How to Read

the Bible
The publication of this book was
made possible by a gift from

The Krancer and Twing families

In loving memory of

Anne Oxler Krancer

How to Read
the Bible
Marc Zvi Brettler

5766 · 2005
T h e J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society
Philadelphia
Copyright © 2005 by Marc Zvi Bretiler

First edition. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or
retrieval system, except for brief passages in connection with a critical review, without
permission in writing from the publisher:

The Jewish Publication Society

2100 Arch Street, 2nd floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Composition by Pageworks
Design by Pageworks

Manufactured in the United States of America

06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Brettler, Marc Zvi.

How to read the Bible / Marc Zvi Brettler.— 1st ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 10: 0-8276-0775-X
ISBN 13: 978-0-8276-0775-0
1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title.
BS1171.3.B74 2005
221.6Ί—dc22
2005009440
To Ezra, w h o has taught me so m u c h over the last sixteen years
Contents

Preface ix
Abbreviations xiii
1. Reading as a Jew and as a Scholar 1
2. W h a t Is the Bible, Anyway? 7
3. The Art of Reading the Bible 13
4. A Brief History of Israel 19
5. With Scissors and Paste: The Sources of Genesis 29
6. Creation vs. Creationism: Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth 37
7. The Ancestors as Heroes 49
8. Biblical Law: Codes and Collections 61
9. Incense Is Offensive to Me: The Cult in Ancient Israel 73
10. "In the Fortieth Year . . . Moses Addressed the Israelites":
Deuteronomy 85
11. "The Walls Came Tumbling Down": Reading Joshua 95
12. "May My Lord King David Live Forever": Royal Ideology
in Samuel a n d Judges 107
13. "For Israel Tore Away from the House of David":
Reading Kings 117
14. Revisionist History: Reading Chronicles 129
15. Introduction to Prophecy 137
16. "Let Justice Well U p like Water": Reading Amos 149
17. "They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares":
Reading (First) Isaiah 161
18. "I Will Make This House like Shiloh": Reading Jeremiah 173
19. "I Will Be for T h e m a Mini-Temple": Reading Ezekiel 185
20. "Comfort, O h Comfort My People": The Exile and Beyond 199
21. "Those That Sleep in the D u s t . . . Will Awake":
Zechariah, Apocalyptic Literature, and Daniel 209
22. Prayer of Many Hearts: Reading Psalms 219
23. "Acquire Wisdom": Reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes 231
24. "Being But Dust a n d Ashes": Reading J o b 243
25. "Drink Deep of Love!": Reading Song of Songs 257
26. "Why Are You So Kind . . . W h e n I Am a Foreigner?":
Reading Ruth vs. Esther 267
27. The Creation of the Bible 273
Afterword: Reading the Bible as a C o m m i t t e d Jew 279

Notes 285
Sources Cited 339
Index of Subjects 361
Index of Biblical Passages a n d Other References 372
Preface

S everal years ago, I m e n t i o n e d to an a c q u a i n t a n c e that I was w r i t i n g a b o o k

called How to Read the Bible. He said: "What's so h a r d a b o u t r e a d i n g the
H e b r e w Bible? You read it t o p to b o t t o m , left to right." We h a d a g o o d laugh after
1 p o i n t e d o u t that (1) H e b r e w is read f r o m right to left, a n d (2) m y b o o k w a s
a b o u t r e a d i n g the Bible, n o t reading Hebrew. As I t h e n explained, this b o o k is
a b o u t the special "rules" for u n d e r s t a n d i n g texts f r o m a different culture.
I n d e e d , this b o o k is the p r o d u c t of m a n y years of t h o u g h t a n d writing. It is a
response to the frustration that most people experience w h o read the Bible. To use
the w o r d s of a biblical character, Daniel, the Bible is a "sealed b o o k " — i t arose in
a culture w h o s e values a n d c o n v e n t i o n s were f u n d a m e n t a l l y different f r o m ours.
T h u s , the Bible today is either avoided as too strange, or else m i s r e a d — t a k e n as if
it h a d b e e n w r i t t e n yesterday or today.
In m y t w o decades of teaching college s t u d e n t s , a n d especially in ten years of
t e a c h i n g a d u l t s an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Bible t h r o u g h the Boston-area Me'ah
Program, I have discovered that o v e r c o m i n g these obstacles is n o easy challenge.
Looking for articles to give to these intelligent adults w h o lack b a c k g r o u n d in bib-
lical studies, m y colleagues a n d I have felt frustrated. Most essays o n the Bible by
scholars are too technical. O t h e r b o o k s , w r i t t e n for the layperson, are w r o n g or
simplistic, or they take a religious (typically Christian) perspective rather t h a n an
historical one.
This b o o k a t t e m p t s to fill the gap, to offer a Jewishly sensitive i n t r o d u c t i o n to
h o w to read biblical texts in their historical context. My h o p e is that the Bible
m i g h t again b e c o m e an o p e n b o o k for the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y a n d other
communities.
To k e e p this b o o k accessible, I have a d d e d as few e n d n o t e s as possible a n d
limited references to w o r k s f o u n d in English. (Such an arrangement u n f o r t u n a t e l y
hides the fact that this b o o k is based on a m u c h w i d e r b o d y of k n o w l e d g e , m u c h
of w h i c h is very technical.)

It is m y pleasure to a c k n o w l e d g e the m a n y people w h o have h e l p e d m e along

the way. Dr. Ellen Frankel, C E O a n d Editor-in-Chief of T h e J e w i s h Publication
Society, h a s s u p p o r t e d the idea of this b o o k ever since I suggested it to her m o r e
t h a n five years ago. She has served as an excellent a n d patient editor. Carol
H u p p i n g , JPS P u b l i s h i n g Director a n d C O O , has d o n e w h a t she does best: m a k -
ing a book's a u t h o r a n d all its editors look good. Janet Liss, P r o d u c t i o n Editor at
the JPS, m o v e d the b o o k a l o n g w i t h great care. Emily Law p r o o f r e a d the b o o k
meticulously a n d Robin N o r m a n , p r o d u c t i o n m a n a g e r of the Jewish Publication
Society, e n s u r e d that the typesetting, design, a n d cover p r o d u c t i o n went
smoothly. Rabbi David E. S. Stein, assisted by Rabbi David Mevorach Seidenberg,
served as d e v e l o p m e n t a l editor a n d also c o p y e d i t e d the m a n u s c r i p t ; together,
they corrected m a n y factual errors a n d h e l p e d m e clarify w h a t I was trying to say,
m a k i n g this b o o k m u c h m o r e readable. Two u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s at Brandeis
University, Leora Koller-Fox a n d J a c o b Merlin, d o u b l e - c h e c k e d all the biblical ci-
tations in the m a n u s c r i p t a n d offered h e l p f u l suggestions. D o n a l d Kraus, Bible
Editor of O x f o r d University Press, supervised the publication of two Bibles that I
h e l p e d to edit, the third edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible a n d The Jewish
Study Bible; in the process, he taught m e m u c h a b o u t writing for an intelligent lay
audience. Credit also goes to m y s t u d e n t s , especially those at Brandeis a n d Me'ah,
w h o have constantly challenged m e to express difficult a n d foreign c o n c e p t s in a
clear a n d concise fashion. They have e m b o d i e d the truism that s t u d e n t s are a pro-
fessor's best teacher. In addition, the T h e o d o r e a n d Jane N o r m a n F u n d at Brandeis
University h a s h e l p e d to defray the cost of p r e p a r i n g the m a n u s c r i p t ; I a m grate-
ful for this c o n t r i b u t i o n , as well as the m a n y o t h e r ways that the University c o n -
t i n u e s to s u p p o r t m y w o r k . Finally I w o u l d like to t h a n k the a c a d e m i c
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the Near Eastern a n d J u d a i c Studies D e p a r t m e n t at Brandeis,
A n n e Lawrence a n d Patricia Lucente, w h o offered h e l p a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t at var-
ious stages of this project.
My teacher N a h u m M. Sarna, ‫ ד י ל‬w h o b r o a d e n e d the biblical publications of
The Jewish Publication Society, was n o t able to review a draft of this b o o k , b u t the
m a n y things that he taught m e are reflected o n every page. He serves as a m o d e l
teacher a n d scholar for m e , b o t h in the way he h a s p e r f o r m e d each of those tasks
a n d in the way he has seen t h e m as intertwined.
W h e n I q u o t e the Bible, I mostly follow the N e w Jewish Publication Society
(NJPS) translation. (Its translators c o m p l e t e d their w o r k in stages—Torah in
1962, Prophets in 1978, a n d Writings in 1 9 8 2 — r e v i s i n g it in 1985. T h e J e w i s h
Publication Society f u r t h e r revised the translation in 1999.) This translation, p u b -
lished u n d e r the title Tanakh (a medieval H e b r e w t e r m for Bible), is the best id-
iomatic translation of the H e b r e w Bible. It reflects very d e e p learning. W h e r e 1
d e p a r t f r o m the JPS translation a n d offer a r e n d e r i n g of m y o w n , this is n o t e d in
the text.
Last a n d not least, I m u s t m e n t i o n m y family. My m o t h e r was m y first H e b r e w
teacher. My father was m y first teacher of Jewish Studies a n d c o n t i n u e s to take an
active interest in m y w o r k , p r o o f r e a d i n g m u c h of this m a n u s c r i p t . My wife,
Monica, m y daughter, Talya, a n d m y son, Ezra, have all b e e n supportive of m y ca-
reer. They have offered a w o n d e r f u l e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h I can c o n t i n u e to learn,
teach, a n d write. It is a p p r o p r i a t e that I dedicate this b o o k to Ezra, n a m e d after
the great sage w h o w a s "a scribe expert in the Torah of Moses" (Ezra 7:6; transi,
a d a p t e d ) , a n d w h o m rabbinic tradition viewed as a s e c o n d Moses.
Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. Garden City: NY:
Doubleday, 1992.
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Pritchard.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1954.
AnOr Analecta Orientali
AOAT Alter Orient u n d Altes Testament
ΒΑ Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archaeologist Reader
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
B.c.E. Before the C o m m o n Era
Bib Biblica
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BZAW Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assynan Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1956.
CBNT Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series
CBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
chap. chapter
c.E. C o m m o n Era
COS The Context of Scripture. Ed. William W Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 2 .
DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Ed. K. van der Toorn et al.
Leiden: Brill, 1995.
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DtrH The Deuteronomistic History (= Deuteronomy-2 Kings)
EJ Encylcopedia Judaica
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
HALOT Koehler, L. et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Trans. M. E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 .
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
INT Interpretation
JPS Jewish Publication Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JR Journal of Religion
JSB The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 2004.
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentlische Studien
RB Revue biblique
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
TAPS Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTS Vetus Testamentum Supplements
ν.,νν. verse, verses
YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
How to Read
the Bible
Reading as a Jew and as a Scholar

I f "reading" is the act of m a k i n g sense of a text, then each of us reads differently.

Further, we each have a different conception of what the Bible is. Not sur-
prisingly, then, we each interpret biblical texts in our own way. Of the m a n y
approaches, we can describe as a "method" only those that are rigorous and
systematic.
This b o o k presents a m e t h o d of reading the Bible. It is often called "the
historical-critical approach." By highlighting this m e t h o d , I do not m e a n that it
is the only way to read the Bible. Indeed, m a n y Jews have viewed with suspicion
this way of reading, rejecting it in favor of other methods. Yet I c o m m e n d this
approach to readers because I have f o u n d it illuminating. W h e n the Bible is
viewed in the light of this m e t h o d , we see the text as meaningful, engaging, and
multifaceted.

Classical Interpretation

For m u c h of the postbiblical period, readers of the Bible have all tended to fol-
low the same m e t h o d . They have seen the Bible as a cryptic yet perfect book, of
fundamental relevance to its c o m m u n i t y of interpreters. They have assumed that
m u c h of the Bible, if not all of it, came (to some extent) from God. Hence the
Bible is a privileged text that should be interpreted using special rules. That is,
it should not be interpreted like regular, nonbiblical texts. 1
This m e t h o d developed d u r i n g the late biblical period. As we shall see in a
later chapter, one passage in the Book of Daniel explains an earlier prophecy of
Jeremiah, which t u r n e d on the phrase "seventy years." Daniel interpreted this
phrase to m e a n "seventy weeks of years," or 4 9 0 years. Normally, w h e n an an-
cient Jew promised to return a borrowed ox in seventy days, it meant just t h a t —
seventy days. Yet Daniel could u n d e r s t a n d Jeremiah's "seventy" differently be-
cause the Book of Jeremiah is a biblical text, reflecting special, divine language.
 Consider, too, the ancient J u d e a n Desert c o m m u n i t y of Q u m r a n , w h i c h
thrived over a period of several c e n t u r i e s — f r o m the second pre-Christian to the
first post-Christian centuries. Their library—the part that is e x t a n t — i s w h a t we
n o w call "The Dead Sea Scrolls." Like the a u t h o r of Daniel, they believed in
interpreting biblical b o o k s in a special way. T h u s they kept a rich interpretive lit-
erature. For example, their Pesher H a b a k k u k , a type of c o m m e n t a r y o n the
p r o p h e t i c b o o k of H a b a k k u k , held that their community's leader u n d e r s t o o d the
true m e a n i n g of the b o o k better t h a n the p r o p h e t himself! The Pesher interpret-
ed the text in relation to the interpreter's o w n period, m o r e than half a millen-
n i u m after H a b a k k u k lived. 2
Classical rabbinic interpretation also shared these w o r k i n g a s s u m p t i o n s .
Even for the Torah's legal texts, it often subverted the plain sense of w o r d s for
the sake of "harmonization." That is, w h e n texts ( f r o m divergent places a n d
times) appeared to contradict each other, it "reconciled" t h e m so that they w o u l d
agree. For example, a slave law in E x o d u s 21:6 suggests that in certain circum-
stances a H e b r e w slave serves the master "in perpetuity" (le-olam). This contra-
diets Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 , w h i c h states that masters must release all s u c h slaves on
the jubilee year (every fiftieth year). However, according to the basic a s s u m p -
tions, God's w o r d m u s t be internally consistent. Therefore the rabbis insisted
that the term "in perpetuity" in E x o d u s m e a n s "practically (but not literally) for-
ever"—that is, until the jubilee year. 3 This type of interpretation is strange to the
reader u n u s e d to classical Jewish (and to a large extent Christian) interpretation.
But it is natural if w e u n d e r s t a n d the Bible as a u n i f o r m , perfect, divine w o r k ,
w h i c h may e m p l o y language in a cryptic fashion.
This is n o t to say that every traditional, p r e m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r of the Bible
t o o k every w o r d of the text a c c o r d i n g to all of these principles. Yet the few
e x c e p t i o n s prove the rule. For e x a m p l e , Rabbi A b r a h a m ibn Ezra ( 1 0 8 9 - 1 1 6 4 )
suggested that s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n Moses wrote a small n u m b e r of verses in
the To rah. Yet even as that c o m m e n t a t o r m a d e sure to i n f o r m his readers of
that u n o r t h o d o x view, he was careful to c o n d e m n it. 4 Likewise, Rabbi Samuel
b e n Meir (also k n o w n as "Rashbam"; 1 0 8 0 - 1 1 7 4 ) allowed that biblical lan-
guage is n o t cryptic; rather, its w o r d s m e a n w h a t they n o r m a l l y imply, even if
this c o n t r a d i c t s rabbinic tradition. T h u s , he alone a m o n g the extant medieval
J e w i s h exegetes did not find it necessary to "reconcile" E x o d u s 2 1 : 6 w i t h
Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 (see above). However, this o p i n i o n survives in only a single
medieval m a n u s c r i p t , a n d it h a s n o t a p p e a r e d in m o s t p r i n t e d editions. This
suggests that his a p p r o a c h s t o o d at, or even b e y o n d , the fringe of acceptable
interpretation.
 O n l y in the seventeenth century, w i t h the rise of E u r o p e a n rationalism, did
scholars begin to question the u n i q u e , divine n a t u r e of the biblical text. H o b b e s
(in England) a n d Spinoza (in H o l l a n d ) led the way. C o n s i d e r the latter's magnif-
icent Theological-Political Tractate,5 w i t h its c h a p t e r called simply "Of the
Interpretation of Scripture." It replaces the earlier a s s u m p t i o n s with a single
premise that allows the Bible to be seen in a n e w m a n n e r : "I hold that the
m e t h o d of interpreting Scripture is n o different f r o m the m e t h o d of interpreting
n a t u r e , a n d is in fact in c o m p l e t e accord with it." 6 In a single sentence, Spinoza
"deprivileges" the Bible. He r e n o u n c e s the traditional f r a m e w o r k for biblical
interpretation: The Bible is not cryptic. It n o longer n e e d s to be interpreted as a
seamless whole. It is imperfect. In places it m a y be of historical interest o n l y n o
longer relevant to c o n t e m p o r a r y believers. In m o s t senses, it is a b o o k like any
other.

The Historical-Critical Method

It w o u l d take two m o r e centuries before the n e w w o r k i n g a s s u m p t i o n s gained

acceptance a m o n g Europe's rationalist intellectual elite. But once this h a p p e n e d ,
the historical-critical m e t h o d took h o l d . ‫׳‬
W h a t is the historical-critical m e t h o d ? "Historical" refers to the view that the
m a i n context for interpretation is the place a n d time in w h i c h the text was c o m -
posed. "Critical" simply m e a n s reading the text i n d e p e n d e n t l y of religious n o r m s
or interpretive t r a d i t i o n s — a s o p p o s e d to accepting t h e m uncritically. 8 (In this
context, it does not imply a j u d g m e n t a l or faultfinding a p p r o a c h , w h i c h is a n o t h -
er m e a n i n g of the w o r d "critical.") A m a i n c o m p o n e n t of this a p p r o a c h is source
criticism, also called "Higher Criticism" (which distinguishes it from the effort to
establish the correct reading of the t r a n s m i t t e d text, k n o w n as "Lower
Criticism"). It seeks to identify a n d isolate the original sources of the biblical text
as it has c o m e d o w n to us.
T h e n e w m e t h o d crystallized in the late n i n e t e e n t h a n d early twentieth cen-
turies, d e v e l o p i n g into a school of interpretation. The most influential p e r s o n of
this school was the G e r m a n scholar Julius Wellhausen, based o n his magisterial
w o r k of 1 8 7 8 (translated into English as Prolegomena to the History of Ancient
9
Israel) I n d e e d , it was mainly in G e r m a n y that the historical-critical m o v e m e n t
took root, specifically in the theology d e p a r t m e n t s of Protestant universities. For
doctrinal reasons, Catholic scholars hardly participated in these d e v e l o p m e n t s
until after the Vatican II p r o n o u n c e m e n t s in 1965.
The Reaction A m o n g J e w s

T h e J e w i s h w o r l d , too, largely r e m a i n e d aloof. W h i l e a few J e w i s h c o n t e m p o -

raries of W e l l h a u s e n favored his a p p r o a c h , o t h e r s wrote p o l e m i c s against h i m ,
trying to u n d e r m i n e his r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the texts history. 1 0 These scholars c o n -
tinued to advocate the r a b b i n i c m o d e of reading, suggesting that what
Wellhausen a n d his colleagues saw as textual c o n t r a d i c t i o n s are really not c o n -
tradictions at all.
T h e most notable attack o n the historical-critical perspective came f r o m a
r e n o w n e d scholar of rabbinics, S o l o m o n Schechter. At a 1 9 0 3 b a n q u e t , he
offered a n a d d r e s s titled " H i g h e r - C r i t i c i s m — H i g h e r Anti-Semitism." 1 1 He e q u a t -
ed Wellhausen's a p p r o a c h w i t h "professional a n d imperial anti-Semitism," call-
ing it an "intellectual persecution" of J u d a i s m . 1 2 S c h e c h t e r s essay h a d an
i m m e n s e i m p a c t on the Jewish attitude t o w a r d the Bible. Its influence s e e m s to
explain w h y until the present generation m a n y professional Jewish biblical
scholars have b e e n less engaged in historical-critical s t u d y t h a n their non-Jewish
counterparts.
Schechter actually offered a fair critique of H i g h e r Criticism as it was prac-
ticed in G e r m a n y in the late n i n e t e e n t h a n d the early t w e n t i e t h centuries. Like
nearly all Christians of the time, its p r o p o n e n t s believed in the m o r a l superiori-
ty of Christianity to J u d a i s m , a n d they u s e d their scholarly w o r k s to illustrate
this. W e l l h a u s e n , for e x a m p l e , l i k e n e d J u d a i s m in late antiquity to a d e a d tree.
He a p p l i e d that image vigorously, describing the late biblical b o o k of Chronicles
thus: "Like ivy it overspreads the d e a d t r u n k w i t h e x t r a n e o u s life, b l e n d i n g old
a n d n e w in a strange c o m b i n a t i o n . . . . [I]η the process it is twisted a n d p e r -
verted." 1 3 As p a i n f u l as s u c h s e n t i m e n t s are for Jews, they n e i t h e r d i m i n i s h the
brilliance of m u c h of his Prolegomena, n o r negate the correctness of its basic
methodology.

Beyond the Early Biases

Schechter h a d w a r n e d that the historical-critical m e t h o d "is seeking to destroy,

d e n y i n g all o u r claims to the past, a n d leaving u s w i t h o u t h o p e for the future." 1 4
In fact, however, the m e t h o d itself is religiously n e u t r a l — n e i t h e r discrediting
J u d a i s m n o r p r o m o t i n g Christianity. I n d e e d , by the final d e c a d e s of the twenti-
eth century, m a n y professional scholars, i n c l u d i n g Jews, h a d a d o p t e d the histor-
ical-critical m e t h o d w i t h o u t attacking the H e b r e w Bible or J u d a i s m . These w o r k s
illustrate that historical-critical m e t h o d s are n o t by definition anti-Semitic. 1 5
 I w o u l d go even further. I insist n o t only that the historical-critical m e t h o d
is neutral, b u t also that it can be religiously c o n s t r u c t i v e — e v e n for Jews. The last
t w o d e c a d e s have seen a r e m a r k a b l e resurgence in interest in e t h n i c a n d reli-
gious roots a m o n g m a n y Americans, i n c l u d i n g American Jews. Publishers have
p r o d u c e d an u n p r e c e d e n t e d n u m b e r of b o o k s on Jewish texts, s u c h as Barry
Holtz's Back to the Sources.16 Serious adult Jewish e d u c a t i o n classes have reached
n e w levels of success. Many J e w s are going b a c k to the Bible in a serious, m o r e
a c a d e m i c way, looking for w h a t the Bible originally m e a n t . They are e x p l o r i n g
h o w its earlier m e a n i n g m a y bear o n religious life as we might n o w live it. They
d o n o t wish to slavishly follow the n o r m s of the Jewish past, b u t neither d o they
wish to ignore t h e m . Such n o r m s m u s t first be u n d e r s t o o d before they can
i n f o r m c o n t e m p o r a r y beliefs a n d practices.

About This Book

The p u r p o s e of this b o o k is to s h o w the value of reading the Bible in a historical-

critical m a n n e r . This perspective greatly e n r i c h e s the text, a n d allows u s to
recover a vibrant civilization over t w o millennia old. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the Bible in
its original context allows u s to u n d e r s t a n d ourselves. For t h e n we can see w h e r e
o u r secular civilization accords w i t h ancient Israelite perspectives, a n d w h e r e it
h a s diverged f r o m t h e m . It also allows u s to see w h e r e J u d a i s m h a s (or h a s n o t )
developed b e y o n d biblical religion. Finally, the historical-critical m e t h o d lets u s
appreciate the Bible as an interesting text that s p e a k s in multiple voices o n pro-
f o u n d issues. O n l y with the h e l p of the historical-critical m e t h o d can these dif-
ferent voices be fully heard a n d appreciated.
In p r e s e n t i n g m y case, m y first task is to explain this book's title, How to
Read the Bible. T h u s the following c h a p t e r defines w h a t 1 m e a n by "the Bible,"
a n d t h e n the third c h a p t e r explains w h a t I m e a n by "reading." By e x p l o r i n g the
act of reading, it a t t e m p t s to s h o w that r e a d i n g in its fullest sense is far f r o m sim-
pie. T h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s each focus o n a specific biblical text or genre,
highlighting h o w m o d e r n biblical s c h o l a r s h i p m a k e s sense of that text or genre.
In an a f t e r w o r d , I discuss h o w the historical-critical m e t h o d can h e l p c o n t e m -
p o r a r y J e w s relate to the Bible as a religious text in a m o r e m e a n i n g f u l way.
All told, this b o o k is a Jewishly sensitive introduction to the historical-critical
method. Remarkably, it is the first s u c h a t t e m p t . 1 7
How to Read the Bible differs f r o m the m a n y so-called i n t r o d u c t i o n s to the
Bible. 1 8 Most s u c h w o r k s survey each b o o k of the Bible, n o t i n g the critical p r o b -
lems p r e s e n t e d by each, positing w h e n each w a s written, a n d n o t i n g h o w m o d -
e m historical-critical scholarship a p p r o a c h e s each. Typically, they focus o n iso-
lating a n d r e m o v i n g w h a t is s e c o n d a r y in each text. For e x a m p l e , they "root out"
w h a t e v e r a p p e a r s in the b o o k of the p r o p h e t A m o s that he himself did n o t write.
These w o r k s are o f t e n reference b o o k s , rather t h a n true i n t r o d u c t i o n s .
In contrast, How to Read the Bible does not a t t e m p t to cover every biblical
b o o k . Instead, it surveys representative biblical texts f r o m different genres, to
illustrate h o w m o d e r n scholarship has t a u g h t u s to "read" these texts. Its i n t e n d -
ed a u d i e n c e i n c l u d e s the c u r i o u s adult w h o w a n t s to read t h r o u g h sections of
the Bible a n d appreciate t h e m w i t h i n a m o d e r n f r a m e w o r k , a n d the college stu-
d e n t in an i n t r o d u c t o r y Bible course. It conveys the general principles of this
unfamiliar m e t h o d o l o g y . 1 9 S u c h an i n t r o d u c t i o n will enable the reader to u n d e r -
s t a n d m o r e technical studies, encyclopedias, a n d c o m m e n t a r i e s o n the Bible.
Most significantly, it will p r o m p t y o u to a p p r o a c h biblical texts w i t h n e w k i n d s
of questions, a n d to appreciate t h e m in a n e w way.
 2
What Is the Bible, Anyway?

T he Bible can be an i n t i m i d a t i n g b o o k . Its size alone is o v e r w h e l m i n g — 1 5 7 4

pages in the H e b r e w edition that is s t a n d a r d a m o n g Bible scholars (Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia), 1 6 2 4 pages in The Jewish Publication Society's transla-
tion (see below), 2 0 2 3 pages in the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, a n d 2 1 8 1 pages
in The Jewish Study Bible ( i n c l u d i n g n o t e s a n d essays). A significant a m o u n t of the
biblical text is poetry, w h i c h is d a u n t i n g to many, a n d certainly does not m a k e
for q u i c k reading.
For s u c h a b o o k , an orientation w o u l d surely be helpful. This c h a p t e r cov-
ers the f u n d a m e n t a l s : basic terminology for the Bible, its basic structure, a n d
w h y s u c h things matter. It also defines w h a t I m e a n by "the Bible" for the p u r -
poses of this b o o k .

Basic Terminology

The N a m e in English

T h e w o r d "Bible" derives f r o m the Greek biblia, m e a n i n g "books." 1 By its very

n a m e , "the Bible" refers to "the collection of b o o k s " — t h a t is, the one that is
d e e m e d to be authoritative or canonical.
Different c o m m u n i t i e s have different Bibles. For Christians, the Bible in-
eludes the N e w Testament; for J e w s it does not. To distinguish it f r o m the
Christians' Bible, people have suggested a variety of n a m e s for the Jews' Bible
(besides simply "the Bible"). Christians typically call it the Old Testament, w h e r e
"testament" is an old way of referring to a contract ("covenant"). This n a m e is
based o n a p r o p h e c y in J e r e m i a h that states: "See, a time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the
LORD—when I will m a k e a new covenant with the H o u s e of Israel a n d the H o u s e
of J u d a h . It will not be like the covenant I m a d e w i t h their fathers, w h e n I took
t h e m by the h a n d to lead t h e m out of the land of Egypt, a covenant w h i c h they
broke, t h o u g h I e s p o u s e d t h e m — d e c l a r e s the LORD" ( 3 1 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) . Early Christian
tradition u n d e r s t o o d this passage to refer to a n e w c o v e n a n t , centered a r o u n d
Jesus, w h i c h replaces the old Mosaic o n e . 2 This led to the t e r m s " N e w Testa-
m e n t " a n d "Old T e s t a m e n t " — i n w h i c h "old" c o n n o t e s obsolescence. 3
Jews, however, view the original c o v e n a n t as still operative. For this reason,
J e w s have t e n d e d to reject the t e r m "Old Testament." M a n y simply call this b o d y
of literature "the Bible." For religious Jews, this n a m e is b y definition a p p r o p r i -
ate: these are "the b o o k s " that are authoritative for this g r o u p .
A c a d e m i c scholars, m e a n w h i l e , generally prefer n o t to take sides in the
debate as to w h i c h covenant w i t h G o d is in force. Therefore, in scholarly circles,
the m o r e n e u t r a l t e r m s " H e b r e w Bible" or "Jewish Scripture(s)" have gained c u r -
rency. A d m i t t e d l y the first n a m e is slightly imprecise, because s o m e passages of
the Bible are n o t in H e b r e w b u t rather in Aramaic, a related Semitic language. 4

Other Jewish Names: A Historical Review

In extant texts c o m p o s e d d u r i n g the biblical p e r i o d i t s e l f — w h i c h lasted m o r e

t h a n a t h o u s a n d y e a r s — n o t e r m at all a p p e a r s for this set of b o o k s . T h e Bible
w a s t h e n still in f o r m a t i o n as an authoritative collection. It received its title only
after it c a m e into b e i n g — s i g n a l i n g the start of the postbiblical period.
In the first c e n t u r y C.E., J o s e p h u s (the great Jewish historian w h o wrote in
Greek) k n e w of the Bible. 5 He called it ta hiera grammata ("The Holy Writings"). 6
He also called it grammasi ("that w h i c h is w r i t t e n " ) — o f t e n translated as "Scrip-
7
ture" b u t better r e n d e r e d uncapitalized, as "scripture."
In classical rabbinic literature, the two m o s t c o m m o n t e r m s for the Bible
were mikra ( ‫ מ ק ר א‬, literally "that w h i c h is read or recited aloud") a n d kitvei ha-
kodesh (‫כתבי הקדש‬, "the holy writings"). 8 Sometimes, the rabbis referred to the
Bible as torah, nevi'im, u-khtuvim (‫וכתובים‬ •‫נביאי‬ ‫תורה‬, "the Torah, the
Prophets, a n d the Writings"). 9
In the Middle Ages, p e r h a p s in the late first m i l l e n n i u m c.E., scribes short-
e n e d Torah, Nevi'im, u-Khtuvim into the a c r o n y m ‫ ת נ ״ ך‬, w h i c h is p r o n o u n c e d
Tanakh. J e w s t o d a y still c o m m o n l y use that n a m e for their Bible. As the title of
T h e Jewish Publication Society's 1 9 8 5 o n e - v o l u m e translation, the T a n a k h
m a k e s a p o i n t that o t h e r n a m e s ("the Bible," "Holy Scriptures," or even " H e b r e w
Bible") d o not. Namely, it u n d e r s c o r e s that the translators r e n d e r e d directly f r o m
the H e b r e w (not f r o m an ancient Greek version, like s o m e Christians transla-
tions) and d r e w u p o n J e w i s h interpretive t r a d i t i o n . 1 0
 M a k i n g an issue out of w h a t to call these texts might s e e m p e d a n t i c , b u t it
is not. As we shall see, the " H e b r e w Bible" a n d the "Old Testament" differ in
m o r e t h a n n a m e only. They c o m p r i s e different n u m b e r s of b o o k s , w h i c h they
place in a different order. (The o r d e r i n g m a t t e r s because it alters the context in
w h i c h we u n d e r s t a n d the text; a b o o k s m e a n i n g can shift d e p e n d i n g u p o n
w h i c h b o o k s we read before a n d after it.) More significantly, the term " H e b r e w
Bible" suggests a c o r p u s that is self-standing, w h e r e a s the "Old Testament" d o e s
not. T h e m e a n i n g of m a n y passages in the "Old Testament" c h a n g e s w h e n o n e
views t h e m as part of a larger w h o l e that i n c l u d e s the N e w Testament. 1 1

Name and Structure

As we have seen, the n a m e Tanakh reflects a three-part ("tripartite") organization

of the Bible; for Jews, this is the s t a n d a r d division of the Bible. T h e n a m e of each
of its parts, however, w a r r a n t s s o m e explanation. The n a m e of the first part, as
we have said, is Torah. Christians have o f t e n translated the t e r m as "Law," b u t
this is too restrictive; it m i s r e p r e s e n t s this collection of b o o k s , w h i c h features
nonlegal e l e m e n t s s u c h as narrative a n d poetry. (It also m i s r e p r e s e n t s J u d a i s m ,
w h i c h is far m o r e t h a n a "religion of law.") Rather, Torah is a b r o a d t e r m that
m e a n s "Instruction."
T h e n a m e of the s e c o n d part, Nevi'im, m e a n s "Prophets." However, m a n y of
its b o o k s are n o t actually p r o p h e t i c w o r k s . Its first p o r t i o n , often called the
"Former Prophets," consists instead of narrative texts. They c o n t i n u e the story
b e g u n in the Torah. A l t h o u g h p r o p h e t s play an i m p o r t a n t role in these narrative
b o o k s , they dwell on far m o r e t h a n prophecies.
T h e n a m e of the final part of the Bible, Kethuvim ( s o m e t i m e s transcribed as
Ketuvim), m e a n s "Writings." Of course the rest of the Bible also consists of "writ-
ings." W h a t therefore justifies giving the last set of b o o k s s u c h a generic n a m e ?
As we shall see in c h a p t e r 27, the a n s w e r is a matter of history. In this case,
Kethuvim has c o m e to serve as a catchall term. It is a miscellany. It c o n t a i n s s u c h
diverse w o r k s as Psalms (prayers), Chronicles (history), Daniel ( p r o p h e c y ) , a n d
Song of Songs (erotic poetry).
T h e chart s h o w n on page 10 illustrates the typical a r r a n g e m e n t of the
b o o k s in H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s a n d p r i n t e d editions of the Bible (Tanakh). 1 2 It
also illustrates h o w there are t w e n t y - f o u r b o o k s of the Bible a c c o r d i n g to Jewish
tradition.
Torah Nevi'im Kethuvim

Genesis Joshua13 Psalms

Exodus Judges Proverbs15
Leviticus Samuel14 Job
Numbers Kings S o n g of S o n g s 1 6
Deuteronomy Isaiah17 Ruth
Jeremiah Lamentations
Ezekiel Ecclesiastes
18
T h e Twelve M i n o r P r o p h e t s Esther
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles19

Alternative Arrangements

O n l y in Jewish Bibles will you find the b o o k s g r o u p e d into three sections. This
tripartite s t r u c t u r e is f o u n d in all H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s of the Bible. All c o n t e m -
p o r a r y J e w i s h translations follow its outline.
In antiquity, however, this a r r a n g e m e n t was not the only one that J e w s
e m p l o y e d . In particular, the J e w s w h o r e n d e r e d the Bible into Greek ( p r o d u c i n g
the translation k n o w n as the Septuagint m o r e t h a n 2 1 0 0 years ago) 2 0 divided it
into four sections: Torah; Historical Books; W i s d o m a n d Poetic Books; a n d
Prophetic Books. 2 1 This o r d e r is quite logical—it begins w i t h Torah, the m o s t
basic text, followed b y b o o k s a b o u t the past (Historical Books), the present
( W i s d o m a n d Poetic Books), a n d the f u t u r e (Prophetic Books). This o r d e r i n g
s c h e m e m o s t likely originated in the land of Israel before b e i n g t r a n s m i t t e d to
the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g Jewish c o m m u n i t y of Alexandria, Egypt, together w i t h the
H e b r e w texts of the biblical b o o k s themselves.

The Christians5 Old Testament

T h e early Christians c a m e to a d o p t the o r d e r of the Septuagint for t w o m a i n

reasons. First, they s p o k e Greek (rather t h a n H e b r e w ) , so it w a s n a t u r a l for
t h e m to rely o n the Greek translation a n d a d o p t the Greek order. Second, that
o r d e r — u n l i k e s o m e o t h e r s — e n d e d w i t h the p r o p h e t i c b o o k s . In the Christian
c a n o n (Old Testament + N e w Testament), this a r r a n g e m e n t j u x t a p o s e d the
P r o p h e t s ( w h i c h a c c o r d i n g to Christian tradition predict the arrival of J e s u s as
m e s s i a h ) w i t h the Gospels ( w h i c h describe that arrival, fulfilling the predic-
tion). T h u s , while the Christians' Bible u s e d an o r d e r of Old Testament b o o k s
that p r e d a t e s the rise of Christianity, it did so because that o r d e r served Chris-
tian p u r p o s e s well.
T h e scope of m a n y Christians' Old Testament is larger than that of the Jews'
Bible. T h e f o r m e r i n c l u d e s n o t only the b o o k s listed above b u t also the Apocry-
p h a (which is Greek for "hidden"). These are various Jewish Hellenistic writings
that the Catholic, O r t h o d o x , Coptic, a n d o t h e r Christian C h u r c h e s have held to
be authoritative a n d sacred, b u t of lesser status t h a n the o t h e r b o o k s of the Bible
(that is, they are "deuterocanonical"). These include b o o k s like 1 Maccabees (a
historical text) a n d Sirach (which goes by m a n y n a m e s — B e n Sirach, W i s d o m of
Ben Sirach, Sira, Ben Sira, etc.; a w i s d o m text similar to Proverbs). Catholic
Bibles often print these b o o k s in a separate section called A p o c r y p h a , even
t h o u g h they were originally part of the Old Testament canon.
T h e Protestant C h u r c h later rejected the A p o c r y p h a as canonical. Regardless
of h o w we view the A p o c r y p h a , if we set t h e m aside for the m o m e n t we get the
following four-part Bible:

Torah Historical Wisdom and Poetic Prophetic

Genesis Joshua Job Isaiah

Exodus Judges Psalms Jeremiah
22
Leviticus Ruth Proverbs Lamentations
Numbers 1 Samuel23 Ecclesiastes Ezekiel
Deuteronomy 2 Samuel S o n g of S o l o m o n Daniel
1 Kings T h e Twelve M i n o r
2 Kings Prophets24
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther

This is the a r r a n g e m e n t f o u n d in non-Jewish translations ranging f r o m the

King J a m e s ( 1 6 1 1 ) to the N e w Revised Standard Version ( 1 9 8 9 ) a n d b e y o n d .
Its reflects n o t only certain ancient Greek m a n u s c r i p t s b u t also the influential
translation of the Bible into Latin by the early C h u r c h father J e r o m e ( 3 4 0 -
4 2 0 C.E.).
 In addition, in a small n u m b e r of cases, chapters of biblical b o o k s begin in
slightly different places in Jewish Bibles in contrast to Christian Bibles; this is yet
another way in which the Hebrew Bible differs from the Old Testament. 2 5

My Definition of "the Bible"

This b o o k is a Jewishly sensitive introduction to "the Bible." T h u s in this book I

always use that term to m e a n what others call "the Hebrew Bible."
I d o not m e a n to imply that this definition is either the original or the best
one. (Indeed, the fact that the current Jewish order differs from what is record-
ed in the Babylonian Talmud is a good reminder that the order was never set in
stone. 2 6 ) My use of the Jewish arrangement merely acknowledges that this is
what Jews currently use in what they call the Bible.
 3
The Art of Reading the Bible
R e a d i n g is a complicated, multifaceted process. 1 1 am not referring to the
technical aspect of s o u n d i n g out words, what is called "decoding"—this is
relatively simple, especially in Hebrew. Nor am I referring to resolving the types
of ambiguities that exist in any dead, or literary, language. These ambiguities can
be quite significant in translating the Bible. For example, should the first sen-
tence of the Bible be rendered "In the beginning God created heaven and earth"
or "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth"? Should the root
q-n-' ( ‫ ) ק נ א‬w h e n describing God be translated "jealous" or "zealous"? Lack of
punctuation in the earliest biblical texts raises additional reading problems:
should I read Isaiah 4 0 : 3 as "A voice rings out: , Make clear in the desert a road
for the LORD!'" or as "A voice rings out in the desert , Clear a road for the L O R D ! " ' ?
As theologically significant as these issues may be for reading or translating the
Hebrew Bible, they pale in comparison to the reading challenges caused by the
fact that the Bible was written in an ancient society that h a d fundamentally dif-
ferent literary conventions from ours.
Especially if we k n o w only one language, and live mostly in one society or
social group, we may not be aware of the extent to which convention guides so
m u c h of what we d o and h o w we behave. Conventions, however, by definition
have particular meanings in particular groups. Anyone hitchhiking in Israel
using the American hitchhiking sign, which is considered an obscene gesture
there, will quickly appreciate the importance of convention.
Conventions combine with the meaning of words to determine h o w a text
should be understood. Words alone d o not determine meaning; we interpret
t h e m based on the context that they are in, namely their genre. The same words
will be interpreted differently if they are f o u n d in a different genre or context.
For example, the words "slow children" will be u n d e r s t o o d one way if they are
f o u n d as part of a report dealing with special education in a school district, and
another if they are f o u n d on a yellow, triangular street sign. The w o r d s are the
same; their context, which determines their genre (school report vs. street sign),
will ascertain w h e t h e r they are descriptive of children w i t h below-average IQs,
or are prescriptive, telling the driver to slow d o w n because a large n u m b e r of
children live in a n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e p r o p e r interpretation of the same two
w o r d s differs based o n their genre.

Reading and the Biblical Text

There are m a n y ways of reading the Bible. My interest, however, is in reading the
Bible like an ancient Israelite, 2 w h a t is o f t e n called reading the Bible f r o m a his-
torical-critical perspective. As n o t e d in c h a p t e r 1, "historical-critical" is an u n f o r -
tunate term; m u c h m o r e t h a n history is involved in this type of reading, a n d the
term "critical" incorrectly suggests that the "critic" is interested in s o m e h o w dis-
m a n t l i n g the Bible or any faith-based c o m m i t m e n t w i t h the Bible at its core. This
is n o t w h a t I a m a t t e m p t i n g here. Instead, I a m a s s u m i n g that the Bible, like any
ancient text, has b e e n read differently in different periods, because readers read
the Bible u s i n g their o w n c o n v e n t i o n s or rules. J a m e s Kugel, for example, has
s h o w n h o w readers in the early postbiblical p e r i o d u n d e r s t o o d the Bible; their
readings are often very strange f r o m o u r perspective, because these interpreters
lived two t h o u s a n d years ago a n d w o r k e d w i t h i n a religious a n d cultural system
that is so different t h a n o u r s . 3
W h e t h e r a particular biblical interpretation is right or w r o n g in an absolute
sense is usually impossible to say, because the validity of any reading d e p e n d s
o n its time p e r i o d a n d the c o n v e n t i o n s of that period. Everything d e p e n d s on
w h a t rules the reader uses w h e n reading the biblical text.

The Rules of the Game

Those w h o play the b o a r d game M o n o p o l y ® m i g h t k n o w the official rules

( p r i n t e d o n the box), b u t they m i g h t also be familiar w i t h alternative sets of
rules. N o w h e r e d o the official rules suggest that $ 5 0 0 m u s t be a d d e d to Free
Parking after a n y o n e lands o n that space a n d collects the money, n o r d o the rules
deal w i t h the special cases of the player w h o rolls d o u b l e ones or d o u b l e sixes.
Yet almost all M o n o p o l y players have conventions that d e t e r m i n e h o w these situ-
ations s h o u l d be h a n d e d . W h a t is crucial is that before the g a m e starts, all par-
ticipants agree on the rules g o v e r n i n g that particular game; otherwise, chaos
ensues.
Similarly, the way of reading suggested h e r e — w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s w h a t the
Bible meant w h e n it was written—is not intended to disparage other "rules" that
might be used for reading the Bible. 1 do not m e a n to argue that these methods,
whether based on certain religious or literary principles, are fundamentally
wrong. Instead, this book develops, explores, explains, and justifies a different
set of rules. In the afterword, I will argue that these rules do work for religious
use—although for n o w this might seem unlikely, or even impossible.
The importance of proper rules or genre for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the Bible is most
easily illustrated through the following examples. They presume, for illustrative
p u r p o s e s only, the existence of someone from a wholly different culture w h o is
perfectly proficient in the English language, having mastered the grammar of
English and an English dictionary. This individual (let me call her Marta) would
be comparable to the m o d e r n scholar w h o has complete mastery of biblical word
use and grammar (which incidentally is impossible). Marta will illustrate three
situations that indicate h o w mastery of lexicon (word use) and grammar alone
are insufficient for reading in the most comprehensive sense.
Let's imagine that Marta arrives at m y house as I am reading some poetry. I
h a p p e n to turn to a p o e m called "Subway," translated from Japanese. It begins:
"Every day I step into a coffin / with strangers." 4 Reading even this first line, I
sigh in pleasure—after all, I grew u p in N e w York, and traveled on many trains
during rush hour, unable to breathe, feeling like I was buried alive with strangers
for an hour. Marta, however, has n o comprehension of this experience, for at
least two reasons. She has never experienced the subways. Just as significantly,
she has never encountered poetry, and thinks that these initial eight words about
entering coffins with strangers describe either a strange ritual or a kinky prac-
tice. T h o u g h she u n d e r s t a n d s the words, by reading t h e m literally, she misun-
derstands their meaning in this particular context.
Only after Marta learns about subways, and more importantly, about genre
conventions—for instance, that literature presented in short lines is poetry, that
poetry uses metaphors, and that m e t a p h o r s should be interpreted in a particu-
lar way—will she understand those eight words. Reading that line of poetry
t h u s extends far beyond a phonetic process, or even looking u p each word in a
dictionary.
Another scenario, from later in the day. Marta is looking over m y shoulder
as I sort the day's mail. I sort into two piles; one with notices (typically in red)
such as "Urgent: O p e n Immediately," the other lacking such notices. But then I
trash everything from the "Urgent: O p e n Immediately" pile. Marta is bewildered.
She k n o w s h o w to read, but nothing in her technical language preparation
taught her about genres of mail. Had she learned that the words "Urgent: O p e n
Immediately" (combined with other markers such as third class postage) typify
a genre that we call "junk mail," t h e n she w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d . But this lesson,
w h i c h h a s to d o w i t h social aspects of reading a n d w r i t i n g a n d h o w we as read-
ers pick u p o n clues (what biblical scholars call "form-critical markers"), is typ-
ically only l e a r n e d t h r o u g h experience w i t h i n a particular social g r o u p .
For the final example, imagine that Marta w a t c h e s as I read the Sunday
Boston Globe. She clearly observes that the n e w s p a p e r is c o m p r i s e d of various
sections w i t h different layouts, b u t doesn't k n o w the significance of these differ-
ences. Specifically, she doesn't k n o w that Doonesbury, p r i n t e d o n the first page
of the comics, m u s t be read differently t h a n the first page of the first section.
T h o u g h b o t h sections contain the s a m e w o r d s , even the same personal n a m e s ,
we k n o w t h r o u g h experience that they c o n v e y different i n f o r m a t i o n or have dif-
ferent goals. T h e first page m e a n s to c o n v e y facts; the comics are i n t e n d e d to
a m u s e . Marta, however, has n o d e v e l o p e d awareness of contexts a n d genres,
h o w they m i g h t i n f o r m w h a t s o m e t h i n g really m e a n s , or h o w it s h o u l d be read,
so she likely w o u l d u s e D o o n e s b u r y as a source for n e w s in the same w a y that
she uses the first page.

The Challenge of Reading like an Ancient Israelite

If Marta is smart, she will eventually figure these things out. She will learn based
o n experience w h a t j u n k mail is, h o w to read the comics, even the n a t u r e of
poetry. (Indeed, this is w h a t each of u s h a s learned to do.) It will take h e r awhile.
Yet in learning to read (in this b r o a d sense), Marta will have an advantage that
we Bible readers never have: she h a s w h a t linguists a n d anthropologists call
" i n f o r m a n t s " — r e a l , live people w h o can lead h e r d o w n the right track. We have
n o i n f o r m a n t s f r o m ancient Israel, so w e m u s t use other, less reliable criteria to
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r we are reading the ancient texts correctly. 5
W h e n it c o m e s to reading the biblical text w i t h i n its original context, m o s t
p e o p l e are hardly better t h a n Marta. Those of u s w h o have s p e n t years reading
biblical a n d o t h e r ancient Near Eastern texts, a n d trying to figure o u t their c o n -
ventions, engage in a difficult a n d always s o m e w h a t speculative venture. There
is n o certain w a y of k n o w i n g that we have the c o n v e n t i o n right, o t h e r t h a n the
fact that it allows m a n y texts to m a k e sense, w h i c h is a partly subjective criteri-
on. That begins to explain w h y this type of reading, w h i c h we call the historical-
critical m e t h o d , is so c o m m o n in the university, b u t so rare outside of it. T h e his-
torical-critical m e t h o d m a k e s t w o a s s u m p t i o n s : that biblical society is discon-
t i n u o u s w i t h o u r society a n d that the Bible s h o u l d be read according to its orig-
inal social context, n o t anachronistically. T h e Bible m u s t instead be u n d e r s t o o d
only after its ancient conventions and genres are u n d e r s t o o d , but because there
is so m u c h discontinuity, this is a most difficult task.
Not only literary conventions are important. The Bible is the p r o d u c t of a
particular society living at a particular time. Before we can begin exploring the
issues of convention and genre, it is important to offer a schematic history of
ancient Israel, so that biblical texts, genres, a n d conventions may be u n d e r s t o o d
in this light. Accordingly, history is the subject of our next chapter.
 4
A Brief History of Israel

T his b o o k a t t e m p t s to u n d e r s t a n d the Bible as it was u n d e r s t o o d in the peri-

o d s in w h i c h its b o o k s were first w r i t t e n a n d read, f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y the
twelfth c e n t u r y B.C.E. (the Song of D e b o r a h in J u d g e s 5) t h r o u g h the s e c o n d cen-
tury B.C.E. (the Book of Daniel). 1 T h u s , we n e e d to k n o w s o m e basic facts a b o u t
history before exploring biblical texts. 2
But we w o u l d r u n a strong risk of b e i n g misled if we simply o p e n e d a his-
tory b o o k a n d believed everything w e read there. Because of relatively recent
reassessments in the field of history, s o m e of the most p o p u l a r a n d w e l l - k n o w n
histories of the biblical era are n o w obsolete. Consequently, we m u s t first p a u s e
briefly to assess historians' a s s u m p t i o n s a n d m e t h o d s , taking n o t e of the i m p o r -
tance of p o i n t of view.

History as It Used to Be Told

Writing a history of the biblical era m a y s o u n d like a simple v e n t u r e , a n d until

the latter part of the t w e n t i e t h century, it was. M a n y b o o k s w i t h the w o r d s
History of Israel in their title were available, a n d they all m o r e or less told the
s a m e story. 3 These w o r k s differed s o m e w h a t c o n c e r n i n g the earliest history of
Israel. However, f r o m the p e r i o d of David o n w a r d they were quite s i m i l a r —
typically p a r a p h r a s i n g the biblical story, r e m o v i n g the language of divine causal-
ity that is f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t the Bible, a n d p u t t i n g the biblical a c c o u n t w i t h i n
the context of ancient Near Eastern texts a n d cultures. Starting in the m i d 1970s,
this b e g a n to change.
Two m a i n shifts h a p p e n e d that d i s t u r b e d this c o n s e n s u s . In the first part of
the t w e n t i e t h century, a large n u m b e r of c u n e i f o r m tablets were u n e a r t h e d a n d
p u b l i s h e d . Several scholars discovered in these tablets, especially those f r o m the
p e r i p h e r y of Mesopotamia, descriptions of various institutions that s e e m e d to
c o n f i r m details of the biblical a c c o u n t . For e x a m p l e , E. A. Speiser suggested that
an institution existed at Nuzi, w h e r e a h u s b a n d could a d o p t his wife as a sister,
thereby explaining the so-called wife-sister stories in Genesis 12, 20, a n d 26.
According to Speiser's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , a wife c o u l d be a d o p t e d as a sister as a
special sign of affection. 4 Speiser w a s n o t alone; William Foxwell Albright, c o n -
sidered the d e a n of biblical s c h o l a r s h i p a n d archaeology, outlined m a n y correla-
tions b e t w e e n the history that the Bible tells a n d w h a t we m i g h t k n o w a b o u t this
history f r o m external sources. 5 In general, the scholarly climate, at least in
America, w a s that the Bible is to be trusted as a historical source until d i s p r o v e n
b y a reliable outside source.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

As scholars b e g a n to m o r e carefully evaluate the evidence, however, this picture

began to shatter. Two b o o k s p u b l i s h e d in the 1970s reflect this change in atti-
tude: The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, by Thomas Thompson,6 and
Abraham in History and Tradition, b y J o h n Van Seters. 7 These w o r k s a n d o t h e r s
s h o w e d that the m a n y analogies b r o u g h t b e t w e e n the so-called "Patriarchal
Period" a n d the Bronze Age of the s e c o n d pre-Christian m i l l e n n i u m were spe-
cious. For example, scholars realized that Speiser w a s incorrect in reconstructing
m a n y institutions at Nuzi, i n c l u d i n g the a d o p t i o n of a wife as sister—this w a s
based o n a m i s r e a d i n g of c u n e i f o r m texts that was influenced by the Bible.
F u r t h e r m o r e , they p o i n t e d out that the a r g u m e n t s b r o u g h t by Speiser, Albright,
a n d others were specious. That is, j u s t because it has a second-millennium-B.c.E.
parallel d o e s n o t prove that a biblical passage is early or accurate, especially if it
also h a s a (more recent) first m i l l e n n i u m parallel—as most of t h e m do. In other
words, a n u m b e r of scholars argued that these texts are n o t accurately reflecting
the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m , b u t are projecting b a c k w a r d first m i l l e n n i u m realities—
a n d in s o m e cases, coincidentally, these realities m a t c h the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m as
well. Finally, the n e w scholars b e g a n to e m p h a s i z e the a n a c h r o n i s m s of Genesis.
Earlier scholars h a d seen these a n a c h r o n i s m s as exceptions, as a small n u m b e r of
a d j u s t m e n t s that crept into the text as it was transmitted. N e w e r scholars, h o w -
ever, saw these as a f u n d a m e n t a l part of the textual fabric, indicating that the text
as a w h o l e was n o t reliably reflecting a Bronze Age milieu.
The c o n t i n u e d archaeological excavations a n d surveys, particularly those
after the 1 9 6 7 Six-Day War, also b e g a n to influence the way the Bible was seen
as a historical source. In the early p a r t s of the century, excavations were typical-
ly seen as confirming the Bible. W h e n the evidence did not match the biblical
description of a site, as in the destruction of Jericho by Joshua, scholars often
said that the relevant layer (which once showed the destruction) has been erod-
ed away. 8 W h e n excavations did not s h o w a level where destruction had taken
place because of the biblically described conquest of a particular site, scholars
w o u l d say that they d u g at the w r o n g site, and that the n a m e of a city h a d
been applied to two different places in ancient and m o d e r n times. However, as
the n u m b e r of excavations increased, and the evidence was s u p p l e m e n t e d by
large survey operations, it became clear that the archaeological record contra-
dieted the story of Joshua's rapid, complete conquest of Canaan. As a result of
archaeology, the Book of Joshua could n o longer be seen as an accurate source
for history. 9
At the end of the twentieth century, the d o u b t s that had developed on the
basis of archaeological exploration of the "Patriarchal Period" and the conquest
began to pervade certain groups of scholars, w h o suggested that similar d o u b t s
should exist for m u c h of the Bible. A group of scholars centered in Copenhagen,
often d u b b e d "the Copenhagen School," suggested that the Bible has little value
as a historical source, and that ancient Israelite history should be written with-
out recourse to the Bible. For example, they questioned the very existence of
David. I call this attitude "creeping skepticism," where the d o u b t s rightly s h o w n
for using the Bible as a source for reconstructing the earliest periods have crept
into the interpretation of later periods as well. 1 0
Although the Copenhagen School m a d e biblical scholars aware of many of
the theological biases that they held, they went too far. Several scholars have sug-
gested that this school replaced the f u n d a m e n t a l i s m of previous generations,
where the Bible was seen as historically true unless very strong evidence sug-
gested otherwise, with a "negative fundamentalism," where the Bible must be
viewed as false unless very strong evidence suggests otherwise. The debate
a r o u n d this issue has been divisive and often ugly. 11 Given the importance of this
issue to Jewish identity and particularly to m o d e r n Israeli identity, it has often
been tinged with accusations a n d manifestations of antisemitism and anti-
Zionism. 1 2 Obviously, here is not the place to resolve in detail the argument
about the usefulness of the Bible as a historical source. I would note, however,
that the arguments of the more extreme scholars in this school are generally dis-
counted, a n d a reasonable middle position would suggest that the Bible may be
used, with significant caution, as a source for ancient history, just like any other
ancient d o c u m e n t .
The Bible^ Limits as a Source for History

Two significant problems with using the Bible as a historical source m u s t be

acknowledged. The first is that it is fundamentally a theological d o c u m e n t .
T h o u g h it certainly relates m a n y historical events, its authors were not primari-
ly interested in the accurate depiction of the past. The past is almost always
refracted through a theological lens, and often through a partisan political-
ideological lens as well. These lenses are a fundamental part of biblical texts. Thus,
it is not sufficient to simply take God out of the picture, and to rewrite biblical
tests in terms of "normal" historical causality rather than divine causality. 13
The Bible is not unique in this respect—in fact, it is typical of ancient Near
Eastern historical writing as a whole. It would barely be an overstatement to point
out that almost all these texts center o n the divine realm as m u c h as the h u m a n . 1 4
For example, according to the Mesha inscription, from Israel's Moabite neighbors
to the east, Israel was able to subjugate Moab because "Kemosh [the Moabite high
god] was angry at his land." 1 5 Yet, this has not caused all historians of the ancient
Near East to avoid every use of such d o c u m e n t s in writing ancient history.
Sources m u s t be used with care: m o d e r n historians m u s t be aware of the deep
biases of the authors of these sources, and whenever possible, various sources that
refer to the same event must be studied together, since they are often mutually
enlightening. But these sources should not simply be discarded.
The second problem of using the Bible as a source concerns the unusually
complex transmission of the biblical text. Most sources for ancient Near Eastern
history were u n e a r t h e d in the last two centuries; they typically represent tablets
or steles that were written soon after the events that they record. These ancient
d o c u m e n t s were usually not recopied extensively, 16 a n d were buried for two mil-
lennia or more before being uncovered. In contrast, the Bible was transmitted on
p a p y r u s and p a r c h m e n t in antiquity, and was changed as it was transmitted, at
least in its earliest stages. 1 7 It is naive to believe that we may recover the Bible's
original text (what scholars call the "Urtext"), namely the text as p e n n e d by its
original authors. The biblical texts f o u n d at Q u m r a n a m o n g the Dead Sea
Scrolls, a n d the evidence of ancient Bible translations—especially the Septuagint
(the pre-Christian translation of the Bible into Greek)—•suggest that even in
antiquity, m a n y different versions of the same text circulated. The multiple forms
of texts in the Second Temple period confirms that we cannot, for example,
assume that the text of Kings as we n o w have it is the same as the text of Kings
w h e n it was originally written.
This is a serious problem that is not u n i q u e to the Hebrew Bible. Almost all
classical texts suffer from the same issue—we have relatively few papyri that
have survived from antiquity, and even these are not autographs by the original
authors. Most are medieval manuscripts. Especially in Classical Studies, the
m e t h o d s of textual reconstruction are well developed, allowing scholars to piece
together the best text possible using the m a n y texts and other kinds of evidence
that are available to them. This discipline is as m u c h an art as a science, yet there
is a consensus that is helpful in reconstructing texts. Although scholars do not
have the original works by an ancient Greek historian such as Herodotus or
Thucydides, they recreate Greek history via the textual criticism of manuscripts
that postdate the author by centuries. In the same careful way, we may recon-
struct history using the Bible.
T h o u g h I am suggesting that theological and ideological biases, as well as
issues of textual transmission, do not present insuperable problems, they are
nevertheless serious impediments to writing a history of Israel. This means that
a history of ancient Israel can never be written with finality. However, since his-
torical b a c k g r o u n d is useful for u n d e r s t a n d i n g m a n y biblical texts, I have not
given u p o n this venture. W h a t follows is a basic history that, t h o u g h tentative,
will provide the readers with an essential picture. 1 8

The Beginning of Israel

As noted above, scholars writing at the e n d of the twentieth century cast d o u b t s

o n the biblical account of the beginning of Israel. This was true not only for w h a t
h a d been called the Patriarchal Period, but for the Conquest and the period of
Judges as well. N o outside confirmation exists for any aspect of the "Patriarchal
Period," a n d thus, from a historical perspective, it is improper to speak of
Abraham, Jacob, or Rachel as real figures, or as early Israelites or Jews. In addi-
tion, there is n o Egyptian evidence for an extended sojourn of Israel in Egypt. 1 9
The fact that the Bible shows relatively little influence from Egypt also suggests
that the biblical account of an extended sojourn there by h u n d r e d s of t h o u s a n d s
of Israelites is not factual. Finally, as noted above, the account of the extensive
conquest by all Israel given in Joshua does not m a t c h the archaeological record
as we currently u n d e r s t a n d it.
Though various myths describe the origin of ancient Israel, n o n e of these may
be taken at face value by the historian. They represent later self-understandings
of the nature of Israel, its constituent groups, it relations to its neighbors, a n d its
connection to the land of Israel and its G o d . 2 0 (Israel is in n o way u n i q u e h e r e —
most m y t h s of origins have similar purposes, and may not be used in a simple-
m i n d e d way by historians.) Therefore, especially w h e n examining origins, it is
important to use external rather than internal sources alone.
 The first external reference to Israel is f o u n d o n an Egyptian m o n u m e n t a l
stone dating from the time of the Egyptian p h a r a o h Merneptah. This d o c u m e n t ,
called the Merneptah Stele by m o d e r n scholars, records events that probably
transpired in 1207 B.C.E. In the middle of a list recording the Pharaoh's campaign
against peoples in the area of the Mediterranean, it notes: "Israel is wasted; its
seed is not." 2 1 Egyptian, like some other ancient languages, uses special signs
(called "determinatives") before certain words to indicate what class of word they
belong to. (This is helpful in reading hieroglyphics or cuneiform, which are not
written alphabetically.) The sign before "Israel" refers to an ethnic group. Thus,
this inscription suggests that a people called Israel lived at the Eastern
Mediterranean coast in the very late thirteenth century B.C.E. The Egyptian claim
to have obliterated this people is generally seen as hyperbolic, which is typical
of such inscriptions.

Two Perspectives on Historical Periods

Conventionally, scholars divide history into periods, based on b o t h internal a n d

external factors. In the case of ancient Israel, they tend to use two types of peri-
odization: an internal framework based on Israel's o w n political changes, and an
external framework based o n the regional powers into whose orbit Israel was
absorbed. Given that external factors often influence internal factors, these two
approaches at points reinforce each other.

Israel's History as Seen from the Outside

The earliest k n o w n external documentation of ancient Israel in 1207 B.C.E. coin-

cides with weakness in the two m a j o r imperial powers of the time: Egypt and
Mesopotamia. T h o u g h there were reasons internal to b o t h empires for these
developments, the arrival of the Sea Peoples (including the biblical Philistines),
w h o wrecked havoc on the ancient Near Eastern sea coast, were also a factor in
weakening these superpowers, especially Egypt. Other city-states around Israel
may have b e g u n to develop at this time, taking advantage of the power v a c u u m
that h a d developed.
The early history of Israel also coincides with a m a j o r power shift from
Egypt to Mesopotamia. By the e n d of the twelfth century, Egypt ceased control-
ling sections of Asia, t h o u g h in the following centuries it would occasionally
invade Israel and the s u r r o u n d i n g areas.
 The fate of Israel (in the north) a n d J u d a h (in the south) would change with
the rise of the Mesopotamian powers. Mesopotamia often h a d two competing
empires: Babylon to the south, and Assyria to the north. Neither was particular-
ly powerful from the thirteenth t h r o u g h the early ninth centuries. This changed
with the rise of the Assyrian dynasty, called the Calah kings after the n e w capi-
tal they established. These include Shalmaneser III ( 8 5 8 - 8 2 4 ) , w h o campaigned
against the Mediterranean city-states, and w h o defeated a coalition in which
Ahab, the king of N o r t h e r n Israel, played a leading role. T h u s Israel became a
vassal state of Assyria.
This relationship meant some loss of political autonomy, a n d an obligation
to pay a sizable tribute to Assyria, w h i c h reasserted its claims during the reigns
of the kings called the Sargonides ( 7 4 4 - 6 1 2 ) . This dynasty was b e g u n by the
powerful Tiglath-Pileser III ( 7 4 4 - 7 2 7 ) , called Pul in the Bible. N o r t h e r n Israel
rebelled against the Assyrians, and between 722 and 720, Samaria, the n o r t h e r n
capital, was destroyed. In different sources, this is ascribed to either Shalmaneser
V or Sargon II. The Assyrians were defeated by the Babylonians in 612, and the
last r e m n a n t s of the Assyrian army lost their final battle in 609.
Thus, by 612, Babylon h a d assumed the power formerly held by Assyria.
The rise of Babylonian power had b e g u n a decade earlier, with the Babylonian
king Nabopolassar ( 6 2 5 - 6 1 5 ) . The k i n g d o m of J u d a h rebelled against the
Babylonians; following earlier policy, it was given several chances to fall into line
after it rebelled. In 597, a group of Judeans, including the king, was exiled to
Babylon, while after a second rebellion in 586, the Temple in Jerusalem was
destroyed, and more J u d e a n s were exiled to Babylon.
T h o u g h the Babylonians took over the Assyrian empire, their behavior was
not the same. The Babylonians seem to have been less cruel in w a r — a t least their
royal inscriptions brag less about bloody exploits. More significantly, they
allowed exiled peoples to live together in their o w n communities in Babylon,
forming ethnic neighborhoods in which earlier religious and cultural practices
could and did flourish. 2 2 In contrast, the Assyrians had m a d e forced population
transfers, mixing together defeated peoples from various places so that their eth-
nie identities would disappear, leaving only an identity as Assyrians. This
explains why n o r t h e r n Israel had soon disappeared after its destruction in
7 2 2 - 7 2 0 , whereas the J u d e a n s survived as an ethnic and religious group.
In 539 the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians. The final Babylonian king,
N a b o n i d u s , instituted certain religious reforms that alienated the powerful
priests of Marduk the Babylonian high god; these priests viewed the Persian
king, Cyrus, as their savior and allowed h i m to c o n q u e r Babylon. They expect-
ed the conquering king to allow the proper worship to be restored; following the
typical tolerance s h o w n by conquerors to their vassals, this indeed h a p p e n e d .
The Persians established a satrapy (a Persian administrative unit) called Yehud
in the area of Judea, a n d allowed the J u d e a n s to return there in 538.
The Persian control of the land of Israel e n d e d in 332 B.C.E. with the con-
quest of Israel by Alexander the Great. T h o u g h Greek culture h a d been impor-
tant earlier, a more significant type of Hellenization began at this time. It typi-
cally was not forced, but represented the desires of particular people a n d social
classes to adopt the prestigious a n d attractive customs of the G r e e k s — m u c h like
their ancestors adopted Assyrian, Babylonian, a n d Persian customs. The vast
empire of Alexander fell apart u p o n his death, a n d was divided a m o n g his gen-
erals. Israel had the great misfortune of falling on the border between the
Ptolemies, w h o ruled from Egypt, and the Seleucids, w h o ruled from Syria; it
was first u n d e r the rule of the Ptolemies, then of the Seleucids. W i t h the excep-
tion of Antiochus IV ( 1 7 5 - 1 6 4 ) , these kings were generally tolerant of J u d a i s m
a n d Jewish practices. The reasons w h y Antiochus IV promulgated certain
decrees against the practice of J u d a i s m in 167, and converted the Jerusalem tem-
pie into a Temple for Zeus, are obscure. These decrees were reversed in 164 by
the successful Maccabean revolt. Greek control of the land of Israel e n d e d in 6 3
B.C.E. , with the Roman conquest. The Romans would ultimately destroy the
Second Temple in 70 C.E., following a Jewish revolt, b u t this brings us beyond
the biblical period.
Thus, in terms of external influences on Israel, the biblical period can t h u s
be divided into the following periods: the pre-Assyrian period, the Assyrian peri-
od (mid-ninth c e n t u r y - 6 1 2 ) , the Babylonian period ( 6 1 2 - 5 3 9 ) , the Persian
period ( 5 3 9 - 3 3 2 ) , and the Greek period ( 3 3 2 - 6 3 ) . This periodization is n o t
trivial, since the political fate of Israel w o u l d often be determined by the politi-
cal practices of the powerful k i n g d o m u n d e r whose orbit they fell, a n d Israel
w o u l d often be influenced by the religious practices of their overlords.

Israel's History as Seen from the Inside

The internal periodization is somewhat different. Given that we k n o w that a

monarchy developed in ancient Israel, it is customary to refer to the period that
preceded the m o n a r c h y as the premonarchic period. Given m a j o r problems in
the use of b o t h Joshua and Judges as historical sources, it is wise not to further
divide this period into the period of the conquest a n d the period of the judges.
(However, it is likely that the m o n a r c h y did develop f r o m s o m e sort of j u d g e or
chieftain structure.) T h e p e r i o d of the early m o n a r c h y is obscure b e c a u s e it is n o t
attested in non-Israelite c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s sources. T h e initial kings (Saul, b u t
especially David a n d his son S o l o m o n ) , a c c o r d i n g to the Bible, ruled over a u n i t -
ed Israel. This p e r i o d , w h i c h covers a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 0 0 - 9 2 2 , is called the u n i t -
ed monarchy. After this p e r i o d , the t e n u o u s u n i o n of the area n o r t h of J e r u s a l e m ,
w h i c h I will call N o r t h e r n Israel, w i t h the area to the s o u t h , called J u d a h , dis-
solved. T h e Davidic m o n a r c h y c o n t i n u e d in J u d a h , while in the n o r t h various
o t h e r dynasties established themselves. F r o m 9 2 2 until its d e m i s e in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0
(see above), the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m w a s typically the larger a n d m o r e p o w e r f u l
one. This p e r i o d f r o m 9 2 2 to 722, w h e n c o m p e t i n g dynasties ruled over J u d a h
a n d N o r t h e r n Israel, is called the divided monarchy.
After 720, s o m e kings f r o m J u d a h were able to e x p a n d n o r t h w a r d , c a p t u r i n g
s o m e of the land that h a d belonged to the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m . As n o t e d above,
in 5 9 7 a n d t h e n in 586, following rebellions against Babylon, s o m e J u d e a n s were
exiled to Babylon; in 586, the Babylonian a r m y destroyed the (First) Temple in
Jerusalem, the capital of J u d e a . T h u s , the years b e t w e e n 597 a n d 5 8 6 u s h e r in the
exilic period.
T h e exile did n o t last long. In 5 3 8 , the year following his c o n q u e s t of
Babylon, C y r u s allowed the J u d e a n s to r e t u r n h o m e to Israel, t h e n called the
Persian p r o v i n c e of Y e h u d — a n event o f t e n referred to in m o d e r n times as
shivat tziyyon (‫ ש י ב ת ציוץ‬, "the r e t u r n to Zion"). T h u s , the exilic p e r i o d b e g a n
b e t w e e n 5 9 7 a n d 5 8 6 ( d e p e n d i n g on w h o was exiled w h e n ) , a n d e n d e d in 538,
w i t h Cyrus' p r o c l a m a t i o n . T h e p e r i o d after 5 3 8 is t h u s referred to as the post-
exilic period.
T h o u g h the exilic p e r i o d was short, it w a s crucial. It r e p r e s e n t e d a crisis for
all the m a j o r Israelite institutions that h a d d e v e l o p e d , particularly the monarchy,
w h i c h n o longer h a d a land to rule, a n d the p r i e s t h o o d , w h i c h n o longer h a d a
t e m p l e at w h i c h to officiate. Prophecy, too, m a y have f u n d a m e n t a l l y c h a n g e d , as
s o m e p e o p l e w o n d e r e d w h e t h e r G o d w o u l d c o n t i n u e to speak to his p e o p l e ,
Israel, outside of the land of Israel. T h u s , various i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e s a n d realign-
m e n t s of religion transpired in this period.
In s u m , a n d in the broadest strokes, we m a y s p e a k of the exilic p e r i o d as a
w a t e r s h e d p e r i o d , p r e c e d e d by the preexilic p e r i o d a n d followed b y the postex-
ilic period. M o n a r c h y w a s a crucial institution of the preexilic p e r i o d , w h e r e we
m a y s p e a k of the p r e m o n a r c h i c p e r i o d , the u n i t e d monarchy, a n d t h e n the divid-
ed monarchy.
 Combining the Two Perspectives

Can we blend the internal and external periodization? Yes, by noting that the
preexilic/premonarchic period was characterized by ascendancy of the Assyrians
and then the Babylonians. Babylonian ascendancy continued through almost all
of the exilic period, which ended one year after the Persian conquest of Babylon.
The postexilic period was characterized by Persian and then Greek rule.
The chart below summarizes the periodization of ancient Israel from b o t h
an internal and external perspective:

C E N T U R I E S (b.C.E.)
CRUCIAL DATE 1000 922 586 538
EXTERNAL
Egyptian Assyrian Babylonian Persian Greek
domination domination domination domination domination

INTERNAL
Premonarchic United monarchy Divided monarchy Exilic Postexilic
 5
With Scissors and Paste
The Sources of Genesis

Púmary Reading: Genesis 1-3.

Division of the Bible into Chapters

W e are u s e d to w o r k s of fiction a n d n o n f i c t i o n b e i n g divided into chapters.

Each c h a p t e r is s u p p o s e d to be, in s o m e sense, a self-enclosed unity. T h e
divisions b e t w e e n c h a p t e r s offer the ideal time to take a b r e a k — t o reflect o n the
m e a n i n g as a whole of the unit y o u have j u s t c o m p l e t e d reading, a c h a n c e to get
a d r i n k or a snack, etc. Taking a b r e a k b e t w e e n Genesis 1 a n d 2 w o u l d seem nat-
ural for any of these p u r p o s e s — b u t a n y o n e w h o did this w o u l d be m i s r e a d i n g
the first unit of Genesis. That's because this c h a p t e r break is located in the w r o n g
place.
T h e c h a p t e r n u m b e r s n o w f o u n d in Bibles are n o t integral to the text.
Rather, they date f r o m the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y c.E. 1 They first a p p e a r e d in m a n u -
scripts of the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible that the early C h u r c h
father J e r o m e h a d written. By the m i d - s i x t e e n t h century, Jewish editors intro-
d u c e d c h a p t e r s into p r i n t e d H e b r e w Bibles as well. T h u s , the c h a p t e r divisions
are relatively recent, representing o n e particular u n d e r s t a n d i n g a b o u t h o w the
Bible m a y be s u b d i v i d e d . The "standard" c h a p t e r divisions have n o authority,
especially for Jews, a n d they are best ignored.

Division of the Bible into Paragraphs

Torah scrolls divide the P e n t a t e u c h into the equivalent of p a r a g r a p h u n i t s by

placing white space b e t w e e n units. 2 These w h i t e spaces are of two types: short
ones called setumah ( ‫ ס ת ו מ ה‬, "closed"), w h e r e the next unit c o n t i n u e s o n the
same line; a n d longer o n e s called petuchah ( ‫ פ ת ו ח ה‬, "open"), w h e r e the rest of the
line is left o p e n a n d the following u n i t c o n t i n u e s only o n the next line. This tra-
dition of leaving spaces dates b a c k at least to the D e a d Sea Scrolls (mostly f r o m
the third c e n t u r y B.C.E. to the first c e n t u r y c . E . ) . However, the Dead Sea Scrolls
d o n o t always agree w i t h the divisions f o u n d in c o n t e m p o r a r y Torah scrolls,
w h i c h the great medieval Jewish scholar M a i m o n i d e s ( 1 1 3 5 - 1 2 0 4 ) established
o n the basis of a highly accurate t e n t h - c e n t u r y biblical m a n u s c r i p t called the
A l e p p o Codex. In o t h e r w o r d s , spaces or p a r a g r a p h d i v i s i o n s — w h i c h vary
s o m e w h a t even a m o n g medieval H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s a n d p r i n t e d editions of
the Bible—have never b e e n entirely u n i f o r m . They do, however, represent a sig-
nificant early interpretive tradition.
Unfortunately, these divisions are n o t reflected in English Bible translations.
Rather, each translator h a s i n d e p e n d e n t l y d e c i d e d w h e r e u n i t s begin a n d e n d .
T h e typesetters have set the type accordingly. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , the p a r a g r a p h
b r e a k s in the JPS translation represent the places w h e r e three c o m m i t t e e s w o r k -
ing in the s e c o n d part of the twentieth c e n t u r y felt n e w u n i t s s h o u l d be d e m a r -
cated. As w i t h a n y translation, their decisions deserve c o n s i d e r a t i o n — b u t are
n o t definitive.

Division of the Bible into Verses

Various rabbinic sources f r o m the M i s h n a h (approximately 2 0 0 c.E.) attest to the

division of the Bible into pesukim ( ‫ פ ס ו ק י ם‬, literally "breaking points"), w h a t w e
3
w o u l d call verses. N o early c o m p r e h e n s i v e list exists of w h e r e these b r e a k i n g
p o i n t s were perceived to be. However, s o m e evidence suggests that they were
largely the same as the later divisions f o u n d in medieval H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s ,
w h i c h indicate verse e n d i n g s by a musical n o t e (called a silluk—a vertical line)
u n d e r the final w o r d , as well as w h a t looks like a colon (so/ pasuk) after each
verse. T h u s , of the three divisions n o t e d in m a n u s c r i p t s — c h a p t e r s , p a r a g r a p h s ,
a n d v e r s e s — t h e latter s h o u l d be seen as the m o s t ancient a n d authoritative. Yet,
there are s o m e t i m e s differences in h o w the s a m e w o r d s are divided into verses
in different biblical contexts; s o m e medieval m a n u s c r i p t s reflect these differ-
ences in their verse c o u n t s . Given the variants that we find, the verse divisions
s h o u l d n o t be seen as fully authoritative. Occasionally, weighty evidence sug-
gests that a unit of t h o u g h t really e n d s midverse while the s e c o n d part of that
verse starts a n e w u n i t , or that a w o r d at the e n d of o n e verse b e l o n g s at the
b e g i n n i n g of the next, or vice versa.
Discerning the Bible^ Literary Units

T h e foregoing c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g chapter, p a r a g r a p h , a n d verse divisions

have significant implications for h o w we read the Bible. We have to discover a n d
use textual clues o t h e r t h a n these "late" formal m a r k i n g s to decide w h e r e u n i t s
begin a n d e n d . T h u s , the Bible s h o u l d be envisioned as a text p u n c t u a t e d only
b y w o r d s p a c e s 4 — w i t h n o t h i n g to indicate sections, p a r a g r a p h s , or even verses.
O u r first step w h e n reading all biblical texts m u s t be to s u b d i v i d e that biblical
text into these k i n d s of units.
An analogy illustrates this p r o c e d u r e a n d w h y it matters. Let's imagine that
a typesetter m a d e a mistake in laying o u t the type of a collection of p o e m s , a n d
p r i n t e d t h e m all as one long p o e m . S o m e o n e w i t h m o d e r n or p o s t m o d e r n inter-
ests m i g h t e n j o y reading the result as a unified w o r k . But m o s t of u s w o u l d pre-
fer to divide the long p o e m i n t o separate p o e m s . To d o so, we w o u l d use stylis-
tic a n d c o n t e n t - b a s e d criteria. If, for e x a m p l e , an E. E. C u m m i n g s p o e m fol-
lowed an Emily Dickinson p o e m , this w o u l d be easy; in o t h e r cases, it w o u l d be
m o r e difficult.
T h e Bible s h o u l d be treated like this imaginary p o e t r y b o o k . Even t h o u g h
o u r p r i n t e d version s h o w s c h a p t e r s a n d verses, these s h o u l d be ignored. It m u s t
be i m a g i n e d as a single, c o n t i n u o u s text. F u r t h e r m o r e , we m u s t develop r o b u s t
criteria for distinguishing the c o m p o s i t i o n a l u n i t s e m b e d d e d in it. Otherwise,
we m i g h t d o the equivalent of r e a d i n g the first t w o lines of a C u m m i n g s p o e m
as the c o n c l u s i o n of the p r e c e d i n g D i c k i n s o n p o e m !
T h e criteria u s e d for separating biblical sources are similar to those u s e d to
analyze poetry. We read carefully, a t t u n e d to changes in style a n d c o n t e n t , look-
ing for c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n verses.
N o n e of these criteria is airtight or absolutely objective. There is n o c o n s e n -
s u s a b o u t h o w m u c h variation a text m a y c o n t a i n in o r d e r to be considered a
unified w o r k . N o r d o scholars always agree o n w h e t h e r or n o t a larger text is
self-contradictory. T h u s in s o m e cases w e find real debate a b o u t w h e r e a unit
begins a n d / o r ends. In m o s t cases, however, there is w i d e s p r e a d agreement.

Genesis 1-3 as a Unit

Genesis 1 - 3 is inconsistent. It r e c o u n t s several events t w i c e — f o r e x a m p l e , the

creation of h u m a n k i n d is n a r r a t e d first in 1 : 2 6 - 2 8 a n d t h e n in 2 : 7 - 2 3 . These
episodes c a n n o t be seen as a general description of the creation of h u m a n k i n d
in c h a p t e r 1, w h i c h is elaborated a n d filled in c h a p t e r 2, because these t w o
a c c o u n t s differ significantly in their detail. In c h a p t e r 1, o n day six, first the land
animals are created ( w . 2 4 - 2 5 ) , a n d t h e n m a n a n d w o m a n are created simulta-
n e o u s l y ( w . 2 6 - 2 8 ) . In contrast, in c h a p t e r 2, first m a n is created (v. 7), t h e n the
animals are created ( w . 1 8 - 2 0 ) , a n d only after these are f o u n d u n s u i t a b l e to be
man's p a r t n e r (v. 20) is w o m a n created ( w . 2 1 - 2 3 ) . A single story, w r i t t e n by a
single author, w o u l d n o t be self-contradictory in s u c h a significant matter.
This m i g h t be the m o s t significant difference b e t w e e n these stories, b u t once
it is n o t e d , o t h e r distinctions quickly b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . Each individual differ-
ence by itself m i g h t n o t be convincing, b u t cumulatively, they b e c o m e c o m -
pelling. O t h e r differences i n c l u d e the fact that in Genesis 1 the deity is called
G o d ( ‫ ) א ל ה י ם‬, w h e r e a s in m u c h of c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 the deity is called YHWH Elohim
5
( ‫·א ל ה י ם‬.‫ו ה ד‬τ ‫! י ה‬, ' "the LORD God"). T h e u n i t s use different w o r d s for crucial t e r m s
like " c r e a t i o n " — t h u s in 1:27, the first h u m a n is "created" ( ‫ ב ר א‬, b-r-'), w h e r e a s
in 2:7 the h u m a n is "formed" ( ‫ י צ ר‬, y-tz-r). In fact, the w o r d translated as "ere-
a t e " ( ‫ ) ב ר א‬is u s e d a total of seven times in 1 : 1 - 2 : 3 , b u t n o t at all in 2 : 4 - 3 : 2 4 .
Additionally, the style of c h a p t e r 1 is unlike the style of m o s t of c h a p t e r s
2 - 3 . Genesis 1 is highly s t r u c t u r e d into "days," each w i t h a recurring set of for-
m u l a s (e.g., "God said . . . it w a s so," "And G o d saw that this was good. A n d
there w a s evening a n d there w a s m o r n i n g , X day."). In contrast, m o s t of c h a p -
ters 2 - 3 is free flowing, w i t h a m u c h looser structure, a n d n o n e of these f o r m u -
laic phrases. This is c o n n e c t e d to a n o t h e r distinction: the s t r u c t u r e of c h a p t e r 1
portrays a p o w e r f u l , majestic G o d , while the G o d of m u c h of c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 —
w h o "m0v[es] a b o u t in the garden" (3:8), talks to people ( 3 : 9 - 1 1 ) , a n d even ten-
derly clothes t h e m ( 3 : 2 1 ) — h a s a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different n a t u r e . These two pic-
tures of G o d are the w o r k of different a u t h o r s .

Giving the Text a Break

W h e r e is the literary break b e t w e e n these two stories? In o t h e r words,

w h e r e d o e s the story that begins with Genesis 1:1 e n d ? Verse 1:1 a n d the first
half of 2:4, n a m e l y 2:4a, f r a m e the story. T h e w o r d pair "heaven . . . earth"
(‫הארץ‬ . . . • ‫ ) ה ש מ י‬as well as the verb "to create" ( ‫ ) ב ר א‬a p p e a r together in these
t w o contexts only. This repetition f o r m s a f r a m e or envelope a r o u n d the story.
Genesis 2:4a, "Such is the story of h e a v e n a n d earth w h e n they were created,"
therefore c o n c l u d e s the first story.
This d e v i c e — i n w h i c h a p h r a s e or several w o r d s indicate the limits of a
u n i t — i s called an "inclusio," a n d it is c o m m o n in biblical writing. For example,
the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 begins ‫ ו י ה י כ ל ״ ה א ר ץ‬, "The whole earth
was," a n d c o n c l u d e s ‫כ ל ״ ה א ר ץ‬ ‫על״פני‬, "over the face of the w h o l e earth" (v. 9;
transi, a d a p t e d ) . Similarly, Psalm 8 begins a n d e n d s with the very same verse: Ό
LORD, o u r Lord, H o w majestic is Your n a m e t h r o u g h o u t the earth" ( w . 2, 10).
In general, the w o r d eileh ( ‫ א ל ה‬, "such is") m a y be used either to point b a c k -
ward (as a c o n c l u s i o n ) or to p o i n t f o r w a r d (as an i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . In this case,
however, it c a n n o t be an i n t r o d u c t i o n for t w o reasons: (1) Its use of "heaven a n d
earth" specifically refers back to Genesis 1:1 a n d o t h e r instances in that chapter,
while this phrase is never f o u n d in 2 : 5 - 3 : 2 4 ; a n d (2) it uses the verb b-r-'(‫ברא‬,
"to create"), w h i c h is characteristic of c h a p t e r 1 b u t absent in 2 : 5 - 3 : 2 4 .
Genesis 2:4b, the s e c o n d part of 2:4, t h u s i n t r o d u c e s a n e w story, w h i c h
c o n t i n u e s past c h a p t e r 3. In fact, the vocabulary of 2:4 f u r t h e r suggests that it is
c o m p o s i t e ; it is unlikely that a single a u t h o r w o u l d refer to the created w o r l d
first as "heaven a n d earth" (2:4a) a n d t h e n as "earth a n d heaven" (2:4b). This
explains w h y m a n y Bibles, i n c l u d i n g the JPS translation, begin a n e w p a r a g r a p h
w i t h 2:4b, b r e a k i n g in the m i d d l e of a verse.

Two Stories and Their Relationship

O n c e the division b e t w e e n these t w o stories is d e t e r m i n e d at the m i d d l e of

Genesis 2:4, a final difference b e t w e e n t h e m j u m p s o u t — t h e y are not b o t h ere-
ation stories of the same type. T h e first story describes the creation of the w o r l d ,
in w h i c h people play a role alongside all else that is created. In contrast, the sec-
o n d creation story has people as its m a i n focus, n a r r a t i n g the creation of parts of
the w o r l d only to the extent that they are relevant to people. T h u s l : l - 2 : 4 a is
an ancient Israelite story a b o u t the creation of the w o r l d , while 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 is a
different story, by a different Israelite a u t h o r with different ideas, a n d its focus is
the creation of h u m a n k i n d .
This analysis raises t w o issues: If Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a a n d 2 : 4 b - 3 are telling
different stories, t h e n w h y not read the s e c o n d story as an elaboration of the first,
t h u s reading c h a p t e r s 1 - 3 as one long story? In addition, if we insist o n reading
t h e m as t w o stories, is the m o d e l p r o p o u n d e d here, of two stories being w o v e n
together, a plausible m o d e l for h o w literature w a s p r o d u c e d in the ancient world?
T h e possibility of reading Genesis 1 - 3 as a compositional u n i t y is vitiated
by the f u n d a m e n t a l differences in vocabulary, style, a n d content b e t w e e n the two
stories. W h i l e in theory, a story a b o u t the creation of h u m a n k i n d might c o m e as
an elaboration or c u l m i n a t i o n of a general creation story, in practice we could
only claim that this were the case if the two largely agreed in c o n t e n t , style, a n d
vocabulary. Given the significant differences in all of these areas, the stories
s h o u l d be separated, a n d viewed as w r i t t e n by different a u t h o r s .
T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n , c o n c e r n i n g the b l e n d i n g of the t w o stories together
into a single story, highlights o n e of the m a i n differences b e t w e e n m u c h of
ancient a n d m o d e r n w r i t i n g — a difference that we m u s t simply accept a n d get
u s e d to, or w e will be like Marta (see c h a p t e r 3). In most m o d e r n societies, the
n a m e of the a u t h o r is closely linked to the literary w o r k he or s h e has p r o d u c e d ;
t h r o u g h copyright control, the a u t h o r can protect that w o r k . Ancient writing
w a s quite different. M u c h writing in the ancient Near East was a n o n y m o u s .
Beyond that, there was n o c o n c e p t i o n that a w o r k m u s t be copied over exactly.
The copyist typically played a creative role in the transmission of texts, o f t e n
a d d i n g to t h e m . This m a y be seen m o s t clearly in a variety of M e s o p o t a m i a n
texts, most especially the Gilgamesh epic, w h i c h e x p a n d e d over time, a n d even
i n c o r p o r a t e d large sections f r o m o t h e r c o m p o s i t i o n s . 6 It m a y also be seen in var-
ious Dead Sea Scroll m a n u s c r i p t s of the Torah as well. 7 In fact, in m a n y ways the
Bible is like m o d e r n texts that circulate o n the I n t e r n e t — t h e i r original a u t h o r is
often u n k n o w n , a n d m a n y users w h o forward the texts revise t h e m or a d d to
t h e m in significant ways. We m u s t get u s e d to this different n o t i o n of "text" as
we a p p r o a c h the Bible.

Source Criticism of the Torah

T h e stories in Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a a n d 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 s h o u l d n o t be viewed as frag-

m e n t s that b e c a m e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the Torah. Rather, they are each i n t r o d u c -
tions to a m u c h m o r e extensive d o c u m e n t , or "source," that m a y be f o u n d in the
Torah. It is called "source criticism" w h e n we use this type of analysis to divide
the Torah text into earlier written d o c u m e n t s that have b e e n c o m b i n e d by edi-
tors or redactors. W h e n applied to the Torah as a whole, it suggests that the
Torah is c o m p r i s e d of four m a i n s o u r c e s — f o u r originally separate, (more or less)
c o m p l e t e d o c u m e n t s — t h a t have b e e n w o v e n together. 8 T h e date of these d o c u -
m e n t s , called J, E, D, a n d P, has b e e n the subject of m u c h debate in recent bib-
lical scholarship. T h e oldest d o c u m e n t is m o s t likely J, w h i c h was given this
n a m e since in Genesis it typically uses the four-letter n a m e of G o d , YHWH (TT1ÌT),
w h i c h s o m e Christian translators have transcribed as "Jehovah." T h e JPS trans-
lation represents this n a m e as "the LORD," while o t h e r translations use "the
Eternal" or Yahweh or Y H W H . Probably of J u d e a n a u t h o r s h i p , this source w a s
written in the first half of the m o n a r c h i c period. Next is E, the Elohist d o c u m e n t ,
so n a m e d because it typically refers to G o d in Genesis u s i n g the t e r m Elohim
( ‫ א ל י ה י ם‬, ‫״‬God‫)״‬. It m a y originate f r o m the N o r t h e r n k i n g d o m , a n d is likely
slightly later t h a n J. Ε is relatively short, a n d unlike the J a n d P, it is unclear if it
s h o u l d be viewed as an originally separate d o c u m e n t . Ρ refers to the Priestly
source, w h i c h also uses Elohim a n d o t h e r divine n a m e s (but not YHWH) in
Genesis. This d o c u m e n t is s h a p e d by Priestly c o n c e r n s , i n c l u d i n g order, purity,
a n d assuring the divine presence a m o n g Israel. Its date has b e e n an issue of great
d e b a t e in biblical scholarship. Most likely, this source represents a school of
t h o u g h t that w a s active over a long p e r i o d of time, b o t h before a n d after the
Babylonian exile of 586. T h e D source s t a n d s for Deuteronomy, the final b o o k of
the Torah. W i t h the exception of parts of the final chapters, w h i c h contain a
diversity of material, most of D e u t e r o n o m y features a special vocabulary a n d
particular theological c o n c e r n s — e s p e c i a l l y the p r o p e r w o r s h i p of a single G o d
in the p r o p e r way in the p r o p e r place ( J e r u s a l e m ) , w h e r e His "name" resides.
Like P, D is n o t a totally unified c o m p o s i t i o n f r o m a single time a n d place, b u t
represents a stream of tradition that is m o r e or less c o t e r m i n u s w i t h Ρ W i t h the
exception of the D source, w h i c h m o r e or less has its o w n b o o k , the Torah as it
is n o w s t r u c t u r e d represents a careful c o m b i n a t i o n of these sources.

Putting the Pieces Together

Given the a p p a r e n t existence of individual sources, they m u s t have been edited

together, or "redacted," at s o m e point. Most likely this o c c u r r e d in stages.
Scholars call the final editor R, for redactor. In this f o r m , the w o r k of the Priestly
source h a s a particularly s t r o n g voice, a n d even i n t r o d u c e s the Torah. (Gen.
l : l - 2 : 4 a is P; Gen. 2 : 4 b ff. is J.) For this reason, s o m e scholars e q u a t e R with
the final voice of Ρ
Exactly w h y the sources were i n t e r t w i n e d in this way is unclear. Exploring
this issue really involves asking two questions: (1) W h y were all of these sources
retained, rather t h a n just retaining the latest or m o s t authoritative one? (2) W h y
were they c o m b i n e d in this o d d way, rather t h a n b e i n g left as c o m p l e t e d o c u -
m e n t s that w o u l d be read side by side, m u c h like the m o d e l of the four differ-
ent a n d separate gospels, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e the Christian Bible or N e w Testament?
Since there is n o direct evidence going b a c k to the redaction of the Torah,
these issues m a y be explored only in a m o s t tentative fashion, w i t h plausible
rather t h a n definitive answers. Probably the earlier d o c u m e n t s h a d a certain
prestige a n d authority in ancient Israel, a n d could n o t simply be d i s c a r d e d . 9
Additionally, the redaction of the Torah f r o m a variety of sources m o s t likely rep-
resents an a t t e m p t to e n f r a n c h i s e those g r o u p s w h o held those particular sources
as authoritative. Certainly the Torah does not contain all of the early traditions
of Israel. Yet, it does contain the traditions that the redactor felt were important
for bringing together a core group of Israel (most likely during the Babylonian
exile of 5 8 6 - 5 3 8 B . C . E . ) .
The mixing of these sources by intertwining t h e m preserved a variety of
sources and perspectives. (Various m e t h o d s of intertwining were u s e d — t h e pre-
ferred m e t h o d was to interleave large blocks of material, as in the initial chap-
ters of Genesis. However, w h e n this w o u l d have caused narrative difficulties, as
in the flood story or the plagues of Exodus, the sources were interwoven—
several verses from one source, followed by several verses from the other.) More
than one h u n d r e d years ago, the great American scholar G. Ε Moore called atten-
tion to the second-century Christian scholar Tatian, w h o c o m p o s e d the
Diatessaron. 1 0 This work is a h a r m o n y of the Gospels, where most of the four
canonical gospels are combined into a single work, exactly the same way that
scholars propose the four Torah strands of J, E, D, a n d Ρ have been combined.
This, along with other ancient examples, shows that even though the classical
model posited by source criticism may seem strange to us, it reflects a way that
people wrote literature in antiquity. 1 1
The first step for reading the beginning of Genesis is complete. We k n o w
that the story that begins in 1:1 e n d s at 2:4a. This is a significant step, since it
allows us, encourages us, or perhaps even forces us to read Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a
apart from the story that follows. But this is only a technical, preliminary step to
interpreting this material. The following chapter will address the meaning of
each of these stories.
 6
Creation vs. Creationism
Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth

Primary Reading: Genesis 1-3.

Genesis 1-3 as Science

D efining the b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n different biblical units, a n d t h u s u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g w h e r e o n e story e n d s a n d a n o t h e r begins, is a m e a n s toward an
e n d , rather t h a n an e n d in itself. T h e next stage, interpreting the story, or in this
case, i n d e p e n d e n t l y interpreting the t w o creation stories e m b e d d e d in Genesis
1 - 3 , is a m o r e difficult a n d a m o r e subjective task t h a n d e t e r m i n i n g that t w o sto-
ries have b e e n c o m b i n e d . Interpretation d e p e n d s o n genre. T h u s , as we begin to
explore the m e a n i n g of these texts, w e are n o different than Marta (see "The
Rules of the Game" in c h a p t e r 3), w h o is c o n f r o n t i n g the n e w s p a p e r — a n d its
comics s e c t i o n — f o r the first time.
We m a y even be worse off t h a n Marta. We naturally m a k e foreign stories fit
the genre that they most resemble f r o m o u r experience. T h e stories in Genesis
1 - 3 deal w i t h c r e a t i o n — w i t h the origin of the w o r l d , of vegetation, of h u m a n
life, of the animals. At first b l u s h , they look like science, a genre interested in
a n s w e r i n g basic questions about the real s t r u c t u r e of the real w o r l d a n d its c o n -
stituent features. If we subscribe to m a i n s t r e a m science, Genesis 1 - 3 looks like
w r o n g , b a d , or primitive science.
Particularly in America, m a n y people u n d e r s t a n d the Bible to be science; in
fact, they u n d e r s t a n d it to be m o r e correct t h a n m a i n s t r e a m scientific assertions,
w h i c h are, after all, j u s t theories. This b o o k is not the place to explore in detail
this position, often called "creationism" or even "creation science." 1 This m o v e -
m e n t h a s two p r i m a r y problems: (1) it begins w i t h an assertion, not explicit in
the Bible itself, that the Bible m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d as literally t r u e — a s science,
natural history, or history; and (2) it ignores evidence within the Bible that bib-
lical texts should not be read in the same way as m o d e r n scientific literature.
The first words of the Bible are: "When God began to create heaven and
earth"; they are not: "This is a scientific treatment of the origin of the world." In
general the Bible does not introduce w o r k s with genre labels; it does not explic-
itly m a r k the distinction between, for example, history and historical fiction.
This is problematic for anyone w h o wants to interpret the Bible as an ancient
Israelite, reading it as they did. Indeed, this is perhaps the biggest problem we
confront in interpreting the Bible, since n o section contains a library call n u m -
ber, telling us w h e t h e r it belongs on the fiction or the nonfiction shelves. Nor
may we automatically assume that the text, which is over two millennia old, may
be read the same way as the c o n t e m p o r a r y genre that it is most similar to.
These observations have important implications for Genesis 1 - 3 . They do
not begin with a genre label "science," a n d there is n o reason w h y we should pre-
s u m e that the a u t h o r wanted t h e m to be viewed as such. The difficult task of
assigning their genre m u s t follow an internal analysis of these texts, and m u s t
take into account ancient, rather than m o d e r n , ways of reading texts. 2
Most people u n d e r s t a n d the goal of science as describing the way a particu-
lar p h e n o m e n o n or object works or develops. In chapter 5, I raised problems
about reading Genesis 1 - 3 as science, since it s h o w e d that this passage incor-
porates two mutually exclusive accounts of creation. Such contradictions are not
acceptable in science; this suggests at the very least that the redactor w h o opted
to combine these two stories did not u n d e r s t a n d t h e m as the definitive, scientif-
ic account for h o w the world was created. The j o b of the scientist, like the m o d -
ern historian, is to analyze competing theories, a n d on the basis of evidence to
determine w h i c h one is correct.

Genesis 1 - 3 as Myth

The two creation stories incorporated into Genesis 1 - 3 should be understood as

myths, not as science. "Myth" is an a m b i g u o u s term. Colloquially, it is often
u n d e r s t o o d as w r o n g or bad science, as a fundamentally primitive a n d incorrect
way of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the world that has n o place in m o d e r n society. In fact, in
everyday speech, the statement "That's a myth" is s y n o n y m o u s with "That's
false."
The scholarly world, particularly within anthropology a n d classical studies,
views m y t h — i t s significance a n d its interpretation—in a fundamentally different
way. T h o u g h there are almost as m a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of myth as scholars w h o
explore this issue, there is a c o n s e n s u s that m y t h is a n essential, a n d c o n s t r u c -
tive, e l e m e n t of all cultures.
T h e classicist Walter Burkert, in Structure and History in Greek Mythology and
Ritual, d e v e l o p e d some of the m o s t valuable insights c o n c e r n i n g m y t h . 3 Most
u s e f u l is Burkert's observation that " m y t h can be defined as a m e t a p h o r at tale
level." 4 Let's imagine that Marta overheard s o m e o n e say to a lover, "You are a
rose." Marta w o u l d object, or m i g h t at the very least be b e w i l d e r e d , n o t i n g , "Your
lover isn't green, doesn't have t h o r n s , a n d is lacking a flower!" But m e t a p h o r s ,
u n l i k e nonfigurative language (e.g., "you are reading a book"), are neither right
n o r w r o n g . 5 M e t a p h o r s can be classified in o t h e r ways: h e l p f u l or u n h e l p f u l ;
original or s t a n d a r d ; etc. Yet all m e t a p h o r s are literally false—by definition. We
can say the same a b o u t myths: they m a y be literally false, b u t like m e t a p h o r s ,
they are t r u e — o f t e n p r o f o u n d l y s o — o n a figurative level. Both m e t a p h o r s a n d
m y t h s play an i m p o r t a n t role in society because of the limitations of n o n f i g u r a -
tive language.
T h e m o r e technical definition offered by Burkert of a m y t h is "a traditional
tale w i t h secondary, partial reference to s o m e t h i n g of collective i m p o r t a n c e . " 6
Let u s focus o n the core of this definition: " s o m e t h i n g of collective i m p o r t a n c e . "
T h e j o b of the interpreter of m y t h s is to discover h o w the m y t h is u s i n g m y t h o -
logical/metaphorical language to convey " s o m e t h i n g of collective i m p o r t a n c e . "
All of the typical tools of interpretation m u s t be u s e d to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t this
"something" is, a n d h o w the m y t h is c o n s t r u c t e d to develop its ideas a b o u t this
s o m e t h i n g , or in the case of m o r e c o m p l e x m y t h s , these "somethings."
N o t only w o r d s a n d their individual m e a n i n g s d e t e r m i n e a literary work's
interpretation. T h e way in w h i c h the w o r d s are p a t t e r n e d — t h e i r s t r u c t u r e — i s
often as i m p o r t a n t in s h a p i n g m e a n i n g . 7 O n e q u e s t i o n that h e l p s u s u n d e r s t a n d
the structure of the first creation story of Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a is: W h e r e does day
o n e of creation begin? Various pieces of evidence suggest that it b e g i n s in verse
3, a n d that in t e r m s of structure, there are six p r i m a r y days of creation, w h i c h
cover verses 3 - 3 1 . At first, the idea that day one begins in verse 3, a n d n o t with
verse 1, s e e m s illogical, b u t every day of creation f r o m day two o n w a r d begins
w i t h the formula: "God said, 'Let there be . . ."' ( w . 6, 9, 14, 20, 24). This sug-
gests that the description of day o n e begins only in verse 3: "God said, 'Let there
be light'; a n d there was light."
T h e significance of the p r e c e d i n g t w o verses a n d their place in the narrative
b e c o m e clearer in relation to the c o n c l u d i n g verses, Genesis 2 : l - 4 a . T h e inter-
v e n i n g material, 1 : 3 - 3 1 , is characterized by structure. Each day begins "God
said, 'Let . . .'" T h e phrase "(And) G o d said" characterizes the initiation of ere-
ative activity, o c c u r r i n g in eight verses (3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). Surely this is
the story that the psalmist is referring to w h e n he states, "By the w o r d of the
LORD the heavens were m a d e , by the b r e a t h of His m o u t h , all their host" (33:6).
Six times after G o d creates "by the w o r d , " we read "it w a s so" ( w . 7, 9, 11, 15,
24, 30). Six times G o d sees that w h a t He created w a s g o o d ( w . 4, 10, 12, 18,
21, 25; w i t h a m o d i f i c a t i o n of "very g o o d " in v. 3 1 ) . 8 Six times we have the
refrain, "And there w a s e v e n i n g a n d there w a s m o r n i n g , day . . ." ( w . 5, 8, 13,
19, 23, 31; transi, a d a p t e d ) . All of these p h r a s e s are missing in b o t h 1 : 1 - 3 a n d
in 2 : l - 4 a ; the fact that those verses d o n o t fit the p a t t e r n of the central creation
story establishes t h e m as "other," as n o t part of the actual story. Instead, they
s h o u l d be seen as an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n — o r better, a prologue a n d an
e p i l o g u e — t o that story.
This prologue a n d epilogue are j o i n e d together n o t only t h r o u g h the ele-
m e n t s that they lack, b u t also t h r o u g h the p r o m i n e n t u s e of alliteration that
distinguishes these small units. T h e Bible o p e n s alliteratively: bereishit bara
(‫בראשית ברא‬, " W h e n . . . b e g a n to create"); the s e c o n d verse describes the earth
as tohu va-vohu ( ‫ ת ה ו ו ב ה ו‬, " u n f o r m e d a n d void") a n d m e n t i o n s a ruach mer-
achefet ( ‫ ר ו ח מ ר ח פ ת‬, "[divine] w i n d hovering"; transi, a d a p t e d ) . This attention to
s o u n d is e c h o e d in verses 2 : 2 - 3 , w h i c h s e e m to revel in the play a m o n g the
repeating w o r d s ha-shevi'i ( ‫ ה ש ב י ע י‬, "seventh"), shavat ( ‫ ש ב ת‬, "to cease"), a n d
asah ( ‫ ע ש ה‬, "to do"). Along w i t h the p h r a s e "create . . . h e a v e n a n d earth" ( f o u n d
in 1:1 a n d e c h o e d in 2:4a; see "Giving the Text a Break" in c h a p t e r 5), this allit-
eration h e l p s to define l : l - 2 : 4 a as a unit.

The Meaning of Genesis l:l-2:4a

But w h a t does this unit mean? T h e structural e l e m e n t s are n o t repeated for aes-
thetic p u r p o s e s ; rather, these repetitions e n c o d e a key message of this chapter:
G o d is a highly organized, p o w e r f u l creator. He says: It is so, it is g o o d . 9 There
are n o ifs or b u t s — t h e w o r l d is completely responsive to His c o m m a n d s .
This aspect of the G o d of this creation story is f u r t h e r reflected in a n o t h e r
aspect of the story's structure: the m a n n e r in w h i c h these six days of creation
m a y be divided into two triads, w h e r e e l e m e n t s A, B, a n d C of each triad are c o n -
n e c t e d . 1 0 T h e following d i a g r a m illustrates this structure:

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

Light Sky, water bodies Land, vegetation
Precreation Postcreation
Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
Luminaries Birds, fish Land animals
O n day one G o d creates light, 1 1 a n d on day four, the luminaries; on day t w o God
creates h e a v e n s a n d water, a n d on day five, its inhabitants, birds a n d fish; o n day
three G o d creates land a n d vegetation, a n d on day six, land animals, i n c l u d i n g
h u m a n k i n d . T h e symmetry, w h i c h is striking, highlights the orderliness of ere-
ation. It is even present in the alliterative m i r r o r i n g of the precreation ( 1 : 1 - 2 )
a n d postcreation ( 2 : l - 4 a ) story.
This e m p h a s i s o n o r d e r is n o t s u r p r i s i n g given that this is a Priestly story.
T h e Priestly School in ancient Israel c o n c e r n e d itself w i t h order a n d ordering,
a n d h o w this reflects o n G o d . 1 2 S u c h c o n c e r n s m a y be seen, for e x a m p l e , in
Leviticus 2 0 : 2 5 - 2 6 , w h i c h deals with things that are b e i n g b-d-l ( ‫ ב ד ל‬, "set apart"
or "separated"):

So you shall set apart the clean beast f r o m the u n c l e a n , the u n c l e a n bird
f r o m the clean. You shall not d r a w a b o m i n a t i o n u p o n yourselves
t h r o u g h beast or bird or a n y t h i n g w i t h w h i c h the g r o u n d is alive, w h i c h
I have set apart for y o u to treat as unclean. You shall be holy to Me, for
I the LORD a m holy, a n d I have set you apart f r o m o t h e r peoples to be
Mine, ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

That same verbal root is u s e d five times in Genesis 1 ( w . 4, 6, 7, 14, 18).

T h e o p p o s i t e of s t r u c t u r e is chaos, a n d it is t h u s a p p r o p r i a t e that 1 : 1 - 2
describe primeval c h a o s — a w o r l d that is " u n f o r m e d a n d void," c o n t a i n i n g d a r k -
ness a n d a m y s t e r i o u s w i n d . This story does n o t describe creation o u t of n o t h -
ing (Latin: creatio ex nihilo). Primeval stuff already exists in verses 1 - 2 , a n d the
text s h o w s n o c o n c e r n for h o w it originated. Rather, it is a m y t h a b o u t h o w G o d
alone s t r u c t u r e d primordial matter into a highly organized world. O n l y u p o n its
c o m p l e t i o n is this structure "very good." A n d only t h e n can G o d "rest" ( 2 : 1 - 3 ) .
M u c h of the activity of G o d t h r o u g h o u t this story is described u s i n g the verb
bara (‫)ברא‬, typically translated "to create," a w o r d u s e d m o r e t h a n fifty times in
the Bible. Unlike other creation w o r d s , however, it always has God as its subject.
That is, so to speak, G o d m a y bara b u t h u m a n s can never bara (at least accord-
ing to the attested evidence). This verb a p p e a r s to be part of a small class of
H e b r e w w o r d s that are used in reference to G o d only, thereby suggesting that in
certain respects, G o d is totally o t h e r . 1 3 Use of the verb bara accentuates G o d s
majesty. It also fits the d e p i c t i o n of G o d elsewhere in this m y t h .
Language that sets G o d apart is u n u s u a l l y difficult to translate. In most
cases, w h e n biblical a u t h o r s ascribed actions to G o d — l i k e "to see," "to do," "to
hear," "to f a s h i o n " — t h e y u s e d the same verb typically used for people: they
m o d e l e d their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of G o d after their real-life experiences. W h e r e the
a u t h o r s avoided depicting G o d t h r o u g h h u m a n analogy, they p o i n t e d to the
incomparability of G o d — w h o m normal language cannot portray. Thus, Genesis
1:1 might (awkwardly) be translated: "In the beginning of God's creation (which
is different from h u m a n creation, but "creation" is the closest English word to
describe this action) of heaven a n d earth . . .."

Humankind in the Priestly Creation Story

Myths, like m a n y other narrative genres, not only describe, but also prescribe.
Few are neutral, a n d most make value j u d g m e n t s . Some of the value j u d g m e n t s
m a d e by the first creation story are obvious and have been noted already: the
world is very good, and God is powerful a n d is heeded. The structure of our
chart (above) might suggest that each of the boxed elements, representing what
was created on each day, are of equal value. Is this s o — o r as a creation myth,
does the text also establish value j u d g m e n t s concerning the most important or
significant element(s) of creation?
This story highlights the creation of h u m a n k i n d . This is not surprising in a
text written by people. The creation of h u m a n k i n d is the longest section, com-
prising verses 2 6 - 3 0 . Only after people are created is the world "very good" (v.
31), rather than simply "good," as in all of the earlier days of creation. Only peo-
pie "rule" a n d "master" (v. 28). Only for people is the act of creation expressed
using the plural "Let us" (v. 26). And only with people does the text express itself
in poetry (v. 27).
These last two points require further clarification. Let us look more closely
at Genesis 1 : 2 6 - 2 7 , which reads:

And God said, "Let us m a k e m a n in our image, after our likeness. They
shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole
earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth." And God creat-
ed m a n in His image, in the image of God He created him; male a n d
female He created them.

The meaning of the first person plural "us" a n d "our" has been the focus of great
debate and polemic even in antiquity. 1 4 The suggestion that here God is speak-
ing in the "royal we" is often p r o p o u n d e d . However, this is unlikely, since such
usage is otherwise unattested with verbs in the Bible. 1 5
More likely, the text is implicitly portraying God in terms of a h u m a n king:
God is talking to his royal counselors or cabinet. 1 6 Such imagery appears clear-
ly in other biblical texts, such as J o b 1 - 2 , Isaiah 6, and especially 1 Kings 22:19:
"I saw the L O R D seated u p o n His throne, with all the host of heaven standing in
a t t e n d a n c e to the right a n d to the left of H i m . " T h e creation of people is so sig-
nificant that this creative act alone d e m a n d s that G o d consult his cabinet, c o m -
prised of angels or o t h e r heavenly figures. But as the next verse m a k e s clear via
a singular verb, consultation is their only role: G o d creates people w i t h o u t their
assistance.
In several respects, the N e w Revised S t a n d a r d Version (NRSV) translation
better c a p t u r e s the essence of Genesis 1:27 t h a n the JPS translation. T h e NRSV
p r i n t s the verse i n d e n t e d , as poetry:

So G o d created h u m a n k i n d in His image,

In the image of G o d He created t h e m ;
Male a n d female He created t h e m .

T h o u g h a m o r e t h o r o u g h discussion of H e b r e w p o e t r y will wait until we s t u d y

the m o r e poetic texts such as p r o p h e c y a n d p s a l m s (see "The Poetry of Isaiah"
in c h a p t e r 17), this verse h a s obviously n o n p r o s a i c features: its division into dis-
tinct sections of roughly equal length, a n d its u s e of repetition (e.g., "God," "ere-
ated," "image," "them") a m o n g its various lines. This poetic interlude in the m i d -
die of an otherwise prose passage heightens the significance of the creation of
humankind.

