(OS 070) Spronk, Barstad (Eds.) - Torah and Tradition - Papers Read at The Sixteenth Joint Meeting Edinburgh 2015 PDF

Torah and Tradition
Oudtestamentische Studin
Old Testament Studies published on behalf of the Societies
for Old Testament Studies in the Netherlands and
Belgium, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Ireland
Editor
H. Ausloos (Louvain-la-Neuve)
Editorial Board
M. Popovi (Groningen)
H.F. Van Rooy (Potchefstroom)
H.G.M. Williamson (Oxford)
Volume 70
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots

Torah and Tradition
Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting
of the Society for Old Testament Study and the
Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh 2015
Edited by
Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the
Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap (16th : 2015 : Edinburgh, Scotland) |
Spronk, Klaas, editor.
Title: Torah and tradition : papers read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of
the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015 / [edited by] by Klaas Spronk and Hans
Barstad.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2017. | Series: Oudtestamentische
studin = Old Testament studies, ISSN 0169-7226 ; Volume 70 | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016047645 (print) | LCCN 2016057357 (ebook) | ISBN
9789004337480 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004337695 (E-book)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Old TestamentCriticism, interpretation,
etc.Congresses.
Classification: LCC BS1171.3 .J65 2015 (print) | LCC BS1171.3 (ebook) | DDC
221.6dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016047645
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: Brill. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0169-7226
isbn 978-90-04-33748-0 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-33769-5 (e-book)
Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi
and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
PrefaceVii
Introduction: Fifteen Joint Meetings and the Sixteenth1

Klaas Spronk
Reexamining the Fathers in Deuteronomys Framework10

Bill T. Arnold
Did the Assyrian Envoy Know the Venite?: What did He Know?
What did He Say? And should He be Believed?42
Graeme Auld
I am a God and Not a Human Being: The Divine Dilemma in Hosea54

Samuel E. Balentine
Covenant, Agreement, and Law: The Social Code Underlying the Book
of Nehemiah70
Bob Becking
Geography in Num 33 and 34 and the Challenge of Pentateuchal

Theory93
Koert van Bekkum
The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah118

Jaap Dekker
The Kingship Motif in Isaiah 61:13135

Hedy Hung
The Influence of the Decalogue on the Shape of Exodus150

William Johnstone
The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and the Epicureans176

Michal N. van der Meer
vi CONTENTS
Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective: Making and Maintaining

Priests201
Deborah W. Rooke
Interpreting Torah: Strategies of Producing, Circulating, and Validating

Authoritative Scriptures in Early Judaism223
Jacques van Ruiten
The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:822, on the Liberation of Slaves during

the Siege of Jerusalem, and its Relation to Deuteronomy 15239
Klaas A.D. Smelik
Index of Authors251
Index of Textual References258
Preface
The present volume 70 of Oudtestamentische Studin/Old Testament Studies

marks the transition from Bob Becking (Utrecht) to Hans Ausloos (Louvain-
la-Neuve) as editor in chief. The Old Testament societies of the Netherlands/
Belgium, the United Kingdom/Ireland, and South Africa express their grati-
tude to Bob Becking for his excellent and stimulating work, resulting in the
publication of seventeen volumes (beginning with volume 53) since he took
over this position from Johannes de Moor (Kampen) in 2006.
The series started in 1942 with P.A.H. de Boer (Leiden) as its first editor, with
A.S. van der Woude (Groningen) as his successor in 1972 (volumes 1733).
Introduction: Fifteen Joint Meetings and
the Sixteenth
Klaas Spronk
The publication of the proceedings of the sixteenth joint meeting of the Society
for Old Testament Study (SOTS) and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap
(OTW) is a good moment to look back to the history of these meetings. The
idea of a joint meeting came up with Piet de Boer, professor of Old Testament
in Leiden, at the end of the sixties. In 1950 he had already organized an inter-
national meeting of the Dutch Society of Old Testament Study in Leiden. It was
attended by famous scholars like Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth, Norman Porteous,
and Harold Rowley. On this occasion the International Organization for the
Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT) was founded. Apparently, for De Boer this
was not enough, because twenty years later he as president of the OTW and
the board of the SOTS decided to start joint meetings of their societies. There
is no official statement about the motives behind this new initiative. It was
certainly furthered by the very good contacts between De Boer and a number
of his British colleagues. Perhaps they also wanted to have international meet-
ings on a smaller scale next to the big events of the IOSOT and the Society of
Biblical Literature (SBL). From the start the joint meetings had a more open
and relaxed character than those of the IOSOT and SBL. Of course, the papers
presented should be of a good quality, but De Boer also invited students to
attend the meetings and some of them also got the opportunity to present
some of their research.
The first meeting was held in the Netherlands, at Woudschoten. Since
then there has been a meeting every three years, alternately in the Low
Countries and in Britain. The papers read were published by Brill in the series
Oudtestamentische Studien. Every meeting had a specific theme.
1. Woudschoten (1970)M.A. Beek et al., The Witness of Tradition: Papers

Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held a
Woudschoten (OTS, 17), Leiden 1972.
2. Londen (1973)J. Barr et al., Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew
Language and Biblical Exegesis. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old
Testament Conference Held At London, 1973 (OTS, 19), Leiden 1974.
3. Leuven (1976)H.A. Brongers et al., Instruction and Interpretation:
Studies in Hebrew language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis:
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017|doi 10.1163/9789004337695_002

2 Spronk
Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at

Louvain, 1976 (OTS, 20), Leiden 1977.
4. Cambridge (1979)B. Albrektson et al., Remembering All the Way...:
A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of
the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in
Nederland (OTS, 21), Leiden 1981.
5. Woudschoten (1982)A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Prophets, Worship and
Theodicy: Studies in Prophetism, Biblical Theology and Structural and Rhe
torical Analysis and on the Place of Music in Worship: Papers read at the
Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference held at Woudschoten, Zeist,
from 13 September 1982 (OTS, 23), Leiden 1984.
6. Cambridge (1985)A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspectives:
Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian
Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature. Papers read at the joint
British-Dutch Old Testament conference held at Cambridge (OTS, 24),
Leiden 1986.
7. Elspeet (1988)A.S. van der Woude (ed.), In Quest of the Past: Studies on
Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism: Papers Read at the Joint
British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988 (OTS, 26),
Leiden 1990.
8. Durham (1991)The papers have not been published in OTS.1
9. Kampen (1994)J.C. de Moor (ed.) Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate
on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Papers Read at the Ninth Joint
Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi
and The Society for Old Testament Study Held at Kampen, 1994 (OTS, 34),
Leiden 1995.
1 The conference was held at Grey College, Durham, 1619 July 1991. The program contained
papers by G. Vermes, Gen 13 in post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Literature: before the
Mishnah; P. Hailnal & M.D. Goulder, Gen 13 in Greek Jewish Literature; P.S. Alexander,
Gen 13 in Rabbinic and Mystical Literature; N. Solomon & G.I. Emmerson, Gen 13 in
Modern Jewish and Christian Interpretation; M.D. Koster, Peshitta Revisited: A Reassessment
of its Value as a Version; K.A.D. Smelik, The Portrayal of King Manasseh: Texts and Traditions
(published in K.A.D. Smelik, Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite
Historiography [OTS 28], Leiden 1992, 129189); D.J. Lane, Text: Scholar and Church: the Place
of the Leiden Peshitta within the Context of Scholastically and Ecclesiastically Definitive
Editions; A. van der Kooij, The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of its Text
(published in ETL 68 [1992], 118131); B.E.J.H. Becking, Jeremiahs Book of Consolation:
A Textual Comparison of the Old Greek and Masoretic Versions (published in VT 44 [1994],
146169); R.P. Gordon, Dialogue and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets (published
in JSS 39 [1994], 717).
Introduction 3
10. Oxford (1997)J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel.

Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of The Society for Old Testament
Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi,
Held at Oxford, 1997 (OTS, 40), Leiden 1998.
11. Soesterberg (2000)J.C. de Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet
as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist. Papers
Read at the Eleventh Joint Meeting of The Society for Old Testament Study
and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi, Held at
Soesterberg 2000 (OTS, 45), Leiden 2001.
12. Cambridge (2003)R.P. Gordon and J.C. de Moor (eds), The Old Testament
in Its World: Papers Read at the Winter Meeting, January 2003, the Society
for Old Testament Study and at the Joint Meeting, July 2003, the Society for
Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in
Nederland en Belgi (OTS, 52), Leiden 2005.
13. Apeldoorn (2006)B. Becking and E. Peels (eds), Psalms and Prayers:
Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and
Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi, Apeldoorn
August 2006 (OTS, 55), Leiden 2007.
14. Lincoln 2009B. Becking and L.L. Grabbe (eds), Between Evidence and
Ideology: Essays on the History of Ancient Israel read at the Joint Meeting
of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch
Werkgezelschap Lincoln, July 2009 (OTS, 59), Leiden 2011.
15. Amsterdam 2012G.J. Brooke et al. (eds), Goochem in Mokum: Wisdom in
Amsterdam. Papers on Biblical and Related Wisdom Read at the Fifteenth
Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamen-
tisch Werkgezelschap, Amsterdam, July 2012 (OTS 68), Leiden 2016.
Overseeing all these themes one could ask: is there anything that was not dis-
cussed in all these joint meetings? One could also ask: was it worth the effort?
Or: can we speak here of good examples of teamwork? It is good to be reminded
of the remark made by De Boer when looked back at 25 years of OTW, noting
that it appears to be very difficult to really study together.2 That was back in
1965. Since then he and many others organized all kinds of cooperation and
2 Cf. K. Spronk, Seventy-five years Oudtestamentisch werkgezelschapthe Study of the Old

Testament in the Netherlands and Belgium, in K. Spronk (ed.), The Present State of OT Studies
in the Low Countries A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the
Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap (OTS, 69), Leiden 2016,
112; esp. 5.
4 Spronk
many projects in which a number of scholars work together have been set up.
But is it enough?
When one compares the field of Old Testament research to that of, for
instance, medical research or economics, it can only be concluded that bibli-
cal scholars are notoriously individualistic. In the Netherlands a committee
presided by Ed Noort, professor Emeritus of Old Testament of the University
of Groningen, wrote a report about the situation of the academic studies of
theology and religion.3 The main conclusion is that the only chance to end the
continuous closing down of the faculties of theology is to cooperate. Because
good theology begins with decent study of the Old Testament, the scholars in
this field should give here the good example.
The proceedings of the sixteenth joint meeting4 presented in this volume
will show the fruits of the ongoing cooperation between the members of the
two societies, with room for very different approaches. The theme Torah
and tradition takes up the theme of the first meeting in 1970: The Witness of
Tradition. Comparing the two volumes, the reader will notice that things have
become more complicated, but also that progress has been made in describing
the multifaceted traditions behind the Hebrew Bible in its present form.
In his contribution Reexamining the Fathers in Deuteronomys Frame-
work Bill T. Arnold takes up the theory of John Van Seters and Thomas Rmer
of the patriarchal name-formula as late insertions in the text made necessary
during the post-exilic period when the ancestral traditions of Genesis were
first bound to the Moses-exodus narrative. A reexamination of the name-
formula identifies Deut 1:8 as a crux interpretum for the insertion theory and
explores further its role in Deut 13. It results in a new perspective on the use of
the patriarchal name-formula in Deuteronomy and raises questions about the
supposed gains inhering to the insertion theory. It is more likely that the deu-
teronomistic scribes were aware of the use of fathers for the exodus genera-
tion, and used the name-formula intentionally to clarify which fathers were
in view.
Graeme Auld begins his paper on the Assyrian envoy in 2 Chr 32 by noting
that there is no conflict between the Chroniclers report of Hezekiahs reform
3 Klaar om te wenden.... De academische bestudering van religie in Nederland: een verkenning.

KNAW, Amsterdam 2015.
4 The paper by Pieter van der Lugt, The Wave-like Motion of the Song of the Sea
(Exod 15:118) and the People of Israel as a Worshipping Community, was published in ZAW
128 (2016), 4963. The paper by Anselm Hagedorn, The Biblical Laws of Asylum between
Mediterraneanism and Postcolonial Critique will be published in ZAR. The contributions to
the present volume by Bill Arnold and Klaas Smelik were not read at the conference.
Introduction 5
and that offered by the Assyrian envoy. In 2 Kgs 18, however, altars were not
included in the narrators list of four destructions practised by Hezekiah, while
the envoy makes a feature of altars being removed and this altar being chosen.
The possibility of the envoys independence from the narrator raises the ques-
tion of his credibility. The narrator in Isaiah offers no reform report, and in the
shorter Greek text (Isa 36:78) none is provided even by the envoy. The Greek
rendering of the envoys advice (mix with my master) marks him as a figure
of fun; and this may also be intended by prostrate before this/one altar of the
majority tradition. The corrections in both Kings and Chronicles to the report
of Solomon standing to pray may be correlated with the emphasis on prostra-
tion before Yhwh in Book IV of the Psalms, and especially the Venite.
Samuel Balentine, I am God and not a Human Being: The Divine
Dilemma in Hosea, relocates Tertullians question, What has Athens to do with
Jerusalem? by focusing on Hos 11:9: What does Hosea have to do with Homer
(or Hesiod)? If Hos 11:9 is the answer is to some sort of divine dilemmaI am
God (or a god, )and not a human, that is, I am this kind of god but not that
kind of godthen what were the presenting metatheistic and metaethical
questions that shaped the world of the text? The exploration comprises three
parts: 1) generic concepts of divinity in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Greece
in the eighth to sixth centuries, especially connections between Hoseas
El-God and Homers Zeus-god; 2) transcultural distinctions between divine
and human portfolios, especially descriptions of divine judgment exercised by
Zeus and Yhwh/El; and 3) the interface between divine moralizing and moral-
izing about the divine. It is suggested that Hosea provides his readers with an
education in divine moralizing (How can I give you up, Ephraim, 11:8) while
he himself is at the same time moralizing about the divine. Hoseas Yhwh-God
can transcend even divine limitations, a sort of self-transcendence in which
divine compassion exceeds divine anger. Yhwh is both more than human-like
and more than God-like. In a pre-Socratic world, where the formal conceptual-
ization of philosophy (love of learning) is as yet unarticulated, Hoseas author
is already doing pre-moral, philosophical work.
In his article Covenant, Agreement and Law: the Social Code underlying
the Book of Nehemiah Bob Becking scrutinizes the concept of the social code
in the Book of Nehemiah. He observes that the prayer in Neh 1 stresses the
basic intention towards Gods commandments. Neh 5 argues for the appro-
priation of the concept of remission in a period of economic decline caused
by drought. The presentation of the law in Neh 8 urges the reinstatement
of the Feast of Booths. In Neh 13 the new community is marked by specific
regulations on exogamous marriages and the celebration of the Shabbat.
The Book of Nehemiah cannot play a role in the discussion of the formation
6 Spronk
of the Pentateuch, since Nehemiah offers not a reflection on the whole of the
Torah, but presents the Gebot der Stunde for the new community in and
around Jerusalem.
Koert van Bekkum, Geography in Numbers 3334 and Recent Pentateuchal
Theory, notes that both earlier and recent discussions of the composition,
genre and historical background of the itinerary in Num 33:149 and of the
description of the Promised Land in Num 34:112 have highlighted the pre-
exilic nature of these texts. He considers what challenge this poses to recent
theories of the formation of the Pentateuch. On one hand, it is still difficult to
detect the specific sources behind the itinerary list of Num 33. On the other
hand much information is available with regard to the tradition history of the
geographical concept that is used in Num 34:112; Josh 13:26; Judg 3:3; and
Ezek 47:1520. In addition, this pre-exilic material turns out to be remarkably
well integrated into Num 2636 as a whole. These observations pose serious
problems for several literary-critical criteria and for the suggestion that the
chapters belong to a post-priestly compositional layer. They suggest that differ-
ent, less deductive alternatives, including exploring the possibility of a tradi-
tion regarding an earlier blending of D- and P-like vocabulary and style, need
to be found.
Jaap Dekker, The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah, notes the dif-
ference of opinion regarding whether Torah in the book of Isaiah should be
understood as referring to the Mosaic Torah or in a more general sense be seen
as indicative of prophetic instruction. It is argued that in the first part of Isaiah
refers to prophetic instruction as a general reference to the concept of
justice and righteousness. In the second part it substantively refers to the real-
izing of Yhwhs salvific righteousness. This latter concept is already indicated
in the programmatic vision of Isa 2:14. Nothing indicates that a Torah-revision
afterwards has altered this understanding of or consequently the overall
message of the book. While the paper does argue that the final form of the
book requires that all references to be seen as referring to Mosaic Torah,
it is suggested that, from a wider canonical perspective the closure of the
segment of the in Mal 3:22 makes clear that in the end, both the Law
and the Prophets are to be read in accordance with each other. Thus whenever
Christian theology interprets prophecy as diametrically opposed to the legal
context of the Pentateuch, this reads against the grain of the present canonical
form of the Hebrew Bible.
In her article The Kingship Motif in Isaiah 61:13 Hedy Hung observes that
Isa 61:13 is generally taken to be a prophecy about the ideal servant, or the
prophet claiming to be the servant, who works for the restoration of post-
exilic Jerusalem. It suggested that two reasons account for this interpretation:
Introduction 7
1) the passage inherits the servant motif from the Servant Songs in Deutero-
Isaiah; 2) the fact that Israel has come under Persias shadow makes restora-
tion to Davidic kingship seem impossible. It is argued that it was not likely
that this text is limited to the reading of an ideal servant nor that history has
dictated the thoughts and expressions of the Isaianic writing communities.
It is suggested that Isa 61:13 has a kingship motif and that this motif is seen to
be intricately related to the servant motif in the Servant Songs by comparing
the literary features of 61:13 with those of the Servant Songs as well as those
of chapter 11. The paper explores the continuity and the transformation of the
kingship and the servant motifs in different contexts and how the eschatologi-
cally important category of myth functions in this text.
William Johnstone, The Influence of the Decalogue on the Shape of Exodus,
argues that Deut 5s reminiscences attest that its Horeb Decalogue was once
present in Exod 20 (cf. the repeated cross-reference as Yhwh your God com-
manded you). A number of considerations confirm the presence of the Horeb
Decalogue in the original version of Exodus: the narrative surrounding its rev-
elation in Exodus matches that in Deuteronomy; Deut 5:31 confirms the role
of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:2223:33) as exposition of the Horeb
Decalogue and as code for the covenant in Exod 24:38; twice over, the reaffir-
mation of the covenant in Exod 34:526 uses the figure of speech of merismus
to confirm that the terms of the covenant are unchanged. The first merism
(34:516) begins citing the opening of the Horeb Decalogue (Exod 20:56)
and ends with a free play on the conclusion of the Book of the Covenant in
Exod 23:2033; the second (34:1726) also begins with citing the opening of
the Horeb Decalogue and ends with a parallel version of the concluding legal
stipulations of the Book of the Covenant in Exod 23:1419. Ps Sinai edition
of the Decalogue that now stands in Exod 20 affirms that the Decalogue may
indeed function as a formative influence on the shape of Exodus provided it
is interpreted in cosmic terms, as in its most radical change: the motive for
observing Sabbath.
In his article The Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in the Light of
Contemporary Hellenistic Philosophy Michal van der Meer argues, in
response to the contemporary discussion in Septuagint studies concerning
the possible influence of philosophical (often: Platonic) influence upon the
Greek translators of the Hebrew scriptural books, that the Greek version of
Genesis may reflect the influence of Greek philosophy, but only in an indirect
way. He suggests that a number of unusual Greek renderings in the creation
stories can be seen as deliberate attempts to avoid hedonistic concepts known
from Epicureanism and its Cyrenaic predecessors. These expressions concern
the translation of Hebrew with Greek instead of
8 Spronk
in order to avoid associations with the garden of Epicurus, the

avoidance of the concept and in Gen 18:12 (Hebrew ) and
Gen 3:16 and 4:7 (Hebrew ) as well as the idea of an empty (Greek )
universe (Gen 1:2 ).
Deborah Rooke, Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective, observes that in
both the making and the maintaining of cult and priesthood in Leviticus, there
is a clear masculine gender-bias. In this overwhelmingly androcentric concep-
tion, women bring some of the raw materials for the cultic apparatus, and are
required for reproductive purposes to maintain the priestly line. But they are
excluded from the arena of the holy, and any holiness that they appear to have
as a result of either their birth from or marriage to a priest disappears when
their connection or proximity to the priest ends or is superseded. Indeed, far
from being holy, women can threaten priestly holiness, specifically by virtue of
their sexuality; this is evidenced by the restrictions on priests marriage part-
ners, the severe condemnation of a priests daughter who becomes a prosti-
tute, and the ban on priests mourning their wives and married sisters alone of
all their close relatives. Priests who fail to observe these restrictions risk pro-
faning themselves and/or their offspring, thereby losing their priestly status. At
the same time, the cult as presented in Exodus and Leviticus could not exist or
continue without women. Rooke concludes that the nature of cultic holiness
in this material is clear: it is constructed, performative, and provisional, like the
notions of gender that underlie it.
In his article Interpreting Torah: Strategies for Producing, Circulating, and
Validating Authoritative Scriptures in Early Judaism Jacques van Ruiten argues
that in antiquity, especially in early Jewish literature exemplified by the book of
Jubilees, displaying your knowledge was an important strategy for sustaining
Jewish society. An imitation of texts from the past was valued even more highly
than individual originality and innovation. However, when looking at strate-
gies of copying and rewriting, one often discovers important steps of innova-
tion veiled in a traditional form. The book of Jubilees presupposes material
that can be found in the scriptural text, presents it mostly in the same sequen-
tial order, and includes in its composition nearly all the relevant pericopes.
At the same it changes and innovates by rewriting the material (e.g., harmoni-
sations), adding other material (e.g., Enochic traditions; halakic material), and
by putting knowledge into a new framework (chronology). Although Jubilees
acknowledges the Torah as an authoritative body of knowledge, it seems to
claim the same, or even a greater authority for its own revelation than for that
of the Torah. This display of knowledge by means of absorbing earlier authori-
tative texts is a means of sustaining society. It gives authority to a new text, and
Introduction 9
at the same time appropriates an ancient tradition by means of production,

validation, and circulation.
In his article The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:822, on the Liberation
of Slaves during the Siege of Jerusalem, and its Relation to Deuteronomy 15
Klaas A.D. Smelik questions the assumption by a number of scholars that
Jer 34:822 is a compilation of texts written by different authors. He sug-
gests that Jer 34:822 has an inner cohesion and that the phenomena which
led other scholars to conclude that we are dealing here with a compilation of
texts or a piece of poor writing, are, in fact, literary devices meant to grab the
readers attention. He also discusses the intriguing question of why a rule from
the Torah is cited in v. 14 that only partially addresses the actual situation. It is
demonstrated that Jer 34 is part of a much more extensive collection of texts
to which Deut 15 belonged as well. Attempts to harmonize Jer 34 with the laws
in the Torah in relation to debt slavery, however, appear to miss the point; they
make no sense because we are dealing here with catchwords and catchphrases,
not with an historical account of what actually happened in Jerusalem dur-
ing the Babylonian siege. Referring to other Biblical texts with catchwords and
catchphrases proves to be a common device in the Book of Jeremiah. In this
respect, the way of referring to other Biblical texts in the Book of Jeremiah
resembles the way Biblical references are made in Rabbinic literature.
Reexamining the Fathers in Deuteronomys
Framework
Bill T. Arnold
The identity of the fathers ( ) in Deuteronomys framework is a contested

question. Since a seminal article of John Van Seters in 1972, followed by mono-
graphic treatment by Thomas Rmer in 1992, one attractive possibility is that
the fathers of Israel in Deuteronomy did not originally refer to the ancestral
generation of Genesis but rather to the generation of the exodus or to an inde-
terminate previous generation.1 Those passages specifically identifying the
fathers with the Genesis patriarchs, using the name-formulaAbraham,
Isaac, and Jacobare explained as later insertions from the postexilic periods
pan-pentateuchal redaction of the book.2
According to this approach, which I will refer to here as the insertion the-
ory, Israels fathers in Deuteronomy came to be associated with the ancestral
narratives of Genesis only in this post-exilic Endredaktion of the Pentateuch,
especially exemplified by the strategically important references in Deut 1:8
and 34:4.3 In this way, Israels fathers came to be identified as Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in Deuteronomys framework when Genesis became a prequel to the
Moses-exodus traditions in the formation of the Pentateuch, and the historical
reviews of Deuteronomy needed to be updated. The theory is buttressed by the
assumption that, originally in Deuteronomy, the history of Israel began with
the departure from Egypt. Further support for the insertion theory, is found
in the observation that the pre-exilic prophetic collections do not refer to the
1 John Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period, VT 22 (1972), 44859, esp.
45152; Thomas Rmer, Israels Vter: Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im Deuteronomium
und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO, 99), Freiburg/Gttingen 1990, 26671 and
568575. Many years before, Herbert Gordon May had raised a question about whether
the connection between fathers and the patriarchal names was primary in Deuteronomy;
Herbert Gordon May, The God of My Father: A Study of Patriarchal Religion, Journal of Bible
and Religion 9 (1941), 15558, 99200, esp. 156.
2 Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, 452; Rmer, Vter, 26970 and 566.
3 Rmer, Vter, 26970; Thomas Rmer, Deuteronomy in Search of Origins, in: Gary N.
Knoppers and J.G. McConville (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the
Deuteronomistic History, Winona Lake 2000, 11238, esp. 122 and 13637.

Reexamining the Fathers in Deuteronomy s Framework 11
Abraham tradition at all but typically also take Israels fathers to be the exo-
dus generation.4
Related to this theory, of course, are several comprehensive research ques-
tions. To name a few: (a) the age of Deuteronomys two frameworks, (b) the
relationship of the book of Deuteronomy to the tetrateuchal sources and to
the Deuteronomistic History, as well as to the prophetic sources used in Rmers
monograph, (c) the question of pentateuchal composition generally, and in
particular, the perplexing question of when and how the ancestral traditions of
Genesis were combined with the Moses-Exodus story, and (d) several theologi-
cal connections.5 Most scholars who have adopted this theory assume that a
Priestly source in the Persian period was the first to link the ancestral traditions
of Genesis to the exodus story.6 And therefore, ex hypothesi, Deuteronomys
framework was originally unaware of the Genesis ancestors, since it predates
the Priestly source. These larger questions are well beyond the scope of the
task I have set for this investigation, which will be limited largely to exegetical
concerns of Deut 13. My objective here is to reconsider the insertion theory by
taking up again the occurrences of the patriarchal name-formula, its relation-
ship to fathers in the books framework, and especially the rhetorical features
of Deut 13, in order to determine as best we can the original antecedent of
fathers in the books framework. The conclusions will have implications for
the larger research questions as well.
4 Rmers extensive study of Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel is impressive, although he is forced
to excise also Jer 33:26; Rmer, Vter, 481.
5 Such as the conditionality of Deuteronomys covenant, vis--vis the Abrahamic cov-
enant. Van Seters draws much significance from Deuteronomys conditionality of the
land promise, which would be in contradiction to an unconditional promise made to the
patriarchs of Genesis; Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, esp. 451. But if the ances-
tral covenant of Genesis is actually conditional as well, this disjunction is overstated in
Van Seters; Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (The New Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge/
New York 2009, 1012 and 160.
6 E.g., Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israels Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible
(Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Bible, 3), Winona Lake 2010; Thomas Rmer,
Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergnzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,
ZAW 125 (2013), 224, esp. 1011, where he adds the following occurrences of the name-
formula besides the ones in Deuteronomy: Gen 50:24; Exod 3:6,1516; 4:5; 32:13; 33:1; Lev 26:42;
and Num 32:11. All these occurrences, according to Rmer, reflect a priestly redaction layer,
deren Anliegen es ist, die Kohrenz (und die Zusammengehrigkeit) von Patriarchen- und
Exodus-Tradition zu betonen.
12 Arnold
1 Occurrences of the Patriarchal Name-Formula in Deuteronomy
The book of Deuteronomy has seven occurrences of the patriarchal name-

formula, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all in the narrative and parenetic
frameworks: 1:8; 6:10; 9:5,27; 29:12; 30:20; and 34:4.7 Five of these are used appo-
sitionally to modify fathers. The remaining two occur independently; that is,
they are not appositionally modifying fathers (9:27 and 34:4). These data have
been much investigated, and I only summarize the salient contextual specifics
of each here.8
Verbal coincidences The patriarchal name-formula used

appositionally with fathers
1:8 6:10 9:5 29:12 30:20
land ( /)
which Yhwh swore (, N-stem)
to give (, G-stem)
to take possession (, G-stem)
to the fathers seed/descendants ()
The remaining two occurrences of the patriarchal name-formula appear with-

out modifying fathers (Deut 9:27 and 34:4). However, in the first instance the
name triad is used in precisely the same way to modify a noun, this time your
servants instead of your fathers occurring as it does in an address to Yhwh.
Moses intercession on behalf of the Israelites after the rebellion at Kadesh-
barnea appeals to Yhwhs unique relationship with Israel (9:26), then to the
memory of Yhwhs servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (9:27), and finally, to
7 In each case, as objects of the preposition , usually as to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
The lexeme father itself occurs 70 times in the book, only 48 of which are relevant to this
investigation. Of these, 81% occur in the books two framing units, as I understand them: the
later outer frame, chapters 13(4) and 3134, and the older inner frame, chapters 511 and
2730.
8 The most thorough treatment of these data is Rmer, Vter, 9271, who treats the five occur-
rences of the name-formula modifying fathers independently of each other, arranged under
divergent categories, but takes the remaining two occurrences together (pages 25157).
the damage incurred to Yhwhs own reputation if he destroys Israel (9:28).9

While this occurrence of the name-formula is the only one without a concen-
tration of the verbal coincidences noted in the chart, its immediate context
contains a reference to the land that he promised them (9:28). On the other
hand, the second occurrence of the patriarchal name-formula used without
modifying fathers is Deut 34:4, which shares four of the verbal links:...the
land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, I will give it to
your seed. In order to be consistent with the insertion theory, Rmer needed
to excise the entirety of 34:4, taking it as associated with Gen 50:24, Exod 32:13;
33:1; and Num 32:11, as part of the pan-pentateuchal redaction of Deuteronomy.10
On the surface, these data are uncomplicated. The question before us is
whether we find evidence here of distinct textual strata supporting the idea of
a deuteronomistic level that thought of Israels fathers one way, and a post-
deuteronomistic stratum identifying the fathers instead with the patriarchs of
Genesis. We begin by observing that the verbal coincidences noted here might
be considered a literary meme associated with the occurrences of the patiar-
chal name-formula in Deuteronomy.11 As such, the references to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the book are focused on the land that Yhwh swore or prom-
ised to give to them as a possession for their descendants. This convergence
of lexical specifics may be summarized simply as a covenant oath sworn to
the present generation of Israelites, as it was sworn to their fathers, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. In one case, the oath is without specific mention of the land
(29:1112). In all but one occurrence, the patriarchal name-formula is associ-
ated with an oath, either sworn or promised, to the patriarchs of Genesis.12 It
is at least suggestive, that this convergence of verbal coincidences does not
include references to the land as flowing with milk and honey, a descriptor of
the land found throughout the Pentateuch, except anywhere connected to the
9 This account of the rebellion at Kadesh-barnea (Deut 9:2229, and compare Deut 1:1945)
is related to that of Num 1314 in terms of chronological sequence of the metanarra-
tive but has verbal influences from another intercessory context, when Moses spe-
cifically appealed to the memory of the servants of Yhwh, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(Exod 32:13).
10 Rmer, Vter, 254.
11 A meme is a unit of cultural information or ideas transmitted verbally; an idea, behavior,
style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture (The Oxford English
Dictionary).
12 The single exception is Moses intercession, in which the promise was given to the exodus
generation (9:2728). Perhaps this pericope is significant as an indication that the ances-
tral land-oath was extended to include the exodus generation.
14 Arnold
ancestral traditions of Genesis.13 Otherwise, this literary meme is characteris-

tic of other passages in Deuteronomy referring to the land promise as well, as
we will see below.14
Related to the question of whether these occurrences of the name-formula
provide evidence of textual stratification in Deuteronomy, we need next to ask
how this literary meme relates to other passages of the tetrateuch, and obvi-
ously, especially in Genesis. On the one hand, we find echoes of this conver-
gence of verbal specifics in Exod 3:8; 3:1517; 6:38; and Num 32:11. On the other
hand, a strong case could be made for verbal links to Gen 12:7; 15:721, and
other passages of Genesis focused on the land-promise to the patriarchs. But
of course, this is not a productive enterprise, because we cannot arrive at a
consensus for the date of these texts and therefore, we cannot assume any sup-
posed echoes to them in Deut 1:68 would necessarily mean the original text
had an older version of the ancestral narratives in view.15
A glance at our chart reveals that Deut 1:8 contains a concentration of all
the verbal coincidences associated with the name-formula: Note this! I hereby
place the land ( )before you. Enter and take possession ( )of the land
( )that Yhwh swore (, N-stem) to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac,
and to Jacob, to give (, G-stem) to them and to their seed ( )after them.16
Scholars are generally agreed that this verse is in some way determina-
tive in this discussion.17 Perlitt observed that 1:68 is overstuffed (berfllt)
with geographical details and what he called diverse Dtr formulas.18 Rmer
argued that this overburdened nature of the verse can be attributed to post-
deuteronomistic redactional activity, which has left the text with such
13 Exod 3:8,17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8; 16:13,14; Deut 6:3; 11:9; 26:9,15; 27:3; 31:20.
The larger research question related to the composition of the Hexateuch must deal with
the way this meme connects Gen 15 to Josh 21:4344 (and cf. 24:24).
14 The convergence of distinct verbal coincidences may be called a lexical reservoir or
superset of elements characterizing Deuteronomys ideology of the land promise; Jerry
Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the Fathers in Deuteronomy
(Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, 8), Winona Lake 2012, 3738;
Norbert Lohfink, Die Vter Israels im Deuteronomium (OBO, 111), Freiburg/Gttingen
1991, 27.
15 For recent assessment of Gen 15, see Rmer, Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und
Ergnzungen, esp. 1213. Even assuming Gen 15:1821 is a late insertion is of no help in
assessing the insertion theory here; see Rmers comments in his Nachwort in Lohfink,
Vter, 122.
16 All translations are the authors.
17 Rmer, Vter, 2001.
18 Lothar Perlitt, Deuteronomium (BKAT, 5), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 36.
c omplexity in syntax and form.19 Thus Deut 1:68 is thought to have had first,
a deuteronomistic layer, in which fathers referred to the exodus generation,
followed later by a post-deuteronomistic redaction informed by the priestly
traditions and identifying the fathers as the patriarchs of Genesis, which was
also the pan-pentateuchal redactional layer.
This important pericope has other features often identified as part of this
post-deuteronomistic layer. The reference to the land of the Canaanites
as a summary of the five regions of the hill country of the Amorites (from
the Arabah to the seacoast) is thought to presuppose the Priestly Code (as at
Gen 17:8; 35:6; 48:3), and the geographical ideal of the promised land reaching
the river Euphrates (as at Gen 15:18; Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:34) is taken
as reflecting the Persian satrapy.20 Thus the land-oath promised to the patri-
archs, is part of a redaction of the Pentateuch, tying Genesis-Deuteronomy
together in one final Endredaktion.
I close this overview of the data concerning to the insertion theory by rais-
ing one simple observation that I believe has not received enough attention.
All scholars are agreed that Deut 1:918 is a unit, set apart from the context
internally by subject matter, relating as it does to the Exodus account of the
appointment of tribal chiefs (Exod 18:1327), and externally by means of
the literary device known as repetitive resumption (Wiederaufnahme), evi-
dent in the verbal linkages between 1:68 and 1:1921.21 A return to the dis-
course of 1:68 is signaled first and foremost by the repetition of the verb ,
then we journeyed, circling back to the opening command of v. 7 ( ,
start your journey).22 Beyond this initial repetition, we find a heavy concen-
tration of keywords in only three verses (vv. 1921) repeating and taking up
again the themes of 1:68: Horeb (vv. 6, 19), journey (vv. 7, 19), enter/entered
(vv. 78, 19), the hill country of the Amorites (vv. 7, 1920), note this23
19 Rmer, Vter, 198201; and again Rmers Nachwort in Lohfink, Vter, 114.
20 Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 111 (HThKAT), Freiburg im Breisgau 2012, vol. 1, 333. See also
Rmer, Vter, 199200, and for critique, see Lohfink, Vter, 2728.
21 Shemaryahu Talmon, The Textual Study of the BibleA New Outlook, in: Frank
Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (eds), Qumran and the History of the Biblical
Text, Cambridge 1975, 321400, esp. 36263, and 395, n. 174 for the history of research on
Ringkomposition or Wiederaufnahme in biblical studies.
22 Eckart Otto identifies the use of ( on your journey) at 10:11 as resumptive when
compared to 1:7, and comments too on 1:19 as picking up the fulfillment of the initial com-
mand in 1:7; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 1:34041. However, I will draw a different conclu-
sion from this observation.
23 The simple G imperative of serves an exclamatory function as a presentative
adverb (see!, take notice!, or consider!) in both 1:8 and 1:21; see Paul Joon and Takamitsu
16 Arnold
(vv. 8, 21), giving/gave (vv. 8, 2021), the land (vv. 8, 21), take possession
(vv. 8, 21), and fathers (vv. 8, 21). Some of these reflect a simple command-
obedience pattern, such as start your journey (v. 7) and then we journeyed
(v. 19). Others link together the ancestral land-promise of the past (v. 8) with
the reality that Yhwh is indeed giving the land in the present (v. 2021).
Geographical designations, Horeb and the hill country of the Amorites, also
link 1:68 and 1:1921, in order to resume the narrative after the interruption
of 1:918. We know from numerous examples of Wiederaufnahme that these
diverse materials in Deut 1 have not been simply juxtaposed in an awkward or
haphazard manner but skillfully interwoven in a continuous discourse. This
scribal technique is most often taken as evidence of editorial activity or textual
reworking, but it may also function as a compositional device. At least, we have
to admit that such framing devices indicate a deliberate intentionality in the
discourse rather than clumsy editorial activity.24 Failure to recognize the com-
positional intentionality of this device leads us into the methodological cul-de-
sac characteristic of much source- and redaction-criticism.25 As Shemaryahu
Talmon observed years ago, repetitive resumption often indicates the way a
writer conveys synchronous events in one or more locales,26 and this is clearly
marked in our example by the phrase at that time ( , 1:9), which in
this context implies also, while we were at Horeb (cf. v. 6).
This simple observation raises therefore a question addressed by Michael
Fishbane many years ago regarding the relationship between scribes and
Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; SubBi, 27), Roma 2006, 324,105d; DCH
7:350; HALOT 1159.
24 Burke O. Long, Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography, JBL 106 (1987), 38599,
esp. 38587; Shemaryahu Talmon, The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity
in Biblical Narrative, in: Joseph Heinemann and Samuel Werses (eds), Studies in Hebrew
Narrative Art throughout the Ages (ScrHier), Jerusalem 1978, 926; repr. in Literary Studies
in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content, Collected Studies, Jerusalem/Leiden 1993, 11233.
25 Talmon, Presentation of Synchroneity, 14. It is possible to postulate large numbers of
redactional layers of Deuteronomy, as for example is done by Achenbach for Deut 511,
who sees deuteronomistic, late-deuteronomistic, and post-deuteronomistic layers, in
fact too many to count; Reinhard Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot:
Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 511 (Europische Hochschulschriften
XXIII, Theologie 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991.
26 Talmon, Presentation of Synchroneity, 1725. Wiederaufnahme was particularly use-
ful when a scribe presents contemporaneous events in partially overlapping temporal
settings, or simultaneous events in complete concurrence of time.
composers (or authors).27 He warned that the boundary-line between scribes

and authors is often difficult to draw in biblical literature, and that the enter-
prise itself is precarious. Fishbane speaks of a continuum between purely
scribal-redactional procedures on one extreme, and authorial-compositional
ones, on the other, in which scribes only copy texts and authors only com-
pose them. Yet these extremes are seldom discernible, and in the Hebrew
Bible, we nearly always have to admit that scribes and authors can seldom
be distinguished from each other. And so this observation serves to warn us
that 1:68 is of a single piece with 1:1921, enveloping the synchronous account
of 1:918, and serving to introduce the pre-conquest narrative of 1:222:1, and
ultimately the transjordanian conquest of 2:23:29. The literary device tying
1:68 to 1:1921 does not disprove the insertion theory, of course, but it cautions
us against excessively determinate distinctions between scribes and authors,
and especially against our ability to discern between their activities in a text.
It at least raises the possibility there was less editorial activity in Deut 1:68
than the insertion theory would imply. Without text-critical evidence, or oth-
erwise compelling indications of redactional layering in v. 8 especially, I sug-
gest the burden of proof must rest on those who accept the theory.28 With
this caveat in mind, I turn now to consider selected occurrences of fathers in
Deuteronomys framework.
2 Deuteronomys Use of Fathers in the Narrative and Parenetic

Framework
Deuteronomy deliberately categorizes the Israelites in generations.29 A casual

reading of the book reveals references to (a) the patriarchal generation, by
which I mean in this paper the patriarchs and matriarchs of the ancestral nar-
ratives of Genesis, (b) the exodus generation, by which I mean the generation
that experienced the plagues and deliverance from Egypt, sometimes also
27 Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, for some of
what follows in this paragraph, see pages 8587.
28 Rmer acknowledges that his thesis cannot be proven in this critically important text
(Deut 1:8), but he responds that neither can it be refuted from its context, and that he is
convinced by other compelling reasons; see his Nachwort in Lohfink, Vter, 114.
29 Bernd Biberger, Unsere Vater und Wir: Unterteilung von Geschichtsdarstellungen in
Generationen und das Verhaltnis der Generationen im Alten Testament (BBB, 145), Berlin
2003, 33261; Johannes Taschner, Die Bedeutung des Generationswechsels fr den
Geschichtsrckblick in Dtn 13, WD 26 (2001), 6172.
18 Arnold
referred to in the literature as the first desert generation, which is also identi-
fied as (c) the wilderness generation, or this evil generation (1:35) who rebelled
and wandered in the desert forty years, (d) the generation of the plains of
Moab and the conquest, which is the visualized audience of the addresses
of the book, and therefore the second desert generation, and finally (e) indis-
crete future generations of Israelites, who will learn from the failures of their
ancestors and inherit the blessings of their promises, or otherwise learn
to endure the exile. It is important to keep in mind that categories (b) and
(c) are identical, and are distinguished in this list for the purpose of following
the discourse of Deuteronomy (e.g., 1:35, cf. 1:30 in Egypt before your very eyes).
There can be no question that Deuteronomy at times uses to refer to the
exodus generation.30 So, for example, our fathers in Deut 5:3 clearly denotes
the first desert generation, which left Egypt and entered covenant with Yhwh
at Mount Horeb, in distinction to the second desert generation now standing
before Moses, who were receiving the Torah on the plains of Moab.31 On the
other hand, my survey of fathers in the books framework counts no fewer
than twenty-one occurrences in which the antecedent is indeterminate, and
may refer in general to Israelite predecessors of any generation, or at least to the
use of fathers in a way impossible to clarify.32 This appears to be an intentional
rhetorical feature of the book, as especially signaled, once again, by Deut 1:68.
Here three generations of Israelites, the patriarchal, and the first and second
desert generations, are in a sense all addressed as trans-generational Israel.33
The current generation on the plains of Moab was symbolically also present
at Mount Horeb, and both were the result of Yhwhs land-oath to the patri-
archs. Especially in the historical introduction of Deut 13, the addressees of
the book are identified by personal pronouns in a way that marks this inter-
generational identity. So, for example, Yhwh our God spoke to us ( )at
Horeb (1:6), although addressed to the second generation in the plains of
Moab (1:15). This rhetorical blending of the generations is characteristic of the
30 So also, when one asserts that the book of Exodus includes the idea that several gen-
erations of Israelites could be counted as fathers in Egypt before the exodus (so Rmer,
based on Exod 1:6 and 12:40, cf. Vter, 147), we are dealing merely with the wide semantic
field of , not with actual evidence that the antecedent of your/their/our fathers
denotes the exodus generation vis--vis the patriarchal generation.
31 Proponents of the insertion theory draw much significance from the observation that the
prophetic traditions typically understand Israels fathers as the exodus generation.
32 Deut 1:21; 4:1,31; 6:3,18; etc.
33 Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 39; Taschner, Generationswechsels, and Jean-Pierre
Sonnet, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Biblical Interpretation Series,
14), Leiden 1997, 11, note 20.
discourse, and the narrative important of 1:68 is paradigmatic as it establishes

for the rest of Deuteronomy this intentional ambiguity, or better, the deliber-
ate solidarity created among Israels generations, from patriarchs, to exodus
generation, to the generation on the plains of Moab, to all future Israelites. This
intentional indeterminateness draws Israelite readers into solidarity with each
generation of ancestors. In light of this theme of a trans-generational Israel in
Deuteronomy, it is instructive that a number of texts in the books framework
are nevertheless best understood as referring specifically to the patriarchal
generation, even without the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The following
occurrences of , in my opinion, have the patriarchal generation in view,
and having no obvious and compelling reasons to suggest later editorial activity
we should accept these texts as originally denoting the patriarchs of Genesis.34
2.1 The God of your fathers (Deut 1:11)

This is the first of eight occurrences of the God of your/our/their fathers in
Deuteronomy.35 In this context, Moses address is directed to the first desert
generation (at that time in v. 9 refers back to the Horeb context of v. 6), and
the pericope, 1:918 is a unit, as we have seen, connected in some way to the
Exodus account of the appointment of tribal chiefs at Mount Sinai (Exod 18:1327).
Without doubt, the God of their fathers denotes the deity worshipped by
the exodus generations fathers. This God, Yhwh, has multiplied the exodus
generation like the stars of heaven for abundance (v. 10; cf. Gen 15:5; 22:17,
26:4), is the one who has the potential to bless (, D-stem) Israel, as he
promised (, D-stem) to increase their numbers (v. 11; cf. Gen 12:23; 18:16;
22:1718; 26:34,24; 28:14).36 Of the other God of the fathers occurrences in
34 The occurrences of Deut 26 (my father, 26:5, and our fathers, 26:3,7,15) are outside the
parameters of this investigation of the books framework. But it seems to me this passage
is particularly difficult for the insertion theory, since it names Israels father as the wan-
dering Aramean (presumably Jacob) who went to Egypt and there became a great nation.
The pericope is also laden with allusions to the Genesis patriarchal narratives, including
the promise to give the land and multiply Israels seed. For a different view, see Rmer,
Vter, 5770. Lohfink has included even more uses of fathers as denoting the patriarchs
of Genesis, although I tend to think he has overreached the evidence in several some of
these cases; Lohfink, Vter, 7374.
35 The possessive pronoun varies: God of your (singular/plural) fathers (1:11,21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1;
27:3), God of our fathers (26:7), and God of their fathers (29:24). For Rmers interpreta-
tion of these data, see Rmer, Vter, 10535.
36 The only occurrence of the stars of heaven multiplication formula in Exodus is tied to the
patriarchal name-formula: Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you
swore to them by your own self, saying to them, I will multiply your descendants like the
20 Arnold
Deuteronomy, I concede that five are indeterminate; that is, one cannot dis-
cern from the context which generation is in view, which may in fact be inten-
tional, in light of the intergenerational theme we have highlighted (1:21; 4:1;
6:3; 12:1; 27:3). The occurrence of God of our fathers in Deut 26:7 seems to
me problematic for the insertion theory, since it closes the old legal core, and
seems clearly to have denoted the patriarchal generation.37 Such allusions and
echoes to the patriarchal narratives of Genesis should not be undervalued in
our investigation of the fathers of Deuteronomy. Thus in Deut 1:11, and perhaps
26:7, it seems inadequate to conclude that the God of the fathers is merely an
indiscrete reference to the past as a means of emphasizing the theological
continuity of the generations.38
2.2 The good land that I swore to give to your fathers (Deut 1:35)
This reference to the fathers occurs in a clearly marked context, that of the
rebellion at Kadesh-barnea (1:19, and cf. Num 1314). Moses is addressing
the rebellious first desert generation, as is marked by numerous indicators
of the text: they arrived at Kadesh-barnea from Horeb (1:19), they had been
brought out of Egypt (1:27), they were eyewitnesses to what Yhwh did to Egypt
(1:30), and to Yhwhs deliverance from Egypt through the desert to Kadesh-
barnea (1:31). Yet because of their rebellion, they would fail to see the land that
Yhwh swore to give to their fathers (1:35). The identity of these fathers of
the exodus generation would appear to be settled by the formula about the
land having been sworn (, N-stem) to the fathers. I propose here an inten-
tional echo (see below for refined definition of echo) to Gen 15:721. That
important text is verbally marked in 15:7 by keywords used throughout this
investigation of fathers in Deuteronomy: I am Yhwh who brought you up
from Ur of the Chaldeans, in order to give (, G-stem) you this land ()
to possess (, G-stem). Although the term swear does not occur in Gen 15,
there should be no doubt that Gen 15:721 was understood as a ceremony of
stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and
they shall inherit it forever (Exod 32:13).
37 That leaves the final occurrence, Deut 29:24, in which we find a reference to the cov-
enant of Yhwh, the God of their fathers. I have not included this text in the list because,
although the covenant in view is clearly Horeb (which he made with them when he
brought them out of the land of Egypt), the God of their fathers is vague enough to be of
little help with the research question before us.
38 Rmer concedes only that the expression may refer in a most general way to the vague
antecedents (Vorfahren) of the exodus generation, or to the exodus generation itself;
Rmer, Vter, 134.
covenant ratification, a ritual in which Yhwh swore a solemn covenant oath.39

Elsewhere in Genesis, the verb swear (, N-stem) is, in fact, used to describe
Yhwhs appearance and commitment to Abraham: I will fulfill the oath I swore
( ) to your father Abraham (Gen 26:3).40 Unfortunately, the idea that
the oath-formula of Deuteronomy has Gen 15 in view is of limited help in this
investigation because of the lack of consensus about the late of that important
text. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that these land-oath occurrences of
the ancestral narratives in Genesis are necessarily to be classified as late post-
deuteronomistic texts.41
2.3 (Yhwh) loved your fathers (Deut 4:37)

In this text, Yhwhs love for the fathers is the driving force behind the elec-
tion of their seed ( )and the exodus itself. The addressees of Deut 4 are
prima facie the second desert generation (4:1,5, etc.). Yet they themselves are
said to have stood before Yhwh at Horeb (4:10) illustrating again the trans-
generational rhetoric of the book. The election of the fathers seed echoes the
ancestral narratives of Genesis, although the important connection to Hoseas
imagery is also at play here (Hos 11:1).42 While the reference to the fathers at
Deut 4:37 could stand as indeterminate and generally referring to Israels non-
descript ancestors for purposes of continuity (so Rmer), it is perhaps worth
noting that this passage has echoes to other important texts of Genesis besides
the ancestral narratives, especially the creation accounts (vv. 1619 and 32).
39 Arnold, Genesis, 15759 for details. And of course, the land-promise is prominent through-
out the ancestral narratives (12:1; 13:1417; 15:721; 17:8; 26:23; 28:1116; 31:1213; 48:34), and
these references serve as important intertexts with Deuteronomy in the current arrange-
ment of the Pentateuch. Yhwhs actions themselves in Gen 15:721 represent a ceremony
as an oath of fidelity to Abram, not unlike that referred to in Gen 22:16. On oath taking
using the root ( N-stem) as a self-imprecation or curse, see Ingo Kottsieper, ,
TDOT 14:33136.
40 And compare with Gen 24:7; 50:24, and although less relevant, Gen 22:16. See also
Exod 13:5,11; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:23; 32:11; Jer 11:5; 32:22. Rmer contends that his investiga-
tion of context and semantic field (e.g., the reminder of Yhwhs deeds in Egypt, land of
milk and honey) makes it clear that the deuteronomistic land-oath was made with the
fathers in Egypt or the fathers of the exodus; Rmer, Vter, 270.
41 As argue in ibid. 173251. Bibergers case is that some of Deuteronomys oath-to-fathers
occurrences cannot be attributed to the patriarchs, but that it does not follow to conclude
that fathers in other contexts cannot be the patriarchs. Certain promises and features
appear to have been transferred from the exodus generation to the patriarchal genera-
tion, and the oaths simply cannot be a basis for investigation because of the books multi-
generational focus; Biberger, Unsere Vater und Wir, 34849.
42 Rmer, Vter, 2329.
22 Arnold
2.4 The land that (Yhwh) swore to our fathers (Deut 6:23)
In the context of the ritual catechesis of Deut 6:2023, the occurrence of fathers
in the expression, to give us the land that he swore (, N-stem) to our fathers
(v. 23) abbreviates the oath-formula discussed in2.2 above. There, at Deut 1:35,
the relative clause includes the Qal infinitive construct as a verbal comple-
ment: land that I swore to give to your fathers.43 This abbreviated version of
the formula in Deut 6:23 simply drops the infinitive: land that he swore to our
fathers, and therefore most translations extrapolate to clarify the idea, as in land
that he had promised on oath to our fathers (NJPS, and cf. NRSV). The speak-
ers here are the future generation of Israelites, who self-identify as the exodus
generation (v. 21) and who identify their fathers as the generation of the land-
promise. Due to the intentional trans-generational rhetoric of Deuteronomy, it
is possible to argue that fathers here refers to indeterminate and impersonal
ancestors with whom all future Israelites stand in solidarity. On the other hand,
it cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt that this oath-formula was an inno-
vation of the deuteronomists (or, in Rmers reconstruction, a late deuterono-
mistic redactional layer, Dtr2),44 instead of a deuteronomistic adaptation and
expansion of an old oath-formula already used in the patriarchal narratives (see
comment on Gen 26:3 above, and cf. also Gen 24:7; 50:24).
2.5 Yhwh your God will keep for you the covenant and steadfast love
that he swore to your fathers (7:12)
The second half of Deut 7:12 uses wordplay on , keep, a keyword char-
acteristic of Deuteronomys sermonic style.45 If the Israelites heed the ordi-
nances of Deuteronomy, if they observe (i.e., keep, )and do them, then
43 On infinitives construct as verbal complements, see Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi,
A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Cambridge 2003,3.4.1,a.
44 In Rmers reconstruction, most of the texts containing the oath-formula occur in Dtr2,
but a few examples of the longer unabbreviated form are original to Dtr of the exilic
period; Rmer, Vter, 173251.
45 The verb, , contains an adverbial force of manner, commonly combined with
variations of , do (6:25, 12:1, passim); see Norbert Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine
Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 511 (AnBib, 20), Rome 1963, 6870.
When is combined with the adverbial accusative use of the infinitive construct
of , it yields a translation as an adverb, carefully, and the infinitive becomes the
goal word, in this case, do or observe; Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick OConnor,
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990, 602,36.2.1,d; Gotthelf
Bergstrasser, Hebrische Grammatik (29th revision of Gesenius ed.), Leipzig 19181922;
repr., Hildesheim 1962, 5859,11,n; DCH 8:48081; TDOT 15:28485 and 28993. In the
first half of Deut 7:12, the two verbs are finites combined by conjunction, as ...keep and
Yhwh will keep the covenant and the -love he swore to the fathers. In the
future, Yhwhs faithful loyalty to Israel will be proportionate, and by implica-
tion, dependent upon their loyalty to the laws of Deuteronomy. The expres-
sion harkens back to 7:8 where the oath (...) is explained as motivation, along
with Yhwhs love for Israel, for the exodus, and also to 7:9 and its references
to covenant loyalty and also to 7:11s ordinances.46 For the purposes of this
investigation, the central question is the antecedent of the second person pro-
nouns in the context: It was not because you were more numerous than all
peoples that Yhwh set his heart upon you and chose you, for you were smallest
of all peoples..., but because Yhwh loved you and kept the oath he made to
your fathers that Yhwh brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed
you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt...,
If you heed..., and you will keep and do..., Yhwh your God will keep for
you the covenant and steadfast love that he swore to your fathers (7:812).47
The recipients, indicated in this text by the pronouns, were in Egypt prior
to the exodus (7:8) but are also the generation of the plains of Moab, who have
the potential for obedience and conquest of the land of Canaan (7:16), there-
fore reflecting again the transgenerational rhetoric of Deuteronomy. And since
the you in this case must at least include the exodus generation (7:8), the cov-
enant with the fathers must be a covenant established with a pre-exodus and
pre-Horeb generation, with whom Yhwh lovingly swore an oath. While it is
possible to argue, as Rmer does, that the fathers in this case are indeterminate
sojourners in Egypt who migrated there at an indefinite period of the past,
this approach raises more questions than it answers.48 Why would the deu-
teronomistic authors/editors have referred so frequently to Israels fathers if
they had no theology of the fathers, no traditions related to an ancestral begin-
ning, and no eponymous ancestory at the time of composition? Why would
the deuteronomists appeal to Israels fathers without any real idea of who
those fathers were, or how and why they were sojourners in Egypt, or how they
do them, likely having a slightly different connotation; Joon and Muraoka, A Grammar
of Biblical Hebrew, 407,124o, note 4.
46 Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 2002, 102.
47 And note v. 15: Yhwh will remove from you every illness, all the dread diseases of Egypt
that you experienced. These excerpts illustrate the blending of generations, since the sev-
eral imperatives and volitional perfects of the passage are all second person as well. The
passage also reflects the books perplexing Numeruswechsel, switching as it does between
second person plural and singular forms. Despite attempts to find redaction-critical sig-
nificance in this feature of the book, I assume it relates to rhetoric in a way that escapes
us; contra Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, passim.
48 Rmer, Vter, 146.
24 Arnold
became slaves in Egypt? Perhaps the idea that the deuteronomists were aware
of a covenant sworn to the patriarchs as Israels ancestry, which served as a
theological and historical ideology of national origins. In that case, the cove-
nant and -love sworn to the fathers in Deut 7:12 has tangible connections to
the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 15 and 17, whether or not those texts had taken
shape before the deuteronomists as they now stand in the book of Genesis.49
2.6 The land that (Yhwh) swore to your fathers to give you (Deut 7:13)
In Deut 1:35, Yhwh swore to give the land to the fathers (see 2.2 above). But
here, we have a similar formulation as at Deut 1:8; that is, the oath is sworn to
the fathers, to give the land to you, being the seed of the fathers. Again, the
convergence of these several verbal coincidences, land, swore, fathers, give,
are echoes of the Genesis ancestral narratives. Even if we conceded that the
covenant and the -love sworn to the fathers in 7:12, just discussed, related
to the Horeb experiences, that would not necessarily mean this land-oath in
7:13 must also refer to the first desert generation in the original deuteronomis-
tic form of this text.50
2.7 The land that I swore to their fathers to give them (Deut 10:11)
This occurrence of the land-oath contains the same convergence of verbal
coincidences we have observed as characteristic of this formula: land, swore,
fathers, give, and another keyword occurs earlier in the verse, possess (,
G-stem). As I have suggested, the allusions and echoes to the ancestral narra-
tives of Genesis may not be determinative (see 2.2 above), but the recurrence
is at least suggestive that the original deuteronomistic authors were generally
aware of the patriarchs of Genesis. In this context, a speech of Moses addresses
the second desert generation about Yhwhs instructions while at Horeb (10:10).
The word of Yhwh to Moses is in the context of Horeb and the first desert
generation, so the fathers would, in this case, be again the indeterminate and
shadowy ancestors who came to sojourn in Egypt. But again, a theory that the
original deuteronomists were aware of the patriarchal generation has as much
explanatory power than the insertion theory, and perhaps answers more ques-
tions than it raises.
49 In this case also, the verbal coincidences of love, land, swear, and give are all indica-
tions of a connection to the Genesis ancestral narratives.
50 Contra Rmer, Vter, 148.
2.8 Yhwh clung to your fathers to love them (Deut 10:15)

In an unusual turn of phrase, Yhwh is said to have clung to Israels fathers,
connoting divine intentionality to be involved with them in his love for them.51
This is the second such context in the parenetic framework focused on the
election of Israel from among the peoples of the earth (cf. Deut 7:613, see 2.5
and 2.6 above), and in both, an emphasize is placed upon Yhwhs intimate
relationship with Israels fathers.52 Here in Deut 10:15, the rest of the verse
states that Yhwh chose (, G-stem) the seed ( )of the fathers, echoing
again the patriarchal narratives of Genesis. And the addressees in this context
are clearly the exodus generation, since they themselves were once strangers
in the land of Egypt (10:19). This, together with the rather obvious connections
with the next occurrence in Deut 10:22 (see next), raises questions about the
insertion theory as it relates to this additional occurrence of fathers.
2.9 Seventy persons in number your fathers went down to Egypt

(Deut 10:22)
The statement echoes Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5, which places us clearly in the
patriarchal traditions, especially the Jacob narrative.53 The syntax of the verse
contrasts the number of ancestral family members going down to Egypt at
the first, only seventy persons, with the countless number of Israelites in the
present: but now Yhwh your God has made you as numerous as the stars in
heaven. Interestingly, the books transgenerational focus is lost at this point.
The seventy who went down to Egypt were your fathers instead of you, the
present generation on the plains of Moab. The text draws a distinction here
between them, your fathers, in the past, and you standing here innumerably in
the present. The ancestral generation (I would say, the patriarchal generation)
is distinguished here from all subsequent generations of Israelites.54
51 D CH 3:333; G. Wallis, , TDOT 3:26163.

52 I agree that the phraseology of Deut 10:15 has a genetic connection with Deut 4:37; Rmer,
Vter, 3031. But I do not draw from this observation that Deut 10:1222 must therefore be
later than Dtr1, as Rmer asserts, nor that by analogy with Deut 4:37, the fathers in 10:15
likely refers the exodus generation.
53 The assertion that Deut 4:37; 10:15,22 are from the same hand because of their common-
alities (ibid., 34), is a non sequitur, and the identification of priestly themes in 10:22 (as
well as Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5) makes it convenient for those advocating for the insertion
theory to dismiss them as very late texts. But this reveals the methodological dilemma,
which is the necessity to explain ancestral traditions in Deuteronomy as late insertions
because those priestly traditions are assumed to be post-exilic.
54 The important text in Deut 26:5 relates to this, of course, but I have not included it here
because (1) the lexeme there is singular, father, and (2) it occurs as part of the conclusion
26 Arnold
2.10 Results and Overview

There is no question that may refer to the exodus generation in
Deuteronomy, and that at other times, its antecedent is indeterminate, refer-
ring in general to Israelite predecessors without specifying any particular gen-
eration (up to twenty-one times, by my count). And there is no question that
in at least five occurrences, fathers denotes the patriarchs of Genesis because
of the use of the name-formula, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see paragraph 1
above). The question under review here is, are there occurrences of fathers
in the original deuteronomistic edition of the book that denoted Israels patri-
archs known from the book of Genesis? This survey has highlighted a number
of occurrences of fathers in Deuteronomys narrative and parenetic frame-
works, in which the term is not modified further by the patriarchal name-
formula but where it appears to have the patriarchs of Genesis in view.
With no obvious reason to suggest later editorial activity, does the inser-
tion theory best account for these data? Other than the a priori assumption
that the ancestral traditions of Genesis were added by late priestly editions
to the tetrateuchal materials, and must have therefore been unknown to the
deuteronomistic authors, what compelling evidence do we have for assuming
the patriarchal name-formula was inserted into the text? Or to put this another
way, what questions are raised by the insertion theory that we cannot currently
answer? The most compelling advocates of the insertion theory assume that,
for the deuteronomists, Egypt is the beginning of the history of Israel, and that
the fathers in the original editions of Deuteronomy were an anonymous,
collective mass.55 But if the first deuteronomistic version of these texts were
referring only to an indeterminate and impersonal ancestry, one with which
future Israelites were to see themselves in solidarity, how would they have
conceived these ancestors? How were the Israelites to see themselves in sol-
idarity with the faith of the fathers, if so very little was known about those
fathers? Without the antecedent patriarchs named as Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, would the deuteronomists have been satisfied without specific details of
Israels ancestry? Who were these beloved fathers (Deut 10:15)? What led these
indeterminate Israelite ancestors to go down to Egypt, reside there, become
enslaved there, and eventually be rescue from there? If the insertion theory is
correct, we are left with deuteronomists, whose primary concern was building
Yehuds identity in the Persian empire, yet without the benefit of eponymous
ancestry. We might have expected them to generate more specific details about
to the old legal core of the book. However, the view that Deut 26 rejects the Jacob tra-
dition in favor of a prophetic ideology, as does Hosea 12:1115, needs critiquing as well;
Rmer, Deuteronomy in Search of Origins, 13132.
55 Ibid. 132.
their origins beyond some nondescript shadowy beginnings in Egyptian slav-

ery. Perhaps the theory with greater explanatory power accepts the patriar-
chal name-formula as original to Deuteronomy and assumes rather a general
awareness of the patriarchal narratives we now have in Gen 1236.
3 The Role of Deut 1:68 and its Significance in Chapters 13
The insertion theory is a redaction-critical solution to a redaction-critical

problem. By this I mean the need for this solution is created by at least two
methodological assumptions among a number of scholars working from a
narrow redaction-critical approach, and as such, it is an attractive possibility.
These methodological assumptions are, first, that the deuteronomists began
Israels history in Egypt, and did not include patriarchal traditions known to
us now from Genesis, and that, second, those patriarchal traditions were only
attached to the exodus/Moses traditions by post-deuteronomistic priestly
activity. Given these assumptions, the presence of the patriarchal name-
formula in Deuteronomy needs explanation, and the insertion theory offers
one solution. It might be objected that such an approach is guilty of petitio
principii (begging the first principle), the classic fallacy of begging the ques-
tion by smuggling the conclusion into the premises.56 But we must admit that
redaction criticism inherently requires a degree of circularity in our logic, and
I find no more nor less circular reasoning in the insertion theory than many
other conclusions that stand as assured results in our work.57 So rather than
objecting that the theory is circular, I turn instead to a closer investigation of
the first and arguably most important occurrence of the patriarchal name-for-
mula in Deuteronomy. The objective here is to inquire whether the insertion
theory is preferable in light of rhetorical features of Deut 1:68 and its function
in the books framework, particularly Deut 13.
Previous criticisms of the insertion theory have objected either on the
grounds of redaction critical method or on the grounds that it fails to consider
rhetorical features of Deuteronomy. The most compelling objection to date
occurred almost immediately after the publication of Rmers dissertation
56 So, in this case, the unwarranted assumption, which has not been established, is the idea
that for the deuteronomists, Israels history begins in Egypt as slaves.
57 See the concept of critical rationalism (or soft rationalism), in which we must accept
a mild circularity of an argument, while accepting the undeniable nature of mutually
supporting pieces of evidence; William J. Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of
Historical Criticism, Oxford 1982, 39.
28 Arnold
by Norbert Lohfink, who based his objections largely on, among other
things, the interpretation of Deuteronomy as the conclusion of the pre-
Priestly Pentateuch.58 Above all, however, the differences between Rmer and
Lohfink may be thought of as anchored in different understandings of what a
text is.59 For Lohfink, the patriarchal name-formula may be attributed to autho-
rial literary technique, while Rmer considers them a later editorial insertion.
One might contrast them by suggesting that Lohfinks methodology is more syn-
chronically oriented, while Rmer reads behind the text.60 Working primarily
with the evidence of the land-promises in Genesis, Ludwig Schmidt concluded
that a simpler version of the land-promise to the patriarchs in Genesis was
at least pre-exilic, and that the occurrences in Deuteronomy were therefore
aware of that simpler version.61 Jerry Hwang, more recently, has challenged
the insertion theory on the basis of the idea that the rhetorical progression
of the way fathers is used throughout the book, in what he calls rhetori-
cal conflation of Israels generations, calls into question the validity of tak-
ing the you of the Generationswechsel as indication of redactional seams.62
I will not rehearse these arguments here, but offer instead an observation
that I believe calls into question the insertion theory as it pertains especially
to Deut 1:68 without appealing to a redaction-versus-rhetoric false dilemma.
Lohfink rightly identified Deut 1:8 as the crux interpretum for our research
question. For him, the land-promise at 1:8 prepared the reader for what comes
58 Lohfink, Vter. He assumed the priority of Gen 15 to the superscription of the legal core
in Deut 12:1, suggesting that the patriarchal traditions were known to this oldest deuter-
onomistic layer (Vter, 108). Blenkinsopp observed simply that we have no text-critical
evidence for assuming the patriarchal names were added later, that the context does not
support the theory, and finally, that the use of fathers elsewhere in the framework with-
out the names refers explicitly to a period prior to the exodus and wilderness; Joseph
Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL),
New York 1992, 11416.
59 Lohfink, Vter, 1011.
60 Similarly, see Christo Lombaard, The Question of the Fathers ( )as Patriarchs in
Deuteronomy, OTE 22 (2009), 34655, esp. 350.
61 Ludwig Schmidt, Vaterverheiungen und Pentateuchfrage, ZAW 104 (1992), 127, and
similarly Emerton concluded the deuteronomistic scribes of the late sixth century must
have been aware of the patriarchal land-oath, J. A Emerton, The Origin of the Promises to
the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book of Genesis, VT 32 (1982), 1432, esp. 3031.
62 Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 3188. While I am sympathetic with much of Hwangs
monograph, I do not believe a final-form approach focused narrowly on the rhetorical
features of the book necessarily yields the results he claims, any more than I believe the
tools of redaction criticism are sharp enough to discern the seams required by the inser-
tion theory.
later in Deuteronomy, especially by establishing the patriarchal land-oath

in the memory of the reader. So in this first Mosaic speech reporting divine
speech, the theme of the patriarchal land-oath sets the stage with formulaic
language occurring elsewhere in the book, and clearly identifying Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the formula. Thus, Lohfink concluded, wherever fathers
occurs in the plural in Deuteronomy, even without the patriarchal names, the
land-oath denotes the patriarchal promises and we should assume as much
throughout the book for fathers unless clearly marked otherwise.63 This
approach may find support in the notion that Deut 1:8 functions as an intro-
duction to the military campaign in the Transjordan in Deut 13, and serves
as a paradigm for the conquest generally, as an action warranted by long-
standing divine promise.64 In a general sense, following the lead of sociolin-
guistic studies, 1:68 may serve as an orientation for the conquest of the land
sworn on oath to the fathers, just as 5:15 functions also to orient the entire book
of Deuteronomy.65 Such an orientation typically prepares for what follows by
identifying the time, place, and persons of the narrative. But in the case of
1:68, it identifies the circumstances (v. 6), articulates the momentous com-
mand to leave Mount Horeb and to begin the conquest (vv. 78). The latter
command is expressed by actualizing the present reality for this generation of
the ancient land-oath given to the fathers generation (v. 8).
Although it cannot be proven beyond doubt, I find enough lexical connec-
tions between 1:68 and Gen 15:721 to suggest an intentional intertextual
association between these two texts. On the one hand, that association may
be, in the most general way possible, a case of formulaic language employed
simply as cultural memory. In this case, the formulaic phraseology is repeated
63 Lohfink, Vter, 2730 and 4874, and see especially for the ideas summarized in this
paragraph, his pages 27 and 48. In addition, it may be assumed that Deuteronomys
recurring use of the formula is for emphasis and transcendence, the two positive types
of repetition, and that furthermore, the books rhetoric has an ethical force at work in
such recurring formulae sometimes intentionally muddling the lexical differences in dif-
ferent occurrences while paradoxically also sharpening the effect of the recurrence; see
Brent A. Strawn, Keep/Observe/DoCarefullyToday! The Rhetoric of Repetition in
Deuteronomy, in: Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (eds), A God So Near: Essays on Old
Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, Winona Lake 2003, 21540, esp. 22530.
64 Nelson, Deuteronomy, 18; and see Lohfink, Vter, 4874. In addition, Hwang considers the
verse a lexical reservoir of the oath-formulae, from which subsequent occurrences in
Deuteronomy draw selectively according to their rhetorical concerns; Hwang, Rhetoric of
Remembrance, 79.
65 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature Series, 9),
Sheffield 1983, 109.
30 Arnold
but employed in diverse contexts, and the intentional connection between the
two passages is only very loosely maintained.66 On the other hand, the lexical
specifics in common in Deut 1:68 and Gen 15:721 may better be identified
as a literary echo. Especially at Gen 15:7 and 18, the lexical specifics of Yhwhs
self-revelation are those of Deut 1:8, notably the giving (, G-stem) of the land
( )to possess (, G-stem, and repeated in Gen 15:8) to Abram or his seed
(, and also at Gen 15:13).67 Just as Deut 1:68 sets the theme for Deut 13,
so Gen 15:7 sets the stage for the rest of Gen 15:721. And Gen 15:7 has specific
lexical echoes of other important texts in the patriarchal narratives, involving
again giving of the land (Gen 12:7; 13:15, etc.). Moreover, we have lexical con-
nections in references to the Amorites (twice, at Gen 15:16,21), the Euphrates
River (Gen 15:18), and the Canaanites (Gen 15:21), all of which define the land in
Deut 1:7 that the Israelites are to enter and possess. These data cannot be gain-
said, but the question of their significance remains. I think it important at this
point to acknowledge that Deut 1:8 is more than a free adaptation of Gen 15:721,
or vice versa. It seems likely, in my opinion, that we have here the literary
mechanism of echo, which is based on specific intertextual association rather
than simple formulaic language, which would not necessarily require such
specificity of association.68 I take echo as a subset of allusion, which is among
the several literary mechanisms triggering intertextual association, among
them shared motifs, formulaic language, type scenes, genres, parallel accounts,
inner-biblical interpretation, and quotation.69 Allusion and echo may be
distinguished from each other by the apparent telic function of the allusion.
As distinct from other literary mechanisms, allusion constructs a covert level
66 Cynthia Edenburg, Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership:

Some Preliminary Observations, JSOT 35 (2010), 13148, esp. 13940.
67 On the nature of the revelatory speech in Gen 15:721, see Arnold, Genesis, 15761.
68 Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 4066 (Contraversions:
Jews and Other Differences), Stanford 1998, 816. Formulaic language such as the land-
oath employed in Deut 1:8 could easily have been widely known and used without trig-
gering literary association, whereas echo and allusion are more specific and intentional in
association; see Edenburg, Intertextuality, esp. 14446. For complete list of the land-oath
formula using ( N-stem), swear, see S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on Deuteronomy (third ed.; ICC, 5), Edinburgh 1965, lxxix.
69 For definitions of these, Edenburg, Intertextuality, , 13746. The widely used but poorly
defined term intertextuality is too diverse a concept, related to a range of literary phe-
nomena described here. The distinctive characteristic of allusion, as opposed to inner-
biblical exegesis, is that allusion makes no attempt to modify the older text; Russell L.
Meek, Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a
Methodology, Bib 95 (2014), 28091, esp. 290.
of significance by invoking another text, using textual markers that alert the
audience to the underlying significance.70 The echo, on the other hand, is a ref-
erence to another text without an apparent goal, leaving the reader uncertain
about the authors interpretive purposes. The allusion has specific rhetorical or
strategic goals, acknowledging the predecessor text but making no attempt to
interpret the older text. Instead, an author employs allusion in order to suggest
the meaning of the new text.71
While it seems likely, in my view, that Deut 1:68 is related to Gen 15:721
and perhaps other texts of Genesis on the land-oath to the patriarchs, this is
verifiable only on the level of formulaic language (certainly) and on the level
of literary echo (possibly).72 And yet one feature of 1:8 is suggestive of the use
of allusion as a formal literary technique. As we just saw, the use of literary
allusion often involves a textual marker borrowed from another text, detail-
ing the significance for the new composition. The author will often leave an
ungrammatical element of the marker borrowed from its old context, retained
awkwardly in the new, breaking the rules of the texts grammar and creating a
stumbling-block for the reader.73 The problematic use of the third person in
the land that Yhwh swore to your fathers in reported speech of Yhwh begun
at v. 6, where we would clearly have expected that I swore, resulted in first-
person variants in the SP and LXX.74 Commentators are conflicted about this
variant, especially because it occurs as part of Deuteronomys many recurring
formulae, and is occasionally in the first person (see below) as we would expect
70 Edenburg, Intertextuality, 14445; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 1013; Benjamin D.

