A Comparison of the Egyptian Execration Ritual to Exodus 32: 19 and Jeremiah 19 9781611435467, 2010039545, 1611435463

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC
CHAPTER TWO: EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL
CHAPTER 3: STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19
CHAPTER 4: EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX

Citation preview

$&RPSDULVRQRIWKH(J\SWLDQ ([HFUDWLRQ5LWXDOWR([RGXV DQG-HUHPLDK

3HUVSHFWLYHVRQ+HEUHZ6FULSWXUHVDQGLWV &RQWH[WV 

7KH VHULHV 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ +HEUHZ 6FULSWXUHV DQG LWV &RQWH[WV SXEOLVKHVDFDGHPLFZRUNVGHDOLQJZLWKVWXG\RIWKH+HEUHZ%LEOH DQFLHQW ,VUDHOLWH VRFLHW\ DQG UHODWHG DQFLHQW VRFLHWLHV ELEOLFDO +HEUHZ DQG FRJQDWH ODQJXDJHV WKH UHFHSWLRQ RI ELEOLFDO WH[WV WKURXJKWKHFHQWXULHVDQGWKHKLVWRU\RIWKHGLVFLSOLQH9ROXPHVLQ WKH VHULHV LQFOXGH PRQRJUDSKV FROOHFWLYH ZRUNV DQG WKH SULQWHG YHUVLRQRIWKHFRQWHQWVRIWKHLPSRUWDQWRQOLQH-RXUQDORI+HEUHZ 6FULSWXUHV

$&RPSDULVRQRIWKH(J\SWLDQ ([HFUDWLRQ5LWXDOWR([RGXV DQG-HUHPLDK

0LFKDHO6'RQDKRX

 

*RUJLDV3UHVV//&5LYHU5RDG3LVFDWDZD\1-86$ ZZZJRUJLDVSUHVVFRP &RS\ULJKW†E\*RUJLDV3UHVV//&  2ULJLQDOO\SXEOLVKHGLQ $OO ULJKWV UHVHUYHG XQGHU ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG 3DQ$PHULFDQ &RS\ULJKW &RQYHQWLRQV1RSDUWRIWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQPD\EHUHSURGXFHGVWRUHGLQD UHWULHYDO V\VWHP RU WUDQVPLWWHG LQ DQ\ IRUP RU E\ DQ\ PHDQV HOHFWURQLF PHFKDQLFDO SKRWRFRS\LQJ UHFRUGLQJ VFDQQLQJ RU RWKHUZLVH ZLWKRXW WKH SULRUZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRI*RUJLDV3UHVV//& 

‰

,6%1

,661

/LEUDU\RI&RQJUHVV&DWDORJLQJLQ3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWD 'RQDKRX0LFKDHO6 $FRPSDULVRQRIWKH(J\SWLDQH[HFUDWLRQ ULWXDOWR([RGXVDQG-HUHPLDKE\ 0LFKDHO6'RQDKRX SFP3HUVSHFWLYHVRQ+HEUHZ 6FULSWXUHVDQGLWVFRQWH[WV %OHVVLQJ DQGFXUVLQJLQWKH%LEOH%OHVVLQJDQG FXUVLQJ(J\SW(J\SW5HOLJLRQ%LEOH 27([RGXV;;;,,&ULWLFLVP LQWHUSUHWDWLRQHWF%LEOH27-HUHPLDK ;,;&ULWLFLVPLQWHUSUHWDWLRQHWF,7LWOH %6%'  GF  3ULQWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.....................................................................................v Acknowledgments ...................................................................................ix Abbreviations ...........................................................................................xi Introduction ..............................................................................................1 Chapter One: The Relationship Between Religion and Magic..........9 I. Defining Religion.........................................................................9 A. Experiential Method ..........................................................11 B. Substantive Method ...........................................................12 C. Functionalist Method.........................................................12 D. Family-Resemblance Method ..........................................13 II. Defining Magic .........................................................................14 A. The Evolutionary Approach and the Animistic Approach .........................................................................15 B. The Psychological Approach............................................17 C. The Prelogical/Prescientific Approach...........................18 D. The Sociological Approach ..............................................19 E. The Synthetic Approach ...................................................20 III. Magic in the Hebrew Bible (HB) .........................................22 A. Genesis 30 ...........................................................................24 B. Exodus 17:8-16 ...................................................................28 C. 2 Kings 13:14-19.................................................................30 D. Urim, Thummim, and Ephod..........................................32 E. Reactions Against Magical Practices ...............................34 F. Non-Israelite Magical Practices in the HB .....................37 G. Selected HB Passages Influenced by Egyptian Practice .............................................................................39 IV. Conclusion ...............................................................................48 Chapter Two: Egyptian Magic and the Execration Ritual ...............49 I. Egyptian Understanding and View of Magic ........................49 v

vi

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

A. Key Terms in Understanding Ancient Egyptian Magic: Heka and Maat....................................................49 B. Comparison of Egyptian Ideas of Magic and Religion ............................................................................52 C. Power and Use of Magic in Ancient Egyptian Society ..............................................................................55 D. Core Magical Practices of Sound, Word, and Hieroglyphic Images ......................................................57 E. Status and Role of the Magician in Ancient Egyptian Society .............................................................62 II. Mythological and Ritual Background to the Execration Ritual.......................................................................................62 A. Apep ......................................................................................62 B. Seth ........................................................................................63 C. Egyptian Cosmology and Ritual Actions to Combat Evil ....................................................................64 D. Magical Information from Funerary Sources................73 III. Archaeological Discoveries of Execration and Related Materials .................................................................................76 A. Execration Materials Discovered in Egypt ....................76 B. Related Archaeological Finds in Palestine, Sinai, and Israel..........................................................................79 C. The Story of Sinuhe ...........................................................83 IV. Description of the Execration Ritual ..................................84 V. Conclusion.................................................................................95 Chapter 3: Study of Jeremiah 19 ..........................................................97 I. Review of the Literature ...........................................................97 A. Robert Carroll .....................................................................98 B. William L. Holladay..........................................................100 C. William McKane ...............................................................102 D. Carolyn Sharp ...................................................................103 II. Exegesis of Jeremiah 19 by Carroll, McKane, and Holladay ...............................................................................106 III. Jeremiah, the Book of Jeremiah, and Possible Connections to Egypt ........................................................113 IV. Sympathetic Magic and Jeremiah’s Symbolic Action......120 V. Similarities Between the Execration Ritual and Jeremiah 19...........................................................................................128 A. Chaotic Situation ..............................................................128 B. Divine Representative Intervenes.................................130

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

C. Ritual is Witnessed by Others ........................................132 D. Promise of Destruction/Annihilation of Opposition.....................................................................133 E. Equation of Opposition with Ritually Smashed Item.................................................................................134 VI. Conclusion .......................................................................136 Chapter 4: Exodus 32:19 and the Execration Ritual.......................137 I. Review of the Literature .........................................................137 A. Modern Commentaries....................................................139 B. Other Modern Interpretations .......................................155 D. Early Christian Exegesis of Exod 32:19.......................170 II. Study of “the Breaking of the Covenant” ..........................174 A. Most Common Hebrew Expressions ...........................174 B. The Function of ‫“ שבר‬to break, to shatter”.................185 C. The Function of ‫ שלך‬in Exodus 32: 19 “to throw, to cast”...............................................................189 III. Similarities Between the Execration Ritual and Exodus 32...........................................................................................191 A. The Egyptian Setting of the Story ................................193 B. Divine Representatives ....................................................194 C. Situation of Chaos or Disorder ......................................195 D. Identification of Offending Action or Party with Item Broken..........................................................197 E. Priestly Assistance in Ritual Sacrifice ............................199 F. Word Studies .....................................................................200 Conclusion.............................................................................................203 Bibliography ..........................................................................................207 Index.......................................................................................................233

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to recognize the assistance of Katie Stott and Mark Leuchter at Gorgias Press for their helpful and constructive suggestions and encouragement. From Marquette University I especially want to thank my advisor Dr. John Schmitt for his extreme patience, generosity, humor, and due diligence. Dr. Deirdre Dempsey, Dr. Sharon Pace, Rev. William Kurz, S.J., and Rev. John Laurance, S.J. also provided encouragement and helpful suggestions from their reading of the text. The interlibrary loan departments of Marquette University and Texas Christian University were able to find and supply everything a doctoral student could ever want. On a more personal level I want to thank my grandmother, mother, father and their respective families, as well as my brother and sister and their families, for their continued encouragement and support over this long process. My Uncle Bill and his wife Gerry were especially helpful in providing a place of refuge to refocus my research and writing efforts. My in-laws were also a source of constant support and understanding for which I am grateful. Damon and Christina Achziger supplied ample backing for which I am forever in their debt. My godfather, Mr. Randolf Denk, bestowed wisdom and guidance through the years of research, writing, and editing for which I am especially appreciative. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my wife Jan and my daughter Zoe for their inspirational encouragement and strong desire to see this project through to its proper completion. Without their assistance, this task would have never been accomplished.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS 1 Chr 1 Sam 2 Chr 2 Kgs AB ABD ANET

BA BASOR B.C.E. BHS BZ c(a). CBC CBQ ch(s). col. D Dan Deut E Eccl

1 Chronicles 1 Samuel 2 Chronicles 2 Kings Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard, 3d ed. Princeton, 1969. Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Before Common Era Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983. Biblische Zeitschrift circa Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly chapter(s) column Deuteronomist source of the Pentateuch Daniel Deuteronomy Elohist source of the Pentateuch Ecclesiastes xi

xii

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 ed(s). ER Ex Exod Ezek FAT Gen HB Hos HS Ibid. ICC IDB Isa ISBE J JANES JBQ JEA Jer Jo Josh JPS JSOT JSOTSup Judg LÄ Lam Lev LXX

editor(s) The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York, 1987. Exodus Exodus Ezekiel Forschungen zum Alten Testament Genesis Hebrew Bible Hosea Hebrew Studies Ibidem (the same place) International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962. Isaiah International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G. W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, 1979-1988. Yahwist source of the Pentateuch Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jeremiah Joel Joshua Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:Supplement Series Judges Lexikon der Ägyptololgie. Edited by W. Helck, E. Otto, and W. Westendorf. Weisbaden, 1972. Lamentations Leviticus Septuagint

ABBREVIATIONS Mal MDAIK Mt MT NCB NCBC Neh NICOT NJBC Nm NT Num OBO OT OTL OTS P p(p). Prov Ps(s) REg Rev RSV SAOC trans. TynBul UJEnc v(v). vol(s). VTSup WBC Zech

xiii

Malachi Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo Masoretic Text Masoretic Text New Century Bible New Century Bible Commentary Nehemiah New International Commentary on the Old Testament The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by R. E. Brown et al. Englewood Cliffs, 1990. Numbers New Testament Numbers Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Priestly source of the Pentateuch page(s) Proverbs Psalm(s) Revue d’égyptologie Revelation Revised Standard Version of the Bible Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations translator Tyndale Bulletin The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by I. Landman. 10 vols. New York. 1939-1943. verse(s) volume(s) Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Zechariah

INTRODUCTION This book deals with the figure of Moses, the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32, and the cultural background that is likely for this biblical scene. While most commentaries focus the majority of their analysis on the golden calf created in Exod 32, this book will concentrate on the first tablets of the Ten Commandments. Although the Bible is filled with stories of people practicing idolatry, the tablets are described as being unique and special, and therefore worthy of discussion. Few things in the Bible are described as the “work of God” or as having been “written by God.” One would think of items designated in such a way as being not only holy and sacred, but also precious and worthy of being protected. The first set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments is described in Exod 31:18 as being written with the “finger of God” (RSV).1 These same tablets are also described in Exod 32:16 in a similar fashion as “the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.” Having read the description of these items, it is certainly shocking that the leader called by God in the book of Exodus, Moses, would break the tablets for any reason. According to the narrative of Exod 32, Moses breaks the tablets upon seeing the people of Israel worshiping and dancing around a golden calf. This idolatrous sin of the people is especially heinous because it begins in Moses’ absence while he is receiving the aforementioned tablets. Most commentaries and commentators on Exod 32 spend a great deal of time describing the calf and the nature of the people’s sin. While the people do act in a sinful manner here, this 1

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible will be used throughout this book unless otherwise noted.

1

2

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

behavior cannot be seen as that surprising to a reader of the Bible because that is precisely what people are recorded as having always done. From Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in Gen 3 to a description of “everyone who loves and practices falsehood” in Rev 22:15, the Bible tells the story of people disobeying God and being punished for it. So too in the book of Exodus we can expect that the people disobey God in some way and are punished for it. However, one is surprised by the actions of Moses in destroying something holy like the sacred tablets. The question for the biblical interpreter becomes how best to explain this behavior of Moses. Often, scholars will look to other ancient Near Eastern cultures for behavioral clues. The dominant strand in the field of Hebrew Bible (HB) comparative studies has been the claim of influence of the Assyrian-Babylonian culture on selected texts. With the publication and acceptance of the main tenets of the source theory explaining the development of the Pentateuch, as argued by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1878), most scholars concentrated on analyzing HB texts against an Assyrian-Babylonian backdrop, instead of an Egyptian background as suggested by the text of the Pentateuch itself.2 Jon D. Levenson aptly explains the effect of the source theory on biblical interpretation saying: the emergence of source criticism…undermined belief in the historical unity of the Torah and the belief that it was revealed, as tradition held, to Moses upon Mount Sinai. On the contrary, the modern critic sees all four sources as post-Mosaic (if Moses may be considered historical) and as reflections of the eras in which they were composed. The recovery of these differences in eras allows the modern scholar to reconstruct the history of biblical Israel, for it frees him from the need to see

2 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel: With a Reprint of the Article Israel from the Encyclopedia Britannica (New York: Meridian Books, 1957).

INTRODUCTION

3

the religion as revealed in its entirety at one moment, in other words, as lacking a history altogether.3

The passages of the Pentateuch were no longer viewed as historical eyewitness accounts, but as more theologically driven than historically based points of view. The texts that had once been viewed as Mosaic, and therefore as having predated the monarchy by centuries, were now considered to date to the time of the monarchy by some scholars. Other scholars assigned these texts to the postexilic period. The logical inference for comparative cultural studies was therefore to concentrate more on the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the monarchy, followed by the exile of Israel and then of Judah by Mesopotamian powers as the possible historical setting for the writing, or at least recording, of many biblical texts. Some biblical scholars have even begun to question the presence of the traditional four sources of the Pentateuch. Thomas Römer summarized the status of the current debate regarding the existence of a J or Yahwist source—the oldest of the Pentateuchal sources—as “rather confused. Several scholars have buried him; others, on the contrary, remain loyal to the ‘old’ Yahwist of von Rad and Noth, while still others have attempted to rejuvenate him.”4 Upon closer reading of biblical commentaries and articles on specific texts, like Exod 32, it becomes apparent that not all biblical scholars are in agreement as to what part of a given pericope belongs to a particular source. Even if different commentators label a verse or verses as belonging to seemingly the same source, not all commentators have the same concept of what the J, E, D, and/or P source looks like or contains.5 Depending on the 3

Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 5. 4 Thomas Christian Römer, “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; num. 34 of the Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, ed. Christopher R. Matthews; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 21. 5 Römer, “The Elusive Yahwist,” 21. Römer concludes, “To make things even more complicated: a closer look at the advocates of the Yah-

4

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

particular exegete’s concept of the biblical passage as being from one source or another, and therefore dating to different time periods and possible cultural influences, can affect how one interprets a given passage. Another factor affecting the interpretation of a biblical passage is the context of the narrative. Since the Exod 32 narrative follows the promulgation of the Ten Commandments in the canonical text in which a covenant is established between God and the people, most modern commentators interpret the chapter in light of treaty texts like the Hittite suzerain treaty form. Instead of attempting to reconstruct the history of the time of Moses, biblical interpreters working in the book of Exodus began to compare the Ten Commandments as recorded in Exod 20, and in the chapters surrounding the reception of the Commandments, with Hittite suzerainty treaties. George E. Mendenhall discussed the idea of covenant in 1954 citing the lack of “agreement among scholars concerning the origin of the concept, some assigning it to the work of Moses, and others maintaining that it was the product of prophetic religious thought in the eighth and seven centuries.”6 Mendenhall followed the analysis of the Hittite treaty formula as presented by Viktor Korosec.7 The Hittite formula was not an exact match with the biblical text. Despite some similarities Mendenhall noted several missing elements in his comparison of the Ten Commandments to the general Hittite form noting the lack of “any provision for the deposit in the sanctuary and public reading; we have no list of witnesses, nor the curses and blessings except in the prohibition of other deities, and the demonstrably later addition to the command to honor father and mother.”8 However, he still believed that Israel was “formed into a community by a covenant whose text we have in the Decawist reveals that not everyone defends the same conception of J; quite the contrary.” Römer goes on to say that there is no agreement among scholars as to the historical location, style, and theological message of J. 6 George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50. 7 Viktor Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertraege (Leipsig: T. Weicher, 1931). 8 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 65-66.

INTRODUCTION

5

logue”9 even though he could not find an exact match for the Ten Commandments in the Hittite treaty form. Not unlike Mendenhall’s statement thirty-three years earlier, Levenson sees a definite affinity between the biblical form of covenant and the Hittite treaty form, while admitting that they are not an exact match: If we turn back to the passage in Exodus 19 that we have taken as indicative of the broad outlines of the Sinaitic traditions, we hear echoes of this covenant formulary. To be sure, Exodus 19:3b-8 is not a per se of the text of a covenant…. Once one makes allowance for the context in which this vignette functions, however, it is difficult to deny the reflexes of the covenant formulary to be heard therein.10

One could look at the differences apparent between the two as pointing to the ability of the biblical authors to adapt current ideas and concepts to their own particular needs. However, these differences can also lead others to look for a new and different cultural influence with which to compare the actions of Moses in Exod 32. Indeed, this book will focus on the destruction of these sacred tablets and offer a new interpretation and motive for this action. Instead of continuing to look for Assyrian-Babylonian similarities, this book will analyze and compare the ritual accompanying the Egyptian execration texts with the actions described in Exod 32. The ancient Egyptian execration ritual was an attempt by ancient Egyptians to magically manipulate the world around them. The ancient Egyptians used clay pottery, figurines, or tablets to represent their enemies. These items were then ritually broken in an attempt to break or thwart any power that their enemies might possess. There are many similarities between the ancient Egyptian ritual and the response to idolatry described in Exod 32. As for the execration texts themselves, there are two major finds of execration materials reported by Kurt Sethe and Georges

9

Ibid., 63. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 30.

10

6

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Posener.11 An investigation of these archaeological discoveries will be helpful in better understanding the execration items themselves, but will not greatly assist in comprehending the motives and actions of the ritual. Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner discusses Egyptian magical practices, including the execration ritual itself.12 Ritner states that over 1,000 examples of execration texts have now been discovered dating from Egypt’s Old Kingdom (ca. 3000 B.C.E.) to the Late Period of Egyptian history (ca. 500 B.C.E.) covering all but the latest time period for any writing and collecting of stories into the HB. There are a vast number and variety of execration materials that have been unearthed. Some of the broken items in the execration finds have writing on them, but most do not. Early investigation of these finds focused almost exclusively on the decipherment of the writing found on a few of the items. However, Ritner points to the importance of the ritual itself and not the inscriptions on some of the pieces. If the writing were the more important element of the cursing, then every figurine, bowl or pot would need to be inscribed in some way to carry out the magical effect of the curse. Many of the finds lack any inscriptions at all. The execration ritual involved two essential elements also found in the Exod 32 narrative: an intentional breaking of some item and the destruction or sacrifice of a bull. Other scholars have investigated the possible influence of this Egyptian practice in the books of Jeremiah and Amos; this book will show that this ancient practice also influenced the narrative of Exod 32. Instead of looking for influence from the Assyrian-Babylonian understanding of covenant breaking, this book will concentrate on the Egyptian Kurt Seth, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1926, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Nr. 5 Die Achtung Feindlicher Fursten, Volker und Dinge auf Altagyptischen Tongefassscherben des Mittleren Reiches (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1926). Georges Posener, Princes et Pays d’ Asie et de Nubie: Textes Hieratiques sur des Figurines de Envoutement du Moyen Empire (Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Rein Elisabeth, 1940). 12 Robert K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993). 11

INTRODUCTION

7

manner of magically cursing their enemies as a way to more fully understand the actions of Moses as reported in the biblical story. The passage has a literary background in Egyptian magical practice, not the Assyrian-Babylonian covenant life. In order to substantiate this idea of a connection between an Egyptian magical practice and a Hebrew religious text, I will begin in chapter 1 with a brief discussion of the nature of religion and magic, and the similarities between these two ideas, especially in the ancient world. It will also be necessary to investigate the use of magical practices in other parts of the HB to demonstrate this junction between magical and religious practices in ancient societies. In chapter 2, I will discuss the Egyptian understanding of magic in order to compare it to the actions described in Exod 32 and Jer 19. I will also go into a greater analysis of the nature of the execration ritual mentioned above through a discussion of archaeological discoveries of execration materials, the mythological background behind the Egyptian understanding of cursing, and a description of the execration ritual itself. Other scholars have emphasized in HB comparative studies the possible influence of the Egyptian culture on selected texts. As Michael Barré explains, “That Egypt’s literature should have exercised some influence on the writings of the Old Testament should not be surprising. Egypt had been a formidable cultural as well as political presence in the Near East for millennia before the historical beginnings of Israel.”13 So to, I argue that an Egyptian influence has contributed to the dramatic actions accorded to the figures of Moses and Jeremiah described in Exod 32 and Jer 19 respectively. In chapter 3, I will discuss the interpretation of Jer 19. The work of other commentators will be presented as analogous to the focus of this book in connecting the ancient Egyptian execration ritual with a biblical passage. With this kind of influence in mind, Aage Bentzen compared the listing of the nations in the Egyptian execration texts with the order of the nations mentioned in the oracles of Amos 1:2-2:16, “The Egyptian texts have given me an

13

Michael Barré, “Extrabiblical Literature,” List 19 (1984): 54.

8

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

idea of understanding an Old Testament text….”14 Bentzen also mentioned in this same article, the idea of the Egyptian execration texts influencing the passage of Jer 19 where the prophet breaks a pot to signify the destruction of Jerusalem. The prophet smashes a pot because of the idolatrous sins of the people. William L. Holladay (1986) and Leo G. Purdue (1995) discuss this same possibility of Egyptian influence in Jeremiah 19 in their respective commentaries.15 In chapter 4, I will examine the numerous interpretations of Exod 32:19 by Jewish and Christian exegetes over the centuries. After this survey, I will offer my own interpretations of the biblical passage by studying the idea of the “breaking of the covenant” in the HB. The chapter will conclude with a comparison of similarities between the ancient Egyptian execration ritual and Exod 32.

14 Aage Bentzen, “The Ritual Background of Amos 1:2-2:16,” OtSt 8 (1950): 87. 15 William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 541. Leo G. Perdue, “Jeremiah” in Mercer Commentary on the Bible (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 640.

CHAPTER ONE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC I. DEFINING RELIGION In order to compare and contrast the ideas of religion with magic, it is first necessary to come to some conclusions about the definition of each term. With regard to defining religion, Phillips Stevens has noted, “The study of things religious has proceeded with tacit assumption among scholars that they all know what they are talking about.”16 Yet, most definitions of religion begin with some kind of disclaimer about the lack of consensus among researchers. As John Bowker puts it, “A strange thing about religion is that we all know what it is until someone asks us to tell them.”17 This lack of a universal definition for religion does not cause major difficulties for researchers until one begins studying different religions with different theologies developed in different cultures. When comparing religious beliefs across cultural and theological lines the natural human tendency, even subconsciously, is to favor one’s own theological outlook and cultural tradition.18 Despite the difficulties there are many theories that have been proposed that emphasize different aspects of a religious worldview Phillips Stevens, Jr., “Religion,” Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology 3:1090. 17 John Bowker, “Religion,” The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, xv. 18 Robert H. Winthrop “Of all the subjects investigated by anthropologists, religion is probably the least amenable to the ostensibly objective methods of observation and description, a fact that has made it easy for Western observers of non-Western religions to substitute their own prejudices and presuppositions in the absence of facts.”, “Religion,” Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, 238. 16

9

10

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

without coming to a consensus. As Bowker notes, each definition seems to highlight one aspect of religious faith against another. “Some emphasize the personal, others the social; some the beliefs, others the users; some the structures, others the functions; some the private, others the public; some the mundane, others the transcendent; some the truth, others the illusion.”19 Part of the difficulty in coming to a consensus in defining religion by key components is that while it is easy to think of many characteristics and qualities that different religious traditions exhibit, there seems to be no one individual religion that exhibits all of those qualities.20 A definition of religion must take into account the divine realm and the individual participant, as well as the religious institution’s social realm of activity. Phillips Stevens proposes considering a religion as having “a vertical relationship between people and elevated divinities, its popular meaning in the West, and the horizontal dimension, the active recognition of supernatural agencies on the level of human society.”21 This kind of definition seeks to incorporate all aspects of a person’s religious expression not just their ideas about the divine, but also their responsibilities and interactions with others as being motivated or viewed through their religious faith. The vertical concentration on the divine is a necessary element of the definition because a “person’s sense of what is happening in religion seems always to contain some extrasocietal, extrapsychological depth-factor or a transcendent dimension, which must be further explained.”22 The vertical element is equally important because “religion is never an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed apart from the total cultural matrix and that many religious beliefs, customs, and rituals can only be understood in

Bowker, Oxford Dictionary, xv. Bowker explains, “We can recognize a religion when we see one because we know what the many characteristics of religion are; but we would not expect to find any religion which exhibited all of the characteristics without exception.” , xxiv. 21 Stevens, Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology 3:1097. 22 Winston L. King, “Religion,” ER 12: 284. 19 20

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

11

reference to this matrix.”23 Indeed, one part of the work of biblical exegetes is to study the culture and history of the ancient societies in which the stories of the Bible originated. Along the horizontal lines of religion it is also important to point out the traditional, conservative role of religion in society. “Religions are systems for the monitoring, coding, protecting, and transmitting of information which has proved to be of the highest possible value, from person to person and (even more important) from generation to generation.”24 This aspect can clearly be seen in the Bible and the way it functions as foundational for many branches of Christianity. Peter B. Clarke and Peter Byrne have analyzed four styles in attempting to define the term religion that will serve as a guide for this study: experiential, substantive, functionalist and family resemblance.25 A. Experiential Method The experiential definition of religion attempts “to find some general form of experience that is characteristically religious and use this as the fundamental identifying feature of religions.”26 Winston L. King offers an example of this style of basic definition, “Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience—varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.”27 The problem with this style of definition is that it lacks clarity. In attempting to broadly encompass a wide variety of religious experiences in varied cultures, the definition must be general. However, the definition as proposed by King simply transfers the lack of understanding from the term “religion” to the equally unclear phrase “depth dimension” which moves us no further along in our quest for a working definition of religion, especially in comparison to magic. King, ER, 284. Bowker, Oxford Dictionary, xviii. 25 Peter B. Clarke and Peter Byrne, Religion Defined and Explained (New York: St. Martin’s, 1993), 6. 26 Ibid. 27 King, ER, 286. 23 24

12

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

B. Substantive Method This type of definition seeks to understand religion “through the content of the typical beliefs associated with it (usually by pointing to a theistic content to those beliefs).”28 Sir James George Frazer offers a definition of religion along these lines when he says, “By religion, then, I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.”29 With the concentration on the vertical element, Frazer’s definition neglects the social implications of religion in the culture, or the horizontal element as mentioned by Phillips Stevens. C. Functionalist Method Clarke and Byrne define this approach as explaining religion “not in terms of what is believed by the religious but in terms of how they believe it (that is in terms of the role belief plays in the people’s lives). Certain individual or social needs are specified and religion is identified as any system whose beliefs, practices, or symbols serve to meet those needs.”30 This type of definition has the benefit of including a wider variety of individuals and groups under the heading religious. An example of this kind of definition of religion is proposed by Emile Durkheim and concentrates on the function of religion in a given society. Durkheim explains religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”31 As opposed to the substantive approach as represented by Frazer with its concentration on the vertical relationship, Durkheim’s definition concentrates so heavily on the social aspects, or the horizontal relationship of religion, that no mention is made of the vertical element. When dealing with biblical Clarke and Byrne, Religion Defined, 6. Sir James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic in Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1922), 57-58. 30 Clarke and Byrne, Religion Defined, 7. 31 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1947), 47. 28 29

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

13

texts, this definition seems to be incomplete because the Bible focuses on the relationship between God and the people. D. Family-Resemblance Method Clarke and Byrne classify this approach to religion as asserting “that there is no single feature, or set of features, such that all religions must have it if they are to be religions or which guarantees that a system must be a religion if it possesses this feature or set.”32 This type of sociological analysis looks instead for a “network of overlapping similarities and not by any strict identity.”33 The family-resemblance approach works best with the understanding, as expressed by Bowker above, that people are able to recognize a religion when they see one because they are familiar with the characteristics that make up religion. Clarke and Byrne explain that it is: only because we possess an ability to master and apply the concept of religion that precedes the search for any strict definition of it that we can judge whether proposed definitions are adequate or not. We do so by seeing whether they allow us to class as religions things we would ordinarily count as such whether they take account of the characteristic features we normally associate with religion. It is perhaps nearer to the truth to see the ability to define ‘religion’ as following on from an acquaintance with and understanding of the phenomena of religion, rather than see such an understanding as being created by a definition. The family resemblance approach best captures this fact.34

Clarke and Byrne go on further to explain, “The characteristic dimensions of religion include: theoretical (for example, belief, myths and doctrines), practical (for example, rites and moral codes), social (for example, churches, priests, monks), experiential (for example, emotions, visions, attitudes).”35 They conclude the familyresemblance definition of religion saying, “In summary religions are Clark and Byrne, Religion Defined, 7. Ibid. 34 Ibid., 12. 35 Ibid. 32 33

14

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

human institutions which typically have theoretical, practical, experiential and social dimensions. They are distinguished by characteristic kinds of objects (gods or transcendent things), goals (salvation or liberation) and functions (the provision of meaning and unity to group or individual life).”36 Both the vertical and horizontal dimensions that were missing in the substantive and functionalist approach are present in this definition. For the purposes of this book then, a family-resemblance definition of religion will be used. This definition of religion will be compared and contrasted with the concept of magic to show the similarities and connection between the two ideas and the dimensions in life they tend to cover for their adherents/practitioners.

II. DEFINING MAGIC As this book will argue for a connection between an Egyptian magical practice and a Hebrew religious text, it is necessary to show the close relationship between magic and religion. I propose that magic and religion are representatives of the same kind of worldview. Rather than being seen as competing or incompatible, magic and religion serve as poles on the same continuum of beliefs having many elements and characteristics in common, especially when religion is defined from a family-resemblance approach. Defining magic is no simpler a task than defining religion. As John Middleton states, “Magic is a word with as many definitions as there have been studies of it.”37 With each definition, it is possible to think of exceptions and objections. This is especially true when comparing the ideas of magic and religion. Joanne K. Kuemmerlin-McLean has described six different approaches to the relation of magic and religion that will serve as a guide for this investigation: evolutionary, animistic, psychological, prelogical/prescientific, sociological, and synthetic.38 A description

Ibid., 13. John Middleton, “Theories of Magic,” in Hidden Truths: Magic Alchemy and the Occult (ed. Lawrence E. Sullivan; Compilation of selections from ER, ed. Mircea Eliade; New York: Macmillan, 1989), 85. 38 Joanne K. Kuemmerlin-McLean, “Magic (OT),” ABD 4:470. 36 37

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

15

of each of these categories serves as a good introduction to the concept of magic. A. The Evolutionary Approach and the Animistic Approach The evolutionary model “understands magic as the first and most primitive stage in an increasingly sophisticated three-stage process (magic-religion-science).”39 Closely related to this approach is the animistic principle which “focuses more particularly on the developmental stages of religion and argues for the progress of religion from animism through polytheism to monotheism.”40 One can see that both of these models are based on evolutionary understanding. The worldview of the researcher serves as the ultimate goal or spiritual pinnacle by which the culture or society being studied is judged. While the evolutionary approach, as described by Kuemmerlin-McLean, concentrates on the magic versus technology angle, the animistic model charts the unfolding relationship of magic, seen as animism or a belief in spirits, to religion within the field of religion itself with monotheistic religion as the ultimate development. It should come as no surprise that this definition or approach developed in a society dominated by a monotheistic religion. Magic is seen here as an inferior social phenomena to the understanding of religious practices which are more highly developed, or evolved. Since this approach has been the most dominant and foundational in the investigation of magic, a fuller explanation of its proponents and opponents will be cited below. Examples of this kind of understanding of magic can be seen in the classic works of Sir George Frazer and Edward B. Tylor.41 With regard to the difference between magic and modern scientific technology Frazer uses blatantly prejudicial language when he states, “In short, magic is a spurious system of natural law as well Ibid. Ibid. 41 Frazer, The Golden Bough: The Roots of Religion and Folklore (London: Macmillan, 1890; repr., New York: Avenel Books, 1981); Sir Edward B. Tylor, Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization (New York: D. Appleton, 1909). 39 40

16

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

as a fallacious guide of conduct; it is a false science as well as an abortive art.”42 Frazer describes the “primitive magician” as not having the necessary mentality for scientific thought, “the very thought of science is lacking in his underdeveloped mind.”43 Frazer defines religion as being more evolved than magic, “Obviously the conception of personal agents is more complex than a simple recognition of the similarity or congruity of ideas; and a theory which assumes that the course of nature is determined by conscious agents is more abstruse and recondite, and requires a far higher degree of intelligence and reflection, than the view that things succeed each other simply by reason of the contiguity or resemblance.”44 It is no wonder that a person having this kind of attitude towards magic would look at the magical practices and rituals of past civilizations in a negative light compared to their own religious tradition. Sir Edward Tylor also shows his disdain for magic: “The student who wishes to compare the mental habits of rude and ancient people with our own, may look into a subject which has now fallen into contempt from its practical uselessness, but which is most instructive in showing how the unscientific mind works. This is magic.”45 The world of magic and those who practice it are considered to be the base of the evolutionary scale, “On looking into the ‘occult sciences,’ it is easy to make out in them principles which are intelligible if one can only bring one’s mind down to the childish state they belong to.”46 Tylor’s observations with regard to religions of these same people are no more complimentary. Tylor refers to the people as “savages and barbarians” with a “belief in spiritual beings” who are so low on the evolutionary ladder that their religion “is at the same time their philosophy, containing such explanation of themselves and the world they live in as their uneducated minds are able to receive.”47 Magic is viewed by Tylor as a simple Frazer, The Golden Bough, 13. Ibid. 44 Ibid., 62-63. 45 Tylor, Anthropology: An Introduction, 338. 46 Ibid., 339. 47 Ibid., 342. 42 43

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

17

explanation of the world in which we live that educated and more advanced cultures would surpass. T. Witton Davies summarizes the style of these earlier works about magic when he says, “Magic may be described as a low kind of religion in which the ethical element is either subordinated or sacrificed to other and inferior elements.”48 Davies expounds the evolutionary principle that magic was the lowest form of spirituality, with Christianity representing the zenith of the scale. While realizing that this type of scholarship and writing was practiced in a less “politically correct” style, one can still find fault with this kind of reasoning because it ignores the cultural relativity of academic pursuits. There is always a tendency, even in the most careful analysis, to judge another culture’s rituals or worldview as being inferior to one’s own. Ann Jeffers responded to the unsatisfactory nature of this analysis of magic. Jeffers stated that the traditional definitions of magic presuppose “a neat historical progression (an ‘evolution’) in the development of ideas” and that those same definitions did not “take heed of the world views held by the people who undertake such practices.”49 One can see from the approach of scholars like Frazer, Tylor, and Davies why a direct comparison of an ancient Egyptian magical practice with a passage from the Bible would be out of the question without judging the Egyptian practice as simply being inferior and in no way informative or helpful in understanding the biblical passage. B. The Psychological Approach This model concentrates on the work of the individual “to achieve control of their lives and world either by overcoming psychological fears or by creating additional confidence in practices already undertaken.”50 This approach to magic can be seen in the work of

T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbors (New York: KTAV, 1969), 2. 49 Ann Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria (New York: E. J. Brill, 1996), 2. 50 Kuemmerlin-McLean, “Magic,” ABD 4:470. 48

18

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Bronislaw Malinowski.51 As opposed to contrasting the worldview of the individual to that of the researcher, as Frazer, Tylor and Davies had done, Malinowski studied the role of the individual in the magical process and the effects that the process had on the person. Malinowski said of magic, “It is not directed so much to nature as to man’s relation with nature and to the human activities which affect it.”52 He further states, “Thus, the force of magic is not a universal force residing everywhere, flowing where it will or it is willed to. Magic is the one and only specific power, a force unique of its kind, residing exclusively in man, let loose only by his magical art, gushing out with his voice, conveyed by the casting forth of the right.”53 This is a much more positive approach to magic defined by its personal use in a given society absent the value judgments made by Frazer, Tylor and Davies. The attempt is made by the researcher to try and understand the function of magic for the individual within the boundaries of the community being studied. One can see a researcher using this method as understanding the significance of magical practices within a given society as opposed to judging an entire society as inferior because of its magical practices and beliefs. C. The Prelogical/Prescientific Approach This research investigates the worldviews of the differing cultures in contrast to the modern logical and scientific age of today. “According to these scholars, prelogical societies view the world ‘mystically;’ that is, they explain events in supernatural rather than natural terms. Magic is part of this prelogical and prescientific worldview in that… it does not see the ‘modern’ distinction between the material and the spiritual.”54 This approach to understanding magic in a given society can be seen in the work of Sigmund Mowinckel in his analysis of the concepts of religion and the cult. Mowinckel states, “Peculiar to the magical or mythical perception of reality is Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion: and Other Essays, Selected and with an Introduction by Robert Redfield (Boston: Beacon, 1948). 52 Ibid., 56. 53 Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion, 56-57. 54 Kuemmerlin-McLean, “Magic,” ABD 4:470. 51

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

19

that it does not distinguish, as we do, between lifeless and living things, between organic and inorganic. All have ‘power’ and ‘life’ of one kind or another in them.”55 More evolved societies would see lifeless, inorganic things as tools or resources to be used, not as having any ability in and of themselves, or even possessing the potential for any action unless acted upon. Brian Vickers has also written on magic from this point of view. Vickers concentrates his analysis on the verbal aspect of magic, “In the scientific tradition, I hold, a clear distinction is made between the words and things and between literal and metaphorical language. The occult does not recognize this distinction: words are treated as if they are equivalent to things and can be substituted for them. Manipulate the one and you manipulate the other.”56 With its categorization of magic as “prescientific” or “prelogical” this style or method of investigation sees magical practices in a society as being inferior to what “we do” today. Much as with the prejudicial nature of defining other religions against one’s own as the pinnacle of spirituality, this understanding of magic judges societal practices and rituals against the logic and science of the modern world, thereby diminishing the value of these rituals and practices in and of themselves. D. The Sociological Approach This model contrasts the work of religion and magic in society, characterizing magic as more anti-social and individualistic. Religion, in this approach, is viewed as having a more positive effect on the community in “legitimating and sustaining the community as a whole.”57 The sociological approach to magic can be seen in the work of Stephen D. Ricks. He analyzes the presence of magic in the Bible and says, “As in the Greco-Roman world, magic in the Bible was a practice of the outsider. It was also perceived as a form 55 Sigmund Mowinckel, Religion and Cult (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1981), 15. 56 Brian Vickers, “Analogy Versus Identity: The Rejection of Occult Symbolism, 1580-1680,” in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance (ed. Brian Vickers; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 95. 57 Kuemmerlin-McLean, “Magic,” ABD 4:470.