In the Image of God

A close look at the H e b r e w w o r d i n g resolves the m e a n i n g of the p h r a s e "image

of G o d 1 ‫ ״‬/ as well as w h e t h e r it is " m a n " or " h u m a n k i n d " that is b e i n g created.
Genesis 1:27 uses the w o r d ha-adam ( ‫ ) ה א ד ם‬. Generally this is a gender-neutral
term, used to convey the m e a n i n g " h u m a n k i n d " as well as "a person" of either
gender. T h e last part of the verse, "Male a n d female He created t h e m , " m a k e s it
clear that ha-adam refers to " h u m a n k i n d " rather t h a n "man." (Largely u n d e r the
influence of Genesis 2 — w h i c h first describes the creation of a m a n , a n d t h e n the
creation of a w o m a n — G e n . 1:27 h a s s o m e t i m e s b e e n u n d e r s t o o d as "God ere-
ated m a n . . . ." But as we have seen, these are two separate creation stories, a n d
Genesis 2 s h e d s n o light o n the m e a n i n g of ha-adam in 1:27, w h i c h is gender-
neutral.)
T h e w o r d tzelem ( ‫ צ ל ם‬, "image") elsewhere always refers to a physical repre-
sentation. For e x a m p l e , the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem w h e n it refers to " m e n
s c u l p t u r e d u p o n the walls, figures of C h a l d e a n s d r a w n in vermilion" ( 2 3 : 1 4 ) or
w h e n it accuses Israel of fornicating w i t h "phallic images" (16:17). T h e w o r d
o f t e n refers to idols (e.g., N u m . 3 3 : 5 2 ; Ezek. 7:20; A m o s 5:26; 2 C h r o n . 23:17).
It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not sur-
prising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions,
b o t h Jewish a n d Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms, as in Exodus
24:10: "and they saw the God of Israel: u n d e r His feet. . . ." Ezekiel, a priest
whose writing shares m a n y features with that of the Priestly school, describes
God in highly corporeal terms in his initial vision (Eze. l : 2 6 - 2 8 a ) :

Above the expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne, in
appearance like sapphire; and on top, u p o n this semblance of a throne,
there was the semblance of a h u m a n form. From what appeared as his
loins u p , I saw a gleam as of a m b e r — w h a t looked like a fire encased in
a frame; and from what appeared as his loins d o w n , I saw what looked
like fire. There was a radiance all about him. Like the appearance of the
b o w which shines in the clouds on a day of rain, such was the appear-
ance of the s u r r o u n d i n g radiance. That was the appearance of the sem-
blance of the Presence of the L O R D .

God is here depicted as a physical being, w h o has an image in "the sem-

blance of a h u m a n form." Furthermore, the gender of God cannot be distin-
guished, since from loins d o w n , God is encased by fire. This may fit quite neat-
ly the possible implications of Genesis 1:27: that h u m a n k i n d , created male and
female, mimics G o d . 1 8
However we interpret the creation of h u m a n k i n d , these creations are unlike
any other. Various elements in Genesis 1 : 2 6 - 3 0 highlight the significance of
humankind's being created in God's (physical) image, with male and female
equal. The conclusion of this myth, however, describes the Sabbath in a m a n n e r
that even surpasses h u m a n k i n d — o n l y the Sabbath is "declared holy" (Gen.
2:3). 1 9 Holiness is especially important within the Priestly system, in which the
Holy Sabbath plays a leading role (see especially Exod. 3 1 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) . Thus, in
offering these evaluations, the first creation story highlights the importance of
both h u m a n k i n d and the Sabbath.

The Meaning of Genesis 2:4b-3:24

Critical biblical scholarship allows u s — p e r h a p s even forces u s — t o see Genesis

l : l - 2 : 4 a and 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 as two distinct stories that should be interpreted
separately. Of course we cannot easily forget the preceding story as we read the
Garden of Eden story. However, it is even harder to p u t aside all that we already
" k n o w " a b o u t this story itself. N o biblical story is m o r e familiar in Western
culture.
As it h a p p e n s , the story as widely k n o w n h a s b e e n filled out t h r o u g h vari-
o u s (Christian) interpretations. For e x a m p l e , n o w h e r e does the text itself tell u s
w h a t the f o r b i d d e n fruit was. In early Christian tradition it was generally u n d e r -
s t o o d as an apple, w h e r e a s early J e w i s h tradition offered several o p i n i o n s as to
the fruit's identity, w i t h the fig b e i n g the m o s t p o p u l a r — a n d contextually the
m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e (see especially Gen. 3 : 7 ) . 2 0
O t h e r dearly held views of this text are also n o t b o r n e out by a close read-
ing. T h u s , we m i g h t believe that its m a i n t h e m e is the curse received by the
w o m a n (and all w o m e n ) , yet the w o r d "curse" is absent in God's c o m m e n t s to
her (Gen. 3:16), while it is present in God's s t a t e m e n t s b o t h to the s e r p e n t (3:14)
a n d to the m a n (3:17). 2 1 Moreover, the d o c t r i n e s of the Fall of Man or original
sin are n o w h e r e to be f o u n d in this passage, t h o u g h they a p p e a r in early
Christian interpretation of the text. 2 2
The G a r d e n Story is a b o u t immortality lost a n d sexuality g a i n e d . 2 3 It begins
f r o m a simple premise: originally, p e o p l e were immortal. In fact, the h u g e life
s p a n s recorded in the early c h a p t e r s of Genesis are part of an effort to m a k e a
bridge b e t w e e n that original immortality a n d "normal" life spans. As i m m o r t a l
beings, they were asexual; in the G a r d e n story G o d does n o t tell t h e m to "be fer-
tile a n d increase" as they were told in the first creation story (Gen. 1:28).
Sexuality is discovered only after eating f r o m the tree, w h e n "they perceived that
they were n a k e d " (3:7). In fact, the divine c o m m a n d of 2:17 s h o u l d n o t be
u n d e r s t o o d as o f t e n t r a n s l a t e d — " f o r as s o o n as y o u eat of it, y o u shall die" (so
the JPS t r a n s l a t i o n ) — b u t rather "for as s o o n as y o u eat of it, you shall b e c o m e
mortal." T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n (procreative) sexuality a n d mortality is c o m -
pelling a n d w a s well u n d e r s t o o d even in antiquity—if people were to be b o t h
sexually procreative a n d immortal, disastrous o v e r p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d result. 2 4
Many details w i t h i n c h a p t e r s 2 - 3 s u p p o r t this interpretation. T h e tree that
is first f o r b i d d e n is (literally) "the tree of k n o w l e d g e of good a n d bad." Here
da-at ( ‫ ד ע ת‬, "knowledge") is b e i n g used in a sense that it often has in the Bible:
intimate or sexual k n o w l e d g e . "Good a n d b a d " is b e i n g u s e d here as a figure of
s p e e c h called a "merism": t w o o p p o s i t e t e r m s are j o i n e d by the w o r d "and"; the
resulting figure m e a n s "everything" or "the ultimate." 2 5 (A m e r i s m is likewise
u s e d in Genesis 1:1, "heaven a n d earth," w h i c h there m e a n s the entire world.)
T h e w o r d s "good a n d bad" have n o m o r a l c o n n o t a t i o n here.
O n l y after the p r i m o r d i a l c o u p l e eat f r o m the tree d o they gain sexual aware-
ness. I n d e e d , i m m e d i a t e l y after this story c o n c l u d e s , we read " N o w the m a n
k n e w his wife Eve, a n d she conceived a n d b o r e Cain" (Gen. 4:1). That is, eating
f r o m the tree of "knowledge" leads to a very specific type of "knowing." N o w h e r e
in the text is this k n o w l e d g e d e p i c t e d as intellectual or ethical.
This reading also explains w h y the tree of life is m e n t i o n e d only t o w a r d the
e n d of the story (Gen. 3:22). Early in the story, p e o p l e w e r e i m m o r t a l , so that
tree offered n o advantage, a n d t h u s was n o t m e n t i o n e d . However, only after eat-
ing f r o m the tree of ultimate "knowledge," b e c o m i n g sexual, a n d b e c o m i n g m o r -
tal, d o e s the tree of life c o m e i n t o focus. Eating f r o m this tree w o u l d allow p e o -
pie to b e c o m e b o t h i m m o r t a l a n d sexual, creating a n o v e r p o p u l a t i o n p r o b l e m .
T h e first c o u p l e w a s expelled n o t as p u n i s h m e n t , b u t so that they m i g h t n o t
"take also f r o m the tree of life a n d eat, a n d live forever!" (3:22).
T h e r e n a m i n g of the w o m a n as Eve, chaw ah ( ‫ ח ו ה‬, "progenitress"), "because
s h e w a s the m o t h e r of all the living" (Gen. 3:20), h a p p e n s only after eating f r o m
the tree. This too bolsters the "sexual" reading of this s t o r y — e a t i n g of the tree of
ultimate "knowledge" t u r n s the wife of A d a m f r o m ha-ishah (‫האשה‬, "the
w o m a n " ) into a (potential) m o t h e r .
God's response to the w o m a n after she eats f r o m the tree is not a curse. T h e
w o r d s "And to the w o m a n He said, / '1 will m a k e m o s t severe / Your p a n g s in
childbearing; / In p a i n shall y o u b e a r children. / Yet y o u r urge shall be for y o u r
h u s b a n d , / A n d he shall rule over you'" (Gen. 3:16) are a description of women's
n e w state: procreative, w i t h all the "pains" c o n n e c t e d to p r o c r e a t i o n in the pre-
m o d e r n w o r l d , i n c l u d i n g the n a t u r a l p a i n of childbirth. This verse is n o t stating
(as a h a r m o n i s t i c reading of Genesis 1 - 3 m i g h t imply) that before eating the fruit
women gave b i r t h painlessly, but now they would have labor pains.
F u r t h e r m o r e , it n o t e s that w o m e n will n o t d o w h a t m o s t p e o p l e d o — t r y to
avoid p a i n at all c o s t — b e c a u s e "your urge shall be for y o u r h u s b a n d , / A n d he
shall rule over you." T h e m e a n i n g of this last section is a m b i g u o u s . T h e root
m-sh-l ( ‫ מ ש ל‬, "to rule") has a general sense, so that its use m i g h t suggest an over-
all hierarchy of male over female. However, the context of this verse suggests that
it m e a n s merely that m e n will d e t e r m i n e w h e n c o u p l e s engage in sexual inter-
course.26
It is difficult to d e t e r m i n e the attitude of this m y t h m a k e r t o w a r d the n e w
state that he is d e s c r i b i n g . 2 7 Is h e h a p p y that a b o r i n g life as asexual i m m o r t a l s
in E d e n h a s b e e n t r a d e d for a challenging, sexual life outside of Eden? O r does
he miss immortality? O r is h e b e i n g merely descriptive, n o t i n g h o w h u m a n k i n d
m o v e d f r o m an earlier stage to its c u r r e n t one? T h e Bible (in contrast to m u c h of
Victorian a n d post-Victorian society) h a s a generally positive attitude t o w a r d
h u m a n sexuality, as m a y be seen m o s t clearly f r o m the Song of Songs (see "Sex
in the Song . . ." in c h a p t e r 25). In various places, it sees w o m e n in particular
(in contrast to m e n ) as very sexual beings (see especially Proverbs 1 - 9 ) . T h u s , it
is quite reasonable w i t h i n a biblical context to see Eve as a type of P a n d o r a fig-
u r e , 2 8 w h o is to be c o m m e n d e d for b r i n g i n g sex into this world.

Implications and Conclusions

Genesis l : l - 2 : 4 a a n d 2 : 4 b - 3 : 2 4 are two separate stories, written by different

a u t h o r s u s i n g different styles. T h e y are b o t h m y t h s — n e i t h e r aims primarily at
offering a scientific description of "the earth a n d everything u p o n it" (Neh. 9:6).
They are m e t a p h o r s on the story level, traditional tales dealing w i t h issues of col-
lective i m p o r t a n c e . As s u c h , they are "creating" worlds.
T h e first story describes a very good w o r l d , w h i c h is highly s t r u c t u r e d a n d
controlled b y a m o s t p o w e r f u l G o d w h o in s o m e ways is so dissimilar f r o m
h u m a n s that he even h a s his o w n w o r d , bara (‫)ברא‬, to express his creative
activity.
The w o r l d of the s e c o n d story is m u c h m o r e a m b i g u o u s . Its G o d , a m a s t e r
potter (Gen. 2 : 7 ) , 2 9 is m u c h m o r e h u m a n l i k e , w a l k i n g a n d talking, even sewing
(3:21). Also this w o r l d is u n l i k e that in the p r e v i o u s story: it lacks the g e n d e r
equality of the previous story, a n d it is n o t "very good."
M o d e r n "critical" biblical s c h o l a r s h i p fosters these observations by allowing
the stories to be disengaged f r o m each other, allowing each to be seen as an
i n d e p e n d e n t story, reflecting its author's perspectives. It u n d e r s t a n d s t h e m as
constructive m y t h s , w h i c h h e l p e d to f r a m e the very essence of Israelite self-
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , as well as their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of their relationship to their G o d ,
a n d to the w o r l d that they believed He h a d created.
 7
The Ancestors as Heroes
Primary Reading: Genesis 12-50 (esp. chaps. 12, 20, 26, 37).

Patriarchal History?

T he Book of Genesis is often divided into two parts: chapters 1-11,

Universal Myth; and chapters 1 2 - 5 0 , Patriarchal History. To the extent that

n a m e s help us shape h o w we read units, these n a m e s (as well as these divisions)
are b o t h problematic.
The appellation "Universal Myth" is the less problematic of the two. By and
large, the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be viewed as m y t h s in the sense
1 described in chapter 6. They are stories dealing with issues of collective impor-
tance, a n d should not be seen as science, natural history, or history. Most of the
stories deal with universal concerns. This is certainly the case for the initial sto-
ries, as I showed in chapter 6, but it is also true of most of the later stories.
Genesis 10 is a long, segmented genealogy 1 that deals with the relationships
a m o n g the earth's various peoples. Likewise, 1 1 : 1 - 9 contains the well-known
Tower of Babel story, which ends: "and from there the L O R D scattered them over
the face of the whole earth"—it is hard to imagine a more universal story! This
universal setting makes sense, since the first eleven chapters of Genesis may be
read as a dialogue between "crime and punishment," 2 or more specifically, as
successive failed attempts by God to create an obedient h u m a n k i n d : the Eden
generation disobeys, the flood generation disobeys, and finally the generation of
the Tower of Babel disobeys. These failures justify the choosing of Abraham in
chapter 12. 3
Yet Abraham, or Abram, as he is first called, is not first introduced in
Genesis 12. Rather, he is introduced in the genealogy in 11:26: "When Terah had
lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran." In fact, one version of
A b r a m s migration from Mesopotamia is preserved in verse 31: "Terah took his
son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai,
the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans
for the land of C a n a a n ; b u t w h e n they h a d c o m e as far as H a r a n , they settled
there." T h u s 1 2 : 1 , "The LORD said to A b r a m , 'Go forth f r o m y o u r native land a n d
f r o m y o u r father's h o u s e to the land that I will s h o w you,'" is n o t the b e g i n n i n g
of a n e w story.
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h o u g h m u c h in c h a p t e r s 1 - 1 1 is universal in outlook, n o t all
of the material m a y be characterized that way. Genesis 2 : 1 - 3 describes the ori-
gin of the Shabbat, w h i c h is a u n i q u e l y Israelite institution, as "a sign for all time
b e t w e e n Me a n d the p e o p l e of Israel" (Exod. 31:17). T h u s , this s u p p o s e d l y u n i -
versai i n t r o d u c t i o n i n c l u d e s e l e m e n t s of p a r t i c u l a r i t y — w h i c h is n o t surprising,
given that Israelites wrote these stories for an Israelite a u d i e n c e .
T h e term "Patriarchal History" is d o u b l y p r o b l e m a t i c as it is applied to c h a p -
ters 1 2 - 5 0 : they are neither "patriarchal" n o r are they "history" in the c o m m o n -
ly u n d e r s t o o d sense of the w o r d . T h e Matriarchs play a m a j o r role in m a n y of
these stories. 4 In Genesis 27, it is Rebekah w h o m a k e s sure that the right son
(Jacob, n o t Esau) receives the blessing f r o m Isaac. In 2 5 : 2 2 , w h e n she feels the
t w o children struggling in her w o m b , she directly inquires of the LORD, a n d is
a n s w e r e d directly (v. 23). Tamar in Genesis 3 8 is a n o t h e r s t r o n g w o m a n , o u t -
s m a r t i n g h e r father-in-law, J u d a h . She is n o t c o n d e m n e d b y the text; in fact
J u d a h recognizes that "She is m o r e right t h a n I" (38:26), a n d she is r e w a r d e d
w i t h children. Her first b o r n s o n , Perez, is the ancestor of David. She is even
n a m e d in a blessing in Ruth 4:12: "may y o u r h o u s e be like the h o u s e of Perez
w h o m Tamar b o r e to J u d a h . " T h u s , a l t h o u g h the Patriarchs o u t n u m b e r the
Matriarchs in t e r m s of verses, a n d a l t h o u g h the society d e p i c t e d is by a n d large
patriarchal (that is, the m a i n locus of p o w e r is in the m e n ) , 5 this unit s h o u l d n o t
be called "Patriarchal History."
Meanwhile, "history" is n o t o r i o u s l y h a r d to define. It is often u n d e r s t o o d as
an a c c o u n t of w h a t actually t o o k place. 6 S u c h a c c o u n t s can never be identical to
the events themselves, yet we typically j u d g e historians by h o w closely their
a c c o u n t m i r r o r s or m a p s those e v e n t s — b y w h a t they a d d , omit, or twist.
"History" in this sense hardly applies to the narratives in Genesis 12—50. There
is n o reason to believe that its a u t h o r s were trying to relate exactly w h a t h a p -
p e n e d , or even w h a t they believed to be historically true. T h e stories were c o m -
p o s e d m u c h later t h a n the events they depict, for they reflect the b a c k g r o u n d of
that later p e r i o d . ‫ ׳‬For these reasons, I avoid the t e r m "Patriarchal History."

Role Models?

T h e stories of Genesis 1 2 - 5 0 are often u n d e r s t o o d to be p r e s e n t i n g the ances-

tors as p a r a d i g m a t i c figures, as role m o d e l s w h o s e behavior s h o u l d be e m u l a t e d
b y the c o m m u n i t y . Probably this way of reading the stories is very old, for it is
c u s t o m a r y to view ancestors in this idealized fashion. However, these stories
were likely not u n d e r s t o o d this way d u r i n g the biblical period.
T h e biblical text c o r r o b o r a t e s this claim. It contains m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d
references to A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b outside of Genesis. (Isaac is hardly m e n t i o n e d ,
j u s t as he is hardly m e n t i o n e d in Genesis.) For e x a m p l e , after Israel sins, Moses
prays to G o d , asking h i m to r e m e m b e r A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b (see, e.g.,
Exod. 32:13; Deut. 9:27). However, never o n c e d o e s Moses tell the Israelites to
r e m e m b e r the Patriarchs a n d to e m u l a t e their behavior. Even Isaiah 51:2, an
exilic p r o p h e t i c text that o p e n s "Look b a c k to A b r a h a m y o u r father / A n d to
Sarah w h o b r o u g h t y o u forth," d o e s not c o n t i n u e by saying that you s h o u l d fol-
low their actions. Prophetic literature a n d Psalms offer m a n y o p p o r t u n i t i e s to
e n c o u r a g e the p e o p l e to e m u l a t e their ancestors, b u t this is never done once,
i m p l y i n g that they were n o t viewed as role m o d e l s in the biblical period.
In fact, a reading of the stories a b o u t the ancestors w i t h o u t the p r e s u m p t i o n
that they are role m o d e l s suggests that they have quite a few warts. This is clear-
est w i t h Jacob, w h o s e w h o l e life is s u f f u s e d w i t h trickery. His brother, Esau, is
quite correct w h e n he r e m a r k s , "Was he, t h e n , n a m e d J a c o b that he m i g h t s u p -
plant m e these t w o times? First he t o o k away m y birthright a n d n o w he h a s
t a k e n away m y blessing!" (Gen. 27:36), p u n n i n g o n the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the
w o r d s bekhorah ( ‫ ב כ ו ר ה‬, "birthright") a n d berakhah ( ‫ ב ר כ ה‬, "blessing"). The
entire life story of J a c o b could be read as a type of morality tale: trick o t h e r s a n d
you shall be t r i c k e d . 8 He tricks his brother, a n d t h e n leads a life of b e i n g tricked
by others, i n c l u d i n g his wife ( 3 1 : 1 9 - 3 2 ) a n d his children (chap. 37). This is a
g r o u p of stories f r o m w h i c h ancient Israelites m i g h t have learned a b o u t the d a n -
gers of trickery, as well as the divine c o n c e r n b e s t o w e d o n their ancestor n a m e d
Israel or Jacob, b u t it does n o t illustrate a p a r a d i g m that s h o u l d be e m u l a t e d .
T h e same is true of A b r a h a m . N o w h e r e d o e s the text of Genesis or a n y o t h e r
biblical text suggest that each Israelite s h o u l d be p r e p a r e d to sacrifice his child,
as A b r a h a m was in c h a p t e r 22. In fact, that story in its c u r r e n t f o r m suggests that
the p u r p o s e of this test w a s to r e w a r d A b r a h a m by p r o m i s i n g that his descen-
d e n t s w o u l d b e c o m e n u m e r o u s a n d c o n q u e r the land of Israel, thereby b e c o m -
ing a source of blessing for o t h e r s ( 2 2 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . 9
Several o t h e r actions p e r f o r m e d by A b r a h a m d o not provide suitable m o d -
els for e m u l a t i o n . For example, in Genesis 12, fairly early in the narrative w h e n
he a n d his wife are still called A b r a m a n d Sarai, A b r a m passes her off as his sis-
ter, so that he will n o t be killed ( 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 ) . Sarai is taken into the royal h a r e m
(v. 15) as Pharaoh's wife (v. 19)! A b r a m is i n d e e d saved, b u t at Sarai's expense.
This is n o t paradigmatic, righteous behavior.
Many early postbiblical retellings of this story, written after the idea devel-
o p e d that the Patriarchs s h o u l d be viewed as role m o d e l s , r e s p o n d to the moral
p r o b l e m that these stories p r e s e n t . 1 0 Jubilees, a p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c w o r k 1 1 f r o m
the s e c o n d pre-Christian century, n o t e s twice in retelling Genesis 12 that Sarai
w a s taken "by force" ( 1 3 : 1 1 - 1 3 ) . T h e great Hellenistic J e w i s h scholar Philo c o m -
m e n t e d that Sarai " w h o in a foreign c o u n t r y was at the mercy of a licentious a n d
cruel-hearted d e s p o t a n d h a d n o t o n e to protect h e r — f o r h e r h u s b a n d w a s h e l p -
less . . ." (On Abraham, 9 4 - 9 5 ) . In the Genesis A p o c r y p h o n , a greatly e x p a n d e d
retelling of Genesis in Aramaic f o u n d a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls ( 2 0 : 1 0 ) a n d
in the medieval Midrash T a n c h u m a (Lekh Lekhah 5), A b r a m is d e p i c t e d as w e e p -
ing, rather t h a n callously passing his wife off. In each of these retellings,
Abraham's role is rewritten so that he is a victim of circumstances.
The Legends of the Jews, a c o m p i l a t i o n b y Louis Ginzberg of rabbinic sources
f r o m the postbiblical p e r i o d t h r o u g h the medieval p e r i o d , s h o w s a similar ten-
dency. D r a w i n g f r o m a variety of postbiblical sources, this is h o w Ginzberg
retells part of the story of Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 : 1 2

O n his j o u r n e y f r o m C a n a a n to Egypt, A b r a h a m first observed the b e a u -

ty of Sarah. Chaste as he was, he h a d never before l o o k e d at her, b u t
now, w h e n they were w a d i n g t h r o u g h a stream, he saw the reflection of
her beauty in the water like the brilliance of the s u n . W h e r e f o r e he
s p o k e to h e r t h u s , "The Egyptians are very sensual, a n d I will p u t thee
in a casket that n o h a r m befall m e o n a c c o u n t of thee." At the Egyptian
boundary, the tax collectors asked h i m a b o u t the c o n t e n t s of the casket,
a n d A b r a h a m told t h e m he h a d barley in it. "No," they said, "it c o n t a i n s
wheat." "Very well," replied A b r a h a m , "I a m p r e p a r e d to pay the tax o n
wheat." T h e officers t h e n h a z a r d e d the guess, "It contains pepper!"
A b r a h a m agreed to pay the tax o n p e p p e r , a n d w h e n they charged h i m
w i t h concealing gold in the casket, h e did n o t refuse to pay the tax o n
gold, a n d finally o n precious stones. Seeing that he d e m u r r e d to n o
charge, h o w e v e r high, the tax collectors, m a d e t h o r o u g h l y suspicious,
insisted u p o n his u n f a s t e n i n g the casket a n d letting t h e m e x a m i n e the
contents. W h e n it was forced o p e n , the w h o l e of Egypt was r e s p l e n d e n t
w i t h the b e a u t y of Sarah. In c o m p a r i s o n with her, all o t h e r beauties
were like apes c o m p a r e d w i t h m e n . She excelled Eve herself. T h e ser-
vants of P h a r a o h o u t b i d o n e a n o t h e r in seeking to obtain possession of
her, t h o u g h they were of o p i n i o n that so radiant a b e a u t y o u g h t n o t to
r e m a i n the p r o p e r t y of a private individual. They r e p o r t e d the m a t t e r to
the king, a n d P h a r a o h sent a p o w e r f u l a r m e d force to b r i n g Sarah to the
palace, a n d so b e w i t c h e d was he b y h e r c h a r m s that those w h o h a d
 brought him the news of her c o m i n g into Egypt were loaded d o w n with
bountiful gifts.

This account (or more correctly combination of accounts) "cleans u p " the image
of Abraham. So d o similar sources that insist, contrary to what the biblical text
implies, that each time Pharaoh attempted to c o n s u m m a t e the relationship, an
angel protecting Sarai struck h i m . ‫( ״‬A m u c h earlier retelling of the story by
J o s e p h u s suggests: "But God thwarted his [Pharaoh's] criminal passion by an
outbreak of disease a n d political disturbance." 1 4 ) These various retellings, which
embellish the biblical text, highlight for us the questionable behavior of the bib-
lical Abraham, further suggesting that he, along with the other ancestors of
Genesis, are not intended as role models.

The Ancestors as Symbols15

Given that Genesis was written over a long time period by different authors, we
may not expect all of the ancestral stories to share the same goal. For example,
in Genesis 14 Abram is presented as a great warrior, 1 6 an image that is not
shared with the rest of Abraham material—this presents a single, particular view
of Abraham in ancient Israel, which was preserved in the biblical text. Thus, the
search for a single explanation for all of these ancestral stories is futile. In fact, it
is likely that many of t h e m were reworked as they were transmitted, and their
original p u r p o s e or p u r p o s e s were obscured in the process. However, in some
cases, their goals remain visible.
Some of the stories in Genesis are symbolic, where the ancestor represents
Israel as a whole, or a group within Israel. This is evident in the story we exam-
ined above, Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 :

There was a famine in the land, and Abram went d o w n to Egypt to

sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. As he was about to
enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I k n o w what a beautiful w o m a n
you are. If the Egyptians see you, a n d think, 'She is his wife,' they will
kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go
well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to
you." W h e n Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw how very beauti-
ful the w o m a n was. Pharaoh's courtiers saw her and praised her to
Pharaoh, and the w o m a n was taken into Pharaoh's palace. And because
of her, it went well with Abram; he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male
and female slaves, she-asses, a n d camels. But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh
 a n d his h o u s e h o l d w i t h m i g h t y plagues on a c c o u n t of Sarai, the wife of
A b r a m . P h a r a o h sent for A b r a m a n d said, " W h a t is this y o u have d o n e
to me! W h y did y o u n o t tell m e that she w a s y o u r wife? W h y did y o u
say, 'She is m y sister,' so that I t o o k her as m y wife? Now, here is y o u r
wife; take h e r a n d begone!" A n d P h a r a o h p u t m e n in charge of h i m , a n d
they sent h i m off w i t h his wife a n d all that h e possessed.

This story has b e e n the subject of m u c h s t u d y because it is repeated again in

Genesis, in c h a p t e r s 2 0 (with A b r a h a m a n d Sarah) a n d 2 6 (with Isaac a n d
R e b e k a h ) . 1 7 The differences a m o n g the three versions are significant, a n d yield
i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h o w stories were told a n d retold in ancient
Israel, a n d h o w variants of the same story m i g h t have d e v e l o p e d over time. This
c o m p a r i s o n also highlights e l e m e n t s that are u n i q u e to each story.
Several features stick o u t in the Genesis 12 version: A b r a m , motivated by a
famine, specifically goes to Egypt; t h r o u g h deceit he is e n r i c h e d there; a n d he is
eventually expelled. It is quite o d d that despite Pharaoh's a p p a r e n t anger at
A b r a m , A b r a m gets to k e e p the various possessions that P h a r a o h h a d given h i m .
W h e n told in this outline f o r m , it is evident that story is a "pre-telling" of
the later story of Israel in Egypt. According to the J o s e p h story, Israel (the p e r -
s o n a n d the n a t i o n ) e n d s u p in Egypt d u e to a famine. (Contrast this with
Genesis 20, w h i c h is set in Gerar.) There the Israelites are ultimately e n r i c h e d
w h e n they ask their Egyptian n e i g h b o r s to "borrow" silver a n d gold objects a n d
g a r m e n t s (Exod. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). T h e Israelites are ultimately expelled (Exod.
1 2 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) . T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 a n d the E x o d u s story is
sealed by the w o r d nega'im ( • ‫ נ ג ע י‬, "plagues") in Genesis 12:17 a n d again in
E x o d u s 11:1 (of the plagues b r o u g h t against P h a r a o h ) .
T h e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n these two stories were recognized in classical
Jewish sources. Genesis Rabbah, an early rabbinic m i d r a s h (a type of Bible
c o m m e n t a r y ) , n o t e s certain verbal similarities b e t w e e n o u r u n i t a n d later Torah
texts: it i n t r o d u c e s these observations by o b s e r v i n g that "God said to A b r a h a m
o u r father, 'Go a n d p r e p a r e the p a t h for y o u r children'" (Genesis Rabbah 40:6).
T h e medieval c o m m e n t a t o r N a c h m a n i d e s , active in the t h i r t e e n t h century, n o t e d
various t h e m a t i c c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n these stories, a n d c o n c l u d e s by n o t i n g ,
"Absolutely e v e r y t h i n g that h a p p e n e d to the father h a p p e n e d to the children"
( c o m m e n t a r y o n Gen. 12:10). For these scholars, h i s t o r y — o r m o r e precisely,
certain e l e m e n t s of h i s t o r y — i s cyclical, 1 8 a n d t h u s w h a t h a p p e n s once "helps"
an event h a p p e n again. M o d e r n biblical s c h o l a r s h i p u n d e r s t a n d s the s a m e data
differently—it a s s u m e s that an a u t h o r prefigures later events by c o m p o s i n g a
story with the same e l e m e n t s b u t setting it at an earlier time. This highlights the
i m p o r t a n c e of that later event. Here, the E x o d u s motif, o n e of the most central
motifs of the entire Bible, is prefigured—this may be seen as a type of fulfillment
of Deuteronomy 16:3, which enjoins that the Exodus should be recalled "as long
as you live." Deuteronomy in particular does this by connecting various laws to
the Exodus. 1 9 The centrality of the Exodus is also emphasized by placing it at
the very beginning of the ancestral stories, in Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 .
It is difficult to k n o w h o w an ancient Israelite would have "read" Genesis
1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 , because, as is the case for biblical texts in general, it does not contain
a genre label. We might distinguish various texts that present the past with such
labels as "true history," "symbolic history," "historical fiction," or "light enter-
tainment set in the past." Using various internal and external clues, we may
sometimes surmise to which category a particular text belongs. In the case of
Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 , an overabundance of clues associating this passage with the
Exodus would have suggested to the ancient Israelite that it is symbolic. Rather
than depicting real events, it was meant to bolster the importance of the Exodus,
and to s u p p o r t a view of providence that suggests a deity w h o protects his peo-
p i e — w h o goes d o w n with t h e m into exile, but also returns with t h e m from there
(see Gen. 46:4).
Genesis 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 is not u n i q u e as a symbolic text. Others may be identified
by significant similarities between the text in Genesis and later texts or events,
or w h e n oddities in the text are best explained by observing that a story in
Genesis is following the script of another story. These criteria are somewhat sub-
jective, and isolating these symbolic stories can be difficult, especially because
the Bible preserves for us only a small part of the traditions of ancient Israel.
O t h e r stories may quite possibly be symbolic, but we can n o longer recognize
what they are patterned after. Eor this reason we cannot say h o w m a n y or what
proportion of the ancestral stories in Genesis are symbolic.

The Joseph Story

In m a n y ways, the Joseph story is different from m a n y of the other stories in

Genesis. Although there are a small n u m b e r of inconsistencies within this story,
s u c h as w h e t h e r Joseph was sold to the Midianites (37:28a, 36) or Ishmaelites
( 3 7 : 2 5 - 2 7 , 28b), these are rather inconsequential w h e n compared to contradic-
tions in earlier sections of Genesis. Even chapter 38, the story of J u d a h and
Tamar, which interrupts the flow of the J o s e p h story, is well integrated into the
larger story t h r o u g h use of theme and vocabulary. 2 0 There is a sense of drama
a n d deep interest in what we w o u l d call h u m a n psychology throughout the
story. Genesis 3 7 - 5 0 incorporates a variety of traditions; it was not the w o r k of
a single author. However, it does not contain the usual sources found in Genesis
0 , E, P), a n d it c o n t a i n s m a n y fewer c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a n the previous part of the
b o o k . For these reasons, several scholars u n d e r s t a n d the story as a separate
novella; 2 1 in a n y case, we m a y certainly s p e a k of the J o s e p h story.
Several e l e m e n t s of the J o s e p h story are clearly symbolic. For example, a sig-
nificant t h e m e of this story is the conflict a m o n g the b r o t h e r s (especially J o s e p h
a n d J u d a h ) , w h i c h mirrors the conflicts of the divided m o n a r c h y (see "Israel's
History as Seen f r o m the Inside" in c h a p t e r 4). T h e story explains w h y J u d a h
b e c a m e the most i m p o r t a n t tribe a m o n g the children of Leah. In fact, m u c h of
the J o s e p h story can be u n d e r s t o o d as the narrative elaboration of an idea f o u n d
in 1 Chronicles:

(5:1) The s o n s of R e u b e n the first-born of Israel. He was the first-born;

b u t w h e n he defiled his father's b e d , his birthright w a s given to the sons
of J o s e p h son of Israel, so he is n o t r e c k o n e d as first-born in the geneal-
ogy; (2) t h o u g h J u d a h b e c a m e m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n his b r o t h e r s a n d a
leader came f r o m h i m , yet the birthright b e l o n g e d to J o s e p h .

In o t h e r w o r d s , the story describes the relationships a m o n g Reuben, J u d a h , a n d

J o s e p h , w h i c h actually represent the later relationships a m o n g s u b g r o u p s of
Israel.
In genealogical lists, b e i n g firstborn often represents b e i n g the m o s t p o w e r -
22
ful. T h u s , it is necessary to explain h o w this role m o v e d f r o m (the tribe o f )
R e u b e n to J u d a h . This is a c c o m p l i s h e d to s o m e extent before the J o s e p h story
begins, b u t is c o n t i n u e d in the J o s e p h story. T h e b e g i n n i n g of Genesis 3 5 : 2 2
notes, "While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben w e n t a n d lay w i t h Bilhah, his
father's c o n c u b i n e ; a n d Israel f o u n d out"; a c c o r d i n g to 49:4, this disqualified
R e u b e n f r o m leadership. Similarly, the next t w o children, S i m e o n a n d Levi, are
disqualified because they massacred a Canaanite city (chap. 34; see 4 9 : 5 - 7 ) .
T h u s , before the J o s e p h story starts, J u d a h , the f o u r t h - b o r n son, is left as the
dominant brother.23
This t h e m e of w h o deserves the right of the firstborn is played out almost
f r o m the o p e n i n g of the J o s e p h story. R e u b e n is u n s u c c e s s f u l in saving J o s e p h
(Gen. 3 7 : 2 1 - 2 2 , 2 9 - 3 0 ) , while J u d a h ' s plan succeeds ( w . 2 6 - 2 7 ) . T h e p r o m i -
n e n t role of J u d a h is t h e n reflected in Genesis 38, w h i c h has as its focus J u d a h
a n d his family. Later in the story, after the b r o t h e r s have r e t u r n e d f r o m Egypt
while leaving S i m e o n b e h i n d as a hostage, R e u b e n offers to r e t u r n to Egypt w i t h
Benjamin, b u t J a c o b refuses ( 4 2 : 3 7 - 3 8 ) . A few verses later, J u d a h m a k e s a sim-
ilar offer ( 3 8 : 8 - 1 4 ) , a n d this time J a c o b accedes to the offer. In b o t h of these
places, J u d a h plays the role of leader, of firstborn, instead of Reuben. T h e posi-
tion that J u d a h ' s d e s c e n d e n t King David will play is s a n c t i o n e d t h r o u g h these
details of the story, as well as o t h e r s that place J u d a h in a position of leadership
(see 4 4 : 1 6 - 3 4 ; 46:28). The J o s e p h story can also be viewed symbolically as a
struggle b e t w e e n the h o u s e of J u d a h , r e p r e s e n t i n g the Davidic monarchy, a n d
the h o u s e of J o s e p h , representing the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m . T h e story accurately
reflects the fact that the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m ("Joseph") w a s m u c h larger in area,
a n d m o r e p o w e r f u l militarily, t h a n J u d a h to the s o u t h .
However, reading the story as only a political allegory is erroneous. In antiq-
uity, as in m o d e r n times, literary w o r k s were often written for m o r e t h a n o n e
p u r p o s e . As already n o t e d , the a u t h o r or c o m p i l e r of the J o s e p h story h a d an
u n u s u a l l y strong d r a m a t i c sense, a n d was quite interested in h u m a n psycholo-
gy. This m a y already be seen f r o m the i n t r o d u c t i o n to the story, w h i c h s h o w s a
k e e n interest in the various relationships b e t w e e n a father a n d sets of children
f r o m various wives. It notes details that are typically omitted in biblical stories,
s u c h as the age of the protagonist (Joseph is 17 years old, according to Gen.
37:2), a n d o t h e r m u n d a n e i n f o r m a t i o n , like J o s e p h s p e n d i n g his time w i t h the
concubine's children (v. 2). T h u s , f r o m its very beginning, the story sets u p a
p r o b l e m — h o w will a y o u n g child, the son of the dead favored wife, fare, espe-
d a l l y since he s e e m s to be associating w i t h the less p o w e r f u l children?
Like m a n y g o o d stories, the i n t r o d u c t i o n to the J o s e p h story leaves m a n y
q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d . H o w are we to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h ? Is he a spoiled brat
w h o takes advantage of his situation as favored son, or is he naïve? W h a t a b o u t
Jacob? Why, for e x a m p l e , d o e s he s e n d J o s e p h o u t after his b r o t h e r s (Gen.
3 7 : 1 3 ) — i s he trying to teach J o s e p h a lesson, or is he oblivious to the d y n a m i c
a m o n g the brothers? Many m o r e s u c h q u e s t i o n s are at the surface here, suggest-
ing that it w o u l d be a simplification to read this story only as a political allegory.

An Obstacle Story?

In a d d i t i o n to looking at the m e a n i n g of individual stories, it is possible to see if

they have b e e n c o m b i n e d i n t o a m e a n i n g f u l whole. T h e stories of Abraham's
family m a y be read f r o m b e g i n n i n g to e n d as a s o m e w h a t s m o o t h narrative
b e g i n n i n g w i t h the p r o m i s e of the land in Genesis 12, a n d e n d i n g w i t h a reca-
pitulation of that p r o m i s e in the final chapter, in 50:24, by the d y i n g J o s e p h : "I
a m a b o u t to die. G o d will surely take notice of y o u a n d b r i n g y o u u p f r o m this
land to the land that He p r o m i s e d o n oath to A b r a h a m , to Isaac, a n d to Jacob."
O n e scholar h a s suggested that m u c h of the material in this large section
m a y b e read as an obstacle story. That is, it o p e n s with the p r o m i s e of land a n d
p r o g e n y to A b r a h a m a n d his d e s c e n d e n t s , a n d t h e n in great detail, time after
time, notes various obstacles that prevent this promise from being fulfilled. 2 4
The Abraham story, for example, may be outlined as follows: Abraham is given
a grand promise with two main parts: land, and the progeny to fill it (Gen.
12:1-3). He successfully migrates to Canaan a n d walks throughout the land
( 1 2 : 4 - 9 ) . Yet as soon as he has d o n e so, he needs to leave due to famine; in the
process, he is worried about being killed, and his wife, through w h o m he m u s t
bear progeny, is taken into P h a r a o h s harem. Since he is childless, one might
think that Lot, his nephew, would be his heir. However, w h e n given the choice,
Lot chooses not the land of Canaan b u t the plain of the Jordan (chap. 13). Lot
is ultimately captured in war, a n d Abraham the warrior recovers him. In the
process, King Melchizedek of Salem makes a generous offer to Abraham, w h o
certainly could have attained some territory, b u t Abraham refuses (chap. 14).
The covenant is renewed through a detailed ceremony (chap. 15). Since Sarai,
Ab ram's wife, has not conceived, Sarai suggests that Abram take Hagar as a wife,
so he might have an heir. N o sooner does he d o this then she conceives and is
banished by Sarai to the wilderness, u n d e r m i n i n g the possibility that Abram's
heir problem will be solved. The covenant is renewed and circumcision is m a n -
dated (chap. 17). (Genesis 1 8 - 1 9 is about Sodom, forming an interlude.) Sarah
is taken by Abimelech of Gerar, again m a k i n g us w o n d e r h o w an heir to
Abraham will be p r o d u c e d (chap. 20). Finally, the heir, Isaac, is b o r n (21:1), so
it is safe to banish Ishmael, the "backup heir" (chap. 21). No sooner does Isaac
grow u p a bit, than God asks Abraham: "Take your son, your only son, w h o m
you love, Isaac, a n d offer h i m u p . . ." (22:2); Abraham agrees, a n d is ready to
kill his heir (chap. 22). Finally, Abraham makes a real estate transaction—but
purchases only a cave for burial p u r p o s e s (chap. 23).
By the time we get to Genesis 24, Abraham is elderly, has a single child to
carry on the promise, and has n o more of the land than a burial plot. Obstacle
after obstacle has been p u t in his place—foreign kings w h o desire the wife w h o
will p r o d u c e the heir, banished children, almost sacrificed children, great wars,
etc. This pattern can be seen as continuing t h r o u g h o u t Genesis—it is especially
evident in the fights that Jacob has with his twin Esau. Thus, it w o u l d seem quite
appropriate to view Genesis 1 2 - 5 0 as one big obstacle story.
However, amid the various obstacles, the covenantal promise is repeated
time a n d time again. The emphasis should not be on the obstacles, but on the
constantly renewed promise. Even after the most difficult experiences, such as
the binding of Isaac, the covenantal promise is renewed (Gen. 2 2 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) . Even
at the very end of the b o o k , w h e n the Israelites are in Egypt, with n o immediate
h o p e of returning to Israel, this promise is repeated: "God will surely take notice
of you and bring you u p from this land to the land that He promised on oath to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob" (50:24). In s u m , the structure of Genesis 1 2 - 5 0
suggests that it should not be read as straightforward history, interested in the
past for its o w n sake. Instead, this portion of the b o o k functions as a m y t h of
encouragement—it might seem impossible for the promise to be fulfilled, yet the
promise is renewed time after time. It suggests that the fulfillment of the p r o m -
ise, the divine blessing, is right a r o u n d the c o r n e r — a suggestion that would
have been most welcome to readers of this text as a whole. Patterns in b o t h indi-
vidual stories, a n d in the stories as they have been c o m b i n e d , suggest that this
material was not written in order to represent what actually h a p p e n e d , but
rather, on the level of mythological material, to deal with such f u n d a m e n t a l
questions as: W h y do we own this land? H o w should we react in the face of
adversity?
 8
Biblical Law
Codes and Collections

Primary Reading: Exodus 19-24.

The Nature of Biblical Law

L aw should be the easiest genre to "read" a n d u n d e r s t a n d . We d o not have

an everyday acquaintance with prophecy, a n d historical texts play only a
m i n o r role in the c o n t e m p o r a r y United States, but we all e n c o u n t e r laws o n a
daily basis. Legal battles are often the subject of news headlines. We deal with
laws w h e n we are served with tickets for p a r k i n g or traffic violations, w h e n we
b u y houses or rent apartments, w h e n we write our wills. Because law is a basic
part of our lives, most Americans have some familiarity with the legal system
and its u n d e r p i n n i n g s .
This familiarity, which on the surface makes biblical law easier to u n d e r -
stand than other genres, is more of an i m p e d i m e n t than a help. T h o u g h biblical
law looks m u c h like our o w n laws, in terms of its u n d e r p i n n i n g s and function
it is fundamentally different.
The most significant difference between m o d e r n law and biblical law is its
i m p u t e d author: Exodus claims that the origin of its laws is divine. The
Decalogue (the "Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s " ) 1 is presented as u n m e d i a t e d revelation
by God to all Israel; it is introduced by "God spoke all these words, saying . . ."
(20:1). The laws that follow the Decalogue in 2 0 : 2 0 2 - 2 3 : 1 9 are presented as
God's revelation to Moses that Moses is s u p p o s e d to relay to Israel, "The L O R D
said to Moses: T h u s shall you say to the Israelites . . ." (20:19). Thus, all of the
laws incorporated in chapters 1 9 - 2 4 are presented as divine law.
The structure of this portion of Exodus emphasizes that the laws it incor-
porates are God's laws by o p e n i n g with a description of the revelation (chap. 19),
which is followed by the Decalogue ( 2 0 : 1 - 1 4 ) , which is followed by a descrip-
tion of the revelation ( 2 0 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) , which is followed by a g r o u p of laws
( 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 ) , which is followed by a final description of the revelation (chap.
24). This creates a double-decker sandwich, highlighting the significance of the
law as divine revelation.

Revelation (chap. 19)

Decalogue ( 2 0 : 1 - 1 4 )
Revelation ( 2 0 : 1 5 - 1 8 )
Laws ( 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 )
Revelation (chap. 24)

This structure corresponds to explicit statements about the divine origin of the
law, which may seem like overkill. All of this may have been necessary, howev-
er, because this conception is one of the few in which the Bible was u n i q u e with-
in its ancient Near Eastern context. 3 Elsewhere, it was not the deity but the king
w h o established law and propagated legal collections. For example, the prologue
to the famous Laws of H a m m u r a b i 4 concludes: "When the god Marduk com-
m a n d e d me to provide just ways for the people of the land [in order to attain]
appropriate behavior, I established truth a n d justice as the declaration of the
land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. At that time: If a m a n accuses
another m a n a n d charges h i m with homicide . . ." 5 The same idea is reinforced
in the epilogue that follows the laws: "These are the just decisions which
H a m m u r a b i , the able king, has established . . ." 6 Still later, H a m m u r a b i calls
himself "king of justice, to w h o m the god Shimachu has granted [insight into]
the truth. My p r o n o u n c e m e n t s are choice . . ." 7
Thus, in broadest strokes, the organization of Exodus 1 9 - 2 4 is similar to
that of H a m m u r a b i — t h e y b o t h have narrative material s u r r o u n d i n g laws.
However, in the law collection of H a m m u r a b i , the s u r r o u n d i n g material makes
it clear that these laws originate from the h u m a n king, while God as King was
u n d e r s t o o d to be the lawgiver in Israel. 8 This explains why, in contrast to sur-
r o u n d i n g societies, the Bible portrays kings as playing a relatively m i n o r role in
the creation of law, and according to some, even in the administration of justice. 9
The fact that the Bible u n d e r s t a n d s God to be the lawgiver also explains an
oddity of the biblical law collections: the way in which they combine (what we
w o u l d call) religious law a n d (what we would call) secular law, including crim-
inal law and torts. For example, the Decalogue says b o t h "You shall have n o
other gods besides Me" (Exod. 20:3) a n d "You shall not steal" (20:13). The law
collection that follows in Exodus contains laws about goring oxen ( 2 1 : 2 8 - 3 2 ) as
well as pilgrimage festivals ( 2 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . Such "religious laws" a n d "secular laws"
are often mixed together in adjacent verses (e.g., 2 3 : 1 - 4 ) .
 Sometimes the Bible, in its structure, distinguishes between religious law—
laws regulating h o w God should be w o r s h i p p e d — a n d interpersonal law. The
Decalogue, for example, is divided into two sections: religious law, then inter-
personal law. Yet, even here, a law that we would consider interpersonal, h o n -
oring one's parents, is given a religious justification: ". . . that you may long
e n d u r e on the land that the L O R D your God is assigning to you" (Exod. 20:12). 1 0
Exodus 2 2 : 2 0 - 2 3 is similar:

You shall n o t w r o n g a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers

in the land of Egypt. You shall not ill-treat any w i d o w or orphan. If you
do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me,
a n d My anger shall blaze forth a n d I will p u t you to the sword, a n d your
o w n wives shall become widows and your children orphans.

The notion that the biblical authors u n d e r s t o o d all law as divine law 1 1
shows u p most clearly w h e n c o m p a r i n g laws of adultery in the ancient Near
East with those in the Bible. Adultery in the ancient Near East was typically treat-
ed as an offense against the wronged h u s b a n d . In certain cases, the offended
h u s b a n d h a d a role in determining the p u n i s h m e n t of his wife and her para-
m o u r — " h e shall treat her as he wishes." 1 2 T h o u g h one biblical text seems to be
familiar with this notion (Prov. 6 : 3 4 - 3 5 , w h i c h is outside the Torah), 1 3 all
biblical legal texts insist o n absolute p u n i s h m e n t — n o t h i n g is left u p to the
husband's discretion. This perspective is also f o u n d outside of legal texts; it may
be seen, for example, in Joseph's answer to Potiphar's wife w h e n she tries to
seduce him: "How then could I d o this most wicked thing, a n d sin before
God?" (Gen. 39:9). Adultery here is not u n d e r s t o o d as a crime against the
wronged h u s b a n d , b u t as a "sin before God," w h o is u n d e r s t o o d to be the source
of law.
The uniqueness of the Bible's conception explains w h y the Bible depicts rev-
elation in such detail. It also accounts for an u n u s u a l n u m b e r a n d diversity of
sources that attempt to explain this event. All of these, in turn, help us see the
underlying diversity of u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of God, and of revelation itself, that
existed within ancient Israel. 1 4 For example, most of the sources emphasize that
Moses alone h a d close access to God, a n d that the process of revelation was dan-
gerous, yet Exodus 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 notes: "Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu,
a n d seventy elders of Israel ascended; a n d they saw the God of Israel. . . . Yet He
did not raise His h a n d against the leaders of the Israelites; they beheld God, a n d
they ate a n d drank." Because the idea of divinely revealed law was so u n i q u e to
ancient Israel, an unusually large n u m b e r of diverse sources attempt to explain
this event. 1 5
The Decalogue

As n o t e d earlier, the first set of laws c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n this c o r p u s is the

Decalogue, in E x o d u s 2 0 : 2 - 1 4 . T h e u s u a l n a m e for this selection, "the Ten
C o m m a n d m e n t s , " is n o t attested in the B i b l e — a n d is inaccurate. The first state-
m e n t in the Decalogue reads: "I the LORD a m y o u r G o d w h o b r o u g h t y o u o u t of
the land of Egypt, the h o u s e of b o n d a g e " (20:2); this is certainly not a c o m -
m a n d m e n t . T h e term "Decalogue," f r o m the Greek deca (ten) logos (words), is
superior. That Greek t e r m is a n c i e n t — u s e d in the Septuagint (the Greek trans-
lation of the Bible b e g u n in Alexandria in the third pre-Christian c e n t u r y ) to
r e n d e r aseret ha-devarim ( ‫ ·ר י ם‬τ‫ ב‬ι ‫ ה™ד‬m fνcνW™‫ ;ו‬Exod. 3 4 : 2 8 ;‫ י‬Deut. 4:13,‫ י‬10:4).‫ י‬T h e
w o r d davar ( ‫ ) ; ד ב ר‬, singular of devarim ( • , 1 ‫ ־‬T J ) , is o n e of the m o s t c o m m o n
biblical n o u n s ; typically it m e a n s "thing" or "word." (Given the i m p o r t a n c e of
the Decalogue, its n a m e in rabbinic tradition shifted slightly a n d n o t surprising-
ly to aseret ha-dibrot [ ‫ ] ע ש ר ת ה ד ב ת ת‬, w h i c h m e a n s specifically "the ten divine
utterances.")
Both of the c o m m o n l y u s e d terms, Decalogue a n d the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s ,
follow the tradition of E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y in insisting that this text m u s t
b e divided into ten sections. This m o s t likely reflects a n o t i o n of ten as a n u m -
ber expressing perfection. Yet, the Decalogue c o m p r i s e s as m a n y as thirteen sep-
arate statements:

1. (v. 2) I the LORD a m y o u r G o d w h o b r o u g h t y o u o u t of the land of

Egypt...
2. (v. 3) You shall have n o o t h e r g o d s besides Me.
3. (v. 4) You shall n o t m a k e for yourself a s c u l p t u r e d image . . .
4. (v. 5) You shall n o t b o w d o w n to t h e m or serve t h e m .
5. (v. 7) You shall n o t swear falsely by the n a m e of the Lord y o u r G o d . . .
6. (v. 8) R e m e m b e r the s a b b a t h day a n d k e e p it h o l y
7. (v. 12) H o n o r y o u r father a n d y o u r m o t h e r . . .
8. (v. 13) You shall n o t m u r d e r .
9. (v. 13) You shall n o t c o m m i t adultery.
10. (v. 13) You shall n o t steal.
11. (v. 13) You shall n o t bear false witness against y o u r neighbor.
12. (v. 14) You shall n o t covet y o u r neighbor's h o u s e .
13. (v. 14) You shall n o t covet y o u r neighbor's wife . . .

Already the ancients k n e w of different traditions a b o u t h o w to g r o u p these

thirteen pieces together to f o r m "ten" s t a t e m e n t s . 1 6 Classical J e w i s h and
Christian u n d e r s t a n d i n g s differed significantly. 1 7 For instance, Christians have
normally taken t h e m as "ten commandments," relegating verse 2, "I a m the LORD"
to an u n n u m b e r e d i n t r o d u c t i o n , while rabbinic tradition as a rule c o u n t s this as
the first divine utterance. T h u s , w i t h i n Jewish contexts, the t e r m Decalogue,
w h i c h is m o r e inclusive of all the verses, is the m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e term.
T h e Decalogue is the only collection of law that, according to biblical tradi-
tion, G o d revealed to all Israel w i t h o u t an intermediary. (Indeed, this helps to
a c c o u n t for its significance w i t h i n biblical a n d later religious traditions. In the
Bible itself, it is n o t m a r k e d as the center of or source for all the o t h e r biblical
laws, as s o m e t i m e s claimed in Jewish tradition.) Critical biblical s c h o l a r s h i p h a s
a t t e m p t e d to p r o d u c e an earlier proto-Decalogue, w h i c h is m u c h shorter, a n d
w h e r e the u t t e r a n c e s tend to be similar in f o r m a n d length to the g r o u p in v. 13:
"You shall n o t m u r d e r . You shall n o t c o m m i t adultery. You shall n o t steal." 1 8
S u c h r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s are conjectural. Yet clearly the Decalogue existed in sever-
al f o r m s in ancient Israel. T h e version in D e u t e r o n o m y 5 differs f r o m that in
E x o d u s 2 0 in b o t h small a n d large w a y s . 1 9 For example, a totally different rea-
son is given in D e u t e r o n o m y for w h y the Sabbath s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d , a n d that
text i n t r o d u c e s the Sabbath i n j u n c t i o n u s i n g a different verb, as m a y be seen
f r o m the following j u x t a p o s i t i o n :

Exodus 20:8-11 Deuteronomy 5:12-15

R e m e m b e r the s a b b a t h day a n d k e e p it Observe the sabbath day a n d k e e p it

holy. Six days y o u shall labor a n d d o
all y o u r w o r k , b u t the seventh day is a
s a b b a t h of the LORD y o u r God: you
shall n o t d o any w o r k — y o u , y o u r s o n
or daughter, y o u r male or female slave,
or y o u r cattle, or the stranger w h o is
w i t h i n y o u r settlements. For in six
days the LORD m a d e h e a v e n a n d earth
a n d sea, a n d all that is in t h e m , a n d He
rested o n the seventh day; therefore
the LORD blessed the s a b b a t h day a n d
hallowed it.
holy, as the LORD y o u r G o d has c o m -
m a n d e d you. Six days y o u shall labor
a n d d o all y o u r w o r k , b u t the seventh
day is a s a b b a t h of the LORD y o u r God;
y o u shall n o t d o any w o r k — y o u , y o u r
son or y o u r daughter, y o u r male or
female slave, y o u r ox or y o u r ass, or
any of y o u r cattle, or the stranger in
y o u r settlements, so that y o u r male
a n d female slave m a y rest as you do.
R e m e m b e r that you were a slave in the
land of Egypt a n d the LORD your God
freed y o u f r o m there w i t h a m i g h t y
h a n d a n d an outstretched arm; there-
fore the LORD y o u r G o d has c o m m a n d -
ed y o u to observe the s a b b a t h day.
 O n a m o r e m i n o r level, E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y use different w o r d s , that
likely have different n u a n c e s , for the p r o h i b i t i o n against false testimony; Exod.
2 0 : 1 3 uses the n o u n shaker "false"), while D e u t e r o n o m y 5:17 uses shav
(‫שוא‬, "vain"). In a d d i t i o n to the differences seen b e t w e e n Exodus and
Deuteronomy, several biblical a n d early postbiblical sources q u o t e the three
short i n j u n c t i o n s ("You shall n o t m u r d e r . You shall n o t c o m m i t adultery. You
shall n o t steal") in a different o r d e r f r o m the o n e preserved in b o t h E x o d u s a n d
Deuteronomy. For e x a m p l e , J e r e m i a h 7:9 asks rhetorically, "Will y o u steal a n d
m u r d e r a n d c o m m i t adultery?" while ancient sources ranging f r o m Philo to the
Christians' N e w Testament (Rom. 13:9) k n o w of the o r d e r "adultery . . . m u r d e r
. . . steal." 2 0
T h o u g h m i n o r variations m a y exist in reasons given, in t e r m s u s e d , in syn-
tax, or in the o r d e r of various i n j u n c t i o n s , the basic i n j u n c t i o n s are always the
same. Are the differences t h e n trivial? N o , b e c a u s e they exist in the single bibli-
cal text that is s u p p o s e d to c o n t a i n the unmediated word of God. They teach u s
that the ancients did n o t transmit biblical texts like we transmit m o d e r n texts,
u s i n g p h o t o c o p i e r s a n d "cut-and-paste" w o r d - p r o c e s s i n g p r o g r a m s . Rather, all
biblical texts c h a n g e d d u r i n g their transmission. T h e y were u p d a t e d , e x p a n d e d ,
a n d m a d e to fit their b r o a d e r c o n t e x t . 2 1 If this h a p p e n e d to the D e c a l o g u e —
w h i c h is ascribed directly to G o d — t h e n it certainly h a p p e n e d to o t h e r texts,
w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n even m o r e f l u i d . 2 2 In a n y case, the m a n y versions s h o w
that E x o d u s 2 0 : 2 - 1 4 c a n n o t simply be seen as the w o r d s that G o d s p o k e o n
Sinai.
A n o t h e r piece of evidence suggests that the Decalogue s h o u l d n o t be u p h e l d
as the central biblical text. T h e Decalogue states w h y o n e s h o u l d n o t b o w d o w n
or serve o t h e r gods:

For I the Lord y o u r G o d a m a n i m p a s s i o n e d G o d , visiting the guilt of

the p a r e n t s u p o n the children, u p o n the third a n d u p o n the f o u r t h gen-
erations of those w h o reject Me, b u t s h o w i n g k i n d n e s s to the t h o u -
s a n d t h generation of those w h o love Me a n d k e e p My c o m m a n d m e n t s
(Exod. 2 0 : 5 - 6 ) .

This n o t i o n of intergenerational p u n i s h m e n t is expressed elsewhere in the Bible

(see especially Exod. 3 4 : 6 - 7 ) , a n d is illustrated, for e x a m p l e , w h e n G o d "trans-
fers" David's sin to the child of his a d u l t e r o u s affair w i t h Bathsheba, a n d that
child dies (2 Sam. 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . 2 3 Yet, this i d e a — u n a m b i g u o u s l y stated "by G o d "
in the D e c a l o g u e — i s d i s p u t e d b y o t h e r biblical sources, i n c l u d i n g Ezekiel 18,
w h i c h states decisively: "the p e r s o n w h o sins, only he shall die" (v. 4).
D e u t e r o n o m y 7 : 9 - 1 0 is even m o r e striking, q u o t i n g f r o m this i n j u n c t i o n in the
Decalogue only to argue against it: "Know, therefore, that only the LORD your
G o d is G o d , the steadfast G o d w h o k e e p s His covenant faithfully to the t h o u -
s a n d t h generation of those w h o love H i m a n d k e e p His c o m m a n d m e n t s , b u t
w h o instantly requites with d e s t r u c t i o n those w h o reject H i m — n e v e r slow w i t h
those w h o reject H i m , b u t r e q u i t i n g t h e m instantly." 2 4 This p o l e m i c indicates
that those w h o constituted biblical Israel did n o t all agree w i t h the Decalogue's
theology. In short, the Decalogue d o e s not possess absolute authority, not even
in the Bible itself.
There is a great deal that we d o n o t k n o w a b o u t the Decalogue. We c a n n o t
d e t e r m i n e its original f o r m , a l t h o u g h we are sure that it is not currently in that
f o r m . 2 5 We c a n n o t p i n p o i n t w h e n , w h e r e , a n d h o w it b e c a m e viewed so cen-
trally in I s r a e l — q u o t e d in various p r o p h e t i c a n d o t h e r texts. 2 6 N o r can we eas-
ily discern its f u n c t i o n (although we can rule it o u t as a collection of laws, since
it c o n t a i n s n o sanctions for violating particular n o r m s ) . Despite these great
uncertainties, it o c c u p i e s a strikingly central position within Jewish, Christian,
a n d i n d e e d all of Western civilization.

The Covenant Collection

The legal collection that follows the Decalogue is often n a m e d the "Covenant
C o d e . " 2 7 Unlike the Decalogue, it a p p e a r s in only o n e version. F u r t h e r m o r e , it
is p r e s e n t e d as m e d i a t e d revelation that Moses is s u p p o s e d to "set before" the
Israelites (Exod. 21:1). It derives its n a m e f r o m E x o d u s 24:7, "Then he [Moses]
took sefer ha-berit ( ‫ ס פ ר ה ב ר י ת‬, "the record of the covenant") a n d read it aloud
to the people. A n d they said, All that the LORD h a s s p o k e n we will faithfully do!"'
W h a t the t e r m "record of the c o v e n a n t " refers to in this context is u n c e r t a i n , b u t
by c o n v e n t i o n biblical scholars use that n a m e to describe all of the p r e c e d i n g
laws f o u n d in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 .
An even better designation t h a n "the C o v e n a n t C o d e " w o u l d be "the
C o v e n a n t Collection." C o d e s are typically m e a n t to be c o m p l e t e , a n d are organ-
ized for use b y the courts. T h e material in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 is neither. It con-
tains, for e x a m p l e , n o material on h o w individuals married or divorced, n o r h o w
s h e p h e r d s fulfilled their obligations to flock o w n e r s (see Gen. 3 1 : 3 8 - 3 9 ) , t w o
areas of w i d e s p r e a d c o n c e r n in antiquity. Moreover, s o m e parts, such as
2 2 : 1 7 - 1 9 , are organized by p u n i s h m e n t :

You shall n o t tolerate a sorceress.

W h o e v e r lies w i t h a beast shall be p u t to death.
W h o e v e r sacrifices to a god o t h e r t h a n the Lord alone shall be
proscribed.
(See also 2 1 : 1 5 - 1 7 . ) Such a system of organization w o u l d be c u m b e r s o m e for
lawyers a n d j u d g e s . In fact, because n o Near Eastern culture a p p e a r s to have h a d
codes in the later R o m a n sense, it is best to s p e a k in general of "collections." 2 8
T h e diversity of materials f o u n d in E x o d u s 2 0 : 1 9 - 2 3 : 3 3 f u r t h e r suggest that
it s h o u l d n o t be read as a code. Most of the laws are c o u c h e d in conditional
terms: ki ( ‫ כ י‬, " I f / W h e n . . . then"). For example: "If a m a n s e d u c e s a virgin for
w h o m the bride-price has n o t b e e n paid, a n d lies with her, then h e m u s t m a k e
her his wife by p a y m e n t of a bride-price. If h e r father refuses to give her to h i m ,
then he m u s t still weigh o u t silver in accordance w i t h the bride-price for virgins"
( 2 2 : 1 5 - 1 6 , transi, a d a p t e d ) . This is called "casuistic" law. It is the m a i n f o r m of
law k n o w n f r o m the ancient Near East. 2 9 O t h e r i n j u n c t i o n s in this collection are
c o u c h e d in absolute terms, as in the Decalogue. O n e e x a m p l e of absolute (or
"apodictic") law is " W h o e v e r lies w i t h a beast shall be p u t to d e a t h " (22:18).
Apodictic law is hardly f o u n d in o t h e r ancient Near Eastern collections. The
mixing of apodictic a n d casuistic law sets the Bible apart f r o m o t h e r ancient Near
Eastern legal texts.
At the s a m e time, the Bible a p p e a r s to share with o t h e r ancient Near Eastern
law collections the character of not b e i n g a code i n t e n d e d for court use.
C o n s i d e r w h a t a p p e a r to be impractical or impossible laws. For example, law
2 1 8 of H a m m u r a b i reads:

If a physician p e r f o r m s m a j o r surgery w i t h a b r o n z e lancet u p o n a

m e m b e r of the u p p e r class a n d t h u s causes the person's death, or o p e n s
the temple of a p e r s o n of the u p p e r class a n d t h u s b l i n d s that person's
eye, they shall cut off his h a n d . 3 0

In s u c h a w o r l d , n o physician w o u l d o p t to serve the u p p e r class. Laws 2 2 9 - 3 0

read:

If a b u i l d e r c o n s t r u c t s a h o u s e for a m a n b u t does not m a k e his w o r k

s o u n d , a n d the h o u s e that he c o n s t r u c t s collapses a n d causes the d e a t h
of the h o u s e h o l d e r , that b u i l d e r shall be killed. If it s h o u l d cause the
d e a t h of the son of the h o u s e h o l d e r , they shall kill a son of that
builder.31

This law presents practical p r o b l e m s of a different type: W h a t if a childless con-

tractor kills the son of the h o u s e h o l d e r ?
T h u s , a l t h o u g h H a m m u r a b i is longer, m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e , a n d m o r e logi-
cally o r d e r e d t h a n the C o v e n a n t C o l l e c t i o n — t h a t is, a l t h o u g h it looks m o r e like
a legal c o d e — i t too s h o u l d be seen as a collection. S o m e of its laws m a y reflect
the n o r m s of the law c o u r t s in H a m m u r a b i ' s p e r i o d , b u t others, s u c h as the laws
j u s t q u o t e d , are most likely "theoretical law." Such laws express the ideals of a
particular reformer within a society. Thus, law 2 1 8 expresses the notion that
physicians are not supposed to h a r m their patients, even accidentally, while law
2 3 0 expresses the seriousness with which ancient contractors were supposed to
work.

The Goring Ox

Unfortunately, we can n o longer k n o w which laws recorded in the Laws of

H a m m u r a b i were real, a n d which were ideal—there is n o textual distinction
between them. Nevertheless, all such laws may be examined to reveal h o w they
reflect the n o r m s (both real a n d ideal) of the legists w h o edited them. The same
is true of biblical law. In the rest of this chapter I will attempt to tease out some
n o r m s that are woven into the Covenant Collection in Exodus. For the time
being, I will narrow my focus to a single topic: a goring ox.
The passage in question is Exodus 2 1 : 2 8 - 3 2 , which states:

W h e n an ox gores a m a n or a w o m a n to death, the ox shall be stoned

and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be p u n -
ished. If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner,
t h o u g h warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a m a n or a w o m a n —
the ox shall be stoned and its owner, too, shall be put to death. If ran-
som is laid u p o n him, h e 3 2 m u s t pay whatever is laid u p o n h i m to
redeem his life. So, too, if it gores a minor, male or female, the owner
shall be dealt with according to the same rule. But if the ox gores a slave,
male or female, he shall pay thirty shekels of silver to the master, and
the ox shall be stoned.

This law, or more properly, these laws, deal with the following four cases:
(1) unexpected goring by an ox; (2) goring by a habitual gorer; (3) goring of a
minor; (4) goring of a slave. Especially given that oxen do not typically gore peo-
pie, the similarities in structure and even wording between the laws in Exodus
and H a m m u r a b i 2 5 0 - 5 2 are very striking. H a m m u r a b i reads:

(250) If an ox gores a m a n while it is passing through the street, that

case has n o basis for a claim. (251) If a man's ox is a k n o w n gorer, and
the authorities of his city quarter notify h i m that it is a k n o w n gorer, b u t
he does not blunt its h o r n s or control his ox, and that ox gores to death
a m e m b e r of the u p p e r class, he [the owner] shall give thirty shekels of
silver. (252) If it is a man's slave [who is fatally gored], he shall give
twenty shekels of silver. 3 3
 T h o u g h we are u n c e r t a i n of the date of the Covenant Collection, it is cer-
tainly several c e n t u r i e s later t h a n the eighteenth-century-B.C.E. Laws of
H a m m u r a b i . A l t h o u g h the "main copy" of these laws was inscribed o n a basalt
stele in Babylon, later r e m o v e d to Elam (and n o w f o u n d at the Louvre), we k n o w
that the Laws of H a m m u r a b i b e c a m e part of the M e s o p o t a m i a n scribal tradition,
a n d were copied for several c e n t u r i e s . 3 4 Given the m a n y similarities b e t w e e n the
way this law is expressed in E x o d u s a n d H a m m u r a b i , it is highly likely that the
a u t h o r of this section of the Covenant Collection k n e w the laws as they a p p e a r e d
in H a m m u r a b i , p e r h a p s via a n intermediary source, a n d revised t h e m to fit
Israelite n o r m s . T h u s , a l t h o u g h the similarities b e t w e e n the earlier Babylonian
a n d later Israelite law are striking, the differences are even m o r e telling. They can
be analyzed to u n c o v e r the m a n n e r in w h i c h the Israelite legislator c h a n g e d his
source to convey different principles. 3 5
Both collections deal with h o m i c i d e caused b y a person's b e n i g n animal. In
m o d e r n terms, it is equivalent to a p e r s o n driving a car that seemed to be in per-
feet r u n n i n g order b u t s u d d e n l y lost its brakes, so that the driver could n o t avoid
hitting a n d killing a pedestrian. Given that not even negligence was involved, the
o w n e r of the ox is n o t held responsible in either ancient culture for the death.
Yet, biblical law contains an additional provision absent f r o m H a m m u r a b i : "the
ox shall be s t o n e d a n d its flesh shall n o t be eaten." This is a significant e c o n o m -
ic loss for the o w n e r of the ox—it w o u l d be the equivalent of insisting that the
car that accidentally killed s o m e o n e be b r o u g h t to a "car c r u n c h e r " a n d flat-
tened. T h e s t o n i n g of the ox most likely reflects a peculiarly Israelite idea, that
the ox h a s p e r p e t r a t e d a b o u n d a r y violation by c o m m i t t i n g a h u m a n homicide.
As s u c h , it b e c a m e taboo, a n d it m u s t be killed, a n d its o w n e r is deprived of the
n o r m a l benefit derived f r o m a d e a d o x — i t s use as food.
C o m p a r i n g the second case, the habitually goring ox, is even m o r e instruc-
tive. For b o t h ancient cultures, this is a case of negligence. In o u r culture, it is
c o m p a r a b l e to having y o u r car fail an inspection because y o u r brakes are faulty,
being told n o t to drive a n y w h e r e w i t h o u t fixing t h e m , a n d t h e n driving away
a n d killing a pedestrian because the b r a k e s c o u l d n o t stop the car o n time.
Neither the action n o r the choice of victim was p r e m e d i t a t e d , yet the killing
could have b e e n — a n d f r o m the legislator's perspectives, s h o u l d have b e e n —
anticipated. For this reason, H a m m u r a b i does n o t consider the o w n e r of the ox
guilty of first degree m u r d e r (a capital crime) or even manslaughter, yet the
guilty party m u s t pay a m o n e t a r y fine of thirty silver shekels, most likely the eco-
n o m i c value of a n upper-class individual at that time.
In contrast, the C o v e n a n t Collection notes that if this habitually goring ox
kills "a m a n or a w o m a n — t h e ox shall be s t o n e d a n d its owner, too, shall be p u t
to death. If r a n s o m is laid u p o n h i m , h e m u s t pay w h a t e v e r is laid u p o n h i m to
redeem his life." The stoning of the ox is expected, following the n o r m s devel-
o p e d in the preceding case. Yet, the law suggests that negligence w h i c h causes
a n o t h e r person's death is so serious that the owner too deserves to be stoned.
This conclusion is softened by allowing the o w n e r to r a n s o m himself, most like-
ly by paying a fine to the family of the individual gored. 3 6 The initial suggestion
that "its owner, too, shall be p u t to death" reflects a basic principle or postulate 3 7
of the Covenant Collection, and indeed of all of the biblical law collections: the
f u n d a m e n t a l value ascribed to h u m a n life. Thus, the person w h o accidentally
a n d unintentionally b u t t h r o u g h negligence kills a h u m a n t h r o u g h an agent such
as an ox, is deserving of death.
The subcase f o u n d in E x o d u s 21:31, "So, too, if it gores a minor, male or
female, the owner shall be dealt with according to the same rule," is absent from
H a m m u r a b i . This too is significant. Many of the laws in H a m m u r a b i are class
conscious, distinguishing a m o n g three groups: the u p p e r class, c o m m o n e r s , a n d
slaves. For example, laws 1 9 6 - 9 9 read:

If an upper-class person should blind the eye of a n o t h e r upper-class

person, they shall blind his eye. If he should break the b o n e of a n o t h e r
upper-class person, they shall break his bone. If he should blind the eye
of a c o m m o n e r or break the b o n e of a c o m m o n e r , he shall weigh and
deliver sixty shekels of silver. If he s h o u l d blind the eye of the slave of
an upper-class person, or break the b o n e of a slave of an upper-class
person, he shall weigh and deliver one-half of his value [in silver].

Biblical legislators, including those w h o c o m p o s e d the Covenant Collection,

accepted only part of this value system. As in H a m m u r a b i , slaves are treated sep-
arately, since (in b o t h cultures) the slave's o w n e r m u s t be c o m p e n s a t e d for the
economic loss. 3 8 (For the status of slaves in the Covenant Collection, see Exodus
2 1 : 2 0 - 2 1 . ) However, n o w h e r e d o biblical laws distinguish between classes of
nonslaves, as in the Mesopotamian distinction between u p p e r class a n d c o m -
moner. In fact, the best explanation for E x o d u s 21:31, "So, too, if it gores a
minor, male or female, the owner shall be dealt with according to the same rule,"
is that it is taking issue with the notion that (free) people should be treated dif-
ferentially, based on their w o r t h .

From the Goring Ox to Biblical "Law" in General

For reasons of space, I cannot treat here the m a n y other laws contained in the
Covenant Collection. (This b o o k cannot substitute for a commentary, w h i c h
explains each verse.) However, m a n y of the above observations about the goring
ox law d o h o l d true for o t h e r laws in the C o v e n a n t Collection. T h a t is, m a n y of
those laws m a y be ideal, m a n y are revisions of earlier M e s o p o t a m i a n laws, b u t
t h e y avoid the s h a r p class distinctions seen in M e s o p o t a m i a .
Moreover, m a n y of o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the status of the C o v e n a n t
Collection are equally true of law elsewhere in the Bible. C o n s i d e r the o t h e r legal
collections: the Holiness Collection of Leviticus 1 7 - 2 6 a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c
Law Collection in D e u t e r o n o m y 1 2 - 2 6 . N o n e of these is organized like a law
code; n o n e is c o m p r e h e n s i v e . T h e y all c o n t a i n repetitions of the s a m e laws.
S o m e of their laws, m a n y scholars believe, are ideal rather t h a n real: the J u b i l e e
year (Leviticus 25); the cheirem (•")Π, "proscription" or "ban") of the C a n a a n i t e s
(Deut. 2 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) ; a n d o t h e r s . 3 9 These features distinguish biblical law f r o m
law as we n o r m a l l y e x p e r i e n c e or u n d e r s t a n d it. T h u s those "laws" m a y have
f u n c t i o n e d in ancient Israel differently t h a n d o today's laws as they a p p l y to o u r
o w n lives.
F u r t h e r m o r e , if we look at all of these law collections together, w e see a n o t h -
er reason to b e c a u t i o u s w h e n we s p e a k of biblical "law." As I will s h o w in c h a p -
ters 9 a n d 10, each of these collections c o m e s f r o m a different time p e r i o d a n d
reflects a different ideological perspective. ( A l t h o u g h the date of the C o v e n a n t
Collection is u n c e r t a i n , it is likely the earliest of the three collections. In contrast
to the others, it reflects a largely n o n u r b a n p e r s p e c t i v e . 4 0 ) W h e n dealing
w i t h the s a m e issue, the three collections o f t e n differ significantly. F o r e x a m p l e ,
E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y recognize that an Israelite m a y enslave another
Israelite "forever" ( 2 1 : 5 - 6 a n d 1 5 : 1 6 - 1 8 , respectively), w h e r e a s Leviticus insists
that Israelite slaves m u s t be released every fiftieth year, e x p l a i n i n g that "they are
My servants, w h o m I freed f r o m the l a n d of Egypt; they m a y n o t give themselves
over into servitude" ( 2 5 : 4 2 ; cf. w . 3 9 - 4 3 ) . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e : E x o d u s calls its fall
festival "the festival of ingathering" a n d n o t e s that it s h o u l d b e c o m m e m o r a t e d
"at the e n d of the year" for an u n s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d ( 2 3 : 1 6 ) . D e u t e r o n o m y k n o w s
the s a m e festival as the feast of b o o t h s (sukkot), c o m m e m o r a t e d for seven days
( 1 6 : 1 3 - 1 5 ) . Leviticus describes a feast of b o o t h s that begins in the seventh
m o n t h , a n d it is c o n c l u d e d by a s o l e m n g a t h e r i n g o n the eighth day ( 2 3 : 3 3 - 3 6 ) !
S u c h differences a m o n g the various legal c o r p o r a are the n o r m rather t h a n
the exception. Nevertheless, certain p o s t u l a t e s s e e m to s t a n d b e h i n d all biblical
laws. T h e y i n c l u d e an attitude t o w a r d h u m a n life that m a k e s capital p u n i s h m e n t
less f r e q u e n t in the Bible t h a n in H a m m u r a b i ' s laws, a n d that shies away
f r o m vicarious p u n i s h m e n t , that is, p u n i s h m e n t for a crime c o m m i t t e d by
a n o t h e r family m e m b e r . 4 1 Nevertheless, the internal differences in detail are
large a n d f r e q u e n t e n o u g h to w a r r a n t a v o i d i n g s e n t e n c e s that begin, "Biblical
law suggests . . . "
 9
"Incense Is Offensive to Me"
The Cult in Ancient Israel

Primary Reading: Leviticus 16.

Ritual Within the Bible

eligious ritual has an ambiguous place within m o d e r n life. 1 It is often cri-

R tiqued as an archaic remnant of earlier practices, which should be replaced
by more abstract forms of religion. 2
This antipathy toward ritual is reflected in the work of many biblical schol-
ars, especially those influenced by the w o r k of the great German scholar Julius
Wellhausen, w h o systematized m u c h of biblical scholarship toward the end of
the nineteenth century. 3 He viewed the history of biblical religion as a dévolu-
tion, in which free expression of religion, reflected in the early sources, was grad-
ually replaced—most especially in the Priestly Source—by fixed ritual. In this
view, the prophets, some of w h o m are seen as hostile toward ritual, are viewed
as the apex of biblical religion. It was not unusual, for example, for scholars to
highlight the centrality of texts such as Isaiah 1:10-17:

(10) Hear the word of the Lord, / You chieftains of Sodom; / Give ear to
our G o d s instruction, / You folk of Gomorrah! / ( 1 1 ) "What need have
I of all your sacrifices?" / Says the Lord. / "I am sated with burnt offer-
ings of rams, / And suet of fatlings, / And blood of bulls; / And I have
no delight / In lambs and he-goats. / (12) That you come to appear
before Me— / W h o asked that of you? / Trample My courts (13) n o
more; / Bringing oblations is futile, / Incense is offensive to Me. / New
m o o n and sabbath, / Proclaiming of solemnities, / Assemblies with iniq-
uity, / I cannot abide. / (14) Your new m o o n s and fixed seasons / Fill Me
with loathing; / They are become a b u r d e n to Me, / I cannot endure
 them. / (15) And w h e n you lift u p your hands, / I will t u r n My eyes
away from you; / T h o u g h you pray at length, / I will not listen. / Your
h a n d s are stained with c r i m e — ( 1 6 ) Wash yourselves clean; / Put your
evil doings / Away from My sight. / Cease to d o evil; / (17) Learn to do
good. / Devote yourselves to justice; / Aid the wronged. / U p h o l d the
rights of the o r p h a n ; / Defend the cause of the widow."

These verses are often u n d e r s t o o d as a blanket c o n d e m n a t i o n of ritual practices,

especially those associated with the Jerusalem cult as prescribed in the Torah;
ethical behavior is meant to replace ritual behavior. This unit from Isaiah will be
examined in chapter 17 (see "Isaiah as a Typical Classical Prophet"); for now, it
is sufficient to note that this negative view of ritual is exaggerated. The fact that
the Bible is so rich in rituals certainly argues for their centrality. Indeed, this is
confirmed by texts s u c h as Isaiah 1 : 1 0 - 1 7 , for only central practices would have
been railed against so vociferously. Thus, developing a sympathetic u n d e r s t a n d -
ing of ritual is crucial for u n d e r s t a n d i n g what biblical texts meant.
Ritual was a central part of all ancient Near Eastern religions. Many ritual
texts covering a wide variety of situations have been discovered at Ugarit, a city
near the Mediterranean coast of Syria, w h i c h has yielded a large n u m b e r of texts
from the fourteenth a n d thirteenth centuries. 4 These texts are extremely impor-
tant given the geographical proximity of Ugarit to Israel, and although they pre-
date biblical literature by several centuries, they s h o w significant contiguities
with the Bible. Ugaritic narrative texts highlight the significant role that ritual
played in daily life there. 5 A similar picture is evident with Israel's immediate
neighbors, where large n u m b e r s of ritual texts have been u n e a r t h e d . 6 Thus,
given the geographical a n d historical context of the Bible, the prominent role of
ritual in it is expected.
I will focus here o n the Temple ritual associated with Yom Kippur, the Day
of Atonement. Since it was an u n u s u a l ritual even for the Bible, I will supple-
m e n t its analysis with some general reflections o n the place of ritual within
Israelite life.
The Yom Kippur ritual is f o u n d in Leviticus 16. Actually, verses 1 - 2 8 out-
line two rituals that c o m b i n e to form the larger ritual. The first ritual (which
itself comprises several sub-rituals) transpires inside the sanctuary precincts (w.
1 - 1 9 , 2 7 - 2 8 ) . The second ritual, involving the scapegoat, takes place outside
the sanctuary (w. 2 0 - 2 6 ) . Verse 20 serves to integrate the two: "When he has
finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting, a n d the altar, the live goat shall
be brought forward." These rituals c o m b i n e to assure that the desired results—
the ritual cleansing of the sanctuary, a n d the purging of the people's sins—are
accomplished.
The Day of Atonement Rituals: Background

Key Terms Used to Describe the Rituals

In c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish practice, r e p e n t a n c e is seen as the key feature of Yom

Kippur, or the Day of A t o n e m e n t . T h e liturgy of the day is replete w i t h confes-
sions, one of w h i c h h a s as its refrain "for all these, Ο G o d of forgiveness, forgive
us, p a r d o n us, grant u s remission." 7 It is therefore natural to read the ritual
described in Leviticus 16 in t e r m s of this t h e m e , as c o n n e c t e d to repentance. Yet,
a close reading of that biblical passage suggests otherwise: neither teshuvah
( ‫ ת ש ו ב ה‬, "repentance") n o r the w o r d f r o m w h i c h it derives, shuv (‫שוב‬, "to
return"), are f o u n d a n y w h e r e in the chapter. I n d e e d , this root is first u s e d in the
Torah in the theological sense of "repent" or "return to G o d " only in Deuter-
o n o m y : " w h e n y o u are in distress because all these things have befallen y o u a n d ,
in the e n d , ve-shavta ( ‫ ו ש ב ת‬, 'you return') to the LORD y o u r G o d a n d obey Him"
(4:30). In fact, w i t h i n the Torah, only in D e u t e r o n o m y does the c o n c e p t of
r e p e n t a n c e play a central role. Given that Priestly texts a n d those f r o m Deuter-
o n o m y represent the t w o great yet different streams of t h o u g h t in the Bible, the
fact that shuv is p r o m i n e n t in o n e a n d absent in the o t h e r is significant.
Rather t h a n shuv, Priestly texts use the verb kipper. W h a t t h e n is the m e a n -
ing of the root k-p-r ( ‫ ) כ פ ר‬that is typically translated as "to a t o n e " — a n d that is
reflected in the day's n a m e ? Unfortunately, we have a rather i n c o m p l e t e k n o w l -
edge of biblical Hebrew. As discussed in c h a p t e r 3, we lack w h a t linguistic schol-
ars call "informants," native s p e a k e r s of a language w h o can tell researchers w h a t
a w o r d or a grammatical s t r u c t u r e m e a n s , or w h e t h e r a particular locution is
grammatical. C o n t e m p o r a r y H e b r e w is n o t a reliable source for u n d e r s t a n d i n g
the biblical idiom; too m u c h time h a s p a s s e d — t h e language h a s evolved m e a n -
while. Instead, we k n o w w h a t a particular biblical w o r d m e a n s u s i n g the fol-
lowing three m e t h o d s : (1) c o m p a r i s o n with related (cognate) w o r d s in o t h e r
Semitic languages; (2) c o n s u l t i n g the ancient Bible translators (especially those
of the S e p t u a g i n t — t h e Greek translation most likely b e g u n in the third pre-
Christian c e n t u r y — b e c a u s e it is the oldest version a n d typically highly literal);
a n d (3) inference from the literary context.
In the case of the root k-p-r, the first a n d third m e t h o d s are the most help-
8
ful. In Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic that is closely related to Hebrew, the root
m e a n s "to wipe." 9 It was u s e d of w i p i n g h a n d s or eyes. It w a s u s e d m e t a p h o r i -
cally in the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the Bible, in sentences like "Saul
w i p e d out [i.e., did away with] the r e m n a n t of the Amalekites." T h e root is also
well attested in A k k a d i a n — a Semitic language of ancient M e s o p o t a m i a — w h i c h
is m o r e distantly related to H e b r e w yet close e n o u g h to provide useful informa-
tion. There too it h a d the sense of "to wipe off." 1 0 It was u s e d , for example, of a
person's feet, or of cleaning jewelry. Related to this use was "to purify," often via
ritual (or magical) means, a n d referring to the purification of temples, countries,
fields, a n d h o m e s .
This latter sense of k-p-r fits several of its a p p e a r a n c e s in Leviticus 16. (Here
I a m applying m e t h o d 3, above.) The core verse of o u r chapter uses the root
k-p-r in this characteristic way: "Thus he shall k-p-r the S h r i n e 1 1 of the unclean-
ness a n d transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins; a n d he shall d o the
same for the Tent of Meeting, w h i c h abides with t h e m in the midst of their
uncleanness" (v. 16). The root is u s e d not in reference to people n o r to an action
p e r f o r m e d b y individuals (such as repentance); rather, two structures, "the
Shrine" a n d "the Tent of Meeting," are "k-p-r-ed." In verse 20, the altar as well is
12
"k-p-r-ed." Several m o d e r n translations r e n d e r these instances as "atone," 1 3 b u t
this seems at best o p a q u e or u n c l e a r — h o w can one atone for the altar? Instead,
the JPS translation's "purge" better reflects the u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the ritual out-
lined in this chapter, w h o s e m a i n t h e m e is the purging or purification of the
Sanctuary (or Temple).

Concept Behind the Inside Ritual

The Bible scholar J a c o b Milgrom gives a compelling explanation of the first set
of rituals, relating t h e m to w h a t he calls "The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray.'" 1 4
The Sanctuary (the Priestly author's representation of the J e r u s a l e m Temple) is
like the painting in Oscar Wilde's story, w h i c h changes as a result of various
h u m a n activities. Here the Priestly c o n c e p t i o n seems to a s s u m e that the Temple
absorbs different types of impurities at different loci. For example, "wanton
u n r e p e n t e d sin" pollutes certain parts of the Temple, i n c l u d i n g the Holy of
Holies. The Temple absorbs s u c h impurities, w h i c h build u p as they are stored
there. T h u s the Temple m u s t o n occasion be ritually purified.
The b u i l d u p of these impurities is, f r o m the Priestly perspective, a threat to
national security. The priest Ezekiel evinces this c o n c e r n in the first p o r t i o n of
the p r o p h e t i c b o o k that bears his n a m e . Ezekiel p r o p h e s i e d in Babylon after
being exiled there f r o m Jerusalem in 597 B.c.E. 15 The first eleven chapters of his
b o o k portray "divine a b a n d o n m e n t , " a motif frequent in ancient Near E a s t e r n —
particularly Assyrian—literature. 1 6 According to Ezekiel, G o d — o r m o r e pre-
cisely, kevod YHWH ( H I T ‫ ] כ ב ו ל‬, "the Presence of the LORD")—exited the Temple.
The Presence first left the p l a t f o r m of the Temple ( 1 0 : 1 8 ) a n d t h e n "ascended
f r o m the midst of the city a n d stood o n the hill east of the city" (11:23). This
a b a n d o n m e n t of the Temple by the divine Presence is w h a t ultimately allowed it
to be destroyed. Ezekiel also explains w h y G o d left: "And [God] said to m e ,
'Mortal, d o you see w h a t they are doing, the terrible a b o m i n a t i o n s that the
H o u s e of Israel is practicing here, to drive Me far f r o m My Sanctuary?"' (8:6).
C h a p t e r 8 describes a wide range of "abominations" ( i m p r o p e r acts), i n c l u d i n g
w o r s h i p of the s u n (v. 16). These activities polluted the Temple, says Ezekiel,
a n d caused G o d to a b a n d o n it. Similar t h i n k i n g stands b e h i n d Leviticus 16 as
well. Here the rituals are p l a n n e d to p u r i f y the Temple f r o m like pollutants,
thereby assuring c o n t i n u e d divine presence a n d blessing.

P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g o f the I n s i d e R i t u a l

As b a c k g r o u n d to the m a i n ritual, it is i m p o r t a n t to r e m e m b e r that the Priestly

S a n c t u a r y — a s d e p i c t e d at the e n d of E x o d u s — h a s a three-part s t r u c t u r e (see
diagram):

• T h e general Temple area, w h i c h c o n t a i n s the m a i n altar u s e d for sacri-

fices; it m a y be entered by any p e r s o n in a state of ritual purity.

Ν
w

κ- _ 100 cubits _
-h
Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting j
(on frame of planks [gold]) ;
‫ז‬
15 cubits

Holy of Holies Holy Place !

V
Screen
‫ י ם‬Table (gold)«
SO cubits
Ark
|.‫םג‬
(gold) 1.
77‫־‬ V -
Lampstand
Laver
‫ז‬ Sacrificial
\

bronze)) , ‫' ׳‬
Incense Curtain (9° l d altar
altar (bronze)
(gold) J OUUI

i
Posts (bronze) -Enclosure (courtyard) of the Tabernacle-

Illustration of the Tabernacle from The Jewish Study Bible, copyright © 2004 by Oxford
University Press, Inc. Used by permission.
 • Ha-kodesh ( ‫ ה ק ד ש‬, "the holy area"), typically translated as "Shrine" in the
JPS translation, h o u s e s the l a m p s t a n d , the table for the b r e a d of display,
a n d the altar of incense. O n l y (ritually p u r e ) priests m a y enter this area.
• T h e Holy of Holies is b e h i n d this area. It m a y be e n t e r e d only b y the
high p r i e s t — A a r o n or f u t u r e high priests d e s c e n d e d f r o m h i m — w h e n
p u r i f y i n g the Temple (Lev. 1 6 : 2 - 3 ) . This area, a c c o r d i n g to Priestly tra-
dition, c o n t a i n e d the Ark, w h i c h was covered by a kapporet (‫)כפרת‬.
Scholars d e b a t e the n a t u r e a n d translation of this w o r d , a n d h o w it is
related to the root k-p-r; the JPS translation r e n d e r s it as "cover"; o t h e r s
r e n d e r it as "mercy seat." A c c o r d i n g to Priestly a c c o u n t s , a "curtain" sep-
arates the Holy of Holies f r o m the Shrine.

The Inside Ritual

Leviticus 1 6 : 1 - 1 9 e n u m e r a t e s a set of rituals that share certain elements: sacri-

fice, b l o o d , Sanctuary, a n d Aaron the high priest. This passage details a set of
o r d e r e d activities that, if precisely p e r f o r m e d , will p u r i f y the Temple, thereby
g u a r a n t e e i n g the divine presence.
T h e b e g i n n i n g of the c h a p t e r c o n n e c t s the ritual to the enigmatic story c o n -
c e r n i n g the d e a t h s of N a d a b a n d A b i h u in Leviticus 10. (It is possible that in a n
earlier f o r m of Leviticus, c h a p . 16 directly followed c h a p . 10.) These t w o c h a p -
ters m a y relate to each o t h e r in a variety of ways. N a d a b a n d A b i h u have died in
the Sanctuary, a n d t h u s it n e e d s to be p u r g e d or cleaned. Perhaps, too, the
d e a t h s of these t w o s o n s of Aaron w a s caused by their i m p r o p e r e n t r y into part
of the Sanctuary, w h i c h w o u l d explain w h y c h a p t e r 16 outlines w h o m a y safely
e n t e r the i n n e r m o s t section of the Sanctuary, as well as w h e n a n d h o w to d o so.
Verse 2 stresses the d a n g e r of e n t e r i n g the i n n e r m o s t part of the Temple ("into
the Shrine b e h i n d the curtain, in front of the cover that is u p o n the ark"). It
anticipates verses 1 2 - 1 3 , w h i c h prescribe the m a n n e r in w h i c h Aaron m a y enter
this area:

(12) A n d he shall take a p a n f u l of glowing coals s c o o p e d f r o m the altar

before the LORD, a n d two h a n d f u l s of finely g r o u n d aromatic incense,
a n d b r i n g this b e h i n d the curtain. (13) He shall p u t the incense o n the
fire before the LORD, SO that the c l o u d f r o m the incense screens the
cover that is over the Ark of the Pact, lest he die.

As elsewhere in the Bible, the a s s u m p t i o n is that seeing G o d causes d e a t h

(see, e.g., J u d g . 13:22). T h e incense here acts as a s m o k e s c r e e n , p r e v e n t i n g
Aaron (and his high-priest d e s c e n d a n t s ) f r o m seeing God's cloudlike manifesta-
tion in the H o l y of Holies.
Leviticus 1 6 : 3 - 4 n o t e s the p r e p a r a t i o n for the ritual. Aaron b r i n g s the req-
uisite sacrificial a n i m a l s (v. 3). He m u s t be ritually p u r e a n d p r o p e r l y dressed in
"work clothes." In a d d i t i o n , he brings three o t h e r a n i m a l s o n behalf of Israel (v.
5). Two of these are for a chattat (‫;)חטאת‬ a l t h o u g h the JPS translation a n d m o s t
o t h e r s r e n d e r this as "a sin offering," it is b e t t e r translated "a purification offer-
ing," in o t h e r w o r d s , an offering that will p u r i f y or p u r g e or cleanse a specific
area of the T e m p l e . 1 7
T h e text c o n t i n u e s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of the ritual itself: Aaron can only
serve as a p r o p e r officiant if h e ( a n d his priestly family, for w h o m he s e e m s to
bear responsibility) is ritually p u r e , t h u s h e m u s t first offer his o w n p u r i f i c a t i o n
offering (Lev. 16:6). T h e n h e m a y begin to p e r f o r m the m a i n part of the ritual,
d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h of the t w o h e - g o a t s will be u s e d for the nation's p u r i f i c a t i o n
offering ( w . 7 - 8 ) . That offering is c o m p l e t e d (v. 9), while the o t h e r he-goat is
p u t o n h o l d until the m a i n ritual is c o m p l e t e d (v. 10).
Leviticus 16:11 r e t u r n s u s to verse 6; it is n o t a n e w action, b u t a repetition
of the p r e v i o u s t a k e n action, w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l n o t e that this a n i m a l m u s t be
slaughtered. This is d o n e in part b e c a u s e this s l a u g h t e r i n g p r o d u c e d b l o o d ,
w h i c h m u s t b e saved b e c a u s e it will be the central agent of the ritual that follows
in verse 14. However, since that ritual will transpire in the Holy of Holies,
" b e h i n d the curtain," it m u s t be a c c o m p l i s h e d u s i n g incense, t h e r e b y p r o d u c i n g
a c l o u d so that the Divine Presence is n o t seen ( w . 1 2 - 1 3 ; see above, " C o n c e p t
Behind the Inside Ritual"). W h i l e in the H o l y of Holies, b l o o d of t w o purifica-
tion offerings is s p r i n k l e d : that of Aaron's p u r i f i c a t i o n offering bull (v. 1 4 — s e e
w . 3, 11), a n d that of the nation's h e - g o a t (v. 1 5 — s e e v. 5). Like m o s t rituals, in
o r d e r to be effective, this o n e m u s t be a c c o m p l i s h e d in a precise fashion; in this
case, s p r i n k l i n g the b l o o d seven times, a n u m b e r u s e d f r e q u e n t l y in the Bible to
symbolize c o m p l e t e n e s s .
T h e u l t i m a t e goal or result of these rituals is n o t e d in Leviticus 16:16: " T h u s
h e shall p u r g e the Shrine of the u n c l e a n n e s s a n d transgression of the Israelites,
w h a t e v e r their sins; a n d he shall d o the s a m e for the Tent of Meeting, w h i c h
abides w i t h t h e m in the m i d s t of their u n c l e a n n e s s . " This "purging" or ritual
purification is a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h the use of a n i m a l b l o o d , w h i c h for the
Priestly a u t h o r s is seen as a k i n d of "ritual d e t e r g e n t . " 1 8 Exactly h o w a n d w h y
b l o o d f u n c t i o n s in this w a y is unclear, t h o u g h it is likely c o n n e c t e d to the
Priestly assertion that b l o o d is to b e i d e n t i f i e d as the nefesh ( ‫ נ פ ש‬, "lifeforce")
of the a n i m a l ( 1 7 : 1 0 - 1 4 ) ; p e r h a p s in s o m e sense it r e a n i m a t e s a n d t h u s purifies.
Leviticus 16:17 offers s o m e a d d i t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d verses
1 8 - 1 9 prescribe the final part of the purification ritual, purging the altar in the
Holy section through a final blood ritual. The "horns of the altar" refer to quarter-
circular p r o t u b e r a n c e s like those f o u n d in various altars excavated in Israel.
As may be seen from the different vocabulary used in verses 16 and 19, each act
of purification accomplishes s o m e t h i n g slightly different, purifying parts of the
structure from different types of sins. W i t h verse 19, the m a i n ritual is complet-
ed, a n d t h r o u g h the use of ritual detergent blood, the Temple or Sanctuary is
restored to a state of ritual purity. It is again a "house" that will not repel G o d , 1 9
a place where He will want to reside.

The Outside Ritual

The function of the previous ritual was to purify various holy places a n d objects;
the p u r p o s e of this scapegoat ritual is clarified in Leviticus 16:21: "Aaron shall
lay b o t h his h a n d s u p o n the head of the live goat a n d confess over it all the iniq-
uities a n d transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting t h e m on
the head of the goat; a n d it shall be sent off to the wilderness t h r o u g h a desig-
nated man."
There may be s o m e r e d u n d a n c y between this ritual a n d the previous offer-
ings a n d blood ritual, or this may be seen as a totally different ritual, purging the
Israelites of intentional sins, w h i c h may n o t have been covered by the previous
set of rituals. At any rate, the goat is literally carrying off the sins of the people,
removing t h e m to an area outside of civilization, to "an inaccessible region" (Lev.
16:22). The actions of Aaron highlight the role of the goat. For other sacrifices,
the person offering the animal is told to place one h a n d on the sacrifice (3:8, 13;
4:4, 29, 33) as an indication that this is his or her animal. Here, however, Aaron
places b o t h of his h a n d s o n the animal—a u n i q u e act within the Bible—through
w h i c h he transfers the sins o n t o the animal.
The w o r d "Azazel" appears four times in Leviticus 16 (w. 8, 10 [twice], 26).
It is etymologically difficult to explain, not fitting the three-letter pattern typical
of H e b r e w roots. N o r is context particularly helpful in clarifying its precise
meaning. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Bible) u n d e r s t o o d it to
m e a n "scapegoat," w h i c h is quite suitable for verses 8 a n d 10a, b u t less likely for
10b a n d 26. Some u n d e r s t a n d it to be a place-name. Alternatively, some u n d e r -
stand Azazel to m e a n "for the elimination of divine anger." 2 0 This may be more
satisfactory from a m o d e r n theological perspective, but is etymologically unlike-
ly. The most likely explanation derives f r o m the parallelism of verse 8, "one
m a r k e d for the L O R D a n d the other m a r k e d for Azazel," w h i c h s u p p o r t s the
ancient t r a d i t i o n — f o u n d in a w i d e range of s o u r c e s — t h a t Azazel was the n a m e
of a d e m o n . 2 1 This ritual w o u l d t h e n be a r e m n a n t of an older prebiblical ritu-
al, s o m e w h a t "Israelitized," p r o p i t i a t i n g a malevolent wilderness d e m o n .
T h e definition of Azazel is likely an intractable p r o b l e m . Nevertheless, it is
clear that the ritual p e r f o r m e d in Leviticus 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 2 c o m p l e m e n t s the earlier
ritual, s u p p l e m e n t i n g the purification of the Temple with the purification of
Israel t h r o u g h this rite of elimination.
The rest of this section is anticlimactic, tying together loose ends.
Specifically, it deals with final actions of all of the participants in the rituals—
Aaron, w h o p u r g e d the Temple (Lev. 1 6 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) , the person w h o led the scape-
goat (v. 26), a n d the person w h o b u r n e d the carcasses of the animals w h o s e
b l o o d w a s u s e d for purification ( w . 2 7 - 2 8 ) . All of these people c a m e into c o n -
tact w i t h either s u p e r c h a r g e d holiness, s u p e r c h a r g e d impurity, or b o t h , a n d t h u s
they require ritual purification before r e s u m i n g n o r m a l life.

Refraining the Ritual

T h e language of the i n t r o d u c t i o n to Leviticus 16 m a y suggest that it w a s a ritu-

al to be p e r f o r m e d as n e e d e d to purify the sanctuary: "The LORD said to Moses:
"Tell y o u r b r o t h e r Aaron that he is not to c o m e at will into the Shrine . . . T h u s
only shall Aaron enter the Shrine" ( w . 2 - 3 ) . N o particular time is specified for
this ritual. O n e w o u l d expect it to be p e r f o r m e d as n e e d e d — f o r example, after
the p o l l u t i o n of the Temple t h r o u g h corpse c o n t a m i n a t i o n , as w h e n N a d a b a n d
A b i h u died in the Tabernacle (v. 1; see above, "The Inside Ritual").
For this reason, verses 2 9 - 3 4 m a y n o t be an original part of Leviticus 16.
They f u r t h e r ritualize the purification c e r e m o n y by fixing w h e n it s h o u l d tran-
spire: on the t e n t h day of the s e v e n t h m o n t h , w h a t is called in Leviticus 2 3 : 2 7
Yom Ha-kippuiim, the Day of Purgation (or A t o n e m e n t ) . This a d d i t i o n s u p p l e -
m e n t s the rituals described earlier in Leviticus 16, w h i c h focus on the sanctuary
a n d Aaron, w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t that "you shall practice self-denial; a n d y o u
shall d o n o m a n n e r of w o r k , neither the citizen n o r the alien w h o resides a m o n g
you. . . . It shall be a s a b b a t h of c o m p l e t e rest for you, a n d you shall practice
self-denial" ( w . 2 9 - 3 1 ) , a r e q u i r e m e n t that is applicable to the b r o a d e r c o m m u -
nity, n o t only to Aaron a n d his (priestly) family. This b r o a d e r c o n c e r n is typical
of the w o r k of the Holiness School, the g r o u p responsible for Leviticus 1 7 - 2 6 ,
w h i c h has as its refrain "You shall be holy." This school t e n d s to d e m o c r a t i z e the
n a r r o w priestly perspective seen elsewhere in Priestly literature. 2 2
Apparently the a u t h o r f r o m the Holiness School believed that this type of
ritual needed to be institutionalized at a particular time, on Yom Kippur, i m m e -
diately preceding the festival of Sukkot. Biblical evidence suggests that Sukkot
was the major fall festival. (Only in postbiblical times did Rosh Hashanah, the
Jewish New Year celebrated on the first day of the seventh m o n t h , nine days
before Yom Kippur and fourteen days before Sukkot, become central.) The ded-
ication of S o l o m o n s Temple was on Sukkot (1 Kings 8:2), and it is Sukkot that
is celebrated with great fanfare d u r i n g the early postexilic period (Neh.
8 : 1 3 - 1 8 ) . The most appropriate time for an annual ritual "housecleaning" w o u l d
be immediately preceding Sukkot.
But this is not the only logical occasion for such a ritual. Another major fes-
tival complex is in the spring, comprised of the one-day Pesach or Passover fes-
tival, followed by the seven-day Matzot, or Unleavened Bread, festival (Lev.
2 3 : 5 - 8 ) . 2 3 Thus, it should not be surprising that a different tradition developed
that would time this housecleaning then. Ezekiel 4 5 : 1 8 - 2 0 notes:

(18) T h u s said the Lord GOD: O n the first day of the first m o n t h , you
shall take a bull of the herd without blemish, a n d you shall cleanse the
Sanctuary. (19) The priest shall take some of the blood of the purifica-
tion offering and apply it to the doorposts of the Temple, to the four
corners of the ledge of the altar, a n d to the doorposts of the gate of the
inner court. (20) You shall d o the same on the seventh day of the m o n t h
to purge the Temple from uncleanness caused by unwitting or ignorant
persons.

If b o t h this and the Leviticus 16 ritual were performed, the Temple would be
cleansed twice annually, helping to assure the presence of the Presence, with the
attendant protection of all Israel.

Other Biblical Rituals

There is n o such thing as the typical biblical ritual. Therefore the discussion of
the structure and meaning of Leviticus 16 cannot be applied to all other rituals.
However, we analyzed this example to show that rituals—even those involving lots
of elements and lots of blood—are not meaningless prescribed actions. Rather,
they are a series of activities that have meaning and serve particular functions.
Other rituals should be analyzed similarly. In some cases, their p u r p o s e is
fairly transparent from the immediate biblical context alone. Consider the ritual
in Deuteronomy 2 1 : 1 - 9 concerning expiation for a homicide w h e n the m u r d e r -
er cannot be found. It uses blood to cleanse the land: "do not let guilt for the
b l o o d of the i n n o c e n t remain a m o n g Your p e o p l e Israel" (v. 8). W i t h this in
m i n d , it is relatively easy to u n d e r s t a n d m u c h of the s y m b o l i s m of the ritual. 2 4
However, m a n y rituals d o not detail their f u n c t i o n so clearly. Their m e a n i n g
r e m a i n s m o r e o p a q u e w i t h o u t recourse to o t h e r types of analysis. 2 5
Leviticus in particular is full of rituals. In contrast to m a n y rituals f o u n d in
o t h e r biblical b o o k s , these m u s t be p e r f o r m e d at the sanctuary. This is because
Leviticus is a Priestly b o o k , a n d the priests' lives centered o n the Temple. There
is a strong sense, often a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h repetition, that these rituals m u s t
be p e r f o r m e d exactly as prescribed. This is m i r r o r e d in the highly repetitive sec-
tions of E x o d u s 2 5 - 3 1 , 3 5 - 4 0 , w h i c h detail the instructions for the Tabernacle
a n d their fulfillment, a n d w h i c h c u l m i n a t e with:

( 3 9 : 4 2 ) Just as the Lord h a d c o m m a n d e d Moses, so the Israelites had

d o n e all the w o r k . (43) A n d w h e n Moses saw that they h a d p e r f o r m e d
all the t a s k s — a s the Lord h a d c o m m a n d e d , so they h a d d o n e — M o s e s
blessed t h e m .

F r o m the perspective of the Priestly author, the rituals prescribed are divine
c o m m a n d m e n t s , a n d therefore it is crucial to follow their instructions exactly,
i n s u r i n g divine satisfaction, a n d t h u s h u m a n success. In the w o r d s of E x o d u s
25:8, "Let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary that I m a y dwell a m o n g t h e m . " This
explains w h y such rituals play s u c h a crucial role in ancient Israelite society, a n d
in the societies of its n e i g h b o r s .
Many of these passages lack an ethical or m o r a l c o m p o n e n t , a n d we m i s u n -
d e r s t a n d (or "anachronize") t h e m if we claim that s u c h a c o m p o n e n t is implicit.
We also m i s u n d e r s t a n d the f u n c t i o n of ritual in the ancient world. T h e texts are
quite clear: If the rituals are a c c o m p l i s h e d properly, if the b l o o d is sprinkled the
right n u m b e r of times in the correct place, a n d the scapegoat b e a r i n g the sins is
safely b r o u g h t to the wilderness, t h e n the Temple will be cleansed, a n d the peo-
p i e s sins will be annulled. N o prayer, contrition, or r e p e n t a n c e is n e c e s s a r y —
the ritual by itself, if properly p e r f o r m e d , assures the divine Presence a n d divine
blessing. 2 6
T h e belief that ritual prescriptions, if carefully followed, will m a i n t a i n the
divine Presence is a peculiarly Priestly view. It is easy to u n d e r s t a n d h o w this
view might d e v e l o p w i t h i n a g r o u p that h a d the Temple a n d its rituals as their
center. At the same time, as we shall see later, different g r o u p s h a d o t h e r views
c o n c e r n i n g w h a t w o u l d lead to divine blessing. 2 ‫׳‬
 10
"In the Fortieth Year . . . Moses
Addressed the Israelites"
Reading Deuteronomy

Primary Reading: Deuteronomy (esp. chaps. 1, 4, 5, 12, 31).

A Pious Fraud

D e u t e r o n o m y contains the longest introductory sentence of any biblical

book:

(1) These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other
side of the J o r d a n — t h r o u g h the wilderness, in the Arabah near Suph,
between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab, (2) it is
eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea by the Mount Seir r o u t e —
(3) it was in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh m o n t h ,
that Moses addressed the Israelites in accordance with the instructions
that the L O R D h a d given him for them, (4) after he had defeated Sihon
king of the Amorites, w h o dwelt in Heshbon, a n d King O g of Bashan,
w h o dwelt at Ashtaroth and Edrei, (5) on the other side of the Jordan,
in the land of Moab, Moses u n d e r t o o k to e x p o u n d this Teaching; he
said: (transi, adapted).

The long list of details given here has a simple function: to legitimize the book
as a whole. It is another way of saying: "I am authentic." There is a good reason
that Deuteronomy in particular needs to be legitimated in this way so m u c h of
the b o o k repeats narratives and legal material from earlier in the Torah.
Deuteronomy 5, for example, recounts the Decalogue of Exodus 20. The second
half of chapter 1 retells the story of the spies, found in N u m b e r s 1 3 - 1 4 . Its fes-
tival calendar in chapter 16 resembles the one f o u n d in Exodus 2 3 : 1 4 - 1 9 . For
good reason, the book is called in English D e u t e r o n o m y — f r o m the Greek
deutero-nomos, "second l a w " — a n d in rabbinic sources mishnei torah, "a repetition
of the Torah." At first b l u s h , that is precisely w h a t the b o o k is: Moses' repetition
of selected earlier laws a n d narratives as his valedictory address.
T h e repetition, however, is far f r o m exact. Even the Decalogue, w h i c h claims
to be the w o r d s that the LORD s p o k e ("those a n d n o m o r e — t o y o u r w h o l e con-
gregation at the m o u n t a i n " ; Deut. 5:19), d o e s n o t replicate exactly the w o r d s
f o u n d in E x o d u s 20. Most especially in the Sabbath utterance, b u t n o t only
there, the text of D e u t e r o n o m y deviates significantly f r o m E x o d u s . 1 In fact, that
u t t e r a n c e h a s b e e n " D e u t e r o n o m i z e d , " that is, m a d e to fit the theology a n d lan-
guage of the b o o k of Deuteronomy, w h i c h has n o k n o w l e d g e of the seven-day
creation m e n t i o n e d in Genesis 1 a n d E x o d u s 20, b u t is full of references to the
E x o d u s , a m a j o r t h e m e in D e u t e r o n o m y . 2
T h e so-called spy story is also revised in a n u m b e r of significant ways. For
e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to N u m b e r s 13:2, it w a s G o d w h o initiated the s e n d i n g of
the scouts, while a c c o r d i n g to D e u t e r o n o m y 1 : 2 2 - 2 3 , this w a s the people's idea,
w h i c h Moses a p p r o v e d . According to N u m b e r s 13:2, each tribe's chieftain was
sent, while D e u t e r o n o m y 1:23 notes only that "one f r o m each tribe" w a s sent.
M a n y o t h e r differences m a y be cited.
Legal traditions are equally flexible. T h o u g h there are m a n y similarities
b e t w e e n the festival calendars in E x o d u s 2 3 a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 16, there are
m a n y differences as well. T h e similarities include a notice that there are only
three pilgrimage festivals, i n c u m b e n t u p o n males only. E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 7 reads,
"Three times a year all y o u r males shall a p p e a r before the Sovereign, the LORD,"
compared to D e u t e r o n o m y 16:16, "Three times a y e a r — o n the Feast of
U n l e a v e n e d Bread, o n the Feast of Weeks, a n d o n the Feast of Booths—all y o u r
males shall a p p e a r before the LORD y o u r G o d in the place that He will choose."
In b o t h there is n o m e n t i o n of Rosh H a s h a n a h ( N e w Year) or Yom K i p p u r (the
Day of A t o n e m e n t ) , f o u n d in the Priestly c a l e n d a r of Leviticus 23. T h e differ-
ences are also quite striking. For e x a m p l e , the fall festival is n o t e d in quite brief
t e r m s in E x o d u s 2 3 : 1 6 , "and the Feast of Ingathering at the e n d of the year,
w h e n y o u gather in the results of y o u r w o r k f r o m the field." It is r e n a m e d ,
e x p a n d e d , a n d c h a n g e d quite significantly in D e u t e r o n o m y 16:

(13) After the i n g a t h e r i n g f r o m y o u r t h r e s h i n g floor a n d y o u r vat,

y o u shall h o l d the Feast of Booths for seven days. (14) You shall
rejoice in y o u r festival, w i t h y o u r son a n d daughter, y o u r male a n d
female slave, the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, a n d the w i d o w
in y o u r c o m m u n i t i e s . (15) You shall h o l d a festival for the LORD
 y o u r G o d seven days, in the place that the LORD will c h o o s e ; for the
LORD y o u r G o d will bless all y o u r c r o p s a n d all y o u r u n d e r t a k i n g s ,
a n d y o u shall have n o t h i n g b u t joy.