Sommer, Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle
Eslinger, VT 46 (1996), 47989, esp. 48687.
71 Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 816; John H. Choi, Traditions at Odds: The Reception
of the Pentateuch in Biblical and Second Temple Period Literature (LHBOTS, 518), London/
New York 2010, 69.
72 The so-called chunking effect is in play here as well, in which a formula comprises several
words stored in long-term memory as a single unit: give, land, possess, etc.; Edenburg,
Intertextuality, 139.
73 Ibid., 14445, and for discussion of how ungrammaticality may be intentionally used
to mark allusion, see Cynthia Edenburg, How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a
Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26, SJOT 12 (1998), 6485, esp 6869 and 7273.
74 L XX (minus Lucian and Origens Hexapla) has , I swore for MTs the land that
Yhwh swore () . The MT is supported by 4QDeuth, Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion (the Three have ), Vulgate, Syriac, and Targum.
32 Arnold
it here.75 The consensus seems to be to retain the MT as the lectio difficilior.76

I agree with this assessment, and yet I believe we have a more compelling
reason to retain the MT than a simple appeal to its more difficult syntax.
Continuing the first-person divine speech begun in v. 6, the land-oath of v. 8
defaults deliberately to third personthat Yhwh sworein order to create an
ungrammatical marker intended to link this verse with the standard formulaic
version used elsewhere in Deuteronomy.77 Strikingly, the first-person variation
of the formula was possiblethat I sworeand used six times in the books
framework.78 But rather than using the expected first-person, the jolting effect
of the third person in Deut 1:8 deliberately connects the verse with the formu-
las numerous other third-person occurrences in the book.79 The use of allusion
as a formal literary technique, as we have seen, always bears some intentional
goal, and this brings me to the significance of the observation. Lohfink already
highlighted the paradigmatic way in which Deut 1:8 prepares for the other
occurrences of fathers in Deuteronomy. Beyond this, we might add that this
specific intertextual association between 1:8 and other occurrences of the for-
mula creates a new covert level of significance that runs throughout the book.
What is that significance? The use of allusion in Deut 1:8 is suggestive that the
author was intentionally clarifying the meaning of fathers in the land-oath
formula occurring elsewhere in the book. Such literary allusions have distinct
goals, and that of Deut 1:8 is to mark fathers as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for
the rest of Deuteronomy. As we have seen, the transgenerational use of fathers
75 For discussion, see Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 3437. For list of commentaries who
differ on the variant, see Rmer, Vter, 198.
76 Assuming further that MT may have assimilated to the recurring formula as at 11:9; cf.
Carmel McCarthy, Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy, Stuttgart 2007, 50*.
77 The third-person standard version occurs here in anticipation of its occurrences in 4:31;
6:10,18,23; 7:8,12,13; 8:1,18; 9:5; 11:9,21; 13:18[17]; 19:8; 26:3; 28:11; 29:12[13]; 30:20; and 31:7; cf.
also Gen 24:7; 50:24; Exod 13:5,11; Num 14:16; Josh 5:6; 21:4344. Similar occurrences of
, which are however unique and unrelated to the formula in view here are Deut 2:14;
28:9; Judg 2:15; 21:1.
78 So, , I swore, occurs in Deut 1:35; 10:11; 31:20,21,23; 34:4; cf. also Exod 33:1;
Num 14:23; 32:11; Josh 1:6; Judg 2:1. A second-person variation is also attested: Deut 26:15;
Exod 32:13; Num 11:12.
79 Plger briefly considered the idea that the land-oath had already become quasi-
independent and formulaic, and so its use in 1:8 was in some sense a citation of that
formula; Josef G. Ploger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen
zum Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967, 1011. My proposal is going considerably beyond
this general idea by theorizing that the author/editor intentionally used the third-person
in direct speech as a means of preparing for and clarifying its other uses in Deuteronomy.
in Deuteronomy created an ambiguity that this author wanted to avoid. The

ungrammatical marker explains that all occurrences of the land-oath to
the fathers in the book of Deuteronomy denote the patriarchal generation.
The significance of this observation for the insertion theory is evident. In order
to understand Deut 1:68 as referring originally only to the exodus generation,
one would need to excise more than the patriarchal name-formula, and per-
haps the reference to the land of the Canaanites (v. 7). The insertion theory
would require much more substantial editorial changes in vv. 68 in order to
envision an original deuteronomic version without any reference to the patri-
archs of Genesis.80
Deut 1:68 has a certain compositional integrity about it that argues against
the insert theory. And as we have suggested above, 1:68 shares compositional
unity with 1:1921, by means of repetitive resumption, framing the digression
of 1:918.81 If I am right about v. 8s allusion to the books other occurrences of
the land-oath, perhaps the author of 1:68 was purposefully clarifying fathers
elsewhere in the inner frame (that is, the older inner frame, chapters 511
and 2730), where the ambiguity of the transgenerational themes of the book
needed clarification. So, for example, the fathers of Deut 11:9, the ground that
Yhwh swore to your fathers to give to them and to their seed, might otherwise
have been the exodus generation, as the insertion theory proposes. But 1:8 has
intentionally marked this verses use of the land-oath, clarifying which genera-
tion received the oath, that of the patriarchs. Deuteronomy 1:8 would have had
no reason specifically to allude to 11:9 (and many others in the book) other
than to clarify which generation received the land-oath.
Before drawing this investigation to a close, brief comments may be use-
ful here regarding the way Deut 1:68 relates to the larger context of Deut
13, which necessarily requires us to take up however briefly the tricky
question of the connections (or lack of connections) between that unit
and its tetrateuchal parallels. As we have seen, Deut 1:68 serves as a tech-
nical orientation for the conquest of the land, which is then narrated
in Deut 13. After this orientation, the flow of thought is suspended in
order to give an account of the appointment of tribal chiefs (1:918), and
is again taken up by repetitive resumption (Wiederaufnahme) in 1:1921.
Without taking a position on the direction of dependence in this investiga-
tion, it is enough for our purposes to acknowledge a connection between
80 Rmer considered the idea of taking the entire relative clause as a later insertion, but
decided against it for several reasons; Rmer, Vter, 198.
81 When taken together in such Ringkomposition, 1:1921 adds another verbal coincidence to
1:8 by including the concept of promise (, D-stem, v. 21).
34 Arnold
Deut 1:918 and Exod 18:1327. This is followed by the rebellion at Kadesh-
barnea (Deut 1:2246), the various stages of the conquest of the Transjordan
(Deut 2:13:22), and Yhwhs charge to Moses to view the land from Pisgah
(Deut 3:2329). These units also have parallels in the tetrateuchal materials;
respectively, Num 1314, Num 2021 (specifically, Num 20:1421 and 21:1035),
and Num 27:1223. This means the orientation in 1:68 has in view materials
from Exodus and Numbers, as a means of preparing the reader for the rest of
the book, and it seems no less aware of Gen 15 than the rest of Deut 13 is aware
of Exodus and Numbers. The orienting pericope is consistent with the autho-
rial techniques of the rest of the unit, chapters 13, and must have always been
so from its composition. If it is true that 1:68, 1921 has echoes of Gen 15:721,
it serves as a prelude representing the patriarchal narratives, and thus means
that Deut 13 as a whole has gathered the pertinent pieces of the entire
tetrateuch needed in order to read Deuteronomy properly. In other words, the
authors/editors of Deut 13 have garnered just enough background and theo-
logical content from the tetrateuchal materials to make the points anticipated
in the parenesis and legal portions of Deuteronomy.
This suggestion is not meant to diminish the intractable problems in under-
standing the way Deut 13 relates to those tetrateuchal materials.82 We have
numerous indications that the parallels found in Numbers especially were at
least editorially updated, or had larger blocks of material inserted in light of
an older Deut 13.83 Despite a lack of consensus about the direction of liter-
82 The problems in reading Exod 18, Num 1314 and 2021 together with Deut 13 are so
far unexplained. Gertz has assumed a narratological approach, taking a cue from the
third person narration of the Tetrateuch as compared to the mostly first-person voice of
Moses; Jan Christian Gertz, Kompositorische Funktion und literarhistorischer Ort von
Deuteronomium 13, in: Markus Witte et al. (eds), Die Deuteronomistischen Geschichts-
werke: Redaktions- und Religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-
Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 10323. On the
problems as they relate to Deut 1:918, see Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pen-
tateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (AYBRL), New Haven 2012, 141. One
intriguing, although not entirely persuasive suggestion offers the Hittite treaty prologue
tradition as an ancient literary model for the way Deut 13 was composed; Joshua Berman,
Histories Twice Told: Deuteronomy 13 and the Hittite Treaty Prologue Tradition, JBL 132
(2013), 22950. I rather think an answer should be sought in the northern origins of Deu-
teronomy, acknowledging that we simply have here a different accounting of the events,
and that the older southern traditions (J, perhaps E) were already held as authoritative.
83 So, e.g., for a study of the difficulties surrounding the role of Edom in Num 20:1421 and
Deut 2:18a, see Nathan MacDonald, Edom and Seir in the Narratives and Itineraries of
Numbers 2021 and Deuteronomy 13, in: Georg Fischer et al. (eds), Deuteronomium
Tora fr eine neue Generation (BZABR, 17), Wiesbaden 2011, 83103, and for a nuanced
ary influence among these parallels, it seems likely to me we might consider

Deuteronomy either as free adaptation or as relecture, admitting that these
chapters are based on the Tetrateuch in one way or another.84 My work-
ing assumption is that the older text in a given parallel was not yet accorded
authoritative status by the authors of the newer tradition, whether oral or writ-
ten we cannot determine, so that the traditions were preserved independently
and with less direct influence one on the other, in either direction. This is one
way in which the narrative and parenetic framework of Deuteronomy is dif-
ferent from the legal core in Deut 1226. The narratives and parenesis of the
books framework were not as directly updating and reworking the Vorlagen
before them, as the legal core has done for its older sources. Therefore, the
origins and text-history of Deut 13 escape us and we must admit the details of
its composition are simply unreconstructable.
Part of the problem is our lack of hermeneutical tools sharp enough to
discern the chronological and compositional priority of one tradition over
the other.85 Many scholars of Deuteronomy are too quick to assume a direct
quotation, citation, or heavy literary dependence, whereas a more nuanced
inner-biblical exegetical literary process was likely at work in the composition
understanding of the relationship between the Sihon episodes in Deut 2:24b37 and
Num 21:2135 as interdependent and created by a single implied author, see Angela
Roskop Erisman, Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of
the Pentateuch, JBL 132 (2013), 76989, esp. 77079; and Angela R. Roskop, The Wilderness
Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (HACL, 3), Winona Lake 2012,
20415.
84 For free adaptation, see Thomas B. Dozeman, Geography and Ideology in the Wilder
ness Journey from Kadesh through the Transjordan, in: Jan Christian Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion (BZAW,
315), Berlin 2002, 17389, esp. 177. For relecture, see Gertz, Kompositorische Funktion,
esp. 1045. For rationale for taking Deut 13 is dependent upon Exodus and Numbers, see
Daniel E. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judahs Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing
of Tradition, New York 2012, 11921. Fleming is not entirely convinced Deuteronomys
version of the campaigns against Sihon and Og is dependent upon Num 2021, but argues
instead that Deuteronomy offers an independent view of a narrative that must have ori-
gins in Transjordan Israel (11617). However, Fleming seems to approach the subject from
a quotation-theoretic connection between Deut 23 and Num 2021, without considering
the kind of subtle techniques I will suggest here.
85 For a nuanced and helpful essay on a wide-ranging historical method that employs
all the text-, source-, form-, and redaction-critical tools, while at the same time paying
careful attention to a given texts inner-biblical exegetical techniques, see Jeffrey Stackert,
Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation
(FAT, 52), Tbingen 2007, 1829.
36 Arnold
of Deut 13. Deuteronomy itself is essentially an exegetical document (1:5),

and its interpretive techniques and literary mechanisms are critical as ways
of informing our understanding of its diachronic history. And so this brings us
back to Michael Fishbane, and the continuum between purely scribal-redac-
tional procedures on one extreme, and authorial-compositional ones, on the
other (see above).86 We must avoid the assumption that authors only compose
texts and scribes only copy them. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear
that Deuteronomy displays perhaps more than other biblical books, the arche-
typal exegetical techniques that become so prominent later in Jewish exegesis.
Of the categories of inner-biblical exegesis defined by Fishbane (legal exegesis,
haggadic exegesis, and mantological exegesis),87 that of legal exegesis has been
most beneficially applied to Deuteronomys legal core.88 But the differences
between the literary techniques of Deut 1226 and the books narrative and
parenetic frameworks are because of the distinct content of these portions of
the book. Recalling Fishbanes dictum that (t)he traditum dominates the tradi-
tio and conditions its operations,89 the differences between the legal core and
the books framework are because of the significantly different content. This
rather obvious conclusion should not escape the methodologies we develop,
however, because the nature of the laws required a quite different set of liter-
ary mechanisms in order to comment upon, update, and propogate the earlier
laws of Israels traditions. By contrast, the scribal exegetical procedures in Deut
13 are specific to the needs of updating and re-presenting the tetrateuchal
story.
Fishbane speaks of the paradox at work in the relationship between the
traditum and the traditio.
In different ways...the older traditum is dependent upon the traditio for

its ongoing life. This matter is paradoxical, for while the traditio culturally
revitalizes the traditum, and gives new strength to the original revelation,
it also potentially undermines it.90
86 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 8488.

87 Michael A. Fishbane, The Hebrew Bible and Exegetical Tradition, in: Johannes C. de
Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (OTS, 40), Leiden 1998, 1530; Michael A.
Fishbane, Types of Biblical Intertextuality, in: Andr Lemaire and Magne Sb (eds),
Congress Volume, Oslo 1998 (SVT, 80), Leiden 2000, 3944.
88 Pride of place here goes to Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of
Legal Innovation, New York 1997.
89 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 87.
90 Ibid., 15.
Accordingly, then, the scriptural status of the traditum is established, while

at the same time the traditio introduces innovations in its development.
Fishbanes model focused on the exegetical means by which the authority
of the traditum is recognized in the innovations of the traditio through well-
established and easily recognized exegetical techniques. Others have identi-
fied two additional types of intertextual reference, which I believe are most
helpful to this question of the relationship of Deut 13 to its tetrateuchal paral-
lels. First, the echo is a reference to another text but has no apparent goal. An
authors posture towards the traditum, then, is unclear and without purpose,
and therefore such literary echoes cannot be said to serve specific interpretive
purposes. Second, an allusion to another text, while just as intentional as the
echo, has specific rhetorical and interpretive goals, as I have suggested above
for Deut 1:8. By using an allusion, an author is not simplistically interpreting
other texts, but suggesting the meaning of his own text.91 I propose that future
research on the way Deut 13 relates to its tetrateuchal parallels should consider
the differences between echo and allusion, which I think holds great promise
for the investigation.92 Already, these kinds of allusions and literary echoes
have been observed for the patriarchal motifs found in the characterization of
Moses in his last words and deeds in Deut 3134.93 But, in my view, most of our
91 See Benjamin Sommers work on intertextuality in Isa 4066 for these distinctions;
Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 816 and 30.
92 Methodologically, I consider echo and allusion two specific literary mechanisms within
the larger framework of literary models. By model, I have in mind Stephen A. Kaufmans
continuum of redactional strategies, ranging from original composition, paraphrastic
conflation, fine conflation, gross conflation, modified quotation, and extended quota-
tion. His definition of modified quotation as a quotation free of conflation but heav-
ily modified by the author, delighting in changes of wording to avoid repetition, seems
particularly appropos to Deuteronomys formulaic phraseology. See Stephen A. Kaufman,
The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism, HUCA 53 (1982), 2943, esp. 3442. Similarly,
Paul R. Nobles quotation-theoretic and resource-theoretic are useful categories for
identifying when an editor has reproduced sources (quotation-theoretic) as opposed to
times when an editor (more like an author, in this case) has drawn on themes or style in
the source, making it impossible to reconstruct the transmission history precisely; Paul
R. Noble, Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation, Literature
and Theology 7 (1993), 13048. Using these categories, if a text is a subtle and well-
integrated whole, one can be confident it did not have a quotation-theoretic prehistory,
and it is nearly impossible to identify specific sources used in its composition. On the other
hand, when a resource-theoretic model of composition has been used, as appears to have
been the case in Deut 13, we have only vague notions of the sources before the author
(pp. 14142).
93 Sonnet, Book within the Book, 204215.
38 Arnold
redactional work on Deut 13 has approached the topic from a perspective

looking for redactional strategies not at work in the text, and we have there-
fore relied too heavily on the direct quoting and citing sorts of connections.
The scribes who gave us these first chapters were using echoes and allusions
more than we have recognized, and a finer methodological approach looking for
such touches might illumine our investigation of their diachronic composition
as well.94
Relative to Deut 13, the text is replete with echoes and allusions to
Exod 18, Num 1314 and 2021, at least. These do not prove direction of influ-
ence, or even whether there is direct literary connection or not, as opposed to
having independent sources. The point for this investigation is that Deut 1:68
has both, echoes and allusions, not only in the more obvious land-oath formula
pointing ahead to its many other occurrences in the book of Deuteronomy, but
also to Gen 15:721. Like the rest of Deut 13, this orientation-introduction to
the narrative framework contains both echoes and allusions, and therefore looks
backward to the patriarchal narratives of Genesis (especially Gen 12, 15, and 17)
and forward to the whole book of Deuteronomy. And those echoes to Genesis
are, in my view, intertwined with the pericope as a whole, and not resolved sim-
ply by removing the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In this way, the peri-
cope rests as the keystone for all of Deut 13, by pulling salient features of the
Tetrateuch together as a fitting introduction to the conquest of Transjordan.
4 Conclusions
The insertion theory proposes (1) that for the deuteronomistic scribes, the his-
tory of Israel begins in Egypt and their search for national origins ended there,
and (2) therefore, the fathers in the book of Deuteronomy for those scribes
are not the patriarchs of Genesis but instead are most often the exodus gen-
eration, and finally (3) that the presence of the patriarchal name-formula in
Deuteronomy, listing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is in each case an insertion
into the text due to a postdeuteronomistic redaction, added when the patri-
archal narratives of Genesis were first attached to the Moses-exodus story,
most likely at the time of the final redaction of the Pentateuch.95 The research
94 In particular, Drivers list of verbal coincidences highlights both echoes and allusions,
although he, of course, did not make such distinctions; S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament (Ninth ed.), Edinburgh 1913; repr., Edinburgh 1961, 8081.
95 For Rmer, relying on a theory of Albert de Pury, even the credo of Deut 26:5 is not
referring to the origins of ancient Israel, for even if the text is referring to Jacob (itself,
q uestion before us is whether the insertion theory best addresses the data in
light of the rhetorical features of Deuteronomys framework.
The investigation first reconsidered the occurrences of the patriarchal
name-formula in the book of Deuteronomy. The study affirmed earlier research
by identifying Deut 1:8 as the crux interpretum for our research question.
The context of 1:68 is crucial, in this regard, because it functions together
with 1:1921, enveloping the synchronous account of 1:918 by means of
repetitive resumption in order to introduce the spy narrative (1:2245) and
ultimately the conquest of the Transjordan (2:13:29). This observation at
least raises the possibility that Deut 1:68 is less composite than the inser-
tion theory might imply, and cautions against too much distinction between
scribes and authors. Next, the investigation surveyed all the occurrences of
fathers in the book, and observed that while some of those occurrences do
indeed denote the exodus generation, many more are intentionally indeter-
minate, and still others are best understood as referring to the patriarchal
generation, even without the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The survey
illustrated Deuteronomys intentional ambiguity, the result of a theme of
transgenerational solidarity, in which rhetorical generation-blending draws
the Israelite readers into solidarity with each generation of ancestors. The sur-
vey of nine occurrences of fathers as patriarchs, yet without the explicit men-
tion of the patriarchal names (Deut 1:11,35; 4:37; 6:23; 7:12,13; 10:11,15,22), raised
questions about the insertion theory. And finally, this study analyzed the role
of Deut 1:68 in the context of chapters 13 generally. I proposed here that
Deut 1:8 contains literary echoes with Gen 15:721, and other patriarchal nar-
ratives of Genesis. I also proposed here that a literary allusion created by the
ungrammatical third-person expression, that Yhwh swore in Deut 1:8 delib-
erately marks fathers as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for other occurrences of
the land-oath formula throughout Deuteronomy. The need for the allusion
was because of the ambiguity of the lexeme fathers, which resulted from the
books transgenerational theme embedded in its parenesis. The identification
of present and future generations of Israelites with the fathers created a need
to clarify that the land-oath formula, in particular and throughout the book,
related to the patriarchal generation. Thus, Deut 1:68 is an orientation to
chapters 13, which is also paradigmatic for the rest of the book by serving
to clarity the patriarchal generationAbraham, Isaac, and Jacobas distinct
from the indeterminate fathers occurring elsewhere in the book.
a challenged point), the text presents him in an unfavorable light, illustrating that for the
deuteronomistic scribes, Egypt is the beginning of Israel, while the ancestor of 26:5 is still
an Aramean; Rmer, Deuteronomy in Search of Origins, esp. 131.
40 Arnold
The deuteronomistic scribes, in my view, are the ones responsible for the
patriarchal name-formula in 1:8, and elsewhere in the book. They were moti-
vated by the books theme of transgenerational solidarity, which led them to
clarify the point upon occasion. In contrast to that dominant theme, there
were times, in fact, when the deuteronomists had only the patriarchal gen-
eration in view (especially when related to the land-oath, known in particular
from Gen 15:721), and therefore the patriarchal name-formula was employed.
In conclusion, I offer one further potential motivation for their use of the clari-
fying name-formula. It has often been observed by advocates of the insertion
theory that sources earlier to, or contemporary with, the work of the deuteron-
omistic scribes, namely Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, also understood fathers
to be the exodus generation.96 Their point is that the deuteronomists shared
the same view of Israels origins as beginning in Egypt, and were reflecting the
same perspective in their use of fathers as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
However, the evidence from these prophetic sources is hardly unequivocal,97
and I think we may have a better solution ready to hand. It seems just as likely,
or perhaps more likely, that the deuteronomists were aware of the ambiguity
in those prophetic sources, as much as they were aware of the ambiguity in the
use of fathers in the Deuteronomys older portions. Perhaps the patriarchal
name-formula is employed in 1:8 (and the other four occurrences modifying
fathers) precisely in order to clarify both the older uses of fathers elsewhere
in Deuteronomy, as well as the prophetic voices known to them at the time.
Perhaps it was precisely because of the use of fathers in Hosea, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel, that the name-formula was used in these occurrences to modify
fathers in Deuteronomy.98 It remains entirely possible, in my view, that the
deuteronomic scribes themselves, even perhaps late ones in the process of
Deuteronomys composition, understood the fathers to refer to the patriar-
chal traditions, and therefore clarified the matter for the entire book.99
96 Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, esp. 44851; Rmer, Vter, 395520.

97 Rmer is at pains to explain Jer 33:26, for example; Rmer, Vter, 481.
98 In which case, we admit the five occurrences of the patriarchal name-formula investi-
gated here were indeed editorial insertions. But not added by post-deuteronomistic
scribes at the end of the process, but by the deuteronomistic scribes responsible for the
later, outer framework of the book, who were compelled to clarify the point for other por-
tions of the final Deuteronomy.
99 So, David M. Carr, Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story: Diachronic and Synchronic
Perspectives, in: Andr Wnin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction
and History, Leuven 2001, 27395, esp. 29091, although Carr cautions against certainty
on this matter and leans toward the insertion theory. See also the comments of Erisman,
Transjordan in Deuteronomy, esp. 781, n. 40.
If we have learned anything in the last forty years, it is that our historical-
critical reconstructions of a texts origins cannot be separated from an analysis
of its literary techniques.100 I close this investigation by asking whether this
might be an example of a situation in which our hypothetical reconstruction
of a texts strata needs to be informed by a more robust hermeneutic, informed
especially by synchronically oriented exegesis.101 I am certainly not arguing for
a strict synchronically oriented approach but rather for eschewing a too nar-
rowly prescribed diachronically oriented approach. In this case, it seems to
me, such a balanced methodology raises questions about the supposed gains
inhering to the insertion theory. It seems at least as likely, and perhaps more
likely, that the deuteronomistic scribes were aware of the use of fathers for the
exodus generation, and used the name-formula intentionally to clarify which
fathers were in view. The most economical theory, the one that answers more
questions than it raises, may well be the interpretation of Deut 1:8 as referring to
the patriarchal generation of Genesis instead of postulating an unreconstruc-
table earlier layer of Deuteronomy that referred only to the exodus-generation.
100 Luis Alonso Schkel, Hermeneutical Problems of a Literary Study of the Bible, in:
Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974 (VTS, 28), Leiden 1975, 115.
101 See the review of synchronic methods as canonical, structural analysis (both structural-
ist and narrative criticism), and rhetorical criticism; Jan Christian Gertz et al., T&T Clark
Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the
Old Testament, London 2012, 3941, and Brevard S. Childs, Critique of Recent Intertextual
Canonical Interpretation, ZAW 115 (2003), 17384. Perhaps better than synchronic and
diachronic, the labels structure and compositional/redactional history have been pro-
posed; Jacob Hoftijzer, Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the
Problem, in: Johannes C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? (OTS, 34), Leiden 1995,
98114.
Did the Assyrian Envoy Know the Venite?:
What did He Know? What did He Say?
And should He be Believed?1
Graeme Auld 1
1 Narrator and Envoy in Chronicles
In its report on King Hezekiah, the book of Chronicles offers quite the lon-
gest reform report anywhere in the histories of the monarchies since David
and Solomon. Much ground is covered in 2 Chr 2931; but it is widely agreed
that one key statement by the narrator (31:1) summarizes the action taken by
all Israel who were present (at the festival of Passover and unleavened bread
just celebrated)
(and they shattered the pillars and they hacked the Asheras and they tore
down the high places and the altars). Later in the Hezekiah narrative (32:12),
the Assyrian envoy is able to argue that the king deceives his own people when
he claims that Yahweh will deliver them from the king of Assyria

( Is he not the one whose high places and whose altars
Hezekiah removed and said to Judah and Jerusalem, Before one altar you shall
prostrate yourselves and on it offer incense?). There is no conflict between
the envoy and the Chronicler: the envoy certainly passes over what was done
to the pillars and the Asherim. And by talking of simply removing the bmth
and altars he concentrates on the kings policy decision rather than the shatter-
ing and hacking and pulling down by the crowds with enthusiasm (the Hebrew
verbs are emphatic piels). And Hezekiahs final instruction ( , and
on it offer incense), according at least to the Assyrian outside the walls, rights
what the king had said was wrong at the very start of his reform (29:7):
[( our fathers] have
put out the lamps, and even incense have they not offered and burnt offerings
have they not made in the holy place to the god of Israel).
Prostration before a single altar does go beyond anything the narrator has
told us about Hezekiah. But we tend to believe the envoy herehe has been
1 This paper is one of a pair on the Hezekiah narratives. The other (ChroniclesIsaiah
Kings) was delivered at the meeting in Gttingen of the Aberdeen Prophecy Network
(1821 October, 2015).

Did the Assyrian envoy know the Venite ? 43
well-informed and fair about everything else. And what he says fits the con-
trast that the narrator makes between Hezekiah and his father Ahaz. Previous
kings in Jerusalemeven good onesmay have failed to remove the bmth;
but Ahaz was enthusiastic in cultivating them (the verbs in 28:4 are piels as in
31:1). Ahaz also shut up the doors of Yahwehs house and made himself altars in
every corner of Jerusalem (28:24). One altar (32:12, MT) is therefore a credible
response from Hezekiah to his fathers altars in every corner. LXX reads this
altar like the book of Kings, and may be more original. But, in a context of the
son undoing the fathers multiple mistakes, the difference between
and may be immaterial: one simply clarifies this.
2 Narrator and Envoy in Kings
When we turn from Chronicles to Kings, we find a rather different relation-

ship between narrator and Assyrian envoy. This narrators reform note (hardly
a report) in 2 Kgs 18:4 states simply:
he it was removed the high places and shat-
tered the pillars and cut the Ashera and crushed the bronze snake. The envoy
in 2 Kgs 18:22 reports much like his counterpart in Chronicles:
Was
it not [Yahweh2] whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah removed
and said Before this altar you shall prostrate yourselves in Jerusalem? Altars
had not been included in the narrators list of four destructions practised by
Hezekiah. But by contrast, the envoy in Kings makes a feature of altars being
removed and this altar chosen.
Again in Kings, it is sensible to compare Hezekiah with Ahaz. In 2 Kgs 16:4
(as in synoptic 2 Chr 28:4), his father had been enthusiastic about bmth
(the piel verbs used are identical). But, when it comes to altars, the distinc-
tive charge against Ahaz in 2 Kgs 16 concerns building a large new altar about
which at least two things were wrong. It was constructed on the model of an
altar Ahaz had seen in Damascus (16:10). And it replaced the Solomonic altar,
which was moved aside and demoted (16:14). Against the background of Ahazs
actions, what does the envoys this altar mean? And whose this is it anyway?
Is it the envoys thisthis altar I am pointing to (from my vantage point over-
looking your city)? Or is the envoy claiming to quote Hezekiah:
2 As in the similar-sounding authoritative claims ( I am Yahweh) and ( I am

he), we may be dealing here with a play on \.
44 Auld
this altar, not these bmth?

this altar in Jerusalem, and not another elsewhere?
this older Solomonic altarnot that new altar built by my father?
3 Envoy and Narrators
In Chronicles, envoy and narrator appear to agree about Hezekiahs reforms.

Hezekiahs people had torn down altars as well as high places and Hezekiah
had given instructions about reverence to be shown before a particular altar.
But the envoy in Kings says more than the narratorthe narrator has not men-
tioned altars. Is the narrator using the envoy to spell out what he has already
reported? Or is the narrator giving the envoy some independence? What
does the envoy know? And, if he is at all independent, is the envoy a credible
witness whether to what Hezekiah has done, or to how Jerusalem did worship
at the time? It is the business of politicians and diplomats to be cleverly eco-
nomical with the truth. The more the Assyrian envoy is seen to be a realistic
character, the less perhaps we should believe him.
If the short reform note preserved in 2 Kgs 18:4 (without altars) was the tiny
plant from which the huge tree of a complex reform narrative in 2 Chr 2931
grew, then the addition of tearing down altars that we read in 2 Chr 31:1 may
have been a graft from the envoys speech. The expansive Chronicler had taken
the envoy in his source at face value; but is this also true of the author of Kings?
4 Envoy in Kings and Isaiah
The Hezekiah narrative in Isa 3639 is largely the same as in 2 Kgs 1820.
However, its starting point (Isa 36:1||2 Kgs 18:13) is with Sennacheribs attack
on the cities of Judah. Unlike the parallels in Kings or Chronicles, we are not
offered any prior reform reportwe have no information against which to
assess the envoys words, apart from our natural scepticism (do our enemies
or even opposition politiciansever tell the whole truth about us, or even
fully understand us?). And as we move to consider the evidence from Isaiah,
the plot thickens. In Greek Isaiah, even the envoy does not offer a reform
report: Isa 36:78 (LXX) is much shorter than MT (=2 Kgs 18:2223). The whole
issue of prostration before whatever altar is absent from Isa 36:7 (LXX). The
envoys shorter argument here does make some sense, especially when read in
Greek where kurios first reverently replaces Yahweh before it refers to his own
master. He first disposes of Pharaoh as a credible ally; and then says, But if
you say, On the Lord our God we have put our trust, then [try?] my lord, the
king of Assyria. Whether or not this shorter text is more original, the Greek
rendering of a key element may provide a clue about the envoys character,
his truthfulness. His recommendation runs as follows:
( so MT in Isa 36:82 Kgs 18:23a offers the more grammatical
) . This is widelybut not wholly convincinglyrendered
Make a bet with my lord, the king of Assyria.
Up to six lenses have been proposed for inspecting verbal forms with the
radicals : I: mix; II: stand surety; III: be pleasant; IV:
be evening; V: offer; and VI: enter.3 This is not the place for a full
review. Make a wager is explained on the basis of II.4 A hitpael form
is found just five times more in the Hebrew Bible: Ps 106:35; Prov 14:10;
20:19; 24:21; Ezra 9:2. There is no doubt about the meaning of the first and fifth
instances. Ps 106:35 talks of unwelcome mixing of Israel with other nations:
( and they mixed among the nations and learned
their deeds); and Ezra 9:2a adds explicit mention of intermarriage:
( and they took of their
daughters for themselves and their sons; and they, the holy seed, became
mixed among the nations of the lands). LXX in Ps 106:35, as in both 2 Kgs 18:23
and Isa 36:8, renders by mignunai pass. (be mixed), but in 2 Esdras 9:2
by paragein pass. (be diverted). mignunai corresponds to I. This Greek
verb can be used literally of sexual mixing, and also in metaphors that take
off from that literal sense. In Prov 14:10, is often rendered share, which
could derive from I or VI. Associate with (Prov 20:19) could also relate to
I or VI.5 Whether he said Make a bet with my lord or Get into bed with my
lord, the king of Assyria the envoy would be marked out as a figure of fun. He
would be speaking more like a stock false prophet than a serious diplomat.
A fresh and very interesting proposal by Ronnie Goldstein6 about
has the envoy inviting Judah to become auxiliary or mercenary troops of his
master. He suggests that urbi (L urb) used in three Akkadian texts, two of
them inscriptions that record campaigns of Sennacherib, bears the sense
of auxiliary forces and is related to the root with the basic meaning to
enter, as Akkadian erbu. (The term is apparently of West-Semitic origin, and
it is probably used also in several passages within the Hebrew Bible, Jer 50:37
for example). would accordingly be rendered Become an auxiliary
3 D CH VI, 54649.
4 D CH VI, 548.
5 In Prov 24:21, LXX implies a different consonantal text from MT.
6 At the meeting in Gttingen of the Aberdeen Prophecy Network (1821 October, 2015).
46 Auld
force [to my lord...]. And he notes that the cognate in 2 Kgs 14:14||
2 Chr 25:24 could also refer to such forces: the context makes clear that they
are some sort of human booty transferred from Jerusalem to Samaria by
Jehoash of Israel, in addition to the gold and silver plundered from Yahwehs
house and the royal treasury in Jerusalem. Given the many links between syn-
optic Amaziah and Hezekiah7and even more between synoptic Amaziah
and the developed Hezekiah of the Hezekiah/Isaiah legend in 2 Kgs 18208
it can be argued that the author of non-synoptic in the Hezekiah/
Isaiah legend had been influenced by synoptic , which he found in
2 Kgs 14:14||2 Chr 25:24.
5 The Envoy on Hezekiahs Reform
The Greek text of Isaiahs version of what the envoy says makes no mention of
instructions from Hezekiah about an altar in Jerusalem. However, the Greek
rendering (mignunai) of this rare Hebrew verbal form ( )encourages the
suspicion that the envoy is not simply a mouthpiece for the narrators views.
Where altar is part of the text, the big issue is not whether we should read this
altar or one altarnor even which or where this one altar was. The elephant
in this room is that no one else anywhere in HB ever prescribes or describes
prostrating ( )before an altar9not even sinking ( )or falling ()
or bowing ( )or kneeling ( )in front of an altar. Is this another obvious
mistake put into the mouth of the envoy? In fact before is very seldom linked
with altar in HBand only once outside Kgs/Chr. The link is found four times
synoptically in Kgs/Chr:
1 Kgs 8:22||2 Chr 6:12Solomon stood before Yahwehs altar

1 Kgs 8:31||2 Chr 6:22if someone comes and swears before your altar
7 Both kings were 25 years old at their accession and both reigned for 29 years (2 Kgs 14:2||
2 Chr 25:1; 2 Kgs 18:2||2 Chr 29:1); and, within text shared by Kings and Chronicles, Lachish
is mentioned only in the reports of their two reigns (2 Kgs 14:19||2 Chr 25:27; 2 Kgs 18:17||
2 Chr 32:9).
8 Non-synoptic Hezekiah is aligned in 2 Kgs 18:13; 20:6 with synoptic Amaziah who survived
(lived) for 15 years after defeat at the hands of northern Joash in a campaign that included
severe threat to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 14:12, 17||2 Chr 25:22, 25).
9 Throughout this paper, has been rendered prostrate oneself without further argu-
ment, although many public translations use the less specific worship. More important is
the fact that, however rendered, the elements + + are nowhere else com-
bined in the Hebrew Bible.
2 Kgs 11:18||2 Chr 23:17they killed Mattan, priest of Baal, before the
altars
2 Kgs 18:22||2 Chr 32:12before this/one altar you shall prostrate
yourselves
and just three times elsewhere:
1 Kgs 8:54 (no ||)Solomon arose from before Yahwehs altar from sink-
ing on his knees
2 Chr 29:19 (no ||)see [the utensils rejected by Ahaz] are before
Yahwehs altar
Zech 14:20the cooking pots in Yahwehs house will be like the bowls
before the altar
The words of Solomons long prayer at the dedication of the temple are found
almost identically in 1 Kgs 8:2350a and 2 Chr 6:1439; and they are also intro-
duced in the same terms in 8:22||6:12
( And Solomon stood before the altar of Yahweh in the
presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands to heaven.)
2 Chr 6:13 (without parallel in Kgs) inserts a correction between introduction
and prayerSolomon had made a platform...and stood on it; and knelt on
his knees () ...and spread out his hands.... Then (this time at
the end of Solomons long prayer) there is a corresponding plus in 1 Kgs 8:54
(without parallel in Chr)Solomon arose from before Yahwehs altar from
sinking on his knees () . Both versions that have come down to us
of Solomons prayer have modified the text they share, the text they inherited.
In the older version of the narrative, Solomon simply stood in front of Yahwehs
altar. Both successor versions have contrived to make him kneel.
The larger synoptic context seems relevant as well. Material shared by
SamKgs and Chr uses ( prostrate oneself) in only four passages;
and a foreign element is always involved: Arauna/Orna the Jebusite prostrates
himself to David (2 Sam 24:20||1 Chr 21:21); Solomon is warned against pros-
tration to other gods (1 Kgs 9:6, 9||2 Chr 7:19, 22) and Manasseh is blamed for
such behaviour (2 Kgs 21:3||2 Chr 33:3). Then, when the Assyrian envoy reports
Hezekiah as commending prostration (2 Kgs 18:22||2 Chr 32:12), how were the
earliest readers intended to react to his words?
The next point is not a synoptic observationat least not in the sense
I am normally using the term in this paper. There is one other instance of
in the Hezekiah story as told in both 2 Kings and Isaiah: Sennacherib
was killed by his sons as he prostrated himself in the house of his god Nisroch
48 Auld
(2 Kgs 19:37||Isa 37:38). Sennacheribs envoy outside Jerusalem may fairly have
supposed that Hezekiah would have prescribed worship like his own master
practised at home in Nineveh.
We have noted that the setting of Solomons long prayer was re-framed in
both Kings and Chronicles: the originally standing Solomon became kneeling
Solomon. We find something analogous in both books in or near the Hezekiah
narratives. In Chronicles, Hezekiahs cultic reforms began in the first year of
his reign (2 Chr 29:3). When the temple and the altar and its utensils had been
cleansed, the king ordered that a holocaust be offered on the altar (29:27). Each
of the next verses reports prostration during or after the sacrifice: by the whole
assembly (28), by the king and all with him (29), and by the levites (30). Fresh
from reading this detailed report about prostration relating to sacrifice, we
can hardly be surprised by the Assyrian envoys statement that Hezekiah had
required prostration before the altar (32:12).
In Kings, the similar point is made just before the start of the Hezekiah story,
towards the end of the long peroration in 2 Kgs 17:741 on the fall of northern
Israel. First of all, and unremarkably, four covenanted prohibitions10 are listed
against any sort of reverence or worship or sacrifice to other gods (v. 35):
you shall not fear other gods

and you shall not prostrate yourselves to them
and you shall not serve them
and you shall not sacrifice to them
The surprise comes in the following verse (36), where the first, second, and
fourth prohibitions in respect of foreign gods reappear as positive demands in
respect of Yahweh:
But Yahweh
who brought you up from the land of Egypt...

him you shall fear
and to him you shall prostrate yourselves
and to him you shall sacrifice
The command of prostration to Yahweh has never before been stated, any-
where in the Former Prophets. Its unique promulgation here is reinforced by
And Yahweh made with them a covenant and com-

10
manded them saying.
wordplay and by its position within 2 Kings.11 The fact that ( and to
him you shall prostrate yourselves) is immediately followed by ( and
to him you shall sacrifice) suggests that the envoys unique formulation
( before this sacrifice-place you shall prostrate yourselves)
is in the mind of the author and is being adapted. The pairing of the verbs
for prostration and sacrifice is quite unusual, and is found only once more
in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 1:3). And the novelty of this significant transition
from negative to balancing positive is neatly underscored in the shift from
to and from to . ( and to
him) in v. 36 corresponds in sense to ( to them) in v. 35, while at the same
time ( wlw) retains the sound of the ( wl) of the previous verse. The sug-
gestion that Jerusalems king had advocated prostration (2 Kgs 18:22) may have
surprised earlier readers of the (synoptic) Hezekiah story. However, 2 Kgs 17:36,
unlike 2 Kgs 18:4, has taken the Assyrian envoy at his word. And its carefully
balanced contrast between what not to do to foreign gods and what to do to
Yahweh is set only a few verses before the start of the Hezekiah story. Later
readers of that narrative are being prepared, as in 2 Chr 29:2830, not to share
the surprise of its first readers.
6 Finally the Venite
Knees ( )are well known in HB; they are often associated with birthing12
and nursing13 (and adoption14), as are weak knees with fear.15 But only sel-
dom are they explicitly linked with worship or entreaty: Elijah speaks of the
knees that have not bowed to Baal (1 Kgs 19:18); and an officer of the king of
Israel pleads on his knees before Elisha for the life of his men (2 Kgs 1:13). The
only explicit parallel to Solomon on his knees before Yahweh (1 Kgs 8:54 and
2 Chr 6:13, both non-synoptic) is provided by Ezra (9:5). On the other hand,
apart from the Chroniclers Solomon, a Hebrew verb kneel ( )is attested
only once more, in Ps 95:6. There is also the instance in Aramaic of Daniel
kneeling (6:11). These certainly late-biblical passages in Ezr 9:5 and Dan 6:11
11 The situation is similar in Deuteronomy: prostration to other gods is blamed seven times
(4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25; 30:17), but commanded only onceand towards the end
(26:10).
12 Gen 30:3; Job 3:12.
13 2 Kgs 4:20; Isa 66:12.
14 Gen 48:12; 50:23.
15 Isa 35:3; Ezek 7:17; 21:12; Nah 2:11; Ps 109:24; Job 4:4.
50 Auld
help to set a context for the pluses relating to Solomon kneeling in Kings and
Chronicles.
Psalm 95 (the Venite) includes more synonyms for bowing low before God
than any other biblical psalm.16 is used just 9x across most of the
Psalter (Books IIII and V):
5:8 I will prostrate myself towards your

holy temple17
22:28 and there shall prostrate themselves
before you
22:30 and all the earth-sleepers shall pros-
trate themselves18
29:2 prostrate yourselves to Yahweh in holy
splendour19
66:4 all the earth, prostrate yourselves to
him
72:11 let all kings prostrate themselves to
him20
86:9 and there shall prostrate themselves
before you
132:7 let us prostrate ourselves to his
footstool
138:2 I will prostrate myself towards your
holy temple
However, this verb is found as many as six times in Book IV of the Psalms
(Pss 90106), the shortest book:
95:6 Come let us prostrate ourselves and

bow down; let us kneel21 before Yahweh
our maker
16 In some Christian traditions, illustrated in the 17th century Book of Common Prayer
of the Church of England, it is also privileged above all other psalms: only the Venite is
recited every day of the month.
17 Ps 5:8 = 138:2.
18 Ps 22:28 = 86:9.
19 Ps 29:2 = 96:9.
20 Compare in Ps 97:7.
21 ( and let us weep) is attested in LXX.
96:9 prostrate yourselves to Yahweh in holy

splendour
97:7 let all gods prostrate themselves to
him22
99:5 and prostrate yourselves to his footstool
99:9 and prostrate yourselves to his holy
mountain
106:19 they made a calf at Horeb and pros-
trated themselves to a casting
Five of these instances are within the Psalms of Yahweh as king (Pss 93100).
And the first is quite distinctive. The unusual assemblage in 95:6 of verbs
of self-abasement has already been noted. normally connotes collapse
or dread.
As a contribution to dating we may note a. that both prostrate oneself and
bow down are used in Deutero-Isaiah, but not together;23 b. that elsewhere
in HB, and are only paired in two late contexts, 2 Chr 29:29 and
Esth 3:2, 2, 5.
The indicator of direction (, before) is also most unusual, whichever of
the three verbs is deemed to be most prominent.
Simple ( to) is the normal preposition used after the verb prostrate one-
self (). Pss 5:8 and 138:2 commend prostration ( towards
your holy temple) and Ps 99:5, 9 to his footstool ( ) and to his holy
mountain () . With more physical objects, and are used, but
never elsewhere . The fuller ( before) is occasionally used if prostra-
tion is in face of Yahweh or a suffix referring to him,24 but it never precedes
a physical object like an altar. ( bow down) is never construed with
(before). ( kneel) is not construed with ( before) in 2 Chr 6:13, the
only other instance in Hebrew of this verb. Aramaic ( Dan 6:11) would
correspond to Hebrew ( before his god), but it is separated from
knelt on his knees by two other verbs. Num 11:20; Deut 1:45; Judg 20:23;
2 Kgs 22:19||2 Chr 34:27 provide parallels to ( and let us weep before),
attested in LXX.
22 Compare in Ps 72:11.
23 ( Isa 45:23; 46:1, 2; 65:12); and ( 44:15, 17; 45:14; 46:6; 49:7, 23; 60:14; 66:23).
Another verb meaning bow ( )is unique to Deutero-Isaiah. Probably original to 46:6
( , and [the craftsman] makes it a godthey bow down and
even prostrate themselves), it is re-used in the expansive 44:15, 17, 19.
24 Ps 22:28; 86:9; and elsewhere in Deut 26:10; 1 Sam 1:19.
52 Auld
No prostration before other gods was a common biblical demand. But it

is less easy to determine when kneeling before Yahweh was first positively
articulated. Other gods are frequently dismissed as unworthy of attention on
the ground that they are simply human fabrications. Here too Book IV of the
Psalms repays closer inspection. ( a casting) and its close associate
(a carving) appear only once each in the Psalterand not just in the very
same Bk IV as includes such dense usage of but also in immediate
association with two of these instances:
95:6
96:9
97:7
99:5
99:9
106:19
The two relevant passages state Let all servants of a carved object, who boast
in idols, be ashamed; prostrate yourselves to him, all gods (Ps 97:7) and They
made a calf at Horeb and prostrated themselves to a cast object (106:19).
Pss 97 and 106 may be an unintended pairing, with gods in Ps 97:7 called
on to acknowledge Yahweh, while Israels fathers had exchanged the glory of
God for the image of an ox that eats grass (106:20)! As noted by Anja Klein,
the kingship of Yahweh collection (Pss 93100) may once have concluded an
earlier Psalter consisting of most of Pss 2100.25 The narrative pair 105106 may
also have been relatively late members of the expanded Psalm c ollection.26
However that may be, the long historical review in the final Psalm of Bk IV,
with its mention of prostration before a cast idol (106:19), is significantly
anticipated by briefer reviews within the kingship of Yahweh collection in
Pss 95 and 99.
The Venite makes the first reference to prostration in Book IV (95:6), and by
including two broad synonyms it underlines the importance of self-abasement
before Yahweh. It then moves immediately to the first historical reminiscence
in that book (95:7b11), which opens
( Today, if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as at
Meribah, as on the day of Massah in the wilderness.). The link between histori-
cal reminiscence and proper approach to Yahweh is also emphasized, though
25 Anja Klein, Geschichte und Gebet. Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen
des Alten Testaments (FAT, 94), Tbingen 2014, 299.
26 Klein, 304306.
differently, in Ps 99. The opening call to praise the exalted god culminates in
v. 5: Extol Yahweh our god
and prostrate yourselves to his footstoolholy is he. The following reminis-
cence of the relationship with Yahweh enjoyed by Moses, Aaron, and Samuel
(vv. 68) is then capped (v. 9) by a closing repetition of v. 5. Only in Pss 95:7b11
and 99:68 within Pss 90100 do we find an appeal to historical memory; and
on both occasions the appropriateness of prostration to Yahweh is not simply
noted but is stressed.
If the Assyrian envoy (orbetterthe author of the Hezekiah narrative)
knew the Psalms, and especially the Venite, he would have been aware of the
importance of self-abasement in worship. However that may be, it was not from
the Psalmsor indeed anywhere else in the Hebrew Biblethat he learned
about prostration before Yahwehs altar. Only five psalms mention an altar,27
and none of these says anything about bowing or prostrating. There is good
reason to believe that the Judahite historian responsible for the shorter narra-
tive on which both Kings and Chronicles are based was mocking an Assyrian
envoy misinformed about the details of Hezekiahs cultic reforms.28
27 Ps 26:6; 43:4; 51:21; 84:4; 118:27.

28 The published version of the twin-study (see n. 1 above) will engage more fully with
the wide-ranging and clearly written study by Song-Mi Suzie Park of Hezekiah and the
Dialogue of Memory (Emerging Scholars), Minneapolis 2015. While there is very much to
welcome, she continues to represent the wide consensus that the envoys words about
this/one altar reflect the narrators own view of Hezekiahs reforming actions.
I am a God and Not a Human Being: The Divine
Dilemma in Hosea
Samuel E. Balentine
What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? The question posed by

Tertullian (ca. 155240 CE) marks a longstanding divide between reason and
faith, theology and philosophy. To look toward Greece for philosophical insight
into the nature and character of God, Tertullian argued, leads to heresy.1 A num-
ber of recent works, including some by biblical scholars, have mounted a new
(renewed) challenge to Tertullians supposition.2 Perhaps inadvertently, these
emerging philosophical approaches to the Hebrew Bible have intersected with
a growing number of studies that explore lexical and thematic connections
between the Old Testament and Greek literature during what Walter Burkert
describes as the orientalizing period (ca. 750650 BCE), the formative epoch
of Greek civilization.3
1 The context for Tertullians question is instructive: Unhappy Aristotle! Who invented for
these men dialectics, the art of building up [arguments] and pulling [them] down; an art
so evasive in its propositions,...so productive of contentionsembarrassing even itself,
retracting everything, and really treating of nothing!...[W]hen the apostle would restrain
us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against.
Writing to the Colossians, he says: See that no one beguile you through philosophy and
deceit after the tradition of men....He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews [with
the philosophers] become acquainted with that wisdom which pretends to know the truth,
while it only corrupts it....What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord
can there be between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?
(Prescriptions Against Heretics, 7.1522).
2 For the purposes of this paper, see especially, J. Gericke, The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy
of Religion, Atlanta 2012; Y. Hazony, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, Cambridge 2012;
J. Barton, Ethics in Israel, Oxford 2014; S. Sekine, Philosophical Interpretations of the Old
Testament (BZAW, 458), Berlin 2014.
3 W. Burkert, Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, Heidelberg
1984; ET: The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early
Archaic Age (transl. M. Pinder, W. Burkert), Cambridge/London 1992. The literature on this
orientalizing period is extensive. In addition to multiple works by Burkert, see especially
B. Janowski et al. Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und
dem Alten Testament (OBO, 129), Freiburg 1993; M.L. West, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic
Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford 1997. Burkert notes that reading the Hebrew Bible
alongside the Greek classics was commonplace well into the eighteenth century. For a variety

I am a god and Not a Human Being 55
This paper seeks to contribute to this larger conversation about Athens

and Jerusalem. My focus on Hos 11:9 relocates Tertullians question: What does
Hosea have to do with Homer (or Hesiod)? More specifically, I invert the logic
of the question. If Hos 11:9 is the answer to some sort of divine dilemma
I am God (or a god, ) and not a human, that is, I am this kind of god but not
that kind of godthen what were the presenting metatheistic and metaethi-
cal questions about divinity that shaped the world of this text? My exploration
comprises three parts: 1) a gods El-ness; 2) transcultural distinctions between
divine and human portfolios; and 3) the interface between divine moralizing
and moralizing about the divine.
1 A Gods El-ness
The Book of Hosea comprises a metanarrative of Israels history from an eighth

century Judean perspective.4 Beginning with a review of the exodus from Egypt
and the covenant between God and Israel, it tracks major episodes of Israels
violation of covenant demands, Gods punishment, focused in the fall of the
state, and the promise of restoration at some future but undefined time. From a
structural standpoint, chapter 11 occupies the space between punishment and
restoration. It begins with a rehearsal of the past, when God called the people
out of Egypt, led them with bonds of love through the wilderness and into the
land of Canaan, but was spurned by their decision to love other gods (vv. 14).
It then summarizes Gods consequent and immanent judgment, manifest in
Israels subjugation by Assyria (vv. 57), which, however, will not be the end,
for as the last verses of the chapter announce, God resolves to rescind the judg-
ment and restore the relationship (vv. 1011). Verses 89 are the pivot between
judgment and restoration. Why does God decide to move from burning anger
of reasonsphilological, ideological, and theologicalit was thought important to sever

the link between Indo-European languages and Semitic languages, and more fundamen-
tally between East and West (The Orientalizing Revolution, 16). For a critique of essential-
ist arguments about racial distinctions between Greek and Semitic languages and cultures,
see S. Arvidson, Aryan Idols. Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, Chicago/
London, 2006; C. Lpez-Ruiz, When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near
East, Cambridge 2010, 122.
4 E. Ben Zvi, Hosea (FOTL, 21A/1), Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2005, 228. Cf. J.M. Bos, who
argues for a date in the late sixth or early fifth century BCE but does not address Hos 11:89
(J.M. Bos, Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea: The Case for a Persian-
Period Yehud [LHBOTS, 580], New York/London, 2013).
56 Balentine
( ) to burning compassion (
() 1:8)? The answer has some-
thing to do with Gods El-ness: Because I am a god ( ) not a mortal () .
The standard approach to understanding the Hebrew word ( and )
and its two plural forms, and , uses cognate forms in other Semitic
languages (Akkadian ilu/ilanu; Ugaritic il/ilm) to construct what Mark Smith
calls the historiography about divinity in the ancient Near East.5 The basic
contours of the history that moves from notions of multiple gods in ancient
Near Eastern literatures to one-god theism in ancient Israel, from conceptual-
izing El and Yhwh as different deities to collapsing them into a single divine
figure, are well known and need not be rehearsed here.6 It is sufficient for my
purposes to note that Hosea scholars have long understood the message of
this book to revolve around the prophets indictment of the northern kingdom
for worshipping the Canaanite deities El and Baal.7 Scott Chalmers succinctly
states this position: Just as Hosea proclaims that it was Yahweh, not Baal, that
lavished grain and wine and oil on Israel in 2.10, in Hosea 1113 the prophet
insists that it was Yahweh, not El, who appeared to Jacob and who brought
Israel up from Egypt.8
Hoseas insistence that Yhwh alone is the true God,9 that is, the true El, has
usually been understood to reflect Israels movement toward one-god theism
during the eighth to the sixth centuries, when vassalage to Assyria required
5 M.S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World, Grand
Rapids/Cambridge 2008, 149; cf. idem, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities
in Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids 2002 (second edition); The Memoirs of God: History, Memory,
and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis 2004.
6 Recent studies describe a three-step process in Israels movement toward monotheism:
convergence, differentiation, and accommodation. For a summary of the discussion, see
R.P. Bonfiglio, God and Gods, in: S.E. Balentine (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and
Theology, vol. I, Oxford 2015, 41226.
7 In Hos 13, the focus is on Baal; in 411 on El. For a concise overview, see J.A. Dearman, The
Book of Hosea (NICOT), Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2010, Appendix 1: Baal in Hosea, 34951.
For a dissenting view, see B. Kelle, Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective,
Atlanta 2005, 13752.
8 R.S. Chalmers, The Struggle of Yahweh and El for Hoseas Israel, Sheffield 2008, 241242
(emphasis original). Chalmers argues (8791) that Hoseas El polemic is directed not toward
past sins of Baal worship at Baal-peor (Num 25) but instead at present apostasy in Bethel,
where Hoseas opponents misidentify Yhwhs compassion as that of the kindly one, El, the
compassionate (ltpn il dpid; e.g., KTU 1.4.IV.58; 1.6.III.4, 10,14; 1.16.V.23).
9 Chalmers notes the importance of the repeating personal pronoun I ( ;11:3, 9; 12:1011;
13:45), which is strategically located at places where there is potential confusion about the
identity (or agency) of the deity, thus his translation of 11:8: For I and I alone am l and not a
mortal, the Holy One in your midst (ibid., 78).
absolute loyalty to the Assyrian king, who embodied the will of the imperial
Assyrian god.10 To subvert Assyrian hegemony,11 so the argument goes, Israel
separated itself not only from the gods of its overlord but also from its own
polytheistic heritage, what Patrick Miller has called the the gods in Yahweh.12
From this perspective, Gods El-ness emerges out of and responds to transcul-
tural god-talk in Mesopotamia and Canaan.
Another way of understanding Gods El-ness is more philosophically
oriented.13 One may frame the issue so as to clarify the essential (as opposed to
accidental or contingent) characteristics of a god. In other words, rather than
asking who is a god?, which focuses on the matter of identity, we may ask
what is a god?, or to use the language of divinity in the Hebrew Bible and other
ancient Near Eastern texts, what is an ? 14 Baal, Hadad, Shamash, and Yhwh
may each be Els, but what essential qualities do they share that distinguish
them conceptually from other entities in the ancient world? Gericke proposes
a philosophical formulation of the issue: For any entity x, x is an if and only
if a, b, c, and so on.15
No attempt to formulate a definitive list of the essential properties of El-ness
is likely to go unchallenged. If only because of the limitations imposed by this
paper, I will not risk the effort here (but see below, section II). Nonetheless,
10 M.S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israels Polytheistic Background and the
Ugaritic Texts, New York/Oxford 2001. On the same issue considered from the perspec-
tive of both the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman period, see M.L. West, Toward
Monotheism, in: P. Athanassiadi, M. Frede (eds), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity,
Oxford 1999, 2140.
11 On the important contrast between cross-cultural exchange that unintentionally dif-
fuses shared motifs and ideologies and that which intentionally subverts them, see
E. Otto, Assyrian and Judean Identity: Beyond the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,
in: D.S. Vanderhooft, A. Winitzer (eds) Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature.
Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist, Winona Lake 2013, 33947.
Cf. P. Machinist on the inversion of Assyrian royal inscriptions in First Isaiah (Assyria
and Its Image in the First Isaiah, JAOS 103 [1983], 221226; idem, Final Response: On the
Study of the Ancients, Language, and the State, in: S. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing,
Origin of Cultures (OIS, 2), Chicago 2006, 291300).
12 P.D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, London/Louisville 2000, 2528.
13 In the following paragraphs, I draw upon the work of Gericke, The Hebrew Bible and
Philosophy of Religion, especially chapters 1011.
14 Cf. Smith, Origins of Monotheism, 102103; idem, Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People),
in: J. Day (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (JSOTSup, 422), London/New York
2005, 327; M.S. Smith, W.T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. II. Introduction with Text,
Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.31.4 (VTS, 114), Leiden/Boston 2009, 6667.
15 Gericke, Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, 265.
58 Balentine
let me extrapolate from the work of those who have explored the what is a
god? question one important consideration that has thus far been missing
from the standard commentaries on Hos 11:9. If one looks for a fully generic
concept of godhood that has bearing on Israels religious and cultural devel-
opment in the eighth to the sixth centuries, then the arc of transcultural cul-
tural discourse should include Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Greece. There is
now an abundance of evidence for the traffic of commerce and ideas between
the ancient Near East and Greek cultures during the Mycenaean and Minoan
periods, roughly 14501050 BCE.16 Moreover, we know that the expansion of
the Neo-Assyrian Empire, especially from the time of Tiglath-Pileser III, put
not only Israel and Judah at risk, but also Greek cities in Asia Minor.17 If the
Gilgamesh Epic can justifiably be called the Odyssey of the Babylonians,18
then we should at least allow for a similar interface between Hoseas El-God
and Homers Zeus-god, especially because we know that at least by the time of
Philo (first- or second-century CE), El-god traditions were explicitly identified
with Kronos-Zeus traditions.19 In short, we may suppose that in the cultural
koin20 of the Late Bronze-Early Iron period generic god-talk, arcing from West
16 For an early but frequently neglected assessment by Cyrus Gordon, see Homer and the
Ancient Near East, in: C.H. Gordon, G. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East,
New York/London 1997 (originally published in 1965). Since the 1980s, study of the inter-
connectedness of Mesopotamian, Northwest Semitic, and Greek mythologies and reli-
gious systems has steadily increased. The following may be singled out: M. Bernal, Black
Athena: the Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Vol. 1: The Fabrication of Ancient
Greece: 17851985, London 1987; idem, Black Athena: the Afroasiatic Roots of Classical
Civilization. Vol. 2: the Archaeological and Documentary Evidence, New Brunswick 1991;
W. Burkert, Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture, Cambridge
2004; West, The East of Helicon; C. Lpez-Ruiz, Gods, Heroes, and Monsters: A Sourcebook
of Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern Myths, Oxford 2013.
17 On the dynamics of the Mesopotamian expansion to the East and the Greek expansion to
the West in the Late Bronze period, see West, The East Face of Helicon, 60630.
18 A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, Chicago 1949. On the influ-
ence of the intellectual history of the ancient Near East, see now M. Van De Mieroop,
Philosophy Before the Greeks: The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia, Princeton 2015.
19 Eusebius, Preparatio evangelica, 1.10.44. For text and translation, see H.W. Attridge,
R.A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Trans
lation, Notes (CBQMS, 9), Washington 1981, 6263. Herodotus, the putative fifth century
father of history, concluded that nations identify the same gods by different names. For
example, the Egyptians call Zeus Ammon (Histories, 2.42) and the Scythians call Zeus
Papaios (Histories, 4.59).
20 C. Lpez Ruiz uses the phrase cultural koin to describe the common cultural fea-
tures both in broad categories and in specific details...[that] existed in the ancient
to East, provided a common conceptualization of what it meant to equate

Baal, Yhwh, and Zeus with divinity.
2 Transcultural Distinctions Between Divine and Human Portfolios21
Hos 11 presupposes a generic distinction between an and an , but it

does not make explicit what properties differentiate one from the other. Pre-
sumably, there were certain assumptions about what constitutes divinity in
the ancient Near East, and no doubt we could compile a reasonable list of
these assumptions if that were the objective.22 Whatever essential proper-
ties of divinity may be on that list, they would necessarily derive from observable
Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies
and the Near East, Cambridge/London 2010, 179; cf. M. Finkelberg, Greeks and Pre-Greeks:
Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition, Cambridge 2005). The use of this lan-
guage identifies my approach as an intertextual one. I suggest Hosea and Homer draw
on a common stream of traditions (written or unwritten) about divinity. It is virtually
impossible to know for certain whether one text is clearly earlier than the other, therefore
I posit only a synchronic relationship between Hosean and Homeric concepts of divinity.
(Although, see B. Louden [Homers Odyssey and the Near East, Cambridge 2011, 1213] on
the likelihood that Old Testament writers were influenced by Greek culture, at least by
the middle of the sixth century, rather than the other way around.) For a survey of the
current impasse between diachronic and synchronic approaches to intertextuality, see
G.D. Miller, Intertextuality in Old Testament Research, CBR 9 (2010), 283309.
21 I borrow the term portfolio from J.K. Davies, who argues that the tidiness and conve-
nience of names for god, such as Zeus, Siva, or Yahweh, is best understood as shorthand
for portfolios or packages of attributed imagined powers, but they, and especially the
overwhelmingly anthropomorphic way in which the Greeks [and the Hebrews] visual-
ized their gods, can all too easily tempt us to speak and think of them as persons in ways
which, if adopted incautiously, send ontologically misleading messages. We have there-
fore to reach round the name to the portfolio, and to the men and women in whose minds
that portfolio had a meaning if we are to be able to trace the ways in which the profile, or
person, or imputed personality of this or that god, or set of gods, changes in the course of
generations (The Moral Dimension of Pythian Apollo, in: A.B. Lloyd [ed.], What is a God?
Studies in Greek Divinity, London 1997, 44).
22 M. Smith, for example, discusses a number of possible ways to address the question What
is an ilu [god]? (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 69). Numerous studies of Greek
literature pursue the same question, although they are rarely referenced by biblical schol-
ars. In addition to the standard introductions to Greek religion, which typically discuss
the nature of Greek divinity, see, for example, E. Ehnmark, The Idea of God in Homer,
Stockholm 1935; K. Hack, God in Greek Philosophy to the Time of Socrates, New York 1931,
and the collection of essays in Lloyd (ed.), What Is a God?
60 Balentine
human characteristics that have been conceptualized as supra-human, which

is to say, supernatural, transcendent. Human beings are mortal, gods are
immortal; human power is limited; divine power is (or seems to be) unlimited;
humans do not have all wisdom, gods do, and so on. In a fundamental sense,
all gods, insofar as humans can conceive of them, are human constructions.
They are imagined anthropomorphic perfections. Conversely, humans at their
very best are but theomorphic imperfections.23
There is, however, a curious tension between gods and humans at just this
point. Humans seem inevitably to aspire to divinity. They want to live forever,
to know everything, control everything, in essence, to transcend all human
limitations. Indeed, such aspirations, which are always thwarted by the gods,
are at the heart of most cosmogonies in the ancient world, including the
creation stories in Genesis. Gods, on the other hand, do not typically aspire
to be more like humans. They do not yearn to die or to be vulnerable to any
of the instabilities that afflict humans, such as age, illness, or fatigue. Because
their power knows no limits, they have no need for courage. Because they have
all knowledge, it is pointless for them to seek wisdom. Gods do whatever they
do without constraint or assessment, therefore human concepts like right and
wrong, just and unjust, are irrelevant to their world. Nothing about the nature
of human life, therefore, would be attractive to a god. They might admire one
human virtue or another, but only because they found it entertaining from
a spectators perspective. As long as the spectacle held their attention they
might watch, but they would not be tempted to give up their place in the divine
audience.24 Within the Near Eastern nexus of this fundamental distinction
between the divine and the human, there is nothing unusual or special about
Hoseas Yhwh-god saying, I am not a mortal () .25 Presumably, no one
hearing these words in an eighth century world would have thought otherwise.
It is not the denial of mortality that is curious. It is instead the implicit
affirmation that because Yhwh is a certain kind of -god, which necessarily
23 So, for example, Ralph Waldo Emerson: A man is a god in ruins, Nature, Boston 1836.
24 On the activity of humans on earth as ein Schauspiel fr die Gtter, see H. Frnkel,
Die homerischen Gleichnisse, Gttingen 1977, 3233.
25 Hos 11:9 is often compared with other texts that contrast God with some aspect of human-
ity, principally Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29; and Ezek 28:2 (cf. Isa 31:3). The texts in Numbers
and 1 Samuel contrast Gods reliability or consistency with that of a mortal: God will not
change his mind or deceive. (Num 2224 indicates that Yhwh was readily identified as
El inside and outside Israel, at least as early as the ninth century.) The Ezekiel text reports
Yhwhs rebuke of the King of Tyre, whose pride leads him to claim divinity: You have
said I am a god () ...but you are a mortal ( ) and not a god ( ; 28:2; cf. v. 9).
means he is not human, he will not come against in Israel in wrath.26 What are
the metatheistic assumptions behind such an assertion?27 Two considerations
merit attention.
1). Perhaps the rhetorical strategy of this verse, like that of the chapter as
a whole, is to utilize anthropomorphic language, which is always a necessary
conduit for god-talk, to emphasize that this Yhwh-god loves, feels anger, and
grieves like any normal parent, but is not bound by parental norms when it
comes to deciding whether to forgive or to punish.28 This is a reasonable read-
ing of the verse, and some version of it has characterized much of Hosea com-
mentary at least since the Patristic period.29
26 The waw affixed to the negative particle in v. 9b is ambiguous and can be read either
conjunctively or disjunctively. MT, LXX, and Vulgate read , I will not come
into the city, which contextually would seem to mean, I will not come into the city to
execute my anger (but see F.I. Anderson, D.N. Freedman, Hosea [AB, 24], Garden City
1983, 589). Alternatively, may be from the root II, inflame, thus, I will not become
enraged (H.W. Wolff, Hosea [Hermeneia], Philadelphia 1974, 193).
27 Gericke defines metatheistic assumptions as presuppositions regarding the divine condi-
tion, a term that encompasses the totality of the experience of being divine (The Hebrew
Bible and Philosophy of Religion, 276; cf. ibid., Whats a God? Preliminary Thoughts on
Meta-theistic Assumptions in Old Testament Yahwism(s), Verbum et Ecclesia 27 [2006],
8567).
28 The issue of anthropomorphic language to describe divinity in the ancient world is too
complex to be addressed in this context. In a forthcoming paper, I will contrast anthro-
pomorphic language used in the Hebrew Bible with that applied to Zeus and the gods in
Homeric literature. One striking difference may be noted preliminarily. Hosea is a prime
example of what is overall a positive embrace of Yhwhs fundamental humanness. That
God loves like a parent or a spouse is considered a good illustration of divine tender-
ness and compassion. Homer and to a lesser degree Hesiod use similar anthropomorphic
language to describe Zeus, and while their intentions may have been positive, they were
roundly criticized and condemned by their readers, especially Xenophanes, Plato, and
Aristotle. See, for example, Longinus, who strongly criticized Homer for making the men
in the Illiad gods and the gods men. What is necessary, Longinus countered, was to repre-
sent the gods as pure and truly great and unalloyed [with anthropormorphism] (On the
Sublime, 9.89). To the degree that such consternation was not likely limited to Aegean
cultures in the eighth to sixth centuries, we may speculate that something similar lies in
the background of Hoseas attempt to assure his readers that, on the one hand, God is like
a mortal (e.g., Hos 11:14), and on the other, that God is not like a mortal (11:9).
29 E.g., Jerome: I will not act according to the passion of my anger, nor will I be charged
entirely from my compassion in order to ruin Ephraim. For I do not smite to destroy for
good, but rather to correct. My cruelty is an opportunity for penitence and piety. For
I am God and not man. Whereas a man punishes to destroy, God reproaches to emend
(PL 25, 920). Cf. Cyril of Alexander: I will not destroy Ephraim entirely even though he
62 Balentine
Such a reading, however, does not explain why God should be indecisive
about how to deal with Israel (see Hos 6:4), or why God experiences such a
tumult of conflicting emotions,30 or why, whatever action God may be con-
sidering, the decision has anything to with being an . The conventional
explanation would be that Hoseas author intends to draw a sharp contrast
between two different gods, the Canaanite god El and the Israelite God Yhwh.
But would such a contrast have been necessary? That there was temptation
toward Baal worship in Israel during the eighth century seems plausible.31 But
was there reason to believe that the gods of Canaan were typically internally
conflicted when it came to executing punishment? Was there some Canaanite
tradition known to Hoseas audience in which El or Baal would be described
as saying to himself, Should I do X or should I do Y? Was it supposed that
a Canaanite El would feel internal constraint before exercising divine power
in the human world? I see no evidence that such internal musing, let alone
became wicked. For what reason? Did they not deserve to suffer this? Yes, he says, but I am
God, not a man, that is to say, good, not one conceding victory to the angry emotions, for
such passion is merely human (PG 71, 273 A). On Patristic interpretations, see E.J. Pentuic,
Long-Suffering Love. A Commentary on Hosea with Patristic Annotations, Brookline
2008. Dearman represents the continuation of this line of interpretation: Yhwh will
not...carry out a judgment that from a human point of view is expected and deemed
necessary. He is divine, not human, and thus free to act in ways that transcend human
limitations (and also human points of view). (The Book of Hosea, 290; cf. J.P. Kakkanattu,
Gods Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea, Tbingen 2006).
30 The interrogative in Hos 11:8 (2) connotes self-accusation. The verb , turn over,
overthrow signals that Gods heart is at war with itself. The same verb, used with refer-
ence to the question whether God should treat Israel like Admah and Zeboiim, occurs in
Gen 19:25, 29 to describe Gods treatment of sinful Sodom and Gomorrah. Critical analysis
of Genesis 1819 confirms, however, that an original report of Gods decision to punish
was complexified by the insertion of the report that Moses insisted God think more care-
fully about divine intentions (Gen 18:2231). The net result of this addition to the text
is the suggestion that God was not internally conflicted about the decision but should
have been. For a recent effort to reclaim Genesis 1819 as the hermeneutic lens for inter-
preting Hos 11:89, see F. Lindstrm, I am God and not Human (Hos 11,9): Can Divine
Compassion Overcome our Anthropomorphisms?, SJOT 29 (2015), 13561.
31 But see Kelle, who argues that there is no evidence, biblical or extra-biblical, to support
the conventional assumption of widespread Baal worship in the eighth century. In his
view, it is more likely that the infrequent references to the term , overlord in Hosea
(7 total, four of which are in Hos 2) are metaphors signaling Israels unwise and disloyal
political alliances (Hosea 2, 13752). If, as Kelle maintains, there was no reason in Hoseas
world to confuse Yhwhs El-ness with Baals El-ness, then we have another reason to look
elsewhere for the context of the god-talk in Hos 11:9.
internal conflict, was in any way characteristic of Canaanite deities. Indeed,

quite to the contrary, Ugaritic texts typically focus on conversations between
the gods, not between the gods and humans, and while El may on occasion
ask for the help or cooperation of other gods, there are no indications that El
or Baal lacks either sufficient wisdom or resolve when it comes to exercising
divine power.32
2). If, however, we expand the horizons of transcultural god-talk in the
eighth to the sixth century beyond Israels eastern and northern neighbors,
then we may look to the west and to notions of divinity in Homeric Greece.33
The El-god in Greece is Kronos; Zeus, his son, is generically analogous to Baal.34
Zeuss portfolio includes superior powerin ancient Greece as in all cultures
a powerless god is a contradiction35but not unlimited power. He may dis-
pense both good and evil without constraint, capriciously so if he wants, but
his power is always subordinate to fate or destiny (). The one thing the
gods cannot do is to protect the living from death.36 Athena spells out her
limitation in conversation with Telemachus: Death that is common to all not
even the gods themselves can ward off even from a man they love, whenever
the fell fate () of pitiless death strikes him down (Odyssey, 3.239). The
gods have the advantage over mortals of knowing in advance what Moira
32 The machinations of the deities in the Baal Cycle, especially of Baal and Mot, are perhaps
most representative of the gods typical behavior. The questions posed by El in the story
of Kirta (CTA 1416 = KTU 1.1416; cf. the similar situation of Danil in the Aqhat Epic),
Who among the gods will heal Kirta, is somewhat different, but in this instance the issue
is who will execute Els decision that Kirta be healed, not whether the healing should be
executed.
33 An increasing number of biblical scholars are examining textual and thematic connec-
tions between biblical texts of various genres and pre-Socratic Greek texts, e.g., J. Van
Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical
History, New Haven 1983; S. Mandell, D.N. Freedman, The Relationship between Herodotus
History and Primary History, Atlanta 1993); F.A.J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus
and the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 251), Sheffield 1997; J.W. Wesselius, The Origin
of the History of Israel: Herodotuss Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible
(JSOTSup, 345); Sheffield 2002; P. Niskanen, The Human and Divine in History: Herodotus
and the Book of Daniel (JSOTSup, 396), London, 2004); Louden, Homers Odyssey and the
Near East, with essays on connections between Odyssey and Gen 1819 (3056), Jonah
(16479), and 1 Sam 28 (197221), for example.
34 For the equivalence of Canaanite El to Greek Kronos traditions in different sources
throughout antiquity, see Lpez-Ruiz, When the Gods Were Born, 15867.
35 Cf. J.K. Davies, The Moral Dimension of Pythian Apollo, in What is a God?, 4364.
36 In Hesiods genealogy of the gods, Night begets both black Fate (, ) and
Death () (Theogony, 211).
64 Balentine
has determined. They may exercise their power to protect mortals from a
premature death, as when Poseidon counsels Aeneas to walk away from the
fight with Peleus, lest his death move him beyond what fate has decreed (Iliad,
20.336: ), but once the end has come, the gods must give way as fate
takes its course.
At this pivotal moment between a mortals life and death, Homer describes
the Greek gods as facing a dilemma not unlike that which Hosea imagines for
Yhwh. The moment when Zeus must decide whether he might save Hector
from death at the hand of Achilles provides apt illustration. Seeing that the
end is near, Zeus is filled with sorrow (Iliad, 22.168169), because Hector had
always served him loyally. Zeus asks the other gods if there is any way they can
change the outcome. Athena answers for all: A mortal man, doomed long since
by fate (), are you minded to free from dolorous death? Do it; but be sure
we other gods do not at all assent to it (22.178179). Conceding the inevitable,
Zeus pretends that he was only joking. He lifts up the golden scales (
) of justice, the balance for Hector sinks down toward the realm of
death, and Apollo leaves him to his defeat (22.209210).37
The thematic similarities between Homers Zeus-god and Hoseas Yhwh/
El-god make at least one difference between the two stand out. Zeus is a spec-
tator, looking on from a distance as judgment decreed becomes judgment
enacted. He may (or may not) grieve the situation, but he has no power to
change the outcome.38 Yhwh looks on as his own judgment against Israel
becomes too grievous to enact. Israels sin is clear and its judgment is in order,
but on Yhwhs scales of justice divine compassion outweighs divine anger.39
Hosea identifies Yhwh as an El-god, but in this particular case there is reason
to wonder if his primary objective is to differentiate Yhwh from Zeus rather
than Baal.
37 For similar references to the (golden) scales of the gods justice, see Iliad, 8.69; 16.659.
38 Cf. Iliad, 20.2022, which describes Zeus as contently looking on from Olympus as the
Greeks and Trojans slaughter each other: I care for them, even though they die. Yet for
myself I will remain here sitting in a fold of Olympus, from which I gaze and give my mind
enjoyment ( ).
39 Dearman usefully connects the description of Yhwhs (com)passion in Hos 11 to Exod
34:67, which he describes as one of Hoseas base texts (Hosea, 291).
3 Divine Moralizing, Moralizing about the Divine: I am a god and not

a mortal, and therefore I exercise justice in this way, not that way
The context for this affirmation is Hoseas certainty that the fall of the northern
state of Israel is immanent. Israel was not of course the first nation state in the
ancient world to collapse. Sumer, Babylon, Ugarit, and Troy are but some of the
most obvious examples, each disappearing from the historical map long before
Israel. How does one account for such momentous historical events? Hosea is a
prophet, a spokesperson for divinity, and so we should expect him to view the
fall of Israel from a religious perspective. Homer and Hesiod are poets, not reli-
gious specialists; we should not be surprised that they have little or no interest
in analyzing the gods involvement in the fall of Troy. Even so, when it comes to
thinking about how an eighth century prophet tries to explain divine justice,
I suggest reading Hosea alongside pre-Socratic literature can be instructive.
The preface to Hesiods Theogony celebrates the birth, powers, and preroga-
tives of the gods. The Muses invite Hesiod to join them in praising the gods for
their contributions to two specific areas of human life, law and ethics: they
[the Muses] glorify all the laws () and cherished ethics ( ) of
the immortals (Theogony, 66).40 What Hesiod meant by the use of the terms
and is open to question. It is likely that the former refers to ordi-
nances, written or (more likely) oral, which provide external norms for public
behavior. , by contrast, which ultimately develops into the Aristotelian
concept of ethics, refers principally to the personal norms that guide life in
more private settings, such as the household and family.41 Hesiod was cer-
tainly not the first to use the theogonic genre to tie together the origin of the
world and the birth of the gods, but he may well have been the first to single
out explicitly law and ethics as the essential divine responsibilities to which
all others are subordinate. Moreover, the Proem introduces law and ethics
before the genealogy of gods, thus suggesting, albeit obliquely, that the gods
did not create the moral order of the cosmos but instead received and sus-
tained it. Here we may have the earliest iteration of the Euthyphro Dilemma:
is something moral because the gods command it, or do the gods command
something because it is moral?42
40 Theogony, 66: .
41 E.A. Havelock, Preface to Plato, Cambridge/London 1963, 6263; M.L.West, Hesiod:
Theogony, Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford 1966, 178.
42 On the Euthyphro Dilemma as a hermeneutic for assessing ancient Israels pre-Socratic
moral philosophy, see Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 12, 94, 260.
66 Balentine
Nevertheless, having introduced law and ethics, public ordinances and

personal values, as essential to Greek notions of divinity, Hesiod devotes very
little attention to either in any of his work. The same holds true for Homeric
writings.43 Homer does however use soliloquy as a form of divine speech,
although only of Zeus and only in two places (Iliad, 17.201208, 443455).
The infrequency of these soliloquys may signal Homers reluctance to talk
about the private thoughts of the gods,44 which in itself would differentiate
him from Hosea, but even when Homer permits himself to characterize the
divine thought process, his Zeus appears to think very differently from Hoseas
Yhwh. When Zeus spoke to his own heartabout Hectors immanent death
(17.201208), about Achilless horses, who mourn the death of Patroclus, their
charioteer (17.443455)he expresses regret about unfolding events, but he
has no desire to change the outcome.45 By contrast, Hoseas God seems caught
between what his own divine law requires and what his heart demands
(my heart revolts against me, 11:8), between the execution of public justice and
fidelity to private or personal values.46 Unlike Homer, Hosea does not shrink
from describing Gods moment of emotional turmoil; he exploits it.47 In doing
so, he provides readers with an education in divine moralizing. Presumably
43 For the discussion, see West, Hesiod, 178.

