To Understand the Scriptures. Essays in Honor of William Shea.

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

TO UNDERSTAND

THE SCRIPTURES:

Essays in Honor of

William H. Shea


Contributors Include:

Merling Alomia Dalton D. Baldwin

Richard M. Davidson David A. Dorsey

Ron du Preez Roy Gane

Norman R. Gulley Larry G. Herr

Robert M. Johnston Gerald A. Klingbeil

Donn W. Leatherman Robert K. McIver

David Merling Daegeuk Nam Samuel Niiiiez

Gudmundur Olafsson Paul J. Ray, Jr.

Angel Manuel Rodriguez Zdravko Stefanovic Steven Thompson

S. Douglas Waterhouse Bryant G. Wood

Edwin M. Yamauchi Norman H. Young

Randall W. Younker


TO UNDERSTAND

THE SCRIPTURES:

Essays in Honor of

William H. Shea

Edited by

David Merling

Institute of Archaeology Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum

Andrews University Berrien Springs, MI 49104-0990


The book was prepared by the Archaeological Publication Department of the Andrews University Institute of Archaeology under the direction of Ralph E. Hendrix with the technical assistance of Philip R. Drey. Front cover photograph 0 1997 by Dave B. Sherwin.

Copyright © 1997 by: The Institute of Archaeology/ Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Musuem

All rights reserved both foreign and domestic. This book, nor parts thereof, may be reproduced in any form or media (except for small excerpts for the purpose of review) without permission.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97-75234

ISBN 0-9642060-2-1

Manufactured in the United States of America

First Edition published: October 1997


CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Introduction David Merling

A Selected Bibliography of William H. Shea xvii Edited by Paul J. Ray, Jr.

SECTION]: HEBREW SCRIPTURES

1

Genesis 2—A Special "Creation':? An Introductory Study 1 of an Old Problem

Gudmundur Olafsson

2 The Book of Joshua: Its Structure and Meaning 7 David Merling

3 Polysemy of Rtiall in 1 Kings 22:19-25 29 Larry G. Hen-

4 "Sun" and "Moon" in Psalm 121:6 33 Gerald A. Klingbeil

5 The Psalm of the "Blessed Hope": Comments on Psalm 126 45 Merling Alomia

6 Literary Architecture and Meaning in the Book of Jonah 57 David A. Dorsey

7 The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel 71 Richard M. Davidson

8 The Usage and Meaning of the Hebrew Word -pm 95 in the Old Testament ,

Samuel Nithez

9 Jewelry in the Old Testament: A Description of Its Functions 103 Angel Manuel Rodriguez


SECTION 2: THE BOOK OF DANIEL

10 Greece and Babylon Revisited 127 Edwin M. Yamauchi

1 1 Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel 137 Roy Gane

12 Apparent Indicators of Textual Discontinuity in the Book of Daniel 149 Donn W. Leatherman

13 Free Will and Conditionality in Daniel 163 Dalton D. Baldwin

14 Why Was Darius the Mede Expunged from History? 173 S. Douglas Waterhouse

15 Why the Danielle Little Horn is not Antiochus IV Epiphanes 191 Norman R. Gulley

16 The Presence of the Three and a Fraction: A Literary Figure 199 in the Book of Daniel

Zdravko Stefanovic

17 The Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:27 and Related Texts: 205 Theology of Retributive Judgment

Paul J. Ray, Jr.

18 Those Who Are Wise: The Maskilim in Daniel

215 and the New Testament

Steven Thompson

SECTION 3: GREEK SCRIPTURES

19 Jesus and Sepphoris: Missing Link or Negative Evidence? 221 Robert K. McIver

20 Reconciliation in Philo, Josephus, and Paul 233 Norman H. Young

SECTION 4: ARCHAEOLOGY

21 The Role of Shechem in the Conquest of Canaan 245 Biyant G. Wood

22 Some Notes on the Identity of Tell Jawa (South), Jordan: 257 Mephaath or Abel Keramim?

Randall W. Younker


SECTION 4: BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

23 The Ten Commandments and Ethical Dilemmas 265 Robert M. Johnston

24 Does Levirate Law Promote Polygamy? 273 Ron du Preez

25 The Biblical Meanings of Heaven 291 Daegeuk Nam

General Index 301

Scripture Index 313


Acknowledgments

Without the persistent reminders and organizational guidance of Susan W. Oliver, my secretary, this book would not be appearing with such dispatch. Paul J. Ray, Jr., provided much support for Mrs. Oliver and was responsible for checking the transliterations, Greek and Hebrew, and details of Dr. Shea's Selected Bibliography. To both Susan Oliver and Paul Ray, I offer a hearty thank you. DM


William H. Shea


Introduction

The one to whom this book is addressed is unique of personality and influence. On the day I began this essay, my students came to my class, in which there was an exam, grumbling that they had planned to use the previous class period to finish their preparation. Unfortunately, for them, they complained, they had had a guest lecturer named Dr. Shea, who was so informative and exciting (speaking about the historical background of Daniel 9) that all they could do was take notes. They pled with me to have mercy on them. They could not help it.

William H. Shea was born in California December 31, 1932. He lived in Laguna Beach, California, for ten years, after which his family moved to Ontario, California. It was in Ontario, as a teenager and due to the influence of a neighbor, that the young Bill Shea developed his interest in the Bible and biblical history.

He attended LaSierra College (now University) in the years 1950-1954, where Drs. Edwin Heppenstall and Tom Blincoe, both in the Bible Department, had a great influence upon his life and life interests. Although greatly attracted to biblical studies, in his junior year Bill decided to pursue medicine as a career. It was also while attending LaSierra College that he developed another lifelong interest, Karen. /Karen Olsen was a visitor to LaSierra, when they first met. They married in 1956 and both graduated from Loma Linda University with medical degrees. (Occasionally Bill likes to remind Karen of his slight superiority. He graduated one year before she did.)

After Bill Shea completed a one year surgery residency, the Sheas accepted medical missionary positions in Nicaragua, where they spent three years. Their remote hospital had only 25 beds with limited supplies and help. The Sheas next worked for two years at a hospital on the Island of Trinidad. While on that island, Bill Shea was invited to teach Old Testament and Old Testament backgrounds at Caribbean Union College. This time of teaching encouraged him to gain more formal training in biblical history.

Dr. Shea studied at Harvard University for three years. During that time G. Ernest Wright was his main teacher. He also excavated for two seasons at Tel Gezer. One evening, the late Siegfried Horn told me of a conversation he had had with Dr. Wright, about Bill Shea. Horn had been the one who had recommended Shea to Dr. Wright. After Bill Shea had been studying with


xiv To Understand the Scriptures

Wright for a while, Horn and Wright had an occasion to visit together. When Horn mentioned Shea's name, Wright exclaimed, "That Shea is a genius!"

The Sheas returned to Trinidad for another two years. Then, in 1972, their family moved to Berrien Springs, Michigan. Dr. Karen Shea worked as an anesthesiologist in a local hospital and Dr. Bill Shea began commuting to Ann Arbor where he began studies at the University of Michigan with George Mendenhall and David Noel Freedman for a Ph.D. in Near Eastern studies, which he completed in 1976.

For 14 years Dr. Shea taught at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, in Berrien Springs, Michigan, as part of the Old Testament Department. He served as Chair of that department and acting Director of the Institute of Archaeology, during some of that time. Although, he continued to be an Adjunct Professor at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, between 1986 and his retirement, he has been an Associate Director of the Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His primary role during this time has been research and teaching at extension schools, and weekend seminars.

If anything, Dr. Shea is unassuming, which is combined with his creativity and enthusiasm. On more than one occasion, I have heard Dr. Shea relate the story of an article that was approved for publishing, only for him to change his mind on a detail that he asked the editor to make. Some time later, he changed his mind again, and again wrote the editor to make the change. This time the editor returned the article with the note, "Send it back to me when you make up your mind." This story was always told with the glee of a school boy in the midst of a playground. Learning the "truth" for Dr. Shea has always been dynamic and more important than defending pet theories.

My own academic career is an example of how Dr. Shea's openness was shared with his students. At one point in my doctoral program, I found myself without an adviser. Even, after trying to get me to switch topics, he took me as a student, badgered me more than anyone else at my oral defense, then wrote a highly supportive letter (one I will always treasure) that led to publication of my dissertation.

The contributors of this volume knew Dr. Shea best during his 14-year sojourn (1972-1986) as a teacher at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and the years following. As the reader will note, after perusing through Dr. Shea's bibliography in the appendix at the end of this book, he published more in the last twenty years than many scholars do in a lifetime.

Bill Shea has had a host of admirers, including those who have written for this work. That "Dr. Shea," as most of his students call him, has had a wide-spread influence can be easily noted by the large number of home countries and universities of the contributors (Australia, Canada, England, Korea, Peru, the Philippines, and five universities in the United States).

Also similar to Dr. Shea's written work, the chapters that follow are an


Introduction xv

eclectic mix of Old Testament and New, theological, historical, and textual. To those who know his work, it will not be surprising that there are so many chapters relating to the Book of Daniel since he has also written and spoken often on aspects of that book. Above all, you will find in the following chapters a creative way of looking at the biblical text and history. Those of us who have known him have found him refreshingly insightful and bursting with new ideas. He has inspired his students, challenged his colleagues, and made all pause when reflecting on established presuppositions.

The Sheas have three children and two grandchildren. Upon his retirement Dr. Shea, with his wife, is returning to the Pacific coast and will live near the ocean he has always loved. DM


A Selected Bibliography of William H. Shea

Edited by Paul J. Ray, Jr.

Books and Monographs

1976 "Famines in theEarly History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine." Dissertation, University of Michigan.

1982 Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. Washington, DC: Review and Herald.

1991 The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Tradition, eds. T. C. Eskenazi, D. J. Harrington, and W. H. Shea. New York: Crossroad.

1996a Daniel 1-7: Prophecy as History. Boise, ID: Pacific Press.

19966 Daniel 7-12: Prophecies of the End Time. Boise, ID: Pacific Press.

Articles

1966 The Sabbath in the Epistle of Barnabas. Andrews University Seminary Studies 4: 149-175.

1971a An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, I. Andrews University Seminary Studies 9: 51-67.

1971 b An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, II. Andrews University Seminary Studies 9: 100-128.

1972a An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, DI. Andrews University Seminary Studies 10: 88-117.

1972b An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, IV. Andrews University Seminary Studies '10: 147-178.


xviii To Understand the Scriptures

1975 Where is Noah's Ark? Ministry (May): 24, 25.

1976a Adon's Letter and the Babylonian Chronicle. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 223: 61-63.

1976b The Ark-Shaped Formation in the Tendurek Mountains. Creation Research Society Quarterly 13: 90-95.

1976c David's Lament. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 221: 141-144.

1976d Esther and History. Andrews University Seminary Studies 14: 227-246.

1977a Adam in Ancient Mesopotamian Traditions. Andrews University Seminary Studies 15: 27-41. Reprinted in Bible and Spade 6: 65-76.

1977b The Byblos Spatula Inscription. Journal of the American Oriental Society 97: 164- 170.

1977c A Date for the Recently Discovered Eastern Canal of Egypt. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 226: 31-38.

1977d The Date and Significance of the Samaria Ostraca. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 16-27.

1977e A Note on the Date of the Battle of Qargar. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29: 240-242.

1977f Ostracon II from Heshbon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 15: 217-222.

1977g The Search for the Ark comes to the Screen. Ministry 50 (October): 35-37.

1978a Adad-Nirari III and Jehoash of Israel. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30: 101-113.

1978b The Inscribed Late Bronze Age Jar-Handle from Tell Halif. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 232: 78-80.

1978c Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser III. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37: 43-49.

1978d The Siran Inscription: Amminadab's Drinking Song. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110: 107-112.

1978e The Unity of the Creation Account. Origins 5: 9-38.


A Selected Bibliography of William H. Shea xix

1979a Ebla Reveals Her Secrets. Ministry 52 (November): 28-30.

1979b Israel and Assyria: I. Ahab at the Battle of Qamar. Ministry 52 (May): 20, 21.

1979c Israel and Assyria: II. The Bible and The Black Obelisk. Ministry 52 (July): 22-24.

1979d Israel and Assyria: III. A Savior from Assyria. Ministry 52 (September): 26, 27.

1979e The Kings of the Melqart Stela. Maarav 2: 159-176.

1979f Milkom as the Architect of the Natural Defences of Rabbath Ammon in the Amman Citadel Inscription. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 111: 17-25.

1979g Nebuchadnezzar's Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of Lachish Palestine Exploration Quarterly 111: 113-116.

1979h The Qinah Structure of the Book of Lamentations. Biblica 60: 103-107.

1979i A Reconsideration of the Conquests of Sharuhen and Megiddo. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 1-5.

1979j The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications. Origins 6: 8-29.

1980a Assyria's End. Ministry 53 (May): 24-26.

1980b The Calendars of Ebla: I. Andrews University Seminary Studies 18: 127-137.

1980c The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs. Zeischrift fur Alttestamentliche Wissenschafi 92: 378-396.

1980d Daniel and the Judgment. Spectrum 11: 37-42.

1980e The Investigative Judgment of Judah: Ezekiel 1-10. Pp. 283-291 in Studies in Sanctuary and Atonement, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1980f Israel and Assyria: IV. The Last Years of Samaria. Ministry 53 (January): 26-28.

1980g Israel and Assyria: V. One Invasion or Two? Ministry 53 (March): 26-28.

1980h Job: God's Suffering Servant. Lake Union Herald 72 (July): 8, 9.


xx To Understand the Scriptures

1980i The Location and Significance of Armageddon in Rev. 16:16. Andrews University Seminary Studies 18: 157-162.

1980j One Invasion or Two? Ministry 53 (March): 26-28.

1980k The Poetic Relations of the Time Periods in Dan. 9:25. Pp. 277-282 in Andrews UniversiO rSeminary Studies 18: 59-63. Reprinted in Sanctuary and Atonement, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

19801 The Relationship Between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9. Pp. 228-250 in Studies in Sanctuary and Atonement, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1980m The Year-Day Principle. Pacific Union Recorder 80 (September): 3, 4.

1981a The Amman Citadel Inscription Again. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 105-110.

1981b The Ark-Shaped Formation in the Tendurek Mountains of Eastern Turkey. Origins 8: 77-92.

1981c Artistic Balance Among the Beni-Hasan Asiatics. Biblical Archaeologist 44: 219- 228. Reprinted in Bible and Spade 12 (1983): 1-21.

1981d The Calendars of Ebla: II. Andrews University Seminary Studies 19: 59-70.

1981e The Calendars of Ebla: DI. Andrews University Seminary Studies 19: 115-125.

1981f The Carpentras Stela. Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981): 215- 217 .

1981g Esther and History. Ministry (July): 26, 27.

1981h Shea Replies to Ford. Spectrum 11: 57-60.

1982a Chiasm by Theme and by Form in Rev. 18. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 249-256.

1982b Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 29-52.

1982c Daniel 9:24-27. Pp. 255-301 in Prophetic et Eschatologie. Collonges, France: Seminaire Adventiste.


A Selected Bibliography of William H Shea xxi

1982d Darius the Mede: An Update. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 229-247.

1982e Exodus, Date of. Pp. 230-238 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

1982f Le Principe Jour-Armee. Pp. 302-335 in Prophetic et Eschatologie. Collonges, France: Seminaire Adventiste.

1982g Le Jugement en Daniel 7. Pp. 132-194 in Prophetic et Eschatologie. Collonges, France: Seminaire Adventiste.

1982h Nabonidus and Belshazzar and the Book of Daniel: An Update. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 133-149. Reprinted in Bible and Spade 12: 76-89.

1983a The Covenantal Structure of the Letters to the Seven Churches. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 71-84.

1983b Esther and History, II. Ministry (September): 26, 27. Reprinted in Bible and Spade 12: 90-96.

1983c A Further Note on Daniel 6: Daniel as "Governor."Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 169-172.

1983d Outline of Mk 13 in footnote of article by S. J. Kidder. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 209, diagram 2.

1983e Two Palestinian Segments from the Eblaite Geographical Atlas. Pp. 589-612 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, eds. M. O'Connor and C. L. Meyers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

1983f Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10. Andrews University Seminary Studies 2: 225-250.

1984a A Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Creation-Flood Stories with Gen 1-9. Origins 11: 9-29.

1984b The Eblaite Letter to Hamazi. Oriens Antiquus 23: 143-161.

1984c Qinah Meter and Structure in Ps 137. Hebrew Annual Review 8: 199-210.

1984d Revelation 5 and 19 as Literary Reciprocals. Andrews University Seminary Studies 22: 249-257.


xxii To Understand the Scriptures

1985a Ancient Cities of Refuge and Modern Political Refugees. Liberty Magazine 80 (May/June): 11.

1985b Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 193-202.

1985c Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 277-295.

1985d The Literary Structures of Dan 4 and 5 Integrated into the Literary Structure of Dan 1-6. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 277-296.

1985e Mutilation of Foreign Names by Bible Writers: A Possible Example from Tell el- Umeiri. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 111-115.

1985f The Parallel Literary Structure of Revelation 12 and 20. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 37-54.

1985g Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign. Journal of Biblical Literature 104: 401-418.

1986a Chiasmus and the Structure of David's Lament. Journal of Biblical Literature (March): 13-25.

1986b Daniel 9:24-27. Pp. 75-118 in Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1986c The Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes Interpretation in Daniel's Prophecies. Pp. 256-328 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1986d Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus. Pp. 131-168 in Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, Nature ofProphecy, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1986e Menahem. Pp. 317-318 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

1986f The Neo-Babylonian Setting of Daniel 7. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 31-36.


A Selected Bibliography of William H. Shea xxiii

1986g Proto-Sinaitic Inscription 357. Pp. 449-464 in The Archaeology ofJordan and Other Studies, eds. L. T. Geraty & L. G. Herr. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University.

1986h Spatial Dimensions in the Vision of Daniel 8. Pp. 497-526 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1986i The Theological Importance of the Pre-Advent Judgment. Pp. 323-332 in Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1986j The Unity of Daniel. Pp. 165-255 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1987a Archaeological Discoveries. Minister's Digest (Australia): 13-21.

1987b Esther and History. Concordia Journal 13 (July): 234-248.

1987c New Light on Exodus and Construction of the Tabernacle: Gerster's Protosinaitic Inscription No. 1. Andrews University Seminary Studies 25: 73-96:

1987d Potential Biblical Connection for the Beth Shemesh Ostracon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 25: 257-266.

1988a Beer & Wine: The Bible's Counsel. Signs of the Times 115: 2-4.

1988b Bekte)sha.77ar Meets Belshazzar. Andrews University Seminary Studies 26: 67-81.

1988c Commemorating the Final Breakthrough of the Siloam Tunnel. Pp. 431-442 in Fucus: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

1988d Esodo 11:1-12:36: Critica y Struttura Litteraria. Adventus 1: 32-44.

1988e Gomorrah? Archaeology and Biblical Research 1 (Autumn): 12-23.

1988f The Military Strategy of Sheshonq/Shishak in Palestine. Chronology and Catastrophism Review 10: 2-10.

1988g Noah's Ark? Archaeology and Biblical Research 1 (Winter): 6-14.

1988h Proto-Sinaitic Inscription 357. Ugarit Forschungen 20: 301-308.


xxiv To Understand the Scriptures

1988i Sennacherib's Description of Lachish and Its Conquest. Andrews University Seminary Studies 26: 171-180.

1988j Whose God Is Right? Journal of Adventist Education 50: 10, 11.

1989a Dedicated to a Furnace. Ministry (September): 4-6.

1989b A Further Reading for the Hobab Inscription from Sinai. Andrews University Seminary Studies 27: 193-200.

1989c The Inscribed Tablets from Tell Deir I. Andrews University Seminary Studies 27:21-37.

1989d The Inscribed Tablets from Tell Deir 'Alla: II. Andrews University Seminary Studies 27: 97-119.

1989e Literary Structural Parallels Between Gen 1 and 2. Origins 16: 49-68.

1989f The Sabbath in Extra-Biblical Sources. Adventist Perspectives 3.2: 17-25.

1990a Further Light on the Biblical Connection of the Beth Shemesh Ostracon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 28: 115-125.

1990b Genesis 1 and 2 Paralleled in an Ancient Near-Eastern Source. Adventist Perspectives 4: 30-35.

1990c God: Transcendent or Immanent. Adventist Review 167 (November): 14.

1990d The Izbet Sartah Ostracon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 28: 59-86.

1990e The Khirbet el-Qom Tomb Inscription Again. Vetus Testamentum 40: 110-116.

1990f Leaving Egypt. Archaeology and Biblical Research 3: 98-112.

1990g Leaving Egypt: The Starting Point. Adventist Review 167 (May 17): 8-10

1990h Leaving Egypt: The Way Out. Adventist Review 167 (May 24): 12-14.

1990i Leaving Egypt: Encounter at the Sea. Adventist Review 167 (May 31): 16-18.

1990j Travels of the Ark. Archaeology and Biblical Research 3: 73-79.

1991a Ancient Ostracon Records Ark's Wanderings. Ministry 64 (July): 11-14.


A Selected Bibliography of William K Shea . xxv

1991b The Antediluvians. Origins 18: 10-26.

1991c The Architectural Layout of the Amman Citadel Inscription Temple. Palestine Exploration Quarterly (January-June): 62-66.

1991d Daniel and His Friends. Archaeology and Biblical Research 4: 57-64.

1991e Darius the Mede. Andrews University Seminary Studies 29: 235-257.

1991f The Dedication on the Nora Stone. Vetus Testamentum 41: 241-245.

1991g Joseph in Sinai. Adventist Perspectives 5: 32-36.

1991h A Response to L. Hoffman and J. Baldovin. Pp. 230-235 in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions, eds. T. C. Eskenazi, D. J. Harrington, and W. H. Shea. New York: Crossroad.

1991i When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin? Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 2: 115-138.

1992a The Burial of Jacob: A New Correlation Between Genesis 50 and an Egyptian Inscription. Archaeologo, and Biblical Research 5: 33-45.

1992b Cushan-Rishathain. Catastrophism and Ancient History 14 (July): 1-7.

1992c The Good Shepherd. Adventist Review 169: 23.

1992d The Mighty Angel and His Message. Pp. 279-326 in Symposium on Revelation, Book /, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Series, vol. 6. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute.

1992e The Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12-13. Pp. 327-360 in Symposium on Revelation, Book /, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Series, vol. 6. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute.

1992f Sabbath Hymns for the Heavenly Sanctuary (Qumran). Pp. 391-408 in Symposium on Revelation, Book 2, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Series, vol. 7. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research.

1992g "So" Ruler of Egypt. Andrews University Seminary Studies 30: 201-215.


xxvi To Understand the Scriptures

1992h When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin? Pp. 375-394 in Symposium on Revelation, Book 1, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Series, vol. 6. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute.

1993a Futuristic Highs at Mt. Cannel. Spectrum 23: 43-45.

1993b Making Sense of Prophecy. Dialogue 5.2: 5-8.

1993c My Kingdom for a Dream. Signs of the Times 120: 24-27.

1993d Salting the Mounds: Did Solomon's Sailors Ever Do New Mexico? Liberty Magazine 88 (May-June): 2.

1994 Sargon's Azekah Inscription: The Earliest Extrabiblical Reference to the Sabbath? Andrews University Seminary Studies 32: 247-251.

1995a Interview with Angel Manuel Rodriguez. Shabbat Shalom (December): 8-14.

1995b 0 God, How Great Are Your Works! Ministry 68 (July-August): 14-17.

1996a How Then Shall We Study the Bible. Ministry.

19966 The Tomb of David in Jerusalem. Andrews University Seminary Studies 34: 287-291.

1997 The Flood: Just a Local Catastrophe? Dialogue 9.1: 10-13.

Co-Authored Articles

1976 The Tell Mardikh Tablets, with L. T. Geraty. The Review and Herald.

1992 1844: A People of Prophecy, with C. R. Goldstein. Adventist Review 169: 8-11.

1996 Taken by Rapture, with L. R. Torres, J. Paulien, W. G. Johnsson, and J. Lutz. Perspective Digest 1: 47-60.

Reviews

1975 Review of The First 7000 Years, by G. C. Ozane. Andrews University Seminary Studies 13: 91, 92.


A Selected Bibliography of William H Shea xxvii

1976a Review of The Israelite Conquest of Canaan, by S. Yeivin. Bibliotheca orientalis 33: 56.

1976b Review of The Northern Cemetery of Beth-Shan, by E. D. Oren. Bibliotheca orientalis 33: 56.

1976c Review ofRaniesses //, by J. D. Schmidt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35: 282, 283.

1978 Review of Israelite History, by J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes. Andrews University Seminary Studies 16: 414-416.

1979 Review of Amos, by H. W. Won Andrews University Seminary Studies 17: 230, 231.

1980 Review of Redating the Exodus, by J. J. Bimson. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42: 88-90.

1982a Review of Daniel, by D. S. Russell. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 164, 165

1982b Review of Hebrew Verse Structure, by M. O'Connor. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 161-164.

1982c Review of Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry, by D. N. Freedman,. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20: 156, 157.

1982d Review of The Quest for the Historical Israel, by G. W. Ramsey. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44: 494497.

1983a Review of The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, by Y. Aharoni. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 173-175.

1983b Review ofArchaeology of the Mind: Modern Man in Search of His Roots, by E. R. Binns. Australasian Record 88 (August 27): 13,.

1983c Review of Egypt and Bible History: From Earliest Times to 1000 B.C., by C. F. Aling. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 89-91.

1983d Review of The Sanctuary and Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, eds. R. Lesher and A. Wallenkarripf. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 278, 279.


xxviii To Understand the Scriptures

1983e Review of Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, by D. Bennett. Ministry 56 (June): 32.

1983f Review of Son ofMan in Daniel Seven, by A. Ferch. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 276-278.

1983g Review of Ugarit in Retrospect, ed. G. D. Young. Andrews University Seminary Studies 21: 286-288.

1984 Review of Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, by T. Isaida. Andrews Ihriversity Seminary Studies 22: 272-274.

1985a Review of The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, by H. B. Huffman, F. A. Spina and A. R. W. Green. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 66-68.

1985b Review of Psalms 1-50, by P. Craigie. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 299-302.

1985c Review ofA Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature, by S. A. Geller, E. L. Greenstein, and A. Berlin. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 207, 208.

1985d Review of The Tablets ofEbla, by G. Beld, W. Hallo, and P. Michalowski. Andrews University Seminary Studies 23: 55, 56.

1985e Review of The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, eds. M. O'Connor and C. L. Meyers. Andrews University Seminary Studies: 23: 212.

1986a Review of The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age, by K. P. Jackson. Journal of Biblical Literature 105: 113, 114.

1986b Review of Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel J. Iwry, by A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 280-282.

1986c Review of Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, by L. Richards. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 197-199.

1986d Review of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, by 0. J. A.Clines. Andrews University Seminary StUdies 24: 53-55.

1986e Review of Genesis 1-11, by C. Westerinann. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 74-77.


A Selected Bibliography of William H. Shea xxix

1986f Review of History, Harmony, and the Hebrew Kings, by E. W. Faulstich. Ministry 60 (February): 28, 29.

1986g Review of 1 & 2 Kings, by G. H. Jones. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24:

1986h Review of The Message of the Psalms, by W. Brueggeman. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 184-186.

1986i Review of The Moody Atlas of the Bible Lands, by B. Beitzel. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 265-267.

1986j Review of The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (IIQpaleoLev), by D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24: 272-275.

1987a Review of A History of Ancient Israel from the Beginnings to the Bar Kochba Revolt A.D. 135, by A. J. Soggin. Hebrew Studies 28: 203-209.

1987b Review of The History of Israel and Judah in Old Testament Times, by F. Castel. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49: 471, 472.

1988a Review of A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, by J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50: 303, 304.

1988b Review of L 'Expedition de Sennacherib en Palestine, by F. Gonsalves. Journal of Biblical Literature 107: 117-119.

1990a Review ofAncient Israel: A Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, by H. Shanks. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (July): 538.

1990b Review ofAvoiding the Snare of Seventh-day Adventism, by David Cloud. Ministry 63 (September): 29, 30.

1990c Review of The Faith of Israel: Its Expression i the Books of the Old Testament, by W. J. Dumbrell. Andrews University Seminary Studies 28: 94, 95.

1990d Review of Genesis 1-15, by G. J. Wenham. Andrews University Seminary Studies 28: 100-103.

1990e Review of Historiche Dokumente aus dem Alien Israel, by K. A. D. Smelik. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (January): 135.


xxx To Understand the Scriptures

1990f Review ofJewish New Testament, by D. H. Stem, trans. Ministry 62 (October): 26.

1990g Review of Wine in the Bible, by S. R. Bacchiocchi. Ministry 62 (November): 26, 27.

1991a Review of In Potiphar's House, by J. L. Kugel. Ministry 64 (November): 27.

1991 b Review of Old Testament Grace, by J. L. Dybdall. Journal of Adventist Education 53 (February-March): 43, 44.

1991c Review of Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, by G. F. Hasel. Ministry 64 (September): 28.

1991d Review of Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, by A. Dearman. The Journal of the American Oriental Society 111 (January-March): 187.

1993 Review of Primitive and Ancient Medicine: A History of Medicine 1, by P. Prioreschi. Andrews University Seminary Studies 31: 81-83.

1994 Review ofBlessing and Curse in the Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age, by T. 0. Crawford. Hebrew Studies 35: 121-124.


1 Genesis 2—A Special "Creation"?

An Introductory Study of an Old Problem

Gudmundur Olafsson Old Testament Studies, Newbold College, Berkshire, England.

The Problem For centuries, Bible students have noted that the creation accounts of

Genesis 1 and 2 use different names for God. This observation eventually led to the development of the Documentary Hypothesis in the 18th and 19th centuries. Even though it is now based more on different theological outlooks, the different names of God still play an important role in the identification of the alleged sources found in the Pentateuch of which Genesis 1 and 2 are seen as the prime example.

The two chapters are generally seen to present two versions of the creation account, one by P (Gen 1:1-2:4a), the other by J (Gen 2:4b-25; for a thorough survey of studies see Westermann 1976: 754-798). This classification is supported by the facts that: (1) the initial environment is different: water and darkness in Genesis 1; dry, uncultivated land in Genesis 2; (2) the names for God are different: Elohim in Genesis 1; YHWH Elohim in Genesis 2; (3) the actions listed are different: fiat creation by means of a powerful word in Genesis 1, versus anthropomorphic activities in Genesis 2; and (4) the sequence of events is different: man is created last in Genesis 1, but at the beginning in Genesis 2.

On the basis of these differences, Genesis 1 and 2 are seen by proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis as originally independent accounts which were later combined by a skillful editor. Some see Genesis 2 primarily as the background for the "fall-story" in Genesis 3, and as such is "earth-centered," concentrating on the creation of man, in contrast to Genesis 1 which is "heaven-centered," with man's creation as the climax (e.g. Speiser 1979: 19). Others consider the account of creation in Genesis 2 as basically an expansion


2 To Understand the Scriptures

of the events described in one of the seven days in Genesis 1 (e.g. Shea 1978: 19, 20). Whichever approach is used, the sequence of events seems to present a problem.

A careful reading of Genesis 1 and 2, however, indicates that the author's primary interest may not be the detailed process of creation per se, but rather how God through the process of fiat creation during the creation week transformed the state of the "earthly part" of the universe. This transformation took an empty wasteland (1nal 1171 , 'Ali web Chet, Gen 1:2) and changed it into an environment which was fertile and productive (Days 1-3, Gen 1:3-13), filled and inhabited (Days 4-6, Gen 1:14-31). The description of each day's activities reminds one of a brief "eyewitness" report of what was heard and seen. The author "rushes" through the events of each day, giving few details about the process, but expressing the effect of God's creative word. Day 6, however, is different. The author becomes "omniscient" as he reports even on God's plan and purpose with reference to man (Gen 1:26). The report of that day alone covers about one third of the whole creation account. The reason seems obvious: the author is clearly primarily interested in man's place in God's creation and his function in God's plan. Man is not seen as an afterthought or an accident. He was definitely a part of God's purpose, a part of His creation, and assigned the position of a ruler over God's creation on this earth (Gen 1:28). The events of Days 1-6a are certainly important as they establish God's absolute power as creator of the universe, but the events per se all form the background for that major event: the creation of man.

Analysis In Genesis 2, man is also the central focus of attention, but the account

never claims to present a story of creation. In fact, none of the words used about creation in Genesis 1, (Ma, bara , create; rfwv, (a.Oh, make; 1n), natan, appoint) are found in Genesis 2, instead we find words that express physical actions ON), yasar, form; vv), mita plant; nns , samah, grow). Genesis 2 begins with a statement about the initial environment, a structural reminder of the creation story in Genesis 1, even though the details are quite different (water covers the earth in Genesis 1, but dry land characterizes the environment in Genesis 2). Some have explained the difference on the basis that the environment in Genesis 2 consisted of that part of nature which was immediately affected by the fall in Genesis 3, whereas the environment in Genesis 1 was more universal (e.g. Sailhamer 1990: 40, 41).

The initial environment (vss. 5, 6); table 1.1. The words "earth" ('M, eres) and "ground" (MTN, bdamah) are used interchangeably throughout

Genesis 2 in accordance with general usage in Hebrew. Besides, "earth" may refer to either the world in general or a localized plot of land, as is also common in Hebrew.


Genesis 2—A Special "Creation"? 3

Initial Environment (vss. 5, 6)

Condition (2:5a) No shrub of the field was yet in the earth and

no plant of the field had yet sprouted

Reason (2:5b) for YHWH Elohim had not sent rain upon the earth

and man was not (there) to cultivate the ground

Explanation (2:6)

but a mist used to rise from the earth

and water the whole surface of the ground (trans. by author)

Table 1.1. The initial creation environment in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:6 seems to imply that there was enough water provided by the mist for general usage, for it watered "the whole surface of the ground," so the condition in Gen 2:5a is not caused by the apparent lack of water, but rather the fact that "man was not (there)" to cultivate the ground, so those plants that depended on special cultivation and care were not yet on the earth. In Gen 2:7-9, however, a dramatic change takes place.

The garden environment (vss. 7-9); table 1.2. It is noticeable that all of these events are centered around the garden, which is not created (N11, bara) nor made (nv.)y, Asah) by a fiat creation as is everything in Genesis 1, but is rather planted (vw), nata) by YHWH Elohim Himself It is there that He

Garden Environment (vss. 7-9)

Then YHWH Elohim

and YHWH Elohim

and YHWH Elohim

formed (1Y), ylsar) man of the dust from the ground breathed (no), nipah) into his nostrils the breath of life

And man became a living being

planted (W), nita), a garden in Eden placed (0,W, sim), there the man, whom he had formed

caused to grow (r)n, simair) every tree pleasing to the sight good for food

tree of life tree of knowledge of good and evil

In the midst of the garden (trans. by author)

Table 1.2. The garden environment in Genesis 2.



places man, and it is there that He causes to grow (11Y3S, samah, but in hiphil) "every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food," and in its midst He causes two special trees to grow. This is quite different from the act of creation on Day 3 (Gen 1:11) where God commands the earth to bring forth (Nvil, dagg, but in hiphil) trees and plants in general. The activity in Genesis 2 is altogether different from that in Genesis 1 and is never referred to as a creation.

Genesis 2:10-14 are frequently seen to be a later insertion which interrupts the flow of the narrative, but, in actual fact, these verses seem rather to be an essential part of Genesis 2 for they serve to confirm the location of the activities of the chapter. We find a river which has its source in the garden and waters it. Once it leaves [the garden] it is divided into four distinct rivers. Their geographic identity has been a matter of debate among scholars, but contextually their function is to point out the central location of the garden in the narrative.

Man's place and function (vss. 15-17); table 1.3. In Gen 2:15-17, the text returns to the main issue at hand—man's place and function in God's creation.

Man's Place and Function (vss. 15-17)

Then YHWH Elohim

and YHWH Elohim

took (nO, laqah) the man put (nn, nit ah, but in hiph.) him into the garden ofEden

to cultivate (u% `tibad) and keep (- ).30, Limar.) it

commanded man saying: You may eat from any tree of the garden

but shall not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (trans. by author)

Table 1.3. Man's place and function in Genesis 2.

The general statement in Gen 2:8, "and there (i.e., in the garden) He placed the man He had made" is now expanded with the added detail that man was placed in the garden for the purpose of cultivating and keeping it. That, again, solves the problem presented in Gen 2:5 where the absence of man is seen as the reason for the lack of cultivation of the earth. This confirms that Gen 2:5 is not referring to plants in general, but rather those plants which are specially dependent on cultivation and care by man.

Then God instructs man concerning the use of the trees in the garden, not trees in general. Man was free to eat of any tree in the garden, except the tree of knowledge which was located in the middle of the garden (Gen 2:9). Again


Genesis 2—A Special "Creation"? 5

we notice how the whole activity is centered around the garden. There is no indication of any activity outside the garden in Genesis 2.

Man's fellowship (vss. 18, 19a); table 1.4. The outline for man's place and function is not yet complete. Whereas the animals all find "fellowship" with an equal, man finds none compatible with himself, and God continues the creative process (Gen 2:18, 19a).

Man's Fellowship (vss. 18, 19a)

Then YHWH Elohim said, "It is not good for man to be alone..."

and YHWH Elohim formed (-NI, pisar) out of the ground every beast of the field every bird of the air

and brought (Mn, 66: but in hiph.) them to man (trans. by author)

Table 1.4. Man's fellowship in Genesis 2.

The locus of this activity is not specified, but in light of the overall context of Genesis 2 it is most natural to see it taking place in the garden setting. Man had been placed in the garden, so that is where he felt alone. Next, God forms (ON), yasar) animals and birds to occupy the garden. This interpretation seems justified on the basis of the parallel non-localized action where God "caused to grow every tree pleasing to the sight and good for food" (Gen 2:9). When he says to man that he can eat freely of any tree of the garden (Gen 2:16), it makes the most sense if the trees mentioned in Gen 2:9 are located in the garden. The whole event is different from the creative activity of Day 3 in Gen 1:9-12 when God created the seed-bearing vegetation of the earth, including fruit-bearing trees, with no specific instruction as to their function.

The same localization seems to apply to the animals (Gen 2:19). Other animals and birds had already been created on Days 5 and 6 (Gen 1:20-30). The animals created in Gen 2:19, 20 were specifically formed for a particular purpose which relates to man who is in the garden. Again, it may be signifi-cant to note that Genesis 2 is never referred to as a creation, but its activities are "hand-crafted" and apparently localized in the garden.

The remaining six verses (Gen 2:20-26) are also best understood in the context of the garden. Man was already there, so that is where God performed the creative "surgery" of removing one of man's ribs in order to "build" (1n, banah) the woman, and then, brought her to the man (Gen 2:22).

There is not clear evidence within Genesis 2 of any activity outside of the garden. Those texts which might seem to point in that direction may be better understood in the more local setting of the garden.



Conclusion Genesis 2 does not appear to be an abbreviated summary of the creation

nor an independent account of that event, rather, it presents an expanded detail of a part of the events occurring on Day 6 of creation week, which is summarized in Genesis 1. It explains further the close relationship between God and man, and the personal care with which God planned and provided for man's well-being and happiness. He personally provided man with a home in Eden (a place of delight), a source of food, and fellowship. This closeness is also reflected in the use of the divine name. Elohim forms a connecting link with the creation narrative of Genesis 1. The same powerful God who created the world(s) through his creative word in Genesis 1 is now seen as the close, personal God, YHWH, who comes down to fellowship with man and cares for him. Rather than implying different sources the variation in the divine names indicates different aspects of the same God. He is both transcendent and imminent, powerful and personal. The apparently different sequence of events between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 poses no problem, because Genesis 2 never claims to be an account of the whole of creation week. All of its activity is centered around, and in, the garden which God planted. The trees, plants, animals and birds, planted and formed by YHWH Elohim in Genesis 2, are apparently not those of the world in general, but those which belong in a garden setting and are dependent on man's special care and cultivation. They are God's special "hand-crafted creation" in the garden and form a part of the home environment of man in Eden, the "place of delight."

References

Sailhamer, J. H. 1990 Genesis. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Shea, W. H. 1978 The Unity of the Creation Account. Origins 5: 9-38.

Speiser, E. A. 1979

Genesis. Anchor Bible, vol. 1, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freeman. New York: Doubleday.

Westermann, C. 1976 Genesis 1 - 11. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.


2 The Book of Joshua: Its Structure and Meaning'

David Merling Archaeology and Bible, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

The Book of Joshua: A Book Describing the Israelite Conquest

The book of Joshua presents itself as a compilation of the earliest events of the Israelites in Canaan. It tells about the battles the Israelites fought and how they were led before the time of the Judges. Many who have read the book of Joshua have seen in its stories a depiction of Israel's mighty army, destroying every city it attacked, and massacring all the people, thus, leaving the land empty for the Israelites, who lived peacefully thereafter. The AD 20th-century version of this story is called the Conquest Theory.

The Conquest Theory is widely considered the Bible's theory of how the Israelites gained their homeland. Isserlin reports that Albright "accepted the basic biblical tradition of invasion and conquest" (1985: 85). Gottwald wrote,

A cursory reading of the Bible supports the conquest theory to such an extent that generations of readers never even considered anotherpossibility.... Nothing could seem more conclusive. Thus the solidest piece of evidence for the conquest model is its great antiquity, deeply rooted in the old Israelite traditions (1985: 192).

Connections between the book of Joshua and an Israelite conquest are made by many (Butler 1983: xxiii; Sharon 1994: 123; cf. Dever 1990: 40, 41). Even those who doubt the historicity of the biblical accounts assume that the book of Joshua is a story of universal conquest. For example, Finkelstein has rejected the "biblical narratives" (as he referred to the book of Joshua) since he saw in them support for the conquest paradigm, which he concluded does not measure with the archaeological record (1988: 22; cf. Dever 1992: 103; Butler 1983: xxxvi; Lemche 1993: 174; Na'aman 1994: 223; for a survey of recent attempts to decipher the book of Joshua see Hess 1995).



The belief in an all-encompassing, blood-thirsty conquest is not only an accepted theorem but provides theologians with soul-tearing guilt. Consider Gladson's concern first expressed by a description of the

... wholesale violence against the Canaanites. ... From the Christian perspective, how do we account for such brutality? How does it affect our contemporary attitude toward war? ... The problem of holy war continues to challenge our thinking (Gladson 1995: 16, 18; also Herr 1995: 14, 15).

I suggest that any assumed theory needs to be cautiously reconsidered from time to time. One major inadequacy of the Conquest Theory is that it has little room in its explanatory process for the major theme of the biblical writers, that is, YHWH. This is true, even of the long-held theory that the book of Joshua pictures an Israelite army bound for "holy war."

YHWH was Present The primary historiological concern of the biblical writers of the book of

Joshua is the belief in the supremacy of YHWH (rnn)) and His control over all events (Freedman 1967: 37, 38). The omnipresence of YHWH is the theme of every phase of biblical writing, but especially in the book of Joshua. That YHWH in particular is denoted, is clear because that specific, personal name is used in the book of Joshua 224 times, and at no time is either 5K or o'75x used without the presence of nln) for clarification.

In the book of Joshua, the importance of YHWH to the Israelites is emphasized from the beginning (Josh 1:1). When the feet of YHWH's priests touched the waters of the Jordan River, the river bed became dry. The battle for Jericho was not a battle; it was a miracle (Josh 6:1-5). And it was not a miracle elevating their leader Joshua, but rather a miracle of YHWH. Joshua himself was humbled with his face to the ground before the real leader of Israel (Josh 5:15). It was YHWH's priests who blew the trumpets and carried the ark of the Lord (Josh 6:8) and it was He who conquered Jericho. As Stern correctly states, "Joshua 6 expresses in a powerful way the belief that YHWH's power alone was ultimately responsible for the Israelite occupation of the land" (1991: 145).

The testimony recorded in Joshua 23 is that the victories the Israelites experienced were miraculous and undeserved. God had been fighting for the Israelites (Josh 23:3, 9) as He promised (Josh 23:5). More credit was given to stinging hornets than to Israel's sword and bow because it was God who directed the hornets (Josh 24:12). Since no specific story is related that includes the presence of "hornets" in battle, we can assume only that these "hornets" serve as a metaphorical symbol of God's power, outside of Israel's expected military capability (Harrison 1982: 757). In other words, the biblical writers implied that the outcome of Israel's military invasion went well beyond martial expectations because YHWH fought for Israel. Even the division of the


The Book ofJoshua 9

land among the Israelites was accomplished by the direct involvement of God (Num 26:55; Josh 14:1, 2). The biblical writers recorded that each tribe was to be allotted its portion by God, not based on the size of a tribe or conquest rights or military capability.

The Israelites were to divide the land by the casting of lots (511)), an activity that YHWH controlled (Dommershausen 1977: 450; and Aune 1986: 172, 173; cf. Mendelsohn 1962: 164) The casting of lots was a holy act and seen by the Israelites as a clear "answer and final decision of Yahweh, against which there is no appeal" (Dommershausen 1977: 452).

The overriding belief in YHWH's omnipresence in history is present in all the biblical books, but nowhere more forceful than in the book of Joshua stories. In all its stories, "there is one hero, and only one. It is God himself and to him Israel must give all praise and credit" (Wright 1984: 13).

The Conquest Theory looks for physical remains from events said to have been caused by the Divine. This in itself should give pause.

The Relationship between the Book of Joshua and Archaeology

One might expect that if the book of Joshua accurately represents historical occurrences (even if caused or instigated by YHWH), archaeological investigations of sites said to be conquered by Joshua would yield evidences of that conquest. One problem faced by excavators is that the book of Joshua provides very little specific information about the cities captured by the Israelites. Table 2.1, which summarizes the information about captured cities provided by the biblical writers, demonstrates the limited nature of the details of those incidents.

According to the book of Joshua, the wall of Jericho fell and the city was burned. Ai was set on fire and left in ruin. Makkedah was utterly destroyed. Hebron was utterly destroyed and Hazor was burned. Nothing specific is said about Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, and Debir, except that whatever happened to the other cities happened to them.

As this summary suggests, the statements of what was done to these cities are in general terms with no specific, detailed descriptions provided. Regarding Jericho itself, about which the biblical writers provide the most comment, the biblical writers tell the readers nothing about what the city looked like after the destruction or before. Was it a city of 50 acres or one acre, like the most assumed spot for Jericho, Tell es-Sultan?

Readers are left in a quandary: Should we expect that the Israelites dismantled Jericho stone by stone? What about Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Debir, and Hazor? Were all of their walls knocked down or was only one breach made in each of their walls, or is there some other possibility? I would suggest that an interpretation of the specific deeds done to these cities be drawn cautiously since it seems that one reason so few details are provided



Description

wall fell in its place (n131711171nYlil 5n71, watippd hahomt* tahteyha) burned the city with fire (Vhia 1D V) veha it kfirepii ba- 'es) set the city on fire

wayydssitu 'et hair) Joshua burned Ai; made it a heap forever (o5)11-571 nwion lyrrriti 91V.P1, wayyikop Yheifua` "et-hi ay way gitneha utterly destroyed it (them) (ornzst °Inn, hell' rim 'atilm) nothing specific about city destruction' nothing specific about city destruction' nothing specific about city destruction' he utterly destroyed it (713111i wayyalf rem 'ottih) nothing specific about city destruction' he burned Hazor with fire Ora glo -nNn-nro, we 'et-hisor scrap bil'e I)

Josh 10:37, 39 could be seen as implying the total destruction of Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, and Debir, but there is no specific statement in the text that describes the destruction of these cities.

Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph (Josh 11:1) could conceivably be added to this list. It seems, however, that the pronoun "them" (Heb. MIN) ofortiti tannn (Josh 11:12) does not refer to these cities but to the kings, since the "kings" are the closest antecedent to this pronoun and is in the masculine form of the pronoun. In any case, nothing specific in the text is said about the destruction of Madon, Shimron, or Achshaph.

Site Reference

Jericho 6:20

6:24

Ai 8:19

8:28

Makkedah 10:28

Libnah 10:30 Lachish 10:32 Eglon 10:35 Hebron 10:37

Debir 10:39 Hazor 11:11

Table 2.1. Sites destroyed by Joshua with specific reference to their destruction.'

is that each city destroyed in the book of Joshua was a city that experienced a "Day of YHWH" kind of judgment. Experiencing such a judgment, it had to be totally destroyed and that judgment had to fall in one day, no matter its physical condition following an Israelite attack.

The implications of Stuart's (1976) insights into the "Sovereign's Day of Conquest" have not been considered as they should have been for the book of Joshua. Stuart made a connection between the biblical prophets' "Day of the Lord" and the ancient Near Eastern concept that "a true sovereign could win his war in a day" (1976: 159; emphasis in original). In the same way that other great kings won their battles in one day, the prophets said that there, would be a final "Day of the Lord," when YHWH would defeat all foes in one day. This same kind of judgment is suggested in the book of Joshua, where the Israelites, led by YHWH, conquered city after city in one day.

Would a biblical writer dare suggest that any part of the city or population remained following a "Day of YHWH" judgment? In other words, few details are provided because the destruction of these cities was an act of YHWH and, for the biblical writers, that says it all. The lack of information is especially


The Book oPoshua 11

telling, given the biblical writers' statement that the wars of Israel continued a long time (Josh 11:18). In other words, we have very little specific information about events that went on for a long time.

Of the 12 cities the biblical writers list as involved in conflict with the Israelites, only five are specifically noted as being destroyed (Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, Hebron, and Hazor). Even if we allow that the destruction of Libnah, Lachish, and Debir is included in summary statements, we have no biblical information about what specific acts the Israelites performed against them. Except in the case of Jericho, where we are told the wall fell "in its place," the biblical writers tell us nothing about the specific results of their conquest. In other words, did "utterly destroying them" (e.g. 0311K 0)1h71 Josh 11:12) include the absolute leveling of all structures within a city, as well as the city walls and gates, or were some of the walls and buildings left standing? If um is to be understood in its most specific sense, as dedicated to YHWH, then we would expect that like Jericho and Ai all of the cities listed would remain empty, since oln implies being given to YHWH, and would bar human use. It seems highly unlikely that the biblical writers had this scenario in mind since—at the least in the case of Hebron—Caleb was allowed to live there (Josh 14:13).

Site Biblical (Modern)

Late Bronze Settlement

Late Bronze I Destruction

Late Bronze II Specific Destruction Mention

Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) ✓ ? Ai (et-Tell) --- --- --- Makkedah (Tell es-Safi) ✓ ?

(Khirbet el-Qom) ? --- --- Libnah (Tell es-Safi) ✓ ? ?

(Tell Bornat) ? ? ? (Tell Judeideh) ? ? ?

Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) ✓ --- ✓ Eglon (Tell el-Hesi) ✓ ? ?

(Tell `Aitun) ? ? ? Hebron (Tell Hebron) ✓ ? ? Debir (Tell Beit Mirsim) ✓ ✓ ✓

(Khirbet Rabild) ✓ ? ? -Hazor (Tell el-Qedah) ✓ ✓ ✓ Madon (Tel Qarnei Hittin) ✓ -- ✓ Shimron (Tell Shimron) ✓ ? ? Achshaph (Tell Keisan) ✓ --- ✓

Table 2.2. A summary of the archaeological data for the book of Joshua.



Summary of the Archaeological Evidence of the Israelite Conquest

Table 2.2 summarizes the archaeological data about the sites claimed to have been conquered by the Israelites. Of the 17 sites listed, 12 had some kind of Late Bronze Age settlement. Of the sites with Late Bronze Age strata, only two sites (Hazor and Tell Beit Mirsim) had evidence of a destruction during Late Bronze I, as opposed to five (Jericho, Tell ed-Duweir, Tell Beit Mirsim, Hazor, Tel Qarnei Hittin, and Tell Keisan) with definite evidence of a Late Bronze II/Iron I destruction. Jericho could be added to this group if Wood's re-evaluation of Jericho's Late Bronze Age is sustained (1990a; 1990b). Even at that, it must be evident that the number of Late Bronze I and Late Bronze II/Iron I destructions is not overwhelming, considering the 17 sites considered. The poignant fact is that we know very little, as a whole, about the archaeological sites thought to be cities involved in the conflicts of the book of Joshua. By comparing table 2.1 with table 2.2, it becomes apparent that neither the Bible nor archaeology has produced much information about the conquest events of the book of Joshua. Yet, our ignorance of the whole and the specifics of what we do know have driven the archaeological discussions.

Wrote Albright, "The case of Ai has undoubtedly been responsible for a marked tendency in certain quarters to depreciate the historical content of the narratives of Joshua" (1939: 15).

Finkelstein assumed the problem is the late redaction of the text and declared that,

the principal historical source at our disposal for the period of Israelite Settlement is, of course, the Bible. Without denigrating its overwhelming importance for reconstructing the history of Israel, the fact remains that attempts to reconstruct the course of Israelite Settlement on the basis of the biblical accounts have not been successful. The main reason for their failure is that the biblical narratives were redacted centuries after the events they purport to describe actually took place. As a result, what they really reflect is the version that was current in Jerusalem at the end of the period of the Monarchy (1988: 337).

Malamat shared the same opinion.

For this tradition, which crystallized only after generations of complex literary reworking, could only reflect the conceptions and tendentiousness of later redactors and, therefore, might be devoid - of any actual historical value (1979: 39).

Noth was a bit kinder to the text, suggesting that it is not necessarily wrong but that the book of Joshua offers the reader a simplified view of Israel's early history (1960: 72).

In general, the conclusion has been that the archaeological evidence


The Book of Joshua 13

disputes the biblical record, even though some like Wright, a strong supporter of the conquest model, have acknowledged that the biblical record itself is complex. Those more friendly to the text still hold to the view that the conquest model seen in the book of Joshua will, in the end, be confirmed (Davidson 1995: 70, 71). The book of Joshua is approached, then, in one of two ways: either as more or less accurately describing Israel's devastating, all-encompassing conquest of Canaan, or as a compilation of oral traditions, folk tales, and etiological explanations with little historical value for the events they describe (e.g. Hamlin 1983: xxii, xxiii, 3; Noth 1960: 71). Both conclusions, however, take for granted that the book of Joshua, itself, describes a glorious Israelite conquest.

The Book of Joshua and Confirmation One of the hypotheses of this paper is that the book of Joshua is not about

Israelite conquest. It is a book of "confirmation." By "confirmation" I mean that the book of Joshua is a treatise written with the primary goal of confirming or reconfirming the uniqueness of Israel, which is evidenced (as suggested by the biblical writers) by the presence and guidance of YHWH. While in the first 11 chapters of the book of Joshua military actions are described, those actions serve a more important role than to provide combat details or to tell even which cities were destroyed or what path the Israelites took in destroying them.

The book of Joshua is the confessional statement of the biblical writers proclaiming that YHWH brought the Israelites into the land and gave it to them. Only their lack of faith kept the Israelites from obtaining the land. The stories of Joshua 1-13 are used to demonstrate to the readers the truth of this confession (i.e. the stories are the evidence). The battles of Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 are no more important to the biblical writers than any other part of their story. The details of those battles were related by the biblical writers as of minor importance, only of secondary interest. That is the main reason why there are so few details.

Although the book of Joshua has been superficially assumed to describe an all-encompassing Canaanite conquest, the text of the book of Joshua offers sufficient internal evidence to alter that interpretation. Specifically, the book of Joshua highlights only three military campaigns (Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11) and provides ample evidence that only a tenuous settlement was attained during the period covered by the book. Thus, the military victories described in the book of Joshua have been interpreted in an overly simplistic manner, making the book of Joshua support a conclusion that is not inherent in the text.

I acknowledge that the message of the book of Joshua can be misunderstood, if one merely focuses on Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 and forgets the rest of the book, but problems produced by such an approach are problems created by arbitrary methodology, not the textual materials. The reader has



created difficulties with the archaeological data that are not inherent in the book of Joshua. In another context, Mendenhall wrote, "What the theologian dismisses is not the Old Testament, but his own erroneous ideas about it" (1976b: 5). His conclusion equally applies to many interpreters of the book of Joshua.

R. Polzin (1993) has taken biblical studies to a new level by advocating the importance of literary analysis as a prelude to historical critical issues. He is correct that the present fractious conditions of biblical studies and the "disappointing and inadequate results" of past theories are the offspring of ignoring literary concerns (1993: 5). Polzin suggested that the understanding of any literary work requires an understanding of its selected outline and an appreciation of the place of its individual episodes in the whole (1993: 84).

Contrary to Polzin, I am not interested in the book of Joshua as a pragmatic example of law as proposed in the book of Deuteronomy (1993: 74), although I do not deny those interconnections. Rather, I am concerned with the historical, archaeological questions proposed by the presence of the Israelites in Canaan as presented in the book of Joshua. Polzin looks at the larger picture that his "Deuteronomist" paints from Deuteronomy-Kings (1993: 18, 21, 22). I am concerned with what the book of Joshua says about the initial actions of the Israelites in Canaan, which Polzin acknowledges as "its obvious thematic content: the occupation of the land, the apportioning of the land among the tribes" (1993: 73).

In these pages, I am probing historical-archaeological issues. As such, I am interested in the historical perception of biblical authors (i.e. what did they believe or want us to believe happened when the Israelites came to Canaan and why).

An Outline of the Book of Joshua The book of Joshua has been outlined many times. Most reviewers would

follow Mitchell's lead in dividing the book of Joshua into "two main sections ... the conquest of Cisjordan" and "the division of Cisjordan" (1993: 31). The wording is often different, but the intent by most commentators is a recognition that there are two main sections in the book of Joshua (Bratcher and Newman 1983: 6; Davidson 1995: 10; Garstang 1931: xi, xii; Noth 1953: 1; Soggin 1972: 2, 3; Waltke 1982: 1134; Woudstra 1981: 42-44).

Some have not dealt with the issue of themes by approaching the task of outlining the book of Joshua as a descriptive process that seeks no overall themes (Boling 1992: 1002; Boling and Wright 1984: vii-x; Butler 1983: xxv; Hamlin 1983: v). These outlines simply restate the obvious subdivisions of the book of Joshua, as though a writer would compose without a theme or purpose that Polzin would remind us not to forget (1993: 84). The reader is left to believe that the biblical writers had no purposes in mind. No doubt this lack of connective theme (especially by Boling and Wright) is due to the


The Book ofJoshua 15

recognition of the inadequacy of the more common dual division of conquest and settlement in summing up the book of Joshua. Boling obliquely referred to this problem.

While mere mention of Joshua may evoke mental images of massive invasion by a unified national army, proceeding to victories of something like genocidalproportions (an image which indeed seems to be mirrored in a number of editorial passages of Joshua), the arrangement of the book and close reading evoke a different image; but one not so quick to come to sharp focus (1 99 1003).

I suggest that the problem commentators have with developing an appropriate outline springs from focusing on the military narratives of Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11, allowing these chapters to overshadow the entire book, forcing the whole book into too narrow a role. Thus, the major thematic point of the biblical writers has been missed and the book, as a result, misunder-stood. In other words, to understand correctly the story of the book of Joshua we need first to discern the writers' theme and apply that theme to the whole of the book.

The theme, as presented by the biblical writers, is that, when Israel came to Canaan, YHWH was with them. The arrival of the Israelites was not an event that Moses or Joshua produced. It was something YHWH did. The events described in the book of Joshua were not accidental or arbitrary. According to the biblical writers, YHWH controlled those events and He controlled the events so that Israel would know He was with them and so the reader of the book of Joshua would believe YHWH was with Israel in those events. In other words, confirmation is the thematic key to understanding the book of Joshua.

If Mitchell was correct in assuming that the book of Joshua is about conquest and mass destruction (1993: 52), then stories about the crossing of the Jordan River, Rahab, and circumcision would fit the biblical writers' main purposes. As it is, those stories seem awkward and out of place. The incompatability of purposes between Joshua 1-5 and 6-13 is artificially created by assuming that the military events of Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 are the heart of the book. In reality the stories about conquest are only one aspect of the larger overarching theme. The events outlined in Joshua 1-13 were selected by the biblical writers to demonstrate to the reader that when Israel entered Canaan, YHWH was leading and blessing. Israel came and possessed, not by accident, but by YHWH's divine hand. This confirmation theme is the core element in every story of Joshua 1-13. It is the single most consistent theme within the book.

While confirmation is the thematic key, the book itself does have two basic parts. The first half of the book describes the confirmation events (Joshua 1-13), while the second half displays the reality of those events



(Joshua 14 -24). This division can best be seen in outline form (table 2.3).

Part I: The Confirmation Events The first half of the book of Joshua is itself divided into two sections:

"Confirmation by Symbolism" (Joshua 1-5) and "Confirmation by Power" (Joshua 6-13). Part I, Section A, "Confirmation by Symbolism," describes events before the battle for Jericho. The events may seem unconnected to the Israelite armed conflict, but this section is intimately connected to what follows. In fact, the relationship between Joshua 1-5 and Joshua 6-13 is crucial to understanding the book of Joshua.

Joshua 1 begins the confirmation accounts by having YHWH Himself speak to Joshua. It should not be forgotten that the book of Deuteronomy has the Israelites trembling, fearful of death, when God spoke to them in the time of Moses. They begged Moses to ask God to speak first to him and report His message to them (Deut 5:22-27). The role of spokesperson in the book of

Description Chapters

Part I: The Confirmation of YHWH's Presence by Symbolism and Power A. Confirmation by Symbolism 1-5

1. YHWH speaks to Joshua 1 2. Rahab/Gibeonites profess faith in YHWH 2, 9 3. YHWH dries the Jordan River 3, 4 4. YHWH renews the covenant 5 5. Heavenly messenger blesses Joshua 5:13-15

B. Confirmation by Power 1. The First Military Campaign 6-8 2. The Second Military Campaign 9, 10 3. The Third Military Campaign 11 4. Summary of kings defeated 12 5. Summary of land controlled 13

This is how we know YHWII was with Israel.

Part II: The Results of the Confirmation Events A. Judah and its territory 14, 15 B. Ephraim and its territory 16 C. Manasseh and its territory 17 D. Other Tribes and their territories 18-22 E. Advice for continued confirmation 23, 24

This is the result of YHWH 's presence. It would have been better, but the Israelites were not faithful.

Table 2.3. An outline of the book of Joshua.



Joshua has been passed to Joshua. The reason Joshua is confirmed as another Moses is that his relationship with YHWH (one who could speak with YHWH) was seen by the biblical writers as a confirmation that what was happening (i.e. the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan) was no mere accident. They were being led by YHWH, who actually spoke to the leader of the Israelites and told him what he should do.

The role of Rahab in Joshua 2 and 6 is more important to the aims of biblical writers than most commentators have realized. She serves as evidence, that is, "confirmation," that even those who were outside of the Israelite family were aware that the power of YHWH was with the Israelites and that the land had been given to them. For the biblical writers Rahab testifies,

I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the tenor of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. And when we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath (Josh 2:9-1 1, NASB).

In the words of this prostitute (n)lt; the location of Rahab's house on the walls of Jericho fits the pattern of other prostitutes [Josh 2:15; Bottro 1992: 190, 194] underscoring the point that she was indeed a prostitute), the biblical writers repeat previous events that demonstrated YHWH's mighty power, causing everyone to tremble. In the book of Joshua, Rahab serves as direct evidence of the fear possessed by those opposed to the Israelites.

The epic of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) serves a similar, albeit expanded, role of confirmation as the story of Rahab. The Gibeonites respond like Rahab, assuming, like her, that their only hope was to make a treaty with the Israelites. This conclusion, we are told, was based on what happened to Ai and Jericho (Josh 9:3) and what happened in Egypt and Transjordan (Josh 9:9, 10). The Gibeonites approached the Israelites at Gilgal and sued for peace, falsely telling the Israelites that they were from a distant country (Joshua 9). The biblical writers assumed that the Gibeonites would know that the Israelites were not supposed to make peace treaties with the inhabitants of Canaan, thus the ruse. This account, like the story of Rahab, serves the biblical writers as evidence (or, using the term I prefer, "confirmation") that the people of Canaan were terrified of the Israelites and knew their only hope was surrender. The Gibeonites were so terrified that they pretended to be inhabitants of a distant land.

The crossing of the Jordan River (Joshua 3 and 4) serves a similar goal of confirming Israel's right to the land and Joshua as her leader. In fact, the entire process of crossing the Jordan River is presented to the reader like a marriage



event joining the Israelites to the land. The procedure of joining the Israelites to the land is full and complete, including a three-day preparation period (Josh 1:11; 3:2). Since this union to the land was a spiritual one, the Israelites were told the day before the crossing to consecrate themselves (Heb witipm, Josh 3:5). On the day when they crossed the Jordan River, there was a procession led by priests carrying the ark of the covenant (Josh 3:3-6). As the priests' feet touched the water, the water stopped flowing (Josh 3:15-17). After the crossing, a memorial service was conducted with stones left as witnesses to the event (Josh 4:9). Since no enemy was present, even the 40 eleph of troops, who marched across the Jordan River ahead of the people, serve more a symbolic cultic purpose rather than preparation for war (Josh 4:13).

If one sees the book of Joshua as about the conquest of the land or the destruction of the inhabitants, one can question the amount of space spent on the details of the Jordan River crossing, but the true purpose of the first 13 chapters of the book of Joshua is to confirm in the mind of the reader that YHWH had given the land to the Israelites. Their ownership of the land was demonstrated by the miraculous and ceremonial events that marked their first days in their new homeland.

Immediately after crossing the river, the Israelites were bonded to YHWH by a confirmation act—the renewing of their covenant. This bonding was accomplished via circumcision—again, an act tied directly to Moses because the biblical writers tell us this was the second time this corporate act had been done (Josh 5:2). This act was undoubtedly used by the biblical writers to demonstrate that Israel was indeed YHWH's people on His mission.

Even the story of Achan and his thievery from YHWH (Joshua 7) is a confirmation story. While Achan's story is in the shadow of the defeat at Ai, the purpose of the story is broader than merely teaching a lesson about obedience, as Mitchell suggested (1993: 76, 77). The real message of the biblical writers confirms the truth that even when Israel sins (Josh 7:11) YHWH will not forsake them, but will forgive them (Josh 7:26). The story of Achan confirms the Israelites as a people like no other. Others who resist YHWH's purposes find no such forgiveness (e.g. Amalekites, Exod 17:8-16; 1 Sam 15:2). The Israelites are unique and the story of Achan confirms that uniqueness in a way no other story does.

The military campaigns of the book of Joshua (chaps. 6 and 8-10) are also confirmation stories and comprise the second section of the first half of the book of Joshua (see table 2.3). The main emphasis of the Southern and Northern campaigns (Joshua 10, 11), which are the heart of the conquest accounts, is not that the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanite population. The success of the Israelites in these campaigns, rather, is used by the biblical writers as an illustration of how YHWH was with Israel. No one could stand before them. As Joshua said,


The Book of Joshua 19

For the Lord has driven out great and strong nations from before you; and as for you, no man has stood before you to this day. One of your men puts to flight a thousand, for the Lord your God is He who fights for you, just as He promised you (Josh 23:9, 10).

The Israelites were victorious because "the Lord, God of Israel, fought for Israel" (Josh 10:42) and Joshua gave the land to the Israelites as an inheritance (Josh 11:23). Not that these war stories do not picture conflict, destruction, and slaughter. They do, but the purpose of the war accounts is the same as the non-war stories that precede them. The military successes of the Israelites against Jericho/Ai, the Southern and Northern coalitions, confirmed to the biblical writers that YHWH fought for the Israelites and gave them the land. The list of all the kings whom they defeated and the land that was under their dominion (Joshua 12, 13) confirmed that YHWH was with them.

The war stories are confirmation accounts, confirming YHWH's presence with the Israelites and their right to the land. That the conquest accounts are used this way by the biblical writers and interpreted in the same way by the participants of these battles can be seen by the figurative act of having all of the warriors put their feet on the necks of the defeated Amorite kings (Josh 10:24). If the battle accounts were simply about conquest, there would have been no reason for such a demonstration. The battles of Joshua 10 and 11 are about confirming Israel's right to the land. At the same time, these war stories have all the elements of real historical events (Younger 1990: 237).

The dividing of the land (Joshua 13) amounted to a claim by the biblical writers that YHWH had deeded the land to the Israelites. Thus, Hess compared the land allocation of Joshua 13-19 with the Hittites and concluded, "These descriptions serve to emphasize the role of Israel's deity who, like the Hittite emperor, determines the boundaries" (1994b: 138). No doubt the boundary lists represent the ideal and there is no need to explain "discrepancies and inconsistencies" (Curtis 1994: 27).

Theories of Israelite conquest/settlement have assumed that a major theme of the book of Joshua is the cities and land the Israelites conquered. Some even suppose that this theme of "land" is the only subject on which the book of Joshua can be trusted. Finkelstein, for example, considers the book of Joshua as historically unreliable, but accepts the book's geographical territorial description. In fact, for Finkelstein, it is the Iron I settlement of the Canaanite hill country that explains the origins of Israel.

It is impossible to come to grips with the settlement episode without a thoroughgoing acquaintance with at least one region of the hill country—in which the events took place. This means studying its archaeological and ecologica l components, as well as the patterns of occupation during the

i periods mmediately preceding and succeeding the time of Israelite Settlement (1988: 21).



Without disputing Finkelstein's emphasis on the importance of grasping what happened on the land, defining the geographical boundaries of where early Israel settled was not a major theme of the biblical writers. The biblical writers assume that the readers are already aware of what was Israelite territory. Finkelstein, himself, acknowledges that the biblical writers had little interest in geographical boundaries by recognizing how few military battles are actually recorded about the central portion of Israelite territory in the book of Joshua. "The central hill country, the heartland of Israelite Settlement, is hardly represented at all in the tradition of the unified campaign of conquest" (Finkelstein 1988: 298). The location where the Israelites settled was not so important to the biblical writers of the book of Joshua as the mechanism—by God's power.

One should consider that, if any sections of the book of Joshua were likely to be modified by later hands, territorial boundaries would be the most likely section to be corrupted. Later redactors would always be tempted to update or modify the boundaries of the book of Joshua with the more currently recognized or desirable tribal boundaries. The geographical concerns of Joshua 15-21 fit, like other sections, into the overall theme of the biblical writers; the exact location of the boundaries is not as important as the theme the writers are attempting to convey to the readers (contrary to the usual past focus on the geography and attempts to assign sources to misunderstood sections, while ignoring the point of the final writers, e.g. Kallai 1986).

Among the geographical information are statements that allow Israel's incomplete conquest (e.g. Josh 17:12). These acknowledgments are more significant than any geographical use of wide-ranging boundaries (Joshua 15-21). The inabilities of the Israelites suggest the reality of their struggles, while the grandiose boundaries speak of promise and possibilities. While the book of Joshua does provide conquest stories, it says almost nothing about the settling of Canaan.

No one can comfortably possess land until the deed is clear and no one can apportion land to others until it is one's own. Joshua 13 (and in some ways Joshua 12 as well) ends the confirmation events and actuates the events to follow. The dividing of the land is the last piece of evidence provided by the biblical writers demonstrating Israel's right to the land and it is, thus, the precursor of the settlement. Joshua 1 is the promise of the land, while Joshua 13 is the last demonstration of the right to the land (YHWH gave it to them, so it must be theirs). The division of the land was a promise to the Israelites themselves.

The events of Joshua 1-13, then, are confirmation events. These events are used by the biblical writers to press home their point. Seeing the book of Joshua as a story about total conquest as Mitchell does (1993: 91, 99; with a "single-minded emphasis on destruction" 1993: 52) causes him to be "surprised" when unconquered people and territory are introduced into the


The Book oposhua 21

story (1993: 111, 135). Hastily drawn conclusions are what really is the "surprise" in this story. One can only conclude that the book of Joshua is about total conquest by reading only Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 (the three military campaigns) while ignoring the rest of the book. Mitchell was closer to the truth when he said that the gift of the land by YHWH in Joshua 1 "has confessional character." That "confessional character," however, should be applied to all of Joshua 1-13, especially the battle accounts. Each one of these stones is a confirmation event that proved to the biblical writers, and supposedly the Israelites, that they belonged in the land and the land belonged to them. That there remained enemy agents in the land and that the territory under Israelite control was limited are readily acknowledged and even assumed by the story (e.g. Josh 14:12-14; 16:10; 17:12; 23:4, 5, 7, 12). On the whole, the book of Joshua provides a more balanced explanation of the extent of the Israelite conquest than readers have often perceived.

Part II: The Results of the Confirmation Events The second half of the book of Joshua is an outline of what happened after

Israel had experienced the confirmation events (see table 3.3). These events summarize the first attempts of the Israelites to possess (i.e. live in) the land they had claimed. Note that Caleb's request for land comes to Joshua at Gilgal (Josh 14:6). That Joshua is still pictured as residing at Gilgal can imply only that the biblical writers assumed that Israel had not permanently possessed any land before this time. Also note that Joshua 14 and 15 are the stories associated with the tribe of Judah, the same tribe that Judges 1 says led out in the settlement.

The story of the Ephraimites is recorded in Joshua 16 and the Manassehites in Joshua 17. These two chapters mix Ephraimite tribal boundaries and the troubles of the Ephraimites in gaining their territory. The remaining tribes were not able to acquire any land on their own and were therefore given some land from Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh (Joshua 18-22). Joshua 18:2 specifically states that seven tribes had acquired no land.

In the book of Joshua, the tension between the confirmation accounts and the results of the confirmation events is between the two sections of the book in which each has its own object which, though complementary, is unique. Again, Part I illustrates the Israelites' right to the land by events that confirmed that right (because YHWH gave it to them). These confirmation events included three military campaigns that legitimize Israel's claims that YHWH fought for them (Josh 24:12). Part II focuses on the Israelite struggle for specific regions and the tribes that struggled and admonitions to remain true to God's confirmation acts. From the accounts of Part II we get a clearer picture of the victories of Part I, which, in effect, were not a final victory. They were only the first stage. In other words, the conquest was a two-step process (Younger 1994: 227). The first step (and most important to the aims of the



book of Joshua) was the confirmation that YHWH was in league with Israel. The biblical writers saw that Presence in the events of Joshua 1-13. The second step of the conquest was the day-to-day contest of possessing the land, actually settling the land. While, for the biblical writers, the victories of Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 were real, the results of those victories were limited, according to Joshua 13-24. Likewise, the biblical writers of Judges 1 provided their own version of Joshua Part I, while reflecting the more day-to-day struggle of the later part of the book of Joshua Part II, in Joshua 3-21. I agree with Na' aman who observed that Judges 1 "can be considered as a complete conquest story, alternative and supplementary to the conquest stories of the Book of Joshua" (1994: 260).

Repetitions of sites conquered (e.g. Jerusalem, Judg 1:8, 21) and even stories previously recorded in Joshua (Judg 1:12-15; Josh 15:16-19) provide only further evidence of the difficult struggle Israel had for the land; the struggle that is first clearly stated in the book of Joshua. Obviously, Judges 1 includes events that happened in earlier times. These events were convoluted simply because the Judges 1 writers selected what they needed to demonstrate their point, without consideration of time-frame. They were not arguing for timing, only a limited selection of the difficulties and experiences of the Israelite struggle. At that, they were providing a "south-to-north geographical arrangement" to heighten the reader's awareness of the Israelites' moral decay (Younger 1994: 216, 217).

That the biblical writers were providing only the barest of reports is evidenced in the 26 verses of Judges 1 it took to record it (Judg 1:1-26). That they reflected the latter half of the book of Joshua says only that the experiences reflected there were the normative Israelite experience. That later readers have found conflicts between the accounts of the book of Joshua and Judges 1 suggests only that interpreters have simplisticly assumed that the 26 verses of Judges 1, comprising possibly several hundred years of events, and Joshua 6, 8, 10, and 11 were both written as complete histories, written to be used for analysis. As it is, Judges 1 has a different purpose than the conflict accounts of the book of Joshua.

Though his archaeological support for Joshua 10 may now be suspect, Wright was right in concluding that the book of Joshua is a more detailed account than is Judges 1. He wrote:

Furthermore, it is now apparent that Judges 1 is not an old, unified account of the original Conquest. From the standpoint of territorial history it must be seen as a collection of miscellaneous fragments of varying dates and of varying reliability (Wright 1979: 69, 70).

By "reliability" I would understand Wright to mean in comparison with the book of Joshua. What I would suggest is that neither of them is more



reliable than the other. They both serve the purposes for which they were written.

Judges 1 also seems to elevate the tribe of Judah and provides an "alternative and supplementary" account for the book of Joshua (Na'aman 1994: 260). I agree. Judges 1 does have its own purposes. Rather than Joshua and Judges being in conflict, I suggest Joshua 1-13 reflects the story of Judges 1, while Joshua 14-24 reflects the rest of Judges.

The last two chapters of the book of Joshua (23 and 24) are a mix of both confirmation and true life. According to Joshua 23, after there was peace from all their enemies, Joshua reminded the people that not one of YHWH's promises had failed (Josh 23:14), but also acknowledged that their enemies still surrounded them (Josh 23:13). Joshua 24 repeats the same story: YHWH was faithful (Josh 24:3-13) followed by a renewal of their covenant (Josh 24:26). Thus, the second half of the book of Joshua ends as the first half began. The first act on entering the land was the renewal of the covenant (Joshua 5). The last act of Joshua was a renewal of the same covenant (Koopmans 1990: 419).

To see the book of Joshua as a book designed primarily to describe a completed conquest is to miss the point of its story and produces conflicting realities within the book. The real point of the biblical writers is the presence and power of YHWH on behalf of His people.

I suggest that the outline I have provided (table 2.3) allows the book of Joshua to tell its own story and have its own meaning. Confirmation, as a thematic thread, holds the book of Joshua together and presents to the reader the basic theme of the book.

Summary and Conclusion The book of Joshua is about how the Israelites gained the land. According

to the biblical writers, the Israelites gained the land not by war, not by peacefully infiltrating the land, not by rebelling against their Canaanite overlords, and not due to the pressures of cultural or environmental transitions. At the conclusion of their long sojourn, as they approached Canaan, YHWH appeared and promised them the land, then, through a series of miraculous events, repeatedly demonstrated that the land belonged to them. They gained the land by the powerful hand of YHWH, who by His presence made the walls of Jericho fall and made the inhabitants of the land fearful of the Israelites. Whenever the Israelites approached an opponent, their adversary fled.

While first appearances may suggest otherwise, the book of Joshua does not state that the Israelites slaughtered the entire population of Canaan. They killed everyone they caught, which was probably very few. After all, Joshua himself said that one of them put a thousand to flight (Josh 23:10). Any invading army could expect that more would run than fight, especially if those coming seemed invincible (Jer 4:29), which was the testimony of Rahab and



the Gibeonites. In Joshua 1-13 the Israelites claimed the land but they did not settle (i.e.

possess) it. The biblical writers repeatedly tell the readers that the Israelites remained in Gilgal, only in last few chapters are they portrayed as inhabiting Shiloh and Shechem, places hardly mentioned in earlier accounts. In the rest of book of Joshua the Israelites reside in Gilgal, making their sorties from that point.

After making it clear that the land belonged to the Israelites by a series of confirmation events, the Israelites were supposed to begin the process of claiming the land, one city at a time. While some tribes did a pretty good job (e.g. Judah) others were not very successful (Joshua 18).

Notes

1. This paper is a revision of a chapter of my dissertation prepared under the direction of William H. Shea. Bill's support of this thesis is highly appreciated. At the same time, the friendship of both Bill and Karen to my wife Stephanie and me, has honored us. The paper was also read at the Midwest Branch of the Society of Biblical Literature, Wheaton, IL, 1997. The entire dissertation, The Book ofJoshua: Its Theme and Use in Discussions of the Israelite Conquest and Settlement, is published by Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, MI.

References Albright, W. F.

1939 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 74: 11-23.

Aune, D. E. 1986 Lots. Pp. 172, 173 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3,

ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans.

Boling, R. G. 1992

The Book of Joshua. Pp. 1002-1015 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Boling, R. G., and Wright, G. E. 1984 Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible,

Vol. 6, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bottero, J. 1992 Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago: University of

Chicago.

Bratcher, R. G., and Newman, B. M. 1983 A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Joshua. Helps for Translators.

London: United Bible.

Butler, T. C. 1983 Joshua. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word.



Curtis, A. H. W. 1994 Joshua. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic.

Davidson, R. M. 1995 Joshua: In the Footsteps of Joshua. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.

Dever, W. G. 1990 Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle: University

of Washington.

1992 The Late Bronze-Early Iron I Horizon in Syria-Palestine: Egyptians, Canaanites, "Sea Peoples," and Proto-Israelites. Pp. 99-110 in The Crisis Years: The 1.2' CentwyB.C. from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Dommershausen, W. 1977 Gora7. Pp. 450-456 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, ed.

H. R. G. J. Botterweck. Trans. J. T. Willis. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration

Society.

Freedman, D. N. 1967 The Biblical Idea of History. Interpretation. A Journal of ible and Theology

XXII: 32-49.

Garstang, J. 1931 Joshua/Judges. New York: Richard R. Smith.

Gladson, J. A. 1995 The Moral Outrage of Holy War. The Journal of the Association of Adventist

Forums 24: 16-18 .

Gottwald, N. K. 1985 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-

1050 B.C.E. New York: Orbis.

Hamlin, E. J. 1983 Inheriting the Land: A Commentary on the Book of Joshua, eds. G. A. F.

Knight and F. C. Holmgren. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Harrison, R. K. 1982 Hornet. Pg. 757 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W.

Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Herr, L. G. 1995 The Role of Law in the Book of Joshua. The Journal of the Association of

Adventist Forums 24: 8-15.

Hess, R. S. 1994 Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic



World. Pp. 123-138 in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992, ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

1995 Studies in the Book of Joshua. Themelos 20: 12-15.

Isserlin, B. S. J. 1983 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan: A Comparative Review of the Arguments

Applicable. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115: 85-94.

Kallai, Z. 1986 Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel.

Jerusalem/Leiden: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University/ E. J. Brill.

Koopmans, W. T. 1990 Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, eds. D. J. A. Clines and P.R. Davies.

Supplementary Series, vol. 93. Sheffield, England: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament.

Lemche, N. P. 1993 The Old Testament—a Hellenistic Book? Scandinavian Journal of the Old

Testament 7.2: 163-193. Malamat, A.

1979 Israelite Conduct of War in the Conquest of Canaan According to the Biblical Tradition, ed. F. M. Cross. Cambrigde, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Mendelsohn, I. 1962 Lots in the Old Testament. Pp. 163, 164 in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the

Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, ed. G. A. Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Mendenhall, G. E. 1976 Change and Decay in All Around I See??? Conquest, Covenant and the Tenth

Generation. The Biblical Archaeologist 39: 152-157.

Mitchell, G. 1993 Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book ofJoshua, eds. D. J. A. Clines

and P. R. Davies. Supplentary Series, vol. 134. Sheffield, England: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament.

Na'aman, N. 1994 The 'Conquest of Canaan' in the Book ofJoshua and in History. Pp. 218-281

in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological & Historical Aspects of Early Israel, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society.

Noth, D. M. 1953 Das Buch Josua. Handbuch Zum Allen Testament 7, ed. E. 0. Esifeldt.

Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

1960 The History oflsrael. Trans. by S. Godman, from German, second edition. New York: Harper & Row.



Polzin, R. 1993 Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History,

Part One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University.

Sharon, I. 1994 Demographic Aspects of the Problem of the Israelite Settlement. Pp.119-134 in

Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. L. M. Hopfe. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Soggin, J. A. 1972 Joshua: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Stern, P. D. 1991 The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel's Religious Experience. Brown

Judaic Studies 211. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

Stuart, D. 1976 The Sovereign's Day of Conquest. Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 221: 159-164.

Waltke, B. K. 1982 Book of Joshua. Pp. 1134-1138 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Wood, B. G. 1990a Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts. Biblical

Archaeological Review 16.2: 45-49, 68, 69.

1990b Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence. Biblical. Archaeological Review 16.5: 44-59.

Woudstra, M. H. 1981 The Books of Joshua. The New International Commentary on the Old

Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Wright, G. E. 1940 Epic of Conquest. The Biblical Archaeologist 3: 25-40.

1979 Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: Westminster.

1984 Introduction. Pp. 3-88 in Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Robert G. Boling, Introduction by G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Younger, K. L., Jr. 1990 Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical

History Writing. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 98. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

1994 Judges 1 in Its Near Eastern Literary Context. Pp. 207-27 in Faith, Tradition, and History. Eds. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffineier, D. W. Baker. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.


3 Polysemy of Rfiah in 1 Kings 22:19-25

Larry G. Herr Biblical Archaeology, Canadian Union College, College Heights, Alberta, Canada.

Bill Shea has always been quick to understand the importance of literary and archaeological observations in the Hebrew Bible. This paper studies the way the polysemy (dual meaning) of the Hebrew word raah (nn, "wind, spirit") in 1 Kings 22:19-25 sheds light on the intensity of a prophetic interchange and then how typical Israelite domestic architecture found on countless archaeological sites helps us picture a prophetic allusion.

One of the most frequently used words with two meanings in the Hebrew Bible is rilatz While in normal, everyday speech it meant "wind," in religious or theological contexts this idea was extended to mean an "unseen force" or "spirit." The story of Micaiah (1 Kings 22) uses these two meanings to provide us with a witty example of two opposing prophets trading polysemic insults.

The altercation occurs when the Israelite King Ahab seeks to convince Jehoshaphat of Judah to join a military coalition with him to retake Ramot Gilead from the Arameans of Damascus. In the face of four hundred of Ahab's prophets who say that God is firmly behind the king, Micaiah alone declares, after some anxiety, that Ahab will be killed. He details his message by describing a vision in which he sees Yahweh's divine council in session. The scene pictures God seeking advice from his court on ways to trick Ahab into fighting the Arameans so he will be killed. After various unsuccessful suggestions from members of the council, ha-riCall steps forward and says he will be a lying rfiali in the mouths of Ahab's prophets. Although virtually all English versions translate these instances of rfial? as "spirit," it is just as correct to translate them with "wind." Indeed, a member of most divine councils in the ancient world was the Wind (or Winds). If /Thah is understood this way, then Micaiah's statement that God approves this plan clearly insults the 400 prophets by calling their prophecy a deceiving wind. Moreover, the



insult extends to the religious understanding of ritah, because prophets are supposed to speak by the raah of God. Not only is their message full of "wind," but it is also a lying "spirit" from Yahweh which is inspiring their message. Undoubtedly, ancient readers understood both thrusts of the insult.

Certainly it was felt by Zedekiah, one of the leaders of Micaiah's opposition among the prophets, who attempts to parry the insult by slapping Micaiah on the face and cleverly turning the insult back onto him by playing on the dual meaning of Mak as well. By so doing he implies that Micaiah is no better than he is. He asks, "Which way did the MO Yahweh (rnn) nro blow from me to give you speech?" Two elements in this retort reflect the meaning of "spirit" for rfiali: The word itself is in construct with Yahweh, confirming that it is the "spirit of Yahweh" which motivates prophetic utterance, even if it be a lying one. The last two words, ledabb er 'oak (Trnx ia -r5, "to give you speech"),' also refer to the divine source of prophetic inspiration.