T h e n a m e of the festival h a s b e e n c h a n g e d , it is celebrated for a p r e s c r i b e d time

p e r i o d , a n d it m u s t be held "in the place that the LORD will choose," generally
u n d e r s t o o d to be J e r u s a l e m . Various e l e m e n t s of the u n d e r c l a s s are m e n t i o n e d
as i n c l u d e d , a n d divine blessing is explicitly m e n t i o n e d as the r e w a r d for its eel-
ebration.
T h e s e c h a n g e s of earlier narrative a n d legal material typify D e u t e r o n o m y 3
( a n d m a n y m o r e s u c h e x a m p l e s c o u l d be cited). 4 They are all the m o r e striking
given that D e u t e r o n o m y notes: "You shall not a d d a n y t h i n g to w h a t I c o m m a n d
y o u or take a n y t h i n g away f r o m it" (4:2), a n d "Be careful to observe o n l y that
w h i c h I e n j o i n u p o n you: n e i t h e r a d d to it n o r take away f r o m it" (13:1). Yet it
5
t a m p e r s w i t h its s o u r c e s extensively.
T h e s e factors all suggest a special origin for D e u t e r o n o m y . I n d e e d , b o t h tra-
ditional J e w i s h a n d m o d e r n critical s c h o l a r s h i p have c o n n e c t e d it to the b o o k
f o u n d , a c c o r d i n g to 2 Kings 22:8, in the J e r u s a l e m Temple w h e n K i n g j o s i a h of
J u d a h p u r i f i e d a n d r e n o v a t e d the Temple in 6 2 2 B.C.E.6 AS a result of r e a d i n g this
b o o k , Josiah enacts several r e f o r m s (see 2 Kings 2 3 ) that resonate r e m a r k a b l y
w i t h the laws in D e u t e r o n o m y , especially the laws e m p h a s i z e d there c o n c e r n i n g
w o r s h i p p i n g o n e G o d in a u n i f i e d fashion in o n e Temple (in J e r u s a l e m ) .
A c c o r d i n g to the r a b b i n i c perspective, D e u t e r o n o m y w a s h i d d e n away by the
apostate k i n g Manasseh, w h o reigned t w o kings before Josiah. T h e critical posi-
tion suggests instead that the b o o k "discovered" in the Temple w a s the p r o d u c t
of the scribes of J o s i a h s c o u r t , a l t h o u g h it m a y i n c o r p o r a t e still earlier w o r k s ,
p e r h a p s of N o r t h e r n Israelite origin. For this reason, the great biblical scholar
W i l h e l m Martin Lebrecht de Wette characterized the core or original text of
D e u t e r o n o m y 7 as "a p i o u s forgery."
Some c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars follow de Wette's o p i n i o n , suggesting that vers-
es s u c h as D e u t e r o n o m y 4:2 a n d 13:1 are inserted to cover u p the n a t u r e of the
b o o k as a forgery. O t h e r s see these verses as typical ancient Near Eastern rheto-
ric, in w h i c h interpretation is depicted as a legitimate restatement of earlier tra-
ditions. 8 This idea e x t e n d s b e y o n d the biblical period; the great first-century-c.E.
Jewish historian J o s e p h u s rewrites the Bible quite radically in his Antiquities, yet
he too states (1.17): "The precise details of o u r Scripture records will, then, be set
forth, each in its place as m y narrative p r o c e e d s . . . neither a d d i n g n o r o m i t t i n g
anything." 9
Comparing Peaches and Nectarines

C o m p a r i s o n is an extremely u s e f u l tool for u n d e r s t a n d i n g biblical texts. It is

generally a c k n o w l e d g e d that the C o v e n a n t Collection of E x o d u s served as the
basis for m u c h of the D e u t e r o n o m i c law collection, a n d w a s revised extensive-
ly. 10 T h e laws c o n c e r n i n g the H e b r e w slave in b o t h collections will be c o m p a r e d
h e r e to see the d e f i n i n g characteristics of D e u t e r o n o m y . We will t h e n be able to
explore in greater detail w h e n a n d w h y these m i g h t have d e v e l o p e d .
T h e t w o laws are r e p r o d u c e d below.

Exodus 21 Deuteronomy 15

(2) W h e n y o u acquire a H e b r e w slave, (12) If a f e l l o w H e b r e w , man or

he shall serve six years; in the s e v e n t h
year he shall go free, w i t h o u t p a y m e n t .
(3) If h e c a m e single, he shall leave
single; if he h a d a wife, his wife shall
leave w i t h h i m . (4) If his m a s t e r gave
h i m a wife, a n d she h a s b o r n e h i m
c h i l d r e n , the wife a n d her children
shall b e l o n g to the master, a n d he shall
leave alone. (5) But if the slave
declares, "I love m y master, a n d m y
wife a n d children: 1 d o n o t w i s h to
go free," (6) his m a s t e r shall take h i m
b e f o r e G o d . He shall be b r o u g h t to
the d o o r or the d o o r p o s t , a n d his m a s -
ter shall pierce his ear w i t h an awl; a n d
he shall t h e n r e m a i n his slave for life.
(7) W h e n a m a n sells his d a u g h t e r as a
slave, she shall n o t be freed as m a l e
slaves are. (8) If she p r o v e s to b e dis-
pleasing to h e r master, w h o d e s i g n a t e d
h e r for himself, he m u s t let h e r be
r e d e e m e d ; he shall n o t have the right
to sell h e r to o u t s i d e r s , since he b r o k e
faith w i t h her. (9) A n d if he d e s i g n a t e d
h e r for his s o n , he shall deal w i t h h e r
as is the practice w i t h free m a i d e n s .
w o m a n , is sold to y o u , he shall serve
y o u six years, a n d in the s e v e n t h year
y o u shall set h i m free. (13) W h e n y o u
set h i m free, d o n o t let h i m go e m p t y -
h a n d e d : (14) F u r n i s h h i m o u t of the
flock, t h r e s h i n g floor, a n d vat, w i t h
w h i c h the LORD y o u r G o d h a s blessed
you. (15) Bear in m i n d that y o u w e r e
slaves in the land of Egypt a n d the
LORD y o u r G o d r e d e e m e d y o u ; there-
fore I e n j o i n this c o m m a n d m e n t u p o n
y o u today. (16) But s h o u l d he say to
y o u , "I d o n o t w a n t to leave y o u " — f o r
he loves y o u a n d y o u r h o u s e h o l d a n d
is h a p p y w i t h y o u — ( 1 7 ) y o u shall
take an awl a n d p u t it t h r o u g h his ear
i n t o the door, a n d he shall b e c o m e
y o u r slave in p e r p e t u i t y Do the s a m e
w i t h y o u r female slave. (18) W h e n y o u
d o set h i m free, d o n o t feel aggrieved;
for in the six years h e h a s given y o u
d o u b l e the service of a h i r e d man.
Moreover, the LORD your God will
bless y o u in all y o u d o .
(10) If he marries another, he must not
withhold from this one her food, her
clothing, or her conjugal rights. (11) If
he fails her in these three ways, she
shall go free, without payment.

The formal similarities in content and structure support the notion that these
texts are genetically connected; in this case, that Deuteronomy k n e w and revised
Exodus. Some of the revisions are minor, a n d may be stylistic only, for example,
the difference between the slave's being "acquired" in Exodus, a n d being "sold to
you" in Deuteronomy. Many, however, are quite major, including the way in
which the female slave is discussed: she is in her own category in Exodus, while
in Deuteronomy she is treated the same as the male.
Several differences between these texts are especially important. Deuteron-
omy omits the subcases dealing with the slave's w i f e — p e r h a p s it did not agree
with the idea that a bought slave could be used to sire future slaves for the mas-
ter, as Exodus 21:4 implies. 1 1 In fact, at the very place where that legislation was
expected, Deuteronomy notes: "(13) W h e n you set h i m free, d o not let him go
e m p t y - h a n d e d : (14) Furnish h i m out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with
which the L O R D your God has blessed you. ( 1 5 ) Bear in m i n d that you were
slaves in the land of Egypt and the L O R D your God redeemed you; therefore I
enjoin this c o m m a n d m e n t u p o n you today." This introduces two major themes
of Deuteronomy: its humanitarianism, a n d the importance of the Exodus from
Egypt—which is used as a motive clause in m a n y laws. 1 2
The subcase of the slave w h o wants to stay with his master appears in b o t h
books, with a significant change: the ritual of piercing the ear (not the earlobe!)
with an awl in Exodus transpires "before God" (v. 6), while in Deuteronomy it
takes place at "the [master's] door" (v. 17). Exodus allows God to be worshipped
at a plurality of sanctuaries; in the w o r d s of Exodus 20:21 : "Make for Me an altar
of earth and sacrifice on it your b u r n t offerings and your sacrifices of well-being,
your sheep a n d your oxen; in every place where I cause My n a m e to be m e n -
tioned I will come to you and bless you." This fits with many traditions found
in Genesis, where the ancestors built altars for God in a variety of places (see,
e.g., 22:13; 46:1). In contrast, a cornerstone of Deuteronomy's theology is that
God must properly be w o r s h i p p e d only in the one place that God has chosen for
his n a m e to dwell. This is not only the core theme of the first legal section in
Deuteronomy (chap. 12), but also manifests in the subsequent revision of many
earlier laws. 1 3 Thus, returning to the slave laws, it is n o w clear why Deuter-
o n o m y converts a ritual that was taking place at local sanctuaries into a private,
h o m e ritual: it does not want to trouble the slaveowner and slave to travel to
Jerusalem to perform the rite. 1 4
Deuteronomy has also changed the way in which the female slave is treated.
Although the nature of the case in Exodus is not certain, it is likely to be that of
a m i n o r daughter w h o is sold into slavery by her f a t h e r . ^ By omitting this case,
and instead insisting twice (w. 12, 17) that the female should be treated as the
male, Deuteronomy is removing this possibility.
Finally, the end of Deuteronomy's text provides a motive for why the master
should not feel bad w h e n releasing a slave at the e n d of the seventh year—"for
in the six years he has given you double the service of a hired m a n " — i n other
words, the slave was already a good buy, so do not be tempted to take further
advantage of the situation. The argument to release the slave here is secular and
logical rather than religious and symbolic.
This c o m p a r i s o n brings into focus several f u n d a m e n t a l features of
Deuteronomy: its focus on centralization of worship, its humanitarianism, its
betterment of the status of w o m e n , and its attempt to use secular logic to con-
vince Israelites to follow divine law. Is there any social or historical set of events
that can help explain these remarkably diverse changes?

Deuteronomy as a Treaty

Deuteronomy offers a final clue that might help u n d e r s t a n d its origin and mean-
ing: its structure, which is unlike that of any other biblical book. Initially its
format looks similar to Leviticus: b o t h books are comprised predominantly of
laws, and b o t h have long passages toward the end that outline the results of
following—and in m u c h greater detail, abrogating—these laws (Leviticus 26;
Deuteronomy 28). However, the two structures differ greatly as well: Leviticus
begins with laws, whereas the main legal section of Deuteronomy begins in
chapter 12. Furthermore, while these two books' laws overlap somewhat (espe-
daily the laws concerning permitted and prohibited animals in Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14, the laws of keeping kosher, as they are called in postbiblical
literature), their differences are far greater. (Partly for this reason, critical schol-
ars have concluded that these books have different sources from different time
periods, and more important, they arise from different social groups.)
O n the crudest scale, then, D e u t e r o n o m y may be analyzed as Introduction
(chaps. 1 - 1 1 ) , Legal Core ( 1 2 - 2 6 ) , and Conclusion ( 2 7 - 3 4 1 6 ) . This structure is
similar to that of the Laws of H a m m u r a b i , w h i c h is c o m p r i s e d of laws flanked
by an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d conclusion. However, the c o n t e n t s a n d f u n c t i o n of
H a m m u r a b i ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n are vastly different in c o n t e n t , goal,
a n d vocabulary f r o m that f o u n d in Deuteronomy, so it is unlikely they influ-
e n c e d this biblical text.
Half a c e n t u r y ago, George E. M e n d e n h a l l n o t e d that D e u t e r o n o m y shared
the s t r u c t u r e of second-millennium-B.C.E. Hittite treaties. 1 7 T h e Hittites, w h o
lived in part of the area of m o d e r n Turkey, were a m a j o r p o w e r of the s e c o n d
m i l l e n n i u m , h a v i n g s u b j u g a t e d a n u m b e r of Near Eastern states. It e n t e r e d into
treaties w i t h these states that cast the Hittite king as overlord (or "suzerain") a n d
the v a n q u i s h e d state as vassal. As M e n d e n h a l l observed, these treaties h a d sig-
nificant structural similarities to Deuteronomy, w i t h b o t h c o n t a i n i n g the follow-
ing elements: p r e a m b l e , historical prologue, treaty stipulations, provisions for
deposit in the t e m p l e a n d periodic readings, witnesses, a n d curses a n d blessings.
This suggested to M e n d e n h a l l that the early Israelites b o r r o w e d the covenant
f o r m f r o m the Hittites.
In o t h e r w o r d s , D e u t e r o n o m y n e e d s to be u n d e r s t o o d as a theologized
treaty—in w h i c h G o d is the overlord a n d Israel is the vassal. Of course, s o m e
features of the Hittite treaties were m o d i f i e d ; for e x a m p l e , rather t h a n calling
u p o n a variety of gods to witness the treaty, D e u t e r o n o m y calls u p o n heaven a n d
earth (4:26; 32:1), but s u c h a d a p t a t i o n s d o not negate the claim that Deuter-
o n o m y is the religious t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a political d o c u m e n t . T h e fact that the
w o r d berit ( ‫ ) ב ר י ת‬m a y be u s e d b o t h for a treaty b e t w e e n Israel a n d o t h e r
nations, a n d as a technical t e r m for the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n Israel a n d G o d , s u p -
p o r t s Mendenhall's idea.
Most biblical scholars accept the insight that D e u t e r o n o m y n e e d s to be
u n d e r s t o o d as a treaty. Since Mendenhall's article was p u b l i s h e d , however, a
n u m b e r of first-millennium Assyrian vassal treaties have also b e e n p u b l i s h e d .
Many n o w believe that the E s a r h a d d o n treaties of the early seventh c e n t u r y
( p u b l i s h e d in 1958) have closer a n d m o r e direct c o n n e c t i o n s to D e u t e r o n o m y
t h a n the earlier Hittite treaties. 1 8 In particular, the curses f o u n d in D e u t e r o n o m y
2 8 (but n o t in Leviticus 26) s h o w striking similarities to the Vassal Treaties of
E s a r h a d d o n (abbreviated VTE). For e x a m p l e , D e u t e r o n o m y 2 8 : 2 3 reads: "The
skies above y o u r head shall be c o p p e r a n d the earth u n d e r you iron," a n d VTE
5 2 8 - 3 1 reads: "May they [the gods] m a k e y o u r g r o u n d like iron so that n o o n e
can p l o u g h [cut] it. Just as rain d o e s n o t fall f r o m a brazen heaven, so m a y rain
a n d d e w n o t c o m e u p o n y o u r fields a n d pastures." 1 9
J u d a h was a vassal of Assyria for m u c h of the seventh century. Although n o
vassal treaties b e t w e e n J u d a h a n d Assyria have b e e n u n e a r t h e d , it is likely that
the type of language q u o t e d above w o u l d have b e e n u s e d in treaties w i t h J u d a h ,
a n d t h u s c o u l d have b e e n b o r r o w e d f r o m there for Deuteronomy.
This p r o p o s e d context suggests a c o u p l e of conclusions. First, s u c h treaties
probably w o u l d have b e e n k n o w n only a m o n g the m o r e e d u c a t e d class or royal
scribes, w h i c h m e a n s that this class m a y have b e e n responsible for writing
Deuteronomy. (The n a t u r e of the author[s] is often discussed in t e r m s of the
" W i s d o m " influence o n D e u t e r o n o m y . 2 0 ) S e c o n d , if D e u t e r o n o m y is a religious
a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a political f o r m , its p o i n t m a y be polemical: true allegiance
b e l o n g s to the G o d of Israel—not to the Assyrian overlords a n d their gods.
In this c o n n e c t i o n , let u s recall that D e u t e r o n o m y is often u n d e r s t o o d as the
"book" discovered in the Temple in the late seventh century. As I said earlier,
J u d a h w a s a vassal of Assyria for the p r e c e d i n g decades, d u r i n g w h i c h s o m e f o r m
of D e u t e r o n o m y m i g h t have b e e n written. It m a y have even b e e n m e a n t to attack
the type of Assyrian w o r s h i p i n t r o d u c e d in the early seventh c e n t u r y by King
Manasseh, the great apostate king. By later in the seventh century, when
D e u t e r o n o m y w a s " f o u n d , " J u d a h w a s n o longer a vassal of Assyria, w h i c h was
b u s y fighting a losing series of wars against the a s c e n d a n t Babylonians. It is easy
to u n d e r s t a n d in this context w h y the b o o k argues that G o d (rather t h a n s o m e
M e s o p o t a m i a n p o w e r ) is the true overlord, a n d that the f o r m s of w o r s h i p intro-
d u c e d by Manasseh u n d e r Assyrian influence are offensive. 2 1

For the Love of God

U n d e r s t a n d i n g D e u t e r o n o m y as a theologized political treaty, in w h i c h the over-

lord is G o d a n d the vassal is Israel, affects h o w we u n d e r s t a n d the b o o k as a
w h o l e , as well as s o m e of its p a r t s . 2 2 Certain e l e m e n t s of the b o o k — s u c h as the
long historical prologue, the i n j u n c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the reading of the b o o k
a n d its s a f e k e e p i n g ( 3 1 : 9 - 1 3 , 26), a n d its interest in w i t n e s s e s — a r e best u n d e r -
stood w i t h i n the b r o a d e r treaty c o n t e x t . 2 3 More significantly, Assyrian treaties
use certain w o r d s as technical t e r m s (that is, they d o not have their n o r m a l
m e a n i n g s ) ; it is likely that D e u t e r o n o m y u s e s their H e b r e w equivalents in the
same way.
F r o m the Jewish perspective, o n e of the most i m p o r t a n t sections of
D e u t e r o n o m y is 6 : 4 - 9 , w h i c h by early in the rabbinic p e r i o d w a s recited as a
prayer called the Shema after its first w o r d (it begins: shema yisrael, "Hear, Ο
24
Israel"). Before the discovery of the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n D e u t e r o n o m y a n d
Assyrian vassal treaties, the b e g i n n i n g of verse 5 w a s the subject of m u c h dis-
cussion: "You shall love the L O R D your God with all your heart and with all your
soul a n d with all your might." H o w can such love be c o m m a n d e d ?
The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon clarifies what this means. The main p u r -
pose of VTE is to assure the proper succession of Ashurbanipal, son of
Esarhaddon, to the throne after the death of his father. (Rebellions by vassals
were c o m m o n after a king's death. Indeed, a rebellion had preceded the accès-
sion of Esarhaddon himself to the throne.) In this connection, one of the main
stipulations of VTE is that the vassals m u s t "love the crown prince designate
Ashurbanipal." 2 5 In this context, it is quite clear that not emotional love, but
obedience is being sought. William Moran, w h o first noted that this is the love
that Deuteronomy as well is seeking, called it "covenantal love" and suggested
that it is identical with loyalty and obedience. 2 6
This has extremely important implications for h o w we should read
Deuteronomy 6:5 and what follows. Most translations, including the JPS trans-
lation, p u t a period after verse 5, suggesting that love of God is separate from the
injunctions that follow. Probably a better p u n c t u a t i o n of this text would be:

You shall love the L O R D your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your might: Take to heart these instructions
with which I charge you this day—impress t h e m u p o n your chil-
dren, recite t h e m w h e n you stay at h o m e and w h e n you are away,
w h e n you lie d o w n and w h e n you get up; bind them as a sign on
your h a n d and let t h e m serve as a symbol on your forehead;
inscribe t h e m on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

In this reading, "love"—namely obedience a n d loyalty—is not important in

itself, but matters to the extent that it is expressed through concrete actions:
teaching children, reciting these w o r d s , 2 7 binding a n d inscribing them. 2 H In the
same way that h u m a n love can be fully s h o w n only w h e n emotion is expressed,
love of God m u s t be expressed through actions. Without u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
treaty b a c k g r o u n d of Deuteronomy, it is easy to miss this point, a n d to insist—
as so m a n y commentators a n d interpreters have—that Deuteronomy c o m m a n d s
love as an emotion. The contextual, historical-critical reading of the book pre-
vents this error.

Conclusion

Deuteronomy is a very special book. Almost any passage from it is recognizable

instantly due to its characteristic vocabulary and distinctive phrases and
r h y t h m s . 2 9 Its ideas—especially the importance of w o r s h i p p i n g one God in one
fashion a n d in one place (e.g., "It has been clearly demonstrated to you that the
30
L O R D alone is God; there is n o n e beside Him"; 4 : 3 5 ) — a l s o set it apart from the
rest of the Torah. Although these ideas become central within Judaism, they were
not expressed earlier in such clear, unequivocal terms. The origin and p u r p o s e
of some of these ideas may remain unclear, 3 1 yet reading it as a response to a sev-
enth-century vassal treaty imposed o n J u d a h by the Assyrians helps to explain
m u c h of what makes Deuteronomy unique.
"The Walls Came Tumbling Down"
Reading Joshua

Primary Reading: Joshua (esp. chaps. 1-12, 21, 23-24).

A Challenging Book to Read

Joshua is a difficult b o o k for u s to read, for a n u m b e r of reasons. First, its m a i n

t h e m e is the c o n q u e s t of the land of Israel. Few of u s care to read stories of
c o n q u e s t , because war evokes great ambivalence. It isn't pretty. D u r i n g the
r e c o u n t e d battles, Israel practiced cheirem ( ‫ ) ח ר ם‬, a b a n or proscription against
c o n q u e r e d places—"exterminat[ing] e v e r y t h i n g in the city with the sword: m a n
a n d w o m a n , y o u n g a n d old, ox a n d s h e e p a n d ass" (6:21). F u r t h e r m o r e , almost
half of the b o o k is c o m p r i s e d of l o n g (boring) lists. To complicate matters, it is
extremely unlikely that the Book of J o s h u a represents w h a t really h a p p e n e d . In
the w o r d s of a recent c o m m e n t a t o r : "hardly a n y of the material it preserves is the
sort that can be directly u s e d for historical reconstruction." 1 T h u s , the real ques-
tion to ask a b o u t J o s h u a is: " W h y w o u l d a n y o n e have told the early history of
Israel in this fashion?"

Joshua as History

As n o t e d earlier, the present state of the evidence does not enable historians to
reconstruct exactly h o w the people Israel c a m e into being, a n d h o w they came
to possess their l a n d . 2 This m u c h , however, is generally c o n c e d e d :

A people called Israel existed in the land by the e n d of the thirteenth

c e n t u r y B.C.E. (see "The Beginning of Israel" in c h a p t e r 4);
S o m e o n e c o n q u e r e d some of the cities that the Bible claims J o s h u a con-
quered;
 • It is difficult to discern w h o conquered t h e m (we k n o w that the Sea
People, including the Philistines, were also settling in the area at this
time a n d taking over population centers);
• O n e reason that the conquerors' identity is obscure is because Israelite
artifacts are practically the same as those of other local groups living at
this time;
• Of the cities that according to J o s h u a were conquered in the period,
archaeological evidence for many of those sites show n o signs of con-
quest;
• This period meanwhile s h o w s a remarkable upsurge of n e w settlement
in the central hill or highland area of the country; and
• Egypt's longstanding political control over the area of Canaan had
waned by this point. 3

Significantly, the difficulty in distinguishing Israelite artifacts implies that Israel

had not spent centuries enslaved in Egypt.
Archaeology is not fully objective—it interprets f o u n d artifacts, and thus
some people may d o u b t a n u m b e r of the points m a d e above. We cannot always
identify biblical places with certainty. Scholars debate which m o d e r n site corre-
s p o n d s to a biblical site, especially w h e n the m o d e r n site with the same n a m e as
the biblical one does not corroborate the biblical evidence. 4 However, w h e n
determining correct place-names for sites, we should not begin with the assump-
tion that the Bible is factual history, expecting the archaeological record to cor-
roborate it. (Until recently, scholars m a d e such an assumption—either explicit-
ly or tacitly—all too often.)
The following question highlights the problems with the biblical account:
W h a t would the archaeological record look like if the Book of Joshua were fac-
tual? We would expect to find a complete destruction of the major Canaanite
cities datable to the same time period. In addition, we would expect to find
Canaanite material culture (pottery jugs, housing styles) 5 replaced by totally n e w
styles, most likely with Egyptian motifs or styles, reflecting the origins of the
conquering people.
However, such evidence eludes us even after a large n u m b e r of excavations
and surveys (mini-excavations). W h a t have archaeologists f o u n d instead? Some
evidence of destruction, b u t significantly more evidence for n e w settlement pat-
terns at previously uninhabited sites in the highlands. This suggests to many that
the main claim in J o s h u a — a complete a n d total conquest by Israel—is false;
rather, m a n y Israelites originated as Canaanites. 6 Archaeologists in general n o w
d o u b t that the people Israel arose predominantly outside of the land of Israel.‫׳‬
Embedded Clues in the Stories of Joshua

T h e Book of J o s h u a repeatedly p a i n t s a picture of a c o m p l e t e c o n q u e s t of the

entire land. This c o m e s t h r o u g h clearly in t w o s u m m a r y texts, o n e located in the
m i d d l e of the b o o k , a n d one t o w a r d the e n d . Each uses the w o r d kol ( ‫ כ ל‬, "all,
every, whole") repeatedly to highlight the t h e m e that all w a s c o n q u e r e d accord-
ing to all that G o d h a d p r o m i s e d . T h u s the first passage reads:

J o s h u a c o n q u e r e d the w h o l e ( ‫ ) כ ל‬of this region: the hill c o u n t r y of

J u d a h , all ( ‫ ) כ ל‬the Negeb, the whole ( ‫ ) כ ל‬land of G o s h e n , the
S h e p h e l a h , the Arabah, a n d the hill c o u n t r y a n d coastal plain of Israel—
everything f r o m M o u n t Halak, w h i c h a s c e n d s to Seir, all the way to
Baal-gad in the Valley of the L e b a n o n at the foot of M o u n t H e r m o n ; a n d
he c a p t u r e d all ( ‫ ) כ ל‬the kings there a n d executed t h e m . . . . Apart f r o m
the Hivites w h o dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city m a d e t e r m s with the
Israelites; all ( ‫ ) כ ל‬were taken in battle. . . . T h u s J o s h u a c o n q u e r e d all
the (‫)כל‬ the country, a c c o r d i n g to all (‫)כל‬ the LORD had promised
Moses; a n d J o s h u a assigned it to Israel to share according to their trib-
al divisions. A n d the land h a d rest f r o m w a r (Josh. 1 1 : 1 6 - 1 7 , 19, 23;
transi, a d a p t e d ) .

Similarly, the s e c o n d s u m m a r y passage reads:

The LORD gave to Israel the w h o l e (‫)כל‬ c o u n t r y w h i c h He h a d s w o r n to

their fathers that He w o u l d assign to t h e m ; they took possession of it
a n d settled in it. T h e LORD gave t h e m rest o n all sides, according to all
( ‫ ) כ ל‬He h a d p r o m i s e d to their fathers o n oath. N o t o n e m a n of all ( ‫) כ ל‬
their e n e m i e s w i t h s t o o d t h e m ; the LORD delivered all (‫)כל‬ their e n e m i e s
into their h a n d s . N o t one of all (‫)כל‬ the g o o d things w h i c h the LORD
h a d p r o m i s e d to the H o u s e of Israel w a s lacking. Everything ( ‫ ) כ ל‬was
fulfilled (Josh. 2 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 ; in s o m e editions, w . 4 3 - 4 5 ; transi, a d a p t e d ) .

Here the repetition of the w o r d kol s e e m s m e a n i n g f u l : it is like a bell r u n g over

a n d over so as to s o u n d a c o n t i n u o u s t h e m a t i c note. We call a repeated w o r d
that h e l p s give s t r u c t u r e a n d m e a n i n g to a literary unit a "leading w o r d . " (Bible
scholars o f t e n use the G e r m a n equivalent, Leitwort.) Leading w o r d s provide
g u i d a n c e to the reader; they are keys to a unit's m e a n i n g .
(Many c o n t e m p o r a r y t r a n s l a t i o n s — i n c l u d i n g that of J P S — s e e k to r e n d e r
the Hebrew's plain sense into n o r m a l English idiom. Their translation a p p r o a c h
often does n o t precisely convey the repetition of leading w o r d s in the original
language. Partly this is because n o r m a l English discourse avoids s u c h repetitions
as a w k w a r d or m o n o t o n o u s . More to the p o i n t , a given H e b r e w w o r d usually h a s
m o r e t h a n o n e sense, a n d a plain-sense translation by n a t u r e chooses w h i c h e v -
er English w o r d best expresses its m e a n i n g in each context. A disadvantage of
the idiomatic translation a p p r o a c h is that a biblical unit's t h e m e m a y literally be
lost in translation, as o u r t w o s u m m a r y passages in J o s h u a illustrate. 8
In contrast, o t h e r translation a p p r o a c h e s are m o r e sensitive to the text's use
of a leading w o r d . In particular, in their Bible translation, the t w o great twenti-
eth-century German-Jewish t h i n k e r s Franz Rosenzweig a n d Martin Buber
reflected s u c h repetitions w h e n e v e r possible b y repeating the same G e r m a n
w o r d . 9 A c o n t e m p o r a r y translator of the Bible into English, Everett Fox, is con-
t i n u i n g to follow Buber a n d Rosenzweig's principles. 1 0 )
In a d d i t i o n to the repetition of kol, o t h e r leading w o r d s in the text suggest a
complete, total, a n d swift c o n q u e s t . T h e m i r a c u l o u s a n d nearly instant c o n q u e s t
of J e r i c h o — t h e first city attacked after crossing the J o r d a n (Josh. 6 ) — s e t s the
stage for this idea. Later, w h e n the S o u t h e r n coalition is defeated (chap. 10), a
sixfold repetition of "let n o n e escape" (10:28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40), reinforces the
i m p r e s s i o n that the c o n q u e s t w a s complete. A s i m u l t a n e o u s description of six
proscribed cities h a s the same effect (10:1, 28, 35, 37, 39, 4 0 ) . 1 1 C h a p t e r 12 also
uses repetition for emphasis. T h e first part of that passage, a b o u t the c o n q u e s t
of Transjordan (the area east of the J o r d a n River), repeats the w o r d ve-ad (‫ועד‬,
"until" or " u p to") six times, u n d e r s c o r i n g the all-encompassing n a t u r e of Israel's
b o u n d a r i e s . T h e s e c o n d part of that passage, c o n c e r n i n g the c o n q u e s t of the
N o r t h e r n coalition, is stylized a n d r e d u n d a n t . In e n u m e r a t i n g the cities a n d
kings c a p t u r e d , it says thirty-one times "the k i n g of X: 1," w h e r e X is the n a m e
of one city after another. (This list is all the m o r e r e m a r k a b l e because evidence
d u g u p f r o m the r u i n s of those city-states have s h o w n that they did n o t have
kings.) A n d in case the reader misses the p o i n t , the list concludes: "Total n u m -
ber of kings: 31."
In s u m , t h r o u g h the strategic use of leading w o r d s , the p r e d o m i n a n t s t r a n d
of J o s h u a highlights the claim that "the LORD gave to Israel the w h o l e (‫)כל‬ coun-
try w h i c h He h a d s w o r n to their fathers that He w o u l d assign to t h e m " (Josh.
21:41).

Contradictory Assessments

A tale of swift a n d total victory, however, is n o t the only story that J o s h u a tells. 1 2
For instance, we also read: "Joshua waged war w i t h all those kings over a long
p e r i o d " ( 1 1 : 1 8 ) — a s h a r p contrast to o t h e r passages' portrayal of a sort of ancient
Six-Day War. More important, immediately after chapter 12's s u m m a r y of the
completed conquest, we read:

(13:1) Joshua was n o w old, advanced in years. The L O R D said to him,

"You have grown old, you are advanced in years; and very m u c h of the
land still remains to be taken possession of. (2) This is the territory that
remains: all the districts of the Philistines and all those of the
Geshurites, (3) from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt, to the territo-
ry of Ekron on the north, are accounted Canaanite, namely, those of the
five lords of the P h i l i s t i n e s — t h e Gazites, the A s h d o d i t e s , the
Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites—and those of the A w i m
(4) on the south; further, all the Canaanite country from Mearah of the
Sidonians to Aphek at the Amorite border (5) and the land of the
Geballtes, with the whole Valley of the Lebanon, from Baal-gad at the
foot of Mount H e r m o n to Lebo-hamath on the east, (6) with all the
inhabitants of the hill country from the Valley of the Lebanon to
Misrephoth-maim, namely, all the Sidonians. I Myself will dispossess
those nations for the Israelites; you have only to apportion their lands
by lot a m o n g Israel, as I have c o m m a n d e d you."

As a glance at any Bible atlas indicates, this "land that remains" is substantial! In
other words, this passage directly conflicts with the account given a few verses
earlier. 1 3
W h a t are we to make of the fact that this book presents more than one idea
concerning basic notions such as how the land was conquered and what its
boundaries are? Like many other scholars, I conclude from its internal contradic-
tions that the Book of Joshua is not the work of a single author. Rather, it is a com-
posite book. Either it has gone through several stages of editing and redaction, or
it was written by an author w h o (for some u n k n o w n reason) incorporated earlier
sources—even though they did not agree with the author's point—or both.
Further evidence for the book's composite nature comes into view w h e n we
consider what critical scholars call the Deuteronomistic History.

The Deuteronomistic History

W h a t is the relationship of the first several books of the Bible to each other?
Scholars have grouped t h e m in various ways. 1 4 The canon has joined the first
five b o o k s together as the Torah or Pentateuch, literally "five books." This unit
e n d s with the death of its main protagonist, Moses. Yet Moses is absent from
Genesis, and one could argue that the theme of entry into the promised l a n d —
w h i c h begins in Genesis 1 2 — m o r e accurately characterizes these books. This
t h e m e , however, is n o t fulfilled until J o s h u a . T h u s m a n y scholars, especially
t h r o u g h the m i d d l e of the t w e n t i e t h century, saw the first six b o o k s of the Bible,
the H e x a t e u c h (six b o o k s ) as a literary unit. They believed that the Pentateuchal
sources—collectively termed "JEPD"—spill over into J o s h u a (though not
b e y o n d ) , justifying the s t u d y i n g of these six b o o k s as a unit.
In 1943, the G e r m a n biblical scholar Martin N o t h p r o p o s e d a n e w m o d e l . 1 5
Building o n the w o r k of others, he e m p h a s i z e d the fact that the b o o k s of
Deuteronomy, J o s h u a , J u d g e s , Samuel, a n d Kings share similar vocabulary a n d
theology. N o t h c o n c l u d e d that those b o o k s f o r m a literary unit that he n a m e d
the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History (abbreviated "DtrH"). He suggested that this w o r k ,
w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e d earlier sources, w a s c o m p o s e d d u r i n g the Babylonian exile.
W i t h certain modifications, this h y p o t h e s i s h a s gained w i d e assent.16
Scholars have q u e s t i o n e d Noth's claim that there was a single D e u t e r o - n o m i s t i c
"historian." M a n y n o w believe that there were two: one w o r k i n g d u r i n g the reign
of Josiah (late seventh c e n t u r y B.C.E.) a n d the o t h e r d u r i n g the Babylonian exile
( 5 8 6 - 5 3 8 ) , w h o m a y be distinguished o n the basis of vocabulary a n d ideology. 1 7
Still o t h e r s have suggested additional historians, seeing these historians' w o r k as
e x t e n d i n g into the postexilic p e r i o d . 1 8 Despite the m a n y c o m p e t i n g reconstruc-
tions of h o w the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History arrived at its present form, a b r o a d
e n o u g h c o n s e n s u s exists that we can s p e a k of D e u t e r o n o m y t h r o u g h Kings as a
"collection."
W h y we s h o u l d c o n s i d e r J o s h u a a part of this collection is clear: it shares
m a n y features of Deuteronomy. For e x a m p l e , the establishment of altars o n
M o u n t Ebal a n d the curse c e r e m o n y p e r f o r m e d there in J o s h u a 8 : 3 0 - 3 4 fulfill a
ritual prescribed in D e u t e r o n o m y 17. In 8:29, the i m p a l e d corpse of the King of
Ai is r e m o v e d at s u n s e t — t h i s a s s u m e s D e u t e r o n o m y 2 1 : 2 3 . J o s h u a takes for
g r a n t e d that the n a t i o n s of C a n a a n n e e d to be proscribed or k i l l e d — t h i s insti-
t u t i o n is f o u n d in D e u t e r o n o m y only ( 2 0 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) . A sefer ha-torah (‫התורה‬ ‫ספר‬,
"Book of the Torah") is m e n t i o n e d twice in J o s h u a (1:8; 8:34); in the Torah, it is
a p p e a r s only in D e u t e r o n o m y ( 2 8 : 6 1 ; 2 9 : 2 0 ; 30:10). I could a d d u c e f u r t h e r
evidence that links J o s h u a n o t only to Deuteronomy, b u t also to J u d g e s , Samuel,
a n d Kings, 1 9 suggesting that the h y p o t h e s i s of a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History is
quite robust.
T h e D t r H h y p o t h e s i s is i m p o r t a n t for reading J o s h u a properly. It helps to
explain significant c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the text: these are the result of the c o m p l e x
evolution of the overall text. It also explains w h y the b o o k is so inaccurate as a
history of the p r e m o n a r c h i c a l period: the b o o k w a s n o t written until m a n y cen-
turies later.
Revising History

In antiquity, a storyteller typically related details about a past event because they
were important, not because they were true. 2 0 The opening of the Book of
Joshua illustrates this principle, while showing h o w a Deuteronomistic historian
could revise earlier materials to keep t h e m relevant for the (exilic) community:

(1) After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to
J o s h u a son of N u n , Moses' attendant: (2) "My servant Moses is dead.
Prepare to cross the Jordan, together with all this people, into the land
that I am giving to the Israelites. (3) Every spot on w h i c h your foot
treads I give to you, as I promised Moses. . . . (5) No one shall be able
to resist you as long as you live. As I was with Moses, so I will be with
you; I will not fail you or forsake you. (6) Be strong a n d resolute, for
you shall apportion to this people the land that I swore to their fathers
to assign to them. (7) But you must be very strong a n d resolute to
observe faithfully all the Teaching that My servant Moses enjoined u p o n
you. Do not deviate from it to the right or to the left, that you may be
successful wherever you go. (8) Let not this Book of the Teaching cease
from your lips, but recite it day and night, so that you may observe
faithfully all that is written in it. Only then will you prosper in your
undertakings and only then will you be successful. (9) I charge you: Be
strong and resolute; d o not be terrified or dismayed, for the LORD your
God is with you wherever you go." (10) Joshua thereupon gave orders
to the officials of the people: (11) "Go through the c a m p a n d charge the
people thus: Get provisions ready, for in three days' time you are to
cross the J o r d a n . . . "

This introduction to the book presents two interconnected problems: (1) It is

u n d u l y repetitive, especially in its use of the phrase "be strong a n d resolute"; and
(2) It is confusing, moving from military matters to Torah study a n d back again.
We can best account for these problems by assuming that most of verses 7 - 9 is
a secondary addition. 2 1 The original text, as one would expect in this situation,
dealt only with military strength; this was the context in which God told Joshua
to "be strong and resolute"—words that fit the military sphere. However, s u c h a
charge meant little to the exilic audience living far from the land, a n d so an exil-
ic editor modified the words (attributed to God!) 2 2 so that God told Joshua to
be strong in relation to Torah study.
Internal evidence confirms this j u d g m e n t . Editors w h o a d d e d material to a
text often repeated a phrase before and after the insertion, forming a bridge of
sorts. If the original text w a s A-B-C, to w h i c h X w a s a d d e d after B, the n e w text
w o u l d often look like A-B-X-B-C. W h e n Β is repeated after the insertion, schol-
ars call it a "resumptive repetition." It is a way of expressing "back to w h e r e we
w e r e . " 2 3 T h e use of this device is quite o b v i o u s in J o s h u a 1. Here is the passage
again, w i t h the r e s u m p t i v e repetition m a r k e d in b o l d , a n d the intervening (sec-
o n d a r y ) verses in italics:

(5) N o one shall be able to resist y o u as long as you live. As I was w i t h

Moses, so I will be w i t h you; I will n o t fail you or forsake you. (6) Be
s t r o n g a n d resolute, for you shall a p p o r t i o n to this people the land that
I swore to their fathers to assign to t h e m . (7) B u t y o u m u s t b e v e r y
s t r o n g a n d r e s o l u t e to observe faithfully all the Teaching that My servant
Moses enjoined upon you. Do not deviate from it to the right or to the left, that
you may be successful wherever you go. (8) Let not this Book of the Teaching
cease from your lips, but recite it day and night, so that you may observe
faithfully all that is written in it. Only then will you prosper in your under-
takings and only then will you be successful. (9) I c h a r g e y o u : Be s t r o n g
a n d r e s o l u t e ; d o n o t be terrified or d i s m a y e d , for the LORD y o u r G o d is
with y o u w h e r e v e r you go."

An exilic D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editor h a s a d d e d the material in italics a n d repeated

the material in bold, u p d a t i n g the text to fit with n o r m s that e m p h a s i z e the
i m p o r t a n c e of Torah study. T h r o u g h s u c h a d d i t i o n s the biblical text was n o t
allowed to atrophy, b u t was kept alive.

Origins

I have explained w h y a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editor c h a n g e d an earlier text. But w h y

did those various early stories a b o u t the c o n q u e s t arise in the first place? Critical
scholarship recognizes m a n y of t h e m as a type k n o w n as "etiology," a w o r d
deriving f r o m the Greek verb aitia, "to cause." An etiology explains s o m e t h i n g
familiar by telling a story a b o u t its origin. 2 4 In the Book of Genesis, the story
a b o u t Jacob/Israel fighting w i t h the m a n / a n g e l a n d getting w o u n d e d is an etiol-
ogy. It gives m e a n i n g to the practice of n o t eating a particular part of livestock:
"That is w h y the c h i l d r e n of Israel to this day d o n o t eat the thigh m u s c l e that is
on the socket of the hip, since J a c o b s h i p socket was w r e n c h e d at the thigh m u s -
cle" (32:33).
Etiologies also explain w e l l - k n o w n names. O f t e n they give a derivation that
plays o n w o r d s yet is false f r o m a linguistic p o i n t of view (these are often called
"folk etymologies"). Again in Genesis, the m e a n i n g of the n a m e E d o m is
explained b y a story in w h i c h Esau requests of his b r o t h e r Jacob: "'Give m e s o m e
of that ha-adom ha-adom ("red s t u f f ' ) to g u l p d o w n , for I a m f a m i s h e d ' — w h i c h
is w h y he was n a m e d E d o m " (25:30). In b o t h of these examples, the text uses
the p h r a s e al ken ( ‫ ע ל י כ ן‬, "that is w h y " or "which is why").
N o t all etiologies are m a r k e d w i t h al ken. Stories as a whole can f u n c t i o n eti-
ologically, w i t h o u t giving an explicit signal to the reader. That the a c c o u n t in
J o s h u a 7 - 8 of the c o n q u e s t of Ai is etiological b e c o m e s clear once we k n o w that
city's actual history.
The n a m e Ai m e a n s "heap" or "ruins," a n d archaeological evidence is quite
definitive a b o u t it being an u n i n h a b i t e d ruin for well over a t h o u s a n d y e a r s —
roughly f r o m 2 4 0 0 B.C.E. until 1 2 0 0 B . C . E . 2 5 C o n t r a r y to the biblical depiction,
in Joshua's day Ai h a d n o p o p u l a c e for h i m to overcome a n d kill off. This story
therefore m a k e s sense only as an etiological narrative. It told its a u d i e n c e w h y
the city is called Ai, a n d w h a t caused the d e s t r u c t i o n o n this site that the Israel-
ites n o w inhabited. T h e explanation: it w a s part of the great a n d m i r a c u l o u s con-
quest of the land, in w h i c h G o d fought for Israel as long as they observed God's
c o m m a n d s . T h e story gave a national a n d m o r a l m e a n i n g to the ruins.
M u c h of the rest of the Book of J o s h u a is etiological as well, explaining in a
nonhistorical fashion h o w a n d w h e n Israel c o n q u e r e d various sites. Etiologies of
o t h e r sorts are m i x e d in, i n c l u d i n g the story of the Gibeonites: "Joshua m a d e
t h e m h e w e r s of w o o d a n d d r a w e r s of w a t e r — a s they still a r e — f o r the c o m m u -
nity a n d for the altar of the LORD" ( 9 : 2 7 ) . 2 6
C o n t e m p o r a r y readers m a y tend to d o w n p l a y the value of s u c h stories
because they are nonscientific or ahistorical. However, etiologies were extreme-
ly i m p o r t a n t in antiquity. 2 7 Nevertheless, it w o u l d be a mistake to u n d e r s t a n d all
of J o s h u a as etiological. Like m o s t ancient literature, J o s h u a is c o m p l e x , c o m i n g
f r o m a variety of time p e r i o d s a n d social circles. It serves a variety of p u r p o s e s .

Concluding on a Different Note

T h e biblical a u t h o r s h a d little interest in the past for its o w n sake. Typically they
retold or fashioned stories a b o u t the past for didactic, theological, or political
reasons. T h u s , it is significant that J o s h u a d o e s not e n d w h e n we reach the s u m -
m a r y in 2 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 ( q u o t e d above), w h i c h e n d s , " Not one of all the g o o d things
w h i c h the LORD h a d p r o m i s e d to the H o u s e of Israel was lacking. Everything w a s
fulfilled." This w o u l d have b e e n an ideal e n d i n g for the b o o k if it w e r e c o n -
c e r n e d only w i t h l a n d - t e n u r e a n d justifying the later Israelite's possession of the
land. But Joshua is about more than that. In the b o o k s final form, its last three
chapters proceed to make its m a i n point. They focus, in different ways, on obe-
dience to God.
This theme is most explicit in Joshua 23, which concludes:

(12) For should you t u r n away and attach yourselves to the remnant of
those n a t i o n s — t o those that are left a m o n g y o u — a n d intermarry with
them, you j o i n i n g t h e m a n d they joining you, (13) k n o w for certain that
the L O R D your God will not continue to drive these nations out before
you; they shall become a snare and a trap for you, a scourge to your
sides and t h o r n s in your eyes, until you perish from this good land that
the L O R D your God has given you. ( 1 4 ) "I [Joshua] am n o w going the
way of all the earth. Acknowledge with all your heart and soul that not
one of the good things that the L O R D your God promised you has failed
to h a p p e n ; they have all come true for you, not a single one has failed.
( 1 5 ) But just as every good thing that the L O R D your God promised you
has been fulfilled for you, so the L O R D can bring u p o n you every evil
thing until He has wiped you off this good land that the L O R D your God
has given you. ( 1 6 ) If you break the covenant that the L O R D your God
enjoined u p o n you, and go a n d serve other gods and b o w d o w n to
them, then the LORD'S anger will b u r n against you, and you shall quick-
ly perish from the good land that He has given you."

These verses, like the rest of the chapter, are bursting with Deuteronomistic ter-
minology. 2 8 Here the promise of the land is conditional. The final chapter again
displays these features. There a historical reprise emphasizes God's salvation of
Israel from the time of Abraham until the entry into the land ( 2 4 : 3 - 1 3 ) .
Immediately following that passage, however, is one in which Joshua gives the
nation a choice as to which god they want to follow (w. 1 4 - 1 5 ) . And that, in
t u r n , is followed by a warning that if Israel forsakes God, "He will t u r n and deal
harshly with you a n d make an e n d of you" (v. 20).

Another Editorial Hand

It is not only the end of the book that reframes the conquest account that is else-
where so positive a n d optimistic. Nor is it only the Deuteronomistic historian
w h o h a d a h a n d in reworking these earlier traditions into one that w o u l d be reli-
giously meaningful for later generations. As noted earlier, the other great stream
that provided biblical material is the Priestly Tradition. These are the authors
w h o seem to have h a d the final h a n d in editing the Pentateuch, placing their ere-
ation story first, so that all that follows might be read through that lens. It is they
w h o provided a significant narrative and legal framework for most of the
Pentateuch. While they did not have a m a j o r role in structuring the Deuteron-
omistic History, they are not totally absent from it.
For example, a narrative near the beginning of the book, concerning the cir-
cumcision at Gilgal (Josh. 5 : 2 - 9 ) , is (largely) Priestly in origin. That is, this pas-
sage features a characteristically Priestly concern. Of all the Torah's legislation,
the rite of circumcision is m e n t i o n e d only in Priestly laws; it is absent from the
Covenant Collection and the laws of Deuteronomy. 2 9 Only in Ρ is circumcision
of p a r a m o u n t importance, so m u c h so that, according to Genesis 17:

Such shall be the covenant between Me a n d you a n d your offspring to

follow w h i c h you shall keep: every male a m o n g you shall be circum-
cised . . . and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me a n d you.
. . . T h u s shall My covenant be m a r k e d in your flesh as an everlasting
pact. And if any male w h o is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh
of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has b r o k e n
My covenant (w. 10-14).

Similarly, the Priestly law in Exodus 12:48 emphasized that only males w h o
are circumcised may eat of the Pascal offering—which, as Joshua 5:10 indicates,
is the b a c k d r o p for the story found here. A Priestly author has reworked mate-
rial in order to reinforce one of his key institutions—circumcision—by m e n -
tioning it at the beginning of the conquest narrative. 3 0

Conclusion

We have seen that the concern in Joshua is not with "real" history, b u t with the
power of traditions about the past to teach a n d enlighten. In this book, b o t h the
Priestly a n d Deuteronomistic schools wrote n e w traditions. Both reframed older
traditions—thereby revising their meaning. Through etiological tales they m a d e
existing places and practices more meaningful.
The historical-critical m e t h o d allows us to recover these creative steps, so
that we may see the traditions both before their reworking and after their revi-
sion. This offers a powerful model for u n d e r s t a n d i n g later Judaism, which in a
similar way has reworked and revised earlier traditions and texts. Such creativi-
ty has allowed Judaism to remain a dynamic, living religion.
 12
"May My Lord King David
Live Forever"
Royal Ideology in Samuel and Judges

Primary Reading: Samuel (esp. 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8;

Judges 1-3, 13-21).

Who Killed Goliath?

Everyone k n o w s that David killed Goliath—the story of 1 Samuel 17 is

a m o n g the best k n o w n in the Bible; a variety of famous paintings have
depicted in gory detail the scene of David delivering Goliath's head to Saul. 1 Yet
in an a p p e n d i x a d d e d to the book of Samuel, we read: "Again there was fighting
with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite
killed Goliath the Gittite, whose spear had a shaft like a weaver's bar" (2 Sam.
21:19). Historians follow a well-known principle in their research: if two sources
each attribute the same action—especially a heroic o n e — t o a well-known figure
a n d to one w h o is otherwise u n k n o w n , it probably h a p p e n e d with the u n k n o w n
figure; a n d the story was later transferred to the well-known person. Thus, if
there really was a giant n a m e d Goliath, then Elhanan killed h i m — n o t David.
Even if we deny that this tradition about a giant-slayer was historical, we would
still think it likely that the Israelites told this story first about Elhanan, a n d only
secondarily about David.
Additional evidence bolsters this claim. The David and Goliath story in
1 Samuel 17 is folkloristic. Its structure and plot d o not characterize a narrative
interested in the past as it actually transpired. The plot concerns a y o u n g whip-
persnapper w h o can defeat a fearful giant before w h o m everyone else cowers.
The person w h o eventually defeats the giant has been promised the h a n d of the
king's daughter in marriage. As in m u c h folklore, the tale includes unexpected
twists, such as the m a n n e r in which David disposes of Goliath. The scene where
David tries to walk in Saul's armor is even comical.
 In addition, the David a n d Goliath story conflicts with its context, suggest-
ing that it is a late a d d i t i o n to Samuel. In the previous story (1 Sam. 1 6 : 1 5 - 2 3 ) ,
David was i n t r o d u c e d into Saul's court as a lyre player to help ease Saul's melan-
choly. However, t h r o u g h o u t c h a p t e r 17, Saul has n o idea w h o David is. In fact,
we read:

(55) W h e n Saul saw David going out to assault the Philistine, he asked
his army c o m m a n d e r Abner, " W h o s e s o n is that boy, Abner?" A n d
A b n e r replied, "By y o u r life. Your Majesty, I d o not know." (56) "Then
find out w h o s e son that y o u n g fellow is," the k i n g ordered. (57) So
w h e n David r e t u r n e d after killing the Philistine, Abner took h i m a n d
b r o u g h t h i m to Saul, w i t h the h e a d of the Philistine still in his h a n d .
(58) Saul said to h i m , " W h o s e son are y o u , m y boy?" And David
a n s w e r e d , "The son of y o u r servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

C h a p t e r 17 fits poorly with w h a t follows as well. In the next story, Saul twice
suggests to David that he m a r r y one of his d a u g h t e r s in exchange for certain
d e e d s (1 Sam. 18:17, 25). That unit s h o w s n o awareness of 17:25, w h i c h h a d
promised the king's d a u g h t e r to the p e r s o n w h o could slay Goliath. These ten-
sions all suggest that a later h a n d inserted the David a n d Goliath story into the
rest of 1 Samuel.
W h e r e did that later story c o m e from? Probably from storytellers w h o
e x p a n d e d o n the traditions f o u n d in the a p p e n d i x to Samuel m e n t i o n e d above.
Both passages share a couple of u n u s u a l features. O n e is the o d d simile that
Goliath's spear "had a shaft like a weaver's bar" (1 Sam. 17:7; 2 Sam. 21:19); it
appears in the Bible only in these two p l a c e s — a n d their parallels in Chronicles.
A n o t h e r is the m e n t i o n of a giant w h o "taunts" Israel (1 Sam. 17:10, 25, 26, 36,
45; 2 Sam. 21:21); this root ( ‫ ח ר ף‬, ch-r-p) is f o u n d n o w h e r e else in Samuel. These
clues suggest that the David a n d Goliath story grew f r o m 2 Samuel 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 2 , a
short unit describing the exploits of "David a n d his men," the giant-slayers.
The suggestion that the David a n d Goliath story is a late, s e c o n d a r y addi-
tion to Samuel raises f u r t h e r questions: W h y did s o m e o n e write this episode?
W h y did s o m e o n e insert it here? T h e answer to those questions will help u s
u n c o v e r the m a i n p u r p o s e of the Book of Samuel.

The Ideology of Samuel

Some t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y scholars took the Book of Samuel as an accurate histor-

ical text. For example, J o h n Bright claimed that:
 Saul was a tragic figure. Of splendid appearance, modest, at his best
m a g n a n i m o u s and willing to confess his faults, always fiercely coura-
geous, there was nevertheless in h i m an emotional instability that was
to be his u n d o i n g . Always of a volatile t e m p e r a m e n t capable of frenzies
of excitement, it appears that as pressure was p u t on him he became
increasingly disturbed of m i n d , swinging like a p e n d u l u m between
m o m e n t s of lucidity and black m o o d s in which, incapable to intelligent
action, he indulged in behavior calculated to alienate even those closest
to him. Before the end Saul was probably n o longer quite sane. 2

Bright simply paraphrased the biblical text and removed divine causality. Thus,
according to Bright, it was not God w h o afflicted Saul (1 Sam. 16:14, "an evil
spirit from the LORD began to terrify him") b u t some unspecified mental malady.
Happily, scholars n o w widely recognize h o w u n s o u n d this type of history
writing is. It fails to address the most basic questions about its sources, such as:
W h e n was this text written? W h o wrote it? W h a t was the purpose in writing it?
Obviously, n o one can answer these questions definitively and precisely. We will
not be able to say that this part of Samuel was drafted by some physician n a m e d
J o s e p h w h o lived in Gilgal and, after having visited King Saul on what we n o w
reckon as May 5, 1003 B.C.E., wrote it u p as case notes the next day. However,
by listening for internal hints in the text—by exploring rhetorical features a n d
interpreting them, as I demonstrated earlier in this b o o k — w e can answer some
of our questions, even if the answers m u s t be tentative. O u r answers will deter-
mine h o w we read this unit: as an accurate historical record of the past, or as a
w o r k c o m p o s e d with some other goal in m i n d .
The material from 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8 forms a literary unit. 3 The
character of this material suggests that its main goal is to delegitimate Saul as
king and to legitimate David as Saul's proper successor. The text conveys this
message in a n u m b e r of ways. O n e way is by depicting David as Saul's son, w h o
thus has a "legal" claim to the throne. Portraying David (the J u d e a n ) as the actu-
al son of Saul (the Benjaminite) would exceed the creativity that the audience of
a narrative about the past can tolerate. But the text points to David's "filial" rela-
tionship with Saul by emphasizing that he was the king's son-in-law.
In addition, clothing imagery plays a role in the motif of legitimacy. The
w o r d i n g is even somewhat awkward, so that the point will not be missed:
"Jonathan took off the cloak he was wearing and gave it to David, and his tunic,
including his sword, including his bow, a n d including his belt" (1 Sam. 18:4,
transi, adapted). 4 Thus, J o n a t h a n symbolically t u r n s David into himself—the
eldest son of Saul a n d crown prince. Indeed, m u c h later J o n a t h a n says as m u c h
to David: "You are going to be king over Israel" (1 Sam. 23:17).
 Moreover, the text p u t s the actual w o r d s "my father" a n d "my son" into the
m o u t h s of David a n d Saul, r e s p e c t i v e l y — a l t h o u g h in context those w o r d s ' plain
sense is n o t their literal m e a n i n g . In 1 Samuel 24, David addresses Saul, "Please,
,
avi ( 2 4 : 1 2 )".. . (‫)אב‬. True to its translation a p p r o a c h , the JPS t
ders avi contextually as the honorific "sir," while a d d i n g a footnote: "Lit. '[my]
father.'" In this way, the translators allow that the w o r d i n g has a d o u b l e m e a n -
ing—namely, it f u r t h e r serves to suggest k i n s h i p b e t w e e n David a n d Saul. As the
c h a p t e r c o n t i n u e s , Saul is m a d e to say w i t h a p p a r e n t t e n d e r n e s s , "Is that y o u r
voice, beni ( ‫ ב ל‬, ' m y son') David?" (v. 17). Saul asks the same q u e s t i o n again in
an alternative version of this story (what scholars call a "doublet"; 26:17), rein-
forcing the p a t t e r n of the earlier chapter.
In short, b y c o m b i n i n g passages that in different ways create w h a t m i g h t be
called a pseudogenealogical relationship w i t h Saul, an editor has legitimated
David, m a k i n g h i m into the c r o w n prince rather t h a n a u s u r p e r .
Meanwhile, the text p o r t r a y s David a n d Saul as o p p o s i t e s — i n particular, as
c o n t r a s t i n g positive a n d negative figures. 5 This is true in several ways, starting
w i t h their p h y s i q u e . Saul is described twice as "a h e a d taller t h a n all the people"
(1 Sam. 9:2, 10:23). In contrast, David is twice called ha-katan QûÌ?H; 16:11,
17:14). In context, the plain sense of this w o r d is "the youngest" ( w h i c h is h o w
the JPS translation r e n d e r s it). However, it can also m e a n "the smallest/shortest,"
w h i c h resonates in this story w h e n j u x t a p o s e d w i t h b o t h the giant Goliath a n d
the tall Saul. Descriptions of physical attributes are rare in the Bible; usually
w h e n they appear, it is i m p o r t a n t for the plot. In this case, two p u r p o s e s are
served by the implicit contrast in size. First, it alerts the reader to the subtler
contrasts b e t w e e n David a n d Saul. S e c o n d , it casts a s h a d o w over Saul: he is the
o n e w h o s h o u l d have c o n f r o n t e d Goliath, b u t instead the k i n g lets s o m e y o u n g -
ster w i t h less stature d o so.
Again, clothing imagery conveys a similar message. In 1 Samuel 17, David
tries o n Saul's clothes, b u t they d o n o t fit—David will n o t b e c o m e a n e w Saul.
However, the m a i n set of contrasts b e t w e e n David a n d Saul centers o n m u r d e r .
Specifically, Saul is o n e w h o kills the i n n o c e n t , while David spares even the
guilty. T h u s , Saul tries twice to have David killed by the Philistines (chap. 18).
Moreover, the n a r r a t i o n c o n t i n u e s , "Saul urged his s o n J o n a t h a n a n d all his
courtiers to kill David" (19:1) a n d r e c o u n t s two a t t e m p t s o n David's life ( w .
1 0 - 1 7 ) . Saul even tries to kill his o w n son J o n a t h a n (14:44, 2 0 : 3 3 ) a n d orders
the m u r d e r of the priests of the city of N o b (chap. 22). Saul personally chases
David in a t t e m p t s to kill h i m in c h a p t e r s 23, 24, a n d 26.
In contrast, David h a d easy o p p o r t u n i t i e s to take Saul's life in 1 Samuel 2 4
a n d 26; b u t a l t h o u g h the king was trying to h u n t h i m d o w n , David refused to
kill "the LORD'S anointed" (24:7; 26:11). Likewise, David did not want A b n e r —
Saul's relative and former army officer—killed (2 Sam. 3). He p u n i s h e d those
w h o killed Ish-Bosheth, a son of Saul (chap. 4). Thus, David has compassion
even for those w h o threaten his kingship.
O u r unit further contrasts the two anointed figures by juxtaposing their
treatment of Amalekites. According to legislation in Deuteronomy (25:19), the
Amalekites must be exterminated. In 1 Samuel 1 5 : 2 - 3 , Samuel c o m m a n d s Saul
to carry this law out by killing the Amalekites along with all their cattle. Saul,
however, leaves their king and some of their cattle alive. In contrast, the person
w h o finished off Saul on Mt. Gilboa "just h a p p e n e d " to be an Amalekite (2 Sam.
1:13), a n d David arranges for h i m to be killed immediately. David follows the
law of the ban that Saul had ignored.
O n e of the strongest contrasts between the two characters is that David
receives God's spirit while Saul loses it. At a crucial m o m e n t , Saul is incapable of
receiving a divine oracle (1 Sam. 28), while all David needs to d o is to ask, a n d
the oracle is received (1 Sam. 23:2; 3 0 : 7 - 8 ; 2 Sam. 2:1). Furthermore, David's
oracles are positive, and he defeats his enemies (1 Sam. 23; 2 7 : 7 - 1 2 ; 30), where-
as after a negative oracle Saul a n d m u c h of his family fall to the Philistines
(1 Samuel 28; 31). This pattern, in conjunction with the others, underscores the
narrator's statement that "the spirit of the L O R D gripped David . . . [and] depart-
ed from Saul" (1 Sam. 16:13-14).
I have asserted that this part of Samuel (1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 8) is
a highly ideological text legitimating David as king. Can I prove this interpreta-
tion? No, not in the sense that a scientific fact can be proven. The only "evi-
dence" that we have is the biblical text, whose statements and literary features
need to be explained. O n e explanation is that the text is "simply" recording facts
and events. I reject that explanation for several reasons. Premodern texts, includ-
ing the Bible, show little antiquarian interest and rarely record facts for their o w n
sake. In addition, the structure and other literary features of this material sug-
gest that it seeks something other than the actual past.
Different explanations for a given biblical text need to be weighed against
each other. I believe that the purpose suggested here makes sense of content and
the current of the passage in question better than any other explanation.

Ideology Serves Theology

Although I perceive a conscious and consistent legitimation of David at the

expense of Saul, I do not mean to suggest that it is arbitrary or pure political
p r o p a g a n d a . It also h a s a moral d i m e n s i o n . A key e l e m e n t in this unit is
1 Samuel 15, the story a b o u t Saul's failure to proscribe things Amalekite. It tells
u s that G o d will transfer the k i n g s h i p f r o m Saul (to David) as a direct result of
his d i s d a i n i n g the divine c o m m a n d . In the poetic w o r d s of the p r o p h e t Samuel:
"Because y o u rejected the LORD'S c o m m a n d , / He h a s rejected y o u as king"
(15:23). T h e previous verse, w h i c h s o u n d s very m u c h like the later classical
p r o p h e t s s u c h as A m o s a n d Isaiah, 6 e m p h a s i z e s that "Surely, o b e d i e n c e is better
t h a n sacrifice, / C o m p l i a n c e t h a n the fat of rams." T h u s , this unit of Samuel legit-
imates David w i t h i n a theological f r a m e w o r k : Saul loses his k i n g s h i p w h e n h e
rejects p r o p e r religious n o r m s , a n d , in typical biblical m e a s u r e - f o r - m e a s u r e
m a n n e r , is rejected as k i n g for rejecting God. This p r o n o u n c e m e n t applies n o t
only to King Saul, b u t also to all those w h o follow h i m .

Judges as History

J u d g e s , the b o o k that i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s Samuel, p r e s e n t s itself as the histo-

ry of the period b e t w e e n the c o n q u e s t of the land by J o s h u a a n d the period of
the establishment of the monarchy. T h e people w e r e led by shofetim (singular:
shofet, ‫ ) ש פ ט‬, often translated as "judges" ( t h u s the n a m e of the b o o k ) . However,
since they h a d little to d o w i t h judicial matters, "judges" is a m i s n o m e r . T h e t e r m
is better r e n d e r e d as "chieftains," local or tribal leaders w h o r e s p o n d e d to crises
a n d led their t r i b e — o r in s o m e cases, several t r i b e s — t o battle.
Social scientists have d o c u m e n t e d this type of leadership by local chieftains
in m a n y p r e m o n a r c h i c a l societies. T h u s the Bible's portrayal of Israel's progrès-
sion f r o m chieftain to k i n g is n o t o n l y logical, b u t also m o s t likely historically
true. This does n o t m e a n , however, that the details f o u n d in the Book of J u d g e s
are accurate.
N o n e of the facts or events in J u d g e s is c o r r o b o r a t e d by outside evidence.
Given the m a t t e r s that it deals with, this is n o t at all surprising; these are n o t the
type of significant events that c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s inscriptions w o u l d record. Even
so, it w o u l d be i m p r o p e r to p a r a p h r a s e the b o o k a n d to accept its c h r o n o l o g y as
correct. In the f o r m in w h i c h it h a s c o m e d o w n to us, the b o o k m a y preserve
s o m e accurate historical traditions, b u t these have b e e n r e w o r k e d a n d reorgan-
ized for a p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n telling the past as it really was. T h u s , reconstruct-
ing the "period of j u d g e s " o n the basis of the Book of J u d g e s is perilous.
C h r o n o l o g y is usually seen as the b a c k b o n e of history, yet this b o o k d o e s
n o t offer a consistent time line. For e x a m p l e , J u d g e s o p e n s "after the d e a t h of
J o s h u a " (1:1), yet J o s h u a dies (again?) in 2:8. Regarding the action n a r r a t e d
meanwhile, we cannot tell w h e n it transpired. Furthermore, the last five chap-
ters of the book seem to take place at the same time as the initial chapters. In
18:30, a m a n w h o m the text suggests was Moses' grandson is functioning as a
priest, while in 20:28, Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron is the main priest.
Both of those figures bring us back to the generation after Joshua. However,
according to the central section of Judges, many generations have passed.
In addition, several of the stories contain significant improbabilities. This is
most evident in the final story of Judges, concerning the rape of the concubine
by the Benjaminites of Gibeah. After a m o b rapes this w o m a n nearly to death,
her h u s b a n d "picked u p a knife, and took hold of his concubine and cut her u p
limb by limb into twelve parts. He sent t h e m throughout the territory of Israel"
(19:29), in an attempt to m u s t e r the tribes against the offending Gibeonites and
Benjaminites. Aside from the strangeness of this action, why would he have
needed twelve pieces? After all, Benjamin (one of the twelve tribes) was going to
be attacked, so he would hardly have called it to battle. Thus, this gruesome and
surrealistic story, in its arc a n d in its details, seems to be something other than a
retelling of actual events of the past.

Micro and Macro Structure in Judges

W h e n we are confronted with a story that is set in the past yet seems not to be
portraying the "real" past, we always need to ask: W h y has this story been
shaped in this fashion? Fortunately, the Book of Judges provides ample clues,
both in its stories and in h o w they are combined. Consider another story in
Judges that is clearly not historical:

(3:7) The Israelites did what was offensive to the LORD; they ignored the
LORD their God and worshiped the Baalim and the Asheroth. (8) The
LORD became incensed at Israel and surrendered t h e m to King C u s h a n -
rishathaim of Aram-naharaim; and the Israelites were subject to
Cushan-rishathaim for eight years. (9) The Israelites cried out to the
LORD, a n d the LORD raised a c h a m p i o n for the Israelites to deliver them:
Othniel the Kenizzite, a younger k i n s m a n of Caleb. (10) The spirit of
the LORD descended u p o n him and he became Israel's chieftain. He went
out to war, a n d the LORD delivered King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram
into his hands. He prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim, (11) and the land
had peace for forty years; then Othniel the Kenizzite died, (transi, of v.
11 adapted)
Cushan-rishathaim, the n a m e of the king of Aram-naharaim (often translated as
"Aram of the two rivers"—the Tigris and Euphrates) calls attention to itself: it is
metrically balanced and rhymes with the n a m e of his realm, a quite unusual fea-
ture. More tellingly, the n a m e means "the dark double-wicked one." In ancient
Semitic cultures, names were given by parents at the time of birth, often express-
ing parental feelings u p o n the child's birth—it is hard to u n d e r s t a n d w h y a par-
ent would n a m e a child "the dark double-wicked one." In addition, Aram is to
the n o r t h of Israel, while the judge, Othniel, is a Kenizzite, and t h u s from the
tribe of J u d a h , from the south of Israel. It is hard to grasp why he would fight
against an Aramean—this is like saying that a Texan was the first to defend the
United States after Canada attacked it.
The misplaced geography a n d the oddness of the n a m e of Cushan-
rishathaim would have suggested to ancient readers that this story is something
other than straightforward history. In fact, it is best read as a story about an ideal
J u d e a n defeating pure evil. As the book's first story about a chieftain, it is appro-
priately simple and to the point: all starts out well w h e n J u d a h is in charge.
As m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s have noted, most of the other chieftains in Judges
are quite imperfect heroes. A m o n g other things, they d o u b t God, sacrifice a
daughter, cavort with Philistine w o m e n , a n d break religious vows. In fact, the
chieftains form a pattern: as the narrative progresses from Othniel (of J u d a h , in
the south) to Samson (of Dan, which eventually was the n o r t h e r n m o s t tribe)—
the chieftains become worse a n d worse. This pattern functions to denigrate
n o r t h e r n judges. All told, these stories sharpen the message from the Othniel
account: only J u d e a n leadership is satisfactory.
The beginning and end of Judges together amplify that message. These sec-
tions d o not contain stories about chieftains. Rather, the initial chapters recount
the conquest of the land, in which J u d a h plays a crucial role, defeating those in
its territories—whereas other tribes fail to d o so. Near the e n d of the book, chap-
ters 1 7 - 1 8 depict in a derogatory fashion the origin of worship in the north. The
last three chapters, about the concubine of Gibeah, are a prequel to the set of
stories about Saul in 1 Samuel, which we discussed above. Saul would come
from Gibeah in Benjamin, w h e r e — s o Judges tells u s — t h e people behave in a
h o r r e n d o u s manner. The concubine husband's act (mustering the troops by
c h o p p i n g u p her b o d y a n d sending its pieces to all the tribes) will surely come
to m i n d w h e n we read of Saul's later act: "He took a yoke of oxen and cut them
into pieces, which he sent by messengers throughout the territory of Israel, with
the warning, 'Thus shall be d o n e to the cattle of anyone w h o does not follow
Saul and Samuel into battle!'" (1 Sam. 11:7). By denigrating Gibeah (Saul's birth-
place), Benjamin (Saul's tribe), and Jabesh Gilead (a city closely associated with
Saul), the concubine of Gibeah story is suggesting that there is n o chance that
Saul will be a good king.

Judges and Samuel as Parallel Stories

Judges does not describe accurately the period between Joshua and Saul.
Instead, it parallels the Book of Samuel. Several times it raises the issue of king-
s h i p — b y discussing the possibility of Gideon becoming king (8:22), by high-
lighting Abimelech's role as king of Shechem (chap. 9), and by repeating the for-
mula "in those days there was n o king in Israel" four times in its final five chap-
ters. In this vein, it makes a clear value j u d g m e n t about w h o the proper king is:
he must be an Othniel-like figure w h o hails from J u d a h . He cannot be northern.
He cannot be a Benjaminite—certainly not one from Gibeah like Saul. The peo-
pie of Israel do not ask for a king to replace Samuel, the last chieftain, until
1 Samuel 8. Yet by that point, the Deuteronomistic Historian has already condi-
tioned readers to think that J u d e a n , Davidic kingship is the only legitimate kind.
My title for the present chapter, "May My Lord King David Live Forever,"
reflects I Kings 1:31, the book that follows Samuel. Yet that statement really is
the message of both Judges and Samuel. Reading these two books as factual,
rather than as royal propaganda bolstering the Davidic dynasty and state, would
be a serious error. It w o u l d be like opening a newspaper and reading the edito-
rial pages as factual news.
 13
"For Israel Tore Away from the
House of David"
Reading Kings

Primary Reading: 1 Kings 1-12, 16; 2 Kings 17-25.

History Is Too Important to Leave to Chance1

T hus far I have emphasized that m u c h of what looks like history in the Bible
is really mythological. That is, biblical texts are interested in expressing or
p r o m o t i n g particular views about issues of collective importance (see "Genesis
1 - 3 as Myth" in chapter 6). The issues that these texts explore are sometimes
political and sometimes theological; often they are a combination of both. At
times, these stories incorporate earlier historical traditions, but rarely, if ever, are
those traditions present for their own sake—for what is called "antiquarian
interest." 2 At first glance, the Book of Kings looks different from the rest of this
material.
We will return to Samuel one more time to underline these differences. In
one of Samuel's most central texts, N a t h a n offers David a divine promise con-
cerning his son:

(2 Sam. 7:14) I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me.

W h e n he does wrong, I will chastise him with the rod of m e n a n d the
affliction of mortals; (15) but I will never w i t h d r a w My favor from him
as I withdrew it from Saul, w h o m I removed to make room for you.
(16) Your house and your kingship shall ever be secure before you; your
throne shall be established forever.

Although Kings shares some of these same ideas, it narrates them in a very
different manner. Instead of long, well-styled 3 character studies, most of the
accounts in Kings are short. They also contain different types of details than
Samuel—details of chronology, of tribute paid, of royal building projects, etc. In
other words, the structure and style of the book are unlike the books of the early
prophets that precede it. This raises the question of whether we should give the
traditions it contains the benefit of the d o u b t , and if we should treat Kings as
history, in our m o d e r n sense. The answer is that Kings is like the other books of
the Bible we have examined: it presents historical information for the sake of
other agendas. The following sections will explain why.

The Chronology of Kings

In discussing w h y Judges is not history, I noted that whereas chronology is the

"backbone" of history, Judges is out of chronological order (see "Judges as
History" in chapter 12). The same critique applies to Kings. Although it supplies
chronological notes more o f t e n — a n d in more detail—if we look carefully we
will see that Kings too is out of chronological order.
We need look no farther than the first long unit in Kings, which concerns
Solomon, a son of David w h o followed him as king. Near that unit's end we read:
"When Hadad heard in Egypt that David h a d been laid to rest with his fathers
and that Joab the army c o m m a n d e r was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, 'Give me
leave to go to m y own country"' (1 Kings 11:21). Clearly, this m u s t have tran-
spired very early in Solomon's reign, not at the e n d of it. This suggests that the
text is doing something other than recalling the reign of Solomon as it actually
h a p p e n e d in correct chronological order.
Even the detailed chronological notes themselves sometimes provide prob-
lems. In the following excerpt from 1 Kings 16, note the years w h e n different
reigns begin and end. H o w well d o they fit together? 4

(15) During the twenty-seventh year of King Asa of J u d a h , Zimri

reigned in Tirzah for seven days. At the time, the troops were e n c a m p e d
at Gibbethon of the Philistines. (16) W h e n the troops w h o were
e n c a m p e d there learned that Zimri h a d committed treason and had
struck d o w n the king, that very day, in the camp, all Israel acclaimed
the army c o m m a n d e r O m r i king over Israel. (17) Orari and all Israel
then withdrew from Gibbethon and laid siege to Tirzah. (18) W h e n
Zimri saw that the town was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal
palace a n d b u r n e d d o w n the royal palace over himself. And so he
d i e d — (19) because of the sins which he committed and caused Israel
to commit, doing what was displeasing to the L O R D and following the
ways of Jeroboam. (20) The other events of Zimri's reign, and the trea-
son which he committed, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of
 Israel. (21) Then the people of Israel split into two factions: a part of the
people followed Tibni son of Ginath to make h i m king, and the other
part followed Omri. (22) Those w h o followed Omri proved stronger
than those w h o followed Tibni son of Ginath; Tibni died a n d O m r i
became king. (23) In the thirty-first year of King Asa of J u d a h , O m r i
became king over Israel—for twelve years. He reigned in Tirzah six
years. (24) Then he b o u g h t the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two tal-
ents of silver; he built a town on the hill and n a m e d the town which he
built Samaria, after Shemer, the owner of the hill. (25) O m r i did what
was displeasing to the LORD; he was worse than all w h o preceded him.
(26) He followed all the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat a n d the sins
which he committed a n d caused Israel to commit, vexing the LORD, the
God of Israel, with their futilities. (27) The other events of Omri's reign,
a n d his actions, a n d the exploits he performed, are recorded in the
Annals of the Kings of Israel. (28) Omri slept with his fathers and was
buried in Samaria; a n d his son Ahab succeeded him as king. (29) Ahab
son of O m r i became king over Israel in the thirty-eighth year of King
Asa of J u d a h , and Ahab son of O m r i reigned over Israel in Samaria for
twenty-two years.

If Zimri only reigned for seven days, a n d began to reign during the twenty-sev-
enth year of King Asa (v. 15), h o w did his successor, Omri, begin to reign in the
thirty-first year of King Asa (v. 23)? If O m r i became king in the thirty-first year
of Asa and reigned for twelve years (v. 23), h o w is it possible that his son, Ahab,
began to reign in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (v. 29)? There is n o obvious way
to solve this arithmetic problem. Some scholars speculate that two kings reigned
for the same time and their regnal years counted for both kings. 5 Unfortunately,
the biblical text itself attests only rarely to such "co-regencies" and justifies t h e m
w h e n they were necessary (e.g., the first king became seriously ill).

Other Historical Issues in Kings

A closer look at this section reveals other types of problems, that is, issues that
m o d e r n historians might be curious about, but that the text does not address.
For example: W h o favored Zimri and w h o favored Omri? Likewise, w h o favored
Tibni over Omri (1 Kings 16:21)? H o w and w h y did O m r i s faction win (v. 22)?
W h y did Omri move his capital, a n d why did he choose Samaria (v. 24)? The
biblical historian shows little interest in these sorts of questions, which would
preoccupy the m o d e r n historian.
Instead, the DtrH is mostly interested in evaluating each of these kings and
noting their negative behavior. This is especially remarkable concerning Zimri,
w h o reigned only for seven days, yet is c o n d e m n e d "because of the sins w h i c h
he committed a n d caused Israel to commit, doing what was displeasing to the
L O R D a n d following the ways of Jeroboam" ( 1 Kings 1 6 : 1 9 ) . The sin is King
Jeroboam's building of cult sites with golden calves in Bethel a n d Dan
( 1 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) , an action seen as horrific by the DtrH, since these sites c o m p e t e d
with Jerusalem, site of the Temple a n d royal house. But h o w m u c h worship
could Zimri have d o n e in seven days, especially while he was engaged in a civil
war? Rather, the c o m m e n t in 1 Kings 16:19 is part of the stereotyped evaluation
of each n o r t h e r n king by the DtrH, a J u d e a n , w h o will not miss a chance to den-
igrate the north.
Although we k n o w of only a small n u m b e r of extrabiblical sources that bear
directly on the Bible, a n u m b e r of these cluster a r o u n d the reign of Omri. The
Mesha Inscription, written in Moabite (a Semitic language very close to Hebrew),
notes: "Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for m a n y days, for
C h e m o s h was angry with his land." 6 (Incidentally, the Moabites attributed the
oppression of Moab to the anger of C h e m o s h , their high god. Israel was n o t
alone in the ancient Near East in believing that deities directly participated in
history.) In addition, Assyrian records from more than a century after the time of
O m r i — a n d even after the end of his d y n a s t y — c o n t i n u e to call N o r t h e r n Israel
"the house of Omri." 7 This suggests that b o t h O m r i a n d the dynasty he estab-
lished were militarily powerful. Yet, the biblical text barely mentions this.
Although the closing notice in 1 Kings 16:27 m e n t i o n s Omri's "actions" (or, "his
mighty deeds"), it offers n o details.
In s u m , Kings is not fundamentally different from the previous "historical
books" we have examined. It may look a bit different, and may preserve a high-
er percentage of correct traditions, b u t this is a difference of extent, not of kind.
As the following examples will show, Kings is not interested in the past for its
o w n sake, b u t for m u c h more important reasons—for teaching ideological a n d
theological lessons.

Solomon

The Solomon material in Kings closely fits this description. Even a cursory read-
ing of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 suggests that its perspective differs from that of a m o d e r n
historian of antiquity. The text tells us almost n o t h i n g about Solomon before he
accedes to the throne other than the fact that "the L O R D favored him" ( 2 Sam.
1 2 : 2 4 ) . Many passages in Kings deal with his building projects in exacting detail;
nevertheless, these passages contain contradictions. For example, 1 Kings 5:27,
in discussing Solomon's b u i l d i n g projects, says that "King S o l o m o n i m p o s e d
forced labor on all Israel," while 9 : 2 0 - 2 2 claims, "All the people that were left of
the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, a n d Jebusites w h o were n o t of the
Israelite stock . . . of these S o l o m o n m a d e a slave force, as is still the case. But
he did n o t r e d u c e any Israelites to slavery . . .." Did S o l o m o n use Israelite forced
labor or not?
O t h e r details in the story seem to be extremely unlikely, for e x a m p l e the
suggestion that the u s u r p e r A d o n i j a h asked for Abishag the S h u n a m m i t e , w h o
w a r m e d David in his old age (1 Kings 1), as a wife. This w o u l d have b e e n tan-
t a m o u n t to asking for the late king's wife, or at the very least, to asking to m a r r y
a senior m e m b e r of the f o r m e r royal court. It w o u l d have suggested to S o l o m o n
that A d o n i j a h still w a n t e d to be king, in c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h h i m . 8 Certainly,
A d o n i j a h s h o u l d have k n o w n that S o l o m o n w o u l d view his request as an
a t t e m p t to u s u r p the t h r o n e , a n d that he w o u l d be p u n i s h e d with d e a t h (see v.
25). It is likely that the reason for this story is that the n a r r a t o r w a n t e d to get rid
of A d o n i j a h w i t h o u t m a k i n g S o l o m o n responsible, a n d creating this incident
p r o v i d e d the ideal way to d o it.
If the material a b o u t S o l o m o n was not arranged chronologically, a n d if it is
not interested in a complete, balanced, or objective picture of Solomon's life,
h o w is it arranged, a n d w h a t is it interested in doing? 9
In o r d e r to a n s w e r these q u e s t i o n s we will first look at the structure of the
text. T h e following sets of verses parallel each o t h e r in c o n t e n t a n d structure,
a n d will h e l p u s to divide the first eleven c h a p t e r s into sections:

1 Kings 3 1 Kings 9

(1) S o l o m o n allied himself by marriage (24) As s o o n as Pharaoh's d a u g h t e r

w i t h P h a r a o h king of Egypt. He m a r -
ried Pharaoh's d a u g h t e r a n d b r o u g h t
h e r to the City of David to live there
until he h a d finished b u i l d i n g his
palace, a n d the H o u s e of the LORD, a n d
the walls a r o u n d Jerusalem. (2) T h e
people, however, c o n t i n u e d to offer
sacrifices at the o p e n shrines, because
u p to that time n o h o u s e h a d b e e n
built for the n a m e of the LORD. (3) A n d
S o l o m o n , t h o u g h h e loved the LORD
a n d followed the practices of his father
David, also sacrificed a n d offered at
the shrines.
w e n t u p f r o m the City of David to the
palace that he h a d built for her, he
built the Millo. (25) S o l o m o n u s e d to
offer b u r n t offerings a n d sacrifices of
well-being three times a year o n the
altar that he h a d built for the LORD,
a n d he u s e d to offer incense o n the
o n e that was before the LORD. A n d he
kept the H o u s e in repair.
 Using these parallels to divide 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 i n t o sections, the following o u t -
line c o m e s into view:

Accession of S o l o m o n to the t h r o n e ( 1 - 2 ) 1 0
S o l o m o n follows G o d a n d is blessed ( 3 : 1 - 9 : 2 3 )
S o l o m o n does n o t follow G o d a n d is cursed ( 9 : 2 6 - 1 1 : 4 0 )
Typical D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c c o n c l u s i o n f o r m u l a ( 1 1 : 4 1 - 4 3 )

This organization is theological rather t h a n chronological. I n d e e d , it mirrors the

s t r u c t u r e of the material a b o u t David in the Book of Samuel. There, David is
blessed u p until the time that he sins w i t h Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11, after w h i c h
p o i n t almost n o t h i n g s e e m s to go right for D a v i d s family.

The Laws of the King

This material f r o m Kings is part of the DtrH, so it is n o t surprising that S o l o m o n

a p p e a r s to be cursed for violating the laws of D e u t e r o n o m y Deuteronomy
1 7 : 1 6 - 1 7 , the b e g i n n i n g of w h a t is o f t e n called "the laws of the king," notes:

Moreover, he shall n o t k e e p m a n y horses or send people b a c k to Egypt

to a d d to his horses, since the LORD h a s w a r n e d y o u , "You m u s t n o t go
back that way again." A n d he shall n o t have m a n y wives, lest his heart
go astray; n o r shall he amass silver a n d gold to excess.

1 Kings 9 : 2 6 - 1 1 : 4 0 outlines h o w S o l o m o n violated all three of these

prohibitions:

• In 9 : 2 8 - 1 0 : 2 5 , S o l o m o n a c c u m u l a t e s excessive wealth t h r o u g h his c o n -

tact w i t h the Q u e e n of Sheba a n d others. Verse 10:14 notes that
S o l o m o n annually received 6 6 6 talents of g o l d — o v e r 5 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. a year.
• In 1 0 : 2 6 - 2 9 , S o l o m o n p r o c u r e s m a n y horses, a n d m a n y of t h e m c o m e
f r o m Egypt.
• In c h a p t e r 11, S o l o m o n marries many foreign wives, w h o (v. 3) " t u r n e d
his heart away."

T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to the D t r H , G o d p u n i s h e d S o l o m o n for g o o d reason. (The

p u n i s h m e n t came after his death; it consisted of his son's losing part of the king-
d o m w h e n the n o r t h e r n tribes seceded after R e h o b o a m dismissed their petition
to lighten their corvée b u r d e n . )
Regarding the third p r o h i b i t i o n that S o l o m o n violates, the initial verses o n
this topic present themselves as a quote: "of which the L O R D had said to the
Israelites." Indeed, what follows, "None of you shall join them and n o n e of them
shall join you, lest they t u r n your heart away to follow their gods" is a para-
phrase of Deuteronomy 7. That text had charged Israel with proscribing the
nations of Canaan, holding that "You shall not intermarry with them: d o not give
your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For they will
turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the LORD'S anger
will blaze forth against you and He will promptly wipe you out" (7:3-4).
Strikingly, the text in 1 Kings 1 1 : 1 - 2 , which seems to be merely citing
Deuteronomy, is actually extending the Deuteronomic laws. Deuteronomy 7 pro-
hibited intermarriage only with the seven resident nations of Canaan (including
Hittites); 2 3 : 4 - 7 prohibit intermarriage with the neighboring Moabites and
Ammonites; 2 3 : 8 - 9 permit intermarriage with Egyptians and Edomites three
generations after Moses. However, 1 Kings 11:1 spotlights Solomon's Egyptian,
Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Phoenician, and Hittite wives. Of these, Deuter-
o n o m y outlawed only his Moabite, Ammonite, and Hittite wives. Hence, 1 Kings
extends the injunctions of Deuteronomy in their widest sense, to include
Egyptian, Edomite, and Phoenician w o m e n — p e r h a p s even all non-Israelite
women!
This type of stringency or extension of the law is quite c o m m o n in rabbinic
texts, w h i c h develop the notion of "making a fence a r o u n d the Torah" to safe-
guard it. 1 1 However, 1 Kings 11 d e m o n s t r a t e s that this was not a rabbinic
invention, b u t that it existed already in the biblical period. In fact, it is even
possible that 1 Kings 11 represents a type of protorabbinic interpretation. It is
as if the a u t h o r of that text were saying: "Deuteronomy is prohibiting specific
foreign wives because 'they will t u r n y o u r children away from [God] to wor-
ship other gods, a n d the LORD'S anger will blaze forth . . .' Is it only wives from
the seven Canaanite nations w h o can lead Israelite m e n astray? Certainly n o t —
any non-Israelite can, t h u s marriage with any non-Israelite w o m a n m u s t be
prohibited."
Such an evolution in legal interpretation, if my u n d e r s t a n d i n g of it is cor-
rect, is remarkable in two ways. First, it shows the audacity of the biblical
author, w h o (just like the rabbis) extends the law while insisting that this is what
God really said or meant. Second, it shows that rabbinic-type interpretation did
not begin in the rabbinic period, but had significant roots in the biblical peri-
o d . 1 2 The fact that we find this type of protorabbinic interpretation in biblical
"historical" texts is another reason to be cautious about using these texts to
reconstruct the real history of Israel.
Archaeological History

Some readers may object to my skepticism about using 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 to recon-

struct the history of the reign of Solomon. They may point to the excavation of
Solomon's stables in Megiddo or the Solomonic royal gates at the cities of
Megiddo, Hazor, a n d Gezer (see 1 Kings 9:15), to corroborate the biblical
a c c o u n t . 1 3 However, more recent scholarship has raised significant questions
about the stratigraphy—the study of levels a n d their dating—at these cities. It is
uncertain if the royal gates should be dated to Solomon or later; 1 4 in any case,
most scholars agree that the Solomonic Stables are neither stables (they are store-
rooms) nor Solomonic. 1 5 These cases that remind us that archaeology is not
objective, and that it is dangerous to use archaeology in a circular fashion to con-
firm the Bible.

Jerusalem in 701

Even t h o u g h we need to be cautious about reading the Bible as history, scholars

have reached a consensus about key events in the year 701 B.C.E. The Assyrian
king Sennacherib came d o w n the Mediterranean coast, vanquished m a n y city-
states, and fought against King Hezekiah of Judea, c o n q u e r i n g m a n y J u d e a n
cities. The Assyrian army besieged but did not c o n q u e r Jerusalem. The conver-
gence of evidence from a wide range of sources—texts from the Bible a n d from
Assyria, the Assyrian palace's wall-relief depictions, and other archaeological
finds (especially a r o u n d the conquered Israelite city of Lachish)—allows us to
reconstruct the outlines of that campaign with confidence. 1 6
In fact, there is remarkable agreement between the account of the siege
given in Sennacherib's Annals about his third campaign, and the short account
in 2 Kings 1 8 : 1 3 - 1 6 . The annals, a genre of historical inscriptions u p d a t e d year-
ly, were organized chronologically according to (military) campaigns. They read:

In my third campaign, I marched against Hatti [Upper S y r i a ] . . . . As for

Hezekiah, 1 7 the J u d e a n , I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities
a n d s u r r o u n d i n g smaller towns, which were without number. Using
p a c k e d - d o w n r a m p s a n d battering rams . . . I conquered [them]. I took
out 2 0 0 , 1 5 0 people, 1 8 y o u n g a n d old, male and female, horses, mules,
. . . a n d sheep without n u m b e r a n d counted t h e m as spoil. He himself,
I locked u p within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. . . . He,
Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship,
 a n d he sent m e after m y d e p a r t u r e to N i n e v e h , m y royal city . . . 3 0 tal-
ents of gold, 8 0 0 talents of silver . . . e l e p h a n t h i d e s . . . his male a n d
female singers. 1 g

W h y d o Assyrian inscriptions m e n t i o n a siege of J e r u s a l e m b u t n o t the city's

c o n q u e s t ? S u c h inscriptions t e n d e d n o t to lie, a l t h o u g h they did t e n d to omit
u n p l e a s a n t facts. T h u s it a p p e a r s that the u p s t a r t city survived the siege ( w h i c h
Assyria lifted only after H e z e k i a h agreed to pay a large tribute to S e n n a c h e r i b ) .
A small part of the biblical d e s c r i p t i o n of these events reads:

(2 Kings 18:13) In the f o u r t e e n t h year of King H e z e k i a h , King Senna-

c h e r i b of Assyria m a r c h e d against all the fortified t o w n s of J u d a h a n d
seized t h e m . (14) King H e z e k i a h sent this message to the k i n g of Assyria
at Lachish: "I have d o n e w r o n g ; w i t h d r a w f r o m m e ; a n d I shall bear
w h a t e v e r y o u i m p o s e o n m e . " So the k i n g of Assyria i m p o s e d u p o n
King H e z e k i a h of J u d a h a p a y m e n t of three h u n d r e d talents of silver
a n d thirty talents of gold. (15) H e z e k i a h gave h i m all the silver that w a s
o n h a n d in the H o u s e of the LORD a n d in the treasuries of the palace.
(16) At that time Hezekiah cut d o w n the d o o r s a n d the d o o r p o s t s of the
Temple of the LORD, w h i c h King H e z e k i a h h a d overlaid w i t h gold, a n d
gave t h e m to the k i n g of Assyria.

T h e p o i n t s of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n these verses a n d the Assyrian a n n a l s are

r e m a r k a b l e : cities c o n q u e r e d , J e r u s a l e m saved, a n d tribute paid, even exact
a g r e e m e n t o n the n u m b e r of gold talents.
T h e Book of Kings, h o w e v e r , goes o n to r e c o u n t this event for a n o t h e r t w o
a n d half c h a p t e r s , t h r o u g h c h a p t e r 21. It is clear that this passage is f r o m a dif-
ferent s o u r c e t h a n 1 8 : 1 3 - 1 6 . T h o s e f o u r verses always spell the n a m e of
H e z e k i a h as Chizkiyah ( ‫ — ח ז ק י ה‬s i x times), while the c o n t i n u a t i o n spells it as
Chizkiyahu ( ‫ — ח ז ק י ה ו‬m o r e t h a n t w e n t y times). S u c h variation w a s c o m m o n in
n a m e s c o n t a i n i n g G o d s n a m e (YHWH), w h e r e i n the latter m a y be spelled either
‫ ; י ה ו‬or ‫ י ה‬. However, any given a u t h o r w o u l d t e n d to use o n e f o r m or the o t h e r
consistently. 2 0 T h e shift in spelling therefore implies that the material following
2 Kings 1 8 : 1 6 is f r o m a different s o u r c e or s o u r c e s . 2 1
This material is quite different in tone a n d c o n t e n t . W h a t is m o s t striking is
the w a y in w h i c h it e m p h a s i z e s , even o v e r e m p h a s i z e s , the salvation of J e r u s a l e m .
T h e first part of Kings c o n t a i n s a p r o p h e c y f r o m Isaiah to the k i n g of Assyria:

(19:32) Assuredly, t h u s said the LORD c o n c e r n i n g the king of Assyria: /

He shall n o t enter this city: / He shall n o t shoot an arrow at it, / O r
advance u p o n it w i t h a shield, / O r pile u p a siege m o u n d against it. /
 (33) He shall go back / By the way he came; / He shall not enter this
city—declares the L O R D . / ( 3 4 ) I will protect a n d save this city for My
sake, / And for the sake of My servant David.

The next verse notes, "that night an angel of the L O R D w e n t out a n d struck
d o w n one h u n d r e d and eighty-five t h o u s a n d in the Assyrian c a m p , a n d the fol-
lowing m o r n i n g they were all dead corpses." The following chapter, beginning
in verse 12, describes a visit by the Babylonian king Berodach-baladan (also
called Merodach-baladan) to Hezekiah. That episode is clearly out of order, since
the passage is actually describing a Babylonian visit to J u d e a to help form a coali-
tion to fight against Assyria a n d t h u s is earlier than 7 0 1 . 2 2
M o d e r n scholars' analysis of this material about the events of 701 has taught
us a great deal about the writing of historical texts a n d h o w to read them. The
texts employ multiple sources for the same event. They mix fact with fiction or
highly embellished history. We see again that chronology was n o t the most
important organizing factor for these historians writing texts about the past. We
also witness h o w theology enters h i s t o r y — t h e main object of the text in its final
f o r m is to emphasize the inviolability of Jerusalem. Perhaps we can m a k e o u r
point typographically, c o m p a r i n g three versions of the campaign. Nowadays a
good historian recounting the events w o u l d write:
The Assyrian army destroyed m a n y J u d e a n cities a n d towns b u t did not cap-
ture Jerusalem.
However, what the Assyrian annals wrote a m o u n t s to:

The Assyrian army destroyed many Judean cities and

towns but did not capture Jerusalem

In contrast, the account in Kings implies a s u m m a r y like this:

The Assyrian army destroyed many Judean cities and towns but did not capture
Jerusalem.
In short, readers w o u l d d o well not to underestimate the role of this—or any
other—historian in emphasizing one event at the expense of another.

More Why than What

It should n o w be clear w h y I o p e n e d the present chapter with the s u b h e a d i n g

"History is too important to leave to chance." While w i t h o u t question Kings con-
tains m a n y facts, they were not of p a r a m o u n t importance to its author. Like
other biblical historians, this author cared m u c h more about "why" than about
"what." Here was an interpreter of the community's foundational history, not a
university professor of history writing for the record. (In that sense, biblical his-
tory is like contemporary popular history, or newscasts—as the highly ideologi-
cal TV news stations report it. These media can give us a model to u n d e r s t a n d
biblical history, and vice versa.) In some cases, the traditions as the biblical
author k n e w them did not m a k e the point he wanted to make clearly enough,
a n d so those traditions became malleable, a n d were changed; in some cases, tra-
ditions were completely m a d e up. (The traditions concerning Solomon's m a n y
wives probably belong in this category, since they almost entirely use
Deuteronomistic phraseology, a n d t h u s they were likely products of this school.)
We will see the results of this editorial process even more clearly in the next
chapter, as we explore the late biblical b o o k of Chronicles.
 14
Revisionist History
Reading Chronicles
mmwmbbmmbwbwbmbìwmwwmmm^

Primary Reading: 1 Chronicles 1, 5, 20; 2 Chronicles 7, 33, 35.

An Unpropitious Beginning

T h e Book of C h r o n i c l e s o p e n s w i t h the dullest material imaginable, u s e f u l

if y o u are ever h a v i n g t r o u b l e falling asleep: "(1:1) A d a m , Seth, E n o s h ;
(2) K e n a n , Mahalalel, Jared; (3) E n o c h , M e t h u s e l a h , Lamech; (4) N o a h , S h e m ,
H a m , a n d J a p h e t h . " 1 Most of the first n i n e c h a p t e r s read similarly, s o m e t i m e s
c o n t a i n i n g short interesting n o t e s , b u t mostly j u s t o n e genealogy after the next.
S o m e o n e m u s t have f o u n d this interesting, or at least i m p o r t a n t . I n d e e d , we
k n o w that in the p e r i o d of Chronicles, m o s t likely the f o u r t h c e n t u r y B.C.E.,
J e w s highly valued genealogies. All t w e n t y - o n e biblical o c c u r r e n c e s of the v e r b
y-ch-s ( ‫ י ח ש‬, "to be registered b y genealogy") a p p e a r either in C h r o n i c l e s or in the
c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s b o o k of E z r a - N e h e m i a h . 2 Ezra 2:62 m e n t i o n s certain priests
w h o "searched for their genealogical records, b u t they c o u l d n o t b e f o u n d , so
they were disqualified for the p r i e s t h o o d . " P r i e s t h o o d in ancient Israel at that
p o i n t in time w a s c o n s i d e r e d to be hereditary. Remarkably, priests k e p t a n d
u p d a t e d s u c h records in the Babylonian exile a n d b e y o n d .
Genealogies played a l e a d i n g role in legitimating various g r o u p s or individ-
uals, as m a y be seen f r o m Chronicles. F o r e x a m p l e , we saw above (see "The
J o s e p h Story" in c h a p t e r 7) that the n a r r a t o r of Genesis displaces Jacob's first
three sons, R e u b e n , S i m e o n , a n d Levi, w i t h t w o y o u n g e r sons, J u d a h (ancestor
of David) a n d J o s e p h (ancestor of the first line of N o r t h e r n kings). By the time
the C h r o n i c l e r (the a u t h o r of C h r o n i c l e s 3 ) w a s writing, this w a s i m p o r t a n t his-
tory, especially since the ten n o r t h e r n tribes were almost c o m p l e t e l y "lost," a n d
it w a s largely J u d e a n s , eventually called Jews, w h o r e t u r n e d f r o m the Babylonian
exile. 4 T h u s , the genealogy of J u d a h p r e c e d e s that of any of the o t h e r c h i l d r e n
of J a c o b (1 C h r o n . 2 : 3 - 4 : 2 5 ) , a n d it is the longest of s u c h genealogies. As n o t e d
earlier, the following introduction to the genealogy of firstborn Reuben makes it
quite clear w h y Reuben follows J u d a h :

(1 Chron. 5:1) The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel. (He was the
first-born; b u t w h e n he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given
to the sons of J o s e p h son of Israel, so he is not reckoned as first-born in
the genealogy; (2) t h o u g h J u d a h became more powerful than his broth-
ers and a leader came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.)

This is a retelling in miniature of the J o s e p h story in Genesis.

A Made-up Genealogy
The Chronicler also creates genealogies to solve problems in his sources. O n e
problem presented by Samuel and Kings is the claim that the main J u d e a n priest
at the time of David was Zadok, yet Z a d o k s genealogy is never given. Some
scholars posit—for the text n o w h e r e states this—that originally, Zadok officiât-
ed at a Canaanite shrine in Jerusalem; he was "inherited" by David w h o , as
Israel's king, c o n q u e r e d that city. 5 For the Chronicler, however, the idea that a
high priest h a d n o legitimate genealogy was impossible. Given the importance
of having proper priests in his period, he h a d to "find" a proper genealogy for
Zadok, connecting him to Aaron, the first priest and brother of Moses.
According to most scholars, the Chronicler accomplishes this by m a k i n g u p a
genealogy, w h i c h asserts that Zadok is directly descended from Aaron:

(5:29) The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, a n d Miriam. The sons of

Aaron: N a d a b , Abihu, Eleazar, a n d Ithamar. (30) Eleazar begot
Phinehas, Phinehas begot Abishua, (31) Abishua begot Bukki, Bukki
begot Uzzi, (32) Uzzi begot Zerahiah, Zerahiah begot Meraioth,
(33) Meraioth begot Amariah, Amariah begot Ahitub, (34) Ahitub begot
Zadok . . .

This fabricated genealogy "solves" the problem of the earlier books of Samuel
and Kings.

The Method of "Historical Probability"

The notion that the Chronicler m a d e u p genealogies is paralleled by cases where

he fabricated history. To many, this way of looking at Scripture may be offensive,
b u t we must r e m e m b e r that the recollection of historical traditions in this peri-
od was different than it is now. There was little or n o interest in history for its
own sake, that is, for what it taught about the real past. History mattered because
of what it taught about the present, including the legitimacy of the main priest-
ly clan.
Moreover, ancient historians may not have realized that they were m a n i p u -
lating "facts." The classicist Elias Bickerman used the term "historical probabili-
ty" to describe the Chronicler's m e t h o d . 6 This refers to the way people make
sense of data, based on their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w the world functions. For
example, those with a certain notion of "historical probability" d o u b t the find-
ings of the Warren Commission that a lone g u n m a n assassinated J o h n F
Kennedy in 1963, despite the great deal of evidence in support of that theory.
Instead, they might say that Kennedy was killed by a c o m m u n i s t — o r a CIA
plot—based on their belief about h o w events h a p p e n . That underlying belief is
their notion of "historical probability." The Chronicler as a historian‫ ׳‬also had
certain ideas about h o w things h a p p e n . For him, it was clear that Zadok had to
be descended from Aaron—so he supplied the scenario that seemed most likely.

When in Doubt, Leave it Out

Just as the Chronicler a d d s material w h e n it suits his purposes, he also leaves

material out. Sometimes material is left out simply because it is n o longer rele-
vant. For example, w h e n (the first edition of) the Book of Kings was written,
everyone remembered the N o r t h e r n Kingdom; while m u c h of its populace h a d
gone into exile in Assyria, some of its refugees h a d f o u n d their way to J u d a h .
Thus, the Book of Kings relates various traditions about the N o r t h e r n Kingdom,
in particular those that make J u d a h seem superior. By the time the Book of
Chronicles was written, the N o r t h e r n Kingdom was a distant memory. T h u s
(although Chronicles retells the history from Adam through the Babylonian exile
and the beginning of the following restoration) it omits the traditions about the
North, except for w h e n that k i n g d o m interacted with J u d a h . 8 Thus, the confus-
ing shifts back and forth in Kings concerning O m r i and Ahab are simply absent.
Because the North was irrelevant, illegitimate, or both, its traditions did not bear
repeating. Similarly, Chronicles does not m e n t i o n the reign of Saul, w h o pre-
ceded David, for only the kingship of David a n d his descendents n o w mattered.
As a national symbol, David plays a more important role in Chronicles than
in the Deuteronomistic History. For this reason the Chronicler omitted negative
material concerning David, especially his affair with Bathsheba and the p u n i s h -
ments that followed it. 9 In the book of Samuel, the "Bathsheba affair" takes place
during a war against the Ammonites. Chronicles retains the first verse of that
source with m i n o r changes (2 Sam. 12:1, paralleled in 1 Chron. 20:1), b u t fol-
lows it immediately with the account about the end of the war (2 Sam.
1 2 : 3 0 - 3 1 , paralleled in 1 Chron. 2 0 : 2 - 3 ) . Chronicles omits entirely David's
affair with Bathsheba, the m u r d e r of Uriah, the rebuke by the prophet Nathan,
and the death of David and Bathsheba's first child (2 Sam. 12:2-29). It simply
did not h a p p e n .
Chronicles similarly omits the unflattering set of events that h a p p e n e d next
in Samuel: the rape of David's daughter Tamar by A m n o n , her half-brother; the
m u r d e r of A m n o n by his half-brother Absalom; and the (largely successful)
rebellion by Absalom, followed by his death. These events suggest a measure-
for-measure p u n i s h m e n t of David and his house. They reflect badly on David,
so the Chronicler omitted t h e m (perhaps with the h o p e that his book would dis-
place Samuel as an authoritative version of history). Instead of David spending
the e n d of his life in ignominy, according to Chronicles he s p e n d s these years
preparing for Solomon to build the Temple. The Chronicler composes a long
section (1 Chronicles 2 2 - 2 9 ) to illustrate this point.
The Chronicler may also have viewed as "unseemly" the transition from
David to Solomon in the first two chapters of Kings. There, David is old and
impotent (see 1 Kings 1:4), his son Adonijah tries to assume the throne while
David is still alive, a n d the m a j o r players are divided about w h o the next king
should be. Ultimately, after some behind-the-scenes activity and overreaching by
a rival, Solomon's claim to the throne is assured. Chronicles mentions n o n e of
this. In its place, 2 Chronicles 1:1 states: "Solomon son of David took firm hold
of his k i n g d o m , for the L O R D his God was with him and m a d e him exceedingly
great." According to Chronicles, the transition from David to Solomon was
s m o o t h a n d uncomplicated. W h e n in d o u b t , leave it out!

Rewriting History

Comparison of Chronicles and its sources reveals h u n d r e d s of cases where the

Chronicler changed his sources in various ways—not only m i n o r u p d a t i n g of
language and spelling (e.g., from ΎΠ, as the earlier spelling of "David," to ΎΎΤ),
but also significant ideological changes. As we discussed above, the notion of
"historical probability" is responsible for m a n y of these changes. Two examples
will illustrate this in greater detail.
According to the Book of Kings, the J u d e a n King Manasseh was the worst of
all kings—he revived idolatry in the Temple (2 Kings 2 1 : 4 - 5 ) and he "put so
m a n y innocent persons to death that he filled Jerusalem with blood from end to
end" (2 Kings 21:16). Yet, according to the regnal formula in 1 Kings 21:55, he
reigned for 55 years. It seems not to have disturbed the final editor of Kings that
the worst king of J u d a h was also the longest reigning—longer even than David
or Solomon, w h o each reigned forty years! But it did bother the Chronicler, most
likely because he had a different idea of personal retribution than the
Deuteronomistic historian—an idea more like Ezekiel 18:4: "The person w h o
sins, only he shall die" (see "Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19).
To the Chronicler, Manasseh could be "explained" in two ways—either he
reigned for a m u c h shorter period, or Kings left out material that would account
for such a long reign despite a period of wickedness. The Chronicler chose the
latter option, depicting Manasseh as a model penitent:

(2 Chron. 33:11) So the LORD brought against them the officers of the
army of the king of Assyria, w h o took Manasseh captive in manacles,
b o u n d h i m in fetters, a n d led him off to Babylon. (12) In his distress,
he entreated the LORD his God and h u m b l e d himself greatly before the
God of his fathers. (13) He prayed to Him, and He granted his prayer,
heard his plea, a n d returned him to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then
Manasseh k n e w that the LORD alone was God. (14) Afterward he built
the outer wall of the City of David west of Gihon in the wadi on the way
to the Fish Gate, and it encircled Ophel; he raised it very high. He also
placed army officers in all the fortified towns of J u d a h . (15) He removed
the foreign gods a n d the image from the House of the LORD, as well as
all the altars that he had built on the Mount of the House of the LORD
a n d in Jerusalem, and d u m p e d t h e m outside the city. (16) He rebuilt the
altar of the LORD and offered on it sacrifices of well-being and thanks-
giving, and c o m m a n d e d the people of J u d a h to worship the LORD God
of Israel.

T h u s Manasseh deserved to be blessed with the longest reign of all.

But these events never h a p p e n e d — i n fact, they could not have h a p p e n e d .
Manasseh was a vassal not of Babylon but of Assyria (see "Deuteronomy as a
Treaty" in chapter 10); thus he w o u l d not have been brought to Babylon. Only
a writer w o r k i n g centuries later could say this—a writer w h o wished to teach
that even if you are as bad as Manasseh and have been p u n i s h e d for your griev-
ous sins, if you repent, all will be forgiven and restored. This story was m a d e u p
for such a purpose. Ultimately, stories about the past are more instructive than
the past itself; history is too important to leave to chance.
Rewriting Torah

The Chronicler makes a second type of change as well. For the Deuteronomistic
Historian w h o wrote Kings, the book of Deuteronomy was the "canonical" Torah
work. The n o r m s or laws we read about in Kings follow Deuteronomy, and on
the rare occasion w h e n a source f o u n d in the Torah is cited, it is cited from
D e u t e r o n o m y The story of King Amaziah (son of King Joash) of J u d a h illustrates
this point:

(2 Kings 14:5) Once he had the k i n g d o m firmly in his grasp, he put to

death the courtiers w h o had assassinated his father the king. (6) But he
did not put to death the children of the assassins, in accordance with
what is written in the Book of the Teaching of Moses, where the L O R D
c o m m a n d e d , "Parents shall not be p u t to death for children, nor chil-
dren be p u t to death for parents; a person shall be put to death only for
his own crime."

This quote follows the law in D e u t e r o n o m y 24:16: "Parents shall not be p u t to

death for children, nor children be p u t to death for parents: a person shall be
p u t to death only for his o w n crime." Relatively speaking, Kings hardly
acknowledges the Ρ source. However, by the time that Chronicles was written,
b o t h the D a n d Ρ sources were authoritative. It is likely that the Torah (more
or less as we k n o w it) already h a d authority in the community. This m e a n t that
Ρ traditions as well as D traditions n e e d e d to be incorporated into Chronicles.
Sometimes the Chronicler f o u n d this easy to do, b u t at other times the task
proved quite challenging.
A simple case concerns Solomon and his dedication of the Temple on the
fall festival of Sukkot (see "From the Goring Ox . . ." in chapter 8). According to
Deuteronomy 16:13, "you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days." This
seven-day festival is indeed fulfilled w h e n the Temple is dedicated in 1 Kings
8 : 6 5 . 1 0 However, Leviticus a d d s an eighth day to this Sukkot festival, during
which the people are to hold "a solemn gathering" (23:36, 39). Unlike the
Deuteronomistic version, Chronicles k n o w s this law, and so it revises its source
(1 Kings 8:65) to say:

(2 Chron. 7:8) At that time Solomon kept the Feast for seven days—all
Israel with h i m — a great assemblage from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of
Egypt. (9) O n the eighth day they held a solemn gathering; they
observed the dedication of the altar seven days, and the Feast seven
days. (10) O n the twenty-third day of the seventh m o n t h [counting
 f r o m the b e g i n n i n g of seven-day festival o n the 15th to the 21st, fol-
lowed by a solemn assembly on the 2 2 n d ] he dismissed the people to
their h o m e s .

T h e editor u p d a t e d this text to include the n o r m s described in Leviticus.

A m o r e complicated case in w h i c h the Chronicler i n c o r p o r a t e d b o t h D a n d
Ρ is his description of J o s i a h s Passover offering in 2 Chronicles 3 5 : 1 3 , w h i c h
s h o u l d be translated as "They b o i l e d 1 1 the passover sacrifice in fire, as prescribed
. . .." This description is quite o d d . W h a t does the locution "boiled in fire" m e a n ,
a n d w h y is it f o u n d here?
T h e a n s w e r is provided by the C h r o n i c l e r s sources. 1 2 According to
Deuteronomy, "You shall boil a n d eat [the paschal offering] at the place that the
LORD y o u r God will choose" (16:7; transi, a d a p t e d ) . According to P's n o r m s ,
however, "they shall eat it roasted over the fire, w i t h u n l e a v e n e d bread a n d with
bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or boiled in any way with water, b u t roast-
e d — h e a d , legs, a n d entrails—over the fire" (Exod. 12:8-9, transi, a d a p t e d ) . 1 3
T h e boiling-roasting distinction reflects regional a n d /or chronological differ-
ences b e t w e e n D a n d Ρ (see above, c h a p t e r s 9-10). Given that b o t h of these
sources are equally authoritative, w h a t can the Chronicler r e c o m m e n d ?
Chronicles conflates these s o u r c e s — t h e boiling of D b e c o m e s "They boiled
the Passover," while the "roasted" of Ρ in E x o d u s b e c o m e "in fire" in Chronicles.
We can illustrate the grafting typographically:

D: "You shall boil a n d eat it at the place that the LORD y o u r G o d will
choose" (Deut. 16:7).
P: "They shall eat it wasted over the fire, with u n l e a v e n e d bread a n d w i t h
bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or boiled in any way w i t h water,
b u t roasted—head, legs, a n d entrails—over the fire" (Exod. 1 2 : 8 - 9 ) .

Chronicles: "They boiled the passover sacrifice in fire, as prescribed . . ."

(2 C h r o n . 35:13).
The p h r a s e "as prescribed" may be an a t t e m p t to cover u p the fact that
Chronicles is c o m b i n i n g two irreconcilable traditions. 1 4
C e n t u r i e s later, the process j u s t d e l i n e a t e d — w h e r e two different Torah texts
f r o m two different sources are " r e c o n c i l e d " — b e c o m e s a key process in rabbinic
m i d r a s h . 1 1 The rabbis did not recognize that the Torah is c o m p r i s e d of
s o u r c e s — t o t h e m , it is a single holy text, given by G o d to Moses. T h u s , they too
n e e d to reconcile what we see as source-critical differences. But this process d o e s
n o t start w i t h the rabbis. It starts as s o o n as editors c o m b i n e the Torah's sources
a n d a c o m m u n i t y canonizes that text. That process h a s already taken place by
the time of the Chronicler. 1 6
How Did He Get Away With It?