44 Homer shows no such reluctance in constructing soliloquies for human characters
(e.g., Iliad 11.40410 (Odysseus); 17:91105 (Hector); 18:614 (Antiolochus); 20.344352
(Achilles); 21.5463 (Achilles); 22.98130 (Hector); 22.297305. See E. Minchin, The Words
of God: Divine Discourse in Homers Illiad, in: A. Lardinois et al. (eds), Sacred Words:
Orality, Literacy and Religion (Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, 8), Leiden 2011,
1736.
45 Minchin, The Words of God: Divine Discourse in Homers Iliad, 2728.
46 In what has become the standard work on Old Testament ethics, E. Otto describes the
development from Recht, explicit or actual laws that are subject to the legal process, and
Ethos, the ethical ideals or principles that guide individual behavior (Theologische Ethik
des Alten Testaments [Stuttgart 1994]). Barton has demonstrated why Ottos focus on
legal and (to a lesser extent) wisdom materials to the exclusion of narrative, prophetic,
psalmic, and other biblical genres is an insufficient basis for assessing ethics in Israel
(Ethics in Israel, e.g., 1440).
47 Lindstrm argues that interpretations accenting a God against God understanding
of this text run the risk of transforming the pain of God into an internal transaction,
with which it is difficult to sympathize and to feel involved (I am God and Not Human
(Hos 11,9) 139). Perhaps so, but if the generative cultural context was the importance
of distinguishing between generic conceptualizations of divinity in the eighth to the
sixth century BCE, then the existential difficulty may be more modern (note the our in
the title of Lindstrms article) than ancient.
all El-gods superintend law and ethics, but none do so, Hosea insists, like
Israels El-god.
We may suppose that at least two models for divine moralizing (and mor-
alizing about the divine) were well known in Hoseas world. The dominant
model followed by Hoseas pre-exilic prophetic contemporaries (Amos,
Micah, First Isaiah) was based on a quid pro quo principle deeply engrained
in Deuteronomic law: if X is the crime, then Y is the punishment. The more
egregious the offense, the more severe is the punishment. Hosea clearly rec-
ognizes the usefulness of this model and appropriates it for explaining Gods
judgment of Israel, which he conveys in places with such violent language that
the stench of death permeates the entirety of his message, the words of com-
passion in 11:89 notwithstanding.48
Homeric literature exemplifies a second model for understanding the moral
character of divinity that would also have been well known in Hoseas world.
Israels eastern and western neighbors lived in multi-god cultures, where pri-
mary El-gods oversee justice without being credited or criticized for its execu-
tion, which is the responsibility of other, lower ranking, deities. In Hesiods
genealogy of the gods, Dike is the personification of justice and the daughter
of Zeus and Themes (Theogony, 901). Her assignment is to confront and over-
come injustice, Adikia, the daughter of Eris.49 Zeus remains above the fray of
any collateral damage that mortals may experience in the process. Human suf-
fering is irrelevant to divine sublimity. Hosea does not embrace this model as
such, although he would almost certainly have been aware of its appeal, espe-
cially as evidenced in wisdom traditions both inside and outside Israel.50
The presenting metaethical question is which of the two models for divine
moralizing, the Deuteronomic or the Homeric, provides the better hermeneu-
tic for reading Hosea? We should begin by refusing to eliminate the complexity
of this issue by settling for either-or choices. Dilemmas are dilemmas pre-
cisely because choices between multiple options are difficult to make. A gods
dilemma, if we may put it this way, will not likely be resolved by any mortals
solution. Conversely, any attempt at moralizing about divinity will reflect the
48 For examples of violent divine punishment, see Hos 2:3 [MT v.5], 4:5; 5:12, 14; 6:5; 9:12,16;
10:14; 11:6; 13:78.
49 As depicted in the sixth century amphora in the Kunsthistorische Museum, Vienna,
where Dike beats Adikia with a mallet; cf. Pausanias, Description of Greece 5.18.2.
50 A prime example is Job 3842, where divine majesty and mystery appears invulnerable
to human misery. On Job and the sublime, see C. Newsom, The Book of Job: a Contest of
Moral Imaginations, Oxford 2003, 23458; S.E. Balentine, Job (Smyth and Helwys Bible
Commentary), 2006, 625706.
68 Balentine
unavoidable limitations of human thought. Let me simply stipulate that the

author of Hosea knows and likely engages both these models in various ways.
Why will Israel fall? A part of Hoseas answer is that Israel has sinned and God
has justly punished; divine moralizing is an exercise in quid pro quo thinking.
Why will Israel fall? A part of Hoseas answer is that God has punished because
neither Gods justice nor Gods righteousness will be compromised; divine
moralizing does not render human suffering meaningless or irrelevant, but it
does relativize it.
I suggest that Hosea draws upon transcultural portfolios of generic divin-
ity, including available paradigms for divine moralizing, to construct an alter-
native approach to thinking about what the El-god known as Yhwh is doing
in his world. Hosea looks inside the gods mind, examines a thought process,
imagines a cognitive connection between an immortals mind and his heart.
What or where in Hoseas world is the template for doing such a thing? The
God for whom Hosea speaks is an El-god like others known to him, possessed
of immortality, superior power, and unequalled wisdom, but when Hosea
looks inside Yhwhs mind to find the key to understanding why he acts as he
does, he does not focus on any of these generic attributes of divinity. Instead
he speaks of Yhwhs compassion.51 On the one hand, Hosea anthropomor-
phizes this compassion in order to stress Gods freedom to transcend all human
limitations.52 In doing so, he follows common practice. How can one think
about divinity without the aid of anthropological moorings? On the other,
Hosea imagines that this Yhwh-God can transcend even divine limitations, a
kind of self-transcendence, which Hosea depicts as divine compassion exceed-
ing divine anger. Yhwh is both more than human-like and more than God-like.
51 For an additional indication of how deeply (pre)philosophical Hoseas thinking is at this

point, see the nineteenth century debate between Kant and Schopenhauer concern-
ing whether natural law or moral law is the better foundation for ethics. Criticizing the
Kantian notion of moral imperatives, Schopenhauer argued instead that the only genu-
ine moral incentive for ethical behavior is compassion: It is the everyday phenomenon
of compassion, of the immediate participation, independent of all ulterior consider-
ations, primarily in the suffering of another, and thus in the prevention or elimination
of it: for all satisfaction and all well-being and happiness exist in this. It is simply and
solely this compassion that is the real basis of all voluntary justice and genuine loving-
kindness. In introducing his argument for the importance of compassion, Schopenhauer
notes that philosophers of every age and land...and all gods, Oriental and Occidental,
owe their existence to a careful consideration of this most fundamental human virtue
(A. Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality, trans. E.F.J. Payne, with an Introduction by
D.E. Cartwright, Indianapolis/Cambridge 1995, 38, 144).
52 Cf. Otto, Theologische Ethik, 111.
In Hoseas world, we might say that Yhwh is not only more El than any other
El but also more Yhwh than Yhwh. My attempt to understand what Hosea
seems to be doing exhausts itself in redundancy, but in my defense how exactly
does one describe a God who is able to transcend divinity without forsaking
divinity?53 Divine dilemmas can only exacerbate human dilemmas.
We may extend this intellectual exercise one step farther. In providing his
audience an education in divine moralizing, Hosea himself is at the same time
moralizing about the divine. He moralizes about divine behavior by showing
how divinity, peculiarly manifest in Yhwh, moralizes about itself. In a pre-
Socratic world, where the formal conceptualization of philosophy (love of
learning) is as yet unarticulated, Hoseas author is already doing pre-moral,
philosophical work.
What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Almost certainly the question
is more ours than Hoseas. On the one hand, we may feel constrained to dismiss
the question, not because we agree with Tertullian that it is the height of heresy
to ask it, but because we regard it as simply irrelevant in the modern world. On
the other hand, we may know all too well that bridging theology and philoso-
phy pushes us to the farthest limits of what is humanly possible. But even here,
we may find that Athens and Jerusalem are joined in common cause:
My child, you have gone your way

To the outermost limits of daring
And have stumbled against Law enthroned.
The words are from Sophocles (Antigone), but if we did not already know the
attribution, we might well think they were biblical.
53 See above, n. 28. It is worth pondering whether the Greek ranking of mortals and immor-
talshighest gods, ordinary gods, heroes, ordinary mortals (who proceed though similar
stages, gold to silver to iron; e.g., Hesiod, Works and Days, 106201)may in some way
bespeak a sort of divine transcendence. If so, the transition from ordinary gods to ordi-
nary mortals via a heroic age seems more a lessening or loss of divinity than a heightening
of divinity.
Covenant, Agreement, and Law: The Social Code
Underlying the Book of Nehemiah
Bob Becking
1 Introduction
There areat leasttwo different ways to discuss trh and its tradition.
The first way is to discuss a section of the moral and religious code of ancient
Israel on its function and meaning. A second way is to analyse how this moral
and religious code of ancient Israel functions within the plot of a narrative
text. In this contribution, I would like to follow the second route by looking at
the function trh has in the narratives of the Book of Nehemiah.
At first sight the Book of Nehemiah seems to be a straightforward narrative
on the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the moral revival of the Yahwis-
tic community within those walls. The incitement, indications and influence
of Nehemiah, a cup-bearer of the Persian king who was allowed to visit Jeru-
salem, were decisive in the process. The events narrated start in the twentieth
year of the reign of Artaxerxes. Construing this king as Artaxerxes I Longima-
nus (465424), the events can be dated as starting in 445 bce. A closer look,
however, yield many problems and questions. A majority of scholars is of the
opinion that the present form of the Book of Nehemiah came into being as the
result of scribal activities that lead to the composition Ezra 1Neh 13. One
of the sources for this work had been the Nehemiah Memoir or Wall Building
Text, a first person report on the deeds and doings of this leading figure.1 What
was the extent of this source? Are all third-person passages in Nehemiah of
a redactional nature? Another question is whether Nehemiah went once or
twice to Jerusalem. This historical question is mirrored on the literary level by
1 See basically H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC, 16), Waco 1985, xxivxxviii; J. Becker,
Der IchBericht des Nehemiabuches als chronistische Gestaltung (FzB, 87), Wrzburg 1998;
T. Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichltlichen
Prgung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des IchBerichtes Nehemias (OBO, 183), Freiburg,
Gttingen 2002; J.L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers
(BZAW, 348), Berlin/New York 2004; K.-D. Schunck, Nehemia (BKAT, XXIII/2), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 2009, 40307; S. Burt, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformations of Genre in the
Nehemiah Memoir (JAJSup, 17), Gttingen 2014, 1945; B.M. Leung Lai, I-Voice, Emotion,
and Selfhood in Nehemiah, OTE 28 (2015), 15467.

Covenant, Agreement, and Law 71
the assumption that Nehemiah 13 originally must have been a separate narra-
tive. The mentioning of Ezra in Neh 8 as the person who presented the trh
before the community provokes a difficult discussion. Where the two compan-
ions? Who came first? At a literary level: can the books really be construed as
a redactional unit?
I am of the opinion that the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah emerged as sepa-
rate books.2 At a given moment in time the Nehemiah story and the Ezra report
were joined and edited as one book. This joining of the stories was probably
based on the mention of Ezra in the Nehemiah report.3 The moment at which
the two were brought together is difficult to determine. The earliest pieces of
evidence for the join are to be found in the manuscripts of the LXX that are to
be dated after the turn of the era: Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus.4
The Hebrew Codex L that treats Ezra-Nehemiah as one book is even later. In
Qumran, fragments of the Book of Ezra were found.5 A fragment of the Book of
Nehemiah, however, has not been found or published thus far.6
Nehemiah came first, the person as well as the bookat least its basic
layerare to be dated to the middle of the fifth century. In the Nehemiah
story, Ezra is only a minor character. Out of this minor character, a pseudepi-
graphic book came into being, known to us as the Book of Ezra. The book of
Ezra was composed around 400.7 The Book of Nehemiah was composed in the
fifth century bce. Before you start thinking that I am getting conservative in
2 I will not summarize the existing discussion here, very instructive are the essays in M.J. Boda,
P.L. Redditt (eds), Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader
(HBM, 17), Sheffield 2007.
3 Neh 8.
4 The Book of 1 Esdras being a Hellenistic composition based on three different Biblical Books
can therefore not be taken as evidence; see B. Becking, The Story of the Three Youth and
the Composition of First Esdras, in: L.S. Fried (ed.), Did First Esdras Come First? (AIIL, 7),
Atlanta 2011, 6171; M.F. Bird, 1 Esdras: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in
Codex Vaticanus (SCS), Leiden 2012, 14182; D. Bhler, 1 Esdras (IEKAT), Stuttgart 2015, 45107.
5 E. Ulrich e.a. in DJD XVI (2000); see also E. Ulrich, Ezra and Qoheleth Manuscripts from
Qumran (4QEzra and 4QQohAB), in: E. Ulrich e.a. (eds), Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: Essays
on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp
(JSOTSup, 149), Sheffield 1992, 13957.
6 Despite earlier rumours that a fragment of Nehemiah was found in Cave 4 at Qumran,
the publication by T. Elgvin, Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artifacts from
the Schyen Collection (LSTS, 71), London, New York 2015, does not contain a fragment of
Nehemiah.
7 Following to some degree the insights of Th. Willi, Esra: Der Lehrer Israels (Biblische
Gestalten, 26), Leipzig 2012; for a completely different view see J. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The
Development of Ezra 710 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW, 347), Berlin/New York 2004.
72 Becking
my old days, I would like to make two remarks. (1) A fifth century date for the
composition of the Book of Nehemiah does not imply a claim regarding
the historical reliability of the narrative. The story expresses a view on the rela-
tion between centre and periphery (Susa and Jerusalem) and on the way the
complex periphery needs to be organised in order to be a vital community that
is able to face the storms of time. (2) I accept a series of redactional additions
that have been made to appropriate the story to the Hellenistic era.
In this paper, I would like to detect the social code that is implied by or
referred to in the Book of Nehemiah by analysing words and phrases from the
relevant semantic domain.
2 A Confession of Trespasses (Neh 1:57)
After hearing about the fate of his ancestral city Jerusalem, Nehemiah utters
the word of a penitential prayer (Neh 1:511). This form of prayer is charac-
teristic for the postexilic period (Ezra 9:615; 2 Chr 33:13; Neh 1:511, 9:637;
Dan 9:419; Bar 1:153:8).8 Although these texts have some elements in com-
mon, a fixed form cannot be assumed as Hugh Williamson already argued.9
Nehemiahs penitential prayer contains the following elements: (1) general
confession of sin; (2) the acknowledgment of divine favour in history; (3) sum-
mons to God to turn to his people in a graceful way. The elements have been
composed in the following way:10
8 On these texts see: R.A. Werline, Penitential prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The develop-
ment of a religious institutions, Atlanta 1998; R.J. Bautch, Developments in Genre between
post-exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament (SBL Acedemia
Biblica, 7), Atlanta 2003; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 923; and the contributions to
the volumes: M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), Seeking the Favor of God. Vol. 1: The
Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Early Judaism and its Literature, 21),
Atlanta 2006; M.J. Boda et al. (eds), Seeking the favor of God. Vol. 2: The development of
penitential prayer in second temple Judaism (Early Judaism and its Literature, 22), Atlanta
2007; M.J. Boda et al. (eds), Seeking the Favor of God. Vol. 3: The Impact of Penitential
Prayer Beyond Second Temple Judaism (Early Judaism and its Literature, 23), Atlanta 2008;
M.J. Boda, Prayer as Rhetoric in the Book of Nehemiah, in: I. Kalimi, (ed.), New Perspectives
on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation,
Winona Lake 2012, 26784.
9 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 12729; see also J. Becker, Esra Nehemia (NEB, 25), Wrzburg
1990, 62; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 14.
10 This view differs slightly from M.A. Throntveit, EzraNehemiah (Interpretation),
Louisville 1992, 64, who argues for a concentric symmetry.
a. Appeal (1:5)
b. Summons to God to hear and see (1:6a)
c. Confession (1:6b7)
d. Summons to God to remember his double-faced command (89)
e. Characterisation of Israel as Gods people he once liberated (10)
f. Summons to God to hear and support his servant (11).
In this context, I would like to discuss Neh 1:57:
Yhwh, God of heaven, great and fearsome God.

You faithfully keep your covenant and your mercy
to those who love you and obey your commands.
Let your ear be attentive
and your eyes open to hear the prayer of your servant
that I am praying today for your presence day and night
for the Israelites, your servants.
I am confessing the trespasses of the Israelites
that they have sinned.
I, my family, and the rest of your people have sinned.
We have acted corruptly towards you
by not keeping the instructions, the teachings and the laws
you gave to Moses, your servant.11
The appeal to God contains a theology in a nutshell. The God of heaven is pre-
sented as great and fearsome. The Hebrew noun , fearsome, is semanti-
cally bi-polar. In can refer to a God who should be feared as well as to a God
who should be served or venerated.12 The expression has its origin in the tradi-
tion of the Psalms13 and is used in Job 37:22 in a similar double-sided way as in
Nehemiah.14 With this double-entendre a theme is introduced in Nehemiahs
prayer. The image of God in this prayer has two sides: punishment and salva-
tion. Next to that, Yhwh is portrayed as a God-in-relation.
11 See next to the commentaries R.J. Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The
Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHB/OTS, 471), London/New York 2009, 5051.
12 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 172; A.H.J. Gunneweg, Nehemia (KAT, XIX/2), Gtersloh
1987, 4748; Reinmuth, Bericht Nehemias, 44; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 18; Schunck,
Nehemia, 26.
13 See Pss 45:5; 65:6; 76:12; 99:3; 106:22; 145:6.
14 See also Neh 4:14; 9:32.
74 Becking
As in Ezra 10:1 the Hitp. of the verb expresses a confession of guild. The
character if this confession is rather general, as Williamson already remarked.
The collocation of the three nouns , and as object of the verb
recollect Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic phrasing.15 Next to that
Nehemiah construes himselfor is construed by the authoras an ,
servant. The noun occurs four times in Neh 1:511 mirroring Nehemiah and
Moses:
1:6 your servant (= Nehemiah)

1:7 your servant Moses
1:8 your servant Moses
1:11 your servant (= Nehemiah) in the midst of other servants.
Within the prayer this mirroring functions as a summons to God to save

Nehemiah and his people in a way comparable to the rescue of Moses. The noun
, servant, indicates a basic intention to keep the divine commandments.16
In sum: this section presents the divine moral code not in all detail, but
stresses the basic intention towards Gods commandments.
3 Social Justice in a Time of Drought (Neh 5:113)17
Neh 5 relates the fact that Nehemiah was confronted with poverty in his
surroundings. In my view, this poverty was induced by a drought leading to
crop failure, high prices and economic misery. How did Nehemiah deal with
that problem?
About the economic circumstances during the Persian period, not much is
known.18 Yehud was populated less densely than it was during the monarchic
15 See Becker, Esra Nehemia, 62; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111 (AB, 17), New York 1991, 336;
Gunneweg, Nehemia, 48; Th. Hieke, Die Bcher Esra und Nehemia (NSKAT, 9/2), Stuttgart
2005, 158; Schunck, Nehemia, 2628.
16 See also Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 15; Schunck, Nehemia, 27.
17 This section is based on B. Becking, Drought, Hunger, and Redistribution: A Social
Economic Reading of Nehemiah 5, in: P.R. Davies, D.V. Edelman (eds), The Historian and
the Bible Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe (LHB/OTS, 530), New York/London 2010,
13749.
18 See, however, H. Kreissig, Die sozialkonomische Situation in Juda zur Achmenidenzeit
(Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients, 7), Berlin 1973; W. Schottroff, Zur
Sozialgeschichte Israels in der Perserzeit, VuF 27 (1982), 4668; L.L. Grabbe, A History of
the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Volume 1 Yehud: A History of the Persian
Province of Judah (LSTS, 47), London, New York 2004, 194208.
period. Next to that, relatively few archaeological remains have been uncov-
ered. The evidence at our disposal nevertheless yields the following picture.
The economy was mainly of an agricultural character. Some traces of trade are
found, indicating the distribution of food. The results of tilling and herding
were meant for the local market. Luxury products were quite scarce.19
A backsliding into the more original phase of a kinship based economy
might have taken place. This assumption, however, is premature. I dont think
that life in Persian period Yehud can be pictured in the image of an idyllic com-
munity of poor but honest persons. A few threats were at the horizon that dis-
torts such a romantic picture.
1. The pre-exilic relations of family, kinship, and clan with their connected
social codes had disappeared. The group-internal solidarity with its sense
of corporate identity had slowly disappeared. This is connected with the
fact that land, acres, and vineyards no longer were bound to traditional
family possession.20
2. There are indications that during the Persian period, land was no longer
seen as part of a traditional system of kinship values. Land was only con-
strued as an economic factor.
3. Finally periods of drought21 lead to crop failure and the related poverty.
To an unsteady economy, crop failure can have a disastrous outcome.
Neh 5 narrates a story that can easily be understood as a reflection on the ways
people coped with drought and famine. In the opening section the outcry of
especially womenon their poor status is voiced:
Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against
their Jewish kin. For there were those who said,
With our sons and our daughters, we are many;
we must get grain, so that we may eat and stay alive.
19 See, e.g., E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. II: The Assyrian, Babylonian,
and Persian Periods (732332 BCE) (Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York 2001,
360582; E.S. Gerstenberger, Israel in der Perserzeit (Biblische Enzyklopdie, 8), Stuttgart
2005; O. Lipschits, The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the
Settlement History of the District System, in: M.L. Miller et al. (eds), The Economy of
Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context, Winona Lake 2015, 23763.
20 Thus the more tribal concept of faded away, although still mentioned at Neh 11:20.
21 Periods of droughts can be assumed on the basis of the variation of rainfall; I agree with
M.L. Miller, Nehemiah 5: A Response to Philippe Guillaume, JHS 10 (2010) # 13, that the
crisis was episodic and systemic.
76 Becking
There were also those who said,

We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our houses in
order to get grain during the famine.
And there were those who said,
We are having to borrow money on our fields and vineyards to pay
the kings tax. Now our flesh is the same as that of our kindred; our
children are the same as their children; and yet we are forcing our
sons and daughters to be slaves and some of our daughters have been
ravished; we are powerless, and our fields and vineyards now belong
to others.22
I will not discuss the question when this outcry was uttered. In the first
episodeNeh 5:15a threefold complaint is uttered: hunger, poverty, and
desperateness. These complaints are voiced by different groups as becomes
clear from the repetition of , there were some who said
(Neh 5:2, 3, 4). It is unclear whether three different social groups should be
assumed23 or that people in different phases of the process of impoverish-
ment are indicated.24 Besides, the cause of all this sadness is not narrated, but
I assume crop failure as a result of drought. The effect of crop failure is, how-
ever, hardened by the local economy. The victimsand I assume them to be
from the poorer classesare caught in a network of obligations. Their reserves
22 Neh 5:15; see, next to the commentaries, Reinmuth, Bericht Nehemias, 11659; Wright,
Rebuilding Identity, 16388; R.J. Bautch, The Function of Covenant across Ezra-Nehemiah,
in: M.J. Boda, P.L. Redditt (eds), Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric,
and Reader (HBM, 17), Sheffield 2007, 1418; J.Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase. The
Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2009, 115;
Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship, 10309; Ph. Guillaume, G. Mills, Paper
Crises and Crying Prophets: A Rejoinder to Marvin Lloyd Miller, SJOT 26 (2012), 4648,
who argue that the Persian system of taxation was not haphazard; J.L. Berquist, The shift-
ing frontier: The Achaemenid empires treatment of western colonies, Journal of World-
Systems Research 1 (2015), 4968.
23 As does Kreissig, Die sozialkonomische Situation, 7879; see also N.K. Gottwald,
The Expropriated and the Expropriators in Nehemiah 5, in: M.R. Sneed (ed.) Concepts of
Class in Ancient Israel (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 201), Atlanta 1999,
119; Schunk, Nehemia, 147; Guillaume, Mills, Paper Crises and Crying Prophets, 4546,
argue that it were the average farmers who complained and not only some marginal cul-
tivators (against Miller, Nehemiah 5).
24 Thus: H.G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Juda: eine religionswis-
senschaftliche Studie zum Verhltnis von Tradition und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung,
Gttingen 1982, 5562; see also D.L. Baker, Tight Fists Or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty
in Old Testament Law, Grand Rapids 2009, 9597; Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 113.
are emptied. They had to sell their plots of land and had mortgaged their acres
to pay off existing debts or to meet the requirements of the taxes.25 Loan
rates were about 4050% a year as can be deduced from Babylonian and Per-
sian economic inscriptions.26 Crop failure has expedited the way downward,
since the absence of a harvest implies the absence of means to pay off debts.
The people are standing desperately at the threshold of the abyss. The forces of
nature and the free market economy have caused a split in society with a bitter
and tragic outcome. In order to pay off their duties, these people have to sell
themselves or their children as slaves. In their complaint they invoke the tra-
ditional group-internal solidarity, as becomes clear from their language. Their
appeal is based on the idea of non-differentiation. They consider the others
as their brothers (Neh 5:1) and as people of the same flesh (5:5).27 Their com-
patriots seem to stand without emotion or sympathy at the other side of the
divide.28 Nehemiah, however, shows empathy based on a deeply felt fury:
I was very angry when I heard their outcry and these complaints. After
thinking it over, I brought charges against the nobles and the officials;
I said to them,
You are all taking interest from your own people.
And I called a great assembly to deal with them, and said to them,
As far as we were able, we have bought back our Jewish kindred who
had been sold to other nations; but now you are selling your own kin,
who must then be bought back by us!
They were silent, and could not find a word to say. So I said,
The thing that you are doing is not good. Should you not walk in the
fear of our God, to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies?
Moreover, I and my brothers and my servants are lending them money
and grain. Let us stop this taking of interest. Restore to them, this very
day, their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses,
25 On taxes see: Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 238; M. Heltzer, The Province of Judah and Jews
in Persian Times, Tel Aviv 2008, 16172.
26 See E. Neufeld, The Rate Interest and the Text of Nehemiah 5:11, JQR 44 (195354), 20304;
C.D. Gross, Is There Any Interest in Nehemiah 5?, SJOT 11 (1997), 27078; Blenkinsopp,
Judaism, 113114.
27 D. Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity, and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women
in Ezra 910 (JSOTSup, 350), London 2002, 93.
28 See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 23639; J.M. Halligan, Nehemiah 5: By Way of a Response
to Hoglund and Smith, in: P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1 (JSOTSup, 117), Sheffield
1991, 146153; Becker, Der Ich-Bericht des Nehemiabuches, 6267; Gerstenberger, Israel in der
Perserzeit, 9596; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 180188; Schunck, Nehemia, 14652.
78 Becking
and the interest on money,29 grain, wine, and oil that you have been
exacting from them.
Then they said,
We will restore everything and demand nothing more from them. We
will do as you say.
And I called the priests, and made them take an oath to do as they had
promised. I also shook out the fold of my garment and said,
So may God shake out everyone from house and from property who
does not perform this promise. Thus may they be shaken out and
emptied.
And all the assembly said,
Amen,
and praised Yhwh. And the people did as they had promised.30
Nehemiah shows compassion. Anger takes possession of him. He, never

theless, is not paralyzed by his emotions, but he proposes concrete measures:
Nehemiah carried a general amnesty for enslaved debtors and an annulment
of every mortgage on land.31 Against the grain of the dominant worldview, he
proposes a set of measures that economically can be labelled as redistribution.
Redistribution is one of the three major economic activities: exchange, gift,
and redistribution.32
Nehemiah proposes a redistribution of goods in order that the society
in Yehud in its entirety can face the future. This proposal is based on the
ancient concept of , Remission. Nehemiahs reaction on the outcry
of his desperate compatriots is not only steered by his anger or hisalbeit
29 For the interpretation of see especially Heltzer, The Province of Judah, 8386.
30 Neh 5:613; see next to the commentaries, Reinmuth, Bericht Nehemias, 11659; Wright,
Rebuilding Identity, 16388; Bautch, The Function of Covenant across Ezra-Nehemiah,
1418; Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship, 10309.
31 See N.P. Lemche, The Manumission of Slaves: The Fallow Year, the Sabbatical Year, the
Jobel Year, VT 26 (1976), 53.
32 On redistribution see, e.g., H. Uusitalo, Redistribution and Equality in the Welfare State:
An Effort to Interpret the Major Findings of Research on the Redistributive Effects
of Welfare State, European Sociological Review 1 (1985), 16376; G. Tullock, Economics
of Income Redistribution (Studies in Public Choice, 11), Boston 1997; C.B. Mulligan, The
Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy, Oxford
2013; on redistribution in the Ancient Near East see M. Silver, Karl Polanyi and Markets
in the Ancient Near East: The Challenge of the Evidence, The Journal of Economic History
43 (1983), 795829; P.M. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel (Library of
Ancient Israel), Louisville 1999, 195200.
intuitiveinsights in the economical mechanisms of his day. He also appropri-

ates the long-standing moral traditions of Ancient Israel as they are instructed
in the Book of Deuteronomy to the circumstances in Persian period Yehud as
they are instructed in the Book of Deuteronomy.33 As an answer to the social-
economic shifts in Iron Age Judah and Israel, the traditional obligation to have
the acres rest every seventh year has been appropriated and reformulated
by the author of the Book of Deuteronomy into an instruction to remit the
debts of the poor in order for them to have a new chance in life.34 This ,
remission, is hoped to function as an element of redistribution. The Hebrew
noun is derived from a verb that refers to an act of loosening. The
Israelites were summoned to have their claims loosened in order that their
compatriots could continue their lives without the millstone of debts around
their necks. The institution of the is an adequate means to avert social
contrast of too large a character in ancient Israelite society. The fact that the
prophet Jeremiahsupposedly living shortly after the reformation of king
Josiahinflamed several times in prophetic fury rebuking the Israelites for
not living according to the social code of Yahwism, can be construed as an indi-
cation that the local elite did not really want to implement this social system
of redistribution.35 The abyss of individualism and free-riders conduct was an
open option for the privileged in Judah.36
In sum, Nehemiah offered the appropriation of the ancient institution
of the as a strategy to cope with humanitarian disaster effected by
the drought. This institution is to be seen as a God-given instrument for the
33 Deut 15:16; see, e.g. M.J. Oosthuizen, Deuteronomy 15,118 in Socio-Rhetorical Per
spective, ZAR 3 (1997), 6491; Reinmuth, Bericht Nehemias, 16082; Baker, Tight Fists or
Open Hands?, 28185. The author of the Book of Deuteronomy reformulates stipulations
already given in the so-called Book of the Covenant: Exod 23:1011.
34 Lemche, The Manumission of Slaves, 3859; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels
in alttestamentlicher Zeit (GAT, 8/12), Gttingen 1992; E. Otto, Theologische Ethik des
Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft, 3/2), Stuttgart 1994, 24956; McNutt,
Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 195200; W. Dietrich, Theopolitik: Studien zur
Theologie und Ethik des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002, 18493; Hieke, Esra und
Nehemia, 174; Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 28185; Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 11315.
35 Jer 34:822; from the abundance of literature on that pericope, I refer to two recent
commentaries: J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 3752: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB, 21C), New York 2004, 54768; G. Fischer, Jeremia 2652 (HThKAT),
Freiburg 2005, 24261.
36 Lev 25:1317 is another postexilic text that takes the emih-institution as a norm for
social conduct; see also Otto, Theologische Ethik, 23556; Reinmuth, Bericht Nehemias,
16082; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 18085.
80 Becking
continuation of the community that, however, can never do without human

initiative. The legal traditions of Ancient Israel helped the community through
a difficult period. Mark Boda construed the narrative in Nehemiah 5 as texts
reflecting a covenant ceremony. He clearly makes a difference between pre-
exilic ceremonies, such as reflected in 2 Kgs 23 and post-exilic ceremonies the
main difference being that a text like 2 Kgs 23 focused on moral conduct and
general commitment of the Judeans in all dimensions of life37 while the rela-
tions on post-exilic covenant ceremonies are restricted to a single aspect of
morality: The care for the personae miserae in Neh 5; the mixed marriages in
Ezra 910.38 Although Nehemiah 5 clearly has aspects of a communal identity,
the absence of vocabulary from the field of covenant as well as the absence of
ritual markers make his proposal less convincing.
4 Ezra Presents the Law (Neh 8)
This chapter goes back to the Nehemiah-mmoir and should not be construed
as part of the Ezra-story.39 I am not convinced by the complex and inventive
proposal of Juha Pakkala who accepts seven different redactional layers in this
chapter.40 In the first scene it is narrated that Ezra brings the ,
the Book of the Law of Moses, to the public realm and reads it aloud in front of
the nation. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah are gathered in front of the
Watergate:
, the whole nation as one person. This expression
refers to the unity of the congregation, not so much to its extent as in a recent
Dutch translation.41
37 See esp. 2 Kgs 23:3.

38 M.J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW,
277), Berlin/New York 1999, 3536.
39 Pace Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 27986; Schunck, Nehemia, 23840. The interpreta-
tion of the Book of Ezra as a pseudepigraphic story based on a minor character in the
Nehemiah-mmoir (see above) liberates from the the useless quest to an answer for
the question: why was Neh 8 (seen as part of the Ezra story) inserted in the Book of
Nehemiah.
40 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 13679; see also the arguments his position by Hieke, Esra und
Nehemia, 188201; and the interesting publications by G.J. Venema, Reading Scripture
in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 910; 312 Kings 2223Jeremiah 36Nehemiah 8
(OTS, 48), Leiden 2004, 13881; S. Japhet, The Ritual of Reading (Nehemiah 8:112), in:
R.L. Thelle et al. (eds), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays
in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (VTSup, 168), Leiden 2015, 17590.
41 Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling 2004.
In Neh 7:72b8:13 (ET 8:14), two functions are given to Ezra: in verse 1 he is
called , writer, and in verse 2 , priest. Both roles are complementary,
Ezra not only is a scribe and collector of the tradition, but also an intermedi-
ary between God and the tradition on the one hand and the people and its
religious and social conduct on the other. This polarity has a partial parallel
in the two actions Ezra undertakes: the bringing out and the reading of the
law of God. The first act is later echoed in the Jewish festival of simat hattr,
rejoicing of/with the Thora, during which the Thora-scroll is carried around in
a festive and iconic way. The scroll is already in Neh 8 a silent witness for the
presence of the Divine.
It is unclear which text was read by Ezra. In later Jewish tradition it is sup-
posed that the complete five books of Moses were read aloud. This raises two
questions: (1) were the five books of Moses already available in the present
form? (2) Ezra is reading during a period of about six to seven hours. Which
limit does that time-frame put on the extent of his reading?
Various scholarly suggestions have been made. I will not annoy you with an
enumeration of them. Two positions are intriguing:
(1) It is remarkable that in Neh 8:4 the idiom - , to read from, is used
and not the expected construction + object, to read X. The idiom
might indicate that Ezra presented a selection of tr.
(2) There is a growing consensus that the Book of Deuteronomy was re-
edited in its final form after the exile. Deuteronomy can be read as an
instruction for life in the land on return from Babylon.42
All in all, I will not exclude the possibility that Ezra read (parts of) the Book of
Deuteronomy, or phrased in a more scholarly way: that the narrator of Nehe-
miah wants us readers to believe so. The aim of Ezra is understanding. He reads
to men and women alike, all who are hammebnm, able to understand. The
use of the verb bn indicates that the aim is not cognitive but on the level of
scrutinizing the text in order to take its code as a moral base.
The second scene, Nehemiah 8:46 (ET 57) displays the same acts but from
a different point of view. Ezra is presented as sitting , on a wooden

42 See, e.g., E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora, Oxford 2014;
C.L. Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon,
and the Nature of Subversion (ANEM, 8), Atlanta 2014.
82 Becking
pedestal43 where he is surrounded by twelve men. The inhabitants of Jerusa-

lem and Judah take a special position. After the reading they:
answered, Amen, Amen, lifting up their hands. And they bowed their
heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.
Both their body-language and the repeated Amen! express acceptance and
the will to act according to what they have heard.
After Ezras reading follows the explication and application by the Levites.
Juha Pakkala has argued for the existence of a Levitical redaction in the Books
of Ezra and Nehemiah. His arguments are far from convincing. My main quar-
rel with him is that I do not see an opposition between the acts of Ezra and
the deeds of the Levites. On all instances the Levites act as auxiliaries to Ezra.
The exposition by the Levites is of a specific character. In the final clause
of Neh 8:8 (ET 8:9) it is narrated , so that they understood the
reading. Again, the verb bn is used.
The reading and the explanation of the law lead to a festive day. The pri-
mary reaction after the hearing of the law is emotional: , for the

whole people was weeping. The use of the verb refers back to the open-
ing scene of the Book of Nehemiah where Nehemiah is weeping as a reaction
to the sad news about the fate of Jerusalem (Neh 1:4). The reason for and the
character of the sorrow in Neh 8 is, however, not further indicated although
often a growing awareness of human trespasses is assumed. The leaders of the
community persuade the people to leave their sorrow behind and start a fes-
tive meal. This meal will have the character of redistribution: those who have
nothing will share in the abundance.
Finally, Nehemiah 8 narrates about the (re)instalment of the Feast of Booth.
This festival is known from a variety of post-exilic texts.44 I will not enter into a
discussion whether or not this festival had pre-exilic roots, probably a harvest
43 The noun is normally rendered as tower, in this context, however, it refers clearly
to a pedestal; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 278; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL),
London 1988, 283; Becker, Esra Nehemia, 89; M. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-
Nehemiah (Neh 7:22b10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBL DS, 164),
Atlanta 2001, 79; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 306; Venema, Reading Scripture in the Old
Testament, 16667; Schunck, Nehemia, 232; Japhet, The Ritual of Reading, 176. The ren-
dition by D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCBC), Basingstoke 1984, 183, pulpit;
Gunneweg, Nehemia, 108, Kanzel reframes Ezra into a protestant preacher.
44 Num 23; 2 Chr 8:13; Ezra 3:4; Neh 8; Zech 14.
festival. It is important here to note that the reading of the law by Ezra and the
explication by the Levites started a movement that lead to the incorporation of
the Feast of Booth in the Jewish autumnal cycle.
5 Agreement after Prayer (Neh 910)
After the re-instalment of the Feast of Booths, Nehemiah utters a prayer

(Neh 9:637). The confession of sin dressed in a garment of historical reflec-
tions leads to the community accepting an agreement (Neh 9:38 [ET 10:1]).
Now because of all this we are making an agreement in writing; And on

the sealed document are the names of our leaders, our Levites and our
priests.
According to Mark Boda, the penitential prayer in Neh 9 functioned as fol-

lows in the context of an early post-exilic ritual: By reapplying the traditions of
Ancient Israel the accounts of the sinful past were settled so that the inhabit-
ants of Yehud and Jerusalem, or at least the true Yahwists among them, were
mentally ready for a new start in the framework of a new relationship.45 Bodas
proposal to determine the context of Neh 9:637 as an early post-exilic cov-
enant ceremony is mainly based on two features:
(a) The comparison with texts like Ezra 910 and Neh 5:17:13;
(b) The interpretation of the noun in Neh 10;1 as a synonym for
meaning some sort of agreement or even covenant.
Boda construes the narratives in Neh 5 and Ezra 910 also as texts reflecting a
covenant ceremony. His proposal is not convincing Next to that I am wonder-
ing about the question, what Boda would mean with covenant in this context.
As is well known the Hebrew noun is not easy to translate or understand.
The word can denote the covenantal relationship in which the community
with Yhwh has been described throughout the Hebrew Bible. On the other
hand, however, the word can refer to an agreement with or without obligations
between individuals, groups, persons of different status in a group, etc. Within
the Book of Nehemiah the noun occurs as follows:
45 Boda, Praying the Tradition, passim.

84 Becking
In Neh 5 the noun does not occur;46

In Neh 9,8 and 32 the noun refers to the relationship between Yhwh and the
people of Israel in the past;
I leave aside Bodas third example: Ezra 10:3, since I do not construe Ezra and
Nehemiah as one composition. Next to that, it should be noted that in Ezra
10:3 not God is the subject of the verb but the we-group in the narrative. It is
the religious leaders that are sealing an agreement before the face of God with
implications for the moral conduct of the Yahwists in the community. In other
words, the ceremony is not specifically a covenant (renewal) ceremony, but
should be interpreted as a political ritual to bind the community to a specific
moral rule.
Boda construes the expression in Neh 10:1 as a synonym of the
expression . He acknowledges that this interpretation is disputable,
but nevertheless he reads Neh 10:1 as an indication that after the penitential
prayer a covenant was concluded by the religious leaders of the community.47
Although many scholars have construed as a synonym of ,48 I am of
the opinion that the noun is referring to a trustworthy regulation.49 This
meaning also suits in Neh 11:23, the other occurrence of the noun in the
Hebrew Bible. The use of a word specifically different from is an indica-
tion that it might be the authors intention not to refer to a covenantal act.
In sum, in view of the fact that even Boda refers to the existence in the
Hebrew Bible of penitential prayers that do not have their context in a specific
46 On Neh 5 see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1985, 23146.

47 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A comprehensive review of covenant formulae
from the Old Testament and the ancient near East (AnBib, 88) Roma 1982, 5051; Boda,
Praying the Tradition, 3234; J. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB, 14), New York 1965, 173;
F.C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT), Grand Rapids1982, 234; Becker,
Esra Nehemia, 97; Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah, 24142; Schunck,
Nehemia, 285; T. Bnziger, Jauchzen und Weinen: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud:
Theologische Konzepte der Wiederherstellung in Esra-Nehemia, Zrich 2014, 8486, 9293.
48 See the previous note as well as the outline in Boda, Praying the Tradition, 33 note 42.
49 See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1985, 320; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 13031; D.J.A. Clines,
Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis, JSOT 21 (1981), 11117;
Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 200; Throntveit, EzraNehemiah, 106; Blenkinsopp,
Ezra-Nehemiah, 312; F.C. Holmgren, Faithful Abraham and the amna Covenant
Nehemiah 9,610,1, ZAW 104 (1992), 24954; M. Oeming, See, We Are Serving Today
(Nehemiah 9: 36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period, in:
O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona
Lake 2006, 582; Bautch, The Function of Covenant across Ezra-Nehemiah, 18; DCH I, p. 318.
ceremony,50 we can safely surmise that penitential prayerssuch as Neh 9

were uttered on different occasions, sometimes in occasional ceremonies,
sometimes in an unbound situation. It would therefore be better to assume
that the Sitz im Leben of this Genre is more psychological of character: prayers
like this function in the context of a human being or a community that wants
to settle account of the past in order to make a fresh start in life.
6 Marking the Community (Neh 10 and 13)
The final chapter of the Book of Nehemiah (13) starts with a remark that in
those days people were reading , in the Book of Moses. This reading
provokes an insight and a set of measures. Among the people there is a grow-
ing awareness of incorrect conduct. Nehemiah, returning from a visit to the
Persian king, takes measure that would appropriate sections of the law.
I would like to refer to a compositional thread in the Book of Nehemiah.
After the penitential prayer in Neh 951 some sort of agreement is concluded in
Neh 9:38 (ET 10:1). In this agreement a series of pledges is made by the people.
These pledges are said to be sealed by a number of persons whose names are
listed. Before discussing Nehemiah 13, I would like to make some observations
on Neh 10:2940 (ET 10:2839).
These verses give in the we-form the contents of the binding agreement:
they contain a series of pledges of a moral, cultic, and religious character. They
have a style and language different from the Nehemiah memoir.52 They most
probably form an independent document that was added here by the author of
the Book of Nehemiah. With David Clines, I construe these verses as an appro-
priation of existing rules from the moral code.53
50 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 3840.

51 On Neh 9 see, e.g., Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 30019; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 11729;
Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 293308; Boda, Praying the Tradition; Duggan, The Covenant
Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah, 139233; Bautch, Developments in Genre, 10136; B. Becking,
Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context (Sitz im Leben), in: E. Ben Zvi,
M.A. Sweeney (eds), The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century,
Grand Rapids 2003, 253265; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 180184; Hieke, Esra und Nehemia,
21025; Schunck, Nehemia, 25982; and various essays in M.J. Boda et al. (eds), Seeking the
Favor of God. Vol. 1: The Origin of Penitential prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBL EJL, 21),
Atlanta 2006; Bautch, The Function of Covenant across Ezra-Nehemiah, 1014; Boda,
Prayer as Rhetoric; Bnziger, Jauchzen und Weinen, 8692.
52 See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 32531.
53 Clines, Nehemiah 10, 11117.
86 Becking
The first promise contains a clear reference to the prohibition of non-

mingling with indigenous population of Canaan as given in Deut 7:34:
Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or tak-
ing their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children
from following me, to serve other gods.54
Note that the non-intermarriage promise in Neh 10 refers to both sexes as men-
tioned in Deut 7, while in Ezra 9 measures are taken against foreign women
only.55 Elsewhere, I have argued that the foreign women referred to in Ezra and
in Nehemiah should not be construed as females from different ethnic groups,
but as Yahwists who held a different interpretation of Yahwism than those who
returned from the exile.56 By labelling them as Canaanites these women are
disqualified as unacceptable others.
The nest promise is connected with the concept of holy times.57 The tra-
ditional regulations for keeping the Sabbath are reformulated in a more pre-
cise way.58 Not only selling (Amos 8:5), but also buying is seen as an act of
labour, forbidden on that holy day. The offering of commodities is presented
as an act by the peoples of the land. They are to be construed as the offspring
of those who remained in the land during the exilic period, who are seen by
54 On Deut 7, see, e.g., Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 35784; T. Veijola, Bundestheologische
Redaktion im Deuteronomium, in: T. Veijola (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine
Querbeziehungen (SFEG, 62), Gttingen/Helsinki 1996, 24854; E. Otto, Das Deuter
onomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch
und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomismus (FAT, 30), Tbingen 2000, 25556;
T. Veijola, Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schrift
gelehrtentum (BWANT, 149), Stuttgart 2000, 158162, 228232; T. Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose
Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,116,17 (ATD 8,1), Gttingen 2004, 31017.
55 It should be noted that the concept of marriage is an anachronistic label for the relation-
ships of the ancient days. See, e.g., M.L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, Princeton,
Oxford 2001; J. Witte, From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the
Western Tradition, Louisville 2012.
56 B. Becking, On the Identity of the Foreign Women in Ezra 910, in: L.L. Grabbe,
G.N. Knoppers (eds), Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian
Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd (Library of Second Temple Studies, 73), London/
New York 2009, 3149.
57 See A. Berlejung, Heilige Zeiten: Ein Forschungsbericht, JBTh 18 (2003), 362.
58 See also Clines, Nehemiah 10, 11415; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 33435.
the author as a group of Yahwists with too flexible an interpretation of the

Sabbath-regulations.59
Two more duties are connected to the concept of holy time. In Exod 23:1011
the obligation is noted to have any field fallow once in every seven years which
was done in a rotation scheme. In post-exilic times this summons is explained
in such a way that the whole land would be fallow in its entirety every seventh
year (Lev 25:17; 2 Chr 36:21).60 This agricultural cycle aiming at averting the
exhaustion of the soil is combined in Neh 10 with a command from Deut 15
to absolve debts every seventh year.61 This promise in Neh 10 is connected to
Nehemiahs measures in chapter 5 discussed above.
The next obligation is the promise to pay one shekel per head per year for
the maintenance of the temple-cult. This is a remarkable promise since the
tr does not stipulate payments to the temple.62 The levies for the abodh,
worship, in the temple are specified in some detail. Payments for calendric as
well as crisis-related rituals are stipulated.
Furthermore, promises are made for a rotation system for the supply of
wood to be burnt in the temple in order for the fire on the altar never to quench
(Lev 6:56).
The final obligation is connected to the remittance of agricultural sur-
pluses for the sustenance of the Levites. Various regulations from the trh
are combined and appropriated into a detailed system of levies (see Ex. 23:19;
Deut 26:111; Num 18:1213).
59 The documents from Elephantine make clear that in Southern Egypt in the fifth cen-
tury the Sabbath-institution was known, although not kept in a very strict way; see
B. Becking, Sabbath at Elephantine: A Short Episode in the Construction of Jewish
Identity, in: A. Houtman et al. (eds), Empsychoi Logoi Religious Innovations in Antiquity:
Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (AJEC, 73), Leiden 2008, 17789.
60 Many traditional agricultural societies are familiar with the custom to have the fields fal-
low in time. In combination with a system of crop rotation the exhaustion of the soil is
prevented. The custom probably goes back to the intermediate period of shifting culti-
vation. For Ancient Israel see M. Silver, Prophets and Markets: The political economy of
ancient Israel, Boston, The Hague 2013, 1928; as well as the essays in M.F. Cairns (ed.),
Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest
Conservation, London/New York 2015.
61 On this mechanism for redistribution see Lemche, The Manumission of Slaves, 3859.
62 The levy of half a shekel as ransom mentioned in Exod 30:1116 cannot be interpreted
as referring to an institutionalized form of a yearly temple tax, so also Williamson,
Ezra, Nehemiah, 335, contra M.E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the
Economic Life of Ancient Israel, Peabody 2006, 10809.
88 Becking
Most themes from Neh 10 recur in Neh 13albeit in a different order as can
be seen in comparison of the Sabbat and intermarriage themes:
Nehemiah 10 Nehemiah 13
10:29 (ET 10,30) Mixed Marriage Sabbath 13:1522

10:30 (ET 10,31) Sabbath Mixed Marriage 13:2330
Neh 13 is part of the narrative on the joyful consecration of Jerusalem rebuilt

(Neh 1213). This is an interesting narrative in which we are informed about
the festival and the ritual for the new Jerusalem. From the narrative it becomes
clearalbeit rather implicitlythat the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Yehud
has kept the food and wood and duties part of the agreement. In Neh 13,
Nehemiah is reporting some sort of inspection. It turns out that the construc-
tion of a new identity is not that easily finalized, as the euphoric report on the
consecration of the walls would suggest. In daily life there exists a discrepancy
between preaching and practice. This discrepancy comes to the fore after the
lesson read from the Torah:
On that day they read from the book of Moses in the hearing of the peo-
ple; and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should
ever enter the assembly of God, because they did not meet the Israelites
with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse themyet
our God turned the curse into a blessing. When the people heard the law,
they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent.63
As almost all commentators agree upon, this text contains a clear reference
to Deut 23:34.64 It is intriguing to read that they separated themselves volun-
tarily from all those of foreign descent. Contrary to the final four episodes in
the Book of Nehemiah, it is the trespassers themselves who take action, and
not the governor.
63 Neh 13:12.
64 See, e.g., Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 385; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 16364; Blenkinsopp,
Ezra-Nehemiah, 35052; Becker, Ich-Bericht, 102; Reinmuth, Bericht Nehemias, 25360;
Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 21316; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 31517; Hieke, Esra und
Nehemia, 24749.
On his inspection, Nehemiah encounters Yehudites who had married

women of Ashdod (Neh 13:23).65 As a detail the narrator remarks that 50%
of the offspring was only able to speak Ashdodite, and no longer was able to
speak Judaean. The question what kind of language Ashdodite has been is a
bone of contention among scholars.66 More important is to see, that language
is not an ethnic marker, but a dimension of ones identity.67 The inability to
speak Judaean most probably is remarked here as a sign of alienation from
the Judaean/Yehudite/Yahwistic identity as favoured by Nehemiah. It should
be noted that this language-disability is only mentioned and not assessed as
transgression, sin or pollution.
As a result of his inspection, Nehemiah reacts as follows with regard to the
inter-marriage problem:
And I contended with them

and cursed them
and beat some of them
and pulled out their hair;
and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying,
65 The adjectives Ammonite, Moabite are to be construed as a later gloss, see Williamson,
Ezra, Nehemiah, 397; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 362; Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias,
336; Schunck, Nehemia, 382; pace Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, 211; Fensham, Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, 265; Becker, Esra Nehemia, 118.
66 Although a majority seems to opt for a Phoenician or Philistine dialect, see, e.g.,
Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 398; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 17273; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah,
363; Janzen, Witch-Hunts, 144; Hieke, Esra und Nehemia, 254. Becker, Esra Nehemia, 119,
remarks that we do not know how the narrator would have construed this language. Note,
however, that the only written evidence from Persian Period Ashdoda small ostracon
with Aramaic cursive scriptmight indicate the Aramaic character of the language of
Ashdod; M. Dothan, Ashdod, in: ABD I, 481.
67 As noted by, e.g., Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 363; L.L. Grabbe, Triumph of the Pious
or Failure of the Xenophobes? The Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms and their Nachgeschichte,
in: S. Jones, S. Pearce (eds), Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-
Roman Period (JSP Sup, 31), Sheffield 1998, 5065; Janzen, Witch-Hunts, 14345. See
also D.I. Block, The Role of Language in Ancient Israelite Perceptions of National
Identity, JBL 103 (1984), 32140; J.C. Kuipers, Language, Identity, and Marginality in
Indonesia: The Changing Nature of Ritual Speech on the Island of Sumba, Cambridge 1998;
W.M. Schniedewind, Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew, JHS 5
(200405) # 2.9; K.E. Hoffman, We Share Walls: Language, Space and Gender in Berber
Morocco (Blackwell Studies in Discourse & Culture), Oxford 2007; K.E. Southwood,
And They could not Understand Jewish Speech: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiahs
Intermarriage Crisis, JThS 62 (2011), 119.
90 Becking
You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daugh-
ters for your sons or for yourselves.....68
It should be noted that this reaction differs from the one narrated in Ezra 9 in
at least four important features.69 These differences can easily be explained by
assuming that the narratives in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were trans-
mitted in different post-exilic circles, which had different ideologies which
underscore my view of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah as separate entities.
It is very interesting to see that in Neh 13 some texts from the biblical tradition
play their role as a lesson from the past to warn Nehemiahs contemporaries.
The introductory clause in Nehemiahs speech to the inhabitants of

Yehud:
You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daugh-
ters for your sons or for yourselves
contains an allusion both to Deut 7:34 and Neh 10:30 (ET 10:31). The
clause is not a literal translation, but should be seen as a reformulation
of the prohibition applying the syntax of the Ten Commandments using
the prohibitive You shall not....70 This transformation functions as a
means to underscore the importance of the commandment under con-
sideration for the actual situation of Neh 13. The syntactical tactics give
the commandment almost the weight of one of the Ten Commandments.
Secondly, in his speech Nehemiah refers to an episode in the life of

King Solomon:
Did not King Solomon of Israel sin on account of such women?
Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was
68 Neh 13:25.
69 (1) Ezra himself is mourning; one of his acts is pulling hair from his head and beard
(Ezra 9:3); (2) Nehemiah did not pull out his own hair but the hair of the accused; Ezra
goes into prayer to God; (3) Nehemiah utters a short sermon to his opponents; (4) Ezra is
using inclusive we-language, he includes himself into the group of sinners and trespass-
ers; Nehemiah remains in the position of the outsider rebuking the others; Ezra together
with the elders of the community arrives at some drastic measures: the foreign women
are sent away; the marriages being ended; Nehemiah only remarks that he cleansed them
from everything foreign leaving the character of his measures to the imagination of his
readers. See also Hieke, Esra und Nehemia, 25556.
70 See P. Joon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: Part Three Syntax (Subsidia
Biblica, 14/II), Roma 1991, 160f.
beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; never-
theless, foreign women made even him to sin.71
It is part of the tragedy of Solomon, that this king although he

was loved by God (2 Sam 12:2425) and was a king without a rival
(1 Kgs 3:12), nevertheless was caused to sin by his foreign wives during
his old days as is narrated in 1 Kgs 11:16. Nehemiah refers to both sides
of the tragic shift in Solomons life: from chosen king to human sinner.72
Timo Veijola classifies the way in which Neh 13:26 reflects the tradition,
as haggadic. In fact he construes this textual unit as a Midrash avant la
lettre. I will not delve into the difficult question what is a Midrashsee
the work done by scholars like Lieve Teugels.73 From what I have read,
it becomes clear to me, that the concept of Midrash is indissolubly con-
nected with the concept of dialogue or discussion. In Neh 13:26, we only
find a monologue. I would prefer the term legal blend for this appropria-
tion of the tradition to the new situation.74
These observations lead to the conclusion that the reading in the unclearly
specified , the Book of Moses, lead to a refinement of the fabric of the
community. The group of real Yahwistic Yehudites is now clearly marked by
two signs: the keeping of the Sabbath and in-group marriages.
7 The Social Code underlying the Book of Nehemiah
It is time for a conclusion. In my view the words covenant, agreement and

law in the Book of Nehemiah refer to concepts by which the complex
71 Neh 13:26.
72 It is a remarkable fact that Solomon has received much less attention than David in later
Jewish and Christian traditions as well in the visual arts. On the Biblical image of Solomon
see, e.g., M. Noth, Knige 1 (BKAT, IX/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968, 1264; M. Cogan, I Kings:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 10), New York 2000, 153344.
73 See L.M. Teugels, Aggadat Bereshit: Translated from the Hebrew With an Introduction and
Notes (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 4), Leiden 2001; idem, Bible and Midrash:
The Story of The Wooing of Rebekah (Gen 24) (CBET, 35), Leuven 2004; and the essays in
L. Teugels, R. Ulmer (eds), Recent Developments in Midrash Research (Judaism in Context,
2), Piscataway 2007.
74 On the idea of legal blend, see J. Berman, The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua
20: 19, Judges 6: 2531, 1 Samuel 15: 2, 28: 325, 2 Kings 4: 17, Jeremiah 34: 1217, Nehemiah
5: 112), JBL 134 (2015), 10525.
92 Becking
peripheryJerusalem in relation to Susa as the core of the Persian empire

needs to be organized. The words reflect a social code for the community. As
the city is defended and secured by the rebuilt walls of the city, the community
is secured and defended by this social code. It should be seen as an instrument
to help the community to survive the tides of time. It is a misunderstanding of
the character of this social code to construe it as a legalistic network of prohi-
bitions that deprived the Yehudites of the personal responsibility. It should be
noted that this social code is not just a mere repetition of the Jahwistic tradi-
tion. The normative position was reached by blending legal traditions.75
Basic to this social code is the idea that the actual form of the community
reflects the relationship of Yhwh and Israel.76 Gods interference in history
and the divine care in the present of the author are foundational for the con-
duct within the community. They lay the basic fabric in determining the direc-
tion for moral behaviour.
Within the thirteen chapters of the present Book of Nehemiah only a few
areas of morality at touched upon. This does not imply that other areas are
unimportant or irrelevant. To conclude from the absence of various topics in
the Book of Nehemiah that in those days the Thora did not yet contain reg-
ulations on those topics is a methodological pitfall. The Gebot der Stunde77
urged for actions regarding poverty, cult duties, the keeping of the Sabbath
and endogamous marriages as beams in the construction of the identity of the
community.
75 See Berman, The Legal Blend.

76 As outlined by Th.C. Vriezen, An outline of Old Testament Theology, Oxford 1958.
77 This classical rule form ethics has gained a new deepening through the works of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer; zie D. Bonhoeffer, Ethik (Herausg. von I. Tdt, H.E. Tdt, E. Feil und C. Green),
Gtersloh 1949; with E. Feil, Die Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers: Hermeneutik, Christologie,
Weltverstndnis (6. Auflage), Mnster 2005.
Geography in Num 33 and 34 and the Challenge
of Pentateuchal Theory
Koert van Bekkum
1 Introduction
More than ever, it seems that studying the literary, social-historical and theo-
logical aspects of the Pentateuch is a discussion without end. The issue of Fall
2014 of the Journal of Biblical Literature took Deut 34 as an example for a vivid
exchange of arguments on one of the foundations of higher criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, that is, source criticism. Earlier that year scholars gathered in
Jerusalem for a conference on The Pentateuch within Biblical Literature.1
A short look at (the abstracts of) these contributions, and to some extent also
in this volume with papers of the Joint Meeting of SOTS and OTW in Edinburgh
2015, suffices to see that several elements stand out in present research. Despite
all efforts to avoid tribalism, and the clear tendency to include empirical knowl-
edge about the literary transmission of texts in the oral cultures of the Ancient
Near East,2 the number of approaches is still multiplying; and whatever issue
is discussed, lack of consensus seems to be the main result.
Many of those who are involved in todays study of the literary history of the
Pentateuch will sooner or later recognize what Julius Wellhausen wrote to his
friend William Robertson Smith in January 1885, shortly after he had received
the second imprint of Abraham Kuenens Historisch critisch onderzoek. He had
browsed the book and tended to agree with everything. But he also found the
1 S. Frolov, The Death of Moses and the Fate of Source Criticism, JBL 133 (2014), 64860; P.Y.
Yoo, The Place of Deuteronomy 34 and Source Criticism: A Response to Serge Frolov, JBL
133 (2014), 6618; S. Dolansky, The Death of Moses, Not of Source Criticism, JBL 133 (2014),
66976; D.M. Carr, Unified until Proven Disunified? Assumptions and Standards in Assessing
the Literary Complexity of Ancient Biblical Texts, JBL 133 (2014), 67781. For the papers
of the conference The Pentateuch within Biblical Literature: Formation and Interaction,
Jerusalem, May 2529, see J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the
Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT), Tbingen 2016 (forthcoming).
2 See in particular D.M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction, Oxford
2011.

94 van Bekkum
material so boring that he doubted whether he would ever decide to study the
volumes in detail.3
Nevertheless, the discussion regarding the formation of the Pentateuch
in the recent compositional and so-called Neo-Documentarian approaches
is also fascinating and addressing big issues. On the one hand, Genesis to
2 Kingsor the Primary History, as it has been labelled by Richard Elliot
Freedman4clearly presents itself as a one literary textual continuum from
creation to exile,5 one ongoing story from Paradise to the loss of Jerusalem,6
a story that can also be read as a double aetiology explaining how Israel
inherited the Promised Land as well as why it was lost.7 At the same time,
this continuous unit is divided into nine different books. This most likely
happened primarily for technical reasons, but also constituted clear begin-
nings and endings highlighting specific features and creating separate literary
entities.8 Yet, from a canonical perspective, the most important transition in
the Old Testament does not occur between the books of 2 Kings and Isaiah, but
between Deuteronomy and Joshua, that is, between the Torah and the Former
Prophets, thus establishing the first five books as the book of Moses.
Accordingly, the quest for the literary history of the Pentateuch regards not
only the relation between the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus and the wil-
derness, and the question of the historical growth of the books of Genesis to
Deuteronomy, but also the composition of the Primary History and the forma-
tion of the canon. The diverse approaches of this complicated conundrum of
questions all have their own starting point. Those who take their point of depar-
ture in the classical Documentary Hypothesis mostly discuss issues regarding
3 J. Wellhausen, Briefe, Tbingen 2013, 167, on A. Kuenen, Historisch critisch onderzoek naar het
ontstaan en de verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds. Tweede, geheel omgewerkte
uitgave. Eerste deel. De Thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Leiden 18872:
Kuenen habe ich durchgeblttert. (...) Mir ist brigens der ganze Stoff allmhlich so lang-
weilig, dass ich mich zu einem eigentlichen Durchstudiren gewiss nie entschliessen werde.
4 D.N. Freedman, The Law and the Prophets, in: W. Baumgartner et al., Congress Volume Bonn
1962 (SVT, 9), Leiden 1963, 25065.
5 For this observation, see already Benedict de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, ed. by
J. Israel (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy), Cambridge 2007, 127, 129.
6 E.g. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, New
York 1992, 35.
7 M. Weippert, Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins, VT 23 (1973), 441.
8 C. Levin, On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch, in: T.B. Dozeman
et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis
through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta 2011, 12457.
Geography in Num 33 and 34 & Challenge of Pentateuchal Theory 95
the Hexateuch.9 The Neo-Documentarian hypotheses mainly concentrate

on the Torah.10 Finally, Konrad Schmid rightly observes that those scholars
looking for compositional layers explore three decisive moments which might
have given the impulse to the formation of the Hexateuch, Enneateuch, and the
Pentateuch:11 the connection of the large historical works J and P;12 composi-
tional efforts by deuteronomistic and priestly scribes combining Deuteronomy
and the Priestly Source;13 and the possible creation of a proto-Pentateuch by
joining the traditions of the patriarchs and the Exodus.14
Opinions are widely divided on how exactly this affects the literary history
of the Pentateuch. Two common trends, however, can be observed. First, the
book of Numbers has become the new battle ground for scholarly debate.
Second, there is a clear tendency to date this book very late and to view at least
parts of it as forerunners of the halachic midrash literature.15
An excellent example of this is offered by the discussion regarding the last
chapters of the book, Num 2636, which is nowadays the subject of a vibrant
9 See e.g. L. Schmidt, Gesammelte Aufstze zum Pentateuch (BZAW, 263), Berlin etc. 1998;
idem, Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung. Ein Pldoyer fr die umstrittene Neuere
Urkundenhypothese, VT 60 (2010), 40020; H. Seebass, Numeri (BKAT), Neukirchen-Vluyn
20032012; idem, Das Buch Josua als literarisch nicht zu erwartende Fortsetzung des
Buches Numeri, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (BEThL, 250), Leuven 2012, 249258.
10 E.g. B.J. Schwartz, Does Recent Scholarships Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis
Constitute Grounds for Its rejection?, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds.), The Pentateuch.
International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 316; J.S. Baden,
J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68), Tbingen 2009; idem, The Composition
of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven/London 2012.
11 K. Schmid, Der Pentateuch und seine Theologiegeschichte, ZThK 111 (2014), 2634.
12 E.g. C. Levin, Das Alte Testament, Mnchen 20104, 8184. Cf. C. Levin, The Yahwist. The
Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch, JBL 126 (2007), 20930.
13 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990, 35760;
E. Otto, The Pentateuch in Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives. Protorabbinic
Scribal Erudition Mediating between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code, in: E. Otto,
R. Achenbach (Hrsg.), Das Deuterononium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomitischem
Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen 2004, 1435.
14 K. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story. Israels Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, Winona
Lake, 2010.
15 Cf. e.g. R. Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora. Studien der Redaktionsgeschichte des
Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR, 3), Wiesbaden
2003; T. Rmer, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BEThL, 215), Leuven 2008;
C. Frevel, Alte StckeSpte Brcke? Zur Rolle des Buches Numeri in der jngeren
Pentateuchdiskussion, in: C.M. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013 (SVT, 163),
Leiden 2014, 255299.
96 van Bekkum
literary critical and compositional discussion. Interestingly, this debate in

several ways offers a reappraisal of developments that took place already at
the end of the nineteenth century. Most scholars still use the terminology
of the Documentary Hypothesis and accordingly have the same problems as
Wellhausen and Kuenen in distinguishing priestly and post-priestly passages.
At the same time, the recent quest for the post-priestly editorial strands in
the book of Numbers connecting the wilderness narrative to the story of the
fulfilment of the promise of the land very much reminds one of Hermanns
Hupfelds idea of a Grundschrift, an overarching narrative connecting vari-
ous traditions.16 The main difference, however, is that nowadays these pas-
sages are dated much later, while the blocks of text that are characterized as
post-priestly are also much longer than in the reconstructions of Wellhausen
and Kuenen.
It is at this point that this contribution enters the debate. Theories about the
formation of the Pentateuch are heuristic devices for reconstructing its liter-
ary history and meaning. The recent tendency to ascribe large blocks of text to
post-priestly editors has a strong inner logic. It seems the best way to explain
the fact that the latest editorial work on the Enneateuch took place during the
Persian Period and that some passages offer a clear overlap in their use of so-
called deuteronomistic and priestly terminology. Nevertheless, the question
can be asked to what extent this way of reasoning is able to do justice to the
texts themselves. Therefore, this paper takes a look at Num 33 and 34. These
chapters clearly function as compositional passages forming a bridge between
the wilderness itineraries and the story of the conquest of the Promised Land,
but they also encompass lists and geographical descriptions that might con-
tain older material. To what extent does the recent idea of larger blocks of
post-priestly material elucidate its literary history?
In order to answer this question, I first take a short look at Num 33 and at
a few moments in its history of research. Then I will pay attention to the ide-
ological and historical dimensions of the geography of Num 34:112. Finally,
I will offer some literary-historical considerations and a conclusion.
2 Num 33 and Its History of Research
The book of Numbers tells how the generation which had experienced
the Exodus and Yhwhs manifestation at Sinai has to live its life as a holy
16 H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuen unter-
sucht, Berlin 1853, 8086. Cf. Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 1317.
peoplesomething that ultimately leads to failure and death. From chapter

26 on, however, new hope is created in the story of a new generation. The
Israelites no longer die and their military operations are successful.
Narrative analysis of the Pentateuch as a whole shows that this transition
of generations is embedded in a framework of genealogies and lists telling the
story of succeeding generations, each of them living with God and inheriting
the promise of the land. In the present shape of Genesis to Numbers, the itiner-
ary notes tracing the movement of the Israelites from place to place from Egypt
to Canaan operate at a secondary level within this overall structure. Although
these notes are not entirely consistent, they push the narrative forward to the
moment in which the new generation will enter the Promised Land.17
Num 33:149 mentions Israels particular stops along this route. The list
leaves out a number of places and inserts many others mentioned nowhere
else (e.g. 33:13, 1929). There are many discussions about the arrangement of
the place names and regarding the question whether they contain symbolic
numbers expressing a typology of divine action.18 But in any case, the themes
in Exodus and Numbers are summarized. In this way, the reader is reminded
of the great problems and difficulties in escaping from Egypt and crossing the
Sinai desert. The itinerary contains a clear warning for the new generation: it
is very difficult to live in the presence of Yhwh and to be obedient to his laws.
But the string of place-names also bears a promise: if God has helped Israel
thus far, he will certainly enable the new generation to reach their goal in the
land of Canaan. Accordingly, the list is a fitting prelude to the last group of
passages in the book of Numbers, all dealing with the Promised Land.
The summary of the peoples wilderness journeys is followed in Num 33:5056
by a divine speech to Moses in the plains of Moab on the verge of entering
the Promised Land. It is a carefully constructed oracle defining Israels task in
defeating the lands inhabitants and destroying their cultic installations and
17 Cf. D.T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New. The Framework of the Book
of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJSt., 71), Chico 1985, 1158; idem, Old and New
Generations and the Book of Numbers, Interpretation 3 (1997), 235; C. Frevel, Under
standing the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert. Numbers 21 as a Compositional Joint,
in: J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, J.C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in the Bible, History and
Theology. Studies in Honour of Ed Noort (SVT, 124), Leiden etc. 2009, 1139.
18 Cf. e.g. J. Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia/New York 1990,
27782, 49799; Seebass, Numeri (BKAT), 36784; B.A. Levine, Numbers (Anchor Bible),
New York 2000, 51122.
98 van Bekkum
in allocating the land among the tribes. It also warns Israel in describing what
will happen, if it does not accomplish this mission.19
It is a remarkable passage. If the verses introducing the geographical descrip-
tion and the commission apportioning the land in chapter 34 are included, it
contains the two most complete chains of verbs regarding the fulfilment of the
promise of the land in the entire narrative from Genesis to 2 Kings. The first
chain addresses the actual conquest of the land: Israel will cross the Jordan
()20 and enter the land (, qal)21 in order to inherit it (, qal);22 the land
will be given (),23 be given as an inheritance, while the nations will be driven
out (both , hi.)24 and they and their idols will be eliminated (, hi.)25 and
destroyed (, pi.).26
The second chain describes the actual distribution of the land: it is to be
received as an inheritance (, hitp.),27 and the people of Israel can actually
live ()28 there. Accordingly, the land is to be divided (),29 by lot (
),30
19 For the unity and literary structure of the passage, see e.g. Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah
Commentary), 5001; Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 63941; G.N. Knoppers, Establish-
ing the Rule of the Law?, in: Otto, Achenbach (eds.), Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch
und dem Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, 1401.
20 Gen 32:11; Num 32:21, 29, 31; 35:10; Deut 2:29: 3:25, 27; 4:2122, 26; 9:1; 11:31; 12:10; 27:2, 4, 12;
30:18; 31:2, 13; 32:47; Josh 1:2, 11, 14; 3:1, 11, 14, 17; 4:1, 5, 10, 22, 23; 24:11.
21 Exod 34:12; Lev 19:23; 23:10; 25:2; Num 13:22, 23, 27; 14:24, 30; 15:2, 18; 20:24; 21:1; 32:9, 19;
Deut 1:7, 8, 20, 37, 38, 39; 4:1, 5, 21.
22 E.g. Gen 15:8; Num 27:11; 33:53; Deut 1:8; 2:12; 11:31; Josh 1:11, 15; 13:1; 18:3; 19:47; 21:43; 23:5;
24:4, 8; Judg 2:6.
23 Num 14:3; 26:54, 62; 27:911; 34:1315; 35:2, 8; Josh 13:14, 33; 14:13; 17:4, 10, 14; 18:21, 24, 26;
19:49; 21:3; 1 Kgs 21:3 (land given to specific tribes, clans or persons); Deut 4:21, 38; 24:4; 15:4;
19:14; 20:16; 21:23; 1 Kgs 8:36 (land given as an inheritance to the people of Israel).
24 Exod 15:9; 34:24; Num 14:12, 24; 21:32; 32:39; 33:53, 55; 4:38; 7:17; 9:35; 11:23; 18:12; Jos 3:10;
8:7; 13:6, 12, 13; 14:12; 15:14, 63; 16:10, 17:1213, 18; 23:5, 9 13; Judg 1:19, 20, 21, 27, 2833; 2:21, 23;
11:2324; 2 Sam 2:7; 1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 16:3; 17:8; 2 Kgs 21:2.
25 Lev 26:30; Num 33:52; Deut 4:3; 6:15; 7:24; 9:3; 31:34, 33:27; Josh 7:12; 9:24; 11:14, 20; 24:8;
2 Kgs 21:9, cf. Deut 2:12, 2123; 7:4; 2 Sam 22:38.
26 Num 33:52; Deut 12:23; 2 Kgs 19:18; 21:3.
27 Num 32:18; 33:54; 34:13, cf. Josh 19:35.
28 Num 21:25, 31; 32:17, 40; 33:53, 55; Deut 2:12, 2122; 11:31; 17:14; 26:1; Josh 24:13, 15, cf. 2 Sam 5:9.
29 Num 26:53, 5556; Josh 13:7; 14:5; 18:2, 5, 10, 19:51.
30 Num 26:5556; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2; Josh 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 14, 17; 18:6, 8, 1011; 19:1, 10, 17, 24, 32,
40, 51; 21:46, 8 10, 20, 40; Judg 1:3.
according to the clans (;) 31 it will fall ()32 to them, and is to be

distributed according to the ancestral tribes () .33
In addition, Num 33:52 contains very specific terminology for the cul-
tic objects that should be destroyed: , figured object, occurs only as
a deity in Lev 26:1 and Ezek 8:12; , image, only in 2 Kgs 11:18, 2 Chr 23:17,
Amos 5:26, and Ezek 7:20; , iron in Exod 34:17; and , high places is
not attested in this way in Deuteronomy, but fifty-nine times in book of Kings.
Finally, the motif of the native inhabitants of the land being , stingers, in
Israels eyes and , pricks, in its sides also occurs in Josh 23:13. Accordingly,
it is no surprise that recent analysis ascribes these verses to a late editor, who
attempts to coordinate, harmonize, and supplement earlier traditions.34
When Wellhausen came across the last chapters of the book of Numbers in
his Die Composition des Hexateuchs, he posed that most of them belonged to
the Priestly Source, because they were loosely connected to Ps chronological
framework and also made use of JE. Nevertheless, he also admitted that some
vocabulary, in particular in Num 33:5056 did not fit such a context. Maybe,
he considered, these elements were added by a later editor.35
Abraham Kuenen, however, took his point of departure in precisely these
kinds of passages. In his view, the fact of the text making use of both P and
the JE wilderness narratives resulted in the conclusion that the chapters were
written by a post-priestly editor. According to him, the number of forty sta-
tions in the desert in Num 33 was perhaps an indication of the unhistorical and
young nature of the list. In that case, the editor could have taken the pieces of
these chapters unchanged from P. For those who did not believe that P itself
made use of terminology from the Holiness Code, Kuenen included an alter-
native, that is, that an earlier, priestly editor had been the one who had added
something to this introduction to the law of the distribution of the land.36
The deductive readings of Num 2636 by Wellhausen and Kuenen clearly
reveal that this book resists location within the source theory.37 In particular
their examination of Num 33 creates a kind of paradox. The chapter seems to
31 Num 34:54; 36:12; Josh 1321 (passim).

