimbush [email protected] Institute for Signifying Scriptures Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA 91711 The colonial world is a Manichean world. —Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth Big Jim Todd was a slick black buck Laying low in the mud and muck Of Pondy Woods when the sun went down In gold, and the buzzards tilted down A windless vortex to the black-gum trees To sit along the quiet boughs, Devout and swollen, at their ease. . . . . . . . . Past midnight, when the moccasin Slipped from the log and, trailing in Its obscured waters, broke The dark algae, one lean bird spoke. . . . . . . . . “Nigger, your breed ain’t metaphysical.” The buzzard coughed. His words fell In the darkness, mystic and ambrosial. “But we maintain our ancient rite, Eat the gods by day and prophesy by night. We swing against the sky and wait; You seize the hour, more passionate Than strong, and strive with time to die— With Time, the beak-ed tribe’s astute ally. . . . . . . . . JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 5–24 5 Nigger, regard the circumstance of breath: ‘Non omnis moriar,’ the poet saith.” Pedantic, the bird clacked its gray beak, With a Tennessee accent to the classic phrase; Jim understood, and was about to speak, But the buzzard drooped one wing and filmed the eyes. . . . . . . . . —Robert Penn Warren, “Pondy Woods” Negro folklore . . . [was] not . . . a new experience for me. . . . But it was fitting me like a tight chemise. I couldn’t see it for wearing it. It was only when I was . . . away from my native surroundings, that I could see myself like somebody else and stand off and look at my garment. . . . —Zora Neale Hurston, Mules and Men I am not unaware that on occasions such as this references to the personal and even embodiment are quite rare. Yet I can hardly avoid transgressing in this and likely other regards before the end of this address. In spite of what may be the tes- timonies of my remaining parent and other elders, and notwithstanding the certi- fications the state may present, my beginnings are not here in this city in the sixth decade of the twentieth century. In respects more profound and disturbing and poignantly ramifying for professional interpreters, my beginnings should be under- stood to be in that more expansive period and fraught situations of the North Atlantic worlds between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, moments and sit- uations in which “the West” and “the rest” were coming into fateful first contact. With such contact many social and political formations, sentiments and orienta- tions of “the West” were (re-)forged and (re-)defined. “Contact” is of course stud- ied euphemy, rhetorical repression meant to veil the violence and hegemony of the West’s large-scale triangular Atlantic slave trading in dark peoples. This is the time and situation of my beginning and the framework for the con- sciousness that I bring to this podium. And almost all of you have beginnings like my own. The dynamics of this period now still largely determine, even haunt, our sometimes different but also often common positionalities and orientations, prac- tices and discourses, ideologies and politics and social formations. Included in the haunting are the profound shifts in the understandings of the self, including ideas about freedom and slavery of the self that mark the period. Although differently named and tweaked from decade to decade since 1880, those practices and discourses that define this professional Society have always been and are even now still fully imbricated in the general politics and emergent discourses of the larger period to which I refer. And the cultivated obliviousness to or silence about—if not also the ideological reflection and validation of—the larger prevailing sociopolitical currents and dynamics marks the beginning and ongoing history of this Society (among other learned and professional societies, to be sure). 6 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) With its fetishization of the rituals and games involving books and THE BOOK, its politics of feigning apolitical ideology, its still all too simple historicist agenda (masking in too many instances unacknowledged theological-apologetic interests), its commitment to “sticking to the text,” its orientation in reality has always con- tributed to and reflected a participation in “sticking it” to the gendered and racial- ized Others. The fragility of the fiction of the apolitical big tent holding us together is all too evident in the still mind-numbingly general and vapid language we use to describe our varied practices and ideologies and orientations. Of course, there have been challenges to the Society and its orientations in some periods of our history. 1 You know what they have been. And you will not be surprised if I suggest that the challenges have been too few and too tepid—and always belated. The fact that we cannot document the membership and participa- tion of a single African American in this Society before the fifth decade of the twen- tieth century, the fact that the most recent history of the Society (in observance of the centennial) 2 does not even mention black folks, the fact that we cannot point to the official regularly scheduled gathering of two or three African Americans in discourse before the eighth decade of the last century, is shocking. Only with the initiatives of Thomas Hoyt, Jr., and John W. Waters, which led to the Stony the Road We Trod discussion and book project in the late 1980s, which in turn led to the establishment of the first honestly ethnically marked program unit, which paved the way for all such units today—only with such initiatives do black peoples and other peoples of color appear in numbers to make a point at all about diversity in the Society. This is the period of my initiation and participation in the Society. This suggests much about the timing of someone of my tribe standing before you today. Perhaps, it could not have been otherwise. I do not presume that such folk were between the 1880s and the 1980s always and everywhere barred from mem- bership and participation in the meetings of the Society. I do not imagine the chairs of the Synoptic Gospels or the Prophetic Texts units standing at the doors yelling “Whites only!” There is no doubt about the sick views of some; but I think some- thing deeper was and, perhaps, remains even today at issue: given the state of emer- gency in which they have lived (emergencies that would give Walter Benjamin pause), given the onset of the second slavery in the post–Civil War era when the industrial liberal North threw black folk under the wagon and the South embraced racial violence, the worst practices of Jim Crowism and economic peonage and 1 I am thinking here of Robert W. Funk (SBL president, 1975) and his colleagues in the 1960s and 1970s; and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (SBL president, 1987) and colleagues in the 1980s. Their addresses can be found in Presidential Voices: The Society of Biblical Literature in the Twentieth Century (ed. Harold W. Attridge and James C. VanderKam; SBLBSNA 22; Atlanta: Soci- ety of Biblical Literature, 2006). 2 Ernest W. Saunders, Searching the Scriptures: A History of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1880–1980 (SBLBSNA 8; Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 7 slavery, 3 black membership in the decades past would have required the Society, in the vernacular of the folk, to “be talkin’ ‘bout somethin’.” Notwithstanding all the historical and some continuing stumbling blocks in the way, I suggest that the paucity of black membership is due ultimately not to the bad faith and manners of members of the Society in the past but to something more profound—the (unrec- ognized, unacknowledged) racialized discursive practices and politics that have defined it. It is imperative that we recognize, even if belatedly, those few black pioneers of the decades before the initiatives of Hoyt and Waters—the likes of Leon Edward Wright; Charles B. Copher; G. Murray Branch; and Joseph A. Johnson. 4 We must inscribe them and a few others into our full organizational consciousness and mem- ory. These few are no longer with us; they have yet to be fully claimed and recog- nized. They struggled mightily to figure out how to speak to the challenges and pressures of the different worlds they intersected as black male intellectuals on the peripheries of the field. They were not always understood by members of their own tribes. They were severely limited in terms of professional appointments. Because so many parts of society and the academy accepted racial segregation as a given, simply the way things were and were supposed to be, they all worked in black insti- tutions, mostly in Atlanta and Washington. And the Society did not recognize them and did little to support them or resist the polluted status quo. They must surely have exhausted themselves. They surely had stories to tell, lessons for our edifica- tion. And, of course, that our sisters of color, who faced even more layered inter- secting stumbling blocks to their participation emerged at all only in the 1980s and are here among us in their numbers is tribute to their strength and commitment and further evidence of the Society’s fraught and frayed history. Now after having left “home” in that flatter sense of the term or, in Zora Neale Hurston’s terms, having loosened the grip of that hyper-racialized garment I was made to wear, with growing awareness of what I gain from the pioneers listed above, 3 See the riveting and unsettling book by Atlanta bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal Douglas A. Blackmon, Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Establishment of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (New York: Doubleday, 2008). It provides irrefutable evidence of the perduring effects of slavery among black peoples into this century. 4 Leon Edward Wright (1912–1996), Alterations in the Words of Jesus, as Quoted in the Lit- erature of the Second Century (Harvard Historical Monographs 25; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1952), a revision of his Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1945; Charles B. Copher (1913–2003), “Isaiah’s Philosophy of History” (Ph.D. thesis, Boston University, 1947); Black Bib- lical Studies: An Anthology of Charles B. Copher. Biblical and Theological Issues on the Black Pres- ence in the Bible (Chicago: Black Light Fellowship, 1993); R. C. Bailey and J. Grant, eds., Recovery of Black Presence: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. Essays in Honor of Dr. Charles B. Copher (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995); G[eorge] Murray Branch (1914–2006), “Malachi: Prophet of Tran- sition” (M.A. thesis, Drew University, 1946); Joseph A. Johnson (1914–1979), “Christianity and Atonement in the Fourth Gospel” (Ph.D. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1958). 8 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) and through engagement of that fraught period of contact as an intense excavation of consciousness, I stand before you this evening with yet another challenge, imploring the Society—and by extension, all critical interpreters—to start and to sustain “talkin’ ‘bout somethin’.” Here is the challenge plainly put: there can be no critical interpretation worthy of the name, without coming to terms with the first contact—between the West and the rest, the West and the Others—and its per- during toxic and blinding effects and consequences. The challenge remains for this Society and all collectivities of critical interpreters in general to engage in persist- ent and protracted struggle, not symbolic or obfuscating games around methods and approaches, to come to terms with the construal of the modern ideologization of language, characterized by the meta-racism 5 that marks the relationship between Europeans and Euro-Americans and peoples of color, especially black peoples. What might it mean to address in explicit terms the nature and consequences of first contact for the unstable and fragile big tent that is our Society? What might it suggest for the ongoing widely differently prioritized and oriented work we do in our widely different settings and contexts with our nonetheless still widely shared absolutist and elitist claims and presumptions about such work? It would make it imperative that we talk about discourse and power, slavery and freedom, life and death. In addition to the persons quoted at the beginning of this address, I have given myself permission to conjure one of those booming haunting voices from an ear- lier moment and situation from the period of first contact, a voice belonging to one among those peoples heavily “signified,” 6 one of the “voices from within the veil.” 7 Unlike Robert Penn Warren’s Big Jim (referred to in his poem used as part of the epigraph above), Frederick Douglass speaks and writes his mind. In his first auto- biographical work, his 1845 Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an Ameri- can Slave, Written by Himself, 8 he looks back on an incident from his youthful years when he was a slave. The incident was seemingly a recurring one, but he makes the reader experience it as a singular, pointed one for narratological effect. It is an incident that Douglass, the recently escaped and young but emerging lion-voiced 5 See Joel Kovel, White Racism: A Psychohistory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1970). 6 See Charles H. Long, Significations: Signs, Symbols, and Images in the Interpretation of Reli- gion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 4. 7 The subtitle of W. E. B. Du Bois’s collection of essays entitled Darkwater: Voices from the Veil (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Howe, 1920). The subtitle represents a theme that is taken up in his most famous work The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches (Chicago: A. C. McClurg, 1903). The essays in Darkwater are said to represent Du Bois’s most mature, certainly some of his more sharp-edged, writings. See Manning Marable’s introduction to the Dover Thrift Edition (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1996). 8 In The Oxford Frederick Douglass Reader (ed. with introduction by William L. Andrews; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). All subsequent references to Douglass’s text, cited as Narrative, are from this edition. Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 9 abolitionist, remembers and recounts for the (assumed) mostly white abolitionist- minded readers. What he touches upon and opens up in an astonishing display of romanticist and critical-reflexive communication are several issues that likely escaped the review of or were not (or could not be) fully understood by the Gar- risonians, the abolitionist patron/izers of the young ex-slave. These were issues that still offer pointed challenge to all moderns, especially those interested and invested in thinking about something—about the enslaved, enslaved thinking, critical and free thinking and interpretation. The slaves selected to go to the Great House Farm, for the monthly allowance for themselves and their fellow-slaves . . . would make the dense woods, for miles around, reverberate with their wild songs, revealing at once the highest joy and the deepest sadness. They would compose and sing as they went along, consult- ing neither time nor tune. The thought that came up, came out—if not in the word, in the sound; and—as frequently in the one as in the other. They would sometimes sing the most pathetic sentiment in the most rapturous tone, and the most rapturous sentiment in the most pathetic tone. Into all of their songs they would manage to weave something of the Great House Farm. Especially would they do this, when leaving home. They would then sing most exultingly . . . words which to many would seem unmeaning jargon, but which, nevertheless, were full of meaning to themselves. . . . I did not, when a slave, understand the deep mean- ing of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. I was myself within the cir- cle; so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear. 9 In this recounting Douglass names many issues for consideration—subjectiv- ity and consciousness, discourse and power, power and knowledge, knowledge and positionality, knowledge and the center, knowledge and centers. He names or at least assumes at least three different categories of persons or groups as different types of knowers or interpreters produced by that world of first contact—first, the slave singers, those who through their songs provide evidence that they have some knowledge and some agency of communication but are nonetheless not allowed to communicate their knowledge and sentiment beyond their own circle; second, those outside the circle (of the slaves), the world associated with the Great House Farm and all that it represents, those who if they hear the slave songs at all hear them only as jargon, as “mumbo jumbo”; 10 and third, Douglass himself, the one who although technically at first “within the circle” (who as such did not/could not 9 Douglass, Narrative, 27–38. 10 This is the title of Ishmael Reed’s most famous and challenging and sometimes unfath- omable novel (New York: Scribner, 1972). For his purposes, Reed traced “mumbo jumbo” to Mandingo ma-ma-gyo-mbo, “magician who makes the troubled spirits go away” (p. 7). This trac- ing suggests that which has meaning within a larger structure of meaning. Obviously, in the hyper- racialized West defining itself over against the black world, the works and discourses of such a magician would be translated as nonsense, so much jumbled mumbling. 10 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) know), later, as reflected in his writerly self, outside the circle of slavery, begins to understand not only what the slaves felt and communicated but also something more, something about communicating, knowing. Using African slaves to think with, Douglass thinks in terms of “site” sanc- tioning “insight,” 11 that is, in terms of types of consciousness and interpreters who are differently positioned—the enslaving, the enslaved, and the runagate. These categories I submit—and I think Douglass thought—are not always totally mutu- ally exclusive; they can be and in history have been complexly intertwined, yet there is justification for their isolation for the sake of analysis. There is no escape from the consequences set in motion by that contact that was turned into violent con- quest for some and long-term subordination for the many others. Douglass’s wrenching passage about the black slaves he knew and the types of interpreters and consciousness that could be identified with them challenges all interpreters to seek a way out, a way to run. His analysis begins—complexly, emotionally—with those whose very identity as human agents was questioned and denied; he begins with physical black enslavement as a way to the problematization of the “black (w)hole,” 12 to a profound understanding of the larger complex of slavery and free- dom that defines and marks black peoples to be sure, but nearly all of us in more general terms. To the three categories of interpreters I briefly turn. First, the enslaving. Those participating in and profiting from the structure of dominance generated by the Great House Farm were understood by Douglass to be oblivious to the plight of others. They are imagined to be those who, like Warren’s buzzard, lifted their wings so as to avoid seeing and hearing the others. They were also characterized, according to Fanon, as those who had fallen prey to a Mani- chaean psychology and epistemics: the world was understood to be black and white, the latter signifying light and purity and life, the former dirt and pollution. 13 Of course, we now know more about what subtends such psychology and epistemics. Since Melville and other raging mad sensitive souls, we know now that it repre- sents a horrific splitting of the self—into the blankness of whiteness and the fore- boding threatening overdetermined markedness of blackness—and the hardened essentialization of the parts. The splitting is traumatic; it is not recognized or 11 See Kimberly W. Benston, Performing Blackness: Enactments of African-American Mod- ernism (New York: Routledge, 2000), 293. 12 For a fascinating exploration of this term and the phenomenon to which it points, see lit- erary and cultural critic Houston A. Baker, Jr., in Blues, Ideology, and Afro-American Literature: A Vernacular Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 155, and passim. 13 See this argument developed by Frantz Fanon in his Wretched of the Earth (trans. Constance Farrington; New York: Grove, 1968; French original, 1961), 41. Also see the discussion in Abdul R. JanMohamed, “The Economy of Manichean Allegory: The Function of Racial Dif- ference in Colonialist Literature,” Critical Inquiry 12 (1985): 59–87. Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 11 acknowledged; it is part of the phenomenon of the “hidden brain.” 14 It results in, among other things, the meta-racist regime that pollutes all of us, infects our dis- courses, our work and play, including our philological games. It was at work in Jefferson’s convoluted denial of Phillis Wheatley’s brilliant artistry; 15 in Hegel’s disavowal of the successful struggle of those black folk in Saint- Domingue-turned-Haiti against their enslavers and the meaning of such struggle as the backdrop for his own theorizing about the dialectics of struggle between master and slave and the further disavowal of the meaning of this struggle for uni- versalism and the turn to modernity; 16 in John Locke’s “purification of language” project, part of the “metadiscursive formation” aimed to deny the right to public speech to any one—women; serfs and slaves; sub-aristocrat whites—who could not speak properly. 17 It was at work when Tony Perkins, head of the evangelical and corporatist Family Research Council, declared on CNN in the heat of the last pres- idential election with great authority and without a whiff of qualification—much like Warren’s buzzard—that the jeremiads of the urban black pastor named Jere- miah Wright against corporatist and racializing/racist “America” were simply “unscriptural.” 18 Can we doubt that Perkins’s utterance comes out of the still regnant Manichaean world? Is it hard to see that in Perkins’s mind—buried far in that hid- den brain where meta-racism thrives—there is an assumption that he and his tribesmen own the Bible and that they are invested with all rights and privileges appertaining thereto, meaning control of the discourses about the Bible? Who cannot see that behind his outburst were exegetical arguments, no doubt legit- imized by the scholarship of our membership, that conjure the ancient Near East- ern world as a white world in seamless historical development with the modern white world? 14 See the compelling development of this concept by Shankar Vedantam in The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives (New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2010). 15 See his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785; ed. with introduction and notes by Frank Shuffelton; New York: Penguin Books, 1999). 16 Susan Buck-Morss (Hegel, Haiti and Universal History [Illuminations; Pittsburgh: Uni- versity of Pittsburgh Press, 2009]) and Sibylle Fischer (Modernity Disavowed: Haiti and the Cul- tures of Slavery in the Age of Revolution [Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press, 2004]), advance compelling arguments concerning Hegel’s denial of the universal implication in the Haitians’ struggle to be free and to establish the first modern society with aspirations to univer- sal nonracialized freedoms. 17 For general historical cultural background, focusing mainly on Britain, see Olivia Smith, The Politics of Language, 1791–1819 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). For a discussion of John Locke and the dramatic ensuing consequences in many domains and contexts in the twenty-first cen- tury in the United States, see Richard Bauman and Charles L. Briggs, Voices of Modernity: Lan- guage Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 21; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 18 See http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/14/acd.01.html. 12 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) These and other such examples of disavowals and tortured silences and twisted arguments and declarations reflect the pollution and veiling of the humanity and consciousness that is the Manichaean psychology and epistemics, infecting all peo- ples. 19 It is arguable that it is no longer possible for those who are subject to such a construction or regime to argue freely what they see, think, or feel. Having to make black always signify the same thing—always signify the negative—represents a tremendous psychosocial and intellectual commitment and burden. 20 This mentality of denial and disavowal, the most trenchant reflection of the Manichaean psychology, has been powerfully imaged in the frontispiece to Jesuit scholar Joseph-François Lafitau’s 1724 multivolume work Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains comparées aux moeurs des premiers temps (see next page). 21 Following Michel de Certeau’s interpretive glosses, 22 we see the racialized and gendered but otherwise unmarked writer/inscriber/historian of the world and interpreter of events and truth. She is complexly situated—in relationship to the anthropomorphized Father time and death. She writes within and for the larger framework that is Europe ascendant. But she must write in order to clarify in light of the contact with the Others and the changes in the world how now things must mean. She writes about the truth as Europeans must see it, tell it, know it. So notice along the bottom of the image the objects, trinkets, fetishes, representing the Oth- ers. The history, the truth that is to be told about these “savages” and “primitives” must now be told in the terms of the method of bricolage—assembling, choosing this and that part, this or that thing, from this or that world of savagery, in order to place the Others within the canonical framework that reflects Manichaean psy- chology and epistemics. The “savage” is assumed not to be able to communicate, at least, not in purified language, so deserves no hearing, demands no respectful gaze. But Europeans can and should inscribe the Other into reality and interpret and interpellate them. Who enslaves whom? Douglass implied that those far outside the circle—those in some respect participating in the ways of the Great House Farm, those who, like the woman in Lafitau’s frontispiece representing Euro-America or the West writ- ing up the Rest—can hardly see or hear, much less understand, the Rest represented by the slaves. Like the poignantly named Nehemiah who “writes up” Dessa in 19 See Camara Jules P. Harrell, Manichean Psychology: Racism and the Minds of People of African Descent (Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1999), for discussion of the way black peoples have been infected. 20 On this point, see Christopher L. Miller, Blank Darkness: Africanist Discourse in French (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 246. 21 Paris: Saugrain l’aine et Charles Etienne Hochereau, 1724. 22 See Certeau, “Writing vs. Time: History and Anthropology in the Works of Lafitau,” in Rethinking History: Time, Myth, and Writing (ed. Marie-Rose Logan and John Frederick Logan; Yale French Studies 59; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980). Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 13 Te image that appears on p. 14 of the print edition of JBL Frontispiece to the 1724 edition of Joseph-François Laftau, Moeurs de sauvages Ameriquains comparées aux moeurs de premiers temps. Engraving signed by I. B. Scotin. Bibliothèque nationale de France can be viewed at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbfr&fleName=0013/ rbfr0013.db&recNum=7&itemLink=r Sherley Williams’s Dessa Rose, 23 the writer makes up a truth, like “science,” a writ- ing that represents a kind of violence done to her body. 24 The woman who is Euro- America who writes up the savages actually does not even look at the objects and symbols assumed to represent them. Her gaze redefines what it means to see straight. Second, the enslaved. Their situation was not romanticized by Douglass, at least not without some resistance or qualification. In his view, they were denied any but overdetermined identification with and participation in the world that was represented by the Great House Farm. They were denied the main currents of com- munication and social exchange. They were considered chattel, and so it was assumed that they were unable to think, to communicate, except in the way of the “swinish multitude.” 25 They were presumed not to be able to read and write—at least, not in canonical/cosmopolitan European languages or modes. 26 Douglass knew that the black enslaved could make meaning or make things mean, but not beyond their small and rigidly contained circle. Outside their circle they experienced little or no intersubjectivity, which provokes what might be thought of as the “anxiety of ethnicity.” 27 This phenomenon was understood to be one of the most important meanings and consequences of enslavement. 28 Slaves’ communication was reduced to an “anti-language,” 29 unrecognized and unac- knowledged by others. This is what Douglass called “unmeaning jargon.” They were 23 New York: W. Morrow, 1982. 24 See Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (trans. Steven Rendall; Berkeley: University of California, 2002), part 4, ch. 10. 25 The language of Edmund Burke, found in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, And on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event. In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris (London: J. Dodsley, 1790). It provoked much reaction in Eng- land and beyond. See also Smith, Politics of Language, ch. 3. 26 On this matter of canonical or conventional discourses, see Grey Gundaker, Signs of Dias- pora, Diaspora of Signs: Literacies, Creolization, and Vernacular Practice in African America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). On more conventional history of conventional literacy among blacks, see Janet Duitsman Cornelius, “When I Can Read My Title Clear”: Literacy, Slav- ery, and Religion in the Antebellum South (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992). 27 So David Van Leer, “Reading Slavery: The Anxiety of Ethnicity in Douglass’s Narrative,” in Frederick Douglass: New Literary and Historical Essays (ed. Eric J. Sundquist; New York: Cam- bridge University Press, 1990), 129. 28 See Orlando Patterson’s works on slavery and freedom: Freedom (New York: Basic Books, 1991); Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982); Rituals of Blood: Consequences of Slavery in Two American Centuries (Washington, DC: Civitas, 1998), among others. 29 Ann M. Kibbey and Michele Stepto, “The Anti-Language of Slavery: Frederick Douglass’s 1845 Narrative,” in Critical Essays on Frederick Douglass (ed. William L. Andrews; Boston: G. K. Hall, 1991), 166–91. Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 15 rendered silent and invisible. Ralph Ellison’s character in Invisible Man put the phe- nomenon in riveting terms: I am invisible . . . simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass . . . they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination—indeed, everything and anything except me. 30 The evidence of the silencing and rendering invisible the presence of the black Atlantic and contributions is everywhere to be seen. Consider Rebecca Protten, an eighteenth-century pioneer Moravian missionary and evangelist and founder of one of the first African American Protestant congregations in the North Atlantic world. 31 The establishment politics of “church”/“religious” history has contributed to her being largely forgotten. Note the woman known as “sister Francis” or as the “Blackymore maide.” Her well-known charismatic leadership in the establishment of the seventeenth-century radical Protestant formation that became the establish- ment Church of Christ in Broadmead, later Broadmead Baptist Church, Bristol, England, was erased by Edward Terrill’s establishmentarian revisionist history. Her leadership was reduced to overdetermined categories—of appellation and senti- mentality. She was by exegetical sleight of hand erased out of her rightful place in history, as founding figure—and then flattened into a black pious maid. 32 And Douglass’s own situation as writer is worth mentioning. The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison provided the preface to Douglass’s 1845 Narrative. What- ever may be said about the substantive comments made in it, it is clear that this preface functioned primarily to “translate” Douglass, that is, to provide the meta- commentary for all that is to follow. This is an example of enslavement as a kind of “framework.” 33 A discerning reader can determine whether Garrison ever really understood Douglass’s text. Douglass later severed ties with Garrison and the Garrisonians. He came to understand how slavery could continue to work—way up North—as discursive framing. Perhaps, the most famous description, if not the final analysis, of the phe- nomenon of the enslaved as the framed is found in W. E. B. Du Bois’s works. In his famous Souls of Black Folk, the Manichaean world, the world structured around 30 Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (2nd ed.; New York: Vintage, 1995), 3. 31 See Jon F. Sensbach, Rebecca’s Revival: Creating Black Christianity in the Atlantic World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). 32 See Edward Terrill, The Records of a Church of Christ in Bristol, 1640–1687 (Bristol Record Society, 1974). For historical-interpretive context, see Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston: Beacon, 2000), ch. 3. 33 On Garrison’s persistent liberal-abolitionist paternalism in relationship to Douglass, see Houston A. Baker, Jr., The Journey Back: Issues in Black Literature and Criticism (Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1984), 148–49. 16 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) what he termed the “veil,” is defined by racial division and alienation and igno- rance that affects all: “there is almost no community of intellectual life or point of transference where the thoughts and feelings of one race can come into direct con- tact and sympathy with the thoughts and feelings of the other.” 34 As Douglass looks back to the Great House Farm, he does not romanticize the situation of the slaves. He indicates that he has come to understand that the chief dilemma that slaves faced was not the physical domination, as demeaning as it was, but the not being seen, not being heard, not being understood, not being communicated with in broad terms befitting the dignity of humanity, not being able to communicate the complexity of sentiments and feelings, and being cut off from everything—except, ironically, the Great House Farm. Enslavement meant being able to sing, perhaps, but only within the Manichaean-prescribed circle in which black was overdetermined as, among other things, “unmeaning jargon.” This was for Douglass intolerable. He would escape it. Third, runagate. The term is an alternate form of “renegate,” from Middle Latin renegatus, meaning “fugitive” or “runaway.” It has come to carry the meaning of a more transgressive act than mere flight. It is marronage, running away with an atti- tude and a plan, a taking flight—in body, but even more importantly in terms of consciousness. 35 We know that Douglass literally runs away from enslavement. It is as a runagate that he writes his first autobiography. And in this part of the story about the slaves on their way to the Great House Farm, Douglass distinguishes him- self from the others who are slaves. He seems to experience being in and out of sol- idarity with and consciousness about them. He knows them, but he is also alien to them. That he once occupied a similar psychic position with them but now assumes a different position is excruciatingly painful for him. He registers acute anxiety experienced over the need to step outside the circle, outside the framed experience, the framed consciousness that is slavery. It is a scary place. It is psychosocial and discursive marronage. He is a runagate before he runs away. 34 From “IX. Of the Sons of Master and Man,” in Souls of Black Folk, in The Norton Anthol- ogy of African American Literature (ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Nellie Y. McKay; New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), 700. 35 See Jean Fouchard, The Haitian Maroons: Liberty or Death (trans. A Faulkner Watts; New York: Edward Blyden, 1981); Alvin O. Thompson, Flight to Freedom: African Runaways and Maroons in the Americas (Kingston, Jamaica: University of West Indies Press, 2006); Hugo Prosper Learning, Hidden Americans: Maroons of Virginia and the Carolinas (Studies in African American History and Culture; New York: Garland, 1995); Mavis Christin Campbell, The Maroons of Jamaica, 1655–1796: A History of Resistance, Collaboration & Betrayal (Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1988); and Richard Price, ed., Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas (3rd ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). See also Houston A. Baker, Jr.’s recon- textualization arguments in Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 71–82. Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 17 There is a long history of this phenomenon of the runagate—long before and long after Douglass, among the people who have become and whom we now call African Americans. The runagate not only involved heroic individuals such as Douglass but everyday collective folk who showed themselves to be a people on the run, a marooned people, a people intent on migrating from deserts and fields of enslavement to other psychic places, with high purpose. Taking flight, running away, in the several different respects of meaning and experience, was the watch- word. It brought some of my relatives to this city and took some others into other parts of the country. That other philosopher called Locke (as in Alain) in his 1925 edited volume The New Negro: Voices of the Harlem Renaissance vividly captured the impetus and drama of one of the waves of migration in the twentieth century: The wash and rush of this human tide . . . is to be explained primarily in terms of a new vision of opportunity, of social and economic freedom, of a spirit to seize, even in the face of an extortionate and heavy toll. . . . With each successive wave of it, the movement of the Negro becomes more and more a mass move- ment toward the larger and the more democratic chance . . . a deliberate flight not only from the countryside to city, but from medieval America to modern. 36 The critical sign of Douglass having already become runagate before reaching the North is his acquisition and critical use of thinking about literacy. Learning to read had to do with more than learning the letters, having been given the “inch,” as he called it. No, his reading involved taking the “ell,” involving a much more com- plex phenomenon with profound consequences, including those and more that were feared by the masters. Douglass’s command of the text is like Maurice Blanchot’s notion of reading as reading past the text to something more or other, a reading of the self—a historicized collective self. 37 This self that Douglass began to read seems to be the result of a splitting of a different sort from, but with great implications and ramifications for, the engagement of the Manichaean psychology. Du Bois continues to provide perspective. His references in Souls of Black Folk to the term “veil” as a metaphor to name the nature of the construction of the Mani- chaean world and his understanding of the consequences and impact of such include that most famous remark—“. . . a peculiar sensation . . . double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of the others.” 38 This remark is generally assumed to apply simply and universally to all black peoples in the United States. This interpretation is questionable as applied to Souls: in the latter he was focused on explaining (to a mixed readership) those black folks who were phys- 36 Alain Locke, ed., The New Negro: Voices of the Harlem Renaissance (New York: A. and C. Boni, 1925; repr., New York: Touchstone, 1999), 6. 37 See Michael Holland, ed., The Blanchot Reader (London: Blackwell, 1995), especially on the concept of “the work.” 38 Du Bois, Souls, in Gates and McKay, Norton Anthology of African American Literature, 615. 18 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ically and increasingly psychically removed from the world of the Great House Farm and were now facing the negotiation of larger miscegenated worlds and con- sciousness. Du Bois understood that for such persons—like himself and like Douglass “outside the circle”—what was experienced most acutely is a splitting, an acute self-alienation, dissociation. This was what he termed existence behind the “Veil of Color.” 39 Douglass’s miscegenated and alienated consciousness led him to wage battle. It was the fight with Covey the infamous “nigger-breaker” that sharply reflected Douglass’s struggle with alienation and anxiety. Douglass understood the fight with Covey to be more than physical contact. In Covey, Douglass comes face to face, so to speak, with the more tangible manifestations of meta-racism—the slave system and its imbrication of Christian ideology. But it also occasioned oppor- tunity for Douglass to represent his confrontation with the world of the slave, more specifically, African traditions, in the form of Sandy the root doctor. Like Jacob’s wrestling with the angel, Douglass fights an existential battle: he fights against aspects of himself that have been forced to split on account of Manichaean meta- racism; he fights the white side of himself represented by Covey and his absent father, which derides and demeans and denies him and his blackness; and he fights the black side of himself, represented by Sandy, with his limited agency and com- munication skills and timidity if not also perfidy. He shows himself to be conscious of the tightly coiled constructedness of both worlds. In the end, his fight results in his becoming a subjectivity that was miscegenated, not merely a blending in literal/ physical terms, but an independent self that is unstable, fluid, protean, embattled, split from the violent framing. It was this splitting and the anxiety over it that Du Bois considered a paradox, an opportunity and a gift to the black subjects and through them to the world. The forced splitting provides opportunity for cultivation of heightened critical con- sciousness: “Once in a while,” he indicated, noting that the phenomenon was not guaranteed but had to be cultivated and exploited, “through all of us”—that is, those forced behind the veil, that “thick sheet of invisible . . . horribly tangible plate glass” limning “a dark cave” within which black folks are “entombed souls . . . hindered in their natural movement, expression, and development” 40 —“there flashes some 39 Of course, the debate about what this means or when and how this was experienced and what should be the response to it rages on. Although it was not Du Bois’s proposed analysis of or proposed solution to the problem, many critics of black existence have argued that enslavement has meant above all alienation to the point of the loss of a (“sense of ”) past and that only the future remained as basis for organization and orientation. For informative discussion, see Frank M. Kirkland, “Modernity and Intellectual Life in Black,” Philosophical Forum 24 (1992–93): 136–65; and Orlando Patterson, “Toward a Future That Has No Past: Reflections on the Fate of Blacks in the Americas,” Public Interest no. 27 (Spring 1972): 25–62. 40 See Du Bois’s mature, somewhat autobiographical work Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 130–31; see esp. ch. 5, “The Concept of Race.” For larger historical and political-discursive context, see Thomas C. Holt, Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 19 clairvoyance, some clear idea, of what America really is. We who are dark can see America in a way that America can not.” 41 In learning to read—not merely texts but texture and the world, including what Covey represented in the world and in the same larger scene, what Sandy represented in the world—Douglass had escaped. He had escaped from the cave, from the tight circle. What might these arguments and perspectives mean for this Society? How could its discourses and practices not be fully implicated in and reflective of the Manichaean ideology and epistemics? In what respect is its epistemics different from that of Tony Perkins or Thomas Jefferson? How can the ever more sophisti- cated methods and approaches of the operations of its diverse members focused on a single text tradition or, at most, two complexly related text traditions, avoid functioning as apologetics—for the nation or empire and satellite orders? How can the Society avoid making and keeping the Scriptures and all characters in them white like Ahab’s whale, like Perkins’s white Euro-American Protestant/Catholic ancient Near Eastern world? Douglass hints at a way out. His reflection on his own life story continues to be instructive. He argues that the critical interpreter must seek to escape, must run, must be oriented “outside the circle.” His own experience as a Scripture-reader is a direct challenge to us. Before he escaped he started a secret seminary/religious stud- ies program—a “Sabbath school”—for groups of slaves from various plantations. Douglass indicated—in somewhat veiled terms—that his motive had to do with more than teaching letters—“we were trying to learn how to read the will of God,” that is, read life and death, slavery and freedom. He helped establish a safe zone within which the students could learn, think for and talk among themselves apart from the slavers. In direct opposition to the expectations and interests of the mas- ters and as a practice reflecting “mimetic excess,” 42 this Scripture-reading practice reflected self-reflexivity, a heightened consciousness of imitation of the other— with a difference. He knew that the reading of the Scriptures was hardly ever mere reading about the ancient Near East, about the life and times of Jesus or the prophets, that the reading of Scriptures in the modern world was a reading of the world as constructed by the splitting that made “black” signify in an ever tighter cir- cle of reference. So having psychosocially positioned himself “outside the circle” of the world of slave culture and outside the Great House Farm, Douglass positioned himself to “read”—and help others read—the world as it had been and might be ordered. He was a runagate. “Political Uses of Alienation: W. E. B. Du Bois on Politics, Race, and Culture, 1903–1940,” Amer- ican Quarterly 42 (1990): 308–9. 41 W. E. B. Du Bois, “Criteria of Negro Art,” Crisis 32 (October 1926): 290–97. Printed in Gates and McKay, Norton Anthology of African American Literature, 753. 42 Michael Taussig, Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses (New York: Rout- ledge, 1993), 233, 246, 249, 252–55. 20 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Can the members of this Society claim such consciousness? Douglass was not so much reading Scriptures as he was signifying on scripturalization, on the regime that creates and enforces uses of Scriptures for the sake of domination. Like Kafka’s ape ape-ing high-minded humans, 43 he showed his thinking about thinking. He showed his understanding of the political constructedness of Scripture-reading and that such reading ought to result in talking and thinking about life and death, slav- ery and freedom. Surely, here is a challenge to a different critical orientation—an orientation to Scripture study as part of the human sciences with investment in critical histories that aim to make sense of what subtends the practices, the forms of expressivity, the relations of discourse and power. It makes sense, according to Du Bois, with all the pain and trauma involved, for the black self to want to run, to let go: there is no advantage, no life, in not run- ning. Such sentiment and conviction regarding the relationship between alienation and freedom was powerfully expressed by Richard Wright: “I have no race except that which is forced upon me. I have no country except that to which I’m obliged to belong. I have no traditions. I’m free. I have only the future.” 44 But the impetus to run away, to let go, is not very strong for those strongly positioned within or benefitting from the Manichaean order. Such “hidden brain” fundamentalism around which the Euro-American world is built is so deeply buried, so tightly coiled, so persistent, that nothing less than shock can dislodge it. Although a renegade member of a different academic professional society, Michael Taussig makes of himself a poignant and painful example and lesson for consider- ation of members of this Society. He accepts himself as a white man from the world of the Great House Farm who looks and listens to the other as the other constructs and projects an image of the white man. Note his reaction to such an image created by those associated with the Mabari shrine in Nigeria (see next page): He frightens me, this African white man. He unsettles. He makes me wonder without end. Was the world historical power of whiteness achieved through its being a sacred as well as profane power? It makes me wonder about the consti- tution of whiteness as global colonial work and also as a minutely psychic one involving psychic powers invisible to my senses but all too obvious, as reflected to me, now, by this strange artifact . . . it is . . . the . . . West now face to face with its-self . . . the white man . . . facing himself. . . . Such face-to-faceness no doubt brings its quotient of self-congratulation. “They think we are gods.” But being a god is okay as long as it isn’t excessive. After all, who knows—in imagining us as gods, might they not take our power? 45 43 Ibid., xiv, xvii, 254–55. 44 Richard Wright, Pagan Spain (New York: Harper, 1957; repr., 2008), 21. 45 Taussig, Mimesis, 237–38. Image originally from Julia Blackburn, The White Men: The First Responses of Aboriginal Peoples to the White Man (London: Orbis, 1979; New York: New York Times Books, 1979). Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 21 Douglass’s insurgent seminary sessions and Taussig’s training in an African school of arts and social criticism suggest for the Society the imperative of seeing Scripture-reading as part of mimetic systems. The critic should see his or her own critical practices as part of such systems and remain open to influences toward greater self-reflexivity and the destabilization and vacancy of identity. How could the Society not be so oriented in the twenty-first century? How can we be students of Scriptures in this century at this moment without making our agenda a radically humanistic science or art, excavating human politics, dis- course, performances, power relations, the mimetic systems of knowing we may call scripturalization? How can we remain a Society only of Biblical Literature and 22 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Photograph: Herbert M. Cole, 1966. not of comparative Scriptures? How can we in this big international tent in this century of globalization not include as our focus the problematics of “Scriptures” of all the other major social-cultural systems of the world as well the older dynamic systems of scripturalizing of the so-called smaller societies? How exciting and com- pelling and renegade would be a Society of interpreters that excavates all repre- sentations of Scriptures in terms of discourse and power! Such orientation requires letting go—of unmarked or blank whiteness and of forced essential blackness. It means running away from all—the white text, the black essential—that has sought for several centuries to bind us. Clearly, the claim need not be made that only African America shows the way out. But African Amer- ica certainly offers the gift of challenge, the model of the imperative of running for life to a zone of discursive and ideological marronage. On account of forced place- ment in a zone of nonsubjectivity, this tribe, after all, has given birth to artists/poets/ shamans/diviners who model the runagate and challenge us to imitate them. They show us the way of the double-sighted, the way of those who know that knowing requires occupying a zone where there is “constantly shifting authorial conscious- ness” and the “piercing” of “cultural authority,” 46 a site on which radical translation and transformation are always to be worked on, a site where according to Ralph Ellison “black is and black a’int,” because “black can make you and unmake you.” 47 It means letting go of closed systems of cultural authority and of claims to be over- seers of texts. Those folk who have been placed behind the veil challenge all of us to run, in fact to run continuously from the cave into the zone of marronage. In his poem “Runagate, Runagate,” Robert Hayden has woven together per- haps the classic expressions and images of the black cultural sentiments regarding the runagate: 48 I. Runs falls rises stumbles on from darkness into darkness and the darkness thicketed with shapes of terror and the hunters pursuing and the hounds pursuing and the night cold and the night long and the river to cross and the jack-muh-lanterns beckoning beckoning and blackness ahead and when shall I reach that somewhere morning and keep on going and never turn back and keep on going Runagate Runagate Runagate . . . . . . . . 46 Benston, Performing Blackness, 292, 294. 47 Ellison, Invisible Man, 9–10. 48 Robert Hayden, “Runagate, Runagate,” in Gates and McKay, The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, 1506–8. Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 23 II. . . . . . . . . Wanted Harriet Tubman alias The General alias Moses Stealer of Slaves In league with Garrison Alcott Emerson Garrett Douglas Thoreau John Brown Armed and known to be Dangerous Wanted Reward Dead or Alive . . . . . . . . Come ride-a my train Oh that train, ghost-story train through swamp and savanna movering movering, over trestles of dew, through caves of the wish, Midnight Special on a sabre track movering movering, . . . . . . . . Come ride-a my train Mean mean mean to be free The folk who are dark challenge us to run—away from the feigned solid canonical self, onto “the ghost-story train,” into a “disrupting blackness,” 49 down into what Howard Thurman called a “luminous darkness” 50 where the process of the hard work of self-criticism can take place. They also warn us that ultimately there is no other way out. That must have been what the song-poets meant when they crafted and sang: [It’s] so high, you can’t get over [it], [It’s] so low, you can’t get under [it], So round, you can’t get around [it], You must go right through the door. We may not, need not, all “talk that talk” or “talk like dat,” but we all, for the sake of being a compelling force as a learned society—focused on the ultimate prob- lematics of discourse and power—must start and sustain “talkin’ about somethin’”— about slavery and freedom, about life and death. 49 Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (William E. Massey Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1992), 91. 50 See Howard Thurman, The Luminous Darkness: A Personal Interpretation of the Anatomy of Segregation and the Ground of Hope (1965; repr., Richmond, IN: Friends United Press, 1999). 24 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13 joshua berman [email protected] Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel For over forty years the dominant view in scholarship has been that Deuteron- omy 13 is a composition of the seventh century B.C.E. Remarkable similarities of language and norms exist between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the disloyalty provisions set out in section 10 of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon of 672 B.C.E. 1 The claim has proven especially attractive in light of the wealth of historical data in our possession for that period that would seem to support the claim. Assyr- ian cultic practices were present in the temple (2 Kgs 23:11); the kingdom of Judah was subjugated by Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13–18); and the name of Manasseh, king of Judah, appears on the list of Levantine kings subjugated by Esarhaddon. Assyrian domination, it is suggested, engendered a gradual socio- religious acculturation in which Judean scribes assimilated and modified the struc- tures of Assyrian ideology within the framework of their own tradition. 2 In My thanks to Adam Ferziger, Yitzhaq Feder, Edward Greenstein, Itamar Singer, and Jacob Wright for reading and commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript, and to Bernard Levin- son for his extended consultations. 1 Formally speaking the treaty provides for the succession to the throne of Esarhaddon’s son, Ashurbanipal, and is often referred to more accurately as the Succession Treaty of Esarhad- don. In his editio princeps, however, D. J. Wiseman (The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon [Iraq 20.1; London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958]) referred to the text as the “Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon,” and I will adopt here the more common acronym, VTE. See discussion in Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, eds., Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), xxx. 2 Bernard M. Levinson, “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (FAT 54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 138; Martti Nissinen, “Prophecy against the King in Neo- Assyrian Sources,” in “Lasset uns Brücken bauen–”: Collected Communications to the XVth Con- gress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995 (ed. Klaus Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin; BEATAJ 42; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998), 162; JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 25–44 25 patterning the laws of apostasy in Deuteronomy after the Neo-Assyrian sedition stipulations, the scribes of Judea were engaging in polemics and essentially turning an Assyrian form against their oppressors, asserting the imperialism of Yhwh over the imperialism of the Assyrian king. 3 So compelling are the parallels of phraseology, so clearly defined is the his- torical setting, that Richard D. Nelson speaks for the consensus when he writes in his Deuteronomy commentary, “[Deuteronomy 13] breathes the atmosphere of Assyrian treaty documents, paralleling the requirements for loyalty found in them. . . . The similarities between this chapter and VTE are so close that a deliberate imi- tation of Assyrian forms is nearly certain.” 4 In turn, the claim of a Neo-Assyrian provenance for Deuteronomy 13 has played a major role in scholarship beyond that limited to this chapter. Because the claim enjoys the support of epigraphic evidence, many expositors have taken the connection as one sign that much of Deuteronomy as a whole was composed in the seventh century B.C.E. 5 Indeed, one is hard-pressed to think of another cognate text from the first millennium whose language and norms are so close to those of a single passage of biblical law. In this study I propose that a more compelling backdrop for the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 can be located in the Late Bronze Hittite vassal treaty tradi- tion. I will begin by drawing attention to the sedition stipulations of the Hittite treaties that closely match the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13—which, surpris- ingly, have been largely ignored by scholarship until now. My aim will be to demon- strate that in case after case we may see that the Hittite parallels are closer in content and in form to the laws of Deuteronomy 13 than are the parallels from the Neo- Assyrian tradition. Moreover, I will attempt to demonstrate that Deuteronomy 13 describes a relationship between Yhwh the sovereign and Israel the vassal that Christoph Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Ver- tragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im alten Testament (BZAW 383; Berlin, de Gruyter, 2008), 108–70; Eckart Otto, “Treueid und Gesetz: Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont neuassyrischen Vertragsrechts,” ZABR 2 (1996): 1–52. Some schol- ars have maintained that the unit belongs to a postexilic redactional layer of Deuteronomy; see, e.g., Timo Veijola, “Wahrheit und Intoleranz nach Deuteronomium 13,” ZTK 92 (1995): 287–314; and Juha Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 20–50. For these scholars, Deuteronomy 13 bears similarities to VTE §10 because the tropes and formulations from the Neo-Assyrian period were still being employed when this part of Deuteronomy was composed. 3 Noel Weeks, Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships (JSOTSup 407; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 169. 4 Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 168. 5 A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy: Based on the Revised Standard Version (NCB Commen- tary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 105; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 6; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteron- omy (in Hebrew; Encyclopedia Olam Ha-Tanakh; Tel-Aviv: Davidson-Eti, 1993), 10. 26 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) more closely resembles the relationship of a Hittite king and his vassal than that of a Neo-Assyrian king and his. The scholarship on this chapter has identified many phrases from the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition that resonate with the language of Deuteronomy 13. In the second part of the study, I will show that few of these parallels are distinc- tively Neo-Assyrian, and that nearly all have precedents in Late Bronze Hittite treaty materials. In the final section, I will consider the implications of the evidence assessed for the question of the dating of Deuteronomy 13. Before proceeding to a review of the evidence, a methodological note is in order. As I seek to discern whether Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles the Hittite literature or the Neo-Assyrian literature, I take the following to be axiomatic: the very fact that two bodies of material share a common element is insufficient to warrant claims of a hereditary connection between them or that they are the prod- uct of a shared milieu and a common period. For example, as we shall see, all three bodies of treaty literature under review here address the concern that individuals may be prone to have greater allegiance to their own family members than to their lord, whether that lord is a human king, as in the Hittite and Neo-Assyrian treaties, or Yhwh, as in Deuteronomy. The very fact that this is a shared concern is insuf- ficient to posit a connection between them: political theorists have struggled with the problem of how to maintain the loyalty of citizens to the state in the face of loyalty to kin since the earliest political writings of Greece (see Aristotle, Pol. 6.1319b23–27). In order to posit that Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles one treaty tradition or the other, I will need to identify shared elements that are highly distinctive, elements whose multiple occurrences cannot simply be attributed to the universal nature of the human condition. In some cases I will be able to iden- tify in these laws content that seems distinctive. But it is primarily in the realm of the written formof these laws that distinctions will be more easily found. Speaking proverbially, just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there are many ways to express the same basic law. Options abound for the varied employment of meta- phor, phraseology, syntax, legal formulae, order, and structure. Because a great vari- ety of formal elements is available to the composer of a treaty, the consistent similarity of form between treaty texts from two different cultures will highlight their shared distinction when they are compared with treaties elsewhere. I. The Primary Evidence: CTH 133—The Ismerika Treaty Studies of Deuteronomy 13 in light of Neo-Assyrian sources routinely focus attention on §10 of VTE (lines 108–22). The importance of this text for the study of Deuteronomy 13 lies not only in the fact that it exhibits several elements that find parallels in Deuteronomy 13, but also in the fact that it exhibits these parallel ele- ments in high concentration, thus amply satisfying the criterion of distinctiveness. Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 27 I open my study, therefore, with an examination of a Hittite text that I main- tain exhibits even more and closer parallels to Deuteronomy 13 and in higher con- centration: CTH 133, the treaty between Aruwanda I of Hatti (fifteenth century B.C.E.) and the Men of Ismerika. 6 Before I begin my examination of this text and its implications for our under- standing of Deuteronomy 13, a few words are in order concerning the place of this text in the history of the scholarship on ancient Near Eastern treaty forms and the biblical idea of covenant. The publication of the main corpus of Hittite vassal treaties in the 1920s and ’30s paved the way for George E. Mendenhall’s ground- breaking study in 1955 that revealed striking similarities between the form of the biblical covenant and the form of the Hittite vassal treaty. 7 This spurred a flurry of studies at mid-century on the relationship between the Sinai covenant in the Bible and vassal treaties throughout the ancient Near East. A voluminous literature pro- liferated around this topic in the 1960s, but thereafter interest in it tapered off con- siderably. 8 This scholarship produced two schools of thought on the subject. One school, those who have followed Mendenhall, maintains that the stronger parallels to biblical covenant lie in the Hittite materials. Most scholars, however, have been swayed by the strength of the parallels to the Neo-Assyrian texts, particularly those found in VTE, and it is fair to say that this school has been in the ascendancy for the last forty years. As noted, most of the comparative work was carried out in the 1960s, and little new evidence has been marshaled since then to sway the debate one way or the other. 9 The Ismerika Treaty was first published and translated into German by Aharon Kempinski and Silvin Košak in 1970 10 and thus went unnoticed by the 6 Emmanuel Laroche, Catalogue des textes Hittites [CTH] (Paris: Klincksieck, 1971). 7 Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Presi- dential Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955). 8 Among the major works of this genre, see Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963); Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Seminars in the History of Ideas; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969); Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im alten Testa- ment (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); R. Frankena, “The Vassal- Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OtSt 14 (1965): 122–54; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). 9 For an assessment of the debate, see Moshe Weinfeld, “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World,” in I trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, ideologia, fun- zione (ed. Luciano Canfora, Mario Liverani, and Carlo Zaccagnini; Saggi di storia antica 2; Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1990), 175–91; Weeks, Admonition and Curse, 5; and G. E. Menden- hall and G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1179–1202. 10 Kempinski and Košak, “Der Ismeriga-Vertrag,” WO 5 (1970): 191–217. For the text see ABoT (Kemal Bakan, ed., Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri [Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1948]), 58 + KUB 26.41 + KUB 23.68 (MH/NS). 28 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) great treatments of treaty forms of the previous decade. Interest in the general topic of treaty parallels waned subsequently and references to CTH 133 in treaty form scholarship since are scant. 11 Indeed, the text would reach a wider scholarly audi- ence only with its translation into English and, more importantly, its inclusion in a large anthology of treaty texts, in the second edition of Gary Beckman’s Hittite Diplomatic Texts, in 1999. 12 The text is somewhat anomalous with regard to most of the vassal treaties from the Late Bronze Hittite empire. Most vassal treaties of that period are formu- lated as an agreement between two individual rulers—the great king of Hatti, and the ruler of the vassal state. CTH 133 tells of the Hittite subjugation of the region of Kizzuwatna, on the border of northern Syria. The treaty, however, is not with the ruler of Kizzuwatna but with the men of Ismerika, colonists from southern Anatolia who served as subject allies of the Hittites and assisted the local Hittite authorities in administration of the Kizzuwatnaean population. 13 The sections of the treaty that are relevant to Deuteronomy 13 address sedi- tious acts in the vassal territory (§§9–10; obv. lines 21–28): 14 11 Paul E. Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propoganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. Baruch Halpern and Deborah W. Hobson; JSOTSup 124; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 203, 210; Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 154–55, 164–65; Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 42; Markus Zehnder, “Build- ing on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 2): Some Preliminary Obser- vations,” BBR 19 (2009): 514–15. 12 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.; 2nd ed.; SBLWAW 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 13–17. 13 Ibid., 13. 14 The translation that follows is an eclectic amalgam of the English translation offered by Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 15) and the German translation of Kempinski and Košac (“Der Ismeriga-Vertrag,” 195). Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 29 21 ma-a-an-ša-ma[-aš-]kán i-da-lu-ma ut-tar ku-iš-ki pí-ra-an [te-]iz-zi na-aš- ma EN MAT-KAL-TI[ 22 na-aš-ma-aš ap-pí-iz-zi-i a-aš na-aš- ma-aš LÚ KUR URU H} a-at[-ti n]a-aš-ma- aš LÚ KUR URU Ki-iz-zu-ua-a [-ni 23 na-aš-ma-aš an-tu-uh} -ši A-BU-ŠU AMA- ŠU ŠEŠ-ŠU NIN-Š[U n]a-aš-ma DUMU-ŠU LÚ ga-e-na-aš[(-) 24 nu ku-iš ut-tar me-ma-i na-an le-e ku-iš-ki mu-u[n-na-]ai -iz-zi e-ep-du-an na-an te-ek-kụ-u[š-ša-nu-ud-du 21 If anyone [ut]ters a malicious word before you [whether it is a border lord, [.] 22 or a commoner, or a Hitt[ite o]r a Kizzuwatner [.] 23 or his people, his own father, his mother, his brother, his sister or his son, [his] relative by marriage [.] 24 whoever says such a word, no one is to h[id]e him, but shall rather seize him and expose him! 30 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 15 In this study I refer to the verse numbering of the MT. English translations typically ren- der MT 13:1 as 12:32, and hence, MT 13:2 as 13:1, etc. 16 The Hittite munnai here in line 24 denotes visual concealment, “covering up” and is undone by finger-pointing, or “exposing,” and is distinct from sanna, “keeping silent about.” See 30 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 25 If in the midst of my country any city sins, then you people of Ismerika shall enter it, and strike [that city] 26 including the men. You shall bring the conquered civil folk before His Majesty; however, [you take] the cattle and the sheep. 27 If, however, in the midst of a city any house s[ins, th]is house including the men is to die; the servants you shall bring [to His Majesty], 28 you take, however, the cattle and sheep. [If] any individual person sins, [he alone shall die. 25 ma-a-an-kán KUR-I A-ma iš-tar-na 1 URU LUM u a-aš-d[a-a-i LÚ] MEŠ KUR URU Iš-mi-ri-ka an-da a-ar-te-ni L[Ú? 26 IŠ-TU LÚ MEŠ ku-en-te-en NAM.RA- ma MA-H} AR D U[TU ŠI ú-u a-t]e-et-ten GUD H} I.A -ma-za UDU H} I.A šu-um-me-e- eš [da-a-at-ten] 27 ma-a-an-kán A-NA URU LIM -ma iš- tar-na 1 É TUM u[a-aš-da-a-i] a-pa-a-at É-ir LÚ MEŠ -it a-ku SA[G.GEMÉ.ÌR MEŠ 28 ú-ua-te-et-ten GUD H} I.A -ma-za UDU H} I.A šu-me-e-eš d[a-at-ten ma-a- an] 1 EN LÚ-ma ua-aš-da-a-i n[a- The passage contains two laws that, taken together, remarkably resemble the structure of Deut 13:7–19. 15 In §9 of the Ismerika Treaty (lines 21–24), the Hittite king underscores the responsibility of his vassals to show no mercy in the face of sedition. The case is quite specific: it does not refer to a case where the men of Ismerika learn of a seditious plot by a certain individual (a case taken up in the final line of the passage, line 28). Rather, it refers to a case where an Ismerikan is directly approached by an individual who utters seditious words. There is an evident progression in the identity of this individual from lines 21–22 to line 23. Lines 21– 22 suggest that the reproach is all-inclusive: the men of Ismerika must show no mercy regardless of the inciter’s class—whether a “border lord” or a “commoner”— or of his ethnicity—whether a Hittite or a Kizzuwatner. The list reaches its apex, however, in line 23. Here the vassal men are warned that they must show no mercy even if the agitator is of “his people, his own father, his mother, his brother, his sis- ter or his son, [his] relative by marriage [.]” The phrase “his people” followed by an enumeration of five relatives, each inflected with the third person pronominal suf- fix his, is well understood. The Hittite king realizes that a subject ally, like the men of Ismerika, may be prepared to be a faithful ally when it comes to the insurgent deeds of Hittites or Kizzuwatners. But they will be sorely tested if the seditious words are uttered by their own kind, even their own kin, and hence the list builds toward those who will provide the vassal men with their greatest test. The law is unequivocal; they are not to be “concealed.” 16 The passage bears a marked resemblance to Deut 13:7–12. Elsewhere, Deuter- onomy attends to a case where an Israelite learns of a heretical deed by another Israelite (17:2–7). As in CTH 133 §9, however, Deuteronomy 13 realizes that a dis- tinct law is necessary for the ultimate test of treaty allegiance: when the Israelite is incited to apostasy by his next of kin and must choose between his Lord and his family. As in CTH 133 line 23, five relatives are listed in Deut 13:7, and as in the Hit- tite text each term is inflected with a pronominal suffix that underscores the close kinship of the inciter. As in CTH 133, the Israelite is warned not to “conceal” the inciter (wyl( hskt )l). 17 While §9 of the Ismerika Treaty addresses one extreme case—where the vas- sal is incited to sedition by his next of kin—lines 25–26 address another extreme case: where violent action is required to suppress an entire seditious city. Lines 25– 28 address three cases: the seditious city within the land (lines 25–26), the seditious house within a city (lines 27–28a), and the seditious individual (line 28b). Only the first and most extreme of the cases, however, that of the mutinous city, is formu- lated with an introductory clause: “If in the midst of my country any city sins . . . .” The specter of having to annihilate the entire male population of a city would no doubt be daunting for the subject ally, the men of Ismerika. The Hittite king, there- fore, underscores his authority to call for extreme action by asserting his sover- eignty over the city, “in the midst of my country.” Although lines 25–28 address three cases of disloyalty that appear to differ in quantity rather than in kind, the treaty differentiates between the action required by the men of Ismerika in the case of an insurgent city and the action required when the sedition is limited to a house- hold or to a lone individual. When the agitation is limited to these latter two, the offenders are “to die,” where the Hittite word ak(k)- implies “being put to death by judicial sentence, be legally executed.” 18 By contrast, the rebellious city is to be “smitten, razed” (Hittite kuen-) which never has a juridical connotation and often implies conquest by an enemy. 19 The law of the seditious city concludes with direc- tives about how the spoils are to be handled. All of these elements are exhibited in the law of the rebellious city, Deut 13:13– 19. The action required of the Israelites—to annihilate one of their own cities—is so extreme that, like the Hittite king in CTH 133 line 25, the sovereign king Yhwh Jaan Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary (Berlin/New York: Mouton, 1984–), 6:191, s.v. mun(n)ai. 17 While most expositors have understood that the concealment here means to shelter the apostate, Bernard M. Levinson has argued that the verb here means to condone. See Levinson, “Recovering the Lost Original Meaning of wyl( hskt )lw (Deuteronomy 13:9),” in idem, “Right Chorale,” 145–65; repr. from JBL 115 (1996): 601–20. Either way, it is significant that in Deuteron- omy, as in the Hittite treaty, the proscribed behavior is expressed with a verb whose basic mean- ing is “to conceal.” 18 Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, 1:17, s.v. ak(k)-, ek-. 19 Ibid., 4:206–12, s.v. kuen-. Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 31 32 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) underscores his sovereignty over the territory that he wishes now to annihilate (13:13): “When you should hear concerning any of your cities, which the Lord has given you to dwell in, saying, ‘evil individuals have gone forth from your midst, etc. . . .’” Just as the treaty of Ismerika differentiates between individual inciters who are punished through judicial procedure and the inhabitants of a seditious city who are attacked, or “smitten,” Deuteronomy exhibits the same dichotomy. The apostate relative of 13:7–12 is put to death through a legal process (13:10–11), 20 as is the individual worshiper of foreign gods (17:5–7). Not so, however, the inhabitants of the apostate city. The call to annihilate the city (13:16) using the language of “smit- ing by sword” (brx ypl . . . hkh) 21 is the language of military conquest routinely employed in the accounts of Joshua and Judges. 22 As is the case in CTH 133 §10, the Deuteronomic law concludes here by issu- ing directives concerning booty. The directives in each text reflect the distinct needs of the parties involved. In the treaty of Ismerika, the vassals are told that they may partake of the booty—no doubt, as an incentive for them to carry out the mass annihilation of the male population of the city. In Deuteronomy 13, however, the goods that belonged to the apostates become tainted and are banned (13:16–18). 23 Finally, I note the use of the partitive construction tx)b, “one of,” to mean “any of,” in the opening of Deut 13:13. The verse should be translated, “When you hear concerning any of your cities . . . .” 24 This reading of the partitive construction 20 Most expositors, ancient and modern, have assumed that vv. 10-11 involve a judicial process. Levinson, however, has argued that v. 10a calls for summary execution (see “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him’: The Text-Critical and Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10,” in idem, “Right Chorale,” 166–93). 21 In light of Deuteronomy’s call to sack the city completely and set it ablaze (13:16–17), it is interesting to note Puhvel’s comments on the subtleties of the word kuen-, which is used for “smite” in line 26: “Rather than physical massacre of the defeated mass of humanity, it often refers more to a place, thus ‘smite’ not in the sense of ‘strike’ (walh-) or ‘fight’ (zahh-) but rather ‘raze, ruin’ . . . it probably involved a combination of sacking, killing and incendiary reprisals” (Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, 4:211). 22 Dion, “Deuteronomy 13,” 165. The language employed here acknowledges the difficulty that the Israelites will face in carrying out this directive. Verse 16 opens with a doubled verb hkh hkt, which connotes an exhortative tone: “You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that town. . . .” The appearance of the doubled root .y.k.n here is unique throughout all of Scripture and attests to the difficulty of the task at hand. 23 In their respective studies of Deuteronomy 13, both Dion (“Deuteronomy 13,” 201) and Koch (Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 164–65) note that the call to annihilate an entire city is found both in CTH 133 lines 25–26 and in Deut 13:13–19. Neither, however, attends to any of the par- ticular similarities enumerated here. 24 On the partitive construction connotation of tx)b to mean “any of,” see Joüon-Muraoka, 2:513; and Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 252 example 11. For particularly good examples of this phenomenon in Deuteronomy, see 15:7, Kyr(# dx)b Kyx) dx)m Nwyb) Kb hyhy yk (“If there is a needy person among you, one of your kinsmen, in any of your settlements” [NJPS]), and 16:5–6, Kyr(# dx)b xsph t) xbzl lkwt )l (“You are not permitted to slaughter the Passover sacrifice in introducing the case of the rebellious city is supported by the context of the pre- vious case. In Deut 13:6–12, the Israelite is told, in effect, that any apostate is to be disciplined, even a relative. Deuteronomy 13:13a, on this reading, conveys the same idea in its language. Any city that spreads apostasy, no matter what its lineage or influence, must be disciplined. This is most likely the implication of CTH 133 line 25a, 1 URU LUM : “if in the midst of my country any city sins.” 25 Here, too, the context of the previous case lends support to such a reading. In lines 22–24, the men of Ismerika were told, in effect, that any seditious individual had to be disciplined, “be he a border lord, a commoner, a Hittite or a Kizzuwatner,” or a relative. In §10, the language of “1” impresses upon the vassal that any seditious city must be disciplined. 26 While each of the parallels noted between the sedition clauses of §§9–10 of CTH 133 and the apostasy clauses of Deut 13:7–19 is impressive in its own right, what is striking about the two passages is their identical structure. That both treaties address the challenge of seditious relatives is, in and of itself, unremarkable. Indeed, later Neo-Assyrian treaties did as well, as we shall see shortly. What is striking about what we have seen so far is the overall structure of each passage. Each moves from clauses that address seditious relatives (CTH 133 lines 21–24; Deut 13:7–12), to clauses that address the sedition or apostasy of large populations (CTH 133 lines 25–26; Deut 13:13–19). As mentioned, the consensus of scholarship points to the sedition clauses of VTE as the inspiration for Deuteronomy 13. We may now revisit that claim in light of our analysis of CTH 133. The key section of the Neo-Assyrian treaty, §10, is con- tained in lines 108–22: 27 šumma abutu lā tiābtu lā de'iqtu You shall not hear or conceal any evil, improper, ugly word lā banītu ša ina muh} h} i Aššur-bāni-apli which is not seemly nor good to Ashur- mar'i šarri rabi’i ša bēt ridûti banipal, the great crown, mar'i Aššur-ah} u-iddina šar māt Aššur prince designate, son of Esarhaddon, bēlīkunu lā tarsiātūni king of Assyria, your lord, lā tiābātūni lū ina pī nak(i)rīšu either from the mouth of his enemy lū ina pī salmīšu or from the mouth of his ally, Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 33 in any of the settlements [that the Lord your God is giving] you” [NJPS]). Such a partitive con- struction is exhibited also in Akkadian, in usages of the clause ištēn ina. See CAD 7:276. 25 This contra Beckman, who translates here, “If within the land a single city commits an offense, you [men] of the land of Ismerika will intervene . . . ,” and subsequently “a single house- hold” in line 27 and “a single man” in line 28. Although technically, the cipher “1” means “one”, it would seem that the Hittite king mandates the punishment of any offender in each case and not “a single” one. 26 My heartfelt thanks to Yitzhaq Feder for working through this with me. 27 The text and translation are taken from Levinson, “Right Chorale,” 186; see there n. 50 for Levinson’s explanation of how his translation and rendering of the text relate to previous editions. lū ina pī ah} h} ēšu or from the mouth of his brothers, ah} h} ē abbēšu mar'ē ah} h} ē abbēšu his uncles, his cousins qinnīšu zar'i bēt abīšu lū ina pī ah} h} ēkunu his family, members of his father’s line, or from the mouth of your brothers, mar'ēkunu mar'ātēkunu lū ina pī raggime your sons, your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet mah} h} ē mār šā'ili amāt ili an ecstatic, a diviner lū ina (pī) naph} ar sialmāt qaqqadi mal bašû or from the mouth of any human being who exists tašammâni tupazzarāni lā tallakāninni ana Aššur-bāni-apli mar'i You shall come and report (it) to Ashurbanipal, šarri rabi 'i the great crown prince ša bēt ridûti mar'i Aššur ah} u-iddina šar designate, son of Esarhaddon, king of māt Aššur Assyria. lā taqabbâni On one account we may indeed see how this section more closely resembles the laws of Deuteronomy 13 than do §§9–10 of the Ismerika Treaty. The reference to sedition from the mouth of “a prophet, an ecstatic, a diviner” (lines 116–17) paral- lels Deuteronomy’s call to redress a heretic prophet or dreamer (13:2)—a parallel to which we shall return later. In every other regard, however, we may see how CTH 133 §§9–10 more closely resembles Deuteronomy 13 than does §10 of VTE. It is immediately clear that the laws of the apostate city of Deut 13:13–19 have no par- allel in this Neo-Assyrian text. Important differences, however, between VTE §10 and Deut 13:7–12 are evident concerning the responsibility to discipline individ- ual acts of sedition. As Bernard Levinson has argued, the family members referred to in lines 115–16 are but one group in a progression that reaches its apex with an all inclusive formulation: lū ina (pī) naph} ar si almāt qaqqadi mala bašû, “or, from the mouth of any human being who exists.” 28 In contrast, Levinson observes, Deut 13:7–12 sharpens and extends the family focus of the law, thereby addressing the special challenge posed by the vassal’s innate loyalty to his own kin. The contrast that Levinson draws between Deut 13:7–12 and VTE §10 can help us appreciate the similarity between those verses in Deuteronomy and the laws of CTH 133 §9. There, too, as in Deuteronomy, the laws are formulated with a focus on family members and the special challenge to the vassal posed by loyalty to his own kin. 29 34 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 28 Levinson, “Right Chorale,” 141. The same is true with regard to the place of family mem- bers in the sedition clauses of the Zakutu treaty. See ibid. 29 Deuteronomy 13:7 extends the list of intimate apostates to include friends or acquain- tances. While neither CTH 133 §9, nor VTE §10 refers to seditious acquaintances, the concern about such friends appears in other treaties in both the Hittite and Neo-Assyrian traditions. See Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 154–55. A final semantic point of departure between VTE §10, on the one hand, and the sedition clauses of CTH 133 and Deut 13:7–12, on the other, concerns the object that the vassal is prohibited from concealing. In VTE §10, the vassal may not con- ceal “any evil, improper, ugly word.” By contrast, in both CTH 133 line 24 and Deut 13:9, it is the inciter himself whom the addressee may not conceal. 30 A parallel to the law of the apostate city is often drawn from the third stele of the Sefire treaty (III.12–13), an Aramaic Northwest Semitic treaty of the mid-eighth century B.C.E. Yet examination of that source in light of CTH 133 again shows the Hittite treaty to be the more similar to the law in Deuteronomy 13. In §4 of the Sefire treaty, the sovereign stipulates that if he or his offspring are assassinated, the vassal is to avenge the slaying (III.9b–12). If the deed was carried out by an entire city, then the city is to be punished by the sword. 31 Unlike CTH 133 §10 and Deut 13:13–19, there is no discussion in this section of the Sefire treaty of what to do with the booty. More significantly, the case itself differs fundamentally. In both CTH 133 §10 and in Deut 13:13–19, a city is to be annihilated merely for the crime of sedition, or, in the case of Deuteronomy, apostasy. In the Sefire treaty, however, only vengeance for a city complicit in a royal assassination warrants such action. The Sefire treaty makes no provision for the collective punishment of a city sus- pected of sedition, as do CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13. II. Yhwh’s Kingship: Hittite or Neo-Assyrian? In assessing whether Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles Hittite vassal treaties or Neo-Assyrian ones, I have focused thus far on the content of the laws and to, an even greater degree, on their form. But the respective vassal treaties under Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 35 30 An additional subtlety exists that likewise distinguishes between the Hittite and biblical laws, on the one hand, under study here and the stipulations from VTE, on the other. In both CTH 133 line 21 and in Deut 13:7 the addressee is someone who has unambiguously been approached by an inciter. Thus, in CTH 133 line 21, “If anyone [ut]ters a malicious word before you . . . .” Similarly, in Deut 13:7, “When your brother . . . incites you . . . .” VTE §10, however, is ambiguous, and does not state in the same certain terms that the addressee is called to act because he has been directly approached. The section may be read as an expression of the Assyrian king’s desire to enlist the vassal regardless of whether he was directly the target of sedition by an agita- tor, or whether he simply caught wind of a rumor. My thanks to Bernard Levinson for clarifying this point. Cf. VTE §12 (lines 130–46), where it is clear that the vassal has been directly approached by the agitator. 31 By all accounts, the inscription here reads brxb hwpt hkn )h hyrq Nhw. Some, however, wish to amend hwpt to hwkt, thus rendering a doubled verb and generating a close parallel to the language of Deut 13:16, brx ypl )yhh ry(h yb#y t) hkt hkh (Nelson, Deuteronomy, 173 n. 12; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972], 99). However, the issue is far from clear, as many authorities insist on retaining the inscription as is. Moreover, the verb form of hwkt is puzzling. See discussion in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (rev. ed.; BibOr 19A; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995), 153. study here also reflect distinct ideologies about the nature of the relationship between a sovereign and his vassal. Highlighting these differences will enable us to see how the sovereign–vassal relationship envisioned in Deuteronomy 13 resembles the relationship of the Hittite king to his vassal more closely than the relationship of the Neo-Assyrian king to his. Hittite vassalage was routinely a process of self-subjugation on the part of the vassal. Autonomous rulers would approach the Hittite king and request his patron- age or deliverance in exchange for their fealty as subordinates. 32 Vassalage in this context represents a debt of gratitude. We universally find in these treaties that the Hittite king first acts on behalf of the subordinate and is then later repaid through the fealty that the subordinate owes according to the terms of the suzerainty treaty. For the Hittite king, vassalage represents an opportunity to use his political capital to build an amicable relationship with a loyal subordinate on favorable terms. This basic definition of the relationship between sovereign and vassal is reflected in some of the cardinal elements that are unique to the Late Bronze Hittite self- subjugation treaty. These treaties typically open with a historical prologue, in which the Hittite king establishes the moral and legal obligation on the part of the subor- dinate for the favor bestowed upon him by the sovereign. 33 As a party to a bilateral, if not equal, relationship, the Hittite king would be obligated to come to the aid of his vassal when necessary. In the Hittite treaties, expressions of affection from the sovereign to the vassal complement the demand that the vassal show love and devo- tion toward the Hittite sovereign. Thus, a Hittite king says to his vassal: “I shall not reject you, I shall make you my son.” 34 The treaties routinely included blessings that were to be bestowed on the vassal for his loyalty. By contrast, Neo-Assyrian vassalage was fundamentally a relationship of dominion. In all cases it involved the surrender of the vassal in the wake of conquest or intimidation and an annexation of his territory, often followed by large-scale deportations. 35 The Assyrian emperor viewed himself as the divinely chosen king of the universe. His rule over the vassal required no further justification, and thus Neo-Assyrian treaties make no record of the emperor’s gracious deeds on behalf of the vassal. 36 Nor do Neo-Assyrian treaties record any obligation on the part of the 36 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 32 See Amnon Altman, The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassal Treaties: An Inquiry into the Concepts of Hittite Interstate Law (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2004), 132–38. 33 Ibid., 27; Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1181. 34 See E. F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi (2 vols.; Boghazköi-Studien 8–9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923), 40, no. 2: obv. 24. The passage quoted is translated in Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Making in Ana- tolia and Mesopotamia,” JANES 22 (1993): 136. 35 Simo Parpola, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh,” JCS 39 (1987): 161 n. 3; Levinson, “Right Chorale,” 186. 36 Weinfeld, “Covenant Making,” 136. sovereign to come to the aid of the vassal, reflect any amity or affection toward him, or offer any blessings for loyal conduct. Curse lists are far longer in the Neo- Assyrian treaties than they are in the Hittite ones and are designed to terrorize vas- sals who would dare to rebel. 37 This fundamental distinction sheds light on the laws of Deuteronomy 13. Verses 6 and 11 explain the logic of Israelite vassalage to Yhwh. Vassalage is man- dated not because Yhwhis the sovereign of the universe but because of the gracious deed that he bestowed on the Israelites in their hour of need: the exodus from Egypt. The rationale for Israel’s vassalage to Yhwh as a debt of gratitude is entirely in keeping with the Hittite treaty tradition, but foreign to the Neo-Assyrian tradi- tion. In like fashion, Yhwh offers compassion and bounty to his vassal, Israel, should they follow the difficult dictates concerning the apostate city (13:18). This, too, is in consonance with the Hittite tradition of rewarding the loyal vassal but at odds with the Neo-Assyrian tradition, where subservience is taken for granted. The relatively amicable nature of the Hittite vassal alliance may explain an additional element of the laws of Deuteronomy 13. When rumor surfaces that a city has apostatized, the law of v. 15 requires that due process be carried out before action is taken (13:15–16): “You shall investigate and inquire and interrogate thor- oughly. If it is true, the fact is established—that abhorrent thing was perpetrated in your midst—put the inhabitants of that town to the sword.” That due process should be carried out when a vassal is suspected of sedition is likewise found in the Hit- tite treaty literature. In CTH 106, the treaty between Hattusili III of Hatti and Ulmi- Teshup of Tarhuntassa, the Hittite sovereign promises the vassal that, upon the latter’s demise, he will see to it that the vassal’s son inherits his throne, and his grandson after him. Having demonstrated his commitment to the vassal, the Hit- tite sovereign then says, “if any son or grandson of yours commits an offense, then the king of Hatti shall question him. And if offense remains for him [i.e., if he is found guilty—J.B.], the king of Hatti shall treat him as he pleases.” 38 The expression “the king of Hatti shall question him” is, in the original, pu-nu-uš-du. The transitive verb punušš- means both “1) to ask, question, consult (with person asked or ques- tioned in accordance) and 2) to investigate, ask about (w. the object of inquiry),” 39 with the same multiple functions of the Hebrew root for inquire in v. 15, .l.).#. Although Neo-Assyrian literature generally also knows of terms of due process similar to those found in Deuteronomy, 40 they are entirely absent from the corpus Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 37 37 Ibid., 135–36. 38 Treaty between Hattusili III of Hatti and Ulmi-Teshup of Tarhuntassa, §1 (obv. 7–14) (= KBo IV 10 vs. 9). The translation is mine, in consultation with Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 109). 39 Hans G. Güterbock and Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., eds., The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980–), vol. P, 377–81. 40 See examples from Neo-Assyrian letters and other literature of the period in Dion, “Deuteronomy 13,” 202. of vassal treaties from the Neo-Assyrian period. The relative amity that infuses the Hittite relationship between sovereign and vassal may explain the Hittite king’s willingness to engage in due process in CTH 106. The Hittite sovereign will not tolerate seditious acts on the part of his vassal. At the same time, he seeks to foster a positive relationship with him. It is worth his effort, therefore, to investigate fully the rumor of sedition before taking action that will strain and perhaps even sever that relationship. By contrast, the political logic that girds the Neo-Assyrian treaties is the motivation of fear and intimidation. Because the sovereign seeks to intimi- date the vassal rather than to ally with him, the Neo-Assyrian treaty has no room in its political calculus for the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Deuteronomy’s call for due process in the face of a suspicion of apostasy is well understood. Both in the case of the apostate city (13:13–19) and in the case where an individual is suspected of apostasy (17:4), the law calls for an investiga- tion. Yhwh will not tolerate infidelity, but he seeks an amicable bond with his vas- sal Israel and thus sanctions punitive measures only when the party’s guilt has been fully established. As noted, one reason that scholars have been attracted to the proposition that Deuteronomy 13 draws from Neo-Assyrian influence is that the openness to such influence can be well explained. In patterning the laws of apostasy after the Neo- Assyrian sedition stipulations, the claim is made, the scribes of Judah were polem- ically turning an Assyrian form against their oppressors by asserting the imperialism of Yhwh over the imperialism of the Assyrian king. But the evidence marshaled here suggests that in Deuteronomy 13 Yhwh does not conduct himself with his vassal Israel in the manner of a Neo-Assyrian despot. It seems, rather, that the laws of sedition in Deuteronomy reflect a Hittite tradition (or some refraction of it) of a more amicable model of vassalage that served as a useful metaphor to adumbrate the dynamics of the Yhwh–Israel covenant. A final note of distinct convergence between Deuteronomy 13 and the sedi- tion clauses of the Hittite treaties is evident in the employment of a particular rhetorical tool in the protasis of each of the three laws of ch. 13. In each, Deuteron- omy “scripts” the encounter between the apostate inciter and his intended audi- ence; the reader of the law hears the apostate’s words: “Let us go and worship after foreign gods, whom you have not known” (13:14 and, with slight variation, 13:2, 7). The scripting of the encounter, with the apostate employing exhortative language is highly reminiscent of the warnings found in the Hittite Instructions for Func- tionaries, which are closely related to the treaties in both form and content: “If a noble, a prince, or a relative . . . brings up seditious words . . . (saying) ‘Come, let us join another (king),’ but the one to whom it is said does not denounce him, that one will be under oath” (§16). 41 VTE also “scripts” the encounter between a seditious 38 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 41 For the text and a German translation, see Einar von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstan- weisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte: Ein Beitrag zum antiken Recht Kleinasiens (Archiv agitator and the vassal. Esarhaddon warns the vassal that if anyone “involves you in a plot, saying to you: ‘Malign Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate . . .’” (VTE line 323). 42 Note, however, that in Deuteronomy 13 and in the Hittite Instruc- tions for Functionaries the seditious remarks are quite similar—a call to the loyal servant to switch allegiances—whereas in VTE line 323 the rebellious speech con- cerns an assassination plot against the heir apparent. Moreover, the scripted speech of the inciter in Deut 13:2, 7, and 14 opens with the exhortative “let us go and . . . ,” as does that of the agitator in the Hittite text. As noted, Deuteronomy 13 is often understood as reflective of a Neo-Assyrian milieu in light of the many terms that it employs that are paralleled in the treaty lit- erature of that period. However, examination reveals that many of these same terms are found already in Hittite treaties or in other Late Bronze Age works. In VTE lines 266–68, Esarhaddon demands that the vassal “love” Ashurbanipal, as an expression of political loyalty (cf. Deut 13:4). Yet the same sentiment is found in the Hittite Military Instructions: “Just as you love your wives, your children, and your houses, so you shall love the king’s business” (lines 30–31). 43 In VTE, the vassal is told to support the Assyrian king “wholeheartedly” (VTE line 152; cf. Deut 13:4, with reference to Yhwh). 44 The same term, however, is found in CTH 68, the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya. There the vassal is commanded, “You shall not commit evil against My Majesty. This matter shall be taken to your heart. Take it to your heart today!” (§20 [D iv 19’–34’]). 45 In line 20 of the Neo-Assyrian Zakutu treaty, the vassal is warned, “If you hear and know that there are men instigating armed rebellion or fomenting conspiracy Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 39 für Orientforschung Beiheft 10; Graz: Archiv für Orientforschung, 1957), 26; see also p. 14, §§ 24– 25 and discussion in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 94. On the relation- ship between the Instructions for Functionaries and the treaties, see A. Goetze, “State and Society of the Hittites,” in Neuere Hethiterforschung (ed. Gerold Walser; Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, Einzelschriften 7; Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1964), 32–33; and von Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, 45–49. 42 The translation is that of Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 42; cf. lines 333, 341, 365. 43 For the text, see S. Alp, “Military Instructions of the Hittite King Tuthaliya IV,” Belleten 11 (1947): 392. The English translation here is taken from Moshe Weinfeld, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” UF 8 (1976): 383. According to Weinfeld (n. 28), the key Hittite term here is genzu harteni and is equivalent to Akkadian rêmu. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deutero- nomic School, 97. The term “love” as a political term is attested also in the Mari texts and the Amarna letters. See William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. 44 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 96. 45 Translated in Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 79. Further instances where the Hittite vassal is told to fight for his sovereign with a whole heart (Akk. ina kul libbišu) are cited in Frankena, “Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” 141. in your midst . . . .” 46 The adverbial phrase “in your midst” (ina birtukkunu) corre- sponds to the phrase Kbrqb/Kbrqm, “in/from your midst” (Deut 13:2, 6, 12, 14, 15), and refers to the place of the sedition. 47 Yet Hittite ištarna functions much the same way as does biblical brqb, signifying “among, in the midst.” 48 Indeed, in the same way that Deuteronomy 13 describes the apostate emerging from within “your midst” (vv. 2, 13), §10 of the Ismerika Treaty reads: “If in the midst of my country a city sins, then you people of Ismerika shall enter it, and strike [that city]” (line 25). 49 Finally we return to what may be the only element of Deuteronomy 13 that unambiguously resonates more closely with the language of VTE than with that of any other earlier body of literature. Deuteronomy’s call to discipline an apostate prophet or dreamer (13:2) parallels the call in VTE to report incitement from the mouth of “a prophet, an ecstatic, a diviner” (ina pī raggime mah}h}ē mār šā'ili amāt ili, lines 116–17). It is difficult, however, to discern whether the two laws share enough that is truly distinct in terms of content and form for one to conclude that there is a hereditary relationship between them or that they share a distinctive milieu. Unlike the diviner and dreamer of Deut 13:2–6, the three diviners in lines 116–17 of VTE do not have a law devoted to them alone; rather they are part of larger list of potential agitators. None of the three terms used as appellations of the divinatory practitioners is a cognate of the terms )ybn or Mwlx Mlwx that we find in 13:2. It is unclear as well whether there is anything shared and distinctive in the very content of the laws under scrutiny here. A gulf divides the nature of the div- inatory practice in Deut 13:2–6 and the practices spelled out in VTE 116. In Deuteronomy, it is essential that the diviners accurately foretell events (cf. 18:15– 22), an element which has no parallel in the VTE. Despite all these reservations, it must be admitted that apart from Deuteron- omy 13:2–6, nowhere in the treaty literature of the ancient Near East do we find a concern that individuals will engage in seditious activity on the basis of nonin- ductive divinatory methods except in VTE 116–17. But as Martti Nissinen points out, the relative lack of treaty documents in our possession makes it difficult to 40 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 46 The translation is that of Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 64. 47 Levinson, “Right Chorale,” 141 n. 81 and 191 n. 58. For Deuteronomy’s use of the root brq, see further Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 132–33. 48 On Hittite ištarna, see Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, 1–2:478–83. 49 The reason that CTH 133 cannot use the term “your midst” is that this particular treaty is addressed to the subject ally, the Men of Ismerika, who are assisting the Hittites in their dom- ination of the territory of Kizzuwatna. For additional treaty elements in Deuteronomy that are commonly thought to be of Neo-Assyrian origin but, in fact, have second-millennium precursors, see Zehnder, “Building on Stone?” 511–28. conclude that this was a concern that was specific to the Neo-Assyrian period. 50 To this it may be added that even in the Hittite treaty literature we see that vassals would engage in divinatory practices in order to determine their treaty obligations. In CTH 68, the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira- Kuwaliya, the Hittite sovereign instructs his vassal thus: “If the messenger is unable to come and you hear about the matter in advance (of his arrival) [i.e. that some- one has revolted against Hatti], do not wait for word from My Majesty. You shall not first take a bird oracle about it. Take charge of infantry and chariotry and be of assistance” (§16 C iii, 12–21). 51 To summarize, it is clear that no passage in the treaty literature of the ancient Near East resembles Deut 13:2–6 as closely as does VTE 116–17. Yet, in light of the fact that divinatory practices seem to have influ- enced vassals during many periods, it is less clear that both derive from a shared milieu during the period of Neo-Assyrian ascendency. 52 III. Conclusions The implications of the discussion thus far for the dating of Deuteronomy 13 are far-ranging and need to be assessed in several contexts. One obvious setting is the narrow context of Deuteronomy 13 in comparison with the Hittite and Neo- Assyrian treaty traditions. In content, we have seen that Deuteronomy 13 exhibits elements that are found exclusively in Hittite vassal treaties and not in Neo- Assyrian ones. These include reference to the beneficence of the sovereign king as the basis for the vassal’s loyalty and the concern for due process when a loyal vas- sal is suspected of seditious acts. We have seen laws in Deuteronomy 13 whose con- tent more closely matches the stipulations of the Hittite treaties than those of the Neo-Assyrian and other first-millennium treaties. These include the laws of the rebellious city and the specific concern for the vassal’s loyalty when confronted with seditious family members. We also noted rhetorical devices such as the script- ing of the rebel’s exhortation to sedition that have stronger parallels in the Hittite treaty tradition than in the Neo-Assyrian one. These findings should not surprise us when we consider the broader context of parallels between biblical covenant passages and the Hittite treaty tradition. There are many aspects of the Hittite treaty tradition that are found in Deuteron- omy and elsewhere in the Pentateuch that have no parallel in the Neo-Assyrian tra- Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 41 50 Nissinen, “Prophecy against the King in Neo-Assyrian Sources,” 160. 51 Translated in Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 77–78. 52 Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 43. One other element of Deuteronomy 13 that warrants attention is the phrase in v. 6 that the diviner is to be put to death because he hrs rbd—spoke falsely, or rebelliously—concerning Yhwh. The phrase is a cognate of the term dabab surrāte— treacherous, disloyal talk—found in VTE line 502. The phrase, however, has a long history in Assyrian languages and is not a distinctly Neo-Assyrian term. dition. The historical prologue, with its emphasis on the beneficence of the sover- eign as the basis for the loyalty of the subordinate, is a feature exclusive to the Hit- tite treaties. Blessings are matched with curses only in the Hittite treaties, never in the Neo-Assyrian ones. Instructions for deposition of the treaty and its periodic reading are likewise features found only in the Hittite materials and not in the Neo- Assyrian treaty or loyalty oath texts. Moreover, promises made by the sovereign king to the vassal and expressions of affection toward him—elements so cardinal in the Pentateuch’s portrayal of God’s disposition to Israel—are found only in the Hittite treaties, never in the Neo-Assyrian ones. 53 Deuteronomy 13, however, is but a chapter of the larger composition that is Deuteronomy, and a case can be made that the epigraphic finds discussed thus far need to be seen in the context of ancient parallels to other parts of the book, par- ticularly the curse lists of ch. 28. Yet even if we adopt the position that Deuteron- omy 28 offers extensive evidence of Neo-Assyrian influence, 54 that argument can go only so far in terms of contributing to the present discussion—the dating of Deuteronomy 13. I noted that many of the stock phrases found both in the Neo- Assyrian treaty tradition, particularly in VTE, and in Deuteronomy 13 are actually found earlier in the Hittite treaty tradition or in other second-millennium sources. On the strength of the Neo-Assyrian influence posited in other passages of Deuteronomy, one could argue that such terms in Deuteronomy 13 should be understood in that light. But one could just as well argue that in light of the Hittite influence evident in the laws of this very chapter, and in light of the parallels exhib- ited elsewhere between covenant passages and the Hittite treaty tradition, such terms should be understood in that light. Perhaps the most judicious conclusion to 42 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 53 See K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 283–94; and more broadly throughout Weeks, Admonition and Curse. See also discussions in Hayim Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historian’s Approach,” in Human- izing America’s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980 (ed. Gene M. Tucker and Douglas A. Knight; SBLBSNA 6; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 142–52; Menden- hall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1179–1202; Weinfeld, “Covenant Making,” 135–39. 54 Hans Ulrich Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhad- dons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO 145; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). Of the twenty-five curse paragraphs in Deuteronomy 28, six have parallels found only in Neo-Assyrian materials. Many scholars see this as evidence that these curses were incor- porated into Deuteronomy by seventh-century Judean scribes (e.g., Nelson, Deuteronomy, 326; Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 203–32). Yet twelve of Deuteronomy’s twenty-five curses have parallels in second-millennium texts but have no parallels in Neo-Assyrian materials. Moreover, examination of some of the curses that are shared by Deuteronomy 28 and several treaty traditions, including Neo-Assyrian ones, reveals that Deuteronomy’s formulations are closer to those of second-millennium curse lists than to those of VTE. Thus, some scholars conclude that both Deuteronomy and VTE draw from a long-standing common pool of curse formulations and themes that are adapted to the needs of the moment. See, e.g., Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 291–94; Zehnder, “Building on Stone?” 529–33. be reached about such terms is that, in light of the bodies of evidence on both sides, their provenance cannot be definitively determined. The claims of Neo-Assyrian influence on other parts of Deuteronomy, how- ever, should not be marshaled to counter the central thesis articulated here: that the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 more closely resemble the sedition laws of the Hittite treaty tradition than of the Neo-Assyrian one in many features of form and content. It is not credible to claim that the similarities between Deuteronomy 13 and the Hittite treaties are entirely coincidental, and that the author of Deuteronomy had access only to the Neo-Assyrian treaties. Only the concern that divination could be employed for seditious purposes stands out as an element common to VTE and to Deuteronomy but absent from the earlier traditions. Less clear, though, is whether the evidence is strong enough to mandate a temporal connection between them, or whether, simply, shared concerns are seen here to arise inde- pendently at different times in different places. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence, however, suggests a Late Bronze Age Hittite background for Deuteron- omy 13 rather than a Neo-Assyrian one. Another context in which to consider the findings reported here is our knowl- edge of Israel’s interaction with surrounding cultures at different stages in ancient Near Eastern history. One of the attractive points for scholars of reading Deuteron- omy 13 in a Neo-Assyrian context has been the fact that the history of the period— particularly Judah’s vassalage to the Neo-Assyrian emperor—stands out for us in high resolution, in both biblical and epigraphic sources. This has enabled scholars to read the history we know into the text of Deuteronomy 13 and, in turn, to mine the text of this chapter for a better understanding of the vassal–sovereign relation- ship of that period. By contrast, no such resolution exists for our understanding of the origins and nature of Hittite–Israelite interaction. We know that Late Bronze Age Hittite mili- tary campaigns never ventured farther south than Damascus. We also know that a generous exchange of diplomats, artists, and experts united the Hittite and Egypt- ian empires during the thirteenth century B.C.E. At what point Hittite culture inter- acted with Israelite culture and through what mechanism remain issues more of conjecture than of debate. 55 The lack of a clear historical picture, however, should not dissuade us from acknowledging the strong resemblance between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the sedition stipulations of the Hittite treaties. Rather, Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 43 55 See recent appraisals in Harry A. Hoffner, “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Proceedings of a Symposium, August 12–14, 2001 at Trinity International University (ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 172–82; Itamar Singer, “The Hittites and the Bible Revisited,” in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeolog- ical and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 753–54. this resemblance should deepen our growing awareness, in the words of Harry Hoffner, that “there remain far too many points of similarity—especially in legal, ritual, and cult matters—between Hittite culture and the Bible for us to dismiss them as coincidental or accidental.” 56 A final consideration surrounding the dating of Deuteronomy 13 is the bedev- iling reality that, while state vassalage was practiced throughout the second and first millennia, written vassal treaties are extant nearly exclusively from the Late Bronze Hittite and Neo-Assyrian periods. It may be that this reflects merely the luck of the spade, and that in due time we will unearth more treaties from other periods and locales. If so, then the laws of Deuteronomy 13 may represent a highly refracted reworking of a tradition that we witness today only in Hittite material. It is telling, however, that we possess not a single vassal treaty from the Roman Empire, nor from the Amarna period in Egypt, periods in which we know that vas- salage was practiced, and from which the literary remains are extensive. This sug- gests that, although vassalage was pervasive throughout the ancient world, the composition of formal treaties may not have been. This leaves open the question of how ancient Hittite forms became reflected in biblical accounts of the covenant between Israel and Yhwh. 57 Although the mechanism and the timing are unclear, the evidence of correlation between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the sedition laws of the Hittite empire should lead us to revise the long-held view that Deuteronomy 13 is a deliberate imitation of Neo-Assyrian forms. 44 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 56 Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite-Israel Cultural parallels,” COS 3:xxxiv. On points of inter- section between Hittite culture and the Bible, see Hoffner, “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage,” 172–92; Singer, “Hittites and the Bible Revisited,” 723–56. 57 See the discussion in Weeks, Admonition and Curse, 6–10. A Rejoinder concerning 1 Samuel 1:11 shalom m. paul [email protected] Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel Michael Carasik, in his article “Why Did Hannah Ask for ‘Seed of Men’?” (JBL 129, no. 3 [2010]: 433–36), refers to the expression My#n) (rz in 1 Sam 1:11 as “dif- ficult . . . an artifact” (p. 435) and as an “absurd phrase” (p. 436), which leads him to conclude that it served as “a kind of Tiqqun Soferim” for the original Myhl) (rz. I would like to note here that the phrase is none of the above since it has clear-cut semantic and philological analogues in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Akkadian, all refer- ring to human offspring—analogues that heretofore have not been cited in biblical commentaries. In Hebrew, one can call attention to Jer 31:27, Md) (rz, in the con- text of the future procreation of humankind; in Aramaic, to Dan 2:43, )#n) (rz, referring there to interdynastic marriage. In particular, examples can be cited from Mesopotamian literature, where the expression zēr amīlūti (= My#n) (rz) appears with the explicit meaning of a “child/human being”: “May she [the goddess] Nintu . . . not allow a child to be born among his people” (Code of Hammurabi LI:48); 1 “Aruru helped him [Marduk] to create every human being” (CT 13, 36:20–21; 2 cf. 16, 20:94 3 ); “Adapa, a human being” (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archae- ology 16, 275:12); 4 “No human being must see him” (ABL 128:10). 5 Note that the expression spans the literary gamut, from Old Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian times. Thus, in light of all the above, the phrase in 1 Sam 1:11 can be interpreted conclu- sively as Hannah’s profound prayer to be blessed with a mortal offspring. 1 Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBLWAW 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 139. 2 Leonard W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum13 (Lon- don: Trustees of the British Museum, 1901). 3 Reginald C. Thompson, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 16 and 17 (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1903). 4 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (London: Society of Biblical Archaeol- ogy, 1888–98). 5 Robert F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum(14 vols.; London/Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914). JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 45 45 New and Recent Titles Seciety el ßi||ica| literature · l.0. ßex !!+| · vi||isten, \J c¯+)¯-!!+| lhene. S¯¯-¯!¯-|||+ (te||-lree) er Sc!-Se+-eJS¯ · lax. Sc!-Se+-¯e!e 0ráer en|ine at www.s||-site.erg THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: SBL EDITION Michael W. Holmes, editor Sßl is j|easeá te eller, in asseciatien with leges ßi||e Seltware, a new, critica||y eáiteá 6reek \ew Jestament in jrint aná e|ectrenic lermats. Jhe Sßl6\J is arai|a||e at www.s||gnt.cem as a lree e|ectrenic eáitien with a lniceáe- cemj|iant lent aná genereus |icensing terms. Jhe jrint eáitien inc|uáes a lu|| ajjaratus el rariant reaá- ings lrem the leur jrimary eáitiens en which the Sßl6\J is |aseá aná \\!¯. vith harácerer Smyth sewn |ináing aná reaáer-lriená|y tyje, it jreriáes a áura||e, alleráa||e a|terna- tire ler sche|ar|y research aná c|assreem use. Cloth $29.95 978-1-58983-535-1 544 pages, 2010 Code: 069022 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION Henning Graf Reventlow Volume 1, From the Old Testament to Origen Jrans|ateá |y lee 6. leráue Paper $29.95 978-1-58983-202-2 256 pages, 2009 Code: 060350 Resources for Biblical Study 50 Hardback edition www.brill.nl Volume 2, From Late Antiquity to the End of the Middle Ages Jrans|ateá |y [ames 0. 0uke Paper $36.95 978-1-58983-455-2 324 pages, 2009 Code: 060361 Resources for Biblical Study 61 Hardback edition www.brill.nl Volume 3, Renaissance, Reformation, Humanism Jrans|ateá |y [ames 0. 0uke Paper $32.95 978-1-58983-459-0 288 pages, 2010 Code: 060362 Resources for Biblical Study 62 Hardback edition www.brill.nl Volume 4, From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century Jrans|ateá |y lee 6. leráue Paper $49.95 978-1-58983-460-6 484 pages, 2010 Code: 060363 Resources for Biblical Study 63 Hardback edition www.brill.nl H H M Te “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform nadav na ’ aman [email protected] Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel The story of the book (or scroll) discovered in the course of the temple restora- tion at Jerusalem holds a central place in the description of Josiah’s reform (2 Kings 22–23). In a dissertation written in 1805, W. M. L. de Wette identified the “Book of the Law” as the Book of Deuteronomy and pointed out the close correspondence between the Deuteronomic laws and the cultic reform carried out by Josiah. He therefore argued that the “discovered” scroll had been composed not long before its “discovery.” 1 Following his suggestion, an enormous amount of literature was ded- icated to the analysis of the episode and its historical significance. The seventh- century date established by de Wette for the “Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy) was accepted by the majority of scholars, who considered the “discovery” a manipula- tion to push forward the execution of the reform. 2 The scope of the “discovered” scroll is hotly disputed today, but the term “Book of the Law” must have referred 1 Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2 vols.; Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1806, 1807), 1:168–79 (repr., Hildesheim/New York: G. Olms, 1971). De Wette’s dissertation (published in Jena 1805) was not available to me. 2 Scholars who dated the Auffindungsbericht to the exilic or postexilic period dismissed the historicity of the story related in 2 Kings 22 and its significance for the dating of the book of Deuteronomy. See Gustav Hölscher, “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion,” in Eucharistērion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag dem 23. Mai 1922 (ed. Hans Schmidt; 2 vols.; FRLANT 36; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 1:206–13; Ernst Würthwein, “Die josianische Reform und das Deuteronomium,” ZTK 73 (1976): 395–423; Christoph Levin, “Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” ZAW96 (1984): 351–71; Lowell K. Handy, “The Role of Huldah in Josiah’s Cult Reform,” ZAW106 (1994): 46–52; cf. Lewis Bayles Paton, “The Case for the Post-Exilic Origin of Deuteronomy,” JBL 47 (1928): 322–57. JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 47–62 47 to a pre-Deuteronomic early work, the so-called Urdeuteronomium. 3 Recently, how- ever, Katherine Stott has argued that the “Book of the Law” never actually existed outside the pages of the book of Kings, and that its mention is a literary stratagem to bolster the credibility of the story within its literary context. 4 Was the “discovered” scroll a virtual work, with no such document in fact existing? Stott presents three Hellenistic and Roman episodes that relate how authors who tried to give credibility to their innovative historical works invoked ostensibly “discovered” old works on whose evidence their innovations rested. 5 Yet how does Stott know that the three “discovered” books were virtual artifacts? After all, an author who claims to have discovered an unknown ancient source that con- tradicts the currently known evidence might expect the request to present it for examination by experts, and would naturally prepare a copy of the “discovered” text. The majority of scrolls, tablets, and books “discovered” in antiquity were real artifacts that were presented to the audience. 6 Stott’s suggestion that the three “dis- covered” sources are in fact artifacts that never existed is no more than guesswork. Further, the legitimation of a historical book is quite different from that of a his- torical event. The story of Josiah’s reform relates how the “book” was discovered, presented to the king, and later read in public. The story mentions the “book” eleven times, under different names (2 Kgs 22:8, 10, 11, 13, 16; 23:2, 3, 21, 24). The narrator’s emphasis on the reality of the scroll as the force that moved forward the sequence of events and its decisive role in the legitimation of the cult reform is in marked contrast to the suggestion that the book was a virtual artifact. History is replete with episodes that can serve as analogies to almost any possible theory; the presentation of analogy in itself does not prove anything. Stott brings no evidence that proves the relevance of the three Hellenistic and Roman episodes she presents for analyzing the account of Josiah’s reform. Hence, we may dismiss her claim, tak- 3 Some scholars dismissed the identification of the “Book of the Law” with Deuteronomy and suggested other identifications. See Jack R. Lundbom, “The Lawbook of the Josianic Reform,” CBQ 38 (1978): 293–302; Eleonore Reuter, Kultzentralisation: Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12 (BBB 87; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1993), 213–62. For earlier suggestions, see Paton, “Case for the Post-Exilic Origin” 340–41. 4 Stott, “Finding the Lost Book of the Law: Re-reading the Story of ‘the Book of the Law’ (Deuteronomy–2 Kings) in Light of Classical Literature,” JSOT 30 (2005): 153–69. 5 Ibid., 161–65. 6 Wolfgang Speyer, Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike: Mit einem Ausblick auf Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Hypomnemata 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); Bernard Jörg Diebner and Claudia Nauerth, “Die Inventio des spr htwrh in 2 Kön 22: Struktur, Intention und Funktion von Auffindungslegenden,” DBAT 18 (1984): 95–118; Arthur J. Droge, “‘The Lying Pen of the Scribes’: Of Holy Books and Pious Fraud,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 15 (2003): 128–34. See also the series of articles in Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch- christlichen Antike (ed. Norbert Brox; Wege der Forschung 484; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977). 48 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ing as a point of departure for this discussion the commonly held assumption that the “discovered” scroll was a real artifact presented to the king and literati of Judah. 7 In what follows I will examine in detail three important points pertaining to the finding of the scroll and the function of the “discovery” in the story of Josiah’s reform: first, the distribution of “discovery” stories in the ancient Near East and its bearing on the biblical story; second, the verification of discovered artifacts by way of a divine oracle; and, third, the legitimation the scroll bestowed on the cult reform. I. The “Discovery” of Scrolls and Tablets in the Ancient Near East The manipulation of texts for political and propagandistic purposes as well as the “discovery” of texts in order to legitimize a present claim were well known in the ancient Near East long before Josiah’s reform. Let me illustrate it through a few examples from the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia in the second and first mil- lennia B.C.E. Writing on papyrus was common to Egypt and Judah, and it is not surprising that Egyptologists were the first to suggest analogies to the discovery of the “Book of the Law.” 8 Differentiating between late copies of very old texts and forgeries is sometimes difficult, as a late copyist might have deliberately archaized the sign forms and updated the lexicon of texts in order to make an impression of antiquity, and yet the text might in fact be old and copied many times in the past. 9 Never- theless, there are plenty of clear cases of “pious frauds” throughout Egyptian history. Scrolls were claimed to have been “discovered” at sites where scrolls had been reg- ularly deposited, such as in boxes under the feet of a god in a temple, in archives, in sarcophagi, and in graves. 10 Under the feet of a god was the preferred location, as the god was said to bestow sanctity on the “discovered” document. 7 This conclusion rests on the assumption that Josiah’s reform was a historical event and that the account in 2 Kings 22–23 describes it in a fairly reliable outline. For a different opinion, see the works cited in n. 2 above. 8 Edouard Naville, “Egyptian Writings in Foundation Walls, and the Age of the Book of Deuteronomy,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 29 (1907): 232–42; Johannes Herrmann, “Ägyptische Analogien zum Funde des Deuteronomiums,” ZAW28 (1908): 291–302; Sebastian Euringer, “Die ägyptischen und keilschriftlichen Analogien zum Funde des Codex Hel- ciae (4 Kg 22 u. 2 Chr 34),” BZ 9 (1911): 230–43, 337–49. These three scholars assumed that the statements in the Egyptian documents were authentic, and they used this assumption to corrobo- rate the authenticity of the story in 2 Kings 22. 9 Jurgen Osing, “Alte Schriften,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie (ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto; 7 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972–92), 1:149–54. 10 Alessandro Roccati, “Scribes,” in The Egyptians (ed. Sergio Donadoni; Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 73–75. Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 49 Following are a few examples that much precede the “discovered” scroll of the time of Josiah. On the sarcophagus of Queen Mentuhotep of the Egyptian Thir- teenth Dynasty appear the two introductory statements of the longer and shorter versions of the sixty-fourth chapter of the Book of the Dead. According to one intro- duction, the papyrus was found under the feet of the god Thoth and is dated to the time of Mykerinos, ruler of the Fourth Dynasty. According to the second, it was “discovered” under a wall and is dated to the time of King Usaphais of the First Dynasty. 11 Two medical papyri claim an origin in the early third millennium b.c.e. 12 One of them, written in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, was found “under the feet of Anubis in Leontopolis” and was brought to Usaphais, king of the First Dynasty. The other, written in the Ramesside period, was found “among old writ- ings in a box containing documents under the feet of Anubis in Leontopolis in the time of King Usaphais.” It was brought to Senedj, king of the Second Dynasty. 13 A third medical papyrus of the Twenty-first Dynasty states that the papyrus was brought to Khufu, a king of the Fourth Dynasty. 14 The inscription called the “Memphite Theology” was found on a block that dates to the reign of Shabaka (ca. 721–706 b.c.e.) of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. In the introduction to the text, the king claimed to have copied it anew on a stone after he found it “as something that the predecessors had made, worm-eaten and unknown from beginning to end.” 15 The veracity of the statement has been called 11 Dietrich Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt, Teil 1, Posthume Quellen über die Könige der ersten vier Dynastien (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 17; Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1969), 21–25; Ulrich Luft, “Zur Einleitung der Liebesgedichte auf Papyrus Chester Beatty I r o XVI 9ff.,” ZÄS 99 (1973): 111. For earlier discussions of the sixty- fourth chapter of the Book of the Dead, see Naville, “Egyptian Writings,” 232–36; Herrmann, “Ägyptische Analogien,” 299–301; Euringer, “Ägyptischen und keilschriftlichen Analogien,” 231–37. 12 John A. Wilson, “The Authority of Ancient Documents,” in ANET, 495a; Luft, “Zur Ein- leitung,” 110–11; Roccati, “Scribes,” 74. 13 For a detailed comparison of the two medical papyri, see Ulrich Luft, “Das Verhältnis zur Tradition in der frühen Ramessidenzeit: Ein Vergleich zwischen dem Gefässbuch im Papyrus Ebers und dem Berliner medizinischen Handbuch,” Forschungen und Berichte 14 (1972): 59–71. Luft demonstrated that “[d]er Grundsatz von der Güte des Alten . . . war immer ein Grundpfeiler des ägyptischen Geisteslebens, das sich von Anfang an im steigenden Masse der Tradition ver- pflichtet fühlte” (p. 62). 14 Wilson, “Authority of Ancient Documents,” 495a. 15 Friedrich Junge, “Zur Fehldatierung des sog. Denkmals memphitischer Theologie oder des Beitrag der ägyptischen Theologie zur Geistesgeschichte der Spätzeit,” MDAI 29 (1973): 195– 204; Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1992), 399; Frank T. Miosi, “Memphite Theology,” ABD 4:691–92, with earlier literature; Rolf Krauss, “Wie jung ist die memphitische Philosophie auf dem Shabaqo-Stein?” in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (ed. Emily Teeter and John A. Larson; SAOC 58; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1999), 239–46; James P. Allen, “From the ‘Memphite Theology’,” COS 1:21–23. 50 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) into question. Friedrich Junge suggested that there was a deliberate archaizing of the language as part of the political propaganda of the rulers of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, who tried to restore Memphis to its former glory. 16 Hermann A. Schlögl dated the text to the time of Ramesses II, and Rolf Krauss recently suggested that it was written no earlier than the second century b.c.e. 17 At present, the date of the inscription remains uncertain. Yet, should the dating to the time of Shabaka be proven correct, the Memphite Theology is an example of a “pious fraud” that ante- dated by less than a century the “finding” of the “Book of the Law” in Jerusalem. Several old inscriptions have been found in the course of the excavations car- ried out by Nabonidus, king of Babylonia (555–539 b.c.e.). 18 The excavations were undertaken in an effort to discover the earliest foundations of the temples, so that new temples could be built on the exposed original foundations. The discovery of the inscriptions is the result of the king’s restoration work, not the main objective of the dig. Among the discovered artifacts was a box that contained a stone model of the image of Shamash engraved side by side with an inscription. The latter was written by King Nabu-apla-iddina (887–855 b.c.e.) and relates how the statue of Shamash disappeared for a long time, how the model of the old statue was discov- ered on the bank of the Euphrates, and how, on the basis of this model, the statue of Shamash was created and set up in the temple of the sun god. The inscription ends with a long list of rich endowments that the grateful king conferred on the temple and priests of Ebabbar, including a binding obligation to sustain the tem- ple in the future. The mold with the inscription was recently studied in great detail by Christopher Woods, who demonstrated that it is an original artifact of the first half of the ninth century. 19 Woods suggests that the model was prepared by the 16 Junge, “Zur Fehldatierung,” 195–204; Redford, Egypt, Canaan, 199; Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings (3 vols.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–80), 3:5. 17 Schlögl, Der Gott Tatenen: Nach Texten und Bildern des Neuen Reiches (OBO 29; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1980), 110–17; Krauss, “Memphitische Philosophie,” 239–46. 18 For Nabonidus’s excavations at the sites of Babylonian temples, see Godefroy Goossens, “Les recherches historiques à l’époque Néo-Babylonienne,” RA42 (1948): 149–59; Philippe Talon, “Le rituel comme moyen de légitimation politique au 1 er millénaire en Mésopotamie,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991 (ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA 55; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 421–33; Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 28 (1994): 37–42; idem, “The Abduction of Ištar from the Eanna Temple: The Changing Memory of an Event,” Proceedings of the XLV e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, part 1, Historiography in the Cuneiform World (ed. T. Abusch et al.; Bethesda: CDL, 2001), 29–40; idem, “Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon,” ErIsr 27 (2003): 1*–9*; Christopher E. Woods, “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited,” JCS 56 (2004): 23–103. 19 Woods, “Sun-God Tablet,” 23–44. See also Victor A. Hurowitz, “The Sun-Disk Tablet of Nebobaladan, King of Babylon (BBSt 36)” (in Hebrew), ErIsr 27 (2003): 91–109. Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 51 priests of Ebabbar on the basis of artistic artifacts held in the treasury of the tem- ple and was presented to the king with a concocted story of how the mold was dis- covered. 20 On the basis of the mold, the high priest fashioned a new cult statue of Shamash, which replaced the former plundered statue of the god. The pleased king rewarded the temple and priests with a rich endowment and privileges. On the one hand, the mold might be considered a forgery, made by the priests to satisfy the desire of the king to prepare a new cult statue for Shamash. But on the other hand, the royal inscription, including the details of the rich endowment and privileges conferred by the grateful king on the temple and its personnel, is genuine. Moreover, some inscriptions discovered in Mesopotamia are forgeries, writ- ten at various stages in Mesopotamia’s history. A Sumerian text attributed to the third-millennium king Lugal-anne-mundu, describing the rich endowment the king gave to the E-namzu temple of the goddess Nintu, is fictional. 21 The inscrip- tion was probably inscribed in the Old Babylonian period and is much older than all other forged Mesopotamian inscriptions. The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel was forged in Babylonia no later than the early eighth century, possibly even in the late second millennium b.c.e., in order to claim exemptions from obligations for the cit- izens of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon. 22 The authenticity of the Agum Kakrime inscription, which lists gifts to the temple of Esagila in Babylon, is disputed among scholars. Some have suggested that its first part is mainly authentic and only its second part, which lists the gifts donated to the temple, is a forgery. 23 The Cruci- form Monument of Maništušu, which donates privileges and increased incomes to Ebabbar in Sippar, is a late forgery of the Neo-Babylonian period. 24 Finally, the Kurigalzu endowment to the temple of Eanna of Uruk is also a late forgery. 25 20 Woods, “Sun-God Tablet,” 42–43, with earlier literature in n. 97. 21 Hans Gustav Güterbock, “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestalt bei Baby- loniern und Hethitern bis 1200,” ZA42 (1934): 40–47; Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 92. 22 Erica Reiner, “The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice (with an Appendix by Miguel Civil),” in Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff (Warminster: Aris & Phillips 1982), 320–26; Robert D. Biggs, “The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel as a Political Forgery,” in From the Upper to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Baby- lonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson (ed. G. Frame; Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 101; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004), 1–5. 23 John A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976), 95–97; Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 83–88, with earlier literature. 24 For discussions of the assumed forgeries, see Ignace J. Gelb, “The Date of the Cruciform Monument of Maništušu,” JNES 8 (1949): 346–48; Edmond Sollberger, “The Cruciform Monu- ment,” JEOL 20 (1967–68): 50–70; Marvin A. Powell, “Narām-Sîn, Son of Sargon: Ancient History, Family Names, and a Famous Babylonian Forgery,” ZA 81 (1991): 20–30; Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 79–83; Farouk N. H. Al-Rawi and Andrew R. George, “Tablets from the Sippar Library. III: The Royal Counterfeits,” Iraq 56 (1994): 139–48. 25 Gelb, “Cruciform Monument,” 348 n. 12; Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 88–91, with earlier literature. 52 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) The manipulation of texts for legitimation and the place of forgeries among these texts are broad subjects that cannot be discussed here. The complexity of the issue of forgery is illustrated by royal letters that were learned in Mesopotamian schools for many generations. Copies of letters addressed to early kings were dis- covered on Late Babylonian tablets of the second century b.c.e., including among them letters of Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, and Neo- Babylonian kings. 26 It is difficult to distinguish between “real” and “imaginary” let- ters; moreover, when examining the “real” letters, it is difficult to separate the original layer from the additions and elaborations made when the letters were turned into “literary” texts. 27 Thus, for example, some of these letters show remark- able interest in the question of royal legitimacy, but it is impossible to establish whether they have been composed on the basis of genuine letters or forged in order to deliver the message of legitimation. 28 The discussion of forgeries and the manipulation of evidence for the sake of legitimation in Egypt and Mesopotamia demonstrates how widespread and varie- gated this phenomenon was. Text manipulations of many forms and functions, all of them real artifacts, are attested from (at least) the early second millennium onward. In this light, the search for an original location for the topos of scroll/book/tablet “discoveries” is useless. 29 The episode of the “finding” of the scroll in the time of Josiah should be studied in its own right. II. The Discovered Scroll and Divine Confirmation In the context of the Deuteronomistic History, the “Book of the Law” was hid- den since the time of Moses (Deut 31:24, 26) and Joshua (Josh 23:6; 24:6) and was discovered in the time of Josiah. Surprisingly, there is no hint in the history that the “book” disappeared and was later found. 30 If indeed the author of 2 Kings 22 26 Eckart Frahm, “On Some Recently Published Late Babylonian Copies of Royal Letters,” NABU 2005/2: 43, with earlier literature. 27 For differences of opinion on the historicity of the scholarly letters of the kings of Ur, see Piotr Michalowski, “The Royal Correspondence of Ur” (Ph.D. diss; Yale University, 1976); idem, “Königsbriefe,” RlA 6:51–59; Fabienne Huber, “La correspondance Royale d’Ur, un corpus apoc- ryphe,” ZA 91 (2001): 169–206. 28 Alfred Jeremias, “Die sogenannten Kedorlaomer-Texte,” MVAG 21 (1917): 69–97; Jan van Dijk, “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: Eine verhängnisvolle Politik,” Or 55 (1986): 159–70; Pamela Gerardi, “Declaring War in Mesopotamia,” AfO 33 (1986): 30–38; Andrew R. George, review of Jan van Dijk, Literarische Texte aus Babylon, BO46 (1989): 382–83; Victor A. Hurowitz, “Some Literary Observations on the Šitti-Marduk Kudurru (BBSt. 6),” ZA82 (1992): 52; Jaume Llop and Andrew R. George, “Die babylonisch-assyrischen Beziehungen und die innere Lage Assyriens in der Zeit Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur und Mutakkil-Nusku nach neuen keilschriflichen Quellen,” AfO 48–49 (2001–2): 1–23. 29 Contra Droge, “Lying Pen,” 130. 30 Norbert Lohfink, “The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22–23 as a Source for the Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 53 referred back to the “Book of the Law” mentioned in Deuteronomy and Joshua, why did he not tell his readers when it was lost? Why did he not mention its trans- fer to the temple in the time of Solomon? Moreover, the author of the original story in 2 Kings 22–23 did not connect the “book” to Moses and left the identity of its author unnamed. The identification of the author was made only by a late redac- tor (2 Kgs 23:25). 31 The conclusion is inevitable: the episode of the “book” finding was initially independent of the references to the “Book of the Law” in Deuteron- omy and Joshua. Its discovery and presentation before the king functioned in the story of 2 Kings 22–23 as the force that moved forward all other elements of the plot. Moreover, when examining chs. 22–23 from a literary point of view, the detailed description of the cult reform carried out by Josiah requires an engine to ignite the process. Hence, the Auffindungsbericht must have been an integral part of the original story of the cult reform. Some scholars dismissed this interpretation and analyzed the story in the wider context of the Torah and Prophets. When chs. 22–23 are examined in this broad context, the discovered scroll may well be considered an element in the rev- olutionary concept of the “book” as the word of God, embodying the authority for- merly held by the prophets and temple. The reference to the “Book of the Law” in 2 Kings 22–23 may thus be interpreted as symbolizing the transition of authority from the prophet and the temple to the divine word embodied in the “Book of the Law.” 32 However, the story of the scroll finding and Josiah’s reform was initially written as part of a much narrower context. Conclusions made on the basis of the late textual developments are not applicable to the original context in which the story of the reform was composed. History of Israelite Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 459– 65; Thomas C. Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies,” ZAW109 (1997): 5–7; Oded Lipschits, “On Cash- Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books: Jehoash’s and Josiah’s Decisions to Repair the Temple,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (ed. Yairah Amit, Ehud Ben Zvi, Israel Finkelstein, and Oded Lipschits; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 239–54. 31 This observation raises an interesting question: Is it possible that Moses was missing from Urdeuteronomium and was inserted into the book of Deuteronomy only in its second stage of compilation? This complicated issue, which involves discussion of the scope of Urdeuteronomium, cannot be elaborated in the confines of this article. 32 Jean-Pierre Sonnet, “‘Le livre trouvé’: 2 Rois 22 dans sa finalité narrative,” NRTh 116 (1994): 836–61; Römer, “Transformations,” 9–10; idem, “Du temple au livre: L’idéologie de la cen- tralization dans l’historiographie deutéronomiste,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer; BZAW 294; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 222–24. For the suggestion that Jeremiah 36 is dependent on 2 Kings 22–23, see Charles D. Isbell, “2 Kings 22:3–23:24 and Jeremiah 36: A Stylistic Comparison,” JSOT 8 (1978): 33–45. 54 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) About thirty years ago, Norbert Lohfink defined a genre that he called “his- torische Kurzgeschichten” and identified three narrative blocks that belong to this genre, among them 2 Kings 22–23. 33 He attributed the composition of these stories to authors of the family of Shaphan, who were eyewitnesses to the narrated events, and he suggested that they wrote the stories in Babylonia after they were exiled in 597 b.c.e. I very much doubt that 2 Kings 22–23, with its detailed description of the cult reform, was written in exile. But the idea of a genre of the short historical story is attractive. 34 It seems to me that the five-part story (2 Kgs 22:3–11, 12–20; 23:1–3, 4–15, 21–23)—minus some Deuteronomistic additions—might originally have been a historical short story written in the time of Josiah as part of the efforts to legitimize and support the cult reform he conducted (see below). 35 Scholars have suggested some parallels to the story of the “discovery” and the roles of Josiah and Huldah in the plot. 36 The best parallel is related in the “second” plague prayer of Muršili II (ca. 1321–1285 b.c.e.) to the storm god of Hatti. 37 The 33 Norbert Lohfink, “Die Gattung der ‘historischen Kurzgeschichten’ in den letzten Jahres von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exil,” ZAW90 (1978): 319–47. For the opposite posi- tion, see Caëtano Minette de Tillesse, “Joiaqim, repoussoir du ‘Pieux’ Josias: Parallélismes entre II Reg 22 et Jer 36,” ZAW105 (1993): 352–76. 34 For the suggestion that account B 1 of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah (2 Kgs 18:17– 19:9a, 36–37), minus a few Deuteronomistic additions, was originally an independent story, see Nadav Na’aman, “New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b–35),” Bib 81 (2000): 399–402. 35 I deliberately avoid the problem of the literary analysis of 2 Kings 22–23, which is deeply controversial among scholars. See, e.g., Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteron- omistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 76–85; Hans-Detlef Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschrei- bung (ATANT 66; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980), 169–270; Hermann Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 30–160, 423–29; Levin, “Joschija,” 351–71; Ernst Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige, vol. 2, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 (ATD 11/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 446–64; Norbert Lohfink, “Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kön 22–23,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. Norbert Lohfink; BETL 68; Leuven: Peeters, 1985), 24–48; idem, “Cult Reform,” 459–75; idem, “Recent Discussion on 2 Kings 22–23: The State of the Question,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (ed. Duane L. Christensen; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 36–61; Mark A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 235–66; Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, vol. 2, The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (HSM 53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 125–228. 