20

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

of subversion and was consequently severely punished, since it was viewed as undermining Israel’s religious foundation.”58 The ideas of magic and religion are always opposed in this view thereby limiting the researcher from seeing the benefits or parallels of magic to more “orthodox” religious practices in the community. E. The Synthetic Approach This analysis chooses not to distinguish sharply between magic and religion. This approach chooses to emphasize the “close interrelationship between magic and religion or see them as operating on a continuum.”59 An excellent example of this style of research can be seen in the work of William J. Goode. He highlights the similarities between magic and religion as representing opposite poles on the same line. At either end of the line, one would find the extreme position. Goode’s hypothesis is that magic and religion represent a blending of shared facets in most cultures. He sees religion and magic as having seven principles in common: concern with the non-empirical; the same relationship to Western science; pervasively symbolic; deal with nonhuman forces; involve a ritual system; contain many anthropsychic entities (entities dealt with as if they had a mentality like members of society); and a specialized set of skills and a select group with skills to deal with such forces.60 Using these seven criteria, Goode develops the idea of magic and religion as representing two ends of a continuum. In applying this understanding to the process of defining magic and religion, “one accepts the idea that any given magical or religious system is concretely not to be found at either extreme, theoretical pole, but somewhere between the two.”61 The continuum as defined by Goode would look something like this: Stephen D. Ricks, “The Magician As Outsider in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (eds. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 134. 59 William J. Goode, “Magic and Religion: A Continuum,” in Articles on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology: A Twelve Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles (ed. Brian P. Levack; New York: Garland, 1992), 152-153. 60 Ibid., 156. 61 Goode, “Magic and Religion: A Continuum,” 157-158. 58

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

21

Religion General welfare Supplicative attitude Shepherd-flock, prophet follower Individual concern Group concern Private Group or group representative Substitute/new technique (w/ failure) Intrinsic meaning of ritual itself Less emotion Awe, worship Practitioner initiates Ritual mandatory Practitioner chooses time Ritual calendrically fixed Potentially against society or group Better society Goal oriented End, in and of, itself 62 While certainly not perfect, this system for approaching the relationship between magic and religion, as well as attempting to define magic, places it on less derogatory ground than scholars like Frazer, Tylor, and Davies. As J. A. Scurlock points out when discussing the usual classification of priestly activities as “religion,” and problem-oriented rituals as “magic” in the ancient Near East, “It should be kept in mind, however, that these two types of activity were part of the same belief system and that there was none of the hostility between them to be seen in later times between ‘magic’ and ‘religion.’”63 Writing on the relationship of magic and religion, Erwin R. Goodenough said, “Thus the contrast between religion and magic appears to be the reflection of a personal value judgment, not an objectively observable distinction.”64 For most, ‘magic’ would be defined as something another group or another person outside my group does that has no basis in logic, whereas ‘religion’ would represent beliefs and actions from my own group’s beliefs and practices. Magic Specific goal Manipulative attitude Professional-Client

J. A. Scurlock, “Magic,” ABD 4:465. Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953), 2: 156. 64 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 2: 156. 62 63

22

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Peter Schafer echoes those sentiments in arguing that the difference between what is called magic and what is labeled religion is decided by the culture of which one is a part. “There is no more an objective distinction, but a distinction between individuals and groups who, as individuals or members of a certain group, know very well what belongs to the realm of religion and magic.”65 Schafer clarifies his point by rephrasing the old adage, “‘your magic is my religion,’ and vice-versa, ‘your religion is my magic.’”66 Thus, a universal definition for the differences between religion and magic would be difficult, if not impossible to find. Certainly this can be seen in discussion of modern religious expression where one group criticizes the beliefs and actions of another tradition. Although aspects of each of these approaches has validity and will be referred to in this book, the guiding principle of this research and writing is the synthetic approach as defined above. Magic will not be used as a pejorative term in relation to religion, but as a phenomena represented in the biblical literature and in the Egyptian practices to be considered. As opposed to understanding magic as a lower step on the evolutionary ladder in ancient societies, this book will advocate the approach of seeing magic and religion on a continuum with common points of interest, ritual and practice within a given society. The study of one can inform and enlighten the study of the other.

III. MAGIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE (HB) Sympathetic magic is a practice found in many cultures based on the thought that like produces like. As Sir James George Frazer defines two basic principles of magic: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, things which have been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. From the first of these prinPeter Schafer, “Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism,” in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium (eds. Peter Schafer and Hans G. Kippenberg; New York: Brill, 1997), 22. 66 Ibid. 65

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

23

ciples…the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires by imitating it; from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact.67

Many examples of these magical principles can be found in the HB. The following passages will argue against the conclusion offered by T. Witton Davies that “from the very earliest period in which we find the Hebrews, their attitude towards magic and related practices was almost wholly negative and hostile.”68 While the verses that prohibit magic are present in the scriptural record and will be cited, there are numerous occurrences of Israelite leaders who performed what most readers would call magical acts. This contrasts with the thought of Stephen Ricks quoted above that examples of magic in the Bible are always performed by outsiders.69 The passages selected below illustrate the presence of magic in the biblical stories executed by such leaders as Jacob, Moses and Elisha. These OT figures could never be considered as mere outsiders, but rather are central figures in their respective stories. The casting of lots, the use of the Urim and Thummim and the ephod also point to the presence of magic in the Israelite cultus. As Theodore Gaster points out, “It is not improbable that several of the religious institutions of early Israel were but sublimations of time-honored magical usages. To this category may well belong the Urim and Thummim of the high priest—two oracular pebbles carried in the pouch, as well as the bells on the hem of his robe—originally designed to scare demons.”70 This section will assert the thought of Gaster more forcefully and argue from the Bible and archaeological discoveries clearly “the Word of God came to the Jews and Christians who lived in a world which was steeped with occult beliefs and practices.”71 While current readers of the Bible may see themselves as ‘above’ or ‘beyond’ magic and Frazer, The Golden Bough, 12. Davies, Magic, Divination and Demonology, 32. 69 Ricks, “Magician as Outsider,” 134. 70 Theodore H. Gaster, “Magic,” UJEnc 7:274. 71 Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Magic in the Biblical World,” TynBul 34 (1983): 199. 67 68

24

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

the occult, in the sense that they do not see those types of rituals as having any basis in reality or logic, that is not the world that emerges from the pages of the Bible. Aside from miracles that defy explanation, stories in the Bible, like those cited below, recount individuals and groups benefiting from seemingly strange actions and gestures that can only be described as magical on some level. A. Genesis 30 This narrative comes from the Jacob cycle of stories and describes his interaction with his father-in-law, Laban. Jacob and Laban are both known from these stories as characters willing to do anything to get their way and press their advantage. Jacob has purchased his older brother’s birthright for a bowl of soup (Gen 25:27-34) and stolen the same brother’s blessing from their father (Gen 27). Laban has also dealt treacherously in the book of Genesis. Laban has tricked Jacob into marrying his older daughter, instead of the younger daughter he was originally interested in (Gen 29). And Laban has benefited from 14 years of Jacob’s work with his livestock through his trickery. In Gen 30, Laban and Jacob agree that it is time for Jacob to move on. Laban agrees to allow Jacob to keep the speckled and spotted animals of his herd, leaving the black lambs and solidcolored goats for himself. After the agreement has been reached, Laban goes through the herd and removes all the spotted and speckled animals he can find. Laban then has his sons move these animals a three day’s journey away from where Jacob is working with the rest of the animals. It would seem that the result that Laban is hoping for would be to leave Jacob with nothing. Jacob could then either leave with nothing to show for all his years of service, or he could stay and continue to bless Laban’s herd with his work. Instead, Jacob simply peels strips of bark from rods, which he places in front of the animals when they are mating. The rods are speckled and spotted in their stripping. By placing the rods in front of the animals during the mating process they begin to produce speckled and spotted offspring. Gerhard von Rad states, “His plan

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

25

is based on the ancient and widespread belief in the magical effect of certain visual impressions which in the case of human and animal mothers are transferred to their offspring and can decisively influence them.”72 According to the agreement reached between the two tricksters, Jacob can keep any animal that is not a solid color for himself. Jacob places the rods in front of the healthier animals so that his herd will be composed of the best that Laban’s stock has to offer. The weaker animals Jacob leaves to mate without the spotted or speckled rods, so that their offspring will belong to Laban. As the text reports, “Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding Jacob laid the rods in the runnels before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the rods, but for the feebler of the flock he did not lay them there; so the feebler were Laban’s and the stronger, Jacob’s” (Gen 30:41-42). Despite Laban’s best efforts to thwart Jacob, the stronger animals continue to produce spotted and speckled livestock for Jacob to keep and take away. Despite the mention of the Lord in v. 27, where Laban is describing the blessing that Jacob has been to him, nowhere does Jacob consult with God or receive instruction from God about how to handle this situation. It seems that Jacob is aware of this kind of magic and puts it to work for his own advantage against the trickery of his father-in-law. What other term could be used to describe the birth of spotted and speckled animals from solidcolored parents in an ever increasingly healthy fashion than “magical?” The narrative obviously depicts the character of Jacob as believing that the rods are the key to his speckled and spotted husbandry. Jacob places the rods in front of the animals he wants to keep, and removes the rods from the weaker animals he is rejecting (Gen 30:41-42). No prayer is mentioned, and God is not consulted by Jacob during this process as recorded in Gen 30:37-43. The end result is that Jacob is exceedingly successful by magical means. Michael Maher notes, “Although both Laban and Jacob attribute the former’s prosperity to the Lord (30:27, 30), the story of Jacob’s

72 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 301-302.

26

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

acquisition of wealth is totally lacking in religious content.”73 The biblical narrative concludes with this statement about Jacob, "Thus the man grew exceedingly rich, and had large flocks, maidservants and menservants, and camels and asses” (Gen 30:43). Robert D. Sacks offers an intriguing view of the activity described in Gen 30. Sack’s assessment of Jacob’s activity with regard to the rest of the HB is that: In general, magic is not a part of the New Way. However, as we have seen, there are times when the leaders of the New Way, such as Moses, Aaron, and in the present case, Jacob, find themselves in foreign lands and in the hands of magicians. In such cases these men prove able to match the foreign magicians.74

But who else in this story has used magic in any way? Laban has been sneaky with Jacob by switching daughters on the wedding night and removing animals from the herd that could lead to Jacob acquiring more wealth, but neither of these acts would be considered magical, just unscrupulous. If anyone in this story has found himself in the “hands of magicians” it is Laban whose attempt to control the number and health of his herd has backfired by means of Jacob’s “magic” touch. A more orthodox view of Jacob’s attainment of wealth can be read in the next chapter of Genesis. While discussing his accumulated wealth with his wives Leah and Rachel, Jacob says, “Thus God has taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me” (Gen 31:9). Indeed, in this recounting of the story, Jacob is told in a dream by an “angel of God” that the goats that will reproduce will be striped, spotted and mottled (Gen 31:12). God is not only at work in the story, but is the cause of all that benefits Jacob. The angel of God replaces the rods that are used to manipulate the reproductivity of the herd in Gen 30. The work of sympathetic magic in Gen 30 is replaced by the work of the divine in Gen 31. Michael Maher, Genesis (Old Testament Message: A BiblicalTheological Commentary; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazer, 1982), 176. 74 Robert D. Sacks, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies; Lewiston: Edwin Mellon, 1990), 242. 73

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

27

Most scholars would account for the different theological perspectives in these chapters as representative of different pentateuchal sources labeling Gen 30:25-43 as a J source, and citing Gen 31:4-16 as an E source.75 Alan W. Jenks contrasts the E narratives from the J narrative in saying “the E versions…use Elohim instead of Yahweh; they focus on the nature of divine revelations or disclosures to humanity, which in E generally occur in dreams.”76 Such is the case in Gen 31:11, while no mention of a dream or angel occurs in the story of Gen 30. This difference between accounts of Jacob’s attainment of wealth could also point to a correction in the tradition away from magic by stating that the blessing comes from God and God’s control of the universe, as opposed to the use of stripped and spotted rods which apparently anyone could do. For the E source in Gen 31 it is important to credit control of a blessing, like healthy flocks, to God and not some magical means. This story is a good example of the tension in the Bible that exists with regard to what appears to be an example of sympathetic magic on the one hand (Gen 30), and the work of God on the other (Gen 31). While Gen 31 clearly credits Jacob’s newfound wealth to the work of God, the tradition does not delete the story as recorded in Gen 30 which mentions only the type of rods placed before the animals as affecting their reproductive prowess. If the story in Gen 30 described only Laban using the rods and ending up with a “feebler” flock, then the HB tradition would be clearly arguing against the use of sympathetic magic by putting the rods in the hands of the nemesis that has only made life more difficult for the patriarch. However, the tradition, or at least one traditional source, has the patriarch Jacob as the one using these seemingly “magical” rods and reaping the rewards. Perhaps this points to more of an openness to magic and a blurring of the lines between what is to be

75 Anthony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 261-62; John F. X. Sheehan, S. J., Let the People Cry Amen (New York: Paulist, 1977), 185; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 302. 76 Alan W. Jenks, “Elohist,” ABD 2:479.

28

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

considered as acceptable or unacceptable behavior on the part of the Israelites. B. Exodus 17:8-16 Another example of magic in the HB can be found in Exod 17:816. This passage describes Israel’s battle with Amalek. Moses commands Joshua to assemble an army to fight against Amalek. While Joshua leads the soldiers into battle, Moses will oversee the victory with the rod of God in his hand from a nearby hill (v. 9). Apparently this is the same rod that was used in the commissioning of Moses (Exod 4), and was also used earlier in this same chapter to draw water from a rock for people to drink (Exod 17:1-7). In this particular episode, there is a noticeable lack of divine presence and guidance, as was the case in Gen 30 with Jacob. Unlike the previous uses of this rod, which were instructed by God, the narrative of this story proceeds without divine direction. Moses tells Joshua what to do and provides the direction in the narrative. The story begins with the idea of Moses using the rod to insure Israelite success in battle (v. 9), but only Moses’ hands are mentioned when the battle actually begins (v. 11-12). Indeed, the hands are described in the narrative as the decisive factor for the Israelite success or failure, “Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amelek prevailed” (Exod. 17:11). As Martin Noth has stated, “In the story the lifting up of the hands appears to have a strikingly impersonal magical effect…. A Mysterious power seems to come from Moses which is focused in the direction of the Israelite force, visible from the hill and thus reachable in a straight line by the beam of power.”77 Whatever is going on with Moses’ hands cannot be explained logically. When the hands are up Israel prevails, when the hands go down Israel begins to lose. Prayer is not mentioned. One cannot imagine that all of Israel’s troops are constantly turning around to see if Moses’ hands are up or down as if they were a source of inspiration that caused the troops to fight harder if up and to give up if they were down. 77 Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 142.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

29

Brevard Childs notes that some early Jewish and Christian commentators have interpreted that Moses assumed the position of prayer on the hill with his hands. Childs argues against this interpretation saying, “However, there is no indication whatever in the text which would confirm this.”78 Childs further states, “In Exodus 17 the hands are the instruments of mediating power, as is common throughout the ancient Near East. This amoral element of unleashing power through an activity or a stance is still reflected in the story.”79 Indeed, the Hebrew word translated as hand, ‫יד‬, can have the meaning of either ‘hand’ or ‘power.’ In this case, in some unexplainable way, Moses’ hands appear to be supplying Israel’s military efforts with some sort of extra power or ability. J. P. Hyatt boldly states his analysis of this periscope: “Moses is here the wonder-working magician. It is not the courage and energy of Joshua and his men that produce victory, but Moses holding up his hand(s).”80 Hyatt understands Moses’ activity as a “channel of the power of Yahweh, working on behalf of Israel.”81 It is difficult to understand how a commentator could make such a claim when God has provided no direction or instruction for Moses in this narrative. Moses neither receives, nor seeks divine guidance in this instance. The story progresses with the idea that Moses’ hands hold the key to Israel’s victory in a magical sort of way. There is some unexplainable connection between the raised position of Moses’ hands and victory for the army of Israel for when Moses’ hands drop, then Joshua and the army begin to lose. Clearly the difference between winning and losing this particular battle is the work of Moses’ hands. Surely the story would report a sweeping, easy victory if God had given the orders to Moses and Joshua for this military action as in the second attack on Ai (Judg 8). Or, perhaps the success or defeat of the army would have been dependent on the 78 Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 314. 79 Childs, The Book of Exodus, 315. 80 J. Phillip Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 184. 81 Ibid.

30

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

righteousness of the members of the army as in the defeat at Ai in Josh 7. However, the reader of Exod 17 is left with this rather odd story of a military victory at the “hands of Moses.” Here again is an example of a central figure in the HB using seemingly “magical” means to procure a positive blessing for the children of Israel. It is not the Amalekites who are attempting to defeat Moses, Joshua, and the army by means of some magical technique that the Israelite God will have to overcome. Rather, it is Moses who is employing the magical posturing of his hands to the advantage of the children of Israel. C. 2 Kings 13:14-19 Yet another instance of a narrative involving a magical happening can be found in 2 Kgs 13:14-19. Elisha is near death and is visited by King Joash. Elisha instructs the king to take a bow and arrows, and shoot an arrow to the east. Elisha explained that this signified an Israelite victory over Syria, which was located to the East (vv. 15-17). Next, Elisha instructed the king to strike the ground with the arrows (v. 18). The king struck the ground three times. Elisha was disappointed with the number of strikes by the king because each strike of the ground was a victory over Syria in battle (v. 19). Elisha hoped the king would have struck the ground five or six times to ensure a total annihilation of Syria, but with only three victories in battle, this would not be possible. As the story is reported in the text, it would seem that the striking of the ground by the king has a magical effect on the outcome of the battles with Syria. This is another example of like producing like. In this case, the striking of the ground is equated to successful strikes against Syrian forces. If the king had struck the ground more, then Israel would have defeated Syria more times. Even though Elisha is disappointed with the number of strikes by Joash, he does not attempt to change the outcome of the rite. The king has struck the ground three times, so there will be only three victories. If the striking were unimportant to the battles’ outcome, then Elisha could have changed the number of strikes or struck the ground on behalf of the king and kingdom. Perhaps Elisha would have enacted the rite himself. However, the narrative reports quite clearly that the rite the king has performed binds the parties involved. There is no amending or undoing what has been set in motion.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

31

James A. Montgomery comments that the “art depended upon the will and energy of the operator; the king’s three strokes proved him remiss in forcefulness, for which the prophet chides him on the loss of his great opportunity.”82 John Gray also points out Elisha’s displeasure with the way the king has followed his directives. He notes the king performs the act of imitative magic “perfunctorily, humoring the dying man rather than sharing his conviction, of which the act of imitative magic is an expression, and so he fails the test.”83 Gray further explains about the magical rite that the “act of imitative magic, moreover, emphasizes the immediate relation of contemporary politics to the divine economy, and in treating it lightly the king revealed himself as a materialist, whose vision was limited by mere political factors.”84 This is a very positive reading of magic from Gray who connects the magically action of the king with having ‘vision’ and somehow connecting the contemporary world to ‘the divine economy.’ This is certainly a much more positive interpretation of imitative magic than was seen in the earlier studies of Frazer and Tylor. One could be surprised again at the connection between a positive outcome for the children of Israel and a specific “magical” action. Perhaps it would have been more fitting in the tradition, if it were only opposed to magical practices altogether, that the limited number of victories by this particular king over an enemy like Syria was caused by a sin, a lack of righteousness, or a lack of leadership on the part of the king. However, Elisha is the one who ties the number of victories to a magical act. Like Jacob and Moses in the other examples mentioned above, Elisha acts on his own in establishing this seemingly simple series of actions to have future consequences, not only for the king, but also the kingdom. Elisha does not caution the king to refrain from reading too much into a single act, but rather emphasizes the binding nature of the king’s actions and Israel’s military limitations. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951), 435. 83 John Gray, 1 and 2 Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 599. 84 Ibid. 82

32

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

All three of the narratives discussed involve a magical act of some sort. These rites involve three significant characters in the biblical drama: Jacob, Moses, and Elisha. These are not peripheral figures in the stories of the HB, nor are they considered outsiders to the tradition. Indeed, they lie at the very heart of it. No mention is made in the individual narratives that the activities with which they are involved contradict their faith or the practice of their religion. D. Urim, Thummim, and Ephod One can also find undefined magical practices at the heart of the Israelite priesthood. The use of Urim and Thummim to divine the will of God is attested in several HB passages.85 The Urim and Thummim were kept in the ephod of the High Priest. How they were used is unclear, although the HB texts themselves help to shed light on the possible Israelite usage of these items. Isaac Mendelsohn explains, “The exact meaning of the words ‘Urim’ and ‘Thummim’ is not known…. The etymologies that have been suggested have been unsatisfactory…. The same uncertainty exists concerning the material the Urim and Thummim were made of, their shape, and the signs and symbols impressed on them.”86 This uncertainty limits what can be said about the actual practice of consulting the Urim and Thummim in ancient Israel. As part of the High Priest’s official vestments, one would think that the Urim and Thummim were vital to helping the people know the will of God. However, the biblical tradition has not preserved a great deal of information regarding the frequency of use of the Urim and Thummim or how exactly these items were interpreted to determine God’s will in a particular instance. Carol Meyer discusses the same kind of mystery surrounding the ephod that the High Priest wore. Meyer says, “Despite the enormous amount of detail provided (mainly in Exodus 28 – Exodus 39), a clear picture of what it looked like is difficult to obtain.”87 Despite this lack of certainty, Meyer explains the imporFor example: Num 27:21; 1 Sam 14:41; 23:9-12; 28:6; 30:7-8. Isaac Mendelsohn, “Urim and Thummim,” IDB 4:740. 87 Carol Meyer, “Ephod,” ABD 2:550. 85 86

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

33

tance of the ephod as being “one of four items of apparel reserved for the high priest alone.”88 Again, the connection is made with the High Priest—the people’s representative before God in the temple. However, like the Urim and Thummim, the ephod’s frequency of use and means of interpretation are shrouded in mystery for interpreters of the HB. From studying the HB texts, one can learn that indeed the Urim and Thummim were consulted, especially by David and Saul. In 1 Sam 14 Saul wants to attack the Philistines. The priest consults God, but no answer is given as to whether to attack the Philistines or not. Due to this lack of divine clarity, Saul wants to use the Urim and Thummim to determine if there is sin among the people that is hindering communication with God. Saul sets up a scenario to determine who is guilty, “If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim” (1 Sam 14:41). The narrative reports that the guilt is found on the side of Saul and Jonathan, but gives no details as to how the priest, Saul, or anyone else determined whether Urim or Thummim was “given.” The actual description of the ritual and how the answer to the question posed was obtained, however, remains a mystery. As Stephen Ricks notes, “Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there a detailed description of the method by which these divinatory instruments are used.”89 Yet, clearly from their connection with the High Priest and use by Israel’s kings, the Urim and Thummim were a part of the fundamental religious practices sanctioned in ancient Israel. How this procedure could be construed as anything other than a magical attempt to determine the will of God remains to be seen. As Yehezkel Kaufmann states, “All ceremonial regulations have a magical cast; the animal for sacrifice must be of proper age, sex, color, etc; construction of altars and temples must conform to certain specifications, and so forth.”90 Not only in stories about Jacob, Moses, and Elisha, but also in the Israelite cult itself can be Ibid. Ricks, “Magician as Outsider,” 139. 90 Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 81. 88 89

34

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

found ritual practices which resemble the rituals described as magical in other cultures. E. Reactions Against Magical Practices Despite the presence of items like the ephod, and Urim and Thummim in Israelite religion, other verses in the HB react strongly against those who practice magical rites. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 states quite plainly that the Israelites are to avoid practicing magic like those who used to occupy the land: When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord and because of these abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so.

It is made clear in the text that the possession of the Promised Land itself is determined by the orthodoxy of the people in staying away from the magical practices of their predecessors in the Land. As this is a passage from Deuteronomy, generally considered a later source from the time of the exile, then it would seem that the author or editor has also connected the people’s loss of the Promised Land with illegal magical practices and activities by the Israelites. Clearly, the author of such a passage is knowledgeable about many different kinds of magical practices. It seems logical that the only reason for such a law in Israel was that there was widespread use of magic by the people there. “Certainly the reiterated prohibitions of various magical practices throughout the various strata of the Old Testament literature suggests that the religious establishment in ancient Israel saw such practices as constituting a wide-

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

35

spread and persistent problem.”91 As George Fohrer also states, “The many names the Old Testament uses for them (magical practitioners) shows how various this group was…. The people were probably more devoted to magic than is usually assumed.”92 Despite attempts throughout the centuries in ancient Israel to rid society of these magical practitioners, the number of texts and references to them point to their persistence in Israelite society. The number and variety of practitioners also points to their popularity outside of the official cultic circles as well. In opposition to those practices, this passage in Deuteronomy argues for the consultation with the prophet of God, “This section is held together by a concern for the proper mode of discerning God’s will for the community…. The prophet is the model for spiritual discernment that is compatible with the central traditions of the covenant community. And the model for the prophet is of course, Moses.”93 Naturally, the official cult of ancient Israel, eventually centered in Jerusalem, would claim divine privilege and reject outsiders and their attempts to claim access to the Israelite God. Several passages go even further in their opposition to magical practices by proscribing death as the appropriate community response to magic, “You shall not permit a sorceress to live” (Exod 22:19), and “A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them” (Lev 20:27). Jeffrey H. Tigay explains this response to magic on the part of biblical authors, “Although the reason divination and magic are unacceptable ways of learning God’s will is nowhere explicitly stated, it is inferably because they rely, or seem to rely, on powers other than God, both human and supernatural…. Even where magic is assumed to rely on divine assistance, the spells uttered by pagan magicians leave room for the impres-

David E. Aune, “Magic,” ISBE 3: 215. George Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 155. 93 Thomas W. Mann, Deuteronomy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 129. 91 92

36

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

sion that it is their own power, not the gods’, that is operating.”94 The work of the prophets is different in that they rely on God alone, not their own authority. According to Tigay: Even where he does not directly call on God, he relies on simple gestures and not on spells, and it is usually clear that he is acting as God’s agent and not relying on his own ‘science.’ But as a mantic and as a healer he employs methods, which avoid giving the impression that he is relying on his own powers rather than on God’s. No doubt this distinction was sometimes lost on the ordinary folk. Nevertheless, it is probably the key to understanding why the Torah endorses prophecy while prohibiting divination and magic.95

Indeed, stories of the biblical prophets often involve a ‘call story’ seeking to explain how the individual was chosen by God to deliver some message to the people or accomplish some task on God’s behalf. Many of these biblical prophets express reticence to serve God in this manner. The message of the biblical prophets is often considered unpopular in the biblical texts, whereas an individual ‘mantic’ or ‘healer,’ to borrow Tigay’s terms, would need to maintain some sort of popularity to continue in their livelihood. This idea of biblical figures acting as God’s agents would argue against the statements and actions recounted earlier with regard to Jacob, Moses, and Elisha. The question remains when interpreting passages like Gen 30, Exod 17, and 2 Kgs 13 that if what they do to remain orthodox is so subtle that it is “lost on ordinary folk” as Tigay suggests, then how would people differentiate their actions from the actions of the people that they were to put to death? I think that the position of scholars like Tigay is untenable when read in light of the stories recounted above. In comparison to the more “magical” activities of those people around them, it is difficult to see a clear distinction between the actions of Jacob, Moses, and Elisha on the one hand, and the Egyptian priests on the other as will be shown in this book. In looking for subtle differ94 Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: JPS, 1996), 174. 95 Ibid.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

37

ences, Tigay and others are missing the many similarities between the actions of these religious leaders and their acceptance within the tradition. F. Non-Israelite Magical Practices in the HB As discussed above, many of the practices that the HB condemns are mentioned in the narratives as having been performed by the faithful. The HB also describes the magical practices of a few people who are outside of the Hebrew religion. One of the more memorable stories about King Saul involved a medium from the town of Endor (1 Sam 28:2-25). Saul had removed the mediums and the wizards from the land of Israel. The Philistines were assembling to fight against his army, and Saul no longer had Samuel to consult because Samuel was dead. Saul sought assurance that all would go well against the Philistines and went to consult a medium in the nearby village of Endor. As Dale Davis points out in his commentary, “Though necromancy and associated arts have been banned, Saul’s men seem to know precisely where a practitioner may be found.”96 Saul found the medium and convinced her that he would take no action against her for consulting with a spirit for him. Saul asked her to bring up Samuel (v. 11). The medium complied, but Samuel was unhappy to be disturbed (v. 15). Instead of reassuring Saul, Samuel prophesied that Saul and his sons would soon be joining him in the grave (vv. 16-19). Saul was distraught. By this time in the book of 1 Samuel, Saul has fallen out of favor with God. The consultation with a medium could in no way be seen as an endorsement of the practice by the narrative. One of the striking features of the story here is the effectiveness of the medium’s activity. She is indeed able to bring forth Samuel for Saul to consult. Davis notes, “We must remember that Scripture describes such practices not as futile but as pagan. Yahweh forbids Israel to use these means not because they do not work but because they are wicked.”97 Indeed, despite Samuel’s protest in the narrative, the Dale Ralph Davis, Looking on the Heart, Volume II: Expositions of 1 Samuel 15-31 (Focus on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Christian Focus, 1994), 148. 97 Davis, Looking on the Heart, 149. 96

38

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

medium is magically able to provide the service desired by Saul, even though the message is not one he wants to hear. While not supporting the practice by any means, the medium is still presented in the narrative as being capable of communicating with the dead. Another narrative series presents a similar episode in the book of Exodus. The story of the ten plagues against Egypt in Exod 7-12 involves a challenge to Moses and Aaron from outside magicians. Pharaoh calls on his wise men, sorcerers and magicians to perform the same signs and wonders that Moses and Aaron do. It is reported that the magicians are able to perform their wonders “by their secret arts” (Exod 7:11). The magicians of Egypt are able to make rods into serpents, turn water into blood (Exod 7:22), and bring frogs on the land (8:7). The magicians are not able to perform any of the other signs and wonders. They tell Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Exod 8:19), when they are unable to change dust into gnats. The magicians are last seen in the plague stories covered with boils and unable to stand before Moses (Exod 9:11). While clearly the plague stories do not seek to honor or pay homage to the power of Egyptian magic, it is striking to see the Egyptian magicians able to perform any signs and wonders at all. Unlike the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel who opposed Elijah and were able to do nothing (1 Kgs 18), the narrative in Exodus reports that the Egyptians are able to have some limited success. Initially, Pharaoh uses their success to keep Israel in bondage, feeling that his court magicians can match the power of Moses’ and Aaron’s God. But even after his magicians’ attempts are unsuccessful, Pharaoh continues to “harden his heart.” It would seem that the success of the magicians is more than just a motivation for Pharaoh’s stubbornness in this story. As Peter Schafer has said: It is the biblical author who tells us—not that Moses’ and Aaron’s performative acts are legitimate and the magicians’ spells are illegitimate (this is, if at all, not his main concern), but that Moses’ and Aaron’s performances are more powerful than the efforts of the magicians, because God is the real originator. Hence, it is not a question of (biblical) religion versus (Egyptian) magic but a (biblical) magic versus (Egyptian) magic. That biblical magic is incorporated into the religious system of the Bible does not say that it is not magic. On the contrary, the story shows that despite the clear prohibition,