Zedekiah equals Micaiah's double-sided barb by using cabar (fly) to describe the motion of the rad! Yahweh. Although `gar is usually translated "pass," connecting it with the idea of "spirit," other contexts which connect MO with 'gar clearly refer to the "wind" and not to "spirit" (Gen 8:1; Job 37:21; Ps 103:16; and Jer 13:24); we have thus translated :ibar as "blow." Thus, Zedekiah's reply uses the same kind of polysemy that Micaiah used.

Micaiah's answer to Zedekiah's question is the punch line of our passage: "You will see when you enter the inner room for privacy." Although MO does not appear here, the statement depends on the earlier polysemic insults, however, at this point, Micaiah apparently abandons polysemy and refers to only one of the meanings of Mak The idea of MO as "spirit" cannot apply; what does an inner room have to do with spirit? But "wind" certainly does make sense. The insult is extreme, but, unfortunately, the earthy humor of Micaiah's reply is completely missed when "spirit" is used to translate rilah in the earlier verses as most translators have done.

Micaiah's final statement refers to the typical plan of houses in the Iron Age from 1200 to 550 BC, the so-called three-room or four-room house. Most common in Israelite regions, the plan consists of two or three parallel long rooms abutting one side of a broad room. Any of the rooms may be subdivided. The entrance to the house was into one of the long rooms which probably served as a courtyard where cooking activities took place, while the other rooms were multi-functional, comprising stabling, storage, and living spaces (Stager 1985: 1-36). The "inner room" referred to by Micaiah was the broad room at the back and was apparently used most often as a storage room. But it was also the most private of the rooms. The "inner room" is mentioned in two other texts: (1) in 1 Kgs 20:30 it is a place to hide from military pursuit, far removed from the public eye; and (2) in 2 Kgs 9:2 an apprentice to Elisha took Jehu into such a room so Jehu's fellow generals could not see him being


Polysemy ofRilati in 1 Kings 22:19-25 31

anointed. It is a place to do private activities. Remarkable for their virtually complete absence in houses were toilets. As

necessary as this installation is to human existence, it is surprising that only two or three features which can be identified as toilets have been found in the hundreds of Iron Age houses so far excavated. Instead, large bowls called kraters were probably used like chamber pots. Users would carry them into the back (inner) room for privacy and, perhaps once a day, transport them outside the settlement for deposit in the fields as night soil (Wilkinson 1982: 323-334).

Notes

1. This understands the D stem of dbr in its transitivizing function. Six times the infinitive of this root with the lamed preposition followed by a direct object marker is used in phrases meaning something like, "As he finished speaking these words ..." (Num 16:31, for example). Only in our passage does it occur in a context like this where the direct object must be a person to whom the subject is speaking (note this passage is quoted in 2 Chr 18:23). For this reason, most translations add a preposition, making the direct object a prepositional phrase, but Hebrew expresses this same prepositional phrase with ledabber by using several different prepositions in many texts (Gen 18:27, for instance). The only way to express the direct object here is to see dbr as transitive at this point.

References

Stager, L. E. 1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 260: 1 -36.

Wilkinson, T. J. 1982 The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive Sherd-

Sampling Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 323-334.


4 "Sun" and "Moon" in Psalm 121:6

Gerald A. Klingbeil Professor for Old Testament and Biblical Languages, Universidad Peruana Union, Lima, Peru.

Some Notes on their Context and Meaning' The theme of Psalm 121 has been defined as expressing confidence or as

an exhortation for more confidence (Alonso-Schokel and Carniti 1993: 1473; Guthrie and Motyer 1981-82: 2:643; Keil and Delitzsch 1986: 272). The psalm contains numerous references to God's protective acts which pertain to both the author' and an unknown other person, possibly the individual Israelite reading, reciting, or listening to the psalm. It has also been described as a "pilgrim song" (Weiser 1962: 744, 745; and more recently Barker 1995: 163-165), a "farewell liturgy" (Kraus 1978: 1012; 1985: 134), a "final blessing" without the liturgical element (Allen 1983: 153), or a "prayer of a warrior who looked to God for help in his battles in the hills" (Ceresko 1989: 501-510). The exact nature and setting of the psalm, however, seems to be beyond the text, since there are no specific textual references describing the actual "Sitz im Leben" of the psalm. Together with Psalms 120-134, Psalm 121 is one of the 15 "songs of ascent," which has been explained in terms of the annual pilgrimage of the Israelites to the temple in Jerusalem.'

The content of the psalm centers around YHWH's protection of his people (Ps 121:3, 4) and of an unnamed individual (Ps 121:5-8). This is introduced by a clear reference to the creation activity of rnn) (YHWH), although the author does not use the verbal root of Nia(br ) 5 but, rather, the more unspecific 71 -1/.)2 (ssh). 6 VanGemeren (1991: 5:772) has suggested the following four-fold Structure of the poem, based upon its stairlike parallelism:

A. Yahweh is the Creator (Ps 121:1, 2) B. Yahweh is the Guardian of Israel s 121:3, 4)

C. Yahweh is "your" Guardian (Ps 121:5, 6) D. Blessing (Ps 121:7, 8)



While this division is definitely attractive, it does not appear to reflect the actual textual evidence. There does not seem to be a clear-cut division between "Yahweh as the Guardian of Israel" in Ps 121:3, 4 and "Yahweh as your [personal] Guardian" (Ps 121:5, 6). This can be seen in the use of the second person, masculine, singular suffix in Ps 121:3 which, as found in Ps 121:5, 6, does apply the protective acts of the Lord to an individual.'

Another organizational factor of the psalm can be found in its polarities as expressed in sun/moon or day/night (Ps 121:6). 8 In a recent study on the centripetal and centrifugal structures in biblical poetry, D. Grossberg (1989) has argued for the identification and study of specific biblical poetic corpora and their compositional form.' As one of those biblical poetic corpora, Grossberg (1989: 15-19) identifies the "songs of ascent" (Psalms 120-134). 1 ' He identifies Psalm 121 rightfully as one expressing "centripetal force," since it focuses upon the specific theme of protection (Grossberg 1989: 28). In linking both Alonso-Schokel's and Grossberg's complementing ideas, it could be argued that it is partly the polarities that focus the reader's attention on the unifying and overarching theme of protection." Verbal forms of the root inVi (fair) appear six times in the psalm (in only eight verses; Ps 121:3-5, 7[2x], 8) and, thus constitute an important marker indicating its main semantic field.

The focus of this study, however, is not the structure of the psalm itself (albeit important and noteworthy), but rather the meaning and interpretation of Ps 121:6 and more specifically the references to V3 >3W (sun, .fm.f) and nn) (moon, yrh). Grossberg (1989: 29) interprets them as elements that could potentially harm the traveler, without providing some type of rationale for this understanding. VanGemeren (1991: 5:771-774) does not explain the phrase at all, while Allen (1983: 152) includes a vague reference to the "baleful effect of the moon" which was widely held in the ancient Near East (for which he does not provide any references). He seeks to link Ps 121:6 to Matt 4:24; 17:15 and the usage of o€A.iviti(EciOat, "moonstruck, to suffer epileptic seizures" (also Louw and Nida 1989: 1:272; Kidner 1975: 432; Dahood 1970: 202). Weiser (1962: 749) interprets the reference to "sun" and "moon" as a reference to God's protection from sunstroke and diseases that were regarded in antiquity as related to the moon. He does not, however, supply any specific textual reference to his hypothesis. Barker (1995: 177, 178) appears to loosely follow Allen and Weiser in their interpretation of the phrase.

The solution to the exegetical problem suggested in this short note follows a distinctly different line of argumentation. One problem in all the interpretations mentioned above lies in their apparent oversight to explain the verbal form of roprzo (1 lykkh), "not strike", NRSV) sufficiently. The verbal root of the Hiphil imperfect form is nn) (nkh) which appears over 500 times in the Old Testament.' Methodologically, it would be apt to study the usage of this root in the specific context of the book of Psalms," all of which share in a similar language usage (poetry) and structure (see table 4.1).


105:36 God

135:8 God

135:10 God

136:10 God

136:17 God

firstborn

firstborn many nations

firstborn great kings

"Sun" and "Moon" in Psalm 121:6 35

Remarks

Clearly refers to the metaphor of "God as a warrior" (Klingbeil 1995: 32): the nature of the enemies is not too clear, although it would appear that they refer to human beings Psalm describes the suffering of a pious man in a hostile environment Smiting, used as a synonym for killing It is possible that 7103 in this context refers to the process of education by discipline The psalm clearly refers to the experience of Israel in Egypt in the context of the Exodus The slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptians was the final climax of the plagues leading to the freeing of the Israelites The enemies are unspecified In this instance, riD) is used in an impersonal or passive sense—the subject of the action is unspecified This is a clear indication of the plagues that befell Egypt before the Exodus; the Psalm tells the story of the sojourn to Egypt (v. 23) and the subsequent difficult times (vv. 24, 25); v. 26 focuses on the acts of God by means of Aaron and Moses who performed "his (i.e. God's) signs"; in the Old Testament context vines and trees are central to an agricultural society" Describing the tenth plague which finally led to the Exodus and liberation of Israel See 105:36, above This had clear relations to the post-Exodus experience of Israel; v. 11 does mention some of these nations: Sihon of the Amorites, Og of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of Canaan See 105:36, above See 135:10, above; Sihon is mentioned in v. 19, Og in v. 20, and the land (i.e. Canaan) in v. 21

Verse" Subject Object

3:8[7] YHWH David's enemies

35:15 enemies/ Psalmic author, human agents poss. David (v. 1)

60:2[1] Joab 12,000 Edomites 69:27[26] YHWH (v. 17) God's people

78:20 God" rock

78:51 God firstborn of Egypt

78:66 YHWH (v. 65) his enemies 102:5[4] unspecified heart

105:33 God vines and trees

Table 4.1. The contexts of the root nDJ (nkh) in the Psalms.

In the vast majority of all the mentioned references of D) in the psalms, God (or with his personal name YHWH) is the subject of the action. He smites the firstborn of the Egyptians (Pss 78:51; 105:36; 135:8; 136:10) and many nations as described in the wake of the exodus story, 11 times (or roughly 73 percent of all the occurrences) the agent of the action is of divine nature. Twice human agents are enacting the "smiting" of enemies (Ps 35:15 and Ps 60:2[1]) and once the subject is not specified. This appears to be a specific phenomena



occurring in the poetic language of the psalms, although it has also been observed in other contexts as the following quote will demonstrate:

Of particular theological importance is the fact that God is often the subject of n aka . It is God who "smites" people with blindness (II Kgs 6:18) and

lagues (Deut 28:22, 27-28, 35). He brings judgment upon man for his sin 1 Kgs 14:15; Lev 26:24), even death (II Sam 6:7). Likewise, nature is under

Gods control for he, not Baal, "smote" Israel's vines and fig trees (Ps 105:33) [sic] (Wilson 1980: 578).' 7

In the context of Ps 121:6, the sun or the moon are the agents of the verbal action. As has already been noted above, most commentators do not provide a satisfying interpretation of this act. The "smiting" by the sun would still be understandable, but how can the moon strike or smite the unknown "you" protagonist of this verse?

The interpretation of the verse as undertaken in this paper attempts to enhance the understanding of the text without relying on unsubstantiated external information. I suggest that in the context of Psalm 121 one should understand "sun" and "moon" as referring to the well-known deities of the surrounding nations of Israel. Thus the predominant usage of the verbal root TIM in the framework of the psalms as referring to divine intervention and smiting could also be applied to the usage of the verb in Ps 121:6 as referring to the "supposed deities." VinVi "sun" and n-P "moon" occur some 22 times together in the same verse in the Old Testament: 8 They are often used in a creation context (Pss 72:5; 104:19; 148:3; Jer 31:35)' 9 or in contexts referring to re-creation (Isa 60:19, 20). Another very important context in which the combination occurs could be termed as polemics (and sometimes prohibitions) against the worship of the elements—and thus especially the worship of sun and moon (Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2). Finally the darkening of the sun and moon on the "day of the Lord" (Joel 2:10; 3:4 [2:31]; 4:15 [3:15]) must be seen in the framework of judgment or the reverse of creation (cf also Hab 3:11). Joshua 10:12, 13 describes the miracle of the standing still of the sun and moon over Gibeon and indirectly describe God as the creator who not only set both planets in their course, but as creator also has the power to change their course.

It would thus appear that the author of Psalm 121 is introducing a polemic against the celestial deities as worshiped by his contemporaries. Smick (1989: 12, 13) has suggested that Psalm 121 is a "conscious demythologizing" or an "anti-myth" and polemic against the cosmic mountain motif "as expressed in hill-shrines and the deities themselves as patrons." It is interesting that he has not noted the definite polemic contained in the Psalm against the celestial deities. This polemic against the sun and moon is not the only one utilized by the psalmist. In Ps 121:4, the fact is emphasized that the keeper of Israel does not "slumber" or "sleep" (cf. Barker 1995: 176). In sharp contrast to this is


"Sun" and 'Moon" in Psalm 121:6 37

another taunt found in 1 Kgs 18:27 in the context of the contest between Baal (and his 450 priests) and YHWH (represented by Elijah). It is here that Elijah scorns the prophets of Baal insinuating that "perhaps he [Baal] is asleep and must be awakened." Both 1 Kgs 18:27 and Ps 121:4 employ the same root Vi) (y.§n) "to sleep." But while Baal is not answering his priests and in the polemic of Elijah "must be sleeping," YHWH never sleeps nor slumbers.

The sun-god and the moon-god appear frequently in Sumerian texts (Ringgren 1979: 71, 72), as well as in Babylonian-Assyrian texts (van der Toorn 1992, 6: 238 and Ringgren 1979: 120, 121). In Egypt, "the sun god (going by such names as Khepri, Re, Atum, Aton and Amon-Re, depending on local traditions and the various manifestations of the sun) was the most prominent deity" (van der Toorn 1992: 6: 238), but there is little evidence of an explicit (and important) moon-cult (Wente 1990: 252). In Hittite mythology, the sun and moon also occur regularly together, often exhibiting divine attributes (Hoffaier 1990: 45, 48). The sun-god appears in a female and a male version and the moon god Kasku does not appear to be part of the main-stream pantheon (Ringgren 1979: 186, 187). The West-Semitic (or Canaanite) evidence concerning the combination of the sun-deity and the moon-deity can be found on stele of Zakir of Hamath (side B.24), which should be dated to the beginning of the eighth century BC and which mentions the sun-god Shamash (ViriVi) and the Aramean moon-god S(h)ahar (17V.); .stir) together (Gibson 1975: 6-17, esp. 13; also Ringgren 1979: 228). At Ugarit, the name of the moon god was yrh (which is equal to the Hebrew name). The nature of this god and his function is not too clear (Handy 1994: 110). The same combination can also be found in an inscription from Nerab on a relief (§ 18.9), which Gibson (1975: 93-97) dated to the beginning of the seventh century BC—albeit with a different sequence and thus emphasis, since Sahar is mentioned before Shamash. The content of the inscription does indicate that it was written by a priest (1no, kmr) of Shahar (§ 18.1), which would explain the changed sequence.

Summarizing the evidence the following points can be made.

1. The usage of the verbal root riD) does indicate a clear tendency for a divine agent "smiting/striking" a person or obj

ironic Thus, it is quite

possible (and indeed - probable) to understand Ps 121:6 as an ronic reference to the "pseudo-divine" nature of the moon and sun, which—as thethe psalm clearly indicates—cannot strike the one who is protected by psalm

The combination of VAR) "sun" and m) "moon" occurs often (although not exclusively) in connection with warnings not to worship these "'deities." As has been observed above, the entire Psalm 121 does include creation language (another possible context for the "sun" and "moon" word pair) and depicts God as the true creator. In the Babylonian-Assyrian contexts, both Sin and Shamash have creation



attributes. In the polemic against the sun and the moon in Ps 121:6, only YHWH has this creative power and both "deities" are depicted as helpless.

The reference to the fact that YHWH "neither slumbers nor sleeps" in Ps 121:4 on top of it involves another polemic against these deities as can be seen in the parallel passage in 1 Kgs 18:27 where Elijah taunts the priests of Baal.

The final piece of evidence comes from the ancient Near Eastern religious background. The combination of the sun- and moon-deities is well known in Sumerian, Babylonian-Assyrian, Hittite, and West-Semitic sources' and it can be argued that the readers and listeners of Psalm 121 were familiar with these mythological concepts.

The existence of the cult of the sun and moon in early Israelite experience (as well as during later periods, cf. Jer 8:2) has also been established by the iconographic evidence as was recently demonstrated by 0. Keel and C. Uehlinger (1995: 69). From Hazor are known several iconographic items containing the moon sickle. Keel and Uehlinger interpret the stele sanctuary of Hazor as the sanctuary of the moon-god and state in summary:

Hervorzuheben ist jedenfalls, dall sich mit dem Mondemblem and der Verbindung . des Wettergottes mit dem Sonnengott in Palastina/Israel die ersten Anzeichen einer an den Himmelskorpern orientierten Frommigkeit bemerkbar machen ... (ibid.)

Thus it appears that the author of Psalm 121 reacted to a real need in his community—namely, directing his audience to the true God of the Universe, YHWH—by means of a polemic against the "unreal" astral deities that were so prevalent during his time and in his historical and religious context.

The Old Testament does contain clear-cut warnings against the foolery of idol worship as, for example, can be found in Isa 44:9-20, but it is often the more subtle usage of irony and polemics that bring across the message, as can also be found in other passages such as Ps 29:3 -9 (Craigie 1983: 247), Ps 68:17 [16] (Klingbeil 1995: 233), Isa 14:12-15 (Grogan 1986: 105; Kaiser 1974: 40; Raabe 1995: 236-257; Jemielity 1992: 94), and Ezekiel 28 (Eichrodt 1970: 394).

By playing on popular beliefs and fears, the psalmist firstly established rapport with his listeners, and then, by the inclusion of the "powerful" negative particle N5 (/5 ), these fears and beliefs were clearly put into their place: YHWH is your keeper. He will protect you from all evil. He that does not slumber nor sleep will definitely be at your side. What a powerful message in a grabbing package!


"Sun" and "Moon" in Psalm 121:6 39

Notes

I would like to dedicate this study to my friend and "Wegbegleiter" of the past seven years, Dr. William H. Shea. It is an honor to be able to contribute to this festschrift that seeks to bring together those whose lives have been touched and influenced by his work and personality. May YHWH of Psalm 121 protect him, bless him, and, more important, use him even more in the years that lie ahead.

This refers to the use ofthe pronominal suffix in -Icy ( zr"i") in verse one which both NIV and NRSV translate with "my help" and which is repeated at the beginning of verse two again.

The pronominal suffix T appears altogether nine times in the entire psalm: two times in Ps 121:3, three times in Ps 121:5, two times in Ps 121:7, and two times in Ps 121:8. Alonso-Schokel and Carniti (1993: 1473) erroneously refer to ten counts, although they do not specify the ten occurrences. It would, however, appear that they include in their count a variant in Ps 121:8 of -930 (y.fmr) where the Targum reads 11020 (y.fmrn as found in Ps 121:7).

n15yn5 -1)*.fir lamma 'kit), "song of ascent" has been interpreted as referring to the pilgrimage. See on this the extensive discussion of Alonso-SchOkel and Carniti (1993: 1463-1467), although it should be kept in mind that the titles of the psalms did not originally form part of the consonantal text, but "form later intentions of defusing some aspect of the psalm under consideration (1993: 1464, author's translation); cf. also Barker (1995: 164, 165) and the references given there for a further discussion of the psalmic titles.

N12 occurs five times in Gen 1:1-2:4 (namely in Gen 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3, 4). The semantic range of N12 in the Old Testament is rather limited, since it always refers to divine creation and, according to Bernhardt , it "soil als spezieller theologischer Terminus die Unvergleichbarkeit des Schopferwirkens Gottes gegenOber allem sekundarem Machen and Bilden aus vorgegebener Materie durch den Menschen begriffich eindeutig zum Ausdruck bringen" (1973: 774).

nViy appears ten times in the creation account found in Gen 1:1-2:4 (namely in Gen 1:7, 11, 12, 16, 25, 26, 31; 2:2-4), although it does appear that it has a much broader semantic range than N12. T. E. McConninsky (1980: 701) describes the relationship between N12 and 711/4 in the following words: "The use of biiri' in the opening statement of the account of creation seems to carry the implication that the physical phenomena came into existence at that time and had no previous existence in the form in which they were created by divine fiat. The use of 'AO' may simply connote the act of fashioning the objects involved in the whole creative process." It should also be kept in mind that riViy is often used in poetic sections of the Old Testament in order to describe the process of creation of God (Pss 86:9; 95:5; 96:5).

This has also been observed by Barker (1995: 167, 168) who suggests a two-fold structure around the use of the second masculine pronominal suffix. Thus Ps 121:1, 2 and Ps 121:3-8 form the basic two-stanza structure.

Another example of these polarities as a stylistic medium can also be found in Ps 121:8, InmN Welc) "your going out" and 1N121 be) 'ek) "and your coming in" as well as the temporal indication of "now" and "forever" at the end of the verse. See on this also Alonso-Schokel and Carniti (1993: 1474, 1475).

The "centripetal" form of a given poetic work highlights the "unity of the whole" which fmds its expression in "a prevailing uniform structure and tight pattern." Centrifugal structures of a text, on the other hand, "tend toward a dominant emphasis on the parts" and stress details over central and unified structure (Grossberg 1989: 5).

See here also his well-presented discussion of the superscriptions of specific psalms of ascent.



Grossberg (1989: 29) has also interpreted the polarities (or as he calls it, "antithesis") as structures binding together the entire psalm and focusing upon the main theme.

The result of the morphologically-tagged root search undertaken with BibleWorks for Windows 3.0 was 515 occurrences, while Even-Shoshan (1985: 759-761) lists only 504 occurrences.

The reference to the "book of Psalms" does not exclude the possibility that individual psalms were written in different periods, but rather refers to the final compilation of the present canonical book of Psalms. See on this also Zenger (1995: 175-198), who discusses a large number of "planvolle Redaktionsarbeit" which connects the psalms of Korah in terms of their content and structure. Against this see Gerstenberger (1995: 3-13) who concludes that a "book of Psalms" does not exist, but rather a collection of different prayers, songs, and other types of texts. It does appear, however, that Gerstenberger's reservations are intricately linked to the form-critical method which he also adheres to in his FOTL commentary (cf. Gerstenberger 1988). For a critique of this approach see Klingbeil (1995: 143-155). Compare also the following statement by Hossfeld and Zenger (1993: 19) in their introduction to their commentary: "Die gattungskritisch dominierte Psalmenexegese lauft Gefahr, den konkreten Psalm, insbesondere sein individuelles sprachliches und theologisches Profit, zu nivellieren. Bisweilen gewinnt man in Kommentaren den Eindruck, es komme beim Verstehen und im Nachvollzug von Psalmen weniger auf die Semantik als auf die *Gattung' an."

The references in brackets following the first indication of the verse refer to the number system in the NRSV, while the first reference pertains to the MT.

Although the striking of the rock was actually performed by Moses (Exod 17:1-7), the pericope itself does indicate that the rebellious attitude of the Israelites was actually directed against the Lord. Thus, the providing of water was the answer to this challenge. Exodus 17:2 reads nirrnm (mah-tenassfin 'et-yhwh) "why do you test the Lord?" (NRSV). ;IV)(nasith) refers to "testing" in a very existential context

(see, for example, Gen 22:1 in the context of the story of the attempted sacrifice of Isaac, God is said to "test Abraham"). God is often the subject of the root (Gen 22:1; Exod 15:5 where he tests the Israelites with the bitter water; Exod 16:4; 20:20 in the context of the theophany during the law-giving ceremony at Sinai).

See here also Matthews and Benjamin (1993: xvi, xvii) who state: "The world of the Bible is agricultural. In an agricultural world human life is synchronized with nature. ... Farming and herding become the foundational metaphors or basic analogies which people use to understand their daily life."

The suggested interpretation of Ps 105:33 as referring to Israel cannot be sustained in view of the many references in the sections before and after this verse describing the Exodus events. The objects envisioned by the author of the psalm clearly were the Egyptians. Compare on this also Allen (1983: 43); Kidner (1975: 376, 377); VanGemeren (1991: 5:669, 670); and Weiser (1962: 675).

Gen 37:9; Deut 4:19; 17:3; Josh 10:12, 13; 2 Kgs 23:5; Pss 72:5; 104:19; 121:6; 148:3; Eccl 12:2; Isa 13:10; 60:19, 20; Jer 8:2; 31:35; Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:10; 3:4 [2:311; 4:15 [3:151; and.Hab 3:11.

Another example of this can be found in Ps 136:8, 9 where the two terms appear in two succeeding verses. Clifford argues that to "the psalmist the origin of the people of Israel includes the making of the physical environment and the bringing of Israel into the land" (1992: 66). It is not entirely clear whether he would like to apply this interpretation solely to Psalm 136 which he discussed earlier, or whether it is a more general statement. If the latter is the case, one would have to challenge this understanding, since one may find psalms (as, for example Psalm 104 and Psalm 148) which do not contain this characteristic.

The Egyptian evidence seems to be more complex.



References

Alonso Schokel, L. and Carniti, C. 1993 Salmos (Salmos 73-150). Traduccion, Introducciones y Comentario. Nueva

Biblia Espahola. Estella/Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino.

Allen, L. C. 1983 Psalms 101-150. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21. Waco, TX: Word.

Barker, D. G. 1995 'The Lord Watches Over You': A Pilgrimage Reading of Psalm 121. Biblioteca

Sacra 152: 163-181.

Bernhardt, K. H. 1973 NM. Pp. 769-777 in Theologisches Worterbuch zum Allen Testament, ed. G.

J. 'Botterweck and H. Ringgren.Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.

Ceresko, A. R. 1989 Psalm 121: Prayer of a Warrior? Biblica 70: 501-510.

Clifford, R. J. 1992 Creation in the Psalms. Pp. 57-69 in Creation in the Biblical Traditions, eds.

R. J. Clifford and J. J. Collins. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol. 24. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America.

Craigie, P. C. 1983 Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 19. Waco, TX: Word.

Dahood, M. 1970 Psalms III. Anchor Bible, vol. 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Eichrodt, W. 1970 Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Even-Shoshan, A. 1985 A New Concordance of the Old Testament. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.

Gerstenberger, E. S. 1988 Psalms, Part I. Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. 14. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

1995 Der Psalter als Buch and als Sammlung. Pp. 3-13 in Neue Wege der Psalmen- forschung, eds. K. Seybold and E. Zenger. Herder Biblische Studien 1. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder Verlag.

Gibson, J. C. L. 1975 Textbook ofSyrian Semitic Insc-riptions. Vol. II: Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford:

Clarendon.

Grogan, G. W. 1986 Isaiah. Pp. 3-354 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.



Grossberg, D. 1989 Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry. Society of Biblical

Literature Monograph Series, No. 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

Guthrie, D., and Motyer, J. A., eds. 1981-82 Kommentar zur Bibel. Trans. from the English. 3 vols. Wuppertal: R.

Brockhaus Verlag.

Handy, L. K. 1994 Among the Host of Heaven. The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

HotTner, H. A., Jr. 1990 Hittite Myths. Writings from the Ancient World 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

Hossfeld, F. L., and Zenger, E. 1993 Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1-50. Die Neue Echten Bibel, vol. 29. Wurzburg: Echter

Verlag.

Jemielity, T. 1992 Satire and the Hebrew Prophets. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation,

vol I. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.

Kaiser, 0. 1974

Isaiah 13-39. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Keel, 0., and Uehlinger, C. 1995 Gottingen, Goiter und Gottes.symbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur

Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen. 3rd ed. QD 134. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder.

Keil, C. F., and Delitzsch, F. 1986 Psalms. Trans. J. Martin from German. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdinans.

Kidner, D. 1975

Kraus, H. J. 1978

Psalmen 1-2. 5th edition. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

1985 Teologia de los Salmos. Trans. Victor A. Martinez de Lapera. Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Sigueme.

Louw, J. P., and Nida, E. A. 1989 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based upon Semantic Domains.

2 vols. Capetown, South Africa: Bible Society of South Africa.

Psalms 73-150. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Leicester/Downers Grove: Inter Varsity.

Klingbeil, M. G. 1995 "Yahweh fighting from Heaven. God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the

Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography." Unpublished D. Lift. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.



Matthews, V. M., and Benjamin, D. C. 1993 Social World of Ancient Israel 1250-587 BCE. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

McCorminsky, T. E. 1980 nvs- Do, Fashion, Accomplish. Pp. 701, 702 in Theological Wordbook of the

Old Testament, eds. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Raabe, P. R. 1995 Why Prophetic Oracles Against the Nations? Pp. 236-257 in Fortunate the Eyes

that See. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. A. B. Beck el al. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Ringgren, H. 1979 Die Religionen des Allen Orients. Grundrissee zum Alten Testament

Sonderband. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Smick, E. B. 1989 Old Testament cross-culturalism: Paradigmatic or Enigmatic? Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 32/1:3-16.

Van der Toorn, K. 1992 Sun. Pp. 237-239 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol . 6, eds. D. N. Freedman et

al. New York, NY: Doubleday.

VanGemeren, W. A. 1991 Psalms. Pp. 3-880 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 5. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.

Walton, J. W. 1994 Joshua 10:12-15 and Mesopotamian Celestial Omen Texts. Pp. 181-190 in

Faith, Tradition, and History. Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, eds. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Weiser, A. 1962 The Psalms: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: West-

minster.

Wente, E. F. 1990 Letters from Ancient Egypt. Writings from the Ancient World 1. Atlanta, Ga:

Scholars.

Wilson, M. R. 1980 13- Smite, Strike, Hit, Beat, Slay, Kill. Pp. 577-579 in Theological Wordbook

of the Old Testament, eds. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Zenger, E. 1995 Zur redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen. Pp. 175-198 in

Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, eds. K. Seybold and E. Zenger. Herder Biblische Studien 1. Freiburg/Basel.Wien: Herder Verlag.


5 The Psalm of the "Blessed Hope":

Comments on Psalm 126'

Merling Alomia Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages, Universidad Peruana Union, Lima, Peru.

Introduction Undoubtedly, the psalms have long formed a very important element in

both the corporate and private religious life of the Hebrew people (Childs 1979: 508). They expressed poetically in songs, laments, and liturgy the foundation of the Israelite hope, love, trust, and confidence in YHWH, their God and Lord of the covenant. Drijvers remarks that,

The whole life of Israel, the delight of knowing itself to be God's chosen nation, the trials of persecution, the desperation resulting from man's sin and ingratitude—all this is frankly experienced and candidly expressed in song in the psalms. In short, the whole of the Old Testament is reflected in the psalms. There is no single experience of the soul of Israel that is not put into words there. The psalms are the fullest expression of God's revelation in the Old Testament (1965: 4, 5).

Even in the community of Qumran, the psalms were held in high esteem. This is evident by the fact that of the eleven caves in which manuscripts were found, seven have yielded a combined total of more than 30 distinct psalms texts (Wilson 1983: 377-388). So, it is possible, as Sanders suggests, that there were "more copies of Psalms in the Qumran library than any other biblical writing" (1967: 9; see Vermes 1995 for an English translation and Garcia-Martinez 1993 for a Spanish translation of the Qumran Psalter).

The salvation acts of YHWH presented in a metaphoric way are plentiful in the Psalter. Everywhere in the Psalms, God is portrayed in metaphors that represent Him in either a hidden or prominent way. Recently Klingbeil has suggested that the "metaphorical language is an adequate vehicle and is often used as such in the Bible to describe unobservable realities" regarding God



(1995: 27). He may be referred to by various names, or epithets, or figures, but all express hymnically and liturgically the profoundness of YHWH enjoyed only by His true worshipers (Kraus 1985: 29).

Of all the psalms, the 126th is an outstanding song in which the psalmist expresses his joyful confidence in the fulfillment of the salvation and the final restoration that YHWH shall bring to the people of the covenant at the end of the ages. Biblical commentators have praised the uniqueness of this psalm and many have described its outstanding beauty. Beyerling introduces his comments on this psalm saying that "Psalm 126 is one of the outstanding texts of the Psalter," and adds that "in form and in content it is a little masterpiece" (1982: 1). Kittel was convinced that this psalm is "one of the most beautiful and intimate of the whole book of Psalms" (1914: 446). Duhm affirmed that Psalm 126 is "one of the most beautiful poems, perhaps the most beautiful in the whole psalter, both in form and in content" (1922: 3).

Psalm 126 is part of a group of 15 psalms (Psalms 120-134) called "songs of ascent." Hebrew-Christian tradition transmitted these 15 psalms as a group of psalms, with the common title Syr hamma alot (7-nynn "Songs of Ascent"). The meaning of this ascent, or going up implied in this title remains until now elusive (Alonso-Schokel and Carniti 1993: 1465).

Psalm 126 is also considered a "pilgrim psalm" because it was sung quite frequently by the Israelites during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Westermann 1980: 100). When they ascended to the temple in Zion, the capital city, they sang it to celebrate the annual festivals of YHWH. Seybold asserts that this whole set of psalms sprung from the circles of pilgrims that annually went up to celebrate in Zion (1990: 118), while Grossberg points out that "the most widely accepted understanding of these psalms is as songs sung by the pilgrims going up to Jerusalem on the three annual festivals" (1989: 19). With these hymns they expressed their love for Zion, the holy city, and their gratitude for YHWH's providence and protection (LaRondelle 1983: 18), and in fact their faith and confidence in YHWH's faithfulness in fulfilling the promises of the covenant (Brachter and Reyburn 1993: 3,10).

The central theme of this psalm focuses on YHWH's final salvation which will fill the redeemed with shouting joy (Psalm 126:1, 2) and the Redeemer himself shall overflow with inexpressible rejoicing (126:6b). This is introduced with cryptic reference to a captivity greater than the exile which will eventually be changed by YHWH and will produce cosmic effects of transformation and joy.

The whole theme is linked to the verb .filb (alvi, "to change, to rever, to transform," Alonso-Schokel 1994: 749, 750), which is used throughout and portrayed only as YHWH's action. YHWH will change the captivity of Zion (126:1). YHWH is praised because of the great things that he did in changing the fortune of his redeemed (126:2, 3). YHWH is addressed in prayer as the author pleads him to change the desert-like situation into abundant life


The Psalm of the "Blessed Hope" 47

(126:4). And even the grand finale portrayed in v. 6 is an action of change: the tears of the sowers are changed into the joy of the reapers, and the weeping labor of the Sower (the seed bearer) is changed into a joyful task of gathering his sheaves. With this perspective in mind, it is possible to divide the whole psalm into a six-fold structure which ascends from human levels of exhilarating joy until it reaches levels of a climax of intense fullness of divine rejoicing (table 5.1):

Psalm 126

a. Bewildering joy of the redeemed of Zion: 1, 2a b. Bewildering recognition of the redeemed gentiles: 2b

c. Agreeing recognition of the redeemed of Zion: 3 d. Prayer for the eschatological restoration: 4

e. The heavenly sower: 5, 6a f. The joy of the heavenly Harvester: 6b

Table 5.1. Six-fold structure of Psalm 126.

Bewildering Joy of the Redeemed of Zion, Ps 126:1, 2b

When YHWH turns the captivity of Zion we shall be like those who are dreaming.

Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy.

The opening words of the psalm show the purpose of the poet. The psalmist begins the psalm with fib (2W)). The use of .fwb in Qal involves a crucial theological statement in passages that point to the return of the covenant people to God. In many places .wb means "to return from the exile," and frequently a return from exile was an equivalent of a turning from any condition of sin (Hamilton 1981: 2340). Swb combined with gybt in 126:1 and then .§bwt in 126:4, is a well known prophetic expression.' The phrase .fwb .§bwt is a technical term referring to the eschatological end-time (Bellinger, Jr. 1984: 64). Since Mosaic times, it was used to exalt the mercy and eternal purpose of YHWH towards his people.

In Deut 30:3, Moses announced to Israel, with eschatological tones, a changed situation for them from a dispersed situation thanks to YHWH's mercy: "Then YHWH your God will change your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he



scattered you." Jeremiah repeatedly mentioned this prophetic announcement and stressed the way in which YHWH will act to "change the fortunes" of his dispersed people. In 29:14, he declared: "I will be found of you, says YHWH, and I will change your fortunes. I will gather you from all the nations where I have banished you." The psalmist used a historical experience to express his hope, but in doing so, he does not speak simply talking of a past fact but affirming in a confident way what YHWH surely will do for his people as the Lord of the eternal covenant.

The majority of commentators see in hvb §bwt a reference to a time in the past when YHWH rescued His people from the Babylonian exile. However, while Ps 126:1-3 can be properly understood as a mention of a past fact, it also is a vision of a future hope (Brachter and Reyburn 1993: 1068). The prophetic nature of Psalm 126 is revealed in the way the perfect .fwb and the imperfect yimma/e'(N,Y3), "will be filled") is more appropriately rendered in a futuristic sense, bearing in mind the profound eschatological theme of this psalm (Kautzsch 1980: 309-313). 3 Alonso only dares to express that "Psalm 126 contains a Thanksgiving action asking a restoration and a petition to be completed or be repeated" (1994: 1502). Gunkel on the other hand perceives the insight that the whole Psalm 126 is forward looking in a clear reference to YHWH's great victory in the end-time (1983 I: 367, 372, 429). In this sense Weiser recognizes in this psalm an expression of the realization of the salvation formulated in an eschatological cultic song (1962: 760, 761). As Gunkel correctly assures,

Psalm 126 is a very clear poem: the voice of a soloist announces, in the exalted tune of the prophets of salvation, the glorious liberation of Zion which the singer contemplates as a reality already happened (vv. 1-3)" (1983: 429).

Zion stands for the city of Jerusalem, but the psalmist is probably also thinking of the new Jerusalem, based on the prophetic perspective of the psalm. Zion is a common reference to Jerusalem and God's people. "The city with all its prophetic associations assumes a prominent place in Biblical escathology" (Payne 1975: 1066). The prophets assure the glorious future of Zion when God will reign forever (Mic 4:7, 8; Isa 33:20-22, 24; 60:14-16,18, 19; 62:1, 2, 11; Ps 146:10), and the apostolic church understood that Zion represented "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:22; 11:10; 13:14; Phil 3:20). The .fybt, "captivity," referred to in Ps 126:1, 4 does not necessarily stand for the exile experience, but it is a reference to any misfortune actually experienced by the people of God that they want to be changed through God's mercy and power in the same way that Israel's captivity was changed. $ybt is also translated as "captivity," however, the term does not necessarily mean deportation. It may refer properly to any misfortune.



So to turn again from captivity is the reversion of a misfortune, restoring to their former or even better state (Scroggie 1965: 238).

The joyful dreamers are the "exiled" of this world who were liberated from sin and death. Their joy transcends the joy of the past moment to transport the singers to the eschatological ending. They could be expressing something like: "If the return from exile was a moment of joy, how much more joyful shall the final restoration of the redeemed be!" At least two kinds of joy are expressed: one of laughter, ?hog (pInv.)) which includes shouting songs of jubilee; and the other with non-articulated expressions of silent jubilee, which is also implied in rinnah (nn; Hartlet 1981: 1905; Alonso-Schokel 1994: 1505; White 1981: 2179).

Bewildering Recognition of the Redeemed Gentiles, Ps 126:2b

Then among themselves the nations will say YHWH has done great things for them

This is a recognition of the liberation performed by YHWH for His own people. Having described the joyful emotions of the redeemed, the psalmist depicts the admiration of those who witnessed the acts of YHWH's salva-tion—higdil YHWH la hs'Ot im- 'elleh (n5N -OY ) n\Do irnn' 9)-r)n, "great things YHWH has done for them"). The focal point is the One who performed the salvific action and the restoration of Zion. It could be a reference to the expression of wonder that the redeemed of the Old Testament will ask their Redeemer, "What are these wounds in your hands?," since the Savior's answer is, "... I received these wounds in the house of my friends" (Zech 13:6).

Agreeing Recognition of the Redeemed of Zion, Ps 126:3

YHWH has done great things for us and we will be filled with joy.

The expressions of joy here are combined with the thankful recognition of the redeemed ones. The mighty acts of salvation of YHWH are joyfully glorified not only for those who witnessed it, but moreover for those who experienced it. Again, the object of admiration is YHWH, however, this time it is a thankful expression of recognition and admiration, higdil YHWH la 's& immana (Iry inv.N, Mil 1)71 5) "YHWH has done great things for us," or "YHWH became great himself on behalf of us." It is a plain recognition of all the things manifested by YHWH through the ages, but especially the redemption achieved by ransom on their behalf.



Prayer for the Eschatological Restoration, Ps 126:4

Restore our captivity, 0 YHWH like torrents in the Negev.

Suddenly the psalmist remembers that the final restoration is still ahead, and he cries out with a prayer that shows his deep longing for eternity. Here it is evidently an earnest petition with a charged eschatological content (Gunkel 1983: 350; Keel 1978: 230). It is the expression of the "ready now but not yet" that goes through the experience of the saved ones in that tension of salvific realities of the present, that Paul expresses so dramatically affirming that "in this hope we are saved" hoping "for what we do not yet have," and waiting "for it patiently" (Rom 8:24, 25), but, at the same time, the apostle reminds us that this hope of final redemption is a cosmic expectation. It is something universally awaited and it will be consummated only with the parousia of the blessed hope when the great final transformation will be consummated—the sub ?brit of the redeemed ones. Paul expressed it in these words:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed ... the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in thepains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:19-23).

To express this, the psalmist also remembers that the dry Judaic south land, the Negev, can illustrate his hope in a dramatic way during the rainy season, thanks to the bptqfm (o)p)ozso. He earnestly prays that the final restoration may be manifested like those seasonal changes. Jesus urged his own disciples to repeat this same petition in the Lord's prayer with the words, "Thy kingdom come"; which is also echoed by John the Revelator with the words, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev 22:20). Kraus rightly perceives the eschatological implication of this line pointing out that "in saying, 'Revert, 0 YHWH our fortune', the psalmist not only supplicates the manifestation of the God of Israel, but also prays for the total restoration" (1985: 87).

The longing desire for the ending of Zion's captivity is directly connected with the prayer, "Restore our captivity, 0 YHWH"—§ubah WWII 'et-g.ebiwtenti (Win VTIN rnn) nom)). It does not merely ask for that moment, but says, "0 Lord, we cannot wait to be ready to enjoy that happy moment of the final restoration."


The Psalm.of the "Blessed Hope" 51

The Heavenly Sower, Ps 126:5, 6a

Those who sow in tears will reap with songs ofjoy.

Walking and weeping will g.o out, the One who carries the seed to sow,

Now, the psalmist not only uses the figure of the rivers in the desert to express his faith in YHWH's future restoration of Zion; he also resorts to the agricultural endeavors of Zion's land. In the hard toil of the peasant that sows with faith, waiting for the nourishing harvest, he also envisions the reward of the perseverance and confidence in the covenant promises, but in doing that, the psalmist makes a difference between the sowers, the thre im (t:PYit) and the One who carries the pouch of seed—n5V maek-hazzara ' Ontn-Tvin NV)). To understand the reality of this metaphor it is necessary to refer to Jesus who, in his parables, illustrates the realities of the covenant and the kingdom of God.

In Jesus' parables, this dual figure of land sowing also appears: the picture of the sowing where "the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11), and "the farmer sows the word" (Mark 4:14), but, on the other hand, it also plainly shows the reality of the heavenly sower in which "the one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man" (Matt 13:37) in "the field of the world" (Matt 13:38). In this way, the psalmist uses a familiar figure to convert it into a prophetic device in order to illustrate, like Isaiah with his figure of the suffering servant, the redeeming mission of YHWH as sower of eternal life.

Because of Ps 126:5, 6a, some commentators have seen in Psalm 126 an expression of hope amid a time of famine; something like a cry asking the blessing of a harvest (Bellinger 1990: 51). Others think that the weeping indicates an ancient pagan belief connected with the rites of the deity of fertility who was believed to die every dry season and come back to life with the returning of the rain (Brachter and Reyburn 1993: 1020).

YHWH himself is depicted in this verse in human form as he went out weeping through the furrows of the world, carrying the pouch of seed, and finally pouring out his own life as seed in order to give eternal life to dead humanity (cf. Heb 5:7). Not in vain he said of himself, "Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds" (John 12:24). Weiser reminds us that, "suffering and death, too, are part of God's work of redemption. They are a divine seed which sprouts in secret and ripens for God's blessed harvest" (1972: 763).



The Joy of the Heavenly Harvester, Ps 126:6b

But shall return rejoicing carrying his sheaves.

In this verse, the weeping of the heavenly sower is changed by the §wb into rejoicing, as in .fwb in verse 1, and the seed is transformed into sheaves, while the weariness becomes rest. It is an allusion to the final harvest, and again Jesus affirms that, "The harvest is the end of the age," when he returns with his angels as harvesters (Matt 13:39, 40). It recalls the final harvest depicted by John:

I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle m his hand. Then another angel called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "take our sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested (Rev 14:14-16 N/V).

It is the time when the sower enjoys the joy of the harvester. Christ is the heavenly sower, and the seed that he sowed he planted with

tears, sweat, and his very blood. He fulfilled his mission of sowing amidst inexpressible suffering. Never has a sower been more dedicated to his task of mission, but he also is the celestial harvester. He comes for his precious harvest, he knows when to reap. He sowed with tears and pain. But now he does not come to weep for his own, but to laugh with them. The fortunes have been changed for everyone and joy overflows the whole universe.

The harvester, having gone up to the heights carrying captive the captivity (cf. Ps 68:18), now returns in glory to consummate his victory bringing to him the results of his victory over death and the author of death. It is the majestic unutterable joy of the Creator that loved us and made our redemption possible in Jesus Christ. It is the triumphant return of the celestial harvester that in glorious and majestic parousia returns triumphant, carrying his sheaves, showing in satisfaction to the whole universe the fruits of his redemptive work (cf. Isa 53:11). It is the moment to receive his portion among the great and divide the spoils with the strong (cf Isa 53:12) because he alone is worthy of the eschatological harvest.

The sheaves of his harvest, blummotayw (1)rin,x), are those who were resurrected by His creative power, those who have fallen asleep in Christ to be triumphantly taken to be where he is (cf. John 14:1-3; 1 Cor 15:51-55; 1 Thess 4:14-17). The happy returning, b Lyabo ' be rinn (71313, N11)7.0.), of the harvester points to the blissful reunion of the Most High with all his saints.



The divine joy of this glorious moment is also described by Zephaniah in a unique way when he prophecies, "YHWH your God is in your midst, A victorious savior. He will exult over you with joy, He will be silent in His love, He will rejoice over you with joyful cheer" (Zeph 3:17); or, as another translation puts it: "The LORD your God is in your midst, A victorious warrior. He will exult over you with joy, He will be quiet in His love, He will rejoice over you with shouts of joy" (NASB). 4 Actually, Psalm 126 appears to echo Zephaniah. In Zeph 2:7, YHWH visits his people and restores their fortune. Because of that, in Zeph 3:14 the inhabitants of Zion are urged to celebrate: "Sing oh daughter of Zion, shout aloud 0 Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, 0 daughter of Jerusalem! ... you shall not see evil any more." Finally, YHWH rejoices over his own in silent moving love and joyful cheer (Zeph 3:17).

Conclusion Psalm 126 is a prophetic song that takes the exiles' joy of their returning

to their homeland and looks towards the future of Zion and in doing so makes a multiple metaphoric reference to the advent of the Lord when he will bring the final restoration and salvation. It is a glimmer of the moment when the overjoyed redeemed welcome their returning savior shouting "Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is YHWH, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation" (Isa 25:9); it is the day when the redeemed will enter the celestial Zion with singing and everlasting joy will crown their heads. It is the day when "gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away" (Isa 35:10).

The psalm begins with a description of scenes of joy and singing and ends with acts of rejoicing. In verses 1-3, those who laugh, sing, and rejoice are the redeemed ones. In verses 5-6, the redeemer rejoices and laughs with his redeemed, performing his harvest. However, this harvest signified a hard toil for the sowers. There is no problem in identifying the sower, since Jesus illustrated this truth in parables. The heavenly seed had to be bruised to death in order to brining in his sheaves. The heavenly Husbandman laid down his life in order to have his abundant harvest.

The joy mentioned in the psalm, portrays the future joy of the entire cosmos when rejoicingly they will celebrate the culmination of the redemption of the planet that was loved in such a unique way. This celebration is similar to that cosmic one performed at the finishing of its creation (Job 38:7). So the world is a motif of exultant joy at the end of its creation and at the finishing of its redemption and restoration.

No wonder Psalm 126 begins with a scene of exhilarating joy among the redeemed ones and finishes with another of inexpressible joy when YHWH rejoices himself and enjoy his finished work of redemption. It is because in Psalm 126, the psalmist catches a glimpse of the glorious day of the parousia,



when finally the blessed hope (Titus 2:13) will be enjoyed in its whole plenitude, and the captivity of Zion will finally have been restored and will be enjoyed by the saints throughout eternity in the new heavens and new earth.

Certainly, Psalm 126 reminds us that the "blessed hope" is the universal longing of believers of all ages, and while they go out through the furrows of the world sowing with tears the seed of eternal life, they should wait and pray for the final harvest, but over all they should look forward to be there being the sheaves that YHWH will reap and take to his eternal Kingdom.

Notes

It is a pleasure for me to dedicate this brief study and contribute to this volume in honor of my professor and friend, Dr. William Shea; it is also with much gratitude that I do this because of all that I have learned from his outstanding work.

There is discussion as to whether the word iybt of Ps 126:1 should be read "bit, and therefore the phrase should be rendered "turned again the captivity" (Hamilton 1981: 2340).

This understanding of the perfect is especially expressed either with the subjective perfect with its varieties, voluntative perfect (used in contracts, and energic affirmations, over all divine ones) and mental perfect (also called prophetic perfect, which is used in the imminent and undoubtedly successful) or with the perfect dependent with its subjunctive (also called futurum exactum) and optative types (Rodriguez 1924: 8). Yates notes the different uses of the perfect under the mode of perfect of dependency or perfect ofcontingency, in which the perfect of certainty expresses actions "in the future time viewed as complete based upon the authority of the speaker." In the same way, the perfect of prophecy which "is a perfect in the future time is viewed as completed, based only upon the authority of God. This perfectly portrays vividly and boldly a confidence that the speaker has in certain fulfillment of a prediction (Yates n.d.: 134).

The German revidierte Elberfelderfibesetzung renders Zeph 3:17, "Der HERR, dein Gott, ist in deiner Mitte, ein Held, der rettet; er freut sich fiber dich in Frohlichkeit, er schweight in seiner Liebe, er jauchzt fiber dich mit Jubel."

References

Alonso-Schokel, L., and Cartini, C. 1993 Salmos (Salmos 73-150). Traduccion. Introducciones y Comentario. Estella

[Navarra]: Editorial Verbo Divino.

Alonso-Schiikel, L. 1994 Diccionario Biblico Hebreo-Espaciol. Madrid: Editorial Trotta.

Bellinger, W. H., Jr. 1984 Psalmody and Prophecy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Bellinger, B. H., Jr. 1990 Psalms. Reading and Studying the Book of Praises. Peabody: Hendrickson.

Beyerlin, W. 1982 We Are Like Dreamers. Studies in Psalm 126. Edinburg: T&T Clark.



Brachter, R. G., and Reyburn, W. D. 1993 A Handbook on Psalms. New York: United Bible Societies.

Childs, B. S. 1979 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Drijvers, P. 1965 The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning. London: Herder.

Duhm, B. 1922 Die Psalmen [KHC XIV], Freiburg-Leipzig-Tubingen). Quoted by W. Beyerlin

We Are Like Dreamers. Studies in Psalm 126. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1982.

Garcia-Martinez, F. 1993 Textos del Qumran. Madrid: Editorial Trotta -.

Gonzalez-Nunez, A. 1965 Cual Torrentes del Negev. Estudios Biblicos 24: 349-360.

Grossberg, D. 1989 Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry. Atlanta: Scholars.

Gunkel, H. 1983 Introduccion a los Salmos. Valencia: Institucion San Jeronimo.

Hamilton, V. P. 1981 In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol 2., eds., R. L. Harris, G.

L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody.

Hartlet, J. E. 1981 iq-Laugh. In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2., eds., R.

L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody.

Kautzsch, E., ed. 1980 Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.

Keel, 0. 1978 The Symbolism of the Biblical World. Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and

the Book of Psalms. New York: Seabury.

Kittel, R. 1914 "Die Psalmen" (Leipzig) 446. Quoted by A. Gonzalez-Nufiez in "Cual

Torrentes del Negev,"Estudios Biblicos 24 (1965): 349.

Klingbeil, M. G. 1995 "Yaweh fighting from Heaven. God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the

Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography." Unpublished D. Litt. dissertation, University of Stellenbosh.

Kraus, H. J. 1985 Teologia de los Salmos. Salamanca: Ediciones Sigueme.



LaRondelle, H. K. 1983 Deliverance in the Psalms. Messages of Hope for Today. Berrien Springs, MI:

First Impressions.

Martinez, F. G. 1993 Textos de Qumran. Madrid: Editorial Trotta.

Payne, J. B. 1975 Zion. In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.

Rodriguez, M. 1924 Gramatica Hebrea y Vocabulario Hebrewo-Espaiiol. Madrid: El Perpetuo

Socorro.

Sanders, J. A. 1967 The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls. Ithaca: Cornell University.

Scroggie, G. 1965 The Psalms. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell.

Seybold, K. 1990

Introducing the Psalms. Edinburg: T&T Clark.

Vermes, G. 1995 The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Weiser, A. 1962 The Psalms. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Weiser, A. 1972 Psalms. London: Oliphants.

Westermann, C. 1980 The Psalms. Structure, Content, and Message. Minneapolis: Augsburg.

White, W. 1981

Rinnd. In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2., eds., R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody.

Wilson, G. H. 1983 The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms

in the Hebrew Psalter. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45: 377-388.

Yates, K. M. n.d. The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Brothers.


6 Literary Architecture and Meaning

in the Book of Jonah

David A. Dorsey Professor of Old Testament, Evangelical School of Theology, Myerstown, PA.

An analysis of the literary structure of Jonah reveals a great deal about the book's meaning. In particular, it helps clarify the significance of Jonah's prayer in chapter 2 and Yahweh's lesson in 4:5-11; and it may help identify the author's purpose in writing the book.

The Overall Layout of the Book Most people reading Jonah recognize that the book is composed of a series

of episodes (table 6.1). There appear to be a total of seven, each marked off for the audience by shifts in setting, genre, and characters (Limburg 1993: 28). 1

These seven episodes are arranged in a simple chronological order: A-B-C-D-E-F-G. There is also a secondary arrangement scheme that is less obvious but nevertheless apparent (table 6.2). The first three episodes are matched by the second three episodes, in an A-B-C // A'-B'-C' configuration; that is, the episodes of Jonah's first commission, his first experience with the pagans, and his first prayer (chapters 1-2) are paralleled by his second commission, his second experience with pagans, and his second prayer (chapters 3:1-4:4).

The seven episodes of the book thus exhibit a secondary arrangement: A-BC // A'-B'-C' // D. It is this secondary scheme that invites further examination:

Correspondence of the two commissioning episodes (1:1-3; 3:1-3). The two episodes of Jonah's call (1:1-3; 3:1-3) echo one another by the verbatim repetition of Yahweh's commissioning. This repetition serves to highlight the only difference between the two episodes, namely, Jonah's drastically different responses:



Episodes in the Book of Jonah

Episode 1: Jonah's commissioning and flight (1:1-3) Setting: Israel Genre: succinct narrative Characters: Yahweh and Jonah

Episode 2: Jonah and the pagan sailors (1:4-16) Setting: at sea Genre: detailed narrative and dialogue Characters: Jonah and sailors

Episode 3: Jonah's prayer (chapter 2) Setting: in fish's belly Genre: prayer Characters: Jonah (addressing Yahweh)

Episode 4: Jonah's recommissioning and obedience (3:1-3a) Setting: somewhere on dry land (on seashore?) Genre: succinct narrative Characters: Yahweh and Jonah

Episode 5: Jonah and the pagan Ninevites (3:3b-10) Setting: the city of Nineveh Genre: detailed narrative and dialogue Characters: Jonah and Ninevites

Episode 6: Jonah 's prayer (4:1-4) Setting: not given; presumably somewhere in Nineveh Genre: prayer Characters: Jonah (addressing Yahweh)

Episode 7: Yahweh's lesson for Jonah (4:5 - 11) Setting: outside Nineveh Genre: narrative and dialogue Characters: Yahweh and Jonah

Table 6.1. Overall layout of the book of Jonah.

The word of Yahweh came to Jonah son of Amittai, saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh, the great city, and proclaim against her, . . ." And Jonah arose and fled to Tarshish from the presence of Yahweh ... (1:1-3, emphasis supplied).

The word of Yahweh came to Jonah a second time, saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh, the great city, andproclaim against her, . . ." And Jonah arose, and went to Nineveh according to the word of Yahweh (3:1-3, emphasis supplied).


Literary Architecture and Meaning in the Book ofJonah 59

Secondary Arrangement of the Book of Jonah

Episode 1: Jonah's commissioning and flight (1:1-3) Episode 4: Jonah's recommissioning and obedience (3:1-3a)

Episode 2: Jonah and the pagan sailors (1:4-16) Episode 5: Jonah and the pagan Ninevites (3:3b-10)

Episode 3: Jonah's prayer (chapter 2) Episode 6: Jonah's prayer (4:1-4)

Episode 7: Yahweh's lesson for Jonah (4:5-11)

Table 6.2. The secondary arrangement of the episodes in the book of Jonah.

One effect of this repetition is that it serves to emphasize Yahweh's determination to reach the Ninevites with his message of warning; it communicates his tenacious resolve, even in the face of his own prophet's disobedience, to extend to sinners an opportunity to repent. Israel's God obviously cares about the fate of sinners, even pagan sinners.

Correspondence of the two epiSodes involving Jonah and the pagans (1:4-16; 3:5-9). The two commissioning episodes are followed by two stories that also correspond: the story of Jonah with the pagan sailors (1:4-16) and the story of Jonah with the pagan Ninevites (3:5-9). These two episodes closely match one another. For example, in both:

Jonah finds himself among idolatrous pagans, with whom he interacts. The action is recounted in lively detail. Jonah's arrival brings with it the ominous judgment of his God Yahweh. The pagans respond immediately, vigorously, and with great conviction. The pagans cry out (Ora') to Jonah's God for mercy. Their leader (the captain; the king) participates. The leader expresses the hope that God may show mercy and relent. Yahweh spares the pagans. Yahweh spares the guilty parties—Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah seems remarkably detached; he is a reluctant participant.

Through this second repetition the author is able to highlight three additional themes that are important to him: (1) Yahweh's power extends throughout the earth, and all people are accountable to him; (2) sinners, when confronted with Yahweh's impending judgment, should respond in repentance (the only sane response!); and (3) Yahweh may relent from his planned judgment if the guilty parties repent.

The correspondence of Jonah's two prayers (2:1-9; 4:1-3). The two



stories of Jonah's interaction with pagans are followed by prayers by Jonah to Yahweh, which correspond to one another and at the same time stand in stark and telling contrast. Their correspondence is fairly obvious.' Both prayers follow Yahweh's sparing a guilty party (Jonah; the Ninevites). Both are introduced, "And Jonah prayed (wayyitpallel) to Yahweh . . . saying" (2:1, 2; 4:1, 2). Both contain three of the same key words: "love" (hesed); "my life" (1:rtyyay); and "my soul" (napSI). These parallels naturally invite comparison between the two prayers.

What is striking, of course, is their differences. The first, Jonah's prayer of thanksgiving to Yahweh for sparing him, is beautiful, almost serene. It is steeped in piety and rich theology. In contrast, the second, in which Jonah reacts angrily to Yahweh's sparing pagan Nineveh, is neither beautiful, nor serene, nor pious, nor theologically rich. It is an indignant outburst, petty, small, mean-spirited.

In the first prayer Jonah boasted about Yahweh's kindness (hesed) that pagans forfeit (2:8); but in the second, he is angry about this same hesed, which Yahweh has now shown—as Jonah feared would happen—to the pagans (4:2). In the first prayer Jonah was grateful that his life (hayyay) and soul (napri) had been saved (2:5-7). In the second, he angrily asks Yahweh to take his life (haygy) and soul (napri). In the first, Jonah praised Yahweh for sparing him—one person—of the punishment he had deserved (despite the fact that he still apparently hadn't repented!); while in the second, he is angry that Yahweh has spared many thousands of innocent people who have sincerely repented.

The fact that the pious prayer of chapter 2 stands in correspondence to the mean-spirited prayer of chapter 4 helps the reader, in retrospect, to see the first prayer as the author intended: as self-righteous, hypocritical, and selfish (Holbert 1981: 59-81).

The conclusion: Yahweh's object lesson (4:5 -11). Two structural considerations indicate that 4:5-11 is intended as the book's climax. First, it is the book's only unmatched unit, which serves to highlight it. Second, it stands in the seventh and final position, the standard place for the climax in seven-part parallel arrangements (compare, for example, the Creation Story).

The book's parallel layout (A-B-C // A'-B'-C' // D) can be represented in table 6.3. Such an outline accounts for the symmetry we have been discussing.

Internal Structuring Within Jonah's Constituent Units The internal structures of some of the individual episodes are also

instructive. While the two brief commissioning units (1:1-3; 3:1-3a) are constructed in a simple A-B pattern (divine commission; prophet's response; contrary to Lohfink 1961: 200, 201), 3 the internal arrangements of the other units are more complex and invite closer scrutiny.



Internal Structuring Within Jonah's Constituent Units

A. JONAH COMMISSIONED TO GO TO NINEVEH; his disobedience (1:1-3) "Arise, go to Nineveh, the great city . . .; and Jonah arose to flee"

B. JONAH AND THE PAGAN SAILORS (1:4-16) Opens with Yahweh's judgment threatening the pagan ship Sailors respond immediately, vigorously, with conviction Sailors cry out (Or») to Jonah's God for mercy Their leader, the captain, participates in the effort, expressing hope

that God may show mercy and relent Closes with Yahweh sparing the contrite pagans of the ship

C. JONAH'S PIOUS, BEAUTIFUL PRAYER (1:17-2:10 12:1-111) "And Jonah prayed (wayyitpalld) to Yahweh" Boasts about Yahweh's hesed that pagans forfeit Is grateful that his life (rayydy) and soul (napki)

have been saved (although he hasn't repented)

A'. JONAH RECOMMISSIONED TO GO TO NINEVEH; his obedience (3:1-4) "Arise, go to Nineveh, the great city . ..; and Jonah arose and went"

B'. JONAH AND THE PAGAN NINEVITES (3:5-10) Opens with Yahweh's judgment announced against the pagan city Ninevites respond immediately, vigorously, with conviction Ninevites cry out (Ora) to God for mercy Their leader, the king, participates in the effort, expressing hope that God

may show mercy and relent Closes with Yahweh sparing the contrite pagans of the city

C'. JONAH'S ANGRY, MEAN-SPIRITED PRAYER (4:1-3) "And Jonah prayed (wayyitpalld) to Yahweh" Complains about Yahweh's hesed that pagans have received Is ungrateful, and wishes that his life (iyayydy) and soul (naps'i)

would be taken

D. YAHWEH'S LESSON FOR JONAH (4:4-11)

Table 6.3. The parallel layout of the book of Jonah.

Jonah and the pagan sailors (1:4-16). While this episode, like the others in Jonah, is primarily linear in its arrangement—following a chronologically sequential order, the episode also exhibits a symmetrical touch. It is structured in an extended chiasm, a fact noted by a number of scholars–although analyses differ in details from scholar to scholar (Lohfink 1961: 185-203; Keller 1965: 329-340; Pesch 1966: 577-581; Landes 1963: 206ff; Magonet 1976: 56, 57;



Cohn 1969: 47, 48). 4 I would suggest that the story has been laid out in 13 parts, with the central, seventh unit being Jonah's confession (1:9). 5

The opening two events of the chiasm are obviously matched by the two closing events, dramatically capturing the transformation that has occurred with respect to the pagan sailors and Yahweh (table 6.4). The story opens with two stimulus-response actions (1:4, 5a). The story closes with a significantly different series of two stimulus-response actions (1: 14, 15).

Opening and Closing Actions in Jonah 1

Opening (1:4-5a)

Yahweh "hurls" (heti/) a great wind "upon the sea" ( haypim) The sailors "cry out" (qTtrii)—in vain—to their gods

Closing (1:14, 15)

B'. Now the sailors, who have heard Jonah's testimony and instructions, "cry out" (vira) to the true God, Yahweh—and not in vain

A'. Obeying Yahweh's prophet, they "hurl" (heri/) Jonah "into the sea" ( "el hayyim) and the winds that Yahweh had caused cease.

Table 6.4. Stimulus-response actions in Jonah 1.

This layout highlights the contrast between the futility of the sailors appealing to their own pagan gods, and the remarkable results when they call upon Yahweh and obey his prophet. Jonah's God is clearly the true God, "who made the sea and dry land" (1:9).

The intervening episodes of the story move the audience, first inexorably toward the identification of Jonah as the culprit, and to the story's natural center and turning point, Jonah's grand confession (1:9). Then, in reverse order, the story moves back outward to its resolution, as represented in table 6.5. By repeating the scenes of the sailors' frantic efforts to save themselves by their desperate efforts and by crying out for divine mercy, in parts 2, 3, 3', and 2', the author highlights their commendable response.

The episode is concluded by a statement that stands outside this tightly constructed chiasm and is thus given prominence. The statement recounts three things the sailors did as a result of their experience: "Then the men greatly feared Yahweh; they sacrificed a sacrifice to Yahweh, and they made vows" (1:16). This response by the pagan sailors is evidently important to the author's agenda (see below), because it is structurally accented in its placement at the end, standing unmatched and outside the chiasm.

Jonah 's first prayer (chapter 2). Jonah's psalm of thanksgiving in



Jonah and the Pagan Sailors (Jonah 1)

1. Yahweh "hurls" (hop a great wind "upon the sea" (el hayyarn) (1:4)

2. The sailors "cry out" (gars) (in vain) to their gods (1:5a)

3. The sailors' Trantic and futile efforts" to save the ship by throwing cargo overboard (1:5b-c)

4. Jonah down in the hold, uninvolved (he is as far from the sailors as he can go, yet ship continues to suffer because of his presence); captain pleas for Jonah to help save the ship (1:6)

5. Sailors' efforts to ascertain what to do: inquiry by lots; Jonah guilty (1:7)

6. Sailors demand an explanation from Jonah; "tell" (haggidci) (1:8)

7. JONAH'S TESTIMONY (1:9)

6'. Sailors demand an explanation from Jonah; "he had told" (haggid) (1:10)

5'. Sailors' efforts to ascertain what they must do:• inquiry of Jonah, the guilty party (1:11)

4'. Jonah finally acts to save the ship; he proposes that he be thrown overboard—only this complete separation will save the ship (1:12)

3'. The sailors' frantic and futile efforts to save the ship by rowing harder (1:13)

2'. The sailors "cry out" (qlrii) to Yahweh (1:14)

1'. The sailors "hurl" (helllii) Jonah "into the sea" ('el hayyzim), and the sea becomes still (1:15)

Table 6.5. The 13-part layout of Jonah 1:4-16.

chapter 2 appears to comprise four parts (Walsh 1982: 219-229; Trible 1994: 163-165; Cross 1983: 159- 167), framed by a narrative inclusio. His prayer forms a chiasm, except for its final part, which closes the prayer and stands outside the chiasm (table 6.6).

Like the preceding episode about Jonah and the sailors, this prayer also features a highlighted final unit that speaks of vows and sacrificing to Yahweh (2:8 [9]), which of course invites the audience to compare the two. The ironic contrast between the two is unmistakable. In the latter, Jonah's boasts, "Those who serve empty idols forfeit (your) loving kindness; but I, on the other hand, will offer you sacrifice with thanksgiving; I will pay my vows!" (2:8, 9), but while the rebellious prophet makes this self-righteous boast and promise from


64 To Understand the Seri tures

Jonah's First Prayer (Jonah 2)

NARRATIVE INCLUSIO: Great fish swallows Jonah (1:17[2:1])

The Prayer:

A. Report of Yahweh's deliverance (2:2[ 3]) B. Description of distress (2:3-6b[4-711)

A'. Report of Yahweh's deliverance (2:6c-7[7c-8]) C. Promise of future service: Jonah piously contrasts himself with pagans and

promises to offer praise, sacrifice, and to pay vows to Yahweh in future (2:8[9])

NARRATIVE INCLUSIO: Great fish vomits Jonah out (2:10[11])

Table 6.6. The layout of Jonah 2.

his wretched situation in the fish's belly, the praiseworthy pagan sailors are up above, happy recipients of Yahweh's grace, doing precisely what pathetic Jonah can mostly only promise to do (and what he assumes nobody except faithful Israelites like himself do): they are sacrificing to Yahweh and making vows to him (1:16)! By this structuring technique the author helps the audience understand how he intends Jonah's pious prayer to be heard—as hypocritical!

Jonah and the pagan Ninevites (3: 3b-10). As in the episode of Jonah and the sailors, the episode of Jonah and the Ninevites exhibits a secondary symmetrical touch, in this case with either five, or, less likely, seven parts (table 6.7).

Jonah and the Pagan Ninevites (Jonah 3)

I . Yahweh's message of impending destruction delivered (3:3b, 4) 2. People repent, with fasting, wearing sackcloth (3:5)

(3. Word reaches the king; 3:6a) 4. CLIMAX/ZENITH: KING REPENTS (3:6b)'

(5. Word goes out from the king to people; 3:7a) 6. People commanded to repent, with fasting, wearing sackcloth (3:7b-9)

7. Yahweh relents and spares the city (3:10)

Table 6.7. The layout of Jonah 3.

In an artistic touch, this chiasm moves upward (socially) as it moves towards its center, from the people, up to the king, then back down to the



people again. The entire city repents, from top to bottom (or more accurately, from bottom, to top, to bottom again), with the king, appropriately, taking the lead. To point out the obvious, placing the king's own repentance at the center highlights the king's pivotal spiritual role in the national repentance (probable implied message: the same kind of leadership is needed in Israel/Judah, you Israelite/Judean king!). The repetition of the theme of the people's earnest repentance (3:5, 7-9) serves to underscore this commendable response (as the similar repetition did in the story of the sailors).

Jonah 's angry prayer when Yahweh spares Nineveh (4:1-4). The story of Jonah's terse, angry prayer in 4:1-4 appears to have precisely the same arrangement as that of his earlier prayer in chapter 2 (table 6.8; cf. table 6.6). As there, the prayer here is framed by an inclusio (4:1, 4). 8 And the prayer itself, like its earlier counterpart, is composed of four parts, the first three forming an A-B-A' pattern, and the fourth functioning as the prayer's conclusion:

Jonah's Angry Prayer (Jonah 4:1-4)

INCLUSIO: Jonah's Anger (hrr,) (4:1)

The Prayer:

A. Complaint about Yahweh's mercifulness: I said this would happen! (4:2a) B. Excuse for disobedience: This is why I fled (4:2b)

A'. Complaint about Yahweh's mercifulness: I knew this would happen, that you would act mercifully (4:2c)

C. Conclusion: take my life/ (4:3)

INCLUSIO: Jonah's Anger (hrr) Questioned by Yahweh (4:4)

Table 6.8. The layout of Jonah 4:1-4.

The similarity of the design of these two prayers intensifies the contrast between them. The chiastic portion of the first prayer is introduced and concluded by Jonah's praises of Yahweh's kindness to him; while here in the same two slots, ironically, Jonah complains about Yahweh's kindness to the Ninevites.

Likewise, the conclusions stand in striking contrast. In his first prayer, when he himself has been spared, Jonah concludes with a joyous vow to serve Yahweh; while in his second prayer, following Yahweh's sparing the Ninevites, Jonah concludes with an ignoble wish to die. The prophet's hypocrisy is thereby accented.



Yahweh's Object Lesson (Jonah 4:5-11)

A. Yahweh prepares a plant for Jonah (4:6a) B. Jonah' response: he rejoices (4:6b)

A'. Yahweh destroys plant and causes hot wind to blow on Jonah (4:7, 8a) B'. Jonah's response: he is upset (4:8b)

A". Yahweh asks: should you feel so badly about this plant, Jonah? (4:9a) B". Jonah's response:: Yes! I should feel badly enough to die!

C. Yahweh's Lesson (4:10, 11)

Table 6.9. The layout of Jonah 4:5-11.

Yahweh's object lesson (4:5-11). The book's final unit, 4:5-11, is arranged in a seven-part A-B // A'-B'// A"-B"// C scheme, with the final, unmatched seventh unit standing in the position of climax. The narrative (following the stage-setting sentence in 4:5) alternates between Yahweh and Jonah as subjects as it builds towards the grand finale (table 6.9).

The alternating (A-B // A'-B' // A"-B") organization of this unit helps convey the image of Yahweh patiently, step-by-step, walking Jonah through this object lesson. Yahweh causes a chain of events that leaves Jonah feeling badly about a little plant that has died, and now Jonah is asked to see, by (qal weh omer) extension, why Yahweh feels so badly about the impending destruction of an entire city full of thousands of innocent people and animals.

Purpose of the Book Does the book's structure hold any clues as to the author's!purpose in

writing it? Several observations can be made. The foregoing analysis reveals that the author has highlighted at least four themes by the technique of repetition, including:

Yahweh's earnest concern over the fate of sinners; The accountability of all people to Yahweh's authority; The value of repentance when confronted by Yahweh's threatened judgment;

and The possibility of Yahweh's mercy in response to repentance.

The author has also underscored a fifth theme by his structuring strategy, namely, the hypocrisy of rejoicing at one's own salvation while resenting the salvation of others. He has emphasized this theme in two ways: (1) by the intentional contrasting of the two prayers in chapters 2 and 4; and (2) by the highlighted position of Yahweh's lesson about this kind of hypocrisy, at the climactic conclusion of the book.


Literary Architecture and Meaning in the Book of Jonah 67

In light of these observations, it seems that the author has written with two main purposes in mind:

1 . To encourage sinners under Yahweh's threatened judgment to repent; 2. To warn against hypocritically resenting the mercy Yahweh shows to sinners

outside one's own group.

What circumstances might have occasioned these concerns? The encouragement to repent would fit almost any time in Israel's history, particularly during the ministries of any of the prophets. This theme is central, for example, in Jeremiah 18.

On the other hand, it is difficult to identify any known circumstances that might have called for the warning against resenting Yahweh's mercy on others. It is possible that such resentment (in Judah?) surfaced when Yahweh spared the sinful northern kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:25-27), during Jonah's own lifetime. Also, there may have been such resentment on the part of pious Judeans when God spared wicked Manasseh following his repentance (2 Chr 33:12, 13); or when God spared sinful Judah during the reign of Josiah (2 Kgs 22, 23). This is, of course, quite speculative.

In conclusion, one cannot help but compare Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son. That parable develops the same two themes that we find in Jonah, offering hope for the repentant sinner, with a plea for understanding on the part of the (self-)righteous faithful—who, like rebellious Jonah, may in reality also need to repent.

Notes

Limburg likewise analyzes the book as composed of these same seven units. The only difference between my analysis and his regards 4:4, which I think probably belongs with 4:1-3. He places it with 4:5-11. Phyllis Trible (1994: 207-225) likewise sees 4:5/6-11 as the book's final, separate unit.

That the author of Jonah intends his readers to compare and contrast these two prayers has been suggested by others (e.g., Landes 1967: 3-31; Allen 1976: 198-199; Trible 1994: 202).

Lohfmk concludes that Jonah's actions in 1:3 form a seven-part chiasm, an analysis that finds favor with Trible (1994: 127-131).

Pesch, for example, sees the story in chapter 1 as comprising 15 units, chiastically arranged: A, A'. Narrative and response offe.ar (4, 5a; 15, 16a); B, B'. Sailors' prayer (5b; 14); C, C'. Narrative (5c, 6a; 13); D, TY. Captain's/Jonah's speech (6b; 12); E, E'. Sailors' speech (7a; 11); F, F. Narrative (7b; 10c); G, G'. Sailors' speech (8; 10b); and the center: Jonah's statement and the response of fear (9, 10a). Pesch's analysis is well-done. Apart from several minor (and inconsequential) points, I would quibble on two points only: (1) The splitting of v. 7 into two units seems artificial. The verse makes a single statement: the sailors decided to cast lots, and Jonah was found to be the culprit (2) Extracting 10c from the rest of v. 10 and granting it the status of a separate unit, "Erzahlung," seems unlikely. Verse 10c is simply an explanatory remark completing the thought of v. 10, of which it is an integral part.



The precise delineations of the units in this analysis are tentative. One could easily argue that the author did not intend so many units. Also, the correspondences of units 4 and 5 with 4' and 5' seem to me to be somewhat weak.

Walsh (1982: 219-229) divides the prayer in chapter 2 into four parts (following Hebrew numbering here and throughout this note): vv. 3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-10. This is accepted by Trible (1994: 163-165), who sees these four stanzas as forming an A-B-B'-A' chiasm. Cross (1983: 159-167) also analyzes it with our parts, but with differences: vv. 3-4, 5, 6-7, 8-10. Christensen (1985: 217-231) sees five: vv. 3, 4-5, 6-7a, 7b-8, 9-10. Sasson (1990: 165) has three: vv. 3-4, 5-9, 10. In an excellent study, Barre (1991: 237-248) proposes seven units, in three parts: (1) Poem, v. 3; (2) Part I: 4, 5, 6-7b; and (3) Part II: vv. 7c-10. My only suggestion regarding Barre's analysis is that his "Part II" be subdivided.

The king's response in 3:6b, at the center of this chiasm, is itself symmetrical (also noted by Trible 1994: 183):

A. He arose from his throne B. He took off his robe B'. He put on sackcloth

A'. He sat in the dust.

Trible (1994: 196-205) also notices the parallel between 4:1 and 4:4, and she includes 4:4 in this opening unit of chapter 4. She is ambivalent about 4:5, but eventually decides to place it at the end of the present unit (4:1-5) rather than at the beginning of the next. My own feeling is that 4:5 is intended as the introduction to the book's final unit.

References

Allen, L. C. 1976 The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. New International

Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Barre, M. L. 1991

Jonah 2, 9 and the Structure of Jonah's Prayer. Biblica 72: 237-248.

Christensen, D. L. 1985 The Song of Jonah: A Metrical Analysis. Journal of Biblical Literature

Monograph Series, vol. 104.

Cohn, G. H. 1969 Das Buch Jona im Lichte der biblischen Erzahlkunst. Studia Semitica

Neerlandica 12. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Cross, F. M. 1983 Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of the Psalm of Jonah.

Pp. 159-167 in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, eds. H. B. Huffinon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Holbert, J. C. 1981

`Deliverance Belongs to Yahweh!': Satire in the Book of Jonah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 21: 59-81.



Keller, C. A. 1965 Jonas. Le portrait d'un Prophete. Theologische Zeitschrift 21: 329-340.

Landes, G. M. 1967 The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah. Interpretation 21: 3-31

Limburg, J. 1993 Jonah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster/

John Knox.

Lohfink, N. 1961 Jona gign zur Stadt hinaus (Jon 4, 5). Biblische Zeitschrift 5: 185-201.

Magonet, J. 1976

Pesch, R. 1966 Zur konzentrischen Struktur von Jona 1. Biblica 47: 577-581.

Sasson, J. M. 1990 Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and

Interpretation. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.

Trible, P. 1994 Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book ofJonah. Minneapolis,

MN: Fortress.

1963 Studies in the Book ofJonah. Dissertation, Columbia University.

Walsh, J. T. 1982 A Rhetorical Critical Study. Biblica 63: 219-229.

Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah. Bern/Frankfurt: Herbert Land/Peter Lang.


The Chiastic Literary Structure

of the Book of Ezekiel

Richard M. Davidson J. N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Andrews University Theological

Seminary, Berrien Springs, MI.

The initial impetus for this study came from William Shea: whose enthusiasm for exploring the literary structures of Scripture—especially the phenomenon of chiasmus (e.g. Shea 1979, 1980, 1986a, 1986b)—was contagious to many of us, his students; whose ground-breaking insights into Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48 (Shea 1981, 1982) are foundational to this research; and to whom I appreciatively dedicate this article.

Previous Study on the Structure of the Book of Ezekiel

Already in the nineteenth century, commentators frequently noted the intricate structural design of the book of Ezekiel. Rudolf Smend wrote: "The whole book is ... the logical development of a series of ideas in accordance with a well thought out, and in part quite schematic, plan. We cannot remove any part without disturbing the whole structure" (1880: xxi). Even after the cycle of critical attacks on the unity and integrity of the book during the second quarter of the twentieth century, recent Ezekiel scholars are still impressed by the literary orderliness and artistry of the book in its canonical form. Walther Zimmerli remarks: "In coming from the other prophetic books, one is struck by the impression of great order in the book of Ezekiel" (1979: 2). James Luther Mays concurs: "Among all the books of the prophets, Ezekiel's has the clearest and most orderly arrangement" (1978: 22). Joseph Blenkinsopp expresses like sentiments: "On a first reading of the book, one gets an impression of continuity, structure, and order and of its being a well thought out whole to a much greater extent than other prophetic books" (1990: 3).



John Wevers writes similarly: "It is clear, however, that not only do the divisions of the book give evidence of literary arrangement, but that a single mind imposed some pattern (largely formal) on the book as a whole as well" (1969: 7). Moshe Greenberg's research leads him to accept the validity of his working hypothesis "that the present Book of Ezekiel is the product of art and intelligent design" (1983: 26).

Since the beginning of the Common Era, specific suggestions have been made regarding the overall structure of Ezekiel. According to Josephus, "Ezekiel ... left behind him in writing two books concerning these events" (Antiquities 10, 5.1). Josephus seems to be referring to the two different halves of the book of Ezekiel, chapters 1-24 dealing primarily with doom or judgment, and chapters 25-48 dealing with the consolation or hope in the destruction of Israel's enemies and the restoration of Israel and its temple.

The Babylonian Talmud apparently envisions the same bifid structure even as it explains the order of the major prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah) in some early manuscripts:

Since the book of Kings ends with doom and the book of Jeremiah is all doom, and the book of Ezekiel begins with doom but ends with consolation, while Isaiah is all consolation, you see that we place doom next to doom and consolation next to consolation (Baba Bathra 14b).

This "traditional" bifid structuring of the book still has representatives in modern scholarship (Harrison 1969: 822, 823; Brownlee 1986: xxxviii, xxxix; Keil 1976: 7; Nichol 1955: 569).

The preponderance of recent Ezekiel scholars, however, opt for a general tripartite structure of Ezekiel in its present form (Zimmerli 1979: 2; Eichrodt 1970: 21, 22; Greenberg 1983: 4-6; Mays 1978: 22; McKeating 1993: 15; Allen 1990: xiii; Fishbane 1984: 131; Zvi 1993: 93; Cooke 1936: xvii; Hals 1989: 3, 4; Cassuto 1973: 227). The three generally acknowledged sections of the book are chapters 1-24 (prophecies ofjudgment), 25-32 (oracles against the foreign nations), and 33-48 (prophecies of hope and restoration). There is wide recognition of numerous parallels between the first and third sections, thus yielding an A-B-A' structural pattern (Hals 1989: 3, 4; Haran 1979: 51-53; Talmon and Fishbane 1976: 138-149; McKeating 1993: 15, 16, 99-104; Wevers 1969: 3-7; Mays 1978: 22-24).

Some modern scholars subdivide the third section into chapters 33-39 (Israel's restoration) and 40-48 (The New Temple and Cult), thus arriving at a fourfold division of the book (Stalker 1968: 5-12; Wevers 1969: 1, 7-11; Feinberg 1969: 14, 15; May 1956: 64), and the first section has also been subdivided into chapters 1-3:21 (Ezekiel's call) and 3:22-24:27 (Prophecies of Doom), thus yielding five major divisions to the book (Ellison 1956: 13).

A number of recent studies deal with literary structural relationships in


The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel 73

various sub-units of Ezekiel, without attempting to set forth the literary structure of the entire book. For examples, Henry van Dyke Parunak (1980) analyzes the relationships of the three visions of the book called "the visions of God": Ezekiel 1-3, 8-11, and 40-48; Fishbane (1984) traces the sin-judgment theme and structure throughout Ezekiel 4-24; Tuell (1992: 20) sets forth a chiasm in Ezekiel 4-48; Talmon and Fishbane (1976) study structural elements in Ezekiel 13 and 40-43 (in linkage with 8-11); and Brownlee (1978) examines the "watchman" parable structure in Ezekiel 3 and 33.

To my knowledge, only two modern studies attempt to set forth in any detail the literary arrangement or structure of the entire book of Ezekiel. Cassuto attempts to explain the present arrangement of the book of Ezekiel in terms of Eastern (opposed to Western) methods of organization by length and by association of ideas and words (1973: 227-240). He seeks to trace the working of these principles throughout the book, focusing especially on the "criterion of association" which he sees operating in each sub-unit of the three main sections of the book. While Cassuto does point out many words, phrases, and ideas which recur in succeeding units of the book, his analysis is often far from convincing. Moreover, Cassuto's aim is to account for the present ordering of units within the three main sections of the book; he does not attempt to discover the overarching literary macrostructure of Ezekiel's prophecies.

Parunak (1978) has written the most comprehensive study of literary structures in the book of Ezekiel. Written in the rising wake of the New Literary Criticism, Parunak's study traces the rise of scholarly interest in the literary artistry of Scripture since Robert Lowth, synthesizes principles of structural analysis, and applies these principles in a relatively comprehensive surface structural analysis of the book of Ezekiel. The major strength of this study is in the surface microstructural analyses of units and sub-units of Ezekiel's prophecies, revealing numerous appearances of chiastic structure and block parallelism (which Parunak labels alternations). Parunak's brief treatment of the macrostructure of the entire book is far less satisfactory. His proposed overall literary structure is diagrammed in table 7.1.

Although Parunak attempts to explain the balance of this macrostructure, in so doing, he has to redefine the term "balance" almost to the point of special pleading. Parunak's excellent surface microstructural work in Ezekiel is simply not matched by a convincing macrostructure of the book. To Parunak's credit, he does not insist that his macrostructure of Ezekiel is the last word. In his discussion of the theory of structural analysis, he rightly points to the principle of concurrence, in which several different structural patterns may be superimposed on each other (1978: 75, 76).

One specific weakness of Parunak's study is his treatment of Ezekiel 1-11. By dividing Ezekiel 1-11 into three different sub-sections, Parunak is not able to recognize key areas of correspondence in the book.



Parunak's Macrostructure of Exekial

Judgment 3:16-7:27

Restoration 34-39

First Vision Second Vision Commission Judgment 1:1-3:15 8-11

Third Vision Restoration 40-48

Judgment 12-33

Table 7.1. Parunak's literary structure (after 1978: 118, table 4).