36 Handy, “Role of Huldah,” 40–53; Jonathan Ben-Dov, “Writing as Oracle and as Law: New Contexts for the Book-Find of King Josiah,” JBL 127 (2008): 232–36. 37 For Muršili’s prayer, see Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers (SBLWAW 11; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 57–61. Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 55 Hittite king was troubled by a severe plague that had struck his country, and he sought to understand the cause of the sudden outbreak. In a search conducted in his archives he discovered two old tablets, one with a ritual of the Mala River and the second with the treaty of Kuruštama. 38 Muršili confirmed the authenticity of each tablet by an oracle. Upon reading the two tablets, he realized that their instruc- tions had been violated, indicating the sins that must have brought on the plague as punishment (compare 2 Sam 21:1–2; 24:10–15). He then repented before the storm god for violating the rites of the Mala River and the stipulations of the Kuruš- tama treaty, hoping that the rites he performed would bring the plague to an end. It goes without saying that Muršili searched and found authentic old tablets, unlike the “discovery” of the scroll by the high priest in Jerusalem. Yet there is a close similarity between the discovery and confirmation of its authenticity by ora- cle in Hatti and the “discovery” of the “Book of the Law” and its authentication by prophecy in Jerusalem. Moreover, just as Muršili confessed the sins of his father (Šuppiluliuma I), repented, and asked forgiveness, so Josiah repented upon hear- ing the words of the “Book of the Law,” promised to fulfill the instructions of the book, and asked forgiveness for his predecessors’ violations of its laws (2 Kgs 22:11– 13). The similarity between the two episodes is self-evident. Moshe Weinfeld compared the story of 2 Kings 22 to an episode related to the prayer of Muwatalli II (ca. 1295–1272 b.c.e.), king of Hatti, to the storm god. 39 Muwatalli confessed his negligent observance of the divine laws of the god and promised to search for “the (written) bond/covenant/protocol [išhiul] of the gods” as well as for oral Hittite traditions. He pledged to follow their instructions and perform the forgotten rites, thereby seeking forgiveness for his sins. The similarity to the former episode is self-evident, except for the fact that Muwatalli refers to a future search for the tablets. Since the tablets have not yet been discovered, the oracular confirmation is missing from the text. 40 The Mesopotamian parallels suggested for Huldah’s role in confirming the authenticity of the “discovered” scroll are not convincing, as the element of the finding and its significance for the situation in the present/future are lacking. 41 Even more disturbing is the suggestion that the discovered scroll functioned in the story as an oracle. According to this hypothesis, the narrative in 2 Kings 22 describes a “double-check,” 42 in which the first oracle, namely, the discovery of the 38 For the Kuruštama treaty, see recently Itamar Singer, “The Kuruštama Treaty Revisited,” in Šarnikzel: Hethitologische Studien zum Gedanken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer (ed. Detlev Groddek and Sylvester Rössle; Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 10; Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden, 2004), 591-607. 39 Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy, Book of,” ABD 2:175a. For a translation of the prayer, see Singer, Hittite Prayers, 83. 40 Droge (“Lying Pen,” 127–28) failed to understand the relevance of the parallel suggested by Weinfeld and dismissed it out of hand. 41 Handy, “Role of Huldah,” 40–45; Ben-Dov, “Writing as Oracle,” 232–33. 42 The procedure of double-check takes place when a second query by a god (piqittu) repeats 56 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) scroll, is confirmed by the prophecy of Huldah. 43 The idea that the discovery is a sign from heaven (i.e., an oracle) is never explicitly stated in the story, and the scroll functions in the plot as a law book, not as an oracle. This is confirmed by the emphasis on “the words” of the scroll (22:13, 16; 23:3, 24) and the phrase “as it is written” in the scroll (23:21). Indeed, in all the stories of ancient Near Eastern “dis- covered” artifacts, the text is the exclusive significant element of their discovery. Just as Muršili conducted one divine oracle to validate each of the tablets he dis- covered, so Josiah held one oracle to authenticate the scroll discovered in the temple. The preexilic date of the Auffindungsbericht might be supported also by an archaeological finding. According to the story, Huldah lived in the Mishneh quar- ter (2 Kgs 22:14; see Zeph 1:10), located on the Western Hill of Jerusalem. 44 Fol- lowing the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6, the Western Hill was deserted for hundreds of years and was resettled only in the second century b.c.e. Assuming that ch. 22 is legendary and has been written in the exilic or postexilic period, the author would have avoided locating the prophetess in a deserted quarter and would have placed her in the City of David. 45 Locating Huldah’s seat in the Mishneh is an indication of the late First Temple date of the text, written when the quarter formed an integral part of the fortified city of Jerusalem. It goes without saying that extracting the historical nucleus of the story in 2 Kings 22 from its literary-ideological cover is uncertain. Here lies the importance of analogies drawn from ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, which function as a kind of control for the discussion. With all due caution I suggest that, following the scroll’s “discovery” in the course of the temple restoration, the king sent delegates to Huldah the prophetess to verify the authenticity of the scroll, and she in turn sent back confirmation. The author of the story gave Huldah’s oracle a literary- ideological dress according to his interpretation of the event, just as ancient Near Eastern royal officials and priests used to interpret original prophetic words and delivered to the king only the interpreted version. 46 the results of the first query in order to confirm its authenticity. See Anne Marie Kitz, “Prophecy as Divination,” CBQ 65 (2003): 25–27, with earlier literature. 43 Handy, “Role of Huldah,” 47–53; Ben-Dov, “Writing as Oracle,” 229–39. 44 Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Nehemiah’s Walls Revisited,” PEQ 116 (1984): 83; idem, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco: Word Books, 1985), 196; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1988), 234; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 283; Ronny Reich, “The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the First Temple Period,” in The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (in Hebrew; ed. S. Ahi ituv and A. Mazar; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2000), 116. 45 For the suggestion that the Auffindungsbericht is legendary and was written in the exilic or postexilic period, see n. 2 above. 46 For the ways in which ancient Near Eastern prophecies were interpreted and delivered to the king, see Simon B. Parker, “Official Attitude toward Prophecy at Mari and in Israel,” VT 43 (1993): 50–68; Jack M. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters from Divine Messages,” in Florilegium Mar- Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 57 III. The “Discovered” Scroll and the Legitimation of the Reform Earlier cult reforms in the kingdom of Judah are mentioned in the book of Kings without resorting to an external power that pushed them forward. Why does the finding of the scroll hold such a central place in the account of Josiah’s cult reform? The answer may be found in its exceptional nature, which was revolu- tionary in the history of the cult and culture of the kingdom of Judah. The author of the book of Kings described a series of cult reforms, in particular that of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4–6), which culminates in the reform of Josiah, thereby some- what diminishing its radical nature. Historically, however, Josiah’s reform was an unprecedented event having (as far as we know) no antecedent in the history of Judah. Cults and rituals everywhere were conceived of as being of divine origin, and changes in the religious practice were considered to break the divinely estab- lished order. To execute a cultic reform, which amounts to a drastic change in the traditional cult and rites of the kingdom, the king and priests needed an authori- tative divine support. The “discovered” scroll, which must have been presented before the supporting and opposing parties, supplied the required legitimation for the reform. It demonstrated that the reform was not an innovative step but rather served as the restoration of ancient divine laws that had been forgotten and cor- rupted by previous generations. Like Josiah, ancient Near Eastern kings who conducted cult reforms were in urgent need of justifying their innovative deeds before the priests and elite. 47 The ways by which reforming kings justified their innovations are not always clear, as frequently documents are missing—and this is particularly true of failed reforms. Yet there are some illuminating examples. In principle, legitimation was obtained first and foremost by receiving divine approval from god(s) by way of an oracle. Second, it was attained through production of literary compositions in which the ianum II: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot (ed. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand; Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 3; Paris: Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien, 1994), 299–316; Karel van der Toorn, “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral and the Written,” JNSL 24 (1998): 55–70; idem, “From the Oral to the Written: The Case of Old Babylonian Prophecy,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd; SBLSymS 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 219–34; idem, “From the Mouth of the Prophet: The Literary Fixation of Jeremiah’s Prophecies in the Con- text of the Ancient Near East,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon (ed. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman; JSOTSup 378; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 191–202; Martti Nissinen, “How Prophecy Became Literature,” SJOT19 (2005): 15–72. 47 For cult reforms in the ancient Near East, see Nadav Na’aman, “The King Leading Cult Reforms in His Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East,” ZABR 12 (2006): 142–68. 58 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) innovative element is presented as the restoration of a long-forgotten custom. 48 There must have also been extensive verbal discourses in an effort to persuade the literati and the elite, but texts do not document them. A combination of these strategies was applied in the time of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 b.c.e.). The king took advantage of his successful campaign against Elam and the restoration of Marduk’s image to elevate Marduk to the headship of the Babylonian pantheon. The victory gave rise to a number of works that exalted Marduk and described him as the foremost Babylonian god. 49 The Babylonian cre- ation epic (Enūma eliš), which described the exaltation of Marduk to a position previously occupied by Enlil, marks the new status of Marduk as head of the Baby- lonian pantheon, of Esagila as the bond of the world (axis mundi), and of Babylon as the most elevated city in Babylonia. 50 Similar strategies were adopted by Sennacherib. Literary works were com- posed during his reign that exalted the god Ashur by depicting him in the image of the Babylonian god Marduk. 51 As part of this enterprise, Assyrian authors rewrote the Babylonian creation myth (Enūma eliš) with Ashur in the role of Mar- duk. Sennacherib built a temple (bīt akīti) outside the city of Ashur, under which 48 On the claim of restoration of old, forgotten ways, see Hayim Tadmor, “Monarchy and the Elite in Assyria and Babylonia: The Question of Royal Accountability,” in The Origin and Diver- sity of Axial Age Civilizations (ed. S. N. Eisenstadt; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), 220–22. 49 For Nebuchadnezzar I’s reform, see Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek (ed. W. S. McCullough; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 3–13; idem, “Studies in Marduk,” BSOAS 47 (1984): 2–5; Andrew R. George, “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon,” Or 66 (1997): 65–70; Na’aman, “Cult Reforms,” 150–54, with earlier literature. 50 For the rise of Marduk to the top of the Babylonian pantheon, see Walter Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks: Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. (AOAT 213; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 182–89; idem, “Marduk,” RlA7:360–70; Tzvi Abusch, “Marduk,” DDD, 2nd ed., 543–49, with ear- lier literature. 51 Heinrich Zimmern, “Marduks (Ellils, Assurs) Geburt im babylonischen Weltschop- fungsepos,” in Orientalische Studien: Fritz Hommel zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (MVAG 21; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917), 213–25; Peter Machinist, “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflections,” Jahrbuch des Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (1984–1985): 353–64; Andrew R. George, “Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies,” Iraq 48 (1986): 133-46; Wilfred George Lambert, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma Eliš,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIX Rencontre assyri- ologique internationale, Heidelberg, 6.–10. July 1992 (ed. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Haupt- mann; Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 77–79; Eckart Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfO Beiheft 26; Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 1997), 220–27, 282–88; Galo W. Vera Chamaza, Die Omnipotenz Aššurs: Entwicklungen in der Aššur-Theologie unter den Sargoniden Sargon II, Sanherib und Asarhaddon (AOAT 295; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 111–67. Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 59 he deposited the ashes from the devastated city of Babylon and in which he cele- brated the rites of the new year (the Akītu festival) for the Assyrian national god. By this step he tried to break the Babylonian claim of the axis mundi located in Marduk’s temple of Esagil and shift it to the city of Ashur, turning it into “the axis of the world” and the seat of Ashur, the king of gods. 52 In a royal inscription, Sen- nacherib claims that the Akītu temple that he built near the city of Ashur and the Akītu festival performed there merely restored the temple and rites of long ago, and that the approval to rebuild the new temple was received after inquiring by extispicy of the gods Shamash and Adad: The festival banquet of the king of the gods, Ashur, which from days of old, on account of chaos and anarchy, the Akitu temple of the steppe had been forgotten and the festival of Ashur, the king of the gods, had been celebrated within the city. In connection with this undertaking I conceived the idea of (re)building the Akitu temple. I performed an oracle query to Shamash and Adad, a favorable reply they gave me and commanded to build (it). 53 The strategy of obtaining supporting divine oracles and claiming the return to ancient and venerated forgotten custom was adopted also by Nabonidus. His efforts in his last years to raise Sin to the position of chief god of Babylonia, to raise Ehul- hul, Sin’s temple in Haran, to the status of chief Mesopotamian temple, and to demote Marduk from the headship of the Babylonian pantheon have been dis- cussed in detail by scholars, 54 and need not be repeated here. 52 Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (University of Chicago Oriental Insti- tute Publications 2; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 136–39, lines 22–35, 44–57; Erich Ebeling, Stiftungen und Vorschriften für assyrische Tempel (Deutsche Akademie der Wissen- schaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung 23; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954), 3–5; Frahm, Einleitung, 173–74; Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of the Mesopo- tamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akītu House,” Iraq 25 (1963): 189–90; Laura Kataja and Robert Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period (SAA 12; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995), 104–5; Ali Yassen Ahmad and Albert Kirk Grayson, “Sennacherib in the Akitu House,” Iraq 61 (1999): 187–89; Vera Chamaza, Die Omnipotenz Aššurs, 111–22. 53 Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, 136–37, lines 25–30; see Kataja and Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts, 104–5, lines 5–6, 12–15. 54 Hayim Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (ed. H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen; Assyriological Studies 16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 351–63; Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylonia 556–539 B.C (Yale Near Eastern Researches 10; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989), 54–65, 203–19; Peter Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism and Israelite Religion: A Case Study from the Second Isaiah,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29–31, 2000 (ed. William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 244–53, with earlier literature; Hanspeter Schaudig, “Nabonid, der ‘Gelehrte auf dem 60 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) An illuminating example of Nabonidus’s strategy in legitimizing innovation is the way he consecrated his daughter as entu-priestess of the moon god at Ur. 55 The move started with an eclipse of the moon, which was interpreted as an omen sent by the god Sin, in which he requested to nominate an entu priestess in his temple. To affirm his interpretation of the eclipse, Nabonidus twice consulted by extispicy the gods Shamash and Adad and received positive replies. He then conferred with the gods about the nomination of his daughter and received an approving reply. At this stage, the king pondered how to carry out the divine request because “since distant days the ritual of high priesthood had been forgotten and its nature was not known.” Then a miracle happened—he discovered an old stele of Nebuchadnezzar I upon which was engraved the figure of the high priestess with her insignia, her garments, and her ornaments. The new information enabled Nabonidus properly to install his daughter in the office of entu priestess at Ur. In light of the miraculous nature of the discovery, scholars were suspicious of its authenticity and suggested that the “discovery” was a forgery (a kind of “pious fraud”). 56 A strategy held by all the Mesopotamian reforming kings is the writing of lit- erary works that support the reform. Can we identify the work written in support of Josiah’s reform? I believe that the text of 2 Kings 22–23, or rather the source on which it rests, was originally written in an effort to legitimize the reform. The account includes several elements that legitimized the royal initiative. Thus, the scroll found by the high priest instructs the king to execute religious reform, and the prophetess’s divine oracle affirms the authenticity of the words of the scroll. The latter justified both of the measures taken by the king, namely, the alliance by oath that he concluded with the officials and elders of his kingdom and the cult reform he executed. In the context of the story, the scroll functioned as the element that set in motion the cult reform and bestowed on it divine legitimacy. The elements common to Josiah’s and ancient Near Eastern cult reforms are the restoration of long-forgotten divine laws and customs, reception of divine approval from god(s) by way of an oracle, and the production of literary composi- tions that explain and justify the measures taken. The “finding” of artifacts that support a claim of antiquity is also common to Judah and ancient Near Eastern Königsthron’,” in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. Oswald Loretz, Kai A. Metzler and Hanspeter Schaudig; AOAT 281; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 619–45. 55 The episode was studied in detail by Erica Reiner, “Nabonidus and the Concern with the Past,” in Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (Michigan Studies in the Humanities 5; Ann Arbor: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan, 1985), 1–16; Peter Machinist and Hayim Tadmor, “Heav- enly Wisdom,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (ed. Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg; Bethesda: CDL, 1993), 150–51, with earlier literature. For the texts, see Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 22–23, 127–32. 56 Powell, “Narām-Sîn,” 20–30; Woods, “Sun-God Tablet,” 42. Na’aman: Te “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 61 kingdoms, although the element of the scroll that guides the reform is unique to the kingdom of Judah. In conclusion, the five-part story in 2 Kings 22–23 was originally an inde- pendent historical short story, written in the time of Josiah in an effort to support and legitimize the cult reform that the king conducted. Its legitimizing function well explains the prominent role the Auffindungsbericht and the divine confirma- tion of the “discovered” scroll by the prophetess played in the story. The covenant in the temple (2 Kgs 23:1–3) and the celebration of the feast of Passover, “as it is written in this book of the covenant” (23:21–23), were also integral parts of the reform and its legitimizing text. 57 Like many other sources available to the author of the Deuteronomistic History, the story of Josiah’s reform was slightly reworked and integrated into the history he composed. Once the story was integrated within the confines of a broad literary work, the original function of the discovered scroll was lost. In its new context the “Book of the Law” became an element in the revo- lutionary concept of the “book” as the word of God, symbolizing the transition of authority from the prophet and the temple to the divine written word. 57 For the place of the feast of Passover in the reform, see Nadav Na’aman, “The Israelite- Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel,” Bib 91 (2010): 20–21. 62 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job c. l. seow [email protected] Princeton Teological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542 In an article published in Eretz Israel in 1969, David Noel Freedman called attention to the great number of forms in the book of Job that are spelled without internal vowel markers (matres lectionis) where one might expect them. 1 Tis is particularly remarkable in cases where diphthongs are contracted and unmarked by matres. Tus, we have ןא instead of ןוא (18:12; 40:16), המא instead of המיא (9:34; 13:21; 20:25; 33:7), ןתא instead of ןתיא (12:19; 33:19), ינעדה instead of ינעדוה (13:23; ועידי in 32:7), אצה instead of אצוה (10:18; 15:13; אציו in 12:22; אצי in 28:11), ינרה instead of ינרוה (34:32; ךרת in 12:7, 8; ינרה in 30:19), ליעי instead of ליעוי (30:13; 35:3), ןמת instead of ןמית (9:9; ינמת in 22:1), and so forth. By Freedman’s count, there are forty-two such forms with contracted and unmarked diphthongs in the book, though one might also add conservative spellings like ת ֻ שׁ (2:2), ת ֻ מ (2:9), ם ִ ל ְ כ ַ מ (11:3), ק ָ צ ֻ מ (11:15), ה ָ פ ֻ ﬠ ַָ תּ (11:17), וּשׁ ָ בִ י (18:16), וֹלֹק (37:2; תוֹלֹק in 28:26), ב ִ ר (29:16; תוֹב ִ ר in 13:6; ם ָ ב ִ ר in 31:13), and ם ֶ ה ֵ ל ֲ א (29:24). 2 Moreover, there are a num- ber of Ketiv readings that suggest a conservative orthography: ודי for ו ָ דָ י (5:18), ותחת for ו ָ תּ ְ ח ַ תּ (9:13), ושׁדק for ו ָ שֹׁד ְ ק (15:15), ומולע for ו ָ מוּל ֲ ﬠ (20:11), וניע for ו ָ ני ֵ ﬠ (21:20), ועדי for ו ָ ﬠ ְ דֹי (24:1), ודירשׂ for ו ָ די ִ ר ְ שׂ (27:15), וצלח for ו ָ צ ָ ל ֲ ח (31:20), ותלובחת for ו ָ תלוּבּ ְ ח ַ ת (37:12), ודלי for ו ָ ד ָ לְ י (38:41), ופנכ for ו ָ פ ָ נ ְ כּ (39:26), וחרפא for ו ָ חֹר ְ פ ֶ א (39:30), and ודחפ for ו ָ ד ֲ ח ַ פּ (40:17). Drawing on the results of his joint dissertation with Frank Moore Cross, which argued in part that such spellings typifed epigraphic Hebrew of the 1 David Noel Freedman, “Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job,” ErIsr 9 (1969): 35–44; repr. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman (ed. John R. Huddleston; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 2:44–60. 2 Te last example shows a contracted diphthong, *ilayhimm > ם ֶ ה ֵ ל ֲ א. Cf. וּה ֵ ﬠ ֵ ר, “his friends” < *riayhû (42:10). JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 63–85 63 64 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) pre exilic period and generally of the north (Israel as opposed to Judah), 3 a thesis that despite a few rare exceptions has held true, 4 Freedman concluded that the conservative orthography indicates a provenance in the north during the preexilic period. Te study has prompted at least one scholar to judge that it is now difcult to maintain a date later than the seventh century b.c.e. 5 Not all are so sanguine about Freedman’s approach, to be sure. Yet even James Barr, Freedman’s most severe critic, has conceded that the book of Job manifests an unusually high concentration of such forms, indeed, “the highest anywhere in the Bible.” 6 Te implications of this judgment for the exegesis of Job, however, have not been explored. Such an exploration is the purpose of this essay. Before doing so, though, I would like to expand Freedman’s database. I. Beyond MT L Te publication of 4QpalaeoJob c from Qumran has lent credibility to Freedman’s article, since internal matres in that manuscript are, with only two exceptions, entirely absent: 7 MT 4QpalaeoJob c 13:24 ביואל ביא[ל] (so, too, ms Kenn 170 ) 13:36 תונוע תנוע (also 3 mss) 13:26 ירוענ ירענ (cf. ירענ in several mss at 31:18) 13:27 יתוחרא יתחרא (cf. יתחרא in 33:11) 3 Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952). 4 Te clearest example of an internal mater before the end of the monarchy is rwr in one of the tomb inscriptions from Silwan. For other possibilities discussed in Ziony Zevit, Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs (ASOR Monograph Series 2; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980), see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), passim. Considering materials beyond Zevit’s study, we note a few examples that prove the rule. Te Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions from the late-ninth and early-eighth centuries attest r, “city” (Hebrew Inscriptions, KAjr 5-8), brk, “blessed” (KAjr 9, 15.5), ymm, “days” (KAjr 14.), wymsn hrm . . . wydkn gbnm, “the mounains melted . . . the peaks are crushed” (KAjr 15.2-3), and ym, “day” (KAjr 15.5, 6). Te Ophel inscription from Jerusalem (see Jslm 3), dated to the early to mid-seventh century attests šmnm, “(jars of) oil” (see also Jslm 5) and šbrm, “(jars of) grain.” A seventh-century ostracon from Hi orvat Uza has ymt, “days” (Uza 2.12). 5 So Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester/Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 62. 6 So James Barr, “Hebrew Orthography and the Book of Job,” JSS 30 (1985): 32. 7 See Patrick W. Skehan et al., Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manu- scripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 155–57. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 65 14:16 רופסת רפסת (so, too, many mss) 14:17 רורצב ררצב (similarly 2 mss) While it may not be possible to prove that the orthographic archaism in this manuscript refects the autograph, 4QpalaeoJob c does demonstrate that the MT cannot be decisive on the question of orthography. If the orthography suggested by 4QpalaeoJob c is original, the introduction of internal matres in the other Qumran manuscripts of Job (2QJob; 4QJob a ; 4QJob b ) as well as in the MT is part of the book’s history of interpretation. 8 Moreover, while Freedman based his analysis on the Leningrad Codex (MT L ) by way of BHK 3 , the Aleppo Codex (MT A ), the Bomberg Bible (MT B ), and other manuscripts ofen show additional forms without internal matres. Te following is only a small sample of literally hundreds of Hebrew variants without internal vowel markers: MT L Other Manuscripts תונותא (1:3) תנתא (3 mss) ומוי (1:4) ומי (1 ms) תולע (1:5) תלע (8 mss) תושׁרח (1:14) תשׁרח (5 mss) ליג (3:22) לג (1 ms) ונחיכוי (5:17) ונחכי (1 ms) רסומו (5:17) רסמו (1 ms) ומילע (6:16b) ומלע (1 ms) ינורוה (6:24) ינורה (2 mss) ואצוי (8:10) ואצי (1 ms; 7 mss ואיצי) תעפוה (10:3) תעפה (1 ms) התפיע (10:22) התפע (MT AB , many mss) ידעומל (12:5) ידעמל (4 mss) יניע (13:1) ינע (1 ms) יתחכות (13:6) יתחכת (1 ms) םכילע (13:11) םכלע (1 ms) ךיניע (14:3) ךינע (2 mss) ןוכנ (15:23) ןכנ (2 mss) תומשׁה (16:7) תמשׁה (many mss) 8 If the archaism is secondary, that is, if the matres had been eliminated, then 4QpalaeoJob c belongs to the book’s Wirkungsgeschichte, showing in this case an efort to re-present the story as archaic, perhaps as Mosaic. Te paleo-Hebrew script of the manuscript is itself an archaism, for the Qumran biblical manuscripts that manifest this script are restricted to the Torah, the only exception being 4QpalaeoParaJosh. Still, this “archaism” probably does refect the autograph. Te Aramaic square script in all the other manuscripts is secondary. 66 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) יתוילכ (16:13) יתילכ (3 mss) םימורמב (16:19) םימרמב (MT A , many mss) חכויו (16:21) חכיו (2 mss) ישׁרומ (17:11) ישׁרמ (few mss) ונאובת (20:22) ונאבת (MT AB ) תופעות (22:25) תפעת (1 ms; several mss תפעות; 1 ms תופעת) תוביר (33:13) תבר (a few mss; many mss תובר) עיפוה (37:15) עיפה (MT A and 2 mss) In addition to the masoretic witnesses, the versions also ofen attest other forms without internal matres, including the following examples: MT Other Witnesses םואכדי (4:19) םאכדי (OG ἔπαισεν αὐτοὺς; Syr. ntmkkwn; cf. ms Kenn 117 ) 9 וריצק (5:5) ורצק (OG συνήγαγον = וּר ְ צ ָ ק) 10 םושׂ (5:11) םשׂ (OG ποιοῦντα; Vg. qui ponit = ם ָ שׂ) חכוה (6:25) חכה (OG ἰσχῦν = Hebrew ַ חֹכּ[ ַ ה]) וליפת (6:27) ולפת (OG ἐπιπίπτετε; Vg. inruitis; cf. ms Kenn 157 ולפת) קיזחי (8:15) קזחי (4QJob b ) תופילח (10:17) תפלח (OG ἔπηγαγες; Syr. mhilp  nt; cf. ms Kenn 176 ) ךידב (11:3) ךדב (Vg. tibi soli) 11 תומת (12:2) תמת (Aq. τελειώματα = תֹ מּ ֻ תּ; Symm. τελειότης = ת ַ מּ ֻ תּ) 12 הישׁות (12:16) העשׁת (Teod. σωτηρία; cf. also many mss הישׁת) רסומ (12:18) רסמ (Syr. mhit = Hebrew ר ִ ס ֵ מ; 13 cf. 1 ms, רסמ) 14 ןימאי אל (15:15) ןמאי אל (Symm. οὐδεὶς ἄτρεπτος; Vg. nemo immutabilis) ליוע (16:11) לוע (OG ἀδίκου; Vg. iniquum; Syr.  wl; Tg. יעישׁר) 9 Tat is, ם ֵ א ְ כּ ַ דְ י. 10 Te OG apparently assumes that the subject is the “children” of the fool—so, too, the plural verbs וּק ֲ ח ְ רִ י and וּא ְ כּ ַ דִּ י—in the preceding verse (5:4). Te masoretes, however, take the subject to be the fool in 5:3. Te OG proves superior in this case, and its interpretation is corroborated by the plural sufx in ם ָ לי ֵ ח, “their substance.” 11 Te plural is correct. We should assume *baddaykimm > ם ֶ כ ֵ דּ ַ בּ, “your babblings.” Cf. ם ֶ ה ֵ ל ֲ א in 29:24. 12 Te spelling תמת easily accounts for ת ֻ מ ָ תּ, תֹ מּ ֻ תּ, and ת ַ מּ ֻ תּ. 13 Presuming the hiphil of רוס to mean “to remove” (Gen 8:13; 30:32, 35; 35:2; etc.) or even “to depose” (2 Sam 7:15; 1 Kgs 20:24) 14 Te OG has καιθιζάνων βασιλεῖς ἐπὶ θρόνους, which probably refects Hebrew םיכלמ בשׁמ. Te translator intreprets בשׁמ as ב ִ שֹׁ מ, but we should probably read ב ִ שׁ ֵ מ, “one who turns back,” a variant of ר ִ ס ֵ מ. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 67 ישׁרומ (17:11) ישׁרמ (OG τα ἄρθρα; so also a few mss read ישׁרמ) ונימטנ (18:3) ונמטנ (Tg. אנעמט = Hebrew וּנ ַ מ ְ טִ נ; so also 3 mss) 15 םיליוע (19:18) םילוע (11Q10 ןיעשׁר; Syr. wl) = םי ִ ל ָ וּ ַ ﬠ םלוע (OG τον αἰῶνα) הולא (19:26) הלא (OG ταῦτα; cf. also 37:22) = ה ֶ לּ ֵ א בורקמ (20:5) ברקמ (OG πτῶμα ἐξαίσιον = ב ֵ ר ָ ק ְ מ?; Syr. mn gwhwn) םכיתבושׁתו (21:34) םכתבשׁת (Vg. responsio vestra) עורז (22:8) ערז (Syr. gbr dzr = Hebrew ַ ע ֵ רֹז) תישׁו (22:24) תשׁו (Teod θήσῃ; Syr. tknš) 16 וימורמב (25:2) ומורמב (11Q10 המ[רמב]) 17 תוביר (33:13) תובר (11Q10 ןרבבר) 18 יתביר (OG τῆς δίκης μου) 19 ועמשׁ עומשׁ (37:2) עמשׁ עמשׁ (4QJob a ) ךידגב (37:17) ךדגב (OG ἡ στολὴ; 11Q10 ךשׁובל) 20 תישׁי (38:11) תשׁת/תשׂי (OG συντριβήσεται; Vg. confringes; Tg. שׁביתי) 21 In every case, the consonantal form of the Vorlage is superior (though not necessarily the interpretation represented), for the forms without matres account for the variants more readily than the MT, where the presence of the matres is as interpretive as the introduction of vowel points. In sum, when one considers the evidence from the various Hebrew manu- scripts, 4QpalaeoJob c , and the Vorlagen of the versions, there are many more examples of orthographically conservative forms than what Freedman found in 15 Ms Kenn 155 has ונומטנ, that is, וּנוֹמּ ַ טְ נ, as if the root were םמט. Tus, original ונמטנ may be read as וּנ ִ מ ְ טִ נ (so most mss, Vg., Syr.), וּנ ָ מ ְ טִ נ (so Tg.), or וּנֹ מּ ַ טְ נ (so ms Kenn 155 ), the root being המט = אמט, ןמט, or םמט, respectively. Multivalence may be part of the poet’s art. Te OG has σεσιωπήκαμεν, “we have been silent,” refecting Hebrew ונימדנ. Te consonantal text of the Vorlage of the OG is now corroborated by 11Q10, though the verb should probably be taken to mean “we are likened to.” Tis may be a variant prompted by Ps 49:13, 21 (וּמ ְ דִ נ תוֹמ ֵ ה ְ בּ ַ כּ). 16 Both witnesses presume ָ תּ ַ שְׁ ו. 17 One should follow the cue of 11Q10 but vocalize the form as ו ָ מֹר ְ מ ִ בּ. 18 Tis is probably an error for ןברבר, which refects Hebrew תובר or, assuming conservative orthography, תבר, which is what we have in a few manuscripts. Te reading תבר easily accounts for the other variants: תוביר (MT), תובר (many mss), and יתיבר (OG). 19 Cf. Aq. ἐκδικάσω, but Symm. διαδικάζῃ (= Hebrew תובר), whereas Teod. has κρίσις, perhaps reading Hebrew תבר, which enhances the wordplay with ה ֶ בּ ְ רִ י in the preceding verse. 20 Te plural noun is supported by Symm., Tg., and Syr. Given the adjective םימח, we should assume the plural to be correct. Te reading refected in the Vorlagen of OG and 11Q10 must represent the contraction of ay > ē, ך ֵ דָ ג ְ בּ. 21 Te OG and Vg. are assuming the root *śtt (cf. Arabic šatta, “to break up, be scattered, dissolve”), whereas Tg. presumes the root תשׁנ. 68 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) MT L alone. To Freedman, the orthographic conservatism indicates a northern origin and a relatively early date—late seventh or early sixth century b.c.e. Yet the orthography does not require a northern origin. Te Nimrud Ostracon, the Amman Citadel inscription, the Tell Sīrān Bottle, the Heshbon Ostracon IV, and the Heshbon Ostracon XI all manifest similarly conservative orthography, 22 as do the H irbet el-Mudeiyineh inscription 23 and numerous instances in the Moabite Stone, 24 all from the Transjordan. Instead, the conservative orthography may be for literary efect, namely, to corroborate the foreignness of the book’s setting. Furthermore, an early dating of the book is not required by its orthography, since the text may be not so much archaic, as Freedman would have it, as it is archaistic— to give the impression of a text from long ago. Whatever the explanation, such orthography, if original, has many implications for exegesis. II. Textual Criticism A hypothesis of an originally conservative orthography helps resolve many text-critical problems in the book. A few examples will sufce to make this point. Job 5:11a Te MT has םוֹר ָ מ ְ ל םי ִ ל ָ פ ְ שׁ םוּשׂ ָ ל, “to set the lowly on high.” Te infnitive םוּשׂ ָ ל is, however, awkward in the sea of participles that one expects in a doxology (vv. 8–13). Edouard Dhorme takes the infnitive to indicate purpose (“in order to set”), but the parallel verb is the qal perfect וּב ְ ג ָ שׂ (“are exalted”), which he is then forced to translate as both purposive and, implausibly, transitive (“to raise”). 25 Robert Gordis asserts that “the infnitive takes on the same tense as the fnite verb preceding it” and, hence, translates it as if it were a participle. 26 Tis explanation is ad hoc, and none of the examples Gordis cites proves his point. Moreover, one should expect the conjunction before the infnitive, if the infnitive were framed by the preceding (see Joüon-Muraoka §124p). It is more likely that the time of occur- 22 See Walter E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4; Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen, 1989), 118–19, 154, 202, 214–15, 245. 23 Paul E. Dion and P.-M. Michèle Daviau, “An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at H irbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan),” ZDPV 116 (2000): 1–13. 24 So mš (“Mesha”), mb (“Moab”), hwšny (“deliver me”), bt (“house”), wyrš (“and he dispossessed”), qrytn (“Qiryaten”), si hrn (“noon”), and so on. 25 Edouard P. Dhorme, Le livre de Job (EBib; Paris: Lecofre, 1926), 58–59: “Pour mettre les abaissés sur la hauteur / Et pour que les afigés se haussent au salut.” Eng. trans., A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. Harold Knight; Nashville/Camden/New York: Nelson, 1984), 64. 26 Robert Gordis, Te Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies (Moreshet 2; New York: Jewish Teological Seminary of America, 1978), 56. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 69 rence of the infnitive is clarifed by a fnite verb coming afer the infnitive, not before it (see Job 28:25; GKC §112v, 144r; Joüon-Muraoka §124q). Te OG and the Vg. both have the participle, that is, םשׂ instead of םושׂ, which prompts some scholars to emend the text to read ם ָ שּׂ ַ ה. 27 Yet this emenda- tion is difcult to justify, for there is no reason why anyone would have read ל at this point instead of ה (cf. ן ֵ תֹ נּ ַ ה in the preceding verse). One should, instead, assume the asseverative lamed, as also in 13:12b (יבגל) and take םשׂ to be a par- ticiple, thus like all the other participles in this doxology. Te asseverative lamed is not translated in the OG and the Vg. because those versions typically either mistranslate or do not translate it. 28 Te lamed was incorrectly understood as a preposition at some point and so םשׂ came to be interpreted incorrectly as an infnitive. Hence the waw mater was added. Te asseverative lamed in v. 11 in fact reinforces and advances the theological claim in v. 10. At the same time, the particle marks the transition from God as one who rejuvenates the earth (v. 10) to God as one who restores people who are devastated (v. 11)—from the redemp- tion of nature (v. 10) to the redemption of people (v. 11). Te two redemptions are integrally related. Indeed, if God is a redeemer of nature, God is all the more so a redeemer of people. Job 5:15a Te MT as it stands is difcult: ם ֶ הי ִ פּ ִ מ ב ֶ ר ֶ ח ֵ מ ע ַ שֹׁיּ ַ ו, “and he saved from the sword, from their mouth.” Tere are three problems with the text: (1) the apparent redundancy of ברחמ, “from the sword,” and םהיפמ, “from their mouth,” (2) the absence of an object in the frst line, 29 and (3) the awkward parallelism of the plural sufx in םהיפמ, “their mouth,” with the singular קָ ז ָ ח, “the strong.” Te OG has ἀπόλοιντο δὲ ἐν πολέμῳ, “but let them perish in war,” which is probably an inner-Greek error for ἀπολύοιντο δὲ ἐν πολέμῳ, “but let them be deliv- ered in war.” Te latter refects Hebrew ברחמ םעשׁיו (i.e., ב ֶ ר ֶ ח ֵ מ ם ֵ ﬠ ִ שֹׁי ְ ו), literally, “but let one save them from the sword,” with dittography of mem and ברח taken as a metonym for war, as in Ezra 9:7 and Jer 4:10. Te OG also lacks םהיפמ. Tak- ing the Vorlage of the OG—the lectio brevior—at face value, one might argue that it represents a variant that is diferent from the MT and the other versions, and that it refects a confation of two readings: (1) ברחמ עשׁיו, “but he saves from the 27 See Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Com- mentary on the Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), part 2, 30; William B. Stevenson, Critical Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Poem of Job (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1951), 16; Pio Fedrizzi, Giobbe (Sacra Bibbia; Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1987), 65. 28 See the OG and the Vg. in Job 13:12; Ps 33:1; Qoh 9:4; Isa 38:20. On the particle, see John Huehnergard, “Asseverative *la and the Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic,” JAOS 103 (1983): 569–93. 29 So prompting a few manuscripts of the Vg. to add egenum, “the needy.” 70 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) sword,” and (2) םהיפמ עשׁיו, “but he saves from their mouth.” If so, the frst is to be preferred (“sword” being a metaphor for “tongue”), since the second is a sofening of the image and “mouth” anticipates the same in the next verse. Yet, given the well-known tendency of OG-Job to abbreviate and indeed to eliminate portions of the text that prove difcult for the translators, 30 one can hardly reconstruct the text on the basis of this lone witness. Te lectio brevior rule of thumb does not hold in the case of OG-Job. Several manuscripts omit the preposition in םהיפמ, and this reading is sup- ported by Syr., Tg., and Vg., thus םהיפ ברחמ, “from the sword of their mouth,” which has been explained as an idiom for slander, 31 though none of the parallels usually cited—Pss 52:4; 55:2; 57:5; 64:4; Prov 5:4; 25:18; Sir 28:18—is the same as what we have here. Tis reading is also the lectio facilior, an attempt to resolve the syntacti- cal difculty. It is difcult to see why, if it were original, anyone would have added the preposition. Besides, slander—if the expression is indeed an idiom—seems too banal a topic in this context, and it is an unsatisfactory parallel for “the power of the strong.” Nahum M. Sarna suggests, therefore, reading םהיפ ם־ברחמ, “from the sword of their mouth,” with the enclitic mem. 32 Yet his reading is forced: “He delivers the needy from the sword of their mouth, yea from the hand of the strong.” In light of v. 11, with its reference to the elevation of the dejected to safety (ע ַ שֶׁ י), one might read ב ָ ר ֳ ח ָ מ, “devastated one,” which provides an object for ע ַ שֹׁיּ ַ ו and an appropriate parallel for ןוֹי ְ ב ֶ א, “needy.” 33 Furthermore, I would emend םהיפמ (םהפמ in the original conservative orthography, so ms Kenn 120 ) to read םחפמ (ם ִ ח ַ פּ ִ מ), “from traps,” assuming that םהיפמ, “from their mouth,” is an error due to the anticipation of היפ, “its mouth,” in the next verse. Te liberation of the dev- astated from traps thus contrasts the trapping of the wise in v. 13a, םי ִ מ ָ כ ֲ ח ד ֵ כל ם ָ מ ְ ר ָ ﬠ ְ בּ. Te conservative orthography, with the absence of the expected yod mater probably contributed to the error in the MT. Ten the incorrect reading of םהיפמ generated the incorrect interpretation of ברחמ as “from the sword,” since “mouth” and “sword” are commonly associated with one another. Accordingly, then, ע ַ שֹׁיּ ַ ו ם ִ ח ַ פּ ִ מ ב ָ ר ֳ ח ָ מ, “and he saves the devastated from traps,” neatly parallels קָ ז ָ ח דַ יּ ִ מוּ ןוֹי ְ ב ֶ א, “and the needy from the power of the strong,” with the verb gapped. To Eli- phaz, who is speaking here of adynata, salvation comes not for the exalted but for 30 See Markus Witte, “Te Greek Book of Job,” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verita vom 14.–19. August 2005 (ed. Tomas Krüger et al.; ATANT 88; Zurich: Teologischer Verlag, 2007), 33–54. 31 So Luis Alonso Schökel and Jose Luis Sicre Díaz, Job: Comentario teológico y literario (2nd ed.; Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 2002), 15. Tey freely translate the idiom as “de la lengua aflada.” 32 Sarna, “Some Instances of the Enclitic m- in Job,” JJS 6 (1955): 109. 33 So August Dillmann (Hiob [4th ed.; Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 2; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1891], 45) and others afer him, following a lead from Louis Cappel and Heinrich Ewald. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 71 the lowly (v. 11), not for the clever and wise but for the devastated (v. 15). Whereas the crafy will be caught (v. 13), as if in a trap, so the participle ד ֵ כל implies, the devastated will be saved from traps. Job 9:19b Te MT has י ִ נ ֵ די ִ ﬠוֹי י ִ מ םי ִ ט ָ פּ ְ שׁ ִ מ ְ ל־ם ִ אְ ו, which, if correct, would mean some- thing like “if it is a matter of justice, who will summon me?” (NRSV, NIV, NJB). Most commentators, thinking that the frst person common singular object sufx makes no sense, emend it to read וּנּ ֶ די ִ ﬠוֹי, “[who] will summon him,” citing the OG (κρίματι αὐτοῦ ἀντιστήσεται, “he will oppose his judgment”) and the Syr. (nrw ywhy, “[who] will meet him”) and sometimes claiming that the MT represents a tiqqun sopherim, a correction for theological reasons. 34 Both the OG and the Syr. are too free here to be reliable, however; they do not necessarily refect Hebrew ונדיעוי. Furthermore, tradition does not record the reading of the MT as a tiqqun sopherim. 35 Anton C. M. Blommerde has posited that the object sufx is a “Phoeni- cianized 3 ms form,” 36 but the existence of such a sufx is doubtful. 37 More promis- ing are the translations of the Vg. (nemo pro me audet testimonian dicere) and the Tg. (ילע ריהסי ןמ), both of which refect Hebrew ינדיעי (so ms Kenn 18 ) or, assuming conservative orthography, ינדעי (so ms Kenn 82 ). Te likely original, ינדעי, may be interpreted in two ways: (1) י ִ נ ֵ ד ִ ﬠֹי, “he will summon me,” or “he will make an appointment for me” (cf. י ִ נ ֵ די ִ ﬠֹי in Jer 49:19), 38 or (2) י ִ נ ֵ ד ִ ﬠְ י, “he will testify for me.” Te former interpretation, which assumes the verb דעי, is represented by MT ALB ; the latter, assuming the verb דוע, is evident in mss Kenn 18, 82 , Vg. and Tg., in which case the sufx is datival, as also in 29:11, י ִ נ ֵ די ִ ﬠ ְ תַּ ו, “and (my eye) bore witness for me.” Te second reading is superior. Job believes that he is in the right, but he has no way of establishing it. If it were a matter of strength, it is God who is the strong one (v. 19a). If it were a matter of justice, there 34 So Dhorme, Le livre de Job, 125 (= Eng. trans., 138]); Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963), 199; John E. Hartley, Te Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 174. 35 See Carmel McCarthy, Te Tiqqune Sopherim, and Other Teological Corrections of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 198. 36 Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job (BibOr 22; Rome: Pontifcal Biblical Institute, 1969), 56. He is followed by Lawrence Boadt, “A Re-Examination of the Tird-Yod Sufx in Job,” UF 7 (1975): 67; and Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 42; Rome: Pontifcal Biblical Institute, 1987), 217–18. 37 See Ziony Zevit, “Te Linguistic and Contextual Arguments in Support of a Hebrew 3 m.s. Sufx –y,” UF 9 (1977): 315–18. 38 Françoise Mies (L’espérance de Job [BETL 193; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006], 323) tries to resolve the problem of the sufx by interpreting י ִ נ ֵ די ִ ﬠוֹי to mean “who will intervene in my favor,” but this meaning has no parallel anywhere. 72 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) is no one who will testify for him and vouch for his innocence (v. 19b). Testimony is indeed the issue, as the next verse confrms. Even if Job were in the right, his mouth, like a hostile witness, will condemn him (v. 20). Having already argued that a real lawsuit is impossible because of the vast disparity of power, and having admitted that in the face of God’s unrestrained fury even the innocent person can only plead for mercy (v. 15), Job now imagines himself in such a legal setting, where he will nevertheless have to plead for mercy, as if he were guilty. Te terms םת and קשׁע in v. 20b are an antonymous word pair in Hebrew poetry (see also Prov 10:9; 11:20; 19:1; 28:6). Te point is that Job will come out looking like the opposite of what he is—indeed, the opposite of what the reader knows from the narrator and God (1:1, 8; 2:3). How can Job be ם ָ תּ, complete, if his tongue bears witness against him, as if it were apart from and inimical to him? How can he be ם ָ תּ, blameless, if he is forced to bear false witness? Testimony— more specifcally, false testimony—is at issue. Job 10:17c Te MT is suspect: י ִ מּ ִ ﬠ א ָ ב ָ צ ְ ו תוֹפי ִ ל ֲ ח / י ִ ד ָ מּ ִ ﬠ ך ְ שׂ ַ ﬠ ַ כּ ב ֶ ר ֶ תְ ו / י ִ דְּ ג ֶ נ ךי ֶ ד ֵ ﬠ שׁ ֵ דּ ַ ח ְ תּ, “You renew your witnesses before me, / and increase your vexation with me. / Changes and warfare are with me.” Te problem lies in the third line of the triplet, which does not coordinate well with the preceding two lines. Moreover, the OG reads ἐπήγαγες δὲ ἐπʼ ἐμὲ πηρατήρια (“you bring upon me a trial”), probably refecting Hebrew ימע אבצ תפלחו. 39 Te verb ἐπάγειν in this context renders Hebrew ףלח, an adequate translation, since the Greek verb may be used of a military detachment. 40 Te Syr. whiylwn mhilp nt ly (“and the armies you renew against me”) supports the OG in that it, too, assumes a second person masculine singular subject and does not have the conjunction before אבצ. 41 Te original must have been אבצ תפלחו ימע (i.e., י ִ מּ ִ ﬠ א ָ ב ָ צ ָ תּ ְ פ ַ לּ ִ חְ ו), but the misinterpretation of תפלח as תֹ פ ִ ל ֲ ח led to the addition of the conjunction before א ָ ב ָ צ. Indeed, ms Kenn 176 has תפלח. Tis reading is superior to the MT, for ָ תּ ְ פ ַ לּ ִ ח, “you refresh,” echoes שׁ ֵ דּ ַ ח ְ תּ, “you renew,” in the frst line of the triplet. Job’s powerful adversary, God, keeps him at a constant disadvantage. Should Job recover, God the enemy would just renew the hostile witnesses against him 39 Others have proposed emending the verb to ףלחתו. So Karl Budde, Das Buch Hiob (HAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 50; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Hiob (KHC 16; Freiburg/Leipzig/Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1897), 60. Te emendation, though, does not account for the diferent readings. Te juxtaposition of a yqtl form with a qtl is not a problem. See, e.g., 9:13, where we have וּח ֲ ח ָ שׁ // בי ִ שָׁ י. 40 So, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.63; 7.165; Tucydides, Hist. 6.69; Aristophanes, Av. 353 (all cited in LSJ, 602, s.v. ἐπάγω). 41 Te conjunction is lacking in the Vg. as well. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 73 (v. 17a). Some medieval interpreters suggested that these witnesses may be an allusion to Job’s friends (so Mes i udat David), and that is possible. Others, however, imagine that the witnesses are Job’s troubles, perhaps his constantly changing ailments (Rashi)—an interpretation that fnds support in Job’s own words later in 16:8. Te various afictions that come upon Job—his adversaries as well as his adversities—seem to bear witness to Job’s guilt. Te poet elaborates that God is increasing his “vexation” against Job (10:17b), no doubt meaning the deity’s punitive rage (Deut 32:19; 1 Kgs 15:30; 21:22; 2 Kgs 23:26; Ps 85:5). Job himself had indeed referred to his vexation, namely, his sufering (6:2). Now he charges that this vexation is something that God increases against him (v. 17b). Furthermore, Job had earlier suggested that life on earth is a term of hard service, א ָ ב ָ צ (7:1). Now he suggests that his term is in fact renewed (v. 10c), despite the fact that no charges have ever been leveled, no guilt proven. Job 11:8a Te MT’s םימשׁ יהבג, “the heights of heaven,” is supported by Aq. and the Tg., though to make sense of the text some variants of Tg. add the prefxed preposition ב (the bet essentiae) or כ, “as the heights of heaven.” 42 Te OG, however, has ὑψηλὸς ὁ οὐρανός, “heaven is high,” that is, Hebrew םימשׁ םיהבג or, presuming conservative orthography, םמש םהבג. Jerome reads sublimior est caelo, “he is more sublime than heaven,” but he renders with excelsior caelo est, “he is higher than heaven” in the Vg., as if reading םימשׁמ הבג. Te OG in fact refects both a haplography of ה and a misdivision of words, with the preposition ן ִ מ read incorrectly as the marker of the plural: םימשׁמ ההבג, “higher than heaven” > םימש םהבג, “high is heaven,” which Jerome partially “corrects” to םימשׁמ הבג. Te variant represented by the MT, Aq., and the Tg. may also have come from an original םמשׁמ ההבג: םמשׁמ ההבג > םמשׁמ הבג (haplo graphy of ה) > םימשׁמ םיהבג (introduction of matres to conform to later “standard”) > םימשׁמ יהבג “higher than heaven” (haplography of מ) > םימשׁ יהבג (haplography of מ due to similarity of the tops of מ and שׁ in the paleo-Hebrew script). Hence, I would read ם ֵ מ ָ שּׁ ִ מ ה ָ הֹב ְ גּ, “higher than the heavens,” 43 the (feminine singular) subject being תי ִ ל ְ כ ַ תּ in the preceding verse. Tis reading is in complete accord with לֹ א ְ שּׁ ִ מ ה ָ קּ ֻ מ ֲ ﬠ, “deeper than Sheol,” ץ ֶ ר ֶ א ֵ מ ה ָ כּ ֻ ר ֲ א, “longer than the earth,” and םָ י־י ִ נּ ִ מ ה ָ ב ָ ח ְ ר, “wider than the sea” (vv. 8a–9ab). Divine infnitude is expressed in four spatial terms (height, depth, length, and breadth) and four analogues (the heavens, the nether- world, the earth, and the sea) that together represent the extreme dimensions of the cosmos humans cannot attain. 42 See David M. Stec, Te Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (AGJU 20; Leiden/New York/: Brill, 1994), 76*. 43 So too Fedrizzi, Giobbe, 119. 74 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Job 14:19b Te MT ALB and most manuscripts have ָ הי ֶ חי ִ פ ְ ס, even though there is no obvious antecedent for the third person feminine singular sufx and none of the versions refects a sufx. Ms Kenn 99 has היחפס, while ms Kenn 248 reads החיפס, both par- tially representing a more conservative orthography than the MT. Te original is החפס. Most modern commentators believe that the MT’s ָ הי ֶ חי ִ פ ְ ס is an error for ה ָ פי ִ ח ְ ס, that is, with a metathesis of פ and ח. Te latter, ה ָ פי ִ ח ְ ס, unattested else- where in Hebrew, is thought to be related to ף ֵ חֹס (Prov 28:3; cf. also ף ַ ח ְ סִ נ in Jer 46:15), a participle for ףחס, “to wash away.” Widely cited as a cognate is Arabic sahiîfat, supposedly meaning “torrential rain,” though that meaning in Arabic is doubtful, 44 the word in question being confused with sahiîqat “torrential rain.” 45 Te verb sahiafa in Arabic means “to pare, peel, strip,” and it is never used of water. By contrast, Arabic safahia means “to pour our (water)” and the noun sāfhi means “pouring out.” 46 Te verb חפס basically means “to grow, add to, swell” (cf. ַ חי ִ פ ְ ס “outgrowth”), hence “to spill over.” Postbiblical Hebrew attests the verb ַ ח ֵ פּ ִ ס, which may refer to a river spilling over and casting out its alluvial soil (Gen. Rab. section 13). So the translation in Teod., ὕδατα ὕπτια, “upturned waters,” is appropriate, as are the translations of Symm. (τὰ παραλελειμμένα, “the deposits”) and the Vg., adluvione, “with a food (that deposits alluvial soil).” An original החפס solves the problem. III. Poetic Effects Te conservative orthography of Job allows for rich wordplays in many passages, as the following examples demonstrate. Job 3:8a Te MT has םוֹי־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א וּה ֻ ב ְ קִּ י, “let those who enchant day curse it,” a reading supported by all the versions. Ever since Hermann Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos, however, it has become common to note that the parallel line has ן ָ תָ י ְ ו ִ ל ר ֵ רֹע, “to rouse Leviathan,” to cite the association of Leviathan with Sea in the Bible (Pss 74:13–14; 104:25–26; Isa 27:1), and to emend םוֹי to םָ י. 47 Tis emendation gained support with the discovery of the Ugaritic tablets, where ym and ltn are a poetic 44 See David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 284–85. 45 Lane, 1318–19. 46 Ibid., 1369. 47 So already Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religions- geschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 and Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), 59, followed by Georg Beer, Der Text des Buches Hiob (Marburg: Elwert, 1895–97), 17–18. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 75 pair (CTU 1.5.I.1–3), and also some Jewish incantation texts from the Sassanian period that link the two sea monsters. 48 A few commentators, unwilling to emend, posit that yôm is in fact the Phoenician pronunciation for “Sea.” 49 Te parallels are so compelling in any case that even those who demur to the proposed asso- ciation of Job 3:8a with “sea” recognize that mythology must somehow lie in the background. 50 Te poet may be intentionally ambivalent, however. Assuming that the diph- thong was contracted in Job, one may surmise that the text originally had םי. Given the recurrence of the word “day” in the poem so far (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6) and given that at issue is the malediction against “day,” the reader is no doubt expected to interpret םי frst as “day” (םֹי). So םי־יררא would simply be understood to mean “those who enchant Day.” For the meaning of the expression םֹי־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א וּה ֻ ב ְ קִּ י, one may point frst to a tan- talizing parallel in a text from Hatra where the god Shahiru, according to Francesco Vattioni’s reading, invokes a spell “against the days” (Hatra 23:4). 51 Tis text is tantalizing, since Shahiru, Dawn in mythology, is a god of the netherworld, as we know from Emar (no. 369:24–25). 52 Indeed, ר ַ ח ַ שׁ (“dawn”) is mentioned in the very next line of our poem (v. 9). One might, therefore, understand םֹי־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א to refer not to human enchanters, putative sorcerers who were called upon to bring about an eclipse, as many have suggested, but to fallen astral deities who invoke spells to ensure eternal darkness. 53 Accordingly, םֹי־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א may be a wordplay with רוֹא, “light” (see v. 9b) and may, by paronomasia, recall the luminaries in the sky— “the shiners of day,” possibly a reference to the morning stars that also symbolize 48 See also Charles D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), texts 2, 6, 7. 49 Mitchell Dahood, “Northwest Semitic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,” in Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament: Méthode et théologie (ed. Carl Brekelmans et al.; BETL 33; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974), 74, followed by Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, 54–55. Similarly, Edward L. Greenstein (“Te Language of Job and Its Poetic Function,” JBL 122 [2003]: 655–54) imagines that the poet deliberately chose a Phoenician word for literary efect, namely, to give the book a foreign favor. 50 James Barr, “Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks, with Illustrations from Job,” in Brekelmans et al., Questions disputées de l’Ancien Testament, 57; Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology (SBLDS 34; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 36. 51 See Vattioni, Le iscrizioni de Hi atra (Istituto orientale di Napoli, Supplemento n. 28 agli Annali 41, fascicle 3; Naples: Istituto orientale di Napoli, 1981), 32. Te reading of התמי has been disputed, however, with some scholars reading התמז instead. See André Caquot, “Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes de Hatra,” Syria 40 (1963): 16; Basile Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 139; Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Gueth- ner, 1991), 20. 52 See Simon B. Parker, “Shahar רחשׁ,” DDD, 2nd ed., 754–55. 53 For a possible background for such curses, see Scott B. Noegel, “Job iii 5 in the Light of Mesopotamian Demons of Time,” VT 57 (2007): 556–62. 76 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) the astral deities, stars that are visible at dawn in the west—“over the sea.” Hence, one may take the line to mean, “let the shiners of day pierce it (the darkness of night),” an allusion to the outbreak of daylight, 54 only the poet means something much more ominous—the cursing of day: “let the shiners of day curse it.” Ten the poet will proceed in the next verse to wish for the morning stars themselves to be darkened, so that night will hope for light (רֹ א) but will not fnd it, and night will not see “the eyes of dawn” (ר ַ ח ַ שׁ). 55 Yet the parallel line, 3:8b, forces a rereading of the text, a move that poetry critic Barbara Herrnstein Smith dubs “retrospective patterning,” that is, the ret- rospective adjustment of interpretation as one progresses through a poem. 56 In the frst instance, one reads םֹי־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א וּה ֻ ב ְ קִּ י, “let the enchanters of day curse it,” the reading to which one is led on account of the recurrence of “day” so far in the poem. Cued by the second line, though, one adjusts to read םָ י־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א וּה ֻ ב ְ קִּ י, “let sea’s enchanters pierce it,” the םָ י־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א being the spell-casting allies of the sea monster—like “the helpers of Rahab” in 9:13, and like the spell-casting allies of Tiamat in the Enuma Elish. Te verb should be parsed now not as deriving from בבק, “to curse,” but from בקנ, “to pierce.” Te latter verb is used in Job 40:24, 26 precisely of the destruction of sea monsters. Whereas traditionally the monsters are supposed to be pierced, now these “enchanters of Sea” are the ones who pierce monstrifed night. Te parallel line has ן ָ תָ י ְ ו ִ ל ר ֵ רֹע םי ִ די ִ ת ֲ ﬠ ָ ה. Te term םי ִ די ִ ת ֲ ﬠ ָ ה apparently refers to those who are trained, perhaps in spells like those found in later Jewish magical texts, which, incidentally, also have Sea and Leviathan in parallelism. At the same time, if the orthography is conservative, the term recalls Isa 14:9, where ץ ֶ ר ָ א י ֵ דוּתּ ַ ﬠ are deceased heroes in the netherworld. Without the internal matres, the term in Job is ambivalent. It may refer, on the one hand, to human experts (ם ִ ד ִ ת ֲ ﬠ ָ ה) or, on the other, to the netherworldy heroes (ם ִ ד ֻ תּ ַ ﬠ ָ ה). As for the infnitive ר ֵ רֹע, “to rouse,” it echoes Isa 51:9, where the “arm of Yhwh” is roused to combat the chaos monsters. Yet in Job’s malediction, the chaos monster is to be roused, rather than suppressed. Just as םָ י־י ֵ ר ְ רֹ א וּה ֻ ב ְ קִּ י is ironic insofar as they who are to be pierced are doing the piercing, so ן ָ תָ י ְ ו ִ ל ר ֵ רֹע ם ִ ד ִ ת ֲ ﬠ ָ ה is ironic: that which is to be suppressed is roused instead. 54 So Edward Ullendorf, “Job III 8,” VT 11 (1961): 350–51. 55 םִ י ַ פּ ַ ﬠ ְ פ ַ ﬠ is a synonym of םִ י ַ ני ֵ ﬠ “eyes” (Pss 11:4; 132:4; Prov 4:25; 6:4; 30:13; Jer 9:17). Te last example, Jer 9:17, suggests that the word must mean “eye” rather than “eyelids” or “eyelashes” (and hence “fickering,” as ofen suggested) since tears fow from it. Properly, םִ י ַ ני ֵ ﬠ refers to eyes in their sockets, while םִ י ַ פּ ַ ﬠ ְ פ ַ ﬠ would be the whole—the eyes together with eyelids and eyelashes (םיפעפע רעישׂ in postbiblical Hebrew). Cf. Ugaritic, where pp is parallel to q, “eyeball” (CTU 1.14.III.43; 1.14.VI.30). In any case, the “eyes” here are celestial bodies, as also in Egyptian literature, where the sun and the moon are called “the eyes of heaven” (WÄS 1:107). 56 Smith, Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 10 and passim. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 77 Job 5:7a Te MT has ד ָ לּוּי ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ ְ ל ם ָ ד ָ א י ִ כּ. Te OG, Vg., Syr., and Tg. all assume a passive meaning for the verb, which Dhorme and others take to refect the niphal form ד ֵ ל ָ וּ ִ י. Many Hebrew manuscripts, however, have דלי, thus rendering the niphal impossible. Te qal or hophal passive (ד ַ לֻ י) is more likely, as is the hiphil, ד ִ לֹי. So the text may be read in two ways. First is the view refected in the tradi- tional interpretation of the text: “ם ָ ד ָ א is born to trouble.” 57 Indeed, Job argues in 3:10 that human beings are born to trouble, that is, to sufer. 58 Yet Eliphaz surely could not have meant that. He might have argued that humans are “born to trou- ble” in the sense that they are born to give trouble, born to sin. Tat would be in line with the traditional view going back to the so-called Sumerian Job: “Never has a sinless child been born to its mother.” 59 So the conceit ד ַ לֻ י ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ ְ ל ם ָ ד ָ א י ִ כּ leaves open the possibility that people who hold a common belief in the sovereignty of God may come to very diferent conclusions about the immediate cause of sufer- ing. Te ultimate source, both views afrm, is God. On the one hand, one might argue with Job that the ultimate cause of sufering is God, who brings human beings into the world to sufer (so 3:10). On the other hand, one might maintain with the exemplary-suferer texts from the ancient Near East that human beings inevitably fall short (so 4:17–18). Yet Eliphaz may not be conceding that God might be responsible afer all for bringing mortals to this world to sin. His argument is not that humans have been “born to trouble,” but that they are the ones who beget trouble: ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ ְ ל ם ָ ד ָ א י ִ כּ ד ִ לֹי. 60 Already in the preceding verse, Eliphaz argues that “ן ֶ ו ָ א does not grow from ר ָ פ ָ ﬠ, nor does ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ sprout from ה ָ מ ָ ד ֲ א.” He is explicating the doctrine of retribu- tion stated already in 4:8 that “those who plow ן ֶ ו ָ א and sow ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ reap the same.” Whereas ן ֶ ו ָ א and ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ are the acts of the farmer in 4:8, they are now the conse- quences of the acts. Te plant in this case, though, is a metaphor for humans, as indeed the verb דלי, “to birth,” suggests. Te mention of י ֵ נ ְ בּ in the parallel line corroborates this view as well. Tus, the ם ָ ד ָ א who causes birth, ד ִ לֹי, is implicitly 57 Tus all the ancient versions, also KJV, NIV, NRSV. Cf. also Die Einheitsübersetzung and TOB (Traduction oecuménique de la Bible). 58 So Norman C. Habel, Te Book of Job (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 132. 59 See Samuel Noah Kramer, “Man and His God: A Sumerian Variation on the ‘Job’ Motif,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley by the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum in Celebration of His Sixty-ffh Birthday, 24 March 1955 (ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Tomas; VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 176, 179 line 102. 60 In this case, the ל marks the object, as it does also in v. 2, שׂ ַ ﬠ ָ כּ־גֹר ֲ הַ י לי ִ ו ֱ א ֶ ל, “vexation kills the fool.” In 15:35, one reads about the impious “conceiving misery [ל ָ מ ָ ﬠ], birthing trouble [ן ֶ ו ָ א], their womb bringing about deceit.” 78 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) associated with the ף ֶ שׁ ֶ ר י ֵ נ ְ בּ, the issues of pestilence. 61 In other words, humans who generate trouble produce contagions. Once they produce trouble, trouble does not just remain with them. Rather, like the pollen that plants produce, the diseases of this pestilence endanger all those around them. Job 15:29b Te textual witnesses are in disarray. Te MT’s ם ָ לְ נ ִ מ is doubtful. It has been explained as derived from a unique noun, *minleh (so BDB), even though (1) there is no root nlw/y anywhere in Semitic, (2) one should expect the nun to be assimi- lated, and (3) the masculine plural sufx does not coordinate with the singular antecedent (see וֹלי ֵ ח in the preceding line). Te OG has σκιάν (“shadow”), which some scholars plausibly conjecture as refecting Hebrew ם ֶ ל ֶ צ. 62 Te Vg. has radi- cem suam (“his root”), which probably refects Hebrew םלצא, (literally, “roots”), a form remarkably close to the apparent reading of the OG, םלצ, though it is pos- sible that the OG is interpreting םלצא to mean the same as םלצ, that is, with a prothetic aleph. 63 Te Syriac translates the term as “words,” either reading ם ִ לּ ִ מ, or perhaps, ם ִ לְ נ ִ מ, assuming the nasalization of gemination that is common in Ara- maic morphology (though admittedly not for this noun). Te Tg. has “from them,” probably refecting Hebrew םל ןמ, literally, “from [what is] theirs.” Tus, it appears that there are two variants—םלנמ (so MT and probably Tg. and Syr.) and םלצא (so Vg. and probably OG). Most recent commentators take the consonantal text of the MT at face value but assume a noun, *mānōl, a cognate of Arabic manāl, “possession,” 64 hence *ם ָ לֹ נ ְ מ, 61 Resheph, the god of pestilence in Canaan, is typically portrayed in texts and iconography as an archer. In a Phoenician inscription from Kition, one fnds the epithet ršp hi si , “Resheph of the Arrows” (KAI 32:3, 4). Pertinent, too, is a Ugaritic incantation mentioning bl his i , [ršp], “the lord of the arrows, [Resheph],” the arrows being a reference to deadly diseases that this demon shoots into one’s vital organs (CTU 1.82.2). Psalm 91:5 speaks of “the arrows that fy by day,” and since that line is juxtaposed with the threats personifed Plague (ר ֶ ב ֶ דּ) and Disease (ב ֶ ט ֶ ק), the arrows are to be understood as an allusion to Resheph’s weapon of choice. In Deut 32:23–24, famine, ravaging pestilence (ף ֶ שׁ ֶ ר י ֵ מ ֻ ח ְ ל), and disease are among the arrows sent by the deity. Elsewhere, too, ףשׁר is simply “arrow” (so Ps 76:4; Song 8:6), perhaps meaning the efects of pestilence. Tus, ף ֶ שׁ ֶ ר י ֵ נ ְ בּ may mean “issues of Resheph,” that is arrows or indeed anything that is shot into the air. Since “arrows” may be a metaphor for one’s progeny (Ps 124:4-5), ף ֶ שׁ ֶ ר י ֵ נ ְ בּ may refer to the deadly issues of pestilence, perhaps diseases in the air (cf. Tg. Onq. Deut 32:24, where ףשׁר “pestilence” is rendered by ףוע, as here in Job). A fragment of a wisdom text from Qumran speaks תומ [י]פשׁר, deadly pestilences that fy about (4QBéat, frag. 15, line 5). 62 So Adalbert Merx, Das Gedicht von Hiob (Jena: Mauke, 1871), 72–73; Beer, Der Text des Buches Hiob, 96. 63 Te addition of the possessive pronoun in the Vg. is merely to clarify the sense of the text; it does not necessarily indicate a sufx in its Vorlage. 64 Cf. also Sabaean mnlt, “possession” (so Joan Copeland Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect [HSS 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982], 304). Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 79 literally, “their possession.” 65 Te third person plural sufx, however, is awkward, for there is no appropriate antecedent and most translators simply ignore the plu- ral meaning in the Hebrew and translate the sufx as “his” (so NIV, NAB, NJPS). It is better to read *ם ִ לֹ נ ְ מ, “possessions,” the plural ending being supported by ms Kenn 145 , which has םילנמ. Te majority form, םלנמ, simply refects the original conservative orthography. One might posit that םלצא is a genuine variant of ם ִ לֹ נ ְ מ. Te noun לצא, taken by Jerome to mean “root,” may also mean “property, assets” in Nabatean and Arabic. 66 Assuming Nabatean and Arabic asil as a cognate, then, one might vocalize the Hebrew in the Vorlage of the Vg. (and OG?) as ם ִ ל ָ צ ֲ א, again, assuming the conservative orthography of the original. 67 Taking both variants to have the same meaning, “possessions,” we understand Eliphaz to mean that the wicked man, whose wealth will not endure, will not be able to bring his temporary advantage to bear in his fnal destination, the nether- world. Indeed Eliphaz says it with verve—ץ ֶ ר ָ א ָ ל . . . אֹל ְ ו . . . וֹלי ֵ ח . . . אֹל ְ ו . . . אֹל— with all the negatives leading eventually to ץ ֶ ר ֶ א, the netherworld. Te same point is made in Ps 49:15–21, namely, that the wicked may be wealthy but their wealth is but temporary; they can take none of it with them when they die. Talk of the netherworld brings Eliphaz back to his earlier point about the dark destination from which the wicked would not turn (ך ֶ שֹׁח י ִ נּ ִ מ, v. 30a; see also v. 22a). Employing an arboreal metaphor, he speaks of devastation by blight (v. 30b). If one reads ם ִ ל ָ צ ֲ א in v. 29b, that arboreal metaphor has been anticipated at the end of the previous verse, for that term means not just “possessions” but also “roots.” Indeed, in light of v. 30, one might retrospectively repattern, that is, reconsider the levels of signifcation in the preceding verse. Accordingly, v. 29b means not only that the wicked cannot spread his possessions to the netherworld; he will not take his wealth with him when he dies. It also means that “he will not extend roots to the earth” (ץרא); that is, he will not be deeply rooted (cf. Eliphaz’s metaphor of rootage in 5:3). Te arboreal metaphor recalls as well Job’s conceit that there is hope for a tree, since even when it is cut down it may still regener- ate at the mere scent of water so that “its shoot will not cease” (14:7). But Eliphaz is less sanguine about the tree than Job. Eliphaz associates the wicked with this metaphorical tree, the wicked whose roots are his possessions: “heat will dry up its shoot” (v. 30b). 65 Giovanni Pettinato called attention to the occurrence of ma-ni-lum as a gloss of Sumerian ÁB, “cattle,” in a lexical text from Ebla, which prompted him to interpret “cow” as pecunia and ma-ni-lum as “possession.” See his Ebla: Un impero inciso nell’argilla (Saggi 126; Milan: Mondadori, 1969), 262, where he reads םלנמ in Job 15:29 as ם ִ לִ נ ְ מ. He is followed recently by Gianantonio Borgonovo, La notte e di il suo sole: luce e tenebre nel Libro di Giobbe (AnBib 135; Rome: Pontifcal Biblical Institute, 1995), 241. 66 See DNSWI, 1:99; Lane, 64–65. 67 Cf. Gustav Hölscher (Das Buch Hiob [HAT 17; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1952], 39) and Jean Steinmann (Le livre de Job [LD 16; Paris: Cerf, 1955], 29), who read םילצא. 80 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Job 16:14 Job describes God’s relentless attack on him, as if such a puny mortal as he were a mighty fortress. And that relentlessness is conveyed by the repetition of the root ץרפ, “to breach”: ץרפ־ינפ־לע ץרפ ינצרפי. Te beginning of the next line of the couplet, however, fnds the deity charging (ץרי) as a warrior. Te repeated bilabial p opens to a glide, y, thus graphically (and phonologically) representing the eventual breach that spells the end of Job: ץרי . . . ץרפ . . . ץרפ . . . ץרפ. Te conservative spelling of ץרי (as opposed to ץוּרָ י) enhances the poetry. Job is here taking issue with Eliphaz, who has accused the wicked of playing the warrior (ר ַ בּ ַ גּ ְ תִ י, 15:25) and charging against God (15:26, וי ָ ל ֵ א ץוּרָ י). To Job, however, the hostility was initiated by God the enemy—an aggression directed at the innocent no less. Job 17:11 Tere are a couple of wordplays in this verse, which reads, according to the MT ALB : י ִ ב ָ ב ְ ל י ֵ שׁ ָ רוֹמ / וּק ְ תִּ נ י ַ תֹ מִּ ז / וּר ְ ב ָ ﬠ י ַ מָ י. Te noun ישׁרומ is presumably derived from the root שׁרא, “to desire”: *maraš > *māraš > *mōraš > môrāš. Te noun is a hapax legomenon in Hebrew, but בל ישׁרומ has a parallel in Standard Babylonian mēreš libbi, “desire of the heart.” 68 As such, יבבל ישׁרומ parallels י ַ תֹ מִּ ז, which may be understood to mean “my wants.” 69 Te OG, however, has τὰ ἄρθρα τῆς καρδίας μου, “the strings of my heart,” refecting Hebrew י ִ ב ָ ב ְ ל י ֵ שׁ ְ ר ַ מ, where the frst noun is cognate to Akkadian maršu, “thongs, straps,” and Syriac maršā, “rope.” Tis is the interpretation of Saadiah. Te Syriac has mwbdy, “those who destroy,” refecting Hebrew י ֵ שּׁ ִ ר ְ מ (from שׁשׁר, “to crush”), which again refects conservative orthography, ישׁרמ. Te Tg.’s lwhiy lby, “tablets of my heart,” is probably a later misinterpretation of earlier lhiy lby “those who destroy my heart,” which is a translation of יבבל ישׁרמ (interpreted as י ִ ב ָ ב ְ ל י ֵ שּׁ ִ ר ְ מ), and the Vg. torquentes cor meum may be explained similarly. Tus, apart from the MT, all the versions read ישׁרמ. Tis is indeed the reading in fve manuscripts. If one reads י ִ ב ָ ב ְ ל י ֵ שׁ ְ ר ַ מ, the noun י ַ תֹ מִּ ז may also be interpreted to mean “my ties,” the root םמז being attested in Aramaic with the meaning “to tie up, muzzle.” 70 68 See CAD 10, M/2, 26. 69 See 31:11, where ה ָ מִּ ז has to do with desire for a woman. A related noun is ם ָ מְ ז in Ps 140:9, where וֹמ ָ מְ ז,“his wants,” is juxtaposed with ע ָ שׁ ָ ר י ֵ יּ ַ ו ֲ א ַ מ, “desires of the wicked.” 70 So Napthali H. Tur-Sinai (Te Book of Job: A New Commentary [rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1967], 281-82), who follows a cue from Ibn Ezra, for which see Mariano Gómez Aranda, El Comentario de Abraham Ibn Ezra al Libro de Job (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científcas, Instituto de Filología, 2004), 139. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 81 Te spelling of ישׁרמ facilitates a wordplay, for one may interpret it to mean either י ֵ שׁ ָ רֹ מ or י ֵ שׁ ְ ר ַ מ. 71 Indeed, one may capture the double entendre by translating ישׁרמ as “reins.” On the one hand, “reins” (י ֵ שׁ ָ רֹ מ) refers to one’s desires or inten- tions. On the other hand, the verb “snapped” evokes another meaning of the noun “reins,” that is, “cords” (י ֵ שׁ ְ ר ַ מ). Job’s intentions are snapped like cords. I cannot resist adding the observation that this triplet consists of three very short lines coming one afer another in staccato fashion, the terseness of the lines perhaps representing the shortening of Job’s life. Te structure of the triplet mirrors the triplet in v. 1, which also concerns the attenuation of life. In each case, the third line is without a verb—an incomplete sentence that mimics the loss of life. Job 20:23 Te stanza in 20:12–23 reaches a crescendo in the last verse with an impre- cation against the wicked. Te subject of the jussive verb in the frst line of v. 23 is ambiguous. 72 On the one hand, the repetition of the verb אלמ, “to be full,” in vv. 22–23 suggests that either “abundance” or “misery” may be the subject of the verb: “Let it be for the flling of his belly.” On the other hand, the subject may be the “ferce anger” mentioned in the parallel line. Te hand of misery that will press upon the bloated glutton (v. 22) is a manifestation of divine anger (v. 23). God’s intervention in working out the doctrine of retribution has been suggested already in v. 15b, when God purges the stomach of the wicked for the wickedness it has consumed. Here, though, the wicked does not simply throw up (v. 15a). Te poet depicts the already-sated glutton being further force-fed, as divine wrath is set against him, or indeed, “in him” (וֹבּ). Tere is irony as well in this unwelcome divine feeding, for the text speaks of someone, presumably God, raining upon the wicked (v. 23c). Te MT ALB has ומוחלב ומילע רטמיו in v. 23c, but many manuscripts have the more conservative orthography, ומחלב instead of ומוחלב. Te OG has ὀδύ- νας, “pains,” refecting םלבח (ם ִ ל ָ ב ֲ ח, see 21:17), taking the waw at the end with the next line (καὶ οὐ μὴ σωθῇ = Hebrew חרביו). Tis reading corroborates the omis- sion of the internal waw mater. Te Vg. has bellum suum, “his war,” and the Syr. reads bqrbtnwth, “with warlike strength.” Both versions derive םחל from root םחל I, “to be hostile, fght,” whereas the Tg. has “fesh, body,” assuming ם ֻ ח ְ ל. Te medi- eval commentators are similarly split, with Saadiah, Rashi, and Mesi udat David assuming “war” or the like (i.e., םחל I) and Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Ramaq, and Ralbag 71 In fact, one suspects that the spelling י ֵ שׁ ָ רֹ מ instead of the proper form י ֵ שׁ ָ ר(א)ֹ מ is deliberate—to facilitate the wordplay. 72 Some critics take י ִ הְ י to be an anomalous imperfect and cite the same form in Job 18:12 as another example. Te latter, though, is not an imperfect but a preterite form. Te jussive in 20:23 is in fact corroborated by ר ֵ ט ְ מַ י in the parallel line. 82 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) assuming “food” or fesh.” Modern translations are divided along the same lines. Te NRSV has “as food,” NJB “his fesh,” NKJV “while he is eating” (i.e., וֹמֹח ְ ל ִ בּ), and NIV “his blows” (so REB: “cruel blows”; NAB: “missiles of war”). In short, ancient, medieval, and modern interpreters presume either םחל I, “to be hostile, fght,” or םחל II, “to eat.” On the one hand, the references to con- sumption in the immediate context prompt one to take םחל as “food.” Tis inter- pretation is reinforced by the juxtaposition of the רי ִ ט ְ מ ִ ה and ם ֶ ח ֶ ל in Exod 16:4. Furthermore, ומחלב echoes ומחל in v. 14, where food is a metaphor for wicked- ness. 73 On the other hand, hostility is suggested by the sending of anger against the wicked, and this meaning is confrmed by the image of the savage combat in the next verse. Accordingly, we may take םחל as a cognate to Arabic lihiām, “hand-to hand fghting, brawl.” 74 Te original orthography, ומחלב, facilitates the allusion to Exodus 16, but the secondary introduction of the waw mater diminishes the allusion. In Zophar’s poetry, God’s action against the wicked is as much divine providence as God’s giving of food in the wilderness. God’s hostility is the “food” that the wicked do not want, but this divine providence from on high is just what the voracious wicked must “eat.” Job 20:28 Zophar has been concerned in this stanza of the poem with the fnal destiny of the wicked (vv. 24-27). He has just spoken of heaven revealing the ofenses of the wicked (v. 27a), as if it were a hostile witness. Te earth, too, rises up like a hostile witness against the wicked (v. 27b). Te two cosmic entities, heaven and earth, together provide the legally required minimum number of witnesses for a verdict (Deut 19:15). Here Zophar is perhaps satirizing Job’s appeal to earth in 16:18 and his conviction in 16:19 that his witness is in heaven. 75 In Zophar’s scenario, though, these cosmic witnesses will attest to the guilt of the wicked, and the consequence of that twin testimony is laid out in v. 28. Te frst word of the couplet in v. 28 (MT ל ֶ ג ִ י) echoes the frst word of the preceding couplet (וּלּ ַ ג ְ י). Tus one is impelled to read v. 28a as the MT has it, ל ֶ ג ִ י וֹתי ֵ בּ לוּבְ י, “let one expose the produce of his house,” which is a way of saying “let the wealth of his house be exposed.” Te sentiment is similar to what Eliphaz has expressed (5:5), namely, that the produce generated by the wicked will be exposed to seizure by others (cf. Deut 28:33). Just as the wicked seize from others what is not rightfully theirs (20:19), so what is theirs will be seized by others. Heaven’s 73 See Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job (JSOTSup 223; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1996), 68. 74 See Manfred Ullmann, Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972), 2/1:368. 75 Tus John C. Holbert, “ ‘Te Skies Will Uncover His Iniquity’: Satire in the Second Speech of Zophar (Job XX),” VT 31 (1981): 177. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 83 exposure (וּלּ ַ ג ְ י) of the ofenses of the wicked (v. 27) will lead to the exposure (ל ֶ ג ִ י) of the wealth of the wicked (v. 28). Yet the parallel line, with its reference to tor- rents (תוֹר ָ גּ ִ נ), 76 cues a retrospective adjustment of one’s interpretation of the frst line. In view of תוֹר ָ גּ ִ נ, one should take לובי, or rather its likely original לבי (so ms Kenn 240 ), to mean “food” (ל ֶ בֵ י/ל ֶ בֶ י). 77 Te retrospective adjustment also entails a rereading of לגי, which one may now vocalize as לֹ ג ָ י, thus, וֹתי ֵ בּ ל ֶ בֶ י לֹ ג ָ י, “let a food roll away his house.” 78 Te “house” that is now rolled away recalls the “house” seized by the wicked (v. 19b), who have crushed the poor (v. 19a, see also v. 10). Given the recurring charge of injustice on the part of the wicked in this poem, one might recall as well the exhortation of the prophet Amos: ט ָ פּ ְ שׁ ִ מ םִ י ַ מּ ַ כּ ל ַ גּ ִ י ְ ו, “and let justice sweep away like waters” (Amos 5:24). Indeed, ms di Rossi 552 has ל ַ גּ ִ י, which some commentators favor, 79 a reading intended to link this text with Amos. In retrospect, this interpretation is indeed proper, for not only does Zophar speak of the crushing of the poor, as Amos did, but the stanza is in fact concerned with the inevitable end of the wicked, for the wicked would escape one weapon directed at them only to be struck by another that will prove fatal (vv. 24–25), a trope we fnd in Amos 5:19. For Zophar, though, the house of the wicked—they who have seized the house of others—will be rolled away. Te wicked will receive retribu- tion like for like. IV. Postscript Reflections Te evidence for conservative orthography in the book of Job is far more extensive than Freedman has shown. One need not agree with Freedman, though, that the text is genuinely archaic. Te orthography in fact proves nothing of the book’s provenance. Rather, the text may be conservative for a literary reason: to give the impression of a story from long ago and far away. Be that as it may, a hypothesis of a conservatively spelled original helps resolve a number of text- critical difculties in the book. Moreover, the conservative orthography proves in many instances to serve a poetic function. Tis orthography allows homographic 76 Te form תוֹר ָ גּ ִ נ, a hapax legomenon in Hebrew, is usually said to be from רגנ, “to fow, spill,” though there are no cognates in other Semitic languages. It may rather have been secondarily derived from the niphal of ררג, “to sweep away, pull away” (Prov 21:7; Hab 1:15). Cf. Arabic jarra, “pull, drag,” ofen associated with the fow of water” (Lane, 399–402). 77 Te noun is known in Biblical Hebrew only in the construct form םִ י ַ מ י ֵ ל ְ בִ י, “water channels,” in Isa 30:25; 44:4; Sir 50:8, but cf. also ל ַ בוּי, “stream” // םִ י ַ מ, “water” in Jer 17:8). Targumic Aramaic attests א ָ ל ְ בִ י, Syriac yablā. See Noegel, Janus Parallelism in Job, 72–73. 78 So Hölscher, Das Buch Hiob, 51; Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, 326; Fedrizzi, Giobbe, 165; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, Job, 376. 79 Tus by Merx (Das Gedicht von Hiob, 104–5); and Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel (7 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908–14), 6: 264. 84 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) wordplays in addition to the numerous homophonic ones that scholars have long noticed. Poetry in Job, it seems, is written not only for the ear. It is written as well for the eye. It is “visual poetry.” 80 Tis conceit of Joban poetry as “visual” has implications far beyond homo- graphic wordplays. 81 If Job is “visual poetry,” one might also consider other possi- ble visual pla ys in the book. To illustrate another type of visual play, one might cite Elihu’s reference to the salvifc nature of sufering: םָ נ ְ ז ָ א ץ ַ ח ַ לּ ַ בּ ל ֶ ג ִ י ְ ו / וֹי ְ נ ָ ﬠ ְ ב י ִ נ ָ ﬠ ץ ֵ לּ ַ חְ י, “(God) rescues the aficted from their afiction / he opens their ears through sufering” (36:15). Irony is highlighted in a visual play between the verb “rescue” (ץלח) and the noun for sufering (ץחל). Visually the frst two radicals mirror each other. Te point is that sufering may, ironically, be the mirror image of rescue. One might consider as well the visual efects of lineation, as I have implied in my observations above about the staccato-like lines of 17:1, 11. Or one might contemplate the visual efects of stanzaic structures or lack thereof, as in the concentration of triplets and the structural orderliness of 3:3–10, which contrasts with the absence of triplets and the lack of order in 3:11–26, as if the call for the return to chaos in the malediction has indeed come to pass. A further implication of this claim of visuality in Joban poetry, which is not to deny its aurality but to highlight the frequent need for rearticulation of the words and retrospective adjustment of understanding as one reads along, is that the persistent claim of Job as a drama—whether a tragedy or a comedy— will not hold, if by “drama” one means a script composed for public performance. Moreover, visual poetry in Job constantly demands interpretive decisions on the part of the reader—decisions that, once made, may yet be questioned again and revised. Translations inevitably limit the expression of such poetry, for every translation commits one to a single interpretation, usually at the expense of whatever ambiguities may indeed be part and parcel of poetry. Translations do not accommodate retrospective adjustments. By the same token, the marking of vowels, whether through the introduction of matres or vowel points, limits the full play of poetry. Te masoretes and the translators of the versions may well have been aware of the poetic plays, but their vowels and translations commit them to only one interpretation. Te versions do occasionally retain double readings, for example, OG (9:3; 32:16), Syr. (4:21; 15:26; 19:27), Vg. (20:25), or Tg. (20:10), not to mention the frequent multiple readings of the Tg. Rather than being thoughtless 80 See Eleanor Berry, “Visual Poetry,” in Te New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 1364–66. 81 On “visual wordplays,” see Scott B. Noegel, “Wordplay in the Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur,” Acta Sumerologica 18 (1996): 169–86; Gary Rendsburg, “Word Play in Biblical Hebrew: An Eclectic Collection,” in Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (ed. Scott B. Noegel; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2000), 137–61. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 85 combinations of variants, as text-critics are wont to assume, confate texts may sometimes indicate recognition of double meanings. For the modern reader, then, the fullest delight in reading Joban poetry can be attained only through an open-minded conversation with the text and its many interpreters. And this reading begins with an introduction to the man whose name is, as the original orthography of the book would have had it, ביא—בֹיּ ִ א, one who has sufered hostility. Or is his name בֵ יֹ א? Tis question the reader will struggle to determine as the story is played out. The Apostolic Fathers An Introduction Wilhelm Pratscher, ed. “Essential reading for anybody interested in the origins and development of earliest Christianity.“ – Paul Foster, School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh Now Available / 978-1-60258-308-5 / $39.95 / Paper Inventing Authority The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist Esther Chung-Kim “A thoughtful and important study. Chung-Kim’s treatment of the Calvin-Westphal debate is especially to be commended.” – Irena Backus, Université de Genève, Institut d’histoire de la Réformation March 15, 2011 / 978-1-60258-213-2 / $49.95 / Cloth Luke A Handbook on the Greek Text Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Mikeal C. Parsons, Martin M. Culy, and Joshua J. Stigall “This handbook offers ample discussion of almost every translational possibility without the overwhelming technical jargon. An excellent tool.” – C. Kavin Rowe, Duke Divinity School Now Available / 978-1-60258-291-0 / $49.95 / Paper 1 Peter A Handbook on the Greek Text Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Mark Dubis “For forty years we have been in need of an up-to-date analysis of the grammar and syntax of 1 Peter, and Dubis provides just that. “ – Scot McKnight, North Park University Now Available / 978-1-932792-62-1 / $24.95 / Paper B AY L O R UNI V E R S I T Y P R E S S baylorpress.com / BECOME A FAN. @Baylor_Press Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation? jason gile [email protected] Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187 Scholars have long recognized that in Ezekiel 16 the prophet draws on the harlotry metaphor of his prophetic predecessors to indict Jerusalem for its idola- try and foreign relations. 1 Moshe Greenberg, for example, described Ezekiel’s expansion of this common motif when he noted, “By extending the metaphor in time, Ezekiel provides the adulterous wife of Hosea and Jeremiah with a biogra- phy.” 2 However, commentators have thus far failed to notice that the building blocks A version of this article was presented in the Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel Section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans, November 23, 2009. I wish to thank Daniel Block and Michael Lyons for offering comments on an earlier draft. 1 See, e.g., Keith W. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets: A Study of Ezekiel’s Place in Prophetic Tradition (SBT 2/31; London: SCM, 1975), 49; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. Ronald E. Clements; 2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 1:342; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Com2men- tary (AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 298; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Dal- las: Word Books, 1994), 247; Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBLDS 130; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 61; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel, vol. 1, Kapitel 1–19 (ATD 22.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 223; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, vol. 1, Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 466. This is not to imply that the biblical prophets share a single, coherent “marriage metaphor” (see Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel [Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], 6), but only that Ezekiel’s harlot imagery has prophetic antecedents. On this, along with my position on the sex- ual and marital imagery that has dominated the discussion of Ezekiel 16 in recent years, see my review of Moughtin-Mumby’s monograph in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009), online: http://www.jhsonline.org. 2 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 299. JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 87–108 87 of the oracle are found in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43). 3 In this essay I will argue that Ezekiel’s depiction of Israel in ch. 16 (chiefly section A, vv. 1–43) 4 rep- resents a prophetic transformation of the rise and decline of Israel depicted in the Song, whereby he adopts the structure and themes of Deuteronomy 32 and infuses them with the prophetic motif of harlotry. 5 I begin the investigation by outlining the thematic, lexical, and structural links between the two passages and then more explicitly discuss criteria for establishing literary dependence. In the subsequent sections I address the following questions: Could Ezekiel have known and used the Song? Is it likely that he would have known and used the Song? Did he in fact use the Song elsewhere in his prophetic book? And is it likely that he would have used the Song in the way proposed in this essay? Finally, I mention numerous ways in which Ezekiel uniquely builds on and trans- forms his underlying text and then conclude by addressing the rhetorical import of Ezekiel’s use of the Song. I. Plot Structure and Thematic Links Ezekiel 16 and Deuteronomy 32 display remarkable similarities of plot and themes, the full extent of which has not been fully noted. The two texts exhibit vir- tually identical plot structures, both depicting the rise and decline of Yhwh’s peo- ple. In both, (a) Yhwh discovers destitute Israel in a barren location; (b) he delivers her and renders lavish care upon her so that (c) she prospers; (d) Israel in her pros- perity forsakes Yhwh; (e) she pursues other gods and (f) forgets her origins, thereby (g) provoking Yhwh to anger; (h) Israel is punished for her sins; and finally, (i) Israel is restored. Several verbal parallels, synonyms, and rare motifs found in the two passages at the same point in the plot make it unlikely that these similarities are coincidental. The two texts also share similar formal features. Though Ezekiel 16 may be properly considered a rîb (“dispute”) 6 and Deuteronomy 32 a šîr (“song, hymn”), 7 the latter nevertheless contains strong rîb elements, including an indict- ment (vv. 15–18) and sentence (vv. 19–29). 8 3 The possibility of thematic links between Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses was brought to my attention by Daniel Block in personal conversation. 4 On the tripartite arrangement of Ezekiel 16 (vv. 1–43, 44–58, and 59–63, labeled sections A, B, and C), see Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 292–96. 5 In this article I use “Deuteronomy 32” as a shorthand for Deut 32:1–43, which constitutes the Song of Moses. 6 See Block, Ezekiel, 1:459–62. 7 See section IV below. 8 This is evidenced by many earlier scholars’ identification of Deuteronomy 32 as a rîb (see esp. G. Ernest Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg [ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962], 26–67). 88 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Before considering the links in detail, a few comments are necessary by way of preface. First, the texts exhibit some fundamental differences in imagery, and Ezekiel’s oracle is fuller and more detailed at certain points. Most of these differ- ences are due to the liberty with which the prophet expands and transforms the Song. The particulars of Ezekiel’s transformation will be taken up later, but in what follows I will focus on the thematic links and parallel plot structures, while recog- nizing, for example, that the harlot imagery is lacking in Deuteronomy 32. Second, criteria for establishing literary dependence and its direction will be discussed below in section II. It is to be noted in advance only that the case for literary dependence across entire pericopes involves a cumulative argument. The persua- siveness of individual parallels would vary on a scale of possibility to probability when considered separately. When taken together, however, and in the close prox- imity of two well-defined passages, numerous distinctive parallels in combination can make a compelling case for literary dependence. A. YHWH’s Discovery of Israel (Deut 32:10 // Ezek 16:6) The accounts of Israel’s history with her God begin with Yhwh finding des- titute Israel in a barren location. In Ezekiel 16 the prophet depicts Jerusalem’s ori- gins with the image of an infant cast aside by her parents and later rescued from dire straits and cared for by Yhwh. In vv. 5–6 Yhwh passes by (l( rb() the infant and sees (h)r) her destitute in an open field (hd#). The Song similarly describes Yhwh’s discovery of Israel in a barren location. In Deut 32:10 he finds ()cm) Jacob in a desert land (rbdm) and encircles (bbs) him (in this case using masculine pro- nouns 9 ). Though Ezekiel prefaces the discovery of the foundling with a “biogra- phy,” to which we will return below, in both texts the discovery marks the start of Israel’s relationship with her God Yhwh. Though Ezekiel does not adopt the exact same language in this instance, the terms hd# and rbdm in the Bible have overlapping semantic domains, as evidenced by those passages where they occur together, as synonyms or in parallel poetic lines (Josh 8:24; Job 24:5–6; Isa 43:19–20; Joel 1:19–20; 2:22). 10 The verbs h)r and )cm are also conceptually similar, as is illustrated in Hos 9:10 where the two verbs occur in parallel in a context nearly identical to our passages, namely, in reference to Yhwh finding Israel. 9 Adjustment of person, number, and gender for both verbal subjects and objects is a com- mon feature of inner-biblical literary borrowing, since later authors change the language to fit a new context (see Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 507; New York: T&T Clark, 2009], 79). In the present case, Ezekiel 16 has Yhwh speak in the first person to Jerusalem, who is addressed in the second person. In the Song a narrator speaks of both Yhwh and Israel with third person pro- nouns. 10 Meir Malul, “Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1–7,” JSOT 46 (1990): 103. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 89 Like grapes in the wilderness, I found [)cm]Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree in its first season, I saw [h)r]your fathers. (Hos 9:10) Though it is unlikely that Ezekiel is dependent on Hosea here, since the imagery of the latter focuses on Yhwh finding Israel “like grapes” and “like the first fruit on the fig tree,” instead of like a destitute foundling rescued and cared for as in Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, 11 Hos 9:10 wonderfully shows the semantic overlap of )cm and h)r in a similar context and thus demonstrates that both verbs can be used to refer to a discovery. Since the foundling or discovery motif (Fundmotiv) for Israel’s relationship to Yhwh appears only in Ezekiel 16 and Deuteronomy 32 in the Hebrew Bible, 12 one might reasonably propose influence from Deuteronomy 32 on Ezek 16:6 alone. Thus, contra Hermann Gunkel’s hypothesis that Ezekiel draws the motif from a common folktale type, 13 it is argued here—in conjunction with the prophet’s wider dependence on Deuteronomy 32 noted next—that he appropriates it from the Song of Moses. A few scholars have noted the similar image in these two passages, 14 but Millar Burrows came closest to the thesis presented here when he observed that “[Ezekiel] seems to combine the thought of [the foundling in] Dt 32 with [Hosea’s] conception of Jerusalem as a girl tenderly reared by Yahweh.” 15 However, uncer- tain of the priority of these two texts, Burrows refrained from conclusively decid- ing that Ezekiel is dependent on the Song and did not recognize parallels beyond the discovery and care of Israel. Greenberg intimated a further connection when he noted that the foundling motif functions in the same way in both the Song and Ezekiel 16, namely, “to start the account of God’s relation to his people with a sit- uation best designed to enhance his beneficence toward them and illustrate his providential and tender care of them,” 16 but scholars have not recognized the full 11 It is more likely that Hosea is also dependent on Deut 32:10, borrowing the notion of finding Israel in the wilderness, but he takes it in a different direction. 12 Psalm 27:10 speaks of YHWH’s adoption of the petitioner but not of a discovery. 13 Hermann Gunkel, The Folktale in the Old Testament (trans. M. D. Rutter; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship; Sheffield: Almond, 1987), 128–31; trans. of Das Märchen im Alten Testament (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher 2; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1917). Green- berg earlier presented a persuasive critique of this hypothesis (Ezekiel 1–20, 300–301). 14 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 299; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:336; idem, Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 23. Though scholars debate the exact referent of Ezekiel’s foundling metaphor in Israel’s history (see, e.g., Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 236–37; Thomas Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch [BZAW 180; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 184), the similarity in the metaphorical vehicle alone can suggest literary borrowing. 15 Millar Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Soci- ety Press, 1925), 23. 16 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 299–300. 90 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) extent of the distinctive thematic and plot parallels that continue throughout the two passages. B. YHWH’s Lavish Care (Deut 32:10b–14 // Ezek 16:7–13a) In both passages, after discovering Israel, Yhwh rescues her and renders lav- ish care upon her. In Ezek 16:7a, Yhwh recounts: “I made you flourish like a plant of the field, and you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment.” And after Yhwh passed by a second time 17 and entered into a covenant with the young girl by passing his garment over her, he brought her from rags to riches: I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and provided you with san- dals of fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with fine fabric. And I adorned you with jewelry and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beau- tiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and fine fabric and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. (Ezek 16:9–13a) Similarly, in the Song of Moses, Yhwh tenderly cares for Jacob and provides him with the finest things. . . . he cared for him; he protected him as the apple of his eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that hovers over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, Yhwh alone guided him; no foreign god was with him. He enabled him to ride on the high places of the land, and he ate of the produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock. Butter from the herd, and milk from the flock, with the fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the finest of the wheat— and from the juice of the grapes you drank wine. (Deut 32:10b–14) 17 Greenberg claims that this is an adjustment to the exodus tradition, whereby the inter- mediate period refers to Israel’s time in Egypt, when it grew, waiting for Yhwh’s redemption (Ezekiel 1–20, 301). However, the second passing may be necessary for the metaphorical vehicle, since one cannot marry an infant (also contra the motive of Yhwh suggested by Linda Day, “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence in Ezekiel 16,” BibInt 8 [2000]: 208–9). Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 91 The most fascinating verbal parallel between these two passages is found at this point in the story in Deut 32:11 and Ezek 16:8, namely, the phrase Pnk #rp. In Deuteronomy 32, Yhwh’s care for Israel is portrayed as an eagle spreading (#rp) its wings (Pnk) over its young; in Ezekiel 16, when Yhwh enters into a marriage covenant with Jerusalem, he spreads (#rp) his garment (Pnk) over her. While spreading a garment over a woman undoubtedly refers to acquiring her in mar- riage (cf. Ruth 3:9), 18 if Ezekiel is drawing from Deuteronomy 32, then the phrase also represents an allusion to Deut 32:11—a double entendre of sorts. Not only do the two Pnk #rp statements appear in the same section of the plot, but both also occur immediately after the )cm/h)r and bbs/l( rb( word pairs (Deut 32:10a // Ezek 16:8a) and are followed by the extended descriptions of Yhwh’s lavish care (Deut 32:12–14 // Ezek 16:9–13). This section of the plot witnesses another significant verbal parallel. As Georg Fohrer has pointed out, in the context of Yhwh’s care both passages speak of Israel eating honey and oil. 19 Deut 32:13 He ate the produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey [#bd] out of the rock, and oil [Nm#] out of the flinty rock. Ezek 16:13 (also v. 19) You ate fine flour and honey [#bd] and oil [Nm#]. Though #bd and Nm# occur together a couple times in longer lists of commodities (Jer 41:8; Ezek 27:17), only here does the Hebrew Bible speak of Israel (in extended metaphors) eating honey and oil—both in the context of Yhwh’s care. C. Israel Prospers (Deut 32:15a // Ezek 16:13b–14) Because of Yhwh’s upbringing, Israel prospers. Deuteronomy 32:15a describes Israel’s prosperity to the point of excess: “Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek.” This compares with Ezek 16:13b–14, where Ezekiel describes Jerusalem’s rise to prominence and renown: “You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty, and your fame went forth among the nations because of your beauty. Indeed, it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord Yhwh.” 18 Paul A. Kruger, “The Hem of the Garment in Marriage: The Meaning of the Symbolic Gesture in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek 16:8,” JNSL 12 (1984): 79–86. See Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 172 n. 72, for further bibliography. 19 Georg Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW 72; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952), 144; followed by Rimon Kasher, Ezekiel: Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Chapters 1– 24 (in Hebrew; Mikira le-Yiśra'el; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2004), 55. 92 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) D. Israel Forsakes Her God (Deut 32:15b // Ezek 16:15a) Immediately after Israel increases, she forsakes Yhwhher God who rescued her and made her thrive. Both texts ascribe the turning point to her self-confidence. In the Song it was after Jeshurun grew fat from Yhwh’s luxurious provision that he “forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation” (32:15b). Ezekiel depicts Jerusalem’s turn from Yhwh as the moment she trusts in her beauty (16:15a). E. Israel’s Idolatry (Deut 32:16–17 // Ezek 16:15b–22) In the Song, Israel’s idolatry takes up two verses: They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded. (32:16–17) True to Ezekiel’s intense detestation of idolatry, 20 the prophet expands the account of idolatry into a graphic display of harlotrous idolatry that encompasses eight verses, followed by a continuation of the metaphor to refer to Jerusalem’s illegiti- mate foreign relations as well (16:23–34). 21 In this latter section, Jerusalem is said to take Myrz (“strangers”) instead of her husband (16:32), a possible allusion to Deut 32:16, where Myrz refers to the gods that Israel worshiped. F. Israel Forgets Her Origins (Deut 32:18 // Ezek 16:22 22 ) In her idolatry, Israel forgets her origins. The Song states that Jacob “forgot the God who gave [him] birth” (32:18), and in Ezek 16:22 the prophet indicts Jerusalem for not remembering the “days of [her] youth when [she] was naked and bare.” In both cases, after being blessed by Yhwh, Israel forgets that it was Yhwh who caused her to prosper. 20 John F. Kutsko identifies idolatry as “the quintessential cause of the Babylonian exile” for Ezekiel (Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel [Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 25); so also Jill Middlemas, “Transformation of the Image,” in Transforming Visions: Trans- formations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel (ed. Michael A. Lyons and William A. Tooman; Princeton Theological Monograph Series; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 115–16. 21 Zimmerli considered this latter section on foreign relations to be secondarily added to the idolatry section (Ezekiel, 1:334–35, 347–48), but cf. Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte, 147–51. Even without these and the other verses that Zimmerli excises from the original Ezek 16:1–43 (see Ezekiel, 1:347–48), the essential components outlined here remain. 22 It is reiterated as the justification for the punishment in 16:43. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 93 G. Israel Angers YHWH (Deut 32:16, 21 // Ezek 16:26) In both passages, Israel angers Yhwh, which is signified by the verbal root s(k, “to provoke to anger.” In the Song, Israel’s idols are the source of Yhwh’s anger. Deut 32:16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods [Myrz]; with abominations [twb(wt] they provoked him to anger [whsy(ky]. Deut 32:21a They have made me jealous with what is no god [l)-)l]; they have provoked me to anger [ynws(k] with their idols [Mylbh]. In Ezekiel the word occurs in the extended account of Jerusalem’s harlotry. After the accounts of her idolatry and illegitimate foreign relations, it is stated that her actions have “provoked me to anger” (ynsy(khl). H. Israel’s Indictment and Punishment (Deut 32:19–25 // Ezek 16:35–43) Then, Yhwh punishes Israel. Both Ezekiel and the Song cite Israel’s idolatry as the reason for her punishment. Thus, Deuteronomy 32 cites the provocation (s(k) of Yhwh caused by his people’s idols (v. 21). Ezekiel as well indicts her for harlotry with idols in v. 36: “Because [N(y] your lust was poured out and your naked- ness uncovered in your whoring with your lovers and with all your abominable idols. . . .” The difference between the modes of punishment will be noted in the final section. I. Israel’s Restoration (Deut 32:35–36, 41–43 // Ezek 16:53–55, 59–63) One further correspondence remains to be considered, namely, that of Israel’s restoration after her punishment. Though the Song emphasizes Yhwh’s vindication (32:35–36, 41–43), embodied in this is a clear restorative element. In v. 36 Yhwh “will have compassion on his servants when he sees that their power is gone,” and in v. 43 he “avenges the blood of his servants” (LXX and 4QDeut q : sons) and “atones [rpk] for his people’s land.” 23 In Ezekiel, restoration is found in sections B (16:44– 58, esp. vv. 53–55) and C (16:59–63). Though many see these sections as supple- ments by the prophet himself or his disciples, 24 the fact that the last sentence of 23 Taking the MT’s wm( wtmd) in v. 43 as wm( tmd) (cf. LXX; Samaritan Pentateuch; 4QDeut q ). Alternatively, one may retain the MT’s wm( wtmd), “his land, his people,” as the lectio difficilior. 24 E.g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:333–34. All agree that the parts of ch. 16 display an organic con- nection, in which section B (vv. 44–58) draws from and builds on the themes of vv. 1–43 and then section C (vv. 59–63) builds on both earlier sections (see Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 295). 94 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Ezekiel 16 and the last sentence of the Song employ rpk, 25 a unique word in restora- tion oracles, to describe Yhwh’s renewal of his people suggests that the prophet’s dependence on the Song may continue into sections B and C of ch. 16. If so, then in these latter sections, as in the section on idolatry above, Ezekiel takes the liberty to go well beyond the less developed elements of restoration in the Song, adding the characteristic restoration language “restore the fortunes” (v. 53), “return to the for- mer state” (v. 55), and Ezekiel’s distinctive theme of bearing shame (v. 54). For a synopsis of the plots of Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16, see the chart on the next page. II. Literary Dependence? Establishing true literary dependence is a notoriously precarious task. Having outlined the links between Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16, we may discuss crite- ria used to establish dependence and observe whether they are met in the present case. The first obvious requirement for literary dependence is availability; that is, could Ezekiel have borrowed from the Song? In the discussions that follow, I will show that Ezekiel could have known and used Deuteronomy 32 by appealing to arguments for the new consensus that the Song is an early composition and likely well known in the preexilic period. Beyond this initial prerequisite, however, it is necessary to investigate whether similarities between an earlier and later text are the result of purposeful borrowing or are simply due to chance, perhaps because a given parallel is a common motif or formulaic expression. Though such a task is as much an art as a science, 26 several scholars have discussed criteria to help distinguish dependence from coincidental similarities of theme and language. 27 In some cases inner-biblical allusions are characterized by a relatively high degree of verbal and syntactic correspondence, which is an excellent indicator of lit- erary dependence. 28 As Earl Miner points out, however, an allusion may consist of 25 Ezekiel 16:63: “. . . when I atone for you for all that you have done.” 26 See Benjamin D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 46 (1996): 485–86, and the sources cited therein; see also Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 264. 27 Most notably Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 222–39; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–30; Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Biblical Interpretation Series 96; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 27–34; Lyons, Law to Prophecy, 47–75; Leonard, “Identifying Inner- Biblical Allusions,” 241–65. 28 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 222–24; Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 252–53. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 95 96 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) A Synopsis of the Plot of Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16 Yhwh’s Discovery of Israel Yhwh’s Discovery of Jerusalem Deut 32:10a Ezek 16:6 Setting: desert/wilderness (rbdm) Setting: open feld (hd#) “He found ()cm) him” “I saw (h)r) you” “He encircled (bbs) him” “I passed over (l( rb() you” Yhwh’s Lavish Care Yhwh’s Lavish Care Deut 32:10b–14 Ezek 16:7a, 9–13a “Like an eagle . . . spreading (#rp) “ I spread (#rp) my garment (Pnk) its wings (Pnk) . . . Yhwh . . .” over you” “He suckled him with honey (#bd) “You ate fne four and honey (#bd) out of the rock, and oil (Nm#)” and oil (Nm#) out of the finty rock” Israel Prospers Jerusalem Prospers Deut 32:15a Ezek 16:13b–14 Israel Forsakes God Jerusalem Forsakes God Deut 32:15b Ezek 16:15a Israel’s Idolatry Jerusalem’s Idolatry (as Harlotry) Deut 32:16-17 Ezek 16:15b-34 “Tey stirred him to jealousy “She takes Myrz instead of her with Myrz” (Deut 32:16) husband” (Ezek 16:32) Israel Forgets Its Origin Jerusalem Forgets Its Origin Deut 32:18 Ezek 16:22 (also v 43) “You forgot the God who gave you “You did not remember the days of birth” your youth, when you were naked and bare . . .” Israel Angers Yhwh Jerusalem Angers Yhwh Deut 32:16, 21 Ezek 16:26 “Tey provoked him to anger” “(You) . . . provoked me to anger” (hiphil, s(k) (hiphil, s(k) “Tey provoked me to anger” (piel, s(k) Israel’s Punishment Jerusalem’s Punishment Deut 32:23-25 Ezek 16:35-43 Israel’s Restoration Jerusalem’s Restoration Deut 32:35-43 Ezek 16:53-63 Yhwh atones (rpk) for his people’s Yhwh atones (rpk) for his people’s land sins a single common word or even just a shared concept. 29 What matters is that the parallel is sufficiently distinctive to suggest dependence. Thus, the first criterion relevant for this discussion is rare concept similarity. 30 As the opposite of a common motif, the presence of a rare concept in two texts suggests that one may be draw- ing from the other. 31 For example, one may think of the rock motif of Deuteron- omy 32, which is picked up in Isaiah (17:10; 26:4; 44:8). 32 In our texts the primary rare concept is the foundling motif, which occurs at the outset of the two accounts of Israel’s history with Yhwh. As an image to describe the discovery and adoption of a destitute foundling, the motif occurs only in Ezekiel 16 and Deuteronomy 32 in the Hebrew Bible, 33 and in both cases in reference to Yhwh’s discovery of Israel. We may also note here the distinctive motif of spreading a wing/garment (Pnk #rp) and the word pair #bd and Nm#, “honey and oil.” A related consideration at this point is the presence of what Jeffery Leonard calls nonshared language. In the discovery of the foundling at the outset of the two passages, Ezekiel appears to draw from the foundling motif in Deuteronomy 32, but not its exact terminology. However, Leonard is emphatic that the presence of such differences of expression “in no way undermines the possibility of a connec- tion,” since “unique or idiosyncratic language may be a reflection of the creativity or writing style of a given author.” 34 A second criterion for dependence is frequency. When considering multiple links, the more parallels within two single pericopes, the greater the possibility that they are the result of purposeful borrowing and not just chance similarity. Though some individual parallels may lack concrete evidence for dependence and may therefore vary on the scale of possibility to probability, numerous possible allusions mutually corroborate each other as evidence of literary borrowing. Of course, numerous weak links together provide a weak case for dependence. However, the presence of a few probable allusions, marked by a high degree of verbal and syn- 29 Earl Miner, “Allusion,” The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 38–39. 30 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 29; cf. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 251– 52. 31 In some cases two texts might not be dependent on each other but rather both might be dependent on a different source (e.g., Ezek 16:16 and Hos 9:10 on the foundling motif of Deut 32:10). However, in the present case it is unlikely that both Ezekiel 16 and the Song depend on a third source, given the familiarity and widespread use of the Song by other biblical writers and the distinctiveness and ubiquity of the plot and thematic links between the two passages. 32 Thomas Keiser, “The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy,” VT 55 (2005): 488– 90. Cf. 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 23:3; Psalms passim; Hab 1:12. 33 Hosea 9:10 (cited above) witnesses the verbs h)r and )cm, but it lacks a destitute foundling and her subsequent care by YHWH. 34 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 249 (emphasis original). Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 97 tactic correspondence or a sufficiently distinctive motif or idea, lends credence to other parallels that alone are considered only possible allusions. 35 In some cases, the frequency of links is corroborated by their distribution. If parallels display a consistent or unique distribution, this may suggest that a later author alluded to an earlier work extensively or even structured his composition on it. 36 Together the frequency and distribution of allusions create a cumulative argu- ment for literary dependence, as summarized by Benjamin Sommer: The argument that an author alludes, then, is a cumulative one: assertions that allusions occur in certain passages become stronger as patterns emerge from those allusions. In any one passage that may rely on an older text, the critic must weigh evidence including the number of shared terms and their distinctiveness, [and] the presence of stylistic or thematic patterns that typify the author’s allu- sions. 37 In the present case, the frequency and distribution of parallels between these two texts offer overwhelming evidence for dependence. The accumulation of the- matic links in a nearly identical plot structure, corroborated by several lexical links at the same point in the plot, including the Pnk #rp motif, the eating of #bd and Nm#, the verbal root s(k to signify Israel’s provocation of Yhwh, and rpk in Israel’s restoration, makes it extremely unlikely that these parallels occur by chance. Admit- tedly, elements of this plot are scattered in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, but no other passage contains all the elements and none in the same order as we find here. 38 Indeed, each element of the plot structure of Ezek 16:1–43 is found in Deuteronomy 32 in essentially the same order, and the two passages are likewise 35 The same point is made by Jacob Stromberg: “It is necessary to stress this cumulative aspect of the argument only because such words and phrases that echo DI [Deutero-Isaiah] might be regarded, when viewed in isolation from one another, as mere coincidence” (“An Inner-Isaianic Reading of Isaiah 61:1–3,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches [ed. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009], 263). 36 Drawing on Robert Alter’s narrative “type-scene,” Paul R. Noble makes a similar case for allusions within biblical narratives: “A catalogue of individual, unrelated points of resemblance between two texts is not, in general, a sufficient criterion for identifying a probable authorial or redactional allusion of one text to the other. But . . . a common pattern in two texts is a sufficient criterion for postulating intentional allusion—unless the pattern is a very simple one (consisting, say, of only two or three elements, with little or no interconnection between them) it is difficult to believe that it should happen to occur in two different locations just by chance” (“Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” VT 52 [2002]: 251). 37 Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality,” 485. So also Leonard, “Identifying Inner- Biblical Allusions,” 253–54; Rex Mason, “Zechariah 9–14,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Bib- lical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, with a major contribution by Rex Mason; JSOTSup 370; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 201; Cynthia Edenburg, “How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26,” SJOT 12 (1998): 72. 38 The closest instance of these concentrated in one passage is Hos 13:4–6, which over three verses mentions the wilderness, prosperity, and forgetting Yhwh. 98 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) unique in the extent of their story. Finally, the foundling motif and the other plot parallels mutually corroborate each other: the rare foundling motif gives a firm basis to propose wider dependence in these texts, and the subsequent plot similar- ities, marked by distinctive lexical links at the same point in the plot, confirm the hypothesis of dependence in the foundling motif. It is also useful to consider the likelihood that an author might allude to the alleged source. 39 In the following sections I will argue that the Song of Moses was well known to Ezekiel and his contemporaries and that it exerted a strong influence on subsequent biblical writers. A further criterion that bolsters the case for depend- ence is recurrence, that is, the frequency with which an author cites or alludes to the same passage. 40 In section V below I will show that Ezekiel clearly draws from the Song in other passages as well. Though it is not necessary to show recurrence or a high likelihood of borrowing to establish true dependence, these features never- theless serve to confirm other criteria. Lastly, regarding the direction of dependence, Richard Schultz has shown that evidence of interpretive reworking is one of the major criteria for determining which text borrowed from the other. 41 I will argue below that Ezekiel 16 represents a rein- terpretation of the Song or a reapplication of it to the time of Ezekiel and his con- temporaries. Though in our case the preexilic provenance of Deuteronomy 32 rules out the possibility that the Song draws from Ezekiel 16, it would be difficult to imagine that the Song reworks Ezekiel 16 by stripping it of its harlotry imagery and offering a condensed version. Thus, Ezekiel 16 seems to represent a creative trans- formation of Deuteronomy 32, whereby the prophet uses the Song as the building blocks of his oracle. In summary, the evidence for Ezekiel’s use of Deuteronomy 32 displays all the signs of dependence outlined by Sommer above. The nearly identical plot structure and themes, corroborated by verbal parallels and rare concepts at the same points in the plot, confirm the presence of literary dependence. III. Could Ezekiel Have Known and Used the Song? To postulate Ezekiel’s use of and allusion to the Song of Moses requires that Deut 32:1–43 predate the book of Ezekiel. Though a wide range of dates have been postulated for the Song in the history of scholarship, 42 scholars since the 1930s have overwhelmingly supported an early date. 43 This view has been substantiated in the 39 Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality,” 485. 40 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 41 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 231. 42 A comprehensive review of scholarship is found in Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OtSt 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1–98. 43 See ibid., 21–36, citing Otto Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32:1–43 und Das Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 99 recent comprehensive studies of Deuteronomy 32 by Paul Sanders and Solomon Nigosian, who considered multiple lines of evidence and both convincingly estab- lished the Song’s early preexilic provenance. 44 In what follows I will briefly outline the arguments for this conclusion. A. Linguistic Considerations Both Sanders and Nigosian built upon the linguistic study of David A. Robert- son, who had established an early date for the Song based on its linguistic features. 45 Such features include the presence of early vocabulary, especially the verbal root Cxm in v. 39, defective and plene spellings, the poetic suffix wm–, the appearance of the final yod in the perfective verb w% ysf xf (v. 37), and the ubiquity of yiqtol forms expressing narrative (preterite) tense. 46 The seventeen preterite yiqtol verbs are par- ticularly noteworthy, since they rarely occur in exilic and postexilic biblical writ- ings. 47 Moreover, many lexemes in the Song previously thought to be late have since been shown to have counterparts in the Ugaritic literature. 48 The presence of any single early feature is inconclusive for dating a text, since many of these phenom- ena occur as archaisms in standard Biblical Hebrew poetry. However, in his study on dating early Hebrew poetry, Robertson concluded that the accumulation of these features in a single poem represents the best evidence for establishing an early com- position. 49 Lehrgedicht Asaphs Psalm 78: samt einer Analyse der Umgebung des Mose-Liedes (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958); William Foxwell Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII,” VT 9 (1959): 339–46; Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); Wright, “Lawsuit of God”; G. E. Mendenhall, “Samuel’s ‘Broken rîb’: Deuteronomy 32,” in No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (ed. James W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson; Hom- age Series 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 63–74. See also Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: Myrbd. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 512–13. 44 Sanders, Provenance; Solomon A. Nigosian, “The Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1–43)” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1975); idem, “The Song of Moses (Dt 32): A Structural Analysis,” ETL 72 (1996): 5–22; idem, “Linguistic Patterns of Deuteronomy 32,” Bib 78 (1997): 206–24; idem, “Historical Allusions for Dating Deut 32,” BN 119–20 (2003): 30–34. 45 Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 155. 46 Sanders, Provenance, 296–333. 47 Ibid., 300, 313–15; Nigosian, “Linguistic Patterns,” 211. For the preterite yiqtol form as the remnant of a short yiqtol form found in Byblian Canaanite, see Anson F. Rainey, “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite,” HS 27 (1986): 4–19; and the response articles by Edward L. Greenstein, John Huehnergard, and Ziony Zevit, in HS 29 (1988): 7–42; also IBHS, 497. 48 Sanders, Provenance, 320. 49 Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 135; so also Nigosian, “Linguistic Patterns,” 211. 100 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) B. Historical Context Many scholars have attempted to date Deuteronomy 32 by correlating histor- ical allusions in the Song with events in the history of Israel. Their assumption is that the Song was written after an enemy had delivered a crushing defeat to Israel. Consequently, the chief clue in the Song is the identity of this enemy, described as a “non-people” (M(-)l) and a “foolish nation” (lbn ywg). Corresponding to different time periods, common designations have included Canaanite tribes, the Arameans, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. 50 While Nigosian favored a particular histori- cal referent, 51 and Sanders emphasized that the diversity of opinion suggests that the Song does not aim to identify clearly a historical context, both agree that noth- ing in the Song betrays a late date. 52 For example, if the Song were exilic or post- exilic we might expect some implicit or explicit reference to Babylon, deportation, or return to the land. Furthermore, nothing betrays knowledge of the demise of the northern kingdom or even the presence of a united or divided monarchy. While this is an argumentum e silentio, it is nevertheless noteworthy, since, as G. Ernest Wright reminds us, the threat of exile is a characteristic component of the exilic prophets and Deuteronomic historians, and thus its absence in Deuteronomy 32 is all the more striking. 53 C. Intertextual Links Further confirmation comes from the intertextual links between the Song of Moses and the prophetic books. Early critical scholarship, represented as early as 1891 by C. H. Cornill, 54 viewed the Song as dependent on the prophets and thus exilic. Many scholars followed Cornill by citing strong links between the Song and Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah 40–66. S. R. Driver, for example, cited approvingly Cornill’s assertion that the Song was a “compendium of prophetic theology.” 55 More recent studies, however, have reversed the traditional interpretation by arguing that the prophets made use of the Song and not vice versa. These include studies of Isaiah 40–66 by Thomas Keiser, Benjamin Sommer, and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, 50 For bibliographical information on those who have espoused these theories, see Sanders, Provenance, 6–39. 51 Nigosian argued for the religious and political circumstances of the northern state near the second half the ninth century b.c.e. (“Historical Allusions”). 52 Sanders, Provenance, 39; cf. Nigosian, “Structural Analysis,” 22. 53 G. Ernest Wright, “Deuteronomy: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB 2:517. 54 Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1891), 71. 55 S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 308. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 101 and Isaiah 1–39 by Ronald Bergey. 56 Older studies of Jeremiah by William Holla- day and of Hosea by Umberto Cassuto affirm the same. 57 IV. Is It Likely That Ezekiel Would Have Known and Used the Song? But how likely is it that Ezekiel would have borrowed from the Song? The influence of the Song on later biblical writers can be partially explained by consid- ering the place of Deuteronomy 32 in ancient Israel. Matthew Thiessen’s study of the formal and generic properties of Deuteronomy 32 determined that the Song of Moses functioned as a liturgical text in the public cultic sphere and thus was likely well known among Ezekiel’s audience. 58 Though he speaks of a rîb embedded in the Song, several features suggest that the overall form of the work is a cultic hymn, including the numerous shifts in grammatical person, the imperatives of worship, and multiple speakers. 59 This suggests that Ezekiel would have known the Song and would have chosen it for rhetorical purposes because his contemporary audi- ence or readers also knew the text. 60 In addition, though not direct evidence for the status of the Song in the pre- exilic period, its liturgical function in Second Temple Judaism is attested by both the manuscript evidence and rabbinic tradition. We may first note the Qumran manuscript 4QDeut q , about which Patrick Skehan and Eugene Ulrich write: “The limited height of the scroll, the arrangement of the lines, the small number of words per column, and the absence of the final verses of ch. 32 strongly suggest that 56 Keiser, “Song of Moses”; Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversions; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 134–36; Kim, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) in Isaiah 40–55,” in God’s Word for Our World, vol. 1, Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (ed. J. H. Ellens et al.; JSOTSup 388; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 147–71; see also Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Claren- don, 1985), 478–79; Bergey, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?” JSOT 28 (2003): 33–54. 57 Holladay, “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,” JBL 85 (1966): 17–27; Cassuto, “The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch” (in Hebrew), in Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes (ed. V. Aptowitzer and A. Z. Schwartz; Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1933), 262–75; Eng. trans. “The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch,” in Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 79–100. 58 Thiessen, “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43),” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24, esp. 422–23, where he cites Cassuto approvingly that the Song was widely known and the prophets frequently drew from it (Biblical and Oriental Studies, 1:44). 59 Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 407–10. 60 Thiessen himself recognized the implications of his study for the relationship of the Song to the prophetic literature (“Form and Function,” 423). 102 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 4QDeut q probably contained only the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43). It would thus 1oin the category of ‘special use’ manuscripts.” 61 This special use likely indicates a liturgical use of some sort for the Song, 62 and one wonders how far back this tra- dition reaches. Rabbinic traditions as well held that the poem was chanted by the Levites in the temple on the Sabbath (b. Roš Haš. 31a; y. Meg. 3.8, 74b). 63 V. Did Ezekiel Know and Use the Song? Support for the thesis presented here may be found in other allusions to Deuteronomy 32 in the book of Ezekiel. The examples offered belowshow that the prophet does in fact know the Song of Moses and uses it for his prophetic mes- sage. 64 A. Mycx, b(r, “Arrows, Famine” (Ezek 5:16–17 // Deut 32:23–25, 42) In Ezek 5:16–17 the prophet appears to conflate Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. Though this passage clearly draws from Lev 26:22–26, 65 many com- mentators agree that Ezekiel borrows the terms “arrows” and “famine” from Deut 32:23–25, 42. 66 In fact, the image of Yhwh using arrows as punishment on his peo- ple is unique to Deut 32:23–25 and Ezek 5:16–17 in the Hebrew Bible. 67 Regarding 61 Patrick W. Skehan and Eugene Ulrich, “4QDeut q ” in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 138. B. Meg. 16b also notes that the Song was written stichographically. 62 See Emanuel Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16 (1995): 581–600. 63 Ishmar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (trans. Raymond P. Scheindlin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 98, 139. 64 Of course, this evidence depends on the unity of Deuteronomy 32:1–43. The major analy- ses of the structure of the Song of Moses have affirmed its unity, e.g., Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 26–67; Thiessen, “Form and Function,” 417. Sanders writes: “My conclusion is that this version of the song can be regarded as a unity of composition dating to the pre-exilic period. There is nothing in the song which demonstrates that specific parts of it must be secondary. Most argu- ments that have been adduced against the unity of the song are extremely weak. Interpretation of v. 30–31 as a secondary passage is possible but not necessary” (Provenance, 429–31). 65 Lyons, Law to Prophecy, 94. 66 Fohrer, Hauptprobleme, 144; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 116–17; Block, Ezekiel, 1:213; Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 96–97; Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 94; Kasher, Ezekiel, 54; cf. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 77. Rabbinic interpreters as well drew a connection between these two texts in Sifre to Deuteronomy 321:1. 67 Numbers 24:8 refers to Yhwh using arrows against the nations. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 103 b(r, it is unlikely that Ezekiel derives it from the phrase “break the staff of bread” in Lev 26:26, because of the close association of Mycx and b(r in both Deuteron- omy 32 and Ezekiel 16. As a final possible validation of this point, Ka Leung Wong suggests that in Ezek 5:16 Mhb, “against them,” often emended to the expected Mkb, is a literary remnant of the third person context of Deut 32:23 in which Mb appears. 68 B. ybrx, “My Sword” (Ezekiel 21 // Deut 32:41–42) Ezekiel borrows another of Yhwh’s agents of death found in the Song: the sword. 69 The Song’s distinctive ybrx, “my sword (i.e., Yhwh’s),” mentioned twice in Deut 32:41–42, occurs three times in Ezekiel 21 (21:8–10 [Eng. 3–5]), along with twelve other occurrences of brx (also in Ezek 30:25; 32:10). In the Song the object of the sword’s destruction is Yhwh’s enemies, but Ezekiel appropriates the motif to describe God’s judgment on his people (21:17 [12]). Though the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 mention the sword, 70 these two passages share several common motifs: (1) the sword is sharpened; (2) the sword flashes; (3) the sword is in the hand; and (4) the sword consumes flesh. First, in Deut 32:41, Yhwh states, “I sharpen my flashing sword” (ybrx qrb ytwn#). Ezekiel 21 speaks repeatedly of a sharpened sword, e.g., Ezek 21:14 [9]: “a sword, a sword, sharpened and polished” (h+wrm-Mgw hdxwh brx brx). While the two use synonyms (from the roots Nn# and ddx), the common motif is nevertheless present. Second, in three instances in Ezekiel 21 the flashing sword motif from Deut 32:41 is found: “polished that it might flash (lit. have flashing)” (21:15 [10]; h+rm qrb hl-hyh-N(ml); “made to flash (lit. for lightning)” (21:20 [15]; qrbl hyw#(); “polished . . . to flash” (21:33 [28]; qrb N(ml . . . h+wrm); cf. Nah 3:3. Third, Deut 32:41 also states, “my hand takes hold [of the sword] in judgment” (ydy +p#mb zx)t), and Ezek 21:16 [11] speaks of the sword grasped in the hand (dyb, Pkb). Finally, just as Deut 32:42 states that “my sword will devour flesh” (r#b lk)t ybrx), so Ezek 21:9 [4] states, “my sword shall be drawn from its sheath against all flesh” (r#b-lk-l) hr(tm ybrx )ct); cf. Jer 12:12; Hos 11:6. Ezekiel’s reference to the sword in 7:15 may also have been influenced by the Song, specifically Deut 32:25, 71 the same context from which Ezekiel borrowed b(r and Mycx. Ezekiel’s threat that “the sword shall be outside, and pestilence and famine 68 Wong, Idea of Retribution, 94. 69 See Fohrer, Hauptprobleme, 144. 70 Indeed, Ezekiel borrows from Lev 26:33 the phrase brx Mkyrx) qyrh, “draw the sword after you,” in Ezek 5:2, 12; 12:14 (cf. 28:7; 30:11) (see Lyons, Law to Prophecy, 63–64). However, in ch. 21 the prophet prefers the phrase ybrx )cwh hr(tm, “remove my sword from its sheath” (vv. 3–5), which further suggests that Leviticus 26 is not the basis for ch. 21. 71 Fohrer, Hauptprobleme, 144; Kasher, Ezekiel, 55; note Sifre to Deuteronomy 321:6. 104 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) inside” (tybm b(rhw rbdhw Cwxb brxh) closely resembles that of the Song: “outside the sword shall bereave, and inside terror” (hmy) Myrdxmw brx-lk#t Cwxm). C. )nq, “To Make Jealous” (Ezek 8:3 // Deut 32:16, 21) A less conclusive example is the occurrence of the verbal root )nq in Ezek 8:3 and Deut 32:16, 21, which is used to speak of idolatry provoking God to jealousy. 72 The verb is not used in this sense elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible except in 1 Kgs 14:22 and Ps 78:58, thus ruling out influence from the Priestly literature or another source. 73 Moreover, because the word does not occur often enough in the Deuteronomistic literature to be considered common Deuteronomistic language, it is possible that Ezekiel is influenced by this specific text. VI. Ezekiel’s Programmatic Use of Scripture Finally, is it likely that Ezekiel would have used Deuteronomy 32 in the way proposed in this essay? Here we may note that there are other examples of Ezekiel’s programmatic use of earlier biblical texts. In particular, we note two types compa- rable to his use of the Song in Ezekiel 16: the creative reformulation of an earlier text and the use of an earlier text for the structure of a new oracle. As an example of the former, Pancratius C. Beentjes and other scholars have shown that Jacob’s blessing on Judah in Genesis 49 appears to be the basis for the language and imagery of Ezekiel 19. 74 In the first poem of ch. 19 (vv. 2–9) the prophet draws extensively from the description of Judah as a lion in Gen 49:9: Judah is a lion’s cub [hyr) rwg]; from the prey [Pr+] you have gone up [tyl(], my son. Like a lion he lies down and crouches [Cbr]; As with a lioness [)ybl], who dares to rouse him? 72 Noted by Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 142; Fohrer, Hauptprobleme, 144; Kasher, Ezekiel, 56. While H. C. Lutzky (“On the ‘Image of Jealousy’ [Ezekiel viii 3, 5],” VT 46 [1996]: 121–24) has hypoth- esized that originally a single word lay behind hnqmh h)nqh in the phrase hnqmh h)nqh lms, which is derived from the root hnq, “to (pro)create,” John Day (Yahweh and the Gods and God- desses of Canaan [JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 62–63) has defended the traditional interpretation that the word reflects a III-) root written as a III-h. 73 Though cf. the epithet )nq l) in Exod 20:5; 34:14; etc. 74 Beentjes, “What a Lioness Was Your Mother: Reflections on Ezekiel 19,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific & Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (ed. B. Becking and M. Dijkstra; Biblical Interpretation Series 18; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 26–31; Moshe Greenberg, “Notes on the Influence of Tradition on Ezekiel,” JANESCU 22 (1993): 29–37; idem, Ezekiel 1–20, 357–58; Block, Ezekiel, 1:603, 608–10. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 105 This is confirmed by his use of the vine language of Gen 49:10–12 in the second poem (vv. 10–14), including “vine” (Npg) and “blood” (Md), but also “scepter” (+b#), a term denoting rulership. 75 If these links are purposeful, then Ezekiel 19 repre- sents a creative play on the association of Judah with the lion, in which he subverts the noble lion image to portray brutality and exploitation on the part of Judah’s monarchy. An example of the prophet’s structural use of Scripture is found in Ezek 22:25– 29, where he adopts the text of Zeph 3:3–4 and transforms it freely. 76 Her princes in the midst of her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they leave nothing for the morning; her prophets are wanton and treacherous people; her priests have profaned that which is holy; they have violated the Torah. (Zeph 3:3–4) Ezekiel adds a fifth category to Zephaniah’s fourfold list of objects of accusation (Cr)h M(, “the people of the land”) and alters the order, moving the priests to the second position. He changes Myr# to My)y#n 77 and My+p# to Myr# and expands the oracle in other ways so that the result is more than twice the length of the original. 78 VII. Ezekiel’s Prophetic Transformation Though Ezekiel adopts the plot and themes of Deuteronomy 32, he takes many liberties in reworking the earlier passage. The foremost among these, as we have noted, is his infusion of the prophetic harlotry motif. This includes the transfor- mation of Israel into Yhwh’s metaphorical wife, marked by the addition of a mar- riage after the discovery of Israel and the expansion of the two verses on Israel’s idolatry into a detailed—and graphic 79 —account of her harlotries. The prophet develops the story further at other points as well. He includes an account of Israel’s destitute state before her deliverance, including details about her parents (v. 3) and birth story (v. 4), which, along with the introduction of her “sisters,” Samaria and 75 On the possible influence of Nah 2:12–14 and Zeph 3:3, see Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 357–58. 76 D. H. Müller, “Der Prophet Ezechiel entlehnt eine Stelle des Propheten Zephanja und glossiert sie,” WZKM 10 (1905): 30–36; see also Block, Ezekiel, 1:724–27; Fishbane, Biblical Inter- pretation, 461–63. 77 Reading hy)y#n r#) with the LXX, against the MT’s hy)ybn r#q, “the conspiracy of her prophets” (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:465; Block, Ezekiel, 1:720). 78 For a fuller list of the changes, see Block, Ezekiel, 1:724 n. 26. 79 Ezekiel makes a common metaphor shocking with sexual imagery. See Galambush, Jerusalem, 102; Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 144–48. 106 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Sodom, in section B (vv. 44–52), make up the “biography” that Ezekiel supplies for the infant. Michael Fishbane calls this type of creative reuse of an earlier text “trans- formative exegesis,” whereby “a received oracle-format or its language is retained though its meaning is transformed by virtue of additions, specifications, or appli- cations.” 80 The infusion of the harlotry motif may account for some distinctives of Ezekiel’s oracle, which can be explained as adjustments to the metaphorical vehi- cle. For example, in Ezekiel’s account of Israel’s punishment (vv. 35–43), it is note- worthy that he does not draw from the language of Israel’s punishment in the Song (Deut 32:23–25), though he clearly does in 5:16–17 and ch. 21. Why does he not in ch. 16, which otherwise has pervasive links with Deuteronomy 32? It seems that he adopts a different mode of punishment for Israel that corresponds to the nature of her transgression: Ezekiel has Israel’s lovers stone her in accordance with the Mosaic prescription for adultery (Deut 22:21, 24). Indeed, this is made explicit in Ezek 16:38, where Yhwh declares, “I will sentence you with the sentences of adulter- esses and murderers” (Md tkp#w twp)n y+p#m Kyt+p#w). 81 Though capital pun- ishment is prescribed for murder in the legal corpora (Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16–34), stoning is explicitly specified for adultery. Regardless of whether Ezekiel has in mind or is drawing specifically from Deuteronomy 22, 82 he is surely famil- iar with the convention that adulterers are put to death by stoning. Similarly, Ezekiel’s account of Jerusalem’s prosperity, which speaks of her renowned beauty, being adorned with a necklace, earrings, and fine clothes, reflects an adjustment to the metaphorically female Israel. Even while Ezekiel incorporates the harlot imagery from his prophetic pred- ecessors, he modifies this tradition as well. First, as Julie Galambush points out, “Ezekiel . . . departs from the pattern of Hosea and Jeremiah in consistently distin- guishing between idolatry and inappropriate foreign alliances in his depiction of Jerusalem’s infidelity.” 83 Jerusalem prostitutes herself with two groups: gods (vv. 15– 22) and foreign powers (vv. 23–43), thus reflecting both cultic and political infi- delity. Second, the oracle reflects Ezekiel’s own special concerns. For example, faithful to his concern for the purity of the Jerusalem temple, he “recasts the adul- tery metaphor to focus on the pollution that precipitates Yhwh’s abandonment of the Jerusalem temple.” 84 Other links to the temple in ch. 16 include the adornment of Yhwh’s wife with the same materials that adorn Yhwh’s sanctuary (made 80 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 465. As one of many examples, he cites the use of Deut 32:9, 13 in Isa 58:14 (pp. 478–79). 81 Ezekiel attributes the means of punishment to Jerusalem’s metaphorical sin, harlotry, rather than idolatry, though Deut 13:7–12 [Eng. 6–11] prescribes stoning as punishment for idol- atry as well. 82 Ezekiel uses the verb Mgr (cf. Lev 20:2, 27), whereas Deuteronomy uses lqs. 83 Galambush, Jerusalem, 99–100. 84 Ibid., 78; see pp. 79–89 for details. Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 107 explicit by the Targum’s rendering). 85 Third, Ezekiel incorporates other external elements into the metaphor. For example, after adding the marriage imagery to the foundling motif, he incorporates ancient Near Eastern legal terms and metaphors for the abandonment and adoption of the infant foundling. 