32 Num 34:2; Josh 13:6; 17:5; 23:4.
33 Num 26:55; 33:54, cf. 34:14; 36:79. Cf. the heads of the fathers [of the tribes] (

[ )] in Josh 14:1; 19:51; 21:4, cf. Num 36:12; 1 Kgs 21:4.
34 Knoppers, Establishing the Rule of the Law?, 150.
35 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, JDT 21 (1876), 584; Die Composition der
historischen Bcher, in: F. Bleek, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 41878, 1812.
36 Kuenen, Historisch critisch onderzoek2, 9798, 101, 325.
37 Cf. K. Schmid, The Old Testament. A Literary History, Minneapolis 2012, 178.
100 van Bekkum
be P due to its use of lists, chronology and specific terminology. At the same
time both the list and the terminology at the end of Num 33 do not fit the
P-profile as it has been developed in the late nineteenth century.
This tension can be perceived in every following stage of the history of
research of the chapter. Martin Noth, for instance, on the one hand offered a
new version of Kuenens solution by stating that these chapters belonged to an
editorial strand that made use of both a late stage of the Pentateuchal narra-
tives and the Deuteronomistic History. On the other hand, he was convinced
that the text also comprised an ancient source, namely a pilgrimage itinerary
used by Israelite pilgrims on their way to and from Mount Sinai.38 By placing
Num 33 in its own cultural setting, Graham Davies convincingly argued that
the Israelite scribes adopted a literary form used by their Egyptian and Neo-
Assyrian neighbours. In his view, the few correspondences to in Num 33:149
were at the level of the redaction. For that reason he suggested that an earlier
version of the chapter, which was based on oral and written descriptions of
routes, employed by travellers, had been the source for the itinerary-notes else-
where in the wilderness narrative.39 Davies view, however, that Num 33:149
was edited by deuteronomic scribes who also worked on the book of Judges
did not meet general approval.
Nowadays, the chapter is considered to be late or very late. It is viewed
as an important element in a compositional layer tying deuteronomic and
priestly texts together, with Num 33:5056 being a post-priestly addition.40 The
chapter is characterized as a part of one of the latest of the three extensive
theocratic editions that can be discerned within the book of Numbers belong-
ing to a phase of formation that followed the Pentateuchal redaction.41 Or the
passage is just one episode in the well-structured composition of Num 2536,
which was created by a Pentateuchal redactor focusing on the conquest and
the distribution of the Promised Land as a task for the future (Num 3234),
38 M. Noth, Die Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai (4. Mose 33), PJ 36 (1940), 528 (= idem, Aufstze
zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Archeologische, exegetische und topographi-
sche Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels, Bd. 1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 5574); idem,
berlieferungsgeschichte der Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, 238; idem, Das vierte Buch Mose
(ATD), Gttingen 1966, 214.
39 G.I. Davies, The Wilderness Itineraries. A Comparative Study, TynBul 25 (1974), 4681;
idem, The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch, VT 33 (1983),
213.
40 Cf. e.g. A.G. Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land. Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a
Generation since 1938, Edinburgh 1980, 81; Cf. Blum, Komposition der Pentateuch, 112,
1245, 164; L. Schmidt, Das vierte Buch Mose, Bd. 2 (ATD), Gttingen 2004, 20313.
41 Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 6227.
thus replacing and correcting the book of Joshua.42 In one of these cases the
list is said to reflect the expansion of the Persian trade to Egypt under Darius I.
Some scholars also return to the idea that the list as a whole is a product of
learned scribes and based on the wilderness narratives, while others simply
state that some existing material was used.43
Yet, these proposals do not reckon with the most recent developments in
the research of the genre of annalistic accounts and the ideological mean-
ing of geography in ancient texts. A fascinating study connecting this kind of
research to the literary-historical debate concerning the wilderness itinerar-
ies was recently offered by Angela Roskop.44 Her study of the insertion and
adaptation of raw itineraries in the annals of the Egyptian New Kingdom
and in Neo-Assyrian annalistic accounts clearly elucidates how geography
is used in order to create mental maps. In her view, a priestly scribe in exile
wrote the wilderness itineraries to promote a program of Israel returning from
exile. The Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian annals employ itineraries in order to
depict the king as a military leader and a defeater of chaos. But Ps wilderness
itineraries portray Israel as a traveling army and Yhwh as the king. So in Roskops
view, P adapted the genre giving it a new focus, not so much directed at Israel
as a literal army conquering the Promised Land, but at the people returning
from exile.
Of course, there is always debate about literary-critical and geographical
details.45 Nevertheless, the hypothesis of a use of the annals genre offers an
attractive and detailed explanation of important features of the wilderness
42 Rainer Albertz, A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers? The Late Priestly
Layers of Num 2536, ZAW 125 (2013), 22033.
43 Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 624. Cf. U. Fusill, Israel und das Ostjordanland.
Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Num 21,2136, 13 im Hinblick auf die Entstehung des
Buches Numeri (BS, 30), Frankfurt am Main 2007, 12933, 155.
44 A.R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries. Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah
(HACL, 3), Winona Lake 2011.
45 This regards, for instance, the literary-critical relation between Num 21 and 33 (cf. Roskop,
Wilderness Itineraries, chapters 5 and 6 with e.g. T.B. Dozeman, Geography and Ideology
in the Wilderness Journey from Kadesh through the Transjordan, in: J.C. Gertz et al.
[Hrsg.], Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion,
[BZAW, 315], Berlin/New York 2002, 17389; Frevel, Understanding the Pentateuch, 124
34), Roskops literary critical use of the diverse biblical attestations of Yam Suf (cf. Roskop,
Wilderness Itineraries, 247252 with J.K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai. The Evidence
for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition, New York 2005, 8189, 163165), and the
identification of Israels southern border in Num 34:34 and Josh 15:14 (Cf. Van Bekkum,
From Conquest to Coexistence, 189, 2178).
102 van Bekkum
narrative. It perfectly fits, for instance, the storys portrait of Israel as a kind of
ecclesia militans.
Still, the theory is not without problems. As was mentioned above, ascrib-
ing Num 33:149 to P is problematic, both in the light of the context and of
the text itself. Roskop suggests that the Tetrateuch most likely ended with the
fulfilment of the promise of the land, since Num 21 is about the Israelite con-
quest of Hormah. In her view, the larger story became marginalized, while
later additions connected the story to Deuteronomy and Joshua. It has been
rightly argued, however, that such compromises between the Hexateuch and
Tetrateuch-views of Von Rad and Noth are not only quite inelegant, but also
highly improbable. Why should the scribes writing the Old Testament narra-
tives invest so much energy combining and conflating older texts, when they
could just leave out larger sections?46 Moreover, both the list of Num 33 and
the account of the conquest in Num 21 are embedded in a larger story that
is directed at the conquest of the land, as is evident from the connections
between Num 33:5056, Josh 14 and 18, and Judg 1.47
A second problem occurs with regard to the date of the composition and
the origin of the place-names in Num 21:1020 and 33:149. The Neo-Assyrian
annals genre was no longer in use after the eighth century bce. Roskop com-
ments on this by stating that her solution simply offers the best explanation of
the details in the text and that she is not able to trace how the scribes knew it.48
But why then be so certain about its use two centuries later? A similar diffi-
culty occurs in her evaluation of the view that the wilderness narratives reflect
the geography and historical situation of the Sinai in the 13th12th century
bce.49 Roskop effectively argues that the wilderness itineraries need to be read
as textual phenomena and that accordingly the geography is used to achieve
literary goals. She also maintains that later people could have known ancient
details.50 This, however, does not rule out the possibility of influence of the
Egyptian itinerary genre. Moreover, in order to be effective and convinc-
ing, geographical references in a text in some way reflect a situation that is
46 Schmid, Emergence and Disappearance, 16.

47 Cf. Frevel, Understanding the Pentateuch, 116: Num 30:5056 points to the book of
Joshua and beyond, on the other hand it is connected with Num 36:13. There is no doubt
that Num 36:13 signals a conclusion as well as an open end.
48 Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 289.
49 For this view, with the most recent geographical and archaeological information offered
by Hoffmeier: K.A. Kitchen, Exodus, ABD, vol. 2, 7035; Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai,
115120; idem, The Exodus and the Wilderness Narratives, in: B.T. Arnold, R.S. Hess (eds),
Ancient Israels History. An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Grand Rapids 2010, 5985.
50 Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 145, 2427, 2878.
understandable for the reader. An exilic or post-exilic date also does not explain
the presence of this kind of knowledge in the text. As such, the assumption
that the list was composed in the 6th4th century bce is not a problem, as
long as it can be made plausible how specific memories about genre and a
place names were available to the writers. In the case of Num 33:149, however,
this is problematic, also because all who participate in the recent debate agree
that the text contains at least some information from the late second millen-
nium bce.
3 Ideological Geography in Num 34:112
This conclusion brings us to the geographical description in the next textual

unit in the book of Numbers. The Promised Land as described in Num 34:112
is remarkable geographical entity. In its ancient Near Eastern cognitive envi-
ronment, the passage touches on depictions of land granted by sovereigns to
their vassals. In addition, the expressions describing its specific borders with
help of geographical locations and verbal phrases can be characterized as a
place and verb system that is also attested in Josh 1519.51 Furthermore, the
territory itself that is to be conquered, cleaned and divided among the tribes
by the new generation covers a large area of land. Its southern border, from
the Dead Sea in the east, along the Ascent of the Scorpions, Kadesh Barnesh to
the Brook of Egypt is similar to that of the land of Israel (cf. Josh 11:17; 15:24;
Judg 1:36).52 But this is not the case in the West with the Philistine area, in the
North, where the Promised Land comprises territory, which never belonged to
the Israelite heartland, and in the East, where the plateaus south of the Yarmuk
River are said to be conquered by accident according to Num 21.
Nevertheless, the area described as the Promised Land is not a Fremdkrper
in the Old Testament. It is repeated Ezek 47:1520 and clearly presupposed in
Josh 13:26 and Judg 3:3, which describe land and nations that still have to be
conquered. Its northern and southernmost borders also depict the extent of
the area celebrating the dedication of Solomons temple in 1 Kgs 8:65.
There are several ways in which these borders can be described and apart
from some minor disagreements, the scholarly consensus about their iden-
tification is impressive.53 Accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the
51 N. Wazana, All the Boundaries of the Land. The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in Light
of the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN 2013, 1278, 1329.
52 For its geographical details, see Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 18990.
53 From north to south: Aphek at the border of the Amorites (Josh 13:4)Aqfa (Levante
Grid 231.382); Mount Hor (Num 34:7, 8)unknown [not the mountain where Aaron
104 van Bekkum
area reflects a geographical concept (Map 1). The question is: where does it
come from?54
Some scholars involved in the recent debate on the literary history of
the Pentateuch have a clear answer. They associate it with the expression
ebir nri, the Akkadian geographical name for part or all of Syria and Palestine
at least as early as the 8th century bce, and even more with the later Aramaic
equivalent bar nahrh, the Persian satrapy Beyond the River, which is often
mentioned in Aramaic sources from the Achaemenid Period and also in Ezra
4:1011, 17, 20.55 This solution, however, is contradicted by historical geographi-
cal information regarding this period: the Persian satrapy Beyond the River
was much bigger (and even included Cyprus), while its technical term is not
attested in the texts under discussion.56
Several alternatives have been proposed: the concept would reflect
the outer boundaries of the Egyptian New Kingdom Province in Asia
died]; Lebo Hamath (e.g. Num 34:8; Josh 13:5; Judg 3:3; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 14:24)al-Labwa
(LG 207.250); Zedad (Num 38:8; Ezek 47:15)adad (LG 261.263); Ziphron / Siphraim
(Num 34:9; Ezek 47:16)awarin (LG 275.258); Hazar Enan (Num 34:9, 10; Ezek 47:17)
Qaryeten / Tell Wadi l-Ain (LG 290.254); Shepham (Num 34:10, 11)unknown; Riblah
east of Ain (Num 34:11)unknown [not Riblah at the OrontesTell Zarra at Rabla
(229.279)]; Kinnereth (Num 34:11; Josh 12:3; 13:27)Tel Kinrot (Palestine Grid 252.200);
Ascent of the Scorpions (Num 34:4; Josh 15:3; Judg 1:36)Maale Akrabim (PG 162.035);
Mount Halak (Josh 11:17; 12:7; 15)Har he-Halak (PG 153.030); Kadesh Barnea (e.g. Num
34:4; Josh 10:41; 15:3)Ain el-Qudeirat (PG 094.006); Azmon (Num 34:4, 5; Josh 15:4)
unknown; Brook of Egypt (e.g. Num 34:5; Josh 15:4; 1 Kgs 8:65)Wadi el-Arish; Shihor
close to Egypt (Josh 13:3)the easternmost branch of the Nile River. For a discussion and
literature, see G. Lehmann, Bibliographie der achologischen Fundstellen und Surveys in
Syrien und Libanon (Orient-Archologie, 9), Rahden, Westfalen 2002, Index; Van Bekkum,
From Conquest to Coexistence, 21524.
54 Unfortunately, Volkmar Fritz, Cor de Vos and Nili Wazana only analyze the diachronic
associations of the diverse parts of the border descriptions, not those of the geographi-
cal concept as a whole. V. Fritz, Die Grenzen des Landes Israel, in: G. Galil, M. Weinfeld
(eds), Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia
Kallai (SVT, 81), Leiden etc. 2000, 1434; J.C. de Vos, Das Los Judas. ber Entstehung und
Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua 15 (SVT, 95), Leiden etc. 2003, 142148; Wazana, All the
Boundaries, 14766.
55 E.g. Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 591; S.S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 4048
(HSM, 49), Atlanta, GA 1992, 15374. Cf. J. Hoftijzer, K. Jongeling, Dictionary of North-West
Semitic Inscriptions (HdO, 1.21), Leiden etc. 1995, 823.
56 Cf. e.g. A.F. Rainey. The Satrapy Beyond the River, AJBA 2 (1969), 5178; C. Tuplin,
The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire, in: I. Carradice (ed.), Coinage and
Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires (BAR IS, 343), Oxford 1987, 10966;
M.W. Stolper, The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River in 486 B.C., JNES 48 (1989),
28892.
Map 1 Concept of the Promised Land according to Num 34:112, Josh 13:17, Judg 3:3;
Ezek 47:1520.
(ca. 14501150 bce),57 of the Israelite settlement,58 of the Davidic empire,59 or

of the Asiatic Domain of Necho II after the Assyrian retreat (609595 bce).60
57 B. Maisler, Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palstinas
(AOSUG, 2), Gieen 1930, 6772; B. Mazar, Canaan and the Canaanites, BASOR 102 (1946),
712; R. de Vaux, Le Pays de Canaan, JAOS 88 (1968), 2330.
58 M. Noth, Das Reich von Hamath als Grenznachbar des Reiches Israel, PJ 33 (1937), 49
(= idem, Aufstze, Bd. 2, 159).
59 K. Elliger, Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids, PJ 32 (1936), 5462; Y. Kaufmann, The
Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine, Jerusalem 1953, 4851.
60 Y. Levin, Numbers 34:212, the Boundaries of the Land of Israel, and the Empire of Neco,
JANES 30 (2006), 5576.
106 van Bekkum
It could also display a cultic vision of the late pre-exilic temple community
(639609 bce),61 or be based on the division in districts of the Assyrian empire,
which was also used by the Babylonians.62
There are several ways to evaluate these alternatives. A comparison with
archaeological information regarding the geographical realia mentioned in
Num 34:112 is complicated, because the material remains are scarce. Some
sites along the border in the todays Syrian and Lebanese territories were
the object of a survey, but only one of them was excavated.63 This evidence
does not reflect a clear pattern regarding its inhabitation that can be con-
nected to the composition of the text. In the south, that is, the desert regions
of the Wilderness of Zin, the ancient tell of Kadesh Barnea (Ain el-Qudeirat)
and the Negev, human activity along this border did take place during the late
2nd millennium bce, as has become evident from geo-archaeological inves-
tigation of terraced fields in wadis.64 In addition, surveys and excavations
resulted in the discovery of important Negev settlements in Iron IIa and at
Kadesh in Iron IIab.65 Detailed discussions of the remains in the Negev and
at Khirbet en-Nahas and Timnah led to the conclusion that a peak in human
activities in the region can be observed in relation to the exploitation of the
copper reserves in the Aravah during the late 11th to 10th centuries and to
the flourishing economy in the Beersheva Valley under influence of the pax
Assyriaca in 7th century bce.66 This evidence might indicate that the text
61 K.D. Hutchens, Defining the Boundaries. A Cultic Interpretation of Numbers 34.112

and Ezekiel 47.1348.1, 28, in: M.P. Graham et al. (eds), History and Interpretation. Essays
in Honour of John H. Hayes (JSOTS, 173), Sheffield 1993, 21530; Fistill, Israel und das
Ostjordanland, 135138. For a similar conclusion, based on the idea that the concept has
its background in diverse historical situations, see Fritz, Grenzen des Landes, 2425.
62 N. Naaman, Lebo-Hamath, ubat-Hamath, and the Northern Boundary of the Land of
Canaan, UF 31 (1999), 41741.
63 Excavations revealed that Al-Labwa (Lebo Hamath) was continuously inhabited from the
Early Bronze to the Byzantine period. Surveys of awarin (Ziphron) resulted in finds from
the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine period, and revealed remains from the palaeolithic,
Roman, Byzantine periods, in the Middle Ages and the Osman period in Tell Wadi l-Ain
(Hazar Enan). Lehmann, Bibliographie, 277, 316, 4467.
64 H.J. Bruins, J. van der Plicht, Radiocarbon Dating the Wilderness of Zin, Radiocarbon 49
(2007), 48197.
65 Cf. e.g. R. Cohen, R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands. Vol. II: The
Iron Age and the Persian Periods (IAA Reports, 20), Jerusalem 2004.
66 See e.g. T.E. Levy et al., Lowland Edom and High and Low Chronologies, in: T.E. Levy,
T. Higham (eds), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science,
London 2005, 12963; Y. Thareani-Sussely, Desert outsiders: extramural neighbourhoods
in the Iron Age Negev, in: A. Fantalkin, A. Yasur-Landau (eds), Bene Israel. Studies in the
Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel
reflects a pre-exilic horizon, a suggestion that is confirmed by the excava-

tions at Tel Kinrot at the Sea of Galilee. This city was continuously inhabited
from the Middle Bronze Age on, but destroyed by the Assyrian armies in the
late 8th century bce and never systematically resettled until the Hellenistic
period.67 As such, however, this information does not prove very much, for it
is also imaginable that the phrase Sea of Kinnereth (Num 34:11) survived for a
long time after the city had been destroyed.
A better instrument for the evaluation of the diverse proposals for the
historical background of the geographical concept that is used in Num 34 is
offered by taking a detailed look at the text and at the geopolitical situation
over the centuries.
From a literary point of view, several remarkable features need to be men-
tioned. Moses has to command the Israelites and the area to be described
is called land of Canaan. Both are designations functioning as a structural
marker in these chapters.68 Israel has come from Egypt to the fields of Moab
(33:149), a part of Transjordan that was conquered by accident (Num 21) and
divided among two and a half tribes. The fulfilment of the promise of the land
has become an actual issue and therefore the command to do so also seems
to be more concrete and detailed (cf. Num 32). The phrase introducing the
description of the land, this is the land, is a clear genre header, like these are
the generations (Genesis, Chronicles), these are the stages of the Israelites
(Num 33:1), these are the kings (Josh 12:1), this is the land that remains
(Josh 13:2), and these are the inheritances (Josh 13:32). What follows or pre-
cedes is a list. In these cases, the words and most likely suggest that
a kind of source or archival document is introduced.69 Interestingly, this idea
is corroborated by Martin Noths hypothesis that the following lines are writ-
ten with help of a list containing only place names describing a border, the
so-called Grenzfixpunkte.70 This hypothesis is confirmed by Cor de Vos study
of the southern border of the Promised Land in Num 34:35 and its parallel
Finkelstein (CHANE, 31), Leiden etc. 2008, 197209; E. Ben-Yosef et al., A New Chronological
Framework for Iron Age Copper Production in Timna (Israel), BASOR 367 (2012), 3171.
67 J. Pakkala, S. Mnger, J. Zangenberg, Kinneret Regional Project. Tel Kinrot Excavations
(Proceedings of the Finnish Institute in the Middle East, Report 2, 2004), Vantaa 2004,
1326.
68 Num 34:2; 35:2, cf. 34:13; 34:29; 36:2, 5, 6, 10, 13 (, pi.) and 33:40, 51; 34:2b, 2e, 29b
() .
69 See e.g. Gen 10:1; 11:10; 36:1; Num 3:1; Josh 12:1, 7; 13:2; 1 Chr 2:1. Cf. Davies, Wilderness
Itineraries, 4748; Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 196, 215, 337, 403, 418.
70 Cf. M. Noth, Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,
ZDPV 58 (1935), 1868 [= idem., Aufstze, Bd. 1, 2302] with Z. Kallai, Historical Geography
of the Bible, Jerusalem 1986, 3235.
108 van Bekkum
in Josh 15:24.71 Nevertheless, the border description is also firmly embed-

ded in its new context, thereby creating new meaning. The depiction of the
area as a whole underlines the tension in the narrative, which was created by
the itinerary and the following commands of 33:5056. Will the new genera-
tion accomplish its mission, so that a new commission of tribal chiefs will
be able to distribute the land (34:1629)? The fact that the area south of the
Yarmuk River does not belong to the Promised Land further underlines
the accidental nature of the conquest of the kingdoms of Sihon and Og, as
described in Num 21:2035, thus indicating that not everything will turn out to
be as expected.
Accordingly, the text seems to be both quoting a source, while at the same
time being an integral part of the composition. All the more interesting is the
question for the historical background of its geographical concept.
The first option that can be ruled out is that of the area that had been settled
by the Israelite tribes, because it is based on a wrong identification of Lebo
Hamath.72 Much more interesting is the idea that the texts in Numbers and
Ezekiel depict a cultic vision of the land with help of borders in the Assyrian
or Babylonian imperial administration. The view of the land in both texts is
indeed closely connected to the cult. In Ezek 47 this is projected into the future
in the prophetic vision of a new temple. Num 34 tells about a holy people,
which has been travelling through the desert as an ecclesia militans, and awaits
the fulfilment of the promise of the land. This land is the place of the pres-
ence of Yhwh among his people. Accordingly, it seems attractive to suppose
that the borders in Numbers are based on that of the book of Ezekiel, which
most likely reflects the Babylonian administration, because this description
starts in the north instead of in the south and depicts this border in a new way,
that is, by mentioning three Assyrian districts, Hamath, Damascus and Hauran
(Ezek 47:16). Another option is to assume that the book of Numbers contains
the original version of the borders, which could also be based on the Assyrian
organization of the western side of the fertile crescent, as could be concluded
from the fact that Numbers already mentions (the district of) Hamath.
71 De Vos, Das Los Judas, 143146, cf. Wazana, All the Boundaries, 139141, 145151. Cf. the
border goes up from Hezron and goes down to Addar (Josh 15:3) with to Hazar-Addar
(Num 34:4). Similar variations of names and stereotypical verbs, mostly reflecting the
ecological circumstances, occur in the description of the northern border of Judah and
the southern border of Benjamin (Josh 15:78; 18:1617) and the boundary between
Benjamin and Joseph (Josh 16:13; 18:1213).
72 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 223, 358.
These solutions, however, meet serious problems. In Num 34:112 only

the city of Hamath might refer to a Neo-Assyrian background (34:8). To use
this name and its supposed relation to the introduction of the system of the
Assyrian (and Babylonian) Provinces as a terminus a quo for the composition
of text, presupposes that the attestations of Lebo Hamath in 1 Sam 8:9 and
1 Kgs 8:65 are anachronisms. This is not entirely impossible, but according to
Neo-Hittite Luwian inscriptions, Hama operated as a political entity already
since the late 11th century bce.73 Moreover, only one part of the geographical
concept matches the boundaries of the Assyrian administration, that is, the
line from Lebo Hamath to Zedad, which functioned as a border for a very long
time, from the Egyptian New Kingdom involvement in Asia to the Hellenistic
period.74 Therefore, the most natural explanation of the relation between
both texts is that the scribes who wrote Ezek 47 used the geographical descrip-
tion that is now attested in Num 34 and adapted it to their own Babylonian
perspective.75
It is this conclusion that leads to a reconsideration of the biblical associa-
tions of the geographical concept of Num 34:112, Josh 13:26, Judg 3:3 and
Ezek 47:1520 with Old Testament passages depicting the Davidic conquests
and the Solomonic empire. In the north, the southern border of the north-
ern part of the remaining land in Josh 13 is exactly the same as the northern
boundary of Davids kingdom as depicted in 2 Sam 24, while the big areas of
the remaining land in Josh 13 and Num 34 north of the land of Israel can be
connected to Davids conquests in 2 Sam 8 and 10. The books of Samuel also tell
how David fought with the remaining nations in the south, the Philistines, the
Awites and Geshurites (Josh 13:23; 1 Sam 27).76
73 Cf. A. Payne, H.C. Melchert, Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (WAW, 29), Atlanta
2012, 8, 4750; G. Galil, A Concise History of Palistin / Patin / Unqi / mq in the 11th9th
Centuries BC, Semitica 56 (2014), 75104; K.L. Younger, A Political History of the Arameans.
From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities (ABS), Atlanta 2016.
74 Thus already Elliger, Nordgrenze des Reiches David, 3840.
75 Noth, Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten, 23943 (= idem, Aufstze,
Bd. 1, 26972); W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT), Bd. 2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, 12131217;
Tuell, Law of the Temple, 156. According to Wazana, the appearance of Tamar in Ezek 47:19
and 48:28 strengthens the supposition that the vision recorded in Ezekiel is later than
Numbers. Wazana, All of the Boundaries, 173, 176.
76 Cf. Z. Kallai, The Reality of the Land in the Bible, in: G. Strecker (Hrsg.), Das Land in bib-
lischer Zeit. Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebraischen Universitat und der Georg-August-
Universitat (GTA, 25), Gttingen 1983, 8082 (= idem, Studies in Biblical Historiography
and Geography [BEATJ, 56], Frankfurt a. Main 2010, 1947); Van Bekkum, From Conquest
to Coexistence, 17783, 222; idem, Remembering and Claiming Ramesside Canaan.
110 van Bekkum
A possible explanation of these literary ties might be the assumption that

the cultic claim of such a large area of land is to be dated in the late pre-exilic
period related to the cultic Reforms of king Josiah of Judah and based on the
Asiatic Domain of Necho II after the Assyrian retreat (609595 bce). There are
two main arguments for this. According to 2 Kgs 23:33, Jehoahaz, son of Josiah,
was imprisoned by pharaoh Necho II in Riblah at the Orontes in the land of
Hamath. In addition, it was during the seventh century that the kingdom
of Edom began to expand in the Negev Highlands.77
This hypothesis, however, fails in the light of the fact that Num 34:11 adds a
further qualification to Riblah, that is, on the east side of Ain, precisely to dis-
tinguish it from Riblah at the Orontes.78 Moreover, pharaoh Necho kept his ter-
ritory in Asia only for a few years and the description of Josiahs cultic reforms
indeed refers to the northern territories, but the extent of his kingdom is very
unclear and according to the text, his men did not go that far to the north.79
Finally, the above-mentioned archaeological evidence clearly suggests that the
southern border of Num 34:35 and Josh 15:14 could also have functioned in
Iron IIa.
Accordingly the question is: Were there other, earlier Davidic kings, who
were active in the Negev and north-eastern Sinai and who claimed such a large
territory all the way up to Lebo Hamath? The text of 2 Sam 8:1314 maintains
that David himself waged war and placed garrisons in Edom, possibly to secure
the mining and trade in this region.80 In addition, Solomon indeed claimed the
north according to the book of Kings (1 Kgs 8:65). Nowadays, however, many
scholars hesitate to affirm that he was actually capable of controlling such
large areas.81 It is questionable, however, whether the claims of the biblical
texts should be interpreted that way. In particular 1 Kgs 5:15 is interesting in
Historical-topographical Problems and the Ideology of Geography in Joshua 13:17,

in: Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel, 3559.
77 For Wazana, this is also the main argument to use the late 7th century bce as the terminus
a quo for Num 34:112. Wazana, All the Boundaries, 1513.
78 See note 53, cf. M. Cogan, H. Tadmor, II Kings (Anchor Bible), New York 1988, 304.
79 Cf. e.g. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 3801.
80 For considerations regarding the historical and economic circumstances, see e.g.
B. Halpern, Davids Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Grand Rapids 2000,
3457, 3823; G. Hagens, Copper Futures in Cabul. On Reconstructing the Monarchic
Narratives, PEQ 139 (2007), 9193; D.M. Master, Economy and Exchange in the Iron Age
Kingdoms of the Southern Levant, BASOR 372 (2014), 8197.
81 For an overview and discussion, see G.N. Knoppers, The Vanishing Solomon. The
Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel, JBL 116
(1997), 1944.
this respect. On the one hand, the passage refers to the land ber hannhr
(1 Kgs 5:4), the Hebraized version of the name for the region Beyond the River
under Achaemenid rule (Ezra 8:38; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7), and the Akkadian geograph-
ical proper name for part or all of Syria and Palestine at least as early as the
8th century bce.82 On the other hand, several descriptions of Solomons
accomplishments regarding prosperity, security and rest, and wisdom in the
immediate literary context perfectly parallel standard expressions of royal
domestic achievements in 9th and 8th century bce West Semitic royal inscrip-
tions (cf. 1 Kgs 4:20, 25, 34; 5:1719).83 Recently, Christopher Hays has argued
that some of the formulations in 1 Kgs 5:15 might be late. In his view, how-
ever, there is much to say for the idea that the rhetoric about Solomons empire
shares some significant features with the Egyptian royal ideology of territory.
According to this ideology, a claimed territory comprises three zones: a well-
defended internal zone of primary settlements, an outer zone of economic
interests; and finally an ideological zone that was generally not militarily, but
rather an idealized expression of royal power. In this way, Solomon not only
claimed to be the dominant figure among the rulers of the territorial kingdoms
in the region, but also the successor of the Egyptian pharaoh as ruler of the
Egyptian Province in Asia.84
This hypothesis brings us to the last proposal, namely that the geographical
concept of Num 34 and Josh 13 precisely reflects this Egyptian New Kingdom
view of its vassal territories in Asia. Elsewhere I have argued that this is indeed
the case and that Josh 13:26 even contains Late Bronze memories in two con-
crete geographical designations, that is, the Shihor close to Egypt, and the
name Aphek at the boundary in the north, which was stabilized by the peace
treaty between Ramses II and the Hittites in the 13th century bce, while most
likely, the text itself reflects a late 10th to the early 8th century bce horizon.85
Two decades ago, the idea of a well-defined Egyptian view of Asian vassal
territories was seriously tested by Niels Peter Lemche and Oded Tammuz.86
82 See note 56.

83 Cf. D.J. Green, I Undertook Great Works. The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West
Semitic Royal Inscriptions (FAT 2/41), Tbingen 2010, 7172, 193, 2089, 2145, 2568, 304,
3125.
84 C.B. Hays, Biblical Claims About Solomons Kingdom in Light of Egyptian Three-
Zone Ideology of Territory, in: T.E. Levy et al. (eds), Israels Exodus in Transdisciplinary
Perspective. Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience, Dordrecht 2015, 50315.
85 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 2248, 40610; idem, Remembering and
Claiming Ramesside Canaan, 3635.
86 N.P. Lemche, Canaanites and Their Land. The Traditions of the Canaanites (JSOTS, 110),
Sheffield 1991; O. Tammuz, CanaanA Land without Limits, UF 33 (2001), 50143.
112 van Bekkum
In the debate that followed, it has become clear that the name land of Canaan
is indeed not an Egyptian, but a biblical concept and that the border descrip-
tion cannot be related to an Egyptian or Hittite textual source.87 Moreover,
during the reign of Ramses II, there was also a heightened awareness of the
territory in southern Transjordan, because he thought that the settlements in
that region were a threat to his dominion of the known world. At the same
time, however, it is important not to read too much in to its presence.88 All this,
however, does not rule out the fact that in the light of a whole network of non-
biblical and biblical texts, it is highly likely that the Egyptian Province in Asia
as such existed, that this view of Asia functioned in the circles of the Davidic
monarchy in order to define their land-claims, and that it was used by Israelite
scribes to depict the Promised Land.89
Hence, a literary reading taking into consideration inner-biblical relations,
the non-biblical associations of the text and the available archaeological infor-
mation results in the conclusion that the background of the geographical
concept as it is reflected in Num 34:112, Josh 13:26 and Ezek 47:1520 can be
found in the Late Bronze period, that is, in the Egyptian view of the Province in
Asia. Biblical texts reveal that the memory of this specific concept was some-
how preserved and used by Davidic rulers during the Iron II period.
These texts, however, reflect diverse horizons and exploit the concept in a
very specific way. The itinerary and the command of Num 33 and the descrip-
tion of the Promised Land of Num 34:112 are strongly connected, geographi-
cally, literarily and conceptually. Accordingly, the divine land grant is closely
connected to the question whether the new generation, the ecclesia militans
that survived the desert, will be able to conquer and divide the Promised Land.90
87 Wazana, All the Boundaries, 142145.

88 K.A. Kitchen, The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan, in: P. Bienkowski (ed.), Early
Edom and Moab. The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (SAM, 7), Sheffield 1992,
2139; B. Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age. Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology, Philadelphia 2004,
5886; J. Strange, The Late Bronze Age, in: R.B. Adams (ed.), Jordan. An Archaeological
Reader, London 2008, 281310.
89 N. Naaman, The Canaanites and Their LandA Rejoinder, UF (1994), 397418 (= idem,
Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Collected Essays, vol. 2, Winona Lake 2005, 11033);
A.F. Rainey, Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence, BASOR 306 (1996),
115; N.P. Lemche, Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Naaman, UF
28 (1996), 76772; N. Naaman, Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan, BASOR 313
(1999), 3137 (= idem, Canaan in the Second Millennium, 1344).
90 Cf. Z. Kallai, The Wandering Traditions from Kadesh Barnea to Canaan. A Study in
Biblical Historiography, JSS 33 (1982), 182 (= idem, Biblical Historiography and Historical
This dynamic of divine favour and human responsibility in the transition of

generations obtains a new focus in the theme of the transfer of leadership in
the description of the remaining land in Josh 13:17, in which the Davidic asso-
ciations also become more prominent.91 In accordance with the two impor-
tant themes in the book of Judges, idolatry and the desire for a just leader,
Judg 3:3 only mentions the inhabitants of the remaining land, for it were the
remaining nations that would become snares and traps for Israel (Josh 23:13),
while these were also the peoples that were eventually subjugated by David.92
Finally, when the Davidic dynasty had failed, Ezek 47:1320 adapted the border
description of Numbers in order to present the prophetic oracle proclaiming
the renewal of the original promise of the land to the patriarchs (Ezek 47:14,
cf. 20:56). Transformed by the new divine initiative, the restored Israel will
be no longer disobedient, rebellious, and scattered among the nations, but
a clean people with a new heart and a new spirit, living in tribal areas that
are now all located in Cisjordan, while even the strangers will be included
(Ezek 47:22). Accordingly, the description of this cultic vision of the Promised
Land starts from the north, for the exiles came back to the land from
this direction.
4 LiteraryHistorical Considerations and Conclusion
It is now time to return to the main question of this paper. To what extent
does the idea of larger post-priestly compositional blocks elucidate the literary
history of Num 33 and 34? In general, some basic aspects of this hypothesis
are confirmed. The latest chapters of the book of Numbers can be read as a
well-structured composition making use of existing material, blending so-
called deuteronomic, deuteronomistic and priestly terminology and creating
a bridge between the story of the Exodus, the Sinai-narrative and the historio
graphy of the conquest of the Promised Land.
The picture becomes much more complicated, however, as soon as the older
material and its integration in the narrative as a whole are taken into account.
With regard to the itinerary in Num 33, the conclusion seems to be justified
Geography, 172): The itinerary of Num 33 is mainly geared to the entry into the Land of
Canaan.
91 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 2135, 22933.
92 Cf. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 139, 4067. For a different interpretation,
see e.g. Wazana, All the Boundaries, 22831.
114 van Bekkum
that the use of the annals genre in the text is partly based on sources. It is
very hard, however, to determine the number of sources and also to make a
distinction between those parts of the itinerary which are very old and may
indeed betray practical knowledge about travelling in the Sinai during the Late
Bronze period, and other passages which merely reflect later views.
Num 34 offers a much better picture. It is not only possible to trace the
Late Bronze background of the geographical concept of the depiction of
the Promised Land, there is also a large amount of information available con-
cerning its tradition-history. Its precise literary origin and transmission is
unknown.93 But it is most likely that the same geographical concept was used
by the early kings of the Davidic dynasty to sustain land-claims and its posi-
tion among the southern Levantine rulers, while finally, the very same view
was reframed and adapted to an exilic horizon in Ezekiels prophetic visions.
Strikingly, the focus on Gods presence and the connection with the cult can
also be detected in the use of the geographical concept in 1 Kgs 8:65: all Israel
from Lebo Hamath to the Brook of Egypt participates in the celebration of the
dedication of the temple.
This remarkable combination of Davidic and priestly interests is even
attested in Num 34 itself, for the list of the chieftains that will lead the appor-
tioning of the land not only contains new names, but also gives a prominent
place to Caleb, Judahs representative, and arranges the Cisjordanian tribes in
the same way as Josh 1519 and Judg 1:136: here again, Judah is mentioned
first.94 In this way, Num 33 and 34 together highlight the presence of God and
show that the rebellion of the first generation is forever a challenge to the next
generations cult and conduct in this very presence, whether this is in the
desert, the Davidic kingdom, in exile or in the diaspora.95
93 The fact of southern Transjordan being excluded from both the Egyptian Province in
Asia and the Promised Land brings Moshe Weinfeld to the suggestion that an oracle in
this matter was current from the beginning of the conquest and could not be changed.
Magnus Ottosson considers the possibility that the reflections concerning the division of
the land go back to traditions that were kept in the sanctuary at Shiloh. M. Weinfeld, The
Extent of the Promised Land. The Status of Transjordan, in: Strecker (Hrsg.), Das Land
in biblischer Zeit, 65; M. Ottosson, Josuaboken. En programskrift fr davidisk restauration
(SBU, 1), Uppsala 1991, 267.
94 Cf. K. van Bekkum, Coexistence as Guilt. Iron I Memories in Judges 1, in: G. Galil et al.
(eds), The Ancient Near East in the 12th10th Centuries BCE. Culture and History (AOAT,
392), Mnster 2012, 52548.
95 Cf. A.C. Leder, Waiting for the Land. The Storyline of the Pentateuch, Phillipsburg 2010,
1623.
This combination of a literary tradition-historical path leading back into the

Iron Age IIa period and reflecting a cultic awareness that seems to be primar-
ily concerned with the fulfilment of the Promise of the Land and obedience
to Yhwh, raises questions. Could it be that theological perspectives that are
traditionally attributed to D and P, coexisted in one and the same textual tra-
dition already in pre-exilic times?96 If the use of old material in Num 34 and
its natural embedding in the context imply an early connection of the Sinai
and the conquest narratives, and also betray a pre-exilic conflation of deu-
teronomic and priestly themes, this touches upon several contested issues in
recent Pentateuchal scholarship: the end and the date of P; the date and func-
tion of the Holiness Code; and the compositional function of the promise of
the land by oath.97
The recent trends in Pentateuchal Criticism reveal that it is very hard to find
solutions in these issues. The example of Num 33 and 34, however, illustrates
that due to the deductive nature of most proposals it is very hard to do jus-
tice to all elements in the text. Moreover, scholars also face huge methodologi-
cal problems. For Wellhausen, things seemed to be very clear. The only thing
that is required is to notice and to explain the problems and distinct formula-
tions in the text. In his words: It is not just a question of the spectacles, but
of the eyes.98
Indeed the eye of the reader of Num 33 and 34 and the book of Joshua can
detect four distinct ways in describing the distribution of the land among the
tribes: unmediated distribution of land; distribution of land by a commission
led by Eleazar; the limitation of the distribution of land to nine and a half tribe;
and distribution by lot. Accordingly, it is possible to reconstruct four phases in
96 A similar question, based on linguistic considerations, suggesting that large parts of

the Pentateuch are most likely of pre-exilic origin, is raised by J. Joosten, Diachronic
Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch, in: Gertz et al. (eds.), The Formation of the
Pentateuch (forthcoming).
97 Cf. D.M. Carr, Changes in Pentateuchal Scholarship, in: Magne Saebo (ed.), The History of
Old Testament Interpretation. Vol. 3/2: The Twentieth Century, Gttingen 2015, 45464. See
also the observation by Bill Arnold in his contribution to this volume that the traditions of
the patriarchs in Genesis and the fathers in Deuteronomy are much stronger intercon-
nected than is often assumed.
98 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur ltesten Geschichte des Islams, Berlin 1899, viii: Es
kommt indessen nicht bloss auf die Brille an, sondern auch auf die Augen. Cf. L. Perlitt,
Deuteronomium-Studien (FAT, 8), Tbingen 1994, 117; R. Smend, Julius Wellhausen. Ein
Bahnbrechter in drei Disziplinen, Mnchen 2006; J. Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism,
Louisville/London 2007, 59.
116 van Bekkum
the texts literary history.99 If the distinctions in the geographical terminology

are also taken into account, it is even possible to add even one or two more
perspectives and editorial layers. But is this really the right method?
It is also possible to take different eyeglasses and to observe that both the
geographical descriptions and the terminology of conquering and dividing the
land follow a clear narrative logic: as soon as the fact of inheriting the land
becomes more concrete and this idea is connected to interest in priestly affairs,
it becomes necessary to create these differences, which are in itself not incon-
sistent with the general idea of inheriting the land. Of course, this is a more
harmonizing way of reading the text. But how do we know which spectacles
are the best? That is a difficult question, because it has not only to do with
practical and methodological skills, but also with scholarly traditions, while in
the background even ideological convictions may play their part.
The recent empirical studies of documented cases of transmission history
seem to be a good place to start in discussing the criteria that are used in recon-
structing the literary growth of the Primary History. The difficulty, however, is
that these studies do not result in defining clear positive criteria, but only in
general methodological considerations. It is, for instance, no longer possible
to speak of oral stages of transmission which would later be superseded by
written stages; the criterion of vocabulary and style turns out to be not terribly
reliable; it is important to be cautious in creating sources, because these more
often reflect our own scholarly assumptions than historical reality; and finally,
it is dangerous to posit too many stages of transmission.100 In addition to these
warnings, it is possible to add other general criteria. A literary-historical recon-
struction cannot, for instance, reduce the texts to political communication; it
should do justice to the literary qualities of the texts and to their ancient Near
Eastern embedding; and the differences between the modes of transmission in
the context of an empire and that of a small territorial entity should be kept in
mind, for it is not without consequences when a society is less socially strati-
fied than, for instance, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and a vernacular is used in
writing literature.
Most likely, even the most strict application of these methodological
constraints will not lead to a consensus. Be that is it may, the example of
Num 33 and 34 shows that it in searching for the composition history of the
Pentateuch, it can be fruitful to take a look at the narrative as a whole, while at
99 E.g. Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 8085; De Vos, Das Los Judas, 2315.
100 See e.g. Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 13149 and its reviews by A.R. Roskop
(H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews, June 2012) and T.J. Stone (JHS 12 [2012]).
the same time these chapters force scholars to be reluctant in drawing conclu-
sions that are deductive in nature. It is as if the text presents itself as a kind of
tell. Those looking for its origin and composition walk on it and do not exactly
know how and where they could start digging. But even on the surface, some
remnants of its ancient history can be found.
The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah
Jaap Dekker
1 Introduction
Until recently it has been a broad consensus within biblical scholarship that
references to Torah in the book of Isaiah did not mean the Torah of Moses,
but should be understood in a more general sense indicating prophetic
instruction.1 In the book of Isaiah there is only a small number of texts, twelve
altogether, which make use of the Hebrew word . It is never prefixed with
a definite article nor is it followed by the mention of Moses as is the case in the
Deuteronomistic and Chronistic literature. The concept is used in the absolute
sense (2:3; 8:16, 20; 42:21; 51:4) or it is called ( 1:10; 30:9),
(5:24), ( 42:4, 24) and ( 51:7), the suffix once referring to the Servant
of the Lord (42:4) instead of to the Lord himself. Only once the plural
occurs (24:5).2
Biblical scholars have often expressed their surprise that the prophets in
general hardly ever refer to the revelation at Mount Sinai or mention the
Torah of Moses explicitly.3 While some of the prophets in any case allude
to the responsibility of the priests for teaching and correctly applying Torah
(Jer 2:8; 18:18; Ezek 7:26; 22:26; 44:23; Hos 4:6; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:1113; Mal 2:69;
cf. Deut 33:10), they never connect Torah to Moses, except in the closing sec-
tion of the book of Malachi: Remember the teaching of my servant Moses
() , the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for
all Israel. (Mal 3:22 = NRSV 4:4).4 With regard to Isaiah and his book it has
been common opinion for a long time that exclusively refers to a kind
of prophetic Torah, comparable to the one the prophet Samuel delivers in
1 Cf. F. Garca Lpez, H.-J. Fabry, tr, TWAT VII, 597637.

2 L XX has the singular.
3 Cf. J.C. Halton, Law, in: M.J. Boda, J.G. McConville (eds), Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Prophets, Downers Grove 2012, 493501 (494). Moses himself is mentioned twice in Isa 63:1112
(LXX mentions Moses once), but only with reference to his leading role in the crossing of
the sea. In contrast to this exodus-tradition, which is often revoked especially in the second
part of the book of Isaiah (cf. 4:56; 10:24; 11:1516; 19:20; 35:810), the Sinai-tradition is not
alluded to.
4 All translations are from the New Revised Standard Version.

The Concept of Torah in the book of Isaiah 119
1 Sam 15:2223.5 The first and second time that the concept is used provide a
good illustration, for in both cases is paralleled with the word of
the Lord, which clearly is a prophetically coloured concept. Isa 1:10 says: Hear
the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God,
you people of Gomorrah! And inverting the sequence of the parallel nouns
Isa 2:3 states: For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem. As in most modern Bible translations is translated
with instruction and not with law.
The origin of Isaiahs concept of prophetic Torah has been sought in the
context of Wisdom,6 though some scholars prefer to think of a more priestly
origin and even suggest that Isaiahs use of the concept is satirical.7 Recently,
however, several scholars have argued that the present form of the book pre-
supposes an interpretation of as referring to the Torah of Moses. In this
paper I want to survey and discuss the arguments of this understanding of the
concept of Torah in the book of Isaiah. For if the advocates of this new inter-
pretation are proven to be right, this will probably change our understanding
of the overall message of the book and its function within biblical theology.
2 Supposed References to Mosaic Torah
Although traditional Judaism has always suggested a direct relationship of

the book of Isaiah with Mosaic Torah, within critical scholarship this under-
standing could only rise when scholars started to focus on the final form of
the book.8 Ground-breaking for this shift in Isaiah studies has been the plea of
5 Cf. T. Lescow, Die dreistufige Tora. Beobachtungen zu einer Form, ZAW 82 (1970), 36279.
6 Cf. J. Jensen, The Use of tr by Isaiah. His Debate with the Wisdom Tradition (CBQMS, 3),
Washington 1973. G. Liedke, C. Peterson, tr Weisung, THAT II, Mnchen 1979, 1032
43, suppose that the use of Torah in Wisdom originally derives from the context of parental
teaching.
7 J. Begrich, Die priesterliche Tora (BZAW, 66), Berlin 1936; R. Rendtorff, Die Gesetze in der
Priesterschrift (FRLANT, 44), Gttingen 1963.
8 For a description of this shift in Isaiah research, see M.A. Sweeney, The Book of Isaiah in
Recent Research, CRSB 1 (1993), 141162; M.E. Tate, The Book of Isaiah in Recent Study, in:
J.W. Watts, P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve,
FS J.D.W. Watts (JSOTSup, 235), Sheffield 1996, 2256; U. Becker, Jesajaforschung (Jes 139),
ThR 64 (1999), 137; 117152; P. Hffken, Jesaja. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion,
Darmstadt 2004; C.B. Hays, The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research, Religion Compass
5/10 (2011), 54966.
120 Dekker
Brevard Childs for a canon-critical approach of the Old Testament in general9

and the attention both Childs and Ronald Clements payed to the unity of the
book of Isaiah in particular.10 Building on this new interest in the final form
and present unity of the book, several scholars now advocate an understand-
ing of the book of Isaiah as elaborating on Mosaic Torah.
2.1 Gerald T. Sheppard (1992/1996)

Gerald Sheppard explicitly pleads for Torah as the central message of the book
of Isaiah. Being a student of Childs, Sheppard focuses on the present canoni-
cal form of the book. He argues that as a book of Scripture Isaiah should be
considered in relation to the larger corpus to which it belongs.11 Sheppard sup-
poses that a semantic transformation has taken place when the book of
Isaiah became part of Scripture.12 Originally , in the distinct settings of
the prophecies the book contains, refer to various forms of instruction in a
general sense. However, he argues, we are asking a different question: What
role does the term, torah, come to play in the later, scriptural book of Isaiah?13
He suggests that there might be signs of editing in the book, because it became
a book of Jewish Scripture, and that in fact the Torah now is its principal
subject matter.
Sheppard thinks it plausible that later references to in Isa 139
(2:3; 8:20; 24:5) as well as all references in Isa 4066 (42:4, 21, 24; 51:4, 7) even
originally have the Mosaic Torah in mind. With regard to 2:3 Sheppard appeals
to Marvin Sweeney who in his 1988 investigation of the introductory char-
acter of Isa 14 had argued that the prophecy of 2:14 conveys a post-exilic
origin.14 This text, dated by Sweeney in the sixth century, must have changed
the meaning of the prophecies which the editors afterwards used for the
introductory parenesis of chapter 1, such as the ancient prophecy of 1:1018,
9 B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London 1979.

10 R.E. Clements, The Unity of the Book of Isaiah, Interp. 36 (1982), 11729; B.S. Childs,
Isaiah (OTL), Louisville 2001.
11 G.T. Sheppard, The Book of Isaiah: Competing Structures according to a Late Modern
Description of its Shape and Scope, in: F.H. Lovering jr. (ed.), SBL Seminar Papers 1992,
Atlanta 1992, 54982.
12 Sheppard, Competing Structures, 570.
13 G.T. Sheppard, The Scope of Isaiah as a Book of Jewish and Christian Scriptures, in:
R.F. Melugin, M.A. Sweeney (eds), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup, 214), Sheffield 1996,
25781 (esp. 274281). This article in fact reproduces his 1992 article in SBL Seminar Papers.
14 M.A. Sweeney, Isaiah 14 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW,
171), Berlin 1988.
originally referring to a kind of prophetic . Sweeney did not yet identify the
exact nature of Torah which the final redaction had in mind. He even explicitly
signals the lack of any indication in Isaiah that Torah refers to the Five Books
of Moses or any specific body of teaching. However, from his dating of Isa 1
in the late fifth century, about the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, Sheppard
assumes that it would likely have the Mosaic Torah implicitly in mind.15
Sheppard also appeals to a cautious remark of Ronald Clements in his 1980
commentary on Isaiah 139 with regard to the plural in 24:5, which he
regards as a marginal gloss that it is not impossible that the Mosaic covenant
with Israel was meant.16 And with regard to the clause in 8:20,
which Clements designates as a comment on vv. 1618 from the exilic age,
Sheppard thinks that this originally meant the book of Isaiah, but at the same
time he states that this implies a Scripture and a subject matter larger than
merely this book. It is concerned with the Torah itself, not merely the book of
Isaiah which is one testimony to that Torah.17 Thus Sheppard supposes that
when Isaiah is read as a book of Jewish Scripture the concept of Torah refers to
Mosaic Torah. At the same time he suggests that this understanding is carried
over when Isaiah is read as Christian Scripture.18 Sheppard makes a firm state-
ment saying: If one askes what Isaiah is about, a logical answer is now, the
Torah. Any structural analysis that ignores that identification of the subject
matter ignores the late form and function of the book as a book of Jewish and
Christian scripture.19
2.2 Irmtraud Fischer (1995)

Also Irmtraud Fischer focuses on the concept of Torah in the book of Isaiah,
likewise taking her starting point in its final form.20 She distinguishes between
texts which relate the concept of Torah to Israel (for example 1:10) and other
texts which interpret Torah as instruction for the nations (for example 2:3).
Fischer then argues that the nations will only come to Zion and receive Torah
when Israel does really practise Torah, which causes a problem, because for
15 Sheppard, Scope, 276. See also G.T. Sheppard, The Book of Isaiah as a human witness
to revelation within the religions of Judaism and Christianity, in: F.H. Lovering jr. (ed.),
SBL Seminar Papers 1993, Atlanta 1993, 27480.
16 R.E. Clements, Isaiah 139 (NCBC), Grand Rapids 1980, 202.
17 Sheppard, Scope, 277.
18 Cf. Sweeney, Isaiah in Recent Research, 158.
20 I. Fischer, Tora fr IsraelTora fr die Vlker (SBS, 164), Stuttgart 1995.
122 Dekker
now Israel doesnt.21 She states, however, that both aspects of the concept of
Torah are brought together in the second part of the book (especially in chap-
ters 42 and 51), concluding that the book of Isaiah in its canonical form presents
itself as an actualization of the Torah of Moses, in which Zion is interpreted
as the Mount Sinai for the nations. According to Fischer it is the final redac-
tion of the book itself that turns Isaiah into an interpreter of Mosaic Torah,
in line with the Deuteronomic view of the prophets as successors of Moses
(Deut 18:1518).22 In this regard it should not be considered mere accidental
that 30:8 states that the prophetic message of Isaiah had to be written on a
tablet. This means that it has been understood as an actualizing commentary
on the Torah of Moses.23
Crucial for this understanding of the book is the preliminary assumption, for
which Fischer refers to Sheppard, that the Pentateuch had already reached its
final and canonical form, before the book of Isaiah received its final redaction.24
2.3 Marvin A. Sweeney (1996)

Though initially Marvin Sweeney signalled problems of critical control in
the work of Sheppard, because in this way he could easily assign later mean-
ings to earlier texts,25 later on Sweeney himself follows the lead of Sheppard
in understanding Torah as a main focus of the book of Isaiah and relating it
to the Torah of Moses.26 In his 1988 monograph he had already focused on
the perspectives and literary character of the final form of the book, ascrib-
ing Isa 1 to a late fifth century redaction and defining Isa 24 as a redactional
introduction to the books sixth century edition. Then he still suggested that
the party which produced the final form of the book did not fully agree with
Ezras program.27 In his 1996 study, however, Sweeney discusses this as a mis-
understanding28 and concludes that the final redaction of the book is inher-
ently connected to the efforts of Ezra to restore Israel as a faithful and holy
21 Fischer, Tora, 38.

24 Cf. Fischer, Tora, 14.
25 Sweeney, Isaiah in Recent Research, 158.
26 M.A. Sweeney, The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah, in: Melugin, Sweeney (eds),
New Visions, 5067.
27 Sweeney, Isaiah 14, 196.
28 Sweeney, Isaiah as Prophetic Torah, 57: There is no indication that Ezras reforms exclude
the foreigner who adopts the covenant of Judaism; that is, who converts to Judaism. In
this regard, the Ezra traditions indicate only that foreign wives and children were ban-
ished, not foreign husbands. This observation Sweeney links with his conviction that
community which is guided by Mosaic Torah, in accordance with the appeal

of 2:5: O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord! Citing
Sweeney himself: Altogether, the final form of the book of Isaiah is designed to
support the reforms of Ezra in the late fifth century BCE. Insofar as the book
of Isaiah is designed to re-establish ideal Jewish life in Zion based on Torah
(cf. Isa 2.24), it shares the same goal as Ezras reform.29
Sweeney still designates the book of Isaiah as prophetic Torah and, discuss-
ing all references to , he nowhere signals an explicit reference to Mosaic
Torah. This regards the sayings of the eighth century prophet himself as well
as all later texts included in the book. Even with regard to the plural in
24:5, Sweeney explicitly states, in contrast to Clements and Sheppard, that this
is a reference to the laws that govern the structure of creation rather than to
any given body of divine teachings. The term tr (trt) then refers to a cos-
mic principle of order in the world. The same holds true for the occurrences
of in Isa 4055 where it is paralleled with ( 42:4; 51:4) and ( 42:21;
51:7). Together these concepts refer to the principles by which order will be
established among the nations of the earth.30 In the end, however, Sweeney
appeals to Sheppard and concludes that in the context of the book as a whole
the meaning of has to be linked with the meaning of the word elsewhere
in the Hebrew Bible: Although it is debatable whether the individual authors
of Isaiah intended such a comprehensive view of tr when they wrote the
passages in which the term occurs, the meaning of tr takes a hermeneutical
life of its own when it is considered in relation to its full literary and interpreta-
tive context in the final form of the book of Isaiah.31
It is especially because of the prophecy of 2:14 that creates an analogy
to the revelation of Torah at Mount Sinai32 and because of the prominence
which the book gives to the motif of a second exodus and journey through the
wilderness (40:1011; 43:1421; 48:2021; 51:1011), that Sweeney presumes
such an independent hermeneutical life of the word . Though Sweeney
would not advocate a translation of in the book of Isaiah with law, at
the same time he criticizes Christian theology in which the prophetic context
is diametrically opposed to the legal context of the Pentateuch as if as
Jewish wives of foreign men would raise their children Jewish. Hence, there was no need
to expel foreign husbands as they would present little threat of apostasy. (5758).
29 Sweeney, Isaiah as Prophetic Torah, 5657. See also M.A. Sweeney, Isaiah 139. With an
Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL, 16), Grand Rapids 1996.
30 Sweeney, Isaiah as Prophetic Torah, 61.
124 Dekker
instruction has nothing to do with Mosaic Torah, though the word elsewhere
in the Hebrew Bible functions as a technical term for the Pentateuch.33 It looks
like there is an apologetic intention underlying Sweeneys arguing.
2.4 Ronald E. Clements (2007)

About ten years after the studies of Sheppard, Fischer and Sweeney, Ronald
Clements takes up the thread of the discussion on the concept of Torah in the
book of Isaiah.34 He complaints that modern Bible translations maintain
the translation of with instruction, preventing any identification with the
written body of the Mosaic Pentateuch. Clements tries to demonstrate that
the book of Isaiah, just as the book of Jeremiah, has undergone a thorough
going Torah-revision that meant to promote a reading of the book in the light
of Mosaic Torah or at least in the light of its Deuteronomic nucleus.
Clements joins Sweeney in referring to the introductory character of chap-
ters 1 and 24. He suggests that the key concept of thus has been intro-
duced by the post-exilic editors, who belonged to a Jewish community for
which a written and authoritative played an important role. Because of
their editorial character and, correspondingly, late dating, Clements claims that
1:10 and 2:3 must have had the Deuteronomic nucleus of the Torah of Moses in
mind. Appealing to the conviction that the book of Isaiah was intended to be
read as a unity he states: In this case, the argument for understanding all of
the references to as referring to the Mosaic law book is overwhelmingly
strong, irrespective of conclusions regarding the date of particular passages.35
An additional argument for this statement Clements deduces from 8:20, which
probably is a later re-interpretation of 8:16. Clements is convinced that with
and
the Torah of Moses is meant.36
Clements also gives expression to some theological considerations, for
he states that the question of the meaning of in Isa 139 is inseparably
linked to the wider theological issue of the relationship between prophecy and
a deterministic view of history.37 To clarify this conviction, for the rise of which

34 R.E. Clements, The Meaning of in Isaiah 139, in: J.G. McConville, K. Mller (eds),
Reading the Law, FS G.J. Wenham, New York/London 2007, 5972.
35 Clements, The Meaning of , 65.
he gives credits to the advocate of secular hermeneutics Jacques Berlinerblau,38

Clements assumes that the book of Isaiah betrays a post-exilic comprehen-
sive apocalyptic re-interpretation which strongly emphasized the sovereignty
of the Lord in his governing of history (cf. 8:910) and guarantees that in the
end, after a predetermined catastrophe (10:23; 28:22), Israels destiny among
the nations would be resolved.39 He argues that this emphasizing of Gods
sovereignty, which has been greatly influential in later Jewish apocalyptic liter-
ature, runs the risk of producing a dangerous sense of historical determinism.
Clements supposes that this risk was warded off by means of the Torah-revi-
sion of the book, for now Isa 14 clearly indicates that all prophecy within the
book has to be read against the background of Mosaic Torah with its empha-
sis on divine justice and compassion. Because Mosaic Torah always offers the
opportunity to choose for a life in obedience and loyalty (Deut 30:19), no room
is left for determinism.40
Just as Sheppard and Sweeney also Clements now claims that all references
to in Isa 139 have to be understood as alluding to Mosaic Torah, though
not yet in its current Pentateuchal form. In any case, the final form of the book
of Isaiah already presupposes a written body of Mosaic Torah functioning as a
kind of user guide for understanding its prophecies.41
3 Discussing the Arguments
After this brief survey of a remarkable tendency within biblical scholarship

promoting a new understanding of the concept of Torah in the book of Isaiah,
it is time to weigh the arguments. It is clear from the outset that reading Isaiah
from the perspective of its final redaction or even from a canonical perspective,
opens all kinds of interesting new horizons for understanding and appreciat-
ing its message. Too often an exclusively historical approach, though produc-
ing important and still indispensable results, has at the same time obstructed
the view of the books present unity and the message or messages it tries to
convey to its readers who have received the book of Isaiah as part of Scripture.
In this respect the contributions of Sheppard, Fischer, Sweeney and Clements
38 Cf. J. Berlinerblau, Free Will and Determinism in First Isaiah: Secular Hermeneutics,
the Poetics of Contingency, and mile Durkheims Homo Duplex, JAAR 71 (2003), 76791.
See Clements, The Meaning of , 71 n. 13.
39 Clements, The Meaning of , 66, 68.
126 Dekker
have to be welcomed. They set the stage for new reflections on the important
relationship between law and prophecy and, from a biblical-theological per-
spective, even on the relationship between law and gospel.
In the Hebrew Bible the corpus of the starts with the book of Joshua
and the corpus of the with the Psalms. Some time ago already it has
attracted attention of scholarship that both corpora in their present form are
explicitly linked with Torah by mentioning the importance of keeping it and
meditating on .42 Because Josh 1:78 and Ps 1:2 share the same language of
ruminating Torah day and night, it is clear that also in Psalm 1 Mosaic Torah
is meant, though only Joshua 1 mentions it explicitly. Thus, from a canoni-
cal perspective it is not surprising that with regard to Isaiah, the first book
of the ,43 it is asked whether the mention of Torah in its first
chapters can also be read in connection with Mosaic Torah.44 But in contrast
to Joshua and the Psalms an explicit or at least redactional connection with
the Torah of Moses does not seem to be clearly attested in the beginning of the
book of Isaiah.
Therefore Sweeney was right when, discussing the canon-critical inter
pretation of Sheppard, he signalled the danger of assigning later meaning to
earlier texts.45 Exegesis can easily become eisegesis, when there is no anchorage
point in the semantic and linguistic features of the texts themselves. Especially
when apologetic or theological motifs appear to play a role in reasoning, we have
to be on our guard. In itself there is nothing wrong with working from theologi-
cal perspectivesin practise no one does withoutbut this makes the use of
textual tools of critical control all the more necessary. Otherwise reasoning
takes on a life of its own. For example, it is really astonishing that Sheppard
initially mentions the supposed reference to Mosaic Torah plausible,46 than
likely,47 and in the end even firmly states that any structural analysis that
ignores that identification of the subject matter ignores the late form and func-
tion of the book as a book of Jewish and Christian scripture.48 At the same time,
however, he admits that there is little if any direct reference to the laws of the
42 E. Zenger et al., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 52004, 2526, 355. Cf. Childs,
Introduction, 513.
43 In LXX the book of Jeremiah precedes the book of Isaiah.
44 Cf. Sheppard, Scope, 279.
45 Sweeney, Isaiah in Recent Research, 158.
Mosaic Torah in the book of Isaiah. In the light of this indisputable textual fact,
a more cautious way of reasoning would be more appropriate.
A returning argument in the reasoning for an Isaianic reference to Mosaic
Torah, appears to be the introductory character of chapters 1 and 24. Though
Sweeney in his 1988 monograph recognizes 1:1017 as an ancient proph-
ecy and does not signal any indication of a reference to the Torah of Moses,
Sheppard concludes the opposite, because of the dating of the composition
in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Also Clements appeals to this dating for
suggesting that the concept of Torah has been introduced in 1:10 and 2:3 by
the post-exilic editors who were acquainted already with the Deuteronomic
nucleus of Mosaic Torah. With regard to 1:10 there is, however, no compel-
ling reason why the use of the word would not be part of an authentic
Isaianic prophecy before the editors used this prophecy as a component of
the first chapter of the book. Most exegetes recognize the authenticity of this
prophecy. Besides, when the editors themselves would have introduced the
notion of Torah, why would they have done this exactly in a prophecy which
severely criticizes the sacrificial practice? This makes no sense and would be
counterproductive.
There is still another question to be asked. If the final editors really want the
readers of Isaiah to think of Mosaic Torah, whenever in a text the word
occurs, why have they not made this more explicit? Appealing to Sweeney,
Sheppard signals the same reticence in the Psalms and supposes that appar-
ently there still was no consensus about accepting the written Torah of Moses
as the only authoritative Torah.49 This explanation is not very convincing and
could easily be turned around as a counter-argument. The editors of the book
of Isaiah could have belonged to a group of outsiders who are not to be fully
identified with the people supporting the reform program of Ezra. In any case,
66:5 is about servants who were hated and rejected by their own people.50
From all references in the book 8:20 and 24:5 are most mentioned as
late additions which eventually could refer to the Torah of Moses. With regard
to 24:5, however, the use of the plural in itself seems to exclude a refer-
ence to Mosaic Torah as an already fixed concept. Besides, it has often been

50 Cf. U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS, 16), Freiburg 1998, 1819:
Das Jesajabuch geht in seiner Ganzheit nicht den Weg einer Restauration, sondern den
eines vllig neuen Konzept von Gottesvolk; weil Sweeney das nicht sieht, kann er in
seinem jngsten Kommentar auch zu dem erstaunlichen Ergebnis kommen, da
Jesajabuch sei eine Sttze des Reformprogramms eines Esra und Nehemia gewesen. See
also Hffken, Jesaja, 8284.
128 Dekker
said that its parallelizing with the eternal covenant allude to the episode of the
Flood, which suggests that not the Mosaic but the Noahic laws are meant here.
Though it cannot be excluded that the concept of the covenant with Israel
has influenced the speaking of breaking the everlasting covenant,51 it is not
at all evident that this verse must be interpreted as referring to Mosaic Torah.52
Maybe an Isaiah-manuscript of Qumran does (4QIsac) and also the Septuagint
which both read the singular here, but it is remarkable that the segment of
Isa 2427, which is generally considered to be one of the younger parts
of the book, never mentions in the singular. With regard to 8:20, how-
ever, it is necessary to keep ones options open. In this instance it cannot be
excluded that the editors indeed had the Torah of Moses in mind, but this is far
from certain. After all, 8:20 and 24:5 constitute far too less evidence to justify
the hypothesis of a real Torah-revision of the book, as Clements advocates.
Suppose, however, that indeed there has been a Torah-revision and that this
has to be equated with the final redaction, why would these editors not have
left more traces in the third part of the book? Fischer argues that the theme of
Torah is indeed continued in the book by using the metaphor of light.53 This,
however, is hardly convincing, for in the book of Isaiah light often functions
in general as a metaphor of salvation that may be expected (cf. 9:1; 60:13).
Besides, it is generally supposed that it is not only the beginning of a book,
but especially also its ending where editors used to leave their marks.54 But
nowhere in Isa 5666 is the concept of explicitly mentioned.55 For claim-
ing the existence of a final Torah-revision clearly more textual evidence is
needed, at least in the end of the book and preferably, I would suggest, a mini-
mal amount of one occurrence of with the article.
In this respect it is really strange that Clements restricts himself to Isa-
iah 139. In the past Clements himself has successfully pleaded for focusing
more on the unity of the book of Isaiah. Launching a hypothesis of a thorough
Torah-redaction and at the same time restricting oneself to only the first part
of the book does not seem very convincing. Apparently Clements thinks that
the decision is already clear when there are no more authentic Isaianic texts
51 H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1327 (BKAT, X/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978, 9212, raises the possibil-
ity that the author has transferred the notion of a mutual commitment from the Sinai
covenant, because the Noahic covenant was understood as a one-sided promise.
52 Cf. W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja 1327 (HThKAT), Freiburg 2007, 323.
54 Cf. Hffken, Jesaja, 82.
55 The same holds true for the narratives of Isa 3639 which are so important for tying the
book together.
mentioning , though he also states that the argument for understand-

ing all of the references to as referring to the Mosaic law book is over-
whelmingly strong, irrespective of conclusions regarding the date of particular
passages.56 However, when the occurrences of in Isa 4055 are also
engaged in the discussion, the argument is less overwhelming than Clements
suggests. Within these chapters is paralleled with ( 42:4; 51:4) and
( 42:21; 51:7). Sweeney argues that in this capacity it serves as a means to
establish the norms of proper conduct among nations.57 This definition, how-
ever, seems to be too general in case of the more specific connotations of the
concepts of , and in the second part of the book. Within the
context of these chapters it is not proper conduct which is under scrutiny, but
the realization of Gods right verdict in his proceedings against the gods of the
nations, showing himself to be the one and only god who governs history.58
Moral connotations are not to the fore in this context, but it is the actual and
concrete exercise of Gods decisive authority.59 The repeated use of the verb
with regard to and ( 42:1, 3; 51:4; cf. 2:3) confirms that it is not
about announcing and as norms of proper conduct but about
establishing a new state of affairs in which the sovereignty of the Lord will be
beyond any doubt. Of course this new state of affairs implies a new social order
based on the teachings of the Lord, and this cannot do without the existence
of , as is also explicitly stated in 48:18, but a direct relationship with the
Torah of Mosesas Fischer suggests with an appeal to Deuteronomy60is
not implied here.61