The special contribution of Shea to the discussion of literary structure in Ezekiel comes in his recognition of Ezekiel 1-11 as a discrete literary unit which balances the book's concluding section of Ezekiel 40-48. Various scholars have pointed out the balancing relationship between the units of Ezekiel 1-3 and 40-48 (e.g. Taylor 1969: 14, 15), and other scholars have noted the balancing relationship between the units of Ezekiel 8-11 and 40-48 (e.g. McKeating 1993: 102), but to my knowledge Shea is the first to show how the whole of Ezekiel 1-11 is integrated as a single literary unit and to recognize that this whole unit matches and counterbalances the unit of Ezekiel 40-48 at the end of the book.

The Chiastic Literary Structure of Ezekiel The chiastic literary structure ofEzekiel: an overview. My own research

on Ezekiel's literary structure began as a result of reading Shea's analysis of the opening and closing matching sections of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48), as mentioned above (and to be detailed below). The hypothesis presented itself that if Ezekiel 1-11 was the counterbalance to Ezekiel 40-48, perhaps these sections formed the outer members of a detailed chiastic structure that encompassed the whole book. Further study testing this hypothesis has revealed that the prophecies of Ezekiel not only have a general A-B-A' chiastic


E

Oracles against the foreign nations

25-28:10

Jerusalem besieged C 24

Oracles of judgment 12-23

1-11 A

D' Oracles against the foreign nations

29-32

' Jerusalem falls 33

Oracles of restoration 34-39

A' 40-48


pattern as widely recognized, but also appear to be arranged in a much more detailed chiastic literary macrostructure. Not only do the opening and closing sections of the book (Ezekiel 1-11, 40-48) parallel each other, but other sections of Ezekiel's prophecies follow an intricate chiastic pattern. The Oracles of Judgment (Ezekiel 12-23) are the chiastic counterbalance of the Oracles of Restoration (Ezekiel 34-39). Ezekiel 24 and 33 are pivotal in the chiastic arrangement of the book: in Ezekiel 24 the fate of Jerusalem is sealed as the city is besieged, and in the chiastic counterpart Ezekiel 33, word reaches Ezekiel that Jerusalem has fallen. In the transition between these two pivotal chapters and the events they describe (the siege and fall of Jerusalem), the prophet's attention is turned to the fate of Israel's surrounding neighbors, and the oracles of judgment against the nations (Ezekiel 25-32) are presented in two corresponding parts. Finally, in the chiastic center of the book of Ezekiel, the cosmic curtain is pulled back, as it were, and God reveals to Ezekiel the cosmic judgment upon the Fallen Cherub who stands behind the scenes of human affairs (Ezek 28:11-19). Table 7.2 gives a schematic overview of this structure.

The Chiastic Structure of Ezekiel

Judgment on the Fallen Cherub 28:11-19

Yahweh Comes to His Temple: He comes

to the defiled Temple for investigative judgment

then departs.

Yahweh Comes to His Temple: He comes

to the restored Temple on the Day of Atonement

and does not depart.

Table 7.2. A schematic overview of the book of Ezekiel.



A-A' (Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48): Yahweh comes to His temple. The following summarizes Shea's insights regarding the unity of theme, structure, and focus in Ezekiel 1-11;the relationship between this material and Ezekiel 40-48 (1981: 12-24); and some points not presented by Shea.

According to Ezek 1:1, 2, Ezekiel's ministry began in July 592 BC, only some 3 1/2 years before the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, which started in January 588. Thus Ezekiel gave God's last warning message to Judah just before the siege and destruction of Jerusalem.

Commentators have rightly recognized that the vision of Ezekiel 1 concerns the glory of God, but they have only incidently noted the emphasis on motion involved in the vision—the wings of the living beings (1:6, 8, 11, 14) and the four wheels of the divine chariot throne, all in intense intentional and directional movement (1:15-21). God is going somewhere. Where? Already in Ezek 1:4 there is a hint, since the storm-cloud chariot comes from the north, implying that He is heading to the south.

What is implicit in Ezekiel 1 becomes explicit in Ezekiel 8-11. In Ezek 8:1 we have another dateline, this time coming some 14 months later than the first vision (i.e. September 591). Ezekiel is taken in vision to Jerusalem, to the temple, and the glory of God which He had seen in his vision is there (Ezek 8:4). Ezekiel 9:3 reveals more specifically that God had taken up residence in the Most Holy Place of the Jerusalem temple, presumably for most if not all of the interluding 14 months since Ezekiel began his ministry (Shea does not point out that according to Ezek 3:12, 13, 23, the glory of Yahweh appears to have remained in Babylon with Ezekiel at least during the seven-day period of his commissioning., but from the reference to the glory of Yahweh in Ezek 8:4 and 9:3, with the strong implication that He had taken up residence in the Jerusalem temple for a special work, it appears that the glory of the Lord must have moved on to Jerusalem shortly after Ezekiel's call vision.) At the end of this extended residence, He is now preparing to leave.

Why had God come to the temple if His presence was already manifested there by the shekinah glory resting over the ark of the covenant between the cherubim in the Most Holy Place? Shea points out the evident answer: He came to do a special work, and that work is the subject of the chapters between the visions of Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 8—namely, judgment. Following the description of Ezekiel's call in Ezekiel 2, 3, four chapters are devoted to a series of indictments against Judah and prophecies of judgment. Chapter 8 is the climax of indictments, in which Ezekiel is brought in vision to witness the abominations done in Jerusalem. Shea summarizes:

Yahweh sat in judgment upon His people in His temple for some 14 months, according to the datelines connected with these visions, the contents of the visions themselves, and the nature of the messages given to Ezekiel during the interval between the two visions (1981: 287).



Confirmation for this conclusion regarding God's work in the temple comes in Ezekiel 9, where the result of the investigative/trial judgment is seen. The professed people of God are divided into two classes, those who really serve Him (these receive a mark or "TI" (taw), the last letter of the alphabet, perhaps signifying the faithful remnant), and those who did not really serve Him (these are in line for execution; Ezek 9:4-6). The fact that the two groups, righteous and wicked, are differentiated in Ezekiel 9 implies that the decisions regarding this executive judgment were drawn up, while God was residing in the Most Holy Place during the previous 14 months—engaged in an investigative judgment. In Ezekiel 9, God brings an end to this trial phase of judgment, closes probation on Judah, and proceeds to the verdict and sentence—to the executive judgment.

Ezekiel 9-11 describes the details of God's departure from His temple. According to these chapters, God departs in stages. He leaves His place between the golden cherubim in the Most Holy Place and moves to the threshold of the temple (Ezek 9:3; 10:3, 4), then moves from the threshold and stands over the living cherubim of his waiting celestial chariot (Ezek 10:18), then moves to the East gate of the temple enclosure (Ezek 10:19), and finally moves away from the city to the East and pauses over the Mt. of Olives (Ezek 11:22, 23). Thus, as Shea puts it,

The vision covering chapters 9 through 11 is a reciprocal of the vision given in chapter 1.. In chapter 1 Yahweh came to His temple for a work of judgment, and m chapters 9-11 that work of judgment completed, He departs from His temple and city (1981: 289).

In other words, chapters 1-11 are one structural unit, displaying the movement of God to His temple for judgment and away from the temple as His work of judgment is complete.

After a brief review of the evidence in Daniel that the glory of God was still in the east some 70 years later, Shea suggests a crucial, but overlooked, connection between Ezekiel 1-11 and the final nine chapters of the book. The central theme of Ezekiel 40-48 is the restoration of the temple and the return of the glory of God to it. The dateline of these chapters (Ezek 40:1), reckoned according to the fall-to-fall calendar, which Shea elsewhere shows is to be preferred (1991: 130-135; cf. Zimmerli 1983: 345, 346; Cooke 1951: xviii; McKeating 1993: 71; Greenberg, 1983: 11), is the tenth day of the seventh month, or Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement, which that year fell on October 22 573 BC). Therefore,

this vision of the cleansed and restored temple was given on the day of atonement, when the first temple was cleansed ritually during the services. On the day when the first temple was to be cleansed ritually , Ezekiel saw in vision the second temple restored, cleansed, and purified (Shea 1981: 291).



While Shea does not explicitly state as much, he seems to tacitly imply that this Day of Atonement cleansing/restoring activity of Ezekiel 40-48 constitutes a thematic counterpart to the work of investigative judgment in Ezekiel 1-11, since according to Leviticus 16 and 23 (and recognized in later Jewish literature) the Day of Atonement was both a day of cleansing/restoring and a day of judgment. Thus Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48 are linked not only by the coming/departing of the glory of the Lord, but by complementary Day of Atonement themes.

Shea concludes his study with the following summary:

Thus the visions of God and His glory given to Ezekiel and Daniel center on His temple and His relationship to it. In Ezekiel 1 He is seen coming to His temple from the north to take up His work of judgment there. In Ezekiel 10 He is seen leaving His temple to the east 14 months later, having completed that work of judgment. ... Then He is finally seen by Ezekiel (40:1) on the day of atonement returning from the east to His temple, which ultimately was to be reconstructed (1981: 291).

Many of the pivotal points made by Shea find substantiation in recent studies of these sections of Ezekiel. For example, the analysis of the movement of the glory of God from the Most Holy Place of the earthly temple to the waiting celestial chariot-throne, is confirmed by the detailed linguistic research of Moshe Greenberg (1984: 195-198; cf. Alexander 1986: 786).

Again, the structural analysis of the "visions of God" in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1-3, 8-11, and 40-48) by Parunak (1980: 61-74) and others shows the close interrelationships among these chapters. Tuell speaks of the "interconnected network of three visions (Ezekiel 1-3, 8-11, 40-48), which stand as milestones of Ezekiel's ministry, and as key points in the structure of his book" (1992: 19). Similarly, McKeating indicates that Ezekiel 40-48 "balance the earlier complex of chapters 8-11," and concludes that "these three great visions (Ezekiel 1, 8-11, 40-48) form a major structural element of the book of Ezekiel" (1993: 102).

Talmon and Fishbane provide numerous parallels to show that,

this future vision (Ezekiel 40-48), with which we are here concerned, effectively balances the vision of the Temple in Ezekiel 10-11. Thus, whereas in Ezekiel 10-11 Ezekiel describes the destruction of the city and temple because of the sins of the populace, Ezekiel 40-48 present a new architecthtonic and political plan for the restoration (1976: 139).

Later in their study they show how,

this patterned and structural arrangement reflects a deliberate attempt to link and balance these pericopae (Ezekiel 8-11; 40-43:12), and thereby integrates Ezekiel's final vision within the larger framework of his prophecies (ibid.).



Taylor (1969: 14, 15), Haran (1979: 51, 52), and Wevers (1969: 7) also recognize the close connection between the first two and the last vision of Ezekiel.

Parunak in particular also reveals the pervasive theme of covenant lawsuit (equivalent to Shea's investigative judgment) in Ezekiel 8-11 (1980: 66-69). He summarizes the basic elements of the classic rib (1)1) or covenant lawsuit: (A) convocation of trial, (B) accusation by interrogation, (C) indictment, (D) declaration of guilt, (E) declaration of doom, and (F) promise of salvation for the faithful. Then follows a demonstration of how Ezekiel 8-11 contains all of these basic elements, arranged in a chiastic structure. My own analysis of Ezekiel 5, 6 reveals a similar pattern (using lawsuit terminology/elements which parallel the suzerainty treaties): preamble (Ezek 5:5a), historical prologue (Ezek 5:5b), indictment (Ezek 5:6, 7), sentence of covenant curses (Ezek 5:8-17, citing the covenant curses of Leviticus 26), and witnesses (Ezekiel 6—even the mountains as witnesses are corrupt, cf. Micah 6:1, 2).

The major implications of Shea's study for the structure of Ezekiel are two-fold: (1) Ezekiel 1-11 constitutes a unified structural whole, with the coming and departure of the glory of God (Ezekiel 1, 9-11) forming an inclusio around the covenant lawsuit (investigative judgment) activity of God in the Jerusalem temple; and (2) Ezekiel 1-11 is structurally interlinked with its counterbalancing section at the end of the book (Ezekiel 40-48).

While the parallelism between the Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48 is sufficiently clear from evidence set forth by Shea and others, there also appears to be an even more detailed block parallelism (or panel structure) between these two sections of the book. My analysis is still tentative, but may account for the somewhat unusual ordering of materials in Ezekiel 40-48 that is often noted by commentators.' Note the point-for-point parallels as seen in table 7.3.

B-B'(Ezekie112-23, 34-39): oracles of judgment and restoration. Many scholars who argue for a bipartite or tripartite division of the book of Ezekiel recognize some general correspondence (or reversal) between the oracles of judgment and the oracles of restoration. For those supporting the bifid structure, this correspondence (or reversal) includes the whole of Ezekiel 1-32 on one hand and Ezekiel 33-48 on the other as comprising the judgment and restoration sections respectively; and for those supporting the tripartite (A-B-A') structure the correspondence/reversal is between Ezekiel 1-24 and 33-48. Thus James Luther Mays observes: "There is a correspondence between certain units in the first [Ezekiel 1-24] and third [Ezekiel 33-48] parts which gives the two the effect of a balanced relationship" (1978: 23). He goes on to illustrate this correspondence within the matching sections we have labeled B and B': "The revelation of the history of Israel's sin in the past (Ezek 20:1-44; see also chapters 16 and 23) is answered by the announcement of a new salvation history in the future (Ezek 36:16-38)" (1978: 23). This general correspondence/contrast between the theme of judgment in chapters 12-23 and



1. Dateline: Unique double-dating "The hand of the Lord was upon him" "Visions of God" (1:1-13)

1. Dateline: Unique double-dating "The hand of the Lord was upon me" "Visions of God" (40:1, 2a)

2. Glory of God comes from the North (to the South)—(1:4a)

Ezekiel looks (from the North) to the South (40:2b)

Description of cultic entities: Cherubim and chariot-throne (1:4b-26a)

3. Description of cultic entities: the New Temple and its chambers (40:3-42:20)

4. Coming of the glory of the Lord (1:266- 28a)

4. Coming of the glory of the Lord (43:1-9)

5. Ezekiel falls on his face and is lifted up by the Spirit (1:28b-2:2)

5. E.zekiel falls on his face and is lifted up by the Spirit (43:3, 5)

6. Commissioning of Ezekiel (2:3-3:27) 6. Recommissioning of Ezekiel (43:10, 11; cf. 40:4)

7. Indictments for breaking covenant Stipulations: abominations of false worship at the Temple (4-8)

7. New covenant stipulations: "the law of the Temple" for proper worship (43:12-46:24)

8. Divine glory pauses at the threshold of the Temple, then moves to the East (9:1- 11:13; especially 9:3; 10:4, 18, 19)

8. Healing water (symbolizing the divine presence) comes from under the threshold of the Temple and flows to the East (47:1-12)

9. Promised restoration of the Land (11:14- 21)

9. Borders of the restored land (47:13-48:29)

10. Departure of the glory of God from the city (11:22-25)

10. God does not depart: the city is named "The Lord is there" (48:30-35)

Table 7.3. Panel structure of A-A': Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48,Yahweh comes to His temple.

the theme of restoration in chapters 34-39 is sufficient basis to juxtapose these two sections of Ezekiel as counterbalancing members (B-B') of the overarching chiastic structure of the book.

But is there any more detailed evidence of the chiastic relationship between the two sections? I have found little awareness in the scholarly literature of any purposeful arrangement of the various oracles. John Wevers' remark is typical:



The restoration oracles themselves, chapters 34-39, evidence no obvious arrangement. ... It is evident that though a common theme does obtain in chapters 33-39, no clear principle of arrangement can be fully traced (1969: 4, 5).

However, after a preliminary closer look at the relationships between the oracles of judgment and the oracles of restoration, I propose that there may be evidence of an intricate chiastic connection between these two sections. It appears possible that key aspects of the restoration oracles are deliberately ordered in reverse parallelism (i.e. in chiastic relationship) with the judgment oracles. Table 7.4 summarizes the tentative results of my research.

Although some of the suggested parallels are thematic, not linguistic, and thus inherently more open to interpretation, even these thematic correspond-ences are impressive. Most noticeable are the four Messianic passages in these sections (Ezek 17:22-24; 22:17-22; 34:23, 24; and 37:24, 25) 4 which occur as two pairs, each in precise chiastic placement to counterbalance each other.

There are a number of precise linguistic correspondences in chiastic parallel in these sections, but the most impressive of these linguistic parallels are the ones that only occur within Ezekiel between these sections, as a chiastic parallelism. For example, the "flooding rain" (ge.fem §Otep,9V1Iti OV.i)) and "great hailstones" ( abne 'elgabtf, 1U'1)5N ))D.N) only occur in Ezekiel in Ezek 13:11,13 and 38:22; the divine fury upon the false prophets in Judah will fall upon Gog in the time of eschatological reversal. Again, although covenant terminology appears a number of times in Ezekiel, the expression "everlasting covenant" (berit 61am, o5ly n)1a) is used only in chiastic parallelism in these sections (Ezek 16:60; 37:26).

The most convincing evidence of linguistic parallels is when several terms and expressions recur together in a structural clustering. The best example of such parallel terminological clustering in these sections of Ezekiel comes in chapters 20 and 36. Here we find a whole series of terms, phrases, and clauses that in this combination are found only in these two chapters.'

In summary, Ezekiel's Oracles of Judgment (Ezekiel 12-23) are certainly in general chiastic parallelism with the Oracles of Restoration (Ezekiel 34-39), and there is considerable evidence that the latter are structured in a detailed chiastic repetition or eschatological reversal of the former.

C-C' (Ezekiel 24 and 33): Jerusalem besieged and Jerusalem falls. Joseph Blenkinsopp (1990: 5) rightly argues that in Ezekiel "chapters 24 and 33 are structurally crucial in the arrangement of the material." He notes how the first half of the book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1-24) focuses upon disaster, while the last section (Ezekiel 34-48 focuses upon well-being, and then further explains why chapters 24 and 33 play such a crucial role in the book:

Marking this transition from disaster to well-being are the pivotal .chapters 24 and 33 which bracket the great turning point of the fall of Jerusalem:



Chapter 24 announces the beginning of the siege and chapter 33 the news of the city's capture. Both also refer back to the prophet's call, and the loss of speech announced in 24:25-27 (cf. 3:24-27) comes to an end with the arrival of the messenger in 33:21-22 (Blenkinsopp 1990: 5).

Some scholars have placed Ezekiel 24 and 33 together with sections of the book that precede or follow,' but the pivotal importance of these chapters appears to warrant recognizing them as separate chiastic members (C-C') of Ezekiel's overall chiastic structure.

Furthermore, the content of these chapters sets them apart from either the oracles of judgment or restoration. Whereas the oracles of judgment warn of

Chapter Oracles of Judgment (12-23)

Chapter Oracles of Restoration (34-39)

12 Judah goes into captivity (sign action 12:1-7, 18) Fall by sword (12:14) Gentiles know (12:16) Land desolate (12:19-20)

38-39 Return from captivity (promised 39:21-29) Fall by sword (39:23) Gentiles know (39:23) Return to land (39:26, 28)

13 Divine fury upon false prophets with "flooding rain" and "great hailstones" (13:11, 13)

38-39 Divine fury upon Gog with "flooding rain" and "great hailstones" (38:18, 22)

14 Four judgments upon Jerusalem—sword, famine, wild beasts, and pestilence (14:12-23)

38-39 Same judgments (or counterparts) upon Gog—sword (38:21), pestilence (38:22), and wild beasts gorging on the host of God at YHWH's sacrificial meal (39:17-20)

15 Fire consumes desolate vine of Jerusalem (15:1-8)

38-39 Fire consumes Magog and allies and weapons (39:6, 9, 10)

16 Unfaithfulness to divine covenant: Jerusalem's defilement by spiritual adultery (16:1-59)

"everlasting covenant" (16:60) _

375 Faithfulness to divine covenant: "They shall not defile themselves any more . . ." (37:23)

"everlasting covenant" (37:26)

17 Covenant-breaking rebellion of Judah's princes (17:1-20) Israel scattered (17:21)

Messianic allusion: high cedar (17:22-24)

375 Covenant-obedience of restored, reunited Israel (37:15-24) Israel gathered (37:21)

Messianic reference: New David (37:24, 25)

18 Call to receive a new spirit, turn, and live (18:31, 32)

37A Call for dry bones to receive the spirit, revive, and live (37:1-14)



Chapter Oracles of Judgment (12-23)

Chapter Oracles of Restoration (34-39)

19 Luxurious vine (of land of Jerusalem) becomes uprooted and withered (19:10-14)

36 13 Desolate land becomes replanted and like the Garden of Eden (36:35, 36)

20 Rebellion against YHWH's "statutes and judgments" (20:1- 32; esp. vv. 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24) "I will ...gather you" (20:34, 41) "hallowed in you" (20:41) "you will remember your ways" (20:43)

"you shall loathe yourselves" (20:43)

"for my name's sake" (20:44)

368 "I will cause you ... to walk in my statutes, and you will keep my judgments" (36:27)

"I will gather you" (36:24) "hallowed in you" (36:23) "you will remember your evil ways" (36:31) "you will loathe yourselves" (36:31)

"for my holy name's sake" (36:22, 44)

21 "Son of man set your face toward Jerusalem ... and prophesy against the land of Israel" (21:2)

Israel becomes desolate through the divine sword (21:3-25)

35-36" "Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir and prophesy against it" (35:2)

Mount Seir will become desolate (35:2-15)

The desolate places of Israel will be repopulated (36:1-15)

Messianic allusion: "Overthrown ... until He comes whose right it is" (21:25-27)

345 Messianic reference: "My Servant David" (34:23, 24)

22 Sins of leaders (princes): cruelty/bloodshed (22:1-14)

"I will scatter you" (22:15)

"I will gather you in my anger" as silver and dross in the furnace (22:17-22)

34" Sins of leaders (shepherds): cruelty/bloodshed (34:1-10)

"I will deliver them from all the places where they were scattered" (34:12)

"I will gather them ... as a shepherd seeks out his flock" (34:12, 13)

23 Abominations of two harlot sisters (Samaria and Jerusalem): defiled by lovers (23:1-49) (cf. 24:3-14, filthiness/lewdness)

cf. 33' Abominations of Judah (33:23, 24): "defile one another's wives" (33:26, 29)

Table 7.4. B-B': Ezekiel 12 -23 and 14-19 ritinctir nnrnliple hphi.F.A. F7.1,-;.1'. .,,,,l... ,-.+- :..A.,...........* ,......1

restoration.



judgment to come, in Ezekiel 24 and 33 the judgment is presented as a historical reality. Ezekiel 24:1, 2 records that on the day that the siege of Jerusalem began (i.e. January 15, 588 BC), Ezekiel was informed of this fact by the word of the Lord, and was told to write down the name of the day. Ezekiel 24:3-14 relate and interpret the parable of the boiling pot. Ezekiel 24:15-25 predicts the death of his wife on the same day and the divine command that he not mourn her death, as a sign to the exiles; and Ezek 24: 26, 27 indicates that Ezekiel would be dumb until he received word of Jerusalem's fall. All of these elements emphasize that the doom of Jerusalem is sealed; after this chapter there is therefore no need to warn Israel of coming judgment. In Ezekiel 24, the oracles of judgment upon Judah have reached historical fulfillment, and the focus of Ezekiel's messages is shifted elsewhere—first to the oracles against the nations during the transition period between the siege and fall of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 25-32).

Chapter 33 forms the chiastic counterpart to chapter 24. Ezekiel is recommissioned as watchman (Ezek 33:1-20; cf. 3:16-21). According to Ezek 33:21, 22 the messenger reports to Ezekiel that Jerusalem has fallen (January 8, 585), and Ezekiel's tongue is loosed so that he is no longer mute, in fulfillment of what was predicted in Ezekiel 24. After once more rehearsing the cause of Judah's ruin (Ezek 33:23-33), the prophet enters a new phase of ministry, delivering the oracles of hope and restoration to those in exile (Ezekiel 34-39, discussed in the previous section).

D-D' (Ezekiel 25-28:10 and Ezek 28:20-Ezekiel 32): oracles against the foreign nations. Parunak has engaged in detailed microstructural analysis of the various sub-units of the oracles against the foreign nations, but unfortunately, he failed to explore the interrelationships between the two halves of this section, and thus overlooked the block parallelism (or alternation, in his terms) that unites them. We have outlined the corresponding panels of the oracles against the foreign nations in table 7.5.

A few comments on these correspondences are in order. In panels a (Ezekiel 25) and a '(Ezek 28:20-26), we find parallel judgment oracles against nations of the Levant, Israel's near neighbors. Both sections begin with no dateline, but with the identical introductory formulas: "The word of the Lord came to me saying, 'Son of man, set your face toward ... and prophesy against

(Ezek 25:1, 2; 28:20, 21). Then follows the stock phraseology of the execution of judgment. Panel a introduces the series of Levantine nations that are involved; panel a' concludes the Levantine series with the consequent implication: restored Israel would no longer be disturbed by the briers and thorns of neighbor nations who despised them, but would dwell securely after God has executed judgment upon these Levantine nations (Ezek 28:24-26). This brief mention of Israel's restoration appropriately appears at the commencement of the second half of the overarching chiastic structure of the book, the half emphasizing restoration hope.


The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book ofEzekiel 85

a. Oracles against first four Levantine nations: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia (25)

a . Oracles against last Levantine nation: Sidon (with implications for Israel) (28:20-26)

b. Judgment oracle vs. Tyre (A): introduction (26:1-6)

b . Judgment oracle vs. Egypt (A): introduction (29:1-16)

c. Babylon as agent of divine judgment on Tyre (26:7-11)

c' Babylon as agent of divine judgment on Egypt (29:17-30:19)

d. Judgment oracle vs. Tyre (A ): restatement (26:12-18)

d . Judgment oracle vs. Egypt (A ): restatement (30:20-26)

e. Judgment oracle vs. Tyre (B): Tyre descends to the Pit (26:19-21)

e' Judgment oracle vs. Egypt (B): Pharaoh and Egypt descend to the Pit (31:1-18)

f Lamentation (qincih) for Tyre (27) 1. Lamentation (qincih) for Pharaoh and Egypt (32:1-16)

g. Judgment oracle vs. Tyre (B ): prince of Tyre descends to the Pit (28:1-10)

g' Judgment oracle vs. Egypt (B ): Egypt and Pharaoh descend to the Pit (32:17-32)

Table 7.5. D-D': Ezekiel 25-28:10 and Ezek 28:20-Ezekiel 32, oracles against the foreign nations; block parallelism (panel structure).

Panels b (Ezek 26:1-6) and b '(Ezek 29:1-16) constitute the introductory oracles against the two nations that will occupy the stage throughout the rest of this section, namely, Tyre and Egypt. Both panels begin with a dateline (Ezek 26:1; 29:1), and include the divine threat, "Behold, I am against you" (Ezek 26:3; 29:3). The introductory oracle against Tyre is given in the same format as the other oracles against the Levantine nations, thus setting up the reader for a surprise that additional oracles against Tyre follow. The introductory oracle against Egypt is also surprising, since it comprises the only oracle in which a foreign nation will be gathered again after being desolated and scattered.

Panels c (Ezek 26:7-11) and c '(Ezek 29:17- 30:19) focus upon Babylon, the agent of divine judgment upon Tyre and Egypt. Commentators have speculated as to why in the series of six dated oracles against Egypt, only this oracle (Ezek 29:17-30:19) appears out of chronological sequence—actually coming some 16 years after the fall of Jerusalem, but a ready reason is at hand when it is recognized that while Babylon is briefly alluded to in other oracles against Egypt, this oracle details the role of Babylon as the agent of divine judgment, and thus is placed precisely in the position paralleling the spotlight



upon Babylon in the sequence of Tyre oracles, even though the oracle was actually delivered at a later time.

Panels d (Ezek 26:12-18) and d'(Ezek 30:20-26) provide a restatement of major points emphasized in the introductory oracles against these two nations, thus forming inclusios with panels b and b 'respectively. With regard to Tyre, in panel d there is a return to the picture presented in panel b: a more comprehensive view of many nations (not just Babylon) successively coming up against Tyre ("as the sea causes its waves to come up," Ezek 26:3), resulting in destruction of city walls (Ezek 26:4, 12), making her like the top of a rock (Ezek 26:4, 14) and a place for spreading nets (Ezek 26:5, 14). Panel d supplements the description of panel b by depicting the trembling and lamentation of the "princes of the sea" over Tyre's fall (Ezek 26:15-18).

With regard to Egypt, panel d, dated by the text to some 3 1/2 months later than panel b restates major points and phraseology of the former, in particular concerning Egypt's scattering. The exact same sentence appears once in panel b 'and twice in panel d '("I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries," Ezek 29:12; 30:23, 26). Both panels emphasize the breaking of the power of Egypt, and the result (repeated twice in each panel) that "they shall know that I am the Lord" (Ezek 29:9, 16; 30:25, 26).

Panels e (Ezek 26:19-21) and e ' (Ezek 31:1-18) both describe the destruction of the respective foreign nations, and in .particular emphasize their descent into the Pit (grave, bor, Ma), into the "lowest parts of the earth" (Ezek 26:20; 31:16, 18) "with those [other nations] who descend into the Pit" (Ezek 26:20; 31:16). Then follows in panels f (Ezekiel 27) and f'(Ezek 32:1-16) extended and highly metaphorical lamentations (qinah, ni'p, Ezek 27:1; 32:2) over the respective nations.

Panels g (Ezek 26:1-10) and g'(Ezek 32:17-32) conclude the oracles against the foreign nations with another metaphorical description of descent into the Pit. Both the prince of Tyre and Egypt/Pharaoh are castigated for pride over their wisdom/beauty (Ezek 28:2-6; 32:19) and consigned to die by the death of the circumcised, slain by the sword (Ezek 28:7, 8, 10; 32:20, 21, 31, 32). Panel g' describes seven "famous nations" (Ezek 32:18) with whom Egypt and Pharaoh will lie in the Pit: Assyria, Elam, Meshech, Tubal, Edom, the princes of the north, and the Sidonians. Noteworthy is the mention of the Sidonians last on the list, thus corresponding to panel a', the oracle against Sidon in Ezek 28:20-26, and forming an inclusio around the oracles against Egypt in this section.

In summary, we find the oracles against the foreign nations divided into two blocks of material that unfold in parallelism with each other. Following an initial focus upon Levantine nations in panels a and a, there is an extended series of judgment oracles against Tyre within a single time frame that may be subdivided into six panels (b-g), and these six panels correspond respectively



to six dated oracles against Egypt (panels b '-g '). E (Ezek 28:11-19): judgment on the fallen cherub. Jose Bertoluci (1985)

has provided a penetrating analysis of Ezekiel 28. Bertoluci evaluates the various scholarly interpretations, and sets forth persuasive evidence that in this chapter there is a movement from the local, historical realm of the earthly "prince" (nagid, `P in Ezek 28:1-10, to the heavenly realm of a cosmic "king" (melek, 15b), the supernatural ruler of Tyre, in Ezek 28:11-19. Bertoluci's conclusion, reaffirming the historic interpretation of this passage, is accepted in the discussion that follows.

Here at the chiastic heart of the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 28:11-19, member E), the language is no longer applicable to an earthly ruler, though there are numerous parallels with the descriptions of the "prince" of Tyre and Pharaoh of Egypt, especially in Ezek 28:1-10 and 31:1-18). In contrast with the earthly tidied of Tyre, who proudly claims to be god but is proven to be but a sinful mortal, "the prophet voluntarily ascribes superhuman qualities to the king of Tyre, describing him in terms suggesting that he is a member of the divine council, and even calling him a keretb, 28:14" (Parunak 1978: 373).

The shift from the earthly "prince" (nagid) to the cosmic "king" (melek), who is the ultimate ruler, is the same shift we find in 1 Sam 8-13. In the latter narrative, God calls Saul the "prince" (nagid) of Israel, and Himself the one who reigns as king (mlk; 1 Sam 8:7; 9:16; 10:1; 13:14). The book of Ezekiel may reflect this same shift when God calls Zedekiah the "prince" (nag: M) U)) of Judah (Ezek 12:10) and Himself the "king" (melek) of His people (Ezek 20:33). Parunak suggests the relations of "angelic mentor and human pawn" in Ezekiel 28, and points out that a similar theology appears to be behind Daniel 10 (albeit with reversed terminology), where "the earthly melek of a country is set alongside an angelic kir (V.)), whose heavenly conflicts with angelic mentors of other nations determine the course of events on earth" Parunak 1978: 372, 373).

Parunak's well-founded theological insights are not matched by a similar enlightened literary-structural perception with regard to these verses. After such detailed and thorough microstructural analysis of much of the book, he makes no literary analysis of Ezek 28:11-15, averring that this section "does not suggest any strong structural patterning" (1978: 376). What Parunak fails to notice is that Ezek 28:12-15 are in intricate chiastic parallel with Ezek 28:16-19. Here at the heart of Ezekiel's prophecies is one of the most striking chiastic microstructures of the whole book. The structure in table 7.6 emerged independently in my research, and is confirmed by the almost identical analysis of Bertoluci (1985: 229).

With swift brush strokes and exquisite literary artistry, Ezekiel's lamentation depicts the fall of the celestial covering cherub from fullness of wisdom and beauty (Ezek 28:12b) and blameless perfection (tamfm, mon,



Chiastic Structure of Ezek 28:12-19

(v. 16)

"Perfect in F F' Your ways

from the day you were (v. 15a) created"

(vv. 15b, 16)

"In the midst E (v. 14) (v. 16) of the stones

of fire"

"On the holy ((lode:0 D (v. 14) mountain of God"

"I establish you" C (v. 14)

"Till iniquity was found in you, ... and you sinned"

E' "From the midst of the

stones of fire"

D' "From the mountain of God," a "profane thing (halal)"

(v. 16) C' "I will destroy you"

"The B (v. 14) annointed

cherub who covers"

Inclusio A (vv. 12b-13)

Condition before expulsion: Perfection/proportion Wisdom/beauty (perfect) In Eden, garden of God Covering is prepared Fiery precious stones Origin: "On the day you were created"

(v. 16) B' "0 covering cherub"

(vv. 17-19) A' Inclusio

Condition after expulsion: Pride (heart lifted up) Beauty/wisdom (corrupted) Defiled sanctuaries Exposed as gazing stock Fire devours into ashes Destiny: "No more forever"

Table 7.6. Chiastic Structure of Ezek 28:12-19.



Ezek 28:15) to injustice ( awlah, n5w, Ezek 28:15b), abundance of slander (not "trade," see Davidson 1996: 31-34), violence, sin (Ezek 28:16), pride, corruption and defilement (Ezek 28:17). Bertoluci rightly points out that "The sin or rebellion of the Cherub is the climax of the passage" (1985: 230). Flowing from this climax is the divine judgment upon the fallen cherub: expulsion from the holy mountain of God, exposure, destruction by fire, and eternal annihilation (Ezek 28:16-19). By placing the judgment of the fallen cherub at the very apex of the whole book, Ezekiel appears to emphasize that the ultimate responsibility for earthly affairs is in the cosmic realm, and the angelic mentor(s) of earthly rebels will also ultimately be judged.

Conclusion To sum up our study, macrostructural analysis of Ezekiel reveals a chiastic

arrangement for the book as a whole, with the schematic arrangement of A-B-C-D-E-D'-C'-B'-A' (table 7.2, above). The matching members of the overarching chiasm alternate between panel writing (Members A-A' and D-D') and chiastic arrangements (Members B-B' and E), intersected by a pivotal inclusio (Members C-C'). If panel writing sections equal a, chiastic sections equal b, and inclusio equals c, then the matching sections of the book form the schematic arrangement a-b-c-a-1)'.

The literary structure of Ezekiel enhances the theological movements in the book. The major focus of Ezekiel upon judgment/restoration is grounded in the motif of covenant lawsuit/Day of Atonement in the literary arrangement (A-A'), which finds further development in chiastically corresponding oracles of judgment and restoration (B-B'), making a pivotal transition at the Siege and Fall of Jerusalem (C-C'), then looking beyond Israel to the judgment oracles against her neighboring nations (D-D'), and reaching the chiastic apex with the cosmic judgment upon the Fallen Cherub (E).

Notes

The cleansing/restoration is explicit: Lev 16:19 describes the cleansing from the uncleanness of Israel, and Lev 25:9-17 reveals that the Jubilee of restoration came every 50 years at the time of the Day of Atonement The investigative/executive judgment is implicit: Lev 23:29, 30 implies both trial and execution of judgment for those who do not afflict their souls, or for those who work, on the Day of Atonement. Later Jewish sources make explicit what is implicit in Scripture, and the Day of Atonement (along with New Year's Day) becomes the Day of Judgment (on New Year or Rosh Hashanah mankind's destiny is inscribed, and on Yom Kippur it is sealed; see Talmud Rosh Hashanah 16a, 16b). For a convenient summary of ancient and modern Jewish references to the Day of Atonement as a day of judgment, see Neufeld and Neuffer 1962: 61-64.

Shea (1982: 13, 24) also sees a typological link between the final judgment upon Judah (which he calls the microcosm) and the final judgment upon the world described in Daniel 7 (the macrocosm). If the typological link between Ezekiel 1-11 and the final judgment is valid (and the reference to Ezekiel 9 in Revelation 7 and 14 appears to confirm this connection), then it is interesting to note that the two parallel visions of Daniel 7 and 8 seem to coincide with the two parallel sections of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-



48). Just as in Ezekiel there is the investigative/trial judgment (Ezekiel 1-11) matched by the restoration of the sanctuary (Ezekiel 40-48), so in Daniel the vision of chapter 7 ends with an investigative/trial judgment (Dan 7:9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22) while the parallel vision of chapter 8 ends with the restoration of the sanctuary (Dan 8:14). These two aspects of the Day of Atonement complement each other thematically and counterbalance each other structurally in both Daniel and Ezekiel.

3. Note, e.g. the comment of McKeating (1993: 101): "The overall pattern of these chapters (40-48) is thus a somewhat untidy one." My analysis of the block parallelism between Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48 does not preclude other structural and thematic constraints upon the ordering of materials in these sections. For example, the order of the three main sections in Ezekiel 40-48 follows the order of similar materials in the Torah of Moses. The description of the temple form (Ezek 40:3-42:20) parallels Exodus 25-40; the temple procedures and cultic worship elements (Ezek 43:12-46:24) parallels the material in the book of Leviticus; and the description of the boundaries of the land (Ezek 47:13-48:29) parallels Numbers 34 (for further parallels with the work of Moses, see McKeating 1993: 102; Parunak 1980: 72; and Levenson 1976: 37- 49). Again, there may be literary-structural considerations within these larger blocks, such as the chiastic structures of Ezekiel 1-3 and 8-11 analyzed by Parunak (1980: 61-69), and the concentric (chiastic) structure of Ezekiel 40-48 outlined by Tuell (1992: 18-20). Thus, more than one thematic or structural feature may be interlocking or overlapping in the overall compositional design of Ezekiel.

Some scholars tend to deny the Messianic character of one or more of these passages that have traditionally been regarded as referring to the Messiah (for an exegetical defense of the Messianic interpretation of all four of these passages, see E. W. Hengstenberg (1970: 697-715); James Smith (1993: 361-372).

It should also be noted that, as indicated in the last section of table 7.4, Ezekiel 23 has parallels with Ezekiel 33 B (especially Ezek 33: 23, 24, 26, 29); although for reasons explained in the next section, we treat chapter 33 as a separate part of Ezekiel's macrostructure.

So, e.g. Parunak (1978: 158) places these two chapters together with the oracles against the nations as an inclusio to the central section of the book that thus spans chapters 24-33. Allen (1990: xxiii) suggests that Ezekiel 33 may be a "self-contained chiastic introduction to chapters 34-37, but cites another scholar's proposal that chapter 33:1-20 is a recap of Ezekiel 1-24. A case could also be made that these two chapters continue the extended chiastic parallels in members B-B' discussed in the preceding section. We have already noted in the previous section that the chiastic parallel to chapter 23 is a block of verses in 33 B (see table 7.4).

References

Allen, L. C. 1990 Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 29. Dallas, TX: Word.

Alexander, R. H. 1986 Ezekiel. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Bertoluci, J. 1985 "The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context of the

Controversy between Good and Evil." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University.

Blackwood, A. W., Jr. 1965 Ezekiel: Prophecy of Hope. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.


The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book ofEzekiel 91

Blenkinsopp, J. 1990 Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching.

Louisville, KY: John Knox.

Brownlee, W. H. 1978 Ezekiel's Parable of the Watchman and the Editing of Ezekiel. Vetus

Testamentum 28: 392-408.

1986 Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 28. Waco, TX: Word.

Cassuto, V. 1973 The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol.

1. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Cooke, G. A. 1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International

Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Davidson, R. M. 1996 Satan's Celestial Slander. Perspective Digest 1: 31-34.

Eichrodt, W. 1970 Ezekiel: A Commentary (Cosslett Quin, Trans.). Old Testament Library.

Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Ellison, H. L. 1956 Ezekiel: The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Feinberg, C. L. 1969 The Prophecy ofEzekiel: The Glory of the Lord. Chicago: Moody.

Fishbane, M. 1984 Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel. Interpretation 38: 131-150.

Greenberg, M. 1983 Ezekiel, 1-20. Anchor Bible, vol. 22. New York, NY: Doubleday.

1984 The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration. Interpretation 38: 181-208.

Hals, R. M. 1989 Ezekiel. Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. 19. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Haran, M. 1979 The Law-Code of Ezekiel 40-48 and Its Relation to the Priestly School. Hebrew

Union College Annual 50: 45-71.

Harrison, R. K. 1969 Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Hengstenberg, E. W. 1970 Christology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.



Howie, C. G. 1950 The Date and composition of Ezekiel. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph

Series, vol. 4.

Keil, C. F. 1976 Commentary on the Old Testamet: Ezekiel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Levenson, J. 1976 Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48. Harvard Semitic

Monograph Series 10. Missoula, MT: Scholars.

May, H. G. 1956 The Book of Ezekiel. The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Mays, J. L. 1978 Ezekiel, Second Isaiah. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia, PA:

Fortress.

McKeating, Henry 1993 Ezekiel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield, England: Sheffield.

Neufeld, D. F., and Neuffer, J. eds. 1962 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book. Washington, DC: Review

and Herald.

Nichol, F. D., ed. 1955 The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4. Washington, DC:

Review and Herald.

Parunak, H. van Dyke 1978 "Structural Studies in Ezekiel." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard

University.

1980 The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel's mar'ot 'elahim. Journal of Biblical Literature 99: 61-74.

Rowley, H. H. 1953 The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

36: 146-190.

Shea, W. H. 1979 The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and Its Implications. Origins 6: 8-

29.

1980 The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs. Zeitschrifi fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92: 378-396.

1981 The Investigative Judgment of Judah: Ezekiel 1-10. Eds. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies Washington, DC: Review and Herald.



1982 Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation. Committee Series 1. Washington, DC: Review and Herald.

1986a Literary Form and Theological function in Leviticus. Pp. 131-168 in Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1986b The Unity of Daniel. Pp. 165-255 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

1991 When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin? Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 2/: 115-138.

Smend, R. 1880 Der Prophet Ezechiel (2nd ed.). Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum

Alien Testament. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Cited in Zimmerli, 1979: 3.

Smith, J. 1993 What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson.

Stalker, D. M. G. 1968 Ezekiel. Torch Bible Commentary. London: SCM.

Talmon, S., and Fishbane, M. 1976 The Structuring of Biblical Books: Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Ed. B.

Knutsson. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute X: 129-153. Leiden: Brill.

Taylor, J. B. 1969 Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament

Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Tuell, S. S. 1992 The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-98. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49.

Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

Wevers, J. W 1969 Ezekiel. The Century Bible. London: Nelson.

Zimmerli, W. 1979 Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, vol. 1. Hermeneia.

Philadelphia: Fortress.

1983 Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, vol. 2. Henneneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Zvi, E. B. 1993 Understanding the Message of the Tripartite Prophetic Books. Restoration

Quarterly 35: 93-100.


8 The Usage and Meaning of the

Hebrew Word "PY37:1 in the Old Testament

Samuel Niniez Old Testament, Southeastern California Conference, Riverside, CA.

This chapter has a twofold objective. First, it attempts to show how the word 1)Y3T1 (amid) is used in the Old Testament. Secondly, it suggests some possible meanings this word may have in its different usages and contexts of the Old Testament.

The Usage of the Word 11)31:1 I have found in my investigation that the word -nn is used in the Hebrew

Bible in three different ways. It is employed as an adverb, in a nominal role, and as a noun.

Dian used as an adverb. The most common usage of the word 'Pori in the Hebrew Bible is as an adverb. Adverbs, as they are well known, extend or modify the meaning of "either a verbal clause or the verb itself or either a nominal clause or a single noun or adjective. In the latter cases they should strictly speaking be called adnominals" (Gibson 1994: 139).

The word 'MB is used as an adverb 69 times in the Old Testament. In this function it is employed 20 times in connection to some objects of the tabernacle/temple or in relation to the ministry of the priests in the service of the sanctuary,' and 49 times in either a general religious (30 times) or secular context (19 times). 2

In Hebrew grammar, the use of independent adverbs are broadly divided into place, time, degree, and manner. The word -pnn pertains to the fourth division. It is an adverb of manner (Gibson 1994: 140, 143).

Pan used in a nominal role. Hebrew adverbs may play a nominal role in a construct relation or "genitive relationship" (ibid. 24, 34; Green 1861: 283; Davidson 1954: 34). 3 In this usage the adverb always follows the noun



in the construct state and if the adverb is definite or indefinite, so is the whole phrase (Gibson 1994: 30).

The word TYJTI in this grammatical function is employed 10 times without the article' and 19 times with the article.' Thus it is used in a construct relation to bh5 (Num 4:7), I15y,6 1111M (Num 4:16; Neh 10:34), Invp (Exod 30:8), TIDWY) (2 Chr 2:3), ViM (Lev 6:6), 11111N (2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34), and WAN (Ezek 39:14).

Of these 29 instances in which TY31.1 plays a nominal role, 26 times it is found in connection to the rituals of "the daily service" or "the continual ministry" which were performed on the altar of sacrifices in the court or on the altar of incense inside the holy place of the sanctuary, and one time in relation to the burnt offering which was offered in the "yearly service," namely, "the Day of Atonement." The "burnt offering" or "continual sacrifice" was one of the main rituals of the "daily service" and it was also offered in the "Day of Atonement" (Num 29:7-11). Likewise, the "perpetual incense" played an important role in the "daily service" and if was also offered in the "yearly service" or the "Day of Atonement" (Lev 16:12, 13; cf. Exod 30:1-10, 34-38).

Dan used as a noun. The word 1)Y3T1 appears five times as a defmite noun, standing by itself. In this form it is found in Dan 8:11-13; 11:31; and 12:11. This usage of 'now) is unique to the book of Daniel. No other book of the Old Testament uses it in this manner. The reason for this uniqueness is not very clear, however, Montgomery and some Bible translators have opted to see it as a technical term or as an ellipsis of 1))03,171 rby (Montgomery 1927: 336). The correctness or incorrectness of this view will be discussed below.

The Meaning of -1))311 The word Tbn, as any other word, has an extended scope of meanings

which depend on its syntactical usage and the context in which it is used. A survey of its usage, its grammatical functions, and Bible translations shows that this Hebrew word has a variety of English adverbial, adjectival, and substantival synonymous meanings. With regard to the English adverbial and adjectival translations of 1))311 there is not much variety, however, that's not the case with the noun 'nom. There is disagreement regarding its strict translation and the interpretation of its full meaning in its contextual setting, therefore, more time and space will be given to the explanation of the meaning of the noun 1))37171 in its strict translation and in the interpretation of its full contextual meaning.

'Plan used as an adverb. The meaning of the adverb -Non is well attested by a survey of its usage, grammatical function, lexical sources, and Bible translations. As was already pointed out, the word Thy) is used as an adverb 69 times in the Old Testament. Of this number, 52 times it is translated in the LXX as (we now* ("always," "continually," "constantly"; Arndt and


Usage and Meaning of "Man in the Old Testament 97

Gingrich 1979: 179); 7 three times as evoeXExwg (ibid. 262, "continuity;" Exod 29:38; Lev 24:3; Num 28:3); twice as Si'Um) ("throughout," "through and through," ibid. 565, 1 Kgs 10:8; Ezek 38:8); once as a€1, ("always," "continually," "constantly," ibid. 69; Isa 51:13), and in some places it is not translated at all. All of these Greek words mean "always," "continually," "constantly," etc.

A survey of some English Bible translations shows that the adverb TY33:1 is rendered in Exod 25:30 as "alway" (KJV, ASV), "at all times" (NAS), and "always" (RSV,NRS,NKJ). It is translated in Exod 27:20 as "always" (KJV), "continually" (ASV, NAS, RSV, NKJ), and "regularly" (NRS). It is translated in Exod 28:30 as "continually" (KB', ASV, NAS, RSV, NRS, NKJ) and in Exod 28:38 as "always" (KJV, ASV, NAS, RSV, NRS, NKJ). In 1 Chr 16:11 'MT' is rendered as "continually" (KJV, NAS, RSV, NRS) and "evermore" (KJV NKJ); in Ps 51:3 as "ever" (KJV, ASV, NAS, RSV, NRS) and "always" (KJV); in Ps 109:19 as "continually" (Kill, ASV, NKJ), "constantly" (NAS), "daily" (RSV) and "every day" (NRS). Finally, -mon has been translated in Nah 3:19 as "continually" (KJV, ASV, NAS, NKJ), "unceasing" (RSV), and "endless" (NRS).

A complete survey of these English Versions, regarding the translation of the adverb '1)Y3371, shows that this Hebrew word is rendered more frequently by several synonymous adverbs such as "continually," "always," "constantly," "daily," and "regularly." These translations convey the adverbial meaning of 11)33:l and are supported by several lexicons of the Hebrew language (Holladay 1971: 39; Koehler and Baumgartner 1951: 1031; Brown, Driver and Briggs 1968: 556).

ran used in a nominal role. It has already been pointed out that "MDT) also plays a nominal role in a construct relation or "genitive relationship" and always occupying the second noun place. According to the Hebrew syntax, the semantical relation of the second noun (nomen rectum) to the first noun in the construct state (nomen regens) may be subjective, objective, or adjectival (Gibson 1994: 30; Cowley 1976: 416).

The word 1))311 or TY3311 playing a nominal role in a construct relation is always used adjectivally. In other words, it is used as "the genitive attributive" of the first noun in the construct state (ibid. William 1967: 11). William says that English would employ an adjective where Hebrew employs the genitive attributive (ibid.). In this way it is used 19 times with the article' and ten times without the article. 9

1))31171, in a construct relation to rby, was rendered 11 times by the translators of the LXX as 'nig oi,e4TEavroc (Num 28:10, 15, 23; 29:16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38), twice as Tot) Stec navtoc (Num 28:24, 31), and once each time as 11 otec 'nay* and to Sae Tuavtoc (Num 29:6, 11); it was once translated as Ev8E1Extopoii and twice as tof) Evo€Acxtogoi3 (Num 28:23; Neh 10:34). Likewise -nnnri, in a construct relation to On5, was translated



as of SLOG nay* (Num 4:7). Furthermore the wordllYMIii, in an indefinite construct relation to of was rendered twice as St& navtoc (2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34) and once each time in relation to rby, rmp, rawn, or-O, and )Vikt (Ezek 46:15; Exod 30:8; Lev 6:6; 2 Chr 2:3; 2 Kgs 25:29; Ezek 39:14). Finally -pnn, in an indefinite construct relation to rby, was also rendered three times as Eve•EAExtogof) (Exod 29:42; Num 28:6; Ezra 3:5). In all these instances 'MT, was translated in the LXX as a genitive attributive which is equivalent to the adjective in the English language.

A survey of some English Bible translations reveals that 1))371, used as a noun in a construct relation, is rendered in Num 4:7 as "continual" (KJV, ASV, NAS, RSV) and "regular" (NRS); in Num 4:16 as "daily" (KJV, NKJ), "continual" (ASV, NAS, RSV) and "regular" (NRS). It is translated in Num 29:19 as "continual" (KJV, ASV, NAS, RSV) and "regular" (NRS, NKJ). Finally, it is rendered in Exod 30:8 as "perpetual" (KJV, ASV, NAS, RSV, NKJ) and "regular" (NRS).

A complete survey of these English Bible translations reveals that -Pnri, playing a nominal role in a construct relation, is rendered by the adjectives "continual," "perpetual," "regular," and "daily." These adjectival synonymous meanings are well attested by the Hebrew Grammar and the Lexicons of the Hebrew Language (Holladay 1971: 39; Koehler and Baumgartner 1951: 103; Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1968: 556).

'Plan used as a noun. It has been a matter of great concern for some scholars to find the correct strict translation of the noun 'T))33171 as well as its full contextual meaning (Hasel 1986: 378-425; Shwantes 1986: 462-474; Shea 1986: 497-526; Rodriguez 1986: 527-549; Nunez 1987: 100, 230-232, 372-377; various commentaries).

A survey of some English versions of the Bible demonstrates that the noun -pnnn, in the book of Daniel, has been consistently translated as "daily sacrifice" (KJV), "continual (burnt-offering)" (ASV), "regular sacrifice" (NAS), "continual burnt offering" (NRS), and "daily sacrifices" (NKJ). As is evident, the translators of these English versions understood the noun 1))3311, in the book of Daniel, as a technical term or as an ellipsis of 11)31171 n5y (the "continual burnt offering"). Likewise several lexicons of the Hebrew language suggest or favor this understading of the noun `1')311 (Holladay 1971: 391; Koehlerf and Baumgartner 1951: 1031; Brown, Driver and Briggs 1968: 556). I may venture to ask, is this understanding or assumption correct? The answer is no, because the evidence points to the contrary.

First, the word Ilyin is used 16 times in a definite construct relation to rby ( Num 28:10, 15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10:34) and four times in an indefinite construct relation to the same Hebrew word ( Exod 29:42; Num 28:6; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 46:15). In 19 of these instances, rby was translated in the LXX as Ific oXoiccarroSo€64 or oXoxatitwi.ta and only once as OvoCav (Exod 29:42). Another Hebrew word


Usage and Meaning of ran in the Old Testament 99

which is also used in a construct relation to TYMI is nn)n. This word was usually translated in the LXX as Ouafa (Num 4:16; Neh 10:34; Dan 2:46; 9:21; 9:27), however, it is interesting to note that in the LXX the noun TYM-171, although it is used only twice in relation to 1n)))3 (Num 4:16; Neh 10:34), was consistently rendered as Ouola (Dan 8:11-13; 11:31; and 12:11). If the noun 1))31:171 was a technical term or an ellipsis of 'Mann 115y, why did the translators of the LXX render it as Ouctia and not as eaoicatitomi.a? This rendering of the noun TWI1, by the translators of the LXX, clearly indicates that it was not known to them as a technical term or ellipsis of -pnnn/ It also insinuates that its strict translation should be different from the one already offered by some English versions.

Secondly, it has been previously shown that 1)bn or 1))3111, playing a nominal role in a construct relation, is associated not only to niy (burnt offering); but also to on5 (bread), Tr-1\V (incense), nn3r3 (offering), UN (fire), and T1 1)Y3 (showbread). Therefore, to preferably understand the noun 1))3111 as a technical term or as an ellipsis of 1))31,171 rby is very arbitrary and precarious (Hasel 1986: 421-425; Rodriguez 1986: 533).

Thirdly, if the noun -PYInn may stand as a technical term or ellipsis of some phrase, it should be the collective ritual known as the "daily or continual service." This understanding is supported by the fact that the "daily service" involved the offerings of the 115y, nn)n, n1vp, on', and nyvo, which in the Hebrew language are bound or associated in a construct relation to 1))311.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the strict translation of the noun -mann should be "the continuance" or "the continuity" because they convey the substantival meaning of it, however, in order to grasp the full contextual meaning of the noun 'T)Y31171 it is necessary to understand the theology of the "daily service" of the sanctuary and to interpret 1)637171 according to the context in which it appears in the prophecies of Daniel.

The typical "daily service," as is well known, involved in the rituals of "the continual burnt offering," "the continual grain offering," "the continual incense," "the continual bread," etc. (Exod 25:30; 29:38-42; 30:7, 8; Num 28:3-8). This "daily service" took place every morning and evening (Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) and was performed by the "consecrated" or "anointed" priests (Leviticus 8 and 9; Num 18:1-7). The rituals of this "daily service" symbolized, or represented, "Christ's continual atonement and ministry" which made possible the true worship of God each day and on the Sabbath day (Heb 7:22-27; 9:9-14, 23-28; 10:19-25; 12:22-29; Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17).

It was through this typical "daily service" that God's people could approach God and worship Him. First of all, the people of Israel had to recognize or acknowledge the authority of God's law which was inside the ark of the covenant in the most holy place of the sanctuary. That law demanded the death of the sinner, however, God had provided a "substitute" for every human



being. Secondly, the children of Israel, in order to worship God each day and especially on the Sabbath day, had to confess their sins and appropriate to themselves by faith the merits of the Substitute (Christ or the Messiah) who was symbolized by "the continual burnt offering," "the continual incense," "the continual bread" and the "anointed" priests who offered these things on behalf of God's people.

The typical "daily service" was performed every day of the the week, inclusively during "the Day of Atonement" (Num 29:7-11). This "daily service" was so important for Israel that it was set apart as the official time of devotion and worship, even during the period in which the temple remained destroyed. The people of Israel at the appointed hour of the "daily service" turned their faces toward Jerusalem to worship Yaweh (Dan 6:10).

In synthesis, it can be said that the full meaning of the noun Tbrin is connected to the collective ritual of the "daily service" of the sanctuary that (1) presupposed the law of God and (2) typified Christ's continual atonement and ministry to sinners through which (3) Israel or God's people, by faith, could worship Him each day and especially on the seventh day of the week. Furthermore, the noun *T)nrin, in the context of the prophecies of Daniel 8, 11 and 12 should be understood from an exegetical and theological point of view to refer to Christ's continual atonement and ministry through which every human. being might be able to worship God every day and especially on the Sabbath day.

Conclusion The word -mon or 1))31,171 is used 69 times in the Hebrew Bible as an

adverb, 29 times it plays a nominal role in a construct relation, and five times it is used as a noun in the book of Daniel. -ph n, as an adverb, carries a wide shade of synonymous meanings such as "continually," "always," "regularly," "ever," "evermore," "daily," "unceasing," etc. 1)6n, used as a noun in a construct relation, has in English a variety of adjectival synonymous meanings such as "continual," "regular," "daily," "perpetual,"etc. Finally -Pnn, used as a noun, means "the continuance" or "the continuity" because these English words convey the substantival sense of it. Furthermore, "the continuance" or "the continuity" should be understood, exegetically and theologically, in the book of Daniel, to refer to the realities of the antitypical "daily service" of Christ's continual atonement and ministry by which every human being may worship God each day and, especially, on the seventh day of the week, as they come by faith to Him through the mediatorial work of Christ.

Notes

1. Exod 25:30; 27:20; 28:29, 30, 38; 29:38; Lev 6:13; 24:2, 3, 4, 8; Num 9:16; 28:3; 1 Chr 16:6, 37, 40; 23:31; 2 Chr 24:14; Ps 50:8; Ezek 46:14.


Usage and Meaning of ran in the Old Testament 101

General religious context: Deut 11:12; 1 Chr 16:11; Ps 16:8; 25:15; 34:1; 35:27; 38:17; 40:11, 16; 51:3; 70:4; 71:3, 6, 14; 72:15; 73:23; 74:23; 105:4; 109:15; 119:44, 109, 117; Prov 6:21; 28:14; Isa 49:16; 52:5; 58:11; 60:11; 65:3; Hos 12:6. Secular context: 2 Sam 9:7, 10, 13; 1 Kgs 10:8; 2 Kgs 4:9; 25:29; 2 Chr 9:7; Ps 69:23; 109:19; Prov 5:19; 15:15; Isa 21:8; 51:13; Jer 6:7; 52:33; Ezek 38:8; Ob 1:16; Neh 3:19; Hab 1:17

Davidson says: "Adverbs and particles being really nouns may stand virtually in the Gen[itive]" (1954: 34). According to Gibson, "The term genitive should not be used to denote the second noun" (1994: 30). The reason is because "The noun in Heb. fulfils its various grammatical. functions by syntactical means as in English, not through a system of cases as in Latin or Greek or some Semitic languages" (1994: 24).

The word Ton, in a construct relation, is used seven times without the article in relation to the service ofthe sanctuary: Exod 29:42; 30:8; Num 28:6; Lev 6:6; 2 Chr 2:3; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 46:15. -Pnn four times is an adjectival or "genitive attributive" of rtyy, one of nivp, one of OM, and one ofIlD1).16. It is also used three times in a secular context: 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34; Ezek 39:14.

The word 1)Y311, in a construct relation, is used 19 times with the article and always in relation to the sanctuary: Num 4:7, 16; 28:10, 15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10:34; 16 times is a "genitive attributive" of rby, twice of nrun, and once of on5.

Definite: Num 28:10, 15, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; indefinite: Exod 29:42; Num 28:6; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 46:15.

E.g. Exod 25:30; 28:30, 38; Lev 6:13; 24:8; Num 9:16; Deut 11:12; 2 Sam 9:7, 10, 13; 2 Kgs 4:9; 1 Chr 16:6, 11, 37, 40; 23:31; 2 Chr 9:7; 24:14; Ps 15:8; 24:15; 34:1, 27; 39:12, 17; etc.

Num 4:7, 16; 28:10, 15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10:34.

Exod 29:42; 30:8; Num 28:6; Lev 6:6; 2 Chr 2:3; Ezra 3:5; Ezek 39:14; 46:15; 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34.

References

Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, W. 1979 A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: The University of

Chicago.

Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A. 1968 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.

Cowley, A. E. 1976 Geseniiis 'Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.

Davidson, A. B. 1954 Hebrew Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Gibion, J. C. L. 1994 Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar-Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Green, W. H. 1861 A Grammar of the Hebrew Language. New York: John Wily.



Hasel, G. F. 1986 The "Little Horn," the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Time of the End: A Study

of Daniel 8:9-14. Pp. 378-461 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

Holladay, W. L. 1971 A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans.

Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W. 1951 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Montgomery, J. A. 1927 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Edinburgh: T.

& T. Clark.

S. 1987 The Vision of Daniel 8: Interpretations from 1700 to 1900. Berrien Springs,

MI: Andrews University.

Rodriguez, A. M. 1986 Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9-14. Pp. 527-549 in

Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute

Schwantes, S. J. 1986 Ereb Boger of Daniel 8:14—Reexamined. Pp. 462-474 in Symposium on

Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

Seow, C. L. 1987 A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Shea, W. H. 1986

Spatial Dimensions in the Vision of Daniel 8. Pp. 497-526 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute.

Williams, R. J. 1967 Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. Toronto: University of Toronto.


9 Jewelry in the Old Testament:

A Description of Its Functions'

Angel Manuel Rodriguez Biblical Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD.

This article will catalogue the usage of jewelry in the Old Testament indicating at times its parallels with ancient Near Eastern practices. This is an area of study in which one can find elements of continuity and discontinuity between Israel and its neighbors and between Israel's official religion and popular practices. Undoubtedly, jewelry played a significant role in the ancient Near East as evidenced by archaeological findings, iconography and literary works, and inscriptions. Jewelry was a vehicle for the expression of cultural, social, religious and magical practices and convictions. In a sense it was a concrete expression of the individual's interests, values, concerns and fears, and of his or her standing in society. It is this richness of meaning that we seek to uncover by examining the multiplicity of usages of jewelry in the Old Testament.

Uses of Jewelry in the Old Testament Jewelry used as adornment. Personal adornment is the most obvious

purpose of jewelry in the ancient Near East, as evidenced in part by the simple fact that, in general, it was beautifully crafted and, therefore, it served to enhance the appearance of the individual wearing it.' In an old Babylonian letter, a son writes to his father asking him to send him "a fine string full of beads, to be worn around the head. ... It should be full (of beads) and should be beautiful. If I see it and dislike (?) it, I shall send it back!" (Oppenheim 1967: 87; on the use and symbolism of beads, consult Dunham 1993: 237- 257; and on the making of beads, see Gwinnett and Gorelick 1991: 187-196).

One of the best examples of adornment in the Old Testament is found in the dress of the High Priest which was decked with precious and semi-precious



stones and gold. It is explicitly stated that one of the basic purposes of this special and unique attire was to beautify (tiph'eret, rnzston) this religious leader (Exod 28:2). The noun tiph'eret seems to emphasize that which makes people feel happy and proud Wetter 1971: 387) and can be rendered "ornament, splendor, beauty." The negative side of beautification is recorded in Isa 3:16-23 where Israelite ladies put on their jewelry to beautify themselves attracting attention to their own proud persons. The catalogue of jewelry is introduced by the term tiph'eret, indicating that the elements listed were considered to be beautiful (cf. Platt 1979: 71-73).

In Ezekiel's allegory of Jerusalem the city is compared to a beautiful girl adorned with different kinds of jewelry (16:11-15). The verb yph is used ("become beautiful," no)), which tends to put the stress on the attractiveness of outward appearance (Ringgren 1970: 219), which in this particular case is directly associated with jewelry. In Ezek 23:40, God's people is likened to a woman who painted her eyes and adorned herself with ornaments in order to improve her appearance and to increase her sex-appeal, like a prostitute (Hosea 2:2[4], 13[15], cf. Rev 17:4, 5; Goodfriend 1993: 506, 507; Meek 1969: 183; Forbes 1965: 1-50; Cassin 1981: 214-218). The same idea is expressed in Jer 4:30 and clearly indicates that Israel was attempting to make herself beautiful (the hithpael of the verb yph could be translated "try to beautify oneself'; Holladay 1986: 170). The description is similar to the experience of Jezebel before she was killed (2 Kgs 9:30).

The Old Testament recognizes the beauty of gold, silver, and precious stones. In the Song of Songs, the arms of the beloved are described as "rounded gold set with jewels. His body is ivory work, encrusted with sapphires" (5:14). He describes her saying, "Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand" (7:1; cf Lam 4:7). In both cases the beauty and value of each other is being praised by comparing parts of the body to gold and or precious stones.

In spite of the fact that one of the functions of jewelry was decorative this was not always its exclusive or even primary purpose. Together with its ornamental element we find several other reasons for wearing jewelry.

Jewelry used as currency. Before the invention of coinage or money jewelry was used as a medium of exchange (Rosenthal 1973: 7; Archi 1987: 116, 117; Kupper 1985: 25-33). It appears to have been a common practice through most of the ancient Near East to make pieces of jewelry with a standardized weight which could then be used in commercial transactions in exchange for other goods or as payment for work done. For instance, in Egypt, during the Old Kingdom, working women were usually paid in jewelry (Fischer 1989: 16). Jewelry was also used, among other places, in Egypt and in Assyria (Wilson 1969a; Oppenheim 1969: 275) to pay tributes. This is the function of the jewelry given by Abraham's servant to Rebekah at the well.


Jewelry in the Old Testament 105

According to the biblical record, the servant gave Rebekah a gold ring weighing half shekel and a pair of bracelets weighing ten gold shekels (Gen 24:22). Two elements in the narrative suggest that this jewelry was given to her on account of services rendered. First, he gave her the pieces of jewelry only after she performed a valuable service for him and his animals. Not only did she provide water for Abraham's servant and his men (Gen 24:22), but also for their ten camels! Unquestionably, as Vawter pointed out (1979: 269), that was quite a task that required from her much effort and energy. Unfortunately, Vawter argues that the gifts were part of the bride price (cf. Hamilton 1995: 148; Platt 1992: 826). On the contrary, the gold given to her was her reward for a task well done (Wenham 1994: 145). It was "nothing other than his joyful reaction to the girl's obliging readiness to refresh him and his animals (not some sort of bride price!)" (Westermann 1985: 397; cf. Anbar 1974: 442-444). Second, it is important to notice that the narrative indicates the weight of the jewelry. This piece of information "is due to the fact that such items were cast according to fixed standards and used as media of exchange" (Sarna 1989: 165). The amount paid may seem to be too high but this could be explained by suggesting that the servant already suspected that this was the woman God had chosen for Isaac. The fact that jewelry was considered "money" did not hinder the person from wearing it; Rebekah put it on her person. It may well be that in some cases people went out to do business transaction literally wearing their "money." We would, then, have a merging of two different functions of jewelry, namely, adornment and currency.

Jewelry as evidence of wealth. Jewelry was used to indicate the econom-ical or financial well-being of a person. Abraham was a wealthy individual not only because he had servants and many animals but also because he had silver and gold (Gen 24:35). These precious metals were preserved in the form of jewelry (Gen 24:10, 22). The bridewealth usually included jewelry (Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 135, 136) and in the case of Abraham's servant this was clearly the case (cf. Grosz 1981: 161-182; Roth 1984: 7-10; 1989: 245-255; Greengus 1987: 41-47; Biga 1987: 41-47). After the family decided to allow Rebekah to go with him he gave her a gift as a bridewealth: "The servant brought forth jewelry (le le; )5) of silver and of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah" (24:53). The term kelf could designate gold and silver utensils, but it is also used to designate jewelry (Beyse 1995: 172, 173). In this particular case it was a gift to the bride to insure her future financial security. It would appear that it was the custom for the bride to put on this jewelry during the wedding ceremony to beautify herself (Jer 2:32; Is a 49:18; 61:10).

Shortly before the exodus from Egypt, God ordered the Israelites to "ask, every man from his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewelry of silver and of gold"(Exod 11:2). This request has been interpreted in different ways,3 but the use of the verb ns:/ (`,2), "to plunder"), in Exod 12:36, provides



the basic theological reason for it. The exodus from Egypt appears to be depicted here as a military defeat over the Egyptians and their gods (12:12, 41) and the spoils belong to the victorious ones, the Israelites (2 Chr 20:25). The fundamental theological concern of the narrative "focuses on God's plan for the Israelites to leave Egypt as victors from a battle" (Childs 1974: 176, 177; cf. Cole 1973: 67; Durham 1987: 40, 147). Jewelry (kelt) was part of the spoils and the defeated ones handed it over to the Israelites voluntarily thus enriching them. This seems to be described as a fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham that his descendants will leave Egypt "with great possessions" (Gen 15:14). The Lord made sure that they left Egypt with a firm financial base as they began a new life in their journey toward the promised land. The primary purpose of jewelry in this narrative is to provide some financial security to the Israelites. Interestingly, the people were instructed to place the jewelry on their sons and daughters (3:22). If by this is meant that they wore it, then we can suggest that they were to display the spoils of war, the acquired wealth of their parents.

Platt has argued that the fact that the items were placed on the children may suggest that "these were not large amounts of gold and silver to be carried by adults for use in trade or commercial exchange" (1992: 832), but the rest of the Exodus narrative does suggest that the amount was considerable because some of it was probably used to make the golden calf (Exod 32:2-5) and given as offerings for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 35:20-22; cf. Hyatt 1971: 138, 304). Notice that in a later chapter we are told that women were also wearing jewelry (Exod 32:2).

Jewelry as a symbol ofsocial status. Jewelry functioned as an identifying mark of the individual's position in the social strata and his or her role within it. This is one of the most common uses of jewelry in the Old Testament. The figure of the king is probably the most important one in this respect. After defeating Neku, Ashurbanipal took him to Nineveh and there he,

clothed him in splendid (lit. brightly colored) garments, laid upon his (neck) golden chain, as the emblem of his royalty. I put rings of gold upon his

fingers, gave him an iron girdle dagger, set in gold ... (Luckenbill 1926, 1927: 295; Staehelin 1981: 613-616).

Saul wore a crown (nezer, 10) and an armlet ( nlyNist; 2 Sam 1:10) as his royal insignia. The "crown" could have been of metal or silk, it may have been adorned with jewels (Zech 9:16), and was used by Israelites kings (2 Kgs 11:12; Ps 89:39 [40]; 132:18; cf Raffety 1979: 831). Armlets and bracelets were particularly worn by royal figures in the ancient Near East (Anderson 1989: 8). In 2 Sam 1:10, these two adornments serve the primary function of defining the social function of Saul, the king of Israel (McCarter 1984: 60).



The oracle against the king of Tyre in Ezek 28:11-19 contains references to jewelry which can be interpreted primarily as signifying royal status. This oracle is difficult to interpret because in its description of the evilness of the king, the prophet uses language which goes far beyond the experience of the literal king of Tyre. It would appear that the experience of a celestial being and his fall is used to illustrate what happened to this earthly king (cf. Zimmerli 1983: 81-95). Miller argues that the background is a story about the rebellion of a heavenly kerub (1993: 497-501). The more common connection suggested by scholars is with the Paradise story of Genesis (McKenzie 1976: 322-327; cf Newsom 1984: 158-164). This being, whom the prophet projects into the person of the king of Tyre and whose activities and attitude he images, is described as decked with many precious stones and wearing a dress embroidered with strings of gold. Since the list of precious stones is very similar to those wore by the High Priest some have concluded that the reference to jewelry has the purpose of identifying him as a priestly figure, but the differences would suggest that the high priestly image is not the primary one in the prophet's mind (Garber and Funk 1962: 902, 903). It seems better to conclude that the description of his dress has the primary purpose of describing his royal status. He was a prince. Throughout the ancient Near East the vestment of kings were embroidered with precious metals and loaded with precious gems (see below). This does not exclude the use of jewelry as adornment to beautify this prince (28:12).

The social position of a queen was also indicated by her use of jewelry. During the wedding of the Sumerian goddess Manna, she "prepared herself to meet Dumuzi as befits a Sumerian queenly bride, washing, anointing and bedecking herself, and not failing to take along her dowry and seal" (Kramer 1969b: 639). Nabonidus buried his mother dressed like a queen "(clad in) fine woolen garments, shining linen, (with) golden A.LU (?), precious and costly stones [he decked her out] ..." (Oppenheim 1969: 312). In Israel, the queenly status of the future queen was granted to her during her wedding at which time "the princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes; in many-colored robes she is led to the king, with her virgin companions, her escort, in her train" (Ps 45:13, 14). This is a colorful description of the wedding ceremony during which the princess "takes her place of honor to the right of the king, adorned with gold of Ophir" (Kraus 1988: 456).

It is this social custom that God uses in Ezekiel 16 to describe the royal status assigned by Him to Jerusalem, its election and its privileges. The chapter is probably an allegory or parable in which Jerusalem is compared to a foundling girl, abandoned by her parents at birth. The Lord found her, cared for her, and when she matured into adulthood, He married her (Malul 1990: 97-126; Swanepoel 1993: 84-104). As wedding gifts, He gave her bracelets, a neck chain, nose ring, earrings, and a crown (16:10-12). Dressed with beautiful garments and decked with jewelry, she became the wife of the Lord,



His queen (Ezek 16:13). Her social status embodied itself in the kind of dress and adornment she wore. All of these were symbolic of the glorious status that God bestowed on Jerusalem when He selected it to be His city (Blenkinsopp 1990: 78; Galambush 1991: 89-109). It has been rightly suggested that "the entire text [Ezekiel 16], however, has to be read as an allegory, and all details have to be taken as metaphors for the good deeds of YHWH for his people" (Korpel 1990: 430; cf. Swanepoel 1993: 101-103). The parable goes on to describe how she misused the gift given to her by the Lord and the results of that rebellion.

Jewelry was used by people belonging to the high strata of society, particularly those from the palace. Ashurbanipal appointed officers to his court and dressed them "in multicolored garments, put golden rings in their hands, and made them do service" at his court (Oppenheim 1969: 296). Amenemheb was an Egyptian soldier under Thutmose III whose valor was publicly recognized by Pharaoh by giving him gold in the form of "a lion, two necklaces, two flies, and four rings of finished gold" (Wilson 1969b: 241). In this particular case jewelry is a symbol of social status and wealth. The elite dressed and adorned themselves in accordance to their social identity.

This is clearly the case in Isa 3:16-26. The prophet directs his speech to the daughters of Zion, that is to say to the ladies who lived in the area of the city where the palace was located and who were rather wealthy (Clements 1980: 50). It cannot be denied that the phrase "daughters of Zion" designates in the Bible the women of Jerusalem in general (Haag 1975: 334), but in the context of Isaiah 3 the main emphasis is on ladies of society (cf. Wildberger 1991: 148, 149; Watts 1985: 45). They are proud and selfish, and this is reflected in their attire and demeanor. The catalog of jewelry listed in verses 18-23 provides for us a good description of the type of jewelry used by those in high social position in Jerusalem. Platt has suggested that the jewelry and clothing mentioned in the catalog includes things worn by both women and men. She writes, "The choice of the symbols of office in jewelry, garments and cosmetics reflects the societal position of both men and women. More items belonging to men are mentioned ..." (1979: 83). Running comments, "It is now being recognized that many of the terms in the Isaiah list pertain to men rather than, or as well as, to women, both as ornaments and especially as insignia of official position" (1982: 406). The pieces of cloth mentioned in the Isaiah passage are also indicative of social position and wealth (cf. Ezek 16:13; 2 Sam 1:24), a wealth which was at least partially the result of the exploitation of the poor (cf 3:13-15).

The "festal robes" designate a costly piece of dress worn on special occasions as a symbol of high rank office (cf. Zech 3:4; Brown, Driver and Briggs 1907: 323). The Hebrew term ma'tepet (nmpyr3), translated "mantle," appears to designate an "enveloping cape," an exterior garment (Platt 1979: 200). The "cloak" was another exterior garment made of one



piece of one piece of cloth worn by women (Ruth 3:15; ibid. 80). "Handbags" designates in 2 Kgs 5:1, 23 a "purse" belonging to a high military officer. The term gallayon (1P)), translated "garment of gauze," is far from clear in its meaning but seems to be referring to some kind of fine or transparent cloth" (cf. Wildberger 1991: 155). It is impossible to be certain of its real meaning. The same is true about the word sadin (>rr O), "linen garments." It seemed to have been a very valuable article of clothing (ibid.). Platt has suggested that it designates a warrior's belt (1979: 79). This is possible, but not absolutely certain. The "turban" was a headgear made of a piece of fine cloth wrapped around the head and worn by the high priest (Exod 29:6; Zech 3:5) and by kings (Isa 62:3; Wildberger 1991: 155; Platt 1979: 78, 79). The last piece of clothing, "veils," could be designating an outer garment embroidered with metallic threads (Platt 1979: 80). The text suggests that this kind of clothing was a sign of social status and, therefore, available to persons of financial resources. Together with jewelry, they were symbols of the person's position in society.

The dress and jewelry of the high priest were also an expression of his position in society. The text states that one of their purposes was "for glory" (PkOhod,II1D5, Exod 28:2), an expression which addresses the social "weight" or importance of the high priest in Israel, the prestige he enjoyed among his people (Westermann 1971: 799, 800). "Glory" (lcdbod, -nap) describes "what adds to a person's standing, what increases a person's position and influence" (Molin 1981: 295) and serves in the present passage to describe the role of the high priest in Israel as the maximum religious leader.

Jewelry as a symbol of power/authority. A high office in society is usually accompanied by power and authority. Jewelry could express both ideas. For instance the royal crown is a symbol of status and power to rule over others (2 Kgs 11:12; Esth 8:15; Zech 6:11-13; Toombs 1962: 746). Removing the crown from the head of a king means to be humiliated, to loose power (2 Sam 12:30; Jer 13:18; Ezek 21:26 [31]). The seal was also a symbol of power and authority (Gorelick and Gwinnett 1990: 45-56). Seals were made of different materials including semi-precious stones and gold and were usually "beyond the means of the common man" (Hallo 1983: 8; Herr 1988: 371). In one of Sargon's letters to Assur during his eighth campaign he describes a seal he took from a temple: "1 seal ring of gold (used) to validating (lit., completing) the decrees of Bagbartu, the spouse of Haldia, was completely covered (full) with precious stones" (Luckenbill 1926-27: 97).

The legal significance of seals made them a natural symbol of power and authority. This is particularly the case with the sealing ring that a king gives to his prime minister. Pharaoh deputized power to Joseph by giving him his ring and a gold chain (Gen 41:42). Xerxes gave his signet ring to Haman granting him power to legislate (Esth 3:10, 12); later he withdrew that power from him, took the ring and gave it to Mordecai empowering him to legally



protect his people (8:2, 8, 10). Clearly the seal was in those cases a symbol of deputized power (cf. Isa 3:21; Herr 1988: 370).

Jewelry used for religious purposes. One of the basic purposes of jewelry was religious, consisting in the manifestation of the religious convictions and/or function of the person wearing it. This was particularly the case of the priestly attire. In the ancient Near East, the style of the priestly dress may have varied from country to country. We know that in Assyria sometimes the priests officiated naked in rituals that required cultic nudity (Saggs 1984: 152). This was also the case among the Sumerians (Ringgren 1995: 63). In Akkad, the priests wore linen garments of different colors (ibid. 64). In Egypt, the Pharaoh was the only one who could approach the gods and the priests functioned as his representatives. It is probable that the high priest may have been dressed like a king. The priests wore special clothes which in some cases were richly decorated and adorned with jewelry (Velde 1995: 1732, 1733). Interestingly, among the Hittites temple personnel were not allowed to wear jewelry of gold, silver, or bronze. If any of those metals were given to them they were not to make ornaments for their wives and children, but were rather expected to sell them in court. This was done to protect the gold, silver and bronze that belonged to the temple (Kuhne 1978: 182, 183).

Several examples from the Old Testament illustrate the religious usage of jewelry. The first one is the jewelry of the high priest. We have already indicated that it expressed beauty and social status, but it also communicated profound religious convictions. In fact, it identified him as a religious leader, not a military or civil one. A golden plate was attached to the crown of the high priest with an engraved inscription on it: "Holy to the Lord" (Exod 28:36-38), which identified the nature of his work. It was related to his work as an instrument in the atonement process (Exod 28:38). One of the Hebrew words used to refer to the crown is nezer (10), which is the noun form of verb nzr (10), "to consecrate" (29:6; cf. Zech 6:11). The noun identifies the crown as a sign of the consecration of the high priest to the Lord (Kuhlewein 1976: 51).

The two onyx stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod with the names of the twelve tribes engraved on them (Exod 28:9-14) and the twelve semi-precious stones on the breast piece of the priestly dress (Exod 28:17-30) had also a religious motivation. It is very difficult to identify the stones mentioned in the Hebrew text (for a good attempt, see Harris 1963-65: 40-62), but in terms of function they served as a remembrance before the Lord (Exodus 12, 29). In his person the high priest took the Israelites before the Lord as their representative. One could say that the stones reminded him of his function, but at the same time, they were "an invocation to God to be mindful of His people Israel, with whom He enacted a covenant" (Sarna 1986: 179). The semi-precious stones on the shoulder and breastplate of the high priest looked like seals, i.e. stones on which a name, the name of the owner, was engraved (Platt 1992: 830). This underscores the functional nature of the stones. A seal was



an extension of the presence, authority and power of the individual and represented him or her.

The priestly robe had at its hem tassels of pomegranate of three colors with bells of gold between them (Exod 28:31-35). Pomegranates were fruits of the land of Israel and seemed to have been "symbols of beauty and of the fruitfulness of Yahweh's provisions (Durham 1987: 388; cf. Sarna 1986: 182; Num 13:23; Deut 8:8; Song 4:3, 13; 6:7, 11; 7:13; 8:2). The function of the bells is not clear but they may have had the purpose of assuring those outside the holy place that the high priest had not died during the performance of his ministry before the Lord (Kaiser 1990: 467).

It is obvious that the main function of the jewelry worn by the high priest was religious and that it was directly and exclusively related to his work. This explains the absence of similar jewelry on the vestments of other Old Testament priests. Jewelry was not prescribed by the Lord to anybody else in Israel. Perhaps the only exception, and there is no clear evidence for this, may have been the crown of the king of Israel which was somewhat similar to the priestly one. It also signaled the fact that the king was anointed and consecrated by the Lord to his office (2 Kgs 11:12; Toombs 1962: 746), nevertheless, some Israelites did wear religious jewelry. Reference to this type of jewelry is found in Isa 3:16-21. The terminology used to designate the different pieces of jewelry has been difficult to understand and in some cases practically impossible, but archaeology and the study of ancient Near Eastern iconography has shed some light on a number of them (Platt 1979: 71-78; 1992: 830-832; Wildberger 1991: 148-154).

A number of jewelry items are clearly associated with religious ideas. The "anklets" are ankle-bangles associated with fertility figurines in the surrounding cultures and express the religious beliefs of the wearer (Platt 1992: 831, 832). It is known that the "headbands" designate pendants on a necklace representing the sun god and that the Hebrew term could be translated "sun/star disk." The "crescents" were ornaments in the form of the moon (cf Judg 8:21, 26) representing a deity.

Wildberger has suggested that the women of Zion who wore the sun and moon pendants "would probably not even have known that these articles of jewelry were originally symbols of the sun and moon deity and, as such, had a religious meaning (as amulets or as a guarantee of fertility)" (1991: 152). This is difficult to accept because it implies ignorance of the religious practices of the surrounding cultures on the part of the Israelite society. Isaiah indicates that part of the problem of the leaders of Israel and of the people in general was precisely the worship of pagan deities. In those cultures crescents and suns or five-pointed stars were also considered to be "prophylactic signs against the Evil Eye" (Stillman 1979: 97; cf. Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 140-151). Soldiers wore jewelry with those designs "to show that the gods were accompanying the Babylonian and Assyrian rulers on their campaigns..."



(Stil'lman 1979: 152). The "pendants" were probably beads-like pendants, made of semi-precious stones or other materials, placed on necklaces together with the crescents.

This type of jewelry is associated in the Old Testament with idolatry. This explains in part why the Lord will remove (sii r, MCI) these pendants from the people. The verb sfir "is used elsewhere to speak of the removal of idols (Gen 35:2; Josh 24:14, 23). A direct connection is drawn here between such luxury in ornament and dress and idolatry" (Watts 1985: 45). The same phenomenon is described in Hos 2:13 [15] in association with the worship of Baal (Stuart 1987: 52; cf. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 259-262).

Jewelry used with a magical/apotropaic function. Closely related to the religious use, and probably inseparable from it, was the use of jewelry to protect the individual from evil powers and dangers. Healing power was assigned to a necklace of semi-precious stones (Caplice 1965: 129), and one of amber beads protected from evil eye (Stillman 1979: 94). In fact, precious metals and stones were believed to have magical powers (Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: lxiii-lxiv; on the evil eye, cf. Thomsen 1992: 19-32).

Protection from evil power was well known throughout the ancient Near East, but is not explicitly found in the Old Testament. Evidence of its presence is provided in Isa 3:20. The phrase "perfume boxes" is a common translation of the Hebrew bate hannephes (ViOn ma, lit., "soul houses"), now recognized to be a wrong translation. Although the exact meaning of the phrase is not certain it is now generally accepted that it refers to some kind of amulet (Wildberger 1991: 153; Platt 1992: 832). The same phrase has been found in Jewish Aramaic inscriptions to designate a funerary monument (Jean and Hoftijzer 1965: 35, 185). This suggests that we may be dealing here with a type of amulet related to the cult of the dead that could protect its wearer from evil or be a source of blessings. The cult of the dead was widespread in the ancient world and was practiced by some Israelites as part of their "popular religion" (Lewis 1989; 1993: 240-242; Kennedy 1993: 105-108). It could very well have been a tabular case with some written text in it (Platt 1979: 198, 199).