86 VIII. The Rhetoric of Transformation To conclude, we reflect briefly on the purpose of Ezekiel’s transformation of the Song of Moses, namely, to accuse and judge his fellow Israelites for their trans- gressions. By adopting the plot structure of the rise and fall of Israel in Deuteron- omy 32, the prophet applies it to his contemporary context of idolatry and illegitimate foreign relations. As we have seen, this was accomplished by expand- ing the story of Israel’s relationship with Yhwh and transforming it with the prophetic harlotry metaphor. The rhetoric of Ezekiel’s use of the Song lies in the recontextualization of Moses’ depiction of Israel’s decline. Since Deuteronomy 32 was a well-known song, Ezekiel’s audience would have recognized his allusions to it and felt the force of his application of the judgment in their treasured song to their current circumstances. Perhaps better than recontextualization is the term actualization, since Moses’ Song foretells a coming fall into idolatry and Ezekiel declares that Moses’ prediction of punishment has come to pass in the current generation. The internal witness of Deuteronomy itself lends credence to this assertion. In the narrative framework of the Song, Moses predicts that “when many evils and troubles have come upon [the people], this Song shall confront them as a witness, for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring” (Deut 31:21). Surely Ezekiel’s generation remembered Moses’ Song, and Ezekiel confronted them with it as a witness. 85 Ibid., 95. 86 Malul has argued that when parents abandoned a child in Mesopotamia, the use of the phrase “in her/the blood” represented a legal renunciation of their claim to her, and thus YHWH’s command to live “in her blood” signifies his formal adoption of the girl (“Adoption of Foundlings,” 106, 110). 108 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi in the Hebrew Bible john tracy thames, jr. [email protected] Te Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 The phrase vam hā'āresi appears in the Hebrew Bible over fifty times (in the singular form alone) throughout a number of materials including the Pentateuch (in J, E, and P), the Deuteronomistic History, the Major Prophets, and several post- exilic compositions. A great deal of scholarly attention has been paid to the correct interpretation of these words, whether in dedicated studies 1 or in brief interpreta- tive notes in related texts; 2 rarely is the phrase mentioned without a need for expli- cation. That the term indicates something more than the plain meaning of its constituent words is evidenced by the variety of situations in which it is found and the throng of meanings to which it conceivably lends itself. In addition to the interpretative problem posed by the biblical occurrences, the meaning of the phrase seems to have been further skewed by its postbiblical con- notations. The term can be found in writings of the rabbinic period as a pejorative term for a Jewish individual who is not properly educated in Jewish law, an idea that is clearly foreign to the biblical usage. 3 It is not unlikely that this tradition of using the phrase to convey an idea beyond what is explicitly worded has continued to influence interpreters into the modern period. My intention is not to propose a description of some human group that once identified itself as the vam hā'āres i ; this has been done more times and with less 1 See below for a full list of citations. 2 For examples, see Baruch Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 190–98; Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VTSup 56; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994), 29–30. 3 The postbiblical term will not enter into the present discussion. Instead, see Solomon Zeitlin, “The Am Haarez: A Study in the Social and Economic Life of the Jews before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple,” JQR 23 (1932): 45–61. JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 109–125 109 credibility than is becoming. Nor do I wish simply to contend against such techni- cal definitions, as this has been done as well. Instead I seek to examine the issue from the perspective of its literary function in each context and, accordingly, the plausible intent of the author who chose to employ it. It will do to begin by taking stock of the major developments and influential essays relevant to this interpretative problem. As some of the earlier positions are either outmoded or have already been discussed ad nauseam, I will limit critical remarks to a minimum. After the time line has been traced, however, I intend to engage the most recent research on the issue, especially that of Lisbeth Fried. Because her work is specific to the fourth chapter of Ezra, much of the present dis- cussion will interact with that text. Finally, after amassing a critical understanding of all these works, I shall describe how a more nuanced understanding of the term’s function might better elucidate its proper interpretation. I. A Brief History of Interpretation 4 A flurry of scholarship and speculation on the precise meaning of the biblical vam hā'āresi (and the evolution of its postbiblical connotations) peaked in the early twentieth century, though it has remained an interesting point of debate up to the present. The current discussion of the treatment of the term and its implications in the modern period begins with Mayer Sulzberger. In the publication of his 1912 lecture series on the political organization of ancient Hebrew society, Sulzberger argues for the existence of a representative government in ancient Israel; partially evinced by the terminis technicus vam hā'āresi . Referring to his 1909 publication in which he first cultivates the idea, 5 he recounts, “I . . . endeavored to demonstrate that this representative council, which had essential qualities of modern parlia- ments, was for long known as the vam ha-aretz, a technical term which, in the muta- tions of time and circumstance, acquired other and totally alien connotations, until at last the true meaning was forgotten.” 6 4 For further reading not explicitly discussed in this study, see Nahum Slousch, “Represen- tative Government among the Hebrews and Phoenicians: A Contribution to the Problem of the Cr)h M( Raised by Judge Mayer Sulzberger,” JQR 4 (1913): 303–10; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Cr)h M( —A Semantic Revolution,” ZAW 95 (1983): 437–40; Roland de Vaux, “Le Sens de l’Expression ‘Peuple du Pays’ dans l’Ancien Testament et le Role Politique du Peuple en Israel,” RA 58 (1964): 167–72; J. Alberto Soggin, “Der Judäische ‘Am-Ha’aresi und das Königtum in Juda: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der Deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung,” VT 13 (1963): 187–95; Aharon Oppenheimer, The ‘am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ALGHJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 261; P. Boer, “Vive le Roi!,” VT 5 (1955): 223–31; Joseph Healey, “vam ha'aretz,” ABD 1:168–69; Marvin Pope, “vam ha'aretz,” IDB 1:106. 5 Sulzberger, The Am Ha-Aretz, the Ancient Hebrew Parliament: A Chapter in the Constitu- tional History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Greenstone, 1909). 6 Sulzberger, “The Polity of the Ancient Hebrews,” JQR 3 (1912): 3. 110 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) In his major study of the topic, Sulzberger provides a more detailed specula- tion about the origins of the term as a closed category. He imagines: The Parliament of Israel had its humble beginnings at the city gate, where the elders of the town, comers to the gate, sat to hold the Town Council and the Municipal Court. Gradually there was evolved, from this institution, the tribal vAm, which dealt with the larger matters of the district inhabited by the tribe. Friendliness among neighbors, and the necessity of defense against enemies, pro- duced alliances between several tribes, and finally there resulted a union of all or nearly all of the tribes of Israel. Then only could there have been formed a gen- eral gathering of delegates, an vAmof the land, our vAm ha-aretz. 7 Quite unfortunately, Sulzberger (admittedly) has no evidence whatsoever to sup- port this evolution of a tribal union represented by a parliamentary vam hā'āresi . 8 His conception is based entirely on convenience; whenever his definition works, it is applied, and where it does not, it is considered an “alien connotation.” Sulzberger pays no attention to the many occurrences that do not suit his proposal nor does he attempt to account for their supposed differences. Instead he reports that the terminus ad quem of the term’s technical application is the Babylonian exile, after which the phrase must have been a blank canvas. 9 Enthusiastically agreeing with and expanding Sulzberger’s interpretation of Hebrew parliamentary government is Samuel Daiches. In two short articles pub- lished in the 1920s, Daiches argues beyond Sulzberger that the technical applica- tion of vam hā'āresi is, in fact, attributable to every occurrence of the term in the Hebrew Bible. 10 Daiches also distills several additional connotations from the term, averring that it simultaneously refers to “‘the landed gentry, the landowners, the landed aristocracy, the lords of the land, the representatives of the people.’” 11 Ownership of land must have been requisite for political representation; thus the appellation vam hā'āresi . For Daiches, this meaning may be applied in either a “nar- rower” or a “wider” sense throughout the biblical books. In the wider meaning Cr)h M( included all the landed gentry, all the owners of landed estates, in short, the lords of the land. In the narrower meaning Cr)h M( signified the representatives of the landed gentry, the house of lords. The funda- mental idea is: the people of the land, namely, the people who possess land. 12 7 Sulzberger, Am Ha-Aretz, 58. 8 Notwithstanding the attempt of Slousch (“Representative Government,” 303–10) to bol- ster Sulzberger’s theory with a supposed analogy to Phoenician strategies of representation reflected in some orthographic evidence. 9 Sulzburger, Am Ha-aretz, 17, 69. 10 Daiches, “Exodus 5:4–5: The Meaning of Cr)h M(,” JQR 12 (1921): 33; idem, “The Mean- ing of Am Ha-Aretz in the Old Testament,” JTS 30 (1929): 248. 11 Daiches, “Meaning of Am Ha-Aretz,” 245. 12 Ibid. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 111 Daiches’s brief mention of the vam hā'āresi in the book of Ezra exemplifies the alacrity with which he applies the technical definition. He cautions that in Ezra (especially chs. 4; 10) “Cr)h is usually left out.” 13 So, Daiches will have us believe, while the exclusive body of landed gentry do figure into the story, they are most often not referred to by their distinct appellation. Disappointingly, Daiches neg- lects to comment on how one may justify reading “the representative body of landed gentry” from the simple word vam, when the defining half of the moniker (hā'āresi ) is missing. 14 A study by Ernst Würthwein published in 1936 represents a benchmark in interpretation of vam hā'āres i (if only for its length), though his broader conclu- sions are not greatly at variance with those that preceded them. Würthwein adheres to the dogmatic interpretation of the term as highly specific in meaning, applying only to the body of land-owning citizens. 15 Though Würthwein maintains that this group was politically and militarily preeminent, he does not base his picture on any presumptions of representative political organization. Würthwein argues for a change in the usage of vam hā'āresi in the postexilic period. The meaning remains intact, but the term is used to designate an entirely different group. Thus, Unsere bisherige Untersuchung hat den ‘amm ha’arez erwiesen als die Ober- schicht des vorexilischen Juda. Diese Oberschicht hat mit ihrer Exilierung vorübergehend ihre Bedeutung und für immer ihren Namen verloren. Was aus dem Exil zurückkehrte, nannte sich nicht mehr ‘amm ha’arez, sondern legte sich den Ehrennamen hlwg, hlwgh ynb oder hlwgh lhq zu. Diese gola, zum größten Teil aus dem ehemaligen ‘amm ha’arez bestehend, kommt nun nach ihrer Rück- kehr in Konflikt mit Kreisen, die den Titel ‘amm ha’arez, ‘amme ha’arez und ‘amme ha’arazoth führen. 16 Like Daiches, Würthwein sees the continual presence of an elite, land-owning group at work in all stages of Israelite society, but quite contrary to the former, the latter sees the term used to designate this group as completely altered after the exile. This interpretation provides a useful (though largely unjustified) strategy for dealing with the identity of the gôlâ community. Some twenty years later, Ernest W. Nicholson brought a diametrically oppos- 13 Ibid., 248. 14 In the course of this discussion, Daiches expresses his aspiration to “deal more fully with M( and Cr)h M( in Ezra (especially with ch.iv, v.4)” (“Meaning of Am-Haretz,” 248). Unfortu- nately, my research has not succeeded in turning up any published work by Daiches that treats this matter specifically. 15 Würthwein, Der vamm ha'arez im Alten Testament (BWANT 17; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936), 17. 16 Ibid., 51. 112 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ing interpretation of vam hā'āres i to the discussion, which amounts nearly to no interpretation at all. His is, perhaps, the “commonsense” view of the term: that it “is no such technical term but that it is used in a very general manner varying in mean- ing from context to context.” 17 So the words should generally not be taken at any- thing greater than face value; they are most often a simple designation of the general population. Though Nicholson’s take is somewhat welcome and relieving in its simplicity, it does very little to argue for its superiority over the technical interpretation. Rather, Nicholson recounts several key passages in which the term occurs and sat- isfies himself with showing how the facile reading is unproblematic. He fails to acknowledge that the ability to read the text intelligibly without the technical def- inition is a matter of course. The difficult task (to which he unfortunately does not attend) is to argue for the preference of the literal interpretation. Still less fortunate is the pittance of scholarly attention given to Nicholson’s interpretation. His facile reading amounts to little more than a bump in the road of the ever-forging technical interpretation, such that Shemaryahu Talmon, the next voice to speak on the subject, identifies Nicholson’s position as a “low tide” in the debate. 18 Talmon’s essay, however, betrays some influence from Nicholson’s read- ing, insofar as Talmon is compelled to distinguish between the technical and gen- eral usages before postulating his description of the technical term. 19 By recognizing the apparent inconsistency with which the term is used throughout the Hebrew Bible, Talmon proposes to explain its meaning “by assuming a semantic division of the term which resulted in diverse synchronic employments.” 20 The term is used in two ways: (1) to refer to the entirety of any particular group of people, and (2) as a technical term that designated a particular Judean political group. 21 Talmon is a bit less imaginative than his predecessors, though he provides no more supporting evidence for his description. Relying primarily on 2 Kings, he 17 Nicholson, “The Meaning of the Expression Cr)h M( in the Old Testament,” JSS 10 (1965): 60. 18 Talmon, “The Judean vAm Ha'aresi,” in idem, King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies (Aspects of the Hebrew Bible; Jerusalem; Magnes, 1986), 69; repr. from Papers of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 70. 19 Ibid., 69. 20 Ibid., 72. 21 The first is found both in the singular form that we have hereto discussed and in various combinations of plurality (vammê hā'āresi, vam hā'ărāsiôt, vammê hā'ărāsiôt) without any lexical distinction. The technical term, however, is used only in the singular. Talmon thinks that he sees the same sort of duality in the words vebed and navar, though he does not seem to recognize that two words sharing one semantic connotation are the inverse of the sort of phenomenon he is pro- posing. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 113 finds a narrative chronology that suggests that the vam hā'āresi were active at least from the overthrow of Athaliah (836 b.c.e., where the vam hā'āresi supposedly stage the coup) until the destruction of Jerusalem (during which some of the vam hā'āresi are executed along with the king’s sons). 22 For Talmon, the span and nature of these events “illustrate that in weal and in woe this body was aligned with the Davidic dynasty, and ultimately shared its unfortunate fate.” 23 This body would not be entirely political, nor entirely militaristic, but a bit of each. It was something of a silent protector, spontaneously organizing only at times of threat to the Davidic dynasty, which it was sworn to protect, and acting in what- ever capacity was needed to support the monarchy. The nature of the group was not institutional per se, but rather it was a “sociological phenomenon” that surfaced naturally and only when needed. 24 What is unique about Talmon’s exposition is that he believes that he avoids the problem of ambiguity among the variety of ways in which the term is used (as noted by Nicholson) by distinguishing between those which are specifically Judean, and those which refer to other groups, including “all-Israel.” 25 But his specifically Judean occurrences ultimately amount to only the uses of the Deuteronomist. Since Talmon maintains that the Deuteronomist was active throughout the preexilic period and considering the preexilic authorship of the Priestly source in Judah, 26 we have two sources using the same term at the same time with very different meanings. This seems unlikely. If the vam hā'āresi were the defenders of the monar- chy, actively staging military coups and such, P is bound to have noticed. Without a more definite justification for semantic separation between otherwise similar usages, Talmon’s supposed distinction is untenable. I conclude this brief history of scholarship with a look at the work of Lisbeth Fried who has published the most recent treatment of the vam hā'āresi , specifically as it appears in Ezra 4:4. 27 She begins by settling on a broad interpretation of the 22 One finds that Talmon believes the Deuteronomistic History to be a “rolling corpus” com- position, as he claims that although it was finally redacted in the postexilic period, the reports of the actions of the vam hā'āresi are probably contemporary with the actual events (“Judean vAm Ha'aresi,” 72). 23 Ibid., 74. 24 Ibid., 73–76. 25 In the latter he includes the uses of the Priestly source of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel, specifically Lev 4:27 (P); 20:2, 4 (H); Ezek 33:2; 39:13; 45:16, 22; 46:3, 9. These Talmon deems “cultic-legal” in nature (“Judean vAm Ha'aresi,” 69). Curiously, he does not categorize Ezek 7:27; 12:19, or 22:29, which occur in situations similar to 33:2 and 39:13. 26 Following Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commen- tary (3 vols.; AB 3, 3A, 3B; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001), vol. 1; Avi Hurvitz, “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code,” RB 81 (1974): 24–56; among others. 27 Fried, “The vam hā'āresi in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). 114 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) (preexilic) term. Trusting the work of her predecessors, 28 she agrees that it “com- prised the class of free, landowning, full citizens of preexilic Judah.” 29 It is in her brief evaluation of the term in the postexilic writings that Fried breaks away from the majority opinion and claims (à la Daiches) that the meaning of vam hā'āres i holds the same technical force. Fried cites P’s uses for support (Gen 23:7; Lev 4:27; Num 14:9), which, in her assessment, necessarily imply a land-owning, aristocratic referent. 30 I interrupt the exposition, having reviewed the basic view of a number of scholars, to express the broad criticism that I have hereto withheld. Aside from the general lack of textual justification for proposing any such highly specific organi- zation or class as has been so frequently described, the true embarrassment is the high degree of self-evidence that has been assumed by each interpreter with each proof-text. This is true on both sides of the debate. For example, to prove the non- specific referent of vam hā'āresi in Gen 42:6, Nicholson asserts: “The plain mean- ing of this text is surely that Joseph was responsible for supplying corn to any Egyptian who might wish to buy it. The expression cannot here be referring to a specific class, social or otherwise, within the population of Egypt.” 31 Why not? That the plain meaning of the text reads, “people of the land” (i.e., Egyptians) is not in dispute. It is the contention of the proponents of a technical definition that there is some depth over and above the plain meaning. Clearly, Nicholson has done noth- ing to defend his case in this instance. But more disappointing is Fried’s response to Nicholson’s unremarkable argu- ment. Gen 42:6 refers to the vam hā'āresi of the Egyptians to whom Joseph, in charge of Egypt’s land, sells grain. However, if Joseph was believed to be in charge of grain production for all of Egypt, then he would have been seen as selling only to the heads of the landed estates in Egypt. These free landowners would then have distributed it to their peasants and dependents. Joseph would not have been viewed as selling grain to every man or woman on the street who wanted it. 32 28 Most notably Gunneweg, “Cr)h M(,” 437–40; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), and Würthwein, Der vamm ha'arez. 29 Fried, “vam hā'āresi in Ezra 4:4,” 125–26. 30 Here Fried’s account is fully dependent on a late dating of P. While we may choose not to fault her for building on this foundation, we must not forget to recognize that any results will be contingent on the ultimate success of the foundational assumption. Against such a dating, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:5. The implications of a decision against a late P may be insignificant to her general interpretation of vam hā'āresi; after all, these texts would then fall into her preexilic cate- gory, which she interprets with exactly the same definition. However, this would leave her with- out a model for interpreting the postexilic usage of the phrase, which, as we shall see below, could be detrimental to her case for the meaning of the term in Ezra. 31 Nicholson, “Expression Cr)h M(,” 61. 32 Fried, “vam hā'āresi in Ezra 4:4,” 126. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 115 Fried’s defense is scarcely as strong as Nicholson’s original assertion. Fried offers no evidence to support her claim that these goods could be dispersed only through a top-down scheme of social distribution (though she does refer the reader to her previous work on Egyptian economy). Even if her take on the socioeconomic organization of Egypt is correct, she still has offered no reason to interpret the meaning of the biblical text (which may or may not be privy to Egypt’s economic inner workings) as different from its plain meaning. That is, even if Egypt’s actual distribution of goods is as Fried claims, the biblical writer could very well still intend to say that Joseph (perhaps accentuating his magnanimity) distributed to everyone. This sort of interchange is typical of the argumentation on our subject. How- ever, with due fairness to the parties involved, there may often be little more sub- stance available for debate. As my intention is not to linger upon a tirade against the methods of the interpreters, let us forge on with Fried’s work. II. The vam hā'āresi in Ezra Although general interpretation of the phrase is not Fried’s primary concern, her treatment represents an attempt to draw conclusions about the editorial his- tory of the text of Ezra 4 based on the application of a theory of identity of the vam hā'āresi . As the outcome of such an attempt is of interest to the broader scope of the present discussion, I wish to consider her work in some detail. The text in question is Ezra 4:1–5. 33 Here Fried notes, “The vam hā'āresi do not seem to be the poor and disenfranchised but the powerful landed aristocracy who participate in the admin- istration of government.” 34 This understanding is owed to v. 5: that the vam hā'āresi were successful in their plan to halt the temple building project through bribery (Myc(wy Mhyl( Myrks) and discouragement (ydy Myprm, lit. “weakening the hands of ”). Enhancing this picture, Fried continues by equating the enemies of Judah (yrc hdwhy) and Benjamin presented in v. 1 with the vam hā'āres i of v. 4 35 —the first meaningful step toward building an identity for the vam hā'āresi in Ezra. 33 “The enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returnees were building the temple to Yhwh, the God of Israel, so they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers’ (houses) and said to them, ‘Let us build with you, for like you we seek an oracle from your God, for we have been sacrificing to him from the days that Esarhaddon brought us up here.’ But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of the fathers’ (houses) of Israel said to them, ‘It is not for you but for us to build the house of our God for we alone will build to Yhwh, the God of Israel, just as King Cyrus, king of Persia, commanded us.’ Then the vam hā'āresi discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build. They hired officials against them to frustrate their plans all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, until the reign of Darius, king of Persia” (Fried’s translation, “vam hā'āresi in Ezra 4:4,” 129). 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid., 130. 116 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) The heart of Fried’s understanding materializes when she cites the third frus- tration of the Judean building project, the writing of a letter to the Persian king. She sees the immediate introduction to the letter as the bridge between the uniden- tified s i ārîm/vam hā'āres i and the specified writers: Rehum, Shimshai, and their associates. These men are none other than the Persian satrapal officials; thus the opposition that has been the subject of the narrative throughout has really been the Persian satrapal government. Fried cites the possible use of v. 24 as a resumptive clause (more or less repeat- ing v. 5) as further evidence that the redactor intends to parallel the vam hā'āresi with the Persian officials. In what she labels the “redactor’s misunderstanding,” Fried asserts that the self-identification of the letter writers as “people whom the great and noble Osnappar deported and settled in the cities of Samaria” (Ezra 4:10) indicates that the redactor takes these officials to be of non-Persian descent. This is not likely. The men listed as signatories were among the highest officials in the satrapal government of Beyond the River, “eating the salt of the palace” (Ezra 4:9). As such they would have been appointed by the king from his inner circle in Persia or Babylon and sent to the satrapy by the king himself. They would not have been the descendants of those deported into the area by the Assyrians. 36 So, for Fried, the redactor uses the phrase in a manner entirely consistent with the rest of the biblical material, but he has erred in assuming that these letter writers were people other than Persians. This is really no matter, though, since these Per- sians were, in fact, land-owning aristocrats and thus fit nicely into the category of vam hā'āresi . First, I object to Fried’s understanding of the vam hā'āresi as broadly influen- tial and powerful based on the context of 4:4–5; this is clearly beyond what is con- veyed by the text. Though it is not contested that the vam involved were able to influence the gôlâ in this solitary instance, there is no indication that this vam was permanently or especially politically influential, the ability to bribe notwithstand- ing. The text is, in fact, extremely vague on this point. There is no indication of what degree of economic (or other) transactions constituted the bribery, nor what the officials actually did to “frustrate” (rphl) the construction. Thus, it would be fallacious to attempt to draw anything from this passage apart from the bare fact that the vam were able to influence this particular event. Though Fried does not express any justification for equating the si ārîmmen- tioned in v. 1 with the vam of v. 4, this is not an unreasonable move; after all, both represent factions of opposition in the narrative. But, in fact, it is unusual that two terms possessing no obviously synonymous value would be used to denote two separate (and not necessarily logically connected) actions undertaken by the same group. It is difficult to understand why an author or redactor would prefer such 36 Ibid., 137. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 117 ambiguous labeling. More likely, the two groups are distinct and, correspondingly, their activities represent unrelated events. Instead of a single narrative of cause and effect, 37 we have a compilation of various attempts to impede the rebuilding of the temple. 38 If the events are not directly related, the transition between actions and use of the distinct appellation vam hā'āresi appears much less clumsy. Indeed, the entirety of Ezra 4 recounts unconnected tales of the various ways in which the gôlâ com- munity was challenged. Accordingly, vv. 1–5 are not merely an introduction to the Aramaic letter; this much is demonstrated by the nebulous v. 6, which refers to another letter that is conspicuously absent from the text. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that we are dealing not with a single narrative that culminates in the presentation of the letter but with something more akin to bullet points. These are manifest in four units: vv. 1–3, 4–5, 6, 7–23. The sum of these events resulted in the conclusion noted in v. 24: reconstruction stopped until the reign of Darius. 39 This brings us to the pith of Fried’s argument: that the vam hā'āresi are explic- itly identified in the Aramaic letter. Here Fried makes an unjustified leap and, in doing so, neglects v. 6. She refers to the “letters to and from the Achaemenid kings . . . that are enclosed between the resumptive clauses” without clarifying that both 37 For example, the siārîmoffer their help in the construction of the temple, but after their rejection (perhaps now acting out of bitter jealousy), these si ārîm(who, we are now told, also hap- pen to be the vam hā'āresi) discourage the people of Judah. 38 On the understanding of the chapter as a rationale for delay of reconstruction, I am not in disagreement with Fried. Fried, however, fails to recognize the disconnected nature of the events and thereby misconceives the text as a unified narrative. 39 The issue of whether v. 24 is a resumption of v. 5 has no impact on this interpretation. See H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco: Word Books, 1985), 57; Joseph Blenk- insopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 115. If v. 24 does function in this way, it serves only to indicate that the latter two units are later inclusions in the list of frus- trations. In fact, it is quite reasonable that v. 6 and vv. 7–23 are later insertions, and I contend that they indeed occur within the envelope of repetitive resumption. See Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 70. Although Pakkala does not explicitly treat Ezra 4, he notes that “Ezra 4:7–23 is probably an expansion to the narrative.” As already noted, v. 6 is anomalous and undoubtedly represents some degree of textual corruption. Its lack of an expressed subject for the verb wbtk might mean that the referent has been lost or excluded (along with the alleged letter to which the text refers), or that the expanding editor wishes to give the impression that the action is connected with the forego- ing subject, when, in fact, the events are distinct. It is also worth considering (not least because of its proximate placement to the Aramaic text) that the lack of expressed subject in this verse is analogous to the impersonal plural passive construction in Aramaic. See Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (6th rev. ed.; Wies- baden: Harrassowitz, 1995), 60, §181. This option, while speculative, is particularly attractive in light of the reappraisal of the biblical usage of vam hā'āresi below. 118 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) outgoing letters are not present. 40 Although she elsewhere recognizes the mention of two letters, Fried seems to have, in some way, telescoped the two (v. 6, vv. 7–23) in such a way that she believes both are a single direct result of the foregoing nar- rative. Neither is time frame an issue, since she does not consider that each is iden- tified with a different royal era. Most unsettling is Fried’s assignment of specific authors to the first letter in v. 6. “The Iranian Mithredates, the Babylonian Tabeel, and the rest of their associ- ates wrote the first letter to Artaxerxes (v. 7), and Rehum the Chancellor (-l(' b; @ M('+; ), Shimshai the secretary, and the rest of their associates . . . wrote the second letter (vv. 8 and 9).” 41 This understanding, according to the text, is impossible. The first letter described in v. 6 is said to be written in the first year of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and does not name a specific writer. To reallocate Mithredath and Tabeel from the subsequent narrative not only ignores their position in v. 7 as the expressed subject of the writing of the second letter but also denies the statement at the head of the verse that this action took place “in the days of Artaxerxes.” Per- haps Fried treats the text in this way to avoid the oddity that different authors are identified in vv. 8–9 (Aramaic) from those who are said in v. 7 (Hebrew) to have written (apparently) the same letter. 42 But there is no literary justification for uprooting this entire block of material and reassigning it to a separate event. Thus, Fried has not in any meaningful way accounted for the anomaly of v. 6 and how it might continue to support her conclusion. As noted above, I am not in disagreement with Fried’s idea that the narrative of Ezra 4 is more concerned with providing a defense for the delay of reconstruc- tion than it is for recording history. Only she imagines the composition of this defense as a single event, whereas I have argued that it must have been compiled in a multiphase process. Since multiple, distinct narratives have been identified in the passage, it will be impossible to find a nearby textual referent for the vam hā'āresi , as does Fried. The foregoing discussion illustrates the sort of textual misunderstanding that emerges from a misconception of the identity and nature of the vam hā'āresi and thus underscores the importance of disabusing readers of the Hebrew Bible of the assumptions that have plagued the interpretation of materials containing this phrase. The remainder of the present discussion will therefore return to the general usage of the term in the biblical texts and search out a contextually appropriate, nonassumptive reading. 40 Fried, “vam hā'āresi in Ezra 4:4,” 134. 41 Ibid., 130. 42 For more detailed discussion of this problem, see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 112–13. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 119 III. A Reappraisal I begin with a general assessment of the two major positions as I conceive of them: the literal interpretation (i.e., every last person in some location) and the technical meaning (though variously conceived, generally the land-owning rich). Given the history of outlandish interpretation, one is tempted (like Nicholson) to seek refuge in parsimony. Such a move, of course, would add no value to the dis- cussion, as simplicity in no way implies correctness. All the same, as an interpre- tive strategy, the ability to understand the text clearly ex facie must be assigned a higher standing than ill-supported conjectures, no matter how attractive. If a use- ful point is to be distilled from this observation, perhaps it may be articulated as fol- lows: never, under the literal interpretation of the phrase, is the meaning of the text unintelligible, nor does the application of the technical definition ever provide any meaningful insight that is integral to the understanding of the narrative. That said, the literal interpretation is hardly preferable, if only for the sake of the general feeling that the term is either contrary to common language or unex- pected in a particular context. With the majority of scholars who have approached the issue, it is difficult to deny the feeling that the phrase can be awkward and the suspicion that some further nuance is intended by the seemingly innocuous words. It is as a result of this dissatisfaction with both sides of the issue that I seek an interpretation that preserves the literal elements of the phrase without overreach- ing. Thus, I propose to read the phrase vam hā'āresi as a literary expression used to communicate something very ordinary, such as “everyone in a particular locality who is relevant to a particular set of circumstances,” but with the deliberate intent to efface or obfuscate the exact actor(s). Henceforth, I will refer to this as the idiomatic interpretation. This understanding is certainly a denial that any sense of power and aristocracy may be read into the term; the evidence for such readings is simply not present. Yet it is preferable to the literal interpretation since there is no need to defend the idea that every last person of a some principality took part in an event, or that the meaning is inconsistent between occurrences. I proceed with a brief reappraisal of some oft-cited passages to demonstrate how an idiomatic understanding is able to flesh out the full, natural meaning of the text without overreaching its bounds. The following instances are sorted according to the contexts in which they occur: legal or jurisdictional settings, anonymous group settings, and references to foreigners. A. Law and Jurisdiction Several occurrences seem to designate the whole of the Israelite and/or Judean population, but within the limits of some particular jurisdiction. Here I count 2 Kgs 120 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 15:5, where Jotham acts as steward to Azariah’s throne after the latter is stricken with leprosy. Jotham “was in charge of the palace, governing the vam hā'āresi .” Are we to suppose with the technical interpretation that Jotham, as regent to the king- dom, had authority only over the aristocrats and not the peasants? This would be unreasonable and better explained if the term means something like “everyone who was in the dominion of Judean sovereignty.” The term is likewise employed in P. The simple intent of Lev 20:2 43 seems to be that all who are under the jurisdiction of the law are also responsible for exact- ing punishment for violation. There is no apparent logic behind assigning this task only to the wealthy. A more interesting case is Lev 4:27, which occurs in the larger scope of vv. 3– 31. Here we find laws concerning the guidelines for purification after the event of unintentional sin committed by various parties. Four actors are named: Nhkh xy#mh (v. 3, “the anointed priest”), l)r#y td(-lk (v. 13, “the entire congregation of Israel”), )y#n (v. 22, “a prince”), and finally vam hā'āresi (v. 27). At first blush the technical usage seems to have some sway here. It seems as though the relevant population-at-large has already been named. But a closer look reveals a greater specificity to the subjects addressed. In v. 13, the subject kol-vădat yiśrā'ēl represents a group, and, accordingly, the verbs associated with it are in the third person plu- ral form (wg#y, w#(, w)+x, wbyrqh). Everything from the action to the contrition is done as a group. Contrast v. 27, whose subject is one from among the vam hā'āresi (Cr)h M(m . . . tx) #pn). Here we are talking not about group or collective sin but about a sin of any one person from among all the people who are under the juris- diction of the law. Part and parcel of the phrase in this instance is that, distinct from the priest, the ruler, and the collective cultic congregation, the anonymous vam hā'āresi is a catchall for the rest of the persons to whom the law applies, who have no other significant identification. 44 The influence of P’s use of the term can be seen further in Ezekiel, who shares a great deal with P in the way of vocabulary and worldview. 45 A more general usage is well suited to Ezekiel, considering that the people to whom he speaks are patently without a land. Accordingly, in Ezekiel, vam hā'āresi often refers to peoples-at-large, but the expression is used in an indefinite, impersonal, and perhaps uncaring man- 43 “. . . any man . . . who gives any of his offspring to Molech will surely die; the people of the land will stone him.” See also Lev 20:4. 44 There is no reason to assume that on the basis of means the law is not applicable to some of the population. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:252 for a practical discussion of this offering. More- over, it is entirely possible that written priestly mandates may not reflect actual circumstances. See also Nicholson’s treatment of this text (“Expression Cr)h M(,” 16). 45 For an overview of this rich topic, see Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 121 ner concerning the particular actors and does not necessarily denote the entirety of the general population. Ezekiel employs the phrase nine times, though I will mention only a few here. Occurring within the scope of chs. 40–48, the visionary account of the future com- munity/temple restoration, 46 chs. 45–46 (throughout which the term vam hā'āresi occurs four times) are especially interesting on account of their reminiscence of Leviticus 4. Indeed, the connection between the whole of chs. 40–48 and the Priestly code has been well noted, such that Julius Wellhausen supposed (in support of his late dating of P) that chs. 40–48 were a sort of paradigm for the entirety of P. 47 As chs. 45–46 are, in part, a restatement (and revision) of Leviticus 4 (and keeping in mind the linguistic connections between the two authors) 48 we may consider the meaning of Ezekiel’s terminology to be equivalent to that of P. As Avi Hurvitz notes, given the mundane practicality of priestly laws, a priestly writer must use clear and contemporary jargon in his composition. If outdated or unfamiliar terminology was used, it would be at the risk of confounding the public who are responsible for carrying out the law. 49 Underscoring this notion is Milgrom’s terminological evaluation of P. Milgrom recognizes the absence of the word vēdâ from Ezekiel’s language, despite P’s abun- dant usage of it as a technical term. Instead, Ezekiel has substituted qāhāl, a syn- onym, for every occurrence “patently because vēdâ has disappeared from the linguistic currency of his day. And, indeed, this technical usage of qāhāl predomi- nates in the postexilic literature (e.g., Ezra 10:12; Neh 8:2).” 50 This understanding demands that we align the meaning of vam hā'āresi in P (namely, Leviticus 4) with that in Ezekiel precisely because Ezekiel chooses to use the term, rather than to exchange it. Having established this relationship, the same idiomatic interpretation as that given to Leviticus 4 obtains here as well. In addition, a few practical comments are in order. Ezekiel 45:22 is part of an instruction for the observance of the Passover festival, where the nāśî ' provides an offering for himself and kôl vam hā'āresi . Cer- tainly there is no reason to assume that only a select group of people are to partic- ipate in this occasion, or be exclusively provided for by the nāśî '. In fact, other biblical references to the celebration of Passover make it abundantly clear that wide- spread participation is expected (2 Kgs 23:21; 2 Chronicles 17–18; Ezra 6:19–21) 46 Many scholars have recognized the distinction of these chapters from the rest of Ezekiel, and thus we may treat the language of the unit separately. See Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Pro- gram of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM10; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). 47 Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (5th ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 60. 48 Adhering to the priority of P with Milgrom, Leviticus; et al. 49 Hurvitz, “Dating the Priestly Code,” 50–51. 50 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:242–43. 122 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) and even suggest just such an ideal of royal provision for the event (2 Chr 35:7–9). Thus, the passage is best understood with a definition such as “all the participants of the Israelite cult.” Likewise we should interpret 45:16; 46:3, 9, as they all refer to cultic events for which general participation is expected. Second, had there been a political or politically sanctioned group such as the variously proposed body of the vam hā'āresi , it is quite unfathomable that it would be retained in Ezekiel’s priestly vision of the renewed state of Israel. Indeed, Ezekiel’s restored kingdom is a priestly utopia, in which even the position of the melek is usurped (or perhaps modified and renamed) by the nāśî ', a sort of theocratic priestly ruler. 51 There is hardly room in this paradise for a corrupt (in Ezekiel’s assessment) parliament or failed band of Davidic defenders. Whether the referent is the inhabitants of a country or the community of exiles is not of special importance. The Ezekielian usage is a testament to the importance of leaving a certain amount of room for vagueness in our reading of the term, as a reflection of the manner in which the writer presents it. Ezekiel legislates regard- ing “those among the people who have done or should do some specified action,” where the action is more important to the message than the actor. B. Anonymity The greatest concentration of occurrences of the term appears in 2 Kings. The story of the coup against Athaliah and accession of Jehoiada especially is riddled with examples (specifically 11:14, 18, 19, 20). Although the involvement of the vam hā'āresi in political affairs in this chapter has traditionally supported the technical interpretation, the narrative may simply be designed to communicate and empha- size the actions of the dethronement, the destruction of the Baal temple, and the joyful accession of the new king, without assigning particular relevance to the actors. The mention of the vam hā'āresi in 2 Kings 14 seems little more than a back- drop for the passage, apparently to create a sense of prestige and grandeur for the 51 To say that the nāśî' in Ezekiel (particularly chs. 40–48) has received a great deal of atten- tion is an understatement. Ezekiel’s effacement of the common word melek is more than a little mysterious and has led to a great deal of scholarly speculation. Most interpreters have fallen into one of two camps: those who think that Ezekiel’s use of nāśî' is born of the influence of some pre- monarchic tradition and thus is only a variant word for a position that is, for all purposes, the melek; and those who see the employment of nāśî' as a critical point of Ezekiel’s theology, proba- bly indicative of an abandonment of any messianic expectation. See Levenson, Theology, 57–69. For a statement of the influential and highly controversial theory that the term is indicative of a separate stratum of authorship or redaction (the nāśî' stratum), see Duguid, Ezekiel and the Lead- ers, esp. 27. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 123 occasion and to portray an image of widespread support for the new ruler with no need of specifics. More noticeable is v. 18, in which the vam hā'āres i are the expressed actors. However, as the phrase was used just four verses earlier in a clearly perfunctory manner, there is no reason to assume that a different sense is present here. Despite its placement as the subject of the event, the use of the phrase com- municates a lack of concern for enumerating the individual parties involved, rather conveying the action with an almost impersonal sense. In 2 Kings 24, we find a surprising use of the phrase that seems to place par- ticular strain on the technical interpretation. 52 Verse 14 tells the reader that after Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem, he deported all the officials, warriors, arti- sans, and smiths, leaving only the poor (tld) of the vam hā'āresi . 53 Those who argue that the vam hā'āresi are necessarily aristocratic have a difficult task explaining how any of them could also fall into the category of “the poor.” Further burdensome to this camp is the following verse, which declares that the elite of the land, a descrip- tion precisely like that often assigned to vam hā'āresi , were also carried away. Cer- tainly, then, the vam hā'āresi mentioned in v. 14 are a different group. 54 Once again, we find support for eschewing the technical definition and under- standing the term as an idiomatic reference to a subject in whom the author has lit- tle interest. Indeed, he has gone to lengths to enumerate for the reader the particular individuals and groups that have been taken away, yet he seems only vaguely aware that some were left behind, and certain that they were unimportant in the first place. C. Foreign Peoples To this point I have reviewed only passages that use the phrase in reference to the Israelite and/or Judean population. This is to be expected, considering the sources of the material and the intended audience. But, before concluding, I should make clear that the term is certainly not limited to this realm of operation. Thus, in Gen 23:7, 55 Abraham bows to the “vam hā'āresi , the Hittites” (tx-ynb). The appo- sition of bĕnê hiēt not only clarifies the group of foreigners to whom the action is directed but serves as a vague backdrop to contrast the emergence of an important character, Ephron ben Zohar, the Hittite who will sell the burial place. The term is 52 A counterpart might be found in 2 Kgs 25:12, though the MT lacks vam. The full phrase is found, however, in the LXX, Syr., and Targum versions. BHS, 672 n.12a. 53 This is often translated as a superlative adjectival phrase (i.e., the poorest of the people of the land), but since dallat is a noun in construct with vam hā'āresi, it is better rendered as above. 54 The interpreters who have argued that the supposedly aristocratic vam hā'āresi also had the prime responsibility for participating in military action (perhaps in part to ease interpretation of verses such as 2 Kgs 25:19) find further difficulty here since all the “warriors of the army” are carted off, while some vam hā'āresi are left behind. 55 Also vv. 12, 13 of the same chapter. 124 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) otherwise used of foreign peoples without further clarification when the referent is unmistakable (cf. Num 14:9). The contentious Exod 5:5 may be a similar case, insofar as it represents a sub- ject referring to a people of a different ethnicity. Without emendation, the text (“now the people of the land are numerous”) 56 may be understood as an idiomatic reference to the group of Hebrew slaves who are already the expressed topic of con- versation (vv. 1–4). Pharaoh here refers to this group with an uncaring vagueness: “the people of the land.” Finally, I find no difficulty understanding Ezra 4:4 in light of this proposal. As it turns out, the question of the identity of the vam hā'āresi in this passage (as Fried conceives of it) is self-defeating. The writer has chosen to use this term precisely because the referent is of no consequence to his telos, which is, as already men- tioned, aimed at justifying the delay of construction rather than providing an accu- rate and detailed history. This is not to say that the recounted events could not have taken place, only that the author seems to be oblivious to the specific details. Thus he employs non-specific terminology such as si ārîm and, of course, vam hā'āresi . To follow Fried in equating the vam hā'āresi with any named characters in the narra- tive would be anathema to the very point of the term. III. Conclusion It is clear from the biblical text that no such idea of land-owning, politically influential aristocracy or Davidic-loyalist, militaristic laymen is inherent in the term vam hā'āresi . Not only is this reading at best supplementary to the meaning of most passages, but other examples preclude such interpretation altogether. Quite contrary to this proposed identification is the idiomatic interpretation, which, as we have seen, finds the phrase to be employed exactly and consistently when the author has no real interest in or other means of identifying the subject. This is not to be confused with a literal understanding of the phrase, which maintains that the mean- ing varies in each context within the semantic boundaries of the words but nor- mally refers to literally “everyone.” I have argued that the meaning of the expression is quite consistent and that the application is flexible enough to meet authors’ needs to express an idea in a variety of contexts. It may be used to provide background scenery to an important event, to emphasize an action rather than a subject, to pro- vide contrast between important and unimportant characters, or to express a gen- eral indifference to the subject. 56 Many scholars choose to read (with the Samaritan Pentateuch) “now they are more numerous than the people of the land.” Our idiomatic understanding works just as well with this version; Pharaoh simply refers to his own citizens in distinction from the Hebrews. Our under- standing requires no such change of the MT, though it is not impacted either way. Tames: Te Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 125 Outstanding Scholarship from Cambridge Prices subject to change. The King James Bible after Four Hundred Years Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences Edited by Hannibal Hamlin, Norman W. Jones $39.99: Hardback: 978-0-521-76827-6: 378 pp. The King James Bible A Short History from Tyndale to Today David Norton $65.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-85149-7: 232 pp. $24.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-61688-1 The Mystery of the Last Supper Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus Colin J. Humphreys $75.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-51755-3: 264 pp. $24.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-73200-0 The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity Edited by Daniel Patte $150.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-82096-7: 1414 pp. $39.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-52785-9 Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism Jordan D. Rosenblum $85.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-19598-0: 238 pp. Religions of the Ancient Near East Daniel C. Snell $85.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-86475-6: 194 pp. $25.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-68336-4 Now in paperback… The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel Benjamin D. Sommer $29.99: Paperback: 978-1-107-42226-1: 334 pp. The Social Universe of the English Bible Scripture, Society, and Culture in Early Modern England Naomi Tadmor $95.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-76971-6: 224 pp. Before Forgiveness The Origins of a Moral Idea David Konstan $85.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-19940-7: 206 pp. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East Bruce Louden $99.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-76820-7: 368 pp. Paradise in Antiquity Jewish and Christian Views Edited by Markus Bockmuehl, Guy G. Stroumsa $95.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-11786-9: 272 pp. The Politics of Inheritance in Romans Mark Forman Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series $90.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-76909-9: 288 pp. www.cambridge.org/us Waiters or Preachers: Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan Table Fellowship Motif david w. pao [email protected] Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfeld, IL 60015 Since the seminal work of Ferdinand Christian Baur, the account of the selec- tion of the Seven 1 in the context of the dispute between the Hebrews and the Hel- lenists (Acts 6:1–7) has attracted the attention of many who are interested in the historical reality that lies behind this portrayal of the early church. 2 Critical dis- cussions often focus on three historical problems: the identity of the “Hellenists” and the “Hebrews,” the ideological differences between these two groups, and the historical framework within which one should understand the caring for the wid- ows in the early church. On the identity of the “Hellenists” (Ἑλληνιστής) and the “Hebrews” (Ἑβραῖος), a majority position seems to have emerged, although a consensus has yet to be reached. Despite the protests by some, 3 many consider language preference to be the 1 Although “the Seven” (οἱ ἑπτά) is not used in this account, this title does appear in the narrative of Acts 21:8 describing the seven men who are chosen here. 2 See, in particular, Ferdinand Christian Baur, The Church History of the First Three Centuries (trans. Allan Menzies; 2 vols.; 3rd ed.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1878), vol. 1. See also the discussion in Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, Der Stephanuskreis in der Forschungsgeschichte seit F.C. Baur (Monographien und Studienbücher 309; Giessen: Brunnen, 1983), 4–144. 3 A major dissenting voice can be found in those who see the distinction primarily in eth- nic terms: the “Hellenists” represent the Gentiles, while the “Hebrews” are the Jews. See, e.g., Henry J. Cadbury, “The Hellenists,” in Additional Notes to the Commentary (ed. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury; vol. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles; ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; London: Macmillan, 1933), 59–74; Joseph B. Tyson, “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations in Early Christianity,” PRSt 10 (1983): 145–61. Some have also suggested that the “Hebrews” are Samaritans; see Abram Spiro, “Stephen’s Samaritan Background,” in Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (rev. William F. Albright and C. S. Mann; AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1967), 285–300. JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 127–144 127 primary distinguishing factor: “‘Hellenists’ means Greek-speaking Jews, as opposed to the ‘Hebrews’ or Aramaic-speaking Jews.” 4 As far as the ideological differences between the Hellenists and the Hebrews are concerned, many acknowledge the contribution of Baur but refuse to follow him in seeing the contrast between the Hellenists and the Hebrews primarily as the competition between the “liberal” and “conservative” understandings of the tem- ple and the law. Not only can this contrast lead to “an unfair stereotyping of non- Pauline Jewish Christianity as backward, severe, and legalistic,” but it also assumes a simplistic view of the history of the early church in which uniform bodies of opin- ion can be identified behind two groups of Jews divided by their language prefer- ences. 5 On the historical practices of caring for widows among the Jews of the first century, some have pointed to the relevance of the later rabbinic material, 6 while others have pointed to parallels among the Essenes. 7 Most would agree, however, 4 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. R. McL. Wilson; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 260. See also F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduc- tion and Commentary (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 151; C. F. D. Moule, “Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?” ExpTim 70 (1958): 100–102; E. Larsson, “Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde,” NTS 33 (1987): 205–25; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; Herme- neia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 45; Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 108–9; H. A. Brehm, “The Meaning of Ἑλληνιστής in Acts in Light of a Diachronic Analysis of ἑλληνίζειν,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 180–99. For a survey of other possible interpretations of these two terms, see Everett Ferguson, “The Hellenists in the Book of Acts,” ResQ12 (1969): 159–80. While cultural differences cannot be denied, many see linguistic preference as the primary distinguishing factor; see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenis- tic Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 1:58. 5 Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 193–94. Many recent commentators have followed Hill’s detailed arguments in providing significant qualifications to Baur’s thesis. Adopting a sociological approach, others have also pointed to the diversity of an early Christianity that cannot easily be divided into liberal and conservative camps; see Gerd Theissen, “Hellenisten und Hebräer (Apg 6,1-6): Gab es eine Spaltung der Urgemeinde?” in Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer; 3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 3:323–43. 6 See m. Ketub. 13:1–2; m. Pesahi. 8:2–9; 10:1; m. Šeqal. 5:6; m. Pevah 8:7; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (trans. F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 132–34; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 261–62; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio- Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 248. 7 See Philo, Hypoth. 11.4–11; Brian Capper, “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauck- ham; Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 351. 128 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) that the data provided in Acts 6 are insufficient to reconstruct the detailed arrange- ments of the early Christian community in Jerusalem. While scholarly attention has focused on these historical matters, most com- mentators also recognize a significant problem in Luke’s presentation in this account: 8 “why men chosen to allow the Twelve to preach rather than to ‘serve tables’ appear later only as preachers and evangelists.” 9 Although this apparent inconsistency between the assigned role of the Seven and their actual function in the subsequent narrative is not commonly the focus of scholarly discussions, most commentators feel the need to explain it. Almost all proposed explanations appear to assume, however, that this seeming inconsistency is the result of Luke’s careless writing. Consequently, the significance of table service in this account is down- played, and the literary function of this episode becomes unclear. It is the purpose of this article to revisit this apparent inconsistency and to argue that it represents an intentional strategy of the author in his presentation of the development of the early Christian movement. I. Historical Reconstructions Assuming that this apparent inconsistency represents the failure of Luke to present a coherent and sustained narrative of the development of the church, many have resorted to various forms of historical reconstruction to explain the presence of such an inconsistency. Drawing on the contributions of Baur, James D. G. Dunn detects the “residue of suspicion” behind Acts 6. 10 This “residue of suspicion” finds its roots in the Maccabean revolt, in which the conservative Jews fought against their Hellenistic counterparts. Ernst Haenchen, among others, sees behind this inconsis- tency an intentional covering up of the deeper rift between the Hellenists and the Hebrews, who represent two different ideological orientations. 11 To these scholars, Luke’s attempt to downplay these conflicts leads to the presence of the apparent inconsistencies in the account itself. The division of labor that appears in the final text is but a literary strategy to create space for the coexistence of the two camps. Another kind of historical reconstruction understands the Seven as already leaders of a separate community: “The ‘Seven’ are in reality not men who care for the poor . . . but the leading group of an independent community, the ‘Hellenists.’” 12 8 In this article, I use “Luke” as the author of Luke-Acts. The actual identification of this author will not affect the arguments presented here. 9 Cadbury, “Hellenists,” 62. 10 Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 82. 11 Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 264–69; cf. B. Barbara Hall, “La communauté chrétienne dans le livre des Actes,” FoiVie 70 (1971): 146–56. 12 Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 13. Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 129 This position is embraced by many who otherwise have different evaluations of Luke as a historian. F. F. Bruce, who insists on the general historical reliability of Luke, claims that the Seven “were leaders of the Hellenistic group in the primitive church, fulfilling a much wider ministry than that of septem viri mensis ordinandis, to which they were appointed on the occasion described by Luke.” 13 On the other end of the spectrum, Hans Conzelmann presents a similar explanation for the pres- ence of “two organizations”: “Alongside the circle around the Twelve there was a group around the seven.” 14 Among those who see the presence of an independent community of Hellenists, most see the different job descriptions for the Twelve and the Seven as Luke’s attempt to subordinate the Seven to the Twelve and thus main- tain the picture of the unified church. Richard Pervo’s statement is representative of this position: The perceptible dissonance between Luke’s Seven and their appointed task stems, of course, from his desire to subordinate this group to the Twelve and assign them innocuous tasks. In reality the Seven were a rival group with a different theological program. Two birds fall with a single stone: the church glows with undivided gentility, and a competing group evaporates into a group of grocery boys. 15 The third solution that is often proposed points to Acts 6:1–7 as a succession narrative in disguise. The primary purpose of this account is to provide “the initial link in the transfer of authority from the apostles to other significant narrative fig- ures.” 16 The form of this succession narrative can be compared to the earlier one in 1:15–26, 17 but this narrative is unique because it signifies a new stage in the devel- opment of the early church as the apostles begin to establish an entirely new group of leaders that were not instituted by Jesus himself. 18 The division of labor is, there- fore, simply a disguise for the introduction of a new group of leaders. As successors 13 F. F. Bruce, “The Church of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles,” BJRL 67 (1985): 647. See also I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 125; Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context,” 354. 14 Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 44. See also Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 158. 15 Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Phila- delphia: Fortress, 1987), 40. See also Nikolaus Walter, “Apostelgeschichte 6.1 und die Anfänge der Urgemeinde in Jerusalem,” NTS 29 (1983): 370–73. 16 Todd Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 10; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 270. See also Bernhard Domagalski, “Waren die ‘Sieben’ (Apg 6,1–7) Diakone?” BZ 26 (1982): 21–33; Tyson, “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations,” 152. 17 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 73. 18 Daniel Marguerat, Les Actes des Apôtres (1–12) (CNT 5a; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007), 207. 130 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) to the original Twelve, the Seven, not surprisingly, replicate the actions of the Twelve as they become involved in the ministry of the Word. 19 Finally, some are content to assume that Luke’s description of the purported role of the Seven is simply a partial description, since “there is no exclusive division between material care and the διακονία of the Word.” 20 Therefore, the Seven who are to be involved in table service are not excluded from the proclamation of the Word. While these historical reconstructions may help in our understanding of the reality behind the text, it remains unclear if they can fully explain the literary and theological intentions of this narrative. One cannot deny the presence of various tensions between the Hebrews and the Hellenists, and it seems clear that the Seven were leaders in their own right and that they succeeded, to a certain degree, the Twelve in the ministry. These reconstructions fail, however, to explain Luke’s emphasis on table service as an area of ministry that is to be connected with the Seven. Moreover, while one certainly should not assume that table service and the proclamation of the Word are exclusive categories, this assumption does not fully explain the way this narrative is structured: “It is quite understandable that men who were in fact connected with the distribution of alms should grow into preach- ers and controversialists but it would be bad writing first of all to make up a job for them and then represent them as neglecting it for another.” 21 Moving beyond his- torical reconstructions, it is necessary to focus on the literary frameworks within which this narrative is to be understood. It will be shown that one framework in particular—the framework of table fellowship—is relevant in explaining the appar- ent inconsistency between the assigned role and the actual function of the Seven. II. Table Fellowship in Luke Several literary frameworks have been invoked to illuminate the meaning and significance of Acts 6:1–7, and each contributes at least in part to a better under- standing of certain aspects of this account. First, parallels in the Hebrew Bible have often been noted (esp. Exod 18:13–27; Num 11:1–30; Deut 1:9–18), and these par- allels point to the significance of the Seven as assistants of and successors to the 19 Charles H. Talbert and Perry L. Stepp, “Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part 2: Luke-Acts,” SBLSP 37 (1998): 172. 20 Bart J. Koet, “Luke 10:38–42 and Acts 6:1–7: A Lukan Diptych on ∆ΙΑΚΟΝΙΑ,” in Stud- ies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J. (ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp; CBQMS 44; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 179. See also Marshall, Acts, 125; Norman Nagel, “The Twelve and the Seven in Acts 6 and the Needy,” Concordia Journal 31 (2005): 113–26. 21 C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998), 2:306. Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 131 Twelve. 22 Second, within the writings of Luke, the relevance of Luke 10:38–42 has also been noted as it is understood to depict the contrast between the ministry of the Word and material care. 23 Third, closer to Acts 6, the mission to the Gentiles is apparently the direction of the flow of the narrative. Acts 6:1–7 should therefore be understood within this narrative development. 24 All three frameworks provide crit- ical elements for an appreciation of the significance of this account, but these frame- works alone are insufficient to explain the presence of the apparent inconsistency in the text. In a passage that focuses on table service (see διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, 6:2), 25 the relevance of the motif of table fellowship that is so prominent elsewhere in the Lukan writings should also be considered. Reading Acts 6:1–7 in light of this motif will not only highlight the function of this account in Luke’s program but will also contribute to explaining the apparent inconsistency when the passage is consid- ered within Luke’s wider narrative. The general motif of table fellowship in Luke- Acts has received extensive treatment, although not specifically in relation to Acts 6:1–7. 26 In this section, a brief summary of the function of this Lukan motif as it is relevant for our discussion will be sufficient. 22 See, in particular, David Daube, “A Reform in Acts and Its Models,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (ed. Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 151–63. Others have also pointed to the relevance of Num 8:5–13 that depicts the consecration of the Levites; see, e.g., J. D. McCaughey, “The Intention of the Author: Some Questions about the Exegesis of Acts vi. 1–6,” ABR 7 (1959): 27–36. 23 Turid Karlsen Seim, The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 107–12; Veronica Koperski, “Luke 10,38–42 and Acts 6,1–7: Women and Dis- cipleship in the Literary Context of Luke-Acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. Joseph Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 517–44; Koet, “Luke 10:38–42 and Acts 6:1–7,” 163–85. 24 In tracing the use of the word διακονία from the Jerusalem ministry of the Twelve (1:17, 25) to the Gentile mission of Paul (20:24; 21:19), John N. Collins (Deacons and the Church: Mak- ing Connections between Old and New[Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 2002], 52–57) argues that the use of the same term in 6:1, 4 points to the transitional nature of this passage. 25 The exact translation of this phrase will be discussed in section III.A below. 26 See, e.g., Robert J. Karris, Luke: Artist and Theologian. Luke’s Passion Account as Litera- ture (New York: Paulist, 1985), 47–78; Philip F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1987), 71–109; Jerome H. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 361–87; Kathleen E. Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 108–46; Robert L. Kelley, “Meals with Jesus in Luke’s Gospel,” HBT 17 (1995): 123–31; Willi Braun, Feast- ing and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14 (SNTSMS 85; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Klyne Snodgrass, “Common Life with Jesus: The Parable of the Banquet in Luke 14:16–24,” in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder (ed. Julian V. Hills et al.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 186–201; Dennis E. Smith, “Table Fellowship 132 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) The social functions of meals have often been noted, as they reveal “different degrees of hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across the boundaries.” 27 In the Greco-Roman world, banquet and symposium are often instruments through which fictive-kinship groups are defined; 28 for the Jews, rules surrounding meals are particularly important in delineating God’s people from the Gentiles. 29 Despite the difficulties involved in the move from historical reality to lit- erary constructions, one does find the use of the motif of table fellowship in descriptions of ideal communities, with the goal of suggesting or reinforcing pat- terns of behavior. 30 In Luke’s Gospel, one finds the meal scenes in both discourse (7:31–35; 11:5– 13; 12:13–21, 35–40, 42–48; 13:22–30; 14:7–24; 15:11–32; 16:19–31; 17:5–10) and narrative (5:27–32; 7:36–50; 9:10–17; 14:1–6; 15:1–2; 22:14–38) material. Among the various emphases related to such material, three connected themes stand out as significant and uniquely Lukan. First, the inclusion of the outcasts is a theme that can be identified especially in the narrative material connected with the meal scenes. While meals in the ancient world often function to consolidate the bound- ary of an existing community, many meal scenes in Luke aim instead at breaking such boundaries. 31 In this Gospel, Jesus is often found in table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners” (5:30; 7:34; 15:1). These “tax collectors” represent the out- casts of society (cf. 3:12; 18:9–14; 19:1–10), while the “sinners” are those who are considered to be unclean and impure (cf. 6:32–34; 18:13; 19:7). By participating in table fellowship with these stereotypical groups, the Lukan Jesus challenges the tra- ditional boundaries of God’s community. Related to the emphasis on the inclusion of the outcast is the Lukan theme of reversal. The participation of the outcasts in the community of God’s people points to the eschatological reversal brought about by the ministry of Jesus. This theme of as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke,” JBL 106 (1987): 613–38; idem, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 253–72. 27 Mary Douglas, “Deciphering a Meal,” in Myth, Symbol, and Culture (ed. Clifford Geertz; New York: Norton, 1971), 61. For a more recent treatment, see also Maurice Bloch, “Commensality and Poisoning,” Social Research 66 (1999): 133–49. 28 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 13–130. 29 See Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 53–55. 30 See, e.g., the portrayal of the eschatological banquet in the Hebrew Bible (Isa 25:6; Sib. Or. 7:744–46; 2 Bar. 29:5–8) and the provision of food in utopian communities (Homer, Ody. 9.108– 11); cf. Richard I. Pervo, “Panta Koina: The Feeding Stories in the Light of Economic Data and Social Practice,” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger; NovTSup 74; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994), 177–82. 31 Some, therefore, identify Luke’s meal scenes as anti-symposia; see, e.g., Willi Braun, “Sym- posium or Anti-Symposium? Reflections on Luke 14:1–24,” TJT 8 (1992): 70–84. Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 133 reversal stretches from Luke’s concern for the oppressed (4:18; 6:20–22; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 16:20–22) to his emphasis on the inclusion of those who were outside the covenant people (2:34–35; 4:22–30; cf. Acts 13:46–47; 28:23–29). 32 This theme of reversal is a constant element in Jesus’ teachings related to table fellowship. In 13:24–30, for example, those among God’s people who are unfaithful will be cast out, while others “from east and west, north and south” (v. 29) will take their places at the eschatological banquet. Although the inclusion of the Gentiles is not made explicit in this context, the redefinition of God’s people is assumed. 33 In the para- ble of the Great Banquet in 14:15–24, this theme of reversal is symbolized by the inclusion of “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” (v. 21) in the eschato- logical banquet. Using the language of the prophets (cf. Isa 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 42:7, 18; 61:1), this description evokes the divine promises to God’s own people at the end of times while redirecting the focus to the inclusion of the outcasts. Table fellow- ship therefore provides one critical context in which God’s eschatological reversal is to be realized (see also 14:7–14; 15:11–32; 16:19–31). The inclusion of the outcasts together with the theme of reversal points to Luke’s focus on the formation of God’s eschatological community. While the break- down of the traditional boundaries is symbolized by Jesus’ participation with the outcasts in table fellowship, the establishment of God’s eschatological community is also symbolized by this motif of table fellowship. In evoking the paradigmatic event of the exodus, Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand (Luke 9:10–17) signifies the formation of God’s restored people. 34 The climactic moment can be found in the Lukan account of Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples before the cross (22:1–38). Luke’s portrayal of this event clearly points to this as a covenantal meal modeled after the Passover meal. 35 Equally important is the discourse given over the table 32 See, in particular, John O. York, The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke (JSNTSup 46; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 33 While those “from east and west, north and south” can refer to the return of the exile, in light of the description of God’s unfaithful people in the previous verse (Luke 13:28), the inclu- sion of the Gentiles who are traditionally excluded has to be the primary reference in this context. See Michael F. Bird, “Who Comes from the East and the West? Luke 13.28–29/Matt 8.11–12 and the Historical Jesus,” NTS 52 (2006): 441–57. 34 See Wilson C. K. Poon, “Superabundant Table Fellowship in the Kingdom: The Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Meal Motif in Luke,” ExpTim 114 (2003): 224–30. For the signifi- cance of this account in light of the prophetic paradigm in the Hebrew Bible, see also François Bovon, “The Role of the Scriptures in the Composition of the Gospel Accounts: The Temptations of Jesus (Lk 4:1–13 par.) and the Multiplication of the Loaves (Lk 9:10–17 par.),” in Luke and Acts (ed. Gerald O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi; trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1993), 26–31. 35 See Anthony J. Saldarini, Jesus and Passover (New York: Paulist, 1984), 59–61; Dennis E. Smith and Hal E. Taussig, Many Tables: The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 22–23. 134 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) where the Twelve are to assume the role as judges of “the twelve tribes of Israel” (22:30). Taking on the role traditionally assigned to the sons of Jacob (T. Jud. 25:1), 36 the Twelve become the foundation for this new community. This designation of the new leaders also evokes the memories of the Passover meal: “A Passover meal confirms membership in the covenant people of Israel, even as it bolsters the role of the head of the clan who presides over the meal (Exod 12:3–4, 26–27).” 37 These themes of the inclusion of the outcasts, the eschatological reversal, and the establishment of God’s eschatological people will be relevant as we examine Acts 6:1–7 in light of Luke’s motif of table fellowship. III. Acts 6:1–7 and Table Fellowship A. Acts 6:1–7 as a Meal Scene Before assuming that Acts 6:1–7 is dealing with table fellowship, two issues must be resolved: the meaning of ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθηµερινῇ in v. 1 and of διακο- νεῖν τραπέζαις in v. 2. Beginning with the reference in v. 2, τράπεζα (“table”) can refer to the banker’s counter (Luke 19:23; cf. Plato, Apol. 17c). ∆ιακονεῖν τραπέζαις would then refer to the financial managements involved in providing for the poor. 38 Τράπεζα is, however, more commonly used as “dining table” (Luke 16:21; 22:21; Acts 16:34; cf. Homer, Od. 17.333; Herodotus, Hist. 5.20.4; Did. 11.9). In light of the use of the verb διακονέω together with τράπεζα in the Lukan account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:21, 26, 27, 30), διακονεῖν τραπέζαις in Acts 6:2 most likely refers to the act of “waiting on tables” as recognized by the majority of commentators. 39 Moreover, while διακονέω and τράπεζα rarely appear together in the same context in ancient literature, 40 one notable exception should be mentioned—T. Job 12:1–2: 36 Christian Grappe, “Le logion des douze trônes: Eclairages intertestamentaires,” in Le Trône de Dieu (ed. Marc Philonenko; WUNT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 204–12. 37 Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts,” 363. See also Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “‘Not by Bread Alone . . .’: The Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semeia 86 (1999): 179–80. 38 Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, English Translation and Commentary (vol. 4 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; London: Macmillan, 1933), 64. 39 See, e.g., Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 262; Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 2:311; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 348–49; Pervo, Acts, 159; cf. Marguerat, Les Actes des Apôtres, 209. 40 Most of the results produced by a search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (online: http://www.tlg.uci.edu [accessed July 11, 2009]) come from post–New Testament documents, many of which are directly dependent on Acts 6:2 (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.57; John Chrysostom, Hom. Act. XXXI on Acts 14; Hom. 1 Cor. 3.6). See, however, the fourth-century author John Chrysostom, who discusses “angels serving at the table” (ἄγγελοι διακονούµενοι τῇ τραπέζῃ) in the context of a royal meal (Hom. Eph. 3.5). Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 135 And if a man cheerful in heart ever would come to me saying: I have nothing available to help the poor. Nevertheless I wish at least to serve the indigent at your table. And when he received permission, he would serve and eat. Καὶ εἴ ποτέ µοι ἤρχετο ἀνὴρ ἱλαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ λέγων οὐδὲν ἐγὼ εὐπορῶ ἐπικουρῆσαι τοῖς πένησιν· βούλοµαι µέντοι κἂν διακονῆσαι τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἐν τῇ σῇ τραπέζῃ καὶ συγχωρηθεὶς ὑπηρέτει καὶ ἤσθιεν. 41 Though not an exact parallel, this passage, which mentions “to serve” (διακονῆσαι), “table” (τῇ . . . τραπέζῃ), and “eat” (ἤσθιεν) in the discussion of “the poor” (τοῖς πτωχοῖς; cf. τοῖς πένησιν), points to a similar context within which Acts 6:2 can be read. In this passage, διακονεῖν τραπέζαις must be understood as serving tables in the context of a meal, and this indirectly reaffirms our understanding of the con- text of Acts 6:2. The meaning of τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθηµερινῇ in v. 1 is also open to various inter- pretations, two of which surface in many modern English translations: “the daily distribution of food” (NIV, NRSV, NET [New English Translation], TNIV [Today’s NIV]; cf. “the daily distribution,” KJV, ASV, NAB, REB, NJB, NKJV, ESV [English Standard Version]), and “the daily serving of food” (NASB). 42 The major differ- ence between these two groups of translations is whether τῇ διακονίᾳ should be understood in the sense of “distribution” or “(table-)serving.” Despite the over- whelming support in translations for the former rendering, the latter is to be pre- ferred. First, the word διακονία when followed by the reference to “table” most likely refers to the sharing of food in a meal setting. Second, “‘[d]istribution’ is not one of the attested meanings of this abstract noun.” 43 If “distribution” were the intended meaning of the phrase, one would expect word groups that appear already in the first section of Acts: διαµερίζω (2:45) and διαδίδωµι (4:35). 44 Third, although καθη- 41 Text and translation are based on the S and V texts and are taken from Robert A Kraft, ed., The Testament of Job according to the SV Text (SBLTT 5; Pseudepigrapha Series 4; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974), 34–35. The P text provides no sig- nificant difference that would alter our reading in this case; see R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” OTP 1:844. 42 Another possible translation is “daily distribution of funds” (GNB). Despite possible par- allels in later rabbinic sources (see n. 6 above), this is the least likely meaning of the phrase because of the difficulties in explaining why “funds” have to be distributed “daily.” 43 John N. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1990), 230–31. 44 Reta Halteman Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 155. See also her earlier article “Table Fellowship: The Spirituality of Eat- ing Together,” in Vital Christianity: Spirituality, Justice, and Christian Practice (ed. David L. Weaver- Zercher and William H. Willimon; New York/London: T&T Clark, 2005), 193. 136 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) µερινός is a hapax legomenon, this word recalls 2:46–47, where the daily growth is experienced in the context of constant table fellowship: Day by day [καθ’ ἡµέραν], as they gathered together in the temple courts, they also broke bread in their homes and shared their food with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And day by day [καθ’ ἡµέραν] the Lord added to their community those who were being saved. Therefore, rather than the imagery of the “soup kitchen,” 45 τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθηµερινῇ is best understood to refer to “the common sacred meal,” 46 as already noted in 2:46. The complaint of the Hellenists is therefore that their widows “were not allowed to participate in the daily meal.” 47 As to the nature of the meal from which the widows are excluded, some have suggested that this is a reference to the eucharistic meal. 48 This reading is built on the reference to the Eucharist as “the Lord’s table” (τραπέζης κυρίου) in 1 Cor 10:21, but in Luke-Acts the “table,” especially in the plural, does not acquire this specific sense. Although this reading does rightly point to the significance of the Lukan account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:14–38), these various meal scenes, together with Acts 2:46–47, should be considered within the wider context of the Lukan motif of table fellowship. 49 B. Waiters as Preachers Specific details in Acts 6:1–7 confirm the relationship between this account and other Lukan meal scenes. First, γογγυσµός (“grumbling,” v. 1) evokes two important passages. The first passage is Numbers 11, where one finds the note on grumbling (v. 1) in the context of the shortage of food supply (vv. 4–6). Other par- allels include the appointment of the seventy (v. 16) and the note on the spirit (v. 17). This passage in the exodus tradition confirms the significance of the meal context behind Acts 6:1–7. 50 Although often overlooked, the second passage is perhaps more significant for the reading of Acts 6:1–7 since it points to Luke’s own appropriation of the 45 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 106. 46 Pervo, Acts, 159. 47 Tyson, “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations,” 158; see also Lake and Cadbury, English Translation and Commentary, 64. 48 Neudorfer, Der Stephanuskreis, 92–94; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 165–68. 49 In a similar way, the eucharistic overtones in other Lukan meal scenes (esp. Luke 9:10– 17; 24:30; Acts 27:35) should not be downplayed. Rather than identifying them as eucharistic meals, however, it seems best to read these accounts within the wider Lukan motif of table fel- lowship. In Luke’s narrative, they are all sacred meals, although the Last Supper represents the defining climax of such gatherings. 50 See Daube, “Reform in Acts and Its Models,” 152–53. Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 137 grumbling tradition of Israel. The word γογγυσµός (6:1) appears only once in Luke- Acts, but its cognate verb γογγύζω appears in Luke 5:30 in a passage that is critical for the reading of Acts 6. In Luke 5:29–31, in the context of a banquet hosted by Levi, the Pharisees and the scribes are “complaining” (ἐγόγγυζον) to Jesus’ disci- ples: “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30). In both Luke 5:29–31 and Acts 6:1–7, therefore, one finds the act of grumbling in the context of a meal. Moreover, being the first of a series of accounts of Jesus’ partic- ipation in table fellowship with the outcasts (cf. Luke 7:34; 15:1), the paradigmatic significance of Luke 5:29–31 should be recognized. This connection between “com- plaining” and table fellowship with the outcasts is confirmed by the use of a related term of the same word group in 15:2 (“The Pharisees and the teachers of the law complained [διεγόγγυζον], ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them’”) and 19:7 (“When all the people saw this, they complained [διεγόγγυζον]: ‘He has gone to be the guest of a sinner’”). It becomes clear, therefore, that when the γογγύζω word group is used in Luke, it is in connection with Jesus’ act of including the out- casts. In Acts 6, the complaint centers on whether the “widows” (αἱ χῆραι) can par- ticipate in the table fellowship. In the Lukan writings, the status of these “widows” is comparable to that of the “tax collectors and sinners” who are despised by the Pharisees and the scribes. In Luke 20:46–47, for example, the widows are the objects of the oppressive acts committed by the “scribes.” The adjectival modifiers πενι- χράν (“poor”) and πτωχή (“poor”) that are attached to the widow of Luke 21:2 also identify this group as the lowly outcasts who are expected to experience the escha- tological reversal proclaimed by Jesus (Luke 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 16:19–31), and “the poor” (οἱ πτωχοί) are specifically promised to be able to participate in the eschato- logical banquet (Luke 14:13, 21). In light of Luke’s portrayal of the widows, the con- nection between Luke 5:29–31 and Acts 6:1–7 becomes clear. In both contexts, the issue of complaint focuses on whether the outcasts can be included in the table fel- lowship of Jesus and his disciples. Moreover, in the case of Acts 6, these widows are doubly marginalized, as they are not only “widows” but also widows of “the Hellenists,” who are outside of the center of power. The critical difference is, of course, that in Luke 5:29–31 the complaint centers on Jesus’ act of inclusion, but in Acts 6:1–7 it centers on his disciples’ act of exclusion. Jesus’ statement in Luke 5:31 that his inclusive mission is to focus on the outcast becomes a critique of those who neglect the widows in Acts 6:1. In response to such neglect, the Seven were chosen “to wait on tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις). 51 This phrase again evokes the imagery of table fellowship. As noted above, the appearance of these two terms together in Luke’s Last Supper account (Luke 22:21, 26, 27, 30) again links this passage with the Lukan motif of table fellowship. Not only is this Last Supper account the climax of the Lukan por- 51 For the translation of this phrase, see section III.A above. 138 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) trayal of the meal scenes, but it also points to the disciples as participants in the eschatological kingdom: “I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:30). 52 The preceding discussion does not aim at pointing to Luke 5:29–31 and 22:14– 38 as two key passages to unlock the meaning of Acts 6:1–7. It does, however, offer clues to the context of this passage by connecting it to the wider Lukan motif of table fellowship. This connection is relevant for a proper interpretation of Acts 6:1– 7 in its narrative context. As the motif deals with issues of identity, reversal, and community, these are also issues at the center of Acts 6:1–7. The struggle between “the Hellenists” and “the Hebrews,” the problem of caring for the “widows,” and the relationship between the Twelve and the Seven point precisely to the signifi- cance of these issues. For our purposes, this interpretation also contributes to resolving the apparent inconsistency between the assigned role and the subsequent function of the Seven. In light of the motif of table fellowship, the call to the Seven “to wait on tables” (v. 2) should no longer be considered simply a summons to the menial task of serving as waiters. Instead, “to wait on tables” is to provide the set- ting where table fellowship with the outcasts and the oppressed becomes possible. 53 The fact that the label “the evangelist” (ὁ εὐαγγελιστής) is applied to the ministry of one of the Seven later in the narrative (21:8) further confirms his significant role as “the one who proclaims the glad tidings, the εὐαγγέλιον” (cf. 8:12, 35, 40). 54 The Seven therefore are to continue the ministry of Jesus, who was accused of eating and drinking with “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1). C. Acts 6 in Context This role of the Seven in continuing the ministry of Jesus is confirmed by the account of their subsequent activities. Not only do they preach the Word; they pave the way for the Word to be preached beyond the Judeans. Just one aspect of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 can illustrate the point. In reciting the acts of God in Mesopotamia (v. 2), Haran (v. 4), Egypt (vv. 9–29, 35–36), the wilderness around Mount Sinai (vv. 30–34, 44), and Mount Sinai (v. 38), Stephen challenges the spa- tial consciousness of the Judeans and points to the possibility of the renewal of the 52 For a further discussion of the significance of the Lukan Last Supper account for the read- ing of Acts 6:1–7, see section III.D below. 53 The significance attached to the word διακονία is well documented by Collins, Diakonia, 73–191. Less convincing, however, is the conclusion of his subsequent study (Deacons and the Church, 57–58) that 6:2 refers simply to preaching. This move recognizes the significance of δια- κονία, but it fails to recognize the significance of table fellowship in the Lukan writings. 54 Gerhard Friedrich, “εὐαγγελιστής,” TDNT 2:737. This function is confirmed by the use of this title in 2 Tim 4:5 for one who is explicitly called to “proclaim the word” (κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, 2 Tim 4:2). Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 139 acts of God outside Jerusalem. 55 The scattering of the believers “throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria” (8:1) represents the beginning stages where the gospel moves beyond the center of the land of the Judeans. 56 The accounts of the work of Philip, one of the Seven, in Samaria (8:4–25) and with the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40) likewise depict the ministry of the Seven as reaching beyond the confines of Judea. This reading is confirmed by the placement of the first of the three summary statements in 6:7 (cf. 12:24; 19:20). The function of these statements as delineating the different stages of the development of Acts has long been recognized. 57 Signif- icantly, the first statement appears immediately before the actual account of the ministry of the Seven. This positioning points to the unique function of the Seven as those who are advancing the gospel beyond the ministry of the Twelve. 58 The activities of Stephen and Philip in particular introduce a significant era in the move- ment of the gospel. The connection between table fellowship and the spread of the gospel in Acts is further supported by the narrative of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:1–11:18. The depiction of the acceptance of the Gentiles by an impartial God (10:34–35) is preceded by a lengthy account of Peter’s vision (10:1–23), which involves the ques- tion of unclean food. This vision reaches its climax in 10:15 with the following dec- laration by a voice: “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισεν, σὺ µὴ κοίνου). Despite the problems in the connection between this vision and the subsequent account of the conversion of Cornelius, 59 what is clear is that the unclean food symbolizes the Gentiles and the call to consume the 55 Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM, 1956), 168–69; J. Julius Scott, Jr., “Stephen’s Defense and the World Mission of the People of God,” JETS 21 (1978): 133. 56 See also 11:19, which again points to “the persecution that took place over Stephen” as the impetus for the spread of the gospel beyond Judea. 57 See Jerome Kodell, “‘The Word of God Grew’: Ecclesial Tendency of Λόγος in Acts 6,7; 12,24; 19,20,” Bib 55 (1974): 505–19; Leo O’Reilly, Word and Sign in the Acts of the Apostles: A Study in Lucan Theology (Analecta Gregoriana 243; Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1987), 82–83; David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2/130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 167–71. 58 The placement of the call of Paul (Acts 9:1–30) between the ministry of the Hellenists and the conversion of Cornelius may also be significant. The account of the call of Paul focuses on his subsequent ministry among the Gentiles (9:15). This may then pave the way for the account of the conversion of a Gentile. Some have also pointed to the possible historical connections between Paul and the Hellenists; see Clayton K. Harrop, “Stephen and Paul,” in With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders, Jr. (ed. Naymond H. Keathley; Waco: Baylor University Press, 1990), 200; John J. Pilch, Stephen: Paul and the Hellenist Israelites (Paul’s Social Network; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008), 67–70. 59 See, in particular, François Bovon, “Tradition et rédaction en Actes 10,1–11,18,” TZ 26 (1970): 22–45. 140 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) unclean food becomes a call to accept these Gentiles. Through the mouth of Peter, the issue of purity, which functions as one of the primary identity markers of the Jewish community, is obviated by this vision: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (κἀµοὶ ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν µηδένα κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον, 10:28). Beyond the mere acceptance of the message embedded in this vision, Peter’s actual table fellowship with the Gentiles is recognized by those who are displeased by his action: “You entered the house of the uncircumcised and ate with them” (εἰσῆλθες πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντας καὶ συνέφαγες αὐτοῖς, 11:3). Peter does not deny this accusation; instead, he explains the vision he has received and con- cludes that this is under the direction of God (11:17). Issues of food and table fel- lowship again are intimately connected with the spread of the gospel beyond the community of the Jews. 60 In light of the development of the narrative in the few chapters after Acts 6:1–7, the understanding of the Hellenists as those extending table fellowship to those beyond the traditional community should no longer be surprising. D. The Hellenists as Successors of Jesus The parallels between the Lukan portrayal of Stephen in Acts 6:8–7:60 and that of Jesus have often been noted. 61 These include the portrayal of Stephen as one “full of grace and power” (6:8; cf. Luke 4:14, 22; 24:19) who performs “great won- ders and signs” (6:8; cf. Acts 2:22), and the narrative of his trial (6:12–13; cf. Luke 22:54, 66) and his death (7:56–60; cf. Luke 22:69; 23:26, 34, 46). Less noticeable are the parallels between Jesus in Luke and the Hellenists in Acts 6:1–7, except for the requirements of these Hellenists to be “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (πλήρεις πνεύµατος καὶ σοφίας, 6:3; cf. Luke 2:40, 52; 3:22; 4:1). Returning to the connection between Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:14–38), one significant parallel also needs to be noted. In the Last Supper narrative, not only does Jesus, who is sharing a meal with his disciples “on the table” (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης, 22:21), identify himself as “the one who serves” (ὁ διακονῶν, 22:27); he also calls the disciples to be “like the one who serves” (ὡς ὁ διακονῶν, 22:26) as he himself is. 60 Commenting on Acts 10:1–11:18, Esler rightly notes that “[t]he central issue in this nar- rative is not that the gospel has been preached to Gentiles, but the far more particular fact, of great ethnic and social significance, that Peter has lived and eaten with them” (Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, 93). 61 See, e.g., Marcel Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (Haskell Lectures 1956; London: Longmans, 1958), 20–26; Abraham Smith, “‘Full of Spirit and Wisdom’: Luke’s Portrait of Stephen (Acts 6:1–8:1a) as a Man of Self-Mastery,” in Asceticism and the New Testament (ed. Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush; New York: Routledge, 1999), 97–114; Andrew C. Clark, Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective (Pater- noster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001), 264–67. Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 141 Luke does not record that this role of serving at the table was assumed by the Twelve, but he does point to the Seven as the ones who are “to wait on tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, 6:2). The assigned role of the Seven therefore takes on added significance as they follow the model of Jesus and carry out his mission of table ministry. The dichotomy between the ministry of the Word and the ministry of the table cannot be found in the accounts of Jesus, nor can it be found in the ministry of the Seven. In becoming powerful messengers of the Word, therefore, they have fulfilled their assigned role as those who are “to wait on tables.” IV. The Twelve as Ambiguous Characters The above conclusion forces one to reconsider Luke’s evaluation of the Twelve, who set up the contrast between the call of the Seven “to wait on tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, 6:2) and their own duty to focus on “the ministry of the Word” (τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου, 6:4). Does the narrator approve of the action of the Twelve? Certain elements in this account suggest that Luke affirms the action of the Twelve. The note that the solution “pleased the entire community” (ἤρεσεν . . . ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους, 6:5) implies that a satisfactory resolution is reached, and the fact that the Twelve “prayed and laid their hands on them [i.e., the Seven]” (προσευξάµενοι ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας, 6:6) restores the unity of the community as emphasized in the previous chapters (cf. 2:44–47; 4:32–37; 5:12– 16). Moreover, no reader would assume that the Twelve should “neglect the Word of God” (καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 6:2), nor do the concluding remarks on the spread of the Word of God (6:7) provide any hint of disapproval by the nar- rator. Read in light of the wider narrative, however, the actions of the Twelve seem less flattering. First, a constant focus is placed on the widows in Luke’s narrative, as they represent those who witness and experience the mercy of God (see Luke 2:36– 38; 4:25–26; 7:11–17; 18:1–8; 21:1–4). In neglecting the widows, therefore, the Hebrews and presumably the Twelve find themselves “in an unholy alliance with unjust judges (Luke 18:1–8), hypocritical scribes (20:45–47), and an exploitative temple system (21:1–6).” 62 The insistence on proclaiming the Word while assign- ing the role of the care of the widows to another group seems a less than satisfac- tory arrangement. Moreover, the dichotomy between caring for the outcasts and proclaiming the Word is not one that can be found in the ministry of Jesus. 63 The ministries of the Twelve prior to this episode also point to their ability to be engaged in both ministry of the Word and table fellowship within their own community (cf. 62 F. Scott Spencer, “Neglected Widows in Acts 6:1–7,” CBQ 56 (1994): 715–33. 63 See the discussion of the significance of Jesus’ sharing the table with the “tax-collectors and sinners” in section II above. 142 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Acts 2:42, 46). Some have therefore concluded that “Luke may be more critical of the Twelve here than is usually noted.” 64 Considering both the positive and negative elements embedded in this account within its wider narrative, it seems best to view the Twelve as ambiguous characters. Luke apparently sees these apostles as reliable and faithful witnesses who “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God with bold- ness” (ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος καὶ ἐλάλουν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ µετὰ παρρησίας, 4:31). Nevertheless, one also finds notes on the development in their ability to understand the mission that they received from Jesus. Their partial understanding is reflected already in the question they raise in 1:6, one that indi- cates their failure to understand fully the mission of their master. 65 More important for our discussion is the account of Peter’s vision in 10:1–23. Despite being called to be witnesses “to the ends of the earth” (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, 1:8), 66 Peter and the other apostles still need to be convinced that the inclusion of the Gentiles is part of the mission that they should undertake. Again, while not intended as a critique of his failure to understand his call, the repeated command to consume the unclean food (10:13, 15, 16) highlights the need of Peter, as a representative of the Twelve, to become better informed about the work of God among other communities. Some commentators, therefore, have considered Acts 10:1–11:18 to be an account of the “conversion” of Peter. 67 In light of this wider development of the narrative of Acts, therefore, one should not be surprised that the solution proposed by the Twelve is not to be con- sidered the final word on the matter. Although he relegates the task of “wait[ing] on tables” (6:2) to the Seven, Luke shows that the act of waiting on tables is precisely the means through which the Word of God can be proclaimed among other mar- ginalized communities. 68 It is not until the account of the conversion of Cornelius that the connection between table fellowship and the proclamation of the Word can be understood. 64 Finger, Of Widows and Meals, 266. 65 Jesus’ response points to their lack of understanding, but the fact of the restoration is not denied and the disciples are not rebuked for their question. The disciples are therefore portrayed not as negative characters but as ambiguous ones whose question provides the occasion for Jesus to outline their mission; contra Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (FRLANT 126; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 106. 66 In light of earlier passages (cf. Isa 8:9; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11; Ps. Sol. 1:4), this phrase is best understood as a reference to the nations/Gentiles and not necessarily to a particular geographi- cal locale. 67 See Joel B. Green, “Doing Repentance: The Formation of Disciples in the Acts of the Apostles,” ExAud 18 (2002): 18–19. 68 Outside of the Lukan corpus, the failure of Peter to understand the significance of table fellowship in the mission to proclaim the Word can be found in the controversy recorded in Gal 2:11–14. While this Pauline reference may not inform our reading of the characterization of the Twelve in Acts, it does at least point to a similar concern expressed by a first-century writer. Pao: Te Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 143 V. Conclusion Reading Acts 6:1–7 in light of the Lukan motif of table fellowship, one is able to reconsider the apparent inconsistency between the assigned role and the actual function of the Seven. Rather than an example of a glaring gap in narrative logic, the assigned role of the Seven as those who are to serve at the table provides the context in which they can reach beyond the Hebrews who reside in Jerusalem. It is their status as “waiters” that allows the Seven to continue the mission of Jesus in becoming “preachers” to the outcasts and the oppressed. Through this examination of only one aspect of this difficult account, it becomes clear that Acts 6:1-7 does function as a transitional account that bridges the Jerusalem ministry and the one that reaches “to the ends of the earth.” 144 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30 ilaria l. e. ramelli [email protected] Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy In 1 Cor 11:30 Paul speaks of the consequences of abuses in the Corinthian community related to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; he has just warned the Corinthians against eating and drinking the Eucharist in an unworthy way (ἀναξίως), in a state of sin. The sin referred to in the immediate context is division within the community, disorders in the celebration of the supper, lack of charity toward the poor on the part of the rich, gluttony, and drunkenness. Partaking of the supper when the church is divided is a sin against Christ’s body. 1 Now, in v. 30 Paul observes: διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑµῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιµῶνται ἱκανοί. There are no textual problems in the Greek. English translations include the fol- lowing: “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (KJV); “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep” (ASV); “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep” (Darby); “That’s why so many of you are weak and sick and a con- siderable number are dying” (International Standard Version). 2 I think that the last I am very grateful to the anonymous readers of the JBL editorial board and to the edi- tor for their helpful comments. 1 As William Barclay puts it, “the person condemned is not the person who does not discern that the elements he takes in his hands are the Lord’s body. The person condemned is the person who does not discern that Christians are the Lord’s body, and must be in unity before they dare approach the sacrament” (The Lord’s Supper [Nashville: Abingdon, 1967], 109). 2 Compare other versions: “Because of this, among you many are weak and sickly, and sleep do many” (Young); “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (Webster); “For this cause a number of you are feeble and ill, and a number are dead” (Basic Bible in English); “This is the reason why many of you are weak and sick and quite a number [of you] have died” (God’s Word); “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep” (NASB). JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 145–163 145 is the best rendering; indeed, I would translate: “For this reason, among you, many are weak and ill, and a good number are dying (or: are dead).” What is more, I shall argue that this disease and death can be understood in a spiritual sense, that they were understood in this sense by most ancient exegetes, and that such a reading fits naturally into a common Hellenistic trope and into Paul’s linguistic use. Practically all contemporary commentators agree that the illness and death to which Paul refers here are to be interpreted in a physical sense, as bodily sickness and death. The only exception of which I am aware is an article by Sebastian Schneider, who rightly points out grammatical and logical difficulties arising from the physical interpretation, one of which is that, if κοιµῶνται referred to persons who are physically dead, this would contradict the notion conveyed by their being said to be “among you” (ἐν ὑµῖν), in the community. 3 On the basis of Philonic par- allels in the metaphorical use of κοιµῶµαι in reference to the sleep of the mind, he argues that the “weak” and “ill” are weak in faith (he takes ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι as practically synonyms), and those asleep are those lethargic in their faith. All other commentators, however, claim that 1 Cor 11:30 must be understood in a physical and literal way. Johannes Weiss, referring to 1 Cor 11:29, on eating and drinking one’s own judgment with the Eucharist, thinks that the Eucharist, conceived of as solidly sacramental, magical, and miraculous, is able to bring about physical damage as well as benefit. 4 A similar opinion seems to be held by Dale B. Martin, who thinks that the ingestion of the Eucharist may also have a toxic effect and poison those who deserve this, instead of healing them. 5 On the basis of this understanding of 1 Cor 10:30, Mauro Pesce proposed a parallel with m. Sotiah 1:1– 4:3, in which the “water of bitterness” is drunk by the suspected adulteress; if the woman is guilty, the water causes serious illness in her. 6 Hans Conzelmann thinks that for Paul an offense against the sacrament results in physical illness and death, possibly because of the Eucharist’s “magic effect” (magische Wirkung). In this con- nection I would cite Acta Thomae 51 as an excellent example: a youth who had 3 Schneider, “Glaubensmängel in Korinth,” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 3–20. Others mentioned en passant the spiritual interpretation of 1 Cor 11:30, but only to reject it: Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: With a Critical and Grammatical Com- mentary (London: Longmans, Green, 1887), 222; Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK; Göttingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 352; Franz Gutjahr, Die zwei Briefe an die Korinther (Graz/Vienna: Styria, 1907), 322; Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plum- mer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914; repr., 1955), 253, to which I shall return. 4 Weiss, Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30–150 (trans. Frederick Grant; 2 vols.; Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1970), 2:257; idem, Der erste Korintherbrief (2nd ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 290–91. 5 Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). 6 Pesce, “Mangiare e bere il proprio giudizio,” RivB 38 (1990): 495–513. 146 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) killed his fiancée took communion with his hands, but while he was putting it into his mouth, his hands were paralyzed. Thomas, when he learned this, observed: “The gift of our Lord has unmasked you. It heals so many people who approach it with love, truth, and faith, but has manifestly paralyzed you. This did not happen without a reason.” 7 Already Friedrich Guntermann observed that sickness and death were considered by Paul to result from the profanation of the Lord’s meal (Profanisierung des Herrenmahls), according to a conception that was then famil- iar to Judaic thought. 8 E.-B. Allo finds that the connection with 1 Cor 15:29 sug- gests that illnesses and death mentioned in 11:30 must be understood realistically and physically. 9 Frédéric Louis Godet expressly ruled out a spiritual interpretation of illness and death in our passage on the disputable grounds that it would not have impressed readers strongly enough (“un fait purement spirituel ne serait pas de nature à frapper suffisamment les lecteurs”). 10 According to Anthony C. Thiselton, since Paul “earlier actually mentions drunkenness (11:21), it is just conceivable that a serious decline in health could result causally from excess in gluttony and drink.” 11 This kind of disorder and the relevant physical punishment are seen behind 1 Cor 11:30 by Craig S. Keener as well: “What, then, did it mean to eat and drink unworthily (11:27)? Most associa- tions had regulations to prevent drunken abuse and quarrels at their banquets. Here, however, violators experience divine retribution (11:29); outside the sphere of grace (cf. ‘healings’ in 12:9), they face sickness (11:30; cf. 5:5).” 12 Keener also 7 Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (12th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 247: “Krankheiten und Todesfälle sind Folge des Vergehens gegen das Sakra- ment.” R. A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet, eds., Acta apostolorum apocrypha (2 vols. in 3; Leipzig: Her- mann Mendelssohn, 1903; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1972), 2.2:167.6. 8 Guntermann, Die Eschatologie des Hl. Paulus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1932), 232: “Selbst jene Profanisierung des Herrenmahls hat nach Paulus nicht die ewige Verdammnis zur Folge, sondern Gott schickt dafür zeitliche Strafgerichte, wie Krankheit und Tod, die aber selbst wieder als Züchtigungsmittel gedacht sind, damit wir nicht mit der Welt verdammt werden (1 Kor 11,30– 32).” Ibid., 292: “Dann vertritt eben Paulus die Auffassung, daß auch physische Übel, wie Krank- heiten und Tod, von Gott als Strafe für Sünden geschickt werden. Diese Anschauung war den Juden ganz geläufig, ja lange Zeit seine einzige Auffassung des Leidens.” 9 Allo, Première épître aux Corinthiens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1934), 283. 10 Godet, Commentaire sur la première épître aux Corinthiens (2 vols.; Neuchâtel: Nouvelle Monnier, 1885–87; repr., 1902; 2nd ed., 1965), 2r:473–74: “Quelques-uns, comme Eichhorn, ont pris ces trois termes malades, infirmes et meurent dans le sens spirituel. Mais l’emploi simultané des deux mots malades et infirmes ne s’expliquerait pas bien dans le sens moral; et au lieu du verbe κοιµᾶσθαι qui ne s’emploie jamais dans le N.T. que dans le sens du sommeil ou de la mort phy- siques, l’apôtre eût dit plutôt νεκρὸς εἶναι (Apocalypse 3.1).” 11 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 256. 12 Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 99. Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 147 relates sickness in the individual bodies of members of the Corinthian church to their failure to discern the corporate body of the church. 13 Gordon D. Fee, like- wise, interprets 1 Cor 11:30 in reference to physical illness (“the present illnesses of many, which in some cases have led to death”) and hypothesizes that “the rash of illnesses and deaths that have recently overtaken them [sc. Christians in Corinth] is here being viewed as an expression of divine judgment on the whole commu- nity. The judgment, of course, as v. 32 makes clear, does not have to do with their eternal salvation, but with the temporal judgment of sickness and death.” 14 As Fee himself remarks, however, this should not be interpreted as though Paul were say- ing, in general, that sickness among Christians is always to be viewed as present judgment, nor that sickness is necessarily related to an abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Paul is speaking of a particular group of Christians, about whom he had a specific revelation. This hypothesis, which is close to Wolfgang Schrage’s claim that Paul’s statement should not be interpreted as though illness and death were an automatic consequence of an incorrect consumption of the sacrament (“als ob Krankheit und Tod eo ipso auf falschen Sakramentsgenuss zurückzuführen wären”), 15 differs in part from Archibald Robertson’s and Alfred Plummer’s interpretation, according to which “perhaps at this time there was much sickness in the Church of Corinth, and St Paul points out the cause of it. We need not assume that he had received a spe- cial revelation on the subject.” 16 Like Thiselton after them, Robertson and Plummer added that excess in drinking may have led in some cases to illness among the members of the community. 17 Robertson and Plummer, moreover, remarked that the Corinthians’ “spiritual deadness produced irreverence, and for this irreverence God chastised them with bodily suffering,” and objected that, “had spiritual maladies been meant, we should probably have had ἐν πνεύµατι, or ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν.” 18 I will show in a moment that neither Paul nor other NT authors, nor contemporary philosophers who speak of spiritual death and illness, normally added such expressions. This trend, favoring the physical interpretation of illness and death in the Pauline verse under examination, was present already in eighteenth- and nineteenth- century commentaries such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible 13 Ibid., 96: “This failure to discern the corporate body (11:29) led to sickness in their indi- vidual bodies (11:30; cf. the individual and corporate bodies as temples in 3:16–17; 6:19).” 14 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 565. 15 Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther, vol. 3, 1 Kor 11, 17–14, 40 (EKKNT 7.3; Zürich/Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 54. 16 Robertson and Plummer, Commentary, 253 (emphasis added). 17 Andrew D. Clarke does not comment on 1 Cor 11:30 (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 [AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993]). 18 Robertson and Plummer, Commentary, 253. 148 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) (1706–21): he interpreted 1 Cor 11:30 as the expression of “temporal punishments” for those who have received communion unworthily, “but for the sake of their improvement, to avoid eternal punishment.” 19 The same interpretation was offered in Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, originally written in 1706. In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary (1871) ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι were interpreted as follows: “He is ‘weak’ who has naturally no strength: ‘sickly,’ who has lost his strength by disease.” And those who are asleep were identified with those who “are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord’s chastening for the individual’s salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1 Cor 11:31).” 20 The prevalence of the physical inter- pretation at the end of the nineteenth century is attested also by the People’s New Testament at 11:30: “‘For this cause, many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep’] Some have held that this means that the improper observance of the supper has made many weak and sickly Christians, and some had even died spiri- tually. Others hold that physical judgments had been sent, and some sickened and others died. The last view is most generally held.” 21 Contrary to almost all modern interpretations, I intend to argue that the ill- ness and death to which Paul refers can be interpreted as spiritual. 22 He means the sickness and the death of the soul, of which he speaks also in Romans and which are mentioned in other NT passages as well and in several contemporary philoso- phers, both Middle Platonists and Stoics. Martin rightly warns that in ancient thought we cannot find the Cartesian dualism of res cogitans and res extensa. 23 But we can certainly find the Platonic dualism between body and soul, immanent and transcendent, which should not be confused with Cartesian dualism but is never- theless dualism. Moreover, the notion of spiritual illness and death in the first and second centuries c.e. was present even in Stoicism, which was no dualistic system. Illness and death could be understood on the moral plane—moral illness, moral death—rather than on the ontological plane. One further point: Robertson and Plummer claimed that no ancient com- mentator interpreted sickness and death in 1 Cor 11:30 as spiritual and not physi- 19 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006). 20 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical and Explana- tory on the Whole Bible (Hartford: S. S. Scranton, 1871). 21 St. Louis: Christian Board of Publications, 1891. 22 All the more in the light of the presence of the πνευµατικός–ψυχικός dichotomy in the let- ter, which is underscored by Birger Pearson, The πνευµατικός–ψυχικός Terminology in 1 Corinthi- ans (SBLDS 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1973). See his conclusions on pp. 82–83: the πνευµατικός–ψυχικός terminology arose in the context of a Hellenistic Jewish exegesis of Gen 2:7 and is basically a Jewish version of the νοῦς-ψυχή Greek philosophical differentiation. 23 Martin, Corinthian Body, 3–15. Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 149 cal; the same was already maintained by Charles J. Ellicott and Franz Gutjahr, by whom Robertson and Plummer may have been inspired. 24 But this is not the case. From searches of Biblia Patristica, TLG, and the Cetedoc Library of Christian Latin Texts, I found that there are very few comments on this specific verse in the patris- tic writings. For instance, second-century authors (apart from Clement); Tertul- lian, Cyprian, Methodius, Hippolytus, and other third-century authors; and Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and Hilary never comment on this verse, not even occasionally. Even John Chrysostom and Theodoret, who pro- duced running commentaries on 1 Corinthians (Chrysostom in a series of homi- lies), and who specifically commented upon 1 Cor 11:27–34 in Hom. 27 (PG 61:230–32) and Comm. in I Cor. 189 Staab, respectively, do not spend a single word on v. 30. Among the very few and sparse patristic comments on this verse, a spiri- tual understanding of illness and death is much better attested than a physical understanding. The latter is indeed represented only by Basil and Ambrosiaster. Basil (Asceticon magnum 55.4 [PG 31:1049B], citing 1 Cor 11:30) observes that some illnesses are the effects of sin and aim at the conversion of the sinner. 25 Ambrosiaster himself, who takes illness and death in 1 Cor 11:30 at face value, nev- ertheless interprets them as an image of the future judgment (imago iudicii), so that even his exegesis can only partially be regarded as literal. 26 Many more fathers, such as Origen and authors related to him, offer a decid- edly spiritual interpretation of illness and sleep/death in 1 Cor 11:30. In Comm. Matt. 10.24 Origen speaks precisely of spiritual illness, “the illnesses of the soul” (τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρρωστήµατα), explaining that these are, for instance, love of money, glory, women or youths, and so on; these are the illnesses that Jesus cures. 27 Shortly after, Origen comments directly on 1 Cor 11:30, interpreting ἀσθενεῖς, ἄρρωστοι, and κοιµῶνται in a spiritual sense and referring them to the Corinthians addressed by Paul, who had various sins (Κορινθίοις, ποικίλα ἔχουσιν ἁµαρτήµατα), thereby 24 Robertson and Plummer, Commentary, 253: “to interpret this of spiritual weakness and deadness is inadequate; and no ancient commentator thus explains the words.” See also Ellicott, First Epistle, 222; Gutjahr, Briefe, 322. 25 Οὐ γὰρ πάντα φύσεώς εἰσιν ἀῤῥωστήµατα . . . Πολλάκις γὰρ καὶ µάστιγες ἁµαρτηµάτων εἰσὶ τὰ ἀῤῥωστήµατα, εἰς ἐπιστροφὴν προσαγόµενα. Ὃν γὰρ φησὶν ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος παιδεύει· καὶ ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑµῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄῤῥωστοι, καὶ κοιµῶνται ἱκανοί . . . Τοὺς οὖν τοιούτους . . . ὑποµένειν χρὴ τὰ ἐπαγόµενα, ὅταν γνωρίσωµεν ἑαυτῶν τὰ πληµµελήµατα. 26 Ambrosiaster, In Ep. Paul. A CSEL 81:2, p. 129.12; cf. PL 17:257AB under Ambrose: “Ideo multi in vobis invalidi et aegroti, et dormiunt multi] Ut verum probaret quia examen futurum est accipientium corpus Domini, iam hic imaginem iudicii ostendit in eos qui inconsiderate corpus Domini acceperant, dum febribus et infirmitatibus corripiebantur, et multi moriebantur.” 27 Εἰ δὲ θέλεις ἰδεῖν ποῖά ἐστι τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρρωστήµατα, κατανόει µοι τοὺς φιλαργύρους καὶ τοὺς φιλοδόξους καὶ τοὺς φιλόπαιδας καὶ εἴ τίς ἐστι φιλόγυνος. Καὶ τούτους γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις ἰδών, καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, ἐθεράπευσεν. 150 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) again showing clearly his interpretation of illnesses as sins. The second category (ἄρρωστοι), according to Origen, designates a more serious illness than the first; 28 for ἀσθενεῖς—he explains—simply indicates a weakness of the soul, 29 whereas ἄρρωστοι indicates a true and more deeply rooted illness of the soul that is typical of those who, with their whole soul and heart and mind, love money, glory, women, or youths instead of God (οἱ δὲ ὅλῃ ψυχῇ καὶ ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ καὶ ὅλῃ διανοίᾳ, ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπᾶν, ἀγαπῶντες ἀργύρια ἢ δοξάρια ἢ γύναια ἢ παῖδας, οὗτοι πλέον ἢ ἀσθενείας πεπόνθασιν καί εἰσιν ἄρρωστοι). As for κοιµῶνται, it refers to those who are spiritually asleep, and, instead of awakening in their soul, do not use their rea- soning and their will. 30 The same exegesis is found also in Origen’s Hom. Num. 10.1 (70.4 Baehrens) and Hom. Ps. 37(38) 2.6, in which Origen is again speaking of the soul’s infirmity (languor) and illness. This illness is sin, which must be cured (curari, sanari) through confession (confiteri peccatum tuum) and repentance; the confes- sor will thus be a physician (medicus). If one has sinned and is therefore spiritually ill, one should worry about the final judgment: “Cum anima tua aegrotet et pecca- torum languoribus urgeatur, securus es, contemnis gehennam atque ignis aeterni supplicia despicis et irrides?” According to Origen, it was precisely to people spir- itually ill that Paul referred in 1 Cor 11:30; they are spiritually ill because they do not judge themselves and thus take the Eucharist unworthily. Their spiritual illness is similar to the physical illness of those who have a high fever and yet want to eat the food of the healthy, thus bringing ruin upon themselves: Non recordaris illud quod scriptum est, quia ‘propterea in vobis infirmi et aegri et dormiunt multi’? Quare multi infirmi? Quoniam non seipsos diiudicant neque seipsos examinant, nec intellegunt quid est communicare ecclesiae, vel quid est accedere ad tanta et tam eximia sacramenta. Patiuntur hoc quod febricitantes pati solent, cum sanorum cibos praesumunt, sibimetipsis inferentes exitium. Don’t you remember what is written in Scripture, that “this is why among you there are weak and ill people, and many are dead”? Why is it that there are “many weak people?” Because they do not judge or examine themselves; they fail to understand what it means to have communion with the Church, and to approach such a great and sublime sacrament. They suffer what those who have a high fever suffer, when they want to take the food of the healthy, thus causing ruin to themselves. From the very comparison drawn with physical illness (febricitantes) and death (exitium) it is clear that Origen is here interpreting 1 Cor 11:30 in terms of spiritual 28 Οἱ µέν εἰσιν ἀσθενεῖς, ἕτεροι δὲ ἄρρωστοι πλέων ἢ ἀσθενεῖς, καὶ ἄλλοι παρ᾽ ἀµφοτέρους οἱ κοιµώµενοι. 29 Οἱ µὲν γὰρ ὀλισθηρῶς διὰ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀδυναµίαν πρὸς τὸ ὁτιποτοῦν ἁµαρτάνειν ἔχοντες, κἂν µὴ ὅλοι ὦσιν εἴδους τινὸς ἁµαρτίας ὡς οἱ ἄρρωστοι, ἀσθενεῖς εἰσι µόνον. 30 Κοιµῶνται δὲ οἱ, δέον προσέχειν καὶ ἐγρηγορέναι τῇ ψυχῇ, τοῦτο µὲν οὐ ποιοῦντες, ἀπὸ δὲ πολλῆς ἀπροσεξίας νυστάζοντες τὴν προαίρεσιν καὶ ὑπνώττοντες τοῖς λογισµοῖς. Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 151 illness and death. And he is interpreting κοιµῶνται not in reference to spiritual sleep, as in his commentary on Matthew, but precisely in reference to spiritual death, as I argue that it should be understood in the Pauline passage under discussion. Already Clement of Alexandria, whose work Origen certainly knew, inter- preted 1 Cor 11:30 in a spiritual sense. In Strom. 1.1.10.5 he quotes this passage and refers it to the “power of the soul,” thus understanding the people mentioned by Paul as weak, ill, and dead in their souls: συνεξάπτει δὲ ἡ γραφὴ τὸ ζώπυρον τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ συντείνει τὸ οἰκεῖον ὄµµα πρὸς θεωρίαν, τάχα µέν τι καὶ ἐντιθεῖσα . . . τὸ δὲ ἐνυπάρχον ἀνακινοῦσα. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐν ἡµῖν, κατὰ τὸν θεῖον ἀπόστολον, ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι, καὶ κοιµῶνται ἱκανοί. A similar spiritual exegesis of 1 Cor 11:30 is offered by John Cassian, an author who was deeply influenced by Origen. In Conl. 22.5, referring specifically to this Pauline passage, he states: “Paul says that mainly from this abuse come illness and death, clearly spiritual illness and death” (spiri- talem scilicet infirmitatem ac mortem ex hac principaliter dicens praesumptione generari). He interprets ἀσθενεῖς, ἄρρωστοι, and κοιµῶνται in reference to spiritual illness and death, as did Origen in his homily on the Psalm. Didymus, one of the most faithful followers of Origen, explains that the illness of the soul is sin (νόσος καὶ τρῶσις ψυχῆς ἁµαρτία; Fragm. in Ps. 417, commenting on Ps 40:3b–5b), and he applies this concept to his own spiritual interpretation of 1 Cor 11:30 in Fragm. in Ps. 416, where he observes that the Lord liberates human beings from spiritual ill- ness by giving them the health of the soul (ἀπαλλάττων αὐτὸν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἀρρωστίας χαριζόµενός τε αὐτῷ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ὑγείαν). Thus, if a human being “has an illness of the soul—such as it often happens, as the Apostle teaches by saying, ‘This is why among you there are many weak and ill’—the Lord liberates him or her also from this illness.” 31 I think that, as Origen and other ancient exegetes understood, Paul, with ἀσθενεῖς, ἄρρωστοι, and κοιµῶνται, is constructing a climax. This was realized also by Robertson and Plummer, although they entirely ignored the exegesis of Clement, Origen, Didymus, and Cassian and deliberately rejected the spiritual interpreta- tion of the verse, 32 whereas the climax seems to have escaped Schneider, even if he is—to my knowledge—the only contemporary commentator who prefers a spiritual interpretation of 1 Cor 11:30. For he reads κοιµῶνται as “are asleep/are falling asleep 31 Εἰ καὶ συµβαίη αὐτῷ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἀρρώστηµά τι (ὁποῖα πολλὰ συµβαίνει γίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ ἀπόστολος διδάσκει λέγων, ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑµῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι), καὶ ταύτην µεταβάλλει τὴν ἀρρωστίαν (Ekkehard Mühlenberg, ed., Psalmenkommentare aus der Kate- nenüberlieferung [3 vols.; PTS 15, 16, 19; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1975–77], 1:121–375, esp. 321. 32 Robertson and Plummer, Commentary, 253: “Both ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι imply the weak- ness of ill-health (Mark vi.5,13; Matt. xiv.14), and it is not clear which is the stronger word of the two: infirmi et imbecilles (Vulg.); but ἀρρωστεῖν (2 Chron. xxxii.24) is perhaps more than ἀσθενεῖν.” 152 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) (spiritually)” and not as “are dead,” or better “are dying.” Paul is saying in his climax that some are weak, some are seriously ill, and some are even dying. Indeed, ἀσθενεῖς, which implies weakness and lack of vigor, denotes a less serious condition than ἄρρωστοι (which indicates a severe and established illness), as was noted already by Origen, and, remarkably, is used in a spiritual sense by Paul several times, both in this letter and in Romans. Moreover, it is notable that Paul does not always use a modifier such as τῇ πίστει or τῇ συνειδήσει to indicate that he is speaking of spiritual rather than phys- ical weakness. I can adduce examples in which he uses no such qualifier. He uses one in 1 Cor 8:7, 10, 11, 12, where he speaks of the weakness (ἀσθενής, ἀσθηνῶν) of the conscience (συνείδησις) of some Christians; however, in v. 11, ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθηνῶν, “the weak perishes,” must clearly be taken in a spiritual sense even though there is no modifier. The weak in his or her conscience perishes spiritually. In 1 Cor 9:22 there is no modifier either, but it is obvious that the weakness of which Paul is speaking must be understood spiritually: ἐγενόµην τοῖς ἀσθενέσι ἀσθενής, ἵνα τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς κερδήσω, “I became weak to the weak, in order to gain the weak.” Likewise, while in Rom 4:19 and 14:1 the spiritual understanding of weakness is conveyed by the use of τῇ πίστει, in Rom 5:6 there is no trace of such a modifier, and yet there can be no doubt that it is spiritual weakness—and precisely sin—that is meant: ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡµῶν ἀσθενῶν κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν, “For, while we were still weak, Christ died for impious people in the established time.” “Weak” here means “sinners,” and indeed it is used in association with “impious.” Paul has recourse to these metaphors of spiritual weakness, just as to those of spiritual ill- ness and death, surely under the influence of the broadly Middle Platonic (but also Stoic) lore of the illness and death of the soul, to which I shall return below. Kοιµῶνται is still more serious than ἄρρωστοι, in that it does not simply mean that some are spiritually asleep, which would fail to complete the climax that has begun with “weak” and “ill,” but that they are dead, or better—since it is in the pres- ent tense, and not in the perfect—are dying. 33 This interpretation is further sup- ported by the fact that in the very same letter, shortly after the passage being analyzed here, Paul uses the same verb (again in the middle, but here in the perfect) in reference to the dead: “Christ has risen from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died [τῶν κεκοιµηµένων]” (1 Cor 15:20). Likewise, “those who have died in Christ” are οἱ κοιµηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Cor 15:18); here it is a middle-passive aorist, just as in 1 Cor 7:39: ἐὰν δὲ κοιµηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαµηθῆναι, “If the husband died, she [sc. the wife] is free to marry whomever she likes.” Likewise, in another surely authentic letter of Paul, 1 Thess 4:13, τῶν κοιµωµένων (in the mid- 33 Cyril of Alexandria, for example, makes it clear that “being asleep” here is to be inter- preted as “to be dead.” In Comm. Io. 2.150.3 he glosses ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιµῶνται with τοῖς ἀρρωστήσασι καὶ τεθνεῶσιν. Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 153 dle and in the present, just as in 1 Cor 11:30) refers again to the dead or those in the community who die. Immediately afterwards, in vv. 14 and 16, τοὺς κοιµηθέντας (twice) are the dead, who will be resuscitated by God; this expression corresponds exactly to οἱ νεκροί in v. 16, about whom it is again stated that they will rise: οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται. 34 It is remarkable that in the NT κοιµῶµαι, which is always attested in the middle-passive, almost never means “to sleep” (apart from Matt 28:13 and Acts 12:6) but always “to die,” or (in the perfect) “to be dead.” I have already adduced 1 Cor 7:39; 15:18, 20; and 1 Thess 4:13–16, where indeed the meaning is undoubtedly “to die” or, in the perfect or aorist, “to be dead.” I can add all the rest of the attestations in the NT. Matthew 27:52: καὶ τὰ µνηµεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώµατα τῶν κεκοιµηµένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, “And the tombs opened and many corpses of dead saints were resurrected.” John 11:11–13 plays on the ambiguity of the term: Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡµῶν κεκοίµηται, ἀλλὰ πορεύοµαι ἵνα ἐξυπνίσω αὐτόν. Eἶπαν οὖν οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτῷ, Κύριε, εἰ κεκοίµηται σωθήσεται. Eἰρήκει δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς περὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. ᾽Eκεῖνοι δὲ ἔδοξαν ὅτι περὶ τῆς κοιµήσεως τοῦ ὕπνου λέγει, Lazarus, your friend, has fallen asleep/died, but I shall go awaken him.—The dis- ciples then said: Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be saved.—But Jesus was speaking of his death, whereas they believed that he was speaking of the rest of sleep. In Acts 7:60, ἐκοιμήθη is said of Stephen’s death and in Acts 13:36 is said of King David’s death. 35 The death mentioned in 1 Cor 11:30, at the end and culmination of the climax involving also weakness and sickness, is the death of the soul of which Paul speaks in Romans, which is mentioned by the author of Revelation and by the author of 34 For the meaning of this sentence, “those who have died in Christ will rise” or “the dead will rise in Christ,” see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, “The Syntax of ἐν Χριστῷ in 1 Thess 4:16,” JBL 126 (2007): 579–93. 35 Luke 22:45, ἐλθὼν πρὸς τοὺς µαθητὰς εὗρεν κοιµωµένους αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης, is usually rendered as follows: “when he was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow” (KJV); “having come unto the disciples, he found them sleeping from the sorrow” (Young); “he came unto the disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow” (ASV); “he came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow” (NASB); “coming to the disciples, he found them sleeping from grief ” (Darby); “when he went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow” (NIV = TEV). But it is ambiguous: one who feels deep pain, distress, and sorrow, like the disciples at the Gethsemane, will not easily sleep. It rather seems that they were in such a pros- tration and stress that they lost their senses and were like dead (see the notion of “dying of fear, of sorrow,” etc.). Indeed, at Gethsemane Jesus is “overwhelmed with sorrow [περίλυπος] to the point of death [µέχρι/ἕως θανάτου]” (Matt 26:38; Mark 14:34). Moreover, Jesus’ reaction is to exhort them to recover their senses and to pray, “lest you fall into temptation.” One who sleeps does not fall into temptation, but one who succumbs to sadness and sorrow may do so. The notion of spiritual death might again be lurking here. 154 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 1 Timothy (who very probably was an imitator of Paul), and which was a wide- spread metaphor in the first century c.e., both in Middle Platonic and in Neostoic authors. Paul describes spiritual death, that is, the death (θάνατος, θνῄσκω) of the soul, in Rom 7:6–25 and 8:1–13. Here Paul depicts spiritual life as death to sin, and spir- itual death as the result of sin: “we have been delivered from the law, in that we have died to that in which we were prisoners” (7:6); “sin began to live while I died” (7:9–10); “this body of death” (7:6); “the law of sin and death” (8:2); “the way of thinking proper to the flesh is death, that of the spirit is life and peace” (8:6); “your body is dead [νεκρόν] due to sin, but your spirit is life thanks to justification” (8:10). Romans 7:7–25 has been rightly connected by Emma Wasserman to Philo’s con- ception of spiritual death. 36 The same conception of spiritual death, depending on sin, which Paul expresses here in Romans, may easily be at work also in 1Cor 11:30. Indeed, precisely this set of ideas, widespread in Middle Platonism and Roman Sto- icism, as I will demonstrate, should be considered to underlie 1 Cor 11:30 and other NT passages attributable to authors who knew 1 Corinthians, such as 1 Tim 5:6 and Rev 3:1–2 (the author of the former surely knew 1 Corinthians, that of the lat- ter may have been familiar with it; see below). The author of the “Pastoral Epistle” 1 Timothy, notably a close imitator of Paul, 37 referring to a widow who spends her life in pleasures, says in 5:6: ἡ δὲ 36 Emma Wasserman, “The Death of the Soul in Romans 7,” JBL 126 (2007): 793–816. 37 This epistle probably dates from the beginning of the second century; many scholars locate the Pastorals in 120s–140s C.E. These writings seem to have been absent from the earliest copy of Paul’s collected letters, p 46 , and from Marcion’s canon in 130s–140s, and apparently were first quoted by Irenaeus. Benjamin Fiore (The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus [SP 12; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007]) suggests a date around 80–90 C.E. and a set- ting involving Ephesus and Crete. Jouette Bassler (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996], 20, 24–25) and Jerome D. Quinn (The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary and an Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, the Pastoral Epistles [AB 35; New York: Doubleday, 1990], 20) propose a date around 100 C.E. and Ephesus as the most prob- able location. Dennis R. MacDonald (The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon [Philadephia: Westminster, 1983], 54) also advocates Asia Minor and a still later date, 100– 140, and Helmut Koester (Introduction to the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982], 305) indicates 120–160 as the most probable range. Most scholars deem the Pastorals pseudepigraphical: besides the aforementioned, see, e.g., Raymond F. Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988); Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; London: T&T Clark, 2004); Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, eds., The Writings of St. Paul: Annotated Texts, Reception and Criticism (2nd ed.; Nor- ton Critical Edition; New York: Norton, 2007), 303–18. The vocabulary and style of the Pastorals are different from those of Paul’s letters; their exhortations reflect a Hellenistic mentality and Hel- lenistic philosophical commonplaces. Their background with regard to heresy, church organiza- tion, and authority reflects an early-second-century situation. Moreover, they contradict Paul’s Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 155 σπαταλῶσα ζῶσα τέθνηκεν, “She who gives herself to a life of pleasure, even if she is alive, is already dead.” 38 The notion of spiritual death determined by sin is here clear and corresponds to the idea that underlies 1 Cor 11:30. asceticism and appreciation of women as church leaders. According to Fiore (Pastoral Epistles, 71–79), an adaptation to the cultural context is found in the prohibition against women teaching (1 Tim 2:12) and in the restrictions imposed on widows, aimed at excluding women from public ministries under the influence of widespread cultural prejudices, which is the opposite of Paul’s praxis. The Pastorals “domesticate” Paul’s views along the lines of a traditional Hellenistic house- hold (Deborah Krause, 1 Timothy [Readings; London: T&T Clark, 2004]). William A. Richards (Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals [Stud- ies in Biblical Literature 44; New York: Lang, 2002], ch. 5) does not think that the Pastorals are by a single author; he describes 1 Timothy as a “deliberative (paraenetic) letter-essay,” which he locates in 100–130 C.E. Raymond F. Collins (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus [NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002]) claims that the “Pastor” manifests a concern to proclaim the gospel message in the language of late-first-century Hellenism. According to Perry L. Stepp (Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle [New Testament Monographs 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005]), in the Pastorals the core issue is the succession in the leadership of Pauline churches. James W. Aageson (Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church [Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008], esp. 87, 154) considers the Pastorals closer to the church of the Apos- tolic Fathers than to Paul’s communities. Hans von Campenhausen (“Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe,” in idem, Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums: Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts [Tübingen: Mohr, 1964], 197–252) proposed Polycarp as their author. Annette Merz (Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe [NTOA 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Aca- demic Press, 2004], esp. section 2) concluded that Polycarp was using the letters in the conviction that they were by Paul; she also contended that Ignatius employed them as a model, thus placing their composition around 100 C.E. or shortly after. See also her “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (ed. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald and Stanley E. Porter; New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 113–32. John W. Marshall (“‘I Left You in Crete’: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus,” JBL 127 [2008]: 781–803) refers to the author of the Pastorals, whom he assumes to be one and the same for all of the three letters, as “Pseudo-Paul.” This figure wrote well after Paul’s death, and his letters were to be read before a community as though they had been written by Paul. The letters were written as a unity and none of them ever had an independent existence; they share the same original audience, probably a congregation in Asia Minor. Marshall thinks that both the author (“Paul”) and the recipients (“Timothy,” “Titus”) are pseudonymous; so also Bassler, 1 Timothy, 20, 24; Fiore, Pastoral Epistles, 21 and passim; and Hans-Joseph Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 324. Some admit that, although Paul was not the author, Timothy and Titus were the recipients: see, e.g., Michael Goulder, “The Pastor’s Wolves,” NovT 38 (1996): 256. Stephen G. Wilson (Luke and the Pastoral Epistles [London: SPCK, 1979]) suggested that their author is the author of Luke-Acts. Ben Witherington III (Letters and Homilies for Hell- enized Christians, vol. 1, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy, and 1–3 John [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006]) considers them to be Paul’s, but with an involvement of Luke in their composition. 38 Many Fathers commented on this verse: see, e.g., John Chrysostom in his Homily on Stat- 156 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Another NT passage in which the death mentioned is surely to be understood as spiritual and related to sin is Rev 3:1–2, which offers an excellent parallel to 1 Tim 5:6 and especially to 1 Cor 11:30. It is possible that the author of Revelation knew 1 Corinthians; he shares linguistic and terminological features with Paul, 39 and seems to show reminiscences of Paul’s letters, 40 above all of 1 Corinthians. 41 Possi- ues 15.4 and On Dives and Lazarus 3; and Jerome in Adv. Jov. 2.9–10, who warns against a life of pleasure using both this NT passage and Plato’s image of the soul as a chariot. Augustine (Trin. 4.3.5) relates this passage to spiritual death resulting from the “extreme weakness of flesh and blood.” Cassian (Conl. 1.14) explains that one may be alive bodily but spiritually dead and vice versa. Similarly Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 157. 39 See, e.g., Edmondo F. Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John (2nd ed.; trans. Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar; Italian Texts and Studies on Religion and Society; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 44. 40 Excluding the many parallels with Hebrews, I include at least the following: 2 Cor 5:17 in Rev 21:5 on the passing away of the old and all things being καινά; 2 Cor 11:2 in 14:4 (moreover, Gregory Beale [The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 742] noticed that the meaning of ἀπαρχή in this passage is close to that which the word bears in Paul in Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; 2 Thess 2:13; on p. 777 he cites also 1 Cor 15:20, 23); 2 Cor 11:14–15 in 2:9; 2 Cor 6:16 in 11:1; Rom 1:28 in 22:15; Rom 2:5 in 6:17 and 11:18 on God’s judgment; Rom 2:6 in 2:23 on the eschatological giving to each one according to his/her deeds; Rom 8:23 in 22:17; Rom 16:20, 24 in 22:21; Phil 4:3 in 3:5; Phil 2:9–10 in 5:13, where Paul’s prophecy of universal submission and thanksgiving to Christ and God is actualized; Phil 4:3 in 20:12 and in 21:27 on the book of life; Eph 2:20 in 21:14 on the eschatological presence of the apostles as the foundations of the new Jerusalem; 1 Thess 5:2 in 3:3 and in 16:15; 2 Thess 1:6 in 18:6; 1 Thess 4:16 in 20:5; 2 Thess 2:7 in 17:5; 2 Thess 3:18 in 22:21; 2 Thess 9:10 in 13:13 and 20:3; 2 Thess 2:12 in 3:10; 1 Tim 6:15 in 19:16; 2 Tim 4:8 in 2:10. Of course, for these and other corre- spondences it is possible to assume common sources, but the many and sometimes very close convergences rather suggest a direct acquaintance. 41 1 Corinthians 1:32 in Rev 3:19, on therapeutic punishment; 1 Cor 6:2 in 20:4 on the saints’ eschatological reign and judgment (the closeness is also noticed by Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation [NICNT 17; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 355; by Beale, Book of Revelation, 996– 97; and by David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22 [WBC 52C; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 956, on Rev 17:14: 1 Cor 1:2–3 is the only nonapocalyptic text in which the righteous act as agents of divine retribution); 1 Cor 6:9–10 in 22:15 on the sins that keep people away from beatitude (this parallel was also realized by Mounce, Revelation, 394 n. 16: the list of those who cannot enter the heavenly Jerusalem, who reappear in Rev 21:8, corresponds to the kind of people who will not inherit the kingdom in 1 Cor 6:9–10); 1 Cor 10:20 in 9:20–21 (a correspondence also noticed by Beale, Book of Revelation, 519, who relates the claim in Rev 9:20 that the idols are demonic forces to 1 Cor 10:20, and the claim that faith in idols is vain because nothing is behind them to 1 Cor 8:4); 1 Cor 14:32 in 22:6 (this verbal and exclusive correspondence, “spirits of the prophets,” unique in the whole of Scripture, is noted also by Beale, Book of Revelation, 1126: the Pauline passage is the only other attestation in all of the Bible); 1 Cor 15:23 in 20:5 on the order of the resurrection (moreover, Mounce, Revelation, 313, notices that in Rev 17:8 the verb used to describe the com- ing of the beast is closely related to the noun that regularly describes the parousia or second com- ing of Christ: 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19); 1 Cor 15:26 and 55 in 20:14 on the destruction of death (this is noted also by Aune, Revelation, 1103, on Rev 20:14a: “it could be a way of referring to the Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 157 ble parallels are concentrated especially in Revelation 19–22, with at least fourteen examples in only four chapters; the very ending, 22:20–21, may contain four echoes of Paul. 42 Revelation is addressed to “the seven churches in Asia” (1:7), and “the churches in Asia” are those which send greetings in 1 Cor 16:19. 43 The possible acquaintance of the author of Revelation with 1 Corinthians is not essential to my argument here, but it would further enrich it. Now, as in 1 Cor 11:30, in Rev 3:1–2 the meaning is that the person who acts badly is only apparently alive, but in fact is spiritually dead: “I know your works: you are said to be living, and yet you are dead [ὄνοµα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς, καὶ νεκρὸς εἶ]. Raise, and reinforce the rest, which was going to die [γίνου γρηγορῶν, καὶ στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔµελλον ἀποθανεῖν]. 44 For I didn’t find your works perfect before my God.” Spiritual death is manifestly pro- duced by the evilness of one’s works, just as in Paul, 45 and, again like Paul, the author of Revelation does not conceive of this condition of death as permanent and unchangeable—he invites the dying or dead to improve and live, or to return to life, evidently through a spiritual healing or resurrection. eschatological elimination of death: cf. Rev 21:4; 1 Cor 15:26”; and by Mounce, Revelation, 367); 1 Cor 15:58 in 14:13 about the eschatological reward of the labors and works (κόποι and ἔργα in both passages) of the good; 1 Cor 16:22 in 22:20 with the same invocation of the eschatological coming of Christ. R. H. Charles (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John [2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920], 2:149 n. 1) compares the proclamation of the eter- nal gospel in Rev 14:6–7 with 1 Cor 15:23–28: “a somewhat analogous expectation.” Mounce (Rev- elation, 204) compares Rev 9:20 with 1 Cor 10:20: “Paul writes that the Gentiles sacrifice to demons and not to God.” 42 Ἔρχου Κυρίε Ἰησοῦ (Rev 22:20) translates Μαρὰν ἀθά (1 Cor 16:22), and 22:21 gathers the greeting formulas of 2 Thess 3:18; Rom 16:20; and Rom 16:24 (this, in a part of the manuscript tradition). The first parallel is noticed by many commentators. See, e.g., Charles, Revelation, 2:226; Mounce, Revelation, 396: Rev 22:20 is “the equivalent of the transliterated Aramaic in 1 Cor 16:22: maranatha.” Ugo Vanni (La struttura letteraria dell’Apocalisse [2nd rev. ed.; Aloisiana 8a; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1980], 109–15, 298–302) considers the end of Revelation to reflect liturgical dia- logues, like 1 Cor 16:20–24. Aune (Revelation, 1206–9), besides remarking on the maranatha par- allel, argues that the first final curse against those who dared alter the Apocalypse is “a virtual quotation of a pronouncement made by Paul earlier in the setting of Christian worship. . . . Paul pronounced these conditional curses in the introduction of Galatians in order to protect the integrity of the oral gospel, just as John pronounced a double curse at the conclusion of Revela- tion on anyone who dared alter the written prophecy he had composed” (emphasis mine). See also Beale, Book of Revelation, 1154–55, who indicates the correspondences with Gal 3:15; 1 Cor 11:27– 32; 16:2, 20–22. 43 See, e.g., Wilfried Glabach, Reclaiming the Book of Revelation: A Suggestion of New Read- ings in the Local Church (American University Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion 259; New York: Lang, 2007), 23. 44 Or, “strengthen for the future what was going to die,” taking τὰ λοιπά as adverbial. 45 The same notion of sinners finding themselves in spiritual death is conveyed by the Shep- herd of Hermas, Sim. 6.2.3: those who are represented by sheep τρυφῶντα καὶ σπαταλῶντα (the same verb as in 1 Tim 5:6, which may have been a model for the author) are doomed to θάνατος. 158 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Important parallels to this concept of spiritual illness and death determined by moral depravity are to be found in contemporary philosophy as well, especially in Middle Platonism and Neostoicism. Indeed, Paul’s relationship to the philosophy of his time is the subject of rich and ongoing research. 46 Many interesting examples are offered by Philo, who was particularly close to Middle Platonism, but also strongly influenced by Stoicism. As I have mentioned, Schneider adduced passages in Philo concerning the understanding of sleep as sleep of the mind. Even more numerous and relevant are the passages in which Philo refers to spiritual death, constituting a very interesting parallel to 1 Cor 11:30. In Her. 293, Philo, using the Stoic distinction between the wise person and the fool, affirms: “According to the Legislator [sc. Moses], only the wise enjoys a good old age and a very long life, whereas the fool has an extremely short life [ὀλιγο- χρονιώτατον δὲ τὸν φαῦλον] and is always learning to die [ἀποθνῄσκειν ἀεὶ µανθάνοντα], or rather is already dead to the life according to virtue [τὴν ἀρετῆς ζωὴν ἤδη τετελευτηκότα].” Like the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:30, and like the widow in 1 Tim 5:6 and the addressee of Rev 3:1–2, Philo’s fool, who acts badly, is always dying, or is spiritually dead, precisely because of this behavior. Likewise, in Fug. 55 Philo remarks that one can be apparently alive but in fact be spiritually dead. This is the situation of immoral and foolish persons, even when they live very long. The wise and virtuous, on the contrary, live a perpetual life, even though their earthly life is very short: “Some are dead even if they are living [ζῶντες τεθνήκασι], and some live although they are dead [τεθνηκότες ζῶσι]. The fools, he said, even if they keep living until the most advanced old age, are dead [νεκρούς], in that they are deprived of the life according to virtue. The virtuous, instead, even though they are separated from the company of the body, keep living forever [ζῆν εἰσαεί], in that they have attained immortality [ἀθανάτου µοίρας ἐπιλαχόντας].” Similarly, in Det. 49, the life of the wise is said by Philo to be spiritual life, whereas the fool, characterized by κακία, is declared to be spiritually dead: “the wise person seems to be dead to corruptible life [τεθνηκέναι τὸν φθαρτὸν βίον], but lives the incorruptible one; the fool, instead, is alive to the life according to vice, but is dead to the happy life [ζῶν τὸν ἐν κακίᾳ (sc. βίον) τέθνηκε τὸν εὐδαίµονα].” Again, the vicious person is said to be spiritually dead. In Praem. 79, Philo observes that one may endure for long in spiritual death, even as long as one’s earthly life lasts: 46 See Ilaria Ramelli, “Alle radici della filosofia patristica,” Invigilata Lucernis 30 (2008): 149– 76; eadem, “Philosophen und Prediger: Dion und Paulus—pagane und christliche weise Män- ner,” in Dio von Prusa, Der Philosoph und sein Bild (ed. Eugenio Amato, Barbara Borg, Renate Burri, Sotera Fornaro, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Ilaria Ramelli, and Jacques Schamp; Sapere 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 183–210. Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 159 People think that death is the culmination of punishments, but at the tribunal of God this is only the very beginning. Since the crime is extraordinary, it was nec- essary that an extraordinary punishment be found for it. Which? To be always dying while living [ζῆν ἀποθνῄσκοντα ἀεί] and, in a way, to undergo an immortal and unending death [θάνατον ἀθάνατον ὑποµένειν καὶ ἀτελεύτητον]. For the kinds of death are two [θανάτου γὰρ διττὸν εἶδος]: the first is to be dead [sc. physical death], which is a good or an indifferent thing; the other is to continue to die [ἀποθνήσκειν, sc. spiritual death], which is an evil [κακόν], absolutely, and the more enduring, the heavier: and consider how this kind of death can endure together with the sinner for an entire life [συνδιαιωνίζει]. 47 This distinction of different kinds of death, physical and spiritual, of which the second is undoubtedly the more serious and is defined as a positive evil, returns in a Christian philosopher who knew both Philo and the NT very well—Origen, who, exactly like Philo, also conceives of physical death as a good or indifferent thing and of spiritual death as an evil. Indeed, in his Dialogue with Heraclides and else- where, he theorizes about the different meanings of death, insisting on the notion that spiritual death is the only kind of death to be regarded as a true evil and is, in fact, the true death. In Dial. Her. 25–26, Origen draws a distinction—which will be closely followed by Ambrose—between physical death, which is no evil; death to sin, which is only good; and the death of the soul, which is the worst evil and actually the real death. Indeed, he concludes that “the soul is mortal in respect to the true death [τοῦ ὄντως θανάτου],” where the true death is exactly spiritual death, the death of the soul. Similarly, in Comm. Matt. 12.33.12, Origen states, in refer- ence to 1 Cor 15:26: “The enemy of this Life, which will be destroyed as the last enemy of all his [sc. of Christ, who is Life] enemies, is death, the death that the sin- ning soul dies” (θάνατόν ἐστιν ὃν ψυχὴ ἡ ἁµαρτάνουσα ἀποθνῄσκει). Exactly as in Paul, spiritual death is again connected to sin. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Origen insists on spiritual illness and death precisely commenting on 1 Cor 11:30, as I have already pointed out, and on 1 Tim 5:6, where the reference is again to spiritual death (see Hom. Lev. 3.3 [304.27]; Comm. Rom. 8.9). Of course, Origen elaborated on the conception found in Paul, in 1 Tim 5:6, and in Revelation, as I have demonstrated, and in other texts with which he was certainly acquainted, such as Philo’s passages on spiritual death, 47 According to Philo, sinners will cease to exist at all after their physical death: see Ilaria Ramelli, “Philosophical Allegoresis of Scripture in Philo and Its Legacy in Gregory of Nyssa,” Stu- dia Philonica Annual 20 (2008): 55–99. It is also to be noticed that here Philo uses τιµωρία to indi- cate the punishment decreed by the tribunal of God. This term means a retributive punishment, whereas κόλασις is the punishment that is established in the interest of the punished; a therapeu- tic or educative punishment. It is meaningful that in the NT, in contrast to Philo, punishment, including the one in the next world, is always expressed with κόλασις, never with τιµωρία. Even the so-called “eternal punishment” is κόλασις αἰώνιος. 160 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) which I have analyzed. In this light, it is easy to see how it is that Origen interpreted 1 Cor 11:30 in a spiritual sense, and how this interpretation should be regarded as fully legitimate. He clearly saw a reference to spiritual death in this verse, and I think that today’s scholars should see it as well, in view of my argument thus far. Even somewhat before Philo, this identification of spiritual death with a life led in vice is attested already in the Platonic tradition, specifically in the Neo- Academician Cicero, who was not immune to Stoic influences. In Att. 12.2, he asks a rhetorical question: Homini non recta sed voluptaria quaerenti nonne βεβίωται? “Isn’t it true that a person who pursues not what is right but only pleasures is in fact dead?” Further, a sentence ascribed to the Neo-Pythagorean Sextus expounds the very same concept, that a person who pursues vice instead of virtue is spiritually dead albeit bodily alive: “A faithful person whose faithfulness has been proved is a god in a [living] body of a human being; a person who proves faithless is a dead human being in a living body [νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐν σώµατι ζῶντι]” (7). The immedi- ate context of this sentence further clarifies its conceptual framework and makes it clear that the reference is precisely to spiritual and moral death. Indeed, in Sent. 1–6, “Sextus” has explained that the person of God is faithful and really alive, because his/her conduct is worthy of God: “A faithful human being is an elect person. An elect person is a person of God. A person of God is one who is worthy of God. The one who is worthy of God is a person who does nothing unworthy of God. There- fore, if you endeavor to be faithful, do nothing unworthy of God.” True human life is a life that is worthy of God and makes one closer to the divine. A person who lives in vice, on the contrary, is apparently alive, but spiritually dead. If we move to Roman Stoicism, the concept of spiritual illness and death as a result of a vicious life is even better attested. Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, expresses this notion very clearly. Exactly like Paul, he states that vicious people, the otiosi, are in fact ill or dead. Speaking of every person like this, in Brev. 12.19 he claims: aeger est, immo mortuus est, “he is ill, or better, even dead.” Indeed, the topic of animi medicina philosophia, based on the notion that vice is the illness of the soul, was dear to him, and it is well known that he particularly cherished medical metaphors. And for Seneca, just as for Paul, spiritual illness ultimately leads to spir- itual death. Likewise, another Roman Stoic, Musonius Rufus, a contemporary of Seneca and Paul, maintained that God is the god of life, clearly meaning spiritual and moral life, so that, in order to know God, it is necessary to reject the dead part of one’s soul, which is the vicious part: ἔκκοψον τὸ τεθνηκὸς τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ γνώσει τὸν θεόν, “amputate the dead part of your soul, and (you will) know God.” 48 48 Musonius, fr. 53, p. 134.5–6 Hense; ap. Aelius Aristides 551 Dindorf = 362 Jebb: Wilhelm Dindorf, Aristides (3 vols.; Leipzig: Reimer, 1829; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 1:551. See Ilaria Ramelli, ed., Musonio Rufo, Diatribe, frammenti, testimonianze (Testi a fronte 31; Milan: Bom- Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 161 One further example is offered by a Roman satirical poet, roughly contem- porary with the authors of 1 Timothy and of Revelation, and strongly influenced by Roman Stoicism, 49 Juvenal. He notably expresses the same idea as 1 Cor 11:30 and 1 Tim 5:6 when he refers to a dissolute man in Sat. 8.85–86: dignus morte periit, coenet licet ostrea centum / Gaurana, “He who is worthy of death is already dead, even though he may have a hundred prized oysters at dinner.” Juvenal’s Sat. 8 focuses on true nobility, which—very Stoically—coincides with virtue and the exer- cise of logos. The dissolute person, in contrast, is “worthy of death,” and therefore “has already died” and indeed “is dead,” even if he or she is apparently alive and lives in self-indulgence and luxury. True human life, Juvenal teaches, is that spent in the pursuit of virtue, in rectitude, in the awareness of one’s own dignity as a human being, endowed with reason, which is a gift from the supreme divinity and makes humans close to the gods. Especially in Sat. 15.142–58 Juvenal stresses that only we humans have received “the venerable ingenium” from the supreme deity: at the beginning of the world our “common creator” provided animals only with an anima, whereas humans were given also an animus, a spirit (15.147–49), the seat of human ingenium, intellect or reason. Human reason is the initiator of human soci- ety, language, civilization, and of altruism, honesty, and all virtues (15.131–42, 150– 58). If a human being gives up this dignity, which characterizes human nature and is a gift of the divine creator, and rather turns to passions, this person renounces human life and turns to animal life. Such a person is “worthy of death” and “already dead” precisely because his or her life is reduced to pleasures, which are at the level of animal life. True human life is the life of reason and virtue, which puts a person in relationship to the divine. I need not highlight how this connection of true human life with the divinity is close to the notion of moral or spiritual life and death as communion with, or remoteness from, God in Paul and in the authors of 1 Timothy and Revelation—notwithstanding of course the obvious differences between the Stoic system and Christianity, especially in respect to the transcen- dence of God. This theme of true life and true death, which are spiritual life and death, and the related notion that vicious conduct determines spiritual illness and death are particularly present, as I have demonstrated, in Roman Stoicism, but also in Mid- dle Platonism and in NT authors influenced by these, such as Paul and the authors of 1 Timothy and Revelation, who both knew 1 Corinthians as well. In the light of what I have argued, it is therefore probable that in 1 Cor 11:30 Paul is constructing a climax from weakness to illness to death, and that these notions can be interpreted spiritually, as an illness and death of the soul. Paul uses piani, 2001) and the new essay on Musonius in eadem, Stoici romani minori (Bompiani il pensiero occidentale; Milan: Bompiani, 2008), 689–943. 49 As is demonstrated by Ramelli, Stoici romani, 2211–44. 162 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) κοιµῶµαι always in reference to death, rather than to sleep, and often uses ἀσθενής and related terms in a spiritual sense, in reference to a spiritual weakness or illness, even without modifiers expressly indicating that the term must be understood on a spiritual plane—this precisely in 1 Corinthians. Moreover, the idea of spiritual death as related to sin is well developed in Paul’s thought, especially in Romans, and in the NT is clearly attested in other authors who knew 1 Corinthians, such as the authors of 1 Timothy and Revelation. I have also demonstrated that this con- ception finds close parallels in contemporary authors related to Middle Platonism and Neostoicism, with which Paul seems to have been somewhat familiar. As a corollary, I have also demonstrated that it is far from being the case that— at it has been repeatedly claimed—patristic exegetes never understood 1 Cor 11:30 in a spiritual sense. On the contrary, the spiritual interpretation of illness and death in this passage is far more common than a physical interpretation. It is represented at least by Clement, Origen (repeatedly), Didymus, and Cassian (in contrast to only Basil and Ambrosiaster—the latter only partially, since he takes illness and death as an image of the future judgment). Especially Origen and authors who were influ- enced by him, such as Didymus, interpreted this verse in reference to spiritual ill- ness and death. This comes as no surprise, given Origen’s penchant for spiritual exegesis and his theorization—reminiscent of Philo—of the different meanings of “death,” among which spiritual death is prominent: only spiritual death is a true evil and “the real death,” to which the soul is subject. The death of the soul, how- ever, is not necessarily a definitive and eternal condition, either for Origen or for Paul himself (or for the author of Revelation, as I have shown). As there will be a resurrection of the body, so too the soul can return to life after its death, that life which is Christ. This is clear not only from Paul’s Romans discourse on the death of the soul, but even from the very context of 1 Cor 11:30: in vv. 31–32 Paul reflects that self-examination spares one the Lord’s judgment. But still the Lord’s judgment is educative; it is a παίδευσις instead of a condemnation. In vv. 33–34, Paul himself recommends the right behavior to the Corinthians, that they may recover their spiritual health and life and avoid judgment (κρίµα). Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 163 The World and the Word An Introduction to the Old Testament Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti Three esteemed professors introduce students to the Old Testament—freshly illuminating the text as a rich source of theology and doctine packed with practical principles for modern times. ISBN: 978-0-8054-4031-7 Printed Hardcover // 680 pages // $44.99 AVAILABLE MAY 2011 The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown An Introduction to the New Testament Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles An all-new, comprehensive introduction to the New Testament, paying close attention to the historical, literary, and theological dimensions of the biblical text ISBN: 978-0-8054-4365-3 Printed Hardcover // 976 pages // $59.99 AVAILABLE NOW BHAcademic.com Visit our web site to order complimentary review copies. A firm foundation in the Old and New Testaments Eating with Honor: Te Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary Association Meal Practices rachel m. mcrae [email protected] Queen’s School of Religion, Kingston, ON K7L 0A1, Canada There has been increasing recognition by scholars studying the Greco-Roman world of the first century that a larger database of meal practices is desirable for understanding the social banqueting practices behind Paul’s words concerning the Corinthian banquet of 1 Cor 11:17–33. Scholars such as Gerd Theissen, Wayne A. Meeks, Matthias Klinghardt, and Dennis E. Smith have mined the elite commen- sality literature of the ancients and have established that a standard form of the Greco-Roman banquet underlies practices of the time. 1 Rituals varied, however, and Andrew McGowan reminds us that “various groups seem to have had differ- ent explicit understandings and purposes in mind and to have used eating and drinking together in a variety of ritual forms.” 2 Gerard Rouwhorst points out, cit- I am grateful for feedback on various drafs of this paper from Professor Richard Ascough, and for the helpful suggestions of the two anonymous JBL reviewers. 1 English translations of Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, Learned Banqueters; Ovid, Meta- morphoses; Pausanias, Description of Greece; and Juvenal, Juvenal and Persius are from the Loeb Classical Library. See Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 147–63; Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983); Matthias Klinghardt, “A Typology of the Community Meal” (paper presented to the Meals in the Greco-Roman World Consultation, SBL annual meeting, Atlanta, November, 2003); D. Smith, “The Greco-Roman Banquet as a Social Institution” (paper presented to the Meals in the Greco-Roman World Consultation, SBL annual meeting, Atlanta, November, 2003); idem, “Greco-Roman Meal Customs,” ABD 4:650–53; and, more recently, idem, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 2 McGowan, “Food, Ritual, and Power,” in Late Ancient Christianity (ed. Virginia Burrus; People’s History of Christianity 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 145–64. JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 165–181 165 ing Mary Douglas’s work, that when a group constructs a ritual tradition, it is con- structing a social identity: “Every meal—especially when taken together by more than one person—encodes significant messages about social and hierarchical pat- terns.” 3 A study of banqueting traditions of Greco-Roman voluntary associations helps to clarify the role that the Mediterranean code of honor and shame played in estab- lishing their social identity. As Jewish and Christian groups both saw themselves and were seen by others as voluntary associations, I suggest that similar social and hierarchical patterns based on the code of honor and shame of the Mediterranean world are evidenced in the banqueting traditions of the Corinthian community. 4 These social patterns, rather than the economic patterns of wealth and poverty, explain the divisions in the Corinthian community. Because the honor/ shame code is a changeable value system rather than a fixed economic situation, I suggest that Paul is therefore able to propose radical changes to the Corinthian meal ritual in order to establish new social and behavioral patterns that reflect the values of humility, mutual upbuilding, and love that Jesus taught. In effect, Paul uses the meal ritual to create a new Christian social identity. Gerd Theissen first analyzed the social problems of the Corinthian commu- nity, demonstrating that there was a “marked internal stratification” within the community, attributing the factions to economic divisions. The verb προλαµβάνω in 1 Cor 11:21 is understood to describe the few wealthy Corinthians who begin their private meal before the communal meal and receive larger portions owing to 3 Rouwhorst, “Table Community in Early Christianity,” in A Holy People: Jewish and Chris- tian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (ed. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz; Jew- ish and Christian Perspectives 12; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006), 69-84, here 69, citing Mary Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology (2nd ed.; London/New York: Rout- ledge, 1999); Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Meth- ods for the Study of Early Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); Andrew McGowan, “Rethinking Agape,” Studia Liturgica 34 (2004): 165–76. 4 Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004), 187. Christians too were viewed as collegia; see John S. Kloppenborg, “Edwin Hatch, Churches and Collegia,” in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (ed. Bradley H. McLean; JSNTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 228: “Pliny’s statement that Christians in Bithynia ceased meeting after Trajan’s edict banning hetaeriae indicates both that the Christians involved saw themselves as constituting an association, and that this judgement was shared by Pliny.” See also B. W. R. Pearson, “Associations,” Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, IL: InterVar- sity, 2000), 137; Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Greco- Roman Religions (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 54; Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 44–46; Jim Harrison, “Paul’s House Churches and the Cultic Associations,” RTR 58 (1999): 31–33; S. C. Barton and G. H. R. Horsley, “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches,” JAC 24 (1981): 28–38; Richard S. Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (WUNT 2/161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 71–94. 166 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) their rank. 5 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, drawing on the archaeological evidence of remains around Corinth of several wealthy villas with a triclinium (dining room) and an atrium, further speculates that the villa at Anaploga represents the type of home owned by a wealthy Corinthian patron of the Jesus community. 6 He reasons that the host (perhaps Gaius) entertained the eight wealthiest members of the com- munity in the triclinium of his villa (which seats nine) relegating the rest of the Corinthian group to inferior dining in his villa’s atrium. 7 Gregory Linton agrees with this suggestion, estimating that there were perhaps six smaller church groups in Corinth who would join together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. 8 Perhaps more than thirty-five participants were dining. 9 Peter Lampe, too, suggests that the wealthy Corinthians participated in “First Tables,” a dinner attended by the leisured elite, and that the poorer people arrived later for the “Second Tables,” which was the symposium, and received lesser por- tions consisting of sweet desserts and fruit, or perhaps spicy dishes, seafood, and bread. 10 This explanation was accepted by a number of other scholars. 11 Never- 5 Theissen, Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 151–54; idem, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics and the World of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); E. A. Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation (Christ and Culture Collection; London: Tyndale, 1960); Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Rockwell Lectures; Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977). 6 Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983), 155–56. 7 Murphy O’Connor cites Dennis E. Smith, “Social Obligation in the Context of Commu- nal Meals: A Study of the Christian Meal in 1 Corinthians in Comparison with Graeco-Roman Meals” (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1980), 156. 8 Linton (“House Church Meetings in the New Testament Era,” in Stone Campbell Journal 8 [2005]: 220–44, here 233) suggests that there were six small groups meeting in the homes of the following people in Corinth: Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2–4); Titius Justus (Acts 18:7); Crispus (Acts 18:8); Chloe (1 Cor 1:11); Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16); and Gaius (Rom 16:23). The church in neighboring Cenchreae meets in the home of Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2). 9 Henk J. de Jonge, “The Early History of the Lord’s Supper,” in Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a NOSTER Conference in Soesterberg, January 4–6, 1999 (ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Anton Houtepen; Studies in Theology and Religion 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001), 209–37, here 209. 10 Peter Lampe, “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (1 Cor. 11:17–34),” Affirmation 4 (1991): 2–3. 11 Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Family, Religion, and Culture; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 200– 203; Bradley B. Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Sup- ply, and the Present Distress,” Criswell Theological Review 5 (1991): 233–34; Dennis E. Smith and Hal E. Taussig, Many Tables: The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadel- phia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 64; de Jonge, “Early History,” 209–10; Linton, “House Church Meetings,” 243. McRae: Eating with Honor 167 theless, there have been recent challenges to this theory by L. Michael White, David G. Horrell, and J. J. Meggitt, producing “a somewhat revised, more cautious” attitude concerning the economic status of the Corinthians and the cause of their social divisions. 12 Here, inscriptions of the voluntary association banqueting customs may be engaged in the discussion, for they contain much evidence for divisions within a dining group—divisions predicated not on wealth but on the honor/shame code of the Mediterranean region. 13 Richard S. Ascough notes that “segregative commen- sality is not limited to those in the upper ranks—its strength lies in the ability of groups to be (self-)selective about who can join in the eating and drinking.” 14 We suggest that, similar to other voluntary associations, the divisions marring the cel- ebration of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth may be attributed to the honor and shame value code. I. Honor and Shame in the Associations “It is becoming an accepted fact that honor and shame were pivotal values in antiquity that structured the daily lives of peoples around the Mediterranean.” 15 The voluntary associations subscribed to the same cultural agonistic social values of honor and shame as the Mediterranean society in which they lived. 16 In this code 12 Horrell, “Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre,” NTS 50 (2004): 359. For the discussion of the economic sta- tus of the Corinthians, see Gail R. O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality,” JBL 109 (1990): 259–67; and the interchange of ideas among Meggitt (Paul, Poverty and Survival [Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 153, 179; “Response to Martin and Theissen,” JSNT 24 [2001]: 85–94), Dale B. Martin (“Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT 24 [2001]: 51–64), and Theissen (“Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Sur- vival,” JSNT 25 [2003]: 371–91). See also Steven J. Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus,” JSNT 26 (2004): 323–61; Bengt Holmberg, “The Methods of His- torical Reconstruction in the Scholarly ‘Recovery’ of Corinthian Christianity,” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 255–72; L. Michael White, The Social Origins of Christian Archi- tecture, vol. 1, Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews and Christians (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990), 102–39, esp. 107; Linton, “House Church Meetings,” 238; Horrell, “Domestic Space,” 354-56. 13 Ascough, “Forms of Commensality in Greco-Roman Associations,” CW102 (2008): 33– 46. 14 Ibid., 37. 15 Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 3; Zeba Crook (“Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited,” JBL 128 [2009]: 591) agrees that “there is more than enough evidence to defend the proposition that in the Mediterranean, past and present, these values remain pivotal.” 16 The following paragraph is indebted to both Crook, “Honor, Shame,” 591–611, and the 168 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) of values, an adult could attain honor individually (of secondary importance) and collectively (of prime importance). The honor could be attributed (the honor that the people’s court of reputation attributes to people when they are born, which is acquired through birth, family connections, or endowment by notable persons of power) as well as distributed (honor that the people’s court of reputation distributes whenever someone outwits another, when a benefaction is made, or after any kind of public challenge and riposte). “While power, wealth, and gender do figure into the ‘rules’ of honor and shame, these individualistic characteristics matter much less than the opinion of the PCR [public court of reputation], whoever that might represent in any given instance.” 17 Honor was always gained at the expense of another, for, according to this worldview of “limited good” or perception of scarcity, all good things exist in limited quantity. Shame or dishonor results from lack of acknowledgment by the public court of reputation. In the public court of reputa- tion, marginalized people such as low status groups and women could gain honor. Aristotle claims that shame adheres to those who fail to demonstrate the four car- dinal virtues (Rhet. 2.6.3–4). The banquet became an important vehicle for distributing honor. As Willi Braun has noted, the early Christians in Paul’s community did not invent their ban- quet from nothing. 18 “Throughout their lives, individuals in antiquity were embed- ded in some collective or group—either the family, which was the dominant institution of that social world, or peer groups at the gymnasium, symposium, army, synagogue, or assembly of citizens in the polis.” 19 There was a long-standing tradi- tion of banqueting in these groups, practiced at virtually every social level. All over the Mediterranean world, from earliest times, cultic association members volun- tarily joined together for conviviality and to express their piety in regularly sched- uled private sacrificial banquets. 20 Our main sources of information for associations are the thousands of inscrip- tions dating from as early as the fifth century B.C.E. To date, fifteen fragmentary inscriptions possibly belonging to voluntary associations have been found at Corinth. 21 Extensive excavations at Ephesus have uncovered the existence of forty- one trade associations and nineteen cultic associations. Twenty-four voluntary associations are attested on Delos, forty-six at Thessalonikē, and fifty-nine in seminal work of Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 1–46. 17 Crook, “Honor, Shame,” 610. 18 Braun, “The Greco-Roman Meal: Typology of Form or Form of Typology?” (paper pre- sented to the Meals in the Greco-Roman World Consultation, SBL annual meeting, Atlanta, November, 2003), 2. 19 Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 28. 20 Ascough, “Forms of Commensality,” 3. 21 See Ascough, “The Completion of a Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor. 8.1–15,” NTS 42 (1996): 584 n. 3. McRae: Eating with Honor 169 Ostia. 22 Archaeologists in Petra, Nabatea, speculate that as many as forty associa- tions (marzēahi) established sanctuaries in the high places of the canyon. 23 James Rives points to the importance of this source of information for social and reli- gious life in antiquity; it fills the gaps left by literary sources and gives us “a view of civic life at ground level as well as from the heights.” 24 Membership numbers in the associations were generally small, averaging per- haps fifteen to one hundred, and were mainly drawn from the urban poor, slaves, and freedmen. 25 Intersecting social relations in the Greco-Roman world played a major role in the formation of voluntary associations, for while the members were mainly the urban poor, slaves, and freedmen, their patrons could be both wealth- ier and of a higher status group. 26 Many people belonged to more than one associ- ation. 27 With a few exceptions, such as groups that had a long pedigree, including Jewish synagogues and ancient societies, associations were declared illegal under various Roman administrations after 184 B.C.E., but they continued to thrive despite sporadic suppression. 28 During the first century, with its migration and intermix- ing of peoples, powers, and ideas, the presence of associations was felt throughout the entire Roman Empire, especially in urban areas, where they played a significant role in mediating various kinds of social exchange. 29 An association became the “socially constructed replacement for the family.” 30 An association’s private banquet was the chief venue for announcing, award- 22 Richardson, Building Jewish, 193. 23 Robert Wenning, “The Rock-Cut Architecture of Petra,” in Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans (ed. Glenn Markoe; New York: Cincinnati Art Museum, 2003), 133, 142; Laïla Nehmé, “The Petra Survey Project,” in ibid., 158. 24 Rives, “Civic and Religious Life,” in Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscrip- tions (ed. John Bodel; Approaching the Ancient World; London: Routledge, 2001), 118–19. 25 John S. Kloppenborg, “Collegi and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Member- ship,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson; London/New York: Routledge, 1996), 23. 26 Philip A. Harland, “Connections with Elites in the World of the Early Christians,” in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches (ed. Anthony J. Blasi, Paul-André Turcotte, and Jean Duhaime; Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira. 2002), 389. 27 Ascough, “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community Building Language in 1 Thessaloni- ans 4:13–18,” JBL 123 (2004): 510. 28 Ascough, “Greco-Roman Philosophic, Religious, and Voluntary Associations,” in Com- munity Formation in the Early Church and the Church Today (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Peabody. MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 3. 29 Ibid.; Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” 17; Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Tes- tament: The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1995), 19. 30 Ascough, “Question of Death,” 519, citing Jonathan Z. Smith, “Here, There and Any- where” (keynote address to the conference entitled “Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World,” University of Washington, Department of New Eastern Languages and Civilization, March 3–5, 2000), 14. 170 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ing, and parading honorific deeds. Honors were varied: 31 erection of a stele, bust, or statue; honors at the annual or monthly banquet such as the privilege of reclin- ing on the couch of honor, and crowning with a gold or olive or floral wreath, which was sometimes adorned with woolen or red ribbons; public announcement of the person’s benefaction during the sacrifices and meetings; bestowal of money or hon- oraria or interest on mortgaged land; exemption from all membership fees for a period of time; or the privilege of front seats for oneself and one’s guest(s) during the games. For officials, honors might include attendance at a sacred meal, an increased share of the distributions after sacrifice, 32 or special clothing, such as priestly headband or special cloak for the sacred procession and meal. 33 Associa- tions, along with elites and municipal institutions, used the physical manifestations of the banquet display to further their own social prestige in the competition for membership, patrons, and political power in their world. Associations were often included in select public and private banquets, where wealthy benefactors would present distributions (sportulae) according to a strict hierarchy. 34 Participation in these banquets, through their membership in their collegia, elevated members’ personal status as well as the status of their collegia. “The effect of all this was that collegia were presented as respectable organisations, as first-level status groups for ambitious members of the plebs that were seen as an integral part of local social hierarchies.” 35 Membership in associations and atten- dance at their banquets were seen as an acceptable (i.e., honorable) source of social identity. 36 Association inscriptions often included the wish that their association “increase by zeal for honor,” or that “there shall be a rivalry among everyone to strive for honor among them, everyone knowing that they will be honored in a way worthy of those who themselves show kindness.” 37 Members competed for official leadership positions in their associations—positions that would have been denied them in their civic institution, because of their rank and status. 38 Through these 31 Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations, 24–28; Klauck, Religious Context, 44. 32 For guests at the procession see IDelos 1520. 33 See Rachel M. McRae, “The Corinthian Lord’s Supper and the Greco-Roman Banquet” (M.T.S. thesis, Queen’s Theological College, 2008), appendix B. 34 Associations also handed out sportulae; see Frank M. Ausbüttel, Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches (Frankfurter althistorische Studien 11; Kallmünz: Michael Lassleben, 1982), 55–56. 35 Onno van Nijf, The Civic World of the Professional Associations in the Roman East (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17; Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1997), 155, 166– 68. 36 Ibid., 28. 37 IG II/2, 1369 (Eranos of Liopesi, Attica, second century C.E.) and IG II/2, 1292 (Cult of Sarapis, Athens, third century B.C.E.). 38 Ilias Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion: Legal and Social Dimensions of Reli- gious Associations in Ancient Athens,” in Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict, and Community in McRae: Eating with Honor 171 positions members were able to exert some measure of control over their collegium, and provide a structure for negotiating relationships with the officials of the munic- ipality and the elite. 39 Positions such as quinquennalis (president of the Roman col- legia), magister cenarum(master of the Roman banquet), archisynagōgos and archōn (president of the Greek association), archeranistēs (master of the Greek banquet), epimelētēs (supervisors) and tamias (treasurer) were desirable and highly respected, although often financially onerous, requiring considerable disbursement of the member’s private funds. 40 Lengths of tenure varied, and many officials purchased their valuable offices. 41 Similar to other associations, the Corinthian community encouraged its mem- bers to excel. Paul praises Titus for accepting the job of money collector: “you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in utmost eagerness, and in our love for you—so we want you to excel also in this generous undertaking” (2 Cor 8:7). We see that there were opportunities for achieving honor within the individ- ual house church in the leadership roles as well. Members pursued status through their roles as prophets, speakers-in-tongues, teachers, and so forth. 42 In 1 Cor 12:28–30, in tension with his usual teachings of equality and mutual servitude, Paul too participates in legitimating the ranking system, as he enumerates the official positions in the community: in the top rank are Paul, the founder, and Apollos and Cephas, leaders and apostles. They receive wages from the group (1 Cor 3:8), Classical Athens (ed. Paul Cartledge, Paul Millett, and Sitta von Reden; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 75; Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations, 25; Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 35–40; Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers. First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 2000), 68; Pauline Schmitt-Pantel, “Collective Activities and the Political in the Greek City,” in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (ed. Oswyn Murray and S. R. F. Price; Oxford: Claren- don, 1990), 200–201; Frank Frost Abbott, The Common People of Ancient Rome: Studies of Roman Life and Literature (1911; repr., New York: Biblo & Tannen, 1965), 221–25; John F. Donahue, The Roman Community at Table during the Principiate (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), 84. 39 Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” 27; van Nijf, Civic World, 21. 40 For tamias, see IG II/2, 1327; quinquennali: CIL IV, 2112; archisynagōgos: IG X/2, 288, 289; archōn: IG X/2, 58; archeranistēs: IG II/2, 1343; epimelētēs: IG X/2, 88; Ausbüttel, Unter- suchungen zu den Vereinen, 55–57; Halsey Royden, “The Tenure of Office of the Quinquennales in the Roman Professional Collegia,” AJP 110 (1989) 303–15; Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion,” 75; Ascough, “Greco-Roman Philosophic, Religious and Voluntary Associations,” 15. 41 SIG 3, 1009 (Chalcedon, first century B.C.E.); IPriene 174 (second century B.C.E.); IPriene 201–2 (Anatolia, second century B.C.E.). 42 Contra Edwin Hatch (The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight Lectures Delivered before the University of Oxford, in the Year 1880 [Bampton Lectures for 1880; London: Rivington’s, 1881; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999], 119), who recognizes that the distinc- tions are based upon varieties of spiritual power, but denies that this affects their official stand- ing in the group. 172 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) acquire a group following, and build on the foundation laid by Paul (3:10). Prophets are named second, for they build up the community and acquire more honor than those who speak in tongues (14:5). Teachers are third; fourth are those who effected “deeds of power”; fifth, those who contribute their gifts of healing; and then appear those who offer “forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues” (12:28). Each of these leadership positions has been given a title, similar to other association titles, such as epimelētēs and gymnasiarch. 43 Honor was acquired in associations through benefaction, as well. Wealthy patrons (of both genders) contributed to the building and upkeep of association meeting halls, sanctuaries, and banqueting facilities, in exchange for the “symbolic capital” before gods and fellow citizens that the association could give them. 44 Indi- viduals of religious associations benefited from the “kinship” networks established between patrons and sub-elite, allowing poorer members increased access to the economic and political benefits that patrons could offer. 45 In addition, patrons sometimes benefited politically from this exchange, as evidenced by election slo- gans from Pompeii, which indicate that associations supported their patrons’ claims to political office. 46 Inscriptions on stelae erected to honor individuals repeatedly emphasize that the patron/ess was “well-disposed to the affairs of the gods and the affairs of the synodos with regard to seeking honor, and seeking honor privately and publicly.” 47 That women also participated in the distribution of honor through banquet iconography is seen in funerary monuments. It is apparent that the quest for honor did not end at death but continued beyond the grave. A great many grave monu- ments from classical and archaic Greece, Etruria, and the Roman Empire evidence variations on the banqueting scheme called Totenmahl. “The basic motif of the Totenmahl consists of a single male figure, wearing tunic and mantle or with his 43 Bradley H. McLean comments that “it is instructive to observe that various Christian groups also experimented with their own titles” (“The Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Asso- ciations and Early Church Formation,” in McLean, Origins and Method, 259). Cf. 1 Cor 12:27–31; Eph 2:19–21; Phil 1:1. 44 Arnaoutoglou, “Between Koinon and Idion,” 81. 45 McLean, “Agrippinilla Inscription,” 266–67. McLean further suggests that this access to patron relationships was manipulated by the Corinthian groups in forming factions. 46 Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” 30 n. 66, referencing CIL IV, 113, 206, 336, 497, 677, 710, 743, 826, 864, 960, 7164, 7273, 7473, etc. 47 IDelos 1519, 1520, and 1521 (Berytos, second century B.C.E.); IG II/2, 2343 (Athens, 400 B.C.E.); IG II/2, 1301 (Piraeus, 222 B.C.E.); CIJ I, 694 (Stobi, third century C.E.); CIL VI, 10234 (Rome, 153 C.E.); IG X/2, 259 (Thessalonica, first century C.E.); CBP 455 (Phrygia, third century C.E.); I DFSJ 11 (Baruch Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives [CahRB 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1967]) (Olbia, Sardinia, Italy); I DFSJ 12 (Pergamum); DFSJ 13 (Phoceae, third cen- tury C.E.), DFSJ 16 (Teos, third century C.E.); DFSJ 31 (Nysa, third century C.E.); DFSJ 33 (first century C.E.); DFSJ 15 (Smyrna, fourth century C.E.), 20, 21, 28 (Sardis); 36, 37 (Side, fourth cen- tury C.E.). McRae: Eating with Honor 173 upper torso bare, reclining on a couch with a drinking vessel in his hand and a small table in front laden with food. A woman often sits either in a separate chair or on the foot of the couch; a servant brings drink.” 48 Etruscan and Roman tomb paintings and reliefs also evidence respectable married women reclining honor- ably upon a klinē, either alone or with their husbands. 49 Recent commentators now recognize three possible interpretations of the Totenmahl. Many argue that the reclining banqueters are enjoying the pleasures of the banquet as the highest point of their lifetimes; some suggest an otherworldly banquet. A third interpretation sees the banquet as the celebration of the cult of the dead, where family members feast with the dead on the third, ninth, and thirtieth day after death, and annually thereafter. 50 Most of the funeral banquets would have taken place outdoors, but wealthier families occasionally incorporated a small tricliniuminto the grave. On the cover of a marble sarcophagus, there is an inscription dating from the second to the third century C.E. recording that Marcus Aurelius Ammianos Menadrianos donated to the guild of flax workers and dealers the sum of 250 denarii for the annual crowning of the tomb of himself, his wife, and his descen- dants, and for the distribution of money to the guild members. 51 If the flax work- ers are negligent in their performance of the funerary banquet, with its honorable gesture of the crowning of the tomb, the money shall be taken from them and twice the sum shall be paid to another association, the Friends of Weapons. As in other associations, “the structured social relationships in a church such as at Corinth, with its fictive kinship, probably facilitated opportunities for patron- 48 Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 104; See also Matthew B. Roller, Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Values and Status (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 12–13. 49 Women were not portrayed as reclining at Greek banquets. For respectable women, see Jocelyn Penny Small, “Eat, Drink and Be Merry,” in Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria (ed. Richard Daniel De Puma and Jocelyn Penny Small; Wisconsin Studies in Classics; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994), 87–88; and Dunbabin, Roman Banquets, 115–17. For Hierapolis, see Francesco D’Andria, Hierapolis: An Archaeological Guide (Istanbul: Ege Yaynian Francesco D’Andria, 2003), 209. 50 Jean-Marie Dentzer, Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VII e au IV e siècle avant J.-C. (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 246e; Paris/ Rome: École française de Rome, 1982), 1; see also Dunbabin, Roman Banquet, 108; D. Dexheimer, “Portrait Figures on Funerary Altars of Roman Liberti in Northern Italy: Romanization or the Assimilation of Attributes Characterizing Higher Social Strata?” in Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World (ed. John Pearce, Martin Millett and Manuela Struck; Oxford: Oxbow, 2000). 51 McRae, “Corinthian Lord’s Supper,” 54. See also PMich. V.243 and 244; IHierapP 23; CIJ 777 (Hierapolis, second century c.e.); CBP 455 (Phrygia, third century C.E.); IG VII, 687, 688 (Tanagra, Boietia, 175 B.C.E.); Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes (ed. R. Cagnet et al.; Paris: E. Leroux, 1906–27), IV, 796 (Apameia, Bithynia); Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associ- ations, 25–28; Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” 21–23. 174 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) age, clientelism, employment and social and political mobility.” 52 In addition, these opportunities were open to both women and men. “Cotter concludes that when Roman cultural standards are taken as the comparison, there is nothing counter- cultural in Paul’s putting women in positions of authority.” 53 Paul uses the language of honor to praise the benefactors of the various ekklēsiai. Stephanas is fulsomely complimented: “you know that members of the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints; I urge you to put yourselves at the service of such people, and of everyone who works and toils with them. . . . so give recognition to such persons” (1 Cor 16:15–18). Prisca and Aquila are honored: “Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19). Phoebe is praised by Paul as deacon and benefactor in the ekklēsia in Cenchreae: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in what- ever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” (Rom 16:1). Chloe is acknowledged as a leader/benefactor in her ekklēsia: “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you” (1 Cor 1:11). It is here that a certain tension in Paul’s thinking concerning the system of honor and shame is seen in 1 Corinthians and Romans, for, as will be discussed below, Paul largely deplores the use of the honor/shame code in his communities. In his previous letter to the Thessalonians, Paul had warned this particular group to behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one at all (µηδενός), that is, not even benefactors (1 Thess 4:12). Furthermore, in 2 Cor 8:1–15, Paul uses shame to motivate members of the community to contribute to the Jerusalem collection, citing it as an honorary religious obligation. 54 Whereas some associa- tions used fines, floggings, and expulsion to punish aberrant behavior, Paul attempts to shame the Corinthian community into better treatment of the disad- vantaged at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:22), even though he deplored the honor/ shame code. The physical arrangements of place setting and food at the banquet also rein- forced the hierarchy of honor and shame. In the dining triclinia, the three couches and the seating on these three couches were arranged in hierarchical fashion. 55 The 52 McLean, “Agrippinilla Inscription,” 269. 53 Crook, “Honor, Shame,” 608, citing Wendy Cotter, “Women’s Authority Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional?” NovT 36 (1994): 350–72. 54 Ascough, “Religious Duty,” 584–99. 55 See also Moshe Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 26 (1QS 6:4, 8-9). McRae: Eating with Honor 175 place of honor on the primary couch was either in the middle or on one side, depending on Greek or Roman custom. Places on each couch ranked in descend- ing order in relationship to the honorary guest. 56 Competition was so fierce for honorable positions on the couches—and the status that these positions entailed— that associations, in an attempt to establish some measure of order, would legislate against and prescribe fines for the changing of places by those who competed at the banquet for better seats. 57 The couches, especially the honored couch, were for self-display. The Romans connected visibility with power—“the more powerful the man, the more visible he is.” 58 Association inscriptions on stelae often record the honoring of a patron or official with the honorary position on the couch. 59 The various triclinia themselves were also ranked in prestige, according to proximity to and visibility of the honored guest, and the portion and quality of food were deter- mined in a hierarchical fashion. 60 At the banquet of the Lord’s Supper also, competition can be seen. The tradi- tional hierarchical positioning of the Greco-Roman banquet of both elites and asso- ciations was followed by the Corinthian ekklēsia, with the honored people seated on more comfortable, well-positioned couches and served first with higher-quality fare. As in other small voluntary associations, there may have been one or two who were wealthy and of noble birth, but probably not enough to fill nine places on the couches of the primary triclinium. Paul comments, “not many of you were . . . pow- erful, not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26). It is people of little wealth (rela- tive to the elite) or noble birth, such as ekklēsia patrons Stephanas, Gaius, Chloe, Phoebe, Prisca, and Aquila, who were honored by seats on the primary couches. In addition, others of low economic status such as Apollos and Cephas, as apostles and leaders; Titus, the money collector; and the prophets, teachers, and healers of the community were honored because of their valued official role. It would be these people who would be “devouring” their food and drinking to excess (1 Cor 11:21). Further, the disadvantaged group was composed of those who had no honor- able standing in the community. They lacked wealth, power, and status, as well as gifts and graces valuable to the community. They held no leadership position in the group, such as healer, teacher, or prophet and thus were shamed (καταισχύ- νετε) according to the Corinthian public court of reputation. They were positioned farther from the honored guests and were served later, with food and drink of lesser 56 IDelos 1520. 57 For example, the Iobakchoi; see IG II/2, 1368; CIL XIV, 2112 (Lanuvium, Italy, 136 c.e.). 58 Holt N. Parker, “The Observed of all Observers,” in The Art of Ancient Spectacle (ed. Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon; Studies in the History of Art; Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1999), 167. 59 IDelos 1520 and 1521 (second century b.c.e.). 60 See McRae, “Corinthian Lord’s Supper,” appendix B; John D’Arms, “The Roman Con- vivium and the Idea of Equality,” in Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (ed. Oswyn Murray; Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 309. 176 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) quality and limited quantity. It may be that the low-status members considered this treatment acceptable, for they received some honor from admittance to the group and the banquet. They may have had upward-moving intentions to improve their social identity in the group by seeking leadership or developing charismatic skills in the next year. II. Divisions within the Associations Belonging to a group and dining together tended to encourage factions both within and between groups. As Claude Grignon observed, commensality (ban- queting) tends to “approve and express discontinuities that separate human groups” allowing members to “assert or to strengthen a ‘We’ by pointing out and rejecting, as symbols of otherness, the ‘not We’, strangers, rivals, enemies, superiors, or infe- riors.” 61 Criteria for admittance to the group and therefore to the banquet were well defined in the association inscriptions, encouraging this method of “othering.” 62 Some groups set membership fees, as well as recognizing inheritance rights, such as the Athenian Iobakchoi, who exacted a higher admittance payment for those without inheritance rights. 63 The cult of Bendis charged lifetime dues. 64 Some asso- ciations, such as the Andanian mysteries, observed a period of initiation and con- secration, while others, such as the Mystai of Zeus demanded an oath. 65 All associations set behavioral rules and penalties if the rules were broken. The agonistic spirit pervaded the culture, appearing in all facets of public life, including athletic, artistic, and theatrical events. 66 Divisions, factions, and leader- 61 Claude Grignon, “Commensality and Social Morphology: An Essay of Typology,” in Food, Drink and Identity: Cooking, Eating and Drinking in Europe since the Middle Ages (ed. Peter Scholliers; Oxford/New York: Berg, 2001), 28–29. 62 See Richard S. Ascough, “Defining Community-Ethos in Light of the ‘Other’: Recruit- ment Rhetoric among Greco-Roman Religious Groups,” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 24 (2007): 53–70. 63 IG II/2, 1368 (175–76 C.E.). 64 IDelos 1519 and 1521 (second century B.C.E.); IG II/2, 1283 (Piraeus, 261/260 B.C.E.); IG II/2, 1327 (Piraeus); SIG 3, 1106 (Kos, 300 B.C.E.); IG IX/1, 670 (Phycos, second century C.E.); PLille Dem. 29 (Souchos, Egypt, 223 B.C.E.); PCairo Dem. 30605,6 (Tebtunis, 157/156 B.C.E.); CIL XIV, 2112 (Lanuvium 136 C.E.). PMich. V.243,4 (Tebtunis, 43 C.E.). 65 IG II/2, 1369 (Athens, second century C.E.); IG II/2, 1291 (Piraeus, third century B.C.E.); IG II/2, 1365,6 (Laurion, first century C.E.); IG V/1, 1390 (Andania, 96 B.C.E.); IG X/2, 259 (Thes- salonica, first century C.E.); SIG 3, 985 (Philadelphia, Lydia, first century B.C.E.). 66 Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Cen- tury AD to the Conversion of Constantine (London: Penguin Books, 1986), 69; Charlotte Roueché, Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods: A Study Based on Inscriptions from the Current Excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria (Leeds: W. S. Maney & Son, 1993), 24. McRae: Eating with Honor 177 ship disputes were a problem. Association inscriptions from Kos, Miletus, and Piraeus are concerned with challenges to the priestess’s authority from would-be priestesses who wished to gather the thiasos together, to undertake the role of the priestess herself, or to impose further expenses on the association. 67 In Delos, an inscription forbids any member of the synodos from attempting to subvert the oil- ing and crowning of the bust, and in Kos impiety was called down upon anyone offering an interpretation concerning the priests of Demeter that violated what was written in the sacred laws on the notice boards. 68 Divisions, factions, and leadership disputes were a problem in the Corinthian community as well. Linton and James D. G. Dunn speculate that there were as many as six communities of Jesus groups in Corinth, each of which met in the suitably large home of a member, for frequent, regular meetings, and met less often (weekly? monthly?) in gatherings of “the whole church.” 69 It seems that there were divisions among these groups, for at the beginning of the letter, Paul exclaims: “for it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you” (1 Cor 1:11). These groups were engaging in boundary-setting behavior at the expense of their fellow groups in Corinth. Like the Iobakchoi, 70 who engraved on their stela, “now we are the best of all Bacchic societies,” the individual house-communities proclaim, “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Paul” (1:12; 3:4) meaning “our ekklēsia is the best ekklēsia in the city of Corinth and our leader beats your leader!” In 1 Cor 11:17–19 Paul discusses the factions (σχίσµατα) among the people in the Corinthian ekklēsia. The NSRV translates this: “there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine [δόκιµοι].” It is unclear whether Paul is using the word δόκιµοι in connection with doctrinal atti- tudes or sociocultural attitudes. Most scholars interpret Paul’s tone as one of resig- nation, or mock disbelief (rhetorical dissimulatio); he is admitting shock at such a monstrous violation of the unity which he has taught them. 71 R. Alistair Campbell 67 IMilet VI 22 (Miletus, 276 B.C.E.); SIG 3, 1012 (Kos, second/first century B.C.E.); IG II/2, 1328 (Piraeus, 183/182 B.C.E.); PLond. VII.2193. 68 IDelos 1523 (second century B.C.E.); IKosHerzog 8 (Kos, third century B.C.E.); IGII/2, 1368 (Iobakchoi, second century B.C.E.); IG II/2, 1369 (Athens, second century C.E.); IG V/1, 1390 (Andania); Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern of the Qumran Sect, 35–36 (1QS 7:3–5). 69 Linton, “House Church Meetings,” 233; cf. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 541. 70 IG II/2, 1368. 71 See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 857; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Commu- nity in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1995), 247; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 195; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 159; Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Uni- 178 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) offers an important translation: “So that if you please the elite may stand out from the rest.” 72 He points out that the word δόκιµοι is the Corinthians’ word rather than Paul’s, and that this is the way the upper-class Corinthian members describe them- selves as a method of attaining distinction. A study of association inscriptions offers a somewhat similar usage of the word δοκιµάζω and its cognates. The associations use the term frequently, with the sense of “approved by the people,” and I suggest that this is the inference that Paul wants his communities to make: “for only so will it become clear who among you are approved by your association.” The verb form δοκιµάζω is used in a number of inscriptions to indicate “approved by a vote,” or “resolved,” as in the regulations of a Piraean eranos from 300 b.c.e.: Ἀγαθεῖ Τύχει. ∆έδ[οχθαι] τοῖς ἐρανισταῖς ἐπαινέ- σαι Α[ἰσχυ]λίωνα (“For good fortune, be it resolved by the association members to commend Aischylion”). 73 The verb form occurs also in the regulations of a thiasos of Piraeus in 325 B.C.E.: ἂν δοκεῖ τῶι κοινῶι (whatever “seems appropriate to the association”). 74 The adjectival form describing an appropriate amount of wine appears in Epicteta’s cult-foundation inscription: οἶνον ξενικὸν ἱκανὸν δόκιµον (“enough approved foreign wine”); 75 in a decree concerning the festival of Artemis in Ephesus, ἀνδρὸς δοκιµωτάτου is “a man very well thought of.” 76 In the regula- tions of the Andanian mysteries of 96 B.C.E., it is the animals that are marked as approved by the ten officers: τοῖς δὲ δοκιµασθέντοις σαµεῖον ἐπιβαλόντω οἱ ἱεροί (“let the officers put a marking on the approved animals”). 77 Familiar with association behaviors, Paul recognized that approval from the members was the usual method of gaining honor in order to hold a leadership posi- tion. An excessive example of this is seen in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who lie about their contributions in order to gain honor with their community (Acts 5:1–11). 78 This seeking of honor, even for a faith commitment, caused the versity Press, 2005), 96; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” in NJBC, 808–9; Graydon F. Snyder, First Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary (Macon, GA: Mer- cer University Press, 1992), 155. 72 Campbell, “ Does Paul Acquiesce in Divisions at the Lord’s Supper?” NovT 33 (1991): 69. 73 IGII/2, 1291. See this use of the verb in IGII/2, 1368 (Athens, 175–77 c.e.); IGII/2, 1327 (Piraeus); IGII/2, 1252 + 999 (Athens, 300 b.c.e.); IGII/2, 1297 (Athens, 237 b.c.e.); IGII/2, 1273 (Piraeus, 281 b.c.e.); IG II/2, 1201 (Piraeus, 222 b.c.e.); IG II/2 , 1361 (Piraeus, 350 b.c.e.); IDelos 1521 (166 b.c.e.); IDelos 1519 (153 b.c.e.); IG XII/3, 330 (Thera, 210 b.c.e.); SIG 3, 0867. 74 IG II/2, 1275. 75 IG XII/3, 330 (Thera, 210 b.c.e.). 76 SIG 3, 0867. 77 IG V/1, 1390 (Andania, 96 b.c.e.). 78 Richard S. Ascough, “Benefaction Gone Wrong,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Peter Richardson (ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardins; Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), 105. McRae: Eating with Honor 179 inevitable divisions or splits. Paul doubts the effectiveness of these proclivities, for he comments in 2 Cor 10:12: “But when they measure themselves by one another, and compare themselves with one another, they do not show good sense.” Reveal- ing again a certain tension in his thinking, Paul recognizes that factions are devel- oping among the Corinthian ekklēsiai because of the cultural honor code. Although inconsistencies are evident, as noted above, Paul deplores this agonistic system of honor and shame. He states categorically in his letter to the Corinthians, “In this matter, I do not commend you!” (1 Cor 11:22). Paul seeks to overturn the values of the honor and shame code, teaching the members of the community mutual upbuilding, mutual servanthood, and power in weakness, and encouraging strong fictive kinship groups. 79 It is God who is now the supreme patron and source of all beneficence. 80 Paul says, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6). Honor no longer comes from the acknowledgment of good deeds or benefaction by one’s equals, where there is a scarcity of honor for each to acquire. Honor comes from God, who represents abundance: “for the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s” (1 Cor 11:26). Good deeds or benefaction no longer need to be claimed for due honor, for it is enough that God knows. As Ascough notes, Paul’s countercultural view of the honor system is “‘treasure in heaven’ rather than ‘honor on earth.’” 81 In this community, the new code embedded in the ban- quet reflects Jesus’ ethics of service, sacrifice, and substitutionary atonement: “do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other” (1 Cor 10:24). The ritual of the Lord’s Supper calls the participants to behavior based on values such as equality, rather than hierarchy; mutual servitude, rather than competition; and humility, rather than the upward mobility enshrined in the power structures of the Greco- Roman world. The Corinthians’ social identity as individuals and as a group will derive from identification with a group that turns away from the pivotal values of the Mediter- ranean world. The new social identity changes the search for status into recogni- tion of God’s leadership, guidance, and power. 82 Attributive honor now comes with possession of the Holy Spirit. Distributive honor comes from a life devoted to servi- tude and compassion for others. Judgment of honor comes through “the body and blood of the Lord.” Indeed, judgment of this new form of honor is already appar- 79 Paul’s teachings to the Corinthians on mutual servanthood are found in 1 Cor 9:19–27; 10:31–33; mutual upbuilding in love in 1 Cor 8:1–3; 10:16–17; 12:12–13:13; 14:26; 16:14; and power in weakness (humility) in 1 Cor 1:19–31; 2:10–16, 18–20. 80 Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 42. 81 Ascough, “Benefaction Gone Wrong,” 104. 82 In the following paragraph, I am indebted to Malina and Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts,” 65, for their analogies of the new value system to the Acts of the Apostles. 180 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ent to the group: “for all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor 11:27–30). Paul is creating a new social identity, the Christian identity. III. Conclusion The associations provide much information on how the code of honor and shame, which was embedded in all facets of the Mediterranean world, underlay all ritual behavior. Honor was sought through membership and office in a group and was rewarded at the monthly banquet. The importance of the banquet as a location for awarding honor can be traced even to the Totenmahl iconography of funerary monuments. Those who receive the honor of reclining on the foremost couch, therefore, are the honored officials of the community—those who serve in offices such as healers, prophets, speakers-in-tongues, and treasurers, and those of both genders who are patrons and benefactors. As befits their honored status within the group, they are served first with special portions of food and wine. Those who occupy the least important couches are those with little status in the group because they lack personal gifts, official standing, or wealth. While the dishonored, who know no other value system, may intend to improve their low status within the group in the future, Paul deplores this use of the honor and shame code at the banquet celebrating the ritual of the Lord’s Supper. Paul overturns this value system, encouraging the teachings of Jesus about equal- ity, humility, and mutuality instead of hierarchy, aggrandizement, and competition. Although unable to dispense completely with the honor system—as evidenced by his support of patronage and methods of office seeking—Paul changes the value system of the Lord’s Supper to recognize God as the divine patron, attributive honor as the gift of the Holy Spirit, and distributive honor as a life devoted to servitude and love for others. Judgment of honor comes from the body and blood of Jesus Christ, whose memory is forever enshrined in the Lord’s Supper banquet ritual. Paul rejects the old behaviors pervading the Mediterranean world and encourages new behaviors that reflect the social identity of a follower of Jesus. McRae: Eating with Honor 181 The Invention of the Biblical Scholar A Critical Manifesto STEPHEN D. MOORE and YVONNE SHERWOOD Moore and Sherwood provide a thoroughly defamiliarizing and frequently entertaining re–description of this peculiar academic species and its odd disciplinary habitat. 9780800697747 120 pp pbk $18.00 Where Is God? Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible JOEL S. BURNETT Burnett explores themes of divine presence and absence in creation and wisdom thought, in ritual, in prophetic threat, in narrative, and in apocalypse throughout the Hebrew Bible. 9780800662974 304 pp hc $35.00 Disruptive Grace Reflections on God, Scripture, and the Church WALTER BRUEGGEMANN Edited by CAROLYN J. SHARP Brueggemann turns his critical erudition to those practices— prophecy, lament, prayer, faithful imagination, and a holy economics—that alone may usher in a humane and peaceful future for our cities and our world. 9780800697945 320 pp hc $35.00 Sacred Witness Rape in the Hebrew Bible SUSANNE SCHOLZ Scholz asks how we may read these androcentric texts to find some redemptive meaning for women, children, and men who have been injured by sexual violence and by “cultures of rape”. 9780800638610 288 pp hc $35.00 Hebrew Bible At bookstores or call 1-800-328-4648 • fortresspress.com THE POWER OF SCHOLARSHIP Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism juan hernández jr. [email protected] Bethel University, St. Paul, MN 55112 Contemporary textual critics attend to a variety of pressing questions. No longer restricted to the quest for the “original” text of the NT, 1 current practition- ers pursue a number of interrelated issues. Topics like scribal activity, theological variation, the nature and scope of the NT canon, and the sociohistorical worlds of scribes and their manuscripts are now commonplace in text-critical discussions. 2 This article was originally presented as a paper in the New Testament Textual Criticism Section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston, Massachusetts, November 21, 2008. 1 Recent treatments that track these trends include Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in New Testa- ment Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century,” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. David Alan Black; Grand Rapids: Baker Aca- demic, 2002), 17–76; Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.; New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 280–99; and David C. Parker, “Textual Criticism and Theology,” ExpTim 118 (2007): 583–89. 2 On scribal activity, the most recent book-length publications include Juan Hernández Jr., Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (WUNT 2/218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3/5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007); James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents 36; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008). On theological variation, the respective studies of Eldon Jay Epp and Bart D. Ehrman, though not the first works of scholarship on this topic, have been the most influential by far. See Eldon Jay Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966); Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scrip- tures: The Effect of Early Christian Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). For the application of this approach to the book of Revelation, see Hernán- dez, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences; idem, “The Apocalypse in Codex Alexandrinus: JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 183–196 183 The definition of what a textual critic is (and does) has been broadened to include the pursuit of questions once considered peripheral to the discipline. These questions are not new. Writing at the threshold of the early Byzantine era, Andrew of Caesarea displays an awareness of competing variants, 3 comments on their theological significance, 4 and condemns scribes who atticize the Greek manuscripts of the Bible. 5 Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse appears to reflect the same integration of issues that characterizes contemporary text-critical research, albeit from the perspective of the seventh century. 6 Andrew’s handful of Its Singular Readings and Scribal Habits,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay (ed. Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day; NovTSup 129; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 349–52; and idem, “A Scribal Solution to a Problematic Measure- ment in the Apocalypse,” NTS 56 (2010): 273–78. The Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Tex- tual Criticism of the New Testament was also devoted to this topic: see H. A. G. Houghton and D. C. Parker, Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? (TS 3/6; Piscataway, NJ: Gor- gias, 2007). On the nature and scope of the New Testament canon, see Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004 (NovTSup 116; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 595–639. See also Robert A. Kraft, “The Codex and Canon Consciousness,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 229–33; and, in the same volume, Harry Y. Gamble, “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Questionis,” 267–94; and Daryl D. Schmidt, “The Greek New Testament as a Codex,” 469–84. With respect to the book of Revelation and its appearance among noncanonical works, Metzger observed that “[o]ne of the unusual and often overlooked features of a considerable number of manuscripts of the book of Revelation is the presence of other texts of a miscellaneous character. . . . Revelation not infrequently stands in the middle of volumes that have no other biblical con- tent. Several of the manuscripts that contain Revelation are the quires containing Revelation taken out of the middle of some general theological book.” The significance of this phenomenon remains to be explored. See Bruce M. Metzger, “The Future of New Testament Textual Studies,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. Scot McKendrick and Orlaith O’Sullivan; London: British Library, 2003), 205. On the sociohistorical worlds of scribes, see Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Lit- eracy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). On manuscripts, see Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); and David C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 3 Josef Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, vol. 1, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisarea (Münchener theologische Studien 1, Historische Abteilung 1; Munich: K. Zink, 1955), 38, ll. 10–17 (Rev 3:7); 161, l. 19 and 162, ll. 1–4 (Rev 15:6). 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., 262, ll. 3–10 (Rev 22:18–19). 6 The titles of papers presented in the New Testament Textual Criticism Section during the SBL meeting in Boston in 2008 clearly showcase this increased integration: http://www.sblsite.org/ assets/pdfs/2008_SessionGuide_FriSat.pdf. 184 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) text-critical exempla speaks directly to a discipline that probes the relevance of scribal activity and challenges contemporary assumptions about its significance. In particular, Andrew’s assessment of textual variation confounds modern sensi- bilities. Andrew embraces textual variants that produce a semantic difference in the reading of the Apocalypse and excoriates scribes who make stylistic changes. Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse offers a distinctively Byzantine appraisal of variants that enriches our understanding of textual variation and contributes to current discussions about its significance for textual criticism. I. History of Research Little is known about Andrew of Caesarea or his commentary today. Despite the availability of Josef Schmid’s critical edition of Andrew’s Greek text, 7 scholar- ship in this area has stalled for six decades. The challenge of dealing with an un- translated, early Byzantine text is a major factor. Many works of late antiquity and the early Byzantine period share this fate. This état des choses, coupled with Schmid’s daunting text-critical apparatus for Andrew’s commentary, can discour- age even the most daring scholars. No modern translation of Andrew’s commen- tary exists in any language today. 8 Portions of the work are available in English, but a full rendering of the nearly three-hundred-page commentary has yet to be pub- lished—a critical first step for understanding any ancient work. 9 The lack of a full translation is only one problem. Most of the available research remains inaccessible to the broader community of scholars, appearing mostly in dated studies. With the exception of Schmid’s monograph, treatments of the archbishop’s work are also brief and offer only a sampling of what can be learned from the commentary. 10 The Apocalypse’s putative status as an eschatological work 7 See n. 3 above. 8 This lacuna is soon to be filled by Eugenia Constantinou’s forthcoming translation of Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary for The Fathers of the Church Series (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press). 9 Substantial translated portions of Andrew’s commentary are found in William C. Weinrich, Revelation (ACCS 12; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005). However, most of Andrew’s commentary still remains without translation, as Weinrich’s volume also covers a litany of additional commentaries on Revelation and has had to limit what can be included. Another work that offers a number of quotations of Andrew of Caesarea is Averky Taushev, The Apocalypse in the Teachings of Ancient Christianity (trans. Father Seraphim Rose; Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995). 10 These include Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. 5, Die letzte Period der altkirchlichen Literatur mit Einschluss des ältesten armenischen Schrifttums (Freiburg: Herder, 1932), 102–5; Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12; Munich: Beck, 1959), 418–19; Gerhard Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie: Die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in den vier Grossreichen Hernández: Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 185 presents another challenge. Andrew’s commentary is often mined for information about “the world to come.” Such a narrow focus, however, fails to do justice to the commentary’s standing as an exemplar of early Byzantine practices. 11 Other aspects of the work require attention, and Andrew’s assessment of textual variation in light of his broader hermeneutical approach to Scripture will occupy the discussion here. II. Form, Structure, and Hermeneutic of the Commentary We know very little about Andrew. We know that he was the archbishop of Caesarea Cappadocia (Kayseri in modern-day Turkey) and that his administration, spanning the years 563–614, began as the age of Justinian (d. 565) drew to a close. At the time he lived, the effects of the previous era’s christological debates—epito- mized in the Council of Chalcedon—were still being felt and made their way into the commentary. 12 Andrew’s occasional remarks on the text appear to reveal more about early Byzantine attitudes toward the Bible than about his actual text-critical practices. 13 Andrew divides his commentary into twenty-four “discourses” (λόγοι), which are then subdivided into three “heads” (κεφάλαια), resulting in seventy-two sec- (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem tausendjährigen Friedensreiche (Apok. 20). Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Münchener Universitäts-Schriften, Reihe der Philosophischen Fakultät 9; Munich: W. Fink, 1972), 86–88; Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 198–200; and Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, vol. 2, From the Council of Nicea to the Beginnings of the Medieval Period (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 198–200. 11 In fact, taken at face value, the opening prologue indicates that the commentary was writ- ten in response to questions generated by the seventh-century context of the readers. 12 Among these were concerns over monophysitism and Origenism. For a full discussion of Chalcedon and its aftereffects, see Patrick T. R. Gray, “The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and Their Significance,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (ed. Michael Maas; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 215–38. 13 As will be evident below, Andrew prefers to explore the interpretive possibilities of mul- tiple textual data rather than restore the original wording of the text. The practice appears to stem from a commitment to the various senses of Scripture characteristic of Byzantine-era writers. Andrew’s espousal of multiple meanings is evident also in his use of Oecumenius’s commentary. Andrew will often reject a particular interpretation proffered by Oecumenius on the grounds that it violates the “literal” sense of Scripture, but then accept it (or part of it) under another level of meaning (Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 91, ll. 13–14; cf. Marc de Groote, ed., Oecumenii commentarius in Apocalypsin [Traditio exegetica Graeca 8; Leuven: Peeters, 1999], 143, ll. 196–99). The dictates of Chalcedon provide the parameters for the various senses of Scripture. See further Hernández, “Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation: Catechesis and Paraenesis,” in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte – Konzepte – Rezeption (ed. Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer, and Franz Tóth; WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 186 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) tions in the work. 14 Each of the λόγοι concludes with a doxology. Andrew derives the number twenty-four from the number of elders before God’s throne. 15 Origen’s anthropological model for interpreting Scripture appears to be the inspiration for Andrew’s tripartite segmentation: [J]ust as there are three parts to man, [so] every God-breathed Scripture has been given three parts by Divine Grace. The literal and historical senses are a kind of body. The figurative sense, which guides the reader to what the mind can per- ceive, is akin to a soul. The anagogical and contemplative senses, which are about the most venerable things to come, appear as the spirit. 16 Andrew’s stated hermeneutical ideal is not applied with rigor or consistency in the work. What can be characterized as “clockwork” is Andrew’s arbitrary appeal to various modes of reading as necessary. 17 Andrew’s partitioning of Revelation into seventy-two sections is also problematic; it obfuscates (if not violates) the nat- ural divisions of the work. 18 The form and structure of Andrew’s commentary appear to have been constructed in spite of the Apocalypse. Nonetheless, Andrew’s statement about the nature of Scripture and a quasi-Origenic mode of exegesis can shed light on his handling of textual variants. Andrew’s use of sources also merits attention. Andrew’s commentary alludes to a variety of works, canonical and noncanonical. 19 Predictably, important patris- tic figures also appear. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria are prominent. 20 Some of their remarks have survived only in Andrew’s commentary. 21 Andrew prefixes the labels 14 Ibid., 10, ll. 4–7. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., 8, ll. 17–22 (my translation). Cf. Origen, Princ. 4.2.4–9. 17 This much is clear from the sporadic application of the various modes of reading from section to section in the commentary. 18 Perhaps the most obvious example of this is where the seven letters to the churches of Asia Minor fall within the commentary’s larger literary structure. Rather than grouped together, they are unevenly spread out over three λόγοι in an attempt to accommodate their content to the commentary’s repetitive tripartite structure (Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 11–46). The same occurs with the sequence of seals, trumpets, and bowls—to name only a few more items forced into Andrew’s Procrustean bed. 19 Schmid offers a helpful appendix identifying the “nichtbiblischen Autoren und Paralle- len” in Andrew’s commentary (Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 275). Each reference, however, needs to be checked against available sources. I have spotted an occasional error. For example, Andrew alludes to a story about Simon Magus and Peter in his comments on Rev 13:17. Schmid wrongly identifies the source as the Acts of Pilate. The correct source is the Acts of Peter 28. See the appa- ratus in Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 144. 20 These are identified at the beginning of the work and show up throughout the commen- tary. See Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 10, ll. 9–12. 21 Schmid identifies these throughout the apparatus of the commentary, such as Andrew’s quotation of a lost writing by Epiphanius. See Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 15, l. 16 and 16, ll. 1–3. Hernández: Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 187 ὁ µέγας, ὁ µακάριος, or ὁ θεῖος to the names of the fathers, showing his high regard for them and reflecting an early Byzantine protocol. 22 Ironically (perhaps even cyn- ically), Andrew makes no mention of Oecumenius’s commentary on the Apoca- lypse—a major sixth-century work that exerted an important and demonstrable influence on Andrew. 23 Andrew draws obsessively from Oecumenius, often with- out veering from his exemplar in style or content, except in theologically strategic locations. 24 III. Scribal Activity according to Andrew of Caesarea: Claims of Atticizing Andrew’s words provide the point of departure for his views on textual vari- ation. The clearest statement about scribal activity appears at the end of the com- mentary. Commenting on the anathema uttered against those who would tamper with the text of the Apocalypse, Andrew writes: Dreadful is the curse upon those who counterfeit the divine words, capable of depriving the arrogant of the blessings of the coming age, for their recklessness is bold indeed. Therefore, to keep us from suffering, [John] warns us who hear, lest we add or subtract anything. Instead, we should regard the characteristics of Scripture as more trustworthy and venerable than Attic compositions and dialec- tical arguments. For even among these, should anyone find anything that is con- trary to the rules (µὴ κανονιζόµενα), he is referred to the trustworthiness of their poets and authors. 25 22 Ibid., 10, ll. 9–12. 23 Andrew’s commentary mirrors Oecumenius’s commentary in at least 235 sections where the diction, syntax, and subject matter of the former give strong evidence of borrowing from the latter. For a full listing of these parallels see de Groote, Oecumenii commentarius, 337–42. 24 Although the practice of “taking over” the language of well-known, important literary sources would have been quite common in both ancient and early Byzantine literary contexts, the full significance of Andrew’s appropriation of Oecumenius’s language has yet to be examined fully. Given the high incidence of textual interplay between the two works, it may not be far-fetched to see Andrew’s commentary as a µίµησις of Oecumenius’s commentary. Although Andrew’s true motives are not explicit, we can speculate that he was offering an alternative to Oecumenius’s per- ceived monophysitism and Origenist speculations. This, however, must also be examined and substantiated in a comprehensive manner. (See John N. Suggit, Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse [FC 112; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006], 6–13; and Daley, Hope of the Early Church, 198). The strategic differences between the two commentaries appear to indicate that Andrew sought to supplant Oecumenius’s work by bringing it into greater conformity with his understanding of “Chalcedonian orthodoxy.” See Hernández, “Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation.” 25 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 262, ll. 3–10 (my translation). 188 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Andrew’s commentary reveals a number of things. First, he claims that scribes are atticizing the biblical text, presumably on the basis of known literary works or Attic manuals. 26 Second, he attempts to discourage such scribal activity in two ways: by anathematizing scribes who make Attic changes to the text and by insisting that even great literary works have their stylistic infelicities. In cases of literary inele- gance, Andrew avers, one trusts the poets and authors. If one can defer to gifted mortals on matters of style and diction, how much more so the divine author of Scripture? Andrew’s statement raises a number of questions. Are Andrew’s remarks about atticizing based on firsthand observation? If so, is he referring only to the Apoca- lypse, or does the charge extend to the rest of the NT, perhaps even the LXX? Or is the statement a mere rhetorical flourish, such as might occur at the end of a book? Andrew discloses neither the location nor the extent of the putative atticizing. The reader must examine the nature of his claim. IV. Atticizing in the Early Byzantine World, the Apocalypse, and Andrew That atticizing was a common literary practice during the early Byzantine period is well attested. Sixth-century writers such as Procopius and Agathias engaged in the “imitation” (µίµησις) of classical authors. 27 Procopius, for example, uses a classicizing Greek style that was far removed from daily speech, containing archaic features such as the optative mood, the dual number, and a litany of Attic terms. 28 Andrew’s countercultural barb against atticizing would have rung true— at least rhetorically. Whether scribes (as opposed to authors) were atticizing to the degree Andrew’s statement implies is another question. The short answer is yes and no. The NT’s Greek manuscript tradition bears traces of atticizing; yet they are neither as systematic nor as comprehensive as was once claimed. 29 Moreover, the scribal tendency to atticize is only one of several 26 This appears to be the force of κανονιζόµενα, a cognate of κανών and a term used often for grammatical or literary standards. See LSJ, 875. 27 Averil Cameron, Agathias (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 57–74; and Cameron’s Procopius and the Sixth Century (Transformations of the Classical Heritage 10; Berkeley/Los Angeles: Uni- versity of California Press, 1985), 33–46. 28 Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century, 43. 29 For the view that scribal atticizing should be a major consideration for the creation of textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the NT, see G. D. Kilpatrick, “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 125–37; J. K. Elliott, “The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: An Evaluation,” NovT 15 (1973): 298– 99; idem, “Eclecticism and Atticism,” ETL 53 (1977): 107–12. Hernández: Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 189 explanations for the creation of textual variants. 30 If we consult one of the well- known Attic manuals, such as Phrynichus’s Ecloge, 31 and ask whether the scribes of the Apocalypse 32 atticized in a manner that reflects the booklet’s concerns, the results are negligible. Of the 424 non-Attic terms banned by Phrynichus, the Apoc- alypse contains only eighteen. Of the eighteen, only four appear to be changed from a non-Attic to an Attic term, and then only in some manuscripts. The preposition ἄχρις, which Phrynichus dubbed “spurious,” 33 is changed to ἄχρι in only a few places. 34 The noun σάκκος, which is deemed “Doric” by Phrynichus, 35 drops the additional κ in only a handful of manuscripts. 36 Phrynichus also rejects the use of the imperfect ἔµελλον with the aorist infinitive ποιῆσαι, preferring a construction with the present infinitive ποιεῖν, as proper Attic. 37 If Phrynichus means that an aorist infinitive should never follow the imperfect ἔµελλον, then here too the results are mixed. Some manuscripts retain the aorist infinitive; others change it. 38 Finally, Phrynichus also calls the use of σαλπικτής “approved” Attic over against the form σαλπιστής. 39 Again, scribal activity here appears to be mixed. 40 In short, most of the terms considered non-Attic by Phrynichus are never changed to the preferred Attic term by the scribes of the Apocalypse. Changes are made in few manuscripts, but even in those cases where an Attic switch is all but 30 Other explanations include a tendency to harmonize or to alter the Greek toward the Septuagint. See E. C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in idem, Studies in Method- ology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1969), 154–55; C. M. Martini, “Eclecticism and Atticism in the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (ed. Matthew Black and William A. Smalley; Approaches to Semiotics 56; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 151–55; G. D. Fee, “Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism—Which?” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. J. K. Elliott; NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 184–91. 31 Eitel Fischer, ed. Die Ekloge des Phrynichos (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974). 32 “Scribes of the Apocalypse” refers to any scribes responsible for transcribing the work in the manuscript tradition throughout its transmission history. 33 Phrynichus, Ecloge 6: Μέχρις καὶ ἄχρις σῦν τῷ σ ἀδόκιµα. µέχρι δὲ καὶ ἄχρι λέγε. 34 In Rev 2:25, ἄχρι is attested in the following MSS: ) C 1611.2053.2329.2351 pc. 35 Phrynichus, Ecloge 225: Σάκκος ∆ωρεῖς διὰ τῶν δύο κκ, Ἀττικοὶ δὲ δι’ ἑνός. 36 In Rev 6:12, σάκος is attested in the following MSS: 175.325.517.456.459.627.628.680.935. 2033.2048; for σάκους in Rev 11:3, see 025.336.792.1876.2033.2043.2082.2256. 37 Phrynichus, Ecloge 313. 38 In Rev 3:2, ἔµελλον ἀποθανεῖν is attested in MSS ) A C 1854.2050.2053.2329.(2351) M A latt sy h sa; ἔµελλον ἐποθνῄσκειν pc. See H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, together with the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers. A Complete Conspectus of All Author- ities (2 vols.; London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), 2:92. 39 Phrynichus, Ecloge 162: Σαλπικτὴς τὸ δόκιµον διὰ τοῦ κ, οὐχὶ δὲ διὰ τοῦ σ. 40 In Rev 18:22, σαλπικτῶν is attested in MS 2059. 190 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) certain, we cannot detect a tendency to atticize. 41 A comprehensive examination of scribal habits in each manuscript of the Apocalypse (presumably on the basis of singular readings) is necessary to substantiate such a claim. So far, studies of the text of Revelation in p 47 , Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi have uncovered no such pervasive tendency. 42 Phrynichus would not have been the only available standard for atticizing in the early Byzantine world. One can imagine the literati of the period consulting a variety of works. 43 Moreover, Phrynichus’s own qualifications as an expert “atti- cizer” have been called into question. 44 Finally, Andrew gives no indication of his own sources for proper Attic Greek—other than his allusion to the κανονιζόµενα (“the rules”). Nonetheless, Phrynichus is a good place to start. Given the available text-critical studies on the atticizing tendencies of NT scribes, Andrew’s charge may be overblown. Ironically, Andrew registers his complaint against atticizing by atticizing. He libels the scribes, labeling them παραχαράττοντες (“counterfeiters”), an unapologetically Attic term. 45 41 To this we might add the observation that some of Phrynichus’s preferred Attic expres- sions involve a change to a completely different word or phrase, such as that the suggestion that µεγιστᾶνες be rendered µέγα δυναµένους (Ecloge 170). Such wholesale changes for the sake of an Attic expression, however, have not been found so far within the Apocalypse’s manuscript tradi- tion. Further, we might question the degree to which a scribe, predisposed to faithfully copying his exemplar, would have been at liberty to make more dramatic and disruptive changes. While switches in consonants or vowels are routine in the text of the NT, the wholesale insertion of dif- ferent words or phrases appears to be far less common, though it is attested. Had atticizing been as prevailing a trend as charged, perhaps we might have expected to see more disruptive alterations to the text. 42 Hernández, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences, 82–86, 120–23, 131, 150–55; Royse, Scribal Habits in the Early Greek New Testament Papyri, 197, 357–58, 397–98, 544, 614, 704. 43 For a useful summary of available Attic writers and manuals, see Kilpatrick, “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” 125–37. 44 Ibid. 45 Note Andrew’s Attic spelling of παραχαράττοντες with -ττ- rather than -σσ-. Typical of the literary conventions of the early Byzantine period, Andrew’s commentary exhibits its fair share of Attic style and diction. However, as the quotation appears to indicate, he draws a sharp distinc- tion between his use of Attic Greek in the commentary and the inappropriate atticizing of the Greek text of the Apocalypse by scribes. Such a distinction appears to have had its roots in the complex linguistic heritage left to the Byzantine world by the fathers of late antiquity. Robert Browning’s assessment to that effect is applicable here: “The Hochsprache was firmly established as the proper medium for all important or dignified communication. But at the same time an undercurrent of rejection of the literary tongue was associated with a certain powerful manifes- tation of popular piety” (“The Language of Byzantine Literature,” in idem, History, Language and Literacy in the Byzantine World [Northampton, UK: Variorum Reprints, 1989], 108). It appears that Andrew’s condemnation of atticizing scribes is a perfect example of the former, even if largely rhetorical. See also Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, A History of the Greek Language: From Its Ori- gins to the Present (trans. Francisca Rojas del Canto; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 226–28; V. Rotolo, “The Hernández: Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 191 V. Andrew and Revelation 3:7 Andrew identifies two concrete examples of textual variation that make a dis- cernible difference in the reading of the Apocalypse. His treatment of these variants contrasts markedly with the ire reserved for atticizing scribes. The first variation appears in his commentary on Rev 3:7. Andrew’s Greek text of the Apocalypse states that Jesus carries the “key of David.” Some manu- scripts, however, have Jesus carrying the “key of Hades.” 46 The former reading finds support among the earliest and best witnesses of the Apocalypse’s manuscripts. 47 Our critical editions have therefore opted correctly for “key of David.” 48 The vari- ant probably arose as a scribal harmonization toward Rev 1:18, where Jesus holds the keys of death and “Hades.” Andrew is aware of both the variant (preserved in “some copies”) and its the- ological utility. He comments: [Christ’s] kingdom has been called “the key of David” for this is a symbol of authority. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is also the key of the book of Psalms and of every prophecy, through whom the treasures of knowledge are opened. [Christ] receives the first key according to his humanity, and the second, according to his deity, which is without beginning. But in some copies [τισιν τῶν ἀντίγραφων] instead of “of David,” “of Hades” is written; thus, the authority of life and death is confirmed in Christ through the key of Hades. 49 Faced with a genuine textual variant, Andrew bypasses any discussion of scribal activity, textual corruption, or even the priority of readings. Instead, he offers a theological commentary on the variant reading. None of his alarm over scribal tampering surfaces in a clear and acknowledged case of textual corruption. Andrew’s chief concern is with the corruption of Chalcedonian Christology. The textual variant serves as an opportunity to reaffirm Christ’s authority over life and death. VI. Andrew and Revelation 15:6 Andrew’s handling of the textual variant in Rev 15:6 reflects a similar ten- dency. In this passage, the angels are clothed with “pure bright linen” (λίνον καθαρὸν Fortunes of Ancient Greek in the Middle Ages,” A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (ed. A.-F. Christidis; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1225–40. 46 τοῦ ᾅδου, 2050 pc. 47 There are actually two variants here: one with the article and one without. Both, how- ever, are genitive and do not alter the meaning of the text. The first is ∆αυίδ A C 1611.1854. 2053.2329 pc; the second is τοῦ ∆αυίδ ) M Or. 48 UBS 4 and NA 27 . 49 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 38, ll. 10–17 (my translation). 192 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) λαµπρόν). Some manuscripts, however, read λίθον instead of λίνον, so that the angels are clothed with a pure bright “stone.” Unlike the variant in 3:7, this one is not so easily dismissed. Support for the variant includes some important witnesses, 50 including Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, and Oecumenius. 51 Moreover, λίθον is clearly the more difficult reading. One can easily see how λίνον arose as a replacement for λίθον, but not the opposite. Yet it appears that for the editors of the critical editions of the Greek NT the lectio difficilior is so difficult that it borders on nonsense and is therefore rejected as a corruption of λίνον. 52 Setting aside the question of the “original,” we note that Andrew’s text also agrees with our modern critical editions and that—as with 3:7—he is equally aware of the variant and its theological utility. He writes: “Out of this temple the angels . . . go out clothed in either ‘linen’ or ‘stone,’ just as some of the copies [τινα τῶν ἀντίγραφων] contain.” Andrew then incorporates both readings into his commentary, explaining that the angels are so clothed, “because of the absolute purity of their nature [reflecting καθαρόν]; their nearness to Christ the cornerstone [reflecting the variant λίθον]; and the brightness of their virtue [reflecting λαµπρόν].” 53 As in Rev 3:7, Andrew forgoes a decision that privileges one reading over another and offers a theological exposition of both. Andrew’s modus operandi is not altogether different from the text-critical method of Origen, who occasionally accepted and commented on multiple readings. 54 Christ’s identity as the “corner- stone” (ἀκρογωνιαῖον) provides an additional incentive both to accept and to com- ment on the variant. 55 The reading appeared to be sanctioned by Scripture. 56 50 λίθον A C 2053.2062 pc vg sy. 51 The importance of these witnesses for the Apocalypse cannot be overstated. According to Schmid, the combined attestation of AC surpasses the value of all other witnesses and stands nearer to the original than all other text-types. The text of Oecumenius’s commentary is virtually identical with these two witnesses: “AC, womit der Text des Oikumenios im ganzen identisch (und die Vulgata nahe verwandt) ist, überragen an Zeugenwert alle übrigen Textformen. An einer erheblichen Zahl von Stellen haben AC allein den Urtext bewahrt. Ihr überragender Zeugenwert beruht darauf, dass ihr gemeinsamer Text bewusste Korrekturen überhaput kaum enthält. Insofern steht dieser Text dem Urtext näher als alle anderen Textformen” (Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, vol. 2, Die alten Stämme [Münchener theolo- gische Studien 1, Historische Abteilung Ergänzungsband 1; Munich: K. Zink, 1956], 147). 52 As stated by Metzger, speaking on behalf of editors of the United Bible Societies fourth revised edition of the Greek New Testament, “[It] makes no sense” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1994], 680). 53 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 161, l. 19 and 162, ll. 1–4 (my translation). 54 See Bruce M. Metzger, “Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in the New Testament Manuscripts,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Chris- tian (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 88–103. 55 See Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:6 actually has λίθον and ἀκρογωνιαῖον in apposition. 56 Oecumenius makes the same connection in his commentary, so he, rather than Andrew, appears to be ultimately responsible for the link. The difference is that Oecumenius is comment- ing on his text, whereas Andrew comments on a variant. See Suggit, Oecumenius, 136. Hernández: Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 193 VII. Andrew and Revelation 1:5: A Possible Variant? One final example of textual variation requires consideration. In the opening doxology of Rev 1:5, praise is directed toward “the one who loves us and released [λύσαντι] us from our sins.” Some manuscripts, however, read “washed” (λούσαντι) us from our sins. 57 A scribal inability to distinguish between the pronunciations of the two is blamed for the textual corruption. 58 Andrew does not mention a textual variant in his comments. His wordplay, however, is suggestive and may indicate a familiarity with the variant. Andrew writes: “Glory is appropriate to the one who ‘released’ us [λύσαντι] from the chains of death . . . and ‘washed’ us [λούσαντι] from our blemishes of sin.” 59 Andrew appears to do here what he has done with the textual variants of 3:7 and 15:6: co-opt competing readings into his theological commentary. The only difference is that Andrew makes no mention of a particular variant in 1:5. Our knowledge of the Apocalypse’s textual tradition, coupled with Andrew’s identical expository practices elsewhere, leads us to suspect that he is aware of its presence. Andrew’s knowledge of the variant appears almost certain when one considers his close reading of Oecumenius’s commentary. Oecumenius’s text of the Apocalypse reads “washed” (λούσαντι), the very word Andrew juxtaposes with “releasing” (λύσαντι). 60 VIII. Conclusion Andrew’s text-critical practices offer every indication that he did not operate with the same assumptions or concerns as traditional textual criticism. 61 His iden- tification, discussion, and acceptance of multiple textual variants contrast markedly with his blistering criticism of scribes who atticize the Scriptures. Attic changes would have produced no semantic difference to the text; yet, for Andrew, these posed the greater threat. The commentary’s postscript heightens the irony. At the conclusion of Andrew’s commentary, an anonymous editor raises concerns over the circulation of multiple versions of Andrew’s work. Andrew had apparently lost 57 λύσαντι p 18 ) A C 1611.2050.2329.2351 M A h sy; Prim; λούσαντι P 1006.1841.1854. 2053.2062 M K lat bo. 58 Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 255. 59 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 16, ll. 8–9 (my translation). 60 Oecumenius also speaks of “washing” and “releasing” in his commentary, but he employs different words and refrains from Andrew’s evocative wordplay. Commenting on his text of Rev 1:5, which contains “washed” (λούσαντι), Oecumenius speaks of the one who “set us free from our transgressions” (τοῦ γὰρ ἀποπλῦναι ἡµῶν τὰς ἁµαρτίας). 61 Traditional textual criticism is concerned with the restoration of the “original” or “earli- est attainable” text of the NT and tracing its transmission history. 194 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) some drafts in his possession and found it necessary to restore the original word- ing from memory. The final compiler now frets over the inevitable discrepancies that have resulted, but assures readers that the “meaning remains the same” (τῆς δια- νοίας τῆς αὐτῆς). 62 The redactor’s final remarks shed light on the vicissitudes of tex- tual transmission in late antiquity. 63 They also shed additional light on Andrew’s text-critical practices. Andrew restored the wording of his commentary when nec- essary; he did not restore the wording of the Apocalypse when he had the chance. Textual variation was an opportunity to comment on the theological significance of multiple readings. Andrew’s handling of variants also contributes to the discipline’s discussion of textual variation. Textual critics are often elated when a significant textual variant is uncovered, especially if it can be conscripted into a greater cause. These often serve as “windows” into another time and place, when things were still in flux and presumably being fought over. 64 Andrew’s text-critical practices indicate, however, that what fascinates us may not be what held the attention of the ancients. We find meaning in textual variation and imagine the communities that would espouse or even create such variants. We imagine scenarios of bitter battles over orthodoxy. But with Andrew, textual variation appears to have been an opportunity to certify what was already known to be “true” for an early Byzantine bishop. The potential threat of a textual difference was easily mitigated by appeals to Origenic modes of exege- sis, the sayings of the fathers, and the dictates of Chalcedon. Even Andrew’s com- plaint about “atticizing scribes” appears to say more about perceived cultural pretension than about the text of the NT or attested scribal practices. In short, Andrew’s discussion of variants challenges contemporary assumptions about the significance of textual variation and offers an alternative model for understanding the appropriation of the NT. Multiple textual data were not a problem to be solved; they were opportunities for exploring a variety of interpretive possibilities, facili- tated by the various senses of Scripture. IX. Further Study The full text-critical relevance of Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Apocalypse remains to be explored. Additional areas in need of study include 62 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 267, l. 15. 63 See Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995); and Markus Mülke, Der Autor und sein Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 93; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008). 64 Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social His- tory of Early Christianity,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 361–79. Hernández: Te Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 195 Andrew’s citations of the NT and the LXX, 65 his use of patristic sources, and the ori- gin and character of the Andrew “recension.” 66 None of these items has received attention since the publication of Schmid’s monograph in the 1950s. With this brief examination of Andrew’s assessment of textual variation, however, we continue our advance beyond the discipline’s traditional boundaries and probe the appropria- tion of the Scriptures by various communities of faith that lie beyond the first few centuries of early Christian expansion—a task for which NT textual criticism is primed. 65 Today there is an entire series, The Text of the New Testament in the Greek Fathers (cur- rently under the editorship of Michael W. Holmes), devoted to the study of NT citations in patris- tic literature, using methods pioneered by Gordon D. Fee and Bart D. Ehrman. Schmid’s work with its proliferation of citations would appear to be an ideal candidate for such a study. 66 E. C. Colwell issued a call for a reexamination of Schmid’s characterization of the Andrew “recension” over six decades ago. In his sixth conclusion, Schmid argued that the Andreas and Byzantine text-types are not revised forms of the two earlier text-types (p 47 -Sinaiticus and AC Oec) but revisions of older texts equal in antiquity. Colwell counters, however, that all Schmid has really shown is that the Andreas and Byzantine text-types are not “entirely” derived from earlier ones. Moreover, Colwell notes that some of Schmid’s evidence for the relationship between the fourth-century corrector of Sinaiticus and the Andreas text depends on the prior conclusions of Bousset’s study (Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament [TU 2/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894])— an earlier work that (at Colwell’s time) had not been reviewed in light of current understandings of the history of text-types. In addition to this, Colwell calls for clarification of what Schmid means by “revised forms” of early text-types in the case of the Andreas and Byzantine text-types. As for Schmid’s seventh conclusion—that a stemma of text-types cannot be made, Colwell thinks that this indeed can be done with the evidence Schmid has provided, “at least in large outlines.” See E. C. Colwell, “Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts,” in idem, Studies in Methodology, 45–55. Exactly what method will best suit an exploration of the relationship between Andreas’s text-type and the others in Revelation’s manuscript tradition remains to be determined. One possibility is the application to the Apocalypse’s manuscript tra- dition of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method developed at Münster—a task that has yet to be undertaken. See Gerd Mink, “Eine umfassende Genealogie der neutestamentlichen Über- lieferung,” NTS 39 (1993): 481–99; idem, “Was verändert sich in der Textkritik durch die Be- achtung genealogischer Kohärenz?” in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature. Papers Read at a NOSTER Conference in Münster, January 4–6, 2001 (ed. Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 39–68; idem, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament. Stemmata of Vari- ants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben- jamins, 2004), 13–85. 196 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ACLS Humanities E-Book (HEB) offers individual subscriptions to over 3,300 full-text, cross-searchable titles in the humanities, linked to reviews. HEB hosts two distinguished series from the Society of Biblical Literature — Writings from the Ancient World and Writings from the Greco-Roman World — as well as titles in related subject areas. The HEB collection continues to expand, adding approximately 500 titles per year across all disciplines. Please visit www.humanitiesebook.org for more information. ACLS Humani t i es E-Book I ndi vi dual Subscr i pt i ons f or SBL Member s “ One of t he best — i f not t he best — el ect r oni cal l y accessi bl e si t es i n t he humani t i es.” —Institute of Historical Research, London 12-mont h subscr i pt i ons onl y $35 f or SBL member s http:/ / www.humanitiesebook.org/ sub-ind.html “Tis is a book that is humanly compelling, asking us to contem- plate the implications of having life framed by bodily fragility on one hand and divine judgment on the other. Confronting Vulnerability articulates poignantly, but without sentimentality, a unique perspective on the human condition.” Elizabeth Alexander, University of Virginia CLOTH $40.00 Te University of Chicago Press www.press.uchicago.edu Fundamentals of New Testament Greek Stanl ey E. Por ter, Jef f rey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’ Donnel l Fundamentals of New Testament Greek: WORKBOOK Stanl ey E. Por ter and Jef f rey T. Reed “Stanley Porter and his associates show a love of the language that regards Greek not as a chore to be endured but as an art to be enjoyed. They are masters of the subject and have produced an admirable and distinctive teaching tool, enhanced by an excellent workbook.” — Anthony C. Thiselton “The great strengths of these books are their coherence, compre- hensiveness, knowledge of contemporary linguistics (it is most encouraging to see verbal aspect theory laid down as part of the foundation), the wide-ranging use of Greek drawn from texts instead of artificially created snippets, and the fine integration of the workbook with the textbook. Highly recommended.” — D. A. Carson I SBN 978-0-8028-2827-9 · 488 pages · hardcover · $39. 99 Workbook I SBN 978-0-8028-2826-2 · 272 pages · paperback · $20. 00 At your bookstore, or call 800-253-7521 www.eerdmans.com 9576 GOD IN TRANSLATI ON Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World Mark S. Smi th 0584 “A magisterial treatment of the development of Israelite mono- theism throughout the entire biblical period. . . . Te starting point for much new research.” ROBERT R. WILSON Yale University “Tis is an amazing book. Mark Smith takes the reader inside the intellectual universe of ancient Israel and its neighbors in a search for the possibilities of cultural translation. Learned, thoroughly researched, and written in clear and sober prose, this study defines a new level in our understanding of ancient Near Eastern theological thought.” KAREL VAN DER TOORN University of Amsterdam IS BN 978-0-8028-6433-8 · 408 pages · paperback · $40.00 At your bookstore, or call 800-253-7521 www.eerdmans.com Mohr Siebeck Tübingen [email protected] www.mohr.de John M.G. Barclay Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews Studies in the Social Formation of Christian Identity 2011. (WUNT). Eric D. Barreto Ethnic Negotiations The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16 2010. (WUNT II/294). Christoph Berner Die Exoduserzählung Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels 2010. (FAT 73). Between Gospel and Election Explorations in the Interpreta- tion of Romans 9–11 Ed. by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner with the assistance of Frank Schleritt 2010. (WUNT 257). Markus Bockmuehl The Remembered Peter in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate 2010. (WUNT 262). John G. Cook Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians From Claudius to Hadrian 2010. (WUNT 261). Wilfried Eisele Welcher Thomas? Studien zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte des Thomas evangeliums 2010. (WUNT 259). Nicolas Farelly The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel A Narrative Analysis of their Faith and Understanding 2010. (WUNT II/290). Reinhard Feldmeier / Hermann Spieckermann Der Gott der Lebendigen Eine biblische Gotteslehre 2011. (TOBITH). James R. Harrison Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessolanica and Rome A Study in the Conflict of Ideology 2011. (WUNT). Bernhard Heininger Die Inkulturation des Christentums Aufsätze und Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 2010. (WUNT 255). Die Johannesapokalypse Kontexte – Konzepte – Wirkungen Hrsg. v. Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer u. Franz Tóth 2011. (WUNT). E. A. Judge Jerusalem and Athens Cultural Transformation in Late Antiquity Essays Selected and Ed. by Alanna Nobbs 2010. (WUNT 265). New from Mohr Siebeck Custom made information: www.mohr.de James A. Kelhoffer Persecution, Persuasion and Power Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament 2010. (WUNT 270). Nina E. Livesey Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol 2010. (WUNT II/295). Jason Maston Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul A Comparative Study 2010. (WUNT II/297). Bernhard Mutschler Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen Pistis als Mitte christlicher Existenz 2010. (WUNT 256). Tanja Pilger Erziehung im Leiden Komposition und Theologie der Elihureden in Hiob 32–37 2010. (FAT II/49). John C. Poirier The Tongues of Angels The Concept of Angelic Languages in Classical Jewish and Christian Texts 2010. (WUNT II/287). Mohr Siebeck Tübingen [email protected] www.mohr.de N e w f r o m M o h r S i e b e c k Custom made information: www.mohr.de Synesios von Kyrene Polis – Freundschaft – Jenseitsstrafen Briefe an und über Johannes Eingel., übers. u. mit inter- pretierenden Essays vers. v. Katharina Luchner, Bruno Bleckmann, Reinhard Feldmeier, Herwig Görgemanns, Adolf Martin Ritter, Ilinca Tanaseanu- Döbler 2010. (SAPERE XVII). Marcus K. M. Tso Ethics in the Qumran Community An Interdisciplinary Investi gation 2010. (WUNT II/292). Timothy Wardle The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity 2010. (WUNT II/291). Women and Gender in Ancient Religions Interdisciplinary Approaches Ed. by Stephen P. Ahearne- Kroll, Paul A. Holloway and James A. Kelhoffer 2010. (WUNT 263). Please order our new catalog. u Avai l abl e at l ocal bookstores, www. bakeracademi c. com, or by cal l i ng 1-800-877-2665. Subscri be to Baker Academi c’s el ectroni c newsl etter (E-Notes) at www. bakeracademi c. com. Now Avai l abl e f r om u Key Questions about Christian Faith OLD TESTAMENT ANSWERS John Goldingay 9780801039546 368 pp. • $24.99p “Key Questions about Christian Faith is vin- tage Goldingay: bibli- cal interpretation with theological interest and an ear attuned to contemporary life, transparent shar- ing of personal experiences, and a conversational voice. It is an enjoyable, illuminating, and thoroughly biblical guide to important questions of the Christian faith. I commend it highly.”—Robert L. Hubbard Jr., North Park Theological Seminary Minor Prophets II John Goldingay and Pamela J. Scalise 9780801046391 408 pp. • $19.99p “An excellent addi- tion to the New International Biblical Commentary series. . . . The authors have clearly succeeded in fulfilling the stated hope for the series. Their commitment to the meaning of the text and its authority for (and potential impact upon) the life of the church is evident. But even more evident is their careful, well-informed, and conscientious use of ‘the full range of critical methodologies and practices.’”—J. Clinton McCann Jr., Review of Biblical Literature Jeroboam’s Wife THE ENDURING CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT’S LEAST-KNOWN WOMEN Robin Gallaher Branch 9780801045714 296 pp. • $19.99p “The stories of seven women of the Old Testament, three named and four unnamed, are examined in this collection of essays. . . . Before examining the stories them- selves, Branch provides some basic information about narrative analysis, explaining characteriza- tion, setting, plot development, point of view, etc. Summaries, conclusions, and questions for further reflection all help to make this a very readable work. It is recommended for both teacher and stu- dent.”—The Bible Today Getting the Old Testament WHAT IT MEANT TO THEM, WHAT IT MEANS FOR US Steven L. Bridge 9780801045745 248 pp. • $16.99p “Bridge’s Getting the Old Testament is a fun and easy way to get a good overview of how modern biblical studies have opened up our understanding of the Old Testament. He combines contemporary examples, light but scholarly descriptions, and many charts to craft a very readable understanding of the develop- ment and purpose of the Hebrew Scriptures.” —Lawrence Boadt, CSP, Washington Theological Union cal interpretation with theolo clearly succeeded in fulfilling good overview of how mode u Avai l abl e at l ocal bookstores, www. bakeracademi c. com, or by cal l i ng 1-800-877-2665. Subscri be to Baker Academi c’s el ectroni c newsl etter (E-Notes) at www. bakeracademi c. com. Now Avai l abl e f r om u Jesus the Temple Nicholas Perrin 9780801045387 240 pp. • $29.99p The Gospel of John, 2 vols. Craig S. Keener 9780801046759 1,696 pp. • $59.99p The Christ of the Miracle Stories PORTRAIT THROUGH ENCOUNTER Wendy J. Cotter, CSJ 9780801039508 320 pp. • $29.99p Discovering Jesus in the New Testament Keith Warrington 9780801048005 240 pp. • $19.99p The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology John Ronning 9780801047596 336 pp. • $29.99p Paul Unbound OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON THE APOSTLE Mark D. Given, editor 9780801046353 224 pp. • $24.99p u Avai l abl e at l ocal bookstores, www. bakeracademi c. com, or by cal l i ng 1-800-877-2665. Subscri be to Baker Academi c’s el ectroni c newsl etter (E-Notes) at www. bakeracademi c. com. Now Avai l abl e f r om u Crossing Over Sea and Land JEWISH MISSIONARY ACTIVITY IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD Michael F. Bird 9780801045639 224 pp. • $24.99p God’s Empowering Presence THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL Gordon D. Fee 9780801046216 992 pp. • $34.99p Paul, His Letters, and Acts Thomas E. Phillips 9780801047435 256 pp. • $24.99p New Testament Greek, rev. ed., with CD A BEGINNING AND INTERMEDIATE GRAMMAR James A. Hewett; C. Michael Robbins and Steven R. Johnson, editors 9780801046551 352 pp. • $34.99c Commentary on the New Testament Robert. H. Gundry 9780801046476 • 1,088 pp. • $49.99c “There is no better single-volume commentary on the New Testament than the one Gundry has written.”—Craig A. Evans, Acadia Divinity College u Avai l abl e at l ocal bookstores, www. bakeracademi c. com, or by cal l i ng 1-800-877-2665. Subscri be to Baker Academi c’s el ectroni c newsl etter (E-Notes) at www. bakeracademi c. com. Now Avai l abl e f r om u Vines Intertwined, with CD A HISTORY OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS FROM THE BABYLONIAN EXILE TO THE ADVENT OF ISLAM Leo Duprée Sandgren 9780801047619 864 pp. • $34.99p Prophets and Gravestones AN IMAGINATIVE HISTORY OF MONTANISTS AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIANS William Tabbernee 9780801047817 368 pp. • $29.99p Stoicism in Early Christianity Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Ismo Dunderberg, editors 9780801039515 320 pp. • $39.99p The Didache A WINDOW ON THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS Thomas O’Loughlin 9780801045394 208 pp. • $24.99p Christianity in the Greco-Roman World A NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION Moyer V. Hubbard 9780801046636 344 pp. • $24.99p Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways EARLY JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS Thomas A. Robinson 9780801047572 304 pp. • $27.99p New and Recent Titles Seciety el ßi||ica| literature · l.0. ßex !!+| · vi||isten, \J c¯+)¯-!!+| lhene. S¯¯-¯!¯-|||+ (te||-lree) er Sc!-Se+-eJS¯ · lax. Sc!-Se+-¯e!e 0ráer en|ine at www.s||-site.erg GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? Reflections and Consequences Knut Holter and Louis C. Jonker, editors Jhe ßi||e is stuáieá aná interjreteá in [ewish aná thristian cemmunities a|| erer the wer|á. vithin this enterjrise there are rarieus centers aná margins, aná it can |e áilhcu|t ler sche|ars lrem áillerent jarts el the g|e|e te unáerstaná ene anether. In aááitien, the jrinteá sche|ar|y |iterature is elten exjensire aná inaccessi||e. Jhis ce||ectien el essays-the hrst re|ume in a new en|ine ejen access series starteá |y the Internatiena| teejera- tien Initiatire el the Seciety el ßi||ica| literature-hejes te stimu|ate aná laci|itate a g|e|a| hermeneutic in which centers aná margins laáe. It exj|eres the g|e|a| centext within which |i||ica| stuáies aná interjretatien take j|ace aná inc|uáes three case stuáies lrem áillerent regiens, rehectiens en the cense- ¡uences el g|e|a| hermeneutics en |i||ica| interjretatien aná en trans|atien, aná an alterwerá. Table of Contents Intreáuctien 6eegrajhica| aná Institutiena| \sjects el 6|e|a| 0|á Jestament Stuáies, Knut Holter nermeneutica| lersjectires en \ie|ence against vemen aná en 0irine \ie|ence in 6erman-Sjeaking 0|á Jestament lxegesis, Gerlinde Baumann laná in the 0|á Jestament. nermeneutics lrem latin \merica, Roy H. May Jr. 8eaáing the 0|á Jestament lrem a \igerian ßackgreuná. \ veman's lersjectire, Mary Jerome Obiorah Jhe 6|e|a| tentext aná Its tense¡uences ler 0|á Jestament Interjretatien, Louis C. Jonker Jhe 6|e|a| tentext aná Its tense¡uences ler 0|á Jestament Jrans|atien, Aloo Mojola vhen ßi||ica| Sche|ars Ja|k \|eut ¨6|e|a|¨ ßi||ica| Interjretatien, Knut Holter 978-1-58983-477-4 104 pages, 2010 Code: 063801 International Voices in Biblical Literature 1 AVAILABLE FREE at http://ivbs.sbl-site.org/home.aspx THE FIRST VOLUME IN SBL’S NEW ONLINE OPEN ACCESS SERIES New and Recent Titles Seciety el ßi||ica| literature · l.0. ßex !!+| · vi||isten, \J c¯+)¯-!!+| lhene. S¯¯-¯!¯-|||+ (te||-lree) er Sc!-Se+-eJS¯ · lax. Sc!-Se+-¯e!e 0ráer en|ine at www.s||-site.erg PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND ITS HERITAGE [ehn 0. Jurner aná Kerin terrigan, eáiters Plato’s larmeniáes and Its Heritage jresents in twe re|umes greuná-|reaking resu|ts in the histery el interjre- tatien el l|ate's Parmenides, the cu|minatien el six years el internatiena| ce||a|eratien |y the Sßl \nnua| Meeting seminar, ¨8ethinking l|ate's Parmenides aná Its l|atenic, 6nestic aná latristic 8ecejtien¨ (!ccJ-!cc¯). Volume 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism Paper $42.95 978-1-58983-449-1 352 pages, 2010 Code: 064202 Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplements 2 Hardback edition www.brill.nl Volume 2: Reception in Patristic, Gnostic, and Christian Neoplatonic Texts Paper $39.95 978-1-58983-450-7 324 pages, 2010 Code: 064203 Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplements 3 Hardback edition www.brill.nl THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: THE COMMENTARIES ON THE MINOR EPISTLES OF PAUL Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Rowan A. Greer ¨vith a |ight teuch |ern el extraeráinary eruáitien, 8ewan 6reer makes Jheeáere el Mejsuestia essentia| reaáing ler anyene whe weu|á áe thee|egy in eur time. In jarticu|ar, he reminás us that the thee|egian's hrst task is the exjesitien el scrijture.¨—Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics, Duke University Divinity School Paper $89.95 978-1-58983-279-4 884 pages, 2010 Code: 061626 Writings from the Greco-Roman World 26 Hardcover edition www.brill.nl P [e r ta e se 6 T O T R 6 a re sc of New and Recent Titles Seciety el ßi||ica| literature · l.0. ßex !!+| · vi||isten, \J c¯+)¯-!!+| lhene. S¯¯-¯!¯-|||+ (te||-lree) er Sc!-Se+-eJS¯ · lax. Sc!-Se+-¯e!e 0ráer en|ine at www.s||-site.erg TRANSFORMING GRADUATE BIBLICAL EDUCATION Ethos and Discipline Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Kent Harold Richards, editors Jhis uni¡ue ce||ectien el essays exj|eres the current ethes aná áiscij|ine el graáuate |i||ica| eáucatien lrem áillerent secia| |ecatiens aná acaáemic centexts. It inc|uáes interna- tiena| reices el we||-esta||isheá sche|ars a|engsiáe yeunger sche|ars with new jersjectires. Jhe ináiriáua| centri|utiens emerge lrem a rariegateá set el exjeriences in graáuate |i||ica| stuáies aná a critica| ana|ysis el these exjeriences. Jhe re|ume is áiriáeá inte leur areas el inrestigatien. Jhe hrst sectien áiscusses the ethes el |i||ica| stuáies aná secia| |ecatien, aná the secená exj|eres áillerent cu|tura|-natiena| lermatiens el the áiscij|ine. Jhe thirá sectien censiáers the exjeriences aná risiens el graáuate |i||ica| stuáies, whi|e the |ast sectien exj|eres hew te translerm the áiscij|ine. Paper $49.95 978-1-58983-504-7 408 pages, 2010 Code: 060810 Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 10 Hardback edition www.brill.nl THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Volume XXII (2010) David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling, editors Jhe Stuáia lhi|enica \nnua| is a sche|ar|y jeurna| áereteá te lurthering the stuáy el ne||enistic [uáaism, aná in jarticu|ar the writings aná theught el the ne||enistic-[ewish writer lhi|e el \|exanária (circa J¯ B.C.E. te circa ¯c C.E.). Jhis re|ume inc|uáes artic|es, twe sectiens en lhi|e's De Agricultura aná The Hypothetica, a |i||iegrajhy sectien, aná |eek reriews. Cloth: $42.95 978-1-58983-525-2 336 pages, 2010 Code: 062222 Studia Philonica Annual 22 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE (Constituent Member of the American Council of Learned Societies) EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL General Editor: JAMES C. VANDERKAM, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 EDITORIAL BOARD Term Expiring 2011: ELLEN B. AITKEN, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5 Canada MICHAEL JOSEPH BROWN, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 JAIME CLARK-SOLES, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 STEVEN FRIESEN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 JENNIFER GLANCY, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 ROBERT HOLMSTEDT, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1 Canada ARCHIE C. C. LEE, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin New Territories, Hong Kong SAR MARGARET Y. MACDONALD, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5 Canada SHELLY MATTHEWS, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613 RICHARD D. NELSON, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275 DAVID L. PETERSEN, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 MARK REASONER, Marian University, Indianapolis, IN 46222 YVONNE SHERWOOD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542 PATRICIA K. TULL, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY 40205 2012: DAVID L. BARR, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 COLLEEN CONWAY, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079 MARY ROSE D’ANGELO, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 THOMAS B. DOZEMAN, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, OH 45406 J. ALBERT HARRILL, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 PAUL JOYCE, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3LD, United Kingdom ELIZABETH STRUTHERS MALBON, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 TURID KARLSEN SEIM, University of Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway CAROLYN SHARP, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520 BENJAMIN D. SOMMER, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027 LOUIS STULMAN, University of Findlay, Findlay, OH 45840 DAVID TSUMURA, Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo 205-0017, Japan MICHAEL WHITE, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 2013: JO-ANN BRANT, Goshen College, Goshen, IN 46526 BRIAN BRITT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 JOHN ENDRES, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94709 MICHAEL FOX, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 STEVEN FRAADE, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8287 MATTHIAS HENZE, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251 STEPHEN MOORE, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 LAURA NASRALLAH, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA 02138 EMERSON POWERY, Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027 THOMAS RÖMER, Collège de France, Paris, and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0337 DAVID WRIGHT, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 Editorial Assistants: Monica Brady and Sarah Schreiber, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 President of the Society: Carol Newsom, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322; Vice President: John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60604; Chair, Research and Publications Committee: Adele Reinhartz, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada; Executive Director: John F. Kutsko, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329. The Journal of Biblical Literature (ISSN 0021–9231) is published quarterly. The annual subscription price is US$40.00 for members and US$180.00 for nonmembers. Institutional rates are also available. For information regarding subscriptions and membership, contact: Society of Biblical Literature, Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 866-727-9955 (toll free) or 404-727-9498. FAX: 404-727-2419. E-mail: [email protected]. For information concerning permission to quote, editorial and business matters, please see the Spring issue, p. 2. The Hebrew and Greek fonts used in JBL are SBL Hebrew and SBL Greek; they are available from www.sbl- site.org/Resources/default.aspx. The JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE (ISSN 0021–9231) is published quarterly by the Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329. Periodical postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Society of Biblical Literature, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Concordia Commentary Series “I have a great deal of respect for this series. It takes serious regard of the biblical text in its original language, and deals with both textual difficulties and theology—an impressive feat at a time when many commentaries are trying to avoid difficult details.” David Instone-Brewer, University of Cambridge “Pastors and scholars alike will find plenty of helpful insights . . . in the series as a whole.” Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Bibliotheca Sacra “One of the best commentary series currently available for those seeking an exposition of the biblical text that balances the academic with the pastoral.” David W. Jones, Faith and Mission, Southeastern Baptist Teological Seminary Contributors to the Concordia Commentary series provide greater clarity and under- standing of the divine intent of the text of Holy Scripture. Each volume is based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek with sensitivity to the rich treasury of language, im- agery, and themes found throughout the broader biblical canon. Further light is shed on the text from archaeology, history, and extrabiblical literature. Tis landmark work from Lutheran scholars will cover all the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament. Two new volumes are released each year. Subscriptions Available for Libraries and Individuals Become a subscriber today and commentaries are shipped automatically to you. Your subscription starts with the newest volume, and you continue to receive each new volume until the series is complete. (You can request the existing volumes.) Subscriptions are available in three ways: Complete series • Hebrew Scriptures volumes • Greek New Testament volumes © 2 0 1 1 C o n c o r d i a P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e P r i n t e d i n t h e U S A 5 1 1 5 1 6 - 0 1 CURRENT VOLUMES Leviticus by John W. Kleinig Joshua by Adolph L. Harstad Ruth by John R. Wilch Ezra and Nehemiah by Andrew E. Steinmann Proverbs by Andrew E. Steinmann Ecclesiastes [forthcoming] by James Bollhagen Te Song of Songs by Christopher W. Mitchell Isaiah 40–55 [forthcoming] by R. Reed Lessing Ezekiel 1–20 Ezekiel 21–48 by Horace D. Hummel Daniel by Andrew E. Steinmann Amos by R. Reed Lessing Jonah by R. Reed Lessing Matthew 1:1–11:1 Matthew 11:2–20:34 by Jeffrey A. Gibbs Luke 1:1–9:50 Luke 9:51–24:53 by Arthur A. Just Jr. 1 Corinthians by Gregory J. Lockwood Colossians by Paul E. Deterding Philemon by John G. Nordling Revelation by Louis A. Brighton Founded in 1869, Concordia is the publishing house of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. www.cph.org • 1-800-325-3040 incov rev_incov.qxd 3/1/2011 8:35 AM Page 1 J OU R N A L OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE SPRING 2011 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 VOLUME 130, NO. 1 US ISSN 0021-9231 Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate Vincent L. Wimbush 5–24 CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13 Joshua Berman 25–44 A Rejoinder concerning 1 Samuel 1:1 Shalom M. Paul 45 The “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform Nadav Na’aman 47–62 Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job C. L. Seow 63–85 Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation? Jason Gile 87–108 A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase vam ha ! 'a ! res i in the Hebrew Bible John Tracy Thames, Jr. 109–125 Waiters or Preachers: Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan Table Fellowship Motif David W. Pao 127–144 Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30 Ilaria L. E. Ramelli 145–163 Eating with Honor: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary Association Meal Practices Rachel M. McRae 165–181 The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism Juan Hernández Jr. 183–196 J O U R N A L O F B I B L I C A L L I T E R A T U R E JBLcoverspring2011_JBLcover2007.qxd 3/1/2011 9:03 AM Page 1 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE (Constituent Member of the American Council of Learned Societies) EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL General Editor: JAMES C. VANDERKAM, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 Term Expiring 2011: ELLEN B. AITKEN, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5 Canada MICHAEL JOSEPH BROWN, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 JAIME CLARK-SOLES, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 STEVEN FRIESEN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 JENNIFER GLANCY, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 ROBERT HOLMSTEDT, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1 Canada ARCHIE C. C. LEE, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin New Territories, Hong Kong SAR MARGARET Y. MACDONALD, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5 Canada SHELLY MATTHEWS, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613 RICHARD D. NELSON, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275 DAVID L. PETERSEN, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 MARK REASONER, Marian University, Indianapolis, IN 46222 YVONNE SHERWOOD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542 PATRICIA K. TULL, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY 40205 2012: DAVID L. BARR, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 COLLEEN CONWAY, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079 MARY ROSE D’ANGELO, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 THOMAS B. DOZEMAN, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, OH 45406 J. ALBERT HARRILL, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 PAUL JOYCE, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3LD, United Kingdom ELIZABETH STRUTHERS MALBON, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 TURID KARLSEN SEIM, University of Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway CAROLYN SHARP, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520 BENJAMIN D. SOMMER, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027 LOUIS STULMAN, University of Findlay, Findlay, OH 45840 DAVID TSUMURA, Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo 205-0017, Japan MICHAEL WHITE, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 2013: JO-ANN BRANT, Goshen College, Goshen, IN 46526 BRIAN BRITT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 JOHN ENDRES, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94709 MICHAEL FOX, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 STEVEN FRAADE, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8287 MATTHIAS HENZE, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251 STEPHEN MOORE, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 LAURA NASRALLAH, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA 02138 EMERSON POWERY, Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027 THOMAS RÖMER, Collège de France, Paris, and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0337 DAVID WRIGHT, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 Editorial Assistants: Monica Brady and Sarah Schreiber, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 President of the Society: Carol Newsom, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322; Vice President: John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60604; Chair, Research and Publications Committee: Adele Reinhartz, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada; Executive Director: John F. Kutsko, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329. The Journal of Biblical Literature (ISSN 0021–9231) is published quarterly. The annual subscription price is US$40.00 for members and US$180.00 for nonmembers. Institutional rates are also available. For information regarding subscriptions and membership, contact: Society of Biblical Literature, Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 866-727-9955 (toll free) or 404-727-9498. FAX: 404-727-2419. E-mail: [email protected]. For information concerning permission to quote, editorial and business matters, please see the Spring issue, p. 2. The Hebrew and Greek fonts used in JBL are SBL Hebrew and SBL Greek; they are available from www.sblsite.org/Resources/default.aspx. The JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE (ISSN 0021–9231) is published quarterly by the Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329. Periodical postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Society of Biblical Literature, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EDITORIAL BOARD Journal of Biblical Literature Volume 130 2011 GENERAL EDITOR JAMES C. VANDERKAM University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 A Quarterly Published by THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE EDITORIAL BOARD Term Expiring 2011: ELLEN B. AITKEN, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5 Canada MICHAEL JOSEPH BROWN, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 JAIME CLARK-SOLES, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 STEVEN FRIESEN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 JENNIFER GLANCY, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 ROBERT HOLMSTEDT, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1 Canada ARCHIE C. C. LEE, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin New Territories, Hong Kong SAR MARGARET Y. MACDONALD, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5 Canada SHELLY MATTHEWS, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613 RICHARD D. NELSON, Perkins School of Theology, So. Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX 75275 DAVID L. PETERSEN, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 MARK REASONER, Marian University, Indianapolis, IN 46222 YVONNE SHERWOOD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542 PATRICIA K. TULL, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY 40205 2012: DAVID L. BARR, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 COLLEEN CONWAY, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079 MARY ROSE D’ANGELO, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 THOMAS B. DOZEMAN, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, OH 45406 J. ALBERT HARRILL, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 PAUL JOYCE, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3LD, United Kingdom ELIZABETH STRUTHERS MALBON, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 TURID KARLSEN SEIM, University of Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway CAROLYN SHARP, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520 BENJAMIN D. SOMMER, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027 LOUIS STULMAN, University of Findlay, Findlay, OH 45840 DAVID TSUMURA, Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo 205-0017, Japan MICHAEL WHITE, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 2013: JO-ANN BRANT, Goshen College, Goshen, IN 46526 BRIAN BRITT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0135 JOHN ENDRES, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94709 MICHAEL FOX, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 STEVEN FRAADE, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8287 MATTHIAS HENZE, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251 STEPHEN MOORE, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 LAURA NASRALLAH, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA 02138 EMERSON POWERY, Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027 THOMAS RÖMER, Collège de France, Paris, and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland SIDNIE WHITE CRAWFORD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0337 DAVID WRIGHT, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 Editorial Assistants: Monica Brady and Sarah Schreiber, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 Articles are indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals; book reviews in Index to Book Reviews in Religion, American Theological Library Association, Evanston, Illinois. Both indexes are also found in the ATLA Religion Database on CD-ROM. EDITORIAL MATTERS OF THE JBL 1. Contributors should consult the Journal’s Instructions for Contributors (http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/PublishingWithSBL/JBL_Instructions.pdf). 2. If a MS of an article is submitted in a form that departs in major ways from these instructions, it may be returned to the author for retyping, even before it is considered for publication. 3. Submit two hard copies of the MS of an article or critical note. Manuscripts will not be returned. 4. Manuscripts and communications regarding the content of the Journal should be addressed to James C. VanderKam at the address given on the preceding page (or correspondence only at the following e-mail address: [email protected]). 5. Permission to quote more than 500 words may be requested from the Rights and Permissions Department, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA (E-mail: [email protected]). Please specify volume, year, and inclusive page numbers. (not handled by the editors of the Journal) 1. All correspondence regarding membership in the Society, subscriptions to the Journal, change of address, renewals, missing or defective issues of the Journal, and inquiries about other publications of the Society should be addressed to Society of Biblical Literature, Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 133158, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 866727-9955 (toll-free) or 404-727-9498. FAX 404-727-2419. E-mail: [email protected]. 2. All correspondence concerning the research and publications programs, the annual meeting of the Society, and other business should be addressed to the Executive Director, Society of Biblical Literature, The Luce Center, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329. (E-mail: [email protected]). 3. Second Class postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia, and at additional mailing offices. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUSINESS MATTERS OF THE SBL but first the recognition of the function of the Bible among African Americans in every aspect of their existence. The insight that has guided his thinking throughout his career was already expressed in an early essay in 1989.”* The word function is emphasized in the text. Theological Education 25 (1989): 30. But Vincent’s observation was not just autobiographical. he saw more broadly the need for a profound transformation of the * Vincent Wimbush. Even then it was evident that he was someone who would make his mark in the discipline of biblical studies. 3 . He was describing what had drawn him to biblical studies: “It was neither antiquarian interests nor theological sensibilities. Although asceticism continues to be an active part of his research agenda. for he is the author or editor of some six important books on that topic. Vincent’s intense focus on asceticism took place in the 1980s and 1990s. “Historical Study as Cultural Critique. in every period of their history. Georgia Introduction given by Carol Newsom Vice President. but I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the profoundly transformative impact that his career has had and continues to have in our field. when we were both graduate students at Harvard University in the late 1970s. as part of a fundamental and transformative reevaluation of that phenomenon. 2010 Atlanta. From his situatedness as an African American who had become a biblical scholar. Some of you will know him as a scholar of asceticism in Greco-Roman and early Christian cultures. Society of Biblical Literature I first met Vincent Wimbush long ago and far away. Vincent was simultaneously developing a critique of the assumptions of the dominant models for doing biblical studies as a narrowly historical-critical enterprise. But even as he was making a distinguished reputation for himself in what many might consider a rather traditional field. Wimbush President of the Society of Biblical Literature 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature November 20. which attracted me to biblical studies.Presidential Address by Vincent L. “I am not sure what SBL (or any other observers) should make of the election of the first person of color as president. documentary films. gender. It is my honor to present our distinguished colleague and president. he has been no less instrumental in the transformation of the Society of Biblical Literature itself. He embarked upon an extraordinary series of collaborative research projects. as the SBL delegate to the ACLS—he has remarked that he is proudest of having been the first chair of the Committeee on Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the Profession (1991–95). Although he has served in many. Vincent Wimbush. and he is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Atlanta’s Morehouse College. to borrow Vincent’s own terms. But that transformative work has begun. first at Union Theological Seminary and later at Claremont Graduate School. It is dramatically more diverse. Luce Foundation. In the current SBL newsletter.123. it is also to fail to provide for the guild of biblical scholars any clear and compelling reason for its being” (p. book series. Finally. From 1996 to the present he has received grants from the Lilly Endowment. Not Vincent.4 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. And Vincent did not think small. That was perhaps a more startling claim in 1989 than it is today. and power dynamics of which Scriptures are always and everywhere a part.” I suspect that it will take us some time to grasp what this moment “signifies. designed to bring such a vision of what it means to study Scripture into being.” or rather. The SBL is a very different institution than it was when Vincent and I first came to its meetings. though even those who are inclined to agree with it often see the accomplishment of such a goal as far beyond their capacities as biblical scholars.” . psycho-social formation. 32). the Henry W. for Atlanta is Vincent’s hometown. and the Ford Foundation totaling by my count $2. to the social scripting. This vision is currently embodied in institutional form in the Institute for Signifying Scriptures at Claremont Graduate University. who will speak on “Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/ Runagate. If Vincent has been integral to the transformation of the study of asceticism and to the conceptualization of scriptural and biblical studies. and he has had a significant role in that process. He continued: “Failure to address the matter of the historical and contemporary cultural functions of the bible is to fail not only to provide for the culture of intelligent lay persons a reason to engage and be influenced by biblical scholarship. as president of a region. and visiting scholar program sponsored by the Institute are bringing into being striking new ways of conceptualizing our field.000 (not counting the small change). not only in its ethnic. Vincent likes to refer not so much to the phenomenon of “Scriptures” as the object of study but to “scripturalizing. many capacities—on the council. and national composition but also in its thinking. it is highly fitting that his presidential address should be given in the city of Atlanta. The conferences. 1 (2011) field of biblical studies itself.” that is. no. how it has provided us with an opportunity for “signifying” the SBL in a new way. Vincent opens his reflections with the following statement. “But we maintain our ancient rite. trailing in Its obscured waters. more passionate Than strong. broke The dark algae. CA 91711 The colonial world is a Manichean world. Eat the gods by day and prophesy by night... Devout and swollen. —Frantz Fanon. His words fell In the darkness.. 1 (2011): 5–24 Interpreters—Enslaving/ Enslaved/Runagate vincent l... .. ... . “Nigger. at their ease.JBL 130.. mystic and ambrosial. your breed ain’t metaphysical. 5 .. and the buzzards tilted down A windless vortex to the black-gum trees To sit along the quiet boughs. and strive with time to die— With Time. Claremont. We swing against the sky and wait. when the moccasin Slipped from the log and. wimbush vincent... You seize the hour. the beak-ed tribe’s astute ally.edu Institute for Signifying Scriptures Claremont Graduate University... no......” The buzzard coughed. The Wretched of the Earth Big Jim Todd was a slick black buck Laying low in the mud and muck Of Pondy Woods when the sun went down In gold.wimbush@cgu.. Past midnight. one lean bird spoke.. .. my beginnings should be understood to be in that more expansive period and fraught situations of the North Atlantic worlds between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries.’ the poet saith. . . Yet I can hardly avoid transgressing in this and likely other regards before the end of this address. It was only when I was . .. This is the time and situation of my beginning and the framework for the consciousness that I bring to this podium. Included in the haunting are the profound shifts in the understandings of the self. . Although differently named and tweaked from decade to decade since 1880. including ideas about freedom and slavery of the self that mark the period. With such contact many social and political formations. I couldn’t see it for wearing it. In respects more profound and disturbing and poignantly ramifying for professional interpreters. moments and situations in which “the West” and “the rest” were coming into fateful first contact. our sometimes different but also often common positionalities and orientations. my beginnings are not here in this city in the sixth decade of the twentieth century. ideologies and politics and social formations.. . even haunt. —Robert Penn Warren. and notwithstanding the certifications the state may present. . [was] not . . . away from my native surroundings. those practices and discourses that define this professional Society have always been and are even now still fully imbricated in the general politics and emergent discourses of the larger period to which I refer. and was about to speak. . —Zora Neale Hurston. But the buzzard drooped one wing and filmed the eyes. the bird clacked its gray beak. that I could see myself like somebody else and stand off and look at my garment. Jim understood. In spite of what may be the testimonies of my remaining parent and other elders. rhetorical repression meant to veil the violence and hegemony of the West’s large-scale triangular Atlantic slave trading in dark peoples. . But it was fitting me like a tight chemise. practices and discourses.6 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.. And the cultivated obliviousness to or silence about—if not also the ideological reflection and validation of—the larger prevailing sociopolitical currents and dynamics marks the beginning and ongoing history of this Society (among other learned and professional societies. . regard the circumstance of breath: ‘Non omnis moriar. “Contact” is of course studied euphemy.. 1 (2011) Nigger. The dynamics of this period now still largely determine. . ... With a Tennessee accent to the classic phrase. And almost all of you have beginnings like my own. “Pondy Woods” Negro folklore . a new experience for me. sentiments and orientations of “the West” were (re-)forged and (re-)defined. to be sure). Mules and Men I am not unaware that on occasions such as this references to the personal and even embodiment are quite rare. no.” Pedantic. there have been challenges to the Society and its orientations in some periods of our history. And you will not be surprised if I suggest that the challenges have been too few and too tepid—and always belated.1 You know what they have been. Waters. is shocking. which paved the way for all such units today—only with such initiatives do black peoples and other peoples of color appear in numbers to make a point at all about diversity in the Society. Their addresses can be found in Presidential Voices: The Society of Biblical Literature in the Twentieth Century (ed. I do not imagine the chairs of the Synoptic Gospels or the Prophetic Texts units standing at the doors yelling “Whites only!” There is no doubt about the sick views of some. VanderKam. Saunders.. Chico CA: Scholars Press. its politics of feigning apolitical ideology. 2 Ernest W. Harold W. The fragility of the fiction of the apolitical big tent holding us together is all too evident in the still mind-numbingly general and vapid language we use to describe our varied practices and ideologies and orientations. 1975) and his colleagues in the 1960s and 1970s.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 7 With its fetishization of the rituals and games involving books and THE BOOK. it could not have been otherwise. and John W. 1880–1980 (SBLBSNA 8. remains even today at issue: given the state of emergency in which they have lived (emergencies that would give Walter Benjamin pause). 1 . Searching the Scriptures: A History of the Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Funk (SBL president. perhaps. its commitment to “sticking to the text. 1982). Only with the initiatives of Thomas Hoyt. SBLBSNA 22. This is the period of my initiation and participation in the Society. which in turn led to the establishment of the first honestly ethnically marked program unit. the worst practices of Jim Crowism and economic peonage and I am thinking here of Robert W. This suggests much about the timing of someone of my tribe standing before you today. and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (SBL president. its still all too simple historicist agenda (masking in too many instances unacknowledged theological-apologetic interests). 2006). the fact that the most recent history of the Society (in observance of the centennial)2 does not even mention black folks. but I think something deeper was and. Attridge and James C. which led to the Stony the Road We Trod discussion and book project in the late 1980s. The fact that we cannot document the membership and participation of a single African American in this Society before the fifth decade of the twentieth century. Perhaps.” its orientation in reality has always contributed to and reflected a participation in “sticking it” to the gendered and racialized Others. the fact that we cannot point to the official regularly scheduled gathering of two or three African Americans in discourse before the eighth decade of the last century. Of course. 1987) and colleagues in the 1980s. Jr. I do not presume that such folk were between the 1880s and the 1980s always and everywhere barred from membership and participation in the meetings of the Society. given the onset of the second slavery in the post–Civil War era when the industrial liberal North threw black folk under the wagon and the South embraced racial violence. 1 (2011) slavery. It provides irrefutable evidence of the perduring effects of slavery among black peoples into this century. thesis. 1993). even if belatedly.” Notwithstanding all the historical and some continuing stumbling blocks in the way.D. Alterations in the Words of Jesus. I suggest that the paucity of black membership is due ultimately not to the bad faith and manners of members of the Society in the past but to something more profound—the (unrecognized. 1952). Essays in Honor of Dr. lessons for our edification. Blackmon. thesis. to “be talkin’ ‘bout somethin’. eds. Charles B. Copher (1913–2003). G. in the vernacular of the folk.4 We must inscribe them and a few others into our full organizational consciousness and memory. “Malachi: Prophet of Transition” (M. 1945. Charles B. Vanderbilt University. MA: Harvard University Press. Charles B.8 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. they all worked in black institutions. mostly in Atlanta and Washington. Johnson. They struggled mightily to figure out how to speak to the challenges and pressures of the different worlds they intersected as black male intellectuals on the peripheries of the field.D. who faced even more layered intersecting stumbling blocks to their participation emerged at all only in the 1980s and are here among us in their numbers is tribute to their strength and commitment and further evidence of the Society’s fraught and frayed history. those few black pioneers of the decades before the initiatives of Hoyt and Waters—the likes of Leon Edward Wright. thesis. They must surely have exhausted themselves. Johnson (1914–1979). Drew University. Joseph A. in Zora Neale Hurston’s terms. Bailey and J. 2008). 4 Leon Edward Wright (1912–1996). 3 See the riveting and unsettling book by Atlanta bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal Douglas A. These few are no longer with us. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Establishment of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (New York: Doubleday. no. Cambridge. Copher.A. of course. having loosened the grip of that hyper-racialized garment I was made to wear. R. simply the way things were and were supposed to be. 1947). “Isaiah’s Philosophy of History” (Ph. they have yet to be fully claimed and recognized. Because so many parts of society and the academy accepted racial segregation as a given. a revision of his Ph. unacknowledged) racialized discursive practices and politics that have defined it. Murray Branch.3 black membership in the decades past would have required the Society. They were not always understood by members of their own tribes.. They surely had stories to tell. Copher (Nashville: Abingdon. Biblical and Theological Issues on the Black Presence in the Bible (Chicago: Black Light Fellowship. as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century (Harvard Historical Monographs 25. thesis. 1946). C. . And the Society did not recognize them and did little to support them or resist the polluted status quo. G[eorge] Murray Branch (1914–2006). They were severely limited in terms of professional appointments. 1995). Recovery of Black Presence: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. “Christianity and Atonement in the Fourth Gospel” (Ph. with growing awareness of what I gain from the pioneers listed above. 1958). And. Copher.D. Now after having left “home” in that flatter sense of the term or. and Joseph A. Grant. Boston University. It is imperative that we recognize. Harvard University. that our sisters of color. Black Biblical Studies: An Anthology of Charles B. The essays in Darkwater are said to represent Du Bois’s most mature. 1970). not symbolic or obfuscating games around methods and approaches. B. Significations: Signs. McClurg.8 he looks back on an incident from his youthful years when he was a slave. his 1845 Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. E. Long. 7 The subtitle of W. The incident was seemingly a recurring one. 1986). and Images in the Interpretation of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 9 and through engagement of that fraught period of contact as an intense excavation of consciousness. without coming to terms with the first contact—between the West and the rest. Du Bois’s collection of essays entitled Darkwater: Voices from the Veil (New York: Harcourt. cited as Narrative. The subtitle represents a theme that is taken up in his most famous work The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches (Chicago: A. 4. In his first autobiographical work. 1996). the West and the Others—and its perduring toxic and blinding effects and consequences. I have given myself permission to conjure one of those booming haunting voices from an earlier moment and situation from the period of first contact. 1920). 1996). writings. with introduction by William L. a voice belonging to one among those peoples heavily “signified. All subsequent references to Douglass’s text. characterized by the meta-racism5 that marks the relationship between Europeans and Euro-Americans and peoples of color. See Manning Marable’s introduction to the Dover Thrift Edition (Mineola. certainly some of his more sharp-edged. the recently escaped and young but emerging lion-voiced 5 6 See Joel Kovel. See Charles H. I stand before you this evening with yet another challenge. pointed one for narratological effect. The challenge remains for this Society and all collectivities of critical interpreters in general to engage in persistent and protracted struggle. but he makes the reader experience it as a singular. Frederick Douglass speaks and writes his mind. Symbols. In addition to the persons quoted at the beginning of this address. life and death. It is an incident that Douglass. New York: Oxford University Press. Andrews. Brace & Howe.”6 one of the “voices from within the veil. imploring the Society—and by extension. What might it mean to address in explicit terms the nature and consequences of first contact for the unstable and fragile big tent that is our Society? What might it suggest for the ongoing widely differently prioritized and oriented work we do in our widely different settings and contexts with our nonetheless still widely shared absolutist and elitist claims and presumptions about such work? It would make it imperative that we talk about discourse and power. to come to terms with the construal of the modern ideologization of language. are from this edition. all critical interpreters—to start and to sustain “talkin’ ‘bout somethin’. . C. NY: Dover. an American Slave. slavery and freedom. especially black peoples. 1903). White Racism: A Psychohistory (New York: Pantheon Books. 8 In The Oxford Frederick Douglass Reader (ed. Written by Himself.”7 Unlike Robert Penn Warren’s Big Jim (referred to in his poem used as part of the epigraph above).” Here is the challenge plainly put: there can be no critical interpretation worthy of the name. They would compose and sing as they went along. 27–38. in the hyperracialized West defining itself over against the black world. and—as frequently in the one as in the other. “magician who makes the troubled spirits go away” (p. . They would then sing most exultingly . 1 (2011) abolitionist. . the works and discourses of such a magician would be translated as nonsense. the one who although technically at first “within the circle” (who as such did not/could not Douglass. What he touches upon and opens up in an astonishing display of romanticist and critical-reflexive communication are several issues that likely escaped the review of or were not (or could not be) fully understood by the Garrisonians. They would sometimes sing the most pathetic sentiment in the most rapturous tone. . in the sound. when leaving home. the slave singers. consulting neither time nor tune. Douglass himself. remembers and recounts for the (assumed) mostly white abolitionistminded readers.10 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.10 and third.9 In this recounting Douglass names many issues for consideration—subjectivity and consciousness. discourse and power. knowledge and the center. understand the deep meaning of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. so much jumbled mumbling. For his purposes. 10 9 . enslaved thinking. . those who if they hear the slave songs at all hear them only as jargon. This is the title of Ishmael Reed’s most famous and challenging and sometimes unfathomable novel (New York: Scribner. those outside the circle (of the slaves). nevertheless. The slaves selected to go to the Great House Farm. . words which to many would seem unmeaning jargon. came out—if not in the word. the world associated with the Great House Farm and all that it represents. Narrative. Especially would they do this. knowledge and centers. second. He names or at least assumes at least three different categories of persons or groups as different types of knowers or interpreters produced by that world of first contact—first. so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear. for miles around. Obviously. Into all of their songs they would manage to weave something of the Great House Farm. as “mumbo jumbo”. The thought that came up. 7). . those who through their songs provide evidence that they have some knowledge and some agency of communication but are nonetheless not allowed to communicate their knowledge and sentiment beyond their own circle. would make the dense woods. reverberate with their wild songs. were full of meaning to themselves. for the monthly allowance for themselves and their fellow-slaves . revealing at once the highest joy and the deepest sadness. especially those interested and invested in thinking about something—about the enslaved. Reed traced “mumbo jumbo” to Mandingo ma-ma-gyo-mbo. I was myself within the circle. . 1972). power and knowledge. This tracing suggests that which has meaning within a larger structure of meaning. knowledge and positionality. no. I did not. but which. the abolitionist patron/izers of the young ex-slave. These were issues that still offer pointed challenge to all moderns. critical and free thinking and interpretation. and the most rapturous sentiment in the most pathetic tone. when a slave. Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 11 know). the enslaving. New York: Grove.”12 to a profound understanding of the larger complex of slavery and freedom that defines and marks black peoples to be sure. outside the circle of slavery. like Warren’s buzzard. The splitting is traumatic. French original.13 Of course. Performing Blackness: Enactments of African-American Modernism (New York: Routledge. as reflected in his writerly self. it is not recognized or 11 See Kimberly W. “The Economy of Manichean Allegory: The Function of Racial Difference in Colonialist Literature. the former dirt and pollution. Douglass thinks in terms of “site” sanctioning “insight. later. and Afro-American Literature: A Vernacular Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 155. There is no escape from the consequences set in motion by that contact that was turned into violent conquest for some and long-term subordination for the many others. JanMohamed. Ideology. knowing. they can be and in history have been complexly intertwined. a way to run. Benston. Douglass’s wrenching passage about the black slaves he knew and the types of interpreters and consciousness that could be identified with them challenges all interpreters to seek a way out. Using African slaves to think with. as those who had fallen prey to a Manichaean psychology and epistemics: the world was understood to be black and white. 41. but nearly all of us in more general terms. They are imagined to be those who. lifted their wings so as to avoid seeing and hearing the others. Also see the discussion in Abdul R. begins to understand not only what the slaves felt and communicated but also something more. and passim. 13 See this argument developed by Frantz Fanon in his Wretched of the Earth (trans.” Critical Inquiry 12 (1985): 59–87. see literary and cultural critic Houston A. something about communicating. Baker. Constance Farrington. according to Fanon. To the three categories of interpreters I briefly turn. the enslaved. we now know more about what subtends such psychology and epistemics. we know now that it represents a horrific splitting of the self—into the blankness of whiteness and the foreboding threatening overdetermined markedness of blackness—and the hardened essentialization of the parts. First. Those participating in and profiting from the structure of dominance generated by the Great House Farm were understood by Douglass to be oblivious to the plight of others. 1961). Since Melville and other raging mad sensitive souls. 1984). They were also characterized.. Jr. and the runagate. yet there is justification for their isolation for the sake of analysis. in terms of types of consciousness and interpreters who are differently positioned—the enslaving. he begins with physical black enslavement as a way to the problematization of the “black (w)hole. . 2000). These categories I submit—and I think Douglass thought—are not always totally mutually exclusive. in Blues. the latter signifying light and purity and life. 1968. 12 For a fascinating exploration of this term and the phenomenon to which it points. 293.”11 that is. His analysis begins—complexly. emotionally—with those whose very identity as human agents was questioned and denied. head of the evangelical and corporatist Family Research Council. It was at work in Jefferson’s convoluted denial of Phillis Wheatley’s brilliant artistry. focusing mainly on Britain. 2010). and Save Our Lives (New York: Spiegel & Grau. . no doubt legitimized by the scholarship of our membership. The Politics of Language.cnn. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Wage Wars. sub-aristocrat whites—who could not speak properly. For a discussion of John Locke and the dramatic ensuing consequences in many domains and contexts in the twenty-first century in the United States. including our philological games. Briggs. Haiti and Universal History [Illuminations.17 It was at work when Tony Perkins. advance compelling arguments concerning Hegel’s denial of the universal implication in the Haitians’ struggle to be free and to establish the first modern society with aspirations to universal nonracialized freedoms. ed.12 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. it is part of the phenomenon of the “hidden brain. serfs and slaves.”18 Can we doubt that Perkins’s utterance comes out of the still regnant Manichaean world? Is it hard to see that in Perkins’s mind—buried far in that hidden brain where meta-racism thrives—there is an assumption that he and his tribesmen own the Bible and that they are invested with all rights and privileges appertaining thereto. 17 For general historical cultural background.01. with introduction and notes by Frank Shuffelton. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 21. part of the “metadiscursive formation” aimed to deny the right to public speech to any one—women. see Olivia Smith. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. among other things. 2003). see Richard Bauman and Charles L. 2004]). 1791–1819 (Oxford: Clarendon.”14 It results in. 15 See his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785. our work and play.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/14/acd. that conjure the ancient Near Eastern world as a white world in seamless historical development with the modern white world? 14 See the compelling development of this concept by Shankar Vedantam in The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents. no. 2009]) and Sibylle Fischer (Modernity Disavowed: Haiti and the Cultures of Slavery in the Age of Revolution [Durham.16 in John Locke’s “purification of language” project.15 in Hegel’s disavowal of the successful struggle of those black folk in SaintDomingue-turned-Haiti against their enslavers and the meaning of such struggle as the backdrop for his own theorizing about the dialectics of struggle between master and slave and the further disavowal of the meaning of this struggle for universalism and the turn to modernity. the meta-racist regime that pollutes all of us. NC/London: Duke University Press.html. New York: Penguin Books. 16 Susan Buck-Morss (Hegel. 1984). meaning control of the discourses about the Bible? Who cannot see that behind his outburst were exegetical arguments. 18 See http://archives. 1999). 1 (2011) acknowledged. declared on CNN in the heat of the last presidential election with great authority and without a whiff of qualification—much like Warren’s buzzard—that the jeremiads of the urban black pastor named Jeremiah Wright against corporatist and racializing/racist “America” were simply “unscriptural. infects our discourses. Control Markets. so deserves no hearing. The history.22 we see the racialized and gendered but otherwise unmarked writer/inscriber/historian of the world and interpreter of events and truth. 1999). 19 . 246. has been powerfully imaged in the frontispiece to Jesuit scholar Joseph-François Lafitau’s 1724 multivolume work Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains comparées aux moeurs des premiers temps (see next page). or feel. She is complexly situated—in relationship to the anthropomorphized Father time and death. Manichean Psychology: Racism and the Minds of People of African Descent (Washington. think. Blank Darkness: Africanist Discourse in French (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. much less understand. Having to make black always signify the same thing—always signify the negative—represents a tremendous psychosocial and intellectual commitment and burden.19 It is arguable that it is no longer possible for those who are subject to such a construction or regime to argue freely what they see. not in purified language. But Europeans can and should inscribe the Other into reality and interpret and interpellate them. She writes about the truth as Europeans must see it. infecting all peoples. Like the poignantly named Nehemiah who “writes up” Dessa in See Camara Jules P.20 This mentality of denial and disavowal. like the woman in Lafitau’s frontispiece representing Euro-America or the West writing up the Rest—can hardly see or hear. from this or that world of savagery. at least. So notice along the bottom of the image the objects. and Writing (ed. “Writing vs. trinkets. the truth that is to be told about these “savages” and “primitives” must now be told in the terms of the method of bricolage—assembling.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 13 These and other such examples of disavowals and tortured silences and twisted arguments and declarations reflect the pollution and veiling of the humanity and consciousness that is the Manichaean psychology and epistemics. see Christopher L. DC: Howard University Press. Miller. 21 Paris: Saugrain l’aine et Charles Etienne Hochereau. know it. 1980). for discussion of the way black peoples have been infected. Harrell. 20 On this point. the most trenchant reflection of the Manichaean psychology. The “savage” is assumed not to be able to communicate. Myth. in order to place the Others within the canonical framework that reflects Manichaean psychology and epistemics. Marie-Rose Logan and John Frederick Logan. representing the Others. demands no respectful gaze. Who enslaves whom? Douglass implied that those far outside the circle—those in some respect participating in the ways of the Great House Farm. She writes within and for the larger framework that is Europe ascendant. fetishes. 1985).” in Rethinking History: Time. New Haven: Yale University Press. Time: History and Anthropology in the Works of Lafitau. the Rest represented by the slaves. tell it. this or that thing. 22 See Certeau. 1724.21 Following Michel de Certeau’s interpretive glosses. Yale French Studies 59. But she must write in order to clarify in light of the contact with the Others and the changes in the world how now things must mean. those who. choosing this and that part. gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbfr&fileName=0013/ rbfr0013. Scotin.The image that appears on p. 14 of the print edition of JBL Frontispiece to the 1724 edition of Joseph-François Lafitau.loc. B.db&recNum=7&itemLink=r . Moeurs de sauvages Ameriquains comparées aux moeurs de premiers temps. Engraving signed by I. Bibliothèque nationale de France can be viewed at http://memory. 25 The language of Edmund Burke. 24 23 .”29 unrecognized and unacknowledged by others. Sundquist. Second. See Michel de Certeau. They were considered chattel.28 Slaves’ communication was reduced to an “anti-language. 1790). except in the way of the “swinish multitude. Their situation was not romanticized by Douglass. 27 So David Van Leer. and Vernacular Practice in African America (New York: Oxford University Press. Her gaze redefines what it means to see straight.” They were New York: W.24 The woman who is EuroAmerica who writes up the savages actually does not even look at the objects and symbols assumed to represent them. 1990). 3. They were denied the main currents of communication and social exchange. 1991). 1998). In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris (London: J. On more conventional history of conventional literacy among blacks. “Reading Slavery: The Anxiety of Ethnicity in Douglass’s Narrative. Eric J. Rituals of Blood: Consequences of Slavery in Two American Centuries (Washington. part 4. 28 See Orlando Patterson’s works on slavery and freedom: Freedom (New York: Basic Books. see Grey Gundaker. DC: Civitas. And on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event. 166–91. 1982. 26 On this matter of canonical or conventional discourses. 2002). at least not without some resistance or qualification. It provoked much reaction in England and beyond. William L.23 the writer makes up a truth. 1991). 29 Ann M. 10. In his view. “The Anti-Language of Slavery: Frederick Douglass’s 1845 Narrative. 1982). 1998). Hall. Diaspora of Signs: Literacies. Outside their circle they experienced little or no intersubjectivity. among others. Morrow. The Practice of Everyday Life (trans. and so it was assumed that they were unable to think. See also Smith. they were denied any but overdetermined identification with and participation in the world that was represented by the Great House Farm. “When I Can Read My Title Clear”: Literacy. ch. ch. like “science. to communicate.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 15 Sherley Williams’s Dessa Rose.” in Critical Essays on Frederick Douglass (ed. Kibbey and Michele Stepto.” a writing that represents a kind of violence done to her body. K.26 Douglass knew that the black enslaved could make meaning or make things mean.”25 They were presumed not to be able to read and write—at least. and Religion in the Antebellum South (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. but not beyond their small and rigidly contained circle. Dodsley. Politics of Language. Andrews. Creolization. found in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. 129. 1992). which provokes what might be thought of as the “anxiety of ethnicity.”27 This phenomenon was understood to be one of the most important meanings and consequences of enslavement. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge. Boston: G. New York: Cambridge University Press. MA: Harvard University Press. This is what Douglass called “unmeaning jargon. Signs of Diaspora. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California. Slavery. not in canonical/cosmopolitan European languages or modes.” in Frederick Douglass: New Literary and Historical Essays (ed. see Janet Duitsman Cornelius. the enslaved. The Journey Back: Issues in Black Literature and Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The Records of a Church of Christ in Bristol.31 The establishment politics of “church”/“religious” history has contributed to her being largely forgotten. they see only my surroundings. to provide the metacommentary for all that is to follow. Whatever may be said about the substantive comments made in it. themselves. Jr. of the phenomenon of the enslaved as the framed is found in W. Baker. Bristol. the most famous description. England. MA: Harvard University Press. . The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison provided the preface to Douglass’s 1845 Narrative. Perhaps. 1984). an eighteenth-century pioneer Moravian missionary and evangelist and founder of one of the first African American Protestant congregations in the North Atlantic world.”33 A discerning reader can determine whether Garrison ever really understood Douglass’s text. Her leadership was reduced to overdetermined categories—of appellation and sentimentality. see Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker.30 The evidence of the silencing and rendering invisible the presence of the black Atlantic and contributions is everywhere to be seen. The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors. In his famous Souls of Black Folk. everything and anything except me. Du Bois’s works. 1995). 2000).” Her well-known charismatic leadership in the establishment of the seventeenth-century radical Protestant formation that became the establishment Church of Christ in Broadmead. the world structured around Ralph Ellison. This is an example of enslavement as a kind of “framework. B.16 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1974). He came to understand how slavery could continue to work—way up North—as discursive framing. if not the final analysis. Note the woman known as “sister Francis” or as the “Blackymore maide. 3. Consider Rebecca Protten. New York: Vintage. as founding figure—and then flattened into a black pious maid. ch. She was by exegetical sleight of hand erased out of her rightful place in history. simply because people refuse to see me. Sensbach.. . Slaves. it is clear that this preface functioned primarily to “translate” Douglass. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows. Rebecca’s Revival: Creating Black Christianity in the Atlantic World (Cambridge. Commoners. Invisible Man (2nd ed. it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard. . 33 On Garrison’s persistent liberal-abolitionist paternalism in relationship to Douglass. 1 (2011) rendered silent and invisible. the Manichaean world. Douglass later severed ties with Garrison and the Garrisonians. 31 30 . later Broadmead Baptist Church. was erased by Edward Terrill’s establishmentarian revisionist history. no. or figments of their imagination—indeed. Ralph Ellison’s character in Invisible Man put the phenomenon in riveting terms: I am invisible . and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston: Beacon. . 148–49. distorting glass . that is. 1640–1687 (Bristol Record Society. 3. E.32 And Douglass’s own situation as writer is worth mentioning. For historical-interpretive context. 2005). 32 See Edward Terrill.. see Houston A. See Jon F. He indicates that he has come to understand that the chief dilemma that slaves faced was not the physical domination. Enslavement meant being able to sing. not being able to communicate the complexity of sentiments and feelings. New York: W. 2006).. McKay. 35 See Jean Fouchard. A Faulkner Watts. Hidden Americans: Maroons of Virginia and the Carolinas (Studies in African American History and Culture.. He knows them. And in this part of the story about the slaves on their way to the Great House Farm. not being heard. 34 From “IX. See also Houston A. but only within the Manichaean-prescribed circle in which black was overdetermined as. Third. the Great House Farm. not being understood. Flight to Freedom: African Runaways and Maroons in the Americas (Kingston. running away with an attitude and a plan. Norton. He is a runagate before he runs away. Douglass distinguishes himself from the others who are slaves. among other things. ed. Jr. New York: Garland. and Richard Price. “unmeaning jargon. W. but the not being seen. 1987). He would escape it.’s recontextualization arguments in Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. perhaps.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 17 what he termed the “veil. Henry Louis Gates. It is as a runagate that he writes his first autobiography. and Nellie Y. a taking flight—in body. He seems to experience being in and out of solidarity with and consciousness about them. Collaboration & Betrayal (Granby. 1981). 1995). .. The Maroons of Jamaica. as demeaning as it was. Alvin O. ironically. 700. That he once occupied a similar psychic position with them but now assumes a different position is excruciatingly painful for him. The term is an alternate form of “renegate. Jr. he does not romanticize the situation of the slaves. The Haitian Maroons: Liberty or Death (trans.”34 As Douglass looks back to the Great House Farm. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. not being communicated with in broad terms befitting the dignity of humanity. Mavis Christin Campbell. 1988). meaning “fugitive” or “runaway.” It has come to carry the meaning of a more transgressive act than mere flight.” in Souls of Black Folk. but he is also alien to them. It is marronage. He registers acute anxiety experienced over the need to step outside the circle. the framed consciousness that is slavery. Thompson. 1655–1796: A History of Resistance. Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas (3rd ed. in The Norton Anthology of African American Literature (ed. but even more importantly in terms of consciousness.35 We know that Douglass literally runs away from enslavement. It is a scary place. Baker.” This was for Douglass intolerable. 71–82. Hugo Prosper Learning. and being cut off from everything—except. 1996). runagate.” is defined by racial division and alienation and ignorance that affects all: “there is almost no community of intellectual life or point of transference where the thoughts and feelings of one race can come into direct contact and sympathy with the thoughts and feelings of the other. It is psychosocial and discursive marronage.” from Middle Latin renegatus. New York: Edward Blyden. 1997). outside the framed experience. Jamaica: University of West Indies Press. Of the Sons of Master and Man. MA: Bergin & Garvey. . . . New York: Touchstone. Boni. a people intent on migrating from deserts and fields of enslavement to other psychic places. this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of the others. . .37 This self that Douglass began to read seems to be the result of a splitting of a different sort from. repr. having been given the “inch. of social and economic freedom. Taking flight. That other philosopher called Locke (as in Alain) in his 1925 edited volume The New Negro: Voices of the Harlem Renaissance vividly captured the impetus and drama of one of the waves of migration in the twentieth century: The wash and rush of this human tide . a deliberate flight not only from the countryside to city. 6. with high purpose. . The Blanchot Reader (London: Blackwell. his reading involved taking the “ell. was the watchword. . especially on the concept of “the work.” as he called it. .. and C. Du Bois continues to provide perspective.” 38 Du Bois. . The New Negro: Voices of the Harlem Renaissance (New York: A. the engagement of the Manichaean psychology. 615. of a spirit to seize. including those and more that were feared by the masters.” involving a much more complex phenomenon with profound consequences. . . the movement of the Negro becomes more and more a mass movement toward the larger and the more democratic chance . Learning to read had to do with more than learning the letters. It brought some of my relatives to this city and took some others into other parts of the country. but with great implications and ramifications for. but from medieval America to modern. running away. 37 See Michael Holland. ed. among the people who have become and whom we now call African Americans.”38 This remark is generally assumed to apply simply and universally to all black peoples in the United States. is to be explained primarily in terms of a new vision of opportunity.18 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. a reading of the self—a historicized collective self. in Gates and McKay. Douglass’s command of the text is like Maurice Blanchot’s notion of reading as reading past the text to something more or other. 1925. double-consciousness.36 The critical sign of Douglass having already become runagate before reaching the North is his acquisition and critical use of thinking about literacy. 1 (2011) There is a long history of this phenomenon of the runagate—long before and long after Douglass. ed. No. 1995). even in the face of an extortionate and heavy toll. 1999). in the several different respects of meaning and experience. His references in Souls of Black Folk to the term “veil” as a metaphor to name the nature of the construction of the Manichaean world and his understanding of the consequences and impact of such include that most famous remark—“. . The runagate not only involved heroic individuals such as Douglass but everyday collective folk who showed themselves to be a people on the run. . With each successive wave of it. a peculiar sensation . Norton Anthology of African American Literature. Souls. a marooned people.. This interpretation is questionable as applied to Souls: in the latter he was focused on explaining (to a mixed readership) those black folks who were phys36 Alain Locke. no. Kirkland.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 19 ically and increasingly psychically removed from the world of the Great House Farm and were now facing the negotiation of larger miscegenated worlds and consciousness. not merely a blending in literal/ physical terms. . with his limited agency and communication skills and timidity if not also perfidy. embattled.” he indicated. noting that the phenomenon was not guaranteed but had to be cultivated and exploited.” Philosophical Forum 24 (1992–93): 136–65. . with the more tangible manifestations of meta-racism—the slave system and its imbrication of Christian ideology. Du Bois understood that for such persons—like himself and like Douglass “outside the circle”—what was experienced most acutely is a splitting. but an independent self that is unstable. Douglass comes face to face. Although it was not Du Bois’s proposed analysis of or proposed solution to the problem. an opportunity and a gift to the black subjects and through them to the world. It was this splitting and the anxiety over it that Du Bois considered a paradox. and development”40—“there flashes some 39 Of course. those forced behind the veil. “Toward a Future That Has No Past: Reflections on the Fate of Blacks in the Americas. the debate about what this means or when and how this was experienced and what should be the response to it rages on. see Thomas C. He shows himself to be conscious of the tightly coiled constructedness of both worlds. But it also occasioned opportunity for Douglass to represent his confrontation with the world of the slave. his fight results in his becoming a subjectivity that was miscegenated. “Modernity and Intellectual Life in Black. hindered in their natural movement. more specifically. and Orlando Patterson. split from the violent framing. many critics of black existence have argued that enslavement has meant above all alienation to the point of the loss of a (“sense of ”) past and that only the future remained as basis for organization and orientation. an acute self-alienation. that “thick sheet of invisible . “The Concept of Race. 5. Douglass understood the fight with Covey to be more than physical contact. For informative discussion. 27 (Spring 1972): 25–62.” For larger historical and political-discursive context. in the form of Sandy the root doctor.”39 Douglass’s miscegenated and alienated consciousness led him to wage battle. expression. . In Covey. Like Jacob’s wrestling with the angel. . horribly tangible plate glass” limning “a dark cave” within which black folks are “entombed souls . somewhat autobiographical work Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept (New York: Schocken Books. so to speak. 130–31. ch. represented by Sandy.” Public Interest no. Douglass fights an existential battle: he fights against aspects of himself that have been forced to split on account of Manichaean metaracism. 1968). dissociation. Holt. In the end. “through all of us”—that is. see Frank M. and he fights the black side of himself. which derides and demeans and denies him and his blackness. It was the fight with Covey the infamous “nigger-breaker” that sharply reflected Douglass’s struggle with alienation and anxiety. This was what he termed existence behind the “Veil of Color. he fights the white side of himself represented by Covey and his absent father. see esp. fluid. African traditions. The forced splitting provides opportunity for cultivation of heightened critical consciousness: “Once in a while. . 40 See Du Bois’s mature. protean. a heightened consciousness of imitation of the other— with a difference. must be oriented “outside the circle. from the tight circle. B. So having psychosocially positioned himself “outside the circle” of the world of slave culture and outside the Great House Farm. His reflection on his own life story continues to be instructive. He was a runagate. Douglass indicated—in somewhat veiled terms—that his motive had to do with more than teaching letters—“we were trying to learn how to read the will of God. “Criteria of Negro Art. We who are dark can see America in a way that America can not.” Crisis 32 (October 1926): 290–97.” American Quarterly 42 (1990): 308–9. two complexly related text traditions. “Political Uses of Alienation: W. He had escaped from the cave. what Sandy represented in the world—Douglass had escaped. Before he escaped he started a secret seminary/religious studies program—a “Sabbath school”—for groups of slaves from various plantations.”42 this Scripture-reading practice reflected self-reflexivity. think for and talk among themselves apart from the slavers. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses (New York: Routledge. What might these arguments and perspectives mean for this Society? How could its discourses and practices not be fully implicated in and reflective of the Manichaean ideology and epistemics? In what respect is its epistemics different from that of Tony Perkins or Thomas Jefferson? How can the ever more sophisticated methods and approaches of the operations of its diverse members focused on a single text tradition or. . including what Covey represented in the world and in the same larger scene. like Perkins’s white Euro-American Protestant/Catholic ancient Near Eastern world? Douglass hints at a way out. He argues that the critical interpreter must seek to escape.” that is. 252–55. Printed in Gates and McKay. Du Bois. 1903–1940. some clear idea. E.” His own experience as a Scripture-reader is a direct challenge to us. read life and death. 233. He helped establish a safe zone within which the students could learn. slavery and freedom. about the life and times of Jesus or the prophets. B. no. Race. 753. 41 W. 1 (2011) clairvoyance. Norton Anthology of African American Literature. at most. that the reading of Scriptures in the modern world was a reading of the world as constructed by the splitting that made “black” signify in an ever tighter circle of reference. of what America really is.20 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1993). Du Bois on Politics.”41 In learning to read—not merely texts but texture and the world. 42 Michael Taussig. In direct opposition to the expectations and interests of the masters and as a practice reflecting “mimetic excess. and Culture. avoid functioning as apologetics—for the nation or empire and satellite orders? How can the Society avoid making and keeping the Scriptures and all characters in them white like Ahab’s whale. E. 246. 249. Douglass positioned himself to “read”—and help others read—the world as it had been and might be ordered. He knew that the reading of the Scriptures was hardly ever mere reading about the ancient Near East. must run. . the white man . 254–55. . with all the pain and trauma involved. as reflected to me. . Such sentiment and conviction regarding the relationship between alienation and freedom was powerfully expressed by Richard Wright: “I have no race except that which is forced upon me. . New York: New York Times Books. . facing himself. Mimesis. I have only the future. Pagan Spain (New York: Harper. Such “hidden brain” fundamentalism around which the Euro-American world is built is so deeply buried. He accepts himself as a white man from the world of the Great House Farm who looks and listens to the other as the other constructs and projects an image of the white man. in not running.” But being a god is okay as long as it isn’t excessive.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 21 Can the members of this Society claim such consciousness? Douglass was not so much reading Scriptures as he was signifying on scripturalization.. xvii. by this strange artifact . here is a challenge to a different critical orientation—an orientation to Scripture study as part of the human sciences with investment in critical histories that aim to make sense of what subtends the practices. He showed his understanding of the political constructedness of Scripture-reading and that such reading ought to result in talking and thinking about life and death. might they not take our power?45 Ibid. Image originally from Julia Blackburn.”44 But the impetus to run away. After all. 21. I have no country except that to which I’m obliged to belong. . 1957. the relations of discourse and power. so persistent. It makes sense. on the regime that creates and enforces uses of Scriptures for the sake of domination. who knows—in imagining us as gods. the forms of expressivity. He makes me wonder without end. that nothing less than shock can dislodge it. 1979. Richard Wright.43 he showed his thinking about thinking. 1979). Surely. . Note his reaction to such an image created by those associated with the Mabari shrine in Nigeria (see next page): He frightens me. to let go. . now. West now face to face with its-self . I have no traditions. no life. 45 Taussig. the . slavery and freedom. repr. 2008). . is not very strong for those strongly positioned within or benefitting from the Manichaean order. 44 43 . to let go: there is no advantage. xiv. The White Men: The First Responses of Aboriginal Peoples to the White Man (London: Orbis. “They think we are gods. according to Du Bois. so tightly coiled. it is . this African white man. Was the world historical power of whiteness achieved through its being a sacred as well as profane power? It makes me wonder about the constitution of whiteness as global colonial work and also as a minutely psychic one involving psychic powers invisible to my senses but all too obvious. . Michael Taussig makes of himself a poignant and painful example and lesson for consideration of members of this Society. Like Kafka’s ape ape-ing high-minded humans. Although a renegade member of a different academic professional society. I’m free. . . for the black self to want to run. . He unsettles. Such face-to-faceness no doubt brings its quotient of self-congratulation. 237–38.. power relations. Douglass’s insurgent seminary sessions and Taussig’s training in an African school of arts and social criticism suggest for the Society the imperative of seeing Scripture-reading as part of mimetic systems.22 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. no. How could the Society not be so oriented in the twenty-first century? How can we be students of Scriptures in this century at this moment without making our agenda a radically humanistic science or art. the mimetic systems of knowing we may call scripturalization? How can we remain a Society only of Biblical Literature and . 1966. performances. The critic should see his or her own critical practices as part of such systems and remain open to influences toward greater self-reflexivity and the destabilization and vacancy of identity. excavating human politics. 1 (2011) Photograph: Herbert M. Cole. discourse. .. 48 Robert Hayden. has given birth to artists/poets/ shamans/diviners who model the runagate and challenge us to imitate them. 292. the black essential—that has sought for several centuries to bind us. The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. In his poem “Runagate.Wimbush: Interpreters—Enslaving/Enslaved/Runagate 23 not of comparative Scriptures? How can we in this big international tent in this century of globalization not include as our focus the problematics of “Scriptures” of all the other major social-cultural systems of the world as well the older dynamic systems of scripturalizing of the so-called smaller societies? How exciting and compelling and renegade would be a Society of interpreters that excavates all representations of Scriptures in terms of discourse and power! Such orientation requires letting go—of unmarked or blank whiteness and of forced essential blackness. Performing Blackness. the model of the imperative of running for life to a zone of discursive and ideological marronage.” Robert Hayden has woven together perhaps the classic expressions and images of the black cultural sentiments regarding the runagate:48 I. 47 46 . Runs falls rises stumbles on from darkness into darkness and the darkness thicketed with shapes of terror and the hunters pursuing and the hounds pursuing and the night cold and the night long and the river to cross and the jack-muh-lanterns beckoning beckoning and blackness ahead and when shall I reach that somewhere morning and keep on going and never turn back and keep on going Runagate Runagate Runagate . in fact to run continuously from the cave into the zone of marronage.”46 a site on which radical translation and transformation are always to be worked on. a site where according to Ralph Ellison “black is and black a’int. They show us the way of the double-sighted. “Runagate. Runagate. after all. 1506–8. Benston.” in Gates and McKay. Clearly. But African America certainly offers the gift of challenge. 294. Those folk who have been placed behind the veil challenge all of us to run.. the claim need not be made that only African America shows the way out.. Runagate. 9–10. Ellison.. this tribe.”47 It means letting go of closed systems of cultural authority and of claims to be overseers of texts.” because “black can make you and unmake you... It means running away from all—the white text. Invisible Man. the way of those who know that knowing requires occupying a zone where there is “constantly shifting authorial consciousness” and the “piercing” of “cultural authority. On account of forced placement in a zone of nonsubjectivity. Come ride-a my train Mean mean mean to be free The folk who are dark challenge us to run—away from the feigned solid canonical self. That must have been what the song-poets meant when they crafted and sang: [It’s] so high. all “talk that talk” or “talk like dat.... need not. no.....” but we all.. . . you can’t get under [it]. for the sake of being a compelling force as a learned society—focused on the ultimate problematics of discourse and power—must start and sustain “talkin’ about somethin’”— about slavery and freedom. ghost-story train through swamp and savanna movering movering. Massey Sr. you can’t get over [it].. We may not. Cambridge.. So round. [It’s] so low. IN: Friends United Press. Lectures in the History of American Civilization.”49 down into what Howard Thurman called a “luminous darkness”50 where the process of the hard work of self-criticism can take place. MA: Harvard University Press. They also warn us that ultimately there is no other way out.. you can’t get around [it]. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (William E.. 49 Toni Morrison. The Luminous Darkness: A Personal Interpretation of the Anatomy of Segregation and the Ground of Hope (1965. 91. onto “the ghost-story train.. repr...24 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Come ride-a my train Oh that train.. 1992). Richmond. 1 (2011) II..” into a “disrupting blackness.. through caves of the wish. You must go right through the door. about life and death.. 50 See Howard Thurman. 1999). Wanted Harriet Tubman alias The General alias Moses Stealer of Slaves In league with Garrison Alcott Emerson Garrett Douglas Thoreau John Brown Armed and known to be Dangerous Wanted Reward Dead or Alive . Midnight Special on a sabre track movering movering. over trestles of dew.. ... See discussion in Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe. Ashurbanipal.2 In My thanks to Adam Ferziger. it is suggested. BEATAJ 42.C.E. 25 . Israel For over forty years the dominant view in scholarship has been that Deuteronomy 13 is a composition of the seventh century B. Klaus Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin. xxx. Levinson. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.E. 1 Formally speaking the treaty provides for the succession to the throne of Esarhaddon’s son. “Prophecy against the King in NeoAssyrian Sources. 162. 1988). engendered a gradual socioreligious acculturation in which Judean scribes assimilated and modified the structures of Assyrian ideology within the framework of their own tradition. 2 Bernard M. Edward Greenstein. Martti Nissinen. Assyrian cultic practices were present in the temple (2 Kgs 23:11). and to Bernard Levinson for his extended consultations. and Jacob Wright for reading and commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript. Remarkable similarities of language and norms exist between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the disloyalty provisions set out in section 10 of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon of 672 B. and the name of Manasseh. 2008).JBL 130. king of Judah. 138.C. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. eds. Cambridge 1995 (ed. In his editio princeps. 1998). “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (FAT 54.1 The claim has proven especially attractive in light of the wealth of historical data in our possession for that period that would seem to support the claim.ac.1.il Bar-Ilan University.. the kingdom of Judah was subjugated by Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13–18). 1958]) referred to the text as the “Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2.” in “Lasset uns Brücken bauen–”: Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Ramat-Gan 52900.” and I will adopt here the more common acronym. however. Assyrian domination. Wiseman (The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon [Iraq 20. Itamar Singer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. appears on the list of Levantine kings subjugated by Esarhaddon. D. J. and is often referred to more accurately as the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. no. VTE. 1 (2011): 25–44 CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13 joshua berman bermanj@mail. Yitzhaq Feder.biu. 3 So compelling are the parallels of phraseology. 168. The similarities between this chapter and VTE are so close that a deliberate imitation of Assyrian forms is nearly certain. see. Moshe Weinfeld. e. so clearly defined is the historical setting. de Gruyter. 20–50.E. I will attempt to demonstrate that Deuteronomy 13 describes a relationship between Yhwh the sovereign and Israel the vassal that Christoph Koch. Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76. the claim of a Neo-Assyrian provenance for Deuteronomy 13 has played a major role in scholarship beyond that limited to this chapter.26 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. “[Deuteronomy 13] breathes the atmosphere of Assyrian treaty documents. Mayes. paralleling the requirements for loyalty found in them. 6. Vertrag. I will begin by drawing attention to the sedition stipulations of the Hittite treaties that closely match the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13—which. 105. . Deuteronomy. 3 Noel Weeks. London/New York: T&T Clark. . 1981). 169. Deuteronomy (in Hebrew. 2008). Deuteronomy: Based on the Revised Standard Version (NCB Commentary. asserting the imperialism of Yhwh over the imperialism of the Assyrian king. Because the claim enjoys the support of epigraphic evidence. 4 Nelson. “Wahrheit und Intoleranz nach Deuteronomium 13. 2004). Berlin. the scribes of Judea were engaging in polemics and essentially turning an Assyrian form against their oppressors. 1 (2011) patterning the laws of apostasy in Deuteronomy after the Neo-Assyrian sedition stipulations. 10. My aim will be to demonstrate that in case after case we may see that the Hittite parallels are closer in content and in form to the laws of Deuteronomy 13 than are the parallels from the NeoAssyrian tradition.”4 In turn. many expositors have taken the connection as one sign that much of Deuteronomy as a whole was composed in the seventh century B. have been largely ignored by scholarship until now. Nelson. “Treueid und Gesetz: Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont neuassyrischen Vertragsrechts.” ZABR 2 (1996): 1–52. .. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Nelson speaks for the consensus when he writes in his Deuteronomy commentary.5 Indeed. and Juha Pakkala. Some scholars have maintained that the unit belongs to a postexilic redactional layer of Deuteronomy. no. Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im alten Testament (BZAW 383. . Moreover. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. that Richard D.” ZTK 92 (1995): 287–314. 2002). one is hard-pressed to think of another cognate text from the first millennium whose language and norms are so close to those of a single passage of biblical law. For these scholars.C. Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL. surprisingly. 108–70. 1999). 1993). Eckart Otto. Tel-Aviv: Davidson-Eti. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.g. Timo Veijola. Deuteronomy 13 bears similarities to VTE §10 because the tropes and formulations from the Neo-Assyrian period were still being employed when this part of Deuteronomy was composed. 5 A. In this study I propose that a more compelling backdrop for the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 can be located in the Late Bronze Hittite vassal treaty tradition. Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships (JSOTSup 407. D. H. Encyclopedia Olam Ha-Tanakh. Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 27 more closely resembles the relationship of a Hittite king and his vassal than that of a Neo-Assyrian king and his. The scholarship on this chapter has identified many phrases from the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition that resonate with the language of Deuteronomy 13. In the second part of the study, I will show that few of these parallels are distinctively Neo-Assyrian, and that nearly all have precedents in Late Bronze Hittite treaty materials. In the final section, I will consider the implications of the evidence assessed for the question of the dating of Deuteronomy 13. Before proceeding to a review of the evidence, a methodological note is in order. As I seek to discern whether Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles the Hittite literature or the Neo-Assyrian literature, I take the following to be axiomatic: the very fact that two bodies of material share a common element is insufficient to warrant claims of a hereditary connection between them or that they are the product of a shared milieu and a common period. For example, as we shall see, all three bodies of treaty literature under review here address the concern that individuals may be prone to have greater allegiance to their own family members than to their lord, whether that lord is a human king, as in the Hittite and Neo-Assyrian treaties, or Yhwh, as in Deuteronomy. The very fact that this is a shared concern is insufficient to posit a connection between them: political theorists have struggled with the problem of how to maintain the loyalty of citizens to the state in the face of loyalty to kin since the earliest political writings of Greece (see Aristotle, Pol. 6.1319b23–27). In order to posit that Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles one treaty tradition or the other, I will need to identify shared elements that are highly distinctive, elements whose multiple occurrences cannot simply be attributed to the universal nature of the human condition. In some cases I will be able to identify in these laws content that seems distinctive. But it is primarily in the realm of the written form of these laws that distinctions will be more easily found. Speaking proverbially, just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there are many ways to express the same basic law. Options abound for the varied employment of metaphor, phraseology, syntax, legal formulae, order, and structure. Because a great variety of formal elements is available to the composer of a treaty, the consistent similarity of form between treaty texts from two different cultures will highlight their shared distinction when they are compared with treaties elsewhere. I. The Primary Evidence: CTH 133—The Ismerika Treaty Studies of Deuteronomy 13 in light of Neo-Assyrian sources routinely focus attention on §10 of VTE (lines 108–22). The importance of this text for the study of Deuteronomy 13 lies not only in the fact that it exhibits several elements that find parallels in Deuteronomy 13, but also in the fact that it exhibits these parallel elements in high concentration, thus amply satisfying the criterion of distinctiveness. 28 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) I open my study, therefore, with an examination of a Hittite text that I maintain exhibits even more and closer parallels to Deuteronomy 13 and in higher concentration: CTH 133, the treaty between Aruwanda I of Hatti (fifteenth century B.C.E.) and the Men of Ismerika.6 Before I begin my examination of this text and its implications for our understanding of Deuteronomy 13, a few words are in order concerning the place of this text in the history of the scholarship on ancient Near Eastern treaty forms and the biblical idea of covenant. The publication of the main corpus of Hittite vassal treaties in the 1920s and ’30s paved the way for George E. Mendenhall’s groundbreaking study in 1955 that revealed striking similarities between the form of the biblical covenant and the form of the Hittite vassal treaty.7 This spurred a flurry of studies at mid-century on the relationship between the Sinai covenant in the Bible and vassal treaties throughout the ancient Near East. A voluminous literature proliferated around this topic in the 1960s, but thereafter interest in it tapered off considerably.8 This scholarship produced two schools of thought on the subject. One school, those who have followed Mendenhall, maintains that the stronger parallels to biblical covenant lie in the Hittite materials. Most scholars, however, have been swayed by the strength of the parallels to the Neo-Assyrian texts, particularly those found in VTE, and it is fair to say that this school has been in the ascendancy for the last forty years. As noted, most of the comparative work was carried out in the 1960s, and little new evidence has been marshaled since then to sway the debate one way or the other.9 The Ismerika Treaty was first published and translated into German by Aharon Kempinski and Silvin Košak in 197010 and thus went unnoticed by the Emmanuel Laroche, Catalogue des textes Hittites [CTH] (Paris: Klincksieck, 1971). Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Presidential Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955). 8 Among the major works of this genre, see Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963); Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Seminars in the History of Ideas; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969); Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); R. Frankena, “The VassalTreaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OtSt 14 (1965): 122–54; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). 9 For an assessment of the debate, see Moshe Weinfeld, “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World,” in I trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, ideologia, funzione (ed. Luciano Canfora, Mario Liverani, and Carlo Zaccagnini; Saggi di storia antica 2; Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1990), 175–91; Weeks, Admonition and Curse, 5; and G. E. Mendenhall and G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1179–1202. 10 Kempinski and Košak, “Der Ismeriga-Vertrag,” WO 5 (1970): 191–217. For the text see ABoT (Kemal Bakan, ed., Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri [Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1948]), 58 + KUB 26.41 + KUB 23.68 (MH/NS). 7 6 Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 29 great treatments of treaty forms of the previous decade. Interest in the general topic of treaty parallels waned subsequently and references to CTH 133 in treaty form scholarship since are scant.11 Indeed, the text would reach a wider scholarly audience only with its translation into English and, more importantly, its inclusion in a large anthology of treaty texts, in the second edition of Gary Beckman’s Hittite Diplomatic Texts, in 1999.12 The text is somewhat anomalous with regard to most of the vassal treaties from the Late Bronze Hittite empire. Most vassal treaties of that period are formulated as an agreement between two individual rulers—the great king of Hatti, and the ruler of the vassal state. CTH 133 tells of the Hittite subjugation of the region of Kizzuwatna, on the border of northern Syria. The treaty, however, is not with the ruler of Kizzuwatna but with the men of Ismerika, colonists from southern Anatolia who served as subject allies of the Hittites and assisted the local Hittite authorities in administration of the Kizzuwatnaean population.13 The sections of the treaty that are relevant to Deuteronomy 13 address seditious acts in the vassal territory (§§9–10; obv. lines 21–28):14 21 ma-a-an-ša-ma[-aš-]kán i-da-lu-ma ut-tar ku-iš-ki pí-ra-an [te-]iz-zi na-ašma EN MAT-KAL-TI[ 22 na-aš-ma-aš ap-pí-iz-zi-i a-aš na-ašma-aš LÚ KUR URUH} a-at[-ti n]a-aš-maaš LÚ KUR URUKi-iz-zu-u a-a [-ni 23 na-aš-ma-aš an-tu-uh} -ši A-BU-ŠU AMA- ŠU ŠEŠ-ŠU NIN-Š[U n]a-aš-ma DUMU-ŠU LÚga-e-na-aš[(-) 24 nu ku-iš ut-tar me-ma-i na-an le-e ku-iš-ki mu-u[n-na-]ai-iz-zi e-ep-du-an na-an te-ek-kụ-u[š-ša-nu-ud-du 11 21 If anyone [ut]ters a malicious word before you [whether it is a border lord, [.] 22 or a commoner, or a Hitt[ite o]r a Kizzuwatner [.] 23 or his people, his own father, his mother, his brother, his sister or his son, [his] relative by marriage [.] 24 whoever says such a word, no one is to h[id]e him, but shall rather seize him and expose him! Paul E. Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propoganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. Baruch Halpern and Deborah W. Hobson; JSOTSup 124; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 203, 210; Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 154–55, 164–65; Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 42; Markus Zehnder, “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 2): Some Preliminary Observations,” BBR 19 (2009): 514–15. 12 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.; 2nd ed.; SBLWAW 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 13–17. 13 Ibid., 13. 14 The translation that follows is an eclectic amalgam of the English translation offered by Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 15) and the German translation of Kempinski and Košac (“Der Ismeriga-Vertrag,” 195). 30 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) 25 If in the midst of my country any city sins, then you people of Ismerika shall enter it, and strike [that city] 26 including the men. You shall bring the conquered civil folk before His Majesty; however, [you take] the cattle and the sheep. 27 If, however, in the midst of a city any house s[ins, th]is house including the men is to die; the servants you shall bring [to His Majesty], 28 you take, however, the cattle and sheep. [If] any individual person sins, [he alone shall die. 25 ma-a-an-kán KUR-I A-ma iš-tar-na 1 URULUM ua-aš-d[a-a-i LÚ]MEŠ KUR URUIš-mi-ri-ka an-da a-ar-te-ni L[Ú? 26 IŠ-TU LÚMEŠ ku-en-te-en NAM.RAma MA-H} AR DU[TUŠI ú-ua-t]e-et-ten GUDH} I.A-ma-za UDUH} I.A šu-um-me-eeš [da-a-at-ten] 27 ma-a-an-kán A-NA URULIM-ma ištar-na 1 ÉTUM u[a-aš-da-a-i] a-pa-a-at É-ir LÚMEŠ-it a-ku SA[G.GEMÉ.ÌRMEŠ 28 ú-ua-te-et-ten GUDH} I.A-ma-za UDUH} I.A šu-me-e-eš d[a-at-ten ma-aan] 1EN LÚ-ma ua-aš-da-a-i n[a- The passage contains two laws that, taken together, remarkably resemble the structure of Deut 13:7–19.15 In §9 of the Ismerika Treaty (lines 21–24), the Hittite king underscores the responsibility of his vassals to show no mercy in the face of sedition. The case is quite specific: it does not refer to a case where the men of Ismerika learn of a seditious plot by a certain individual (a case taken up in the final line of the passage, line 28). Rather, it refers to a case where an Ismerikan is directly approached by an individual who utters seditious words. There is an evident progression in the identity of this individual from lines 21–22 to line 23. Lines 21– 22 suggest that the reproach is all-inclusive: the men of Ismerika must show no mercy regardless of the inciter’s class—whether a “border lord” or a “commoner”— or of his ethnicity—whether a Hittite or a Kizzuwatner. The list reaches its apex, however, in line 23. Here the vassal men are warned that they must show no mercy even if the agitator is of “his people, his own father, his mother, his brother, his sister or his son, [his] relative by marriage [.]” The phrase “his people” followed by an enumeration of five relatives, each inflected with the third person pronominal suffix his, is well understood. The Hittite king realizes that a subject ally, like the men of Ismerika, may be prepared to be a faithful ally when it comes to the insurgent deeds of Hittites or Kizzuwatners. But they will be sorely tested if the seditious words are uttered by their own kind, even their own kin, and hence the list builds toward those who will provide the vassal men with their greatest test. The law is unequivocal; they are not to be “concealed.”16 In this study I refer to the verse numbering of the MT. English translations typically render MT 13:1 as 12:32, and hence, MT 13:2 as 13:1, etc. 16 The Hittite munnai here in line 24 denotes visual concealment, “covering up” and is undone by finger-pointing, or “exposing,” and is distinct from sanna, “keeping silent about.” See 15 razed” (Hittite kuen-) which never has a juridical connotation and often implies conquest by an enemy. like the Hittite king in CTH 133 line 25.” where the Hittite word ak(k).v. repr. Deuteronomy attends to a case where an Israelite learns of a heretical deed by another Israelite (17:2–7).” 145–65. and the seditious individual (line 28b). 19 Ibid. s. The Hittite king.” The specter of having to annihilate the entire male population of a city would no doubt be daunting for the subject ally. Bernard M. kuen-.v. the sovereign king Yhwh Jaan Puhvel. As in CTH 133 §9. the rebellious city is to be “smitten. “Recovering the Lost Original Meaning of wyl( hskt )lw (Deuteronomy 13:9). As in CTH 133. that of the mutinous city.17 While §9 of the Ismerika Treaty addresses one extreme case—where the vassal is incited to sedition by his next of kin—lines 25–26 address another extreme case: where violent action is required to suppress an entire seditious city. it is significant that in Deuteronomy. ak(k)-..implies “being put to death by judicial sentence. Levinson has argued that the verb here means to condone. as in the Hittite treaty. Deuteronomy 13 realizes that a distinct law is necessary for the ultimate test of treaty allegiance: when the Israelite is incited to apostasy by his next of kin and must choose between his Lord and his family. the Israelite is warned not to “conceal” the inciter (wyl( hskt )l). the offenders are “to die. All of these elements are exhibited in the law of the rebellious city. “in the midst of my country. As in CTH 133 line 23. Hittite Etymological Dictionary.Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 31 The passage bears a marked resemblance to Deut 13:7–12. 6:191. the seditious house within a city (lines 27–28a).v. See Levinson. s. therefore. Only the first and most extreme of the cases. underscores his authority to call for extreme action by asserting his sovereignty over the city. “Right Chorale. s. the men of Ismerika. Lines 25– 28 address three cases: the seditious city within the land (lines 25–26). Hittite Etymological Dictionary (Berlin/New York: Mouton. however. 1984–). 4:206–12. Deut 13:13– 19. from JBL 115 (1996): 601–20. the proscribed behavior is expressed with a verb whose basic meaning is “to conceal. . Either way. and as in the Hittite text each term is inflected with a pronominal suffix that underscores the close kinship of the inciter. be legally executed.”18 By contrast. .19 The law of the seditious city concludes with directives about how the spoils are to be handled. is formulated with an introductory clause: “If in the midst of my country any city sins . When the agitation is limited to these latter two. mun(n)ai. five relatives are listed in Deut 13:7.” in idem. however. the treaty differentiates between the action required by the men of Ismerika in the case of an insurgent city and the action required when the sedition is limited to a household or to a lone individual. The action required of the Israelites—to annihilate one of their own cities—is so extreme that. 1:17. Elsewhere. 17 While most expositors have understood that the concealment here means to shelter the apostate.” 18 Puhvel. .” Although lines 25–28 address three cases of disloyalty that appear to differ in quantity rather than in kind. . ek-. . one of your kinsmen.” to mean “any of.” Deuteronomy exhibits the same dichotomy. ” 2:513. . ruin’ . have assumed that vv. Not so.” 165. the inhabitants of the apostate city. . For particularly good examples of this phenomenon in Deuteronomy.k. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. which is used for “smite” in line 26: “Rather than physical massacre of the defeated mass of humanity. saying. Kyr(# dx)b xsph t) xbzl lkwt )l (“You are not permitted to slaughter the Passover sacrifice .”24 This reading of the partitive construction 20 Most expositors. Verse 16 opens with a doubled verb hkh hkt. “one of. 1 (2011) underscores his sovereignty over the territory that he wishes now to annihilate (13:13): “When you should hear concerning any of your cities. 10-11 involve a judicial process.” The appearance of the doubled root . IBHS. .” in the opening of Deut 13:13. Kyr(# dx)b Kyx) dx)m Nwyb) Kb hyhy yk (“If there is a needy person among you.” in idem. The verse should be translated. the Deuteronomic law concludes here by issuing directives concerning booty. however. . 252 example 11. 164–65) note that the call to annihilate an entire city is found both in CTH 133 lines 25–26 and in Deut 13:13–19. The directives in each text reflect the distinct needs of the parties involved.23 Finally. or “smitten. 10a calls for summary execution (see “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him’: The Text-Critical and Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10. In Deuteronomy 13. Treueid und Bund. has argued that v.20 as is the individual worshiper of foreign gods (17:5–7). which the Lord has given you to dwell in.” 166–93).” 201) and Koch (Vertrag. I note the use of the partitive construction tx)b. “Deuteronomy 13.n here is unique throughout all of Scripture and attests to the difficulty of the task at hand. The apostate relative of 13:7–12 is put to death through a legal process (13:10–11). as an incentive for them to carry out the mass annihilation of the male population of the city. 24 On the partitive construction connotation of tx)b to mean “any of. the vassals are told that they may partake of the booty—no doubt. “When you hear concerning any of your cities . however.22 As is the case in CTH 133 §10. see 15:7. it probably involved a combination of sacking. . ancient and modern. and 16:5–6. 22 Dion.’” Just as the treaty of Ismerika differentiates between individual inciters who are punished through judicial procedure and the inhabitants of a seditious city who are attacked. The call to annihilate the city (13:16) using the language of “smiting by sword” (brx ypl . In the treaty of Ismerika. both Dion (“Deuteronomy 13. it often refers more to a place.y. . . no. 4:211). hkh)21 is the language of military conquest routinely employed in the accounts of Joshua and Judges. killing and incendiary reprisals” (Puhvel. however. Levinson. 21 In light of Deuteronomy’s call to sack the city completely and set it ablaze (13:16–17). . . see Joüon-Muraoka. “Right Chorale. 23 In their respective studies of Deuteronomy 13. it is interesting to note Puhvel’s comments on the subtleties of the word kuen-. attends to any of the particular similarities enumerated here. thus ‘smite’ not in the sense of ‘strike’ (walh-) or ‘fight’ (zahh-) but rather ‘raze. The language employed here acknowledges the difficulty that the Israelites will face in carrying out this directive. and Waltke and O’Connor. however. Neither. etc. . which connotes an exhortative tone: “You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that town. the goods that belonged to the apostates become tainted and are banned (13:16–18). . ‘evil individuals have gone forth from your midst. .32 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. in any of your settlements” [NJPS]). Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 33 in introducing the case of the rebellious city is supported by the context of the previous case. In Deut 13:6–12, the Israelite is told, in effect, that any apostate is to be disciplined, even a relative. Deuteronomy 13:13a, on this reading, conveys the same idea in its language. Any city that spreads apostasy, no matter what its lineage or influence, must be disciplined. This is most likely the implication of CTH 133 line 25a, 1 URULUM : “if in the midst of my country any city sins.”25 Here, too, the context of the previous case lends support to such a reading. In lines 22–24, the men of Ismerika were told, in effect, that any seditious individual had to be disciplined, “be he a border lord, a commoner, a Hittite or a Kizzuwatner,” or a relative. In §10, the language of “1” impresses upon the vassal that any seditious city must be disciplined.26 While each of the parallels noted between the sedition clauses of §§9–10 of CTH 133 and the apostasy clauses of Deut 13:7–19 is impressive in its own right, what is striking about the two passages is their identical structure. That both treaties address the challenge of seditious relatives is, in and of itself, unremarkable. Indeed, later Neo-Assyrian treaties did as well, as we shall see shortly. What is striking about what we have seen so far is the overall structure of each passage. Each moves from clauses that address seditious relatives (CTH 133 lines 21–24; Deut 13:7–12), to clauses that address the sedition or apostasy of large populations (CTH 133 lines 25–26; Deut 13:13–19). As mentioned, the consensus of scholarship points to the sedition clauses of VTE as the inspiration for Deuteronomy 13. We may now revisit that claim in light of our analysis of CTH 133. The key section of the Neo-Assyrian treaty, §10, is contained in lines 108–22:27 šumma abutu lā tiābtu lā de 'iqtu lā banītu ša ina muh} h} i Aššur-bāni-apli mar'i šarri rabi’i ša bēt ridûti mar'i Aššur-ah} u-iddina šar māt Aššur bēlīkunu lā tarsiātūni lā tiābātūni lū ina pī nak(i)rīšu lū ina pī salmīšu You shall not hear or conceal any evil, improper, ugly word which is not seemly nor good to Ashurbanipal, the great crown, prince designate, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, either from the mouth of his enemy or from the mouth of his ally, in any of the settlements [that the Lord your God is giving] you” [NJPS]). Such a partitive construction is exhibited also in Akkadian, in usages of the clause ištēn ina. See CAD 7:276. 25 This contra Beckman, who translates here, “If within the land a single city commits an offense, you [men] of the land of Ismerika will intervene . . . ,” and subsequently “a single household” in line 27 and “a single man” in line 28. Although technically, the cipher “1” means “one”, it would seem that the Hittite king mandates the punishment of any offender in each case and not “a single” one. 26 My heartfelt thanks to Yitzhaq Feder for working through this with me. 27 The text and translation are taken from Levinson, “Right Chorale, 186; see there n. 50 for ” Levinson’s explanation of how his translation and rendering of the text relate to previous editions. 34 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) or from the mouth of his brothers, his uncles, his cousins his family, members of his father’s line, or from the mouth of your brothers, mar'ēkunu mar'ātēkunu lū ina pī raggime your sons, your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet mah} h} ē mār šā 'ili amāt ili an ecstatic, a diviner lū ina (pī) naph} ar sialmāt qaqqadi mal bašû or from the mouth of any human being who exists tašammâni tupazzarāni lā tallakāninni ana Aššur-bāni-apli mar 'i You shall come and report (it) to Ashurbanipal, šarri rabi 'i the great crown prince ša bēt ridûti mar 'i Aššur ah} u-iddina šar designate, son of Esarhaddon, king of māt Aššur Assyria. lā taqabbâni lū ina pī ah}h} ēšu ah} h} ē abbēšu mar 'ē ah} h} ē abbēšu qinnīšu zar 'i bēt abīšu lū ina pī ah} h} ēkunu On one account we may indeed see how this section more closely resembles the laws of Deuteronomy 13 than do §§9–10 of the Ismerika Treaty. The reference to sedition from the mouth of “a prophet, an ecstatic, a diviner” (lines 116–17) parallels Deuteronomy’s call to redress a heretic prophet or dreamer (13:2)—a parallel to which we shall return later. In every other regard, however, we may see how CTH 133 §§9–10 more closely resembles Deuteronomy 13 than does §10 of VTE. It is immediately clear that the laws of the apostate city of Deut 13:13–19 have no parallel in this Neo-Assyrian text. Important differences, however, between VTE §10 and Deut 13:7–12 are evident concerning the responsibility to discipline individual acts of sedition. As Bernard Levinson has argued, the family members referred to in lines 115–16 are but one group in a progression that reaches its apex with an all inclusive formulation: lū ina (pī) naph} ar salmāt qaqqadi mala bašû, “or, from the i mouth of any human being who exists.”28 In contrast, Levinson observes, Deut 13:7–12 sharpens and extends the family focus of the law, thereby addressing the special challenge posed by the vassal’s innate loyalty to his own kin. The contrast that Levinson draws between Deut 13:7–12 and VTE §10 can help us appreciate the similarity between those verses in Deuteronomy and the laws of CTH 133 §9. There, too, as in Deuteronomy, the laws are formulated with a focus on family members and the special challenge to the vassal posed by loyalty to his own kin.29 28 Levinson, “Right Chorale, 141. The same is true with regard to the place of family mem” bers in the sedition clauses of the Zakutu treaty. See ibid. 29 Deuteronomy 13:7 extends the list of intimate apostates to include friends or acquaintances. While neither CTH 133 §9, nor VTE §10 refers to seditious acquaintances, the concern about such friends appears in other treaties in both the Hittite and Neo-Assyrian traditions. See Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 154–55. Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 35 A final semantic point of departure between VTE §10, on the one hand, and the sedition clauses of CTH 133 and Deut 13:7–12, on the other, concerns the object that the vassal is prohibited from concealing. In VTE §10, the vassal may not conceal “any evil, improper, ugly word.” By contrast, in both CTH 133 line 24 and Deut 13:9, it is the inciter himself whom the addressee may not conceal.30 A parallel to the law of the apostate city is often drawn from the third stele of the Sefire treaty (III.12–13), an Aramaic Northwest Semitic treaty of the mid-eighth century B.C.E. Yet examination of that source in light of CTH 133 again shows the Hittite treaty to be the more similar to the law in Deuteronomy 13. In §4 of the Sefire treaty, the sovereign stipulates that if he or his offspring are assassinated, the vassal is to avenge the slaying (III.9b–12). If the deed was carried out by an entire city, then the city is to be punished by the sword.31 Unlike CTH 133 §10 and Deut 13:13–19, there is no discussion in this section of the Sefire treaty of what to do with the booty. More significantly, the case itself differs fundamentally. In both CTH 133 §10 and in Deut 13:13–19, a city is to be annihilated merely for the crime of sedition, or, in the case of Deuteronomy, apostasy. In the Sefire treaty, however, only vengeance for a city complicit in a royal assassination warrants such action. The Sefire treaty makes no provision for the collective punishment of a city suspected of sedition, as do CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13. II. Yhwh’s Kingship: Hittite or Neo-Assyrian? In assessing whether Deuteronomy 13 more closely resembles Hittite vassal treaties or Neo-Assyrian ones, I have focused thus far on the content of the laws and to, an even greater degree, on their form. But the respective vassal treaties under 30 An additional subtlety exists that likewise distinguishes between the Hittite and biblical laws, on the one hand, under study here and the stipulations from VTE, on the other. In both CTH 133 line 21 and in Deut 13:7 the addressee is someone who has unambiguously been approached by an inciter. Thus, in CTH 133 line 21, “If anyone [ut]ters a malicious word before you . . . .” Similarly, in Deut 13:7, “When your brother . . . incites you . . . .” VTE §10, however, is ambiguous, and does not state in the same certain terms that the addressee is called to act because he has been directly approached. The section may be read as an expression of the Assyrian king’s desire to enlist the vassal regardless of whether he was directly the target of sedition by an agitator, or whether he simply caught wind of a rumor. My thanks to Bernard Levinson for clarifying this point. Cf. VTE §12 (lines 130–46), where it is clear that the vassal has been directly approached by the agitator. 31 By all accounts, the inscription here reads brxb hwpt hkn )h hyrq Nhw. Some, however, wish to amend hwpt to hwkt, thus rendering a doubled verb and generating a close parallel to the language of Deut 13:16, brx ypl )yhh ry(h yb#y t) hkt hkh (Nelson, Deuteronomy, 173 n. 12; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972], 99). However, the issue is far from clear, as many authorities insist on retaining the inscription as is. Moreover, the verb form of hwkt is puzzling. See discussion in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (rev. ed.; BibOr 19A; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995), 153. 36 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) study here also reflect distinct ideologies about the nature of the relationship between a sovereign and his vassal. Highlighting these differences will enable us to see how the sovereign–vassal relationship envisioned in Deuteronomy 13 resembles the relationship of the Hittite king to his vassal more closely than the relationship of the Neo-Assyrian king to his. Hittite vassalage was routinely a process of self-subjugation on the part of the vassal. Autonomous rulers would approach the Hittite king and request his patronage or deliverance in exchange for their fealty as subordinates.32 Vassalage in this context represents a debt of gratitude. We universally find in these treaties that the Hittite king first acts on behalf of the subordinate and is then later repaid through the fealty that the subordinate owes according to the terms of the suzerainty treaty. For the Hittite king, vassalage represents an opportunity to use his political capital to build an amicable relationship with a loyal subordinate on favorable terms. This basic definition of the relationship between sovereign and vassal is reflected in some of the cardinal elements that are unique to the Late Bronze Hittite selfsubjugation treaty. These treaties typically open with a historical prologue, in which the Hittite king establishes the moral and legal obligation on the part of the subordinate for the favor bestowed upon him by the sovereign.33 As a party to a bilateral, if not equal, relationship, the Hittite king would be obligated to come to the aid of his vassal when necessary. In the Hittite treaties, expressions of affection from the sovereign to the vassal complement the demand that the vassal show love and devotion toward the Hittite sovereign. Thus, a Hittite king says to his vassal: “I shall not reject you, I shall make you my son.”34 The treaties routinely included blessings that were to be bestowed on the vassal for his loyalty. By contrast, Neo-Assyrian vassalage was fundamentally a relationship of dominion. In all cases it involved the surrender of the vassal in the wake of conquest or intimidation and an annexation of his territory, often followed by large-scale deportations.35 The Assyrian emperor viewed himself as the divinely chosen king of the universe. His rule over the vassal required no further justification, and thus Neo-Assyrian treaties make no record of the emperor’s gracious deeds on behalf of the vassal.36 Nor do Neo-Assyrian treaties record any obligation on the part of the 32 See Amnon Altman, The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassal Treaties: An Inquiry into the Concepts of Hittite Interstate Law (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2004), 132–38. 33 Ibid., 27; Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1181. 34 See E. F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi (2 vols.; Boghazköi-Studien 8–9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923), 40, no. 2: obv. 24. The passage quoted is translated in Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia,” JANES 22 (1993): 136. 35Simo Parpola, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh, JCS 39 (1987): ” 161 n. 3; Levinson, “Right Chorale,” 186. 36 Weinfeld, “Covenant Making,” 136. 135–36. Having demonstrated his commitment to the vassal. If it is true. P. then the king of Hatti shall question him.Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 37 sovereign to come to the aid of the vassal.].. the fact is established—that abhorrent thing was perpetrated in your midst—put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. too. Yhwh offers compassion and bounty to his vassal. Although Neo-Assyrian literature generally also knows of terms of due process similar to those found in Deuteronomy. the treaty between Hattusili III of Hatti and UlmiTeshup of Tarhuntassa. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute. the object of inquiry). 15. In CTH 106. in consultation with Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts. When rumor surfaces that a city has apostatized. but foreign to the Neo-Assyrian tradition. upon the latter’s demise.. 1980–). should they follow the difficult dictates concerning the apostate city (13:18). “if any son or grandson of yours commits an offense. Güterbock and Harry A.”39 with the same multiple functions of the Hebrew root for inquire in v. 7–14) (= KBo IV 10 vs.l. This.e. ask about (w. consult (with person asked or questioned in accordance) and 2) to investigate. pu-nu-uš-du. §1 (obv. Israel. Treaty between Hattusili III of Hatti and Ulmi-Teshup of Tarhuntassa.”38 The expression “the king of Hatti shall question him” is. 40 See examples from Neo-Assyrian letters and other literature of the period in Dion. Curse lists are far longer in the NeoAssyrian treaties than they are in the Hittite ones and are designed to terrorize vassals who would dare to rebel. Jr. the Hittite sovereign promises the vassal that. and his grandson after him.37 This fundamental distinction sheds light on the laws of Deuteronomy 13. in the original. or offer any blessings for loyal conduct. 9). In like fashion. question.means both “1) to ask. 15 requires that due process be carried out before action is taken (13:15–16): “You shall investigate and inquire and interrogate thoroughly. eds. The rationale for Israel’s vassalage to Yhwh as a debt of gratitude is entirely in keeping with the Hittite treaty tradition. if he is found guilty—J. The translation is mine.. is in consonance with the Hittite tradition of rewarding the loyal vassal but at odds with the Neo-Assyrian tradition. 109). . 377–81. he will see to it that the vassal’s son inherits his throne. where subservience is taken for granted.B. Vassalage is mandated not because Yhwh is the sovereign of the universe but because of the gracious deed that he bestowed on the Israelites in their hour of need: the exodus from Egypt. the king of Hatti shall treat him as he pleases. Verses 6 and 11 explain the logic of Israelite vassalage to Yhwh. 38 37 . “Deuteronomy 13.” That due process should be carried out when a vassal is suspected of sedition is likewise found in the Hittite treaty literature. Hoffner.. 39 Hans G.). vol.#. And if offense remains for him [i. The transitive verb punušš.40 they are entirely absent from the corpus Ibid.” 202. reflect any amity or affection toward him. the Hittite sovereign then says. The relatively amicable nature of the Hittite vassal alliance may explain an additional element of the laws of Deuteronomy 13. the law of v. one reason that scholars have been attracted to the proposition that Deuteronomy 13 draws from Neo-Assyrian influence is that the openness to such influence can be well explained. the political logic that girds the Neo-Assyrian treaties is the motivation of fear and intimidation. with slight variation. to investigate fully the rumor of sedition before taking action that will strain and perhaps even sever that relationship. . 1 (2011) of vassal treaties from the Neo-Assyrian period. Deuteronomy “scripts” the encounter between the apostate inciter and his intended audience. he seeks to foster a positive relationship with him. therefore. 7). The Hittite sovereign will not tolerate seditious acts on the part of his vassal. 13:2. no. that one will be under oath” (§16). . It seems. or a relative . Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof. with the apostate employing exhortative language is highly reminiscent of the warnings found in the Hittite Instructions for Functionaries. In each. As noted. . Yhwh will not tolerate infidelity. Because the sovereign seeks to intimidate the vassal rather than to ally with him. that the laws of sedition in Deuteronomy reflect a Hittite tradition (or some refraction of it) of a more amicable model of vassalage that served as a useful metaphor to adumbrate the dynamics of the Yhwh–Israel covenant. But the evidence marshaled here suggests that in Deuteronomy 13 Yhwh does not conduct himself with his vassal Israel in the manner of a Neo-Assyrian despot. . the Neo-Assyrian treaty has no room in its political calculus for the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Deuteronomy’s call for due process in the face of a suspicion of apostasy is well understood. A final note of distinct convergence between Deuteronomy 13 and the sedition clauses of the Hittite treaties is evident in the employment of a particular rhetorical tool in the protasis of each of the three laws of ch. but he seeks an amicable bond with his vassal Israel and thus sanctions punitive measures only when the party’s guilt has been fully established.’ but the one to whom it is said does not denounce him. which are closely related to the treaties in both form and content: “If a noble. the reader of the law hears the apostate’s words: “Let us go and worship after foreign gods. It is worth his effort. the law calls for an investigation.41 VTE also “scripts” the encounter between a seditious 41 For the text and a German translation. At the same time.38 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Both in the case of the apostate city (13:13–19) and in the case where an individual is suspected of apostasy (17:4). The scripting of the encounter. brings up seditious words . whom you have not known” (13:14 and. see Einar von Schuler. In patterning the laws of apostasy after the NeoAssyrian sedition stipulations. rather. By contrast.und Staatsbeamte: Ein Beitrag zum antiken Recht Kleinasiens (Archiv . a prince. let us join another (king). (saying) ‘Come. 13. the claim is made. the scribes of Judah were polemically turning an Assyrian form against their oppressors by asserting the imperialism of Yhwh over the imperialism of the Assyrian king. The relative amity that infuses the Hittite relationship between sovereign and vassal may explain the Hittite king’s willingness to engage in due process in CTH 106. with reference to Yhwh).45 In line 20 of the Neo-Assyrian Zakutu treaty. 26. “If you hear and know that there are men instigating armed rebellion or fomenting conspiracy für Orientforschung Beiheft 10. the vassal is warned.” in Neuere Hethiterforschung (ed. Moreover. 1957). . 94. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. 28). 97. lines 333. §§ 24– 25 and discussion in Weinfeld. Gerold Walser. Further instances where the Hittite vassal is told to fight for his sovereign with a whole heart (Akk. Deuteronomy 13 is often understood as reflective of a Neo-Assyrian milieu in light of the many terms that it employs that are paralleled in the treaty literature of that period. . 365. In VTE lines 266–68. See William L. The term “love” as a political term is attested also in the Mari texts and the Amarna letters. 42 The translation is that of Parpola and Watanabe.” as does that of the agitator in the Hittite text. the great crown prince designate .Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 39 agitator and the vassal. Deut 13:4). Weinfeld.43 In VTE. . Moran. however. and 14 opens with the exhortative “let us go and . the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya. The English translation here is taken from Moshe Weinfeld. see A. 45–49. 45 Translated in Beckman. your children. 44 Weinfeld. saying to you: ‘Malign Assurbanipal. .” UF 8 (1976): 383. 43 For the text. 79. the vassal is told to support the Assyrian king “wholeheartedly” (VTE line 152. “Military Instructions of the Hittite King Tuthaliya IV. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. On the relationship between the Instructions for Functionaries and the treaties. As noted. the key Hittite term here is genzu harteni and is equivalent to Akkadian rêmu. is found in CTH 68. 42. . “You shall not commit evil against My Majesty. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy. Wiesbaden: F.44 The same term. that in Deuteronomy 13 and in the Hittite Instructions for Functionaries the seditious remarks are quite similar—a call to the loyal servant to switch allegiances—whereas in VTE line 323 the rebellious speech concerns an assassination plot against the heir apparent. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. cf. 7. 1964). Take it to your heart today!” (§20 [D iv 19’–34’]). “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East. Alp. Yet the same sentiment is found in the Hittite Military Instructions: “Just as you love your wives. Einzelschriften 7. There the vassal is commanded. This matter shall be taken to your heart.42 Note. so you shall love the king’s business” (lines 30–31). 341. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. “State and Society of the Hittites. . Hethitische Dienstanweisungen. Cf. 32–33. cf. see S. According to Weinfeld (n. Steiner. “Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. ina kul libbišu) are cited in Frankena.’” (VTE line 323). and von Schuler. and your houses. Goetze. Deut 13:4.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87.” 141. the scripted speech of the inciter in Deut 13:2. as an expression of political loyalty (cf. however. 96. Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte. examination reveals that many of these same terms are found already in Hittite treaties or in other Late Bronze Age works. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Esarhaddon demands that the vassal “love” Ashurbanipal. 14. Esarhaddon warns the vassal that if anyone “involves you in a plot. see also p. Graz: Archiv für Orientforschung.” Belleten 11 (1947): 392. However. a diviner” (ina pī raggime mah}h}ē mār šā'ili amāt ili. in the midst. 48 On Hittite ištarna. in the same way that Deuteronomy 13 describes the apostate emerging from within “your midst” (vv. “Right Chorale. an element which has no parallel in the VTE. it must be admitted that apart from Deuteronomy 13:2–6. the three diviners in lines 116–17 of VTE do not have a law devoted to them alone. 15). It is unclear as well whether there is anything shared and distinctive in the very content of the laws under scrutiny here. 141 n. see Puhvel. it is essential that the diviners accurately foretell events (cf. In Deuteronomy. 1 (2011) in your midst . however. no. 6. None of the three terms used as appellations of the divinatory practitioners is a cognate of the terms )ybn or Mwlx Mlwx that we find in 13:2. It is difficult. 14. in fact. A gulf divides the nature of the divinatory practice in Deut 13:2–6 and the practices spelled out in VTE 116. see further Levinson.”46 The adverbial phrase “in your midst” (ina birtukkunu) corresponds to the phrase Kbrqb/Kbrqm. 81 and 191 n. For additional treaty elements in Deuteronomy that are commonly thought to be of Neo-Assyrian origin but. Deuteronomy’s call to discipline an apostate prophet or dreamer (13:2) parallels the call in VTE to report incitement from the mouth of “a prophet. §10 of the Ismerika Treaty reads: “If in the midst of my country a city sins. . 18:15– 22).47 Yet Hittite ištarna functions much the same way as does biblical brqb. “in/from your midst” (Deut 13:2.”48 Indeed. 1997). 64. 1–2:478–83. 49 The reason that CTH 133 cannot use the term “your midst” is that this particular treaty is addressed to the subject ally. 2. then you people of Ismerika shall enter it. and refers to the place of the sedition. 13). the Men of Ismerika. and strike [that city]” (line 25). . . the relative lack of treaty documents in our possession makes it difficult to 46 The translation is that of Parpola and Watanabe. 58. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press. see Zehnder. who are assisting the Hittites in their domination of the territory of Kizzuwatna. For Deuteronomy’s use of the root ” brq. lines 116–17). nowhere in the treaty literature of the ancient Near East do we find a concern that individuals will engage in seditious activity on the basis of noninductive divinatory methods except in VTE 116–17. rather they are part of larger list of potential agitators.40 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. to discern whether the two laws share enough that is truly distinct in terms of content and form for one to conclude that there is a hereditary relationship between them or that they share a distinctive milieu. have second-millennium precursors. . 47 Levinson. 132–33. Despite all these reservations. 12. But as Martti Nissinen points out. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.49 Finally we return to what may be the only element of Deuteronomy 13 that unambiguously resonates more closely with the language of VTE than with that of any other earlier body of literature. “Building on Stone?” 511–28. signifying “among. Unlike the diviner and dreamer of Deut 13:2–6. an ecstatic. Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 41 conclude that this was a concern that was specific to the Neo-Assyrian period. You shall not first take a bird oracle about it. These findings should not surprise us when we consider the broader context of parallels between biblical covenant passages and the Hittite treaty tradition. There are many aspects of the Hittite treaty tradition that are found in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Pentateuch that have no parallel in the Neo-Assyrian traNissinen. in light of the fact that divinatory practices seem to have influenced vassals during many periods. These include reference to the beneficence of the sovereign king as the basis for the vassal’s loyalty and the concern for due process when a loyal vassal is suspected of seditious acts. it is less clear that both derive from a shared milieu during the period of Neo-Assyrian ascendency. 43. 52 Pakkala. We also noted rhetorical devices such as the scripting of the rebel’s exhortation to sedition that have stronger parallels in the Hittite treaty tradition than in the Neo-Assyrian one. The phrase. Take charge of infantry and chariotry and be of assistance” (§16 C iii. Intolerant Monolatry. These include the laws of the rebellious city and the specific concern for the vassal’s loyalty when confronted with seditious family members. or rebelliously—concerning Yhwh.52 III. 51 50 . The phrase is a cognate of the term dabab surrāte— treacherous. 6 that the diviner is to be put to death because he hrs rbd—spoke falsely. has a long history in Assyrian languages and is not a distinctly Neo-Assyrian term. One other element of Deuteronomy 13 that warrants attention is the phrase in v. do not wait for word from My Majesty. however.51 To summarize. Yet. Hittite Diplomatic Texts.e. 77–78. Translated in Beckman. that someone has revolted against Hatti]. We have seen laws in Deuteronomy 13 whose content more closely matches the stipulations of the Hittite treaties than those of the Neo-Assyrian and other first-millennium treaties. the Hittite sovereign instructs his vassal thus: “If the messenger is unable to come and you hear about the matter in advance (of his arrival) [i. the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of MiraKuwaliya.50 To this it may be added that even in the Hittite treaty literature we see that vassals would engage in divinatory practices in order to determine their treaty obligations. In content. Conclusions The implications of the discussion thus far for the dating of Deuteronomy 13 are far-ranging and need to be assessed in several contexts. 12–21). it is clear that no passage in the treaty literature of the ancient Near East resembles Deut 13:2–6 as closely as does VTE 116–17. In CTH 68.” 160. disloyal talk—found in VTE line 502. One obvious setting is the narrow context of Deuteronomy 13 in comparison with the Hittite and NeoAssyrian treaty traditions. “Prophecy against the King in Neo-Assyrian Sources. we have seen that Deuteronomy 13 exhibits elements that are found exclusively in Hittite vassal treaties and not in NeoAssyrian ones. 291–94.g. and in Deuteronomy 13 are actually found earlier in the Hittite treaty tradition or in other second-millennium sources. Admonition and Curse. Yet even if we adopt the position that Deuteronomy 28 offers extensive evidence of Neo-Assyrian influence. 142–52. Chico. 1982).g.” 1179–1202. Instructions for deposition of the treaty and its periodic reading are likewise features found only in the Hittite materials and not in the NeoAssyrian treaty or loyalty oath texts. 1 (2011) dition. 1995). The historical prologue. and a case can be made that the epigraphic finds discussed thus far need to be seen in the context of ancient parallels to other parts of the book. particularly in VTE. e. 28. Thus. I noted that many of the stock phrases found both in the NeoAssyrian treaty tradition. CA: Scholars Press. no. such terms should be understood in that light. six have parallels found only in Neo-Assyrian materials. is a feature exclusive to the Hittite treaties. Zehnder. See also discussions in Hayim Tadmor. Vertrag. 54 Hans Ulrich Steymans.. examination of some of the curses that are shared by Deuteronomy 28 and several treaty traditions. Perhaps the most judicious conclusion to 53 See K. and in light of the parallels exhibited elsewhere between covenant passages and the Hittite treaty tradition. however. Blessings are matched with curses only in the Hittite treaties. Moreover. Knight.54 that argument can go only so far in terms of contributing to the present discussion—the dating of Deuteronomy 13. But one could just as well argue that in light of the Hittite influence evident in the laws of this very chapter. “Covenant Making.” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980 (ed. Koch. reveals that Deuteronomy’s formulations are closer to those of second-millennium curse lists than to those of VTE. “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historian’s Approach. Treueid und Bund. 326. . Weinfeld. See. Deuteronomy. A. Kitchen. and more broadly throughout Weeks. Kitchen. Moreover. SBLBSNA 6.” 135–39. Tucker and Douglas A. some scholars conclude that both Deuteronomy and VTE draw from a long-standing common pool of curse formulations and themes that are adapted to the needs of the moment. is but a chapter of the larger composition that is Deuteronomy. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. “Building on Stone?” 529–33. Of the twenty-five curse paragraphs in Deuteronomy 28. promises made by the sovereign king to the vassal and expressions of affection toward him—elements so cardinal in the Pentateuch’s portrayal of God’s disposition to Israel—are found only in the Hittite treaties. On the strength of the Neo-Assyrian influence posited in other passages of Deuteronomy. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Many scholars see this as evidence that these curses were incorporated into Deuteronomy by seventh-century Judean scribes (e. 2003). “Covenant. 283–94. including Neo-Assyrian ones. never in the Neo-Assyrian ones. Mendenhall and Herion. 203–32). with its emphasis on the beneficence of the sovereign as the basis for the loyalty of the subordinate. Gene M. one could argue that such terms in Deuteronomy 13 should be understood in that light. never in the Neo-Assyrian ones. Yet twelve of Deuteronomy’s twenty-five curses have parallels in second-millennium texts but have no parallels in Neo-Assyrian materials.53 Deuteronomy 13. Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO 145.42 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.. particularly the curse lists of ch. Nelson. though. By contrast. Proceedings of a Symposium. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji.C. and experts united the Hittite and Egyptian empires during the thirteenth century B.E. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence. should not be marshaled to counter the central thesis articulated here: that the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 more closely resemble the sedition laws of the Hittite treaty tradition than of the Neo-Assyrian one in many features of form and content. is whether the evidence is strong enough to mandate a temporal connection between them. or whether. however. 2004). in both biblical and epigraphic sources. simply. Aren M.Berman: CTH 133 and Deuteronomy 13 43 be reached about such terms is that. August 12–14. 753–54. in turn. artists. their provenance cannot be definitively determined. Hoffner. Winona Lake. 2001 at Trinity International University (ed. however. suggests a Late Bronze Age Hittite background for Deuteronomy 13 rather than a Neo-Assyrian one. James K. Rather.55 The lack of a clear historical picture. in light of the bodies of evidence on both sides. should not dissuade us from acknowledging the strong resemblance between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the sedition stipulations of the Hittite treaties. to mine the text of this chapter for a better understanding of the vassal–sovereign relationship of that period. no such resolution exists for our understanding of the origins and nature of Hittite–Israelite interaction. It is not credible to claim that the similarities between Deuteronomy 13 and the Hittite treaties are entirely coincidental. This has enabled scholars to read the history we know into the text of Deuteronomy 13 and. “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data.” in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. shared concerns are seen here to arise independently at different times in different places. Only the concern that divination could be employed for seditious purposes stands out as an element common to VTE and to Deuteronomy but absent from the earlier traditions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Itamar Singer. We know that Late Bronze Age Hittite military campaigns never ventured farther south than Damascus. We also know that a generous exchange of diplomats. The claims of Neo-Assyrian influence on other parts of Deuteronomy. 2004). 55 .” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. 172–82. See recent appraisals in Harry A. and that the author of Deuteronomy had access only to the Neo-Assyrian treaties. IN: Eisenbrauns. however. “The Hittites and the Bible Revisited. One of the attractive points for scholars of reading Deuteronomy 13 in a Neo-Assyrian context has been the fact that the history of the period— particularly Judah’s vassalage to the Neo-Assyrian emperor—stands out for us in high resolution. Another context in which to consider the findings reported here is our knowledge of Israel’s interaction with surrounding cultures at different stages in ancient Near Eastern history. Less clear. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. At what point Hittite culture interacted with Israelite culture and through what mechanism remain issues more of conjecture than of debate. Jr. nor from the Amarna period in Egypt.” COS 3:xxxiv. ritual. while state vassalage was practiced throughout the second and first millennia. the evidence of correlation between the apostasy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and the sedition laws of the Hittite empire should lead us to revise the long-held view that Deuteronomy 13 is a deliberate imitation of Neo-Assyrian forms. 56 Harry A. and cult matters—between Hittite culture and the Bible for us to dismiss them as coincidental or accidental. On points of intersection between Hittite culture and the Bible.” 172–92. “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage. that “there remain far too many points of similarity—especially in legal. . “Hittite-Israel Cultural parallels.57 Although the mechanism and the timing are unclear. 57 See the discussion in Weeks. although vassalage was pervasive throughout the ancient world. 6–10. written vassal treaties are extant nearly exclusively from the Late Bronze Hittite and Neo-Assyrian periods. “Hittites and the Bible Revisited. It may be that this reflects merely the luck of the spade.”56 A final consideration surrounding the dating of Deuteronomy 13 is the bedeviling reality that. This leaves open the question of how ancient Hittite forms became reflected in biblical accounts of the covenant between Israel and Yhwh. see Hoffner. This suggests that.. however. It is telling. periods in which we know that vassalage was practiced. that we possess not a single vassal treaty from the Roman Empire. 1 (2011) this resemblance should deepen our growing awareness. If so. and from which the literary remains are extensive. then the laws of Deuteronomy 13 may represent a highly refracted reworking of a tradition that we witness today only in Hittite material. Admonition and Curse. in the words of Harry Hoffner. the composition of formal treaties may not have been.” 723–56. and that in due time we will unearth more treaties from other periods and locales. Singer. Hoffner.44 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. no. 2 Leonard W. London/Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scopus.JBL 130. one can call attention to Jer 31:27. from Old Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian times.4 “No human being must see him” (ABL 128:10). and Akkadian. 435) and as an “absurd phrase” (p.ac. . in Aramaic. Roth. 1 (2011): 45 A Rejoinder concerning 1 Samuel 1:11 shalom m. in the context of the future procreation of humankind.huji. . Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 13 (London: Trustees of the British Museum. Thompson. an artifact” (p. no.1 “Aruru helped him [Marduk] to create every human being” (CT 13. King. in light of all the above. 1903). 45 . Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 16 and 17 (London: Trustees of the British Museum. to Dan 2:43. 1892–1914). )#n) (rz. 36:20–21. paul msshalom@mscc. 3 Reginald C.il Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 3 [2010]: 433–36). Thus. 5 Robert F. 139. not allow a child to be born among his people” (Code of Hammurabi LI:48). “Adapa.. Md) (rz. Aramaic. Mt. I would like to note here that the phrase is none of the above since it has clear-cut semantic and philological analogues in Hebrew. . In particular. where the expression zēr amīlūti (= My#n) (rz) appears with the explicit meaning of a “child/human being”: “May she [the goddess] Nintu . 4 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (London: Society of Biblical Archaeology. In Hebrew. 275:12).2 cf. a human being” (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16. 1901). 436). Jerusalem 91905. Israel Michael Carasik. 20:943). all referring to human offspring—analogues that heretofore have not been cited in biblical commentaries. which leads him to conclude that it served as “a kind of Tiqqun Soferim” for the original Myhl) (rz. refers to the expression My#n) (rz in 1 Sam 1:11 as “difficult . 1 Martha T. .5 Note that the expression spans the literary gamut. no. 1888–98). Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum (14 vols. in his article “Why Did Hannah Ask for ‘Seed of Men’?” (JBL 129. the phrase in 1 Sam 1:11 can be interpreted conclusively as Hannah’s profound prayer to be blessed with a mortal offspring. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBLWAW 6. Harper. examples can be cited from Mesopotamian literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1995). 16. referring there to interdynastic marriage. 2010 Code: 069022 H HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION H Henning Graf Reventlow Volume 1.95 978-1-58983-459-0 288 pages. 2009 Code: 060361 Resources for Biblical Study 61 Hardback edition www.nl Volume 4.New and Recent Titles THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: SBL EDITION M Michael W.95 978-1-58983-455-2 324 pages.brill.nl .95 978-1-58983-535-1 544 pages. Reformation.brill.brill.nl Volume 3.brill. From the Old Testament to Origen Paper $29. Renaissance.nl Volume 2. Holmes. From Late Antiquity to the End of the Middle Ages Paper $36. From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century Paper $49. editor Cloth $29. 2010 Code: 060363 Resources for Biblical Study 63 Hardback edition www. Humanism Paper $32. 2009 Code: 060350 Resources for Biblical Study 50 Hardback edition www.95 978-1-58983-460-6 484 pages. 2010 Code: 060362 Resources for Biblical Study 62 Hardback edition www.95 978-1-58983-202-2 256 pages. W.tau. Ramat Aviv. 1807).” in Eucharistērion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments.” JBL 47 (1928): 322–57. “Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. who considered the “discovery” a manipulation to push forward the execution of the reform. 1806. seine Quellen und seine Redaktion. 1971). He therefore argued that the “discovered” scroll had been composed not long before its “discovery. Ernst Würthwein. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. 2 vols.” ZTK 73 (1976): 395–423.ac. “Das Buch der Könige. Mai 1922 (ed.2 The scope of the “discovered” scroll is hotly disputed today. but the term “Book of the Law” must have referred 1 Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette.. Israel The story of the book (or scroll) discovered in the course of the temple restoration at Jerusalem holds a central place in the description of Josiah’s reform (2 Kings 22–23). L. 1:206–13. “The Role of Huldah in Josiah’s Cult Reform. 1923). Olms. In a dissertation written in 1805. “The Case for the Post-Exilic Origin of Deuteronomy.”1 Following his suggestion. 1 (2011): 47–62 The “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform nadav na’aman nnaaman@post. Tel Aviv. De Wette’s dissertation (published in Jena 1805) was not available to me. 1:168–79 (repr. an enormous amount of literature was dedicated to the analysis of the episode and its historical significance. Lewis Bayles Paton. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Christoph Levin. 47 . Halle: Schimmelpfennig. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2 vols.JBL 130. Hildesheim/New York: G. 69978. Handy. See Gustav Hölscher. de Wette identified the “Book of the Law” as the Book of Deuteronomy and pointed out the close correspondence between the Deuteronomic laws and the cultic reform carried out by Josiah.” ZAW 106 (1994): 46–52. Geburtstag dem 23.il Tel Aviv University. cf.” ZAW 96 (1984): 351–71. no. Hans Schmidt. “Die josianische Reform und das Deuteronomium.. FRLANT 36. 2 Scholars who dated the Auffindungsbericht to the exilic or postexilic period dismissed the historicity of the story related in 2 Kings 22 and its significance for the dating of the book of Deuteronomy.. Lowell K. The seventhcentury date established by de Wette for the “Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy) was accepted by the majority of scholars. M. “Finding the Lost Book of the Law: Re-reading the Story of ‘the Book of the Law’ (Deuteronomy–2 Kings) in Light of Classical Literature. Intention und Funktion von Auffindungslegenden. however.” CBQ 38 (1978): 293–302. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.” JSOT 30 (2005): 153–69. under different names (2 Kgs 22:8. Droge. 3. an author who claims to have discovered an unknown ancient source that contradicts the currently known evidence might expect the request to present it for examination by experts. presented to the king. with no such document in fact existing? Stott presents three Hellenistic and Roman episodes that relate how authors who tried to give credibility to their innovative historical works invoked ostensibly “discovered” old works on whose evidence their innovations rested. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.5 Yet how does Stott know that the three “discovered” books were virtual artifacts? After all. Eleonore Reuter. the so-called Urdeuteronomium. The story mentions the “book” eleven times.6 Stott’s suggestion that the three “discovered” sources are in fact artifacts that never existed is no more than guesswork. 24). 6 Wolfgang Speyer. 5 Ibid. “‘The Lying Pen of the Scribes’: Of Holy Books and Pious Fraud. 23:2. The majority of scrolls. See Jack R.. tablets. “Die Inventio des spr htwrh in 2 Kön 22: Struktur. 1993). The narrator’s emphasis on the reality of the scroll as the force that moved forward the sequence of events and its decisive role in the legitimation of the cult reform is in marked contrast to the suggestion that the book was a virtual artifact. Kultzentralisation: Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12 (BBB 87. Katherine Stott has argued that the “Book of the Law” never actually existed outside the pages of the book of Kings. Bernard Jörg Diebner and Claudia Nauerth.4 Was the “discovered” scroll a virtual work. For earlier suggestions. Further. . See also the series of articles in Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdischchristlichen Antike (ed. 16. 13. 4 Stott. 1970). Norbert Brox. 21. Wege der Forschung 484. “The Lawbook of the Josianic Reform. the legitimation of a historical book is quite different from that of a historical event. and books “discovered” in antiquity were real artifacts that were presented to the audience. Hence. see Paton. and that its mention is a literary stratagem to bolster the credibility of the story within its literary context. Arthur J. 1977). The story of Josiah’s reform relates how the “book” was discovered.3 Recently. Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike: Mit einem Ausblick auf Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Hypomnemata 24.” DBAT 18 (1984): 95–118. Lundbom.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 15 (2003): 128–34. we may dismiss her claim. History is replete with episodes that can serve as analogies to almost any possible theory. and would naturally prepare a copy of the “discovered” text. the presentation of analogy in itself does not prove anything. tak- 3 Some scholars dismissed the identification of the “Book of the Law” with Deuteronomy and suggested other identifications. 161–65. no. 1 (2011) to a pre-Deuteronomic early work. 213–62.48 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 10. 11. “Case for the Post-Exilic Origin” 340–41. Stott brings no evidence that proves the relevance of the three Hellenistic and Roman episodes she presents for analyzing the account of Josiah’s reform. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain. and later read in public. third. 337–49. “Egyptian Writings in Foundation Walls. 1997). 73–75.9 Nevertheless. The “Discovery” of Scrolls and Tablets in the Ancient Near East The manipulation of texts for political and propagandistic purposes as well as the “discovery” of texts in order to legitimize a present claim were well known in the ancient Near East long before Josiah’s reform. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard ” Otto. “Alte Schriften.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 29 (1907): 232–42. and the Age of the Book of Deuteronomy. 2 Chr 34).” in The Egyptians (ed. These three scholars assumed that the statements in the Egyptian documents were authentic. the distribution of “discovery” stories in the ancient Near East and its bearing on the biblical story. For a different opinion. such as in boxes under the feet of a god in a temple. there are plenty of clear cases of “pious frauds” throughout Egyptian history. in archives. 7 This conclusion rests on the assumption that Josiah’s reform was a historical event and that the account in 2 Kings 22–23 describes it in a fairly reliable outline.E.7 In what follows I will examine in detail three important points pertaining to the finding of the scroll and the function of the “discovery” in the story of Josiah’s reform: first.” ZAW 28 (1908): 291–302. I. and yet the text might in fact be old and copied many times in the past. “Scribes. 2 above. Sergio Donadoni. the verification of discovered artifacts by way of a divine oracle. see the works cited in n. 9 Jurgen Osing. in sarcophagi. and it is not surprising that Egyptologists were the first to suggest analogies to the discovery of the “Book of the Law. as the god was said to bestow sanctity on the “discovered” document. second. 10 Alessandro Roccati. and they used this assumption to corroborate the authenticity of the story in 2 Kings 22.”8 Differentiating between late copies of very old texts and forgeries is sometimes difficult. as a late copyist might have deliberately archaized the sign forms and updated the lexicon of texts in order to make an impression of antiquity.10 Under the feet of a god was the preferred location. 8 Edouard Naville.. 7 vols. Johannes Herrmann. 1:149–54. the legitimation the scroll bestowed on the cult reform.Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 49 ing as a point of departure for this discussion the commonly held assumption that the “discovered” scroll was a real artifact presented to the king and literati of Judah. .C.” BZ 9 (1911): 230–43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. “Ägyptische Analogien zum Funde des Deuteronomiums. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. “Die ägyptischen und keilschriftlichen Analogien zum Funde des Codex Helciae (4 Kg 22 u. Lexikon der Ägyptologie (ed. and. Sebastian Euringer. and in graves. Let me illustrate it through a few examples from the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia in the second and first millennia B. Writing on papyrus was common to Egypt and Judah. 1972–92). Scrolls were claimed to have been “discovered” at sites where scrolls had been regularly deposited. and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press.” in ANET. Rolf Krauss. 399. “Wie jung ist die memphitische Philosophie auf dem Shabaqo-Stein?” in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F.c. SAOC 58. Wilson. see Naville. . Denkmals memphitischer Theologie oder des Beitrag der ägyptischen Theologie zur Geistesgeschichte der Spätzeit.” 74. Ulrich Luft. worm-eaten and unknown from beginning to end. Berlin: Bruno Hessling. 1 (2011) Following are a few examples that much precede the “discovered” scroll of the time of Josiah. no.” COS 1:21–23.e. “Zur Fehldatierung des sog. “Ägyptische Analogien. the king claimed to have copied it anew on a stone after he found it “as something that the predecessors had made. “Scribes.” 495a. “Zur Einleitung der Liebesgedichte auf Papyrus Chester Beatty I ro XVI 9ff.” 232–36. 721–706 b. Redford. Teil 1. 1999).” 110–11.. Frank T. Larson. For earlier discussions of the sixtyfourth chapter of the Book of the Dead. The other.11 Two medical papyri claim an origin in the early third millennium b. 62). 21–25. the papyrus was found under the feet of the god Thoth and is dated to the time of Mykerinos.” 299–301. Egypt. written in the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Miosi. 1969). war immer ein Grundpfeiler des ägyptischen Geisteslebens. “Das Verhältnis zur Tradition in der frühen Ramessidenzeit: Ein Vergleich zwischen dem Gefässbuch im Papyrus Ebers und dem Berliner medizinischen Handbuch. “From the ‘Memphite Theology’. Wente (ed. Roccati. Allen. “Ägyptischen und keilschriftlichen Analogien. Canaan. 1992). 14 Wilson.e. “Authority of Ancient Documents. 239–46. 15 Friedrich Junge. written in the Ramesside period.” It was brought to Senedj.13 A third medical papyrus of the Twenty-first Dynasty states that the papyrus was brought to Khufu. “The Authority of Ancient Documents.” 231–37.” ABD 4:691–92. Luft. Luft demonstrated that “[d]er Grundsatz von der Güte des Alten . Posthume Quellen über die Könige der ersten vier Dynastien (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 17. Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt. James P. was found “among old writings in a box containing documents under the feet of Anubis in Leontopolis in the time of King Usaphais. In the introduction to the text. Herrmann.50 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. king of the First Dynasty.” MDAI 29 (1973): 195– 204.c. 13 For a detailed comparison of the two medical papyri. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 495a. it was “discovered” under a wall and is dated to the time of King Usaphais of the First Dynasty. Emily Teeter and John A. ruler of the Fourth Dynasty. .”15 The veracity of the statement has been called 11 Dietrich Wildung.) of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. “Egyptian Writings. “Zur Einleitung. According to the second. Donald B. According to one introduction. king of the Second Dynasty. was found “under the feet of Anubis in Leontopolis” and was brought to Usaphais. das sich von Anfang an im steigenden Masse der Tradition verpflichtet fühlte” (p. 12 John A. .” ZÄS 99 (1973): 111. On the sarcophagus of Queen Mentuhotep of the Egyptian Thirteenth Dynasty appear the two introductory statements of the longer and shorter versions of the sixty-fourth chapter of the Book of the Dead. see Ulrich Luft. a king of the Fourth Dynasty.12 One of them.” Forschungen und Berichte 14 (1972): 59–71.14 The inscription called the “Memphite Theology” was found on a block that dates to the reign of Shabaka (ca. Euringer. “Memphite Theology. with earlier literature. J. the date of the inscription remains uncertain. and how. Woods. Several old inscriptions have been found in the course of the excavations carried out by Nabonidus.” Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. The mold with the inscription was recently studied in great detail by Christopher Woods. See also Victor A. Quaegebeur. 18 For Nabonidus’s excavations at the sites of Babylonian temples. see Godefroy Goossens. including a binding obligation to sustain the temple in the future. Der Gott Tatenen: Nach Texten und Bildern des Neuen Reiches (OBO 29. Leuven: Peeters. who tried to restore Memphis to its former glory. The latter was written by King Nabu-apla-iddina (887–855 b. Historiography in the Cuneiform World (ed. 421–33. 29–40.Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 51 into question. should the dating to the time of Shabaka be proven correct. Hurowitz. T. Krauss. The discovery of the inscriptions is the result of the king’s restoration work. .18 The excavations were undertaken in an effort to discover the earliest foundations of the temples. Friedrich Junge suggested that there was a deliberate archaizing of the language as part of the political propaganda of the rulers of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.) and relates how the statue of Shamash disappeared for a long time. Paul-Alain Beaulieu. and Rolf Krauss recently suggested that it was written no earlier than the second century b. “Le rituel comme moyen de légitimation politique au 1er millénaire en Mésopotamie. “Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon. Egypt. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. 17 Schlögl. “Zur Fehldatierung.” 195–204. 199. “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited.). 1993). Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings (3 vols.16 Hermann A. 110–17. 1980). “Memphitische Philosophie. how the model of the old statue was discovered on the bank of the Euphrates.e.” 23–44. 1973–80). Abusch et al. Christopher E.c. 19 Woods. King of Babylon (BBSt 36)” (in Hebrew). idem.” Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 28 (1994): 37–42. “The Sun-Disk Tablet of Nebobaladan. not the main objective of the dig. on the basis of this model. Among the discovered artifacts was a box that contained a stone model of the image of Shamash engraved side by side with an inscription. The inscription ends with a long list of rich endowments that the grateful king conferred on the temple and priests of Ebabbar. “Les recherches historiques à l’époque Néo-Babylonienne. OLA 55. “Sun-God Tablet. Philippe Talon. “Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Berkeley: University of California Press.. ErIsr 27 (2003): 91–109. Redford.” RA 42 (1948): 149–59.. so that new temples could be built on the exposed original foundations. the Memphite Theology is an example of a “pious fraud” that antedated by less than a century the “finding” of the “Book of the Law” in Jerusalem.” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991 (ed. 2001).c. who demonstrated that it is an original artifact of the first half of the ninth century. Bethesda: CDL.” 239–46. king of Babylonia (555–539 b. Miriam Lichtheim. Schlögl dated the text to the time of Ramesses II. 3:5.c.” JCS 56 (2004): 23–103. Yet.17 At present. idem. part 1. Canaan. “The Abduction of Ištar from the Eanna Temple: The Changing Memory of an Event. the statue of Shamash was created and set up in the temple of the sun god.” ErIsr 27 (2003): 1*–9*.e.19 Woods suggests that the model was prepared by the 16 Junge.e. “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestalt bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200.” Iraq 56 (1994): 139–48. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake. “The Cruciform Monument. “The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice (with an Appendix by Miguel Civil). Materials and Studies for Kassite History (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. M. 320–26. no. describing the rich endowment the king gave to the E-namzu temple of the goddess Nintu. Moreover. Gelb. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography.” in From the Upper to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. and Babylon. 1 (2011) priests of Ebabbar on the basis of artistic artifacts held in the treasury of the temple and was presented to the king with a concocted story of how the mold was discovered. which lists the gifts donated to the temple.22 The authenticity of the Agum Kakrime inscription. possibly even in the late second millennium b. Frame. Son of Sargon: Ancient History. George. 1–5. 23 John A.24 Finally. including the details of the rich endowment and privileges conferred by the grateful king on the temple and its personnel. On the one hand. Edmond Sollberger. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography. is a late forgery of the Neo-Babylonian period. written at various stages in Mesopotamia’s history. is fictional. Some have suggested that its first part is mainly authentic and only its second part.e. is disputed among scholars.” 42–43.20 On the basis of the mold.” ZA 42 (1934): 40–47. G. the mold might be considered a forgery. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 101. 83–88. The pleased king rewarded the temple and priests with a rich endowment and privileges. in order to claim exemptions from obligations for the citizens of Sippar. Longman. Longman. the high priest fashioned a new cult statue of Shamash. “Narām-Sîn. “Tablets from the Sippar Library.. Biggs. with earlier literature. is a forgery. Al-Rawi and Andrew R. 2004). the Kurigalzu endowment to the temple of Eanna of Uruk is also a late forgery.21 The inscription was probably inscribed in the Old Babylonian period and is much older than all other forged Mesopotamian inscriptions. Marvin A. 79–83. 97. Robert D.” in Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. III: The Royal Counterfeits. which lists gifts to the temple of Esagila in Babylon. some inscriptions discovered in Mesopotamia are forgeries. Longman. see Ignace J. 92. H. 25 Gelb. Powell. Brinkman. is genuine.” 348 n. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography. IN: Eisenbrauns. Nippur. Tremper Longman III.” JNES 8 (1949): 346–48. Farouk N. Hans Gustav Güterbock. 