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

39

magic could easily be made presentable, if only it was subordinated to the will and power of God.98

I would argue that many of the Bible’s narratives report the success of magical rites. Magic is not prohibited because it was a foolish waste of time, but rather, because the authors hold that there is some efficacy in the practices mentioned. The medium of Endor is able to communicate with the dead, the Egyptian magicians are able to do some wonders, Jacob is able to affect the offspring of the animals, Moses is able to lift Israel to victory and Joash, through Elijah, is successful in a limited way against Syria. Magical practices can be seen in the HB both inside and outside Israel. Despite the obvious prohibitions in the literature, magical practices were preserved in the narratives indicating the persistence of magic in the biblical world in which the texts were recorded. G. Selected HB Passages Influenced by Egyptian Practice Ronald J. Williams said about ancient Israel and its relationship to ancient Egypt, “Its geographical location and the fortunes of history combined to draw Israel into the cultural orbit of Egypt. When Palestine was incorporated into the Egyptian Empire during the New Kingdom, the conditions for cultural interchange were ideal, although for the most part on the side of the Hebrews.”99 Over the years many possible connections have been drawn between ancient Egyptian literature and practices as they might have influenced or related to the events and stories recorded in the Bible. Williams also reminds his readers in another article regarding ancient Egypt’s links to Israel, “Due caution must always be observed in assessing claims of direct influence, but the evidence is overwhelming that Israel drank deeply at the wells of Egypt.”100 This section will mention a few of those perceived “cultural interchanges” with special Peter Schafer, “Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism,” 29. Ronald J. Williams, “Some Egyptianisms in the Old Testament,” in Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, (SAOC 35; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), 93. 100 Ronald J. Williams, “A People Came Out of Egypt: An Egyptologist Looks at the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume, VTSup (G.W. Anderson et al., eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 252. 98 99

40

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

attention being focused on the relationship between the practices of ancient Egypt that most closely resemble stories from the book of Exodus. Exodus 7: Turning Serpents into Rods John D. Currid has analyzed the first meeting of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh’s magicians. Currid sees the story of the rods turning into serpents as “the paradigm of the plague narratives. In other words, the serpent confrontation was a foreshadowing of Yahweh’s humiliation of Egypt with the plagues.”101 Currid notes that the Hebrew word for swallow, ‫בלע‬, occurs in Exod 7:12 to describe what Aaron’s rod does to the magicians’ rods and also describes what happens to the Egyptian army at the Sea in Exod 15:12. “In addition, the fact that a staff was used to swallow the sorcerer’s snakes points to the staff that was used to cause the waters to engulf the Egyptian army (Ex 14, 16:26). Such parallels point to Ex. 7, 8-13 as a microcosmic prototype of imminent national catastrophe of Egypt.”102 According to Currid this an epic battle not just between Moses and Pharaoh as leaders of their respective people, but between the God of the Hebrews and the notion of Pharaoh himself as an Egyptian god.103 It is important to note that for ancient Egyptian culture the “cobra, horned viper, and other snake species permeated the land of Egypt…. The venomous snake was truly the symbol or emblem of ancient Egypt.”104 Toward this end, Currid describes the front of the crown of pharaoh as having two enraged female cobras. The crown was “an inanimate object thought to be replete with divine sovereignty and potency…. The Egyptians believed the double serpent-crest would instill fear in Pharaoh’s enemies just as the com-

101 John D. Currid, “The Egyptian Setting of the Serpent: Confrontation in Exodus 7, 8-13,” BZ 39 (1995): 203. 102 Ibid., 204. 103 Currid, “The serpent drama introduces us to that theological issue in grand form: Yahweh, God of the Hebrews, engages Pharaoh, a god of Egypt, in a contest of power and will,” 204. 104 Ibid., 207-8.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

41

mon snake terrorized the people.”105 Currid points out that the pharaoh is also recognized by means of serpent symbolism in Ezek 29:3, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the serpent that lies in the midst of his rivers, that has said, My Nile is mine and I myself have made it.’”106 Currid also mentions archaeological evidence of “numerous scarabs containing scenes of a man or a god holding in his hand a snake straight as a rod.”107 He states, “The power to manipulate such venomous creatures was a matter of pride according to the textual evidence of the early period…. [T]he irony of the matter is that the two Hebrew leaders were employing highly esteemed Egyptian practices in order to humiliate and defeat the Egyptians.”108 Admitting a lack of historical evidence for the plagues, the exodus, and even the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, this analysis points to the idea that the choice of a duel of snakes to begin a conversation between Pharaoh and Moses would be extremely effective given the position of the snake in Egypt and especially with regard to Pharaoh’s royal crown. Surely this shows a familiarity with ancient Egyptian society by the author(s) and editor(s) of the book of Exodus. Scott B. Noegel also mentions the magical nature of the Egyptian expression “to cast down” in his article on Moses and magic.109 Noegel explains, “The Egyptian verb for casting down, s-h-r, in addition to appearing in magical exorcisms and spells, also occurs in the Apophis text in reference to the magicians who would take a wax figurine of Apophis and s-h-r-m ‘cast (it) down.’ The Egyptian magicians, therefore, would have seen Aaron’s casting down of the staff as magically significant.”110 This again points to the connecIbid., 210. Ibid., 212. 107 Ibid., 216. 108 Currid, “Egyptian Setting of the Serpent,” 213. 109 Scott B. Noegel, “Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus,” JANES 24 (1996): 45-59. 110 Ibid., 53. Apophis was the Egyptian god who personified the negative force of darkness against the light of Ra by attacking the sungod’s sky-ship during the darkness of the night. This definition is from Ancient Egypt: Myth and History (New Landmark, Scotland: Geddes & 105 106

42

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

tion between the setting of the book of Exodus and intimate knowledge of Egyptian magical practices.111 Exodus 7-12: The Plagues Stories and the Egyptian Pantheon Goran Larsson discusses the Egyptian background behind many of the plague stories in his commentary, Bound for Freedom.112 Larsson connects the Egyptian gods Sobek, Osiris, and the Nile god Hapy with the first plague of turning the water of the Nile into blood. Larsson explains that after the first plague, “The entire Egyptian pantheon is now challenged.”113 As for the plague of frogs that followed in the plague stories, Larsson notes, “The well-known and widely revered goddess, Hekt who was considered a helper of women when they were delivered of their children, was represented precisely by a frog!”114 With this in mind, Larsson connects the first two plagues as a response to the Egyptian genocide of Hebrew babies by throwing them in the Nile. The God of the Hebrews has struck back at the Egyptian pantheon beginning with the scene of the death of the Hebrew children, the river, and the goddess who helped to deliver the children to the Egyptians.115 The turning of the water into blood Noegel relates to the Egyptian execration ritual saying, “The color red also connected intimately with the breaking of execration vessels…. Thus, to Pharaoh’s magicians, the first plague would have smacked of execration and signaled the imminent destruction of Egypt.”116 Noegel also Grosset, 1997), 323. Thus, the magicians mentioned by Noegel were apparently trying to prevent Apophis, god of darkness, from defeating Ra, god of light. 111 Noegel comments in “Moses and Magic,” “The scholarly world has known for some time that the book of Exodus demonstrates a firsthand knowledge of Egyptian customs and beliefs, even if somewhat tendentiously related,” 45. 112 Goran Larsson, Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1999). 113 Ibid., 61. 114 Ibid. 115 Ibid. 116 Noegel, “Moses and Magic,” 51. Execration rituals were practiced in ancient Egypt as a means of cursing enemies of the state.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

43

points to the detrimental nature for the Egyptian magicians of a lack of clean water, “When we recall that the Nile was the Egyptian’s only source of water, we also should recognize the plague’s impact on magical water charms which served to drive potentially dangerous forces such as crocodiles from the water. In effect, the magicians’ ability to perform purification rites using water also came to a sudden halt.”117 The attack on any society’s water supply would be detrimental, especially for people living in such a desert climate as Egypt. Larsson discusses the fifth plague of pestilence that affected only the Egyptian livestock as another attack on the symbols of the Egyptian gods. Larsson explains, “It is possible that even this plague expresses the victory of Israel’s God over Egyptian gods, since at least two distinguished gods were represented as animals now stricken: Hathor, the mighty sun-goddess, depicted as a cow bearing the solar disc between her horns, and Apis, the fertility god depicted as a bull.”118 The attack on the symbols of the gods would have had a demoralizing effect on the people and would have made their gods appear to be powerless in the face of the plagues. The magicians are covered with boils in the sixth plague. Not unlike the Israelite religion that demanded ritual purity of its priests, the Egyptian religion required the same. Larsson notes “purity was an essential precondition for access to the sanctuary.”119 From this perspective, one can see that the plagues would have interfered with all aspects of Egyptian religious life. Not only are the gods and their various symbols being humiliated, but also now even the priests themselves cannot perform their prescribed duties. The plague of hail on Egyptian crops not only destroyed vegetation, but also would have targeted two more Egyptian gods, “The special patron of crops, the fertility god Min, is rendered impotent, perhaps also the goddess of life, Isis, who is often depicted as preparing flax for clothes.”120 Noegel, “Moses and Magic,” 51. Larsson, Bound for Freedom, 65. 119 Ibid., 66. 120 Larsson, Bound for Freedom, 67. 117 118

44

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

One of the most devastating plagues from an ancient Egyptian perspective would have been the plague of darkness. The power of darkness rested with Apophis and the power of light belonged to Re, who sustained the entire world. Ancient Egyptians believed that “each sunrise confirmed the continued superiority of the sun god. The absence of the sun for three days must therefore have been interpreted as an ominous defeat of the god probably regarded as the highest deity.”121 Indeed, not only for the people who worshiped the sun was the darkness a major setback, but also for the Pharaoh himself this would have been traumatic, “given the fact that he claimed to be the sun and representative of the sungod.”122 Taken from this perspective regarding ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, the plagues would have been difficult to overcome spiritually. As Larsson states, “The miracles with the rods and with some of the plagues…were directly linked to central motifs and symbols, which must have immediately reminded the Egyptians of their own gods. The actions spoke for themselves: these ‘gods’ are powerless in the face of the God of Israel.”123 There is a sense in the plague stories that the Egyptian gods, Pharaoh, and his magicians are being overwhelmed at their own game. Instead of defeating the Egyptians because they used magic, the God of the Bible was using a more powerful magic to defeat them through Moses and Aaron. If Larsson’s interpretations are accurate about the Egyptian nature of the biblical plague stories from the book of Exodus, then the intended audience of the stories would have needed to be keenly aware of the Egyptian pantheon, as well as Egyptian religious and magical practices. One of the recurring themes in the plague stories is the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart. Currid explains that three Hebrew terms were used for the status of Pharaoh’s heart: ‫קשה‬, which means to be difficult: ‫חזק‬, which has the meaning to be strong, i.e., that Pharaoh maintained a strong will against the Israelites leaving; and ‫ קבד‬which means to be heavy (God is mentioned as making Ibid., 71. Ibid. 123 Ibid., 78. 121 122

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

45

Pharaoh’s heart heavy in Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 14:4 and 8).124 Currid further explains that in ancient Egypt, “the heart was the essence of the person…the critical component in the process of Egyptian afterlife.”125 For the ancient Egyptian after death, the heart was to be weighed on a balance against the feather of truth. If the heart was too heavy, the person would be judged as a sinner and “cast to the devouress.”126 If “the heart achieves balance with the feather,” then that person would obtain “the righteous reward of eternal life.”127 Larsson also notes that many “Egyptian temples and tomb scenes have depictions of a heart placed on a scale.”128 Currid translates a prayer from an Egyptian named Ani to his heart. The prayer is found in the Book of the Dead, 30 B, “O my heart from my mother…. Do not stand against me as witness! Do not oppose me before the Assessors! Do not be belligerent to me before the One who keeps the balance!”129 The idea that the Israelite God was making the pharaoh’s heart heavy would be very distressing indeed not only in this life by showing that the pharaoh, whom the Egyptians treated as a god himself, could be manipulated, but also distressing to those familiar with the Egyptian concept of the afterlife. If pharaoh’s heart is found too heavy after death, then he will be judged a sinner and devoured. Ability to Control Water After the Israelites leave Egypt they meet up with the first of many crises. The Pharaoh and his army are pursuing them on one side, and on the other side flows a body of water. The people are in a panic and Moses cries out to God for divine assistance. Moses is told to lift his rod over the water and to stretch out his hand to divide the water (Exod 14:16). There is an ancient Egyptian story of a similar miracle performed by an Egyptian magician known as Djadjaemonkh. As Jan Zandee reports, “The chief lector priest Currid, “Egyptian Setting of the Serpent,” 217. Ibid. 126 Ibid., 218. 127 Ibid. 128 Larsson, Bound for Freedom, 56. 129 Currid, “Egyptian Setting of the Serpent,” 218. 124 125

46

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

from the time of Khufu (Cheops) makes a lake partially dry so that a charm of turquoise that fell into the water could be found…. After another magic spell has been pronounced the water returns to its original position.”130 In the Egyptian story, lives do not hang in the balance as in the biblical narrative. However, both stories attest to the ability to move or control water to one’s advantage. A passage from the translation of this story by William K. Simpson explains the miraculous occurrence: Then said the chief lector priest Djadjaemonkh his magic sayings. He placed one side of the lake upon the other, and lying on a potsherd he found the fish-shaped charm. Then he brought it back and gave it to its owner. Now as for the water, it was twelve cubits deep, and it amounted to twenty-four cubits after it was folded back. He said his magic sayings, and he brought back the water of the lake to its position.131

In keeping with the idea of the competition between the leader of the Israelites, Moses, on the one hand, and Pharaoh, on the other, Moses’ ability to duplicate the miracle of a famous Egyptian magician would only increase his fame among the people. To add emphasis to the miracle story as recounted by the biblical writer, whereas, the magician Djadjaemonkh had used his magical abilities in the service of Pharaoh; Moses will not only save the Israelites from Pharaoh, but also drown the Pharaoh’s army in the process. As Exod 14:28 reports, “The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them in the sea; not so much as one of them remained.”

130 Zandee, J. “Egyptological Commentary on the Old Testament,” in Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M.A Beek on the occasion of his 65th Birthday (M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss et al., eds.; Assen: Van Gorcum & Company, 1974), 272. The Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) reigned during the fourth dynasty of the Old Kingdom. The fourth dynasty is dated circa 2613 to 2465 B.C.E. 131 William Kelly Simpson, “King Cheops and the Magicians,” in The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions and Poetry (ed. William Kelly Simpson; trans. R. O. Faulkner, E. F. Wente, Jr., and W. K. Simpson; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 21.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC

47

Noegel sees elements of the execration ritual in the story of the destruction of Pharaoh’s army in the crossing of the sea. He points to the song in Exod 15:6-7 that states, “Your right hand, O Yahweh, shatters the foe! In your great triumph, you smash your opponents!” Noegel understands that the connection between the song and the ritual is the language of shattering and smashing, “The Song’s employment of execration language would explain the emphasis it places on the death of the Egyptians.”132 As the execration ritual involved the use of stone or pottery to curse their enemy Noegel thinks, “This perhaps adds an additional nuance to (Ex) 15:5 in which we hear that the Egyptians sank into the water like a ‫‘ אבן‬stone (vessel).’ Typically the magician would transfer the attributes and power of his enemy to a vessel and then bury it so as to bring about the enemy’s death.”133 Noegal mentions this burial connection with Exod 15:12 which states, “You did stretch out your right hand, the earth swallowed them.” Noegel further explains, “Like execration victims then, Pharaoh’s army is smashed, crushed, burned, and buried.”134 This shows the total annihilation of Pharaoh’s army when attempting to challenge the Hebrew God. For the people of Israel, the ability of their God to defeat one of the true military super-powers of their geographical region would have been incredibly uplifting. For the Egyptians, this would have been devastatingly embarrassing to lose any troops, much less an army of soldiers to former slaves. Noegel concludes his article with this idea, “While Moses and Aaron do not employ magic of any kind, the miracles they perform do have Egyptian analogs, suggesting that the Exodus writer made a deliberate effort to allude to Egyptian magical praxis in order to polemicize against it.”135 More will be discussed regarding the execration ritual in the following chapters and how it relates to other biblical texts. As for Noegel’s thoughts about Egyptian magic, Moses and Aaron, and the biblical narratives, Noegel’s concluding comments presuppose an antithesis between magic and religion Noegel, “Moses and Magic,” 56. Ibid. 134 Ibid., 57. 135 Ibid., 59. 132 133

48

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

that most likely did not exist in the original biblical audience and are xenophobic in nature. If ancient Egyptians appealed to a god or gods in any ritual, would they have considered that ritual a religious act as opposed to a magical act? Would ancient Egyptians have considered the High Priest consulting the Urim and Thummim a religious or magical ritual? The actions described in the Egyptian stories mirror the actions described in the biblical narrative. They are more similar than dissimilar. The distinction between separating these stories into magical or religious is often a matter of perspective when the ritual actions have such striking parallels.

IV. CONCLUSION Although there are sections of the Bible that speak against magical rites and activities, it is clear that many of the Bible’s leaders engaged in seemingly magical activities. The success of these activities is sometimes credited to a kind of divine endorsement, but at other times is left unexplained. The synthetic approach to defining magic and its relationship to religion as ideas or activities sharing points on a continuum can be seen in the stories recounted above. There is a borrowing of ideas and practices from the realms of magic and religion to achieve various desired ends by the people involved. In the biblical narrative there is no mention of Jacob being concerned that the use of rods might seem magical and therefore, taboo. In the biblical stories from Exodus, there is no concern from Moses or Aaron that their actions will be perceived as being similar to the magical work of the Pharaoh and Egyptian magicians and therefore prohibited by God. This lack of apprehension points to the fluidity of the ideas and concepts of magic and religion in the text and in the tradition which allows or accepts these actions in order to further the cause of the Israelite God and the people. What is discouraged or seen as unacceptable behavior is the use of magical rites in opposition to the people, or in opposition to Israel’s God.

CHAPTER TWO: EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL I. EGYPTIAN UNDERSTANDING AND VIEW OF MAGIC Many studies of ancient Egyptian magical practices have been written in the last one hundred and fifty years. These studies cover a multitude of topics and offer a wide variety of analyses on the purpose and function of magic in ancient Egyptian society. The information reported and collected here is an attempt to explain the relationship in ancient Egypt between magic and religion on the one hand, and the treatment of chaos, especially the treatment of enemies of the ancient Egyptian state, on the other. However, any discussion of ancient Egyptian magic should begin with some explanation of two important terms: heka and maat. A. Key Terms in Understanding Ancient Egyptian Magic:

Heka and Maat Heka

Stephen Quirke and Jeffrey Spencer explain the fundamental role of magic or heka in the ancient Egyptian conception of the world. Magic for the ancient Egyptian was not a deviance from true or pure religion, or even a peripheral force in the world. For ancient Egyptians magic was central and foundational in creation itself, “In order to fashion matter out of nothingness the creator employed three forces which then remained in action to ensure the continuing existence of the creation. First of these forces was Heka, the magical creativity which made life possible and as magic defended the universe, the sun-god and mankind from the forces of annihila-

49

50

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

tion.”136 This definition places magic as central to ancient Egyptian life and the work of the gods. Not only was magic used in the past by the gods in creation, but was also necessary each day to maintain that created order. Far from being seen as a subversive or evil force, magic for the ancient Egyptian was creative, life-giving, and even life-sustaining.137 Robert K. Ritner defines the concept of heka as “an amoral, divine force used legally by both gods and men to maintain the created order and to bring about divine intervention in the affairs of earth, heaven, and the underworld.”138 There is a sense from Ritner’s definition that this creative power of the gods was not only available to humans, but that people could compel the gods to work on their behalf through the proper use of magic. This was apparently acceptable in ancient Egyptian society as long as this use of magic maintained the proper order of the world with Egypt and the pharaoh in control. This idea of a still existent, creative, foundational force is not unlike the HB concept of wisdom as described in Prov 3:19 and 8:22, in which the central importance of wisdom is established at creation, “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, by understanding he established the heavens.” And when wisdom described itself saying, “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.” This same position of importance can be seen in the New Testament (NT) in the prologue of the Gospel of John 1:1-3 with regard to the Word, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begin136 Stephen Quirke and Jeffrey Spencer, The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1992), 61. 137 The idea of religion and magic as connected on a continuum, as proposed in chapter one of this book, is closer to this idea in the sense that magic and religion have a direct relationship. Of course, the ancient Egyptians would have gone even farther in not distinguishing between the two ideas at all. For the ancient Egyptians the ends of the spectrum would have been the difference between authorized and unauthorized uses of ritual to support or challenge the order of the ancient Egyptian empire. 138 Robert K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practices (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993), 104.

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

51

ning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” No one questions the central role of “wisdom” in the HB, or in the “Word” in the NT, or the legitimacy of using wisdom on a daily basis. Such is the position with regard to magic, or heka, in the worldview of the ancient Egyptian. For ancient Egyptians there was a direct connection between their temple services and the original act of creation by means of magic. Heka was the force which “empowered his [the creator’s] actions, translating divine ‘ideal’ speech and action into its ‘tangible’ reflection here below. Every temple ritual which re-enacts or supports these actions entails the ‘real presence’ of heka, and consequently that of the creator of whom heka is an emanation.”139 For ancient Egyptians, temple rituals and the practice of magic were a means to tap into the creativity and power that brought the world into being.

Maat The work of magic in Egyptian society was to maintain order on a personal level, as in medical rituals, and also on the state level against the various enemies of the king and his government. “The ancient Egyptians feared nothing more than chaos, that negative state which is the opposite of Maat, the order of things.”140 As A. Rosalie David explains, “Magic was used primarily as a system of defense, and it was employed at every level in Egyptian society.”141 What needed to be defended from an Egyptian perspective was to maintain the society as it currently existed with the Pharaoh and his various appointees in charge against any possible attack. This idea

Robert K. Ritner, “Egyptian Magic: Questions of Legitimacy, Religious Orthodoxy and Social Deviance,” in Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Giffiths (ed. Alan B. Lloyd; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992), 192-93. 140 Christian Jacq, Egyptian Magic (trans. Janet M. Davis; Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1985), 9. 141 A. Rosalie David, introduction to Egyptian Magic, by Christian Jacq (trans. Janet M. Davis; Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1985), x. 139

52

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

of conservation can be seen in surviving documents from each period of Egyptian history of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms.142 It was the work of the Egyptians and the gods to maintain this stability by working together to “ensure that disorder does not come to overpower justice and order; this is the meaning of their common obligation towards maat…. This state is always being disturbed, and unremitting effort is necessary in order to recreate it in its original purity.”143 This idea of order becomes very important and central when discussing the use of the execration ritual in ancient Egypt. The ritual was employed by the Egyptians to maintain the status quo and to destroy or lead to the annihilation of anything that threatened that order from outside of Egypt or from nefarious elements within Egyptian society. The idea of maat is also reflected in the building projects of the ancient Egyptians still in existence today. The pyramids, temples and monuments constructed in stone were meant to last an eternity just as the ancient Egyptians thought their society was destined to do as well. B. Comparison of Egyptian Ideas of Magic and Religion The relationship between magic and religion in ancient Egypt is quite different from the lines of distinction one sees in earlier Western views of the two topics. Sir George Frazer and Edward B. Tylor who were quoted above as seeing magic as a “false science” and a lower rung on the evolutionary ladder of an “underdeveloped mind.” Most modern Egyptologists have a very different understanding of the roles of magic and religion in ancient Egyptian society. As Geraldine Pinch explains: In Egypt, magic and religion enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. Rituals…were more commonly performed by priests than by

Joyce Tyldesley, Judgement of the Pharaoh: Crime and Punishment in Ancient Egypt (London:Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000), 15. “Throughout the centuries the Egyptians maintained the love of stability.” 143 Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt (trans. J. Baines; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 213. 142

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

53

any other group…. [M]ost ancient Egyptian priests…were paid specialists in ritual rather than moral teachers. The theory that magic is always unorthodox and subversive, part of a religious and political counter-culture, does not seem to apply in Egypt, where ritual magic was practiced on behalf of the state for at least three thousand years.144

A. Rosalie David explains the difficulty in attempting to separate religion and magic; in ancient Egypt “magic cannot be entirely distinguished from the religious rituals practiced by society…. [M]agic permeated all areas of the civilization.”145 Christian Jacq simply notes, “Above all, the Egyptians used temple rituals, which were performed throughout the land. Each act of worship is magic.”146 Perhaps one could say that the need to distinguish between religion and magic is a modern requirement that would have been foreign to ancient Egypt. Even the idea of a continuum discussed in chapter one with regard to defining religion and magic might be an overstatement of the way ancient Egyptians viewed magic and religion. For the Egyptians, they would have just viewed the rituals as being effective or ineffective, not magical or religious in nature. Robert K. Ritner explains the shared relationship between magic and religion in ancient Egypt as follows: Most often, the theoretical distinction between ‘magic’ and ‘religion’ has relied solely upon a subjective assessment of the presumed attitude of the ancient practitioner. Thus a recitation or ritual action which appears humble, pious and designed for the general benefit has been styled ‘religious,’ in contrast to ‘magical’ texts or rites which are deemed boastful and threatening, serving limited personal goals. In actual practice, however, this distinction has proved quite unworkable, for the same text may serve both as ‘mainstream’ religious hymn and as private

Geraldine Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994), 12. 145 David, Egyptian Magic, “Introduction,” ix. 146 Jacq, Egyptian Magic, 8. 144

54

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 spell, while both temple and private ritual may use identical operations.147

Ritner further notes elsewhere that with regard to the distinctions made between religion and magic in our modern world, “No opposition between religion and magic can be framed in Egyptian terms, for if heka provides a rough approximation for our term ‘magic,’ no Egyptian word corresponds to the English ‘religion.’”148 Ritner also states that for ancient Egyptians there was no difference between the titles of magician and priest, as well as no division between “spell and prayer, nor ultimately between religion and magic since a recognized category of ‘religion’ did not even exist…. In common with Western ‘magic,’ Egyptian heka represents a force that is secret, powerful, and superhuman. Beyond these basic characteristics the similarity ends.”149 The practice of magic for the individual Egyptian as for the State was an attempt to harness that power in some beneficial way. With the execration ritual, the benefit would be for the individual or the State to the detriment of the offending party. While Frazer defines magic in opposition to religion or at least sublimated to it, Ritner explains the ancient Egyptian idea of magic as inseparable from the ancient Egyptian concept of religion. Magic for the ancient Egyptian was: amoral and quintessentially effective, a power to which gods, men, and all of nature were subject, it was still the same force whether used by god, king, priest, private individual, rebel or foreign enemy, whether hostile or beneficent, sanctioned or suppressed. As the pre-eminent force through which the creator engendered and sustained the ordered cosmos, it was necessarily the dynamic ‘energy’ which Egyptian religious ritual sought to channel that it might effect its identical goal, the 147 Robert K. Ritner, “Horus on the Crocodiles: A Juncture of Religion and magic in Late Dynastic Egypt” in Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (James P. Allen et al., eds.; Yale Egyptological Studies 3; ed. William Kelly Simpson; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), 103. 148 Ibid., 104. 149 Ritner, Mechanics, 242.

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

55

preservation of the creator’s universe. The cultic manipulation of this ‘energy’ by recitation, substance, and ritual thus constituted a sophisticated system of ‘practical theology,’ a ‘theurgy’ in which the priest quite literally ‘performed the works of god.’150

C. Power and Use of Magic in Ancient Egyptian Society Perhaps James Henry Breasted best summarized the necessity and importance of magic to the ancient Egyptians in fighting against the destruction of the current order of the world. Each day the world was threatened with disorder which could only be held in check through magical means. Order needed to be maintained not only at the state level through priestly rituals in temple sites, but also on a very personal level. Each person sought to fight disorder which could come in the form of disease or economic ruin. These daily problems would need to be held at bay through the use of magic. Breasted said: It is difficult for the modern mind to understand how completely the belief in magic penetrated the whole substance of life, dominating popular custom and constantly appearing in the simplest acts of the daily household routine, as much a matter of course as sleep or the preparation of food…. Without the saving and salutary influence of such magical agencies constantly invoked, the life of the ancient household in the East was unthinkable. The destructive powers would otherwise have annihilated all. While it was especially against disease that such means must be employed, the ordinary processes of domestic and economic life were constantly placed under its protection.151

With regard to the use of magic as opposed to science and technology, Geraldine Pinch points out the differences between the ancient Egyptian conceptions of magic and the ideas of Bronislav Malinowski, who suggested that magic was employed in ancient Ritner, Mechanics, 247. James Henry Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), 192-93. 150 151

56

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

societies when problems were encountered that their usual technological abilities would not allow them to solve. 152 While it makes sense to analyze the actions of a society in that manner by noting when its members employ magic and when they do not, apparently it was different in ancient Egypt. As Pinch notes with regard to the ancient Egyptian magical papyri and use of magic against various enemies of the state: Egyptians did employ magic to deal with health problems that their medical technology was capable of treating. They also used magic against foreign enemies whom they could and did defeat with their military technology. Parallel practical and ritual action aimed at the same problem seem characteristic of the ancient Egyptian culture. These two types of actions were obviously expected to work in different ways, or perhaps on different planes of existence. 153

As opposed to seeing magic and technology as competing ideas, the ancient Egyptians employed magic in conjunction with other more practical means without bracketing magic and daily life, or magic and technology, off into separate strata. One can see this with regard to the execration ritual in that the Egyptians sought to magically curse their enemies, while also maintaining an army and using their military muscle to ensure their safety and increase their kingdom. The use of magic and the military went together. The use of magic in ancient Egypt is also discussed by Christian Jacq as an attempt to change fate: According to one magnificent text, entitled The Teachings of Merikare, ‘the Creator gave man magic to repel the thunderbolt of what is to come.’ In other words, we are all slaves of a certain predestination…. The Egyptians do not deny this predestination, but consider that it is possible to escape it by the use of magic. By the practice of that we can modify our destiny

152 153

Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 14. Ibid.

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

57

and fight against the negative trends of the human adventure, whether individual or collective.154

It is important to remember from that magic is seen here as an efficacious gift of the creator god to humanity. The person who does not use magic “to repel the thunderbolt” has not used this god-given gift well. So, in a sense, that person deserves his/her fate for not enlisting the aid of magical assistance to ward off evil and the effects of evil. D. Core Magical Practices of Sound, Word, and Hieroglyphic Images If magical power was available to all Egyptians, and they were expected to use it not only to protect the pharaoh and his kingdom, but also on a daily basis for their own defense and protection, then how did Egyptians understand their rituals to work? A. Rosalie David further distinguishes two basic principles of ancient Egyptian magic that describe how the Egyptians understood magic to be effective in bringing about the change they desired to see in the world around them: the power of sound had a dynamic creative force…. [B]y uttering the name of a being or inanimate object, it was thought that the magician could bring that very creature or object into existence…. The second principle of Egyptian magic was centered around the creative force of an image or model…. [I]t was believed that something of the essence or spirit of the original could then be transferred to the image. By gaining possession of the image, the magician could then obtain control over the original…. [T]he image of the hostile being or enemy could be destroyed so that danger could be averted, either for the state, the king or for a private individual.155

The execration ritual incorporates both of these principles. The principle of sound is heard not only in orally identifying a person or type of action that is considered offensive, but also with the break154 155

Jacq, Egyptian Magic, 5. David, Egyptian Magic, “Introduction,” x.

58

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

ing of the execration materials themselves during the ceremony. The second principle is, of course, fulfilled in equating the different materials to be shattered, whether pottery bowls, jars, figurines or statues, with the threat to be eliminated. Pinch explains with regard to the ancient Egyptian culture and the use of writing that “literacy was rare, the ability to read and write must have seemed almost magical in itself. All written words had power, so all authors might acquire a reputation for magical knowledge.”156 Indeed, this understanding applies especially to hieroglyphs where the “power of the image and the power of the word are almost inseparable.”157 One of the standard magical practices of ancient Egypt was an attempt to absorb the power of a written spell by soaking the papyrus in a liquid and then drinking the solution: The magician hoped to absorb the heka (magical power) of the spells into his body…. Some statues and stelae covered with magical images and spells incorporate a basin…. Water was poured over the texts and collected in the basin. The patient would drink the water and pour it onto his wound…. The physical contact between the written words and the patient was part of the protective magic.158

As Robert Ritner explains, “The technique of ‘swallowing’ words is a characteristic feature of Egyptian magic at all periods.”159 The connection between words and power in ancient Egypt also set aside scribes—those who had the ability to read and write—from common people. Because they could manipulate language, the scribes and priests were held in high regard as powerful individuals. This is similar to the ritual described in Num 5 when a woman suspected of adultery is asked to drink a mixture of holy water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and the curses of adultery as written on a piece of paper by the priest. If the woman is guilty of committing Ritner, Mechanics, 21. Ibid., 69. 158 Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 70. 159 Ritner, “Horus,” 107. 156 157

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

59

adultery, then the Lord would make her “thigh fall away” and her “body swell” (Num 5:22). If the woman passes the test, then “she shall be free and conceive children” (Num 5:28). The use of writing or script is seen as powerful in both examples, whether to bring healing, or to inflict a curse. Along with the power of words, the magical practices of ancient Egypt also incorporated the efficacy of ritual actions. “Words were only one component of a magical rite. The actions that accompanied the words, and the objects or ingredients used in the rite were equally important.”160 One ingredient of concern for magical practices was the purity of the priest performing the rite: “Some rubrics specify that the magician must be pure….Officiating priests were even required to rinse out their mouths with a solution of water and natron—the salt compound used in mummification.”161 Showing a further connection between ancient Egyptian magical practices and ancient Israelite religious concerns, the HB also contains rituals of purification and consecration for the priests and general populous to purify them or to maintain their purity. Indeed, before Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai the people were to “wash their garments” and to consecrate themselves in preparation for God’s arrival on the mountain (Exod 19:10-11). To maintain order for the person who was ill, Egyptian magic provided rituals to remove the impurity from their body. In some ancient Egyptian medical procedures, the attempt of the priest/magician was “to transfer the harmful effects of poison or spirit possession into an object which could then be smashed, buried or carried away in fast flowing water, to dispose of the harmful agent.”162 Apparently within the grasp of the magician or priest was the ability to move from a person to an inanimate object whatever was bothering them. Towards this end, Egyptians thought that each object had its own power or heka. “Objects and ingredients used in magical rites might have intrinsic heka or it might be con-

Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 76. Ibid., 76-77. 162 Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 80. 160 161

60

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

ferred on them by words, actions or gestures.”163 Thus, in ancient Egyptian magic, the right ritual and proper words could tap into the heka of the object and connect it to the injured or diseased heka of the patient: All elements of life, whether human beings, animals, or even gods, were considered to be animated by a spiritual force which could be manipulated and it was thought that all inanimate objects were also imbued with magical power. Essentially, the spiritual and the material were believed to be woven from the same substance, and it was considered possible, by using magic, to control the order of the cosmos and to modify individual destiny by combating negative trends.164

As opposed to some of the earlier definitions of magic as the bottom of the evolutionary thought in a given society that would eventually develop religion and then science, David notes that despite ancient Egyptian advances in the medical and technical sciences, the culture retained the use of magic. “Although the Egyptians were the first people known to have developed a rational system of diagnosis and medical treatment…they nevertheless retained magic as an important element in eliminating sickness. Indeed, it continued to have an equal status with rational methods of treatment.”165 In other words, one sphere of knowledge did not replace the other. In ancient Egypt, magic and science worked together. Not only was order, or maat, threatened on an individual or national level, but also on a cosmic level. One of the ancient Egyptian gods was Apep who symbolically stood “as a symbol for the rebellious and chaotic forces within mankind. In the official view, this meant anyone, foreign or Egyptian, who opposed king and state…. Egyptian kings and priests represent the divine order. Foreign rulers and political traitors stand for disorder.”166 Egyptians equated problems on the cosmic level with the problems they encountered on a daily basis. Egyptian gods battled with the threat of Ibid., 83. David, Egyptian Magic, “Introduction,” ix. 165 David, Egyptian Magic, “Introduction,” xii. 166 Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 86. 163 164

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

61

disorder in the form of Apep. The Pharaoh, priests/magicians, and the people battled against foreigners and political traitors on an earthly level. Both the gods and people could use magic to help order and the status quo to emerge victorious over chaos and disorder. In order to fight this disorder the ancient Egyptians enacted a daily ritual. Parts of the ritual instructions included writing the name of Apep on papyrus and then burning it, as well as copying the name on paper, sealing the paper in a box and then burying it. “Burial of magical objects or ingredients was a common method of perpetuating the power of a spell in a particular place.”167 A final idea was to make a wax figure of Apep and the enemies of Egypt, with “their hands tied behind their backs with red or black thread. The wax models were spat on, trampled, stabbed with an iron weapon and burned…. Any remains were pounded in pots of urine which was both polluting and destructively acidic.”168 The obvious attempt was to incapacitate the forces of chaos or evil through their ritual destruction. As Pinch later states with regard to these rituals against Egypt’s enemies, “Egyptian magic was used to supplement more concrete forms of attack or defense. Many Egyptians may have thought that ritual was more effective than mere human action because it harnessed divine powers, but they did not place total reliance on it.”169 Despite all the work involved, the victory over chaos was fleeting in ancient Egypt for the “enemies of order were renewed each day with the sun god and the battle began again.”170 The treatment of Apep is akin to the execration ritual against the enemies of the Egyptian state that will be discussed in detail later in its attempt to magically destroy something that threatens the proper order of life.