Another term for jewelry in Isaiah which suggests a magical or apotropaic usage is the "amulets" (3:20). The Hebrew term /ehasr, orb) contains the idea of "conjuring" and "charming" (Isa 3:3). It is generally recognized that the term designates an amulet that protected perhaps from snakes ("snake charms"; Platt 1979: 77) and which was put on a necklace or on wrist chain.

Amulets were often carried under the garments. In an oracle, Ninlil said to Ashurbanipal, "I have placed you like an amulet on my breast. At night I place spread over you all day I keep a cover on you" (Pfeiffer 1969: 451; cf. Songs 8:6; Hallo 1993: 45-50). They also had great symbolism (Van Buren 1954: 18-23; 1950: 193-196; Yardeni 1991: 176-185). The presence of religious and magic jewelry in the catalog of Isaiah 3 indicates that the pride



of the "daughters of Zion" was not just based on their financial security and their beauty or on their social position, but specially on the psychological security that religious and magical pieces of jewelry provided for them. It is this type of pride that became the main target of the prophetic speech.

Jewelry used as offerings. Jewelry was used as offerings for the gods (Maxwell-Hyslop 1991: 132). Ashurbanipal wrote, "I made (the images of) their great godheads sumptuous with red gold and shining stones. I presented them with golden jewelry and many other precious objects which I had won as booty" (Oppenheim 1969: 559). A devotee of Manna gave her a treasure of precious stones and ornaments which she used to bedeck the different parts of her body (Kramer 1969a: 638). In fact, in some cases a specific item of jewelry was made and given to the temple to be placed on the image of the god. Such a practice is foreign to the Old Testament, but we do find the idea of giving jewelry as an offering to the Lord. This was done specially after a census was taken (Num 31:50; cf. Exod 30:11-16) and was associated with the idea of atonement. This jewelry belonged to the temple treasury and may have been used to make or replace vessels of gold or simply as a kind of memorial.

The Old Testament Attitude Toward Jewelry The use of jewelry among the Israelites does not necessarily reflect the

attitude of Yahwism toward jewelry. It is this fine distinction that we now want to explore. The Old Testament does not completely reject the use of jewelry. On the other hand, there is only one incident in which Yahwism prescribes the use of jewelry to someone, specifically to the high priest (Exodus 28). There are several things that we should observe about this case.

First, the jewelry he wore was beautiful, but simple, in its design. The semi-precious stones were engraved with the names of the tribes and the frontlet of gold had an inscription on it.

Second, the pieces of jewelry belonged to the priestly vestment and therefore were to be worn whenever he officiated as high priest. He was authorized to wear a type of jewelry that made a clear statement concerning his distinctive function within the Yahwistic faith and its cultus.

Third, not one item of the priestly jewelry was placed directly on the body of the priest, but rather on his garment. Removal of his garment was a removal of jewelry. This may seem to be an insignificant detail, but we should remem-ber that wearing jewelry may have required damaging the body (e.g. perforat-ing the ears and the nose), which would have been rejected by the Yahwistic faith. According to W. L. Reed, "physical mutilation of the bodies of man and beasts was not common in biblical times, because of the belief in the sacred-ness of life" (1963: 477). Daniel-Rops has suggested that "the Law forbade all mutilation of the body and so they [Israelite women] could not pierce their nose or ears to hold the ornaments" (1962: 250), yet, some earrings had a pin long enough to pass over the whole ear (Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 5).



Fourth, jewelry was prescribed in Exodus 28 exclusively for the high priest and not for the ,Israelites in general. The Old Testament does not prescribe any religious jewelry for the Israelites to use in order to indicate that they worshiped Yahweh. An Israelite was to be identified as such by placing tassels to the hem of their garments with a blue cord attached to them (Num 15:37-41; Milgrom 1983: 61-65). In fact, what distinguished them above anything else as worshipers of Yahweh was their obedient commitment to the Lord, their holy lives. It was to this fact that the tassels with their blue cord pointed (Num 15:39, 40).

The functional use of jewelry to indicate royal status was commonly accepted in the Old Testament, although there is no clear, official prescription for it. Sometimes when the prophets wanted to identify a person as a king, queen or prince, they described their vestments and jewelry because these revealed the status they had achieved. One could also include here the seal whose purpose was not primarily ornamental, but functional. The use of jewelry as currency and as evidence of wealth is not condemned, obviously because of functional and pragmatic reasons, but apart from these cases the Old Testament seems to have a pejorative attitude toward the significance of jewelry. This is indicated in several ways.

First, there is a tendency in the Old Testament to devalue the significance of jewelry as a symbol of financial security. This is quite common in the wisdom literature where wisdom and a good wife are considered more precious than jewels (Prov 3:15; Job 28:15-19; Prov 31:10). If one were to choose between instruction, and silver and gold, instruction should take precedence (Prov 8:10; 11:22). The "lips of knowledge" are considered to be "a precious jewel" (20:15). This is not an open condemnation of jewelry, but a devaluation of it as a symbol of ultimate value.

Second, the Old Testament rejects the religious and magical usages of jewelry by the people and associates them directly with idolatry. When Jacob was returning to Bethel, the Lord commanded him and those with him to remove their gods and to consecrate themselves to Him (Gen 35:4). As a response they gave Jacob all the foreign gods they had in their hands and the earrings. These were obviously "ornaments that carried some kind of religious significance, possibly with iconic impressions on them" (Hamilton 1995: 375, n. 15; Westermann 1985: 551; cf. Sarna 1989: 240). The implication is that this type of jewelry was incompatible with the worship of Yahweh. Jacob hid them under a tree. There has been some discussion on the significance of this act (Nielsen 1954-55: 103-122).

In Exod 33:4-6, we find another incident in which God commanded the Israelites to remove their jewelry. This happened immediately after the worship of the golden calf when God was angered at them. Among other things God ordered them to remove their ornaments. Scholars have taken the removal of jewelry to be a sign of mourning, which is compatible with ancient



Near Eastern practices (Childs 1974: 589). Adad-guppi, the mother of Nabonidus, wrote,

In order to appease (the anger of) my personal god and goddess, I did not permit apparel made of fine wool, gold and silver jewelry, any new garment, perfumes, and scented oil to touch my body, I was clad m a torn garment and when I left (my house) it was in silence, I constantly pronounced benedictions for them ..." (Oppenheim 1969: 560).

The parallels with the biblical story are limited and the purpose seems to be significantly different.

It has also been suggested that the command to the Israelites to remove their jewelry was "a test of their repentance" (Kaiser 1990: 482, 483), while others have argued that this "was not a sign of mourning, but compliance with God's command to Moses (Exod 33: 5)" (Rylaarsdan 1952: 1071). There is also the possibility that the request "may be based upon the fact that they were wearing jewelry associated with foreign Gods" (Hyatt 1971: 14). Undoubtedly, the removal of jewelry is associated here with several ideas. Among them we find idolatry, God's reaction to that sin, and a spirit of repentance. The immediate context puts the emphasis on the people's spirit of remorse as they humbled themselves before the Lord. This is similar to what we found in the case of Jacob, however, there is something new in this narrative in that the passage ends with a kind of enigmatic phrase: "The people of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments, from Mount Horeb onward" (Exod 33:6). The phrase mcliar Ma, (a- )n inn) should not be rendered "at Mount Horeb" (NIV), because it would require the use of the preposition be instead of min. The preposition min has a temporal significance here and can be translated Yrom Mount Horeb onward" (e.g. NASB; Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 212, 213). This suggests that the removal of jewelry as a sign of repentance or mourning

was not a temporary display, but a continuous one. ... Although the terminology of repentance is not used, the tradition of the stnppmg of ornaments—whatever it may have once meant—now serves in the narrative to demonstrate Israel's change of heart (Childs 1974: 589).

It became "a perpetual rule" (Cole 1987: 222, 223), a constant manifestation of the Israelites' dependence and reliance on God's forgiving grace.

It is indeed difficult to know for how long the Israelites did not wear jewelry. It has been suggested that this was the case only during the wilderness wanderings, but this is just a conjecture (Sarna 1989: 211). Judges 8:24 seems to suggest that during the period of the judges "ornaments were not worn" by the Israelites (Moore 1895: 23; Cole 1987: 213). We recognize that it is difficult to prove a direct connection between the incident on Mount Horeb and this one in the period of the judges. We do know that the Israelites did wear



jewelry, but it may not have been that common. The archaeological evidence suggests that jewelry was not that habitual among the Israelites and what has been found is of inferior quality (Platt 1979: 827; Rosenthal 1973: 54; Negev 1986: 203). It has been indicated that "Israel, in many respects, must have seemed a nation of puritans in the ancient world, not only in worship and morals, but even in dress" (Cole 1987: 222, 223). This could have been the case in earlier times, but by the time of Hosea (2:13[15]) and Isaiah (3:16-23) religious and ornamental jewelry was very popular among the Israelites.

Isaiah's attack on jewelry (Isaiah 3) which we have mentioned several times, was a condemnation of jewelry as a religious and social symbol, and as an expression of pride. It is sometimes argued that the prophet's attack is not against wearing jewelry and beautiful apparel, but that "the lesson is on the misuse of the authority of office for which that apparel stands" (Platt 1979: 200), but this overlooks the pagan ideas associated and expressed through the dress style used by those leaders and against which the prophet had already reacted (Isa 2:8, 18, 20). It is probably this same kind of apparel that Zephaniah condemns (Zeph 2:8). Undoubtedly, wearing this kind of ornaments was a common condition among those in high positions in the palace. Hans Wildberger perceptively argues that the catalogue of jewelry in Isaiah 3 "betrays the influence that the palace had on the lifestyle of the leading citizens of the capital city. Without intending to do so, it indicates how intensely Israel allowed itself to be influenced by foreign custom" (1991: 155).

Third, there is some indirect evidence that seems to indicate that Yahwistic faith was not positively predisposed toward jewelry. It is interesting to notice that precious stones and metals are not directly associated with the creation of Adam and Eve. This is an argument from silence; yet some of those metals and stones are mentioned in the creation account in Gen 2:11, 12 and we are informed that they were located outside the garden of Eden, in the land of Havilah. This is surprising if we take into consideration that in ancient Near Eastern mythology the garden of the gods were embellished with precious stones (e.g. "Gilgamesh Epic" ix.v 47-vi.35; Wallace 1985: 71, 72; Cassuto 1961: 77-79).

What is important for our purpose is that in the creation of Adam and Eve jewelry played no role at all and that no reference to it was made when the Lord provided clothes for them and dressed them (Gen 3:21). They were both created in God's image and it was this fact that allowed them to rule over the rest of the created world. It would appear that there is here an implicit devaluation of the use of jewelry for personal adornment and to define or represent one's social status or power and authority. Adam and Eve functioned as rulers of God's creation because they bore in their own person and character the image of God.

It is also important to observe that Yahweh is never described in the Old Testament as wearing jewelry. This is again surprising because in the ancient



Near East the gods were bedecked with jewelry. An example from Egypt is found in the Stela of Ikhernofret, from the time of Sesostris III. The priest was responsible to organize the annual festival of the Mysteries of Osiris during which, he says, "I decked the breast of the lord of Abydos with lapis lazuli and turquoise, fine gold, and all costly stones which are the ornaments of a god's body" (Lichtheim 1973: 124). Nebuchadnezzar prepared for the gods Ea and Nebo "[a fabric befitting a] god [... embroidered] and made sparkling with precious stones and gold(-appliques) was its front. I had made [lit., fit] beautifully into garments befitting their godheads ..." (Oppenheim 1969: 310). This type of dress probably represented the kind of dress worn by the king himself. In the myth of the descent of Inanna to the underworld we find a list of the jewelry she wore (Kramer 1969c: 53). This text was the prototype for the myth of the descent of Ishtar which also contains a list of the jewelry she wore (Leemans 1952: 53). Maxwell-Hyslop (1971: 133) comments concerning that text, "We know that these ornaments were not only used by goddesses, but formed part of the normal collection for jewelry worn by women of high rank." Canaanite gods and goddesses wore jewelry to enhance their beauty and power (Korpel 1990: 427). One of the reason that jewelry is not associated with Yahweh is that, since there is no image of Him, it is not possible to embellish Him through jewelry, but, at a deeper level, we have to take into consideration that He created all precious stones and metals and that they cannot contribute to His own beautification.

Why then did God create precious metals and stones? Possibly to adorn or beautify the world. In Gen 2:11, 12, they are located in a place where there are no human beings, a place untouched by human hand, embellishing the land of Havilah. This may sound like unfounded speculation if it were not for the fact that in other places in the Old Testament precious metals and stones embellish the place were God stands (Exod 24:10) and dwells (26:26; 29) and will be used to adorn the place where His people will dwell (Isa 54:11, 12; cf. Rev 21:15-21).

Conclusion One could conclude that the Old Testament has a restrictive attitude

toward the use of jewelry. We have seen that its beauty and value are recognized. What makes it impossible to conclude that Israel's official faith absolutely rejected the use of jewelry is the fact that God commanded that the high priest be adorned with it in order to signal his religious function. In addition one could detect a "tolerance" of the use of jewelry as a symbol of social status and authority. This is particularly the case with the king and the queen and with the use of seals.

It is interesting to observe that although the high priest was authorized to wear jewelry as a religious symbol, there is no authorization allowing the Israelites to do the same. This was indeed strange in a world in which



individuals wore jewelry to express their religious convictions and to demonstrate their commitment to a particular god or gods. Israelites were to express their religious convictions and commitment to Yahweh through a holy life and not through external adornment. It appears that the Old Testament does reject the use of religious jewelry by the Israelites. In addition, the magic use of jewelry is clearly rejected since in the ancient Near East it is inseparable from the religious usage and from idolatry.

God's command to the Israelites to remove their jewelry permanently at Sinai is intriguing. The command was to remove all of it, implying that it was not to be used for adornment, as a symbol of authority, or as designating social status or religious convictions. They were ordered to remove them from their persons, but not to get rid of them. The implications is that jewelry retained its function as currency and personal wealth, which was to be put at the service of the Lord.

Reasons for the Old Testament restrictive attitude toward jewelry could be found in the fact that it is associated with idolatry and at times with the abuse and exploitation of the poor, but the issue goes deeper than that. Jewelry seems to be generally perceived as the embodiment of human pride and self-reliance, both closely related to idolatry. A change in the heart of the individual from hubris to submissiveness to Yahweh was indicated through the removal of jewelry. Perhaps, this was based on biblical anthropology which conceived of the person as an integral unit in -whom the exterior and the inner personal convictions were practically inseparable. What an Israelite was, expressed itself in what she or he did, said and, to some extend, wore.

Notes

Dedicated to William Shea, distinguished professor, scholar, and respected colleague.

Probably one of the best sources of drawings depicting jewelry from the ancient Near East is, Maxwell-Hyslop 1971.

Among them we find the following ones: (1) an example of the Israelite law concerning the emancipation of slaves, el Deut 15:13 (e.g. Kaiser 1990: 323); (2) the gifts "represent the equivalent of the income the Israelites ought to have received over the years as a living wage " (Knight 1976: 27); and (3) a literary detail used "to explain how it came about later that the Israelites in the wilderness were able to erect a sanctuary and to furnish it with all kinds of precious materials" (Sarna 1986: 57). These three explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may represent different elements present in the request.

References

Anbar, M. 1974

Les Bijoux Compris dans la Dot du Fiancé a Mari et dans les Cadeaux du Mariage dans Gen 24. Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 442-444.



Andersen, F. I., and Freedman, D. N. 1980 Hoseah. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Anderson, A. A. 1989 2 Samuel. Dallas, TX: Word.

Archi, A. 1985 Circulation d'Objects en Metal Precieux de Poids Standardise a Ebla. Pp. 25-33

in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges Offerts a Maurice Birot, ed. J. R. Kupper. Paris: Editions Recherche.

1987 Gifts for a Prince. Pp. 47-82 in Eblatica: Esaays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, eds. C. H. Gordon, G. A. Rendsburg and H. H. Winter. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Beyse, K. M. 1995 Keli. Pp. 172, 173 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 7, ed.

H. R. G. J. Botterweck. Trans. J. T. Willis. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Biga, M. G. 1987 Femmes de la Famille Royale d'Ebla. Pp. 41-47 in La Femme dans le Proche-

Orient Antique, ed. J.-M. Durand. Pans: Editions Recherches.

Blenkinsopp, J. 1900 Ezekiel. Louisville, KY: John Knox.

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., and Briggs, C. A. 1907 Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.

Caplice, R. 1965 Namburbi Texts in the British Museum-1. Orientalia 34: 105-131.

Cassin, E. 1981 Kosmetik. Reallexikon der Assyriologia 6: 214-218.

Cassuto, U. 1961 A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Magness.

Childs, B. S. 1974 The Book of Exodus. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Clements, R. E. 1980 Isaiah 1-39. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Cole, R. A. 1987 Exodus. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity.

Daniel-Rops, H. 1962 Daily Life in the Time ofJesus. New York, NY: Hawthorn.

Durham, J. I. 1987 Exodus. Waco, TX: Word.



Dunham, S. 1993 Beads for Babies. Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 83: 237-257.

Fischer, H. G. 1989 Women in the Old Kingdom and the Heracleopolitan Period. Pp. 5-24 in

Women's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia, ed. B. S. Lesko. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

Forbes, R. J. 1965 Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. 3. Leiden: Brill.

Galam bush, J. 1991 Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: the City as Yahweh's Wife. Atlanta, GA:

Scholars.

Garber, P. L., and Funk, R. W. 1962 Jewels and Precious Stones. Pp. 898-905 in Interpreter's Dictionary of the

Bible, vol. 2, ed. G. A. Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Goodfriend, E. A. 1992 Prostitution (OT). Pp. 505-510 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, ed. D. N.

Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Gorelick, L., and Gwinnett, A. J. 1990 The Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seal as Social Emblem and Status Symbol.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49:45-56.

Greengus, S. 1990 Bridewealth in Sumerian Sources. Hebrew Union College Annual 61: 25-88.

Grosz, K. 1981 Dowry and Brideprice in Nuzi. Pp. 161-182 in Studies on the Civilization and

Culture of Nuzi and Hurrians, eds. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gwinnet, A. J., and Gorelick, L. 1991 Bead Manufacture at Hajar ar-Rayhani, Yemen. Biblical Archaeologist 54:

187-196.

Haag, H. 1975 Bath. Pp. 232-238 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, ed.

G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Hallo, W. W. 1983 As the Seal upon Thine Arm: Glyptic Metaphors in the Biblical World. Pp. 7-17

in Ancient Seals and the Bible, eds. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte. Los Angeles, CA: Undena.

1993 For Love Is Strong as Death. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 22: 45-50.

Hamilton, P. 1995 The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.



Harris, J. S. 1963-65 The Stones of the High Priest's Breastplate. Annual of the Leeds University

Oriental Society 5: 40-62.

Herr, L. G. 1988 Seal. Pp. 369-375 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, ed. G.

W. Bromily. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Holladay, W. L. 1986 Jeremiah 1.. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1-

25 . Philadelphia: Fortress.

Hyatt, J. P. 1971

Exodus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Jean, C. F., and J. Hoftijzer 1965 Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Semitiques de l'Ouest. Leiden: Brill.

Kaiser, W. C. 1990

Kennedy, C. A. 1992 Dead, Cult of the. Pp. 105-108 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, eds. D. N.

Freedmen, et al. New York: Doubleday.

Knight, G. A. F. 1976 Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Grand Rapids,

Eerdmans.

Korpel, M. C. A. 1990 A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptiosn of the Divine.

Munster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Love in the Gipar. Pp. 638 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. New Jersey: Princeton.

1969b Courting, Marriage, and Honeymoon. Pp. 638-639 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. New Jersey: Princeton.

1969c Manna's Descent to the Nether World. Pp. 52-57 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. New Jersey: Princeton.

Kraus, H.-J. 1988

Psalms 1-59: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Kuhlewein, J. 1976 Nazir. Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament, vol. 2, ed. E.

Jenni and C. Westermann. Munich: Kaiser.

Exodus. Pp. 287-497. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 2, ed. F. E. Gaebelin. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Kramer, S. N. 1969a



Kuhne, C. 1978 Hittite Texts: Instructions for Cultic Officials and Temple Personnel. Pp. 146-84

in Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. W. Beyerlin. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Leemans, W. F. 1952 Ishtar of Lagaba and Her Dress. Leiden: Brill.

Lewis, T. J. 1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

1992 Ancestor Worship. .Pp. 240-242 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, eds. D. N. Freedmen, et al. New York: Doubleday.

Lichtheirn, M. 1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings-Volume 1: The Old and

Middle Kingdoms. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Luckenbill, D. 1926-27 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2. Chicago, IL: University.

Malul, M. 1990

Maxwell-Hyslo p, K. R. 1971

Western Asiatic Jewelry c. 3000-612 B.C. London: Methuen.

McCarter, P. K ., Jr. 1984

2 Samuel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

McKenzie, J. L 1976

Mythological Allusions in Ezek 28:12-18. Journal of Biblical Literature 75: 322-327.

Meek, T. J. 1969

Milgrom, J. 1983

Miller, J. A. 1993

Mobil, G. 1981

Moore, G. F. 1895

Middle Assyrian Laws. Ancient Near Eastern Texts 40: 180-188.

Of Hems and Tassels. Biblical Archaeology Review 9: 61-65.

The Malak of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:11-19). Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105: 497-501.

Glory. Pp. 295-98 in Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, ed. J. B. Bauer. New York: Crossroad.

Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1-7. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46: 97-126.


Rosenthal, R. 1973 Jewelery in Ancient Times. London: Cassell

Roth, M. T. 1984 Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th-3rd Centuries B.C. Neukirchen-Vlyun:

Neukirchener Verlag.

1989 Marriage and Matrimonial Presentations in First Millennium B.C. Babylonia. Pp. 245-255 in Women's Earliest Records, ed. B. S. Lesko. Atlanta: Scholars.


Negev, A., ed. 1986 Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson.

Newsom, C. A. 1984 A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel's Oracle Against Tyre. Interpretation 38: 151-

164.

Nielsen, E. 1954-55 The Burial of the Foreign Gods. Studia Theologica 8: 103-122.

Oppenheim, A. L. 1967 Letters from Mesopotamia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

1969 Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. Ancient Near Eeastern Texts: 265- 317.

Pfeiffer, R. H. 1969 Oracle of Ninlil Concerning Ashurbanipal. Ancient Near Eastern Texts: 450,

451.

Platt, E. E 1979 Jewelry of Bible Times and the Catalog of Isa 3:18-23. Parts I-II. Andrews

University Seminary Studies 17: 71-84; 189-202.

1992 Jewelry, Ancient Israel. .Pp. 823-834 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, ed. D. N. Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday.

Raffety, W. A. 1979 Crown. Pp. 831-832 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, ed.

G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Reed, W. L. 1963 Mutilation. Pg. 447 in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, ed. G. H.

Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Ringgren, H. 1990 Yapa. Pp. 218-220 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 6, eds.

G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

1995 Koehn Ancient Near East: Mesopotamia. Pp. 63, 64 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 7, ed. H. R. G. J. Botterweck. Trans. J. T. Willis. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.



Running, L. G. 1982 Garments. Pp. 401-407 in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2,

ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Rylaarsdam, J. C. 1952 The Book of Exodus. Interpreter's Bible, vol. 1, ed. George A. Buttrick.

Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Saggs, H. W. F. 1984 The Mighty That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.

Sarna, N. M. 1986 Exploring Exodus. New York: Schocken.

1989 Genesis. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications.

Staehelin, E. 1981

Ornat. Pp. 613-616 in Lexikon der Agyptologie, vol. 4, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.

Stillman, Y. K. 1979 Palestinian Costume and Jewelry. Albuquerque, NM: University of New,

Mexico.

Stuart, D. 1987 Hoseah-Jonah. Waco, TX: Word.

Swanepoel, M. G. 1993 Ezekiel 16: Abandoned Child, Bride Adorned or Unfaithful Wife? Pp. 84-104

in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, eds. P. R. Davis and D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

Thomsen, M.-L. 1992 The Evil Eye in Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51: 19-32.

Toombs, L. E. 1962 Crown. Pp. 745, 746 in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, ed. G. A.

Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Van Buren, E. D. • 1950 Amulets, Symbols or Idols? Iraq 12: 193-196.

Vawter, B. 1977 On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Velde, H. T. 1995 Theology, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 1731-1749 in

Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York, NY: Macmillan.



Vetter, D. 1976 P a r. Pp. 387, 388 in Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, vol.

2, eds. E. Jenni and C. Westennann. Munich: Kaiser.

Wallace, H. N. 1985 The Eden Narrative. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.

Waltke, 13. K., and O'Connor, J. 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbruan.

Watts, J. D. W. 1985 Isaiah 1-33. Waco, TX: Word.

Wenhatn, G. J. 1994 Genesis 15-50. Dallas, TX: Word.

Westermann, C. 1971 Kbd schwer sein. Pp. 794-811. Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Allen

Testament, vol. 1, eds. E. Jenni and C. Westerinann. Munich: Kaiser.

1985 Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Wildberger, H. 1991 Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Wilson, J. A. 1969a Egyptian Myths, Tales, and Mortuary Texts. Anceint Near Eeastern Texts 3-36.

1969b Egyptian Historical Texts. Anceint Near Eastern Texts: 227-264.

Yardeni, A. 1991 Remarks on the Priestly Blessing and Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem.

Vetus Testamentum 41: 176-185.

Zimmerli, W. 1983 Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48.

Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.


10 Greece and Babylon Revisited

Edwin M. Yamauchi History Department, Miami University, Oxford, OH.

It is a pleasure to recognize the many innovative and important contributions of William H. Shea especially to the study of the biblical books set in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras. Bill has been most generous in sharing unpublished materials, which he has allowed me to utilize (see Yamauchi 1992a).

The Problem of the Greek Words in Daniel As someone who has taught courses in both Greek and Near Eastern

history, I was struck many years ago by the weakness of the argument for the late date of Daniel based on the Greek words used in the Aramaic section (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15). Some biblical scholars have been under the mistaken impression that Greek contacts between the Aegean and the Near Eastern worlds did not become important until after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

The classic statement of the argument was expressed in 1897 by S. R. Driver (1960 reprint: 508): "the Greek words demand . . .a date after the conquest by Alexander the Great (332 B.C.)." This position has been repeated by modem commentaries such as that by N. W. Porteous; who wrote in 1965, "the presence of Greek words points to an age after the conquests of Alexander" (1965: 20). As recently as 1978 in their Anchor Bible commentary, L.E. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella say: "the Greek names for the musical instruments in 3:5 probably do not antedate the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 B.C.)" (1978: 13). The significance placed upon these words has been assessed by P. W. Coxon thus, "the Greek loans seem to provide the strongest evidence in favour of the second century B.C." (1973-74: 24).

As I have addressed this issue in a number of previous publications (Yamauchi 1967, 1970, 1981), I welcome this opportunity to review the



subject in the light of still further evidences of contacts which have come to my attention.

The Greek Words for Musical Instruments The subject of the musical instruments in the Old Testament, including

those in Daniel, has been recently discussed in a comprehensive fashion by T. C. Mitchell, Keeper of Western Asiatic Antiquities at the British Museum (1992a; cf. Dyer 1990). The three Greek loanwords in Daniel 3 are all musical instruments: qayteros (vamp), psanterin (1)111)0) and sumponeya (n))0Y3M). Mitchell identifies the first as the Greek, k-itharis (dOaptc) a lyre, the second as the Greek psalterion (xtrockfiptov), another kind of lyre. As to sumponeycl, which is usually derived from the Greek sumphonia (owsziluvicc), Mitchell considers this as possibly a dialectal form of tumpanon "tambour" (1992: 138). He observes, "In the surviving Greek sources the words psalterion and sumphonia are not attested until the fourth and second centuries BC respectively" (1992a: 136), but we need to bear in mind the fragmentary nature of the available evidence about musical instruments and the broader view of cross-cultural contact(Yamauchi 1974: 64-70).

Cross-Cultural Contacts: East and West The etymology of the Greek word k-itharis indicates that it was not

originally a Greek word. P. Chantraine suggests that it is an "Emprunt oriental probable" (cited by Mitchell 1992a: 136). M. Duchesne-Guillemin has demonstrated the Mesopotamian origin of instruments and traditions in Greek music (1969 and 1984). One can cite many examples of the diffusion of music and musical instruments both from the East to the West, and from the West to the East (Yamauchi 1967: 19-24).

Contacts in the Bronze Age E. H. Cline has recently published a monograph summarizing the evidence

for cross cultural contacts between the Aegean and the Near East in the Bronze Age. Cline lists 23 objects from Mesopotamia in the Aegean in the LM period = 1700-1430 BC, and 21 objects in the LH/LM III period = 1340-1186 BC (Cline 1994: 9-15). The Mesopotamian objects have been found at Thebes, Mycenae, Pylos, Kakovatos, and Perati. Of exceptional interest is the cache of 19 Mesopotamian cylinder seals found at Thebes in Greece. Cline observes, "They include seven seals of various Mesopotamian styles dating from the Early Dynastic III to the Old Babylonian periods (ca. 2500-1700 BC) and 12 Kassite seals from Babylonia (13th century BC)" (1994: 25). There are also many words of probable Mesopotamian origin in the Linear B texts, as there are in later Greek (Szemerenyi 1974; Yamauchi 1974: 44, 45). On the other hand, the Mari texts have important references to Kaptara, i.e. Crete.


Greece and Babylon Revisited 129

The extensive discoveries of Mycenaean objects in Syria and Palestine have been summarized by H.-G. Buchholz (1975: 398-451), however, only two or possibly three Mycenaean objects have been found in Mesopotamia. Cline concludes, "Overall, to judge from the archaeological and textual evidence, it is clear that there was almost always some sort of contact and trade between Mesopotamia and the Aegean throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Age" (1994: 27).

Contacts in the Assyrian Era (ca. 900-612 BC) During the Greek Dark Ages (1200-800 BC) trade contacts between the

Aegean and Near East were greatly diminished, but not altogether severed (Desborough 1972). According to E. Guralnick the earliest major eastern import may have arrived in Athens ca. 950-900 BC (1989: 151).

In the Archaic Age of Greece (800-500 BC) contacts were renewed with the East. Considerable works of Mesopotamian provenance found their way to Greek sites such as the famous sanctuary of Hera on the island of Samos. U. Jantzen lists ten Assyrian bronzes found at this temple dated to the eighth and seventh centuries BC (1972: 70, 71). Curtis (1994: 2) reports: "Objects that have been identified as Assyrian or Babylonian come from Athens, Delphi, Olympia, Lefkandi, Samos, and Lindos and Cameiros on Rhodes." Many metal objects from Urartu, north of Assyria, were found not only in Greece, but in Etruria in Italy (Yamauchi 1967: 55-57; Yamauchi 1982). Other objects from Iran (dated to the ninth-seventh centuries BC) have been found in Crete, Samos, Delphi, Ithaca, and Rhodes (Muscarella 1977).

Colonies of Greek traders and soldiers were established in Egypt, Syria and Palestine as evidenced by the widespread distribution of Greek pottery. Guralnick summarizes the pattern as follows:

Proto-geometric pottery of the tenth and ninth centuries B.C., has been excavated at Nineveh (Iraq), Hama (Syria), and Tell Abu Hawam(Israel). Geometric pottery of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. has been found at a number of sites both on the coast and inland in country dominated by the Hittites (Guralnick 1972: 154; cf. Boardman 1973).

The first Greek pottery in Syria is Proto-Geometric ware (10th century BC) found at Ras el-Bassit (ancient Poseidon). The Greek imports became massive there in the seventh century, and Greek inscriptions appear at the site about 600 BC (Dion 1992: 91). In the ninth century, Greek imports began at Al Mina on the Orontes River and at Tell Sukas on the coast. According to Riis (1970: 158): -Now it has been inferred from the abundant Greek pottery finds at Al-Mina and the architectural and other remains at Sukas that Greeks settled there in the period between 850 and 675 B.C."

There are over thirty references to Yawan (i.e. Ionia and Yawnaya, Yawanaya = Ionian) in Akkadian texts (Brinkman 1989: 54). (Compare



Hebrew Yawan [Javan, Ill in such texts as Gen 10:4). Ionia was the west coast of Turkey, where Greeks had settled after the 11th century BC As these Ionians were the first Greeks encountered in the East, Greeks became known as Ionians. The earliest reference to Yawan is found in letters written in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC). Other references come from the royal inscriptions of Sargon II (721-705 BC) and of Esarhaddon (680-669 BC). Ten Greek chieftains from Cyprus pledged their allegiance to Esarhaddon (Lipinski 1991). Sargon's army campaigned against the Greeks on Cyprus, where his stele was found (Elayi and Cavigneaux 1979).

Contacts in the Neo -Babylonian Era Evidence of the presence of Greek mercenaries before Nebuchadnezzar's

conquest comes from Palestine. Y. Aharoni found ostraca at the site of Arad west of the Dead Sea, ten of which concerned the distribution of rations to Ktym. This word which originates from the site of Kition in Cyprus came to mean "Greeks" in the Old Testament. Aharoni therefore identified them as Greek mercenaries in the service of the last Judean kings (1966). Though some scholars have suggested that these might be Phoenicians (Herzog, et al. 1984: 31), Dion's recent study (1992) has reaffirmed their identification as Greek mercenaries in the light of the evidence of Greek pottery at a fortified site, Mes ad Hashavyahu, on the coast from about the same time (ca. 600 BC). Scholars disagree as to whether the mercenaries at this site were in the employ of the Judean kings or of Pharaoh Necho (Dion 1992: 86-88). A Greek mercenary shield was found at Carchemish, the scene of a battle between Necho and Nebuchadnezzar (Yamauchi 1967: 64, 65). We know that Antimenidas, the brother of the famous poet Alcaeus, fought as a mercenary for Nebuchadnezzar (Quinn 1961).

References to "Ionia" and "Ionians" occur in economic and administrative texts of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC). One of these refers to four and one-half minas of purple wool of "Ionia." There are also references in the famous "Yaukin = Jehoiachin" texts found by R. Koldewey at Babylon, which were published by E. F. Weidner in 1939. Among those who were given rations were Ionian carpenters (see ANET 308). The throne room of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon betrays Greek influence (Yamauchi 1967: 14, 68, 69). Seton Lloyd comments: "A tall panel recovered from a wall outside the throne-room is of special interest, in that classical motifs are adapted to the design, suggesting that some contact now existed between Babylon and Greece" (1978: 228).

A damaged text refers to a Babylonian invasion of Egypt in 568/567 BC and mentions "Piitu Yaman," a city which Mitchell has identified as the Greek colony of Cyrene (Yamauchi 1992b), on the coast of Libya (Mitchell 1992a). Three texts from the reign of Nabonidus (555-539 BC) report the importation of substantial amounts of siparru "copper" from Ionia (Oppenheim 1969).



Contacts in the Early Persian Era I will discuss contacts only in the reigns of the earliest Achaemenid kings,

Cyrus (559-530 BC), Cambyses (529-522 BC), and Darius (522-486 BC). Cambyses does not appear in the Old Testament, but Shea makes the intriguing suggestion that Cambyses may have been the figure identified as the "Prince of Persia" mentioned in Daniel 10:20 (Shea 1983). Contacts in the reigns of Xerxes (486-465 BC) and Artaxerxes I (464-424 BC), and the later Achaemenid kings, were even more numerous.

Cyrus conquered Lydia and Ionian in 547-546 BC. Studies by C. Nylander of toothed chisel marks on the buildings of Cyrus' capital at Pasargadae indicate the presence of Ionian workmen at the site (Nylander 1970; Yamauchi 1990:ch. 9.). Two of the Greek stone masons inscribed their names, Pytarchos and Nychon (Krefter 1967: 441). Cambyses employed Greek mercenaries in his invasion of Egypt in 525 BC.

From the reign of Darius, the excavators of Persepolis found several thousand Elamite tablets. These are the Persepolis Fortification Texts (PF) from the 13th to the 28th year of Darius (509-494 BC), and the Persepolis Treasury Tablets (PT) from the 30th year of Darius I to the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (492-454 BC) (see Yamauchi 1990: 189, 190). An aide to a high official, who appears in several tablets (PF 1942.27; 1965.29; PT 21) is called YaUna, i.e. the "Greek." A group of 16 or 17 Ionians is mentioned in PF 2072. Rations for Ionian mothers working at Persepolis are indicated by PF 1224. One of the tablets is actually in Greek (Hallock 1969: 2; cf. Lewis 1977: 12). A Greek contractor inscribed a dedication to the gods on the cliffs of a limestone quarry near Persepolis. (Carratelli 1966).

Darius' famous Building Inscription at Susa lists, among many groups that contributed, the Ionians (Yamauchi 1990: 295-298). Herodotus 3.125 informs us that a Greek physician, Democedes, served at the court of Darius. The evidences of Greek artists at the Persian court are manifold and abundant (Yamauchi 1990: 390, 391).

Conclusions John J. Collins in his recent Hermeneia commentary on Daniel, though

maintaining that the final composition of Daniel took place in the Maccabean era, believes that the first six chapters of Daniel are pre-Hellenistic in date. As to the Greek words, Collins acknowledges, "There is, of course, abundant evidence of Greek influence in the East before Alexander, although evidence of Greek influence on Aramaic is sparse," and concludes, "The date of the tales in Daniel must be established on other grounds" (1993: 20).



References

Aharoni, Y. 1966 Hebrew Ostraca from Tel Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 1-7.

ANET—Pritchard, J. B. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton:

Princeton University.

Boardman, J. 1973

The Greeks Overseas. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson.

Brinkman, J. 1989 The Akkadian Words for "Ionia" and "Ionian." Pp. 53-71 in Daidalikon:

Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, S. .1, ed. R. F. Sutton, Jr. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.

Buchholz, H.-G. 1975 Agaische Funde and Kultureinflusse in den Randgebieten des Mittelmeers.

Archaiologischer Anzeiger 89.3: 325-451.

Carratelli, G. P. 1966 Greek Inscriptions of the Middle East. East and West n.s. 16: 31-36.

Cline, E. H. 1994 Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age

Aegean. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Collins, J. J. 1993 Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Coxon, P. W. 1973-74 Greek Loan-Words and Alleged Greek Loan Translations in the Book of Daniel.

Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions 25: 24-40.

Curtis, J. 1994 Mesopotamian Bronzes from Greek Sites: The Workshops of Origin. Iraq 56: 1-

25.

Desborough, V. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. New York: St. Martin's.

Dion, P.-E. 1992 Les KTYM de Tel Arad: Grecs ou Pheniciens? Revue Biblique 99: 70-97.

Driver, S. R. 1960 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Meridian

Library reprint of the 1897 edition.

Duchesne-Guilletnin, M. 1969 La theorie babylonienne des metaboles musicales. Revue de Musicologie 55: 3-

11.


Lewis, D. M. 1977 Sparta and Persia. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Lipinski, E. 1991 The Cypriot Vassals of Esarhaddon. Pp. 58-64 in Ah Assyria . . Studies in

Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, eds. M. Cogan and I. Eph`al. Jerusalem: Magnes.


1984 L'animal sur la cithare: nouvelle lumiere sur l'origine sumerienne de la cithare grecque. Pp. 129-141 in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito Oblata. Leiden: Brill.

Dyer, C. H. 1990 The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3. Bibliotheca Sacra 147: 426-436.

Elayi, J., and Cavigneaux, A. 1979 Sargon II et les Ioniens. Oriens Antiquus 18: 59-75.

Guralnick, E. 1989 Greece and the Near East: Art and Archaeology. Pp. 151-176 in Daidalikon:

Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, Si., ed. R. F. Sutton, Jr. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.

Hallock, R. T. 1969 Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hartman, L. F., and DiLella, A. A. 1978 The Book of Daniel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Herzog, Z.; Aharoni, M.; Rainey, A.; and Moshkovitz, S. 1984 The Israelite Fortress at Arad. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 254: 1-34.

Jantzen, J. 1972 Agyptische and orientalische Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos. Bonn:

Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

Krefter, F. 1967 Zur Steinmetztechnik von Persepolis. Pp. 429-441 in Festschrift Pr Wilhelm

Eilers. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lloyd, S. 1978

The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Mitchell, T. C. 1992a The Music of the Old Testament Reconsidered. Palestine Exploration Quarterly

124: 124-143.

1992b Where was Putu-Iaman? Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 22: 69-80.

Muscarella, 0. W. 1977 The Archaeological Evidence for Relations between Greece and Iran in the First



Millennium B.C. Journal of the Ancient Near East Society of Columbia University 9: 31-57.

Nylander, C. 1970 Ionians in Pasargadae. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells. Oppenheim, A. L.

1969 Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium BC. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 136-154.

Porteous, N. W. 1965 Daniel. Philadelphia: The Westminster.

Quinn, J. D. 1961 Alcaeus 48 (1316) and the Fall of Ascalon (604 B.C.). Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 164: 19, 20.

Riis, P. J. 1970 Sukas I. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Saggs, H. W. F. 1965 The Nimrud Letters. Iraq 25: 77, 78.

Shea, W. H. 1983 Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10. Andrews University

Seminary Studies 21: 225-250.

Szemerenyi, 0. 1974 The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux. Journal of Hellenistic

Studies 94: 144-157.

Weidner, E. F. 1939 Jojachin, Konig von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, vol. 2. Pp. 923-935

in Mélanges Syriens offerts a M. Rene Dussaud. Paris: Geuthner.

Yamauchi, E. 1967 Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids, ME: Baker.

1970 The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East. Pp. 170-200 in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne. Waco: Word.

1974 The Archaeological Confirmation of Suspect Elements in the Classical and the Biblical Traditions. Pp. 54-70 in The Law and the Prophets, ed. J. H. Skilton. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.

1981 Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East before Alexander. Evangelical Quarterly 53: 37-47.

1982 Foes from the Northern Frontier. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

1990 Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.



1992a Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations. Vetus Testamentum 42: 272-275.

1992b The Archaeology of Biblical Africa: Cyrene in Libya. Archaeology in the Biblical World 2: 6-18.


11 Genre Awareness and

Interpretation of the Book of Daniel

Roy Gane Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

Introduction Scholars generally agree that the biblical book of Daniel belongs to a

literary genre which can be called "apocalypse," however, there has been intense debate over the definition of the genre and the boundaries of its corpus. In the mid-1970s, Stephen Kaufmann commented on the situation: "Unfortunately, there are probably as many different definitions of apocalyptic and lists of works to be included under that rubric as there are writers on Biblical literature" (1977: 225).

In 1979 there was major progress when a group of essays by a team of scholars belonging to the Apocalypse Group of the SBL Genres Project was published in Semeia 14. These essays surveyed all texts which are regarded or potentially regarded as apocalypses and which are dated by the majority of scholars to the period 250 BC to AD 250. The project, headed by John J. Collins, resulted in a definition of the genre "apocalypse" which was based upon inductive observation of a core of consistently recurring elements within the corpus of works for which the label "apocalypse" was established. Collins expressed the definition as follows:

"Apocalypse" is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world (I 979a: 9).

This definition recognizes a common type of form in terms of a narrative framework and otherworldly mediation, and a common type of content in



terms of eschatological salvation and involvement of a supernatural world. Now Collins accepts an addition to the definition: a common type of function (1992: 283). This function is expressed by Adela Yarbro Collins: An apocalypse is "intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority" (1986: 7).

It is likely that in the future the above definition will be refined and competing definitions will be developed. Meanwhile, the question I would like to explore here is this: How does genre awareness contribute to interpretation of the book of Daniel? In other words, if we can define the genre "apocalypse" and therefore determine which works belong to the genre, so what?

Apocalyptic Genre and the Unity of Daniel Before we consider how a definition of the apocalyptic genre is useful for

exegesis of Daniel, we must deal with the question of whether it is useful in regards to the book at all. P. R. Davies asserts: "The word 'apocalyptic' has been detrimental to the book of Daniel" (1980: 37). His negative assessment is based first and foremost upon the following observation, which refers to the word "apocalyptic."

It has tended to drive a wedge between the tales and the visions: the majority of scholars would regard only the visions as apocalyptic. The introduction of the word 'apocalyptic' results in ells. 7-12 of Daniel being seen within the context of a broader and ill-defined entity, whether theological, literary or socio-religious; questions about the origin and meaning of the Danielle visions are asked and answered within this context rather than in their proper literary context, the tales (1980: 37).

While Davies goes on to propose the questionable hypothesis that the eschatology of the visions in Daniel 7-12 actually derives from the narratives in Daniel 1-6 (1980: 34, 39, 47), his concern for interpreting the visions within the narrative context of the book is a valid one. The unity of a literary work should not be sacrificed to the interests of genre, which is an analytical abstraction having no independent existence. Adrian Marino describes genres as "'systems' of characteristics and common devices whose dominant note justifies the formation, the delimitation, and the definition of each genre" (1978: 46). Marino recognizes that the term "systems" implies that each genre has a kind of unity and is hierarchical, with interdependent relationships between genre characteristics and sub-characteristics. Granted that a genre is an internally coherent system unified by a dominant literary characteristic, it should also be recognized that a literary work itself is a different kind of system, unified by the purpose of an author or group of authors working together.


Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel 139

The apocalyptic genre is unified by the way in which its "distinctive combination of elements, all of which are also found elsewhere" (Collins 1984: 9), is dominated by transcendence.

The common elements singled out in the comprehensive definition of apocalypse are not random but constitute a kernel to which the other elements are integrally related. The formal derivation of revelation from an otherworldly source complements the contentual emphasis on transcendent eschatology and the supernatural world (1979a: 12).

Thus, apocalyptic literature can be distinguished from other types of revelatory literature, e.g. classical Israelite prophecy, by the transcendence which dominates its form, content, and function.

Proper application of genre concepts to the book of Daniel should not threaten the literary unity of the book. For one thing, whereas the German form critical term "Gattung" can refer to portions of literary works, the term "genre" is used with reference to whole works (Hartman 1983: 330; Sanders 1983: 450). It is true that parts of a work may have affinities with various genres, but terms such as "novel," "epic," "comedy," and so on, refer to the dominant genres of whole works. Therefore, if the designation "apocalypse" represents a genre rather than a Gattung, "an apocalypse" is a whole work dominated by the dominating characteristic of the genre, namely, transcendent revelation.

The "wedge" problem pointed out by Davies (see above) does not arise from an intrinsic weakness in the nature of "genre" or in a definition of the apocalyptic genre, rather, the problem arises from improper designation of Daniel 7-12 as "an apocalypse"—which implies that this portion of the book is viewed as a whole work, which it is not. To avoid this kind of difficulty, J. J. Collins has moved in the direction of regarding entire apocalyptic works as apocalypses. In Semeia 14, he identified some partial texts such as Daniel 7- 12 and Jubilees 23 as apocalypses (1979b: 22ff), but a decade later he would do things differently: "I would now speak simply of the dominant genre of these works as wholes. I would also allow for cases of mixed genre (e.g. Jubilees) which have significant affinities with more than one genre" (1991: 14).

Scholars who accept source critical theories which split up the authorship of Daniel' could view part of the book as a compositional whole and therefore regard it as a self-standing "apocalypse," however, if we tangle up hypotheses regarding literary pre-histories with the delineation of the genre, the outcome for apocalyptic genre criticism will be chaos (cf Davies 1980: 34). Not only would our task be complicated by numerous differences of opinion, we would have two serious methodological problems. First, we would have a theory of the genre based upon a layer of hypotheses rather than directly based upon evidence. Second, we would be caught in circular reasoning, with Daniel 7-12



regarded as a self-standing apocalypse because of source critical theory, and source criticism using the break in genre as evidence for compositional discontinuity.

Thus far, I have accepted the idea that Daniel, as a whole, is an apocalypse because "apocalypse" is a genre and genres are represented by whole works. It appears that additional support for the generic unity of Daniel may be found in the function of the stories of Daniel 1-6 in relation to the visions of Daniel 7-12. As mentioned above, an apocalypse includes a narrative framework which leads into and out of visionary material (Collins 1979a: 9). For example, Dan 7:1-2 introduces a vision as follows:

In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in bed. Then he wrote down the . dream: I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea (NRSV).

The narrative introduction to the book of Revelation has something similar.

I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (NRSV).

Now suppose that Daniel or John had included more information in the narrative introductions just cited. John refers to "tribulation," "patient endurance," and the fact that he was on the island of Patmos. What if he told us in several verses what kind of tribulation he had endured and what events had led to his location on Patmos? Such an introduction would be directly relevant to the circumstances in which he saw his visions. Suppose an introduction of this kind took up one or more chapters and included stories which could stand on their own? Would this material be disqualified as an apocalyptic narrative framework because of its length and/or complexity? Perhaps not.

What about Daniel? Just as John was in exile on Patmos, Daniel was in exile in Babylon. Suppose he had told us more about his circumstances before the commencement of the vision recorded in chapter 7. Would we exclude this material from the apocalyptic narrative framework? The fact is, Daniel does tell us more in the first six chapters. These narratives provide the background to the visions even if their focus is not specifically upon the precise, narrow circumstances of the prophet on the exact days when he went into vision. If we understand an apocalyptic narrative framework in this broader sense, Daniel 1-6 are apocalyptic not simply because they are dominated by the visions of Daniel 7-12, but because they function within the book as an apocalyptic narrative framework.



Daniel 1-6 contribute more than circumstances to our understanding of Daniel 7-12. Even though Daniel 2 lacks mediation by an otherworldly being, which is regarded by Collins as an essential element of the apocalyptic genre (Collins 1979a: 9), 2 this chapter has a historical outline paralleling that of Daniel 7. The historical outline in Daniel 2 leads to an eschatological culmination in the transcendent kingdom of YHWH, the same conclusion which appears in the later visions. The overwhelming solidarity of content between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7-12 eclipses the formal distinction between a dream-vision manner of revelation in chapter 2 and mediation by an otherworldly being later in the book. Even if chapter 2 were a separate work, and even if that work were not in strictest terms regarded as an apocalypse, it would still be extremely relevant for comparison with Daniel 7-12.

Like the visions of Daniel 7-12, the stories of chapters 1-6 concern the transcendent kingship of YI-IWH. Daniel 4 and 5 emphasize by repetition that "the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will" (Dan 4:17, 25; 5:21). The fact that YHWH can miraculously prosper His faithful servants (Daniel 1), deliver them from human rulers (Daniel 3, 6), and reveal secrets (Daniel 2, 4, 5) shows that it is He who is really in charge all along. While the setting up of the transcendent eternal kingdom represents massive discontinuity in that oppressive human power structures come to an end, YHWH's kingship provides continuity between the present age and the eschatological age to come.

The book of Daniel as a whole is an apocalypse, dominated by transcendence. Integrating the narratives and visions of Daniel takes the "wedge" from the book. Although genre analysis may have "been detrimental to the book of Daniel" (Davies 1980: 37) in the past, it is becoming more "Daniel-friendly" as it is gaining precision, methodological integrity, and caution.

Genre Analysis and Comparative Study Paul Hanson points out that definitions of the genre "apocalypse" and of

the related concepts "apocalyptic eschatology" and "apocalypticism" have heuristic value, and he adds the following caution:

Heuristic devices must not be regarded as more than they are, however, namely, tools useful to the extent that they shed light on the ancient materials themselves. In using such tools, one does well to remember that the ancient apocalyptic writers did not distinguish rigidly between genre, perspective, and ideology, and from this it follows that such categories should be used only with great sensitivity to the integrity and complexity of the compositions themselves (1992: 279).

Genre definitions are useful tools in that they provide general reference points for comparing works with each other (Collins 1991: 19). Genre



affinities are relative and complex. Just because a work such as Daniel may be dominated by one genre does not mean that it may not have important affinities with other genres, e.g. stories and non-apocalyptic historical prophecies. Therefore, a list of works delimited by a genre definition by no means represents a complete corpus relevant for comparison with each of the individual works, but such a list should represent the group of works which are most directly comparable with each other in the sense that they share a dominant literary characteristic.

How should genre awareness influence our interpretation of a literary work such as Daniel? L. Hartman states, "... the recognition of a genre creates a certain "reader's expectation" (Lesererwartung) which determines the understanding and the reception of the addressee. Further, there is often a connection between genre and sociolinguistic situation and function" (1983: 331). Collins agrees. Answering Davies, he cites E. D. Hirsch Jr., a literary critic, who argues that genre concepts are involved in the dynamic process by which a work is understood by its audience. Communicable meanings must belong to recognizable types in order to be understood. Audience expectations regarding types of meaning provide reference points, whether or not those expectations are fulfilled, which contribute to comprehension (Collins 1981: 85, 86; cp. Hirsch 1967: 71, 80). Collins summarizes: "There can be no understanding without at least an implicit notion of genre" (1981: 86).

I agree that comprehension by a given audience must involve some kind of conscious or unconscious awareness of genre, but Collins goes one step further:

Now it is in any case true that the ultimate key to the interpretation of the visions of Daniel is the internal structure of the visions themselves. It is equally true, however, that our perception of that structure is influenced to a high degree by the genre assumptions with which we approach the visions (1981:86).

The difficulty with this approach is that "the genre assumptions with which we approach the visions" are not the same as those of the ancient audience. For example, the audience of Daniel, which by any reckoning is one of the earliest Jewish apocalypses, would not have included later apocalyptic works in its frame of reference. While these later works should be compared with Daniel, such comparison should come after interpretation of Daniel on its own terms, within its historical context. This case illustrates the tension involved in the application of genre definition, which is necessarily synchronic (Collins 1991: 18), to exegesis, which is subject to diachronic constraints.

It is true that even the early stages of exegesis must deal with literary factors which happen to be genre characteristics., however, it is through internal examination that the meaning and genre characteristics of a work are ascertained. Following such examination, the work can be compared with other



works, whether they share the same dominant characteristic, and thus belong to the same genre, or not. Genre analysis in the form of comparing works with reference to a synchronic definition is not essential for basic understanding; it enriches an understanding which is already established. This kind of genre analysis comes under the umbrella of comparative studies, which is subject to the constraint that an individual phenomenon should be interpreted on its own terms, within its own context, before it is compared with other phenomena. If comparison between works, including evaluation of a work in light of a synchronic definition abstracted from comparison between works, is introduced into interpretation too early in the interpretive process, the tendency will be to import foreign elements which contaminate results.

Daniel and Akkadian Historical Prophecies: An Illustration

Thus far, I have discussed in theoretical terms the relevance of genre concepts for interpretation of the book of Daniel. To partially illustrate how this theory can be applied, let us consider a particular parallel between Daniel and some Akkadian historical prophecies. Daniel shares with the Uruk Prophecy (Hunger & Kaufman 1975: 371-375) and the Dynastic Prophecy (Grayson 1975: 24-37) not only the feature of historical outline, and not only the motif of an ideal era for Babylon within such an outline; it shares specific identification of that era as the glorious early part of the Neo-Babylonian empire, i.e. the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC). How can genre awareness help us to evaluate this parallel?

Just because Daniel and two Akkadian works identify the ideal era for Babylon similarly does not mean that the significance of this identification is the same in all three works. The significance in each compoSition depends upon the function of the identification in relation to other literary elements within the framework of characteristics which determines the genre of the work.

Separate examination shows that the relationship of each of the three works to the Babylonian ideal era is different. The Uruk text, probably composed during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (Lambert 1978: 12), favors the ideal present and hopes that it will continue indefinitely. The Dynastic prophecy, dating from the early Seleucid period (Grayson 1975: 27), reacts against a later status quo following a progressive deterioration from the ideal for Babylon. While Daniel recognizes deterioration following the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the "head of gold" (Dan 2:38, 39), the true ideal is the future, eschatological kingdom of the God of heaven which comes after the fourth kingdom. In Dan 2:45, the gold is destroyed along with the other elements of the statue, implying that Babylon is just as worthless, ultimately, as the rest of the kingdoms.



The Uruk text and the Dynastic prophecy differ in their temporal relationship to the ideal era for Babylon, but there is a greater difference between these texts and Daniel. Whereas the ultimate ideal for the Akkadian texts is part of the present age, Daniel does not value the ideal for Babylon in the same way. Unlike the Akkadian texts, Daniel's hope is transcendent. It is true that the Uruk text does end with an eschatological hope, expressed as a prediction, for a definitive Heilszeit. (Grayson 1992: 282). A similar kind of hope seems to be implied in two pseudonymous historical prophecies dating from the time of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1127-1105 BC): the Marduk and Sulgi prophetic speeches (Borger 1971: 3-24), however, the Babylonian view of the ideal future is well-being and stability in the present world (Kaufman 1977: 226). Transcendence is lacking.

The difference between Daniel and the Akkadian texts, which has just been described, highlights the importance of transcendence in Daniel. Is this example an isolated one or does it reveal a basic difference between Daniel and the Akkadian prophecies? In the book of Daniel, historical outlines contribute to the higher level characteristic of transcendent revelation. The book is dominated by transcendence of form, content, and function (see above). It is this transcendence which places the book within the apocalyptic corpus. On the other hand, in a careful internal examination of the five Akkadian historical prophecies which appear to present successions of historical events in the future tense, including Text A (Grayson 1964: 7-30) 3 as well as the texts mentioned above, I have found only one manifestation of transcendence: mediation through an otherworldly being in the Marduk speech.' While the content of the Akkadian texts is similar to that of Daniel in that it is historical in nature, the content of the former is completely lacking in transcendence. For this reason, the Akkadian historical prophecies are excluded from the genre "apocalypse" (cp. Kaufman 1977: 221, 227, 228; Ringgren 1983: 386) in spite of W. W. Hallo's attempt to include them (1966: 231-242). Although the Uruk text contains some eschatology (see above), its lack of transcendence means that this is not apocalyptic eschatology.

The one constantly recurring component of the Akkadian historical prophecies is an outline of historical events presented as prophecy. If this dominant characteristic can be regarded as defining a genre, the genre is not unique to Mesopotamia. The Egyptian "Prophecy of Neferti," for example, is a detailed historical prophecy with a narrative introduction (Pritchard 1969: 444-446; cp. Borger 1971:23 and McCown 1925: 357-411).

While the Akkadian texts are fundamentally different from the book of Daniel and therefore belong to a different genre, at least two factors make them valuable for comparison with Daniel:

1. Since historical outlines are a major feature of the book of Daniel, it has a strong affinity with the Akkadian prophecies, which may in fact be proto-



apocalyptic (Grayson 1992: 282). In this respect Daniel has more in common with the Akkadian prophecies than with Jewish apocalypses having otherworldly journeys but no historical outlines.' The latter branch of the apocalyptic genre corresponds to another kind of Akkadian antecedent, represented by the Assyrian "Vision of the Nether World" (Pritchard 1969: 109, 110). 6

2. Unlike later apocalyptic works, at least some of the Akkadian prophecies may have been known to Daniel and the early audience of the book which bears his name.'

Summary and Conclusion Awareness of the apocalyptic genre can make a positive contribution to

interpretation of the book of Daniel as a whole. Since genres are represented by whole works, proper application of genre concepts to Daniel does not threaten the unity of the book. Definition of the genre in terms of a dominant literary characteristic, i.e. transcendence, provides a frame of reference as we enrich our understanding by comparing and contrasting features of Daniel with features of other works, whether they belong to the same genre or not. Since this kind of genre analysis is a form of comparative study, individual works should be investigated on their own terms before they are compared with each other or with a synchronic genre definition which is abstracted from comparisons between works. Examination of a specific parallel between the book of Daniel and Akkadian historical prophecies shows how genre awareness can highlight aspects of Daniel, even when Daniel is compared with works which do not belong to the same genre.

Notes

I . For a review oftheories regarding the multiple authorship of the book, see Rowley 1950-51: 233-248.

See Collins 1979b: 30, where Collins excludes Daniel 2 from the genre "apocalypse" on this basis.

Since no viable identification of the historical allusions in Text A has been made, this text cannot be dated yet.

In 1989 I presented this research at the national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in a paper entitled: "Akkadian Ex Eventu Prophecies and the Genre 'Apocalypse.'" In this paper, I evaluated the Akkadian works in terms of the specific manner in which essential or non-essential traits of the genre "apocalypse" as outlined by Collins in Setneia 14 (1979a: 6-8; 1979b: 28) manifest themselves. I am grateful to S. Paul of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for the idea of analyzing these texts in this way and to J. J. Collins and H. Tadmor for their suggestions with regard to an earlier and longer version of the paper.

For the basic distinction in the Jewish corpus between historical apocalypses and apocalypses which present otherworldly journeys, see Collins 1979b: 22.



I am grateful to A. D. Kilmer of the University of California, Berkeley for bringing this text to my attention and to J. J. Collins for directing me to Himmelfarb 1983 which, surprisingly, does not mention the Assyrian "Vision" in connection with the prehistory of the "tours of hell" tradition.

Collins has commented recently: "The book of Daniel is set in the Babylonian Exile, and Daniel is portrayed as a professional sage, skilled in the interpretation of dreams like his Chaldean colleagues. There is, then, reason to suspect that the earliest stages of Jewish apocalypticism developed in the eastern Diaspora, though conclusive evidence is lacking." (1992: 284).

References

Borger, R. 1971 Gott Marduk and Gott-Konig Sulgi als Propheten.. Bibliotheca Orientalis 28:

3-24.

Charles, R. H. 1963 Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Lift in Israel, Judaism, and

Christianity. New York: Schocken.

Collins, A. Y. 1986 Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism. Pp. 1-11 in Early Christian

Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, ed. A. Y. Collins. Semeia 36. Decatur, GA: Scholars.

Collins, J. J. 1979a Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre. Pp. 1-20 in Apocalypse: The

Morphology of a Genre, ed. J. J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars.

1979b The Jewish Apocalypses. Pp. 21-59 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. J. J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars.

1981 Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 21: 83-100.

1983 The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism. Pp. 531-548 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

1984 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad.

1991 Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypticism. Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium, eds. J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth,Journalfor the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 9: 11-32. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

1992 Early Jewish Apocalypticism. Pp. 282-288 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Davies, P. R. 1980 Eschatology in the Book of Daniel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

17: 33-53.



Grayson, A. K. 1975 Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto.

1992 Akkadian 'Apocalyptic' Literature. Pg. 282 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Grayson, A. K., and Lambert, W. G. 1964 Akkadian Prophecies. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18: 7-30.

Hallo, W. W. 1966 Akkadian Apocalypses. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 231-242.

Hanson, P. D. 1975 The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress.

1992 Apocalypses and Apocalypticism. Pp. 279-282 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Hartman, L. 1983 Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre. Pp. 329-343 in Apocalypticism

in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

Hartman, L. F., and Di Leila, A. A. 1978 The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Himmelfarb, M. 1983 Tours of Hell. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Hirsch, E. D. J. 1967 Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale.

Hunger, H., and Kaufman, S. 1975 A New Akkadian Prophecy Text. Journal of the American Oriental Society 95:

371-375.

Kaufman, S. 1977 Prediction, Prophecy, and Apocalypse in the Light of New Akkadian Texts. Pp.

221-228 in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress ofJewish Studies, vol. 1, ed. A. Shinan. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic.

Lambert, W. G. • 1978 The Background ofJewish Apocalyptic. London: Athlone.

Marino, A. 1978 Toward a Definition of Literary Genres. Pp. 41-56 in Theories of Literary

Genre,vol. 8, ed. J. P. Strelka, Yearbook of Comparative Criticism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

McCown, C. C. 1925 Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature. Harvard Theological Review 18:

357-411.



Montgomery, J. 1979 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. The

International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Pritchard, J., ed. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Ringgren, H. 1983

Akkadian Apocalypses. Pp. 379-386 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

Rowley, H. H. 1950-51 The Unity of the Book of Daniel. Hebrew Union College Annual 23: 233-273.

Sanders, E. P. 1983 The Genre of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypses. Pp. 447-459 in Apocalypticism

in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr.


12 Apparent Indicators of Textual

Discontinuity in the Book of Daniel

Donn W. Leatherman Old Testament Studies, Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, TN.

Introduction Scholarly study of the book of Daniel has produced several theories

regarding the source documents from which the book was composed. These are described by H. H. Rowley in his review of the criticism of the book of Daniel prior to 1952 (1952: 235-268). Of the various critical options, the commonest view during the latter half of the twentieth century has been that the major division of the book should be made after chapter 7, with the seventh chapter seen as an appendix to the first six, written after them, but before chapters 8-12. This view was developed further by Ginsberg (1948) in a protracted debate with Rowley, who argued for the essential unity of the book of Daniel (cf. Rowley 1952).

This debate, which occurred mostly in the pages of The Journal of Biblical Literature (Ginsberg 1948; Rowley 1949; Ginsberg 1949; Rowley 1950, 1952; Ginsberg 1954) left twentieth century scholarship with the two views which are still current: the former, that the book of Daniel was written or edited by a single hand (probably about 165 BC), and the latter, that the book of Daniel comes from two major sources, one responsible for chapters 1-6 (or possibly 1-7) and the other responsible for the balance of the book.

The complex literary problems of the book of Daniel have not yet been definitively resolved and are therefore still contendable issues. This paper is not intended to resolve these issues, but rather to consider the degree to which purely literary criteria may be helpful in resolving the questions of the literary origins of the book of Daniel. This study will be limited to consideration of the overt internal literary indications of textual discontinuity in this book.



Indicators of Discontinuity in the Book of Daniel At this point we can turn our attention to the book of Daniel and to the

literary issues raised by the text. There are three apparent indicators of discontinuity in the book of Daniel: genre variety, bilingualis, and change of personal pronouns and verbs used in reference to Daniel. From time to time these three points have been cited as proof of the composite authorship of the book. It will be useful to consider the text itself in the light of these indicators of discontinuity (see table 12.1).

Genre Language Personal Reference

2:4b 2:14 --

2:45 (No reference is made to Daniel in chapter 3)

7:1 7:2 8:1

9:1 --

9:22 10:1 10:1

10:2 10:5

Table 12.1. Indicators of discontinuity in the book of Daniel.

It is immediately apparent that these phenomena coincide precisely only once: the simultaneous change of genre and the personal pronoun referring to Daniel (Dan 10:1). It therefore follows that, unless we are prepared to atomize the text entirely, a division of the book based on one of these criteria precludes a division based on another. The lack of coincidence between these indicators has been widely noticed. John Collins, for example, remarks,

Two factors in particular complicate the question of the unity of Daniel. First, two languages are used in the book: Hebrew in 1:1-2:4 and chapters 8-12, Aramaic in 2:4-7:28. Second, Daniel 1-6 consists of tales about Daniel and his associates which are told in the third person, while Daniel 7-12 recounts the visions of Daniel in the first person. The central introductory problem of the book of Daniel is that the natural division between the tales and the visions does not coincide with the division between the two languages (1977: 7).

Unfortunately, though everyone sees this, scholars have not been careful in observing this point. All too frequently, divisions of the book which seem


Apparent Indicators of Textual Discontinuity in Daniel 151

to be based on one of the indicators of internal discontinuity frequently shift to another, without notice being taken of the lack of coincidence of the changes. This can be seen even in the remarks of Collins, cited above. He speaks very casually of chapters 1-6 containing "... tales ...which are told in the third person ..." and chapters 7-12 containing "... visions ... in the first person" (ibid.). As can be seen in the table above, chapters 1-6 contain some apocalyptic, chapters 7-12 contain some narrative, and two verses in chapters 7-12 are in the third person. Collins is aware of this, of course, but at times he, like many of the scholars who study this book, finds it convenient to ignore the hard facts of the problem. This chapter will attempt to observe and respect these details of the extant text.

Genre variety in the book of Daniel. The first indicator which is commonly cited to support the proposal of multiple authorship is the variety of genre within the book. Clearly, Daniel does not consist of a single literary genre, though this paper will show that the genre classification of these chapters is not nearly as simple as some have suggested. Genre variety is a matter of primary significance in the view of Andre Lacocque, who says,

A first distinction must be drawn between chapters 1-6, on the one hand, and 7-12, on the other. The former are edifying stories, parenetic and apologetic homilies, in short, agadoth. The latter chapters are eschatological visions or apocalypses also presented with an exhortative goal in mind (1979: 8) . '

In addition, Lacocque (1979: 3) subsequently cites approvingly the work of Yehezkel Kaufmann (1956), and remarks, "The change in atmosphere between Daniel A and Daniel B is too pronounced to be ignored" (1979: 9). Despite this assertion of genre variety as the first criterion for distinguishing the component parts of the book of Daniel, Lacocque has already admitted,

Its twelve chapters—in its present form—are divided into two major parts: the first six are midrashim and the last five are "apocalypses," while chapter seven serves as a transition between these two genres and participates in both of them (1979: 1).

Two things must be said about this. First, the statement that chapter 7 acts as a transition between the two parts mitigates against the separation of two parts. It is tautological to say that to the degree to which chapter 7 joins the two parts it also fails to distinguish them. Second, the statement that chapter 7 participates in both genres is not quite true. Chapter 7 does act as a transition between the former part of the book of Daniel and the latter part, but the seventh chapter does not share the anecdotal narrative genre of the first six chapters. Rather, it shares the language of most of the first part. In the end, however, Lacocque concedes the essential redactional unity of the book of Daniel: "... the redactor and veritable author of the book of Daniel availed



himself of the tales belonging to a popular cycle about Daniel" (1979: 10). Like the preceding comments by Lacocque, most recent studies which

assume the early date of chapters 1-6 also tend to assert the redactional unity of the book, that is, that the material of these chapters had to be substantially re-edited in order to conform to the material of the later chapters of the book. John Collins, for example, says,

Two points, however, are widely agreed upon: The first six chapters of the book contain material which is older than the later chapters, and this material has been re-edited in Maccabean times to attain a redactional unity with the apocalyptic visions of chapters 7-12 (1975: 218).

Collins also names other indicators of the over-all unity of the book, such as the schema of the four kingdoms, which is used in chapter 2 and in chapter 7, and the pattern of veiled revelation decoded by a wise interpreter, which occurs in chapters 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (1975: 230).

Delcor also recognizes genre variety as the criterion for dividing the book:

Le livre de Daniel, conserve en hebreu et en arameen, se compose de deux parties nettement distinct. La premiere (1 a 6) comprend des recits dont Daniel est le heros et la deuxieme (7 a 12) concerne les visions dont Daniel est lui-meme le beneficiaire (1971: 9).

Delcor accepts as a majority opinion the assumption that the Aramaic parts of the book predate the Hebrew parts (1971: 10), except for chapter 1, which he believes was translated from an Aramaic original because of the increasing importance of Hebrew as a "sacred language" during the Hellenistic era, and chapter 7, which was written in Aramaic in order to create continuity between the first part of the book and the second.

Mais it faut observer d'abord que litterairement le chapitre 7 se rattache a la seconde partie, l'emplois de l'arameen qant pour seul but de rattacher la deuxieme partie a la premiere partie (1971: 12).

It should be noted that, like Delcor, most commentators and scholars are unable to keep the question of language out of the question of genre variety, even though the changes of language do not coincide with the changes of genre.

Objections to the use of genre variety for the division of Daniel. There are several objections to the use of genre variety for dividing the book. First, this criterion is applied inconsistently. This is almost inevitable, since the genres in this book are not neatly divided. When we say that most of the first six chapters are narrative, we admit that some part of this section is not narrative. In fact, chapter 2:14-45 is an apocalypse, even though it conforms only partially to the apocalyptic pattern in chapters 7 and 8.



Furthermore, even if multiple authorship were assumed, there are several arguments against the view that chapters 1-6 existed in anything like their present form prior to chapters 7-12. Certainly the existence of a proto-canonical book of Daniel consisting of a fixed set of court-tales must be regarded as doubtful (contrary to Collins 1984: 31).

In the first place, the book seems to lack a raison d'etre if the apocalypses are excluded. Secondly, it is impossible to excise all apocalyptic material without also mutilating the court-tales. Thirdly, we know that the accretion of court-tales to the book of Daniel continued even after the book reached its canonical form, since the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel contains three extra narratives (two court-tales and a folk tale), and two additions to another. With regard to these tales, Collins says,

There is little doubt that these passages were added after the Hebrew-Aramaic book had been completed. ... They ... illustrate the diachronic factor in the composition of Daniel and the impossibility of isolating the canonical text from the study of tradition (1975: 28).

Discoveries at Qumran have disclosed two other court-tales involving Daniel which did not even make it into the Septuagint version of the Daniel corpus. The existence of such apocryphal stories would lead us to believe that, if any interval exists between the writing of the apocalypses and the collection and redaction of the court-tales, the former preceded the latter. The placement of the apocryphal court-tales in the Septuagint in a separate location at the end of the book reinforces the indication that the formal collection of the court-tales followed the writing of the apocalypses. Of course, this does not disprove the view that the narratives were written first, but it does show that this view is less secure than is sometimes indicated. This is a matter of some significance: when we say that, as a criterion for dividing the book, genre variety cannot be used consistently, and that it is inconclusive in determining even the relative dating of the various genr6 elements of the book, we imply that this criterion is untrustworthy in determining the sources of the book, and that identification of sources, if they exist, must be made on some other grounds.

A further note on genre variety in Daniel. The book of Daniel presents us with two significantly different forms of apocalypse. This is a fact which has received insufficient notice from commentators. The apocalypses of chapters 7 and 8 are characterized by a visionary experience in which the subject sees a non-real and presumably symbolic vision, which is subsequently explained, in whole or in part, by an angelic guide. This apocalyptic form is reproduced partially in the vision of chapter 9 and the dream of chapter 2. In chapter 9, Daniel sees no symbolic vision, but is confronted directly by the angelic interpreter. The omission of the vision is not very significant, as the



angel begins by asserting that he has come to make Daniel understand the vision, implying that a the sequence relates in some way to a prior vision (Dan 9:22).

Again, in chapter 2, there is a heavenly vision (or dream), but no angelic interpreter, however, Daniel praises God for having "... made known to us the dream of the king ..." (Dan 2:23). Implicit in this is that Daniel has received the interpretation from celestial sources, though an angelic guide is never mentioned. In view of this, Di Lella does not hesitate to say, "Apocalyptic is the literary genre of 2:13-45 ..." (1978: 62).

In chapters 10 through 12, however, the presentation is different. The angelic guide is present, but there is no symbolic vision. The king of a nation in the north is called "the king of the north" (e.g. Dan 11:16). His enemy, the leader of a nation in the south, is called "the king of the south" (e.g. Dan 11:5). While this may not be as explicit as calling these kings by name, it is still radically different from the form of revelation which takes place in chapters 7 and 8. Ginsberg notes this fact by calling the angelic guide of chapters 10-12 as the angelus revelator, and by insisting that the term angelus interprens, though properly used in chapters 7 and 8, would be inappropriate here (1948: 31).

Chapters 10-12 deserve the title of apocalypse, but it is a different sort of apocalypse than those we find earlier in the book. Consistency in the use of genre-variety for the identification of the sources of the book of Daniel implies that we might identify a separate source for the vision of chapters 10-12, inasmuch as there are significant differences in its form. In fact, few commentators have actually done this.

Bilingualism in the book of Daniel. A second criterion commonly used for the division of the book of Daniel is the change of language. Unlike any other book in the Old Testament, Daniel is written partly in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew.' Lacocque acknowledges that this bilingualism is "... one of the more difficult problems encountered by anyone who studies the book of Daniel ..." (1979: 13). With regard to this question, Lacocque concurs with Ginsberg (1948) in suggesting that the book was originally written in Aramaic and subsequently translated partially into Hebrew. The parts selected for translation were those in which Israel moves into the foreground of the book, while the parts which emphasize the role of the nations were left untranslated. 3 Gammie, in contrast, posits three stages in the growth of the book of Daniel (1976: 195). It should be noted immediately that some of the points at which Gammie divides the book are indicated only by changes of language (1976: 191-204).

There is no unanimity among scholars with regard to the bilingualism of the book of Daniel, but Towner is probably correct when he says, "To account for the bilingual character of the book ..., a definitive explanation is yet to be given. Most widely accepted is H. L. Ginsberg's view" (1984: 5).



Of course, there are some who have tried to patch up the gap between the change of genres in 7:1 and the change of languages in 8:1. Heaton, who has argued for a division of the book mainly along the lines of language in Daniel 7:1, speaks two ways on this issue. At one point he remarks,

The part of the critical problem which scholars have found most teasing is the Fack of coincidence between the division of the book suggested by language and that suggested by form (1956: 48).

Two pages later, Heaton reverses this by saying,

It may be noted in passing that this division of the book is not really in conflict with the division of the book suggested by form. The alleged distinction between the form of chs. 1-6 (`stones') and chs. 7-12 visions') breaks down on closer examination. The dream of ch. 2 has almost as much claim to be classed as a vision as the dream-vision of ch. 7 (with which, incidentally, it is inextricably connected), and a greater claim to be so regarded than the 'visions' of chs. 8-12 (1956: 50).

Heaton makes no further comment on this issue, and it is difficult to say why he thinks that the fact that the presence of some apocalyptic in chapters 1-6 removes the distinction between the genres. The force of his argument seems to be merely that there are only two changes of language, and several of genre, and that genre variety is therefore a more confusing rule to follow than change of language. Certainly his remark that the division of the book by language is "not in conflict" with the division of the book by genre is unsupportable in view of the total lack of coincidence between the changes of genre and those of language.

Regarding the reasons for the bilingualism of the book, Heaton follows Ginsberg's suggestions, but frankly says, "It must, however, be admitted that these suggestions fall far short of carrying complete conviction and can stand only faute de mieux." (1956: 52, 53).

Objections to the use of bilingualism for the division of Daniel. There are really only three possible explanations for bilingualism in the book of Daniel. The book might have been written entirely in one language (Hebrew or Aramaic) and then partially translated into the other. Alternatively, the book might have been written originally in two languages, as we have it today. Finally, the book might have been written entirely in one language, and entirely translated into the second language, following which the original may have been partially lost, and subsequently resupplied from the translation.

In any case, there is some explaining to be done. In the first case, we must explain why anyone who had translated part of the book would stop before he was done. In addition, if a second century date of composition is assumed, we must also assume that the translation was done almost immediately after the composition of the book, in order to account for the bilingual nature of the



book evidenced by the fragments from Qumran. These fragments, brief as they are, show the changes of language at precisely the same points as the Masoretic text. The date of these fragments is somewhat uncertain, but they are believed to be quite early, probably no later than 100 BC (Collins 1977: 7, 8).

In the second case, we must either explain why an author would write a book in two languages, or why anyone would attempt somewhat artfully to combine two documents written in different languages. Of course, we cannot hope to determine conclusively the veritable motive for such a procedure, but unless a plausible motive can be suggested, this suggestion should be regarded as doubtful.

The third suggestion is also problematic. In the first place, it requires the conjectural loss of every copy of part of the original version. In the second place, this loss must have taken place after the conjectural translation of the book into the second language. Furthermore, the loss of part of the original must have occurred after the form of the book was so well established as to prevent anyone from retranslating to the original language the part which had been lost from the original version. Finally, we must also conjecture that after the original book was partially replaced by the translation, every copy of the rest of the translation was lost.

In brief, every proposal for explaining the bilingualism of the book requires the multiplication of hypotheses. We may well concur with Eissfeldt, who says, "An explanation of the double language which is entirely satisfactory has not yet been proposed by anyone" (1965: 528).

Even if we could offer a good explanation of the bilingualism of the book, we still face some problems in dating the various parts. While the text gives us some clues to its age, these are insufficient to date the sections with accuracy.

From a conservative point of view, K. A. Kitchen argued that the Aramaic of the book of Daniel is practically undatable (1965). Rowley (1966: 112-116), who had already pronounced himself on the Aramaic of the book of Daniel (which he considered to be quite late,`and which he gave as one of his reasons for accepting the integrity of the book as a second century production), responded vigorously to Kitchen's article, but Joyce Baldwin, after reviewing the discussion, concluded,

If roper allowance is made for this modernization [of spelling], the Aramaic of Daniel could have been written at any time between the late sixth and second centuries B.C. (1978: 34).

More recently, the linguistic evidence for the Aramaic part of the book was reviewed by G. Hasel, who concludes that the language used is Official Aramaic, and could have been written as early as the sixth century BC, and



that there is no way of ascertaining the date of the Aramaic part of the book on linguistic grounds (1981: 211-225).

The language of the Hebrew portions of the book is, if anything, more difficult to date with precision than that of the Aramaic portion. Accordingly, the bilingualism of the book of Daniel remains an enigma for biblical scholarship. An answer to the problem of bilingualism may seem like the coward's escape, but it is a conclusion with far-reaching consequences. To say that we have not sufficient information at present to explain the bilingualism of the book of Daniel, or to date the languages used in it, really means nothing less than that we cannot make any source criticism of the text on the basis of the two languages used. Therefore, any documentary theory which depends on the change of language to distinguish sources must be shelved as unproven, and probably unprovable.

Personal reference in the book of Daniel. The problem of personal reference may be dealt with briefly. It has seldom been used to identify source documents in the book of Daniel, although changes of the person of pronouns and verbs used in reference to the titular character occur several times in the book. At some points Daniel is spoken of in the third person, as "he," while at other points he is the narrator, and says, "I, Daniel."

If one assumes the traditional view that the book of Daniel was written by a real person of this name who lived in Babylon and Persian in the sixth century BC, then the change of pronouns may be significant. The genuine Daniel may have written the first-person sections (most of chapters 7-12), to which some later writer appended the third-person sections by way of a biographical and historical note. If, however, pseudonymity and a second century date are assumed, then the name "Daniel" and the pronouns which are used to refer to him are merely literary conventions. As such, they are of little or no significance in identifying the authors and sources of the book.

Conclusion and Recommendations We may conclude, then, that the three internal indicators of discontinuity,

genre variety, bilingualism, and change of personal reference, are of little value in identifying source documents in the book of Daniel, especially since even these weak and inconclusive criteria do not coincide. Despite this lack of evidence from the overt literary indicators, we nevertheless find very confident statements about the date of composition of various parts of the book. A few examples will be sufficient in this regard: "We can at least situate the second part of the book of Daniel (chapters 7-12), therefore, with a very comfortable certainty, in 164 BCE" (Lacocque 1979: 8).

Many other scholars express themselves with comparable assurance on this topic. How are they able to do so? The answer is simple, and it has almost nothing to do with the literary evidence. Simply put, these judgements are based on the historical information implied in the various parts of the book.



Commentators notice that some portions of the book seem to disclose knowledge of a later era of history than is reflected in other portions. It is assumed that all parts of the book were written after the events described therein, even though, for literary purposes, the descriptions of historical events are presented as predictions. It is this philosophical and theological view of history and predictive prophecy which underlies the identification of source documents in the book of Daniel.

Heaton provides a clear example. He maintains that the whole book was produced in a five-year period between the plundering of the temple by Antiochus IV in 169 BC and the rededication of the temple (an event unknown to the author of Daniel) in 164 (1956: 51). He divides the book at the end of chapter 7, but defends this division, not on the basis of the change of language, but on the differences of historical standpoint (chapters 8-12 show a knowledge of the desecration of the temple, chapters 1-7 do not) and theology (chapters 2-7 share the common view of Jewish theology that events occur according to divine purpose, whereas chapters 8-12 are fatalistic, and concentrate on the fate of the temple rather than on the purpose of God; 1956: 49). The former of these distinctions is clearer than the latter, and is undoubtedly the more influential, and even the latter "theological" distinction is in fact related to history: the question of the fate of the temple became a matter of compelling interest in certain historical eras (the destructions by Nebuchadnezzar and Titus and the profanation by Antiochus IV), and it is one of these moments which Heaton chooses as the date of separation between Daniel 1-7 and Daniel 8-12.

Collins tries to escape the theological presupposition which must underlie the source criticism of the book of Daniel by stating that,

One can grant the a priori possibility of predictive prophecy without conceding that we find it in Daniel. In each case we must decide what kind of story we .are dealing with: historical account or edificatory legend, bona fide prediction or vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact). These are literary and form-critical questions. They carry theological implications, but they cannot be decided on theological grounds (1975: 29).

A few pages later, however, Collins says,

... the evidence of genre creates a great balance of probability in favor of the critical viewpoint. If the historical predictions of Enoch are recognized as ex eventu, the burden of proof must fall on those who wish to argue that Daniel is different from the other examples of this genre (1975: 34).

Collins intends by this to show that his views regarding the supposed predictions of Daniel are not gratuitous assumptions. They are conclusions based on the study of other texts which resemble Daniel in form, but in saying this, he also makes it clear that his view of predictive prophecy in Daniel does



not derive from the book itself, but rather from similar literature, that is, from other documents of the same genre. These views are then imported to the study of Daniel. They are not gratuitous assumptions, but with regard to the book of Daniel they are assumptions nevertheless, and by no means deductive conclusions. It is clear that Collins' dating of source documents in Daniel is based on their historical information. For example, with regard to the apocalypses of Daniel 8-12, he says,

By .contrast with the elusiveness of the tales, we have exceptionally clear indications of the historical provenance of the revelations. Porphyry noted in antiquity that the predictions of Daniel 11 are correct down to (but not including) the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, but thereafter incorrect or unfulfilled. Analogy with other historical apocalypsessupports the conclusion that these "prophecies" were actually written during the time of persecution but before the king's death s or at least before his death was reported in Jerusalem. The date of composition must thus be set between the profanation of temple in 167 and the end of 164 B.C. (1975: 36).

It can only be repeated that source documents in the book of Daniel are distinguished by the source critics solely on the basis of historical references and the assumption that the supposed predictions are actually vaticinia ex eventu. It would be well if all scholars who deal with this book would accept this fact frankly, and recognize that inasmuch as the internal indicators in the text give us very little help to distinguish sources, critical judgements regarding these sources must be based on historical facts and not on literary evidence. Accordingly, it would be better for them to abandon recourse to the evidence of the literary indicators of textual discontinuity when attempting to defend source-critical conclusions which are in fact based on the historical information contained in the book of Daniel.

Notes

It is interesting to note, in passing, Lacocque's implicit eschatological definition of "apocalypse."

The book of Ezra quotes Persian documents in Aramaic without, however, incorporating any significant amount of Aramaic into the Hebrew narrative text.

. 3. According to. Ginsberg, the motive for translating the first and last parts of the book was to obtain canonical status for Daniel. This suggestion is simplistic and naive and presumes an attitude toward canonicity which is probably anachronistic.

References

Baldwin, J. 1978 Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity.



Collins, J. J. 1975 The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic. The Journal

ofBiblical Literature 94: 218.

1977 The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book ofDaniel. Missoula, MT: Scholars.

1984 Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Di Lella, A. 1978 Introduction. In The Book ofDaniel by L. F. Hartmand and A. Di Lella. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday.

Delcor, M. 1971 Le Libre de Daniel. Paris: Librarie Le Coffre.

Eissfeldt, 0. 1965 The Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Harper.

Gammie, J. G. 1976 The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of

Daniel. The Journal ofBiblical Literature 95: 195.

Ginsberg, H. L. 1948 Studies in Daniel. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

1949 In Re My Studies in Daniel. The Journal ofBiblical Literature 48: 402-407.

1954 The Composition of the Book of Daniel. Vetus Testamentum 4: 246-275.

Hasel, G. 1981

Heaton, E. W. 1956 Daniel. London: SCM.

Kauffmann, Y. 1956 History of Israel 's Faith. Tel Aviv: Hotsa'at "Mosad Byalik".

Kitchen, K. A. 1965 The Aramaic of Daniel. Notes on Sonic Problems in the Book ofDaniel, ed. D.

J. Wiseman et al. London: Tyndale.

Lacocque, A. 1979 The Book of Daniel. Trans. David Pellauer. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

Rowley, H. H. 1949 Review of Studies in Daniel by H. L. Ginsberg. The Journal of Biblical

Literature 48: 173-177.