21 20 .” ZA 81 (1991): 20–30. and a Famous Babylonian Forgery. “Cruciform Monument. with earlier literature.c. Family Names. A Sumerian text attributed to the third-millennium king Lugal-anne-mundu. 1991). 88–91.K. 22 Erica Reiner. 1976). But on the other hand. which donates privileges and increased incomes to Ebabbar in Sippar. Diakonoff (Warminster: Aris & Phillips 1982). 12. the royal inscription. “The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel as a Political Forgery.23 The Cruciform Monument of Maništušu. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. made by the priests to satisfy the desire of the king to prepare a new cult statue for Shamash. “The Date of the Cruciform Monument of Maništušu. 95–97.25 Woods. with earlier literature in n. The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel was forged in Babylonia no later than the early eighth century. 24 For discussions of the assumed forgeries. Grayson (ed. which replaced the former plundered statue of the god.” JEOL 20 (1967–68): 50–70. “Sun-God Tablet.52 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. . Neo-Assyrian. “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: Eine verhängnisvolle Politik. “The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22–23 as a Source for the 26 .Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 53 The manipulation of texts for legitimation and the place of forgeries among these texts are broad subjects that cannot be discussed here. Victor A. all of them real artifacts. 6). Pamela Gerardi.” 130. Surprisingly. it is difficult to separate the original layer from the additions and elaborations made when the letters were turned into “literary” texts.26 It is difficult to distinguish between “real” and “imaginary” letters. BO 46 (1989): 382–83.” AfO 48–49 (2001–2): 1–23. George. In this light.e. Middle Babylonian.” Or 55 (1986): 159–70.c.” RlA 6:51–59. Literarische Texte aus Babylon. “La correspondance Royale d’Ur. “Lying Pen. Jan van ” Dijk. but it is impossible to establish whether they have been composed on the basis of genuine letters or forged in order to deliver the message of legitimation.” ZA 91 (2001): 169–206. are attested from (at least) the early second millennium onward. see Piotr Michalowski. 28 Alfred Jeremias. when examining the “real” letters. “Declaring War in Mesopotamia. MVAG 21 (1917): 69–97. Yale University. there is no hint in the history that the “book” disappeared and was later found.” NABU 2005/2: 43. Andrew R. including among them letters of Old Babylonian. with earlier literature. for example. the search for an original location for the topos of scroll/book/tablet “discoveries” is useless.29 The episode of the “finding” of the scroll in the time of Josiah should be studied in its own right. idem. “The Royal Correspondence of Ur” (Ph. The Discovered Scroll and Divine Confirmation In the context of the Deuteronomistic History.” AfO 33 (1986): 30–38. Copies of letters addressed to early kings were discovered on Late Babylonian tablets of the second century b. 27 For differences of opinion on the historicity of the scholarly letters of the kings of Ur. and NeoBabylonian kings.D. Text manipulations of many forms and functions. the “Book of the Law” was hidden since the time of Moses (Deut 31:24. “Königsbriefe. “Some Literary Observations on the Šitti-Marduk Kudurru (BBSt. “Die babylonisch-assyrischen Beziehungen und die innere Lage Assyriens in der Zeit Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur und Mutakkil-Nusku nach neuen keilschriflichen Quellen.” ZA 82 (1992): 52. “On Some Recently Published Late Babylonian Copies of Royal Letters.27 Thus.28 The discussion of forgeries and the manipulation of evidence for the sake of legitimation in Egypt and Mesopotamia demonstrates how widespread and variegated this phenomenon was. 1976). moreover. 26) and Joshua (Josh 23:6.30 If indeed the author of 2 Kings 22 Eckart Frahm. 29 Contra Droge. The complexity of the issue of forgery is illustrated by royal letters that were learned in Mesopotamian schools for many generations. II. Fabienne Huber. un corpus apocryphe. diss. George. 30 Norbert Lohfink. 24:6) and was discovered in the time of Josiah. review of Jan van Dijk. “Die sogenannten Kedorlaomer-Texte. some of these letters show remarkable interest in the question of royal legitimacy. Jaume Llop and Andrew R. Hurowitz. 222–24. “On CashBoxes and Finding or Not Finding Books: Jehoash’s and Josiah’s Decisions to Repair the Temple. the detailed description of the cult reform carried out by Josiah requires an engine to ignite the process. and Oded Lipschits. “Transformations. idem. Patrick D.” NRTh 116 (1994): 836–61. 459– 65. Its discovery and presentation before the king functioned in the story of 2 Kings 22–23 as the force that moved forward all other elements of the plot. “Du temple au livre: L’idéologie de la centralization dans l’historiographie deutéronomiste. the Auffindungsbericht must have been an integral part of the original story of the cult reform. 1987). Isbell. When chs. Steven L. Römer. why did he not tell his readers when it was lost? Why did he not mention its transfer to the temple in the time of Solomon? Moreover. 31 This observation raises an interesting question: Is it possible that Moses was missing from Urdeuteronomium and was inserted into the book of Deuteronomy only in its second stage of compilation? This complicated issue. Dean McBride. Moreover. McKenzie and Thomas Römer. The reference to the “Book of the Law” in 2 Kings 22–23 may thus be interpreted as symbolizing the transition of authority from the prophet and the temple to the divine word embodied in the “Book of the Law. Some scholars dismissed this interpretation and analyzed the story in the wider context of the Torah and Prophets. see Charles D. cannot be elaborated in the confines of this article. BZAW 294.” 9–10.” ZAW 109 (1997): 5–7. 239–54. “2 Kings 22:3–23:24 and Jeremiah 36: A Stylistic Comparison. 1 (2011) referred back to the “Book of the Law” mentioned in Deuteronomy and Joshua. the discovered scroll may well be considered an element in the revolutionary concept of the “book” as the word of God. Hanson. which involves discussion of the scope of Urdeuteronomium. and S. Römer.” JSOT 8 (1978): 33–45. 32 Jean-Pierre Sonnet. Yairah Amit.” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (ed. “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies.31 The conclusion is inevitable: the episode of the “book” finding was initially independent of the references to the “Book of the Law” in Deuteronomy and Joshua. 22–23 from a literary point of view. the author of the original story in 2 Kings 22–23 did not connect the “book” to Moses and left the identity of its author unnamed. Paul D. the story of the scroll finding and Josiah’s reform was initially written as part of a much narrower context. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.54 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Oded Lipschits. 2000). Winona Lake. 22–23 are examined in this broad context. IN: Eisenbrauns. The identification of the author was made only by a late redactor (2 Kgs 23:25). “‘Le livre trouvé’: 2 Rois 22 dans sa finalité narrative. 2006).” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Philadelphia: Fortress.” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Ehud Ben Zvi. when examining chs. . embodying the authority formerly held by the prophets and temple. Miller. History of Israelite Religion. Thomas C. no. Hence.”32 However. For the suggestion that Jeremiah 36 is dependent on 2 Kings 22–23. Israel Finkelstein. Conclusions made on the basis of the late textual developments are not applicable to the original context in which the story of the reform was composed. 34 For the suggestion that account B of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah (2 Kgs 18:17– 1 19:9a.) to the storm god of Hatti. Norbert Lohfink defined a genre that he called “historische Kurzgeschichten” and identified three narrative blocks that belong to this genre. the Fall of Israel. Schweiz: Universitätsverlag.. BETL 68. Jonathan Ben-Dov. 24–48. “Joiaqim. Norbert Lohfink. Ernst Würthwein. . For the opposite position.” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung. was originally an independent story. IN: Eisenbrauns. 36–37). But the idea of a genre of the short historical story is attractive. “Role of Huldah.” 40–53. see Nadav Na’aman. 169–270. Kön. Kön. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.” Bib 81 (2000): 399–402.” 351–71.e. repoussoir du ‘Pieux’ Josias: Parallélismes entre II Reg 22 et Jer 36.35 Scholars have suggested some parallels to the story of the “discovery” and the roles of Josiah and Huldah in the plot. 23:1–3.36 The best parallel is related in the “second” plague prayer of Muršili II (ca. Norbert Lohfink. and he suggested that they wrote the stories in Babylonia after they were exiled in 597 b. 21–23)—minus some Deuteronomistic additions—might originally have been a historical short story written in the time of Josiah as part of the efforts to legitimize and support the cult reform he conducted (see below). Richard D. 1982).c. e. 76–85. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18.e. which is deeply controversial among scholars. 36–61. Hittite Prayers (SBLWAW 11. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. vol. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 30–160. “Cult Reform. and the Reign of Josiah (HSM 53. The Reign of Jeroboam. 1. 446–64. Gary N. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66.c. 25 (ATD 11/2.” ZAW 90 (1978): 319–47. Winona Lake. 1980). with its detailed description of the cult reform. who were eyewitnesses to the narrated events. Levin. vol.g. 1989). see Itamar Singer. See.Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 55 About thirty years ago. “Writing as Oracle and as Law: New Contexts for the Book-Find of King Josiah. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. “Recent Discussion on 2 Kings 22–23: The State of the Question. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.” 459–75. among them 2 Kings 22–23. O’Brien. 1981).34 It seems to me that the five-part story (2 Kgs 22:3–11. 35 I deliberately avoid the problem of the literary analysis of 2 Kings 22–23. “New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129. Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. see Caëtano Minette de Tillesse. Leuven: Peeters. 12–20. idem. Hans-Detlef Hoffmann. 2002). 125–228.” ZAW 105 (1993): 352–76. 37 For Muršili’s prayer. Christensen. Mark A. “Joschija. 36 Handy.” JBL 127 (2008): 232–36. Duane L. 1993). 57–61. Die Bücher der Könige. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 4–15.33 He attributed the composition of these stories to authors of the family of Shaphan. 1994). “Die Gattung der ‘historischen Kurzgeschichten’ in den letzten Jahres von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exil. minus a few Deuteronomistic additions. 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1985). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1321–1285 b. 2. “Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kön 22–23.9b–35).” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (ed.37 The 33 Norbert Lohfink. was written in exile. 423–29. idem. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92. Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. Knoppers. 235–66. 17–2. Hermann Spieckermann. I very much doubt that 2 Kings 22–23. Freiburg. 1984). Nelson. indicating the sins that must have brought on the plague as punishment (compare 2 Sam 21:1–2. and asked forgiveness for his predecessors’ violations of its laws (2 Kgs 22:11– 13). and he sought to understand the cause of the sudden outbreak. the discovery of the 38 For the Kuruštama treaty. 24:10–15). “The Kuruštama Treaty Revisited. 591-607. 39 Weinfeld. no. thereby seeking forgiveness for his sins. Upon reading the two tablets. The similarity to the former episode is self-evident. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden. just as Muršili confessed the sins of his father (Šuppiluliuma I). namely. 1295–1272 b. ABD 2:175a. Moshe Weinfeld compared the story of 2 Kings 22 to an episode related to the prayer of Muwatalli II (ca. “Role of Huldah. Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 10. Book of.56 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. According to this hypothesis. The similarity between the two episodes is self-evident. “Writing as Oracle.41 Even more disturbing is the suggestion that the discovered scroll functioned in the story as an oracle.e. the oracular confirmation is missing from the text. 41 Handy. 2004). 83.” in Šarnikzel: Hethitologische Studien zum Gedanken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer (ed. to the storm god. and asked forgiveness. repented. Since the tablets have not yet been discovered. He then repented before the storm god for violating the rites of the Mala River and the stipulations of the Kuruštama treaty. It goes without saying that Muršili searched and found authentic old tablets.” 127–28) failed to understand the relevance of the parallel suggested by Weinfeld and dismissed it out of hand. unlike the “discovery” of the scroll by the high priest in Jerusalem. one with a ritual of the Mala River and the second with the treaty of Kuruštama.” promised to fulfill the instructions of the book.” 40–45.38 Muršili confirmed the authenticity of each tablet by an oracle. see recently Itamar Singer. “Deuteronomy. Detlev Groddek and Sylvester Rössle.c. For a translation of the prayer.). Yet there is a close similarity between the discovery and confirmation of its authenticity by oracle in Hatti and the “discovery” of the “Book of the Law” and its authentication by prophecy in Jerusalem. except for the fact that Muwatalli refers to a future search for the tablets. In a search conducted in his archives he discovered two old tablets.” 232–33. as the element of the finding and its significance for the situation in the present/future are lacking. Moreover. so Josiah repented upon hearing the words of the “Book of the Law. He pledged to follow their instructions and perform the forgotten rites. Ben-Dov.39 Muwatalli confessed his negligent observance of the divine laws of the god and promised to search for “the (written) bond/covenant/protocol [išhiul] of the gods” as well as for oral Hittite traditions. see Singer. king of Hatti. hoping that the rites he performed would bring the plague to an end. 1 (2011) Hittite king was troubled by a severe plague that had struck his country. ” Hittite Prayers.40 The Mesopotamian parallels suggested for Huldah’s role in confirming the authenticity of the “discovered” scroll are not convincing.”42 in which the first oracle. the narrative in 2 Kings 22 describes a “double-check. 42 The procedure of double-check takes place when a second query by a god (piqittu) repeats . he realized that their instructions had been violated. 40 Droge (“Lying Pen. Jack M. 1985). Assuming that ch. 24) and the phrase “as it is written” in the scroll (23:21). M. Williamson. “Role of Huldah.e.c. written when the quarter formed an integral part of the fortified city of Jerusalem. 22 is legendary and has been written in the exilic or postexilic period. 2000). 44 Hugh G.. just as ancient Near Eastern royal officials and priests used to interpret original prophetic words and delivered to the king only the interpreted version. London: SCM. “The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the First Temple Period. and the scroll functions in the plot as a law book. “Writing as Oracle. 16. Parker.” PEQ 116 (1984): 83. the Western Hill was deserted for hundreds of years and was resettled only in the second century b. “Official Attitude toward Prophecy at Mari and in Israel. Jerusalem: i Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. NY: Doubleday. 46 For the ways in which ancient Near Eastern prophecies were interpreted and delivered to the king. 234. which function as a kind of control for the discussion. Huldah lived in the Mishneh quarter (2 Kgs 22:14. With all due caution I suggest that. located on the Western Hill of Jerusalem. S. see n. 1988). Garden City. “The Posting of Letters from Divine Messages. not as an oracle.” VT 43 (1993): 50–68. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11. Mazar. 43 Handy. Waco: Word Books. see Simon B.Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 57 scroll. It goes without saying that extracting the historical nucleus of the story in 2 Kings 22 from its literary-ideological cover is uncertain.46 the results of the first query in order to confirm its authenticity.” in Florilegium Mar- .43 The idea that the discovery is a sign from heaven (i. is confirmed by the prophecy of Huldah. Ezra. following the scroll’s “discovery” in the course of the temple restoration.” in The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (in Hebrew. an oracle) is never explicitly stated in the story. Ahituv and A. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor. in all the stories of ancient Near Eastern “discovered” artifacts. 1988). Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL. The preexilic date of the Auffindungsbericht might be supported also by an archaeological finding. According to the story. “Prophecy as Divination.45 Locating Huldah’s seat in the Mishneh is an indication of the late First Temple date of the text.e. the king sent delegates to Huldah the prophetess to verify the authenticity of the scroll. Indeed. Ben-Dov. so Josiah held one oracle to authenticate the scroll discovered in the temple. This is confirmed by the emphasis on “the words” of the scroll (22:13. See Anne Marie Kitz. with earlier literature. Nehemiah (WBC 16. Sasson. Here lies the importance of analogies drawn from ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. 116. the text is the exclusive significant element of their discovery. Just as Muršili conducted one divine oracle to validate each of the tablets he discovered. Ronny Reich.44 Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6. see Zeph 1:10).” 229–39. 45 For the suggestion that the Auffindungsbericht is legendary and was written in the exilic or postexilic period. The author of the story gave Huldah’s oracle a literaryideological dress according to his interpretation of the event.” CBQ 65 (2003): 25–27. idem. 283.” 47–53. the author would have avoided locating the prophetess in a deserted quarter and would have placed her in the City of David. 196. 23:3. Joseph Blenkinsopp. 2 above. “Nehemiah’s Walls Revisited. ed. and she in turn sent back confirmation. Why does the finding of the scroll hold such a central place in the account of Josiah’s cult reform? The answer may be found in its exceptional nature. In principle.” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 1 (2011) III. . London: T&T Clark. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. 47 For cult reforms in the ancient Near East. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Martti Nissinen. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand. To execute a cultic reform. Yet there are some illuminating examples. Josiah’s reform was an unprecedented event having (as far as we know) no antecedent in the history of Judah.” ZABR 12 (2006): 142–68. thereby somewhat diminishing its radical nature. Cults and rituals everywhere were conceived of as being of divine origin. no. legitimation was obtained first and foremost by receiving divine approval from god(s) by way of an oracle. which culminates in the reform of Josiah. It demonstrated that the reform was not an innovative step but rather served as the restoration of ancient divine laws that had been forgotten and corrupted by previous generations. in particular that of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4–6). “From the Mouth of the Prophet: The Literary Fixation of Jeremiah’s Prophecies in the Context of the Ancient Near East.” JNSL 24 (1998): 55–70. Karel van der Toorn. 219–34. which was revolutionary in the history of the cult and culture of the kingdom of Judah. Second. 2004). Mémoires de N.U. Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Historically. JSOTSup 378. as frequently documents are missing—and this is particularly true of failed reforms.47 The ways by which reforming kings justified their innovations are not always clear. idem. 1994). however.58 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 191–202. “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral and the Written. the king and priests needed an authoritative divine support.” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (ed. “How Prophecy Became Literature. Huffmon (ed. Paris: Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien. “The King Leading Cult Reforms in His Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East. SBLSymS 10.B. Floyd. “From the Oral to the Written: The Case of Old Babylonian Prophecy. idem. and changes in the religious practice were considered to break the divinely established order. supplied the required legitimation for the reform. it was attained through production of literary compositions in which the ianum II: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot (ed. which must have been presented before the supporting and opposing parties. The “discovered” scroll.A. 2000). 3.” SJOT 19 (2005): 15–72. ancient Near Eastern kings who conducted cult reforms were in urgent need of justifying their innovative deeds before the priests and elite. The author of the book of Kings described a series of cult reforms. The “Discovered” Scroll and the Legitimation of the Reform Earlier cult reforms in the kingdom of Judah are mentioned in the book of Kings without resorting to an external power that pushed them forward. see Nadav Na’aman. Like Josiah. 299–316. which amounts to a drastic change in the traditional cult and rites of the kingdom. under which 48 On the claim of restoration of old. (AOAT 213.51 As part of this enterprise. 6. Na’aman. Vera Chamaza. Wilfred George Lambert. “Marduks (Ellils. Peter Machinist. The king took advantage of his successful campaign against Elam and the restoration of Marduk’s image to elevate Marduk to the headship of the Babylonian pantheon. 1964).” DDD. “Studies in Marduk. “Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies. Andrew R. McCullough. 220–22.Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 59 innovative element is presented as the restoration of a long-forgotten custom. Assyrian authors rewrote the Babylonian creation myth (Enūma eliš) with Ashur in the role of Marduk. see Wilfred G.50 Similar strategies were adopted by Sennacherib. forgotten ways. . Andrew R. N. marks the new status of Marduk as head of the Babylonian pantheon. Eisenstadt. Sanherib und Asarhaddon (AOAT 295. Assurs) Geburt im babylonischen Weltschopfungsepos. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Literary works were composed during his reign that exalted the god Ashur by depicting him in the image of the Babylonian god Marduk. J. Albany: State University of New York Press.–10. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 50 For the rise of Marduk to the top of the Babylonian pantheon. 182–89. 1997). Lambert. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Heidelberg. Eckart Frahm. idem. Sennacherib built a temple (bīt akīti) outside the city of Ashur. July 1992 (ed. 1982). 51 Heinrich Zimmern. Die Omnipotenz Aššurs: Entwicklungen in der Aššur-Theologie unter den Sargoniden Sargon II. S.” in The Origin and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (ed. S. with earlier literature. which described the exaltation of Marduk to a position previously occupied by Enlil. Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfO Beiheft 26.” RlA 7:360–70. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.e. 111–67. 213–25. Der Aufstieg Marduks: Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v.). 1997).” Or 66 (1997): 65–70.” Iraq 48 (1986): 133-46. 2002). 77–79. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.48 There must have also been extensive verbal discourses in an effort to persuade the literati and the elite. but texts do not document them. Chr. 2nd ed. “Marduk. “Marduk. “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma Eliš. with earlier literature.” BSOAS 47 (1984): 2–5. Tzvi Abusch. W.. see Walter Sommerfeld. Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann. “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflections.” in Orientalische Studien: Fritz Hommel zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (MVAG 21. “Monarchy and the Elite in Assyria and Babylonia: The Question of Royal Accountability.49 The Babylonian creation epic (Enūma eliš). A combination of these strategies was applied in the time of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 b. “Cult Reforms. and of Babylon as the most elevated city in Babylonia. 49 For Nebuchadnezzar I’s reform. 282–88. Meek (ed.” 150–54. 220–27. 1986). Galo W. The victory gave rise to a number of works that exalted Marduk and described him as the foremost Babylonian god.” Jahrbuch des Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (1984–1985): 353–64. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. see Hayim Tadmor. 543–49. George. “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon.” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. George. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6. 3–13. 1917). of Esagila as the bond of the world (axis mundi). idem.” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIX Rencontre assyriologique internationale.c. ” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. 1965 (ed. 1954). the king of gods. 1995). Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium. Institut für Orientforschung. lines 22–35. 44–57. “Mesopotamian Imperialism and Israelite Religion: A Case Study from the Second Isaiah. Dever and Seymour Gitin. The Annals of Sennacherib (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 2. and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. the Akitu temple of the steppe had been forgotten and the festival of Ashur. see Kataja and Whiting. 111–22. Hanspeter Schaudig. Die Omnipotenz Aššurs. lines 5–6. with earlier literature. “Sennacherib in the Akitu House. Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period (SAA 12. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1989). W. Vera Chamaza.60 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Erich Ebeling. Jerusalem.” Iraq 61 (1999): 187–89. Lambert. Symbolism. and to demote Marduk from the headship of the Babylonian pantheon have been discussed in detail by scholars. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research. By this step he tried to break the Babylonian claim of the axis mundi located in Marduk’s temple of Esagil and shift it to the city of Ashur. In connection with this undertaking I conceived the idea of (re)building the Akitu temple. Ashur. Grants. had been celebrated within the city. I performed an oracle query to Shamash and Adad. 54–65. 203–19. William G. The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylonia 556–539 B. “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akītu House. lines 25–30. Sin’s temple in Haran. 53 Luckenbill. 1 (2011) he deposited the ashes from the devastated city of Babylon and in which he celebrated the rites of the new year (the Akītu festival) for the Assyrian national god. 54 Hayim Tadmor. Sennacherib claims that the Akītu temple that he built near the city of Ashur and the Akītu festival performed there merely restored the temple and rites of long ago. Assyriological Studies 16. Paul-Alain Beaulieu. Grants. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Güterbock and T. May 29–31. 351–63. 12–15.” Iraq 25 (1963): 189–90. no.C (Yale Near Eastern Researches 10.53 The strategy of obtaining supporting divine oracles and claiming the return to ancient and venerated forgotten custom was adopted also by Nabonidus. Wilfred G. the king of the gods. 52 Daniel David Luckenbill. Frahm. 104–5. 173–74.52 In a royal inscription. a favorable reply they gave me and commanded to build (it). Laura Kataja and Robert Whiting. His efforts in his last years to raise Sin to the position of chief god of Babylonia. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. on account of chaos and anarchy. Jacobsen. Peter Machinist. 2003). 1924). Annals of Sennacherib. 136–37. Ali Yassen Ahmad and Albert Kirk Grayson. “Nabonid. 3–5. and the Power of the Past: Canaan. to raise Ehulhul. 1965). 2000 (ed. der ‘Gelehrte auf dem . F. April 21. Ancient Israel. G. 104–5. 136–39. Veröffentlichung 23. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Decrees and Gifts. turning it into “the axis of the world” and the seat of Ashur. Winona Lake. 244–53. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. which from days of old. “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement. IN: Eisenbrauns. Stiftungen und Vorschriften für assyrische Tempel (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. and that the approval to rebuild the new temple was received after inquiring by extispicy of the gods Shamash and Adad: The festival banquet of the king of the gods. to the status of chief Mesopotamian temple.” in Symbiosis. Einleitung. H.54 and need not be repeated here. ” Then a miracle happened—he discovered an old stele of Nebuchadnezzar I upon which was engraved the figure of the high priestess with her insignia.” 20–30.55 The move started with an eclipse of the moon.” in Your Thwarts in Pieces. The latter justified both of the measures taken by the king. Bethesda: CDL. Peter Machinist and Hayim Tadmor. In light of the miraculous nature of the discovery. which was interpreted as an omen sent by the god Sin. 56 Powell.” 42. 1993). “Nabonidus and the Concern with the Past.Na’aman: The “Discovered Book” and Josiah’s Reform 61 An illuminating example of Nabonidus’s strategy in legitimizing innovation is the way he consecrated his daughter as entu-priestess of the moon god at Ur. “Narām-Sîn. Daniel C. Woods. Can we identify the work written in support of Josiah’s reform? I believe that the text of 2 Kings 22–23. or rather the source on which it rests. with earlier literature. her garments. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan. was originally written in an effort to legitimize the reform. Thus. the scroll functioned as the element that set in motion the cult reform and bestowed on it divine legitimacy. 1–16. 150–51. and her ornaments. 127–32. Your Mooring Rope Cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (Michigan Studies in the Humanities 5.” in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. 55 The episode was studied in detail by Erica Reiner. 1985). Weisberg. Ann Arbor: Horace H.” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Reign of Nabonidus. 2002). the alliance by oath that he concluded with the officials and elders of his kingdom and the cult reform he executed. “Heavenly Wisdom. 619–45. reception of divine approval from god(s) by way of an oracle. . scholars were suspicious of its authenticity and suggested that the “discovery” was a forgery (a kind of “pious fraud”). in which he requested to nominate an entu priestess in his temple. namely. and David B. and the production of literary compositions that explain and justify the measures taken. The “finding” of artifacts that support a claim of antiquity is also common to Judah and ancient Near Eastern Königsthron’. Geburtstag (ed. Snell. The elements common to Josiah’s and ancient Near Eastern cult reforms are the restoration of long-forgotten divine laws and customs. the king pondered how to carry out the divine request because “since distant days the ritual of high priesthood had been forgotten and its nature was not known. He then conferred with the gods about the nomination of his daughter and received an approving reply. Nabonidus twice consulted by extispicy the gods Shamash and Adad and received positive replies. At this stage. Oswald Loretz. the scroll found by the high priest instructs the king to execute religious reform. For the texts. The account includes several elements that legitimized the royal initiative. Hallo (ed. “Sun-God Tablet. 22–23. AOAT 281. To affirm his interpretation of the eclipse. In the context of the story. The new information enabled Nabonidus properly to install his daughter in the office of entu priestess at Ur. and the prophetess’s divine oracle affirms the authenticity of the words of the scroll. Metzler and Hanspeter Schaudig. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Mark E. see Beaulieu. Kai A. Cohen.56 A strategy held by all the Mesopotamian reforming kings is the writing of literary works that support the reform. no. symbolizing the transition of authority from the prophet and the temple to the divine written word. “as it is written in this book of the covenant” (23:21–23). Once the story was integrated within the confines of a broad literary work. the original function of the discovered scroll was lost.57 Like many other sources available to the author of the Deuteronomistic History. The covenant in the temple (2 Kgs 23:1–3) and the celebration of the feast of Passover. 1 (2011) kingdoms. although the element of the scroll that guides the reform is unique to the kingdom of Judah. see Nadav Na’aman. In conclusion. Its legitimizing function well explains the prominent role the Auffindungsbericht and the divine confirmation of the “discovered” scroll by the prophetess played in the story.” Bib 91 (2010): 20–21. In its new context the “Book of the Law” became an element in the revolutionary concept of the “book” as the word of God. For the place of the feast of Passover in the reform.62 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. the five-part story in 2 Kings 22–23 was originally an independent historical short story. written in the time of Josiah in an effort to support and legitimize the cult reform that the king conducted. the story of Josiah’s reform was slightly reworked and integrated into the history he composed. “The IsraeliteJudahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel. were also integral parts of the reform and its legitimizing text. 57 . 8. ‫ ידעו‬for ‫ שׂרידו .23:43( הורני‬in 12:7.31:51 . and ‫ 2.)11:02( ﬠלוּמו‬for ‫ﬠינָ ו‬ ָ ְ ַ ָ ְ ָ ֲ ֵ (21:20).43:9( אימה‬ 13:21. Huddleston.9:9( תימן‬in 22:1). though one might also add conservative spellings like ‫.. By Freedman’s count. ‫ ִרבם‬in 31:13).)1:42( י ְֹדﬠו‬for ‫ חלצו .JBL 130. ‫ אתן‬instead of ‫ הדעני . and the Poetry of Job c.)51:11( מצק .)21:73( תחבּוֹּלתו‬for ‫ כנפו . Princeton.)02:13( חלצו‬ ָ ָ ְ ָ ָ ֲ for ‫ ילדו . which argued in part that such spellings typified epigraphic Hebrew of the David Noel Freedman. Thus. “Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job. there are forty-two such forms with contracted and unmarked diphthongs in the ֻ ֻ book. ‫ יצא‬in 28:11). 2 The last example shows a contracted diphthong.)42:92( אלהם‬Moreover. seow leong. ‫ ִרבוֹת‬in 13:6.)81:5( יָ ָדו‬ ‫ תחתו‬for ‫ קדשׁו .)9:2( מת .)91:33 . ‫ הצא‬instead of ‫ ויצא .32:31( הודעני‬ ‫ ידיעו‬in 32:7).1 This is particularly remarkable in cases where diphthongs are contracted and unmarked by matres. no. ‫ יעיל‬instead of ‫. and ‫ פחדו‬for ‫. 2 vols. ‫ִרב‬ ִ ְ ַ ָ ֻ ָ ֻ ַָ ָ (29:16. we have ‫ אן‬instead of ‫ אמה . 20:25. repr. *ilayhimm > ‫ . ‫“ .)51:51( קד ֹשׁו‬for ‫ עינו .81:01( הוצא‬in 12:22.2:73( קֹלוֹ . 2:44–60.)71:04( פּח ָדו‬ ֲ ַ Drawing on the results of his joint dissertation with Frank Moore Cross. 1997).21:81( און‬instead of ‫.)3:11( מכלם‬in 28:26). David Noel Freedman called attention to the great number of forms in the book of Job that are spelled without internal vowel markers (matres lectionis) where one might expect them. ‫ תמן‬instead of ‫ תמני .edu Princeton Theological Seminary. 1 (2011): 63–85 Orthography.91:21( איתן‬instead of ‫. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans.)31:9( תּחתּו‬for ‫ עלומו .)61:04 .seow@ptsem.אלהם‬Cf.)14:83( יְ ל ָדו‬for ‫ אפרחו . ‫הרני‬ instead of ‫ תרך . NJ 08542 In an article published in Eretz Israel in 1969. Textual Criticism.31:03( יועיל‬ 35:3).)61:81( יִבשׁוּ . and so forth. there are a numָ ֶ ֵ ֲ ber of Ketiv readings that suggest a conservative orthography: ‫ ידו‬for ‫. 33:7). John R. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman (ed. ֵרﬠהוּ‬his ֶ ֵ ֲ ֵ friends” < *riayhû (42:10). ‫ הרני‬in 30:19). 1 63 .)51:72( שׂ ִרידו‬for ‫תחבולתו . l.)2:2( שׁת‬ ‫ קֹלוֹת .)71:11( תּﬠפה .)62:93( כּנָ פו‬for ‫אפר ֹחו‬ ָ ְ ַ ָ ָ ְ ָ ְ ֶ (39:30).” ErIsr 9 (1969): 35–44. 64 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) preexilic period and generally of the north (Israel as opposed to Judah),3 a thesis that despite a few rare exceptions has held true,4 Freedman concluded that the conservative orthography indicates a provenance in the north during the preexilic period. The study has prompted at least one scholar to judge that it is now difficult to maintain a date later than the seventh century b.c.e.5 Not all are so sanguine about Freedman’s approach, to be sure. Yet even James Barr, Freedman’s most severe critic, has conceded that the book of Job manifests an unusually high concentration of such forms, indeed, “the highest anywhere in the Bible.”6 The implications of this judgment for the exegesis of Job, however, have not been explored. Such an exploration is the purpose of this essay. Before doing so, though, I would like to expand Freedman’s database. I. Beyond MTL The publication of 4QpalaeoJobc from Qumran has lent credibility to Freedman’s article, since internal matres in that manuscript are, with only two exceptions, entirely absent:7 MT 13:24 13:36 13:26 13:27 4QpalaeoJobc ‫לאויב‬ ‫עונות‬ ‫נעורי‬ ‫ארחותי‬ ‫( ]ל[איב‬so, too, msKenn 170) ‫( עונת‬also 3 mss) ‫( נערי‬cf. ‫ נערי‬in several mss at 31:18) ‫( ארחתי‬cf. ‫ ארחתי‬in 33:11) 3 Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952). 4 The clearest example of an internal mater before the end of the monarchy is rwr in one of the tomb inscriptions from Silwan. For other possibilities discussed in Ziony Zevit, Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs (ASOR Monograph Series 2; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980), see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), passim. Considering materials beyond Zevit’s study, we note a few examples that prove the rule. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions from the late-ninth and early-eighth centuries attest r, “city” (Hebrew Inscriptions, KAjr 5-8), brk, “blessed” (KAjr 9, 15.5), ymm, “days” (KAjr 14.), wymsn hrm . . . wydkn gbnm, “the mounains melted . . . the peaks are crushed” (KAjr 15.2-3), and ym, “day” (KAjr 15.5, 6). The Ophel inscription from Jerusalem (see Jslm 3), dated to the early to mid-seventh century attests šmnm, “(jars of) oil” (see also Jslm 5) and šbrm, “(jars of) grain.” A seventh-century ostracon from Hi o rvat Uza has ymt, “days” (Uza 2.12). 5 So Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester/Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 62. 6 So James Barr, “Hebrew Orthography and the Book of Job,” JSS 30 (1985): 32. 7 See Patrick W. Skehan et al., Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 155–57. Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 14:16 14:17 65 ‫תספור‬ ‫בצרור‬ ‫( תספר‬so, too, many mss) ‫( בצרר‬similarly 2 mss) While it may not be possible to prove that the orthographic archaism in this manuscript reflects the autograph, 4QpalaeoJobc does demonstrate that the MT cannot be decisive on the question of orthography. If the orthography suggested by 4QpalaeoJobc is original, the introduction of internal matres in the other Qumran manuscripts of Job (2QJob; 4QJoba; 4QJobb) as well as in the MT is part of the book’s history of interpretation.8 Moreover, while Freedman based his analysis on the Leningrad Codex (MTL) by way of BHK3, the Aleppo Codex (MTA), the Bomberg Bible (MTB), and other manuscripts often show additional forms without internal matres. The following is only a small sample of literally hundreds of Hebrew variants without internal vowel markers: MTL Other Manuscripts ‫)3:1( אתונות‬ ‫)4:1( יומו‬ ‫)5:1( עלות‬ ‫)41:1( חרשׁות‬ ‫)22:3( גיל‬ ‫)71:5( יוכיחנו‬ ‫)71:5( ומוסר‬ ‫61:6( עלימו‬b) ‫)42:6( הורוני‬ ‫)01:8( יוצאו‬ ‫)3:01( הופעת‬ ‫)22:01( עיפתה‬ ‫)5:21( למועדי‬ ‫)1:31( עיני‬ ‫)6:31( תוכחתי‬ ‫)11:31( עליכם‬ ‫)3:41( עיניך‬ ‫)32:51( נכון‬ ‫)7:61( השׁמות‬ ‫ 3( אתנת‬mss) ‫ 1( ימו‬ms) ‫ 8( עלת‬mss) ‫ 5( חרשׁת‬mss) ‫ 1( גל‬ms) ‫ 1( יכחנו‬ms) ‫ 1( ומסר‬ms) ‫ 1( עלמו‬ms) ‫ 2( הרוני‬mss) ‫ 1( יצאו‬ms; 7 mss ‫)יציאו‬ ‫ 1( הפעת‬ms) ‫( עפתה‬MTAB, many mss) ‫ 4( למעדי‬mss) ‫ 1( עני‬ms) ‫ 1( תכחתי‬ms) ‫ 1( עלכם‬ms) ‫ 2( עניך‬mss) ‫ 2( נכן‬mss) ‫( השׁמת‬many mss) 8 If the archaism is secondary, that is, if the matres had been eliminated, then 4QpalaeoJobc belongs to the book’s Wirkungsgeschichte, showing in this case an effort to re-present the story as archaic, perhaps as Mosaic. The paleo-Hebrew script of the manuscript is itself an archaism, for the Qumran biblical manuscripts that manifest this script are restricted to the Torah, the only exception being 4QpalaeoParaJosh. Still, this “archaism” probably does reflect the autograph. The Aramaic square script in all the other manuscripts is secondary. 66 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) ‫)31:61( כליותי‬ ‫)91:61( במרומים‬ ‫)12:61( ויוכח‬ ‫)11:71( מורשׁי‬ ‫)22:02( תבואנו‬ ‫)52:22( תועפות‬ ‫)31:33( ריבות‬ ‫)51:73( הופיע‬ ‫ 3( כליתי‬mss) ‫( במרמים‬MTA, many mss) ‫ 2( ויכח‬mss) ‫( מרשׁי‬few mss) ‫( תבאנו‬MTAB) ‫ 1( תעפת‬ms; several mss ‫ 1 ;תועפת‬ms ‫)תעפות‬ ‫( רבת‬a few mss; many mss ‫)רבות‬ ‫( הפיע‬MTA and 2 mss) In addition to the masoretic witnesses, the versions also often attest other forms without internal matres, including the following examples: MT Other Witnesses ‫)91:4( ידכאום‬ ‫)5:5( קצירו‬ ‫)11:5( שׂום‬ ‫)52:6( הוכח‬ ‫)72:6( תפילו‬ ‫)51:8( יחזיק‬ ‫)71:01( חליפות‬ ‫)3:11( בדיך‬ ‫)2:21( תמות‬ ‫)61:21( תושׁיה‬ ‫)81:21( מוסר‬ ‫)51:51( לא יאמין‬ ‫)11:61( עויל‬ 9 ‫( ידכאם‬OG ἔπαισεν αὐτοὺς; Syr. ntmkkwn; cf. msKenn 117)9 ‫( קצרו‬OG συνήγαγον = ‫01)קצרוּ‬ ְ ָ ‫( שׂם‬OG ποιοῦντα; Vg. qui ponit = ‫)שׂם‬ ָ ‫( הכח‬OG ἰσχῦν = Hebrew ‫)]ה[כּ ַֹח‬ ַ ‫( תפלו‬OG ἐπιπίπτετε; Vg. inruitis; cf. msKenn 157 ‫)תפלו‬ ‫4( יחזק‬QJobb) ‫( חלפת‬OG ἔπηγαγες; Syr. mhilp  nt; cf. msKenn 176) ‫( בדך‬Vg. tibi soli)11 ‫( תמת‬Aq. τελειώματα = ‫ ;תּמֹּת‬Symm. τελειότης = ‫21)תּמּת‬ ֻ ַ ֻ ‫( תשׁעה‬Theod. σωτηρία; cf. also many mss ‫)תשׁיה‬ ‫( מסר‬Syr. mhit = Hebrew ‫ 31;מסר‬cf. 1 ms, ‫41)מסר‬ ִ ֵ ‫( לא יאמן‬Symm. οὐδεὶς ἄτρεπτος; Vg. nemo immutabilis) ‫( עול‬OG ἀδίκου; Vg. iniquum; Syr.  wl; Tg. ‫)רשׁיעי‬ That is, ‫.יְ ַדכּאם‬ ֵ ְ The OG apparently assumes that the subject is the “children” of the fool—so, too, the plural verbs ‫ יִ ְרחקוּ‬and ‫—יִ ַדּכּאוּ‬in the preceding verse (5:4). The masoretes, however, take ֲ ְ the subject to be the fool in 5:3. The OG proves superior in this case, and its interpretation is corroborated by the plural suffix in ‫“ ,חילם‬their substance.” ָ ֵ 11 The plural is correct. We should assume *baddaykimm > ‫“ ,בּ ֵדּכם‬your babblings.” Cf. ֶ ַ ‫ אלהם‬in 29:24. ֶ ֵ ֲ 12 The spelling ‫ תמת‬easily accounts for ‫ ,תּמֹּת ,תּמת‬and ‫.תּמּת‬ ֻ ָ ֻ ַ ֻ 13 Presuming the hiphil of ‫ סור‬to mean “to remove” (Gen 8:13; 30:32, 35; 35:2; etc.) or even “to depose” (2 Sam 7:15; 1 Kgs 20:24) 14 The OG has καιθιζάνων βασιλεῖς ἐπὶ θρόνους, which probably reflects Hebrew ‫.משׁב מלכים‬ The translator intreprets ‫ משׁב‬as ‫ ,מֹשׁב‬but we should probably read ‫“ ,משׁב‬one who turns back,” ִ ִ ֵ a variant of ‫.מסר‬ ִ ֵ 10 Seow: Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job 67 ‫( מרשׁי‬OG τα ἄρθρα; so also a few mss read ‫)מרשׁי‬ ‫( נטמנו‬Tg. ‫ = טמענא‬Hebrew ‫ ;נִ טמנוּ‬so also 3 mss)15 ַ ְ ‫11( עולים‬Q10 ‫ ;רשׁעין‬Syr. wl) = ‫ﬠוָּ לים‬ ִ ַ ‫( עולם‬OG τον αἰῶνα) ‫)62:91( אלוה‬ ‫( אלה‬OG ταῦτα; cf. also 37:22) = ‫אלּה‬ ֶ ֵ ‫)5:02( מקרוב‬ ‫( מקרב‬OG πτῶμα ἐξαίσιον = ‫ ;?מק ֵרב‬Syr. mn gwhwn) ָ ְ ‫( תשׁבתכם )43:12( ותשׁובתיכם‬Vg. responsio vestra) ‫)8:22( זרוע‬ ‫( זרע‬Syr. gbr dzr = Hebrew ‫)ז ֵֹר ַע‬ ‫)42:22( ושׁית‬ ‫( ושׁת‬Theod θήσῃ; Syr. tknš)16 ‫)2:52( במרומיו‬ ‫11( במרומו‬Q10 ‫71)]במר[מה‬ ‫)31:33( ריבות‬ ‫11( רבות‬Q10 ‫81)רבברן‬ ‫( ריבתי‬OG τῆς δίκης μου)19 ‫4( שׁמע שׁמע )2:73( שׁמוע שׁמעו‬QJoba) ‫)71:73( בגדיך‬ ‫( בגדך‬OG ἡ στολὴ; 11Q10 ‫02)לבושׁך‬ ‫)11:83( ישׁית‬ ‫( ישׂת/תשׁת‬OG συντριβήσεται; Vg. confringes; Tg. ‫12)יתיבשׁ‬ In every case, the consonantal form of the Vorlage is superior (though not necessarily the interpretation represented), for the forms without matres account for the variants more readily than the MT, where the presence of the matres is as interpretive as the introduction of vowel points. In sum, when one considers the evidence from the various Hebrew manuscripts, 4QpalaeoJobc, and the Vorlagen of the versions, there are many more examples of orthographically conservative forms than what Freedman found in 15 MsKenn 155 has ‫ ,נטמונו‬that is, ‫ ,נְ טמּוֹנוּ‬as if the root were ‫ .טמם‬Thus, original ‫ נטמנו‬may ַ be read as ‫( נִ טמנוּ‬so most mss, Vg., Syr.), ‫( נִ טמנוּ‬so Tg.), or ‫( נְ טמֹּנוּ‬so msKenn 155), the root being ִ ְ ָ ְ ַ ‫ ,טמן ,טמא = טמה‬or ‫ ,טמם‬respectively. Multivalence may be part of the poet’s art. The OG has σεσιωπήκαμεν, “we have been silent,” reflecting Hebrew ‫ .נדמינו‬The consonantal text of the Vorlage of the OG is now corroborated by 11Q10, though the verb should probably be taken to mean “we are likened to.” This may be a variant prompted by Ps 49:13, 21 (‫.)כּבּהמוֹת נִ ְדמוּ‬ ֵ ְ ַ 16 Both witnesses presume ‫.וְ שׁתּ‬ ָ ַ 17 One should follow the cue of 11Q10 but vocalize the form as ‫.בּמר ֹמו‬ ָ ְ ִ 18 This is probably an error for ‫ ,רברבן‬which reflects Hebrew ‫ רבות‬or, assuming conservative orthography, ‫ ,רבת‬which is what we have in a few manuscripts. The reading ‫ רבת‬easily accounts for the other variants: ‫( ריבות‬MT), ‫( רבות‬many mss), and ‫( רביתי‬OG). 19 Cf. Aq. ἐκδικάσω, but Symm. διαδικάζῃ (= Hebrew ‫ ,)רבות‬whereas Theod. has κρίσις, perhaps reading Hebrew ‫ ,רבת‬which enhances the wordplay with ‫ יִ ְרבּה‬in the preceding verse. ֶ 20 The plural noun is supported by Symm., Tg., and Syr. Given the adjective ‫ ,חמים‬we should assume the plural to be correct. The reading reflected in the Vorlagen of OG and 11Q10 must represent the contraction of ay > ē, ‫.בּגָ ֵדָך‬ ְ 21 The OG and Vg. are assuming the root *śtt (cf. Arabic šatta, “to break up, be scattered, dissolve”), whereas Tg. presumes the root ‫.נשׁת‬ ‫)11:71( מורשׁי‬ ‫)3:81( נטמינו‬ ‫)81:91( עוילים‬ Instead. 214–15. the conservative orthography may be for literary effect. namely. the orthographic conservatism indicates a northern origin and a relatively early date—late seventh or early sixth century b. which he is ָ then forced to translate as both purposive and. 23 Paul E. Furthermore. 1984). Nashville/Camden/New York: Nelson. the Heshbon Ostracon IV. The Book of Job: Commentary. Edouard Dhorme takes the infinitive to indicate purpose (“in order to set”). has many implications for exegesis.” The infinitive ָ ְ ִ ָ ְ ָ ‫ לשׂוּם‬is. implausibly. Yet the orthography does not require a northern origin. mb (“Moab”). 58–59: “Pour mettre les abaissés sur la hauteur / Et pour que les affligés se haussent au salut. Harold Knight. qrytn (“Qiryaten”). bt (“house”). if the infinitive were framed by the preceding (see Joüon-Muraoka §124p). if original. A few examples will suffice to make this point. transitive (“to raise”).68 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 64. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen. Michèle Daviau. “An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Hi rbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan). 1978). 154. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. 26 Robert Gordis. 118–19. Dhorme. and so on. 8–13). New Translation. II. Le livre de Job (EBib. Aufrecht. 1926).c.” ZDPV 116 (2000): 1–13. no.24 all from the Transjordan. one should expect the conjunction before the infinitive. hwšny (“deliver me”).-M. an early dating of the book is not required by its orthography.25 Robert Gordis asserts that “the infinitive takes on the same tense as the finite verb preceding it” and.” Eng. as it is archaistic— to give the impression of a text from long ago. Dion and P. the Tell Sīrān Bottle. shrn (“noon”). however. 56. the Amman Citadel inscription. but the parallel verb is the qal perfect ‫“( שׂגְ בוּ‬are exalted”).e. as Freedman would have it. such orthography. to corroborate the foreignness of the book’s setting. Moreover. i 25 Edouard P. 202. Paris: Lecoffre. 245. 1989). Textual Criticism A hypothesis of an originally conservative orthography helps resolve many text-critical problems in the book. and the Heshbon Ostracon XI all manifest similarly conservative orthography. . and none of the examples Gordis cites proves his point. It is more likely that the time of occur- 22 See Walter E. 24 So mš (“Mesha”). awkward in the sea of participles that one expects in a doxology ָ (vv.. wyrš (“and he dispossessed”).לשׂוּם שׁפלים למרוֹם‬to set the lowly on high. translates it as if it were a participle. since the text may be not so much archaic. To Freedman.22 as do the Hi rbet el-Mudeiyineh inscription23 and numerous instances in the Moabite Stone. trans. A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. and Special Studies (Moreshet 2.26 This explanation is ad hoc. hence. Job 5:11a The MT has ‫“ . 1 (2011) MTL alone. Whatever the explanation. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. The Nimrud Ostracon. 29 So prompting a few manuscripts of the Vg. The asseverative lamed is not translated in the OG and the Vg. one might argue that it represents a variant that is different from the MT and the other versions. if God is a redeemer of nature. 10) to the redemption of people (v. and that it reflects a conflation of two readings: (1) ‫“ . Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Textual Criticism..” 27 . The asseverative lamed in v. because those versions typically either mistranslate or do not translate it.” with dittography of mem and ‫ חרב‬taken as a metonym for war. 144r. 1987). to add egenum.” The latter reflects Hebrew ‫( וישׁעם מחרב‬i. 1921).מפיהם‬from their mouth. Ps 33:1. The OG also lacks ‫ . ‫ . Isa 38:20. 11)—from the redemption of nature (v. see John Huehnergard. 11).” There are three problems with the text: (1) the apparent redundancy of ‫“ . 30. William B.מפיהם‬Taking the Vorlage of the OG—the lectio brevior—at face value. 16.28 The lamed was incorrectly understood as a preposition at some point and so ‫ שׂם‬came to be interpreted incorrectly as an infinitive. Joüon-Muraoka §124q). instead. 28 See the OG and the Vg. ‫ הנֹּתן‬in the preceding verse). GKC §112v. The OG and the Vg. as in Ezra 9:7 and Jer 4:10. “Asseverative *la and the Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic.e. Stevenson. Job 5:15a The MT as it stands is difficult: ‫“ . “but let one save them from the sword. both have the participle. not before it (see Job 28:25. Critical Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Poem of Job (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. God is all the more so a redeemer of people.” JAOS 103 (1983): 569–93.Seow: Orthography.” and ‫“ .חזָ ק‬the strong.וַ יֹּשׁע מח ֶרב מפּיהם‬and he saved from the ֶ ִ ִ ֶ ֵ ַ sword. Qoh 9:4. Indeed.29 and (3) the awkward parallelism of the plural suffix in ‫“ . The two redemptions are integrally related. 10. Pio Fedrizzi. 65. “but let them be delivֶ ֵ ֵ ִ ered in war.” ָ The OG has ἀπόλοιντο δὲ ἐν πολέμῳ.” with the singular ‫“ . that is.השּׂם‬Yet this emendaָ ַ tion is difficult to justify. At the same time. ‫ שׂם‬instead of ‫.וישׁע מחרב‬but he saves from the See Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray. in Job 13:12. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC. 11 in fact reinforces and advances the theological claim in v. part 2. Turin/Rome: Marietti. from their mouth.” (2) the absence of an object in the first line. Hence the waw mater was added. Giobbe (Sacra Bibbia. as also in 13:12b (‫ )לגבי‬and take ‫ שׂם‬to be a participle.מפיהם‬their mouth. ֵ ַ assume the asseverative lamed. and the Poetry of Job 69 rence of the infinitive is clarified by a finite verb coming after the infinitive. “the needy. for there is no reason why anyone would have read ‫ל‬ at this point instead of ‫( ה‬cf. “but let them perish in war.” which is probably an inner-Greek error for ἀπολύοιντο δὲ ἐν πολέμῳ.)וְ י ֹשׁﬠם מח ֶרב‬literally.מחרב‬from the sword. 1951). 10) to God as one who restores people who are devastated (v. On the particle.שׂום‬ which prompts some scholars to emend the text to read ‫ 72. the particle marks the transition from God as one who rejuvenates the earth (v. thus like all the other participles in this doxology. One should. Tg. no.” neatly parallels ‫וּמיַּ ד חזָ ק‬ ִ ַ ִ ֳ ָ ‫“ . since the second is a softening of the image and “mouth” anticipates the same in the next verse. “Some Instances of the Enclitic m. 31 So Luis Alonso Schökel and Jose Luis Sicre Díaz.32 Yet his reading is forced: “He delivers the needy from the sword of their mouth. and it is an unsatisfactory parallel for “the power of the strong.” in the next verse.מח ָרב‬devastated one.” Nahum M. Besides. Sarna suggests. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.in Job.” JJS 6 (1955): 109. an attempt to resolve the syntactical difficulty. thus ‫“ .” In light of v. so msKenn 120) to read ‫מפחם‬ (‫“ . The liberation of the devastated from traps thus contrasts the trapping of the wise in v. August 2005 (ed.30 one can hardly reconstruct the text on the basis of this lone witness. Leipzig: Hirzel.מח ָרב מפּחם‬and he saves the devastated from traps. reading ‫“ . salvation comes not for the exalted but for 30 See Markus Witte. 2002). “The Greek Book of Job. 1891].” with the enclitic mem. To Eliְ ֶ phaz. 11. therefore. Several manuscripts omit the preposition in ‫ . then.מחרב־ם פיהם‬from the sword of their mouth. if it were original. 33 So August Dillmann (Hiob [4th ed.. with the absence of the expected yod mater ָ ָ ְ probably contributed to the error in the MT. It is difficult to see why. Sir 28:18—is the same as what we have here.מפיהם‬from their mouth. Then the incorrect reading of ‫מפיהם‬ generated the incorrect interpretation of ‫ מחרב‬as “from the sword. Thomas Krüger et al.” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verita vom 14.” since “mouth” and “sword” are commonly associated with one another. given the well-known tendency of OG-Job to abbreviate and indeed to eliminate portions of the text that prove difficult for the translators...” which has been explained as an idiom for slander. following a lead from Louis Cappel and Heinrich Ewald.31 though none of the parallels usually cited—Pss 52:4. who is speaking here of adynata. 2007).” with the verb gapped. This reading is also the lectio facilior.”33 Furthermore.פיה‬its mouth.” If so. 55:2.” and (2) ‫“ . 25:18.וישׁע מפיהם‬but he saves from their mouth.” 32 Sarna. 1 (2011) sword. and Vg. Job: Comentario teológico y literario (2nd ed. 45) and others after him.” assuming that ‫“ .)מפּחם‬from traps. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad. with its reference to the elevation of the dejected to safety (‫ . ‫ֹלכד חכמים‬ ִ ָ ֲ ֵ ‫ . 64:4. Prov 5:4.70 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 2.)יֶ שׁע‬one might read ‫“ .. 33–54. ATANT 88. 57:5.אביוֹן‬and the needy from the power of the strong. 13a. slander—if the expression is indeed an idiom—seems too banal a topic in this context. Yet.” which provides an object for ‫וַ יֹּשׁע‬ ַ ֳ ָ ַ and an appropriate parallel for ‫“ .מפיהם‬and this reading is supported by Syr.” is an error due to ִ ַ ִ the anticipation of ‫“ . They freely translate the idiom as “de la lengua afilada.–19. I would emend ְ ֶ ‫ מפהם( מפיהם‬in the original conservative orthography. .מחרב פיהם‬from the sword of their mouth.בּﬠ ְרמם‬The conservative orthography. The lectio brevior rule of thumb does not hold in the case of OG-Job.. 15. yea from the hand of the strong. the first is to be preferred (“sword” being a metaphor for “tongue”).אביוֹן‬needy. Accordingly. ‫וַ יֹּשׁע‬ ַ ָ ִ ‫“ .. anyone would have added the preposition. 323) tries to resolve the problem of the suffix by interpreting ‫ יוֹﬠידנִ י‬to mean “who will intervene ֵ ִ in my favor. “A Re-Examination of the Third-Yod Suffix in Job. 11). Freiburg. 125 (= Eng. NJB). assuming conservative orthography.יעד‬is represented by MTALB . in which case the suffix is datival.. 35 See Carmel McCarthy. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 42. ‫ י ֹﬠידנִ י‬in Jer 49:19). if correct. John E. and the Poetry of Job 71 the lowly (v. Textual Criticism. The Book of Job (NICOT. The likely original. 199. 1981). Le livre de Job. “he will oppose his judgment”) and the Syr. 138]). Vg.וַ תּﬠידנִ י‬ ֵ ִ ְ “and (my eye) bore witness for me. 19a). 1963). Schweiz: Universitätsverlag.” The second reading is superior. it is God who is the strong one (v. emend it to read ‫[“ . 1969). (nemo pro me audet testimonian dicere) and the Tg. 82. Blommerde has posited that the object suffix is a “Phoenicianized 3 ms form. ‫ . so the participle ‫ ֹלכד‬implies. however.s. as if in a trap. trans. Georg Fohrer. are too free here to be reliable.יוֹﬠידנּוּ‬who] will summon him. who will summon me?” (NRSV. 15). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.34 Both the OG and the Syr.” citing the OG ֶ ִ (κρίματι αὐτοῦ ἀντιστήσεται. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16.י ֹﬠ ֵדנִ י‬he will ִ summon me.וְ אם־למשׁפּטים מי יוֹﬠידנִ י‬which. which assumes the ִ verb ‫ . the ֵ devastated will be saved from traps.יְ ﬠ ֵדנִ י‬he will testify for me. thinking that the first person common singular object suffix makes no sense. tradition does not record the reading of the MT as a tiqqun sopherim. (nrw ywhy.” UF 9 (1977): 315–18. The Tiqqune Sopherim. ‫( יעדני‬so msKenn 82).” or “he will make an appointment for me” (cf. there 34 So Dhorme.”36 but the existence of such a suffix is doubtful. 37 See Ziony Zevit.עוד‬is evident in mssKenn 18. Michel. . 198. Hartley.” UF 7 (1975): 67.. as also in 29:11. If it were a matter of justice. 174.יועידנו‬Furthermore. Gütersloh: Mohn. assuming the verb ‫ . 1987). 217–18. Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job (BibOr 22. not for the clever and wise but for the devastated (v. ‫.Seow: Orthography. and Walter L. Leuven: Leuven University Press. M. (‫ . “The Linguistic and Contextual Arguments in Support of a Hebrew 3 m. Whereas the crafty will be caught (v. Job 9:19b The MT has ‫ . Most commentators.38 ֵ ִ or (2) ‫“ . 56. Suffix –y. NIV.37 More promising are the translations of the Vg. would mean someֵ ִ ִ ִ ָ ְ ִ ְ ִ thing like “if it is a matter of justice. 2006]. 38 Françoise Mies (L’espérance de Job [BETL 193. 13). Job believes that he is in the right.)מן יסהיר עלי‬both of which reflect Hebrew ‫( יעידני‬so msKenn 18) or. 1988). but he has no way of establishing it. He is followed by Lawrence Boadt. the latter. “[who] will meet him”) and sometimes claiming that the MT represents a tiqqun sopherim.35 Anton C. and Other Theological Corrections of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 36 Blommerde.” The former interpretation. they do not necessarily reflect Hebrew ‫ . If it were a matter of strength.יעדני‬may be interpreted in two ways: (1) ‫“ . a correction for theological reasons.” but this meaning has no parallel anywhere. and Tg. Thucydides. where we have ‫. 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. will condemn him (v.g. ‫ . Av. the opposite of what the reader knows from the narrator and God (1:1.תּם‬blameless. where he will nevertheless have to plead for mercy.” echoes ‫“ . if he is forced to bear false witness? Testimony— ָ more specifically.69. and having admitted that in the face of God’s unrestrained fury even the innocent person can only plead for mercy (v. 60. probably reflecting Hebrew ‫ 93. e.יָ שׁיב // שׁחחוּ‬ ֲ ָ ִ 40 So. 2:3). Freiburg/Leipzig/Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. The emendation.תּח ֵדּשׁ‬you renew. / and increase your vexation with me. Hist. since the Greek verb may be used of a military detachment. 353 (all cited in LSJ.e.40 The Syr.)וְ חלּפתּ צבא ﬠמּי‬but the misinterpretation of ‫ חלפת‬as ‫ חלפֹת‬led to the addition of the conjunction before ‫ .חלפת‬This reading ָ ָ is superior to the MT. which does not coordinate well with the preceding two lines.” The problem lies in the third line of the triplet. Aristophanes. The juxtaposition of a yqtl form with a qtl is not a problem. 19b). Having already argued that a real lawsuit is impossible because of the vast disparity of power. as well.תּם‬complete. as the next verse confirms. Should Job recover. 1896). does not account for the different readings. Herodotus. How can Job be ‫ . Even if Job were in the right. 15). See.72 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Hist. keeps him at a constant disadvantage. 1 (2011) is no one who will testify for him and vouch for his innocence (v. 19:1.63. / Changes and warfare are with me.ותחלף‬So Karl Budde.g. 602. as if he were guilty. 41 The conjunction is lacking in the Vg. like a hostile witness. The point is that Job will come out looking like the opposite of what he is—indeed. The terms ‫ תם‬and ‫ עשׁק‬in v. the OG reads ἐπήγαγες δὲ ἐπʼ ἐμὲ πηρατήρια (“you bring upon me a trial”). 6. as if it were apart from and inimical to him? How can he be ‫ . 20). though. Bernhard Duhm.v.צבא‬Indeed..תּח ֵדּשׁ ﬠ ֶדיָך נֶ גְ ִדּי / וְ ת ֶרב כּﬠשָׂך ﬠמּ ִדי / חליפוֹת וְ צבא ﬠמּי‬You ִ ִ ָ ָ ִ ֲ ָ ִ ְ ַ ַ ֶ ֵ ַ ְ renew your witnesses before me. 50. Job now imagines himself in such a legal setting.. assumes a second person masculine singular subject and does not have the conjunction before ‫ 14. ἐπάγω).165. whiylwn mhilp nt ly (“and the armies you renew against me”) supports the OG in that it. 11:20.וחלפת צבא עמי‬The verb ἐπάγειν in this context renders Hebrew ‫ . no. 9:13. too.חלּפתּ‬you refresh. Job’s powerful adversary. false testimony—is at issue. God the enemy would just renew the hostile witnesses against him 39 Others have proposed emending the verb to ‫ .צבא‬The original must have been ‫וחלפת צבא‬ ִ ִ ָ ָ ָ ְ ַ ִ ִ ֲ ‫( עמי‬i. Job 10:17c The MT is suspect: ‫“ . 1. Moreover. 7. for ‫“ .” in the ָ ְ ַ ִ ַ ְ first line of the triplet. Das Buch Hiob (KHC 16. Testimony is indeed the issue. 1897).. 28:6). if ָ his tongue bears witness against him. e. s. 20b are an antonymous word pair in Hebrew poetry (see also Prov 10:9. God. his mouth. Das Buch Hiob (HAT.חלף‬an adequate translation. msKenn 176 has ‫ . . ” and ‫“ . This reading is in complete accord with ‫. and the Poetry of Job 73 (v. “he is higher than heaven” in the Vg. 43 So too Fedrizzi. Leiden/New York/: Brill. and the sea) that together represent the extreme dimensions of the cosmos humans cannot attain. Giobbe. however. . 8a–9ab).גבהם שמים‬high is heaven. the earth. The poet elaborates that God is increasing his “vexation” against Job (10:17b).ﬠמקּה משּׁאֹל‬ ִ ְ ַ ְ ִ ָ ֻ ֲ “deeper than Sheol. may also have come from an original ‫( גבה משׁמם > גבהה משׁמם :גבהה משׁמם‬haplography of ‫> )ה‬ ‫( גבהים משׁמים‬introduction of matres to conform to later “standard”) > ‫גבהי משׁמים‬ “higher than heaven” (haplography of ‫( גבהי שׁמים > )מ‬haplography of ‫ מ‬due to similarity of the tops of ‫ מ‬and ‫ שׁ‬in the paleo-Hebrew script). 17b). ְרחבה מנִּ י־יָם‬wider ֶ ֵ ָ ֲ ִ ָ ָ than the sea” (vv. and the Tg. no doubt meaning the deity’s punitive rage (Deut 32:19.)1:7( צבא‬Now ָ ָ he suggests that his term is in fact renewed (v. Job had earlier suggested that life on earth is a term of hard service.” is supported by Aq. and the Tg.גבהי שׁמים‬the heights of heaven. ‫ . namely.גבהה משׁמים‬higher than heaven” > ‫“ . Hebrew ‫ גבהים שׁמים‬or. Now he charges that this vexation is something that God increases against him (v. 76*. length.”43 the (feminine singular) subject being ֵ ָ ִ ָ ‫ תּכלית‬in the preceding verse. with the preposition ‫ מן‬read incorrectly as the marker of the ִ plural: ‫“ . Others. however.. 10c).” which Jerome partially “corrects” to ‫. add the prefixed preposition ‫( ב‬the bet essentiae) or ‫“ .. presuming conservative orthography. 21:22. 42 See David M. depth.”42 The OG. has ὑψηλὸς ὁ οὐρανός. 17a). his suffering (6:2). 1994). Some medieval interpreters suggested that these witnesses may be an allusion to Job’s friends (so Mes udat David). Job 11:8a The MT’s ‫“ . though to make sense of the text some variants of Tg. no guilt proven.” that is. “heaven is high.גבה משׁמים‬The OG in fact reflects both a haplography of ‫ ה‬and a misdivision of words. as if reading ‫ . “he is more sublime than heaven.א ֻרכּה מא ֶרץ‬longer than the earth. I would read ‫“ . The various afflictions that come upon Job—his adversaries as well as his adversities—seem to bear witness to Job’s guilt. Aq.כ‬as the heights of heaven.” but he renders with excelsior caelo est.Seow: Orthography. ‫ . despite the fact that no charges have ever been leveled. The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (AGJU 20. and breadth) and four analogues (the heavens.גבהם שמם‬Jerome reads sublimior est caelo. 2 Kgs 23:26. perhaps his constantly changing ailments (Rashi)—an interpretation that finds support in Job’s own words later in 16:8.גבה משׁמים‬ The variant represented by the MT. Ps 85:5). 1 Kgs 15:30. Hence.” ‫“ . i imagine that the witnesses are Job’s troubles. and that is possible. the netherworld. Job himself had indeed referred to his vexation. 119. Divine infinitude is expressed in four spatial terms (height. Textual Criticism.. Furthermore. Stec.גְּ בֹהה משּׁמם‬higher than the heavens. 46 Ibid.” Postbiblical Hebrew attests the verb ‫ . Job 3:8a The MT has ‫“ . and to emend ‫ יוֹם‬to ‫ 74. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 and Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht..ספחיה‬while msKenn 248 reads ‫ .”45 The verb sahiafa in Arabic means “to pare. where ym and ltn are a poetic See David J. ὕδατα ὕπτια.ספיחיה‬even though there is no ָ ֶ ִ ְ obvious antecedent for the third person feminine singular suffix and none of the versions reflects a suffix. swell” (cf. add to. So the translation in Theod. A.” a reading ֻ ְ supported by all the versions. “the deposits”) and the Vg. as are the translations of Symm. cf. ALB III.”46 The verb ‫ ספח‬basically means “to grow.יִ קּבהוּ א ְֹר ֵרי־יוֹם‬let those who enchant day curse it. Clines.” to cite the association of Leviathan with Sea in the Bible (Pss 74:13–14. Isa 27:1). Arabic safahia means “to pour our (water)” and the noun sāfihi means “pouring out. adluvione. it has become common to note that the parallel line has ‫“ .44 the word in question being confused with sahiîqat “torrential rain.. with a metathesis of ‫ פ‬and ‫ .סחיפה‬that is. Rab. peel. as the following examples demonstrate.ספיחה‬both partially representing a more conservative orthography than the MT.ספּ ַח‬which ֵ ִ may refer to a river spilling over and casting out its alluvial soil (Gen.יָם‬This emendation gained support with the discovery of the Ugaritic tablets. 104:25–26.סחף‬to wash away. The original is ‫ . is thought to be related to ‫( סֹחף‬Prov 28:3. a participle for ‫“ . 1369. followed by Georg Beer. 1989). Dallas: Word Books. Der Text des Buches Hiob (Marburg: Elwert.74 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.ע ֵֹרר לוְ יָתן‬to ָ ִ rouse Leviathan. ‫ . also ‫ נִ סחף‬in Jer ֵ ַ ְ 46:15). Poetic Effects The conservative orthography of Job allows for rich wordplays in many passages. ‫ספיח‬ ַ ִ ְ “outgrowth”).” and it is never used of water. 1318–19.” An original ‫ ספחה‬solves the problem. 1 (2011) Job 14:19b The MT and most manuscripts have ‫ . 59.ספחה‬Most modern commentators believe that the MT’s ‫ ספיחיה‬is an error for ָ ֶ ִ ְ ‫ .סחיפה‬unattested elseָ ִ ְ ָ ִ ְ where in Hebrew. 45 44 . section 13)..” is appropriate. “with a flood (that deposits alluvial soil).” though that meaning in Arabic is doubtful. Lane. no. “upturned waters. 1895). supposedly meaning “torrential rain. hence “to spill over. 1895–97). 47 So already Hermann Gunkel. By contrast.” Widely cited as a cognate is Arabic sahiîfat. Ever since Hermann Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos. strip.ח‬The latter. 17–18. however. (τὰ παραλελειμμένα. Job 1–20 (WBC 17. MsKenn 99 has ‫ . 284–85. Missoula.” Syria 40 (1963): 16. Basile Aggoula.” in Brekelmans et al. “Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes de Hatra. therefore. see Scott B. 1977).”49 The parallels are so compelling in any case that even those who demur to the proposed association of Job 3:8a with “sea” recognize that mythology must somehow lie in the background. by paronomasia. invokes a spell “against the days” (Hatra 23:4)...” the reader is no doubt expected to interpret ‫ ים‬first as “day” (‫ . Questions disputées de l’Ancien Testament. understand ‫ א ְֹר ֵרי־י ֹם‬to refer not to human enchanters. Le iscrizioni de Hatra (Istituto orientale di Napoli. putative sorcerers who were called upon to bring about an eclipse. 3.אוֹר‬light” (see v.” possibly a reference to the morning stars that also symbolize See also Charles D. 54–55. to give the book a foreign flavor.” For the meaning of the expression ‫ . one may surmise that the text originally had ‫ .” JBL 122 [2003]: 655–54) imagines that the poet deliberately chose a Phoenician word for literary effect.48 A few commentators. fascicle 3. however. as we know from Emar (no. Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology (SBLDS 34. Noegel. Carl Brekelmans et al. 49 Mitchell Dahood.50 The poet may be intentionally ambivalent. Textual Criticism. since Shahiru. Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic. Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 139.52 Indeed. with some scholars reading ‫ זמתה‬instead. 1974).I. Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17. texts 2. 6. The reading of ‫ ימתה‬has been disputed.” in Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament: Méthode et théologie (ed. 48 .יִ קּבהוּ א ְֹר ֵרי־י ֹם‬one may point first to a tanֻ ְ talizing parallel in a text from Hatra where the god Shahiru. 53 For a possible background for such curses. according to Francesco Vattioni’s reading. “Job iii 5 in the Light of Mesopotamian Demons of Time. 754–55. posit that yôm is in fact the Phoenician pronunciation for “Sea. MT: Scholars Press. 20. Grabbe. MT: Scholars Press.5. One might. See André Caquot.שׁחר‬DDD.” VT 57 (2007): 556–62. 6) and given that at issue is the malediction against “day. 36. Assuming that the diphthong was contracted in Job. is a god of the netherworld. 1991).1–3). 51 See Vattioni. Naples: Istituto orientale di Napoli. 32. 1975). Similarly. however. and the Poetry of Job 75 pair (CTU 1. 7. Lester L. 50 James Barr. with Illustrations from Job. 28 agli i Annali 41. 9b) and may. BETL 33. “Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Guethner. 1981). 9). namely. 52 See Simon B. 74. recall the luminaries in the sky— “the shiners of day. and also some Jewish incantation texts from the Sassanian period that link the two sea monsters. 2nd ed. Missoula. 57. Supplemento n. as many have suggested.. ‫“( שׁחר‬dawn”) is mentioned in the ַ ַ very next line of our poem (v. Leuven: Leuven University Press.53 Accordingly. 4. 369:24–25). 5. Isbell. ‫ א ְֹר ֵרי־י ֹם‬may be a wordplay with ‫“ . but to fallen astral deities who invoke spells to ensure eternal darkness. unwilling to emend. Dawn in mythology. Parker. Edward L. “Shahar ‫ ”. “Northwest Semitic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.51 This text is tantalizing.Seow: Orthography. followed by Michel. Greenstein (“The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function.)י ֹם‬So ‫ אררי־ים‬would simply be understood to mean “those who enchant Day.ים‬Given the recurrence of the word “day” in the poem so far (vv. rather than ֻ ְ suppressed.” but from ‫“ . 10 and passim. so ‫ הﬠת ִדם ע ֵֹרר לוְ יָ תן‬is ironic: that which is to be suppressed is ָ ִ ִ ֲ ָ roused instead. Just as ‫ יִ קּבהוּ א ְֹר ֵרי־יָ ם‬is ironic insofar as they who are to be pierced are doing the piercing. 3:8b. perhaps in spells like those found in later Jewish magical texts. The ַ ַ ְ ַ ֵ last example.” Hence.)שׁחר‬ ַ ַ Yet the parallel line. one reads ‫“ . and night will not see “the eyes of dawn” (‫55.43.VI.54 only the poet means something much more ominous—the cursing of day: “let the shiners of day curse it. The verb should be parsed now not as deriving from ‫“ . Properly. Jer 9:17). Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. At the same time. though.” The latter verb is used in Job 40:24. a move that poetry critic Barbara Herrnstein Smith dubs “retrospective patterning.)הﬠתּ ִדם‬As for the infinitive ‫“ .” Then the poet will proceed in the next verse to wish for the morning stars themselves to be darkened.יִ קּבהוּ א ְֹר ֵרי־יָם‬ ֻ ְ “let sea’s enchanters pierce it. 1 (2011) the astral deities. Cf. forces a rereading of the text.” the ‫ א ְֹר ֵרי־יָ ם‬being the spell-casting allies of the sea monster—like “the helpers of Rahab” in 9:13. no. suggests that the word must mean “eye” rather than “eyelids” or “eyelashes” (and hence “flickering. 6:4. It may refer. the term recalls Isa 14:9. ִ ֲ ָ on the other. the retrospective adjustment of interpretation as one progresses through a poem.” ֻ ְ the reading to which one is led on account of the recurrence of “day” so far in the poem. and like the spell-casting allies of Tiamat in the Enuma Elish. 1968). where the “arm of Yhwh” is roused to combat the chaos monsters. where pp is parallel to q. ‫ ﬠינַ יִ ם‬refers to eyes ֵ in their sockets. where the sun and the moon are called “the eyes of heaven” (WÄS 1:107). the chaos monster is to be roused. if the orthography is conservative.ע ֵֹרר‬to ֻ ַ ָ rouse.” it echoes Isa 51:9. the “eyes” here are celestial bodies. on the one hand. now these “enchanters of Sea” are the ones who pierce monstrified night. one may take the line to mean. one adjusts to read ‫. Whereas traditionally the monsters are supposed to be pierced. while ‫ ﬠפﬠפּיִ ם‬would be the whole—the eyes together with eyelids and eyelashes ַ ַ ְ ַ (‫ שׂיער עפעפים‬in postbiblical Hebrew). Jer 9:17. also have Sea and Leviathan in parallelism. Yet in Job’s malediction. ‫ ﬠפﬠפּיִ ם‬is a synonym of ‫“ ﬠינַ יִ ם‬eyes” (Pss 11:4. “Job III 8.14. 56 Smith. so that night will hope for light (‫ )אֹר‬but will not find it.יִ קּבהוּ א ְֹר ֵרי־י ֹם‬let the enchanters of day curse it. In any case.76 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 54 55 So Edward Ullendorff.” VT 11 (1961): 350–51. Cued by the second line. Prov 4:25. Ugaritic. stars that are visible at dawn in the west—“over the sea. where ‫ﬠתּוּדי א ֶרץ‬ ָ ֵ ַ are deceased heroes in the netherworld. 30:13.56 In the first instance.” an allusion to the outbreak of daylight. 26 precisely of the destruction of sea monsters.קבב‬to curse.הﬠתידים ע ֵֹרר לוְ יָ תן‬The term ‫ הﬠתידים‬apparently refers ָ ִ ִ ִ ֲ ָ ִ ִ ֲ ָ to those who are trained.14. “eyeball” (CTU 1.נקב‬to pierce. incidentally. .30). Without the internal matres. 132:4.” that is. The parallel line has ‫ . which. as also in Egyptian literature. to the netherworldy heroes (‫ . to human experts (‫ )הﬠת ִדם‬or. the term in Job is ambivalent. “let the shiners of day pierce it (the darkness of night).III. 1.” as often suggested) since tears flow from it. 1960). First is the view reflected in the traditional interpretation of the text: “‫ א ָדם‬is born to trouble. who brings human beings into the world to suffer (so 3:10). On the other hand. Noth and D. His argument is not that humans have been “born to trouble. NRSV. they are now the conseָ ָ ָ quences of the acts. The Book of Job (OTL. Habel.”57 Indeed. the ‫ א ָדם‬who causes birth. that is.]ﬠמל‬birthing trouble [‫. The mention of ‫ בּנֵ י‬in the parallel line ְ corroborates this view as well. all assume a passive ָ ָ ָ ְ ָ ִ meaning for the verb. and the Poetry of Job 77 Job 5:7a The MT has ‫ . the ‫ ל‬marks the object. ‫“ . is God. 179 line 102.” 57 ..י ֹלד‬ ַ ִ So the text may be read in two ways. Leiden: Brill. 176. Textual Criticism. 24 March 1955 (ed. Job argues in ָ 3:10 that human beings are born to trouble.Seow: Orthography. to suffer. Winton Thomas. Vg. is a metaphor for humans. ‫. Syr.” but that they are the ones who beget trouble: ‫כּי א ָדם לﬠמל‬ ָ ָ ְ ָ ִ ָ ‫ 06. VTSup 3.ילד‬thus rendering the niphal ֵ impossible.לאוִ יל יַ הר ֹג־כּﬠשׂ‬vexation kills ַ ָ ֲ ֱ ֶ the fool.58 Yet Eliphaz surely could not have meant that. as is the hiphil.י ֹלד‬is implicitly ָ ִ Thus all the ancient versions.ילד‬to birth. one might maintain with the exemplary-sufferer texts from the ancient Near East that human beings inevitably fall short (so 4:17–18). M. born to sin. 58 So Norman C.” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley by the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. “Man and His God: A Sumerian Variation on the ‘Job’ Motif. That would be in line with the traditional view going back to the so-called Sumerian Job: “Never has a sinless child been born to its mother. On the one hand. The ultimate source. both views affirm. 60 In this case. also KJV. 132..יִ וָּ לד‬Many Hebrew manuscripts. The plant in this case. He might have argued that humans are “born to trouble” in the sense that they are born to give trouble. 1985). The qal or hophal passive (‫ )יֻ לד‬is more likely. and Tg. also Die Einheitsübersetzung and TOB (Traduction oecuménique de la Bible). 59 See Samuel Noah Kramer. Eliphaz argues that “‫ אוֶ ן‬does not grow from ִ ‫ . however. NIV. Philadelphia: Westminster.” ָ ָ ָ Whereas ‫ אוֶ ן‬and ‫ ﬠמל‬are the acts of the farmer in 4:8. one might argue with Job that the ultimate cause of suffering is God. though. which Dhorme and others take to reflect the niphal form ‫ . 2.]אוֶ ן‬ ָ ָ ָ their womb bringing about deceit. one reads about the impious “conceiving misery [‫ . Thus.”59 So the conceit ‫ כּי א ָדם לﬠמל יֻ לד‬leaves ַ ָ ָ ְ ָ ִ open the possibility that people who hold a common belief in the sovereignty of God may come to very different conclusions about the immediate cause of suffering. Cf.א ָדמה‬He is explicating the doctrine of retribuָ ָ ָ ָ ָ ֲ tion stated already in 4:8 that “those who plow ‫ אוֶ ן‬and sow ‫ ﬠמל‬reap the same. ‫ . as indeed the verb ‫“ .ﬠפר‬nor does ‫ ﬠמל‬sprout from ‫ ”. Yet Eliphaz may not be conceding that God might be responsible after all for bringing mortals to this world to sin.” suggests.כּי א ָדם לﬠמל יוּלּד‬The OG.י ֹלד‬Already in the preceding verse.” In 15:35. as it does also in v. have ‫ . Chico. CA: Scholars Press.” and since that line is juxtaposed with the threats personified Plague (‫ ) ֶדּבר‬and Disease (‫ . [Resheph]. perhaps meaning the effects of pestilence. a form remarkably close to the apparent reading of the OG. Once they produce trouble. famine.63 The Syriac translates the term as “words. “possession.מן לם‬literally.מנְ לם‬assuming the nasalization of gemination that is common in Araִ ִ maic morphology (though admittedly not for this noun). *mānōl. and (3) the masculine plural suffix does not coordinate with the singular antecedent (see ‫ חילוֹ‬in the preceding line).אצלם‬literally. 63 The addition of the possessive pronoun in the Vg. “the lord of the arrows. “Resheph of the Arrows” (KAI 32:3. which probably reflects Hebrew ‫( . The MT’s ‫ מנְ לם‬is doubtful. has “from them.צלם‬that is. 62 So Adalbert Merx. too. no. .צלם‬The Vg. (2) one should expect the nun to be assimilated. it appears that there are two variants—‫( מנלם‬so MT and probably Tg. a cognate of Arabic manāl. 72–73. 1982]. Thus. too. It has been ָ ִ explained as derived from a unique noun. Der Text des Buches Hiob.בּנֵ י ֶרשׁף‬the issues of pestilence. like the pollen that plants produce. Rather. where ‫“ רשׁף‬pestilence” is rendered by ‫ . The OG has σκιάν (“shadow”).רשׁפ]י[ מות‬deadly pestilences that fly about (4QBéat. Onq. is a Ugaritic incantation mentioning bl his. Beer. it does not necessarily indicate a suffix in its Vorlage. *minleh (so BDB). perhaps diseases in the air (cf.צלם‬though it is possible that the OG is interpreting ‫ אצלם‬to mean the same as ‫ . humans who generate trouble produce contagions.מנֹלם‬ ָ ְ 61 Resheph. is merely to clarify the sense of the text. ‫ בּנֵ י ֶרשׁף‬may ֶ ְ refer to the deadly issues of pestilence. trouble does not just remain with them. 304). Dictionary of Old South Arabic.)קטב‬the ֶ ֶ ֶ arrows are to be understood as an allusion to Resheph’s weapon of choice. ravaging pestilence (‫ . Sabaean Dialect [HSS 25. Tg. and probably OG).” either reading ‫ . and Syr. Job 15:29b The textual witnesses are in disarray. A fragment of a wisdom text from Qumran speaks ‫ . 1 (2011) ֶ ְ associated with the ‫ .) and ‫( אצלם‬so Vg.61 In other words. 1871).עוף‬as here in Job).78 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.” that is arrows or indeed anything that is ֶ ְ shot into the air. Since “arrows” may be a metaphor for one’s progeny (Ps 124:4-5). In Deut 32:23–24. the god of pestilence in Canaan. Most recent commentators take the consonantal text of the MT at face value but assume a noun.2). “possession” (so Joan Copeland Biella. 96. 4). ‫ . Song 8:6). also Sabaean mnlt. with a prothetic aleph. ‫ רשׁף‬is simply “arrow” (so Ps 76:4. line 5). Psalm 91:5 speaks of “the arrows that fly by day. even though (1) there is no root nlw/y anywhere in Semitic. ‫ בּנֵ י ֶרשׁף‬may mean “issues of Resheph.)לחמי ֶרשׁף‬and disease are among the arrows sent by the deity. “roots”). has radiֶ ֶ cem suam (“his root”). ֶ ֵ ֻ ְ Elsewhere. which ֵ some scholars plausibly conjecture as reflecting Hebrew ‫ 26. 15. “from [what is] theirs. frag. one finds the epithet ršp hisi.82. ‫ . Deut 32:24.מלּם‬or ִ ִ perhaps. The Tg.” probably reflecting Hebrew ‫ . In a Phoenician inscription from Kition. is typically portrayed in texts and iconography as an archer. Pertinent. Das Gedicht von Hiob (Jena: Mauke.” the arrows being a reference to deadly diseases that this demon shoots into one’s vital organs (CTU 1. the diseases of this pestilence endanger all those around them. 64 Cf.” 64 hence *‫.” Thus.i [ršp]. מנֹלם‬ ִ ְ The noun ‫ . 29). reconsider the levels of signification in the preceding verse. 29b. Eliphaz’s metaphor of rootage in 5:3). he will not take his wealth with him when he dies. the wicked whose roots are his possessions: “heat will dry up its shoot” (v. . namely.מנֹלם‬possessions. whose wealth will not endure. Textual Criticism. then. Lane. 29b means not only that the wicked cannot spread his possessions to the netherworld. . חילוֹ .מנלים‬The majority form. for there is no appropriate antecedent and most translators simply ignore the plural meaning in the Hebrew and translate the suffix as “his” (so NIV. וְ לא . 1952]. 1:99. If one reads ‫ אצלם‬in v. ִ ָ ֲ assuming the conservative orthography of the original. that is. Gustav Hölscher (Das Buch Hiob [HAT 17. (and OG?) as ‫ . in light of v. . he will not be deeply rooted (cf. 64–65.” See his Ebla: Un impero inciso nell’argilla (Saggi 126. The same point ֶ is made in Ps 49:15–21. Indeed Eliphaz says it with verve—‫—לא . Accordingly. ‫ . and the Poetry of Job 79 literally.”65 The third person plural suffix.67 Taking both variants to have the same meaning. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. since even when it is cut down it may still regenerate at the mere scent of water so that “its shoot will not cease” (14:7).66 Assuming Nabatean and Arabic asil as a cognate.” may also mean “property. the netherworld. לא ֶרץ‬ ָ ָ ֹ ֵ ֹ ֹ with all the negatives leading eventually to ‫ . that the wicked may be wealthy but their wealth is but temporary. 262. . וְ לא . he speaks of devastation by blight (v.” the plural ending being supported by ִ ְ msKenn 145. Paris: Cerf. that arboreal metaphor has been anticipated ִ ָ ֲ at the end of the previous verse.” we understand Eliphaz to mean that the wicked man. where he reads ‫ מנלם‬in Job 15:29 as ‫ . for that term means not just “possessions” but also “roots.)ארץ‬that is. . who read ‫.” in a lexical text from Ebla. . The arboreal metaphor recalls as well Job’s conceit that there is hope for a tree. La notte e di il suo sole: luce e tenebre nel Libro di Giobbe (AnBib 135. “cattle. Eliphaz associates the wicked with this metaphorical tree. which prompted him to interpret “cow” as pecunia and ma-ni-lum as “possession. they can take none of it with them when they die. 30b). assets” in Nabatean and Arabic. see ֶ ִ also v. 30. one might vocalize the Hebrew in the Vorlage of the Vg. which has ‫ . It is better to read *‫“ . 241. It also means that “he will not extend roots to the earth” (‫ . one might retrospectively repattern. however. Milan: Mondadori.אצלם‬again. will not be able to bring his temporary advantage to bear in his final destination. One might posit that ‫ אצלם‬is a genuine variant of ‫. 67 Cf. Talk of the netherworld brings Eliphaz back to his earlier point about the dark destination from which the wicked would not turn (‫ . 65 Giovanni Pettinato called attention to the occurrence of ma-ni-lum as a gloss of Sumerian ÁB. v. 1955].אצלים‬ .מנִ לם‬He is followed recently ִ ְ by Gianantonio Borgonovo. . “their possession.” Indeed. NJPS).אצל‬taken by Jerome to mean “root. 30a. .א ֶרץ‬the netherworld. “possessions. But Eliphaz is less sanguine about the tree than Job. 1969). 1995).מנִּ י חֹשְׁך‬v.מנלם‬simply reflects the original conservative orthography. Employing an arboreal metaphor.Seow: Orthography. 22a). NAB. is awkward. 66 See DNSWI. 39) and Jean Steinmann (Le livre de Job [LD 16. 30b). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. ” the root ‫ זמם‬being attested in Aramaic with the meaning “to tie up. Job is here taking issue with Eliphaz.” This is the interpretation of Saadiah. ירץ‬The conservative spelling of ‫( ירץ‬as opposed to ‫ )יָ רוּץ‬enhances the poetry. 2004). ָ ָ where ‫“. thus graphically (and phonologically) representing the eventual breach that spells the end of Job: ‫ . 69 68 .מ ְרשׁי לבבי‬the noun ‫ זִ מֹּתי‬may also be interpreted to ִ ָ ְ ֵ ַ ַ mean “my ties. M/2.רשׁשׁ‬ ֵ ְ “to crush”).” reflecting Hebrew ‫( מ ִרשּׁי‬from ‫. ed. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher. The repeated bilabial p opens to a glide. where ‫ זִ מּה‬has to do with desire for a woman. straps.מאוַ יֵּ י ָרשׁע‬desires of the wicked. Thus. . “those who destroy. torquentes cor meum may be explained similarly.ארשׁ‬to desire”: *maraš > *māraš > *mōraš > môrāš. The noun is a hapax legomenon in Hebrew.” and Syriac maršā. ‫ . however.”70 See CAD 10. who follows a cue from Ibn Ezra. who has accused the wicked of playing the warrior (‫ )52:51 . but ‫ מורשׁי לב‬has a parallel in Standard Babylonian mēreš libbi. Job 17:11 There are a couple of wordplays in this verse. as if such a puny mortal as he were a mighty fortress..מרשׁי‬This is indeed the reading in five manuscripts. “desire of the heart. the ַ ְ ָ ֵ hostility was initiated by God the enemy—an aggression directed at the innocent no less. . . 1967]. muzzle.מ ְרשׁי לבבי‬where the first noun is cognate to Akkadian maršu.” which is a translation of ‫( מרשׁי לבבי‬interpreted as ‫ . ִ ָ ְ ֵ ַ “thongs.” reflecting Hebrew ‫ . ִ ָ ְ ֵ ְ apart from the MT. finds the deity charging ( ‫ )ירץ‬as a warrior.פרץ‬to breach”: ‫ .יָמי ﬠברוּ / זִ מֹּתי נִ תּקוּ / מוֹרשׁי לבבי‬The noun ‫ מורשׁי‬is presumably derived ִ ָ ְ ֵ ָ ְ ַ ְ ָ ַ from the root ‫“ . according to the MTALB: ‫ .יִ תגַּ בּר‬and charging against God (15:26. El Comentario de Abraham Ibn Ezra al Libro de Job (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. If one reads ‫ . has τὰ ἄρθρα τῆς καρδίας μου.יפרצני פרץ על־פני־פרץ‬The beginning of the next line of the couplet.’s lwhiy lby. no.זְ ממוֹ‬his wants.” is juxtaposed with ‫“ .מרשׁי‬The Tg.)מ ִרשּׁי לבבי‬and the Vg.)יָ רוּץ אליו‬To Job. . Tur-Sinai (The Book of Job: A New Commentary [rev. which reads. פרץ . all the versions read ‫ . 281-82). “tablets of my heart.” is probably a later misinterpretation of earlier lhiy lby “those who destroy my heart. And that relentlessness is conveyed by the repetition of the root ‫“ .פרץ . A related noun is ‫ זְ מם‬in Ps 140:9. for which see Mariano Gómez Aranda. 1 (2011) Job 16:14 Job describes God’s relentless attack on him. “rope. ‫ . Instituto de Filología.”69 The OG.” ָ ָ ֲ ַ 70 So Napthali H.זִ מֹּתי‬which may be ַ understood to mean “my wants.”68 As such. 139.80 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. however. The Syriac has mwbdy. . y. 26. however. פרץ . ‫ מורשׁי לבבי‬parallels ‫ . which again reflects conservative orthography. . See 31:11. “the strings of my heart. body. Job 20:23 The stanza in 20:12–23 reaches a crescendo in the last verse with an imprecation against the wicked. “to be hostile. but many manuscripts have the more conservative orthography.” that is.72 On the one hand.e. God’s intervention in working out the doctrine of retribution has been suggested already in v. Textual Criticism.מ ְרשׁי‬Indeed.)ויברח‬This reading corroborates the omission of the internal waw mater.” On the one hand. Ramaq. as divine wrath is set against him. The subject of the jussive verb in the first line of v. “his war. 15a). for one may interpret it to mean either ‫ מ ָֹרשׁי‬or ‫ 17. raining upon the wicked (v. the repetition of the verb ‫“ . In each case. presumably God. for the text speaks of someone. 1. “with warlike strength. when God purges the stomach of the wicked for the wickedness it has consumed..לחם‬The mediֻ ְ eval commentators are similarly split. the terseness of the lines perhaps representing the shortening of Job’s life. with Saadiah. and Ralbag 71 In fact. though. though. ‫ לחם‬I) and Ibn Ezra. The poet depicts the already-sated glutton being further force-fed. Rashi. The MTALB has ‫ וימטר עלימו בלחומו‬in v. Here. 23).” and the Syr.” in vv. ֵ ַ I cannot resist adding the observation that this triplet consists of three very short lines coming one after another in staccato fashion.” reflecting ‫ . and Mesudat David i assuming “war” or the like (i.)מ ְרשׁי‬Job’s intentions are snapped like cords. “reins” (‫ )מ ָֹרשׁי‬refers to one’s desires or intenֵ tions. the subject may be the “fierce anger” mentioned in the parallel line. The hand of misery that will press upon the bloated glutton (v. 23c).חבלם( חבלם‬see 21:17).” assuming ‫ . has “flesh. The Vg.)בּוֹ‬There is irony as well in this unwelcome divine feeding. the wicked does not simply throw up (v. “in him” (‫ . one may capture the double entendre by translating ֵ ֵ ַ ‫ מרשׁי‬as “reins. taking the waw at the end with the ִ ָ ֲ next line (καὶ οὐ μὴ σωθῇ = Hebrew ‫ . The jussive in 20:23 is in fact corroborated by ‫ יַמטר‬in the parallel line. one suspects that the spelling ‫ מ ָֹרשׁי‬instead of the proper form ‫ מֹ)א(רשׁי‬is ֵ ֵ ָ deliberate—to facilitate the wordplay. 23c. ‫ בלחמו‬instead of ‫ .מלא‬to be full. “pains. The latter. On the other hand. The structure of the triplet mirrors the triplet in v.Seow: Orthography. 72 Some critics take ‫ יְ הי‬to be an anomalous imperfect and cite the same form in Job 18:12 as ִ another example. the verb “snapped” evokes another meaning of the noun “reins. reads bqrbtnwth.” Both versions derive ‫ לחם‬from root ‫לחם‬ I.בלחומו‬The OG has ὀδύνας. is not an imperfect but a preterite form. “cords” (‫ . 22–23 suggests that either “abundance” or “misery” may be the subject of the verb: “Let it be for the filling of his belly. has bellum suum. and the Poetry of Job 81 The spelling of ‫ מרשׁי‬facilitates a wordplay. ֵ ְ . 15b. fight. or indeed. 23 is ambiguous.” On the other hand. the third line is without a verb—an incomplete sentence that mimics the loss of life. which also concerns the attenuation of life. 22) is a manifestation of divine anger (v. Ramban.” whereas the Tg. God’s action against the wicked is as much divine providence as God’s giving of food in the wilderness. Holbert. though.” or ‫ לחם‬II. too. 14. ancient. fight.75 In Zophar’s scenario. 1972). Here Zophar is perhaps satirizing Job’s appeal to earth in 16:18 and his conviction in 16:19 that his witness is in heaven.”74 The original orthography. 27b). and modern interpreters presume either ‫ לחם‬I. Heaven’s 73 See Scott B.” VT 31 (1981): 177. NAB: “missiles of war”). In Zophar’s poetry. 1996).)בּלחֹמוֹ‬ ְ ִ and NIV “his blows” (so REB: “cruel blows”. no. He has just spoken of heaven revealing the offenses of the wicked (v. 68. Deut 28:33). so what is theirs will be seized by others. hostility is suggested by the sending of anger against the wicked. 28. that the produce generated by the wicked will be exposed to seizure by others (cf.73 On the other hand. ‫ בלחמו‬echoes ‫ לחמו‬in v.” This interpretation is reinforced by the juxtaposition of the ‫ המטיר‬and ‫ לחם‬in Exod 16:4. “ ‘The Skies Will Uncover His Iniquity’: Satire in the Second Speech of Zophar (Job XX). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. namely. but this divine providence from on high is just what the voracious wicked must “eat.e.יְבוּל בּיתוֹ‬let one expose the produce of his house.” NJB “his flesh. Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job (JSOTSup 223. 75 Thus John C. God’s hostility is the “food” that the wicked do not want. ‫. brawl. ִ ְ ִ ֶ ֶ Furthermore. where food is a metaphor for wickedness. Accordingly. “to be hostile. Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. these cosmic witnesses will attest to the guilt of the wicked. the references to consumption in the immediate context prompt one to take ‫ לחם‬as “food. The two cosmic entities. 27a). 24-27). “hand-to hand fighting. and the consequence of that twin testimony is laid out in v. but the secondary introduction of the waw mater diminishes the allusion. 28a as the MT has it. medieval. In short. Noegel.” NKJV “while he is eating” (i.בלחמו‬facilitates the allusion to Exodus 16. we may take ‫ לחם‬as a cognate to Arabic lihiām. rises up like a hostile witness against the wicked (v.” On the one hand. 28 (MT ‫ )יִ גֶ ל‬echoes the first word of the preceding couplet (‫ . 1 (2011) assuming “food” or flesh.82 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. The NRSV has “as food. .” Job 20:28 Zophar has been concerned in this stanza of the poem with the final destiny of the wicked (vv. Just as the wicked seize from others what is not rightfully theirs (20:19). ‫יִ גֶ ל‬ ‫“ . 2/1:368. 74 See Manfred Ullmann. The earth.” The sentiment is similar to what Eliphaz has expressed (5:5). heaven and earth. together provide the legally required minimum number of witnesses for a verdict (Deut 19:15). as if it were a hostile witness.” which is a way of saying “let ֵ the wealth of his house be exposed. The first word of the couplet in v. “to eat.. and this meaning is confirmed by the image of the savage combat in the next verse.)יְ גַ לּוּ‬Thus one is impelled to read v. ‫ .” Modern translations are divided along the same lines. drag. 10). 1908–14).נִ גָּ רוֹת‬a hapax legomenon in Hebrew. for the wicked would escape one weapon directed at them only to be struck by another that will prove fatal (vv. this interpretation is indeed proper. and the Poetry of Job 83 exposure (‫ )יְ גַ לּוּ‬of the offenses of the wicked (v. 326.נִ גָּ רוֹת‬one should take ‫ . The orthography in fact proves nothing of the book’s provenance. also ‫“ . “pull. Fohrer.יִבלי מיִ ם‬water ַ ֵ ְ channels.” though there are no cognates in other Semitic languages. 104–5). Given the recurring charge of injustice on the part of the wicked in this poem. Job.” often associated with the flow of water” (Lane. ‫“ . for not only does Zophar speak of the crushing of the poor.גרר‬to sweep away. Moreover. 24–25). 6: 264. This orthography allows homographic 76 The form ‫ . pull away” (Prov 21:7. Postscript Reflections The evidence for conservative orthography in the book of Job is far more extensive than Freedman has shown.יָ גֹל‬thus. to mean “flood” (‫ 77. 51. as Amos did. Yet the parallel line. 72–73. a hypothesis of a conservatively spelled original helps resolve a number of textcritical difficulties in the book.יוּבל‬stream” // ‫“ . Leipzig: Hinrichs. One need not agree with Freedman. In view of ‫ .מיִ ם‬water” in Jer 17:8). 399–402). 376. Das Buch Hiob. ַ ַ Targumic Aramaic attests ‫ . but cf. Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz. the conservative orthography proves in many instances to serve a poetic function. In retrospect. 19a. spill. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel (7 vols.” in Isa 30:25. 19b). See Noegel. though. Rather. Das Buch Hiob.יִבלא‬Syriac yablā.)יֶבל/יֵבל‬The retrospective adjustment also entails a ֶ ֶ rereading of ‫ . but the stanza is in fact concerned with the inevitable end of the wicked. 27) will lead to the exposure (‫)יִ גֶ ל‬ of the wealth of the wicked (v. msdi Rossi 552 has ‫ .יָ גֹל יֶבל בּיתוֹ‬let a flood ֵ ֶ roll away his house.)נִ גָּ רוֹת‬cues a retrospective adjustment of one’s interpretation of the first line. who have crushed the poor (v. ָ ְ 78 So Hölscher.. 44:4. Textual Criticism.79 a reading intended to link this text with Amos. see also v. Janus Parallelism in Job. . 79 Thus by Merx (Das Gedicht von Hiob. the house of the wicked—they who have seized the house of others—will be rolled away. It may rather have been secondarily derived from the niphal of ‫“ . the text may be conservative for a literary reason: to give the impression of a story from long ago and far away.וְ יִ גַּ ל כּמּיִ ם משׁפּט‬and ָ ְ ִ ַ ַ let justice sweep away like waters” (Amos 5:24). and Arnold B. a trope we find in Amos 5:19. that the text is genuinely archaic.יבול‬or rather its likely original ‫( יבל‬so msKenn 240). Sir 50:8.נגר‬to flow. 28). Giobbe. Be that as it may. 77 The noun is known in Biblical Hebrew only in the construct form ‫“ . one might recall as well the exhortation of the prophet Amos: ‫“ . For Zophar.”78 The “house” that is now rolled away recalls the “house” seized by the wicked (v.Seow: Orthography. Cf. with its reference to torrents (‫ 67. Arabic jarra.יגל‬which one may now vocalize as ‫ . is usually said to be from ‫“ . Indeed. though. 165. Fedrizzi. Hab 1:15). The wicked will receive retribution like for like. Ehrlich.יִ גַּ ל‬which some commentators favor. IV. as if the call for the return to chaos in the malediction has indeed come to pass. Translations do not accommodate retrospective adjustments.” Acta Sumerologica 18 (1996): 169–86. for example. visual poetry in Job constantly demands interpretive decisions on the part of the reader—decisions that. “Visual Poetry. Rather than being thoughtless 80 See Eleanor Berry. Or one might contemplate the visual effects of stanzaic structures or lack thereof. 1364–66.”80 This conceit of Joban poetry as “visual” has implications far beyond homographic wordplays. The masoretes and the translators of the versions may well have been aware of the poetic plays. 19:27). Syr. one might cite Elihu’s reference to the salvific nature of suffering: ‫. or Tg. It is “visual poetry. which is not to deny its aurality but to highlight the frequent need for rearticulation of the words and retrospective adjustment of understanding as one reads along. 11. F. Noegel. for every translation commits one to a single interpretation. Moreover. Alex Preminger and T. The versions do occasionally retain double readings. may yet be questioned again and revised. 81 On “visual wordplays. Scott B.)לחץ‬Visually the first two radicals mirror each other. By the same token. 15:26. “Word Play in Biblical Hebrew: An Eclectic Collection. is written not only for the ear. The point is that suffering may. as in the concentration of triplets and the structural orderliness of 3:3–10. Bethesda. but their vowels and translations commit them to only one interpretation.84 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. it seems. It is written as well for the eye. Noegel. Vg. (20:25). (20:10). “Wordplay in the Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur.” in Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (ed. be the mirror image of rescue.” one might also consider other possible visual plays in the book. Poetry in Job. which contrasts with the absence of triplets and the lack of order in 3:11–26. the marking of vowels. not to mention the frequent multiple readings of the Tg. usually at the expense of whatever ambiguities may indeed be part and parcel of poetry. no. once made. OG (9:3. 1 (2011) wordplays in addition to the numerous homophonic ones that scholars have long noticed. Gary Rendsburg. Irony is highlighted in a visual play between the verb “rescue” (‫ )חלץ‬and the noun for suffering (‫ . MD: CDL. 137–61. 2000). A further implication of this claim of visuality in Joban poetry.יְ חלּץ ﬠנִ י בﬠנְ יוֹ / וְ יִ גֶ ל בּלּחץ אזְ נָ ם‬ ָ ַ ַ ַ ָ ְ ָ ֵ ַ “(God) rescues the afflicted from their affliction / he opens their ears through suffering” (36:15). To illustrate another type of visual play.” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. if by “drama” one means a script composed for public performance. (4:21. is that the persistent claim of Job as a drama—whether a tragedy or a comedy— will not hold. whether through the introduction of matres or vowel points. . as I have implied in my observations above about the staccato-like lines of 17:1.81 If Job is “visual poetry.” see Scott B. Brogan. 1993). Princeton: Princeton University Press. V. Translations inevitably limit the expression of such poetry. limits the full play of poetry. One might consider as well the visual effects of lineation. 32:16). ironically. .Seow: Orthography. Or is his name ‫ ?אֹיֵב‬This question the reader will struggle to determine as the story is played out. And this reading begins with an introduction to the man whose name is. conflate texts may sometimes indicate recognition of double meanings. and the Poetry of Job 85 combinations of variants. the fullest delight in reading Joban poetry can be attained only through an open-minded conversation with the text and its many interpreters. For the modern reader. then.איֹּב—איב‬one who ִ has suffered hostility. ‫ . as text-critics are wont to assume. Textual Criticism. as the original orthography of the book would have had it. and Dubis provides just that.” – Irena Backus. North Park University Now Available / 978-1-932792-62-1 / $24. Parsons.The Apostolic Fathers An Introduction Wilhelm Pratscher. “Essential reading for anybody interested in the origins and development of earliest Christianity. Martin M. and Joshua J.“ – Paul Foster. Culy. Kavin Rowe. Chung-Kim’s treatment of the Calvin-Westphal debate is especially to be commended. ed. @Baylor_Press .95 / Paper 1 Peter A Handbook on the Greek Text Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Mark Dubis “For forty years we have been in need of an up-to-date analysis of the grammar and syntax of 1 Peter. Duke Divinity School Now Available / 978-1-60258-291-0 / $49. “ – Scot McKnight.95 / Paper Inventing Authority The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist Esther Chung-Kim “A thoughtful and important study. Institut d’histoire de la Réformation March 15. 2011 / 978-1-60258-213-2 / $49. An excellent tool.com / BECOME A FAN.95 / Paper B AY L O R U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S baylorpress.95 / Cloth Luke A Handbook on the Greek Text Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Mikeal C. University of Edinburgh Now Available / 978-1-60258-308-5 / $39. School of Divinity. Université de Genève.” – C. Stigall “This handbook offers ample discussion of almost every translational possibility without the overwhelming technical jargon. JBL 130. Carley. Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann. 1. 2008]. see my review of Moughtin-Mumby’s monograph in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009). 2009. 1975). 1996). Moshe Greenberg. Hermeneia. 1983). 2 Greenberg. November 23. Ronald E. Daniel I. Chapters 1–24 (NICOT. Ezekiel 1–20. coherent “marriage metaphor” (see Sharon Moughtin-Mumby. for example. Wheaton. IL 60187 Scholars have long recognized that in Ezekiel 16 the prophet draws on the harlotry metaphor of his prophetic predecessors to indict Jerusalem for its idolatry and foreign relations. 1994). Isaiah. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea. 223. On this. Dallas: Word Books.”2 However. 1997). Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. e. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel. Garden City. I wish to thank Daniel Block and Michael Lyons for offering comments on an earlier draft. 49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.g. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 61. Block. Jeremiah. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Com2mentary (AB 22. Leslie C. described Ezekiel’s expansion of this common motif when he noted. Atlanta: Scholars Press. “By extending the metaphor in time. 6).com Wheaton College. Ezekiel provides the adulterous wife of Hosea and Jeremiah with a biography. vol. Philadelphia: Fortress. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Clements. vol. 87 . Walther Zimmerli. 1 (2011): 87–108 Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation? jason gile jasongile@hotmail. online: http://www. Allen.1 Moshe Greenberg. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBLDS 130. along with my position on the sexual and marital imagery that has dominated the discussion of Ezekiel 16 in recent years. but only that Ezekiel’s harlot imagery has prophetic antecedents. Keith W. 298. 466. 1979). 299.jhsonline. 1:342. Ezekiel among the Prophets: A Study of Ezekiel’s Place in Prophetic Tradition (SBT 2/31. 1. London: SCM. 247. and Ezekiel [Oxford Theological Monographs. 2 vols. Kapitel 1–19 (ATD 22. commentators have thus far failed to notice that the building blocks A version of this article was presented in the Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel Section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. Julie Galambush. 1992). NY: Doubleday. no.1. 1 See. The Book of Ezekiel.org. This is not to imply that the biblical prophets share a single... Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28. 5 In this article I use “Deuteronomy 32” as a shorthand for Deut 32:1–43. In the subsequent sections I address the following questions: Could Ezekiel have known and used the Song? Is it likely that he would have known and used the Song? Did he in fact use the Song elsewhere in his prophetic book? And is it likely that he would have used the Song in the way proposed in this essay? Finally. (i) Israel is restored.3 In this essay I will argue that Ezekiel’s depiction of Israel in ch. G. .” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg [ed. Ezekiel 1–20. “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32. see Greenberg. 1–43)4 represents a prophetic transformation of the rise and decline of Israel depicted in the Song. hymn”). I. 292–96. the full extent of which has not been fully noted. New York: Harper & Brothers. Ezekiel. and C). (e) she pursues other gods and (f) forgets her origins. whereby he adopts the structure and themes of Deuteronomy 32 and infuses them with the prophetic motif of harlotry. and structural links between the two passages and then more explicitly discuss criteria for establishing literary dependence. The two texts also share similar formal features. Plot Structure and Thematic Links Ezekiel 16 and Deuteronomy 32 display remarkable similarities of plot and themes.7 the latter nevertheless contains strong rîb elements. 1–43. Ernest Wright. vv. 1962]. (d) Israel in her prosperity forsakes Yhwh. including an indictment (vv. and finally. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. (h) Israel is punished for her sins. 1:459–62. and rare motifs found in the two passages at the same point in the plot make it unlikely that these similarities are coincidental. The two texts exhibit virtually identical plot structures. 44–58. 1 (2011) of the oracle are found in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43). 6 See Block. labeled sections A. and 59–63. 19–29). (b) he delivers her and renders lavish care upon her so that (c) she prospers. (a) Yhwh discovers destitute Israel in a barren location.8 3 The possibility of thematic links between Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses was brought to my attention by Daniel Block in personal conversation. In both. both depicting the rise and decline of Yhwh’s people. B. I mention numerous ways in which Ezekiel uniquely builds on and transforms his underlying text and then conclude by addressing the rhetorical import of Ezekiel’s use of the Song.5 I begin the investigation by outlining the thematic. Several verbal parallels. synonyms. Though Ezekiel 16 may be properly considered a rîb (“dispute”)6 and Deuteronomy 32 a šîr (“song. which constitutes the Song of Moses.88 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 8 This is evidenced by many earlier scholars’ identification of Deuteronomy 32 as a rîb (see esp. thereby (g) provoking Yhwh to anger. 16 (chiefly section A. no. 26–67). 4 On the tripartite arrangement of Ezekiel 16 (vv. 7 See section IV below. 15–18) and sentence (vv. lexical. First. numerous distinctive parallels in combination can make a compelling case for literary dependence. Though Ezekiel prefaces the discovery of the foundling with a “biography. number. the terms hd# and rbdm in the Bible have overlapping semantic domains. 2:22). YHWH’s Discovery of Israel (Deut 32:10 // Ezek 16:6) The accounts of Israel’s history with her God begin with Yhwh finding destitute Israel in a barren location. in both texts the discovery marks the start of Israel’s relationship with her God Yhwh. In vv. and Ezekiel’s oracle is fuller and more detailed at certain points.” JSOT 46 (1990): 103. The persuasiveness of individual parallels would vary on a scale of possibility to probability when considered separately. 2009]. In Ezekiel 16 the prophet depicts Jerusalem’s origins with the image of an infant cast aside by her parents and later rescued from dire straits and cared for by Yhwh. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 507. When taken together. and in the close proximity of two well-defined passages. In Deut 32:10 he finds ()cm) Jacob in a desert land (rbdm) and encircles (bbs) him (in this case using masculine pronouns9). for example. Joel 1:19–20. while recognizing. In the Song a narrator speaks of both Yhwh and Israel with third person pronouns. criteria for establishing literary dependence and its direction will be discussed below in section II. that the harlot imagery is lacking in Deuteronomy 32. It is to be noted in advance only that the case for literary dependence across entire pericopes involves a cumulative argument.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 89 Before considering the links in detail.10 The verbs h)r and )cm are also conceptually similar. 10 Meir Malul. Second. Lyons. 79). Job 24:5–6. the texts exhibit some fundamental differences in imagery. In the present case. Though Ezekiel does not adopt the exact same language in this instance. 9 Adjustment of person. as evidenced by those passages where they occur together. a few comments are necessary by way of preface. as is illustrated in Hos 9:10 where the two verbs occur in parallel in a context nearly identical to our passages. but in what follows I will focus on the thematic links and parallel plot structures. and gender for both verbal subjects and objects is a common feature of inner-biblical literary borrowing. Isa 43:19–20. . Ezekiel 16 has Yhwh speak in the first person to Jerusalem. as synonyms or in parallel poetic lines (Josh 8:24. A. in reference to Yhwh finding Israel. The particulars of Ezekiel’s transformation will be taken up later. since later authors change the language to fit a new context (see Michael A. 5–6 Yhwh passes by (l( rb() the infant and sees (h)r) her destitute in an open field (hd#). The Song similarly describes Yhwh’s discovery of Israel in a barren location. Most of these differences are due to the liberty with which the prophet expands and transforms the Song.” to which we will return below. New York: T&T Clark. “Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1–7. namely. who is addressed in the second person. however. The Folktale in the Old Testament (trans.. Allen. 11 . Greenberg intimated a further connection when he noted that the foundling motif functions in the same way in both the Song and Ezekiel 16. Thus.90 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.13 it is argued here—in conjunction with the prophet’s wider dependence on Deuteronomy 32 noted next—that he appropriates it from the Song of Moses. Thomas Krüger. since the imagery of the latter focuses on Yhwh finding Israel “like grapes” and “like the first fruit on the fig tree.11 Hos 9:10 wonderfully shows the semantic overlap of )cm and h)r in a similar context and thus demonstrates that both verbs can be used to refer to a discovery. B. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch [BZAW 180. 128–31. contra Hermann Gunkel’s hypothesis that Ezekiel draws the motif from a common folktale type. 23.”15 However. 1987).”16 but scholars have not recognized the full It is more likely that Hosea is also dependent on Deut 32:10. “to start the account of God’s relation to his people with a situation best designed to enhance his beneficence toward them and illustrate his providential and tender care of them. A few scholars have noted the similar image in these two passages. Though scholars debate the exact referent of Ezekiel’s foundling metaphor in Israel’s history (see. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 23.14 but Millar Burrows came closest to the thesis presented here when he observed that “[Ezekiel] seems to combine the thought of [the foundling in] Dt 32 with [Hosea’s] conception of Jerusalem as a girl tenderly reared by Yahweh. 1989]. 15 Millar Burrows. M. 1 (2011) Like grapes in the wilderness. no. 13 Hermann Gunkel. 16 Greenberg. Rutter. idem. of Das Märchen im Alten Testament (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. 299. Greenberg earlier presented a persuasive critique of this hypothesis (Ezekiel 1–20. e. 299–300. but he takes it in a different direction. Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1–20. Zimmerli. 1978). 1:336. Like the first fruit on the fig tree in its first season. uncertain of the priority of these two texts. Ezekiel 1–20. 300–301). David E. 236–37. namely. C. Ezekiel 1–19. Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. (Hos 9:10) Though it is unlikely that Ezekiel is dependent on Hosea here. D. I saw [h)r]your fathers. trans. Tübingen: J.g. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship. Mohr. 1917). 14 Greenberg. Green. Burrows refrained from conclusively deciding that Ezekiel is dependent on the Song and did not recognize parallels beyond the discovery and care of Israel. Since the foundling or discovery motif (Fundmotiv) for Israel’s relationship to Yhwh appears only in Ezekiel 16 and Deuteronomy 32 in the Hebrew Bible. 184). 1925). 12 Psalm 27:10 speaks of YHWH’s adoption of the petitioner but not of a discovery.12 one might reasonably propose influence from Deuteronomy 32 on Ezek 16:6 alone. borrowing the notion of finding Israel in the wilderness. I found [)cm]Israel. the similarity in the metaphorical vehicle alone can suggest literary borrowing. Sheffield: Almond.” instead of like a destitute foundling rescued and cared for as in Ezekiel and Deuteronomy. The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society Press. that hovers over its young. . YHWH’s Lavish Care (Deut 32:10b–14 // Ezek 16:7–13a) In both passages. and he ate of the produce of the field. the second passing may be necessary for the metaphorical vehicle. when it grew. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. In Ezek 16:7a. no foreign god was with him.” BibInt 8 [2000]: 208–9). bearing them on its pinions. with the fat of lambs. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with fine fabric.” And after Yhwh passed by a second time17 and entered into a covenant with the young girl by passing his garment over her. Yhwh recounts: “I made you flourish like a plant of the field. waiting for Yhwh’s redemption (Ezekiel 1–20. He enabled him to ride on the high places of the land. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. 301). and milk from the flock. (Ezek 16:9–13a) Similarly. he brought her from rags to riches: I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. However. spreading out its wings. And I adorned you with jewelry and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. and your clothing was of fine linen and fine fabric and embroidered cloth. and he suckled him with honey out of the rock. (Deut 32:10b–14) 17 Greenberg claims that this is an adjustment to the exodus tradition. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and provided you with sandals of fine leather. Yhwh tenderly cares for Jacob and provides him with the finest things. he protected him as the apple of his eye. . whereby the intermediate period refers to Israel’s time in Egypt. rams of Bashan and goats. he cared for him.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 91 extent of the distinctive thematic and plot parallels that continue throughout the two passages. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver. B. in the Song of Moses. and you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. . Butter from the herd. Yhwh alone guided him. since one cannot marry an infant (also contra the motive of Yhwh suggested by Linda Day. . Yhwh rescues her and renders lavish care upon her. “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence in Ezekiel 16. catching them. after discovering Israel. and oil out of the flinty rock. with the finest of the wheat— and from the juice of the grapes you drank wine. Yhwh’s care for Israel is portrayed as an eagle spreading (#rp) its wings (Pnk) over its young. C. Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW 72.” 18 Paul A. 19) You ate fine flour and honey [#bd] and oil [Nm#].18 if Ezekiel is drawing from Deuteronomy 32. for further bibliography. Berlin: Töpelmann. In Deuteronomy 32. followed by Rimon Kasher. 1. you grew fat.92 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you. he spreads (#rp) his garment (Pnk) over her. the phrase Pnk #rp. declares the Lord Yhwh. Kruger. Ezek 27:17). 2004). Indeed. Israel Prospers (Deut 32:15a // Ezek 16:13b–14) Because of Yhwh’s upbringing. 72. then the phrase also represents an allusion to Deut 32:11—a double entendre of sorts. and he suckled him with honey [#bd] out of the rock. namely. 1 (2011) The most fascinating verbal parallel between these two passages is found at this point in the story in Deut 32:11 and Ezek 16:8. This section of the plot witnesses another significant verbal parallel. and oil [Nm#] out of the flinty rock. no. in the context of Yhwh’s care both passages speak of Israel eating honey and oil. but both also occur immediately after the )cm/h)r and bbs/l( rb( word pairs (Deut 32:10a // Ezek 16:8a) and are followed by the extended descriptions of Yhwh’s lavish care (Deut 32:12–14 // Ezek 16:9–13). Mikira le-Yiśra'el. and sleek. As Georg Fohrer has pointed out. 55. Sexual and Marital Metaphors. Though #bd and Nm# occur together a couple times in longer lists of commodities (Jer 41:8. Chapters 1– 24 (in Hebrew. Ruth 3:9). 144.” JNSL 12 (1984): 79–86.19 Deut 32:13 He ate the produce of the field. and kicked. Israel prospers. stout. vol. only here does the Hebrew Bible speak of Israel (in extended metaphors) eating honey and oil—both in the context of Yhwh’s care. See Moughtin-Mumby. Not only do the two Pnk #rp statements appear in the same section of the plot. “The Hem of the Garment in Marriage: The Meaning of the Symbolic Gesture in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek 16:8. 1952). . 19 Georg Fohrer.” This compares with Ezek 16:13b–14. 172 n. Ezek 16:13 (also v. While spreading a garment over a woman undoubtedly refers to acquiring her in marriage (cf. Deuteronomy 32:15a describes Israel’s prosperity to the point of excess: “Jeshurun grew fat. in Ezekiel 16. and your fame went forth among the nations because of your beauty. where Ezekiel describes Jerusalem’s rise to prominence and renown: “You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. Ezekiel: Introduction and Commentary. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. when Yhwh enters into a marriage covenant with Jerusalem. In the Song it was after Jeshurun grew fat from Yhwh’s luxurious provision that he “forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation” (32:15b).Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 93 D. to new gods that had come recently. OR: Pickwick. Winona Lake. Israel Forsakes Her God (Deut 32:15b // Ezek 16:15a) Immediately after Israel increases. Eugene. Ezekiel depicts Jerusalem’s turn from Yhwh as the moment she trusts in her beauty (16:15a). and Theology in Ezekiel (ed. E. so also Jill Middlemas. 1:347–48). Tooman. (32:16–17) True to Ezekiel’s intense detestation of idolatry. where Myrz refers to the gods that Israel worshiped.” In both cases. Israel’s Idolatry (Deut 32:16–17 // Ezek 16:15b–22) In the Song. to gods they had never known. 115–16. Israel forgets her origins. with abominations they provoked him to anger. Krüger. Both texts ascribe the turning point to her self-confidence. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods. 20 John F. Michael A. 2010). 21 Zimmerli considered this latter section on foreign relations to be secondarily added to the idolatry section (Ezekiel.21 In this latter section. but cf. . “Transformation of the Image.” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text. a possible allusion to Deut 32:16. 147–51. Israel’s idolatry takes up two verses: They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods. she forsakes Yhwh her God who rescued her and made her thrive. 2000]. 25). followed by a continuation of the metaphor to refer to Jerusalem’s illegitimate foreign relations as well (16:23–34). Even without these and the other verses that Zimmerli excises from the original Ezek 16:1–43 (see Ezekiel. after being blessed by Yhwh. 22 It is reiterated as the justification for the punishment in 16:43. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. the essential components outlined here remain. Israel forgets that it was Yhwh who caused her to prosper. Israel Forgets Her Origins (Deut 32:18 // Ezek 16:2222) In her idolatry. and in Ezek 16:22 the prophet indicts Jerusalem for not remembering the “days of [her] youth when [she] was naked and bare. San Diego 7. F.20 the prophet expands the account of idolatry into a graphic display of harlotrous idolatry that encompasses eight verses. Geschichtskonzepte. IN: Eisenbrauns. Jerusalem is said to take Myrz (“strangers”) instead of her husband (16:32). Tradition. 1:334–35. Lyons and William A. Kutsko identifies idolatry as “the quintessential cause of the Babylonian exile” for Ezekiel (Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel [Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California. 347–48). The Song states that Jacob “forgot the God who gave [him] birth” (32:18). whom your fathers had never dreaded. 41–43). Samaritan Pentateuch. it is stated that her actions have “provoked me to anger” (ynsy(khl).” In the Song. 41–43 // Ezek 16:53–55. in which section B (vv. namely. 36 Yhwh “will have compassion on his servants when he sees that their power is gone. 59–63) builds on both earlier sections (see Greenberg. In Ezekiel the word occurs in the extended account of Jerusalem’s harlotry. In v. 24 E. 53–55) and C (16:59–63). Yhwh punishes Israel. 1–43 and then section C (vv. “to provoke to anger. restoration is found in sections B (16:44– 58. vv. Deut 32:16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods [Myrz]. 1:333–34. .94 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. LXX.g.. his people. Deuteronomy 32 cites the provocation (s(k) of Yhwh caused by his people’s idols (v. Israel’s Restoration (Deut 32:35–36. “his land. I.”23 In Ezekiel. 44–58) draws from and builds on the themes of vv. After the accounts of her idolatry and illegitimate foreign relations. one may retain the MT’s wm( wtmd). which is signified by the verbal root s(k. 16 display an organic connection. 21). 4QDeutq). 295). 21 // Ezek 16:26) In both passages. embodied in this is a clear restorative element. esp. H. Both Ezekiel and the Song cite Israel’s idolatry as the reason for her punishment. Israel’s Indictment and Punishment (Deut 32:19–25 // Ezek 16:35–43) Then. All agree that the parts of ch. . Thus. Israel Angers YHWH (Deut 32:16. .24 the fact that the last sentence of 23 Taking the MT’s wm( wtmd) in v. Ezekiel. 59–63) One further correspondence remains to be considered. Ezekiel 1–20. Though many see these sections as supplements by the prophet himself or his disciples. they have provoked me to anger [ynws(k] with their idols [Mylbh]. . Israel angers Yhwh.” and in v. Ezekiel as well indicts her for harlotry with idols in v. Though the Song emphasizes Yhwh’s vindication (32:35–36. 43 as wm( tmd) (cf. that of Israel’s restoration after her punishment. Zimmerli. with abominations [twb(wt] they provoked him to anger [whsy(ky]. 36: “Because [N(y] your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whoring with your lovers and with all your abominable idols. no. 43 he “avenges the blood of his servants” (LXX and 4QDeutq: sons) and “atones [rpk] for his people’s land. Deut 32:21a They have made me jealous with what is no god [l)-)l]. Alternatively. 1 (2011) G.” as the lectio difficilior. Israel’s idols are the source of Yhwh’s anger.” The difference between the modes of punishment will be noted in the final section. perhaps because a given parallel is a common motif or formulaic expression.” VT 46 (1996): 485–86. an allusion may consist of Ezekiel 16:63: “. as in the section on idolatry above. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. I will show that Ezekiel could have known and used Deuteronomy 32 by appealing to arguments for the new consensus that the Song is an early composition and likely well known in the preexilic period. For a synopsis of the plots of Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press. 16.” JBL 127 (2008): 264. when I atone for you for all that you have done.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 95 Ezekiel 16 and the last sentence of the Song employ rpk. then in these latter sections. Leonard. 27–34. Sommer. Christopher A. adding the characteristic restoration language “restore the fortunes” (v. Beyond this initial prerequisite. Though such a task is as much an art as a science.” 252–53. Leonard. Leiden: Brill. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180. Beetham. and the sources cited therein. Hays. 55). Having outlined the links between Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16. 1989). see also Jeffery M. If so. Leonard.” 241–65. Schultz. Ezekiel takes the liberty to go well beyond the less developed elements of restoration in the Song.27 In some cases inner-biblical allusions are characterized by a relatively high degree of verbal and syntactic correspondence. 27 Most notably Richard L. could Ezekiel have borrowed from the Song? In the discussions that follow. II. to describe Yhwh’s renewal of his people suggests that the prophet’s dependence on the Song may continue into sections B and C of ch. see the chart on the next page. 29–30. Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger. that is. it is necessary to investigate whether similarities between an earlier and later text are the result of purposeful borrowing or are simply due to chance. 28 Schultz. Law to Prophecy. “Identifying InnerBiblical Allusions. “Exegesis. Literary Dependence? Establishing true literary dependence is a notoriously precarious task. “return to the former state” (v. 222–39.25 a unique word in restoration oracles. however. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Biblical Interpretation Series 96. The first obvious requirement for literary dependence is availability. Search for Quotation. Richard B. Lyons. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions.28 As Earl Miner points out. 2008).26 several scholars have discussed criteria to help distinguish dependence from coincidental similarities of theme and language. . 53). and Ezekiel’s distinctive theme of bearing shame (v. 26 25 .” See Benjamin D. 54). we may discuss criteria used to establish dependence and observe whether they are met in the present case. 222–24. however. 47–75. which is an excellent indicator of literary dependence. 1999). . “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case. s(k) Israel’s Punishment Deut 32:23-25 Israel’s Restoration Deut 32:35-43 Yhwh atones (rpk) for his people’s land Yhwh’s Discovery of Jerusalem Ezek 16:6 Setting: open field (hd#) “I saw (h)r) you” “I passed over (l( rb() you” Yhwh’s Lavish Care Ezek 16:7a. 1 (2011) A Synopsis of the Plot of Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16 Yhwh’s Discovery of Israel Deut 32:10a Setting: desert/wilderness (rbdm) “He found ()cm) him” “He encircled (bbs) him” Yhwh’s Lavish Care Deut 32:10b–14 “Like an eagle .96 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. .” Jerusalem Angers Yhwh Ezek 16:26 “(You) . 9–13a “ I spread (#rp) my garment (Pnk) over you” “You ate fine flour and honey (#bd) and oil (Nm#)” Jerusalem Prospers Ezek 16:13b–14 Jerusalem Forsakes God Ezek 16:15a Jerusalem’s Idolatry (as Harlotry) Ezek 16:15b-34 “She takes Myrz instead of her husband” (Ezek 16:32) Jerusalem Forgets Its Origin Ezek 16:22 (also v 43) “You did not remember the days of your youth. .” “He suckled him with honey (#bd) out of the rock. when you were naked and bare . . . . and oil (Nm#) out of the flinty rock” Israel Prospers Deut 32:15a Israel Forsakes God Deut 32:15b Israel’s Idolatry Deut 32:16-17 “They stirred him to jealousy with Myrz” (Deut 32:16) Israel Forgets Its Origin Deut 32:18 “You forgot the God who gave you birth” Israel Angers Yhwh Deut 32:16. . spreading (#rp) its wings (Pnk) . s(k) Jerusalem’s Punishment Ezek 16:35-43 Jerusalem’s Restoration Ezek 16:53-63 Yhwh atones (rpk) for his people’s sins . no. s(k) “They provoked me to anger” (piel. . provoked me to anger” (hiphil. . Yhwh . . 21 “They provoked him to anger” (hiphil. . “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions. Ezekiel appears to draw from the foundling motif in Deuteronomy 32. However. cf. the greater the possibility that they are the result of purposeful borrowing and not just chance similarity.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 97 a single common word or even just a shared concept. Echoes of Scripture. the first criterion relevant for this discussion is rare concept similarity. In the discovery of the foundling at the outset of the two passages. 31 In some cases two texts might not be dependent on each other but rather both might be dependent on a different source (e. the more parallels within two single pericopes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 26:4. numerous possible allusions mutually corroborate each other as evidence of literary borrowing. which occurs at the outset of the two accounts of Israel’s history with Yhwh. but it lacks a destitute foundling and her subsequent care by YHWH.” since “unique or idiosyncratic language may be a reflection of the creativity or writing style of a given author.32 In our texts the primary rare concept is the foundling motif. 33 Hosea 9:10 (cited above) witnesses the verbs h)r and )cm.31 For example. Brogan.29 What matters is that the parallel is sufficiently distinctive to suggest dependence. the presence of a rare concept in two texts suggests that one may be drawing from the other. the presence of a few probable allusions. Leonard is emphatic that the presence of such differences of expression “in no way undermines the possibility of a connection. 44:8). “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions. Alex Preminger and T. However. Ezek 16:16 and Hos 9:10 on the foundling motif of Deut 32:10). 1993).” VT 55 (2005): 488– 90. which is picked up in Isaiah (17:10. Of course. Thus. As an image to describe the discovery and adoption of a destitute foundling. V.” A related consideration at this point is the presence of what Jeffery Leonard calls nonshared language. F. “Allusion. one may think of the rock motif of Deuteronomy 32. When considering multiple links. “honey and oil. 2 Sam 23:3.” The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. but not its exact terminology. 34 Leonard. “The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy.”34 A second criterion for dependence is frequency. However. 251– ” 52. Leonard.30 As the opposite of a common motif. Though some individual parallels may lack concrete evidence for dependence and may therefore vary on the scale of possibility to probability. 30 Beetham. the motif occurs only in Ezekiel 16 and Deuteronomy 32 in the Hebrew Bible.g. given the familiarity and widespread use of the Song by other biblical writers and the distinctiveness and ubiquity of the plot and thematic links between the two passages. Hab 1:12. 29.. 1 Sam 2:2. We may also note here the distinctive motif of spreading a wing/garment (Pnk #rp) and the word pair #bd and Nm#.” 249 (emphasis original).33 and in both cases in reference to Yhwh’s discovery of Israel. 38–39. 32 Thomas Keiser. numerous weak links together provide a weak case for dependence. marked by a high degree of verbal and syn- 29 Earl Miner. in the present case it is unlikely that both Ezekiel 16 and the Song depend on a third source. Cf. Psalms passim. IL: InterVarsity. [and] the presence of stylistic or thematic patterns that typify the author’s allusions. the critic must weigh evidence including the number of shared terms and their distinctiveness. which over three verses mentions the wilderness. elements of this plot are scattered in other parts of the Hebrew Bible. corroborated by several lexical links at the same point in the plot. “Identifying Inner” Biblical Allusions. 1 (2011) tactic correspondence or a sufficiently distinctive motif or idea.38 Indeed.” Paul R. and the two passages are likewise The same point is made by Jacob Stromberg: “It is necessary to stress this cumulative aspect of the argument only because such words and phrases that echo DI [Deutero-Isaiah] might be regarded. a common pattern in two texts is a sufficient criterion for postulating intentional allusion—unless the pattern is a very simple one (consisting. the frequency and distribution of parallels between these two texts offer overwhelming evidence for dependence. then. So also Leonard. Cynthia Edenburg. Noble makes a similar case for allusions within biblical narratives: “A catalogue of individual. Allusion and Intertextuality. The accumulation of thematic links in a nearly identical plot structure. Rex Mason. the verbal root s(k to signify Israel’s provocation of Yhwh. David G.98 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Floyd. 37 Sommer. But . In any one passage that may rely on an older text. including the Pnk #rp motif. M. 201. of only two or three elements. a sufficient criterion for identifying a probable authorial or redactional allusion of one text to the other. “How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24.” SJOT 12 (1998): 72. say. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions. and rpk in Israel’s restoration. in general. when viewed in isolation from one another. but no other passage contains all the elements and none in the same order as we find here. 35 . the frequency of links is corroborated by their distribution. Mark J. and forgetting Yhwh. makes it extremely unlikely that these parallels occur by chance. If parallels display a consistent or unique distribution. Tamar. JSOTSup 370. Downers Grove. Firth and H. this may suggest that a later author alluded to an earlier work extensively or even structured his composition on it.35 In some cases.” 253–54. 36 Drawing on Robert Alter’s narrative “type-scene. 26. is a cumulative one: assertions that allusions occur in certain passages become stronger as patterns emerge from those allusions. . “Zechariah 9–14. lends credence to other parallels that alone are considered only possible allusions.36 Together the frequency and distribution of allusions create a cumulative argument for literary dependence. with little or no interconnection between them) it is difficult to believe that it should happen to occur in two different locations just by chance” (“Esau. each element of the plot structure of Ezek 16:1–43 is found in Deuteronomy 32 in essentially the same order. unrelated points of resemblance between two texts is not.37 In the present case. 2003).” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. G. Boda and Michael H. as summarized by Benjamin Sommer: The argument that an author alludes. the eating of #bd and Nm#. 485. with a major contribution by Rex Mason. 2009].” VT 52 [2002]: 251). . 38 The closest instance of these concentrated in one passage is Hos 13:4–6. prosperity. as mere coincidence” (“An Inner-Isaianic Reading of Isaiah 61:1–3. no. Admittedly.” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches [ed. Williamson. 263). “Exegesis. 231. “Exegesis.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 99 unique in the extent of their story. The nearly identical plot structure and themes. marked by distinctive lexical links at the same point in the plot. Search for Quotation. 43 See ibid. Ezekiel 16 seems to represent a creative transformation of Deuteronomy 32. 21–36. Allusion and Intertextuality. citing Otto Eissfeldt. In summary. that is.40 In section V below I will show that Ezekiel clearly draws from the Song in other passages as well. 42 A comprehensive review of scholarship is found in Paul Sanders. 1–98. Though in our case the preexilic provenance of Deuteronomy 32 rules out the possibility that the Song draws from Ezekiel 16. III. regarding the direction of dependence. Leiden: Brill. whereby the prophet uses the Song as the building blocks of his oracle. corroborated by verbal parallels and rare concepts at the same points in the plot. Though a wide range of dates have been postulated for the Song in the history of scholarship. Could Ezekiel Have Known and Used the Song? To postulate Ezekiel’s use of and allusion to the Song of Moses requires that Deut 32:1–43 predate the book of Ezekiel. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OtSt 37. the frequency with which an author cites or alludes to the same passage. Finally. 1996).43 This view has been substantiated in the Sommer.39 In the following sections I will argue that the Song of Moses was well known to Ezekiel and his contemporaries and that it exerted a strong influence on subsequent biblical writers. Lastly. Hays.. It is also useful to consider the likelihood that an author might allude to the alleged source. Echoes of Scripture. A further criterion that bolsters the case for dependence is recurrence.42 scholars since the 1930s have overwhelmingly supported an early date. it would be difficult to imagine that the Song reworks Ezekiel 16 by stripping it of its harlotry imagery and offering a condensed version. these features nevertheless serve to confirm other criteria. 30.41 I will argue below that Ezekiel 16 represents a reinterpretation of the Song or a reapplication of it to the time of Ezekiel and his contemporaries. confirm the hypothesis of dependence in the foundling motif. the foundling motif and the other plot parallels mutually corroborate each other: the rare foundling motif gives a firm basis to propose wider dependence in these texts. Though it is not necessary to show recurrence or a high likelihood of borrowing to establish true dependence. the evidence for Ezekiel’s use of Deuteronomy 32 displays all the signs of dependence outlined by Sommer above. Richard Schultz has shown that evidence of interpretive reworking is one of the major criteria for determining which text borrowed from the other. confirm the presence of literary dependence.” 485. Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32:1–43 und Das 40 39 . and the subsequent plot similarities. 41 Schultz. Thus. 135. the appearance of the final yod in the perfective verb w%ysfxf (v. 44 Sanders.D.46 The seventeen preterite yiqtol verbs are particularly noteworthy.” Bib 78 (1997): 206–24. in his study on dating early Hebrew poetry. Missoula.” ETL 72 (1996): 5–22. no.” VT 9 (1959): 339–46. See also Jeffrey H. who had established an early date for the Song based on its linguistic features. For the preterite yiqtol form as the ” remnant of a short yiqtol form found in Byblian Canaanite. and the ubiquity of yiqtol forms expressing narrative (preterite) tense. 320.48 The presence of any single early feature is inconclusive for dating a text. Nigosian. many lexemes in the Song previously thought to be late have since been shown to have counterparts in the Ugaritic literature. and Ziony Zevit.” in No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. Homage Series 2. “Historical Allusions for Dating Deut 32.100 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1996). 155. Missoula. Wright.44 In what follows I will briefly outline the arguments for this conclusion. 49 Robertson. see Anson F. 48 Sanders. “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite. 512–13. 32:1–43)” (Ph. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson. Greenstein. 1972). “Samuel’s ‘Broken rîb’: Deuteronomy 32. so also Nigosian. defective and plene spellings. the poetic suffix wm–. 497. Linguistic Considerations Both Sanders and Nigosian built upon the linguistic study of David A. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary. John Huehnergard. Rainey. Robertson concluded that the accumulation of these features in a single poem represents the best evidence for establishing an early composition. 296–333. A. “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII. 1958). in HS 29 (1988): 7–42. . Linguistic Evidence. Tigay.” 211. diss. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. MT: Society of Biblical Literature. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3. The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Solomon A. 1960). 211. also IBHS. James W. However. G. Deuteronomy: Myrbd. “Lawsuit of God”. Provenance. 45 Robertson. idem.” BN 119–20 (2003): 30–34. 313–15. 37).. “The Song of Moses (Dt 32): A Structural Analysis. 300. Provenance. Provenance. 1975).47 Moreover. idem. 63–74.” HS 27 (1986): 4–19. since many of these phenomena occur as archaisms in standard Biblical Hebrew poetry. MT: Scholars Press. McMaster University. “The Song of Moses (Deut. William Foxwell Albright. Yehezkel Kaufmann. especially the verbal root Cxm in v. “Linguistic Patterns. Robertson. since they rarely occur in exilic and postexilic biblical writings. 46 Sanders. and the response articles by Edward L. 47 Ibid. E.49 Lehrgedicht Asaphs Psalm 78: samt einer Analyse der Umgebung des Mose-Liedes (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Nigosian. idem. 1975). Mendenhall. 1 (2011) recent comprehensive studies of Deuteronomy 32 by Paul Sanders and Solomon Nigosian. “Linguistic Patterns of Deuteronomy 32. 39.. who considered multiple lines of evidence and both convincingly established the Song’s early preexilic provenance. McKenzie (ed.45 Such features include the presence of early vocabulary. “Linguistic Patterns. 55 S. 54 Cornill. Nigosian. Driver. Cornill. For bibliographical information on those who have espoused these theories. represented as early as 1891 by C. 50 . While this is an argumentum e silentio. common designations have included Canaanite tribes. Early critical scholarship. Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg: J. 52 Sanders.51 and Sanders emphasized that the diversity of opinion suggests that the Song does not aim to identify clearly a historical context. Benjamin Sommer. since. 6–39. Historical Context Many scholars have attempted to date Deuteronomy 32 by correlating historical allusions in the Song with events in the history of Israel. and the Babylonians. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC. both agree that nothing in the Song betrays a late date. Ernest Wright reminds us. 51 Nigosian argued for the religious and political circumstances of the northern state near the second half the ninth century b.50 While Nigosian favored a particular historical referent. the Arameans. B. see Sanders. Consequently. These include studies of Isaiah 40–66 by Thomas Keiser. 1891).Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 101 B. the chief clue in the Song is the identity of this enemy.53 C. Mohr. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. and Isaiah 40–66. 39. Furthermore.e. Driver. (“Historical Allusions”). C. as G. R. R. “Structural Analysis. Provenance.52 For example. Ezekiel. the Assyrians. H. and thus its absence in Deuteronomy 32 is all the more striking. 53 G. for example. Provenance. Many scholars followed Cornill by citing strong links between the Song and Jeremiah. cited approvingly Cornill’s assertion that the Song was a “compendium of prophetic theology. it is nevertheless noteworthy. if the Song were exilic or postexilic we might expect some implicit or explicit reference to Babylon. “Deuteronomy: Introduction and Exegesis. Intertextual Links Further confirmation comes from the intertextual links between the Song of Moses and the prophetic books. 71. the threat of exile is a characteristic component of the exilic prophets and Deuteronomic historians. 1895). or return to the land. cf.” 22. Ernest Wright. Their assumption is that the Song was written after an enemy had delivered a crushing defeat to Israel. 308. S.” IB 2:517. however. have reversed the traditional interpretation by arguing that the prophets made use of the Song and not vice versa. Corresponding to different time periods. described as a “non-people” (M(-)l) and a “foolish nation” (lbn ywg). nothing betrays knowledge of the demise of the northern kingdom or even the presence of a united or divided monarchy.54 viewed the Song as dependent on the prophets and thus exilic. deportation. and Hyun Chul Paul Kim.c.”55 More recent studies. ” in God’s Word for Our World. 2004). in Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes (ed. 1:44).59 This suggests that Ezekiel would have known the Song and would have chosen it for rhetorical purposes because his contemporary audience or readers also knew the text. Biblical and Oriental Studies. about which Patrick Skehan and Eugene Ulrich write: “The limited height of the scroll. 1998).102 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. vol.” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24. Benjamin D. 1985). “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43). London: T&T Clark. Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation. 58 Thiessen. “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations. the imperatives of worship. 57 Holladay. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversions. 60 Thiessen himself recognized the implications of his study for the relationship of the Song to the prophetic literature (“Form and Function. 478–79. Cassuto.60 In addition. Bergey. vol. esp. 1.56 Older studies of Jeremiah by William Holladay and of Hosea by Umberto Cassuto affirm the same. 262–75. Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (ed.1–43) in Isaiah 40–55. .. J. Is It Likely That Ezekiel Would Have Known and Used the Song? But how likely is it that Ezekiel would have borrowed from the Song? The influence of the Song on later biblical writers can be partially explained by considering the place of Deuteronomy 32 in ancient Israel. see also Michael Fishbane. 1 (2011) and Isaiah 1–39 by Ronald Bergey.” JBL 85 (1966): 17–27. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?” JSOT 28 (2003): 33–54. Kim. including the numerous shifts in grammatical person. Sommer. We may first note the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutq. Eng. Z. trans. Schwartz. “The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch. Matthew Thiessen’s study of the formal and generic properties of Deuteronomy 32 determined that the Song of Moses functioned as a liturgical text in the public cultic sphere and thus was likely well known among Ezekiel’s audience.58 Though he speaks of a rîb embedded in the Song. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 79–100. 1933). H. Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes. several features suggest that the overall form of the work is a cultic hymn.57 IV. Ellens et al. 59 Thiessen. Aptowitzer and A. and the absence of the final verses of ch. V. 1973). 32 strongly suggest that 56 Keiser.” in Cassuto. where he cites Cassuto approvingly that the Song was widely known and the prophets frequently drew from it (Biblical and Oriental Studies. the arrangement of the lines.” 407–10. and multiple speakers.” 423). 1. 134–36. “The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch” (in Hebrew). 422–23. no. “Form and Function. “Song of Moses”. its liturgical function in Second Temple Judaism is attested by both the manuscript evidence and rabbinic tradition. JSOTSup 388. though not direct evidence for the status of the Song in the preexilic period. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon. 147–71. the small number of words per column. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (trans. Did Ezekiel Know and Use the Song? Support for the thesis presented here may be found in other allusions to Deuteronomy 32 in the book of Ezekiel. Famine” (Ezek 5:16–17 // Deut 32:23–25. “Arrows. 67 Numbers 24:8 refers to Yhwh using arrows against the nations. the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358. DJD 14. The major analyses of the structure of the Song of Moses have affirmed its unity. 94. Skehan and Eugene Ulrich. Roš Haš.8. 139. “Lawsuit of God.67 Regarding 61 Patrick W. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Raymond P. “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran.65 many commentators agree that Ezekiel borrows the terms “arrows” and “famine” from Deut 32:23–25.63 V. 31a.62 and one wonders how far back this tradition reaches. 98. Kasher. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 63 Ishmar Elbogen. Ezekiel 1–19. Rabbinic interpreters as well drew a connection between these two texts in Sifre to Deuteronomy 321:1. Rabbinic traditions as well held that the poem was chanted by the Levites in the temple on the Sabbath (b.. Allen. Joshua. . It would thus 1oin the category of ‘special use’ manuscripts. this evidence depends on the unity of Deuteronomy 32:1–43. Hauptprobleme. 42. 64 Of course. E. “4QDeutq” in Qumran Cave 4. Meg. 1995). 77. Mycx. Law to Prophecy. Thiessen. 66 Fohrer. 65 Lyons. cf.66 In fact. 94.”61 This special use likely indicates a liturgical use of some sort for the Song. Block. 1:213. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87. 138.” 26–67. Ezekiel. 116–17. Ka Leung Wong. e. Meg. 74b). 429–31). 42) In Ezek 5:16–17 the prophet appears to conflate Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. 1993).” 417. Leiden: Brill. There is nothing in the song which demonstrates that specific parts of it must be secondary. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 103 4QDeutq probably contained only the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43). 62 See Emanuel Tov. Wright. Kings (ed.IX: Deuteronomy.64 A.g. Ezekiel. 2002). Oxford: Clarendon. 3. B. The examples offered below show that the prophet does in fact know the Song of Moses and uses it for his prophetic message. Most arguments that have been adduced against the unity of the song are extremely weak. 144. Interpretation of v. Ezekiel 1–20. Scheindlin. b(r. the image of Yhwh using arrows as punishment on his people is unique to Deut 32:23–25 and Ezek 5:16–17 in the Hebrew Bible. 2001).. Judges. 30–31 as a secondary passage is possible but not necessary” (Provenance. y. 96–97. 16b also notes that the Song was written stichographically. Greenberg. “Form and Function. Ulrich et al. 54. Though this passage clearly draws from Lev 26:22–26.” RevQ 16 (1995): 581–600. Risa Levitt Kohn. Sanders writes: “My conclusion is that this version of the song can be regarded as a unity of composition dating to the pre-exilic period. Ezekiel borrows from Lev 26:33 the phrase brx Mkyrx) qyrh. ybrx. As a final possible validation of this point. but Ezekiel appropriates the motif to describe God’s judgment on his people (21:17 [12]). Yhwh’s). “my hand takes hold [of the sword] in judgment” (ydy +p#mb zx)t). cf. qrb N(ml . and Ezek 21:16 [11] speaks of the sword grasped in the hand (dyb. 12:14 (cf.71 the same context from which Ezekiel borrowed b(r and Mycx. Deut 32:41 also states. Ezek 21:14 [9]: “a sword.” in Ezek 5:2. While the two use synonyms (from the roots Nn# and ddx). Ezekiel’s reference to the sword in 7:15 may also have been influenced by the Song. 69 68 . In the Song the object of the sword’s destruction is Yhwh’s enemies. . However. it is unlikely that Ezekiel derives it from the phrase “break the staff of bread” in Lev 26:26. which further suggests that Leviticus 26 is not the basis for ch. for lightning)” (21:20 [15].e. e. Pkb). 32:10). the common motif is nevertheless present. specifically Deut 32:25. “against them. . qrbl hyw#(). Ezekiel’s threat that “the sword shall be outside. and pestilence and famine Wong. 144. Though the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 mention the sword. 