Ibid., 88. Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 87. 169 Ibid., 95. 170 Ibid., 87. 167 168

62

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

E. Status and Role of the Magician in Ancient Egyptian Society As these rituals to ensure state and cosmic security did not perform themselves, priests and magicians took on important roles in ancient Egyptian society. Christian Jacq explains further the role of the magician against the enemies of order in Egyptian society, “The magician challenges the enemy, whether male or female. He proclaims his power, he inspires fear in spirits. He is feared, for he claims to be a god who commands evil forces to submit and be gone. He proves that he is stronger than they. He questions them, often very rudely, going so far as to threaten them.”171 To bolster his confidence against the enemy, the magician could make a pilgrimage to Pe and Dep in the Delta region of ancient Egypt, “he returns from there identified with a knife…. Possessing that special weapon, being himself that weapon, the magician is able to employ his power against every enemy who might oppose him.”172 The magician is then able to cut up any opposition to the proper order of things that he confronts thus rendering them harmless. This idea of being able to destroy opposition to the order of things is especially important with regard to the execration ritual in which the priest is attempting to magically destroy the enemies of the state. The idea of an armed priesthood ready to do battle against the opposition also appears in Exod 32:27-28 when the Levites answer the call of Moses to “Put every man his sword on his side.” The text reports the Levites killing “about three thousand men.”

II. MYTHOLOGICAL AND RITUAL BACKGROUND TO THE EXECRATION RITUAL A. Apep Apep, also known as Apophis or Apopis, and Seth were both Egyptian gods associated with evil and disorder. Apep was a serpent demon that “threatened the sun-god and thus endangered 171 172

Jacq, Egyptian Magic, 96. Ibid.

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

63

world stability. The ‘huge serpent’ was the embodiment of the opponent of God and a symbol of the powers of darkness.”173 He is also described as “the incarnation of negative and dark forces; he is primordial chaos that ceaselessly and necessarily, opposes the progress of light, order and creation.”174 As if that were not bad enough for Apep, he apparently was formed from “a bodily excretion of the creator-god’s, a gob of spit the primeval gods had rejected and thus condemned to perpetual revolt.”175 It seems that in the Egyptian mind it was necessary to establish a god associated with disorder and chaos that could be manipulated or at least attacked ritually in an attempt to maintain order in pharaoh’s kingdom, and on a personal level as well. Anything evil in the ancient Egyptian world became associated with the gods Apep or Seth. As strange as this might seem to modern readers, much of Egyptian magic used models and substitutes for the enemy to bring about the desired results. As Pinch states, “In The Book of Overthrowing Apep, wax models are made of current enemies of state, as well as of the external forces of chaos. These enemies were identified by the use of their names and then destroyed in a variety of ways.”176 Indeed, Pinch goes on to say “In a few Execration Texts enemies are specifically identified with Apep or Seth.”177 This is similar to the biblical association of evil actions or intentions with the idea of Satan or the Devil. People are identified as demon-filled or possessed. B. Seth Seth also represented the evil part of the universe for the ancient Egyptian. “He was above all regarded as lord of the desert and appeared as the opponent of the vegetation god, Osiris…. As lord of Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 93. Manfred Lurker, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary (London: Thames & Hudson, 1980), 29. 175 Ruth Schumann Antelme and Stephanie Rossini, Becoming Osiris: The Ancient Egyptian Death Experience (trans. Jon Graham; Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1998), 30. 176 Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 92. 177 Ibid., 93. 173 174

64

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

the desert, as a ‘red’ god, Seth also became lord of all non-Egyptian lands. During the time of foreign rule, especially after the Assyrian invasion, he thereby became a national enemy and a figure symbolic of all evil.”178 Besides his negative image, Seth was also depicted as helping the sun god Re in fighting against Apep. Unlike Apep, Seth’s dark qualities were sometimes put to use in the Egyptian pantheon to serve the people and the other gods. C. Egyptian Cosmology and Ritual Actions to Combat Evil Ancient Egyptian myths and rituals sought to render ineffective negative gods like Apep and Seth through symbolic destruction. They hoped this ritual annihilation of the gods would have an effect on the difficulties they were currently experiencing in their own lives. As Jan Assmann explains, “In such cases, the mythological story functions as a precedence or model.”179 Indeed the entire Book of Overthrowing Apep was recorded to ensure the defeat of Apep every evening as he opposed the sun god Re. The defeat of the sun god’s enemies was also considered to be a victory for the pharaoh against enemies of the state. As R. O. Faulkner states in the introduction to his translation of the Bremner-Rhind Papyrus 3, “The main purpose of these texts is the magical protection of the sun-god in his daily course across the sky from the attacks of the storm-demon Apep…but they are secondarily directed to the protection of the Pharaoh, the earthly representative of the solar divinity, from his foes also, ‘whether dead or alive.’”180 According to John Baines the pharaoh “took on for humanity the task of dealing both with the gods and with the negative forces that surrounded the ordered world. Disorder lurked at the edges of Egypt—in the desert and in the underworld—and the Lurker, Gods and Symbols, 109-110. Jan Assmann, “Magic and Theology in Ancient Egypt,” in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium (eds. Peter Schafer and Hans G. Kippenberg; vol. 85 of Studies in the History of Religion; Numen Book Series; ed. H.G. Kippenberg and E.T. Lawson; London: Brill, 1997), 5. 180 R. O. Faulkner, “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus 3: The Book of Overthrowing Apep,” JEA 23 (1937): 166. 178 179

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

65

ordered cosmos was shot through with ‘uncreated’ elements that threatened to engulf it and had to be countered.”181 As the resident god on Earth, it was the pharaoh’s task to confront and defeat evil on behalf of ancient Egyptian society. Since the pharaoh could not be in all temples at all times, the priests acted on pharaoh’s behalf in order to protect the ancient Egyptian way of life. The close relationship between the rituals of the temple cults in ancient Egypt and their understanding of history is explained by C. J. Bleeker: “[T]he ancient Egyptian lived in the unshakable faith that Maat, the order instituted by the sun-god in prehistoric times, was, despite periods of chaos, injustice and immorality, absolute and eternal. Therefore the ancient Egyptian view of history was…static: he believed in a divine order which is stable and holds its own in spite of the fact that from time to time chaotic situations arise.”182 The confidence that this order could be maintained and restored fell on the pharaoh who was seen as “being a son of the sun-god,” who possessed “the necessary power to do so.”183 The pharaoh employed priests at the royal temples to help accomplish this maintenance of order for the state. Here once again is seen the close connection between the pharaoh or king and the ancient Egyptian gods because of the understanding of the Egyptian state as part of the divine plan of creation itself. “The Egyptian state was not a man-made alternative to other forms of political organization. It was god-given, established when the world was created; and it continued to form part of the universal order.”184 What is good for Egypt and its ruler is what is good for the universe. Hence, what threatens Egypt and the pharaoh is considered evil and must be fought and destroyed.185 John Baines, “Society, Morality, and Religious Practice,” Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practices (ed. Byron E. Shafer; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell, 1991), 124. 182 Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, 8. 183 Ibid., 7. 184 Henri Frankfort, Ancient Eastern Religion (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948), 30. 185 Frankfort, Ancient Eastern Religion, “The rebel and the criminal who acted against Pharaoh, be it openly or faithlessness [sic] in Pharaoh’s ser181

66

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Indeed, this idea of Egyptian dominance permeated Egyptian mythology and their political relations with others: The myth of universal dominion prevented Pharaoh from considering any foreigner of whatever rank on an equal footing with himself. Even the most influential foreign potentate would receive in writing from the Egyptians only the banal designation ‘big man,’ never ‘king.’ All alien heads of state, whether formal kings or tribal headmen, were lumped together under the rubric ‘foreign chiefs;’ and what was expected of them was loyalty and tribute.186

Magic was used by the pharaoh and his priests/magicians to maintain this order and keep Egypt in its rightful position of dominance over other countries. Even countries with whom Egypt had friendly relations with were cursed and kept under subjugation by the magical means of the execration ritual in order to ensure their continued allegiance to the pharaoh. A lack of cooperation from foreign nations, or worse yet, any attack on Egypt or its representatives, was considered not only an offense to the pharaoh, but also to the gods and goddesses of the Egyptian pantheon who had established the pharaoh as the rightful ruler and Egypt as the center of the known universe. As Redford explains, “In the celestial realm even the gods themselves fight on Egypt’s behalf to protect the eastern border.”187 Indeed, in an ancient inscription the Egyptians summarized the role of the pharaoh as being the “superintendent of all things which heaven dispenses and the earth produces.”188 Historically this applied especially to what we now call the Middle Eastern countries, “…the Pharaohs of the 12th and 13th Dynasties viewed hither Asia and the Levant vice, headed inevitably for destruction because they moved against the order upon which society, like all that exists, was forever founded,” 55-56. 186 Donald B. Redford, “Egypt and the World Beyond,” in Ancient Egypt (ed. David P. Silverman; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 43. 187 Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University, 1992), 62. 188 Fleming and Lothian, Way to Eternity, 12.

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

67

as theirs to exploit to the full.”189 Whether those nations and people saw themselves as allies or vassals of the Egyptian state was apparently unimportant from an Egyptian perspective. Other nations belonged to the Pharaoh and it was his task to watch over their progress. The Egyptians understood creation as on-going action to preserve the ordered world in which they lived as the dominant and rightful recipients of all that was good, but which was constantly being threatened by the presence of disorder or chaos, specifically personified by foreigners. “The real or potential dangers that its neighbors to the east, west and south of Egypt presented preoccupied the ancient Egyptians.”190 Part of the purpose of Egyptian magic and religious practices was to maintain and preserve the present order of the world as it had been brought into existence at creation. Whatever threatened ancient Egypt was also thought to threaten the gods and goddesses the Egyptians worshiped. Because of the connection between the gods’ act of creation and the ancient Egyptian conception of Egypt’s central purpose as recipient and benefactor of this divine action to attack the Egyptian pantheon was to attack Pharaoh himself. 191 As Ian Shaw explained the pharaoh’s concern for the entire world stemmed from “a fundamental part of the Egyptian world view whereby the pharaoh’s domains were considered to have originally comprised the whole of creation. Any act of warfare perpetrated by Egypt—whether a punitive raid on a Nubian village or a major excursion into Syria-Palestine—was therefore considered to be a legitimate restoration of the natural order of things.”192 Indeed, even a pharaoh’s title identified him as “the ruler of the entire known world,” and as such “the political boundaries of Egypt were

Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 80. Miroslav Verner, “Les Statuettes de Prisonniers en Bois D’ Abousir,” REg 36 (1985): 145. 191 Alexandre Moret, “Le Rite de Briser les vases rouges au temple de Louxor,” REg 3 (1938): 167. 192 Ian Shaw, Egyptian Warfare and Weapons (Buckinghamshire, U.K.: Shire Egyptology, 1991), 7. 189 190

68

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

theoretically infinite” for the pharaoh.193 In a positive sense, this responsibility for the world granted ancient Egyptians access to the wealth and resources of any country. In a negative sense, the Pharaoh and his army were responsible with maintaining order essentially everywhere, if only in a theoretical sense. One could see where the use of magic and ritual would be easier for the State to maintain this order than physically marching troops all over the globe. Just as pharaoh sought to deal with the enemies of the state on a human level with the execration ritual, the pharaoh also sought to destroy the opposition on a cosmic level through temple rituals like those described in the Book of Overthrowing Apep. The close connection of the destruction of Apep with the destruction of pharaoh’s enemies is seen repeatedly throughout the rite: Be thou spat upon. O Apep—four times—this is (done) for Re and his ka, this is (done) for Pharaoh and his ka….Come thou to Pharaoh that thou mayest crush all his foes for him even as he fells Apep for thee, (as) he cuts up the Ill-Disposed One for thee, (as) he gives praise to thy might, (as) he extols thee in all thy manifestations in which though shinest for him, even as he fells all thy foes for thee daily.194

If pharaoh will perform the ritual to assist the sun-god Re in his passage through the night against his enemy Apep; then, Re must return the favor and assist the pharaoh against his enemies of the state: to spit on them, to crush them, to cut them up, and to cause them to fall, thereby assuring Egypt’s rightful position in the world. Not only is Apep spat upon, he is also burned. The pharaoh, or his representative in the temple ritual, states that “the fire has power over Apep, the Roarer, the Ill-Disposed One, and they have no peace, no peace. O Re-Harakhti, turn thy fair countenance to Pharaoh, that thou mayest crush all his foes for him, so that he may adore Re in every deed.”195 As the fire burns Re’s opponent, so the Ibid., 16. Faulkner, The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus, 167. 195 Ibid., 167-168. 193 194

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

69

pharaoh asks Re to crush his foes to ensure peace throughout Egypt during his reign. There is archaeological evidence to suggest that not only were pottery or clay items crushed and shattered during the execration ritual, but that wax figurines were also burned in order to ensure the destruction of the opposition to the pharaoh, Egypt, and the gods. The treatment of Apep is similar to treatment of the representative items to be broken during the execration ritual in that they are to be totally and utterly destroyed. The Book of Overthrowing Apep includes directions for the making of the model over which the words are to be spoken and which will be destroyed. In this case, instead of pottery or a figurine which was made to be broken or crushed, the directions for the destruction of Apep are for a figure made of wax: This spell is to be spoken over (a figure of) Apep drawn on a new sheet of papyrus in green ink, and there shall be made (an image of ) Apep with waxen body with his name inscribed on it in green ink, to be put on the fire that he may burn before Re when he manifests himself in the morning, at noon-tide, and also in the evening when Re sets in the West…. [L]ikewise every day…He is to be burnt in a fire of bryony and his remains placed in a pot of urine and pounded up into one mass…placing Apep on the fire and spitting on him very often…. You shall do accordingly very often in order to prevent bad weather from glowing in the sky.196

Just as order was seen in good weather and a consistent Nile flood, bad weather and too little or too much water was seen as disorder which could be counter-acted through the ritual destruction of Apep. Another similarity between the conquest of Apep and with the execration ritual is the destruction of the opposition by use of a knife: Seize, seize, O butcher, fell the foe of Re with thy knife. Seize, seize, O butcher, fell the foe of pharaoh with thy knife. These 196

Faulkner, The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus, 168.

70

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 are your heads, you rebels; this is that head of thine, O Apep, which are cut off by the warrior-priest with his knife…. Be you cut to pieces because of your evil, be you cut up because of what you have done.197

The connection is also made in this section between unethical conduct and destruction. The enemies of pharaoh are cut up because of what they have done in opposing the kingship of the gods’ own ruler on earth just as Apep is constantly destroyed because he opposes the proper passage of the sun-god Re. Those who disturb the divine order will be dealt with appropriately whether on earth or in the cosmic realm of the gods. However, one performance of the ritual was not enough. The instructions in the Book of Overthrowing Apep implore the pharaoh, “You shall do this very often against storm so that the sun may shine and Apep may be felled in very truth; it will be well with whoso does it upon earth, and it will be well with him in the realm of the dead.”198 Just as Apep was able to regenerate himself after each passing of the sun-god Re in the solar barque because of his immortality as a god, so evil plans and actions were always recurring in the physical realm. The pharaoh had to be vigilant in his performance of the ritual against Apep and also be prepared to defeat evil actions and plans each day. The names of the same enemies are seen in various contemporaneous execration finds as evidence of the vigilance of pharaoh and his magician/priests in opposing the enemies of the state. Ritner describes the four execration finds at Giza from the reign of Pepy II, the last pharaoh of the sixth dynasty of the Old Kingdom (2269-c2176 B.C.E.) saying, “Despite the variation in content (extending also to the number of smaller figurines), all four of these deposits are nonetheless intimately associated by date (three within the space of two months), handwriting (seemingly only two scribes for four deposits), and by recurrence of identical names throughout.”199 Due to the fear that uprisings could occur at anytime, the Ibid. Ibid., 168-169. 199 Ritner, Mechanics, 139. 197 198

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

71

pharaoh and his representative priests had to be vigilant about quelling any possible negative action or influence. The fear was not only the effect of enemies on this life on earth and in the cosmic realm, but also in the afterlife. The Book of Overthrowing Apep mentions the idea that it will go well in the afterlife for the pharaoh performing the ritual here and in the “realm of the dead.” The same holds true for the execration ritual. Execration texts have been discovered that list the names of people already known to be deceased. In ancient Egypt the living still felt it necessary to combat any evil in this life and the next. “If the blessed dead became the recipients of cult and correspondence, less favored spirits were widely feared for their potential destructive wrath…. Threatening to all—both pharaoh and commoner alike— the danger that these malignant spirits posed required some form of response, and a series of rituals was devised for their suppression.”200 As is stated in the Book of Overthrowing Apep: You shall depict every foe of Re and every foe of Pharaoh, whether dead or alive, and every accused one whom he has in mind, (also) the names of their fathers, their mothers, and their children, every one of them, they have been drawn in green ink on a new sheet of papyrus, their names written on their breasts, (these) having been made of wax, and also with bonds of black thread; they are to be spat upon, and (they are) to be trampled with the left foot, felled with the spear and knife, and cast on the fire in the melting-furnace of the coppersmiths.201

According to the ritual, those who opposed the pharaoh during his lifetime in ancient Egypt, and subsequently the sun god Re, were destined to an afterlife spent in hell for their destructive actions. “Their souls shall not be permitted to come out of the Netherworld and they shall not be among those who live upon the earth, on no day shall they behold Re, (but) they shall be bound and fettered in hell in the lower Netherworld and their souls shall

200 Robert K. Ritner, “The Cult of the Dead,” in Ancient Egypt (ed. David P. Silverman; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 140. 201 Faulkner, Bremner-Rhind Papyrus, 171.

72

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

not be permitted to come forth thence for ever and ever.”202 In part, this surely must have been part of the threat to maintain order. Not only will you be defeated and punished in this world for upsetting the proper order of things, but even after your death, your punishment will continue. Surely this idea of a perpetual penalty helped to stop some threats before they had even begun. This curse not only affected pharaoh’s antagonists, but also that person’s family members. “And when you have written these names of all foes, male and female, whom your heart fears, namely all the foes of Pharaoh, dead or alive, the names of their fathers, the names of their mothers, and the names of (their) children, within the box, (they) are to be made of wax, put on the fire after the name of Apep, and burnt.”203 The threat of eternal ritual damnation for the opponent of pharaoh and that person’s family was surely intended as a warning to those contemplating any form of subversive activity against the throne. Not only would they be punished in this life, but in the next life as well and they would be resigning their families to the same fate.204 The work of the pharaoh never ceased opposing the forces of chaos that threatened ancient Egypt. Some of that work was done militarily in defeating Egypt’s enemies on the battlefield, or through Egyptian courts to punish criminals, but a daily effort was also made to enlist the aid of the gods through ritual. “It was the actual performance by the king of the daily liturgy that rendered efficacious the liturgies celebrated elsewhere.”205 To this end the pharaoh’s activities were of paramount importance for all of Egypt, and from an Egyptian perspective, for the entire world.

Ibid., 174. Ibid., 175. 204 This idea of the faults of the parent or parents affecting the life of the descendants can also be seen in curses from the HB. Leviticus 26 describes the punishment awaiting the people who do not follow God’s commands. Those people will either be killed or they will be driven from the land. Those that survive will live in the land of their enemies “because of their iniquity; and also because of the iniquities of their fathers they shall pine away like them” (Lev 26:39). 205 White, Ancient Egypt, 17. 202 203

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

73

D. Magical Information from Funerary Sources Besides the ritual destruction of Apep from the Book of Overthrowing Apep, other sources of information for the practice of execration rituals in ancient Egypt are the funerary literature texts known as the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts and the Book of the Dead. The oldest of these texts are the Pyramid Texts, which appeared at the end of the fifth dynasty (ca. 2400 B.C.E.). The Pyramid Texts “were originally intended solely for the benefit of the king and his family. Over the next few centuries these texts were adapted for private use and incorporated into a group of new spells called the Coffin Texts, which could be employed by anyone who could afford a sarcophagus. By the early New Kingdom (ca. 1550 B.C.E.), the Coffin Texts were slowly replaced by the work which we know as the Book of the Dead.”206 This progression of a magical practice mirrors the understanding of magic or heka in ancient Egypt. What began on the level of the gods with the creation of the universe eventually became available to all through temple rituals and individual magical charms, potions, and sayings. These funerary sources record spells and directions for performing the breaking of the “red jars,” a funerary rite connected to the execration ritual, if not identical with it. As Sir Alan Gardiner explains regarding these specific jars, “These pots were a regular part of the funerary equipment, and the smashing of them to symbolize annihilation of the deceased’s enemies is a practice that has been much discussed.”207 The idea that the red jars are commonly found in ancient Egyptian burial sites points to their continued use over time and not in one particular age alone. This is true of execration deposits as well which occur basically throughout ancient Egyptian history. One of the directions for this rite can be found in the Pyramid Text 244, “O [Osiris the king], here is this Eye [of Horus]; [take] it, that you may be strong and that he may fear you—break the red

Ogden Goelet, introduction to Book of the Dead (trans. R. Faulkner; San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994), 14. 207 Sir Alan Gardiner, “A Unique Funerary Liturgy,” JEA 41 (1955): 16. 206

74

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

jars.”208 The “he” in this passage refers to the snake, or Apep/Apophis. It is a ritual to ensure that the deceased person is protected from the destructive evil of the god Apep and is able to live in the afterlife in peace by taking on the powers of the god Osiris and by breaking the red jars as a form of ritual destruction of any potential enemies. The breaking of the red jars is done to make the enemy fear the one doing the breaking, to establish his/her dominance in the order of things, and to ensure his/her future success. An illustration of the ritual breaking of the red jars, or in this case red pots, is also seen in Coffin Text 926 in which the deceased is told to, “Wash yourself, sit down at the meal, put your hands on it; divert the god’s offering, break the red pots, give cold water, purify the offering tables with […], make libation; fire and incense are for N in all his dignities and in all his places which he desires […] at [the temple?]. May you appear in the retinue of the king […].”209 The breaking of the red jars/pots would protect the deceased from anyone threatening the meal and perhaps also protect the deceased from the gods whose offering he has taken. As Goelet observed: “Protective magic became especially important in the dangerous climate of the afterlife, where the deceased might not always be able to take an active role in his or her own defense.”210 The Egyptian concerns for purity and order are seen in the clear instructions to be clean before eating the meal and in the number of precise steps to follow to ensure success and protection with this meal and in the afterlife. Coffin Text 37 shows the use of magic to empower the dead in order to preserve their existence in the afterlife. Similar to the use of pottery as symbolic of their personal and national enemies in the execration ritual, here, the individual overcomes a foe by using his/her magical powers to form and bury a wax figure of his/her

R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 58. 209 R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (3 vols.; Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1978), 3: 66. 210 Goelet, “Notes,” Book of the Dead, 146. 208

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

75

enemy and thus to have power over that enemy. An allusion is also made to acquiring magical potency through drinking: See, Your Majesty has come, you have acquired all power…. You have filled your body with magic, you have quenched your thirst with it, those who watch for you tremble at it like a bird, you have mastered the land with what you know…. See that foe who is among men and gods and the inhabitants of the necropolis has come to break your house, to ruin your gate and to cause your foes to exult over you…. May your soul be strong against him, see the others who are rebellious at heart, that they may show forth your power and make report of your majesty. May you break and overthrow your foes and set them under your sandals. To be spoken over a figure of the foe made of wax and inscribed with the name of that foe on his breast with the bone of a synodontis fish: to be put in the ground in the abode of Osiris.211

Breaking represents the annihilation of the enemy or foe, whether it is in this world, or the next. Not only does this destruction of the enemy end that threat, but is also enhances the person’s reputation with others. The destruction of one foe would send a message to other potential enemies of the kind of power you possessed. This type of destruction was meant to be effective now and also to send a message to potential, future enemies of the state. Coffin Text 425 demonstrates the magical destruction of an enemy. In this case it is a spell for driving away a vulture, which would seem to be very important for the dead. “I have come to you that I may break your water-pots and smash your inkwells, for a path is prepared for me to the place where the great god is.”212 One can see in this spell the connection between the breaking and the destruction of an enemy. There is also the connection with the importance of writing. The enemy or foe is destroyed by breaking their inkwell, thereby disabling their ability to write. The destruc-

211 R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (3 vols.; Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1973), 1: 27-8. 212 Ibid., 2: 70.

76

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

tion of the water-pot cuts off their ability to drink. The enemy is thereby left helpless by the deceased’s use of powerful magic.

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES OF EXECRATION AND RELATED MATERIALS A. Execration Materials Discovered in Egypt As to the question of the importance and frequency of enactments of the execration ritual in ancient Egypt, it may be surprising to learn that execration materials have been discovered in many locations throughout Egypt representing many of the dynasties of the pharaohs. The findings of Kurt Sethe and Georges Posener represent the Middle Kingdoms (1991-1786 B.C.E.), but older examples of the execration rite were discovered by Hermann Junker, Jurgen Osing and Abdel Moneim Abu-Bakr at the pyramids of Giza.213 Over four hundred pieces of execration materials in four separate lots were uncovered at Giza.214 These discoveries date to the end of the Old Kingdom, the sixth dynasty, which would be approximately 2175 B.C.E., the end of the reign of Pepy II. The Museum of Cairo has about thirty examples of execration statues from this period while the Metropolitan Museum of New York has another four examples.215 Execration statuettes were also unearthed in the funerary complex of Djoser at Saqqara from the third dynasty, 2686 to 2613 B.C.E. The reign of Pharaoh Cheops, 2589 to 2566 B.C.E., from the fourth dynasty also produced execration figurines that were discovered at Giza.216 Posener describes over eight hundred pieces of execration materials dating from the sixth dynasty in the Old Kingdom (2345 B.C.E.) all the way to the eighteenth dynasty in the New Kingdom of ancient Egyptian history (1085 Verner, “Les Statuettes,” 145, 147. Hermann Junker, Giza, VIII (Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1947), Abdel Moneim Abu Bakr, and Jurgen Osing, “Ächtungstexte aus dem Alten Reich,” MDAIK 29 (1973): 97-133. 214 Georges Posener, “Ächtungstexte,” LA 1:67-68. 215 A. Rosalie David, Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt (New York: Facts on File, 1998), 7-15. 216 Verner, “Les Statuettes,” 146. 213

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

77

B.C.E.).217 This shows that the execration ritual was practiced throughout ancient Egypt’s long history by a variety of pharaohs in order to magically subjugate any political unrest in or near Egypt. On pottery bowls with the inscribed names of Egypt’s enemies analyzed by Sethe, the names of the foreign rulers are designated by the hieroglyphic sign “of the dying man.”218 Posener and others discovered execration texts on statuettes or figurines representative of this same hieroglyphic sign. In the forward to Posener’s work, Jean Capart describes the figurines from Pepy II’s reign as made of rock with the prisoners kneeling and their arms brought back and “ready to receive the royal blow.”219 This position of the helpless enemy conquered by the all powerful pharaoh is also seen throughout ancient Egyptian history and is featured in various temples, burial chambers, and on royal scarab seals. As Richard Wilkinson explains, the artwork “for Egyptian temple reliefs places scenes of warfare, the delivery of captives to the deity, smiting of captives, and hunting of wild animals on the outer walls of a given structure for apotropaic reasons, to ward off evil.”220 To find the scenes of warfare and the treatment of Egypt’s enemies in the same position as the “hunting of wild animals” shows the disdain with which ancient Egyptians regarded their neighbors. They were clearly not equals. These foreigners were seen in the same light as game animals that were to be sought and killed. These drawings on the temple walls were larger than life in attempting to increase “the apotropaic power of the representations, and also in impressing the human viewer, for they appear precisely in the areas to which the Egyptian population—and foreign visiPosener, “Achtungstexte,” LA, 1:67-68. Kurt Sethe, Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker, und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des Mittleren Reiches (Berlin: Akadamie der Wissenschaften, 1926), 18. 219 Georges Posener, Princes et Pays D’Asie et de Nubie: Textes Hiératiques sur des Figurines d’Envoûtement du Moyen Empire (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1940), 5. 220 Wilkinson, Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1994), 40-41. 217 218

78

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

tors—had access.”221 The figures are therefore larger-than-life just as the pharaoh is thought of being more than merely human, but also other-worldly. The art is meant to reinforce the idea that to oppose the pharaoh and the State makes no sense. The Egyptian ruler standing above the kneeling captive was the ideal position for the pharaoh and Egypt as dominating and annihilating any enemy that threatened the order of the state. The enemies of ancient Egypt were often referred to as the “Nine Bows.” Rosalie David defined the “Nine Bows” as the group of people who lived along the Nile Valley and “all the tribes and people with whom the Egyptians came into contact with on all their borders.”222 These people would have naturally been thought of as subject to the pharaoh because, after all, he was the rightful ruler of the entire world. Raphael Giveon explains the connection between the “Nine Bows” and the execration ritual: A relief of Edfu (site of temple and an important Old Kingdom center) shows the sacrifice of nine statuettes of bound prisoners. These statuettes are the type on which execration texts were written. The use of the ‘Nine Bows,’ of the execration texts and the toponym lists (these were lists of towns conquered by the pharaoh during his reign) are strongly associated with prophylactic magic. This is shown by the inclusion of parts of Egypt—potential enemies of the king rising against him in his own country—and of friendly countries…. The preliminary texts and the scenes of slaughtering of prisoners next to the lists show that we have here a reminiscence of the prehistoric ritual of human sacrifice.223 Wilkinson, Symbol and Magic, 41. David, Egyptian Magic, 233. 223 Raphael Giveon, “Remarks on the Transmission of Egyptian Lists of Asiatic Toponyms,” Fragen an die altagyptische Literatur: Studien zum Gedenken an Eberhard Otto (eds. Jan Assmann, Erika Feucht, Rienhart Grieshammer; Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1977), 172. One example of a toponym list of towns conquered by pharaoh belonged to Thutmose III, who reigned in the 18th dynasty of the New Kingdom from 1504 to 1450 B.C.E. James M. Weinstein, “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A reas221 222

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

79

The idea mentioned by Giveon of “prophylactic magic” is the use of magical means to protect the state of Egypt. This was accomplished in part in ancient Egypt through the use of the execration rite to ensure the continued dominion of the pharaoh over his enemies. B. Related Archaeological Finds in Palestine, Sinai, and Israel One possible discovery has been made of execration materials in Palestine in Beth-Shean by Stefan Wimmer, who described the find as “the largest concentration of Egyptian antiquities outside of Egypt!”224 The execration fragment was found in layer seven of an archeological dig that was dominated by Egyptian materials. Wimmer translated the writing on the execration fragment and interpreted its meaning differently than did Alan Rowe.225 Rowe read the hieratic message as, “The fiend in the house of the Ruddy Beings,” interpreting the Ruddy Beings as the Egyptian god Seth and his associates. While Wimmer interpreted the message as the “enemy rebel in the red house” meaning some sort of opposition, but not necessarily one of the Egyptian gods.226 Wimmer noted that sessment,” BASOR 241 (1981): 1-28, reports that two copies of Thutmose III’s list contained 119 names, while a third copy of the list had those same 119 toponyms, plus another 231 more. Thutmose III had directed a campaign against Megiddo in 1483-1482 B.C.E. to establish an Egyptian empire in Palestine. “This campaign was directed against the cities of western Palestine, the Plain of Esdraelon, and territories farther north and east, whose princes had banded together under the leadership of the princes of Kadesh and Megiddo to make a united stand against the Egyptian king” (p. 11). Thutmose III reported in his Annals that “the capturing of Megiddo is the capturing of a thousand towns.” (ANET, 237). Weinstein reported that Thutmose III established “a number of military strongholds and administrative centers in Palestine and southern Syria” (p. 12). Thutmose III was sent “about 5,000 adults and children” from Palestine (p. 14). 224 Stefan Wimmer, “Ein Ächtungstext aus Israel/Palestina” in Sesto Congresso internazionale di egippologia, vol. 2 (1993), 571. 225 Alan Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-Shan (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1930) and The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1940). 226 Wimmer, “Ein Ächtungtext,” 573.