1950 A Rejoinder. The Journal ofBiblical Literature 49: 201-203.

The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language: Evidences Relating to Names, Words and the Aramaic Language. Andrews University Seminary Studies 19: 211-225.



1952 The Unity of the Book of Daniel. The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on The Old Testament. London: Lutterworth.

1966 Review of Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, rev. ed., by D. J. Wiseman, et al. The Journal ofSemitic Studies 11: 112-116.

Towner, W. S. 1984 Daniel. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.


13 Free Will and Conditionality in Daniel

Dalton D. Baldwin Emeritus Professor of Christian Theology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA.

It is widely held that the book of Daniel was written from a deterministic world view. According to this view, the events of history are God determined. The characterization of this world view as deterministic is in conflict with some of the same scholars' descriptions of the purpose of the book as encouragement for the community to choose to remain faithful under duress. If people were determined, they could not freely choose whether or not to be faithful.

My thesis is that Daniel was written from a world view which is not deterministic and in which divine action in reference to human beings is conditioned on their free choices.

Theological Interpretation This study emphasizes the theological aspects of biblical interpretation.

That Daniel was written from a deterministic world view is not explicitly stated in the text. It is an inference from some features of the text put together with what I regard as a faulty assumption. The book does state that God (2:21; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21) and transcendent beings (10:13, 20) act in the rise and fall of kings. The book also includes detailed predictions of the course of history in which this divine action occurs. If one assumes that a world view that includes detailed divine predictions requires determinism, the deterministic conclusion follows.

I assume that if a person is able to choose either to act faithfully or not to act faithfully, the choice is not determined. My thesis that Daniel is written from a world view that includes divine action conditioned on the free choices of human beings is an inference from many instances in Daniel where divine action is understood as divine response to human free choice.



Canonical Approach This study uses a "canonical" approach in the sense that the book will be

dealt with as a whole as it now stands in the canonical text. There will be no attempt to identify and date various strands of material in the text in order to differentiate early and late positions. The English translation provided in this chapter is the New Revised Standard Version.

Definition of Terms The terms "free choice" and "free will" are not used by Daniel or other

Bible writers. Apparently these conceptions were not present in their thinking vocabulary, however, reproofs of sin and appeals to choose rightly (e.g. Josh 24:15; Dan 4:27; 11:32-35) were made in a way that show that either a right or a wrong choice could be made in the same causal situation. Whether the choice is right or wrong is not determined by causes operating in or on the chooser. A free choice is choice determined by the agent without having been caused to do so by any internal or external cause.

In a deterministic world view, in a theistic context, what happens in history is determined by God; and what God does and when He does it are not conditioned on what has happened previously such as on what people have chosen to do. When in my thesis I say that the world view from which Daniel is written is not deterministic, I mean that free choices by human beings occur. God does not determine human choice. When I say that divine action is conditioned on free choice, I mean that God acts differently in relation to a free choice to be faithful than He does to a choice to be unfaithful.

A world view is composed of understandings at the highest level of generalization about the enduring structure of the universe held by a community. Since these understandings are transmitted to the members of the community through unconscious social interaction, the members of the community often are not explicitly conscious that they have them. The marginally conscious character of a world view increases the possibility of the inclusion of contradictory elements. The conflict between determinism and freely chosen faithfulness, therefore, does not mean that they are not both parts of the world view from which Daniel is written, however, this conflict should alert us to reexamine the data to learn whether unconditional God determinism accurately describes the world view.

As background for the study, it may be helpful to cite a small sample of references to these conflicting world view factors.

Unconditional Determinism Collins (1993: 55) notes that the "division of history into set periods" in

Daniel is usually traced to Persian influence and conveyed a "sense of determinism by claiming that history was measured out and under control." Among the differences between Daniel and post-exilic prophecy is (1993: 60)


Free Will and Conditionality in Daniel 165

a "new world view" involving "determinism, the belief that the course of history has been set in advance." Determinism by transcendent powers is a key feature. "The very fact that the situation is beyond human control is, in the end, reassuring, for it is in the hands of God, the holy ones, and the angelic prince Michael" (1993: 61). Collins describes the world view from which Daniel is written as unconditional divine determinism.

Johnsson contrasts apocalyptic with general prophecy, in which conditionality is present as in Jer 18:7-10. In apocalyptic literature we "find no hint of conditionality—indeed, the very nature of the prophecy, detailed as it is and linked through many generations, speaks strongly against conditionality as a factor in interpretation" (1986: 280).

Gerhard von Rad holds that in apocalyptic literature the conception of the "divine rule in history" was "basically different from that of the prophets" (1965: 274). In apocalyptic literature the "epochs of world history are predetermined from the beginning" (1965: 273). History is "completely under the control of God" in a "strict predetermination" (1965: 273). Von Rad is not sure whether this view of unconditional God determinism is an advance or a "fatal distortion of Yahwistic faith" (1965: 274).

Appeal for Freely Chosen Faithfulness Collins notices an indirect appeal for faithfulness in the stories in the first

section of Daniel which "insist on the importance of fidelity. ... It is because of (not despite) their fidelity to their own God that the Jews succeed" (1993: 51). Here divinely given success is conditioned on freely chosen fidelity. He suggests that the "function" of the apocalypse is to "make the multitude understand. It has clear ethical implications, exemplified in the actions of the wise" (1943: 403). The final judgment affirms this wise conduct and "shows that their decision to risk their lives was justified in the light of their final glory" (ibid.). Here again divine action is conditioned on freely chosen faithfulness.

Di Lelia describes the threefold thrust of Daniel as (1) reminding Jews of their superior religious heritage, (2) encouraging them to "remain loyal to that heritage," and (3) showing how God "comes to the rescue and delivers" those who are faithful (1978: 53). It was the purpose of the book "to console, strengthen, and exhort the Jews ... to remain faithful" (1978: 71).

These authors describe the purpose of the book as an appeal for freely chosen faithfulness. The divine action conditioned on that faithfulness is a central feature of the world view from which the book is written and is in conflict with the claimed determinism. We turn now to an examination of the content of Daniel which supports the thesis of this study.

Gift of Wisdom Conditioned on Free Commitment In the first story in the book, God acted to give wisdom to Daniel and his



three companions conditioned on their faithful commitment. "But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the royal rations of food and wine" (1:8).'

The author of the story would probably have been confused if he had been asked if the choice were free or determined. Such formulations were apparently not present in his thinking, however, the author would have agreed that Daniel could have chosen either to be faithful or not without having been caused to do so by anything from the causal past. This would mean that his choice was not determined. It was a free choice.

The account connects diet commitment with learning outcomes. "God gave knowledge and skill in every aspect of literature and wisdom" (1:17). This divine gift was conditioned on the free commitment. The young men had been selected to be "taught the literature and language of the Chaldeans" (1:4). Undoubtedly the Hebrews chose to study diligently. The account understood their learning outcomes to be the gift of God. God was acting in their actions and this divine action was conditioned on their choices.

Revelation Conditioned on Prayer When Daniel learned that the king had decreed death to the wise men

because they could not reveal his dream and the interpretation, Daniel and his three companions sought "mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery." God responded. "Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night" (2:1, 19). In his prayer of thanksgiving, Daniel said, "You ... have now revealed to me what we asked of you" (2:23). The divine revealing action was conditioned on their prayer.

Daniel also praised God because "He changes times and seasons, deposes kings and sets up kings" 2:21). The Danielic idea that God sets up and puts down kings should not be used to suggest that apocalyptic literature is deterministic in contrast with classical prophecy. Jeremiah, a classical prophet, had presented the word of the Lord about the rule of His created world saying, "I give it to whomever I please" (Jer 27:5). According to Jeremiah, God had given power to Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his grandson "until the time of his own land comes" when other nations would make him their slave (Jer 27:5-7). He detailed the time for putting down the Babylonian kingdom at the end of the 70 year period (Jer 25:11-14; 29:10). Jeremiah had spoken of the change in "times" which Daniel referred to as the transition from the head of gold to the breast and arms of silver (2:32, 38). Since Jeremiah explicitly explained that such predictions were conditional (Jer 18:7-10), they could not be part of a deterministic world view.

Deliverance from Fire Conditioned on Free Commitment When in "furious rage" (3:13) Nebuchadnezzar demanded that the three

Hebrew youths worship his image, they expressed their commitment. "We will



not serve your gods" (3:18). The point of the story is that they could have chosen otherwise. Many others in similar situations had freely chosen not to be faithful. Nebuchadnezzar said that their God had "sent his angel and delivered his servants who trusted in him" (3:28). God did not deliver Nebuchadnezzar's soldiers from death when they threw the three young men into the furnace. God's action delivering the Hebrews was conditioned on their free choice to be faithful.

Loss of Kingship Conditioned on Pride In chapter 4, God took Nebuchadnezzar's kingship from him because of

his pride. In describing his dream of the tree, Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that the decree to cut down the tree. was given by the watchers "in order that all who live may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals; he gives it to whom he will" (4:17). Daniel's prediction reinforced the purpose of the divine action by twice repeating that the king would be deposed until he humbly recognized God's sovereignty (4:25, 26). Daniel then counseled the king to express his repentance for the sin of pride in acts of righteousness "so that your prosperity may be prolonged" (4:27). Daniel's appeal shows that he believed that the king could freely choose either to be humble or proud. The prediction of impending loss of kingship was made in order to encourage the king to change his commitment as in the story of Jonah (Jonah 3:5-10). The king chose not to change, but to be proud. While the arrogant words of pride denying God's sovereignty were still in his mouth, the decree was carried out. The king's final words focused on the reason for God's action. "His ways are justice; and he is able to bring low those who walk in pride" (4:37). God's action withdrawing kingship was conditioned on the kings freely chosen pride.

Gold to Silver Conditioned on Choosing Hubris Daniel reminded Belshazzar that God withdrew kingship from

Nebuchadnezzar because of his pride (Dan 5:20, 21). Daniel then reproved the king for not humbling his heart even though he "knew all this" (5:22). The implication of Daniel's words is that Belshazzar could have chosen to be humble. His choices were "weighed on the scales" of judgment (5:27). Because of his idolatry, sacrilege and pride, his kingdom was "given to the Modes and Persians" (5:28). This transition from the golden Babylonian rule to the silver kingdom was not unconditionally determined. According to the account, Belshazzar lost the Babylonian kingdom because he freely chose idolatry, sacrilege, and pride.

Deliverance from Lions Conditioned on Faithfulness In Daniel 6, Daniel is thrown in a pit with lions because he was faithful to

God. When at break of day the Persian king hurried to the lions den and



anxiously asked if God had delivered Daniel, he answered, yes, "because I was found blameless before him" (6:22). The story takes pains to show that Daniel could have stopped praying to his God. Instead, he chose to be faithful. The lions that did not eat the faithful Daniel consumed his accusers before they reached the bottom of the den. The story makes the divine act delivering Daniel conditioned on his choosing to be faithful.

Judgment Conditioned on Freely Chosen Behavior The "little" horn rebelled against God (7:8; 8:9-11). It spoke arrogant

words "against the most high" (7:8, 25). Against the "prince of the host it acted arrogantly" (8:11). It "made war with the holy ones and was prevailing over them" (7:21). It wore "out the holy ones of the Most High" (7:25). These words and actions of the "little horn" were freely chosen rebellion and not God determined as the "determinism" view of apocalyptic would require. The symbol of the "books" used in the judgment represents a record of the acts of the people who were judged (7:10). The judging evaluation was conditioned on the record of human free choices.

The divine judging action took away the dominion (7:26; 8:25) and "put to death" (7:11) the beastly horn power. It simultaneously rectified the faithful ones, giving dominion to "the people of the holy ones of the Most High" (7:27, cf 22, 18; 12:1).

The divine judging action was not carried out immediately at the point of the rebellion of the beastly power. The rebellion was permitted to continue for a "time, two times, and half a time" (7:25; 12:7). During that period, some of the faithful ones suffered and died (11:33). The amount of time appears not to have been arbitrarily and therefore unconditionally set.

One of the conditions for ending the oppressive rule of rebellion seems to have been reaching the "full measure" of transgressions (8:23; cf 9:24). Waiting until the "iniquity of the Amorites" was "complete" would furnish a precedent for a delay in judging the little horn action until its evilness was complete (Gen 15:16).

Another condition for the amount of time the righteous wait for vindication may be that a persecution time may be an occasion for some to be "refined, purified, and cleansed" (11:35). Some time is needed for them to make up their minds whether or not to be genuinely faithful. In the apocalyptic book of Revelation when the question was asked how long the righteous "who had been slaughtered" would have to wait for judging vindication, the answer was that they would "rest a little longer, until the number" of the faithful "would be complete" (Rev 6:11). The angels assigned to destroy beastly powers were also ordered to wait in order to provide more time for marking "the servants of our God with a seal on their foreheads" (Rev 7:1-3). Those who freely received the mark of the beast would be destroyed (Rev 14:9). Those who freely received the seal of God would be saved. They needed more



time in order to make their choices. In 2 Esdras when the righteous dead asked how long they had to wait for vindication, the archangel Jeremiel answered, "When the number of those like yourselves is completed" (2 Esd 4:36). In these explanations the point at which divine judging action destroys beastly powers and vindicates the faithful is conditioned on the free choices of both those who "finish the transgression" and those who decide to be faithful (Dan 9:24).

Captivity and Restoration Conditioned on Free Choice In his lament and prayer in chapter 9, Daniel understood that Israel's

captivity resulted "because we have sinned against you" (9:11). Levitical legislation held out hope for captives in the "land of their enemies." If they "confessed their iniquity" and repented, God would remember his covenant (Lev 16:40-42). Daniel confessed, "We did not entreat the favor of the Lord our God, turning from our iniquities" (9:13). He had read in the "books" that Jeremiah had indicated the number of years Jerusalem would be devastated (9:2). He must have recognized the conditionality of this prediction, perhaps from Jer 18:7-10, and therefore prayed, "0 Lord, 0 Lord forgive; 0 Lord, listen and act and do not delay!" (9:19). In this prayer both the captivity and the restoration were conditioned on human free choice.

Vision Conditioned on Humble Prayer After Daniel had been praying for three weeks, the heavenly messenger

said, "I have come because of your words," which were heard "from the first day" (10:12). Collins (1993: 374) implies that, since the divine revelatory initiative occurred on the first day, the events predicted were part of predetermined, unconditional divine action which Collins also sees in Dan 9:23 (1993: 352-360). He nevertheless, refers to the revelation as a "response" (1993: 374). As a response it is conditioned on that to which it responds.

The reason for mentioning the "first day" was to explain why Daniel did not receive the response quickly (10:12). The remaining twenty days were spent in opposing the prince of the kingdom of Persia (10:13). Collins regards the prince of Persia as a "patron angel" of Persia (1993: 374). He sees the conflict between Michael, the patron angel of Judah, and the princes or patron angels of Persia and Greece as the apparatus of the divine determinism. Such a conclusion would mean that in apocalyptic literature the affairs of men and nations are not determined by the choices and actions of men, but by the outcome of the actions of transcendent powers.

Shea has assembled a mass of chronological and historical data in support of Calvin's view that the expression "prince of Persia" refers to Cambyses (1983: 225-250). If the prince of Persia is an earthly ruler able to resist divine influence for twenty days, there is no unconditional divine determinism.



Even if the prince of Persia were a transcendent power, his ability to oppose divine influence is evidence for his freedom and Michael's opposition would be conditioned on those free opposing choices. If the actions of the prince of Persia were unconditionally determined by God, it would not take three weeks to bring about a change. Therefore, the need to spend three weeks opposing the prince of Persia is additional evidence against a world view of unconditional divine determinism.

Appeal for Daniel's Courage Implies Freedom The appeal to be "strong and courageous" in time of distress (10:19)

suggests that Daniel was free to be either fearful or courageous. There would be no need to appeal for courage and faithfulness if everyone were God determined. The whole sweep of prediction in chapters 10-12 is part of an appeal for people to choose to be faithful. The condition for resurrection is faithfulness (12:2).

The final words of the book of Daniel predict that God will raise Daniel at the end of the days (12:13). This promise was an appeal for him to continue to freely choose to be faithful. It was not an indication that God had unconditionally determined his faithfulness. The overarching purpose of prophetic prediction is to encourage faithfulness, to encourage those who are faithful to remain faithful and those who are not faithful to become faithful. This purpose of prediction is particularly evident in Jeremiah's prediction of the 70 year captivity (Jer 25:11, 12; 29:10) and in the story of Jonah's prediction to the people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:5-10). The appeals for Daniel to be courageous and for the wise to be faithful (11:35) indicate that the book of Daniel is written from a world view which includes free choice and divine action conditioned on those choices.

Appeal to Change Free Commitment A change in commitment is evidence in support of a world view which

includes free choice. "He shall seduce with intrigue those who violate the covenant; but the people who are loyal to their God shall stand firm and take action" (11:32). The tyrant power tried and succeeded in getting some freely to give up their faithfulness. Others firmly continued to be faithful.

The wise were not only faithful, but also gave "understanding" to others (11:33). Decisions to be faithful are made about truth. The wise present a true understanding of the issues and invite commitment. One might conclude from the book of Daniel (e.g. the deliverance from the fiery furnace, Daniel 3; and the deliverance from the lion's den, Daniel 6) that no harm comes to the faithful. On the other hand, Daniel 11 suggests that, while the wise are faithful, some of them "fall by sword and flame" (11:33).

Some appeared to be faithful when they were not. When the presentation of a true understanding began to be successful and many responded, some put



on external signs of commitment, but joined "them insincerely" (Dan 11:34). In this situation the falling of "some of the wise" was an occasion for some to "be refined, purified, and cleansed" (11:34, 35). The change of commitment when some were seduced to be unfaithful and others chose to receive purification indicates that the account is written from a world view where divine action is conditioned on free choice.

Resurrection Conditioned on Faithfulness When Michael rises, he will deliver all of Daniel's faithful people who are

"found d written in the book" (Dan 12:1). Many of those who are dead will be raised "to everlasting life" (Dan 12:1). These wise ones who have been faithful under the oppression of beastly powers shall be radiant with life "for ever and ever" (Dan 12:3). The divine action giving everlasting life is conditioned on their freely chosen faithfulness recorded in the book.

Giving everlasting life to those recorded in the book is reminiscent of the judgment described in Daniel 7. There, both the unfaithful and the faithful were judged. After the judgment using the books, "the beast was put to death" (7:11) and "everlasting dominion" (7:14) was given to "the people of the holy ones of the Most High." (7:27, cf. 7:22) The destruction was conditioned on freely chosen rebellion. Everlasting dominion was conditioned on freely chosen faithfulness. If the behavior of beastly powers and all those acting in the course of history were unconditionally God determined, there would be no purpose for a judgment evaluating their behavior recorded in books.

Collins (1993: 391) suggests that the book mentioned in Dan 12:1 is the "book of eternal life" of Revelation. The dead were judged "according to their works, as recorded in the books" (Rev 20:12), and only those listed in the book of life were spared from the second death (Rev 20:15). Collins cites, among others, two passages where the names in the book of life were written there "from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8; 17:8). He says that those written in the book of life were "destined" for eternal life, which to Collins suggests predetermination. On the other hand, God appeals to the members of the Church at Sardis to "conquer" by faith so that "I will not blot your name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). This suggests that status in the book of life can be changed on the basis of free choice. Since this judgment is conditioned on their free choices; long range, detailed prediction does not indicate determinism, but manifests a world view in which God foreknows free decisions.

The next to the last verse in Daniel contains another appeal for freely chosen faithfulness. "Blessed are those who persevere and attain the thousand three hundred thirty-five days" (12:12). Collins (1993: 401) recognizes in this verse one of the four (Dan 8:17; 11:27, 35; 12:12) allusions in Daniel to Habakkuk. If God's vindicating justice is delayed beyond our expectations, "wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay" (Hab 2:3). Collins further



notes that the Qumran Pesher on Habakkuk applies this passage to the "men of truth ... when the last end time is drawn out for them" (1QpHab 7:9-12). Perseverance in freely chosen faithfulness is required when God's vindication of the faithful does not occur promptly after the expected "time, two times and a half time" (12:7).

Conclusion Daniel is not written from a deterministic world view. The condemnation

of the rebellious choices of beastly powers, the many appeals to free right choice and the frequent description of God's action as conditioned on human free choices indicate that the book is written from a world view that includes free choice and conditionality.

Notes

1. All Scriptural references are to the book of Daniel unless otherwise noted.

References

Collins, J. J. 1993 Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Di Lella, A. A. 1978 Introduction. In The Book of Daniel, eds. L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella.

Anchor Bible, vol. 23, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Johnsson, W. G. 1986 Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy with Particular Reference to Apocalyptic.

Pp. 259-287 in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, vol. 3, ed. F. B. Holbrook. in Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute.

Shea, W. H. 1983 Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study of Daniel 10. Andrews University

Seminary Studies 21: 225-250.

von Rad, G. 1965 The Message of the Prophets. New York: Harper & Row.


14 Why Was Darius the Mede

Expunged from History?'

S. Douglas Waterhouse Professor of Religion (retired), Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

The name "Darius the Mede," well known to the readers of the book of Daniel, has not yet been found in any extra-biblical inscription of pre-Christian times. Not only do both Greek and Babylonian sources not mention a Median king named "Darius," but they leave no room for his existence! By official Babylonian-Persian reckoning, the reign of Cyrus in Babylon began immediately after the city's fall. The cuneiform tablets confirm the fact that regnal year 1 of Cyrus, king of Persia, began at New Year's Day in the spring of 538 BC, after his capture of Babylon in October, 539 BC. The book of Daniel, on the other hand, states that one known as Darius the Mede "received" the Chaldean kingdom of Belshazzar (Dan 5:30, 31). Seemingly the only way he could have enjoyed a first regnal year (mentioned in Dan 9:1), would have been to have ruled concurrently with Cyrus. Given his non-existence in contemporary official records, the temptation is either to dismiss Daniel's Darius or to assign his status as a minor figure of non-importance; perhaps a sub-ruler, a mere "shadow king," who ruled only by the courtesy or policy of the ruling suzerian known to history as "Cyrus the Great."

Before reaching such a conclusion, however, it is prudent to assess the historical memory of the Israelites, which was not limited to the book of Daniel. In very sharp contrast to the classical and cuneiform sources which speak of the Persians as the conquerors of Babylon, the Old Testament writers speak of the Medes as the primary movers who caused the overthrow of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The Old Testament testimony is explicit:

See, I am stirring up the Medes against ... Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms ... the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them' (Isa 13:17, 19).



Go up, 0 Elam, lay siege, 0 Media; all the sighing she (Babylon) has caused I (God) bring to an end (Isa 21:2).

The LORD has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because his rn purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it ... Prepare the nations for war

against her, the kings of the Medes, with their governors and deputies, and every land under their dominion (Jer 51:11, 28).

That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps, stationed throughout the whole kingdom (Dan 5:30; 6:1).

The phrase "... the law of the Medes and the Persians" (Dan 6:8, 12, 15) implies a formal coalition in which the Medes are listed in the prominent first position. Compare the significant reversal in order in the same phrase in Esth 1:19: "the laws of the Persians and the Medes." The implication of the above quotes from both Daniel 5 and 6 is that Cyrus is subordinate to Darius.

In the eighth chapter of Daniel, the political union of the Medes and Persians is put in a different way. There the angel Gabriel explains the meaning of the ram with two horns which Daniel saw in vision: "As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia" (Dan 8:20). In other words, both Medes and Persians were a coalition, sharing power at the time of Babylon's fall, but Dan 8:3 goes on to state that one horn later became higher: "... a ram ... had two horns; both were tall, but one taller than the other, and the one that rose the higher was the second" (The Jerusalem Bible translation). The Persians, the second of the listed powers in coalition (Dan 8:20), triumphed and succeeded over the Medes, an event which did not take place until later, when the reign of Darius came to an end and Cyrus then came to rule over "all the kingdoms of the earth" (Ezra 1:2; 2 Chr 36:20).

Intertestamental Jewish writers do not deviate from this Scriptural scenario. In the apocryphal 1 Esdras, Cyrus is found in command of Babylonia while his overlord, Darius the Mede is in his palace in far away Media. The passage in question (1 Esd 3:1-3; 4:42-44, 57, 61) speaks of both Darius and Cyrus as having made joint plans for the attack on Babylon, both making vows to return to Jerusalem the sacred vessels which had been carried away from the Jewish temple by the Chaldeans (cf. Torrey 1946: 10). 3 In like manner, Josephus, the famed Jewish historian, in his Antiquities of the Jews, speaks of Babylon as having been taken by Darius with the help of his kinsman Cyrus (Book X,11.4).

In summary, the Jewish sources remember the Medes as playing a major role as conquerors of Babylon, a position which is in stark contrast to standard historical textbooks which know nothing of a Median invasion of Babylonia, or that there was a Median domination of that area. The Old Testament, of


Why Was Darius the Mede Expunged from History? 175

course, knew that the conquest of Babylon was not the work of the Medes alone, and that a Persian king named Cyrus deserved a significant share of credit for the city's fall (Isa 41:25; 44:27-45:1), but as C.C. Torrey has put it: "In Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Cyrus is never thought of as the conqueror of Babylonia, and in first Esdras ... Cyrus is plainly subordinate to Darius" (Torrey 1946: 7).

When the book of Daniel labels Darius as "king," the term is found in the context of overlord and not as vassal. Any attempt to solve the conflicting sources by suggesting that Darius the Mede was a governor, or a vice-regent ruling only over a limited "realm of the Chaldeans," is to ignore the Biblical understanding that the Median empire existed between the Babylonian and Persian empires both in the interpretation of the dream of Dan 2:31-45 and the vision in 7:3-7, 15-18—that it was a Median king named Darius who was the supreme suzerain who incorporated Chaldea/Babylonia into his vast Medo-Persian empire in the year 539 BC (Dan 5:31), previous to the establishment of a Persian empire.

The explanation of why Darius the Mede, who made such an imprint in Hebrew literature, fails even in having a small place in secular history, is found in a series of events which occurred during the shifts in political power during the Achaemenid dynasty in ancient Persia. Hostile animosity against Cyrus on the part of the Persian royal house is the underlying cause for the retelling and distortions to be found in ancient historical sources concerning Cyrus and the end of the Median kingdom. It began in 559 BC, when Cyrus not only ascended the throne of the city-state of Anshan (part of the Fars region of Maliyan), but also when he extended his hegemony over the remainder of Persia (the modern province of Fars). This extension of power was done at the expense of the then ruling Persian monarch Arsames, who was deposed from his throne, but allowed to retain his life and liberty. Arsames, who understandably lost no love on Cyrus, was still alive 61 years later when his grandson Darius I restored his family's fortunes by seizing the Persian throne in 522 BC (Kent 1946: 210-211; Cameron 1955: 90). Arsames was present to remind his grandson that unlike the intrusive interloper Cyrus, who was half Median (Herodotus I. 107), the line of Arsames was of pure Persian descent—the possessor of Persia's royal prerogatives. Cyrus was to be blamed for preventing both the legitimate king Arsames and his son Hystaspes from occupying their rightful inherited positions as the true rulers of Persia.

In 518 BC, Darius I erected his famous Behistun relief and inscription (in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian) as a victory monument on an imposing cliff overlooking the royal road from Persia to Mesopotamia. He is at pains to stress his legitimate Persian descent: "I am ... a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage" (Cameron 1955: 88). The old order of confusion and injustice was now proclaimed to have been replaced by a new order of equity and truth. The king had restored the royal line of Achaemenes to its



rightful place. While Cyrus is named in the inscription, nothing is said of his reign, and of Cyrus' son, Cambyses, only that little is told which implies his unfitness to rule. The purpose of erecting the Behistun inscription with its accompanying relief was to disseminate state propaganda—propaganda which aimed at discrediting the "Median dynasty" (the house of Cyrus and his son Cambyses), while at the same time proclaiming the reigning monarch's right of succession (Cameron 1955: 89; Levit-Tawil 1983: 76, n. 21).

State propaganda directed against Cyrus became even more blatant as a result of events that occurred during the years 404 to 401 BC. In 405 BC, Darius II, the great-grandson of Darius I, died, leaving his throne to his son Artaxerxes II, who had to contend with the enmity of his brother Cyrus "the Younger." In an attempt to take the crown away from Artaxerxes, Cyrus led ten thousand Greek mercenaries into the heart of the Persian Empire. At a battle in the plains of Cunaxa, in 401 BC, the Greeks were on the verge of winning, when their leader, Cyrus, having pressed himself forward into the center of the conflict, was killed by one of the king's bodyguards (Xenophon Anabasis I. 8).

In the eyes of the Persian victor Artaxerxes, this was yet another attack against the royal house of Persia by "Cyrus"! The very name Cyrus meant treason and rebellion. Had not Cyrus the Younger attempted to usurp the throne in the same treasonous manner as Cyrus had done one hundred and fifty-eight years earlier?

Feeling that there was a need to discredit the name Cyrus, especially as it pertained to the Elder Cyrus, Artaxerxes used two methods to vilify and distort the origins of Cyrus. The first method consisted of erecting a series of monuments, with attached inscribed gold tablets, at the old Median palace in Ecbatana, the royal capital most connected with the Elder Cyrus. Two extant examples survive, inscriptions purportedly written by Arsames and his father Ariaramnes. These, however, were forgeries made to glorify the sovereignty of Artaxerxes' ancestral line whom he felt had been eclipsed from their true honor by the usurpation of the Persian throne by Cyrus the Great; an event which a Cyrus redivivus had tried to emulate (Kent 1946: 211; Cameron 1955: 96). That the tablets represent a form of political propaganda is made evident by the fact that they ostensibly were written at a time when the Medes and Persians were illiterate and unable to write. For it was only after the conquest of Babylon in 539 BC that the unlettered Cyrus the Great used Babylonian scribes to commemorate his victory (in Akkadian). Although the Old Persian syllabary did not come into use until late in the reign of Cyrus, nevertheless Darius I boasted that he was the inventor, stating that the Aryan (Persian) system of writing "formerly (had) not been both on clay tablets and on parchment" (paragraph 70 of the Behistun text: Cameron 1955: 88; Hallock 1970: 54, 55).

The second method used by Artaxerxes to bring discredit upon Cyrus was



the commissioning of the King's own personal physician, a Greek named Ctesias who had witnessed the battle of Cunaxa (Xenophon Anabasis 1.8), to write a history of Persia. Although Ctesias' work, entitled Persika, survives only in quoted fragments, his story of Cyrus (an uncritical mixture of invention and credulity) has been preserved by Nicolaus of Damascus (Kent 1946: 211, 212: Drews 1974: 391). Cyrus is said not to have come from a privileged royal line (in contradiction to Herodotus 1.111; Xenophon Cyropaedia I. 2.1), but rather was the son of an ignominious pauper who supported himself by highway robbery. Cyrus' mother allegedly was a humble goat-herdess. While still a child, Cyrus was adopted out of pity by the superintendent of the royal estate of Astyages, the suzerain of the Medo-Persian empire. The young man's first assignment was to work with a crew of gardeners, but later Cyrus was promoted to serve in the palace as a cupbearer to the king (Drews 1974: 389-392). Eventually Cyrus staged a coup d'etat, elevating himself to kingship and exiling the deposed Astyages to the position'of a sub-governor in the far-off borders of Hyrcania (Mason 1880: 389). As presented by Ctesias, the rise of Cyrus, as master of the Persian Empire, permanently ended the Median royal house who thereafter have no role to play during the later life of Cyrus.

Since the disparaging of the reputation of Cyrus already had begun during the days of Arsames and his grandson Darius I, it comes as no surprise that the famous Greek historian Herodotus, writing within a century after the time of Cyrus (and some 30 years previous to Ctesias' Persika), heard unfavorable reports about both Cyrus and his son Cambyses. Collecting what the Persians passed on to him, Herodotus describes Cambyses as an epileptic lunatic (111.33); a description which modern historians rightly discount. Concerning the rise of Cyrus to prominence, Herodotus heard four different tales (1.95). Unfortunately, the account which Herodotus did choose to pass on to posterity,

all the way from the circumstances surrounding his birth to his conquest of the Medes reads like a fairy tale rather than a history, a tale with resemblances to the familiar story of Romulus and Remus and many others (1.107-130) (Brown 1973: 37).

The story, as recorded by Herodotus, tells of a dream of king Astyages which forewarned the Median monarch that if his soon to be born grandson (the future Cyrus) was allowed to live, the child would overshadow him and become master of Asia. Alarmed, and wanting to prove the dream wrong, Astyages, as soon as the birth took place, gave the infant over to an attendant with orders to kill the child. The baby, however, was not killed, but instead was taken by a herdsman who reared the child as his own son. With his attainment to manhood, Cyrus became influential enough to call together the Persians and lead them in a revolt against the Median supremacy. The result was the defeat of Astyages, who was taken prisoner, but allowed to live.



Henceforth the Medes were forced to accept Cyrus as their king; the supremacy had passed from the Medes to that of the Persians.

Both Herodotus and Ctesias, in their accounts of how Cyrus rose to power over the Medes and the Persians, share a number of points in common, namely that Cyrus was abandoned by parents, raised as a lowly commoner, and then became king.

The fabrication of Ctesias, however, notably progresses this demeaning presentation so that Cyrus is supposedly from inferior stock, the offspring of a bandit-father. As a number of scholars have observed, the sequence-pattern of an unwanted child who becomes a renowned ruler, suspiciously bears the same imprint as the Greek legend of Oedipus and the story of the rise of Sargon of Agade in the 23rd century BC (Drews 1974: 387-389; Jones 1967: 87, 88; Yamauchi 1990: 80).

While Herodotus and Ctesias are in agreement that Astyages was the last and final king of an independent Media, both accounts are intertwined with an obviously fictitious biography of Cyrus. Should not then Xenophon's account, another Greek historian, be considered? An Athenian of the upper class, Xenophon also has left an account of this very time, found within his work called Cyropaedia, or "Education of Cyrus." Xenophon's writings are of pertinence in the discussion for he is in agreement with the Danielic assertion that there was a Median supremacy over Persia up to the time of the taking of Babylon in 539 BC.

Before the 20th century AD, Xenophon's Cyropaedia was considered by many to contain the true history of Cyrus. "And ... I think him to have been an historian of much better credit in this matter than Herodotus" (Prideaux 1848: 130). Those remarks were first penned by Humphrey Prideaux in 1716. Since that time, Xenophon's account of Cyrus has been looked upon with increasing scepticism. Among the reasons why modern historians generally discount Xenophon is because: (1) he asserts that there reigned an additional Median monarch, Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, an assertion otherwise unknown in history; (2) there is no known conquest of Egypt, ascribed to Cyrus by Xenophon (I.1.4); and (3) Xenophon is the only historian who speaks of a peaceful passing of Cyrus (VIII.7.28). In defense of Xenophon, it may be pointed out that (1) Cyaxares II could well turn out to be an historical figure who otherwise is known as Darius the Mede; (2) Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, went immediately to an Egyptian war, following the passing of his father; a war, which Xenophon states was started by Cyrus (VIII.6.20); (3) if Cyrus was killed in a battle against the Massagetae, as reported by Herodotus (1.214), why did Cambyses, upon his succession to Cyrus, not go forth with an army to avenge his father's death? Incidentally, the tomb of Cyrus is located at Pasargadae, some thousand miles from the place where he supposedly was slain. Herodotus also gives a disclaimer, reporting that "many stories are related of Cyrus' death ..." (1.214). The final words of Cyrus, as reported by



PERSIA ANSHAN MEDIA

Achaemenes

Teispes Cyaxares I (634-594 BC) I I

i Ariaramnes Cyrus I Astyages (594-559 BC)

I I I I I r f

Arsames Cambyses l — (marriage) — Mandane Cyaxares H (559-537 BC) I I

Hystaspes Cyrus II (559-530 BC) I I

Cambyses II (530-522 BC) I False Bardiya (522 BC)

Darius I (522-486 BC)

Xerxes 1(486-465 BC)

Artaxerxes 1 (465-423 BC)

Darius II (423-405 BC)

Artaxerxes II (404-359 BC) — (brother) — Cyrus the Younger

Table 14.1. The genealogy of the founding Achaemenids and the Median royal house (with chronological revisions suggested in the accompanying text).

Xenophon, have marked parallels with Darius' inscription at Naqsh-i Rustam (Sancisi-Weerdenberg 1985: 459-471).

The background of Xenophon is significant. Serving under the direction of Cyrus the Younger at the Battle of Cunaxa (Brown 1973: 77), he became an admirer of the Younger Cyrus and antagonistic to Artaxerxes II. The fact that he read Ctesias' Persika and "yet gives no hint of this story in his idealized life of the Elder Cyrus" is indicative that "he was seeking to counteract the propagandistic history of Ctesias" (Kent 1946: 212).

Even as Artaxerxes II sought to discredit the name Cyrus by disparaging the origins of Cyrus the Elder, so in like manner, Xenophon in his Cyropaedia, sought to enhance the memory of Cyrus by endowing virtue, courage, and wisdom to his biography of Cyrus the Great. Xenophon, like Herodotus, reports that Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages (I.2.1), but says that when Astyages died he was succeeded on the Median throne by his son Cyaxares II (1.5.2; see table 14.1). Among the several pretenders to the throne mentioned in the great Behistun inscription of Darius I (518 BC), were two who claimed the right to be legitimate rulers over Media because they were of the royal seed



of Cyaxares (Yamauchi 1990; 51, 146, 147). Median independence and glory seemed to have been associated with invoking the name "Cyaxares."

Cyrus, the nephew of the newly installed monarch, had in his youth been brought up in his grandfather's court (I.3.1), and thus was well-known to the Medes. So when the newly coronated King Cyaxares II learned that his realm was threatened by a potential Assyrian invasion, the Median monarch called upon his talented and trusted nephew Cyrus to take charge of all military defenses (1.5.4, 5). When Cyrus later was to invade Babylonia, Xenophon speaks of him as the commanding general of the combined armies of the Medes and Persians, at the forefront of affairs, while Cyaxares, his Median overlord, remains obscurely in the distant background at home. With the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, Cyrus assumed for himself the power and royal prerogatives of an independent sovereign at Babylon (VII.5.37; 57). Nevertheless, Cyrus selected a palace in Babylon for his nominal suzerain, Cyaxares, to be an "official headquarters, so that he (Cyaxares) might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there" (VIII.5.17). Upon the triumphant return of Cyrus to Media, Cyaxares officially acknowledged the elevation of Cyrus to the position of co-ruler over the newly won empire. A golden crown was placed on Cyrus' head. To this coronation ceremony, Cyaxares added these words: "... my own daughter I offer you as well, Cyrus, to be your wife. ... And with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue" (VIII.5.18-19).

Thus, according to Xenophon, upon the death of his uncle, Cyrus fell heir to Cyaxares' throne, apparently becoming sole ruler over the empire for an additional seven years (VIII.7.1; cf. Prideaux 1848: vo1.1: 142).

Interestingly, there was a Jewish response to Xenophon's interpretation of history. Josephus, writing toward the end of the first century of the present era, was among those who believed that Darius the Mede was none other than the Cyaxares II of Xenophon. This is made transparent by his identification of Darius as "the son of Astyages," who was a "kinsman" of Cyrus, and who was known by "another name among the Greeks" (Antiquities X.11.4). Since it is Xenophon's "Cyaxares" who is the son of Astyages and an uncle to Cyrus (Cyropaedia 1.5.2), this must be the name, according to Josephus, by which Darius the Mede was known among the Greeks.

Josephus was not the only Jew of antiquity to associate the name Cyaxares with that of Darius the Mede. Apparently the apocryphal book of Tobit equated Ahasuerus, the royal ancestor of Darius the Mede (Dan 9:1), 4 with Cyaxares I, the illustrious grandfather of Cyaxares II. The equation is based on the fact that while the capture and destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC is reported by Herodotus as having been accomplished by Cyaxares I, king of the Modes (1.106), the very same momentous event in Tobit 14:15 is said to have been the result of the conquest of "Ahasuerus." The Tobit passage taken alongside Josephus's comments, indicate that Jewish writers associated



Xenophon's statements on Cyaxares II as a confirmation of what the book of Daniel had to say about Darius the Mede. It may even be that the Hebrew form of Ahasuerus, Achashwerosh (vAnwinx, pronounced Achashthera in the LXX Cod. A), might possibly be a rendering of Huvachshatara, the old Persian spelling of Cyaxares I, which might account for the use of the title "Ahasuerus" as a designation for Cyaxares I (see especially Torrey 1946: 7, 8). Ahasuerus is the Hebrew rendering of Xerxes I of Persia, when the latter came to the knowledge of the Jews. R. N. Frye makes the point that "Xerxes (=Ahasuerus) is not a name, but an ancient Iranian royal title (Frye 1966: 122).

The Jews of the Greco-Roman world were not the only ones who held Xenophon in high regard. Cicero, the outstanding figure of Roman literature, believed that Xenophon was to be placed among the World's classics, but while all the ancients numbered Xenophon among the great Greek historians (Shotwell 1950: 114, 115), modern critical scholarship is of a different opinion. Xenophon's Cyropaedia, generally thought of today as a historical romance, is discounted by 20th century historians because of the perception that Xenophon perpetrated violence to historical facts. It is now a dogma among modern scholars that Media was subdued by the treachery and force of Cyrus during the lifetime of Astyages. The main stay for the almost unanimous rejection of Xenophon's view that Cyrus did not overthrow Astyages is that the contemporary cuneiform testimony from the Babylonians (the Nabonidus Chronicle, Oppenheim 1955: 305; the Sippar Cylinder, Fish 1961b: 89, 90) and from Cyrus himself (the Cyrus Cylinder, Fish 1961a: 92-94; Oppenheim 1955: 315, 316) seemingly give credence to Herodotus' account (1.127-130) and the later classical writers (Strabo XV.3.8: Ctesias, cited in Diodorus Siculus 11.34.6, 7).

Two major difficulties, however, are to be found in the cuneiform record. The first major obstacle is that the people whom Cyrus overcame, supposedly the Males, are invariably identified, whether it be the Nabonidus Chronicle, the Sippar Cylinder or the Cyrus Cylinder, not as Medes, but as the "Umman-Manda!" Many scholars believe that the Umman-Manda are not the Medes, but rather constitute a reference to the Scythians! The Umman-Manda, possibly meaning the "many (barbarian) hords" (Frye .1966: 93), previously had been among the participants in the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, and later in the capture of Harran in 610 BC (Babylonian Chronicle: Oppenheim 1955: 304, 305). It remains quite probable that these Manda-tribes in 612 BC and 610 BC were the Scythians who arrived as allies of the Medes and Babylonians against the Assyrians and the Egyptians (Herodotus 1.104-106) at the time of the final decline of the Assyrian empire (Avi-Yonah 1962: 125; Malamat 1950: 219, 220). If the Umman-Manda are identified as Scythians in 612/610 BC, should they not still be so identified some 57 years later in the time of Cyrus? Unfortunately, a "considerable controversy has raged over



whether this word refers to the Scythians or whether it simply is another designation for the Medes" (Yamauchi 1990: 55) 5 .

The Scythians were a prominent people. Back in the days of Cyaxares I, they had conquered Media, and had overcome all "Upper Asia" (Herodotus I. 104; IV.I). The tribes of Central Asia, namely, the Hyrcanians, Parthians, and Bactrians, long continued to be linked in a dependent relationship to the Scythians. Possibly this perceived Scythian suzerainty over the region may have been the reason why the Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar (Fish 1961a: 90) characterized "Cyrus, king of Anshan," as a "youthful servant," that is, a client-vassal, to Ishtumegu, king of the Umman-Manda. 6

The second difficulty, in accepting the classical understanding that Media lost her independence during the days of Astyages, is a more serious one and has to do with the question of chronology. The Babylonian texts which tell of Cyrus' victory over the Umman-Manda, place that event either in 554/3 or 553/2 BC (Drews 1969: 2, 3). If the Umman-Manda are the Medes and Ishtumegu is the cuneiform equivalent of Astyages, their last king, how then is it that some seven or eight years later the "king of the Medes" not only is still in existence, but is considered by Nabonidus a significant power to be reckoned with; ranking in equal standing alongside the great rulers of that day: the king of Egypt and the king of the land of the Arabs (Oppenheim 1969: 562)? This apparent anomaly has elicited the comment that the "text of Nabonidus from Harran which refers to the 'King of the Medes' in 546 B.C. reopens the whole question of the historicity of this Median ..." (Wiseman 1961: 83).

The chronological difficulties do not end here. The classical sources say that Cyrus reigned for about thirty years (Herodotus. I. 214; Cicero, De Divinatione I. 46). Since Cyrus died in 530 BC (Parker and Dubberstein 1956: 14), the implication is that Astyages lost his throne 30 years previously, in 559 BC. 8 This is a problem which may be dismissed by pointing out that the memory of Cyrus' regnal years included those years when Cyrus began to rule as a vassal king of Anshan, before he overthrew Astyages. Yet it remains significant that there is no ancient tradition that would begin the counting of Cyrus' reign from 554 or 553 BC. Curiously, there is no mention in the Greek world that Cyrus had been suzerain for some 24 years.' Nor does Cyrus ever give recognition to a victory over Astyages by calling himself "king of Media."

The cuneiform record of Cyrus' titularies is meaningful. By 547 BC, the famed monarch is listed no longer as simply "king of Anshan," but as "king of Parsu" (Nabonidus Chronicle; Oppenheim 1955: 306). His conquest and victory over the Umrnan-Manda seemed to have earned Cyrus the international recognition that he was the king of Persia. With the fall of Babylon, the economic contract tablets within that city lists Cyrus' accession year and most of his first year of rule (539-537 BC) as carrying the limited title "king of Lands." It is only after his first 14 months in Babylon that Cyrus became



known by the additional prestigious title: "king of Babylon" (Shea 1982: 235- 237). When he commemorated his victory over Babylon in the so-called "Cyrus Cylinder," the monarch became expansive on his titles:

I am Cyrus, king of the world,. great king legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the tour rims (of the earth), ... king of Anshan ... I entered Babylon as a friend and I established the seat of the govertunent in the palace of the ruler under jubilation ... (Oppenheim 1955: 316).

One can't help but notice that the record of these titularies dovetails strikingly with Xenophon's report that while Cyrus assumed royal prerogatives of sovereignty over Babylon in 539 BC, nevertheless, he was not officially acknowledged as king of Babylon until he later returned to Media and there received the crown in a coronation ceremony under the auspices of Cyaxares II (Cyropaedia VII.5.37.57; VIII.5. 18, 19).

Placing the information already gathered into perspective, the following picture emerges in understanding the historical framework of Daniel 9 and 10. Cyrus had been king of Persia before his capture of Babylon, but his position was that of being in the service of the Medes (even though he was the one who remained in charge of both the Median and Persian armies). With the conquest of the famed Babylonian citadel, however, Cyrus's prestige became immeasurably increased. He had now become master of the mother-city of ancient Semitic civilization. Victory had won him the position of co-regent of the Medo-Persian empire. This momentous event had elevated both Darius the Mede (Xenophon's Cyaxares II) and Cyrus from being mere provincial rulers over illiterate rural tribes to that of occupiers of new thrones in urban, ostentatious Babylon. Not surprisingly, the first year of control over the great city became a "first year" for Darius the Mede (Dan 9:1) and also a "first year" for Cyrus (as the Babylonian cuneiform text testify).

Since a first regnal year was traditionally an inaugural occasion, frequently highlighted by the king granting amnesty and release of prisoners (cf 1 Kgs 25:27-29), Daniel, during the first year of Darius the Mede (538/7 BC), made supplication to his God, praying earnestly that his fellow Jews would be released from Babylonian exile (Dan 9:1-3). With the recent fall of Babylon and the establishment of new rulership, Daniel is portrayed as being hopeful that the 70 years mentioned by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11, 12; 29:10), during which the Jews were to serve the Babylonians, would be nearing an end (Dan 9:2).

The transitional shift of recording the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan 9:1) to that of the third year of Cyrus (Dan 10:1), indicates that the Median suzerain had died sometime during his second regnal year (537/6 BC). Again, the correlation with Cyaxares II is striking. For he too passed off the scene of action some two years after the fall of Babylon, that is, seven years before the demise of Cyrus (Cyropaedia VIII.6.22).


Regnal years of Cyrus Spring in cuneiform records -to-

Spring Regnal years of Darius regnal the Mede (Dan 9:1; 11:1) years

I acc. I 1 2

3

acc. I 1 I 2 ! ace. I 1 Cyrus

[Fall of Babylon] [Death of Darius]


The First and Third Years of Cyrus

January-to-January years: BC dates I 539 I 538 537 I 536

Table 14.2. A comparison of calendar dates, the regnal years of Cyrus, and those of Darius.

If the start of the 70-year captivity, mentioned by Jeremiah, began in 606/5 BC (autumn-to-autumn), when Daniel and other Hebrews are said to have been taken to Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (Dan 1:1-4), then the end of the 70th year would be 536/5 BC This turns out to be the same year that Cyrus ascended the throne as sole ruler. The regnal power had now shifted from the Medes to the Persians:1° This is why 2 Chronicles states that the Jews remained in Babylonian exile "until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia ... to fulfill seventy years. In the first year of Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, ... ' (2 Chr 36:20-22).

Josephus's statement is clear: "In the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon" (Antiquities XI.I.I)." If Josephus is to be taken seriously, the establishment of the kingdom of Persia was defined when Cyrus took up the reigns of government as the sole sovereign, thus beginning a new phase in his tumultuous career.

The issuing of a decree of justice and freedom traditionally was associated early in the reign of a new king and was tied to the concept of giving birth to a new era (Sweet 1986: 581, 582, 600; Lewy 1958: 29, n. 76). Hence, when Cyrus issued his decree permitting the Jewish exiles the freedom to return to their homes in Judea (Ezra 1:1-4; Isa 45:13), the decree would be spoken of as his "first year," rather than what would be to the ancients a meaningless "third year.' See table 14.2 regarding the regnal years of Cyrus and Darius the Mede.

The crisis in Daniel 9, found in Daniel's beseechment for an early end to the predicted 70-years of Jewish captivity, was not then resolved. The crisis thus lingered, to become even more troublesome with the arrival of



the third year of Cyrus (Dan 10:1), for Daniel 10 dates to 536/5 BC, the very final 70th year. This is why Daniel, perceiving that his fellow Jews still remained in exile, began a three week period of mourning and fasting (Dan 10:2, 3), and this is why the angel Gabriel, speaking during the third year of Cyrus, makes reference to the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan 11:1); for that was when, in Daniel's mind, the crisis began to trouble his spirit. This time, however, the crisis is to be resolved (Dan 10:13, 14). Cyrus was to issue his famous decree, allowing the Jews to return and rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem.

The realization that the third year of Cyrus could also have been his "first year," in inaugurating a new era of justice and freedom, is here suggested as a key which might unlock the mystery of the nature of the crisis of Daniel 10 and a true understanding of the 70-year period, which constituted a focal point of Daniel's interest (Dan 9:2), but this can only be made possible if the true position of Darius the Mede is properly under-stood. That is why it is imperative to come to grips with this enigmatic figure known as Darius the Mede.' 3

Notes

It gives me much pleasure to have a part in a volume dedicated to William H. Shea, with whom I have enjoyed a long friendship and collegial association. I have continually appreciated his original insights, his contagious enthusiasm, his prodigious pen, and his commitment, which has been so beneficial, to the field of biblical studies.

All biblical citations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.

Modern commentators tend to identify the Darius in the "Story of the Three Bodyguards" (1 Esd 3:1-4:63) as Darius I Hystaspes (522-485 BC). The present author, however, is impressed with the analyses of Charles C. Torrey. Not only does the Darius of this apocryphal passage rule over Media and Persia (3:1), with Media listed in the significant first position, but Darius reigns in an eastern capital, while Cyrus is in command of Babylonia. This is shown by the fact that the youth who is the hero of the episode leaves the court of Darius to journey to Babylon (4:61). "One of his missions is to see that the purpose of Cyrus regarding the vessels of the temple of Jerusalem, a purpose well known to Darius, is carried out" (4:43, 44, 57; Torrey 1946: 10).

The assertion that Darius the Mede was the "son of Ahasuerus" (Dan 9:1), probably is to be understood in the broader sense that he was a "descendant" of Ahasuerus. The term "son" was used by Semitic speakers to mean a descendant of the first degree, or also a more remote offspring. Christ, for example, was the "son of David," and David was the "son of Abraham" (Matt 1:1).

For a discussion on the identity of the Umman-Manda, see especially D.J. Wiseman 1956: 15, 16 with full bibliography. Among those who identify the Umman-Manda with the Scythians are M. Avi-Yonah, C.J. Gadd, E. Dhorme, J. Lewy, and A. Malamat. That Cyrus fought against the Scythians and subdued Scythia is documented in the Behistun inscription. Darius I lists Scythia as already under Achaemenid rule before the erection of his famous cliff inscription in 518 BC (Yamauchi 1990: 84).



The critical part of the Sippar Cylinder from Han: an reads: "Marduk said to me (Nabonidus), 'The Umman-manda of whom thou speakest, he, his land, and the kings who go at his side, will not exist for much longer. At the beginning of the third year (of Nabonidus's reign), Cyrus, king of Anshan, his youthful servant, will come forth. With his few forces he will rout the numerous forces of the Umman-manda. He will capture Ishtumegu, the king of the Umman-manda, and will take him prisoner to his country' ..." (Fish 1961a: 90).

The text in question speaks of those kings who would welcome the proposed return of Nabonidus from self-imposed exile in Tema back to his homeland in Babylonia: "... and the king of Egypt, the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings, were sending me messages of reconciliation and friendship." Outside the cuneiform literature there are tantalizing hints of a historical Darius the Mede. The first coin mentioned in the Bible is the gold "Daric" (LXX: dareikos) which was used in connection with Cyrus (Ezra 2:69). Since the name "Daric" presumably is derived from "Darius," it is noteworthy that Harpocration, the author of a Greek dictionary (dating possibly to around AD 354), reports that the author of this coin was not Darius I Hystaspes, as some have imagined, but an ancienter Darius! (Smith 1845: 338; Prideaux 1848, vol. 2: 142). According to Herodotus, the defenses of Babylon were built to protect the great citadel from "the rulers of Media," who were "powerful and unresting ..." (1.185).

If Astyages died in 559 BC, his 35 year reign (Herodotus 1.130) would have begun in 594 BC, rather than 585 BC. The solar eclipse of May 28, 585 BC, that supposedly occurred during the reign of Cyaxares I (Herodotus 1.74), turns out not to be usable for dating purposes (Neugebauer 1962: 142, 143).

Herodotus actually gives Cyrus 29 years of rule (1.2124), while Sulpicius Severus in his Historia Sacra 11.9, gives 31 years. Berosses, the Babylonian priest, recorded that "Cyrus ruled over Babylon nine years" (from 539 to 530 BC, as is known from cuneiform texts); evidently the same 9 years for Cyrus listed by the so-called Ptolemaic Canon (Burnstein 1978: 29, 38). Cicero reports that Cyrus was 40 years old when he became king (559 BC), and "lived to his seventieth year" (530 BC); De Divinatione 1.46. If this holds true, then Cyrus was 61 years of age at the time when Babylon fell. If Darius the Mede is to be identified as Cyaxares II, the uncle of Cyrus, then there would be only a year difference between them, for Darius was 62 in 539 BC (Dan 5:31). This could very well have been the case; the author of this chapter has a nephew who is a year older than he!

The time of the transference of the Median empire to the Persians should thus be dated to 536 BC. This may have been the very time when the cities of Media refused to submit to Cyrus, who only reduced them to obedience after a long and obstinate resistance. Xenophon places this Median revolt against Cyrus as taking place "at the time when the Medes lost their empire to the Persians ..." (Anabasis 111.4).

The Cyrus Cylinder Inscription confirms Cyrus' benevolence. The Persian monarch allowed captives in Babylon to return to their former habitations, so that they could rebuild their ruined temples. He also ordered that "all gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought to Babylon," be returned to their former chapels (Oppenheim 1955: 316). Anciently, a 70 year period was considered "an appropriate period of punishment" (Isa 23:215; Borger 1959: 74). The decree of Cyrus setting the Jewish exiles free (Isa 45:13) is recorded no fewer than three times in Scripture (2 Chr 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-5).

An example from antiquity of a king, who more than once started a new count of his regnal years, is the case of Pharaoh Mentuhotep. It was only in comparatively recent times that Egyptologists began to recognize that Mentuhotep I, II, and III, was not three rulers, but a single monarch who ruled for 51 years. Three separate royal titularies, previously attributed to three distinct Pharaohs all bearing the name Mentuhotep, turned out to belong to one sovereign, each titulary reflecting a different stage in his career (Gardiner 1961: 120).


Avi-Yonah, M. 1962 Scythopolis. Isr .ael Exploration Journal 12: 123-134.

Borger, R. 1959 An Additional Remark on P. R. Ackroyd, JNES, XVII, 23-27. Journal of the

Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 74.


13. In this endnote I would like to express my enduring appreciation to my former history teacher, Prof. Wilfred J. Airey (retired from La Sierra University), who was the first to inspire my interest in the vexing problem of the non-existence of Darius the Mede in modem secular history.

References

Brown, T. S. 1973

The Greek Historians. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Burstein, S. M. 1978 The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient Near East 1/5.

Malibu: Undena Publication.

Cameron, G. G. 1955 Ancient Persia. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. C.

Dental. New Haven: Yale University.

Drews, R. 1969 The Fall of Astyages and Herodotus' Chronology of the Eastern Kingdoms.

Historia 18: 1-11.

1974 Sargon, Cyrus and Mesopotamian Folk History. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33: 387-393.

Falconer, W. A. (trans.) 1946 Cicero De Deviniatione. Loeb Classical Library, ed. T. E. Page. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University.

Fish, T. 1961a The Cyrus Cylinder. Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton

Thomas. New York: Harper.

1961b Texts Relating to Nabonidus. Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas. New York: Harper.

Frye, R. N. 1966

Gardiner, A. 1961

The Heritage of Persia. Mentor Book. New York, NY: The New American Librart.

Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: Clarendon.

Godley, A. D. (trans.) 1946 Herodotus. Loeb Classical Library. 4 Vols, ed. T. E. Page. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University.



Hallock, R. T. 1970 The Old Persian Signs. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29: 52 -55.

Jones, T. B. 1967 Paths to the Ancient Past: Applications of the Historical Method to Ancient

History. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Kent, R. G. 1946 The Oldest Old Persian Inscriptions. Journal of the American Oriental

Society 66: 206 -212.

Levit-Tawil, D. 1983 The Enthroned King Ahasuerus at Dura in the Light of the Iconography of

Kingship in Iran. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 250: 57-78.

The Biblical Institution of Deror in the Light of Akkadian Documents. Eretz-Israel 5 (Benjamin Mazar volume): 21*-36*.

The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9: 218-227.

Lewy, J. 1958

Malamat, A. 1950

Mason, C. P. 1880 Astyages. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology,

vol. 1, ed. W. Smith. London: John Murray.

Miller, W. (trails.) • 1960 Xenophon Cyropaedia. Loeb Classical Library, ed. T. E. Page. Cambridge,


Neugebauer, 0. 1962 The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (second edition). New York, NY: Harper.

Oppenheim, A. L. (trans.) 1955 Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament (second edition), ed. J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

1969 Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Parker, R. A., and Dubberstein, W. H. 1956 Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Brown University Studies.

Providence, RI: Brown University.

Prideaux, H. 1848

The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews and Neighboring Nations: from the Declension of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the Time of Christ, vol. 1. New York: Harper.



Sancisi-Weerdenberg, H. 1985 The Death of Cyrus: Xenophon's Cyropaedia as a Source for Iranian

History. In Papers in Honour ofProfessor Mairy Boyce. Leiden: Brill.

Shea, W. B. 1982 Darius the Mede: An Update. Andrews University Seminary Studies 20:

229-247.

Shotwell, J. T. 1950 The History of History, vol. 1. New York, NY: Columbia University.

Smith, W., ed. 1845 A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. New York: Harper.

Sweet, R. F. G. 1986 Some Observations on the Edict of Ammisaduga Prompted by Text C. The

Archaeology of:Jordan and Other Studies, eds. L. T. Geraty and L. G. Herr. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University.

Thackeray, H. S. J. (trans.) 1926 Josephus. Loeb Classical Library, ed. T. E. Page. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University.

Torrey, C. C. 1946 Medes and Persians. Journal of the American Oriental Society 66: 206-212.

Vaggione, R. P. 1973 Over All Asia? The Extent of the Scythian Domination in Herodotus.

Journal of Biblical Literature 92: 523-530.

Warner, R. (trans.) 1957 Xenophon: The Persian Expedition. The Penguin Classics. Baltimore, MD:

Penguin.

Wiseman, D. J. 1956 Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) In the British Museum.

London: The Trustees of the British Museum.

1961 Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. W. Thomas. New York, NY: Harper.

1965 Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel. Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, eds. D. J. Wiseman, et al. London: Tyndale.

Yamauchi, E. M. 1990 Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.


15 Why the Danielic Little Horn

is not Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Norman R. Gulley Professor of Systematic Theology, Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, TN.

Introduction Many scholars assume the Little Horn mentioned in the book of Daniel is

the second century BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniel 7 portrays this Little Horn as judged. When does this judgment take place? Is there internal contextual evidence to support the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a time of judgment or does Daniel 7 envision an eschatological judgment of this Little Horn? The key passage to answer this question is Dan 7:21, 22:

As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them (7:21), until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom (7:22, NIV).

Note the triple sequence of time and the progression of events in these verses as presented in table 15.1.

Phase Temporal Signal Event

1 The Little Horn was waging war against the saints.

2 "until" Until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints.

"at that time" The time came when they possessed the kingdom.

Table 15.1. Temporal sequences in Dan 7:21, 22.



"Until," (ad, Dan 7:22) a temporal adverb, is used to introduce the second phase in the time sequence. This is the phase of judgment at the end of which a verdict is pronounced in favor of the saints. "At that time," (zeman, )Yft) another time expression, introduces the third phase. This sequence suggests that the judgment of the Little Horn ends when another "time comes" and that time is the time of the "saints taking possession of the kingdom." This same triple time sequence is repeated in Dan 7:25-27. Clearly this repeated triple sequence connects the judgment of the Little Horn with the setting up of God's kingdom at the end of the world.

Temporal Sequences in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 This pre-"end-of-the-world" focus of the Little Horn's judgment is

corroborated by the larger context of the book of Daniel, for Daniel traces the rise and fall of human kingdoms until God sets up His own kingdom. According to Daniel, God's on-going judgment lies behind these changes. For God "sets up kings and deposes them" (Dan 2:21). Note the parallel sequence in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 as indicated in table 15.2.

Dan 2:37-44

Dan 7:4-14, 22, 27 Dan 8:2-9, 20-26

Babylon Babylon -- Medo-Persia Medo-Persia Medo-Persia Greece Greece Greece Rome Rome 10 kingdoms Little Horn Little Horn God's kingdom God's kingdom

Table 15.2. Parallel kingdoms in Daniel 2, 7, and 8.

Daniel names three of the kingdoms as Babylon (2:24, 38), Medo-Persia (8:20), and Greece (8:21). The data on Medo-Persia and Greece, from chapter 8, informs us of the two nations to follow the Babylonian kingdom of chapter 2. History corroborates this sequence: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece (Rowley 1964: 6),' and records that Rome followed Greece. According to Dan 7:7, 8, the Little Horn follows the fourth kingdom (Rome). The crucial fact is, the Little Horn not only follows Rome, but is followed by God's kingdom according to Dan 7:14, 22, 26, 27.

So Daniel 7 reveals that a judgment is convened and concludes by (1) taking away the dominion of the Little Horn (7:23-26), and in (2) establishing the dominion of God's eternal kingdom (7:27, 28). The removal of the one gives way to the establishing of the other. This judgment must therefore be just before the end of the world in its investigation and execution. 2 The placement


Why the Danielic Little Horn is not Antiochus IV Epiphanes 193

of the Little Horn in this sequence of nations clearly puts it beyond the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century BC).

Other Reasons for Rejecting Antiochus IV Epiphanes Scholars have noted the close relation between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7

(Leupold 1969: 276-278; Lacocque 1979: 122; Harman and Di Lella 1978: 208, 209), but have overlooked the eschatological conclusion of both Daniel 2 and 7 (Dan 2:31-35, 44, 45; 7:13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 27). It is precisely this eschatological time-frame that disqualifies Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Maurice Casey's assertion that the destruction of Antiochus inaugurates the eternal kingdom of the Jews lacks empirical evidence (1979: 45, 46). Jerome answered this question in refuting Porphyry. He said, if the Jew, Judas Maccabeus defeats Antiochus, how does Judas come with the clouds of heaven like a Son of man to the Ancient of Days in heaven (see Dan 7:9, 13), how was royal power bestowed upon him, and how is his kingdom eternal (see Dan 7:14; Jerome 1977: 80, 91)? Obviously the prophetic view of Daniel 7 is far broader than Judas and Antiochus. By contrast, G. K. Beale refers to the judgment "book" of Daniel 7 and 12 as appearing "in contexts of eschatological persecution" (1984: 239).

Almost universally Antiochus is believed to be the desolater of the sanctuary, referred to in Dan 8:11-13; 9:27; 11:31; and 12:11, but Christ referred to this desolater as still future in His day. He said, "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" (Matt 24:15). We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, and particularly when Christ gives specific guidance and urges that understanding be sought in this matter. There could be no clearer refutation of a second century BC interpretation, nor a better mandate to seek for another solution (cf. 2 Thess 2:1-12).

The pagan neo-Platonist philosopher Porphyry (AD third century) is the earliest known source for supporting the Antiochus interpretation (Jerome 1977: 80). 3 According to Jerome, "Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel" (1977: 15). Whereas Christ accepted Daniel's prophecy of a coming desolation (Matt 24:15), Porphyry rejected Daniel's ability to predict the future, so he jettisoned a sixth century BC date for Daniel's composition, opting for a second century BC date so that in his view the prophecies were merely events recorded after the fact (vaticinia ex eventu). Porphyry's ideas were rejected by Jerome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and Methodius (Jerome 1977: 151), but historical critical scholars have all followed Porphyry in these matters. The basic difference between Christ and these critics is their world view. Christ believed in a God who is in control of human history, who knows the end from the beginning, who can therefore predict future events, and who evidently inspired Daniel to present authentic predictions. In fact, this is a fundamental theme in the book.



Recent scholarship provides evidence for a sixth century BC date for Daniel and therefore for its predictions (Hasel 1981a: 211-225).

There are four schools of interpretation of Daniel (Nunez 1987: 111, 409, 410, 429-432). Some preterists (sixth century BC date for Daniel) and all historico-critical (second century BC date for Daniel) scholars believe the Little Horn was Antiochus. The other two views reject Antiochus, believing in a present religious power (historicist) or some future Antichrist (futurist) to be the Little Horn.

There is only one Little Horn in Daniel, not two. Calvin believed the Little Horn in Daniel 7 was Julius Caesar, and the other Caesars (1989: 27), and Antiochus in Daniel 8; and also that the Little Horn of Daniel 8 only reaches up to the first advent of Christ (1989: 128/1). 4 By contrast, the Little Horn is shown in Daniel to have a history that reaches back to Roman times and forward into the eschatological future. Paul corroborates this view, speaking of an anti-God power already at work in the first century, and to be revealed before Christ's return (2 Thess 2:1-12). This is different from preterism, historico-criticism, and futurism.

The Little Horn is named in Daniel three times (7:8, 21; 8:9) and its attack upon the daily (tamid, -mon) ministry of the sanctuary (Dan 8:11) is linked to 2,300 "evenings and mornings" (Dan 8:14). First Maccabees 1:54-5:1 and Josephus Antiquities of the Jews (Book III: 181-183) describe the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Historical-critical scholarship interprets the 2,300 "evening-morning" period as the time when sacrifices to God ceased due to the desecration of the temple/altar by Antiochus. They suggest that the sacrifices ceased for either 2,300 literal days or 2,300 literal sacrifices. The latter would compute to 1,150 days to account for the morning and evening sacrifices (Lacocque 1979: 164; Porteous 1965: 126, 127), but the period calls for over six years (2,300 days). This is double the time of the cessation of sacrifices caused by Antiochus, for on the 15th day of the ninth month (Chislev) of the 145th year, Antiochus "set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar" (1 Macc 1:54) and on the 25th day of the ninth month of the 148th year, Jews "offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings, which they had made" (1 Macc 4:52). The time between these two dates is only ten days over three years.

To suggest that the 2,300 "evening-morning" period is 1,150 days is not possible on linguistic grounds, because the words ereb Myr opa ny) are identical in their sequence with those of Genesis 1 for the days of creation (Gen 1:3, 6, 13, 19, 23, 31). As the creation days were classified as ereb boqer it is logical to equate the 2,300 days similarly. Because of this, Siegfried Schwantes believes Daniel borrowed the phrase from Genesis 1 (1986: 462-474). In spite of the glaring differences between the 2,300 years of Dan 8:14 and the attempts to fit them to the structures of Antiochus, writers gloss over these gaps with creative imagination, such as, "These 2300 days cover about



the period of time during which Antiochus Epiphanes did his wicked deeds" (Gaebelein 1968: 99, emphasis supplied) or the time from the temple's desecration by Antiochus until deliverance by Judas Maccabeus "was exactly two thousand three hundred days" (De Haan nd: 230, emphasis supplied). Looking beyond such creativity, if Daniel was written after the events (vaticinia ex eventu), as critical scholarship claims, then why do the 2,300 days of Dan 8:14 not compute for the activities of Antiochus IV?

Only the historicist interpretation understands the 2,300 days (Dan 8:14) as 2,300 years. This interpretation is based on "a day for a year" principle, which is found within Scripture (Shea 1982: 56-93) and best describes the Messianic context of Dan 9:24-27, and the historical time-frame of the Little Horn as coming between pagan Rome and God's eschatological kingdom. Is there internal contextual evidence for this "day for a year" principle? Yes there is. In Daniel 8:13 the angel asks "until when," ( cad-matai, )31Y3-0.9, not "how long" (NN), "will be the vision, which includes the continual service and the transgression causing horror, to make both sanctuary and host a trampling?" (Hasel 1981b: 198, 199).

What is the meaning of "vision" here? Is it the entire vision, or only its latter part? The answer to this question determines the length of the 2,300 "evenings and mornings," and therefore its length is the answer of 8:14, "Unto 2,300 evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."

Internal contextual evidence demonstrates that the vision includes the entire period, and not just a final segment.

I . The term for vision is hazon mcro and not mar Wh (12%nr3), which refers to a sub-element of the vision.

2. What is included in the hazon, according to what Daniel was shown? In Dan 8:1, 2 the term is used three times, and includes all that follows. Thus the hazon vision begins with the ram (Medo-Persia, 8:3, 4), continues through the goat (Greece, 8:5-8) and into the latter part of the Little Horn power (8:8-12), because the angel says, "Son of man understand that the vision (hazon) pertains to the time of the end" (8:17).

Thus the hazon reaches from the beginning of the vision to the time of the end. It covers the entire period from the time of the Medo-Persian empire to the "time of the end." This includes the entire history of Greece, and the entire period of the Little Horn in its pagan and ecclesiastical phases to the "end of time" (8:17). Thus it only can be 2,300 years. Therefore, the sequence of question and answer demands that "evenings and mornings" be equated with literal years for no other equivalent will reach from Medo-Persia until the "time of the end" when the sanctuary will be cleansed (as suggested by Hasel, oral communication).



Thus, rather than forcing onto the biblical text a preconceived interpretation from the second century BC, it is incumbent upon the biblical scholar to allow the Bible to interpret itself. This sola scriptura hermeneutic opens up the biblical meaning of these numbers. Note the term "evenings and mornings" (ereb bolter, Dan 8:14). Is this temple language? It is used relative to tending the lamps (inereb ad-beiger, ipa1y awn; Exod 27:20, 21), but never of the daily sacrifices. As William H. Shea points out, the sacrifices are always spoken of as "morning and evening" (1986:197). For example, "morning and evening bum offerings" (lab alter wela'areb, 2701 1 Chr 16:40). So the division of the 2,300 "evenings and mornings" into 1,150 literal sacrifices is not supported by the term, which stands only for a full day, and never for the sacrifice sequence.

Summary These are some of the reasons why the Danielic Little Horn cannot be the

second century BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Notes

H. H. Rowley gives the three interpretations of these four held through the Christian era, noting that the Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome "view has been by far the most popular traditional view. Rowley is representative of critical scholars who divide the second kingdom into Media and Persia.

The execution of the judgment on the Little Horn includes the second advent (see Rev 18, 19).

Porphyry was not the first to question the authenticity of predictions. Celsus (ca. AD 180) may well have been the first to question prophecy (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, 1986: 292).

Calvin rejects the idea that Antiochus is a type ("figure" "analogy") for the antichrist. Daniel is, to him, only relevant to the time before the first (not second) advent of Christ.

References

Beale, G. K. 1984 The Use ofDaniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of

St. John. Maryland: University Press of America.

Calvin, J. 1989

Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Casey, M. 1979

Son ofMan, the Interpretation and Influence ofDaniel 7. London: SPCK.

De Haan, M. R. nd Daniel the Prophet. Grand Rapids, ME: Zondervan.



Gaebelein, A. C. 1968 The Prophet Daniel, a Key to the Visions and Prophecies of the Book of

Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Hartman, L. F., and Di Lella, A. A. 1978 The Book of Daniel. The Anchor Bible, vol. 23, eds. W. F. Albright and D. N.

Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hasel, G. F. 1986 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature ofProphecy, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Washington, DC:

Biblical Research Institute.

1981a The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language: Evidences Relating to Names, Words, and the Aramaic Language. Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 19: 211-225

1981 b The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8. Pg. 117 in The Sanctuary and the Atonement, Biblical Historical, and Theological Studies, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher. Washington: Review and Herald.

Jerome 1977 Jerome Commentary on Daniel. Trans. G. L. Archer, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker.

Lacocque, A. 1979 The Book of Daniel. Trans. D. Pellauer. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

Leupold, H. C. 1969 Exposition ofDaniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Nuilez, S. 1987 The Vision ofDaniel 8, The Interpretations from 1700-1800. Berrien Springs,

MI: Andrews University.

Porteous, N. W. 1965 Daniel, a Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Rowley, H. H. 1964 Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. A

Historical Study of Contemporary Theories. Cardiff, Wales: The University.

Schwantes, S. J. 1986 Ereb Boger of Daniel 8:14 Re-examined. Pp. 462-474 in Symposium on

Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington: Biblical Research Institute.

Shea, W. H. 1982 Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. Lincoln, NE: College View

Printers.

1986 The Unity of Daniel. Pp. 165-255 in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington: Biblical Research Institute.


16 The Presence of the Three and a Fraction:

A Literary Figure in the Book of Daniel

Zdravko Stefanovic Biblical Languages and Literature, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies,

Silang, Philippines.

On a previous occasion' I have tried to demonstrate that there are themes, phrases, and individual words common to the two main sections of the book of Daniel.' The presence of the thematic links between the historical and prophetic divisions provides supporting arguments for the unity of this biblical book, a conclusion reached by some scholars and different from what is often proposed in certain scholarly works. On this occasion I would like to point to the presence of a specific literary device which makes a similar connection in the text of Daniel, the numerical figure of three and a fraction.'

A Kingdom Divided Daniel 2 tells of king Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a statue composed of

different elements whose sequence (head to feet) follows a decrease in value and an increase in strength (gold to iron). The interpretation of this dream, found in the same chapter, reveals that the various parts of the statue composed of different elements stand for the succession of world kingdoms, beginning with Babylon down through history to its very end, which ushers in the fifth or the stone kingdom.

When a comparison is made between the individual kingdoms which are represented by the four parts of the statue, the reader notes that a line is drawn between the first three kingdoms on the one hand, and the fourth, on the other. In contrast to the first three which function as individually united, the fourth kingdom is divided, even fragmentized into smaller parts and remains as such in spite of the strength of iron in it, and in spite of forceful attempts to make the two incompatible elements (iron and clay) into one solid material (cf. Ps



2:9). This outstanding characteristic of the "iron kingdom" is described at several instances at the end of Daniel 2. First, one can see it in such formulas as mnhwn wmnhwn "partly ... and partly" (Dan 2:33, 41, 42) or in wmnh "partly" (Dan 2:42). It is also expressed by the term plygh "divided" (Dan 2:41), or dnh in dnh "the one with the other" (Dan 2:43).

Being composed of more than one element, the fourth kingdom struggles for unity and wholeness, but seems unable to match the completeness of the first three kingdoms. The sequence of the four kingdoms from this standpoint may be understood as three elements of unity and one of a division. The sum of the four elements is thus three units and a fraction (division) of a unit. Thus, in the description of the statue in Daniel 2, the three and a fraction literary figure is used to portray the sequence of the world kingdoms.

A Scale for a King Daniel 5 reports on king Belshazzar's banquet, the night during which

Babylon fell to the army of Cyrus. The divine judgment on this ruler is recorded in one of the two central chapters of the Aramaic section of the book (Lenglet 1972: 169-190; cf. Shea 1988: 67-81).

A number of elements in this chapter remind the reader of the story in Daniel 2. In both stories the king's own initiatives occasion the revelations (Dan 2:29; 5:24). The messages in both are communicated in figurative ways. In both only Daniel is able to interpret the mysterious revelations. Finally, both stories end when the prophet is presented with rich gifts.

In Daniel 5 the verdict on the unrepentant king was expressed in the form of four words: mn' tql wprsyn (Dan 5:25). While Daniel's interpretation of the writing was based on the (passive) verbal forms built on these word roots, some scholars suggest that the nominal forms of the same word roots offer an additional insight into the oriental mastery of word play (Baldwin 1978: 123). The four words can be read as names of weights listed in a descending order. The weighing-scale metaphors were in common use in the literature of the ancient world.

In the scale presented in Daniel 5, the largest measuring unit, the talent (containing 60 minas) is absent. The omission of talent and the repetition of mina as the second measuring unit in the list of weights should probably be related to the intentional reversal of elements in Dan 5:23 (in contrast to Dan 5:4). To compensate for this omission the next measure, mina, is repeated and after shekel there is paras which is not a full measure but only a fraction of a measuring unit (either mina or shekel) in the scale of weights. A sum of all four (three different) measures, used in the verdict, totals three full measures plus a fraction of a measure. The figure three and a fraction is therefore employed in this chapter too, with the purpose of describing king Belshazzar's reign.


Presence of the Three and a Fraction in Daniel 201

A Spectacular Fall Daniel 7 records another vision of the succession of earthly kingdoms. The

single most peculiar power among the dominion-hungry beasts in this chapter is not represented by the symbol of an entire animal, but rather by one part of the animal body, a horn. This horn starts little, but grows to be the greatest. Its activity was directed against the Most High, His saints, and the law.

For some time, according to the vision, this strange power is successful in its ambitious undertakings. Yet the chapter states that due to the developments in the court in heaven, the dominion of this horn is broken and destroyed. It is of interest to note the way in which the text describes the end of this long persecuting power directed against the saints.

Daniel 7:25 gives the well-defined time period of the progress of the horn's activity: do wiinyn wplg do "time, (two) times, and half a time." This expression is defined from the literary point of view as an example of the broken numerical sequence (or progression). That is to say that the career of the horn is expressed by the progressive order of one, two, and a natural continuation to reach the climax would normally be three times. Yet, just before the progression reaches its zenith in number three, the power of the horn is broken into plg "a division" or "a fraction" (understood as a half) of the time unit. Plg here is a direct lexical link with Dan 2:41. Thus it becomes evident that the defeat of the horn comes suddenly and unexpectedly.

Once again the sum of the time elements present in the expression yields a total of three and a division of a unit. The three and a fraction figure is also present in this chapter of Daniel.

How Long Before the End? The last chapter of Daniel (chapter 12) stresses the fact that "the wise,"

who are described in the book as enduring in the midst of distress are the persons who wait for the time of the end (Davies 1985: 114; Thompson , this volume). This time will be marked by the fulfillment of "these astonishing things" (Dan 12:6), an expression which describes both the intensity of a distress and the effect which the deliverance will have on the minds of "the wise" who "will be delivered" at that time.

A careful reading of Daniel 12 reveals a number of lexical and other links with Daniel 7. To mention just one such link, the figure of the one like a Son of Man matches the rise of Michael in this chapter (Doukhan 1987: 45-49). The most striking expression, however, common to both chapters is the term "time, two times and half a time." The term hsy clearly means "a half." This "half' falls short of being a full measure of mw d "appointed time." The progress and the end of the anti-God power and the deliverance of "the wise" which immediately follows are described by another occurrence of the figure of a broken numerical progression which demonstrates the presence of the three and a fraction figure in this chapter of Daniel.



Conclusion In this brief look into the book of Daniel, the figure three and a fraction

has been found in four chapters evenly distributed in the book. Table 16.1 presents the ways this literary device is used in the respective chapters.

Chapter Three and a Fraction

2 Unity, unity, unity, division 5 Mina, Mina, Teqel, Parsin 7 Time, (Two) Times, Half a Time (Aramaic)

12 -Time, (Two) Times, Hal fa Time (Hebrew)

Table 16.1. Three and a fraction in the book of Daniel,

Three implications may be drawn from the presence of this figure in Daniel. First, our findings compel us to admire the beauty of the literary artistry in the book. Its purpose is to make the text do more than just speak to its reader. Second, in all four chapters the figure expresses the progress and the end of the earthly powers which are commonly hostile to God. Instead of reaching their intended zenith, the kingdoms are suddenly destroyed and replaced by the intervention of a divine power. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that through this conclusion the unity of the book of Daniel receives more support since the figure is found to be evenly spread throughout the book.

Notes

This paper was read at the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1993 International Meeting in Minister, Germany.

The lists in the Andrews University Seminary Studies 27 article (1989: 121-127) should be complemented with the following additions:

1. Daniel and Belshazzar in Contrast (Daniel 1 and 5) Daniel understands visions and dreams (Dan 1:17) Belshazzar unable to understand visions (Dan 5:15)

2. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in Contrast (Daniel 1 and 5) 7.

Nebuchadnezzar carries away the temple vessels (Dan 1:2) Belshazzar desecrates the temple vessels (Dan 5:3, 4)

3. Nebuchadnezzar and the Fourth Beast (Daniel 3 and 7) 7. Both persecute the remnant (Dan 3; 7:7, 19)

4. Belshazzar and the Little Horn (Daniel 5 and 8) Both judged by the divine hand (Dan 5:24; 8:25)


Presence of the Three and a Fraction in Daniel 203

3. I heartily dedicate this article to my professor W. Shea, who taught me both, to love the Bible and study it diligently. I will always treasure his literary insights on various biblical passages.

References

Baldwin, J. G. 1978 Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Davies, P. R. 1985 Daniel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament.

Doukhan, J. B. 1987 Daniel: The Vision of the End. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University.

Lenglet, A. 1972 La Structure Litteraire de Daniel 2-7. Biblica 53: 169-190.

Shea, W. H. 1988 Bel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar. Andrews University Seminary Studies 26:

67-81.

Stefanovic, Z. 1989

Thompson, S. 1997

Thematic Links Between the Historical and Prophetic Sections of Daniel. Andrews University Seminary Studies 27: 121-127.

Those Who are Wise: The Maskilim in Daniel and the New Testament. In To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. D. Merling. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology/Horn Museum.


1 '7 The Abomination of Desolation

in Daniel 9:27 and Related Texts: Theology of

Retributive Judgment

Paul J. Ray, Jr. Near Eastern Archaeology, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

The most widely held interpretation of the "Abomination of Desolation" in Dan 9:27 is that it refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Hasel 1986: 29; Wenham 1992: 28; Gulley, this volume). While many times the interpretation of prophetic and apocalyptic writings are not realized until the fulfillment of the events themselves, there are also explanations within the text (e.g. Dan 8:19-26; Rev 17:15) which can guide in their proper understanding. Sometimes these interpretations can be based on phraseology or symbols that have been used in chronologically earlier passages of Scripture.

The book of Revelation is well known for its use of symbols and phraseology which have been used in earlier portions of Scripture (e.g. "four living creatures," Ezek 1:10; 10:14 and Rev 4:7; colored horses, Zech 1:8; 6:2, 3 and Rev 6:2-8). I suggest that a similar phenomena occurs in the book of Daniel. One of these parallels is the subject of this paper. I suggest that the concept "on (the) wing of abominations (will come) one who desolates" (9:27) exists within the book of Daniel and in chronologically earlier sections of the Old Testament. If this is so, then the proper interpretation of this passage should first be sought from the immediate context of the passage before resorting to an explanation from farther afield.

William Shea, whom we are honoring with this Festschrift, has recently suggested on the basis of the context of Dan 9:27 that the desolator here is preceded in time by the abominations and not the other way around as is usually assumed (1986: 97). He sees the phrase "upon the wings of ..." as an idiom expressing relatively immediate consequences. Though the language



here is admittedly difficult and has been subject to various interpretations, the immediate context (9:24-27) suggests that there is a series of predicted events within a specific time frame built one upon the other. In addition, the Hebrew word "wing" (9)D, kenap) is used figuratively 97 out of its 107 usages (Oswalt 1980: 446, 447) and should therefore, not be literalized as has often been done (Young 1949: 218; W. Kaiser 1979: 931; and Wenham 1992: 28).

Though there is disagreement as to the identity of the desolator, the context (9:26) indicates that the object of the desolation (i.e. destruction) is the city of Jerusalem and the Temple (lit. the sanctuary, vi-rpn, haqqdde,f). One wonders then whether there is there any clue within the context of the passage as a whole (9:1-27) as to what might constitute the circumstances (the abominations) which would bring a desolator to destroy the city and temple? An affirmative answer to this question can be arrived at by looking in the earlier part of the chapter in Daniel's prayer. According to the setting of the chapter, the prayer was offered when Daniel realized that the 70 years desolation of Jerusalem, which was earlier predicted by Jeremiah (25:11, 12; 29:10), was nearing its end (Dan 9: 2). Daniel evidently reckened this 70 year period from the beginning of his own captivity in 605 BC (Dan 1:1-6), offering the prayer in 539/8 BC (9:1).

Within the prayer, in 9:17, Daniel mentions the desolate sanctuary (onvin vim), miqda§ hak§amem) i.e. the temple of Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. The word "desolate" in 9:17 uses the same root (Obi, §mm) as the word translated "the desolator" in 9:27 and "desolation(s)" in 9:26, 27. This root, like other stems with a doubled second radical, is factitive or causative in relation to a state or condition (Moscati, et al. 1964: 124) and in the polel, as in 9:27, stresses the idea of causation, i.e. cause to desolate or destroy (Holladay 1971: 376; Austel 1980a: 937). COW.) is also used in 9:18 for the phrase "our desolations," however, the word translated "desolations" (i.e. of Jerusalem), in 9:2 is based on the root 2111 (trb), a word that is found in close association as a parallel or supplementary term with OnVi and often overlaps it semantically (Austel 1980a: 936; 0. Kaiser 1986: 153). Thus, within the overall context of Daniel 9, we find that both the city of Jerusalem and its temple were currently desolate (in 539/8 BC) as well as a prediction that the same entities would be desolate again sometime in the future. It would therefore seem that there is at least some kind of connection between the two desolations (9:17, 27).