After hearing about the Chronicler's radical revisionism, m a n y people w o n d e r

h o w his book managed to get canonized. The answer to this question has sever-
al parts.
The Chronicler was not living in a v a c u u m — h i s n o r m s were the n o r m s of
his community, for w h o m he was writing. The authoritative and "standard" his-
tory of DtrH n o longer spoke to that community. It did not reflect their theolo-
gy, n o r did it fully accord with their authoritative text, w h i c h n o w included Ρ
Thus, in a sense, the Chronicler's c o m m u n i t y was "waiting" for such a history to
be written, just as J.ΕK. conspiracy theorists were waiting nearly thirty years for
Oliver Stones 1991 movie JFK to be released.
In addition, the Chronicler did a wonderful j o b of "footnoting" his history,
giving it greater authority. Chronicles refers to fifteen books that supposedly
served as sources, 1 7 as in this example: "The other events of Manasseh's reign,
and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers w h o spoke to h i m in the
n a m e of the L O R D God of Israel are f o u n d in the chronicles of the kings of Israel"
(2 Chron. 33:18). Some scholars believe that these were real sources of one sort
or another. 1 8 Others suggest, more plausibly to my m i n d , that these sources
never existed, and they are a type of fake footnote, through which the Chronicler
asserts the authority and veracity of his c o m p o s e d traditions. In either case,
these notices would have helped the alternative version of history in Chronicles
gain acceptance, and ultimately, be canonized as scripture.

Is Chronicles Typical?

The picture developed throughout our discussion of biblical history writing may
be disturbing to some. I have c o n t e n d e d that authoritative writers fabricate his-
tory, m a k i n g u p their sources. Further, I have argued, it was more important to
the biblical writers to be relevant than to be true. I do not k n o w h o w typical the
Chronicler was of the other biblical authors. I have highlighted Chronicles sim-
ply because its sources are extant, so that scholars could develop a good sense
of h o w its a u t h o r reworked earlier sources, and h o w radical he was. Even if some
of the earlier historians preserved in the Bible were more conservative, we
should r e m e m b e r that for all of them, their greatest concern was not getting the
past "correct." Rather, it was to collect, revise, a n d compose traditions in order
to produce texts about the past that would be meaningful to their communities.
 15
Introduction to Prophecy

Primary Reading: 1 Kings 17 through 2 Kings 9.

Difficulties in Studying Prophecy

B y "prophecy" I m e a n the "transmission of allegedly divine messages by a

h u m a n intermediary to a third party." 1 As a literary genre, prophecy is
extremely difficult to read and to u n d e r s t a n d . Prophets are quite alien to con-
temporary culture. W h e n we see someone dressed oddly in public, proclaiming
that the end of the world is near, we typically keep our distance—or perhaps lis-
ten b u t laugh. Most people in our society n o longer share the view that God
c o m m u n i c a t e s messages to us t h r o u g h certain individuals. Indeed, m a n y of us
think that anyone w h o believes that they have received such a divine message is
delusional a n d requires psychiatric treatment.
Ancient Israelites h a d a fundamentally different view of the world and h o w
God is manifest in it; the historical-critical m e t h o d helps us to recover their
worldview.
Let me highlight some of the differences between the contemporary a n d bib-
lical worlds by recasting biblical passages in today's idiom. First, imagine that
you are hiring someone to fill a position, and the first stage is for candidates to
send in a promotional video. In scene two of one individual's video—lets call
h i m Elisha—he is walking along w h e n a few kids r u n u p a n d to the side of
the road and m o c k him. He curses them; they promptly drop dead. Then Elisha
goes on his merry way. A simple question: w o u l d you call this person in for
an interview? You might hesitate, to say the least. Yet the Bible relates a similar
event about the prophet Elisha—and that passage is intended to reflect positive-
ly on him:
 (2 Kings 2:23) From there he went u p to Bethel. As he was going u p the
road, some little boys came out of the town and jeered at him, saying,
"Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" (24) He turned around and
looked at them and cursed them in the n a m e of the LORD. T h e r e u p o n ,
two she-bears came out of the w o o d s and mangled forty-two of the chil-
dren. (25) He went on from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he
returned to Samaria.

Now, let's imagine a second scenario. O n e day you h a p p e n to be in New

York City, in a house of worship, and the preacher gets u p and says:

T h u s said the LORD: / For three transgressions of the residents of

Manhattan, / For four, I will not revoke it: / Because they s h o p in expen-
sive s h o p s and neglect the poor, / Eat in five-star restaurants while oth-
ers starve. / I will send d o w n fire u p o n Fifth Avenue, / A conflagration
on 57th St. / And it shall devour the fancy penthouses, / Destroy the
mansions. / And the people of "the city" shall be exiled to California—
said the LORD.

You might w o n d e r h o w it is that this preacher presumes to speak for God. You
might also be puzzled about why the preacher suddenly decided to speak in
poetry rather than prose. Yet this imagined s e r m o n is a paraphrase of one of the
prophet Amos' oracles against the nations—oracles that grabbed his audience's
attention—such as:

(1:3) T h u s said the LORD: For three transgressions of Damascus, / For

four, I will not revoke it: / Because they threshed Gilead / With threshing
boards of iron. (4) I will send d o w n fire u p o n the palace of Hazael, /
And it shall devour the fortresses of Ben-hadad. (5) I will break the gate
bars of Damascus, / And wipe out the inhabitants from the Vale of
Aven / And the sceptered ruler of Beth-eden; And the people of Aram
shall be exiled to Kir—said the LORD.

Finally, imagine that you are traveling on a public bus. In the seat right
behind you, two people are conversing. You overhear one of them telling the
other about a recent incident:

(Zech. 5:9) I looked u p again and saw two w o m e n come soaring with
the wind in their wings—they h a d wings like those of a s t o r k — a n d
carry off the tub between earth and sky. (10) "Where are they taking the
tub?" I asked the angel w h o talked with me. (11) And he answered, "To
build a shrine for it in the land of Shinar; a stand shall be erected for it,
a n d it shall be set d o w n there u p o n the stand."
Would you change your seat?
These three examples give us an idea 01 h o w different biblical prophecy is
from our everyday experiences. We cannot read the prophetic texts as m o d -
e m s — t h e y would come across as too weird. Before we look at such texts again,
we need more background, so that we can u n d e r s t a n d t h e m more sympatheti-
cally, within their original context.

Prophecy and Omens in the Ancient Near East

The biggest challenge in our u n d e r s t a n d i n g biblical prophecy is to appreciate a

widespread belief in the ancient Near East: the divine will can be apparent to
people—if we k n o w where and h o w to perceive it. Prophecy, where the divine
communicates directly with a h u m a n , is just one manifestation of this belief. In
Israel, prophecy served as the p r e d o m i n a n t way in which people discerned the
divine will. Meanwhile, that a n d other forms of "tuning in" to divine messages
existed in m a n y areas throughout the ancient Near East. 2

The Shape of Things to Come

O u r most extensive knowledge about divine communication comes from

ancient Mesopotamia. 3 Archaeologists have excavated many kinds of o m e n texts
from various periods, showing that the Mesopotamians valued this genre. Those
o m e n texts study a wide variety of p h e n o m e n a for signs as to what the gods are
intending to do. Many o m e n s are based on sacrifices, typically focusing on the
h i d d e n meaning of the shape of a given sacrificial animals liver, which varies
greatly from one specimen to the next. Trained specialists even interpreted these
shapes by comparing them to clay models of liver forms.
The o m e n texts are formulated in two parts: a particular observable condi-
tion, and the implication of that condition for the future. (Scholars call these
parts "protasis" and "apodosis," respectively.) The following four examples give
some sense of their variety: 4

If a man's chest hair curls upwards: he will become a slave.

If a m a n has a flushed face and his right eye sticks out: he will be devoured
by dogs far from his house.
If the gallbladder (of the sacrificial sheep) is stripped of the hepatic duct: the
army of the king will suffer a thirst during a military campaign.
 If the n o r t h wind sweeps the face of heavens until the appearance of the n e w
m o o n : the harvest will be a b u n d a n t .

The texts interpret some conditions on the basis of word association; others, on
the basis of w h e t h e r certain signs seemed o m i n o u s or propitious. Still others use
criteria that we have not been able to decipher.
In any event, both the people and their leaders invested time and effort into
interpreting omens. They gleaned those o m e n s from a huge range of p h e n o m e -
na, b o t h celestial and terrestrial, b o t h normal and unusual. The o m e n texts show
that the populace believed that they could discern the divine will—although it
might take an expert to d o so reliably.

Prophecy, Mesopotamian Style

Archaeologists have excavated more than 130 Mesopotamian texts that bear on
prophecy. Strangely, all of them come from just two sites out of the dozens in the
region: 5 Mari on the Tigris River (circa the eighteenth century B.C.E.), and in
Assyria d u r i n g the reigns of E s a r h a d d o n ( 6 8 0 - 6 6 9 ) a n d A s h u r b a n i p a l
( 6 6 8 - 6 2 7 ) . This concentration of evidence for a social institution is unusual. It
raises an obvious question: did prophecy exist in Mesopotamia throughout its
history (and the relevant texts simply have been lost)? O r was prophecy impor-
tant only in these two distinct periods and locales? If the latter is the case, then
Mesopotamian prophecy probably could not have influenced the development
of Israelite prophecy.
Here are two examples of a Mesopotamian prophecy. The first, from Assyria,
is an oracle from the w o m a n Ishtar-la-tashiat of Arbela. The second one comes
from Mari:

Esarhaddon, king of lands, fear not! That wind which blows against
y o u — I need only say a word and I can bring it to an end. Your enemies,
like a [young] boar in the m o n t h of Simanu, will flee even at your
approach. I am the great Belet—I am the goddess Ishtar of Arbela, she
w h o has destroyed your enemies at your mere approach. W h a t order
have I given you which you did not rely upon? I am Ishtar of Arbela! I
lie in wait for your enemies, I shall give t h e m to you. I, Ishtar of Arbela,
will go before and behind you fear not! You w h o are paralyzed [saying],
"Only in crying Woe can I either go u p or sit d o w n . " 6

Moreover, the day I sent this tablet of mine to my lord, [an ec]static of
Dagan came and addressed me as follows: "The god sent [me]. Hurry,
 write to the ki[ng] that they are to offer the mortuary-sacrifices to the
sha[de] of Yahdun-Li[m]." This is w h a t this ecstatic said to m e , a n d I
have therefore w r i t t e n to m y lord. Let m y lord d o w h a t pleases h i m . '

T h e c o n t e n t a n d phraseology of s o m e of these p r o p h e t i c texts is m i r r o r e d in

the Bible. However, it is i m p o r t a n t to r e m e m b e r that ancient Israel believed in
p r o p h e c y m o r e t h a n any o t h e r type of divination, seeing it as the best way to
c o m p r e h e n d the divine will. We are n o t sure why. As discussed above, we d o n o t
k n o w w h e t h e r M e s o p o t a m i a n p r o p h e c y i n f l u e n c e d Israel at an early stage.
Closer to h o m e , we have s o m e evidence that the P h o e n i c i a n s also believed
in p r o p h e t s . M e a n w h i l e , across the J o r d a n River, an eighth-century-B.c.E.
inscription f o u n d in the city of Deir A l i a even talks a b o u t "Balaam the seer," the
s a m e p r o p h e t m e n t i o n e d in N u m b e r s 2 2 - 2 4 . 8 However, we have so few texts
f r o m Israel's i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o r s that we c a n n o t accurately evaluate the p o t e n -
tial evidence. W a s Israel u n i q u e in its heavy reliance o n the m e d i u m of p r o p h e -
cy? It is h a r d to say.

The Nature of Prophecy in Israel

T h e m a i n biblical t e r m for a p r o p h e t is navi (‫)נביא‬, u s e d 3 2 5 times in the

H e b r e w Bible. It a p p e a r s even in the Book of Genesis. In the m i d d l e wife-sister
story (see "The Ancestors as Symbols" in c h a p t e r 7), G o d refers to A b r a h a m as a
navi, e x p l a i n i n g to the k i n g that A b r a h a m "will intercede for y o u — t o save y o u r
life" (20:7). This first use is telling: the c o m m o n view t o d a y of a biblical p r o p h e t
as " s o m e o n e w h o tells the f u t u r e " w a s n o t the o n l y — o r even the m a i n — f u n c -
tion f r o m the Bible's s t a n d p o i n t . Rather, the navi w a s an intercessor, 9 a go-
b e t w e e n the p e o p l e a n d G o d .
T h e biblical p r o p h e t m a y i n t e r c e d e for others, as A b r a h a m d o e s for
A b i m e l e c h , or as m a n y later p r o p h e t s d o for the p e o p l e Israel. However, the texts
m o r e c o m m o n l y r e c o u n t the prophet's f u n c t i o n as a m e s s e n g e r f r o m G o d to the
p e o p l e ; in this sense, the p r o p h e t f u n c t i o n s as a divine messenger. Thus
p r o p h e t s m a y be explicitly labeled "the LORD'S m e s s e n g e r " (e.g., Hag. 1:13), a n d
o n e p r o p h e t is called Malachi, w h i c h m e a n s "my messenger." T h e p r o p h e t s
e m p l o y the f o r m u l a ko amar ( ‫ א מ ר‬Γ 0 , " t h u s says"), called the "messenger for-
m u l a " 1 0 b e c a u s e secular m e s s e n g e r s also u s e d it. T h u s , as a divine messenger,
the p r o p h e t s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as s t a n d i n g s o m e w h e r e o n a direct line
b e t w e e n G o d a n d the people: O n this line, s o m e p r o p h e t s s t a n d closer to G o d ,
while s o m e s t a n d closer to the p e o p l e . To see h o w the p r o p h e t f u n c t i o n s in b o t h
directions o n this line, c o n s i d e r this e x a m p l e f r o m Amos:
 (7:1) This is w h a t m y Lord GOD s h o w e d me: He w a s creating a plague
of locusts at the time w h e n the late-sown c r o p s were b e g i n n i n g to
s p r o u t — t h e late-sown c r o p s after the k i n g s reaping. (2) W h e n it h a d
finished d e v o u r i n g the h e r b a g e in the l a n d , I said, Ό Lord GOD, p r a y
forgive. H o w will J a c o b survive? He is so small." (3) T h e LORD relented
c o n c e r n i n g this. "It shall n o t c o m e to pass," said the LORD.

This passage begins w i t h the prophet's vision f r o m G o d ( w . l - 2 a ) , followed by

the prophet's plea to G o d in r e s p o n s e (v. 2b). It c o n c l u d e s w i t h God's s t a t e m e n t
to the p r o p h e t (v. 3). H e n c e A m o s n o t only delivers messages f r o m G o d b u t also
delivers r e q u e s t s o n behalf of the p e o p l e to G o d . T h e c o n t e n t of the c o n c l u d i n g
s t a t e m e n t is especially i m p o r t a n t , since it suggests that G o d h a d a c h a n g e of
heart. This teaches u s that a c c o r d i n g to the biblical a u t h o r s , p r o p h e t s h a d great
p o w e r to t r a n s f o r m the divine decree. In s h o r t , the Bible d o e s n o t view p r o p h e t s
primarily as p r e d i c t o r s of the f u t u r e . 1 1
T h e e t y m o l o g y of the t e r m navi is u n c e r t a i n . 1 2 Most scholars relate it to an
A k k a d i a n ( M e s o p o t a m i a n ) root nabû, "to n a m e , call," either in the sense of "one
w h o calls out," i.e., a speaker, or "one w h o h a s b e e n called." Some t e r m s for
p r o p h e t are m u c h less f r e q u e n t , yet their origins are clearer: chozeh (ΠΤίΓΙ) a n d
ro'eh ( ‫) ת א ה‬ b o t h m e a n "a seer." Likewise, is h Elohim (•,‫אלה‬ ‫)איש‬ or ish ha-elo-
him (‫)איש האליהים‬ m e a n s "(the) m a n of God." T h e biblical text treats these var-
ious t e r m s as s o m e w h a t d i s t i n c t — f o r e x a m p l e , it e m p l o y s ish Elohim to describe
Elijah a n d Elisha, b u t n o t o t h e r p r o p h e t s like Isaiah or J e r e m i a h .

Two Main Types of Israelite Prophecy

W h y did the Bible use m o r e t h a n o n e t e r m for a p r o p h e t ? In part, b e c a u s e there

were different types of p r o p h e t s . Biblical scholars typically distinguish b e t w e e n
those w h o talked at length to the general p o p u l a t i o n , a n d those w h o talked pri-
marily to the k i n g a n d w h o s e messages are brief. Usually w e refer to the f o r m e r
g r o u p — i n c l u d i n g the p r o p h e t s Isaiah, J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel, Hosea, A m o s , a n d
Micah, all of w h o m have their o w n b o o k s — a s "classical" p r o p h e t s . Their writ-
ings date f r o m the eighth c e n t u r y B.C.E.

T h e latter g r o u p is c o m p r i s e d of i n d i v i d u a l s like N a t h a n a n d G a d ( t e n t h
c e n t u r y B.C.E.), a n d Elijah a n d Elisha ( n i n t h c e n t u r y B.C.E.). Some of t h e m
r e m a i n nameless, a n d s o m e are female. M a n y scholars have referred to t h e m as
"preclassical" p r o p h e t s . However, I avoid that t e r m for t w o reasons. First, we d o
not k n o w w h e n prophets of the classical type first developed. Perhaps they exist-
ed in earlier eras t o o — b u t their speeches went unrecorded or were lost. (Nor do
we k n o w what factors in the social, religious, or economic life of ancient Israel
first p r o m p t e d classical prophecy and its records.) 1 3 Second, we do k n o w that
prophets of the type like Elijah continued to exist side by side with the classical
prophets.
For both reasons, the term "preclassical" is misleading. "Nonclassical" is a
better term, though it too is somewhat misleading, since the prophets within this
group are so different from each other. Indeed, we can subdivide this group of
prophets usefully, either by w h e t h e r they perform magical acts (e.g., Elijah and
Elisha), or by w h e t h e r they critique the monarchy (e.g., Elisha) or support it
(e.g., N a t h a n ) . 1 4
Those w h o support the king are the earliest Israelite prophets that the Bible
writes about. They are m u c h like other ancient Near Eastern prophets. It is easy
to locate them within this context, even if we d o not know the lines of influence
(see above, "Prophecy, Mesopotamian Style"). But we know precious little about
h o w prophecy developed in Israel.
The remainder of this chapter will focus on the main characteristics of the
nonclassical prophets. Often it will clarify their role by contrasting it with that
of the classical prophets. Each of the next several chapters will then spotlight a
leading classical prophet.

The Nonclassical Prophets

T h o u g h the nonclassical prophets were not all alike, most of them h a d — a c c o r d -

ing to the Bible—some combination of the following traits:

• they generally knew what was h a p p e n i n g in other places;

• they were consulted on fixed occasions and often paid for their services;
• they b a n d e d together;
• their prophecy could be induced;
• they performed miracles;
• they usually prophesied to the king, speaking in prose;
• they performed unusual actions; and
• they predicted the future.

We will n o w explore these qualities in turn, giving examples from various

prophets.
Viewing and Sensing Remotely

T h e nonclassical p r o p h e t s were e x p e c t e d to k n o w w h a t was h a p p e n i n g in dis-

tant places that they c o u l d n o t physically see. T h e e x c e p t i o n that proves this
rule is 2 Kings 4 : 8 - 3 7 . In this s t o r y the only child of the S h u n a m m i t e w o m a n
dies, a n d she entreats the p r o p h e t Elisha. His assistant, Gehazi, tries to s h o o
h e r away, b u t Elisha says: "Let h e r alone, for she is in bitter distress; a n d the
LORD h a s h i d d e n it f r o m m e a n d h a s n o t told me" (v. 27). Elisha implies that
he n o r m a l l y k n e w the divine will a n d c o u l d perceive w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d
elsewhere. In a similar vein, in 2 Kings 6:12 a foreign officer says to the
A r a m e a n k i n g ( w h o h a d failed in several a t t e m p t s to a m b u s h Israel): "Elisha,
that p r o p h e t in Israel, tells the k i n g of Israel the very w o r d s y o u s p e a k in y o u r
bedroom."

Serving as Freelance Consultants

People w h o n e e d e d these p r o p h e t s visited t h e m at traditional times. W h e n the

son of the S h u n a m m i t e w o m a n dies a n d she w a n t s to consult Elisha, h e r h u s -
b a n d a t t e m p t s to stop her, saying: " W h y are you going to h i m today? It is nei-
ther n e w m o o n n o r sabbath" (2 Kings 4:23). His question implies that on fixed
occasions the p r o p h e t s m a d e themselves available for c o n s u l t a t i o n — n o t unlike
a college professor w h o posts a schedule of regular office hours.
O t h e r texts suggest that the people paid p r o p h e t s for advice given on s u c h
days. Consider the scene in 1 Samuel w h e r e Saul a n d his servant are searching
for s o m e stray donkeys. The dialogue begins with Saul's u n n a m e d servant:

(9:6) . . . "There is a m a n of G o d (ish elohim) in that town, a n d the m a n

is highly esteemed; everything that he says c o m e s true. Let us go there;
p e r h a p s he will tell u s about the errand o n w h i c h we set out." (7) "But
if we go," Saul said to his servant, "what can we b r i n g the m a n ? 1 3 For
the food in o u r bags is all gone, a n d there is n o t h i n g we can bring to the
m a n of God as a present. W h a t have we got?" (8) T h e servant answered
Saul again, "I h a p p e n to have a quarter-shekel of silver. I can give that
to the m a n of God a n d he will tell us a b o u t o u r errand."

This, then, is really a discussion a b o u t the smallest p a y m e n t that they believe

Samuel will accept in order to tell t h e m w h e r e the d o n k e y s are!
F o r m i n g Prophetic Fellowships

Many of these nonclassical p r o p h e t s b a n d e d together into g r o u p s w h o lived a n d

p r o p h e s i e d together. T h e stories c o n c e r n i n g Elijah m e n t i o n that he is the h e a d
of s u c h a g r o u p . It also a p p e a r s in 1 Samuel, as King Saul b e c o m e s a t e m p o r a r y
or ad h o c p r o p h e t : "he saw a b a n d of p r o p h e t s c o m i n g t o w a r d h i m . T h e r e u p o n
the spirit of G o d g r i p p e d h i m , a n d he s p o k e in ecstasy a m o n g t h e m " (10:10).
T h e t e r m usually u s e d for these g r o u p s is benei ha-nevi'im ( ‫)בני ה נ ב י א י ם‬, literal-
ly "sons of p r o p h e t s , " better u n d e r s t o o d as " m e m b e r s of a p r o p h e t i c g r o u p or
guild." T h e material in Kings a b o u t Elijah a n d Elisha refers to s u c h g r o u p s m o r e
t h a n ten times.

P r e p a r i n g to Receive T h e i r Message

For these individuals, p r o p h e c y can be i n d u c e d by the right t e c h n i q u e . For

e x a m p l e , Elisha says, "Now t h e n , get m e a musician" (2 Kings 3:15). T h e result
is described thus: "As the musician played, the h a n d of the LORD [a technical
term for p r o p h e c y ] c a m e u p o n h i m . " In various places, p r o p h e t s p r o p h e s y at
night, s o m e t i m e s in temples. This m a y be similar to "incubation dreams," n a m e -
ly going to sleep at a special place w i t h the h o p e that you will have a p r o p h e t i c
d r e a m — a p h e n o m e n o n well-attested in m a n y cultures.

Doing Wonders

O n e striking aspect of the stories a b o u t these nonclassical p r o p h e t s , especially

Elijah a n d Elisha, is the extent to w h i c h they are miracle workers. T h e y feed the
masses w i t h a small a m o u n t of food, revive the d e a d , find lost objects, m a k e poi-
s o n e d food safe, heal lepers, etc. T h e Bible r e c o u n t s m a n y types of "miracle
w o r k e r " stories a b o u t these figures. T h e tales are of varied literary types, a n d
they e m p h a s i z e different aspects of the p r o p h e t i c experience. T h u s they likely
originated in various circles for different p u r p o s e s . 1 6 Note that, as a k i n d of lit-
erary fulfillment of Elishas request of Elijah that "a d o u b l e p o r t i o n of y o u r spir-
it pass o n to m e " (2 Kings 2:9), miracle a c c o u n t s are transferred b e t w e e n these
t w o p r o p h e t s , w i t h the n u m b e r of miracles p e r f o r m e d by Elisha equal to a p p r o x -
imately d o u b l e those of Elijah.
Restricting Their Audience

The Bible suggests that a primary role of nonclassical prophets was to prophesy
to the king. Thus, the Elijah unit opens with "Elijah the Tishbite, an inhabitant
of Gilead" speaking to Ahab, king of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 17:1). Even
the famous confrontation between Elijah and the priests of Baal opens: "Much
later, in the third year, the word of the LORD came to Elijah: 'Go, appear before
Ahab; then I will send rain u p o n the earth'" (chap. 18). The focus on speaking
to the king contrasts sharply with classical prophecy, which typically addresses
itself to a broad group of people, even though sometimes classical prophets
inveigh against the king; they do so as part of their mission to the people.
Both kinds of prophets engage in rebuking the powerful, but the nonclassi-
cal prophets typically rebuke the king only using short, prosaic condemnations.
For example, Elijah's famous rebuke of Ahab by Elijah, after Ahab has Naboth
killed in order to appropriate Naboth's vineyard, reads: "Thus said the LORD:
Would you m u r d e r and take possession? T h u s said the LORD: In the very place
where the dogs lapped u p Naboth's blood, the dogs will lap u p your blood too"
(1 Kings 21:19). Classical prophets, on the other h a n d , speak to all classes, often
in long poetic speeches.

Doing Strange Deeds

Nonclassical p r o p h e t s p e r f o r m u n u s u a l actions. Recall Elisha's deadly

r e s p o n s e — m e n t i o n e d at the start of this c h a p t e r — t o the children w h o m o c k
him. Elsewhere, in a single passage of forty-four verses, Elisha produces exces-
sive a m o u n t s of oil for a needy widow, promises a w o m a n that she will conceive,
revives a dead child, provides the antidote to a poisonous stew, and multiplies a
limited a m o u n t of food to feed the masses (2 Kings 4). The purpose of such acts
is to glorify prophetic prestige. In contrast, w h e n classical prophets do strange
things, such acts turn out to have their o w n meaning; they are teaching tools.

Making Predictions

Nonclassical prophets d o predict the future. However, they d o not dwell on it.
Rather, they offer short, final p r o n o u n c e m e n t s , such as Elijah's word to King
Ahab: "As the LORD lives, the God of Israel w h o m I serve, there will be n o dew
or rain except at my bidding" (1 Kings 17:1). According to Kings, that one-
sentence message turned out to be the start of a three-year drought a n d famine.
In contrast, w h e n the classical prophet predicts d o o m , most often it is condi-
tional, functioning as a call to repent.

Summary of Prophetic Types in the Bible

According to the Bible, the populace believes that both nonclassical a n d classi-
cal prophets can convey the divine will. Both types serve as intermediaries
between the people and their God. Yet the differences between the types are
e n o r m o u s — i n terms of their audience and communication style, the reason for
their odd actions, and their use of predictions. Given such differences, one may
reasonably w o n d e r whether the same title of "prophet" should apply to both
groups!
The following table compares and contrasts the classical and nonclassical
prophets.

Characteristics of Nonclassical Versus Classical Prophets

Characteristic Nonclassical Classical

Knew secret and h i d d e n information Yes No

Typically consulted on fixed occasions Yes No
Were paid to disclose or intercede Yes No
Banded together Yes No
Induced prophecy Yes No
Worked miracles Yes No
Main audience King People
Main genre of speech Prose Poetry
Reason for strange deeds Build prestige Convey a message
Type of predictions Short verdicts Long warnings
 16
"Let Justice Well Up like Water"
Reading Amos

Primary Reading: Amos.

Amos as a Typical "Classical Prophet"

T he writings of Amos provide a good starting point for u n d e r s t a n d i n g books

attributed to the classical prophets. (Amos is structured as a book, although
ultimately a later editor incorporated it into a larger biblical book, The Twelve
[Minor] Prophets. See "Name and Structure" in chapter 2.) As a relatively short
text, Amos gives us a workable o p p o r t u n i t y to outline the structure, function,
and style of prophetic books.
This chapter first highlights mistakes c o m m o n l y made in reading Amos, due
to c o m m o n misunderstandings of classical prophecy. Then it examines the
b o o k s persuasive tactics and themes, specifically the five main points found in
classical prophecy that Amos exemplifies. It concludes with observations on the
formation of Amos into a b o o k . 1

Common Mistakes Made in Reading Amos

If we lack training in h o w to read prophetic texts, we usually think about t h e m

in terms of the types of texts we are familiar with. Thus, the Book of Amos is
often read as a predictive text—a work intended to foretell the future. Further,
we read h i m like a contemporary rabbi w h o c o n d e m n s listeners for not follow-
ing the n o r m s of the Torah. In addition, we assume that the prophet Amos wrote
the book that bears his n a m e — j u s t as we find it in our Bible.
Not a Prediction

T h e m a i n p u r p o s e of classical p r o p h e c y w a s not to predict the f u t u r e . P r o p h e t s

d o s p e n d a lot of time talking a b o u t the f u t u r e , b u t they d o so for t w o reasons.
O n e reason is to convince the p e o p l e to r e p e n t . The s e c o n d reason is that if
Israel suffers, it m e a n s that G o d has j u d g e d a n d p u n i s h e d t h e m for their
c o v e n a n t infractions. A m o s 5:6 illustrates the first p o i n t u n a m b i g u o u s l y : "Seek
the LORD, a n d y o u will live, / Else He will r u s h like fire u p o n the H o u s e of
J o s e p h / A n d c o n s u m e Bethel w i t h n o n e to q u e n c h it." Establishing the s e c o n d
p o i n t w a s m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d . R e m e m b e r that in a polytheistic society, nearly
everyone believed that any of the m a n y g o d s c o u l d p u n i s h a p e r s o n or a g r o u p .
(That is w h y A m o s ' N o r t h e r n c o n t e m p o r a r y Hosea h a d to c o n t e n d that the G o d
of Israel is responsible for n a t u r e — r a t h e r t h a n the C a n a a n i t e deity Baal. See
especially Hosea 2.) In a d d i t i o n , m a n y n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s believed that
n a t u r e or the forces of n a t u r e were s o m e t i m e s m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n the gods.
A m o s — l i k e the o t h e r classical p r o p h e t s — w i s h e d to challenge b o t h of these
basic views a b o u t reality. He held that the G o d of Israel is responsible for every-
thing that h a p p e n s . In the w o r d s of 3:6: "Can m i s f o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the
LORD has n o t c a u s e d it?" This is n o t a p r e d i c t i o n ; rather, it is a n e x p l a n a t i o n of
h o w the w o r l d w o r k s .

Not Referring to the Torah

A m o s m a k e s his p o i n t s a b o u t the n e e d for r e p e n t a n c e a n d about divine p u n i s h -

m e n t , b u t not by urging the people to follow the authoritative Torah text. We can
be fairly certain that his failure to m e n t i o n such a text is because in his day,
n o s u c h Torah existed. This claim m a y s e e m surprising. Consider, t h e n , w h a t
A m o s m e a n s w h e n he says: "Did you offer sacrifice a n d oblation to Me / Those
forty years in the wilderness, / Ο H o u s e of Israel?" (5:25). In context, this is a
rhetorical q u e s t i o n w h o s e a n s w e r is clearly "no." W h e n A m o s p o s e d this ques-
tion, he w a s taking for granted his audience's belief that the Israelites did not
offer sacrifices d u r i n g the wilderness period. Yet a c c o r d i n g to the (Priestly) Torah
passages in Leviticus a n d N u m b e r s , Aaron the high priest presided over c o u n t -
less sacrifices d u r i n g that period.
Likewise, Amos' w o r d s c a n n o t easily be reconciled with Deuteronomy. For
e x a m p l e , h e says that one of the p u n i s h m e n t s of Israel will be "tonsures on every
h e a d " (8:10). This refers to pulling o u t or shaving one's hair as a m o u r n i n g rit-
ual. However, that practice is expressly prohibited in D e u t e r o n o m y 14:1. 2 It
w o u l d be o d d for a p r o p h e t w h o k n e w D e u t e r o n o m y to suggest this as a divine
p u n i s h m e n t . In fact, the m a j o r t h e m e of D e u t e r o n o m y is the p r o p e r w o r s h i p of
G o d in one central sanctuary, w h i c h in his day could only have m e a n t J e r u s a l e m .
Yet A m o s never c o n d e m n s w o r s h i p at n o r t h e r n "high places." I n d e e d , he lends
the shrine of Bethel prestige by p r o p h e s y i n g there!
I d o not m e a n to suggest that A m o s k n e w nothing of w h a t is n o w in the
Torah. He s p e a k s of the period of w a n d e r i n g in the wilderness (2:10), the
d e s t r u c t i o n of S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h (4:11), a n d Sabbath a n d N e w M o o n obser-
vances (8:5). Rather, A m o s did not k n o w the Torah as it n o w exists, c o m p l e t e
a n d authoritative, b l e n d i n g together various sources. He k n e w traditions that
w o u l d eventually b e c o m e part of the Torah, but he did not k n o w the Torah as a
unified b o o k . 3
H o w could this be? Recall that the Torah has a long a n d c o m p l e x history of
c o m p o s i t i o n (see c h a p t e r s 6 - 1 0 ) . That is, it a n d the p r o p h e t i c b o o k s developed
d u r i n g the same period. T h u s even t h o u g h the Torah a p p e a r s first in the c a n o n ,
all Torah texts did not precede in time all p r o p h e t i c texts. N o r did all p r o p h e t s
k n o w all of the Torah.
In the traditional view, the Torah existed first a n d influenced the p r o p h e t s .
However, we n e e d to consider seriously the converse possibility—that p r o p h e t -
ic n o t i o n s a n d material i n f l u e n c e d s o m e of w h a t b e c a m e part of the Torah. 4

A m o s the Book Versus A m o s the Prophet

"Amos" m a y m e a n two t h i n g s — t h e p e r s o n , or the b o o k of that n a m e . They are

not identical. Not all that is in the Book of A m o s was written by the p r o p h e t
A m o s himself. Many scholars imagine several stages of growth: the w o r d s of
Amos; a d d i t i o n s by a school of Amos; a n d m o r e a d d i t i o n s in another, later set-
t i n g ? Scholars debate h o w to discern the various stages; nevertheless, we can
point to s t r o n g evidence that these stages existed. This picture m a y be strange to
u s — w e live an era in w h i c h e d u c a t e d people take care to cite a n d q u o t e their
sources precisely. However, in antiquity, editors were comfortable a d d i n g to their
predecessors' w o r k s . ( T h u s was the entire D source a d d e d to the Torah; see "A
Pious F r a u d " in c h a p t e r 10.) It was m o r e i m p o r t a n t for such editors to a d d their
verses to a b o o k like A m o s a n d have t h e m be recognized as authoritative, t h a n
to claim t h e m as their o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . In s o m e sense this process is like that
of the j o k e s or a n e c d o t e s that circulate on the Internet. They m a y attributed to
a particular author, b u t their recipients revise, a d d to, subtract from, a n d u p d a t e
the w o r d s before s e n d i n g t h e m along to others. This m e a n s , in the case of b o t h
Amos a n d the Internet, that tracking d o w n the original text is a difficult if not
impossible task.
Some biblical scholars e x p e n d a great deal of energy trying to find the orig-
inal words of Amos and other prophets. In recent decades, however, more schol-
ars have recognized that this is impossible. 6 We simply k n o w too little. H o w did
the p r o p h e t Amos recite his speeches? That is, did he write t h e m d o w n and read
t h e m aloud, word for word? Did he speak from memory, a n d write the words
d o w n later? Did he revise his w o r d s after delivering them, perhaps taking into
account the difference between oral and written expression? O r did someone in
the audience write d o w n the prophet's words, a n d if so, was it an exact record?
Did anyone change or "improve" on the speeches while recopying them? Given
this chain of uncertainty, it is easy to u n d e r s t a n d w h y we need to distinguish
between the book and the words of Amos. Furthermore, we m u s t admit that we
can never recover exactly what Amos said. T h u s w h e n we seek to reconstruct the
historical conditions of Amos' time and place, we cannot treat the b o o k as if it
were his direct first-person account.

The Rhetoric of Amos

Few of us like to be told in public that our actions and core beliefs are b o t h
w r o n g h e a d e d and dangerous. So h o w did the p r o p h e t s get the people to listen
to such condemnations? The c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a p p r o a c h — t h a t is, the rhetoric—
used by each prophet must have m a d e a big difference to listeners. Here, too,
not all prophets were identical; for example, Isaiah used fancy poetry w h e n he
prophesied; but Amos did n o t . ' Different p r o p h e t s used rhetorical devices that
probably reflected their own skills and preferences, as well as their different
audiences. Since the devices used by Amos are not fancy, we may guess that he
was not speaking, by and large, to a highly educated, poetry-loving audience.
Amos induces the Israelites to listen to him w h e n he begins by prophesying
against all of their enemies—Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, etc. O n e can almost hear the
Israelites cheering as Amos c o n d e m n s e n e m y after e n e m y for its behavior. His
targets alternate between north a n d south; they get closer a n d closer to h o m e ,
until the a u d i e n c e — n o w listening attentively—hears: "Thus said the LORD: For
three transgressions of Israel, / For four, I will not revoke it" (2:6).
In addition, Amos also lures his audience with rhetorical questions, espe-
dally in 3 : 3 - 6 :

(3) Can two walk together / Without having met? (4) Does a lion roar
 in the forest / W h e n he has n o prey? / Does a great beast let out a cry
f r o m its d e n / W i t h o u t h a v i n g m a d e a capture? (5) Does a bird d r o p o n
the g r o u n d — i n a t r a p — / W i t h n o snare there? Does a trap s p r i n g u p
f r o m the g r o u n d / Unless it h a s caught s o m e t h i n g ? (6) W h e n a r a m s
h o r n is s o u n d e d in a t o w n , / Do the people not take alarm? Can mis-
f o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the LORD h a s not caused it?

These q u e s t i o n s c a p t u r e listeners by m a k i n g t h e m w o n d e r : W h a t is this p r o p h e t

A m o s talking about? W h a t does "two w a l k i n g together" m e a n , a n d w h a t does
that have to d o w i t h Amos' message? A m o s ' listeners w o u l d have a n s w e r e d "no"
after each question. T h u s w h e n the p r o p h e t p o s e d the final question ("Can mis-
f o r t u n e c o m e to a t o w n / If the LORD h a s n o t caused it?"), they p r o b a b l y were
ready to a n s w e r "no" a g a i n — a f f i r m i n g that G o d is in charge of all.
Irony also attracts listeners. T h u s at o n e point, A m o s has n o t i c e d that the
people t h i n k they will not be p u n i s h e d for their m o r a l failures because their sac-
rificial offerings are k e e p i n g G o d happy. T h e p r o p h e t wishes to teach that this
way of t h i n k i n g is wrong. He m a k e s his point by carrying the people's reasoning
to extremes. He suggests that if they believe offerings w o r k so well, they o u g h t
to go a h e a d a n d sin m o r e — s o long as they m a k e sure to b r i n g extra sacrifices:

(4:4) C o m e to Bethel a n d transgress; / To Gilgal, a n d transgress even

more: / Present y o u r sacrifices the next m o r n i n g / A n d y o u r tithes o n
the third day; (5) A n d b u r n a t h a n k offering of leavened b r e a d ; / A n d
proclaim freewill offerings loudly. For y o u love that sort of thing, Ο
Israelites—declares m y Lord GOD.

This is of course the last thing that an audience w o u l d expect a p r o p h e t — o r

G o d — t o tell t h e m . 8 By giving such u n e x p e c t e d advice, Amos gets their attention.
A m o s also resorts to p u n s , w h i c h h e l p disarm his audience. At the same
time, the w o r d p l a y reinforces his message. Three e x a m p l e s will suffice. First, he
plays on the n a m e Gilgal, literally "a r o u n d or circular place," a n d j u x t a p o s e s it
w i t h a s i m i l a r - s o u n d i n g root (g-J-h) that m e a n s "to be exiled": ki ha-gilgal galoh
yigleh ("for Gilgal shall go into exile"; 5:5). Second, he plays o n the m e a n i n g of
the o d d p l a c e - n a m e Lo-dabar, w h i c h literally m e a n s "nothing": "Ah, those w h o
are so h a p p y a b o u t L o - d a b a r / n o t h i n g " (6:13; transi, a d a p t e d ) . Finally, in one of
his visions he sees "a basket of kayitz ( s u m m e r fruit)," w h i c h represents that "the
h o u r of ketz ( d o o m ) has c o m e for My p e o p l e Israel" (8:2). (This p u n w o u l d have
s o u n d e d even stronger to his N o r t h e r n a u d i e n c e if they p r o n o u n c e d those t w o
w o r d s identically, as scholars n o w believe they did. T h e p r o n u n c i a t i o n reflected
in o u r c u r r e n t Bibles is a later, J u d e a n Hebrew. 9 )
The Five Main Points of Amos and of Classical Prophecy

Most of the classical prophets, including the prophet Amos, make the following
five points:

• The God of Israel is also a universal deity.

• Israel and J u d a h are accountable to this deity—God is not good to them
unconditionally, but rather rewards t h e m only for following the
covenant.
• This covenant involves b o t h interpersonal (ethical) and religious (ritu-
al) obligations—not one or the other.
• "The Day of the L O R D , " a day of p u n i s h m e n t , will arrive in the future.
• Even w h e n Israel is p u n i s h e d , it will not be destroyed; there will be a
remnant.

Lets explore each of these points, in turn.

A Universal God

Most ancient Near Eastern peoples were polytheistic. Typically they wor-
s h i p p e d — a m o n g other more personal or familial deities—a high god or goddess
w h o was especially responsible for their city-state. Thus, Ashur was the high god
of the Assyrians; Marduk, of the Babylonians; C h e m o s h , of the Moabites;
Milcom, of the Ammonites; and in pre-Israelite times, Baal (superceding II or El)
of the Canaanites. T h u s the Moabites would have shrugged off Amos' c o n d e m -
nation of Moab—"Because he b u r n e d the bones / Of the king of Edom to lime"
(2:1)—for they would have seen this as a matter of concern for their deity,
C h e m o s h , or for the Edomite high god, Qaus, but not for the god of their
Israelite neighbors.
Amos, however, insists that the God of Israel has jurisdiction over more than
just the land of Israel. This deity cares about more than what the people Israel
d o — o r what is d o n e to them. Indeed, God is the sole deity, and is universal,
punishing all nations everywhere for infractions of basic h u m a n decency.

Accountability

Although this Israelite deity held sway everywhere, the relationship with the
people Israel was a special one. They were supposed to be following divine laws
that a p p l y to t h e m alone. T h u s , after c o n d e m n i n g o t h e r n a t i o n s in 1 : 3 - 2 : 3 ,
A m o s indicts only J u d a h because "they have s p u r n e d the Teaching of the LORD /
A n d have not observed His laws" (2:4). In 2 : 6 - 8 , he c o n d e m n s the N o r t h e r n
K i n g d o m for violating n o r m s that the Israelites t h o u g h t of as b i n d i n g on the peo-
pie Israel specifically.
At s o m e point in history, Israelites b e g a n to u n d e r s t a n d this relationship as
a bent ( ‫ ) ב ר י ת‬, a covenant or c o m p a c t . 1 0 But this m e t a p h o r was a m b i g u o u s , for
political c o v e n a n t s in the ancient Near East were of two types. In a covenant of
grant, one party u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y gave s o m e t h i n g to a n o t h e r party. In contrast, a
suzerainty treaty recorded the agreement reached by two u n e q u a l parties, a vas-
sal a n d a suzerain (overlord). Usually the suzerain u n d e r t o o k to protect the vas-
sal, while the vassal h a d to pay tribute to the suzerain. 1 1
A variety of polemical p r o p h e t i c texts tell u s that m a n y people in Israel
viewed their covenant with G o d as a covenant of grant: G o d w o u l d protect t h e m
unconditionally. A m o s a n d o t h e r classical p r o p h e t s , however, m a i n t a i n e d that
G o d was suzerain, a n d Israel w a s a vassal. T h u s G o d will protect Israel only if
they observe the treaty s t i p u l a t i o n s — t h a t is, h e e d God's w o r d . This is the i m p o r t
of 9:7: "To Me, Ο Israelites, y o u are / Just like the E t h i o p i a n s 1 2 — d e c l a r e s the
LORD—True, I b r o u g h t Israel u p / F r o m the land of Egypt, / But also the
Philistines f r o m C a p h t o r / A n d the A r a m e a n s from Kir." G o d has m o v e d m a n y
peoples a r o u n d , not only this one. Israel's w o n d r o u s liberation in the past does
not imply u n c o n d i t i o n a l divine protection in the future. F u r t h e r m o r e , to the
extent that this relationship is special, it is o n e that m a k e s d e m a n d s : "You alone
have I singled out [literally: k n o w n ] / Of all the families of the e a r t h — / That is
w h y I will call you to account / For all y o u r iniquities" (3:2).

Both Ethical and Ritual Obligations

Again, p r o p h e t i c polemic indicates that s o m e Israelites believed that ritual action

alone was e n o u g h to assure divine presence a n d blessing. (Recall the ironic
w o r d s of Amos, "Come to Bethel a n d transgress . . ..") A m o s asserts an additional
d i m e n s i o n to the covenant: p r o p e r ethical, interpersonal behavior. Religion
involves right as well as rite. 1 3 A m o s claims in God's n a m e :

(5:21) I loathe, I s p u r n y o u r festivals, / I a m not a p p e a s e d by y o u r

s o l e m n assemblies. / (22) If y o u offer Me b u r n t offerings—or y o u r meal
offerings— / I will not accept t h e m ; / I will pay n o h e e d / To y o u r gifts
of fatlings. / (23) Spare Me the s o u n d of y o u r h y m n s , / And let Me n o t
 hear the m u s i c of y o u r lutes. / (24) But let justice well u p like water, /
Righteousness like an unfailing stream.

These verses (the last of w h i c h Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. featured in his f a m o u s
"I have a d r e a m " speech) are o p e n to t w o interpretations. If taken literally, they
suggest that religious or cultic rites are u n i m p o r t a n t ; only justice a n d righteous-
ness matter. This has b e e n a f r e q u e n t Protestant interpretation of this (and sim-
ilar) passages; classical Reform J u d a i s m a n d the Society for Ethical Culture also
e m p h a s i z e d this reading.
A n o t h e r reading u n d e r s t a n d s that the p r o p h e t is exaggerating for effect. His
point is that ritual alone is n o t efficacious. This is a m o r e typical J e w i s h reading
of the passage. In c o n d e m n i n g unethical behavior, A m o s dwells o n the o p -
pression of the lower class by the u p p e r class, w h o "lie o n ivory b e d s , 1 4 / Lolling
o n their c o u c h e s , / Feasting o n l a m b s f r o m the flock / A n d o n calves f r o m the
stalls" (6:4).

T h e Day Will C o m e

Those w h o deserve p u n i s h m e n t will be p u n i s h e d d u r i n g the "Day of the L O R D . "

T h e earliest m e n t i o n of this day a p p e a r s to be in Amos:

(5:18) Ah, you w h o w i s h / For the day of the LORD! W h y s h o u l d you

w a n t / The day of the LORD? / It shall be d a r k n e s s , not light! ( 1 9 ) — A s
if a m a n s h o u l d r u n f r o m a lion / A n d be attacked by a bear; / O r if he
got i n d o o r s , / S h o u l d lean his h a n d o n the wall / A n d be bitten by a
snake! (20) Surely the day of the LORD shall be / Not light, b u t darkness, /
Blackest night w i t h o u t a glimmer.

This passage suggests that the Day of the LORD w a s already a p o p u l a r c o n c e p t

before A m o s discussed i t 1 5 — t h e p e o p l e were w i s h i n g for its arrival. Clearly, they
believed it w o u l d be a g o o d day, m o s t likely a day in w h i c h G o d w o u l d a p p e a r
as a warrior to save Israel f r o m its enemies. T h e p o i n t A m o s m a k e s is that the
Day of the LORD is destructive.
M u c h a b o u t this "day" is unclear — w e d o n o t k n o w its origin, w h e t h e r p e o -
pie t h o u g h t of it as a literal day or s o m e longer p e r i o d of time, or w h e t h e r its
"darkness" is literal or m e t a p h o r i c a l . 1 6 In s o m e texts, as in Amos, this day brings
the p u n i s h m e n t of Israel, while o t h e r s m e n t i o n the p u n i s h m e n t of its enemies.
T h o u g h the description varies, the Day of the LORD is a w i d e s p r e a d a n d long-
s t a n d i n g c o n c e p t , f r o m A m o s all the way t h r o u g h the e n d of classical prophecy.
All Is Not Lost

G o d will n o t totally destroy Israel o n the Day of the LORD—nor at any o t h e r

time, since w i t h o u t the subservient p a r t n e r the C o v e n a n t w o u l d n o longer exist.
As the classical p r o p h e t s f r e q u e n t l y p u t it, the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel
implies a r e m n a n t of the p e o p l e will be s a v e d — n o m a t t e r w h a t .
A variety of biblical texts predict that ten percent will survive various
d e s t r u c t i o n s (see especially Isa. 6 : 1 3 , "But while a tenth part yet r e m a i n s in
it . . ."), i n c l u d i n g in Amos: "For t h u s said m y Lord GOD / A b o u t the H o u s e of
Israel: T h e t o w n that m a r c h e s o u t a t h o u s a n d s t r o n g / Shall have a h u n d r e d left,
/ A n d the o n e that m a r c h e s o u t a h u n d r e d s t r o n g / Shall have b u t ten left" (5:3).
Or, u s i n g m o r e figurative language: " T h u s said the LORD: A S a s h e p h e r d rescues
f r o m the l i o n s j a w s / Two s h a n k b o n e s or the tip of an ear, / So shall the Israelites
escape / W h o dwell in S a m a r i a — / W i t h the leg of a b e d or the h e a d of a c o u c h "
(3:12).
T h e five ideas o u t l i n e d above relate to each o t h e r loosely, w h i c h explains
w h y they r e c u r so often in classical prophecy. We can restate the cluster of c o n -
c e p t s as follows: YHWH—a universal d e i t y — h a s a special relationship w i t h Israel,
w h i c h calls for Israels h e e d i n g b o t h cultic a n d ethical n o r m s . If Israel d o e s n o t
meet these obligations, they will be p u n i s h e d . O n e of the possible p u n i s h m e n t s
will o c c u r on the Day of the LORD. However, b e c a u s e of the C o v e n a n t , Israel will
never be totally d e s t r o y e d — a r e m n a n t will always r e m a i n .

The Formation of the Book of Amos

All five ideas d i s c u s s e d in the p r e v i o u s section are f o u n d in the Book of Amos.

Yet we c a n n o t be sure h o w m a n y of t h e m c a m e f r o m the p r o p h e t himself. Later
revisions a n d a d d i t i o n s played a role (see above, "Amos the Book Versus A m o s
the Prophet"). I will s k e t c h the f o r m a t i o n of the b o o k here, w h i c h m u s t r e m a i n
only a s k e t c h , because m u c h of the history of the text is obscure.
A m o s , the e i g h t h - c e n t u r y p r o p h e t , believed that h e heard the divine voice,
as he reports: "Hear this w o r d , Ο p e o p l e of Israel, / That the LORD has spoken"
(3:1; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . He s a w visions that he believed were divine: "This is
w h a t m y Lord GOD showed m e " (7:1; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . He felt c o m p e l l e d to
share these w i t h the p u b l i c , i n c l u d i n g at the t e m p l e at Bethel (see 7:10, 13). 1 7
At s o m e p o i n t , either he or o n e of his disciples b r o u g h t these separate oracles
together. W h e n this h a p p e n e d , s o m e o n e h a d to d e c i d e h o w to o r d e r the oracles.
M a n y m e t h o d s of o r d e r i n g w o u l d have b e e n possible (e.g., chronological, asso-
ciative, topical), b u t the Book of A m o s s e e m s to k e e p similar types of oracles
together, like the visions n o w collected in c h a p t e r 7. In this way, the first Book
of A m o s w a s p r o d u c e d .
Later, to explain a n d u p d a t e the material, s o m e o n e a d d e d s u p e r s c r i p t i o n
a n d n a r r a t i o n . This i n c l u d e s the story a b o u t A m o s a n d A m a z i a h the priest, in
w h a t is n o w 7 : 1 0 - 1 7 . Surely an editor inserted that narrative there b e c a u s e it
refers directly to the oracle in the p r e v i o u s verse, even t h o u g h this p l a c e m e n t
i n t e r r u p t s the flow of the p r o p h e t i c s p e e c h . T h u s the b o o k slowly grew, a n d
p r o b a b l y existed in a few copies only.
Two events h e l p e d to p o p u l a r i z e the b o o k . T h e first w a s the e a r t h q u a k e two
years after A m o s p r o p h e s i e d (see 1:1); Zechariah 14:5 also m e n t i o n s "the earth-
q u a k e in the days of King Uzziah of J u d a h , " a n d archaeological digs c o n f i r m its
o c c u r r e n c e . 1 8 As part of his typical language of d e s t r u c t i o n , A m o s h a d u s e d
e a r t h q u a k e imagery: "Shall n o t the e a r t h s h a k e for this / A n d all that dwell o n it
m o u r n ? / Shall it n o t all rise like the Nile / A n d surge a n d s u b s i d e like the Nile
of Egypt?" (8:8); " I s a w m y LORD s t a n d i n g by the altar, a n d He said: Strike the
capitals so that the t h r e s h o l d s q u a k e , a n d m a k e an e n d of the first of t h e m all.
A n d I will slay the last of t h e m w i t h the s w o r d ; n o t o n e of t h e m shall escape, a n d
n o t o n e of t h e m shall survive" (9:1); a n d "It is m y Lord the GOD of Hosts / At
w h o s e t o u c h the earth trembles / A n d all w h o dwell on it m o u r n , / A n d all of it
swells like the Nile / A n d s u b s i d e s like the Nile of Egypt" ( 9 : 5 ) . He h a d p r o b a -
bly m e a n t this as general i m a g e r y of d e s t r u c t i o n — a figurative e a r t h q u a k e ; b u t
o n c e the big t e m b l o r hit, these verses were u n d e r s t o o d as true prophecy, a u t h e n -
ticating the b o o k as a whole.
After this e a r t h q u a k e c a m e the book's s u p e r s c r i p t i o n : "The w o r d s of A m o s ,
a s h e e p b r e e d e r f r o m Tekoa, w h o p r o p h e s i e d c o n c e r n i n g Israel in the reigns of
Kings Uzziah of J u d a h a n d J e r o b o a m s o n of J o a s h of Israel, t w o years before the
e a r t h q u a k e . " This s u p e r s c r i p t i o n tells u s m o r e t h a n most: A m o s w a s originally
J u d e a n ( f r o m Tekoa, a t o w n a b o u t ten miles s o u t h of J e r u s a l e m ) ; he directed his
p r o p h e c i e s at the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m ("Israel"); a n d he lived in the early to m i d -
e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C.E. (for J e r o b o a m II reigned a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 8 6 - 7 4 6 ) . Most
significantly, it n o t e s the c a l a m i t o u s e a r t h q u a k e . (This o p e n i n g verse of A m o s is
rich in i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t it leaves m a n y b a c k g r o u n d q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d : W h y
did A m o s migrate to the N o r t h ? In w h a t social circles d i d he move? W h o c o m -
prised his family? A n d so on. Readers s h o u l d n o t , however, h a r p o n these u n c e r -
tainties.) T h e p h r a s e "two years b e f o r e the e a r t h q u a k e " serves to legitimate the
p r o p h e c i e s that follow.
T h e b o o k received f u r t h e r a u t h e n t i c a t i o n d e c a d e s later, w i t h the d e s t r u c -
tion a n d exile of Samaria in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0 B.C.E. Events s e e m e d to bear o u t the dire
warnings:

"Do not seek Bethel, / N o r go to Gilgal, / N o r cross over to Beer-sheba; / For

Gilgal shall go into exile, / A n d Bethel shall b e c o m e a delusion" (5:5).
"As I drive you into exile b e y o n d D a m a s c u s . . ." (5:27)
"Assuredly, right s o o n / They shall h e a d the c o l u m n of exiles" (6:7).

As A m o s (the b o o k a n d the p e r s o n ) b e c a m e m o r e prestigious, scribes p r o d u c e d

m o r e copies.
Archaeological evidence suggests that after the destruction of the N o r t h e r n
K i n g d o m , m a n y Israelites or N o r t h e r n e r s migrated to J u d a h in the s o u t h . 1 9 At
least one of t h e m b r o u g h t along the Book of Amos, w h i c h w e n t t h r o u g h f u r t h e r
a d a p t a t i o n s to fit its n e w milieu. Specifically, s o m e o n e a d d e d references to Zion
a n d the Davidic h o u s e at key p o i n t s to m a k e the b o o k m o r e suitable for its n e w
audience. Before the oracles against the n a t i o n s (which at an earlier stage h a d
b e g u n the b o o k ) , a n e w o p e n i n g told readers that A m o s h a d proclaimed: "The
LORD roars from Zion, / Shouts a l o u d from J e r u s a l e m ; / And the pastures of the
s h e p h e r d s shall languish, / A n d the s u m m i t of Carmel shall wither" (1:2). This
verse is a statement that the "real" Amos, w h o left Tekoa for Bethel, w o u l d sure-
ly not have said.
Similarly in response to J u d e a n c o n c e r n s , the b o o k gained a n e w closing:

(9:11) In that day, I will set u p again the fallen b o o t h of David: I will
m e n d its breaches a n d set u p its r u i n s anew. I will build it firm as in the
days of old, (12) So that they shall possess the rest of E d o m / A n d all
the n a t i o n s once attached to My n a m e — d e c l a r e s the LORD w h o will
b r i n g this to pass. (13) A time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the LORD— / W h e n
the p l o w m a n shall meet the reaper, / A n d the treader of grapes / H i m
w h o h o l d s the b a g of seed; / W h e n the m o u n t a i n s shall d r i p wine / And
all the hills shall wave with grain. (14) I will restore My people Israel.
They shall rebuild r u i n e d cities a n d inhabit t h e m ; / They shall plant
vineyards a n d d r i n k their wine; / They shall till gardens a n d eat their
fruits. (15) A n d I will plant t h e m u p o n their soil, / N e v e r m o r e to be
u p r o o t e d / F r o m the soil I have given t h e m — s a i d the LORD y o u r God.

We can be sure that the p r o p h e t A m o s of the eighth c e n t u r y could not have said
these verses, for two reasons. First, A m o s otherwise s h o w s n o c o n c e r n for the
Davidic h o u s e , yet s u d d e n l y verse 11 m e n t i o n s that dynasty. Second, in contrast
to the adjective in that verse ("the fallen b o o t h of David"), d u r i n g Amos' time the
Davidic house was strong. So w h y is this passage here? Typically the Bible's edi-
tors e n d e d its books on a positive note. And that underscores m y point: Only
someone in the Southern K i n g d o m — n o t the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m — w o u l d have
perceived this closing note as unabashedly "positive"!

Conclusion: What We Have Learned from Amos

Although the language of Amos is n o t so difficult, reading his book is not easy.
Prophecy is a genre that is foreign to us. As the historical-critical m e t h o d has
taught us, a text like Amos is quite different from most books that we encounter.
In particular, the text makes more sense w h e n we grant that the words of the real
p r o p h e t Amos are not necessarily the same as the w o r d s in the b o o k that bears
his n a m e and that this b o o k grew over time.
In contrast to other prophetic b o o k s — i n c l u d i n g Isaiah, the focus of the next
c h a p t e r — A m o s is simple. In imagining h o w this little book developed, and h o w
its oracles functioned in various settings over time, we have taken a step toward
u n d e r s t a n d i n g m u c h longer, more complex prophetic books.
 17
"They Shall Beat Their Swords
into Plowshares"
Reading (First) Isaiah

Primary Reading: Isaiah 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 20, 31.

The Challenge of Reading Isaiah

I saiah is the longest of the prophetic books, comprised of 66 chapters. 1 In some

respects it is the most difficult to read of all the biblical books. This section
will touch on each of the factors that make Isaiah such a challenge.

Out of Many, One

The b o o k s history is complex: it embodies the work not of a single prophet, but
of at least two prophets a n d more likely three—or more.
The earliest of these poets, prophesying during the eighth century, is Isaiah
son of Amoz (not to be confused with the earlier Amos). Scholars sometimes
refer to him as First Isaiah; his work comprises m u c h of chapters 1 - 3 9 .
The second prophet, w h o m scholars call Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah),
prophesied in Babylonia h u n d r e d s of years later, during the Babylonian exile.
That work has become chapters 4 0 - 5 5 in the book as we n o w have it.
The third figure, w h o m some scholars call Trito-Isaiah (Third Isaiah),
prophesied in Israel shortly after the return from exile. That prophet's work
comprises chapters 5 6 - 6 6 .
However, distinguishing between their oracles is not simply a matter of
dividing u p the chapters. Just as not all of the book of Amos came from the
prophet Amos (see "The Formation of the Book of Amos" in chapter 16), so not
all of Isaiah 1 - 3 9 is by Isaiah son of Amoz. Deutero-Isaiah and other later, anon-
y m o u s figures a p p a r e n t l y inserted s o m e of their o w n w o r k there. 2 M a n y schol-
ars also believe that s o m e o n e copied c h a p t e r s 3 6 - 3 9 f r o m the Book of Kings. 3

W o r d s Without Peer

A n o t h e r factor that m a k e s the first Isaiah hard to u n d e r s t a n d is its use of m a n y

rare words. A large n u m b e r of those w o r d s a p p e a r only once in the w h o l e Bible.
(Scholars call s u c h w o r d s hapax legomena, a Greek expression m e a n i n g " u n i q u e
words." We often use the term hapax for short, as I will below.) Recall that c o n -
text is one of o u r m a j o r guides for w h a t w o r d s m e a n (see "The Act of Reading"
in c h a p t e r 3). Therefore, w h e n w o r d s a p p e a r only o n c e — s o that we have only
o n e e x a m p l e of h o w they are u s e d — t h e i r m e a n i n g often remains unclear. This
is w h y the JPS translation h a s so m a n y footnotes in Isaiah saying " m e a n i n g of
H e b r e w uncertain."

Ambiguous References and Unclear Boundaries

Beyond the p r o b l e m s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a p a x w o r d s , the p o e t r y of Isaiah is

u n u s u a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d , a n d its figures are o f t e n o b s c u r e . In a d d i t i o n , the
b o o k h a s r u n t o g e t h e r m a n y s e p a r a t e oracles. ( S o m e o t h e r p r o p h e t s , s u c h as
A m o s , u s e f o r m u l a s — s u c h as " T h u s said the L o r d " — t o indicate the b e g i n n i n g
of an oracle, or a m e s s e n g e r f o r m u l a — s u c h as "declares the L o r d " — t o indicate
its e n d . T h e s e f o r m u l a s — w h i c h s c h o l a r s call "form-critical markers"—are
largely a b s e n t in Isaiah.) D u e to the lack of a clear b r e a k b e t w e e n m a n y of the
u n i t s , s c h o l a r s d e b a t e w h e r e t h o s e u n i t s begin a n d e n d . T h i s d e b a t e m a n i f e s t s
in the m a n y different l a y o u t s that v a r i o u s t r a n s l a t i o n s have e m p l o y e d for this
book.

Uncertain Historical Context

As in Amos, this b o o k o p e n s w i t h a s u p e r s c r i p t i o n that states w h e n the p r o p h e t

was active. F r o m w h a t we are told, Isaiah's p r o p h e c i e s covered a long period,
f r o m "the reigns of Uzziah, J o t h a m , Ahaz, a n d Hezekiah, kings of J u d a h " (1:1),
n a m e l y f r o m the m i d - to late-eighth century. Many m a j o r events took place
d u r i n g this time: the Syro-Ephraimite w a r in the 7 3 0 s ( w h e n D a m a s c u s a n d
N o r t h e r n Israel i n v a d e d J u d a h ) ; the e n d of the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m a n d the exile
of m u c h of its p o p u l a c e in 7 2 2 - 7 2 0 ; the devastation of the J u d e a n c o u n t r y s i d e
a n d the siege of J e r u s a l e m in 7 0 1 (see "Israel's History as Seen f r o m the Inside"
in c h a p t e r 4; "Jerusalem in 7 0 1 " in c h a p t e r 13); a n d m o r e . However, Isaiah t e n d s
to p r e s e n t its individual oracles w i t h o u t giving dates or o t h e r u n a m b i g u o u s clues
to the situations that they refer to. As it h a p p e n s , the s a m e oracle m a y read very
differently d e p e n d i n g o n w h i c h historical context that we imagine for it.
If the book's editors h a d placed Isaiahs oracles in chronological order, w e
m i g h t have an easier time inferring their contexts. However, the b o o k is n o t
a r r a n g e d that way. I n d e e d , w h a t m o s t c o n s i d e r to be Isaiah's d e d i c a t i o n as a
p r o p h e t d o e s n o t a p p e a r until c h a p t e r 6 . 4 Conversely, s o m e of the material in
c h a p t e r 1 a p p e a r s to date f r o m n e a r the e n d of Isaiah's mission. (See especially
verse 8: "Fair Zion is left / Like a b o o t h in a vineyard." This s e e m s to refer to
J e r u s a l e m u n d e r siege in 7 0 1 . )
Instead of chronological order, the b o o k o f t e n p r e s e n t s its u n i t s associative-
ly. T h e editors have g r o u p e d together oracles p e r t a i n i n g to similar topics. At
o t h e r times they have a r r a n g e d u n i t s by c a t c h w o r d s , w h e r e u n i t s b e g i n n i n g a n d
e n d i n g w i t h similar w o r d s are placed adjacently. F o r e x a m p l e , Isaiah c o m p l a i n s , 5
"My people's rulers are babes, / It is g o v e r n e d by w o m e n " (3:12). This is followed
associatively by a unit that c o n d e m n s w o m e n — n a m e l y "the d a u g h t e r s of Zion"
(3:16). That unit e n d s w i t h the p h r a s e "In that day" (4:1), at w h i c h p o i n t a n e w
unit starts w i t h those s a m e w o r d s ( 4 : 2 ) . 6

The Poetry of Isaiah

Reading Isaiah m e a n s u n d e r s t a n d i n g it as poetry, w h i c h m e a n s u n d e r s t a n d i n g

the characteristics of biblical poetry. 7 Earlier, I n o t e d the error of i n t e r p r e t i n g
p o e t r y as if it were prose (see "The Rules of the G a m e " in c h a p t e r 3). We w o u l d
be equally w r o n g to treat biblical p o e t r y as if it were modern poetry. 8 Even
t h o u g h m a n y cultures have a genre w e m i g h t call poetry, those w o r k s d o n o t all
share the s a m e characteristics. Broadly s p e a k i n g , p o e t r y m a y be c o n s i d e r e d a
type of elevated language that is n o t prose. H o w e v e r , the w a y in w h i c h it is "not
prose" differs f r o m society to society a n d f r o m time to time. Classical English
p o e t r y is metrical, that is, it h a s a p a t t e r n e d n u m b e r of stressed a n d u n s t r e s s e d
syllables. It is o f t e n r h y m e d , figurative ( m e a n i n g , it uses m a n y m e t a p h o r s a n d
similes) a n d uses special vocabulary. A n y o n e w h o reads biblical p o e t r y f r o m
Isaiah (or elsewhere) will quickly realize that like English poetry, it is highly fig-
urative a n d o f t e n uses elegant w o r d s , b u t u n l i k e English poetry, it is neither m e t -
rical 9 n o r r h y m e d .
 Instead, the m a i n characteristic of biblical p o e t r y is "binary repetition." By
this I m e a n that w e can divide m o s t poetic verses i n t o t w o lines (binary), w h e r e
the s e c o n d line repeats the m e a n i n g of the first in s o m e fashion. For e x a m p l e ,
the b e g i n n i n g of Isaiah 1:2 reads: "Hear, Ο h e a v e n s , a n d give ear, Ο earth." This
m a y be d i v i d e d into "Hear, Ο h e a v e n s " a n d "and give ear, Ο earth," w h e r e the
latter p h r a s e largely repeats the f o r m e r in t w o ways. It repeats the syntax ( i m p e r -
ative + Ό " + n o u n ) . In a d d i t i o n , it repeats the m e a n i n g ("hear" a n d "give ear"
are related as s y n o n y m s , a n d "heavens" a n d "earth" are related as opposites).
Each p h r a s e in the verse ( s u c h as "Hear, Ο h e a v e n s " or "and give ear, Ο earth")
is called a "colon." T h u s , the m a j o r feature of biblical p o e t r y is that its lines
divide i n t o "bicola" (singular "bicolon"). 1 0
Scholars call the relationship b e t w e e n the p h r a s e s "parallelism," since the
s e c o n d colon parallels the first. T h e n a t u r e of the parallelism h a s b e e n a n issue
of great debate. Bishop Robert L o w t h ( 1 7 1 0 - 1 7 8 7 ) in his Lectures on the Sacred
Poetry of the Hebrews ( 1 7 5 3 ) suggested three m a i n relationships b e t w e e n the t w o
cola: s y n o n y m o u s , antithetical, a n d synthetic. In synonymous parallelism, the sec-
o n d colon repeats the first in different w o r d s , as in Psalm 2:4, "He w h o is
e n t h r o n e d in h e a v e n laughs; the Lord m o c k s at t h e m . " In antithetical parallelism,
the s e c o n d colon expresses the o p p o s i t e idea of the first, as in Proverbs 15:20,
"A wise s o n m a k e s his father h a p p y ; A fool of a m a n h u m i l i a t e s his mother." In
synthetic parallelism, the s e c o n d c o l o n c o m p l e t e s the first, a n d together (i.e.,
t h r o u g h a synthesis of the two) they express a c o m p l e t e t h o u g h t . This can be
seen in Psalm 23:1, "The LORD is m y s h e p h e r d ; I lack n o t h i n g . "
Biblical scholars accepted Lowth's system for a l o n g time. It r e m a i n s h e l p f u l ,
a l t h o u g h it h a s rightly c o m e u n d e r assault in recent decades. S o m e observers
have n o t e d that the t e r m s are i m p r e c i s e — f o r e x a m p l e , "synthetic parallelism" is
a vague, catchall term. In a d d i t i o n , b e c a u s e m o d e r n archaeologists have u n c o v -
ered a large c o r p u s of ancient Semitic poetry, w e can n o w look at parallelism
m o r e broadly. It m u s t be even older t h a n the Bible, because it is f o u n d in the
literature of m o s t ancient Semitic-language cultures. We n o w u n d e r s t a n d that
b o t h the Bible a n d o t h e r Semitic p o e t r y often create this parallelism t h r o u g h a
c o n v e n t i o n k n o w n as "word pairs." W o r d s that are semantically related (e.g.,
g o o d a n d b a d ; day a n d night; ox a n d ass) a p p e a r in s t a n d a r d c o m b i n a t i o n s . That
is, the a u d i e n c e w h o hears one of those w o r d s t h e n expects that its m a t e will be
n o t far b e h i n d — t y p i c a l l y , in the next colon. T h u s these pairs h e l p e d to create
parallelism. 1 1
Finally, m a n y scholars believe that Lowth's three categories are too restric-
tive. T h e y prefer to explain the s t r u c t u r e of the bicolon like this: "A, a n d what's
m o r e , B" ( w h e r e "A" a n d "B" s t a n d for the t w o cola). In their view, "B" h e i g h t e n s
"A" in a wide range of ways. 1 2 This u n d e r s t a n d i n g of biblical poetry encourages
us to pay particular attention to the second colon, for it defines the meaning of
a line more than the first.
However, in some cases the second colon is merely a formal repetition of the
first, where the poet inserts the second word of a word-pair mechanically. 1 3 We
saw this, for example, in Amos, where the oracles against the nations all o p e n
with "For three transgressions . . . I For four . . . " There the numerals "three" and
"four" follow a c o m m o n pattern: A is some number, and Β is that n u m b e r plus
one; the numerals in these verses are merely fillers, since only one sin is listed in
each section. Another example may be seen in Psalm 121, which portrays God
as protector. Verse 6 reads: "By day the sun will not strike you, / nor the m o o n
by night." Colon A ("By day the sun will not strike you") makes sense, given the
strong Mediterranean sun. But to the best of my knowledge, n o one has ever suf-
fered m o o n b u r n . T h u s colon Β ("nor the m o o n by night") reflects a formal sec-
o n d i n g of A, using the word pairs "day-night" and "sun-moon."
The conflicting analyses of the previous two paragraphs create a dilemma:
H o w do we read biblical poetry? Do we read the second colon as more intensive
than the first, or do we see it as simply a filler? O r — t o complicate matters still
further—is it the case (as I believe) that some poets use the second colon to
heighten the first, while others use it as filler? Given that these poets are n o
longer around to inform us, we d o not k n o w for sure h o w to read many of their
poems.
Nevertheless, the binary structure of biblical poetry is easily visible through-
out Isaiah. For example, we can parse the first chapter of Isaiah according to the
three kinds of parallelism:

(1:2) Hear, Ο heavens, b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism

a n d give ear, Ο earth,
For the LORD has spoken: monocolon14
"I reared children and brought t h e m u p —
And they have rebelled against Me! bicolon—synthetic parallelism
(3) An ox k n o w s its owner,
An ass its master's crib: b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism
Israel does not know,
My people takes n o thought." b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism
(4) Ah, sinful nation!
People laden with iniquity! b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism
Brood of evildoers!
Depraved children! b i c o l o n — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism
T h e y have forsaken the LORD, t r i c o l o n 1 5 — s y n o n y m o u s parallelism
S p u r n e d the Holy O n e of Israel,
Turned their b a c k s o n H i m .

The historical-critical m e t h o d h a s recovered m a n y of the Bible's rhetorical

a p p r o a c h e s , allowing u s read the text as Israelites m i g h t h a v e — u s i n g their c o n -
ventions, n o t ours. To begin with, we look for natural b r e a k s in each verse, guid-
ed by the b i n a r y s t r u c t u r e that u n d e r g i r d s m o s t verses. Instead of u n d e r s t a n d -
ing the s e c o n d bicolon as merely repetitive, we m a y look for ways in w h i c h it
h e i g h t e n s the first. I c a n n o t overstate the i m p o r t a n c e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g Isaiah as
biblical poetry.

Isaiah as a Typical Classical Prophet

A l t h o u g h he is highly p o e t i c — a n d t h u s quite different in style f r o m A m o s —

Isaiah shares w i t h A m o s the five features of classical p r o p h e c y listed in o u r
p r e v i o u s chapter.

1. T h r o u g h eleven c h a p t e r s of oracles against the nations, Isaiah e m p h a -

sizes that G o d is a universal G o d ( 1 3 - 2 3 ) . Elsewhere, a c c o r d i n g to
Isaiah, G o d famously calls Assyria "rod of My anger, / In w h o s e h a n d ,
as a staff, is My fury!" (10:5). In o t h e r w o r d s , God's will alone i n d u c e s
far away Assyria to c o n q u e r large sections of J u d a h .
2. C h a p t e r 1 explains that this p u n i s h m e n t is the result of Judah's special
relationship w i t h its G o d — t h e J u d e a n s are God's children (v. 2) a n d ,
f r o m God's perspective, "My people" (v. 3).
3. The c o n t i n u a t i o n of the c h a p t e r m a k e s it clear that the covenantal rela-
t i o n s h i p i n c l u d e s interpersonal obligations, a n d that fulfilling cultic
responsibilities is n o t sufficient:

(1:11) "What n e e d have I of all y o u r sacrifices?" / Says the

LORD. "I a m sated w i t h b u r n t offerings of rams, / A n d suet of
fatlings, / A n d b l o o d of bulls; / A n d I have n o delight / In l a m b s
a n d he-goats. (12) That y o u c o m e to a p p e a r before M e — /
W h o asked that of you? / Trample My c o u r t s (13) n o more; /
Bringing oblations is futile, / Incense is offensive to Me. N e w
m o o n a n d s a b b a t h , / Proclaiming of solemnities, / Assemblies
w i t h iniquity, / I c a n n o t abide. (14) Your n e w m o o n s a n d fixed
seasons / Fill Me w i t h loathing; / They are b e c o m e a b u r d e n to
 Me, / I cannot e n d u r e t h e m . (15) A n d w h e n you lift u p y o u r
h a n d s , / I will t u r n My eyes away from you; / T h o u g h you pray
at length, / I will n o t listen. / Your h a n d s are stained with
crime-—(16) Wash yourselves clean; / Put your evil doings /
Away from My sight. / Cease to d o evil; (17) Learn to d o good. /
Devote yourselves to justice; / Aid the wronged. / U p h o l d the
rights of the o r p h a n ; / Defend the cause of the widow."

4. Isaiah describes an ultimate p u n i s h m e n t that will c o m e t h r o u g h the Day

of the LORD. Isaiah's image shares the "darkness" that we saw in A m o s
5 : 1 8 - 2 0 , b u t , not surprisingly—given that Isaiah lived after A m o s
d i d — t h e image is m o r e developed:

(13:6) Howl! For the day of the LORD is near; / It shall c o m e like
havoc from Shaddai. / (7) Therefore all h a n d s shall grow limp,/
And all men's hearts shall sink; / (8) And, overcome by terror,/
They shall be seized by p a n g s a n d throes, / Writhe like a
w o m a n in travail. / They shall gaze at each other in horror, /
Their faces livid with fright. / (9) Lo! The day of the LORD is
c o m i n g / W i t h pitiless fury a n d w r a t h , / To m a k e the earth a
desolation, / To wipe out the sinners u p o n it. / (10) The stars
and constellations of heaven / Shall not give off their light; /
The s u n shall be dark w h e n it rises, / And the m o o n shall dif-
fuse n o glow. / ( 1 1 ) "And I will requite to the world its evil, / And
to the wicked their iniquity; / I will put an e n d to the pride of
the arrogant / A n d h u m b l e the haughtiness of tyrants . . ."

5. Isaiah emphasizes the idea of a remnant—not all of Israel will be

destroyed. He expresses this idea most clearly in chapter 6 (which m a n y
scholars believe r e c o u n t s his dedication as a p r o p h e t , as m e n t i o n e d
above). The c o m i n g destruction is inevitable, but "while a tenth part yet
remains in it, it shall repent. It shall be ravaged like the terebinth a n d
the oak, of which s t u m p s are left even w h e n they are felled: its s t u m p
shall be a holy seed" (v. 13). 1 6

How Isaiah Differs

The differences b e t w e e n Isaiah a n d A m o s are m o r e t h a n stylistic, more t h a n the

fact that Isaiah uses more difficult vocabulary a n d poetry. N o two p r o p h e t s ' style
a n d concerns are identical; each one is u n i q u e to his particular time period a n d
audience, and each has u n i q u e mannerisms.
As noted, classical prophets often performed o d d symbolic actions (see
"Doing Strange Deeds" in chapter 15). This is quite clear from Isaiah, w h o , for
example, is told: "Go, untie the sackcloth from your loins and take your sandals
off your feet" (20:2). However, in contrast to nonclassical prophets, this is not a
magical activity meant to cause a miraculous outcome, but rather is an unusual
act m e a n t to symbolize something. In this case, the passage proceeds to clarify
the action's symbolism:

It is a sign and a portent for Egypt and Nubia. Just as My servant Isaiah
has gone naked a n d barefoot for three years, so shall the king of Assyria
drive off the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Nubia, y o u n g and old,
naked a n d barefoot and with bared b u t t o c k s — t o the shame of Egypt!
(w. 3 - 4 ) .

Of course, the most famous of Isaiah's symbolic acts is f o u n d in 7:14:

"Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His o w n accord! Look, the y o u n g
w o m a n is with child a n d about to give birth to a son. Let her n a m e him
Immanuel." This JPS translation follows the Hebrew closely and presumes that
this "sign" is about to take place in the near future. It differs strikingly from the
famous (but less accurate) King J a m e s rendering: "Behold, a virgin shall con-
ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his n a m e Immanuel," which accords with
Matthew 1:23 in the New Testament.
In comparison with Amos, w h o depicted a total exile of the N o r t h e r n king-
d o m , Isaiah (also a J u d e a n ) claims that although m u c h of J u d a h might be deci-
mated, Jerusalem shall never fall. This theme, which scholars call "the inviola-
bility of Jerusalem," distinguishes Isaiah's message from that of other classical
prophets. Given the events that Isaiah witnessed in 7 0 1 — w h e n Sennacherib
conquered the countryside but not Jerusalem (see "Jerusalem in 701" in chapter
13)—it is not surprising that he dwells on this theme. Here is one example:

(31:5) Like the birds that fly, even so will the LORD of Hosts shield
Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting and rescuing. . . . (8) Then
Assyria shall fall, / Not by the sword of m a n ; / A sword not of h u m a n s
shall devour him. / He shall shrivel before the sword, / And his y o u n g
m e n pine away. (9) His rock shall melt with terror, / And his officers
shall collapse from weakness—Declares the LORD, w h o has a fire in
Zion, / W h o has an oven in Jerusalem.

Was this Isaiah predicting the future, or were these words written later, after
S e n n a c h e r i b h a d left J e r u s a l e m alone? Surely, biblical a u t h o r s s o m e t i m e s c o m -
p o s e d an oracle after the event that it refers to, in order to interpret for the a u d i -
ence w h a t h a d occurred. (Scholars call this vaticinium ex eventu, " p r o p h e c y after
the event.") Today, however, we have n o way to distinguish p r o n o u n c e m e n t s
w r i t t e n in that situation.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the eschatology depicted in Isaiah—his view of the ideal
f u t u r e — i s highly developed c o m p a r e d with A m o s (see 9 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) . Isaiah 1 - 3 9
presents n o single picture of the ultimate future, either because Isaiah's views
evolved d u r i n g the apparently long period that he prophesied, or because s o m e of
that material postdates Isaiah son of Amoz. The most famous of these visions is:

(2:1) The w o r d that Isaiah son of A m o z p r o p h e s i e d c o n c e r n i n g J u d a h

a n d Jerusalem. / (2) In the days to c o m e , 1 7 / T h e M o u n t of the LORD'S
H o u s e / Shall s t a n d firm above the m o u n t a i n s / A n d tower above the
hills; / A n d all the n a t i o n s / Shall gaze o n it with joy. / (3) A n d the m a n y
p e o p l e s shall go a n d say: / " C o m e , / Let u s go u p to the M o u n t of
the LORD, / To the H o u s e of the G o d of Jacob; / That He m a y instruct u s
in His ways, / A n d that we m a y walk in His paths." / For instruction
shall c o m e forth f r o m Zion, / T h e w o r d of the LORD f r o m J e r u s a l e m . /
(4) T h u s He will j u d g e a m o n g the n a t i o n s / A n d arbitrate for the m a n y
peoples, / A n d they shall beat their s w o r d s into p l o w s h a r e s / A n d their
spears into p r u n i n g h o o k s : / Nation shall n o t take u p / Sword against
nation; / They shall never again k n o w war.

This vision of the e s c h a t o n spotlights the J e r u s a l e m Temple; its central image is

G o d as the j u s t j u d g e , u s h e r i n g in universal peace. As is typical of the Bible,
Isaiah a s s u m e s that the n a t i o n s of the w o r l d will recognize as p a r a m o u n t Israel's
G o d — a n d consequently, His land a n d Temple.
We c a n n o t be sure w h o first conceived of the eschaton in this particular way.
Micah i n c l u d e s s o m e of the same lines:

(4:1) In the days to come, / T h e M o u n t of the Lord's H o u s e shall stand /

Firm above the m o u n t a i n s ; / A n d it shall t o w e r above the hills. / T h e
p e o p l e s shall gaze o n it w i t h joy, / (2) A n d the m a n y n a t i o n s shall go
a n d shall say: / "Come, / Let u s go u p to the M o u n t of the Lord, / To the
H o u s e of the G o d of Jacob; / That He m a y instruct u s in His ways, / A n d
that we m a y walk in His paths." / For instruction shall c o m e forth f r o m
Zion, / The w o r d of the Lord f r o m J e r u s a l e m . / (3) T h u s He will j u d g e
a m o n g the m a n y peoples, / A n d arbitrate for the m u l t i t u d e of nations, /
H o w e v e r distant; / A n d they shall beat their s w o r d s into p l o w s h a r e s /
 A n d their spears i n t o p r u n i n g h o o k s . / N a t i o n shall n o t take u p / Sword
against nation; / They shall never again k n o w war.

These t w o passages are so similar that either one a u t h o r copied f r o m the

other, or b o t h copied f r o m the same source. (This is a g o o d illustration of one
difference b e t w e e n m o d e r n a n d ancient b o o k s . In antiquity, editors copied
w o r d s f r o m one b o o k to a n o t h e r w i t h ease, believing p e r h a p s that "this s h o u l d
have b e e n w h a t Isaiah said.")
A n o t h e r w e l l - k n o w n text in Isaiah ascribes an i m p o r t a n t role to a Davidic
d e s c e n d a n t in this n e w w o r l d order:

(11:1) But a shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse [Davids father], / A twig
shall s p r o u t f r o m his stock. / (2) T h e spirit of the LORD shall alight u p o n
h i m : / A spirit of w i s d o m a n d insight, / A spirit of counsel a n d valor, /
A spirit of d e v o t i o n a n d reverence for the LORD. / (3) He shall sense the
t r u t h b y his reverence for the LORD: / He shall not j u d g e by w h a t his
eyes b e h o l d , / N o r decide b y w h a t his ears perceive. / (4) T h u s he shall
j u d g e the p o o r w i t h equity / A n d decide with justice for the lowly of
the land. / He shall strike d o w n a land w i t h the rod of his m o u t h / A n d
slay the wicked with the b r e a t h of his lips. / (5) Justice shall be the gir-
die of his loins, / A n d faithfulness the girdle of his waist. / (6) T h e wolf
shall dwell w i t h the lamb, / T h e leopard lie d o w n w i t h the kid; / The
calf, the beast of prey, a n d the failing together, / W i t h a little b o y to h e r d
t h e m . / (7) T h e c o w a n d the b e a r shall graze, / Their y o u n g shall lie
d o w n together; / A n d the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw. / (8) A babe
shall play / Over a v i p e r s hole, / A n d an infant pass his h a n d / O v e r an
adder's d e n . / (9) In all of My sacred m o u n t / N o t h i n g evil or vile shall
be d o n e ; / For the land shall be filled w i t h devotion to the LORD / As
water covers the sea.

This passage depicts a n e w o r d e r in the animal world. It suggests that this

Davidic k i n g will be the ideal j u d g e , in contrast w i t h c h a p t e r 2, w h e r e G o d
has that role. M a n y w o u l d call this passage "messianic," in the sense that it
describes the ideal f u t u r e king. T h e English w o r d "messiah" c o m e s f r o m
mashiach ( ‫ מ ש י ח‬, "anointed"); a n o i n t i n g w a s the rite that m a d e a p e r s o n into a
king. However, the H e b r e w Bible never uses the t e r m mashiach to describe s u c h
f u t u r e kings; stated differently, in the Bible, the messiah is never called "messi-
a h . " 1 8 To be precise, I refer to this figure as the "future ideal Davidic king,"
a l t h o u g h that is m o r e c u m b e r s o m e .
A final difference b e t w e e n Isaiah a n d A m o s c o n c e r n s the f u n d a m e n t a l role
of the prophet. Amos often calls u p o n the people to repent; this is almost total-
ly absent in Isaiah. In fact, God gives Isaiah a most u n u s u a l mission: "Dull that
people's m i n d , / Stop its ears, / And seal its eyes— / Lest, seeing with its eyes /
And hearing with its ears, / It also grasp with its m i n d , / And repent a n d save
itself" (6:10). In other words, Isaiah is s u p p o s e d to m a k e sure the people d o not
r e p e n t — a n d indeed the remainder of the First Isaiah does not contain a single
call to repentance, in contrast to Amos.

Bringing It All Together

Of all the prophetic works, that of First Isaiah is the most beautiful yet also the
most abstruse. Given its difficulty, I find it remarkable that this b o o k was pre-
served at all. Clearly, some g r o u p with a fine sense of poetry a n d s y m p a t h y to
Isaiah's message took responsibility for this.
The fact that the b o o k proclaimed the inviolability of Jerusalem, and that
Sennacherib did not c o n q u e r the city, certainly helped its prestige at first. In that
sense, chapters 3 6 - 3 9 , w h i c h describe these events, had the same impact as the
verses in Amos about the q u a k i n g g r o u n d (see "The Formation of the Book of
Amos" in chapter 16). Such notices vindicated the p r o p h e t as a true p r o p h e t —
namely a p r o p h e t whose w o r d s came true (see Deut. 1 8 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) . Yet a main
t h e m e of Isaiah, the inviolability of Jerusalem, was disproved with the destruc-
tion of the Temple and the exile of 586. O n e might have t h o u g h t that after this
t u r n of events the b o o k w o u l d have been treated as false p r o p h e c y — a n d con-
signed to oblivion. However, by that point, Isaiah had probably been authorita-
tive for more than a century. Presumably its sublime style a n d evocative message
about a better future maintained the interest of readers a n d scribes—and ulti-
mately assured its place in the canon.
 18

"I Will Make This House like Shiloh"

Reading Jeremiah

Primary Reading: Jeremiah 1,3, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36, 52.

Background

T he Book of Jeremiah opens with the longest superscription of any prophet-

ic book:

(1:1) The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at

Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. ( 2 ) The word of the LORD came
to him in the days of King Josiah son of A m o n of J u d a h , in the thir-
teenth year of his reign, (3) a n d throughout the days of King Jehoiakim
son of Josiah of J u d a h , and until the end of the eleventh year of King
Zedekiah son of Josiah of J u d a h , w h e n Jerusalem went into exile in the
fifth m o n t h .

Translated into m o d e r n terms, it says that Jeremiah began to prophesy in

6 2 7 B.C.E. and finished around the time of the destruction of the Temple in
5 8 6 — a period of more than forty years. (According to the Bible and other
sources as well, this was an eventful time. King Josiah reformed religious prac-
tice in J u d a h . Babylon defeated Assyria and came into its own as a world power.
Egypt briefly imposed vassal status on J u d a h — m o r e than once. Babylon de-
feated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish in 605. The Babylonians exiled
Judah's king, Jehoiachin, in 597. Finally, they returned to destroy Jerusalem
and exile m u c h of its populace in 586.) We also learn that Jeremiah was a priest
and that he hailed from Anathoth, a town about three miles (five km.) n o r t h of
Jerusalem.
The b o o k is filled with other biographical information—so m u c h so that
many scholars identify in the b o o k a separate strand or source devoted to biog-
raphy. 1 This is u n i q u e a m o n g p r o p h e t i c books. As usual, we c a n n o t be certain
that any of this i n f o r m a t i o n is historically accurate. 2 Yet we possess an u n u s u a l -
ly rich a m o u n t of b a c k g r o u n d that gives us a h e a d start in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
oracles attributed to this p r o p h e t .

Reading Jeremiah after Isaiah

F r o m the superscription, we learn that Jeremiah p r o p h e s i e d almost a c e n t u r y

after Isaiah, d u r i n g a very different historical period. In particular, in Isaiah's
time, the Assyrians were the enemies w h o m J u d a h w o u l d overcome; for
Jeremiah, the Babylonians were the enemies w h o w o u l d destroy the Jerusalem
Temple. T h u s it is not surprising that the Book of J e r e m i a h is quite different from
those we have already seen.
C o m p a r e d to the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah is m u c h easier to read. It contains
m o r e prose, and its poetic sections are less complex. It has fewer u n i q u e ( h a p a x )
words. It also gives date formulas a n d o t h e r clues a b o u t where one oracle begins
a n d a n o t h e r ends. For example, the phrase "The w o r d w h i c h came to Jeremiah
from the LORD" a p p e a r s ten times, always i n t r o d u c i n g an oracle.

Organizing Principles

Correlation of the date formulas s h o w s that the Book of J e r e m i a h is n o t in

chronological order. Like Isaiah, m u c h of it is arranged associatively. For exam-
pie, J e r e m i a h 2 0 a n d 21 are adjacent because they each c o n c e r n a m a n n a m e d
P a s h h u r (an Egyptian n a m e ) , a l t h o u g h two different P a s h h u r s are involved.
O t h e r passages are ordered b y catchphrases. Some of the prophecies an editor
has g r o u p e d topically; t h u s 23:9 contains a title—"Concerning the p r o p h e t s " —
a n d w h a t follows c o n c e r n s Jeremiah's p r o p h e t i c adversaries ( w h o m we w o u l d
call "false prophets," t h o u g h that term never a p p e a r s in the H e b r e w text). 3
Similarly, a collection of p r o p h e c i e s against the J u d e a n kings appears u n d e r the
title "To the H o u s e of the king of J u d a h " (21:11). A set of oracles against other
peoples follows the title "The w o r d of the LORD to the p r o p h e t Jeremiah con-
c e r n i n g the nations" (46:1).
The b o o k s of earlier p r o p h e t s — i n c l u d i n g I s a i a h — d o not display topical
organization. An editor of the Book of Jeremiah appears to have e x p e r i m e n t e d
with n e w ways of assembling p r o p h e t i c oracles into a b o o k .
Content

The content of Jeremiahs book differs from that of Isaiah's. Scholars attribute
some of these differences to the distinct historical contexts noted earlier. We can
also point to the impact of each figure's o w n personality a n d style. Disparate edi-
torial processes may account for still other differences in content.
The biggest factor, however, is that the two books wish to convey different
messages. A m a j o r theme of Isaiah is the inviolability of Jerusalem: "the L O R D of
Hosts [will] shield Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting and rescuing"
(Isa. 31:5). In contrast, Jeremiah's major theme is the p e n d i n g destruction of
J e r u s a l e m — a n d of its Temple. The w o r d s of 26:6 refer to both disasters: "then I
will m a k e this House like Shiloh [the sanctuary site that the Philistines had
destroyed centuries earlier], a n d I will make this city a curse for all the nations
of earth." Furthermore, as the previous chapter noted, Isaiah focused more on
explaining devastating events than on convincing the people to repent. In con-
trast, in m u c h of Jeremiah, the prophet calls for repentance, as in 3:14: "turn
back, rebellious children—declares the L O R D . " 4

Reworking Isaiah

In some cases, Jeremiah may be basing his oracles on earlier prophecies of

Isaiah, but if so, then he transforms t h e m in a radical fashion. For example, as
we saw earlier, Isaiah had viewed Assyria as God's servant, chosen to punish
Israel:

(10:5) Ha! Assyria, rod of My anger, / In whose h a n d , as a staff, is My

fury! / (6) I send him against an ungodly nation [= J u d a h ] , / I charge
him against a people that provokes Me, / To take its spoil and to seize
its booty / And to make it a thing trampled / Like the mire of the streets.

(Recall that classical prophecy saw the God of Israel as a universal deity.) God,
however, w o u l d "punish the majestic pride and overbearing arrogance of the
king of Assyria" (v. 12); the passage had gone on to describe this p u n i s h m e n t in
great detail.
That prophesy of Isaiah's may serve as the basis of Jeremiah 25, which
describes the destruction of J u d a h through the agency of Babylon, which has
since succeeded Assyria as a great power. Jeremiah views Babylon as a new
Assyria, as God's new instrument. However, Babylon's impact will be m u c h
greater than Assyria's; it will not only p u n i s h J u d a h , it will also destroy the
Temple and exile m u c h of the populace.

Remarkable Words for Remarkable Times

W h e t h e r or not Jeremiah 25 was based on Isaiah, it is a turning point in the

b o o k — a n d in Jeremiah's career. After twenty-three years of attempts to convince
the people to repent, he a b a n d o n s his call for repentance (w. 1 - 7 ) . W h y now?
The date formula gives us a clue: "the first year of King Nebuchadrezzar of
Babylon" (v. 1). That was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar (the more c o m m o n
biblical form of the n a m e "Nebuchadrezzar") defeated Egypt at the Battle of
Carchemish (605 B.C.E.). That victory asserted Babylon's dominance of the
ancient Near East. 5 The text t h u s connects the radical shifts in this chapter to the
s u d d e n , regionwide political transformation.
Repeatedly in earlier chapters, Jeremiah included vague threats about an
e n e m y from the n o r t h (e.g., "Thus said the LORD: See, a people comes from the
northland, / A great nation is roused / From the remotest parts of the earth";
6:22). The historic rise of Babylon n o w p r o m p t s our text to clarify that this
empire is that "northern" p o w e r (25:9). 6 (Prior to Babylon's hegemony,
Jeremiah's audience would have f o u n d it hard to tell which foreign power he
meant.)
Furthermore, the text assigns the Babylonians absolute world domination
for seventy years (w. 1 1 - 1 3 ) ; neither J u d e a n repentance nor any deeds by
Babylon will change this. (The n u m b e r seventy may be a r o u n d n u m b e r indi-
eating the life span of a healthy person, as in Ps. 90:10, "The span of our life is
seventy years." Alternatively, the author of this text perhaps k n e w an inscription
from the earlier Assyrian king Esarhaddon, which claims that the Babylonian
deity Marduk decreed seventy years of desolation for Babylon, and reapplied it
here in an Israelite context. 7 )

Code Words

The passage in Jeremiah 25 continues with a recurring biblical image: the

"cup of wrath," 8 filled with p o t e n t — a n d ultimately p o i s o n o u s — d r i n k . All the
nations will drink from this cup, representing their subservience to Babylon (w.
15-26). This section ends with a very difficult sentence: "And last of all, the king
of Sheshach shall drink" (v. 26). Despite our vast knowledge of ancient Near
Eastern place-names, we c a n n o t point to a likely candidate for "Sheshach."
A d d i n g to the puzzle is the fact that this section of verse 2 6 is missing f r o m the
Septuagint of J e r e m i a h . 9
We can solve the puzzle w i t h the h e l p of a n o t h e r ancient version, the
Aramaic translation (Targum). 1 0 It r e n d e r s Sheshach as "Babylon." The medieval
Jewish c o m m e n t a t o r Rashi ( 1 0 4 0 - 1 1 0 5 ) elaborates: "Sheshach: this is Babylon
u s i n g atbash." Atbash is a system of ciphers, in w h i c h we substitute the first let-
ter of the alphabet (alef, ‫ ) א‬for the last (tav, Π), the second (bet, 2) for the sec-
o n d to last (shin, ‫ ) ש‬, etc. In English, this w o u l d be like s u b s t i t u t i n g A for Ζ; Β
for Y; C for X, etc. T h e result of this c i p h e r in H e b r e w is that (Sheshach) =
‫( ; ב ב ל‬Babylon).
Rashi's explanation fits the evidence. T h u s we learn that writers used codes
already in antiquity. However, their use in the Bible is extremely rare. 1 1
(Certainly the entire text s h o u l d n o t be read as a code.) W h a t circumstances
p r o m p t e d the code here?

Later C h a n g e s to the Book

D u r i n g the Babylonian exile, s o m e m e m b e r s of the defeated people reserved

h a r s h j u d g m e n t s for the victors. ( C o m p a r e the postexilic Ps. 137:8, in reference
to Babylon: "a blessing o n h i m w h o seizes y o u r babies a n d d a s h e s t h e m against
the rocks!") Probably at that time, a copyist of J e r e m i a h a d d e d 2 5 : 2 6 b as a way
to "vent" against the Babylonian masters: they too were not e x e m p t f r o m d r i n k -
ing f r o m the prophet's p o i s o n o u s "cup." Perhaps to avoid the eyes of a
Babylonian censor, the copyist m a d e the point only in code. Because this addi-
tion came relatively late in the book's d e v e l o p m e n t , it did n o t find its way into
all versions of J e r e m i a h .
N o w a d a y s it m a y seem a s t o n i s h i n g to u s that s o m e o n e w o u l d a d d to
Jeremiah's divine p r o p h e c i e s ("thus said the LORD, the G o d of Israel, to me";
25:15). But again, s u c h alterations clearly were the n o r m in the transmission of
texts t h r o u g h o u t the ancient Near East.
I n d e e d , 2 5 : 2 6 b is n o t the only piece of the b o o k that s t a n d s o u t f r o m the
rest of it. Most of the prose p o r t i o n s of J e r e m i a h s h o w clear linguistic a n d theo-
logical affinities to D e u t e r o n o m y . 1 2 This suggests that J e r e m i a h w e n t t h r o u g h a
wholesale editing by o n e or m o r e editors affiliated with the Deuteronomistic
school. ( W h e t h e r those editors were s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y D e u t e r o n o m i s t s , or later
exilic ones, or b o t h , is unclear. 1 3 ) In the process of m a k i n g this b o o k fit their
theology, those editors a d d e d m u c h to the "authentic" w o r d s of J e r e m i a h . Again,
these editors believed that s u c h is w h a t J e r e m i a h s h o u l d have (or m u s t have)
said, so they inserted it into his m o u t h .

Relationship to the Torah

A n o t h e r difference b e t w e e n the w o r k of (First) Isaiah a n d the Book of J e r e m i a h

is the latter's greater use of w h a t we recognize as Torah material. (As discussed
in the previous chapter, a l t h o u g h we might tend to a s s u m e that the classical
p r o p h e t s insisted that the people follow the Torah, in fact in their day the Torah
as a b o o k did not yet exist.)

Points of Similarity

We can point to close correlations b e t w e e n passages in J e r e m i a h a n d w h a t we

n o w k n o w as the Torah. For e x a m p l e , J e r e m i a h poses a rhetorical q u e s t i o n , "Will
y o u steal a n d m u r d e r a n d c o m m i t a d u l t e r y a n d swear falsely, a n d sacrifice to
Baal, a n d follow o t h e r g o d s w h o m y o u have n o t experienced?" (7:9). Here he is
accusing the people of violating the Decalogue, w h i c h he alludes to via a d d u c -
ing i t — b y a n d large—in reverse order. (In the Bible, s u c h reversal indicates that
a later source is citing an earlier o n e — i t f u n c t i o n s like q u o t a t i o n m a r k s in
English. 1 4 )
In a d d i t i o n , J e r e m i a h i n c l u d e s several passages that insist o n p u n c t i l i o u s rit-
ual observance. For e x a m p l e , one long p r o p h e c y urges strict Sabbath observance
( 1 7 : 1 9 - 2 7 ) . I n d e e d , it b l a m e s the d e s t r u c t i o n of the Temple on Judah's lack of
regard for the Sabbath. T h u s the b o o k strikes a different balance b e t w e e n ethi-
cal a n d "religious" c o n c e r n s f r o m that f o u n d in Isaiah (or Amos).
O t h e r correlations w i t h Torah traditions relate to the Book of D e u t e r o n o m y
specifically. T h u s J e r e m i a h 3 : 1 - 3 uses as a parable for Israel's behavior the legal
case of a w o m a n w h o divorced, m a r r i e d a n o t h e r m a n , divorced h i m , a n d t h e n
w a n t s to r e t u r n to her first h u s b a n d . T h e Torah m e n t i o n s this (rather obscure)
legal case only in D e u t e r o n o m y 24:1-4. Similarly, J e r e m i a h 28 concerns
H a n a n i a h , w h o f r o m the perspective of J e r e m i a h is a false p r o p h e t . The story
q u o t e s J e r e m i a h as accusing H a n a n i a h of h a v i n g "urged disloyalty" (v. 16),
w h i c h m a t c h e s a key term in D e u t e r o n o m y 13:6 (dibber sarah, ΓΠζΓ~01).
F u r t h e r m o r e , the false p r o p h e t dies s o o n thereafter (Jer. 28:17), in accord w i t h
D e u t e r o n o m y 13:6 a n d 18:20.
A c c o u n t i n g for the Similarities

W i t h respect to Torah traditions a n d literature, J e r e m i a h differs f r o m earlier

p r o p h e t s in three ways: (1) J e r e m i a h himself w a s a priest; (2) J e r e m i a h lived
later; (3) significant parts of "his" b o o k p o s t d a t e the life of J e r e m i a h .
As a p r o p h e t , J e r e m i a h believed he h a d access to divine oracles. But as a
priest, he k n e w "instruction," that is, Torah traditions. T h e b o o k u n d e r s c o r e s the
priestly role as religious teacher w h e n it r e c o u n t s w o r d s of conspiracy:

C o m e let u s devise a plot against J e r e m i a h — f o r torah [ ‫ ת ו ר ה‬, "instruc-

tion"] shall n o t fail f r o m the priest, n o r c o u n s e l f r o m the wise, n o r ora-
cle f r o m the p r o p h e t . C o m e , let u s strike h i m w i t h the t o n g u e , a n d we
shall n o longer have to listen to all those w o r d s of his ( 1 8 : 1 8 ; transi.
adapted).

J e r e m i a h s adversaries associate torah w i t h p r i e s t s — r a t h e r t h a n w i t h sages or

p r o p h e t s . If so, t h e n J e r e m i a h the priest w o u l d naturally be m o r e c o n c e r n e d
w i t h Torah traditions t h a n the classical p r o p h e t s w h o p r e c e d e d h i m .
Recall critical scholars' t h e o r y that over time, Torah traditions d e v e l o p e d
slowly i n t o an authoritative b o o k — o n e that individuals could q u o t e , cite, a n d
interpret. J e r e m i a h lived in a time close to the exile; by t h e n it is likely that J a n d
Ε traditions were well k n o w n a n d authoritative, a n d m a n y D ( b u t n o t P) tradi-
tions were b e c o m i n g authoritative. In a d d i t i o n , for the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c editors
of the b o o k w h o lived after J e r e m i a h , D traditions w e r e certainly authoritative.
T h e s e factors f u r t h e r explain w h y J e r e m i a h cites m o r e "Torah material" t h a n did
prior p r o p h e t s s u c h as (the first) Isaiah. 1 5

A New Heart and a New Covenant

A n o t h e r way in w h i c h J e r e m i a h d e p a r t s f r o m Isaiah is in his d e p i c t i o n of

h u m a n k i n d in the f u t u r e . Prior biblical eschatological visions typically i m a g i n e d
c h a n g e s only in the n a t u r a l w o r l d . For e x a m p l e , A m o s h a d p a i n t e d a verbal pic-
ture of great agricultural a b u n d a n c e . T h e p r o d u c e will be so b o u n t i f u l that its
harvest will still be u n d e r w a y w h e n the time c o m e s to plant again:

A time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the LORD— / W h e n the p l o w m a n shall meet

the reaper, / A n d the treader of g r a p e s / H i m w h o h o l d s the b a g of
seed; / W h e n the m o u n t a i n s shall d r i p w i n e / A n d all the hills shall wave
w i t h grain (9:13).
In t u r n , Isaiah envisioned d r a m a t i c c h a n g e s in the a n i m a l k i n g d o m :

T h e wolf shall dwell w i t h the lamb. . . . / T h e c o w a n d the bear shall

graze, / Their y o u n g shall lie d o w n together; / A n d the lion, like the ox,
shall eat straw. . . . / A b a b e shall play over a viper's hole . . . ( 1 1 : 6 - 8 ) .

Jeremiah's c o n c e p t i o n , however, is even m o r e extreme. T h e b o o k foresees basic

c h a n g e s n o t o n l y in the n a t u r a l w o r l d , b u t also in h u m a n nature:

( 3 1 : 3 1 ) See, a time is c o m i n g — d e c l a r e s the L O R D — w h e n I will m a k e

a n e w c o v e n a n t w i t h the H o u s e of Israel a n d t h e H o u s e of J u d a h .
( 3 2 ) It will n o t be like the c o v e n a n t I m a d e w i t h their fathers, w h e n I
t o o k t h e m b y the h a n d to lead t h e m o u t of the l a n d of Egypt, a
c o v e n a n t w h i c h they b r o k e , t h o u g h I e s p o u s e d t h e m — d e c l a r e s the
LORD. (33) But s u c h is t h e c o v e n a n t I will m a k e w i t h the H o u s e of
Israel after these d a y s — d e c l a r e s the LORD: I will p u t My T e a c h i n g i n t o
t h e i r i n m o s t b e i n g a n d i n s c r i b e it u p o n their h e a r t s . T h e n I will be
t h e i r G o d , a n d t h e y shall b e My p e o p l e . ( 3 4 ) N o l o n g e r will t h e y n e e d
to teach o n e a n o t h e r a n d say to o n e a n o t h e r , " H e e d the LORD"; for all
of t h e m , f r o m t h e least of t h e m to t h e greatest, shall h e e d Me—
d e c l a r e s the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities, A n d r e m e m b e r
t h e i r sins n o m o r e .

As is typical of eschatological p r o p h e c i e s d u r i n g that p e r i o d , this o n e d o e s

n o t specify the starting date of the e s c h a t o n — i t is a n a m o r p h o u s "coming" time
(v. 31). It d e f i n e s that time only w i t h respect to the c o v e n a n t m a d e in the wilder-
ness (a bilateral suzerain-vassal treaty that p r o m i s e d God's p r o t e c t i o n of Israel if
it o b s e r v e d a set of divine regulations; see "Accountability" in c h a p t e r 16). This
text says that "they b r o k e " that c o v e n a n t (v. 32), referring to the people Israel. It
f u r t h e r p r e s u m e s that even if G o d r e n e w e d or reinstated it, the nation w o u l d
b r e a k it again.
T h i s p r o p h e c y offers a radical s o l u t i o n to this d i l e m m a : "a n e w c o v e n a n t " (v.
31). T h e text gives n o sign that this c o v e n a n t will be n e w in content. Rather, G o d
will n o w "put" a n d "inscribe" it inside the people themselves (v. 33). In o t h e r
w o r d s , they will be p r e p r o g r a m m e d w i t h the c o v e n a n t (as firmware, in the par-
lance of c o m p u t e r s ) , u n a b l e to b r e a k i t . 1 6 As a result, there will be n o m o r e n e e d
for p r o p h e t s to h a r a n g u e the p e o p l e (v. 34).
Stated differently, G o d will take a w a y free choice f r o m Israel. They will a u t o -
matically abide b y God's wishes, a s s u r i n g divine blessing. T h e exile will n o t
r e c u r b e c a u s e Israel will n o t sin a g a i n — i t c a n n o t . O n l y in this way will the p e o -
pies special relationship with God be established as a lasting fact: "Then I will
be their God, and they shall be My people" (v. 3 3 ) . w

An Inside Look at Being a Prophet

As noted earlier, the editing of Jeremiah has uniquely preserved a large n u m b e r

of biographical traditions relating to Jeremiah the person. These traditions
include sections often called "confessions," 1 8 first-person pieces where this
prophet speaks directly to God. (These passages remind us that prophets served
as intermediaries between God and the people; see "The Nature of Prophecy in
Israel" in chapter 15. Although p r o p h e t s usually conveyed the divine message to
the nation, they did also speak to God.) There, Jeremiah expresses his emo-
tions—especially concerning the difficulties of the prophetic experience—with
intensity. T h u s he laments, "1 have become a constant laughingstock" (20:7).
Sometimes the poetry used is rather flat: "Accursed be the day / That I was born!
Let not the day be blessed / W h e n my m o t h e r bore me!" (20:14). That outburst
compares unfavorably to a similar speech in J o b 3. Elsewhere, however, he
relates one of the most powerful images of prophecy's impact on a prophet:

I thought, "I will not m e n t i o n Him, / N o more will I speak in His

n a m e " — / But His word was like a raging fire in my heart, / Shut u p in
m y bones; / I could not hold it in, I was helpless (20:9).

This is a highly poetic restatement of the idea found in Amos 3:8: "My Lord GOD
has spoken, / W h o can but prophesy?"
Often Jeremiah identifies with the people w h o m he is supposed to rebuke.
For example:

(4:19) O h , my suffering, my suffering! 1 9 / H o w I writhe! / O h , the walls

of my heart! / My heart m o a n s within me, / I cannot be silent; / For I
hear the blare of horns, / Alarms of war. / (20) Disaster overtakes disas-
ter, / For all the land has been ravaged. / Suddenly my tents have been
ravaged, / In a m o m e n t , my tent cloths. / (21) How long must I see stan-
dards / And hear the blare of horns?

The identification is even clearer in 8:21: "Because my people is shattered I am

shattered; / I am dejected, seized by desolation."
Typically, Jeremiah's attitude is one of great sympathy toward the people he
is c o n d e m n i n g . 2 0 Quite likely, this attitude compromised his ability to function
as a prophet. Perhaps this is the import w h e n God tells him: "Assuredly, thus
said the LORD: / If you t u r n back, I shall take you back / And you shall stand
before Me; / If you produce what is noble / Out of the worthless, / You shall be
My spokesman" (15:19). This verse suggests that Jeremiah has been (temporar-
ily) "decommissioned" as prophet as a result of (unspecified) conduct. However,
God is offering him a second chance to "stand before me"—namely, to hear G o d s
w o r d — a n d then to act as "spokesman." 2 1
In short, these first-person narratives offer an amazing sense of h o w the
prophetic experience affected Jeremiah. Yet we m u s t bear in m i n d that these
recorded "confessions" are unique. W h y did those w h o c o m p o s e d prophetic
books not present similar insights into the inner experience of Isaiah—or of
Amos, or of other classical prophets? We d o not know. Therefore we must be
very careful about generalizing from Jeremiah to the other prophets. 2 2 We have
n o evidence that they felt the same way as he did.

The Preservation of Jeremiah

Jeremiah's central prediction—the i m p e n d i n g destruction of the Temple by

Nebuchadnezzar, and the exile of m u c h of the population to Babylon—came to
pass. Presumably it was for this reason that successive generations preserved the
prophet's words. In fact, the b o o k e n d s with a narrative probably copied from
2 Kings, about the last days of the k i n g d o m of J u d a h (chap. 52). This passage,
w h i c h is an a p p e n d i x (see the end of chap. 51), serves to p u n c t u a t e Jeremiah's
core message of d o o m a n d to underscore his status as a "true" prophet.
With regard to the mechanism of transmission, the book itself describes the
copying of an early form of the work. Chapter 36 o p e n s in the fourth year of
K i n g j e h o i a k i m (605 B.C.E.; V. 1) with God's request that Jeremiah prepare a writ-
ten record: "Get a scroll a n d write u p o n it all the w o r d s that I have spoken to
you . . . to this day" (v. 2). To fulfill this request, Jeremiah called the scribe
Baruch son of Neriah: "Baruch wrote d o w n in the scroll, at Jeremiah's dictation,
all the w o r d s which the LORD h a d s p o k e n to him" (v. 4 ) .
This account is remarkable on several grounds. First, another person besides
the p r o p h e t transcribed the oracles. 2 3 Second, Jeremiah reportedly h a d the abil-
ity to recite or recreate all his earlier oracles from memory. T h i r d — a n d most
extraordinarily—he did this not once b u t twice. After the king h a d destroyed
that scroll (Jehoiakim himself h a d b u r n e d it u p o n hearing it read aloud; w .
2 1 - 2 5 ) : "Jeremiah got another scroll a n d gave it to the scribe Baruch son of
Neriah. And at Jeremiahs dictation, he wrote in it the whole text of the scroll that
King Jehoiakim of J u d a h h a d b u r n e d " (v. 32a).
Finally, the account concludes by n o t i n g that "more of the like was added."
Here is direct evidence that prophetic texts existed in a variety of versions. Even
after a text was complete, more could be a d d e d later. 2 4

Reading Jeremiah

I have contrasted Jeremiah with Isaiah, emphasizing the m a n y differences

between the two. In so doing, I have been able to survey the variety of experi-
ences of the classical prophet, a n d the range of forms of their books.
In reading each classical prophet, keep in m i n d the five aspects that make
t h e m a classical prophet a n d thus similar to the others. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah
c h a m p i o n e d the views that Israel's God is a universal deity with a special focus
o n the people Israel; that this nation is being held accountable in regard to both
cultic and ethical norms; a n d so forth (see chapter 16).
At the same time, r e m e m b e r t h a t — d u e to a variety of factors—each prophet
is different. Thus, Jeremiah's b o o k is u n i q u e in its including a vast a m o u n t of
biography. It stands out also by having been preserved only in a highly redacted
Deuteronomistic edition. In addition, n o other preserved p r o p h e t so embodies
the paradox of the messenger "caught" between the two covenant partners. His
mission was to view God's w o r d s "as fire, / And this people shall be firewood"
(5:14). Ultimately, however, the flames c o n s u m e d not only the nation, but also
Jeremiah himself: "But His word was like a raging fire in m y heart" (20:9).
 19
"I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple"
Reading Ezekiel

Primary Reading: Ezekiel 1-11, 16, 23, 33-40, 48.