30:11) (see Lyons.104 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. “remove my sword from its sheath” (vv. Yhwh states. 71 Fohrer. “my sword shall be drawn from its sheath against all flesh” (r#b-lk-l) hr(tm ybrx )ct). 12. cf. in three instances in Ezekiel 21 the flashing sword motif from Deut 32:41 is found: “polished that it might flash (lit. 3–5]). because of the close association of Mycx and b(r in both Deuteronomy 32 and Ezekiel 16. 55. have flashing)” (21:15 [10]. just as Deut 32:42 states that “my sword will devour flesh” (r#b lk)t ybrx). no. See Fohrer. 144. . (2) the sword flashes. Idea of Retribution. and (4) the sword consumes flesh. Jer 12:12. Third. Hauptprobleme. “my sword (i. 70 Indeed. “I sharpen my flashing sword” (ybrx qrb ytwn#). 28:7. along with twelve other occurrences of brx (also in Ezek 30:25. Hauptprobleme. Ezekiel 21 speaks repeatedly of a sharpened sword. Kasher.69 The Song’s distinctive ybrx. a sword. Nah 3:3. sharpened and polished” (h+wrm-Mgw hdxwh brx brx). occurs three times in Ezekiel 21 (21:8–10 [Eng. in ch. 3–5).70 these two passages share several common motifs: (1) the sword is sharpened. is a literary remnant of the third person context of Deut 32:23 in which Mb appears.. 63–64). “My Sword” (Ezekiel 21 // Deut 32:41–42) Ezekiel borrows another of Yhwh’s agents of death found in the Song: the sword.” often emended to the expected Mkb. in Deut 32:41. Ezekiel. 94. 1 (2011) b(r. First. . to flash” (21:33 [28]. h+wrm). 21. so Ezek 21:9 [4] states. “made to flash (lit. “draw the sword after you. Second. 21 the prophet prefers the phrase ybrx )cwh hr(tm.68 B. h+rm qrb hl-hyh-N(ml). Law to Prophecy. Ka Leung Wong suggests that in Ezek 5:16 Mhb. note Sifre to Deuteronomy 321:6.g.. “polished . (3) the sword is in the hand. Finally. Hos 11:6.” mentioned twice in Deut 32:41–42. Pancratius C.74 In the first poem of ch. While H. “What a Lioness Was Your Mother: Reflections on Ezekiel 19. 2002]. )nq. thus ruling out influence from the Priestly literature or another source. C. 21. 144. Ezekiel’s Programmatic Use of Scripture Finally. 2–9) the prophet draws extensively from the description of Judah as a lion in Gen 49:9: Judah is a lion’s cub [hyr) rwg]. Fohrer. Hauptprobleme. VI.” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific & Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (ed. which is derived from the root hnq.72 The verb is not used in this sense elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible except in 1 Kgs 14:22 and Ps 78:58. 1:603. we note two types comparable to his use of the Song in Ezekiel 16: the creative reformulation of an earlier text and the use of an earlier text for the structure of a new oracle. Ezekiel 1–19. Becking and M. 56. As with a lioness [)ybl]. 74 Beentjes. 72 . 26–31. Leiden: Brill.” VT 46 [1996]: 121–24) has hypothesized that originally a single word lay behind hnqmh h)nqh in the phrase hnqmh h)nqh lms.73 Moreover. 19 (vv. 62–63) has defended the traditional interpretation that the word reflects a III-) root written as a III-h. Like a lion he lies down and crouches [Cbr]. Block.” JANESCU 22 (1993): 29–37. C. B. idem. “to (pro)create. “To Make Jealous” (Ezek 8:3 // Deut 32:16. 1996). Ezekiel. Ezekiel. Lutzky (“On the ‘Image of Jealousy’ [Ezekiel viii 3. Kasher. 5]. In particular. 357–58. because the word does not occur often enough in the Deuteronomistic literature to be considered common Deuteronomistic language. my son. Ezekiel 1–20. Biblical Interpretation Series 18. Beentjes and other scholars have shown that Jacob’s blessing on Judah in Genesis 49 appears to be the basis for the language and imagery of Ezekiel 19. etc. it is possible that Ezekiel is influenced by this specific text. which is used to speak of idolatry provoking God to jealousy.” John Day (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan [JSOTSup 265. 73 Though cf. from the prey [Pr+] you have gone up [tyl(]. “Notes on the Influence of Tradition on Ezekiel. is it likely that Ezekiel would have used Deuteronomy 32 in the way proposed in this essay? Here we may note that there are other examples of Ezekiel’s programmatic use of earlier biblical texts. Moshe Greenberg. As an example of the former. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 608–10. 34:14. 21) A less conclusive example is the occurrence of the verbal root )nq in Ezek 8:3 and Deut 32:16. who dares to rouse him? Noted by Allen. Dijkstra. 142.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 105 inside” (tybm b(rhw rbdhw Cwxb brxh) closely resembles that of the Song: “outside the sword shall bereave. and inside terror” (hmy) Myrdxmw brx-lk#t Cwxm). the epithet )nq l) in Exod 20:5. he takes many liberties in reworking the earlier passage. 1:720). Ezekiel 1–20. The prophet develops the story further at other points as well. Ezekiel. 10–14). 102. Leiden: Brill. He changes Myr# to My)y#n77 and My+p# to Myr# and expands the oracle in other ways so that the result is more than twice the length of the original. 1:724 n. her judges are evening wolves. 461–63. as we have noted. Block. then Ezekiel 19 represents a creative play on the association of Judah with the lion. 77 Reading hy)y#n r#) with the LXX. 144–48.75 If these links are purposeful. Ezekiel. they leave nothing for the morning. in which he subverts the noble lion image to portray brutality and exploitation on the part of Judah’s monarchy. (Zeph 3:3–4) Ezekiel adds a fifth category to Zephaniah’s fourfold list of objects of accusation (Cr)h M(. 1:724–27. Müller. 1999). 76 . 79 Ezekiel makes a common metaphor shocking with sexual imagery. they have violated the Torah. Ezekiel’s Prophetic Transformation Though Ezekiel adopts the plot and themes of Deuteronomy 32. see Greenberg.76 Her princes in the midst of her are roaring lions. Fishbane. where he adopts the text of Zeph 3:3–4 and transforms it freely. This includes the transformation of Israel into Yhwh’s metaphorical wife.78 VII. The foremost among these. see Block. Ezekiel. 1 (2011) This is confirmed by his use of the vine language of Gen 49:10–12 in the second poem (vv. but also “scepter” (+b#). The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76. 1:465. her prophets are wanton and treacherous people. along with the introduction of her “sisters. moving the priests to the second position. D. is his infusion of the prophetic harlotry motif. Ezekiel. her priests have profaned that which is holy.106 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. including “vine” (Npg) and “blood” (Md). Thomas Renz. See Galambush. 26.” WZKM 10 (1905): 30–36. which. Biblical Interpretation. 357–58. see also Block. 4). “the people of the land”) and alters the order. marked by the addition of a marriage after the discovery of Israel and the expansion of the two verses on Israel’s idolatry into a detailed—and graphic79—account of her harlotries. “the conspiracy of her prophets” (see Zimmerli. An example of the prophet’s structural use of Scripture is found in Ezek 22:25– 29. against the MT’s hy)ybn r#q. H. Jerusalem.” Samaria and 75 On the possible influence of Nah 2:12–14 and Zeph 3:3. no. 3) and birth story (v. He includes an account of Israel’s destitute state before her deliverance. 78 For a fuller list of the changes. “Der Prophet Ezechiel entlehnt eine Stelle des Propheten Zephanja und glossiert sie. a term denoting rulership. including details about her parents (v. and fine clothes. Biblical Interpretation. stoning is explicitly specified for adultery. or applications. “Ezekiel . Regardless of whether Ezekiel has in mind or is drawing specifically from Deuteronomy 22. which can be explained as adjustments to the metaphorical vehicle. 15– 22) and foreign powers (vv. 23–43). it is noteworthy that he does not draw from the language of Israel’s punishment in the Song (Deut 32:23–25). he “recasts the adultery metaphor to focus on the pollution that precipitates Yhwh’s abandonment of the Jerusalem temple. Second.”80 The infusion of the harlotry motif may account for some distinctives of Ezekiel’s oracle. 16. rather than idolatry. earrings. Ezekiel’s account of Jerusalem’s prosperity. 6–11] prescribes stoning as punishment for idolatry as well. Jerusalem.Gile: Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses 107 Sodom. though he clearly does in 5:16–17 and ch. First. 84 Ibid.” whereby “a received oracle-format or its language is retained though its meaning is transformed by virtue of additions. 465. Why does he not in ch. where Yhwh declares. 35–43). 478–79). which otherwise has pervasive links with Deuteronomy 32? It seems that he adopts a different mode of punishment for Israel that corresponds to the nature of her transgression: Ezekiel has Israel’s lovers stone her in accordance with the Mosaic prescription for adultery (Deut 22:21. though Deut 13:7–12 [Eng. 81 Ezekiel attributes the means of punishment to Jerusalem’s metaphorical sin. For example. Indeed.”84 Other links to the temple in ch.”83 Jerusalem prostitutes herself with two groups: gods (vv. 79–89 for details. . in Ezekiel’s account of Israel’s punishment (vv. Lev 20:2. Lev 24:17. As one of many examples. Even while Ezekiel incorporates the harlot imagery from his prophetic predecessors. whereas Deuteronomy uses lqs. as Julie Galambush points out. faithful to his concern for the purity of the Jerusalem temple. 24). see pp. this is made explicit in Ezek 16:38. specifications.81 Though capital punishment is prescribed for murder in the legal corpora (Exod 21:12. . the oracle reflects Ezekiel’s own special concerns. Michael Fishbane calls this type of creative reuse of an earlier text “transformative exegesis. which speaks of her renowned beauty. 13 in Isa 58:14 (pp. 27). “I will sentence you with the sentences of adulteresses and murderers” (Md tkp#w twp)n y+p#m Kyt+p#w). 16 include the adornment of Yhwh’s wife with the same materials that adorn Yhwh’s sanctuary (made 80 Fishbane. 82 Ezekiel uses the verb Mgr (cf. Similarly. harlotry. make up the “biography” that Ezekiel supplies for the infant. thus reflecting both cultic and political infidelity. he cites the use of Deut 32:9. being adorned with a necklace. . 44–52). For example. 78. Num 35:16–34). 83 Galambush. in section B (vv. he modifies this tradition as well. 21. 99–100.. departs from the pattern of Hosea and Jeremiah in consistently distinguishing between idolatry and inappropriate foreign alliances in his depiction of Jerusalem’s infidelity.82 he is surely familiar with the convention that adulterers are put to death by stoning. reflects an adjustment to the metaphorically female Israel. . 86 85 . Ezekiel’s audience would have recognized his allusions to it and felt the force of his application of the judgment in their treasured song to their current circumstances. this Song shall confront them as a witness. Moses predicts that “when many evils and troubles have come upon [the people]. this was accomplished by expanding the story of Israel’s relationship with Yhwh and transforming it with the prophetic harlotry metaphor. he incorporates ancient Near Eastern legal terms and metaphors for the abandonment and adoption of the infant foundling. namely. Surely Ezekiel’s generation remembered Moses’ Song.86 VIII. As we have seen. the use of the phrase “in her/the blood” represented a legal renunciation of their claim to her.108 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Ibid. for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring” (Deut 31:21). Since Deuteronomy 32 was a well-known song. the prophet applies it to his contemporary context of idolatry and illegitimate foreign relations. For example. By adopting the plot structure of the rise and fall of Israel in Deuteronomy 32. and thus YHWH’s command to live “in her blood” signifies his formal adoption of the girl (“Adoption of Foundlings. and Ezekiel confronted them with it as a witness. Perhaps better than recontextualization is the term actualization. 110). 1 (2011) explicit by the Targum’s rendering). to accuse and judge his fellow Israelites for their transgressions. no. In the narrative framework of the Song. The rhetoric of Ezekiel’s use of the Song lies in the recontextualization of Moses’ depiction of Israel’s decline. since Moses’ Song foretells a coming fall into idolatry and Ezekiel declares that Moses’ prediction of punishment has come to pass in the current generation. The internal witness of Deuteronomy itself lends credence to this assertion. after adding the marriage imagery to the foundling motif.85 Third. Malul has argued that when parents abandoned a child in Mesopotamia. we reflect briefly on the purpose of Ezekiel’s transformation of the Song of Moses.” 106. 95. The Rhetoric of Transformation To conclude. Ezekiel incorporates other external elements into the metaphor. 3 It is not unlikely that this tradition of using the phrase to convey an idea beyond what is explicitly worded has continued to influence interpreters into the modern period. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VTSup 56. Iain M. E. see Baruch Halpern. Chico. jr. whether in dedicated studies1 or in brief interpretative notes in related texts. That the term indicates something more than the plain meaning of its constituent words is evidenced by the variety of situations in which it is found and the throng of meanings to which it conceivably lends itself. 1981). Duguid. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25. A great deal of scholarly attention has been paid to the correct interpretation of these words. In addition to the interpretative problem posed by the biblical occurrences. MD 21218 The phrase vam hā 'āres i appears in the Hebrew Bible over fifty times (in the singular form alone) throughout a number of materials including the Pentateuch (in J. “The Am Haarez: A Study in the Social and Economic Life of the Jews before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple.” JQR 23 (1932): 45–61. 1 (2011): 109–125 A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āres i in the Hebrew Bible john tracy thames.edu The Johns Hopkins University. and P). the meaning of the phrase seems to have been further skewed by its postbiblical connotations.2 rarely is the phrase mentioned without a need for explication. For examples. see Solomon Zeitlin. 29–30. an idea that is clearly foreign to the biblical usage. My intention is not to propose a description of some human group that once identified itself as the vam hā 'āres . Baltimore. the Deuteronomistic History.i this has been done more times and with less See below for a full list of citations. 2 1 109 . jthames4@jhu. CA: Scholars Press. Instead. and several postexilic compositions. The term can be found in writings of the rabbinic period as a pejorative term for a Jewish individual who is not properly educated in Jewish law. the Major Prophets. 3 The postbiblical term will not enter into the present discussion. Leiden/New York: Brill. no.JBL 130. 190–98. 1994). ”6 4 For further reading not explicitly discussed in this study. “Vive le Roi!. Gunneweg. much of the present discussion will interact with that text. J. 1909). which had essential qualities of modern parliaments. Instead I seek to examine the issue from the perspective of its literary function in each context and. 6 Sulzberger. “Le Sens de l’Expression ‘Peuple du Pays’ dans l’Ancien Testament et le Role Politique du Peuple en Israel.” ZAW 95 (1983): 437–40. partially evinced by the terminis technicus vam hā 'āres.i Referring to his 1909 publication in which he first cultivates the idea. After the time line has been traced. “Der Judäische ‘Am-Ha’ares i und das Königtum in Juda: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der Deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. I. The current discussion of the treatment of the term and its implications in the modern period begins with Mayer Sulzberger. Boer. . as this has been done as well. 1977). until at last the true meaning was forgotten. The ‘am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ALGHJ 8.” IDB 1:106. “Representative Government among the Hebrews and Phoenicians: A Contribution to the Problem of the Cr)h M( Raised by Judge Mayer Sulzberger. A Brief History of Interpretation4 A flurry of scholarship and speculation on the precise meaning of the biblical vam hā 'āres i (and the evolution of its postbiblical connotations) peaked in the early twentieth century. I shall describe how a more nuanced understanding of the term’s function might better elucidate its proper interpretation. As some of the earlier positions are either outmoded or have already been discussed ad nauseam. Leiden: Brill. .” ABD 1:168–69. 1 (2011) credibility than is becoming. 261. was for long known as the vam ha-aretz. Because her work is specific to the fourth chapter of Ezra. “vam ha'aretz. a technical term which. “Cr)h M( —A Semantic Revolution. I will limit critical remarks to a minimum. H. endeavored to demonstrate that this representative council. especially that of Lisbeth Fried. after amassing a critical understanding of all these works. no. accordingly. the plausible intent of the author who chose to employ it. It will do to begin by taking stock of the major developments and influential essays relevant to this interpretative problem. P. the Ancient Hebrew Parliament: A Chapter in the Constitutional History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Greenstone. I intend to engage the most recent research on the issue. . Nor do I wish simply to contend against such technical definitions.” JQR 4 (1913): 303–10. Sulzberger argues for the existence of a representative government in ancient Israel. in the mutations of time and circumstance. though it has remained an interesting point of debate up to the present.5 he recounts.” JQR 3 (1912): 3. however. Roland de Vaux. Joseph Healey. J. Finally. acquired other and totally alien connotations. Aharon Oppenheimer. “The Polity of the Ancient Hebrews.” VT 13 (1963): 187–95. “vam ha'aretz. see Nahum Slousch. Marvin Pope. A. In the publication of his 1912 lecture series on the political organization of ancient Hebrew society.” VT 5 (1955): 223–31.110 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. “I .” RA 58 (1964): 167–72. 5 Sulzberger. The Am Ha-Aretz. Alberto Soggin. in fact. the lords of the land.9 Enthusiastically agreeing with and expanding Sulzberger’s interpretation of Hebrew parliamentary government is Samuel Daiches. 12 Ibid. Instead he reports that the terminus ad quem of the term’s technical application is the Babylonian exile. from this institution.” Sulzberger pays no attention to the many occurrences that do not suit his proposal nor does he attempt to account for their supposed differences.” JTS 30 (1929): 248. He imagines: The Parliament of Israel had its humble beginnings at the city gate. Am Ha-aretz.” 303–10) to bolster Sulzberger’s theory with a supposed analogy to Phoenician strategies of representation reflected in some orthographic evidence.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 111 In his major study of the topic. Sulzberger provides a more detailed speculation about the origins of the term as a closed category. after which the phrase must have been a blank canvas. namely. 11 Daiches. The fundamental idea is: the people of the land. 58. 17. Sulzberger (admittedly) has no evidence whatsoever to support this evolution of a tribal union represented by a parliamentary vam hā 'āres. comers to the gate.10 Daiches also distills several additional connotations from the term. the lords of the land.i 8 His conception is based entirely on convenience. averring that it simultaneously refers to “‘the landed gentry. the house of lords. which dealt with the larger matters of the district inhabited by the tribe. Notwithstanding the attempt of Slousch (“Representative Government.i For Daiches.’”11 Ownership of land must have been requisite for political representation.7 Quite unfortunately. the people who possess land.12 Sulzberger. 9 Sulzburger. the tribal vAm. “The Mean” ing of Am Ha-Aretz in the Old Testament. it is applied. produced alliances between several tribes.” 245. sat to hold the Town Council and the Municipal Court. thus the appellation vam hā 'āres. Gradually there was evolved. “Meaning of Am Ha-Aretz. JQR 12 (1921): 33. in short. all the owners of landed estates. attributable to every occurrence of the term in the Hebrew Bible. In two short articles published in the 1920s. In the narrower meaning Cr)h M( signified the representatives of the landed gentry. the landed aristocracy. 10 Daiches. the landowners. the representatives of the people. and the necessity of defense against enemies. 8 7 . “Exodus 5:4–5: The Meaning of Cr)h M(. an vAm of the land. Friendliness among neighbors. whenever his definition works. it is considered an “alien connotation. Daiches argues beyond Sulzberger that the technical application of vam hā 'āres i is. this meaning may be applied in either a “narrower” or a “wider” sense throughout the biblical books. 69. and finally there resulted a union of all or nearly all of the tribes of Israel. Then only could there have been formed a general gathering of delegates. and where it does not. where the elders of the town. idem. Am Ha-Aretz. In the wider meaning Cr)h M( included all the landed gentry. our vAm ha-aretz. Unfortunately. Disappointingly.14 i A study by Ernst Würthwein published in 1936 represents a benchmark in interpretation of vam hā 'āres i (if only for its length). This interpretation provides a useful (though largely unjustified) strategy for dealing with the identity of the gôlâ community. Der vamm ha'arez im Alten Testament (BWANT 17. Ernest W. Würthwein adheres to the dogmatic interpretation of the term as highly specific in meaning. zum größten Teil aus dem ehemaligen ‘amm ha’arez bestehend. In the course of this discussion. while the exclusive body of landed gentry do figure into the story.15 Though Würthwein maintains that this group was politically and militarily preeminent. 1936). kommt nun nach ihrer Rückkehr in Konflikt mit Kreisen. Würthwein argues for a change in the usage of vam hā 'āres i in the postexilic period. 1 (2011) Daiches’s brief mention of the vam hā 'āres i in the book of Ezra exemplifies the alacrity with which he applies the technical definition.” 248). 17.. applying only to the body of land-owning citizens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.”13 So. he does not base his picture on any presumptions of representative political organization. Daiches expresses his aspiration to “deal more fully with M( and Cr)h M( in Ezra (especially with ch. Some twenty years later.iv. Thus.4)” (“Meaning of Am-Haretz. 16 Ibid. nannte sich nicht mehr ‘amm ha’arez. Was aus dem Exil zurückkehrte. Daiches neglects to comment on how one may justify reading “the representative body of landed gentry” from the simple word vam. Diese gola. my research has not succeeded in turning up any published work by Daiches that treats this matter specifically. v. but quite contrary to the former. when the defining half of the moniker (hā 'āres) is missing. 14 13 . 4. 10) “Cr)h is usually left out. sondern legte sich den Ehrennamen hlwg. Unsere bisherige Untersuchung hat den ‘amm ha’arez erwiesen als die Oberschicht des vorexilischen Juda. 15 Würthwein.16 Like Daiches. they are most often not referred to by their distinct appellation. Daiches will have us believe. Nicholson brought a diametrically oppos- Ibid. though his broader conclusions are not greatly at variance with those that preceded them.112 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. The meaning remains intact. the latter sees the term used to designate this group as completely altered after the exile. Diese Oberschicht hat mit ihrer Exilierung vorübergehend ihre Bedeutung und für immer ihren Namen verloren. 51.. 248. no. die den Titel ‘amm ha’arez. hlwgh ynb oder hlwgh lhq zu. ‘amme ha’arez und ‘amme ha’arazoth führen. land-owning group at work in all stages of Israelite society. Würthwein sees the continual presence of an elite. He cautions that in Ezra (especially chs. but the term is used to designate an entirely different group. The technical term. 18 Talmon. His facile reading amounts to little more than a bump in the road of the ever-forging technical interpretation. it does very little to argue for its superiority over the technical interpretation. is used only in the singular. vam hā'ărās iôt.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 113 ing interpretation of vam hā 'āres i to the discussion. vammê hā'ărās iôt) without any lexical distinction. repr. Jerusalem. they are most often a simple designation of the general population. “The Meaning of the Expression Cr)h M( in the Old Testament. The difficult task (to which he unfortunately does not attend) is to argue for the preference of the literal interpretation. though he provides no more supporting evidence for his description. from Papers of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. “The Judean vAm Ha'ares i. Rather. which amounts nearly to no interpretation at all.” in idem. His is. Nicholson recounts several key passages in which the term occurs and satisfies himself with showing how the facile reading is unproblematic. Magnes.. 1986).” JSS 10 (1965): 60. however. betrays some influence from Nicholson’s reading. 21 The first is found both in the singular form that we have hereto discussed and in various combinations of plurality (vammê hā'āres i. identifies Nicholson’s position as a “low tide” in the debate. . Talmon proposes to explain its meaning “by assuming a semantic division of the term which resulted in diverse synchronic employments.21 Talmon is a bit less imaginative than his predecessors.. insofar as Talmon is compelled to distinguish between the technical and general usages before postulating his description of the technical term. perhaps. Talmon thinks that he sees the same sort of duality in the words vebed and navar. Still less fortunate is the pittance of scholarly attention given to Nicholson’s interpretation. 1967).”20 The term is used in two ways: (1) to refer to the entirety of any particular group of people. He fails to acknowledge that the ability to read the text intelligibly without the technical definition is a matter of course. 20 Ibid. the next voice to speak on the subject.19 By recognizing the apparent inconsistency with which the term is used throughout the Hebrew Bible. 69.”17 So the words should generally not be taken at anything greater than face value. 19 Ibid. however. 70. such that Shemaryahu Talmon. the “commonsense” view of the term: that it “is no such technical term but that it is used in a very general manner varying in meaning from context to context. and (2) as a technical term that designated a particular Judean political group.18 Talmon’s essay. King. Relying primarily on 2 Kings. 72. though he does not seem to recognize that two words sharing one semantic connotation are the inverse of the sort of phenomenon he is proposing. 69. he 17 Nicholson. Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies (Aspects of the Hebrew Bible. Though Nicholson’s take is somewhat welcome and relieving in its simplicity. “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code. he does not categorize Ezek 7:27... the reports of the actions of the vam hā'āres i are probably contemporary with the actual events (“Judean vAm Ha'ares i. If the vam hā 'āres i were the defenders of the monarchy.26 we have two sources using the same term at the same time with very different meanings.c. actively staging military coups and such. Without a more definite justification for semantic separation between otherwise similar usages. 20:2.22 For Talmon. Talmon’s supposed distinction is untenable. Since Talmon maintains that the Deuteronomist was active throughout the preexilic period and considering the preexilic authorship of the Priestly source in Judah. . and those which refer to other groups. “The vam hā'āres i in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration. Ezek 33:2. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming.24 What is unique about Talmon’s exposition is that he believes that he avoids the problem of ambiguity among the variety of ways in which the term is used (as noted by Nicholson) by distinguishing between those which are specifically Judean. 24 Ibid. 74. 4 (H). P is bound to have noticed. as he claims that although it was finally redacted in the postexilic period. among others. where the vam hā 'āres i supposedly stage the coup) until the destruction of Jerusalem (during which some of the vam hā 'āres i are executed along with the king’s sons). 46:3. but a bit of each. The nature of the group was not institutional per se. 1 (2011) finds a narrative chronology that suggests that the vam hā 'āres i were active at least from the overthrow of Athaliah (836 b. These Talmon deems “cultic-legal” in nature (“Judean vAm Ha'ares i. and ultimately shared its unfortunate fate. This seems unlikely. and acting in whatever capacity was needed to support the monarchy. vol.” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed.” RB 81 (1974): 24–56. 12:19.. 45:16. Avi Hurvitz. specifically Lev 4:27 (P). 73–76. 3B. New York: Doubleday.” 69). the span and nature of these events “illustrate that in weal and in woe this body was aligned with the Davidic dynasty.114 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 39:13. IN: Eisenbrauns.27 She begins by settling on a broad interpretation of the 22 One finds that Talmon believes the Deuteronomistic History to be a “rolling corpus” composition. 27 Fried. 9. Winona Lake. which it was sworn to protect. I conclude this brief history of scholarship with a look at the work of Lisbeth Fried who has published the most recent treatment of the vam hā 'āres. including “all-Israel. 1991–2001). 2006). AB 3.” 72). 22.i specifically as it appears in Ezra 4:4. It was something of a silent protector. or 22:29. 25 In the latter he includes the uses of the Priestly source of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel. spontaneously organizing only at times of threat to the Davidic dynasty..”23 This body would not be entirely political. nor entirely militaristic. 1. Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols. Curiously. but rather it was a “sociological phenomenon” that surfaced naturally and only when needed. 23 Ibid. 3A. 26 Following Jacob Milgrom.”25 But his specifically Judean occurrences ultimately amount to only the uses of the Deuteronomist. which occur in situations similar to 33:2 and 39:13.e. no. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. in charge of Egypt’s land. then he would have been seen as selling only to the heads of the landed estates in Egypt. we must not forget to recognize that any results will be contingent on the ultimate success of the foundational assumption. Nicholson asserts: “The plain meaning of this text is surely that Joseph was responsible for supplying corn to any Egyptian who might wish to buy it. The expression cannot here be referring to a specific class. Joseph would not have been viewed as selling grain to every man or woman on the street who wanted it.32 28 Most notably Gunneweg. “people of the land” (i. 29 Fried. The implications of a decision against a late P may be insignificant to her general interpretation of vam hā'āres i. aristocratic referent. Fried cites P’s uses for support (Gen 23:7.e. sells grain. 31 Nicholson. full citizens of preexilic Judah. This is true on both sides of the debate. These free landowners would then have distributed it to their peasants and dependents. “vam hā'āres i in Ezra 4:4. However.”31 Why not? That the plain meaning of the text reads. While we may choose not to fault her for building on this foundation.” 61. For example. 30 Here Fried’s account is fully dependent on a late dating of P. Lev 4:27.” 125–26.” 437–40. It is the contention of the proponents of a technical definition that there is some depth over and above the plain meaning. landowning. 30 I interrupt the exposition. these texts would then fall into her preexilic category. which. if Joseph was believed to be in charge of grain production for all of Egypt. the true embarrassment is the high degree of self-evidence that has been assumed by each interpreter with each proof-text. Gen 42:6 refers to the vam hā 'āres i of the Egyptians to whom Joseph. But more disappointing is Fried’s response to Nicholson’s unremarkable argument. Trusting the work of her predecessors. see Milgrom. could be detrimental to her case for the meaning of the term in Ezra.28 she agrees that it “comprised the class of free. 1961). Against such a dating. Num 14:9). within the population of Egypt. having reviewed the basic view of a number of scholars. to prove the nonspecific referent of vam hā 'āres i in Gen 42:6. Egyptians) is not in dispute. after all. as we shall see below. 1:5. However. “vam hā'āres i in Ezra 4:4. necessarily imply a land-owning. which she interprets with exactly the same definition. in her assessment.” 126. “Cr)h M(. Der vamm ha'arez. Roland de Vaux. Nicholson has done nothing to defend his case in this instance.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 115 (preexilic) term. “Expression Cr)h M(. and Würthwein. social or otherwise. .. Leviticus. this would leave her without a model for interpreting the postexilic usage of the phrase. 32 Fried. Clearly. which. to express the broad criticism that I have hereto withheld. Aside from the general lack of textual justification for proposing any such highly specific organization or class as has been so frequently described.”29 It is in her brief evaluation of the term in the postexilic writings that Fried breaks away from the majority opinion and claims (à la Daiches) that the meaning of vam hā 'āres i holds the same technical force. ’ Then the vam hā'āres i discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build. They hired officials against them to frustrate their plans all the days of Cyrus. king of Persia” (Fried’s translation. 5: that the vam hā 'āres i were successful in their plan to halt the temple building project through bribery (Myc(wy Mhyl( Myrks) and discouragement (ydy Myprm. her treatment represents an attempt to draw conclusions about the editorial history of the text of Ezra 4 based on the application of a theory of identity of the vam hā 'āres.” 129). 435—the first meaningful step toward building an identity for the vam hā 'āres i in Ezra. king of Persia. 33 . 130. “weakening the hands of ”). Fried continues by equating the enemies of Judah (yrc hdwhy) and Benjamin presented in v. II. let us forge on with Fried’s work. I wish to consider her work in some detail. However. for we have been sacrificing to him from the days that Esarhaddon brought us up here.116 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. there may often be little more substance available for debate. she still has offered no reason to interpret the meaning of the biblical text (which may or may not be privy to Egypt’s economic inner workings) as different from its plain meaning. lit. Even if her take on the socioeconomic organization of Egypt is correct.33 Here Fried notes. with due fairness to the parties involved. That is.i As the outcome of such an attempt is of interest to the broader scope of the present discussion. for like you we seek an oracle from your God.”34 This understanding is owed to v. “The enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returnees were building the temple to Yhwh. As my intention is not to linger upon a tirade against the methods of the interpreters. Enhancing this picture. the God of Israel. Jeshua. “The vam hā 'āres i do not seem to be the poor and disenfranchised but the powerful landed aristocracy who participate in the administration of government. so they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers’ (houses) and said to them. no. ‘It is not for you but for us to build the house of our God for we alone will build to Yhwh. even if Egypt’s actual distribution of goods is as Fried claims. just as King Cyrus. The vam hā 'āres i in Ezra Although general interpretation of the phrase is not Fried’s primary concern. 1 with the vam hā 'āres i of v. 1 (2011) Fried’s defense is scarcely as strong as Nicholson’s original assertion.’ But Zerubbabel. Fried offers no evidence to support her claim that these goods could be dispersed only through a top-down scheme of social distribution (though she does refer the reader to her previous work on Egyptian economy). ‘Let us build with you. This sort of interchange is typical of the argumentation on our subject. commanded us. The text in question is Ezra 4:1–5. the biblical writer could very well still intend to say that Joseph (perhaps accentuating his magnanimity) distributed to everyone. “vam hā'āres i in Ezra 4:4. the God of Israel. 35 Ibid. until the reign of Darius. king of Persia. 34 Ibid. and the rest of the heads of the fathers’ (houses) of Israel said to them.. ” Fried asserts that the self-identification of the letter writers as “people whom the great and noble Osnappar deported and settled in the cities of Samaria” (Ezra 4:10) indicates that the redactor takes these officials to be of non-Persian descent. it would be fallacious to attempt to draw anything from this passage apart from the bare fact that the vam were able to influence this particular event.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 117 The heart of Fried’s understanding materializes when she cites the third frustration of the Judean building project. in fact. land-owning aristocrats and thus fit nicely into the category of vam hā 'āres. It is difficult to understand why an author or redactor would prefer such 36 Ibid. 1 with the vam of v. This is really no matter. But. thus the opposition that has been the subject of the narrative throughout has really been the Persian satrapal government. this is not an unreasonable move. 4. There is no indication of what degree of economic (or other) transactions constituted the bribery. since these Persians were. after all. Shimshai. this is clearly beyond what is conveyed by the text.. there is no indication that this vam was permanently or especially politically influential. Though Fried does not express any justification for equating the sārîm meni tioned in v. the writing of a letter to the Persian king. the ability to bribe notwithstanding. In what she labels the “redactor’s misunderstanding. She sees the immediate introduction to the letter as the bridge between the unidentified sārîm/vam hā 'āres i and the specified writers: Rehum. though. but he has erred in assuming that these letter writers were people other than Persians. in fact. They would not have been the descendants of those deported into the area by the Assyrians. .i First. 137. Fried cites the possible use of v. 5) as further evidence that the redactor intends to parallel the vam hā 'āres i with the Persian officials. it is unusual that two terms possessing no obviously synonymous value would be used to denote two separate (and not necessarily logically connected) actions undertaken by the same group. nor what the officials actually did to “frustrate” (rphl) the construction. As such they would have been appointed by the king from his inner circle in Persia or Babylon and sent to the satrapy by the king himself. “eating the salt of the palace” (Ezra 4:9). The men listed as signatories were among the highest officials in the satrapal government of Beyond the River.36 So. both represent factions of opposition in the narrative. Though it is not contested that the vam involved were able to influence the gôlâ in this solitary instance. extremely vague on this point. Thus. in fact. The text is. These men are none other than the Persian satrapal officials. and their i associates. the redactor uses the phrase in a manner entirely consistent with the rest of the biblical material. for Fried. I object to Fried’s understanding of the vam hā 'āres i as broadly influential and powerful based on the context of 4:4–5. 24 as a resumptive clause (more or less repeating v. This is not likely. 70. no. 38 On the understanding of the chapter as a rationale for delay of reconstruction. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. . their activities represent unrelated events. 7–23. 5 has no impact on this interpretation. Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL. and I contend that they indeed occur within the envelope of repetitive resumption. this much is demonstrated by the nebulous v. is particularly attractive in light of the reappraisal of the biblical usage of vam hā'āres i below. The sum of these events resulted in the conclusion noted in v. Nehemiah (WBC 16. 24: reconstruction stopped until the reign of Darius.37 we have a compilation of various attempts to impede the rebuilding of the temple. She refers to the “letters to and from the Achaemenid kings . Its lack of an expressed subject for the verb wbtk might mean that the referent has been lost or excluded (along with the alleged letter to which the text refers). 24 does function in this way. M. Indeed. 1–5 are not merely an introduction to the Aramaic letter. correspondingly.” As already noted. 6 and vv. See Franz Rosenthal. 1995). . the transition between actions and use of the distinct appellation vam hā 'āres i appears much less clumsy. §181. G. See Juha Pakkala. he notes that “Ezra 4:7–23 is probably an expansion to the narrative. 115. If v. it is quite reasonable that v. in doing so. we are now told. Accordingly. while speculative. the entirety of Ezra 4 recounts unconnected tales of the various ways in which the gôlâ community was challenged. neglects v. 60.. Instead of a single narrative of cause and effect. 6. See H. also hapi pen to be the vam hā'āres i) discourage the people of Judah. These are manifest in four units: vv. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 24 is a resumption of v. that are enclosed between the resumptive clauses” without clarifying that both 37 For example. the events are distinct.118 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 57. 7–23 are later insertions. . 6 is anomalous and undoubtedly represents some degree of textual corruption. which refers to another letter that is conspicuously absent from the text. the s iārîm offer their help in the construction of the temple. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (6th rev. 1988). but after their rejection (perhaps now acting out of bitter jealousy). 1–3. the two groups are distinct and. 2004). these s ārîm (who. Although Pakkala does not explicitly treat Ezra 4. v. or that the expanding editor wishes to give the impression that the action is connected with the foregoing subject.39 This brings us to the pith of Fried’s argument: that the vam hā 'āres i are explicitly identified in the Aramaic letter. vv. This option. ed. I am not in disagreement with Fried. Waco: Word Books. fails to recognize the disconnected nature of the events and thereby misconceives the text as a unified narrative. 6. 6. More likely. when. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that we are dealing not with a single narrative that culminates in the presentation of the letter but with something more akin to bullet points. 1985). in fact. Here Fried makes an unjustified leap and. Fried. Philadelphia: Westminster. Joseph Blenkinsopp. In fact. It is also worth considering (not least because of its proximate placement to the Aramaic text) that the lack of expressed subject in this verse is analogous to the impersonal plural passive construction in Aramaic.38 If the events are not directly related. Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347. 4–5. Williamson. it serves only to indicate that the latter two units are later inclusions in the list of frustrations. Ezra. 1 (2011) ambiguous labeling. however. 39 The issue of whether v. Most unsettling is Fried’s assignment of specific authors to the first letter in v. since she does not consider that each is identified with a different royal era.” Perhaps Fried treats the text in this way to avoid the oddity that different authors are identified in vv. Fried has not in any meaningful way accounted for the anomaly of v. As noted above. it will be impossible to find a nearby textual referent for the vam hā 'āres.”41 This understanding. wrote the second letter (vv. Neither is time frame an issue. 8 and 9). nonassumptive reading. telescoped the two (v. Ezra-Nehemiah. 40 41 Fried. To reallocate Mithredath and Tabeel from the subsequent narrative not only ignores their position in v.i as does Fried. whereas I have argued that it must have been compiled in a multiphase process. distinct narratives have been identified in the passage.). 7–23) in such a way that she believes both are a single direct result of the foregoing narrative. . The first letter described in v.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 119 outgoing letters are not present. 7 as the expressed subject of the writing of the second letter but also denies the statement at the head of the verse that this action took place “in the days of Artaxerxes. 6.” 134. 112–13. The foregoing discussion illustrates the sort of textual misunderstanding that emerges from a misconception of the identity and nature of the vam hā 'āres i and thus underscores the importance of disabusing readers of the Hebrew Bible of the assumptions that have plagued the interpretation of materials containing this phrase. and the rest of their associates wrote the first letter to Artaxerxes (v. . 130. Shimshai the secretary.42 But there is no literary justification for uprooting this entire block of material and reassigning it to a separate event. 7 (Hebrew) to have written (apparently) the same letter. I am not in disagreement with Fried’s idea that the narrative of Ezra 4 is more concerned with providing a defense for the delay of reconstruction than it is for recording history. Thus. 7).. .40 Although she elsewhere recognizes the mention of two letters. Fried seems to have. and the rest of their associates . and Rehum the Chancellor (-l('b@ . see Blenkinsopp. in some way. is impossible. the Babylonian Tabeel. 6 is said to be written in the first year of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and does not name a specific writer. “The Iranian Mithredates. The remainder of the present discussion will therefore return to the general usage of the term in the biblical texts and search out a contextually appropriate. 42 For more detailed discussion of this problem. 6 and how it might continue to support her conclusion. Since multiple. Only she imagines the composition of this defense as a single event. M('+. vv. 8–9 (Aramaic) from those who are said in v. “vam hā'āres i in Ezra 4:4. 6. Ibid. according to the text. I will refer to this as the idiomatic interpretation. no matter how attractive. 1 (2011) III. Yet it is preferable to the literal interpretation since there is no need to defend the idea that every last person of a some principality took part in an event. is the meaning of the text unintelligible. the evidence for such readings is simply not present. natural meaning of the text without overreaching its bounds. Law and Jurisdiction Several occurrences seem to designate the whole of the Israelite and/or Judean population. as simplicity in no way implies correctness. Thus. With the majority of scholars who have approached the issue. This understanding is certainly a denial that any sense of power and aristocracy may be read into the term. as an interpretive strategy. generally the land-owning rich). If a useful point is to be distilled from this observation. would add no value to the discussion. the ability to understand the text clearly ex facie must be assigned a higher standing than ill-supported conjectures. nor does the application of the technical definition ever provide any meaningful insight that is integral to the understanding of the narrative. Given the history of outlandish interpretation. of course. That said.e. Such a move. under the literal interpretation of the phrase.120 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. the literal interpretation is hardly preferable. one is tempted (like Nicholson) to seek refuge in parsimony.. if only for the sake of the general feeling that the term is either contrary to common language or unexpected in a particular context. it is difficult to deny the feeling that the phrase can be awkward and the suspicion that some further nuance is intended by the seemingly innocuous words. It is as a result of this dissatisfaction with both sides of the issue that I seek an interpretation that preserves the literal elements of the phrase without overreaching. every last person in some location) and the technical meaning (though variously conceived. and references to foreigners. no. perhaps it may be articulated as follows: never. All the same. Henceforth. A Reappraisal I begin with a general assessment of the two major positions as I conceive of them: the literal interpretation (i. or that the meaning is inconsistent between occurrences. Here I count 2 Kgs . The following instances are sorted according to the contexts in which they occur: legal or jurisdictional settings. I proceed with a brief reappraisal of some oft-cited passages to demonstrate how an idiomatic understanding is able to flesh out the full. I propose to read the phrase vam hā 'āres i as a literary expression used to communicate something very ordinary. such as “everyone in a particular locality who is relevant to a particular set of circumstances. A.” but with the deliberate intent to efface or obfuscate the exact actor(s). anonymous group settings. but within the limits of some particular jurisdiction. considering that the people to whom he speaks are patently without a land. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press. and perhaps uncaring man43 “.” The term is likewise employed in P. It seems as though the relevant population-at-large has already been named. )y#n (v. Leviticus. who shares a great deal with P in the way of vocabulary and worldview. vam hā 'āres i often refers to peoples-at-large. had authority only over the aristocrats and not the peasants? This would be unreasonable and better explained if the term means something like “everyone who was in the dominion of Judean sovereignty. the ruler. who have no other significant identification. Here we find laws concerning the guidelines for purification after the event of unintentional sin committed by various parties. Moreover. impersonal. see Risa Levitt Kohn. wbyrqh). 44 There is no reason to assume that on the basis of means the law is not applicable to some of the population. . the subject kol-vădat yiśrā 'ēl represents a group. At first blush the technical usage seems to have some sway here. 3. w)+x. tx) #pn). and finally vam hā 'āres i (v. 3– 31. “a prince”). 27). w#(. See Milgrom. in Ezekiel. accordingly. but the expression is used in an indefinite. There is no apparent logic behind assigning this task only to the wealthy. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel. 27. . and. the verbs associated with it are in the third person plural form (wg#y. A more interesting case is Lev 4:27. distinct from the priest. it is entirely possible that written priestly mandates may not reflect actual circumstances. “the entire congregation of Israel”). 2002). 45 For an overview of this rich topic.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 121 15:5. In v. Accordingly.45 A more general usage is well suited to Ezekiel.” See also Lev 20:4. and the collective cultic congregation. whose subject is one from among the vam hā 'āres i (Cr)h M(m . 13. any man . . The simple intent of Lev 20:243 seems to be that all who are under the jurisdiction of the law are also responsible for exacting punishment for violation. which occurs in the larger scope of vv. 13. as regent to the kingdom. Part and parcel of the phrase in this instance is that. But a closer look reveals a greater specificity to the subjects addressed. See also Nicholson’s treatment of this text (“Expression Cr)h M(.” 16). where Jotham acts as steward to Azariah’s throne after the latter is stricken with leprosy. the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358. .44 The influence of P’s use of the term can be seen further in Ezekiel. the people of the land will stone him. . 22.” Are i we to suppose with the technical interpretation that Jotham. l)r#y td(-lk (v. . Four actors are named: Nhkh xy#mh (v. Jotham “was in charge of the palace. . governing the vam hā 'āres. “the anointed priest”). 1:252 for a practical discussion of this offering. Here we are talking not about group or collective sin but about a sin of any one person from among all the people who are under the jurisdiction of the law. Contrast v. Everything from the action to the contrition is done as a group. the anonymous vam hā 'āres i is a catchall for the rest of the persons to whom the law applies. who gives any of his offspring to Molech will surely die. “Dating the Priestly Code. Ezra 6:19–21) 46 Many scholars have recognized the distinction of these chapters from the rest of Ezekiel. a few practical comments are in order. or be exclusively provided for by the nāśî '. given the mundane practicality of priestly laws. Neh 8:2). Ezekiel has substituted qāhāl. Ezekiel 45:22 is part of an instruction for the observance of the Passover festival. Leviticus 4) with that in Ezekiel precisely because Ezekiel chooses to use the term.”50 This understanding demands that we align the meaning of vam hā 'āres i in P (namely. 40–48 and the Priestly code has been well noted. 1976). MT: Scholars Press. and thus we may treat the language of the unit separately. 48 Adhering to the priority of P with Milgrom. 49 Hurvitz.i Certainly there is no reason to assume that only a select group of people are to participate in this occasion.” 50–51. Milgrom recognizes the absence of the word vēdâ from Ezekiel’s language. Levenson. Having established this relationship. the same idiomatic interpretation as that given to Leviticus 4 obtains here as well. 40–48 were a sort of paradigm for the entirety of P. 1899). 2 Chronicles 17–18.122 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. . 40–48. 1 (2011) ner concerning the particular actors and does not necessarily denote the entirety of the general population. et al. Leviticus. 45–46 are. though I will mention only a few here. it would be at the risk of confounding the public who are responsible for carrying out the law. indeed. 45–46 (throughout which the term vam hā 'āres i occurs four times) are especially interesting on account of their reminiscence of Leviticus 4. no. In addition.g. Missoula. Occurring within the scope of chs. And. in part.46 chs. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10. a restatement (and revision) of Leviticus 4 (and keeping in mind the linguistic connections between the two authors)48 we may consider the meaning of Ezekiel’s terminology to be equivalent to that of P. Instead. where the nāśî ' provides an offering for himself and kôl vam hā 'āres. despite P’s abundant usage of it as a technical term. Berlin: Reimer. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (5th ed. the connection between the whole of chs.. this technical usage of qāhāl predominates in the postexilic literature (e. such that Julius Wellhausen supposed (in support of his late dating of P) that chs.47 As chs. See Jon D. 60. other biblical references to the celebration of Passover make it abundantly clear that widespread participation is expected (2 Kgs 23:21. Indeed. In fact. Ezra 10:12. As Avi Hurvitz notes. If outdated or unfamiliar terminology was used. for every occurrence “patently because vēdâ has disappeared from the linguistic currency of his day..49 Underscoring this notion is Milgrom’s terminological evaluation of P. 50 Milgrom. a priestly writer must use clear and contemporary jargon in his composition. Ezekiel employs the phrase nine times. the visionary account of the future community/temple restoration. 1:242–43. a synonym. rather than to exchange it. Leviticus. 47 Wellhausen. the destruction of the Baal temple.51 There is hardly room in this paradise for a corrupt (in Ezekiel’s assessment) parliament or failed band of Davidic defenders. 57–69. 19. Second. as they all refer to cultic events for which general participation is expected.i it is quite unfathomable that it would be retained in Ezekiel’s priestly vision of the renewed state of Israel. 18. Theology. the melek. and the joyful accession of the new king.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 123 and even suggest just such an ideal of royal provision for the event (2 Chr 35:7–9).” where the action is more important to the message than the actor. Thus. . for all purposes. the narrative may simply be designed to communicate and emphasize the actions of the dethronement. esp. see Duguid. Ezekiel legislates regarding “those among the people who have done or should do some specified action. without assigning particular relevance to the actors. Anonymity The greatest concentration of occurrences of the term appears in 2 Kings. the passage is best understood with a definition such as “all the participants of the Israelite cult. The story of the coup against Athaliah and accession of Jehoiada especially is riddled with examples (specifically 11:14. 46:3. 20). See Levenson. in which even the position of the melek is usurped (or perhaps modified and renamed) by the nāśî '. Whether the referent is the inhabitants of a country or the community of exiles is not of special importance.” Likewise we should interpret 45:16. 27. B. probably indicative of an abandonment of any messianic expectation. apparently to create a sense of prestige and grandeur for the 51 To say that the nāśî' in Ezekiel (particularly chs. Most interpreters have fallen into one of two camps: those who think that Ezekiel’s use of nāśî' is born of the influence of some premonarchic tradition and thus is only a variant word for a position that is. had there been a political or politically sanctioned group such as the variously proposed body of the vam hā 'āres. a sort of theocratic priestly ruler. 40–48) has received a great deal of attention is an understatement. Although the involvement of the vam hā 'āres i in political affairs in this chapter has traditionally supported the technical interpretation. The Ezekielian usage is a testament to the importance of leaving a certain amount of room for vagueness in our reading of the term. Ezekiel’s effacement of the common word melek is more than a little mysterious and has led to a great deal of scholarly speculation. For a statement of the influential and highly controversial theory that the term is indicative of a separate stratum of authorship or redaction (the nāśî' stratum). 9. Indeed. as a reflection of the manner in which the writer presents it. Ezekiel’s restored kingdom is a priestly utopia. and those who see the employment of nāśî' as a critical point of Ezekiel’s theology. The mention of the vam hā 'āres i in 2 Kings 14 seems little more than a backdrop for the passage. Ezekiel and the Leaders. This is to be expected. leaving only the poor (tld) of the vam hā 'āres.52 Verse 14 tells the reader that after Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem.124 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. as the phrase was used just four verses earlier in a clearly perfunctory manner. 53 This is often translated as a superlative adjectival phrase (i. in Gen 23:7. warriors. In 2 Kings 24. Certainly. though the MT lacks vam. considering the sources of the material and the intended audience.. in the LXX. then. Foreign Peoples To this point I have reviewed only passages that use the phrase in reference to the Israelite and/or Judean population.i were also carried away. Ephron ben Zohar. The full phrase is found. But. Thus. which declares that the elite of the land. a description precisely like that often assigned to vam hā 'āres. we find a surprising use of the phrase that seems to place particular strain on the technical interpretation. we find support for eschewing the technical definition and understanding the term as an idiomatic reference to a subject in whom the author has little interest. BHS. 18. he deported all the officials. Indeed. and smiths. he has gone to lengths to enumerate for the reader the particular individuals and groups that have been taken away. 1 (2011) occasion and to portray an image of widespread support for the new ruler with no need of specifics. the poorest of the people of the land).” Further burdensome to this camp is the following verse. but since dallat is a noun in construct with vam hā'āres i. however.54 Once again. 54 The interpreters who have argued that the supposedly aristocratic vam hā'āres i also had the prime responsibility for participating in military action (perhaps in part to ease interpretation of verses such as 2 Kgs 25:19) find further difficulty here since all the “warriors of the army” are carted off. the vam hā 'āres i mentioned in v. 12. there is no reason to assume that a different sense is present here.e. before concluding. Syr.i 53 Those who argue that the vam hā 'āres i are necessarily aristocratic have a difficult task explaining how any of them could also fall into the category of “the poor.. and certain that they were unimportant in the first place. 672 n. C.i the Hittites” (tx-ynb). The apposition of bĕnê hiēt not only clarifies the group of foreigners to whom the action is directed but serves as a vague backdrop to contrast the emergence of an important character. it is better rendered as above. 14 are a different group. no. and Targum versions. Despite its placement as the subject of the event. in which the vam hā 'āres i are the expressed actors.12a. the use of the phrase communicates a lack of concern for enumerating the individual parties involved. 52 . artisans.55 Abraham bows to the “vam hā 'āres. 55 Also vv. the Hittite who will sell the burial place. The term is A counterpart might be found in 2 Kgs 25:12. yet he seems only vaguely aware that some were left behind. I should make clear that the term is certainly not limited to this realm of operation. while some vam hā'āres i are left behind. However. More noticeable is v. 13 of the same chapter. rather conveying the action with an almost impersonal sense. This is not to say that the recounted events could not have taken place. insofar as it represents a subject referring to a people of a different ethnicity. though it is not impacted either way. The contentious Exod 5:5 may be a similar case. . only that the author seems to be oblivious to the specific details. but other examples preclude such interpretation altogether. It may be used to provide background scenery to an important event. Num 14:9).i To i follow Fried in equating the vam hā 'āres i with any named characters in the narrative would be anathema to the very point of the term.Thames: The Meaning of the Phrase vam hā'āresi 125 otherwise used of foreign peoples without further clarification when the referent is unmistakable (cf. to emphasize an action rather than a subject. The writer has chosen to use this term precisely because the referent is of no consequence to his telos. finds the phrase to be employed exactly and consistently when the author has no real interest in or other means of identifying the subject. I find no difficulty understanding Ezra 4:4 in light of this proposal. 1–4). of course. which. Thus he employs non-specific terminology such as sārîm and. Quite contrary to this proposed identification is the idiomatic interpretation. as already mentioned.” Finally. as we have seen. militaristic laymen is inherent in the term vam hā 'āres. to provide contrast between important and unimportant characters. politically influential aristocracy or Davidic-loyalist. which maintains that the meaning varies in each context within the semantic boundaries of the words but normally refers to literally “everyone. which is. or to express a general indifference to the subject. aimed at justifying the delay of construction rather than providing an accurate and detailed history. Conclusion It is clear from the biblical text that no such idea of land-owning. vam hā 'āres. As it turns out.i Not only is this reading at best supplementary to the meaning of most passages. 56 Many scholars choose to read (with the Samaritan Pentateuch) “now they are more numerous than the people of the land. This is not to be confused with a literal understanding of the phrase. Pharaoh here refers to this group with an uncaring vagueness: “the people of the land.” Our idiomatic understanding works just as well with this version. Pharaoh simply refers to his own citizens in distinction from the Hebrews. III. the question of the identity of the vam hā 'āres i in this passage (as Fried conceives of it) is self-defeating.” I have argued that the meaning of the expression is quite consistent and that the application is flexible enough to meet authors’ needs to express an idea in a variety of contexts. the text (“now the people of the land are numerous”)56 may be understood as an idiomatic reference to the group of Hebrew slaves who are already the expressed topic of conversation (vv. Without emendation. Our understanding requires no such change of the MT. cambridge. Linguistic.Outstanding Scholarship from Cambridge The King James Bible after Four Hundred Years Literary. The Mystery of the Last Supper Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus Colin J. $24. Norman W.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-85149-7: 232 pp. and Cultural Influences Edited by Hannibal Hamlin.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-76820-7: 368 pp. Stroumsa $95.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-82096-7: 1414 pp.org/us .00: Hardback: 978-0-521-19940-7: 206 pp.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-86475-6: 194 pp. Before Forgiveness The Origins of a Moral Idea David Konstan $85. Rosenblum $85.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-76971-6: 224 pp. Jones $39. Guy G. Snell $85.99: Hardback: 978-0-521-76827-6: 378 pp. Society.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-68336-4 Now in paperback… The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel Benjamin D.99: Paperback: 978-1-107-42226-1: 334 pp. Sommer $29.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-51755-3: 264 pp. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism Jordan D. The Politics of Inheritance in Romans Mark Forman Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series $90.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-61688-1 Scripture.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-19598-0: 238 pp. $39. and Culture in Early Modern England Naomi Tadmor $95. The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity Edited by Daniel Patte $150.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-76909-9: 288 pp.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-73200-0 Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East Bruce Louden $99. Prices subject to change. $24. The Social Universe of the English Bible The King James Bible A Short History from Tyndale to Today David Norton $65.99: Paperback: 978-0-521-52785-9 Paradise in Antiquity Jewish and Christian Views Edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Religions of the Ancient Near East Daniel C. Humphreys $75. www. $25.00: Hardback: 978-0-521-11786-9: 272 pp. edu Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. the account of the selection of the Seven1 in the context of the dispute between the Hebrews and the Hellenists (Acts 6:1–7) has attracted the attention of many who are interested in the historical reality that lies behind this portrayal of the early church. London: Macmillan.JBL 130. 2 See. this title does appear in the narrative of Acts 21:8 describing the seven men who are chosen here.” the ideological differences between these two groups. Henry J. 1878). Cadbury.3 many consider language preference to be the Although “the Seven” (οἱ ἑπτά) is not used in this account. See.. See also the discussion in Heinz-Werner Neudorfer. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity. 2 vols. 1. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. while the “Hebrews” are the Jews. Allan Menzies. vol. William F. 3rd ed. “The Hellenists. IL 60015 Since the seminal work of Ferdinand Christian Baur. On the identity of the “Hellenists” (Ἑλληνιστής) and the “Hebrews” (Ἑβραῖος). see Abram Spiro. Deerfield. Despite the protests by some. 1 127 . New York: Doubleday. S. e.2 Critical discussions often focus on three historical problems: the identity of the “Hellenists” and the “Hebrews. 1 (2011): 127–144 Waiters or Preachers: Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan Table Fellowship Motif david w. The Church History of the First Three Centuries (trans. pao dpao@tiu. Albright and C. F. Der Stephanuskreis in der Forschungsgeschichte seit F. Baur (Monographien und Studienbücher 309. and the historical framework within which one should understand the caring for the widows in the early church. Ferdinand Christian Baur. Giessen: Brunnen. in particular.g. The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction. 4–144. “Stephen’s Samaritan Background.” in Additional Notes to the Commentary (ed. Translation. 1983). The Acts of the Apostles. Some have also suggested that the “Hebrews” are Samaritans.C. no. Tyson. although a consensus has yet to be reached. J. ed. 285–300. Joseph B. and Notes (rev. London: Williams & Norgate. Mann. “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations in Early Christianity. Part 1. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake.” in Johannes Munck. Cadbury. vol. 1967)... a majority position seems to have emerged.” PRSt 10 (1983): 145–61. 59–74. AB 31. 1933). 3 A major dissenting voice can be found in those who see the distinction primarily in ethnic terms: the “Hellenists” represent the Gentiles. Who Were the Hellenists?” ExpTim 70 (1958): 100–102. Cave and C. Juel. 6 See m. 8:2–9.1-6): Gab es eine Spaltung der Urgemeinde?” in Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. 1969). Acts of the Apostles. 180–99. H. Geburtstag (ed. m. McL. D. Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5. A. “The Meaning of Ἑλληνιστής in Acts in Light of a Diachronic Analysis of ἑλληνίζειν. Philadelphia: Fortress. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2 vols. Hans Conzelmann. H. Ketub.7 Most would agree.” but it also assumes a simplistic view of the history of the early church in which uniform bodies of opinion can be identified behind two groups of Jews divided by their language preferences. 5 Craig C. and legalistic. JSNTSup 113. The Acts of the Apostles: A SocioRhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. H. Thomas Kraabel. James Limburg. F.” NTS 33 (1987): 205–25. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress. R. Moule. 5:6. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans.4–11. 1998). Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. Stanley E. Hypoth. see Martin Hengel.” ResQ 12 (1969): 159–80. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (2nd ed. Ben Witherington III. While cultural differences cannot be denied. many see linguistic preference as the primary distinguishing factor. 151. many acknowledge the contribution of Baur but refuse to follow him in seeing the contrast between the Hellenists and the Hebrews primarily as the competition between the “liberal” and “conservative” understandings of the temple and the law. Cave. See also F. Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 4. For a survey of other possible interpretations of these two terms. see Everett Ferguson. see Gerd Theissen. 1971). Philadelphia: Fortress. Hermeneia.. Carson. as opposed to the ‘Hebrews’ or Aramaic-speaking Jews. A. 1996). 351. Hubert Cancik. Hill. “Hellenisten und Hebräer (Apg 6. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. 13:1–2. 132–34. Šeqal. no. 11.5 On the historical practices of caring for widows among the Jews of the first century. 1952). 1996). “Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde. Ernst Haenchen. some have pointed to the relevance of the later rabbinic material. Porter and D. F. 1992). 193–94. “Once More.6 while others have pointed to parallels among the Essenes. John Bowden. Richard Bauckham. 45. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed.. Brian Capper. others have also pointed to the diversity of an early Christianity that cannot easily be divided into liberal and conservative camps. m. Philadelphia: Fortress. 261–62. and Donald H. Oxford: Blackwell. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pesahi. Joachim Jeremias. 1995). “The Hellenists in the Book of Acts. Jürgen Roloff.128 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Pe vah 8:7. 1981). 10:1. Many recent commentators have followed Hill’s detailed arguments in providing significant qualifications to Baur’s thesis. 260. Larsson. 108–9. F. 7 See Philo. 4 . Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (trans. and Peter Schäfer. 3:323–43. 1988). Adopting a sociological approach. Wilson. 1987). m.. A. 1:58. C. Not only can this contrast lead to “an unfair stereotyping of nonPauline Jewish Christianity as backward. severe.” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. 248.”4 As far as the ideological differences between the Hellenists and the Hebrews are concerned. however. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods. Bruce. Hermann Lichtenberger. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. E. 1 (2011) primary distinguishing factor: “‘Hellenists’ means Greek-speaking Jews. Brehm. Haenchen. that this seeming inconsistency is the result of Luke’s careless writing. 11 Haenchen. . most commentators feel the need to explain it. James D. John Bowden. Another kind of historical reconstruction understands the Seven as already leaders of a separate community: “The ‘Seven’ are in reality not men who care for the poor . I. PA: Trinity Press International. 10 Dunn. Luke’s attempt to downplay these conflicts leads to the presence of the apparent inconsistencies in the account itself. “La communauté chrétienne dans le livre des Actes. The actual identification of this author will not affect the arguments presented here. It is the purpose of this article to revisit this apparent inconsistency and to argue that it represents an intentional strategy of the author in his presentation of the development of the early Christian movement. Philadelphia: Fortress. cf. the significance of table service in this account is downplayed.” FoiVie 70 (1971): 146–56. 9 Cadbury. G. sees behind this inconsistency an intentional covering up of the deeper rift between the Hellenists and the Hebrews. 1996). 13. Consequently. The division of labor that appears in the final text is but a literary strategy to create space for the coexistence of the two camps. who represent two different ideological orientations. Ernst Haenchen. Acts of the Apostles. . among others. While scholarly attention has focused on these historical matters. . Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans.10 This “residue of suspicion” finds its roots in the Maccabean revolt. Barbara Hall. The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge. B.” 62. “Hellenists. 82. Almost all proposed explanations appear to assume. Drawing on the contributions of Baur. the ‘Hellenists. Dunn detects the “residue of suspicion” behind Acts 6. 1983). I use “Luke” as the author of Luke-Acts. many have resorted to various forms of historical reconstruction to explain the presence of such an inconsistency. most commentators also recognize a significant problem in Luke’s presentation in this account:8 “why men chosen to allow the Twelve to preach rather than to ‘serve tables’ appear later only as preachers and evangelists. 264–69.”9 Although this apparent inconsistency between the assigned role of the Seven and their actual function in the subsequent narrative is not commonly the focus of scholarly discussions. and the literary function of this episode becomes unclear. 12 Martin Hengel.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 129 that the data provided in Acts 6 are insufficient to reconstruct the detailed arrangements of the early Christian community in Jerusalem.11 To these scholars.’”12 8 In this article. in which the conservative Jews fought against their Hellenistic counterparts. however. but the leading group of an independent community. Historical Reconstructions Assuming that this apparent inconsistency represents the failure of Luke to present a coherent and sustained narrative of the development of the church. See also I. 1 (2011) This position is embraced by many who otherwise have different evaluations of Luke as a historian. from his desire to subordinate this group to the Twelve and assign them innocuous tasks.” NTS 29 (1983): 370–73. See also Nikolaus Walter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. In reality the Seven were a rival group with a different theological program.18 The division of labor is.130 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Two birds fall with a single stone: the church glows with undivided gentility.15 The third solution that is often proposed points to Acts 6:1–7 as a succession narrative in disguise. 1997). Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Crossroad. 44. F. Minneapolis: Fortress. 17 Charles H.1 und die Anfänge der Urgemeinde in Jerusalem. New York: T&T Clark. who insists on the general historical reliability of Luke. fulfilling a much wider ministry than that of septem viri mensis ordinandis.1–7) Diakone?” BZ 26 (1982): 21–33. “The Church of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles. of course.”14 Among those who see the presence of an independent community of Hellenists. 1980). F. In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 10. “Waren die ‘Sieben’ (Apg 6. “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations. 73. Pervo. and a competing group evaporates into a group of grocery boys. Tyson. Bruce. Pervo. . most see the different job descriptions for the Twelve and the Seven as Luke’s attempt to subordinate the Seven to the Twelve and thus maintain the picture of the unified church. 15 Richard I. “Palestinian Cultural Context. As successors 13 F. therefore. The primary purpose of this account is to provide “the initial link in the transfer of authority from the apostles to other significant narrative figures. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC. 270. 2009). 18 Daniel Marguerat. 2007). no. 158. Acts of the Apostles. Richard Pervo’s statement is representative of this position: The perceptible dissonance between Luke’s Seven and their appointed task stems. F. 40. 2004). Les Actes des Apôtres (1–12) (CNT 5a. 125. See also Bernhard Domagalski. Howard Marshall.” BJRL 67 (1985): 647. claims that the Seven “were leaders of the Hellenistic group in the primitive church. 14 Conzelmann. Talbert. “Apostelgeschichte 6. Hans Conzelmann presents a similar explanation for the presence of “two organizations”: “Alongside the circle around the Twelve there was a group around the seven. 1987). simply a disguise for the introduction of a new group of leaders. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress. Geneva: Labor et Fides.” 354. 207.17 but this narrative is unique because it signifies a new stage in the development of the early church as the apostles begin to establish an entirely new group of leaders that were not instituted by Jesus himself. to which they were appointed on the occasion described by Luke. Bruce. See also Richard I.”16 The form of this succession narrative can be compared to the earlier one in 1:15–26. 16 Todd Penner. Capper.”13 On the other end of the spectrum. Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia.” 152. it is necessary to focus on the literary frameworks within which this narrative is to be understood.”20 Therefore. the Seven who are to be involved in table service are not excluded from the proclamation of the Word. 125. Barrett. the Seven. Exod 18:13–27. II. Deut 1:9–18). some are content to assume that Luke’s description of the purported role of the Seven is simply a partial description.19 Finally. while one certainly should not assume that table service and the proclamation of the Word are exclusive categories. Washington. 19 . While these historical reconstructions may help in our understanding of the reality behind the text. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp.J. 20 Bart J. and it seems clear that the Seven were leaders in their own right and that they succeeded. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.” in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. “The Twelve and the Seven in Acts 6 and the Needy.” SBLSP 37 (1998): 172.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 131 to the original Twelve. CBQMS 44. and these parallels point to the significance of the Seven as assistants of and successors to the Charles H. One cannot deny the presence of various tensions between the Hebrews and the Hellenists. Table Fellowship in Luke Several literary frameworks have been invoked to illuminate the meaning and significance of Acts 6:1–7. and each contributes at least in part to a better understanding of certain aspects of this account. Gignac. Koet.. Moreover.”21 Moving beyond historical reconstructions. Acts. “Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity. Stepp. replicate the actions of the Twelve as they become involved in the ministry of the Word. it remains unclear if they can fully explain the literary and theological intentions of this narrative. parallels in the Hebrew Bible have often been noted (esp. 2:306. 2008). since “there is no exclusive division between material care and the διακονία of the Word. Norman Nagel. Num 11:1–30. DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Part 2: Luke-Acts. 179. however. First. to explain Luke’s emphasis on table service as an area of ministry that is to be connected with the Seven. the Twelve in the ministry. It will be shown that one framework in particular—the framework of table fellowship—is relevant in explaining the apparent inconsistency between the assigned role and the actual function of the Seven. S. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols. See also Marshall. 21 C. to a certain degree. (ed. this assumption does not fully explain the way this narrative is structured: “It is quite understandable that men who were in fact connected with the distribution of alms should grow into preachers and controversialists but it would be bad writing first of all to make up a job for them and then represent them as neglecting it for another. “Luke 10:38–42 and Acts 6:1–7: A Lukan Diptych on ∆ΙΑΚΟΝΙΑ. not surprisingly. These reconstructions fail. K. 1994. Talbert and Perry L. 1998).” Concordia Journal 31 (2005): 113–26. ICC. Harrisburg. Neyrey. within the writings of Luke. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (ed. Reading Acts 6:1–7 in light of this motif will not only highlight the function of this account in Luke’s program but will also contribute to explaining the apparent inconsistency when the passage is considered within Luke’s wider narrative. 4 points to the transitional nature of this passage.” 163–85. Neyrey. McCaughey. 108–46. no.26 In this section.” HBT 17 (1995): 123–31. although not specifically in relation to Acts 6:1–7. “Luke 10.A below. “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship. Robert L. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57. Snyder (ed. Jerome H. John N. Willi Braun. 25) to the Gentile mission of Paul (20:24.22 Second. 1991). Kathleen E. 1985). Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. David Daube. e..1–7: Women and Discipleship in the Literary Context of Luke-Acts. Hills et al.25 the relevance of the motif of table fellowship that is so prominent elsewhere in the Lukan writings should also be considered.” in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F.23 Third. 47–78. 24 In tracing the use of the word διακονία from the Jerusalem ministry of the Twelve (1:17. 1 (2011) Twelve. Karris.. Corley. 1995). 21:19). In a passage that focuses on table service (see διακονεῖν τραπέζαις. The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. J. Leiden: Brill. Julian V. Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs. 71–109. 361–87. Private Women.132 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody. Philip F. “A Reform in Acts and Its Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MA: Hendrickson. Dennis E. 186–201. “Common Life with Jesus: The Parable of the Banquet in Luke 14:16–24. Klyne Snodgrass. 2002]. 1999). the mission to the Gentiles is apparently the direction of the flow of the narrative. in particular. Koet.38–42 and Acts 6. “Luke 10:38–42 and Acts 6:1–7.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robert J. “Meals with Jesus in Luke’s Gospel. 25 The exact translation of this phrase will be discussed in section III. 23 Turid Karlsen Seim. Veronica Koperski. see. 52–57) argues that the use of the same term in 6:1. 1994). PA: Trinity Press International. Others have also pointed to the relevance of Num 8:5–13 that depicts the consecration of the Levites. 1993). closer to Acts 6. Collins (Deacons and the Church: Making Connections between Old and New [Harrisburg.g. Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14 (SNTSMS 85.24 All three frameworks provide critical elements for an appreciation of the significance of this account. a brief summary of the function of this Lukan motif as it is relevant for our discussion will be sufficient. Jerome H. MA: Hendrickson. Acts 6:1–7 should therefore be understood within this narrative development. “Table Fellowship . 151–63. Robert G.” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. 1–6.” in Jews. 6:2). the relevance of Luke 10:38–42 has also been noted as it is understood to depict the contrast between the ministry of the Word and material care. 107–12. BETL 142. Kelley. Joseph Verheyden. e. but these frameworks alone are insufficient to explain the presence of the apparent inconsistency in the text. D. Esler. The general motif of table fellowship in LukeActs has received extensive treatment. 1976). 1998). Smith. 22 See. 1987).” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed.g. “The Intention of the Author: Some Questions about the Exegesis of Acts vi. 517–44. 26 See. Luke: Artist and Theologian. Peabody. PA: Morehouse. Luke’s Passion Account as Literature (New York: Paulist. Leuven: Peeters.” ABR 7 (1959): 27–36. idem. 17:5–10) and narrative (5:27–32. First. 2003). inclusion and exclusion. Ody.” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. Leiden/New York: Brill. one finds the meal scenes in both discourse (7:31–35. many meal scenes in Luke aim instead at breaking such boundaries.g. 29 See Shaye J. Kelly Del Tredici. as they reveal “different degrees of hierarchy. 18:9–14. 7:36–50. This theme of as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke.g. 15:1).30 In Luke’s Gospel. 11:5– 13. . 13:22–30. 22:14–38) material. “Symposium or Anti-Symposium? Reflections on Luke 14:1–24. boundaries and transactions across the boundaries. Cohen. By participating in table fellowship with these stereotypical groups. with the goal of suggesting or reinforcing patterns of behavior. 27 Mary Douglas. 7:34. These “tax collectors” represent the outcasts of society (cf. Lukas Bormann. banquet and symposium are often instruments through which fictive-kinship groups are defined. 1994). Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31. 31 Some. Berkeley: University of California Press. e.108– 11). 15:11–32. 13–130. 9. 12:13–21. and Culture (ed.”27 In the Greco-Roman world. 61. 6:32–34. Related to the emphasis on the inclusion of the outcast is the Lukan theme of reversal. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries. 42–48. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress. From Symposium to Eucharist. 53–55. Sib. “Deciphering a Meal. 14:7–24.. The participation of the outcasts in the community of God’s people points to the eschatological reversal brought about by the ministry of Jesus. 7:744–46. Pervo. identify Luke’s meal scenes as anti-symposia.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 133 The social functions of meals have often been noted. 28 Smith. e. 19:7). 29:5–8) and the provision of food in utopian communities (Homer. 3:12. and Angela Standhartinger. While meals in the ancient world often function to consolidate the boundary of an existing community. one does find the use of the motif of table fellowship in descriptions of ideal communities. 14:1–6. the Lukan Jesus challenges the traditional boundaries of God’s community.” Social Research 66 (1999): 133–49.” JBL 106 (1987): 613–38. Or. 16:19–31. the inclusion of the outcasts is a theme that can be identified especially in the narrative material connected with the meal scenes. NovTSup 74.. D.28 for the Jews. cf. see. Among the various emphases related to such material. the portrayal of the eschatological banquet in the Hebrew Bible (Isa 25:6. 1999). therefore.31 In this Gospel.” TJT 8 (1992): 70–84. 18:13. “Panta Koina: The Feeding Stories in the Light of Economic Data and Social Practice. 15:1–2. 253–72. rules surrounding meals are particularly important in delineating God’s people from the Gentiles.” in Myth. 9:10–17. “Commensality and Poisoning. three connected themes stand out as significant and uniquely Lukan. 19:1–10). 30 See. Willi Braun. Varieties. while the “sinners” are those who are considered to be unclean and impure (cf. see also Maurice Bloch. 2 Bar. Richard I. 1971). 177–82.29 Despite the difficulties involved in the move from historical reality to literary constructions. Symbol. For a more recent treatment. 35–40. New York: Norton. Jesus is often found in table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners” (5:30. Clifford Geertz. In 13:24–30. 1984). 32 . Matthew J. 26–31. 4:22–30. 1990). 21) in the eschatological banquet. 22–23. John O. 59–61. the redefinition of God’s people is assumed. north and south” (v. 14:13. trans. 42:7. “The Role of the Scriptures in the Composition of the Gospel Accounts: The Temptations of Jesus (Lk 4:1–13 par. In evoking the paradigmatic event of the exodus. 18.134 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.33 In the parable of the Great Banquet in 14:15–24.32 This theme of reversal is a constant element in Jesus’ teachings related to table fellowship. 61:1). 34 See Wilson C.” ExpTim 114 (2003): 224–30.34 The climactic moment can be found in the Lukan account of Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples before the cross (22:1–38). 16:19–31). Using the language of the prophets (cf. Saldarini. Smith and Hal E. Sheffield: JSOT Press. no. 16:20–22) to his emphasis on the inclusion of those who were outside the covenant people (2:34–35. Acts 13:46–47. Isa 29:18–19. 1 (2011) reversal stretches from Luke’s concern for the oppressed (4:18. The inclusion of the outcasts together with the theme of reversal points to Luke’s focus on the formation of God’s eschatological community. K. Gerald O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi. cf. the crippled. “Who Comes from the East and the West? Luke 13. Although the inclusion of the Gentiles is not made explicit in this context. 1991). Table fellowship therefore provides one critical context in which God’s eschatological reversal is to be realized (see also 14:7–14. this description evokes the divine promises to God’s own people at the end of times while redirecting the focus to the inclusion of the outcasts. 15:11–32. 29) will take their places at the eschatological banquet. 35 See Anthony J. 33 While those “from east and west. 7:22. in particular. York. 1993). while others “from east and west. New York/Mahwah.” in Luke and Acts (ed. this theme of reversal is symbolized by the inclusion of “the poor.) and the Multiplication of the Loaves (Lk 9:10–17 par. in light of the description of God’s unfaithful people in the previous verse (Luke 13:28). Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand (Luke 9:10–17) signifies the formation of God’s restored people. the blind and the lame” (v.). While the breakdown of the traditional boundaries is symbolized by Jesus’ participation with the outcasts in table fellowship. NJ: Paulist. O’Connell. 28:23–29).11–12 and the Historical Jesus. the inclusion of the Gentiles who are traditionally excluded has to be the primary reference in this context. Many Tables: The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. “Superabundant Table Fellowship in the Kingdom: The Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Meal Motif in Luke. Taussig. 35:5–6. those among God’s people who are unfaithful will be cast out. see also François Bovon. See Michael F. north and south” can refer to the return of the exile. Poon. For the significance of this account in light of the prophetic paradigm in the Hebrew Bible. 6:20–22.28–29/Matt 8. Bird. The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke (JSNTSup 46.” NTS 52 (2006): 441–57. Luke’s portrayal of this event clearly points to this as a covenantal meal modeled after the Passover meal. Jesus and Passover (New York: Paulist. for example.35 Equally important is the discourse given over the table See. the establishment of God’s eschatological community is also symbolized by this motif of table fellowship. Dennis E. 21. 262. J.”37 These themes of the inclusion of the outcasts. 36 . 3. Acts 6:1–7 and Table Fellowship A. 5.333. 1933). 38 Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Did. Joseph A. Od. London: Macmillan. Herodotus. 40 Most of the results produced by a search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (online: http://www. WUNT 69. 2:311. Acts. Hist..57. 209. Homer. Clement of Alexandria. Marc Philonenko. “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. and the establishment of God’s eschatological people will be relevant as we examine Acts 6:1–7 in light of Luke’s motif of table fellowship. Apol. Pervo. even as it bolsters the role of the head of the clan who presides over the meal (Exod 12:3–4. Cadbury. Hom. 26–27).40 one notable exception should be mentioned—T. the eschatological reversal. Les Actes des Apôtres. Marguerat.. Act.edu [accessed July 11.39 Moreover. Acts 6:1–7 as a Meal Scene Before assuming that Acts 6:1–7 is dealing with table fellowship. F. 2. 2009]) come from post–New Testament documents. 11. 25:1). XXXI on Acts 14. 3. however. Paed. 30). 17.20.g. 4 of The Beginnings of Christianity. who discusses “angels serving at the table” (ἄγγελοι διακονούµενοι τῇ τραπέζῃ) in the context of a royal meal (Hom.36 the Twelve become the foundation for this new community.6). two issues must be resolved: the meaning of ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθηµερινῇ in v. cf. e.” 363. The Acts of the Apostles. 22:21.5). Haenchen. “‘Not by Bread Alone . 2. “Le logion des douze trônes: Eclairages intertestamentaires. . Job 12:1–2: Christian Grappe. In light of the use of the verb διακονέω together with τράπεζα in the Lukan account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:21. See also Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus. Part 1. This designation of the new leaders also evokes the memories of the Passover meal: “A Passover meal confirms membership in the covenant people of Israel. ∆ιακονεῖν τραπέζαις would then refer to the financial managements involved in providing for the poor. III. Hom.tlg. Barrett. many of which are directly dependent on Acts 6:2 (e. 39 See. 1993). 1998). Taking on the role traditionally assigned to the sons of Jacob (T.9). Acts 16:34.” Semeia 86 (1999): 179–80. New York: Doubleday. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31. 27.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 135 where the Twelve are to assume the role as judges of “the twelve tribes of Israel” (22:30). ed. 204–12. 159. See. English Translation and Commentary (vol. Fitzmyer. John Chrysostom. however.4.38 Τράπεζα is. . the fourth-century author John Chrysostom. Acts of the Apostles.g. while διακονέω and τράπεζα rarely appear together in the same context in ancient literature.’: The Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper. 2. 1 Cor. 17c). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Acts of the Apostles. διακονεῖν τραπέζαις in Acts 6:2 most likely refers to the act of “waiting on tables” as recognized by the majority of commentators. cf. Jud. 1 and of διακονεῖν τραπέζαις in v. τράπεζα (“table”) can refer to the banker’s counter (Luke 19:23. 37 Neyrey. Beginning with the reference in v. more commonly used as “dining table” (Luke 16:21.uci. Plato. Eph. cf. 26. 348–49. 64.” in Le Trône de Dieu (ed. Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (New York: Oxford University Press. and “the daily serving of food” (NASB). cf. he would serve and eat. First.” OTP 1:844. 2005). τοῖς πένησιν). ASV. The meaning of τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθηµερινῇ in v. . “‘[d]istribution’ is not one of the attested meanings of this abstract noun. In this passage. The Testament of Job according to the SV Text (SBLTT 5. which mentions “to serve” (διακονῆσαι). New York/London: T&T Clark. P. and this indirectly reaffirms our understanding of the context of Acts 6:2. 1990). “table” (τῇ . NKJV. See also her earlier article “Table Fellowship: The Spirituality of Eating Together. Second. 193. one would expect word groups that appear already in the first section of Acts: διαµερίζω (2:45) and διαδίδωµι (4:35). ed. WeaverZercher and William H.136 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1 (2011) And if a man cheerful in heart ever would come to me saying: I have nothing available to help the poor. 34–35.”43 If “distribution” were the intended meaning of the phrase. . the word διακονία when followed by the reference to “table” most likely refers to the sharing of food in a meal setting. NRSV. 6 above). MT: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press. Willimon. this is the least likely meaning of the phrase because of the difficulties in explaining why “funds” have to be distributed “daily. 230–31. 1974). Spittler. although καθη41 Text and translation are based on the S and V texts and are taken from Robert A Kraft. 42 Another possible translation is “daily distribution of funds” (GNB). 44 Reta Halteman Finger.” in Vital Christianity: Spirituality. TNIV [Today’s NIV]. NAB. NJB. Despite possible parallels in later rabbinic sources (see n. 155. τραπέζῃ). see R. REB. 2007). Collins. points to a similar context within which Acts 6:2 can be read. Missoula. the latter is to be preferred.” Despite the overwhelming support in translations for the former rendering.” 43 John N.44 Third.” KJV. “the daily distribution. David L. Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. And when he received permission. two of which surface in many modern English translations: “the daily distribution of food” (NIV.42 The major difference between these two groups of translations is whether τῇ διακονίᾳ should be understood in the sense of “distribution” or “(table-)serving. no. and “eat” (ἤσθιεν) in the discussion of “the poor” (τοῖς πτωχοῖς. Nevertheless I wish at least to serve the indigent at your table. Pseudepigrapha Series 4. The P text provides no significant difference that would alter our reading in this case. Καὶ εἴ ποτέ µοι ἤρχετο ἀνὴρ ἱλαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ λέγων οὐδὲν ἐγὼ εὐπορῶ ἐπικουρῆσαι τοῖς πένησιν· βούλοµαι µέντοι κἂν διακονῆσαι τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἐν τῇ σῇ τραπέζῃ καὶ συγχωρηθεὶς ὑπηρέτει καὶ ἤσθιεν. NET [New English Translation]. Justice.41 Though not an exact parallel. ESV [English Standard Version]). . 1 is also open to various interpretations. cf. διακονεῖν τραπέζαις must be understood as serving tables in the context of a meal. this passage. and Christian Practice (ed. “Testament of Job.. 46 Pervo. the eucharistic overtones in other Lukan meal scenes (esp. although the Last Supper represents the defining climax of such gatherings.”47 As to the nature of the meal from which the widows are excluded.”45 τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθηµερινῇ is best understood to refer to “the common sacred meal. 165–68. see also Lake and Cadbury. Other parallels include the appointment of the seventy (v.” 158. does not acquire this specific sense. Therefore. 49 In a similar way. this word recalls 2:46–47. Acts 27:35) should not be downplayed. Waiters as Preachers Specific details in Acts 6:1–7 confirm the relationship between this account and other Lukan meal scenes. English Translation and Commentary. γογγυσµός (“grumbling. where the daily growth is experienced in the context of constant table fellowship: Day by day [καθ’ ἡµέραν]. 48 Neudorfer. rather than the imagery of the “soup kitchen. MN: Liturgical Press. 17). In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad. praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.48 This reading is built on the reference to the Eucharist as “the Lord’s table” (τραπέζης κυρίου) in 1 Cor 10:21. they are all sacred meals. Collegeville. some have suggested that this is a reference to the eucharistic meal. “Reform in Acts and Its Models. they also broke bread in their homes and shared their food with glad and sincere hearts. 24:30. Luke 9:10– 17. Der Stephanuskreis. it seems best to read these accounts within the wider Lukan motif of table fellowship.” especially in the plural. Acts. . 50 See Daube. “Acts 6:1–7 and Dietary Regulations. 64. Rather than identifying them as eucharistic meals. 4–6).” v. the second passage is perhaps more significant for the reading of Acts 6:1–7 since it points to Luke’s own appropriation of the 45 Luke Timothy Johnson. these various meal scenes.49 B. 106.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 137 µερινός is a hapax legomenon. where one finds the note on grumbling (v.”46 as already noted in 2:46. 1) in the context of the shortage of food supply (vv. however. 16) and the note on the spirit (v. as they gathered together in the temple courts. 159. should be considered within the wider context of the Lukan motif of table fellowship. And day by day [καθ’ ἡµέραν] the Lord added to their community those who were being saved. The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. 47 Tyson. The first passage is Numbers 11. The complaint of the Hellenists is therefore that their widows “were not allowed to participate in the daily meal. 1) evokes two important passages. First. Although this reading does rightly point to the significance of the Lukan account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:14–38). In Luke’s narrative. together with Acts 2:46–47. This passage in the exodus tradition confirms the significance of the meal context behind Acts 6:1–7. 1983).” 152–53. but in Luke-Acts the “table. 92–94. 1992).50 Although often overlooked. it is in connection with Jesus’ act of including the outcasts. no. As noted above. 27. but in Acts 6:1–7 it centers on his disciples’ act of exclusion. as they are not only “widows” but also widows of “the Hellenists. Luke 7:34. 30) again links this passage with the Lukan motif of table fellowship. therefore. 7:22. therefore. . In Acts 6. they complained [διεγόγγυζον]: ‘He has gone to be the guest of a sinner’”). Moreover. 16:19–31). of course. In the Lukan writings. 6:20. 15:1). the issue of complaint focuses on whether the outcasts can be included in the table fellowship of Jesus and his disciples. that in Luke 5:29–31 the complaint centers on Jesus’ act of inclusion. Not only is this Last Supper account the climax of the Lukan por51 For the translation of this phrase. In Luke 20:46–47. 26. but its cognate verb γογγύζω appears in Luke 5:30 in a passage that is critical for the reading of Acts 6. the Pharisees and the scribes are “complaining” (ἐγόγγυζον) to Jesus’ disciples: “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30). Jesus’ statement in Luke 5:31 that his inclusive mission is to focus on the outcast becomes a critique of those who neglect the widows in Acts 6:1. In light of Luke’s portrayal of the widows. one finds the act of grumbling in the context of a meal. for example. This connection between “complaining” and table fellowship with the outcasts is confirmed by the use of a related term of the same word group in 15:2 (“The Pharisees and the teachers of the law complained [διεγόγγυζον]. the Seven were chosen “to wait on tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις).” who are outside of the center of power. the status of these “widows” is comparable to that of the “tax collectors and sinners” who are despised by the Pharisees and the scribes.138 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1 (2011) grumbling tradition of Israel. the paradigmatic significance of Luke 5:29–31 should be recognized. the connection between Luke 5:29–31 and Acts 6:1–7 becomes clear. The word γογγυσµός (6:1) appears only once in LukeActs. In response to such neglect. the appearance of these two terms together in Luke’s Last Supper account (Luke 22:21. these widows are doubly marginalized. the widows are the objects of the oppressive acts committed by the “scribes.51 This phrase again evokes the imagery of table fellowship. The critical difference is. in the case of Acts 6. ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them’”) and 19:7 (“When all the people saw this. see section III. and “the poor” (οἱ πτωχοί) are specifically promised to be able to participate in the eschatological banquet (Luke 14:13. Moreover. 21). being the first of a series of accounts of Jesus’ participation in table fellowship with the outcasts (cf. In both Luke 5:29–31 and Acts 6:1–7. in the context of a banquet hosted by Levi. the complaint centers on whether the “widows” (αἱ χῆραι) can participate in the table fellowship. that when the γογγύζω word group is used in Luke. In Luke 5:29–31.” The adjectival modifiers πενιχράν (“poor”) and πτωχή (“poor”) that are attached to the widow of Luke 21:2 also identify this group as the lowly outcasts who are expected to experience the eschatological reversal proclaimed by Jesus (Luke 4:18.A above. It becomes clear. In both contexts. but it also points to the disciples as participants in the eschatological kingdom: “I confer on you a kingdom.” and the relationship between the Twelve and the Seven point precisely to the significance of these issues. C. 35–36).” TDNT 2:737.53 The fact that the label “the evangelist” (ὁ εὐαγγελιστής) is applied to the ministry of one of the Seven later in the narrative (21:8) further confirms his significant role as “the one who proclaims the glad tidings. The struggle between “the Hellenists” and “the Hebrews. 52 . 54 Gerhard Friedrich. Instead. the wilderness around Mount Sinai (vv. however. 4). the call to the Seven “to wait on tables” (v.” the problem of caring for the “widows. so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:30). In light of the motif of table fellowship. 44). “to wait on tables” is to provide the setting where table fellowship with the outcasts and the oppressed becomes possible. As the motif deals with issues of identity. 57–58) that 6:2 refers simply to preaching. It does. but it fails to recognize the significance of table fellowship in the Lukan writings. they pave the way for the Word to be preached beyond the Judeans. the εὐαγγέλιον” (cf. 30–34. this interpretation also contributes to resolving the apparent inconsistency between the assigned role and the subsequent function of the Seven. 2) should no longer be considered simply a summons to the menial task of serving as waiters. is the conclusion of his subsequent study (Deacons and the Church. This function is confirmed by the use of this title in 2 Tim 4:5 for one who is explicitly called to “proclaim the word” (κήρυξον τὸν λόγον. Acts 6 in Context This role of the Seven in continuing the ministry of Jesus is confirmed by the account of their subsequent activities. reversal. 8:12. “εὐαγγελιστής. This move recognizes the significance of διακονία. For our purposes. 40). Stephen challenges the spatial consciousness of the Judeans and points to the possibility of the renewal of the For a further discussion of the significance of the Lukan Last Supper account for the reading of Acts 6:1–7.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 139 trayal of the meal scenes. 73–191. Just one aspect of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 can illustrate the point. 2 Tim 4:2). and Mount Sinai (v. Less convincing. 53 The significance attached to the word διακονία is well documented by Collins. Haran (v. 7:34. 9–29. 2). 38). however. see section III. and community. Diakonia. these are also issues at the center of Acts 6:1–7.52 The preceding discussion does not aim at pointing to Luke 5:29–31 and 22:14– 38 as two key passages to unlock the meaning of Acts 6:1–7. who was accused of eating and drinking with “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 5:30. This connection is relevant for a proper interpretation of Acts 6:1– 7 in its narrative context. 35.54 The Seven therefore are to continue the ministry of Jesus. 15:1).D below. Egypt (vv. Not only do they preach the Word. just as my Father conferred on me. offer clues to the context of this passage by connecting it to the wider Lukan motif of table fellowship. In reciting the acts of God in Mesopotamia (v. ” in With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders. (ed.24. 2008). François Bovon. you must not call profane” (ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισεν. John J. 168–69. 1956). which again points to “the persecution that took place over Stephen” as the impetus for the spread of the gospel beyond Judea. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. 167–71. 2000). Collegeville. one of the Seven. Leo O’Reilly. in Samaria (8:4–25) and with the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40) likewise depict the ministry of the Seven as reaching beyond the confines of Judea. Keathley. Waco: Baylor University Press. The account of the call of Paul focuses on his subsequent ministry among the Gentiles (9:15).55 The scattering of the believers “throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria” (8:1) represents the beginning stages where the gospel moves beyond the center of the land of the Judeans. Pilch. Jr.57 Significantly. J.20. This vision reaches its climax in 10:15 with the following declaration by a voice: “What God has made clean. see Clayton K. Despite the problems in the connection between this vision and the subsequent account of the conversion of Cornelius.1–11. Julius Scott. Jr. This reading is confirmed by the placement of the first of the three summary statements in 6:7 (cf.” TZ 26 (1970): 22–45. 59 See. The connection between table fellowship and the spread of the gospel in Acts is further supported by the narrative of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:1–11:18. 19:20).18. Mary Ling. Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana. This positioning points to the unique function of the Seven as those who are advancing the gospel beyond the ministry of the Twelve.56 The accounts of the work of Philip. 57 See Jerome Kodell. Naymond H. Stephen: Paul and the Hellenist Israelites (Paul’s Social Network. MN: Liturgical Press. 200. 67–70.140 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.7. 56 See also 11:19. 19. .. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2/130. The depiction of the acceptance of the Gentiles by an impartial God (10:34–35) is preceded by a lengthy account of Peter’s vision (10:1–23). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. σὺ µὴ κοίνου). Some have also pointed to the possible historical connections between Paul and the Hellenists.59 what is clear is that the unclean food symbolizes the Gentiles and the call to consume the 55 Martin Dibelius. which involves the question of unclean food. Word and Sign in the Acts of the Apostles: A Study in Lucan Theology (Analecta Gregoriana 243. “Tradition et rédaction en Actes 10. 12:24. 1 (2011) acts of God outside Jerusalem. “Stephen and Paul. Pao. This may then pave the way for the account of the conversion of a Gentile. The function of these statements as delineating the different stages of the development of Acts has long been recognized. “‘The Word of God Grew’: Ecclesial Tendency of Λόγος in Acts 6.58 The activities of Stephen and Philip in particular introduce a significant era in the movement of the gospel. the first statement appears immediately before the actual account of the ministry of the Seven. 12. no. 1987).” JETS 21 (1978): 133. 82–83. 1990). in particular.” Bib 55 (1974): 505–19. 58 The placement of the call of Paul (Acts 9:1–30) between the ministry of the Hellenists and the conversion of Cornelius may also be significant. Harrop. London: SCM. “Stephen’s Defense and the World Mission of the People of God. David W. that Peter has lived and eaten with them” (Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts. cf..g. Vaage and Vincent L. Luke 22:54. 97–114.60 In light of the development of the narrative in the few chapters after Acts 6:1–7. 264–67. e.61 These include the portrayal of Stephen as one “full of grace and power” (6:8. Leif E. Through the mouth of Peter. Clark. 22. Marcel Simon. St. Wimbush. 1999). Beyond the mere acceptance of the message embedded in this vision. . Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (Haskell Lectures 1956. 20–26. Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective (Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs. 1958). Peter’s actual table fellowship with the Gentiles is recognized by those who are displeased by his action: “You entered the house of the uncircumcised and ate with them” (εἰσῆλθες πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντας καὶ συνέφαγες αὐτοῖς. 22:26) as he himself is. 34. 66) and his death (7:56–60. New York: Routledge. Abraham Smith. Luke 2:40. he also calls the disciples to be “like the one who serves” (ὡς ὁ διακονῶν. Peter does not deny this accusation. cf. is obviated by this vision: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (κἀµοὶ ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν µηδένα κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον. 3:22. the understanding of the Hellenists as those extending table fellowship to those beyond the traditional community should no longer be surprising. 52. the issue of purity. Acts 2:22). Carlisle: Paternoster. and the narrative of his trial (6:12–13. cf. 23:26. 22:21). Less noticeable are the parallels between Jesus in Luke and the Hellenists in Acts 6:1–7. Returning to the connection between Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:14–38). 22:27). except for the requirements of these Hellenists to be “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (πλήρεις πνεύµατος καὶ σοφίας. cf. not only does Jesus. who is sharing a meal with his disciples “on the table” (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης. 11:3).” in Asceticism and the New Testament (ed. which functions as one of the primary identity markers of the Jewish community. cf. D. but the far more particular fact. one significant parallel also needs to be noted. 61 See. 93). Andrew C. London: Longmans. instead. 46). The Hellenists as Successors of Jesus The parallels between the Lukan portrayal of Stephen in Acts 6:8–7:60 and that of Jesus have often been noted. 24:19) who performs “great wonders and signs” (6:8. 10:28). identify himself as “the one who serves” (ὁ διακονῶν. Luke 22:69. 60 Commenting on Acts 10:1–11:18. Issues of food and table fellowship again are intimately connected with the spread of the gospel beyond the community of the Jews. he explains the vision he has received and concludes that this is under the direction of God (11:17). 2001). of great ethnic and social significance. Luke 4:14. In the Last Supper narrative.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 141 unclean food becomes a call to accept these Gentiles. Esler rightly notes that “[t]he central issue in this narrative is not that the gospel has been preached to Gentiles. 4:1). “‘Full of Spirit and Wisdom’: Luke’s Portrait of Stephen (Acts 6:1–8:1a) as a Man of Self-Mastery. 6:3. e. 6:6) restores the unity of the community as emphasized in the previous chapters (cf. In becoming powerful messengers of the Word. ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους. Moreover. 6:2). First. The assigned role of the Seven therefore takes on added significance as they follow the model of Jesus and carry out his mission of table ministry. 6:4). 6:2) and their own duty to focus on “the ministry of the Word” (τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου. as they represent those who witness and experience the mercy of God (see Luke 2:36– 38. the Hebrews and presumably the Twelve find themselves “in an unholy alliance with unjust judges (Luke 18:1–8). Moreover. the actions of the Twelve seem less flattering. Read in light of the wider narrative.” CBQ 56 (1994): 715–33. nor do the concluding remarks on the spread of the Word of God (6:7) provide any hint of disapproval by the narrator. nor can it be found in the ministry of the Seven. The Twelve as Ambiguous Characters The above conclusion forces one to reconsider Luke’s evaluation of the Twelve. 21:1–4). the Seven]” (προσευξάµενοι ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας. See the discussion of the significance of Jesus’ sharing the table with the “tax-collectors and sinners” in section II above. Does the narrator approve of the action of the Twelve? Certain elements in this account suggest that Luke affirms the action of the Twelve. 4:25–26. they have fulfilled their assigned role as those who are “to wait on tables. but he does point to the Seven as the ones who are “to wait on tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις. 5:12– 16). 18:1–8.142 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.63 The ministries of the Twelve prior to this episode also point to their ability to be engaged in both ministry of the Word and table fellowship within their own community (cf. therefore. The note that the solution “pleased the entire community” (ἤρεσεν . The dichotomy between the ministry of the Word and the ministry of the table cannot be found in the accounts of Jesus. hypocritical scribes (20:45–47). “Neglected Widows in Acts 6:1–7.” IV. . therefore. 2:44–47. 1 (2011) Luke does not record that this role of serving at the table was assumed by the Twelve. however. 6:2). 7:11–17. no. a constant focus is placed on the widows in Luke’s narrative. and an exploitative temple system (21:1–6). the dichotomy between caring for the outcasts and proclaiming the Word is not one that can be found in the ministry of Jesus.. and the fact that the Twelve “prayed and laid their hands on them [i. who set up the contrast between the call of the Seven “to wait on tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις. 63 62 . 4:32–37. F. 6:5) implies that a satisfactory resolution is reached. In neglecting the widows.”62 The insistence on proclaiming the Word while assigning the role of the care of the widows to another group seems a less than satisfactory arrangement. . no reader would assume that the Twelve should “neglect the Word of God” (καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ. Scott Spencer. 65 64 . 266. one that indicates their failure to understand fully the mission of their master. The Purpose of Luke-Acts (FRLANT 126. therefore. to become better informed about the work of God among other communities. it does at least point to a similar concern expressed by a first-century writer. one also finds notes on the development in their ability to understand the mission that they received from Jesus. 48:20. but the fact of the restoration is not denied and the disciples are not rebuked for their question.68 It is not until the account of the conversion of Cornelius that the connection between table fellowship and the proclamation of the Word can be understood. Finger. while not intended as a critique of his failure to understand his call. Luke apparently sees these apostles as reliable and faithful witnesses who “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God with boldness” (ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος καὶ ἐλάλουν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ µετὰ παρρησίας. 46). Of Widows and Meals. the failure of Peter to understand the significance of table fellowship in the mission to proclaim the Word can be found in the controversy recorded in Gal 2:11–14.65 More important for our discussion is the account of Peter’s vision in 10:1–23. it seems best to view the Twelve as ambiguous characters. Isa 8:9. Green. Sol. 16) highlights the need of Peter. Some commentators. 49:6. Their partial understanding is reflected already in the question they raise in 1:6. Although he relegates the task of “wait[ing] on tables” (6:2) to the Seven. as a representative of the Twelve.” ExAud 18 (2002): 18–19. contra Robert Maddox. “Doing Repentance: The Formation of Disciples in the Acts of the Apostles. Ps. 68 Outside of the Lukan corpus. Some have therefore concluded that “Luke may be more critical of the Twelve here than is usually noted. 1982). 15. While this Pauline reference may not inform our reading of the characterization of the Twelve in Acts. Luke shows that the act of waiting on tables is precisely the means through which the Word of God can be proclaimed among other marginalized communities. 4:31). have considered Acts 10:1–11:18 to be an account of the “conversion” of Peter.67 In light of this wider development of the narrative of Acts. therefore. one should not be surprised that the solution proposed by the Twelve is not to be considered the final word on the matter. Despite being called to be witnesses “to the ends of the earth” (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. The disciples are therefore portrayed not as negative characters but as ambiguous ones whose question provides the occasion for Jesus to outline their mission. 67 See Joel B. Again. 66 In light of earlier passages (cf. Jesus’ response points to their lack of understanding. 106. 1:4). 62:11.66 Peter and the other apostles still need to be convinced that the inclusion of the Gentiles is part of the mission that they should undertake. Nevertheless. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Pao: The Lukan Table Fellowship Motif 143 Acts 2:42.”64 Considering both the positive and negative elements embedded in this account within its wider narrative. 1:8). the repeated command to consume the unclean food (10:13. this phrase is best understood as a reference to the nations/Gentiles and not necessarily to a particular geographical locale. Conclusion Reading Acts 6:1–7 in light of the Lukan motif of table fellowship. one is able to reconsider the apparent inconsistency between the assigned role and the actual function of the Seven. Through this examination of only one aspect of this difficult account. Rather than an example of a glaring gap in narrative logic.” . it becomes clear that Acts 6:1-7 does function as a transitional account that bridges the Jerusalem ministry and the one that reaches “to the ends of the earth.144 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1 (2011) V. It is their status as “waiters” that allows the Seven to continue the mission of Jesus in becoming “preachers” to the outcasts and the oppressed. no. the assigned role of the Seven as those who are to serve at the table provides the context in which they can reach beyond the Hebrews who reside in Jerusalem. ramelli@unicatt. 1 (2011): 145–163 Spiritual Weakness. in a state of sin. and many sleep” (KJV). and must be in unity before they dare approach the sacrament” (The Lord’s Supper [Nashville: Abingdon. and a number sleep” (NASB). “That’s why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying” (International Standard Version). and sleep do many” (Young).1 Now. 145 . lack of charity toward the poor on the part of the rich. and drunkenness. “This is the reason why many of you are weak and sick and quite a number [of you] have died” (God’s Word). Illness. “For this reason many among you are weak and sick. in v. ramelli ilaria. and a number are dead” (Basic Bible in English). Gemelli 1. Partaking of the supper when the church is divided is a sin against Christ’s body.it Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. 1967]. The sin referred to in the immediate context is division within the community. e. 2 Compare other versions: “Because of this. There are no textual problems in the Greek. “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly. and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30 ilaria l. gluttony.2 I think that the last I am very grateful to the anonymous readers of the JBL editorial board and to the editor for their helpful comments. “On this account many among you are weak and infirm. disorders in the celebration of the supper. 30 Paul observes: διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑµῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιµῶνται ἱκανοί. “the person condemned is not the person who does not discern that the elements he takes in his hands are the Lord’s body. 20123 Milan. and not a few sleep” (ASV). The person condemned is the person who does not discern that Christians are the Lord’s body. among you many are weak and sickly.JBL 130. English translations include the following: “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you. 109). “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you. 1 As William Barclay puts it. “For this cause a number of you are feeble and ill. no. and many sleep” (Webster). and a good many are fallen asleep” (Darby). he has just warned the Corinthians against eating and drinking the Eucharist in an unworthy way (ἀναξίως). Italy In 1 Cor 11:30 Paul speaks of the consequences of abuses in the Corinthian community related to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Largo A. Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A. Mauro Pesce proposed a parallel with m.146 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. among you. 1955). In this connection I would cite Acta Thomae 51 as an excellent example: a youth who had Schneider.” RivB 38 (1990): 495–513. no. 1970). Franz Gutjahr. possibly because of the Eucharist’s “magic effect” (magische Wirkung). 2 vols. “Mangiare e bere il proprio giudizio. but only to reject it: Charles J. Others mentioned en passant the spiritual interpretation of 1 Cor 11:30. I would translate: “For this reason. repr. Frederick Grant. Göttingen.” What is more. magical. Johannes Weiss. 4 Weiss. 2:257. 1910). indeed. who rightly points out grammatical and logical difficulties arising from the physical interpretation. 290–91. 1 (2011) is the best rendering. that they were understood in this sense by most ancient exegetes. 5 Martin. 1914. is able to bring about physical damage as well as benefit. Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici. KEK. referring to 1 Cor 11:29. 1995). 30–150 (trans. Practically all contemporary commentators agree that the illness and death to which Paul refers here are to be interpreted in a physical sense. if κοιµῶνται referred to persons who are physically dead. I shall argue that this disease and death can be understood in a spiritual sense.6 Hans Conzelmann thinks that for Paul an offense against the sacrament results in physical illness and death. 1896). 1887). Die zwei Briefe an die Korinther (Graz/Vienna: Styria.. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. as bodily sickness and death. “Glaubensmängel in Korinth..5 On the basis of this understanding of 1 Cor 10:30. 222. Sotiah 1:1– 4:3. Gloucester.” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 3–20. and that such a reading fits naturally into a common Hellenistic trope and into Paul’s linguistic use. to which I shall return. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: With a Critical and Grammatical Commentary (London: Longmans. 1907). claim that 1 Cor 11:30 must be understood in a physical and literal way. The only exception of which I am aware is an article by Sebastian Schneider. 3 . on eating and drinking one’s own judgment with the Eucharist. however. he argues that the “weak” and “ill” are weak in faith (he takes ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι as practically synonyms).D. Green. the water causes serious illness in her. instead of healing them. Ellicott. and those asleep are those lethargic in their faith.3 On the basis of Philonic parallels in the metaphorical use of κοιµῶµαι in reference to the sleep of the mind. 322. in which the “water of bitterness” is drunk by the suspected adulteress. 253.. Der erste Korintherbrief (2nd ed. if the woman is guilty. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Paul to the Corinthians (2nd ed. 6 Pesce. conceived of as solidly sacramental. who thinks that the ingestion of the Eucharist may also have a toxic effect and poison those who deserve this. The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press. 352. this would contradict the notion conveyed by their being said to be “among you” (ἐν ὑµῖν). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Martin.4 A similar opinion seems to be held by Dale B. in the community. and a good number are dying (or: are dead). St. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer. All other commentators. MA: Peter Smith. idem. many are weak and ill. and miraculous. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK. ICC. one of which is that.. thinks that the Eucharist. wie Krankheiten und Tod. sondern Gott schickt dafür zeitliche Strafgerichte. when he learned this. but has manifestly paralyzed you. que dans le sens du sommeil ou de la mort physiques.. Here. comme Eichhorn.1).30– 32)..6. violators experience divine retribution (11:29). infirmes et meurent dans le sens spirituel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Acta apostolorum apocrypha (2 vols. wie Krankheit und Tod. 1934). Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn. Paris: Gabalda. outside the sphere of grace (cf. ja lange Zeit seine einzige Auffassung des Leidens.”7 Already Friedrich Guntermann observed that sickness and death were considered by Paul to result from the profanation of the Lord’s meal (Profanisierung des Herrenmahls). Allo finds that the connection with 1 Cor 15:29 suggests that illnesses and death mentioned in 11:30 must be understood realistically and physically. Première épître aux Corinthiens (EBib. Carlisle: Paternoster. 283. 1902. 2005).8 E. since Paul “earlier actually mentions drunkenness (11:21). 99. 1885–87. 2r:473–74: “Quelques-uns.10 According to Anthony C.. 10 Godet. cf. ‘healings’ in 12:9). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. eds. Thomas. his hands were paralyzed. 7 . 1972).. Paulus (Münster: Aschendorff. did it mean to eat and drink unworthily (11:27)? Most associations had regulations to prevent drunken abuse and quarrels at their banquets. truth.. 292: “Dann vertritt eben Paulus die Auffassung.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 147 killed his fiancée took communion with his hands. Hildesheim: Olms.. 12 Keener. die aber selbst wieder als Züchtigungsmittel gedacht sind. 1981). it is just conceivable that a serious decline in health could result causally from excess in gluttony and drink. ont pris ces trois termes malades.. 247: “Krankheiten und Todesfälle sind Folge des Vergehens gegen das Sakrament. A. 256. 1932). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEK. 2.9 Frédéric Louis Godet expressly ruled out a spiritual interpretation of illness and death in our passage on the disputable grounds that it would not have impressed readers strongly enough (“un fait purement spirituel ne serait pas de nature à frapper suffisamment les lecteurs”).” Ibid.2:167. however. Die Eschatologie des Hl. they face sickness (11:30. and faith. damit wir nicht mit der Welt verdammt werden (1 Kor 11. 232: “Selbst jene Profanisierung des Herrenmahls hat nach Paulus nicht die ewige Verdammnis zur Folge. then.” 11 Thiselton. 2000).”11 This kind of disorder and the relevant physical punishment are seen behind 1 Cor 11:30 by Craig S. Lipsius and M. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (12th ed. 1–2 Corinthians (New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Mais l’emploi simultané des deux mots malades et infirmes ne s’expliquerait pas bien dans le sens moral. daß auch physische Übel. observed: “The gift of our Lord has unmasked you. 1903. 5:5).” 9 Allo. l’apôtre eût dit plutôt νεκρὸς εἶναι (Apocalypse 3. von Gott als Strafe für Sünden geschickt werden. 2nd ed. It heals so many people who approach it with love.-B. in 3. repr.”12 Keener also Conzelmann. but while he was putting it into his mouth.T. 8 Guntermann.” R. Thiselton. 1965). Diese Anschauung war den Juden ganz geläufig. according to a conception that was then familiar to Judaic thought. Commentaire sur la première épître aux Corinthiens (2 vols. et au lieu du verbe κοιµᾶσθαι qui ne s’emploie jamais dans le N. Bonnet. Neuchâtel: Nouvelle Monnier. repr. This did not happen without a reason. Keener as well: “What. no.13 Gordon D.”14 As Fee himself remarks..”16 Like Thiselton after them.”18 I will show in a moment that neither Paul nor other NT authors. Christians in Corinth] is here being viewed as an expression of divine judgment on the whole community. normally added such expressions.” and objected that. This hypothesis. 32 makes clear.3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 40 (EKKNT 7. which is close to Wolfgang Schrage’s claim that Paul’s statement should not be interpreted as though illness and death were an automatic consequence of an incorrect consumption of the sacrament (“als ob Krankheit und Tod eo ipso auf falschen Sakramentsgenuss zurückzuführen wären”). interprets 1 Cor 11:30 in reference to physical illness (“the present illnesses of many. 1999). The judgment. but with the temporal judgment of sickness and death. according to which “perhaps at this time there was much sickness in the Church of Corinth.and nineteenthcentury commentaries such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible 13 Ibid. that sickness among Christians is always to be viewed as present judgment. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. was present already in eighteenth.15 differs in part from Archibald Robertson’s and Alfred Plummer’s interpretation. we should probably have had ἐν πνεύµατι. “had spiritual maladies been meant. 16 Robertson and Plummer. 15 Schrage. 565. Commentary. Der Erste Brief an die Korinther. 253. 253 (emphasis added). nor contemporary philosophers who speak of spiritual death and illness. Fee. of course. which in some cases have led to death”) and hypothesizes that “the rash of illnesses and deaths that have recently overtaken them [sc. 1993]). 54. 17 Andrew D. This trend. 1 (2011) relates sickness in the individual bodies of members of the Corinthian church to their failure to discern the corporate body of the church. this should not be interpreted as though Paul were saying. 3. and St Paul points out the cause of it. 6:19). 17–14. Zürich/Düsseldorf: Benziger. moreover. cf. 96: “This failure to discern the corporate body (11:29) led to sickness in their individual bodies (11:30. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT. Paul is speaking of a particular group of Christians. nor that sickness is necessarily related to an abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Commentary. 1987). the individual and corporate bodies as temples in 3:16–17. however. Clarke does not comment on 1 Cor 11:30 (Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 [AGJU 18. does not have to do with their eternal salvation. 1 Kor 11. Robertson and Plummer added that excess in drinking may have led in some cases to illness among the members of the community. favoring the physical interpretation of illness and death in the Pauline verse under examination. about whom he had a specific revelation. and for this irreverence God chastised them with bodily suffering.17 Robertson and Plummer.148 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. as v. We need not assume that he had received a special revelation on the subject. Leiden: Brill. 18 Robertson and Plummer.” 14 Fee. or ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν. vol. likewise. remarked that the Corinthians’ “spiritual deadness produced irreverence. in general. . and some had even died spiritually. “but for the sake of their improvement. . Others hold that physical judgments had been sent. 1871). and David Brown. of which he speaks also in Romans and which are mentioned in other NT passages as well and in several contemporary philosophers. but one the result of sickness. and many sleep’] Some have held that this means that the improper observance of the supper has made many weak and sickly Christians.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 149 (1706–21): he interpreted 1 Cor 11:30 as the expression of “temporal punishments” for those who have received communion unworthily. 22 All the more in the light of the presence of the πνευµατικός–ψυχικός dichotomy in the letter.”19 The same interpretation was offered in Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary. and some sickened and others died. R. 20 Robert Jamieson. Missoula. 1973). Moreover. A. Louis: Christian Board of Publications. Illness and death could be understood on the moral plane—moral illness. 23 Martin. the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1 Cor 11:31). the notion of spiritual illness and death in the first and second centuries c. to avoid eternal punishment. 21 St.”20 The prevalence of the physical interpretation at the end of the nineteenth century is attested also by the People’s New Testament at 11:30: “ ‘For this cause. immanent and transcendent. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Hartford: S. The last view is most generally held. MA: Hendrickson. originally written in 1706. I intend to argue that the illness and death to which Paul refers can be interpreted as spiritual. which was no dualistic system.23 But we can certainly find the Platonic dualism between body and soul.”21 Contrary to almost all modern interpretations. Peabody. 82–83: the πνευµατικός–ψυχικός terminology arose in the context of a Hellenistic Jewish exegesis of Gen 2:7 and is basically a Jewish version of the νοῦς-ψυχή Greek philosophical differentiation. 3–15. See his conclusions on pp. moral death—rather than on the ontological plane. sent as the Lord’s chastening for the individual’s salvation. both Middle Platonists and Stoics. MT: Scholars Press. 2006). In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary (1871) ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι were interpreted as follows: “He is ‘weak’ who has naturally no strength: ‘sickly.22 He means the sickness and the death of the soul.e. was present even in Stoicism. Martin rightly warns that in ancient thought we cannot find the Cartesian dualism of res cogitans and res extensa. Corinthian Body..” And those who are asleep were identified with those who “are being lulled in death: not a violent death. One further point: Robertson and Plummer claimed that no ancient commentator interpreted sickness and death in 1 Cor 11:30 as spiritual and not physi- 19 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (repr.’ who has lost his strength by disease. Scranton. Fausset. which is underscored by Birger Pearson. many are weak and sickly among you. The πνευµατικός–ψυχικός Terminology in 1 Corinthians (SBLDS 12. S. which should not be confused with Cartesian dualism but is nevertheless dualism. 1891. . εἰς ἐπιστροφὴν προσαγόµενα. explaining that these are. 222. I found that there are very few comments on this specific verse in the patristic writings. Gregory Nazianzen. Ambrose. Gutjahr. et dormiunt multi] Ut verum probaret quia examen futurum est accipientium corpus Domini. and who specifically commented upon 1 Cor 11:27–34 in Hom. ποικίλα ἔχουσιν ἁµαρτήµατα). In Ep. . Among the very few and sparse patristic comments on this verse. A CSEL 81:2. interpreting ἀσθενεῖς. ἐθεράπευσεν. 26 Ambrosiaster.150 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.4 [PG 31:1049B]. who takes illness and death in 1 Cor 11:30 at face value. these are the illnesses that Jesus cures. glory. Τοὺς οὖν τοιούτους . second-century authors (apart from Clement). Matt. in I Cor. ὅταν γνωρίσωµεν ἑαυτῶν τὰ πληµµελήµατα. who produced running commentaries on 1 Corinthians (Chrysostom in a series of homilies). . The latter is indeed represented only by Basil and Ambrosiaster. Hippolytus. not even occasionally. In Comm. a spiritual understanding of illness and death is much better attested than a physical understanding. 25 Οὐ γὰρ πάντα φύσεώς εἰσιν ἀῤῥωστήµατα . such as Origen and authors related to him. “the illnesses of the soul” (τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρρωστήµατα). 322. First Epistle. Even John Chrysostom and Theodoret. 30. no. for instance. and Gregory of Nyssa. 129. καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Cyprian. Tertullian. p. καὶ κοιµῶνται ἱκανοί . citing 1 Cor 11:30) observes that some illnesses are the effects of sin and aim at the conversion of the sinner. dum febribus et infirmitatibus corripiebantur. Ὃν γὰρ φησὶν ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος παιδεύει· καὶ ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑµῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄῤῥωστοι. Commentary. by whom Robertson and Plummer may have been inspired. . respectively. . Καὶ τούτους γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις ἰδών. Origen comments directly on 1 Cor 11:30. love of money.” See also Ellicott. PL 17:257AB under Ambrose: “Ideo multi in vobis invalidi et aegroti. κατανόει µοι τοὺς φιλαργύρους καὶ τοὺς φιλοδόξους καὶ τοὺς φιλόπαιδας καὶ εἴ τίς ἐστι φιλόγυνος. and the Cetedoc Library of Christian Latin Texts. offer a decidedly spiritual interpretation of illness and sleep/death in 1 Cor 11:30. and κοιµῶνται in a spiritual sense and referring them to the Corinthians addressed by Paul. 253: “to interpret this of spiritual weakness and deadness is inadequate. cf. From searches of Biblia Patristica.25 Ambrosiaster himself. do not spend a single word on v. Paul.24 Origen speaks precisely of spiritual illness. 189 Staab. 27 (PG 61:230–32) and Comm. 10. 1 (2011) cal. and Hilary never comment on this verse. who had various sins (Κορινθίοις. and other third-century authors. the same was already maintained by Charles J. so that even his exegesis can only partially be regarded as literal. women or youths. ἄρρωστοι. Basil (Asceticon magnum 55. For instance. Methodius. ὑποµένειν χρὴ τὰ ἐπαγόµενα. .12. iam hic imaginem iudicii ostendit in eos qui inconsiderate corpus Domini acceperant.26 Many more fathers. Πολλάκις γὰρ καὶ µάστιγες ἁµαρτηµάτων εἰσὶ τὰ ἀῤῥωστήµατα.” 27 Εἰ δὲ θέλεις ἰδεῖν ποῖά ἐστι τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρρωστήµατα. nevertheless interprets them as an image of the future judgment (imago iudicii). Briefe. TLG. thereby 24 Robertson and Plummer.24 But this is not the case. et multi moriebantur. and no ancient commentator thus explains the words. Ellicott and Franz Gutjahr. and so on. .27 Shortly after. the confessor will thus be a physician (medicus). securus es. love money. do not use their reasoning and their will. glory. quia ‘propterea in vobis infirmi et aegri et dormiunt multi’? Quare multi infirmi? Quoniam non seipsos diiudicant neque seipsos examinant. and to approach such a great and sublime sacrament. nec intellegunt quid est communicare ecclesiae.4 Baehrens) and Hom. . when they want to take the food of the healthy.28 for ἀσθενεῖς—he explains—simply indicates a weakness of the soul. ἀγαπῶντες ἀργύρια ἢ δοξάρια ἢ γύναια ἢ παῖδας. it was precisely to people spiritually ill that Paul referred in 1 Cor 11:30. They suffer what those who have a high fever suffer. thus causing ruin to themselves. contemnis gehennam atque ignis aeterni supplicia despicis et irrides?” According to Origen. or youths instead of God (οἱ δὲ ὅλῃ ψυχῇ καὶ ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ καὶ ὅλῃ διανοίᾳ. ἕτεροι δὲ ἄρρωστοι πλέων ἢ ἀσθενεῖς.6. 37(38) 2. δέον προσέχειν καὶ ἐγρηγορέναι τῇ ψυχῇ. ἀπὸ δὲ πολλῆς ἀπροσεξίας νυστάζοντες τὴν προαίρεσιν καὶ ὑπνώττοντες τοῖς λογισµοῖς. τοῦτο µὲν οὐ ποιοῦντες. sibimetipsis inferentes exitium. κἂν µὴ ὅλοι ὦσιν εἴδους τινὸς ἁµαρτίας ὡς οἱ ἄρρωστοι. καὶ ἄλλοι παρ᾽ ἀµφοτέρους οἱ κοιµώµενοι. vel quid est accedere ad tanta et tam eximia sacramenta. If one has sinned and is therefore spiritually ill. 30 Κοιµῶνται δὲ οἱ. designates a more serious illness than the first. according to Origen. As for κοιµῶνται. 10. 29 Οἱ µὲν γὰρ ὀλισθηρῶς διὰ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀδυναµίαν πρὸς τὸ ὁτιποτοῦν ἁµαρτάνειν ἔχοντες. This illness is sin.29 whereas ἄρρωστοι indicates a true and more deeply rooted illness of the soul that is typical of those who. Ps. women. The second category (ἄρρωστοι). with their whole soul and heart and mind. that “this is why among you there are weak and ill people. Don’t you remember what is written in Scripture. one should worry about the final judgment: “Cum anima tua aegrotet et peccatorum languoribus urgeatur. they are spiritually ill because they do not judge themselves and thus take the Eucharist unworthily. Patiuntur hoc quod febricitantes pati solent.30 The same exegesis is found also in Origen’s Hom. and. which must be cured (curari. ἀσθενεῖς εἰσι µόνον. and many are dead”? Why is it that there are “many weak people?” Because they do not judge or examine themselves. sanari) through confession (confiteri peccatum tuum) and repentance.1 (70. οὗτοι πλέον ἢ ἀσθενείας πεπόνθασιν καί εἰσιν ἄρρωστοι). Num.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 151 again showing clearly his interpretation of illnesses as sins. Their spiritual illness is similar to the physical illness of those who have a high fever and yet want to eat the food of the healthy. cum sanorum cibos praesumunt. thus bringing ruin upon themselves: Non recordaris illud quod scriptum est. instead of awakening in their soul. it refers to those who are spiritually asleep. in which Origen is again speaking of the soul’s infirmity (languor) and illness. they fail to understand what it means to have communion with the Church. ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπᾶν. From the very comparison drawn with physical illness (febricitantes) and death (exitium) it is clear that Origen is here interpreting 1 Cor 11:30 in terms of spiritual 28 Οἱ µέν εἰσιν ἀσθενεῖς. with ἀσθενεῖς.5 he quotes this passage and refers it to the “power of the soul. . He interprets ἀσθενεῖς. καὶ ταύτην µεταβάλλει τὴν ἀρρωστίαν (Ekkehard Mühlenberg. 22. 1975–77].152 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Already Clement of Alexandria. Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung [3 vols. as I argue that it should be understood in the Pauline passage under discussion.1. one of the most faithful followers of Origen. In Conl. as did Origen in his homily on the Psalm. interpreted 1 Cor 11:30 in a spiritual sense. κατὰ τὸν θεῖον ἀπόστολον. as in his commentary on Matthew. but ἀρρωστεῖν (2 Chron. Didymus. as the Apostle teaches by saying. Paul. ‘This is why among you there are many weak and ill’—the Lord liberates him or her also from this illness.10. is constructing a climax. ill. ed. .” 31 ..14). Commentary. even if he is—to my knowledge—the only contemporary commentator who prefers a spiritual interpretation of 1 Cor 11:30. And he is interpreting κοιµῶνται not in reference to spiritual sleep. 253: “Both ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι imply the weakness of ill-health (Mark vi. but precisely in reference to spiritual death. Fragm. In Strom. 1. 321. 1:121–375. Didymus. τὸ δὲ ἐνυπάρχον ἀνακινοῦσα. in Ps. 417. referring specifically to this Pauline passage. and he applies this concept to his own spiritual interpretation of 1 Cor 11:30 in Fragm.. This was realized also by Robertson and Plummer. clearly spiritual illness and death” (spiritalem scilicet infirmitatem ac mortem ex hac principaliter dicens praesumptione generari). 416. For he reads κοιµῶνται as “are asleep/are falling asleep Εἰ καὶ συµβαίη αὐτῷ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἀρρώστηµά τι (ὁποῖα πολλὰ συµβαίνει γίνεσθαι.5. ἄρρωστοι. A similar spiritual exegesis of 1 Cor 11:30 is offered by John Cassian. Matt.”31 I think that. ἄρρωστοι. ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ ἀπόστολος διδάσκει λέγων. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐν ἡµῖν. esp. καὶ κοιµῶνται ἱκανοί. no.5. Origen. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑµῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι).). xiv.” thus understanding the people mentioned by Paul as weak. commenting on Ps 40:3b–5b). he states: “Paul says that mainly from this abuse come illness and death.13. ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι. an author who was deeply influenced by Origen. xxxii. τάχα µέν τι καὶ ἐντιθεῖσα . although they entirely ignored the exegesis of Clement. and κοιµῶνται. as Origen and other ancient exegetes understood. explains that the illness of the soul is sin (νόσος καὶ τρῶσις ψυχῆς ἁµαρτία. if a human being “has an illness of the soul—such as it often happens. 32 Robertson and Plummer. PTS 15. and dead in their souls: συνεξάπτει δὲ ἡ γραφὴ τὸ ζώπυρον τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ συντείνει τὸ οἰκεῖον ὄµµα πρὸς θεωρίαν.24) is perhaps more than ἀσθενεῖν. in Ps. whose work Origen certainly knew. 16.32 whereas the climax seems to have escaped Schneider. 1 (2011) illness and death. 19. and Cassian and deliberately rejected the spiritual interpretation of the verse. and κοιµῶνται in reference to spiritual illness and death. where he observes that the Lord liberates human beings from spiritual illness by giving them the health of the soul (ἀπαλλάττων αὐτὸν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἀρρωστίας χαριζόµενός τε αὐτῷ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ὑγείαν). and it is not clear which is the stronger word of the two: infirmi et imbecilles (Vulg. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Thus. both in this letter and in Romans. ἵνα τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς κερδήσω. “those who have died in Christ” are οἱ κοιµηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Cor 15:18). the first fruits of those who have died [τῶν κεκοιµηµένων]” (1 Cor 15:20). Io. or better—since it is in the present tense. however.” In Comm. Indeed. and yet there can be no doubt that it is spiritual weakness—and precisely sin—that is meant: ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡµῶν ἀσθενῶν κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν. in Rom 5:6 there is no trace of such a modifier. and. some are seriously ill. shortly after the passage being analyzed here. just as to those of spiritual illness and death. in that it does not simply mean that some are spiritually asleep.” must clearly be taken in a spiritual sense even though there is no modifier.” and indeed it is used in association with “impious. for example. . ἀσθενεῖς.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 153 (spiritually)” and not as “are dead.33 This interpretation is further supported by the fact that in the very same letter. I can adduce examples in which he uses no such qualifier. ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθηνῶν. which implies weakness and lack of vigor. she [sc.150. where he speaks of the weakness (ἀσθενής. 2. τῶν κοιµωµένων (in the mid33 Cyril of Alexandria. and not in the perfect—are dying. while we were still weak. “For. surely under the influence of the broadly Middle Platonic (but also Stoic) lore of the illness and death of the soul. Moreover. and some are even dying. 11. it is notable that Paul does not always use a modifier such as τῇ πίστει or τῇ συνειδήσει to indicate that he is speaking of spiritual rather than physical weakness. Likewise. Paul uses the same verb (again in the middle. “I became weak to the weak. ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαµηθῆναι. is used in a spiritual sense by Paul several times.” Paul has recourse to these metaphors of spiritual weakness.” Likewise. denotes a less serious condition than ἄρρωστοι (which indicates a severe and established illness). here it is a middle-passive aorist. Kοιµῶνται is still more serious than ἄρρωστοι. He uses one in 1 Cor 8:7. the wife] is free to marry whomever she likes. 1 Thess 4:13. “If the husband died. to which I shall return below.” or better “are dying.” “Weak” here means “sinners. but it is obvious that the weakness of which Paul is speaking must be understood spiritually: ἐγενόµην τοῖς ἀσθενέσι ἀσθενής. “the weak perishes. but here in the perfect) in reference to the dead: “Christ has risen from the dead. while in Rom 4:19 and 14:1 the spiritual understanding of weakness is conveyed by the use of τῇ πίστει. in another surely authentic letter of Paul. In 1 Cor 9:22 there is no modifier either. which would fail to complete the climax that has begun with “weak” and “ill. Christ died for impious people in the established time. in order to gain the weak. 12. remarkably.” Paul is saying in his climax that some are weak. just as in 1 Cor 7:39: ἐὰν δὲ κοιµηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ. 