80

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

both translations refer to hostile beings and associated the color red with them.227 Historically, Egyptians used the color red as indicative of evil and chaos. The presence of an execration fragment at Beth-Shean points to the practice of the execration ritual in ancient Palestine. Wimmer dated the find to around the time of Ramesses III, who reigned from 1198-1166 B.C.E., when an Egyptian garrison was stationed in Beth-Shean.228 There have also been several finds of the “prisoner motif” in this area. The temple to the Egyptian goddess Hathor at Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula has two illustrations of this type, a plaque from Tell Nagila, two jar stoppers from Kuyunjik (Nineveh), and on various scarab seals discovered in a variety of locations. The Egyptian goddess Hathor was “responsible for missions abroad, whether for trading or for mining. It was therefore necessary to build a temple for the goddess at Serabit el Khadim.”229 An example of ancient Egyptian cosmology can be seen in the idea of the building of a temple to ensure the blessing of the goddess in obtaining turquoise from the local mines by making offerings to her. “By presenting the local goddess with her favorite symbols, the donor ensures his success in obtaining plenty of turquoise of the finest quality—in addition to long life, happiness and good health.”230 Each miner received payment only in return for the turquoise he unearthed. Two scenes of ritual smiting in the iconography of the temple in Sinai were discovered. One undated illustration in the temple Ibid., 573. Ibid., 571. 229 Raphael Giveon, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan: Iconographical and Related Studies (OBO 20; Freiburg, Switzerland: Biblical Institute of the University of Freiburg, 1978), 54. This is the same temple in which the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions were discovered. “They consist of a restricted repertoire of signs derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs…. The letters were chosen for their meaning in an ancient Semitic language: the Egyptian sign for house was used for the letter b; regardless of the sound of the sign in Egyptian, it was adapted to the Semitic word Bayit, house and in alphabetical writing represents b” (p. 56). 230 Ibid., 71-72. 227 228

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

81

shows a bound prisoner. The second illustration on a temple pylon of a kneeling prisoner dates from the reign of Thutmose III. This temple illustration “shows the king in the typical attitude raising a mace in one hand and holding the other with an enemy whose head he is going to smash…. The Egyptians used traditional templedecorations without any need for an actual situation which would justify this, either as a record of events or as magic means to prevent enemies from attacking Egypt or Egyptian possessions.”231 Not only did the art work serve as a reminder of what the pharaohs had done to the enemies in the past, but also as a threat or warning to the people now and in the future. The plaque from Tell Nagila is very small: 3 cm long, 1.5 cm wide and .7 cm high. It is probably better described as a charm for a necklace because it has a hole bored through it. It is decorated on both sides. One side of the charm is composed of a geometrical design. “The other side of the scarab shows a human figure walking, one hand lifted up as if about to strike. In Egypt this is the common pose in the portrayal of conquering kings.”232 This is currently part of the antiquities collection of Kibbutz Ruhamah in Israel and shows the presence in Israel of the conquering pharaoh motif. Two jar stoppers currently housed in the British Museum in London show the “prisoner motif” discussed above. The jar stoppers were discovered in Kuyunjik, the biblical city of Nineveh. “On both the king is shown subduing an enemy; he lifts a short sword in his right arm, holds in his other arm an enemy, whose representation is missing…. Above and in front of the king there is the inscription: ‘The good god Shabako, lord of action.’”233 The use of the sword is a later version of this motif. Earlier examples of this scene were pictured with the king holding a mace.234 Two scarabs discovered in Israel also feature this motif. A scarab from Tel Masos shows a pharaoh killing a prisoner who is tied up. The pharaoh is holding a sword and “with his left hand he Giveon, Impact of Egypt on Canaan, 58. Ibid., 88-89. 233 Giveon, Impact of Egypt on Canaan, 122. 234 Giveon, “Remarks on the Transmission of Egyptian Lists,” 172. 231 232

82

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

holds a prisoner whose arms are tied and lifted up behind his back in an impossible gesture.”235 Another example of this same type of scarab was discovered at Tell el Far’ah (South) and shows “a king killing a prisoner.”236 Perhaps the confinement of the prisoner is to indicate the impossibility of escaping the power of the pharaoh in these scenes and certain death for anyone who dared to oppose the power of ancient Egypt. The fact that these objects and icons were discovered in Palestine points obviously to contact with ancient Egypt. Both Giveon and Wimmer give plenty of other archaeological evidence of an ancient Egyptian presence in Palestine by citing various military records of the day, other pottery finds from past digs, and even the remains of ancient Egyptian garrisons and forts discovered there. The presence of Egypt as the military and political power in the region, for at least a period of time, also leads one to believe that the Egyptians must also have influenced more than just the politics of the day in this area. Indeed, Giveon gives examples of the adaption of ancient Egyptian elements in the jewelry of the Canaanites while expressing caution about Egyptian religious influence. “The winged sun-disk is another Egyptian element. Side by side with this there are Asiatic elements, the dress of the men and of the women for instance.”237 There are also examples of the incorporation of the Egyptian gods, “The frequency with which we meet Egyptian gods on Egyptian objects of export and on locally made Canaanite seals and similar objects, together with Semitic inscriptions, is no proof of penetration of Egyptian beliefs into the country; but they do show the adaptation of Egyptian iconography to the needs of the local religion.”238 This adaptation also shows some knowledge of Egyptian gods and goddesses on the part of the jewelry makers or the ones requesting the jewelry. Seals of Egyptian priests have also been discovered in Israel which may be evidence of an Egyptian cult presence there. Giveon Giveon, Impact of Egypt on Canaan, 107. Ibid., 121. 237 Giveon, Impact of Egypt on Canaan, 12. 238 Ibid., 14. 235 236

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

83

explains further that besides the Hathor temple in Sinai, “The temples in Beth-Shean strata VII and VI have been taken for Egyptian constructions.”239 While it is difficult to conclusively prove direct Israelite borrowing or adapting of Egyptian ideas, the location of temples to Egyptian gods in ancient Palestine and the presence of the “prisoner motif” in at least a few places, indicates that the knowledge of Egyptian temple practices and the way they sought to ritually control their enemies were at least possibilities for someone living in ancient Palestine. C. The Story of Sinuhe In Egyptian literature there is a famous Middle Kingdom story of Sinuhe preserved on two papyri. This story is often regarded as a masterpiece of Egyptian literature and represents “true historical events of the Middle Kingdom; it relates Sinuhe’s flight from Egypt to Palestine, his adventures there, and his eventual return to Egypt to die and be buried.”240 Part of the story involves the main character Sinuhe cursing an opponent. Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert explains that the form of the curse is similar to the execration ritual, “The wording of Sinuhe’s description betrays use of the genre that is known in Egyptology as the Execration Texts. Sinuhe’s designation of his opponent as nht—‘strong one, hero’—…what he had planned to do to me I did to him.’ Thus the sequence of lexical elements turns out to be the same in Sinuhe as in the Execration Texts.”241 The story of Sinuhe is written with a working knowledge of Palestine and also, at least in some manner, uses the form of execration. The story was copied and enjoyed for generations and creates another possible link between the magical practice of cursing enemies by means of execration and the region of ancient Palestine.

Ibid., 24. David, Handbook, 212. 241 Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert, “The hero in Retjenu—an execration figure,” JEA 82 (1996): 198-199. 239 240

84

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXECRATION RITUAL As for the execration ritual itself, Donald B. Redford describes the execration ritual as “an act of magical annihilation of persons and things inimical to Pharaoh and Egypt. The rite involved either figuring the individual in terra-cotta, stone or wooden representation, inscribed or uninscribed, or writing the names on pottery vessels. The curse formula was undoubtedly then pronounced and the object broken.”242 There was a direct correlation made between the person being cursed and the item being broken to restore order or the proper relationship in the world. Richard H. Wilkinson connects the Egyptian understanding of how the world of the gods and of humans functioned together to inform this destructive ritual based on sympathetic magic. The ancient Egyptians believed “that by acting out or depicting the situation—either the destruction or thwarting of evil, or the encouragement of good—the desired result would be accomplished.”243 As this applied to dealing with enemies of the Egyptian state through the execration ritual, Egyptian pharaohs, priests and individuals sought to incapacitate their enemies and preserve their current status of dominance by breaking or shattering them magically. Those in authority in Egypt sought to maintain or enhance their positions of strength by keeping extensive lists of government officials in neighboring countries to use in periodic execration rituals. “The most detailed lists of towns and rulers occur on figures of bound enemies that were inscribed with the names of all potential enemies of the king and then ritually destroyed.”244 The Berlin, Brussels, and Cairo finds reported in Pritchard’s ANET lists the names of many rulers and “their strong men, their swift runners, their allies, their associates…who may rebel, who may plot, who may fight, who may talk of fighting, or who may talk of rebelling— in this entire land.”245 Notice that the list of cursed items is incluRedford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 87. Wilkinson, Symbol and Magic, 7. 244 The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt (eds. Stephen Quirke and Jeffrey Spencer; New York: Thames & Hudson, 1992), 198. 245 “The Execration of Asiatic Princes,” translated by J. A. Wilson (ANET, 328-329). 242 243

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

85

sive of the leader and his people, but even those who only discuss opposing the pharaoh and do not actually proceed with the rebellion. The execration ritual served the purpose of cursing the leaders of those lands and the others designated by the texts. While the countries and cities mentioned in the lists help to paint an impressive picture of Egyptian contacts with foreign principalities, the magical rite is concerned with affecting the leaders of those areas. “The interest of those carrying out the rite is clearly directed toward persons, not places; the toponymic content of the texts serves only to identify and locate the individual(s).”246 The form of the execration text is very specific, “The prince of [______], called [_________], born of [________], been born for [_______], and all the ones who are with him, strike.”247 The execration ritual sought to associate the people causing disorder and chaos with the materials used to produce the various pottery and figurines destroyed in the rite itself. Robert Ritner explains the connection between the pottery or figurines and the magic ritual itself: While the use of a figurine as a substitute image is obvious to the modern researcher, the symbolism of pottery as human substitutes would have been no less so to the Egyptian whose creator deity Khnum fashioned mankind on a potter’s wheel…. In magic the concept clearly underlies a Ramesside cursing spell which identifies an enemy as a lump of clay, malleable and helpless in the hand of the magician. The Egyptian association of clay with mankind is also reflected in an episode in Papyrus Vandier, in which the magician molds clay to form a subservient man on earth.” 248

Once the connection was established between the item and the person, the pharaoh, priest, magician, or individual believed Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 89. Andre Vila, “Un Rituel d’Envoûtement au Moyen Empire,” in L’Homme, hier et aujourd’hui: receueil d’études en homage à André Leroi-Gourhan (ed. M. Sauter; Paris: Éditions Cujas, 1973), 627. 248 Ritner, Mechanics, 139. 246 247

86

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

that “to operate on the image was tantamount to operating on the thing itself.”249 As Kurt Sethe explained, the purpose of the execration ritual was the “annihilation of all those hostile powers, the people, and the things.”250 The ancient Egyptians thought that not only would the person suffer here on earth, but the suffering would continue in the afterlife of the person who had been cursed, “This figurine, one tramples it, one pierces it, one cuts it, one throws it into the fire and every gesture has, one can say, its impact in the beyond.”251 To put it more simply, “The real enemy, it was hoped, would share the fate of the image.”252 The destruction of the image shows not just that the enemy has momentarily destroyed maat, but also what the pharaoh and the Egyptian priests want to happen to that person or people for disturbing the proper order of things. There are consequences for opposing pharaoh and Egypt. Erik Hornung has analyzed the ancient Egyptian understanding between the name of a person or object and that person or object: The name provided an identity, and it could also represent a person. This is true particularly of the royal name that stands for the image of the pharaoh on many monuments…. On the chariot cases of Tuthmosis IV, the enemy falls beneath a raised club not held by pharaoh, but by his name. The name of the god, like the name of the king, exuded power that could be enlisted in the service of magic…. Correspondingly, to eradicate a name was to remove all races of existence…. The name furnished the key to the personality; in and through the name it is possible to harm the individual personality. The name is not

Goelet, Book of the Dead, 147. Kurt Sethe, Die Ächtung Feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf Altägyptischen Tongefäßscherbem des Mittleren Reiches (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1926), 19. 251 Jean Capart, introduction to Georges Posener’s Princes et Pays d’Asie et de Nubie: Textes Hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du moyen empire (Brussells: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1940), 6. 252 Fleming and Lothian, Way to Eternity, 126. 249 250

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

87

an abstract, immaterial entity. As something that can be written and expunged, it belongs to the physical world.253

In the execration ritual, the ancient Egyptians sought to eradicate the representatives of disorder and chaos in the world by systematically breaking statues, figurines, and pottery with the names of these representatives on them or by designating uninscribed items as the enemies of the state and ritually destroying them. Those in authority also kept tabs on citizens living in Egypt that were hostile to the pharaoh. The Middle Kingdom execration find at Mirgissa, an Egyptian fort on the Nubian border, contained not only the names of foreign enemies, but also listed “eight Egyptians specifically by name and title.”254 To maintain control in the realm, the Egyptian leadership was willing to curse anyone and everyone who might oppose them. The very purpose of the ritual as John Wilson noted was that the pottery bowls and/or the clay figurines were “ceremonially smashed, as all opposition to pharaoh must be smashed.”255 The Egyptians were well aware that this opposition could come from inside or outside of Egypt. The execration ritual was an attempt to “prevent by magical means plots, conspiracies, and acts of rebellion and warfare that might be perpetrated by anyone on the earth, even Egyptians.”256 After all, the pharaoh himself was responsible for maintaining divine order in Egypt. The varied descriptions offered by Redford for the types of materials and their status as inscribed or uninscribed points to the extraordinary number of finds of execration materials and the dating of those materials in Egypt over each period in Egyptian history. In fact, during the Old Kingdom “nearly every major pyramid temple yields fragments of statues of bound foreigners (Nubians or Asiatics).”257 Robert K. Ritner further explains this: “these cursing 253 Erik Hornung, Idea Into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought (trans. E. Bredeck; Princeton: Timken, 1992), 178. 254 John A. Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 157. 255 Wilson, Culture of Ancient Egypt, 156. 256 Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 89. 257 Ibid., 87.

88

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

formulae inscribed in pots and figurines now number in excess of 1,000 exemplars, and are attested from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period.”258 The rebellion formula inscribed on various execration items covers all “who may rebel, who may plot, who may fight, who may think of fighting, or who may think of rebelling on this entire earth.”259 Along with the concentration on the activity of specific people, there is also mentioned various forces in the world that could cause chaos to the pharaoh’s realm. These forces must be countered by magical means: “Every evil word, every evil speech, every evil slander, every evil thought, every evil plot, every evil fight, every evil quarrel, every evil plan, every evil thing, all evil dreams, and all evil slumber.”260 There is an attempt here to remove all evil from the world. Not just those actions that oppose the State, but also those thoughts that might lead one to act, even thoughts in the night that might disturb one’s sleep ought to be destroyed. Ritner points out that though there was a great “variation in the manner in which the texts may be copied, with sections contained on individual pieces or spread across several pots or figures, so standardized are the texts themselves that restorations of lacunae are fairly easy, both within a single find and—allowing for foreign regional changes—from one find to another.”261 This standardization, or as Sethe described the “regularity in frame…of the same handwriting and same contents points to the involvement of state production and maintenance of the execration texts.”262 Abdel Moneim Abu Bakr and Jurgen Osing noted the writing on the execration containers they discovered as obviously being written by “the same hand with black ink in fluid, distinct hieratic.”263 As Ritner further explains, “To produce such an assemblage would reRitner, Mechanics, 137. Ibid., 140. 260 “Execration of Asiatic Princes,” translated by J. A. Wilson (ANET, 329). 261 Ritner, Mechanics, 141. 262 Sethe, Die Ächtung, 18. 263 Abdel Moneim Abu Bakr and Jurgen Osing, “Ächtungstexte aus dem Alten Reichs,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Kairo, 29 (1973): 98. 258 259

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

89

quire a canonical textual schema, distributed most likely from a single source, a staff of trained scribes, and detailed, current records of the names and parentage of rulers from even small localities well beyond Egypt’s borders. Clearly, only the state could meet these requirements.”264 In other words, these finds are not the work of individuals out to curse some local enemies, but rather this is a national effort. The apparatus for preserving the order of the entire country is involved in this production. This is important when one considers how non-Egyptians might have become familiar with the execration ritual and texts. If vassal nations regularly sent young men to be trained as scribes in Egypt and to work for the pharaoh’s government there, then there is some probability that they would have gained knowledge of or even participated in the production of execration texts for ritual breaking. As Posener explains, “To establish lists of countries and of princes that are so detailed, to maintain them daily while noting the changes in sovereigns, it is necessary to suppose constant relations, continuous trips of the Egyptians into Asia and Asians into Egypt.”265 There is also the possibility that this knowledge of the execration ritual could have been gained from those Egyptians who traveled to foreign lands as representatives of the pharaoh, or as trading partners. Egyptians were diligent in keeping their eye on these neighbors in order to protect themselves. Maintaining accurate lists of names was not enough to insure the proper order of the world for ancient Egypt. The magical power of execration comes not from the lists themselves, or in writing the names of those who cause disorder and chaos, but from the ritual enactment of destruction. According to Ritner, “the execration lists contain nothing which, in itself, could be called magical, serving merely to identify the individual, nation or force with the inscribed pot or figurine. The desired magical effect of these assemblages must thus derive not from the text, but from the ritual to which they were subjected.”266 Otherwise, the lists served

Ritner, Mechanics, 141. Posener, Princes et Pays, 45. 266 Ritner, Mechanics, 142. 264 265

90

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

merely as a catalogue of local authorities. The breaking of the items released the magical curse. With the execration ritual itself, the idea was not just to frighten the enemy, but to demolish them. The ritual was violent, destructive and included some form of ritual sacrifice, sometimes humans as at Mirgissa, or perhaps an animal sacrifice like in the breaking of the red jars ceremony which Ritner described as being designed to inflict terror on their enemies through their violent annihilation: The aggressive nature of the ritual is reinforced by the simultaneous butchering of a bull in the slaughterhouse of the pyramid temple. The breaking of the vessels corresponds to the sectioning of the bull, and in subsequent libation, the strewn water was perhaps equated with the animal’s blood. Both bull and pit (where the execration items were to be buried) are substitute figures for the enemy, repulsed and dismembered. The hostile overtones of the ritual are at once evident in the specified color of the pottery itself…. The customary color of demonic figures (Seth, Apophis, etc.) in wax or clay, red is also the preferred color for ink used to write the names of such demons and enemies.267

As an example of the remains of an execration site, the Mirgissa find of materials on the Egyptian border with Nubia was filled with many items including red pots with writing and even more red pots with no writing. For every pot with writing, there were ten to twenty pots without writing on them. “The proponderance of uninscribed vessels should not be dismissed as simply ‘filler,’ for it is their presence which firmly links the execration rite with the ‘breaking of red pots’ performed in funeral and temple ceremony.”268 It would seem that the number of uninscribed potsherds affirms Ritner’s emphasis on the magical nature of the ritual itself as being significant and not merely the writing. If the writing were the only important feature in the execration of one’s enemies, it would be necessary to inscribe each and every pot or figurine to ensure the 267 268

Ibid., 146-147. Ibid., 159.

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

91

success of the ritual cursing and to ensure the destruction of the enemy. However, since the bulk of the find is uninscribed, it supports the idea that the ritual enactment of the breaking of the pots and/or figures supplies the necessary force to enact the cursing. The large deposit of execration materials unearthed at Mirgissa was inspired by the idea that “any man of any tribe of any nation is considered dangerous.”269 Toward this end it is believed that the vases broken in the execration ritual were actually made at the fortress and that there was a “hand-crafted complex with its (pottery) wheels and its ovens” specifically used to manufacture the execration materials.270 As to the ritual itself, the procession beginning the ritual started by carrying all the clay objects, whether inscribed or not, to the place where they would be broken and buried. According to Vila, the items had been molded in clay before the ceremony, “for they were already hardened when they were cast into the deposit.”271 This is deduced from the fact that the items would not break or shatter unless they were already hardened. Other items necessary to complete the ritual were “a striker to break the pottery, a piece of flint, some wax and some ochre.”272 One can imagine that the flint was to start a fire to incinerate all the items in the burial pit, and that the wax and ochre were used to make figurines that were burned in the fire. The last item in the procession as described by Vila was a live prisoner to be sacrificed. The archaeologist knew the prisoner was living at the time of the ceremony because of the disorderly aspect of his remains in the grave. The body of the prisoner was thrown into the grave before rigidity had set in. In other words, the body was buried shortly “after the sacrifice.”273 Once the execration pit was reached, “One or several officials proceeded to break the pottery and to throw the clay figurines.”274 Vila, “Un Rituel,” 627. Ibid., 634 271 Ibid., 635. 272 Ibid. 273 Vila, “Un Rituel,” 635. 274 Ibid. 269 270

92

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Vila hypothesizes by the number of figurines discovered there, both inscribed and uninscribed, that seven batches of clay figures were ritually shattered. “At apparently uniform intervals, clay figurines are cast” into the pit by the priests, forming distinctive layers of similar materials.275 According to Vila each batch of execration material was accompanied by part of the sacrifice. For this particular execration find the sacrifice included a human being. Accompanying the usual execration materials made of clay were some human body parts: a head or human limb and a human eye—representing the Egyptian magical eye. The sacrifice also included a domesticated animal (a cow or perhaps a dog) and a non-domesticated animal like a reptile, bird or fish. The execration site also included six or seven small boats made out of papyrus or reeds as well as twelve ducks or more showing the birds in flight with beak widely open. While those items were easy to identify, the site also included some oddly shaped items including: twenty-five to thirty lentil shaped objects; a conical, cylindrical object; and a flat, semi-circular object that had been broken into two parts with parallel incisions on it. A clay copy of a polished ax was discovered buried in the center layer of the find, along with a small model of construction bricks that were also placed in the deposit. Vila interpreted the several layers of ashes within the deposit to indicate a point in the ritual where wax figurines were incinerated.276 This wide variety of materials pointed to an elaborate ceremony in which many items were ritually shattered, destroyed, or dismembered in order to curse the opponents of maat in the area and in the world at large. The Mirgissa deposit is the only execration find to date that actually has a human sacrifice associated with it. Miroslav Verner noted that the execration rite had been practiced in Egypt since the ancient period in which “sacrificed animals were identified with the hostile forces. In the rite, nevertheless, the real sacrifice could be replaced by statuettes or by inscribed vases in the name of the enemies to destroy.”277 Obviously, those conducting the rite at Ibid. Vila, “Un Rituel,” 635-637. 277 Verner, “Les Statuettes,” 145. 275 276

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

93

Migissa felt the need for a real human sacrifice and also to include real animal sacrifices. Ritner has analyzed the Mirgissa deposit in an attempt to explain the various findings there and to further explain the ritual actions associated with the execration materials. He notes that the burial of the items in the sand related to “the intentional mutilation of potentially threatening images (snakes, lions, men, etc.) found on occasion in burial chambers may be accomplished by carving the sign in halves with grains of sand between them: effectively preventing their reunification…the rendering of magical dismemberment.”278 The ritual burning of the items was related to the Apophis ritual. The individual was instructed to burn wax figures of their enemies. As Ritner stated, “The ritual burning of such figures, as a cultic analog to executions on earth and in the underworld, is a commonplace of temple practice.”279 To further show the total annihilation of those who oppose Egypt, not only are there items to be shattered, but also burned in an attempt to ward off an evil against the pharaoh and his loyal subjects. With regard to the dismembered limbs, the domesticated animals and the boats discovered at Mirgissa, Ritner explained the significance of those objects as constituting: the destruction of the enemy himself (head, torso, foot and blinded eye), his herd (cow), and his methods of passing by the fortress (foot, boats). The resultant destructions correspond precisely to the very purpose of the Nubian fortresses as expressed by Sesotris III: ‘to prevent any Nubian from passing downstream, or overland or by boat, (also) any herds of Nubians.’280

Ritner also noted elsewhere that birds represented Egyptians: “Developing simultaneously with the motif of the bound prisoner, the theme of the subservient Egyptian population, symbolized as birds, had been used in conjunction with the former (the bound prisoner motif) in the decoration of throne, dais, and statue Ritner, Mechanics, 157. Ibid., 157-158. 280 Ibid., 160. 278 279

94

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

bases.”281 Perhaps the presence of twelve ducks in the Mirgissa deposit was meant to be symbolic of the Egyptians being cursed. Disturbances to the proper order of things could come from outside the kingdom, or even from within. Any evil action or actor was to be cursed whether Egyptian or foreign. An execration find at the location of an ancient Egyptian military establishment indicates that this rite was at least sometimes performed in conjunction with military activity, not in place of it. Just as ancient Egyptians thought that “medicines were made even more efficacious when the doctor recited magical formulae over them during preparation or when the patient swallowed them,” so too the ancient Egyptians thought that the magic of the execration ritual aided the preservation of their way of life by defending their borders in conjunction with military activity, not in place of it.282 Since no single deposit or archaeological discovery of execration materials is exactly the same, and no written record of the ritual itself has been discovered to date, one can only speak of the nature of the ritual in very general terms. The lack of an explanation of the ritual in the literature, or explicit instructions for it should not be viewed as a great surprise based on the ancient Egyptian concepts of the power of images and myths. The ancient Egyptians were wary of putting negative images or ideas in writing or in their artwork because they felt the images had power in and of themselves. As Geraldine Pinch noted, “vulnerability was largely taboo in Egyptian art. The power of words and images was greatly increased when they were carved in stone to last for eternity. A terrible event, such as the murder of the god Osiris, was too dangerous to show. Portraying even a temporary triumph for the forces of evil or chaos might empower them to act in the world.”283 Even negative hieroglyphs, if they were written at all, were often recorded cut in half with sand separating the parts of the negative image in an attempt to thwart the possibility of affecting the tomb owner himself, and not just the enemy of maat.284 The Ibid., 127. David, Egyptian Magic, xiii. 283 Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 18. 284 Ritner, Mechanics, 157. 281 282

EGYPTIAN MAGIC AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

95

connection between art and life or between the item cursed and the person was considered too direct in ancient Egypt to be taken lightly.

V. CONCLUSION Based on what has been written describing the execration ritual and from the discoveries of execration materials to date, one can see four common elements in each ritual performance. First, the use of images or models that represented Egypt’s enemies are common in ritual finds of execration materials. Most often it seems that the images were made of clay or wax because they were easy materials to manipulate and because they were readily available substances. Second, the priest performing the rite then proceeded to break the items in an effort to break the enemies of Egypt on a national or international level. This ritual breaking could also be executed on behalf of an individual, whether living or dead, to deflect any potential threat against him/her. These threats could come in the form of a person, such as the specific leaders named in the execration materials analyzed by Sethe and Posener, or any attitude or action that would upset the natural order known by ancient Egyptians as maat—“justice, truth and harmony.”285 Third, while breaking the execration materials, a sacrifice was offered either to ensure the action of the gods on behalf of the one making the offering, or as a further destruction of the enemy’s property or wealth. This sacrifice was meant to further erode any power the enemy or person to be cursed might possess in this world or with the gods. And fourth, the ritual items were then burned and buried, often in sand, to further destroy them and to ensure that the pieces would never be reunited. This served as a further sign that the intended destruction was permanent and of an eternal nature. The execration rite was practiced throughout ancient Egypt’s long history. More modern post-biblical examples have also been discovered in Coptic writings:

285

Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 9.

96

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 An Arabic Coptic manuscript connected the execration ritual to Psalms 48, 55, 78, 96 and 103 telling the magician to write that psalm on different items to begin or as part of an execration ritual. Psalm 48 on a potsherd, Ps 55 on a sheet of copper, Ps 78 written with the blood of a Nile catfish on a white piece of paper, Ps 96 written on a piece of wax of a person and his mother, and Ps 103 writing the names of the enemies of frogs equal to the number of frogs putting them in the bound prisoner position and reciting the psalm seven times over them.286

Hansen goes on to state, “The role of Jewish magicians as receptors and transmitters of ancient magical practice therefore should not be underestimated. The number of texts of love magic from the Geniza collection contain similar, or even identical techniques to those found in the execration texts in Egyptian, Coptic, Greek and Arabic.”287 Having thus investigated the Egyptian execration process and its long history of use in and around ancient Egypt and the ancient Near East, I propose that one can find biblical examples of the execration ritual in use in ancient Israel in the texts of Jer 19 and Exod 32. These passages would need to include acts consistent with the execration ritual in which an item is equated with an enemy or opponent, that item is broken, some type of sacrifice was offered, and finally, an action is taken to ensure that the broken items will remain in a state of disrepair to continue the effect of the curse indefinitely.

Nicole B. Hansen, “Ancient Execration Magic in Coptic and Islamic Egypt,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (eds. Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 432. 287 Ibid., 442. 286

CHAPTER 3: STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19 I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE When one begins to study the book of Jeremiah one quickly realizes the diversity of opinions about the background, interpretation, and meaning of each passage. It seems as if there are almost as many explanations for the shape of the book as there are commentaries and commentators. As J. Gordon McConville noted, “many lose sight, gratuitously in my view, of the prophet behind the message. There is an obverse of this, however, namely that those who seek the man behind the book may be diverted by an overly ‘biographical’ method from doing justice to the book as a ‘book’, that is, as a sustained theological reflection.”288 In 1986 three major commentaries were published presenting the divergent thoughts alluded to by McConville about the nature of the text and hence, the historical person of Jeremiah. The commentaries of Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, and William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah help to present the opposite ends of the spectrum in Jeremiah studies.289

J. Gordon McConville, “Jeremiah: Prophet and Book,” TynBul 42(1991): 86. 289 Robert Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); and William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah in Two Volumes, Volume 1: Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986). 288

97

98

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Robert Carroll’s focus on a thorough dissection of the text seems to “lose sight” as McConville warned of the Jeremiah of history. While William L. Holladay’s historical reading of almost every passage seems to “lose sight” of the many layers represented in the text of the Book of Jeremiah. William McKane, as will be demonstrated below, seems closer to Carroll in his understanding of the text, but often concludes his thoughts with a different interpretation than either Carroll or Holladay, especially with regard to Jer 19. These commentators will be discussed first and foremost in this review of the Jeremiah scholarly literature not only because their major commentaries came out in the same year, but also because they represent such diversity of thought and methodology with regard to working with the same text.290 Their comments will be discussed first, followed by thoughts from Carolyn Sharp’s investigation of the book of Jeremiah that builds on the work of the previous scholars like Carroll, Holladay, and McKane while also pointing in a new direction.291 Following Sharp’s thoughts about the current status of exegetical work on the book of Jeremiah as whole, the work of other major commentators on the text of Jer 19 will be reported and analyzed. A. Robert Carroll Carroll represents those commentators who believe that the book of Jeremiah is largely the work of writers and editors living after the historical time period of Jeremiah the prophet and that the voice of the historical figure of Jeremiah is almost impossible to hear among the many voices of differing later texts. Carroll holds this view in part because of the diversity of thought, sometimes contradictory, In comparing biblical studies over any given period of time, one notices the influence of the dominant philosophy of that time period on the exegesis and interpretation of the biblical text at hand. However, since these three major commentaries appeared in the same year, it helps to heighten the different conclusions reached by varying approaches to the text itself by modern interpreters all living in the same age and basically aware of the same currents of thought in biblical studies. 291 Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in Deutero-Jeremanic Prose (OTS; New York: T & T Clark, 2003). 290

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

99

presented in the book. After explaining his division of the text into four major blocks of material Carroll says: It is difficult…to reconcile the figure of Jeremiah in these parts (except perhaps for the editorial overlaps) as speaker of the disparate poems and as actor in the narratives or preacher of the sermons. Granted that the parts are not entirely devoid of common features or occasional overlaps (e.g., the magical or symbolic genre), but these features reflect editorial activity rather than substantive elements of a unified presentation unfabricated by editing.292

Carroll explains further the problem of finding the historical Jeremiah in and among the various passages of the Book of Jeremiah noting, “The one who confronts society head on in the temple precincts in ch. 26 and overcomes severe opposition is the one who, in ch. 36, hides from similar social strata.”293 While others might see this as a real sign of the prophet’s humanity, at some points in his life feeling stronger and willing to confront others, and yet at other points feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly endless task at hand, Carroll sees this as evidence that the biblical text of the book of Jeremiah is best read as “attributed to the different strands and levels of edited material collected together to make the book of Jeremiah.”294 Carroll supports his reading of the book of Jeremiah in contrast to a more historical and biographical interpretation which asks entirely too much of the text and of a modern audience: such an approach depends entirely upon the non-scholarly approach of taking the text at face value, including the secondary editorial material and translating it from conventional expres-

Robert P. Carroll, “Dismantling the Book of Jeremiah and Deconstructing the Prophet,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 40; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 294. 293 Carroll, “Dismantling,” 295. 294 Ibid. 292

100

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 sions into historical and factual propositions!…Nothing must be assumed without some evidence for it!295

One obvious weakness with this approach by Carroll is that it forgets that the text is the main, if not the only, source of information available to the reader with regard to Jeremiah. Surely there must be some realization when different scholars read the same text and point to different editorial problems within the text, or envision different editorial activity behind the present version of the text that these different conclusions point to the nature and importance of the scholar’s own presuppositions. As Philip J. King states after discussing Holladay’s and Carroll’s differing methodologies, “Distinguishing between authentic sayings and later interpolations is partly subjective.”296 The differing conclusions of scholars to the text of Jeremiah, especially with regard to the editorial activity, seems in large part a by-product of the different methodologies they brought to the reading. One can be made aware of the importance of these differences by comparing their own interpretations with the work of others. B. William L. Holladay One can see a very different approach taken to the study of the book of Jeremiah by William L. Holladay in his two volume Hermeneia commentary and other writings. As opposed to Carroll, who sees impenetrable layers of editorial material between the historical prophet Jeremiah and the biblical text, Holladay states that Jeremiah’s “own words—mainly in the form of ‘oracles,’ short poetic units announcing God’s judgment or restoration, but some sermons as well—appear in chs. 2-23, 30-31, and 46-51.”297 Holladay states with confidence, “I have become convinced that the data for a reconstruction of the chronology of Jeremiah’s career, and for the establishment of fairly secure settings for his words and actions, Ibid., 299. Philip J. King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 9. 297 William L. Holladay, Jeremiah: A Fresh Reading (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1990), 1. 295 296

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

101

are attainable.”298 Carroll and Holladay are reading the same biblical text and coming up with opposite conclusions as to what can be gleaned about the historical Jeremiah from it. Robert Carroll sees signs of editorial layering due to the similarity between parts of the book of Jeremiah and the book of Deuteronomy or other Deuteronomic writings. Holladay shows the difference in his interpretation of the text by offering a biographical explanation from the life of the prophet for this similarity of style and content between portions of the book of Jeremiah and the book of Deuteronomy. Now I assume that the injunction of Deuteronomy 31:913 was taken seriously, that the form which Deuteronomy took in those days was recited every seven years at the Feast of Booth (Tabernacles)…. If the proclamation of Deuteronomy was initially in 622, then the subsequent readings would have taken place in the autumn of 615, 608, 601, 594, and 587. It is my proposal that these occasions offer a chronological structure for the career of Jeremiah, and most specifically that several of the parade examples of Deuteronomistic prose in the book are Jeremiah’s various counterproclamations at those times when Deuteronomy was recited.299

It is this kind of “assumption” by Holladay that separates his exegetical work from Carroll and others. Carroll implores the reader to take nothing of the text at “face value,” whereas Holladay is more than willing to attach the face of Jeremiah to large portions of the text. While one wonders if the work of Carroll goes too far in removing the text from the life of the prophet, surely Holladay’s historical/biographical approach goes too far in the other direction. Indeed, the lack of historical evidence to support the periodic reading of Deuteronomy in the Temple, especially after the death of the reforming King Josiah and during the reigns of his seemingly idolatrous sons, goes too far in an attempt to explain the correlation between the book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomic writings in 298 299

Ibid. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 1-2.