Location, Location, Location

Ezekiel o p e n s with a s u p e r s c r i p t i o n that tells u s exactly w h e r e a n d w h e n he

received his p r o p h e c y :

(1) In the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the f o u r t h m o n t h , w h e n I

was in the c o m m u n i t y of exiles by the C h e b a r Canal, the heavens
o p e n e d a n d I saw visions of God. (2) O n the fifth day of the m o n t h — i t
w a s the fifth year of the exile of King J e h o i a c h i n — ( 3 ) the w o r d of the
LORD c a m e to the priest Ezekiel son of Buzi, by the C h e b a r Canal, in the
land of the Chaldeans. And the h a n d of the LORD came u p o n h i m there.

This s u p e r s c r i p t i o n sets Ezekiel apart f r o m the o t h e r p r o p h e t s we have explored

in t w o ways: he begins to p r o p h e s y after the exile of 5 9 7 B.C.E., a n d he is p r o p h -
esying outside of Israel in Babylon. As the JPS translation's note at verse 1
observes, we are u n s u r e w h i c h year "the thirtieth year" there refers to, b u t verse
2 places this dedication oracle in the s u m m e r of 593. Like J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel is a
priest, 1 b u t unlike his older contemporary, he begins to p r o p h e s y only "by the
C h e b a r Canal, in the land of the Chaldeans."
In o t h e r w o r d s , Ezekiel w a s s t a n d i n g near the Babylonian city of N i p p u r .
Some of Ezekiel's c o n t e m p o r a r i e s m a y have h a d p r o b l e m s with this setting. After
all, they p r o b a b l y conceived of p r o p h e c y — c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h the G o d of
Israel—as b e i n g b o u n d to the land of Israel. This w o u l d explain w h y the b o o k
of J o n a h tells u s that w h e n that p r o p h e t w i s h e d to avoid h e e d i n g the divine will,
he fled mi-lifnei YHWH (ΓΠΓΡ ‫ ) מ ל פ נ י‬, literally, "from before the LORD" ( 1 : 3 ) .
Similarly, m a n y Israelites t h o u g h t that G o d c o u l d only be w o r s h i p p e d within the
land of Israel ( " H o w can we sing a s o n g of the LORD o n alien soil?"; Ps. 137:4).
A belief that p r o p h e c y could n o t o c c u r in foreign lands c o n t i n u e d in later times;
an early rabbinic m i d r a s h , the Mekhilta, states: "Before the land of Israel h a d
b e e n especially c h o s e n , all lands were suitable for divine revelations; after the
land of Israel h a d b e e n c h o s e n , all o t h e r l a n d s were eliminated." 2 T h o u g h n o t
everyone in Ezekiels c o m m u n i t y m a y have believed this, e n o u g h did that he felt
the n e e d to prove his legitimacy as an "off-site" p r o p h e t .
A u t h e n t i c a t i o n is the m a i n f u n c t i o n of Ezekiels inaugural vision. That
p r o p h e c y is long ( m o r e t h a n 5 3 verses; l : 3 b - 3 : 1 6 a ) a n d detailed, because
Ezekiel n e e d s to prove that his mission is real. In the b a r o q u e quality of its detail
it resembles the b e g i n n i n g of D e u t e r o n o m y (see "A Pious F r a u d " in c h a p t e r 10),
t h o u g h it is even longer a n d stranger. Both b o o k s , for different reasons, n e e d e d
to o v e r c o m e obstacles to their b e i n g seen as legitimate.
Ezekiels inaugural prophecy, like Isaiah 6 a n d J e r e m i a h 1, follows the typi-
cal f o r m of a p r o p h e t i c initiation or d e d i c a t i o n . 3 As with Isaiah a n d J e r e m i a h ,
Ezekiels call to p r o p h e c y c o n t a i n s the root sh-l-ch (,‫שלח‬, "to send"), reflecting the
view that the p r o p h e t is a m e s s e n g e r of the divine (Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:7; Ezek. 2:3).
Like t h e m , Ezekiel p e r f o r m s a symbolic action w i t h his m o u t h (Isa. 6:7: Jer. 1:9;
Ezek. 3:2). Just like J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel is told, "Do not fear" (Jer. 1:8; Ezek. 2:6
Ithree times], 3:9). By following the same script, Ezekiel is claiming to be a true
p r o p h e t like Isaiah a n d J e r e m i a h .
Yet Ezekiel exceeds the script w h e n he sees "visions of G o d " (1:1). Jeremiah's
i n a u g u r a t i o n h a d b e e n aural only ( 1 : 4 - 1 0 ) , t h o u g h it h a d b e e n followed by a set
of visions. Isaiah's h a d b e e n b o t h aural a n d visual; he h a d seen "my Lord seated
o n a high a n d lofty t h r o n e ; a n d the skirts of His robe filled the Temple" (6:1).
Yet, Isaiah h a d described little a b o u t God's a p p e a r a n c e o t h e r t h a n large size 4 a n d
b e i n g clothed. Isaiah h a d gone on to tersely describe s e r a p h i m — a n g e l s of
s o r t s — a n d their f u n c t i o n . In contrast, Ezekiel 1 describes God's heavenly court
in great detail—of the type that only s o m e o n e " w h o was really there" m i g h t offer.
More t h a n that, he describes w h a t G o d looks like. Ezekiel the priest, using
priestly language, sees "the Presence of the LORD":

(1:26) Above the expanse over their h e a d s w a s the s e m b l a n c e of a

t h r o n e , in a p p e a r a n c e like s a p p h i r e ; a n d on top, u p o n this s e m b l a n c e
of a t h r o n e , there w a s the s e m b l a n c e of a h u m a n form. (27) F r o m w h a t
a p p e a r e d as his loins u p , I saw a gleam as of a m b e r — w h a t looked like
a fire encased in a frame; a n d f r o m w h a t a p p e a r e d as his loins d o w n , I
saw w h a t looked like fire. There w a s a radiance all a b o u t h i m . (28) Like
the a p p e a r a n c e of the b o w w h i c h shines in the c l o u d s o n a day of rain,
 s u c h w a s the a p p e a r a n c e of the s u r r o u n d i n g radiance. That was the
a p p e a r a n c e of the s e m b l a n c e of the Presence of the LORD.

G o d is depicted indirectly: unlike the elders w h o m E x o d u s 2 4 : 1 0 portrays as

seeing "the G o d of Israel" (see "In the Image of G o d " in c h a p t e r 6), Ezekiel sees
only the "appearance of the s e m b l a n c e of the Presence of the LORD," w h i c h in
t u r n takes "the s e m b l a n c e of a h u m a n form." Clearly Ezekiel accepts the c o m -
m o n biblical idea that seeing G o d directly is deadly (see, e.g., J u d g . 13:22; c o n -
tra E x o d u s 24). At the same time, he does n o t seem to accept w h a t is implied in
D e u t e r o n o m y 4:12, 15, a n d elsewhere, that G o d is incorporeal. (The latter view
w o u l d b e c o m e s t a n d a r d in medieval J u d a i s m , 5 b u t it was n o t s t a n d a r d yet in
Ezekiels time.) By seeing God, Ezekiel proves that he has "stood in [Gods] c o u n -
cil" (Jer. 2 3 : 2 2 ) — a n d is a true p r o p h e t .

In the Shadow of Exile

We have explained the strangeness of the book's o p e n i n g passage by the u n u s u -

al, exilic setting of Ezekiel himself: he n e e d e d to convince the people of his legit-
imacy as a p r o p h e t in exile. 6 A n o t h e r p a s s a g e — a frequently m i s u n d e r s t o o d
t e x t — s u p p o r t s this interpretation. In the JPS translation, we read:

( 1 1 : 1 5 ) Ο mortal, I will save y o u r b r o t h e r s , y o u r brothers, the m e n of

y o u r k i n d r e d , all of that very H o u s e of Israel to w h o m the i n h a b i t a n t s
of J e r u s a l e m say, "Keep far f r o m the LORD; the land h a s b e e n given as a
heritage to us." (16) Say then: T h u s said the Lord GOD: I have i n d e e d
r e m o v e d t h e m far a m o n g the n a t i o n s a n d have scattered t h e m a m o n g
the countries, a n d I have b e c o m e to t h e m a d i m i n i s h e d sanctity in the
c o u n t r i e s w h i t h e r they have gone.

This section's style is typical of Ezekiel. It begins with "O mortal," ben adam
(.‫)בךאךם‬, literally "son of m a n " but better understood as " m e m b e r of
7
h u m a n k i n d , " a n d t h u s "mortal." T h e text c o n t i n u e s by q u o t i n g a p o p u l a r
p r o v e r b that the people are f o n d of s a y i n g — t h i s is also typical for Ezekiel.
However, the e n d of verse 16 is quite o d d : "I have b e c o m e to t h e m a d i m i n i s h e d
sanctity in the c o u n t r i e s w h i t h e r they have gone."
The p h r a s e "a d i m i n i s h e d sanctity" r e n d e r s mikdash me'at (‫מעט‬ ‫)מקדש‬.
Given that the Bible f r e q u e n t l y uses the term mikdash for the Temple in
J e r u s a l e m , m a n y scholars once t h o u g h t that this verse referred to the origins of
the synagogue as an institution. Instead of w o r s h i p p i n g at the full-scale Temple
in Jerusalem, they suggested that in Babylon, Ezekiel instituted the synagogue as
a kind of mini-Temple. 8 The verse, however, is better translated: "I [God] will be
for t h e m a mini-Temple in the countries whither they have gone." The sentiment
is striking: we d o not need a physical building—a Temple—because the divine
presence is with us, even if that presence is not h o u s e d in a building. (This sen-
timent contrasts strongly with Exod. 25:8, "And let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctuary
that I may dwell a m o n g them.") Similarly, God said to Jacob w h e n he left Israel
for Egypt, "I Myself will go d o w n with you to Egypt, a n d I Myself will also bring
you back" (Gen. 46:4).
The historical a n d geographical setting of Ezekiel also explains a great deal
about the chapters that follow Ezekiel's initiation. Most classical prophets went
out to the people, but in Ezekiel's case it seems that the people came to him:
"Certain elders of Israel came to me a n d sat d o w n before me" (14:1; cf. 20:1).
Consider too his habit of m a k i n g odd symbolic gestures (see especially chapters
4 - 5 ) : such actions would have conveyed their message only if people were com-
ing to his h o u s e — s o as to hear his n e w oracles and to watch his latest weird
activity.
Because Ezekiel began his career after the exile of 597 in Babylon, m u c h of
his audience believed in the truth of the prophecies of retribution by Jeremiah
and others (that the Temple was about to be destroyed a n d that another exile
was inevitable). Thus, Ezekiel had a certain cachet as a p o s t - 5 9 7 prophet-in-
exile, something that Jeremiah lacked in Israel—where the population seemed
more blithe (see, e.g., Jeremiah 28). In addition, the exiles probably were feeling
cut off from God. T h u s they would go visit Ezekiel to hear the latest divine news.
This "news" he typically c o m m u n i c a t e d in a straightforward, mostly prosaic
fashion. Ezekiels c o m m u n i c a t i o n style again suggests that he did not face the
challenge of the earlier prophets, w h o h a d to go out to the people and win them
over with clever rhetoric.
In s u m , m a n y u n i q u e features of Ezekiel's prophecies make sense if we read
t h e m with the proper historical and geographical background. Thus, the open-
ing passage is not a model of an alien spacecraft, as some have suggested. 9 Nor
does it point to the lingering affect of childhood psychological trauma. 1 0 Rather,
it reflects Ezekiel's successful campaign to show that he was a true prophet even
t h o u g h he was outside the land of Israel.

Refuting Popular Beliefs

O n e way that Ezekiel w o u l d get the J u d e a n s in exile to listen was by being a

careful listener himself, repeating what they said but then correcting it. Earlier I
cited an instance where Ezekiel quotes a popular saying in order to show that it
is false ( 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) . Ezekiel offered J u d e a n s something hopeful to replace their
pessimistic beliefs. The famous dry b o n e s unit (chap. 37) features the same tac-
tic, quoting the people as saying: "Our bones are dried up, our hope is gone; we
are d o o m e d " (v. 11). 1 1 In another passage he gives a slightly longer rebuttal of a
proverb:

(12:22) Ο mortal, what is this proverb that you have in the land of
Israel, that you say, "The days grow m a n y and every vision comes to
naught?" (23) Assuredly, say to them, T h u s said the Lord GOD: I will put
an end to this proverb; it shall not be used in Israel any more. Speak
rather to them: The days draw near, and the fulfillment of every vision.
(24) For there shall n o longer be any false vision or soothing divination
in the House of Israel. (25) But whenever I the L O R D speak what I speak,
that word shall be fulfilled without any delay; in your days, Ο rebellious
breed, I will fulfill every word I speak—declares the Lord GOD.

The same pattern we saw in chapter 11 appears here: "O mortal," followed by
the proverb, and then by the rebuttal. This unit likewise e n d s with the c o m m o n
prophetic formula "declares the Lord GOD," which typically concludes an oracle.
Much more significant is the proverb that he rebuts in chapter 18. There we
read:

(18:1) The word of the L O R D came to me: (2) What do you mean by
quoting this proverb u p o n the soil of Israel, "Parents eat sour grapes a n d
their children's teeth are blunted"? (3) As I live—declares the Lord
GOD—this proverb shall n o longer be current a m o n g you in Israel.
(4) Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the
child are both Mine. The person w h o sins, only he shall die.

The proverb "Parents eat sour grapes and their children's teeth are blunted"
might be rendered into m o d e r n English as "The parents eat Snickers® a n d the
children get cavities." It must have been popular, since it appears also in
Jeremiah 31:29: "In those days, they shall n o longer say, 'Parents have eaten sour
grapes and children's teeth are blunted.'" The two prophetic books, however,
give a different meaning to this proverb's disuse. In Jeremiah, the proverb will
only become false in the f u t u r e — i n the idealized time of the eschaton. But
according to Ezekiel, the proverb is already false; he understood God to say that
now, in his o w n time, "all lives are Mine [and will be j u d g e d so individually]; the
life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine [as individuals]. The per-
son w h o sins, only he shall die" (v. 4).
Ezekiel therefore refutes the proverb at length. First, he treats the case of a
righteous m a n w h o begets a wicked son, w h o in turn begets a righteous m a n
( 1 8 : 5 - 2 0 ) . From this case he concludes: "The person w h o sins, he alone shall
die. A child shall not share the b u r d e n of a parent's guilt, n o r shall a parent share
the b u r d e n of a child's guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be account-
ed to him alone, a n d the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him
alone" (18:20). Then, he proceeds to telescope these three generations into one,
teaching that w h e n wicked people repent, or righteous people become wicked,
God will j u d g e them according to their later behavior. This is another way of say-
ing: Even t h o u g h you have been exiled for your sins, all is not lost. Indeed, "it
is not My desire that anyone shall die—declares the Lord GOD" (V. 32). This leads
to the unit's grand conclusion: "Repent, therefore, and live!" (ibid.).
We can imagine that the exile c o m m u n i t y was feeling a huge b u r d e n of guilt.
If so, this unit (chap. 18) must have meant a lot to them.
Ezekiels address is so long, detailed, and repetitive because he is refuting
not only a popular proverb, but also an authoritative set of beliefs. 1 2 We saw ear-
lier that the Decalogue presumes intergenerational p u n i s h m e n t , describing God
as "an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents u p o n the children, u p o n
the third and u p o n the fourth generations of those w h o reject Me" (Exod. 20:5;
see "The Decalogue" in chapter 8). Other biblical texts suggest that retribution
functions on a corporate level, so that the c o m m u n i t y as a whole receives
rewards and p u n i s h m e n t s (e.g., Deut. 1 1 : 1 3 - 2 1 ; see "Deuteronomy as a Treaty"
in chapter 10). Genesis adopts such a view concerning Sodom, where the issue
is not whether the righteous people will be saved, but h o w many are needed to
save the city ( 1 8 : 2 2 - 3 3 ) . According to these views, individuals cannot change
their destiny in the face of family or c o m m u n i t y evil. Thus, Ezekiel is arguing
against two beliefs f o u n d in a variety of biblical texts—intergenerational p u n -
ishment, and corporate (communal) responsibility and retribution. That is why
he needs to m a k e his point so forcefully.
Likewise, an oracle in Ezekiel 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 3 makes this point repeatedly, stating
that if a city were wicked, "should Noah, Daniel, a n d Job be in it, as I live—
declares the Lord GOD—they w o u l d save neither son nor daughter; they would
save themselves alone by their righteousness" (v. 20; cf. w . 14, 18). The Daniel
mentioned here is not the same as the one in the biblical b o o k of that n a m e —
the n a m e s are spelled differently; the Daniel there is later than the Daniel of
Ezekiel. Here the reference is to Danel, a righteous Canaanite w h o features in an
Ugaritic epic. 1 3 Thus, "Noah, Dan[i]e1, a n d Job" represent three righteous n o n -
Israelites w h o lived long before Ezekiel. Following the principle expressed in
chapter 18, "they would save themselves alone by their righteousness." Because
retribution is personal and not corporate, their meritorious deeds w o u l d not
benefit the c o m m u n i t y as a whole.

A Good Listener and a Crude Speaker

Ezekiel did not need to use lofty poetry or rhetoric, because (as noted earlier)
people w a n t e d to hear him: he was their primary connection with God in a soci-
ety w i t h o u t a Temple. He listened to people's belief that God had a b a n d o n e d
them; then he replied so as to contradict their despair. Yet to suggest that it was
his theological message alone that attracted people would be an exaggeration. In
33:32, God is portrayed as saying to Ezekiel: "To them you are just a singer of
b a w d y songs, w h o has a sweet voice and plays skillfully." This suggests that
Ezekiel attracted listeners as m u c h because of his style as because of his message.
Calling Ezekiel a "bawdy" (or "erotic") poet is striking, b u t it does fit the
content of Ezekiel 16 a n d 2 3 . 1 4 Many scholars actually consider these chapters
to be p o r n o g r a p h i c — a l t h o u g h this term is difficult e n o u g h to define in m o d e r n
times, let alone for ancient texts from different cultures. In any case, these two
chapters are sexually explicit. C h a p t e r 16 uses the root z-n-h (HJT), "to whore,
fornicate," thirteen times; chapter 23, seven times. O n e passage claims, "At every
crossroad you built your height and you m a d e your beauty abominable by o p e n -
ing y o u r legs to anyone w h o passed by. Increasing your harlotry, you harloted
with the Egyptians, your b i g - m e m b e r e d neighbors . . ." ( 1 6 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) 1 5 while
another describes the J u d e a n s ' behavior in this m a n n e r : "They harloted in Egypt,
in their y o u t h they harloted; there their breasts were squeezed, there they
pressed their virgin nipples" (23:3). Such "bawdy" talk probably attracted some
of Ezekiel's audience.

The Structure of Ezekiel

The Book of Ezekiel is m u c h more orderly than the two other large prophetic
books. Its chronological setting d u r i n g the Babylonian exile may have con-
tributed to this. In addition, its editor may have been better, or that person
redacted more lightly, so that it contains fewer insertions that disrupt earlier lit-
erary units. Two ordering principles are evident in the book: a chronological
structure, and a collation of material into large thematic units that fit the
chronology.
 The oracles of Ezekiel are arranged chronologically (with one exception)
a n d can be dated in this way: 1 6

Chariot Vision 1:1 June 593 B.C.E.

Call to Be a W a t c h m a n 3:16b June 593
Temple Vision 8:1 August/September 592
Discourse with Elders 20:1 August 591
Second Siege of Jerusalem 24:1 January 588
J u d g m e n t on Tyre 26:1 March/April 5 8 7 / 5 8 6
J u d g m e n t o n Egypt 29:1 J a n u a r y 587
J u d g m e n t on Egypt 29:17 April 5 7 1
J u d g m e n t on Egypt 30:20 April 587
J u d g m e n t o n Egypt 31:1 June 587
Lament over Pharaoh 32:1 March 585
Lament over Egypt 32:17 April 5 8 6
Fall of Jerusalem 33:21 December/January 5 8 6 / 5 8 5
N e w Temple Vision 40:1 April 5 7 3

A second pattern overlaps with this first one: two "watchman" oracles frame
a large section of the b o o k between them. Both of t h e m charge Ezekiel with
forewarning b o t h the wicked a n d the righteous a m o n g the people. The first ora-
cle reads:

(3:17) Ο mortal, 1 a p p o i n t you w a t c h m a n for the House of Israel; a n d

w h e n you hear a w o r d f r o m My m o u t h , you m u s t w a r n t h e m for Me.
(18) If I say to a w i c k e d m a n , "You shall die," a n d you d o n o t w a r n
h i m — y o u d o n o t speak to w a r n the wicked m a n of his wicked course
in order to save his life—he, the w i c k e d m a n , shall die for his iniqui-
ty, b u t I will require a r e c k o n i n g for his b l o o d f r o m you. (19) But if
you d o w a r n the w i c k e d m a n , a n d he does n o t t u r n back f r o m his
w i c k e d n e s s a n d his wicked course, he shall die for his iniquity, b u t
you will have saved your o w n life. (20) Again, if a righteous m a n a b a n -
d o n s his righteousness a n d d o e s wrong, w h e n I p u t a s t u m b l i n g block
before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sins; the righteous d e e d s
that he did shall n o t be r e m e m b e r e d ; b u t because you did n o t w a r n
h i m , I will require a r e c k o n i n g for his blood from you. (21) If, h o w -
ever, you w a r n the righteous m a n n o t to sin, a n d he, the righteous,
does not sin, he shall live because he took w a r n i n g , a n d you will have
saved y o u r o w n life.
 The second such oracle reads:

(33:7) Now, Ο mortal, 1 have appointed you a w a t c h m a n for the House

of Israel; a n d whenever you hear a message from My m o u t h , you must
transmit My warning to them. (8) W h e n I say to the wicked, "Wicked
m a n , you shall die," b u t you have not spoken to w a r n the wicked m a n
against his way, he, that wicked m a n , shall die for his sins, but I will
d e m a n d a reckoning for his blood from you. (9) But if you have warned
the wicked m a n to t u r n back from his way, and he has not t u r n e d from
his way, he shall die for his o w n sins, but you will have saved your life.

These same two chapters also deal with Ezekiel's silence—an issue that bib-
lical scholars d o not fully u n d e r s t a n d , since the voluble Ezekiel is nowhere
directly depicted as being silent! 1 7 Yet God suggests as m u c h in telling him: "And
I will m a k e your tongue cleave to your palate, and you shall be d u m b ; you shall
not be a reprover to them, for they are a rebellious breed" (3:26), while the other
passage notes:

(33:21) In the twelfth year of our exile, o n the fifth day of the tenth
m o n t h , a fugitive came to me from Jerusalem a n d reported, "The city
has fallen." ( 2 2 ) N o w the h a n d of the L O R D h a d come u p o n me the
evening before the fugitive arrived, a n d He o p e n e d my m o u t h before he
came to me in the morning; thus m y m o u t h was opened a n d I was n o
longer speechless.

Thus, Ezekiel's hearing of the destruction of the city and the Temple in 586 rep-
resents a turning point in the book.
Taking into account these factors—the "watchman" frame a n d the trope of
silence—we can outline the book's structure as follows:

I. 1:1-3:15 Dedication as p r o p h e t
Π. 3:16-24:27 Oracles of retribution against Israel
III. 25-32 Oracles against the nations
IV 33-48 Oracles of consolation (after the fall of Jerusalem
in 586)

This outline captures the ironic arc of the book: until the Temple was destroyed,
Ezekiel was a prophet of retribution, explaining to the exiles w h y the destruc-
tion was about to transpire, even t h o u g h he stressed the opportunity to repent
(in contrast with Jeremiah 25). Once the news of the destruction arrived, Ezekiel
changed course; indeed, he shifted his tack by 180 degrees. He became a
p r o p h e t of consolation.
Next we will examine Ezekiel's transformation, highlighting the contrasting
themes between sections II-III a n d section IV Although 3 : 1 6 - 2 4 : 2 7 a n d 3 3 - 4 8
are distinct parts of the book, they are best read and u n d e r s t o o d juxtaposed to
one another.

From Divine Abandonment to "The LORD IS There"

According to ancient Near Eastern conceptions, deities resided in their temples,

protecting their people and their temples while present at these holy sites. The
biblical verse q u o t e d earlier exemplifies this view: "Let t h e m m a k e Me a sanctu-
ary that I may dwell a m o n g them" (Exod. 25:8). As we observed earlier in dis-
cussing Leviticus (chapter 9), some Israelites concentrated on ensuring that God
remained at the Temple—protecting it and the people of the covenant. Various
actions that gave offense could conceivably cause the deity to depart.
Some scholars have called this motif of a god leaving a temple "divine aban-
d o n m e n t . " It may be seen in the following inscription of the Assyrian king
Esarhaddon ( 6 8 1 - 6 6 9 ) : "The lord of the gods, Marduk, was angry. He planned
evil; to wipe out the land, to destroy its inhabitants . . . an evil curse was on his
lips." The gods and goddesses w h o dwell in it (i.e., the temple Esagila) fled like
birds a n d went u p to heaven. The protective gods [. . . ran] off and withdrew. 1 8
Ezekiel, living in Babylon, k n e w and a d o p t e d this motif. He described the grad-
ual departure of the Presence in several sections throughout the first eleven
chapters:

(8:3) He stretched out the form of a h a n d , and took me by the hair of

my head. A spirit lifted me u p between heaven and earth and brought
me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the Penimith Gate
that faces north; that was the site of the infuriating image that provokes
fury. (4) And the Presence of the God of Israel appeared there, like the
vision that I had seen in the valley.

(10:4) But w h e n the Presence of the L O R D moved from the cherubs to

the platform of the House, the House was filled with the cloud, and the
court was filled with the radiance of the Presence of the L O R D .

(11:22) Then the cherubs, with the wheels beside them, lifted their
wings, while the Presence of the God of Israel rested above them.
 (23) The Presence of the LORD ascended from the midst of the city and
stood on the hill east of the city.

Once the Presence had left the Temple, the Babylonians could destroy it.
These chapters, however, not only describe "divine a b a n d o n m e n t , " but also
justify in detail why God is leaving. God is furious, although the focus of divine
anger—unlike in Amos and Isaiah—is not ethical concerns. True, some moral
considerations are highlighted: "The iniquity of the Houses of J u d a h a n d Israel
is very very great, the land is full of crime and the city is full of corruption" (9:9;
see also chap. 22). More typical, however, are texts such as this one:

(8:6) And He said to me, "Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the
terrible abominations that the House of Israel is practicing here, to drive
Me far from My Sanctuary? You shall yet see even greater abomina-
tions!" (7) Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I
looked, a n d there was a hole in the wall. (8) He said to me, "Mortal,
break through the wall"; so I broke through the wall and f o u n d an
entrance. (9) And He said to me, "Enter and see the vile abominations
that they are practicing here." (10) I entered and looked, and there all
detestable forms of creeping things and beasts and all the fetishes of the
House of Israel were depicted over the entire wall. (11) Before t h e m
stood seventy m e n , elders of the House of Israel, with Jaazaniah son of
Shaphan standing in their midst. Everyone h a d a censer in his h a n d ,
a n d a thick cloud of incense smoke ascended.

We d o not k n o w w h e t h e r the activities described here really h a p p e n e d . 1 9 Either

way, the point here is that Ezekiel imagines that God is letting the Temple be
destroyed for cultic infractions, not for ethical violations. Ironically, while com-
mitting these cultic sins, the people of Israel think: "The L O R D does not see us;
the L O R D has a b a n d o n e d the country" ( 8 : 1 2 ) . They are dead wrong: God does
see t h e m and has not yet a b a n d o n e d the country, b u t — a s a result of their
"abominations"—is about to d o so.
If a main theme of the retribution section is divine a b a n d o n m e n t , it should
not surprise us that the main theme of the consolation section is the return of
the divine Presence. Chapters 4 0 - 4 8 describe Israel after its future restoration
and return from exile. These chapters focus on the n e w Temple to be built in
Jerusalem. 2 0 This unit e n d s by declaring that the city will eventually be renamed
"The L O R D IS There" ( 4 8 : 3 5 ) . Jerusalem's n e w n a m e will be a reversal of the
divine a b a n d o n m e n t described earlier in the book.
The last section reverses other earlier motifs as well. Instead of Israel's being
victim of the Day of the LORD, chapters 3 8 - 3 9 famously recount the war of
Gog 2 1 and Magog, where Israel's enemies will fall. In 36:2, Ezekiel prophesies "to
the m o u n t a i n s of Israel," o v e r t u r n i n g his earlier p r o p h e c y of r e b u k e of 6:2, also
addressed "to the m o u n t a i n s of Israel." C h a p t e r 3 4 is especially clever in its
reversal. It begins like a p r o p h e c y of retribution: Ό mortal, p r o p h e s y against the
s h e p h e r d s [i.e., kings] of Israel. . . . T h u s said the Lord GOD: I a m going to deal
with the shepherds!" ( w . 2 - 1 0 ) . However, it m o v e s f r o m retribution to consola-
tion, n o t i n g that these derelict kings will be replaced by God as king and by an
ideal Davidic king: "Then I will a p p o i n t a single s h e p h e r d over t h e m to tend
t h e m — M y servant David. He shall tend t h e m , he shall be a s h e p h e r d to them. I
the LORD will be their God, a n d My servant David shall be a ruler a m o n g t h e m —
I the LORD have s p o k e n " ( w . 2 3 - 2 4 ) . 2 2
O n e can imagine the J u d e a n s in exile, feeling their o w n guilt (and the guilt
of their ancestors, despite his reassurances in chapters 14 a n d 18). They m u s t
have w o n d e r e d : "Do we really deserve to be forgiven a n d restored?" A phrase
a p p e a r i n g in the b o o k fifty-eight times (out of seventy-two times in the Bible)
relates w h y Israel will be r e d e e m e d : it is not because of their merit, b u t so that
"they shall k n o w that I a m the LORD."23 The following section from the p r o p h e -
cies of consolation m a k e s clear what this u b i q u i t o u s phrase means:

(36:21) Therefore I a m c o n c e r n e d for My holy n a m e , w h i c h the H o u s e

of Israel have caused to be p r o f a n e d a m o n g the nations to w h i c h they
have come. (22) Say to the H o u s e of Israel: T h u s said the Lord GOD: Not
for y o u r sake will I act, Ο H o u s e of Israel, b u t for My holy n a m e , w h i c h
you have caused to be p r o f a n e d a m o n g the nations to which you have
come. (23) I will sanctify My great n a m e w h i c h has been p r o f a n e d
a m o n g the n a t i o n s — a m o n g w h o m you have caused it to be profaned.
And the n a t i o n s shall k n o w that I a m the LORD—declares the Lord
GOD—when I manifest My holiness before their eyes t h r o u g h you. . . .
(32) Not for y o u r sake will 1 act—declares the Lord GOD—take good
note! Be a s h a m e d a n d humiliated because of y o u r ways, Ο House of
Israel! . . . (36) And the nations that are left a r o u n d you shall k n o w that
I the LORD have rebuilt the ravaged places a n d replanted the desolate
land. I the LORD have s p o k e n a n d will act.

In other words, Israel is God's people; a n d n o w that G o d has p u n i s h e d Israel

because it broke the covenant, that p u n i s h m e n t — t h e i r d o w n t r o d d e n state—
could be mistaken as a sign of His weakness. Thus, God will restore Israel not
because they are deserving, b u t because their c o n t i n u e d p u n i s h m e n t is liable to
reflect poorly o n Him.
 The various prophecies of consolation fit together quite tightly, and address
the same themes as the rest of the book. Since God is with this people in exile,
functioning as a mini-Temple, Israel need not feel hopeless. Likewise, since God
will not place the sins of the parents on the children, Israel need not feel guilty.
God will overturn earlier prophecies of d o o m . God will forgive Israel, not for
their sake, but for the sake of G o d s "holy name." Thus, like contemporary b o o k s
written by a single author, the parts of the Book of Ezekiel fit together. This
coherence, however, is most evident w h e n the b o o k is read as a product of its
time a n d place: an ancient Babylonian text, written in response to the tribula-
tions of the Babylonian Jewish community.
 20
"Comfort, Oh Comfort My People"
The Exile and Beyond
MBBgBMMIninBBHIHIMMM

Primary Reading: Isaiah 40, 41, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 55, 63; Haggai 2; Ezra
9-10; Nehemiah 8, 13.

Historical Background

N a b u n a i d , or N a b o n i d u s , the last k i n g of Babylon, reigned f r o m 5 5 6 - 5 3 9

B.C.E.; he directed that the m o o n god, Sin, be elevated over M a r d u k , the tra-
ditional high god of the Babylonians. Probably this action s t r u c k m a n y of his
subjects as o d d ; surely it o f f e n d e d the priests of M a r d u k . W h e n the Persian king,
C y r u s the Great, attacked Babylon in O c t o b e r 539, he was able to c o n q u e r the
city bloodlessly w i t h the h e l p of the p o p u l a c e , especially the displaced priests of
M a r d u k . T h u s Cyrus, w h o reigned until 530, established the A c h a e m e n i d Pers-
ian e m p i r e that w o u l d last for t w o centuries, until Alexander the G r e a t s victory
over Persia. His a d m i n i s t r a t i o n divided the e m p i r e into provinces; the territory
of the erstwhile k i n g d o m of J u d a h w a s n o w k n o w n as the province of Yehud.
T h e p r o p h e c i e s of Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 a n d o t h e r literature of the late exilic a n d
early postexilic p e r i o d s c o n n e c t deeply to this b a c k g r o u n d . The Persians toler-
ated o t h e r religions, a n d they allowed various p e o p l e s exiled by the Babylonians
to r e t u r n to their h o m e l a n d s . T h e n e w rulers even r e t u r n e d the statues a n d o t h e r
religious items that the Babylonians h a d c a p t u r e d a n d p u t in storage. In 538, the
J u d e a n s received their Temple vessels a n d were e n c o u r a g e d to r e t u r n to Yehud.
At first, most J u d e a n s m u s t have viewed this d r a m a t i c t u r n a r o u n d as fulfillment
of the p r o p h e c y of J e r e m i a h 25, w h i c h p r o m i s e d restoration of the k i n g d o m after
a p e r i o d of seventy years of d o m i n a t i o n by Babylon.
At this time, Yehud was an u n d e r d e v e l o p e d , b a c k w a t e r province. Rather
t h a n "return" there, m a n y J u d e a n s preferred to stay in the c o s m o p o l i t a n cities
w h e r e they h a d b e c o m e established. These p e o p l e — c a l l e d yehudim ("Jews"; see
n. 4 in chapter 14)—created a voluntary diaspora c o m m u n i t y in Babylon. Such
communities also formed in other cities throughout the empire.
Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, the Jews w h o did resettle there did not sue-
ceed in rebuilding the Temple immediately. They did not begin work until 520,
completing it four years later. This Second Temple was smaller a n d m u c h less
magnificent than the First Temple. In general, the tiny province of Yehud, cen-
tered on Jerusalem, remained impoverished and weak throughout the Persian
period, both politically and militarily. 1

Who Saved Babylon?

A d o c u m e n t called the Cyrus Cylinder sheds a great deal of light on the rise of
Cyrus. 2 It is written in Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians. It describes
the failing of King N a b u n a i d (Nabonidus), "[an] incompetent person" w h o "did
away with the worship of Marduk, the king of gods; he continually did evil
against his [Marduks] city." The cylinder goes on to describe h o w Marduk
responded to the situation:

U p o n [hearing] their cries, the lord of the gods [Marduk] became furi-
ously angry [and he left] their borders. . . . Marduk [ ] turned [?] toward
all the habitations that were a b a n d o n e d and all the people of Sumer and
Akkad w h o had become corpses; [he was r e c o n c i l e d and had mercy
[upon them]. He surveyed a n d looked throughout all the lands, search-
ing for a righteous king w h o m he could support. He called out his
name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he proclaimed his n a m e to be king over
all [the world], . . . He [Marduk] ordered him to march to his city
Babylon. . . . He m a d e him enter his city Babylon without fighting or
battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the
king w h o did not revere him, into his hands.

This is a remarkable piece of propaganda from the priests of Marduk, w h o were

extremely powerful. This context gives us a way to u n d e r s t a n d some of Deutero-
Isaiah's prophecies. It also shows h o w useful it is to read biblical works against
their ancient Near Eastern b a c k g r o u n d , which m o d e r n archaeology and biblical
studies have m a d e possible.
For Babylonian Jews w h o remained steadfast to their religion, the concept
that Marduk chose Cyrus was unthinkable, so they developed a counter-theolo-
gy. Several units in Isaiah from chapter 4 0 on read as if they respond directly to
(that is, are polemics against) the ideas f o u n d in the Cyrus cylinder. Here are two
examples:
 (41:1) Stand silent before Me, coastlands, / And let nations renew their
strength. / Let t h e m approach to state their case; / Let us come forward
together for argument. / (2) W h o has roused a victor from the East, /
S u m m o n e d him to His service? / Has delivered u p nations to him, / And
trodden sovereigns down? / Has rendered their swords like dust, / Their
b o w s like wind-blown straw? / (3) He pursues them, he goes on
unscathed; / No shackle is placed on his feet. / (4) W h o has wrought
a n d achieved this? / He w h o a n n o u n c e d the generations from the
start— / I, the LORD, w h o was first / And will be with the last as well.

(45:1) T h u s said the LORD to Cyrus, / His anointed one ["messiah"]—/

W h o s e right h a n d He has grasped, / Treading d o w n nations before
him, / Ungirding the loins of kings, / O p e n i n g doors before him / And
letting n o gate stay shut: / (2) I will march before you / And level the
hills that loom up; / 1 will shatter doors of bronze / And cut d o w n iron
bars. / (3) I will give you treasures concealed in the dark / And secret
h o a r d s — / So that you may k n o w that it is I the LORD, / The God of
Israel, w h o call you by name. / (4) For the sake of My servant Jacob, /
Israel My chosen one, / I call you by name, / I hail you by title, though
you have not k n o w n Me. / (5) I am the LORD and there is n o n e else; /
Beside Me, there is n o god. / I engird you, t h o u g h you have not k n o w n
Me, / (6) So that they may know, from east to west, / That there is n o n e
but Me. / I am the LORD a n d there is n o n e else.

The phrase "I call you by name" (v. 4) is especially evocative, matching exactly
the statement in the Cyrus Cylinder: "He [Marduk] called out his name: Cyrus,
king of Anshan; he proclaimed his name." As we shall see, the polemic between
those backing Marduk the high-god of the Babylonians, and those backing the
God of the Jews, extended far beyond these two passages.
The two prophecies cited above derive from an a n o n y m o u s prophet whose
oracles have been a p p e n d e d to Isaiah 1 - 3 9 . We do not k n o w if Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6
represents the w o r k of a single p r o p h e t or of more than one. Most scholars sup-
pose that two authors c o m p o s e d this section; they call the author of chapters
4 0 - 5 5 "Deutero-Isaiah," and the a u t h o r of chapters 5 6 - 6 6 "Trito-Isaiah." 3 (See
"Out of Many, One" in chapter 17.) Scholars have reached this conclusion in part
because 4 0 - 5 5 is almost entirely consolation, and does not reflect the return to
Israel, whereas 5 6 - 6 6 does reflect this return a n d includes substantial rebuke.
Exactly h o w a n d why someone attached these oracles to those of an earlier
prophet is u n k n o w n ; 4 scholars are certain, however, that 4 0 - 6 6 does not reflect
the w o r k of the eighth-century Isaiah son of Amoz.
 The following sections will treat Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 as one unit, even though the
same h a n d may not have written all of that section.

The Message of Deutero-Isaiah

C o m p a r e d to previous prophets, Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 presents m a n y n e w themes. Some

of the differences may be d u e to the u n i q u e historical setting of the prophecies,
while other aspects reflect the ongoing evolution of Israelite religion. These pas-
sages place t r e m e n d o u s emphasis on "radical m o n o t h e i s m " (see n. 30 in chapter
10), which likely belongs to the latter category. Whereas the sentiments of
Deuteronomy 4:35 ("It has been clearly demonstrated to you that the L O R D alone
is God; there is n o n e beside Him") are rare in preexilic texts, 5 they suffuse this
part of Isaiah. For example, Isaiah 45:6 similarly notes: "I am the L O R D and there
is none else." The p r o p h e t again and again equates polytheistic gods with their
idols, depicting both as powerless fetishes. 6 The following sarcastic passage is
typical:

(44:9) The makers of idols / All work to n o purpose; / And the things
they treasure / Can d o n o good, / As they themselves can testify. / They
neither look n o r think, / And so they shall be shamed. / (10) W h o
w o u l d fashion a god / O r cast a statue / That can d o n o good? / ( 1 1 ) Lo,
all its adherents shall be shamed; / They are craftsmen, are merely
h u m a n . / Let them all assemble a n d stand up! / They shall be cowed,
and they shall be shamed. / (12) The craftsman in iron, with his tools, /
Works it over charcoal / And fashions it by h a m m e r i n g , / Working with
the strength of his arm. / Should he go hungry, his strength would ebb; /
Should he drink n o water, he w o u l d grow faint. / 1 3 ) The craftsman in
w o o d measures with a line / And m a r k s out a shape with a stylus; / He
forms it with scraping tools, / Marking it out with a compass. / He gives
it a h u m a n form, / The beauty of a m a n , to dwell in a shrine. / (14) For
his use he cuts d o w n cedars; / He chooses plane trees and oaks. / He
sets aside trees of the forest; / O r plants firs, and the rain makes them
grow. / (15) All this serves m a n for fuel: / He takes some to w a r m h i m -
self, / And he builds a fire a n d bakes bread. / He also makes a god of it
and worships it, / Fashions an idol a n d bows d o w n to it! / (16) Part of
it he b u r n s in a fire: / O n that part he roasts meat, / He eats the roast
and is sated; / He also w a r m s himself and cries, "Ah, / 1 am warm! I can
feel the heat!" / (17) Of the rest he makes a g o d — h i s own carving! / He
bows d o w n to it, worships it; / He prays to it a n d cries, / "Save me, for
you are m y god!" / (18) They have n o wit or j u d g m e n t : / Their eyes are
 besmeared, a n d they see not; / Their minds, and they cannot think. /
(19) They do not give thought, / They lack the wit and judgment to say: /
"Part of it I b u r n e d in a fire; / I also baked bread on the coals, / I roast-
ed meat a n d ate it— / Should 1 m a k e the rest an abhorrence? / Should
1 b o w to a block of wood?" / (20) He pursues ashes! / A deluded m i n d
has led him astray, / And he cannot save himself; / He never says to him-
self, / "The thing in my h a n d is a fraud!"

This passage, like others in the b o o k , is unfair—it confuses the deity with the
representation of the deity. The Mesopotamians w h o w o r s h i p p e d the statue of
Marduk did not believe it was really Marduk. In their eyes, the statue stood for
Marduk, and Marduk might have been especially present in it, b u t the god was
not confined to the statue, and the statue was not the god.‫ ׳‬Nonetheless,
Deutero-Isaiah depicts other gods in this polemical fashion in order to argue
against the existence of all other deities.
Deutero-Isaiah also emphasized that the God of Israel—the only G o d — i s
extremely powerful. O n e oracle uses the complex image of God the warrior, w h o
tramples enemies as farmers trample grapes to make wine:

(63:3) I trod out a vintage alone; / Of the peoples n o man was with Me. /
I trod t h e m d o w n in My anger, / Trampled t h e m in My rage; / Their life-
blood bespattered My garments, / And all My clothing was stained. /
(4) For 1 had planned a day of vengeance, / And My year of r e d e m p t i o n
arrived. / (5) Then I looked, b u t there was n o n e to help; / I stared, but
there was n o n e to a i d — / So My own arm wrought the t r i u m p h , /
And My own rage was My aid. / (6) I trampled peoples in My anger, / I
m a d e t h e m d r u n k with My rage, / And I hurled their glory to the
ground.

Time and again the prophet repeats the theme of YHWH'S power, in order to
convince the people that God does have the ability to return t h e m to the land of
Israel. Other texts recall G o d s past accomplishments, as a prelude to their repe-
tition in the near future:

(51:9) Awake, awake, clothe yourself with splendor. / Ο arm of the

LORD! / Awake as in days of old, / As in former ages! / It was you that
hacked Rahab in pieces, / That pierced the Dragon. / (10) It was you
that dried u p the Sea, / The waters of the great deep; / That m a d e the
abysses of the Sea / A road the redeemed might walk. / (11) So let the
ransomed of the LORD return, / And come with shouting to Zion, /
Crowned with joy everlasting. / Let t h e m attain joy and gladness, /
While sorrow a n d sighing flee.
This passage recalls an ancient Israelite myth, in which God creates the world
a n d becomes king by quelling the water deities. 8 After stating that God will soon
reenact this act of prowess, the prophet alludes to the Exodus (w. 10-11).
Indeed, the portrayal of the return to Zion as a new Exodus r u n s like a thread
through the fabric of Deutero-Isaiah. 9 The God w h o has s h o w n u n m a t c h e d
power in these two m o m e n t s — i n forming the world and in forming Israel—can
surely do it again.
Not only God, but also Israel has a major role to play in the people's r e d e m p -
tion. God is strong e n o u g h to fulfill the part of redeemer, b u t is Israel deserving?
Like Ezekiel (see chapter 19), this prophet deals with the guilt that the exiles
m u s t have felt. This prophet, too, assuages their guilt, convincing them that they
are worthy to return. Already in the initial prophecy, Deutero-Isaiah suggests
that Israel's "term of service is over . . . I her iniquity is expiated; / For she has
received at the h a n d of the L O R D / Double for all her sins" (40:2). Theologically,
this is an audacious and even disturbing n o t i o n — J u d a h has been "over-pun-
ished"! Surely, however, it could help a group wracked by guilt.
Another way that Deutero-Isaiah bolsters the confidence of the J u d e a n s in
exile is by writing them into the eternal, unconditional covenant granted to
David: "Incline your ear and come to Me; / Hearken, and you shall be revived. /
And I will make with you [plural, meaning, Israel as a whole] an everlasting
covenant, / The e n d u r i n g loyalty promised to David" (55:3). Israel—rather than
only David's d e s c e n d a n t s — b e c o m e s the beneficiary of David's covenant. 1 0 The
prophet revalues the Davidic covenant by democratizing it to all Israel. Not sur-
prisingly, therefore, Deutero-Isaiah—in contrast to most earlier classical
p r o p h e t s — n o w h e r e depicts a Davidic descendant as the future ideal king.
In some places, Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 depicts a "kinder, gentler" deity by depicting
God as female. 1 1 This new imagery helped convince the J u d e a n s that God, like
a mother, w o u l d aid them, by restoring t h e m to their homeland. The prophet
accomplishes the change not by using feminine verbs or p r o n o u n s of God
(which the Bible never employs) but by using feminine m e t a p h o r s and similes
as images of God. For example:

(49:14) Zion says, / "The L O R D has forsaken me, / My Lord has forgot-
ten me." / (15) Can a w o m a n forget her baby, / Or disown the child
of her womb? / Though she might forget, / I never could forget you. /
(16) See, I have engraved you / O n the palms of My hands, / Your walls
are ever before Me.

Here God is "The Excellent Mother" w h o cares for her children so m u c h that
their picture is engraved or tattooed on her palms. Certainly, such a devoted
m o t h e r deserves great trust!
 Some of the most remarkable passages in Deutero-Isaiah help Israel to
u n d e r s t a n d w h y it deserves to be redeemed, especially passages concerning a
"suffering servant." That servant's identity may not be consistent in all of the pas-
sages that invoke this image. The longest such passage would later play a signif-
icant role in early Christianity a n d has been a part of Jewish-Christian polemics
throughout the ages. It reads:

(53:1) "Who can believe what we have heard? / U p o n w h o m has the

arm of the L O R D been revealed? / (2) For he has grown, by His favor, like
a tree crown, / Like a tree t r u n k out of arid ground. / He had n o form
or beauty, that we should look at him: / N o charm, that we should find
him pleasing. / (3) He was despised, s h u n n e d by m e n , / A m a n of suf-
fering, familiar with disease. / As one w h o hid his face from us, / He was
despised, we held him of n o account. / (4) Yet it was our sickness that
he was bearing, / O u r suffering that he endured. / We accounted h i m
plagued, / Smitten and afflicted by God; / (5) But he was w o u n d e d
because of our sins, / Crushed because of our iniquities. / He bore the
chastisement that made us whole, / And by his bruises we were healed. /
(6) We all went astray like sheep, / Each going his own way; / And the
L O R D visited u p o n h i m / The guilt of all of us." / (7) He was maltreated,
yet he was submissive, / He did not o p e n his m o u t h ; / Like a sheep
being led to slaughter, / Like a ewe, d u m b before those w h o shear her, /
He did not o p e n his m o u t h . / (8) By oppressive j u d g m e n t he was taken
away, / W h o could describe his abode? / For he was cut off from the land
of the living / Through the sin of my people, w h o deserved the p u n i s h -
ment. / (9) And his grave was set a m o n g the wicked, / And with the
rich, in his d e a t h — / T h o u g h he had d o n e n o injustice / And h a d spo-
k e n n o falsehood. / (10) But the L O R D chose to crush him by disease, /
That, if he m a d e himself an offering for guilt, / He might see offspring
and have long life, / And that t h r o u g h h i m the LORD'S p u r p o s e might
prosper. / (11) Out of his anguish he shall see it; / He shall enjoy it to
the full t h r o u g h his devotion. / "My righteous servant makes the m a n y
righteous, / It is their p u n i s h m e n t that he bears; / (12) Assuredly, I will
give h i m the m a n y as his portion, / He shall receive the multitude as his
spoil. / For he exposed himself to death / A n d was n u m b e r e d a m o n g the
sinners, / Whereas he bore the guilt of the m a n y / And m a d e interces-
sion for sinners."

Here the prophet does not specify the identity of the servant. Given that
Deutero-Isaiah often calls Israel "my servant" (e.g., "But hear, now, Ο Jacob My
servant, / Israel w h o m I have chosen!" in 44:1), the servant might be Israel as a
whole. 1 2 But other readings are also plausible. Is the p r o p h e t referring to a past,
present, or future figure? Is an individual meant, or a collective? These questions
have been the subject of heated debate for centuries. Definitive answers seem to
be beyond our reach.
In any case, the text newly emphasizes a type of vicarious p u n i s h m e n t . That
the u n n a m e d servant suffered for the sake of others (53:4) and was injured (v.
5) in p u n i s h m e n t for their guilt (w. 6, 1 1 - 1 2 ) is an extreme version of the con-
cept that Ezekiel so firmly rejected (see "Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19).
F r o m a historical perspective, it is likely that the exiles' excessive guilt is what
evoked this theological idea. As with the annual scapegoat ritual in the now-van-
ished Temple (see Leviticus 16), they could u n d e r s t a n d their guilt as having
been transferred onto another party.

Cognitive Dissonance

As we have seen, some of the prophecies in Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 did come true, espe-
dally those concerning Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon w h o redeemed the
exiled Judeans. However, m a n y oracles did not come true. For example, most of
the J u d e a n s did not return to their ancestral land. Those w h o did often did not
enjoy the easy j o u r n e y that the p r o p h e t predicted:

(40:3) A voice rings out: "Clear in the desert / A road for the LORD! /
Level in the wilderness / A highway for our God! / (4) Let every valley
be raised, / Every hill and m o u n t m a d e low. / Let the rugged ground
become level / And the ridges become a plain. / (5) The Presence of the
L O R D shall appear, / And all flesh, as one, shall b e h o l d — / For the L O R D
Himself has spoken." . . . / (9) Ascend a lofty m o u n t a i n , / Ο herald of
joy to Zion; / Raise your voice with power, / Ο herald of joy to
J e r u s a l e m — / Raise it, have n o fear; / A n n o u n c e to the cities of J u d a h : /
Behold your God! / (10) Behold, the Lord GOD comes in might, / And
His arm wins t r i u m p h for Him; / See, His reward is with Him, / His rec-
ompense before Him. / (11) Like a shepherd He pastures His flock: / He
gathers the lambs in His arms / And carries t h e m in His bosom; / Gently
He drives the m o t h e r sheep.

For the hard-pressed returnees, the gap between that prophecy a n d their reality
m u s t have been unsettling, p r o m p t i n g not only disappointment b u t cognitive
dissonance. 1 3
The prophetic texts we will n o w consider use several approaches to combat
the perceived dissonance. O n e approach is to reinterpret the prophecies of con-
solation so that they remain true. A simple instance of this appears in the sec-
ond chapter of Haggai, one of the "minor" (that is, short) prophetic texts (see n.
18 in chapter 2). He explicitly recognizes the failures of the restoration: "Who is
there left a m o n g you w h o saw this House in its former splendor? How does it
look to you now? It must seem like nothing to you" (2:3). Yet, he continues by
giving a promise:

(2:6) For thus said the L O R D of Hosts: In just a little while longer I will
shake the heavens a n d the earth, the sea and the dry land; (7) I will
shake all the nations. And the precious things of all the nations shall
come here, and I will fill this House with glory, said the L O R D of Hosts.
(8) Silver is Mine a n d gold is Mine—says the L O R D of Hosts. (9) The
glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former one,
said the L O R D of Hosts; and in this place 1 will grant prosperity—
declares the LORD of Hosts.

The key phrase here is "In just a little while longer"—the ideal future has clear-
ly not arrived, but it is around the corner. 1 4 Haggai's early prophecies seem to
have been instrumental in spurring the rebuilding the Second Temple. (We will
examine more examples of the reinterpretation of earlier oracles in the next
chapter on Daniel and apocalyptic literature.)
A second approach to relieve cognitive dissonance is to ignore the discrep-
ancies, focusing instead on the theme of retribution. This is especially obvious
in E z r a - N e h e m i a h . ^ For example, w h e n N e h e m i a h saw that the Jews were not
properly observing the Sabbath, he "censured the nobles of J u d a h , saying to
them, W h a t evil thing is this that you are doing, profaning the sabbath day! This
is just what your ancestors did, and for it God brought all this misfortune on this
city; and n o w you give cause for further wrath against Israel by profaning the
sabbath!'" (Neh. 1 3 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . These verses most likely allude to Jeremiah 17:27:
"But if you d o not obey My c o m m a n d to hallow the sabbath day and to carry in
n o b u r d e n s through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will set fire
to its gates; it shall c o n s u m e the fortresses of Jerusalem and it shall not be extin-
guished." Ezra-Nehemiahs emphasis is not on the consolations but on the
prophecies of retribution of previous prophets, and its main concern is m a k i n g
sure that already fulfilled prophecies will not have a reason to be fulfilled again.
In their concern with retribution, the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah were some-
times stringent, "making a fence a r o u n d the Torah" (see "Solomon" in chapter
13). Ezra's blanket proscription of intermarriage is a strong example of this.
Earlier sources had forbidden various specific groups as marriage partners
(ibid.); n o such text had advocated expelling the children of an intermarried
couple from the community. But Ezra 9:2 notes: "They have taken their daugh-
ters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed has become
intermingled with the peoples of the land." 1 6 According to that book, the Jews
m a d e a covenant to expel not only these foreign wives, b u t also "those w h o have
been b o r n to them" (Ezra 10:3). This decision grew out of a close study of Torah
and prophetic texts, 1 7 combined with a great concern by some that the exile and
the destruction of the Temple not be repeated.

One Important Implication

This survey of postexilic literature suggests that the people in that period stud-
ied Torah and other texts closely. This image is corroborated by the description
in Nehemiah of the great covenant m a d e in Jerusalem, where

(8:1) the entire people assembled as one m a n in the square before the
Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the scroll of the
Teaching of Moses with which the L O R D had charged Israel. . . . ( 5 ) Ezra
o p e n e d the scroll in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the
people; as he o p e n e d it, all the people stood up. . . . (8) They read from
the scroll of the Teaching of God, translating it and giving the sense; so
they understood the reading.

As the passage continues, we learn that specific sections were read and lis-
tened to carefully, a n d then implemented. For example, the people celebrated
dwelling in b o o t h s d u r i n g Sukkot, after the scribes read aloud the section about
the relevant rites: "They found written in the Teaching that the L O R D had com-
m a n d e d Moses that the Israelites must dwell in booths d u r i n g the festival of the
seventh m o n t h " (v. 14).
To u n d e r s t a n d the divine will, such texts suggest, prophecy was n o longer
necessary. Old, authoritative texts—the Torah and the prophetic books, which
became so important in the exilic period—retained their importance a n d could
be studied to determine the divine will as it applied to the contemporary situa-
tion. The prophetic impulse did not stop at that point, 1 8 but, as we will see in
the next chapter, prophecy went through remarkable changes.
 21

"Those That Sleep in the Dust . . .

Will Awake"
Zechariah, Apocalyptic Literature, and Daniel

Primary Reading: Zechariah 1,2, 5, 7, 8; Daniel 1-6, 8, 9, 12.

Zechariah Stands on a Cusp

Zechariah and the Classical Prophets

T he first part of Zechariah (chaps. 1 - 8 ) f o r m s a literary unit c o m p o s e d a lit-

tie m o r e t h a n 2 5 0 0 years ago, in the late sixth c e n t u r y B.C.E. T h e rest of the
b o o k s e e m s unrelated to this first part; on those g r o u n d s , it s e e m s that a later
editor a d d e d the latter part (just as s o m e o n e affixed Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 to oracles by
the earlier p r o p h e t Isaiah son of A m o z ; see "Out of Many, O n e " in c h a p t e r 17). 1
In this chapter, I will focus only on the first p o r t i o n of the b o o k .
Zechariah 1 - 8 share m a n y features with the classical p r o p h e t i c b o o k s (see
above, c h a p t e r s 1 5 - 1 9 , esp. c h a p t e r 16). Zechariah e m p l o y s m a n y of classical
prophecy's typical formulas, s u c h as ne'um YHWH ("—declares the LORD") a n d ko
amar YHWH ("Thus said the LORD:"). Like the classical p r o p h e t s , Zechariah
depicts G o d as universal ("The m a n y p e o p l e s a n d the m u l t i t u d e of n a t i o n s shall
c o m e to seek the LORD of Hosts in J e r u s a l e m a n d to entreat the favor of the
LORD"; 8:22). These p r o p h e c i e s p r e s u m e a special relationship b e t w e e n Israel
a n d its G o d that entails obligations o n the part of each party ("Turn back to
m e — s a y s the LORD of H o s t s — a n d I will t u r n b a c k to you"; 1:3). Israel's obliga-
tions include ethical as well as cultic responsibilities ("These are the things y o u
are to do: Speak the t r u t h to one another, r e n d e r true a n d perfect justice in y o u r
gates. A n d d o n o t contrive evil against o n e another, a n d d o n o t love perjury,
because all those are things that I h a t e — d e c l a r e s the LORD"; 8 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) . A l t h o u g h
Zechariah never uses the classical prophet's p h r a s e "Day of the LORD," he s e e m s
to have that n o t i o n in m i n d ("In that day m a n y n a t i o n s will attach themselves to
the LORD a n d b e c o m e His people, a n d He will dwell in y o u r midst. T h e n y o u
will k n o w that I w a s sent to y o u by the LORD of Hosts"; 2:15). According to
Zechariah, this day will be a rather peaceful, pro-Israel occasion.
T h u s Zechariah subscribes to four of the five m a i n ideas of classical p r o p h e -
cy. At the same time, he significantly alters the fifth characteristic i d e a — a b o u t a
" r e m n a n t . " Earlier p r o p h e t s h a d predicted the r e t u r n of a r e m n a n t , but
Zechariah never does so. W h y not? Because he believes that his generation,
w h i c h h a s e x p e r i e n c e d b o t h exile a n d r e t u r n , is the remnant. This idea a p p e a r s
several times:

(8:6) T h u s said the LORD of Hosts: T h o u g h it will seem impossible to

the r e m n a n t of this people in those days, shall it also be impossible to
Me?—declares the LORD of Hosts.

(8:11) But n o w I will not treat the r e m n a n t of this people as b e f o r e —

declares the LORD of H o s t s — ( 1 2 ) b u t w h a t it s o w s shall prosper: The
vine shall p r o d u c e its fruit, the g r o u n d shall p r o d u c e its yield, a n d the
skies shall provide their moisture. 1 will b e s t o w all these things u p o n
the r e m n a n t of this people.

For Zechariah, there is n o f u t u r e r e m n a n t because he believes that he is already

living in that future.
Because Zechariah h a s identified himself as part of the r e m n a n t that o t h e r s
p r o p h e s i e d a b o u t , he uses phrases that set h i m apart f r o m earlier p r o p h e t s . Key
a m o n g these is the idea of "the earlier p r o p h e t s " — f o u n d only in this b o o k —
w h i c h Zechariah uses three times:

(1:4) Do not be like y o u r fathers! For w h e n the earlier p r o p h e t s called

to t h e m , " T h u s said the LORD of Hosts: C o m e , t u r n b a c k f r o m y o u r evil
ways a n d y o u r evil deeds," they did not obey or give h e e d to M e —
declares the LORD.

(7:7) Look, this is the message that the LORD p r o c l a i m e d t h r o u g h the

earlier p r o p h e t s , w h e n J e r u s a l e m a n d the t o w n s a b o u t h e r were p e o p l e d
a n d tranquil, w h e n the N e g e b a n d the S h e p h e l a h were p e o p l e d .

(7:12) They h a r d e n e d their hearts like a d a m a n t against h e e d i n g the

instruction a n d a d m o n i t i o n that the LORD of Hosts sent to t h e m by His
spirit t h r o u g h the earlier p r o p h e t s ; a n d a terrible w r a t h issued f r o m the
LORD of Hosts.
 Given that classical, preexilic p r o p h e c y lasted a long w h i l e — a t least two
h u n d r e d years—it is s u r p r i s i n g that n o n e of the p r o p h e t s prior to Zechariah ever
referred to his predecessors as a g r o u p . He is the first p r o p h e t we see l o o k i n g
back a n d s t u d y i n g earlier oracles, a n d viewing these oracles as an authoritative
b o d y of w o r k c o m i n g f r o m a collective source.
A n o t h e r significant difference b e t w e e n Zechariah a n d earlier p r o p h e t s is that
an angel m e d i a t e s his visions. Visions typify classical prophecy, b u t these usual-
ly originate w i t h G o d , as in A m o s ("This is w h a t m y Lord GOD s h o w e d me"; 7:1)
a n d J e r e m i a h ("The w o r d of the LORD c a m e to me: W h a t d o you see, Jeremiah?
I replied: I see a b r a n c h of an a l m o n d tree"; 1:11). Z e c h a r i a h s visions are quite
different; the p r o p h e t r e c o u n t s that "the angel w h o talked with me" (5:5 a n d
elsewhere) w h o explained w h a t he was seeing a n d conveyed divine w o r d s to
h i m . 2 Perhaps s u c h m e d i a t i o n expresses a m o r e distant sense of God. Moreover,
unlike the visions of the classical p r o p h e t s , w h i c h h a d t e n d e d to involve every-
day items w h o s e s y m b o l i s m is fairly t r a n s p a r e n t , Z e c h a r i a h s visions are often
strange: "I l o o k e d u p again a n d saw two w o m e n c o m e soaring w i t h the w i n d in
their w i n g s — t h e y h a d wings like those of a s t o r k — a n d carry off the t u b b e t w e e n
earth a n d sky" (5:9).

Z e c h a r i a h a n d the B e g i n n i n g s o f A p o c a l y p t i c L i t e r a t u r e

Some of these features that distinguish Zechariah f r o m classical p r o p h e c y typify

apocalyptic literature, a genre that p r o b a b l y d e v e l o p e d s o o n after Z e c h a r i a h s
lifetime—that is, in the early Second Temple period. (The adjective "apocalyp-
tic" a n d the n o u n "apocalypse" derive f r o m the Greek apokalypsis, "to u n c o v e r or
reveal.") Since the early n i n e t e e n t h century, scholars have u s e d "apocalyptic" as
a genre label in various o v e r l a p p i n g ways. I prefer the following definition:

A genre of revelatory literature w i t h a narrative f r a m e w o r k , in w h i c h a

revelation is m e d i a t e d by an o t h e r w o r l d l y b e i n g to a h u m a n recipient,
disclosing a t r a n s c e n d e n t reality w h i c h is b o t h t e m p o r a l , insofar as it
envisages eschatological salvation, a n d spatial, insofar as it involves
another, s u p e r n a t u r a l w o r l d . ‫ן‬

Many parts of Zechariah 1 - 8 fit this definition: 4 these p r o p h e c i e s are revelatory;

they tell a story; they feature an a n o n y m o u s angel as mediator; a n d they divulge
their revelations to the very h u m a n Zechariah. Their "transcendent reality envis-
ages eschatological salvation," especially in c h a p t e r 8, w h i c h imagines a n e w
J e r u s a l e m ("Jerusalem will be called the City of Faithfulness, a n d the m o u n t of
the LORD of Hosts the Holy Mount"; v. 3). However, Zechariah does n o t clearly
imagine "another, s u p e r n a t u r a l w o r l d " in the same m a n n e r as o t h e r apocalyptic
texts like E n o c h , Daniel, 4 Ezra, a n d 2 B a r u c h . 5
The origins of this genre, along w i t h its a u t h o r s ' place in society, are obscure.
Apocalypse m a y have its roots in earlier Canaanite a n d Israelite mythical tradi-
tions, a n d in preexilic prophecy. Persian motifs p r o b a b l y also i n f l u e n c e d the
genre. 6 At a n y rate, apocalyptic ideas w e n t o n to play a leading role in J u d a i s m
d u r i n g the Persian a n d Hellenistic periods. They also h a d a m a j o r impact on
early Christianity. 7

Daniel

Daniel is a short b o o k that boasts s o m e u n u s u a l features. A l t h o u g h m u c h of it is

in Hebrew, the m i d d l e p o r t i o n (2:4b t h o u g h e n d of c h a p . 8) is in the related lan-
guage of A r a m a i c — t h e lingua franca of the ancient Near E a s t — w h i c h was wide-
ly s p o k e n in Israel d u r i n g this time period. (We d o n o t k n o w w h y the b o o k is
written in t w o languages.) Moreover, it is c o m p o s e d of t w o f u n d a m e n t a l l y dif-
ferent genres that overlap the language transitions: stories (chaps. 1 - 6 ) a n d
apocalypses (chaps. 7 - 1 2 ) .

The Historical Setting

Some of the book's claims are at o d d s w i t h historical fact:

• Daniel depicts the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, a n d Greeks as four

consecutive e m p i r e s (chap. 2); however, s o m e of those states existed
concurrently.
• It talks a b o u t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s b e i n g exiled f r o m his k i n g d o m (chap.
4); this p r o b a b l y reflects events involving the last k i n g of Babylon,
N a b o n i d u s , w h o took a "leave of absence" f r o m b e i n g k i n g a n d lived in
an oasis o n the Arabian peninsula.
• It depicts Belshazzar as the last k i n g of Babylon (chap. 5); this is an error.

S o m e o n e living in the Babylonian exile w o u l d not have m a d e these k i n d of mis-

takes. In o t h e r w o r d s , Daniel's p u r p o r t e d setting d u r i n g the Babylonian exile (see
c h a p . 4) is n o t plausible; the b o o k m u s t be f r o m a later era. In fact, it e m p l o y s
Greek l o a n w o r d s (e.g., sumfoniah or "bagpipes," related to the English w o r d
"symphony," a p p e a r s in 3:5), w h i c h establishes that s o m e o n e wrote it d u r i n g the
Greek p e r i o d . 8

W h a t the Visions Address

T h u s far we have seen that Daniel is a c o m p o s i t e text of d u b i o u s historicity f r o m

different genres.
As n o t e d above, the s e c o n d half of Daniel c o m p r i s e s apocalyptic visions.
C h a p t e r 8 is a typical e x a m p l e of that genre: "revelatory literature . . . in w h i c h
a revelation is m e d i a t e d by an o t h e r w o r l d l y being." 9 Here, in contrast to the
apocalypse in Zechariah, the i n t e r m e d i a r y is actually n a m e d : the angel Gabriel
(v. 16). This passage reveals a " t r a n s c e n d e n t reality" that is b o t h "temporal" a n d
"spatially" different f r o m o u r world. We can easily interpret s o m e parts of the
v i s i o n — f o r e x a m p l e , scholars agree o n the m e a n i n g of verse 8, "Then the he-
goat grew very great, b u t at the p e a k of his p o w e r his big h o r n w a s b r o k e n . In
its place, four c o n s p i c u o u s h o r n s s p r o u t e d toward the four w i n d s of heaven": the
"he-goat" is Alexander the Great, a n d the "four c o n s p i c u o u s h o r n s " represent the
four generals w h o s u c c e e d e d h i m . 1 0
The c o n t i n u a t i o n of the passage deals, in not-so-veiled language, w i t h
A n t i o c h u s IV E p i p h a n e s , the Greek k i n g w h o in 167 B.C.E. took the u n p r e c e -
d e n t e d step of c o n v e r t i n g the J e r u s a l e m Temple into a temple for Zeus, while
p r o h i b i t i n g central Jewish practices. (We k n o w little a b o u t w h y he did so. Most
Greek kings, like their Persian predecessors, were quite tolerant of local reli-
gions.) O t h e r sources tell u s that he s u s p e n d e d the regular Temple offerings; this
is reflected w h e n Daniel hears m e n t i o n of a c u r r e n t crisis, "the regular offering .
. . forsaken because of transgression" (v. 13). T h u s , s o m e o n e wrote d o w n this
vision after 167 ( w h e n A n t i o c h u s took control of the Temple) b u t before 164
( w h e n the H a s m o n e a n s restored the Temple following the Maccabean victory).
Probably m u c h — i f n o t all—of the apocalyptic material in Daniel w a s written
a r o u n d that time.
In verse 19 of that chapter, an angelic figure tells Daniel: "I a m going to
i n f o r m y o u of w h a t will h a p p e n w h e n w r a t h is at an e n d , " c o n t i n u i n g : ki le-mo'ed
ketz ( ‫כי ל מ ו ע ד ק ץ‬, "for [it refers] to the time a p p o i n t e d for the end"). This verse
is picking u p o n the vocabulary of H a b a k k u k 2:3: "For there is yet a p r o p h e c y
la-mo'ed ( ‫ ל מ ו ע ד‬, 'for a set term'), / A t r u t h f u l witness for ketz ( ‫ ק ץ‬, 'a time') that
will come." T h u s , even t h o u g h the Book of Daniel presents this passage as a n e w
prophecy, it relates to an older prophecy.
214 H o w to Read the Bible

Reinterpretation and Creative Philology

Referring to m u c h earlier oracles represents a shift in the evolution of ideas

a b o u t prophecy. As the J e w s w h o inherited old p r o p h e c i e s c a m e to believe that
they could be s t u d i e d in o r d e r to u n d e r s t a n d the divine will in the present, n e w
p r o p h e c i e s s e e m e d to be less a n d less necessary.
T h e apocalypse of Daniel 9 records an i m p o r t a n t stage in this d e v e l o p m e n t .
There, Daniel "consulted the b o o k s c o n c e r n i n g the n u m b e r of years that, accord-
ing to the w o r d of the LORD that h a d c o m e to J e r e m i a h the p r o p h e t , were to be
the t e r m of Jerusalem's desolation—shiv'im ( ‫ ש ב ע י ם‬, 'seventy') years" (9:2). This
is quite a strange verse, especially since the initial verb ("consulted") really
m e a n s "looked at a n d investigated carefully." Few p r o p h e t i c texts are m o r e
straightforward t h a n Jeremiah's seventy-year oracle, w h i c h p r o m i s e d seventy
years of Babylonian w o r l d d o m i n a t i o n b e g i n n i n g in 6 0 5 , followed by p u n i s h -
m e n t of the Babylonians a n d a restoration of Israel (Jer. 25; see above, c h a p t e r
18). At first glance, this w o u l d seem like the last p r o p h e c y that one w h o lived
centuries later w o u l d "consult" for c o n t e m p o r a r y insights.
However, an a u t h o r w h o was writing b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164 w o u l d have h a d
good reason to s t u d y that passage carefully. For J e r e m i a h h a d p r o m i s e d an ulti-
mate, p e r m a n e n t restoration of Israel after seventy years; yet people were n o w —
u n d e r A n t i o c h u s I V — u n a b l e to w o r s h i p in J e r u s a l e m , a n d u n d e r pain of d e a t h
for observing basic Jewish practices. T h u s , either Jeremiah's p r o p h e c y was false,
or else w h a t he said m u s t have a h i d d e n m e a n i n g — o n e that only close s t u d y
could reveal. T h e a u t h o r of Daniel chose the latter a p p r o a c h , revealing this eso-
teric m e a n i n g later in the chapter:

(21) W h i l e I w a s u t t e r i n g m y prayer, the m a n Gabriel, w h o m I h a d pre-

viously seen in the vision, w a s sent forth in flight a n d reached m e a b o u t
the time of the e v e n i n g offering. (22) He m a d e m e u n d e r s t a n d by
s p e a k i n g to m e a n d saying, "Daniel, 1 have j u s t c o m e forth to give y o u
u n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . . (24) Seventy w e e k s have b e e n d e c r e e d for y o u r p e o -
pie a n d y o u r holy city until the m e a s u r e of transgression is filled a n d
that of sin c o m p l e t e , until iniquity is expiated, a n d eternal righteous-
ness u s h e r e d in; a n d p r o p h e t i c vision ratified, a n d the Holy of Holies
a n o i n t e d . . ."

T h e a u t h o r here reinterprets the p r o p h e c y of J e r e m i a h as if the w o r d shiv'im

,
( • ‫ ) ש ב ע‬in the p h r a s e "seventy years" were tacitly repeated a n d revocalized:
shavu'im shiv'im ( ‫ ) ש ב ע י ם ש ב ע י ם‬, "seventy weeks" of years, n a m e l y 7 0 x 7 = 4 9 0
years. 1 1 Thus, the a u t h o r grants this central prophecy of Jeremiah a 420-year
extension! This reading enables J e r e m i a h s oracle to remain a true prophecy, and
Jeremiah a p r o p h e t of truth.
Certainly, the reading in Daniel is not what Jeremiah meant. Several factors
that w o u l d typify later postbiblical interpretation are already visible here, par-
ticularly "creative philology," 1 2 where w o r d s need not have their usual meaning,
especially if they are divine words, which are treated as special. 1 ‫ י‬Thus, n o clear
line divides rabbinic types of interpretation from those f o u n d in the biblical peri-
od itself. 1 4 Stated differently, in some ways, we s h o u l d view the late biblical peri-
od as proto-rabbinic.
Continuity holds across the periods not only for interpretation of earlier
prophecy, b u t also for evolving theological ideas. For example, the notion of res-
urrection of the dead is hardly a central biblical notion, though a few biblical
texts may hint at it. 1 ‫ י‬In the Bible, resurrection is u n a m b i g u o u s l y m e n t i o n e d
only in Daniel: "Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,
some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence" (12:2). 1 6
For the rabbis, however, the future resurrection becomes a central doctrine.

T h e m e s in the Stories of D a n i e l

If the reader u n d e r s t a n d s h o w the genre of apocalypse functions, then the apoc-

alyptic sections of Daniel are not so difficult to grasp. Once one finds the allu-
sions to specific historical events (and apocalyptic a u t h o r s typically give m a n y
clues), the m e a n i n g and function of these prophecies become clear. But h o w are
we to u n d e r s t a n d the fanciful stories in Daniel 1 - 6 ? These stories are at least as
bizarre as the apocalyptic images that conclude the book. 1 ‫׳‬
Daniels first chapter breaks us in slowly, s h o w i n g h o w Daniel and his
three friends prosper in the royal court while avoiding the king's ritually im-
pure food a n d w i n e . 1 8 They p e r f o r m e d "ten times better than all the magicians
and exorcists throughout his realm" (v. 20). In chapter 2, Daniel o u t d o e s the
deed of J o s e p h in Genesis 41: not only can Daniel interpret dreams, but he
can divine their content. This reflects positively not only on Daniel, but also on
his deity. T h u s N e b u c h a d n e z z a r concludes, "Truly your God must be the God of
gods a n d Lord of kings a n d the revealer of mysteries to have enabled you to
reveal this mystery" (Dan. 2:47). Of course, it is impossible to imagine the his-
torical N e b u c h a d n e z z a r — a w o r s h i p p e r of M a r d u k w h o destroyed the Temple in
J e r u s a l e m — a s saying this.
 The following chapter shifts its focus to Daniel's three friends: Shadrach,
Meshach, a n d Abed-nego. W h e n they abrogate Nebuchadnezzar's c o m m a n d by
refusing to b o w d o w n to a statue, the king's response is immediate a n d brutal:

(3:19) N e b u c h a d n e z z a r was so filled with rage at Shadrach, Meshach,

a n d Abed-nego that his visage was distorted, a n d he gave an order to
heat u p the furnace to seven times its usual heat. . . . (2) Because
the king's order was urgent, a n d the furnace was heated to excess, a
tongue of flame killed the m e n w h o carried u p Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego . . .

The three friends, however, were saved:

(27) The satraps, the prefects, the governors, a n d the royal c o m p a n i o n s

gathered a r o u n d to look at those m e n , o n whose bodies the fire h a d
had n o effect, the hair of whose heads h a d not been singed, whose shirts
looked n o different, to w h o m not even the o d o r of fire clung.
(28) N e b u c h a d n e z z a r spoke u p a n d said, "Blessed be the God of
Shadrach, Meshach, a n d Abed-nego, w h o sent His angel to save His ser-
vants w h o , trusting in Him, flouted the king's decree at the risk of their
lives rather than serve or worship any god but their o w n God. (29) I
hereby give an order that anyone of any people or nation of whatever
language w h o blasphemes the God of Shadrach, Meshach, a n d Abed-
nego shall be torn limb from limb, a n d his house confiscated, for there
is n o other God w h o is able to save in this way."

This story, full of well-placed details s u c h as the o d o r of the fire n o t clinging to

these three, repeats the t h e m e s of the previous c h a p t e r — t h e miraculous deliv-
erance of the Jewish court hero, a n d the a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of God's greatness.
The above themes c o n t i n u e in the following chapters. In Daniel 4,
N e b u c h a d n e z z a r acknowledges God yet again, while shifting into poetry:

(31) I blessed the Most High, a n d praised and glorified the Ever-Living
One, / W h o s e d o m i n i o n is an everlasting d o m i n i o n / And whose king-
d o m e n d u r e s t h r o u g h o u t the generations. / (32) All the inhabitants of
the earth are of n o account. / He does as He wishes with the host of
heaven, / And with the inhabitants of the earth. / There is n o n e to stay
His h a n d / O r say to Him, "What have You done?"

Chapter 5 again features Daniel's ability to interpret: he alone can decipher

the "writing o n the wall" (MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN).
 The last of these narrative chapters is about Daniel and the lion. This story
parallels that of the three friends a n d the fiery furnace (chap. 3). It begins with
a bizarre royal decree (in this case, that people may pray only to the king). Pious
Daniel, w h o violates the decree, is caught and punished by being thrown into
the lion's den. Again, the text relishes details: "A rock was brought and placed
over the m o u t h of the den; the king sealed it with his signet and with the signet
of his nobles, so that nothing might be altered concerning Daniel" (6:18). Daniel
of course is saved, a n d his adversaries are killed. The last few lines summarize
the lesson of this chapter as well the initial six chapters.

(6:26) Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every lan-
guage that inhabit the earth, "May your well-being abound! (27) I have
hereby given an order that throughout m y royal domain m e n m u s t
tremble in fear before the God of Daniel, for He is the living God w h o
e n d u r e s forever; His kingdom is indestructible, and His d o m i n i o n is to
the e n d of time; (28) He delivers a n d saves, and performs signs and
w o n d e r s in heaven and on earth, for He delivered Daniel from the
power of the lions." (29) T h u s Daniel prospered during the reign of
Darius and d u r i n g the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

In s u m , these stories are not really about specific historical individuals.

Rather, they "prove" that God is great and will save any pious Jew, especially
those persecuted for religious beliefs. Obviously these stories belong in the lit-
erary genre of "royal tales." 1 9 In addition, they all feature competition between
Jew a n d non-Jew, in which the u n d e r d o g — w h o is the Jew—always wins.

The Significance of the Stories

As a scholar, I am curious w h e t h e r the ancient Jews took these stories as "real

history" or recognized t h e m instead as legends. Neither possibility can be ruled
out. Other biblical books, such as J o n a h 2 0 a n d Ruth (see chapter 26 below) d r o p
hints that they are not accurately depicting the past. Because those b o o k s are pri-
marily didactic (see "Concluding on a Different Note" in chapter 11), they lack
specific historical references. In contrast, Daniel creates the illusion of history
with notes such as "the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar" (2:1) and
"Darius the Mede received the k i n g d o m , being about sixty-two years old" (6:1).
Nevertheless, the stories of Daniel are so exaggerated and implausible that we
must w o n d e r whether readers in antiquity believed them.
 Ultimately, it may not matter w h e t h e r the editors a n d copyists of the stories
in Daniel believed that they were true. For the stories exist mainly to illustrate
an attitude about living as a Jew: be pious, and even if threatened you will ulti-
mately be saved—to enjoy a better fate than your non-Jewish adversaries. 2 1 In
the w o r d s of Daniel 6:29: "Thus Daniel prospered . . ." But this is only half the
story—the other half concerns glorification of the God of Israel, w h o is a great
and saving God. T h u s Jews are Jews for good reason.
Did these stories originate in the Diaspora, a n d t h u s illustrate that God saves
even outside of the land of Israel? Or did they originate in Israel during the per-
secutions of Antiochus, and t h u s illustrate reasons for h o p e during a dark time?
The historical-critical m e t h o d has not answered this question decisively. No mat-
ter h o w we resolve such issues, the message of the stories in Daniel is what is
important. W h a t we notice most is h o w the stories in this book reinforce each
other, a n d h o w effectively they convey their belief that God would reward a n d
protect piety.
 22
Prayer of M a n y H e a r t s
Reading Psalms

Primary Reading: 1 Samuel 1-2; Psalms 1, 3, 6, 14, 15, 24, 53, 118.

What Is Psalms?

T h e English title "Psalms" c o m e s to u s f r o m the Septuagint, the venerable

Jewish translation of the Bible into Greek. It r e n d e r e d the w o r d mizmor
( ‫ ) מ ז מ ו ר‬, w h i c h features in m a n y s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s (chapter titles) in this b o o k , as
psalmos. Both the H e b r e w a n d Greek w o r d s m e a n "a s o n g s u n g to the a c c o m p a -
n i m e n t of a stringed i n s t r u m e n t . " In o t h e r w o r d s , this b o o k consists of s o n g
lyrics—about 150 separate songs (largely, b u t n o t exactly, identical w i t h the
c h a p t e r headings). Many of t h e m strike u s as familiar, either because of their
i m p o r t a n t role in c o n t e m p o r a r y religious life, or because we have e n c o u n t e r e d
t h e m as classics of w o r l d literature (e.g., "The LORD is m y s h e p h e r d . . ."; Ps. 23).
A "psalm" is a poetic prayer c o m p o s i t i o n that is n o t necessarily in the Book of
Psalms, a l t h o u g h that b o o k c o n t a i n s most of the k n o w n psalms.
Psalms is an u n u s u a l l y i n t i m i d a t i n g b o o k . Weighing in at 150 chapters, it is
easily the longest b o o k of the Bible. T h e poetry of its lyrics is rarely straightfor-
w a r d . Its s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s are usually obscure or a m b i g u o u s . Time a n d again,
u p o n even a cursory reading, we e n c o u n t e r s u d d e n shifts in tone a n d f o c u s —
often w i t h i n the same p s a l m — w h i c h c o m p o u n d s the challenge that this b o o k
poses.
H o w are we to read the individual psalms? H o w are we to u n d e r s t a n d the
b o o k as a whole? Here I d o not m e a n "read" as an act of c o n t e m p o r a r y p e r s o n -
al devotion; that m a y be i m p o r t a n t to m a n y of us, b u t it is n o t the task at h a n d .
Rather, the h i s t o r i a n s role is to view this b o o k a n d its e l e m e n t s in t e r m s of the
ancient milieu in w h i c h they arose.
The p r e s e n t c h a p t e r will s h o w that Psalms is an ordered collection of col-
lections, comprising different genres from various places and times. To establish
this claim, the best place to begin is outside of Psalms—specifically, at the begin-
ning of 1 Samuel, which contains two prayers: one in prose, the other in poetry.
The p o e m is one of those psalms that the Book of Psalms did not incorporate. 1

Prayer in the Bible: What Samuel Teaches Us

The first prayer f o u n d in Samuel is that of H a n n a h , w h o had been desperately

wanting a (male) child. She prayed:

Ο LORD of Hosts, if You will look u p o n the suffering of Your maidser-

vant a n d will r e m e m b e r me and not forget Your maidservant, a n d if You
will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the LORD
for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head (1 Sam.
1:11).

Like almost one h u n d r e d other biblical prayers, this one is prose. 2 (It lacks par-
allelism and figuration, and it employs plain language.) Its three-part structure
is clear: an invocation of God, a long request, and a motivation—why God
should heed this request). The following table shows these e l e m e n t s 3

Invocation Ό LORD of Hosts"

Request "if You will look u p o n the suffering of Your maidservant a n d will
r e m e m b e r me and not forget Your maidservant, and if You will
grant Your maidservant a male child"
Motivation "I will dedicate him to the LORD for all the days of his life; a n d n o
razor shall ever touch his head."

Stated differently, after calling u p o n God (perhaps getting His attention),

this prayer offers a deal. H a n n a h says that if God gives her a child, she will return
it to God. The reason why H a n n a h would want this deal is quite clear from bib-
lical conceptions of biology: if she has one child, then her w o m b has been
opened by God (Gen. 29:31; 30:22), a n d she will be able to have more children
(see 1 Sam. 2:21). O n e could imagine someone in Hannah's situation coming to
the local temple and spontaneously composing such a prayer.
Altogether different is Hannah's second prayer. After she gives birth to a son,
weans him, and brings him to the sanctuary, 4 she prays:

(1 Sam. 2:1) My heart exults in the LORD; / I have t r i u m p h e d through

the LORD. / I gloat over my enemies; / I rejoice in Your deliverance. /
(2) There is no holy one like the LORD, / Truly, there is none beside You; /
 There is n o rock like our God. / (3) Talk n o more with lofty pride, / Let
n o arrogance cross your lips! / For the LORD is an all-knowing God; / By
H i m actions are measured. / (4) The b o w s of the mighty are broken, /
And the faltering are girded with strength. / (5) Men once sated must
hire out for bread; / Men once h u n g r y h u n g e r no more. / While the
barren w o m a n bears seven, / The m o t h e r of many is forlorn. / (6) The
LORD deals death and gives life, / Casts d o w n into Sheol and raises up. /
(7) The LORD makes poor and makes rich; / He casts d o w n , He also lifts
high. / (8) He raises the p o o r from the dust, / Lifts u p the needy from
the dunghill, / Setting them with nobles, / Granting them seats of honor. /
For the pillars of the earth are the L O R D S ; / He has set the world u p o n
them. / (9) He guards the steps of His faithful, / But the wicked perish
in d a r k n e s s — / For not by strength shall m a n prevail. / (10) The foes of
the LORD shall be shattered; / He will t h u n d e r against t h e m in the heav-
ens. / The LORD will judge the ends of the earth. / He will give power to
His king, / And t r i u m p h to His anointed one.

This prayer of thanksgiving is clearly in poetry. It has the characteristic features

of biblical poetry that we discussed in chapter 17: binary lines, parallel structure,
and figurative language. 5 If we lifted this text from its context in the narrative,
we would read it as a royal psalm of thanksgiving after a military victory. Not
only is it full of war language (see esp. w . 4 and 10), but also it refers outright
to the king (v. 10). This is quite strange, since at this point in Israel's history, the
monarchy has not yet been established.
Stated differently, the H a n n a h portrayed in Samuel could not have recited
this psalm, which dates from the monarchic period. But the biblical editors were
not stupid. So how could one of t h e m have thought to insert this psalm into
Hannah's m o u t h ?
O u r psalm's presence in its current location shows us that the editor expect-
ed the Israelite audience to find it plausible that a w o m a n whose deepest wish
had come true would respond by reciting such a psalm. In other words, the
Israelites customarily prayed using ready-made psalms. W h y did they d o so?
Probably because they believed such p o e m s to be both movingly beautiful and
traditional—that is, proven to be efficacious.
As an Israelite w o m a n visiting the sanctuary, h o w would H a n n a h have come
to recite this particular psalm? As the person w h o had come to pray, she would
have asked an official (such as a priest) for the most relevant psalm available.
Perhaps because the Israelites did not have "off-the-rack" prayers for special
occasions in women's lives, the official would have chosen this psalm because it
contains a reference to a barren w o m a n w h o gives birth (v. 5). Furthermore, it
celebrates victory over an e n e m y — a reversal of f o r t u n e — w h i c h H a n n a h could
relate to h e r rivalry w i t h P e n i n n a h , her h u s b a n d ' s o t h e r wife. O n e can imagine
H a n n a h t h e n reciting this off-the-rack prayer, repeating each p h r a s e after the
priest, resonating w i t h the parts c o n c e r n i n g c h i l d r e n a n d rivalries—reciting
these verses w i t h verve, while m u m b l i n g t h r o u g h the rest.
T h u s I have a c c o u n t e d for h o w a royal p s a l m of victory e n d e d u p in
H a n n a h ' s m o u t h . That explanation, in t u r n , s h e d s light o n the n a t u r e of the Book
of Psalms: That b o o k c o m p r i s e d poetic selections f r o m w h i c h w o r s h i p p e r s c o u l d
find s o m e t h i n g relevant w h e n they felt the n e e d for formal, poetic, traditional
language.

When, Where, and Why

As we have seen in earlier chapters, we m u s t first identify a work's literary genre

a n d social setting (what scholars call the Sitz im Leben) before we can read it cor-
rectly. This is quite difficult for psalms, most of w h i c h contain only obscure h i n t s
at their b a c k g r o u n d . For e x a m p l e , Psalm 1 1 8 : 2 7 c o n t a i n s the ritual instruction
"bind the festal offering to the h o r n s of the altar w i t h cords," so we k n o w that
w o r s h i p p e r s (or p e r h a p s Levites) recited this p s a l m d u r i n g the sacrifice of a fes-
tival offering. But most p s a l m s are silent a b o u t w h i c h particular rituals, if any,
they are associated. Most ritual texts, in t u r n , are silent a b o u t their c o n n e c t i o n s
to particular p s a l m s . 6 Consequently, d i s c e r n i n g the social setting of psalms
involves a lot of guessing. Such speculation is useful, however, if it h e l p s guide
u s t o w a r d the ancient m e a n i n g of psalms.
Psalm 6 reads:

(1) For the leader; w i t h i n s t r u m e n t a l m u s i c o n the sheminith. A p s a l m

of David. (2) Ο LORD, d o not p u n i s h m e in anger, / d o n o t chastise m e
in fury. / (3) Have m e r c y on m e , Ο LORD, for 1 languish; / heal m e , Ο
LORD, for m y b o n e s s h a k e w i t h terror. / (4) My w h o l e b e i n g is stricken
w i t h terror, / while You, LORD—O, h o w long! / (5) Ο LORD, t u r n ! Rescue
me! / Deliver m e as befits Your faithfulness. / (6) For there is n o praise
of You a m o n g the dead; / in Sheol, w h o can acclaim You? / (7) I a m
w e a r y w i t h groaning; / every night I d r e n c h m y b e d , / I melt m y c o u c h
in tears. / (8) My eyes are w a s t e d b y vexation, / w o r n o u t because of all
m y foes. / (9) Away f r o m m e , all you evildoers, / for the LORD h a s h e e d -
ed the s o u n d of m y w e e p i n g . / (10) T h e LORD h a s h e e d e d m y plea, / the
LORD will accept m y prayer. / (11) All m y e n e m i e s will be frustrated a n d
 stricken with terror; / they will turn back in an instant, frustrated
(transi, adapted).

In terms of its structure and elements, this psalm resembles Hannah's prose
prayer in 1 Samuel 1: invocation of God, requests, and motivations (why God
should heed this prayer).

Invocation Ό L O R D " (V. 2 )

Requests "do not punish me . . . d o not chastise me. . . . Have mercy on me
. . . ; heal me . . . rescue me . . . deliver me" (w. 2 - 5 )
Motivations "as befits Your faithfulness. For there is n o praise of You a m o n g
the dead; in Sheol, w h o can acclaim You? I am weary with groan-
ing; every night I drench my bed, I melt my couch in tears. My
eyes are wasted by vexation, w o r n out because of all my foes" (w.
5-8)

The psalms' expressed motivations give us insight into h o w the ancient

Israelites u n d e r s t o o d what would move or satisfy God. In this case, for example,
the poet assumes that God enjoys praise. Indeed, the speaker almost threatens
God by pointing out that (to paraphrase v. 6) "if You let my enemies kill me,
there will be one less person a r o u n d to praise You!"

Assigning a Genre

Many psalms share the triad of elements f o u n d here—invocation, requests, and

motivation. Biblical scholars have classed such psalms u n d e r the genre of "peti-
tions." Because those psalms often begin with complaints or laments, some
scholars refer to t h e m as "complaints" or "laments." 7 Sometimes their grammar
suggests that individuals recited them, while other psalms couch their language
in the plural. T h u s scholars subdivide the class of laments into "individual" and
"communal" types.
Each genre of psalm follows a c o n v e n t i o n — a script or form that was
engrained in the culture. (In our culture, too, we have certain conventions for
writing a personal letter versus a business letter; each type of composition has
its own conventions.) For example, Psalm 22, featured in Christian tradition,
opens with "My God, my God," which immediately leads into "why have You
a b a n d o n e d me; / why so far from delivering me / and from my anguished roar-
ing?" (v. 2). The psalm proceeds to present m a n y motivations for w h y God
s h o u l d listen, i n c l u d i n g "I b e c a m e Your charge at birth; / f r o m m y mother's
w o m b You have b e e n m y G o d " (v. 11), a n d "Then will I proclaim Your fame to
m y b r e t h r e n , / praise You in the congregation" (v. 2 3 ) . 8

Accounting for Mood S w i n g s

T h u s far, o u r analysis of Psalm 6 h a s ignored the e n d : "for the LORD has h e e d e d

the s o u n d of m y w e e p i n g . / T h e LORD h a s h e e d e d m y plea, / the LORD will accept
m y prayer. / All m y e n e m i e s will be frustrated a n d stricken w i t h terror; / they
will t u r n b a c k in an instant, frustrated" ( w . 9 b - l l ; transi, a d a p t e d ) . These vers-
es are p u z z l i n g partly because their grammatical tense does n o t seem to fit the
c o n t e x t . 9 Some of the verbs s e e m to depict actions that are c o m p l e t e d or are in
the past ("has h e e d e d . . . has heeded"). But h o w can the s p e a k e r say this, given
the dire straits j u s t described? F u r t h e r m o r e , the m o o d has shifted sharply a n d
inexplicably.
S u c h a d r a m a t i c c h a n g e in the m o o d of a p s a l m is actually f r e q u e n t — w h i c h
of course only h e i g h t e n s the p r o b l e m . It is f o u n d , for example, in the lament of
Psalm 3, w h e r e there is m o v e m e n t f r o m Ό LORD, m y foes are so many! / Many
are those w h o attack me" (v. 2) to "I have n o fear of the myriad forces / arrayed
against m e o n every side. . . . For You Have slapped all m y enemies in the face; /
You have b r o k e n the teeth of the w i c k e d " ( w . 7 - 8 ; transi, a d a p t e d ) . Seeing b o t h
a change of tense a n d the s u d d e n s p r o u t i n g of c o n f i d e n c e in m a n y l a m e n t s rais-
es the q u e s t i o n that form-criticism addresses: W h a t social setting (Sitz im Leben)
can explain this m o o d swing?
Form-criticism o f t e n asks great q u e s t i o n s that it c a n n o t a n s w e r decisively.
T h u s , we c a n n o t identify w i t h certainty the social setting of petitions that c o n -
tain the c o n f i d e n c e motif that we have j u s t described. Many form-critics suggest
that w o r s h i p p e r s u s e d to recite these p s a l m s in a temple, w h e r e an individual
( w h o m the scholars often call a "cultic p r o p h e t " 1 0 ) heard each c o m p l a i n t a n d
t h e n let the petitioner k n o w w h e t h e r G o d w a s sympathetic. After h a v i n g b e e n
told that G o d h e e d e d the l a m e n t , the petitioner w o u l d recite the lines express-
ing c o n f i d e n c e (such as "for the LORD h a s h e e d e d the s o u n d of m y w e e p i n g . /
T h e LORD has h e e d e d m y plea, / the LORD will accept m y prayer"; 6 : 9 b - 1 0 ) . 1 1
That r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of certain psalms' ritual setting finds s o m e s u p p o r t f r o m
biblical passages that describe a dialogue w i t h God. O n e verse that m a y allude
to s u c h a ritual exchange is "You have ever d r a w n nigh w h e n I called You; / You
have said, 'Do n o t fear!'" (Lam. 3:57).
Several Genres in Psalms

We have looked carefully at a few p s a l m s so as to posit their genres. This has

h e l p e d u s to u n d e r s t a n d the p s a l m w i t h i n the larger genre of w h i c h it s e e m s to
partake. So far we have discussed t w o genres: the h y m n (Hannah's song) a n d the
petition (Pss. 3, 6, a n d 22). A n o t h e r genre is the "entrance liturgy," a p p a r e n t l y
recited b y the w o r s h i p p e r w h o is a b o u t to enter the Temple precincts. For e x a m -
pie, Psalm 15 begins "LORD, w h o m a y s o j o u r n in Your tent, / w h o m a y dwell o n
Your holy m o u n t a i n ? / He w h o lives w i t h o u t b l a m e . . . " Part of Psalm 2 4 shares
the same genre: " W h o m a y ascend the m o u n t a i n of the LORD? / W h o m a y stand
in His holy p l a c e ? — / H e w h o has clean h a n d s a n d a p u r e h e a r t . . . " ( w . 3 - 4 ) . 1 2
Again, n o explicit ritual text in Leviticus or Kings m e n t i o n s s u c h a liturgy.
Rather, o u r a t t e m p t to explain these p s a l m s a n d their s t r u c t u r e is w h a t motivates
the reconstruction. The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , in t u r n , helps u s read a n d u n d e r s t a n d
the p s a l m better. Certainly, this is s o m e w h a t circular. We m u s t always r e m e m b e r
that we are following textual clues, a n d we m u s t always ask: Is there a different
social setting that w o u l d better explain the p s a l m w i t h i n its ancient context?

Time and Place

Reconstructing the social setting a n s w e r s the q u e s t i o n of "why" s o m e o n e c o m -

p o s e d the psalms. In the same w a y — b a s e d o n textual c l u e s — w e can often
reconstruct w h e n a n d w h e r e they were written. In so doing, we c a n n o t take lit-
erally the tradition that ascribes the book's a u t h o r s h i p to King David. The b o o k
itself d o e s not m a k e this claim; the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s seem to attribute less t h a n
half of the p s a l m s to David. Many p s a l m s attribute their origin to other figures,
s u c h as the two attributed to S o l o m o n (72, 127), a n d the twelve each to A s a p h
(50, 7 3 - 8 3 ) a n d to the s o n s of Korah ( 4 2 - 4 9 , 8 4 , 85, 87, 88). Even the s u p e r -
scriptions that d o say "Of David. A p s a l m " or "A Psalm of David" m a y not m e a n
to attribute a u t h o r s h i p to h i m . Rather, s u c h f o r m u l a s m a y m e a n "a psalm in the
style of David." 1 3
L o o k i n g b e y o n d the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s gives u s f u r t h e r clues for d a t i n g the
psalms. T h e language of the "Davidic psalms" m a k e s clear that they are not all
f r o m the same p e r i o d , a n d n o n e of t h e m reflects the early-tenth-century H e b r e w
that he w o u l d have s p o k e n . In fact, the o p e n i n g of Psalm 137, "By the rivers
of Babylon, / there we sat," indicates that the p s a l m c o m e s f r o m the postexilic
p e r i o d — f o u r h u n d r e d years after David's time. O t h e r p s a l m s c o n t a i n postexilic
p h r a s e s or w o r d s . T h u s the tradition that developed in the Synagogue a n d
the C h u r c h that attributed ( m u c h o f ) the b o o k to David is i n c o r r e c t . 1 4 The
Psalter clearly h a s a long history, f r o m the First t h r o u g h the (early) Second
Temple period.
Scholars agree that most p s a l m s are c o n n e c t e d to the J e r u s a l e m Temple.
Even so, s o m e of these p o e m s clearly originated elsewhere. For example, Psalm
8 0 c o n t a i n s internal h i n t s that its origin lay in the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m : "Give ear,
Ο s h e p h e r d of Israel / w h o leads J o s e p h like a flock! / Appear, You w h o are
e n t h r o n e d on the c h e r u b i m , / at the h e a d of Ephraim, Benjamin, a n d Manasseh! /
Rouse Your m i g h t a n d c o m e to o u r help!" (w. 2 - 3 ) . This passage invokes G o d
as the leader of the northern tribes. Some scholars have defined several psalms as
N o r t h e r n o n the basis of their dialect, since we k n o w f r o m archaeological evi-
d e n c e that N o r t h e r n H e b r e w w a s different t h a n J u d e a n H e b r e w . 1 ‫ י‬In s u m , the
p s a l m s preserved in Psalms reflect a w i d e variety of settings, dates, a n d places of
origin.

A Collection of Collections

We have established that the Book of Psalms c a m e together over a long period
of time. F u r t h e r evidence c o m e s f r o m the n o t a t i o n a b o u t halfway t h r o u g h the
b o o k , "End of the prayers of David son of Jesse" (72:20), w h i c h m u s t m a r k the
conclusion of an earlier edition of the Psalter. T h e book's d e v e l o p m e n t over time
has left traces in its present structure. C o m p a r e Psalms 14 a n d 53:

Psalm 14 Psalm 53

(1) For the leader. Of David.
T h e b e n i g h t e d m a n thinks,
"God does n o t care."
Man's d e e d s are c o r r u p t a n d
loathsome; n o o n e d o e s good.
(2) The LORD looks d o w n f r o m
h e a v e n on m a n k i n d to find a m a n
of u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,
a m a n m i n d f u l of God.
(3) All have t u r n e d b a d , altogether
foul; there is n o n e w h o does g o o d ,
n o t even one.
(4) Are they so witless, all those
(1) For the leader; o n mahalath. A
maskil of David.
(2) T h e b e n i g h t e d m a n thinks, "God
does n o t care." Man's w r o n g d o i n g
is c o r r u p t a n d loathsome; n o o n e
does good.
(3) G o d looks d o w n f r o m heaven o n
m a n k i n d to find a m a n of
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a m a n m i n d f u l of
God.
(4) Everyone is dross, altogether foul;
there is n o n e w h o does good,
n o t even one.
 evildoers, w h o d e v o u r m y p e o p l e
as they d e v o u r food, a n d d o n o t
invoke the LORD?
(5) There they will be seized w i t h
fright, for G o d is present in the
circle of the righteous.
(6) You m a y set at n a u g h t the c o u n s e l
of the lowly, b u t the LORD is his
refuge.
(7) Ο that the deliverance of Israel
m i g h t c o m e f r o m Zion! W h e n the
LORD restores the f o r t u n e s of His
people, J a c o b will exult, Israel
will rejoice.
(5) Are they so witless, those
evildoers, w h o d e v o u r m y people
as they d e v o u r food, a n d d o n o t
invoke God?
(6) There they will be seized w i t h
f r i g h t — n e v e r w a s there s u c h a
f r i g h t — f o r G o d has scattered the
b o n e s of y o u r besiegers; y o u
have p u t t h e m to s h a m e , for G o d
h a s rejected t h e m .
(7) Ο that the deliverance of Israel
m i g h t c o m e f r o m Zion! W h e n
G o d restores the f o r t u n e s of His
people, J a c o b will exult, Israel
will rejoice.

Clearly this is a single psalm, preserved in t w o slightly different versions. T h e

discrepancies result f r o m changes a n d errors d u r i n g textual transmission. A sin-
gle editor p r o b a b l y w o u l d n o t have i n c l u d e d b o t h versions. More likely, each
p s a l m already existed in t w o different collections. Later, an editor of the Psalter
a p p a r e n t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d b o t h collections. In o t h e r w o r d s , Psalms is a collection of
collections.
F u r t h e r evidence that Psalms 14 a n d 5 3 c a m e f r o m t w o separate collections
is the language e m p l o y e d to refer to the Deity. T h e last two verses of Psalm 14
consistently use YHWH ("the L O R D " ) , w h e r e a s the same verses in Psalm 53 use
Elohim ("God"). If we step b a c k f r o m these t w o psalms, we can see a larger pat-
tern: Psalms 4 8 - 8 3 f o r m a collection that, c o m p a r e d to the rest of the Psalter,
prefers to e m p l o y Elohim. T h e difference in the relative use of these n a m e s is
striking:

Psalms 4 8 - 8 3 : Elohim, 2 1 0 times; YHWH, 4 5 times

Rest of the Psalter: Elohim, 9 4 times; YHWH, 5 8 4 times

O n the basis of this c o m p a r i s o n , scholars c o n s i d e r c h a p t e r s 4 8 - 8 3 to be a col-

lection in its o w n right, w h i c h they call the "Elohistic Psalter," since it relies u p o n
the n a m e Elohim.
We can spot o t h e r collections as well. For e x a m p l e , Psalms 1 2 0 - 1 3 4 all
begin with "A Song of Ascents" or a similar formula. (We are n o longer sure w h a t
a Song of Ascent is. 1 6 ) Psalms 7 3 - 8 3 , w h o s e s u p e r s c r i p t i o n s attribute t h e m to
Asaph, once formed a separate collection. (Psalm 50 has a similar attribution,
b u t it is n o w in a different part of the book.) The final five psalms begin with
"Hallelujah!" In s u m , we can be quite certain that the Psalter comprises a col-
lection of collections.

Psalms as an Orderly Book

Given the evidence surveyed in the previous section, perhaps Psalms is not real-
ly a b o o k at all; it w o u l d seem to be a hodge-podge. We can n o longer determine
w h y each psalm is in its place. Even so, we can discern some general principles
of ordering for Psalms. That order is sufficient to consider Psalms a true b o o k . 1 7
O n the simplest level of organization, we see that the laments predominate
at the beginning of the Psalter, whereas the h y m n s appear mostly at its end.
Thus, Psalms moves from complaint to thanksgiving, from being troubled to
being joyful. That is a c o m m o n biblical structure, as in prophetic books that
begin with rebuke a n d end with consolation (see esp. Ezekiel).
The structure of Psalms is more complex as well. A formula that praises God
(what scholars call a "doxology") occurs four times, with only slight variation:

Blessed is the LORD, God of Israel, / from eternity to eternity. / Amen and
Amen. (41:14)

Blessed is His glorious n a m e forever; / His glory fills the whole world. /
Amen and Amen. / End of the prayers of David son of Jesse. ( 7 2 : 1 9 - 2 0 )

Blessed is the LORD forever; / Amen and Amen. (89:53)

Blessed is the LORD, God of Israel, / F r o m eternity to eternity. / Let all

the people say, "Amen." / Hallelujah. (106:48)

Functionally speaking, these formulas divide the b o o k into five parts. Linguistic
a n d contextual evidence suggests that these formulas are not an original part of
the book. In other words, a later editor inserted t h e m so as to create a five-part
composition.
The book's conclusion reinforces that five-part structure, for it exuberantly
underscores the earlier praise formulas (we might call it a "megadoxology"):

(150:1) Hallelujah. Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the sky,
His stronghold. (2) Praise H i m for His mighty acts; praise Him for His
exceeding greatness. (3) Praise Him with blasts of the h o r n ; praise Him
 w i t h h a r p a n d lyre. (4) Praise H i m w i t h timbrel a n d dance; praise H i m
w i t h lute a n d pipe. (5) Praise H i m w i t h r e s o u n d i n g cymbals; praise H i m
w i t h loud-clashing cymbals. (6) Let all that b r e a t h e s praise the LORD.
Hallelujah.

W h a t is the p u r p o s e of this five-part division? Psalms tells u s at its very begin-

ning. Possibly the same editor w h o a d d e d the five doxologies also placed Psalm
1 as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Psalter. It s p e a k s of the righteous p e r s o n for w h o m
"the Torah of the LORD is his delight, a n d h e studies that Torah day a n d night"
(v 2).
As an orientation to the b o o k , that verse a c c o m p l i s h e s t w o things. First,
h e r e — a t the start of K e t h u v i m — t h e third m a j o r p o r t i o n of the H e b r e w Bible—
it asserts the p r i m a c y of the Torah. Of the three parts of the Bible, the Torah is
the first a m o n g equals (scholars use the Latin expression primus inter pares). It is
the only p o r t i o n that gets m e n t i o n e d at the b e g i n n i n g of the o t h e r t w o . 1 8
In a d d i t i o n , the a p p r o b a t i o n for s t u d y i n g "Torah" in v. 2 is actually d o u b l e -
voiced. That is, the righteous p e r s o n is s u p p o s e d to s t u d y n o t only the Five
Books of Moses b u t also this s e c o n d "Torah," the five-part Book of Psalms. If so,
t h e n the editor w h o created the five-part s t r u c t u r e h e a d e d by Psalm 1 offered u s
an a m a z i n g rereading of the Book of Psalms. It is n o t merely a c o m p i l a t i o n of old
p o e m s for w o r s h i p p e r s to recite as prayers. Rather, it is n o w a b o o k — s o m e t h i n g
to be studied.
 23
"Acquire Wisdom"
Reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes

Primary Reading: Proverbs 1,3,6, 7, 10, 22, 23, 30, 31; Ecclesiastes 1-3,
7-8, 10,12.

Outside the Bible's Theological Triangle

Even a cursory glance at the b o o k s of Proverbs a n d of Ecclesiastes suggests

that they are unlike a n y t h i n g we have e n c o u n t e r e d so far. They are not
instruction in the same way that Torah is—Proverbs, for example, is largely c o m -
p o s e d of pithy sayings that are not m a r k e d as having divine origin. N o r are they
Israelite historical texts—while Proverbs a n d Ecclesiastes d o m e n t i o n King
S o l o m o n , they record little in the way of actual events. N o r are the t w o b o o k s
p r o p h e t i c — t h e p r o f o u n d s e n t i m e n t s of Ecclesiastes, for e x a m p l e , are w o r d s of
that preacher; they are not u n d e r s t o o d to be divine. T h e messenger formula
"thus said the LORD" is lacking in b o t h b o o k s .
The same is true of a third biblical b o o k , J o b , w h i c h is the focus of the next
c h a p t e r yet treated in this c h a p t e r insofar as it is similar to Proverbs a n d to
Ecclesiastes. G o d c o m m u n i c a t e s directly w i t h a h u m a n b e i n g only at the very
e n d , a n d even there provides n o real g u i d a n c e o n h o w to live. T h e story of J o b
is set in the land of U z — n o t in Israel, a n d it does n o t involve Israelites. T h e b o o k
s h o w s n o interest in the Israelite past. It bears n o p r o p h e t i c message.
These three b o o k s share certain o t h e r features, too. They all contain a pre-
p o n d e r a n c e of a p h o r i s m s a n d proverbs. 1 Together they account for most of the
Bible's usages of the abstract n o u n chokhmah ( ‫ ח כ מ ה‬, "wisdom"; 8 8 out of a total
of 161) a n d of verbs f o r m e d f r o m the root ch-kh-m, ( ‫ ח כ ם‬, "to be wise"; 9 6 o u t
of 166). This, c o m b i n e d with o t h e r factors, suggests to m a n y that the three
b o o k s e m a n a t e f r o m a w i s d o m s c h o o l — a l t h o u g h exactly w h a t that school was
still eludes u s . 2 T h e y also all engage in e x p l o r i n g the p r o p e r cosmic order. 3
 A certain lack b i n d s these b o o k s strongly together: they all lack expressions
of c o n c e r n for the c o v e n a n t that u n i t e s Israel a n d God. In fact, c o n c e r n w i t h
Israel as a nation is a b s e n t — a s n o t e d , J o b does n o t even m e n t i o n Israel.
F u r t h e r m o r e , these b o o k s c o n c e r n themselves m o r e w i t h the individual t h a n
w i t h "corporate Israel."
Stated differently, these three b o o k s lie outside of the Bibles theological tri-
angle. That is, m o s t of the Bible is interested in the relationships b e t w e e n God,
the p e o p l e Israel, a n d the land of Israel. I can portray those three c o n c e r n s as the
c o r n e r s of a triangle (see diagram). At the center of the triangle lies the covenant,
because its goal is to unite the three entities: if the people of Israel u p h o l d the
c o v e n a n t of the G o d of Israel, they will possess the land of Israel.

God

This thesis is a m a i n t h e m e of the Torah, w h i c h evokes it often in its land p r o m -

ises, a n d in the great r e b u k e s in Leviticus 2 6 a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 28. Meanwhile,
the historical b o o k s of Nevi'im narrate the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Israel's obser-
vance of the law a n d its land tenure. T h e p r o p h e t i c b o o k s offer w a r n i n g s to
Israel, telling t h e m h o w to r e m a i n o n the l a n d — o r h o w to repossess it.
Such a cluster of t h e m e s is absent in the three b o o k s of Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b . F u r t h e r m o r e , in places, their perspective o n "covenantal"
c o n c e r n s is at o d d s w i t h the o t h e r biblical b o o k s . For example, b o t h Torah a n d
p r o p h e t i c texts e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e of s u p p o r t i n g the poor, as m a y be
seen w h e n D e u t e r o n o m y discusses the remission of d e b t s every seventh year:

(15:9) Beware lest you h a r b o r the base t h o u g h t , "The seventh year, the
year of remission, is a p p r o a c h i n g , " so that y o u are m e a n to y o u r n e e d y
k i n s m a n a n d give h i m n o t h i n g . He will cry o u t to the LORD against y o u ,
a n d y o u will i n c u r guilt. (10) Give to h i m readily a n d have n o regrets
w h e n y o u d o so, for in r e t u r n the LORD y o u r G o d will bless y o u in all
y o u r efforts a n d in all y o u r u n d e r t a k i n g s . (11) For there will never cease
to be n e e d y o n e s in y o u r land, w h i c h is w h y I c o m m a n d you: o p e n y o u r
h a n d to the p o o r a n d n e e d y k i n s m a n in y o u r land.
Likewise, Amos, a prophetic text, shows a strong concern for the poor:

(2:6) T h u s said the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, / For four, I
will not revoke it: / Because they have sold for silver / Those whose
cause was just, / And the needy for a pair of sandals. / (7) Ah, you w h o
trample the heads of the poor / Into the dust of the ground . . .