58 Cf. U. Berges, Jesaja 4048 (HThKAT), Freiburg 2008, 226: Das Recht, das der Knecht
den Nationen herausbringt, ist der Rechtsentscheid im Streit JHWHs mit den Gttern
der Vlker, der auf eine Neuordnung der geschichtlichen Verhltnisse, als Plan der
gttlichen Politik hinausluft. See also 233: Nichtigkeit der Gtter und Einzigkeit JHWHs
gehren untrennbar zusammen und sind der Inhalt der durch den Knecht zu vermit-
telnden Weisung.
59 Cf. J. Goldingay, D. Payne, Isaiah 4055, vol. I (ICC), London 2014 (first published 2006),
104105.
61 Cf. J. Goldingay, D. Payne, Isaiah 4055, vol. II (ICC), London 2014 (first published 2006),
145: Although the noun miwh does not otherwise occur in Isaiah, the verb (wh
pi) comes in v. 5 and in 45.11, 12. These passages suggest that the commands that Jacob-
Israel has ignored are Yhwhs commands about the events that will shape its destiny.
Cf. also Berges, Jesaja 4048, 541, with reference to Ps 81:1415: Das, was hier als vertane
130 Dekker
4 Conclusions and Evaluative Remarks
Thus far the hypothesis of Clements that the book of Isaiah has undergone a
thorough Torah-revision cannot be proven from the textual data. Apart from
that, several scholars have pointed out that it is very difficult anyway to identify
a clear and uniform final redaction of the book.62 Its unity appears to be rather
complex and in reading this book the expectations of modern readers should
not be guiding the discussions.63 In fact also the statement of Sheppard that
Torah is the subject matter of the book of Isaiah is not supported by the textual
data. There are several important themes that recur time and again and tie the
constituting parts of the book together. Torah, however, is not among them, for
it is totally absent in the third part of the book. Therefore I conclude that from
a redactional perspective it is not at all evident that the book of Isaiah has to be
read in the light of Mosaic Torah or its Deuteronomic nucleus.
This conclusion may well be supported by the observation that also the
Elephantine texts, originating from a Jewish community in Egypt and roughly
dating from the same period as during which the book of Isaiah took its pres-
ent shape, do not refer to the Torah of Moses.64 This omission is quite remark-
able, while at the same time there is a general acquaintance with elements of
the sacrificial system of the Pentateuch, the festival of the Passover and the
Sabbath. This does not necessarily suggest that the concept of Mosaic Torah
did not exist already,65 but only that it was not yet as ubiquitous in post-exilic
Jewish literature as scholars sometimes seem to suppose. There still has been
room for other concepts of Torah.
It may be argued, however, that from a wider canonical perspective things
are different. Looking beyond the book of Isaiah it is striking that the seg-
ment of the which had started in Josh 1:78 with a reference to Mosaic
Torah also comes to an end in the book of Malachi with a clear reference to it.
Mal 3:22 makes a direct appeal to remember , even mentioning Mount
Horeb. The occurrence of this appeal at the end of Malachi can hardly be mere
Chance einer bervollen Heilszukunft vorgestellt wird, bezieht sich nicht auf mosaischen
Gesetzesgehorsam, sondern auf die Beachtung der Geschichtslenkung durch JHWH.
62 See Hffken, Jesaja, 8190; Cf. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 36, 48.
63 Cf. the criticism D.M. Carr utters in his RBL review (07/31/2000) of the book of Fischer.
64 L.L. Grabbe, Elephantine and the Torah, in: A.F. Botta (ed.), In the Shadow of Bezalel.
Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, FS Bezalel Porten (CHANE, 60),
Leiden 2012, 12535.
65 In this respect I would argue a bit more cautious than Grabbe, Elephantine, 134, for
indeed absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
accidental, but suggests that the books of the prophets in general should be
read in accordance with Mosaic Torah.66 Though I dispute the assumption that
the final form of the book of Isaiah itself already refers to the Torah of Moses,
from a wider canonical perspective the closure of the segment of the
makes clear that in the end both the Law and the Prophets are to be read in
accordance with each other.67 Thus whenever Christian theology interprets
prophecy as diametrically opposed to the legal context of the Pentateuch,
I agree with Sweeney that this is a reading against the grain, especially against
the grain of the present canonical form of the Hebrew Bible. I even agree that
from a canonical perspective the suggestion to interpret the revelation of Torah
for the nations at Mount Zion (2:14) in analogy to the revelation of Torah for
Israel at Mount Sinai, makes sense.68 In the book of Isaiah itself, however, this
analogy is nowhere explicitly drawn, though the mention of a cloud by day
and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night in 4:5 is very suggestive.69
But nowhere in the book of Isaiah is explicitly linked with Sinai, which
makes it difficult to understand Isaiah as a prophet in the footsteps of Moses.70
The canonical perspective, therefore, does not mean that the concept
of Torah in the book of Isaiah itself should be identified with Mosaic Torah.
I would argue that the concept of Torah in the book of Isaiah ultimately is
nothing less than the gospel this book includes, i.e. the joyful message of
deliverance from exile and restoration of Israel for the benefit of the nations.
The teaching which the people will have in their heart (51:7), refers to the
teaching for which the coastlands have been waiting (42:4) and which will
go out from the Lord himself (51:4). I have mentioned already that in
the second part of the book does not refer to proper moral conduct, but to the
realization of Gods verdict in his proceedings against the gods of the nations.
66 A.E. Hill, Malachi (AB, 25D), New York, 1998, 3656. Cf. Zenger, Einleitung, 24: Die Lektre
der Propheten steht im Dienst der Erinnerung der Mosetora; nach kanonischem
Verstndnis ist die Prophetie Aktualisierung der Tora, die als Heilsgabe erinnert wird.
Childs, Introduction, 495, however, reduces its canonical function to the book of Malachi.
67 Cf. Zenger, Einleitung, 586.
68 Cf. A. Groenewald, The significance of ( Isa 2:3) within Isaiah 2:15: The Relationship
of the First Overture (1:12:5) to the Books Conclusion (Isa 6566), OTE 26/3 (2013),
695717. Groenewald, however, heavily relies on the studies of Sweeney and Clements.
69 Fischer, Tora, 30, also argues that the vision of the meal for the nations in 25:19 alludes to
Mount Sinai, because of the covenant meal Exodus 24 describes.
70 Cf. M. OKane, Isaiah: A Prophet in the Footsteps of Moses, JSOT 69 (1996), 2951. OKane,
however, primarily argues from the role of Isaiah in 2 Kgs 1820 and points to similarities
between Isaiah and Deuteronomy, focussing on Isa 68 and 2831.
132 Dekker
The same change of meaning which has often been signalled in the concept
of in the first and second parts of the book,71 also applies to the
concept of . In the first part of the book it stands for prophetic instruc-
tion as a general reference to the concept of justice and righteousness. In the
second part, however, it substantively refers to the realization of the Lords
salvific righteousness. This latter meaning is already indicated in the program-
matic vision of 2:14. Therefore, I would argue that the concept of Torah in
the book of Isaiah in the end is nothing less than the gospel of salvation this
book includes. Nothing indicates that a supposed Torah-revision afterwards
has altered this understanding of and by consequence also the overall
message of the book.
Meanwhile, there is no need to understand the eschatological message
of Gods sovereignty as vulnerable to a deterministic worldview, for which a
Torah-revision would have been a necessary remedy, as Clements suggests.
Within the book the revelation of Gods righteousness and salvation includes
an inherent openness to everyone who wants to join to the Lord (cf. 56:18).
Also the increasingly clear separation between the servants of the Lord and the
godless (Isa 66) functions as an invitation to the readers of the book to make a
good choice. Even the eschatological concept of the remnant is never designed
as a numerus clausus et fixus. It is always open for joining it. Clements him-
self rightly points to both possibilities which are already mentioned in 1:1820.
However, no Torah-revision was needed to insert this fundamental readers
instruction already in the introductory chapter of the book.72
The concept of Torah in the book of Isaiah is thus not to be identified with
Mosaic Torah, but it is also not opposed to it. Both are essentially related to
the same substance.73 Even when the book of Isaiah severely criticizes Israels
sacrificial practice, this is not directed against the priestly institutions, as they
became firmly anchored in Mosaic Torah. The primary focus time and again is
the concrete implementation of justice and righteousness in peoples behav-
iour. In this regard it is telling that when in the third part of the book the tra-
dents of the Isaiah tradition struggle with the painful contradictions between
71 See R. Rendtorff, Jesaja 56,1 als Schlssel fr die Komposition des Buches Jesaja, in: idem,
Kanon und Theologie. Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen
1991, 1729.
73 Criticizing his former student Sheppard for identifying prophetic Torah with Mosaic
Torah, Childs, Isaiah, 30, indicates that both law and prophetic proclamation were
expanded in terms of a deepening grasp of Gods reality, but neither was subordinated in
principle to the other.
the vision of Zions future and the reality of living in difficult circumstances,
they fall back on Isaiahs preaching concerning justice and righteousness as it
is included in the first part of the book.74 Then, however, they also mention
institutions like the Sabbath and the fast (cf. Isa 58), thus revealing a certain
acquaintance with central themes of Mosaic Torah, without referring to it or
showing a clear dependence on it.
Some scholars think that the prophets could have referred to ancient legal
traditions that predate the Sinai-tradition, but in fact the prophets do not
explicitly mention the existence of such legal traditions.75 Within the world
of the Ancient Near East there was a general awareness that justice and righ-
teousness were necessary for the wellbeing of a society and that especially
the king was responsible for establishing them. They were concretized in leg-
islative corpora. But people, who complaint about injustice, actually rather
appealed to the concept of righteousness or royal decrees to restore righteous-
ness than to existing laws.76 Justice and righteousness always meant more than
the mere maintenance of laws, for often malicious people could refer to laws
regarding the payment of debts, for example, to keep up a situation of injus-
tice. Therefore, kings sometimes made decrees to restore righteousness and to
prevent situations of social disruption.77 Maybe this Old Babylonian practise
can serve as an analogy for the prophetic custom to refer to the underlying
concept rather than to existing laws which were violated (cf. 61:2).
I will conclude with some general remarks on the subject matter of the book
of Isaiah. When it is not Torah, what is it then? Fischer focusses on the proph-
ecy of 51:7, where the addressees are characterized as a people who have Gods
teachings in their hearts () , but she too quickly suggests that
here the book already has reached its climax in bringing together Torah for
Israel and Torah for the nations, which in 1:10 and 2:3 were put on the scene.78
For, after this last reference to , there is still another part of the book to
be read, in which the contours of a renewed and obedient community of faith
74 Cf. J. Dekker, Sacra Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres. Reinterpretation in the Book of Isaiah,
in: Hans Burger et al. (eds), Sola Scriptura. Biblical and Theological Perspectives on
Scripture, Authority and Hermeneutics (SRT), Leiden (forthcoming).
75 Cf. Th. Renz, Torah in the Minor Prophets, in: McConville, Mller (eds), Reading the Law,
7394.
76 K.R. Veenhof, Recht en gerechtigheid in Babyloni, Leiden 2000, 5, brings to mind that
hundreds of Old Babylonian letters and process reports never cite or allude to any con-
crete law. Cf. M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBLWAW, 6),
Atlanta 1995, 47.
77 Veenhof, Recht en gerechtigheid, 6, 9.
134 Dekker
are drawn. In 43:20b21 the Lord already mentions the people he has in mind
as the goal of his salvation. He designates them as the people he has formed
for himself so that they might declare his praise. In distinction from the hith-
erto blind and rebellious servant Israel, this renewed people comes to the fore
for the first time within the book in Isa 51. It is a part of the people of Israel
which, in contrast to the people as a whole, is willing to listen to the prophetic
Servant of the Lord who presented himself in the preceding chapters (48:16b;
49:16; 50:49). Therefore, they now can be addressed as people pursuing and
knowing righteousness ( / ) and having Gods teachings in
their hearts () .79 After the magnificent chapter about the suf-
fering Servant they are called the servants of the Lord (54:17) and their profile
is drawn more specifically in the third part of the book.80 Being the spiritual
offspring of the Servant of Isa 53, these servants constitute the nucleus of the
new people of the Lord.81 The concept of this new and obedient people of the
Lord, gathered on Zion, and formed for the Lord himself to declare his praise,
rather than the concept of Torah, should be designated as the subject matter
of the book of Isaiah.
79 W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja, deel IIB (PredOT), Nijkerk 1983, 10520. Cf. U. Berges, Jesaja 4954
(HThKAT), Freiburg 2015, 1334.
80 Cf. J. Dekker, The Servant and the Servants in the Book of Isaiah, Srospataki Fzetek
16/34 (2012), 3345.
81 Cf. Beuken, Jesaja, deel II B , 85.
The Kingship Motif in Isaiah 61:13
Hedy Hung*
1 Introduction
Some scholars interpret Isa 61:13 as a description of the ideal servant1 or the
prophet claiming to be the servant,2 who will help restore post-exilic Jerusalem.
Two reasons account for their interpretation: one, evidently this passage inher-
its the servant motif from the Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah; two, the fact
that Israel has come under Persias shadow makes restoration to Davidic king-
ship seem impossible. But their interpretation is limited to mere philological
comparison, and it assumes that history dictated the thoughts and expressions
of the Isaianic writing communities.
We can do more. From Trito-Isaiah, we know that at the beginning of
the post-exilic period (ca. 538 BCE), Judahs primary concerns were restora-
tion to traditional Jewish lifestyle and the fulfillment of the promises made
in Deutero-Isaiah. The presence of the themes of salvation and of Yahweh
as Redeemer continue from Deutero-Isaiah into Trito-Isaiah3 indicates that
the Judahites were in need of something more than simply understanding the
change of hands from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to the Persian Empire rul-
ing over and behind them. Both themes are present in the core, i.e., chs. 6062,
from which the remainder of Trito-Isaiah develops (see diagram below4). To
put in another way, both themes serve new purposes in the post-exilic period.
* The present essay is a revised version of a chapter of my PhD dissertation. I gratefully

acknowledge L.-S. Tiemeyer and R. Segal, Kings College (Aberdeen), for viewing and guiding
the essay.
1 P. Hanson, Isaiah 4066 (Interpretation), Louisville 1995, 2234; B. Childs, Isaiah (OTL),
Louisville 2001, 5025; C. Seitz, How Is the Prophet Isaiah Present in the Latter Half of the
Book? The Logic of Chapters 4066 within the Book of Isaiah, JBL 115 (1996), 21940.
2 C. Westermann, Isaiah 4066 (OTL), transl. D. Stalker, London 1969, 3656; S. Paul,
Isaiah 4066 (ECC), Grand Rapids 2012, 536.
3 It is unnecessary here to dwell on the issue whether or not chs. 4066 form one large unit.
I take the position that chs. 4055 (Deutero-Isaiah) form one unit which concerns the exilic
period and chs. 5666 (Trito-Isaiah) form the last unit of the book of Isaiah and concern the
post-exilic period.
4 The order of the texts in the present essay follows this diagram.
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 7|doi .63/9789004337695_009

136 Hung
6062
59:15b20 63:16
59:115a 63:164:11
56:958:14 65:166:17
56:18 66:1824
The theme of salvation in Deutero-Isaiah changes from deliverance from

the exile to one in Trito-Isaiah dealing with the aftermath of the exile and the
ongoing sins of the Judahites, while interacting with the contemporary social
matrix and external affairs. The theme of Yahweh as Redeemer appears in all
three parts of the book of Isaiah.5 The word ( redeem) appears six times
in Trito-Isaiah: two times within the core, two times in the inclusio wrapping
around the core, and two times just after the inclusio.6 The concentration of
these occurrences flags the significance of the role of the Divine Redeemer in
this period and lends weight to an investigation.
Considering the above, this essay argues that Isa 61:13 displays a kingship
motif and that this motif is intricately related to the servant motif of Deutero-
Isaiah. It finds support by comparing the literary features of 61:13 with those
of the Servant Songs and Isa 11. The purpose is to explore the continuity and
the transformation of the kingship and the servant motifs in different contexts.
It also probes the text for any probable imagery. Since myth has an important
role in eschatology and I treat 61:13 as eschatological, I shall also mention how
myth works in the present text.
The essay has three sections: the reuses of 40:111 and of the Servant Songs
and their contexts; the kingship motif and the king-servant relationship; and
mythic power in Trito-Isaiahs eschatology.
2 The Reuses of Isa 40:111 and of the Servant Songs and

their Contexts
This section aims to show that Isa 61:13 inherits from Deutero-Isaiah the
divine kingship and the servant motifs for new purposes.
5 Isa 35:9; 43:1, 14; 44:6, 2224 (3x); 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 62:12;
63:4, 9, 16. See J. Untermann, Redemption (OT), ABD, vol. 5, New York 1992, 6504.
6 Isa 59:20; 60:16; 62:12; 63:4; 63:9, 16.
The Kingship Motif In Isaiah 61:13 137
2.1 Isa 40:111

Isa 40:111 foreshadows Yahwehs coming in power to deliver Zion-Jerusalem
from the enemies. Building on the works of H. Barstad and L.-S. Tiemeyer,
I treat 40:111 as a late text of Deutero-Isaiah, written as a prologue to prefigure
and emphasize the major themes of the existing material of this part of Isaiah.7
A comparison of 40:111 and 61:17 shows multiple correspondences:
40:9 // 61:13 A messenger // Yahwehs servant appears

40:10 // 61:1 Yahweh comes as king // Yahweh sends his servant to Zion
40:9 // 61:1 Herald of good tidings // Proclaimer of good tidings
40:10 // 61:1 Gathers and fights // Proclaims liberty
40:2 // 61:4 Restores // Rebuilds the previous ruins
40:11 // 61:6 Feeds the flock // Proclaims liberty and receives tributes
40:5 // 61:7 Zion + the nations // Zion community
The correspondences in the comparison signify a continuous thought

expressed in the two texts, belonging to the exilic and the post-exilic periods,
respectively. Four observations are made:
First, 61:13 appropriates the motifs of 40:111 for the imminent and distant
future. Where the older text prophesies deliverance from the Babylonian exile
and the resultant comfort, the younger text pertains to restoration and regain-
ing spiritual strength.
Second, the speaker in 61:13 is to accomplish what was left unfinished at
the end of the exilic period. Two probable scenarios can be conjectured: that
something must have happened that caused a delay in the accomplishment of
what was expected in Deutero-Isaiah and later written in 40:111, or that the
speaker in 61:13 is in some manner related to Yahweh (more below).
Third, the Divine Warrior-King imagery, which portrays the Redeemer, is
present in both texts, hence a primary subject matter.
Fourth, the same imagery is also found later in the chapter, in 61:10b:
( for he will put on me the garments of sal-

vation and cover me with a robe of deliverance). This suggests that the interim
material, 61:49, relates to the Judahites anticipations of the ideal life that a
righteous king or his agent would provide for them.
7 H. Barstad, Isa 40:111: Another Reading, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume: Basel, 2001
(VTSup, 92), Leiden 2002, 22540; L.-S. Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion (VTSup, 139), Leiden
2011, 33943 [340]; also W. Beuken, MIPT: The First Servant Song and Its Context, VT 22
(1972), 130 [8], who sees 40:111 as a prologue to the entire book.
138 Hung
In sum, 40:111 and 61:13 share the Divine Warrior-King motif and apply it
to Zion. This brings me to the next topic. Since I treat the theme of Yahwehs
coming in power to Zion serves a theological purpose and that the speaker in
61:13 is probably related to Yahweh, it will be necessary to trace the identity of
the speaker, who bears resemblance to the servant in Deutero-Isaiah.
2.2 The Reuse of the Servant Songs and their Contexts

The word ( servant) is not in 61:13. Even so, 61:13 realigns exegetically
with the first three Servant Songs and their contexts, presenting to the hearer
a servant figure and an updated task list.8 J. Dekker, at the conference and by
subsequent communications, suggests that the Fourth Servant Song also has
some influence on 61:13, where the speaker likely alludes to the suffering ser-
vants bruise and appropriates it to the new servants need for Gods help. Below
I shall discuss the relationship between these texts and respond to Dekker.
2.2.1 The First Servant Song and its Context (Isa 42:14, 59)
Isa 61:1 relives the memory of the servants divine calling in deliverance, as
expressed in ch. 42, so as to connect the hearer with the servant imagery.
Isa 61:12 alludes to the sabbath release of debt and slavery in Deut 15
and the jubilee in Lev 25. Two guidelines of release are used: one is the freeing
of the Jewish debt slave and the regaining of land by these slaves as an expres-
sion of ultimate freedom; the other is the offer of monetary assistance to one
another in the spirit of redemption, aiming to foster social justice.9 As part
of the social welfare program and the prohibition of oppression against the
marginalized (e.g., Exod 22:20), the principle of ( liberty) further offers
generosity to ones poor neighbors. When is proclaimed, two beneficial
situations will take place: the land will yield its fruit, and the people will be
blessed (Lev 25:128).
Isa 61:12 proclaims that post-exilic Jewry will re-possess the land given to
their ancestors as a divine and inalienable grant.10 In essence, the parallel in
8 42:1 presents the servant in 3rd person; 49:5 and 50:49 present the speaker-servant in
1st person.
9 D. Patrick, Old Testament Law, Atlanta 1985, 1815; C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite
Law (JSOTSup, 107), Sheffield 1991, 52; F. Crsemann, The Torah, Minneapolis 1996, 2826,
takes the position that the priestly writings are post-exilic and that Lev 25 is connected
with the social situation from the end of the exile to the beginning of the post-exilic
period.
10 There are discussions that the concepts of the sabbatical and the jubilee years came
from a particular ideology and were probably never put into practice, e.g., Crsemann,
Torah, 285.
61:1 calls for the setting free of those who are in bondage, be that economic,
spiritual (cultic) or political. This is a responsibility of the servant and of the
collective servant in the imminent future and beyond.
Not all scholars see this point. For example, C. Westermann and O. Steck
confine the deliverance to solving the economic problems at hand, whereas
B. Sommer takes a theological bend: the prophet theologizes liberty for the
captives as the manumission of the Babylonian exiles (equivalent to the proc-
lamation of liberty to the Hebrew slave) and adapts the legal statute of Lev 25
to mean the return to ancestral land at the end of the fifty-year cycle.11
In contrast to their views, I take the deliverance in 61:1 to have been appropri-
ated from Gods judgment for exile in the First Servant Song to fostering social
justice, covenantal fulfilment by way of land re-possession, and the future lib-
eration of Israel and the world. In the background is the understanding that in
the ancient Near East, the king new to the throne liberates and blesses the poor
and the afflicted. Lev 25 acknowledges Gods ultimate ownership of land and
fosters obedience to his laws, a depiction of his kingship.
In this regard, Isa 61:1 serves two purposes: one, it admits the presence of
oppression in the land and declares that the speaker-servant, as Gods agent,
will set liberty in motion by delivering the oppressed and restoring them to
normal life. Two, it proclaims liberty to the Judahites concerning the re-
possession of land given to their ancestors. Since God is the sovereign land-
owner who oversees land justice, the speaker-servant also lays claim to sover-
eignty in the action of .12 The issue of land repossession, however, is not as
explicit in the First Servant Song as in the Second Servant Song. But will be
the eschatological liberation of Israel and the world, as prophesied in 42:19.
2.2.2 The Second Servant Song and its Context (Isa 49:16, 713)
The Second Servant Song and its context have an added element in comparison
with the First, and that is the element of land.13 49:89 indicates that Yahwehs
purpose of preserving the servant is to make him as mediator in restoring the
land to Israel when the exile has ended, and the servant is given to the people
(cf. 42:6).
11 Westermann, Isaiah 4066, 3667; O. Steck, Der Rachetag in Jesaja LXI 2: Ein Kapitel
redaktionsgeschichtlicher Kleinarbeit, VT 36 (1986), 32338 [326]; B. Sommer, A Prophet
Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 4066, Stanford 1998, 1412.
12 M. Brett, Imperial Imagination in Isa 5666, in: M. Brett et al. (eds), Isaiah and Imperial
Context: The Book of Isaiah in the Times of Empire, Eugene 2013, 16781 [180].
13 Isa 42:14 // 49:16; 45:59 // 49:712; 42:1012 // 49:13; cf. F. Poulsen, God, His Servant, and
the Nations (FAT, 2/73), Tbingen 2014, 115, n. 183; Childs, Isaiah, 382.
140 Hung
Isa 61:14 prophesies land inheritance through Gods continual efforts in

restoring the ruins in Judah. The vengeance against external enemies has now
become the fight against land injustice in Judah, and the former enemies are
put in subjugation to the Judahites. Particularistic features are evident in the
first two Songs and their contexts, that through the servants work the world
may know Israels God and his justice, and that Israel will be assured of her
land inheritance, an element in the Abrahamic covenant.
2.2.3 The Third Servant Song (Isa 50:49)

Isa 61:13 reuses the Third Servant Song in two manners: by casting the locu-
tions the Lord Yahweh and me (1st sg. suffix) to evoke in the hearer the mem-
ory of the intimate relationship between the sender and the one being sent;
and by using compounded locutionsthe pairing of Spirit endowment with
anointingto convey affirmation of divine enablement and authentication of
the servant. By using these communication skills, 61:13 builds in the hearer
anticipation of the fulfillments of what have been promised but will be carried
out in new dimensions.
M. Halvorson-Taylor rightly remarks that the work of divine redemption
in Deutero-Isaiah is described as a strategy for restoration in Trito-Isaiah.
However, she takes the language of economic suffering in chs. 42 and 49 as a
metaphor for the return of the exiles, the language is then adapted in 61:13 to
apply to the economic restoration.14 Her conclusion shows that she has not
considered the prophetic scribes adaptation of the metaphors to voice the
need of post-exilic community. Against her view, I maintain that the prophetic
scribe perceives that a full restoration has to include spiritual transformation,
which the post-exilic community desperately requires. One only needs to look
at 61:3 to find out that restoration means removing social injustice and estab-
lishing a righteous society, a society that follows orthodox cult. Texts that ger-
minate from the core, such as 56:959:15a; 65:17, target the communitys dire
spiritual needs.
2.2.4 The Fourth Servant Song (Isa 52:1353:12)

There is no direct verbal link between 61:13 and 52:1353:12. Dekker suggests
that (1) the conceptual link based on ( bruise) in 53:5, 10 via 57:15 is picked
up by 61:13 to refer to the new servants who are spiritually crushed and socially
vulnerable, in need of Gods help; (2) the conceptual link exists between the
suffering servant in 53:5, 10 and the servants of 54:17, whose spiritual offspring
14 M. Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible,
Leiden 2011, 1435.
are the socially vulnerable servants in 57:15. Dekker further sees connections
in 54:17; 56:6; 57:15; 61:13; 63:17; 65:89, 1315; and 66:14.
I differ from Dekker because of my approach to the text, by treating each
reference to the servants in its own context (see diagram above). Isa 61:13
infers the social ills of the day but gives hope to Jerusalems restoration. An
internal differentiation of the faithful and the unfaithful is a must, making it
a primary theme of the remainder of Trito-Isaiah. 63:764:11 is a taunt against
the unfaithful servants who claim their rights from Yahweh, and 63:17 is the
unfaithful servants self-claim of righteousness. Hence, 56:959:15a indicts
and warns the unfaithful servants, with 57:1421 encouraging the faithful as a
contrast of Gods treatment of the two groups of servants. As a parallel to
the contrast, 65:1315 also differentiates the two groups of servants. To com-
plete this thought and set a theme for Trito-Isaiah, 56:18 calls all servants to be
faithful so that the utopian society may be established, wherein 56:6 encour-
ages full acceptance of proselytes in communal and cultic activities. With the
foregoing order of the texts, I do not agree with Dekker that 57:15 influences
61:13. Rather, 61:13 sets the stage for 57:15, that the divine rule will set things
right, by which the servants are to be evaluated and judged according to their
commitment to the divine. In other words, 61:13 introduces to Trito-Isaiah the
Divine Kingship motif to restore society physically and spiritually.
To summarize, 61:13 presents a hope in the realization and eschatologiza-
tion of what have been promised according to tradition. These three verses
provide continuity with the themes expressed in the Servant Songs and their
contexts and with the theology that Yahweh has the power to save and rule
over Zion-Jerusalem. Up to now, I have tried to show the Divine King motif and
the servant motif separately. In the next section, I shall build on the study by
connecting the two motifs, beginning with the kingship motif.
3 The Kingship Motif and the King-Servant Relationship
3.1 The Kingship Motif

To understand the role of the Divine King we may begin with Yahwehs sov-
ereignty, which stands for his superiority over all, carried out with total free-
dom to act alone or with the use of other means, to bring about the desired
effects. Yahwehs sovereignty is expressed by three divine roles in relation to
mankind: Creator, Judge, and Redeemer.15 These roles place Yahweh as King
15 T. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names, transl.
F. Cryer, Philadelphia 1988, 92122, 15874; B. Anderson, The Kingdom, the Power, and the
Glory: The Sovereignty of God in the Bible, Theology Today 53 (1996), 514.
142 Hung
over all m
ankind, with the power to create, administer justice, assess covenant
obedience, build up, control opposition and chaos, and protect his subjects.16
The link between with the Divine Warrior imagery in the core and the
inclusio framing the core suggest an ideology of righteous kingship over
the people and the land described in the text. With Jerusalem having come
under successive foreign influence and presently the Persian administration,
the outlook of having a Davidic king on the throne again is dismal. But the
belief in the perpetuity of Jewry and their covenant with God needs to be
sustained. It is a matter of how. A kingship motif is thus established in the
core material as a continuation from Deutero-Isaiah, on the one hand; and as
a platform for the remainder of Trito-Isaiahs eschatology, on the other hand.
To reinforce the kingship motif and its purpose specifically in 61:13, the pro-
phetic scribe connects the motif with the anointing of a servant figure to per-
form the kings tasks.
The term ( anoint) is used of king, prophet, or priest, and the expres-
sion Yahwehs anointed signifies the special relationship between Yahweh
and the anointed. Apart from rituals, anointing can also mean the endowment
with the Spirit of God. Three texts in Isaiah attest that Spirit endowment is
for the performance of Yahwehs tasks: 11:2;17 42:1; and 61:1.18 (48:16b has been
treated as incomplete, ...the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and the spirit..., but
nonetheless shows continuity within chs. 4066 in the use of the full title and
the idea send.19) Two interesting phenomena are evident: one is in the simi-
larity between 11:2 and 61:1; the other is that a portion of the content of ch. 11,
though not in ch. 61, reappears in 65:1725 which germinates from ch. 61 and
presents Yahweh as Creator and King. For the purpose of the present essay,
I shall focus on the first phenomenon and leave the second to another time.
16 E.g., Isa 33:22; Pss 89:14; 96:10; 97:2; 99:4. K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge:
An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rb-Pattern) (JSOTSup, 9), Sheffield 1978;
K. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 12),
Sheffield 1979; S. Paas, Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century
Prophets (OTS, 157), Leiden 2003, 6970, 858, 42536; T. Mettinger, In Search of the
Hidden Structure: Yhwh as King in Isaiah 4055, in: C. Broyles et al. (eds), Writing and
Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (VTSup, 70/1), Leiden 1997,
14354.
17 Messianic texts in Proto-Isaiah: Isa 9:67; 11:110; 16:15; 19:20.
18 There are scholars who take the prophet as the one being anointed in 61:1, e.g., W. Beuken,
Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 4055, in:
J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah, Le Livre DIsae: Les Oracles et Leurs Relectures: Unit
et Complexit de lOuvrage, Leuven 1989, 4156.
19 J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 4055 (AB, 19A), New York, 2002, 2945.
A comparison of 11:2 and 61:1 shows five primary correspondences, listed as

follows:
First, Spirit endowment in both texts is for the administration of the functions
of a king. The verb elsewhere indicates the act of anointing.20 Although
is not attested anywhere in ch. 11 as is in 61:1, the idea of anointing is
conveyed by Yahwehs putting the Spirit upon a person. A messiah (the person
being anointed), as defined by R. Heskett, is a person or persons [who] offers
a solution in an extraordinary way to activate and restore within this world the
promises made to David after the monarchy has ended.21 For 11:19 to be mes-
sianic, the text has to come later than the pre-exilic period to which the wider
chs. 139 belong.22 To put in another way, the royal figure will only reign in
the future.
Second, the language of 11:1 delivers a messianic message. The clustering
of three words, namely ( shoot/branch), ( shoot/branch), ( stem/
stump), in the space of just one verse reveals the momentum of the prophetic
scribes motive behind the chapter. That is, to instill hope in Israel that although
righteous kingship in the Davidic lineage may seem bleak, it is made possible
with Israels own God on the throne. The term can be interpreted as mes-
sianic, because its synonym ( branch) is used in Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15;
and Zech 3:8; 6:12. Although the meanings of the Branch in the two Zechariah
texts (Zerubbabel in Zech 3:8 and one other unidentified person in 6:12) are
different from that of Isa 11, the messianic undertone from the usage of
and prevails.
Third, , though not in 61:1, appears in 61:11, thus providing another clue
to the prophetic scribes allusion to 11:19 for the righteous rule with a probable
messianic nuance.
Fourth, the recipient of the Spirit is changed from 3rd sg. in ch. 11 to 1st sg. in
ch. 61, bringing the person and the event closer to home.
20 An exception is found in the Fourth Servant Song. In 52:14b,

is hapax legomenon
and is to be translated as so marred or so disfigured. See M. Hengel and D. Bailey, The
Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period, in: B. Janowski, P. Stuhlmacher
(eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, Grand Rapids
2004, 75146 [1401]; M. Silva, Biblical Words & Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical
Semantics, Grand Rapids 1983, 79.
21 R. Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah (LHB/OTS, 456), London
2007, 3.
22 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, transl. G.W. Anderson, Oxford 1956, 3; Heskett,
Messianism, 3.
144 Hung
Finally, a connection between kingship and warrior can be cited within and
around ch. 61 with a double inclusio: the inner inclusio in 61:1 and 11 provides
definitive contentnamely, Yahweh as Kingfor the outer inclusio which
is formed with 59:15b21 and 63:16 and which brackets the core, presenting
Yahweh as Redeemer and Divine Warrior.
To summarize, placed within a double inclusio which depicts the Divine
Warrior-King imagery, 61:13 displays the kingship motif that is already famil-
iar with the messianic rule of ch. 11 and other prophetic texts.
3.2 The King-Servant Relationship

In section IB, I demonstrated the similarities between 61:13 and the Servant
Songs in terms of what was expected of the servant that was being updated in
61:13. Then, in section IIA, I attempted to trace the kingship motif and how
it may be interpreted as messianic in Isaiah and other prophetic books. I now
proceed to connect the supposed servant figure in 61:13 with the regal figure
who is vital to the understanding of this text.
The term in Isaiah frequently implies the hierarchical relationship
between a king and his subjects.23 In all three parts of the book of Isaiah,
when the addressee in a speech is referred to as , it can be assumed that
the speaker is ( lord/master) or ( king).24 Though is not in 61:13,
a relationship of can be implied from the mention of the servants
tasks. The implication, together with our preceding discussion, points to the
direction that the speaker in our text is a new manifestation of the servant of
Deutero-Isaiah.25 Along this train of thought, an intricate relationship exists
between the servant and the Divine King.
The Isaianic tradition relates the giving of the Spirit to the concepts of the
king and the servant, and their duties through ( justice/judgment), as
in 42:19.26 Although Spirit endowment appears only in the first Servant Song
and not in the others, the theme of a servant who receives the Spirit to bring
to the world runs through all four Servant Songs and is traceable in
23 J. Kennedy, Consider the Source: A Reading of the Servants Identity and Task in
Isaiah 42:19, in: A. Everson, H. Kim (eds), The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah
(SBLAIL, 4), Atlanta 2009, 18196.
24 A. Tharekadavil, Servant of Yahweh in Second Isaiah (European University Studies,
23/848), Frankfurt 2007, 157; Kennedy, Servants Identity, 184, provides these references:
Isa 20:3; 22:20; 37:5; 41:8; 42:1, 19; 44:1; 49:6; 50:2; 52:13; 65:89, 1315; 66:14.
25 Beuken, Servant and Herald, 41142; H. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah
and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (The Didsbury Lectures 1997), Cumbria 1998, 1413.
26 Beuken, MIPT, 130.
61:13. is Gods order and tool to sustain the universe, and to bring it
to places which need it means to claim the place under Gods name. Thus,
I propose that the Servant Songs use the concept of as intertextual links,
characterizing a kings responsibility passed to the servant.
Justice represents Yahwehs law and will.27 The system of associations for
with / in the Pentateuchal tradition and in Deutero-Isaiah
acknowledges the Divine King as the source of / in which people will
have life.28 It is my conjecture that during the exilic period, Israel has been
experiencing a longing for a king or his servant, who will enforce justice on
her behalf to the places where injustice and oppression prevail (42:19). The
hope for Israel to become the ideal servant transitions from Deutero-Isiah to
Trito-Isaiah.
So far I have tried to present the kingship motif and its connection with
the servant motif in 61:13. The servant acts as the agent of the Divine King
and carries out the latters justice. In the final section, I seek to strengthen my
argument in favor of the presence of the kingship motif by studying the use of
mythic power in eschatology.
4 Mythic Power in Trito-Isaiahs Eschatology
Eschatology, by nature, requires imagination on the part of the prophetic

scribe and the hearer in believing that something new and ideal will happen
in the future, perhaps with some conditions demanded of the hearer. Building
on the past (tradition), eschatology constructs a futuristic goal that a change or
transformation can happen. It often uses myth to express Gods transcendence
to convey continuity of his direct involvement in the life of his people.
Given the scope of this essay, it would be impossible to present a compre-
hensive discussion concerning the multiple theories and definitions of myth.
For this reason, I define myth as follows: myth links the past to the present to
the future. Biblical myth attributes the events of the past and the present and
27 M. Weinfeld, Justice and RighteousnessThe Expression and Its Meaning, in:
H. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman (eds), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their
Influence (JSOTSup, 137), Sheffield 1992, 22846 [244]. Weinfeld writes that in the ancient
Near East, [t]ruth and justice/equity are given expressions by means of law-making that
benefits the people.
28 Williamson, Variations, 4, 128, notes that in Deutero-Isaiah only God is termed king: king
of Jacob in 41:21; king of Israel in 44:6; your king in 43:15; and your God reigns in 52:7.
146 Hung
the future to God, because he always makes good his promise, so that we think
we know what will happen, and we are heading there.
Two camps of scholarship prevail in the discussion of myth in the
Old Testament. One camp has addressed the presence of myth in the Old
Testament,29 while the other excludes myth in their research largely for either
of two reasons: myth would lower the credibility of faith, or myth is outside
their philological exercises.30 Since I belong to the first camp, I need to respond
to the second.
First things first. Is opposition to use of the term myth based on more than
false or at least debatable assumption about myth: namely, that myth is false
or that myth is pagan? If so, would the substitution of another term, such as
key conviction, allow for the one camps making the point? Furthermore, the
re-enactment of living in the power of God can introduce positive effects in a
dismal situation. To embrace the mythical God and the Divine King is not the
same as to embrace something totally unreal or intangible. On the contrary,
the myths of the Divine King and the Divine Warrior make the unknown to be
known on a personal level. And this known experience results in the hearers
ownership of the myth(s) and gives hope for a future.31 Thus, myth, as key con-
viction, strengthens the credibility of faith.
Why is the philological approach particularly attentive to meaning? Who,
in their field and discipline, would not be? Effective philological exercises can
contribute to the sensitivity of reading myth in the text, when factored in with
ancient worldviews and the theological developments of a particular commu-
nity. The philologist has to go beyond the literal meaning of the word or the
summation of the meanings of the words, bearing in mind that in antiquity,
both the story-teller and the hearer understood myth was conceptual and sym-
bolic rather than literal.32
29 For example, P. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, Philadelphia, 1979; R. Walsh, Mapping
Myths of Biblical Interpretation (Playing the Texts 4), Sheffield, 2001; J. McKenzie, Myth
and the Old Testament, in: R. Segal (ed.), Myth: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural
Studies Vol. 4, London 2007.
30 Some scholars have not fully explored the intentionality of the inclusio formed by
59:15b21 and 63:16. They rely on the factual information that is extracted from the texts.
For instance, P. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and
Authorship of Isaiah 5666, (VTSup, 62), Leiden, 1995; J. Stromberg, Isaiah after Exile: The
Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book (OTM), Oxford, 2011.
31 McKenzie, Myth, 60.
32 R. Segal, Myth: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions), Oxford 2004, 46;
Idem, Myth and Mythology, in: H. Betz et al. (eds), Religion Past & Present, vol. 8, Leiden
2010, 676.
It bears repeating that the purpose of myth is to tell the continuous story
of Gods acts among his people, signifying a perpetual relationship. Myth, the
story, can be transmitted as texts, various forms of media, and oral stories, as
a tradition for the people.33 Myth can also be a structuring device. The story-
teller (in this case, the prophet) transmits myth to structure a text (prophecy)
to motivate, empower, and propel the hearer to actions. The hearer responds
by identifying with the story and its significanceto be rescued by the Divine
Warrior-King and to be strong under his reign. From this vantage point, Trito-
Isaiah is not a defense of the circumstance but a pro-active device to transform
the present restoration community, fit to be the ideal world.
With the foregoing, I am now ready to explain how Trito-Isaiah uses myth in
formulating eschatology. Usually, eschatology does not project a neutral out-
look. Rather, it aims to propel a change in attitude and behavior of Gods peo-
ple, so that God no longer needs to intervene in their life. With the change the
people become strong, have their covenantal promises fulfilled, and achieve
their theological purposes. To make a covenant come alive, the Divine Warrior
myth, as the story of Gods protection for his people, is the bridge that links the
past (i.e., the covenant) with the future (i.e., the fulfillment of the covenantal
promises and theological purposes). The Abrahamic covenant, as inferred in
61:17, provides historical perspectives to eschatology, by which Abrahamic
descendants receive hope despite the seemingly restrained circumstances and
political outlook which render such hope impossible.
In the time of Trito-Isaiah, the mythic Divine Warrior-King has long become
a popular rescue hero among Gods people. The Exodus from Egypt and
the founding of the nation Israel have provided for Israel the sequence of the
Warrior-King myth that lives on and which is now replayed with development
before the eyes of the restoration community. That is, the mythological allu-
sion on the Exodus has taken on a new meaning for the imminent and futur-
istic needs. It is understood in the ancient Near East that after the Warriors
deliverance from the enemy, total submission of the subjects to the King and
his law is required. Detecting the sequence in Trito-Isaiahs eschatology, we
may say that the function of the Divine Warrior myth is to ultimately provide
for the restoration community an inroad to a utopian environment governed
by the King.
We find a development in the Divine Warrior myth in this direction in the
inclusio 59:152134 and 63:16, and subsequently in ch. 66. These passages
33 Walsh, Mapping Myths, 9.

34 T. Neufeld, Put on the Armour of God: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians
(JSNTSup, 140), Sheffield 1997, 304.
148 Hung
target Jerusalems internal problems during the different stages of restoration.

The goal is to revive in the people covenantal faithfulness toward the Divine
King and to foster holiness, expressed as compliance with the cultic system.
Myth leads to directives, engendered to make the future possible. The
mythic power in Trito-Isaiahs eschatology is displayed in its ability to build
and to strengthen faith in practical terms. For Abrahamic descendants to see
their covenantal promises fulfilled, they will need to believe that Yahweh pro-
tects them but that they have to live on his terms. In due course, the glory and
power of the Divine Warrior-King becomes the glory and power of Zion.
On this ground, I argue that Trito-Isaiahs eschatology is conceived with the
motifs of war, kingship, and establishment of a utopia with the perfect sanctu-
ary where the subjects, new and existing, will offer their tributes (e.g., 60:114).35
These motifs are present in 61:13, some obvious, some not so obvious, sym-
bolic of a holy war to initiate the actualization of the perfect kingdom, cen-
tered in Jerusalem. The subjects will be required to obey the laws and observe
the authorized cult of the true King.
Why talk about a holy war, especially when Israel is no longer in Babylonian
control, and life under Persian influence seems rather free? To make theology
current, it is necessary to address what caused the downfall of Israel in the first
place, followed by advising her citizens how to move forward from here. Since
apostasy was the primary culprit of the demeaning exile, setting up the sacral
boundary for the citizens is a must. Orthodoxy in the cultic system ensures
victory in war. Following this train of thought, the final judgment that comes
upon humanity in 66:1517, 24 may be taken as the final holy war marshalled by
the Divine Warrior-King as the ultimate cleanup in preparation for the eternal
sanctuary (also Zech 14).
5 Conclusion
This essay has attempted to show that Trito-Isaiah encourages the post-exilic
community that the true sovereign will fully restore them and nurture them
to be a righteousness community. The association of the idea of kingship with
Spirit endowment that is present Isa 11 and 42 shows up in Isa 61, indicating
continuity of this association but with a fresh impetus. Justice and righteous-
ness are dispensed through a messianic ruler in Isa 11 and the agency of a ser-
vant in Isa 42, and are reoriented with a culmination of the two figures in Isa 61.
35 P. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, Cambridge 1973, 165.
All this reflects a certain despair that only Yahwehs sovereignty and kingship
can overcome, and that is how Trito-Isaiahs core material begins.
The kingship motif in Isa 61:13 is raison dtre for the mythic Divine Warrior
in the two texts framing the core. What seems impossible in an imperial con-
text is made possible because the Divine King is above all human kings, and his
eternal rule ensures the perpetuity of his people.
The Influence of the Decalogue on the Shape
of Exodus
William Johnstone*
Preview
The reminiscences in Deuteronomy attest a corresponding version in Exodus

and Numbers that underlies the present edition of these books but diverges
from that edition to a significant degree.1 The Decalogue provides a case in
point. If one counts carefully, there are some thirty variations between the
Decalogue recounted in Deut 5 and the Decalogue recorded in Exod 20. There
is even divergence about the name of the location where the Decalogue was
revealed: in Deuteronomy, the revelation took place at Horeb (Deut 5:2);
in Exodus, at Sinai (Exod 19:12). The chief divergence between these two
accounts of the content of the Decalogue lies in the reason for keeping the
Sabbath: the Horeb Decalogue relates it to the Heilsgeschichte, the narrative
of Yhwhs deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt (Deut 5:15); the Sinai
Decalogue relates it to creation (Exod 20:11). Which is the more original?
Deut 5 explicitly claims to be recalling the Sabbath commandment as it
originally stood in Exodus by inserting the cross-reference as the Lord your
God commanded you (Deut 5:12)2a cross-reference repeated also for the
parents command (Deut 5:16). This claim of accurate reminiscence enables
the reconstruction of the prior Horeb version attested by Deuteronomy that
underlies the present Sinai edition in Exod 20. The argument of this paper is
that this reconstructed Horeb Decalogue not only was present in the underlying
version of the Decalogue in Exodus but also exerted more widely a formative
influence on the shape of that version as a whole. In the first section of this
* I warmly thank Hans Barstad for his invitation to me to read a paper at a meeting of SOTS
during 2015, his year as President. This is but one of many kindnesses I have received from
him since he came to live in Edinburgh and its environs.
1 For earlier studies, see W. Johnstone, Exodus (S&HBC, 2 vols.), Macon 2014, where fuller dis-
cussion of views sometimes categorically stated in this article can be found; Idem, Reading
Exodus in Tetrateuch and Pentateuch, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Book of Exodus:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (FIOTL/VTSup, 164), Leiden 2014, 326; Idem,
review of T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch (FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, in JSSt 59 (2014),
43740.
2 English translations of the Hebrew Bible are taken from NRSV, except where otherwise noted.
Where the numbering of verses diverges (Exod 8; 22), MT is followed.

The Influence Of The Decalogue On The Shape Of Exodus 151
paper (Part 1), I shall sketch six steps in the argument (every one of which is, of
course, disputed in the secondary literature):
1. The reminiscence of the Decalogue revealed at Horeb in Deut 5 attests

the presence of the Horeb Decalogue in the earlier version of Exod 20
and enables its reconstruction.
2. The correspondence of key elements in the narrative framework of the
Decalogue in Exod 1920 with the narrative framework of the Horeb
Decalogue in Deut 45, confirms the presence of the Horeb Decalogue
in the underlying version of Exodus.
3. Deut 5:31 attests the presence of the Book of the Covenant (b, Exod
20:2223:33) in Exodus and confirms its role as exposition of the Horeb
Decalogue.
4. The content of b confirms the formative influence of the Horeb
Decalogue.
5. Exod 24:38 confirms that b, as exposition of the Horeb Decalogue, is
the code for the covenant between Yhwh and Israel.
6. Exod 34:526, part of the narrative of Yhwhs reaffirmation of
the covenant, repeats twice over the beginning of the Horeb Deca-
logue and the ending of b in order to confirm by merismus3 that the
entire terms of the covenant as expressed in the Decalogue and its
exposition in b remain unchanged.
At the end of the paper (Part 2), I shall consider a critique of the account of
the influence of the Horeb Decalogue on the shaping of the book of Exodus
that I have presented. The Sinai edition of the Decalogue that now stands in
Exod 20 affirms that the Decalogue may indeed function as formative influ-
ence on the shape of Exodus provided it is interpreted in cosmic terms, as in
its most radical change, the motive for observing the Sabbath.
Part 1: The Formative Influence on Exodus of the Decalogue

Attested in the Reminiscences of Deuteronomy
1. The reminiscence of the Horeb Decalogue in Deut 5 claims, explic-

itly by its double cross-reference as the Lord your God commanded you
(Deut 5:12, 16; cf. 4:23), to be recalling a matching Horeb version of the
3 The figure of speech by which totality is expressed by the citation of opposite extremes:
e.g. young and old implies the entire population, without exhaustive specification of inter-
vening categories. See n. 29 below.
152 Johnstone
Decalogue that once stood in Exod 20 and enables the reconstruction of that
prior version.4 This interpretation of the cross-reference in Deut 5 is con-
tested in the secondary literature. A helpful place to start might be the col-
lection of essays published in 2005, Die Zehn Worte: Der Dekalog als Testfall
der Pentateuchkritik,5 the proceedings of a conference held in Bonn to mark
the twentieth anniversary of the publication of the influential monograph
on the Decalogue by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld.6 In his essay in that collection,
Michael Konkel considers three possibilities to account for the presence of the
Decalogue in Exod 20:7
1. the Decalogue is a traditional collection, introduced into the account

of the Sinai theophany in Exodus by Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic
editors (so Werner H. Schmidt and Axel Graupner);
2. the Decalogue is derived from the Book of the Covenant and is original
to the Sinai theophany in Exodus (so Reinhard Gregor Kratz);
3. the Decalogue originates in the Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic
movement and belongs to the Horeb theophany in Deuteronomy,
whence it was taken up by Exod 20 (so Hossfeld and Lothar Perlitt).
According to Hossfeld, the Decalogue in Deuteronomy is thus prior to
the Decalogue in Exodus; the cross-references in the Decalogue in
Deuteronomy cannot then be to the Decalogue in Exod 20 but to the
4 That cross-reference is most naturally to be understood as referring back to Exod 20:8, 12

(so, routinely one might say, in standard reference works, e.g. A. Berlin, M.Z. Brettler [eds],
New Jewish Publication Society Version [Study Edition], New York 2004, 377c). The cross-
references in the Decalogue are only part of the extensive network of explicitly so-marked
references back from Deuteronomy to the preceding narrative in Exodus and Numbers; see
Deut 1:11, 19, 21; 2:1, 14; 4:5, 33; 5:32; 6:3, 16, 19, 25; 9:3; 10:5, 9; 11:25; 12:20, 21; 13:18; 15:6; 18:2;
19:8; 20:17; 26:15, 18, 19; 27:3; 28:9; 31:3, 4; 34:9 (besides 5:12, 16), some thirty-three in all. These
amount to only a fraction of the back-references implied by Deuteronomys general use of
the convention of the reminiscence.
5 C. Frevel et al. (eds), Die Zehn Worte: Der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik (QD, 212),
Freiburg i. B. 2005.
6 F.-L. Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine spaten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine
Vorstufen (OBO, 45), Freiburg i. B. 1982. I tried to offer what was essentially a critical review of
Hossfelds argument in W. Johnstone, The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope
in Exodus, ZAW 100 (1988), 36185, republished in Idem, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy
and its Application (JSOTSup, 275), Sheffield 1998, 16897.
7 M. Konkel, Was hrte Israel am Sinai? Methodische Anmerkungen zur Kontextanalyse des
Dekalogs, in Frevel, Testfall, 11.
Book of the Covenant in Exod 20:2223:33 and the Privilegrecht

Yhwhs in Exod 34.8
I persist in my argument for a fourth possibility:9 the reminiscences of

Deuteronomy are to be taken at face value as accurate recollection of the
version that it cross-refers to in Exodus. They indicate that the prior version
of Exodus was focused on Horeb as the mountain of God and included the
Horeb Decalogue.10 Some have argued that the Decalogue in Exodus must
be late: the motive for observing the Sabbath depends on the P-account of
creation in Gen 2:23 (e.g., Eckart Otto11 applying an observation of Michael
8 Vom Horeb zum Sinai: Der Dekalog als Echo auf Ex 3234, in Frevel, Testfall, 92. According
to Hossfeld, the Sabbath commandment in Deut 5 is based on Exod 23:12; 34:21a; the
Parents commandment, on Exod 21:15, 17.
9 Konkel, Was hrte Israel am Sinai?, 11, n. 4, simply notes my opinion (vgl. weiterhin
z.B.... Johnstone, Decalogue [the article noted in n. 6 above]) in association with the first
option that he considers (that of Schmidt and Graupner), hardly satisfactorily in my opin-
ion: whereas Schmidt and Graupner argue for sporadic Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic
editorial adjustments of underlying JE material in Exodus, I argue for a full-scale, con-
certed version attested by the reminiscences in Deuteronomy.
10 For Horeb as the name of the mountain of God in the prior version of Exodus, see its
recurrence in 3:1; 33:6. (Exod 17:6 is a special case: the prior version reused by the sub-
sequent edition from Num 20:113*.) For Horeb as the locus of the revelation of the
Decalogue in Deuteronomy, see Deut 1:6; 4:10, 15; 5:2.
11 E. Otto, Deuteronomium (HThKAT), Freiburg i. B. 2012, 689: [D]ie Annahme, dass der
Dekalog in Dtn 5 allein die Quelle fr den Sinaidekalog sei, [ist] zu einlinig [sic]. Vielmehr
haben die Autoren der nachpriesterschriftlichen Fortschreibung der Sinaiperikope bei
der Einfgung und intensiven berarbeitung des Horebdekalogs in die Sinaiperikope
auch auf die Quellen der deuteronomistischen Autoren des Dekalogs in Dtn 5 zurck-
gegriffen und sie in die Bearbeitung des Sinaidekalogs als die Quelle ihrer Quelle in
Dtn 5 zur Geltung gebracht [The assumption that the Decalogue in Deut 5 is the sole
source for the Sinai Decalogue is too unilinear. Rather, the authors of the post-P literary
elaboration of the Sinai pericope, in the process of inserting the Horeb Decalogue into
the Sinai pericope and intensively reworking it, have also reached back to the sources
that the Deuteronomistic authors of the Decalogue used in Deut 5 and brought them
back into currency in the editing of the Sinai Decalogue as the source of their source in
Deut 5 (translations here and below by WJ)]. This view introduces, in my opinion,
an unnecessary additional loop in the editorial processes responsible for the production
of Exodus: how does one tell the difference between the use that the Deuteronomistic
authors made of their sources and the re-use of the same sources by post-P editors?
Konkels comment (Testfall, 3536, n. 77), on Ottos account of the relationship between
Deut 4 and 5, seems apposite here too: Otto fhrt somit einen Slalomkurs [Otto pursues
thereby a slalom course].
154 Johnstone
Fishbane).12 This deviation from the version attested by Deuteronomy must

then be attributed to a subsequent redactor who spliced the materials together
in post-P literary elaboration [nachpriesterschriftliche Fortschreibung]. But is
it necessary to introduce a redactor? Why not affirm that the later edition has
simply taken over the Decalogue in Exod 20 that Deut 5 attests and modified
it in a few major points? Sabbath observance is no longer a commemoration
of the exodus but of creation (Exod 20:11). The later edition is precisely that: its
own editor.13
12 M.A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985: Deut 4:16b19a
reuses the very language and sequence of its prototype [Gen 1] (321). Similarly, Deutero-
Isaiah is unquestionably keyed to Gen 1:12:4a (326). The implication for relative
dating should not be ignored. Self-evidently, Gen 1:12:4a preceded Deut 4:16b19 and the
polemic of Deutero-Isaiah (326, n. 30; italics original). He does add, however, while many
trajectories of exegetical form, terminology, and rationality can be discerned within the
Hebrew Bible,...such trajectories are in themselves no proof of definite historical rela-
tionship (525).
13 In Ottos works there are other examples of the disappearing redactor (the term that
J. Barton adopts in his discussion of redaction criticism in Reading the Old Testament,
Oxford 21994, 568). Otto affirms the existence of the Hexateuch Redactor and the
Pentateuch Redactor, yet concedes difficulty in practice in always distinguishing between
them. Heben sich die nachexilischen Fortschreibungen, die das Deuteronomium in
den literarischen Zusammenhang von Hexateuch und vor allem Pentateuch integ-
rieren, deutlich von den deuteronomistischen Rahmungen des Gesetzes in Dtn 111;
2930* ab, so ist es oftmals aber nicht mehr mglich, innerhalb der nachexilischen
Fortschreibungen des Deuteronomiums Autoren der Pentateuchredaktion von solchen
der Hexateuchredaktion zu unterscheiden. Es wird deshalb im Kommentar oftmals die
nachexilische Integration des Deuteronomiums in den Pentateuch im Zuge der nachex-
ilischen Fortschreibung benannt und nur an den Stellen, an denen eindeutig eine hexa-
teuchische Perspektive zu erkennen ist, eine hexateuchische Fortschreibung davon
abgehoben [While the postexilic Fortschreibungen, which integrate Deuteronomy into
the literary context of Hexateuch and above all of Pentateuch, clearly contrast with the
(exilic) Deuteronomistic frameworks of the law in Deut 111; 2930*, yet it is often no
longer possible to distinguish authors of the Pentateuch redaction from those of the
Hexateuch redaction within the postexilic Fortschreibungen of Deuteronomy. Therefore,
in the commentary, the postexilic integration of Deuteronomy into the Pentateuch in
the course of post-exilic Fortschreibung will often be signalized. Only in contexts where
a Hexateuchal perspective can be clearly recognized, will Hexateuchal Fortschreibung be
distinguished from Pentateuchal] (Deuteronomium [HThKAT], 255). The disappearing
redactor already vanishes in Ottos early discussion of b (Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen
in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des Bundesbuches
Ex XX 22XXIII 13 [StB, 3], Leiden 1988), where he identifies two collections, b i and
b ii, but suggests that the presumed redactor has found the material so congenial that he
The motive for the Sabbath command that Deut 5:15 attests as present in
Exodus (Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt) does indeed
fit, it seems to me, more naturally with the Decalogues immediate context in
Exodus: the Heilsgeschichte of Yhwhs liberation of Israel from slavery culmi-
nating in the covenant, without reference to creation.
2. The correspondence of key elements in the narrative framework of the

Decalogue given in Exod 1920 with the narrative framework of the Horeb
Decalogue given in Deut 45, confirms the presence of the Horeb Decalogue
in the underlying version of Exodus. The resumptions and continuous tenses in
Exod 20:1821 continue the narrative from Exod 19:19 and frame the con-
temporary event of the revelation of the Decalogue in Exod 20:117 in which
the people could not participate.14 In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the
Decalogue and its framing narrative are integrally connected; the presence of
the Decalogue is essential to both. Both narratives include Yhwhs concession
to the frailty of the people when confronted with the awesome theophany
accompanying the revelation of the Decalogue. Yhwhs original intention was
to reveal the content of the Decalogue directly to the people, as in the promise
in Exod 3:12b, You [pl. m.] shall worship God on this mountain. This promise is
on the point of fulfilment in Exod 19:13b, When the trumpet sounds..., they
[i.e., the people] shall come up.15 But, exposed to the deafening thunder and
trumpet blare accompanying the revelation, the people recoil in terror from
the mountain; unable to make out intelligible speech, they implore Moses to
act as intermediary to impart to them the rational content of the Decalogue.
Yhwh accedes to their request. Yhwh says to Moses, Go say to [the people],
Return to your tents. But you [Moses], stand here by me, and I will tell you
all the commandments, the statutes and the ordinances, that you shall teach
them, so that they may do them in the land (Deut 5:3031). It was Yhwhs
original intention that the people should proceed directly from Horeb to take
has been able to combine them without intervention (52; cf. 91, n. 187: Es ist erstaunlich
zu beobachten, wie der Redaktor dem Rechtskorpus Ex XXI 2XXIII 12 ein theologisches
Profil zu geben vermag, ohne in den vorgegebenen berlieferungsbestand einzugrei-
fen [It is astonishing to observe how the redactor has been able to give the legal corpus
Exod 21:223:12 a theological profile without interfering in the given state of the inherited
material]).
14 A similar framing device occurs in 2 Chronicles 57, where the action of Solomon in
2 Chr 6 is framed by the reaction of the priests, who cannot participate directly in the
events, in 2 Chr 5:14 resumed in 2 Chr 7:14. Exod 19:2025, with its use of Sinai and
emphasis on hierarchy, belongs to the later edition.
15 N RSV tempers the change of plan by rendering permissively: may go up.
156 Johnstone
possession of the land in the first year (a plan catastrophically frustrated by the
people, Deut 1:1946).
3. Deut 5:31 completes the reminiscence of revelation at Horeb; in par-

ticular, it completes Yhwhs speech to Moses begun in Deut 5:28b. These
commandments, statutes, and ordinances in Deut 5:31 refer, in my view,
to the variety of stipulations in b. Deut 5:31 thus attests the presence of
the Book of the Covenant (b, Exod 20:2223:33) in Exodus and confirms its role
as exposition of the Horeb Decalogue.16 Consequently, the Decalogue has exer-
cised a controlling influence on the content and structure of b, as the parallel
reminiscence of events at Horeb in Deut 4:1214 confirms. This interpretation
is controversial. Many have disputed the unity of Deut 5 and its relationship
with Deut 4.17 Further, many interpreters, Eckart Otto, for instance, interpret
Deut 5:31 cataphorically, as referring forward to the Code in Deut 122618 (so,
many others),19 rather than anaphorically back to b in Exodus.20 But Deut 4:14
refers to the revelation of b.
16 Some interpreters dismiss Deut 4:140 as post-P because of the apparent reference in
Deut 4:32 (especially the use of the verb )to Gen 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3, 4 (see n. 12, above; is
Second Isaiah, then, also post-P?).
17 But see S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh 31902, 834: The representation of
Moses as mediator [in Deut 55]...is apparently at variance with [Deut 5] v.4. 19. 21 (22. 24)
412. 15. 16 104...It appears, however, that according to the conception of D, the people
heard the voice of God, but not distinct words...God speaks with Moses, and the
people overhear the thunder of His voice, but they do not necessarily hear distinctly
the actual words spoken [italics original]. According to M. Konkel, Testfall, 19, both
Deut 4:1014 and Deut 5 are retrospective description (rckblickende Schilderung).
18 In the opinion of D. Markl, Deut 5:31 refers to the Code in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6:1). The
Torah of Deut 626, he argues, is meant to replace B: [L]egal revision is introduced as a
hermeneutical principle at the very core of the divine law (The Ten Words Revealed and
Revised: The Origins of Law and Legal Hermeneutics in the Pentateuch, in: D. Markl [ed.],
The Decalogue and its Cultural Influence [HBM, 58], Sheffield 2013, 24). For the code in
Deuteronomy as replacement of B, see B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics
of Legal Innovation, New York 1997, passim.
19 E.g., J.S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis
(AYBRL), New Haven 2012, 145.
20 Otto, Exodus (HThKAT), 269, similarly interprets Exod 24:12b as cataphoric, referring
to the code in Deut 1226 by hyperbaton (inversion of the logical order of words or
phrases; cf. OED): the stone tablets are separated from their relative clause, which I have
written, by the insertion of the law and the commandments. Otto cites G. Braulik, Die
Weisung und das Gebot im Enneateuch, in F.-L. Hossfeld, L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger
4. The content of b confirms the formative influence of the Horeb Decalogue.

For historical critical interpreters, b has held an irresistible fascination. As a
complicated collection of legal stipulations, it must have had, so they assume,
a matching long and complicated history of growth as an independent collec-
tion or collection of collections. It thus provides precious evidence for the his-
tory and practice of law in ancient Israel.21 It is to be read in tandem with the
(eds), Das Manna fllt auch heute noch. Beitrge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten,
Ersten Testaments: Festschrift fr Erich Zenger (HBS, 44), Freiburg i. B. 2004, 11540. Braulik
notes (116) that the combination occurs elsewhere in HB only in Josh
22:5; 2 Kgs 17:34, 37 [// 2Chr 14:3; 31:21], all nodal points. More likely, in line with the view
propounded in this paper, the reminiscence in Deut 9:9 attests the text of the older ver-
sion in Exod 24:12: the law and the commandment are substituted by the later editor for
Deuteronomys covenant (cf. the later editors view already expressed in Exod 2:2325
that the covenant is long-standing; Sinai is the location for the revelation of law, not for
the making of covenant):
Exod 24:12 Deut 9:9
The Lord said to Moses, Come When I went
up to me up
on the mountain...and I will give the mountain to receive
you the stone tablets,
the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the
Lord made with you.
with the law and the
commandments, which I have
written for their instruction.
In Deut 9:9, stone is plural, implying the existence of more than one tablet (two, in
fact); in Exod 24:12, it is singular, referring to the material from which the now unnum-
bered tablets are made. See GKC 124q. For the later editor, the Words spoken at Sinai in
Exod 25:12; 35:1, 4 are now extended to include, above all, the revelation of the speci-
fication of the Tabernacle (see Part 2, below). Similar processes can be observed in
Exod 34:14 in the light of the parallel in Deut 10:13.
21 See M. Kckert, Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?, in: C. Bultmann et al. (eds),
Vergegenwrtigung des Alten Testaments (FS Rudolf Smend), Gttingen 2002, 1327.
According to Kckert, none of the law codes in the Sinai pericope Exod 1934the
Decalogue in 20:117, the Book of the Covenant (b) in 20:2323:33, and the so-called
Privilegrecht Yhwhs in 34:1126is integrally connected to its present context. There are
three separate corpora; therefore three separate histories; therefore complex redactional
processes to integrate the three. In this regard, Kckert, 19, commends, above all, the
work of Eckart Otto (see below). See also J. Schaper, The Literary History of the Hebrew
Bible, in: J.C. Paget, J. Schaper (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From
the Beginnings to 600, Cambridge 2013, 120: most of the law collections now found in the
158 Johnstone
history of Israels internal and external relations from pre-monarchic to exilic

times, in order to identify conditioning factors.22 It is also to be read in tandem
with the history of law in the ancient Near East in order to explain influences
and correspondences.23 One can illustrate this approach from the voluminous
Pentateuch originally existed independently of it; b originated in the ninth to eighth cen-
turies bce.
22 The history of interpretation provides copious examples of attempts to trace bs his-
tory of growth and combination against hypothetical historical backgrounds, from the
pre-settlement period in the second millennium for both types of law, apodeictic and
casuistic, in A. Alt, The Origins of Israelite Law, in Essays on Old Testament History
and Religion, New York 1968, 10171 (original German 1934) to the sixth century exilic
period (e.g., W. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der
vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 1924 und deren historischen Hintergrund [OBO, 159], Freiburg
i. B. 1998, 134, relates B to Gedaliahs governorship at Mizpah, which lasted not the three
months of 2 Kgs 25:25, Jeremiah 41, but the five years implied by the third captivity of Jer
52:30). Dates are proposed on the assumption of response to specific historical circum-
stances. E.g., L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger, in Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,2223,33): Studien
zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin 1990, 1427, 2735, relates bs
emphasis on covering pits (21:3334) to archaeological discoveries of silos and cisterns
in new Israelite villages dating to Iron Age I; he proposes origins in 11th10th centuries,
Fortschreibung till 9th8th centuries as a secular law-book, until in 8th7th centuries it
underwent redaction as a divine law-book by proto-D and then by DtrN, which incor-
porated b into a theological narrative spanning Gen 2:4b2 Kgs 25; R. Rothenbusch, Die
kasuistische Rechtssammlung im Bundesbuch (Ex 21,211.1822,16) und ihr literarischer
Kontext im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen (AOAT, 259), Mnster 2000, 57782, proposes
that the main redaction of b marks a response to the moment when Ahaz became vassal
of the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III, ca. 734 bce; F. Crsemann, Tora: Theologie und
Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, Mnchen 1992, 2156, relates bs empha-
sis on welcoming refugees to the aftermath of the fall of Samaria in 722 bce. The huge
range of dates and multiple plausible associations that have been proposed for b leave
one disillusioned about the feasibility of the enterprise and the reliability of its results.
23 For a vigorous argument relating b to the Code of Hammurabi (ch) see D.P. Wright,
The Origin, Development, and Context of the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:2323:19), in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation
(FIOTL/VTSup, 164), Leiden 2014, 22044. B.M. Levinson, in his essay Is the Covenant
Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters, in: J. Day (ed.), In Search
of Pre-Exilic Israel (JSOTSup, 406), London 2004, 293, has made a valuable inventory of
fifty-five extant copies of ch, besides the Louvre stela, spanning more than a millennium.
ch was a canonical text that did not include regular up-dates that reflected developing
legal practice. This fixity throws further doubt on proposals to find elaborate histories of
literary development in b. The point has been neatly put by S. Greengus, Some Issues
Relating to the Comparability of Laws and the Coherence of the Legal Traditions, in:
B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision,
works of Eckart Otto, beginning with his 1988 study precisely on b, Change in
the Grounds for Legal Practice in the Social History of Ancient Israel: A History of
Law in b, which Otto tellingly restricts to Exod 20:2223:13,24 through the found-
ing in 1995 of the Zeitschrift fr altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte
with its revealing abbreviation ZAR where biblical is subsumed under ancient
Near Eastern, to many monographs, articles, and reviews, culminating in his
enormous commentary on Deuteronomy (still in progress).25
In the sequence of the Exodus narrative, the need for b as exposition of
the Decalogue is clear. The Decalogue itself is still to be inscribed by Yhwh
(31:18) and is not yet available itself as the basis of the covenant. Moses has to
decode and expound the substance of the Decalogue that Yhwh will write in
person and that has so far only been orally communicated. If b is the exposi-
tion of the Horeb Decalogue in a way that the people can comprehend and
accept, it would not be surprising if the Decalogue that D attests has had an
influence on bs shape and content.
I nterpolation and Development (JSOTSup, 181), Sheffield 1994, 72: Bible scholars, recogniz-
ing that the history of ancient Israel includes memory of a number of important social
and cultural changes, have been more ready [than their ancient Near Eastern counter-
parts] to create diachronic analyses. B.S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law
(JSOTSup, 314), Sheffield 2000, 89, notes that Ezra 7:25 marks the first dateable appeal by
Judean judges to an existing code. Otto, Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations
in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law, in B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in
Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development (JSOTSup, 181) Shef-
field, 1994, 160, quotes B. Landsberger that Codex Hammurapi was never quoted as legal
authority in court protocols.
24 E. Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen (for bibliographical details, see n. 13 above). Otto
isolates b from its present literary context and proposes a complex alternative structure,
an assembly of originally independent collections in two pre-exilic collections, 21:222:26
and 22:2823:12, one associated with the priesthood in Jerusalem, the other with the rural
priesthood. This proposal cuts across the present structure of b, e.g., the delimitation of
Exod 22:2023:9 as a unit by inclusio.
25 E. Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 2 vols. (HThKAT), Freiburg i. B. 2012. I have offered a limited
engagement with Ottos massive oeuvre in my review of one volume of his collected essays,
E. Otto, Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufstze (BZABR, 9), Wiesbaden
2009, in BiOr 67 (2010), 37485, in which I suggested (385) that on Ottos argument, every
piece of writing is pulled out and strung along an extended timeline. Literary history is
conformed to political history.... [Even p]arallel materials have to be located at differ-
ent points on that timeline. For a statement of his own view, see Ottos Aspects of Legal
Reform and Reformulation in Israelite Law, in: B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in
Biblical and Cuneiform Law, 1956, n. 119: [The Israelite laws] were continuously changing
laws...because they were a mirror of ever-changing human life in society.
160 Johnstone
It seems to me to be beyond doubt that there is an intimate connection

between the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant. Every stipulation in the
Decalogue has a matching exposition in b. The outer theological framework
of b in Exod 20:2226 and 23:1019 fits well with Words IIV of the Decalogue:
no other gods, the sole worship of Yhwh, respect for the Name, and Sabbath
observance. The inner code begins with the topic of slavery (21:211), matching
the prologue to the Decalogue in Exod 20:2. b expounds Word VI You shall
not murder in terms not only of killing but also of a long series of bodily inju-
ries in descending order of gravity in 21:1836; it expounds Words VIII and X,
You shall not steal and You shall not covet, in terms not only of theft but
also of a long series of damages to property in 21:3722:14.26 The rights of the
parents, Word V, are doubly protected within this double framework (21:15, 17).
The prohibition on bearing false witness (Word IX) stands at the centre of the
section 22:2023:9 demarcated by the inclusio, the repeated explanation You
shall not oppress a resident alien...for you were aliens in the land of Egypt,
again tying b to the Heilsgeschichte.
The objection that there is no equivalent to Word VII in b, You shall not
commit adultery,27 is easily countered. The three apodeictic laws in 22:1719
(on sorcery, bestiality, and sacrifice to any god but Yhwh) expound adultery
metaphorically in terms of religious deviancy. The prohibition of bestiality is
appropriate within the context of the impending worship of the golden calf in
Exod 32 (cf. the condemnation of Jeroboams calves in Hos 13:2: they...make
a cast image [, cf. Exod 32:4] for themselves.... People are kissing calves
[, cf. Exod 32:4]).
It is possible that b now contains occasional intervention by the final edi-
tion (just as in the model case of the Decalogue itself in Exod 20). I have found
that the occurrence in Exodus of the shortened form of the first singular per-
sonal pronoun, , is an alert to the presence of P. My suspicions concern par-
ticularly Exod 22:26b30, which, I think, deals with the emoluments of the
priests and Levites (see Num 18:832).28
26 With regard to the relationship between b and the Code in Deuteronomy, it is signifi-
cant for the complementarity of these codes that these elaborations of damages to per-
sons and property in Exod 21:1822:14 have no parallel in Deuteronomy (see table in
S.R. Driver, Exodus [ICC], ivvii), apart from lex talionis which occurs in a different
context in Deut 19:21 (perjured witness).
27 A. Phillips, Essays on Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 344), Sheffield 2002, 64; E. Blum, The
Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch, in T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds),
The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78), Tbingen
2011, 297.
28 See W. Johnstone, Exodus 2040 (S&HBC), 14952.
5. Exod 24:38 confirms that b, as exposition of the Horeb Decalogue, is the

code for the covenant between Yhwh and Israel. Since the Decalogue itself,
still to be written by Yhwh (31:18), is not yet available as the covenant doc-
ument, it is b, written by Moses at Yhwhs instruction as exposition of the
Decalogue, that functions as covenant document instead (24:7). Exod 24:38
is carefully expressed to make the point. In v. 3, Moses reports the terms of
the covenant to the people verbally under two headings: all the words of the
Lord may refer to the Ten Words of the Decalogue; all the ordinances to
the material that b introduces by the title ordinances in 21:1. It is to this com-
plete verbal transmission of the content of Decalogue in its authorized expo-
sition in b, that the people can then appropriately respond, All the words
that Yhwh has spoken we will do. In v. 4, Moses proceeds to write down b as
the terms of the covenant. But, since b is the full exposition of the Decalogue,
Exod 24:4 can legitimately state, Moses wrote down all the words of the
Lord. Equally legitimately, the people, when they hear Moses read out b, can
respond, All that Yhwh has spoken we will do (v. 7).
6. Exod 34:526, part of the narrative of Yhwhs reaffirmation of the covenant,

repeats twice over the beginning of the Horeb Decalogue and the ending of its
exposition in b. By this repeated use of the figure of speech of merismusthe
citation of extremities to express totality without exhaustive repetition of
the intervening clauses29Yhwh confirms that, despite Israels apostasy
in the intervening golden calf incident (Exod 32), all the terms of the covenant
as originally promulgated in Exod 2023 continue valid and unchanged. As
far as Yhwh is concerned, the covenant remains intact.
This interpretation is controversial. The parallels to the Decalogue and B in
Exod 34:526 have fascinated historical and literary critical scholars no less than
the Decalogue and B themselves, as noted above, for the resources they appear
to offer for the reconstruction of the history and practice of law in ancient
Israel. The stimulus to find these materials arises not least from the statement
29 For the term see A.M. Honeyman, Merismus in Biblical Hebrew, JBL 71 (1952), 1118. One
among many examples that Honeyman identifies is the phrase from Dan to Beersheba,
used to express the extent of the Promised Land by its polar extremities without exhaus-
tive listing of the intervening locations. Honeyman does not, in fact, apply the term to
Exod 34:526 as a whole but does find a likely example in v. 21: Six days you shall work,
but on the seventh you shall rest; [even, NRSV adds to make the point (WJ)] in plowing
time and in harvest time you shall rest (Ibid., 15 and n. 18). The verse means not simply
in the two busiest times of the agricultural year shall you rest but weekly all through the
agricultural year demarcated by these two busiest extremes. Cf. Gen 8:22; 45:6b.
162 Johnstone
in Exod 34:2728, The Lord said to Moses: Write these words...And he wrote
on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. This state-
ment appears to allude to a Decalogue in the immediately preceding context
in Exod 34 and triggered a search for a ritual Decalogue in 34:1726 in classi-
cal literary criticism.30 More recently, an influential interpretation (now some-
what on the wane) has proposed that that Decalogue should be termed the
Privilegrecht Yhwhs.31
In my view, these alternatives cut across the coherence of the material in
Exod 34:526.32 The underlying version presents the material in a double mer-
ism to confirm with great emphasis that the terms of the covenant remain
unchanged. The first merism (Exod 34:516) begins (Exod 34:67) with citing
the opening of the Decalogue (Exod 20:56) and ends (Exod 34:1016) with a
free summary of the final address in b (Exod 23:2033). The second merism
(Exod 34:1726) also begins (Exod 34:17) with citation of the opening of the
Decalogue (Exod 20:4) and ends (Exod 34:1826) with a parallel version of bs
concluding legal stipulations in Exod 23:1219. (For tabulation, see Appendix
below: Merismus in Exod 34: The parallels between Exod 34:526 and
Exod 2023.) Exod 23:1219 is part of the exposition of the Decalogue in b33
and is, therefore, integral to the older version.
It may be objected that both of these passages in Exod 34:526 are odd
examples of merism, in that the opening verses of each (Exod 34:58 and
30 For brief orientation, see C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3 (HCOT), Leuven 2000, 71516.
31 Eckart Otto again exemplifies and provides full discussions (see also Houtman, Exodus,
vol. 3, 2623). Otto uses J. Halbes term the Privilegrecht Yhwhs for Exod 34:1026, and
accepts his delimitation of it (see J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,1026: Gestalt
und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit, Gttingen 1975). Thus Otto
in the subtitle of his 1988 monograph, A History of Law in b, delimits b as ending in 23:13
(see also Ibid., 911). He omits from b Exod 23:1419, as a later parallel to Exod 34:1726,
and the concluding exhortation, Exod 23:2033. In his current work on Deuteronomy
(HThKAT, 268, 270), Otto denies historical validity to the term Privilegrecht (the rights
due to an overlord, in this case Yhwh, in return for bestowal of land) in the light of more
recent studies of the process of Israels settlement in the land but has retained it for its
usefulness in delimiting what he regards as an independent literary compilation.
32 Exod 34:126 is presented in MT as a single paragraph appropriate to a single act of reaffir-
mation of an established corpus; by contrast, in the first promulgation in Exod 2023 MT
inserts forty-four paragraph markers appropriate to the exhaustive listing of individual
clauses or groups of clauses revealed over two occasions.
33 See W. Johnstone, Exodus 20:24b: Linchpin of Pentateuchal Criticism or Just a Further
Link between the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant?, in: R. Rezetko et al. (eds),
Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld
(VTSup, 113), Leiden 2007, 20722.
34:17) refer not to the first commandment of the Decalogue as attested in