102

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

the HB. Even the priests who would have been following the injunction to read the text and lead the reform of the society according to Holladay, are lumped in with the rest of society in a negative fashion in Jeremiah’s call. “And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests, and the people of the land” (1:18). This leads one away from the idea that the priests of Jeremiah’s time were actually helping to carry out some kind of reform by closely following the injunctions written in Deuteronomy. C. William McKane William McKane’s International Critical Commentary was also published in 1986 and presents yet another style of interpreting the text of the book of Jeremiah. McKane is much closer to Carroll in methodology. McKane’s explanation of the prose sections of the Book of Jeremiah provides a clue to his analysis of the historical development of the entire book: to seek to relate the prose to the concerns of the Jeremianic corpus is an admirable objective, but to attempt to further locate it in the time of the prophet Jeremiah and to suppose that the prose is, for the most part, his prose, is a recipe for a misunderstanding of how it functions in the book. We should assume, rather, that our extant book of Jeremiah is the product of a complicated, literary history, and that the process by which it arrived at its present shape operated over a long period. The prose of Jeremiah is bound up with these processes. We should think of the extant book as text and commentary and understand the prose as exegesis operating on a nucleus of material which is sometimes poetry, although in chapter 19 it is prose.300

McKane seems willing to go along with the idea that layers of the text, in this case prose sections, come from the same era or at least function in the same way to link by subject matter different parts of 300

McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 1:457.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

103

the book, but is unwilling to date those layers as early as the life of the prophet. One cannot help but to admire his caution with regard to dating all the prose sections to the life of the prophet Jeremiah in light of Holladay’s approach to the text and the historical problems incumbent with that approach cited above. McKane is closer on the spectrum of analysis to the work of Carroll, but as will be demonstrated below, comes to different conclusions than Carroll with regard to the action of Jer 19. As to the question of whether or not one can uncover the historical Jeremiah in the biblical book of Jeremiah at all—specifically in ch. 19, McKane prefers to concentrate on the dissection of the text at hand. “Does the nucleus of symbolic action in ch. 19 in fact take us into the historical context of Jeremiah’s ministry? Does it give us a historical account of symbolic action carried out by the prophet Jeremiah? The answer should probably be affirmative.”301 The main focus of McKane’s work is textual. Of the seventeen pages devoted to his analysis of ch. 19, all but the last two concentrate on his comparison of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) with other ancient versions and a philological analysis of the chapter to find layers in the development of the text. The final two pages comprise his comments on the theological nature of the prophetic action reported in ch. 19. While all modern commentators spend some energy and time comparing ancient text traditions and making suggestions, one has to appreciate the thorough and meticulously deliberate style of McKane in this regard. This painstaking style separates McKane from other commentators and lends value to his work in helping to establish a reliable text from which to work. D. Carolyn Sharp Carolyn Sharp is representative of current Jeremiah studies that wants to lead interpreters away from an overly biographical approach, or from an approach that focuses on the complexity of the traditions shaping the canonical text to the extent that there is lack of appreciation for the book of Jeremiah as a whole. While other 301

McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 1:457.

104

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

interpreters have placed the poetry together as more original to the prophet, they have viewed the prose sections as a hap-hazard collection of material and therefore of secondary importance. Sharp explains that her approach to the book of Jeremiah demonstrates “that two well-defined trajectories are recoverable within the prose of Jeremiah, trajectories that explain a significant number of the theological and literary tensions in the material.”302 Instead of viewing the prose sections as second-class citizens, Sharp sees much value towards understanding the book of Jeremiah through focusing exegetical attention there. The two trajectories that inform much of Sharp’s study of Jeremiah are the power groups represented in the exilic and postexilic time periods fighting to establish themselves as the new, legitimate Israel. One of the dominant voices heard in the text of Jeremiah is a “Babylonian gôlâ group” that wanted to build a “substantial cultic and political power base in Babylonia over time, with the apparent expectation of coming back into power in Judah as the rightful heirs of the Davidic line under a Davidic king if not Jehoiachin himself.”303 From her reading of the text, Sharp thinks that this had the last or most recent hand in editing the book of Jeremiah as it currently exists. To meet their agenda, the proBabylon group needed to disenfranchise those who had remained in Judah and those who had fled to Egypt. This would leave the pro-Babylonian group as the true Israel. Sharp also distinguishes a second trajectory in the text of Jeremiah. According to Sharp, these voices “expect no restoration and offer no such legitimation of those exiled to Babylon in 597: the coming punishment of Judah and Jerusalem would be not only irrevocable but final…”304 The voice of this group cries out to the readers of Jeremiah that there is no hope for any future remnant and that the monarchy, as opposed to being restored to rule again, is of little interest. From this perspective, when there is no possibility for the restoration of the kingdom, concern for the king seems like a waste of time. Sharp, 164. Ibid., 162. 304 Ibid., 162. 302 303

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

105

The advantage for Sharp in analyzing the text from the perspective of these two competing trajectories is avoiding the assignment to a Deuteronomic editor passages that are theological diverse.305 If Sharp is correct in her understanding of the text, then her approach is more true to the chaotic situation in which the book of Jeremiah took shape for ancient Israelite society, or what was left of it. Rather than white-washing the community as if they spoke with one voice, Sharp highlights the shattered nature of the society caused by the exile of Judah. “The deportation of 597 and the fall of Jerusalem fragmented the people of Israel in ways that Nebuchadnezzar could never have imagined. The horrific events of the early sixth century B.C.E. had profound ramifications for…visions of Israel’s past and Israel’s future.”306 Sharp’s approach seems true to live when compared with the abrupt changes to many facets of U.S. society in response to the 9/11 tragedy. While whole segments of the U.S. population were not deported like in ancient Israel, the tragedy has still left its mark on modern society. One can only imagine the greater impact on a group of people if all or most of their homes and employment were lost, all the while being forced to evacuate the geography with which you were familiar. Finally, Sharp reminds readers and interpreters of the book of Jeremiah that thoughts of the book as whole should be kept in tension with its particular parts to arrive at any kind of true understanding. “The final form of the book of Jeremiah must be read with some meaningful sense of the whole if the book is to make any sense theologically…no literary or theological sense of the whole should be arrived at through an overwriting or eclipsing of the richness—and the difficulty—of the distinct parts that comprise this complex book.”307 Sharp argues that to understate the complexity of the book is to miss hearing all of the voices present in Israelite society during its composition. At this same time, one can concentrate so heavily on the complexity of the text that the reader/interpreter fails to see the book as authoritative. Sharp Ibid., 157. Ibid., 166. 307 Ibid. 305 306

106

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

makes no apologies for the difficulty inherent in this kind of balancing act for any reader of the book of Jeremiah. However, she maintains that it is necessary so as not to miss seeing the book of Jeremiah as a true reflection of the chaos and upheaval caused by the exile.308

II. EXEGESIS OF JEREMIAH 19 BY CARROLL, MCKANE, AND HOLLADAY Much of the discussion of modern commentators on Jer 19 centers around the nature of the chapter as one entire piece or as two stories edited together. Many commentators, like Carroll and McKane, separate either all or parts of verses 1-2, 10-11, and 14-15 as being the earliest layer of writing in ch. 19. These verses describe the action of the prophet Jeremiah breaking a flask outside the city of Jerusalem. Verses 3-9 are considered to be later additions to the original report of a symbolic action by the prophet in which a place called Tophet, and those using it as a site of child sacrifice, are condemned. As Carroll explains, “The combination of two stories (magical act with flask and denunciation of fire-cult) in ch. 19 makes it difficult to follow unless the two are separated (i.e. 1, 2a, 10, 11a, 14, 15 and 2b-9, 11b-13).”309 The reason McKane also

Sharp states that “no synchronic reading that harmonizes the significant ideological tensions within the book will be able to illuminate its meaning without drastic skewing of at least some of the texts under consideration,” 167. It is unfortunate that Sharp’s book, while citing many examples from Jeremiah, never interprets or comments on Jer 19 specifically. 309 Carroll, Jeremiah, 384. Many other scholars agree with Carroll’s and McKane’s conclusions that a brief description of a symbolic action has been edited and inserted with later material. Included in this group are: Lawrence Boadt, Jeremiah 1-25 (OT Message 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982), 145; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1965), 131; Guy P. Couturier, “Jeremiah,” NJBC (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990), 282; Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC 26; Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 256; Elmer A. Leslie, Jeremiah: Chronologically Arranged, Translated, and Interpreted (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), 175-76; and Ernest W. 308

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

107

comes to the conclusion that ch. 19 is composed of two different strata can be explained by the separation of the verses that describe the pottery flask. McKane notes: The hiatus between the command to acquire a bqbq (v 1) and the command to break it (v 10) is a peculiar and unnatural feature in the chapter as it is now organized…. It is a reasonable assumption that a subsequent process of elaboration and expansion has broken an immediate and original connection between vv 1, 2 and 10.310

Holladay disagrees with this explanation. As mentioned earlier, Holladay looks to the reading of the scroll of Deuteronomy every seven years in the Temple to explain the similarities in vocabulary and style to parts of Jeremiah. For Holladay, these portions of the text are not later additions or another layer in the text, but rather belong to Jeremiah as a response to the Temple reading. The words and ideas of Deuteronomy apparently so filled the life of the prophet Jeremiah that he expressed himself using Deuteronomic terminology and sought to bring God’s message to the people in response to the ideas of the Deuteronomic reading. In some way it would make sense, that if the reading did actually occur every seven years, then not only would the reading have affected Jeremiah, but it would also have greatly informed and shaped his audience, thus making the use of Deuteronomic language and ideas an easy way to communicate with them theologically. Holladay explains the argument for dividing the passage into layers of an original section to which later concerns and Deuteronomic language have been added, but wants to hang on to the integrity of the passage because of the word play present in the verses: With regard to vv 1-13, a consensus is to be found among almost all commentators…that within these verses only vv 1-2a

Nicholson, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 162-63. 310 McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 1:448.

108

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 and 10-11a are original.… This consensus is satisfying to the theory of a Deuteronomic redaction, since the material proposed as secondary appears to conform to that style. It is also satisfying to the form critic, who sees v 10 in this way brought next to vv 1-2a, so that the presumed original passage offers commands for a symbolic act which match the form of 13:111.311

To his credit, Holladay demonstrates knowledge of others’ arguments in analyzing the text. He also explains his main reason for not siding with their conclusions. “The principal difficulty with this proposal is that it relegates to a redactor the word-play between ‘flask’ (vv 1,10) and ‘I shall annul’ in v 7.… But this will not do: it is unlikely that a redactor would shape a word-play, and the wordplay seems built into the narrative.”312 However, Holladay does not explain why it is “unlikely” that a redactor would add word play to a text. If a redactor is willing to add to the text of the pericope to begin with, then surely it is also possible that the person might also seek to add writing that interacted with the wording of the text already present. As the focus of this book is the link between the symbolic activity of breaking the pottery mentioned in ch. 19 of the book of Jeremiah and the Egyptian execration ritual described in the previous chapter, the proposals of the various commentators and commentaries with regard to the nature and composition of the book Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 536. Ibid. Also agreeing with Holladay in his assessment that the report of the symbolic action is a single unit is Douglas Rawlinson Jones, Jeremiah (NCBC; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Co., and London: Marshall Pickering/Harper Collins, 1992), 265. Interestingly, a sort of middle ground is taken by J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980), 447. Thompson reports the textual argument and states, “Having raised these questions we do not necessarily rule out the possibility that there may have been an original brief account of the incident expanded by material from another context and delivered on another occasion…when all has been said there would seem to be good reason to regard 19:1-20:6 as a unified account of an incident in Jeremiah’s life in which he delivered a message appropriate to the occasion.” 311 312

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

109

of Jeremiah is a secondary concern. As has been shown earlier, the Egyptian practice of the execration ritual lasted almost throughout the entire history of Egypt as a political and military power in the ancient Near East. While the dating of passages and editing of material sheds light on the book of Jeremiah and its composition, the time period covering the composition of the book of Jeremiah— whether in large part his own words or the work of later editors— would fall during the time in which Egyptians were performing the execration ritual.313 As such, this portion of the book will attempt to better elucidate the text of Jer 19 and the actions described therein as they relate to the Egyptian execration ritual and the symbolic actions of the prophets without necessarily advocating one particular theory of composition and editing. Focusing on the symbolic action of the prophet, Holladay sees a connection between the action in ch. 19 of the book of Jeremiah and the execration ritual of ancient Egypt.“The breaking of a pottery vessel as a symbol of the destruction of a people is widespread (compare the expression in Ps 2:9); specifically one thinks of the Egyptian ritual of coronation and jubilee festivals, wherein the king smashes pottery vessels on which the names of his enemies have been inscribed.”314 Although there is no inscription on the pottery mentioned in Jer 19, the ritual action is the same as in the Egyptian ceremony—identifying a group of people to be cursed with an item to be broken and then breaking that item to curse those people. Although the king does not participate in the ritual as the pharaoh would have during the coronation or jubilee festivals, surely this is This is also true of the Exod 32 passage discussed in the next chapter. Scholars disagree as to the amount of editorial work in the chapter and variously assign parts of the text to sources J, E, and D as with Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 271. However, Richard J. Clifford, “Exodus,” p. 45 in the NJBC attributes all of Exod 32 to the E source. Any of the four classic pentateuchal sources J, E, D, or P would date to a time in Egypt when execration rituals were being performed. So for the purposes of this book, the dating of the text is not as essential for a cultural borrowing to have occurred as would be necessary if the Egyptians had only practiced the execration ritual during an isolated period of their history. 314 Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 541. 313

110

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

because the king is part of the problem. According to the biblical passage the king has allowed the people to carry on sacrifices to a foreign god without opposition from the royal court. William McKane also discusses the magical nature of this symbolic action in Jer 19. He considers whether or not a symbolic action of a biblical prophet has any connection to a magical act if it is commanded by God. McKane states, “It is not simply that the prophet intends by the symbolism to convey a message to his audience. More than that, he makes inevitable the eventuation of what is symbolized…. If the prophet did indeed act with magical intention, his action is no less magical because it was commanded by Yahweh.”315 In agreement with McKane’s analysis, it is impossible to know the mind of Jeremiah or any other biblical prophet unless they expressly state their intentions—magical or otherwise in the text. Chapter 19 makes no mention of magic or any thought on Jeremiah’s part that his action will bring about an unexplainable demise of Jerusalem and Judah like a plague from the book of Exodus. Instead, the text reports that the people will “fall by the sword of their enemies,” and “eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters,” and “the flesh of his neighbor in the siege” (Jer 19:7, 9). As opposed to God working in some mysterious and awesome manner as reported in the biblical stories of the plagues of Egypt, Jer 19 is straightforward in its statement that God will use the enemies of Jerusalem and Judah, as well as the desire to stay alive even at the expense of others, to bring about the country’s demise. Being overcome by enemies does not sound magical in the least. However, the action reported by Jeremiah in breaking the flask to symbolize the breaking of the people and Jerusalem does have many similarities with the actions of Egyptian pharaohs and priests. The Egyptian intention to magically control their surroundings for the preservation of Egypt and for their own benefit as well, by breaking pottery that symbolized their enemies is similar in purpose and form. McKane cautions modern readers and commentators about the difficulties involved in interpreting the symbolic actions of the 315

McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 1:458.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

111

biblical prophets like Jeremiah. One can see this difficulty in discussing magic and its relation to religion as McKane goes on further to explain the relationship between the ideas of magic and the HB prophets. Despite his earlier comments suggesting a connection between the actions of the biblical prophets and the rituals and ceremonies in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, McKane clarifies: Those who assert that they regarded their words and actions as having a quasi-magical power to create the future events to which these referred may be right; those who assume that the prophets are nearer to our modernity in their appreciation of the functions of language and symbolic action are possibly mistaken…. We are not, however, logically compelled to adopt this view of the canonical prophets…. It is a view which shifts the center of significance from the semantic content of prophetic words to an extra-semantic aspect of wonder-working power…. It is the quality and profundity of the prophetic utterance, its authentic humanity, its piercing vision of the truth, its exceptional discernment and the anguish with which it is touched…which enable it to be a word of God. It is this and not a power of incantation or sympathetic magic which lends it endurance and enables it to live and be meaningful in our times.316

Perhaps McKane is right in that it is not the power or “magic” of the prophetic word that makes them relevant to our world, but that doesn’t mean that the prophets were relevant in their own world in the same way. Surely it was more than what they said that gave them authority before their peers and more than just the content of their message that caused people to remember their words 316 McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 1:459. One sees in the comments from McKane the attitude discussed in chapter one with regard to the differences between magic and religion. Rather than seeing them as cultural influences on a continuum that are related and connected to one another. McKane implies that magic and religion are competing forces in the world with religion being acceptable and magic being unacceptable.

112

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

and to preserve them for the future. The prophet’s words were preserved by others because they connected those words and actions with what actually transpired in history in some causal fashion. Just as McKane pointed to the differences between our world and Jeremiah’s, surely there was also a difference in the way those words were perceived by the prophet’s audience.317 As opposed to McKane, Carroll favorably compares the symbolic action of the prophet with a more magical worldview. “The breaking of the ceramic object is the destruction of the city and its people…so the action represents and anticipates the permanent destruction of the city. As the response in 20:2 indicates, this action is recognized for the terrible deed it is—the veritable destruction of city and people.”318 Carroll makes the point that the audience hearing or seeing the symbolic act of the prophet reacts strongly to its inherent message. “It is an action from the world of magic where the act itself constitutes what it symbolizes and the observers are there as witnesses of its occurrence.”319 Indeed, the lead temple security officer Pashhur imprisons the prophet for what he has done. From the audience’s reaction, one can surmise that the action has some power that they recognize and try to counteract by imprisoning Jeremiah. This concentration on the audience’s reaction to the prophetic act in the text of Jer 19 is different than McKane’s focus on the theological implications of assigning the actions of the prophet to a magical worldview. McKane is more concerned with maintaining a kind of purity, or anti-magical stance with regard to biblical orthodoxy, or at least an anti-magical approach to the book of Jeremiah and the prophets. On the other hand, Carroll’s interpretation flows from the book of Jeremiah itself and the actions of the prophet and response of the audience as recorded in that book. Because of this difference, Carroll’s interpretation is more easily defensible with 317 After all, when God calls Moses to lead the people, Moses is given signs to perform in order to confirm or announce his office to the people. If the signs were unimportant to the people then, God could have just given Moses a rousing speech or impassioned plea to win the people over. 318 Carroll, Jeremiah, 386. 319 Ibid., 386-87.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

113

regard to the book of Jeremiah because it is based on the information given to the modern reader from the text itself. One can see in the three major commentaries of Carroll, Holladay, and McKane the main point of contention in the text of Jer 19 as to whether the chapter is one solid unit, or composed of at least two layers of material dating from different time periods. Carroll and McKane represent those modern scholars who view the text of Jeremiah as a veritable fabric, conflated from strands of material woven together. On the other hand, Holladay takes a more biographical view of the text as more historical in nature and developed around a large core of material that is traceable and dateable to the time of Jeremiah himself. Just as these modern authors’ analyses of the text itself are different, so are their understandings of the role and function of the action of the prophet in ch. 19. The question remains whether this action is to be perceived as sympathetic magic, like magic, or something totally different. There is also a question about how Jeremiah’s audience perceived this activity as somehow magically putting the destruction of the city into motion or not. Having discussed Carroll, Holladay and McKane’s answers to these questions, this book will now review the work of other scholars’ interpretations of the text as well.

III. JEREMIAH, THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH, AND POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS TO EGYPT In looking for further connections between the book of Jeremiah and Egyptian magical practices, Jack Lundbom discusses the connections between the historical Jeremiah and Egypt. Lundbom reminds the reader that, “Jeremiah is last heard from in Egypt, where he and others, including his colleague and friend, Baruch, were taken a few years after Jerusalem’s destruction in 586 BC.”320 This historical connection between Jeremiah and Egypt influences Lundbom’s interpretation of the differences between the Hebrew MT and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). Lundbom notes, “The exis320 Jack. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 57.

114

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

tence of a short Hebrew text of Jeremiah in the second century BC has given rise to the theory—now widely held—that the LXX translator or translators did not produce an abridgement, but rather translated a Hebrew text of comparable length localized in Egypt where the translation was made.”321 Indeed, Leo G. Perdue said, “The MT of Jeremiah contains about 2,700 more words than the text preserved by the LXX…. The long MT and short LXX texts are represented by the manuscript fragments of Jeremiah in Hebrew found at Qumran. This underscores the fluidity of the Jeremiah tradition, prior to the finalization of the canonical text sometime during the transition to the early common era.”322 The fact that some of the “fluidity” of the text was “localized in Egypt” and the final known location for the prophet himself was in Egypt points to possible influence of Egyptian culture on the book of Jeremiah. It would make sense that the audience in Egypt would connect the symbolic action of the prophet in breaking pottery to curse the population of Jerusalem and Judah with the execration ritual that was commonly practiced throughout the history of ancient Egypt. By way of further explaining the historical and geographical connection between ancient Israel and Egypt Walter Brueggemann points out, “The power of Babylon to the north of Judah, however, was not the only foreign power with which Judah had to deal. Judah had to attend also the Egyptians to the south, whose policy was to maintain Judah as a buffer against Babylonian pressure…. The Judahite kings in the years after Josiah (639-609) vacillated between Babylonian and Egyptian alliances.”323 Brueggemann also points out that some of the editorial layering in the book of Jeremiah comes from different segments of the community that supported Babylon and Egypt. “In a later generation of the Jeremiah tradition, we likely contend with pastoral voices among Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 58. Leo G. Perdue, “Jeremiah,” in Mercer Commentary on the Bible (eds. W. E. Mills and R. F. Wilson; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995), 616. 323 Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1. 321 322

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

115

exiles, with the claims of the community that remained in Judah, and again with pro-Egyptian voices. It is not nearly so important to date passages as it is to attend to the interaction of these several forces that vied for influence and legitimacy.”324 This points to the idea that while there was possible Egyptian influence during the lifetime of Jeremiah the prophet, there was also pro-Egyptian influence while the writing, editing, and compiling of the book of Jeremiah was being completed. This would only help to build a stronger connection between Jeremiah and Egyptian cultural influence. In discussing the archeological history connected with the book of Jeremiah, Philip King offers this synopsis of the political and military world in the ancient Near East: In the seventh century B.C.E., the Southern Kingdom of Judah had to cope with three principal international superpowers: Neo-Assyria, Egypt, and Neo-Babylonia (Chaldea), which were fierce rivals…. Egypt and Babylonia contended for control of the land between the Euphrates River and the Sinai, formerly ruled by Assyria. As a result, Judah found itself entrapped between Egypt and Babylonia…. By 620 B.C.E., Assyria retreated from Palestine. Then Egypt made its presence felt in the region by replacing Assyria as the imperial power.325

This historical and military presence of Egypt would have been during the time of the biblical Jeremiah thereby creating another possible link between Egyptian practices and the book of Jeremiah.326 As King noted, “The last five kings of Judah reigned Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 13. King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion, 15-16. 326 There is some question about the beginning and the end of the historical Jeremiah’s life. Holladay dates his birth to 627 B.C.E., the 13th year of Josiah’s reign in an attempt to explain the prophet’s silence during Josiah’s time as king of Judah (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 1). According to Holladay then, Jeremiah did not prophesy during Josiah’s life because he was merely an infant. Other scholars like Lundbom use this date as the beginning of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry (Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 107). There is no report of Jeremiah’s death. After the departure to Egypt of the Jerusalem remnant of which he was a part, there is no mention of 324 325

116

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

during the lifetime of Jeremiah: Josiah (640-609), Jehoahaz (Shallum, 609), Jehoiakim (Eliakim, 609-598) Jehoiachin (597), and Zedekiah (Mattaniah, 597-586). They vacillated in their loyalty between Egypt and Babylonia.”327 As the kings of Judah wavered in their political loyalties between the Egyptians and the Babylonians, perhaps the same can be said for the writers and compilers of the prophetic texts in their cultural borrowings as well. As biblical scholars it is important to consider not only the possible connections to Babylonian culture, but also to consider any connection to ancient Egyptian practices. Eliezer Oren adds this further connection between Jeremiah and Egypt: In the case of Egypt, Jeremiah’s knowledge is based on firsthand experience in that land. He resided in Egypt for some time after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.…. Jeremiah’s intimate acquaintance with the Egyptian Delta is reflected in a number of references concerning the location of Jewish garrisons and their direct involvement in the political and military affairs of the Saite kings of Egypt (Jeremiah 43-46).328

It was because of military affairs that the execration ritual was practiced against foreign powers. Indeed, the large find of execration materials at Mirgissa, discussed in the previous chapter, was located near the fortress there. If the historical Jeremiah was familiar with the military and its fortresses in Egypt, then perhaps he, or one of the book’s editors, was also familiar with the execration ritual from ancient Egypt. This would create a link between the practice of the execration ritual in ancient Egypt and the development of the biblical text of Jeremiah.

what year they arrived or how long after their arrival that Jeremiah lived. Jerusalem fell in 586 B.C.E. and so his departure from Jerusalem to Egypt would have followed that date. One can conclude that Jeremiah’s life covered at least the historical period between 627 to 586 B.C.E. 327 King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion, 19. 328 Eliezer Oren, “Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta,” BASOR 256 (1984): 32.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

117

Mark Leuchter discusses the understanding of exile in Jer 2645 and notes the strong anti-Egyptian rhetoric that appears in the Oracles Against the Nations, as well as other parts of the book of Jeremiah.329 Specifically in Jer 42, Leuchter states that “the reliance upon Egypt (Babylon’s enemy) is an affront to YHWH presupposed the relocation of divine favor to Babylon from Jeremiah 2729 and is therefore consistent with authentic Jeremianic tradition.”330 There is a promise of devastation to the people upon returning to Egypt. In a sense, the people returning to Egypt to escape exile in Babylon are like a return to pre-exodus conditions. Leuchter reads the text of Jeremiah as a warning to those who are in Egypt or desire to return there instead of submitting or surrendering to Babylonian authority as a reversal of Israel’s covenant status with God. Leuchter explains that “Israel as a nation was born in the Exodus from Egypt…returning to Egypt would constitute an annulment of Israelite status.”331 By disobeying the Lord in this way, Leuchter compares the treatment of the Israelites exiled in Egypt as comparable to the curses promised in Deut 28 for those who break the covenant with God. A return to Egypt or reliance on Egypt is equivalent to a disillusion of the covenant made with God. Taking this into consideration, one wonders about the validity of any Egyptian influence on the breaking actions described in Jer 19. Would the writers/editors of such an anti-Egyptian text include a ritual or rite that is Egyptian in nature or influence? However, one should remember that essentially the entire ancient Near Eastern world is cursed or promised destruction in the book of Jeremiah. As an example, Jer 25:19-26 lists curses as coming against land of Egypt, Uz, the Philistines, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, Dedan, Tema, Buz, Arabia, Zimri, Elam, Media, and “all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, and all the kingdoms of the world which are on the face of the earth. And after them, the king of Babylon shall drink.” Even Babylon, the one to Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26-45 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 330 Ibid., 126. 331 Ibid., 130. 329

118

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

whom the book of Jeremiah directs the people to see as the Lord’s instrument of justice, will eventually be punished. While Egypt is certainly listed first among the Oracles Against the Nations section of Jeremiah, Babylon is listed last. Indeed, Babylon’s section of the Oracles is by far the longest. The Babylonians are accused of idolatry (50:2, 38) like the Egyptians, and are promised desolation and plunder like everyone else listed. Yet, the book of Jeremiah argues that Babylon is being used by the Lord to reform the people and that they should move to Babylon despite the promise of future destruction there as well. While Babylon is not a shining example of righteousness in the eyes of the writer(s)/editor(s) of the book of Jeremiah, the book of Jeremiah still claims that Babylon is being used as an instrument of the Israelite God. Babylonian idolatry and the worship of Bel and Merodach (Jer 50:2) are not being condoned anymore than Egyptian religious rites and rituals are being condoned in Jeremiah. However, that doesn’t mean the writer(s)/editor(s) of the book of Jeremiah won’t use something Egyptian in nature to communicate with the people just as Babylon is being used here as God‘s means to punish Israel‘s lack of fidelity to the covenant. One wonders how deep the anti-Egyptian sentiment is in the book of Jeremiah when Uriah the prophet flees to Egypt for protection from King Jehoiakim. According to Jer 26:20, Uriah’s crime was speaking prophecies “in the name of the Lord…against this city (Jerusalem) and against this land in words like those of Jeremiah.” Uriah is certainly seen as a positive character in the sense that he is pictured as being on the same side as Jeremiah. Yet, he too seeks refuge in Egypt. He is not condemned in the text of Jeremiah, but rather is pictured as a sympathetic character who lacks the protection of “the hand of Ahikam” (26:24) that Jeremiah enjoys. While dire consequences are promised for those who go down to Egypt to escape God’s punishment, there is also the promise that a remnant will remain preserved to return from Egypt. In contradictory statements in Jer 44:27-28 one reads that God will punish all those who go to Egypt “by the sword and by famine, until there is no end of them. And those who escape the sword shall return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, few in number…” This brings into question just how deep the anti-Egyptian feeling is for the writer(s) and editor(s) of the book of Jeremiah

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

119

when the text cannot bear to totally extinguish the hope of some returnees from the land of Egypt. One should also distinguish between pure hatred of all things Egyptian and the desire of the book of Jeremiah to speak against those seeking protection in Egypt, not Babylon. The attitude of those seeking asylum in Egypt is that it is a place of stability, military prowess, and abundance. According to Jer 44:15-19, the problem with those Israelites in Egypt is that they have continued the same idolatrous rituals that they were practicing in Jerusalem by offering “incense to the queen of heaven” and by pouring out “libations to her, as we did…in the streets of Jerusalem….” The book of Jeremiah argues that it is because of these idolatrous practices that the people are in exile. This argument is not anti-Egyptian, but rather, condemning of the continued idolatrous practices of the people of Israel. If one were to assume that the book of Jeremiah was not influenced by any of the cultures or peoples condemned somewhere in the text, then the book of Jeremiah would not exhibit any qualities similar in nature or function to any other literature in the ancient Near East. This seems highly unlikely. Perhaps the similarities between the execration ritual of ancient Egypt and the actions of the prophet described in chapter 19 are an attempt to speak to the audience in a way they will understand. Many people from Jerusalem see Egypt as a source of power, stability, and refuge. These are the people that Jeremiah wants to get his message to, or to even change. So, the prophet uses an Egyptian inspired ritual to show them that their own idolatry has caused Jerusalem to lose its power, stability, and it will no longer be a refuge.332 332 This is not by any means an endorsement of all things Egyptian. The use of a cursing ritual similar in form to an Egyptian one, does not mean that the author or editor is embracing everything about Egypt, but rather using a rite or ritual with which the intended audience of the ritual will understand. The power behind the ritual action described in Jer 19 is clearly not the gods of the Egyptians. In his essay, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 89, Baruch Halpern discusses the “xenophobic” nature of Israel during in the 8th to 6th centuries when the

120

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

IV. SYMPATHETIC MAGIC AND JEREMIAH’S SYMBOLIC ACTION As to the nature of the action of the prophet Jeremiah in ch. 19, scholars are divided. Leo Perdue, John Bright, and Ernest Nicholson agree with Carroll and Holladay, as quoted above, that there is a connection between sympathetic magic and the action recorded in Jer 19. Biblical scholars like George Fohrer, W.D. Stacey, Walter Brueggemann, Kelvin Friebel, Jack Lundbom, Peter Craigie, H. Wheeler Robinson, and J.A. Thompson offer some other explanation for the actions of the prophet as non-magical in nature, even if similar in form to sympathetic magical acts from other cultures. Perdue concluded his analysis of Jer 19 by connecting Jeremiah’s breaking of the earthenware flask with the execration ritual from ancient Egypt. “Smashing pottery (vv 10-13) was a ritual act designed to destroy one’s enemies (see Ps 2:9). In Egyptian execration texts, the names of the king’s enemies were written on pieces of pottery, and then curses against the enemies were recited while the pottery was smashed.”333 While Jeremiah did not write the names of the kings or the people on the flask before smashing it, he does invite some of the offending parties to witness the shattering of the pot. This connects their idolatrous activity to the de-

book of Jeremiah was being composed and compiled saying, “the vehemence of the prophets and of kings such as Saul should lead us to expect only the rejection of actually alien worship.” Saul serves as a good example for the point being made here. While Saul does seek to get rid of unapproved influences on Israelite society like necromancers, he also is guilty of consulting a witch in search of guidance from the deceased Samuel. This may well be another negative story about Saul, but it shows the difficulty in removing foreign influences in a society. Samuel does come back from the dead and delivers a message from the Lord to Saul. While using a medium is seen as a negative, this is yet another example of a nonIsraelite approved cultic action being used by the Israelite God to communicate a specific message at a specific time. Samuel does not chastise Saul for consulting a medium, but rather for disturbing him. The consultation is a success, Samuel appears, even if it is not the message Saul was hoping for in this case. 333 Perdue, “Jeremiah,” 640.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

121

mise of Jerusalem that Jeremiah is prophesizing without having to write their names on the pot itself. Whether Jeremiah thought of this shattering action in the same exact way as an ancient Egypt priest can never be known. However, it can fairly be stated that both actions intended the ritual cursing of their opponents. In Jeremiah’s case this meant those who practiced idolatry and offered human sacrifices were to be cursed. The curse performed by Jeremiah would lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. John Bright also reports that there is more to Jeremiah’s action in ch. 19 than mere symbolism. Bright focuses his analysis on Jeremiah’s intended audience. “It was a symbolic action; but by the mind of the day such an action was not understood merely as the dramatic illustration of a point, or play acting, but as actual setting in motion of Yahweh’s destroying word. It is, therefore, small wonder that it earned Jeremiah persecution, as we are told that it did.”334 Bright points to the audience reaction as indicating that the action of breaking the flask was more than merely symbolic for Jeremiah’s audience. If the people were not upset by the breaking of the flask, then Jeremiah’s action would have simply been dismissed as a pessimistic look at Jerusalem’s future, or perhaps even the waste of a perfectly good piece of pottery. However, since Pashhur had Jeremiah beaten and placed in the stocks overnight, without any objection from others, then surely the people took Jeremiah’s actions more seriously. Ernest Nicholson thought there was more to the acts of the prophets than mere symbolism as well. As Nicholson said, “Notwithstanding the name we give to these actions, it is a mistake to conceive of them as merely illustration or ‘visual aids’. Rather, like the word of God spoken by a prophet, these symbolic actions had an effective power. That is, they were believed actually to set in motion the event, whether good or evil, which they symbolized.”335 Of course, this kind of thought would be more in keeping with the John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1965), 133. 335 Ernest W. Nicholson, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1-25 (Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 165. 334

122

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Egyptian concept of magic in the execration ritual. The Egyptians hoped that their foreign enemies, as well as the enemies of the pharaoh inside their borders, would be annihilated or left incapacitated by the execration ritual that they thought had a power in and of itself. Nicholson’s analysis of the prophetic acts of Jeremiah resembles Georg Fohrer’s understanding of these same acts; he saw a connection between the ritual actions in the ancient Near East and the form of activity practiced by some of the biblical prophets, with one major theological difference. Despite the similarity in form the actions of the biblical prophets had an effect not because of some kind of magical force, but because they were inspired by Israel’s God: More than the spoken word, these actions emphasize that the message of the prophets strives to be efficacious. They go back originally to magical actions, whose performance was thought to effect what they presented. For the prophets, of course, the assurance that the event proclaimed will come to pass rests not on the magical efficacy of the action but on the will and power of God, whereby he realizes what the symbolic action proclaims.336

Fohrer’s thought serves as a kind of middle ground between those scholars who see a connection between the acts of the prophets and the use of ritual actions in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Fohrer holds on to the connection in form between the two with a distinction in the cause of the ritual’s efficacy. For Fohrer, God is the sole cause of the prophet’s success and not the ritual action in and of itself. W. D. Stacey agrees with the relation between the prophet, the prophetic act, and the work of God. The efficacy of the prophetic actions lies totally with God’s creative power. The prophet merely served to announce to the people what was to come. Stacey believes that:

336 Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), 349.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

123

the prophetic word is more aptly described as expressive of what is to be rather than creative…. Yahweh alone is creative. He creates the whole event, both historical happening and the prophecy that is linked to it. The prophecy is part of the event, as the man who posts the billboards is part of the circus.337

Stacey uses the analogy that the prophet can be compared to the person who advertises the impending arrival of the circus. The person is employed by the circus and is ordered to go from town to town ahead of the circus to promote it. The advertisement does not in and of itself bring the circus to town, but serves the function of telling the people that it is coming. Just so, the prophet warns the people through dramatic actions in the employ of God’s service. According to Stacey’s understanding, the prophet’s dramatic activity does not bring about the message in and of itself. The fulfillment of the dramatic activity is left to the work of God. Walter Brueggemann also analyzes Jer 19 as a dramatic act without magical value. Brueggemann sees no connection between the thoughts of sympathetic magic in the ancient world and the acts of the prophets: This narrative does not report sympathetic magic, as though the broken flask enacts the broken city. ‘Sympathetic magic’ is the notion that a dramatic act like the breaking of a pot may cause the destruction to which it alludes. While it is, in my judgment, too much to think the people in this text believed in such causation, there is no doubt that the dramatic act opened up a field of fertile imagination filled with dread and fresh discernment.338

As far as Brueggemann is concerned the action of the prophet has an effect on the audience’s attitude with regard to their own behavior, but not on reality itself. Just because the prophet breaks the flask doesn’t mean that Jerusalem will be broken according to Brueggemann. However, if the flask has no effect in bringing about 337 W. D. Stacey, Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament (London: Epworth, 1990), 71. 338 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 177.