In contrast, Proverbs chides one w h o has bothered to help out a poor per-
son by cosigning a loan:

(6:1) My son, if you have stood surety for your fellow, / Given your
h a n d for another, / (2) You have been trapped by the words of your
m o u t h , / Snared by the words of your m o u t h . / (3) Do this, then, my
son, to extricate yourself, / For you have come into the power of your
fellow: / Go grovel—and badger your fellow; / (4) Give your eyes n o
sleep, / Your pupils n o slumber. / (5) Save yourself like a deer out of the
h a n d of a hunter, / Like a bird out of the h a n d of a fowler.

It is hard to believe that Proverbs—with its practical yet less compassionate atti-
tude toward the p o o r — a p p e a r s in the same Bible as Deuteronomy a n d Amos!
Even in cases where all biblical books agree that something is b a d or good,
Proverbs presents the issue in a distinctive manner. For example, the entire Bible
is anti-adultery. (The Bible defines adultery as a m a n s having sexual intercourse
with a w o m a n w h o is married to another man.) In the Torah, adultery is a cap-
ital offense: "If a m a n is f o u n d lying with another man's wife, both of t h e m . . .
shall die. T h u s you will sweep away evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22). In the
Torah's narrative, Joseph recognizes the seriousness of adultery w h e n he says to
Mrs. Potiphar: "How then could I do this most wicked thing, a n d sin before
God?" (Gen. 39:9). In contrast, Proverbs c o n d e m n s adultery as an offense not
against God b u t rather against the woman's h u s b a n d :

(6:32) He w h o commits adultery is devoid of sense; / Only one w h o

w o u l d destroy himself does such a thing. / (33) He will meet with dis-
ease a n d disgrace; / His reproach will never be expunged. / (34) The
fury of the h u s b a n d will be passionate; / He will show n o pity o n his
day of vengeance. / (35) He will not have regard for any ransom; / He
will refuse your bribe, however great.

In this respect, Proverbs' view of adultery is like that in the rest of the Near
Eastern world.
Indeed, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b are more international in their
purview than other books in the Bible. This is most obvious in the sections of
Proverbs that e c h o an earlier Egyptian text called The Instruction of Amenemope,
as we shall see below. But all three b o o k s s h o w m a n y m o r e similarities—in style
a n d in specific p h r a s e s a n d l i n e s — t o pre-Israelite literature. Apparently the
a u t h o r s of these biblical b o o k s h a d access to this non-Israelite m a t e r i a l — a n d
saw fit to m a k e use of it.
Given the similarities a m o n g these three b o o k s , a n d their differences f r o m
the rest of the Bible, scholars c u s t o m a r i l y refer to t h e m t o g e t h e r as " W i s d o m
Literature." 4 N o t all scholars agree that this is the best t e r m . 5 At the s a m e time,
m a n y scholars believe that the s c o p e of this literature e x t e n d s b e y o n d these
three b o o k s . 6 Yet in the s a m e w a y that Leviticus a n d D e u t e r o n o m y m a y be
s t u d i e d t o g e t h e r usefully as Torah, or that Isaiah a n d Ezekiel m a y be s t u d i e d
together effectively as classical prophecy, the three books of Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, a n d J o b can be e x a m i n e d p r o d u c t i v e l y w i t h regard to each other.
Also, given their i n t e r n a t i o n a l flavor, it is o f t e n h e l p f u l to read t h e m against
o t h e r ancient Near Eastern texts, r a t h e r t h a n in light of the Torah or Israelite
p r o p h e t i c texts.

What Is Proverbs?

Proverbs is a collection of smaller collections of diverse proverbs a n d other

didactic material f r o m diverse settings, s o m e of w h i c h reflect international
influence. As o u r discussion will show, the attribution to King S o l o m o n in 1:1 is
n o t historically accurate. Many of its adages address the pursuit of w i s d o m or
righteousness.

Patterns That Reveal the Book's Nature

T h e same types of evidence that led u s to c o n c l u d e that Psalms is a collection of

collections (see c h a p t e r 22) a p p l y to Proverbs as well. Partway t h r o u g h this
b o o k , a notice reads: "These too are p r o v e r b s of S o l o m o n , w h i c h the m e n of
King Hezekiah of J u d a h copied" (25:1), indicating that Proverbs once c o n c l u d -
ed j u s t before that point. In addition, the b o o k repeats m a n y of its proverbs. For
e x a m p l e , b o t h Proverbs 14:12 a n d 16:25 read: "A road m a y seem right to a
m a n , / But in the e n d it is a road to d e a t h . " 7 O t h e r p r o v e r b s are told in nearly
identical forms, for example: "Ill-gotten wealth is of n o avail, / But righteousness
saves f r o m d e a t h " (10:2) a n d "Wealth is of n o avail on the day of w r a t h , / But
righteousness saves from death" (11:4). 8 Both p h e n o m e n a suggest that a proverb
(sometimes altered during transmission) f o u n d its way into more than one col-
lection, which a later editor compiled into the larger book.
Occasionally, two separate verses share only half of a proverb while their
respective other halves each reflect a distinct viewpoint. For example, the fol-
lowing verses give two different answers to the question of h o w to live long
and well:

The instruction of a wise m a n is a fountain of life, / Enabling one to

avoid deadly snares. (13:14)

Fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, / Enabling one to avoid deadly

snares. (14:27)

The difference in perspective is significant. The first proverb is secular—it advo-

cates following the words of a wise sage, w h o is not necessarily righteous in
terms of following divine law. To recast its message in m o d e r n terms: go gain the
type of practical w i s d o m taught in secular schools, for those skills will keep you
out of trouble. In contrast, the second proverb is religious. In m o d e r n terms, it
r e c o m m e n d s going to synagogue or church.
To give another example, the following pair offers the same contrast in
perspective:

The horse is readied for the day of battle, / But victory comes from the
LORD (21:31).

For by stratagems you wage war, / And victory comes with m u c h plan-
ning (24:6).

The first proverb holds that God causes all ("theonomy"), whereas the second
one suggests that h u m a n s control their own fate ("autonomy").
Thus, proverbs in Proverbs seem to have two very different perspectives:
God is either the m a j o r player or else ignored altogether. The first type e m p h a -
sizes "fear of God," "righteousness," and "wickedness," while the second type
highlights "wisdom," "being wise," a n d "being foolish." Words that characterize
one type rarely appear together with words that typify the other type. 9 Some
scholars believe that these two types reflect different worldviews: 1 0 in one, God
micromanages; in the other, things just h a p p e n . 1 1 Alternately, the same person
may have u p h e l d each of these views at different times. But at any rate, each
proverb presents only one point of view.
T h e Central Section

T h e b u l k of Proverbs ( 1 0 : 1 - 2 2 : 1 6 ) is c o m p r i s e d of t w o - p a r t sayings in w h i c h
the s e c o n d part o p p o s e s the first part (a poetic f o r m called "antithetical paral-
lelism"; see c h a p t e r 17). These sayings seem to have n o c o n n e c t i o n one to the
next. Here is a typical three-verse-long passage f r o m this section of the b o o k :

(10:4) Negligent h a n d s cause p o v e r t y / But diligent h a n d s enrich.

(5) He w h o lays in stores d u r i n g the s u m m e r is a capable son, / But he
w h o sleeps d u r i n g the harvest is an i n c o m p e t e n t .
(6) Blessings light u p o n the h e a d of the righteous, / But lawlessness cov-
ers the m o u t h of the w i c k e d .

For s o m e reason, the editors of Proverbs prefer sayings of this type, w h i c h

is often r e d u n d a n t . S u c h a preference is o d d ; surely the ancient Israelites did n o t
c o m p o s e all their p r o v e r b s in this f o r m . I n d e e d , m o s t p o p u l a r p r o v e r b s q u o t e d
elsewhere in the Bible a n d the ancient Near East a p p e a r in a w i d e range of o t h e r
forms, s u c h as " H o w can straw be c o m p a r e d to grain?" (Jer. 2 3 : 2 8 ) , or "Let n o t
h i m w h o girds on his s w o r d boast like h i m w h o u n g i r d s it!" (1 Kings 2 0 : 1 1 ) . 1 2

T h e First Section

Very different f r o m the book's center section is its o p e n i n g (chaps. 1 - 9 ) . It c o n -

tains n o n e of those i n d e p e n d e n t , pithy, t w o - p a r t sayings. Instead, this section
presents a p a e a n to w i s d o m as an ideal. It develops this t h e m e t h r o u g h several
s p e e c h e s a d d r e s s e d to a y o u n g adult male, w h i c h contrast t w o w o m e n : an arche-
typal (yet real) w o m a n , d e p i c t e d as a f o r e i g n 1 3 seductress; a n d chokhmah (‫חכמה‬,
14
"wisdom"), personified as female in vivid t e r m s . In a d d i t i o n to glorifying wis-
d o m , this section drives h o m e the p o i n t that the real w o m a n — t h e s m o o t h - t a l k -
ing t e m p t r e s s — i s deadly: "a h i g h w a y to Sheol / Leading d o w n to Death's i n n e r
c h a m b e r s " (7:27). O b v i o u s l y this section is x e n o p h o b i c a n d misogynistic; we d o
n o t k n o w w h y s u c h o p i n i o n s figure so p r o m i n e n t l y in Proverbs' i n t r o d u c t i o n . 1 5

T h e T h i r d Section

T h e book's third section is also quite distinct f r o m the first t w o sections

described above. It begins w i t h a n e w i n t r o d u c t i o n of its o w n ( 2 2 : 1 7 - 2 1 ) . T h e n
it p r e s e n t s a n u m b e r of sayings that are several verses long; for example: " W h e n
y o u sit d o w n to dine w i t h a ruler, / C o n s i d e r well w h o is before you. / T h r u s t a
knife into y o u r gullet / If you have a large appetite. / Do n o t crave for his dain-
ties, / For they are counterfeit food" ( 2 3 : 1 - 3 ) . Following that subsection is the
s u p e r s c r i p t i o n m e n t i o n e d earlier, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e s a n o t h e r subsection w i t h
m o r e of the same: "These too are p r o v e r b s of S o l o m o n , w h i c h the m e n of King
Hezekiah of J u d a h copied" (25:1).
T h e m a i n p o r t i o n of this section ( 2 2 : 1 7 - 2 4 : 3 4 ) is w h e r e we find m a n y sim-
ilarities—as mentioned above—to an Egyptian work, The Instruction of
16
Amenemope. T h e similarities i n c l u d e the following pairings:

Do n o t rob the w r e t c h e d because he is w r e t c h e d ; / Do n o t c r u s h the

p o o r m a n in the gate. (Proverbs 2 2 : 2 2 )
Beware of r o b b i n g a w r e t c h , / Of attacking a cripple. ( A m e n e m o p e 2)

Do n o t r e m o v e the ancient b o u n d a r y stone / That y o u r ancestors set u p .

(Proverbs 2 2 : 2 8 )
Do n o t r e m o v e ancient b o u n d a r y stones; / Do n o t e n c r o a c h u p o n the
field of o r p h a n s , / For they have a m i g h t y K i n s m a n , / A n d He will sure-
ly take u p their cause w i t h you. (Proverbs 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 1 )
Do not m o v e the m a r k e r s o n the b o r d e r s of fields, / N o r shift the posi-
tion of the m e a s u r i n g - c o r d . / Do n o t be greedy for a cubit of land, / N o r
e n c r o a c h o n the b o u n d a r i e s of a widow. ( A m e n e m o p e 6)

T h e t w o b o o k s share too m u c h w o r d i n g to be i n d e p e n d e n t w o r k s . But

w h i c h b o r r o w e d f r o m which? C o n s i d e r that o n e verse in Proverbs m a k e s sense
only w h e n we a s s u m e that its editor b o r r o w e d material f r o m s o m e f o r m of
Amenemope. That verse reads: "Indeed, I wrote d o w n for you a threefold lore"
(22:20). This is o b s c u r e — t h e r e is n o t h i n g "threefold" in the context. We can
resolve the p r o b l e m if we a s s u m e that the vowels of one w o r d b e c a m e c o r r u p t -
ed in transmission. (The Masoretic tradition already acts as if o n e of the letters
suffered f r o m a scribal error at s o m e point.) If instead of the Masoretic reading
of the c o n s o n a n t s ‫ ש ל י ש י ם‬as shalishim ("threefold") we read sheloshim ("thirty"),
w e can u n d e r s t a n d this verse as a reference to the thirty sections of Amenemope.
We c a n n o t k n o w exactly h o w a n d w h e n an Israelite editor e m p l o y e d a ver-
sion of that earlier w o r k , in part because the history of c o m p o s i t i o n of Proverbs
is c o m p l e x (as the structure discussed so far indicates). Yet it a p p e a r s that an edi-
tor of Proverbs c h a n g e d the n a m e of the deity m e n t i o n e d in the Egyptian b o o k ,
while leaving m u c h of the rest alone.
The Final Section

The continuation of Proverbs contains a variety of material. Some of it resembles

what we have seen earlier. Other passages are quite different. This includes a col-
lection of numerical sayings, such as: "The earth s h u d d e r s at three things, / At
four which it cannot bear: / A slave w h o becomes king; / A scoundrel sated with
food; / A loathsome w o m a n w h o gets married; / A slave-girl w h o supplants her
mistress" ( 3 0 : 2 1 - 2 3 ) . Also u n i q u e is the acrostic paean to the "capable wife"
( 3 1 : 1 0 - 3 1 ) , which concludes the book. In other words, passages on the topic of
w o m e n frame the Book of Proverbs at its beginning a n d e n d . 1 7

Reading Proverbs

Each section of Proverbs presents particular challenges. The first nine chapters,
with their caricature of a "foreign w o m a n , " is by todays egalitarian standards
offensive. In the second, central section, m a n y proverbs are too obvious to
excite, such as: "A wise son brings joy to his father; / A dull son is his mother's
sorrow" (10:1). They p r o m p t unanswerable questions, such as: For w h o m were
these words intended? Were they meant for educating children? 1 8 Other sayings,
however, are colorful and surprising; like the best of m o d e r n proverbs, they pro-
voke the reader to think about the associations that they make. For example: "A
gold ring in the snout of a pig. / A beautiful w o m a n bereft of sense" (11:22;
transi, a d a p t e d ) . 1 9
Perhaps the most challenging part of reading Proverbs is taking it on its own
terms, removed from other biblical literature. Most interpreters have failed to do
so. Thus, Yeshua (Joshua) Ben-Sirach, a sage living in the second century B.C.E.,
identified "wisdom" with "fear of the LORD," conflating what in Proverbs had
been two distinct ideas (see above, "Patterns That Reveal the Book's Nature").
For example, Ben-Sirach opens his book with the observation that "all wisdom
is from the LORD," and elsewhere it notes that "the whole of w i s d o m is fear of the
Lord" (19:20). 2 0 This identification of w i s d o m and righteousness became stan-
dard in later J u d a i s m — s o m u c h so that later generations took the word "wis-
dorn" in Proverbs to mean "Torah." T h u s Jewish tradition has long understood
Torah, a n d not simply wisdom, to be the subject of the famous verse, "She is a
tree of life to those w h o grasp her, / And whoever holds on to her is happy"
(Prov. 3:18; compare v. 13). Historical-critical study encourages us to strip away
such later identifications, and to u n d e r s t a n d such texts on their own terms—that
is, in reference to secular wisdom.
Ecclesiastes: Utter Futility!

Ecclesiastes, also k n o w n by its H e b r e w title Kohelet (or Koheleth, Qohelet, or

Q o h e l e t h ) , is one of the Bibles m o s t challenging books. Part of the p r o b l e m
derives f r o m o u r lack of a clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g the history of its c o m p o s i t i o n .
Most scholars suggest that the b o o k e n d s with a s e c o n d a r y set of a p p e n d i c e s in
1 2 : 9 - 1 4 , w h i c h a t t e m p t to m a k e a rather radical b o o k m o r e acceptable. 2 1
I n d e e d , if we set aside these verses to look at the "original" w o r k , we see a b o o k
that is neatly b r a c k e t e d by an inclusio: 1:2 reads "Utter futility!—said
K o h e l e t h — U t t e r futility! All is futile!"; 12:8 s e c o n d s that view by nearly repeat-
ing it, "Utter futility—said Koheleth—All is futile!"
But even apart f r o m the d r a m a t i c shift of direction in the last six verses, the
b o o k is very difficult. It c o n t a i n s a large n u m b e r of genres, i n c l u d i n g m o n o -
logue (chaps. 1 - 2 ) , p o e t r y (chaps. 3, 12), a n d proverbial sayings (chaps. 7, 10).
H o w these c o m p o s i t i o n s c o m b i n e to create m e a n i n g is o f t e n n o t clear. F u r t h e r ,
the p r o t a g o n i s t q u o t e s n o t only p r o v e r b s that he agrees w i t h , b u t also p o p u l a r
p r o v e r b s that he w i s h e s to s h o w are w r o n g , 2 2 yet o f t e n we c a n n o t tell w h i c h
are w h i c h .
Despite the barriers that we face, we d o hold several keys to reading
Ecclesiastes. 2 3 First, we k n o w based on its vocabulary a n d style that it is a wis-
d o m b o o k , a n d as s u c h it is full of observations. The protagonist, Koheleth
( w h o m the b o o k seems to identify w i t h King S o l o m o n ; 2 4 1:1, 12, 16), is c o n -
stantly finding, looking, a n d observing. I n d e e d , the w o r d ra'iti ( , ‫" ״ ר א י ת‬I saw, I
f o u n d , I observed") a p p e a r s eighteen times in this short b o o k . As in Proverbs,
s t u d e n t s learn n o t t h r o u g h Torah study, n o r t h r o u g h p r o p h e t i c oracles, b u t
t h r o u g h observation.
Ecclesiastes, however, differs f r o m Proverbs in one remarkable facet:
Proverbs treats w i s d o m as positive, w h e r e a s Ecclesiastes—having e x p e r i m e n t e d
with b o t h w i s d o m a n d f o o l i s h n e s s — f i n d s that w i s d o m too has limitations:

(2:15) "The fate of the fool is also destined for me; to w h a t advantage,
t h e n , have I been wise?" A n d I c a m e to the conclusion that that too was
futile, (16) because the wise m a n , j u s t like the fool, is n o t r e m e m b e r e d
forever; for, as the s u c c e e d i n g days roll by, b o t h are forgotten. Alas, the
wise m a n dies, j u s t like the fool!

In o t h e r w o r d s , w i s d o m is fleeting, because the wise m a n does n o t get credit for

his perspicacity; thus, later generations d o n o t r e m e m b e r h i m . An a n e c d o t e in
9 : 1 3 - 1 5 c o n f i r m s this view: a p o o r wise m a n w h o saves a city is forgotten.
Koheleth t h e n concludes, using the form of point a n d c o u n t e r p o i n t : "So 1
observed: W i s d o m is better than valor; but: A poor man's w i s d o m is scorned, /
And his w o r d s are not heeded" (v. 16).
A second key to the b o o k is that it assumes a vast gap between God and peo-
pie: God controls everything in the world, but people cannot u n d e r s t a n d h o w
He does this. As a result of that chasm, it views people's vaunted w i s d o m as actu-
ally worthless. Koheleth states this quite clearly: "and I have observed all that
God brings to pass. Indeed, m a n cannot guess the events that occur u n d e r the
sun. For m a n tries strenuously, but fails to guess them; and even if a sage should
think to discover t h e m he would not be able to guess them" (8:17). T h u s a m a j o r
theme of the b o o k is God's control of the w o r l d — a domination that is both com-
plete a n d inscrutable. Indeed, this is the point of the book's famous poem:

(3:1) A season is set for everything, a time for every experience u n d e r

heaven: / (2) A time for being b o r n and a time for dying, / A time for
planting a n d a time for uprooting the planted. . . . / (8) A time for lov-
ing a n d a time for hating; / A time for war a n d a time for peace.

The point is that God has determined what these "seasons" should be; n o t h i n g
that h u m a n s do can change t h e m . 2 5 People are powerless to change what God
has determined. Moreover, they cannot even k n o w w h e n those seasons occur. As
the same passage p u t s it: "I have observed the business that God gave m a n to be
concerned with: He brings everything to pass precisely at its time; He also p u t s
eternity [= the desire to k n o w the future] in their m i n d , b u t without m a n ever
guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass" (w. 1 0 - 1 1 ) .
Such extreme determinism distinguishes Ecclesiastes from the rest of the Bible. 2 6
O n e might think that people's reaction to a world in which they are pawns,
in which God "holds all the cards," would cause suicidal pessimism. However,
this same passage tells us that "the only worthwhile thing there is for them is to
enjoy themselves a n d d o what is good in their lifetime; also, . . . whenever a m a n
does eat and drink a n d get e n j o y m e n t out of all his wealth, it is a gift of God"
(w. 12-13). Irony of ironies: try to be happy, b u t it is God w h o will decide if you
will be h a p p y or not.
This leads us to the book's third key: happiness is one of its major themes. 2 7
Koheleth concludes that "the only good a m a n can have u n d e r the sun is to eat
and drink and enjoy himself. That m u c h can accompany him . . . through the
days of life that God has granted h i m u n d e r the sun" (8:15). Elsewhere the Bible
has n o problems with happiness. W h a t makes Ecclesiastes exceptional is its giv-
ing a central role to happiness, "the gift of God" (3:13; 5:18).
More Wisdom

The theme of wisdom will continue in the next chapter, as we explore Job. Like
Proverbs and Koheleth, J o b emphasizes the importance of experience in u n d e r -
standing h o w the world functions. Yet the experience of the author of J o b seems
to have differed remarkably from that of the authors of the other two works,
yielding a m u c h more enigmatic and p r o f o u n d work.
 24
"Being But Dust and Ashes"
Reading Job

Primary Reading: Job.

(Note: This is a beautiful b u t c o m p l i c a t e d b o o k ; it is difficult to read in one

sitting.)

Beyond Difficult

I n c h a p t e r 23, I treated J o b as one of three e x e m p l a r s of biblical " w i s d o m lit-

erature." 1 highlighted h o w challenging are the o t h e r two books, Proverbs a n d
Ecclesiastes: their history of c o m p o s i t i o n is obscure, a n d their diverse parts d o
not fit neatly into a m e a n i n g f u l whole. Yet J o b is m o r e difficult t h a n b o t h of those
books combined.1
First of all, the language in this b o o k is extremely h a r d to u n d e r s t a n d . J o b
e m p l o y s a large n u m b e r of hapax w o r d s (see "Words W i t h o u t Peer"; see c h a p t e r
17) a n d u n u s u a l grammatical f o r m s — s o m u c h so that s o m e scholars have w o n -
dered if it is a bad translation from a n o t h e r language! 2 Moreover, that difficult
vocabulary p o p s u p at crucial j u n c t u r e s in the text, leaving u s u n s u r e h o w to
interpret not only the w o r d , b u t also the v e r s e — o r even an entire section.
The historical-critical m e t h o d reveals o t h e r p r o b l e m s on t o p of these, c o n -
nected to the c o m p o s i t i o n of J o b . Looking at t h e m can help u s u n d e r s t a n d why
the b o o k is so difficult, w h i c h can m a k e reading J o b less frustrating. Some of
these p r o b l e m s are obvious f r o m the outline of the book's structure, as follows:

1. Narrative i n t r o d u c t i o n
2. Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad, Z o p h a r
3. Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad, Z o p h a r
4. Speeches by J o b , Eliphaz, Bildad
 5. Speeches by Elihu
6. God's speeches
7. Narrative conclusion

Certain asymmetries here are puzzling. Why, for example, is there n o speech by
Zophar in the third set of speeches (section 4)? If Zophar's third speech is miss-
ing, what does this mean? Perhaps it is not really m i s s i n g — p e r h a p s the words
"Zophar the Naamathite said in reply" simply fell out somewhere, skipped by a
distracted scribe; but if so, at what point should we reinsert them? W h e t h e r we
read a particular section as said by Job, or by Zophar, makes a big difference.
Aside from the strange structure, none of the friends has a distinct person-
ality, as might be expected. 3 More unsettling is the unfulfilled promise w h e n
each speech cycle is repeatedly p u n c t u a t e d by the phrase "X said in reply."
This suggests that we are reading a true dialogue, yet we never get one. Indeed,
the characters not only talk past each other (as we shall see below), they also
attempt to define the other's position. For example, Eliphaz says: "You [Job] say,
'What can God know? / Can He govern through the dense cloud? / The clouds
screen Him so He cannot see / As He moves about the circuit of heaven'"
( 2 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . These words Eliphaz p u t s into Job's m o u t h — a n d they misconstrue
Job's argument!
The threefold cycle of speeches is followed by Elihu's lone speeches in chap-
ters 3 2 - 3 7 . His presence is a surprise. He is m e n t i o n e d neither in the book's pro-
logue (2:11) n o r its epilogue (42:7, 9), where Job has only three other friends.
W h a t is Elihu doing here? W h y does he offer four speeches in a row? Even
stranger than this, he depicts himself as a b u m b l e r w h o talks a lot but says lit-
tie: "For I am full of words; / The wind in my belly presses me. / My belly is like
wine not yet opened, / Like j u g s of n e w wine ready to burst. / Let me speak,
then, a n d get relief; / Let me o p e n my lips a n d reply" ( 3 2 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) . To make
matters more confusing, what God says later on is m u c h like what Elihu says
here. W h a t does this tell us about God? If Elihu is a b u m b l i n g idiot, then his
speeches may foreshadow God's speeches, hinting that even God's answers are
not satisfactory. 4
God's speeches to Job have their o w n difficulties, as we shall see below. For
n o w we can ask: W h y does God need to speak twice? W h a t is the difference
between Job's two answers to God, a n d w h y is this difference so important that
God is satisfied with Job's second response, but not with his first? Most signifi-
cantly, does God really answer Job's challenge?
These problems are easily multiplied, for the Book of Job is an enigma.' 5 This
great w o r k of literature is not o p e n to a simple, authoritative explanation.
A Partial Resolution

Despite the extreme challenges, we can make several definitive statements about
parts of Job. Once these are considered, we can make some sense out of the book
as a whole.
The Book of Job is comprised of two main parts: a prose frame around a
poetic center. 6 The prose is n o w marked as chapters 1 - 2 and 4 2 : 7 - 1 7 . The rest
of the b o o k ( 3 : 1 - 4 2 : 6 ) is poetry. Each part also prefers different divine names.
Yet the difference between the two parts is more than a matter of linguistic style.
Each of the two sections tells a fundamentally different story. In the prose part,
Job's misfortunes arise from a discussion between God and the Adversary, a char-
acter w h o is absent from the poetic part. The afflictions of Job in the prose and
poetry are also different. In the prose, all his children are killed, b u t in the poet-
ry they are alive: "My odor is repulsive to m y wife; / I am loathsome to my chil-
dren" (19:17). Finally, it is the prose that depicts what scholars have called "Job
the patient." The poetry portrays a distinct temperament, "Job the impatient." 7
However, in contrast to what we f o u n d through source-analysis of the
Torah, w h e n we contrast the two parts of Job, we must conclude that they d o not
represent two separate sources. For neither section is complete without the
other. For example, the prose epilogue assumes that some sort of dialogue had
occurred between the friends and Job: "After the L O R D h a d spoken these words
to Job, the L O R D said to Eliphaz the Temanite, '1 am incensed at you a n d your
two friends'" (42:7). Nor could a poetic composition have stood on its
own."Afterward, J o b began to speak and cursed the day of his birth" (3:1)—as a
beginning, this statement assumes too m u c h .
Although the two parts belong together, they are each distinct e n o u g h that
it is worth examining each one in turn, to grasp their internal coherence. Then
we will be better able to perceive what each part contributes to the overall story.

Job the Patient: Happily Ever After

The opening and closing passages in the b o o k — t h e two prose sections (chaps.
1 - 2 and 4 2 : 7 - 1 7 ) — f i t together quite neatly. 8 Consider the following verses near
the end: "Thus the LORD blessed the latter years of Job's life more than the former.
He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of
oxen, and one thousand she-asses. He also had seven sons and three daughters"
( 4 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . That is, Job receives double the property that he owned at the start
of the book, and his children are "replaced" by the same n u m b e r as he originally
h a d . (Perhaps d o u b l i n g property is a blessing, while having twenty children
w o u l d not be!) According to s o m e scholars, the style of these passages resembles
that of an epic, p e r h a p s even of a fairy tale. T h u s the narrator treats u s to a mea-
sured account, featuring patterns of repeating phrases a n d events. We find m a n y
g r o u p s of f o u r s — f o r example, four attributes of J o b ("blameless," "upright,"
"feared God," a n d " s h u n n e d evil") a n d four catastrophic sets of deaths (those
t e n d i n g the cattle, t h e n the sheep, t h e n the camels, a n d finally Job's children).
T h e s t r u c t u r e of the o p e n i n g itself is highly symmetrical, n a r r a t i n g first w h a t
h a p p e n s on the earth, t h e n in heaven, t h e n o n earth, t h e n in heaven, t h e n again
o n earth (as scholars w o u l d d e n o t e it: ABABA). Meanwhile, the descriptions of
the heavenly scene in c h a p t e r s one a n d t w o are very similar. T h e exact repetition
of the p h r a s e s "1 alone have escaped to tell y o u " ( w . 15, 16, 17, 19) a n d "This
o n e w a s still s p e a k i n g w h e n a n o t h e r o n e c a m e a n d said . . ." ( w . 16, 17, 18) ere-
ates an eerie, breathless narrative. It is especially telling that three c o l u m n s of
C h a l d e a n s strike in the third catastrophe (1:17), while in the f o u r t h , "a m i g h t y
w i n d . . . s t r u c k the four c o r n e r s of the h o u s e " ( 1 : 1 9 ) — t h i s is the structure of
imaginative literature, s u c h as fairy tales.
R u n n i n g like a t h e m a t i c t h r e a d t h r o u g h this i n t r o d u c t i o n is the verb b-r-kh
( 9,2:5;1 ,21,10,1:5;‫)ברך‬.Typically in biblical Hebrew, it m e a n s "to bless,"
yet this passage e m p l o y s it e u p h e m i s t i c a l l y — r e f e r r i n g to its opposite: "to curse."
W i t h reference to G o d , c u r s i n g m e a n s "to b l a s p h e m e , " a locution that the a u t h o r
s e e m s to w a n t to avoid stating o u t r i g h t . 9 In b o t h senses taken together, this w o r d
unifies the o p e n i n g prose section, leaving u s to w o n d e r : after b e i n g struck
w i t h s u c h horrible afflictions, w h a t will J o b d o — b l e s s G o d , or "bless" (curse)
God?
T h e book's final prose passage m a k e s it clear that J o b does n o t curse God. It
begins: "After the LORD h a d s p o k e n these w o r d s to J o b , the LORD said to Eliphaz
the Temanite, '1 a m incensed at you a n d y o u r t w o friends, for you have n o t spo-
k e n the t r u t h a b o u t Me as did My servant J o b ' " (42:7). Here the imaginary qual-
ity of the w o r k continues. In verse 11, each of Job's friends give h i m "one kesi-
iah," an old unit of weight m e n t i o n e d in the Bible only in Genesis 3 3 : 1 9 a n d
J o s h u a 24:32; its use here suggests a distant, "long, long ago" setting. T h e e n d of
this narrative section is remarkable: "Afterward j o b lived o n e h u n d r e d a n d forty
years to see four generations of s o n s a n d g r a n d s o n s . So J o b died old a n d con-
tented" ( w . 1 6 - 1 7 ) . In o t h e r w o r d s , "he lived h a p p i l y ever after."
This e n d i n g , along with the surrealistic p a t t e r n s in c h a p t e r s 1 - 2 , suggests
that rather t h a n viewing the prose p o r t i o n as an e p i c , 1 0 we s h o u l d characterize
it as b e i n g like a fairy tale. That is to say, the storyteller gives u s a m p l e clues to
convey that we s h o u l d n o t take the story as historically true, yet p r o m p t s u s by
those same finely crafted features to listen for a message of t r u t h . This o p i n i o n
is a m o n g those in the Babylonian T a l m u d , w h e r e one u n n a m e d rabbi states that
"Job never existed, b u t is a parable." T h e c o n t e m p o r a r y translator S t e p h e n
Mitchell a d o p t s this view w h e n he o p e n s his translation with "Once u p o n a time
in the land o f U z . " 1 1

The Adversary

T h e heavenly scene described in the book's i n t r o d u c t i o n d i s t u r b s m a n y readers.

It portrays h e a v e n differently f r o m h o w we usually imagine the divine w o r l d
f u n c t i o n i n g . The image of an angelic court itself is not u n i q u e to J o b . 1 2 However,
f r o m the perspective of o t h e r biblical texts, the presence in this court of ha-satan
(‫השטן‬, "the Adversary") is o d d .
Some translators have r e n d e r e d ha-satan as "Satan." However, for g r a m m a t -
ical reasons, this w o r d c a n n o t be a p r o p e r n a m e . 1 3 (True, the figure that this
term d e n o t e s is a b a d guy or troublemaker, w h o in later t h o u g h t did develop
into a full-fledged Satan. 1 4 ) Given the linguistic evidence that places this prose
section's origin in the Persian p e r i o d , 1 3 the a u t h o r m a y have m o d e l e d the role of
"the Adversary" after the royal spy w h o traveled t h r o u g h o u t the Persian e m p i r e ,
testing individuals' loyalty in the far-flung p r o v i n c e s . 1 6 As depicted in J o b 1 - 2 ,
this Adversary can p u s h G o d to d o w h a t G o d was not i n t e n d i n g to d o , b u t he
has n o i n d e p e n d e n t power.
T h e theology b e h i n d this prose narrative is remarkable: W h e n G o d is u n d e r
the Adversary's influence, s o m e o n e m a y suffer despite being blameless. Such
m i s f o r t u n e m a y u p s e t the righteous yet they will ideally r e m a i n p i o u s like J o b ,
w h o u t t e r s "Naked came I o u t of m y m o t h e r s w o m b , a n d n a k e d shall I r e t u r n
t h e r e ; 1 7 the LORD h a s given, a n d the LORD has taken away; blessed be the n a m e
of the LORD" (1:21). Even after f u r t h e r afflictions strike their body, s u c h people
will say " n o t h i n g sinful" (2:10) a n d merely p e r f o r m the n o r m a l m o u r n i n g ritu-
als, as n e e d e d . Ultimately, G o d will reward such piety. 1 8

Job the Impatient

Polarization of the Debate

As n o t e d , the book's m i d d l e p o r t i o n tells a very different story. N o Adversary is

causing trouble, b u t neither is J o b taking his afflictions with equanimity.
Structurally, this section is a long dialogue between J o b and his "friends." By the
end, the two parties seem to need a good mediator or therapist—they do not
"hear" each other, a n d they allow the situation to escalate out of hand.
The b o o k conveys the escalating tension in several ways. At the beginning,
Eliphaz approaches J o b with respect, noting: "If one ventures a word with you,
will it be too much?" (4:2). After he accuses J o b merely of speaking improperly,
he adds generously, "See, you have encouraged many; / You have strengthened
failing h a n d s " (4:3). By the final r o u n d , however, Eliphaz is accusing Job of s e n -
ous crimes:

(22:5) You k n o w that your wickedness is great, / And that your iniqui-
ties have n o limit. / (6) You exact pledges from your fellows without rea-
son, / And leave t h e m naked, stripped of their clothes; / (7) You do not
give the thirsty water to drink; / You deny bread to the hungry.

Job's speeches point to the escalation even more clearly. After rebutting his
friends time a n d time again, after d e m a n d i n g a hearing from God and getting n o
meaningful response, J o b seems ready to give up. He says, "I cry out to You, b u t
You d o not answer me; / I wait, but You do not consider me" (30:20). Ultimately
J o b does the one thing left to h i m — h e calls d o w n a curse u p o n himself if he is
guilty (chap. 31). In this powerful passage he invokes measure-for-measure ret-
ribution: "If I raised my h a n d against the fatherless, / Looking to m y supporters
in the gate, / May my arm d r o p off m y shoulder; / My forearm break off at the
elbow" (w. 2 1 - 2 2 ) . The ancients took such imprecations very seriously. For this
reason, they serve as a fitting e n d to Job's speech. After he has taken these m u l -
tiple curses u p o n himself in protestation of innocence, what more can be said?
T h u s his friends are unwilling to challenge him further. 1 9

Is Experience the Best Teacher?

The reason that this "dialogue" m u s t e n d without resolution is that n o resolution

is possible. Both J o b and his friends ground their main arguments in experience,
b u t their own experiences lead t h e m in very different directions. Thus, to
explain suffering, the friends argue: "Only the wicked suffer; you are suffering;
therefore you are wicked," while J o b counters: "I a m not wicked, yet I am suf-
fering; therefore God is indifferent to the wicked." Similarly, regarding divine
power, the friends argue: "God is powerful, therefore good," whereas J o b argues:
"God is powerful, therefore destructive." Only God k n o w s w h i c h position (if
any) is correct. This is w h y Job calls out so often for God to appear, a n d w h y we
readers might wish that G o d s s p e e c h e s — w h e n they d o c o m e — w e r e less
obscure.
The reasoning of J o b and his friends is not easy to follow. Only rarely d o J o b
a n d his friends formulate their a r g u m e n t s in a straightforward manner, as one
might expect in a w o r k so devoted to debate. But this is not a Platonic dialogue.
Rather, the a u t h o r casts all the discourse as poetry. Elsewhere even the Bible uses
prose to state ( m u c h like J o b s friends) that whereas the righteous d o not suffer,
the wicked do. Here are three such formulations in Proverbs:

(10:3) The Lord will not let the righteous go hungry, / But He denies the
wicked w h a t they crave.

(12:21) N o h a r m befalls the righteous, / But the wicked have their fill
of misfortune.

(13:25) The righteous m a n eats to his heart's content, / But the belly of
the wicked is empty.

This is a traditional perspective. Eliphaz in his last speech makes his similar
point in a more complex fashion:

(22:4) Is it because of your piety that He arraigns you, / And enters into
j u d g m e n t with you? / (5) You k n o w that your wickedness is great, /
And that your iniquities have n o limit. . . . / (10) Therefore snares are
all a r o u n d you, / And s u d d e n terrors frighten you, / ( 1 1 ) O r darkness,
so you cannot see. . . . / (23) If you return to Shaddai you will be
restored . . .

J o b counters by claiming that God is indifferent to the wicked, as in this

poignant speech:

(24:1) W h y are times for j u d g m e n t not reserved by Shaddai? / Even

those close to H i m cannot foresee His actions. / (2) People remove
boundary-stones; / They carry off flocks and pasture them; / (3) They
lead away the d o n k e y s of the fatherless, / And seize the widow's bull as
a pledge; / (4) They chase the needy off the roads; / All the p o o r of the
land are forced into hiding. . . . / (9) They snatch the fatherless infant
from the breast, / And seize the child of the p o o r as a pledge. / (10) They
go about n a k e d for lack of clothing, / And, hungry, carry sheaves . . . I
(12) Men groan in the city; / The souls of the dying cry out; / Yet God
does not regard it as a reproach.

In the e n d , neither side moves the other.

 The two parties' positions become similarly entrenched with regard to God's
power. For example, Eliphaz sees God's p o w e r as only good:

(5:8) But I would resort to God; / I would lay my case before God, /
(9) W h o p e r f o r m s great deeds w h i c h cannot be fathomed, / W o n d r o u s
things without n u m b e r ; / (10) W h o gives rain to the earth, / And sends
water over the fields; / ( 1 1 ) W h o raises the lowly u p high, / So that the
dejected are secure in victory; / (12) W h o thwarts the designs of the
crafty, / So that their h a n d s cannot gain success; / (13) W h o traps the
clever in their o w n wiles; / The plans of the crafty go awry. / (14) By day
they e n c o u n t e r darkness, / At n o o n they grope as in the night. / (15) But
He saves the needy from the sword of their m o u t h , / From the clutches
of the strong.

Job, in contrast, suggests that this powerful God "abuses" power, wielding it
recklessly against J o b and others:

(12:13) W i t h Him are w i s d o m a n d courage; / His are counsel and

understanding. / (14) W h a t e v e r He tears d o w n cannot be rebuilt; /
W h o m e v e r He imprisons cannot be set free. / (15) W h e n He holds back
the waters, they dry up; / W h e n He lets t h e m loose, they tear u p the
land. / (16) With Him are strength and resourcefulness; / Erring
a n d causing to err are from Him. / (17) He m a k e s counselors go about
naked / And causes j u d g e s to go mad. / (18) He u n d o e s the belts of
kings, / And fastens loincloths on them. / (19) He makes priests go
about naked, / And leads temple-servants astray. / (20) He deprives
trusty m e n of speech, / And takes away the reason of elders. . . . I
(24) He deranges the leaders of the people, / And makes t h e m w a n d e r
in a trackless waste. / (25) They grope without light in the darkness; /
He makes t h e m w a n d e r as if d r u n k .

W i t h regard to other issues as well, J o b a n d his friends come to stand on dif-

ferent sides. Each side sees different implications from the same premise. For
example, the friends believe that people are u n g o d l y — s o m u c h so that they
cannot be guiltless, as Bildad claims in his magnificent last speech:

(25:2) Dominion and dread are His; / He imposes peace in His heights. /
(3) Can His troops be numbered? / O n w h o m does His light not shine? /
(4) H o w can m a n be in the right before God? / H o w can one b o r n of
w o m a n be cleared of guilt? / (5) Even the m o o n is not bright, / And the
 stars are not pure in His sight. / (6) H o w m u c h less man, a w o r m , / The
son-of-man, a maggot.

J o b too acknowledges the creaturehood of people, and that they are u n g o d -

ly. However, he believes that this should p r o m p t God to be lax in j u d g m e n t —
people should not be held to divine standards: "What is man, that You make
m u c h of him, / That You fix Your attention u p o n him? / You inspect him every
morning, / Examine him every minute" ( 7 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . The Book of Job presents
m a n y more such arguments in which the speakers talk past each other.

What Does Experience Teach?

As stated earlier, the friends and J o b disagree on the basis of their experiences.
Experience, both personal and as related by others, plays a crucial role in wis-
d o m literature. But everyone has different experiences. This fact explains w h y
each "side" in Job tries to establish that its experience is superior. For example,
Eliphaz claims: "See, we have inquired into this a n d it is so; / Hear it and accept
it" (5:27); and Bildad notes: "Ask the generation past, / Study what their fathers
have searched out" (8:8). To this, Job counters that his w i s d o m is at least as good
as theirs: "You must have consulted the wayfarers; / You cannot deny their evi-
dence" (21:29), and even, "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; / The
birds of the sky, they will tell you, / Or speak to the earth, it will teach you; / The
fish of the sea, they will inform you" ( 1 2 : 7 - 8 ) .
In s u m , although the friends and Job share some premises, they reach dif-
ferent conclusions from them, because their base of experience is different. But
as readers, we must w o n d e r after the arguments conclude and the dust has set-
tied: W h o is right?

"The LORD Replied to Job" (38:1)

After Elihu's speeches, God finally answers Job. But the only thing that is clear
about these speeches is their structure:

I. 38:1-40:2 G o d s first speech

II. 40:3-5 Job's first response
III. 40:6-41:26 God's second speech
IV 42:1-6 Job's second response
The relationship between these speeches accords with the power relationship
between the two figures; God, w h o speaks m u c h more, is m u c h more powerful.
Emphasizing that differential is the divine appearance "out of the tempest" 2 0 and
by G o d s two initial statements. The first speech begins, " W h o is this w h o dark-
ens counsel, / Speaking without knowledge? / Gird your loins like a man; / I will
ask a n d you will inform Me" ( 3 8 : 2 - 3 ) . The start of the second speech repeats
part of this verbatim (40:7). God also tells Job to prepare for war 2 1 and suggests
that he is not yet "a man."

A Nonanswer

God's first response ( 3 8 : 1 - 4 0 : 2 ) does not answer Job's questions—at least not in
any direct fashion. Job had wanted to k n o w the charges against him, to u n d e r -
stand w h y he was being p u n i s h e d ; 2 2 he had also insisted on u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w
God practices retribution. God does not address these issues. Instead, God treats
us to the longest list of rhetorical questions in the Bible: "Where were you,"
"Have you," "Which," "Can you," "Do you," "Is it?" and so on. The examples all
involve the world of nature, not of h u m a n society or behavior.
Some scholars infer from the extravagance of God's list of questions that its
purpose is to overwhelm J o b . 2 3 Others suggest that God mediates between the
position of the friends (who said that God is powerful a n d good) and Job (who
said that God is powerful and abusive) by answering simply: "God is power-
fui." 2 4 A third perspective observes that the depiction of nature here is negative
and chaotic—concluding tellingly with the h a w k , whose "young gulp blood; /
W h e r e the slain are, there is he" (39:30). H u m a n concepts of justice are not part
of this picture.

Job's reply to this first speech ( 4 0 : 3 - 5 ) a m o u n t s to "Well, what can I say?"

An Obscure Answer

Not satisfied with Job's response, God delivers a second speech, which we might
expect to be more clear. Indeed, this speech, in both structure and content, is
quite different from the first. The structure is best u n d e r s t o o d as follows:
I. 40:7-14 Justice
II. 40:15-24 Behemoth
III. 40:25-41:26 Leviathan
The paragraphing and layout in the JPS translation do not reflect this structure,
and therefore they obscure the m e a n i n g of this speech. Even so, we cannot be
sure what these sections m e a n a n d h o w they fit together. Most likely this
Behemoth is a mythological figure based on a h i p p o p o t a m u s , while Leviathan
resembles various sea-creatures k n o w n from Ugaritic mythology. 2 i But h o w are
they germane? H o w do they relate to what God was saying about justice?
We may apply here the same interpretations that we applied to God's first
speech. For example, we may u n d e r s t a n d these sections as a continuation of
God's overwhelming Job. God may be displaying power by pointing to the abil-
ity to control these mythological beasts.

Limits to Divine Power?

Alternatively, God may be saying something quite different. This speech may be
conceding that even God cannot control these two creations. By this reading, the
verse "See, any h o p e of capturing [Leviathan] must be disappointed; / O n e is
prostrated by the very sight of him" (41:1) includes God as one of the prostrat-
ed. Similarly, "Divine beings are in dread as he rears up; / As he crashes d o w n ,
they cringe" (41:17) would apply also to God.
If so, we can go back and apply this interpretation to God's introductory
speech. Rather than being sarcastic (as m a n y take it), God may actually be
admitting weakness:

(40:10) Deck yourself now with grandeur and eminence; / Clothe your-
self in glory a n d majesty. / (11) Scatter wide your raging anger; / See
every p r o u d m a n and bring him low. / (12) See every p r o u d man a n d
h u m b l e him, / And bring t h e m d o w n where they stand. / (13) Bury
t h e m all in the earth; / Hide their faces in obscurity. / (14) Then even I
would praise you / For the t r i u m p h your right h a n d w o n you.

That is, God is really saying to Job: "I'm not perfect. But can you do any better?
Then stop criticizing!"

J o b Responds Again

The b o o k spotlights Job's second reply to God. These are the last words of
poetry. Unlike his first reply, God does not respond back afterward—indicating
satisfaction that Job has n o w u n d e r s t o o d . The JPS translation takes Job's words
to mean:
 (42:2) I k n o w that You can d o everything, / That n o t h i n g you p r o p o s e
is impossible for You. / (3) W h o is this w h o o b s c u r e s counsel w i t h o u t
knowledge? / I n d e e d , I s p o k e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g / Of things
b e y o n d m e , w h i c h I did n o t know. / (4) Hear now, a n d I will speak; / 1
will ask, a n d You will i n f o r m m e . / (5) I h a d h e a r d You w i t h m y ears, /
But n o w I see You with m y eyes; / (6) Therefore, I recant a n d relent, /
Being b u t d u s t a n d ashes.

This translation o b s c u r e s the fact that in part, J o b is q u o t i n g G o d s earlier

speeches. (In c h a p t e r 23, I n o t e d that u n m a r k e d q u o t a t i o n s feature in a n o t h e r
b o o k of w i s d o m literature, Ecclesiastes.) Clarifying the q u o t a t i o n s w o u l d m a k e
the w h o l e passage m u c h clearer:

(42:1) J o b said in reply to the LORD: (2) I k n o w that You can d o every-
thing, / That n o t h i n g you p r o p o s e is impossible for You. (3) W h o is this
w h o o b s c u r e s counsel without knowledge? [38:2; 4 2 : 3 ] — / I n d e e d , I
s p o k e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g / Of things b e y o n d me, w h i c h I did not
know. / (4) Hear now, and I will speak; I will ask, and You will inform me
[38:3; 4 2 : 4 ] — / (5) I h a d heard You with m y ears, / But n o w I see You
w i t h m y eyes; / (6) Therefore, I recant a n d relent, / Being b u t d u s t a n d
ashes.

This reply is longer a n d m o r e developed t h a n Job's first answer. Yet, even as

1 have translated the passage here, its m e a n i n g is still uncertain. Is J o b e m p h a -
sizing his a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t that as a h u m a n , G o d is b e y o n d his u n d e r s t a n d i n g
(v. 3b)? O r does he focus o n a c k n o w l e d g i n g God's o m n i p o t e n c e (v. 2 ) — a n d if
so, h o w is this a response? Is J o b satisfied because he h a s experienced a visual
revelation of G o d ("now I see You w i t h m y eyes"; v. 5)? If so, h o w does this
a n s w e r Job's concerns?
To complicate things further, we c a n n o t say for sure w h a t the final verse of
p o e t r y — t h e most i m p o r t a n t o n e — m e a n s . 2 6 As we have said, the JPS translation
r e n d e r s verse 6 as "Therefore, I recant a n d relent, / Being b u t d u s t a n d ashes." In
contrast, the N e w Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates it, "Therefore I
despise myself, / a n d repent in d u s t a n d ashes," w h e r e a s Mitchell translates it as
"Therefore I will be quiet, c o m f o r t e d that I a m d u s t . " 2 ‫ ׳‬So, w h a t is J o b doing:
recanting, engaging in self-loathing, or attaining e n l i g h t e n m e n t ? All three
v i e w s — a n d o t h e r s as w e l l — a r e plausible. We m a y wish to u n d e r s t a n d the
m e a n i n g of the p o e t r y in the same way that we can u n d e r s t a n d prose, yet in all
h o n e s t y w e c a n n o t p i n d o w n the m e a n i n g of this verse.
Putting Job Back Together Again

By this point, my earlier statement about J o b being the most difficult book of the
Bible should make sense. With the p r o f o u n d issues that this book addresses, and
its potent rhetoric, it p r o m p t s us to ask: W h a t does it all mean? In particular,
w h o is right—God? The friends? Job? In particular, h o w might we read the book
as a whole, considering both the poetry and the prose?
At least one thing is clear: according to the way the book has been put
together, the friends—with their "traditional" w i s d o m answers—are wrong. The
epilogue begins: "After the L O R D had spoken these words to Job, the L O R D said
to Eliphaz the Temanite, '1 am incensed at you and your two friends, for you
have not spoken the truth about Me as did My servant Job'" (42:7). However, the
ambiguity of 42:6 still leaves open the possibility that Job's earlier arguments
were right. (That possibility looks more likely if we take seriously the idea that
Elihu's speeches u n d e r m i n e God's position.) Thus, the book may be saying that
the way God r u n s the world, the innocent d o indeed suffer.
Alternatively, its editor may have structured the book so that n o single
answer wins the debate; instead, this w o r k offers a variety of plausible answers,
each of which has some basis in experience. 2 8 Perhaps it is appropriate that we
cannot find a clear answer to our questions, given the very serious and person-
al issues that the Book of J o b confronts.
 25
"Drink Deep of Love!"
Reading Song of Songs

Primary Reading: Song of Songs.

T he Song of Songs ( s o m e t i m e s called "the Song" for short) is the m o s t exqui-

site b o o k of the Bible. 1 In trying to guide readers, I d o n o t w a n t to para-
p h r a s e it—it is simply too b e a u t i f u l a n d too multilayered. N o p a r a p h r a s e can d o
it justice. The Song of Songs deserves to be read a n d reread; it c a n n o t be c o n -
fined to a single m e a n i n g . 2 W h a t I can best offer are s o m e signposts that will
h e l p readers discover the richness of the text.

Solomon and the Song

In English, in a d d i t i o n to "Song of Songs," this c o m p o s i t i o n is often called the

"Song of S o l o m o n , " based o n the first verse: "The Song of Songs, by S o l o m o n . "
In p r e v i o u s chapters, I discussed similar attributions, w h i c h rarely seem to be
historically accurate. (This i n c l u d e s the attribution of m u c h of Psalms to David,
a n d of Proverbs a n d Ecclesiastes to S o l o m o n . ) Here, too, c o m p a r i s o n w i t h dated
H e b r e w inscriptions has s h o w n scholars that m a n y p h r a s e s a n d f o r m s in the
S o n g d o n o t m a t c h the language of King S o l o m o n s time. In places, the text is
clearly postexilic; for e x a m p l e , 4 : 1 3 uses pardes ( ‫ ) פ ר ד ס‬, a Persian w o r d m e a n -
ing "orchard." ( H e b r e w writers w o u l d n o t have b o r r o w e d f r o m the Persian lan-
guage until after the exile to Babylon; see above, c h a p t e r 4.) In short, s o m e o n e
w r o t e it d o w n well after S o l o m o n . I n d e e d , if S o l o m o n really wrote the b o o k ,
w h y w o u l d he refer to himself in the third p e r s o n , as in "King S o l o m o n m a d e
h i m a p a l a n q u i n . . . " (3:9)?
Critical scholars broadly agree that the first verse is n o t integral to the b o o k .
Everywhere else in the b o o k (thirty-two times), the relative p r o n o u n — t r a n s l a t -
ed as "that," "which," or " w h o " — i s expressed using the particle prefix she- (ψ).
O n l y in this first verse d o we find the longer form asher ( ‫ ; א ש ר‬the JPS transla-
tion r e n d e r s it as "by"—or in its footnote, "concerning"). A single a u t h o r w o u l d
n o t have used b o t h forms. This a n o m a l y h a s p r o m p t e d scholars to c o n c l u d e that
a later editor a d d e d 1:1.
That editor most likely w a n t e d u s to t h i n k of this b o o k as written by
S o l o m o n . Given the description in 1 Kings 11:3 of Solomon's "seven h u n d r e d
royal wives a n d three h u n d r e d c o n c u b i n e s , " S o l o m o n w o u l d naturally have been
a c a n d i d a t e for the love-song business. T h e Song's o w n repeated m e n t i o n of a
k i n g may have also motivated the a t t r i b u t i o n . 3
W h i l e readers m a y still use the royal Solomonic c o u r t as an imagined setting
for the b o o k , the historical-critical m e t h o d suggests that we also try to imagine
reading the Song as i n d e p e n d e n t of the initial attribution.

A Collection

A l t h o u g h the S o n g looks like a unified c o m p o s i t i o n , it is not. It conveys a sense

of u n i t y by b e i n g a collection of p o e m s of similar genres.
A n u m b e r of indications argue against its b e i n g a c o m p o s i t i o n by a single
author. First, the Song c o n t a i n s a refrain, yet the refrain does n o t a p p e a r in
exactly the same H e b r e w w o r d s , as we w o u l d expect f r o m a b o o k written by one
author:

(2:7) I a d j u r e y o u , Ο m a i d e n s of J e r u s a l e m , / By gazelles or by h i n d s of
the field: / Im [ ‫ א ם‬, "Do not"] w a k e or rouse / Love until it please!

(3:5) 1 a d j u r e you, Ο m a i d e n s of J e r u s a l e m , / By gazelles or by h i n d s of

the field: / Im [‫אם‬, "Do not"] w a k e or rouse / Love until it please!

(8:4) I a d j u r e you, Ο m a i d e n s of Jerusalem: / M ah [Ì1D, "Do not"] w a k e

or rouse / Love until it please!

A second sign of the book's multiple a u t h o r s h i p is that it uses variant f o r m s

of the same w o r d s — v a r i a n t s that linguists u n d e r s t a n d to arise f r o m different
H e b r e w dialects. For e x a m p l e , the style of the direct object suffix differs b e t w e e n
c h a p t e r s 3 a n d 5: bikashtiv (1‫ )בלןשתי‬versus bikashtihu (‫ ;)בלןשתיהו‬both words
m e a n "I sought h i m . "
Perhaps the strongest proof of m o r e t h a n one a u t h o r is the near repetition
of o n e particular passage, an elaborate description of features of the lover's body,
w h i c h is called a wasf. (Such descriptions have a l o n g - s t a n d i n g place in Arabic
poetry, w h i c h is w h y scholars refer to t h e m by this Arabic term, p r o n o u n c e d
"watzf." 4 ). T h e Song repeats one of its wasfs, b u t does so with variations:

(4:1) Ah, y o u are fair, m y darling,
Ah, y o u are fair.
Your eyes are like doves
Behind y o u r veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
Streaming d o w n M o u n t Gilead.
(2) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes
C l i m b i n g u p f r o m the w a s h i n g pool;
All of t h e m bear twins,
A n d n o t o n e loses h e r y o u n g .
(3) Your lips are like a c r i m s o n thread,
Your m o u t h is lovely.
Your b r o w b e h i n d y o u r veil
Gleams like a p o m e g r a n a t e split o p e n .
(4) Your n e c k is like the Tower of
David,
Built to h o l d w e a p o n s ,
H u n g w i t h a t h o u s a n d shields —
All the quivers of warriors.
(5) Your breasts are like t w o fawns,
Twins of a gazelle,
Browsing a m o n g the lilies.
(6) W h e n the day b l o w s gently
A n d the s h a d o w s flee,
I will betake m e to the m o u n t of
myrrh,
To the hill of frankincense.
(7) Every part of you is fair, m y darling,
There is n o b l e m i s h in you.
(6:4) You are beautiful, m y darling,
as Tirzah,
C o m e l y as Jerusalem,
Awesome as b a n n e r e d hosts.
(5) Turn y o u r eyes away f r o m m e ,
For they o v e r w h e l m me!
Your hair is like a flock of goats
Streaming d o w n f r o m Gilead.
(6) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes
C l i m b i n g u p f r o m the w a s h i n g pool;
All of t h e m bear twins,
A n d n o t o n e loses her y o u n g .
(7) Your b r o w b e h i n d y o u r veil
Gleams like a p o m e g r a n a t e split
open.
(8) There are sixty q u e e n s ,
A n d eighty c o n c u b i n e s ,
And damsels without number.
(9) O n l y o n e is m y dove,
My perfect one,
T h e only one of her m o t h e r ,
T h e delight of her w h o bore her.
Maidens see a n d acclaim her;
Q u e e n s a n d c o n c u b i n e s , a n d praise
her.

W h y w o u l d a single a u t h o r repeat the same description? If h e 5 were to repeat it,

w h y d o so w i t h these particular variations? The best a n s w e r to these questions
is that m o r e t h a n one version of these poetic passages circulated in ancient Israel;
s o m e o n e t h e n collated t h e m together in a larger w o r k that eventually b e c a m e the
Song of Songs as we have it.
Saying that this b o o k is a collection leaves m a n y questions o p e n . W h a t type
of a collection is it? Is its organization h a p h a z a r d , or is its collection of p o e m s
organized to tell a story? Evidence p o i n t s in b o t h directions. T h e historical-
critical m e t h o d justifies reading the b o o k either as a loose a n t h o l o g y or as a u n i -
fied w o r k .

What Genre of Poetry Is It?

Most often, the Song is described as love poetry, sensual poetry, or erotic poetry.
W h a t is m e a n t by these t e r m s is rarely discussed; p e r h a p s the reticence is based
o n the awareness that we have too little evidence to define these genres for
ancient Israel. Some u n i t s in the Song can safely be categorized as "love poetry"
based o n the use of the root '-h-v ( ‫ א ה ב‬, "to l o v e " ) — f o u n d , surprisingly, only
seven times in the w h o l e b o o k .
Similarly, the label "sensual" is appropriate for passages in w h i c h the senses
are evoked, b o t h directly and indirectly: "I have c o m e to m y garden, / My own,
m y bride; / I have p l u c k e d m y m y r r h a n d spice, / Eaten m y h o n e y a n d honey-
c o m b , / D r u n k m y wine a n d m y milk. / Eat, lovers, a n d drink: Drink d e e p of
love!" (5:1).
T h e t e r m "erotic poetry," however, is m o r e slippery: if w e u n d e r s t a n d this
t e r m to m e a n w o r d s i n t e n d e d to sexually arouse, all we k n o w is that certain sec-
tions of the Song have this effect o n s o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y readers. However, we
have n o way to tell w h e t h e r its p o e t r y h a d the effect of sexual arousal in its set-
ting in antiquity. W i t h o u t k n o w i n g m o r e a b o u t its original setting a n d i n t e n d e d
p u r p o s e , we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h i c h of these genres applied to the Song of
Songs in ancient times.

Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry

In reading the Song, we m u s t be careful n o t to i m p o s e Victorian n o t i o n s of sex-

uality, n o r any n o t i o n a b o u t w h a t m a n y p r e s u m e is a "negative" attitude t o w a r d
sexuality in J u d a i s m or Christianity. 6 T h e Song m a y seem o d d as a biblical b o o k ,
yet w h e n viewed in the b r o a d e r context of the ancient Near East, especially
Egyptian literature, 7 it is quite n o r m a l . (Gaining s u c h perspective illustrates the
utility of the historical-critical m e t h o d : it can correct o u r o w n cultural biases.)
In t e r m s of style, the wasfs in the Song are quite similar to the following p o e m
written in the p e r i o d of the Egyptian N e w K i n g d o m ( m i d - s i x t e e n t h to early
eleventh centuries B.C.E.):
 T h e One, the sister w i t h o u t peer, / T h e h a n d s o m e s t of all! / She looks
like the rising m o r n i n g star / At the start of a h a p p y year. / Shining
bright, fair of skin, / Lovely the look of her eyes, / Sweet the speech of her
lips, / She has n o t a w o r d too m u c h . / Upright neck, shining breast, / Hair
true lapis lazuli; / Arms surpassing gold, / Fingers like lotus b u d s . / Heavy
thighs, n a r r o w waist, / Her legs p a r a d e her beauty; / W i t h graceful steps
she treads the g r o u n d , / C a p t u r e s m y heart by her m o v e m e n t s . / She
causes all men's n e c k / To t u r n a b o u t to see her; / Joy h a s he w h o m she
e m b r a c e s , / He is like the first of m e n ! / W h e n she steps outside she
s e e m s / Like that o t h e r One [the S u n ] . 8

Like the Song, b u t unlike the rest of biblical literature, this p o e m refers to the
female lover as "sister." Like all b u t o n e of the wasfs in the Song, the Egyptian
a u t h o r describes the b o d y f r o m t o p to b o t t o m , describing m a n y of the same
b o d y parts m e n t i o n e d in the biblical b o o k . T h e c o m p a r i s o n s are equally o d d (by
m o d e r n Western sensibilities)—the Egyptians extol blue hair ("Hair true lapis
lazuli") while the Israelites desire elongated n o s e s ("Your nose like the L e b a n o n
t o w e r / That faces toward Damascus"; 7:5). T h e wasfs in b o t h cultures m o v e
f r o m describing the b o d y to d r a w i n g implications f r o m that description. T h u s
the Egyptian text states: "With graceful steps she treads the g r o u n d , / C a p t u r e s
m y heart by her m o v e m e n t s . / She causes all men's n e c k s / To t u r n a b o u t to see
her." Similarly, the Israelite p o e m c o n t i n u e s : "I say: Let m e climb the p a l m , / Let
m e take h o l d of its b r a n c h e s ; / Let y o u r breasts be like clusters of grapes, / Your
b r e a t h like the fragrance of apples" (7:9). O n e c o u l d argue that s o m e of the
a u t h o r s of the wasfs in the Song were aware of the Egyptian traditions.
M e s o p o t a m i a n sources, m e a n w h i l e , preserve a significant collection of
p o t e n c y incantations; they, too, can h e l p u s d r a w a picture of ancient Near
Eastern sexuality. O n e of the m o r e t a m e incantations goes like this:

At the h e a d of m y b e d a r a m is tied. At the foot of m y b e d a w e a n e d

s h e e p is tied. A r o u n d m y waist their wool is tied. Like a r a m eleven
times, like a w e a n e d s h e e p twelve times, like a partridge thirteen times,
m a k e love to m e , a n d like a pig f o u r t e e n times, like a wild bull fifty
times, like a stag fifty times! Etc. 9

This incantation s h o w s that s o m e ancient M e s o p o t a m i a n s a d d r e s s e d their c o n -

c e r n s w i t h sexual p o t e n c y in a rather o p e n a n d creative fashion.
T h e t h e m e of c o m p e t i t i o n a m o n g rivals, so p r o m i n e n t in the Song (see, e.g.,
1:8), a p p e a r s in M e s o p o t a m i a m literature as well:

I sense m y b e a u t y spots, / My u p p e r lip b e c o m e s moist / W h i l e the

 lower one trembles. / I shall embrace him, I shall kiss him, / I shall look
at him; / I shall attain victory. . . / Over my gossipy w o m e n , / And I shall
return happily to my lover. 1 0

These literatures clearly are concerned with real lovers, they are secular, and they
are avidly sexual. Their similarity to the Song suggests that we should read it in
the same manner.

The Taming of the Song

Despite this, tradition has tamed the Song by allegorizing it in a variety of ways.
Thus, the Targum, the ancient Aramaic translation of the Bible, views the Song
as a historical allegory about the "marriage" between God and Israel. Consider the
provocative exclamation, "I have taken off my robe— / Should I d o n it again? /
I have bathed my feet— / Should I soil them again?" (5:3; transi, adapted). The
w o m a n is a n n o u n c i n g to the m a n outside that she is naked in bed. The Targum
renders this verse as an expression of national guilt a n d moral j u d g m e n t :

The assembly of Israel answered before the prophets: "Lo, already, I

have removed the yoke of His c o m m a n d m e n t s from me and have wor-
shipped the idols of the nations. H o w can I have the face to return to
Him?" The Lord of the World replied to them through the prophets:
"Moreover, 1 Myself have already lifted My Presence from a m o n g you,
h o w then can I return since you have done evil? I have cleansed my feet
from your filth, and h o w can I soil t h e m a m o n g you with your evil
deeds?" 1 1

Even Abraham ibn Ezra, considered one of the more liberal medieval inter-
preters (because of Spinoza's advocacy of his work), w h o himself authored sec-
ular love poetry, was a d a m a n t that the Song must be interpreted allegorically. In
his introduction to the Song, he states: "The Song of Songs is certainly not a
p o e m about desire," adding, "do not be surprised that the bride is a parable for
Israel, and her groom is God, for such is the habit of the prophets." Ibn Ezra then
brings a set of five prophetic examples and one example from Psalms that use
parables of lovers to represent Israel and God (including Ezekiel 16; see
"Refuting Popular Beliefs" in chapter 19). However, all of the passages that Ibn
Ezra cites clearly indicate that the units are parables. For example, while Isaiah
5 begins, "Let me sing for my beloved / A song of my lover about his vineyard,"
verse 7 spells out w h o the players are: "For the vineyard of the L O R D of Hosts /
Is the House of Israel, / And the seedlings he lovingly tended / Are the men of
J u d a h . " In contrast, n o similar statement in the Song suggests that it is allegori-
cal, n o r that the male lover is God, a n d the female lover Israel. In fact, the Song
c o n t a i n s n o references to G o d at all. 1 2
As I have argued, the secular Near Eastern love p o e m s to w h i c h it is so
similar suggest that the Song was originally a secular w o r k , dealing with two
u n m a r r i e d lovers. 1 3 The Song itself gives n o indication that it i n t e n d s its w o r d s
differently.

Sex in the Song Versus the Rest of the Bible

T h e Song depicts premarital sex positively; this attitude differs dramatically f r o m

w h a t is f o u n d elsewhere in the Bible. But the Bible is a highly c o m p l e x b o o k
reflecting the o u t l o o k of different g r o u p s , so s u c h a difference is n o t surprising.
It certainly does not justify reading the b o o k allegorically.
Moreover, in the legal collections, the core objection to a y o u n g w o m a n
engaging in premarital activity is n o t a m o r a l one. Instead, the p r o b l e m is that
according to biblical law, a w o m a n did n o t always have the full right to decide
h o w she m i g h t use her sexuality. 1 4 T h u s , for e x a m p l e , according to the Covenant
Collection:

(Exod. 2 2 : 1 5 ) If a m a n s e d u c e s a virgin for w h o m the bride-price has

n o t b e e n paid, a n d lies w i t h her, he m u s t m a k e h e r his wife by p a y m e n t
of a bride-price. (16) If h e r father refuses to give her to h i m , he m u s t
still weigh out silver in accordance w i t h the bride-price for virgins.

T h e law's only c o n c e r n is w i t h the father's c o m p e n s a t i o n , called the bride-

p r i c e , 1 5 a n d n o t with any morally i m p r o p e r behavior by the daughter.

Ambiguities

T h e ambiguity of the Song is one of the features that m a k e it so remarkable.

Poetry is a m b i g u o u s , b u t this b o o k s e e m s to revel in that quality

Double Entendre

M u c h of the book's ambiguity is sexual in nature. For example, in the s e c o n d

d r e a m s e q u e n c e f r o m c h a p t e r 5, we read:
 (2) I was asleep, / But my heart was wakeful. / Hark, my beloved
knocks! / "Let m e in, my own, / My darling, m y faultless dove! / For m y
head is d r e n c h e d with dew, / My locks with the d a m p of night." / (3) I
had taken off my r o b e — / Was I to d o n it again? / I h a d bathed my
feet— / Was I to soil t h e m again? / (4) My beloved took his h a n d off the
latch, / And my heart was stirred for him. / (5) I rose to let in my
beloved; / My h a n d s dripped m y r r h — / My fingers, flowing m y r r h — /
U p o n the handles of the bolt. / (6) 1 o p e n e d the door for my beloved, /
But my beloved had t u r n e d and gone. / I was faint because of what he
said. / 1 sought, but f o u n d him not; / I called, but he did not answer.

This passage t u r n s on the ambiguity of w h e t h e r the woman's "house" is really her

dwelling, or her body. Is the male lover standing outside trying to get inside; or
is he next to her, trying to enter her? In what sense is he "knocking"? In verses
4 - 5 , are the "hand" and the "latch" e u p h e m i s m s for genitalia? In verse 3, w h e n
the w o m a n describes herself as clean a n d naked, is she saying that the m a n
should go away because she is already half-asleep, or is she teasing him to come
nearer? 1 6 Representing the b o d y as a house is a frequent m e t a p h o r in m a n y cul-
tures; this allows the poet of this unit to introduce n u m e r o u s double meanings.
Such sexual ambiguities fill the Song. For example, the vineyard in the Song
is an image that often alludes to the woman's ripe and sweet sexuality. Most like-
ly this symbol plays on the visual similarity between a cluster of dark grapes a n d
the pubic triangle. 1 7 Thus, the w o m a n can say: "My m o t h e r s sons . . . m a d e me
guard the vineyards; / My own vineyard I did not guard" (1:6)—this means that
her brothers tried to keep her chaste by m a k i n g her w o r k out in the field, but
she fooled them. While guarding the literal vineyards, she was free with her
own figurative one. Another case where vineyard is used symbolically is 1:13,
where the w o m a n says of her male lover: "My beloved to me is a spray of h e n n a
blooms / In the vineyards of En-gedi" (transi, adapted). However, En-gedi
h o u s e d the ancient J u d e a n p e r f u m e industry, 1 8 not a wine vineyard. Thus, "vine-
yards" is not meant literally; this verse is really a veiled reference to the w o m a n
enjoying the man's body.

T h e Song's Conclusion

A different type of ambiguity appears at the conclusion of the Song. It affects

h o w we read the b o o k as a whole—if we choose to read it as a meaningfully
arranged collection. The JPS translation renders the last verse (in which the
female lover is speaking) as follows: "Hurry, m y beloved, / Swift as a gazelle or a
y o u n g stag, / To the hills of spices!" (8:14). T h e initial w o r d is berach (‫)ברח‬,
w h i c h actually m e a n s , "Flee away!" Taken on its o w n , this verse w o u l d seem to
be an u n h a p p y e n d i n g to the Song, w h e r e the w o m a n tells the m a n (poetically),
"Scram!"
However, "the hills of spices" m a y refer to the woman's body! T h e similari-
ty in s h a p e b e t w e e n breasts a n d m o u n t a i n s suggests this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 1 9 as
does the following verse: "My beloved to m e is a bag of m y r r h / Lodged b e t w e e n
m y breasts" (1:14), w h i c h m o r e directly depicts the image e v o k e d by "hills of
spices." T h u s , even the c o n c l u s i o n to the S o n g is u n c e r t a i n . Is it a b o u t love a n d
desire fulfilled, or a b o u t u n r e q u i t e d love a n d desire?

Canonization of the Song

In c h a p t e r 2 7 , I will deal m o r e generally w i t h the issue of h o w various b o o k s

b e c a m e part of the Bible, w h a t is o f t e n referred to as the c a n o n i z a t i o n of the
Bible. Suffice it to say here that the traditional allegorical interpretation of
the Song (see above) raises a question: Was the Song viewed as allegory after
it b e c a m e canonical, or did it b e c o m e canonical only after it w a s viewed as
allegory?
T h e way we a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n d e t e r m i n e s o u r basic a p p r o a c h to the
q u e s t i o n of h o w b o o k s b e c a m e part of the Bible. We can define biblical b o o k s as
only those that the people already treated as sacred a n d religious. Alternatively,
we can b r o a d e n the n o t i o n of b o o k s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the Bible to all b o o k s that
were central to Israel for a variety of reasons. If the latter is the case, t h e n J e w s
m i g h t have held the Song as a central w o r k — a cultural t r e a s u r e — o n aesthetic
g r o u n d s . Maybe they even u s e d it for e n t e r t a i n m e n t in settings like w e d d i n g
r e c e p t i o n s . 2 0 P e r h a p s only later, once it w a s in the same "book" alongside
p r o p h e t i c parables that u s e d the image of G o d as h u s b a n d a n d Israel as wife, did
the allegorical interpretation take p r e c e d e n c e over the literal one.

Conclusions

A l t h o u g h we k n o w little a b o u t w h o w r o t e the Song of Songs, we can v e n t u r e a

few p o i n t s of orientation. Secondarily a t t r i b u t e d to S o l o m o n , the b o o k is a col-
lection of p o e m s of u n c e r t a i n g e n r e — p r o b a b l y love p o e m s a n d sensual p o e t r y
that its original audience may have considered erotic. The Song's attitudes and
wording resemble other ancient Near Eastern poetry of those genres. It was not
written as an allegory, although rabbinic tradition has treated it that way.
Its hearty approach to sexuality does not fit most depictions of love and sex
elsewhere in the Bible; but given the nature of the Bible as a diverse collection
itself, this should not be surprising. The ambiguity of the imagery in this book
contributes to its beauty. Finally, the Song may have become part of the Bible
even while the ancient Israelites cherished it as a secular w o r k that celebrates
h u m a n love.
 26
" W h y Are You So Kind . . . W h e n I
A m a Foreigner? "
Ruth vs. Esther

Primary Reading: Ruth and Esther.

Surface Similarities

R u t h a n d Esther are t w o of the b e s t - k n o w n b o o k s of the H e b r e w Bible. At first

glance they seem quite similar. Both are short stories n a m e d for female fig-
ures. In each one, w o m e n a n d foreigners play a p r o m i n e n t role. This c h a p t e r will
c o m p a r e these t w o similar works. This c o m p a r i s o n will raise explicitly a central
issue that has until n o w b e e n largely implicit: h o w the Bible f u n c t i o n s as a col-
lection that expresses a diversity of views.

Beyond History: The Genre of Ruth and Esther

As we have seen, identifying a w o r k s genre can h e l p u s u n d e r s t a n d h o w to read

or interpret that b o o k . 1 Both Ruth a n d Esther are historical in the sense of "nar-
ratives that depict a past" (see "The Bible's Limits as a Source for History" in
c h a p t e r 4), b u t neither is history in the sense of depicting an actual past. In fact,
b o t h w o r k s signal that they are not to be read historically.

The Book of Ruth

Ruth, at least in its final form, dates f r o m m u c h later t h a n "the days of the chief-
tains [judges]," the p e r i o d m e n t i o n e d in its o p e n i n g verse. This is certain
because it i n t r o d u c e s the c e r e m o n y in 4:7 w i t h the w o r d s " N o w this was for-
merly d o n e in Israel in cases of r e d e m p t i o n or exchange." In o t h e r w o r d s , the
n a r r a t o r n e e d e d to explain a c e r e m o n y that h a d long since b e c o m e d e f u n c t . 2
A l t h o u g h a w o r k that has literary merit m a y also be historical, 3 R u t h is m o r e
easily labeled as literature t h a n history. It is r e m a r k a b l y well f o r m e d f r o m a lit-
erary or rhetorical perspective ( t h o u g h s u c h features d o n o t always c o m e
t h r o u g h clearly in the translation). In this story, a gibbor chayil ( ‫" ח י ל‬lÎZtë, "a
valiant w a r r i o r or gentleman"; translated as " p r o m i n e n t rich m a n , " 2:1) m e e t s an
eshet chayil ( ‫ א ש ת ח י ל‬, "valiant w o m a n " ; translated as "worthy w o m a n , " 3:11),
a n d they live h a p p i l y ever after. T h e story also highlights Ruth's m o v e m e n t
f r o m being u n d e r God's general protection to b e i n g e s p o u s e d by Boaz, by play-
ing o n two senses of the w o r d kanaf ( ‫ כ נ ף‬, "extremity"): lachasot tachat kenafav
( ‫ ל ח ס ו ת ת ח ת ״ כ נ פ י ו‬, " u n d e r w h o s e w i n g s y o u have s o u g h t refuge," 2:12) a n d u-
farasta khenafekha ( ‫ ו פ ר ש י ! כ נ פ ך‬, "spread y o u r robe," 3:9). In o t h e r w o r d s , Boaz
resolves the difficulties facing N a o m i a n d Ruth by acting as a surrogate for God.
S u c h verbal links suggest that g o o d storytelling is the goal of the b o o k , rather
t h a n history.
The b o o k gives additional hints that it is n o t historical. It begins w i t h an
image that ancient readers w o u l d have f o u n d i r o n i c — a famine in Bethlehem
( • ‫ ) ב י ת ל ח‬, literally "house of bread." More significantly, w i t h the exception of
the n a m e Ruth, the personal n a m e s at the start of the b o o k d o n o t fit p a t t e r n s
we find elsewhere in the Bible. Instead, they are clearly symbolic: N a o m i m e a n s
"sweetness"; her s o n s w h o die y o u n g are n a m e d M a h l o n ("Illness") a n d Chilion
("Cessation"); a n d the d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w w h o follows N a o m i only p a r t w a y to
Israel is n a m e d O r p a h — l i t e r a l l y "back of the neck," m e a n i n g "back-turner." In
ancient Israel, n o p a r e n t s w o u l d have n a m e d their c h i l d r e n M a h l o n a n d Chilion.
Surely the a u t h o r e m p l o y s those n a m e s so as to signal that the b o o k s h o u l d be
read symbolically a n d not as straightforward history.

T h e Book of Esther

In a d d i t i o n to b e i n g substantially longer t h a n Ruth, Esther e m p l o y s a very dif-

ferent style. It c o m b i n e s real historical c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h fancy or fantasy, m u c h
like m o d e r n historical fiction. Its description of the Persian royal gardens, the
extent of the e m p i r e , a n d its division i n t o "satraps" (bureaucratic divisions) are
all accurate. Even s o m e of the n a m e s , s u c h as Esther a n d Mordecai (Babylonian
n a m e s related to the g o d d e s s Ishtar a n d the god M a r d u k ) , were real personal
n a m e s in the Persian period. However, o t h e r aspects are at o d d s w i t h the k n o w n
historical record: a queen's b e i n g c h o s e n t h o u g h a "Miss Persia contest" 4 ; a king's
not caring if H a m a n kills off a portion of his tax base; Haman's offering to give
the king ten thousand talents of silver 5 ; and the rule that the decrees of Persian
kings could not be changed once they were sealed. All of this is fanciful. Indeed,
contrary to the picture presented in Esther, the Persian kings typically tolerated
minorities; they did not persecute groups because of ethnicity or religion per se.
Like Ruth, the Book of Esther employs markers to indicate that its main
interest is not historical. Like Ruth, this b o o k features various literary sym-
metries. For example, the clause "The text of the d o c u m e n t was to the effect
that a law . . ." (3:14) is mirrored by "The text of the d o c u m e n t was to be issued
as a law . . ." (8:13). Some view the b o o k as structured around party scenes in
particular. 6
However, unlike Ruth, the storytelling in Esther is h u m o r o u s in a variety of
places. For example, H a m a n is eager to k n o w why Esther called h i m to her party,
and the king asks Esther what she wants; after m u c h buildup, rather than dis-
cussing any matter of substance, she unexpectedly answers, "If Your Majesty will
do me the favor, if it please Your Majesty to grant my wish and accede to m y
request—let Your Majesty and H a m a n come to the feast which I will prepare for
them; and tomorrow I will do Your Majesty's bidding" (5:8).
All of these pieces of evidence—the factual errors, the literary symmetries,
and the lighthearted style—point to the fact that Esther is not a historical
account. Rather, it is more like comedy, burlesque, or farce. Probably the origi-
nal social setting for this book was the annual party in celebration of the already
existing holiday of Purim; the book, w h e n read aloud, functioned as a justifica-
tion for the u p s i d e - d o w n festival/

Women in Esther and Ruth

My intention here is not to explain why Ruth and Esther were written. Instead,
considering b o t h works to be mainly imaginative rather than factual, I will com-
pare h o w they each imagine two themes: the role of w o m e n , a n d the Israelite
attitude toward foreigners.
Discerning the role of w o m e n according to the Book of Esther is not at all
straightforward. Partly this derives from the fact that the b o o k is comedy. With
comedy, it is normally difficult to untangle what the author really believes from
what is meant tongue-in-cheek. O n one h a n d , Esther is a model of bravery w h e n
she approaches the king to plead for the Jews because she believes that merely
by doing so she risks being p u t to death (4:11). O n the other h a n d , Esther does
not risk her life on her own initiative, so arguably she is an agent 8 rather than a
p r i m a r y character or hero. The book's true stance is likely revealed in its final
verse, f r o m w h i c h Esther is missing: "For Mordecai the J e w r a n k e d next to King
A h a s u e r u s a n d was highly regarded by the J e w s a n d p o p u l a r w i t h the m u l t i t u d e
of his b r e t h r e n ; he sought the good of his people a n d interceded for the welfare
of all his k i n d r e d . " In o t h e r w o r d s , Esther plays a crucial role at one j u n c t u r e —
a role she is able to play because h e r b e a u t y m o v e s the k i n g (in 2:17: "she w o n
his grace a n d favor"; in 5:2: "she w o n his f a v o r " ) — b u t the b o o k could j u s t as
well have b e e n n a m e d the Book of Mordecai.
In contrast, Ruth depicts a very different w o r l d , in w h i c h a c o m m u n i t y of
w o m e n exists in parallel w i t h that of m e n . Its protagonists are t w o w o m e n w h o
face a p r o b l e m largely defined by the society's g e n d e r roles: because w o m e n m a y
n o t inherit ancestral land h o l d i n g s outright, they m u s t find an a p p r o p r i a t e m a n ,
a "redeemer," w h o can give t h e m access to the field b e l o n g i n g to Naomi's
deceased h u s b a n d , Elimelech. They d o n o t n e e d a m a n to tell t h e m h o w to d o
t h i s — N a o m i advises the y o u n g e r Ruth, a n d Ruth follows her mother-in-law's
instructions. Ruth also s h o w s her o w n initiative w h e n she improvises w h a t to d o
at Boaz's granary.
T h e Book of Ruth also highlights the larger c o m m u n i t y of w o m e n in w h i c h
Ruth a n d N a o m i f u n c t i o n . After their h u s b a n d s die, N a o m i begs each daughter-
in-law, "Turn back, each of y o u to her mothers h o u s e " (1:8; e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
In 4:17, it is not the father b u t rather the w o m e n n e i g h b o r s w h o n a m e Ruth's
child. A few verses earlier, the p e o p l e bless Ruth in the n a m e of Israel's great
Matriarchs:

May the LORD m a k e the w o m a n w h o is c o m i n g into y o u r h o u s e like

Rachel a n d Leah, b o t h of w h o m built u p the H o u s e of Israel! Prosper in
E p h r a t h a h a n d p e r p e t u a t e y o u r n a m e in Bethlehem! A n d m a y y o u r
h o u s e be like the h o u s e of Perez w h o m Tamar b o r e to J u d a h — t h r o u g h
the offspring w h i c h the LORD will give you b y this y o u n g w o m a n
(4:11-12).

W o m e n t h u s play a m u c h m o r e p r o m i n e n t a n d positive role in Ruth t h a n in

Esther.

Foreigners in Esther and Ruth

It is difficult to characterize the attitude of the Book of Esther t o w a r d non-Jews.

T h e b o o k m e n t i o n s s o m e good foreigners, like H a r b o n a h , w h o suggests that
H a m a n be i m p a l e d on the tree he w a n t e d to use to impale Mordecai (7:9). The
p r e d o m i n a n t n o n - J e w s in the story, however, are A h a s u e r u s a n d H a m a n . The
a u t h o r depicts A h a s u e r u s as a fool, s p e n d i n g his time partying instead of ruling;
he is clueless a n d easily m a n i p u l a t e d . For his part, H a m a n is a m e g a l o m a n i a c
w i t h an irrational fear of J e w s w h o therefore w a n t s t h e m killed. After messengers
a n n o u n c e H a m a n s plan far a n d wide, n o b o d y either protests o n the Jews' behalf
or offers to c o m e to their defense. I n d e e d , the p o p u l a c e includes "enemies" w h o
a p p e a r willing to d o the killing. In short, this farce generally depicts n o n - J e w s in
a negative fashion.
Ruth is quite different. In c h o o s i n g a Moabite w o m a n as its protagonist, the
a u t h o r p i c k e d s o m e o n e w h o m the a u d i e n c e w o u l d view negatively f r o m the
start, for t w o reasons. First, the Torah portrays the origin of the Moabite people
t h r o u g h incest. In Genesis, Lot sleeps w i t h his elder daughter, w h o n a m e s the
resulting child Moab, w h i c h w a s u n d e r s t o o d in Israel to c o m e f r o m me'av, "from
d a d d y " ( 1 9 : 3 0 - 3 8 ) . Second, the Torah c o n t i n u e s to h o l d the Moabites at arm's
length. W h e n D e u t e r o n o m y lists n a t i o n s with w h o m intermarriage (being
"admitted into the congregation") is questionable, its most extreme strictures
apply to the Moabites:

(23:4) No . . . Moabite shall be a d m i t t e d into the congregation of the

LORD; n o n e of their d e s c e n d a n t s , even in the tenth generation, shall ever
be a d m i t t e d into the congregation of the LORD. . . . (7) You shall never
c o n c e r n yourself w i t h their welfare or benefit as long as you live.

C o n t r a r y to c o m m o n o p i n i o n (based on ancient rabbinic interpretation), I

believe that Ruth stays a foreigner t h r o u g h o u t the b o o k . She does n o t "convert
to J u d a i s m . " There was n o such t h i n g as conversion in the biblical p e r i o d . 9 T h e
f a m o u s statement of Ruth in 1 : 1 6 - 1 7 is rather a declaration of closeness to
Naomi:

Do n o t urge m e to leave y o u , to t u r n b a c k a n d not follow you. For

wherever you go, I will go; w h e r e v e r y o u lodge, I will lodge; y o u r p e o -
pie shall be m y people, a n d y o u r G o d m y God. W h e r e you die, 1 will
die, a n d there I will be b u r i e d . T h u s a n d m o r e m a y the LORD d o to m e
if a n y t h i n g b u t d e a t h parts m e f r o m you.

R u t h s p r o n o u n c e m e n t does not m a k e her into an Israelite. I n d e e d , after this dec-

laration the n a r r a t o r twice uses the p h r a s e "Ruth the Moabite" (2:2, 21), as does
Boaz (4:5, 10). Even R u t h calls herself nochnyyah ("a foreigner"; 2:10). T h e atti-
t u d e of the text seems to have been: "Once a Moabite, always a Moabite."
T h e a u t h o r of Ruth, however, d o e s n o t hold the protagonist's status as a
Moabite against her. Even as a foreign w o m a n , Ruth can enter the community.
More t h a n that, she b e c o m e s the progenitor of King David. T h u s the b o o k illus-
trates that k i n d n e s s is far m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n ethnicity. It objects to the antipa-
thy toward foreigners that may be present in Esther, an attitude that is found in
greater extreme in Ezra. According to Ezra 9:2, intermarriage is forbidden
because it allows "the holy seed [to] become intermingled with the peoples of
the land." The Book of Ruth presents an opposing perspective.

In the Same Book, in the Same Room

Let's imagine that we could place the authors of Esther and Ruth in the same
room together. W h a t might their conversation s o u n d like? In the dialogue that
follows, I play u p the apparent differences in their perspective. "R" represents the
a u t h o r of Ruth, and "E" that of Esther.

E: How can you stand being married to your Moabite wife? Don't you
k n o w that Moabites are the w o r s t — t h e y sin and cause others to sin!
And if that isn't enough, they are all the result of incest! You are going
to dilute our "holy seed" by having children with her!
R: Moabites, shmoabites! People are what they become, not h o w they are
born. A Moabite w o m a n w h o p e r f o r m s acts of kindness is better than a
Jewish m a n w h o doesn't. Don't listen to that fanatic "holy seed"
notion—it is just plain wrong. And, while we are at it, your tone makes
you s o u n d like you don't like w o m e n too m u c h either.
E: That's an overstatement. Some w o m e n are w o n d e r f u l to look at, and
w h e n they listen to their h u s b a n d s and other male relatives, good things
h a p p e n . But beware the w o m a n w h o shows i n d e p e n d e n t initiative. She
is "the highway to Sheol [hell]" (Prov. 7:27) —stay away from her!
R: That view s o u n d s shortsighted: "Beauty is illusory" (Prov. 31:30). But
more important, it's u n d u l y harsh and judgmental. 1 prefer to judge
w o m e n as we j u d g e foreigners—by what they do, not by what they are.
Don't you k n o w that a Moabite w o m a n was the ancestor of King David?
E: You don't expect me to believe that myth, d o you?

You might expect any person w h o heard such a debate to choose one side
over the other. W h a t is most remarkable about the Bible is that, here and in
many areas, it takes n o sides. Instead, diametrically o p p o s e d positions on such
f u n d a m e n t a l issues as "How do we relate to outsiders?" or "How d o we view gen-
der?" are included in one collection of books. This leads us to the overall ques-
tion of the next chapter: How did the Bible come to be formed out of so many
texts filled with conflicting viewpoints?
 27
The Creation of the Bible

An Abundance of Ignorance

W e k n o w little a b o u t the Bible's o r i g i n — h o w so m a n y b o o k s c o m p r i s i n g so

m a n y diverse ideas b e c a m e "the Bible." 1 Clearly the process h a p p e n e d in
stages, over a l o n g time. N o b o d y w o k e u p o n e m o r n i n g , decided to create the
Bible, a n d arranged the next day for all J e w s to a d o p t it as such.
T h e process w a s at least as m u c h " d o w n - u p " as " u p - d o w n . " That is, the
w i d e r p o p u l a t i o n h e l p e d to d e t e r m i n e w h a t the Bible i n c l u d e d ; it w a s n o t pri-
marily an official (rabbinic) decision. 2 I n d e e d , the Bible likely c a m e into b e i n g
before the publication of the M i s h n a h , the first great rabbinic w o r k (ca. 2 0 0
C.E.). This is w h y few rabbinic o p i n i o n s describe the Bible's d e v e l o p m e n t . In any
case, the rabbis were n o t interested in history for its o w n sake, so we n e e d to
interpret all rabbinic evidence w i t h care. Meanwhile, s o m e p r e r a b b i n i c evidence
c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s a n d o t h e r Jewish Hellenistic a u t h o r s . Also the Dead Sea
Scrolls s h e d light on the process of " h o w the Bible b e c a m e the Bible," b u t that
evidence is indirect a n d often a m b i g u o u s . In short, too m u c h of the picture is
obscure to enable m e to offer a definite time line of "project milestones."

The Canon

Until recently, scholars a d d r e s s e d the q u e s t i o n s raised above in t e r m s of the

"canon" of the Bible. Some of us, however, have recently e m p h a s i z e d that this
t e r m (related to the Greek w o r k kanon, a "reed" or a " m e a s u r i n g stick") m a y be
anachronistic in reference to the Bible; it m o r e properly refers to "a fixed stan-
d a r d (or collection of writings) that defines the faith a n d identity of a particular
religious c o m m u n i t y . " 3 T h e early C h u r c h first u s e d this t e r m w i t h reference to
lists of b o o k s that are part of the Christian Bible. It is n o t native to early Jewish
literature c o n c e r n i n g w h a t is part o f — o r e x c l u d e d f r o m — t h e Bible. Applied to
the J e w i s h Bible, "canon" has b e e n used in m a n y ways, m a k i n g it an a m b i g u o u s
and confusing term.4
For these reasons, m a n y scholars prefer to s p e a k of "the d e v e l o p m e n t of
scripture," rather t h a n "the canonization of the Bible." 5 Yet that is n o t m u c h of
an i m p r o v e m e n t . For m e at least, "scripture" is a foreign term. F u r t h e r m o r e ,
because "scripture" m e a n s merely "that w h i c h is written," it is historically i m p r e -
eise. Therefore, I prefer to frame o u r q u e s t i o n as follows: W h e n a n d h o w did a
central set of b o o k s with a particular n a m e (e.g., mikra ! ‫ מ ק ר א‬, "that w h i c h is
,
read or recited"] or kitvei ha-kodesh [‫הקדש‬ ‫ כ ת ב‬, "holy writings"]) c o m e into
being within Judaism?6
The process evolved gradually, partly because the b o o k s that n o w c o m p r i s e
the Bible were written over a period of m o r e t h a n a t h o u s a n d years (see "Other
Jewish N a m e s : A Historical Review" in c h a p t e r 2). F u r t h e r m o r e , the three-part
("tripartite") s t r u c t u r e of the Bible m o s t likely reflects historical d e v e l o p m e n t : at
first, the Torah alone w a s central. T h u s the postexilic b o o k s of E z r a - N e h e m i a h
a n d Chronicles e m p l o y phrases s u c h as "the Torah of the LORD," "the Torah of
Moses," "My [God's] Torah," a n d simply "the Torah," referring to a b o o k m u c h
like w h a t we n o w call the Torah. 7 By the Hellenistic p e r i o d , J e w s treated o t h e r
b o o k s as i m p o r t a n t a n d w o r t h y of s t u d y as well; for example, the Book of Daniel
specifically reinterprets the seventy-year oracle of J e r e m i a h (see "Reinterpre-
tation a n d Creative Philology" in c h a p t e r 21). Daniel 9:2 s p e a k s of "c0nsu1t[ing]
the sefarim ( ‫ ס פ ר י ם‬, 'books')," b u t the w o r d sefarim—even u s e d w i t h a definite
article as "the" b o o k s — i s too generic to be a technical term (that is, reflecting
texts of c o m m u n a l i m p o r t a n c e — w h a t J e w s w o u l d later call the Bible).
T h e most i m p o r t a n t d a t u m for a g r o u p of sacred b o o k s b e y o n d the Torah
comes from Josephus—the first-century-c.E. Jewish historian—who notes:
" O u r b o o k s , those of w h i c h are j u s t accredited are b u t two a n d twenty, a n d con-
tain the record for all time." 8 He is e m p l o y i n g the c o n c e p t of a set n u m b e r of
authoritative b o o k s , w h i c h he calls these "holy b o o k s . " 9 J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e e n u -
m e r a t e s t h e m . However, c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars widely agree that he m e a n s the
t w e n t y - f o u r b o o k s that we n o w call the Bible, w i t h Ruth b e i n g c o u n t e d as part
of J u d g e s , a n d L a m e n t a t i o n s as part of J e r e m i a h . 1 0 O n e reason to t h i n k so is that
the roughly c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s IV Ezra (a nonbiblical w o r k ) refers to "twenty-
four" b o o k s (14:44ff.). It s e e m s likely that these t w o sources h a d in m i n d the
s a m e collection of central b o o k s .
Until several decades ago, m a n y scholars a s s u m e d that the rabbis c o n v e n e d
a council at J a m n i a ( m o d e r n J a b n e h or Yavneh), d u r i n g w h i c h they c a n o n i z e d
the Bible. 1 1 At the e n d of the n i n e t e e n t h century, the great J e w i s h historian
Heinrich Graetz h a d p o p u l a r i z e d this view, b u t it is n o w recognized to be w r o n g .
Rabbinic literature associated with the sages of J a m n i a (late first c e n t u r y C.E.)
d o e s discuss w h e t h e r certain biblical b o o k s (such as Song of Songs or Esther)
"defile the h a n d s . " (That is the rabbis' classic technical term for a w o r k that is
biblical. 1 2 ) However, as most historians n o w a c k n o w l e d g e , rabbinic texts f r o m a
later period are not reliable for r e c o n s t r u c t i n g an earlier period. In addition, the
literary f o r m of these particular texts is suspect: they d o not have the give-and-
take of "real" rabbinic debates. Most likely, s o m e o n e c o m p o s e d these "debate"
texts to justify w h y the "problematic" (unsettling) b o o k s like Esther and
Ecclesiastes were already part of the Bible.
However, even t h o u g h rabbinic literature often refers to "twenty-four" bib-
lical b o o k s (the same n u m b e r we h a v e ) , 1 3 the entire g r o u p of sages m a y not have
shared the same Bible. 1 4 C o n s i d e r h o w they cited Ben-Sirach (a nonbiblical
second-century-B.C.E. Jewish w o r k c o m p o s e d in the land of Israel; see "Reading
Proverbs" in c h a p t e r 23). Rabbinic literature s o m e t i m e s q u o t e s Ben-Sirach using
the same citation f o r m u l a s as for b o o k s that we call biblical. 1 5 As o n e scholar h a s
observed, it "was s o m e t i m e s e x p o u n d e d m u c h like any o t h e r biblical b o o k , " 1 6
w h i c h suggests that for s o m e rabbis, Ben-Sirach w a s as authoritative as is the
Bible—and most likely for t h e m it w a s Bible! T h u s for the rabbinic p e r i o d , it
might be best to speak of a "largely closed" set of texts that c o m p r i s e d the Bible—
or several c o m p e t i n g c o n c e p t i o n s of it, w i t h s o m e sages i n c l u d i n g Ben-Sirach,
a n d o t h e r s not.
Quite possibly a "largely closed" set of texts that c o m p r i s e d the Bible, m o s t -
ly identical to o u r c u r r e n t Bible, also existed a m o n g a Jewish sect that lived in
the J u d e a n Desert, w h o s e surviving library is w h a t we n o w call the Dead Sea
Scrolls. 1 7 This c o m m u n i t y m a y not have h a d a n o t i o n of c a n o n ; at least, they h a d
n o special term for s u c h a thing. However, in their interpretive literature they did
tend to cite particular b o o k s . F u r t h e r m o r e , certain b o o k s are extant in m a n y
copies, indicating that they were especially i m p o r t a n t to the community.
Of the b o o k s that are part of the classical rabbis' Bible, only the Book of
Esther is missing a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have today; thus, the c o m -
m u n i t y probably did not c o n s i d e r that b o o k authoritative. 1 8 In contrast, o t h e r
Dead Sea Scroll texts cite the Temple Scroll a n d the Book of Jubilees as a u t h o r i -
tative. F u r t h e r m o r e , the c o m m u n i t y kept a large n u m b e r of m a n u s c r i p t s of b o t h
w o r k s . 1 g T h u s , o u r term "canonical" Bible s e e m s anachronistic for this g r o u p in
the p r e r a b b i n i c period. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that its set of authoritative
b o o k s largely, b u t not completely, o v e r l a p p e d w h a t w o u l d eventually b e c o m e
biblical for the rabbis.
The Order and the Ordering of Biblical Books

For the many centuries before Jewish scribes published books in codex form,
they preserved b o o k s in the form of separate scrolls. 2 0 In certain cases, the
scribes put several books in a single scroll—and in a particular order. O n e such
book was the Torah, which needed to be ordered because Jews read it ritually in
order as part of the lectionary. Similarly, they grouped Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
and Kings in sequence, since they tell a more or less c o n t i n u o u s story in chrono-
logical order. However, for the rest of the Bible, its books fall into no particular
order.
Certain people a n d groups (especially professional scribes!) love order.
Mesopotamian scribes often copied series of cuneiform tablets (such as lexical
lists) in arbitrary but standard orders. The resulting predictability made it easier
for readers to find what they were looking for, n o matter which copy they con-
suited. Similarly, perhaps ancient Israelite librarians may have kept biblical
scrolls in ordered cubby holes, so that they could locate the right text easily. This
may be the original function of ordering the b o o k s of the Bible. 21
The Bible shows evidence of ordering at b o t h the macro a n d the micro level.
O n the microlevel, its text is divided into books—typically, what can fit on a
scroll. (Thus, the twelve "Minor" Prophets comprise a single book or scroll, even
though it is m a d e u p of m a n y books.) 2 2
O n the macrolevel, this large collection comprises smaller collections.
Exactly h o w and w h e n this was d o n e is the subject of intense current debate:
How early is the three-part division of the Bible into Torah, Nevi'im, and
Kethuvim? W h e n a n d w h y did this tripartite division develop? Rabbinic
s o u r c e s — t h o u g h not any of the earliest such sources—do attest to a three-part
(what scholars call a "tripartite") Bible. 2 3 Scholars have f o u n d allusions to this
structure in the New Testament and a m o n g the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, these
references d o not decisively prove that the Bible was organized into three parts
as early as the first century c . E . 2 4 Indeed, Jews clearly employed a variety of
orders a n d ordering schemes in the Second Temple period, 2 5 and the tripartite
ordering was likely one of them.
The tripartite ordering was likely one of the early ordering schemes, for its
classifications are not obvious ones. As noted earlier, Daniel properly belongs
with the latter prophets; meanwhile, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, and perhaps
some other books belong with the former p r o p h e t s (see "Name a n d Structure"
in chapter 2). Thus, their present classification seems to reflect an evolution: by
the time those later books came along, the set of b o o k s k n o w n as Prophets had
already been determined, so they could not be included in that section. That is,
over time the Torah became authoritative first, then Nevi'im, and finally
Kethuvim. 2 6
This hypothesis for the evolutionary development of the tripartite canon
would also explain the stability—and lack of stability—of order within each sec-
tion. The Torah—authoritative first—is fully stable: all manuscripts have the
order as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, N u m b e r s , Deuteronomy. (Of course, given
the contents of these books, their order is not really flexible.) Within Nevi'im,
the same is true for the Former Prophets. Concerning the order of the Latter
Prophets, there is more flexibility; most manuscripts do not follow the Talmudic
order. Within Kethuvim, manuscripts show a t r e m e n d o u s variation of the order
of its b o o k s . 2 7 This accords with its p r e s u m e d status as the section becoming
authoritative latest. Quite surprisingly, the ancient sources d o not show even a
broad consensus on what the last—culminating—book of the Bible should be!

The Stabilization of the Biblical Text

A book may be authoritative even t h o u g h it does not have a fixed text. The
spelling of its words, certain whole words themselves—even whole verses—
such things could and did vary from one written copy to another. Thus, I con-
sider the issues of canonization and textual stabilization separately. Indeed, it is
highly likely that the biblical text became stable only in the early rabbinic peri-
od. By then, Jews already had a relatively clear idea as to which texts were "in"
and which were "out," and they had devised certain m e t h o d s of midrashic inter-
pretation (namely, m e t h o d s of interpretation that read the text carefully, and
even base their deductions on fine spelling variants). Functionally speaking, the
latter development allowed for fluid meaning even as the text became fixed.
As we have seen, the Dead Sea Scrolls c o m m u n i t y considered authoritative
a Bible of sorts, yet they did not have a single stable text for its b o o k s . 2 8 That
ancient desert c o m m u n i t y still proceeded to e x p o u n d their texts—sometimes in
versions that are quite different from those f o u n d in (what later crystallized as)
the Masoretic text. 2 9 In fact, in at least one case, they seem to be interpreting two
different versions of the same verse. In other words, just because they believed
a certain work to be holy and inspired did not imply that it had to exist in a sin-
gle version. 3 0 In the words of the c o n t e m p o r a r y scholar Moshe Greenberg, "Piety
is not always accompanied by a critical sense." 3 1
Based on the textual witnesses available to us, we can say that the Bible's
(consonantal) text largely stabilized by the second century C.E. We do not k n o w
exactly h o w this h a p p e n e d ; perhaps someone m a d e a master edition or recen-
sion from which other scribes copied. 3 2 Perhaps the destruction of the Second
Temple in 70 c.E. and the failure of the revolt of 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 (the Bar Kokhba
Rebellion) created a crisis that served as an impetus for creating an authoritative
text. The development of a midrashic approach (in the early second century
C . E . ) 3 3 that treated the exact spelling of each word as important may have been
influential as well in stabilizing the text.
Considering the wider range of ancient versions (and the opportunities
meanwhile for scribal errors in transmission), medieval biblical texts show
remarkably few variants. However, even that era k n e w occasional, significant
textual variants, including readings in the Babylonian Talmud that differ from
most of o u r biblical manuscripts. 3 4 The stabilization of the consonantal text con-
tinued until well after the advent of printing in the late 1400s. Even so, to this
day, a few variant spellings remain. (Of course, printing c o u l d — a n d did!—intro-
duce new errors into the text.) 3 5

How the Bible Became the Bible

Today, were we to open two texts of the Hebrew Bible, they would contain the
same books, grouped into three m a j o r parts, appearing mostly (if not entirely)
in the same order, with a well over 99% agreement on the consonants and vocal-
ization (vowels and cantillation). 1 h o p e that it is n o w clear that this consisten-
cy was the result of a long and complicated process that took place largely
behind the scenes, obscured from our view. At the beginning of the process came
the idea of a "Bible" itself. Most likely the Torah (which itself developed over
time) became authoritative first. Later, a larger Bible coalesced around the Torah,
though different groups at different times viewed the contents of this Bible dif-
ferently, ordered its books differently, and grouped it variously into major divi-
sions. In the late first or early second century, scribes seemed to stop copying all
but one particular consonantal text of this incipient Bible.
More than half a century later, guardians of the biblical text devised various
systems of marking the proper vocalization of the consonantal text. By the late
first millennium, the vocalization system associated with Aaron Ben-Asher and
with the city of Tiberius in the Galilee "won" over competing systems, giving us
the Bible as we n o w have it. 3 6 This means that in its current form (with vowels),
the Bible is only a little more than 1,000 years old!
Afterword
Reading the Bible as a Committed Jew

h u s far I have written this book in m y "scholarly" m o d e , emphasizing what

the Bible meant in its time and place. I have emphasized the importance of
the historical-critical m e t h o d , which encourages me to present facts about antiq-
uity as 1 understand them. In so doing, I have attempted to mask my personal
beliefs. These beliefs should not m a t t e r — o n e s own religion (or lack thereof)
should not decisively impact how one u n d e r s t a n d s the Hebrew Bible in its orig-
inal environment.
Many w h o have just completed this b o o k would guess that I, as its author,
lack religious convictions altogether. After all, it is easy to read the previous
pages as an acute case of "Bible bashing." I have emphasized the composite
nature of the Bible, treating it as a h u m a n , rather than a divine, work. I have con-
textualized it in the ancient Near East, rather than treating it as a timeless book.
I have m a d e the following claims: the beginning of Genesis is a "myth"; the
Exodus did not h a p p e n ; and Joshua did not fight the battle of Jericho and make
the walls come tumbling down. Further, I have stated that m u c h of the materi-
al in the Bibles historical texts is not historical; that not everything found in the
work k n o w n as Amos (or Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel) was written by Amos
(or Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel); and that David c o m p o s e d n o n e of the
psalms. I have asserted that not only is the Song of Songs a secular work, but
that m u c h of the Bible is also, for it was influenced by (secular) ideology as m u c h
as by religion.
I am, in fact, an observant Jew. I take the Bible quite seriously in my per-
sonal life. It is not merely a book from which 1 make a living (as a teacher and
author). Rather, it stands at the core of w h o I a m as a person, and as a Jew.
There is n o single way to place the Bible at o n e s core. Indeed, the ways of
viewing the Bible as a religious text are at least as n u m e r o u s as the people w h o
puzzle it out. Thus, I do not intend what follows as the way to reconcile the
scholars' critical approach with a religious (Jewish) life. Instead, 1 simply wish
to explain h o w I negotiate not merely w h a t the Bible m e a n t (the subject of the
previous chapters), b u t also w h a t the Bible m e a n s to me.

From Sourcebook to Textbook

In a nutshell, here is m y view of the Bible as a Jew: The Bible is a sourcebook that
I—within my community—make into a textbook. I do so by selecting, revaluing, and
interpreting the texts that I call sacred.
"Sourcebooks" are n o t the s a m e as "textbooks." A s o u r c e b o o k , by n a t u r e ,
p r e s e n t s m a n y perspectives, w h e r e a s a t e x t b o o k — i n o r d e r to be c o g e n t — a d o p t s
a particular p o i n t of view. An e c o n o m i c s t e x t b o o k that was b o t h Keynesian a n d
Marxist, or an i n t r o d u c t o r y literary t e x t b o o k that was b o t h new-critical a n d
deconstructivist, w o u l d be c o n f u s i n g , as c o n f u s i n g , i n d e e d , as the Bible itself.
However, a b r o a d - m i n d e d professor t e a c h i n g " I n t r o d u c t i o n to Economics" c o u l d
create a s o u r c e b o o k s h o w i n g a variety of a p p r o a c h e s , i n c l u d i n g the Keynesian
a n d the Marxist. Likewise, a g o o d literature professor m i g h t c o m p i l e readings
that e n c o u r a g e d s t u d e n t s to analyze the same text f r o m c o m p e t i n g theoretical
perspectives.
The Bible as it presents itself, "off the shelf," is a s o u r c e b o o k . It c o m e s f r o m
m a n y places a n d times; it conveys the interests of m a n y different groups. W i t h i n
it, we can find m o r e t h a n o n e o p i n i o n o n almost any single item of i m p o r -
t a n c e — t h e n a t u r e of G o d , the corporeality of G o d , intergenerational p u n i s h -
m e n t , the relationship b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n , the attitude t o w a r d foreigners,
retribution, etc. In this sense, the Bible is surely m o r e s o u r c e b o o k t h a n text-
book.1
Yet, in o r d e r to take the Bible seriously in m y religious life—as a guide for
various issues—1 m u s t m a k e it into s o m e t h i n g m o r e authoritative. G u i d e b o o k s
d o n o t say: at the fork in the road, take either a right, a left, or t u r n a r o u n d .
Rather, they m a k e decisions, they c h o o s e b e t w e e n options. T h u s , w h e n I con-
front the Bible as a practicing Jew, I t r a n s f o r m it into a m o r e m o n o l i t h i c b o o k .

Selection

As n o t e d , I m a k e the Bible into a t e x t b o o k in several ways. The simplest is

t h r o u g h "selection"—choosing o n e of the o p t i o n s that the Bible offers. H o w a n d
w h y I m a k e those choices is a c o m p l i c a t e d (and personal) issue. At any rate, in
part I d o this w i t h i n m y religious c o m m u n i t y — a n d in part I choose a c o m m u -
nity that h a s already m a d e c o m p a t i b l e choices. Such c o m m u n i t i e s m i g h t be a
synagogue c o m m u n i t y , a c o m m u n i t y of l i k e - m i n d e d friends, or an e x t e n d e d
family. As personal as religion is, it has a very s t r o n g social d i m e n s i o n , a n d t h u s
m y f i n d i n g a religious c o m m u n i t y is crucial to m e . ( W h e n p e o p l e s beliefs
change, they m a y m o v e f r o m one c o m m u n i t y to another, f i n d i n g g r o u p s that
view the Bible a n d its interpretation in a similar fashion.)
Selecting f r o m a m o n g the Bible's sources is n o t h i n g new. Already in the b i b -
lical p e r i o d its a u t h o r s a n d editors did so. As we saw earlier in this b o o k , the edi-
tor of Chronicles k n e w sources describing m o r e t h a n one way to cook the
paschal lamb. By claiming that it s h o u l d be boiled (2 C h r o n . 3 5 : 1 3 ) , that a u t h o r
selected D e u t e r o n o m y 16:7 over E x o d u s 12:9. True, that a u t h o r gave a n o d to the
E x o d u s text b y m e n t i o n i n g fire (see "Rewriting History" in c h a p t e r 14).
However, the b o t t o m line w a s a choice: the editor selected the ritual practice in
D e u t e r o n o m y 16:7, setting the o t h e r practice aside.
Classical m i d r a s h (and medieval Jewish commentary, w h i c h followed in its
w a k e ) h a s f u n c t i o n e d similarly. 2 As I m e n t i o n e d in c h a p t e r 1, E x o d u s 2 1 : 6
allows a H e b r e w to be a "slave for life," w h e r e a s Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 insists that all
s u c h slaves "shall serve w i t h you only until the jubilee year"; the editor of the
Mekhilta resolved the a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n b y reinterpreting "for life" as m e a n -
ing "until the jubilee year." This w a s creative philology (see "Reinterpretation
a n d Creative Philology" in c h a p t e r 21). Some m i g h t speak of this as reconciling
these two texts. However, practically speaking, the m i d r a s h i c editor selected
Leviticus 2 5 : 4 0 over E x o d u s 2 1 : 6 . (This is ironic given that the Mekhilta is a
m i d r a s h on E x o d u s . )
So, too, as I engage the Bible: After carefully c o n s i d e r i n g its texts, I use selec-
tion to a d o p t s o m e texts as m o r e m e a n i n g f u l to m e t h a n others.

Revaluation

Sometimes, w h e n c o n f r o n t i n g a particular issue, I find that all the biblical texts

are p r o b l e m a t i c for one reason or another. In s u c h cases, I m u s t a c k n o w l e d g e
that the Bible is an ancient text; it hails f r o m a society f u n d a m e n t a l l y different
f r o m ours. P e r h a p s it h a s n o t always aged well. Therefore I m u s t actively "trans-
late" the text into t e r m s that fit o u r society. This is extremely difficult to d o w i t h
integrity, yet in s o m e areas, especially c o n c e r n i n g matters of sex a n d g e n d e r
(what "real m e n " a n d "real w o m e n " do), it is the only w o r k a b l e a p p r o a c h . I t h e n
distinguish w h a t the text originally meant (in its original historical context) f r o m
w h a t it n o w means (taking into c o n s i d e r a t i o n certain key differences b e t w e e n
ancient Israelite antiquity and m o d e r n times). 3 I assign the new meaning by
modernizing the text quite carefully.