Though the word abominations (o)slpvi,§iqqiisfm) in Dan 9:27, does not appear in Daniel's prayer, the reasons given by him for the current desolations of Jerusalem and the Temple are the sins of the people. He says that due to a history of sin and rebellion on the part of his people, Yahweh has brought calamity, (evil, (min, haralh) upon them (Dan 9:14). The theme of retri-butive judgment for sin and rebellion is common in Scripture (land, cities and the sanctuary are threatened in Lev 26:31-35 using both 17111 and OM)) and


The Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:27 207

even occasionally appears outside the Bible (e.g. the Weidner Chronicle 37, 38, and the Mesha Stela, cf. Arnold 1994:134 and ANET 320). In addition, trNlpvi is used quite frequently in terms of an impending judgment in the period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC, especially in the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Especially in the first part of Ezekiel, there is a continued emphasis on the coming judgement on God's people. Due to their continued abominations (Ezek 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21 both ■ilpVi and nay1n, to 'bah) the land (Ezek 6:6, 14) and especially the city of Jerusalem (Ezek 9:5; 12:19, 20) and the Temple (Ezek 9:6, 7) would be desolate (both OM.) and nn, cf. also Ezek 33:21-29). The perversions of God's professed people extended even to the very courts of the Temple (Ezek 8:6, 14) and were gross enough to cause God to want to leave His own sanctuary (Ezek 8:6). In fact, the very presence or glory (MD, kebeid) of Yahweh, the very same glory which had entered the Temple almost 400 years before, after Solomon had finished building it (1 Kgs 8:11) is described as moving reluctantly, but progressively through and away from the Temple (Ezek 8:4; 9:3; 10:4, 18; 11:22), and finally settling on the mountain to the east of Jerusalem (Ezek 11:23), signifying evidently the removal of God's protection of the city and Temple, thus, ultimately bringing its coming destruction.

In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet, early in his ministry, brought a covenant lawsuit (an, rib) on behalf of God against his people (Jer 2:9), which describes in a vivid manner the reaction of heaven (appalled and desolated, i.e. OnVi and nn) because of the sins of his professed people. Some years later in 609 BC (Jer 7:1-34, cf. 26:1-24), Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of the land (Jer 7:34) and the city (Jer 26:9) (both rain), because of the abominations (Jer 7:10, MaYln) and detestable things (Jer 7:30, )Nlpv.i) set up in the Temple (lit. house of Yahweh). The abominating practice of sacrificing their children to Molek (cf. Lev 18:21, 24-30, nayln) is also cited as a reason for the coming desolation (Jer 7:31; ef. 19:1-8, nravi). Later, after repeated warnings of their coming doom, there is a description of the contemporary siege by the Babylonians on Jerusalem in 587 BC (Jer 32:1; 24) and a message of Jeremiah to the people of Judah that their city would be given into the hands of the Babylonians because they had put their detestable things ()NIpV)) in the house of Yahweh i.e. the Temple (Jer 32:34) and committed further abomination (72y)n) by building their high places to Baal in the valley of Hinnom, where they also offered their children to Molek (Jer 32:35, cf. 7:31; 19:1-15), however, it is explained that even though God was in the process of giving the city into the hands of the Babylonians and bringing all this calamity (min) on his people, that the land which was soon to be a desolation (onvi) would some day be inhabited again (Jer 32:36, 42-44).

In the Jeremiah and Ezekiel passages, the children of Israel were repeatedly referred to the abominations which they had committed and told



that because of their trend of continued evil, that their land and more specifically Jerusalem and the Temple would be desolate. The word for abomination used in these passages is either Tpvi, the same word that is used in Dan 9:27 or null), which is at times exactly synonymous (e.g. Lev 1:1; cp. Deut 14:3; and 1 Kgs 11:5, cp. 2 Kgs 23:13) and often found in close association with it, however, vv.) seems to be a technical term denoting that which violates the practices of the cult of Yahweh, while num has a wide variety of applications, but tends to denote that which offends a person's sensibilities both in moral and ritual terms (Milgrom 1971: 97; Waltke 1979: 13; Austel 1980b: 955).

It would seem from the above passages, from those contemporaries of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, that there is a definite theme of retributive judgment for repeated unrepented abominations and that the destruction of Jerusalem and the its Temple in 586 BC was a fulfillment of these predictions. That same theme appears in Daniel.

It is interesting to note that Jeremiah 7 (cf. Jeremiah 26), which predicted the destruction of Jerusalem because of the then current abominations of the people, asks the listeners to compare the contemporary situation with that which had happened earlier to the Tabernacle of Shiloh (Jer 7:12-14; 26:6, 9). Jeremiah directed their attention to what had happened earlier to God's former house at Shiloh. After the ark had been taken by the Philistines in the battle of Aphek, it would seem that the town of Shiloh, where the tabernacle stood, was attacked and destroyed. This destruction is not only suggested in Jeremiah 7 (also in Ps 78:60), but is confirmed archaeologically by evidence of the destruction of this site early in the 11th century BC (Finkelstein 1985: 173, 174). In Ps 78:60, God is described as abandoning (UD), nd) His house (lit. His dwelling place or tabernacle (twin, mdkan). This is also borne out in 1 Sam 4:21, 22, following the taking of the ark by the Philistines, when the daughter-in-law of Eli named her son Ichabod ("no glory"), with the explanation that the glory (nap), the same glory which had entered into the Tabernacle when it was first made in the wilderness many years earlier (Exod 40:34), had departed from Israel, evidently signifying the departure of the presence of God from his abode at Shiloh. As mentioned above, it would seem that Shiloh was destroyed shortly thereafter.

Since the passages which talk about the abandonment of Shiloh are secondary in nature (i.e. in contexts long after the fact), we should not necessarily expect to find the terminology of "abomination" and "desolation" in the passages which deal with the Tabernacle at Shiloh when it was still in existence. The majority of the time that the Tabernacle was at Shiloh was during the period of the Judges, a period when retributive judgment for unrepented evil (or abomination) occurred fairly regularly (Judg 2:11 -23). In addition, while the language of "abomination" or "desolation" is not used in the first several chapters of the book of 1 Samuel, nevertheless, the priests



were chastised on more than one occasion for their perversions, which included the robbery of the offering of Yahweh (1 Sam 2:12-17, cf. Lev 3:3-5, 16; 7:29-34) and the lowering of the ministry of Yahweh to that of the level of the surrounding nations (i.e. by having sexual orgies with the women who served at the Tabernacle, 1 Sam 2:22). The latter was evidently equivalent to, if not the same as, cultic prostitution, a practice condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament (Deut 23:17) and due to its widespread use among the nations which lived in the land before Israel, considered an abomination for God's people to partake of (Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 14:24, navIn). Thus, both implicitly and explicitly (by direct comparison with the then contemporary situation, cf. Jeremiah 7 and 26) the destruction of the Tabernacle at Shiloh, like the Temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC, would seem to have been destroyed or made desolate as the result of the unrepented abominations of the Israelites.

If the above line of reasoning is correct, the instruction to Daniel (9:24-27), involving a probationary period of 70 prophetic weeks following which the city of Jerusalem and its Temple were to be made desolate due to the abominations of the people, possibly triggered a thematic comparison to the current situation of Jerusalem (in 539/8 BC) about which he had been praying (9:3-19) at the time when Gabriel came to him. In addition, Daniel was familiar with the book of Jeremiah (9:2) and possibly the book of his other contemporary, Ezekiel, where further thematic comparison might have lead him to note the parallel nature of the reasons for both the current desolation and the predicted one. It is also possible that he found in the scrolls of Jeremiah evidence of an even earlier parallel of God's retributive judgment on the Tabernacle at Shiloh.

The question that remains to be addressed is the fulfillment of Dan 9:26, 27. Whether or not Daniel completely understood what was presented to him (at times he did not, cf. 7:15, 16, 28; 8:27, and 9:22) is perhaps irrelevant in that there seems to be a rather obvious thematic comparison between the destruction/desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BC (Dan 9:2, 17, 18) and the predicted future destruction/desolation (Dan 9:26, 27).

That the predicted destruction or desolation refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes would seem to be unlikely. First, though it might seem that the last 3Y2 years of Dan 9:27 could reasonably have been fulfilled in Antiochus' time, 1 Macc 1:59 and 4:52 indicate that the control of the Temple by the Seleucids was actually a period of three years to the day, not 3V2 years. In addition, recent historical information would appear to cut the typical interpretation of this school of thought concerning these events from the predicted week (seven years) to only 5 years (Hasel 1986: 27, 46). Further, 9:26, 27 indicates the destruction and desolation of the city and Temple. Though there may have been some damage to Jerusalem—the record is not precise enough to know—there was certainly nothing that could be considered destruction or desolation of the Temple, which was in fact turned into a cult center of another



god (Shea 1980: 91, 92). However, even if there was minimal damage (destruction) to the city, since the "abomination" of Antiochus consisted of taking over the altar of God for use by another deity (1 Macc 1:54, 59), the most that could be said concerning his activity was that the abomination followed the destruction/desolation, not the other way around as the text seems to indicate.

Jesus' statement that the abomination of desolation (to [3661 -oyga rip 41160E64, to bdelugma tes ereaseas), mentioned by Daniel (Matt 24:15) was still in the future has fostered the idea that if the fulfillment was yet future in the time of Jesus, it could in no way have referred to Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Seleucid period. There is a broad range of possible individuals who have been seen as first century AD antagonists. Most of these, the interpreters evidently still holding to an Antiochus interpretation for similar phraseology in Dan 8:13, 11:31, and 12:11, point to activity parallel to his, and therefore, see fulfillment in such 'actions as Pilate's placing of standards bearing the image of Caesar in the city, or the attempts to place the statues of Caligula, Vespasian or Titus in the Temple, the Holy of Holies and on the site of the ruined Temple respectively (McNeile 1980: 348). However, these interpretations all fail for the same reasons as the Antiochus view, in that (1) they cannot be connected with a 3 Y2 year period where the sacrifice and offering cease; (2) none of these, except Titus, succeeded in destroying the city and Temple; and (3) the "desolation" preceded the "abomination."

The view that the antagonist is the invading armies of Rome also has its problems in that "the people of the prince ow, nagfd) who is to come" (Dan 9:26) can refer to them only at the expense of the context. As has been pointed out by Shea (1986: 92, 93), the term prince here refers to Messiah the prince ('P ) mafiah nagid, 9:25). Therefore, the people of the prince must have been the Jews themselves. Further, the statement of Jesus, which strongly suggested that the people of Jerusalem flee the city when they saw the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place (ayfy, hagi 5, cf. Matt 24:15, 16), would seem to be too little too late if they had had to wait until the Roman armies were standing in the Holy Place, since historically, it was all over at that point. On the other hand, if they fled when they saw the Zealots take over the Temple for use as a fortress, there could still have been time to escape before the destruction of the city and Temple. It would seem then, that it was the perversion of the original intention of the temple (i.e. worship) by God's own people, at least in part embodied by the atrocities of the Zealots (Josephus Jewish Wars 4.3.7) that can account for the abominations (Shea 1986: 97). While the Romans were the desolators, it was the abominations of the Jews themselves that provoked the desolation or destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Thus, the desolation was the result of the abominations.

Again, it seems to have been the departure of the presence of God, which allowed the city and Temple to be destroyed in AD 70. While Ezek 43:2-7



indicates the return of the glory (111D) to a rebuilt Temple, the vision here is of a Temple, which historically, was never built. However, when the post-exilic Second Temple was actually finished in 516/5 BC (Ezra 6:15), there is no indication in the text of its being filled by the presence or glory of God such as was the case earlier with the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple. Nevertheless, when this building was begun in 520 BC on a lesser scale than the former Temple, it was predicted that the glory (MD) of this latter house would be greater than that of the former house (Hag 2:9), evidently referring to the fact that the Second Temple would be graced with the presence of the Messiah. It is of interest to note that the context of Jesus' mention of the coming of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24 is within a discourse (Matthew 23-25), which followed His rejection by the Jewish leaders. In Matthew 23, Jesus made a series of seven or eight prophetic woes or judgments on the scribes and Pharisees following which He said to the people of Jerusalem (Matt 23:37) "your house (i.e. the Temple) is left unto you desolate (gprigoc, ere:mos)" (Matt 23:38). Upon leaving the Temple (24:1), He then went with His disciples to the Mount of Olives (24:3, cf. the mountain east of the city in Ezek 11:23) where He made the prediction (among others) of the coming of the abomination of desolation (24:15). Thus, it would seem that it was the final departure of Jesus (the very presence or glory of God) from the Temple and city, which made it possible for the Romans (as God's instruments of retributive judgment) to destroy the city and Temple in AD 70.

There is one other place in the book of Daniel (8:13; the qualifier referring to the TY371, amid, in 11:31 and 12:11 obviously refers to the same situation, cf. 8:12) which uses phraseology similar to the "abomination of desolation" in Dan 9:27 and would seem to be a related. However, while this passage carries with it its own baggage and a long history of interpretation, a careful comparison of Dan 8:8b-14, 23-26 with Dan 7:8, 11, 20-22, 24-27 would seem to indicate that on the basis of the time frames (Dan 7:25; 8:14) as well as the fact that the Little Horn is said to fight against God himself (Dan 8:25), with the end result being the everlasting kingdom of God (Dan 7:14, 27), that in these passages we are dealing with events far beyond the destruction of the last earthly temple of God in AD 70, and thus, with a symbolical, if not an eschatological battle against God and His Temple. In addition, the Little Horn fights against God's people (Dan 7:21; 8:24) and God ultimately settles the matter in their favor (Dan 7:22). This is different than the situations discussed above though similar phraseology is used. In those cases, the desolation was brought upon God's people as a result of their abominations.

In sum, in Dan 9:27 there is a prediction of the then future destruction or desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple due to the abominations of the Israelites. While the exact fulfillment of this prediction was yet to be worked out in history, nevertheless, it would seem that thematic comparison with a similar event which had only recently happened in 586 BC is made within the



wider context of the same passage (Dan 9:2, 17, 18). Beyond this, further thematic comparison with Ezekiel and Jeremiah points to this same destruction in 586 BC, the latter also pointing to an event of the same nature, i.e. the destruction of Shiloh and the Tabernacle several centuries earlier. In each of these instances throughout the history of Israel, it was the Israelites who, through their continual abominations and refusal to repent, precipitated the destruction or desolation of their city (Shiloh and Jerusalem) and Temple (or Tabernacle) through a power (Philistines, Babylonians, and Romans) directed by God. Likewise, in each one of these cases of divine retributive judgment, it was the removal of the presence of God, symbolizing the protection of his people, that was necessary for the destruction or desolation to be carried out.

References

ANET = Pritchard, J. B. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton:


Arnold, B. T. 1994 The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia. Pp.

129-148 in Faith, Tradition and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, eds. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoftineier, and D. W. Baker. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Austel, H. J. 1980a 1:93V (shamem). Pp. 936, 937 inTheological Wordbook of the Old Testamen,

vol. 2, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke. Chicago, IL: Moody.

1980b vv.) (shigges). Pg. 955 in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks. Pp. 3-63 in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. F. D. Holbrook. Washington: Review and Herald.

Holladay, W. L. 1971 A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans.

Kaiser, 0. 1986 111"1 harab I. Pp. 155, 156 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol.

5, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Kaiser, W. C. 1979 Desolating Sacrilege. Pp. 930, 931 in The International Standard Biblical

Encyclopedia, vol. 1, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Finkelstein, I., ed. 1985 Excavations at Shiloh 1981-1984: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 12: 123-180.

Hasel, G. F. 1986



McNeile, A. H. 1980 The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Milgrom, J. 1971

Abomination. Pp. 96, 97 in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 2, ed. C. Roth. New York: Macmillan.

Moscati, S., et al. 1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages:

Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Oswalt, J. N. 1980 epp (knp). Pp. 446, 447 in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol.

1, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Shea, W. H. 1980 "Daniel and the Judgment." Unpublished manuscript.

1986 The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. Pp. 75-118 in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. F. D. Holbrook. Washington: Review and Herald.

Waltke, B. K. 1979 Abomination. Pp.13, 14 in The International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia,

vol. 1, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Wenham, D. 1992 Abomination of Desolation. Pp. 28-31 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1,

ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Young, E. J. 1949 The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.


18 Those Who Are Wise:

The Maskilim in Daniel and the New Testament

Steven Thompson Biblical Studies, Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW, Australia.

Introduction Did earliest Christianity contain a group who were the equivalent of the

maskilim (o) ,DV.)n), the "wise, discerning ones" mentioned in Daniel? This question will be addressed by examining the evidence in Daniel for their nature and function, then by examining possible New Testament evidence which has been put forward to support the claim that earliest Christianity acknowledged the presence in its midst of a group who were the functional equivalents of Daniel's maskilim. Since the function of the maskilim is defined in relation to the harabbim (o)nn) and the reshacim (0)YVii) in Daniel, a survey of these two groups will be included.

The Maskilim in Daniel The maskilim in Dan 11:33-35; 12:3, 10 constitute a distinct group found

within the covenant community during the tumultuous times leading up to "the time of the end" (Dan 11:32-35). The role and function of the maskilim according to Daniel include the following:

They "discern," "possess insight into" matters in general (according to such _passages as Amos 5:13 and Ps 14:2=53:3, Job 22:2), and specifically in Daniel (1:4; 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10) into revelations of the divine intentions. This is based on the usual meaning of the hiphil participle of the verb sakal (5DV) in biblical Hebrew (Koehler and Baumgartner 1990; Saeboe 1984: 824ff).

They "give heed" (if yabinu, 1))1), in Dan 11:33 and 12:10 is taken to be hiphil); or "understand" (if the verb is taken to be co al). In either case the object of their "giving heed" or "understanding" . is the apocalyptic



revelations such as those given to Daniel, and the recipients of their understanding are the rabbim.

They "instruct" (maskil, hiphil, participle of sakal) members of the covenant community in the essentials of apocalyptic revelations according to Dan 11:33). Compare Isa 52:13 where the same hiphil verb yaskil describes the work of the bed Yahweh on behalf of Yahweh's people and should be translated ' cause to understand" (Goldingay 1989: 279).'

They "turn to righteousness" or "set right/vindicate" (hiphil of tsadak, p1 s) . the rabbim, Dan 12:3 (assuming that the second clause of the verse is in synonymous parallelism with the first, and that the maskilim is its subject).

They will "stumble" (kashal, 5\iD) near the end of their career—repeated three times in Dan 11:33-35, apparently, referring to the impact upon them .of persecution and opposition. 2 Their stumbling proves to have a purifying and cleansing effect on the rabbim during the time of the end.

Finally, they will experience a restoration and reward described in Dan 12:3 by the word ' shining" (hiphil of zahar, -Int) and likened to the firmament and the stars, in both their brightness and their eternity.

In summary, the maskilim appear in Daniel as discerners, instructors, and spiritual guides to the covenant community of the last days who are ultimately singled out by Yahweh for special reward.

The Rabbim in Daniel While there is some debate about the meaning of the term harabbim in

some passages of the Hebrew Bible, there is little doubt that in Daniel and certain other passages it designates "the main body of the ... community" (Dan 11:33, 39; 12:3; Esth 4:3; 1QS6:20-23; cf. Isa 53:12; Goldingay 1989: 230, n.27a; cf. Wiklander 1974: 59-73). This is implied in Dan 11:33 "the maskilim shall instruct the many," yabiynu larabbim (0)n5 13 11)), also in 12:3 the maskilim turn the rabbim to righteousness. The following features of the rabbim are singled out in Daniel:

They are the object of Yahweh's saving activity (Dan 12:2).

They will become "refined" or "tested" (tsaraph, cpS which, probably implies suffering), "separated" (barar, 111), and "purified (laben, p5; Dan 11:35 and 12:10). Identical verbs are used in both passages, but are in a different order and are used to explain the working out of Yahweh's will during the time of the end.

They are contrasted with the resha (DWI) the "wicked" (Dan 11:32ff.., 12:10).


The Maskilim in Daniel and the New Testament 217

4. Finally, the rabbim (if this anarthrous occurrence is to be taken as equivalent to harrabbim) who sleep m the realm of dust will wake up, some (presumably those of the rabbim who responded to the ministry of the maskilim during the time of the end) to everlasting life, some (presumably the resha im among the rabbim) to everlasting shame (Dan 12:2).

The Resha 'im in Daniel Who are the resha im, the evil ones? Are they outsiders to Israel,

Israelites whose faulty relation to Yahweh has earned them this disparaging designation? The evidence suggests they are Israelites who have ceased to respond to Yahweh's offer of righteousness and who no longer heed His wisdom, as communicated via the maskilim, thus creating tension between the wicked and the rest of Israel. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the maskilim and the resha im are juxtaposed in strong contrast to one another.

In Ps 36:1-4, the wicked person (rashap has given up being wise (haskil). In Prov 21:12 the righteous maskil subverts the house of the resha im. In both these passages and in Daniel the resha seem to be Israelites whose spiritual decay has manifested itself and who stand out by reason of their departure from the ways of the faithful.

In summary, the maskilim in Daniel seem to be discerners of the will of Yahweh, especially as it comes in apocalyptic format. They are also instructors to the covenant community, harabbim, during the time of the end. Partly by their response to the spiritual guidance from the maskilim the rabbim are polarized into two groups, the faithful and righteous ones, versus the resha rim, who having rejected wisdom are denied Yahweh's righteousness.

Are there Functional Equivalents to Daniel's Maskilim in Earliest Christianity?

Research has begun to point out that the earliest Christians may have held a self understanding which was informed by Jewish apocalypses, especially the book of Daniel. If this is so, it is reasonable to expect that traces can be found of early Christian equivalents to Daniel's mask-ilim. A brief survey and critique of this research follows.

Evidence from Mark's gospel. Sean Freyne has argued that the evangelist Mark presents the disciples as having been chosen to receive special knowledge from Jesus, thus placing them in the role of an early Christian analogy to Daniel's maskilim (1982: 7-23). 3 Freyne makes a case for Mark's depiction of the disciples as mask-ilim following the Danielic pattern, with the focus on their receiption and transmission of special knowledge. Freyne's analogy is not perfect: Daniel's maskilim seem to grasp the instruction while the disciples in Mark sometimes fail to understand Jesus or His message (4:10-20; 33ff; 8:14-21). Freyne recognizes this, and suggests that Jesus shared with the disciples the mission of preaching—a term which serves as an



overall summary of his, and their, activity (see Mark 13:10; 1982: 10), but this activity is contrary to the role of the maskilim in the book of Daniel, where the teaching is made available only to the covenant people, the rabbim, not to others.

Surely a more convincing link between Daniel's maskilim and the disciples in Mark is the scene in 13:1-5 where Jesus delivers to a select inner group of disciples, Peter, James, John, and Andrew, special eschatological instruction in apocalyptic form. More than the other synoptic evangelists, Mark focuses on the select small group. Matthew's "his disciples come to Him privately" preserves the private nature of the setting in which kingdom secrets are conveyed, but not the inner circle of recipients. Luke introduces the same scene with the indefinite "they asked Him ..." I suggest that the early Christian equivalents of Daniel's maskilim, the four disciples, appear in Mark 13, but, unlike Freyne, I do not see any evidence of markan interest in their function as maskilim. The evangelist seems unaware of the analogy.

Evidence from the Revelation of John. The clearest case for early Christian equivalents to Daniel's maskilim in the New Testament has been made by Gregory Beale who argues that although the Greek equivalent of maskilim is not used in the Revelation, the combination of nous (vug, "mind," "understanding") with sophia (ciocka, "wisdom") in Rev 13:18 and 17:9 reflect the same meaning as the combination of the verbs sakal "understand, have insight" and byn (pa, "understand, gain insight" (1980: 163-170). "In Dan 9:22, 23; 11:33; and 12:10 the combined verbs have the same meaning as in Revelation 13:18 and 17:9 ..." (Beale 1980: 164). Further on he writes "In the light of this discussion, we conclude that the idea of eschatological insight in Daniel 2, 9, 11, and 12 is the best background against which to understand Rev 13:18 and 17:9. The combination of sakal and byn stands out most in this background" (Beale 1980: 165). Beale thus cites evidence which, unlike that from Mark's gospel which at most revealed the identity of early Christian maskilim, focuses on their function. First, however an observation on what seems to be a misapprehension on Beale's part when he goes on the state "This usage indicates that John understands Christians to be the fulfilment of the prophesied mask-ilim in Daniel 11 and 12" (1980: 165ff Again "... John sees the true saints in 13:18 and 17:9 as the fulfilment of the predicted maskilim in Daniel 11:33-35 and 12:3, 10" (Beale 1980: 168). This conclusion is unfounded. There is no evidence for postulating that in Revelation the entire early Christian community is presented as the equivalent of the maskilim in Daniel. Rather, the Christian community in Revelation, like the end time community in Daniel, includes both faithful and unfaithful members, and both groups would be ministered to by Revelation's equivalent of Daniel's maskilim.

Revelation 13:18 and 17:9. Evidence will be presented here supporting the argument that a small group within the early Christian community was


The Maskilim in Daniel and the New Testament 219

understood to be the equivalent of the Danielic maskilim. Beale correctly sees a connection between the words nous and sophia in Rev 13:18 and 17:9 describing a last day community and their counterparts biyn and sakal in Dan 9:22, 23; 11:33; and 12:10 describing the Mask-ilim.

The combined words ... have the following ideas in common: 1 "Insight and understanding" in order to comprehend. 2 Eschatological events of tribulation. 3 Brought about by an evil king(s), who persecutes the saints and eceives others into acknowledging his absolute sovereignty ... (Beale

1980: 164).

But why does Beale argue that in the Revelation all Christians are the maskilim? The descriptions of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 may contain the key for unlocking additional information about the identity of those possessing nous and sophia. Inserted after each letter is a direct address to "the one having (ho echon, o Excov) ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). These addresses are not incorporated within each of the seven letters, otherwise they would address the (particular) "church" (singular) rather than "the churches" (plural). So while each letter would be understandable to its recipient church and aggelos (ayy€Xoc), another category of recipients was envisioned by the Seer when he wrote these insertions, a category of hearers able to extract from all seven letters some additional meaning which would give insight into the condition of the church at large. Who were these special ones "having (ho echon) ears?" An almost identical form of this address, "if anyone has (ei tis echei, EL ttc Ex€1) ears, let him hear" occurs in Rev 13:9 at the conclusion of the description of the first of that chapter's two beasts. I suggest that in all its occurrences this expression refers to the same group later referred to in the expression "the one who has understanding (ho echon nous), let him calculate ..." (Rev 13:18). The identical expression occurs in Rev 17:9. Thus when the expression "here is sophia/nous" (wisdom/understanding) in Rev 13:18 and "here is nous/sophia" in Rev 17:9 is linked to "if anyone has ears" in Rev 13:9 against the background of the address following each of the seven letters to "the one having ears" it should be understood as a (possibly coded) address to the early Christian maskilim. These early Christian maskilim have the following responsibilities to the larger believing community according to Revelation 13 and 17:

They "hear" what the Spirit declares to the churches as a whole and discern a special message promising victory and reward to the overcomer who endures to the end; and

They discern the identity, nature and fate of the beast which is working to bring about the destruction of the end time community.



In other words, they are functionally identical to Daniel's maskilim.

Summary Thanks to the efforts of researchers including Freyne and Beale it is

possible to postulate the existence of a special group among the early Christians who served a function in relation to the new covenant people of God analogous to that of Daniel's maskilim. If the correctives outlined above to their research are accepted it appears that these early Christian maskilim provided a special ministry of discernment, instruction in eschatological matters, and spiritual guidance to the larger community of believers.

Are there modern equivalents of the maskilim in the believing community today? I would say that there are, and that the one to whom this volume of essays is dedicated fits the description. May he like his ancient counterparts experience the reward promised in Daniel 12 to faithful maskilim!

Notes

Note that every occurrence of maskil in Qumran Hebrew means "teacher."

A worldplay on sakal "discerning" and kashal "fall" is suggested by Goldingay, 1989: 279, n. 33c.

1 am indebted to this article for several insights into the role of the maskilim in Daniel.

References

Beale, G. K. 1980

Freyne, S. 1982

The Danielle Background for Revelation 13:18 and 17:9. Tyndale Bulletin 31.

The Disciples in Mark and the Maskilim in Daniel. A Comparison. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 16.

Goldingay, J. 1989 Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word.

Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W. 1990 Hebraisches and Aramiiisches Lexikon zum Allen Testament, ed. J. J. Stamm.

Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Sxbo, M. 1984

Sakal. In Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Allen Testament, vol. 2., ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag.

Wiklander, B. 1974 Begrepet Rabbim I Daniel 8-12. Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 39.


19 Jesus and Sepphoris:

Missing Link or Negative Evidence?'

Robert K. McIver Biblical Studies and Koine Greek, Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW, Australia.

The archaeological investigation of ancient Sepphoris 2 has revealed spectacular finds and generated heated controversy. The finds include large well preserved mosaics which have been featured on the front covers of several issues of Biblical Archaeologist and Biblical Archaeologist Review [BA 50.4 (Dec 1987); BAR 14.1 (Jan/Feb 1988), 18.6 (Nov/Dec 1992)] while the most heated controversy centers around the relationship between Jesus and Sepphoris. This controversy is witnessed by the late cancellation of an article on "Jesus and Sepphoris" by Richard Batey, which had been due to be published in the Christmas 1989 issue of National Geographic (Batey 1991: 24-28). 3

This paper will explore anew the possible connections between Jesus and Sepphoris, together with the contributions that Sepphoris makes to our understanding of the historical Jesus. It will do so by first considering the prima facie case for linking Jesus with Sepphoris despite the fact that Sepphoris is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament, it will then examine what archaeologists have discovered about first century AD Sepphoris, after which it will take opportunity to evaluate the implications the discoveries at Sepphoris have for our understanding of Jesus.

The Prima Facie Case for Suggesting that Jesus had Close Links with Sepphoris

All four Gospels inform us that Jesus came from Nazareth, and Matthew and Luke give the further information that He lived in Nazareth from soon after His birth till the time He embarked on His public ministry (Matt 2:23; 4:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 2:39; 4:16; John 1:45, 46). Aside from the incident at



Jerusalem when He was twelve years of age, recounted in Luke 2:41-52, no information is provided by any of the canonical Gospels about this part of His life, so anything that we can find out about it must be by way of inference, but despite the lack of any reference to Sepphoris in the New Testament, there are two things that make it almost certain that Jesus visited Sepphoris during the period He lived at Nazareth and make it highly likely that He actually worked there.

First, for most of Jesus' time at Nazareth, Sepphoris was the capital of Galilee. Of itself this would not necessarily have meant that He visited it, but its geographic proximity to Nazareth almost certainly does. There is but 6 kilometres between Nazareth and Sepphoris. In fact, in Jesus' day, Nazareth lay on the far side of a ridge which looks down over Sepphoris. The distance could be walked in less than an hour, and "... his presence in the city on various occasions can scarcely be doubted" (Case 1976: 14-22). 4

Second, the rebuilding of Sepphoris which took place during this period makes it more than likely that Jesus worked on at least some of the building projects of the city. That Sepphoris needed rebuilding was a direct consequence of its destruction by Quintilius Varus, Governor of Syria, as he joined forces with King Aretas of Arabia to suppress a revolt which arose soon after the death of Herod the Great. On his return from Rome to take up his Tetrarchy over Galilee, Herod Antipas made Sepphoris the capital of his kingdom, and immediately embarked on an ambitious construction program.'

It is here that the information on Jesus' occupation found in Mark 6:2, 3 becomes pertinent. That passages records the reason given by the people of Nazareth for their rejection of Jesus:

Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? (NRSV).

Those who have known Jesus and His family during His childhood and early manhood identify Him as a carpenter. 'The Greek word translated carpenter in Mark 6:3 is TgKVAW (tekton). This word means anybody working in wood or construction (Liddel and Scott 1961: 1969; Lampe 1961: 1379; Batey 1991: 76). It would therefore correspond with either of the English words "builder" or "carpenter." Due to the rebuilding of Sepphoris, Herod Antipas's engineers and architects would have needed to call on all the available resources of the countryside around them as well as importing skilled laborers from elsewhere in the country. Amongst these resources would be the builder or carpenter Joseph (Matt 13:55). and later his son Jesus. Nazareth was but a very small and economically depressed village, so while there would be work there for a carpenter, no doubt the family welcomed the extra income


Jesus and Sepphoris 223

bought in by the employment opportunities provided by the extensive construction program undertaken by Herod Antipas.

How long the reconstruction at Sepphoris took is unclear. In any event it was nearly finished by the time Jesus started His public ministry. Whenever the work was finished, by that time the capital of Galilee had been moved to Tiberias, and most of the new construction would have been taking place there.'

What is Known of First Century Sepphoris? In recent times, the site of ancient Sepphoris has been actively excavated

by separate groups.' To date, the major discoveries at Sepphoris which relate specifically to the first century AD are the residential areas on the western summit and perhaps the theatre. The earliest structures so far discovered on the western summit are stone quarries of the Hellenistic period (third-second century BC), which in turn became incorporated into housing structures as the city spread. This area was continuously rebuilt until the Late Roman period (mid-fourth century AD). Associated with these houses are a large number of cisterns and storage pits. The cisterns are hydraulically sealed with a grey plaster made of lime, ash and sand, a method of hydraulic sealing which is particularly associated with Herodian and later installations.

Perhaps the most significant structures for our purposes, though, were the large number of small stepped pools which were discovered on the site, over 20 of them in the western summitt area alone. These are understood to be miqva 'ot. Miqva'ot, often translated "ritual baths," are associated with the concern for purity, and are well known from later Rabbinic sources. Many of these miqva'ot have been discovered in Palestine archaeological sites dating from Herodian times onwards (for a survey of miqva'ot, see La Sor 1987: 52-57). Some are large elaborate installations. Others, such as these associated with living quarters an Sepphoris, are quite simple, small structures. The ones at Sepphoris were used from either the second or first century BC to the end of the Roman. period (fourth century AD). At the very least, the large number of these miqva'ot shows that this residential area was made up of families that took the purity laws seriously enough to invest significant resources into incorporating the necessary structures into their homes.

The theater was one of the major discoveries of the Waterman excavations (Waterman 1937: 6-12). Today, even though the seats have been robbed out, the size of the theater can clearly be ascertained, as the seating rows were first carved into bedrock before being covered with stone seats. The auditorium contained 30-32 rows, which could accommodate 4,200-4,600 individuals. If the seating capacity of the orchestra is added, then the total seating capacity would be close to 5,000 (Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1992: 33).

The dating of this theater has emerged as a crucial element in the discussion of the character of first century Sepphoris. The University of



Michigan team had dated this structure to the rebuilding program of Herod Antipas, on the grounds that "There is no other period in the history of the town when the erection of a similar building was likely" (Yelven 1937: 29). More recently, the University of South Florida excavation team have taken the dating of this theater as one of the goals of their excavations, and the result of their work is as summed up by James F. Strange in the following manner:

We were able to determine with certainty that the founding -of the main internal wall [of the theater] took place in the first half of the-Early Roman period, however there is nothing in our evidence that would require a date later than Herod Antipas (Strange 1992: 342). 8

The theater was rebuilt on two occasions, and then in the mid-fourth century AD a large wall was built across the cavea. Strange presumes the wall was built to contain the debris fill which enabled useable area of the summit to be extended (Strange 1992: 342).

Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, on the other hand, while conceding a date under Antipas is possible, consider a later date more likely (1992: 33); and Eric M. Meyers, has pointed out that "the theater and other so-called pagan or Roman aspects of Sepphoris cannot be positively dated to the first century" (1992a: 88). To some degree, Meyers late-dates the theater on the basis of his wider interpretation of the character of Sepphoris in the first century. He points to the "enormous number of miqva'ot" and the many burials which accord with the strict interpretation of Jewish burial practices (ibid.), as well as the absence of any depictions of humans or any statuary which can be dated to this time period (Meyers 1993: 8). In addition, several important priestly families are associated with Sepphoris (Miller 1984: 63-132). Meyer's conclusion that "Antipas largely respected the religious sensibilities of his Jewish subjects," and that the city was largely made up of "torah observant" Jews appears to be well founded (1993: 8).

The city did take on a more cosmopolitan face to some extent after AD 70, and more particularly after the Bar Kochba revolt. Written sources inform us that some of the ancient privileges of self government were removed, and it is to this period that the sumptuous villas found in several places on the tell are to be dated. While it has yet to be found by archaeologists, coins from the mid-second century AD depict a Capitoline temple, which also appears to date to this period (Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1992:13). Thus, in the Late Roman period, the governing elite of Sepphoris became Roman, and lived in a style familiar from the wider Greco-Roman world, furthermore, the locus of political power had changed as well. The region no longer looked to Sepphoris for its political and economic focus, but to the larger city of Legio, the garrison of the sixth legion.

From the time of Hadrian (117-139 BC), the city took on a more



cosmopolitan flavor, but this should not be taken to mean that the city ceased to have a strong Jewish component. In fact, it is in its most cosmopolitan period that Sepphoris was to play a pivotal role as one of the most important centers of Rabbinic Judaism. Yehuda ha-Nasi (Judah the Prince) lived in the city for the last seventeen years of his life (ca. 200-217). It was at this time that under his leadership the Mishnah was finalized, an event of importance for Rabbinic Judaism not dissimilar from the writing down and collection of the New Testament for Christianity. Thus, Judaism did not retreat before this "paganization" of the city, but rather it flourished. Its mode of thought remained Semitic, and it preserved its cultural heritage in a way which has shown remarkable resilience over time.

These observations have taken us far from the date of Jesus' possible association with the city, but are instructive for the issue before us. Even if impressive "Greco-Roman" edifices are to be dated to the time of Jesus, this does not necessarily mean that "Greco-Roman" ideas were current current in the circles in which He would have found Himself.

This, however, is not the only interpretation which can be placed on the archaeological and literary evidence. The alternate view has been most clearly articulated by Richard Batey. In Batey's reconstruction, the Sepphoris that Jesus knew was already a cosmopolitan meeting place of ideas, dominated by Greco-Roman architecture. In particular, Jesus would have been familiar with the work of actors from His exposure to them in the theater at Sepphoris (Batey 1984b). This has important implications for our understanding of Jesus and His message. As Batey says,

The realization that Jesus grew up in the shadow of Sepphoris, a burgeoning Roman capital city, casts new light on the man and his message—light that changes the perception of Jesus asa rustic from the remote hills of Galilee. The people to whom Jesus proclaimed his message of hope and salvation, whether Jews, Greeks, Romans, or other Gentiles, where struggling with life's meaning m a culture where Jewish traditions and Greco-Roman urban values collided. Jesus' teachings reflect a shared awareness of city life with his cosmopolitan audience (1991: 209).

In his portrayal of the principle city of Galilee, Batey finds himself in company with much that has been written about Galilee and Jesus in recent times. Burton Mack, for example, describes a Galilee which had always held itself independent of Jerusalem, and in which "the hellenization programs of the Ptolemies and Seleucids dotted the landscape on all sides ... with newly founded cities on the Greek model" (1993: 54). This Galilee was the product of "three hundred years of hellenistic influence" (Mack 1993: 57), its southern district was largely Greek speaking, though bilingual. In particular, "Sepphoris, an hour's walk from Nazareth, was a thoroughly hellenized city" (Mack 1993: 58).



After setting this background, against which the sayings of Jesus should be interpreted, Mack examines the document Q, and discovers that its earliest "layer" shows that Jesus' "followers thought of him as a Cynic-like sage"(1993: 115). 9 In other words, according to Mack, Jesus should be understood in terms of Greco-Roman categories: He is best understood as a Palestinian Cynic teacher. Mack is but one of several writers that draw on Cynicism as the primary background against which to understand the teachings of the historical Jesus or His immediate followers (see Downing 1992: passim, especially 115-142, and Crossan 1991: 421 who calls Jesus a "peasant Jewish cynic").

But how fair is it to characterize first century AD Galilee as "thoroughly hellenized," especially in comparison with Judea? Sean Freyne's standard work on Galilee provides detailed evidence that this is probably untrue of rural Galilee. Galilee had deep religious ties to Jerusalem going back centuries. These ties had been strongly felt even during the crises bought on by Antiochus Epiphanes' systematic attempt at the Hellinization of Palestine (Freyne 1980: 37-41), and continued right into the first century AD. Furthermore, it may not be possible even to characterize Sepphoris as strongly Hellenized during the first century. The archaeological evidence from Sepphoris thus far available tends to support Meyer's assertion that first century Sepphoris was a predominantly Jewish city (e.g. Meyers 1992a: 87, 88). This should not be overstated, of course. After all, Antipas had spent significant time in Rome, and the urban and administrative elite that gather around the court would have had an education that exposed them to a wide range of ideas. The question that remains, though, is how widely these ideas were adopted by the general population of Sepphoris, especially in the light of the fact that the archaeological remains reveal households which took seriously Jewish purity laws. Not only this, Freyne documents the deep divide that often existed between the Hellenistic cities and the Galilean countryside (1980: 101-150). It is this last observation which bring us back to the primary focus of this paper, the relationship between Jesus and Sepphoris.

What does this Data Reveal about the Historical Jesus? or "The Dog that did not Bark"

Sherlock Holmes was able to solve the mystery of the apparent murder in "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" because, amongst other things, a dog did not bark. As in fiction, so in real life absences can be significant. Sepphoris is absent from the New Testament and there is no reference to Jesus visiting Tiberias.' The significance of this is unclear, although significant it undoubtedly is. 11 There are many possible explanations that might lie behind this absence. In this chapter, we will investigate two: the sociological and the pragmatic.



In his 1994 article on "The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus," Sean Freyne systematically addresses the question of why Sepphoris and Tiberias are absent from the Gospel accounts. To answer this question he draws on insights from sociology and economic history. His conclusion is that "the Jesus movement shared the alienation of the peasant world towards those centeres" (Freyne 1994: 120). Sepphoris and Tiberias represented the recent intrusion of a strongly money-based economy into the market based economy of rural Galilee. So, while there was extensive trade and interaction between the two cities and the villages around them, there remained a deep hostility between the two, based not only on economic realities, but on different and competing world-views.

There is much to recommend Freyne's thesis. Indeed, the archaeological investigation of Sepphoris and other sites in Galilee enable us to nuance Freyne's suggestion is a couple of important ways. First, there is the significance of the demographics of lower Galilee. It is estimated that during New Testament times the total population of Galilee was between 150-170,000 (E. Meyers 1993; Reed 1993; Broshi 1980). The two cities of substance in this region in the first century were Sepphoris and Tiberias.' Sepphoris, flourishing during the youth of Jesus, covered an area of about 60 hectares, and had a population of about 18,000. Tiberias, eventually covered an area about 80 hectares, at which time it would have had a population of about 24,000. As well as these two cities, there were approximately 200 villages in all Galilee, whose populations ranged from less than 100 to 3,000, with an average about 500." As these figures show, the majority of population lived in villages. Thus, one would have to say that village life was typical of Galilee.

Herein lies the significance of the absence of Sepphoris from the New Testament accounts. There was a large difference between the population of the two large cities and the type of population to which Jesus ministered. As has been already noted, Sepphoris retained an essentially Jewish flavor. So the significant question then remains: what elements of Jewish population inhabited Sepphoris? Like all cities, it represented all classes of society, but the ethos of the place was set by the Jewish elite—political and religious. In the religious sphere, the city was the home of a prominent Sadducean priestly family (Longstaff 1990: 12, 13; cf. Miller 1984: 62, 102). That such a place would be receptive to the message of Jesus is quite unlikely. Nor should it be forgotten, that the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees so prominent in all the Gospel accounts shows that Jesus had more in common with them than with the Sadducees. It is only in the second and third centuries AD, when it became a prominant center of rabbinic Judaism, that Pharisaic influences became dominant in the Jewish households at Sepphoris.

Instead of the two cities available to Him, Jesus' ministry was largely conducted in the villages. These Galilean villages were relatively prosperous,



although their economies were somewhat fragile. The economic base varied, some villages relying on an agricultural base, others on manufacturing," yet others on fishing, yet others on combinations of these and other elements. It was in these communities, with their local synagogues, that the Pharisees also had a large following. The communities were stable and close knit. These were the people amongst whom Jesus found His first followers, and who formed the basis from which the Christian church eventually developed. They have different expectations and attitudes than those of the religious and political elite, as found at Sepphoris and Tiberias.

A second possible explanation is more pragmatic, and is that these cities may have been dangerous to Jesus (Miller 1992: 79). After all, it was Herod Antipas who beheaded John. When Jesus eventually confronted the religious and political elite in Jerusalem it resulted in His death.

Neither are these explanations mutually exclusive. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that both these reasons combined to keep Jesus out of these cities during His ministry.

Conclusion The archaeological investigation of Sepphoris, interesting and worthwhile

as it is in its own right, has important contributions to make to our understanding of both Christianity and Judaism, although this paper has restricted itself almost entirely to the implications for Christianity.

That Jesus visited Sepphoris is highly probable. Yet as far as the Gospel record is concerned, His public ministry did not include preaching and healing in either of Sepphoris or Tiberius. This seemingly insignificant datum reveals important information about Jesus, and is particularly useful in revealing how His teaching and ministry should be interpreted. Jesus should be understood against a backdrop of the relatively stable Jewish villages of Galilee. If any segment of Galilee was Hellenized, it was not the people amongst whom Jesus worked. They were inherently conservative and the teachings of the Pharisaic party had wide appeal amongst them. This was the context which Jesus formulated His own ideas and gained His first followers. Furthermore, while the imagery of Jesus' teaching sometimes deals with kings and courts, it is largely drawn from scenes and events that would be familiar to His village audiences. These villages also make the natural backdrop against which we can understand the methods urged on His disciples as they travel from town to town in such texts as Matt 10:5-15 and Luke 9:1-6.

Yet hidden behind this visible backdrop to Jesus ministry, as portrayed in the Gospels, there is Sepphoris, the magnificent Jewish city in close proximity to where Jesus grew up and worked as a carpenter. Indeed, for anybody familiar with first century Galilee, this city, set as it was on a hill, could not be hidden (Matt 5:14).



Notes

I was delighted when asked to contribute to this festschrift to Bill Shea. My warm memories of Bill and his wife date back to the friendship they offered my family while I was a PhD student, and one of the highlights of my study program was an archaeology seminar I took with Bill. In that seminar we did such diverse things as struggle through the paleo Hebrew of the Izbet Sarta abcdary to discover a possible reference to Hophni and Phinehas, to restudying Egyptian history for possible links to the Exodus, to looking at the first and second temples. It was stimulating, exciting research, and typical of the kind of creative things that Bill was continuously investigating. Bill, I want to thank you for your enthusiasm, your scholarship, your creativity and your commitment to your Lord. I respectully dedicate this article to you. Robert K. McIver, Cooranbong, October 10, 1995.

In ancient times Sepphoris was renamed "Autokratis" by Herod Antipas, and as "Diocaesarea" after the Bar Kochba War.

Eric M. Meyers, then editor-in-chief of Biblical Archaeologist gives an alternate version of events, Meyers 1992b.

Longstaff 1990:9 estimates the walking time to be slightly longer, but points out that because Nazareth fell within the jurisdiction of Sepphoris, "The citizens of Nazareth undoubtedly would have turned to Sepphoris for such governmental services as thy required."

Surveys of the relevant historical sources and the information they reveal may be found in several places, e.g. Miller 1984: 1-4; Meyers, Netzer and Meyers 1992: 10-18.

This point is forcefully made by Miller 1992: 79, and appears to be supported by the different dates suggested in the secondary sources: Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1986: 155, suggest AD 19, while Batey 1984a: 252, suggests AD 26. Sepphoris again became the administrative center of Galilee during the administration of the Procurator Felix (52-60) despite the strong protests of Tiberius; Longstaff 1990: 11.

The joint project led by Eric and Carol Meyers of Duke University, North Carolina, and Ehud Netzer of Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1985-1990; Meyers, Meyers, and Guglund, 1995). The University of South Florida excavations are led by James F. Strange of the University of South Florida; associated with Thomas R. W. Longstaff of Colby College; Richard Batey of Rhodes College; and D. E. Groh of Garret-Evangelical Theological Seminary (Strange & Longstaff 1987-89; 1986, 1985; Strange, Groh, and Longstaff 1984-1985). The other major excavation of the site was conducted in 1931 by a team from the University of Michigan under the leadership of Leroy Waterman (Waterman 1937).

Cf. the similar dates in Strange and Longstaff 1987: 280.

All reconstruction of Gospel backgrounds involves an element of circularity, but because Mack distinguishes this layer by means of its wisdom perspective, his reconstruction of the earliest "layer" of Q is more vulnerable to this difficulty than many others.

The name Tiberias is known in John. It is mentioned peripherally in John 6:23, and Galilee is called the Sea of Tiberias in John 6:1 and 21:1. Jesus is never said to have entered the city.

"The suggestion of some scholars, therefore, that the failure of the New Testament to mention either Sepphoris or Tiberias is without significance must be questioned." See Meyers, "Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research," in Levine 1992: 325; cf. Freyne 1994: 84. Tiberias as a city is mentioned only peripherally in John 6:23, while Galilee is called the Sea of Tiberias in John 6:1 and 21:1. Jesus is never said to have entered the city.



After the bar Kochba revolt the sixth legion was located at Legio, which became one of the larger cities of the region, and larger than either Sepphoris or Tiberias; so Broshi 1980: 4.

Tarichaeae and Gaba were the two next largest towns to Sepphoris and Tiberius. They both covered less than 20 hectares, and would have had populations of about 3,000. Capernaum, the base of Jesus' Galilean ministry (Matt 4:13), had a population of something between 1,000 and 1,500; so Loffreda 1986: 18.

From their analysis of pottery using the technique of neutron activation, David Adan-Bayewitz and Isadore Perlman were able to establish that the common household pottery used in Roman Sepphoris were manufactured at two towns, Kefar Hananya in Northern Galilee, and Shikham, a town in very close proximity to Sepphoris (Adan-Ayewitz and Perlman 1990: 153-172). If nothing else, this research shows the close trade links that existed between the towns and cities of the region.

References

Adan-Bayewitz, D., and Perlman, I. 1990 The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period. Isreal Exploration Journal

40: 153-172.

Batey, R. A. 1984a Is Not This the Carpenter? New Testament Studies 30: 249-258.

1984b Jesus and the Theatre. New Testament Studies 30: 563-574.

1991 Jesus and the Forgotten City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

1992 Sepphoris: An Urban Portrait of Jesus. Biblical Archaeological Review 18/2: 50-62.

Broshi, M. 1979 The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Bulletin

of the American School of Oriental Research 236: 1-10.

Case, S. J. 1926 Jesus and Sepphoris. Journal of Biblical Literature 45: 14-22

Crossan, J. D. 1991 The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San

Francisco: Harper.

Downing, F. G. 1992 Cynics and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: Clark.

Freyne, S. 1980 Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian: 323 BCE to 135 CE.

Wilmington: Glazier.

1994 The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Pp. 77-121 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluation of the State of Current Research, eds. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. Leiden: Brill.



Goranson, S. 1987 The Minim of Sepphoris in the Light of Recent Excavations. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Amencan Schools of Oriental Research, Boston.

Lampe, G. W. H. 1961 A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon.

La Sor, W. S. 1987 Discovering what Jewish Miqva'ot Can Tell us about Christian Baptism.

Biblical Archaeological Review 13: 52-59.

Levine, L. I., ed. 1992 Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary.

LotTreda, S. 1986

Recovering Capharnaum. Gerusalemme: Edizioni Custodia Terra Santa.

Longstaff, T. 1990 Nazareth and Sepphoris: Insights into Christian Origins. Anglican Theological

Review, Supplementary Series no. 11: 5-15.

Mack, B. L. 1993

The Lost Gospel Q: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: Harper.

Meshorer, Y. 1979 Sepphoris and Rome. In Greek Numismatics and Archaeology, eds. 0.

Morkholm and N. M. Waggoner. Belgium: Cultura.

Meyers, E. M. 1992a The Challenge of Hellenism for Early Christianity. Biblical Archaeologist 55:

84-91

1992b Drawings of J. Robert Teringo in Jesus and the Forgotten City. Biblical Archaeologist 55: 106, 107.

1992c Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research. Pp. 321 -337 in Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary.

1993 Jesus and his Galilean Context. Paper presented at the Endowment for Biblical Research Lecture, Duke University.

Meyers, E. M., Netzer, E., and Meyers, C. 1986 Sepphoris: 'Ornament of All Galilee.' Biblical Archaeologist 49: 153-168.

1987 Artistry in Stone: The Mosaics of Ancient Sepphoris. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 223-231.

1985 Sepphoris (Oippori). Israel Exploration Journal 35: 295-297.





1992 Sepphoris. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Meyers, E. M., Meyers, C. L., and Huglund, K. G. 1995 Sepphoris (Oippori). Israel Exploration Journal 45: 68-71.

Miller, S. S. 1984 Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Leiden: Brill.

1992 Sepphoris, the Well Remembered City. Biblical Archaeologist 55: 74-83.

Netzer, E., and Weiss, Z. 1992 New Mosaic Art from Sepphoris. Biblical Archaeological Review 18: 36-43,

78.

Reed, J. 1993

"Places in Early Christianity: Galilee, Archaeology, Urbanisation, and Q." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Claremont University.

Strange, J. F. 1992 Six Campaigns at Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations,

1983-1989. Pp. 339-355 in Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary.

Strange, J. F., and LongstatT, T. R. W. 1985 Sepphoris (1984). Revue Biblique 92 :429.

1986 Sepphoris 1985. Revue Biblique 93: 252-254.




Strange, J. F., Groh, D. F., and Longstaff, T. R. W. 1984-85 Sepphoris (Oippori). Israel Exploration Journal 34: 51-52; 35: 297-299.

Waterman, L., et. al., ed. 1937 Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavation at Sepphoris,

Palestine, in 1931. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Yelven, S. 1937 Historical and Archaeological Notes. In Preliminary Report of the University

ofMichigan Excavation at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931, ed. L. Waterman, et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.


20 Reconciliation in Philo,

Josephus, and Paul

Norman H. Young Senior Lecturer in New Testament, Department of Theology, Avondale College, Cooranbong,

NSW, Australia.

My first significant meeting with Professor Bill Shea was when as a visiting professor I taught at the SDA Theological Seminary during the winter quarter of 1980-81. Bill introduced himself to me as the professor who was noted for his bow tie, hard exams, and easy marking. It is a pleasure to offer this paper in honor of this good-natured and distinguished scholar.

Introduction The coexistence ofPhilo, Josephus, and Paul. The importance of Philo

Judaeus for Pauline studies can hardly be exaggerated. As Henry Chadwick notes, Philo and Paul were two Hellenistic Jews who "fished in the same pool" (1965-66: 292). Philo's career (ca. 20 BC—AD 45-50) overlaps the beginning of Paul's ministry. Philo came from a well-to-do family in Alexandria. His Greek is the literary language of a well-educated diasporic Jew. His writings cannot be easily dated, apart from In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, both of which date after AD 41. Philo provides a crucial example of how a near contemporary of Paul used Greek to communicate Judaism to the Graeco-Roman world. It is therefore surprising that Leon Morris in his noteworthy study of the icatocUay-word group ignores the testimony of Philo (1960: 188-192).

Josephus's life (AD 37-100) also overlaped Paul's labors. His writings (AD 75-100) date to shortly after Paul's death. There is some evidence that Josephus became verbally fluent in Greek as he grew up in Palestine (Rajak 1984: 46-64). He later made concerted effort to improved his literary Greek by studying Greek literature, especially the historians (Jewish Antiquities 1.7,



8; 20.263; Bilde 1988: 62). As a Palestinian Jew who later functioned on foreign soil using the Greek language, Josephus' life experience parallels Paul's. Josephus is thus another important example of the way in which some Jews used Greek in explaining their faith.'

Paul was active as a Christian from ca. AD 35 to 67. His birth date is uncertain (ca. AD 5-15). Martin Hengel thinks that his proficiency in written Greek points to an upbringing until his youth outside of Palestine (1991: 34, 35), however, present research is tending to support the view that Greek was quite widely spoken in Palestine in the first century AD (Porter 1993: 199-235). Thus W. C. Van Unnik's hypothesis based on Acts 22:3 that Paul was raised in Jerusalem from childhood may not preclude a Palestinian Jew having the ability to use Greek (1973: 259-320). Paul's pronunciation, like Josephus', may have been provincial, but his fluency may still have been impressive (Jewish Antiquities 20: 264; 1 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6). We can conclude, then, that these three Jewish autliors, Philo, Josephus, and Paul wrote their works in Greek within a narrow period of time from around AD 10 to 95.

The use of the mccaDAy-group by these three writers occurs as follows: Philo 20 times (verb 6; noun 13; adjective 1); Josephus eight times (verb 6; noun 2); Paul ten times (verb 6; noun 4).

The basic meaning of Karaildvard. The basic meaning of xcaccAlcictow is to "exchange" or "change." The expanded idea of "reconciliation" is derived from the concept of "change." The simple idea of exchange may be behind the phrase Philo uses in De Vita Mosis 2.60 (Tcpec xataAA.ayfy Koctp6v, "towards the change of the seasons"), though the Loeb editor suggests the emendation Kat' iicAlayfiv 1=w:iv. More to the point is where Philo speaks of Joseph's brothers making a reconciliatory agreement (oi gev 66E4°1 xatocAlarripfoug It01.1100Vtat crui.ificiciEtc) with him by changing their hatred to friendship and their malice to affection (to gicioc Etc 4nA.Cav xai to icomovouv Etc €i)*votav gEtocr3aXovtEc; De Somniis 2.108). 2 The instrumental participle getar3c0.6vtEc ("by changing") clarifies what is involved in the process of reconciliation; the word is used again in association with xcaccAlolocco (De Decalogo 87). Philo also describes reconciliation as changing (p.€0opi.g6.)) from being enemies (oi TtoAginot) to becoming allies (De Virtute 154). Meeoppf(co is a nautical term meaning "to change anchorage," metaphorically it refers to changing from one place or state to another. Thus icottaXXcictcro3 refers to establishing a change in relationships from hostility to peace.

The vocabulary of reconciliation. In Philo and Josephus, the xecraliay-cognates are associated with a number of words that indicate the negative aspect in a relationship that must be dealt with in order to restore harmony. Among such words are OvaxEpaCvw ("to be annoyed with"), gxepcc or exOpoc ("enmity," "enemy"), nagioc or TcoA4toc ("war," "hostile"),


Reconciliation in Philo, Josephus, and Paul 235

occiatc ("party strife"), icarriyop6w ("to accuse") watarywilmcw ("to condemn"); &gap-Edw.) ("to err"), -K6Xaatc ("punishment"), OpTri ("anger"), tiggilitc ("complaint"), and xccAercafv6) ("to be embittered").

On the other hand, the two writers use a series of words that describe both the means of dealing with the estrangement and the resultant amity. Examples of these are ocomatioc ("forgetfulness"), xapi(ogat ("to show kindness"), xcIptc ("kindness"), EntEfxEta ("clemency"), Pariwatc ("betterment"), )tXice ("friendship"), Eipfiv -ri ("peace"), and Eilvota ("good-will").

A word which Philo frequently conjoins with KatccAlciacu and cognates is atigpaotc, which refers to a treaty or an agreement. Indeed, of the 20 occurrences of the KataUccy-group in Philo, eight are associated with otigpaotc and two with ecatiaccroc ("intransigent"). 3 On seven occasions Philo adds the words gvonovooc or onovocci to Kato:Woo:36). 4 The singular onovoil means a libation, but the plural form came to refer to a treaty or a truce because such alliances were usually concluded with a libation. Similarly gvanovooc refers to being in alliance or under truce with someone.

The usage with Kato:U(100w of terms related to a truce is no surprise for a word whose milieu is the resolving of hostilities. Philo and Josephus generally address interpersonal conflicts, but the military contexts often surface in their choice of associated terms.

The Parties Involved in Reconciliation Five uses of iccaccAlciaoco. In an excellent discussion of the term

xectaUciaco, I. Howard Marshall lists five ways in which the verb is used relative to the parties involved (1990: 258-274). We will use his classification (although relabelled), but since this present study includes the noun, we will ignore the distinction he makes on the basis of the passive, middle, and active voices. This reduces the categories to four as follows:

Reconciliation by mediation Reconciliation by initiative Reconciliation by forgiveness Reconciliation by forgiving and removing (cf. Marshall 1990: 127)

Reconciliation by mediation. In this method of reconciliation, X persuades Y and Z to give up their mutual anger. A' clear example of this type is Philo's narrative concerning the dispute between Lot and Abraham's herdsmen. In an effort to avoid future strife as well as present fictions, Abraham took a position between Lot's and his own herdsmen in order to reconcile the warring factions with conciliatory words WV ev [tEeoply cracc aug43anipiotc Xciyotc tout otc*poggvoug KartjAA.gEv; Philo, De Abrahamo 214).

In Philo's view, if a slave, fleeing from his master's threats, came to a



citizen for protection, he should not be surrendered to the master unless a reconciliation free of deceit and treachery is forthcoming (etc dcSciAouc eX06v icataXA.ayetc tac xwpic evapocc, De Virtute 124). Clearly the citizen is to act here as a mediator. If his efforts to secure reconciliation between the slave and his master fail, Philo advises that the slave be sold to another master—preferring the risk of a possible evil in an attempt to avoid a known one.

Philo notes that three intercessors mediated the reconciliation of the Israelites to the Father (Tptol, xpircitiEvot napaidairotc it* Ttatgpa [0€6c] xcaccA.Accr.;)v), namely, God's clemency and kindness, the piety of the Patriarchs, and the Israelites' own moral improvement (De Praemiis et Poenis 166, 167). Similarly, Josephus uses the noun icataXAcix-cric to describe the Israelites' effort to persuade Moses to act as their mediator with God (Kai [to TaflOod Toy M(Ducrriv rcapoccIA€1, xecraA.A.dicriv ccim.;)v yEvgaecci. npac Toy 0€6v; Jewish Antiquities 3.315).

Flaccus, the Prefect of Egypt, sent for the city's magistrates, ostensibly for their reconciliation with the rest of the city, though, according to Philo, his real intentions were hostile (Socc T4) ooxeiv Ent Kat aUccyaic itpOc Thy itatv; In Flaccum 77). Flaccus thus feigned to act as a mediator between the estranged parties.

These appear to be all the examples of "reconciliation by mediation" in the writings of Philo and Josephus. It is worth noting that Philo, with one exception, always uses the noun icataD.ayri in the plural form.' Stanley Porter, whose study is generally restricted to the verb, suggests multiple reconciliations, but it more likely reflects the dual nature of reconciliation (Porter 1994: 45).

Reconciliation by initiative. The examples in this section are instances where, to use Porter's language, "the subject effects reconciliation (or is reconciled) by persuading a hostile party to give up its anger against the subject" (1964: 17). In other words, X persuades Y to give up Y's anger against X.

Using a domestic image, Philo pictures the soul as a wife deprived of her husband, though not yet divorced from the good (man). By persevering effort, she is able to obtain agreements and reconciliation with her lawful husband, that is, right reason (fl ripet5oucia gev 11117E6) Se i.c33€1ilrig6vri 'rob KaA.of)

St5vataf nwc cricaptcplioaaa tocc Tcpec Toy 6p0Ov A.6yov Toy vogli.tov avopoc ougi3olocic Kai xato:Uayeec Ei.)pEiv).

Philo approves of the biblical injunction to return an enemy's straying beast because he believed that such an act of kindness would, as surely as the shadow follows the body, resolve the enmity (If); exepac Stoi),uatc; De Virtute 118). Being bound by the act of kindness, the enemy is led towards a truce (ayetat npoc To evanovSov xecpw, SouXo.)0€1,c). Of course the person who returned the beast has demonstrated by that act of kindness that



s/he has already turned her/his mind towards reconciliation (riSi Ttpoc xatccUaric tfiv Sfavotav tgtpantat). The subject here initiates the action that leads to reconciliation, which Philo defines as the dissolving of enmity.

Philo wisely thought that quarrels should be conducted with friendship in view. At the very least, even if one is not obliged to do anything for the enemy in the hope of reconciliation (E1 OVT01 Kai 1.tiSev intep ex6pov Tcparagov St' kATECOa xcaccA,Acty6v), the natural environment does not deserve our hostilities (De Virtute 154). This statement is a clear example of "reconciliation by initiative," which presents Philo as something of an environmentalist.

According to Philo, every soul has an accuser (gA.Eyxoc), which exhorts it to mend its ways. If the "accuser" succeeds in persuading the soul to change its ways, he rejoices and is reconciled to the soul; but if not, he wars implacably against the soul unceasingly by day and by night (yEr)06g icatalAcittecat, ouvrieetc Se 6:07COVSEI, TWA.Ega ALE 1.1.E6 3 inigpocv !ATE vincaap 64totaggioc; De Decalogo 87). The "monitor" is reconciled by persuading the soul to cease fighting against its admonitions.

In recounting the story of the Levite from Judges 19, Josephus tells us that there were never-ending bickering between the Levite and his wife (01.titirEtc avvExEic ainoic yivov -co). The wife finally left and returned to her parents. The Levite loved her deeply, so he went to his parents-in-law, and after solving the bickering, he was reconciled to her (Stalucoli.tEvog tac ggintrEtc Kricral)datEtat rEpoc aiuiv; Jewish Antiquities 5.138). Reconciliation here follows from addressing the cause of the parties' alienation, though the husband, who takes the initiative, did not ever desire the wife's departure.

Josephus writes that the Philistine generals were unhappy with Achish for allowing David to join their forces against the Israelites. They feared that David, an enemy, might use the occasion to become reconciled to his master [Saul] by harming the Philistine force (Kai yap °Zvi) Tcapgav xatocatcyfivat npoc Toy SECincitlp Kal<450aVta tidy -rjgergpav 815\7°41.1v; Jewish Antiquities 6.353). 7 The assumption is that the subject [David] might overcome Saul's anger by doing an act in his interest, namely, turn against the Philistines.

Reconciliation by forgiveness. In this method of reconciliation, X gives up his own anger against Y. In a metaphorical use of military imagery, Philo speaks of warfare against one's passions: "others to a limited degree mount a war against the passions, but they are reconciled and come to terms with their passions by extending the conciliatory word" (oi. Se ppaxgwc Kai oi) pkytiA.64 optiOcrtv ent Toy TG.)v ita0(;)v nolEgov, KatocXXiivrovroct Kai anovok itpec aura TIOEVLat Toy cluaatriptov A.6yov TcpocEivovtEc; Legum Allegoriarum 3.134). Here the subject abandons its own hostility towards the passions.



In Philo's opinion, Flaccus made the politician's worst mistake: he trusted his sworn enemies and repelled his friends, however, the enemies' grudge remained for they pretended by word only to appear to have been reconciled (oi Se ... TO Kat r)AXecxecct [a rare example of the perfect infinitive passive] &way A.6y4) govov entgopOciavT€g), but their deeds demonstrated otherwise (In Flaccum 19). Though in appearances only, the enemies take the initiative in broaching reconciliation.

The king of Egypt, who was apparently angry with his cupbearer, became reconciled to him after a short time (Wag oivoxocp SuaxEplivat necAtv oinc Etc ptocxpecv tcaTcalaTT6gEvoc; De Ebrietate 208). This was due to the king giving up his anger against the cup-bearer. Even in cases where subjects abandon their anger, reconciliation requires a response. Hence Philo speaks of the cup-bearer having been reconciled (caTaAlaydc), and then promptly forgetting Joseph who had foretold the reconciliation (6 iipxtotvox6oc elCA.0:001VETOCI. 'Ea tac KOCTOCA.ACCyac Ttp0EllitOVTO;; De Josepho 99).

Philo believed that Pharaoh was able to make reconciliation with the butler, but not the baker, because the former erred in the less serious matter of wine while the latter's sin involved the more important item of bread (Tcpoc gev Toy apxtotvox6ov yivovTat KaTaatcyal. ougpecoEtc (;)c tcv dcp.apcovta TcEpl, do eXarcov gepoc; De Josepho 156).

In Philo's account, what moved Joseph to offer reconciliation (ougecoac xai KocTocAlaycic) to his brothers was his love for the family and respect for his father (De Josepho 237, 263, 264). Joseph is thus willing to provide amnesty for all that his brothers did to him (ecomoTfav ecncivuov napev T6v Etc ege nertpantgwv; De Josepho 237), however, when Jacob dies, the brothers' former fear which they had before the reconciliation (Ov TcpO

v xectaA) aycliv EixerE) is renewed, supposing that Joseph's amnesty (4tvanfa) was simply to spare the father grief. Joseph responds by assuring them that he has freely granted them complete release from punishment (Thy Eic anixv alt ).ayflv if1S KoXaciaN exapt(ownv; De Josepho 262, 263). He goes so far as to call God as a witness to his conscience that his reconciliation was not false (bv [O€Ov] golpwpa wccAL tiov ouvEtS6Toc en' oalwoogoi. tacrocAlixyaic, De Josepho 266). Throughout the Joseph story, Philo relates reconciliation to Joseph's surrendering of his own right to be angry with his brothers.

On the basis of Deut 24:1, Philo denounces remarriage to a former wife as adultery. If a wife, after being dismissed, marries another man, and then becomes bereft of her second husband, she cannot reunite with the first husband.' If any former husband takes such a woman win as wife he is an adulterer and a panderer (101XECOLV 'LE Kai npoocywyEtav), the subsequent reconciliation with his former wife exposes both of these sins (oci yap cweic maccAlayal. grIvtigaT' 6,61 Tot-) exaTepou). Husband and wife are both worthy of death.' Presumably in this process, which Philo utterly denounces,



the first husband reverses his previous dismissal of his wife. Philo makes one metaphorical reference to God in connection with

reconciliation. Josephus is more direct (Jewish Antiquities 6.143). Samuel beseeches God to be reconciled with Saul (napcocaAdv *gat() toy 0E6V iccaccAlarrecleat TCp Eaot516,)). The reconciliation requires God to abandon his anger OA xcaercaivEtv), but God is not inclined to grant forgiveness

ouyyvciipiv), since it would not be just to forgive sins (acgapyrbiata xapg'EclOcct) on the basis of another's intercession. Reconciliation is again a matter of the subject ceasing to be angry and exercising forgiveness, though in this instance God refuses to do so.

In Josephus' version of the dialogue between the widow of Tekoa and David, the woman says, "be first reconciled to your own son and let your anger toward him cease" (T6) °aura) nal& ITCYCOV ncta).A,6criet KCCi tiv itpOq cci)tov opyiiv acPcg; Jewish Antiquities 7.184). This is another case where reconciliation is primarily the subject's ability to forgo anger and to offer forgiveness. The initiative of David is preserved by Josephus when he later refers to this event: "as four years had already elapsed after the reconciliation of his father with him" (µE -ca oe Tip Tot) Tucapec aka) KatccUayfiv tcoodpc)v et6'.)v lien" 81€11PwOotcov).

The emphasis in Artaxerxes' desire to be reconciled to his separated wife, whom he loved dearly, is also on the king's wish to forgive her—a wish frustrated by the non-negotiable nature of Persian law (cataAlayfivat gev akTi St& Toy voi.tov oinc e8l5vato; Jewish Antiquities 11.195). The word Josephus uses to describe the queen's separation (81.cgEttc) gives an insight into the concept of reconciliation, for it refers to an uncoupling and is the reverse of reconciliation.

The example of Malichus' reconciliation with Antipater is more the subject forgoing duplicity than anger, nevertheless, it belongs under this heading. Pleading innocence of his intrigue against Antipater, Malichus is reconciled to him and they reach an agreement (coaccAlciao€Tat npec Toy 'Avtinatpov, Kai ouvgi3rwav; Jewish Antiquities 14.278).

Reconciliation by forgiving and removing: Karailtfacrcv in Paul. The method of "reconciliation by forgiving and removing," according to Marshall and Porter, is found only in the writings of the apostle Paul (Marshall 1990: 127, 128; Porter 1994: 15, 16). In this case X removes the cause of his problem with Y, namely, Y's sin.

In Rom 5:8-11, there are a number of terms associated with icatocAlcio-ow, which are common ground with contexts in Philo and Josephus. Among these are Eiprivi ("peace"), eclAaptcoA6c ("sinful"), Opyri ("wrath"), exepac ("enemy"), and even ecyanri ("love").

Paul's argument is a fortiori (noacii Recaov). If through the death of Christ we were reconciled to God while we were enemies, we can be more sure of His benign treatment of us in the future now we are His friends. If He did



the big thing of giving His Son in death for enemies, He certainly will not withhold His Son's life from friends. Cranfield quotes Chrysostom to great effect: 6 yap to g€14ov Toic exOpoic 8€86.m.1)c irk to eAattova of) &Loa toic (fraoic; ("for shall not he who has given the greater thing to his enemies, give the least things to his friends?"; 1975 I: 268).

The aorist passives in Rom 5:10 are not referring to any human action, whether directed to God or to itself (Porter 1994: 160, 161). Romans 5:8-11 fits within the "reconciliation by forgiving and removing category," the te.) 0€4 (Rom 5:10a) notwithstanding. God (0 0€6c, Rom 5:9), through His action in Christ, has dealt with human sin. Paul's oticoa6)06vtEc (Rom 5:1, 9) is the guarantee that God has now in the present time dealt with sin. The interpersonal and reciprocal nature of reconciliation is preserved in Paul's assurance that we have now received reconciliation through Christ (Rom 5:11).

There are two places in Philo and two in Josephus which deal with marital reconciliation and they are relevant to 1 Cor 7:10, 11. In the cases in Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari Soleat 149, Jewish Antiquities 5.137 and Jewish Antiquities 11.195, the situation appears to be short of divorce and, therefore, from the Jewish point of view, open to reconciliation. That is to say, 1) pipakmaa gevirriTtrA.) oe hcPEPATIOVTI tOti KCCAOU *Uri (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 149), lacteal:Tram Toy civopa (Jewish Antiquities 5.137) and tiiiv otelCogtv (Jewish Antiquities 11:195) parallel Paul's yvveciwa &no avopoc voptclOTIvat (1 Cor 7:10). The separation (drreaaayEim) in De Specialibus Legibus 3.31 implies divorce since the woman remarries. Therefore the reconciliation with her former husband is illegitimate and Philo severely condemns it.

The Rabbis understood the law against remarriage to a former husband (Deut 24:1), to be a means of preventing the use of divorce to facilitate wife swapping. This appears to be Philo's view too, hence his pejorative condemnation of the first husband as a pimp (De Specialibus Legibus 3.31). Thus Philo and Josephus allow for reconciliation only in cases where the husband and wife have separated, but have not yet formally divorced. Once divorce has occurred, honorable reconciliation is not possible. This appears to be Paul's position too.''

The aorist infinitive passive (xwptclefivat) follows a verb of "saying", and is used deponently with middle voice, "I say ... that a wife should not separate herself from her husband." The driving force behind the wife's action might be a misunderstanding of the Christian attitude to sex in marriage. She may think that physical desires are inimical to spirituality (Hurd, Jr. 1983: 167, 168; contra Dungan 1971: 89-93). The onus for reconciliation thus falls on the wife, presumably either to abandon her view of marital sexuality or to forgo her own anger (Fee 1987: 290-296). Accordingly, this verse is similar to "reconciliation by forgiveness," with this modification: the wife does not



simply accept back the husband with whom she has been angry, but she returns to him."

The uniqueness of 2 Cor 5:18-21 is immediately apparent in that God is the stated subject of both participles in 2 Cor 5:18, 19, and yet the indirect object is the reflexivealutc"p' in both cases. Philo and Josephus prefer npac with the accusative following icatcOlacFm...), though there are several examples of the dative, however, these two writers never have the subject actively reconciling someone or something to himself or herself In 2 Cor 5:18, 19, God reconciles "us" and "the world" to Himself; such a usage distances Paul from his two fellow Jews.

The method of God's reconciliation is via forgiveness, "by not imputing to them their transgressions" (Aoyt(oiEvoc earwig is napant6uata ain6v, 2 Cor 5:19). The means of the reconciliation was the death of Christ (2 Cor 5:14, 15, 21), which must be assumed to be present in the simple otee Xptcrcoii (2 Cor 5:18) and iv Xptcrai) (2 Cor 5:19). 2 Corinthians 5:19 is probably an imperfect periphrasis, "God, by Christ, was reconciling the world to himself."'

The exhortation in 2 Cor 5:20, 6s€611€0a intip Xptotof), xataXAcipir€ T4.) 6E4), is similar to "reconciliation by mediation," but the emphasis on God's prior role places the passage in the "reconciliation by initiative" category. The apostles' ambassadorial appeal, "as though God were entreating through us," illustrates again the reciprocal nature of reconciliation." As Marshall says, "the action is complete only when friendly mutual relations are restored" (1990: 121). Forgiveness always has as its objective the restoration of relationships. This passage is an additional example of "reconciliation by forgiving and removing."

Conclusion As far as a comparison with Philo and Josephus is concerned, this study

concurs with the conclusion of Marshall and Porter. That is, that Paul uses the iccaaAlay-group in a way that is new, a semantic lateral shift. There are clear affinities between the three Jewish authors, but Paul, moved as he was by the saving significance of the death of Christ, gives the term reconciliation a new and unique context. God not only forgives sinners, He also removes the barrier of their sin.

Notes

Surprisingly, Steve Mason (1992) gives little attention to the relevance of Josephus' Greek for New Testament usage.

De Somniis 2.108 is an example of the subject giving up his own anger, for Philo speaks of Joseph's repentance (LEsa vo Ca).



Legum Allegoriarum 3.134; Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 149; De Somniis 2.108; De Abrahamo 214; De Josepho 156, 237; De Specialibus Legibus 3.31; De Praemiis et Poenis 166, 167; and De Josepho 156; In Flaccum 19.2. Josephus uses the verb augi3aCvw ("to agree with," Jewish Antiquities 14.278).

Legum Allegoriarum 134; De Ebrietate 208; De Josepho 263; De Specialibus Legibus 3.30, 31; De Virtute 119, 154; De Praemiis et Poenis 166, 167.

The one exception is De Vita Mosis 60, where either the sense is unusual or the text is corrupt.

Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 149. Loeb translates "widowed but not yet cast out," which does not make much sense of the later reconciliation, that is, if the husband is dead. LSI gives "divorce" as one ofthe meanings of kic136XXca, cf. Lev 21:7 (LXX) Kal. yuvaixce &13€(3Xrinevriv dent) avopog ccinfic. S. Belkin points out that Philo uses xrIp€15(a for deprivation by divorce as well as by the death of the husband.

The Loeb reads Kat.pOv yap cting) and Karbicravn. I have taken KatcaAccyfivai as an ingressive aorist infinitive; cf 1 Sam 29:4 (LXX) which uses otaDdinow in the same context.

Taking dotaXAccyauct as dismissal following the issuing of a bill of divorce (cf. TDNT 1.253). XrIpEtian cannot mean "widowed" here because Philo then says "whether the second husband is alive or dead;" if she were widowed the state of the second husband's health would be obvious.; cf fn 22.

De Specialibus Legibus 3.31. The Loeb translation "if a man is willing to contract himself to such a woman" is misleading. Philo does not disallow an alliance with a third husband, but to her first husband only (axxe, -gam coic cTel.Aotc gvcrrcovooc nEc).A.ov rj sepo€ yEvecrOw). It is her reconciliation with her first husband after the ending of the second marriage that constitutes the sin for Philo (see L. William Countryman 1989: 37 fn. 29).

1 do not agree with those commentators who take x,wpC(G) as a synonym for ec4Crint, that is, as referring to divorce.

For this reason Marshall sees elements of both "reconciliation by initiative" and "reconciliation by forgiveness" (1990: 121).

Paul uses periphrastic tenses 24 times, and the imperfect five times if we include 2 Cor 5:19. The only examples besides 2 Cor 5:19 where there are intervening words other than ae are Col 2:10, 23, which many would not accept as Paul's.

The genitive absolute with 6; is conditional or Supposition.

References Belkin, S.

1940 Philo and the Oral Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Bilde, P. 1988 Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and

Their Importance. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

Chadwick, H. 1965-66 St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria. Bulletin, John Rylands Library 48: 292.



Countryman, W. 1989 Dirt, Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implication

for Today. London: SCM.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1975 The Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

De Abrahamo = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1935 On Abraham. Pp. 2-135 in Philo, vol. 6. The Loeb Classical Library. Trans. F.

H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

De Decalogo = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1938 On the Decalogue. Pp. 3-95 in Philo, vol. 7. The Loeb Classical Library. Trans.

F. H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

De Ebrietate = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1930 On Drunkenness. Pp. 308-435 in Philo, vol. 3. The Loeb Classical Library.

Trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. New York: Putnam's Sons.

De Josepho = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1935

On Joseph. Pp. 138-271 in Philo, vol. 6. The Loeb Classical Library. Trans. F. H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

De Praemiis et Poenis = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1935 On Rewards and Punishments. Pp. 309-423 in Philo, vol. 8. The Loeb

Classical Library. Trans. F. H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

De Somniis = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1934 On Dreams, that they are God-sent. Pp. 285-575 in Philo, vol. 5. The Loeb

Classical Library. Trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. New York: Putnam's Sons.

De Specialibus Legibus = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1938-40 On the Special Laws. Pp. 98-209 in Philo, vol. 6 and Pp. 3-155 in Philo, vol.

8. The Loeb Classical Library. Trans. F. H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

De Virtute = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1940 On the Virtues. Pp. 158-305 in Philo, vol. 8. The Loeb Classical Library. Trans.

F. H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

De Vita Mosis = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1935 On Moses I & II. Pp. 274-595 in Philo, vol. 6. The Loeb Classical Library.

Trans. F. H. Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Dungan, D. L. 1971 The Sayings ofJesus in the Churches of Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fee, G. D. 1987 The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Hengel, M. 1991 The Pre-Christian Paul. London: SCM/TPI.



Hurd, J. C., Jr. 1983 The Origin of I Corinthians. 2nd ed. Macon, GA: Mercer University.

In Flaccum = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1935 Flaccus. Pp. 295-403 in Philo, vol. 9. The Loeb Classical Library. Trans. F. H.

Colson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Jewish Antiquities = Josephus, F. 1934 Jewish Antiquities, 8 vols. Trans. H. St. J. Thackery and R. Marcus. Cambridge,


Legum Allegoriarum = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1929 Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II, III. Pp. 140-473 in Philo, vol. 1. The

Loeb Classical Library. Trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. New York: Putnam's Sons.

Marshall, I. H. 1990 Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: Inter-

Varsity.

Mason, S. 1992 Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Morris, L. 1960

The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale.

Porter, S. E. 1993 Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek? Tyndal Bulletin 44: 199-235.

1994 KattaAA,6cacrw in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings. Estudios de Filologia Neotestamentaria 5: 45. Cordoba: Ediciones El Altnendro.

Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat = Page, T. E.; Capps, E.; and Rouse, W. H. D., eds. 1929 That the Worse is Wont to Attack Pp. 198-319 in Philo, vol. 2. The Loeb

Classical Library. Trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. New York: Putnam's Sons.

Rajak, T. 1984 Josephus: The Historian and His society. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Van Unnik, W. C. 1973 Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul's Youth. Pp. 259-320 in Sparsa

Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. Van Unnik, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.


21 The Role of Shechem in the Conquest of Canaan'

Bryant G. Wood Associates for Biblical Research, Ephrata, PA_

Throughout his distinguished career, Bill Shea has maintained a strong interest in the Exodus and Conquest, formative experiences for the fledgling nation of Israel. His article on the date of the Exodus (Shea 1982), remains a classic study in this area. I am pleased to offer this modest contribution to a close colleague and friend in the hope that it will enhance our understanding of those momentous events.

Introduction Shechem is the natural capital of the hill country of central Canaan. It is

protected by mountains, has an abundant water supply, and is blessed with wide, fertile fields to the east and west. Alt referred to Shechem as "the uncrowned queen of Palestine" (Wright 1965: 9). Throughout much of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and into the Iron I period, it was the most powerful city-state in the region. From excavations at the site, we know that Shechem was fortified from ca. 1750 to ca. 1150 BC. The city was strategically situated in a narrow pass between Mt. Gerizim to the south and Mt. Ebal to the north. Because of its geographical situation, Shechem controlled the roads and traffic in the area, both north and south, and east and west (Boling 1982: 247; Dorsey 1987: 69).

The Role of Shechem in Hill Country Politics Literary and archaeological data alike attest to the importance of the city.

In an Egyptian execration text dating to the 19th century (Posner's E6), there is mention of "the ruler of Shechem, Ibish/Abesh-Hadad" (Wilson 1969c: 329, n. 8). Also from the 19th century, from the reign of Sesostris III, comes the Stela of Khu-Sebek which tells of an expedition to Canaan in which the Egyptians "reached a foreign country of which the name was Sekmem ... then



Sekmem fell, together with the wretched Retenu" (Wilson 1969a: 230). According to Larry Toombs,

These texts indicate that by the mid-19th century Shechem was an important strategic and political center, a leader of resistance against Egyptian expansionist policies and probably the head of a city-state confederacy (1992: 1179; cf. Finkelstein 1994: 173).

The Amarna Letters shed considerable light on political conditions in Canaan in the mid-14th century. From them, we learn that Lab'ayu, the king of Shechem, controlled the central hill country from just north of Jerusalem to Megiddo, and was attempting to expand his holdings (Campbell 1965: 206; Finkelstein 1994: 174). According to the archaeological findings, the 14th century was the high point of Late Bronze Age culture at Shechem (Toombs 1992: 1182).

Toward the end of the 13th century, a number of destructions occurred on the periphery of Shechemite territory which very well may have been the result of the Shechemites once again trying to expand their holdings (Wood 1985: 561-571). This was at the end of the reign of Ramesses II, when Egyptian control of Canaan became lax. The campaign of Ramesses' son Merneptah to Canaan in ca. 1210 BC, soon after he took the throne, recorded on the famous Israel Stela, appears to be a reaction to these events. Merneptah says nothing about Shechem; only that he defeated Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam, and Israel (Wilson 1969b: 378). From Judges 9, we know that Shechem was an important political center in the mid-12th century, since Gideon's son Abi-melech came here to garner support for his ill-fated bid to become ruler of the tribes of Israel.

The epigraphic and archaeological data alike attest to the fact that Shechem was a powerful political center in antiquity, controlling most of the central hill country of Canaan from the 19th to the 12th century BC.