124

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

the destruction of the city, then it makes no sense that the people in Jeremiah’s audience worry about the effect of their behavior on their society’s well-being. Brueggemann’s thought is similar to Kelvin Friebel’s analysis of the acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as a means of communication meant to persuade an audience. Friebel comes to the conclusion that the prophets were “attempting to persuade their audiences of a different way of viewing the situations and circumstances. Through the sign-acts, the prophets were trying to alter the people’s perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral patterns.”339 In other words, the prophets were using their actions as a rhetorical device to convince their audience of the need to change their behavior. Like good orators, the prophets sought to use different methods in order to convince their audience of the importance of what they were saying. The actions served as further illustrations of the people’s need to repent and change, not as means to bring about that change or as means to bring about the society’s destruction. This interpretation does not take into account the similarity of Jeremiah’s actions with the magical procedures of the ancient near East, specifically ancient Egypt. Jeremiah breaks a piece of pottery in the same way that the Egyptian priests and magicians would also break pottery to bring about the destruction or prevention of an evil act or actions. Surely the form of the prophet’s action before his audience, the breaking of pottery, is intentional in view of all the other choices that the prophet would have to illustrate the connection between the impending divine judgment and the people’s idolatrous activities. The choice of breaking pottery in a setting close to ancient Egypt with political and military ties to Egypt makes this action more than just rhetorical. Jack Lundbom, Peter Craigie, and H. Wheeler Robinson take almost a middle of the road stance in interpreting the physical acts of the prophets. Lundbom sees the action as having power only if God endorses it, not on its own. Lundbom cites the negative actions of Jeremiah’s opponents as examples of actions without effect and merely symbolic: 339 Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign Acts (JSOTSup 283; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 40.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

125

These actions, like the spoken word in all its fullness, were efficacious in bringing things to pass. Symbolic action, therefore, was a natural extension of prophetic preaching. At the same time, it counted for nothing, just as the prophetic word counted for nothing, if Yahweh was not behind it. Jehoiakim’s slashing and burning of Jeremiah’s scroll (36) and Hananiah’s breaking the yoke bars off Jeremiah’s neck (28) were symbolic acts that came to nothing.340

Peter Craigie agrees with Lundbom’s analysis between the actions of the prophet and magic. Craigie said, “Even though Jeremiah is commanded to carry out a symbolic action, it remains just that—symbolic. Yahweh’s actions will complete what Jeremiah’s only symbolized.”341 H. Wheeler Robinson also agrees that the locus of power in the prophet’s action is with God. Robinson said, “His acts are in some degree magical in form and origin; but their character has been transformed by their being taken up by the will of Yahweh, to which the prophet has so fully surrendered his own will.”342 Robinson argued that even though the forms or methods the prophets used was similar to ancient magical practices, there was an inherent difference because Yahweh was involved in the process or empowered the process for the prophet. There is a desire to remove the role of the Hebrew prophets from the world of ancient magic. The presupposition of scholars like Robinson and Craigie is that while ancient Near Eastern magic and Israelite religion may be related in form, they are at best distant cousins. Lundbom goes on to compare the action recorded in Jer 19 with the Egyptian execration ritual discussed above. “In Egypt, pottery bowls with the names of enemies on them were broken symbolically at a sacred place in order to bring about the enemies’

Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 139. Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley & Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 125 (WBC 26; Waco: Word Books, 1991), 258. 342 H. Wheeler Robinson, “Prophetic Symbolism,” in Old Testament Essays: Papers Read Before the Society for Old Testament Study at its Eighteenth Meeting, Held at Keble College, Oxford, September 27th to 30th, 1927 (ed. D. C. Simpson; London: Charles Griffin & Company, 1927), 10. 340 341

126

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

destruction.”343 The Egyptians, of course, expected their gods to be behind the work of the ritual to bring to fruition the curse upon their enemies. Perhaps one should go even further and say that the Egyptians felt the execration ritual would make certain that their gods cursed their enemies because of their ability to use magic just like the gods. These three scholars make God’s power and authority central to their interpretation, not the action of the prophet or the response of the crowd to Jeremiah’s act. Since God has told Jeremiah what act to perform before the people, God will bring about the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. According to Lundbom, Craigie, and Robinson, Jeremiah’s act is incapable of compelling God to do anything just as the false prophets’ activities were ineffectual. While Jeremiah’s actions take the form of sympathetic magic practiced in neighboring cultures, Jeremiah’s actions are inherently different because of the power and will of God to bring about the predicted/promised destruction, or not. The act in and of itself is not causal. God is the cause of any judgment that might happen against the people. J. A. Thompson contrasts the actions of Jeremiah in ch. 19 with magical rites of not only the ancient Egyptians, but also the Assyrians, Hittites, and Arameans. Thompson wrote, “If Israel’s remote ancestors ever practiced magic the practice had long since been rejected. For Jeremiah, the breaking of the jar was a symbolic act, just as much a word from Yahweh as any verbal messages he delivered.”344 In saying that the act was symbolic, Thompson is agreeing with those who see Jeremiah’s action to be non-causal in nature. Just because Jeremiah breaks a pot doesn’t mean that anything in the world will change. The people have not seen a visual demonstration or message from the prophet not the beginning or initiation of some curse upon them or upon Jerusalem necessarily. While it was certainly part of the orthodox platform of the HB to abolish all magical practices in Jerusalem, Judah, and the land of Israel, it seems highly unlikely that the religious institutions of the Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 841. J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 452. 343 344

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

127

day were able to make this desire a reality. As an example of their lack of effectiveness it seems appropriate to note at this point that by the historical time period of Jeremiah, many prophets and kings had attempted to abolish idolatry and the practice of offering human sacrifices in Israel’s religion. However, there were still problems with both of those practices according to Jer 19. The same could be said of magical practices in Israel, despite attempts to get rid of them, they were still culturally alive. As was stated in chapter one during the discussion of religion and its relationship to magic, the insider’s religious practices are often very similar to, if not identical in intention, with the outsider’s rituals and customs labeled as “magic.” Both with the Egyptian ritual and the action of Jeremiah in ch. 19, the intention of the actor is to bring about the curse upon the people by breaking a piece of pottery. Despite these similarities many scholars are not willing to see the actions of the prophets, specifically the actions reported in Jer 19, as being connected to an ancient magical practice like the Egyptian execration ritual because they see the actions of the other cultures around ancient Israel as outside the sphere of Israel’s God and as outlawed by other passages in the HB calling for the citizens of ancient Israel to be different than the people of the lands around them. There is also the implication that if the ritual is efficacious, then God is obligated to fulfill the prophet’s request or demand for judgment against the idolatrous people of Jerusalem and Judah. Further still, if the action of the prophet in breaking the pottery is truly efficacious, then it will work whether the God of the HB wants it to or not. While this may be problematic theologically, it does not change the inherent similarity between the actions of Jeremiah in ch. 19 and the Egyptian priests in the execration ritual. Instead of looking for potential theological differences between the Egyptians and Jeremiah, this book seeks to show the connections between the setting, intention, and form of the Egyptian execration ritual and the work of Jeremiah in ch. 19.

128

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

V. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE EXECRATION RITUAL AND JEREMIAH 19 A. Chaotic Situation As witnessed in both ancient Egyptian and ancient Israelite documents, there was a level of conformity demanded from all members of society. The ancient Egyptian concept of maat was a desire for things to stay the same, to maintain the status quo. This meant keeping the pharaoh in power and protecting the borders of the country from foreigners. The ancient Israelite concept of covenant expressed the proper relationship with the deity and with others to maintain harmony in the kingdom and to ensure God’s protection and blessing for the future. The execration ritual served as a magical means of preserving maat for the ancient Egyptians. As discussed in the previous chapter, the pharaoh and/or his priestly representatives sought to annihilate any opposition to the Egyptian way of life whether it was from a particular prince or principality in close proximity, or even Egyptians themselves thinking, speaking, or acting in an evil way against the monarchy or society. The execration ritual was an attempt to subdue any potential or actual disturbance from creeping into the ancient Egyptian world. As was reported from one execration find, Egyptians who were to be cursed by the ritual included, “All men, all people, all folk, all males, all eunuchs, all women, and all officials, who may rebel, who may plot, who may fight, who may talk of fighting, or who may talk of rebelling, and every rebel who talks of rebelling—in this entire land.”345 Not only were the people and their activities to be cursed and repelled in ancient Egypt, but also the negative concepts that might fill people’s minds and lead them to act in a negative fashion were also cursed: “Every evil word, every evil speech, every evil slander, every evil thought, every “The Execration of Asiatic Princes,” translated by J. A. Wilson (ANET, 329). These texts are repeated here for ease in comparison. They also appear in chapter two’s discussion of Egyptian magic and the execration ritual. 345

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

129

evil plot, every evil fight, every evil quarrel, every evil plan, every evil thing, all evil dreams, and all evil slumber.”346 Clearly an attempt was being made by the priestly representative to be thorough in ridding and opposing evil in the ancient Egyptian realm. It is interesting to note that the priests are here combating not only evil actions, but also evil thoughts and ideas that might eventually lead to an evil act. Not only is the execration ritual being used to attack rebellion in the kingdom, it is also being used to insure order in the future and to stop people before they act against the pharaoh and the state. Just as the Egyptians used the execration ritual to combat evil in ancient Egypt, Jeremiah also spoke of actual disturbances in the covenant relationship with God in Jerusalem and Judah. As noted in Jer 19:4-5, the motivation for breaking the pottery flask to condemn the people was because the people “have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods…and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents and have built the high places of Ba’al to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offering to Ba’al.” Indeed, the people are accused by Jeremiah of breaking the first commandment. They have worshiped a foreign god and replaced the Israelite God’s sacrificial system with the offering of their own children which God “did not command or decree…” (Jer 19:5). While this may not be unique to Jeremiah’s time in the history of ancient Israel, it is the motivation cited in Jer 19 that will cause God to annihilate the city of Jerusalem and Judah just as the pot Jeremiah throws down is shattered. The chaos which the book of Jeremiah recounts has been described as the “most tumultuous prophetic writing in the Bible” in that it portrays “a disaster that represents nothing less than the collapse of the world, cosmic crumbling, and the end of a culture.”347 Jeremiah 19 seeks in part to explain God’s purpose in bringing about the end of Jerusalem and Judah—the people have broken the covenant.

Ibid. Louis Stulman, Jeremiah (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 1. 346 347

130

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

In both ancient Egypt and Jer 19, the purpose of the ritual or symbolic action is the same. It is an attempt to restore order out of a chaotic situation in which people are no longer following the proper guidelines for the preservation of society. The maat of ancient Egypt has been threatened, and the covenant relationship with Yahweh has been breached by members of the ancient Israelite society. The ritual being performed is meant to change that behavior. B. Divine Representative Intervenes From the number, variety, and dating of archeological discoveries in ancient Egypt of execration materials, it is known that the execration ritual was practiced over a long period of time in many different geographical regions.348 As discussed in the previous chapter, this ritual was to be performed by the reigning pharaoh or by his priestly representative. As pharaoh was considered a god by the ancient Egyptians, he was able to communicate directly with the other gods in the Egyptian pantheon to make sure the order of life in ancient Egypt was preserved. The pharaoh’s priestly representatives could also perform the execration ritual because they understood the proper use of magic to maintain maat. However, this ritual was not to be performed by other people. There is an example from ancient Egypt of an attempt on the pharaoh’s life, in part, by means of execration magic. Those offending parties were discov348 Egyptians were not alone in seeking to curse their enemies or to deal with adverse situations in life in a magical way. Barbara Burell discusses “curse tablets” discovered in Caesarea of Greek and Roman origin. These lead sheets contained “binding spells of magic power.” Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (1998), 128. In Iraq, ancient Babylonian bowls have also been discovered with magic formulae written inside them to curse evil spirits in order to keep them away from a particular corpse or house. Pages 931-935 in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Part 2: Goliath-Papyri. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1980. Christoph Daxelmüller and Marie Louise Thomsen describe figurines that have been discovered dating from the Sumerian and Akkadian time period in ancient Mesopotamia from the first millennium B.C.E. These figurines were inscribed with the name of the person to be cursed in the ritual and then destroyed. “Bildzauber im alten Mesopotamien,” Anthropos 77 (1982): 27-64.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

131

ered and then found guilty in the Egyptian courts for the improper use of magic. All of the individuals were either put to death, or allowed to kill themselves for their treasonous use of magic. This serves as an example that the execration ritual was to be performed in the proper fashion and only by the proper people.349 Ronald Clements describes Jeremiah’s status in the community saying, “the prophet of God is a mediator of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel…. Jeremiah is presented as the intermediary established by God to summon the people back to obedience to the covenant.”350 Although disputed during his lifetime, in the biblical setting, Jeremiah is the Israelite God’s official spokesperson. As is mentioned in Jer 1, God told Jeremiah, “I appointed you a prophet to the nations…to all to whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak…. I have put my words in your mouth” (vv. 5, 7, 9). While Jeremiah’s status in the community is often questioned by his contemporaries, one of the purposes of the book of Jeremiah is to show that Jeremiah’s prophecies were true and accurately represented the will of God. In Jer 19:1, even though Jeremiah is told to “take some of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests” with him to observe the ritual breaking of the flask, Jeremiah himself is told to break the flask.351 The elders or senior priests are there to observe, not to actively participate in the 349 Joyce Tyldesley, Judgement of the Pharaoh: Crime and Punishment in Ancient Egypt (London: Weidenfeld & Nelson, 2000), 98-101. 350 Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 113. 351 The translation of Jer 19:1 in the RSV states: “Thus said the Lord, “Go, buy a potter’s flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests…” In the MT, there is no verb telling Jeremiah to “take” the people out of the city to watch the breaking of the flask. The text has been emended by the RSV translation in order to arrive at a sentence that makes sense of the presence of elders and senior priests in the verse. However, the one verb in the MT could imply an even more dire situation. Perhaps Jeremiah was to purchase not only a flask, but also “buy” some elders and senior priests. This would indicate just how bad the situation in the city had gotten that even elders and priests were “for sale.”

132

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

ritual because Jeremiah is the one called by God to speak and enact this message to the people. Just as the execration ritual in Egypt was officially to be performed only by pharaoh or his official representatives, Jeremiah—not the elders or senior priests—is given the responsibility, as God’s representative to the people, to break the flask outside the city. C. Ritual is Witnessed by Others As recorded in ancient Egyptian literature, the pharaoh or priestly representatives were to be accompanied by an assistant priest to perform the execration ritual. In the Egyptian performance of the execration ritual some sort of sacrifice, whether animal or human, was involved. Hence, it only makes sense that an individual would need assistance in carrying this out. Also, the ritual was intended to affect not only those foreign rulers who might cause harm to Egypt or were attempting to penetrate Egypt’s boundaries, but the ritual was also intended to keep all members of Egyptian society moving in the same direction in obedience to the pharaoh and in the preservation of the current order of things. Hence, not only would an assistant or assistance be necessary to complete the sacrifice involved in the ritual, but another set (or sets) of eyes and ears would witness the ritual and be aware of the curse put upon negative behavior. As stated above, Jer 19:1 implies a command from God to take others with Jeremiah in the performance of the breaking ceremony. Even though there is to be no ritual slaughter accompanying Jeremiah’s actions, the people witnessing the ceremony are important so they can know why Jerusalem and Judah are being cursed by God. As J. A. Thompson points out, “It was not unusual for Jeremiah or for other prophets to address the nation as a whole even if the immediate audience was small.”352 Through the ritual destruction of the earthenware flask the people are made aware of the curse God has put upon them for their negative behavior and what God intends to do to them.

352

Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 448-49.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

133

This command to gather an audience contrasts with the action recorded in Jer 13 in which the prophet is told to purchase a waistcloth, wear it without washing it, and then to bury it. No public gathering is required for the action surrounding the waistcloth, although it can be presumed that people were to see Jeremiah wearing the new waistcloth and perhaps they were even shown the spoiled cloth after its burial. In contrast to that action of the prophet done in private, one can see that the request to gather an audience is important for the breaking ritual. The witnesses were to “hold the event in their memories and testify in the destruction of Jerusalem that this was the fulfillment of the word of the Lord as spoken by His prophet Jeremiah.”353 Those gathered will serve as witnesses to God’s intended action against the city of Jerusalem and the people of Judah. Because of the serious and irrevocable nature of the breaking and cursing action, it is meant to be seen and remembered by the community. This gathering of elders and senior priests also “says something of Jeremiah’s importance in the city and at the Temple that he is able to enlist the cooperation of senior priests to witness a symbolic action.”354 In other words, Jeremiah is seen by at least a segment of the Jerusalem power structure as worthy of watching and not merely to be ignored. Despite the negativity of his message, Jeremiah still has status in the community and the clout necessary to attract attention. D. Promise of Destruction/Annihilation of Opposition The Egyptians believed that the magic enacted by the execration ritual would help to protect them from other nations and to aid them in defeating those foreign powers when they engaged them militarily. The Egyptians also believed that the execration ritual helped to keep all members of society working towards the same end—the preservation of the Egyptian way of life, the maintenance of the pharaoh and the gods. For those who opposed Egypt or the pharaoh, the execration ritual promised total destruction. To ensure 353 354

Jones, Jeremiah, 267. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 838.

134

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

that the parts of the broken materials could not be repaired or reconnected, the execration materials were buried in sand to keep the parts from touching one another. The destruction sought in the execration ritual was to be catastrophic and permanent. Similarly, in Jer 19, the destruction promised by God is to be catastrophic and cannot be avoided. Jeremiah 19:7-9 states that God will: cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies…. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at; everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its disasters. And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters.

The destruction promised in Jeremiah’s ritual action is so total that not only will the people fall in battle to their enemies, but their city’s reputation will be destroyed and they will be left to feed off of their dead children. In other words, not only will they be killed by their enemies, they will end up killing each other just to survive—total destruction of the society. This promise of destruction in Jer 19 is not unusual for the book. As Abraham Heschel notes, “Utterances denoting the wrath of God, the intent and threat of destruction, are found more frequently and expressed more strongly in Jeremiah than in any other prophet.”355 Although the message of Jer 19 is stark and depressing, given the overall denunciation of Israelite society in the book of Jeremiah, it is not to be unexpected. E. Equation of Opposition with Ritually Smashed Item There is a clear equation of the pottery or ritually smashed figurines in ancient Egypt with the enemy or evil actions. As discussed in the previous chapter, sometimes this is done by writing the names of enemies or evil actions on the pottery or figurines themselves, or in the recitation of the execration formula before the ritual breaking. In ancient Egypt, human beings were related to clay in the creation 355 Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 1:106.

STUDY OF JEREMIAH 19

135

story in which the Egyptian god Khnum creates the first human beings out of the clay of the earth.356 So, when a clay bowl or figurine was smashed, with or without a person’s name inscribed on it, ancient Egyptians knew that the breaking was intended to annihilate a particular person or persons, or a particular evil activity with which a person was involved. Jeremiah 19:11 makes clear that the flask Jeremiah is breaking equates to the city of Jerusalem and the people of the kingdom. “Thus says the Lord of hosts: So will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, so that it can never be mended.” There is a clear link created between the flask and the people and the city of Jerusalem itself. As Friebel noted, the “decanter’s ruined condition correlated with the verbally created picture of the city’s architectural destruction (v. 8), and the fragments of the shattered artifact lying on the ground correlated with the verbal statements of the human destruction resulting in the bodies strewn on the ground (v. 7).”357 The people witnessing Jeremiah’s work were to picture the eventual destruction of not only the city, but the entire society of Judah. All that would be left would be the bodies on the ground outnumbering the designated burial places for the city’s dead. R. W. L. Moberly agrees that “the earthenware jug represents the people of Judah and Jerusalem. If the pot will not allow itself to be the kind of vessel that its maker requires, then the potter will do away with it by smashing it to pieces; and the final irony of the refusal to change is that the smashing will be one that is beyond change through mending.”358 Just as the execration ritual left clay pottery and figurines forever shattered as a sign of impending magical destruction, so to the flask Jeremiah breaks is broken beyond repair.

356 Jan Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 117. Of course, similar to the story of the Egyptian god Khnum creating humanity out of clay, there is also the story in Gen 2 of the Israelite God creating the first humans out of the ground. 357 Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 118-119. 358 R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 55.

136

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

VI. Conclusion While there may be some differences between the execration ritual of the ancient Egyptians and the activity recorded in Jer 19, these five similarities manifest the same kind of thinking and practice in both societies. Whether the biblical interpreter views Jeremiah’s action in ch. 19 as an example of sympathetic magic or not, one cannot dismiss the many similarities between the Egyptian execration ritual and the action of Jeremiah in breaking the pottery flask. Both rituals point to the breaking action as representative of what the divine actor will do, or wants to do to those who have disturbed the proper order of things. The shattering of pottery is not merely a reflection of what the law-breakers have done, but serves as a warning that the offenders will be “broken” sometime in the near future for their transgressions.

CHAPTER 4: EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE When most modern commentators approach Exod 32 they concentrate their analysis on the golden calf as the focus of the narrative. Indeed, the story in Exod 32 is often referred to as the golden calf incident despite the fact that two items, not one, are destroyed in the passage: a golden calf made by Aaron and the people, and also the tablets, that according to the text, were inscribed by God.359 When first reading the canonical text, it does seem odd that a people that had just readily agreed to keep the commandments at Mt. Sinai would so quickly break them by worshiping an idol. However, after thinking about other stories in the HB, one sees the same pattern demonstrated there of people quickly going against divine commands in the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah to name a few. Following the pattern of other stories in the HB where people break God’s commands, one would expect an idol, such as the golden calf, to eventually be destroyed and the people punished for worshiping it. After all, Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden, Cain is made a restless wanderer on the Earth, and the rest of the world is wiped out by a flood except for Noah and his family. Even the exodus from Egypt itself is described as being initiated because of the enslavement of the Israelites by the pharaoh and as Dmitri Slivniak notes in his article, “The Golden Calf Story: Constructively and Deconstructively,” JSOT 33.1 (2008) 25 that “the tablets and the calf receive the same treatment: Moses destroys both objects. Moreover, the tablets are destroyed before the calf, and their destruction looks more violent/emotional than that of the calf.” 359

137

138

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

a punishment for that lack of hospitality on the part of the Egyptians. According to the biblical text, the Egyptian punishment is the loss of their work force and the havoc wreaked by the plagues. After their deliverance from Egyptian slavery, the text of Exod 32 relates Moses coming down the mountain, seeing the calf, and eventually destroying it. But as mentioned above, there are two items destroyed when Moses comes down the mountain, the golden calf and the tablets containing the Ten Commandments.360 The destruction of the calf is expected. The calf is the work of the people and Aaron while Moses is gone. However, the tablets are described as the “work of God,” the ‫ ַמ ֲעשֺ ֵ◌ה ֱאלֺ ִהים‬. Only four times in the HB is something described in this way: Creation is described as a work of God in Eccl 7:13 and 8:17; God acting on behalf of the psalmist in Ps 69:4; and the tablets containing the Ten Commandments in Exod 32:16. This would indicate that the tablets fall into a special category in and of themselves. So, it does seem odd, even shocking, that part of a story in the HB would relate the destruction of such a special item. In other stories involving Moses and the disobedience of the people, Moses never destroys something considered holy as a way of demonstrating the people’s sin or indicating their punishment. When the people murmur against Moses and Aaron in Exod 16 for being led out of Egypt into the desert, Moses does not break the rod used in performing the plagues as a sign of the people’s disobedience. In Num 11 when the people complain of only having manna to eat and no meat, Moses does not shatter the Ark of the

360 William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became A Book: The Textualization of Anicent Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 129, argues against the presence of the Ten Commandments on the tablets contained in the ark, but rather the Sabbath commandment and the plans for the taberacle as described in Exod 25-31 were inscribed by God on the tablets. Schniedewind’s conclusions are directly opposed by Alan Millard in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham (ed. J.G. McConville and Karl Möller; vol. 461 of Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, ed. Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 254-266. More of their analysis and observations will follow in the pages below.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

139

Covenant or burn down the Tabernacle to show the people’s lack of thankfulness and faith in God’s provision. Indeed, when the people believe the reports of the ten spies who argue against going into the Promised Land in Num 14, even though Moses intercedes for the people, the spies are punished, the people are punished, but Moses does not destroy anything considered holy as a sign of the people’s sins. The second set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments are not smashed, the ark remains untouched, as does the Tabernacle itself. So, the question remains, why in the Exod 32 story are the tablets destroyed? Despite this incongruity in the Exod 32 story with other stories of the people’s disobedience, most commentaries, books and articles dealing with Exod 32 discuss the breaking of the tablets with scant details.361 Instead, they focus their attention on the worship of the golden calf and its subsequent destruction, the actions of Moses as a leader in interceding for the people, or even the failure of Aaron as a leader in this story. Although obviously not an exhaustive compendium of all previous scholarship and commentary about Exod 32, the following scholars represent the various schools of interpretations and motivations uncovered in my research for Moses’ actions in Exod 32. A. Modern Commentaries William H. C. Propp Part VI of Propp’s two volume commentary on the Book of Exodus begins by discussing Exod 32-34 which he describes as “the covenant broken and restored.”362 Propp notes that the vacillating As an example of the scant attention paid to this part of the Exod 32 narrative, William H. C. Propp analyzes Exod 32 for just over fortyfour pages in his Anchor Bible commentary. Propp devotes a mere 27 lines of text in those 44 pages to discussing verse 19 where the tablets are thrown and destroyed by Moses and another 30 lines of text discussing verses 15 and 16 where the tablets themselves are described in greater detail. William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 539-583. 362 Propp, Exodus, 539. 361

140

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

nature of the people’s faith exhibited in Exod 32 is foreshadowed in Moses’ call story (Exod 3-4), and then appears when the people’s work was increased in Egypt (Exod 5), when the people were hemmed in at the Sea (Exod 14), when the people were hungry in the desert (Exod 16), and when the people were thirsty (Exod 15:22-26; 17:1-7). During all these times of stress, the people respond by questioning Moses’ leadership. Propp describes this feature of the biblical story as being like “a melodrama” with “alternating scenes of alienation and reconciliation between a faithful if irascible God and a fickle Israel.”363 The alienation of the people occurs in Moses’ absence in Exod 32. The reconciliation for the people in the canonical text begins with the destruction of the calf and the purging of the idolaters by the newly commissioned Levites. Propp describes the relationship between God and the people as being difficult. Exodus 32:9; 33:3,5; and 34:9 make an analogy between the people and an animal with a “hard neck.” Propp notes that this relationship between God and the people is sustained “by the continual, soothing intermediation of Moses.”364 Perhaps what is unusual then about Moses’ reaction to the idolatry of the Golden Calf is not the intercession with God on the mountain to save the people’s lives, but rather the punishment of the people that begins with the dual destruction of the tablets and the Golden Calf followed by the slaughter of 3,000. This story of the people’s idolatry and punishment is meant as a cautionary tale to future generations. According to Propp’s analysis, the people who lack faith because of the absence of Moses despite their recent deliverance from Egypt via the parting of the Sea, represent later Israelites and us who need to know that God will “punish Covenant violators in every generation.”365 While God visit’s the people with a plague at the end of chapter 32, perhaps it would be better said that Exod 32 is a warning that God will allow the people to be punished for violating the covenant, since here Moses and the Levites do the bulk of the enforcing themselves. Ibid., 566. Ibid. 365 Ibid. 363 364

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

141

Propp summarizes the story of the Golden Calf as teaching patience and faith. “Viewed positively, the story is an inducement for hope—in doubtful times, one must tirelessly wait for God’s rescue. Viewed cynically, the story is a ploy by religious authorities to show that one must not expect immediate results from sacrifices and prayers. Look what happened when Israel grew tired of waiting for Moses and Yahweh.”366 Getting into the details of the story, Propp also sees the Golden Calf episode as a battle over the priesthood between those loyal to Aaron and those Levites later called Zadokites. “As for Exodus 32, the story appears simultaneously to assert pan-Levitic priestly prerogatives and to disparage those of the Aaronic line.”367 Whether the segment of the story describing the Levites killing 3,000 people is of later origin or not, Aaron does not come off well in Exod 32. Aaron allows the people to dictate a replacement for Moses or God, then describes the people in a negative fashion when questioned by Moses. Perhaps even worse, Aaron leads in the production of the Golden Calf and its worship, and then apparently tells Moses that the Calf was self-generated out of the fire. This stands in stark contrast to Moses’ intercession to God on behalf of the people and his insistence in purging the community in an attempt to restore the covenant relationship with the God who had brought the people out of Egypt. Propp next tackles the comparison of Exodus 32 with 1 Kings 12 in which King Jeroboam constructs two calves for the people to worship God in Bethel and Dan, as opposed to going to the Jerusalem temple to worship God. As to the question of which story came first, Propp begins by saying, “Tradition takes both stories as historically accurate, yielding the rather implausible impression that Jeroboam, to spite Rehoboam and Yahweh, deliberately reenacted Aaron’s ancient crime.”368 While citing arguments that Exod 32 could be an allegorical attack on Jeroboam, Propp offers the intriguing idea that “Exodus 32 could be a response either to the account in 1 Kgs 12:25-33 or to Jeroboam’s actual deeds. In the latter Ibid., 567. Ibid., 574. 368 Ibid., 576. 366 367

142

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

case, Exodus 32 could well be older than 1 Kgs 12:25-33 and closer to the real events.”369 At the end of the day, Propp argues that there is just not enough evidence to conclusively argue either way about which literary story came first or even who the calf/calves represent. Propp mentions three ideas: the calves of Aaron and Jeroboam represent a deity other than Yahweh; each of the calves represents Yahweh himself; or each of the calves represents Yahweh’s mount or throne support. To this last idea, Propp speculates that “both Aaron and Jeroboam…are really pointing to the empty space above their calves when they acclaim the god of the exodus.”370 While this would still affirm the notion that both leaders maintained their allegiance to Yahweh, the production of the Golden Calf at the insistence of the people without God’s approval is equivalent to idolatry for Aaron and the people. As for the motivation for the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32, Propp says very little. In discussing the establishment of a new covenant, Propp states that “Moses has symbolically annulled the Covenant by smashing the tablets.”371 Propp compares the actions of Moses with “the Assyrian vassal treaties which, after Ninevah’s fall, were apparently ritually smashed before the empty Assyrian throne.”372 It is interesting to note that this Assyrian smashing occurs after the fall of Ninevah—after the Ninevites have already been defeated—and not before the battle for Ninevah begins. In Exod 32, Moses smashes the tablets before the people are punished and before the calf is destroyed. In both instances, a covenant agreement has apparently been broken, but the symbolic smashing occurs at different times. As to the question of whether Moses shatters the tablets on his own authority, Propp understands that the symbolic nature of the gesture renders the question mute. Whether Moses acts on his own is insignificant to because “Moses’ action is superogatory and

Ibid. Ibid., 582. 371 Ibid., 580. 372 Ibid., 558. 369 370

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

143

symbolic, intended merely to impress and frighten Israel.”373 In this analysis Propp follows most modern commentators on the book of Exodus in describing this breaking action as symbolic and referring to Assyrian or Babylonian practices of breaking texts for comparison. Brevard Childs In his work The Book of Exodus: A Critical and Theological Commentary, Childs discusses Exod 32 in a chapter entitled, “The Golden Calf.”374 The emphasis of Child’s commentary is the canonical approach to interpreting Scripture in which the researcher “seeks to describe the form and function of the HB in its role as sacred scripture for Israel.”375 While practicing the same kinds of historical-critical investigations as other forms of biblical criticism, the canonical approach often leads Childs to different insights than other scholars reading the same texts. Childs places Exod 32 in a literary unit containing chapters 32-34. Childs explains: There are many signs which indicate that chs. 32-34 were structured into a compositional unit in one of the final stages of the development of the book of Exodus. First of all, the chapters have been placed within an obvious framework of sin and forgiveness. Chapter 32 recounts the breaking of the covenant; ch 34 relates its restoration. Moreover, these chapters are held together by a series of motifs skillfully woven into a unifying pattern. The tablets are received, smashed in ch. 32, recut, and restored in ch. 34. Moses’ intercession for Israel begins in ch. 32, continues in ch. 33, and comes to a climax in ch. 34. The theme of the presence of God which is the central theme of ch. 33 joins, on the one hand, to the prior theme of

Ibid., 558. Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical and Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 553-581. 375 Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 16. 373 374

144

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 disobedience in ch. 32, and on the other hand, to the assurance of forgiveness in ch. 34.376

Despite the unifying structure in chapters 32-34, Childs is quick to point out several inconsistencies in the narrative of Exod 32: Moses learns from God in vv. 7-14 of the people’s idolatry and then seems unaware of it again in vv. 15-20 until he sees and hears it for himself; Moses receives forgiveness for the people in v 14, but then enlists the Levites to punish the people in vv 25-29, coupled with the refusal of forgiveness by God in vv 33-35. Childs explains that many biblical scholars understand the seeming contradictions in the storyline of Exod 32 as evidence of more than one source in the biblical passage, “For these reasons there is considerable agreement among commentators in characterizing vv 7-14 as a Deuteronomic addition and seeing vv 25-29 as an independent tradition from a much later period.”377 Childs summarizes the findings of historical-critical scholars by saying, “Exodus 32 reflects one basic source—probably J—to which there have been two expansions. Verses 7-14 are saturated with Deuteronomistic language…vv 25-29 reflects an independent tradition and introduces another issue into the story which goes beyond the original intention of the narrative.”378 Instead of dividing the narrative up into smaller pieces and allocating each to a different source, Childs’s analysis of the text emphasizes the literary features of the text to explain the present form of Exod 32: The alleged contradiction between God’s informing Moses (vv 7-8) and his own discovery (vv 17ff.) arises from a failure to recognize the literary nature of the story. A topical scheme of contrasting scenes often dislocates the chronological sequence of the narrative…. The fact that a certain tension exists between the prose and the poetic section is to be expected and is common in the Old Testament (cf. Gn 9:20-27; Ex 17:15; Jo 10:12ff.). Similarly the delayed outburst of anger on seeing the Childs, Book of Exodus, 557-8. Ibid., 558. 378 Ibid., 559. 376 377

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

145

calf is a typical literary device with many parallels (cf. Nm 12:2,9), and offers no evidence for the lack of literary unity.379

Childs is undecided about placing this narrative unit in the murmuring tradition or as one of the stories that focus on Moses as mediator. With regard to the tradition behind Exod 32, Childs notes that this chapter differs from the murmuring tradition because the people are upset by Moses’ absence, but do not murmur against Moses himself or seek to return to Egypt. Instead the people take it upon themselves to have Aaron fix their problem for them. Child notes that Exodus 32 is also different from the stories that recount the role of Moses as mediator “particularly since Moses’ intercession is specifically denied in this case.”380 This is only partly true according to the canonical text of Exod 32. Moses is successful in mediating the people’s survival as a whole, but unsuccessful in stopping God from plaguing the people or in promising to revisit the people’s sin in the future. Childs points out that both Deut 9 and Ps 105 recount this story as if it were part of the murmuring tradition. The idea of the people “gathering against” Aaron is a sign of rebellion like the murmuring stories and the absence of Moses in his role as mediator is the initial problem in the story. Moses’ intercession for the people is important in the literary unity of Exod 32-34 and Deut 9. Therefore, Childs concludes “that there was an independent oral tradition lying behind the story which, even in the oral stage, was attracted into the orbit of other traditions.”381 With regard to the literary structure of the narrative of Exod 32, Childs states, “The movement of the chapter progresses by a series of confrontations between two persons.”382 Childs notes the initial confrontation between Aaron and the people, followed by the conversation between God and Moses. “Then there is an encounter in turn between Moses and the people, Moses and Aaron, Moses and the Levites, before Moses returns to the mountain to Childs, Book of Exodus, 559. Ibid., 560. 381 Ibid., 561. 382 Ibid., 563. 379 380

146

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

intercede with God.”383 The text attempts to clarify the line between opposing groups. No one is allowed to stay in the middle due to the nature of the conflict. Even Moses as a mediator chooses to side with the people and whatever punishment they might receive. As Childs explains, the structure of the narrative of extreme opposites causes some of the tension that other commentators interpret as indicating different sources of material. “Because the style of the chapter focuses on the series of polarities which reflects a topical interest in the content of the story, the logical sequence of the narrative is often distorted.”384 The narrative contrasts the view from below the mountain with the view from above while also highlighting the difference “between Moses’ intercession for the people when he is with God and his judgment of the people when he faces them in the valley.”385 Moses seems to stand both for the people and against the people in Exod 32 by throwing himself between God and the people in one instance, then dividing the people based on their allegiance to God on the other. Childs offers the standard interpretation of Moses’ action in the narrative of Exod 32:19 while also refuting one of several rabbinic explanations of Moses’ activities. “He threw down the tablets and shattered them, not because he was tired, but to dramatize the end of the covenant.”386 Childs wants to emphasize the intentional nature of Moses’ action in breaking the tablets. The breaking of the tablets is not accidental, in the sense that Moses was no longer physically able to carry the weight of the tablets. Indeed, to emphasize the importance of the breaking of the tablets before the people Childs points out that “Moses starts down the mountain carrying the two tablets of the testimony. He descends as if the covenant were still in order.”387 The breaking of the tablets in the presence of the rebellious people is to be a sign to them that the covenant they had earlier made with God has now been broken by their actions.