Exod 20 but to the second commandment. That objection, however, confirms
the point that I am trying to make in this paper. In the Horeb Decalogue as
attested in Deut 5, these verses belong precisely to the First Word. The prohi-
bition of other gods, you shall have no other gods before me, is immediately
specified as the prohibition of idols, You shall not make for yourself an idol
(Deut 5:610), all as parts of Word I. It is only in the recasting of the Decalogue
in the present edition in Exod 20 that these prohibitions are separated as
Words I and II (Exod 20:23, 46). Here, then, is yet further evidence that it
is the Horeb Decalogue, attested by Deut 5 as once present in Exod 20, which
has exerted a formative influence on the structure of Exodus.
Exod 34:1726 is essentially a parallel to Exod 23:1019. Parallel texts do not
necessarily imply two sources or a direction of influence between an earlier
and a later; rather, parallels may suggest common origin, not evolution.34 As
Exod 23:1019 is original to B as exposition of the Decalogue, so Exod 34:1726
is original to the narrative of the reaffirmation of the covenant. The deviations
in Exod 34:1726 from Exod 23:1019 are accounted for by the thesis of the
intervention of the subsequent edition (just as in the case of the Decalogue the
subsequent edition in Exod 20:217 includes revisions of the original version
attested in Deut 5:621). Two adjustments in particular may be noted. The first
is the clarification of the offering of the firstborn in Exod 34:1920. Although
the offering of the firstborn male of every human and domestic animal is
in principle required, substitutionary offerings must be made in the case of
humans and of those animals unfit for sacrifice (Num 3:1213; 8:1718; 18:1518
clarifies, e.g., the role of the Levites as substitutes for the rest of the Israelites).
The second adjustment is the transposition of Sabbath from initial position
in the specification of sacred seasons in Exod 23:1012 to central position in
Exod 34:21. The prominence thus given to Sabbath corresponds to the empha-
sis on Sabbath observance as a creation ordinance in the specifications of the
Tabernacle in Exod 31:1217, with explicit allusion to the creation narrative in
Gen 2:13, matched in Exod 35:13 in the narrative of the construction of the
Tabernacle. These adjustments by the final editor lead congenially to the sec-
ond part of this paper.
34 Otto deals with the parallels and variations between Exod 23:1419 and Exod 34:1726
in his essay, Deuteronomium und Pentateuch, in Die Torah, 2009, 196201 (originally
published in 2000), and argues that 34:1726 is older than 23:1419. He thus assumes that
there must be a direction of influence between the two texts (see also his Gottes Recht als
Menschenrecht: Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium [BZAR, 2],
Wiesbaden 2002, 26, 29, n. 117).
164 Johnstone
Part 2: Critique by the P Edition
The second part of this paper offers a critique of the reconstruction that I have
sketched of the influence of the Horeb Decalogue, attested by Deuteronomy,
on the shaping of Exodus.
The critique that matters most is the sharp inner-biblical counter-position
that the final edition offers. (In continuity with classical literary criticism,
I refer to that final edition as P.) P repeatedly pronounces not adequate on
the argument of the earlier version attested by Deuteronomy.
The focus of Ps critique is the revised Sinai Decalogue that currently
stands in Exod 20:217, in particular the motive for Sabbath observance that it
offers in v. 11. It regards as inadequate the motive for Sabbath observance that
Deut 5:1415 offers: so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.
Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God
brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.
Instead, P substitutes: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea.
You can have the Decalogue as formative influence on the structure of Exodus,
says P, so long as you do not limit its interpretation to Yhwhs covenant with
Israel and the Heilsgeschichte but understand it in cosmic terms.
For P, Yhwhs covenant with Israel is not in doubt: it was made long ago with
Abraham (see Gen 17), and stands inviolable in primal time (Exod 2:2325).
What happened at Sinai was, therefore, not simply the reinforcement of the
covenant with Israel but also the revelation of Torah as the instrument for
the creation of cosmic order.
The rather rare addition of sea as object to the verb to make35 in Exod
20:11 along with heaven and earth stresses that Yhwh has created and has
dominion over every part of the three-decker universe. For this cosmic under-
standing see the use of sea in Exod 14 (heavily glossed by P). The Sea, the
strategic location where Yhwh accomplishes Israels final deliverance from
the Egyptians, occurring no fewer than seventeen times, never has the qualifi-
cation Red (contrast the older version, where the Red Sea is part of the south-
ern political border of the Promised Land; see e.g. Exod 13:18; 23:31). What now
35
D CH VI, 590a, lists (besides Exod 20:11) 1 Kgs 7:23//2 Chr 4:2; 1 Kgs 7:40 [read 7:44, WJ];
2 Kgs 25:16//Jer 52:20; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:14 [read 4:15, WJ] (these seven refer to the brazen
sea in the temple, which may have possessed cosmic symbolism; see Josephus, Ant., 3.7.7;
cf. War, 5.5.4); Jon 1:9 (appropriately to Jonahs physical context); Ps 95:5 (praise of Yhwh
as creator, supreme above the gods); Ps 146:6 (similar); Neh 9:6 (Yhwh as creator of the
three-decker universe).
takes place at the Sea has not just local but cosmic significance expressed
through mythological overtones (as in Gen 1:2).36
A similar widening of the vision from the local to the universal is also to be
seen in the Plague cycle. In the older version there is a cycle of seven plagues
(Exod 7:1411:8*; 12:2936). The purpose of these plagues, culminating in the
death of all the firstborn of the Egyptians is compulsion: to force Pharaoh to
release Yhwhs people with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (as in the
motive for Sabbath observance in the Decalogue in Deut 5:15, and in other ref-
erences in Deuteronomy, e.g. Deut 4:34; 26:8; for mighty hand in Exodus, see
Exod 6:1; 13:9; cf. 14:31, great hand [NRSV work]). For the later edition, compul-
sion is not adequate. Three new plagues are added, prefaced by a new prelimi-
nary wonder, bringing the cycle up to ten (Exod 7:811:10*) with the merging
of the final plague in the older version with the final wonder in the newer edi-
tion (Exod 10:2111:8). In P, the plague cycle now functions as demonstration
of the unrivalled power of Yhwh above all other gods and all cosmic forces. It
begins with Aarons staff that turns into a sea monster (, Exod 7:912 [con-
siderations of practicability are irrelevant]; cf. Gen 1:21 in Ps creation account)
and ends with the plague of darkness, the return of Egypt to primeval chaos
(Exod 10:21; cf. Gen 1:2 [P]). The exodus of Israel from Egypt exposes the impo-
tence of any would-be cosmic rival, as is stated most explicitly in Exod 12:12,
on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments (so, similarly, Num 33:4), and
is already foreshadowed in Exod 6:6, I will redeem you with an outstretched
arm and with mighty acts of judgment (cf. Exod 7:4), the latter phrase replac-
ing the mighty hand of the earlier version.37
The presence of two views (covenant and cosmos) is thus confirmed
already in Exod 119. That confirmation is provided not just by the use of dis-
tinctive vocabulary, the listing of which has been the stock-in-trade of tra-
ditional literary criticism (e.g. the distinctive use of the divine designations
Yhwh and Elohim, and distinctive vocabulary, e.g. the verbs for the harden-
ing of Pharaohs heart, in the older version, and in the later edition).
36 See, e.g., B.F. Batto, In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and
the Bible (Siphrut, 9), Winona Lake 2013, especially 4253.
37 This adjustment may already be seen in Exod 3:19, The king of Egypt will not let you
go, no, not by a mighty hand (the reading in NRSV footnote is to be preferred), which,
I suggest, is the deliberate correction of the mighty hand and outstretched arm
of the Heilsgeschichte as in Deut 5:15. See W. Johnstone, P as Editor: The Case of
Exodus 4:1826, in: J.K. Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone and Scroll, Essays in Honour of Graham
Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011, 2367. The shortened form of the first singular per-
sonal pronoun, , which occurs as the opening word of Exod 3:19, is again an alert to the
presence of P. See the comment above on Exod 22:26b30 in B.
166 Johnstone
More profoundly, the presence of two distinctive accounts is confirmed by

diverging views on substantive matters of fundamental significance, especially
chronology, itinerary, and the festival by which events at the mountain of God
are commemorated:
There are two views of the chronology of events in Exodus. The shorter
chronology brings Israel to the mountain of God on the third day after
departure from Egypt (as in Moses request to Pharaoh, three times
repeated, 3:18; 5:3; 8:23).38 In the longer chronology, that arrival takes
place in the third month (19:1).
The shorter and the longer chronologies are matched by correspond-
ing itineraries. None of the place names in the itinerary in the final
edition in Exod 12:3719:2a, Rameses, Succoth, Etham, Pi-hahiroth,
Marah, Elim, Wilderness of Sin, and Rephidim, is mentioned in the
reminiscence in Deuteronomy, not even Sinai itself, for which Deuter-
onomy uses Horeb. All these place-names, are confirmed as belong-
ing to the final edition by the summary of Israels itinerary in
Numbers 33 (P). The Red Sea is the first place encountered in the older
version in Exod 13:18; 15:22; it occurs in seventh position in Num 33:10
and is omitted in the corresponding position in Exod 16:1 because P
has already reinterpreted it as the cosmic Sea in Exod 14 (as noted
above). Massah(-Meribah) in Exod 17:17 is the only Deuteronomy
name (apart from the Red Sea) that occurs in the pre-Sinai narrative
in Exodus but even it receives its alternative final form name, Rephi-
dim, marking its reuse in a new context (contrariwise, Massah-
Meribah does not occur in Num 33).
There are two views about the festivals by which Israel celebrates
these events. The three-day pilgrimage into the wilderness on the
shorter chronology, plus the three days preparation at the mountain
(Exod 19:11, 1516), plus the conclusion of the covenant on the seventh
day (Exod 24:4) matches the week-long festival of Passover in Deut
16:18. This seven-day Passover contrasts with Ps drastically reinter-
preted one-night Passover of Exod 12. The festival celebrated at Sinai
seven-weeks later, in the third month implied by Ps longer chronology
38 The shorter chronology can hardly be dismissed as entirely a ruse perpetrated by Moses
on Pharaoh (J.S. Baden, Composition, 121), given its three-fold repetition and its implica-
tions for itinerary and associated festival considered below.
of Exod 19:1, is Weeks/Shavuot/Pentecost, at which, as later practice

suggests, the revelation of the Torah was celebrated.39
There is no doubt in my mind that P, the final editor of Exodus, well knew
the underlying version of events attested in Deuteronomy. This is made clear
not only by the intricacy of the interventions of the later edition in the earlier
narrative (as, e.g., in the plague cycle) but also by the phenomenon of trans-
position and reuse of material from the earlier version in the final edition. An
example already occurs in the plague narrative in Exod 4:2223: you refused to
let [my son, my firstborn] go, a text from the earlier version, which the editor
has transposed from its expected location in the prelude to the final plague,
the death of the Egyptian firstborn, in Exod 11:3/4.40 An extended example
of transposition and reuse is provided by the murmuring in the wilderness
cycle in Exod 15:22b19:2a. The reminiscences in Deuteronomy attest no mur-
murings in the wilderness before Israels arrival at the mountain of God; there
would be little time for such murmuring on the three-day journey to Horeb on
the shorter chronology in Exodus. For Deuteronomy, the murmurings in the
wilderness begin at Horeb and continue thereafter (Deut 9:910:11). The mur-
muring cycle in Exod 15:22b19:2a is the creation of the final editor to fill the
longer chronology of Exod 19:1 and its matching longer itinerary, and to alter
the festival associated with Sinai from Passover to Weeks. But to create that
new cycle of murmurings in the wilderness before Sinai in Exod 15:22b19:2a,
the final editor has transposed and reused in an extraordinarily radical way
copious materials from the earlier version of how Israel infuriated Yhwh, as
Deuteronomy attests, from Horeb itself with the worship of the golden calf, to
the post-Horeb wilderness wandering rebellions at Taberah, Massah, Kibroth-
hattaavah, and Kadesh.41 Out of that narrative of Horeb and post-Horeb rebel-
lions, P has created in Exod 15:22b19:2a with astonishing virtuosity a story of
pre-Sinai revelations of Torah with which Yhwh has matched the murmurings
of the people. At every stage of the journey, there is a preliminary revelation
39 For fuller account, see W. Johnstone, The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 124, in:
R. Albertz, B. Becking (eds), Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the
Persian Period (STAR, 5), Assen 2003, 99114.
40 W. Johnstone, P as Editor: The Case of Exodus 4:1826, in: J.K. Aitken et al. (eds),
On Stone and Scroll, 22538.
41 The matching version of these rebellions has been radically edited by the final edition
both in the receiving text in Exodus and the giving text in Numbers, as I have tabu-
lated in my essay Reading Exodus, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Book of Exodus:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (FIOTL/VTSup, 164), Leiden 2014, 1718.
168 Johnstone
of Torah: at Marah42 there is a promulgation of statute and ordinance and

the bitter water is made sweet43 (Exod 15:25); in Exod 16, the observance of
Sabbath is elaborated; in Exod 17 there is a memorandum on the fate of the
Amalekites; in Exod 18 law and order are organized within the community. All
of these incidents have been transposed from post-Horeb in the older version
and duplicated pre-Sinai in the later edition. For P, from the moment of the
crossing of the Sea, Israel is under the law. Those that walk by the law shall
live by the same could be the title of Exod 15:22b19:2a (cf. Lev 18:5; Ezek 20:11,
13, 21; Lk 10:28; contrast Rom 10:5). Israel can survive through the wilderness,
literal or metaphorical, only if it is accompanied by Torah. Such interventions
by P express the sovereign intentions of a creative author-editor, not the mere
assemblages of a compiler-redactor submissive to inherited materials.
These intentions are further clarified in the materials on the Tabernacle in
Exod 25:131:17; 35:140:38, Ps most copious and creative additions to Exodus.
In the older, Horeb, version, Yhwhs intention is that Israel will be a king-
dom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 19:56). In principle, it is possible for
Gods people to ascend the mountain of God (Exod 19:13b, in fulfilment of
Yhwhs promise to Moses at the burning bush, Exod 3:12b) and to see God
face to face (cf. Deut 5:4). In the event, the people are overwhelmed by terror
and recoil at the foot of the mountain. The P-edition recognizes Israels unfit-
ness but provides the necessary institutions for the arduous task of progress
towards the attainment of the ideal of holiness. Yhwhs dwelling-place, the
( traditionally rendered, the Tabernacle), can become the tent of meet-
ing (the older versions concept of the sanctuary, Exod 33:711), only when in
graded holiness it is served by the sanctified priesthood (see Exod 27:21 for the
switch in Ps nomenclature: the dwelling-place becomes the tent of meet-
ing with the introduction of the priesthood of Aaron and his sons). For P,
there is no way in which the promise of Exod 3:12 can be fulfilled short of the
eschaton: when the jubilee trumpet blows, the people can go up (Ps reuse in
Exod 19:13b). Only then will Israel achieve its status as a kingdom of priests and
a holy nation and wear in triumph its garments with the single cord of priestly
blue in its fringes (Num 15:38).
As far as the Decalogue itself is concerned, P makes two further adjustments:
(1) The term words ( )used for the Decalogue in the older version (e.g.
Exod 20:1) is now extended in Exod 35:1, 4 to include the specification of the
42 In P, the first stages of the route through the wilderness may coincide with the week of the
Festival of Unleavened Bread: 15th16th of the first month at Succoth; 16th17th at Etham;
17th18th at Pi-hahiroth; 18th20th, three days to Marah (Num 33:8); 20th21st at Marah.
43 A metaphor for Torah in Ps 19:11.
( cf. the use of the related verb to speak [ ]in Exod 25:12; for the
extension of the contents of the tablets to include the Torah and the com-
mandment, see Exod 24:12b and n. 20 above). The construction of the
mirrors creation. The seven speeches in Exod 2531, giving the specification
of the , correspond at least to a degree to the seven days of creation in
Gen 1:12:4a.44 Both culminate in Sabbath (Exod 31:1217; cf. Gen 2:13).
Sabbath observance is resumed in Exod 35:13 as the first act in the construc-
tion of the . The implication is that the construction of the marks the
first step in the recreation of the cosmos.
(2) This extension of the category word to include the specification of the
Tabernacle leads to a certain relativization of the isolated prominence and
privilege of the Ten Words and to their inclusion within the general body of
the legislation in the Torah. This integration of the Decalogue into the general
revelation of Torah may be already visible in Exod 19:9. There the Lord said
to Moses, I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people
may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after. This accompani-
ment of dense cloud to revelation contrasts with fire, the more usual accom-
paniment to the revelation of the Decalogue.45 Cloud, by contrast, is the usual
manifestation accompanying the regular revelation of Torah rulings, as in the
pillar of cloud in Exod 33:711. In the sequel to its account of the revelation
of the Decalogue, Deut 5:30 picks up this regular practice: the people retire to
their tents to witness continuing revelation from afar, as in Exod 33:10. By asso-
ciating the revelation of the Decalogue with thick cloud, rather than with the
more usual fire, Exod 19:9 assimilates the revelation of the Decalogue to the
regular procedure for instruction in Torah.
The likelihood that Exod 19:9 is introducing a secondary association of the
Decalogue with the general process of revelation is increased by the obser-
vation that there are other anomalies in the verse. The chief anomaly occurs
in the final phrase of the verse, Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.
This phrase duplicates the ending of the preceding verse, Exod 19:8, Moses
reported the words of the people to the Lord, although no further response
by the people is recorded which require retelling to Yhwh. Furthermore,
the opening phrase of Exod 19:9, Then the Lord said to Moses, anticipates the
opening of Exod 19:10, the Lord said to Moses, although no change of speaker
occurs between vv. 9 and 10. Exod 19:9 could be omitted from its context
44 See P.J. Kearneys influential article, Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 2540,
ZAW 89 (1977), 37587.
45 See Deut 4:11, 12, 15, [24,] 33, 36; 5: 4, 5, 2226. Only Deut 4:11 and 5:22 include cloud some-
what contradictorily alongside fire.
170 Johnstone
without loss of narrative flow.46 In my view, Exod 33:711 belongs to the older
version; if that is so, Exod 19:9 may provide a further example of Ps transposi-
tion and reuse of material from the earlier version. Its redundancy suggests its
secondary presence.47 By its inclusion P seeks to integrate the revelation of the
Decalogue under the same conditions as the revelation of B, for both belong
to the same body of Law that Yhwh is about to reveal at Sinai. This perhaps
surprising conclusion about the equal importance of all law, the Decalogue
not excepted, finds ample confirmation in Jewish tradition.48 The Decalogue is
reckoned among the 613 laws within the Pentateuch in traditional Jewish
computation.49
If Exod 19:9 provides another example of transposition and reuse by the
later edition of material from the earlier version, the question arises where
that material might have functioned in the earlier version. An answer lies
to hand in the reminiscences in Deuteronomy. Deut 5:28 provides the con-
text of the extra response of the people that Moses relays to Yhwh, which
is presupposed by Exod 19:9b, as noted above. The matching report to Yhwh
in Exodus would then occur in the narrative matching Deut 5:2831 that pref-
aces Exod 20:20. In this case, the reminiscence in Deuteronomy is fuller than
the matching account in Exodus and supplements it.50
To conclude: in contrast to many presentations in the secondary litera-
ture in the recent past, I propose a radically simpler account of the devel-
opment of the book of Exodus. In this search I am not alone. Joel S. Baden,
for instance, enthuses about the economy and elegance of his account: the
reaffirmation of J, E, D, and P, the conventional four sources of the New
46 N RSV resolves the problem by splitting v. 9 between two paragraphs. Without justification
in the Hebrew, it translates v. 9b in the pluperfect tense and takes v. 9b as the resumption
of v. 8b: When Moses had told the words of the people to the Lord.
47 For the motif of believing in Moses, see Exod 4:19, 31; 14:31, cf. Num 14:11, all of which,
there is reason to believe, belong to the older version.
48 See materials gathered by B.S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL), London 1974, 435.
49 So Maimonides (11351204). See, e.g., http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/
756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments.htm (accessed 3 November, 2015). Cf. D. Markl,
The Ten Words Revealed and Revised: The Origins of Law and Legal Hermeneutics in
the Pentateuch, in: D. Markl (ed.), The Decalogue and its Cultural Influence (HBM, 58),
Sheffield 2013, 8: Rabbinic Judaism sought to avoid any hermeneutical elevation of the
Ten Commandments in order to emphasize the validity of the Torah in its entirety.
If the above argument is correct, that intention is visible already in the Hebrew Bible.
50 Cf. the Samaritan Pentateuch, which amplifies Exod 20:19a from Deut 5:2427 (A. von
Gall, Der hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Berlin 1966 [1918], 1589).
Documentary Hypothesis, with only one compiler.51 Badens harking back to

the New Documentary Hypothesis, however, I cannot agree with (his assign-
ment of materials on the basis of narrative coherence I find leads to subjec-
tive results, e.g., every word of Exod 24:12, 911 is Js),52 but his mastery of
the secondary literature is impressive. He attacks the European approach,
which endorses the absence of continuous sources. I have sympathy with
Badens attack, if not with his reconstruction; e.g., the dependence of D on J.
[T]he European approach, says Baden, searches strenuously to separate
each textual unit by any means possible.53 It is essentially a revival of the
Fragmentary Hypothesis: connections are systematically removed from the
text; e.g., the bones of Joseph (Gen 50:25; Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32) are deemed
late insertions. The fathers in Deuteronomy refers to the first generation of
the Exodus; and where they are specified as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the
names are deemed secondary.54
Baden quotes with approval Werner H. Schmidt: the working of a general
rule that also applies to literary criticism: The more extravagant and compli-
cated a theory is, the more improbable it becomes.55 In contrast to Baden,
I can find here only two accounts: the prior Horeb covenant narrative and
the newer Sinai cosmic revision, the second of which is its own editor. To find
two competing accounts matches the post-biblical tradition of interpretation.
Get yourself a , a study partner, Mishnah Aboth 1:6 bids us; on the above
argument, the practice of study partnership, , is already embedded in
the Torah.56 Internal critique continually amplifies the Torahs own meaning.
51 Baden, Composition, 248.

52 Baden, Composition, 53; on the contrary, I think the passage belongs to P.
53 Baden, Composition, 55. Cf. my earlier, independent review of E. Otto, Die Tora, referred to
in n. 25, above.
54 Baden, Composition, 58. For a review of the current discussion in Pentateuchal studies,
see T.C. Rmer, Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergnzungen: Zum Stand der
Pentateuchforschung, ZAW 125 (2013), 224, including critical comments on J.S. Baden:
that he ignores all questions of historical and sociological context and tradents; that he
is concerned only with the penultimate form of the text; and thus does not answer very
much. I shall no doubt come under the same condemnation. For the fragility of Rmers
own account, see his proposals that the land in Exod 3:8 is introduced as completely
unknown; that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are redactional in Exod 3:6, 1516; and that Gen
15:1316 is the sole clear link between Genesis and the following Pentateuch.
55 W.H. Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction, Berlin 1995, 54, cited by Baden, Composition,
282, n. 31.
56 Cf. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus, New York
2001, 399.
172 Johnstone
Despite the weight and variety of opinions to the contrary, I maintain that
the whole of Exodus can be accounted for by the interplay of two views, the
primary version and the subsequent edition. As there are but two views on
such substantive matters as itinerary, chronology, and institutionthe associ-
ated festivals and the sanctuaryso there are but two voices. Without setting
out to do so, I find that I have embraced the most economical theory possible
of the structure of Exodus consistent with the fact, undoubted in my view,
that the Pentateuch is composite. That reaffirmation of the Sparsamkeitsprinzip,
the principle of economy, provides an appropriate conclusion to this paper.
Appendix
Merismus in Exod 34: The parallels between Exod 34:526 and Exod 2023
1. The first merism: Exod 34:57, 1016.
The first merism begins in Exod 34:57, citing the beginning of the Decalogue in Exod
20:2, 56:
57
Exod 34:57: The Lord...proclaimed Exod 20:2, 56: I am the Lord your
the name, The Lord...The Lord, the God...I the Lord your God am a jealous
Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow God, punishing children for the iniquity
to anger, and abounding in steadfast love of parents, to the third and fourth
and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love generation of those who reject me, but
for [the] thousands [NRSV n.], forgiving showing steadfast love to thousands
iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by [NRSV n.], of those who love me and keep
no means clearing the guilty, but visiting my commandments.
the iniquity of the parents upon the
children57 and the childrens children, to
the third and fourth generation.
57 Despite the identity of the phrase in the Hebrew of Exod 20:5 and 34:7, NRSV has intro-
duced variations in translation, thus obscuring the parallel. For further instances of
NRSVs variations in vocabulary, word-order, and punctuation, despite identity of Hebrew,
see 34:17, 18, 26, below.
The first merism ends in Exod 34:1016 with a free summary of the final address in b,
Exod 23:2033:
Exod 34:10:...[See,] I am going to [NRSV: [See,] I am going to (23:20);

I hereby] make a covenant. Before all make a covenant (23:32);
your people I will perform marvels, such
as have not been performed in all the
earth or in any nation; and all the people
among whom you live shall see the work among (cf. 23:25)
of the Lord; for it an awesome thing that
I will do with you.
v. 11 Observe what I command you today. See, I am going to (cf. 23:20)
See, I am going to [NRSV: will] drive out (cf. 23:28); before you (cf.
drive out before you 23:29, 30, 31) the Amorites.... (cf. 23:23,
the Amorites.... cf. 23:28);
v. 12 Take care not to make a covenant Take care (cf. 23:21; NRSV: Be attentive);
not to (cf. 23:29, 33; NRSV: or); make no
covenant with (cf. 23:32)
with the inhabitants of the land to which the inhabitants of the land (cf. 23:31);
you are going, or it will become a snare going (cf. 23:27; NRSV: come);
among you. snare (cf. 23:33); among you (cf. 23:25);
v. 13 You shall tear down their altars,
break their pillars, and cut down their break their pillars (cf. 23:24);
sacred poles
v. 14 (for you shall worship no other worship [their gods] (cf. 23:24).
god, because the Lord, whose name is
Jealous, is a jealous God).
v. 15 You shall not make a covenant with not (cf. 23:29, 33); make no covenant
the inhabitants of the land, for when they with (23:32) the inhabitants of the land
prostitute themselves to their gods and (cf. 23:31).
sacrifice to their gods, someone among
them will invite you, and you will eat of
the sacrifice.
v. 16 And you will take wives from among
their daughters for your sons, and their
daughters who prostitute themselves
to their gods will make your sons also
prostitute themselves to their gods.
174 Johnstone
2. The second merism: Exod 34:1726.
The second merism begins in Exod 34:17, citing the beginning of the Decalogue in
Exod 20:4:58
Exod 34:17: You [sg.] shall not make cast 20:4: You [sg.] shall not make for yourself
idols58 an idol
The second merism ends in Exod 34:1826 with a parallel version of bs concluding
legal stipulations in Exod 23:1019:

23:14 Three times in the year you shall
v. 18 You shall keep the festival of hold a festival for me.
unleavened bread. Seven days you shall v. 15a You shall observe the festival of
eat unleavened bread, as I commanded unleavened bread; as I commanded you,
you, at the time appointed in the month you shall eat unleavened bread for seven
of Abib; days at the appointed time in the month
for in the month of Abib you came out of Abib,
from Egypt. for in it you came out of Egypt.
v. 19 All that first opens the womb is
mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn
of cow and sheep. v. 20 The firstborn of a
donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or
if you will not redeem it you shall break
its neck.
All the firstborn of your sons you shall
redeem.
No one shall appear before me empty- v. 15b No one shall appear before me
handed. empty-handed.
v. 21 Six days you shall work, but on the v. 12 Six days you shall do your work, but
seventh day you shall rest; even in plowing on the seventh day you shall rest,
time and in harvest time you shall rest.
so that your ox and your donkey may
have relief, and your homeborn slave and
the resident alien may be refreshed.
58 The term , introduced in the phrase cast idols, is borrowed from the vocabulary of
the worship of the golden calf (Exod 32:4), the very crisis which precipitates the need for
the reaffirmation of the covenant in Exod 34.
v. 13 Be attentive to all that I have said

to you.
Do not invoke the names of other gods;
do not let them be heard on your lips.
v. 22 You shall observe the festival of v. 16 You shall observe the festival of
weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, harvest, of the first fruits of your labor, of
what you sow in the field,
and the festival of ingathering at the turn You shall observe the festival of
of the year. ingathering at the end of the year,
when you gather in from the field the
fruit of your labor.
v. 23 Three times in the year all your v. 17 Three times in the year all your
males shall appear before the Lord God, males shall appear before the Lord God.
the God of Israel.
v. 24 For I will cast out nations before you,
and enlarge your borders; no one shall
covet your land when you go up to appear
before the Lord your God three times in
the year.
v. 25 You shall not offer the blood of my v. 18 You shall not offer the blood of my
sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of sacrifice with anything leavened,
the festival of the passover shall not be or let the fat of my festival
left until the morning. remain until the morning.
v. 26 The best of the first fruits of v. 19 The choicest of the first fruits of
your ground you shall bring to the house your ground you shall bring into the
of the Lord your God. house of the Lord your God.
You shall not boil a kid in its mothers You shall not boil a kid in its mothers
milk. milk.
The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and
the Epicureans
Michal N. van der Meer*
1 Introduction: The Interpretative Character of the Greek

Translation of the Pentateuch
The oldest extant complete interpretation of the Pentateuch was not produced
within the precincts of the Temple of Jerusalem, where the text had been cop-
ied and edited by priestly circles for centuries. It was rather the cosmopolitan
context of Alexandria where this interpretation in the form of a Greek trans-
lation was composed.1 Although many scholars nowadays acknowledge the
importance of studying this first interpretation of the Pentateuch within its
own cultural and historical context, it is my opinion that the indirect influ-
ence of the Hellenistic cultural context has not yet been fully recognized. It is
the purpose of this paper to uncover this indirect influence by studying a num-
ber of unusual interpretations of the Hebrew text of the first chapters of the
book of Genesis in particular that seem to reflect a deliberate attempt to avoid
hedonistic and Epicurean notions.
As the legendary letter of an Alexandrian courtier, Aristeas, to his brother
Philocrates has it, the translation was made on the initiative of Demetrius of
Phaleron (c. 350280 bce), who had once been an Athenian statesman, but
had found his true calling as head of the newly founded library in Alexandria.2
* It is my pleasant duty to thank prof.dr. George Brooke, dr. David Clark, and prof. dr. Arie van
der Kooij for ther constructive remarks to earlier versions of this paper.
1 See Dominique Barthlemy, Lancien Testament a mri Alexandrie, TZ 21 (1965), 35870
(repr. in D. Barthlemy (ed.), tudes dhistoire du texte de lancien Testament [OBO, 21],
Fribourg/Gttingen 1978, 127139). On the interpretative character of the Septuagint within
the history of interpretation of the Hebrew Bible see e.g. John W. Wevers, The Interpretative
Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version, in: Chris Brekelmans and Menahem
Haran (eds), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation 1.1 Antiquity,
Gttingen 1996, 84107.
2 See e.g. Henry G. Meecham, The Letter of Aristeas. A Linguistic Study with Special Reference
to the Greek Bible, Manchester 1935; Bruno H. Stricker, De brief van Aristeas. De hellenistische
codificaties der praehelleense godsdiensten (VKNAW, 52.4), Amsterdam 1956; Nina L. Collins,
The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTSup, 82), Leiden 2000; Sylvie Honigman,
The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. A Study in the Narrative of the Letter

The Greek Translators Of The Pentateuch And The Epicureans 177
In an effort to gather all available knowledge and wisdom in this new cul-
tural capital of the ancient world in order to surpass the status of Athens and
Pergamon of the rival Hellenistic kingdoms, Demetrius made the first Greek
king of Egypt, Ptolemy I Soter (c. 367 bcec. 283 bce), invite the high-priest of
Jerusalem to provide for the scrolls and scribes needed for such a huge enter-
prise. Since at that time, the early third century bce, Jerusalem formed part
of the Ptolemaic Empire and since the king had ordered the release of 100,000
Jewish war captives, high-priest Eleazar was in no position to refuse the offer
and sent 72 senior scribes. Each of these elders gave a masterly display of their
superior philosophical insights during a banquet at the palace which lasted
for more than a week. Yet the translation itselfand this is the point I would
like to elaboratewas not made in the royal palace, nor in the library itself,
but on Pharos, the little island with the famous lighthouse, within visual range
of the turbulent city with its busy harbor, agora, temples, palaces and library
yet at some distance.
It is this distance towards Greek culture that strikes the reader as soon as he
or she starts reading the Greek translation itself. Whereas the Letter of Aristeas
goes at great lengths to demonstrate the compatibility of Jewish religion and
Greek philosophy and culture, the translation itself seems to prove the oppo-
site. Philosophical concepts are largely absent and already the Hebraistic style
of the syntax and semantics stretches the readability of the Greek text to the
maximum. Compared to Greek literary works of Homer, Pindar, Sophocles,
Euripides etc., the Greek of the Septuagint (lxx) is very unsophisticated.
Nevertheless, the Greek translation departs from the Hebrew text as transmit-
ted by the Masoretes (mt) for instance with respect to key concepts as the
names of the Deity either as proper name Yhwh ( )or as generic title
the Lord ( ), as pluralis majestatis
or as singular (the Deity),
in the dynamic formulation in Exod 3:14 or the more static for-
mulation , the concepts for covenant either as treaty ( ) or tes-
tament (), custom with legal force ( ) for divine instruction (),
and blessing ( or ).3
of Aristeas, London 2003; Abraham Wasserstein, David J. Wasserstein (eds), The Legend of the
Septuagint. From Classical Antiquity to Today, Cambridge 2006; Tessa Rajak, Translation and
Survival. The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora, Oxford 2009; Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish
Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, Cambridge 2011; Ekaterina Matusova, The
Meaning of the Letter of Aristeas. In light of Biblical Interpretation and Grammatical Tradition,
and with Reference to its Historical Context (FRLANT, 260), Gttingen 2015.
3 See e.g. Charles H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, London 1935, 195: The Religious Vocabulary
of Hellenistic Judaism; Robert Hanhart, The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of
178 van der Meer
Hence the question that divides Septuagint scholarship until the present
day remains how much interpretation does the Greek translation actually
reflect? Roughly speaking one could discern a minimalist and maximalist
approach. The maximalist approach tends to stress the theology of the transla-
tors which is often seen as a preparation to the gospel, whereas minimalists
stress the rather mechanical style of the Greek translation and the fact that
several deviations of the Greek translation reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage
as shown by the Qumran biblical scrolls (e.g. 4QDeutn.q, 4QSama, 4QJerb.d).
With respect to the Greek Psalter one might point to the discussion between
Joachim Schaper and others on the maximalist side and Albert Pietersma and
others on the minimalist side.4 In the case of the Greek translation of Isaiah
one might distinguish between the position of Ziegler, Seeligmann and Van der
Kooij on the one hand and Ottley, Troxel and Wagner on the other.5
When it comes to assessing the interpretative character of the Greek version
of the Pentateuch, in particular the first chapters of the first book, Gen 111,
Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences, in: George J. Brooke, Barnabas Lindars (eds),
Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Papers Presented to the International Symposium
on the Septuagint and Its relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (SBLSCS, 33),
Atlanta 1992, 33979; Folker Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und altem Testament. Eine
Einfhrung in die Septuaginta (Mnsteraner Judaistische Studien, 9), Mnster 2001, 21886:
bersetzungstendenzen der Septuaginta: Begriffe.
4 Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT, 2.76), Tbingen 1995); Albert
Pietersma, review of Schaper in BiOr 54 (1997), 18590; Holger Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit.
Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie des Septuaginta-Psalters (BBB, 134), Berlin 2002;
Frank Austermann, Von der Tora zum Nomos. Untersuchungen zur bersetzungsweise und
Interpretation im Septuaginta-Psalter (MSU, 27), Gttingen 2003. See also the useful survey by
James K. Aitken, Psalms, in James K. Aitken (ed.), T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint,
London 2015, 32034.
5 Joseph Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (ATA, 12.3), Mnster 1934;
Isac L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of Its Problems (MVEOL, 9),
Leiden 1948 (repr. in: R. Hanhart and H. Spieckermann [eds], The Septuagint Version of Isaiah
and Cognate Studies [FAT, 40], Tbingen 2004); Arie van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen
des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO, 35), Fribourg/
Gttingen 1981; The Oracle of Tyre. The Septuagint of Isaiah as Version and Vision (VTSup, 71),
Leiden 1998; Richard R. Ottley, The Book of Isaiah according to the LXX (Codex Alexandrinus),
London 1904; Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of
the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (JSJS, 124), Leiden 2008; J. Ross Wagner, Reading the
Sealed Book. Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics (FAT, 88), Tbingen
2013. See also Arie van der Kooij and Michal N. van der Meer (eds), The Old Greek of Isaiah:
Issues and Perspectives (CBET, 55), Leuven 2010, and the survey by Abi T. Ngunga and Joachim
Schaper, Isaiah, in Aitken, T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 45668.
one could point to the different positions taken by Ronald Hendel and Martin
Rsel.6 Hendel on the one hand attaches great importance to the text-critical
value of the Septuagint for reconstructing a critical edition of the Hebrew text
of Gen 111 at the pre-Masoretic level and thereby minimalizes the extent of
interpretation by the Greek translator. Rsel on the other hand adduces much
more weight to the interpretative character of the translation which thereby
drastically diminishes its text-critical value. While Hendel finds support for the
longer version in Gen 1:9 in the Greek text (
) offered by 4QGenk, Rsel
adduces several examples of different Greek translations of the same Hebrew
word and harmonizations of the Hebrew text on the Greek level, e.g. the coor-
dination between the two creation stories by means of the subtle modification
on which God had begun to make in Gen 2:3.
2 The Greek Pentateuch as Platonic Interpretation?
Especially intriguing is Rsels appeal to the influence of Platonic concepts in

the Greek translation of Gen 12. According to Rsel the unusual translation
of the Hebrew phrase , empty and void in Gen 1:2 with
, invisible and unformed (nets) reflect Platonic cosmology.
Plato (Phaed. 85e; Soph. 246a; Tim. 36e; 43a; 52a) employed the word
often to denote the invisibility of the soul and the world of ideas, see e.g.
Timaeus 36e37a:7
And whereas the body of the Heaven is visible, the Soul is herself invis-
ible () but partakes in reasoning and in harmony, having come
into existence by the agency of the best of things intelligible and ever-
existing as the best of things generated.
Likewise, the rendering in Gen 1:26 of God creating man in his image and in his
likeness (
) by , according
6 Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 111. Textual Studies and Critical Edition, New York 1998;
Martin Rsel, bersetzung als Vollendung des Auslegung. Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta
(BZAW, 223), Berlin 1994; The Text-Critical Value of Septuagint-Genesis, BIOSCS 31 (1998),
6270. See further the survey by Mark W. Scarlata, Genesis, in Aitken, T & T Clark Companion
to the Septuagint, 1328.
7 Text and Translation of Platos Timaeus have been taken from R.G. Bury, Plato. IX. Timaeus.
Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles (LCL, 234), Cambridge 1929.
180 van der Meer
to our image and according to likeness (nets), reflectsthus RselPlatos

ideas about the creation of a visible world as resemblance of the invisible
world of ideas, thus Timaeus 30cd:8
This being established, we must declare that which comes next in

order. In the semblance ( ) of which of the living Creatures
did the Constructor of the cosmos construct it?...But we shall affirm that
the Cosmos ( ), more than aught else, resembles (...
) most closely that Living Creature of which all other living crea-
tures, severally and generically, are portions. For that Living Creature
embraces and contains within itself all the intelligible Living Creatures,
just as this Universe contains us and all the other visible living creatures
[30d] that have been fashioned. For since God desired to make it resem-
ble () most closely that intelligible Creature which is fairest of
all and in all ways most perfect, He constructed it as a Living Creature,
one and visible (), containing within itself all the living creatures
which are by nature akin to itself.
Philo of Alexandria (Opif. 29) applied these Platonic ideas to the interpretation
of the biblical creation stories: God first created the invisible world of ideas and
later formed () the visible world. Likewise, the use of the words
, , , , , , , ,
in lxx-Gen 12 all have their counterpart in Platos dualistic cosmology set
forth in the Timaeus. According to Rsel this Platonic-Philonic interpretation
already underlies the Greek translation of Genesis.9 Yet, as Theo van der Louw
has demonstrated, the Greek words are very common and cover the semantic
range of the Hebrew counterparts too well to postulate a Platonic influence
8 Rsel, bersetzung, 42, 489. Evangelia G. Dafni, Genesis, Plato und Euripides. Drei Studien
zum Austausch von griechischem und hebrischem Sprach- und Gedankengut in der Klassik
und im Hellenismus (Biblisch-theologische Studien, 108), Neukirchen 2010, goes as far as to
defend the thesis first voiced by Aristobulus that Plato borrowed from Hebrew Scripture,
without explaning how it could be possible that a fifth century bce. Athenian philosopher
would have access to local Judean sacred writings, to understand it and adopt it in his own
thinking without making any reference to his exotic sources.
9 Rsel, bersetzung als Vollendung, 3187, see also the commentary to lxx-Gen 12 by Peter
Prestel and Stefan Schorch, Genesis. Das erse Buch Mose, in: Martin Karrer and Wolfgang
Kraus (eds), Septuaginta Deutsch. Erluterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten
Testament 1. Genesis bis Makkaber, Stuttgart 2011, 15761.
on the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.10 Van der Louw approaches the
Septuagint from the angle of modern translation studies and argues that
behind every free translation stands a rejected literal translation. When the
Greek translation does depart from the Hebrew text, it is the immediate liter-
ary context that has to be taken into account first before assuming external
influences.
In my own research I have argued that if extra-biblical sources are to be
taken into account, it should first be the documents that stand closer in time
and space than the Classical Greek writings from fifth and fourth century bce
Athens or first century ce Palestine and Rome, viz. the documenttary and
semi-literary papyri from Ptolemaic Egypt.11 In a forthcoming publication
about the anthropological notions in lxx-Gen 2:7, I argue that the terms ,
, and are best understood against the background of these documen-
tary papyri instead of a Platonic context.12 After all, the ideas of Plato gained
influence only in the Roman and Byzantine periods, when Middle and Neo-
Platonism eventually superseded Hellenistic philosophical schools, such as
Stoicism, Skepticism, Cynism and Epicureanism.13
10 Theo van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint. Towards an Interaction of

Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (CBET, 47), Leuven 2007, 93154. See also the
review of Rsels work by Arie van der Kooij in BO 54 (1997), 45659.
11 Michal N. van der Meer, Trendy Translations in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Study of
the Vocabulary of the Greek Isaiah 3:1823 in the Light of Contemporary Sources, in:
Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus (eds), Die Septuaginta. Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten
(WUNT, 219), Tbingen 2008, 58196; Bridge over Troubled Waters? The in the
Old Greek of Isaiah of Isaiah 37:25 and Contemporary Greek Sources, in: Melvin K.H.
Peters (ed.), XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Ljubljana, 2007 (SBLSCS, 55), Atlanta 2008, 30524; Visions from Memphis and
Leontopolis. The Phenomenon of the Vision Report in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of
Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt, in: Michal N. van der Meer et al. (eds),
Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth
Birthday (VTSup, 138), Leiden 2010, 283318; Papyrological Perspectives on the Septuagint
of Isaiah, in: Arie van der Kooij, Michal N. van der Meer (eds), The Old Greek of Isaiah:
Issues and Perspectives (CBET, 55), Leuven 2010, 10733.
12 Michal N. van der Meer, Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Genesis 2, in:
Geurt-Henk van Kooten, Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds), Dust of the Ground and Breath
of Life (Gen 2:7): The Problem of Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity
(TBN, 20), Leiden 2016, 3757.
13 See the histories of Greek philosophy, e.g. Friedo Ricken, Philosophie, in Heinz-
Gnter Nesselrath (ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, Leipzig 1997, 50760.
For Hellenistic Greek philosophy see e.g. A.A. Long, D.N. Sedley (eds), The Hellenistic
182 van der Meer
3 The Evasive Character of the Septuagint
Yet, even if direct influence of Greek philosophy on the Greek translation

remains disputable,14 the question still remains whether some form of indirect
influence can be detected in the form of Greek words and concepts that are
deliberately avoided in the Greek translation. After all, it is well-known that the
Greek translators deliberately avoided some Greek words that could be offen-
sive or problematic in political or religious terms.
Already the rabbis (y.Meg. 1.11.8 [71d, 4655]; Mek.Y. 14 [50], Sop. 1.7[8];
Abot R.Nat. 37 [47b]; Sep. Torah 1.9; Yal. 3; Ber.Rab. 8.11; 10.9 Tan.Shemot 22)
pointed to the fact that out of reference for the father of Ptolemy I Soter,
Lagos, the Greek translators avoided this Greek word , hare, when they
came across the Hebrew word in the list of unclean animals (Lev 11:5;
Deut 14:7) and politely rendered the Hebrew word with .15 The use
of the Greek word in the law of the king (Deut 17:1420; Hebrew )
may likewise reflect prudent political understanding during this early
Ptolemaic period.16
Philosophers 12, Cambridge 19871989; Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds), The
Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge 1999.
14 For other attempts to trace Greek philosophical influence upon the Greek transla-
tion of Hebrew Scriptures, see e.g. A. Posner, Stoischer Einfluss im LXX-Psalter, ZAW
(NF) 2 (1925), 276; Armin Schmitt, Interpretation der Genesis aus hellenistischem Geist,
ZAW 86 (1974), 137163. For the discussion concerning Hellenistic influence on the Greek
version of Proverbs, see, e.g., Gilles Gerleman, The Septuagint Proverbes as Hellenistic
Document, in: P.A.H. de Boer (ed.), Oudtestamentische Studin (OTS, 8), Leiden 1950,
1527; Johann Cook, The Septuagint of ProverbsJewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs?
Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX-Proverbs (VTSup, 69), Leiden 1997; David-
Marc dHamonville, Les Proverbes (La Bible dAlexandrie, 17), Paris 2000. See also Johann
Cook, Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators
and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET, 68), Leuven 2012.
15 See e.g. Emanuel Tov, The Rabbinic Tradition concerning the Alterations Inserted into
the Greek Translation of the Torah and their Relation to the Original Text of the Septuagint,
JSJ 15 (1984), 6589 (repr. in Emanuel Tov (ed.), The Greek and Hebrew Bible [VTSup, 72],
Leiden 1999, 120); Giuseppe Veltri, Eine Tora fr den Knig Talmai. Untersuchungen zum
bersetzungsverstndnis in der jdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ,
41), Tbingen 1994.
16 Thus Elias Bickerman, The Septuagint as a Translation, PAAJR 28 (1959) (repr. in Elias
Bickerman [ed.], Studies in Jewish and Christian History 1 [AGAJU, 9.1], Leiden 1976),
167200, here 194); for other interpretations see John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text
of Deuteronomy (SBLSCS, 39), Atlanta 1995, 286, and Ccile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl,
Le Deutronome (La Bible dAlexandrie, 5), Paris 1992, 225.
Although the Greek translators did not systematically avoid all anthropo-
morphisms of God, they certainly tried to avoid a literal translation of the
metaphor of God as rock (e.g. Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 31, 31).17 The polytheistic notion
of the sons of the gods ( ) is not completely obliterated (Gen 6:2
), but preferably transformed into messengers of God (
lxx Deut 32:8, 43 cf. 4QDeutn.q). Human messengers ( ) become ,
spokesmen, or in case of false prophets instead of ,
diviners.18 Gods mercy ( ) is expressed by Greek instead of the more
common Greek word , and Gods comfort ( )by , to call
over, instead of .19 The Greek translators tried to avoid Hellenistic
concepts for fate ( and , but see Gen 30:11 and Isa 65:11) and
revenge (the somewhat artificial word for instead of the far
more common word ) because of their pagan connotations.20
Human-divine relationships were preferably portrayed in vertical dimen-
sions rather than horizontal ones, which would suggest a form of equality.
Hence a treaty ( ) becomes a , testament, or will, instead of a
, pact, or mutual agreement.21 The common Greek word for altar,
, is used by Greek translators of the Pentateuch, Joshua and Isaiah in
case illegitimate altars (Hebrew ) , whereas the artificial Greek construc-
tion is used for legitime Jewish altars.22 The words for love ()
are preferably derived from the Greek root instead of , probably not
only because of the association between the sounds ahabah-agap, but also
17 See Staffan Olofsson, God is my Rock. A Study of Translation Technique and Theological
Exegesis in the Septuagint (CB.OT, 31), Stockholm 1990; Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel
und Altem Testament, 2412.
18 Erich Fascher, . Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Gieen
1927; Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 2345, 276.
19 Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 2723.
20 Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 6; Hanhart, The Translation oft he Septuagint, 347348;
Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 272.
21 Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 262263 with references to older
literature.
22 Suzanne Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante, Paris 1966, 1553;
Hanhart, The Translation oft he Septuagint, 346347; Arie van der Kooij, On the Use of
in the Septuagint, in: Martin Baasten, Wido Th. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on a Hill.
Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-
Fifth Birthday (OLA, 118), Leuven 2003, 6017.
184 van der Meer
because of the erotic-libertine notions of the latter Greek word.23 Many other
examples are gathered and discussed in the brilliant, but often ignored intro-
duction to the Septuagint by Folker Siegert.24
When reviewing these lists of common Greek words deliberately avoided by
the Greek translators because of possible problematic political and religious
associations, it would seem that the Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture
are rather the result of a rigid censorship than the bungle of court dragomen
who were ill-prepared for their job.25 To my mind, this attitude of reluctance
rather than incompetence not only underlies the remarkable semantic choices
of the Greek translators, but also their syntactical preferences for parataxis
instead of hypotaxis and the scarcity of maco-syntactical markers, such as the
particle .26
4 The Philosophy of Hedonism: Cyrenaism and Epicureanism
What can be said with respect to loaded Greek concepts in the fields of politics
and religion may also apply to the field of Hellenistic philosophy. As stated
above, the intellectual climate during the formative decades of the Ptolemaic
Empire were hardly influenced by the static and dualistic philosophy of
Plato, which gained influence in Egypt only when the Romans had taken over
supremacy of the country. Rather, philosophical schools such as Stoicism,
Skepticism, and Epicureanism had much more influence on the education and
mind-set of the cultural elite.
Particularly the hedonistic philosophy of Epicurus (341270 bce) and his
Cyrenaic predecessors Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435c. 356 bce), Hegesias
of Cyrene (fl. 290 bce), and Theodorus of Cyrene, nicknamed the atheist
(c. 345c. 255 bce), played a prominent role at the cultural centers of the
Hellenistic world.27 The first of these philosophers, Aristippus of Cyrene, was a
23 Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 274, 2756; Ceslas Spicq,
TLNT 1:822.
24 Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 21886: bersetzungstendenzen
der Septuaginta: Begriffe.
25 Thus e.g. Chaim Rabin, The Translation Process and the Character of the LXX, Textus 6
(1968), 126.
26 Michal N. van der Meer, The Use and Non-Use of the Particle in the Septuagint, in:
Kristin de Troyer et al. (eds), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes. Studies in the Biblical Text
in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (CBET, 72), Leuven 2014, 15171.
27 See Diogenes Lartius, Lives 2.65104; Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism. The Cyrenaic
Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life, Princeton 2015.
pupil of Socrates, who fled to Megara with Plato and Xenophon after Socrates
was convicted for atheism and put to death in 399 bce. Unlike other pupils of
Socrates, Aristippus took Socrates criticism to the point where he concluded
that the purpose () of life is nothing else than pleasure () and the
avoidance of pain (). Whereas later Epicurean hedonism would restrict
real pleasure to ascetic standards of tranquility (), freedom from fear
and anxiety realized by a simple life on water and bread (Diogenes Lartius
10.126127), Aristippus in no way echewed luxury and carnal pleasures. His
teachings, which are now only known through the doxography of Diogenes
Lartius 2.65104, were passed on via his daughter (Arete of Cyrene) through
his grandson (Aristippus Metrodidact) and later Cyrenaic philosophers.
Perhaps the most notorious of these philosophers was Theodorus the
Atheist (c. 345 bcec. 255 bce), who was exiled from Cyrene and taught for a
time (313307 bce) at Athens (Diogenes Lartius 2.98104). He took the hedo-
nistic ideas not only to the abolishment of morality, allowing for theft, adul-
tery and sacrilege (Diogenes Lartius 2.99), but also to that of the belief in the
gods ( , On the Gods) and allowing himself to be called a god (ibidem
2.100). His teachings would have brought him in the same position as that of
Socrates almost a century earlier, i.e. drinking the poison cup with hemlock,
would it not have been for Demetrius of Phaleron, who ruled Athens from
317307 bce and brought the Atheist over to Alexandria, when he was forced
to leave Athens. Thus, the same scholar that invited Jewish scholars to produce
the Greek translation of the Pentateuch also acted as patron for someone who
would have received the death-penalty in Athens for his hedonistic atheism
(). Although the translators may have managed to avoid a meeting with
this philosopher in person, it is unlikely that they could have remained com-
pletely ignorant of the current conceptions and customs at the court, espe-
cially since the Ptolemies were certainly not averse from leisure and luxury as
is shown, for instance by the magnificent displays of their wealth and power
as described e.g. in the pompe of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.28
Around the time Demetrius of Phaleron and Theodorus the Atheist left
Athens Epicurus arrived at Athens to found there his garden and start teach-
ing his hedonistic philosophy (Diogenes Lartius 10.10).29 As is well-known,
28 See Callixeinus of Rhodes apud Athenaeus, Deipn. 5.196a203b; E.E. Rice, The Grand
Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, London 1983; Michael Pfrommer, Alexandria im
Schatten der Pyramiden (Zaberns Bildbnde zur Archologie), Mainz 1999, 628.
29 See Diogenes Lartius who devoted the whole of his tenth book of his Lives of Eminent
Philosophers to Epicurus; see further the introductions and companions to Epicurean
philosophy, e.g. Long, Sedley, The Hellenistic Philsophers 1, 25157; James Warren (ed.),
186 van der Meer
Epicurus was a prolific writer (ibidem 10.26 ) not only of trea-

tises, but also of encyclical letters which helped to spread his ideas around
the Hellenistic world. Epicurus combined his ideas about hedonism with the
atomistic physics of Democritus. Although he was cautious enough not to deny
the existence of the gods (ibidem 10.123 ), his philosophy left
them little less than thought-constructs () of immortal beings (ibidem
10.123 ) in a somewhat
different universe, not bothered by the worries of men. The idea of an immor-
tal soul is foolishness, according to Epicurus (ibidem 10.67
). Epicurus cosmology was one without
origin or purpose () and existed only of atoms ( ) and limitless
void ( ). He encouraged his followers to fear neither death nor
the gods (ibidem 10.8182) and occasionally advised them to scorn those who
did (ibidem 10.80). Since the body is only a temporary aggregate (ibidem 10.62:
) of atoms, death is simply nothing (ibidem 10.124 ). In order to
live as an immortal one only has to do away with myth (ibidem 10.104
) and accept the rational explanations offered by science. The only
purpose of life is thus to enjoy pleasure as much as possible (ibidem 10.128:
) and avoid everything that
could distract one from pleasure and disturbance of the soul (ibidem 10.131
), including commitment to society and politics.
In spite of this reclusive, apolitical ideal, Epicureanism attracted many
followers from the highest strata of society. One of Epicurus favorite pupils,
Colotes of Lampsacus (c. 320 bcec. 265 bce) wrote a treatise dedicated to
king Ptolemy II Philadelphus.30 Epicureanism also flourished in the Levant.
Among the leading figures that continued the philosophical school at the
Epicurean garden at Athens were Syrian-Palestinian philosophers such as
Basilides of Tyre (c. 250 bcec. 175 bce) and later Zeno of Sidon (c. 150 bce
c. 75 bce).31 The library of his pupil Philodemus of Gadara (c. 110 bcec. 35 bce),
a city of the Hellenistic Dekapolis at Jordan,32 was found in the villa of
The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, Cambridge 2009; Tim OKeefe, Epicureanism,

Durham 2010.
30 For the relatively modest contribution of Cyreneaism and Epicureanism to Alexandrian
intellectual life, see Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1, Oxford 1972, 4802.
31 David Sedley, Epicureanism in the Roman Republic, in: Warren, Cambridge Companion
to Epicureanism, 2945.
32 See e.g. Adolf Hoffmann, Susanne Kerner (eds), GadaraGerasa und die Dekapolis
(Zaberns Bildbnde zur Archologie), Mainz 2002.
papyri at Herculaneum. In the middle of the second century bce the Syrian
Epicurean philosopher Philonides of Laodicea-on-Sea (c. 200 bcec. 130 bce)
converted the well-known Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Epi
cureanism and maintained an important position at the Seleucid court under
both Antiochus IV and his successor Demetrius I.33 These examples may suf-
fice to demonstrate the influence of the hedonistic ideas in the Greco-Roman
world. As soon as a Jew would step into this Greco-Roman culture, he or she
would undoubtedly get into contact with some popularized form of hedo-
nism and Epicureanism, as the example of Acts 17:18 shows. It is therefore
no surprise that already early in rabbinical tradition the word Epicurean
( )became synonym for apostate (m. Sanh. 10.1b; m. Abot 2.14 etc.).
5 Avoidance of Cyrenean-Epicurean Concepts in lxx-Genesis 13
On the basis of this lengthy expos on the evasive character of the Septuagint
on the one hand and the importance of hedonistic ideas within the Greco-
Roman culture on the other hand I would now like to argue that the Septuagint
version of the first chapters of Genesis contain a number of unusual render-
ings that may well reflect a conscious attempt to avoid associations with
Cyrenean and Epicurean concepts. With unusual renderings I refer to those
words and phrases in the Greek translation that both differ from the parallel
Hebrew text nd differ from other more or less standardized Greek renderings
of that Hebrew text. I hope to show this on the basis of three main hedonistic
concepts: [1] pleasure, [2] desire, and [3] emptiness.
5.1 Pleasure
Although Epicurus himself may not have called his philosophers garden
a pleasure garden ( ) the association between these two key
characteristics were easily made in the Greco-Roman world, see e.g. the refer-
ence to the garden of Epicurus in Heraclitus Homeric Problems 4.2, a first cen-
tury ce defense of Homer over against Platonism and Epicureanism:34
33 Dov Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B.C.E. (Brills Series in Jewish
Studies, 8), Leiden 1998, 274; Peter F. Mittag, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische
Biographie (Klio NF, 11), Berlin 2006, 1023.
34 Text and translation: Donald A. Russell, David Konstan (eds), Heraclitus: Homeric
Problems (SBLWGRW, 14), Atlanta 2005, 67.
188 van der Meer
,
,

Nor need we trouble ourselves with Epicurus, who cultivates his low plea-
sure in his private garden, and abominates all poetry indiscriminately as
a lethal allurement of fable.
Cicero too did not think very high of this garden, which he describes as a set-
ting for strife rather than equanimity in his Natura Deorum 1.93:35
Istisne fidentes somniis non modo Epicurus et Metrodorus et Hermarchus

contra Pythagoram Platonem Empedoclemque dixerunt, sed meretricula
etiam Leontium contra Theophrastum scribere ausastscito illa quidem
sermone et Attico, sed tamen: tantum Epicuri hortus habuit licentiae.
Was it dreams like these that not only encouraged Epicurus and Metro
dorus and Hermachus to contradict Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles,
but actually emboldened a loose woman like Leontium to write a book
refuting Theophrastus? Her style, no doubt is the neatest Attic; but all the
same!such was the license that prevailed in the Garden of Epicurus.
In the light of these associations with hedonism and libertinism I think it is

not surprising that the Greek translators of Genesis 23 did their best to avoid
the notion of such a even where the Hebrew text seems to
dictate such a translation. After all, the Hebrew phrase for garden of Eden,
, simply means: a garden of delight. Except for the references to the gar-
den of Eden in Gen 13, 13:10; Isa 1:30, 51:3; Num 24:6; Ezek 28:13; 31:8, 8, 9, 9;
Joel 2:3, the Hebrew words for garden, , and the female cognate are
always rendered with the Greek word .36 True to their hermeneutical
35 Text and translation: H. Rackam, Cicero. XIX. De natura Deorum. Academia (LCL, 268),
Cambridge/London 1933, 901.
36 See HR 763ab: Deut 11:10; 3 Reg. 20(21):2, 2; 4 Reg. 21:18, 21; 2 Esd (13:16,) 26; Esth 7:7, 8;
Eccl 2:5; Cant 4:12, (12,) 15, 16; 5:1, 1 (4:16, 16); 6:1, 1, 10 (2, 2, 11); Amos 4:9; 9:14; Isa 1:29; 58:11;
61:11; 65:3; 66:17; Ezek 36:35. See further John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis
(SBLSCS, 35), Atlanta 1993, 25.
principles, Theodotion and Aquila employed this word in Gen 2:8 and 3:2
as well,37 see e.g. Gen 2:8:
mt

nrsv And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there
he put the man whom he had formed
lxx

nets And the Lord God planted an orchard in Edem toward the east,
and there he put the man whom he had formed

The Greek translator of Genesis (2:8, 9, 10, 15, 16; 3:1, 2, 3, 8, 8, 10, 23, 24; 13:10)
and following his lead those of Isaiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophetsopted
for the rather rare Persian loan-word , enclosed park, orchard.
The word is known from references by Xenophon to royal parks of Persian
kings and nobles full of trees and wild animals (Anab. 1.2.7; 2.4.14; Cyr. 1.3.14;
Hell. 4.1.15) and from references in Ptolemaic inscriptions (OGIS 90.15 [Rosetta
stone]) and papyri (Revenue Laws 33.11 and the Zenon papyri).38 As a fixed
term for the afterlife it would enter Jewish, Christian (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:4;
Rev 2:7) and Islamic (Quran 18:107; 23:11) faith via Late Biblical Hebrew (

Cant: 13; Qoh 2:5; Neh 2:8), Aramaic () , Syriac ( )and Classical Arabic
sources () .39
37 See Frederick Field, Origenis hexaplorum quae supersunt sive in veterum interpretum grae-
corum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta...1. GenesisEsther, Oxford 1875, 13, 16.
38 See e.g. P.Cair.Zen. I 59033.3; 590125.2; II 59157.2; 590176.221; 590184.2, 9; III 59337.8;
590369.2; 590474.12; IV 59641.6; V 59825.14; P.Col.Zen. II 63 recto ii.8; P.Lond. VII 2043.9;
2164.57; P.Mich.Zen. 24.2; 45.12, 15, 27. See further Friedrich Preisigke, Wrterbuch der
griechischen Papyrusurkunden...2, Berlin 1927, 239; Joachim Jeremias, ,
TWNT 5:76371; John Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch
(SBLSCS, 14), Chico 1983, 536; Genevive Husson, Le paradis de dlices (Gense
3,2324), REG 101 (1988), 6473; Marguerite Harl, Le renouvellement du lexique des
Septante daprs le tmoignage des recensions, revisions et commentaire grecs anciens,
in: C. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Leuven 1989 (SBLSCS, 31), Atlanta 1991, 23959 (repr. in: M. Harl [ed.], La langue de
Japhet. Quinze tudes sur la Septante et le grec des chrtiens, Paris 1992, 14565).
39 Jan N. Bremmer, Paradise: from Persia, via Greece, into the Septuagint, in: G.P.
Luttikhuizen (ed.), Paradise Interpreted. Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism
and Christianity (TBN, 2), Leiden 1999, 120.
190 van der Meer
Several scholars have argued that the unusual choice of the Greek translator
of Genesis was dictated by the fact the garden in Gen 23 is used in connection
with trees, hence orchard, whereas the Greek word would have been
appropriate only in the context of vegetables, hence vegetable garden.40 Yet,
the fact that within the Septuagint the word occasionally occurs in com-
bination with words for vegetables (Deut 11:10; 3 Reg. 20:2 [1 Kgs 21:2] /
, herbs, for Hebrew , vegetables [cf. Gen 1:30]),
whereas sometimes occurs in connection with trees (-
Ezek 31:89), hardly suffices to define the difference between and
in terms of what grows in this garden. From the perspective of ety-
mology it is more likely to distinguish between garden with or without walls:
the Persian word pairi-daza is cognate to Greek , surrounding ()
wall ().41
The circumstance that the Hebrew text of Gen 23 contained the word gar-
den itself would not have troubled the Greek translators, were it not for the
fact that it occurs in combination with the Hebrew word . The Hebrew root
has to do with delight, luxury and lust, thus e.g. Ps 36:9(8):
mt

nrsv They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them
drink from the river of your delights
lxx

nets They will be intoxicated with the fatness of your house, and you
will give them drink from the wadi of your delights.
The Greek translator of the Psalter opted for the same word , luxurious-
ness, voluptuousness, delicacy, as the Greek translator of Gen 3:2324 did
(and in his wake the translators of Isa 47:8, Jer 51:34 and Neh 9:25):
40 Monique Alexandre, Le commencement du livre Gense IIV. La version grecque de la

Septante et sa reception (Christianisme antique, 3), Paris 1988, 2446; Marguerite Harl,
La Gense (2nd ed.; La Bible dAlexandrie, 1), Paris 1994, 101. See further Rsel, bersetzung
als Vollendung der Auslegung, 62; Van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 11213.
41 Christian Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wrterbuch, Strassburg 1904, 865a; Robert Beekes,
Etymological Dictionary of Greek 2 (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
Series, 10/2), Leiden 2010, 1151.
mt

nrsv therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to
till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man;
and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim,
and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree
of life.
lxx
, .
,

.
nets And the Lord God sent him forth from the orchard of delight to
till the earth from which he was taken. And he drove Adam out
and caused him to dwell opposite of the orchard of delight, and
he stationed the cheroubim and the flaming sword that turns, to
guard the way of the tree of life.
Although the meaning of the words and seems to overlap, it remains

nevertheless striking that the Greek translators did not opt for the more appro-
priate Greek word , pleasure, especially since the two words are phoneti-
cally so similar: dn-hdon. As a matter of fact the meaning pleasure, lust,
for is still attested in Gen 18:12 in the cognate noun . Here the Greek
translator evades the sexual connotation of the word by reading the Hebrew as
, until here, a construction that is grammatically very difficult and not
attested by any other ancient textual witness.42
mt

nrsv So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, After I have grown old, and
my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?
lxx
, .
nets And Sarra laughed within herself, saying, It has not yet hap-
pened to me up to the present, and my lord is rather old.

42 John Skinner, Genesis (ICC), Edinburgh 1910, 301; Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of
Genesis, 252; Harl, La Gense, 175.
192 van der Meer
The Old Greek (as opposed to Aquila) probably wanted to avoid the use of
, lust, sexual desire, in Gen 18:12, as already the rabbinical reference to
the changes made for king Ptolemy seems to indicate.43 With the exception
of Num 11:8, where it occurs as an unusual rendering for , taste, and Prov
17:1, where a morsel with pleasure ( Hebrew: , dry
morsel) is preferred above a house full of feasting with strife, the Greek trans-
lators of Hebrew Scripturs carefully avoided this reference to the main theme
of hedonistic philosophy.44
5.2 Desire
Although it is impossible to prove or disprove my thesis that the Greek trans-
lators of Genesis deliberately avoided the phrase in Gen 2:8,
3:2324, as well as a proper translation in 18:12 for in order to avoid asso-
ciations with the hedonism and the garden of Epicurus, there are a few other
unusual Greek renderings in the same chapters that may reflect a similar con-
cern. The Genesis stories contain another Hebrew word for desire: . The
word occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in Gen 3:16; 4:7 and Cant 7:11.45 In all
three cases the Greek translators employed a form of the Greek root ,
turning away from or with:
mt

nrsv To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pangs in child-
bearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire
shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
43 Tov, Rabbinic Tradition, 1112; Veltri, Eine Tora fr den Knig Talmai, 5862.
44 See already Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 274.
45 See further 1QS xi:22: , moulded clay [is he] and for dust is his
longing (text and translation DSSSE 1:9899). In a private communication (15 August
2015) Arie van der Kooij, to whom I owe these references, drew my attention to the par-
allel with 1QH xviii:56 (34): [] , from clay [is he] and to dust
is his return (cf. DJD XL, 23439). This parallel seems to suggest that
and

were considered to be synonyms in Late Classical Hebrew, hence supporting the equa-
tion
- in Gen 3:16; 4:7. To my mind, however, the author of the Hodayot
combines the two motifs from Gen 3:19 (man will return to dust) and 3:16 (the woman will
long for her man) in order to strengthen the pessimistic view on mankind. See further e.g.
Hendrik Goedhart, De slothymne van het Manual of Discipline (PhD diss., Rijksuniversiteit
Utrecht), Rotterdam 1965, 2257.
lxx
,
, .
nets And to the woman he said, I will increasingly increase your pains
and your groaning; with pains you will bring forth children. And
your recourse will be to your husband, and he will dominate you.
, (conjunction, union) (onrush, impulse)
mt

nrsv If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do
well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must
master it.
lxx , , ,
, .
nets If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you
not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you shall rule
over him.
,
mt

nrsv I am my beloveds, and his desire is for me.
lxx
nets I am my brotherkins, and his attention is for me
Almost all the scholars that have noted the differences between the Hebrew
and Greek texts, argue that the Greek translators must have read
(= ) instead of
.46 Since the reading attested by mt is obvi-
ously the older one, as lectio difficilior that fits the context better, the q uestion
46 Text-critical editions: BHK ad Gen 3:17; Hendel, The Text of Genesis 111, 126, 128 (with ref-
erence Peshitta Gen 3:16 and , you shall turn yourself, cf. P-Gen 4:7 ,
and to Jub 3:24, to your husband is your return, which unfortunately is preserved here
only in Ethiopic); Commentaries: Skinner, Genesis, 82, 107; Leo Prijs, Jdische Tradition in
der Septuaginta, Leiden 1948, 57; Roland Bergmeier, Zur Septuaginta-bersetzung von
Gen 3:16, ZAW 79 (1967), 7779; Alexandre, Le commencement, 318319, 354355; Harl, La
Gense, 109110, 114115; Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 45, 55; Rsel, berset
zung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 9596; Jens Herzer, Christl M. Maier, Asma. Canticum
canticorum / das Hohelied, in: Karrer, Kraus, Septuaginta Deutsch. Erluterungen, 2011.
194 van der Meer
immediately arises why an early scribe or translator would have made the
same mistake twice in Genesis (and another in Cant 7:11 as well).
According to William Loader the Greek translator wanted to stress the
aspects of restoration of the original order and sexual servitude of the woman
towards the man in Gen 3:16: whereas the man returns to the ground, the
woman is continually being trapped by her keeping coming back to her hus-
band sexually who in turn must control her.47 Yet, as I see it, such an explana-
tion may work for the Hebrew text of Gen 3:16 and perhaps for the Hebrew and
Greek text of Cant 7:11, but not for the Greek texts of Gen 3:16 and 4:7. Clearly
the use of the Greek word lacks any sexual connotation in Gods
reproach of Cain in 4:7. Moreover, the prefix implies turning away from
rather than turning towards. In genuine Greek texts, the word
is used in the context of military retreat, escaping from wrath, or even aversion as
opposed to .48 The use of this word both in lxx-Gen 3:16 and 4:7 seems
to imply that although the lesser party (the woman or Abel) may have an aver-
sion towards the dominant person (the husband or the elder brother), they still
will be ruled by the one in power ( ; ).
Therefore, I find it more plausible to assume that the Greek translator of
Genesis deliberately wanted to avoid a literal translation of the Hebrew word
for desire such as . Apparently then, he creatively reinterpreted the
Hebrew text, particularly so since in Gen 3:16 and 4:7 it is the Deity himself
who pronounces such a verdict. The Greek translator of Cant 7:11 probably fol-
lowed the choice of the Greek Pentateuch. Apparently control over vehement
emotions was an issue for the Greek translators. Perhaps this also explains why
in Gen 4:6 Cain is not angry ( )but rather deeply grieved (, a word
that occurs rarely in the Septuagint). Cognate words such as , passion,
(only in lxx-Job 30:31 and lxx-Prov 25:20 and 4 Macc) and , desire,
are also used only sparingly or in a prohibitive context, such as the Decalogue
(Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21 [18]: , thou shalt not desire).
47 William R.G. Loader, Sexuality and Ptolemys Greek Bible: Genesis 13 in Translation
...Things Which They Altered for King Ptolemy (Genesis Rabbah 8.11), in: Paul
McKechnie, Philippe Guillaume (eds), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World (Mnemosyne
Supplements, 300), Leiden 2008, 20732, here 222; see also William Loader, The Septuagint,
Sexuality and the New Testament. Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the
New Testament, Grand Rapids 2004, 469.
48 See Plotinus 1.1.1; Simplicius, Commentary to Aristotles De Anima, 15.36 etc.
As is well-known, the Greek translators shared this aversion of vehement

emotions with the Stoics. According to Diogenes Lartius Zenon held all emo-
tions to be illogical, see e.g. 7.113114:49
, , , ,
, , , , ....
:... ,
, , , .
:
: , , : :
.
Desire or craving is irrational appetency, and under it are ranged the fol-
lowing states: want, hatred, contentiousness, anger, love, wrath, resent-
ment....The passion of love is a craving from which good men are
free.... Pleasure is an irrational elation at the accruing of what seems
to be choiceworthy; and under it are ranged ravishment, malevolent
joy, delight, transport. Ravishment is pleasure which charms the ear.
Malevolent joy is pleasure at anothers ills. Delight is the minds propul-
sion to weakness, its name in Greek () being akin to or turn-
ing. To be in transports of delight is the melting away of virtue.
It is true that Epicurus was also moderate in allowing to give in with ones
desires. According to him, only the natural and necessary desires would lead to
happiness, see his letter to Menoecus (Diogenes Lartius 10.128129):
, .
, :
, ,
.
,
..... ,
: ,
.
:
49 Text and translation: R.D. Hicks, Diogenes Lartius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers 12
(LCL, 184185), Cambridge/London 1925.
196 van der Meer
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are ground-
less; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as natural, and
some natural only. And of the necessary desires some are necessary if
we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some
if we are even to live. He who has a clear and certain understanding of
these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing
health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and
end of a blessed life....When we are pained because of the absence of
pleasure, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure. Wherefore
we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a blessed life.
Nevertheless, Epicurus was only somewhat more selective than his Cyrenaic
predecessors, who followed their desires without restraint. Diogenes Lartius
(7.166) reports that the Cyrenaic philosopher Dionysius of Heraclea, nick-
named the renegade (c. 328 bce248 bce), would indulge himself with sex
and courtesans publicly (cf. Athenaeus Deipn. 10.437ef). It is likely, therefore,
that the Greek translator of Genesis was reluctant to have the Deity speak
about desire.
5.3 Emptiness
A hedonistic lifestyle is inextricably connected to a materialistic world-view.
No carpe diem (Lucretius, an Epiurean) without yolo: you only life once, the
hedonistic excuse for amoral behaviour. Epicurus clearly denied all forms of
belief in an afterlife or metaphysics. The whole universe is simply made up
of matter and void: (Diogenes Lartius 10.39). The
limitless cosmos has no beginning or end (). Hence there is no need for
fear of death, since death is simply the dissolution of the temporary constella-
tion of a number of atoms: death is simply nothing ( Diogenes Lartius
10.124126). This notion of emptiness plays an important role in Epicurean
thinking; hence we often find Greek words such as , vain, and ,
empty, in Greek descriptions of Epicurean thinking.50
Although we may be reminded of the words of Qohelet that everything is
emptiness ( ), it is not particularly a key concept in most of
the Hebrew Scriptures that the Greek translators had to render into Greek. It is
perhaps not without reason that the book of Qohelet was probably the last of
50 See Diogenes Lartius 10 and the compilations of and introductions to Epicurean think-
ing mentioned above.
Hebrew Scripture to be translated into Greek (early second century ce).51 By

contrast, Gen 13 narrate how heaven and earth were created by God and that
they were made with purpose, or as Isa 45:1819 puts it:
mt

nrsv For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who
formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create
it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there
is no other. I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did
not say to the offspring of Jacob, Seek me in chaos. I the Lord
speak the truth, I declare what is right.
lxx ,
, ,
, .