Shechem in the Conquest Narrative The role of Shechem in the Conquest narrative has been an enigma to

generations of Bible scholars. After the Israelites blazed a safe trail to central Canaan by defeating Jericho and Ai, they immediately went 34 km north to convene a covenant ceremony in the area of Shechem (Josh 8:30-35). This journey took them through the heart of the central hill country, territory they had not yet conquered. Significantly, women and children participated in this trek (Josh 8:35). It is obvious that the journey was a peaceful one, not a military expedition. In addition, not only did the Israelites travel through an unconquered area, but this event had previously been commanded by Moses (Josh 8:33; Deut 11:29, 30; 27:4-13). It is clear that the Shechem event was planned well ahead of time—before the Israelites set foot in the Promised


The Role of Shechem in the Conquest 247

Land and before the first spear was hurled in the land Canaan. Following the convocation at Shechem, the Israelites were tricked into

making a covenant with the Gibeonites (Joshua 9), followed by the southern campaign (Joshua 10). They then went north to battle a coalition of kings at the Waters of Merom and to destroy Hazor (Joshua 11). No campaigns in the central part of the country, the area controlled by Shechem, are mentioned.' At the completion of the Conquest, the Israelites once again returned to Shechem for a covenant ceremony as described in Joshua 24. In addition, one final act was carried out at Shechem, which seemed to be the culmination of the Conquest of Canaan

And Joseph's bones, which the Israelites had brought u_p from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem (Josh 24:32, NV).

This act of burying Joseph in Shechem demonstrates that a peaceful relationship existed between the Israelites and the people of Shechem. Jacob's land at Shechem had been willed to Joseph (Gen 48:22), who presumably passed it on to his eldest son Manasseh. The tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim settled in the area under the jurisdiction of Shechem (Joshua 16, 17), perhaps because of the land ownership there. This once again underlines the cordial relations that existed. In the period of consolidation following the Conquest, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim did not carry out any military operations within their allotment, but rather against Bethel and other towns at their borders (Judg 1:22-29, 35).

Previously Proposed Solutions There have been a number of solutions proposed for the unusual

relationship that existed between Israel and Shechem. One possibility often suggested is that Josh 8:30-35 and Joshua 24 are simply literary constructs. De Vaux, for example, says that Josh 8:30-35 is a late editorial insertion (1978: 594, 620). This may explain the journeys to Shechem for covenant ceremonies, but it does not explain the lack of military campaigns in the territory of Shechem, or the burial of Joseph there.

Another explanation is that the area of Shechem had already been conquered by the Israelites as described in Genesis 34. Here, we have the account of the slaughter of the men of Shechem by two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, because of the rape of Dinah, their sister. According to this theory, some Israelites settled in Shechem at that time and were still living there at the time of the Conquest (Jack 1925: 151, 152; Campbell and Ross 1963; Boling 1982: 254; Wright 1962: 77; Wright 1965: 20, 21, 135). This proposition is pure speculation, since there is no hint of Israelites living in Shechem between the time of Jacob and the Conquest. According to the



biblical record, Jacob's family stayed together and were forced to move to Egypt because of a famine in Canaan.

A third idea is the possibility that Israel conquered Shechem, or Shechem surrendered without resistance, although the event was not recorded in the Bible (Blaike 1893: 202; Kitchen 1966: 71; Davis 1969: 59). Again, because of its importance, if Shechem was defeated by the Israelites, logic dictates that it would have been included in the Conquest narrative.

A fourth prospect, suggested by John Bimson (1981: 211-214), is that Shechem was already destroyed and abandoned before the Israelites arrived. The possibility that this could be the case is dependent upon one's chronology for the Conquest. There are two windows of opportunity for this reconstruction. According to the archaeological findings, Shechem was abandoned in the LB IA period, ca. 1500-1450 BC, following the violent destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Another such abandonment occurred in the Iron I period, after the Abi-melech destruction, 1150-975 BC (Campbell 1993: 1347). Bimson would place the Conquest at the end of the Middle Bronze period and thus postulates that the Israelites visited the ruined site just before the rebuilding of the city in the LB IB period. Such a scenario would work only if his dating of the Conquest is correct. According to biblical chronology, however, we should expect the Conquest to have taken place at the end of the 15th century (Shea 1982: 233), in which case this particular explanation would be ruled out.

The most attractive solution thus far proposed is that the Israelites made a treaty or covenant with Shechem, which is not recorded in the Bible (Anderson 1957: 14; Gray 1967: 94; Bright 1972: 132; Soggin 1972: 229; Wright and Campbell 1988: 461). In the Septuagint, Josh 8:30-35 is placed after Josh 9:2, apparently in an effort to link the journey to Shechem with the Gibeonite covenant. Some have suggested that the covenant with the Gibeonites included Shechem (NIV Study Bible: 302). This is not compatible with historical reality, however, since Shechem was a much more important center than Gibeon and surely would have been mentioned if it were part of a covenant with Israel.

International treaties were of two types. Parity treaties, between equal powers, sought to establish nonaggression between the parties to guarantee the stability of the respective ruling dynasties (Barre 1992: 654). Such a treaty does not seem to fit the Israel-Shechem situation, however, since Israel had no political status at the time of the Conquest and could not be considered an equal with a well established, urban-based, power such as Shechem.

The second type, suzerain-vassal treaties, were made between a major power and a lesser power. They served to consolidate the hegemony of the suzerain, with the interests of the vassal being subordinate to those of the suzerain (Barre 1992: 654). Again, this type of treaty does not fit the relationship of Shechem and the Israelites because there is no hint in the



biblical record that Israel was a vassal to Shechem.

A New Proposal As a proposed solution, I suggest a slight variation on the treaty/covenant

approach. In view of the power and influence of Shechem, it seems most plausible that Israel came into central Canaan under the patronage of the king of Shechem. Such an arrangement would differ from a covenant or treaty. In a patron-client relationship, the client is under the care and protection of the patron, and in the case of Shechem and Israel, both parties stood to gain by the arrangement. According to this scenario, after Israel had wandered in the Sinai for 40 years, they struck a deal, evidently while Moses was still alive, with the king of Shechem. The terms of the agreement seems to have been that if the Israelites would help expand his holdings north and south, the king of Shechem would allow the Israelite tribes to settle in his domain, most likely in previously unoccupied areas, and in newly-acquired regions. This would have applied only to the hill country, since the Egyptians were firmly in control of the lowland areas along the coast and the inland Jezreel Valley.

One objection to this idea is the strong biblical prohibition against entering into treaties with the inhabitants of the land (Exod 23:32; 34:12, 15; Deut 7:2; Judg 2:2). This prohibition would have to be understood as applying only to the enemies of Israel, i.e. those outside Shechemite dominion. Such a patron-client agreement is reflected in both the biblical narrative and the Amarna letters, written about a half century after the arrival of the Israelites, according to a late-15th century dating of the Conquest.

The Biblical Narrative First, we note that the entry point of the Israelites in the central hill

country was at the southern border of the territory of Shechem, the area of Ai just north of Jerusalem. Secondly, consider the matter of the Gibeonite covenant. Once the Israelites had defeated Ai, and had gone to Shechem for the covenant renewal, the Gibeonites knew that they were next, since Gibeon is located just south of Ai, between Ai and Jerusalem. Following the covenant with Gibeon, the Israelites proceeded to campaign south of Gibeon, to add this area to the hegemony of Shechem. They were not altogether successful in this, as they were unable to take Jerusalem (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21) and the Shephelah cities of Gath (Josh 11:22; 13:3), Ekron (Josh 13:3; Judg 1:18, 19) and Gezer (Josh 16:10; Judg 1:29).

From there, the Israelites proceeded to the area north of the Shechemite domain to defeat a coalition of kings and bring Galilee under the control of Israel/Shechem. Again, there were certain areas that they could not bring under control, namely the Jezreel Valley, including Megiddo (Josh 17:11, 12; Judg 1:11).



The Amarna Letters The Conquest of Canaan did not end with the covenant ceremony of

Joshua 24. The tribes continued the struggle in their individual allotments for many decades, as documented in the book of Judges, and reflected, I believe, in the Amarna Letters (abbreviated as EA plus letter number). The debate over the possible connection between the habiru of the Amarna Letters and the biblical Israelites is well known. The term habiru is a social designation meaning fugitive or refugee, which was in use throughout the ancient Near East for most of the second millennium (Lemche 1992). While every reference to habiru in the Amarna Letters does not necessarily refer to the Israelites, if the Israelites came into the land at the end of the 15th century, as the Bible indicates, and if the Israelites were involved in an armed struggle to gain control of the central hill country, as the Bible also indicates, then at least some of the references to habiru in the areas where the Israelites were active must refer to the Israelites (Merrill 1987: 1'02-108). Such an assumption correlates quite well with the biblical data and the information gleaned from the Amarna Letters.

A number of the Amarna Letters indicate that the Shechemites were working with the habiru/Israelites to expand their territory. Since Lab'ayu was a third generation ruler (EA 253), there was continuity in leadership from the time of the conquest. This could account for a continuing relationship between the Shechemites and the Israelites/habiru. We have three letters from the king of Shechem (EA 252-254). In one letter, Lab'ayu has a somewhat defiant tone, much different than the letters from the other city states (EA 252; Campbell 1965: 195-196; Hess 1993: 99) This, coupled with the fact that Shechem was fortified during this period, suggests that Shechem was somewhat independent of Egyptian control and was pursuing its own best interests.

The king of Jerusalem complains that Lab'ayu gave the land of Shechem to the habiru (EA 289). The sons of Lab'ayu, and Miliku, king of Gezer, are accused of giving the land of the king (of Egypt) to the habiru (EA 287) . The king of Megiddo charges that "two sons of Lab'ayu have indeed given their money to the habiru and to the Suteans in order to wage war against me" (EA 246). Lab'ayu answers the charge that his son was "consorting with the habiru" (EA 254). These allusions suggest a close alliance between Lab'ayu and the habiru (Harrelson 1957: 7, 8; Reviv 1966: 253-255).

A number of the Amarna Letters indicate that, in the mid-14th century, the habiru and the Shechemites were attempting to subdue areas that the Israelites failed to subdue during the Conquest. The Israelites were able to take most of the south, with the notable exception of Jerusalem and the Shephelah. The king of Jerusalem complained loud and long to the king of Egypt that he was being besieged by Lab'ayu and the habiru. He pleads:


Hazor (227-28)

Acco (232-34, 235+327)

Megiddo (242-48, 365)

Beth Shan• Pella

Gath Padalla (255-56)

(249-50)

Shechem (252-54)


Ashkelon (320-26)

Gaza

Beth El Gezer

(292-94, 267-77, 297-300, 378)

Gath? (63-65, 335, 278-84, 366)

Lachish (328-32)• Hebron

Jericho

Jerusalem (285-91)

Cities of ancient Canaan, with the numbers of the Amarna Letters originating at each city indicated in parenthesis.



May the Icing_give thought to his land; the land of the king is lost. All of it has attacked me. fam at war as far as the land of Seru and as far as Ginti-kirmil. All the mayors are at peace, but I am at war. I am treated like an habiru, and I do not visit the king, my lord, since I am at war. I am situated like a ship in the midst of the sea. The strong hand of the king took the land of Nahrima and the land of Kasi, but now the habiru have taken the very cities of the king. Not a single mayor remains to the king, my lord,. all are lost. ... If there are no archers this year, all the lands of the king, my ford, are lost (EA 288).

He charges that the sons of Lab'ayu, along with others, are attempting to isolate Jerusalem (EA 289).

The king of Gezer at one time complained about attacks from the habiru and harassment from Lab'ayu, but later seems to have joined forces with Lab'ayu's sons and the habiru. He says that the war against him is severe and he begs the king to "save his land from the power of the habiru" (EA 271) and states that there is "war against me from the mountains" (EA 292) and that the habiru are stronger than him and that he is in danger of being destroyed by the habiru (EA 299).

Suwardata, possibly the king of Gath, another city that the Israelites could not conquer, states that Lab'ayu, who is now dead, used to take his towns (EA 280). He also tells the king of Egypt that he has smitten the habiru that rose up against him, and that he and the king of Jerusalem are at war with the habiru (EA 366).

Turning to the north, the king of Gath-Padella writes that the sons of Lab'ayu are trying to coerce him to revolt:

And thus the two sons of Lab 'ayu keep saying to me, "Wage war against the king, your lord, as our father did, when he attacked Sunama, Burquna, and Harabu, and deported the evil ones, lifting up the loyal." He also seized Gittirimmunima, and he cultivated the fields of the king, your lord (EA 250).

The king of Megiddo was also being besieged by the Shechemites and the habiru. He complains:

May the king, my lord, know that since the return to Egypt of the archers, Lab'ayu has waged war against me. We are thus unable to do the harvesting, and we are unable to go out of the city gate because of Lab'ayu. When he learned that archers were not coming out, he immediately determined to take Megiddo. May the king save his city lest Lab'ayu seize it. Look, the city is consumed by pestilence, by ... So may the king give a garrison of 100 men to guard his city lest Lab'ayu seize it. Look, Lab ayu has no other purpose. He seeks simply the seizure of Megiddo (EA 244).

He says he is guarding Megiddo around the clock, because "the warring of the habiru in the land is severe" (EA 243). Finally, as was mentioned earlier, the king of Megiddo states that the two sons of Lab'ayu bribed the habiru to wage war against him (EA 246).



Summary In summary, although I can offer no parallels from the Ancient Near East,

a patron-client relationship between Shechem and Israel seems to best fit the epigraphic and archaeological data presently at our disposal. This began at the time of the Conquest, as reflected in the Joshua narrative, and continued to the mid-14th century, as demonstrated by the Amarna Letters. Even as late as the mid-12th century, the Abi-melech episode of Judges 9 shows an ongoing political relationship between the urban center at Shechem and the Israelite tribes. We shall probably never know the full details as to what lay behind this understanding. It seems strange that such a relationship should occur in view of the conflict between these parties in Genesis 34. Of course, that was nearly 500 years earlier according to a biblical chronology and may have been forgotten by the Shechemites. The fact that Jacob's descendants retained rights to land at Shechem may have maintained ties between the two communities. Or, it may be that Shechem was concerned about its own safety in the face of the advancing Israelite tribes. On these matters we can only speculate.

Notes

This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Near Eastern Archaeological Society, November 19, 1993, at Tysons Corner, VA.

In a similar fashion, Israel bypassed the central part of the country in the conquest of Transjordan (Num 21:21-35). It is possible that Shechem controlled this territory as well, since Lab'ayu's son Mut-Bahlu ruled Pella (EA 255, 256).

Translations of the Amarna Letters are those of Moran (1992).

References Anderson, B. W.

1957 The place of Shechem in the Bible. Biblical Archaeologist 20: 10-19.

NIV Study Bible=Barker, K., ed. 1985 NIV Study Bible: New Internations Version. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Barre, M. L. 1992 Treaties in the ANE. Pp. 653-656 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,vol. 6,

ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Bimson, J. J. 1981 Redating the Exodus and Conquest, 2nd ed. Sheffield, England: Almond.

Blaike, W. G. 1893 The Book of Joshua. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son.

Boling, R. G. 1982 Joshua: A New Translation With Notes and Commentary. The Anchor



Bible, vol 6., eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bright, J. 1972 A History of Israel. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Campbell, E. F., Jr. 1965 Shechem in the Amarna Archive. Pp. 191-207 in Shechem: The

Biography of a Biblical City, by G. E. Wright. London: Gerald Duckworth.

1993 Shechem: Tell Balatah. Pp. 1345-1354 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Campbell, E. F., Jr., and Ross, J. F. 1963 The Excavations of Shechem and the Biblical Tradition. Biblical

Archaeologist 26: 9-11.

Davis, J. J. 1969

Dorsey, D. A. 1987

Conquest and Crisis: Studies in Joshua, Judges and Ruth. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.

Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268: 57-70.

Finkelstein, I. 1994 The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of Canaan in the

Third and Second Millennia BCE. Pp. 150-178 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, eds.

Finkelstein and N. Na'ainan. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society.

Gray, J. 1967

Joshua, Judges and Ruth. London: Thomas Nelson.

Harrelson, W. 1957 Shechem, the "Navel of the Land," Part I: Shechem in Extra-Biblical

References. Biblical Archaeologist 20: 2-10.

Hess, R. S. 1993

Jack, J. W. 1925

Kitchen, K. A. 1966

Smitten Ant Bites Back: Rhetorical Forms in the Amarna Correspondence from Shechem. Pp. 95-111 in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, eds.

C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson. Alter Orient and Altes Testament Band 42. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.

The Date of the Exodus in the Light of External Evidence. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.



Lemche, N. P. 1992 Habiru, Hapiru. Pp. 6-10 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, ed. D.

N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Merrill, E. H. 1987 Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Book House.

Moran, W. L. 1992

Reviv, H. 1966

The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

The Government of Shechem in the El-Amarna Period and in the Days of Abimelech. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 252-257.

Shea, W. H. 1982 Exodus, Date of the. Pp. 230-238 in The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Soggin, J. A. 1972

Joshua, a Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Toombs, L. E. 1992 Shechem. Pp. 1174-1186 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, ed. D.

N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Vaux, R. de 1978 The Early History of Israel. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Wilson, J. A. 1969a Egyptian Historical Texts. Pp. 227-264 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

1969b Egyptian Hymns and Prayers. Pp. 365-381 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

1969c Egyptian Rituals and Incantations. Pp. 325-330 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Third Edition with Supplement, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Wood, B. G. 1985

Wright, G. E. 1962

Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age: An Investigation of the Terminal LB JIB Phase, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.

Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

1965 Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. London: Gerald Duckworth.



Wright, G. E., and Campbell, E. F., Jr. 1988 Shechem. Pp. 458-462 in The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.


22 Some Notes on the Identity

of Tell Jawa (South), Jordan: Mephaath or Abel Keramim?

Randall W. Younker Director, Institute of Archaeology, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

As a student, colleague, and friend of Dr. William H. Shea, I have always been impressed by his extraordinary breadth of expertise and interests. One of these interests has been ancient site identification. Since Dr. Shea was one of those who first infected me with an interest in this arena, it is a distinct pleasure to offer some thoughts on the biblical identity of Tell Jawa (South), an important Biblical period site whose excavation I had the privilege of initiating in 1989.

A few years ago, Michele Daviau and I published an article in the Israel Exploration Journal in which we challenged Yoel Elitzur's identification of Mephaath with Tell Jawa (Elitzur 1989; Younker and Daviau 1993). Elitzur presumed that Jawa was a Moabite site, while our excavations revealed Ammonite material culture.

Our article, in turn, received a response from Prof. Kallai (1993). Kallai, after rightfully pointing out the necessarily tentative nature of ethnic identifications with material remains, especially since our work in this region is just beginning, does seem to allow that we are correct in identifying the seventh century BC remains at Jawa as Ammonite. We would add that our work since 1989 only seems to confirm our conclusions on this matter, however, since Kallai believes that the reference in Jeremiah 48 to Moabite occupation may reflect an earlier period, the material culture evidence for seventh century Ammonite occupation at Tell Jawa is irrelevant with regard to its identification with Mephaath as far has he is concerned.



Topographical Considerations Setting aside the dating of Jeremiah 48 for the moment, we would still

question whether the "topographical" and "general archaeological circumstances" Kallai refers to are sufficient to propose the equation of Tell Jawa (South) with biblical Mephaath. The fact remains that there are topographical data in Joshua 13, 21; 1 Chronicles 6; and Jer 48:21 which can be linked to the actual geophysical topography in this region. Site names by themselves are problematic because their identifications are not always certain and sometimes they may be shifted to other sites through time. On the other hand, references to associated geophysical features such as mountains, valleys, and rivers which are immovable can provide more reliable reference points for locating sites.

In the case of Mephaath, both Josh 13:18 and Jer 48:21 strongly indicate that this site was located on the mishor (11/..M3; "plain," "tableland"). What or where is that plain? Modern geographers generally refer to this region of central Jordan as the Central Transjordanian Plateau, an area that extends from the Nahr el-Zerqa (the biblical Jabbok, e.g. Deut 2:37) to the Wadi el-Mojib (the biblical River Anion, e.g. Num 21:13). Current geographical nomen-clature has provided a term which roughly corresponds to the Central Transjordanian Plateau—el-Belqa. Technically, the belga extends not only from the Nahr el-Zerqa (the biblical Jabbok River) to the Wadi el-Mojib (the biblical River Arrion), but also from the eastern desert to the Jordan River. The belga, thus comprises a geographical district about 80 km long and 30 km wide. It is subdivided into two sub-regions: the northern belga which includes the hilly area around Amman, and the southern belga which includes what is now called the Madaba Plains region. The line of demarcation between the northern belga hill country and the southern belga plain is quite distinctive and abrupt.

Biblical geographic nomenclature provides yet two additional names which correspond to these two major topographical divisions of the Central Transjordanian Plateau: (1) Mountains of Gilead, which in some biblical passages included the hill country south of the Jabbok (e.g. Deut 3:16; cf. Bartlett 1970, i.e. the highlands in the northwest belga); (2) and the mishor (the "tableland" in the southeast belga; e.g. Deut 3:10). It is in this later, tableland region, that Mephaath is located.

Tell Jawa's Position Relative to the Mishor The fact is, Tell Jawa (or Khirbet Nef as for that matter) is not located on

the plain, rather, Jawa is situated on one of a series of high hills (elev. 928 m) that are part of a long ridge that overlooks the Madaba Plains to the south. (The average height of the plain is just under 800 m), and while the land gradually descends from Jawa's south side down toward the plain, creating a rather grand vista, it is not even at the edge of the plain. There are actually


Identity of Tell Jawa (South): Mephaath or Abel Keramim? 259

several wadis to the south which sharply dissect the landscape creating an undulating topography. The plain or mishor proper does not begin until the surface of the land levels out at a point about five kilometers south of Jawa at an elevation just under 800 m.

That Jawa has traditionally been considered part of the hill country and not the plain, receives support from the fact that in more recent times the tribal border between the Beni Sakhr (who inhabit the Madaba Plain), and the belqa tribal confederation (who inhabited the hill country immediately north of the plain) ran several kilometers south of Jawa (Peake 1958: 253; Abujaber 1989: 235). This meandering border follows the hills fairly closely indicating that the natural topography has served as a traditional border between these two regions within the belqa.

While in our article (Younker and Daviau 1993) we emphasized the incongruence between archaeological finds and the text of Jeremiah 48 concerning the ethnicity of Mephaath's inhabitants, we also alluded to the geographical setting as being in the hill country, north of the Moabite plain. This, for me, is still a problem for identifying Mephaath with Jawa. If one follows Josh 13:18, as Kallai suggests, I would expect to find biblical Mephaath somewhere on the actual tableland, south of this point.

Other Identifications for Tell Jawa My reasons for not identifying Tell Jawa with Mephaath are not simply

negative ones. I believe that Jawa is a more suitable candidate for another biblical site, Abel Keramim. Abel Keramim— (O') 1D 51x, `abel keramfm) means "meadow of the vineyards" or "plain of the vineyards" (KJV). This site is mentioned only once in the Hebrew scriptures, as the place where the Israelite judge Jephthah defeated the Ammonites. The text reads, "He Jephthah] defeated them [the Ammonites] all the way from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith (twenty cities) and to Abel Keramim; it was one great slaughter. Thus were subdued the Ammonites before the Israelites" (Judg 11:33, NIV).

At present there is no agreement among scholars as to where Abel Keramim is to be located. The two sites associated with it in the text (Minnith and Aroer) are of no particular help since their locations are also uncertain (Judg 11:33). A key point in determining the location of Abel Keramim is the direction from which Jephthah commenced his attack (cf. Kallai 1986: 300 n. 39). Some scholars assume that the attack came from the north and have, accordingly, suggested that Abel Keramim is to be found in northern Ammon. Simons thus vaguely suggested that the site was to be found in the belqa (1959: 299), while Mittman specifically proposed Kom Yajuz as a possible candidate (1969: 75).

Most scholars, however, assume that the attack commenced from the south; hence, most proposals for Abel Keramim lay in that direction.



Suggested candidates for a southern Abel Keramim include Tell Jawa (Du Buit 1958: 135), Khirbet es-Suq (Schultze 1932: 76; Alt 1936: 112 n. 2; Glueck 1939: 249), Ndur (Glueck 1939: 248; Abel 1938: 233, 234), Tell el-Umeiri (Redford 1982a: 69, 70), and Sahab (Knauf 1984; 1992; Kafafi 1985).

Of these candidates, Redford (1982a: 70 n. 130) argues that Ndur is too far to the southwest to be in harmony with Eusebius' later description of Abel Keramim, and that the proposals for both Jawa and Khirbet es-Suq are "utterly capricious." Redford, therefore has proposed Tell el-Ùmeiri (ibid.). Ilmeiri not only appears to fit Eusebius' description, it is strategically located, and it has the largest perennial spring in the vicinity.

Knauf has tried to challenge Redford's identification by arguing that Ùmeiri lacked the Late Bronze Age II remains that would be expected if the site was occupied during the time when Thutmoses III's Transjordan itinerary (which appears to mention Abel Keramim) was composed (cf. Knauf 1992: 10, 11), however, Knaufs criticism on this point must be dismissed since Late Bronze Age II remains have in actuality been excavated at Ùmeiri. Specifically, Late Bronze debris layers were excavated during the 1989 season in Field F and revealed, among other things, a Cypriot base-ring sherd and a typical Late Bronze Age Astarte plaque figurine (Younker et al 1990: 21).

However, there are other reasons for questioning the identity of Abel Keramim with Ùmeiri. While Redford is correct that there is a spring at Ùmeiri which would have provided water for those following the Egyptian itinerary, the question remains whether the immediate vicinity around Umeiri was so advantageous for grape production that it would have inspired the name "plain (or "meadow") of the vineyards." Certainly, the presence of numerous Iron Age wine presses near Umeiri supports the idea that grapes were grown nearby, but that is true of almost any place in the hill county of Ammon. The problem with identifying Thneiri with Abel Keramim is the fact that the wadi floors in the immediate vicinity of the tell are somewhat constricted in size. Thus, although vineyards were undoubtedly planted around Umeiri in antiquity, there is no associated "plain" or "meadow" at "Umeiri which would have been large enough to have justified the naming of the district or a site after them.

Another candidate for Abel Keramim is Sahab (Knauf 1984; 1992; Kafafi 1985: 17). Knauf notes that, according to early Islamic tradition, a battle was fought in AD 634 on the plain between Abil, Ziza, and Qastal, a large region immediately south of Sahab. Knauf seems to suggest that since this plain served as a battlefield in Islamic times, it could easily have provided the same service for the battle near Abel Keramim.

There are a number of considerations, however, that make the equation of Sahab with Abel Keramim problematic, in my opinion. The first is that Sahab is a bit too far east to have adequate rainfall for viticulture. Historically, Sahab has been the eastern most village of the Ammon region before one enters the



desert. It is east of the Khatt Shabib (Abujaber 1989: 160) and sits on the rainfall border of the 200 mm isohyet. The territory immediately east of Sahab averages between 100 and 200 mm of rainfall per year. The typical crop, since the village was resettled in 1892, has been wheat and barley, not grapes. Thus, Sahab seems an unlikely place to warrant the name Abel Keramim. As for Knauf's battlefield, it is true that Sahab is at the north end of the Islamic battlefield, however, this region is fairly large and Sahab is not the only site that overlooks this plain. Indeed, another prominent site that overlooks this plain is Tell Jawa, ca. 7 kln west-southwest of Sahab, which is within the 300-400 mm isohyet.

Tell Jawa = Abel Keramim? Du Buit was the first to propose Tell Jawa (South) as a possible candidate

for Abel Keramim (1958: 135, 157, 179). Although, as noted above, Redford dismisses Du Buit's suggestion as "utterly capricious" (Redford 1982a: 70 n. 130), there are several factors which, in my opinion, commend it. First, Jawa is strategically located on a high ridge that overlooks the major southern approach route into Rabbath Amman and probably did in antiquity. Despite Redford's comments, there is no reason why Jawa could not be the Abl krm listed in Thutmoses III's itinerary.

Second, Jawa's occupational history may extend well into the Middle Bronze Age. While recent excavations by Daviau did not generally penetrate deeper than Iron II and Iron I, a probe which I conducted during the first season did recover some earlier sherds, including MB IIC/LB I "Chocolate-on-White" ware.

Third, Jawa, like neighboring Umeiri (which are in line of site of each other), is about six Roman miles south of Amman. This distance closely fits Eusibius' location of Abel Keramim.

Finally, the convergence of two broad valleys immediately north of Jawa, the Wadi el Hinu (formerly known as the Wadi Jawah) and the Wadi Hinu el Mardshida could have inspired the name "plain (or "meadow") of the vineyards." Both of these wadis, which are unusually wide and flat for the hill country south of Amman (especially when compared with the narrow wadis around nearby Umeiri), are, even today, agriculturally rich. That they could have been used for grape production in antiquity is evidenced by the numerous ancient bedrock winepresses that can be seen on the hillsides that overlook these valleys. These valleys, thus, could have provided a distinctive landmark that would of justified the appellation "meadow of the vineyards" for both biblical and Egyptian geographers. When these data are viewed together, Tell Jawa's identification with Abel Keramim seem, at the least, possible, if not probable. As always, it can be hoped that further survey work and excavation will continue to throw more light on this question.



References

Abel, P. F. M. 1938 Geographic de la Palestine Vol. II. Paris: J. Gabalda.

Abujaber, R. S. 1989 Pioneers Over Jordan. London: I. B. Tauris & Co, Ltd.

Alt, A. 1936

Zur rOmischen Strasse von Philadelphia nach Esbus. Palastina-Jahrbuch,32: 110-112.

Bartlett, J. R. 1970 Sihon and 0g, Kings of the Amorites. Vestus Testamenturn 20: 257-277.

Du Buit, M. 1958 Geographic de la Terre Sainte. Paris.

Elitzur, Y. 1989 The Identification of Mefdat in View of the Discoveries from Kh. Umm er-

Rasas. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 267-277.

Glueck, N. 1939a Explorations in Eastern Palestine III. Annual of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 18, 19.

Kafafi, Z. A. 1985

Egyptian Topographical Lists of the Late Bronze Age on Jordan (East Bank). Bihlische Notizen 29: 17-21.

Kallai, Z. 1986 Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Boundaries of Israel.

Jerusalem: Magnes.

1993 A Note on 'Is Mefdat to be Found at Tell Jawa (South)?' by R. W. Younker and P. M. Daviau. Israel Exploration Journal 43: 249-251.

Knuaf, E. A. 1984 Abel Keramim. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 100: 119-121.

1992 Abel-Keramim. Pp. 10, 11 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Mittmann, S. 1969

Aroer, Minnith, and Abel Keramim (Jdg. 11, 33). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 85: 63-75.

Peake, F. G. 1958 History and Tribes ofJordan. Florida: University of Miami.

Redford, D. 1982a A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan. Journal for the Society of Egyptian

Archaeology 12.2: 55-74.



1982b Contact between Egypt and Jordan in the New Kingdom: Some Comments on Sources. Pp. 115, 116 in Studies in the History and Archaeology ofJordan ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

Schultze, F. 1932 Ein neuer Meilenstein and die Lage von Jaser. Paleistina-Jahrbuch 28: 68-80.

Simons, J. 1959 The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.

J. Brill.

Younker, R. W., and Daviau, P. M. 1993 Is Mefdat to be found at Tell Jawa (South)? Israel Exploration Journal 43: 23-

28.

Younker, R. W., et al. 1990 A Preliminary Report of the 1989 Season of the Madaba Plains Project: The

Regional Survey and Excavations at Al Dreijat, Tell Jawa, and Tell el-Umeiri. Andrews University Seminary Studies 28.1: 5-52.


23 The Ten Commandments

and Ethical Dilemmas

Robert M. Johnston New Testament and Christian Origins, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

I am privileged to make this offering to my friend Bill Shea, but my only justification for doing so in such a distinguished company of Old Testament scholars and archaeologists is my knowledge that Dr. Shea, besides being a prolific scholar and author, is a very practical man. So I am bold to believe that he will not look askance at a piece that has some implications for real life.

Introduction Moral people are able to live most of their days in reasonably certain

knowledge of what is the right thing to do, whether or not they always do it. In times of crisis, however, it is often harder to know what is right than to do it. The classic dilemma is that of one who is hiding innocent or righteous fugitives from malevolent persons—the Rahab who concealed the Israelite spies from the authorities of Jericho and misled their pursuers (Joshua 2), or the Michal who by a clever ruse protected David from her father's police (1 Sam 19:11-17), or the Dutch family that shielded Jewish people from the Gestapo and the fate of the death camps.

The dilemma is between the precept forbidding murder and that which forbids falsehood; for the intentional betrayal of innocent people to those who murder them makes one a participant in the shedding of their blood, and to mislead someone in any way is, at least in some measure, deception. Indeed, if falsehood can be defined as any intention to deceive, either through misinformation or the withholding of information, then it must be admitted as an intrinsic aspect of any adversarial situation. It is a part of war, competitive sports, and even of nature itself (for example, all camouflage and protective coloration of animals).



How may a conscientious person decide what to do when two moral precepts appear to collide with each other? That is the kind of question that permits professional ethicists to earn a living.

The Place of the Decalogue in Christian Ethics While there have always been antinomians in the Christian tradition,

contextualists whose answer to all behavioral questions is simply to "walk in the Spirit," the main stream of Christian morality has always placed much emphasis on the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. In fact, like Late Judaism, the New Testament makes much more explicit use of the Ten Commandments than the Old Testament does (Grant 1947; Vokes 1968).

The Gospels quote Jesus exalting commandments of the Decalogue over oral law (Mark 7:1-23; Matt 15:1-20), commending their observance as the way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22; Matt' 19:16-22; Luke 18:18-23), and intensifying their demands (Matthew 5). Paul cites them with respect in Rom 7:7, 8; 13:9; Eph 6:2, 3. 1 Tim 1:8-11 translates the commandments into a Hellenistic vice list. James 2:10-12 insists that obedience to all equally is required.

It is natural, then, that for ordinary Christians the supreme standard of moral behavior has historically been the Ten Commandments, especially as interpreted and exemplified by Jesus. Their ethic is deontological and nomistic. That is to say, they judge behavior not so much by motive (which is truly known only to God) or by end result (which can humanly never be foreseen with complete accuracy and completeness), but by conformity to precepts that Christians believe came from God. Even a Valentinian Gnostic like Ptolemxus in his Letter to Flora, had to concede the divine origin and authority of the Decalogue.

All this serves only to sharpen the dilemma. The conflict is now between two divine Words, the sixth and the ninth commandments of the Decalogue. (The various religious traditions number the commandments differently; see Nielsen 1968: 10. The following discussion, for convenience, will refer to the numbering accepted in the Reformed Protestant and Anglican traditions; but neither the argument nor the conclusion is dependent on the method of numbering.)

The Character of the Last Five Commandments The Biblical account says that the Ten Commandments were written on

two stone tables (Exod 32:15, 16), and this circumstance has given rise to speculation about how the commandments were distributed between the two. Most commonly it has been assumed that the first table held the commandments dealing with duties toward God (commandments one through four) and the second table bore those dealing with relations to other human


The Ten Commandments and Ethical Dilemmas 267

beings (five through ten). A slightly different schema was advocated by Philo (Decalogue 106-121) and the Tannaitic Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel according to Mekilta Bahode.f 8 (Lauterbach 1933: 262-264): five precepts of piety (commandments one through five) and five precepts of probity (six through ten).

It seems now most likely that the two tables were duplicates of each other, each bearing all ten commandments, in accordance with the conventions of the ancient suzerainty treaties (Mendenhall 1955; Kline 1963: 1-19; Stamm and Andrew 1967: 39-44), and as recognized by the majority of Tannaitic authorities (Lauterbach 1933: 164). After all, the tablets were inscribed on front and back (Exod 32:15), so there was sufficient room for all ten on each tablet!

In spite of this consideration the focus of the second half of the Decalogue is clearly different from the first half. The Gospels recognize the two rubrics of duty to God and duty to human beings (Mark 12:29-31; Matt 22:37-40).

We may go further and acknowledge that the division made by Philo (Decalogue 106, 107) is both logical and natural. The tone and atmosphere of the fifth commandment belongs to that of the first four. Parents, like God, are objects of piety and obedience. In Biblical thought one's relationship to parents is a vertical, not a horizontal one. Philo observes (Decalogue 107):

The reason I consider is this: we see that parents by their nature stand on the border-line between the mortal and the immortal side of existence, the mortal because of their kinship withmen and other animals through the

i perishableness of the body; the immortal because the act of generation assimilates them to God, the generator of the All.

If this reasoning is accepted, the last five commandments constitute the area that is the normal concern of ethics in the traditional sense: the moral regulation of human interaction and life—our horizontal relationships, as distinguished from the vertical ones.

It is upon these commandments in the second half of the Decalogue (as well as the fifth commandment) that the emphasis falls in the New Testament, as will be seen in the citations of the commandments in the New Testament texts noted above.

The Sequence of the Last Five Commandments Not only do the last five commandments make a natural group, but their

sequence exhibits a logical and natural progression. Before examining it, however, it is necessary to attend to a potential difficulty.

A sequence of the commandments different from that of the Masoretic Text is traceable to Egypt. Found in the Septuagint, in Philo (Decalogue 121), and in the Nash papyrus (Stamm and Andrew 1967: 22), it reverses the order of the sixth and seventh commandments: adultery, murder, theft. In fact,



Exodus 20 LXX has adultery—theft—murder, while Deuteronomy 5 LXX has adultery—murder—theft, the sequence in Philo and the Nash papyrus. This latter sequence was also taken over into the New Testament by Luke (18:20) and Paul (Rom 13:9).

We must regard the sequence in the Masoretic Text as most probably original. The Egyptian order arises from liberties taken with the text that the Palestinian scribes did not presume to take. The Nash papyrus, for example, omits a line from the prologue to the Decalogue, for obvious reasons: "I am YHWH thy God who brought thee out from the land of Egypt," omitting "from the house of bondage." The Septuagintal sequence of Exodus 20 differs from that in Deuteronomy 5. The adoption of the Egyptian order by Luke and Paul is simply a reflection of their dependence upon the Septuagint. It is noteworthy that Mark and Matthew both preserve the Masoretic order, in spite of their use of the Septuagint (from which they sometimes depart). The Masoretic sequence is further supported by the obviously independent witness of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Gall 1918: 157, 158, 375).

We are justified, therefore, in relying upon the Masoretic sequence, and upon examination it proves to have clear logic to it. To put it simply, as one moves from the sixth commandment in order through to the tenth, one finds a decreasing level of damage arising from transgression, a decreasing degree of finality. To put it another way, there is progressively an increasing degree of reversibility of the results of transgression. Murder is irreversible and final. Adultery, though irreversible, is less drastic—less fatal. Theft is still less damaging, reversible through restitution. The ninth commandment is purely verbal, though of course that can have fatal consequences, in which case the sixth commandment comes again into play. Finally, in the case of the tenth commandment, covetousness is a purely mental event unless it is acted upon; until then the only damage is to the perpetrator. Upon repentance there are no further consequences.

This logical progression, which appears intentional, implies some sort of hierarchy among the commandments. This is not to say that breaking the eighth commandment is less sinful than breaking the sixth, but anyone would prefer to be the victim of a thief than of a murderer. Jesus did speak of "the least of these commandments" (Matt 5:19) and of "the great and first commandment" (Matt 22:38).

Core and Extension Any of the Ten Commandments could be lifted away from its fellow

commandments and made by itself to cover the whole of life and all of behavior, but as it is, each commandment must coexist with the others. Like eggs frying in a pan, each must make room for the others, though if it had been alone it could take up the entire territory. To solve the problem of the coexistence of the commandments is to resolve the sort of ethical dilemma



described at the beginning of this discussion. Let us carry the metaphor of the eggs one step further. Eggs have two

parts, the white and the yolk. When you break them into a pan the whites spread out as far as they can, commonly until they meet the whites flowing out from neighboring eggs, but the yolk maintains its integrity, being far less expansive. The yolks and whites of eggs symbolize two aspects of the commandments, which I will call "core" and "extension."

Each of the commandments has a core meaning that is relatively limited in scope. It is the strict exegetical meaning, somewhat along the lines of Stamm and Andrew (1967: 76-111). For example, the sixth commandment, lo' firs* (ns-m zst5), out of the rather large arsenal of Hebrew words for "to kill" chooses a relatively uncommon one that occurs only 46 times. It means precisely unlawful killing, that is, murder and manslaughter—the shedding of innocent blood in time of peace. It is not used for killing in warfare or capital punishment (except in Num 35:30, where it is used for rhetorical reasons).

As for the ninth commandment, "Thou shalt not testify against thy neigh-bor a false [Exodus; in Deuteronomy "vain"] testimony," the language is clear-ly legal, forbidding malicious perjury. This commandment by itself, strictly interpreted, hardly constitutes a prohibition of any and every kind of deception.

Thus strictly scientific philology reveals commandments that are so limited in semantic coverage that the possibility of their coming to blows over disputed territory does not exist. These are their core meanings.

Christian morality and devotion, however, are not content to leave the commandments with such limited scope. Indeed, the application of the commandments to ever broader and deeper issues was and is inevitable. Jesus set the pattern by His own exposition in Matthew 5. "Thou shalt not murder" has an inward dimension, for hatred is murder in principle and would be murder in actuality if it had safe opportunity. An excellent example of how these commandments can be extended is seen in this commentary on the sixth commandment:

All acts of injustice that tend to shorten life; the spirit of hatred and revenge, or the indulgence of any passion that leads to injurious acts toward others, or causes us even to wish them harm (for "whoso hateth his brother is a murderer"); a selfish neglect of caring for the . needy or suffenng; all self-indulgence or unnecessary deprivation or excessive labor that tends to injure health,—all these are, to a greater or less degree, violations of the sixth commandment (White 1913: 308).

This interpretation needs to be juxtaposed with the same author's commentary on the ninth commandment:

False-speaking in any matter, every attempt or purpose to deceive our neighbor, is here included. An intention to deceive is what constitutes falsehood. By a glance of the eye, a motion of the hand, an expression of the



countenance, a falsehood may be told as effectually as by words. All intentional overstatement, every hint or insinuation calculated to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression, even the statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead, is falsehood. This precept forbids every effort to injure our neighbor's reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander or tale-bearing. Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment (White 1913: 309).

Such extensions of the commandments are not illegitimate, but they are in a different category from the core meanings. Extensions are derivative and secondary, while cores are primary.

It is in the aspect of these extensions that the commandments appear to come into conflict. Betraying to death a person who has entrusted his life to your protection does not literally violate the core of the sixth commandment, but it is within the purview of its reasonable extensions. Similarly, deceiving an adversary in war or during enemy occupation is not the same as uttering malicious perjury against your neighbor, but it does involve a lie, and the Christian conscience places that under the umbrella of the ninth commandment. Hence arises the dilemma.

Resolving the Dilemma We have seen that the last five commandments of the Decalogue are the

basis of common morality and ordinary ethics. We have observed a logical hierarchy exhibited by the progression from the sixth to the tenth commandment. We have noted that a distinction must be made between their core (philological) meanings and their extended meanings. These understandings put us into a position from which we can formulate rules for resolving the sort of ethical dilemma that we have been using as an example. Here are the rules:

The cores of the commandments never conflict, but the extensions may conflict.

When faced with a conflict between the extensions of two commandments, that of the commandment higher in the list of five has priority over that of one lower on the list.

When faced with a conflict between the core of one commandment and the extension of another, the commandment core always has priority over an extension, regardless of its place in the list.

Conclusion Applying these rules to the case with which we began this discussion, we

may come to the following conclusion. Betraying the innocent fugitive that you have been hiding is condemned by an extension of the sixth commandment.



Lying to the Gestapo is a violation of the extension of the ninth commandment. The sixth commandment is higher on the list than the ninth. The extension of the sixth commandment takes priority over the extension of the ninth. One's duty is now clear: Safeguard the innocent fugitive and throw off the Gestapo any way you can.

References

Decalogue=Philo Judmus ca. A.D. 40 The Decalogue. Ed. and trans. F.H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Lon-

don: Heinemann, 1968.

Gall, A. F. von 1918 Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Giessen: Alfred Topelmann.

Grant, R. M. 1947 The Decalogue in Early Christianity. Harvard Theological Review 40.1:1-17.

Kline, M. G. 1963

Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Lauterbach, J. Z., trans. 1933 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of

America.

Mendenhall, G. E. 1955 Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical

Colloquium.

Nielsen, E. 1968 The Ten Commandments in New Perspective: A Traditio-Historical Approach.

Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 7. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, and London: SCM.

Ptolemxus AD 2nd c. Letter to Flora. Pp. 30-38 in Second-Century Christianity: A Collection

of Fragments, ed. Robert M. Grant. London: SPCK, 1957.

Stamm, J. J., and Andrew, M. E. 1967 The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. Studies in Biblical Theology,

Second Series, 2. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, and London: SCM.

Vokes, F. E. 1968

White, E. G. 1913

The Ten Commandments in the New Testament and in First Century Judaism. Pp. 146-152 in Studia Evangelica: Papers presented to the Third International Congress on New Testament Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1965, vol. 5, part 2: The New Testament Message, ed. F. L. Cross. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

The Story ofPatriarchs and Prophets. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.


24 Does Levirate Law Promote Polygamy?'

Ron du Preez Ethics and Religion, Associate Professor of Religion, Southern Adventist University, College-

dale, TN

In the discussion of polygamy in the Bible, perhaps the most frequently mentioned issue is the practice commonly referred to as the "levirate." According to the dictionary, the term "levirate" comes from the Latin levir, meaning "husband's brother" or "brother-in-law." As used in connection with the issue of polygamy, the word "levirate" refers to the custom of having a childless widow many the brother of her deceased husband.

Much has been written about the levirate system in relation to polygamy in Bible times. Some writers are cautious, and merely say that the law of Deut 25:5-10 "may even have required polygyny in some instances, although this is not certain" (Grunlan and Mayers 1979: 273; cf. Gitari 1984: 6; Hall 1984: 28). Others maintain, as Edward Westermarck put it, that "in the case of the levirate marriage the Pentateuch actually ordains a second marriage, a man being compelled to many his childless brother's widow whether he be married or not" (Westermarck 1921: 41, 42; cf Katuramu 1977: 16). Geoffrey Parrinder stated this view well:

Although a man might wish to remain a monogamist, yet the system of Levirate inheritance might easily convert him into a bigamist, if he were already married, by obliging him to marry his brother's widow, if the brother had died without leaving children. Among the Hebrews this was a frequent cause of polygamy (Parrinder 1950: 23; cf. Cohn 1942: 369-376).

In basic agreement with Parrinder's perspective, Eugene Hillman posits that in the Scriptures, polygamy "is dictated by the levirate law" (Hillman 1975: 158). Similarly, in concord with several others, Bernard Haring suggests that "leviratic marriage, which in the final analysis is a form of polygamy, is considered a sacred duty" (Haring 1974: 153; cf Oliver 1986: 11; Kronholm



1982: 78; Staples 1981: 23-25; Welch 1977: 55; Jeffreys 1972: 85; Geisler 1971: 206; Jasper 1969: 39; Mace 1953: 124).

These conclusions concerning the relation between the levirate and polygamy in Scripture deserve close attention. In other words, is there any evidence from the Bible that levirate law promoted the practice of polygamy? To begin with, this paper will briefly note the existence of the levirate in other cultures. Following this, the official regulation, as outlined in Deut 25:5-10, will be investigated. In addition to the examination of this passage, the practice of the levirate in the times of the patriarchs and the judges will be considered. Then, after a brief discussion of the levirate in the New Testament, a short summary and conclusion will be made.

The Levirate in Other Cultures The levirate was not an exclusively Hebrew phenomenon. Over time, other

cultures have had similar customs. These include the Greeks, Persians, Hittites, Ugarits, Assyrians, Moabites, Hindus, New Caledonians, Mongols, Afghans, Abyssinians, and some of the later American Indians (Manor 1984: 130, 131).

In his published thesis on the levirate and go 'el (it,d) institutions in the Old Testament, Donald Leggett notes that there is evidence that three ancient Near Eastern societies practiced the levirate at the same time as did the Israelites. These were the Assyrians, the Hittites, and the Ugarits (Leggett 1974: 12-27). For example, a Hittite Code reads:

If a married man dies, then his brother must marry the widow; if his brother dies, then his father must marry her; if his father dies, then one of his brother's sons must many the widow. No crime has been committed (Article 193; Matthews and Benjamin 1991: 71; cf. Pritchard 1950: 196).

Based on codes such as the above, Leggett and others have correctly recognized that the law and practice of the levirate operated differently in Hebrew society than among its neighbors (Leggett 1974: 19, 20, 27; Manor 1984: 131). Since the specific purpose of this paper is to investigate levirate law and polygamy in the Bible, this extra-biblical material will not be considered in further detail here, however, the current practice of the levirate in some African cultures merits brief attention. Some who have studied African levirate habits seriously question the correctness of calling this custom a "marriage." As a result of his empirical study of African widows, Michael Kirwen concluded:

There is a great deal of evidence, therefore, supporting the claim that the African leviratic union is not a marnag_e in any ordinary sense of the term and should not be described as such. The African leviratic union is more accurately described as a marital adjustment in a continuing marriage in


Does Levirate Law Promote Polygamy? 275

which a brother-in-law substitutes temporarily for a deceased legal husband (Kirwen 1979: 165, 166; emphasis in original).

G. K. Falusi concurs, noting that the majority of Africans "now feel that the levirate is a way of caring for widows and is not a new marriage" (Falusi 1982: 307). While the conclusions of these scholars are not doubted, the important point to investigate is whether or not the levirate as legislated in Scripture is likewise not a new marriage but merely the continuation of the previous marriage by means of substitution for the dead man, as well as a way of caring for widows. Furthermore, the question concerning the obligatory nature of this law also requires analysis.

The Deuteronomic Legislation The biblical law. The only biblical law concerning the levirate is located

in Deut 25:5-10, where it is delineated at length:

v. 5 When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

v. 6 And it shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.

v. 7 But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, "My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me."

v. 8 Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, "I do not desire to take her, "

v. 9 then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, "Thus it is.done to the man who does not build up his brother's house."

v. 10 And in Israel his name shall be called, "The house of him whose sandal is removed." 2

In order to systematically analyze this passage, four basic questions need to be considered: (1) Was the levirate merely a sexual union, or was it a formal marriage? (2) What was the stated purpose of this institution? (3) Was this a binding legal obligation, or an optional custom? (4) Did this regulation sometimes require married men to become polygamous, or was it for single men only?

Sexual union or formal marriage? It is specifically recorded in Deuter-onomy that the woman's "husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to



himself as wife" (Deut 25:5; emphasis supplied). This phrase in Hebrew, legal* 16 le fah (n 11)20 b nnps,) occurs frequently in the Old Testament and is the normal terminology used for a marriage (see Gen 24:4, 38; 25:20; 28:6; Deut 21:11; 1 Sam 25:39, 40; 1 Chr 7:15). Thus, the Mosaic law specifically identifies the levirate as a "marriage." This phrase is abbreviated to /eqahah (to take), and is repeated two more times during the regulation (Deut 25:7, 8), again implying that this was to be a regular marriage.

Deuteronomy 25:6 states that only the firstborn from this union was to carry on the name of the woman's dead husband. As Leggett says: "The most natural explanation of the term firstborn would suggest other children and permanent marriage" (Leggett 1974: 51, n. 52). In short, this law indicates that the levirate was not just a sexual union, but was a full and regular marriage.

Care for widows or to have a son? A second issue to be addressed is the purpose of the biblical levirate. Was this ancient system "designed to provide for the welfare of the widows," as some have suggested? (Lockyer 1986; cf. Phillips 1986: 3; Jasper 1969: 39). R. K. Harrison theorized that the levirate law

... was actually a humane way of dealing with what was frequently the desperate plight of widows by keeping them within the family and tribe, without which they would almost certainly have starved or been callously exploited (Harrison 1986: 901, 902).

Based on this supposition it has been concluded that the social security of the widow "demanded that the closest appropriate male relative fulfill his obligation whether he was already married or not" (Oliver 1986: 11, 12), thus promoting the practice of polygamy.

The Hebrew word (almanah (71)Y35N; widow) is not used in this entire legislation. This is significant, espeCially when the Old Testament carefully defines how widows were to be cared for. For example, the whole community was instructed that widows were to be treated with justice (Deut 27:19), and were to be provided with the basic necessities of life: food (Deut 14:29), clothing (Deut 24:17), and shelter (Lev 22:13). The levirate, however, was not listed as one of the ways in which "widows" were to be cared for.'

Roland de Vaux notes that the discussion about the purpose of the levirate seems to be endless, but then he rightly adds that "the Old Testament gives its own explanation, which seems sufficient" (de Vaux 1961: 38). A critical read-ing of Deut 25:5-10 indicates, as Falusi himself recognizes, that "the object of the levirate is made quite clear in the passage. It is to produce offspring for the dead man 'that his name not be blotted out of Israel' (Falusi 1982: 302). This is the only purpose that is outlined in this legislation, and that repeatedly (Deut 25:6, 7, and 9). In the words of de Vaux: "The essential purpose is to perpetuate male descent" (de Vaux 1961: 38; cf. Davies 1981a: 139).



Thus, the purpose of the levirate was not to ensure the care of widows. The biblical record indicates that this law's only stated purpose was to raise up offspring for the deceased.

An obligatory or optional custom? A third question relates to whether or not the levirate was compulsory. Some have understood the levirate statute as "a binding obligation" (Oliver 1986: 11; cf. Turley 1979: 38; Haring 1974: 153), in which a man was "compelled to marry his childless brother's widow whether he be married or not" (Westermarck 1921: 41, 42). This idea needs examination. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 shows that the stipulation is divided into two parts: one-third of the law lays down the expectation, while two-thirds explains the formal steps to be followed in case the brother-in-law declines to marry his deceased brother's wife. This suggests that the law "allows the brother the option of refusing" (Wright and Thompson 1962: 789; cf. Craigie 1976: 314, 315; Mace 1953: 97; Cohn 1942: 370).

The law anticipates a refusal: "But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders" (Deut 25:7). If the brother-in-law persisted in his refusal to marry her and thus raise up a son for his dead brother, the widow was to pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and state: "Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house." In addition, he would now be called by the title: "The house of him whose sandal is removed" (Deut 25:10).

While it was evidently considered something of a disgrace for a man not to marry the childless widow, yet the law allowed him to legitimately excuse himself (Craigie 1976: 314; Mace 1953: 97). In fact, there was no penalty to pay. Leggett correctly notes that "the elders had no power of compulsion, only that of persuasion" (Leggett 1974: 58). Eryl Davies, expressing similar sentiments, recognizes that "the levirate law was not regarded as binding in the strict sense, for no penalty was imposed upon the brother-in-law who refused his obligation" (Davies 1981b: 260). Clearly the levirate duty entailed a sacrifice of love (Leggett 1974: 53, 54), and for this reason might not have been compulsory. Undoubtedly, this system of levirate marriage was "not one which could be enforced at law" (Cook 1877: 888).

For married men or singles only? A fourth and final issue requires consideration: Even if the levirate institution was not a binding law, did "this practice frequently, perhaps even more often than not, involve polygamy," as Hillman and others have claimed? (Hillman 1975: 163; cf. Oliver 1986: 11; Staples 1981: 23-25; Turley 1979: 38; Welch 1977: 55; Parrinder 1950: 23). While this question can be properly answered only after all the cases of the actual practice of the levirate have been examined, an investigation of Deut 25:5-10 may reveal whether such a possibility was considered or not.

The introductory statement of the law specifies that the levirate duty was to be considered only "when brothers live together" (Deut 25:5). One modern Bible commentator wonders whether this statement indicates that the levirate



was "required only if the surviving brother was single"? (Harris 1990: 599). In commenting on this phrase, Anthony Phillips remarks: "Until a younger brother married and had children of his own, he would have remained in his father's or elder brother's house" (Phillips 1973: 168). Victor Hamilton similarly observes that those "who dwell together" refers to brothers "who have not yet established families of their own" (Hamilton 1992: 567). This apparently was what transpired in the case of Judah and his three sons (Genesis 38). If this view is correct, then, as Old Testament exegete Herbert Leupold noted, the levirate system implied that "the brother of the deceased, if unmarried, would take the widow to wife" (Leupold 1953: 980, emphasis supplied). Other scholars hold a similar view, noting that the brother-in-law who was to marry the widow had to be single (Eslinger 1984: 224; Henry 827; cf. Phillips 1986: 3). Thus, if the introductory phrase of this law means that only single brothers were asked to carry out this institution, this law would not require polygamous unions.

In brief then, according to the law in Deut 25:5-10, the levirate was established as a regular marriage. Its basic purpose was to raise up an heir to perpetuate the lineage of the childless, deceased man. While not to perform this duty subjected the brother-in-law to community disgrace, the levirate was clearly optional and the man did not have to pay a penalty for refusing to marry the widow. Moreover, the opening statement seems to indicate that this non-obligatory custom was to be practiced only if the brother were not already married.

Besides this single mention of the levirate law in the Bible, two narratives in the Old Testament and one passage in the New Testament deal with leviratic practices and help to shed more light on the issue. De Vaux perceptively notes that the stories of Tamar and Ruth are "difficult to interpret and only imperfectly correspond to the law in Deuteronomy" (de Vaux 1961: 37), but since they are the only Old Testament stories related to this custom, they need to be carefully investigated. It is to be recognized, however, that the manner in which people acted does not necessarily correspond to the true meaning and interpretation of any law. Nevertheless, the practical application of a regulation can be of assistance in observing how Bible characters may have understood and applied that law.

The Levirate in Patriarchal Times The earliest account of a levirate custom occurs due to the death of one of

the grandchildren of Jacob and is recorded in Genesis 38. The narrative is as follows: Judah found a wife, Tamar, for his oldest son Er. Before Er had any children, God took his life because of his evil deeds. Judah then instructed the next son, Onan, to go in to Tamar and raise up an heir for Er, but since Onan knew that the child would not be his, "when he went into his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother"



(Gen 38:9). As a result God took his life also. Judah then told Tamar to go back to her home and wait until the next son, Shelah, would grow up. Tamar did so, but after some time she realized that Judah did not intend for her to marry Shelah. So, by acting as a prostitute, she got Judah to impregnate her, and bore twins. According to this biblical account, the levirate custom was practiced as early as the time of the sons of Jacob. This occurred approximately three centuries prior to the time the formal legislation was recorded, as outlined in Deut 25:5-10.

The same four basic questions posed before need to be asked about the levirate custom in this story. The first question deals with the nature of the levirate: Was this simply a temporary sexual union in order to raise up an heir, or was it a regular marriage?

Genesis 38:8 seems to suggest the levirate as a temporary union for the purpose of producing an heir: "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.'" Taken in isolation, this verse does not seem to view the levirate as a regular marriage, however, just as the father, Judah, personally "took a wife for Er" (Gen 38:6), so he himself ordered Onan to "go in to your brother's wife" (Gen 38:8). The Hebrew word bO"'(Na), translated here as "go in," is often used to refer to sexual intercourse. Though at times it may connote sexual relationships outside of marriage (Gen 19:33, 34; 38:16, 18), this term is frequently so closely associated with marriage that it is sometimes used as a synonym for it (e.g. Gen 16:2, 3; 29:21; 29:28-30; 30:3, 4). Thus it appears that Onan married Tamar. De Vaux noted: "It is the duty of his brother Onan to marry the widow" (de Vaux 1961: 37). Similarly, Gerhard von Rad stated: "According to the practice of levirate marriage, the second son took Tamar as his wife" (von Rad 1961: 353).

Besides the suggestion that Onan was actually to marry Tamar, explicit evidence that the levirate was considered a regular marriage comes from Gen 38:14. Talking about Tamar, the second part of the passage reads: "For she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife" (Davies 1981a: 143). The phrase "given to him as a wife" (nitnah ló P YHA; I1\9 X5 )5 inn)) is repeatedly used in relation to marriage (e.g. Gen 29:28; 30:9; 14:8, 12). Thus it can be clearly seen that even in patriarchal times the levirate was considered a regular marriage (cf. Driver 1902: 281).

A second question relates to the purpose of the levirate. As in the deuteronomic legislation, Gen 38:8 specifically states that the purpose of this practice was to "raise up offspring for your brother." This concept is repeated two more times (Gen 38:9). As Leggett observes: "This threefold reiteration makes it abundantly clear that the child of such a union was reckoned as the legal offspring of the deceased, and that such was the purpose of the levirate as recorded in this story" (Leggett 1974: 34). Also, as in Deut 25:5-10, no mention whatsoever is made of the levirate having anything to do with the



provision for widows.' As pointed out above, there were other provisions made for these distressed women.

A third concern relates to whether or not the levirate was a binding obligation, as Davies maintains (1981b: 267). The story provides scant information on which to determine whether or not the levirate was a binding obligation, however, two facts can be seen. First, Onan pretended he was fulfilling this duty by marrying Tamar and by having sexual intercourse with her, but, "he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother" (Gen 38:9). In this way he tried to avoid the full responsibility of the levirate, while still doing part of it. According to text, this manipulative abuse of Tamar resulted in Onan's death (Gen 38:10). A more direct avoidance of the levirate can be observed in the fact that Judah, withheld Shelah from marrying Tamar.' There was apparently no penalty for such an avoidance.

If the levirate had been a binding obligation required by law, then Tamar would have been able to appeal her case. Instead, she took matters into her own hands, and by playing the harlot got Judah to impregnate her. De Vaux suggests that "Tamar's intercourse with Judah may have been a relic of a time when the duty of levirate fell on the father-in-law if he had no other sons" (de Vaux 1961: 37; cf. Parrinder 1950: 24). Such a practice of the levirate was apparently followed by other ancient Near Eastern societies (Pritchard 1950: 182-196). There is, however, no biblical evidence to support such a theory. On the contrary, the text carefully notes that Judah was totally unaware of the identity of the so-called "prostitute" (Gen 38:15 -26). Moreover, the twins born to Tamar are called Judah's sons (Gen 46:12; cf. Num 26:20; 1 Chr 2:4), and not Er's, as they would have been in a levirate marriage (Gen 38:8, 9; cf. Deut 25:5-10). This indicates that Judah's action was not leviratic at all (Kaburuk 1976: 30; Leggett 1974: 37). As Walter Kaiser puts it: "Tamar's act was not a levirate relationship" (Kaiser 1983: 191).

Finally, and vital to this discussion, is the question regarding whether the levirate was practiced monogamously or polygamously in this case. The narrative does not directly state what the marital status of Onan was when he was called upon to perform the levirate duty, however, since no spouse other than Tamar is mentioned as being passed on when Onan died, it seems that the levirate was practiced monogamously here.

In the case of Onan's younger brother, Shelah, the available biblical evi-dence implies a similar situation. According to Gen 38:11, Judah maintained that Shelah was too young for marriage and Tamar needed to wait until he grew up. This would indicate that Shelah was still single at that time. Only when old enough for marriage would Judah have Shelah fulfill the levirate, apparently in a monogamous way. No evidence of polygamy occurs in this entire narrative. As Samuel Wishard stated: "There is no polygamy here. It was the first marriage of each son" (Wishard 1816: 50; cf. Newman 1874: 34).



This brief investigation of Genesis 38 indicates that in its earliest recorded form, the levirate was a regular marriage with the purpose of raising an heir for the deceased. The institution appears not to have been obligatory. Also, there is no evidence in this narrative that it in any way involved polygamy. These factors coincide with the law as given centuries later, and recorded in Deut 25:5-10.

Practice in the Time of the Judges There has been some debate as to whether the book of Ruth deals with the

levirate custom or not. While some scholars feel that due to the differences with the law as outlined in Deuteronomy, the union of Ruth and Boaz was not a levirate marriage (Driver 1902: 285; cf. Baab 1962: 282), others posit that it was. Davies, for instance, states that "it is probable that the narrative of the book of Ruth does, in fact, illustrate an extension of the levirate practice prescribed in Deut. xxv 5-10" (Davies 1981b: 266). The peculiarities are probably due to the fact that three institutions are exemplified in this one marriage, namely, the levirate, redemption, and inheritance (Neufeld 1944: 38; cf. Kaiser 1983: 191; Leggett 1974: 292-298; Belkin 1969-70: 285, 286; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 25).

Even though the story shows that the levirate custom now extended further than the immediate brothers of the deceased husband, there can be no doubt that "the story is based on the same general principles as those set out in other accounts [of the levirate]" (Falusi 1982: 302). 6 This broadening of the understanding of the levirate application is not inconsistent with the manner in which the term "brother" is used in the Hebrew language. For, besides being used for males who have the same parent or parents (Gen 27:11; Judg 8:19), "brother" is also applied to another male of the same kindred, race, or nation (Deut 23:7; Neh 5:7; Jer 34:9).

In considering the story of Ruth and Boaz, the same four questions raised in connection with the levirate in Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 25 need to be discussed. While the complete story encompasses the entire book of Ruth, only the passages directly related to marital structures will be addressed.

The first question relates to whether or not this relationship was perceived as a full marriage. Ruth 4:13 says: "So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her." This clear statement reveals that the union of Ruth and Boaz was a regular marriage, and not merely a sexual union (see Leggett 1974: 40, n. 25).

Second, what was the purpose of this marriage? Besides the redemption of the land, which was the responsibility of the kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 3:12-4:4), Boaz recognized that the purpose of marriage to Ruth was "in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance" (Ruth 4:5). He repeated this concept when he took Ruth as his wife (Ruth 4:10). As in the former pericopes dealing with the levirate, no mention is made of the care of widows.



On the contrary, the proper treatment of widows, as outlined in Deut 24:19, is noted earlier in the story, when Ruth is permitted to glean in the fields (Ruth 2:2-23).

The third question is whether or not the levirate, as practiced here, was seen as a compulsory institution. The first hint as to the optional nature of this custom is shown in Boaz's statement regarding the nearer kinsman: "If he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you" (Ruth 3:13). Later, when given the choice of marrying Ruth to produce an heir for the deceased, the unnamed kinsman replied: cannot redeem it for myself, lest I jeopardize my own inheritance" (Ruth 4:6). Both statements imply that in this story the levirate was not considered a binding obligation.

Finally, was Boaz already married by the time he met Ruth, thus making this marriage a polygamous one? Since Boaz is described as a wealthy, older man who had several servants (Ruth 2:1-3:10), it has been assumed that he must already have been married, and therefore Ruth must have become for him an additional wife (Kaburuk 1976: 31; Jasper 1969: 39). Unfortunately, due to the lack of information, it is difficult to unequivocally establish the marital status of Boaz prior to his marriage with Ruth, however, a few hints in the text give some indication of the most probable marital status of Boaz when he married Ruth.

That no other wife or children are even suggested seems to imply that Boaz's marriage to Ruth was a monogamous union (Newman 1874: 35). Further evidence of Boaz's childlessness is noted by Davies, who states that he "had no children of his own, and thus any son born of this levirate marriage would be fully Boaz's heir as well as the heir of Elimelech" (1981b: 259; cf. Ruth 4:14-22). 7

Some have argued that in the culture of that time it was unthinkable for any man of Boaz's age and status to be single (e.g. Kaburuk 1976: 31). Therefore, it has been concluded that in this case the levirate must have been practiced in a polygamous manner, however, this view does not explain why no wife or children are mentioned in the story. Also-, it does not seriously consider the possibility that, like Jacob, Boaz might have waited until later in life to get married, or like Abraham, he might have been a single widower ready to many again. Interestingly, in both the Midrash Rabbah (Ruth 7.8) and the Babylonian Talmud (Kethuboth 7a; Baba Bathra 91a), the ancient Jewish rabbis held that Boaz was a single widower when he married Ruth. As Wishard notes, "Boaz was unmarried when he took the widow of his kinsman, Mahlon" (Wishard 1816: 51; cf. Davies 1981b: 259; Parrinder 1950: 26; Newman 1874: 35).

The above examination of the levirate in the book of Ruth reveals that this custom was definitely seen as a regular marriage in which an heir was to be raised up for the childless deceased man. Furthermore, it appears as though,



in this incident, this optional practice was carried out in a monogamous manner.

Levirate Custom in the New Testament The only clear reference to the levirate in the New Testament is recorded

in connection with a dialogue of Jesus with the Sadducees. The first part of this debate is found in Matt 22:23-28 (cf. Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-33):

On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Him and questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up an offspring to his brother.'

"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.

"And last of all, the woman died. "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For

all seven had her."

Commenting on this account, David Gitari notes that when Jesus responded to the question of the Sadducees, He "made no reference to polygamous implications of the Levirate law" (Gitari 1984: 6). Due to this silence of Jesus, Eugene Hillman posits that "it may be of some significance that the Gospel story of this encounter contains no reservations at all about the polygamous implications of the levirate law" (Hillman 1975: 164; cf. Wise 1987: 84). Recognizing that arguments from silence are inherently suspect, it has nevertheless been alleged that Jesus "did not make use of this occasion to protect the marriage institution from a custom that was a major cause of polygamy" (Staples 1981: 28).

Statements such as these are based on the assumption that the levirate was a binding obligation which inevitably resulted in polygamy (Staples 1981: 25; Hillman 1975: 163, 164). This might indeed be the case in some ancient and modern societies; however, as noted in the above study of the Old Testament, there is no evidence that the biblical levirate, as legislated for and practiced by Israel, ever caused or condoned polygamy. Yet the question remains as to how to deal with the levirate issue as raised by the Sadducees.

Quite clearly the Sadducees were here referring to the law of Deut 25:5-10, though in a somewhat abbreviated form. As stated in this passage, the levirate was a real marriage, with the aim of producing an heir for the childless deceased. While the nature of this practice, whether obligatory or not, is not clearly addressed in this text, the question concerning the implications for polygamy have been debated.

G. K. Falusi recognizes that "we are not told whether or not the seven brothers were previously married and therefore became polygamous at the time



each inherited the woman" (Falusi 1982: 302, 303). A possible solution to this problem may be derived from an analysis of the final question posed by the Sadducees: "In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife" (Luke 20:33). If the six brothers who inherited the woman had already been married, the Sadducees' question would have been moot, since it would have been obvious that the wife would have belonged to the first brother only. Thus, crucial to the argument is the assumption that this case involved "seven men with only one wife" (Horton 1986: 479).

The later interpretation by the Babylonian Talmud (Yebamoth 44a, 50a-b), which indicates that the levirate was not to be practiced polygamously, provides additional support for a monogamous levirate system. As Geoffrey Parrinder noted, the teaching of the Rabbis was against a married man's taking a widow as a second wife (Parrinder 1950: 26). Thus, as in the Old Testament, the weight of evidence in the New Testament suggests that the levirate was practiced in a monogamous manner, without any polygamous implications.

Summary and Conclusion An overview of the four passages that deal with the levirate custom

reveals a considerable degree of harmony relating to issues connected with marital structures. First, the research indicates that the biblical levirate was viewed and practiced as a full and regular marriage, and not merely as a sexual union. Second, the unique purpose of this custom was to raise up an heir for the dead man, with no mention of caring for widows. Third, while this institution was strongly encouraged, it was never, as far as recorded in Scripture, considered obligatory. And fourth, there is no evidence that the levirate required, or resulted in polygamy. W. White concurs that the biblical levirate marriages "appear to have been monogamous" (White 1975: 498). Wishard also noted that "in every instance the kinsman who took in marriage the widow of the deceased kinsman was unmarried" (Wishard 1816: 50).

In conclusion then, this study of both Old and New Testaments demonstrates that there is no scriptural support for the idea that the levirate institution prescribed, permitted, or promoted polygamy in any manner. To the contrary, this optional custom was a regular monogamous marriage, for the purpose of raising up an heir for the childless, deceased man. Thus, taking account of all explicit statements as well as indirect indications, it can be concluded that the weight of biblical evidence points to the fact that, both in its promulgation and in its practice, the levirate system harmonized well with the model of monogamous marriage as instituted by God at creation (Gen 1:27, 28; 2:18-25; Matt 19:4, 5; cf. Hitchens 1987: 15; Makanzu 1983: 58; Kaiser 1983: 182; Trobisch 1980: 21; White 1975: 497; Wegner 1970: 29; de Vaux 1961: 24; Parrinder 1950: 30; Calvin 1948: 136; Brunner 1947: 345; Dwight 1836: 9).



Notes This paper was excerpted and revised from the author's Doctor of Ministry project dissertation:

"Polygamy in the Bible with Implications for Seventh-day Adventist Missiology," Andrews University, 1993.

All scriptural references in this paper are taken from the New American Standard Bible.

Admittedly, if the purpose of the marriage were to raise up offspring for the deceased, the net result would be that the woman would be taken care of as well, however, if the widow already had a son, even though she might be sorely in need, she was not to be married to her brother-in-law.

True, the word alm iih (widow) does appear in this pericope, but only in connection with Tamar remaining a widow in her father's house (Gen 38:11).

Gen 38:11 implies that Judah had no intention of letting Shelah marry Tamar since he had already lost two sons connected with her, and because he was afraid that his youngest (and only remaining) son might die as well. Yet he told Tamar to wait until Shelah grew up.

That Naomi had had some form of the levirate in mind can be deduced from her statement: "If I should even have a husband tonight and also bear sons, would you therefore wait until they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying?" Ruth 1:12, 13.

Some have thought that the response of the unnamed relative, "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I jeopardize my own inheritance" (Ruth 4:6), indicates that he was already married, and that had he chosen to act the part of the kinsman-redeemer, the levirate custom would have obligated him to become polygamous. That this is not necessarily the case can be observed through some of the comments of Robert Hubbard: "He would, first, here buy Naomi's property from assets eventually part of his estate—only to lose that inheritance when Ruth's first child claimed it, presumably without cost, as Elimelech's heir. Meanwhile, that child's care and feeding would further drain his wealth. Similarly, besides the lost investment in land and child, he may have faced additional expense in caring for Ruth, other children born to her, and Naomi, too. Had he bought only the property, he would not only have enlarged his inheritance but recouped his initial investment from its produce. Hence, the prospect of a wasted investment (whatever its social value) plus additional mouths to feed proved too expensive for him" (Hubbard 1988: 245). Interestingly, nowhere does the biblical text state or suggest that the unnamed kinsman already had a wife.

References Baab, 0. J.

1962 Concubine. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, ed. G. A. Buttrick, et al. Nashville, TN: Abihgdon.

Belkin, S. 1969-70 Levirate and Agnate Marriage in Rabbinic and Cognate Literature. The Jewish

Quarterly Review 60: 275-329.

Calvin, J. 1948 Commentary on the Book ofGenesis, vol. 1. Trans. J. King. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Cohn, M. 1942 Marriage. Pp. 369-376 in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7, ed. I.

Landman. New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.



Cook, F. C., ed. 1877 Leviticus-Deuteronomy, vol. 1, part 2. London: John Murray.

Craigie, P. C. 1976 The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Davies, E. W. 1981a Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part I. Vetus

Testamentum 31: 138-144.

1981b Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part II. Vetus Testamentum 31: 257-268.

de Vaux, R. 1961 Ancient Israel: Its Life and Times. Trans. J. McHugh. London: Darton,

Longman & Todd.

Driver, S. R. 1902 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. The International

Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Dwight, S. E. 1836 The Hebrew Wife: Or, the Law of Marriage Examined in Relation to the

Lawfulness of Polygamy and to the Extent of the Law ofincest. New York: Leavitt, Lord & Co.

Epstein, I., ed. 1935-48 Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino.

Eslinger, L. 1984

More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws. Vetus Testamentum 34: 221-225.

Falusi, G. K. 1982 African Levirate and Christianity. African Ecclesial Review 24: 300-308.

Freedman, H., and Simon, M., eds. 1939 Midrash Rabbah, 10 vols. London: Soncino.

Geisler, N. L. 1971 Ethics: Alternatives and Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Gitari, D. 1984 The Church and Polygamy. Transformation 1: 3-10.

Grunlan, S. A. 1984 Marriage and the Family: A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Hall, D. M. 1984 "Polygamy in the Bible and the Ancient Near East: A Comparative Study."

Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary.



Hamilton, V. P. 1992 Marriage. Pp. 559-569 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman.

New York: Doubleday.

Haring, B. 1974

Evangelization Today. Notre Dame, IN: Fides.

Harris, R. L. 1990 Leviticus. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Harrison, R. K. 1986 Polygamy. Pp. 901, 902 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

vol. 3, ed. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Henry, M. n.d. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. I. Old Tappan, NJ:

Fleming H. Revell.

Hillman, E. 1975 Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Church.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Hitchens, R. J. 1987 Multiple Marriage: A Study of Polygamy in Light of the Bible. Elkton, MD:

Doulos.

Horton, S. M. 1986 Matthew. New Testament Study Bible. The Complete Biblical Library.

Springfield, MO: Complete Biblical Library.

Hubbard, R. L. 1988 The Book of Ruth. The New International Commentary of the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Jasper, G. 1969 Polygyny in the Old Testament. Africa Theological Journal 2: 27-57.

Jeffreys, M. D. W. 1972 Polygny [sic] in the Christian Fold. Practical Anthropology 19: 83-89.

Kaburuk, C. B. 1976 "Polygyny in the Old Testament and the Church in Africa." Unpublished thesis,

Dallas Theological Seminary.

Kaiser, W. C., Jr. 1983 Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Katuramu, A. 1977 Polygamy and the Church in Africa. Chicago: n.p.

Kirwen, M. C. 1979 African Widows: An Empirical Study of the Problems of Adapting Western



Christian Teachings on Marriage to the Leviratic Custom for the Care of Widows in Four Rural African Societies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Kronholm, T. 1982 Polygami och Monogami i Gamla Testamentet: Med en Utblick over den Antika

Judendomen och Nya Testamentet. Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 47: 48-92.

Leggett, D. A. 1974 The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: With Special

Attention to the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack.

Leupold, H. C. 1956 Exposition of Genesis, vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Lockyer, H., ed. 1986 Levirate Marriage. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN:

Thomas Nelson.

Mace, D. R. 1953 Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study.. London: Epworth .

Makanzu, M. 1983 Can the Church Accept Polygamy? Accra, Ghana: Asempa.

Manor, D. W. 1984 A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as It Relates to the Bible. Restoration

Quarterly 27: 129-142.

Matthews, V. H., and Benjamin, D. C. 1991 Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. New

York: Paulist.

Neufeld, E. 1944 Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. London: Longmans, Green.

Newman, J. P. 1874 [In a Debate with Orson Pratt]. Great Discussion! Does the Bible Sanction

Polygamy! Baltimore, MD: J. S. Dye.

Oliver, B. D. 1986

Parrinder, G. 1950

Phillips, A. 1973

"Polygamy and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Papua New Guinea." Unpublished Manuscript, Adventist Heritage Center, James White Library, Andrews University.

The Bible and Polygamy: A Study of Hebrew and Christian Teaching. London: SPCK.

Deuteronomy. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

1986 The Book of Ruth—Deception and Shame. Journal ofJewish Studies 37: 1-17.



Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1950 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ:


"The Church and Polygamy in Sub-Saharan Africa." Unpublished Manuscript, Adventist Heritage Center, James White Library, Andrews University.

Trobisch, W. A. 1980 My Wife Made Me a Polygamist. Here Is My Problem, series 1. Kehl/ Rheim,

Germany: Editions Trobisch.

Turley, P. C. 1979 "The Status of Polygamy in the Old Testament." Unpublished M.Th. Thesis.

Dallas Theological Seminary.

von Rad, G. 1966 Deuteronomy. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Wegner, W. 1970 God's Pattern for the Family in the Old Testament. Pp. 25-26 in Family

Relationships and the Church: A Sociological, Historical, and Theological Study of Family Structures, Roles, and Relationships. Marriage and Family Research Series, ed. 0. E. Feucht. Saint Louis, MO: Concordi.

Welch, D. E. 1977 "A Biblical Perspective on Polygamy." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Fuller

Theological Seminary.

Westennarck, E. 1921 The History of Human Marriage, vol. 3. London: MacMillan.

White, W., Jr. 1975 Family. Pp. 496-501 in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,

vol. 2, ed. M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wise, D. L. 1987 "African Polygamy Reexamined." Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Southeastern

Baptist Theological Seminary.

Wishard, S. E. 1816 The Divine Law of Marriage, Or, The Bible Against Polygamy. New York:

American Tract Society.

Wright, J. S., and Thompson, J. A. 1962 Marriage. Pp. 768-791 in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Staples, R. L. 1981


25 The Biblical Meanings of Heaven .

Daegeuk Nam Old Testament and Biblical Theology, Sahmyook University, Seoul, Korea.

The Term "Heaven" and Its Primary Meanings The word "heaven(s)" in the English versions is, in almost all of its

occurrences, the translation of the Hebrew word OP) V.) (occurring 421 times in the Masoretic Text; Even-Shoshan 1985: 1171-1173),' the Aramaic word pnvi or N. (38 times in the Masoretic Text, MT; ibid. 1171), or the Greek word oi)pccvoc (284 times; Smith 1955: 266, No. 3672) and its cognate words (oi)pcivtoc, six times; ibid. No. 3670), oi)pavc50Ev, two times; ibid. No. 3671, and buoupclvtoc 20 times; ibid. 147, No. 2032).

The etymology of the Hebrew word 10)nVi can hardly be clarified. It is thought by some scholars to be derived from the unused root nnv.i, meaning "be high, or lofty," (Gesenius 1949: 833; Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1979: 1029; Koehler and Baumgartner 1958: 986) and thus its etymological meaning is "that which is high, or the heights." This idea is found also in the etymology of the Greek word oi)pavoc, which has a related but slightly different shade of meaning, "that which is raised up, or above," i.e. above man and above the earth. Other scholars argue that the word VW.) is composed of two components, V (determinative relative pronoun) and t' ("water"), thus its original meaning would be the "place of water" (Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 1990: 1442b), and if Vi is taken as a shaphel or causative prefix, it would be "rain-giver" (der Regenspendende, Bartelmus 1995: 205; Soggin 1984: 966; Koehler and Baumgartner 1958: 986b).

The question of the number of the word O'hV) is also unclear. The form may indicate a dual form as it normally does. In this case the forth (number) may suggest that in the writers' mind there are two levels of heavens. The O' vi may be a plural if the root of the word is )nVi (McClintock and Strong 1981: 123b), in which case the form may reflect the ancient belief in the plurality of the heavens.



The term "heaven(s)" in Scripture is used normally to refer to one of three major realms: (1) the atmospheric heavens which are immediately above us; (2) the astronomic, or stellar, heavens; and (3) the dwelling-place of God (Horn 1979:467). In Catholic and medieval theology, these three realms of heaven(s) are referred to as Coelum Aquem, Coelum Sidereum, and Coelum Empyreum (Smith 1980: 28). Etan Levine's observation that the Hebrew word t•ovi does not only mean "heaven" but also sometimes indicates "air" is astute and appropriate (1976: 97-99).

The atmospheric heavens indicate the space which immediately surrounds the earth, technically known as the troposphere, in which the birds fly (Gen 1:20; Jer 4:25), from which the rain and the snow descend (Gen 7:11; Deut 11:11; Isa 55:10), and where the winds move (Dan 8:8). Yahweh "threw down great [hail]stones from heaven" (Josh 10:11) and "covers the heavens with clouds" (Ps 147:8). When "the day of the Lord will come, the [atmospheric] heavens will pass away" and "the elements will be dissolved with fire" (2 Pet 3:10; cf Isa 51:6), after which God will create "new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Pet 3:13; cf. Rev 21:1).

The astronomic, or stellar, heavens are the space where the sun, moon, planets, and stars have their orbits (Gen 1:14, 16, 17; 22:17; Isa 13:10; Matt 24:29). The ancient Hebrews, for want of a single term like "world" or "universe" in English, used the phrase "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1; Jer 23:24; Acts 17:24), to refer to the whole world and all things therein, in other words, the totality of creation.

The heaven as the dwelling-place of God is the heavenly place in which Yahweh's throne is established (Pss 11:4; 103:19), or the highest heaven that the apostle Paul calls "the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). For this reason, God is referred to as "the God of heaven" (Ps 136:26; Jonah 1:9; 2 Chr 36:23//Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4; cf. Dan 2:18ff; Gen 24:3, 7; Soggin 1984: 969, 970; EiBfeldt 1939: 1-31).

From ancient times and cultures, the term "heaven" has been used to represent many different meanings (Welker 1989: 519, 520). 2 According to Daubuz, however, just as there is a threefold world, there is also a threefold heaven—"the invisible, the visible, and the political among men, which last may be either civil or ecclesiastical" (McClintock 1981: 122a, emphasis in the original; see also 122-127). As for the political heaven, the following explanation is given: "Wherever the scene of a prophetic vision is laid, heaven signifies symbolically the ruling power or government; that is, the whole assembly of the ruling powers, which, in respect to the subjects on earth, are a political heaven, being over and ruling the subjects, as the natural heaven stands over and rules the earth" (ibid. 122a-122b, emphasis in the original).

Heaven as a Part of the Creation On the second day of the Creation week God created the Ppi ("expanse"


The Biblical Meanings of Heaven 293

[NIV],"firmament" [KJV, RSV]) and called it "heaven" (OVA, Gen 1:6, 8). In the Creation narrative, heaven is simply something created; it has no divine character at all. Claus Westermann's observations on this are pertinent:

The creation and naming of the firmament is affirming strictly that heaven is created; it is part of 'not God.' Heaven is not a different sort of creature from earth; it has not a closer relationship to God than earth (Deut 10:14); God is on the other side of heaven just as the earth is on this side (1984: 119).

In other words, heaven is a part of God's creation (Gen 1:1; Ps 8:3[4]; 33:6; Prov 3:19; 8:27; Isa 42:5; 45:18; Acts 4:24; Rev 10:6), which means that there was a time when heaven did not exist. It is from the second day of the Creation week that heaven or the firmament began to exist in the universe. Like the other parts of the creation, heaven can be destroyed and be brought into nonexistence (von Rad 1967: 508, 509). Isaiah writes: "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, ..." (Isa 51:6; cf. 34:4).

As a handiwork of the Creator, the heavens "tell the glory of God" (Ps 19:1[2]), "declare His righteousness" (50:6; 97:6), and "praise Your [His] wonders" (89:6; cf. 69:35; 148:4). The psalmist continues to sing, "Let the heavens be glad" (Ps 96:11111 Chr 16:31), and Isaiah rhymes, "Sing, 0 heavens, for the LORD has done it" (Isa 44:23); "Sing for joy, 0 heavens, ..." (49:13); and "Shower, 0 heavens, from above, and let the skies rain down righteousness" (45:8a). Jeremiah writes, "Then the heavens and the earth ... shall sing for joy over Babylon ..." (Jer 51:48). In these passages the heavens are mentioned or invited as an important part of God's creation to make joyful responses to what He has done or to do the works that are given by Him.

Heaven as the Dwelling-Place of God At the dedication of his Temple, Solomon offered a magnificent and

significant prayer to God: "0 LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above or on earth beneath, ... But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!" (1 Kgs 8:23, 27; cf 2 Chr 2:6; 6:18). Scripture majestically declares that God is so great that even "the heaven of heavens" (trnvin 'no cannot contain Him. The reason why heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain God is that it is something created and a part of God's possession: "Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it; ..." (Deut 10:14). As Moses stated, Yahweh is "God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other" (Deut 4:39; cf. Josh 2:11). So to speak, God is omnipresent (cf. Jer 23:24; Ps 139:7-10).