11. in v.3 he glosses ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιµῶνται with τοῖς ἀρρωστήσασι καὶ τεθνεῶσιν. makes it clear that “being asleep” here is to be interpreted as “to be dead. as was noted already by Origen.” Likewise. The weak in his or her conscience perishes spiritually.” but that they are dead. ἀσθηνῶν) of the conscience (συνείδησις) of some Christians. 10. 16.). 35 Luke 22:45. exhausted from sorrow” (NIV = TEV). distress. which is always attested in the middle-passive. almost never means “to sleep” (apart from Matt 28:13 and Acts 12:6) but always “to die. 14 and 16.” etc. Jesus’ reaction is to exhort them to recover their senses and to pray. just as in 1 Cor 11:30) refers again to the dead or those in the community who die. 1 (2011) dle and in the present. but one who succumbs to sadness and sorrow may do so. he found them asleep.154 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.” see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan. The notion of spiritual death might again be lurking here. if he has fallen asleep. where indeed the meaning is undoubtedly “to die” or. Κύριε. εἰ κεκοίµηται σωθήσεται.” or (in the perfect) “to be dead. Indeed. which is mentioned by the author of Revelation and by the author of For the meaning of this sentence. “when he went back to the disciples. But it is ambiguous: one who feels deep pain. of sorrow. τοὺς κοιµηθέντας (twice) are the dead.—The disciples then said: Lord. who will be resuscitated by God. “he came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow” (NASB). “And the tombs opened and many corpses of dead saints were resurrected. Eἶπαν οὖν οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτῷ. Immediately afterwards. no.” One who sleeps does not fall into temptation. “those who have died in Christ will rise” or “the dead will rise in Christ. about whom it is again stated that they will rise: οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται. whereas they believed that he was speaking of the rest of sleep. like the disciples at the Gethsemane.” John 11:11–13 plays on the ambiguity of the term: Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡµῶν κεκοίµηται. Matthew 27:52: καὶ τὰ µνηµεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώµατα τῶν κεκοιµηµένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν. at Gethsemane Jesus is “overwhelmed with sorrow [περίλυπος] to the point of death [µέχρι/ἕως θανάτου]” (Matt 26:38. ἐλθὼν πρὸς τοὺς µαθητὰς εὗρεν κοιµωµένους αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης. ἀλλὰ πορεύοµαι ἵνα ἐξυπνίσω αὐτόν. he will be saved. “having come unto the disciples. In Acts 7:60. Eἰρήκει δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς περὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. and found them sleeping for sorrow” (ASV). in the perfect or aorist. at the end and culmination of the climax involving also weakness and sickness. Mark 14:34).—But Jesus was speaking of his death. your friend. is the death of the soul of which Paul speaks in Romans. “he came unto the disciples. “to be dead. ἐκοιμήθη is said of Stephen’s death and in Acts 13:36 is said of King David’s death. he found them sleeping for sorrow” (KJV). he found them sleeping from grief ” (Darby). and 1 Thess 4:13–16. 34 . this expression corresponds exactly to οἱ νεκροί in v. “coming to the disciples. in vv. and sorrow.35 The death mentioned in 1 Cor 11:30. Lazarus. Moreover. ᾽Eκεῖνοι δὲ ἔδοξαν ὅτι περὶ τῆς κοιµήσεως τοῦ ὕπνου λέγει. 20. “lest you fall into temptation.” JBL 126 (2007): 579–93. will not easily sleep. is usually rendered as follows: “when he was come to his disciples. he found them sleeping from the sorrow” (Young). but I shall go awaken him. 15:18. It rather seems that they were in such a prostration and stress that they lost their senses and were like dead (see the notion of “dying of fear. “The Syntax of ἐν Χριστῷ in 1 Thess 4:16.34 It is remarkable that in the NT κοιµῶµαι.” I can add all the rest of the attestations in the NT.” I have already adduced 1 Cor 7:39. has fallen asleep/died. “the law of sin and death” (8:2). 24–25) and Jerome D. Collegeville. New York: Norton. 20. says in 5:6: ἡ δὲ Emma Wasserman. These writings seem to have been absent from the earliest copy of Paul’s collected letters. “sin began to live while I died” (7:9–10). 2007]) suggests a date around 80–90 C. 1990]. Titus [ANTC. Meeks and John T. MN: Liturgical Press. see below). The Writings of St. precisely this set of ideas. they contradict Paul’s 37 36 . the Pastoral Epistles [AB 35. but your spirit is life thanks to justification” (8:10). and spiritual death as the result of sin: “we have been delivered from the law. 1982]. Collins. 20) propose a date around 100 C. DE: Glazier. This epistle probably dates from the beginning of the second century. p46. 54) also advocates Asia Minor and a still later date. may easily be at work also in 1Cor 11:30. Titus [SP 12. 303–18. should be considered to underlie 1 Cor 11:30 and other NT passages attributable to authors who knew 1 Corinthians. widespread in Middle Platonism and Roman Stoicism. Raymond F.. Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Wilmington. The author of the “Pastoral Epistle” 1 Timothy. eds. Indeed. Dennis R. Here Paul depicts spiritual life as death to sin. 1983]. “the way of thinking proper to the flesh is death. “this body of death” (7:6).. Jouette Bassler (1 Timothy. 2007). see. that of the latter may have been familiar with it. New York: Doubleday. which Paul expresses here in Romans. Reception and Criticism (2nd ed.. 1988). “The Death of the Soul in Romans 7. church organization. e. 2 Timothy. depending on sin. Their background with regard to heresy. that is.e. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280. many scholars locate the Pastorals in 120s–140s C. both in Middle Platonic and in Neostoic authors. “your body is dead [νεκρόν] due to sin. Paul: Annotated Texts.37 referring to a widow who spends her life in pleasures. Wayne A. Moreover. MacDonald (The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon [Philadephia: Westminster. 100– 140. such as 1 Tim 5:6 and Rev 3:1–2 (the author of the former surely knew 1 Corinthians.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 155 1 Timothy (who very probably was an imitator of Paul). The vocabulary and style of the Pastorals are different from those of Paul’s letters.E. Fitzgerald. Benjamin Fiore (The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy. London: T&T Clark. and Ephesus as the most probable location. as I will demonstrate.. 305) indicates 120–160 as the most probable range. Paul describes spiritual death. notably a close imitator of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon. and Helmut Koester (Introduction to the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress. their exhortations reflect a Hellenistic mentality and Hellenistic philosophical commonplaces.E. Quinn (The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary and an Introduction to Titus. 2004). Second Timothy. I and II Timothy. and authority reflects an early-second-century situation. Most scholars deem the Pastorals pseudepigraphical: besides the aforementioned. that of the spirit is life and peace” (8:6). and apparently were first quoted by Irenaeus. in that we have died to that in which we were prisoners” (7:6).36 The same conception of spiritual death. 1996].E. Norton Critical Edition. and a setting involving Ephesus and Crete. and from Marcion’s canon in 130s–140s. the death (θάνατος.” JBL 126 (2007): 793–816. in Rom 7:6–25 and 8:1–13. Romans 7:7–25 has been rightly connected by Emma Wasserman to Philo’s conception of spiritual death. and which was a widespread metaphor in the first century c.g. Ray Van Neste. θνῄσκω) of the soul. as “Pseudo-Paul. 87. MacDonald and Stanley E. 2006). “She who gives herself to a life of pleasure.156 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. Wilson (Luke and the Pastoral Epistles [London: SPCK. esp. 2004]. John Chrysostom in his Homily on Stat- . London: T&T Clark. Marshall thinks that both the author (“Paul”) and the recipients (“Timothy. 197–252) proposed Polycarp as their author.g. 24. See also her “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul. The letters were written as a unity and none of them ever had an independent existence.” which he locates in 100–130 C. Annette Merz (Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe [NTOA 52. MA: Hendrickson. Timothy and Titus were the recipients: see.. 1 Timothy. vol. Some admit that.” in idem. 2006). and the Early Church [Library of Pauline Studies. 2005]). Hans von Campenhausen (“Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 38 Many Fathers commented on this verse: see. probably a congregation in Asia Minor. which is the opposite of Paul’s praxis. e. thus placing their composition around 100 C. Thomas L. According to Perry L. 71–79). A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus. Brodie. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix.”38 The notion of spiritual death determined by sin is here clear and corresponds to the idea that underlies 1 Cor 11:30. 1 Timothy [Readings. Peabody.g. IL: InterVarsity. they share the same original audience. 2002]. 1. no. even if she is alive. although Paul was not the author. 1979]) suggested that their author is the author of Luke-Acts. or shortly after. so also Bassler. section 2) concluded that Polycarp was using the letters in the conviction that they were by Paul. William A. and Hans-Joseph Klauck. New York: Lang. 1964]. 20. in the Pastorals the core issue is the succession in the leadership of Pauline churches. ch. 154) considers the Pastorals closer to the church of the Apostolic Fathers than to Paul’s communities.” “Titus”) are pseudonymous. Raymond F. e. Michael Goulder.” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (ed. Ben Witherington III (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. New Testament Monographs 16. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco: Baylor University Press. is already dead. 2004]). and 1–3 John [Downers Grove.. Porter. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. esp. Marshall (“‘I Left You in Crete’: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. 113–32.E. 324. 2002]) claims that the “Pastor” manifests a concern to proclaim the gospel message in the language of late-first-century Hellenism. According to Fiore (Pastoral Epistles.E. and his letters were to be read before a community as though they had been written by Paul. an adaptation to the cultural context is found in the prohibition against women teaching (1 Tim 2:12) and in the restrictions imposed on widows. 1–2 Timothy.” This figure wrote well after Paul’s death. 5) does not think that the Pastorals are by a single author. whom he assumes to be one and the same for all of the three letters. John W. The Pastorals “domesticate” Paul’s views along the lines of a traditional Hellenistic household (Deborah Krause. Stepp (Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle [New Testament Monographs 5. Richards (Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals [Studies in Biblical Literature 44. Stephen G. Fiore. Dennis R. Pastoral Epistles.” JBL 127 [2008]: 781–803) refers to the author of the Pastorals. but with an involvement of Luke in their composition. she also contended that Ignatius employed them as a model. “The Pastor’s Wolves. James W. Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums: Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts [Tübingen: Mohr.” NovT 38 (1996): 256. 1 (2011) σπαταλῶσα ζῶσα τέθνηκεν. 2008]. he describes 1 Timothy as a “deliberative (paraenetic) letter-essay. asceticism and appreciation of women as church leaders. Aageson (Paul. the Pastoral Epistles. aimed at excluding women from public ministries under the influence of widespread cultural prejudices. 21 and passim. Fribourg: Academic Press. Collins (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus [NTL. 2006]) considers them to be Paul’s. 1977]. 23). Lupieri. he shares linguistic and terminological features with Paul. Augustine (Trin. It is possible that the author of Revelation knew 1 Corinthians. 1 Cor 14:32 in 22:6 (this verbal and exclusive correspondence. 1 Cor 6:2 in 20:4 on the saints’ eschatological reign and judgment (the closeness is also noticed by Robert H. 1 Cor 15:26 and 55 in 20:14 on the destruction of death (this is noted also by Aune. who reappear in Rev 21:8. for these and other correspondences it is possible to assume common sources. Book of Revelation.” Cassian (Conl. Aune. 2 Thess 2:13. 996– 97. Book of Revelation. 2 Tim 4:8 in 2:10. Of course.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 157 Another NT passage in which the death mentioned is surely to be understood as spiritual and related to sin is Rev 3:1–2. I include at least the following: 2 Cor 5:17 in Rev 21:5 on the passing away of the old and all things being καινά. on Rev 20:14a: “it could be a way of referring to the . 40 Excluding the many parallels with Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Revelation 17–22 [WBC 52C. Phil 2:9–10 in 5:13. 2 Thess 3:18 in 22:21... Jov. Rom 8:23 in 22:17. Rom 2:5 in 6:17 and 11:18 on God’s judgment. Revelation. 1998]. 1 Cor 15:23 in 20:5 on the order of the resurrection (moreover.40 above all of 1 Corinthians. 2 Thess 2:7 in 17:5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 519. A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John (2nd ed. 2 Cor 6:16 in 11:1. The Book of Revelation [NICNT 17. where Paul’s prophecy of universal submission and thanksgiving to Christ and God is actualized. and by David E. 1103. 742] noticed that the meaning of ἀπαρχή in this passage is close to that which the word bears in Paul in Rom 16:5. 2 Cor 11:2 in 14:4 (moreover. on p. 394 n. 41 1 Corinthians 1:32 in Rev 3:19. and the claim that faith in idols is vain because nothing is behind them to 1 Cor 8:4). on therapeutic punishment. Gregory Beale [The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. 2006). by Beale. Phil 4:3 in 3:5. on Rev 17:14: 1 Cor 1:2–3 is the only nonapocalyptic text in which the righteous act as agents of divine retribution). Book of Revelation. 1 Cor 6:9–10 in 22:15 on the sins that keep people away from beatitude (this parallel was also realized by Mounce. 16: the list of those who cannot enter the heavenly Jerusalem. 2 Thess 9:10 in 13:13 and 20:3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. “spirits of the prophets. Phil 4:3 in 20:12 and in 21:27 on the book of life.41 Possiues 15. which offers an excellent parallel to 1 Tim 5:6 and especially to 1 Cor 11:30. 1 Cor 10:20 in 9:20–21 (a correspondence also noticed by Beale. 24 in 22:21.” unique in the whole of Scripture. 777 he cites also 1 Cor 15:20.4 and On Dives and Lazarus 3.14) explains that one may be alive bodily but spiritually dead and vice versa.39 and seems to show reminiscences of Paul’s letters. corresponds to the kind of people who will not inherit the kingdom in 1 Cor 6:9–10). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Eph 2:20 in 21:14 on the eschatological presence of the apostles as the foundations of the new Jerusalem. 2. Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar. 1 Thess 2:19).9–10. Italian Texts and Studies on Religion and Society. 313.5) relates this passage to spiritual death resulting from the “extreme weakness of flesh and blood. Revelation. 44. 1 Thess 4:16 in 20:5. Similarly Caesarius of Arles. notices that in Rev 17:8 the verb used to describe the coming of the beast is closely related to the noun that regularly describes the parousia or second coming of Christ: 1 Cor 15:23. 39 See. 355. 157. 1999). Serm. who warns against a life of pleasure using both this NT passage and Plato’s image of the soul as a chariot. 956. Rom 2:6 in 2:23 on the eschatological giving to each one according to his/her deeds. Mounce. 1 Thess 5:2 in 3:3 and in 16:15.g. e. Mounce. Revelation.3. Rom 16:20. 4. 1 Tim 6:15 in 19:16. and Jerome in Adv. but the many and sometimes very close convergences rather suggest a direct acquaintance. is noted also by Beale. trans. 1126: the Pauline passage is the only other attestation in all of the Bible). 1. 2 Cor 11:14–15 in 2:9. Rom 1:28 in 22:15. who relates the claim in Rev 9:20 that the idols are demonic forces to 1 Cor 10:20. 2 Thess 2:12 in 3:10. Edmondo F. 1 Cor 16:15. 2 Thess 1:6 in 18:6. . Theology and Religion 259. Revelation. 1 (2011) ble parallels are concentrated especially in Revelation 19–22. Mounce.43 The possible acquaintance of the author of Revelation with 1 Corinthians is not essential to my argument here.. 43 See. and yet you are dead [ὄνοµα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς. .” taking τὰ λοιπά as adverbial. e. Paul pronounced these conditional curses in the introduction of Galatians in order to protect the integrity of the oral gospel. but in fact is spiritually dead: “I know your works: you are said to be living.g. See also Beale. besides remarking on the maranatha parallel. 1206–9). Charles (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. Brescia: Morcelliana. and Rom 16:24 (this. which was going to die [γίνου γρηγορῶν. and 22:21 gathers the greeting formulas of 2 Thess 3:18. or to return to life. Sim. in a part of the manuscript tradition).3: those who are represented by sheep τρυφῶντα καὶ σπαταλῶντα (the same verb as in 1 Tim 5:6. and reinforce the rest. 1980]. 298–302) considers the end of Revelation to reflect liturgical dialogues.” Mounce (Revelation.158 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. ICC. just as in Paul. Rom 16:20. 2007). . as in 1 Cor 11:30.. 396: Rev 22:20 is “the equivalent of the transliterated Aramaic in 1 Cor 16:22: maranatha.” 42 Ἔρχου Κυρίε Ἰησοῦ (Rev 22:20) translates Μαρὰν ἀθά (1 Cor 16:22). Aloisiana 8a.” Ugo Vanni (La struttura letteraria dell’Apocalisse [2nd rev. ed. and by Mounce.” Spiritual death is manifestly produced by the evilness of one’s works. 109–15. 1 Cor 15:58 in 14:13 about the eschatological reward of the labors and works (κόποι and ἔργα in both passages) of the good. Raise. argues that the first final curse against those who dared alter the Apocalypse is “a virtual quotation of a pronouncement made by Paul earlier in the setting of Christian worship. John [2 vols. . but it would further enrich it. Aune (Revelation.2. H. 45 The same notion of sinners finding themselves in spiritual death is conveyed by the Shepherd of Hermas. See. Wilfried Glabach. evidently through a spiritual healing or resurrection. the very ending. in Rev 3:1–2 the meaning is that the person who acts badly is only apparently alive. 1 Cor 15:26”. 2:226. 20–22. 16:2. may contain four echoes of Paul. no.45 and. 1 Cor 11:27– 32. Now. 6. Rev 21:4. e. καὶ νεκρὸς εἶ]. Series VII.42 Revelation is addressed to “the seven churches in Asia” (1:7). the author of Revelation does not conceive of this condition of death as permanent and unchangeable—he invites the dying or dead to improve and live. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. eschatological elimination of death: cf. καὶ στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔµελλον ἀποθανεῖν]. The first parallel is noticed by many commentators. New York: Lang. “strengthen for the future what was going to die. Revelation.44 For I didn’t find your works perfect before my God. 1920]. 1 Cor 16:22 in 22:20 with the same invocation of the eschatological coming of Christ.. . Reclaiming the Book of Revelation: A Suggestion of New Readings in the Local Church (American University Studies. 22:20–21. 1) compares the proclamation of the eternal gospel in Rev 14:6–7 with 1 Cor 15:23–28: “a somewhat analogous expectation.g. 44 Or. 204) compares Rev 9:20 with 1 Cor 10:20: “Paul writes that the Gentiles sacrifice to demons and not to God. and “the churches in Asia” are those which send greetings in 1 Cor 16:19. which may have been a model for the author) are doomed to θάνατος. Charles. 2:149 n. 1154–55. Book of Revelation. Revelation. who indicates the correspondences with Gal 3:15. with at least fourteen examples in only four chapters. again like Paul. like 1 Cor 16:20–24. R. just as John pronounced a double curse at the conclusion of Revelation on anyone who dared alter the written prophecy he had composed” (emphasis mine). 367). 23. but also strongly influenced by Stoicism. Indeed. In Her. in Fug. Heinz-Günther Nesselrath. affirms: “According to the Legislator [sc. in that they are deprived of the life according to virtue. The fools. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.” Like the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:30. Philo observes that one may endure for long in spiritual death. is always dying. the life of the wise is said by Philo to be spiritual life. Philo’s fool. is alive to the life according to vice. even though their earthly life is very short: “Some are dead even if they are living [ζῶντες τεθνήκασι]. even as long as one’s earthly life lasts: 46 See Ilaria Ramelli. Sotera Fornaro. on the contrary.” Similarly. but is dead to the happy life [ζῶν τὸν ἐν κακίᾳ (sc. in that they have attained immortality [ἀθανάτου µοίρας ἐπιλαχόντας]. Schneider adduced passages in Philo concerning the understanding of sleep as sleep of the mind. “Philosophen und Prediger: Dion und Paulus—pagane und christliche weise Männer. are dead [νεκρούς]. instead. and like the widow in 1 Tim 5:6 and the addressee of Rev 3:1–2. This is the situation of immoral and foolish persons. The virtuous. Paul’s relationship to the philosophy of his time is the subject of rich and ongoing research. instead. he said. only the wise enjoys a good old age and a very long life. Moses]. . 183–210. the vicious person is said to be spiritually dead. constituting a very interesting parallel to 1 Cor 11:30. and some live although they are dead [τεθνηκότες ζῶσι]. Even more numerous and relevant are the passages in which Philo refers to spiritual death. is declared to be spiritually dead: “the wise person seems to be dead to corruptible life [τεθνηκέναι τὸν φθαρτὸν βίον].” in Dio von Prusa. Philo. using the Stoic distinction between the wise person and the fool.46 Many interesting examples are offered by Philo. Ilaria Ramelli. keep living forever [ζῆν εἰσαεί]. Renate Burri. Barbara Borg. characterized by κακία. even when they live very long. eadem. even if they keep living until the most advanced old age. Sapere 13. In Praem. who was particularly close to Middle Platonism. “Alle radici della filosofia patristica. precisely because of this behavior. even though they are separated from the company of the body. whereas the fool has an extremely short life [ὀλιγοχρονιώτατον δὲ τὸν φαῦλον] and is always learning to die [ἀποθνῄσκειν ἀεὶ µανθάνοντα]. who acts badly.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 159 Important parallels to this concept of spiritual illness and death determined by moral depravity are to be found in contemporary philosophy as well. 2009). or rather is already dead to the life according to virtue [τὴν ἀρετῆς ζωὴν ἤδη τετελευτηκότα]. βίον) τέθνηκε τὸν εὐδαίµονα]. and Jacques Schamp. 79. the fool. in Det. 49. As I have mentioned. whereas the fool. live a perpetual life. 293. Invigilata Lucernis 30 (2008): 149– ” 76. Likewise. Eugenio Amato.” Again. Der Philosoph und sein Bild (ed. but lives the incorruptible one. or is spiritually dead. 55 Philo remarks that one can be apparently alive but in fact be spiritually dead. The wise and virtuous. especially in Middle Platonism and Neostoicism. Matt. 12. a therapeutic or educative punishment. in a way. It is also to be noticed that here Philo uses τιµωρία to indicate the punishment decreed by the tribunal of God. no. which will be destroyed as the last enemy of all his [sc. in reference to 1 Cor 15:26: “The enemy of this Life. spiritual death]. absolutely. as I have already pointed out. the true death. which is no evil. is always expressed with κόλασις.” where the true death is exactly spiritual death. physical death]. Her. which is only good. the death that the sinning soul dies” (θάνατόν ἐστιν ὃν ψυχὴ ἡ ἁµαρτάνουσα ἀποθνῄσκει). to undergo an immortal and unending death [θάνατον ἀθάνατον ὑποµένειν καὶ ἀτελεύτητον]. also conceives of physical death as a good or indifferent thing and of spiritual death as an evil. he concludes that “the soul is mortal in respect to the true death [τοῦ ὄντως θανάτου]. in 1 Tim 5:6. insisting on the notion that spiritual death is the only kind of death to be regarded as a true evil and is. physical and spiritual. who. “Philosophical Allegoresis of Scripture in Philo and Its Legacy in Gregory of Nyssa. the heavier: and consider how this kind of death can endure together with the sinner for an entire life [συνδιαιωνίζει]. 47 According to Philo. Of course. the death of the soul. In Dial. Comm. and in Revelation. sc. in fact. and in other texts with which he was certainly acquainted. which is a good or an indifferent thing. spiritual death is again connected to sin. exactly like Philo. it was necessary that an extraordinary punishment be found for it. Rom.9). Exactly as in Paul. Lev.” Studia Philonica Annual 20 (2008): 55–99. is death. 3. in Comm. and the more enduring. returns in a Christian philosopher who knew both Philo and the NT very well—Origen. which is the worst evil and actually the real death. Even the so-called “eternal punishment” is κόλασις αἰώνιος. in his Dialogue with Heraclides and elsewhere. Origen states. Indeed. For the kinds of death are two [θανάτου γὰρ διττὸν εἶδος]: the first is to be dead [sc. who is Life] enemies. This term means a retributive punishment. Origen draws a distinction—which will be closely followed by Ambrose—between physical death. and on 1 Tim 5:6.33.47 This distinction of different kinds of death. of Christ. the other is to continue to die [ἀποθνήσκειν.12.3 [304. 1 (2011) People think that death is the culmination of punishments. he theorizes about the different meanings of death. such as Philo’s passages on spiritual death. Similarly.27]. where the reference is again to spiritual death (see Hom. which is an evil [κακόν]. whereas κόλασις is the punishment that is established in the interest of the punished. as I have demonstrated. 8.160 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. It is meaningful that in the NT. Indeed. punishment. death to sin. in contrast to Philo. of which the second is undoubtedly the more serious and is defined as a positive evil. Since the crime is extraordinary. sinners will cease to exist at all after their physical death: see Ilaria Ramelli. Which? To be always dying while living [ζῆν ἀποθνῄσκοντα ἀεί] and. Therefore. but at the tribunal of God this is only the very beginning. . it comes as no surprise that Origen insists on spiritual illness and death precisely commenting on 1 Cor 11:30. Origen elaborated on the conception found in Paul. 25–26. including the one in the next world. and the death of the soul. never with τιµωρία. . in view of my argument thus far. 53. 1–6. A person of God is one who is worthy of God. Diatribe. it is necessary to reject the dead part of one’s soul. 1964). maintained that God is the god of life.. just as for Paul. was dear to him. Musonio Rufo. Musonius Rufus. spiritual illness ultimately leads to spiritual death. specifically in the NeoAcademician Cicero. that a person who pursues vice instead of virtue is spiritually dead albeit bodily alive: “A faithful person whose faithfulness has been proved is a god in a [living] body of a human being. Milan: Bom- . the topic of animi medicina philosophia. p. are in fact ill or dead. ed. clearly meaning spiritual and moral life. Exactly like Paul. another Roman Stoic. expresses this notion very clearly. so that. Leipzig: Reimer.5–6 Hense.”48 48 Musonius. An elect person is a person of God. and (you will) know God. In this light. “Sextus” has explained that the person of God is faithful and really alive. If we move to Roman Stoicism. a sentence ascribed to the Neo-Pythagorean Sextus expounds the very same concept. Aelius Aristides 551 Dindorf = 362 Jebb: Wilhelm Dindorf. who was not immune to Stoic influences. and how this interpretation should be regarded as fully legitimate. and I think that today’s scholars should see it as well. but spiritually dead. Likewise. repr. 1:551. The immediate context of this sentence further clarifies its conceptual framework and makes it clear that the reference is precisely to spiritual and moral death. Aristides (3 vols. and it is well known that he particularly cherished medical metaphors. And for Seneca. on the contrary. In Att. Indeed. a person who proves faithless is a dead human being in a living body [νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐν σώµατι ζῶντι]” (7).” True human life is a life that is worthy of God and makes one closer to the divine. ap. a contemporary of Paul. which is the vicious part: ἔκκοψον τὸ τεθνηκὸς τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ γνώσει τὸν θεόν. Therefore. in order to know God. He clearly saw a reference to spiritual death in this verse. Hildesheim: Olms. testimonianze (Testi a fronte 31. 1829.19 he claims: aeger est. because his/her conduct is worthy of God: “A faithful human being is an elect person.” Indeed. “amputate the dead part of your soul. a contemporary of Seneca and Paul. fr.. Even somewhat before Philo. he asks a rhetorical question: Homini non recta sed voluptaria quaerenti nonne βεβίωται? “Isn’t it true that a person who pursues not what is right but only pleasures is in fact dead?” Further. Seneca. this identification of spiritual death with a life led in vice is attested already in the Platonic tradition. 134. do nothing unworthy of God. it is easy to see how it is that Origen interpreted 1 Cor 11:30 in a spiritual sense. even dead.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 161 which I have analyzed. frammenti. The one who is worthy of God is a person who does nothing unworthy of God. A person who lives in vice. “he is ill. Speaking of every person like this. or better. in Sent. See Ilaria Ramelli. is apparently alive. the otiosi. immo mortuus est. 12. if you endeavor to be faithful. based on the notion that vice is the illness of the soul. he states that vicious people. 12.2. the concept of spiritual illness and death as a result of a vicious life is even better attested. in Brev. in contrast.” even if he or she is apparently alive and lives in self-indulgence and luxury. In the light of what I have argued. 150– 58).85–86: dignus morte periit.” Juvenal’s Sat. I need not highlight how this connection of true human life with the divinity is close to the notion of moral or spiritual life and death as communion with. 2001) and the new essay on Musonius in eadem. which are spiritual life and death. a spirit (15. True human life. whereas humans were given also an animus. which characterizes human nature and is a gift of the divine creator. Juvenal teaches.142–58 Juvenal stresses that only we humans have received “the venerable ingenium” from the supreme deity: at the beginning of the world our “common creator” provided animals only with an anima. is that spent in the pursuit of virtue. it is therefore probable that in 1 Cor 11:30 Paul is constructing a climax from weakness to illness to death. Such a person is “worthy of death” and “already dead” precisely because his or her life is reduced to pleasures. Stoici romani minori (Bompiani il pensiero occidentale. 8. and the related notion that vicious conduct determines spiritual illness and death are particularly present. roughly contemporary with the authors of 1 Timothy and of Revelation. 1 (2011) One further example is offered by a Roman satirical poet. Stoici romani. 49 As is demonstrated by Ramelli. Especially in Sat. Paul uses piani. and all virtues (15. Human reason is the initiator of human society.49 Juvenal. in Roman Stoicism. 2211–44. such as Paul and the authors of 1 Timothy and Revelation. The dissolute person. or remoteness from. 8 focuses on true nobility. and of altruism. If a human being gives up this dignity. .162 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. in the awareness of one’s own dignity as a human being. which are at the level of animal life. as an illness and death of the soul. even though he may have a hundred prized oysters at dinner. civilization. “He who is worthy of death is already dead. which is a gift from the supreme divinity and makes humans close to the gods. is “worthy of death. especially in respect to the transcendence of God. which puts a person in relationship to the divine. this person renounces human life and turns to animal life.” and therefore “has already died” and indeed “is dead. and that these notions can be interpreted spiritually. He notably expresses the same idea as 1 Cor 11:30 and 1 Tim 5:6 when he refers to a dissolute man in Sat. honesty. in rectitude.131–42. 15. intellect or reason. as I have demonstrated. language.147–49). 2008). God in Paul and in the authors of 1 Timothy and Revelation—notwithstanding of course the obvious differences between the Stoic system and Christianity. This theme of true life and true death. the seat of human ingenium. 689–943. True human life is the life of reason and virtue. which—very Stoically—coincides with virtue and the exercise of logos. but also in Middle Platonism and in NT authors influenced by these. Milan: Bompiani. and rather turns to passions. coenet licet ostrea centum / Gaurana. no. who both knew 1 Corinthians as well. and strongly influenced by Roman Stoicism. endowed with reason. given Origen’s penchant for spiritual exegesis and his theorization—reminiscent of Philo—of the different meanings of “death. Especially Origen and authors who were influenced by him. rather than to sleep. The death of the soul. I have also demonstrated that this conception finds close parallels in contemporary authors related to Middle Platonism and Neostoicism. Didymus.” to which the soul is subject. either for Origen or for Paul himself (or for the author of Revelation. 31–32 Paul reflects that self-examination spares one the Lord’s judgment. such as Didymus. so too the soul can return to life after its death. 33–34. even without modifiers expressly indicating that the term must be understood on a spiritual plane—this precisely in 1 Corinthians. and Cassian (in contrast to only Basil and Ambrosiaster—the latter only partially. But still the Lord’s judgment is educative. but even from the very context of 1 Cor 11:30: in vv. is not necessarily a definitive and eternal condition. that life which is Christ. such as the authors of 1 Timothy and Revelation. . interpreted this verse in reference to spiritual illness and death. Paul himself recommends the right behavior to the Corinthians. as I have shown). Origen (repeatedly). however. the idea of spiritual death as related to sin is well developed in Paul’s thought.Ramelli: Spiritual Weakness in 1 Corinthians 11:30 163 κοιµῶµαι always in reference to death. and in the NT is clearly attested in other authors who knew 1 Corinthians. since he takes illness and death as an image of the future judgment). In vv. especially in Romans.” among which spiritual death is prominent: only spiritual death is a true evil and “the real death. that they may recover their spiritual health and life and avoid judgment (κρίµα). and often uses ἀσθενής and related terms in a spiritual sense. As there will be a resurrection of the body. in reference to a spiritual weakness or illness. the spiritual interpretation of illness and death in this passage is far more common than a physical interpretation. it is a παίδευσις instead of a condemnation. This comes as no surprise. Moreover. with which Paul seems to have been somewhat familiar. As a corollary. I have also demonstrated that it is far from being the case that— at it has been repeatedly claimed—patristic exegetes never understood 1 Cor 11:30 in a spiritual sense. This is clear not only from Paul’s Romans discourse on the death of the soul. On the contrary. It is represented at least by Clement. Rooker. ISBN: 978-0-8054-4031-7 Printed Hardcover // 680 pages // $44.99 AVAILABLE NOW Visit our web site to order complimentary review copies. Scott Kellum. and theological dimensions of the biblical text ISBN: 978-0-8054-4365-3 Printed Hardcover // 976 pages // $59. and the Crown An Introduction to the New Testament Andreas J. Grisanti Three esteemed professors introduce students to the Old Testament—freshly illuminating the text as a rich source of theology and doctine packed with practical principles for modern times. Köstenberger. Mark F. Quarles An all-new. paying close attention to the historical. and Michael A. Merrill. and Charles L. BHAcademic.99 AVAILABLE MAY 2011 The Cradle.com .A firm foundation in the Old and New Testaments The World and the Word An Introduction to the Old Testament Eugene H. the Cross. L. literary. comprehensive introduction to the New Testament. Atlanta. People’s History of Christianity 2. and for the helpful suggestions of the two anonymous JBL reviewers.” ABD 4:650–53. “Food. “The Greco-Roman Banquet as a Social Institution” (paper presented to the Meals in the Greco-Roman World Consultation. Deipnosophists. no.” in Late Ancient Christianity (ed. 147–63. idem. and Juvenal. and Power. 165 . See Theissen. 2 McGowan. idem. Smith. Matthias Klinghardt. citI am grateful for feedback on various drafts of this paper from Professor Richard Ascough. Ovid. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress. Juvenal and Persius are from the Loeb Classical Library. 1 English translations of Athenaeus. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1983). SBL annual meeting. Smith have mined the elite commensality literature of the ancients and have established that a standard form of the Greco-Roman banquet underlies practices of the time. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press. more recently. SBL annual meeting. D.JBL 130. Wayne A. Metamorphoses. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress. Matthias Klinghardt. Virginia Burrus. Description of Greece. 145–64. and Dennis E. 1 (2011): 165–181 Eating with Honor: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary Association Meal Practices rachel m.1 Rituals varied. Ritual. ON K7L 0A1. Canada There has been increasing recognition by scholars studying the Greco-Roman world of the first century that a larger database of meal practices is desirable for understanding the social banqueting practices behind Paul’s words concerning the Corinthian banquet of 1 Cor 11:17–33. and. 2005).rachel0@gmail. mcrae mcrae. 2003). and Andrew McGowan reminds us that “various groups seem to have had different explicit understandings and purposes in mind and to have used eating and drinking together in a variety of ritual forms. Scholars such as Gerd Theissen.”2 Gerard Rouwhorst points out. Meeks. “A Typology of the Community Meal” (paper presented to the Meals in the Greco-Roman World Consultation. 2003). Atlanta. Learned Banqueters. Kingston. November. Pausanias. however. 2003). 1989).com Queen’s School of Religion. “Greco-Roman Meal Customs. November. Downers Grove. 1984). Wilken. Essays in Honour of John C. 2004). 2003). Pearson. 1992).” in A Holy People: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (ed. 44–46. Hurd (ed. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press. Ascough. 1 (2011) ing Mary Douglas’s work. Because the honor/ shame code is a changeable value system rather than a fixed economic situation. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 12. Porter.” See also B. “Table Community in Early Christianity. Churches and Collegia. 187.” Studia Liturgica 34 (2004): 165–76. it is constructing a social identity: “Every meal—especially when taken together by more than one person—encodes significant messages about social and hierarchical patterns. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kloppenborg. 4 Peter Richardson. Christians too were viewed as collegia. 1993). Hans-Josef Klauck.”3 A study of banqueting traditions of Greco-Roman voluntary associations helps to clarify the role that the Mediterranean code of honor and shame played in establishing their social identity. Andrew McGowan. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (WUNT 2/161.” RTR 58 (1999): 31–33.. Leiden/Boston: Brill. JSNTSup 86. H. rather than the economic patterns of wealth and poverty. “Edwin Hatch. Paul uses the meal ritual to create a new Christian social identity. R. 2000).” in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. explain the divisions in the Corinthian community.” JAC 24 (1981): 28–38. Horsley. I suggest that similar social and hierarchical patterns based on the code of honor and shame of the Mediterranean world are evidenced in the banqueting traditions of the Corinthian community. Bradley H. Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology (2nd ed.” Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. W. citing Mary Douglas. McLean. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to GrecoRoman Religions (Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. IL: InterVarsity. “Associations. attributing the factions to economic divisions. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz.166 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. . mutual upbuilding.4 These social patterns. C. 2000). and love that Jesus taught. 2006). “Paul’s House Churches and the Cultic Associations. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1999). demonstrating that there was a “marked internal stratification” within the community. that when a group constructs a ritual tradition. The verb προλαµβάνω in 1 Cor 11:21 is understood to describe the few wealthy Corinthians who begin their private meal before the communal meal and receive larger portions owing to 3 Rouwhorst. As Jewish and Christian groups both saw themselves and were seen by others as voluntary associations. 228: “Pliny’s statement that Christians in Bithynia ceased meeting after Trajan’s edict banning hetaeriae indicates both that the Christians involved saw themselves as constituting an association. Robert L. London/New York: Routledge. “Rethinking Agape. 54. In effect. Sheffield: JSOT Press. no. Barton and G. 137. 69-84. R. Craig A. “A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches. Richard S. 71–94. here 69. Gerd Theissen first analyzed the social problems of the Corinthian community. Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco: Baylor University Press. I suggest that Paul is therefore able to propose radical changes to the Corinthian meal ritual in order to establish new social and behavioral patterns that reflect the values of humility. Paul Bradshaw. see John S. S. Evans and Stanley E. Jim Harrison. and that this judgement was shared by Pliny. Jan Willem van Henten and Anton Houtepen. diss.5 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. or perhaps spicy dishes. Assen: Van Gorcum. 1997). 2001).” in Stone Campbell Journal 8 [2005]: 220–44. DE: Michael Glazier. “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine. estimating that there were perhaps six smaller church groups in Corinth who would join together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. “The Early History of the Lord’s Supper. Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Rockwell Lectures. Crispus (Acts 18:8). 7 Murphy O’Connor cites Dennis E.” in Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a NOSTER Conference in Soesterberg. “Early History. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 156. Harvard University. de Jonge. January 4–6. Smith and Hal E.McRae: Eating with Honor 167 their rank. The church in neighboring Cenchreae meets in the home of Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2). Blue.8 Perhaps more than thirty-five participants were dining. 11:17–34). and received lesser portions consisting of sweet desserts and fruit. A. 6 Murphy-O’Connor. seafood.” Affirmation 4 (1991): 2–3.7 Gregory Linton agrees with this suggestion. drawing on the archaeological evidence of remains around Corinth of several wealthy villas with a triclinium (dining room) and an atrium. Linton. 8 Linton (“House Church Meetings in the New Testament Era.” which was the symposium. and bread. 155–56. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Family. 10 Peter Lampe. “House Church Meetings. and Culture. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation (Christ and Culture Collection. 64.6 He reasons that the host (perhaps Gaius) entertained the eight wealthiest members of the community in the triclinium of his villa (which seats nine) relegating the rest of the Corinthian group to inferior dining in his villa’s atrium. 1990). further speculates that the villa at Anaploga represents the type of home owned by a wealthy Corinthian patron of the Jesus community. 1980).10 This explanation was accepted by a number of other scholars. 1992). Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. too. St. 200– 203. Ethics and the World of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress. Studies in Theology and Religion 3. London: Tyndale.D.” 209–10. Balch. here 209. 9 Henk J. Food Supply. here 233) suggests that there were six small groups meeting in the homes of the following people in Corinth: Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2–4). Taussig. Many Tables: The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. 1960).. Judge.9 Peter Lampe. Bradley B. “Social Obligation in the Context of Communal Meals: A Study of the Christian Meal in 1 Corinthians in Comparison with Graeco-Roman Meals” (Th.” 243. 1977). idem. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington. 209–37.11 Never- 5 Theissen. 11 Carolyn Osiek and David L. Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16). 1999 (ed. Titius Justus (Acts 18:7).” Criswell Theological Review 5 (1991): 233–34. Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology.” a dinner attended by the leisured elite. and that the poorer people arrived later for the “Second Tables. 1983). and Gaius (Rom 16:23). “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (1 Cor. 151–54. suggests that the wealthy Corinthians participated in “First Tables. . Chloe (1 Cor 1:11). E. and the Present Distress. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Religion. Smith. de Jonge. Dennis E. Abraham Malherbe. Poverty and Survival.. Horrell. and J. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.13 Richard S. “Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre.” 591–611. Paul.16 In this code 12 Horrell.” NTS 50 (2004): 359. 1990). Shame.” 16 The following paragraph is indebted to both Crook. Edward Adams and David G. For the discussion of the economic status of the Corinthians. the divisions marring the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth may be attributed to the honor and shame value code. for they contain much evidence for divisions within a dining group—divisions predicated not on wealth but on the honor/shame code of the Mediterranean region. “Response to Martin and Theissen. J. Linton.”14 We suggest that.” 354-56. Poverty and Survival [Studies of the New Testament and Its World. “Forms of Commensality in Greco-Roman Associations. and Social Status Revisited. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Friesen. Paul. 102–39. Martin (“Review Essay: Justin J. “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality. see Gail R. inscriptions of the voluntary association banqueting customs may be engaged in the discussion.” 238. similar to other voluntary associations. 1. these values remain pivotal. Meggitt. Meggitt. and the interchange of ideas among Meggitt (Paul. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture.”15 The voluntary associations subscribed to the same cultural agonistic social values of honor and shame as the Mediterranean society in which they lived. no. Honor and Shame in the Associations “It is becoming an accepted fact that honor and shame were pivotal values in antiquity that structured the daily lives of peoples around the Mediterranean. 14 Ibid. producing “a somewhat revised. 15 Neyrey. Dale B.” JSNT 25 [2003]: 371–91). 3.” JBL 128 [2009]: 591) agrees that “there is more than enough evidence to defend the proposition that in the Mediterranean. J. there have been recent challenges to this theory by L.” CW 102 (2008): 33– 46. more cautious” attitude concerning the economic status of the Corinthians and the cause of their social divisions. and Theissen (“Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. Poverty and Survival.12 Here. “The Methods of Historical Reconstruction in the Scholarly ‘Recovery’ of Corinthian Christianity. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus.” JSNT 24 [2001]: 51–64).168 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 1998). L. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox.” JSNT 24 [2001]: 85–94). “Honor. See also Steven J. 179. 2004). PA: Trinity Press International. 107. “Domestic Space. Horrell. Michael White. vol. 255–72. Jews and Christians (Valley Forge. 13 Ascough. 153. Michael White.” JBL 109 (1990): 259–67. esp.” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (ed. Zeba Crook (“Honor. Ascough notes that “segregative commensality is not limited to those in the upper ranks—its strength lies in the ability of groups to be (self-)selective about who can join in the eating and drinking. Horrell. 1 (2011) theless. O’Day. “House Church Meetings. 37. past and present. Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans. 1998].” JSNT 26 (2004): 323–61. Shame. I. Meggitt. and the . Bengt Holmberg. David G. Shame or dishonor results from lack of acknowledgment by the public court of reputation. according to this worldview of “limited good” or perception of scarcity. army.18 “Throughout their lives. practiced at virtually every social level. 17 Crook. “Honor. and fifty-nine in seminal work of Bruce J. fifteen fragmentary inscriptions possibly belonging to voluntary associations have been found at Corinth. 2. Twenty-four voluntary associations are attested on Delos. MA: Hendrickson.21 Extensive excavations at Ephesus have uncovered the existence of fortyone trade associations and nineteen cultic associations. cultic association members voluntarily joined together for conviviality and to express their piety in regularly scheduled private sacrificial banquets. As Willi Braun has noted.20 Our main sources of information for associations are the thousands of inscriptions dating from as early as the fifth century B. Neyrey. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. all good things exist in limited quantity. from earliest times. All over the Mediterranean world. symposium.” 3. The banquet became an important vehicle for distributing honor. or after any kind of public challenge and riposte). 21 See Ascough.” NTS 42 (1996): 584 n.McRae: Eating with Honor 169 of values. synagogue. “Forms of Commensality. 20 Ascough. or assembly of citizens in the polis.”17 Honor was always gained at the expense of another. Atlanta. “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World.6.”19 There was a long-standing tradition of banqueting in these groups. The honor could be attributed (the honor that the people’s court of reputation attributes to people when they are born. Aristotle claims that shame adheres to those who fail to demonstrate the four cardinal virtues (Rhet. forty-six at Thessalonikē. an adult could attain honor individually (of secondary importance) and collectively (of prime importance). SBL annual meeting. 3. for. To date. 18 Braun. Malina and Jerome H. November.C. these individualistic characteristics matter much less than the opinion of the PCR [public court of reputation]. which was the dominant institution of that social world. In the public court of reputation. whoever that might represent in any given instance. Shame. the early Christians in Paul’s community did not invent their banquet from nothing. 1991).” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody. wealth. family connections. 28. “While power. or endowment by notable persons of power) as well as distributed (honor that the people’s court of reputation distributes whenever someone outwits another. . when a benefaction is made. and gender do figure into the ‘rules’ of honor and shame.3–4). 1–46.1–15. 2. “The Completion of a Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor.” 610. or peer groups at the gymnasium. 19 Neyrey. 8.E. 2003). marginalized people such as low status groups and women could gain honor. “The Greco-Roman Meal: Typology of Form or Form of Typology?” (paper presented to the Meals in the Greco-Roman World Consultation. individuals in antiquity were embedded in some collective or group—either the family. which is acquired through birth. C. John Bodel. 2003).. Anthony J.”30 An association’s private banquet was the chief venue for announcing. powers. Longenecker. “Question of Death. citing Jonathan Z.” 17. 193. Smith. no. with its migration and intermixing of peoples. and Voluntary Associations. where they played a significant role in mediating various kinds of social exchange.”24 Membership numbers in the associations were generally small.28 During the first century. such as groups that had a long pedigree. and freedmen. Religious. and were mainly drawn from the urban poor.25 Intersecting social relations in the Greco-Roman world played a major role in the formation of voluntary associations. “The Rock-Cut Architecture of Petra. March 3–5. 30 Ascough. London: Routledge. Walnut Creek. 14.” University of Washington. 158. slaves. Who Wrote the New Testament: The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco. There and Anywhere” (keynote address to the conference entitled “Prayer. averaging perhaps fifteen to one hundred.” 519. “Connections with Elites in the World of the Early Christians. “Greco-Roman Philosophic. Burton L. award- Richardson.. speculate that as many as forty associations (marzēahi) established sanctuaries in the high places of the canyon. 26 Philip A. 133. 23 22 . 28 Ascough.23 James Rives points to the importance of this source of information for social and religious life in antiquity. and freedmen. London/New York: Routledge. MA: Hendrickson. Robert Wenning. Kloppenborg. especially in urban areas. Mack. Approaching the Ancient World.” JBL 123 (2004): 510. and ideas.22 Archaeologists in Petra. “The Petra Survey Project. “Civic and Religious Life. “Here. 1996).” in ibid. Kloppenborg. John S.27 With a few exceptions.E. the presence of associations was felt throughout the entire Roman Empire.” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. Taxonomy and Membership. Peabody. Nabatea. and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World. Department of New Eastern Languages and Civilization. Paul-André Turcotte. 2002).26 Many people belonged to more than one association. slaves. 24 Rives.” in Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans (ed. 19. Richard N. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Magic. 25 John S. 23. 27 Ascough. Wilson. 3. 1 (2011) Ostia. it fills the gaps left by literary sources and gives us “a view of civic life at ground level as well as from the heights. 2000). 2001). “Collegia and Thiasoi. 142. and Jean Duhaime. “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community Building Language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. “Collegi and Thiasoi: Issues in Function. including Jewish synagogues and ancient societies.29 An association became the “socially constructed replacement for the family. 389.. Building Jewish. for while the members were mainly the urban poor. Glenn Markoe. but they continued to thrive despite sporadic suppression. 118–19. Blasi. 29 Ibid. 1995). associations were declared illegal under various Roman administrations after 184 B.” in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches (ed. Laïla Nehmé. Harland.170 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. CA: Alta Mira. 2002).” in Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions (ed.” in Community Formation in the Early Church and the Church Today (ed. their patrons could be both wealthier and of a higher status group. New York: Cincinnati Art Museum. 34 Participation in these banquets. Gieben. and parading honorific deeds. Queen’s Theological College. honorable) source of social identity.McRae: Eating with Honor 171 ing. The Civic World of the Professional Associations in the Roman East (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17. Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches (Frankfurter althistorische Studien 11.” in Kosmos: Essays in Order. second century C. honors might include attendance at a sacred meal.) and IG II/2. 37 IG II/2. or statue. Kallmünz: Michael Lassleben. Attica. 34 Associations also handed out sportulae.”35 Membership in associations and attendance at their banquets were seen as an acceptable (i. patrons. For officials.E. bestowal of money or honoraria or interest on mortgaged land. third century B.C. and crowning with a gold or olive or floral wreath.32 or special clothing.. 2008). along with elites and municipal institutions. thesis.). 38 Ilias Arnaoutoglou.” or that “there shall be a rivalry among everyone to strive for honor among them. 155. 166– 68. and Community in 32 31 . “The effect of all this was that collegia were presented as respectable organisations.e. which was sometimes adorned with woolen or red ribbons. Ausbüttel. Athens. an increased share of the distributions after sacrifice. used the physical manifestations of the banquet display to further their own social prestige in the competition for membership. elevated members’ personal status as well as the status of their collegia. “The Corinthian Lord’s Supper and the Greco-Roman Banquet” (M. 1369 (Eranos of Liopesi. where wealthy benefactors would present distributions (sportulae) according to a strict hierarchy.. everyone knowing that they will be honored in a way worthy of those who themselves show kindness. McRae. 36 Ibid. For guests at the procession see IDelos 1520. or the privilege of front seats for oneself and one’s guest(s) during the games. 44.S. and political power in their world. appendix B. 28. exemption from all membership fees for a period of time.”37 Members competed for official leadership positions in their associations—positions that would have been denied them in their civic institution. 1982). 55–56. Amsterdam: J. 33 See Rachel M.T. through their membership in their collegia. see Frank M. honors at the annual or monthly banquet such as the privilege of reclining on the couch of honor. because of their rank and status. 24–28. C. Religious Context. Honors were varied:31 erection of a stele. Associations were often included in select public and private banquets.36 Association inscriptions often included the wish that their association “increase by zeal for honor. Klauck. public announcement of the person’s benefaction during the sacrifices and meetings. Conflict. “Between Koinon and Idion: Legal and Social Dimensions of Religious Associations in Ancient Athens.33 Associations. 1997). bust.38 Through these Ascough. Paul’s Macedonian Associations. 35 Onno van Nijf. such as priestly headband or special cloak for the sacred procession and meal.E. as first-level status groups for ambitious members of the plebs that were seen as an integral part of local social hierarchies. 1292 (Cult of Sarapis. 1965). Classical Athens (ed. 84. Paul Millett. Christians as the Romans Saw Them. Eugene. 41 SIG 3. 40 For tamias... archisynagōgos and archōn (president of the Greek association). Paul’s Macedonian Associations. The Common People of Ancient Rome: Studies of Roman Life and Literature (1911. Pauline Schmitt-Pantel. Religious and Voluntary Associations.E. who recognizes that the distinctions are based upon varieties of spiritual power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000).C.C. second century B. but denies that this affects their official standing in the group. “Collective Activities and the Political in the Greek City. and provide a structure for negotiating relationships with the officials of the municipality and the elite. 1998). . no. see IG II/2. We see that there were opportunities for achieving honor within the individual house church in the leadership roles as well. Ausbüttel. The Roman Community at Table during the Principiate (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. and many officials purchased their valuable offices. London: Rivington’s. requiring considerable disbursement of the member’s private funds. IPriene 174 (second century B.40 Lengths of tenure varied. Members pursued status through their roles as prophets. F. 21. in the Year 1880 [Bampton Lectures for 1880. repr. and Sitta von Reden. 119). Donahue. 221–25. 1327. archisynagōgos: IG X/2. Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers. Arnaoutoglou. 1 (2011) positions members were able to exert some measure of control over their collegium. Oxford: Clarendon. archeranistēs: IG II/2. archeranistēs (master of the Greek banquet). “The Tenure of Office of the Quinquennales in the Roman Professional Collegia. 75. Ascough.” 75. 88. First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999]. Frank Frost Abbott. Paul Cartledge. New York: Biblo & Tannen. Wilken. and Apollos and Cephas.). the founder. Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen. Andrew D. “Collegia and Thiasoi. “Between Koinon and Idion. 288. R. leaders and apostles. 55–57. 39 Kloppenborg. in utmost eagerness. They receive wages from the group (1 Cor 3:8).41 Similar to other associations. teachers.” 15. 1009 (Chalcedon. 289. 2112. although often financially onerous. 200–201. and so forth. 35–40. Civic World.C. Paul praises Titus for accepting the job of money collector: “you excel in everything—in faith. 68. repr. 1990). 1881. magister cenarum (master of the Roman banquet). Clarke. in speech.” in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (ed. John F. as he enumerates the official positions in the community: in the top rank are Paul. archōn: IG X/2. Paul too participates in legitimating the ranking system. and in our love for you—so we want you to excel also in this generous undertaking” (2 Cor 8:7).). Halsey Royden. quinquennali: CIL IV. 42 Contra Edwin Hatch (The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight Lectures Delivered before the University of Oxford. 58. 2004).” 27.172 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. epimelētēs: IG X/2. Oswyn Murray and S. 25. van Nijf.). Price.39 Positions such as quinquennalis (president of the Roman collegia). speakers-in-tongues. IPriene 201–2 (Anatolia. epimelētēs (supervisors) and tamias (treasurer) were desirable and highly respected. 1343.” AJP 110 (1989) 303–15.42 In 1 Cor 12:28–30. the Corinthian community encouraged its members to excel.E. first century B. OR: Wipf & Stock. in knowledge. in tension with his usual teachings of equality and mutual servitude. “Greco-Roman Philosophic.E. Ascough. Sardinia.E. Eph 2:19–21. 7473. fourth are those who effected “deeds of power”. IG II/2.45 In addition. and 1521 (Berytos.).). Origins and Method.” 266–67. fourth century C. sanctuaries. and the Roman Empire evidence variations on the banqueting scheme called Totenmahl.E.). IG X/2. DFSJ 31 (Nysa.E.E. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives [CahRB 7. 1520. Cf. third century C.C. McLean comments that “it is instructive to observe that various Christian groups also experimented with their own titles” (“The Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Associations and Early Church Formation. those who contribute their gifts of healing. second century B. “Agrippinilla Inscription. 222 B. allowing poorer members increased access to the economic and political benefits that patrons could offer. first century C. as evidenced by election slogans from Pompeii. 28 (Sardis). 113. referencing CIL IV.). 45 McLean. DFSJ 16 (Teos. DFSJ 33 (first century C.). and seeking honor privately and publicly. I DFSJ 12 (Pergamum). third century C.). 36. 694 (Stobi.” 30 n.”47 That women also participated in the distribution of honor through banquet iconography is seen in funerary monuments. 259). as well.). various kinds of tongues” (12:28). which indicate that associations supported their patrons’ claims to political office. “Collegia and Thiasoi.McRae: Eating with Honor 173 acquire a group following. Teachers are third. similar to other association titles. Prophets are named second. It is apparent that the quest for honor did not end at death but continued beyond the grave. McLean further suggests that this access to patron relationships was manipulated by the Corinthian groups in forming factions. 864.C.).). 46 Kloppenborg. 400 B.” in McLean. such as epimelētēs and gymnasiarch. and banqueting facilities. third century C. third century C.E. Paris: Gabalda.E. 677. 47 IDelos 1519. patrons sometimes benefited politically from this exchange. 1967]) (Olbia.). 1 Cor 12:27–31.).43 Honor was acquired in associations through benefaction. 66.46 Inscriptions on stelae erected to honor individuals repeatedly emphasize that the patron/ess was “well-disposed to the affairs of the gods and the affairs of the synodos with regard to seeking honor.). 710. Phil 1:1. 7164.” 81. fifth. for they build up the community and acquire more honor than those who speak in tongues (14:5).E. DFSJ 15 (Smyrna. 826. wearing tunic and mantle or with his Bradley H. CIL VI. third century C.). Italy). 153 C. 44 Arnaoutoglou.E. 206. A great many grave monuments from classical and archaic Greece. 1301 (Piraeus. Each of these leadership positions has been given a title.E. 21. I DFSJ 11 (Baruch Lifshitz. 43 .E.C. forms of leadership. and build on the foundation laid by Paul (3:10). 743. “Between Koinon and Idion.E. CBP 455 (Phrygia. 7273. 37 (Side. CIJ I. 2343 (Athens. and then appear those who offer “forms of assistance.E.44 Individuals of religious associations benefited from the “kinship” networks established between patrons and sub-elite. 10234 (Rome. 497. fourth century C. 20. etc. IG II/2.E. 259 (Thessalonica. Etruria. Wealthy patrons (of both genders) contributed to the building and upkeep of association meeting halls. 336. in exchange for the “symbolic capital” before gods and fellow citizens that the association could give them. “The basic motif of the Totenmahl consists of a single male figure. DFSJ 13 (Phoceae. 960. 1994). 209. probably facilitated opportunities for patron- 48 Katherine M. where family members feast with the dead on the third. no. 87–88. 25–28. see Jocelyn Penny Small. 688 (Tanagra.). 1. 1 (2011) upper torso bare. Wisconsin Studies in Classics. Paul’s Macedonian Associations.174 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 796 (Apameia. A woman often sits either in a separate chair or on the foot of the couch.). with its fictive kinship. 2006). Values and Status (Princeton: Princeton University Press. either alone or with their husbands. IG VII. “Eat. 2003). Kloppenborg. Hierapolis: An Archaeological Guide (Istanbul: Ege Yaynian Francesco D’Andria. 175 B. but wealthier families occasionally incorporated a small triclinium into the grave. See also PMich. CBP 455 (Phrygia. “Collegia and Thiasoi. D. On the cover of a marble sarcophagus.E. see Francesco D’Andria. 108. 1906–27). Leroux. Paris: E. ninth. Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes (ed.-C. and annually thereafter. R. 12–13. See also Matthew B. Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies. The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du e au IVe siècle avant J.).E. 50 Jean-Marie Dentzer. third century C. . IV. see also Dunbabin. 2003). IHierapP 23. D. 104. there is an inscription dating from the second to the third century C.” in Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria (ed.E. 2000). 687. with its honorable gesture of the crowning of the tomb.C. 1982). Cagnet et al. 49 Women were not portrayed as reclining at Greek banquets. Bithynia). and thirtieth day after death.50 Most of the funeral banquets would have taken place outdoors. Paris/ VII A Rome: École française de Rome. 115–17. recording that Marcus Aurelius Ammianos Menadrianos donated to the guild of flax workers and dealers the sum of 250 denarii for the annual crowning of the tomb of himself.51 If the flax workers are negligent in their performance of the funerary banquet.e.” 54. Ascough. Many argue that the reclining banqueters are enjoying the pleasures of the banquet as the highest point of their lifetimes. V. Martin Millett and Manuela Struck.”48 Etruscan and Roman tomb paintings and reliefs also evidence respectable married women reclining honorably upon a klinē. CIJ 777 (Hierapolis. a servant brings drink. “the structured social relationships in a church such as at Corinth. and Dunbabin.243 and 244. the money shall be taken from them and twice the sum shall be paid to another association. Roller. some suggest an otherworldly banquet. and for the distribution of money to the guild members. “Corinthian Lord’s Supper.49 Recent commentators now recognize three possible interpretations of the Totenmahl. Dexheimer. second century c. and his descendants.” 21–23. the Friends of Weapons. Oxford: Oxbow. his wife. Richard Daniel De Puma and Jocelyn Penny Small. As in other associations. Roman Banquet. For Hierapolis. Roman Banquets. reclining on a couch with a drinking vessel in his hand and a small table in front laden with food.. For respectable women. Drink and Be Merry. “Portrait Figures on Funerary Altars of Roman Liberti in Northern Italy: Romanization or the Assimilation of Attributes Characterizing Higher Social Strata?” in Burial. John Pearce. (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’ thènes et de Rome 246e. Dunbabin. Society and Context in the Roman World (ed. A third interpretation sees the banquet as the celebration of the cult of the dead. 51 McRae. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Boietia. citing Wendy Cotter. Paul attempts to shame the Corinthian community into better treatment of the disadvantaged at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:22). clientelism. 1986).” 269. Paul had warned this particular group to behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one at all (µηδενός). Stephanas is fulsomely complimented: “you know that members of the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia.”53 Paul uses the language of honor to praise the benefactors of the various ekklēsiai. “Agrippinilla Inscription. Phoebe is praised by Paul as deacon and benefactor in the ekklēsia in Cenchreae: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe. these opportunities were open to both women and men. for.” 608. and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints.” 584–99. the three couches and the seating on these three couches were arranged in hierarchical fashion. and expulsion to punish aberrant behavior. Crook. 1 Cor 16:19). Chloe is acknowledged as a leader/benefactor in her ekklēsia: “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you” (1 Cor 1:11). there is nothing countercultural in Paul’s putting women in positions of authority. so give recognition to such persons” (1 Cor 16:15–18). The physical arrangements of place setting and food at the banquet also reinforced the hierarchy of honor and shame. as will be discussed below. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 8-9). who work with me in Christ Jesus. “Women’s Authority Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional?” NovT 36 (1994): 350–72. to whom not only I give thanks. even though he deplored the honor/ shame code. employment and social and political mobility. a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Shame. Prisca and Aquila are honored: “Greet Prisca and Aquila.McRae: Eating with Honor 175 age. Furthermore. that is. in 2 Cor 8:1–15. Paul uses shame to motivate members of the community to contribute to the Jerusalem collection. and of everyone who works and toils with them. 55 See also Moshe Weinfeld. citing it as an honorary religious obligation. for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” (Rom 16:1). and who risked their necks for my life. so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints. The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA 2. “Religious Duty. . and help her in whatever she may require from you. Paul largely deplores the use of the honor/shame code in his communities. I urge you to put yourselves at the service of such people. In his previous letter to the Thessalonians. In the dining triclinia.55 The McLean. “Cotter concludes that when Roman cultural standards are taken as the comparison. 54 Ascough. . “Honor. not even benefactors (1 Thess 4:12). 53 52 . It is here that a certain tension in Paul’s thinking concerning the system of honor and shame is seen in 1 Corinthians and Romans.”52 In addition. but also all the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom 16:3. floggings.54 Whereas some associations used fines. 26 (1QS 6:4. . The traditional hierarchical positioning of the Greco-Roman banquet of both elites and associations was followed by the Corinthian ekklēsia. Studies in the History of Art. 57 56 . 167. Parker. Italy. the more visible he is. 136 c. depending on Greek or Roman custom. Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon. 2112 (Lanuvium.60 At the banquet of the Lord’s Supper also. see IG II/2. CIL XIV. 59 IDelos 1520 and 1521 (second century b. “not many of you were . . Gaius. and Aquila. Oxford: Clarendon.56 Competition was so fierce for honorable positions on the couches—and the status that these positions entailed— that associations.57 The couches. Chloe. not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26). the money collector.e. Oswyn Murray. with food and drink of lesser IDelos 1520. with the honored people seated on more comfortable. teachers. such as ekklēsia patrons Stephanas.” in The Art of Ancient Spectacle (ed. but probably not enough to fill nine places on the couches of the primary triclinium. It would be these people who would be “devouring” their food and drinking to excess (1 Cor 11:21). 1 (2011) place of honor on the primary couch was either in the middle or on one side. and status. In addition.). and the portion and quality of food were determined in a hierarchical fashion. The Romans connected visibility with power—“the more powerful the man. no. as apostles and leaders. would legislate against and prescribe fines for the changing of places by those who competed at the banquet for better seats. They held no leadership position in the group. John D’ rms.”58 Association inscriptions on stelae often record the honoring of a patron or official with the honorary position on the couch. 60 See McRae. the disadvantaged group was composed of those who had no honorable standing in the community. competition can be seen. It is people of little wealth (relative to the elite) or noble birth. “Corinthian Lord’s Supper. Prisca.c. 309. Phoebe. Washington. Places on each couch ranked in descending order in relationship to the honorary guest. Further. according to proximity to and visibility of the honored guest. For example. “The Roman ConA vivium and the Idea of Equality. Titus. power. They were positioned farther from the honored guests and were served later.59 The various triclinia themselves were also ranked in prestige. As in other small voluntary associations.” appendix B. powerful. or prophet and thus were shamed (καταισχύνετε) according to the Corinthian public court of reputation. and healers of the community were honored because of their valued official role. DC: National Gallery of Art. in an attempt to establish some measure of order. such as healer. 1990). were for self-display.).176 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. others of low economic status such as Apollos and Cephas. Paul comments.” in Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (ed. as well as gifts and graces valuable to the community. 1999). . 1368. “The Observed of all Observers. who were honored by seats on the primary couches. especially the honored couch. teacher. 58 Holt N. there may have been one or two who were wealthy and of noble birth. They lacked wealth. well-positioned couches and served first with higher-quality fare. the Iobakchoi.e. and the prophets. 259 (Thessalonica. 24.E. including athletic. and leader61 Claude Grignon. 30605.). 1327 (Piraeus).E.E.).” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 24 (2007): 53–70. IG II/2. first century B. They may have had upward-moving intentions to improve their social identity in the group by seeking leadership or developing charismatic skills in the next year. “Commensality and Social Morphology: An Essay of Typology.).66 Divisions. encouraging this method of “othering. rivals.).E.). third century B. As Claude Grignon observed. 43 C.”61 Criteria for admittance to the group and therefore to the banquet were well defined in the association inscriptions. 66 Robin Lane Fox. ” Drink and Identity: Cooking. first century C.C. artistic. Divisions within the Associations Belonging to a group and dining together tended to encourage factions both within and between groups. SIG 3.E. 157/156 B. IG V/1. 62 See Richard S. or inferiors. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods: A Study Based on Inscriptions from the Current Excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria (Leeds: W.).C. IG II/2. 1106 (Kos. S. 63 IG II/2. “Defining Community-Ethos in Light of the ‘Other’: Recruitment Rhetoric among Greco-Roman Religious Groups.E.”62 Some groups set membership fees. such as the Mystai of Zeus demanded an oath.). as symbols of otherness.E. 223 B. first century C. factions. 670 (Phycos. 1368 (175–76 C. Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (London: Penguin Books. strangers. 261/260 B. 1993). for they received some honor from admittance to the group and the banquet. who exacted a higher admittance payment for those without inheritance rights. enemies.). Peter Scholliers. observed a period of initiation and consecration. IG X/2. 1365. 1291 (Piraeus. while others. appearing in all facets of public life. The agonistic spirit pervaded the culture.E.C. 64 IDelos 1519 and 1521 (second century B.C. Egypt.McRae: Eating with Honor 177 quality and limited quantity.C. It may be that the low-status members considered this treatment acceptable. 2112 (Lanuvium 136 C. 69. IG II/2. PCairo Dem. such as the Andanian mysteries.64 Some associations.6 (Laurion. second century C. Eating and Drinking in Europe since the Middle Ages (ed.).C. PLille Dem.). 985 (Philadelphia.C.). Oxford/New York: Berg.E. 1283 (Piraeus.E.C. in Food. 28–29. V.6 (Tebtunis.E. 1986). Lydia.E.E.65 All associations set behavioral rules and penalties if the rules were broken. IG II/2. CIL XIV. such as the Athenian Iobakchoi. PMich. commensality (banqueting) tends to “approve and express discontinuities that separate human groups” allowing members to “assert or to strengthen a ‘We’ by pointing out and rejecting. Ascough. II. SIG 3. the ‘not We’. second century C.4 (Tebtunis.).). 2001). IG IX/1. 96 B. Maney & Son.63 The cult of Bendis charged lifetime dues. 1390 (Andania.E. 29 (Souchos. Charlotte Roueché.E. .243. 65 IG II/2. as well as recognizing inheritance rights. 300 B. and theatrical events.). 1369 (Athens. superiors.). Craig S. SIG 3. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Uni- 67 . for frequent. Dunn. 1995). 1368. Thiselton.E.67 In Delos.). an inscription forbids any member of the synodos from attempting to subvert the oiling and crowning of the bust. The NSRV translates this: “there have to be factions among you. These groups were engaging in boundary-setting behavior at the expense of their fellow groups in Corinth. 71 See Anthony C. 1368 (Iobakchoi. regular meetings.71 R. for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine [δόκιµοι]. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. 68 IDelos 1523 (second century B. 1012 (Kos. G. Like the Iobakchoi. Richard A. Keener.). he is admitting shock at such a monstrous violation of the unity which he has taught them. second/first century B. Miletus. Association inscriptions from Kos.70 who engraved on their stela. Linton and James D.C. for at the beginning of the letter. IG II/2. “House Church Meetings.E. 857. to undertake the role of the priestess herself.E. PLond. and in Kos impiety was called down upon anyone offering an interpretation concerning the priests of Demeter that violated what was written in the sacred laws on the notice boards. IG II/2. Horsley. 1369 (Athens.C.). First Corinthians (Interpretation. or mock disbelief (rhetorical dissimulatio). Weinfeld.E. 1–2 Corinthians (New Cambridge Bible Commentary. 159. Ben Witherington III. VII. second century B. The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand ” Rapids: Eerdmans.” the individual house-communities proclaim.). 3:4) meaning “our ekklēsia is the best ekklēsia in the city of Corinth and our leader beats your leader!” In 1 Cor 11:17–19 Paul discusses the factions (σχίσµατα) among the people in the Corinthian ekklēsia. 2000).” or “I belong to Paul” (1:12.C. Most scholars interpret Paul’s tone as one of resignation.178 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. and leadership disputes were a problem in the Corinthian community as well.C. 183/182 B.2193. Louisville: John Knox. 70 IG II/2. 1390 (Andania). Organizational Pattern of the Qumran Sect. IG II/2. 1 Corinthians (ANTC. 233. Paul exclaims: “for it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you” (1 Cor 1:11). IKosHerzog 8 (Kos. 69 Linton. 195.). 1998). 35–36 (1QS 7:3–5).C.”69 It seems that there were divisions among these groups. 247.). third century B. and Piraeus are concerned with challenges to the priestess’s authority from would-be priestesses who wished to gather the thiasos together. cf.C. Nashville: Abingdon.E. Dunn speculate that there were as many as six communities of Jesus groups in Corinth. each of which met in the suitably large home of a member. 1998).). 1997). 541. factions.E. Richard B. Hays. Alistair Campbell IMilet VI 22 (Miletus. IG V/1.68 Divisions.E. 1 (2011) ship disputes were a problem. second century C. 276 B. and met less often (weekly? monthly?) in gatherings of “the whole church. “now we are the best of all Bacchic societies. no. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.” It is unclear whether Paul is using the word δόκιµοι in connection with doctrinal attitudes or sociocultural attitudes. or to impose further expenses on the association. “I belong to Apollos. 1328 (Piraeus. and that this is the way the upper-class Corinthian members describe themselves as a method of attaining distinction. it is the animals that are marked as approved by the ten officers: τοῖς δὲ δοκιµασθέντοις σαµεῖον ἐπιβαλόντω οἱ ἱεροί (“let the officers put a marking on the approved animals”).e. 808–9. Stephen G.c. ἀνδρὸς δοκιµωτάτου is “a man very well thought of. 96.C. 1275. Ascough.e. 96 b. 2000). “ Does Paul Acquiesce in Divisions at the Lord’s Supper?” NovT 33 (1991): 69.” as in the regulations of a Piraean eranos from 300 b.). 1297 (Athens. even for a faith commitment. 72 Campbell. 175–77 c.e. who lie about their contributions in order to gain honor with their community (Acts 5:1–11). Graydon F.c. with the sense of “approved by the people.). ∆έδ[οχθαι] τοῖς ἐρανισταῖς ἐπαινέσαι Α[ἰσχυ]λίωνα (“For good fortune. 74 IG II/2.: ἂν δοκεῖ τῶι κοινῶι (whatever “seems appropriate to the association”). A study of association inscriptions offers a somewhat similar usage of the word δοκιµάζω and its cognates.c.c. “The First Letter to the Corinthians.78 This seeking of honor. 237 b. Wilson and Michel Desjardins. 105. IG II/2. 1252 + 999 (Athens.). caused the versity Press. 155. IG XII/3.”72 He points out that the word δόκιµοι is the Corinthians’ word rather than Paul’s.74 The adjectival form describing an appropriate amount of wine appears in Epicteta’s cult-foundation inscription: οἶνον ξενικὸν ἱκανὸν δόκιµον (“enough approved foreign wine”).. “Benefaction Gone Wrong. SIG 3.” or “resolved. Waterloo. 1368 (Athens. 1273 (Piraeus.e.c. IDelos 1521 (166 b.McRae: Eating with Honor 179 offers an important translation: “So that if you please the elite may stand out from the rest.).c.E.73 The verb form occurs also in the regulations of a thiasos of Piraeus in 325 B. Snyder. IG II/2. 330 (Thera. 210 b. 1390 (Andania.c. 78 Richard S. IG II/2. 0867. IDelos 1519 (153 b.c.” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Peter Richardson (ed. 73 IG II/2. 1327 (Piraeus). be it resolved by the association members to commend Aischylion”). 2005). 0867.e.). Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9.” The verb form δοκιµάζω is used in a number of inscriptions to indicate “approved by a vote. 300 b.).c.). Jerome Murphy-O’Connor.75 in a decree concerning the festival of Artemis in Ephesus. The associations use the term frequently. IG II/2.E. IG II/2. 76 SIG 3.e. 75 IG XII/3.c. 281 b. 1201 (Piraeus.e.e. An excessive example of this is seen in the story of Ananias and Sapphira.). See this use of the verb in IG II/2.). 350 b. First Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary (Macon. 210 b. IG II/2. GA: Mercer University Press.”76 In the regulations of the Andanian mysteries of 96 B.: Ἀγαθεῖ Τύχει. 77 IG V/1.e. 330 (Thera. ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.” in NJBC.e.).C. .e.e. 222 b.c. 1992). Paul recognized that approval from the members was the usual method of gaining honor in order to hold a leadership position.). 1291. 1361 (Piraeus.” and I suggest that this is the inference that Paul wants his communities to make: “for only so will it become clear who among you are approved by your association.77 Familiar with association behaviors. judgment of this new form of honor is already appar79 Paul’s teachings to the Corinthians on mutual servanthood are found in 1 Cor 9:19–27. 1 (2011) inevitable divisions or splits. and compare themselves with one another. and power in weakness. and humility. and power. 80 Neyrey. Good deeds or benefaction no longer need to be claimed for due honor. Judgment of honor comes through “the body and blood of the Lord. 18–20. rather than the upward mobility enshrined in the power structures of the GrecoRoman world. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. who represents abundance: “for the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s” (1 Cor 11:26). As Ascough notes. 14:26. Honor comes from God. guidance. 10:31–33.82 Attributive honor now comes with possession of the Holy Spirit. they do not show good sense. “In this matter. The Corinthians’ social identity as individuals and as a group will derive from identification with a group that turns away from the pivotal values of the Mediterranean world. sacrifice. mutual upbuilding in love in 1 Cor 8:1–3. from whom are all things and for whom we exist. 10:16–17.79 It is God who is now the supreme patron and source of all beneficence. 42. Paul recognizes that factions are developing among the Corinthian ekklēsiai because of the cultural honor code. “Benefaction Gone Wrong. through whom are all things. Jesus Christ. . and encouraging strong fictive kinship groups. rather than hierarchy. for their analogies of the new value system to the Acts of the Apostles. where there is a scarcity of honor for each to acquire. 12:12–13:13. and substitutionary atonement: “do not seek your own advantage. for it is enough that God knows. as noted above. “For us there is one God. and one Lord. “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts. no. I do not commend you!” (1 Cor 11:22). The new social identity changes the search for status into recognition of God’s leadership. rather than competition. He states categorically in his letter to the Corinthians. for he comments in 2 Cor 10:12: “But when they measure themselves by one another.” Revealing again a certain tension in his thinking.” 104. but that of the other” (1 Cor 10:24).” Indeed. I am indebted to Malina and Neyrey. The ritual of the Lord’s Supper calls the participants to behavior based on values such as equality. Paul’s countercultural view of the honor system is “‘treasure in heaven’ rather than ‘honor on earth. mutual servitude.” 65. 81 Ascough. teaching the members of the community mutual upbuilding. Paul seeks to overturn the values of the honor and shame code. Honor no longer comes from the acknowledgment of good deeds or benefaction by one’s equals.80 Paul says. 82 In the following paragraph. 16:14. the new code embedded in the banquet reflects Jesus’ ethics of service. and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6). the Father. Distributive honor comes from a life devoted to servitude and compassion for others. and power in weakness (humility) in 1 Cor 1:19–31. Paul deplores this agonistic system of honor and shame. Paul doubts the effectiveness of these proclivities. Although inconsistencies are evident. mutual servanthood.180 Journal of Biblical Literature 130.’”81 In this community. 2:10–16. or wealth. and some have died” (1 Cor 11:27–30). who know no other value system. therefore. humility. Paul rejects the old behaviors pervading the Mediterranean world and encourages new behaviors that reflect the social identity of a follower of Jesus. and those of both genders who are patrons and benefactors. While the dishonored. prophets. eat and drink judgment against themselves. whose memory is forever enshrined in the Lord’s Supper banquet ritual. attributive honor as the gift of the Holy Spirit. and competition. official standing. Those who receive the honor of reclining on the foremost couch. Judgment of honor comes from the body and blood of Jesus Christ. encouraging the teachings of Jesus about equality. For this reason many of you are weak and ill. are the honored officials of the community—those who serve in offices such as healers. underlay all ritual behavior. As befits their honored status within the group. aggrandizement. they are served first with special portions of food and wine. speakers-in-tongues. and distributive honor as a life devoted to servitude and love for others. Conclusion The associations provide much information on how the code of honor and shame. . may intend to improve their low status within the group in the future. and mutuality instead of hierarchy. Although unable to dispense completely with the honor system—as evidenced by his support of patronage and methods of office seeking—Paul changes the value system of the Lord’s Supper to recognize God as the divine patron.McRae: Eating with Honor 181 ent to the group: “for all who eat and drink without discerning the body. III. and treasurers. the Christian identity. The importance of the banquet as a location for awarding honor can be traced even to the Totenmahl iconography of funerary monuments. Paul overturns this value system. Honor was sought through membership and office in a group and was rewarded at the monthly banquet. Paul is creating a new social identity. which was embedded in all facets of the Mediterranean world. Those who occupy the least important couches are those with little status in the group because they lack personal gifts. Paul deplores this use of the honor and shame code at the banquet celebrating the ritual of the Lord’s Supper. 00 Brueggemann turns his critical erudition to those practices— prophecy.com . lament. prayer. children. 9780800697945 320 pp hc $35. in narrative. 9780800697747 120 pp pbk $18. in ritual. faithful imagination. Scripture.THE POWER OF SCHOLARSHIP Hebrew Bible Disruptive Grace The Invention of the Biblical Scholar A Critical Manifesto STEPHEN D. and the Church WALTER BRUEGGEMANN Edited by CAROLYN J.00 At bookstores or call 1-800-328-4648 • fortresspress. 9780800662974 304 pp hc $35. 9780800638610 288 pp hc $35. and a holy economics—that alone may usher in a humane and peaceful future for our cities and our world. in prophetic threat. MOORE and YVONNE SHERWOOD Reflections on God.00 Scholz asks how we may read these androcentric texts to find some redemptive meaning for women. and men who have been injured by sexual violence and by “cultures of rape”. BURNETT Sacred Witness Rape in the Hebrew Bible SUSANNE SCHOLZ Burnett explores themes of divine presence and absence in creation and wisdom thought. and in apocalypse throughout the Hebrew Bible. SHARP Moore and Sherwood provide a thoroughly defamiliarizing and frequently entertaining re–description of this peculiar academic species and its odd disciplinary habitat.00 Where Is God? Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible JOEL S. and David C. no. The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3.” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. and Documents 36. Corruption. the respective studies of Eldon Jay Epp and Bart D. November 21. 1966). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1 (2011): 183–196 The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism juan hernández jr. Ehrman. See Eldon Jay Epp. MN 55112 Contemporary textual critics attend to a variety of pressing questions. 17–76. 1993). and Ephraemi (WUNT 2/218. 1 Recent treatments that track these trends include Eldon Jay Epp. On theological variation. 2008). “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Metzger and Bart D. NJ: Gorgias. 2008. the most recent book-length publications include Juan Hernández Jr. see Hernández. Ehrman. Bart D. 2007). For the application of this approach to the book of Revelation. “Textual Criticism and Theology. Dirk Jongkind. Massachusetts. No longer restricted to the quest for the “original” text of the NT. Paul. “The Apocalypse in Codex Alexandrinus: 183 . Bruce M.2 This article was originally presented as a paper in the New Testament Textual Criticism Section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston. theological variation. Topics like scribal activity. Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.JBL 130.. Ehrman. The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures: The Effect of Early Christian Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Studies.1 current practitioners pursue a number of interrelated issues. and Restoration (4th ed. 2002). 280–99. St. though not the first works of scholarship on this topic. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3/5. David Alan Black.” ExpTim 118 (2007): 583–89. Royse. and the sociohistorical worlds of scribes and their manuscripts are now commonplace in text-critical discussions.. 2 On scribal activity. the nature and scope of the NT canon. James R. j-hernandez@bethel. 2005).edu Bethel University. have been the most influential by far. 2006). Alexandrinus. idem. Scribal Habits and Theological Influences. Piscataway. Parker. ll.” 267–94. 1. Schmidt. Holladay (ed. 10–17 (Rev 3:7).. London: British Library. ll.6 Andrew’s handful of Its Singular Readings and Scribal Habits.3 comments on their theological significance. Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? (TS 3/6. vol. Revelation not infrequently stands in the middle of volumes that have no other biblical content. Munich: K. G.pdf. l. 2006). 2002). Writing at the threshold of the early Byzantine era. Zink.sblsite. 5 Ibid. 3–10 (Rev 22:18–19). 1–4 (Rev 15:6). Metzger.4 and condemns scribes who atticize the Greek manuscripts of the Bible. NJ: Gorgias. Power. Houghton and D. Peabody. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.” 469–84. On the sociohistorical worlds of scribes. See also Robert A. The Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament was also devoted to this topic: see H.184 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Questionis. no. 2005). Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. Gamble. . see Kim Haines-Eitzen.org/ assets/pdfs/2008_SessionGuide_FriSat. On the nature and scope of the New Testament canon. On manuscripts. 3 Josef Schmid. NovTSup 129. Leiden: Brill.” in Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays. O’Day. Historische Abteilung 1. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisarea (Münchener theologische Studien 1.” The significance of this phenomenon remains to be explored. 2007). ll. Sanders. 229–33.” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. in the same volume. Harry Y. 161. “The Future of New Testament Textual Studies. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Piscataway. 38. and idem. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. and. Hurtado. 19 and 162.” in The Canon Debate (ed. “A Scribal Solution to a Problematic Measurement in the Apocalypse. see Larry W. and Daryl D. . MA: Hendrickson. see Eldon Jay Epp.” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. 1962–2004 (NovTSup 116. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2008). Patrick Gray and Gail R. A. With respect to the book of Revelation and its appearance among noncanonical works.5 Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse appears to reflect the same integration of issues that characterizes contemporary text-critical research. 1 (2011) The definition of what a textual critic is (and does) has been broadened to include the pursuit of questions once considered peripheral to the discipline. 6 The titles of papers presented in the New Testament Textual Criticism Section during the SBL meeting in Boston in 2008 clearly showcase this increased integration: http://www. Andrew of Caesarea displays an awareness of competing variants.” NTS 56 (2010): 273–78. 262. “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon. Metzger observed that “[o]ne of the unusual and often overlooked features of a considerable number of manuscripts of the book of Revelation is the presence of other texts of a miscellaneous character. 2003). These questions are not new. . and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4 Ibid. Scot McKendrick and Orlaith O’Sullivan. 595–639. 2002). Guardians of Letters: Literacy. albeit from the perspective of the seventh century. See Bruce M. Parker. Kraft. 349–52. Parker. C. 205. “The Greek New Testament as a Codex. Several of the manuscripts that contain Revelation are the quires containing Revelation taken out of the middle of some general theological book. 2008). and David C. . 1955). “The Codex and Canon Consciousness. 1932). Father Seraphim Rose. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Byzantinische Reichseschatologie: Die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in den vier Grossreichen 8 7 . CA: St. Another work that offers a number of quotations of Andrew of Caesarea is Averky Taushev. History of Research Little is known about Andrew of Caesarea or his commentary today. Many works of late antiquity and the early Byzantine period share this fate. The challenge of dealing with an untranslated. I. 10 These include Otto Bardenhewer. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.8 Portions of the work are available in English. This lacuna is soon to be filled by Eugenia Constantinou’s forthcoming translation of Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary for The Fathers of the Church Series (Washington. Despite the availability of Josef Schmid’s critical edition of Andrew’s Greek text. 5. Munich: Beck. 1995). 2005). treatments of the archbishop’s work are also brief and offer only a sampling of what can be learned from the commentary. Gerhard Podskalsky. most of Andrew’s commentary still remains without translation. can discourage even the most daring scholars. With the exception of Schmid’s monograph. but a full rendering of the nearly three-hundred-page commentary has yet to be published—a critical first step for understanding any ancient work. 3 above. appearing mostly in dated studies. DC: Catholic University of America Press). as Weinrich’s volume also covers a litany of additional commentaries on Revelation and has had to limit what can be included. Weinrich. Andrew’s assessment of textual variation confounds modern sensibilities. Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12. IL: InterVarsity. Downers Grove. Hans-Georg Beck. No modern translation of Andrew’s commentary exists in any language today. In particular. The Apocalypse in the Teachings of Ancient Christianity (trans. 1959). Revelation (ACCS 12. 9 Substantial translated portions of Andrew’s commentary are found in William C. coupled with Schmid’s daunting text-critical apparatus for Andrew’s commentary. However. 102–5.Hernández: The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 185 text-critical exempla speaks directly to a discipline that probes the relevance of scribal activity and challenges contemporary assumptions about its significance. Platina. Andrew embraces textual variants that produce a semantic difference in the reading of the Apocalypse and excoriates scribes who make stylistic changes. 418–19. Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse offers a distinctively Byzantine appraisal of variants that enriches our understanding of textual variation and contributes to current discussions about its significance for textual criticism.9 The lack of a full translation is only one problem.7 scholarship in this area has stalled for six decades. Most of the available research remains inaccessible to the broader community of scholars. vol.10 The Apocalypse’s putative status as an eschatological work See n. This état des choses. Die letzte Period der altkirchlichen Literatur mit Einschluss des ältesten armenischen Schrifttums (Freiburg: Herder. early Byzantine text is a major factor. Gray. 2003). however. R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 198–200.13 Andrew divides his commentary into twenty-four “discourses” (λόγοι). 20). See further Hernández. ll. The practice appears to stem from a commitment to the various senses of Scripture characteristic of Byzantine-era writers. spanning the years 563–614. and Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli. Leuven: Peeters. . Michael Maas. MA: Hendrickson. ll. Peabody. 1972). WUNT. 11 In fact. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. see Patrick T. Andrew will often reject a particular interpretation proffered by Oecumenius on the grounds that it violates the “literal” sense of Scripture. Munich: W. cf. Brian E. “The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and Their Significance. began as the age of Justinian (d. taken at face value. the effects of the previous era’s christological debates—epitomized in the Council of Chalcedon—were still being felt and made their way into the commentary. and Franz Tóth. O’Connell. Oecumenii commentarius in Apocalypsin [Traditio exegetica Graeca 8. 1 (2011) presents another challenge. Andrew’s espousal of multiple meanings is evident also in his use of Oecumenius’s commentary. 565) drew to a close. The dictates of Chalcedon provide the parameters for the various senses of Scripture. 1999]. 196–99). 2. resulting in seventy-two sec- (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem tausendjährigen Friedensreiche (Apok.186 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. 91. MA: Hendrickson. Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Münchener Universitäts-Schriften. Form.12 Andrew’s occasional remarks on the text appear to reveal more about early Byzantine attitudes toward the Bible than about his actual text-critical practices.” in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte – Konzepte – Rezeption (ed. At the time he lived. the opening prologue indicates that the commentary was written in response to questions generated by the seventh-century context of the readers. 2005). Daley. 2011). James A. Andrew’s commentary is often mined for information about “the world to come. and Andrew’s assessment of textual variation in light of his broader hermeneutical approach to Scripture will occupy the discussion here. which are then subdivided into three “heads” (κεφάλαια). Structure. Jörg Frey.” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (ed. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History. fails to do justice to the commentary’s standing as an exemplar of early Byzantine practices. We know that he was the archbishop of Caesarea Cappadocia (Kayseri in modern-day Turkey) and that his administration. “Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation: Catechesis and Paraenesis. 12 Among these were concerns over monophysitism and Origenism. 198–200. The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Peabody. For a full discussion of Chalcedon and its aftereffects. Fink. 143. 2005). From the Council of Nicea to the Beginnings of the Medieval Period (trans.. and Hermeneutic of the Commentary We know very little about Andrew. no. Reihe der Philosophischen Fakultät 9. but then accept it (or part of it) under another level of meaning (Schmid. vol.” Such a narrow focus. Andrew prefers to explore the interpretive possibilities of multiple textual data rather than restore the original wording of the text.11 Other aspects of the work require attention. Kelhoffer. ed. 215–38. 13–14. Marc de Groote. 13 As will be evident below. Matthew J. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. II. 86–88. 21 Schmid identifies these throughout the apparatus of the commentary.15 Origen’s anthropological model for interpreting Scripture appears to be the inspiration for Andrew’s tripartite segmentation: [J]ust as there are three parts to man. 8. Andrew alludes to a story about Simon Magus and Peter in his comments on Rev 13:17. which are about the most venerable things to come. 17 This much is clear from the sporadic application of the various modes of reading from section to section in the commentary. Epiphanius.14 Each of the λόγοι concludes with a doxology. 10. Origen. 16 and 16. 20 These are identified at the beginning of the work and show up throughout the commentary. For example. 18 Perhaps the most obvious example of this is where the seven letters to the churches of Asia Minor fall within the commentary’s larger literary structure. 9–12.20 Some of their remarks have survived only in Andrew’s commentary. Hippolytus of Rome.19 Predictably. which guides the reader to what the mind can perceive. Nonetheless. 15. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. The anagogical and contemplative senses. 4. however.21 Andrew prefixes the labels Ibid. they are unevenly spread out over three λόγοι in an attempt to accommodate their content to the commentary’s repetitive tripartite structure (Schmid. The literal and historical senses are a kind of body. canonical and noncanonical. See Schmid. 4–7. I have spotted an occasional error. 17–22 (my translation). important patristic figures also appear. such as Andrew’s quotation of a lost writing by Epiphanius. 19 Schmid offers a helpful appendix identifying the “nichtbiblischen Autoren und Parallelen” in Andrew’s commentary (Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. Andrew’s use of sources also merits attention. 275). 11–46). 144. [so] every God-breathed Scripture has been given three parts by Divine Grace. Cf. and Cyril of Alexandria are prominent. needs to be checked against available sources. Gregory of Nazianzus. ll. Ibid.16 Andrew’s stated hermeneutical ideal is not applied with rigor or consistency in the work.Hernández: The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 187 tions in the work. ll. 16 Ibid.. appear as the spirit. Justin Martyr.17 Andrew’s partitioning of Revelation into seventy-two sections is also problematic. and bowls—to name only a few more items forced into Andrew’s Procrustean bed. Each reference. See the apparatus in Schmid. Schmid wrongly identifies the source as the Acts of Pilate. 15 14 . Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. 1–3. is akin to a soul. 10. Andrew’s commentary alludes to a variety of works. l. it obfuscates (if not violates) the natural divisions of the work. trumpets. See Schmid. Rather than grouped together.18 The form and structure of Andrew’s commentary appear to have been constructed in spite of the Apocalypse. The figurative sense. ll. The correct source is the Acts of Peter 28. ll.. Irenaeus. The same occurs with the sequence of seals. Andrew derives the number twenty-four from the number of elders before God’s throne. Princ.4–9. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. What can be characterized as “clockwork” is Andrew’s arbitrary appeal to various modes of reading as necessary. Andrew’s statement about the nature of Scripture and a quasi-Origenic mode of exegesis can shed light on his handling of textual variants.2. Hope of the Early Church. Andrew makes no mention of Oecumenius’s commentary on the Apocalypse—a major sixth-century work that exerted an important and demonstrable influence on Andrew. 6–13. ὁ µακάριος. we should regard the characteristics of Scripture as more trustworthy and venerable than Attic compositions and dialectical arguments. This.” See Hernández. Therefore.188 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. lest we add or subtract anything. ll. 23 22 . (See John N. 3–10 (my translation). Oecumenius. important literary sources would have been quite common in both ancient and early Byzantine literary contexts. ll. Commenting on the anathema uttered against those who would tamper with the text of the Apocalypse. and subject matter of the former give strong evidence of borrowing from the latter. he is referred to the trustworthiness of their poets and authors. Washington. or ὁ θεῖος to the names of the fathers. 10. Although Andrew’s true motives are not explicit. the full significance of Andrew’s appropriation of Oecumenius’s language has yet to be examined fully. Oecumenii commentarius..25 Ibid. [John] warns us who hear. 198). 337–42. The clearest statement about scribal activity appears at the end of the commentary. and Daley.” 25 Schmid. often without veering from his exemplar in style or content. 262. however. syntax. “Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation. showing his high regard for them and reflecting an early Byzantine protocol.23 Andrew draws obsessively from Oecumenius. For a full listing of these parallels see de Groote. Instead.22 Ironically (perhaps even cynically). The strategic differences between the two commentaries appear to indicate that Andrew sought to supplant Oecumenius’s work by bringing it into greater conformity with his understanding of “Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Given the high incidence of textual interplay between the two works. For even among these. no. 1 (2011) ὁ µέγας. 9–12. Suggit. to keep us from suffering. 24 Although the practice of “taking over” the language of well-known. for their recklessness is bold indeed. we can speculate that he was offering an alternative to Oecumenius’s perceived monophysitism and Origenist speculations. Commentary on the Apocalypse [FC 112. DC: Catholic University of America Press. Andrew writes: Dreadful is the curse upon those who counterfeit the divine words. it may not be far-fetched to see Andrew’s commentary as a µίµησις of Oecumenius’s commentary. Andrew’s commentary mirrors Oecumenius’s commentary in at least 235 sections where the diction. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. 2006]. capable of depriving the arrogant of the blessings of the coming age. must also be examined and substantiated in a comprehensive manner. should anyone find anything that is contrary to the rules (µὴ κανονιζόµενα). except in theologically strategic locations. Scribal Activity according to Andrew of Caesarea: Claims of Atticizing Andrew’s words provide the point of departure for his views on textual variation.24 III. see G. 29 For the view that scribal atticizing should be a major consideration for the creation of textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the NT. Mussner. a cognate of κανών and a term used often for grammatical or literary standards. 27 Averil Cameron.26 Second. 57–74. “The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: An Evaluation. 26 . Kuss. See LSJ. and Cameron’s Procopius and the Sixth Century (Transformations of the Classical Heritage 10.27 Procopius.” NovT 15 (1973): 298– 99. 43. or does the charge extend to the rest of the NT. If one can defer to gifted mortals on matters of style and diction. Regensburg: Pustet. The NT’s Greek manuscript tradition bears traces of atticizing. 33–46. how much more so the divine author of Scripture? Andrew’s statement raises a number of questions. 1970). the dual number. Are Andrew’s remarks about atticizing based on firsthand observation? If so. Blinzler. uses a classicizing Greek style that was far removed from daily speech. the Apocalypse. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. is he referring only to the Apocalypse.” ETL 53 (1977): 107–12. J. Andrew avers. 1963). he attempts to discourage such scribal activity in two ways: by anathematizing scribes who make Attic changes to the text and by insisting that even great literary works have their stylistic infelicities. The short answer is yes and no. and F. K. “Eclecticism and Atticism. presumably on the basis of known literary works or Attic manuals. In cases of literary inelegance. containing archaic features such as the optative mood.29 Moreover. First. The reader must examine the nature of his claim. idem. one trusts the poets and authors. “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament. Agathias (Oxford: Clarendon. such as might occur at the end of a book? Andrew discloses neither the location nor the extent of the putative atticizing. he claims that scribes are atticizing the biblical text. Whether scribes (as opposed to authors) were atticizing to the degree Andrew’s statement implies is another question.Hernández: The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 189 Andrew’s commentary reveals a number of things. O. for example. J. D. 875. yet they are neither as systematic nor as comprehensive as was once claimed. Elliott.” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Prof. 1985). 125–37. 28 Cameron. Sixth-century writers such as Procopius and Agathias engaged in the “imitation” (µίµησις) of classical authors. Josef Schmid zum 70. Procopius and the Sixth Century. perhaps even the LXX? Or is the statement a mere rhetorical flourish.28 Andrew’s countercultural barb against atticizing would have rung true— at least rhetorically. and Andrew That atticizing was a common literary practice during the early Byzantine period is well attested. IV. Geburtstag (ed. and a litany of Attic terms. the scribal tendency to atticize is only one of several This appears to be the force of κανονιζόµενα. Kilpatrick. Atticizing in the Early Byzantine World. σαλπικτῶν is attested in MS 2059.2048. Colwell. Die Ekloge des Phrynichos (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 1.1876.336. ἔµελλον ἀποθανεῖν is attested in MSS ) A C 1854. scribal activity here appears to be mixed. the Apocalypse contains only eighteen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ecloge 6: Μέχρις καὶ ἄχρις σῦν τῷ σ ἀδόκιµα. see 025.628.792.34 The noun σάκκος. Nida (ed.935. C. 1969). 37 Phrynichus. 151–55. C. 2033. then here too the results are mixed.”33 is changed to ἄχρι in only a few places.31 and ask whether the scribes of the Apocalypse32 atticized in a manner that reflects the booklet’s concerns.39 Again. See H. 40 In Rev 18:22. G.325. 33 Phrynichus. which Phrynichus dubbed “spurious. Ἀττικοὶ δὲ δι’ ἑνός.190 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. others change it. Changes are made in few manuscripts. µέχρι δὲ καὶ ἄχρι λέγε. Ecloge 162: Σαλπικτὴς τὸ δόκιµον διὰ τοῦ κ.456. Commentaries and Fathers. but even in those cases where an Attic switch is all but 30 Other explanations include a tendency to harmonize or to alter the Greek toward the Septuagint. The preposition ἄχρις.2329. ἄχρι is attested in the following MSS: ) C 1611. NovTSup 44. most of the terms considered non-Attic by Phrynichus are never changed to the preferred Attic term by the scribes of the Apocalypse. 1929). 154–55. Leiden: Brill. οὐχὶ δὲ διὰ τοῦ σ. Ecloge 313. 38 In Rev 3:2.2351 pc. 1974).2256. “Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism—Which?” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Phrynichus also calls the use of σαλπικτής “approved” Attic over against the form σαλπιστής.2329. Some manuscripts retain the aorist infinitive. no. 34 In Rev 2:25. and then only in some manuscripts. C. Fee.38 Finally. J. such as Phrynichus’s Ecloge.” in idem.627.2033. 31 Eitel Fischer.680.30 If we consult one of the wellknown Attic manuals. “Eclecticism and Atticism in the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. Ecloge 225: Σάκκος ∆ωρεῖς διὰ τῶν δύο κκ. M. 35 Phrynichus. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9. preferring a construction with the present infinitive ποιεῖν. and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. which is deemed “Doric” by Phrynichus.2082.2043. Smalley.36 Phrynichus also rejects the use of the imperfect ἔµελλον with the aorist infinitive ποιῆσαι. σάκος is attested in the following MSS: 175. 39 Phrynichus. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. 36 In Rev 6:12. as proper Attic. D. 32 “Scribes of the Apocalypse” refers to any scribes responsible for transcribing the work in the manuscript tradition throughout its transmission history.40 In short. Of the eighteen. A Complete Conspectus of All Authorities (2 vols.37 If Phrynichus means that an aorist infinitive should never follow the imperfect ἔµελλον. ἔµελλον ἐποθνῄσκειν pc. “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program. The Hague: Mouton. Martini. Culture. ed. See E. 1976). together with the Testimony of Versions. Elliott.(2351) MAlatt h sa.459. Matthew Black and William A. the results are negligible.2053. Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations sy of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition. 1 (2011) explanations for the creation of textual variants. London: Bernard Quaritch. for σάκους in Rev 11:3. Of the 424 non-Attic terms banned by Phrynichus.. Approaches to Semiotics 56. Leiden: Brill. only four appear to be changed from a non-Attic to an Attic term. K. 1974). Hoskier.517. 2:92. . 184–91.2050.2053.35 drops the additional κ in only a handful of manuscripts.” in On Language. have not been found so far within the Apocalypse’s manuscript tradition. as the quotation appears to indicate.45 41 To this we might add the observation that some of Phrynichus’s preferred Attic expressions involve a change to a completely different word or phrase. the wholesale insertion of different words or phrases appears to be far less common.41 A comprehensive examination of scribal habits in each manuscript of the Apocalypse (presumably on the basis of singular readings) is necessary to substantiate such a claim. While switches in consonants or vowels are routine in the text of the NT.42 Phrynichus would not have been the only available standard for atticizing in the early Byzantine world. Phrynichus is a good place to start. Rotolo.” 125–37.rather than -σσ-. 42 Hernández. Had atticizing been as prevailing a trend as charged. UK: Variorum Reprints. Language and Literacy in the Byzantine World [Northampton.43 Moreover. 357–58. Leiden: Brill. Scribal Habits and Theological Influences. perhaps we might have expected to see more disruptive alterations to the text. Royse. we cannot detect a tendency to atticize. 614. Andrew registers his complaint against atticizing by atticizing. an unapologetically Attic term.” in idem. predisposed to faithfully copying his exemplar. we might question the degree to which a scribe. such as that the suggestion that µεγιστᾶνες be rendered µέγα δυναµένους (Ecloge 170). Andrew’s commentary exhibits its fair share of Attic style and diction. 397–98. Alexandrinus. A History of the Greek Language: From Its Origins to the Present (trans. 108).Hernández: The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 191 certain. Given the available text-critical studies on the atticizing tendencies of NT scribes. Sinaiticus. even if largely rhetorical. 44 Ibid. History. Andrew gives no indication of his own sources for proper Attic Greek—other than his allusion to the κανονιζόµενα (“the rules”). Nonetheless. 131. 544. See also Francisco Rodríguez Adrados. 82–86. Robert Browning’s assessment to that effect is applicable here: “The Hochsprache was firmly established as the proper medium for all important or dignified communication. and Ephraemi have uncovered no such pervasive tendency. Further. “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament. however. Such a distinction appears to have had its roots in the complex linguistic heritage left to the Byzantine world by the fathers of late antiquity.44 Finally. It appears that Andrew’s condemnation of atticizing scribes is a perfect example of the former. would have been at liberty to make more dramatic and disruptive changes. he draws a sharp distinction between his use of Attic Greek in the commentary and the inappropriate atticizing of the Greek text of the Apocalypse by scribes. 150–55. However. 226–28. see Kilpatrick. Typical of the literary conventions of the early Byzantine period. 45 Note Andrew’s Attic spelling of παραχαράττοντες with -ττ. 120–23. Ironically. So far. Scribal Habits in the Early Greek New Testament Papyri. 2005). He libels the scribes. Andrew’s charge may be overblown. One can imagine the literati of the period consulting a variety of works. Such wholesale changes for the sake of an Attic expression. 1989]. 43 For a useful summary of available Attic writers and manuals. V. “The . 704. studies of the text of Revelation in p47. 197. But at the same time an undercurrent of rejection of the literary tongue was associated with a certain powerful manifestation of popular piety” (“The Language of Byzantine Literature. labeling them παραχαράττοντες (“counterfeiters”). though it is attested. Phrynichus’s own qualifications as an expert “atticizer” have been called into question. Francisca Rojas del Canto. however.47 Our critical editions have therefore opted correctly for “key of David. are genitive and do not alter the meaning of the text. But in some copies [τισιν τῶν ἀντίγραφων] instead of “of David. 2050 pc.-F. Both. the angels are clothed with “pure bright linen” (λίνον καθαρὸν Fortunes of Ancient Greek in the Middle Ages. or even the priority of readings. no. Andrew bypasses any discussion of scribal activity. His treatment of these variants contrasts markedly with the ire reserved for atticizing scribes.” “of Hades” is written. 10–17 (my translation). Der Apokalypse-Kommentar. Andrew and Revelation 3:7 Andrew identifies two concrete examples of textual variation that make a discernible difference in the reading of the Apocalypse. Christidis.” A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (ed. A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The first variation appears in his commentary on Rev 3:7. through whom the treasures of knowledge are opened. Andrew’s chief concern is with the corruption of Chalcedonian Christology. 38. have Jesus carrying the “key of Hades. the authority of life and death is confirmed in Christ through the key of Hades. thus. 47 There are actually two variants here: one with the article and one without. textual corruption. VI. which is without beginning. the Holy Spirit is also the key of the book of Psalms and of every prophecy.49 Faced with a genuine textual variant. however. he offers a theological commentary on the variant reading. He comments: [Christ’s] kingdom has been called “the key of David” for this is a symbol of authority. The textual variant serves as an opportunity to reaffirm Christ’s authority over life and death. and the second.192 Journal of Biblical Literature 130. [Christ] receives the first key according to his humanity. Andrew’s Greek text of the Apocalypse states that Jesus carries the “key of David. The first is ∆αυίδ A C 1611.”48 The variant probably arose as a scribal harmonization toward Rev 1:18. 1 (2011) V. 2007). 1225–40. None of his alarm over scribal tampering surfaces in a clear and acknowledged case of textual corruption. Moreover. ll. 48 UBS4 and NA27.” Andrew is aware of both the variant (preserved in “some copies”) and its theological utility.”46 The former reading finds support among the earliest and best witnesses of the Apocalypse’s manuscripts. the second is τοῦ ∆αυίδ ) M Or.1854. . In this passage. 2053.” Some manuscripts.2329 pc. 46 τοῦ ᾅδου. 49 Schmid. Andrew and Revelation 15:6 Andrew’s handling of the textual variant in Rev 15:6 reflects a similar tendency. where Jesus holds the keys of death and “Hades. Instead. according to his deity. Hernández: The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 193 λαµπρόν). Some manuscripts, however, read λίθον instead of λίνον, so that the angels are clothed with a pure bright “stone.” Unlike the variant in 3:7, this one is not so easily dismissed. Support for the variant includes some important witnesses,50 including Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, and Oecumenius.51 Moreover, λίθον is clearly the more difficult reading. One can easily see how λίνον arose as a replacement for λίθον, but not the opposite. Yet it appears that for the editors of the critical editions of the Greek NT the lectio difficilior is so difficult that it borders on nonsense and is therefore rejected as a corruption of λίνον.52 Setting aside the question of the “original,” we note that Andrew’s text also agrees with our modern critical editions and that—as with 3:7—he is equally aware of the variant and its theological utility. He writes: “Out of this temple the angels . . . go out clothed in either ‘linen’ or ‘stone,’ just as some of the copies [τινα τῶν ἀντίγραφων] contain.” Andrew then incorporates both readings into his commentary, explaining that the angels are so clothed, “because of the absolute purity of their nature [reflecting καθαρόν]; their nearness to Christ the cornerstone [reflecting the variant λίθον]; and the brightness of their virtue [reflecting λαµπρόν].”53 As in Rev 3:7, Andrew forgoes a decision that privileges one reading over another and offers a theological exposition of both. Andrew’s modus operandi is not altogether different from the text-critical method of Origen, who occasionally accepted and commented on multiple readings.54 Christ’s identity as the “cornerstone” (ἀκρογωνιαῖον) provides an additional incentive both to accept and to comment on the variant.55 The reading appeared to be sanctioned by Scripture.56 λίθον A C 2053.2062 pc vg sy. The importance of these witnesses for the Apocalypse cannot be overstated. According to Schmid, the combined attestation of AC surpasses the value of all other witnesses and stands nearer to the original than all other text-types. The text of Oecumenius’s commentary is virtually identical with these two witnesses: “AC, womit der Text des Oikumenios im ganzen identisch (und die Vulgata nahe verwandt) ist, überragen an Zeugenwert alle übrigen Textformen. An einer erheblichen Zahl von Stellen haben AC allein den Urtext bewahrt. Ihr überragender Zeugenwert beruht darauf, dass ihr gemeinsamer Text bewusste Korrekturen überhaput kaum enthält. Insofern steht dieser Text dem Urtext näher als alle anderen Textformen” (Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, vol. 2, Die alten Stämme [Münchener theologische Studien 1, Historische Abteilung Ergänzungsband 1; Munich: K. Zink, 1956], 147). 52 As stated by Metzger, speaking on behalf of editors of the United Bible Societies fourth revised edition of the Greek New Testament, “[It] makes no sense” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1994], 680). 53 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 161, l. 19 and 162, ll. 1–4 (my translation). 54 See Bruce M. Metzger, “Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in the New Testament Manuscripts,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 88–103. 55 See Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:6 actually has λίθον and ἀκρογωνιαῖον in apposition. 56 Oecumenius makes the same connection in his commentary, so he, rather than Andrew, appears to be ultimately responsible for the link. The difference is that Oecumenius is commenting on his text, whereas Andrew comments on a variant. See Suggit, Oecumenius, 136. 50 51 194 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) VII. Andrew and Revelation 1:5: A Possible Variant? One final example of textual variation requires consideration. In the opening doxology of Rev 1:5, praise is directed toward “the one who loves us and released [λύσαντι] us from our sins.” Some manuscripts, however, read “washed” (λούσαντι) us from our sins.57 A scribal inability to distinguish between the pronunciations of the two is blamed for the textual corruption.58 Andrew does not mention a textual variant in his comments. His wordplay, however, is suggestive and may indicate a familiarity with the variant. Andrew writes: “Glory is appropriate to the one who ‘released’ us [λύσαντι] from the chains of death . . . and ‘washed’ us [λούσαντι] from our blemishes of sin.”59 Andrew appears to do here what he has done with the textual variants of 3:7 and 15:6: co-opt competing readings into his theological commentary. The only difference is that Andrew makes no mention of a particular variant in 1:5. Our knowledge of the Apocalypse’s textual tradition, coupled with Andrew’s identical expository practices elsewhere, leads us to suspect that he is aware of its presence. Andrew’s knowledge of the variant appears almost certain when one considers his close reading of Oecumenius’s commentary. Oecumenius’s text of the Apocalypse reads “washed” (λούσαντι), the very word Andrew juxtaposes with “releasing” (λύσαντι).60 VIII. Conclusion Andrew’s text-critical practices offer every indication that he did not operate with the same assumptions or concerns as traditional textual criticism.61 His identification, discussion, and acceptance of multiple textual variants contrast markedly with his blistering criticism of scribes who atticize the Scriptures. Attic changes would have produced no semantic difference to the text; yet, for Andrew, these posed the greater threat. The commentary’s postscript heightens the irony. At the conclusion of Andrew’s commentary, an anonymous editor raises concerns over the circulation of multiple versions of Andrew’s work. Andrew had apparently lost 57 λύσαντι p18 ) A C 1611.2050.2329.2351 MA h sy; Prim; λούσαντι P 1006.1841.1854. 2053.2062 MK lat bo. 58 Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 255. 59 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 16, ll. 8–9 (my translation). 60 Oecumenius also speaks of “washing” and “releasing” in his commentary, but he employs different words and refrains from Andrew’s evocative wordplay. Commenting on his text of Rev 1:5, which contains “washed” (λούσαντι), Oecumenius speaks of the one who “set us free from our transgressions” (τοῦ γὰρ ἀποπλῦναι ἡµῶν τὰς ἁµαρτίας). 61 Traditional textual criticism is concerned with the restoration of the “original” or “earliest attainable” text of the NT and tracing its transmission history. Hernández: The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 195 some drafts in his possession and found it necessary to restore the original wording from memory. The final compiler now frets over the inevitable discrepancies that have resulted, but assures readers that the “meaning remains the same” (τῆς διανοίας τῆς αὐτῆς).62 The redactor’s final remarks shed light on the vicissitudes of textual transmission in late antiquity.63 They also shed additional light on Andrew’s text-critical practices. Andrew restored the wording of his commentary when necessary; he did not restore the wording of the Apocalypse when he had the chance. Textual variation was an opportunity to comment on the theological significance of multiple readings. Andrew’s handling of variants also contributes to the discipline’s discussion of textual variation. Textual critics are often elated when a significant textual variant is uncovered, especially if it can be conscripted into a greater cause. These often serve as “windows” into another time and place, when things were still in flux and presumably being fought over.64 Andrew’s text-critical practices indicate, however, that what fascinates us may not be what held the attention of the ancients. We find meaning in textual variation and imagine the communities that would espouse or even create such variants. We imagine scenarios of bitter battles over orthodoxy. But with Andrew, textual variation appears to have been an opportunity to certify what was already known to be “true” for an early Byzantine bishop. The potential threat of a textual difference was easily mitigated by appeals to Origenic modes of exegesis, the sayings of the fathers, and the dictates of Chalcedon. Even Andrew’s complaint about “atticizing scribes” appears to say more about perceived cultural pretension than about the text of the NT or attested scribal practices. In short, Andrew’s discussion of variants challenges contemporary assumptions about the significance of textual variation and offers an alternative model for understanding the appropriation of the NT. Multiple textual data were not a problem to be solved; they were opportunities for exploring a variety of interpretive possibilities, facilitated by the various senses of Scripture. IX. Further Study The full text-critical relevance of Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Apocalypse remains to be explored. Additional areas in need of study include Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 267, l. 15. See Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995); and Markus Mülke, Der Autor und sein Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 93; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008). 64 Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 361–79. 63 62 196 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011) Andrew’s citations of the NT and the LXX,65 his use of patristic sources, and the origin and character of the Andrew “recension.”66 None of these items has received attention since the publication of Schmid’s monograph in the 1950s. With this brief examination of Andrew’s assessment of textual variation, however, we continue our advance beyond the discipline’s traditional boundaries and probe the appropriation of the Scriptures by various communities of faith that lie beyond the first few centuries of early Christian expansion—a task for which NT textual criticism is primed. Today there is an entire series, The Text of the New Testament in the Greek Fathers (currently under the editorship of Michael W. Holmes), devoted to the study of NT citations in patristic literature, using methods pioneered by Gordon D. Fee and Bart D. Ehrman. Schmid’s work with its proliferation of citations would appear to be an ideal candidate for such a study. 66 E. C. Colwell issued a call for a reexamination of Schmid’s characterization of the Andrew “recension” over six decades ago. In his sixth conclusion, Schmid argued that the Andreas and Byzantine text-types are not revised forms of the two earlier text-types (p47-Sinaiticus and AC Oec) but revisions of older texts equal in antiquity. Colwell counters, however, that all Schmid has really shown is that the Andreas and Byzantine text-types are not “entirely” derived from earlier ones. Moreover, Colwell notes that some of Schmid’s evidence for the relationship between the fourth-century corrector of Sinaiticus and the Andreas text depends on the prior conclusions of Bousset’s study (Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament [TU 2/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894])— an earlier work that (at Colwell’s time) had not been reviewed in light of current understandings of the history of text-types. In addition to this, Colwell calls for clarification of what Schmid means by “revised forms” of early text-types in the case of the Andreas and Byzantine text-types. As for Schmid’s seventh conclusion—that a stemma of text-types cannot be made, Colwell thinks that this indeed can be done with the evidence Schmid has provided, “at least in large outlines.” See E. C. Colwell, “Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts,” in idem, Studies in Methodology, 45–55. Exactly what method will best suit an exploration of the relationship between Andreas’s text-type and the others in Revelation’s manuscript tradition remains to be determined. One possibility is the application to the Apocalypse’s manuscript tradition of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method developed at Münster—a task that has yet to be undertaken. See Gerd Mink, “Eine umfassende Genealogie der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung,” NTS 39 (1993): 481–99; idem, “Was verändert sich in der Textkritik durch die Beachtung genealogischer Kohärenz?” in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature. Papers Read at a NOSTER Conference in Münster, January 4–6, 2001 (ed. Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 39–68; idem, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament. Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004), 13–85. 65 humanitiesebook. cross-searchable titles in the humanities. The HEB collection continues to expand.” —Institute of Historical Research.humanitiesebook. Confronting Vulnerability articulates poignantly.uchicago.html “This is a book that is humanly compelling. University of Virginia CLOTH $40. HEB hosts two distinguished series from the Society of Biblical Literature — Writings from the Ancient World and Writings from the Greco-Roman World — as well as titles in related subject areas.00 The University of Chicago Press www.edu . a unique perspective on the human condition. London 12-month subscriptions only $35 for SBL members http://www. but without sentimentality.press. adding approximately 500 titles per year across all disciplines.org/sub-ind. Please visit www. “One of the best — if not the best — electronically accessible sites in the humanities.ACLS Humanities E-Book Individual Subscriptions for SBL Members ACLS Humanities E-Book (HEB) offers individual subscriptions to over 3.org for more information. asking us to contemplate the implications of having life framed by bodily fragility on one hand and divine judgment on the other.300 full-text. linked to reviews.” Elizabeth Alexander. Por ter and Jeffrey T. knowledge of contemporary linguistics (it is most encouraging to see verbal aspect theory laid down as part of the foundation). Carson ISBN 978-0-8028-2827-9 · 488 pages · hardcover · $39. Reed “Stanley Porter and his associates show a love of the language that regards Greek not as a chore to be endured but as an art to be enjoyed. Highly recommended. and the fine integration of the workbook with the textbook. enhanced by an excellent workbook.00 At your bookstore. Reed. Jeffrey T. and Matthew Brook O’Donnell Fundamentals of New Testament Greek: WORKBOOK Stanley E.” — D. Thiselton “The great strengths of these books are their coherence. They are masters of the subject and have produced an admirable and distinctive teaching tool. or call 800-253-7521 www. the wide-ranging use of Greek drawn from texts instead of artificially created snippets.99 Workbook ISBN 978-0-8028-2826-2 · 272 pages · paperback · $20. A.Fundamentals of New Testament Greek Stanley E.com 9576 .eerdmans. comprehensiveness. Por ter.” — Anthony C. . Smith “A magisterial treatment of the development of Israelite monotheism throughout the entire biblical period. WILSON Yale University “This is an amazing book. and written in clear and sober prose. this study defines a new level in our understanding of ancient Near Eastern theological thought.” ROBERT R.” KAREL VAN DER TOORN University of Amsterdam ISBN 978-0-8028-6433-8 · 408 pages · paperback · $40. Learned.GOD IN T R A N S L AT I O N Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World Mark S.eerdmans.com 0584 . . Mark Smith takes the reader inside the intellectual universe of ancient Israel and its neighbors in a search for the possibilities of cultural translation.00 At your bookstore. thoroughly researched. or call 800-253-7521 www. . The starting point for much new research. (WUNT 259). E.mohr. James R. by Florian Wilk and J.de . (WUNT 261).und Überlieferungsgeschichte des Thomasevangeliums 2010. (WUNT). Custom made information: www. Die Johannesapokalypse Kontexte – Konzepte – Wirkungen Hrsg. Christoph Berner Die Exoduserzählung Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels 2010. Nicolas Farelly The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel A Narrative Analysis of their Faith and Understanding 2010. (WUNT II/290). (WUNT). (WUNT 265). Cook Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians From Claudius to Hadrian 2010. Judge Jerusalem and Athens Cultural Transformation in Late Antiquity Essays Selected and Ed. A. (WUNT 262). Bernhard Heininger Die Inkulturation des Christentums Aufsätze und Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 2010.de Wilfried Eisele Welcher Thomas? Studien zur Text. Barclay Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews Studies in the Social Formation of Christian Identity 2011. Mohr Siebeck Tübingen info@mohr. Reinhard Feldmeier / Hermann Spieckermann Der Gott der Lebendigen Eine biblische Gotteslehre 2011. Eric D. Between Gospel and Election Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 Ed. Kelhoffer u. Markus Bockmuehl The Remembered Peter in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate 2010. Barreto Ethnic Negotiations The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16 2010. Jörg Frey. (WUNT 255). (WUNT 257).G. James A.de www. John G. (WUNT). (TOBITH). Harrison Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessolanica and Rome A Study in the Conflict of Ideology 2011. by Alanna Nobbs 2010. v. (WUNT II/294). (FAT 73). Ross Wagner with the assistance of Frank Schleritt 2010.New from Mohr Siebeck John M. Franz Tóth 2011.mohr. (FAT II/49). Livesey Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol 2010. Women and Gender in Ancient Religions Interdisciplinary Approaches Ed. Paul A.. Marcus K.New from Mohr Siebeck James A.mohr. (WUNT 270). v. by Stephen P. M. (SAPERE XVII). Herwig Görgemanns. Holloway and James A. Kelhoffer 2010. (WUNT II/292). (WUNT II/287). Katharina Luchner. Adolf Martin Ritter. (WUNT II/297). (WUNT II/291). Nina E. Mohr Siebeck Tübingen info@mohr. Timothy Wardle The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity 2010. Bernhard Mutschler Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen Pistis als Mitte christlicher Existenz 2010. AhearneKroll. Please order our new catalog. Ilinca TanaseanuDöbler 2010.de Custom made information: www. Tso Ethics in the Qumran Community An Interdisciplinary Investigation 2010. Tanja Pilger Erziehung im Leiden Komposition und Theologie der Elihureden in Hiob 32–37 2010. Bruno Bleckmann.de . Kelhoffer Persecution.mohr. (WUNT 256). übers. (WUNT II/295). mit interpretierenden Essays vers. Reinhard Feldmeier. Synesios von Kyrene Polis – Freundschaft – Jenseitsstrafen Briefe an und über Johannes Eingel. Persuasion and Power Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament 2010.de www. Jason Maston Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul A Comparative Study 2010. u. Poirier The Tongues of Angels The Concept of Angelic Languages in Classical Jewish and Christian Texts 2010. John C. (WUNT 263). .com. Hubbard Jr. Review of Biblical Literature Getting the Old Testament WHAT IT MEANT TO THEM. But even more evident is their careful. Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www. . etc.’”—J. Summaries. and thoroughly biblical guide to important questions of the Christian faith. It is recommended for both teacher and student. • $19. WHAT IT MEANS FOR US Steven L. www. are examined in this collection of essays. .” —Lawrence Boadt. .Now Available from Key Questions about Christian Faith OLD TESTAMENT ANSWERS u Jeroboam’s Wife THE ENDURING CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT’S LEAST-KNOWN WOMEN John Goldingay 9780801039546 368 pp. conclusions.99p “Key Questions about Christian Faith is vintage Goldingay: biblical interpretation with theolo theological interest and an ear attuned to contemporary life.99p “The stories of seven women of the Old Testament. well-informed. and questions for further reflection all help to make this a very readable work. Scalise 9780801046391 408 pp..99p “Bridge’s Getting the Old Testament is a fun and easy way to get a good overview of how mode biblical studies modern have opened up our understanding of the Old Testament. Clinton McCann Jr. setting. The authors have clearly succeeded in fulfilling the stated hope for the series. .com.”—Robert L. illuminating. . • $16. three named and four unnamed. He combines contemporary examples. u . • $24. CSP. Before examining the stories themselves. light but scholarly descriptions. Washington Theological Union Available at local bookstores. I commend it highly.bakeracademic.. point of view. • $19. and conscientious use of ‘the full range of critical methodologies and practices. and many charts to craft a very readable understanding of the development and purpose of the Hebrew Scriptures. North Park Theological Seminary Robin Gallaher Branch 9780801045714 296 pp. explaining characterization. transparent sharing of personal experiences. Their commitment to the meaning of the text and its authority for (and potential impact upon) the life of the church is evident. plot development. Bridge 9780801045745 248 pp. or by calling 1-800-877-2665.99p “An excellent addition to the New International Biblical Commentary series. and a conversational voice. Branch provides some basic information about narrative analysis. It is an enjoyable.”—The Bible Today Minor Prophets II John Goldingay and Pamela J.bakeracademic. Given. editor 9780801046353 224 pp.bakeracademic.99p The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology John Ronning 9780801047596 336 pp.99p The Gospel of John. • $29. • $59. • $24.99p Discovering Jesus in the New Testament Keith Warrington 9780801048005 240 pp.com.com. • $29.696 pp. or by calling 1-800-877-2665. Keener 9780801046759 1.99p . Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www.99p Paul Unbound OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON THE APOSTLE Available at local bookstores. u Mark D. www.Now Available from u Jesus the Temple Nicholas Perrin 9780801045387 240 pp. 2 vols. Cotter. • $29.99p The Christ of the Miracle Stories PORTRAIT THROUGH ENCOUNTER Wendy J.bakeracademic. • $19. Craig S. CSJ 9780801039508 320 pp. 99p the one Gundry has written.088 pp.99p New Testament Greek. ed. editors 9780801046551 352 pp. u James A. Phillips 9780801047435 256 pp. • $34. • $24. Bird 9780801046476 • 1. • $34. H. • $24. Acadia Divinity College God’s Empowering Presence THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL Paul. rev. Michael Robbins and Steven R. Fee 9780801046216 992 pp.. C. Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www.com. www. • $49.com.bakeracademic. Johnson. Hewett.99p Available at local bookstores.99c 9780801045639 “There is no better single-volume commentary on the New Testament than 224 pp.”—Craig A. or by calling 1-800-877-2665. Evans. Gundry Michael F. and Acts Thomas E.bakeracademic.99c . with CD A BEGINNING AND INTERMEDIATE GRAMMAR Gordon D.Now Available from u Crossing Over Sea and Land Commentary on the New Testament JEWISH MISSIONARY ACTIVITY IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD Robert. His Letters. • $29. www. Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Hubbard 9780801046636 344 pp.Now Available from u Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways EARLY JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS The Didache A WINDOW ON THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS Christianity in the Greco-Roman World A NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION Thomas O’Loughlin 9780801045394 208 pp. editors 9780801039515 320 pp. Ismo Dunderberg.99p Leo Duprée Sandgren 9780801047619 864 pp. Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www. with CD A HISTORY OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS FROM THE BABYLONIAN EXILE TO THE ADVENT OF ISLAM Prophets and Gravestones AN IMAGINATIVE HISTORY OF MONTANISTS AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIANS Stoicism in Early Christianity Tuomas Rasimus. Robinson 9780801047572 304 pp.com.99p . or by calling 1-800-877-2665. • $24.99p Vines Intertwined.com.99p Moyer V. • $39.bakeracademic. • $27.bakeracademic. u William Tabbernee 9780801047817 368 pp.99p Thomas A.99p Available at local bookstores. • $24. • $34. sbl-site. Mary Jerome Obiorah Louis C. 2010 Code: 063801 International Voices in Biblical Literature 1 AVAILABLE FREE at http://ivbs. Jonker. May Jr. editors Table of Contents Knut Holter Gerlinde Baumann Roy H.New and Recent Titles THE FIRST VOLUME IN SBL’S NEW ONLINE OPEN ACCESS SERIES GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? Reflections and Consequences Knut Holter and Louis C. Jonker Aloo Mojola Knut Holter 978-1-58983-477-4 104 pages.org/home.aspx . 2010 Code: 064202 Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplements 2 Hardback edition www. and Christian Neoplatonic Texts Paper $39. Greer —Stanley Hauerwas.brill.nl Volume 2: Reception in Patristic. Gilbert T. Duke University Divinity School Paper $89. 2010 Code: 061626 Writings from the Greco-Roman World 26 Hardcover edition www.brill.brill.nl . Gnostic. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics.95 978-1-58983-450-7 324 pages.95 978-1-58983-279-4 884 pages.nl T THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: THE COMMENTARIES O ON THE MINOR EPISTLES OF PAUL T Translated with an Introduction and Notes by R Rowan A. 2010 Code: 064203 Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplements 3 Hardback edition www.New and Recent Titles P PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND ITS HERITAGE Plato’s and Its Heritage Parmenides Parmenides Volume 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism Paper $42.95 978-1-58983-449-1 352 pages. brill. editors Paper $49.E De Agricultura The Hypothetica 336 pages. Sterling. Volume XXII (2010) David T.C.nl Code: 060810 THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. editors B. 2010 Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 10 Hardback edition www.95 978-1-58983-525-2 Studia Philonica Annual 22 . Runia and Gregory E.New and Recent Titles TRANSFORMING GRADUATE BIBLICAL EDUCATION Ethos and Discipline Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Kent Harold Richards.E C. 2010 Code: 062222 Cloth: $42.95 978-1-58983-504-7 408 pages. Brighton Founded in 1869.The Concordia Commentary Series “I have a great deal of respect for this series. and extrabiblical literature. (You can request the existing volumes. in the series as a whole. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Contributors to the Concordia Commentary series provide greater clarity and understanding of the divine intent of the text of Holy Scripture. Concordia is the publishing house of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. . Steinmann Colossians by Paul E. Two new volumes are released each year. and deals with both textual difficulties and theology—an impressive feat at a time when many commentaries are trying to avoid difficult details. Wilch Ezekiel 1–20 Ezekiel 21–48 by Horace D. history.. Steinmann Daniel by Andrew E. Just Jr. Reed Lessing Joshua by Adolph L. . imagery. Reed Lessing Revelation by Louis A. Nordling Ecclesiastes [forthcoming] by James Bollhagen Jonah by R. Each volume is based on the Hebrew.cph. Steinmann Amos by R. 1 Corinthians by Gregory J. Chisholm Jr. Kleinig The Song of Songs by Christopher W. Your subscription starts with the newest volume. Subscriptions Available for Libraries and Individuals Become a subscriber today and commentaries are shipped automatically to you. This landmark work from Lutheran scholars will cover all the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament. Faith and Mission. Bibliotheca Sacra “One of the best commentary series currently available for those seeking an exposition of the biblical text that balances the academic with the pastoral.” Robert B. Reed Lessing Philemon by John G. It takes serious regard of the biblical text in its original language. www.org • 1-800-325-3040 © 2011 Concordia Publishing House Printed in the USA 511516-01 . Jones. and themes found throughout the broader biblical canon. Aramaic. Further light is shed on the text from archaeology. Hummel Luke 1:1–9:50 Luke 9:51–24:53 by Arthur A. Mitchell Matthew 1:1–11:1 Matthew 11:2–20:34 by Jeffrey A. Lockwood Ezra and Nehemiah by Andrew E.) Subscriptions are available in three ways: Complete series • Hebrew Scriptures volumes • Greek New Testament volumes CURRENT VOLUMES Leviticus by John W. or Greek with sensitivity to the rich treasury of language.” David W.” David Instone-Brewer. Deterding Proverbs by Andrew E. and you continue to receive each new volume until the series is complete. University of Cambridge “Pastors and scholars alike will find plenty of helpful insights . Harstad Ruth by John R. Gibbs Isaiah 40–55 [forthcoming] by R.