.
nets Thus says the Lord, who made heaventhis is the God who dis-
played the earth and made it; he himself marked its limits; he did
not make it to be empty but to be inhabited: I am, and there is no
other. I have not spoken in secret nor in a dark place of the earth;
I did not say to the offspring of Iakob, Seek a vain thing. I am,
I am the Lord, speaking righteousness and declaring truth.
What interests me here is the use of the Greek adjectives , empty, and
, vain, for Hebrew , emptiness. Outside Gen 1:2 we often find these
translations for this Hebrew term, e.g. and in Isa 41:29; 44:9;
49:4; 59:4; , and , all meaning nothing, in 1 Reg. (Sam) 12:21, 21;
Isa 40:17, 23; 49:4; Jer 4:23; Job 26:7 and for compare Isa 59:4.52 2 Macc 7:28
formulates the theologoumenon of a creation ex nihilo as:
51 See the discussion in Marguerite Harl et al., La bible grecque des Septante. Du Judasme
hellnistique au Christianisme ancient, Paris 1994, 145.
52 Aliter: Deut 32:10; Isa 24:10; 29:21; 34:11; Ps 107:40; Job 6:18 12:24. See further Ceslas Spicq,
, , TLNT 2, 303310.
198 van der Meer
I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see every-
thing that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of
things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being.
As we have seen, the Greek translator of Gen 1:2 employed the highly unusal
translation , invisible and unformed for the expres-
sion in Gen 1:2. Since there are no Hebrew counterparts possible for
these genuine Greek expressions, we are dealing here without doubt with a
free interpretation by the Greek translator. The question is why?
One possibility is that the Greek translator was unfamiliar not only with
the second Hebrew word, , which remains a puzzle for all interpreters up
to the present,53 but also the first word . Yet, even if the translation
is the result of a guess, one still wonders why the trans-
lator had chosen for precisely these words. Moreover, as we just saw, the
meaning of the first Hebrew word did not pose problems to other Greek trans-
lators, viz. those of the books of Isaiah, Job, Jeremiah and Kingdoms. The idea
that the Greek translator was influenced by Platonic philosophy (e.g. Plato,
Tim. 51a , ,
, invisible and unshaped, all-receptive, and
in some mst perplexing and most baffling way partaking of the intelligible)
advanced by Rsel and others,54 offers an explanation only for the first word
and begs the question why the Greek translator did not introduce a Platonic
concept for the second word as well.55 Folker Siegert argues that the words
combined with the concepts of and may reflect influence of the
Theban cosmology,56 but beyond the resemblance of Hebrew tohu wabohu
and Egyptian tehi and behi there are no verbal correspondances. From the
perspective of the immediate literary context of Gen 1:2, the most self-evident
53 See the commentaries to Genesis, e.g. Skinner, Genesis, 1617; Claus Westermann, Genesis
111 (BKAT, I/1), Neukirchen 1974, 1424.
54 Rsel, bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 3133; see already G.M. Girardet, Tohu
Wabhohu, Protestantesimo 7 (1952), 1922; Hanhart, The Translation of the Septuagint,
366371.
55 Alexandre, Le commencement, 7680; Harl, La Gense, 87.
56 Siegert, Zwischen hebrischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 189, 278; see also Rudolf Kilian,
Gen I 2 und die Urgtter von Hermopolis, VT 16 (1966), 420438.
explanation is the one offered by Wevers:57 since God had not yet created the
light and had not yet set up the construction works for heaven and earth, it was
still dark (1:2 ) and undifferentiated. Only after the
creation of light and the firmament () could the world become visible
(1:9 ).
To my mind, this interpretation helps to explain why the translator chose
the expression , but does not explain why he did
not chose the usual renderings or , as we find, for instance, in much
later the translations of Theodotion ( ), Aquila (
) and Symmachus ( ). As
I see it, a translation such as * would simply have
evoked too many associations with hedonistic philosophy in Alexandria dur-
ing the heyday of Cyrenaism and Epicureanism. Hence this more appropriate
translation was rejected in favor of the present one.
6 Summary
In the preceding section I have argued that the Greek translator of Genesis
produced a number of unusual renderings of the Hebrew text in order to
avoid associations with hedonistic philosophy as we know it from references
to Cyreneaic and Epicurean philosophers. I argued that in Gen 23, the Greek
translator deliberately avoided the phrase as translation for
in order to avoid the associations with and the garden of Epicurus.
If that is true, Jews, Christians and Muslims owe their idea of a paradise
() indirectly to Hellenistic hedonists. I also argued that the Greek
translator deliberately avoided the use of the same word for in
Gen 18:12, where Sarah speaks to God about the loss of libido at her age. I further
argued that the same wish to avoid references to desire underlies the unusual
rendering of in Gen 3:16 and 4:7, where the Greek word ,
probably meaning aversion from someone with more power, reflects both a
creative misreading of the Hebrew word as well as a successful attempt
to safeguard Israels God from speaking about desire () right at the
beginning of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. Finally I argued that the
much debated rendering in Gen 1:2 of by
57 Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 12. See also William P. Brown, Structure, Role,
and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:12:3 (SBLDS, 132), Alanta 1993, 48;
and Robert J.V. Hiebert, A Genetic Commentary on the Septuagint of Genesis, JSCS 46
(2013), 1936, here 2529.
200 van der Meer
instead of something like * reflects a conscious attempt

to avoid hedonistic ideas about the emptiness of the universe and the absence
of metaphysical realities such as an afterlife, an immortal soul, andin the
case of some Cyrenean philosopherseven the existence of God or gods.
I hasten to add that none of my examples in themself is conclusive.
Only the accumulative strength of a number of similar explanations may
strengthen the plausibility of my thesis. Further research is necessary to com-
plement or adjust my interpretation. Yet, I think it is worthwhile to study the
reception history of the Hebrew Bible not only in terms of direct appropria-
tion of contemporary concepts, but also in terms of avoiding ideas that were
once held to be irreconcilable with the main ideas of Jewish religious tradi-
tion. For the study of the Septuagint within its cultural context this dialectical
approach may help to explain the discrepancy between on the one hand the
sophisticated scribal skills which all Greek translators must have had in order
to produce a translation of Classical Hebrew authoritative texts and on the
other hand the un-Greek character of the product of their efforts.
Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective:
Making and Maintaining Priests
Deborah W. Rooke
1 Introduction
In my experience, the words Leviticus and gender in combination tend to

suggest a certain topic, namely, the rules about childbirth and genital dis-
charges in Lev 12 and 15. There is, however, more than this to Leviticus and
gender, as this paper will demonstrate; in it, I shall explore gender in Leviticus
in relation to setting up and maintaining the cult, with a particular focus on
the priesthood. Before embarking on this gendered reading, however, a cou-
ple of methodological clarifications are necessary. First, Leviticus is both an
independent unit and part of a larger literary whole that is often designated as
Priestly, and so both the larger Priestly whole as well as the smaller Levitical
unit will be discussed inasmuch as the former is relevant to understanding the
latter. Second, this is a final-form reading, so although I am aware of the vari-
ous stratifications within both P and Leviticus that scholars have proposed, in
particular the distinction between P and H, my concern here is to understand
the net effect of the combination, that is, the text as we now have it, without
investigating the processes by which it might have reached its present form.
2 Making Priests
As indicated in the title of the paper, this first part is about making priests,
and the second part will go on to discuss maintaining them, in both parts with
reference to the gendered nature of the depictions presented in Leviticus and
associated Priestly texts. Our starting point is the Priestly account in Exodus of
setting up the cult.
2.1 The Right Men for the Job

It is commonly observed that legitimate priesthood in Leviticus as in the rest
of the Hebrew Bible is exclusively male. Leviticus presents its regulations
about sacrifices and the priests role against the background of the Priestly
instructions already given in Exod 28 and 29 about the priesthood. There, it
is stipulated that the male Aaron and his male offspring are to be the bearers

202 Rooke
of priesthood (Exod 28:1), and that they are to be inducted into priesthood by
the male Moses (who in the Priestly scheme of things is, of course, Aarons
brother) (Exod 29:1). However, this masculine bias extends beyond simply the
choice of persons for the priesthood: according to the Priestly stipulations in
Exodus, the equipment and clothing that the priests are to use, along with
the entire tabernacle complex, is also all to be made by men in accordance
with the designs that are revealed to Moses (another man) by Yhwh at Sinai
(Exod 2530). As far as the priesthood is concerned, Aaron and his sons are to
wear specially made garments, and Aarons garments are particularly elabo-
rate, made from materials of blue and purple and crimson and fine twined
linen, skillfully worked (Exod 28:45). Metalwork and gem-cutting skills are
also required to make Aarons costume, with gold chains to hold the breast-
piece to the ephod (Exod 28:2228), engraved stones on the shoulder pieces
of the ephod (28:912), twelve different gemstones on the breastpiece to rep-
resent the tribes of Israel (28:1521), and an engraved gold plate or flower to
adorn the headdress (28:3637). These garment-making skills, together with
all those required to make the curtains and accoutrements of the tabernacle,
are said to have been given by Yhwh to Bezalel son of Hur of the tribe of Judah
(Exod 31:2), together with Oholiab, son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan (31:6),
and to every (male) wise of heart ( , 31:6)an all-male workforce

of craftspeople.1
Nor is the masculine bias confined to the craftsmen; it extends to those
who contribute the resources with which to carry out the project. In describ-
ing how the raw materials for the project are assembled, Exod 35:21 tells how
1 In the absence of a specifically masculine noun to denote the subject of the phrase

the phrase might be read as denoting every person wise of heart rather than
every male wise of heart. For discussion of this unmarked use of the masculine form, see
D.E.S. Stein, Gender Representation in Biblical Hebrew, in: G. Khan (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 2, Leiden 2013, 2022; note also C.H.J. van der Merwe
et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, Sheffield 1999, 181, on the unmarked use of the
masculine form. Although grammatically speaking this is an option, however, the over-
whelmingly male-orientated context of the present example militates against interpreting
it in such an inclusive fashion. Also, where women do contribute towards the tabernacle
project they are mentioned explicitly, as in the account of who brings what raw materials in
Exod 35. It is therefore unlikely that
has anyone other than males in its purview.
S. Scholz, Exodus, in: L. Schottroff, M.-T. Wacker (eds), Feminist Biblical Interpretation, Grand
Rapids 2012, 3350, suggests that the specific mention of women in Exod 35 indicates that
where they are not mentioned they are included by implication, although she also comments
on the androcentric perspective of the account which she sees as reinforcing typical gender
roles (46). These two statements seem to me to be incompatible.
Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective 203
every man whose heart moved him ( ) brought materials

for the tabernacle project.2 Interestingly, 35:22 says that both men and women
(
) brought items of gold jewellery, but then goes on to make
what appears to be a gendered cultic reference: every man is said to make an
offering of gold to Yhwh ( ) . In other words,

men and women alike bring their gold items, but it is the men who offer them
officially to Yhwh. Men ( ) are then the possessors and bringers of blue,
purple and crimson yarn, fine linen, goats hair and skins (35:23), and of silver,
bronze and acacia wood (35:24, where masculine forms rather than the specific
word follow 35:23 in depicting men as the subjects). The women reappear
at 35:25 ( ) as spinners and bringers of yarn in blue, purple,
scarlet and fine linen, and as spinners of goats hair at 35:26 (
) . Finally, both men and women are said to be

sources of offerings for the tabernacle in 35:29 ( ) ,
though again women are rather hidden behind the sons of Israel who are
said to do the bringing in the summary statement with which the verse ends
() . But once the construction starts, it is put firmly
in male hands, namely, those of Bezalel and Oholiab, and of every man ()
whose heart Yhwh has filled with wisdom (35:3036:2;

, 36:1). Indeed, even the embroidery
and clothwork is allocated to men: 38:23 specifically names Oholiab as an
embroiderer in blue and purple and scarlet stuff and fine twined linen; and
in the descriptions of making Aarons ceremonial high priestly garments
(39:131), the subject is either they (undefined, though, based on the gram-
matical structure, most logically Bezalel and Oholiab) or he (Bezalel alone).
It thus seems that though women are allowed to make some sort of contri-
bution for the tabernacle at the level of raw materials, they are not included
among those who are endowed with the skill and wisdom to construct and
equip the place in which Yhwh will take up his dwelling, or to manufacture
the garments by means of which a particular group of males will be set apart
to enter more closely into the presence of Yhwh. As is so often the case, males
are interposed between females and the sphere of the holy, so that not even
2 Again in relation to the gender-specificity of such terminology, Stein argues that the word
is primarily a relational term, and that as such it can be effectively unmarked for gen-
der (The Noun ( ) in Biblical Hebrew: A Term of Affiliation, JHS 8 (2008), article 1;
www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_78.pdf). Stein however offers no explanation as to why
the unmarked (and thus normative) form is the masculine, whereas the feminine form is the
marked (and thus non-normative) form. This in itself is a gendered scheme that favours
the masculine.
204 Rooke
garments or items that will be used in that sphere can originate directly from
women, despite the fact that women have supplied the materials from which
the items are manufactured.3
2.2 Gendering Sacrifice

This, then, is the background against which the material about the priest-
hood in Leviticus is to be understood. Moving into Leviticus itself, the rules in
Lev 17 about the various types of sacrifice and the priests role in them gives
more evidence for the thoroughly masculine genderedness of the priestly
function. There are two ways in which this comes through. First, and most
obviously, the priests are repeatedly referred to as Aaron and his sons or the
sons of Aaron.4 Secondly, according to this code of sacrifice, specified por-
tions of the sacrificial foodstuffs accrue to those of priestly (that is, Aaronic)
descent, but exactly who can eat what is determined by gender as much as
by descent. The least restricted of the priestly portions are those from the sacri-
fices of well-being (( ) 7:2936); in this type of sacrifice, most of the meat
is available for consumption by the worshipper once the animals blood and fat
have been offered on the altar, and of this meat the breast and the right thigh
are to be given to the priests (Aaron and his sons, 7:31, 34). Subsequent elabo-
ration of these instructions states that the breast and thigh are allocated by
Yhwh to the priests and their sons and daughters, and that the portions are to
be eaten in a clean place (10:14), although later in Leviticus the circumstances
under which daughters are permitted to eat the portions are circumscribed,
as we shall see. Portions from other types of sacrifice, however, are more
restricted in their availability. In the three further types of sacrifice described
in Lev 17, that is, the burnt offering () , the sin offering ( ) and the guilt
offering () , nothing remains available for the worshippers use: the offer-
ing is either burnt completely (the animal ) , or part of it is burnt and the
remainder, described as most holy, is eaten by the priests in a holy place as a
way of disposing of the offerers sin (cereal , every , and every ;
cf. 10:17). In these cases, the absence of the worshippers right to any of the
3 One particularly interesting instance of this is that Bezalel uses womens bronze mirrors to
make the bronze laver for the priests ritual washing (Exod 38:8). Nothing is said earlier in the
text about the women bringing their mirrors for use in the tabernacle construction. Scholz,
Leviticus, says that the bronze from the mirrors is used for the altar (46), but this is incorrect,
an error that highlights how once again the womens contribution is kept one step away from
the holiest parts of the tabernacletheir bronze can be used for a laver, but not for the altar.
4 : 1:5, 8, 11; 2:2; 3:2; : 1:7; : 3:5, 8, 13; 6:14, 16, 18; 7:33;

: 2:10; 6:2, 13, 18; 7:31, 35; : 7.34.
sacrificial material is paralleled by the specific exclusion of the priests daugh-

ters from consumption of the priestly portions. In what appears to be a redun-
dant phrasing, the text states that every male among the sons of Aaron (
( ) Lev 6:11 [Eng. 6:18], of the cereal ) or every male among the
priests (( ) Lev 6:22 [Eng. 6:29]; 7:6, of the and ) is to eat
them. The former expression might be taken to understand sons as including
both male and female descendants of Aaron, so that there is some point to
declaring that the males as opposed to the females among the sons are entitled
to eat the holy portions. However, the expression every male among the priests
is more problematic. The phrase may be stressing males as opposed to females,
which implies that the concept of female priests was not as unthinkable as P
would like it to be. Alternatively, and not necessarily incompatibly with the
first idea, every male among the priests refers to every male descendant of
the Aaronic line, including those who are forbidden actually to function as
priests in the sacrificial cult because of physical deformities.5 In Leviticus as it
currently stands,6 the latter interpretation can be justified on the basis of Lev
21:2223, where male Aaronides with a blemish (that is, some kind of physical
imperfection) are forbidden to approach the altar but are nevertheless entitled
to eat the holy and the most holy portions. The ironical logic of this position
is that a blemished male is regarded as being holier than a non-blemished
female, since even a blemished male is allowed to enter the holy place and
to eat the holy portions, both of which acts are forbidden to females. It also
definitively excludes women from acting in a cultically significant way in the
official public Israelite cult, and confirms that cult as a masculine domain.
2.3 Males Birthing Males

Having thus designated the priesthood as being for men only, and having
given to that priesthood certain functions that are indispensable in the sacri-
ficial economy by requiring priests to eat the sin offerings in order to dispose
of the impurity caused by sin, Leviticus proceeds to describe the founding
of this priesthood, with a detailed enumeration of how Moses follows to the
letter the instructions for ordaining Aaron that Yhwh gave to him in Exodus 29
(Lev 89). As hinted earlier, a striking feature of this ritual is its male-centred-
ness. Just as it is the male descendants of Aaron who are entitled to become
priestsand who appear to be begotten with no reference at all to their
5 This reading is advocated by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 116 (AB, 3), New York 1991, 395.
6 That is, on a final-form reading that does not distinguish between P and H, as noted in the
introduction to the paper.
206 Rooke
mother7it is the male Moses who is responsible for their priestly birth.
Moses is the one who washes and dresses them as if they are children with
no ability to do it for themselves (Lev 8:69, 13), and then offers the sacrifices
on their behalf (8:1430); once the initial rituals are complete, they remain by
the door of the tent of meeting for seven days (Lev 8:3336), cloistered within
the masculine womb that is the tabernacle complex, until on the eighth day
Aaron is ready to make sacrifices himself (9:17). Rather like the eighth-day
circumcision that initiates the new-born boy into the nation of Israel (12:3;
cf. Gen 17:1014), Aarons eighth-day ritual blood-shedding results in his val-
idation as high priest (9:2324). But it is all achieved in a thoroughly male-
dominated environment, unlike the priests natural birth, which would have
taken place in an environment dominated by women.8
3 Maintaining Priests: What About the Women?
In Leviticus, then, priesthood is an institution created by and for males, as part

of a larger institutional masculinity that is expressed in the cult. Priests are
biologically related males from a particular family line who are chosen by an
implicitly male deity as his servants and who are initiated as priests by another
male of the same family who is the deitys chosen mediator. The garments they
wear and the shrine in which they serve are constructed by males according to
patterns revealed to the deitys chosen mediating male (cf. Exod 2531), and
though women donate some of the raw materials from which the shrine
and garments are constructed, they are shown as having no hand in actually
putting any of it together. And yet, although womens contribution to the cultic
set-up is minimized by comparison with that of Bezalel, Oholiab and Moses
and the men of wise hearts who do all the craftwork, the blue, purple and
7 The only place in which Aarons wife appears is in Exod 6:23, where in a genealogy of Aaron
and Moses Aaron is said to have married Elisheba, who bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and
Ithamar. As usual, nothing is said about any daughters of Aaron, despite them being envis-
aged in the text in Leviticus.
8 Compare N. Jay, Sacrifice as Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman, in: C.W. Atkinson
et al. (eds), Immaculate and Powerful: The Female in Sacred Image and Social Reality, Boston
1985, 283309. Jay sees a strong affinity between blood sacrifice and patrilineally-organized
societies. She argues that in such societies, since ones biological paternity is never as cer-
tain as ones maternal descent, the right to sacrifice (which is almost universally restricted
to adult males) signals acceptance into and membership of the patrilineage, a kind of male
bonding exercise that enables the male line to reproduce and maintain itself in social terms
without reference to female reproductive capacity.
scarlet yarn together with spun goat-hair and the gold jewellery that the
women provide is a vital part of what is needed to produce the tabernacle and
the special high priestly garments. Were it not for their contribution the cult
would be incomplete: it could not have been established without them.
And this is not only true of the establishment of the cult and priesthood;
women are a significant factor in its maintenance, that is, in ensuring that the
priestly line not only continues to exist but also remains holy, because without
a priesthood there would be no cult. However, this question of maintenance
is more complex than that of establishment, and there are a number of facets
to it. The first is perhaps the most obvious. The hereditary nature of the priest-
hood means that priests have to procreate in order to produce more priests;
and by contrast with the all-male ordination ritual that brings priests to ritual
birth, a priests natural birth (like every other natural birth) is dependent on
woman. But there are limits on those with whom a priest can procreate if his
line is to maintain its legitimate priestly status. What are those limits, and why?
There is also the question of the sex of priests offspring. Despite the focus
on the sons of Aaron, giving the impression that Aaronides only ever beget
sons, there are also daughters of Aaron, that is, women who are born of the line
of Aaron. Given the exclusion of women from the cult that is evidenced in what
we have already discussed, the very concept of a daughter of Aaron seems
like a contradiction in terms. Where and how do daughters of Aaron fit into
the priestly schema? Finally, there are certain womensome of them daugh-
ters of Aaronwho by either their life or their death potentially threaten the
priests holy status. Who are these women, and how are they a threat? Precisely
how all this works will be the focus of the rest of the paper.
3.1 Marriage Partners for Priests

Despite the focus on the male line and the sons of Aaron in Leviticuss depic-
tions of the priests and their duties and of the setting up of the cult, in order
to be a priest, a son must be born from the appropriate mother as well as from
the appropriate father. This is not stipulated in so many words, but it is implied
by the fact that Lev 21 restricts priests marriage choices, and certainly later
rabbinic exegesis made these implications explicit in its discussions of the
status of offspring from a variety of types of marital union involving priests.
Although there is no stipulation in the case of ordinary priests that negative
consequences will ensue from marrying the wrong kind of woman, if the law
restricting the priests choice of marriage partners is to be meaningful con-
sequences of some kind must be envisaged. Given that the primary purpose
of marriage is reproduction, the most logical consequence is arguably that an
illegal union will affect the status of any offspring; and indeed, this is explicitly
208 Rooke
the case for the high priest in Lev 21, who is forbidden to make certain kinds of
marital union lest he defile his seed (Lev 21:15). However, a second implication
is that a forbidden union may also affect the priests own status, and that too
comes through in some of the Leviticus material.
The precise rules are as follows. Lev 21 gives two sets of instructions for the
women that priests can marry, one for ordinary priests, and one for the high
priest. Ordinary priests are to marry thus:
7 They shall not marry a harlot or a woman who has been defiled; neither
shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband; for the priest is
holy to his God. 8 You shall consecrate him, for he offers the bread of your
God; he shall be holy to you; for I the Lord, who sanctify you, am holy.
(Lev 21:78)9
The high priest has an even more limited pool from which to choose his pro-
spective spouse:
13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or one divorced,

or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry;
but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, 15 that he may not
profane his children among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctify
him. (Lev 21:1315)10
We shall look at each of these stipulations in turn, beginning with the ordi-
nary priests. Priests are not allowed to marry divorcees or prostitutes or
defiled women, whatever that meanssome commentators take the words
, which are rendered as two separate terms in the RSV (a harlot [and]
a woman who has been defiled), as a hendiadys for the prostitute, whoring
and defiled,11 although Milgrom argues that it means a woman who has been
9 Translations are taken from the Revised Standard Version, because it reflects the gen-
dered nature of the underlying Hebrew, and does not use inclusive language which dis-
guises potential gendered implications.
10 The high priest must specifically marry a virgin, although the same requirement is not
made for the ordinary priests, so they can presumably marry a widow.
11 See, for example, M. Zipor, Restrictions on Marriage for Priests, Biblica 68 (1987), 25967
(25964); B.A. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989, 143. The idea
found in some commentators that the prostitute is a cultic prostitute is outdated and
should not be given credence. J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC, 3), Dallas 1992, 343, 348, argues
that the term refers to a hierodule, that is, as Hartley defines it, a woman who had
participated in pagan cultic practices (348). Although Hartley does not frame this in
raped.12 Whatever the precise significance, though, the point of the stipulation
is that from the male perspective there has been some kind of irregularity in
the womans sexual career, and she has not moved seamlessly from virginity
under her fathers roof to consummated and committed matrimony under a
husbands roof. According to Lev 21, then, the women that priests are allowed
to marry are virgins and widows, whether of priests or of others,13 and there
seems to be no restriction on the tribe from which these women should come.
This of course raises the question of what motivates the restrictions on
priests marriage partners.14 The explanation given in the text is the kind of
non-explanation that is typical of P (and H): they shall not marry these types
of women, for the priest is holy to his God (Lev 21:7). This states a fact rather
than offering an explanation, leaving the logical connection between a priests
holiness to God and his choice of marriage partner to be puzzled out. However,
the explanation becomes more meaningful when taken in the context of the
verses immediately before and after it. When viewed in the context of the sur-
rounding verses, the marriage stipulations in Lev 21:7 can be seen to relate to
the priests fitness to approach the altar. Both Lev 21:6 (which concludes the
rules about whom and how priests are allowed to mourn) and 21:8 (after
the marriage stipulations for ordinary priests) emphasize the need for priestly
holiness because of the priests duty to approach the altar and make offerings,
and placing the marriage stipulations in Lev 21:7 in that context leads to the
reading that marriage can either maintain or destroy a priests holiness. If
the basic understanding of holiness is one of separation, then the priest has to
be holy to his God, that is, separated to his God, just as elsewhere in Leviticus
the nation as a whole has to be separated to God, that is, holy, in its following
of Gods stipulations that make it different from all the other nations of the
earth (e.g. Lev 19:23; 20:78, 256). The priests marital relationship is thus
presented as an expression of the holiness that is understood as separation to
explicitly sexual terms, the idea of cultic prostitution still lurks beneath the surface of his
formulation.
12 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1722, (AB, 3a), New York 2000, 18068.
13 Zipor, Restrictions, 264, suggests that only prostitutes are forbidden to ordinary priests,
not women who have lost their virginity by a one-off event of some kind.
14 C. Carmichael, Death and Sexuality among Priests (Leviticus 21), in: R. Rendtorff et al.
(eds), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 93), Leiden 2003, 22544,
argues that these restrictions, as well as those relating to priests mourning and priestly
womens prostitution (discussed below), arise because the laws were formulated in
response to incidents in Israels early history (the Levites concubine; Elis and Aarons
corrupt sons), with a view to ensuring that such incidents do not recur. I find Carmichaels
approach unconvincing, and it will not be pursued further here.
210 Rooke
God, and close association with certain categories of women can apparently
threaten his status of holiness.
But again, why should that be? What is it about divorcees in particular that
makes them unsuitable partners for priests, given that there is no divorce law
as such in P, and so the circumstances under which divorce is envisaged are
not specified? For the forbidden categories of woman there seem to be two
concerns operating, both of which are embodied in the divorcee. The first
is practical, and that is a concern for the maintenance of the line of priestly
descent. This concern works in two ways: the line needs to continue, and it
needs to be kept pure. Now although there is no legislation in P as to the cir-
cumstances under which divorce might occur, from Deut 24:1 it appears that
initiating divorce proceedings was a male prerogative, and that it resulted from
the man finding some fault in the woman. The nature of the fault is not defined
apart from the enigmatic phrase , nakedness of a thing, which led to
protracted debate in rabbinic times over the allowable grounds for divorce.15
Nevertheless, two common reasons for divorce were probably unfaithfulness
and barrenness on the part of the woman;16 and both of these would disqualify
her as an appropriate spouse for a priest. An unfaithful woman risks compro-
mising the purity of the priestly line, and a barren woman would be unable
to further the priestly line by bearing sons, a necessary element if the priest-
hood is to continue and maintain its strength. Indeed, the Mishnah states that
a priest must not marry a barren woman unless he already has a wife and chil-
dren (m. Yeb. 6.5).
Similar considerations will apply to the woman who is a prostitute: if she is
able to bear children, her sexual proclivities are clearly a threat to the purity
of the priestly line. On the other hand, she may be a prostitute because she is
unable to bear children, which makes her unsuitable as a priestly wife because
of being unable to continue the priestly line. (Again, the Mishnah identifies
15 See the helpful summary in Levine, Leviticus, 1434.

16 In a discussion of Deut 24:14, E.L. Feinstein, Sexual Pollution in the Hebrew Bible, New York
2014, observes that there is no evidence in the Hebrew Bible either that inability to bear
children constituted grounds for divorcing a woman without compensating her, or that
divorce was a legal punishment for adultery (57, 62). Feinsteins observations, however, do
not invalidate the idea that divorce could have taken place on the grounds of barrenness
or adultery, with appropriate compensation for the woman in the case of barrenness, and
as a personal rather than a legally stipulated punishment in the case of adultery. Levine,
Leviticus, comments that in most cases there would be insufficient evidence to inflict
the death penalty (the legally stipulated punishment for adultery), whereas there would
be sufficient motivation for a husband to charge his wife with adultery and thus achieve
what he really wanted, namely, divorce (144).
the barren woman as the whore of Lev 21:7 [m. Yeb. 6.5]). So there is a very
practical consideration operating in the limitations on the priests choice of
spouse: she has to be in a position to produce for him pure priestly offspring.
However, given the emphasis on holiness noted above, in particular, the com-
ment that the priests choice of spouse is limited because of his holiness, and
on the understanding that holiness is separation to God, there may also be
a metaphorical or symbolic aspect to the restrictions on priestly marriage.
Priests, because they are holy to their God, must marry women who in their
commitment to their husband mirror the commitment of the priest to God.
For the priest to be holy to his God means that he is dedicated uniquely and
solely to God and to no other deity; thus, his wifes commitment to him has to
be uniquely and solely to him and to no other man. A prostitute (certainly) and
a divorcee (possibly) have not demonstrated that commitment, and so they are
not suitable partners for a man whose whole identity is predicated on sole ded-
ication. If we take the defiled woman as a separate category rather than as the
prostitute under another name, she too could be a potential threat, inasmuch
as she is an unknown quantity; despite having what might be called a sexual
history she has not demonstrated what should go along with that, namely,
commitment to one man in a way that mirrors the priests commitment to his
deity. She could also potentially be bearing another mans child. So she is best
avoided on both physical and symbolic grounds, in order to eliminate any pos-
sible threat to the priests status and to his line.17
For the ordinary priests, then, their choice of marriage partner must not
only reflect the priests own commitment to their deity and therefore express
their holiness, it must enable them to produce pure-bred priestly children who
can perpetuate the priestly dynasty. Although no sanctions are laid down for
priests who do not abide by the stipulations, it is reasonable to assume that
failure to observe the rules would lead to compromising the status of the priest
or his offspring, or both. To that extent, the holiness of the priest is what might
be termed performative holiness; it has to be actualized in what the priest does
17 Compare Milgroms comment that the exclusion of divorcees but not widows as suitable
marriage partners for priests indicates that the point at issue must not have been the
womens virginity but their reputation (Leviticus 1722, 1808). G.J. Wenham, The Book of
Leviticus (NICOT), Grand Rapids 1979, remarks that however innocent a divorced woman
was in fact, her reputation was likely to have been affected by the divorce (291), some-
thing which in itself demonstrates the androcentric orientation of the requirements. In
this respect Zipor is chief: A priest must marry a woman with unreproachable behaviour.
A divorcee in many instances cannot be considered as such (Restrictions, 259).
212 Rooke
rather than simply being a status that is granted irrevocably, and in the actual-
ization of priestly holiness women play a vital part.
The rules of marriage for the high priest, as noted earlier, are stricter than
for the ordinary priests. In addition to being forbidden to marry the divorcee,
the harlot and the defiled woman,18 he is denied the right to marry a widow;
rather, he must take a virgin wife from his own tribe,19 that he may not pro-
fane his children (literally, his seed) among his people (Lev 21:15). He must
therefore take a sexually intact bride from the tribe of Levimaybe even
from among the daughters of Aaronin order to maintain the high degree
18 Zipor argues that and in Lev 21:14 are two distinct, although related, types (265),
and that refers to a cultic prostitute. He thus appears to maintain that the high
priest is forbidden to marry any kind of prostitute, in addition to widows and divorcees
(Restrictions, 2656). However, if this really is the substance of his argument (which is
unclear), given his reading of in Lev 21:7 as a hendiadys signifying a woman
defiled by prostitution, the implication is that cultic prostitutes are forbidden to the high
priest but not to the ordinary priest. It also involves construing the same words differ-
ently in two closely related passages that are dealing with the same issue. If, however,
Zipor means that the prohibition refers to cultic prostitution in both cases, it leaves open
the possibility of the ordinary priests marrying a prostitute, since they are not explicitly
exhorted to marry a virgin.
19 The high priests wife must be taken from his (own) peoples ( , Lev 21:14), which
could mean the people of Israel in general rather than a foreigner, or could mean his own
tribe. The latter is the more probable for several reasons. First, the term is plural, which
would seem to indicate something other than the unitary people of Israel. Indeed, Levine,
Leviticus, points out that the term is used earlier in the chapter when stipulating
those whom a priest is allowed to mourn among his kin ( , 21:1); it is therefore logi-
cal to see the same usage here (145). The plural is also used when stating the purpose of
the marital restrictions: so that he not profane his seed among his people (( ) 21.15),
and this is best read as describing the priestly clans from which the high priests line will
be separated by becoming profaned. Secondly, restricting the high priest to marrying a
woman from his own tribe rather than simply an Israelite woman would serve once again
to make the stipulation more strict than the one for the ordinary priests who presum-
ably would be expected to marry an Israelite woman. Admittedly Leviticus does not spe-
cifically require the ordinary priests to marry Israelite women, but other commentators
in the Priestly tradition do; Ezekiel, for example, states, [The priests] shall not marry a
widow, or a divorced woman, but only a virgin of the stock of the house of Israel, or a
widow who is the widow of a priest (Ezek 44:22). (Ezekiel does not distinguish between
ordinary priests and the high priest, because there is no high priest in his schema, so the
strictures apply to all the priests.) Milgrom, Leviticus 1722, 181920, is quite clear that
means from his kin rather than simply an Israelite woman, and points to the high
level of priestly endogamy in Second Temple times as supporting this interpretation.
of sanctity that he needs.20 Here, in contrast to the rules of marriage for the
ordinary priests, the consequences of his failure to abide by the stipulation are
stated: his offspring will be profaned, that is, they will forfeit their holy status
and therefore be ineligible to serve as (high) priests themselves. For a world-
view such as that of P, where the high priest is a pivotal character at the pinna-
cle of stratified layers of holiness and purity as the communitys embodiment
before God, a profaned high-priestly line is serious indeed. The profanation of
offspring is clearly a more pressing concern for the high priest than it is for the
ordinary priests; although as argued above the desire for an appropriately pure
line of descent is certainly a factor in the marriage restrictions for the ordinary
priests, the greater priority for them seems to be their own status of holiness
before God which enables them to serve at the altar, and any consequences
that their unsuitable marriage may have for their offspring are left unspoken.
One reason for this may be that there are plenty of ordinary priests, so if one or
two are profaned there will be others to take their place and produce undefiled
20 There are a number of problems with these stipulations from a practical perspective.
First, the laws assume that the high priest is unmarried (and, by implication, relatively
young) at the time of his appointment to the office, but in reality it was just as likely that
those who became high priests did so at a later stage in their lives, by which time they
would already be married. It was also possible for the office to be allocated to a priest
who would not have expected to attain it, for example, a brother of the serving high
priest, who again might well be already married at the time of his appointment. It is there-
fore impossible for the stipulations in Leviticus to be applied strictly as they stand. That
this was recognized in antiquity is evidenced by the Mishnahs discussion of whether
a priests prior betrothal remains valid on his unexpected nomination as high priest
(m. Yeb. 6.4), with the implication that the strictness of the rules in Lev 21:13 could be
relaxed according to circumstances. On the basis of Lev 6:15 and 16:32 Milgrom argues that
the high priest would be elected as high priest designate during his fathers lifetime, while
still young and unmarried (Leviticus 1722, 1818), which would explain how the restric-
tions could be observed. A second problem relates to the high priest marrying within his
own kin group, a stipulation which is detrimental to the well-being of the high-priestly
line if it is strictly adhered to for long. However, the knowledge that repeated endogamy
is harmful is relatively recent, and it is more than likely that what appears to the mod-
ern mind as inbreeding would have been seen in antiquity as protecting the purity of
the bloodline. Compare Milgroms comments on the high level of priestly endogamy in
Second Temple times (Leviticus 1722, 1820). Practicalities aside, though, both of these
issues serve to highlight that the primary intention of the stipulations in Leviticus is to
set out a theoretical conception of priestly holiness, rather than to facilitate its practical
application; and it is this conception with all its gendered implications that is my pres-
ent concern. (My thanks to John Bartlett and Bob Becking for bringing these issues to
my attention.)
214 Rooke
offspring (compare Nadab and Abihu [Lev 10]!). However, the high priestly line
is much more limited, and needs to be protected with correspondingly greater
strictness. The woman that the high priest takes to wife must not have any
hint of defilement, because if she does the children that she bears him will be
profaned. In this context the use of the term seed to speak of the high priests
profaned offspring implies a whole line of descent rather than a single genera-
tion, thereby stressing the magnitude of the disruption caused by an unsuit-
able marriage.21 Once again, then, the holiness required of and imparted to the
priests by God is seen to have a performative aspect. God is the one who sancti-
fies the high priest; but the high priest himself must abide by the rulings set by
God if that sanctification is to continue. The point is that the sanctification is
not an intrinsic part of the high priests being; it is given, but not a given, and
as such it can be taken away again. Sanctity is thus a provisional quality, and it
seems that while women are neither holy themselves nor capable of imparting
holiness they can certainly destroy it. God may well sanctify the high priest,
but it is the mans wife who can profane his children.22
For all that women are so strictly excluded from the priestly fraternity, then,
they are really very significant in the maintenance of that fraternity. Nor is this
the only instance in the Hebrew Bible where being born of the correct mother
is just as important as being born of the correct father. The prime example is
perhaps that of Abraham and Isaac; although Ishmael too is a son of Abraham,
he is not the son of Abraham and Sarah, but of Abraham and Hagar. His status
as a son of Abraham is acknowledged, but he cannot be the ancestor of the line
21 It is also arguably a masculine reference, inasmuch males are those who are thought of as
carrying seed from generation to generation, and of course it is males who are required
both to be high priest and to perpetuate the high priestly line.
22 The stipulations in Ezekiel have less detail than those in Leviticus, and do not distinguish
between ordinary priests and the high priest; nor is anything said about the potential
results of an unsuitable marriage, either for the priests themselves or for their offspring.
Instead, the context in which the priestly marriage rules appear gives them a rather dif-
ferent complexion. The blanket stipulation in Ezek 44:22 is that all priests should marry
either a virgin of the house of Israel or the widow of a priest, which is a neat solution to
the question of priestly marriage partners: on this basis, a widow of a priest will have
been a virgin of the house of Israel when first married, so the issue of proper descent for
the priestly marriage partners is made quite simple. Ezekiel then goes on to say (44:23)
that the priests shall teach the people to distinguish between the holy and the common,
and the clean and the unclean, so it looks as if choosing the correct woman for a wife is
an example of just such distinguishing between the holy and the common. In that
instance, the priests marrying habits are presented as an embodiment of what they are
to teach the people.
that bears the promise, because that is reserved for Abrahams offspring via
Sarah (Gen 17:1821).23 Also, in the book of Judges, Jephthah the son of Gilead
is rejected by his brothers for having been born of a prostitute (Judg 11:12).
So there is evidence elsewhere that maternal descent is just as important as
paternal descent when determining the transmission of paternal identity.24
Indeed, the same principle applies to Aarons wife Elisheba: although she is only
mentioned once in Exod 6:23, as the mother of Aarons four sons, she is there
said to be the daughter of Amminadab and the sister of Nahshon; and in
Num 1:7, 2.3 and 7:12 Nahshon son of Amminadab is presented as the leader
of the tribe of Judah. The founding father and mother of the priestly dynasty
are therefore chief members of the priestly and kingly tribes respectively, again
indirectly underlining the significance of a priests maternal descent.
What is particularly interesting about the requirement for correct mater-
nal descent, though, is that it falls into line with the wide-spread practice of
abusing males in terms of their mothers. If they are judged well they are given
masculine identities, but negative characteristics are imputed to the maternal
side of the line of descent. Thus Saul, in castigating his son Jonathan for his
alliance with David to Sauls own detriment, calls Jonathan the son of a per-
verse rebellious woman (1 Sam 20:30), as if neither Jonathan nor his mother is
anything to do with Saul himself despite being Sauls son and wife respectively.
The bad they get from their mothers, is the message. And of course the insult
son of a bitch is well known in Anglo-American culture. Although the mascu-
line principle of hereditary is so strong, it is apparently at the same time also
vulnerable, and has to be reinforced by making sure that the feminine prin-
ciple is equally proper. Despiteor perhaps because ofthe priests holiness,
if a priest is to be a son of Aaron rather than a son of a bitch, he must be born
of the correct mother as well as of the correct father.
23 Contrariwise, in the case of Jacob and his sons, all of them are counted as his sons equally
whether born of wives or concubines, and in the Hebrew text at least there is no explicit
distinction made between the sons or the resultant tribes on the basis of their mothers
marital status.
24 A reverse example is found in the story of the blasphemer in Lev 24: although his father
is an Egyptian, his mother is an Israelite, and he is constantly referred to as the son of
the Israelite woman, as if that is what determines his membership in the community
and therefore his liability to punishment for blaspheming the Israelite god. But it is not
a very flattering way of defining his identity. See Rooke, The Blasphemer (Leviticus 24):
Gender, Identity and Boundary Construction, in: F. Landy et al. (eds), Text, Time, and
Temple: Literary, Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 64),
Sheffield 2015, 15369.
216 Rooke
3.2 Priestly Women Marrying Men

Priests, then, must marry (or rather, must not marry) certain kinds of women
in order for their priestly status not only to be maintained but to be transmit-
ted to their offspring. But not all priestly offspring are males; as was observed
earlier, there are daughters of Aaron as well as sons of Aaron, and their status is
quite different. Whereas the sons destiny is to become priests whom the Lord
sanctifies, holy to their God and offering his bread on the altar, daughters of
Aaron like other women can expect to be married, possibly but not necessarily
within the Aaronide kin group, and to bear children. While women are living
with their Aaronide fathers they are entitled to eat the holy portions of the
sacrifices which are the priests means of support and which only priests and
related persons may eat (22:11, 13), but they are only entitled to eat the portions
as long as they are under the jurisdiction of an Aaronide priest, whether father
or husband. If they marry a non-priest they are no longer entitled to a share of
the portions (22:12). Presumably at a practical level that is because the priestly
womans husband will now be responsible for her maintenance and so there
will be no need for her to eat of the priestly portions that were her fathers pri-
mary means of support and thus hers too while she was under his care.25 But
there is also a point here about holiness (that is, priestly status), namely, that
she does not transmit any status of holiness to her non-priestly husband.
A priestthat is, a son of Aaronwho marries within the limits allowed by
the law, whether or not he marries a woman of priestly descent, is not nega-
tively affected by the union; he maintains his holy status, and as his wife the
woman he marries presumably becomes eligible to eat the holy portions,
whether or not she is in herself of priestly descent.26 But daughters of Aaron
25 There is a question here of whether the portions are viewed as the priests only means
of support, which is related to whether Leviticus is more a theoretical treatise on holi-
ness or a practical guide for daily living. Nothing is said in Leviticus of any other means
of support; and allowing priests slaves to eat from the portions (Lev 22:11though not
hired workers or sojourners [22:10], who presumably have a less integral connection to
the priests household) gives the sense that the portions are viewed as a staple of life
rather than a luxury. S. Shectman, The Social Status of Priestly and Levite Women, in:
M. Leuchter, J.M. Hutton (eds), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition, Atlanta
2011, 8399, comments that priests households are never forbidden to eat non-sacred
foods (94, n. 46), but it is unclear whether Shectman includes the priests along with their
households. For the purposes of analysing the worldview of Leviticus, I take it that the
portions are assumed to be the priests primary (only) means of support.
26 Although priests wives are not given specific permission in the law to eat the holy por-
tions, those whom the priest acquires by purchase are allowed to eat them (22:11), and that
at some level probably includes his wife. In this respect, a non-priestly woman m arried
do not transfer the same rights to their non-priestly spouses, and indeed they
lose those rights themselves, implying that the rights were only contingent in
the first place on them being physically located where the primary means of
support was to eat the portions. As noted earlier, even sons of Aaron who are
damaged or maimed and therefore not entitled to serve as priests can eat the
holy portions, indeed, the most holy portions, as long as they do not come near
the altar (Lev 21:1724); but daughters of Aaron cannot eat any of the portions
once they have married out. The conclusion from this is that, regardless of
their descent, women cannot be holy as men can be holy; they can only either
confirm or sabotage mens holy status, and any holiness attributed to them is
entirely derivative from the men under whose jurisdiction they happen to be
at any given time.27
Such an arrangement has the effect of circumscribing the holy group and
preserving its exclusivity, and certainly one can appreciate the need to restrict
the holy status in order for it to be meaningful. But this particular arrange-
ment depends upon the concepts of patrilineal descent and patrilocal mar-
riage: all other things being equal, it is the male principle and the male location
that is determinative for the status of the female one. Where and what he is,
she too is. This whole scenario whereby the men are the initiators or bear-
ers of the holy status but the women are the vehicle whereby it is maintained
is a common gendered pattern that appears in many different spheres of life.28
Although the pattern is not exclusive, it is very often the case that men have
the creative and founding roles, whereas women are the auxiliaries, helping
the men and continuing what the men have begun. In our modern world,
although things are changing, men are doctors, but women are nurses; men
initiate the cures whereas women care for the patients in order to make sure
that the cure is effective. Men are the lawyers and academics, whereas women
are their secretaries and administrators. And here, in the realm of priestly
identity, men are separated to God, that is, holy; women are separated to spe-
cific men, that is, chaste. Via the men who are separated to God, that is, the
to a priest would have a higher status than a priestly woman married to a non-priest.
See Shectman, Social Status, 934. Shectman also distinguishes between what she terms
the birth-ascribed or non-birth-ascribed priestly status of women according to whether
they are related to priestly men by birth or by marriage (Social Status, 85).
27 Interestingly, a priests daughter who is divorced and childless can return to her fathers
house and eat the portions again (Lev 22:13), and under those circumstances her divorced
status does not appear to be a threat to his holiness (or her own priestly status).
28 For this observation, see R. Havrelock, Outside the Lines: The Place of Women in Priestly
Nationalism, in: D.W. Rooke (ed.), Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical
Israel (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 25), Sheffield 2009, 89101 (89).
218 Rooke
priests, Israel maintains its identity as the people of God; via the women who
are separated to the priests, that is, their wives, the priests maintain and trans-
mit their identity as those separated to God. But women in themselves have no
power to transmit any priestly status beyond the confines of the sons of Aaron.
3.3 Priestly Women and Sexual Freedom

However, although women have no power in themselves to transmit priestly
status beyond the confines of the priestly enclave, their sexual choices can
have a very negative effect within that enclave: the priests daughter who turns
to prostitution is said to profane her father, and must be burned with fire
(Lev 21:9). Just as fire claims the offerings made by the priests, it is now to claim
the daughter, in the hope of undoing or at least circumscribing the profana-
tion. A priests daughter who is a prostitute not only models an unacceptable
kind of sexuality that lacks the appropriate sort of exclusive commitment to
a single male, she threatens the purity and stability of the priestly enclave
by potentially bringing non-priestly offspring in to the priestly circles. One is
reminded of the stipulations about the non-virgin bride in Deut 22, where such
a woman is to be stoned to death at the door of her fathers house because he
is the one on whom she has brought shame by her conduct. As a lawcode with
a levelling propensity, according to which the whole community is equally
holy, Deuteronomy makes no distinction between the priest and the ordinary
Israelite whose daughter is found to have misbehaved, but frames the stipula-
tion in terms of the ordinary citizen. Leviticus, by comparison, makes no such
stipulation for the daughters of ordinary Israelites but concentrates on the
priests;29 this reflects its ritualistic and stratified world-view as expressed in
hierarchies of holiness, which mean that it is more concerned about incest and
about priestly marriage than about family laws such as those in Deuteronomy.
But what seems to be the same in both sources is the sense that unbridled female
sexuality has to be dealt with in the severest of ways because of the effect that
it has on the holy entity, whether that entity is the people as a whole or simply
the priesthood. In the case of Deuteronomy, I argued several years ago that the
death penalty for the non-virgin bride, like the death penalty in Deuteronomy
for other offences such as apostasy, adultery and disrespect of parents, reflects
the desire to stamp out rebellion against the patriarchal authority structures
29 That is not to say that P (or rather, H) approves of prostitution: Israelites are forbidden
to prostitute their daughters, lest the land fall into depravity (19:29). However, no direct
punishment is stipulated there for the man who prostitutes his daughter, whereas it is
assumed that in the case of the priesthood it is the daughter who is taking the initiative
and must therefore be forcibly discouraged.
on which the society is based.30 A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding
night is taken to have deliberately rejected her fathers authority in making her
own sexual choices, and should such rejection go unchecked it risks spreading
and undermining the carefully arranged system of exchange of women that
guarantees mens realization of their sexual and genealogical aspirations (note
the accusation that she has wrought folly in Israel, Deut 22:21). But of course
this takes no cognizance of the circumstances under which the woman may
have lost her virginity; it is assumed to be her fault, as is clear from the fact that
she is to be stoned for having played the harlot (RSV; Heb ) in her fathers
house, but that may equally well not be the case. For the priestly prostitute
daughter too, the implication of the word that is used to describe her
actions is that her sexual choices are indeed choices, and that she has delib-
erately and wilfully given herself over to promiscuity instead of respecting the
authority of her father.31 Here too, however, we may be dealing with an implicit
rape text. But the effect on her father is greater than in the Deuteronomy text:
instead of being implicitly shamed by his daughters folly which is set in the
context of the whole of Israel, as in Deuteronomy, the Priestly father is person-
ally and specifically profaned by his wayward daughter. To profane is to break
down the boundaries of separation that keep the priests holy and in a different
sphere from non-holy classes of people; profaning is less about making people
unclean than it is about undermining the hierarchy of holiness on which the
Priestly social order is based. And this is serious for the priest, because loss of
holiness means loss of privilege. His actual status among his peers is affected
rather than simply his pride; if he is profaned, his entitlement to serve at the
altar and to partake of the sacred portions is removed, and in effect he loses
his job.32 So it might be argued that the severe consequences of the daughters
action for both father and daughter is a warning to fathers to enforce their
authority on their daughters, in order to maintain the patriarchal status quo
of priestly privilege.
30 For details of this argument, see Rooke, Wayward Women and Broken Promises:
Marriage, Mercy and Forgiveness in Old and New Testaments, in: L.J. Kreitzer, D.W. Rooke
(eds), Ciphers in the Sand: Reflections on the Woman Taken in Adultery ( John 7.968.11) (The
Biblical Seminar, 74), Sheffield 2000, 1752 (1829).
31 Milgrom, Leviticus 1722, suggests that the term harlotry may denote premarital sex
rather than specifically prostitution (1810). Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, elides the con-
cepts of prostitution and cultic prostitution to imply that the daughters sin is the latter
rather than the former (291), although there is no evidence to this effect in the text.
32 Milgrom, Leviticus 1722, argues that the use of the verb here to refer to the priestly
father is metaphorical, denoting stigma and loss of reputation rather than actual defrock-
ing (1810), although the literal reading adopted above makes sense in the present context.
220 Rooke
3.4 Women Who Die

The priests daughter who prostitutes herself, then, whatever that means in
real terms, dies for her (or her violators) sins, in order to rectify a breach in the
status quo. But she is not the only woman whose death is linked to a change
in status for the priest. According to Lev 21, the two most important aspects
of a priests existence that need to be regulated in order to maintain holiness
are mourning and marriage, or, to put it in a more symbolic manner, lifes end
and its beginning; and regulations about these two aspects of life are juxta-
posed. First the priests are told whom they must not mourn (Lev 21:14), with
some instructions about forbidden mourning practices (Lev 21:56); then they
are told whom they must not marry (Lev 21:78), with an appendix about the
daughter who refuses to undertake proper marriage (Lev 21:9). And just as in
the case of the marriage regulations certain women are shown to be dangerous
for the priests holy status, so too in the mourning regulations certain women
are by implication dangerous to that status. What is interesting is that the dan-
gerous women who are not to be mourned (at least, not mourned openly by
means of mourning rites) are those who are conceived of in sexual terms in
relation to the mourner. Priests are forbidden to carry out mourning and burial
riteswhich are ritually defilingfor anyone apart from blood relatives in
their immediate family, which means that they are only permitted to defile
themselves by mourning mother, father, son, daughter, brother and unmarried
sister. The two notable omissions from this list of permitted mournees are the
married sister and the wife,33 for both of whom their sexuality can be seen to
be their defining feature. The priests mother and daughters are also women,
of course, but the relationship of mother to son and father to daughter is in an
ideal world a non-sexual one, and motherhood, like daughterhood, is concep-
tualized in terms of nurture or custody rather than of sexuality: the mother
nurtures her son the priest, and the priest nurtures (and guards) his daughter.34
33 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, opines that the wife is omitted from the list of those
whom the priest may mourn because it was self-evident that he would mourn her, and
that the rather cryptic v. 4 about the priest not polluting himself in marriage either antici-
pates the marriage restrictions in vv. 78 or means that he must not defile himself for any
of his in-laws (290). Hartley, Leviticus, follows the in-law interpretation (347, 348). Levine,
Leviticus, however, is clear that the stipulation forbids the priest to bury any but his
six closest consanguineal relatives, which do not include his wife because she is not a
blood relative (1423).
34 Shectman, Social Status, argues that mourning is restricted to relationships in which the
mourner and the deceased share a relationship of birth-ascribed priestly status: mother
and son, father and daughter, but not husband and wife or brother and married sister.
The bond seems to move vertically between generations but not laterally within a single
The same can be said of sisterhood, as long as a sister is unmarried: the ideal
brother-sister relationship is non-sexual, possibly companionate, possibly
also custodial. However, once a sister is married she becomes a sexual being.
She is no longer a sister, but another mans wife, with the concomitant hint of
impropriety that goes along with that if a man other than her husband is to
show affection for her. As a sister, she is of the same generation as the priest,
unlike his mother and his daughter, and as such, were she not his sister she
would potentially be eligible for him to marry. And of course a wifethe other
non-mourneeis related to her husband primarily by the bond of sexuality.
So both the married sister and the wife are members of the priests immediate
family whose bond to the priest is conceived of in sexualized terms; and this
sexualization precludes their being openly acknowledged in mourning by the
priest. Mourning these women results in profanation (cf. Lev 21:5), the loss of
status and privilege that serves as the ultimate sanction for a man who has
been born into the priestly tribe and has no other means of earning a living,
nor any land inheritance in Israel.
What is intriguing here is that there is no hint of impropriety about the
sexuality of the women that the priest is not to mourn, unlike those whom he is
not to marry, who all have some kind of irregularity in their sexual history. But
it appears that even the acknowledgment of unproblematic female sexuality,
and even at its demise, is problematic for the priest. The sense given by these
regulations is that women are a necessary evil. Priests cannot continue their
genealogical line on their own; but their relationships with women and the
status of women connected with the community must be carefully controlled
and regulated in order to produce the desired outcome: a circumscribed com-
munity of holiness, in which the privileges and status that are concomitant
with that holiness remain undiluted.
generation once the woman has left the household (92). This formulation is correct in
asserting the permanency of vertical generational bonds by comparison with the contin-
gency of horizontal generational bonds between priests and priestly women, but I would
dispute the idea that a priests mother has birth-ascribed priestly status when she is not
of priestly descentthis fudges the definition of birth-ascribed from its meaning else-
where of born into a priestly family in order to make it fit Shectmans proposed schema.
A better formulation is that the only woman with non-birth-ascribed priestly status
whom the priest can mourn is his mother, presumably because (as Shectman suggests)
the direct vertical blood tie is more significant than the womans (secondarily acquired)
priestly status. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of the mourning restrictions
observed by Shectman correspond to the parameters of nurture/custody versus sexuality
suggested above.
222 Rooke
4 Conclusion
The masculine gender-bias in both the making and the maintaining of cult and
priesthood in Leviticus, then, is clear. As is seen from Exodus, the cult itself is
instigated by a male at the behest of the divine male, and those who bring most
of the raw materials and transform them into cultic apparatus are males. The
regulations for the cult personnel in both Exodus and Leviticus designate a
particular group of males as priests and thus as holy, able to operate in a space
that is nearer the divine presence than is permissible for non-holy males and
all women. Priests rites of initiation are carried out by a male, and their entitle-
ment to cultic privilege depends on their male blood-line. In this overwhelm-
ingly androcentric conception, women supply some of the raw materials
for the cultic apparatus, and are required for reproductive purposes to maintain
the priestly line. They are excluded from the arena of the holy, and any holiness
that they appear to have as a result of either their birth from or marriage to a
priest disappears when their connection or proximity to the priest ends or is
superseded. Indeed, far from being holy, women can threaten priestly holiness,
specifically by their sexuality. At the same time, the cult as it is presented could
not continue or exist without them. Under these circumstances, the nature
of cultic holiness in this material is clear: it is constructed, performative, and
provisional, like the notions of gender that underlie it.
Interpreting Torah: Strategies of Producing,
Circulating, and Validating Authoritative Scriptures
in Early Judaism
Jacques van Ruiten
Showing what you know, who you know, and innovating upon prior knowl-
edge are key strategies to sustain yourself in society today.1 However, also in an-
tiquity showing what you know was an important strategy to become accepted.
The focus of this paper is on knowledge and sustainability in antiquity: What
was known? How was it known? And were the strategies for sustainability also
important in antiquity?
In answering these questions, I confine myself to a very small segment of
antiquity: the early Jewish literature, and more specifically the book of Jubilees,
a book that was written somewhere in the second century BCE.
In fact, we do know that producing texts was an important strategy for
the sustainability within the ancient societies. In ancient Greece, for exam-
ple, Homer and his epics quickly gained an outstanding authority, and were
widely copied.2 Also in ancient Egypt, at a certain time, there existed a list
of a limited amount of sapiential authors (Djedefhor; Imhotep; Neferti; Kheti;
Ptah-emdjehuti; Khaheperre-sonb; Ptahhotep; Kaires), which were apparently
worth of being copied, and which were in fact widely copied.3 One can find the
same phenomenon in cultures of Mesopotamia.4
Furthermore, in classical philology, earlier texts were imitated as a form
of self-enrichment through the ideas and formulations of ones predecessors.
Classical rhetoricians felt it important to imitate authoritative texts to the best
1 See the call for papers for the CRASIS Annual Meeting and Masterclass, University of
Groningen, 1314 February 2014 (Cultural Knowledge in the Ancient World). A first draft of this
paper was read at this meeting (cf. http://www.rug.nl/crasis).
2 Cf. A. Lange, From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures
in Light of the Qumran Library, in: C. Helmer, C. Landmesser (eds), One Scripture of Many?
Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford 2004, 51108 (esp. 54).
3 Cf. F.S.N. Shupak, Canon and Canonisation in Ancient Egypt, BiOr 58 (2001), 535547;
Lange, From Literature to Scripture, 5152.
4 Cf. A. Hurowitz, Canon and Canonization in Mesopotamia, in: R. Margolin (ed.), Proceedings
of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, July 29August 5, 1997: Division A:
The Bible and Its World, Jerusalem 1999, 1*12*; Lange, From Literature to Scripture, 5254.

224 van Ruiten
of their ability, often with little personal contribution. The traditional texts,
ultimately, provided the incentive for ones own thinking.5
Thus when focussing on sustainability through texts in antiquity, we espe-
cially look at the production and use of accepted texts.
What about the society of early Judaism? There is enough evidence to suggest
that in the last centuries before the Common Era, several books were consid-
ered by Jewish groups as divinely inspired, that is, as the word of God, and
prescriptive for religious life. And therefore they were worth to be copied. They
circulated and were intensively used. It is generally assumed that many of the
books that were later incorporated into the canon of the Hebrew Bible were
regarded as authoritative at an early stage.6 These were, notably, the five books
of Moses.
When we look at Genesis in particular, the authority of it is made clear by
the fact that nineteen, possibly twenty, copies of the book were found in the
caves of Qumran.7 In addition, the book of Genesis had become the point of
departure for many new works. One can cite here the book of Jubilees, but also
Pseudo-Philo and Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities. It also happened
that important characters in the book of Genesis then became eponyms of
entire works: Life of Adam and Eve; Testament of Adam; Apocalypse of Adam;
5 Much has been written on this subject. See, for example, J.W.H. Atkins, Literary Criticism in
Antiquity: A Sketch of Its Development (2 vols.), Cambridge 1934; A. Reiff, Interpretatio, Imitatio,
Aemulatio: Begriff und Vorstellung literarischer Abhngigkeit bei den Rmern, Wrzburg 1959;
H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Ein Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft,
Stuttgart 31990; F. Claus, Imitatio in de Latijnse letterkunde, Kapellen 1977. For the mechan-
ics of ancient Greek education, see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in
Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton 2001.
6 See E. Ulrich, The Notion and Definition of Canon in: L.M. Macdonald, J.A. Sanders (eds), The
Canon Debate, Peabody 2002, 2135. See also E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins
of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, 2), Grand Rapids 1999.
For other studies of the canonical process, see B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament:
its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford 1987; J. Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text:
The Canon in Early Christianity, Louisville 1997; J.C. VanderKam, Revealed Literature in the
Second Temple Period, in: Idem, From Revelation to Canon in the Hebrew Bible and Second
Temple Literature (JSJSup, 62); Leiden 2000, 130; L.M. Macdonald, J.A. Sanders (eds), The
Canon Debate, Peabody 2002; C. Helmer, C. Landmesser (eds), One Scripture of Many? Canon
from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford 2004; K. van der Toorn,
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge 2007.
7 See J.C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, Grand Rapids 2012, 3. For a handsome
edition of these texts, see E. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcription and Textual
Variants (VTSup, 134), Leiden 2010, 126.
Interpreting Torah 225
1 and 2 Enoch; Testament of Abraham; Apocalypse of Abraham; Joseph and

Aseneth; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; Prayer of Jacob; History of Joseph.
Sometimes certain passages of the book became the basis for other works,
for example, the story of Paradise (in the first book of the Sibylline Oracles;
2 Enoch; Life of Adam and Eve). Reflections about the primeval age before
the great flood, connected with the figure of Enoch who walks with God
(Gen 5:2124) and with the heavenly beings who began to have relation-
ships with women (Gen 6:14), are the starting point for the extensive Enoch
literature.
There is evidence that these books were also regarded as authoritative by
certain groups, although they were not incorporated into the Hebrew Bible.
This is, for example, the case for two works that themselves embrace texts and
themes from the book of Genesis, namely 1 Enoch and Jubilees.8 The authorita-
tiveness of the book of Jubilees, for example, is made clear in the fact that there
are fourteen, possibly fifteen, fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls,9 which
is not that much fewer in number than is found for books such as Genesis
(19 to 20) and Exodus (17).10 Moreover, the book of Jubilees exerted great influ-
ence on the foundational writings of Qumran, among which is the Damascus
Document.11 Eleven manuscripts were found, written in Aramaic, of the book
8 The presence of many manuscripts of these works among the Dead Sea Scrolls is in itself
an indication, as well as the fact that both works are quoted. It is interesting to see that
both works were of some importance for the early Christian Church. See, for example,
W. Adler, The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church, in: L.M. McDonald, J.A. Sanders (eds),
The Canon Debate, Peabody 2002, 21128.
9 VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, 7377.
10 VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, 3.
11 See C. Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls, 1), Sheffield
2000, 8586; A. Dorman, The Blemished Body: Deformity and Disability in the Qumran
Scrolls (Ph.D. Groningen), 2007, 89136; VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, 77.
In the later literature of rabbinic Judaism, there is hardly any evidence for the use of
Jubilees. In medieval Hebrew literature, however, there are various echoes of the book.
M. Himmelfarb, Some Echoes of Jubilees in Medieval Hebrew Literature, in: J.C. Reeves
(ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBL Early
Judaism and Its Literature, 6), Atlanta 1994, 11541. Although the Christian Church does
not seem to know Jubilees before the 4th century, this changes after that time. Later
Christian commentators quote regularly from the book. See Adler, Pseudepigrapha in the
Early Church, 228. For quotations from the book of Jubilees in Greek catena on Genesis,
I refer to: F. Petit (ed.), La Chane sur la Gense (Traditio Exegetica Graeca), Leuven
19911996 (#551; #553; #585; #590; #833; #857; #861; #867; #2270).
226 van Ruiten
of 1 Enoch,12 whereas many other Jewish works are familiar with large parts of
1 Enoch and consider it authoritative.13 Later in rabbinic Judaism, 1 Enoch no
longer plays a role, but among Christians the work was extraordinarily popular
in the first centuries of the Common Era. Possibly, this is connected with the
fact that Enoch is quoted by name in the New Testament (Jude).14
Thus, one needs to be aware of the fact that in early Judaism, there was no
single list of books that was regarded as authoritative by all Jewish people.15
The Bible as the canon of sacred scriptures did not yet exist at the time of
the composition of Jubilees or the Genesis Apocryphon, for example.16 But
as a first conclusion, one can say that the literature of the early Jewish and
Christian traditions offers an image of an ongoing repetition and imitation of
older texts.17 What we see is: production, validation, and circulation, all at the
same time.
12 VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, 9193. See also G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1:
A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis
2001, 911.
13 See, e.g., Ben Sirach, Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, Aramaic Document of Levi, Wisdom
of Solomon. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 7182.
14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying
(Jude 1:14). In the same epistle there is another clear reference to Enoch: And the angels
that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him
in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6). In
the last decade the study of the book of 1 Enoch has been stimulated enormously by the
foundation of the international Enoch Seminar by Gabriele Boccaccini. For more informa-
tion, I refer to: http://www.enochseminar.org/drupal/.
15 J.C. VanderKam, Revealed Literature in Second Temple Period, in: Idem, From Revelation
to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup, 62), Leiden
2000, 130.
16 G.J. Brooke, The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for the Understanding the
Text of the Bible, in: E.D. Herbert, E. Tov (eds), The Bible as a Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries, London 2002, 3140 (esp. 31); D.K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts:
Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (Library of the Second
Temple Studies, 63 = Companion to the Qumran Scrolls, 8), London 2007, 13; M. Segal,
Between Bible and Rewritten Bible, in: M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran
(Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), Grand Rapids 2005, 1028;
M.J. Bernstein, Rewritten Bible: A Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness? Textus
22 (2005), 16996; Brooke, Rewritten Law, 3140.
17 For a collection of many early Jewish and early Christian texts and traditions connected
with the pericopes of the Pentateuch, see J.L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was, Cambridge 1997.
Thus, as stated earlier, copying, repeating, and discovering how others thought,
were of high esteem. It shows the relevance of the strategy of showing what
you know in order to sustain oneself in society. There seems to be very little
room left for innovation and originality.
In reading this kind of literature we realize that texts are not created in a
vacuum. They arise from other texts, taken up in a new context. The absorbtion
of earlier texts is the appropriation of ancient tradition, but is also a way to give
authority to a new text and innovate upon prior knowledge. So, when looking
at strategies of copying and rewriting, one often discovers innovation veiled in
a traditional form.
How can we study this phenomenon? In modern literature, many kinds of indi-
cators assist in the recognition of an earlier element, such as the use of quota-
tion marks, italics, unusual or different language, and the citing of sources or
authors. This is not the case, however, in the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish
literature.18 The link with an older text is only made explicit at times, such
as in cases where quotations mention a source. For example, some post-exilic
texts explain a certain religious practice as being conducted as is written in
the law of Moses (see inter alia, Ezra 3:2; 2 Chr 23:18; and cf. 1 Kgs 2:3). Most
references to earlier works in the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish literature are
merely implicit, however. In such cases, it is only on the basis of the authors
choice of words, or sometimes on the basis of subject matter or structure of a
text, that it is possible to determine whether a certain older text is present in
a later one or not.
1 Rewritten Scripture
Sometimes, and this is an interesting phenomenon in early Jewish literature,

a new work takes over an older work entirely. In such instances, the new text
18 See, for example, R. Bloch, Midrash, Columns 12631281 in: L. Pirot, A. Robert (eds),
DBSup, vol. 5 (1957) (translated and reworked as Midrash, in: W. Scott Green [ed.],
Approaches to Ancient Judaism I, Missoula, 1978], 2950); M.A. Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford, 1985; B.D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture:
Allusion in Isaiah 4066 (Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences), Stanford 1998;
J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting
of the Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in
Nederland en Belgi Held at Oxford (OTS, 40), Leiden, 1998.
228 van Ruiten
incorporates large parts of an older work. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of
Chronicles is the best example of this phenomenon as it often more or less
literally repeats large parts of the books of Samuel and Kings.19 These authors
were not writing an interpretative commentary on the earlier texts, but were
rewriting these older authoritative texts in order to adapt them to a different
context. The result of this textual strategy was a new composition. One can find
the same phenomenon in early Jewish literature, in works such as Jubilees, the
Genesis Apocryphon, and the Temple Scroll, as well as the Biblical Antiquities
of Pseudo-Philo. Works that include older compositions are often classified
as belonging to a literary genre, namely the rewritten Bible,20 which is a new
composition, but closely related to the biblical texts, although it includes a
considerable number of additions and interpretative developments.21
19 Cf. Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 26, who calls this form of implicit referencing
inclusion or enclosure.
20 For some recent studies on the rewritten Bible, see A. Klostergaard Petersen, Rewritten
Bible As a Borderline PhenomenonGenre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?,
in: A. Hilhorst et al. (eds), Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish
Studies in Honour of Florentino Garca Martnez (JSJSup, 122), Leiden 2007, 285306;
E. Koskenniemi, P. Lindqvist, Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories: Methodological Aspects,
in: A. Laato, J. van Ruiten (eds), Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference
in Karkku, Finland August 2426, 2006 (Studies in Rewritten Bible, 1), Winona Lake 2008,
1139. See also Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 917; S. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in
Second Temple Times (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), Grand
Rapids 2008. This term was coined by Vermes who defined it as a midrashic insertion of
haggadic development into the biblical narrative designed to anticipate questions and
solve problems in advance. See G. Vermes, The Life of Abraham, in: Idem, Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB, 4), Leiden 21973, 67126 (esp. 95). Cf. also
C. Perrot and P.-M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquits Bibliques (2 vols.; SC, 230), Paris
1976, 2:228.
21 E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.135 A.D.)
(4 vols.; rev. ed.), Edinburgh 1986, 3.1:326; G.W. Nickelsburg, The Bible Rewritten
and Expanded, in: M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period:
Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT, 2.2),
Assen 1984, 89156 (esp. 89); P.S. Alexander, Retelling the Old Testament, in: D.A. Carson,
H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of
Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 99121 (esp. 116117). Other scholars do not use the
term rewritten Bible to refer to a distinctive genre. In their view, it describes a literary
strategy that is expressed in various genres within a broad range of interpretative writ-
ings. See, for example, D.J. Harrington, Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and
Prophecies: 1 The Bible Rewritten (Narratives), in: R.A. Kraft, G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds),
Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, 2),
The characterization of these works as rewritten Bible or parabiblical texts

is somewhat problematic, because there was no Bible at that time. It is there-
fore an anachronistic term. The term rewritten scriptures might be a good
alternative,22 even though also the term scripture(s) or Scripture(s) refers to a
collection of writings that is regarded as sacred.
2 The Book of Jubilees
I now focus specifically on the book of Jubilees, which is an example of rewrit-

ten scriptures par excellence. This book was written somewhere in the second
century BCE. Fourteen Hebrew fragments of the book of Jubilees were found
in Qumran. The oldest fragment (4Q216) may be dated to 125100 BCE. Some
scholars opt for a pre-Hasmonean date, since the book does not mention the
persecution and decrees of Antiochus IV,23 whereas others argue for a date
late in the second century because of the similarities with the Qumran texts.24
Philadelphia 1986, 23947, 253355; B. Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and
Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature, Valley Forge 1994.
22 See J.C. VanderKam, The Wording of Scriptural Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural
Works, in: E.D. Herbert, E. Tov (eds), The Bible as a Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean
Desert Discoveries, London 2002, 4156; Klostergaard Petersen, Rewritten Bible As a
Borderline Phenomenon, 28589; M. Zahn, Rewritten Scripture, in: T.H. Lim, J.J. Collins
(eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 2010, 32336.
23 See, e.g., G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah:
A Historical and Literary Introduction, Minneapolis, Minn., 22005, 7374; M.A. Knibb,
Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community: An Inaugural Lecture in the Department
of Bible Studies Delivered on Tuesday 17 January 1989, London, 1989.
24 See, e.g., C. Werman, The Book of Jubilees and the Qumran Community: The Relationship
between the Two, Megillot 2 (2004), 3755 [Hebrew]; M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests:
Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Jewish Culture and Contexts), Philadelphia 2006,
8083. Recently, James Kugel put forward his view of the coming into being of the book
of Jubilees. In his eyes, most of the book of Jubilees is the work of a single author (the
original author), not only its narrative sections but also many legal passages. He wrote in
the early second century BCE. However, someone else, whom he calls an Interpolator,
later inserted a series of twenty-nine passages of his own, which are mostly small. They
deal with biblical law and are related to the heavenly tablets. Many of them contradict
what the rest of the book says, and reflect a different ideology. The insertions sometimes
complemented what the original author of Jubilees was saying, but sometimes they are
reactions to what has just been said in the book of Jubilees. The interpolations were
inserted into what was already a finished text. According to Kugel, the interpolator was
230 van Ruiten
In any case, one can say that Jubilees antedates the founding of the Qumran
community and exercised strong influence on it.25
3 What Does He Know?
How does the author of Jubilees show what he knows?26 In the first chapter
of the book, Moses is situated at Mount Sinai where it is described how he
receives his revelation. The rest of the book (Jub. 250) contains the content
of this revelation to Moses, which is intermediated by the angel of the pres-
ence. This angel recounts to Moses the most important events of the primae-
val history (Jub. 210), the history of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
(Jub. 1145), and the stay of the people in Egypt, the exodus and the first part of
the wandering through the desert, and the arrival at Mount Sinai (Jub. 4650).
It is apparent that the book presupposes the material that can be found in
the scriptural text (Gen 1 to Exod 19; 24).27 The material is mostly presented
in the same sequential order, and nearly all pericopes can be discerned in the
new composition, although many parallel passages in Jubilees are not verbatim
quotations from Genesis. The use and interpretation of the scriptural material
show that the author of Jubilees acknowledges the existence and authority
of the Torah. In this regard, one can also refer to those passages in which he
in polemical opposition to other groups with regard to the calendar, the Sabbath rules,
circumcision on the correct day, and the second tithe. He, therefore, lived at the very
beginning of the Qumran communitys founding. See J.L. Kugel, On the Interpolations in
the Book of Jubilees, RevQ 24 (2009), 21572. This article has been republished with some
important modifications in Idem, A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees
and the World of Its Creation (JSJSup 156), Leiden 2012, 22796. Chapter 2 (The Sources of
the Book of Jubilees) of this book explores the matter of multiple authorship in Jubilees,
highlighting two sharply conflicting views of the origins of the Torahs laws. See also J.L.
Kugel, The Figure of Moses in Jubilees, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012), 7792.
25 See J.C. VanderKam, Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees, CurBS 6 (2008), 40531.
26 Note the view of James Kugel, according to whom there is not one author. He distin-
guishes between an original author and a later interpolator. See note 24.
27 J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 111 in the
Book of Jubilees (JSJSup, 66), Leiden 2000; Idem, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The
Rewriting of Genesis 11:2625:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:1423:8 (JSJSup, 161), Leiden 2012.
For a comparison of the Jacob story in Genesis and Jubilees, see J.C. Endres, Biblical
Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS, 18), Washington 1987.
refers to the (first) law as distinguished from the revelation to Moses in Jubilees
(see Jub. 6:22; 30:12).28
The book offers more material than Genesis and Exodus. Other sources
and traditions are also incorporated into the book. Firstly, one can point to
the addition of material originating from the Enochic traditions (Jub. 4:1526;
5:112; 7:2039; 10:117).29 Some scholars opt for a common source for 1 Enoch,
Jubilees, and some of the Qumran texts (the so-called Book of Noah).30 Others
even consider Jubilees to be an Enochic document in which the so-called
Zadokite Torah (that is, Genesis and Exodus) was incorporated into and
digested by the Enochic revelation.31 However, most scholars do not go that
far but instead speak about the incorporation of other traditions within the
rendering and explanation of the biblical text or about a fusing together and
reconciliation of different Jewish streams in the second century BCE. Secondly,
one can also point to the influence of other works. It is likely that the author of
Jubilees also knew and used the traditions upon which the Aramaic Document
28 VanderKam, Moses Trumping Moses, 3537; J.J. Collins, The Genre of the Book of
Jubilees, in: E.F. Mason et al. (eds), A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James
C. VanderKam (JSJSup, 153), Leiden 2012, 73755 (esp. 746).
29 See especially J.C. VanderKam, Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Second-Century
Sources, SBLSP 1 (1978), 22951 (reprint in: Idem, From Revelation to Canon, 305331). This
work is elaborated in his Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS, 16),
Washington 1984, 17988 and formed the basis of a chapter in J.C. VanderKam, Enoch:
A Man for All Generations (Studies on the Personalities of the Old Testament), Columbia
1995, 110121. See also some of his predecessors: R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the
Little Genesis: Translated from the Editors Ethiopic Text, London 1902, xliv, 369, 4344;
P. Grelot, La lgende dHnoch dans les apocryphes et dans la Bible: Origine et significa-
tion, RSR 46 (1958), 526, 181210; P. Grelot, Hnoch et ses critures, RB 92 (1975), 481500;
J.T. Milik, The Book of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford, 1976. The view
of VanderKam is adopted by, for example, G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on
the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2001, 7176.
30 See, for example, F. Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic
Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9), Leiden 1992, 144; M.E. Stone, The Book(s) Attributed to
Noah, DSD 13 (2006), 423.
31 See G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between
Qumran and Enochic Judaism, Grand Rapids 1998, 8698. See also P. Sacchi, Libro dei
Giubilei, in: Idem (ed.), Apocrifi dellAntico Testamento (5 vols.; Classici delle religioni.
Second Series: La religione ebraica), Turin, 19812000, 1:179411.
232 van Ruiten
of Levi is based (see, for example, Jub. 3132).32 One can also point to the influ-
ence of 4QVisions of Amram (see Jub. 46).33
4 Who Does He Know?
It is somewhat more difficult to understand who the author of Jubilees knows.