Nevertheless, Scripture clearly and repeatedly affirms that God does dwell particularly in heaven (Reddish 1992: 90, 91; Metzger 1970: 139-158). Yahweh God looks down from His holy habitation, from heaven, and blesses His people Israel (Deut 26:15; cf. Ps 53:2; Isa 63:15; Lam 3:50). When His people pray toward the Temple, He hears in heaven His dwelling-place and forgives them (1 Kgs 8:30, 39, 43, 49; 2 Chr 6:21, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39). During the time of Hezekiah, "the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to His holy habitation in heaven" (2 Chr 30:27). The psalmist sings: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD has them in derision" (Ps 2:4); "The LORD is in His holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven" (11:4; cf 103:19); "He looked down from his holy height,3 from heaven the LORD looked at the earth" (102:19; cf 20:6; 33:13; 53:2; 123:1; 148:1). Karl Barth rephrases this as follows:

Heaven is the Whence, the starting-point, the gate from which He sallies with all the demonstrations and revelations and words and works of His action on earth. ... This is what makes it genuinely and validly and definitively the uTper cosmos in relation to earth. ... God in the omnipotence of His grace is first in heaven to come down from heaven to man and earth. It is from heaven that He speaks and works. It is from heaven that His majesty encounters us. It is from heaven that His mystery limits us. Hence this place, heaven, is before earth and more and higher than earth (1960: 433).

"God is in heaven" (Eccl 5:2) and "dwell[s] in the high and holy place" (Isa 57:15). Heaven is a place as well as a state. It is a locality (Barth 1960: 432-437; Strong 1907: 1032). Thus, Yahweh is called "the God of heaven" (Gen 24:7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4; Dan 2:37, 44; Rev 11:13), "God in the heaven" (Lam 3:41), "the Lord of heaven" (Dan 5:23), and the "Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16, 45; 18:10, 14; Mark 11:25, 26; cf. Matt 6:9). Yahweh, the God of heaven, is implored in prayer to "look down from thy holy habitaion, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel" (Deut 26:15). Since God is there in heaven, His people lifted their hands in oaths (Deut 32:40; Ps 106:26; Dan 12:7) and in prayer (Exod 9:29; Ps 28:2; 1 Tim 2:8). All these texts and references indicate that "heaven" is the abode or habitation of God'', which the apostle Paul designated "the third heaven" and "Paradise" (2 Cor 12:2, 3; Kraus 1986: 46-49).

It is true that "there is no indication at all in the Old Testament that God created heaven for Himself to live in as happens, for example, in Egypt: `When heaven was separated from earth, when the gods climbed up to heaven — (Westermann 1984: 119), but Scripture says that God dwells in heaven, beyond the heaven or firmament, or in the heavenly place.



Heaven as the Throne of God One of the peculiar ideas relating to heaven is found in Isa 66:1-2a:

Thus says the LORD: Heaven is my throne

and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me,

and what is theplace of my rest? All these things my hand has made,

and so all these things are mine, says the LORD (RSV).

This proclamation of Yahweh is introduced by the assertion "Thus says the LORD" and it concludes with the same statement. This text emphasizes the central statement that heaven is God's throne. It points us to the infinity and greatness of God. Stephen's quotation of this text in his sermon (Acts 7:48-50) stresses the same idea (i.e. God's greatness and transcendency). The throne of God as a biblical motif represents primarily the kingship (1 Kgs 22:19//2 Chr 18:18; 1 Chr 29:23; 2 Chr 9:8; Isa 6:1; etc.) and judgeship (Ezek 43:7; Pss 9:4, 7[5, 8]; 11:4; Dan 7:9; etc.) of God (cf. Nam 1994: 461, 462).

In Isa 66:1, the reference to "the heavens" (c•)nvin) and "the earth" oortn) as God's throne and footstool leads us immediately to the Creation account in Genesis. These two creation terms are used in Gen 1:1 to refer to the totality of creation. This idea becomes more evident as we read the next verse: "All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine" (Isa 66:2a). Thus, the divine throne and footstool, which are the references to the totality of creation, point to the creatorship and ownership, in addition to the kingship and judgeship of Yahweh over the entire world. The text asserts that God is Creator and King of all and rules over and fills the entire world. The whole creation is subject to Him not only in terms of government and judgment but also in terms of creation and possession (cf ibid. 197-199).

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus cites Isa 66:1 twice in His sermons (Matt 5:34, 35; 23:22). In both cases, He relates it to oath-making or swearing. The point is that we should not make any oath by heaven or earth, because they are not our own possession but God's; they point to the ownership of God who created them. In Revelation the phenomenon most mentioned in reference to heaven is the "throne," which, in relation to God, is referred to thirty-six times.' These references occur from the opening paragraph of the first chapter (Rev 1:4) to the initial statement of the last chapter (22:1, 3). The One seated upon the throne whom John beheld in the vision of heaven is certainly God the Father, who is the Maker as well as the Ruler of the new heaven and the new earth.



Likewise, in Isa 66:1 the figure of heaven and earth respectively as Yahweh's throne and footstool points to His creatorship and proprietorship as well as His kingship and judgeship over the whole world. It also points to the grandeur and majesty of God and to the domain of His kingdom. His territory is boundless and His administrative power reaches everywhere. So Yahweh can never be contained in a building made by human hands and His reign covers the whole universe. The idea of Isa 66:1 is by no means contradictory to that of the psalmist, who sings, "The LORD's throne is in heaven" (Ps 11:4) and "The LORD has established his throne in the heavens" (103:19). While both the book of Isaiah (66:1) and the book of Psalms (11:4; 103:19) signify the immense territory of God's kingdom and the sovereign power of His kingship, the former emphasizes the scope of His rule and the latter stresses the location of His government.

Heaven as a Metonymy for God The term "heaven(s)" is sometimes used as a metonymy for God.

Especially in postexilic Judaism this term came to be used as a circumlocution for the divine name "Yahweh" or as a synonym for the term "God," reflecting the Jews' reluctance to pronounce God's name. Dan 4:23 [20] seems to be the only case of this phenomenon in the Old Testament: "And whereas the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven ..." In the New Testament this phenomenon is found rather frequently. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the returning son says to his father, "I have sinned against heaven" (Luke 15:18, 21), meaning that he had sinned against God. Jesus once asked the priests and elders whether the baptism of John the Baptist was "from heaven or from men" (Matt 21:25; Mark 11:30), and John is reported to have said, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). In both cases "heaven" may be a reference to God Himself.

On another occasion, Jesus applied the common practice of His time of using "heaven" as a synonym for God, when He said, "He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it" (Matt 23:22). This phenomenon is also found in Jesus' preaching of the kingdom: Whereas Matthew consistently uses the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," Mark and Luke in parallel passages use the phrase "the kingdom of God" in lieu of "the kingdom of heaven" (cf. Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Matt 4:23; Luke 4:43; Matt 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). Here God is represented by His abode or dwelling-place. In other words, "heaven" is used as a substitute or metonymy for "God."

Heaven as the Hope of the Believers Heaven is where the hope is laid up for the believers in God (Col 1:5). The

faithful Christians who do not have any hope for this world "seek the things



that are above" (3:1) and set their minds "on things that are above, not on things that are on earth" (3:2). They are those "who share in a heavenly call" (Heb 3:1) and "who are enrolled in heaven" (12:23). They lay up for themselves treasure in heaven (Matt 6:20), and rejoice that their names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20). Their ultimate concerns are toward heaven and their life is heavenbound. In sum, their commonwealth or citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3:20).

Heaven as the Home of the Redeemed Yahweh declares: "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and

the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind" (Isa 65:17). The words, "I create new heavens and a new earth," do not necessarily imply that the present heaven and earth are to be destroyed and in their place another heaven and earth created anew. The verb "create" and the adjective "new" in the text refer to a supernatural transformation (Westermann 1969: 408).

The new heaven and earth will be a place where its inhabitants enjoy perpetual joy and happiness. Joy is not only for the redeemed people, but also for their God as well (Isa 65:18, 19). When the redeemed rejoice in God, and God in them, the light of the two commingles, and each is reflected in the other. Then "no more shall be heard in it [the new heaven] the sound of weeping and the cry of distress" (Isa 65:19b). Therefore, "according to His promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Pet 3:13).

Just before the close of His earthly ministry, Jesus affirmed that there are many "abiding places" (goval) in His Father's house and promised to prepare "a place" (ccinoc) for His disciples (John 14:2, 3). F. Hauck's comment on this text explores the significance of this word: "In [John] 14:2 the heavenly dwellings ... are the goal of salvation. ... The word seems to be deliberately chosen to express the fact that our earthly state is transitory and provisional compared with eternal and blessed being with God" (Hauck 1967: 580). This is "a homeland" that the men of faith "are seeking" (Heb 11:14) or "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" which "they desire" on this earth (11:16).

John the Revelator "saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away" (Rev 21:1). This new heaven (and earth) will be the eternal home of the redeemed where the dwelling of God is with them (Rev 21:3). In this glorious and beautiful Home, saved men and women will enjoy the privilege of living forever in the presence of God.

Notes

1. J. A. Soggin counts 420 occurrences of VInVi (Psalms, 74.; Deuteronomy, 44x; Genesis, 41x; Isaiah and Jeremiah, 33x each; 2 Chronicles, 28x; Job, 23x; I Kings, 20x; 2 Kings, 16x; Exodus and Nehemiah, 14x each; Ezekiel, 9x; 2 Samuel, Proverbs, and 1 Chronicles, 6x each; Zechariah, Ecclesiastes,



Lamentations, and Daniel, 5x each; Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, and Hosea, 4x each; Joel and Haggai, 3x each; Amos, Zephaniah, and Ezra, 2x each; Leviticus, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi, 1x each) and 38 occurrences oft,t1r3VJ (Jeremiah, 2x; Daniel 28x; Ezra 8x). Soggin 2: 966.

Michael Welker enumerates five different meanings of the word "Himmel" ("heaven"): (1) der in der Sicht des Menschen "fiber der Erde" liegende Raum; (2) ern Syndrom von Machten und unverftigbaren Kraften; (3) der Ort der Goiter, der Wohnsitz des hochsten Wesens oder zahlreicher iibernaturlicher Meichte; (4) mit Gott, "dem GOttlichen" oder seiner Manifestation identifiziert; (5)Ort des Lebens nach dem Tod.

The Hebrew word for "height" is 01191 which denotes "the heights, a prominent elevation." It seems clear from Pss 103:19 and 148:1 that 011)3 designates the heavenly height, in that 0116 is used synonymously with 0 1)30 (Kraus 1986: 47).

Claus Westerman says, "When the Old Testament speaks of heaven as a dwelling of God, as it rarely does, or of God acting from heaven, then this is either metaphorical or the language of tradition" (1984: 119), however, it seems difficult to find any biblical support for this idea.

The Greek word 00 vac occurs 46 times in the book of Revelation, but only 36 occurrences are related to God.

References

Barth, K. 1960 Church Dogmatics, vol. 111.3: The Doctrine of Creation. Edinburgh: T & T

Clark.

Bartelmus, R. 1995 0)YA §amajim. Pp. 204 -239 in Theologisches Worterbuch zum Allen

Testament, vol. 8. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Brown, F.; Driver S.R.; and Briggs, C. A. 1979 The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with

an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

EiBfeldt, 0. 1939 Ba'algamem und Jahwe. Zeitschrifi flir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 57:

1-31.

Even-Shoshan, A., ed. 1985 A New Concordance of the Old Testament Using the Hebrew and Aramaic

Text. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.

Gesenius, W. 1949

Hauck, F. 1967

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Trans. S. P. Tregelles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

1.tovii. Pp. 579-581 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.


Strong, A. H. 1907 Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, PA: Judson.

Von Rad, G. 1967 oUpa vac, B. Old Testament. Pp. 502-509 in Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament, vol. 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

The Biblical Meanings ofHeaven 299

Horn, S. H., ed. 1979 Heaven. Pg. 448 in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, rev. ed.

Washington, DC: Review and Herald.

Koehler, L.; Baumgartner, W.; and Stamm, J. 1990 Hebraisches und aramiiisches Lexikon zum Alter Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Koehler, L., and Baugartner, W., eds. 1958 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Kraus, H.-J. 1986 Theology of the Psalms. Trans. K. Crim. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Levine, E. 1976 Distinguishing "Air" from "Heaven" in the Bible. Zeitschrift fair die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88: 97-99.

McClintock, J., and Strong, J. eds. 1981 Encyclopedia cBiblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 12 vols.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Metzger, M. 1970

Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes. Ugarit-Forschungen 2: 139-158.

Nam, D. 1994 The "Throne ofGod" Motif in the Hebrew Bible. Doctoral Dissertation Series,

vol. 1. Seoul: Institute for Theological Research, Korean Sahmyook University.

Reddish, M. G. 1992 "Heaven." Pp. 90-91 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3. New York:

Doubleday.

Smith, J. B. 1955

Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament. Scottdale, PA: Herald.

Smith, W. M. 1980 The Biblical Doctrine ofHeaven. Chicago: Moody.

Soggin, J. A. 1984

OVA S'anuijim Himmel. Pg. 966 in Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, vol. 2. Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag/Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.

Welker, M. 1989 Himmel. Pp. 519-520 in Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon: Internationale

theologische Enzyklopadie, vol. 2, ed. E. Fahlbusch et al. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.



Westermann, C. 1969 Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. OTL. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. Philadelphia, PA:

Westminster.

1984 Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Trans. J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.


General Index

Abel Keramim, vi, 257, 259-262 Abil, 260 abomination, 193, 207-209 abomination of desolation, vi,

194, 205,210 ; 211, 213 Abraham, xxix, 104, 105, 106,

235, 243, 282 Abyssinians, 274 accession year, 182 Achaemenes, 175, 179 Achaemenid, xvii, 131, 175, 185 Achan, 18 Achshaph, 10, 11 Adad-guppi, 115 adorn, 117 adornment, 103, 105, 107, 108,

Amarna Letters, 246, 249-251, 253, 255

Amenemheb, 108 American Indians, 274 Ammon, xix, 85, 259, 260 Ammonite, xxviii, 257 Amon-Re, 37 Amorite, 19 Ancient of Days, 191, 193 angelus interprens, 154 angelus revelator, 154 Anglican, 231, 266 annual festivals, 46 Anshan, 175, 179, 182, 183, 186 Antimenidas, 130 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, vi, xxii,

116, 118 158, 159, 191, 193-196, 205, adultery, 82, 238, 267, 268 209, 210, 226 Aegean, 127-129, 132, 134 Antipater, 239 Afghans, 274 Aphek, 208 African, 274, 286-288 apocalypse, 137-141, 146, 147, Ahab, xix, 29 152-154, 165 Ahasuerus, 180, 181, 185, 188 apocalyptic, 137-142, 144-147, Ai, 9-12, 17-19, 246, 249 151-153, 155, 160, 165, 166, Akkadian, 132, 143, 145, 148, 168, 169, 172, 196, 205,

175, 176, 188 Akkadian texts, 129, 144, 147 Al Mina, 129 Alcaeus, 130, 134 Alexander the Great, 127, 230 Amalekites, 18

215-218 apocalypticism, 146-148 Apollinarius of Laodicea, 193 Arad, 130, 132, 133 Aramaic, 41, 102, 112, 127, 131,

150, 152-157, 159, 160, 197,



200, 202, 212, 291, 298 Aramean(s), 29, 37 archaeological, iii, iv, xxiii, 7, 9,

11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 25-27, 29, 103, 116, 123, 129, 133, 134, 221, 223, 225-232, 245, 246, 248, 253, 254, 258, 259

archaeology, iii, iv, vi, xiv, xxiii-xxv, xxvii, 7, 9, 12, 24-27, 29, 31, 111, 122, 133, 135, 189, 203, 205, 229, 231, 232, 255, 257, 262, 263

Aretas, 222 Ariaramnes, 176, 179 ark, xviii, xx, xxiii, xxiv, 8, 18,

76, 99, 208 armlet, 106 army, 7, 8, 15, 23, 130, 178, 200 Amon, 258 Arsames, 175-177, 179 Artaxerxes I, 131, 179 Artaxerxes II, 176, 179 Aryan, 175, 176 Ashkelon, 246 Ashurbanipal, 106, 108, 112, 113,

123 Assyria, xix, 86, 104, 110, 122,

124, 129, 133, 189 Assyrian, 37, 38, 111, 122, 123,

133, 145, 146, 180, 181, 188

Astyages, 177-182, 186-188 Athens, 129 Aton, 37 atonement, xix, xx, xxvii, 75, 77,

78, 89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, 110, 113, 197

Baal, 36-38, 112, 207 Babylon, vi, xvii, 76, 85, 86, 127,

134, 140, 143, 144, 157, 173-176, 178, 180, 182-186, 192, 196, 199, 200, 293

Babylonian, xviii, xxii, 37, 38, 48,

72, 76, 103, 111, 123, 127-130, 143, 144, 146, 147, 166, 167, 173, 175, 176, 181-184, 186, 188, 192, 282, 284, 286

Babylonian siege, 76 Babylonian Talmud, 72, 282, 284,

286 Bactrians, 182 battle, xviii, xix, 8, 16, 19, 21,

130, 176-179, 208, 211, 247, 260 -

bead(s), 103, 112, 120 beautification, 104, 117 beauty, 46, 86-88, 104, 110, 111,

113, 117, 202 Behistun, 175, 176, 179, 185 belga, 258, 259 Belshazzar, xxi, xxiii, 140, 167,

173, 174, 202, 203 Bethel, 114, 247 bilingualis, 150 bilingualism, 154-157 block parallelism, 73, 79, 84, 85,

90 Boaz, 281, 282 boundaries, 20, 21, 90, 137, 262 bracelets, 105-107 bride, 105, 107, 124 bridewealth, 105, 120 Building Inscription, 131 burnt offering, 96, 99, 100 Caesar, 194, 210 calendar, 77, 184 Caligula, 210 Cambyses, 131, 169, 176-179 Cameiros, 129 Canaan, vi, xxvii, 7, 13-15, 17,

20, 23, 24, 26, 35, 245-251, 254

Canaanite(s), 8, 13, 18, 19, 23, 25, 37, 117

capital punishment, 269


General Index 303

Capitoline temple, 224 Carchemish, 130 cavea, 224 Central Transjordanian Plateau,

258 chain, 66, 106, 107, 109, 112 Chaldean, 146, 173, 174, 189 cherub, 75, 87-90 cherubim, 76, 77, 80 chiasm, xx, 61-64, 67, 68, 73, 89 chiasmus, xxii, 71 chiastic, v, xix, 65, 71, 73-75,

79-84, 87-90, 92 chiastic parallelism, 81 Christ, 52, 100, 185, 188, 193,

194, 196, 239-241, 271 Christian, xvii, xxv, 8, 46,

163, 173, 196, 217-220, 230, 231, 234, 240, 243, 266, 269, 270, 286-288

146, 228, 265,

church, 48, 171, 219, 228, 271, 286-289, 298

circumcision, 15 cisterns, 223 classical, 130, 134, 139, 166, 173,

182, 187-189, 243, 244, 271

cleansing/restoring, 78 coinage, 104 composition, 92, 131, 143, 153,

155, 157, 159, 160, 193 confession, 13, 62 confirmation, 13, 15-24, 77, 134,

181 conflict, 11, 16, 19, 22, 23, 155,

163-165, 169, 176, 227, 253, 266, 270

conquer, 27, 252 conquered, 8-10, 12, 19, 22, 131,

246-248 conquest, vi, xxiv, xxvii, 7-9,

11-15, 18-24, 26, 27, 127, 130, 175-178, 180, 182, 183,

245-250, 253, 254 Conquest Theory, 7-9 coronation ceremony, 180, 183 court-tales, 160 covenant, 16, 18, 23, 26, 45-48,

51, 76, 79-82, 89, 99, 169, 170, 207, 215-218, 220, 246-250, 271

covenant community, 215-217 covenant lawsuit, 79, 89, 207 covenant people, 47, 218, 220 creation, xviii, xxi, 1-6, 33, 36,

37, 39, 41, 50, 53, 60, 116, 194, 284, 292, 293, 295, 298

creator, 2, 33, 36, 37, 52, 293, 295

Crete, 128, 129 crown, 52, 53, 106, 107, 109-111,

123, 124, 176, 180, 183 Ctesias, 177, 178, 181 Cunaxa, 176, 177, 179 currency, 104, 105, 114, 118 Cyaxares I, 179-182, 186 Cyaxares II, 178-181, 183, 186 Cynic, 226 Cynicism, 226 Cyprus, 130 Cyrus, 131, 173-187, 189, 200 Cyrus Cylinder, 181, 186, 187 Cyrus the Elder, 179 Cyrus the Great, 176, 179 Cyrus the Younger, 176, 179 Damascus, 29, 177 Darius I, 131, 175-177, 179, 185,

186 Darius II, 176, 179 Darius the Mede, vi, xxi, xxv,

173-175, 178, 180, 181, 183-187, 189, 197

David, ii, iii , v, xiv, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, 7, 35, 43, 57, 82, 160, 185, 230, 237, 239, 265, 283

Day of Atonement, 75, 77, 78, 89,



90, 96 Dead Sea, 56, 130 Debir, 9-11 Decalogue, 243, 266-268, 270,

271 Delphi, 129 Democedes, 131 destruction of Jerusalem, 76, 207,

208, 210 determinism, 163-165, 169-171 deterministic, 163, 164, 166, 172 Deuteronomist, 27 diachronic, 142, 153 Dinah, 247 dress, 103, 107-110, 112, 116,

117, 122 Dumuzi, 107 Ea, 117, 250, 252, 253 Early Dynastic III, 128 editor, xiv, 1, 229, 234 Edom, 85, 86 Eglon, 9-11 Egypt, xvii, xviii, xxiv, xxv,

17, 35, 37, 43, 85-87, 104-106, 110, 117, 120, 124, 129-131, 178, 182, 186, 187, 236, 238, 247, 248, 250, 252, 263, 267, 268, 294

Egyptians, 25, 35, 40, 86, 106, 181, 245, 249

Ekron, 249 Elam, 86, 174 Elamite, 131, 175 eleph, 18 Eli, 208 Elijah, 37, 38 Elohim, 1, 3-6 end time, xvii, 47, 48, 172, 218,

219 ephod, 110 Ephraim, 16, 21, 247 Ephraimites, 21 Er, 54, 262, 278

Esarhaddon, 130, 133 eschatological, 47-50, 52, 81, 137,

138, 141, 143, 144, 151, 159, 191, 193-195, 211, 218-220

eschatology, 138, 139, 144, 146 eternal life, 51, 54, 171, 266 Etruria, 129 et-Tell, 11 Eusebius of Caesarea, 193 Eusebius', 260 executive judgment, 77, 89 exegesis, 138, 142 exile, 46-49, 84, 140, 146,

183-186 exodus story, 35 fall of Jerusalem, 75, 81, 84, 85,

89 Fallen Cherub, 75, 87, 89 False Bardiya, 179 Fars, 175 fiat creation, 1-3 financial security, 105, 106, 113,

114 firstborn, 35, 276 Flaccus, 236, 238, 244 folk tale, 153 foreign gods, 114, 123 four-room house, 30 free choice, 163, 164, 166, 167,

169-172 free will, vi, 163 futurist, 194 Galilee, 222, 223, 225-232, 249 garden, 3-6, 24, 27, 41, 83, 88,

122, 124, 133, 147, 160, 172, 197, 254

garment(s), 106-110, 112-114, 124, 293

Gath, 249, 252 Gattung, 139 General Index, vii general prophecy, 165 genre, vi, 57, 58, 137-148,


General Index 305

150-155, 157-159 geographical, xxi, 19, 22, 245,

258, 259, 263 geographical boundaries, 20 geography, 20, 26, 227, 230, 262 Gestapo, 265, 271 Gezer, Yanoam, 246 Gibeon, 36, 248, 249 Gibeonites, 16, 17, 24, 247-249 Gilgal, 17, 21, 24 God's kingdom, 192, 296 gold, 52, 104-111, 113-115, 117,

143, 166, 167, 176, 186, 199 golden calf, 106, 114 grammatical function, 96 Greek, vi, ix, 42, 97, 101,

127-132, 134, 173, 176-178, 181, 182, 186-189, 218, 221, 222, 225, 231, 233, 234, 241, 244, 291, 298, 299

Greek Dark Ages, 129, 132 Greek loans, 127 Greek loanwords, 128 habiru, 250, 252, 255 Hadrian, 224, 230 Haman, 109 Havilah, 116, 117 Hazor, 9-12, 38, 247 heaven, vii, 17, 42, 55, 140, 143,

166, 193, 201, 207, 291-299 Hebrew, v, ix, xxi, xxvii, xxix,

xxx, 2, 26, 29, 31, 37, 42, 45, 46, 55, 56, 68, 91, 95-102, 108, 110-112, 119-121, 130, 132, 137, 145, 147, 148, 150, 152-155, 157, 159, 166, 175, 181, 202, 206, 212, 215-217, 220, 229, 259, 269, 274, 276, 279, 281, 286, 288, 291, 292, 298, 299

Hebron, 9-11 Hellenistic, 26, 131, 134, 146,

152, 223, 225, 226, 233, 266

Hellenized, 225, 226, 228 Hera, 129 Herod Antipas, 222-224, 228, 229 Herod the Great, 222 Herodian, 223 Herodotus, 131, 175, 177-182,

186, 187, 189 High Priest, 103, 107, 109-111,

113, 114, 117 hill country, 19, 20, 245, 246,

249, 250, 258, 259, 261 Hindus, 274 historical, xiii, xv, xxvii, 9, 12-14,

19, 26, 38, 48, 79, 84, 87, 92, 125, 141-145, 147,

157-159, 169, 173-175, 178, 181, 183, 186, 188, 189, 193-195, 197, 199, 203, 209, 221, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 248, 254, 255, 262, 271, 289

historicist, 194, 195 historico-critical, 194 history, vi, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, xx,

xxi, xxiii, xxv, xxvii, xxix, xxx, 9, 12, 22, 25-27, 43, 67, 79, 127, 133, 158, 160, 163-165, 171, 173, 175, 177-180, 187-189, 192-195, 199, 206, 211, 212, 224, 227, 229, 232, 254, 255, 261-263, 288, 289

Hittite Code, 274 Hittites, 19, 110, 129, 274 Holy of Holies, 210 hoolihan, 305 Hyrcania, 177 Hyrcanians, 182 Hystaspes, 175, 179, 185, 186 Ichabod, 208 idolatry, 112, 114, 115, 118, 167 image, 15, 66, 107, 113, 116, 117,

166, 210, 236 Manna, 107, 113, 117



inclusio, 63-65, 79, 86, 88-90 investigative judgment, xix, 75,

77-79, 92 Ionia, 129, 130 Ionian, 129-131

246, 265 Jeroboam II, 67 Jerome, 193, 197 Jerusalem, xxvi, 12, 22, 25, 26,

33, 41, 46, 48, 53, 75, 76, 79, Iran, 129, 133, 188 81-85, 89, 91, 100, 104, 107, Iron Age, xxviii, 31, 260 108, 119, 120, 125, 133, 145, Iron I, 12, 19, 25, 245, 248, 261 147, 159, 169, 174, 185, 194, Iron II, 261 206-212, 222, 225, 226, 228, Isaac, 40, 105 229, 234, 242, 244, 246, 249, Ishtar, 117, 122 250, 252, 254, 262, 298 Islamic, 260, 261 Jesus, vi, 50-53, 119, 140, 210, Israel, xviii, xix, xxvii, xxix, 8, 9, 211, 217, 218, 221-223,

11-13, 15, 16, 18-22, 25, 26, 225-231, 243, 244, 266, 268, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 45, 269, 283, 295-297 47, 50, 53, 58, 65, 72, 82-85, jewelry, v, 103-118, 122-124 87, 89, 99, 100, 103, 104, Jewish, xvii, xxv, xxx, 78, 89, 106, 107, 109-111, 115, 116, 112, 124, 142, 145-148, 158, 122, 123, 129, 132, 146, 147, 160, 174, 180, 184, 186, 196, 154, 187, 188, 207-209, 212, 210, 211, 217, 224-228, 217, 231, 232, 245-249, 230-234, 236, 237, 239-242, 253-255, 257, 262, 263, 271, 275, 283, 286, 293, 294

244, 265, 271, 282, 285, 288 Jezreel Valley, 249

Israelite, xxvii, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, Jonah, v, 57-69, 124, 167, 170, 16, 17, 19-22, 24-27, 29, 30, 292, 298 33, 38, 45, 65, 104, 111, 114, Jordan River, 8, 15-18, 258 118, 133, 139, 249, 253, 259, 265

Joseph, xxv, 71, 81, 109, 222, 238, 243, 247

Israelites, 7-21, 23-25, 27, 33, 35, Josephus, vi, 72, 174, 180, 184, 40, 46, 64, 105, 106, 189, 194, 210, 233-237, 110-118, 173, 209, 211, 212, 239-242, 244 217, 236, 237, 246-250, 252, 274

jubilee, 49, 89 Judah, xix, xxix, 16, 21, 23, 24,

Israel's, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19-21, 29, 65, 67, 76, 77, 81-84, 87, 27, 36, 48, 59, 67, 72, 75, 79, 84, 103, 115, 117, 160, 169

89, 92, 169, 184, 188, 207, 225, 278-280, 285

Italy, 129 Ithaca, 56, 129 Jabbok, 258 Jacob, xxv, 114, 115, 238, 247,

278, 279, 282 Jehoshaphat, 29 Jericho, 8-12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 27,

Judah the Prince, 225 Judas Maccabeus, 193, 195 Judean, 65, 130 judgment, vi, xix, xxiii, 10, 36,

59, 61, 66, 67, 72-79, 81-87, 89-92, 165, 167, 168, 171, 191-193, 196, 200, 205-209,


General Index 307

211-213, 295 Kakovatos, 128 Kaptara, 128 Kasku, 37 Kassite, 128 Khatt Shabib, 261 Khepri, 37 Khirbet el-Qom, xxiv, 11 Khirbet es-Suq, 260 Khirbet Rabild, 11 killing, 35, 269 kinsman-redeemer, 281, 285 Kition, 130 Kom Yajuz, 259 Lab'ayu, 246, 250, 252 Lachish, xix, xxiv, 9-11 lapis lazuli, 117 Late Bronze, xviii, 11, 12, 25,

129, 132, 245, 246, 255, 260, 262

Late Bronze Age, xviii, 12, 25, 132, 246, 255, 260, 262

Late Bronze Age II, 260 Late Bronze I, 11, 12 Late Bronze II, 11, 12 LB IA, 248 LB IB, 248 Lefkandi, 129 Legio, 224, 230 Levantine, 84-86 Levi, 247 levirate, vii, 273-286, 288 Levite, 237 Libnah, 9-11 Linear B, 128 literary, v, vi, xxi, xxii, xxiv, 12,

14, 27, 29, 42, 57, 69, 71-75, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 103, 118, 137-139, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149-151, 154, 157-159, 199-203, 225, 233, 245, 247

literary structure, v, xxii, 57, 71, 73, 74, 89

little horn, vi, 168, 191-197, 202, 211

Lot, 235 lots, 9, 24, 26, 63, 67 Lot's, 235 Lydia, 131 lyre, 128 Maccabean, 131, 152 macrostructural, 89 macrostructure, 73-75, 90 Madaba Plains, 258, 263 Madon, 10, 11 Makkedah, 9-11 Malichus, 239 Maliyan, 175 Manasseh, 16, 21, 67, 247 Manassehites, 21 Mandane, 179 Mari texts, 128 marriage, 17, 121, 123, 179, 240,

242, 273-289 Masoretic text, 156, 267, 268,

291 Massagetae, 178 MB IIC/LB I, 261 Mede, vi, xxi, xxv, 173-175, 178,

180, 181, 183-187, 189, 197 Medes, 167, 173-178, 180-184,

186, 189 Median, 173-180, 182, 183, 186 Medo-Persia(-n), 177, 183 192,

195, 196 Megiddo, xix, 246, 249, 250, 252 Mephaath, vi, 257-259 mercy, xiii, 47, 48, 59, 61, 62, 66,

67 Merneptah, 246 Mesha Stela, 207 Meshech, 86 Mesopotamia, 24, 123, 124, 128,

129, 133, 144, 175, 212 Messiah, 90, 93, 100, 210, 211 Methodius, 193



Micaiah, 29, 30 Michal, 265 microstructural, 73, 84, 87 microstructures, 87 Middle Bronze Age, 248, 261 Midrash Rabbah, 282, 286 Miliku, 250 military, xxiii, 9, 13, 15, 16,

18-21, 29, 30, 106, 109, 110, 180, 235, 237, 246, 247

military invasion, 8 Mishnah, 225 mishor, 258, 259 Moabite, 257, 259 monarchy, 12, 26, 254 Mongols, 274 monogamous, 280, 282-284 moon, 34, 36-38, 111, 292 Mordecai, 109, 135 mosaics, 221, 231 Moses, 15-18, 27, 35, 40, 47, 90,

115, 236, 243, 246, 249, 283, 293

Most Holy Place, 76-78, 99 Mount Horeb, 115 Mount of Olives, 211 Mt. Ebal, 245 Mt. Gerizim, 245 murder, 226, 265, 267-269 musical instruments, 127, 128,

133 mutilation, xxii, 113, 123 Mycenae, 128 Mycenaean, 129 Mysteries of Osiris, 117 Nabonidus, xxi, 107, 115, 130,

186, 187 Nabonidus Chronicle, 181, 182 Nahr el-Zerqa, 258 Nash papyrus, 267, 268 nation, 45, 85, 116, 154, 245, 281 nations, 19, 35, 36, 43, 47-49, 72,

75, 84-87, 89, 90, 154, 166,

174, 188, 192, 193, 209 Nazareth, 221, 222, 225, 229, 231 Nebo, 117 Nebuchadnezzar, 117, 130, 143,

144, 158, 166, 167, 202 necklaces, 108, 112 Negev, 50, 55, 116, 123 Neku, 106 Neo-Babylonian, xxii, 127, 130,

143, 173 New Caledonians, 274 Nicolaus of Damascus, 177 Nineveh, 58, 60, 61, 65, 106, 129,

180, 181 Ninevites, 58-61, 64, 65 nose ring, 107 nudity, 110 Nychon, 131 occupation, 8, 14, 19, 222, 257,

270 Oedipus, 178 Official Aramaic, 156 Old Babylonian, 103, 128 Old Kingdom, 104, 120 Old Persian, 175, 176, 181, 188 Olympia, 129 omnipresence, 8, 9 Onan, 278-280 oracle(s), 43, 72, 75, 79-87, 89,

90, 107, 112, 123 Oracles of Judgment, 75, 79,

81-84, 89 Oracles of Restoration, 75, 79, 81,

82 orgies, 209 ornament, 112 Orontes River, 129 Palestine, xvii-xx, xxiii, xxv, xxix,

25, 26, 129, 130, 133, 223, 226, 230, 232-234, 262

Palestinian, xxi, xxii, xxx, 42, 124, 148, 226, 234, 255, 268

panel, 79, 80, 84-86, 89, 130


General Index 309

panel structure, 79, 80, 85 panels, 84-87 parallel, xxii, 5, 30, 38, 60, 61,

68, 75, 79, 81, 84, 87, 89, 90,

precious gems, 107 precious metals, 105, 107, 112,

117 precious stones, 88, 104, 107,

143, 145, 192, 206, 209, 210, 240, 296

109, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 120

parallelism, 33, 73, 79, 81, 84-86, prediction, 54, 144, 147, 158, 90, 216

parousia, 50, 52, 53 Pasargadae, 131, 134, 178 Patmos, 140 pendants, 111, 112 Perati, 128 Persepolis, 131, 133, 135 Persepolis Fortification Texts, 131 Persepolis Treasury Tablets, 131 Persian, 127, 131, 157, 159, 164,

167, 173, 175-177, 181, 183, 186, 188, 189, 195, 239

Persians, 173, 174, 176-178, 180, 184, 186, 189, 274

Pharaoh Necho, 130 Pharaoh of Egypt, 87 Pharisaic, 227, 228 Pharisees, 211, 227, 228 Philistine(s), 208, 212, 237 Philo Judaeus, vi, 233-244, 267,

268, 271 Phoenicians, 130 Pilate's, 210 pits, 223 plaster, 223 poetic, xx, 26, 34, 36, 39 poetry, xxvii, 34, 42, 55 polygamous, 275, 278, 282-285 polygamy, vii, 273, 274, 276, 277,

280, 281, 283, 284, 286-289 polygyny, 273, 287 polysemy, v, 29, 30 pomegranate, 1 1 1 pools, 223 Porphyry, 159, 193, 196 pottery, xxvii, 129, 130, 230, 255

167, 169-171, 206, 211 preterists, 194 pre-Hellenistic, 131 prince of Tyre, 85, 86 Prodigal Son, 67, 296 prophecy, xvii, xxii, xxiii, xxvi,

xxvii, 29, 54, 90, 91, 93, 139, 143, 144, 147, 158, 164-166, 172, 193, 196, 197, 212, 213

prophetic, xvii, xxviii-30, 43, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 71, 93, 113,

prostitute, 17, 104, 279

124, 144, 170, 193, 197, 199, 203, 205, 209, 211, 292

prostitution, 120, 209 Proto-Geometric ware, 129 Ptolemies, 225 Pylos, 128 Pytarchos, 131 Qastal, 260 queen, 107, 108, 114, 117, 245 Quintilius Varus, 222 Qumran, xxv, 45, 56, 153, 156,

172, 220 Qumran Pesher, 172 Rabbath Amman, 261 Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel,

267 Rahab, 15-17, 23, 265 raiment, 105 Ramesses II, xxvii, 246 Ramot Gilead, 29 Ras el-Bassit, 129 Re, 12, 36, 37, 152, 160, 197 Rebekah, 104, 105 redactor(s), 12, 20, 151



redeemed, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 297 redeemer, 46, 49, 53, 281, 285 Reformed Protestant, 266 religious jewelry, 111, 114, 118 religious symbol, 117 resurrection, 170, 171, 283, 284 reverse parallelism, 81 Rhodes, 129, 229 rings, 106, 108 robes, 107 Romans, 210-212, 225, 240, 243 Rome, 192, 195, 196, 210, 222,

226, 231, 242 royal, 106, 107, 109, 114, 130,

166, 175-177, 179-181, 183, 186, 193

ruler of Tyre, 87 Ruth, 109, 254, 278, 281, 282,

285, 287, 288 Sabbath Day, 99, 100 Sadducean, 227 Sadducees, 227, 283, 284 Sahab, 260, 261 salvation, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 66,

79, 137, 138, 225, 297 Samos, 129, 133 sanctuary, xix, xx, xxv, xxvii, 38,

90, 92, 95, 96, 99-102, 118, 129, 193-195, 197, 206, 207

Sardis, 171 Sargon II, 130, 133 Sargon of Agade, 178 Saul, 87, 106, 239 Scythians, 181, 182, 185 seal, 109, 110, 114, 120, 121, 168 seals, 109, 110, 117, 120, 128 Second Temple, 77, 211 Sekmem, 245, 246 Seleucid(s), 143, 209, 210, 225 semantic, 34, 39, 42, 97, 241, 269 semi-precious stones, 104, 109,

112, 113 Sepphoris, vi, 221-232

Septuagint, 153, 248, 267, 268 Sesostris III, 117, 245 settlement, 11-13, 15, 19-21, 24,

25, 27, 31 70 year(s), 77, 166, 170, 183-186,

206 Shamash, 37 Shechem, vi, 24, 245-250,

253-256 shekel, 105, 200 shekinah, 76 Shelah, 279, 280, 285 Shiloh, 24, 208, 209, 212 Shimron, 10, 11 Sidon, 85, 86 Sidonians, 86 silk, 106 silver, xxv, xxvi, 83, 103-106,

110, 114, 115, 166, 167, 226, 247

Simeon, 247 Sippar Cylinder, 181, 186 social status, 106, 108-110,

116-118 sola scriptura, 196 Son of Man, xxviii, 193, 196, 201 source criticism, 140, 157, 158 Stela of Ikhernofret, 117 stimulus-response, 62 stones, 18, 27, 88, 104, 107, 109,

110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121

structural pattern, 72, 73 structure, v, xix, xxi, xxii, xxvii,

7, 33, 34, 39, 40, 47, 55-57, 66, 68, 71-76, 78-80, 82, 84, 85, 87-90, 92, 124, 142, 164, 203, 224

structures, xxii, 11, 34, 39, 40, 42, 55, 60, 71, 73, 90, 141, 194, 223, 281, 284, 289

substitute, 100, 296 Sumerian, 37, 38, 107, 120


General Index 311

sun, 34, 36-38, 43, 111, 292 supernatural, 87, 137-139, 297 Susa, 131, 135 Suwardata, 252 suzerain, 175, 177, 180, 182, 183,

248 suzerainty treaties, 79, 267 synchronic, 142, 143, 145 Syria, 25, 129, 222 tabernacle, xxiii, 95, 106, 208,

209, 211, 212 Tamar, 278-280, 285 Tannaitic, 267 tassels, 111, 114, 122 Teispes, 179 Tekoa, 239 Tell Beit Mirsim, 11, 12 Tell Bornat, 11 Tell ed-Duweir, 11, 12 Tell el-Hesi, 11 Tell el-Qedah, 11 Tell elfUmeiri, xxii, 260, 261,

263 Tell es-Safi, 11 Tell es-Sultan, 9, 11 Tell Hebron, 11 Tell Jawa (South), vi, 257, 258,

261-263 Tell Judeideh, 11 Tell Keisan, 11, 12 Tell Shimron, 11 Tell Sukas, 129 temple, xxv, xxix, 33, 46, 72,

75-80, 90, 93, 95, 100, 109, 110, 113, 122, 129, 158, 159, 174, 185, 194, 196, 202, 206-212, 224, 293, 294

ten commandments, vii, 265-268, 271

territory, 16, 20, 21, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 261, 268, 269, 296

theater, 223-225

Thebes, 128 theft, 267, 268 throne, 68, 76, 78, 80, 130, 175,

176, 179, 180, 182, 184, 246, 292, 294-296

Thutmose III, 108, 260, 261 Tiberias, 223, 226-230 Tiglath-pileser III, xviii, 130 Titus, 54, 158, 210 Transjordan, 17, 253, 260, 262 tree of knowledge, 3, 4 tribulation, 140, 219 Tubal, 86 turkey, xx, 130 turquoise, 117 2,300 days, 194, 195 Tyre, 85-87, 107, 122, 123 Ugarits, 274 Umman-Manda, 181, 182, 185,

186 Urartu, 129 Uruk Prophecy, 143 Uruk text, 143, 144 vassal, xvii, 175, 182, 248, 249 Vespasian, 210 vineyards, 260, 261 vision, xxiii, 29, 48, 74, 76-79,

90, 102, 140, 141, 153-155, 160, 166, 169, 174, 175, 195, 197, 201, 203, 211, 292, 295

visions, 73, 76, 78, 89, 138, 140-142, 150-152, 197, 202

Wadi el-Mojib, 258 warfare, 237, 269 Waters of Merom, 247 wealth, 105, 106, 108, 114, 118,

285 wedding, 105, 107 Weidner Chronicle, 207, 212 widows, 274-277, 280-282, 284,

287, 288 wife, xv, 24, 84, 107, 114, 120,

124, 180, 229, 236-240, 275,



277-279, 281-286, 289 Xenophon, 176-181, 186, 188,

189 Xerxes, 109, 131, 179, 181 Xerxes I, 179, 181 Yahweh, 9, 25, 30, 33, 58-68,

75-77, 80, 114, 116-118, 206-209, 216, 217, 292-297

Yahweh's, 29, 57-62, 64-67, 111, 120, 216, 217, 292, 296

Yahwistic, 113, 116, 165 Yehuda ha-Nasi, 225

Yhwh, 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 15-23, 33, 35, 37-40, 45-51, 53, 54, 108, 141, 268

Yom Kippur, 77, 89 Zakir of Hamath, 37 zealots, 210 Zedekiah, 30, 87 Zion, 46-49, 51, 53 , 54, 56, 108,

111 Zion's, 50, 51 Ziza, 260


Scripture Index

Biblical and apochryphal books are listed alphabetically.

Acts 2 Chr 9:7 101 Acts 4:24 293 2 Chr 9:8 295 Acts 7:48-50 295 2 Chr 18:18 295 Acts 17:24 292 2 Chr 18:23 31 Acts 22:3 234 2 Chr 24:14 100, 101

2 Chr 30:27 294 Amos 2 Chr 33:12 67 Amos 5:13 215 2 Chr 33:13 67

2 Chr 36:20 174, 184 Chronicles 2 Chr 36:20-22 184 1 Chr 2:4 280 2 Chr 36:22 186 1 Chronicles 6 258 2 Chr 36:23 186, 292, 294 1 Chr 7:15 276 1 Chr 16:6 101 Colossians 1 Chr 16:11 97, 101 Col 1:5 296 1 Chr 16:31 293 Col 2:10 242 1 Chr 16:37 101 Col 2:23 242 1 Chr 16:40 101, 196 Co13:1 297 1 Chr 23:31 100, 101 Col 3:2 297 1 Chr 29:23 295 2 Chr 2:3 96, 98, 101 Corinthians 2 Chr 2:6 293 1 Cor 2:4 234 2 Chr 6:18 293 1 Cor 7:10 240 2 Chr 6:21 294 1 Cor 7:11 240 2 Chr 6:27 294 2 Cor 5:18 241 2 Chr 6:30 294 2 Cor 5:18-21 241 2 Chr 6:33 294 2 Cor 5:19 241, 242 2 Chr 6:35 294 2 Cor 5:20 241 2 Chr 6:39 294 2 Cor 10:10 234



2 Cor 11:6 2 Cor 12:2 292, 2 Cor 12:3

Daniel Daniel 1 xvii, 138, 140,

234 294 294

141,

Dan 3:10 127 Dan 3:13 166 Dan 3:15 127 Dan 3:18 167 Dan 3:28 167 Daniel 4 xxii, 141, 152, 167

150, 152, 158, 202 Dan 4:17 141, 167 Daniel 1-6 138, 140,

149-153, 155 141, Dan 4:23[20]

Dan 4:25 296

141, 167 Daniel 1-7 xvii, 149, 158 Dan 4:26 167 Dan 1:1-4 184 Dan 4:27 167 Dan 1:1-6 206 Dan 4:37 167 Dan 1:1-2:4 150 Daniel 5 . . xxii, 141, 152, 174, 202 Dan 1:2 202 Dan 5:3 202 Dan 1:4 166, 215 Dan 5:4 200, 202 Dan 1:17 166, 202 Dan 5:15 202 Daniel 2 . . xxii, 141, 145, 152-154, Dan 5:21 141

192, 193, 199, 200, 203, 218 Dan 5:22 167 Daniel 2-7 xxii, 158, 203 Dan 5:23 200, 294 Dan 2:4-7:28 150 Dan 5:24 200, 202 Dan 2:4b 150 Dan 5:25 200 Dan 2:13 154 Dan 5:27 167 Dan 2:14 150, 154 Dan 5:28 167 Dan 2:14-45 152 Dan 5:30 173, 174 Dan 2:21 166, 192 Dan 5:31 173, 175, 186 Dan 2:23 166 Daniel 6 xxi, 141, 167, 170 Dan 2:24 192 Dan 6:1 174 Dan 2:29 200 Dan 6:8 174 Dan 2:33 200 Dan 6:10 100 Dan 2:37 294 Dan 6:12 174 Dan 2:37-44 192 Dan 6:15 174 Dan 2:38 143, 192 Dan 6:22 168 Dan 2:39 143 Daniel 7 xvii, xxi, xxii, 89, Dan 2:41 200, 201 138-141, 149-155, 158, 171, Dan 2:42 200 191-194, 196, 201, 202 Dan 2:43 200 Daniel 7-12 xvii, 138-141, Dan 2:44 294 150-153, 157 Dan 2:45 143, 150 Dan 7:1 150, 155 Dan 2:46 99 Dan 7:2 150 Daniel 3 xx, 128, 133,

150, 170, 202 141, Dan 7:3-7

Dan 7:4-14 175 192

Dan 3:5 127 Dan 7:7 192, 202 Dan 3:7 127 Dan 7:8 168, 192, 194, 211


General Index 315

Dan 7:9 90, 193, 295 Dan 8:23 168 Dan 7:10 90, 168 Dan 8:23-26 211 Dan 7:11 168, 171, 211 Dan 8:24 211 Dan 7:13 90, 193 Dan 8:25 168, 202, 211 Dan 7:14 . . 90, 171, 192, 193, 211 Dan 8:27 209 Dan 7:15 209 Daniel 9 152, 153, 169 Dan 7:15-18 175 Dan 9:1 . . 150, 173, 180, 183-185 Dan 7:16 209 Dan 9:1-27 206 Dan 7:19 202 Dan 9:2 169, 183, 185, 206, Dan 7:20-22 211 209, 212 Dan 7:21 . . 90, 168, 191, 194, 211 Dan 9:3-19 209 Dan 7:22 90, 168, 171,

192, 211 191, Dan 9:11

Dan 9:13 169 169

Dan 7:23-26 192 Dan 9:14 206 Dan 7:24-27 211 Dan 9:17 206, 209, 212 Dan 7:25 168, 201, 211 Dan 9:18 206, 209, 212 Dan 7:25-27 192 Dan 9:19 169 Dan 7:26 168, 192 Dan 9:21 99 Dan 7:27 168, 171, 192, 211 Dan 9:22 150, 209,218, 219 Dan 7:28 192, 209 Dan 9:23 218, 219 Daniel 8 . . . xx, xxiii, 89, 100, 102, Dan 9:24 168, 169, 195

152-154, 158, 159, 192, 195, 197, 202, 220

194, Dan 9:24-27 209, 213

xx, xxii, 206,

Daniel 8-12 . . . 149, 150, 158, 159 Dan 9:25 210 Dan 8:1 150, 155 Dan 9:26 206, 209, 210 Dan 8:2-9 192 Dan 9:27 . . . vi, 99, 193, 205, 206, Dan 8:3 174, 195 208, 209, 211 Dan 8:4 195 Daniel 10 xxi, 87, 131, 134, Dan 8:8 292 172, 185 Dan 8:8-12 195 Daniel 10-12 154, 170 Dan 8:8b-14 211 Dan 10:1 150, 183, 185 Dan 8:9 194 Dan 10:2 150, 185 Dan 8:9-11 168 Dan 10:3 185 Dan 8:11 . . . 96, 99, 168, 193, 194 Dan 10:5 150 Dan8:11-13 96, 99, 193 Dan 10:12 169 Dan 8:12 211 Dan 10:13 163, 169, 185 Dan 8:13 210 Dan 10:14 185 Dan 8:14 90, 194-196 Dan 10:19 170 Dan 8:17 171, 195 Dan 10:20 163 Dan 8:19-26 205 Daniel 11 159 Dan 8:20 174, 192 Dan 11:1 185 Dan 8:20-26 192 Dan 11:3 168 Dan 8:21 174, 195 Dan 11:27 171



Dan 11:31 96, 99, 193, 211 Deuteronomy 25 276, 277, 281 Dan 11:32 170 Deut 25:5 273-281, 283 Dan 11:32ff 216 Deut 25:5-10 273-281 Dan 11:33 170, 215, 216, Deut 25:6 276

218, 219 Deut 25:7 276, 277 Dan 11:33-35 215, 216 Deut 25:8 276 Dan 11:34 171 Deut 25:9 276 Dan 11:35 168, 170, 171, Deut 25:10 277

215, 216 Deut 26:15 294 Dan 11:39 216 Deut 27:19 276 Daniel 12 xxv, 201, 220 Deut 28:22 36 Dan 12:1 171, 211 Deut 28:27-28 36 Dan 12:2 170, 216, 217 Deut 28:35 36 Dan 12:3 171, 215, 216 Deut 30:3 47 Dan 12:6 201 Deut 32:40 294 Dan 12:7 168, 172, 294 Dan 12:10 .... 215, 216, 218, 219 Ecclesiastes Dan 12:11 96, 99 Eccl 5:2 294 Dan 12:12 171 Eccl 12:2 40 Dan 12:13 170

Ephesians Deuteronomy Eph 6:2 266 Deut 2:37 258 Eph 6:3 266 Deut 3:10 258 Deut 3:16 258 Esdras Deut 4:19 36, 40 1 Esdras 174, 175 Deut 4:39 293 1 Esd 3:1 185 Deuteronomy 5 266, 268 1 Esd 3:1-3 174 Deut 5:22-27 16 1 Esd 3:1-4:63 185 Deut 7:2 249 1 Esd 4:42-44 174 Deut 8:8 111 1 Esd 4:57 174 Deut 10:14 293 1 Esd 4:61 174, 185 Deut 11:11 292 2 Esdras 169 Deut 11:12 101 2 Esd 4:36 169 Deut 14:3 208 Deut 14:29 276 Esther Deut 17:3 36, 40 Esth 1:19 174 Deut 21:11 276 Esth 3:10 109 Deut 23:7 281 Esth 3:12 109 Deut 23:17 209 Esth 4:3 216 Deut 23:18 209 Esth 8:2 110 Deut 24:1 238, 240 Esth 8:8 110 Deut 24:17 276 Esth 8:10 110


General Index 317

Esth 8:15 109 Exod 30:34-38 96 Exod 32:2 106

Exodus Exod 32:2-5 106 Exod 3:22 106 Exod 32:15 266, 267 Exod 9:29 294 Exod 32:16 266 Esodo 11:1-12:36 xxiii Exod 33:4-6 114 Exod 11:2 105 Exod 33:6 115 Exodus 12 110 Exod 34:12 249 Exod 12:12 106 Exod 34:15 249 Exod 12:36 105 Exod 35:20-22 106 Exod 12:41 106 Exod 40:34 208 Exod 15:5 40 Exod 16:4 40 Ezekiel Exod 17:1-7 40 Ezekiel 1 . . . xix, 71, 73-81, 89-92 Exod 17:2 40 Ezekiel 1-3 72-74, 78, 90 Exod 17:8-16 18 Ezekiel 1-3:21 72 Exodus 20 266, 268 Ezekiel 1-11 . . . . 71, 73-80, 89, 90 Exod 20:20 40 Ezekiel 1-24 72, 79, 81, 90 Exod 23:32 249 Ezekiel 1-32 79 Exod 24:10 117 Ezek 1:1 76 Exodus 25-40 90 Ezek 1:1-13 80 Exod 25:30 97, 99-101 Ezek 1:1-3:15 74 Exod 26:26 117 Ezek 1:2 76 Exod 26:29 117 Ezek 1:4a 80 Exod 27:20 97, 196 Ezek 1:4b-26a 80 Exod 27:21 196 Ezek 1:6 76 Exodus 28 113, 114 Ezek 1:8 76 Exod 28:2 104, 109 Ezek 1:10 205 Exod 28:9-14 110 Ezek 1:11 76 Exod 28:17-30 110 Ezek 1:14 76 Exod 28:30 97 Ezek 1:15-21 76 Exod 28:31-35 111 Ezek 1:26b-28a 80 Exod 28:36-38 110 Ezek 1:28b-2:2 80 Exod 28:38 97, 110 Ezekiel 2 76 Exodus 29 110 Ezek 2:3-3:27 80 Exod 29:6 109, 110 Ezekiel 3 76 Exod 29:38 97, 99 Ezek 3:12 76 Exod 29:38-42 99 Ezek 3:13 76 Exod 29:42 98, 101 Ezek 3:16-21 84 Exod 30:1-10 96 Ezek 3:16-7:27 74 Exod 30:7 99 Ezek 3:22-24:27 72 Exod 30:8 96, 98, 99, 101 Ezek 3:23 76 Exod 30:11-16 113 Ezek 3:24-27 83



Ezekiel 4-8 Ezekiel 4-24 Ezekiel 5 Ezek 5:5a Ezek 5:5b Ezek 5:6 Ezek 5:7 Ezek 5:8-17 Ezek 5:11 Ezekiel 6 Ezek 7:20 Ezekiel 8 Ezekiel 8-11 . . . Ezek 8:1 Ezek 8:4 Ezek 8:6 Ezek 8:14 Ezekiel 9 Ezekiel 9-11 Ezek 9:1-11:13 Ezek 9:3 Ezek 9:4-6 Ezek 9:5 Ezek 9:6 Ezek 9:7 Ezekiel 10-11 Ezek 10:3 Ezek 10:4 Ezek 10:14 Ezek 10:18 Ezek 10:19 Ezek 11:18 Ezek 11:14-21 Ezek 11:21 Ezek 11:22 Ezek 11:22-25 Ezek 11:23 Ezekiel 12 Ezekiel 12-23 Ezekiel 12-33 Ezek 12:1-7 Ezek 12:10 Ezek 12:14

80 73 79 79 79 79 79 79

207 79

207 73, 74, 76, 78, 79

. 72, 74, 76, 78, 79 76

207 207 207

76, 77, 89 77 80

76, 77, 80, 207 77

207 207 207

78 77

77, 80, 207 205

77, 80, 207 77, 80

207 80

207 77, 207

80 77, 207, 211

81 75, 79, 81-83

74 81 87 81

Ezek 12:16 Ezek 12:18 Ezek 12:19 Ezek 12:20 Ezekiel 13 Ezek 13:11 Ezek 13:13 Ezekiel 14 Ezek 14:12-23 Ezekiel 15 Ezek 15:1-8 Ezekiel 16 . . Ezek 16:1-59 Ezek 16:10-12 Ezek 16:11-15 Ezek 16:13 Ezek 16:60 Ezekiel 17 Ezek 17:1-20 Ezek 17:21 Ezek 17:22-24 Ezekiel 18 Ezek 18:31 Ezek 18:32 Ezekiel 19 Ezek 19:10-14 Ezekiel 20 Ezek 20:1-32 Ezek 20:11 Ezek 20:13 Ezek 20:16 Ezek 20:18 Ezek 20:19 Ezek 20:21 Ezek 20:24 Ezek 20:33 Ezek 20:34 Ezek 20:41 Ezek 20:43 Ezek 20:44 Ezekiel 21 Ezek 21:2 Ezek 21:3-25

79, 81, 107,

81 81

81, 207 81, 207

73, 81 81 81 81 81 81 81

122, 124 81

107 104 108 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 87 82 82 82 82 82 82 82


Genet-al Index 319

Ezek 21:25-27 Ezekiel 22 Ezek 22:1-14 Ezek 22:15 Ezek 22:17-22 Ezekiel 23 Ezek 23:1-49 Ezek 23:40 Ezekiel 24 Ezek 24:1 Ezek 24:2

82 82 82 82

82, 83 79, 82, 90

82 104

75, 81, 82-84 84 84

Ezek 28:12-19 Ezek 28:12b Ezek 28:13 Ezek 28:14 Ezek 28:15 Ezek 28:15a Ezek 28:15b Ezek 28:16 Ezek 28:16-19 Ezek 28:17-19 Ezek 28:20

88 87, 88

88 88 89 88

88, 89 87-89 87, 89

88 84

Ezek 24:3-14 82, 84 Ezek 28:20-26 84-86 Ezekiel 25 75, 84, 85 Ezek 28:20-Ezekiel 32 84, 85 Ezekiel 25-28 - 10 75, 84, 85 Ezek 28:21 84 Ezekiel 25-32 72, 75, 84 Ezek 28:24-26 84 Ezekiel 25-48 72 Ezekiel 29-32 75 Ezek 25:1 84 Ezek 29:1 85 Ezek 25:2 84 Ezek 29:1-16 85 Ezek 26:1 85 Ezek 29:3 85 Ezek 26:1-6 85 Ezek 29:9 86 Ezek 26:1-10 86 Ezek 29:12 86 Ezek 26:3 85, 86 Ezek 29:16 86 Ezek 26:4 86 Ezek 29:17-30:19 85 Ezek 26:5 86 Ezek 30:20-26 85, 86 Ezek 26:7-11 85 Ezek 30:23 86 Ezek 26:12 86 Ezek 30:25 86 Ezek 26:12-18 85, 86 Ezek 30:26 86 Ezek 26:14 86 Ezek 31:1-18 85, 86 Ezek 26:15-18 86 Ezek 31:16 86 Ezek 26:19-21 85, 86 Ezek 32:1-16 85, 86 Ezek 26:20 86 Ezek 32:2 86 Ezekiel 27 85 Ezek 32:7 40 Ezek 27:1 86 Ezek 32:17-32 85, 86 Ezekiel 28 38, 87, 122 Ezek 32:18 86 Ezek 28:1-10 85 Ezek 32:19 86 Ezek 28:2-6 86 Ezek 32:20 86 Ezek 28:7 86 Ezek 32:21 86 Ezek 28:8 86 Ezek 32:31 86 Ezek 28:10 86 Ezekiel 33 . . 72, 75, 79, 81-84, 90 Ezek 28:11-15 87 Ezekiel 33-39 72, 81 Ezek 28:11-19 75, 87, 107 Ezekiel 33-48 72, 79 Ezek 28:12 107 Ezek 33:1-20 84, 90 Ezek 28:12-15 87 Ezek 33:21 83, 84



Ezek 33:21-29 207 Ezek 39:21-29 81 Ezek 33:22 83, 84 Ezek 39:23 81 Ezek 33:23 82 Ezek 39:26 81 Ezek 33:23-33 84 Ezek 39:28 81 Ezek 33:24 82 Ezekiel 40-43 72, 73 Ezekiel 34-39 74, 75, 79-82, 84 Ezekiel 40-43:12 78, 79 Ezekiel 34-48 81 Ezekiel 40-48 71, 72, 74-80, Ezek 34:1-10 82 90-93 Ezek 34:12 82 Ezek 40:1 77, 78, 80 Ezek 34:13 82 Ezek 40:2a 80 Ezek 34:23 83 Ezek 40:2b 80 Ezek 34:24 83 Ezek 40:3-42:20 80, 90 Ezekiel 35 82 Ezek 40:4 80 Ezek 35:2 82 Ezek 43:1-9 80 Ezek 35:2-15 82 Ezek 43:2-7 210 Ezekiel 36 82 Ezek 43:3 80 Ezek 36:1-15 82 Ezek 43:5 80 Ezek 36:22 82 Ezek 43:7 295 Ezek 36:23 82 Ezek 43:10 80 Ezek 36:24 82 Ezek 43:11 80 Ezek 36:27 82 Ezek 43:12-46:24 80, 90 Ezek 36:31 82 Ezek 46:14 100 Ezek 36:35 82 Ezek 46:15 98, 101 Ezek 36:36 82 Ezek 47:1-12 80 Ezek 36:44 82 Ezek 47:13-48:29 80, 90 Ezek 37:1-14 81 Ezek 48:30-35 80 Ezek 37:15-24 81 Ezek 37:21 81 Ezra Ezek 37:23 81 Ezra 1:1-4 184, 186 Ezek 37:24 81, 83 Ezra 1:2 174, 292, 294 Ezek 37:25 81, 83 Ezra 3:5 98, 101 Ezek 37:26 81 Ezra 6:15 211 Ezekiel 38 81 Ezek 38:8 97, 101 Genesis Ezek 38:18 81 Genesis 1 xxiv Ezek 38:21 81 Gen 1:1 I, 39, 292, 293, 295 Ezek 38:22 81, 83 Gen 1:1 39 Ezekiel 39 81 Gen 1:1-2:4 39 Ezek 39:6 81 Gen 1: I-2:4a 1 Ezek 39:9 81 Gen 1:2 2 Ezek 39:10 81 Gen 1:3 194 Ezek 39:14 96, 98, 101 Gen 1:3-13 2 Ezek 39:17-20 81 Gen 1:6 194, 293


General Index 321

Gen 1:8 293 Gen 18:27 31 Gen 1:11 4 Gen 22:1 40 Gen 1:13 194 Gen 22:17 292 Gen 1:14 292 Gen 24:3 292 Gen 1:14-31 2 Gen 24:4 276 Gen 1:16 292 Gen 24:7 292, 294 Gen 1:17 292 Gen 24:10 105 Gen 1:19 194 Gen 24:22 105 Gen 1:20 5, 292 Gen 24:35 105 Gen 1:20-30 5 Gen 24:38 276 Gen 1:21 39 Gen 24:53 105 Gen 1:23 194 Gen 25:20 276 Gen 1:26 2 Gen 27:11 281 Gen 1:27 39 Gen 28:6 276 Gen 1:28 2 Gen 29:28 279 Gen 1:31 194 Gen 30:9 279 Genesis 2 xxiv, 1-6 Genesis 34 247, 253 Gen 2:3 39 Gen 34:8 279 Gen 2:4 39 Gen 34:12 279 Gen 2:4b-25 1 Gen 35:2 112 Gen 2:5 4 Gen 35:4 114 Gen 2:5a 3 Gen 37:9 40 Gen 2:5b 3 Genesis 38 278, 279, 281 Gen 2:6 3 Gen 38:10 280 Gen 2:8 4 Gen 38:11 280, 285 Gen 2:9 4, 5 Gen 38:15-26 280 Gen 2:11 116, 117 Gen 38:6 279 Gen 2:12 116, 117 Gen 38:8 279, 280 Gen2:15-17 4 Gen 38:9 279, 280 Gen 2:16 5 Gen 41:42 109 Gen 2:18 5 Gen 46:12 280 Gen 2:19 5 Gen 48:22 247 Gen 2:19a 5 Gen 2:20 5 Gen 2:20-26 5 Gen 2:22 5 Habakkuk Genesis 3 1, 2 Hab 1:17 101 Gen 3:21 116 Hab 2:3 171 Gen 7:11 292 Hab 3:11 36, 40 Gen 8:1 30 Gen 10:4 130 Gen 15:14 106 Haggai Gen 15:16 168 Hag 2 - 9 211



Hebrews Isa 53:11 52 Heb 5:7 51 Isa 53:12 52, 216 Heb 7:22-27 99 Isa 54:11 117 Heb 9:9-14 99 Isa 54:12 117 Heb 9:23-28 99 Isa 55:10 292 Heb 11:10 48 Isa 57:15 294 Heb 11:14 297 Isa 60:19 36, 40 Heb 11:16 297 Isa 60:20 36, 40 Heb 12:22 48 Isa 62:3 109 Heb 12:23 48 Isa 63:15 294 Heb 13:14 48 Isa 65:17 297

Isa 65:18 297 Hosea Isa 65:19 297 Hos 2:13 112 Isa 65:19b 297

Isa 66:1 295, 296 Isaiah Isa 66:2a 295 Isa 2:8 116 Isa 2:18 116 James Isa 2:20 116 James 2:10-12 266 Isaiah 3 108, 112, 116 Isa 3:3 112 Jeremiah Isa 3:13-15 108 Jer 2:9 207 Isa 3:16-23 104 Jer 2:32 105 Isa 3:16-26 108 Jer 4:25 292 Isa 3:18-23 108 Jer 4:29 23 Isa 3:20 112 Jer 4:30 104 Isa 3:21 110 Jer 6:7 101 Isa 13:10 40, 292 Jeremiah 7 208, 209 Isa 14:12-15 38 Jer 7:1-34 207 Isa 21:2 174 Jer 7:10 207 Isa 21:8 101 Jer 7:12-14 208 Isa 25:9 53 Jer 7:30 207 Isa 34:4 293 Jer 7:31 207 Isa 41:25 175 Jer 7:34 207 Isa 44:9-20 38 Jer 8:2 36, 38, 40 Isa 44:23 293 Jer 13:18 109 Isa 44:27-45:1 175 Jer 13:24 30 Isa 45:8a 293 Jer 19:1-15 207 Isa 45:13 184, 186 Jer 23:24 292, 293 Isa 49:13 293 Jer 25:11 170, 183, 206 Isa 51:6 292, 293 Jer 25:12 170, 183, 206 Isa 51:13 101 Jeremiah 26 208, 209 Isa 52:13 216 Jer 26:1-24 207


General Index 323

Jer 26:6 208 Jonah 1:3 67 Jer 26 . 9 207, 208 Jonah 1:4 62, 63, 67 Jer 27:5 166 Jonah 1:4-5a 62 Jer 29:10 170, 183, 206 Jonah 1:4-16 58, 59, 61, 63 Jer 29:14 48 Jonah 1:5a 62, 63, 67 Jer 32:34 207 Jonah 1:5b 67 Jer 32:35 207 Jonah 1:5b-c 63 Jer 32:36 207 Jonah 1:5c 67 Jer 32:42-44 207 Jonah 1:6 63 Jer 34:9 281 Jonah 1:6a 67 Jer 48:21 258 Jonah 1:6b 67 Jer 51:11 174 Jonah 1:7 63, 67 Jer 51:28 174 Jonah 1:7a 67 Jer 51:48 293 Jonah 1:7b 67 Jer 52:33 101 Jonah 1:8 63, 67 Jer 52:34 96, 98, 101 Jonah 1:9 62, 63, 67, 292

Jonah 1:10 63, 67 Job Jonah 1:10a 67 Job 22:2 215 Jonah 1:10b 67 Job 28:15-19 114 Jonah 1:10c 67 Job 37:21 30 Jonah 1:11 63, 67

Jonah 1:12 63, 67 Joel Jonah 1:13 67 Joel 2:10 36, 40 Jonah 1:14 62, 63, 67 Joel 3:4 [2:31] 36, 40 Jonah 1:15 62, 63, 67 Joe14:15 [3:15] 36, 40 Jonah 1:16 62, 64

Jonah 1:16a 67 John Jonah 1:17 64 John 1:45 221 Jonah 1:17-2:10 61 John 1:46 221 Jonah 2 . . . .... 57-60, 62-66, 68 John 3:27 296 Jonah 2:1 60 John 6:1 229 Jonah 2:1-9 59 John 6:23 229 Jonah 2:2 60, 64 John 12:24 51 Jonah 2:3 68 John 14:1-3 52 Jonah 2:3-6b 64 John 14:2 297 Jonah 2:4 68 John 14:3 297 Jonah 2:5 68 John 21:1 229 Jonah 2:5-7 60

Jonah 2:6 68 Jonah Jonah 2:6c-7 64 Jonah 1 63 Jonah 2:7 68 Jonah 1-2 57 Jonah 2:7a 68 Jonah 1:1-3 57-59, 61 Jonah 2:7b 68



Jonah 2:7c Jonah 2:8 Jonah 2:9 Jonah 2:10 Jonah 3 Jonah 3:1-3

68 60,63, 64, 68

63, 68 64, 68

64, 167, 170 57

Jonah 4:10 Jonah 4:11

Joshua Joshua 1 Joshua 1-5

66 66

16 15, 16

Jonah 3:1-3a 58, 59 Joshua 1-13 13, 15, 20-24 Jonah 3:1-4 61 Josh 1:1 8 Jonah 3:1-4:4 57 Josh 1:11 18 Jonah 3:3b-4 64 Joshua 2 16, 17, 265 Jonah 3:3b-10 58, 59, 64 Josh 2:11 293 Jonah 3:5 64, 65 Joshua 3 16, 17 Jonah 3:5-9 59 Joshua 3-21 22 Jonah 3:5-10 61 Josh 3:2 18 Jonah 3:6a 64 Josh 3:3-6 18 Jonah 3:6b 64, 68 Josh 3:5 18 Jonah 3:7 65 Josh 3:15-17 18 Jonah 3:7a 64 Joshua 4 16, 17 Jonah 3:7b-9 64 Josh 4:9 18 Jonah 3:9 65 Josh 4:13 18 Jonah 3:10 64 Joshua 5 16, 23 Jonah 4 60, 66 Josh 5:2 18 Jonah 4:1 65, 68 Josh 5 . 13-15 16 Jonah 4:1-2 60 Josh 5:15 8 Jonah 4:1-3 59, 61, 67 Joshua 6 13, 15-18, 21, 22 Jonah 4:1-4 58, 59, 65 Joshua 6-8 16 Jonah 4:1-5 68 Joshua 6-13 15, 16 Jonah 4:2 60 Josh 6:1-5 8 Jonah 4:2a 65 Josh 6:8 8 Jonah 4:2b 65 Josh 6:20 10 Jonah 4:2c 65 Josh 6:24 10 Jonah 4:3 65 Joshua 7 18 Jonah 4:4 65, 68 Josh 7:11 18 Jonah 4:4-11 61 Josh 7:26. 18 Jonah 4:5 66, 68 Joshua 9 16 Jonah 4:5/6-1 1 67 Joshua 8 13, 15, 21, 22 Jonah 4:5-11 57-60, 66, 67 Joshua 8-10 18 Jonah 4:6a 66 Josh 8:19 10 Jonah 4:6b 66 Josh 8:28 10 Jonah 4:7 66 Josh 8:33 246 Jonah 4:8a 66 Josh 8:35 246 Jonah 4:8b 66 Joshua 9 17, 247 Jonah 4:9a 66 Josh 9:2 248


General Index 325

Josh 9:3 17 Joshua 18 21, 24 Josh 9:9 17 Joshua 18-22 16 Josh 9:10 17 Josh 18:2 21 Joshua 10 . . 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, Joshua 21 258

22, 36, 43, 247 Joshua 23 8, 16, 23 Josh 10:11 292 Josh 23:3 8 Josh 10:12 36, 40 Josh 23:4 8, 21 Josh 10:13 36, 40 Josh 23:5 8, 21 Josh 10:24 19 Josh 23:7 21 Josh 10:28 10 Josh 23:9 8 Josh 10:30 10 Josh 23:10 23 Josh 10:32 10 Josh 23:12 21 Josh 10:35 10 Josh 23:13 23 Josh 10:37 10 Joshua 24 . . . . 16, 23, 26, 247, 250 Josh 10:39 10 Josh 24:3-13 23 Josh 10:42 19 Josh 24:12 8, 21 Joshua 11 13, 15, 16, 18, Josh 24:14 112

21, 22 247 Josh 24:15 164 Josh 11:11 10 Josh 24:23 112 Josh 11:12 10, 11 Josh 24:26 23 Josh 11:18 11 Josh 11:22 249 Josh 11:23 19 Jubilees Joshua 12 16, 19, 20 Jubilees 23 139 Joshua 13 . . . 16, 19, 20, 22, 249,

258, 259 Josh 13:3 249 Judges Josh 13:18 258, 259 Judges 1 21-23, 27 Joshua 14 16, 21 Judg 1:8 22 Joshua 14-24 16, 23 Judg 1:11 249 Josh 14:1 9 Judg 1:12-15 22 Josh 14:2 9 Judg 1:18 249 Josh 14:6 21 Judg 1:19 249 Josh 14:12-14 21 Judg 1:21 22, 249 Joshua 15 16, 21 Judg 1:29 249 Joshua 15-21 20 Judg 2:11-23 208 Josh 15:16-19 22 Judg 2:2 249 Josh 15:63 249 Judg 8:19 281 Joshua 16 16, 21, 247 Judg 8:21 111 Josh 16:10 21, 249 Judg 8:24 115 Joshua 17 16, 247 Judg 8:26 111 Josh 17:11 249 Judges 9 246, 253 Josh 17:12 20, 21, 249 Judg 11:33 259



Kings Leviticus 9 99 1 Kgs 8:11 207 Leviticus 16 78 1 Kgs 8:23 293 Lev 16:12 96 1 Kgs 8:27 293 Lev 16:13 96 1 Kgs 8:30 294 Lev 18:21 207 1 Kgs 8:39 294 Lev 18:24-30 207 1 Kgs 8:43 294 Lev 21:7 242 1 Kgs 8:49 294 Lev 22:13 276 1 Kgs 10:8 97, 101 Leviticus 23 78 1 Kgs 11:5 208 Lev 23:29 89 1 Kgs 14:24 209 Lev 23:30 89 1 Kgs 18:27 37, 38 Lev 24:2 100 1 Kgs 20:30 30 Lev 24:3 97, 100 1 Kings 22 v, 29 Lev 24:4 100 1 Kgs 22:19 295 Lev 24:8 100, 101 1 Kgs 22:19-25 v, 29 Leviticus 25 281 2 Kgs 4:9 101 Lev 25:9-17 89 2 Kgs 5:1 109 Leviticus 26 79 2 Kgs 5:23 109 Lev 26:24 36 2 Kgs 6:18 36 Lev 26:31-35 206 2 Kgs 9:30 104 2 Kgs 11:12 106, 109, 111 Luke 2 Kgs 14:25-27 67 Luke 2:39 221 2 Kings 22 67 Luke 2:41-52 222 2 Kings 23 67 Luke 4:16 221 2 Kgs 23:5 36, 40 Luke 4:43 296 2 Kgs 23:13 208 Luke 8:10 296 2 Kgs 25:29 98, 101 Luke 8:11 51 2 Kgs 25:30 96, 98, 101 Luke 9:1-6 228

Luke 10:20 297 Lamentations Luke 15:18 296 Lam 3:41 294 Luke 15:21 296 Lam 3:50 294 Luke 18:18-23 266 Lam 4:7 104 Luke 18:20 268

!Luke 20:27-33 283 Leviticus Luke 20:33 284 Lev 1:1 208 Lev 3:3-5 209 Lev 3:16 209 Maccabees Lev 6:13 100, 101 1 Macc 1:54 194, 210 Lev 6:6 96, 98, 101 1 Macc 1:54-5:1 194 Lev 7:29-34 209 1 Macc 1:59 209, 210 Leviticus 8 99 1 Macc 4:52 194, 209


General Index 327

Mark Matt 21:25 296 Mark 1:9 221 Matt 22:23-28 283 Mark 1:15 296 Matt 22:37-40 267 Mark 4:11 296 Matt 22:38 268 Mark 4:14 51 Matthew 23 211 Mark 6:2 222 Matthew 23-25 211 Mark 6:3 222 Matt 23:22 295, 296 Mark 7:1-23 266 Matt 23:37 211 Mark 10:17-22 266 Matt 23:38 211 Mark 11:25 294 Matthew 24 211 Mark 11:26 294 Matt 24:1 211 Mark 11:30 296 Matt 24:3 211 Mark 12:18-27 283 Matt 24:15 193, 210, 211 Mark 12:29-31 267 Matt 24:16 210 Mark 13 xxi, 218 Matt 24:29 292 Mark 13:1-5 218 Mark 13:10 218 Micah

Mic 4:7 48 Matthew Mic 4:8 48 Matt 1:1 185 Mic 6:1 79 Matt 2:23 221 Mic 6:2 79 Matt 4:13 221, 230 Matt 4:17 296 Nahum Matt 4:23 296 Nah 3:19 97 Matt 5:14 228 Matt 5:16 294 Nehemiah Matt 5:19 268 Neh 1:4 292, 294 Matt 5:34 295 Neh 3:19 101 Matt 5:35 295 Neh 5:7 281 Matt 5:45 294 Neh 10:34 96-99, 101 Matt 6:9 294 Matt 6:20 297 Numbers Matt 10:5-15 228 Num 4:7 96, 98, 101 Matt 13:11 296 Num 4:16 96, 98, 99, 101 Matt 13:37 51 Num 9:16 100, 101 Matt 13:38 51 Num 9:16 100 Matt 13:39 52 Num 13:23 111 Matt 13:40 52 Num 15:37-41 114 Matt 13:55 222 Num 15:39 114 Matt 15:1-20 266 Num 15:40 114 Matt 18:10 294 Num 16:31 31 Matt 18:14 294 Num 18:1-7 99 Matt 19:16-22 266 Num 21:13 258



Num 21:21-35 253 Psalms Num 26:20 280 Ps 2:4 294 Num 26:55 9 Ps 2:9 200 Num 28:3 97, 99, 100 Ps 3:8[7] 34 Num 28:3-8 99 Ps 8:3[4] 293 Num 28:6 98, 101 Ps 9:4[5] 295 Num 28:10 97, 98, 101 Ps 9:7[8] 295 Num 28:15 97, 98, 101 Ps 11:4 292, 294, 296 Num 28:23 97, 98, 101 Ps 14:2 215 Num 28:24 97, 98, 101 Ps 15:8 101 Num 28:31 97, 98, 101 Ps 16:8 101 Num 29:6 97, 98, 101 Ps 19:1[2] 293 Num 29:7-11 96, 100 Ps 20 . 6 294 Num 29:16 97 Ps 24:15 101 Num 29:19 97, 98 Ps 25:15 101 Num 29:11 97, 101 Ps 28:2 294 Num 29:22 97 Ps 33:6 293 Num 31:50 113 Ps 33:13 294 Numbers 34 90 Ps 34:1 101

Ps 34:27 101 Obediah Ps 35:15 34, 35 Ob 1:16 101 Ps 35:27 101

Ps 36:1-4 217 Peter Ps 39:12 101 2 Pet 3:10 292 Ps 50:6 293 2 Pet 3:13 292, 297 Ps 50:8 100

Ps 51:3 97 Philemon Ps 53:3 215 Phil 3:20 48, 297 Ps 53:2 294

Ps 60:2[1] 34, 35 Proverbs Ps 68:17 [16] 38 Prov 3:15 114 Ps 68:18 52 Prov 3:19 293 Ps 69:23 101 Prov 5:19 101 Ps 69:27[26] 34 Prov 6:21 101 Ps 69:35 293 Prov 8:10 114 Ps 72:5 36,40 Prov 8:27 293 Ps 78:20 34 Prov 11:22 114 Ps 78:51 34, 35 Prov 15:15 101 Ps 78:60 208 Prov 20:15 114 Ps 78:66 34 Prov 21:12 217 Ps 89:6 293 Prov 28:14 101 Ps 96:11 293 Prov 31:10 114 Ps 97:6 293


General Index 329

Ps 102:5[4] 34 Ps 136:17 34 Ps 102:19 294 Ps 136:26 292 Ps 103:16 30 Psalm 137 xxi Ps 103:9 294 Ps 147:8 292 Ps 103:19 292, 296, 298 Psalm 148 40 Psalm 104 40 Ps 148:1 294, 298 Ps 104:19 36, 40 Ps 148:3 36, 40 Ps 105:33 34, 36, 40 Ps 148:4 293 Ps 105:36 34, 35 Ps 106:26 294 Qumran Pesher Ps 109:19 97, 101 1 QpHab 7:9-12 172 Psalms 120-134 33, 34, 46 Psalm 121 . . . v, 33, 34, 36-39, 41 Revelation Ps 121:1 33, 39 Rev 1:4 295 Ps 121:2 33, 39 Rev 3:5 171 Ps 121:3 33,34,39 Rev 4:7 205 Ps 121:3-5 34 Revelation 5 xxi Ps 121:3-8 39 Rev 6:11 168 Ps 121:4 33, 34, 36-38 Rev 6:2-8 205 Ps 121:5 33, 34 Revelation 7 89 Ps 121:5-8 33 Rev 10:6 293 Ps 121:6 v, 33, 34, 36-38 Rev 11:13 294 Ps 121:7 33, 34, 39 Revelation 12 xxii, xxv Ps 121:8 33, 34, 39 Revelation 13 xxv, 219 Ps 123:1 294 Rev 13:8 171 Psalm 126 . . . . v, 46-48, 51, 53-55 Rev 13:9 219 Ps 126:1 40, 46, 47, 48 Rev 13:18 218, 219 Ps 126:1-3 48, 53 Revelation 14 89 Ps 126:2 46 Rev 14:9 168 Ps 126:2a 47 Rev 14:14-16 52 Ps 126:2b 47, 49 Revelation 17 219 Ps 126:3 46, 47, 49 Rev 17:4 104 Ps 126:4 47, 48, 50 Rev 17:5 104 Ps 126:5 47, 51 Rev 17:8 171 Ps 126:5-6 53 Rev 17:9 218, 219 Ps 126:6a 47, 51 Rev 17:15 205 Ps 126:6b 47 Revelation 18 196 Ps 135:8 34, 35 Revelation 19 xxi, 196 Ps 135:10 34 Revelation 20 xxii Psalm 136 40 Rev 20:12 171 Ps 136:8 40 Rev 20:15 171 Ps 136:9 40 Rev 21:1 292, 297 Ps 136:10 34, 35 Rev 21:3 297



Rev 21:15-21 Rev 22:1 Rev 22:3

117 295 295

1 Sam 29:4 2 Sam 1:10 2 Sam 1:24

242 106 108

Rev 22:20 50 2 Sam 9:7 101 2 Sam 9:10 101

Romans 2 Sam 9:13 101 Rom 5:8-11 239 2 Sam 12:30 109 Rom 5:9 240 Rom 5:10 240 Song of Songs Rom 5:10a 240 Songs 4:3 111 Rom 5:11 240 Songs 4:13 111 Rom 7: 8 266 Songs 5:14 104 Rom 7:7 266 Songs 6:7 111 Rom 8:24 50 Songs 6:11 111 Rom 8:25 50 Songs 7:1 104 Rom 13:9 266, 268 Songs 7:13 111

Songs 8:2 111 Ruth Ruth 1:12 285 Ruth 1:13 285 Thessalonians Ruth 2:1-3:10 282 1 Thess 4:14-17 52 Ruth 2:2-23 282 2 Thess 2:1-12 193, 194 Ruth 3:12-4:4 281 Ruth 3:15 109 Timothy Ruth 4:5 281 1 Tim 1:8-11 266 Ruth 4:6 282, 285 1 Tim 2:8 294 Ruth 4:10 281 Ruth 4:13 281 Titus Ruth 4:14-22 282 Titus 2:13 54

Samuel Zecharia 1 Sam 2:12-17 209 Zech 3:4 108 1 Sam 2:22 209 Zech 3:5 109 1 Sam 4:21 208 Zech 6:11 109, 110 1 Sam 4:22 208 Zech 6:11-13 109 1 Sam 8:7 87 Zech 9:16 106 1 Sam 9:16 87 Zech 13:6 49 1 Sam 10:1 87 1 Sam 13:14 87 Zephaniah 1 Sam 15:2 18 Zeph 2:7 53 1 Sam 19:11-17 265 Zeph 2:8 116 1 Sam 25:39 276 Zeph 3:14 53 1 Sam 25:40 276 Zeph 3:17 53, 54


The Andrews University Center for Adventist Research is happy to make this item available for your private scholarly use. We trust this will help to deepen your understanding of the topic.

Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions

This document may be protected by one or more United States or other nation’s copyright laws. The copyright law of the United States allows, under certain conditions, for libraries and archives to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction to scholars for their private use. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. This document’s presence in digital format does not mean you have permission to publish, duplicate, or circulate it in any additional way. Any further use, beyond your own private scholarly use, is your responsibility, and must be in conformity to applicable laws. If you wish to reproduce or publish this document you will need to determine the copyright holder (usually the author or publisher, if any) and seek authorization from them. The Center for Adventist Research provides this document for your private scholarly use only.

The Center for Adventist Research James White Library Andrews University 4190 Administration Drive Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1440 USA +001 269 471 3209 www.andrews.edu/library/car [email protected]

Disclaimer on Physical Condition

By their very nature many older books and other text materials may not reproduce well for any number of reasons. These may include • the binding being too tight thus impacting how well the text in the center of the page may be read, • the text may not be totally straight, • the printing may not be as sharp and crisp as we are used to today, • the margins of pages may be less consistent and smaller than typical today.

This book or other text material may be subject to these or other limitations. We are sorry if the digitized result is less than excellent. We are doing the best we can, and trust you will still be able to read the text enough to aid your research. Note that the digitized items are rendered in black and white to reduce the file size. If you would like to see the full color/grayscale images, please contact the Center.

Disclaimer on Document Items

The views expressed in any term paper(s) in this file may or may not accurately use sources or contain sound scholarship. Furthermore, the views may or may not reflect the matured view of the author(s).

http://www.andrews.edu/library/car

http://www.andrews.edu/library/car

mailto:[email protected]

To Understand the Scriptures. Essays in Honor of William Shea.

Spiritual

Transcript of To Understand the Scriptures. Essays in Honor of William Shea.