Interpretation

Interpretation, even radical interpretation, has always played a role in making

sense of the Bible. As we saw in a prior chapter, the author of the Book of Daniel
wrote that his protagonist "consulted the books concerning the n u m b e r of years
that, according to the word of the L O R D that had come to Jeremiah the prophet,
were to be the term of Jerusalem's desolation—seventy years" (Dan. 9:2). As a
result of this reckoning with Jeremiah's earlier prophecy (and with the help of
the angel Gabriel), Daniel realized that "70 years" really meant 4 9 0 years (see
"Reinterpretation a n d Creative Philology" in chapter 21).
Examples of similarly radical reinterpretation a b o u n d in rabbinic literature.
Amos 5:2 reads in part, straightforwardly: D p ‫"( נ פ ל ה ל א ת ו ס י ף‬Fallen, not to
rise again,") / ‫"( ב ת ו ל ת י ש ר א ל‬Is Maiden Israel"). Some rabbinic interpreters
found this sentiment unacceptably hopeless. They repunctuated this verse to
read: ‫"( נ פ ל ה ל א‬Fallen—no!") / ‫"( ת ס י ף ק ו ם‬Again to rise") / ‫"( ב ת ו ל ת י ש ר א ל‬Is
Maiden Israel"). 4 Syntactically, this interpretation is impossible, but it shows
h o w radical interpretation can arise out of necessity. Radical interpretation main-
tains the place of the biblical text as central within Judaism but allows it to be
e x p o u n d e d in a fashion that its original authors would hardly recognize. This
m e t h o d continues to be important today.

Final Words

The approach that I have laid out here allows me to walk something of a
tightrope between being a serious historical-critical Bible scholar, emphasizing
prerabbinic n o r m s of biblical interpretation and taking the Bible seriously as a
Jew, incorporating postbiblical, rabbinic norms. Many feel that these roles are
mutually incompatible. Yet, as m y s u p p o r t i n g examples show, this approach has
roots in b o t h biblical a n d rabbinic texts. J u d a i s m as it has evolved is more than
biblical religion, just as Jews are more than only Karaites—and even Karaites
have adopted m a n y practices not mentioned in the Bible. 5 Yet we retain some
continuity in our approaches to a text that we hold sacred.
The historical-critical m e t h o d , with its emphasis on the prerabbinic mean-
ing of diverse texts, might seem to be antirabbinic. Not so. Classic rabbinic texts
are typically p u n c t u a t e d with the p h r a s e davar acher ( ‫ ד ב ר א ח ר‬, "another o p i n -
ion"), used to separate distinct opinions. Frequently, rabbinic texts offer as m a n y
diverse o p i n i o n s as biblical texts d o . 6 In o t h e r w o r d s , the Bible is really m u c h
m o r e like a rabbinic text t h a n people t h i n k — i t is full of cases of "another o p i n -
ion." The m a i n difference between the Bible a n d classic rabbinic texts is that the
Bible m a r k s its distinct o p i n i o n s less forthrightly. Yet in light of the historical-
critical m e t h o d , the Bible a p p e a r s as a compilation of diverse s o u r c e s — t h a t is,
closer to the s t r u c t u r e of m u c h of rabbinic literature.
I n d e e d , a small n u m b e r of rabbinic texts seem to recognize the c o m p o s i t e
n a t u r e of the Torah. Certainly, n o rabbinic text says that the Torah w a s written
by J, E, D, a n d P. However, an early medieval m i d r a s h i c w o r k , Pesikta de-Rav
Kahana, describes the revelation at Sinai, suggesting that it was not monolithic:
"R. H a n i n a bar Papa said: T h e Holy O n e a p p e a r e d to Israel with a stern face,
w i t h an e q u a n i m o u s face, w i t h a friendly face, w i t h a j o y o u s face . . ."—all of
w h i c h , w i t h the same authority, r e p r e s e n t e d the same G o d . ' The m i d r a s h pro-
ceeds to present a n o t h e r tradition describing G o d at the m o m e n t of revelation
as "a statue w i t h faces on every side." In o t h e r w o r d s , each individual present
gained a u n i q u e l y personal view of God.
The historical-critical m e t h o d exemplified in the b o o k a s s u m e s that we can
n o longer recover the single t r u t h of w h a t the Torah describes as Revelation, n o r
of o t h e r religious issues that the ancient H e b r e w texts address. The most we can
d o is to recognize the "faces on every side"—the multiple ancient p e r c e p t i o n s of
God, preserved in o u r c o m p o s i t e Bible.
Notes

Chapter 1

1. I h a v e b o r r o w e d this characterization of traditional biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

f r o m J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press,
1997), 1 8 - 2 3 . He e x p a n d s that b o o k in his Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to
the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d
Univ. Press, 1998). He m a k e s similar o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t a later p e r i o d in his
In Potiphar's House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco:
H a r p e r a n d Row, 1990).
2. For a translation of Pesher H a b a k k u k , see Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead
Sea Scrolls ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , UK: P e n g u i n , 1997), 4 7 8 - 8 5 ; see esp. 4 7 9
( f r o m the m i d d l e of c o l u m n 2): "the priest [in w h o s e heart] G o d set [ u n d e r -
s t a n d i n g ] that he m i g h t i n t e r p r e t all the w o r d s of His servants the p r o p h e t s ,
t h r o u g h w h o m he foretold all that w o u l d h a p p e n to His p e o p l e a n d [His
l a n d ] " a n d 4 8 1 : "the Teacher of Righteousness, to w h o m G o d m a d e k n o w n
all the mysteries of the w o r d s of His servants the Prophets." F o r a discussion
of Pesher literature, see Shani L. Berrin, "Pesharim," in The Encyclopedia of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. S c h i f f m a n a n d J a m e s C. V a n d e r K a m ,
2.644-47.
3. Classical r a b b i n i c c o m m e n t a r y ( m i d r a s h ) e x p l a i n s the E x o d u s p h r a s e "in
p e r p e t u i t y " w i t h the w o r d s "until the j u b i l e e year." See, for e x a m p l e , J a c o b
Z. L a u t e r b a c h , ed. a n d trans., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia:
J e w i s h Publication Society, 1 9 3 5 ; reissued 2 0 0 4 ) , 3.17.
4. See esp. Ibn Ezra's c o m m e n t a r y to Gen. 3 6 : 3 1 .
5. B a r u c h Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, (trans. Samuel Shirley
(Leiden: Brill, 1991).
 6. Ibid., 141.
7. For a d e s c r i p t i o n of the m e t h o d itself, see J o h n Barton, "Historical-Critical
A p p r o a c h e s , " in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. J o h n
Barton ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, 1 9 9 8 ) , 9 - 2 0 . For d e s c r i p t i o n s
of the d e v e l o p m e n t of this m e t h o d , see The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3
vols. ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, 1 9 6 3 - 7 0 ) , a n d the series Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k
& R u p r e c h t , 1 9 9 6 - ). For an outline of the m e t h o d , see Edgar Krentz, The
Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).
8. T h e t e r m "historical-critical" m a y date f r o m the s e v e n t e e n t h century.
9. J u l i u s W e l l h a u s e n , Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Gloucester,
MA: Peter Smith, 1973). M u c h of the b o o k brilliantly synthesizes earlier
findings. It separates the Bible, especially the Torah, i n t o sources that are
d a t e d to particular time periods. T h e n it p u t s those s o u r c e s b a c k together
a c c o r d i n g to a posited historical d e v e l o p m e n t of Israelite religion.
10. T h e w o r k s of the G e r m a n rabbi David Zvi H o f f m a n n are the m o s t significant
of those w h o decried Wellhausen's a p p r o a c h . A m o n g his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s
w h o d e f e n d e d the historical-critical m e t h o d w a s a n o t h e r G e r m a n - e d u c a t e d
rabbi, the A m e r i c a n Reform leader K a u f m a n n Kohler.
11. S o l o m o n Schechter, Seminary Addresses and Other Papers (Cincinnati, O H :
Ark P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1915), 3 5 - 3 9 .
12. Ibid., 38.
13. Prolegomena, 2 2 7 . O n W e l l h a u s e n s i n d e b t e d n e s s to the age he lived in for
his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of J u d a i s m , see Lou H. Silberman, "Wellhausen and
J u d a i s m , " Semeia 2 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 7 5 - 8 2 .
14. Schechter, Seminary Address, 37.
15. T h e Jewish Study Bible ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 4 ) is f u r t h e r proof
of h o w far this m e t h o d h a s s p r e a d ; t w o d e c a d e s ago it w o u l d have b e e n
i m p o s s i b l e to find e n o u g h J e w i s h scholars c o m m i t t e d to the historical-crit-
ical m e t h o d to c o m p l e t e that b o o k .
16. Barry Holtz, ed., Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts ( N e w
York: S u m m i t Books, 1984).
17. Richard Elliott F r i e d m a n h a s w r i t t e n several excellent readable w o r k s on
the Bible. However, his Who Wrote the Bible (San Francisco: H a r p e r S a n
Franciso, 1997) is not Jewishly sensitive, a n d his m o r e recent Commentary
on the Torah with English Translation and Hebrew Text (San Francisco:
H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s o , 1997) d o e s n o t use source criticism.
18. T h e classic of this genre is O t t o Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction,
(trans. Peter A. Ackroyd ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1965). For a survey
 of the genre, see Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As
Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 2 7 - 4 5 .
19. For those interested in m o r e detailed theoretical discussions of m e t h o d o l o -
gy, see J o h n Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study
(revised a n d enlarged edition; Louisville, KY: Westminster J o h n Knox,
1996); Douglass A. Knight, ed., Methods 0J Biblical Interpretation (Nashville,
TN: A b i n g d o n , 2 0 0 4 ) .

Chapter 2

1. T h e Greek w o r d biblia, in t u r n , likely derives f r o m the Phoenician port city

of Byblos, a m a j o r exporter of p a p y r u s , f r o m w h i c h the ancients m a d e most
of their books. Paper reached the West f r o m C h i n a only in the late first mil-
l e n n i u m c.E.
2. See 2 C o r i n t h i a n s 3 : 1 4 a n d H e b r e w s 8:7.
3. As a technical term for a b o d y of literature, "Old Testament" was first u s e d
by Melito of Sardis a n d the C h u r c h Fathers Tertullian a n d Origen, w h o lived
f r o m the s e c o n d to the third centuries c.E.
4. Semitic languages (or dialects) in the ancient Near East i n c l u d e d A k k a d i a n ,
Phoenician, Ugaritic, Moabite, Aramaic, a n d Hebrew. W h e n in this b o o k I
refer to "Semitic cultures," I m e a n the civilizations that p r o d u c e d d o c u m e n t s
or inscriptions in these languages. F r o m that evidence we k n o w that those
cultures shared a great deal in t e r m s of their o u t l o o k a n d way of life.
5. This b o o k uses the d a t i n g s c h e m a B.C.E. (Before the C o m m o n Era) a n d c . E .
( C o m m o n Era) for the designations B.c. a n d A.D., respectively. T h e dates are
equivalent.
6. See J o s e p h u s , Antiquities 10.210, 1 3 . 1 6 7 , 16.168, 2 0 . 2 6 4 ; Against Apion
1.54, 127, 228. A n o t h e r ancient J e w w h o wrote in Greek, Philo, e m p l o y e d
a similar phrase, hai hierai graphai, in his Abraham 61, de congressu 34, 90;
Decalogue 8, 37; a n d elsewhere. (See also J o s e p h u s in Against Apion 2.45.)
These references were s u p p l i e d by Professor Shaye D. C o h e n .
7. See Against Apion 1.42. This m a y be f o u n d in H. St. J. Thackery, trans.,
Josephus I: The Life; Against Apion, Loeb Classical Library ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:
Harvard Univ. Press, 1926), 1 7 8 - 7 9 .
8. T h e s e c o n d term overlaps w i t h the earlier Greek n o m e n c l a t u r e . For these
a n d other rabbinic t e r m s for the entire Bible a n d its sections, see Sid Z.
Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic
Evidence ( H a m d e n , CT: A r c h o n Books, 1976), 57.
 9. Ibid., 6 0 - 7 2 .
10. Frederick Ε. G r e e n s p a h n , " H o w J e w s Translate the Bible," in Biblical
Translation in Context, ed. Frederick W K n o b l o c h (Bethesda: Univ. Press of
Maryland, 2 0 0 2 ) , 5 2 - 5 3 .
11. Roland E. Murphy, "Old T e s t a m e n t / T a n a k h — C a n o n a n d Interpretation," in
Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying the Bible in Judaism and Christianity,
ed. Roger Brooks a n d J o h n J. Collins (Notre D a m e , IN: Univ. of Notre Dame,
1990), 1 1 - 2 9 .
12. Apart f r o m the Torah, J e w s have a r r a n g e d the biblical b o o k s in m a n y o t h e r
orders. See the discussion in Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture,
5 1 - 5 3 . See also the charts in Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the
Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible ( 1 8 9 7 ; repr., H o b o k e n , NJ:
Ktav, 1966), 108. G i n s b u r g w o r k e d w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e of the i m p o r t a n t
t h o u s a n d - y e a r - o l d Bible m a n u s c r i p t k n o w n as the Aleppo C o d e x (and relat-
ed c o d e x e s s u c h as Leningrad B19a). T h e o r d e r of Kethuvim in Aleppo is:
Chronicles, Psalms, J o b , Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, E z r a - N e h e m i a h .
13. This is the first of the " F o r m e r Prophets"; three o t h e r s follow.
14. Although English Bibles list Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, a n d Ezra-Nehemiah as
two b o o k s apiece, originally they were each a single book. Because those b o o k s
were quite long, later editors split each one into two parts for convenience.
15. Many m a n u s c r i p t s placed J o b before Proverbs.
16. Jewish scribes a n d editors have t e n d e d to g r o u p together five relatively short
b o o k s (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, a n d Esther), plac-
ing t h e m usually w i t h i n K e t h u v i m or s o m e t i m e s right after the Torah, at the
start of Nevi'im. W i t h i n this collection, w h i c h is o f t e n called the Chamesh
Megillot ("Five Scrolls"), their o r d e r has b e e n highly variable. The o r d e r
s h o w n reflects the s e q u e n c e in w h i c h J e w s read t h e m d u r i n g the liturgical
year. A n o t h e r c o m m o n a r r a n g e m e n t reflects the chronological o r d e r in
w h i c h they were written according to rabbinic ascription.
17. Three b o o k s (Isaiah, J e r e m i a h , a n d Ezekiel) f o r m a set called "Major
Prophets," w h e r e "major" refers to the length of the books. W i t h i n this set,
Jewish scribes a n d editors have a r r a n g e d the b o o k s in different sequences.
18. "Minor" in this context m e a n s "short." T h e twelve are Hosea, Joel, Amos,
O b a d i a h , J o n a h , Micah, N a h u m , H a b a k k u k , Z e p h a n i a h , Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi. In H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s a n d p r i n t e d editions, these twelve texts
always a p p e a r in the same order.
19. Too m u c h e m p h a s i s s h o u l d n o t b e placed o n Chronicles as the "last" b o o k
of the Bible—this is n o t its p o s i t i o n in m a n y of the m o s t accurate early
manuscripts.
20. As stated, the Septuagint w a s originally a Jewish translation. For centuries,
m a n y J e w s s p o k e Greek as their first language, a n d they used various Greek
translations of the Bible. For e x a m p l e , the J u d e a n Desert c o m m u n i t y w h o s e
library we n o w call the Dead Sea Scrolls k e p t Greek translations o n h a n d
(see the s u m m a r y in Eugene Ulrich, "Septuagint," Encyclopedia of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, 2 . 8 6 3 - 6 8 ) . However, the Septuagint w a s preserved in its entire-
ty only w i t h i n the Christian community. Scholarly literature on the
Septuagint a n d its origin is i m m e n s e ; see recently Natalio Fernandez
Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible,
trans. Wilfred G. E. W a t s o n (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2 0 0 1 ) .
21. In antiquity this was the p r e d o m i n a n t o r d e r of these four sections, b u t n o t
the only a r r a n g e m e n t . See the lists a n d detailed discussion in H e n r y Barclay
Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e
Univ. Press, 1902), 1 9 7 - 2 3 0 ; for less complete, b u t less technical discus-
sion, see Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church and Its Background in Early Judaism ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s ,
1985), 1 8 1 - 2 3 4 .
22. The Septuagint placed Ruth after J u d g e s , a p p a r e n t l y because the t w o are
recognized as o c c u r r i n g in the same time period (see Ruth 1:1). It also
placed Lamentations after the Book of J e r e m i a h , the p r o p h e t w h o is said to
have written those laments.
23. T h e division into two parts of s o m e of the larger b o o k s (Samuel, Kings,
Chronicles, E z r a - N e h e m i a h ) is f o u n d already in the Septuagint. Greek tra-
dition also assigned different n a m e s to s o m e of the biblical b o o k s ; for e x a m -
pie, w h a t we call Chronicles, they called Paralipomena, "that w h i c h w a s
o m i t t e d [from Samuel a n d Kings]."
24. In Septuagint m a n u s c r i p t s , the p r e d o m i n a n t order of the Twelve differs f r o m
that f o u n d in H e b r e w Bibles. However, English Bibles typically o r d e r the
Twelve according to their H e b r e w order.
25. For a chart of these differences, see JSB, 2 1 1 8 - 1 9 .
26. b. BavaBatra 14b-15a.

Chapter 3

1. M u c h of this chapter, a n d the title of this b o o k , is based o n J o h n Barton,

Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, rev. a n d enl. ed.
(Louisville, KY: Westminster J o h n Knox, 1996).
2. Barton's term for reading the Bible like an ancient Israelite is "literary c o m -
petence" (see the previous note).
3. J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997),
18-23.
4. This p o e m is q u o t e d in T h o m a s E. Sanders, The Discovery of Poetry (Atlanta:
Scott, F o r e s m a n a n d C o m p a n y , 1967), 33.
5. O u r lack of i n f o r m a n t s m a y have m o v e d m a n y readers, a n d s o m e scholars,
away f r o m the historical-critical m e t h o d , w h i c h they see as overly conjec-
tural a n d unverifiable. This is an exaggerated reaction. Many of the results
of historical-critical analyses can be trusted with a high degree of confi-
dence.

Chapter 4

1. Based o n linguistic evidence, most scholars consider the Song of D e b o r a h in

J u d g e s 5 to be the earliest piece of biblical literature. Portions of the Book of
Daniel are typically dated to b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164 B.C.E., based on internal
references to historical events.
2. For additional literature o n the theoretical issues discussed here, see m y
b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient Israel ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995);
"The C o p e n h a g e n School: T h e Historiographical Issues," AJS Review 27
( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 2 1 ; a n d V Philips Long, ed., Israel's Past in Present Research: Essays
on Ancient Israelite Historiography, Sources for Biblical a n d Theological Study
7 ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1999).
3. The m o s t f a m o u s of these in America was by J o h n Bright, recently r e p u b -
lished in a f o u r t h ( p o s t h u m o u s ) edition.
4. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, A n c h o r Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964),
XL-XLI, 9 1 - 9 3 .
5. This t e n d e n c y p e r v a d e s the w o r k of William Foxwell Albright, a n d m a y be
seen especially in his synthesis, From Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism
and the Historical Process ( G a r d e n City, NY: Anchor, 1957). The b o o k also
displays a significant Christian bias. For an i m p o r t a n t critique of Albright,
see Burke O. Long, Planting and Reaping Albright: Politics, Ideology, and
Interpreting the Bible (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1997).
6. T h o m a s L. T h o m p s o n , The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest
for the Historical Abraham, BZAW 133 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974).
7. J o h n Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale
Univ. Press, 1975).
8. See, e.g., Kathleen Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 3 r d ed. ( N e w York:
Praeger, 1970), 2 1 1 .
9. See the s u m m a r y in Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible
10,000-586 B.C.E., A n c h o r Bible ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1990),
3 2 8 - 3 8 . For a recent detailed synthesis, see William G. Dever, Who Were the
Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids MI:
E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 ) . For a p o p u l a r summary, see A m y Dockser Marcus, The
View from Nebo: How Archaeology is Rewriting and Reshaping the Middle East
(Boston: Little, Brown, 2 0 0 0 ) , 7 8 - 1 0 4 .
10. See the s u m m a r y a n d critique in m y article "The C o p e n h a g e n School: The
Historiographical Issues," AJS Review 2 7 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 2 1 .
11. T h e literature o n theoretical biases is n o w i m m e n s e . See especially the
w o r k s of T h o m p s o n a n d Lemche f r o m the C o p e n h a g e n School, as well as a
variety of a u t h o r s p u b l i s h i n g in the SJOT. For critiques, see the article cited
in n. 10 a n d various w o r k s by Dever. T h e d i s p u t e is reflected in the variety
of articles f o u n d in Lester L. G r a b b e , ed., Can A 'History of Israel' Be Written?
J S O T S u p 2 4 5 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
12. Accusations of anti-Zionism have b e e n leveled in particular against Keith W
W h i t e l a m , The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History
( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1996).
13. For m o r e o n the methodological issues in u s i n g the Bible as a historical
source, see m y b o o k The Creation of History a n d the various b o o k s a n d arti-
cles cited above.
14. For m a n y e x a m p l e s f r o m various cultures, see Bertil Albrektson, History and
the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in
the Ancient Near East and in Israel, CBOT 1 ( L u n d ; Gleerup, 1967).
15. COS, 2 . 1 3 7 .
16. Assyrian scribes, however, recopied their annals extensively since they were
u p d a t e d annually. S o m e t i m e s in this process, they w o u l d revise a n d s h o r t e n
the events of earlier years; see Louis D. Levine, "Manuscripts, Texts a n d the
S t u d y of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions," in F M. Fales, ed., Assyrian
Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons (Rome: Instituto per LOriente, 1981),
49-70.
17. Detailed discussion of the reliability of textual transmission m a y be f o u n d in
E m a n u e l Τον, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2 n d rev. ed. (Minneapolis,
MN: A u g s b u r g Fortress, 2 0 0 1 ) .
18. Many b o o k s bear titles like "A/The History of (Ancient) Israel," w h i c h the
following s u m m a r y d r a w s u p o n . Two of the m o r e recent s u c h b o o k s are
Iaian Provan, V. Philips Long, a n d T r e m p e r L o n g m a n III, A Biblical History of
Israel (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d Victor H.
Matthews, A Brief History of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n
 Knox, 2 0 0 3 — s e e also his theoretical discussion on 3 - 9 7 ) . These lean
t o w a r d the conservative side in t e r m s of u p h o l d i n g as m u c h of the biblical
narrative as possible.
19. See D o n a l d B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992), 2 5 7 - 8 0 ; n o t e especially 2 6 0 , w h e r e he
accuses m a n y biblical scholars of " m a n h a n d l i n g of evidence." Contrast the
view of J a m e s K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity
of the Exodus Tradition ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1997).
20. Biblical scholars have not reached a c o n s e n s u s o n exactly w h a t the Israelite
s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g was, or even a b o u t w h e n the ancestral stories were writ-
ten. C o m p a r e , e.g., E. T h e o d o r e Mullen, Jr., Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal
Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch (Atlanta:
Scholars, 1997) to Ρ Kyle McCarter a n d Ronald S. H e n d e l , "The Patriarchal
Age: A b r a h a m , Isaac a n d Jacob," in Hershel Shanks, ed., Ancient Israel, rev.
a n d exp. ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999), 1 - 3 1 .
21. COS, 2.41.
22. I. Eph'al, "The W e s t e r n Minorities in Babylonia in the 6 t h - 5 t h Centuries
B.C.: Maintenance a n d C o h e s i o n , " Orientalia 47 (1978), 74-90.

Chapter 5

1. See G. Ε Moore, "The Vulgate C h a p t e r s a n d N u m b e r e d Verses in the H e b r e w

Bible," in Sid Z. Leiman, ed., The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An
Introductory Reader( N e w York: Ktav, 1974), 8 1 5 - 2 0 .
2. See E m a n u e l Τον, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2 0 0 1 ) , 5 0 - 5 1 , 2 1 0 - 1 1 .
3. See Τον, 5 2 - 5 3 , a n d L. Blau, "Massoretic Studies, III.-IV: The Division into
Verses," in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, ed. Sid Z. Leiman,
623-64.
4. O n the division b e t w e e n w o r d s , see Τον, 2 0 8 - 9 , 2 5 2 - 5 3 .
5. F r o m comparative linguistic evidence a n d ancient translations, scholars
have d e t e r m i n e d that in the period of the Bible, the c o n s o n a n t vav (1) rep-
resented a "w" s o u n d . That is w h y scholars often write the unvocalized
divine n a m e as "YHWH" rather t h a n "YHVH."
6. See Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: Univ.
of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). In fact, the m o s t f a m o u s part of this c o m p o s i -
tion, the flood story of tablet 11, reflects a r e w o r k i n g of the earlier Atra-
Hasis epic.
7. See especially 4 Q p a l e o E x o d m , w h i c h h a s m a n y e x p a n s i o n s of the type seen
in the Samaritan Pentateuch. See DJD 9, 6 8 - 7 0 .
8. For a p o p u l a r i n t r o d u c t i o n to source criticism, see Richard Elliott F r i e d m a n ,
Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997); Israel
Knohl, The Divine Symphony: The Bible's Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 8 5 . For a color-coded delineation of these
sources, see Richard Elliott F r i e d m a n , The Bible with Sources Revealed (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2 0 0 3 ) . For a m o r e technical discussion, see
Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius
Wellhausen (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1998).
9. See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: O x f o r d
Univ. Press, 1985), w h o argues for a slowly d e v e l o p i n g c a n o n , or a c a n o n
w i t h i n a c a n o n . More specifically, o n the retention of legal sections of
E x o d u s that were reinterpreted in Deuteronomy, see Bernard M. Levinson,
Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation ( N e w York: O x f o r d
Univ. Press, 1997).
10. George Foot Moore, "Tatiaris D i a t e s s a r o n and the Analysis of the
Pentateuch," in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay
(Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 2 4 3 - 5 6 .
11. For additional models, see Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism.

Chapter 6

1. T h e literature by a n d a b o u t creationism is i m m e n s e . T h e following w e b site

offers a g o o d sense of t h e principles and agendas of creationists:
http://www.creationism.org.
2. For a recent discussion of the p r o b l e m of genre a n d p r e m o d e r n texts, see
Bert Roest a n d H e r m a n Vanstiphout, eds., Aspects of Genre and Type in Pre-
Modern Literary Cultures (Groningen: Styx, 1999).
3. Walter Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley:
Univ. of California Press, 1979).
4. Ibid., 28.
5. For m o r e on m e t a p h o r s , see m y God is King: Understanding an Israelite
Metaphor, J S O T S u p 76 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).
6. Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, 1 - 3 4 , esp. 23.
7. See, e.g., J o h n Carlos Rowe, "Structure," in F r a n k Lentricchia a n d T h o m a s
McLaughlin, eds., Critical Terms for Literary Study (Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1990), 2 3 - 3 8 . A m o n g biblical scholars of the late t w e n t i e t h
 century, J. Ρ F o k k e l m a n e m p h a s i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of structure; see e.g. his
Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville, KY: Westminster
J o h n Knox, 1999), 9 7 - 1 1 1 .
8. T h e fact that m a n y of these structural e l e m e n t s are not evenly d i s t r i b u t e d
t h r o u g h o u t Genesis 1 h a s led m a n y scholars to suggest that this first creation
story has a long prehistory, a n d h a s i n c o r p o r a t e d e l e m e n t s of earlier stories.
This is likely correct, yet it does n o t affect m y basic a r g u m e n t a b o u t the
s t r u c t u r e a n d m e a n i n g of this m y t h .
9. Since the p r e d o m i n a n t image of G o d in the Bible is as male, a n d t h r o u g h -
out the H e b r e w Bible "God" is always treated as grammatically male, I will
e m p l o y the masculine p r o n o u n t h r o u g h o u t this b o o k in reference to God.
Historical-critical m e t h o d o l o g y is i n d e b t e d to the n o r m s of the past w h i c h
it is trying to recapture, rather t h a n the preferences of c o n t e m p o r a r y reli-
gious practice. The use of the m a s c u l i n e p r o n o u n t h r o u g h o u t the Bible—
a n d in this b o o k — s h o u l d have n o bearing on m o d e r n theological issues, on
h o w we might envision G o d , n o r w h a t p r o n o u n s we might use in c o n t e m -
p o r a r y discourse.
10. This s t r u c t u r e is p o i n t e d o u t in m o s t c o m m e n t a r i e s ; in greater detail see
Bernhard W A n d e r s o n , "The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study," in
From Creation to New Creation, OBT (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994),
42-55.
11. As in the M e s o p o t a m i a n m y t h E n u m a Elish (often incorrectly called T h e
M e s o p o t a m i a n Creation Story), light exists before the creation of the lumi-
naries.
12. As argued by several scholars, it is likely that this creation story is actually
the p r o d u c t of "H," a later representation of the Priestly School, rather t h a n
Ρ itself, b u t this is not i m p o r t a n t at this point.
13. T h u s , the m a i n t h e m e of Rudolf O t t o , The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the
Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational
( L o n d o n : O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1925) is correct, b u t only to a limited degree
in the Bible.
14. For early Jewish a n d Christian interpretations, see J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible
as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997), 6 1 - 6 3 .
15. See Claus W e s t e r m a n n , Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1984),
145.
16. See m y b o o k God Is King, 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 .
17. See especially J a m e s Barr, "The Image of G o d in the Book of Genesis—A
Study of Terminology," BJRL 51 ( 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 ) , 1 1 - 2 6 .
18. A different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Genesis 1:27 sees the final third ("male a n d
 female he created them") as a n e w t h o u g h t , i n d e p e n d e n t of w h a t precedes;
see Phyllis A. Bird, '"Male a n d Female He Created T h e m ' : Genesis 1:27b in
the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation," in Missing Persons and
Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel, OBT (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 1997), 1 2 3 - 5 4 .
19. Usually creation implies the f o r m a t i o n of physical objects. Institutions,
however, can also be created. Genesis 2 : 2 - 3 deals w i t h the creation of the
Sabbath, m u c h like the M e s o p o t a m i a n m y t h E n u m a Elish narrates the ere-
ation of kingship a n d of the institutions s u r r o u n d i n g the w o r s h i p of the god
Marduk.
20. See Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968; reissued, 2 0 0 2 ) , vol. 5,
97-98.
2 1 . See Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1978), 126.
22. For the Fall of Man, see R o m a n s 5; the idea of original sin is not present in
the Greek N e w Testament text here, b u t already a p p e a r s in an early Latin
translation of the Greek. See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A
History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic
Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1971), 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 .
23. For a detailed, b u t different t r e a t m e n t of the story, see J a m e s Barr, The
Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
1993). I learned m a n y of the ideas that I develop below f r o m 1. Tzvi A b u s c h ;
s o m e are also f o u n d in Susan Niditch, "Genesis," in The Women's Bible
Commentary, ed. Carol A. N e w s o m a n d Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, KY:
W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1992), 1 2 - 1 4 . A synthesis of recent feminist read-
ings of the G a r d e n story can be f o u n d in Alice O g d e n Bellis, Helpmates,
Harlots, Heroes: Women's Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY:
W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1994), 4 5 - 6 6 .
24. C o n c e r n w i t h o v e r p o p u l a t i o n is not anachronistic; in fact, this is a m a i n
t h e m e of the M e s o p o t a m i a n Atra-Hasis epic. (For the text, see Stephanie
Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others
[Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1991], 1 - 3 8 . )
25. O n m e r i s m s , see Luis Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988), 8 3 - 8 4 .
26. See especially the r e a d i n g of this verse proposed in Carol Meyers,
Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ.
Press, 1988), 9 5 - 1 2 1 .
27. T h o u g h s o m e have suggested that the a u t h o r of his story, the Yahwist, m a y
 be a w o m a n , this is most unlikely. W i t h the exception of the Book of Ruth,
w h i c h s h o w s particular interest in the w o m e n ' s w o r l d a n d depicts w o m e n
very positively (see " W o m e n in Esther a n d Ruth" in c h a p t e r 26), biblical
a u t h o r s m a y be a s s u m e d to be male, unless there is strong evidence other-
wise.
28. Niditch, "Genesis," 13.
29. In contrast to bara'(‫)ברא‬, the w o r d yatzar ( ‫ ) י צ ר‬is used in this story, a w o r d
often used of h u m a n potters (see especially Jer. 18).

Chapter 7

1. O n the different types of genealogies a n d their use, see Robert R. Wilson,

Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, YNER 7 ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale
Univ. Press, 1977), w h i c h he s u m m a r i z e s in his article "Genealogy,
Genealogies," ABD, 2.929-932.
2. See J o h n van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis
(Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1992), 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 , following Claus
Westermann.
3. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, O T L (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 24.
4. T h e literature on the role of the Matriarchs is n o w i m m e n s e . See in particu-
lar A Feminist Companion to Genesis, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); i d e m , Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the
Bible (Second Series) (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Susan
Niditch, "Genesis," in The Women's Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. N e w s o m
a n d Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1992),
1 0 - 2 5 , esp. 1 5 - 2 5 ; a n d Alice O g d e n Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes:
Women's Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox,
1994), 6 7 - 9 8 (with extensive bibliography).
5. For a dissenting view, see Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite
Women in Context ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1988), 2 4 - 4 6 .
6. See the discussion in m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient Israel
( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995), 1 0 - 1 2 .
7. See above, c h a p t e r 4.
8. See Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (San
Francisco: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1987), 7 0 - 1 2 5 .
9. Quite possibly Genesis 2 2 : 1 5 - 1 8 is not an original part of this story, as
n o t e d by m o s t c o m m e n t a r i e s . For the m e a n i n g of the b i n d i n g of Isaac story
before these verses were a d d e d , see J o n D. Levenson, The Death and
 Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism
and Christianity ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1993). He properly
e m p h a s i z e s that the story may not be u n d e r s t o o d as a p o l e m i c against child
sacrifice.
10. T h e following e x a m p l e s are t a k e n from J a m e s L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was,
144-46.
11. "Pseudepigrapha" are n o n c a n o n i c a l w o r k s that originated in the Jewish
Hellenistic period. Most originated in Hebrew, b u t they survived because
the C h u r c h preserved t h e m in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopie, a n d o t h e r lan-
guages. The term m e a n s "false writings" because m a n y of the P s e u d -
e p i g r a p h a present themselves as a u t h e n t i c w o r d s of a w e l l - k n o w n sage, such
as Moses. J a m e s H. C h a r l e s w o r t h has collected t h e m in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985).
12. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia:
J e w i s h Publication Society, 1968; reissued, 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 . 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 . A version of
this b o o k w i t h o u t the valuable footnotes is available u n d e r the title Legends
of the Bible.
13. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1.224; for the sources, see 5 . 2 2 1 , n. 75.
14. Antiquities, 1.164; for the translation, see H. St. J. Thackery,Josephus IV:
Jewish Antiquities Books I-IV, Loeb Classical Library ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:
Harvard Univ. Press, 1930), vol. 1, 81. J o s e p h u s has here reconciled Genesis
12 w i t h the similar stories in c h a p t e r s 20 a n d 26.
15. W h a t follows is a s u m m a r y of "The Typologies of Genesis" in m y b o o k
The Creation of Histoiy in Ancient Israel, 4 8 - 6 1 ; see there for extensive
documentation.
16. See Yohanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel
( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), 6 7 - 9 5 .
17. For literature o n the wife-sister motif, see m y b o o k The Creation of History,
176, n. 30, a n d 177, n n . 35, 36.
18. See m y b o o k The Creation of History, 48, a n d m o r e generally m y article
"Cyclical a n d Teleological Time in the Hebrew Bible," in Time and
Temporality in the Ancient World, ed. Ralph M. Rosen (Philadelphia: Univ. of
Pennsylvania M u s e u m of Archaeology a n d Anthropology, 2 0 0 4 ) , 1 1 1 - 2 8 .
19. See especially the t e n u o u s c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the E x o d u s a n d the Sabbath
in D e u t e r o n o m y 5 : 1 5 — i t is t r a n s p a r e n t h o w the Sabbath is related to ere-
ation in the E x o d u s Decalogue, b u t it is less clear h o w it c o m m e m o r a t e s the
Exodus.
20. See, e.g., Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (NY: Basic, 1981), 5 - 1 2 .
21. See, e.g., W. Lee H u m p h r e y s , Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study
 (Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1988), 1 5 - 3 1 ; a n d Van Seters,
Prologue to History, 311.
22. O n the signifance of the firstborn, a n d generally on the symbolic n a t u r e of
biblical genealogies, see the w o r k s of Wilson cited above, n. 1.
23. See Frederick E. G r e e n s p a h n , When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence
of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1994).
24. Peter F Ellis, The Yahwist: The Bible's First Theologian ( L o n d o n : G. C h a p m a n ,
1969), 1 3 6 - 3 8 .

Chapter 8

1. For w h y I prefer the term "Decalogue," see p. 6 4 , "The Decalogue."

2. For E x o d u s 20, verse n u m b e r i n g varies a m o n g Bible editions because there
are discrepancies in the n u m b e r i n g of the verses of the Decalogue. T h e n u m -
bers used here follow the JPS translation.
3. O n the basic similarities b e t w e e n biblical views a n d those of Israels neigh-
bors, see M o r t o n Smith, "The C o m m o n Theology of the Ancient Near East,"
JBL 7 1 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 3 5 - 4 7 .
4. For reasons that will b e c o m e m o r e clear later (see below, "The C o v e n a n t
Collection"), I a m avoiding the t e r m "code." Instead, I a m u s i n g the termi-
nology f o u n d in a recent translation of these a n d o t h e r laws: Martha T. Roth,
Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, SBL Writings f r o m the
Ancient World Series (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995).
5. Roth, Law Collections, 80-81.
6. Ibid., 133.
7. Ibid., 135.
8. See m y God Is King, 113.
9. See Keith W h i t e l a m , The Just King: Monarchical and Judicial Authority in
Ancient Israel, J S O T S u p 12; (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1979). Note esp.
D e u t e r o n o m y 1 7 : 8 - 1 3 , w h i c h gives the levitical priests a judicial role in a
unit that i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s the law of the k i n g ( 1 7 : 1 4 - 2 0 ) . That law
e m p h a s i z e s the king's subservience to the law a n d the levitical priests
( 1 7 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) . See also the a c c o u n t of 2 Chronicles 1 9 : 4 - 1 1 , c o n c e r n i n g King
J e h o s h a p h a t , a n d the c o m m e n t s in Sara J a p h e t , I & II Chronicles, OTL:
(Louisville, KY, 1993), 7 7 0 - 7 9 .
10. The reference is to living long in the land of Israel, not to personal longevity.
11. M o s h e Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law," in J u d a h
G o l d i n , ed., The Jewish Expression ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1976),
 1 8 - 3 7 , d e v e l o p s the view that the entire Bible p r e s u m e s that all law w a s reli-
gious, divine law. This h a s b e e n q u e s t i o n e d m o r e recently; see, e.g., A n n e
Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law,
J S O T S u p 2 8 7 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1999).
12. F r o m law 14 of the Middle Assyrian Laws (Roth, Law Collections, 158).
13. Texts s u c h as these are d o w n p l a y e d b y G r e e n b e r g — s e e n. 11.
14. This is e x p l o r e d in m y paper, "The M a n y Faces of G o d in E x o d u s 19," in
Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Alice O g d e n
Bellis a n d Joel S. Kaminsky, SBL S y m p o s i u m Series 8 (Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 5 3 - 6 7 .
15. For a c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n — t h a t only the three m a i n sources, J, E, a n d Ρ are
c o m b i n e d h e r e — s e e Baruch J. Schwartz, " W h a t Really H a p p e n e d at M o u n t
Sinai? F o u r Biblical A n s w e r s to O n e Q u e s t i o n , " Bible Review 13:5 ( 1 9 9 7 ) :
2 0 - 3 0 , 46.
16. M o s h e G r e e n b e r g , "The Decalogue Tradition Critically E x a m i n e d , " in The
Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. Ben-Zion Segal (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1 9 9 0 ) , 9 6 - 9 9 ; J a m e s Kugel, The Bible as It Was ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:
Belknap, 1 9 9 7 ) , 3 8 2 - 8 4 .
17. T h e r e is significant difference a m o n g the views of various Christian d e n o m -
inations, a n d a m o n g various J e w i s h traditions, r e g a r d i n g the division of the
c o m m a n d m e n t s w i t h i n the Decalogue. See the chart in E d u a r d Nielsen, The
Ten Commandments in New Perspective: A Traditio-historical Approach, SBT 2 7
(Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1 9 6 8 ) , 10.
18. See, e.g., J o h a n n J a k o b S t a m m a n d Maurice E d w a r d Andrew, The Ten
Commandments in Recent Research, SBT 2 2 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967),
1 8 - 2 0 ; M o s h e Weinfeld, "The U n i q u e n e s s of the Decalogue a n d its Place in
J e w i s h Tradition," in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed.
Ben-Zion Segal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1 9 9 0 ) , 6 - 8 .
19. See the chart in Moshe G r e e n b e r g , "The Decalogue Tradition Critically
Examined," 9 2 - 9 3 .
20. Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 3 8 3 - 8 4 .
2 1 . N o t e h o w in particular the reason given for S a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e in the
Decalogue in D e u t e r o n o m y fits w i t h D e u t e r o n o m y ' s b r o a d e r interest in
e m p h a s i z i n g the E x o d u s f r o m Egypt. O n the internal evidence for the devel-
o p m e n t of the Decalogue, see B. Levinson in the JSB, 3 7 6 , o n D e u t e r o n o m y
5:9.
22. T h e ancient translations a n d the Dead Sea Scrolls offer concrete evidence for
the fluidity of the biblical text in late antiquity. For a b r o a d discussion of tex-
tual t r a n s m i s s i o n of the Bible, see E m a n u e l Τον, Textual Criticism of the
 Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 1 ) ; for essays o n the Bible as
reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see in a d d i t i o n E u g e n e Ulrich, The Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999).
23. That the child's d e a t h is a p u n i s h m e n t of David is clear in the H e b r e w text,
t h o u g h the p o i n t is o b s c u r e d by translations ( i n c l u d i n g that of JPS) that
incorrectly r e n d e r he-evir ( ‫ ה ע ב י ר‬, "has transferred") as "has remitted"; see S.
Bar-Efrat in the JSB, 6 3 9 , o n 2 S a m u e l 12:13.
24. See Michael F i s h b a n e , "Torah a n d Tradition," in Tradition and Theology in the
Old Testament, ed. Douglas A. Knight (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977),
2 7 9 - 8 0 , a n d various places in Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
Israel ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1985).
25. In a d d i t i o n to the evidence cited in n. 21, it is n o t e w o r t h y that the Sabbath
c o m m a n d m e n t s e e m s to a d d r e s s w o m e n , while the c o m m a n d m e n t c o n -
c e r n i n g coveting one's neighbor's wife d o e s not, also suggesting that the
Decalogue h a s a c o m p l e x history of c o m p o s i t i o n .
26. F i s h b a n e , "Torah a n d Tradition," 2 7 5 - 3 0 0 ; Meir Weiss, "The Decalogue in
P r o p h e t i c Literature," in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition,
67-81.
27. M u c h a b o u t the law collection in E x o d u s c o n t i n u e s to be d e b a t e d ; see esp.
the essays in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision,
Interpolation, and Development, ed. Bernard M. Levinson, J S O T S u p 181
(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1994).
28. N o t e the title of Roth's b o o k ( c o n t a i n i n g texts a n d translations), Law
Collections. All of these collections differ f r o m the later R o m a n legal c o d e s in
size, organization, a n d use.
29. See Albrecht Alt, "The Origins of Israelite Law," in Essays on Old Testament
History and Religion ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 1 0 1 - 7 1 ; W
Malcolm Clark, "Law," in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. J o h n H. Hayes
(San A n t o n i o , TX: Trinity Univ. Press, 1 9 7 4 ) , 9 9 - 1 3 9 .
30. T h e translation follows Roth, Law Collections, 123, a l t h o u g h I have r e n d e r e d
i, w h i c h she leaves u n t r a n s l a t e d , as "a m e m b e r of the u p p e r class."
3 1 . Roth, Law Collections, 125.
32. In the A k k a d i a n of H a m m u r a b i — a s in the H e b r e w of the Bible—there is n o
separate gender-inclusive p r o n o u n , so "he" is u s e d to i n c l u d e b o t h males
a n d females. In m a n y of the laws that follow, "he" or "him" m a y be u s e d in
a g e n d e r - n e u t r a l sense.
33. Roth, Law Collections, 128.
34. Ibid., 7 3 - 7 6 .
35. T h e following o b s e r v a t i o n s are largely t a k e n f r o m M o s h e Greenberg, "Some
Postulates of Biblical C r i m i n a l Law," in The Jewish Expression, ed. J u d a h
 Goldin ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1976), 1 8 - 3 7 ; i d e m , "More
Reflections o n Biblical Criminal Law," ScrHier 3 1 (186), 1 - 1 7 ; a n d J. J.
Finkelstein, The Ox That Gored, TAPS 7 1 / 2 (Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1981). More generally, see David Ρ Wright, "The Laws
of Hammurabi as a S o u r c e for t h e Covenant Collection (Exodus
2 0 : 2 3 - 2 3 : 1 9 ) , " Maarav 10 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 1 - 8 7 .
36. Some scholars believe that the law here is c o m p o s i t e , w h e r e an earlier law
insisted that the o w n e r be killed, a n d that this is s u p p l e m e n t e d by a later
law that allowed for this r a n s o m i n g .
37. See the article of G r e e n b e r g cited above (n. 35).
38. It is unclear h o w the value of the "twenty shekels" of silver in H a m m u r a b i
c o m p a r e s to the "thirty shekels" of the C o v e n a n t Collection.
39. O n Deuteronomy's cheirem as "a theory," see Moshe Greenberg, "Herem," EJ,
8 . 3 4 9 ; o n the jubilee year as real or ideal, see C h r i s t o p h e r J. H. Wright,
"Jubilee, Year of," ABD, 3.1027-1028.
40. See Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, ed. Bernard M. Levin-
son. For a different o p i n i o n , see J o h n van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora:
Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code ( N e w York: O x f o r d , 2 0 0 3 ) .
41. See the essays by Greenberg (n. 35).

Chapter 9

1. "Ritual" has b e e n defined in a variety of ways, a n d n o precise u n d e r s t a n d i n g

of ritual will be p r e s e n t e d here. For a discussion, see David Ρ Wright, Ritual
in Narrative: The Dynamics of Fasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the
Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2 0 0 1 ) , 8 - 1 3 .
2. Gustavo Benavides, "Modernity," in Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed.
Mark C. Taylor (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998), 196.
3. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Gloucester,
MA: Peter Smith, 1973). For a summary, see the foreward of Douglas A.
Knight in the recent reprint by Scholars Press (Atlanta, 1994), v - x v i ; specif-
ically o n Wellhausen's views o n religion, see Patrick D. Miller, Jr.,
"Wellhausen a n d the History of Israel's Religion," Semeia 2 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 6 1 - 7 3 .
4. For a list of ritual texts f r o m Ugarit, see Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 2, n. 4.
5. See Wright, Ritual in Narrative; G. del O l m o Lete, Canaanite Religion
According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, trans. W. G. E. W a t s o n ( W i n o n a
Lake, IN: Etsenbrans, 2004).
6. A small n u m b e r of ritual texts f r o m Israel's n e i g h b o r s are collected in ANET,
3 2 5 - 6 1 ; COS, 1 . 5 5 - 5 7 , 1 6 0 - 6 8 , 2 9 5 - 3 2 9 , 4 2 7 - 4 4 .
 7. See J.H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew
Congregations of the British Empire ( L o n d o n : National Council for Jewish
Religious E d u c a t i o n , 1945), 9 1 2 - 1 3 .
8. I collected m u c h of the etymological i n f o r m a t i o n n o t e d b e l o w w i t h the h e l p
of HALOT, vol. 2, 4 9 3 - 9 4 . For a m o r e c o m p l e t e discussion, see Baruch A.
Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in
Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 1 2 3 - 2 7 . T h e following discussion c o n -
c e r n s the use of the root k-p-r specifically in the Piel c o n j u g a t i o n (and relat-
ed c o n j u g a t i o n s ) .
9. See J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded Upon the
Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D. (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1976),
223.
10. CAD, Κ 179.
11. Leviticus 16 describes the ritual as it took place in the w i l d e r n e s s sanctuary,
t h o u g h I agree w i t h m o s t scholars that it is retrojecting Temple practice into
the (mythic) p e r i o d of the w a n d e r i n g . For this reason, 1 will treat it as a
Temple ritual t h r o u g h o u t this chapter.
12. See also E x o d u s 3 0 : 1 0 .
13. See, e.g., the NRSV
14. J a c o b Milgrom, "Israels Sanctuary: T h e Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray,"' RB
8 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 3 9 0 - 9 9 . I have based m u c h of the following t r e a t m e n t o n
Milgrom s article, a n d o n his extensive t r e a t m e n t of Leviticus 16 in his
Leviticus 1-16, AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 1009-1084.
Milgrom calls this biblical c h a p t e r "The Day of Purgation." See also the
detailed treatment of this c h a p t e r by B. Schwartz in the JSB, 2 4 3 - 4 7 .
15. O n the significant c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n Ezekiel's p r o p h e c i e s a n d the Priestly
c o r p u s , see W a l t h e r Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, H e r m e n e i a ; (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1979), 52.
16. M o r t o n Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth
and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBLMS (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974), 9 - 2 1 .
17. T h e suggested translation accords w i t h the n o t e in the JPS translation at
Leviticus 4:3.
18. Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary," 3 9 1 .
19. T h e typical biblical t e r m for the Temple is beit YHWH ( H I T ‫ ב י ת‬, "the h o u s e
of the LORD"), w h i c h s h o u l d be t a k e n literally.
20. B. J a n o w s k i , "Azazel," in D D D , 1 2 8 - 3 1 .
21. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1 0 2 0 - 2 1 .
22. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness
School (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995).
23. A l t h o u g h later J u d a i s m h a s conflated these t w o festivals, h e r e — a n d in m o s t
o t h e r places in the Bible—they are separate, c o n t i g u o u s festivals.
24. See Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentaiy: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 4 7 2 - 7 6 .
25. See, e.g., the highly suggestive b u t controversial proposal c o n c e r n i n g per-
mitted and forbidden food in Mary Douglas, "The A b o m i n a t i o n s of
Leviticus," in Punty and Danger ( L o n d o n : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969),
4 1 - 5 7 . Meanwhile, the classic rabbinic n o t i o n c a n n o t be u p h e l d that a chok
( p i n ) refers to a class of law that defies rational explanation. In fact, c o m -
parative a n d anthropological evidence m a k e the laws associated w i t h one
chok—regarding the red heifer ( N u m . 1 9 ) — r a t h e r transparent; see, e.g., N.
Fox in the JSB, 3 2 1 - 2 3 .
26. See Israel Knohl, "Between Voice a n d Silence: T h e Relationship b e t w e e n
Prayer a n d Temple Cult,"JBL 115 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 1 7 - 3 0 .
27. For a rich, different type of analysis of m a n y biblical rituals, see Saul M.
Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations 0J Cult (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2 0 0 0 ) .

Chapter 1 0

1. See "The Decalogue" in c h a p t e r 8. For a c o m p l e t e list of differences, see

c h a p t e r 8, n. 19.
2. M o s h e W e i n f e l d , Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:
C l a r e n d o n , 1972), 3 2 6 - 3 0 .
3. T h e best source for characteristics that typify D e u t e r o n o m y is Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Many of these are s u m m a r i z e d in
Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia:
J e w i s h Publication Society, 1996), xii-xix.
4. For the legal material, see Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the
Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1997); for a
c o m p a r a b l e treatment of s o m e narrative material, see m y b o o k The Creation
of History in Ancient Israel, 6 2 - 7 8 .
5. See the discussion of this p h r a s e in Levinson, Deuteronomy and the
Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 48; i d e m , "You Must N o t A d d A n y t h i n g to
W h a t I C o m m a n d You: Paradoxes of C a n o n a n d A u t h o r s h i p in Ancient
Israel," Numen 50 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 - 5 1 ; a n d m y b o o k The Creation of History, 78.
6. T h e sources a n d historicity of the a c c o u n t in Kings have b e e n q u e s t i o n e d
recently. See the discussion in N o r b e r t Lohfink, "Recent Discussion on
 2 Kings 2 2 - 2 3 : T h e State of the Q u e s t i o n , " in A Song of Power and the Power
of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. D u a n e L. Christensen
( W i n o n a Lake, IN: 1993), 3 6 - 6 1 .
7. This is often referred to as the Urtext (original text). This Urtext, as scholars
imagine it, h a s gotten smaller in recent years, as m o r e of D e u t e r o n o m y has
b e e n ascribed to the exilic period a n d b e y o n d ; see, e.g., R a y m o n d F Person,
Jr., The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 2 ) . For a discussion of the critical position,
see E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1967), 5 8 - 8 2 . For classical Jewish sources, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends
of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968; reissued, 2 0 0 2 ) ,
4 . 3 7 7 , n. 116.
8. See above, n. 5.
9. See the discussion in m y b o o k The Creation of History, 78.
10. This is d e f e n d e d at length in Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of
Legal Innovation; for a different view, see J o h n van Seters, A Law Book for the
Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code ( N e w York: O x f o r d ,
2003).
11. For this, a n d a b r o a d e r discussion of the i m p r o v e m e n t of the status of
w o m e n in Deuteronomy, see Carolyn Pressler, The View of Women Found in
the Deuteronomic Family Laws, BZAW 2 1 6 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993) a n d
Eckart O t t o , "False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views
of W o m e n f r o m Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of
Deuteronomy," in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near
East, ed. Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., J S O T S u p 2 6 2 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), 1 2 8 - 4 6 .
12. See above, n. 3.
13. This is s h o w n in great detail in Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics
of Legal Innovation, 23-52.
14. T h e same idea is reflected in D e u t e r o n o m y 12, w h i c h not only desacralizes
the eating of animals, b u t also allows meat to be eaten outside of Jerusalem.
See J a c o b Milgrom, "Profane Slaughter a n d a F o r m u l a i c Key to the
C o m p o s i t i o n of Deuteronomy," HUCA 4 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 - 1 7 .
15. See N a h u m M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 120.
16. Critical scholars have long believed that n o t all of the final c h a p t e r s actual-
ly b e l o n g to Deuteronomy. Rather, s o m e parts of these represent the con-
elusion to the Torah f r o m o t h e r sources. For details, see m y article co-
a u t h o r e d w i t h T h o m a s Römer, " D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 a n d the Case for a Persian
H e x a t e u c h , " JBL 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 4 0 1 - 1 9 .
17 George E. M e n d e n h a l l , "Covenant F o r m s in Israelite Tradition," BA 2 3 / 3
(Sept. 1954), 2 - 2 2 ; reprinted in BAR 3 . 2 5 - 5 3 .
18 See esp. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, esp. 5 9 - 1 7 8 ,
a n d the earlier article of R. F r a n k e n a , "The Vassal-Treaties of E s a r h a d d o n
a n d the Dating of Deuteronomy," OTS 14 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 2 2 - 5 4 . A m o r e detailed
s t u d y is f o u n d in D e n n i s J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21 (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978). For critiques of Mendenhall, Weinfeld, a n d
McCarthy, see E. W Nicholson, "Covenant in a C e n t u r y of Study Since
Wellhausen," OTS 24 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , 5 4 - 6 9 , reprinted in A Song of Power and the
Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. D u a n e L. Christensen,
7 8 - 9 3 ; i d e m , God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament
(Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1986), 5 6 - 8 2 .
19 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 115. For o t h e r specific
parallels, see 1 1 5 - 2 9 . T h e text of VTE, quite surprisingly, is not f o u n d in
COS b u t m a y be f o u n d in ANET, 5 3 4 - 4 1 ; for the Hittite treaties, see 2 0 1 - 6 ,
529-30.
20 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 2 4 4 - 8 1 ; the a p p r o p r i -
ateness of this w i s d o m influence has been questioned by C. Brekelmans,
" W i s d o m Influence in Deuteronomy," in The Song of Power, 123-34.
21 Earlier generations of scholars claimed that Assyria i m p o s e d its religion o n
its vassals; this is n o w believed to be incorrect—see Richard Lowery, The
Reforming Kings, J S O T S u p 120 (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1990).
22 For a sensitive d e v e l o p m e n t of this idea, see J o n D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion:
An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis, MN: W i n s t o n , 1985), esp.
80-86.
23 See n. 18, above.
24 It is striking that this p a r a g r a p h later b e c a m e so significant—it is not espe-
d a i l y i m p o r t a n t in D e u t e r o n o m y or elsewhere in the Bible; a n d in its origi-
nal context, it is not even a prayer!
2 5 ANET, 537, p a r a g r a p h 24, line 2 6 6 .
26 William L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of
G o d in Deuteronomy," CBQ 2 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 7 7 - 8 7 . This is e x p a n d e d u p o n in a
less technical fashion by S. Dean McBride, Jr., "The Yoke of the Kingdom:
An Exposition of D e u t e r o n o m y 6 : 4 - 5 , " INT 2 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 2 7 3 - 3 0 6 .
27 In this context, "these w o r d s " likely refers to the Decalogue, f o u n d in the
immediately p r e c e d i n g chapter.
28 In the rabbinic view, the latter actions refer to the i n j u n c t i o n s for d o n n i n g
tefillin (phylacteries) a n d affixing a mezuzah to each d o o r p o s t .
29 See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 3 2 0 - 5 9 .
30 This idea is s o m e t i m e s called "radical m o n o t h e i s m " — a term p o p u l a r i z e d by
 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the
Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth ( N e w York: Free Press, 1992).
31. For e x a m p l e , is D e u t e r o n o m y ' s e m p h a s i s on w o r s h i p in J e r u s a l e m only a
political m o v e , n a m e l y an a t t e m p t to b r i n g the cult u n d e r royal supervision?
O r is it a theological idea, n a m e l y that the one G o d s h o u l d be w o r s h i p e d in
o n e way in one place only?

Chapter 11

1. Richard D. Nelson, Joshua, O I L (Louisville, KY: Westminster, J o h n Knox,

1997), 2 - 3 .
2. O n the challenges of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g Israelite history, see c h a p t e r 4.
3. Reasonable s u m m a r i e s of the present state of archaeological k n o w l e d g e m a y
be f o u n d in two recent b o o k s by William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical
Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about
the Reality of Ancient Israel ? ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 1 ) ; Who Were
the Israelites and Where Did They Come From? ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s ,
2 0 0 3 ) . For a slightly older p o p u l a r s u m m a r y of m a n y of the issues, see
Hershel Shanks, ed., The Rise of Ancient Israel ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Biblical
Archaeological Society, 1992).
4. O n t o p o n y m s , see Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical
Geography, trans. A. F Rainey ( L o n d o n : Burns &‫ ־‬Oates, 1979), 1 0 5 - 3 0 .
5. Older studies point to collar-rimmed jars a n d four-room houses as n e w
Israelite artifacts in this period, b u t it is n o w clear that such styles predate
Israel a n d are f o u n d elsewhere. The same is true for the supposedly distinc-
tive lack of pig b o n e s in Israelite settlements—this is f o u n d outside of Israel
as well, a n d it may reflect climate changes or n e w animal h u s b a n d r y practices.
6. O n the origins of Israel, see the literature cited above in n. 3. An i m p o r t a n t
early s t u d y that developed this idea is George E. M e n d e n h a l l , "The H e b r e w
C o n q u e s t of Palestine," BA 2 5 / 3 (Sept. 1962), 6 6 - 8 7 , r e p r i n t e d in BAR,
3.100-120.
7. Some archaeologists a n d historians believe that the E x o d u s story m a y have
s o m e basis in history, in that a small g r o u p f r o m Egypt j o i n e d the hill-coun-
try pioneers. However, scant evidence exists to s u p p o r t this claim outside of
the biblical text. As n o t e d , early Israelite material culture s h o w s little infiu-
ence f r o m the material culture of Egypt.
8. In J o s h u a 11:16 a n d again in 2 1 : 4 3 , the JPS translation does not directly
r e n d e r every o c c u r r e n c e of the w o r d kol.
9. Martin Buber a n d Franz Rosenzweig, Scripture and Translation, trans.
Lawrence Rosenwald with Everett Fox (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
Press, 1994), xxi-xxii, xxxvi-xlii, 1 1 4 - 2 8 , 1 4 3 - 5 0 ; m o r e recently o n "key
w o r d s " see S h i m o n Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, J S O T S u p 70
(Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989), 2 1 2 - 1 5 .
10. Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Schocken Bible ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1995), vol. 1., xi-xii.
11. O n the b a n , see Richard Nelson, "Herem a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Social
Conscience," in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschiift for
C.H.W. Brekelmans, ed. M. Vervenne a n d J. Lust (Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press,
1997), 3 9 - 5 4 .
12. This picture could be c o m p l i c a t e d f u r t h e r by looking at the initial c h a p t e r s
of J u d g e s — s e e c h a p t e r 12, below.
13. See, e.g., Yohanan Aharoni et al., eds., The Carta Bible Atlas, 4 t h ed.;
(Jerusalem: Carta, 2 0 0 2 ) , 59, m a p 69.
14. O n h o w the first b o o k s of the Bible lit together, see m y article c o a u t h o r e d
with Thomas Römer, " D e u t e r o n o m y 34 and the Case for a Persian
H e x a t e u c h , " JBL 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 4 0 1 - 4 1 9 .
15. Martin N o t h s b o o k was later translated u n d e r the title The Deuteronomistic
History, J S O T S u p 15 (Sheffield, UK: Univ. of Sheffield, 1981). For an evalu-
ation of this b o o k a n d its impact, see Steven L. McKenzie a n d M. Patrick
G r a h a m , eds., The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth,
J S O T S u p 182 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).
16. N o t h s t h e o r y has b e e n criticized recently, however, a n d is b e g i n n i n g to fall
out of favor; see, e.g., Gary N. K n o p p e r s , "The D e u t e r o n o m i s t a n d the
D e u t e r o n o m i c Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship," ZAW
1 0 8 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 3 2 9 - 4 6 , a n d "Rethinking the Relationship b e t w e e n Deuter-
o n o m y a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History: T h e Case of Kings," CBQ 63
(2001) 393-415.
17. See, e.g., Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic
History, J S O T S u p 18 (Sheffield, UK: Univ. of Sheffield, 1981).
18. See R a y m o n d F Person Jr., The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting,
and Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). The position
a s s u m i n g m o r e than a d o u b l e redaction is often called "the Göttingen
School." O n e presentation of the text of D t r H according to its sources is
found in A n t o n y F. C a m p b e l l and Mark A. O'Brien, Unfolding the
Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2 0 0 0 ) . There are, however, almost as m a n y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s of
D t r H (according to its sources) as scholars w o r k i n g o n the DtrH.
19. For e x a m p l e , "the Ark of the LORD" is m e n t i o n e d ten times in J o s h u a , t w e n -
ty times in Samuel, a n d once in Kings.
20. I discuss in great detail the p u r p o s e of ancient storytelling in m y b o o k The
Creation of History.
21. See Nelson, Joshua, 34; a n d in greater detail, Alexander Rofé, "The Piety of
the Torah-Disciples at the W i n d i n g - U p of the H e b r e w Bible: Josh. 1:8; Ps.
1:2; Isa. 59:21," in H e l m u t Merklein et al., eds., Bibel in jüdischer und
christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag
( F r a n k f u r t a m Main: A n t o n Hain, 1993), 7 8 - 8 5 .
22. T h e c h u t z p a h involved in s u c h modifications s h o u l d not be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d .
23. For m o r e o n the literary device of r e s u m p t i v e repetition, see m y Book of
Judges, O l d Testament Readings ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 2 0 0 2 ) , 9 5 - 9 6 .
24. For a discussion of etiologies w i t h sources, see R J. van Dyk, "The F u n c t i o n
of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives," ZAW 102 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , 1 9 - 3 3 .
25. See Robert E. Cooley, "Ai," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the
Near East, ed. Eric M. Meyers ( N e w York: O x f o r d , 1997), 1.33.
26. T h e p h r a s e "as they still are" is ad ha-yom ha-zeh (ΠΤΠ • ‫ ע ד ה י ו‬, literally,
"until this day"). Like the expression "that is w h y " discussed above, it is
a n o t h e r m a j o r m a r k e r of an etiology.
27. H e r m a n n G u n k e l , The Stones of Genesis (Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1994), 1 8 - 2 4 .
28. T h e extent to w h i c h this language is D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c m a y be seen b y check-
ing J o s h u a s p h r a s e s against the i n d e x to W e i n f e l d s Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School, 4 3 1 - 3 2 , or by looking at the discussion of J o s h u a 2 3
in Nelson, Deuteronomy, 255-62.
29. T h e only non-Priestly narratives that a s s u m e the Israelite practice of ritual
circumcision are Genesis 3 4 a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c History's occasional
( a n d usually disparaging) references to Philistine warriors as u n c i r c u m c i s e d ,
e.g., J u d g e s 14:3, 1 Samuel 18:25, a n d 2 S a m u e l 1:20.
30. See the observation of J o h n Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, N C B C ( G r a n d Rapids,
MI: E e r d m a n s , 1986), 75, that the extent of P's involvement in the c h a p t e r
has b e e n u n d e r e s t i m a t e d .

C h a p t e r 12

1. This c h a p t e r is based on m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient Israel

( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995), esp. 9 1 - 1 1 1 ; a n d m y Book of Judges, Old
Testament Readings ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 2 0 0 2 ) . See there for extensive
documentation.
 2. J o h n Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981),
131.
3. O n the integrity of this unit, a n d on the p u r p o s e s of the p r e c e d i n g a n d fol-
lowing units, see m y b o o k The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 9 1 - 1 1 1 .
4. This translation r e p r o d u c e s the text's threefold repetition of ve-ad (‫ועד‬,
"including"), w h i c h highlights the extent to w h i c h J o n a t h a n gives David his
clothes.
5. Not all of the cases that 1 a d d u c e b e l o w are equally convincing, b u t togeth-
er they certainly f o r m a p a t t e r n of contrasts.
6. See "The Five Main Points of Amos" in c h a p t e r 16.

C h a p t e r 13

1. This is the m o t t o of the E u r o p e a n organization CLIOH, w h i c h s t a n d s for

"Creating Links a n d Innovative Overviews to E n h a n c e Historical Perspective
in E u r o p e a n Culture."
2. The term "antiquarian interest" is used often by Baruch H a l p e r n , The First
Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: H a r p e r & Row,
1988). For a critique, see m y b o o k The Creation of History, esp. 1 1 - 1 2 .
3. Many w o u l d state this otherwise, that Samuel is better "literature" t h a n
Kings, b u t I believe that the t e r m "literature" is problematic or misleading
w h e n used of biblical texts; see m y b o o k The Creation of History, 14-17.
4. The example is taken from J. Maxwell Miller, The Old Testament and the
Historian (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1 - 3 .
5. E d w i n R. Thiele uses this principle extensively in his The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Z o n d e r v a n , 1983). He
solves this a n d o t h e r chronological p r o b l e m s by a s s u m i n g a large n u m b e r of
"co-regencies."
6. COS, 2 . 1 3 7 ; cf. ANET 320.
7. See ANET, 2 8 4 - 8 5 ; COS 2 . 2 9 7 - 9 8 .
8. See Volkmar Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, trans. Anselm H a g e d o r n (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2 0 0 3 ) , 28.
9. For the analysis that follows, see m y article "The Structure of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 , "
JSOT 4 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 8 7 - 9 7 .
10. There c o n t i n u e s to be a debate w i t h i n biblical studies on w h e t h e r these
c h a p t e r s c o m p l e t e 2 Samuel, a n d together c o m p r i s e a hypothetical source
called the succession narrative, dealing w i t h the q u e s t i o n " W h o will succeed
David as king?"
11. M. Avot 1:1; see J a c o b Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New
Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1991), 6 7 2 .
12. See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford:
C l a r e n d o n , 1985). A c o n d e n s e d version of this is Michael F i s h b a n e , "Inner
Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel" in
Midrash and Literature, ed. Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick ( N e w
Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1986), 1 9 - 3 7 . Specifically on intermarriage,
see F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1 2 5 - 2 6 ; a n d Gary N.
K n o p p e r s , "Sex, Religion, a n d Politics: T h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t o n Intermar-
riage," HAR 14 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , 1 2 1 - 4 1 .
13. See, e.g., Kathleen Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament ( N e w York:
S c h o c k e n , 1971), 5 3 - 7 0 .
14. For the traditional view, see Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know?,
1 3 1 - 3 8 ; for the revisionist view, see Israel Finkelstein a n d Neil Asher
Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and
the Origin of Its Sacred Texts ( N e w York: T o u c h s t o n e , 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 3 5 - 4 2 .
15. See Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel from the Prehistoric
Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period, trans. A n s o n Rainey
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 2 0 1 - 3 .
16. See especially David Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib
(Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ., The Institute of Archaeology, 1982); Mordechai
C o g a n a n d Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB ( N e w York: Doubleday, 1988),
246-51.
17. T h e use of H e b r e w personal a n d geographical n a m e s (e.g., Jerusalem) in
A k k a d i a n inscriptions offer i m p o r t a n t evidence for h o w H e b r e w was pro-
n o u n c e d in the biblical period. H e b r e w at that time was written w i t h o u t
vowels (which were inserted only in the late first m i l l e n n i u m c . E . ) , while
A k k a d i a n was written syllabically, w i t h vowels.
18. Many scholars believe that this n u m b e r is a scribal error or an exaggeration.
It w o u l d imply a p o p u l a t i o n of J u d e a of several million at this time, w h i c h
is most unlikely based o n o t h e r evidence.
19. COS, 2 . 3 0 2 - 3 .
20. O n these suffixes, see Ziony Zevit, "A C h a p t e r in the History of Israelite
Personal N a m e s , " BASOR 2 5 0 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 1 - 1 6 .
21. The analysis of this material is too c o m p l e x to be detailed here. See Brevard
S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, SBT 2 3 ( L o n d o n : SCM, 1967);
C h r i s t o p h e r R. Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of
Isaiah: A Reassessment of the Isaiah 36-39 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991).
22. C o g a n a n d Tadmor, II Kings, 2 6 0 - 6 3 .
C h a p t e r 14

1. O n C h r o n i c l e s in general, see m y b o o k The Creation of History, 20-47.

Additional excellent material a p p e a r s in M. Patrick G r a h a m a n d Steven L.
McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture, J S O T S u p 2 6 3
(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1999); a n d the c o m m e n t a r y of
Sara J a p h e t , I & II Chronicles, O T L (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox,
1993).
2. A l t h o u g h English Bibles t e n d to p r i n t C h r o n i c l e s in t w o parts a n d Ezra a n d
Nehemiah as s e p a r a t e books, according to J e w i s h scribal tradition
C h r o n i c l e s a n d E z r a - N e h e m i a h are each single b o o k s — s e e c h a p t e r 2, n n .
15 a n d 23.
3. I use the t e r m "Chronicler" to refer to the a u t h o r of C h r o n i c l e s only. For
m u c h of the t w e n t i e t h century, the b o o k of E z r a - N e h e m i a h w a s seen as a
c o n t i n u a t i o n of Chronicles. E z r a - N e h e m i a h begins w h e r e C h r o n i c l e s e n d s .
However, in a s e m i n a l article, Sara J a p h e t , "The S u p p o s e d Common
A u t h o r s h i p of C h r o n i c l e s a n d E z r a - N e h e m i a h Investigated Anew," VT 18
(1968), 332-72, argued that the stylistic a n d theological differences
b e t w e e n the t w o are too great to say that they are w r i t t e n by the s a m e p e r -
son. A d d i t i o n a l evidence ( c o n c e r n i n g the differing attitude t o w a r d inter-
marriage in C h r o n i c l e s versus in E z r a - N e h e m i a h ) c o r r o b o r a t e s that j u d g -
m e n t ; see Gary N. K n o p p e r s , "Intermarriage, Social Complexity, a n d E t h n i c
Diversity in the Genealogy of J u d a h , " JBL 120 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 5 - 3 0 . A m a j o r i t y of
scholars have a d o p t e d J a p h e t s c o n c l u s i o n s .
4. J u d e a n s so p r e d o m i n a t e d in this p e r i o d that even n o n - J u d e a n s c o u l d be
called J u d e a n s , as in Esther 2:5: "In the fortress S h u s h a n lived a yehudi
( ‫ י ה ו ד י‬, "Judean" or "Jew") by the n a m e of Mordecai . . . a Benjaminite."
5. For a s u m m a r y of this t h e o r y of Z a d o k s h i d d e n past, see George W. Ramsey,
"Zadok," ABD, 6.1035-36.
6. See Elias Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of
Postbiblical Judaism ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1962), 22. For m o r e discussion
o n the role of historical probability, see m y b o o k The Creation of History, esp.
25-26.
7. Scholars d e b a t e w h e t h e r the C h r o n i c l e r s h o u l d be called a historian a n d / o r
a theologian. I outline w h y these t w o c o n c e p t s are n o t m u t u a l l y exclusive in
The Creation of History, 46-47.
8. O n the t r e a t m e n t of the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m in Chronicles, see H.G.M.
W i l l i a m s o n , Israel in the Books of Chronicles ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Univ.
Press, 1977).
 9. T h e easiest way to see the Chronicler's o m i s s i o n s a n d c h a n g e s is to use
b o o k s s u c h as J. C. A n d r e s et al., Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels in
Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1998), w h i c h list the texts of C h r o n i c l e s a n d its s o u r c e s in parallel c o l u m n s .
T h e large a m o u n t of w h i t e space in these c o l u m n s s h o w s h o w m u c h the
C h r o n i c l e r either a d d s or s u b t r a c t s p o r t i o n s of his sources. Seeing s u c h
c h a n g e s brings the Chronicler's ideology into s h a r p e r relief.
10. T h e H e b r e w text actually refers to t w o seven-day festivals, b u t the s e c o n d
seven-day festival is believed to be a scribal error. It is missing in several
i m p o r t a n t Septuagint m a n u s c r i p t s .
11. In this verse a n d in the verses discussed in the following p a r a g r a p h s , I a m
insisting that the v e r b b-sh-l ( ‫ ) ב ש ל‬be translated as "boil"—its m e a n i n g in
biblical H e b r e w — r a t h e r t h a n as the m o r e generic "cook," a m e a n i n g often
incorrectly assigned to it in h a r m o n i z i n g translations.
12. F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation, 135-36.
13. N o t e h o w Ρ is repetitive a n d e m p h a t i c , even s o u n d i n g polemical. Most like-
ly Ρ is polemicizing against D or s o m e similar text or n o r m .
14. See the discussion of the t e r m ka-mishpat ( ‫ כ מ ש פ ע‬, "as prescribed") in
F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation, 209-13.
15. See "Classical I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " in c h a p t e r 1.
16. That the Torah w a s already a sacred text m a y be seen in the f r e q u e n t refer-
ences to "the Torah," "The Torah of Moses," "The Torah of the LORD" b o t h in
Chronicles a n d the c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s Ezra-Nehemiah. J u d s o n R. Shaver dis-
cusses m a n y of these references in his Torah and the Chroniclers History Work:
An Inquiry into the Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions
in Relationship to Pentateuchal Legislation (BJS 196; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989),
t h o u g h m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m a n y issues differs f r o m his.
17. For a list of the s o u r c e s that C h r o n i c l e s claims to d r a w u p o n , see Leiman,
Canonization, 18.
18. J a p h e t , I & II Chronicles, 20-23.

C h a p t e r 15

1. Martti Nissinen, "Preface," in Martti Nissinen, ed., Prophecy in Its Ancient

Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian Perspectives, SBL
S y m p o s i u m 13 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) , vii. For a m o r e
detailed definition, see David L. Petersen, "Defining P r o p h e c y a n d Prophetic
Literature," ibid., 3 3 - 4 4 .
2. O n the ancient Near Eastern milieu, see the excellent s u m m a r y in H. B.
H u f f m o n , "Prophecy (ANE)," ABD, 5 . 4 7 7 - 8 2 . For m o r e recent a n d detailed
material, see Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (see previous note).
3. Scholars w h o have u n c o v e r e d ancient M e s o p o t a m i a n practices have repeat-
edly shed light o n biblical texts in the process. That is because p e o p l e s
t h r o u g h o u t the ancient Near East shared m a n y cultural institutions a n d
a s s u m p t i o n s ( s o m e t h i n g like w h a t we m e a n w h e n we speak of "Western civ-
ilization" today). Also, Mesopotamia's leading city-states were l o n g s t a n d i n g
political—and therefore c u l t u r a l — c e n t e r s in the region. O n c o m m u n i c a -
tions from the gods, see the t r e a t m e n t s in A. Leo O p p e n h e i m , Ancient
Mesopotamia: Portrait 0J a Dead Civilization (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago,
1977), 2 0 6 - 2 7 ; Jean Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods,
trans. Z. Bahrani a n d M. an De Mieroop (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1992), 1 0 5 - 3 7 .
4. Bottéro, Mesopotamia, 127, 130.
5. O n this, see Martti Nissinen, "The Sociological Role of the Neo-Assyrian
Prophets," in Nissinen, ed., Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,
89-114.
6. ANET, 605. More of these p r o p h e c i e s are collected and discussed in Simo
Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, State Archives of Assyria 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki
Univ. Press, 1997).
7. Ibid., 624. For a detailed discussion of the Mari letters a n d their bearing o n
prophecy, see A b r a h a m Malamat, Mari and the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998),
59-162.
8. For a survey of interpretations of the Deir Alia inscription, see H u f f m o n ,
"Prophecy (ANE)," ABD, 5 . 4 7 7 ; the text m a y be f o u n d in COS, 2 . 1 4 0 - 4 5 .
9. See Yochanan Muffs, Love & Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel
( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), 9 - 4 8 .
10. See the classic s t u d y of Claus W e s t e r m a n n , Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech,
trans. H. C. W h i t e (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 9 8 - 1 2 8 .
11. For an ironic e n d o r s e m e n t of the p r o p h e t s ' intercessory role, see J e r e m i a h
7:16; 11:14; 14:11, w h e r e G o d asks J e r e m i a h not to pray for Israel.
12. O n this etymology, see HALOT, 2 . 6 6 1 - 6 2 . T h e following p a r a g r a p h s are
based on an assortment of critical t r e a t m e n t s of biblical p r o p h e c y ; see esp.
Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1980); J o s e p h Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the
Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1983). Two good p o p u l a r i n t r o d u c t i o n s to p r o p h e c y are: J o h n F A. Sawyer,
Prophecy and the Prophets of the Old Testament, Oxford Bible Series (Oxford:
 O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1987); J a m e s Luther Mayes a n d Paul J. Achtemeier,
Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
13. Some scholars have c o n t e n d e d that classical p r o p h e c y developed as a reac-
tion against the first p e r i o d of "social disintegration in Israel" a n d that class
differences b e c a m e especially p r o n o u n c e d at this time (e.g., Bright, History,
2 5 9 - 6 2 ) . That a r g u m e n t is c i r c u l a r — t h e classical p r o p h e t s s u c h as A m o s
first c o n d e m n these social c o n d i t i o n s , therefore they m u s t have b e e n n e w in
their day. N o external evidence exists in s u p p o r t of this idea.
14. Even earlier figures w h o m the Bible describes as p r o p h e t s include Moses,
Miriam, D e b o r a h , a n d Samuel.
15. T h e H e b r e w here for "can we bring" is navi ( ‫ ) נ ב י א‬, w h i c h is p r o n o u n c e d a n d
spelled the same as the w o r d for "prophet." This is a p u n , or possibly a p o p -
ular etymology for navi: the o n e to w h o m o n e "brings" p a y m e n t in exchange
for h e a r i n g the future.
16. For m o r e o n the miracle stories, see Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical Stories:
The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible Their Literary Types and
History (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988); Robert B. Coote, ed., Elijah and Elisha in
Socioliterary Perspective, Semeia Studies (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).

C h a p t e r 16

1. T h e best English c o m m e n t a r i e s o n A m o s are H a n s Walter Wolff, Joel

and Amos, trans. W. J a n z e n et al., H e r m e n e i a (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977),
a n d Shalom M. Paul, Amos ( H e r m e n e i a ; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991).
Wolff excels o n matters of history of c o m p o s i t i o n , a n d Paul o n the m e a n i n g
of the b o o k in its final f o r m , especially as elucidated by ancient Near Eastern
texts.
2. T h e same H e b r e w w o r d , korchah ( ‫ ) ק ר ח ה‬, is used in b o t h contexts, t h o u g h
the different JPS translation c o m m i t t e e s for Torah a n d Nevi'im translated it
differently, o b s c u r i n g this issue.
3. This distinction is m a d e by Yehezkel K a u f m a n , The Religion of Israel (trans.
Moshe G r e e n b e r g ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1972).
4. This is a m a j o r t h e m e of Wellhausen's Prolegomena.
5. For o n e s u c h reconstruction, see Wolff, Joe! and Amos, 106-13.
6. See Moshe Greenberg, "The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the
H e b r e w Text: A S a m p l i n g f r o m Ezekiel 2 : 1 - 3 : 1 1 , " in Moshe Greenberg,
Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought, JPS Scholar of Distinction Series
(Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication Society, 1995), 2 0 9 - 2 5 . F r o m a different
 perspective, E h u d Ben Zvi h a s e m p h a s i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of looking at the
p r o p h e t i c b o o k ; see especially E h u d Ben Zvi, "The Prophetic Book: A Key
F o r m of Prophetic Literature," in Marvin A. Sweeney a n d E h u d Ben Zvi,
eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand
Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 7 6 - 9 7 .
7. T h e u n p o l i s h e d rhetoric of m a n y p r o p h e t s is surprising. O n this, see
S t e p h e n A. Geller, "Were the P r o p h e t s Poets?" Prooftexts 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 2 1 1 - 2 1 .
8. See the similar sentiment in Micah 6 : 6 - 7 : "(6) W i t h w h a t shall I a p p r o a c h
the LORD, / Do h o m a g e to G o d on high? / Shall I a p p r o a c h H i m with b u r n t
offerings, / W i t h calves a year old? (7) W o u l d the LORD be pleased with
t h o u s a n d s of rams, / W i t h m y r i a d s of streams of oil? Shall I give m y first-
b o r n for m y transgression, / T h e fruit of m y b o d y for m y sins?"
9. W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Israel, 1000-586 B.C.E.
(Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 3 8 - 3 9 .
10. Scholars c o n t i n u e to debate w h e n the n o t i o n of "covenant" entered Israelite
religion, a n d w h e t h e r we m a y a s s u m e a covenantal base m e t a p h o r even in
cases w h e r e the w o r d bent is absent. O n these issues, see Nicholson, God and
His People.
11. See " D e u t e r o n o m y as a Treaty" in c h a p t e r 10; George E. M e n d e n h a l l a n d
Gary A. H e r i o n , "Covenant," ABD, 1.1179-1202.
12. Here the Ethiopians serve as an e x a m p l e of a faraway people.
13. See Shalom Spiegel, "Amos vs. Amaziah," in J u d a h G o l d i n , ed., The Jewish
Expression ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1976), 3 8 - 6 5 .
14. Here a n d in 3 : 1 5 the references are to items inlaid with ivory. Such items
have been excavated f r o m S a m a r i a — s e e the survey in Amihai Mazar, ed.,
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E., AB (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1990), 5 0 3 - 5 ; a n d King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 139-49.
15. There is almost universal a g r e e m e n t to this p o i n t , t h o u g h Meir Weiss, "The
Origin of the 'Day of the L o r d ' — R e c o n s i d e r e d , " HUCA 3 7 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 2 9 - 6 0 ,
in an excellent article surveying the Day of the LORD, dissents.
16. A collection of texts on this topic w i t h s o m e s e c o n d a r y reading is f o u n d in
Richard H. Hier, "Day of the L O R D , " ABD, 2 . 8 2 - 8 3 . See also the bibliogra-
p h y in Paul, Amos, 183, n n . 7 - 1 1 .
17. We c a n n o t tell clearly w h e t h e r A m o s directly repeated the w o r d s that he
t h o u g h t he h e a r d , or w h e t h e r he embellished t h e m . (See Moshe Greenberg,
"Jewish C o n c e p t i o n s on the H u m a n Factor in Biblical Prophecy," in Moshe
Greenberg, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought, 4 0 5 - 1 9 . ) N o r d o we k n o w
over h o w long a p e r i o d , a n d o n w h a t separate occasions, A m o s u t t e r e d his
oracles.
18. See Paul, Amos, 35, η. 32; Philip J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeo-
logical Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 2 1 - 2 2 .
19. See M. Broshi, "The Expansion of J e r u s a l e m in the Reigns of Hezekiah a n d
Manasseh," IEJ 2 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 2 1 - 2 6 .

C h a p t e r 17

1. While the Book of Isaiah has m o r e chapters, the Book of J e r e m i a h is slight-

ly longer in t e r m s of verses.
2. See esp. H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in
Composition and Redaction (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1994); Roy Ε Melugin a n d
Marvin A. Sweeney, eds., New Visions of Isaiah, J S O T S u p 2 1 4 (Sheffield,
UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
3. See the s u m m a r y in Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, O T L (Louisville, KY:
W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 6 0 - 6 6 .
4. Scholars c o n t i n u e to debate this issue, however; not all of t h e m agree that
this c h a p t e r s h o u l d be read as a p r o p h e t i c dedication or initiation.
5. W h e n 1 attribute w o r d s to "Isaiah," I d o so for convenience. I d o not m e a n
to imply that these were the actual w o r d s said by Isaiah son of A m o z ; see
"Amos the Book Versus A m o s the Prophet" in c h a p t e r 16.
6. Here in 4:1 a n d 4:2, the phrase "in that day" served as a c a t c h w o r d or catch-
phrase, leading an editor to c o m b i n e two units that were originally unrelat-
ed. T h r o u g h o u t Isaiah, s u c h c a t c h p h r a s e s help us u n d e r s t a n d the structure
of the b o o k , a n d to realize that the b o o k is not o r d e r e d chronologically.
7. For a brief description of biblical poetry, see Adele Berlin, "Reading Biblical
Poetry," in JSB, 2 0 9 7 - 2 1 0 4 . For her longer, m o r e technical discussion w i t h
bibliography, see "Parallelism," ABD, 5 . 1 5 5 - 6 2 . T h e classic w o r k is that of
Lowth f r o m 1753, w h o first u s e d the t e r m "parallelism"; i m p o r t a n t modifi-
cations to his theory are offered in J a m e s Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry:
Parallelism and Its History ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1981); Robert
Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry ( N e w York: Basic, 1985). A f u n d a m e n t a l l y dif-
ferent a p p r o a c h to biblical poetry, w h i c h will n o t be followed here, was
developed by F r a n k M. Cross a n d D. N. F r e e d m a n — s e e especially David
Noel F r e e d m a n , Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry
( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1980).
8. T h e first-century-c.E. Jewish historian J o s e p h u s m a d e this error, w h e n he
ascribed various Greek m e t e r s to biblical poetry. See Kugel, The Idea, 140.
9. There is, however, s o m e debate a b o u t w h e t h e r or n o t m e t e r exists in bibli-
cal poetry. Scholars generally agree that H e b r e w poetry (as n o w vocalized)
 has n o f o r m of alternating stressed a n d unstressed syllables. Some believe
that an earlier form, w h i c h m a y be r e c o n s t r u c t e d , h a d meter. Many parallel
phrases in the same biblical c o m p o s i t i o n are of roughly equal length, sug-
gesting to s o m e that an original m e t e r was lost. O t h e r s believe that this sim-
ply indicates a principle of biblical poetry: lines s h o u l d be of a p p r o x i m a t e -
ly equal length.
10. There are s o m e tricola, b u t they are relatively rare.
11. For an exploration of parallelism a n d w o r d - p a i r s u s i n g m o d e r n linguistics,
see Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana
Univ. Press, 1985).
12. These scholars follow the lead of Kugel a n d Alter. See esp. Kugel, The Idea,
5 1 - 5 8 ; the q u o t a t i o n is f r o m 58.
13. See Stanley Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization, 32 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973); M e n a h e m
Haran, "The Graded Numerical Sequence and the Phenomenon of
A u t o m a t i s m ' in Biblical Poetry," VTS 22 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 2 3 8 - 6 7 .
14. F r a m i n g a n n o u n c e m e n t s tend to be separate m o n o c o l a — s i m p l e sentences
w i t h o u t a parallel m a t e or mates.
15. Unlike s o m e o t h e r scholars, J a m e s Kugel w o u l d classify this p o r t i o n of the
verse n o t as a "tricolon" b u t as an " u n b a l a n c e d bicolon"; on classifications of
ancient H e b r e w poetry, see above, n. 7.
16. Similarly, three out of the four biblical o c c u r r e n c e s of s hear am (‫עם‬ ‫)שאר‬,
"the r e m n a n t of the people," are f o u n d in Isaiah (11:11, 16; 28:5). T h e
p r o p h e t even believed that G o d asked h i m to n a m e one of his children
Shear-jashub ( ‫ ) ש א ר י ש ו ב‬, m e a n i n g "A-Remnant-Shall-Return" (7:3).
17. Some older translations r e n d e r this "at the e n d of days," w h i c h is incor-
rect—see "The Day Will C o m e " in c h a p t e r 16.
18. The classic w o r k on biblical messianism is S i g m u n d Mowinckel, He That
Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, trans. G.
W. A n d e r s o n (Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1954); m o r e recently, see J o h n J.
Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Ancient Literature, AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1995), esp.
20-48.

Chapter 18

1. B. D u h m a n d S. Mowinckel e m p h a s i z e d w h a t they saw as a biographic

"strand"; for a summary, see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 1989), 1 1 - 1 2 .
 2. Even the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n h a s n o t r e m a i n e d b e y o n d suspicion. At least as
described elsewhere in the Bible, J o s i a h s r e f o r m t u r n e d the n a t i o n u p s i d e
d o w n ; therefore, if J e r e m i a h truly w a s active d u r i n g that r e f o r m , he pre-
s u m a b l y w o u l d have m e n t i o n e d it. Yet he never explicitly does. In a d d i t i o n ,
only one p r o p h e c y is dated d u r i n g Josiah's reign, a n d the date f o r m u l a there
is u n u s u a l l y vague (3:6). Both facts suggest to s o m e that J e r e m i a h b e g a n to
p r o p h e s y later t h a n the s u p e r s c r i p t i o n indicates.
3. It does, however, a p p e a r o n occasion in the Septuagint's Greek translation of
J e r e m i a h , to r e n d e r the term nevi'im ( ‫ נ ב י א י ם‬, "prophets").
4. Incidentally, the first clause of 3:14 illustrates m y claim (in chap. 16) that the
Israelite p r o p h e t s loved wordplay: shuvu vanim shovavim (‫שובבים‬ ‫בנים‬ ΏΙ$).
S u c h alliteration is featured also in 12:11: s amah li-shmamah, avelah alai
sh'memah, nashammah kol ha-aretz
( ·‫ץ‬ν‫א ר‬T T‫כ ל ־ ה‬τ ‫מ ה‬τ ‫ש‬- ‫נ‬τ ‫מ ה‬τ ‫ש ״מ‬ι ‫ל י‬- τ‫ל ה ע‬τ ‫ב‬: τ‫מ ה א‬τ ‫מ‬τ ‫ש‬ι ‫מ ה ·ל‬T‫ש‬T ) .
5. J o a n Oates, Babylon ( L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1979), 128.
6. A l t h o u g h Babylon is actually northeast of the land of Israel, the intervening
desert was so vast that it p r e v e n t e d direct transit. Historically, armies f r o m
the east w o u l d skirt the desert a n d reach the land of Israel via S y r i a — t h u s
e n t e r i n g f r o m the n o r t h .
7. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 143-46.
8. O n this "cup of w r a t h , " see Robert Ε Carroll, The Book of Jeremiah, OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 5 0 1 - 2 .
9. Actually, the "missing" verse is n o t altogether strange w i t h regard to
J e r e m i a h . In general, the Septuagint of J e r e m i a h reflects a m u c h shorter
H e b r e w text t h a n the Masoretic Text. F u r t h e r m o r e , its u n i t s a p p e a r in a dif-
ferent order. T h u s this first Greek translation m u s t have b e e n m a d e f r o m a
distinct edition (technically, a "recension") of J e r e m i a h — o n e that is also
attested a m o n g s o m e of the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Τον, Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, 3 1 9 - 2 7 .
10. This Targum m a y date f r o m the third c e n t u r y c.E. or earlier; see Holladay,
Jeremiah 2, 10.
11. T h e same c i p h e r m e c h a n i s m is u s e d in the Bible only in o n e o t h e r place,
J e r e m i a h 51:1. There, Leb-kamai [ ‫ = ] ל ב ק מ י‬the C h a l d e a n s [ ‫ ] ב ש ד י ם‬, the
n a m e for an A r a m e a n tribe that was i m p o r t a n t in the neo-Babylonian peri-
o d , w h i c h is o f t e n u s e d as a n a m e for the Babylonians. In that verse, h o w -
ever, the identity of the c o n d e m n e d p o p u l a c e is n o secret. For a different
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these t w o ciphers, see Mark Leuchter, "Jeremiah's 70-Year
P r o p h e c y a n d the ‫ ל ב ק מ י‬/ ‫ ש ש ך‬Atbash Codes," Bib 8 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , 5 0 3 - 2 2 .
12. T h e alternative position to a c c o u n t for this e v i d e n c e — t h a t J e r e m i a h w a s
 influenced by Josiah's r e f o r m a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c s c h o o l — i s m u c h less
likely. That h y p o t h e s i s does not explain w h y only the p r o s e — n o t the p o e t -
r y — i s so close to Deuteronomy. In a d d i t i o n , as n o t e d earlier, the b o o k offers
little evidence that J e r e m i a h affiliated himself w i t h those associated with
Josiah's r e f o r m a n d the "discovery" of Deuteronomy.
13. For o n e view, see E. W N i c h o l s o n , Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose
Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1970); m o r e recently,
see Louis S t u h l m a n , The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription
of the Correspondences with the Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent
Text-critical Research, SBLDS 8 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986); a n d the s u m m a -
ry in Carroll, Jeremiah, 3 8 - 5 0 , especially his c o n c l u d i n g r e m a r k s that "the
p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g the c o m p o s i t i o n a n d redaction of the b o o k of
J e r e m i a h persist a n d are unlikely to be resolved in favour of one overarch-
ing theory."
14. See Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 18-20.
15. See Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 3 6 - 4 0 , 5 3 - 6 2 .
16. Michael A. Carasik, "Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel" (PhD diss.,
Brandeis Univ., 1997) 85.
17. For a very different early u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this "new covenant," see
2 C o r i n t h i a n s 3 : 1 - 6 in the N e w Testament.
18. O n the "confessions," see the discussions in the c o m m e n t a r i e s , as well as
Kathleen M. O ' C o n n o r , The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and
Role in Chapters 1-25, SBLDS 9 4 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988).
19. A glance at the King J a m e s translation of this p h r a s e suggests the value of
u s i n g m o d e r n , idiomatic biblical translations.
20. Occasionally, however, J e r e m i a h does seek retribution, especially u p o n his
enemies. See, for e x a m p l e , "O LORD of Hosts, Ο just J u d g e , / W h o test the
t h o u g h t s a n d the m i n d , / Let m e see Your retribution u p o n t h e m , / For I lay
m y case before You" (11:20).
21. For this interpretation, see esp. William McKane, Jeremiah, ICC ( E d i n b u r g h :
Τ & T Clark, 1986), 1 . 3 5 7 - 5 8 .
22. To be m o r e specific, little of s u c h "angst" is visible in Isaiah, w h o v o l u n -
teered to b e c o m e a p r o p h e t (see Isaiah 6:8), w h e r e a s this "profession" w a s
forced u p o n J e r e m i a h (see 1 : 4 - 1 0 ) .
23. P e r h a p s J e r e m i a h , like m o s t people in his day, did n o t k n o w h o w to write
a n d therefore n e e d e d the services of a scribe. T h e extent of reading a n d writ-
ing abilities in ancient Israel is d e b a t e d ; see the reasonable discussion in
J a m e s L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence,
AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1998), 2 9 - 4 0 .
24. Today we have two different H e b r e w editions ("recensions") of the Book of
J e r e m i a h ; see above, n o t e 9.

Chapter 1 9

1. O n the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n priests a n d Torah traditions, see the previous

chapter. See also Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the
Exile and the Torah, J S O T S u p 3 5 8 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press,
2002).
2. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, trans, a n d ed., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1976), 1.4.
3. For m o r e on this form, see esp. N o r m a n Habel, "The F o r m a n d Significance
of the Call Narratives," ZAW 7 7 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 2 9 7 - 3 2 3 ; a n d Klaus Baltzer,
"Considerations Regarding the Office a n d Calling of the Prophet," HTR 6 1
(1968), 5 6 7 - 8 1 .
4. See m y b o o k God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, J S O T S u p 76
(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1989), 83.
5. To Moses M a i m o n i d e s — w h o lived s o m e 1 7 0 0 years after Ezekiel—divine
incorporeality was a basic principle (although it w a s still d i s p u t e d even in
his day). T h u s states the version of his Thirteen Principles recited after the
m o r n i n g prayers: "I believe w i t h perfect faith that o u r creator—blessed be his
n a m e — i s not a b o d y a n d n o bodily qualities apply to H i m , a n d He has n o
appearance whatsoever." O n this translation, see the discussion in Lawrence
A. Hoffman's My People's Prayer Book: Traditional Prayers, Modern
Commentaries, vol. 6, Tachanun and Concluding Prayers (Woodstock, VT:
Jewish Lights, 2 0 0 2 ) , 162. O n the continuity b e t w e e n biblical a n d postbibli-
cal images of the divine, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic
Mythmaking (Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2003).
6. For a s h a r p l y contrasting view, w h i c h psychoanalyzes the p r o p h e t , see
David J. Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park:
Pennsylvania State Univ., 1993).
7. This phrase, f o u n d 9 4 times in Ezekiel (out of a total of 139 in the Bible)
creates a very h u m a n image of Ezekiel as a p r o p h e t w h o felt distant f r o m
G o d , in contrast w i t h s o m e o t h e r p r o p h e t s , especially Isaiah, w h o in c h a p -
ter 6 m o v e s quite c o m f o r t a b l y a m o n g the heavenly court.
8. We n o w have e n o u g h evidence to k n o w that the synagogue did n o t arise
until several centuries after Ezekiel. This s h o u l d have b e e n obvious f r o m the
text of Ezekiel itself, w h i c h does n o t say that the people s h o u l d build any-
 thing. See the excellent s u m m a r y in Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue:
The First Thousand Years ( N e w H a v e n , CT: Yale Univ. Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 - 4 1 ; a n d
Birger O l s s o n a n d M a g n u s Z e t t e r h o l m , The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins
Until 200 C.E., CBNT 3 9 ( S t o c k h o l m : Almqvist & Wiksell, 2 0 0 3 ) .
9. O n J u l y 30, 2 0 0 4 , at 6 p . m . , a Google search for "Ezekiel spacecraft" yield-
ed 1 , 7 0 0 hits.
10. See Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology.
11. This c h a p t e r is s p e a k i n g a b o u t national resurrection, a n d h a s little or n o
b e a r i n g o n the issue of p e r s o n a l resurrection, w h i c h likely w a s a later belief.
12. See Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, J S O T S u p
196 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1995).
13. Ugarit w a s a city in n o r t h e r n C a n a a n that flourished t h r o u g h o u t the Bronze
Age, only to be destroyed a r o u n d 1 2 0 0 B.C.E. W h e n twentieth-century
archaeologists excavated its r e m a i n s , they discovered a vast Canaanite liter-
ature, w r i t t e n in a language close to biblical Hebrew. See Michael David
C o o g a n , Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978),
2 7 - 4 7 ; or COS, 1 . 3 4 3 - 5 6 .
14. O n these c h a p t e r s , see S. Tamar K a m i o n k o w s k i , Gender Reversal and Cosmic
Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel, J S O T S u p 3 6 8 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
A c a d e m i c Press, 2 0 0 3 ) .
15. This translation follows M o s h e G r e e n b e r g , Ezekiel 1-20, AB 2 2 ( G a r d e n
City: Doubleday, 1983), 2 7 1 . T h e translation that follows is f r o m M o s h e
Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, AB 2 2 a ( G a r d e n City: Doubleday, 1997), 4 7 1 . In
contrast, the JPS translation h a s s o m e w h a t b o w d l e r i z e d these passages.
16. See: w w w . b i b l e . o r g / d o c s / o t / b o o k s / e z e / e z k - i n t r . h t m .
17. For i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of his silence, see Ellen F Davis, Swallowing the Scroll:
Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy, J S O T S u p 78:
Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989), 4 8 - 5 8 .
18. See M o r t o n Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the
Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBLMS 19 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1974), 12; see m o r e generally 9 - 2 1 .
19. W h a t Ezekiel describes is n o t m e n t i o n e d in the Book of Kings, w h i c h gen-
erally did n o t hesitate to n o t e cultic sins. They look m o r e like activities
s p o n s o r e d by the m u c h earlier King M a n a s s e h t h a n activities p e r f o r m e d
d u r i n g the reign of Z e d e k i a h , the last k i n g of J u d a h . See M o s h e Greenberg,
" P r o l e g o m e n o n , " in Charles C u t l e r Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original
Prophecy ( N e w York: Ktav, 1970), xviii-xxix.
20. T h e r e is significant d e b a t e o n w h e t h e r this reflects a real Temple, or is imag-
inary. In a d d i t i o n to the c o m m e n t a r i e s , see J o n Douglas Levenson, Theology
 of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 , HSM 10 (Missoula, MT.:
Scholars, 1976); Steven S h a w n Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48,
HSM 4 9 (Atalanta: Scholars, 1992); a n d Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision
of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48, SBLDS 154
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1996).
2 1 . G o g is believed to be a reflection of the s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y Lydian k i n g Gyges.
22. It is difficult to k n o w h o w literally to read this passage, w h i c h s e e m s to sug-
gest that David himself, r a t h e r t h a n a Davidic d e s c e n d a n t , will be king!
23. A classic t r e a t m e n t of this f o r m u l a is W a l t h e r Zimmerli, "Knowledge of G o d
A c c o r d i n g to the Book of Ezekiel," in his I Am Yahweh, trans. Douglas W
Stott (Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1982), 2 9 - 9 8 .

Chapter 2 0

1. For a detailed h i s t o r y of the Persian p e r i o d , see Lester L. G r a b b e , Judaism

from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992).
2. See COS, 2 . 3 1 4 - 1 6 .
3. See J. F A. Sawyer, "Isaiah, Book of," in J o h n H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary of
Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1999), 552-54; and
C h r i s t o p h e r R. Seitz, "Trito-Isaiah," ABD, 3.501-7.
4. A reason o f t e n given, that these later sections c o m p l e m e n t the w o r d s of First
Isaiah, d o e s n o t h o l d u p to scrutiny. Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 s h o w s m o r e c o n t i n u i t y
w i t h J e r e m i a h , as B e n j a m i n D. S o m m e r h a s o b s e r v e d in his A Prophet Reads
Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998).
5. In fact, it is likely that this verse in D e u t e r o n o m y c o m e s f r o m an exilic
Deuteronomist.
6. See K a u f m a n n , The Religion of Israel, 16-17.
7. See the essays in Michael B. Dick, ed., Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The
Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East ( W i n o n a Lake, IN:
E i s e n b r a u n s , 1999).
8. See F i s h b a n e , Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 37-92.
9. A classic discussion is f o u n d in Bernard W. A n d e r s o n , " E x o d u s Typology in
S e c o n d Isaiah," in B. A n d e r s o n a n d W Harrelson, eds., Israel's Prophetic
Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg ( H a r p e r &r Brothers, 1962),
177-195.
10. See O t t o Eissfeldt, "The P r o m i s e s of Grace to David in Isaiah 5 5 . 1 - 5 , " in
A n d e r s o n a n d H a r r e l s o n , eds., Israel's Prophetic Heritage, 196-207.
11. See Mayer I. G r u b e r , "The M o t h e r h o o d of G o d in S e c o n d Isaiah," in his The
Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Atlanta: Scholars, 1 9 9 2 ) , 3 - 1 5 .
12. An old, b u t excellent discussion of the m a n y possibilities for identifying the
servant is C h r i s t o p h e r R. N o r t h , The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An
Historical and Critical Study ( L o n d o n : O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1948).
13. O n e definition of cognitive dissonance is "a psychological p h e n o m e n o n
which refers to the d i s c o m f o r t felt at a d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n what
y o u already k n o w or believe, a n d n e w i n f o r m a t i o n or interpretation." See
J.S. A t h e r t o n , Learning and Teaching: Cognitive Dissonance (UK, 2003);
http://www.learningandteachinginfo/learning/dissonance.htm. Psycholo-
gists first u s e d the idea of cognitive d i s s o n a n c e in the late 1950s to h e l p
explain the behavior of p e r s o n s in cults. Biblical scholars later applied the
c o n c e p t to biblical oracles. See Robert Ρ Carroll, When Prophecy Failed:
Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New
York: Seabury Press, 1979).
14. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed, 161.
15. W h i l e verses are n u m b e r e d to a c c o r d i n g to their location in "Ezra" or
" N e h e m i a h , " the two are c o m b i n e d as a single b o o k a c c o r d i n g to Jewish
r e c k o n i n g — s e e n. 15 in c h a p t e r 2.
16. See the discussion in Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish
Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New
York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 7 - 3 3 .
17. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1 1 5 - 2 3 .
18. The cessation of p r o p h e c y is a c o m p l e x issue—see Benjamin D. S o m m e r ,
"Did P r o p h e c y Cease? Evaluating a Réévaluation," JBL 115 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 3 1 - 4 7 .

Chapter 2 1

1. Most scholars agree that the latter part of Zechariah is a later addition. See
M. Saeb0, "Zechariah, Book of," in J o h n H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation, 666-69.
2. Similar to Z e c h a r i a h s visions w i t h an angelic g u i d e — a n d close to t h e m
chronologically—is Ezekiel's vision featuring a s u p e r n a t u r a l guide, "a m a n
w h o s h o n e like c o p p e r " (Ezek. 40:3).
3. This is cited f r o m Semeia 14 in the survey of J o h n J. Collins, The Apocalyptic
Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2 n d ed. ( G r a n d
Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1998), 5. For a different definition, see Klaus Koch,
" W h a t Is Apocalyptic? An A t t e m p t at a Preliminary Definition," in Paul D.
H a n s o n , ed., Visionaries and Their Apocalypses (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983),
16-36.
4. For a m o r e extensive exposition of these c h a p t e r s as apocalyptic, f r o m a dif-
 ferent starting p o i n t , see S t e p h e n L. C o o k , Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The
Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 1 2 3 - 6 5 .
5. These b o o k s are e x a m i n e d in detail in Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination.
6. The Persian influence is hard to trace because o u r earliest extant m a n u -
scripts of b o t h literatures tend to date f r o m m u c h later t h a n this period.
Therefore we c a n n o t tell the difference b e t w e e n early a n d late develop-
m e n t s . For various suggestions c o n c e r n i n g the origin of apocalypticism, see
the essays in J o h n J. Collins, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1, The
Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m ,
1998), 3 - 1 6 1 .
7. See the essays in Collins, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1, 2 6 7 - 4 1 4 .
8. For m o r e details on these a n d o t h e r i n t r o d u c t o r y issues, see J o h n J. Collins,
Daniel, H e r m e n e i a (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 1 - 1 2 3 .
9. For the definition of apocalyptic literature, see o u r discussion of Zechariah
earlier in this chapter.
10. See Collins, Daniel, 3 3 1 .
11. Again, j u s t to be clear: the basis for this reinterpretation is the d o u b l i n g of
the w o r d sh-v-'-m ( ‫ — ש ב ע י ם‬H e b r e w w a s written w i t h o u t vowels in this peri-
od), once as "seventy" ( ‫ — ש ב ע י ם‬s h i v ' i m ) a n d once as "weeks" ( ‫ ב ע י ם‬$ —
shavu'im).
12. This term is b o r r o w e d f r o m the Israeli scholar J o s e p h H e i n e m a n n , w h o s e
m a j o r w o r k has n o t b e e n translated into English.
13. See Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 18: "The first a s s u m p t i o n that all ancient
interpreters seem to share is that the Bible is a f u n d a m e n t a l l y cryptic d o c u -
ment."
14. See Michael F i s h b a n e , Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford:
C l a r e n d o n , 1985). A c o n d e n s e d version of this is Michael Fishbane, "Inner
Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel" in
Midrash and Literature, ed. Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick ( N e w
Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1986), 1 9 - 3 7 .
15. See Leonard J. G r e e n s p o o n , "The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection," in
Baruch H a l p e r n a n d J o n D. Levenson, eds., Traditions in Transformation:
Turning Points in Biblical Faith ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981),
2 4 7 - 3 2 1 ; Klaas S p r o n k , Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East, AOAT 2 1 9 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1986).
16. The origins of the d o c t r i n e of resurrection are n o t clear. It m i g h t be a reac-
tion to the historical events b e t w e e n 167 a n d 164, w h e n J e w s were first
p u n i s h e d for their specific religious beliefs, w h i c h m a y have led to the idea
that G o d w a s p o s t p o n i n g the reward for faithfulness, to a time after death.
 Alternatively, it m i g h t reflect Greek influence; see m y "Is There M a r t y r d o m
in the H e b r e w Bible?" in Margaret C o r m a c k , ed., Sacrificing the Self: Perspec-
fives on Martyrdom and Religion ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 3 - 2 2 ,
esp. 15.
17. In a d d i t i o n to c o m m e n t a r i e s o n Daniel, the following three b o o k s are espe-
cially helpful: D a n n a N o l a n Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in
Daniel 1-6, J S O T S u p 72 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988);
Pamela J. Milne, Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical
Narrative (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1988) a n d Lawrence M. Wills, The
Jew in the Foreign Court, H D R 26 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990).
18. This is the only biblical reference that suggests that G o d requires m e m b e r s
of the C o v e n a n t to d r i n k special wine. (It w o u l d be anachronistic to use the
w o r d "kosher" in reference to the food that Daniel a n d his four friends eat.)
19. See the discussion of the "royal tale" genre in the w o r k s cited in n. 17,
above, a n d in Collins, Daniel, 38-52.
20. O n the ahistorical character of the Book of J o n a h , see A m o s F u n k e n s t e i n ,
Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1993),
64-70.
21. See W Lee H u m p h r e y s , "A Life-Style for Diaspora: A S t u d y of the Tales of
Esther a n d Daniel," JBL 9 2 (1973), 2 1 1 - 2 3 . The Septuagint version of Esther,
w h i c h has m a n y additions relative to the H e b r e w text, tells a similar story.

Chapter 2 2

1. For a survey of general issues c o n c e r n i n g Psalms, see Klaus Seybold,

Introducing the Psalms, trans. R. G r a e m e D u n p h y ( E d i n b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark,
1990).
2. O n these, see M o s h e Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the
Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1983),
esp. 5 9 - 6 0 (for the e n u m e r a t i o n of the ninety-seven prose prayers).
Scholars a n d s t u d e n t s o f t e n s t u d y prose a n d poetic prayers separately, b u t
this is u n f o r t u n a t e since the t w o genres m a y be m u t u a l l y enlightening.
3. For this type of analysis, see Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer.
4. For the analysis that follows, see m y " W o m e n a n d Psalms: Toward an
U n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Role of Women's Prayer in the Israelite Cult," in Victor
H. M a t t h e w s et al., eds, Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient
Near East, J S O T S u p 2 6 2 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998),
2 5 - 5 6 , esp. 4 5 - 4 8 .
 5. Specifically, this p s a l m features t w o types of parallelism: s y n o n y m o u s (e.g.,
"He raises the p o o r f r o m the d u s t , / Lifts u p the n e e d y f r o m the dunghill";
v. 8), a n d antithetical (e.g., "The b o w s of the m i g h t y are b r o k e n , / A n d the
faltering are girded w i t h strength"; v. 4). As for figurative language, it refers
to G o d via the m e t a p h o r "rock" (v. 2).
6. O n w h y this m a y be so, see Knohl, "Between Voice a n d Silence."
7. See the t e r m s u s e d in Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1 With an
Introduction to Cultic Poetry, F O T L XIV ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s ,
1988), 9 - 2 1 .
8. For m o r e o n this type of analysis see Claus W e s t e r m a n , Praise and Lament in
the Psalms, trans. Keith R. C r i m a n d Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta: J o h n Knox,
1981), t h o u g h he h a s a slightly different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the lament's
structure.
9. Scholars debate w h e t h e r biblical H e b r e w expresses tenses. Some h o l d that
the verbal f o r m s instead indicate w h e t h e r actions are c o m p l e t e or not.
However, that debate is n o t i m p o r t a n t for this particular text, since here the
H e b r e w m a k e s it clear that these are actions c o m p l e t e d in the past.
10. For one description of this inferred f u n c t i o n a r y in Israel's shrines, see
Aubrey R. J o h n s o n , The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: Univ. of
Wales Press, 1962).
11. For an investigation of various types of divine responses to prayers, see
Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the LORD: The Form and Theology of Biblical
Prayer (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 1 3 5 - 7 7 .
12. O n the genre of "entrance liturgy," see H e r m a n n G u n k e l , An Introduction to
the Psalms, trans. J a m e s D. Nogalski (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1998),
313.
13. Of the p s a l m s a t t r i b u t e d to the "Korahites," Psalm 4 3 lacks an explicit
s u p e r s c r i p t i o n , b u t on the g r o u n d s of c o n t e n t a n d style, m o s t scholars
a s s u m e that it is the s e c o n d half of Psalm 42. O n the m e a n i n g of the s u p e r -
scriptions that m e n t i o n David, see Alan M. Cooper, "The Life a n d Times of
King David According to the Psalter," in The Poet and The Historian, ed. R. E.
F r i e d m a n (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 1 1 7 - 3 1 . Historians d o n o t view
King David as the true i n v e n t o r of psalmody, because p s a l m genres exist in
even older literature f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a .
14. See N a h u m M. Sarna, Songs of the Heart: An Introduction to the Book of Psalms
( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1993), 1 9 - 2 0 .
15. See Gary A. R e n d s b u r g , Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected
Psalms, SBLMS 4 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). He likely overstates the case for
N o r t h e r n psalms.
16. See Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134): Their Place in
Israelite History and Religion, SBLDS 148 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996), 1 - 2 7 .
17. See Gerald H e n r y Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76
(Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985); a n d J. C l i n t o n M c C a n n , The Shape and Shaping
of the Psalter, J S O T S u p 159 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
18. As we saw in c h a p t e r 11, a s e c o n d a r y insertion at the start of J o s h u a also
inserts Torah into the b e g i n n i n g of the s e c o n d m a j o r p o r t i o n of the Bible,
Nevi'im.