From whom does he get his knowledge? As readers we can, of course, identify
32 Grelot and others see a dependency of Jubilees on the Testament of Levi. See P. Grelot,
Le coutumier sacerdotal ancien dans le Testament aramen de Lvi, RevQ 15 (1991),
25363 (esp. 255); P. Grelot, Le Livre des Jubils et le Testament de Lvi, in: P. Casetti et
al. (eds), Mlanges Dominique Barthlemy: tudes bibliques offertes loccasion de son
60e anniversaire (OBO, 38), Gttingen 1981, 10931. See also, for example, M.E. Stone,
Ideal Figures and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age, in:
P.D. Miller et al. (eds), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of Frank Moore Cross,
Philadelphia 1987, 57586. See also P. Grelot, Quatre Cents Trente ans (Ex 12:40): Notes
sur les Testaments de Lvi et dAmram, in: L. lvarez Verdes, E. Alonso Hernndez (eds),
Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscellania de Estudios Biblicos y Hebraicos, Madrid 1975,
55970; . Puech, Qumrn grotte 4.XXII: Textes aramens, 1: 4Q529549 (DJD, 31),
Oxford 2001, 28586; H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New
Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJSup, 86), Leiden 2004, 6375; J.C. Greenfield et al.,
The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP, 19), Leiden 2004,
1922; M. de Jonge, The Testament of Levi and Aramaic Levi, RevQ 13 (1988), 36785
(esp. 3736) (reprint in: Idem, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays of Marius de Jonge [NovTSup, 63];
Leiden 1991, 24462). According to Kugler, a so-called Levi-apocryphon was the source
for both the Aramaic Levi Document and Jubilees; cf. R.A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest:
The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL, 9), Atlanta
1996, 138. According to Becker both the Aramaic Levi Document and Jubilees go back to
common oral traditions; cf. J. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der zwlf
Patriarchen (AGJU, 8), Leiden 1970, 86.
33 Cf. J.T. Milik, 4Q Visions de Amram et une citation dOrigne, RB 79 (1972), 97; Puech,
Qumrn grotte 4.22, 2856, 3224; B. Halpern-Amaru, Burying the Fathers: Exegetical
Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46, in: E.G. Chazon et al. (eds), Reworking
the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium
by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the
Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 1517 January
2002 (STDJ, 58), Leiden 2005, 14652; J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, Between Jacobs Death
and Moses Birth: The Intertextual Relationship between Genesis 50:15Exodus 1:14 and
Jubilees 46:16, in: A. Hilhorst et al. (eds), Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garca Martnez (JSJSup, 122), Leiden 2007,
46789.
the knowledge of the author of Jubilees, upon which he adopts, transforms and
innovates this knowledge for his own (group within his contemporary) society.
But it is interesting to see that in two places in the book, the (internal) author
explicitly mentions himself who he knows, and from who he got his knowl-
edge, and also for whom he wrote. In Jub. 6:22, we read somewhat surprisingly:
For I have written (this) in the book of the first law in which I wrote for you.
And in Jub. 30:12 it is stated: For this reason I have written for you in the words
of the law everything... It is the angel of the presence who speaks to Moses.
The angel is the real author, both of Genesis (the first law), and the book of
Jubilees, and Moses is his amanuensis. In the beginning of the book, we read:
Then he said to an angel of the presence: Dictate to Moses (starting) from the
beginning of the creation until the time when my temple is built among them
throughout the ages of eternity (Jub. 1:27), and: On the Lords orders the angel
of the presence said to Moses: Write all the words about the creation etc.
(Jub. 2:1).
5 Innovations Upon Prior Knowledge
In his work, the author of Jubilees shows what he knows of ancient sources,
but at the same it is clear that he not only uses this information to show that he
knows it, but at the same he changes and innovates by rewriting the material,
by adding other material, and by putting his knowledge into a new framework.
He is not just quoting literally what he knows from his sources, he changes
his material. One of these alterations is that he is harmonizing difficult pas-
sages of his source text. This strategy is not unique for the book of Jubilees,
but it can also be found abundantly in other early readings of Genesis. On
several places in the book of Jubilees, difficult passages from the book of Genesis
are explained, whereas contradicting statements are harmonized, and prob-
lems solved.
I restrict myself here to one simple example. In the text of Genesis, there
are several contradictory statements with regard to Adams death.34 Firstly, it
is said that on the day that Adam eats of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil he will die (Gen 2:17). Secondly, after he ate from the tree (Gen 3:6)
God said to Adam that the ground was cursed and that in sadness he would
eat of the ground all the days of his life until he would return to the dust
(Gen 3:1719). Finally, in Gen 5:5 it is said that Adam died at the age of 930 years,
without mentioning any curse. The author of Genesis does not deal with the
34 The example is taken from Van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted, 16871.
234 van Ruiten
problem that Adam did not die on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge.
The author of Jubilees does so indeed, by taking all three statements together
in a statement about the death of Adam (cf. Jub. 4:2930):
29a At the end of the nineteenth jubilee, during the seventh weekin
its sixth yearAdam died.
b All his children buried him in the land where he had been created.
c He was the first to be buried in the earth.
30a He lacked 70 years from 1000 years because 1000 years are one day
in the testimony of heaven.
b For this reason it was written regarding the tree of knowledge:
c On the day that you eat from it
d you will die.
e Therefore he did not complete the years of this day
f because he died during it.
The reconciliation of the contradiction between Gen 5:5, which says that Adam
lived 930 years, and Gen 2:17 where God says to Adam that on the day that he
eats from the tree he would surely die, does take place by way of an allusion
to Ps 90:4 (Because a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday). The
psalmist suggests that for God thousand years and one day can be the same. By
referring to this text, the author of Jubilees is able to say that the word day in
Gen 2:17 in fact means thousand years. Because Adam died before these thou-
sand years has passed, the divine warning was correct. He died on the day that
he ate the fruit.
Apparently, there is a need to improve the reservoir of cultural knowledge
by solving contradictions. This kind of innovations can be found everywhere
in early Jewish literature.
An important number of extensive additions into the text of Genesis deals with
laws, and their correct application, the so-called halakic additions. Mostly they
are connected with a certain biblical narrative. According to the biblical texts,
the divine laws were revealed only in postpatriachal times. According to the
author of Jubilees, also the patriarchs kept these laws. Noah, for example, kept
the festival of Weeks.35 The emphasis on the keeping of the commandments,
the insertions of several laws (keeping the Sabbath, prohibition of consuming
blood; first fruits) by the patriarchs might reflect a certain opinion in the days
of the author that there had once been a time when the laws (that separated
the Jewish people from others) were not yet in existence. His point is that there
35 Cf. Van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted, 24750.

was never such a time. The patriarchs Adam and Noah have already kept them
or inaugurated them. Mosaic law is simply a renewing of the law of the patri-
archs. The chosen people has always been distinguished from other nations by
special laws that they observed from the earliest days. There is a sharp dividing
line between the elect ones and the impure nations. Both groups had to be
kept separate.36
The most striking innovation that is introduced by the author of Jubilees with
regard to Genesis and Exodus is the dating of the events. The author attaches
great significance to a chronological order within which he frames his rewrit-
ing. He puts the biblical narratives in a continuous chronological system, from
the creation of the world to the entrance into the promised land, which took
place 2,450 years after the creation. This system is characterized by its heptadic
arrangement: years, weeks of years, and jubilees of years. Overall, the history is
divided into periods of jubilees, with each jubilee consisting of seven weeks of
years, that is, seven times seven years.
The concept of the jubilee is peculiar, and most probably borrowed from
Lev 25, but the author of Jubilees interprets the concept differently.37 In
Leviticus, the jubilee is the fiftieth year, one in which individual Hebrews
could be liberated from slavery and permitted to return to their own property.
For the author of Jubilees, the jubilee is a period of 49 years. The total chro-
nology of 2,450 years is divided into 50 of these periods of 49 years. The fiftieth
jubilee is the climax of the chronology because the Israelites were liberated
from Egyptian slavery, after which they could enter the land of their ances-
tors, which had been their land since the division of the earth following the
flood. What is applied to each individual in Leviticus is, in the book of Jubilees,
applied to the whole people in the fiftieth jubilee.
Connected with the chronological system is the emphasis on the calendar. The
author of Jubilees attributes the beginning of calendric knowledge to Enoch.
In Jub. 4:1718 we read:
36 Cf. E. Schwarz, Identitt durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchrist-

lichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen. Zugleich ein Beitrag
zur Erforschung des Jubilenbuches (Europische Hochschulschriften, Reihe XXIII, 162),
Frankfurt a.M. 1982.
37 For the following, see J.C. VanderKam, Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,
in: Idem (ed.), From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple
Literature, (JSJSup, 62), Leiden 2000, 52244 (originally published as Das chronologische
Konzept des Jubilenbuch, ZAW 107 [1995], 80100).
236 van Ruiten
17a He was the first of mankind who were born on the earth who
learned (the art of) writing, instruction, and wisdom,
b and who wrote down in a book the signs of the sky in accord with
the fixed pattern of their months
c so that mankind would know the seasons of the years according to
the fixed patterns of each of their month.
18a He was the first to write a testimony.
b He testified to mankind in the generations of the earth:
c The weeks of the jubilees he related,
d And made known the days of the years;
e The months he arranged,
f And related the Sabbaths of the years,
g As we had told him.
Details about the calendar are disclosed in connection with the story of the
flood. The author omits much of this story, but he does take up and elaborates
on the chronology.38 Noah ordained the beginning of each quarter as festivals
because they were a reminder for him of the important events of the flood.
On the first of the first month he was told to make the ark, and on it the earth
became dry; on the first of the fourth month the openings of the depths of the
abyss below were closed; on the first of the seventh month, all the openings of
the earths depths were opened, and the water began to go down into them;
on the first of the tenth month, the summits of the mountains became visible.
These four memorial festivals, celebrated on the first day of each three-
month period are closely related to the solar calendar of 52 weeks. This cal-
endar of 364 days is carried back to the events of the flood. In years of this
type, four intercalary days occur (12 months of 30 days + four days) which must
be celebrated as yearly festivals. Within this arrangement each festival has an
exact time when it is to be celebrated. The weekly rhythm is marked with the
Sabbath, which is very important for the author of Jubilees, and which should
be observed very consciously. In the lunar calendar (approximating 365 days),
which was normative in Judaism, festivals did not have a fixed place in the week
and sometimes took place on the Sabbath. However, in the calendar of Jubilees
the festivals always took place on the same day of the week, and thereby there
could be no conflict (for example) between the Sabbath and the festival.
By referring to the flood, the author of Jubilees suggests that the solar
calendar, of which he is an advocate, is based on traditions in the material
he is incorporating. The solar calendar is thus given greater authority. Noah
38 For the following, see Van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted, 2102.
had already inaugurated it, and it therefore was put on the heavenly tablets
(cf. Jub. 6:35). On this ground, it has authority for Israel. The preference for the
solar calendar can be found also in the rewriting of the first account of the cre-
ation, where it is said that it is not the sun and the moon which rule over day
and night (see Gen 1:1618), but only the sun: The Lord appointed the sun as a
great sign above the earth for days, Sabbaths, months, festivals, years, Sabbaths
of years, jubilees, and all times of the years (Jub. 2:9).
It is interesting that not only the solar calendar, but also the prophecy that
not all Israelites will follow this calendar, is recorded in the heavenly tablets.
This points to the conclusion that Jubilees was written in a period when the
solar calendar was neglected. The followers of the lunar calendar would be
punished. Not following the right calendar is the reason for the exile.
6 Conclusions
Although Jubilees acknowledges the Torah (especially the book of Genesis)

as an authoritative body of knowledge, it seems to claim the same, or even a
greater authority for its own revelation than for that of the Torah.39 It presents
itself as a revelation received by Moses on Mount Sinai. The prologue of the
book is a rewriting of the story of the revelation during Moses first forty-day
stay on Mount Sinai in Exod 24:1218.40 Moreover, one can point to several
authority-conferring strategies.41 Jubilees claims (time and again) that it repro-
duces material that had been written on the heavenly tablets. Moreover, it is
the angel of the presence (one of the most important angels, residing close to
God, together with the angel of holiness), who dictates the content of the book
at Gods command. And in addition to this, it was dictated to the same Moses
to whom the Torah was given. So both the book of Jubilees and the Torah were
39 Collins, The Genre of the Book of Jubilees, 746.

40 See J. van Ruiten, The Rewriting of Exodus 24:1218 in Jubilees 1:14, BN 79 (1995),
2529; J.C. VanderKam, The Scriptural Setting of the Book of Jubilees, DSD 13 (2006),
6172; J.C. VanderKam, Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees, in: S. Metso
et al. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (STDJ,
92), Leiden 2010, 2544; Collins, The Genre of the Book of Jubilees, 7457.
41 H. Najman, Interpretation As Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring
Strategies, JSJ 30 (1999), 379410, esp. 408 (reprint in: Eadem, Past Renewals: Interpretative
Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity [JSJSup 53];
Leiden 2010, 3971); H. Najman, Reconsidering Jubilees: Prophecy and Exemplarity, in:
G. Boccaccini, G. Ibba (eds), Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 2009, 22943 (reprint in: Eadem, Past Renewals, 189204).
238 van Ruiten
transmitted by the same prophet.42 Finally, Jubilees claims that its teachings
are the true interpretation of the Torah, incorporated in the revelation. So, its
teachings derive from that of the Torah.43
In this paper, I have tried to show that in antiquity, especially in early Jewish
literature, exemplified with the book of Jubilees, showing what you know was
an important strategy to sustain in Jewish society. An imitation of texts from
the past was esteemed of high value, perhaps even more than individual orig-
inality and innovation. However, when looking at strategies of copying and
rewriting (and we have seen this with regard to the book of Jubilees), one often
discovers important steps of innovation veiled in a traditional form. The show-
ing what you know, that is the absorbtion of earlier texts is a way to sustain in
society. It gives authority to a new text, and at the same time the appropriation
of ancient tradition: production, validation, and circulation.
42 Najman proposes for the book of Jubilees as a whole to contextualize it within the tradi-
tions of biblical prophecy, especially exilic and postexilic prophecy. Jubilees participates
in prophetic discourse by attaching its origin to Mosaic recording and angelic dictation.
See Najman, Reconsidering Jubilees, 232.
43 Cf. also H. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second
Temple (JSJSup, 77), Leiden, 2003, 46, where she brings forward that the author of Jubilees
primarily presents the scriptural text in what he considers to be its essence.
The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:822, on the
Liberation of Slaves during the Siege of Jerusalem,
and its Relation to Deuteronomy 15
Klaas A.D. Smelik1
According to scholars, Jer 34:822 is a compilation of texts written by differ-

ent authors,2 and in the opinion of some, a rather clumsy compilation.3 Even
those who presuppose that the chapter was written by only one author4 are
not impressed with his style.5 In this contribution, I take a different approach
to the Biblical text, suggesting that Jer 34:8226 has an inner cohesion and
that the phenomena which led other scholars to conclude that we are dealing
here with a compilation of texts or a piece of poor writing, are, in fact, literary
devices meant to grab the readers attention. We will also discuss the intrigu-
ing question of why a rule from the Torah is cited in v. 14 that only partially
addresses the actual situation.
The authors deliberate choice not to provide all necessary information to
the reader at once is characteristic of the chapter.7 Instead, he distributes the
data over the whole text, so that the reader gradually understands what has
happened by combining the authors different clues. In this way, the reader
has a role to play in understanding the meaning of the text. It is a literary device
which is very popular in crime stories.
1 I like to thank Carolyn Coman for editing the English text.

2 Cf. e.g. W.H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia Kapitel 2152 (ATD), Gttingen 2013, 179; S. Chavel,
Let My People Go! Emancipation, Revelation, and Scribal Activity in Jeremiah 34.814,
JSOT 22 (1997), 7195. See also the elaborate discussion in: W. McKane, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II, Edinburgh 1996, 878884.
3 Cf. R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL), London 1986, 648: As the story appears in its edited form in
vv. 822 it is an amalgam of various strands and motifs.
4 One points in this respect to Jeremiahs secretary Baruch.
5 Cf. W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT), Tbingen 1968, 222223: Weitschweifigkeit.
6 Note, however, the advice of Georg Fischer: [Es] empfiehlt sich, Jer 34 insgesamt als Einheit
auszulegen. G. Fischer, Jeremia 2652 (HThKAT), Freiburg, Basel & Vienna 2005, 247.
7 Cf. L.G. Allen, Jeremiah (OTL), Louisville KY & London 2008, 386: The reticence is inten-
tionalso as to present these facts climactically at the end of reason and announcement.

240 Smelik
Lets have a closer look at the text.8 The account begins in v. 8 with the stan-
dard introduction to a prophecy but is not followed by the prophecy itself.
Instead, the author recounts in four verses what happened in the period directly
before the prophecy was given. This flashback is so elaborate that the author
deemed it necessary to repeat in v. 12 the standard introduction to a prophecy,
in a slightly different way, before the Lords word is at last rendered.9
The passage in vv. 811 starts with King Zedekiah featured as the main
character and ends in the same way with this monarch and his future fate.
The beginning of the chapter, vv. 17, also focuses on him. In this way, King
Zedekiah functions as a pivot for the whole chapter.
In v. 8, King Zedekiah initiates the account by making a covenant with the
people in Jerusalem, and then does not return in the text until v. 21. Other char-
acters assume his place in the narrative: the members of the ruling classes in
Jerusalem and Judah. In this way, a clear distinction is made between the king
and the elite of Jerusalem. The king does not play a part in the account deal-
ing with the liberation of the slaves in Jerusalem. In the final verdict, he does
not share the fate of the other charactersthere follows a separate prophecy
announcing his future (v. 21).
The covenant made by the king provides for the liberation of the slaves in
the city. The reason why Zedekiah wants to free the slaves at that particular
moment is not given. Moreover, in the wording of the covenant in v. 9 we find
not only the designation ( Judaean), but also the term
(a Hebrew and a Hebrewess; both male and female) without any elucidation.
The word occurs only here, in Jer 34:9 and 14, nowhere else in this book
of the Bible. In the Torah, however, it is a special designation for slaves belong-
ing to the own peoplein contrast to foreign slaves. Because it is not explained
in the text why this specific term has been used, it must serve as a reference to
another text. To which text, however, does this catchword refer?
In v. 10, we find a repetition of what was said in v. 9 butas is always
the case with repetitions in the Hebrew Biblethe wording is not exactly the
same. The designations and are missing. The repetition in
8 We only take the Masoretic text into consideration; see also J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 2136
(AB), New York 2004, 558. An analysis of the LXX version can be found in: Georg A. Walser,
Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on Ieremias in Codex Vaticanus, Leiden/Boston 2012, 429432.
9 Cf. W. Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile & Homecoming, Grand Rapids/
Cambridge 1998, 325 n. 1: The deferral of the word from the Lord as a narrative strategy in
34:8 until v. 12 is paralleled in ch. 32, in which the word announced in v. 1 is withheld until
v. 6. See also T.E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), Macon 2002, 487:
cf. the similar strategy in 32:16.
The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:822 241
v. 10 is, in fact, redundant: the last two words of the verse: they listened and
sent away are sufficient to let the reader to know what happened. Why then
this repetition? The author uses repetition to stress that before the covenant
was made, the people of Israel were divided into two groups, to wit, masters
and slaves. The purpose of the kings covenant is exceptional because it annuls
this important distinction in society. Henceforth, slaves and masters will
become equal to each other, in Biblical terms: brothers.
Note also that ( and they listened) occurs twice in this verse.
This emphasis on the willingness of the people to hearken to the Lords word
emphasizes the contrast with v. 17, where it is stated that the people did not
want to listen to God anymore and returned to the disobedience of their
fathers who had not hearkened to Him either (v. 14).
Also in v. 11, the designation is missing. The words
(slaves) and ( handmaids)already used in vv. 9 and 10occur, how-
ever, twice. By forcing the male and female slaves into subjugation, the situa-
tion is back to normal: slaves are slaves again and the social division into two
groups has been restored. Brothers have become slaves once again.
We notice in v. 11 a wordplay: ( they returned), and ( they
caused to return; Hiphil). The verb ( to return, to repent) is the Leitwort
in this chapter as we will see later on; it offers the author various possibilities
for repeated wordplay.10
Having read the flashback in vv. 811, the reader knows now what has hap-
pened in Jerusalem but several questions remain unanswered: what was the
purpose of the kings covenant and why was it made at this moment; why are
the slaves designated as and for what reason did the participants
in the covenant change their minds and force their slaves and handmaids into
subjugation again?11
1 The Actual Prophecy
After a second introduction, the prophecy announced in v. 8 is rendered at last,

starting in v. 12 and encompassing the remaining part of the chapter. The Lord
first refers to his own covenant in comparison to the covenant King Zedekiah
10 See also Fischer, Jeremia 2652, 260.

11 Robert Carroll provides in his commentary even a longer list of unanswered ques-
tions and concludes with the exclamation: Many questions, no answers! (Carroll,
Jeremiah, 648).
242 Smelik
had made with the people.12 The grammatically superfluous personal pronoun
( I) stresses the difference between the initiators of the two covenants: the
Lord on the one hand and King Zedekiah on the other. The Lord made his
covenant much earlier, in the period directly after the Exodus from Egypt. In
v. 13, the author adds the designation ( out of the house of slaves)
after the country name Egypt.13 In this way, he reminds his readers that their
ancestors had been slaves themselves in Egypt.14 To own slaves is therefore not
self-evident; slaves remain brothers notwithstanding their bondage.15
In v. 14, the riddle as to why in v. 9 the slaves in Judah and Jerusalem are
defined by the author as is solved: it is a reference to a ruling
in the Lords covenant. But to which text in the Torah is the author referring
here? There is no exact parallel in the Pentateuch; the closest resemblance is
with Deut 15:12,16
Jer 34:14

Deut 15:12

We see that most of the wording in Deut 15:12 returns in Jer 34:14 but that the
sequence in which the words appear is different. The version in Jer 34 empha-
sizes when the slaves should be freed: At the end of seven years. This emphasis
is remarkable because in the account in Jer 34 this time limitation plays no
part at all. It is also not in accordance with Deut 15:12, where it is stated that
the slaves should be freed after six years, not seven. Moreover, the other stipu-
lations about the release of slaves in Deut 15:1218 are not repeated in Jer 34
neither the duty to provide the former slaves with goods or the ruling regarding
what should happen if a slave wishes to remain a slave. These rules were clearly
not relevant to the account of Jer 34. But why then are the time periods of
12 Cf. Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 328. See also Fretheim, Jeremiah, 487:
Notably, Gods making covenant with Israels ancestors (v. 13) is set alongside Zedekiahs
making covenant (v. 8) [...].
13 An expression from the Torah, where it occurs in the Book of Exodus as well as
Deuteronomy.
14 This also stressed in the Haggadah of Pesach: We were slaves of the Pharaoh in Egypt.
15 Compare the conspicuous use of ( brother) and ( neighbour) in vv. 9, 14, 15 and
17in contrast to ( slaves) and ( handmaids).
16 Cf. Fretheim, Jeremiah, 488.
six and seven years mentioned? As already noted, this stipulation makes no
sense here: the slaves in question had been slaves for a much longer period of
time than six or seven years.17 We will return to this question later.
In v. 16, we again note the Leitwort ( to return). While the verb in
v. 15 connotes conversion and repentance, this time it means to recant, to turn
away from the right path. In the sequel, we notice the verb ( to return),
yet again, now as Hiphil: to cause to return. By turning away from the right
path, the participants in the kings covenant caused the slaves to return to
subjugationthe second use of wordplay with in the text.18
The breaking of the covenant is considered a desecration of the Lords
name, in the first place because it is contrary to both Gods and the kings cov-
enant, and in the second place because the kings covenant was concluded
in the temple of Jerusalem, the house which is called by my name. Accordingly,
the kings covenant had become Gods covenant. The ritual according to which
the covenant was made, however, is not yet explained; it will be revealed in
vv. 18 and 19. This delay is another example of the literary device used by the
author to postpone delivering relevant information until in the sequel of
the story.
V. 16 stresses that the breaking of the covenant is not the responsibility of
individual Judahites but of the people as a whole. Therefore, the retaliation
will be collective too. In the following verse, v. 17, the Lords verdict is finally
pronounced. This is standard in the book of Jeremiah: first a description of
the wrongdoing, then a juridical conclusion, followed by the actual proph-
ecy announcing what will happen and what the Lord will do to retaliate
against the committed sins.
The Lords reaction is based on the principle of lex talionis.19 To describe it,
the author makes use of wordplay once again, this time with the Hebrew word
( liberation). The people had proclaimed liberty for their brothers and
neighbours who had been their slaves before; now the Lord will also proclaim
17 For this reason, some scholars (for instance Lundbom, Jeremiah 2136, 56061) turn to
Lev 25:10, the beginning of the laws in relation of the Jubilee Year, in order to elucidate
the liberation of the slaves in Jer 34, but there is no clue in the Jeremiah text that we
are dealing here with a year of Jubilee. The same applies to the assumption that the text
refers to a Sabbatical Year. See also N.P. Lemche, Manumission of Slavesthe Fallow
Yearthe Sabbatical Yearthe Jubilee Year, VT 26 (1976), 3859, especially 56. Pace
N.M. Sarna, Zedekiahs Emancipation of Slaves and the Sabbatical Year, in: H.A. Hoffner
(ed.), Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-
Fifth Birthday (AOAT 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 143149.
18 See also Lundbom, Jeremiah 2136, 564; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 487; Fischer, Jeremia 2652, 256.
19 P.D. Miller, Sin and Judgment in Jeremiah 34:1719, JBL 103 (1984), 611613.
244 Smelik
liberty, but this time to the sword, and to the pestilence and to the famine, the
well-known triad in the book of Jeremiah.20 Also in this instance, the author
specifies what is announced in the prophecy only later on, in vv. 18 and 19. His
typical style is not to provide the reader with all the necessary information at
one time, as we have seen before.
V. 18 stresses that the covenant that King Zedekiah made became a covenant
with the Lord himself because it was concluded in his presence ( ) and
corroborated by a special ritual, briefly described as: when they cut the calf
in twain and passed between the parts thereof. This ritual is mentioned for a
second time in v. 19: who passed between the parts of the calf. In both cases,
the description is not elaborate enough to be understandable to a reader unac-
quainted with the ritual. Although the ritual also occurs in Gen 15, we have to
turn to extra-Biblical sources for more information.21 The brevity in wording
suggests that the first readers were assumed to know the ritual and its meaning.
We notice in v. 18 a wordplay with the Hebrew verb ( to pass but also
to transgress). The author speaks about the men who have transgressed
( ) the Lords covenant, although they had passed ( ) between the
parts of the calf before.22 The wordplay underlines the sinful inconsistency in
their behaviour.
In v. 19, we are finally informed who was present during the ritual: the
princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests,
and all the people of the land. It is striking, however, that the list of partici-
pants does not include King Zedekiah, although he gave the order to liberate
the slaves in v. 8. Only in v. 21 is the fate of the king announced, and his destiny
differs in some aspects from that of the participants in the ritual, described in
v. 20, as we have previously mentioned.
Note that the first part of the prophecy of doom is the same both in v. 20
and in v. 21. The Lord will deliver the participants in the ritual as well as
King Zedekiah into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of them that
seek their life. But the participants in the ritual will encounter an even more
horrible fate: their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven
20 Here, however, not in the standard sequence, by the sword, and by the famine, and by
the pestilencepestilence and famine have changed places. Cf. e.g. W.L. Holladay,
Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1989, 242. More elaborate in: H. Weippert, Die
Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW 132), Berlin/New York 1973, 149191.
21 The most important parallel is the treaty between the Assyrian king Assurnirari V and his
vassal Matilu of Bit-Agusi; cf. e.g. Lundbom, Jeremiah 2136, 565.
22 See also Allen, Jeremiah, 38788; Fischer, Jeremia 2652, 25758; Lundbom, Jeremiah
2136, 564.
and to the beasts of the earth, while King Zedekiah apparently will not be
killed by the enemy. Strangely enough, the princes of the king are spared too
according to v. 21, while according to v. 20 the princes of Judah and Jerusalem
will be killed and not buried.
In v. 22, it is finally revealed that the Lord will order the army of the
Babylonian kingthat according to the preceding verse had withdrawn itself
from King Zedekiahto return to Jerusalem. We notice here another instance
of the use of ( to return), as Leitwort, this time as Hiphil: to cause to
return. In the same way that the people of Jerusalem had caused the slaves
to return to bondage, the Lord will cause the army of the Babylonian king to
return to Jerusalem.23
The prophecy that the army of the Babylonian king will return to Jerusalem
after having raised his siege of the town by withdrawing the troops, has
been placed at the end of the account but it sheds a different light on what
has been related before. What is the connection between the making and the
subsequent breaking of the covenant on the one hand and the movements of
the Babylonian army on the other?
There is an event from Roman history that could be of interest.24 It took
place during the Second Slave War, when Salvius, the leader of the insurgent
slaves, besieged the Sicilian town of Morgantina. To quote the ancient Greek
historian Diodorus Siculus,
Having in this way made himself absolute master of the open country,
[Salvius] again besieged Morgantina, and promised liberty to all the
slaves who were in the city. But their masters promised the same to them,
if they would be faithful, and join with them in the defense of the place;
and they chose rather to accept what was offered by their masters. They
fought so resolutely, that they forced the enemy to raise their siege. But
the strategos afterwards revoked the promise of liberty for the slaves;
and this caused many of them to run away to join the rebels. (Diodorus
Siculus, 36,4)
It is possible that the ruling class in Jerusalem followed the same tactics: they
liberated the slaves in order to use them as soldiers against the enemy25 but
23 See also Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 242; Lundbom, Jeremiah 2136, 564.

24 An earlier parallel is discussed by M. Anbar, La libration des esclaves en temps de guerre:
Jer 34 et ARM XXVI.363, ZAW 111 (1999), 25355.
25 Cf. e.g. A. van Selms, Jeremia deel II (POT), Nijkerk 1974, 118: krijgsdienst was een preroga-
tief van vrije mannen.
246 Smelik
after the retreat of the Babylonian army they enslaved them again. But if this
was the case, why were the female slaves set free too? They surely could not
serve as part of the Jerusalem defence...Other solutions have been proposed.26
Wilhelm Rudolph, for instance, suggested:
Wahrscheinlich wollte man durch diese soziale Tat Jahwe gndig stim-
men: da dabei die einzelnen Dienstherren weniger hungrige Muler zu
stopfen hatten, war eine nicht unangenehme Nebenwirkung.27
In any case, it is probable that the author is suggesting a connection between

the retreat of the Babylonian army and the breaking of the covenant. He did
not offer the readers this clue earlier in his account because he wanted them
to remain curious about the reason the recently liberated slaves were enslaved
again. What could seem another example of the authors clumsiness28 is in fact
a literary device to introduce suspense into the account.
2 Scriptural References within the Hebrew Bible
Two problems in the prophecy of Jer 34 are not solved yet, to wit, why the
specific term is used and for what reason the time limit of
the seventh year is mentioned in the text. In search of an answer, we must
turn to another chapter in the Book of Jeremiah, to wit chapter 26.29 In this
text, the author concentrates on the audiences reaction to the words of the
prophets; therefore, he does not elaborate on what the prophet Jeremiah was
actually saying. Instead, he uses without much elucidation catchwords and
catchphrases referring to other passages in the book of Jeremiah where more
information about the contents of his prophecies is given.
In Jer 26:6 for instance, the Lord announces that He will make this house
like Shiloh without any clarification. What is the meaning of this prophecy?
26 See e.g. Fischer, Jeremiah 2652, 25253, and Lundbom, Jeremiah 2136, 559.
27 Rudolph, Jeremia, 223.
28 Es is stilistisch wenig geschickt, da man erst durch diese Schlustze erfhrt, da
die Aufhebung der Sklavenbefreiung und die Strafrede Jers in die Pause whrend der
Belagerung fallen. (Rudolph, Jeremia, 225).
29 See also Klaas A.D. Smelik, Jeremia 26 als literaire compositie, in: B.E.J.H. Becking et al.
(eds), Door het oog van de profeten: Exegetische studies aangeboden aan prof. dr. C. van
Leeuwen (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks, 8), Utrecht 1989, 7996.
The catchword like Shiloh refers the reader to other passages such as Jer 7:14,
where it states,
Therefore will I do unto this house,

which is called by my name,
wherein you trust,
and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers,
as I have done to Shiloh.
Apparently, there is a connection between the trust in the inviolability of the

temple in Jerusalem and the fate of Shiloh. But we need more information.
In order to get this, we have to turn to Jer 7:12,
But go you now unto my place which was in Shiloh,

where I set my name at the first,
and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel.
According to this prophecy, the evil fate of the temple in Shiloh can still be
seen. This means that its ruins were still visible at the time. Some scholars see
a connection to the events described in 1 Sam 4 but it is rather improbable that
the author is referring to such an early period here. Moreover, in the prophecy
it is stated that God did this for the wickedness of my people Israel, refer-
ring to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrian kings around
720 BCE.
What the prophet is saying, is that the Judahites show the same sinful
behaviour that previously led to the destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh.
Therefore, the temple of Jerusalem will share its fate,
Therefore will I do unto this house,

which is called by my name,
wherein you trust,
and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers,
as I have done to Shiloh.
And I will cast you out of my sight,
as I have cast out all your brethren,
even the whole seed of Ephraim. (Jer 7:1415)
The reference to the exile of Ephraim, which stands for the Northern Kingdom,
suggests that the destruction of the temple at Shiloh happened at the end
248 Smelik
of the eighth century BCE, one hundred years earlier than Jer 26 is situated
in time.
Finally, the meaning of the expression to make this house like Shiloh
becomes clear to the reader: the enemy will come to destroy the temple of
Jerusalem. We conclude that without knowledge of Jer 7 the meaning of the
prophecy in chapter 26 cannot be understood. For this reason, the author uses
catchwords and catchphrases referring to this text.
Along with the references within the book of Jeremiah, chapter 26 also con-
tains a quotation from another book of the Bible, to wit Mic 3:12. In Jer 26:18,
this text is cited in almost the same wording as in the original,30
Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah,

and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying,
Thus says the Lord of hosts,
Zion shall be plowed like a field,
and Jerusalem shall become heaps,
and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.
The quotation is, however, too short to reveal why Jerusalem will be destroyed.
The reason why only becomes clear by reading the whole passage Mic 3:912,
in which the prophet refers to the contradictory behaviour of the Judahite
elite: corrupt as they are, they are sinning against the Lord but at the same
time trusting in his protection against all evil,
The heads of [Jerusalem] judge for reward,

and the priests thereof teach for hire,
and the prophets thereof divine for money:
yet will they lean upon the Lord,
and say,
Is not the Lord among us?
none evil can come upon us. (Mic 3:11)
We are dealing here with the general belief among the inhabitants of ancient
Jerusalem that the Lord will protect the Temple in all circumstances, because
it is his dwelling place on earth. No evil can come upon the city notwithstand-
ing the sinful behaviour of its inhabitants. This trust is also an important theme
in the prophecy we find in Jer 7:115, as we have seen before. This is all the more
30 Only the introduction and the spelling of the plural of one word are different; cf. e.g.
Van Selms, Jeremia deel II, 3132.
striking because there are no other texts in the Hebrew Bible dealing with this
unjustified trust in the inviolability of the temple.31 Therefore, it is improbable
that the reference to both texts by the author of Jeremiah is simply coinciden-
tal. Through the use of catchwords and catchphrases he urges the reader to
combine the contents of various Biblical passages in order to understand what
is at stake.
If I am correct in assuming that the author wanted his readers to look at
both textsJer 7:115 and Mic 3:912in order to understand the meaning
of Jer 26, then we have a clue about the way Scriptural texts are referred to
in the Hebrew Bible. The reference is not only to the words actually cited but
also to the original context of the quotation. This is also the way that refer-
ences to Biblical texts are given in Rabbinic literature. Only part of the Biblical
passage is actually cited but the reader is supposed to consider the context of
the quotation as well. Sometimes, the most relevant part of the text is not even
quoted. For instance, in the Mekhilta we find a listing of Biblical texts relating
to the Hebrew word .32 One of these texts is Exod 17:12. In this case, only
the beginning of the verse is cited (And Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands)
while the word occurs in the second part, not quoted (and his hands
were steady [ ] until the going down of the sun). The reader is assumed
to know the whole verse by heart, including the part not cited. If one does
not consider the rest of the verse, the meaning of the quotation will remain
obscure.
I want to suggest that this kind of partial reference where the reader has
to fill in the remaindertypical of Rabbinic literaturewas already in use
in the Hebrew Bible itself. The reader of Jer 26 is supposed to have knowledge of
the whole passage in Micah 3 in order to understand that the unjustified trust
in the inviolability of the Temple is also at stake, not only the coming destruc-
tion of Jerusalem.
Similarly, Jer 34 contains catchphrases which refer the reader to Deut 15:1218
as a whole, not only to v. 12. The first instance is in v. 9, when the reader encoun-
ters the specific term without elucidation. The second instance
occurs in v. 14, when the term is used againthis time in combination with the
time limit of six years and the end of the seventh year. The (hidden) purpose
of both references is to make readers consider the sequel of the text in Deut 15
when reading Jer 34, in this way combining Jer 34:14 with another verse in the
Torah, to wit Deut 15:15,
31 Cf. R.E. Clements, God and Temple, Oxford 1975, 8486, 137.
32 Mekhilta, Tractate Beshallach 7,144 (ed. Lauterbach I, 167).
250 Smelik
And you should remember

that you were a slave in the land of Egypt,
and the Lord your God redeemed you:
therefore I command you this thing today.
After how many years a slave should be let free, is therefore a question of no
importance in the interpretation of Jer 34. What is important is that the people
of Judah remember that their ancestors had been slaves in the land of Egypt,
the house of slaves, before they were redeemed by the Lord and before He
gave them the commandments relating to bondage. Their attitude towards
their own slaves should, therefore, be in accordance with the covenant made
by the Lord with his liberated people after the Exodus. In that sense, the new
covenant made by king Zedekiah with his people was a correct response to the
earlier onenot because of any time limit regarding bondage but because it
acknowledged that the people of Israel as a whole were liberated slaves, a fact
with consequences for the way they should treat their own slaves.
King Zedekiahs covenant, in proclaiming liberty for the slaves in Jerusalem,
was therefore right in the eyes of the Lord (v. 15) because it showed that the
king had finally understood the message of Deut 15:1218in contrast to his
ancestors. Moreover, the kings covenant had been made in the House of the
Lord, the temple of Jerusalem. Thus the liberation of the slaves had been a
religious act and to break the covenant was a desecration of the Lords holy
name. Retaliation was inevitable, as the first readers of the text had experi-
enced in their own lives having survived the destruction of Jerusalem and
Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
3 Conclusion
In this contribution, we have established that various literary devices and

Leitwrter appear in all parts of the text of Jer 34 underlining the inner coher-
ence of the chapter. Furthermore, we have seen that Jer 34 is part of a much
more extensive collection of texts to which Deut 15 belonged as well. Attempts
to harmonize Jer 34 with the laws in the Torah in relation to debt slavery,
however, appear to miss the point; they make no sense because we are deal-
ing here with catchwords and catchphrases, not with an historical account of
what actually happened in Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege. Referring to
other Biblical texts with catchwords and catchphrases proves to be a common
device in the Book of Jeremiah. In this respect, the suggestion was made that
the way of referring to other Biblical texts in the Book of Jeremiah resembles the
way Biblical references are made in Rabbinic literature.
Index of Authors
Abraham, W.J.27 Begrich, J.119

Achenbach, R.16, 23, 95, 98, 100101, 104 Ben Zvi, E.55, 85
Adams, R.B.112 Ben-Yosef, E.107
Adler, W.225 Berges, U.127, 129130, 134
Aitken, J.K.165, 167, 178179 Bergmeier, R.193
Albertz, R.79, 101, 167 Bergstrasser, G.22
Albrektson, B.2 Berlejung, A.86
Alexander, P.S.2, 228 Berlin, A.29, 152
Alexandre, M.190, 193, 198 Berlinerblau, J.125
Algra, K.182 Berman, J.34, 9192
Allen, L.G.239, 244 Bernal, M.58
Alonso Hernndez, E.232 Bernstein, M.226
Alt, A.1, 158 Berquist, J.L.76
lvarez Verdes, L.232 Betz, H.146
Anbar, M.245 Beuken, W.A.M.128, 134, 137, 142, 144
Anderson, B.141 Biberger, B.17, 21
Anderson, F.I.61 Bickerman, T.E.182
Anderson, G.W.143 Bienkowski, P.112
Arnold, B.T.4, 11, 2122, 30, 102, 115 Bird, M.F.71
Arvidson, S.55 Blenkinsopp, J.28, 71, 7677, 79, 82, 8485,
Atkins, J.W.H.224 8889, 94, 142
Atkinson, C.W.206 Bloch, R.227
Attridge, H.W.58 Block, D.I.89
Auld, A.G.4, 100, 116, 162 Blum, E.95, 160
Boccaccini, G.226, 231, 237
Baasten, M.183 Boda, M.J.7172, 76, 80, 8385, 118
Baden, J.S.34, 9596, 156, 166, 170171 Bogaert, P.M.228
Bailey, D.143 Bhler, D.71
Baker, D.L.76, 79 Bonfiglio, R.P.56
Balentine, S.E.56, 67 Bos, J.M.55
Bnziger, T.8485 Botta, A.F.130
Barnes, J.182 Bowen, N.R.29
Barr, J.1 Braulik, G.156157
Barstad, H.137, 150 Brekelmans, C.176
Barthlemy, D.176, 232 Bremmer, J.N.189
Bartholomae, C.190 Brett, M.139
Barton, J.54, 6566, 115, 154, 224 Brettler, M.Z.152
Batto, B.F.165 Brongers, H.A.1
Bautch, R.J.7273, 78, 8485 Brooke, G.J.3, 176, 178, 226
Becker, J.70, 72, 74, 77, 82, 84, 8889, 232 Brown, W.P.199
Becker, U.119 Broyles, C.142
Becking, B.E.J.H.23, 5, 71, 74, 8587, 167, Brueggemann, W.240, 242
213, 246 Bruins, H.J.106
Beek, M.A.1 Bultmann, C.157
Beekes, R.190 Burkert, W.54, 58
252 Index Of Authors
Burt, S.70 Dietrich, W.79

Bury, R.G.179 Dodd, C.H.177, 183
Dogniez, C.182
Cairns, M.F.87 Dolansky, S.93
Camp, V.143 Dorman, A.225
Carmichael, C.209 Dothan, M.89
Carr, D.M.40, 93, 115116, 130 Dozeman, T.B.35, 9495, 101, 150, 158, 160,
Carradice, I.104 167
Carroll, R.P.239, 241 Drawnel, H.232
Carson, D.A.228 Driver, S.R.30, 38, 156, 160
Cartwright, D.E.68 Duggan, M.82, 8485
Casetti, P.232
Chalmers, R.S.56 Edelman, D.V.74
Charles, R.H.231 Edenburg, C.3031
Chavel, S.239 Ehnmark, E.59
Chazon, E.G.232 Elgvin, T.71
Childs, B.S.41, 120, 126, 131132, 135, 139, 170 Elliger, K.105, 109
Choi, J.H.22, 31 Emerson, R.W.60
Clark, D.176 Emerton, J.A.28
Claus, F.224 Endres, J.C.230
Clements, R.E.120121, 123125, 127132, 249 Erisman, A.R.35, 40
Clines, D.J.A.82, 8486 Everson, A.144
Cogan, M.91, 110
Cohen, R.106 Fabry, H.-J.118
Cohen-Amin, R.106 Falk, D.K.72, 226, 228
Collins, J.J.229, 231, 237 Fantalkin, A.106
Collins, N.L.176 Fascher, E.183
Coman, C.239 Feil, E.92
Cook, J.182 Feinstein, E.L.210
Cribiore, R.224 Fensham, F.C.84, 89
Crouch, C.L.81 Field, F.189
Crsemann, F.138, 158 Finkelberg, M.59
Cryer, G.141 Fischer, G.34, 79, 239, 241, 243244, 246
Fischer, I.121122, 124125, 128131, 133
dHamonville, D.-M.182 Fishbane, M.1617, 3637, 153154, 227
Dafni, E.G.180 Fleming, D.E.35
Daniel, S.183 Frnkel, H.60
Davies, G.I.100, 107 Fraser, P.M.186
Davies, J.K.59, 63 Freedman, D.N.61, 63, 94
Davies, P.R.74, 77 Fretheim, T.E.240, 242243
Day, J.57, 82, 158 Frevel, C.95, 97, 101102, 152153
De Boer, P.A.H.1, 3, 182 Fried, L.S.71
De Jonge, M.232 Fritz, V.104, 106
De Moor, J.C.23, 36, 41, 227 Frolov, S.93
De Pury, A.38
De Vos, J.C.97, 104, 107108, 116 Galil, G.104, 109, 114
Dearman, J.A.56, 62, 64 Garca Lpez, F.118
Dekker, J.6, 133134, 138, 140141 Garca Martnez, F.228, 231232
Index Of Authors 253
Gera, D.187 Hempel, C.225

Gericke, J.54, 57, 61 Hendel, R.S.179, 193
Gerleman, G.182 Hengel, M.143
Gertz, J.C.3435, 41, 93, 101, 115 Herbert, E.D.226
Girardet, G.M.198 Herzer, J.193
Goedhart, H.192 Heskett, R.143
Goldingay, J.129 Hess, R.S.102
Goldstein, R.45 Hicks, R.D.195
Gordon, C.H.58, 243 Hiebert, R.J.V.199
Gordon, R.P.23 Hieke, Th.74, 7980, 85, 8890
Gottwald, N.K.76 Higham, T.106
Goulder, M.D.2 Hilhorst, A.228, 232
Grabbe, L.L.3, 74, 86, 89, 130 Hill, A.E.131
Graham. M.P.106 Himmelfarb, M.225, 229
Graupner, A.152153 Hffken, P.119, 127128, 130
Green, D.J.111 Hoffman, K.E.89
Greenfield, J.C.232 Hoffman, Y.145
Greengus, S.158 Hoffmann, A.186
Grelot, P.231232 Hoffmeier, J.K.101102
Groenewald, A.131 Hoffner, H.A.243
Gross, C.D.77 Hoftijzer, J.41, 104
Guillaume, P.H.7576, 194 Holladay, W.L.244245
Gunneweg, A.H.J.7374, 8485, 8889 Holmgren, F.C.84
Gzella, H.178 Honeyman, A.M.161
Honigman, S.176
Hack, K.59 Hossfeld. F.-L.152153, 156
Hagedorn, A.4 House, P.R.119
Hagens, G.110 Houtman, A.87
Hailnal, P.2 Houtman, C.162
Halbe, J.162 Hung, H.6
Halligan, J.M.77 Hupfeld, H.96
Halpern, B.110, 229, 232 Hurowitz, A.223
Halpern-Amaru, B.229, 232 Husson, G.189
Halton, J.C.118 Hutchens, K.D.106
Halvorson-Taylor, M.139140 Hutton, J.M.216
Hanhart, R.177178, 183, 198 Hwang, J.14, 18, 2829, 32
Hanson, P.135, 146
Haran, M.176 Ibba, G.237
Harl, M.182, 189191, 193, 197198 Israel, J.94
Harrington, D.J.228
Hartley, J.E.208, 220 Jackson, B.S.159
Havelock, E.A.65 Janowski, B.54, 143
Havrelock, R.217 Janzen, D.77, 89
Hays, C.B.111, 119 Japhet, S.80, 82
Heidel, A.58 Jay, N.206
Heinemann, J.16 Jensen, J.119
Helmer, C.223224 Jeremias, J.189
Heltzer, M.7778 Johnstone, W.7, 150, 152153, 160, 165, 167
Jones, S.89 Leder, A.C.113

Jongeling, K.104 Lee, J.189
Joosten, J.115 Lehmann, G.104, 106
Joon, P.15, 23, 90 Lemaire, A.36, 137
Lemche, N.P.7879, 87, 111112, 243
Kakkanattu, J.P.62 Lescow, T.119
Kalimi, I.72 Leuchter, M.216
Kallai, Z.107, 109 Leung Lai, B.M.70
Kalluveettil, P.84 Levin, C.9495
Karrer, M.180181, 193 Levin, Y.105
Kaufman, S.A.37 Levine, B.A.97, 208, 210, 212, 220
Kearney, P.J.169 Levinson, B.M.36, 156, 158159
Kelle, B.56, 62 Levy, T.E.106, 111
Kennedy, J.144 Liedke, G.119
Kerner, S.186 Lim, R.H.229
Khan, G.202 Lindars, B.178, 228
Kilian, R.198 Lindqvist, P.228
Kim, H.144 Lindstrm, F.62, 66
Kippenberg, H.G.76 Lipschits, O.75, 84
Kitchen, K.A.102, 112 Lloyd, A.B.59
Klein, A.52 Loader, W.R.G.194
Klostergaard Petersen, A.229 Lohfink, N.1415, 17, 19, 22, 2829, 32
Knibb, M.A.229 Lombaard, C.28
Knoppers, G.N.10, 86, 9899, 110 Long, A.A.181, 185
Kckert, M.157 Long, B.O.16
Konkel, M.152153, 156 Lpez-Ruiz, C.55, 58, 63
Konstan, D.187 Louden, B.59, 63
Koskenniemi, E.228 Lovering jr., F.H.120121
Koster, M.D.2 Lundbom, J.R.79, 240, 243246
Kottsieper, I.21
Kraft, R.A.228 Macdonald, L.M.224
Kratz, R.G.152 MacDonald, N.34
Kraus, W.180181, 193 Machinist, P.57
Kreissig, H.74, 76 Maier, C.M.95, 193
Kreitzer, L.219 Maisler, B.105
Kuenen, A.9394, 96, 99, 100 Mandell, S.63
Kugel, J.L.226, 229230 Markl, D.156, 170
Kugler, R.A.232 Master, D.M.110
Kuipers, J.C.89 Matusova, E.177
May, H.G.10
Laato, P.228 McCarthy, C.32
Lampe, K.184 McConville, J.G.10, 118, 124, 133
Landmesser, C.223 McKane, W.239
Landsberger, B.159 McKechnie, P.194
Landy, F.215 McKenzie, J.146
Lane, D.J.2 McNutt, P.M.7879
Lange, A.223 Meecham, H.G.176
Lausberg, H.224 Meek, R.L.30
Mein, A.143 Otto, E.15, 57, 66, 68, 79, 86, 95, 98, 114,
Melchert, H.C.109 153154, 156157, 159, 162163, 171
Melugin, R.F.120, 122 Ottosson, M.113
Mettinger, T.141142
Metzger, B.224 Paas, S.142
Milgrom, J.9798, 205, 208209, 211213, Paget, J.C.157
219 Pakkala, J.71, 80, 82, 85, 88, 107
Milik, J.T.231 Park, S.M.S.53
Miller, G.D.59 Patrick, D.138
Miller, M.L.7576 Paul, S.135
Miller, P.D.29, 57, 148, 232, 243 Payne, A.109
Mills, G.76 Payne, D.129
Minchin, E.66 Payne, E.F.J.68
Mittag, P.F.187 Pearce, S.89
Mller, K.124, 133 Peels, E.3
Moore, F.15 Pentuic, E.J.62
Mowinckel, S.143 Perlitt, L.14, 115, 152
Mulligan, C.B.78 Perrot, C.228
Mnger, S.107 Peters, M.K.H.181
Muraoka, T.15, 23, 90, 183 Peterson, C.119
Myers, J.84 Petit, F.225
Peursen, W.Th.183
Najman, H.237238 Pfrommer, M.185
Nelson, R.D.23, 29 Phillips, A.160
Neufeld, E.77 Pietersma, A.178
Neufeld, T.147 Pinder, M.54
Newsom, C.67 Pirot, R.227
Ngunga, A.T.178 Pitard, W.T.57
Nicholson, E.W.81 Ploger, J.G.32
Nickelsburg, G.W.E.226, 228229, 231 Porteous, N.1
Niehoff, M.R.177 Posner, A.182
Nielsen, F.A.J.63 Poulsen, F.139
Nielsen, K.142 Preisigke, F.189
Niskanen, P.63 Prestel, P.180
Noble, P.R.37 Prijs, L.193
Noort, E.4, 95, 97, 110 Puech, E.232
Noth, M.1, 91, 100, 102, 105, 107, 109
Rabin, C.184
OKeefe, T.186 Rackam, H.188
OConnor, M.P.22 Rainey, A.F.104, 112
OKane, M.131 Rajak, T.177
Oden, R.A.58 Reddit, P.L.71, 76
Oeming, M.84 Reeves, J.C.225
Olofsson, S.183 Reiff, A.224
Olson, D.T.97 Reinmuth, T.70, 73, 76, 7879, 8889
Oosthuizen, M.J.79 Rendsburg, G.58
Oswald, W.158 Rendtorff, R.119, 132, 209
Ottley, R.R.178 Renz, Th.133
Reventlow, H.145 Sheppard, G.T.120127, 130, 132

Rezetko, R.162 Shupak, F.S.N.223
Rice, E.E.185 Siegert, F.178, 183184, 192, 198
Robert, A.227 Silver, M.78, 87
Rmer, T.C.4, 1015, 1728, 3233, 3840, 95, Sirach, B.226
171, 224 Skinner, J.191, 193, 198
Rooke, D.8, 215, 217, 219 Smelik, K.A.D.2, 4, 9
Rsel, M.179181, 190, 193, 198 Smend, R.115, 157
Roskop, A.R.35, 101102, 116 Smith, M.S.5657, 59
Roth, M.T.133 Smith, P.146
Rothenbusch, R.158 Smith, W.R.93
Routledge, B.112 Sneed, M.R.76
Rowley, H.1 Sommer, B.D.3031, 37, 139, 227228
Rudolph, W.239, 246 Sonnet, J.P.18, 37
Russell, D.A.187 Southwood, K.E.89
Spicq, C.184, 197
Sacchi, P.231 Spieckermann, H.178
Sb, M.36 Spronk, K.3
Sanders, J.A.224225 Stackert, J.35
Sanders, S.57 Stalker, D.135
Sarna, N.M.243 Steck, O.139
Satlow, M.L.86 Stein, D.E.S.202203
Scarlata, M.W.179 Stern, E.75
Schaper, J.157, 178 Stevens, M.E.87
Schmid, K.11, 99, 102 Stolper, M.W.104
Schmidt, L.28, 95, 100 Stone, M.E.228, 231232
Schmidt, W.H.152153, 171, 239 Stone, T.J.116
Schmitt, A.182 Strange, J.112
Schniedewind, W.M.89 Strawn, B.A.29
Schkel, L.A.41 Strecker, G.109, 114
Scholz, S.202, 204 Stricker, B.H.176
Schopenhauer, A.68 Stromberg, J.146
Schorch, S.180 Sweeney, M.A.85, 119127, 129, 131
Schottroff, L.202
Schottroff, W.74 Tadmor, H.110
Schunck, K.-D.70, 7374, 77, 80, 82, 8485, 89 Talmon, S.1516
Schrer, E.228 Tammuz, O.111
Schwartz, B.J.95 Taschner, J.1718
Schwarz, E.235 Tate, M.E.119
Schwienhorst-Schnberger, L.156, 158 Teugels, L.M.91
Scott Green, W.227 Thareani-Sussely, Y.106
Sedley, D.N.181, 185, 186 Tharekadavil, A.144
Seebass, H.95, 97 Thelle, R.L.80
Seeligmann, I.L.178 Throntveit, M.A.72, 84
Segal, M.226 Tiemeyer, L.-S.135, 137
Segal, R.135, 146 Tov, E.182, 192, 226, 229
Seitz, C.135 Troxel, R.L.178
Shectman, S.216217, 220221 Tullock, G.78
Ulmer, R.91 Wasserstein, D.J.177

Ulrich, E.71, 224 Watts, J.D.W.119
Untermann, J.136 Watts, J.W.119
Uusitalo, H.78 Wazana, N.103104, 108110, 112113
Weinfeld, M. 74, 86, 104, 114, 145
Van Bekkum,6, 101, 103104, 107110, 113114 Weippert, M.94
Van De Mieroop, M.58 Wellhausen, J.9394, 96, 99, 115
Van der Kooij, A.2, 176, 178, 181183, 192 Wenham, G.J.124, 211, 219220
Van der Louw, T.180181, 190 Wnin, A.40
Van der Lugt, P.4 Werline, R.A.7172
Van der Meer, M.7, 178, 181, 184 Werman, C.229
Van der Merwe, C.H.J.202 Werses, S.16
Van der Plicht, J.106 Wesselius, J.W.63
Van der Toorn, K.224 West, M.L.54, 5758, 6566
Van der Woude, A.S.2 Westermann, C.135, 139, 198
Van Houten, C.138 Wevers, J.W.176, 182, 188, 191, 193, 199
Van Luttikhuizen, G.P.189 White Crawford, S.228
Van Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M.8, 97, 181, 228, 230, Whitelam, K.142
232234, 236237 Wildberger, H.128
Van Selms, A.245, 248 Willi, Th.71
Van Seters, J.4, 1011 Williamson, H.G.M.70, 7274, 77, 80, 82,
Vanderhooft, D.S.57 8489, 144145, 228
VanderKam, J.C.224226, 229231, 235, 237 Winitzer, A.57
Veenhof, K.H.133 Witte, J.86
Veijola, T.86, 91 Witte, M.34
Veltri, G.182, 192 Wolff, H.W.61
Venema, G.J.80, 82 Wright, D.P.158
Vermes, G.2, 228 Wright, J.L.70, 7274, 7679, 88
Vermeylen, J.142
Von Gall, A.170 Yasur-Landau, A.106
Von Rad, G.102 Yoo, P.Y.93
Vriezen, Th.C.92 Younger, K.L.109
Wacker, M.-T.202 Zahn, M.229

Wagner, J.R.178 Zangenberg, J.107
Wallis, G.25 Zenger, E.126, 131, 157
Walsh, R.146147 Ziegler, J.178
Waltke, B.K.22 Zimmerli, W.109
Warren, J.185, 186 Zipor, M.208209, 211212
Wasserstein, A.177 Zornberg, A.G.171
Index of Textual References
Hebrew Bible 8:22 161
10:1 107
Genesis 11:10 107
1 154, 230 12 38
12 179180, 199 1236 27
13 2, 187188, 197 12:23 19
23 188, 190 12:7 14, 30
111 178179 13:10 189
1:1 156 13:15 30
1:12:4 154, 169 15 14, 20, 21, 24, 28, 34, 38,
1:2 8, 165, 179, 197198 244
1:9 179 15:5 19
1:1618 237 15:7 30
1:21 156, 165 15:721 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39,
1:26 179 40
1:27 156 15:8 30, 98
1:30 190 15:13 30
2:13 163, 169 15:1316 30
2:23 153, 199 15:16 30
2:3 156, 179 15:18 15, 30
2:4 156 15:1821 14
2:7 181 15:21 30
2:8 189190 17 24, 38, 164165
2:9 189 17:8 15
2:10 189 17:1014 206
2:15 189 17:1821 215
2:16 189 18:12 8, 191192, 199
2:17 233234 18:16 19
3:1 189 1819 62, 63
3:2 189 18:2231 62
3:3 189 19:25 62
3:6 233 19:29 62
3:8 189 22:16 21
3:10 189 22:17 19
3:16 8, 192194, 199 22:1718 19
3:17 193 24 91
3:1719 233 24:7 21, 22, 32
3:19 192 26:3 19, 21, 22
3:2324 189190 26:4 19
4:6 194 28:14 19
4:7 8, 192194, 199 3056 63
4:24 19 30:3 49
5:5 233234 30:11 183
5:2124 225 32:11 98
6:14 225 35:6 15
6:2 183 36:1 107
Index Of Textual References 259
45:6 161 13:18 164, 166

46:27 25 13:19 171
48:3 15 14 164, 166
48:12 49 14:31 165, 170
50:23 49 15:118 4
50:24 11, 13, 21, 22, 32 15:9 98
50:25 171 15:22 166
15:22b-19:2 167168
Exodus 15:25 168
119 165 16:1 166
1:5 25 17 168
1:6 18 17:117 166
2:2325 157, 164 17:6 153
3:1 153 17:12 249
3:6 11, 171 18 34, 38, 167
3:8 15, 171 18:1327 15, 19, 34
3:12 155, 168 19 230
3:14 177 19:1 167
3:1516 11, 171 19:12 150
3:1517 14 19:56 168
3:17 14 19:8 169
3:18 166 19:9 169179
3:19 165 19:10 169
4:19 170 19:11 166
4:1826 165 19:13b 168
4:2223 167 19:1516 166
4:31 170 1934 157
5:3 166 19:19 155, 169
6:1 165 1920 151, 155
6:38 14 19:2025 155
6:6 165 20 7, 150152, 154, 160, 163
6:23 206, 215 2023 161162, 172
7:4 165 20:1 168
7:811:10 165 20:117 155, 157
7:912 165 20:2 160
7:1411:8 165 20:23 163
8:23 166 20:217 163164
9:13 155 20:4 162, 174
10:2111:8 165 20:46 163
11:34 167 20:5 172
12 166 20:56 7, 162
12:2936 165 20:8 152
12:12 165 20:11 150, 154, 164
12:3719:2 166 20:17 194
12:40 18 20:1821 155
13:5 14, 32 20:19 170
13:9 165 20:20 170
13:11 21, 32 20:2226 160
260 Index Of Textual References
Exodus (cont.) 34:14 157

20:2223:33 7, 151, 153, 156 34:126 157
20:2323:19 158159 34:1016 162, 173
20:24 162 34:1026 162
21:223:12 155 34:58 162
21:15 153 34:516 162
21:17 153 34:526 7, 151, 161162, 171
21:1822:14 160 34:67 64, 162
22:20 138 34:7 172
22:2023:9 159 34:1026 162, 173
22:26b-30 160, 165 34:12 98
23:1011 79, 87 34:17 99, 162
23:1012 163 34:1726 7, 162163, 174
23:1019 163 34:1826 162
23:12 153 34:1920 163
23:1219 162 34:21 153, 163
23:1419 7, 162163 34:2728 162
23:2033 7, 162, 173 35 202
23:31 15, 164 35:1 157, 168
24 131, 230 35:13 163, 169
24:12 171 35:140:38 168
24:38 7, 151, 161 35:4 147, 168
24:4 161, 166 35:21 202
24:911 171 38:8 204
24:12 156157, 169
24:1218 237 Leviticus
2530 202 17 204
2531 169, 206 6:56 87
25:12 157, 168 6:11 205
25:131:17 168 6:15 213
27:21 168 6:22 2015
2829 201 89 205
28:1 201 8:69 206
28:45 202 8:13 206
28:2228 202 8:3336 206
29:1 201 10 214
31:2 202 11:5 182
30:1116 87 12 201
31:1217 163, 169 15 201
32 160161 16:32 213
32:4 160, 174 18:5 168
32:13 13, 32 19:23 209
33:1 21, 32 19:23 98
33:3 14 20:78 209
33:6 153 20:24 14
33:711 168170 20:2526 209
33:10 169 21 207209, 220
34 162, 172 21:14 220
21:5 221 14:16 32

21:56 220 14:23 21, 32
21:6 209 14:24 98
21:7 209, 211212 14:30 98
21:78 208, 220 15:2 98
21:9 218, 220 15:18 98
21:13 213 15:38 168
21:1315 208 18:832 160
21:14 212 18:12 98
21:15 208, 212 18:1213 87
21:1724 217 20:113 153
21:2223 205 20:1421 34
22:11 216 20:24 98
22:13 217 2021 3435
23:10 98 20:1421 34
24 215 21 101103, 107
25 138139, 235 21:1 98
25:17 87 21:1020 102
25:128 138 21:1035 34
25:2 98 21:2035 108
25:1317 79 21:2135 35
26:1 99 21:25 98
26:30 98 21:31 98
26:42 11 21:32 98
2224 60
Numbers 23:19 60
1:7 215 24:6 188
2:13 215 25 56
3:1 107 2636 6, 95, 99101
3:1213 163 26:53 98
4:38 98 26:54 98
7:12 215 26:55 99
7:17 98 26:5556 98
8:1718 163 26:62 98
9:35 98 27:911 98
11:8 192 27:11 98
11:12 21 27:1223 34
11:20 51 32 107
11:23 98 3234 100
13:22 98 32:8 98
1314 13, 20, 34, 38 32:11 11, 1314, 21, 32
13:22 98 32:17 98
13:23 98 32:18 98
13:27 98 32:19 98
13:27 14 32:21 98
14:2 98 32:29 98
14:3 98 32:31 98
14:11 170 32:39 98
Numbers (cont.) 1:918 15, 34

32:40 98 1:11 19, 20, 39, 152
33 6, 96, 99101, 113116, 166 1:19 152
3334 96 1:1945 13
33:1 107 1:1946 156
33:149 6, 97, 100, 102103 1:20 98
33:4 165 1:21 18, 34, 152
33:8 168 1:35 20, 22, 24, 39
33:10 166 1:35 32
33:5056 97, 99100, 102 1:37 98
33:52 9899 1:38 98
33:53 98 1:39 98
33:54 9899 1:45 51
33:55 98 23 35
34 107109, 113116 2:1 152
34:112 6, 96, 103, 105106, 109112 2:18 34
34:2 99, 107 2:13:22 34
34:34 101 2:12 98
34:35 107, 110 2:14 32, 152
34:4 104, 108 2:2122 98
34:5 104 2:2123 98
34:78 103 2:2437 35
34:8 104 2:29 98
34:9 104 3:2329 34
34:10 104 3:25 98
34:11 104, 107, 110 3:27 98
34:13 98 4 21, 153
34:1315 98 45 151, 155
34:14 99 4:1 18, 98
34:54 99 4:140 156
35:2 98, 107 4:3 98
35:10 98 4:5 98, 152
36:2 98 4:10 153
36:79 99 4:1014 156
36:12 99 4:11 169
36:13 102 4:1214 156
38:8 104 4:14 156
4:15 153
Deuteronomy 4:1619 154
1 16 4:2122 98
13 4, 11, 18, 27, 30, 3438 4:26 98
111 154 4:31 18
1:16 14, 38 4:32 156
1:6 153 4:33 152
1:68 15, 1718, 2728, 31, 33, 39 4:34 165
1:7 30, 98 4:37 21, 25, 39
1:8 4, 10, 14, 17, 24, 2830, 32, 4:38 98
37, 39, 41, 98 5 7, 150153, 156, 163
511 16 11:10 188, 190

5:2 150, 153 11:24 15
5:3 18 11:25 152
5:4 168 11:31 98
5:613 163 1226 3537
5:621 163 12:1 28
5:12 150152 12:23 98
5:1415 164 12:10 98
5:15 150, 155, 165 12:20 152
5:16 150152 12:21 152
5:21 194 13:18 152
5:22 169 14:7 182
5:2427 170 15 9, 87, 138, 249250
5:28 156 15:16 79
5:2831 170 15:4 98
5:3031 155 15:6 152
5:31 7, 156 15:12 242
5:32 152 15:1218 242, 249250
626 156 15:15 249
6:1 156 16:18 166
6:3 14, 152 17:14 98
6:15 98 17:1420 182
6:16 152 18:2 152
6:18 18 18:1518 122
6:19 152 19:8 152
6:2023 22 19:14 98
6:23 22, 39 19:21 160
6:25 152 20:16 98
7 86 20:17 152
7:34 86, 90 21:23 98
7:6 25 22 218
7:12 22, 24, 39 22:21 219
7:13 24, 39 23:34 88
7:24 98 24:1 210
9:1 98 24:14 210
9:3 98, 152 24:4 98
9:9 157 26 19, 26
9:910:11 167 26:1 98
9:2227 13 26:111 87
9:27 12 26:5 25, 38
10:13 157 26:7 20
10:5 152 26:8 165
10:9 152 26:10 51
10:11 24, 32, 39 26:15 32, 152
10:1222 25 26:18 152
10:15 25, 39 26:19 152
10:22 25, 39 27:2 98
11:9 33 27:3 152
Deuteronomy (cont.) 5:6 32

27:4 98 7:12 98
27:12 98 8:7 98
28:9 32, 152 10:41 104
2920 154 11:17 103104
29:24 20 12:1 107
30:18 98 12:3 104
30:19 125 12:7 104, 107
31:2 98 12:15 104
31:3 152 13 109, 111
31:34 98 1321 99
31:4 152 13:1 98
31:13 98 13:17 105, 113
3134 37 13:2 107
31:20 32 13:23 109
31:21 32 13:26 103, 107, 109, 111112
31:23 32 13:3 104
32:4 183 13:6 9899
32:8 183 13:7 98
32:10 197 13:12 98
32:15 183 13:13 98
32:18 183 13:14 98, 107
32:31 183 13:27 104
32:43 183 13:32 107
32:47 98 13:33 98
33:10 118 13:35 104
33:27 98 14 102
34 93 14:1 99
34:4 1213, 32 14:2 98
34:9 152 14:5 98
14:12 98
Joshua 14:13 98
1:2 98 1519 103
1:34 15 15:1 98
1:6 32 15:14 101, 110
1:11 98 15:24 103, 108
1:14 98 15:3 104, 108
1:15 98 15:4 104
3:1 98 15:78 108
3:10 98 15:14 98
3:11 98 15:63 98
3:14 98 16:1 98
3:17 98 16:13 108
4:1 98 16:10 98
4:5 98 17:1 98
4:10 98 17:4 98
4:22 98 17:5 99
4:23 98 17:10 98
17:1213 98 1:20 98
17:14 98 1:21 98
17:17 98 1:27 98
17:18 98 1:2833 98
18 102 1:36 103104
18:2 98 2:1 320
18:3 98 2:6 98
18:5 98 2:15 32
18:6 98 2:21 98
18:8 98 2:23 98
18:10 98 3:3 6, 103105, 109, 113
18:1011 98 11:12 215
18:1213 108 11:2324 98
18:21 98 20:23 51
18:24 98 21:1 32
18:26 98
19:1 98 1 Samuel
19:10 98 1:3 49
19:17 98 1:19 51
19:24 98 8:9 109
19:32 98 15:2223 119
19:35 98 15:29 60
19:40 98 20:30 215
19:47 98 24 31
19:49 98 26 31
19:51 9899 27 109
21:3 98 28 63
21:4 99
21:43 98 2 Samuel
21:4344 32, 107 2:7 47
22:5 98, 157 5:9 98
23:4 99 8 109
23:5 98 12:2425 91
23:9 98 22:38 98
23:13 9899 24 109
24:24 14 24:20 98
24:4 98
24:8 98 1 Kings
24:11 98 3:12 91
24:13 98 4:20 111
24:15 98 4:25 111
24:32 171 4:34 111
5:15 110111
Judges 5:4 111
1 102 5:1719 111
1:136 114 7:23 164
1:3 98 7:40 164
1:19 98 8:22 46
1 Kings (cont.) 23:33 110

8:2350 47 25 158
8:31 46 25:16 164
8:36 98 25:25 158
8:54 47, 49
8:56 103 Isaiah
8:65 104, 109110, 114 139 124
9:6 47 1:10 119
11:16 91 1:29 188
14:24 98 1:30 188
16:3 98 2:14 6
17:8 98 2:24 123
19:18 49 2:3 119, 131
21:3 98 4:2 143
21:4 99 68 131
21:26 98 9:67 142
11 136, 143, 148
2 Kings 11:110 142
1:13 49 16:15 142
4:20 49 19:20 142
11:18 47, 99 20:3 144
14:2 46 20:20 144
14:12 46 2226 136
14:14 46 24:10 197
14:19 46 29:21 197
14:24 104 31:3 60
16 43 33:22 142
16:4 43 34:11 197
17:741 48 35:3 49
17:34 157 35:9 136
17:36 49 3639 44, 128
1820 44, 46, 131 36:1 44
18:2 46 36:7 44
18:4 4344, 49 36:78 5, 44
18:13 44, 46 36:812 45
18:17 46 36:8 45
18:22 43, 47, 49 37:5 144
18:23 45 37:38 48
18:2223 44 4066 37
19:8 98 40:111 136137
19:37 48 41:8 144
20:6 46 40:17 197
21:2 98 40:23 197
21:3 47, 98 41:29 197
21:9 98 42 148
22:19 51 42:1 144
23 80 42:14 138139
23:3 80 42:59 138
42:1012 139 63:16 136

42:19 144 6566 131
43:1 136 65:3 188
43:14 136 65:89 144
44:1 144 65:12 51
44:6 136 65:1315 144
44:9 197 66:12 49
45:59 139 66:14 144
45:1819 197 66:17 188
45:23 51
46:1 51 Jeremiah
46:2 51 2:8 118
47:4 136 4:23 197
47:8 190 7 248
48:17 136 7:115 248249
48:20 136 7:12 247
49:16 139 7:14 247
49:4 197 7:1415 247
49:6 144 11:5 21
49:7 136 18:18 118
49:712 139 23:5 143
49:713 139 26 248249
49:26 136 26:6 246
50:2 144 26:18 248
50:49 140 32:22 21
51:3 188 33:15 143
51:10 136 33:26 11, 40
52:3 136 34 9, 239, 242, 245246,
52:9 136 249250
52:13 144 34:822 9, 79, 239
52:1353:12 140 34:9 240
54:5 136 34:14 240, 242, 249250
54:8 136 50:37 45
58:11 188 51:34 190
59:4 197 52:20 158, 164
59:20 136
60:16 136 Ezekiel
61 148 7:17 49
61:1 138139 7:20 99
61:12 138 7:26 118
61:13 67, 135136, 140141, 8:12 99
149 20:11 168
61:14 140 20:13 168
61:17 137 21:12 49
61:11 188 28:2 60
62:12 136 28:13 188
63:4 136 31:8 188
63:9 136 31:89 190
63:1112 118 31:9 188
Ezekiel (cont.) Zephania

36:35 188 3:4 118
44:22 212
47 108109 Haggai
47:1320 113 2:1113 118
47:14 113
47:1520 6, 103, 105, 109, 112 Zechariah
47:15 104 3:8 143
47:16 104, 108 6:12 143
47:17 104 14 148
47:19 109 14:20 47
47:22 113
48:28 109 Maleachi
2:69 118
Hosea 3:22 6, 118
13 56
2 62 Psalms
2:3 67 1 126
4:6 118 1:2 126
6:4 62 5:8 50
11 64 19:11 168
11:1 5 22:28 5051
11:8 62 26:6 53
11:89 55, 62 29:2 50
11:9 5, 55, 5862, 66 36:9 190
13:2 160 43:4 53
51:21 53
Joel 72:11 51
2:3 188 81:1415 129
84:4 53
Amos 86:9 5051
4:9 188 90:4 234
5:26 99 95 50
8:5 86 95:5 164
9:14 188 95:6 49
96:9 50
Jonah 97:7 50, 52
1:9 164 99 53
99:5 51
Micah 106:35 45
3 249 107:40 197
3:11 248 109:24 49
3:12 248 118:27 53
3:912 248 138:2 50
146:6 164
Nahum
2:11 49 Job
3:12 49
4:4 49 9:615 72
6:18 197 10:1 74
12:24 197 10:3 84
26:7 197
30:31 194 Nehemia
37:22 73 1 5
3842 67 1:4 82
1:57 73
Canticles 1:511 72, 74
4:12 188 1:1517 72
4:15 188 2:7 111
4:16 188 2:8 189
5:1 188 2:9 111
6:1 188 3:7 111
6:10 188 4:14 73
7:11 192, 194 5 7475, 80, 8384
5:1 77
Proverbs 5:15 76
14:10 45 5:113 74
17:1 192 5:17:13 83
20:19 45 5:2 76
24:21 45 5:3 76
5:4 76
Ecclesiastes 5:613 78
2:5 188 7:72b8:13 81
8 5, 71, 8082
Esther 8:4 81
3:2 51 8:8 82
3:5 51 9 83, 85
7:7 188 910 83
7:8 188 9:6 164
9:637 72, 83
Daniel 9:8 84
6:11 49, 51 9:25 190
9:419 72 9:32 73, 84
9:38 83, 85
Ezra 10 8588
1 70 10:1 8384
3:4 82 10:2940 85
4:1011 104 10:30 90
4:17 104 11:20 75
4:20 104 11:23 84
7:25 159 1213 88
8:38 111 13 7071, 85, 88, 90
9 86, 90 13:12 88
910 80, 83 13:23 89
9:2 45 13:25 90
9:3 90 13:26 91
9:5 49
1 Chronicles Acts
2:1 107 17:18 187
21:21 47
Romans
2 Chronicles 10:5 168
4:2 164
4:14 164 2 Corinthians
5:14 155 12:4 189
6 155
6:12 46 Jude
6:13 47, 49, 51 1:6 226
6:1439 47 1:14 226
6:22 46
7:14 155 Revelation
7:19 47 2:7 189
7:22 47
8:13 82 Pseudepigrapha and
23:17 47 Deuterocanonical Literature
23:18 227
25:1 46 Baruch
25:22 46 1:153.:8 72
25:25 46
25:24 46 1 Enoch 225226
25:27 46
28:4 43 Jubilees 225226, 229230
2931 42, 44 2:1 233
29:1 46 2:9 237
29:3 48 4:1526 231
29:19 47 4:1718 235236
29:29 51 4:2930 234
29:2830 49 5:112 231
31:1 44 6:22 231, 233
32 4 6:35 237
32:9 46 7:2039 231
32:12 47 10:17 231
33:3 47 30:12 231, 233
33:13 72 3132 232
34:27 51 46 232
36:21 87
2 Maccabees
New Testament 7:28 197
Luke 4 Maccabees 194

10:28 168

(OS 070) Spronk, Barstad (Eds.) - Torah and Tradition - Papers Read at The Sixteenth Joint Meeting Edinburgh 2015 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(OS 070) Spronk, Barstad (Eds.) - Torah and Tradition - Papers Read at The Sixteenth Joint Meeting Edinburgh 2015 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torah and Tradition

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots

Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad

Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Introduction: Fifteen Joint Meetings and the Sixteenth1

Reexamining the Fathers in Deuteronomys Framework10

I am a God and Not a Human Being: The Divine Dilemma in Hosea54

Geography in Num 33 and 34 and the Challenge of Pentateuchal

The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah118

The Kingship Motif in Isaiah 61:13135

The Influence of the Decalogue on the Shape of Exodus150

The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and the Epicureans176

Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective: Making and Maintaining

Interpreting Torah: Strategies of Producing, Circulating, and Validating

The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:822, on the Liberation of Slaves during

The present volume 70 of Oudtestamentische Studin/Old Testament Studies

1. Woudschoten (1970)M.A. Beek et al., The Witness of Tradition: Papers

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017|doi 10.1163/9789004337695_002

Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at

10. Oxford (1997)J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel.

2 Cf. K. Spronk, Seventy-five years Oudtestamentisch werkgezelschapthe Study of the Old

3 Klaar om te wenden.... De academische bestudering van religie in Nederland: een verkenning.

in order to avoid associations with the garden of Epicurus, the

at the same time appropriates an ancient tradition by means of production,

The identity of the fathers ( ) in Deuteronomys framework is a contested

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017|doi 10.1163/9789004337695_003

1 Occurrences of the Patriarchal Name-Formula in Deuteronomy

The book of Deuteronomy has seven occurrences of the patriarchal name-

Verbal coincidences The patriarchal name-formula used

The remaining two occurrences of the patriarchal name-formula appear with-

the damage incurred to Yhwhs own reputation if he destroys Israel (9:28).9

ancestral traditions of Genesis.13 Otherwise, this literary meme is characteris-

composers (or authors).27 He warned that the boundary-line between scribes

2 Deuteronomys Use of Fathers in the Narrative and Parenetic

Deuteronomy deliberately categorizes the Israelites in generations.29 A casual

discourse, and the narrative important of 1:68 is paradigmatic as it establishes

2.1 The God of your fathers (Deut 1:11)

covenant ratification, a ritual in which Yhwh swore a solemn covenant oath.39

2.3 (Yhwh) loved your fathers (Deut 4:37)

2.8 Yhwh clung to your fathers to love them (Deut 10:15)

2.9 Seventy persons in number your fathers went down to Egypt

51 D CH 3:333; G. Wallis, , TDOT 3:26163.

2.10 Results and Overview

their origins beyond some nondescript shadowy beginnings in Egyptian slav-

3 The Role of Deut 1:68 and its Significance in Chapters 13

The insertion theory is a redaction-critical solution to a redaction-critical

later in Deuteronomy, especially by establishing the patriarchal land-oath

66 Cynthia Edenburg, Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership:

70 Edenburg, Intertextuality, 14445; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 1013; Benjamin D.

it here.75 The consensus seems to be to retain the MT as the lectio difficilior.76

in Deuteronomy created an ambiguity that this author wanted to avoid. The

ary influence among these parallels, it seems likely to me we might consider

of Deut 13. Deuteronomy itself is essentially an exegetical document (1:5),

In different ways...the older traditum is dependent upon the traditio for

86 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 8488.

Accordingly, then, the scriptural status of the traditum is established, while

redactional work on Deut 13 has approached the topic from a perspective

96 Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, esp. 44851; Rmer, Vter, 395520.

1 Narrator and Envoy in Chronicles

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017|doi 10.1163/9789004337695_004

2 Narrator and Envoy in Kings

When we turn from Chronicles to Kings, we find a rather different relation-

2 Cf. K. Spronk, Seventy-five years Oudtestamentisch werkgezelschapthe Study of the Old

3 Klaar om te wenden.... De academische bestudering van religie in Nederland: een verkenning.

51 D CH 3:333; G. Wallis, , TDOT 3:26163.

66 Cynthia Edenburg, Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership:

70 Edenburg, Intertextuality, 14445; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 1013; Benjamin D.

86 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 8488.

96 Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, esp. 44851; Rmer, Vter, 395520.

2 As in the similar-sounding authoritative claims ( I am Yahweh) and ( I am

27 Ps 26:6; 43:4; 51:21; 84:4; 118:27.

43 For the discussion, see West, Hesiod, 178.

51 For an additional indication of how deeply (pre)philosophical Hoseas thinking is at this

37 See esp. 2 Kgs 23:3.

45 Boda, Praying the Tradition, passim.

46 On Neh 5 see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1985, 23146.

50 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 3840.

The introductory clause in Nehemiahs speech to the inhabitants of

Secondly, in his speech Nehemiah refers to an episode in the life of

It is part of the tragedy of Solomon, that this king although he

75 See Berman, The Legal Blend.