Chapter 2 3

1. A "proverb" is a type of saying, while "Proverbs" is the n a m e of a b o o k .

2. T h e n a t u r e of ancient w i s d o m schools is explored in J o h n G. G a m m i e a n d
Leo G. P e d u e , eds., The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East ( W i n o n a
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
3. See, for e x a m p l e , Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical
Wisdom Literature, AB ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1990), 1 1 5 - 1 8 .
4. T h e two m a j o r i n t r o d u c t i o n s to the genre of w i s d o m literature are: J a m e s L.
Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Atlanta: J o h n Knox,
1981); a n d Murphy, The Tree of Life.
5. Rather t h a n " w i s d o m literature," R. N. W h y b r a y prefers to s p e a k instead of
"the intellectual tradition." See his The Intellectual Tradition in the Old
Testament, BZAW 135 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974).
6. See, for example, the essays in J o h n Day et al., eds., Wisdom in Ancient Israel
(Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, 1995), 9 4 - 1 6 9 .
7. For o t h e r s u c h identical pairs, see Daniel C. Snell, Twice-Told Proverbs and
the Composition of the Book of Proverbs ( W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s ,
1993), esp. 35.
8. See Snell, Twice-Told Proverbs.
9. See R. B. Y. Scott, "Wise a n d Foolish, Righteous a n d W i c k e d , " VT 29 ( 1 9 7 2 ) :
145-65.
10. See William McKane, Proverbs, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 1 0 - 2 2 .
11. See Klaus Koch, "Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?"
in J a m e s L. Crenshaw, ed., Theodicy in the Old Testament (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983), 5 7 - 8 7 .
12. For additional examples, see R. B. Y. Scott, "Folk Proverbs of the Ancient
Near East," in J a m e s L. Crenshaw, ed., Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom
( N e w York: Ktav, 1976), 4 1 7 - 2 6 .
13. It is u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r "foreign" in this context m e a n s non-Israelite, or any
w o m e n outside of one's wife.
14. According to s o m e scholars, w i s d o m is hypostasized here as a deity. For dif-
ferent views, see Bernhard Lang, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite
Goddess Redefined ( N e w York: Pilgrim Press, 1986); Claudia V Camp,
Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d
Press, 1985); a n d Michael V Fox, Proverbs 1-9, AB (Garden City, NY, 2000).
15. For one possible explanation, see J o s e p h Blenkinsopp, "The Social Context
of the O u t s i d e r W o m a n ' in Proverbs 1 - 9 , " Bib 72 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 4 5 7 - 7 3 .
16. See COS, 1 . 1 1 5 - 2 2 .
17. Some scholars believe that a later editor a d d e d the closing passage so as to
c o u n t e r the misogynistic i n t r o d u c t i o n . See Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs, O T L
(Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1999), 2 7 3 - 7 4 .
18. See J a m e s L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel, 62.
19. For a brief description of h o w p r o v e r b s f u n c t i o n , see J a m e s G. Williams,
"The Power of F o r m : A Study of Biblical Proverbs," Semeia 17 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,
3 5 - 5 8 ; for a longer discussion see his Those Who Ponder Proverbs: Aphoristic
Thinking and Biblical Literature (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1981).
20. See for e x a m p l e , Murphy, The Tree of Life, 7 8 - 7 9 .
21. F o r the m a i n s t r e a m view, see, e.g., Michael V Fox, T h e JPS Bible
Commentary: Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2 0 0 4 ) ,
8 2 - 8 3 . Peter Machinist expresses a contrary view in the JSB, 1 6 2 1 - 2 2 .
22. See Robert Gordis, "Quotations in W i s d o m Literature," in Crenshaw, ed.,
Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, 2 2 0 - 4 4 ; a n d R. N. Whybray, "The
Identification and Use of Q u o t a t i o n s in Ecclesiastes," SVT 32 (1981), 4 3 5 - 5 1 .
23. The best i n t r o d u c t i o n to Ecclesiastes, w h i c h also c o n t a i n s a detailed c o m -
mentary, is Michael V Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A
Rereading of Ecclesiastes ( G r a n d Rapids., MI; E e r d m a n s , 1999).
24. Linguistic evidence suggests that Ecclesiastes is a m u c h later b o o k , f r o m the
Second Temple period. A p p a r e n t l y its a u t h o r w a n t e d to lend the protagonist
the aura of Solomon's wealth a n d w i s d o m . A l t h o u g h the b o o k does n o t con-
tain any Greek w o r d s , m a n y scholars believe that it reflects the influence of
Greek t h o u g h t .
25. Based o n this passage in Ecclesiastes, the folksinger Pete Seeger c o m p o s e d a
s o n g that the Byrds m a d e f a m o u s in 1965:

To e v e r y t h i n g — t u r n , t u r n , t u r n
There is a s e a s o n — t u r n , t u r n , t u r n
A n d a time for ev'ry p u r p o s e u n d e r h e a v e n
 A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to r e n d , a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace: I swear it's n o t too late!

Ironically, these lyrics—which A m e r i c a n protesters s a n g often d u r i n g the

Vietnam W a r — d r a m a t i c a l l y altered the original p o i n t of Ecclesiastes.
26. T h e d e t e r m i n i s m in Ecclesiastes c o n t i n u e s in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (This
shared feature is o n e aspect that scholars cite in dating this biblical b o o k to
the Hellenistic period.) See J e a n D u h a i m e , "Determinism," in Lawrence H.
Schiffman a n d J a m e s C. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls
( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 9 4 - 9 8 .
27. See R.N. Whybray, "Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy," JSOT 2 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 8 7 - 9 8 .

Chapter 2 4

1. In a d d i t i o n to the various c o m m e n t a r i e s cited below, see E d w i n M. G o o d , In

Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with a Translation (Stanford, CA: Stanford
Univ. Press, 1990).
2. For an overview of the difficulties of the language of J o b , see J o n a s C.
Greenfield, "The Language of the Book" in Moshe Greenberg et al., The Book
of Job: A New Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1980), xiv-xvi.
3. For a different view, see David J.A. Clines, "The A r g u m e n t s of Job's Three
Friends," in D. J. A. Clines et al., eds., Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical
Literature, J S O T S u p 19 (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1982), 1 9 9 - 2 1 4 .
4. For the p u r p o s e of this exposition, the c o n t e n t of Elihu's s p e e c h e s will be
ignored, following the m o d e l of Matitiahu Tsevat, "The M e a n i n g of the Book
of Job," in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies: Essays on
the Literature and Religion of the Hebrew Bible ( N e w York: Ktav, 1980), 1 - 3 7 ,
along w i t h m a n y others. Some see Elihu's s p e e c h e s as "retarding" the action,
while others note the similarities b e t w e e n t h e m a n d God's speeches in the
following c h a p t e r — b o t h deal extensively w i t h God's p o w e r in nature.
5. For e x a m p l e , J o b 2 8 raises several questions: W h o is speaking, J o b or the
narrator? Does the c h a p t e r reflect the w o r k of one a u t h o r or several? Is it
original or secondary? All of these q u e s t i o n s affect the m o s t basic question:
w h a t does it really m e a n ?
6. For additional details c o n c e r n i n g this a n d o t h e r source-critical distinctions,
see the c o m m e n t a r i e s .
 7. For this distinction, see, a m o n g others, Robert Gordis, The Book of God and
Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1978), 13.
8. O n this u n i t , see N a h u m M. Sarna, "Epic S u b s t r a t u m in the Prose of J o b , "
Studies in Biblical Interpretation, 411-24.
9. Some w o u l d discuss this in t e r m s of "corrections of the scribes" or "a scrib-
al e u p h e m i s m " (e.g., Samuel Rolles Driver a n d George B u c h a n a n Gray, The
Book of Job, ICC [Edinburgh: Τ «Sr Τ Clark, 1971], 8; Marvin H. Pope, Job,
AB [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973], 8), b u t this is n o t c o r r e c t — s e e Τον,
Textual Criticism, 64-67.
10. Sarna, "Epic S u b s t r a t u m in the Prose of Job."
11. S t e p h e n Mitchell, The Book of Job (San Francisco, CA: N o r t h Point, 1987), 5.
12. Isaiah p o r t r a y e d G o d as s u r r o u n d e d by angels (Isa. 6 : 1 - 8 ; see "Location,
Location, Location" in c h a p t e r 19). Elsewhere the p r o p h e t Micaiah express-
es the s a m e idea: "I saw the LORD seated u p o n His t h r o n e , w i t h all the host
of heaven s t a n d i n g in a t t e n d a n c e to the right a n d to the left of H i m " (1 Kings
22:19).
13. See the c o m m e n t in E. D h o r m e , A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans.
Harold Knight (Nashville, TN: T h o m a s Nelson, 1984), 5.
14. For the story of this d e v e l o p m e n t , see Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan
( N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995). For m o r e o n the Satan in the H e b r e w
Bible, see Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible,
HSM 4 3 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988).
15. Avi Hurvitz, "The Date of the Prose-tale of J o b Linguistically Reconsidered,"
HTR 6 7 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 7 - 3 4 .
16. For m o r e o n this p o i n t , see m y b o o k God Is King, 105.
17. T h e reference is to "Mother Earth," see N o r m a n C. Habel, The Book of Job,
O T L (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 93.
18. For a different, (overly) close r e a d i n g of this section, see Meir Weiss,
The Story of Job's Beginning: A Literary Analysis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1983).
19. See Michael Brennen Dick, "The Legal M e t a p h o r in J o b 31," CBQ 4 1 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
3 7 - 5 0 a n d "Job 3 1 , T h e O a t h of I n n o c e n c e , a n d the Sage," ZAW 9 5 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ,
31-53.
20. See Habel ,Job, 535-36.
2 1 . O n girding one's loins, see Habel, Job, 536.
22. O n the s t r o n g forensic b a c k g r o u n d of the b o o k , see Habel, Job, 5 4 - 5 7 a n d
passim.
23. For the f u n c t i o n of these rhetorical questions, see (in a d d i t i o n to the c o m -
 mentaries) Michael V Fox, "Job 3 8 a n d God's Rhetoric," Semeia 19 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,
53-61.
24. In a d d i t i o n to the c o m m e n t a r i e s , the following three very different treat-
m e n t s of these speeches are helpful: R. A. F MacKenzie, "The P u r p o s e of the
Yahweh Speeches in the Book of Job," in Studia Biblical et Orientalia, AnOr
10 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1959), 1 . 3 0 1 - 1 1 ; Tsevat, "The
M e a n i n g of the Book of Job"; a n d Athalya Brenner, "God's A n s w e r to Job,"
VT 3 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 2 9 - 3 7 .
25. In a d d i t i o n to the c o m m e n t a r i e s , see B. F Batto, "Behemoth," D D D 1 6 5 - 6 9
a n d C. Uehlinger, "Leviathan," D D D , 5 1 1 - 1 5 . O n Ugarit, see n. 13 in c h a p -
ter 19.
26. For o n e a t t e m p t to resolve this ambiguity, see J o h n Briggs Curtis, " O n Job's
Response to Yahweh," JBL 9 8 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 9 7 - 5 1 1 .
27. Mitchell, The Book of Job, 88, 1 2 8 - 2 9 .
28. This is the thesis of Carol A. N e w s o m , The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral
Imagination ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 3 ) ; she s p e a k s t h r o u g h o u t of
J o b as a " p o l y p h o n i c c o n s t r u c t i o n . "

Chapter 2 5

1. This c h a p t e r is based o n m y f o r t h c o m i n g article "A Lock W h o s e Key Is Lost:

Unresolved a n d Unresolvable P r o b l e m s in Interpreting the Song" in Scrolls
of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs, ed. Peter S. H a w k i n s a n d Lesleigh
C u s h i n g Stahlberg (Bronx, NY: F o r d h a m Univ. Press, f o r t h c o m i n g ) ; see fur-
ther literature there.
2. Readers in English m a y find it fruitful to consult m o r e t h a n o n e translation,
s u c h as Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7 C ( G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday,
1977); Marcia Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary Study
of The Song of Songs (Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1982); Ariel a n d C h a n a
Bloch, The Song of Songs ( N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995).
3. T h e text m e n t i o n s a "king" in 1:4, 12; 3:9, 11; a n d 7:6. It m e n t i o n s "Solo-
m o n " in 1:5; 3:7, 9, 11; a n d 8:11.
4. O n the wasfs, see the essays in Athalya Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion
to The Song of Songs (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993),
214-57.
5. Scholars have investigated the possibility of female a u t h o r s h i p of the Song;
for a discussion, see A. Brenner a n d Ε van D i j k - H e m m e s , On Gendering
 Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1986), esp.
7 1 - 8 1 . For a critique, see m y article "Lock W i t h o u t a Key."
6. For a b r o a d e r view of the Jewish attitude, see J o n a t h a n Magonet, ed., Jewish
Explorations of Sexuality (Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1995).
7. See especially Michael V Fox, The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs
(Madison: Univ. of W i s c o n s i n Press, 1985).
8. Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley: Univ. of California
Press, 1976), 2 . 1 8 2 .
9. Robert D. Biggs, Sà.zi.ga: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations (Locust
Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1967), 30.
10. This is q u o t e d f r o m Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, 79.
11. Pope, Song of Songs, 516.
12. A possible exception to this is in 8:6, w h e r e shalhevetyah ( ‫ ) ש ל ה ב ת י ה‬m a y be
u n d e r s t o o d as either "the flame of G o d " or "a great flame"; see Pope, Song of
Songs, 6 7 0 - 7 1 .
13. Despite s o m e interpreters' claims to the contrary, it is quite clear that (at
least in most passages) the lovers are u n m a r r i e d , a n d are n o t b r i d e a n d
g r o o m . For e x a m p l e , in 1:6 the female speaker is u n d e r her brothers', not
her h u s b a n d ' s , control.
14. Women's sexual rights a c c o r d i n g to biblical law are explained most clearly
in J u d i t h R o m n e y Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the
Mishnah ( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1988), 4 0 - 4 1 . W i d o w s and
divorcees were exceptional, in that they controlled their o w n sexuality.
15. T h e bride-price m u s t n o t be c o n f u s e d w i t h the dowry. T h e bride-price goes
f r o m the groom's family to the bride's family, w h e r e a s the d o w r y is b r o u g h t
by the bride into the marriage. Biblical law does n o t m a k e clear w h e t h e r the
d o w r y b e c o m e s the groom's p r o p e r t y or not; in rabbinic law, the g r o o m m a y
e n j o y the benefits f r o m or interest o n the dowry, b u t the d o w r y belongs to
the bride.
16. For a m o r e detailed reading of this passage ( 5 : 2 - 6 ) , see m y article "Sensual
or Sublime: O n Teaching the Song of Songs," in Approaches to Teaching the
Hebrew Bible as Literature in Translation, ed. Barry N. O l s h e n a n d Yael S.
F e l d m a n ( N e w York: M o d e r n Language Association, 1989), 1 3 3 - 3 5 .
17. See especially Marcia Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible, 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 .
18. See Victor H. Matthews, " P e r f u m e s a n d Spices," ABD, 5 . 2 2 6 - 2 8 , esp. 2 2 7 .
19. See F r a n k Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic ( C a m b r i d g e , MA:
Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 5 5 - 5 6 , n. 4 4 , especially his reference to the
"Grand Teton range" as it m a y relate to the divine n a m e Shaddai.
20. See b. S a n h é d r i n 101a.
Chapter 2 6

1. T h e observations b e l o w o n R u t h a n d Esther are largely based o n D a n n a

N o l a n Fewell a n d David Miller G u n n , Compromising Redemption: Relating
Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox,
1990); Kirsten Nielson, Ruth, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster J o h n Knox,
1997); Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther
( C o l u m b i a : Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1991); J o n D. Levenson, Esther,
O T L (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1997); a n d Adele Berlin, The
JPS Bible Commentary: Esther (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
2001).
2. Some consider this single verse (4:7) to be a later gloss a d d e d o n to a m u c h
earlier b o o k . Scholars are c o n t i n u i n g a healthy debate c o n c e r n i n g Ruth's
date.
3. See m y The Creation of History, 8-19.
4. See A n d r é Lacoque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in
Israel's Tradition, OBT (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 51.
5. W h a t H a m a n offers is a s u m larger t h a n any one p e r s o n could possibly have
possessed. Fox, Character and Ideology, 52, estimates this a m o u n t as
" 5 8 % - 6 8 % of the a n n u a l revenue of the empire."
6. See Sandra Beth Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure, SBLDS
4 4 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 3 1 - 3 5 ; for other structures, see 1 0 6 - 1 3 .
7. K e n n e t h Craig strongly advocates the view that P u r i m p r e c e d e d the Book of
Esther; see his Reading Esther: A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque
(Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1995). See also Adele Berlin, in
Esther, xxvii, a n d in the JSB, 1623.
8. See Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in
Biblical Narrative (Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1985), 3 1 - 3 2 .
9. See Shaye J.D. C o h e n , The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties,
Uncertainties (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1999).

Chapter 2 7

1. A m o r e detailed overview of m a n y of the issues discussed here is J o h n

Barton, "The Significance of a Fixed Text a n d C a n o n , " in Magne Saeb0, ed.,
The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1
(Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1996), 6 7 - 8 3 .
2. Philip R. Davies e m p h a s i z e s the role of the p o p u l a c e in his Scribes and
 Schools: the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r
J o h n Knox, 1998), w h i c h is s u m m a r i z e d in his "The J e w i s h Scriptural
Canon in Cultural Perspective," in Lee Martin M c D o n a l d a n d J a m e s
A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: H e n d r i c k s o n , 2 0 0 2 ) ,
36-52.
3. See Lee Martin M c D o n a l d a n d J a m e s A. Sanders, "Introduction," in Lee
Martin M c D o n a l d a n d J a m e s A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 11.
4. See M o s h e Halbertal, People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority
( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1997); Eugene Ulrich, "The N o t i o n
a n d Definition of C a n o n , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon
Debate, 21-35.
5. See J a m e s Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1983).
6. For the rabbinic t e r m s u s e d for "the Bible," see Sid Z. Leiman, The
Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence
( H a m d e n , CT: A r c h o n , 1976), 5 3 - 7 2 .
7. See m y article c o a u t h o r e d w i t h T h o m a s Römer, " D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 a n d the
Case for a Persian H e x a t e u c h , " J B L 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 4 0 1 - 1 9 .
8. See Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 3 1 - 3 3 ; Steve Mason,
"Josephus a n d His Twenty-two Book C a n o n , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders,
eds., The Canon Debate, 110-27.
9. Leiman, Canonization, 33.
10. For this r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c a n o n of J o s e p h u s , see Leiman, Canonization,
32-33.
11. O n d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t did a n d did n o t h a p p e n at J a m n i a , see Jack Ρ Lewis,
"Jamnia Revisited," in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate,
146-62.
12. For texts a n d the m e a n i n g of "defiling the h a n d s , " see Leiman, Canonization,
102-120.
13. Leiman, Canonization, 53-56.
14. In a d d i t i o n to Leiman, Canonization, see J a c k N. Lightstone, "The Rabbis'
Bible: T h e C a n o n of the H e b r e w Bible a n d the Early Rabbinic Guild," in
M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 163-84.
15. Leiman, Canonization, 92-102.
16. Leiman, Canonization, 97.
17. For the late Second-Temple p e r i o d , scholars use the t e r m "sect" to refer to
one of the m a n y g r o u p s of J e w s w h o a d h e r e d to distinctive doctrine a n d
their o w n authorities. For a cogent defense of the identification of the
Q u m r a n (Dead Sea Scrolls) c o m m u n i t y with J o s e p h u s ' description of the
 party that he called Essenes, see J a m e s C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Today ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n n s , 1994), 7 1 - 9 8 .
18. However, s o m e of the Dead Sea Scrolls d o relate to Esther; see Sidnie W h i t e
Crawford, "Esther, Book of," in Schiffman and VanderKam, eds.,
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 6 9 - 7 0 . For a list of the n u m b e r of m a n -
uscripts of each biblical b o o k f o u n d at Q u m r a n , see Esther Eshel, "The Bible
in the Dead Sea Scrolls," JSB, 1922.
19. See J a m e s C. VanderKam, " Q u e s t i o n s of C a n o n Viewed t h r o u g h the Dead
Sea Scrolls," in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate , 9 1 - 1 0 9 .
20. For a history of the place of the c o d e x in J u d a i s m , see Mordechai Glatzer,
"The Book of B o o k s — F r o m Scroll to C o d e x a n d into Print," in Mordechai
Glatzer, ed., The Jerusalem Crown: Companion Volume (Jerusalem: N. Ben-
Zvi, 2 0 0 2 ) , 6 1 - 1 0 1 .
21. See N a h u m M. S a m a , "Ancient Libraries a n d the O r d e r i n g of the Biblical
Books," in his Studies in Biblical Interpretation, 53-66.
22. W h e n the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls s o m e t i m e s copied Genesis a n d
E x o d u s o n t o a single l o n g scroll, they s k i p p e d several lines b e t w e e n the two
b o o k s , w h i c h indicates that those b o o k s were viewed as separate.
23. Leiman, Canonization, 53-72.
24. T h e m a i n d e f e n d e r of an alternative r e c o n s t r u c t i o n — a n original two-part
c a n o n — i s J o h n Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in
Israel after the Exile (Oxford: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 1986), 3 5 - 9 5 . O n p r o b -
lems w i t h m a n y of the s t a n d a r d a r g u m e n t s in favor of an original or early
tripartite c a n o n , see Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, "Origins of a Tripartite O l d
Testament C a n o n , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate,
1 2 8 - 4 5 ; Eugene Ulrich, "The Non-Attestation of a Tripartite C a n o n in
4QMMT," CBQ 6 5 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 0 2 - 1 4 .
25. The older characterization of an Alexandrian vs. a Palestinian c a n o n is n o t
viable; see Albert C. S u n d b e r g Jr., "The Septuagint: T h e Bible of Hellenistic
J u d a i s m , " in M c D o n a l d a n d Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 79.
26. See, for e x a m p l e , Leiman, Canonization, 131.
27. O n variation in the o r d e r of the Latter P r o p h e t s a n d in K e t h u v i m , see
Christian C. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the
Bible ( N e w York: Ktav, 1966), 1 - 8 .
28. For a s u m m a r y o n the "Bible" of the Dead Sea Scrolls c o m m u n i t y , see Τον,
Textual Criticism, 1 0 0 - 1 1 7 ; see also the specific evidence that Eugene Ulrich
cites in m a n y of the essays in his The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the
Bible ( G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999).
29. See, for e x a m p l e , the d i f f e r e n c e s systematically noted in J a m e s H.
 C h a r l e s w o r t h , ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts
with English Translations. Vol. 6b, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related
Documents (Louisville, KY, W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 2 ) .
30. See Pesher H a b a k k u k 4 : 9 - 1 6 , a n d the discussion in William H. Brownlee,
The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, SBLMS 2 4 (Missoula, MT.: Scholars, 1979),
80-83.
31. Moshe Greenberg, "The Stabilization of the Text of the H e b r e w Bible,
Reviewed in Light of the Biblical Materials f r o m the J u d e a n Desert," reprint-
ed in Sid Z. Leiman, The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An
Introductory Reader ( N e w York: Ktav, 1974), 314.
32. O n the difficult question of h o w various c o m p e t i n g textual versions resolved
over time into o n e "official" version, see the discussion of M. H. G o s h e n -
Gottstein, " H e b r e w Biblical Manuscripts: Their History a n d Their Place in
the HUBP Edition," in F r a n k Moore Cross a n d S h e m a r y a h u Talmon, eds.,
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text ( C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard Univ.
Press, 1975), 4 2 - 8 9 .
33. Rabbinic literature often associates the m i d r a s h i c m o v e of interpreting vari-
ant spellings—malei ( ‫ מ ל א‬, "full"; Latin: "plene") versus chaser Ρ Ο Π , "short"
or "defective")—with R. Akiva.
34. O n the variant Talmudic (and later) readings of biblical texts, see B. Barry
Levy, Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law
( N e w York: O x f o r d Univ. Press, 2 0 0 1 ) .
35. For a s u m m a r y of the evolution of the biblical text, see David E. S. Stein's
preface to the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1999), ix-xix.
36. T h e s t a n d a r d reference w o r k o n the Masoretes is Israel Yeivin, Introduction
to the Tiberian Masorah, trans. E. J. Revell, Masoretic Studies 5 (Missoula,
MT: Scholars, 1980); o n the victory of the Tiberian tradition as represented
in the Aleppo Codex, see Yosef Ofer, "The History a n d Authority of the Aleppo
Codex," in Glatzer, ed., The Jerusalem Crown: Companion Volume, 2 5 - 5 0 .

Afterword

1. O n the multiplicity of c o n c e p t i o n s in the Bible, see the essays in J a s o n Ρ

Rosenblatt a n d J o s e p h C. Sitterson, Jr., eds., "Not in Heaven": Coherence and
Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press,
1991), especially Bernard M. Levinson, "The Right Chorale: F r o m the
Poetics to the H e r m e n e u t i c s of the H e b r e w Bible," 1 2 9 - 1 5 3 .
2. In this b o o k I h a d originally i n t e n d e d to i n c l u d e c h a p t e r s o n these m o d e s of
interpretation, b u t w i t h the publication of the essays "Classical Rabbinic
Interpretation" (Yaakov Elman), "Midrash a n d Midrashic Interpretation"
(David Stern), a n d "Medieval Jewish Interpretation" (Barry D. Walfish) in
JSB, 1 8 4 4 - 1 9 0 0 , this is n o longer necessary
1 perceive only minimal continuities b e t w e e n these m o d e s of Bible
s t u d y a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y critical studies. Earlier scholars did anticipate
i m p o r t a n t aspects of historical-critical study, i n c l u d i n g the use of o t h e r
Semitic languages (some classical rabbis a n d Spanish exegetes), the idea that
s o m e small parts of the Torah are not Mosaic (Abraham ibn Ezra), certain
aspects of "lower" textual criticism (various Spanish exegetes), a n d the idea
that similar biblical laws in different b o o k s s h o u l d be s t u d i e d i n d e p e n d e n t -
ly of each o t h e r (Rashbam). Yet those rabbis applied s u c h ideas only to a
small n u m b e r of texts. N o single p r e m o d e r n scholar ever c o m b i n e d t h e m
together. In addition, they never e m p l o y e d o t h e r key features of the histor-
ical-critical m e t h o d , s u c h as c o n d u c t i n g systematic source analysis or con-
suiting ancient versions s u c h as the Septuagint. Most i m p o r t a n t , p r e m o d e r n
Jewish scholarship focused on the place of the Bible in Jewish life, not on its
place as an ancient Near Eastern d o c u m e n t . Nevertheless, the interpreta-
tions (and m o d e s of interpretation) in these Jewish sources are rich, pro-
f o u n d , a n d varied.
3. The distinction b e t w e e n w h a t the Bible "meant" a n d w h a t it "means" is cen-
tral to the p r o g r a m of Krister Stendahl (Swedish b i s h o p , theologian, a n d
Harvard professor emeritus); see esp. "Biblical Theology: A Program," in his
Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984),
1 1 - 4 4 , esp. 1 4 - 1 6 . In Jewish circles d u r i n g the twentieth century, a leading
e x p o n e n t of this a p p r o a c h w a s Mordecai M. Kaplan (professor of homiletics
at the Jewish Theological Seminary a n d f o u n d e r of Reconstruc-tionism),
w h o called it "revaluation."
4. This is a p r i m a r y example used in J a m e s L. Kugel, "Two I n t r o d u c t i o n s to
Midrash" in Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick, eds., Midrash and
Literature ( N e w Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. 1986), 7 7 - 1 0 3 ; see esp. 78.
5. O n Karaites, a g r o u p that does n o t u p h o l d the sanctity of the "oral law" (rab-
binic interpretation), see Meira Polliack, "Medieval Karaism," in Martin
G o o d m a n et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (Oxford: O x f o r d
Univ. Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 9 5 - 3 2 6 .
6. See m y earlier discussion o n this issue in "Biblical History a n d Jewish
Biblical Theology," JR 77 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , 5 6 3 - 8 3 , esp. 5 7 4 - 7 7 .
7. Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, "In the third m o n t h , " p a r a g r a p h 25; p. 2 2 3 of
M a n d e l b a u m edition; for the c o m p l e t e texts a n d a discussion, see m y "The
M a n y Faces of G o d in E x o d u s 19," in Alice O g d e n Bellis a n d Joel S.
Kaminsky, eds., Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures,
SBL S y m p o s i u m s Series 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) ,
3 5 3 - 6 7 , esp. 3 5 3 .
Sources Cited*

Ackroyd, P R. et al., eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. C a m b r i d g e :

C a m b r i d g e University. Press, 1 9 6 3 - 7 0 .
Aharoni, Yohanan. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel from the Prehistoric
Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period. Translated by A n s o n Rainey.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
.The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Translated by Α. Ε Rainey.
L o n d o n : Burns & Oates, 1979.
Aharoni, Yohanan et al., eds. The Carta Bible Atlas. 4 t h ed. Jerusalem: Carta,
2002.
Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events
as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. CBOT 1. Lund:
G l e e r u p , 1967.
Albright, William Foxwell. From Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the
Historical Process. G a r d e n City, NY: Anchor, 1957.
Alt, Albrecht. "The Origins of Israelite Law." In his Essays on Old Testament
History and Religion, 1 0 1 - 7 1 . G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. N e w York: Basic, 1981.
. The Art of Biblical Poetry. N e w York: Basic, 1985.
A n d e r s o n , Bernard W " E x o d u s Typology in Second Isaiah." In Israel's Prophetic
Heritage: Essays in Honor of fames Muilenburg, edited b y B. A n d e r s o n a n d W
Harrelson, 1 7 7 - 9 5 . N e w York: Harper, 1962.
. "The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study." In his From Creation to New
Creation, 4 2 - 5 5 . OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994.
Andres, J. C. et al., Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and
Related Biblical Texts. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

*Only works in English have been included.

A t h e r t o n , J.S. Learning and Teaching: Cognitive Dissonance, h t t p ://www. learning
andteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm.
Baltzer, Klaus. "Considerations Regarding the Office a n d Calling of the Prophet."
HTR 6 1 (1968): 5 6 7 - 8 1 .
Bar-Efrat, S h i m o n . Narrative Art in the Bible. J S O T S u p 70. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d
Press, 1989.
Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1993.
. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1983.
. "The Image of G o d in the Book of G e n e s i s — A S t u d y of Terminology." BJRL
51 ( 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 ) : 1 1 - 2 6 .
Barton, J o h n . "Historical-Critical Approaches." In The Cambridge Companion to
Biblical Interpretation, edited by J o h n Barton, 9 - 2 0 . C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e
University Press, 1998.
. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile.
O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1986.
. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. ed. Louisville, KY:
W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1996.
. "The Significance of a Fixed Text a n d C a n o n . " In The Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Edited by Magne Saeb0. 1 : 6 7 - 8 3 .
Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1996.
Batto, Β. F "Behemoth." In DDD, 1 6 5 - 6 9 . Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its
Background in Early Judaism. G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1985.
Benavides, Gustavo. "Modernity." In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, edited by
Mark C. Taylor, 1 8 6 - 2 0 4 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Ben Zvi, E h u d . "The Prophetic Book: A Key F o r m of Prophetic Literature." In
The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, edited by
Marvin A. Sweeney a n d E h u d Ben Zvi, 2 7 6 - 9 7 . Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2003.
Berg, Sandra Beth. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure. SBLDS 44.
Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979.
Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1985.
. The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther. Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication Society,
2001.
. "Parallelism." In ABD, 5:155-162.
Berlin, Adele a n d Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. N e w York: O x f o r d
University Press, 2 0 0 4 .
Berrin, Shani L. "Pesharim." In The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by
Lawrence H. Schiffman a n d J a m e s C. VanderKam, 2 . 6 4 4 - 4 7 . N e w York:
O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 0 .
Bickerman, Elias. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Postbiblical
Judaism. N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1962.
Biggs, Robert D. Sà.zi.ga: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Locust
Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1967.
Bird, Phyllis A. '"Male a n d Female He Created T h e m ' : Genesis 1:27b in the
Context of the Priestly Account of Creation." In h e r Missing Persons and
Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel, 123-54. OBT.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997.
Blenkinsopp, J o s e p h . A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the
Land to the Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.
. "The Social C o n t e x t of the ' O u t s i d e r W o m a n ' in Proverbs 1 - 9 . " Bib 72
(1991): 4 5 7 - 7 3 .
Bloch, Ariel, a n d C h a n a Bloch. The Song of Songs. N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e ,
1995.
Bottéro, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Z.
Bahrani a n d M. Van De Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Brenner, Athalya, ed. A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993.
, ed. A Feminist Companion to The Song of Songs. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993.
, ed. Genesis: A Feminist Companion to the Bible. 2 n d Series. Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
. "God's Answer to J o b . " V I 3 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 1 2 9 - 3 7 .
. The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative.
Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1985.
Brenner, A. a n d Ε van D i j k - H e m m e s . On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices
in the Hebrew Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. "Biblical History a n d Jewish Biblical Theology." JR 7 7 (1997):
563-83.
. The Book of Judges. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 2 0 0 2 .
. "The C o p e n h a g e n School: T h e Historiographical Issues." AJS Review 2 7
(2003): 1 - 2 1 .
. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. L o n d o n : Routledge, 1995.
. "Cyclical a n d Teleological Time in the H e b r e w Bible." In Time and Tempor-
ality in the Ancient World, edited by Ralph M. Rosen, 1 1 1 - 2 8 . Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania M u s e u m of Archaeology a n d Anthropology,
2004.
 . God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. J S O T S u p 76. Sheffield,
UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.
. "Is There M a r t y r d o m in the H e b r e w Bible?" In Sacrificing the Self:
Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion, edited by Margaret C o r m a c k , 3 - 2 2 .
N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 2 .
. "A Lock W h o s e Key Is Lost: Unresolved a n d Unresolvable P r o b l e m s in
I n t e r p r e t i n g the Song." In Scrolls of Love: Reading Ruth and the Song of Songs,
edited by Peter S. H a w k i n s a n d Lesleigh C u s h i n g Stahlberg. Bronx, NY:
F o r d h a m University Press, f o r t h c o m i n g .
. "The Many Faces of G o d in E x o d u s 19." In Jews, Christians, and the
Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice O g d e n Bellis a n d Joel S.
Kaminsky, 3 5 3 - 6 7 . SBL S y m p o s i u m Series 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2 0 0 0 .
. "Sensual or Sublime: O n Teaching the Song of Songs." In Approaches to
Teaching the Hebrew Bible as Literature in Translation, edited by Barry N.
O l s h e n a n d Yael S. F e l d m a n , 133-35. N e w York: M o d e r n Language
Association, 1989.
. "The Structure of 1 Kings 1 - 1 1 . " JSOT 4 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) : 8 7 - 9 7 .
. " W o m e n a n d Psalms: Toward an U n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Role of Women's
Prayer in the Israelite Cult." In Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the
Ancient Near East, edited b y Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., 2 5 - 5 6 . J S O T S u p 2 6 2 .
Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Brettler, Marc Z., a n d T h o m a s Römer. " D e u t e r o n o m y 3 4 a n d the Case for a
Persian H e x a t e u c h . " JBL 119 ( 2 0 0 0 ) : 4 0 1 - 1 9 .
Bright, J o h n . A History of Israel. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.
Broshi, M. "The E x p a n s i o n of J e r u s a l e m in the Reigns of Hezekiah and
Manasseh." IEJ 2 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 2 1 - 2 6 .
Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. SBLMS 24. Missoula, MT:
Scholars, 1979.
Buber, Martin a n d Franz Rosenzweig. Scripture and Translation. Translated by
Lawrence Rosenwald w i t h Everett Fox. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1994.
Burkert, Walter. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1979.
C a m p , Claudia V Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs. Sheffield, UK:
A l m o n d Press, 1985.
C a m p b e l l , A n t o n y F, a n d Mark A. O'Brien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History:
Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 0 .
Carasik, Michael A. "Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel." P h D diss.,
Brandeis University, 1997.
Carroll, Robert Ε The Book of Jeremiah. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.
. When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the
Old Testament. N e w York: Seabury Press, 1979.
C h a r l e s w o r t h , J a m e s H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Texts with English Translations. Vol. 6b, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and
Related Documents. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 2 .
. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday,
1983, 1985.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979.
. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 1 .
. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. SBT 2 3. L o n d o n : SCM, 1967.
C h r i s t e n s e n , D u a n e L., ed. A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the
Book of Deuteronomy. W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1 9 9 3
Clark, W Malcolm. "Law." In Old Testament Form Criticism, edited b y J o h n H.
Hayes, 9 9 - 1 3 9 . San A n t o n i o , TX: Trinity University Press, 1974.
Clifford, Richard J. Proverbs. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1999.
Clines, David J. A. "The A r g u m e n t s of Job's Three Friends." In Art and Meaning:
Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, edited by D. J. A. Clines et al., 1 9 9 - 2 1 4 .
J S O T S u p 19. Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1982.
C o g a n , Mordechai, a n d Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB. N e w York: Doubleday,
1988.
Cogan, Morton. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth
and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. SBLMS 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties,
Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Collins, J o h n J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic
Literature. 2 n d ed. G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1998.
. Daniel. H e r m e n e i a . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993.
. The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Vol. 1, The Origins of Apocalypticism in
Judaism and Christianity. N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1998.
. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Ancient Literature. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1995.
C o o g a n , Michael David. Stories from Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978.
C o o k , S t e p h e n L. Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995.
Cooley, Robert E. "Ai." In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East,
edited by Eric M. Meyers, 1.33. N e w York: O x f o r d , 1997.
Cooper, Alan M. "The Life a n d Times of King David According to the Psalter." In
 The Poet and The Historian, edited by R. E. F r i e d m a n , 1 1 7 - 3 1 . Chico, CA:
Scholars, 1983.
Coote, Robert B., ed. Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary Perspective. Semeia Studies.
Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.
Craig, K e n n e t h . Reading Esther: A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque. Louisville,
KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1995.
Crenshaw, J a m e s L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. AB.
G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1998.
. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1981.
Cross, F r a n k Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard
University Press, 1973.
Cross, F r a n k M. a n d D. N. F r e e d m a n . Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in
Early Hebrew Poetry. W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980.
Crow, Loren D. The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134): Their Place in Israelite
History and Religion. SBLDS 148. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.
Curtis, J o h n Briggs. O n Job's Response to Yahweh." JBL 9 8 (1979): 4 9 7 - 5 1 1 .
Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and
Others. O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1991.
Davies, Philip R. Scribes and Schools: the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1998.
Davis, Ellen F Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in
Ezekiel's Prophecy. J S O T S u p 78. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1989.
Day, J o h n et al., eds. Wisdom in Ancient Israel. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University
Press, 1995.
Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible. HSM 43.
Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.
del O l m o Lete, G. Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit.
Translated by W G. E. Watson. W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrans, 2 0 0 4 .
Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Wnters Know and When Did They Know
It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand
Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 1 .
. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? G r a n d
Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 3 .
D h o r m e , E. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight.
Nashville, TN: T h o m a s Nelson, 1984.
Dick, Michael Brennen, ed. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult
Image in the Ancient Near East. W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
. "Job 31, T h e O a t h of I n n o c e n c e , a n d the Sage." ZAW 9 5 (1983): 3 1 - 5 3 .
. "The Legal M e t a p h o r in J o b 31." CBQ 4 1 (1979): 3 7 - 5 0 .
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. 3 9 vols. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 5 5 - .
Dockser Marcus, Amy. The View from Nebo: How Archaeology is Rewriting and
Reshaping the Middle East. Boston: Little, Brown, 2 0 0 0 .
Douglas, Mary. "The A b o m i n a t i o n s of Leviticus." In her Purity and Danger,
4 1 - 5 7 . L o n d o n : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969.
Driver, Samuel Rolles, a n d George B u c h a n a n Gray. The Book of Job. ICC.
E d i n b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark, 1971.
D u h a i m e , Jean. "Determinism." In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by
Lawrence H. Schiffman a n d J a m e s C. VanderKam, 1 9 4 - 9 8 . N e w York:
O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 0 .
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter A.
Ackroyd. N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1965.
. "The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 5 5 . 1 - 5 . " In Israel's Prophetic
Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, edited by A n d e r s o n and
Harrelson, 1 9 6 - 2 0 7 . N e w York: Harper, 1962.
Ellis, Peter Ε The Yahwist: The Bible's First Theologian. L o n d o n : G. C h a p m a n , 1969.
Eph'al, I. "The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6 t h - 5 t h Centuries B.C.:
M a i n t e n a n c e a n d Cohesion." Orientalia 4 7 (1978): 7 4 - 9 0 .
Falk, Marcia. Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of The
Song of Songs. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1982.
F e r n a n d e z Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek
Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Boston: Brill
Academic Publishers, 2 0 0 1 .
Fewell, D a n n a Nolan. Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6.
J S O T S u p 72. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.
Fewell, D a n n a Nolan, a n d David Miller G u n n . Compromising Redemption:
Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n
Knox, 1990.
Finkelstein, Israel, a n d Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's
New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. N e w York:
Touchstone, 2 0 0 1 .
Finkelstein, J. J. The Ox That Gored. TAPS 71/2. Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1981.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
. Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking. O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press,
2003.
. "Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types a n d Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient
Israel." In Midrash and Literature, edited by Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n and
Sanford Budick, 1 9 - 3 7 . N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986.
 . "Torah a n d Tradition." In Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, edit-
ed by Douglas A. Knight, 2 7 9 - 8 0 . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne. The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to
Law. J S O T S u p 287. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
F o k k e l m a n , J. R Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. Louisville, KY:
W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1999.
Fox, Everett. The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy. Vol. 1. of S c h o c k e n Bible. N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1995.
Fox, Michael V Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. C o l u m b i a : University
of S o u t h Carolina Press, 1991.
. "Job 3 8 a n d God's Rhetoric." Semeia 19 (1981): 5 3 - 6 1 .
. The JPS Bible Commentary: Ecclesiastes. Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication
Society, 2 0 0 4 .
. Proverbs 1-9. AB. G a r d e n City, NY, 2 0 0 0 .
. The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs. Madison, W I : University of
W i s c o n s i n Press, 1985.
. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes.
G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999.
F r a n k e n a , R. "The Vassal-Treaties of E s a r h a d d o n a n d the Dating of D e u t e r o n -
omy." OTS 14 (1965): 1 2 2 - 5 4 .
F r i e d m a n , Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.
. Commentary on the Torah with English Translation and Hebrew Text. San
Francisco: H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s o , 1997.
. Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco: H a r p e r S a n F r a n c i s c o , 1997.
Fritz, Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings. Translated by Anselm H a g e d o r n . Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2 0 0 3 .
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the
Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. N e w York: Free Press, 1992.
Funkenstein, Amos. Perceptions of Jewish History. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993.
G a m m i e , J o h n G., a n d Leo G. Pedue, eds. The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near
East. W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1990.
Garr, W Randall. Dialect Geography of Syria-Israel, 1000-586 B.C.E. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Geller, S t e p h e n A. "Were the P r o p h e t s Poets?" Prooftexts 3 (1983): 2 1 1 - 2 1 .
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms Part 1 With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. F O T L
XIV G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1988.
Gevirtz, Stanley. Patterns in the Early Poetry oj Israel Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization, 32. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Ginsburg, Christian C. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Bible.
N e w York: Ktav, 1966. First p u b l i s h e d in 1897.
Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968. 7 vols. Reissued in 2 0 0 2 .
Glatzer, Mordechai. "The Book of B o o k s — F r o m Scroll to C o d e x a n d into Print."
In The Jerusalem Crown: Companion Volume, edited by Mordechai Glatzer,
6 1 - 1 0 1 . Jerusalem: N. Ben-Zvi, 2 0 0 2 .
G o o d , E d w i n M. In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with a Translation. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.
Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1978.
. " Q u o t a t i o n s in W i s d o m Literature." In Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom,
edited by J a m e s Crenshaw, 2 2 0 - 4 4 . N e w York: Ktav, 1976.
G o s h e n - G o t t s t e i n , Moshe H. "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History a n d
Their Place in the HUBP Edition." In Qumran and the History of the Biblical
Text, edited by F r a n k Moore Cross a n d S h e m a r y a h u Talmon, 42-89.
C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Grabbe, Lester L., ed. Can A 'History of Israel' Be Written? J S O T S u p 2 4 5 . Sheffield,
UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.
Graham, M. Patrick, a n d Steven L. McKenzie. The Chronicler as Author: Studies in
Text and Texture. J S O T S u p 263. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Gray, J o h n . Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NCBC. G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n s , 1986.
Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of
Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
. "The Decalogue Tradition Critically E x a m i n e d . " In The Ten Commandments
in History and Tradition, edited by Ben-Zion Segal, 9 6 - 9 9 . Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1990.
. Ezekiel 1-20. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
. Ezekiel 21-37. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1997.
. "Jewish C o n c e p t i o n s o n the H u m a n Factor in Biblical Prophecy." In his
Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought, 4 0 5 - 1 9 . JPS Scholar of Distinction
Series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.
. "More Reflections o n Biblical Criminal Law." ScrHier 3 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) : 1 - 1 7 .
. "Prolegomenon." In Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy, edited by
Charles Cutler Torrey, xviii-xxix. N e w York: Ktav, 1970.
 . "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law." In The Jewish Expression,
edited by J u d a h Goldin, 1 8 - 3 7 . N e w Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1976.
. "Herem." EJ 8 . 3 4 9 .
. "The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the H e b r e w Text: A
S a m p l i n g f r o m Ezekiel 2 : 1 - 3 : 1 1 . " In his Studies in the Bible and Jewish
Thought, 2 0 9 - 2 2 5 . JPS Scholar of Distinction Series. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1995.
Greenfield, J o n a s C. "The Language of the Book." In The Book of Job: A New Trans-
lation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, edited by Moshe G r e e n b e r g et
a l , xiv-xvi. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1980.
G r e e n s p a h n , Frederick E. " H o w J e w s Translate the Bible." In Biblical Translation
in Context, edited by Frederick W Knobloch, 5 2 - 5 3 . Bethesda: University
Press of Maryland, 2 0 0 2 .
. When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the
Hebrew Bible. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1994.
G r e e n s p o o n , Leonard J. "The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection." In Traditions in
Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, edited by Baruch H a l p e r n a n d
J o n D. Levenson, 2 4 7 - 3 2 1 . W i n o n a Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Gruber, Mayer I. "The M o t h e r h o o d of G o d in Second Isaiah." In his The
Motherhood of God and Other Studies, 3 - 1 5 . Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.
G u n k e l , H e r m a n n . An Introduction to the Psalms. Translated by J a m e s D.
Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998.
. The Stories of Genesis. Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1994.
Habel, N o r m a n C. The Book of Job. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985.
. "The F o r m a n d Significance of the Call Narratives." TAW 77 (1965):
297-323.
Halbertal, Moshe. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Halperin, David J. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University, 1993.
Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San
Francisco: H a r p e r & Row, 1988.
Haran, M e n a h e m . "The G r a d e d N u m e r i c a l Sequence a n d the P h e n o m e n o n of
' A u t o m a t i s m ' in Biblical Poetry." VTS 2 2 (1971): 2 3 8 - 6 7 .
Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and
Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press,
2002.
Hertz, J.H. The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of
 the British Empire. L o n d o n : National Council for Jewish Religious E d u c a t i o n ,
1945.
Hier, Richard H. "Day of the LORD." ABD 2.82-83.
H o f f m a n , Lawrence Α., ed. My People's Prayer Book: Traditional Prayers, Modern
Commentaries. Vol. 6, Tachanun and Concluding Prayers. W o o d s t o c k , VT:
J e w i s h Lights, 2 0 0 2 .
Hoffmeier, J a m e s K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus
Tradition. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1997.
Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989.
Hallo, William W , a n d K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 2 .
Holtz, Barry, ed. Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. N e w York:
S u m m i t Books, 1984.
H u f f m o n , Η. B. "Prophecy (ANE)." ABD, 5.477-482.
Humphreys, W. Lee. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1988.
. "A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther a n d Daniel." JBL
92 (1973): 2 1 1 - 2 3 .
Hurvitz, Avi. "The Date of the Prose-tale of J o b Linguistically Reconsidered."
HTR 6 7 (1974): 1 7 - 3 4 .
J a n o w s k i , B. "Azazel." In DDD, 1 2 8 - 3 1 . Leiden: Brill, 1999.
J a p h e t , Sara. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox,
1993.
. "The S u p p o s e d C o m m o n A u t h o r s h i p of Chronicles a n d E z r a - N e h e m i a h
Investigated Anew." VT 18 (1968): 3 3 2 - 7 2 .
J o h n s o n , Aubrey R. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 1962.
Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. J S O T S u p 196.
Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
K a m i o n k o w s k i , S. Tamar. Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book
of Ezekiel. J S O T S u p 368. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2 0 0 3 .
K a u f m a n , Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. N e w
York: S c h o c k e n , 1972.
Kenyon, Kathleen. Archaeology in the Holy Land. 3rd ed. N e w York: Praeger, 1970.
. Royal Cities of the Old Testament. N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1971.
King, Philip J. Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological Commentary. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1988.
Knight, Douglass Α., ed. Methods of Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon, 2004.
 . "Forward." Pp. v - x v i in the reprint of J u l i u s Wellhausen, Prolegomena to
the History of Ancient Israel. Atlanta: Scholars, 1994.
Knohl, Israel. "Between Voice a n d Silence: T h e Relationship b e t w e e n Prayer a n d
Temple Cult." JBL 115 ( 1 9 9 6 ) : 1 7 - 3 0 .
. The Divine Symphony: The Bible's Many Voices. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 2 0 0 3 .
. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minne-
apolis, MN: Fortress, 1995.
K n o p p e r s , Gary N. "The D e u t e r o n o m i s t a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Law of the King:
A Reexamination of a Relationship." ZAW 1 0 8 (1996): 3 2 9 - 4 6 .
. "Intermarriage, Social Complexity, a n d Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy
of J u d a h . " JBL 120 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 1 5 - 3 0 .
. "Rethinking the Relationship b e t w e e n D e u t e r o n o m y a n d the D e u t e r o n -
omistic History: T h e Case of Kings." CBQ 6 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 3 9 3 - 4 1 5 .
. "Sex, Religion, a n d Politics: T h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t o n Intermarriage." HAR
14 ( 1 9 9 4 ) : 1 2 1 - 4 1 .
Koch, Klaus. "Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the O l d Testament?" In
Theodicy in the Old Testament, edited by J a m e s L. Crenshaw, 5 7 - 8 7 . Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 1983.
"What Is Apocalyptic? An A t t e m p t at a Preliminary Definition." In Vision-
aries and Their Apocalypses, edited b y Paul D. H a n s o n , 1 6 - 3 6 . Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983.
K o h n , Risa Levitt. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and The Torah.
J S O T S u p 3 5 8 . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2 0 0 2 .
Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Kugel, J a m e s L. The Bible as It Was. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Belknap Press, 1997.
. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. N e w Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1981.
. In Potiphar's House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco, CA:
H a r p e r a n d Row, 1990.
. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common
Era. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
. "Two I n t r o d u c t i o n s to Midrash." In Midrash and Literature, edited by
Geoffrey H. H a r t m a n a n d Sanford Budick, 7 7 - 1 0 3 . N e w Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1986.
Lacoque, A n d r é . The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel's
Tradition. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.
Lang, Bernhard. Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redefined.
N e w York: Pilgrim Press, 1986.
Lauterbach, J a c o b Ζ., ed. a n d trans. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadel-
phia: Jewish Publication Society, 1976. First p u b l i s h e d in 1935.
Leiman, Sid Z., ed. The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory
Reader. N e w York: Ktav, 1974.
. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence.
H a m d e n , CT: A r c h o n Books, 1976.
Leuchter, Mark. "Jeremiah's 70-Year P r o p h e c y a n d the ‫ ל ב ק מ י‬/ ‫ש ש ך‬ Atbash
Codes." Bib 8 5 (2004): 5 0 3 - 2 2 .
Levenson, J o n Douglas. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The
Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. N e w Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1993.
. Esther. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1997.
. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the fewish Bible. Minneapolis, MN: W i n s t o n ,
1985.
. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48. HSM 10. Missoula,
MT: Scholars, 1976.
Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms
in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. N e w Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2 0 0 0 .
Levine, Louis D. "Manuscripts, Texts a n d the S t u d y of the Neo-Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions." In Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons, edited by F M.
Fales, 4 9 - 7 0 . Rome: Istituto l'Oriente, 1981.
Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New
York: O x f o r d University Press, 1997.
, ed. Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation,
and Development. J S O T S u p 181. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994.
. " T h e Right Chorale': F r o m the Poetics of Biblical Narrative to the
H e r m e n e u t i c s of the H e b r e w Bible." In "Not in Heaven": Coherence and Com-
plexity in Biblical Narrative, edited by J a s o n Ρ Rosenblatt a n d J o s e p h C.
Sitterson, 129-53, 2 4 2 - 4 7 . I n d i a n a Studies in Biblical Literature. Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press, 1991.
. "'You Must Not Add Anything to What I Command You': Paradoxes of C a n o n
a n d A u t h o r s h i p in Ancient Israel." Numen 50 (2003): 1 - 5 1 .
Levy, B. Barry. Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish
Law. N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 1 .
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1976.
Long, Burke O. Planting and Reaping Albright: Politics, Ideology, and Interpreting the
Bible. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Long, V Phillips., ed. Israel's Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite
Historiography. Sources for Biblical a n d Theological Study 7. W i n o n a Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Lowery, Richard. The Reforming Kings. J S O T S u p 120. Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press,
1990.
MacKenzie, R. Α. Ε "The P u r p o s e of the Yahweh Speeches in the Book of Job."
Studia Biblical et Orientalia. A n O r 10. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1959. 1 . 3 0 1 - 1 1
Magonet, J o n a t h a n , ed. Jewish Explorations of Sexuality. Providence, RI: Berghahn
Books, 1995.
Malamat, A b r a h a m . Mari and the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Matthews, Victor H. A Brief History of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r
J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 3 .
. " P e r f u m e s a n d Spices." ABD, 5.226-28.
Mayes, J a m e s Luther, and Paul J. A c h t e m e i e r . Interpreting the Prophets.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. AB. G a r d e n
City, NY: Doubleday, 1990.
McBride, S. Dean, Jr. "The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of D e u t e r o n o m y
6 : 4 - 5 . " Int 2 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 2 7 3 - 3 0 6 .
M c C a n n , J. Clinton. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. J S O T S u p 159. Sheffield,
UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
McCarter, Ρ Kyle, a n d Ronald S. H e n d e l . "The Patriarchal Age: A b r a h a m , Isaac
a n d Jacob." In Ancient Israel, edited b y Hershel Shanks, 1 - 3 1 . Rev. a n d
e x p a n d e d . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999.
McCarthy, D e n n i s J. Treaty and Covenant. AnBib 21. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1978.
M c D o n a l d , Lee Martin, a n d J a m e s A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody,
MA: H e n d r i c k s o n , 2 0 0 2 .
McKane, William. Jeremiah, vol. 1. ICC. E d i n b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark, 1986.
. Proverbs. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.
McKenzie, Steven L., a n d M. Patrick G r a h a m , eds. The History of Israel's
Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Melugin, Roy F, a n d Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. New Visions of Isaiah. J S O T S u p
2 1 4 . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
M e n d e n h a l l , George E. "Covenant F o r m s in Israelite Tradition," BA 2 3 / 3 (Sept.
1954): 2 - 2 2 ; r e p r i n t e d in BAR 3 . 2 5 - 5 3 .
 . "The H e b r e w C o n q u e s t of Palestine." BA 2 5 / 3 (Sept. 1962): 66-87.
Reprinted in BAR 3 . 1 0 0 - 1 2 0 .
M e n d e n h a l l , George E., a n d Gary A. Herion. "Covenant." ABD, 1.1179-1202.
Meyers, Carol. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. N e w York:
O x f o r d University Press, 1988.
Milgrom, Jacob. "Israel's Sanctuary: T h e Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray.'" RB 8 3
(1976): 3 9 0 - 9 9 .
. Leviticus 1-16. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1991.
. "Profane S l a u g h t e r a n d a Formulaic Key to the C o m p o s i t i o n of
Deuteronomy." HUCA 4 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 1 - 1 7 .
Miller, J. Maxwell. The Old Testament and the Historian. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1976.
Miller, Patrick D., Jr. "Wellhausen a n d the History of Israel's Religion." Semeia 2 5
(1982): 6 1 - 7 3 .
. They Cried to the LORD: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994.
Milne, Pamela J. Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical
Narrative. Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1988.
Mitchell, Stephen. The Book of fob. San Francisco, CA: N o r t h Point, 1987.
Moore, George Foot. "Tatian's Diatessaron a n d the Analysis of the Pentateuch."
In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay, 2 4 3 - 5 6 .
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
M o r a n , William L. "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of G o d in
Deuteronomy." CBQ 2 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 7 7 - 8 7 .
Mowinckel, S i g m u n d . He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament
and Later Judaism. Translated by G. W A n d e r s o n . Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n ,
1954.
Muffs, Yohanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. C a m -
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Mullen, E. T h e o d o r e , Jr. Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New
Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997.
Murphy, Roland E. "Old T e s t a m e n t / T a n a k h — C a n o n a n d Interpretation." In
Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying the Bible in Judaism and Christianity,
edited by Roger Brooks a n d J o h n J. Collins, 1 1 - 2 9 . Notre D a m e , IN:
University of Notre D a m e , 1990.
. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. AB. G a r d e n
City, NY: Doubleday, 1990.
Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. J S O T S u p
18. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 1981.
.Joshua. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r , J o h n Knox, 1997.
 . "Herem a n d the D e u t e r o n o m i c Social Conscience." In Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift for C.H.W Brekelmans, edited by M.
Vervenne a n d J. Lust, 3 9 - 5 4 . Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.
Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. N e w Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1991.
N e w s o m , Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination. N e w York:
O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 3 .
Nicholson, Ernest W. "Covenant in a C e n t u r y of Study Since Wellhausen." OTS
2 4 (1986): 5 4 - 6 9 . Reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays
on the Book of Deuteronomy, edited by D u a n e L. C h r i s t e n s e n , 7 8 - 9 3 .
. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.
. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford:
C l a r e n d o n , 1986.
. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen.
Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1998.
. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah.
N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1970.
Niditch, Susan. "Genesis." In The Women's Bible Commentary, edited by Carol A.
N e w s o m a n d Sharon H. Ringe, 1 0 - 2 5 . Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox, 1992.
. Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. San Francisco:
H a r p e r a n d Row, 1987.
Nielsen, E d u a r d . The Ten Commandments in New Perspective: A Traditio-historical
2
Approach. SBT 7. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1968.
Nielson, Kirsten. Ruth. OTL. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 1997.
Nissinen, Martti. Preface to Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context:
Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian Perspectives, edited by Martti Nissinen.
SBL S y m p o s i u m 13, vii-vii. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 .
. "The Sociological Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets." In Prophecy in Its
Ancient Near Eastern Context, edited by Marttti Nissinen, 8 9 - 1 1 4 .
N o r t h , C h r i s t o p h e r R. The Suffering Seiyant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and
Critical Study. L o n d o n : O x f o r d University Press, 1948.
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield, UK:
University of Sheffield, 1981.
Oates, J o a n . Babylon. L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1979.
O ' C o n n o r , Kathleen M. The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role
in Chapters 1-25. SBLDS 94. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.
Ofer, Yosef. "The History a n d Authority of the Aleppo Codex." In The Jerusalem
Crown: Companion Volume, edited b y Mordechai Glatzer, 2 5 - 5 0 . Jerusalem:
N. Ben-Zvi, 2 0 0 2 .
O g d e n Bellis, Alice. Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes: Women's Stories in the Hebrew
Bible. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1994.
Olsson, Birger, a n d M a g n u s Zetterholm. The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins
until 200 c.E. CBNT 39. S t o c k h o l m : Almqvist &r Wiksell, 2 0 0 3 .
Olyan, Saul M. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2 0 0 0 .
O p p e n h e i m , A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1977.
Otto, Eckart. "False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views of
W o m e n f r o m Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of
Deuteronomy." In Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near
East, edited by Victor H. M a t t h e w s et al., 1 2 8 - 4 6 . J S O T S u p 262. Sheffield,
UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the
Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational. L o n d o n : O x f o r d University
Press, 1925.
Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1995.
Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria 9. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 1997.
Paul, Shalom M. Amos. H e r m e n e i a . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.
Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1971.
Person, R a y m o n d E, Jr. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and
Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 2 .
Petersen, David L. "Defining P r o p h e c y a n d Prophetic Literature." In Prophecy in
Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian
Perspectives, edited b y Martti Nissinen, 3 3 - 4 4 . SBL S y m p o s i u m 13. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 .
Polliack, Meira. "Medieval Karaism." In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies,
edited by Martin G o o d m a n et a l , 2 9 5 - 3 2 6 . Oxford: O x f o r d University
Press, 2 0 0 2 .
Pope, Marvin H.Job. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973.
. Song of Songs. AB 7C. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.
Pressler, Carolyn. The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws.
BZAW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993.
Pritchard, J a m e s B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd
ed. with s u p p . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Provan, Iaian, V Philips Long, a n d Tremper L o n g m a n III. A Biblical History of
Israel. Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r J o h n Knox, 2 0 0 3 .
Ramsey, George W. "Zadok." ABD, 6 . 1 0 3 5 - 3 6 .
Redford, D o n a l d B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1992.
Rendsburg, Gary A. Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms.
SBLMS 43. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.
Roest, Bert, a n d H e r m a n Vanstiphout, eds. Aspects of Genre and Type in Pre-
Modern Literary Cultures. G r o n i n g e n : Styx, 1999.
Rofé, Alexander. "The Piety of the Torah-Disciples at the W i n d i n g - U p of the
H e b r e w Bible: Josh. 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa. 59:21." In Bibel in jüdischer und christ-
licher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by
H e l m u t Merklein et al., 7 8 - 8 5 . F r a n k f u r t a m Main: A n t o n Hain, 1993.
. The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew
Bible; Their Literary Types and History. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988.
Rosenblatt, J a s o n P, a n d J o s e p h C. Sitterson, Jr., eds. "Not in Heaven": Coherence
and Complexity in Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: University of Indiana
Press, 1991.
Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. SBL Writings
f r o m the Ancient W o r l d Series. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.
Rowe, J o h n Carlos. "Structure." In Critical Terms for Literary Study, edited by
F r a n k Lentricchia a n d T h o m a s McLaughlin, 2 3 - 3 8 . Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1990.
Saeb0, M. "Zechariah, Book of." Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, edited by
J o h n H. Hayes, 6 6 6 - 6 9 . Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1999.
Sanders, T h o m a s E. The Discovery of Poetry. Atlanta: Scott, F o r e s m a n and
C o m p a n y , 1967.
Sarna, N a h u m M. "Ancient Libraries a n d the O r d e r i n g of the Biblical Books." In
his Studies in Biblical Interpretation, 5 3 - 6 6 . Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 2 0 0 0 .
. "Epic S u b s t r a t u m in the Prose of J o b . " In his Studies in Biblical
Interpretation, 4 1 1 - 2 4 . Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2 0 0 0 .
. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus. Philadelphia: J e w i s h Publication
Society, 1991.
. Songs of the Heart: An Introduction to the Book of Psalms. N e w York:
S c h o c k e n , 1993.
Sawyer, J o h n F A. "Isaiah, Book of." In Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, edit-
ed by J o h n H. Hayes, 5 5 2 - 5 4 . Nashville, TN: A b i n g d o n , 1999.
. Prophecy and the Prophets of the Old Testament. O x f o r d Bible Series. O x f o r d :
O x f o r d University Press, 1987.
Schechter, S o l o m o n . Seminary Addresses and Other Papers. Cincinnati, O H : Ark
P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1915.
Schökel, Luis Alonso. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Rome: Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1988.
Schwartz, Baruch J. " W h a t Really H a p p e n e d at M o u n t Sinai? F o u r Biblical
A n s w e r s to O n e Q u e s t i o n . " Bible Review 13:5 ( 1 9 9 7 ) : 2 0 - 3 0 , 46.
Scott, R. B. Y. "Folk Proverbs of the Ancient Near East." In Studies in Ancient
Israelite Wisdom, edited by J a m e s L. Crenshaw, 4 1 7 - 2 6 . N e w York: Ktav,
1976.
. "Wise a n d Foolish, Righteous a n d W i c k e d . " VT 2 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 1 4 5 - 6 5 .
Seitz, C h r i s t o p h e r R. "Trito-Isaiah." ABD, 3.501-7.
. Zion's Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of
the Isaiah 36-39. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991.
Seybold, Klaus. Introducing the Psalms. Translated by R. G r a e m e D u n p h y . E d i n -
b u r g h : Τ & Τ Clark, 1990.
S h a n k s , Hershel, ed. The Rise of Ancient Israel. Washington, DC: Biblical
Archaeological Society, 1992.
Shaver, J u d s o n R. Torah and the Chronicler's History Work: An Inquiry into the
Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions in Relationship
to Pentateuchal Legislation. BJS 196. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989.
S i l b e r m a n , Lou H. "Wellhausen a n d J u d a i s m . " Semeia 2 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 7 5 - 8 2 .
Smith, J. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded Upon the Thesaurus
Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1976.
Smith, M o r t o n . "The C o m m o n T h e o l o g y of the Ancient Near East." JBL 7 1
(1952): 135-47.
Snell, Daniel C. Twice-Told Proverbs and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs.
W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 1993.
S o m m e r , B e n j a m i n D. "Did P r o p h e c y Cease? Evaluating a R é é v a l u a t i o n . " J B L 115
(1996): 3 1 - 4 7 .
. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 1998.
Speiser, Ε. A. Genesis. AB. G a r d e n City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.
Spiegel, Shalom. "Amos vs. Amaziah." In The Jewish Expression, e d i t e d by J u d a h
G o l d i n , 3 8 - 6 5 . N e w H a v e n , CT: Yale University Press, 1976.
Spinoza, Baruch. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Translated by S a m u e l Shirley.
Leiden: Brill, 1991.
S p r o n k , Klaas. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT
2 1 9 . Kevelaer: Butzon <Sr Bercker, 1986.
S t a m m , J o h a n n J a k o b a n d Maurice E d w a r d Andrew. The Ten Commandments in
2
Recent Research. SBT 2. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967.
Stein, David E. S. Preface to JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, ix-xix. Philadelphia:
J e w i s h Publication Society, 1999.
S t e n d a h l , Krister. "Biblical Theology: A Program." In his Meanings: The Bible as
Document and as Guide, 1 1 - 4 4 . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of
Ezekiel 40-48. SBLDS 154. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.
S t u h l m a n , Louis. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the
Correspondences with the Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-
critical Research. SBLDS 83. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986.
Swete, H e n r y Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge:
C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1902.
Thackery, H. St. J., trans. Josephus I: The Life; Against Apion. Loeb Classical
Library. C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d University Press, 1926.
., trans. Josephus IV: Jewish Antiquities Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library.
C a m b r i d g e , MA: H a r v a r d University Press, 1930.
Thiele, E d w i n R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. G r a n d Rapids, MI:
Z o n d e r v a n , 1983.
T h o m p s o n , T h o m a s L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for
the Historical Abraham. BZAW 133. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah C o m m e n t a r y . Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1996.
. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, 1982.
Τον, E m a n u e l . Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2 n d rev. ed. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 2 0 0 1 .
Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. "The M e a n i n g of the Book of J o b . " In his The Meaning of the
Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion of
the Hebrew Bible, 1 - 3 7 . N e w York: Ktav, 1980.
Tuell, Steven S h a w n . The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48. HSM 4 9 . Atlanta:
Scholars, 1992.
Uehlinger, C. "Leviathan." DDD, 5 1 1 - 1 5 . Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. G r a n d Rapids,
MI: E e r d m a n s , 1999.
. "The N o n - A t t e s t a t i o n of a Tripartite C a n o n in 4 Q M M T . " CBQ 6 5 ( 2 0 0 3 ) :
202-14.
. "Septuagint." In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Lawrence H.
S c h i f f m a n a n d J a m e s C. V a n d e r K a m , 2 . 8 6 3 - 6 8 . N e w York: O x f o r d Univer-
sity Press, 2 0 0 0 .
Ussishkin, David. The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv
University, T h e Institute of Archaeology, 1982.
VanderKam, J a m e s C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. G r a n d Rapids, MI: E e r d m a n n s ,
1994.
van Dyk, P. J. "The F u n c t i o n of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives."
ZAW 102 (1990): 1 9 - 3 3 .
van Seters, J o h n . Abraham in History and Tradition. N e w Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1975.
. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. N e w
York: O x f o r d , 2 0 0 3 .
. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville, KY:
W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1992.
Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. H a r m o n d s w o r t h , UK: Penguin, 1997.
v o n Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.
Wegner, J u d i t h Romney. Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah.
N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1988.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n ,
1972.
. "The U n i q u e n e s s of the Decalogue a n d its Place in Jewish Tradition." In
The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, edited by Ben-Zion Segal,
6 - 8 . Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990.
Weiss, Meir. "The Decalogue in Prophetic Literature." In The Ten Commandments
in History and Tradition, 67-81.
. "The Origin of the 'Day of the Lord'—Reconsidered." HUCA 3 7 (1966):
29-60.
. The Story of Job's Beginning: A Literary Analysis. Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1983.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Gloucester, MA:
Peter Smith, 1973.
W e s t e r m a n n , Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Translated by H. C. W h i t e .
Louisville, KY: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox, 1991.
. Genesis 1—11. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1984.
. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. C r i m a n d Richard
N. Soulen. Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1981.
W h i t e C r a w f o r d , Sidnie. "Esther, Book of." In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
edited by Schiffman a n d VanderKam, 2 6 9 - 7 0 . N e w York: O x f o r d Univer-
sity Press, 2 0 0 0 .
W h i t e l a m , Keith W The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian
History. L o n d o n : Routledge, 1996.
. The Just King: Monarchical and Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. J S O T S u p
12. Sheffield, UK: J S O T Press, 1979.
Whybray, R. Ν. "The Identification a n d Use of Q u o t a t i o n s in Ecclesiastes." SVT
32 (1981): 4 3 5 - 5 1 .
. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. BZAW 135. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1974.
. "Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy." JSOT 2 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 8 7 - 9 8 .
Williams, J a m e s G. "The Power of F o r m : A Study of Biblical Proverbs." Semeia
17 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 3 5 - 5 8 .
. Those Who Ponder Proverbs: Aphoristic Thinking and Biblical Literature.
Sheffield, UK: A l m o n d Press, 1981.
Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah s Role in Composition
and Redaction. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1994.
Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Foreign Court. HDR 26. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1990.
Wilson, Gerald Henry. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA:
Scholars, 1985.
Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. YNER 7. N e w
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977.
. "Genealogy, Genealogies." ABD, 2 . 9 2 9 - 3 2 .
. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Williamson, H.G.M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977.
Wolff, H a n s Walter. Joel and Amos. Translated by W. J a n z e n et al. H e r m e n e i a .
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Wright, C h r i s t o p h e r J. H. "Jubilee, Year of." ABD, 3 . 1 0 2 7 - 2 8 .
Wright, David Ρ "The Laws of H a m m u r a b i as a Source for the C o v e n a n t
Collection ( E x o d u s 2 0 : 2 3 - 2 3 : 1 9 ) . " Maarav 10 (2003): 1 1 - 8 7 .
. Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Fasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites
in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. W i n o n a Lake, IN: E i s e n b r a u n s , 2 0 0 1 .
Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by E. J. Revell.
Masoretic Studies 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1980.
Zevit, Ziony. "A C h a p t e r in the History of Israelite Personal N a m e s . " BASOR 2 5 0
(1983): 1 - 1 6 .
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. H e r m e n e i a . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
. "Knowledge of G o d According to the Book of Ezekiel." In his I Am Yahweh,
2 9 - 9 8 . Translated b y Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta: J o h n Knox, 1982.
Index of Subjects

A not predicting future, 150

Aaron, 7 8 - 8 1 , 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 puns, use of, 153
Abihu, 78, 81 rhetoric and genre of, 1 5 2 - 1 5 3
Abraham visions of, 211
as navi, 141 Amos, book of
as warrior, 53 predating Torah, 1 5 0 - 1 5 1
introduction of, 4 9 - 5 0 structure of, 151-152, 1 5 7 - 1 6 0
not depicted as role model, 5 0 - 5 3 angels, 2 1 1 , 2 1 3
pre-telling sojourn in Egypt, 54 anthropomorphism, 4 2 - 4 4
renewal of covenant with, 5 7 - 5 9 Antiochus IV, 26, 213
ad ha-yom ha-zeh, 308 antiquarian interest, 117
Adonijah, 121, 132 antithetical parallelism, 164, 236, 326
adultery, 63, 233 apocalypse, etymology, 211
Adversary, in Job, 247 apocalyptic literature, 2 1 1 - 2 1 3 , 215. see also
Ahab, 25, 119, 131, 146 eschatology
Ahasuerus, 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 Apocrypha, 11
Ai, 103 apodosis, 139
Akiva, R., 336 archeology, in relation to the Bible, 2 0 - 2 1 ,
Akkadian, 76, 142, 300 96,124
al ken, 103 Ark of the Lord, 78, 308
Albright, William Foxwell, 20 aseret ha-dibrot, 64. see also Decalogue
Aleppo Codex, 30 Ashurbanipal, 93
Alexander the Great, 26, 199, 213 Assyria, see also Babylonia; Mesopotamia
alliteration, 40 capturing Manasseh, 133
Amalek, 112 conquering Northern Kingdom, 25, 131
Amenemope, Instruction of, 234, 237 failed capture of Jerusalem, 126, 168
Amnon and Tamar, 132 fortunes as world power, 28, 173
Amos instrument of Gods punishment, 166,
attitude toward poor, 233 175
eschatology of, 179 prophecy in, 140
irony, use of, 153 punishment of, 175
nature of prophecy, 138, 142, 1 5 4 - 1 5 7 suzerain of Judah, 9 1 - 9 2 , 94, 1 2 4 - 1 2 5
autonomy, 235 stabilization of, 2 7 7 - 2 7 8 , 293
avi, 110 theological nature of, 22
Azazel, 8 0 - 8 1 transmission of, 22, 34, 66, 108,
1 5 1 - 1 5 2 , 1 7 7 , 182-183, 2 7 7 - 2 7 8
Β verses as divisions of, 30
b-d-l, 41 vocalization of, 278
b-r-', 32, 33, 41, 47 Bickerman, Elias, 131
b-r-kh, 246 bicola, 1 6 4 - 1 6 5
b-sh-l, 312 binary repetition, 1 6 3 - 1 6 4
Babylonia blood, cleansing nature of, 7 9 - 8 0
conqueringjudah, 175-176 Boaz, 268
destruction of, 199-202 bride-price, 263
punishment of, 177 Bright,John, 1 0 8 - 1 0 9
wartime conduct, 25 Buber, Martin, 98
Balaam, 141 Burkert, Walter, 39
Bar Kokhba, 278
Baruch son of Neriah, 1 8 2 - 1 8 3
Bathsheba, 66, 122, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 canon, definition of, 2 7 3 - 2 7 4
Behemoth, 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 Carchemish, Battle of, 176
ben adam, 187 ch-kh-m, 231
Ben-Asher, Aaron, 278 ch-r-p, 108
Ben-Sirach, 238, 275 chapters, dividing Bible into, 29
benei ha-nevi'im, 145 chattat, 79
beni, 110 chavvah, 46
Benjaminites, 113 cheirem, 72, 95
bent, 91, 155 child sacrifice, 2 9 6 - 2 9 7
Bible chok, 303
arrangement of books, 10, 2 7 6 - 2 7 7 , 288, chokhmah, 231, 236
289 chozeh, 142
as textbook, 280 Chronicler
chapters as divisions of, 29 definition of, 311
classical interpretation of, 1 - 3 (see also establishing legitimacy, 136
rabbinic interpretation of Bible) inventing facts, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1
defiling hands, 275 removing facts, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2
etymology, 7, 287 circumcision, 105
formation of, 2 7 4 - 2 7 6 clothing, as imagery, 109-110
interpreting, 282 code words in Jeremiah, 1 7 6 - 1 7 7
limitations as historical source, 2 0 - 2 3 , codes, legal, 6 7 - 6 8
9 6 , 9 8 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 124 codex, 276
literary units of, 31 cognate words, 75
names for, 8 - 9 cognitive dissonance, 2 0 6 - 2 0 8
number of books in, 2 7 4 - 2 7 5 colon, 164
paragraphs, divisions as, 2 9 - 3 0 complaints, 223
reading using historical-critical method, confessions of prophets, 181-182
3-5 consolation, 1 9 5 - 1 9 7
relevance for modern times, 2 8 1 - 2 8 2 context, 1 3 - 1 7
selecting meaningful texts, 2 8 1 - 2 8 2 conventions for reading, 13-17
conversion, 271
Copenhagen School, 21
Covenant Collection, 6 7 - 6 9 , 88
covenant of grant, 155
covenant with Israel
eternality of, 157
nature of, 232
new, 180
renewal of Abraham's, 5 7 - 5 9
creation story, 3 1 - 3 2 , 39-42, 47, 86
creationism, 3 7 - 3 8
creative philology, 215, 281
cultic prophet, 224
Cushan-rishathaim, 113
Cyrus, 25, 27, 199-202
Cyrus Cylinder, 2 0 0 - 2 0 1
D dietary laws, 90, 102, 215, 303
D document, 35
da-at, 45
Daniel, book of
as apocalyptic literature, 213
credibility of, 2 1 7 - 2 1 8
describing Antiochus' desecrating
Temple, 213
historical setting, 2 1 2 - 2 1 4
Jeremiah as a source, 2 1 4 - 2 1 5
Daniel, in lion's den, 217
davar, 64
David
and Goliath, 107-108, 110
and Jonathan, 109
descended from Tamar, 50
dynasty of, 170
portrayal of, 109-111, 131-132
spelling of, 132
successor to Saul, 109-110
Day of the Lord, 156-157, 1 6 7 , 2 1 0
de Wette, Wilhelm Martin Lebrecht, 87
Dead Sea Scrolls, 2, 30, 34, 273, 275, 277,
2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 329. see also Genesis
Apocryphon; Pesher Habakkuk
Decalogue, 61-63, 6 4 - 6 7 , 86
deity, names of, 32, 3 4 - 3 5 , 227, 292
determinism, 240
Deutero-Isaiah, 201-206. see also Isaiah
deuterocanonical books, 11
Deuteronomic Law Collection, 72
Deuteronomistic History, see DtrH
Deuteronomy
as forgery, 87
authors of, 92
differences from other books, 8 6 - 8 7 , 94
editor of, 101-102
emphasizing one place of worship,
8 9 - 9 0 , 94
etymology of name, 8 5 - 8 6
humanitarian theme of, 89
inconsistencies with Amos, 150-151
similarities to Jeremiah, 177-178
similarities to Joshua, 100
structure of, 9 0 - 9 2 , 94
Diatessaron, 36
dibber sarah, 178
divine abandonment, 194-195
divine communication, 139
divine forgiveness, 196-197
Divine Presence
moving from Saul to David, 111
not seeing, 7 8 - 7 9
dowry, 332
doxology, 2 2 8 - 2 2 9
dreams, 215
DtrH
author of Kings, 122
description of, 9 9 - 1 0 0
revision of by Chronicler, 136
Ε document, 34
earthquakes, 158
Ecclesiastes, 2 3 1 - 2 3 2 , 2 3 9 - 2 4 1
Eden, 4 4 - 4 7
Egypt
control over Israel, 96
first external reference to Israel, 24
love poetry in, 2 6 0 - 2 6 1
slavery and exodus, historicity of, 96
eileh, 33
eishet chayil, 238, 268
Elijah, 142, 143, 145, 146
Elisha, 142, 143, 145, 146
En-gedi, 264
entrance liturgy, 326 Fox, Everett, 98
Esarhaddon free choice, removal from Israel, 180-
inscription of, 176, 194 181
treaties of, 91, 9 3
Esau, 51
eschatology Garden of Eden, 4 4 - 4 7
Amos, 179 genealogies, 49, 56, 129
Isaiah, 169-170, 180 Genesis Apocryphon, 52
Jeremiah, 1 7 9 - 1 8 1 genre, 1 3 - 1 7 , 3 7 , 5 5 , 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , 2 1 7 ,
Essenes, 276 2 2 3 - 2 2 4 , 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 , 260, 2 6 7 - 2 6 9
Esther, book of Gibeah, concubine of, 113-115
describing women in society, 2 6 9 - 2 7 0 , Gibeonites, 103
272 Gilgamesh, 34
genre of, 2 6 8 - 2 6 9 Ginzberg, Louis, 52
humor in, 269 God. see also deity, names of
intermarriage in, 272 and the Adversary, 247
missing from Dead Sea Scrolls, 275 as female, 204
non-Jews in, 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 as male, 294
Ethiopians, 155 as source of law, 61
etiologies, 102-103, 105 as supreme ruler, 9 2 - 9 3
Eve, 4 6 - 4 7 discourse with Job, 2 5 1 - 2 5 4
exile existing outside of Temple, 187-188
effect on prophecy, 187-188 limits of power, 253
impact of, 27 multiple perceptions of, 283
experience, defining wisdom, 251 nature of, 47, 186-187, 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 , 218
Ezekiel obedience to, 104
bawdy speech of, 191 power of, 2 1 5 - 2 1 7 , 235, 240, 248, 250,
describing God, 186-187 252
divine abandonment, 7 6 - 7 7 , 194-195 punishing Israel, 150, 153, 204
establishing authority, 186, 188 relationship with Israel, 154-155, 157
refuting popular beliefs, 188-191 universality of, 154, 166
silence of, 193 using first person plural, 42
Ezekiel, book of worshipping outside of Israel, 185-186
structure, 191-194 Gog and Magog, 196
time and location, 185 Goliath, 107-108, 110
Ezra, 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 goring ox, 6 9 - 7 1
Graetz, Heinrich, 275
Greece, 26, 328
fairy tale, Job as, 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 Greenberg, Moshe, 277
false prophets, 171, 174, 178
false testimony, 66 H
festivals, times of, 86 ha-adam, 4 3
firstborn, 56 ha-ishah, 46
folk etymologies, 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 ha-satan, 247
foreigners, 236, 2 7 0 - 2 7 2 Haggai, 207
forgiveness, divine, 196-197 Haman, 271
form-critical markers, 162 Hammurabi, laws of, 62, 6 8 - 7 0 , 91
Hannah, 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 ridiculing idolatry, 2 0 2 - 2 0 3
hapax legomena, 162, 174, 243 suffering servant, 2 0 5 - 2 0 6
happiness, 240 Isaiah, book of
Hexateuch, 100 genre, 152
Hezekiah, 124-126 lack of form-critical markers, 162
Higher Criticism, 3, 4 lack of historical context, 162-163
historical probability, 130-131 structure of, 161-162, 162-163
historical-critical method, 3 - 5 , 279, vocabulary of, 162
2 8 2 - 2 8 3 , 286, 337 ish Elohim, 142, 144
history, nature of in ancient world, 101, Israel
136 cleansing sins of, 8 0 - 8 1
Hittites, 91 different from Mesopotamia, 7 0 - 7 2
Hobbes, Thomas, 3 earliest external reference to, 24
Hoffman, R. David Zvi, 286 early history of, 23-24, 9 5 - 9 6
holidays, names of, 72 guilt feelings of, 204
Holiness Collection, 72 relationship with God, 154-155, 157,
Holiness School, 8 1 - 8 2 180,196-197
Holy of Holies, 7 7 - 7 8 return to, 206
homicide, 8 2 - 8 3 , 110 vassal of God, 9 2 - 9 4
human nature, 2 5 0 - 2 5 1
humanitarianism, 89 J
humans, creation of, 4 2 - 4 3 J document, 34
Jabneh, 2 7 4 - 2 7 5
I Jacob
ibn Ezra, R. Abraham, 2, 262, 337 fighting angel, 102
idolatry, 66, 2 0 2 - 2 0 3 , 2 1 6 not depicted as role model, 51
incense, preventing sight of Divine Presence, Jamnia, 2 7 4 - 2 7 5
78-79 Jehoiakim, 182-183
inclusio, 3 2 - 3 3 , 239 Jehoshaphat, 298
intergenerational punishment, 6 6 - 6 7 , 72, Jeremiah
189-190 and false prophets, 178
intermarriage, 123, 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 , 272 confessions of, 181-182
irony, in Amos, 153 destruction of Temple, 175-176
Isaac, 50, 2 9 6 - 2 9 7 eschatology of, 179-181
Isaiah psychology of, 181-182
and Davidic dynasty, 170 rituals, importance of, 178
as classical prophet, 166-167 visions of, 211
describing Gods power, 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 Jeremiah, book of
difference between prophecy and reality, code words in, 1 7 6 - 1 7 7
206-208 historical background, 173-174
disregarding repentance, 171 similarities to Deuteronomy, 177-178
eschatology of, 169-170, 180 similarities to Torah, 178-179
inviolability of Jerusalem, 168-169 source for Daniel, 2 1 4 - 2 1 5
Judean emphasis of, 168 structure of, 174
performing symbolic acts, 168 Jericho, 98
radical monotheism of, 202 Jerusalem, see also Temple
redemption of Israel, 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 destruction of, 175-176
Jerusalem (Continued) Κ
inviolability of, 168-169 k-p-r, 7 5 - 7 6
rebuilding of, 195 Kaplan, Mordecai, 337
siege by Sennacherib, 124-126 Karaites, 282
site of worship, 31, 120, 151 kesitah, 246
Jews, etymology, 199 Kethuvim, etymology, 9
Job ketz, 213
discourse with God, 2 5 1 - 2 5 4 kings
theology of, 2 3 1 - 2 3 2 laws of, 1 2 2 - 1 2 3
J o b , b o o k of relations with prophets, 143, 146
as fairy tale, 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 Kings, book of
language of, 243 as historical record, 126-127
structure of, 243-246, 2 5 1 - 2 5 2 internal inconsistencies, 118-119
Jonathan, 109 kitvei ha-kodesh, 274
Joseph knowledge, 4 5 - 4 6
ancestor of Northern kings, 129 koamar, 141
story of, 55-57, 63, 233 kol, 9 7 - 9 8
Josephus, 8 7 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 , 316 korchah, 314
Joshua, book of Kugel, James, 14
conquest story, 97
etiologies in, 102-103
multiple authors of, 9 8 - 9 9 , 105 Lachish, 124
obedience theme in, 104 Lamentations, part of Jeremiah, 274
similarities to Deuteronomy, 100 laments, 223
Josiah, 87, 100, 1 3 5 , 3 1 8 , 3 1 9 laws, see also Covenant Collection;
Jubilee year, 72 Deuteronomic Law Collection;
Jubilees, 275 Holiness Collection
Judah apodictic, 68
and Tamar, 50, 55 casuistic, 68
gaining birthright, 5 6 - 5 7 for kings, 1 2 2 - 1 2 3
legitimate ancestor of kings, 114-115, nature of, 6 1 - 6 4
129 secular and religious, 62
Judah, kingdom of secular basis for, 90
conflict with Northern Kingdom, 57, 113, leading words, 9 7 - 9 8
131 Leitwort, 9 7 - 9 8
destruction of, 175-176 Levi, losing birthright, 56,
references in Amos, 159 129
relationship with God, 166 Leviathan, 2 5 2 - 2 5 3
revolt against Babylonia, 25, 27 life, value of, 71
source of J document, 34 literacy in Israel, 319
vassal of Assyria, 9 1 - 9 2 , 94 Lot, 58
Judaism, evolution of, 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 love
judges, as leaders, 112 as obedience, 93
Judges, book of, as historical source, in Song of Songs, 260
112-113 Lower Criticism, 3
M Nebuchadnezzar, 176, 212, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6
m-sh-l, 46 nefesh, 79
Maimonides, 30, 320 nega'im, 54
Major Prophets, 288 Nehemiah, 2 0 7 - 2 0 8
Malachi, 141 Nevi'im, etymology, 9
Manasseh, King, 87, 92, 132-133, 321 New Testament, etymology, 7 - 8
Marduk, 176, 1 9 9 - 2 0 3 , 2 1 5 Northern Israel
Mari, 140-141 Amos living in, 151
mashiach, 170 conflict with Judah, 57, 113, 131
Masoretic text, 277, 336 destruction of, 25, 27, 131, 158-159
matriarchs, 296 in Psalms, 226
Mekhilta, 281 origin of Ε document, 3 4 - 3 5
Mendenhall, George E, 91 pronunciation of Hebrew in, 153
merism, 45 Noth, Martin, 100
Merneptah Stele, 24
Mesha Inscription, 120 Ο
Mesopotamia obedience, 93, 104, 112, 166-167
in ancient world, 25 Old Testament, etymology, 7 - 8
love poetry in, 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 omen texts, 139-140
prophecy and omens, 139-141 Omri, 118-120, 131
messenger formula, 141, 209, 231 Othniel, 113
messiah, 170 overpopulation, 45, 46
metaphors, 39 ox, goring, 6 9 - 7 1
meter, in poetry, 163
mezuzah, 93, 305
mi-lifnei, 185 Ρ document
midrash, 135, 2 7 7 - 2 7 8 , 281 emphasis on circumcision, 105
mikdash me'at, 187 nature of, 35
mikra, 274 paragraphs, dividing Bible into, 2 9 - 3 0
Milgrom, Jacob, 76 parallelism, 164-166
Minor Prophets, 10-11, 276, 288 Passover, see Pesach
miracles, 145 Patriarchal History, 50
misogyny, 236, 238 patriarchs, representing all Israel, 5 3 - 5 5
Mitchell, Stephen, 247, 254 Perez, 50
mizmor, 219 periodization of Israel's history, 2 4 - 2 8
Moab, 22, 120, 123, 154, 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 Persia, 2 5 - 2 6 , 212
Moore, G. E, 36 Pesach, 82, 135
Pesher Habakkuk, 2, 285, 336
myths, 38-40, 42, 47, 59, 117, 253 Peshitta, 75
Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, 283
Ν petitions, 223
Nabonidus, 25, 199-200, 212 petuchah, 30
Nabunaid. see Nabonidus Philistines, 24, 96
Nachmanides, 54 Philo, 52
Nadab, 7 8 , 8 1 Phoenicians, 141
navi, 141, 142
poetry mood swings in, 224
Biblical, 9 - 1 1 , 1 5 , 3 1 , 2 2 1 structure of, 220
Hannah's prayer as, 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 superscriptions of, 225
in Genesis, 4 3 Psalms, book of
in Isaiah, 163 collection of collections, 2 2 6 - 2 2 8
inJob,245 genres of, 223
in Song of Songs, 258 historical setting, 2 2 5 - 2 2 6
poor, providing for, 232-233, 237 organization of, 2 2 8 - 2 2 9
pornography, 191 parallel to Torah, 229
prayer, 220, 2 2 2 - 2 2 3 , 325 parallelisms in, 164
priests social setting of, 224
outlook of, 8 3 Pseudepigrapha, 297
pedigree of, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 punishment
purity of, 79 corporate and individual, 190-191
pronunciation of ancient Hebrew, 153, 292, inJob,248, 252,255
310 of evildoers, 249
prophecy of Israel, 150, 153, 156-157, 175,
decline of, 208, 214 207-208
definition, 137, 147 vicarious, 6 6 - 6 7 , 72, 189-190, 206
exile, effect on, 187-188 puns, 153
nature of, 211
outside of Israel, 185 Q
prophets, see also prophets, classical;
prophets, nonclassical Qumran, 2, 334. see also Dead Sea Scrolls
as intercessor and messenger, 141
symbolic behavior of, 168 R
prophets, classical, 142, 147, 149, 154-157, ra'iti, 239
166-167,183,209-211 rabbinic interpretation of Bible, 2, 123, 135,
prophets, nonclassical, 141-142, 143-147 215,282-283
protasis, 139 radical monotheism, 202, 305
proverbs Rashbam, 2, 337
Ezekiel refuting, 188-191 Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meir), 2
in Ecclesiastes, 239 reading
outside of Proverbs, 236 conventions of, 13-15
Proverbs, book of social aspects of, 15-17
adultery in, 233 Rebekah, 50
Amenemope as a source, 237 redactor, 3 5 - 3 6 , 307
attitude toward poor, 233 redemption, 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 , 2 1 7 - 2 1 8
collection of collections, 235 remnant of Israel, 154, 157, 167, 210
misogyny in, 236, 238 repentance
theology of, 2 3 1 - 2 3 2 Amos encouraging, 150, 171
varying perspectives in, 2 3 4 - 2 3 5 etymology, 75
wisdom in, 236 Isaiah preventing, 171
psalms Jeremiah encouraging, 190-191
definition, 219 possibilities for, 133
etymology, 219 resumptive repetition, 102
resurrection, 215
retribution, 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 seventy
return to Israel, 206 as h u m a n life span, 176
Reuben, losing birthright, 56, 129-130 years, 214-215, 2 7 4 , 2 8 2
revelation, nature of, 63 sexuality, 4 5 - 4 7 , 2 6 3 - 2 6 4 , 332
rhetoric, in Amos, 152-153 sh-l-ch, 186
rituals Shalmaneser V, 25
importance of, 7 3 - 7 4 , 155-156, 178, shavu'im shiv'im, 214
195 she'aram, 317
nature of, 83 Shema, 9 2 - 9 3
on Yom Kippur, 7 4 - 8 2 Sheshach, 176-177
ro'eh, 142 shiv'im, 2 1 4 - 2 1 5
Rosenzweig, Franz, 98 shojetim, 112
royal tales, 217 Shrine, 78
royal we, 42 Shunammite woman, 144
Ruth si Hufe, 30
genre of, 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 Simeon, losing birthright, 56, 129
names in, 268 sin, 2 5 0 - 2 5 1
non-Jews in, 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 Sitz im Leben, 222, 224
part of Judges, 274 slaves, 7 1 , 8 8 - 9 0
women in, 270, 272 so/ pasuk, 30
Solomon
archeological finds and, 124
Sabbath, 65, 86, 178, 207, 297, 299, 300 author of Song of Songs, 257
Samaria, see Northern Israel dedicating Temple, 134-135
Samuel, ideology of, 108-111 portrayal of, 120-122
Sarah, 5 1 - 5 3 , 58 successor to David, 132
Sargon II, 25 violating kings' laws, 1 2 2 - 1 2 3
Sargonides, 25 Song of Ascent, 227
Satan, 247 Song of Deborah, 19, 290
Saul Song of Songs
disobedience to God, 112 as allegory, 2 6 2 - 2 6 3
portrayal of, 109-111, 110 cannonization of, 265
tribal origins of, 114-115 compared to ancient love poetry,
Schechter, Solomon, 4 260-261
scribal euphemism, 330 double entendres in, 2 6 3 - 2 6 4
scrolls, 276 multiple authors of, 2 5 8 - 2 6 0
Sea People, 24, 96 women as author, 3 3 1 - 3 3 2
sects, 334 source criticism, 3 4 - 3 6
Seeger, Pete, 328 Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor, 19-20
sefarim, 274 Spinoza, Baruch, 3, 262
sefer ha-berit, 6 7 - 6 9 Stendahl, Krister, 337
sefer ha-torah, 100 suffering servant, 2 0 5 - 2 0 6
Semitic languages, 287 suffering, explanation of, 248-249, 255
Sennacherib, 124-126, 168-169 Sukkot, 82, 86, 134-135
Septuagint, 10, 22, 75, 80, 177, 219, 289 suzerain, 155, 180
setumah, 29 synagogues, 188
synonymous parallelism, 164-166, 326 translations, types of, 9 7 - 9 8
synthetic parallelism, 164-165 treaties
Syriac, 75 as structure of Deuteronomy, 9 1 - 9 2 , 94
suzerainty, 155, 180
Τ tricolon, 166
Tabernacle, 7 7 - 7 8 , 302 Trito-lsaiah, 201. see also Isaiah
Tamar, 50, 55 tzelem, 4 3 - 4 4
Tanakh, etymology, 8 - 9 . see also Bible
Targum, 177, 262 U
Tatian, 36 Ugarit, 74, 321
tefillin, 93, 305 Universal Myth, 4 9 - 5 0
Temple Urtext, 304
absorbing sins, 76
as only place of worship, 8 9 - 9 0 , 94 V
cleansing of, 82 Van Seters, John, 20
dedication of, 134-135 Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 91, 93
desecrated by Antiochus, 213 vav, pronunciation of, 292
destruction of, 175-176, 182, 194-195, ve-ad, 98, 309
278 verses, dividing Bible into, 30
in eschatology, 169-170 vicarious punishment, 72, 189-190, 206
model for Tabernacle, 302 visions, 2 1 1 , 2 1 3
rebuilding of, 207 Vulgate, 29
worship in, 87, 94
Temple Scroll, 275 W
Ten Commandments, see Decalogue wasjs, 2 5 9 - 2 6 1
tenses, in Hebrew, 326 watchman oracles, 192-193
teshuvah, 75 Wellhausen, Julius, 3, 73
The Lord Is There, 195 wife-sister stories, 20, 5 3 - 5 4
theology wine, ritually pure, 215
in wisdom literature, 2 3 1 - 2 3 2 wisdom, 235, 236, 238, 2 3 9 - 2 4 0
part of historical record, 126 wisdom literature, 92, 234, 239, 251
theonomy, 235 women
Thompson, Thomas, 20 and Sabbath, 300
Tiglath-Pileser III, 25 and slavery, 89
toponyms, 306 as biblical authors, 295-296, 3 3 1 - 3 3 2
Torah as foreigners, 236
background for Chronicles, 134-135 in Deuteronomy, 90
date of redaction, 36 in Ruth and Esther, 2 6 9 - 2 7 2
equivalent to wisdom, 238 praying, 325
etymology, 9, 179 word pairs, 164-165
fence around, 123, 207
postdating Amos, 150-151 Y
similarities to Jeremiah, 178-179 y-ch-s, 129
study of, 208, 229 y-tz-r, 32
Tower of Babel, 3 3 , 4 9 Yavneh, 2 7 4 - 2 7 5
yehudim, 199 Zechariah
apocalyptic literature in, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2
Yom Kippur, biblical practice of, 7 4 - 8 2 remnant of Israel, 210
visions of, 138-139
Ζ Zedekiah, 321
z-n-h, 191 Zimri, 118-120
Zadok, 130
Index of Biblical Passages
and Other References

Hebrew Bible 2-3 32,45

Torah 2:3 39,44
Genesis 2:4 32,33,35,40
1 29,32,86 2:4-3:24 32,33,34,44,47
1:1 32,33,40,42,45 2:5-3:24 33
1:1-2 41 2:7 32,47
1:1-2:3 32 2:7-23 31
1:1-2:4 33,34,35,36,39,40,44, 2:17 45
47 2:18-20 32
1:1-3 40 2:20 32
1-3 31,37,38,46 2:21-23 32
1:3-31 39 3:7 45
1:4 41 3:8 32
1:6 39,41 3:9-11 32
1:7 41 3:14 45
1:9 39 3:16 45,46
1-11 49,50,294 3:17 45
1:14 39,41 3:20 46
1:18 41 3:21 32,47
1:20 39 3:22 46
1:24 39 4:1 46
1:24-25 32 10 49
1:26 42 11 33
1:26-28 31,32 11:1-9 49
1:26-30 42,44 11:9 33
1:27 32,42,43,44,294,295 11:26 49
1:28 42,45 11:31 49
1:31 42 12 20,49,51,52,54,57,
2 29,43 100,297
2:1-3 41,50 12:1 50
2:1-4 39,40,41 12:1-3 58
2:2-3 40,295 12:4-9 58
12:10 54 33:15 40
12:10-20 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 33:18 40
12:15 51 33:19 40,246
12:17 54 33:21 40
12:19 51 33:23 40
12-50 49,50,58,59 33:24 40
13 58 33:25 40
13:11-13 52 33:30 40
14 53,58 33:31 40
15 58 34 56,308
17 58 35:22 56
17:10-14 105 36 55
18-19 58 37 51
18:22-33 190 37:2 57
19:30-38 271 37:13 57
20 2 0 , 5 4 , 5 8 , 297 37:21-22 56
20:7 141 37:25-27 55
21 58 37:26-27 56
21:1 58 37:28 55
22 51, 58 37:29-30 56
22:2 58 37-50 55
22:13 89 38 50, 55, 56
22:15-18 58,296 38:8-14 56
22:17-18 51 38:26 50
23 58 39:9 63,233
24 58 41 215
25:22 50 42:37-38 56
25:23 50 44:16-34 57
25:30 103 46:1 89
26 20,54,297 46:4 55,188
27 50 46:28 57
27:36 51 49:4 56
29:31 220 49:5-7 56
30:22 220 50:24 57, 59
31:19-32 51
31:38-39 67 Exodus
32:33 102 3:22 54
33:4 40 10:2 64,65
33:5 40 10:3 64
33:6 40 10:4 64
33:7 40 10:5 64
33:8 40 10:7 64
33:9 40 10:8 64
33:10 40 10:12 64
33:11 40 10:13 64,65
33:12 40 10:14 64
33:13 40 11:1 54
11:2 54 24:10 44,187
12:8-9 135 25:8 83,188,194
12:9 281 25-31 83
12:31-32 54 30:10 302
12:35 54 31:12-17 44
12:48 105 31:17 50
19 61,62,338 32:13 51
19-24 61,62 34:6-7 66
20 65,85,86,298 34:28 64
20:1 61 35-40 83
20:1-14 61,62 39:42-43 83
20:2 64
20:2-14 64,66 Leviticus
20:3 62 1-16 302
20:5 190 3:8 80
20:5-6 66 3:13 80
20:8-11 65 4:3 302
20:12 63 4:4 80
20:13 62,66 4:29 80
20:15-18 62 4:33 80
20:19 61 10 78
20:19-23:33 62, 67, 68 11 90
20:20-23:19 61 16 74,76,77, 78,80,81,82,
20:21 89 206,302
20:23-23:19 301 16:1 81
21:1 67 16:1-19 74,78
21:2-11 88 16:1-28 74
21:4 89 16:2 78
21:5-6 72 16:2-3 78,81
21:6 2,89,281 16:3 79
21:15-17 68 16:3-4 79
21:20-21 71 16:5 79
21:28-32 62,69 16:6 79
21:31 71 16:7-8 79
22:15-16 68,263 16:8 80
22:17-19 67 16:9 79
22:18 68 16:10 79,80
22:20-23 63 16:11 79
23 86 16:12-13 78,79
23:1-4 62 16:14 79
23:14-17 62 16:15 79
23:14-19 85 16:16 76, 79, 80
23:16 86 16:17 79
23:17 86 16:18-19 80
24 62,187 16:19 80
24:7 67 16:20 76
24:9-11 63 16:20-22 81
16:20-26 74 5:19 86
16:21 80 6:4-5 305
16:22 80 6:4-9 92
16:23-25 81 6:5 92,93
16:26 80,81 7 123
16:27-28 74,81 7:3-4 123
16:29-31 81 7:9-10 66
16:29-34 81 9:27 51
17:10-14 79 10:4 64
17-26 72,81 11:13-21 190
20:25-26 41 12 8 9 , 9 0 , 304
23 86 12-26 72,90
23:5-8 82 13:1 87
23:16 72 13:6 178
23:27 81 14 90
23:33-36 72 14:1 150
25 72 15:9-11 232
25:39-43 72 15:12 90
25:40 2,281 15:12-18 88
25:42 72 15:13-15 89
26 90,91,232 15:16-18 72
15:17 89,90
Numbers 16 85,86
13:2 86 16:3 55
13-14 85 16:7 135,281
19 303 16:13 134
22-24 141 16:13-15 72,86
33:52 43 16:16 86
17 100
Deuteronomy 17:8-13 298
1 85 17:14-20 298
1:1-5 85 17:16-17 122
1-11 90 17:18-20 298
1:22-23 86 18:20 178
1:23 86 20:16-18 72,100
4:2 87 21:1-9 82
4:12 187 21:8 83
4:13 64 21:23 100
4:15 187 22:22 233
4:26 91 23:4-7 123,271
4:30 75 23:8-9 123
4:35 94,202 24:1-4 178
5 65,85 24:16 134
5:9 299 25:19 111
5:12-15 65 27-34 90
5:15 297 28 90,91,232
5:17 66 28:23 91
28:61 100 24:32 246
29:20 100
30:10 100 Judges
31:9-13 92 1:1 112
31:26 92 2:8 112
32:1 91 3:7-11 113
34 304, 307, 334 5 19
8:22 115
Prophets 9 115
Joshua 13:22 78,187
1 102 14:3 308
1:1-11 101 18:30 113
1:5-9 102 19:29 113
1:7-9 101 20:28 113
1:8 100,308
5:2-9 105 1 Samuel
5:10 105 1:2 223
6 98 1:2-5 223
6:21 95 1:5-8 223
7-8 103 1:6 223
8:29 100 1:11 220
8:30-34 100 2:1-10 220
8:34 100 2:2 326
9:27 103 2:4 221,326
10 98 2:5 221
10:1 98 2:8 326
10:28 98 2:10 221
10:30 98 2:21 220
10:33 98 8 111,115
10:35 98 9:2 110
10:37 98 9:6-8 144
10:39 98 10:10 145
10:40 98 10:23 110
11:16 306 11:7 114
11:16-17 97 14:44 110
11:18 98 15 112
12 98 15:2-3 111
13:1-6 99 15:23 112
19 97 16:11 110
21:41 98 16:13-14 111
21:41-43 97,103 16:14 109
21:43 306 16:15-23 108
21:43-45 97 17 107,108, 110
23 97,104,308 17:7 108
23:12-16 104 17:10 108
24:3-13 104 17:14 110
24:14-15 104 17:25 108
24:20 104
17:26 108 1 Kings
17:36 108 1 121
17:45 108 1-2 122
17:55-58 108 1:4 132
18 110 1-11 120,124, 309
18:4 109 1:25 121
18:17 108 1:31 115
18:25 108,308 3:1-3 121
19:1 110 3:1-9:23 122
19:10-17 110 5:27 120
20:33 110 8:2 82
22 110 8:65 134
23 110, 111 9:15 124
23:2 111 9:20-22 121
23:17 109 9:24-25 121
24 110 9:26-11:40 122
24:7 111 9:28-10:25 122
24:12 110 10:14 122
24:17 110 10:26-29 122
26 110 11 123
26:11 111 11:1 123
26:17 110 11:1-2 123
27:7-12 111 11:3 122,258
28 111 11:21 118
30 111 11:41-43 122
30:7-8 111 12:25-33 120
31 111 16:15 119
16:15-29 118
2 Samuel 16:19 120
1:13 111 16:21 119
1:20 308 16:22 119
2:1 111 16:23 119
3 111 16:24 119
4 111 16:27 120
7:14-16 117 16:29 119
8 111 17:1 146
11 122 18 146
12:1 132 20:11 236
12:2-29 132 21:19 146
12:13 300 21:55 133
12:13-14 66 22:19 42,330
12:24 120 23:36 134
12:30-31 132 23:39 134
21:18-22 108
21:19 107,108 2 Kings
21:21 108 2:9 145
2:23-25 138
3:15 145 7:14 168
4 146 9:11-15 169
4:8-37 144 10:5 166
4:23 144 10:5-6 175
4:27 144 10:12 175
6:12 144 11:1-9 170
14:5-6 134 11:6-8 180
18:13-16 124,125 11:11 317
18:16 125 11:16 317
19:32-34 125 13:6-11 167
19:35 125 13-23 166
20:12 126 20:2 168
21 125 20:3-4 168
21:4-5 133 28:5 317
21:16 133 31:5 175
22:8 87 31:5-9 168
22-23: 304 36-39 162, 1 7 1 , 3 1 0
23 87 40 200
51 182 40:2 204
52 182 40:3 13
40:3-11 206
Isaiah 40-55 161,201
1 163,166 40-66 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 206,
1 1 162 209,322
12 164,166 41:1-4 201
1 2-4 165 44:1 205
13 166 44:9-20 202
18 163 45:1-6 201
1 10-17 73,74 45:4 201
1 11-17 166 45:6 202
1-39 161,169,201 49:14-16 204
2 170 51:2 51
2:1-4 169 51:9-11 203
3:12 163 51:10-11 204
3:16 163 53:1-12 205
4:1 163,316 53:4 206
4:2 163,316 53:5 206
5 262 53:6 206
5:7 262 53:11-12 206
6 4 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 7 , 186 55:1-5 322
6:1 186 55:3 204
6 1-8 330 56-66 161,201
6:7 186 59:21 308
68 186,319 63:3-6 203
6:10 171
6:13 157,167 Jeremiah
7:3 317 1 186
1:1-3 173 31:31-32 7
1:4-10 186,319 31:31-34 180
1:7 186 31:33 181
1:8 186 36 182
1:9 186 36:1 182
1:11 211 36:2 182
2 317 36:4 182
3:1-3 178 36:21-25 182
3:6 318 36:32 183
3:14 175,318 46:1 174
4:19-21 181 51:1 318
5:14 183
6:22 176 Ezekiel
7:9 66, 178 1 186,302
7:16 313 1:1 186,192
8:21 181 1:1 - 3 : 1 5 193
11:14 313 1:2 - 3 : 1 6 186
11:20 319 1-20 321
12:11 318 1:26-28 44,186
14:11 313 2:1 - 3 : 1 1 314
15:19 182 2:3 186
16 183 2:6 186
17:19-27 178 3:2 186
17:27 207 3:9 186
18 296 3:16 192
18:18 179 3:16-24:27 193,194
20 174 3:17-21 192
20:7 181 3:26 193
20:9 181, 183 4- 5 188
20:14 181 6:2 196
21 174 7:20 43
21:11 174 8 77
23:9 174 8:1 192
23:22 187 8:2 - 4 194
23:28 236 8:6 77
25 175,176,194,199,214 8:6-11 195
25:1-7 176 8:12 195
25:9 176 8:16 77
25:11-13 176 9:9 195
25:15 177 10:4 194
25:15-26 176 10:18 77
25:26 176,177 11 189
26:6 175 11 1 - 3 185
28 178,188 11 15 187
28:16 178 11 1 5 - 1 6 189
28:17 178 11 16 187
31:29 189 11 2 2 - 2 3 194
11:23 77 40:3 323
12:22-25 189 40-48 195,322
14 196 45:18-20 82
14:1 188 48:35 195
14:12-23 190
14:14 190 Hosea
14:18 190 2 150
14:20 190
16 191,262 Amos
16:17 43 1:1 158
16:25-26 191 1:2 159
18 6 6 , 1 8 9 , 190, 196 1:3-2:3 155
18:1-4 189 1:3-5 138
18:4 66,133 2:1 154
18:5-20 190 2:4 155
18:20 190 2:6 152
18:32 190 2:6-7 233
19 204 2:6-8 155
20:1 188,192 2:10 151
21-37 321 3:1 157
22 195 3:2 155
23 191 3:3-6 152
23:3 191 3:6 150
23:14 43 3:8 181
24:1 192 3:12 157
25-32 193 3:15 315
26:1 192 4:4-5 153
29:1 192 4:11 151
29:17 192 5:2 282
30:20 192 5:3 157
31:1 192 5:5 153,159
32:1 192 5:6 150
32:17 192 5:18-20 156,167
33:7-9 193 5:21-24 155
33:21 192 5:25 150
33:21-22 193 5:26 43
33:32 191 5:27 159
33-48 193,194 6:4 156
34 196 6:7 159
34:2-10 196 6:13 153
34:23-24 196 7 158
36:2 196 7:1 157,211
36:21-36 196 7:1-3 142
37 189 7:10 157
37:11 189 7:10-17 158
38-39 196 7:13 157
40:1 192 8:2 153
8:5 151 2:4 164
8:8 158 3 224,225
8:10 150 3:2 224
9:1 158 3:7-8 224
9:5 158 6 222,224,225
9:7 155 6:9-10 224
9:11-15 159 6:9-11 224
9:13 179 8:2 33
18:21-22 171 8:10 33
14:1-7 226
Jonah 15 225
1:3 185 22 223,225
22:2 223
Micah 22:11 224
4:1-3 169 22:23 224
6:6-7 315 23 219
23:1 164
Habakkuk 24 225
2:3 213 24:3-4 225
41:14 228
Haggai 42 326
1:13 141 42-49 225
2:3 207 43 326
2:6-9 207 48-83 227
50 225,228
Zechariah 53:1-7 226
1:3 209 72 225
1:4 210 72:19-20 228
1-8 209,211 72:20 226
2:15 210 73-83 225,227
5:5 211 80:2-3 226
5:9 211 84 225
5:9-11 138 85 225
7:7 210 87 225
7:12 210 88 225
8:3 212 89:53 228
8:6 210 90:10 176
8:11-12 210 106:48 228
8:16-17 209 118:27 222
8:22 209 120-134 227,327
14:5 158 121:6 165
15-19 209 127 225
137 225
Writings 137:4 186
Psalms 137:8 177
1 229 150:1-6 228
1:2 229,308
Proverbs 1:21 246, 247
1:1 234 2:5 246
1- 9 47,236,328 2:9 246
3:13 238 2:10 247
3:18 238 2:11 244
6:1-5 233 3 181
6:32-35 233 3:1 245
6:34-35 63 3:1-42:6 245
7:27 236,272 4:2 248
10:1 238 4:3 248
10:1-22:16 236 5:8-15 250
10:2 234 5:27 251
10:3 249 7:17-18 251
10:4-6 236 8:8 251
11:4 235 12:7-8 251
11:22 238 12:13-25 250
12:21 249 19:17 245
13:14 235 21:29 251
13:25 249 22:4-23 249
14:12 234 22:5-7 248
14:27 235 22:13-14 244
15:20 164 24:1-12 249
16:25 234 25:2-6 250
21:31 235 28 329
22:17-21 236 30:20 248
22:17-24:34 237 31 248
22:20 237 31:21-22 248
22:22 237 32:18-20 244
22:28 237 32-37 244
23:1-3 237 38:1-40:2 251,252
23:10-11 237 38:2 254
24:6 235 38:2-3 252
25:1 234,237 38:3 254
30:21-23 238 39:30 252
31:10-31 238 40:3-5 251,252
31:30 272 40:6-41:26 251
40:7 252
Job 40:7-14 252
1- 2 42,245,246,247 40:10-14 253
15 246 40:15-24 252
1 10 246 40:25-41:26 252
1 11 246 41:1 253
1 15 246 41:17 253
1 16 246 42:1-6 251,254
1 17 246 42:2-6 254
1 18 246 42:6 255
1 19 246 42:7 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 , 2 4 6 , 255
42:7-17 245 2:2 271
42:9 244 2:10 271
42:11 246 2:12 268
42:12-13 245 2:21 271
42:16-17 246 3:9 268
3:11 268
Song of Songs 4:5 271
1:1 258 4:7 26,333
1:4 331 4:10 271
1:5 331 4:11-12 270
1:6 264,332 4:12 50
1:8 261 4:17 270
1:12 331
1:13 264 Lamentations
1:14 265 3:57 224
2:7 258
3 258 Ecclesiastes
3:5 258 1 1 239
3:7 331 1- 2 239
3:9 257,331 12 239
3:11 331 1 12 239
4:1-7 259 1 16 239
4:13 257 2 15-16 239
5 258 3 239
5:1 260 3 1-8 240
5:2-6 264,332 3 10-11 240
5:3 262 3 12-13 240
6:4-9 259 3 13 240
7:5 261 5 18 240
7:6 331 8 15 240
7:9 261 8 17 240
8:4 258 9 13-15 239
8:6 332 9 16 240
8:11 331 12 239
8:14 265 12:8 239
12:9-14 239
Ruth
Esther
1:1 289
2:5 311
1:8 270
2:17 270
1:16-17 271
3:14 269
2:1 268
4:11 269
5:2 270 1 Chronicles
5:8 269 2:3-4:25 129
7:9 270 5:1-2 56,130
8:13 269 5:29-34 130
20:1 132
Daniel 20:2-3 132
1-6 212,215,325 22-29 132
1:20 215
2 212.215
2 Chronicles
2:1 217
1:1 132
2:4-8 212
7:8-10 134
2:47 215
19:4-11 298
3 217
23:17 43
3:5 213
33:11-16 133
3:19 216 33:18 136
3:27-29 216
35:13 135,281
3:31-32 216
4 212
Christian Bible
5 212.216 Matthew
6:1 217
1:23 168
6:18 217
Romans
6:26-29 217
5 295
6:29 218
13:9 66
7-12 212
213
2 Corinthians
213
3:1-6 319
8:13 213
3:14 287
8:16 213
8:19 213
Hebrews
9 214
8:7 287
9:2 2 1 4 , 2 7 4 , 282
9:21-24 214
Apocrypha
12:2 215
Ben-Sirach
19:20 238
Ezra
2:62 129
Talmud
9:2 208, 272
Avot
10:3 208
1:1 310

Nehemiah
Bava Batra
8:1-8 208 14b-15a 289
8:13-18 82
8:14 208 Midrash
9:6 47
Genesis Rabbah
13:17-18 207
40:6