Childs, Book of Exodus, 563. Ibid. 385 Ibid. 386 Ibid., 569. 387 Childs, Book of Exodus, 568. 383 384

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

147

With that explanation Childs has finished discussing the tablets and goes on to investigate the destruction of the calf. Although the narrative begins with Moses having been away for forty days to receive the tablets on the mountain and the tablets are described as “the work of God,” Childs simply explains the action of Moses as being dramatic and offers no other possible explanation. The text of the biblical passage seems to be very concerned with restoring the destroyed tablets. Chapter 34 of Exodus explains that Moses went away for another forty days and nights on the mountain with God to receive a replacement set of tablets. One wonders if the risk to restore the tablets was worth it in the sense that it was Moses’ first forty day absence that had led to the people’s disobedience, God’s threat to wipe out the people, and the breaking of the first tablets. The second set of tablets was supplied and written by Moses and not by God as the first ones were (Exod 34:28). Although they served as an adequate replacement, the story goes out of its way to explain to the reader that they are not the same as the first set carved and written by God. Surely, the shattering of such a sacred set of objects as the first set of tablets was more than simply for dramatic effect. After all, there would be no need to replace the tablets if the covenant were null and void. Martin Noth In his book, Exodus: A Commentary, Martin Noth analyzed the biblical text from a historical-critical approach trying to determine the earliest layer of the narrative and preceding from there.388 Noth said of Exod 32, “In its present form, ch 32 must be examined in the context of the whole complex of chs 32-34…. The state of the sources is certainly extremely confused in this complex and something further should be said about individual details.”389 One of the “details” that Noth discusses is the tradition about the breaking of the tablets as recounted in chapter 32. Noth contends that “the narrative of the broken tables (ch 32), about whose inscription the old Pentateuchal material has as yet told us absolutely nothing, ap388 Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962). 389 Ibid., 243.

148

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

pears to be a secondary tradition. The main narrative about the tables, their contents and their significance stands only in ch 34.”390 This idea is important from Noth’s perspective concerning the dating and origin of Exod 32. He wants to compare the story recounted in Exod 32 with a similar story of King Jeroboam of Israel from 1 Kgs 12. Noth attributes the plural “elohim” of Exod 32:4, in which the narrative records the people affirming the golden calf as the “gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt,” as original to 1 Kgs 12 and out of place in Exod 32. This would mean that this material would come from a later date than the original Exodus material. Noth explains, “As the reason for the plural phrasing of this formula is that there are two ‘golden calves’ in 1 Kings 12…and this would not be appropriate in Ex 32, it is to be assumed that the basic narrative of Ex 32 on its part presupposes the prophetic narrative of 1 Kings 12:(13)14 in at least an already stereotyped oral form if not fixed in writing.”391 Noth understands the narrative structure of the canonical text of Exod 32 as serving the purpose to “condemn Jeroboam’s measures as apostasy and a breach of the covenant which finds special expression in the breaking of the tables on which ‘the words of the covenant’ (34:28) were written.”392 Noth’s analysis of the text leaves him with the problem of dating some of the material to the time of King Jeroboam while still holding the bulk of Exod 32 as being an early text. He has assigned the narrative largely to the Pentateuchal source J, which dates from the time of King David and King Solomon. As Jeroboam follows Solomon, the dating and analysis offered by Noth do not coincide. Realizing this difficulty, Noth ingeniously hypothesized that “Ex 32 must be regarded as a subsequent literary addition to the J narrative which was inserted to accommodate the condemnation of the cult introduced by Jeroboam within the great comprehensive description of the prehistory and early history of Israel provided by J.”393 In his analysis of the breaking of the tablets, Noth offers some inIbid., 243-44. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, 246. 392 Ibid. 393 Ibid. 390 391

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

149

teresting insights through his concentration on a source critical investigation. Concerning the importance of the section Exod 32:716, Noth explains that “something more is said about the tables so as to elucidate the significance of the breaking of the tables which soon follows.”394 This simple observation is followed by a discussion of the source of information about the tablets: the description of the tables at this point makes good sense. But of course we must also reckon with the possibility that this description of the tables is a subsequent addition which was inserted in the course of a further development of the tradition of the tables—perhaps even in several strata—and that originally only ‘the two tables’ in the hand of Moses were mentioned (the expression ‘tables of testimony’ is elsewhere found only in P).395

After discussing the information given in the narrative about the writing on the tablets as being on both sides and by God, Noth explains that “Moses’ breaking of the tables at the foot of the mountain, i.e., before he has entered the camp, means that he now declares the covenant between God and the people to be broken.”396 Without offering any further information, Noth goes on to discuss the destruction of the golden calf. After discussing the placement of the tablets in the tradition of the text and significance of the tablets in the text, Noth gives no more attention to their subsequent destruction than just this one sentence. To use his own source analysis, surely there is more happening with the addition of this later tradition to the J source than merely a symbolic action with regard to the broken covenant between the people and God. The action of the people alone in worshiping a false god, an idol of their own creation, surely is enough to indicate that they have broken the covenant without the additional action of Moses breaking the tablets. The actions of the Levites in slaughtering thousands of their fellow Israelites also points to the serious nature of the actions of the people in worshiping a Ibid., 248. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, 248-9. 396 Ibid., 249. 394 395

150

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

false god. In other parts of the Pentateuchal tradition, as has been noted earlier, the people continue to break their part of the covenant agreement and yet, the second set of tablets remains in the Ark of the Covenant unbroken. It is the contention of this book that something significant is going on in the text at this point that deserves further investigation, more than a mere one sentence response. Umberto Cassuto Umberto Cassuto’s A Commentary on the Book of Exodus gives quite a different picture of the text of chapter 32.397 Cassuto does not hold to the documentary hypothesis as Noth does. This philosophical difference is evident in the way Cassuto interprets this chapter and the Bible in general. An example of their differences can be seen in Cassuto’s comparison of Exod 32 with 1 Kgs 12. Cassuto notes that the attribution to the golden calves as the impetus for the people’s delivery from Egypt is more appropriate to the Exodus setting than to a time of the divided monarchy. Cassuto states, “it is more feasible that the story of the calf made by Aaron was already widely known at the time of the division of the kingdom, and that Jeroboam, in his endeavor to alienate his people from the sanctuary at Jerusalem, which was built in accordance with the Mosaic tradition and contained the kapporeth of the cherubim, wished to link himself to the opposite doctrine.”398 Cassuto also points to the idea that Jeroboam purposively appoints non-Levitical priests in 1 Kgs 12:31 because of the “attitude of the Levites in the episode of the calf.”399 Despite the philosophical differences on the origin of the Pentateuch between Cassuto and Noth, their interpretation of the breaking of the tablets is identical. Cassuto explains that since the people:

Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1974). 398 Ibid., 409. 399 Ibid., 409. 397

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

151

had committed the sin of the calf and had thereby broken the covenant, the latter was annulled. For this reason Moses shattered the tables that bore witness to the covenant, and the injunction to erect the tabernacle was likewise rescinded. Only when the people had obtained forgiveness was the covenant renewed, and the tablets were reinscribed like the first which had been broken, and permission was again granted to execute the work of the tabernacle.400

This interpretation of the text omits the forgiveness seemingly attained by Moses from God before coming down the mountain. This is explained by Noth and Cassuto in very different ways. Noth attributes verses 9-14 as a later addition to the narrative. Noth explains, “that because of their style vv 9-14 must be regarded as a Deuteronomistic addition which explains the sparing of Israel—represented as historical—after their apostasy from cult worship by Yahweh’s concern for his reputation among the Egyptians (and thus among the peoples of the world) and also by the oath which he had given to the Patriarchs.”401 Cassuto explains the textual difficulty as the difference between hearing about the incident from God and Moses actually seeing for himself what the people were doing. Cassuto understands the breaking of the tablets as Moses’ reaction to his personal witness of the Israelite idolatry: Although he had asked at first (v 11): ‘O Lord, why does Thy wrath burn hot against Thy people?’ Now, when he sees with his own eyes what the Lord had observed from heaven, he, too, is wroth…seeing that the people had broken the covenant, the testimony of the covenant had, perforce, to be annulled…at the very place where the covenant had been made.402

So, despite their philosophical differences with regard to difficulties in the text, the interpretation of the breaking of the tablets is Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 410. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, 244. 402 Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 419. 400 401

152

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

essentially the same for Noth and Cassuto. The narrative reports Moses shattering the tablets to symbolize or dramatize the broken covenant between the people and God. However, according to Exod 32:14, after being reminded of the effect wiping out the people would have on God’s reputation with the Egyptians and of the past promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, God repents “of the evil which He thought to do to His people.” The text of the biblical passage as it appears in the canonical text argues that any desire “to rescind” the covenant and the building of the tabernacle has already been litigated before Moses descends the mountain. According to Cassuto’s interpretation of the passage, it would appear that Moses is the one who annuls the covenant between the people and God upon seeing the people’s idolatry. God has already forgiven the people at Moses’ insistence, but that was before Moses realized just how bad things were. This interpretation is quite confusing. The covenant is annulled by God, reinstated by means of Moses’ persuasion, then annulled a second time by Moses apparently without input from God. Surely there is more going on here than confusion about the status of the covenant and Moses’ willingness to intercede for the people on one hand, and the destruction of the tablets and permission, or even insistence, on the killing of 3,000 of the people on the other. While Cassuto’s interpretation of the status of the covenant is confusing, he does not see this episode between Moses and the people as being unique. Cassuto places Exod 32 within the murmuring tradition by noting the similarities between the people gathering themselves together against Aaron in 32:1 and the account of Korah’s rebellion in Num 16:3, where the people gathered themselves against Moses and Aaron. The people also oppose Moses and Aaron at the Waters of Meribah in Num 20:2.403 However, the covenant is not in question in either of those stories; Moses’ leadership is. In the story of Korah’s rebellion in Num 16, the offending parties that had led the challenge against Moses are killed. This is similar to the report of 3,000 being killed in Exod 32. Although 403

Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 411.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

153

Moses and Aaron are challenged in Num 20, no one dies. However, just as Aaron is chastised in Exod 32 for his role in the people’s idolatry, Moses and Aaron are also upbraided by God for their lack of faith at Meribah. While neither Moses nor Aaron dies, the punishment for them is that they will not be able to lead the people into the Promised Land. Nahum Sarna Nahum Sarna’s exegesis of the Book of Exodus can be found in his commentary, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel.404 This commentary chooses not to discuss matters of source and dating of the narratives. Instead, the author focuses on interpreting the canonical text at hand. Sarna explains fully the importance of the tablets, describing them as “the most powerful and most impressive reminder of the experience at Sinai.”405 The tablets were representative of one of the central differences between the religion of Israel and neighboring religions. “In Israel, with its uncompromising aniconic, imageless religion, in place of the representation of the deity came the tangible symbol of His Word—the stone tablets of the Covenant.”406 Sarna explains the severity of the people’s sin in making and worshiping a golden calf in relation to this understanding of the Israelite religion’s uniqueness: The fundamental, distinctive idea of the religion of Israel was thereby violated and nullified. Instead of the unique, revolutionary idea of the Divine Word enshrined in the Holy of Holies as the token of the immediacy of the Divine Presence, there was a profane, plastic image which could easily be recognized as falling within the orbit of paganism. The situation in the wilderness thus produced two different, contradictory, and mutually exclusive responses: the one illegitimate and distortive, the Golden Calf; the other legitimate and corrective, the Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986). 405 Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 204. 406 Ibid., 209. 404

154

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19 Tabernacle. This explains why the story of the Golden Calf intersects the Tabernacle theme.407

Having highlighted the central importance of the tablets in the Tabernacle, Sarna explains Moses’ action in shattering them not out of anger at the people or as an impetuous act, but as symbolic of the breaking of the covenant between the people and God. The breaking of the tablets “possessed legal symbolism signifying Israel’s abrogation of the Covenant. In Akkadian legal terminology, the term ‘to break the tablet’ (tuppam hepu) means to invalidate or repudiate a document or agreement.”408 Sarna looks to Akkadian sources for an explanation of Moses’ action in the text. There can be no doubt that there is some parallel between the situation described in Exod 32 and the Akkadian practice to which Sarna refers. The people have broken the covenant by worshiping a false god. However, given the Egyptian background and setting for much of the book of Exodus, it makes sense to look first to ancient Egyptian sources to see if there is any similar practice to be found there as well. Upon further investigation of ancient Egyptian practices, there appears to be a parallel between the actions of Moses in Exod 32 and the response of the Pharaoh and his priests to those who threaten the order of Egyptian society. Given the Egyptian setting for the book of Exodus and the similarity between other sections of the Exodus tradition with ancient Egyptian practices, it naturally follows to look for a comparison between the handling of the disobedience of the people in Exod 32 with ancient Egypt first. A more thorough investigation of these similarities will soon follow.

Ibid., 219. Ibid. The Akkadian legal phrase is from the law code section of the Code of Hammurabi, paragraph 37. “The Code of Hammurabi,” translated by Theophile J. Meek (ANET, 167). 407 408

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

155

B. Other Modern Interpretations William M. Schniedewind In searching the HB for clues as to the dating and composition of the text, Schniedewind begins his discussion regarding parts of the book of Exodus noting differences between ‘orality’ and ‘textuality.’409 Schniedewind makes the observation “that writing has no role in the revelation at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19,” by pointing out all the references to speaking, not writing, in the texts of Exod 19 and 20. Moses speaks and God answers in Exod 19:16; Moses tells the people that God spoke all the words in Exod 20:1 in prefacing the Ten Commandments; the people do not want God to speak to them directly, Moses speaks to the people instead in Exod 20:19; God wants Moses to remind the people that God spoke to them from heaven in Exod 20:22.410 By focusing on the development of writing in ancient societies like Israel, according to Schniedewind’s reading of the text, “Writing has no role in the socalled Covenant Code in Exodus 21-23. Somehow the story of the revelation in Exodus 19-23 seems unaware that that the Torah is a text.”411 By choosing to analyze Exodus from the perspective of the evolution of recording and preserving written texts in an ancient society, Schniedewind will arrive at different conclusions than others who have read the same canonical texts. This conclusion of Schniedewind’s is also based on his analysis of Exod 24 as a later Deuteronomic text. This conclusion about Exod 24 is based on “the development of textuality itself…the very development of the notion of the written and then of the sacred text…”412 Schniedewind points to the only other place where Moses is described as a writer is in the conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy where both texts, Exod 24:4 and Deut 31:9, “use the editorial device of repetition to frame the portrayal of Moses, the writer of the Torah. We may surmise that it is here, in the final editing of the Bible, that Moses becomes a writer…this editing of the Schniedewind, 121. Ibid. 411 Ibid. 412 Ibid., 123. 409 410

156

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Bible is probably taking place in the late Persian or Hellenistic period.” Because he understands this part of the tradition as having been added to the text of Exodus, Schniedewind can proceed to analyze what is more ‘original’ to the story of Exodus. According to Schniedewind, the idea of written texts comes from a much later period than the Exodus tradition. Schniedewind’s analysis leads him to say that “the revelation of the Covenant Code in the Book of Exodus was originally depicted as an oral revelation. There was no reading of texts. There was no writing of texts. The whole revelation reflected the orality of ancient Israel.”413 While the canonical text presents the idea that the tablets written by God in Exodus contained the Ten Commandments, this analysis of Exodus by Schniedewind leads him to argue for different content on the stone tablets carried down the mountain by Moses in Exod 32 to be housed in the yet to be built ark of the covenant. Schniedewind notes that “Exodus 24:12, the giving of the two tablets, begins a literary unit that comes to a neat conclusion in Exodus 31:18.”414 It is this section of the text of Exodus that Schniedewind proposes would be on the tablets contained in the ark. Exodus 25-31 recounts the Sabbath commandment and the plans for the building of the tabernacle. He compares these contents as analogous to the Mesopotamian Tablets of Destiny which were thought to be “a divine writing produced at the creation of the world.”415 Both sets of tablets would have been thought to be produced by each tradition’s deity and worthy of preservation. Schniedewind argues that the description and plans for God’s dwelling place on earth makes more sense for the tablets’ contents because “it might seem a rather curious thing to seal the tablets within the ark, especially if the tablets were intended to be read and used as a moral and legal guide. On the other hand, if the tablets contained the building plans for the tabernacle, their purpose had Ibid., 127. Ibid., 129. 415 Ibid., 129-130. Schniedewind also cites 1 Chr 28:10-12 recording the inspired nature of the plans for the Jerusalem temple that were handed over from David to Solomon. 413 414

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

157

been served once the tabernacle was constructed.”416 The tablets were to be kept in the ark inside the tabernacle in which only the priests were to go. In the book of Exodus, only Moses goes into the tabernacle to meet with God. Hence, to follow Schniedewind’s argument, the people would not have access to the Ten Commandments and the law if it were locked away in the tabernacle. Although Schniedewind spends no time applying his interpretation of the tablets’ contents to the story of the Golden Calf in Exod 32, it is not difficult to imagine some of the implications if one were to follow Schniedewind’s argument. As opposed to Moses throwing the tablets down to emphasize the broken covenant with God, the breaking of tablets to destroy the plans for the tabernacle would indicate that the people’s sin had caused them to lose the presence of God. This interpretation would go along well with the reluctance of God to lead the people as expressed to Moses in Exod 33:3, “Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, lest I consume you in the way, for you are a stiff-necked people.” Moses could have been preserving the sinful people’s existence by destroying the plans for the tabernacle which would have put an angry deity in their midst ready to consume them. This approach to the preservation of the people would go along with Moses’ willingness to intercede for the people before God in Exod 32:11-14. However, Moses continues to intercede with God after the Golden Calf incident in the hopes that God will be with the people in Exod 33:15-16 and 34:9. It would seem odd that Moses would destroy plans for the tabernacle—the place where God would dwell with the people—and then immediately beseech God to dwell with the people. Also, Moses is never told to break the tablets. If the tablets represented the plans for the tabernacle and God’s presence with the people, surely there would have been a divine edict to break the plans in front of the people as a sign of their loss of divine guidance and protection.

416

Ibid., 130-131.

158

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Alan Millard Responding to the proposal of William Schniedewind, Alan Millard looks for answers in the language of the biblical text, instead of relying on the studying of writing in ancient cultures. Millard categorically rejects Schniedewind’s interpretation of Exod 24 saying that “recent syntactical studies of Hebrew narrative prose” solve the problems discussed by Schniedewind and this proper understanding of the Hebrew grammar permits “the verses to be read as a reprise to an earlier section of Exodus and as background to the following report.”417 This is not to say that the passage in Exod 24 is not difficult to interpret, but rather that Millard is looking elsewhere for the solution to this problematic passage. Millard analyzes the verbal forms in verses 1 and 2 of Exod 24 as being circumstantial, while the verbal form starting verse 3 begins the main narrative of the passage. In this case, verses 1-2 refer back to Exod 19:24 where Moses and Aaron are commanded to ascend the mountain to receive the Law and the Covenant of chapters 20-23. As Millard explains the difficulty in the logic of the text, “Before he could fulfill that command, Moses had to present the terms of the covenant to Israel and it is clear from the process of covenant-making that Moses could not go up the mountain with the representatives of the people to see their suzerain until he had announced the terms of the covenant and the Israelites had accepted them.”418 In Millard’s mind, this clears up the discrepancy in the text of how many times Moses was to ascend the mountain to receive the covenant agreement with God, then to receive the people’s acceptance of that covenant. Millard relates this covenant procedure between suzerains and vassals in negotiation as part of the ancient Near Eastern world.419 Millard disagrees with Schniedewind’s conclusion that the tablets contained the plans for the tabernacle and not the Ten Commandments, he bases his interpretation of the passage on ancient Near Eastern treaty practices. Millard insists that the commandments would have been written down to serve as a witness in deMillard, 255. Ibid. 419 Ibid., 257-259. 417 418

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

159

termining whether or not the people were keeping their part of the agreement, “In order that there should be no dispute about the stipulations the people had accepted, Moses recorded them on a scroll, but it was only after the people had accepted them that he did so, and then read the words to the people, ensuring that he had recorded them correctly.”420 This role of witness would lead to the necessity of keeping the agreement in a secure location which could be consulted as needed and yet preserved. Citing several examples from other ancient Near Eastern cultures like the Hittites and the Egyptians, Millard sees the ark as an integral part of this process. “The deposit of the stone tablets in the Ark, which was then placed in the holiest part of the Tabernacle, is exactly like the deposit of ancient treaty texts in the presence of the gods.”421 Hence, Millard argues that the tablets contained in the Ark of the Covenant were indeed the commandments relating to the covenant between the ancient Israelites and their God. Although Millard offers no explanation for the role of breaking the tablets in the Exod 32 story, the purpose of his article is to provide historical grounds for refuting the interpretation of Schniedewind. It would seem based on his analysis of the tablets as containing the words of the covenant that he would side with the majority of scholars who understand the breaking of the tablets as symbolic of the broken covenant. Dmitri Slivniak In his article on the Golden Calf story, Dmitri Slivniak analyzes the text from the perspective of a deconstructive critic. Slivniak explains that “the constructive reading focuses on the opposition ‘normative cult-deviant cult’ which is viewed as central to the story…The deconstruction of this opposition is based in the fact that the tablets and the calf receive the same treatment.”422 Slivniak summarizes his reading of the text in view of this opposition. “The ‘cult according to Moses’ is thus opposed to the ‘cult according to Aaron’ as ‘good’ is to ‘bad’, ‘prescribed’ is to ‘prohibited’, ‘law’ is Ibid., 256. Ibid., 265. 422 Slivniak, 19. 420 421

160

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

‘transgression’, ‘presence’ is to ‘absence’, ‘divine’ is to ‘human’, and ‘metonymy’ is to ‘metaphor’.”423 One sees this sense of direct opposition in God’s response to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exod 32:7-10. The sin of the people is so great that God wants to start over with another group. The activity of the people is in direct opposition to the covenant relationship established with God. What the people have done cannot be incorporated into their relationship with God and coexist along with the normative cult as set out in the covenant agreement. This leads Slivniak to an interesting conclusion about the necessity for Moses to break the tablets, since they represent the prescribed, normative cult. Slivniak explains that “the covenant/law embodied in the tablets has to be abolished as soon as possible. The people have to be ‘freed’ of it before investigative and ‘educative’ measure can be taken.”424 In other words, if Moses were not to break the tablets, it would indicate that the people’s covenantal relationship with God remained intact. If that relationship were still intact, then God would have no choice but to destroy the people for so thoroughly breaking the covenant agreement. Slivniak explains the necessity for the destruction of the tablets in that “the existence of a valid legal order embodied in the tablets is an even greater obstacle to renewing the relationship between God and Israel than the presence of the deviant cult embodied in the calf.”425 This would help to explain, from Slivniak’s perspective, why the tablets had to be shattered first before Moses could even go about destroying the calf and restoring the normative cult. The destruction of the tablets also points to difference between the Torah and what can be made by a person or a community. The problem for the people in Exod 32 is the loss of Moses’ presence. Slivniak explains that Moses was angry because “the people identified the Torah with his physical presence.”426 Moses Ibid., 25 Ibid., 26. 425 Ibid., 27. 426 Ibid. 423 424

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

161

broke the tablets to show the people that only God is holy and “the Creator’s will is expressed in the unchanging Torah.”427 According to this interpretation God’s will is not identical with any individual in the community or any religious artifact produced or protected by the community. The Torah, and the community’s relationship with God, is a living relationship. Slivniak concludes his study of the Golden Calf story noting that the tablets that survive in the Ark of the Covenant are “human-made like the calf.”428 There is some question in the tradition whether the writing on the second set of tablets belongs to Moses or God, and whether what is recorded on the new tablets is the same as what was on the previous set of tablets. From Slivniak’s perspective, this teaches the people—and future readers of the text—that religious items like the tablets “contain no intrinsic holiness,”429 but are only holy in relation to God. This includes items like the Golden Calf itself. This conclusion posits the Golden Calf story and the destruction of the tablets as a cautionary tale for religious communities. While this is certainly true, this analysis fails to take into account the conversation between God and Moses about the people’s sinful activities. Moses is told of the people’s sin and intercedes on their behalf. But there is no discussion between God and Moses about the necessity of destroying the tablets so that a new and improved covenant relationship can be established, or re-established. Also, if the destruction of the tablets and the calf help to re-set their relationship with God, then why is it necessary to kill 3,000 people and for God to send a plague upon the people to punish them? Craig Evan Anderson Anderson expands the pericope being studied slightly by including Exod 31:18-34:35 to examine the five blocks of text that discuss the tablets.430 He describes those blocks of text as being “saturated Ibid., 28. Ibid., 35. 429 Ibid. 430 Craig Evan Anderson, “The Tablets of Testimony and A Reversal of Outcome in the Golden Calf Episode,” HS 50 (2009), 41-65. 427 428

162

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

with Deuteronomistic elements” like the similarity between the construction of the calf in Exod 32:1-6 and Jeroboam’s calves in 1 Kgs 12:28-29; the style of the conversation between Moses and YHWH in Exod 32:7-14; the concern with idolatry; the similarity between Moses’ destruction of the calf and Josiah’s destruction of the altar at Bethel (2 Kgs 23:15-20); Moses and Elijah confronting people who worship another god involving a bull (1 Kgs 18:40); and the establishment of a covenant.431 Next, Anderson analyzes four “Sinai” sections of the text which he considers to be Priestly components because of their concern for the connection between Sinai and the tablets.432 These sections of text provide the framework for Anderson’s interpretation of the Golden Calf story. Section A encompasses God giving the tablets to Moses (31:18); in section B one reads about Moses breaking the tablets before Israel (32:15-16,19); in section A 1 God gives new tablets to Moses (34:1-4); and finally, section B 1 is comprised of Moses giving the new tablets to Israel (34:29-35).433 Anderson understands this framework as helping the reader to interpret the story of the Golden Calf through a concentration on the giving of the tablets. Anderson sees the text as having a natural break at 33:6 which marks the point in the story where a new attempt to deliver the tablets to the people will be successful (33:734:35), as opposed to the story of the people’s sin with the Calf which was an unsuccessful attempt to deliver the tablets (31:1833:6). Anderson sees the delivery of the tablets to the people as an attempt to turn a negative story of the people’s sinfulness with the Golden Calf, into a positive story of the reception of the tablets and the establishment of a covenant with YHWH.434 Anderson notes that without the Priestly additions to the text that the last time the people of Israel are mentioned is in Exod 33:6. Without Ibid., 44-45. Ibid., 45-46. 433 Ibid., 47. 434 The Priestly redaction of a Deuteronomistic story serves to focus the story on “the restoration of relationship and renewal of the destroyed tablets…and…the role of Moses as a priestly intercessor,” Anderson, 59. 431 432

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

163

the Priestly portion of Exod 31:18-34:35 the people of Israel would exit the story after having been “massacred (32:25-29), dismissed (32:30-34), plagued (32:35), and hopeless (33:1-6).435 This would certainly relate to the breaking of a people described as stiffnecked. It would also provide future readers of the story with no hope for restoration. Thus, Anderson sees the story functioning as a cautionary tale about the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C.E. with no hope of restoration or return for those tribes.436 The only part of the canonical text which mentions the tablets that Anderson sees as original to the story is the passage in Exod 32:19. This verse “flows quite naturally into 32:20...” and is “prompted, not by 31:18 or 32:15-16 (which, as we have already seen, are later additions), but by 24:12.”437 The breaking of the tablets in Exod 32:19 is a negative for the people’s relationship with God and would therefore go along with Anderson’s premise of the original story as focusing on the negative outcome of the people’s idolatry. Anderson offers no motivation for Moses’ actions as symbolic, but rather concentrates his analysis on the positive nature of the restored tablets from a Priestly perspective. Carol Meyers, James K. Bruckner, Tremper Longman III, and William T. Miller, S.J. Also publishing recent commentaries on the book of Exodus are Carol Meyers, James K. Bruckner, Tremper Longman III, and William T. Miller, S.J.438 Meyer begins analyzing Exodus 31:18-34:35

Ibid., 63. Ibid., 64. 437 Ibid., 57. 438 Carol Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005); James K. Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary, Old Testament Series 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008); Tremper Longman III, How to Read Exodus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009); William T. Miller, S.J., The Book of Exodus: Question by Question (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2009). All four authors in this section have published recent commentaries on the Book of Exodus which should be included in any review of scholarly research. However, much of the commentary they offer has been covered by the other authors already 435 436

164

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

by comparing this section of texts with “the genre of templebuilding accounts in the ancient Near East, of which the tabernacle texts are an example, sometimes exhibits a pattern in which the god’s command to build is followed by a rebellion against the builder.”439 By focusing first on the building of the tabernacle, rather than the establishment of a covenant, Meyers is closer to Schniedewind’s explanation of the text cited above. She also notes that “several sources, which no longer can be isolated, have been incorporated into the present narrative, probably by priestly redactors.”440 This statement helps Meyer to avoid spending pages of the commentary discussing the condition of the MT and points to the fact that her interpretation of this passage will not be based on separating out specific layers of the text. Meyer analyzes Moses’ actions in Exod 32:19 as being motivated by anger. The breaking of the tablets is “tantamount to voiding the document written on them. With that comment, Meyers goes on to describe the destruction of the Golden Calf has concluded her thoughts on the breaking of the tablets. James K. Bruckner places Exod 32-34 together as a unit. Bruckner equates the tablets with the covenant between God and the people of Israel. The tablets contain the Ten Commandments and represent “the agreement the people had made with the Lord in the book of the covenant (24:3).”441 Without doubt, Moses’ action in smashing the tablets is symbolic of the broken covenant for Bruckner. Moses breaks the tablets “in the same place it had been made, at the foot of the mountain (v. 19; 24:4).”442 Bruckner discusses how this action of breaking the tablets annuls the covenant relationship between the people and God. Tremper Longman III’s analysis of Exod 32 is much the same. Longman places the chapter in a large section of the book of Exodus, chapters 25-40. In discussing chapters 32-34 entitled cited. This is the reason for putting the four commentaries together in one general grouping. 439 Meyers, 258. 440 Ibid., 258. 441 Bruckner, 285. 442 Ibid., 286.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

165

“Threat to Proper Worship: The Golden Calf,”443 Longman agrees with others in saying that Moses was motivated by anger to shatter the tablets on the ground. “Israel had broken the covenant through their actions and Moses’ shattering the tablets represented the breaking of the relationship between God and Israel.”444 Longman quickly leaves the story of the Golden Calf and the breaking of the tablets behind in order to discuss “The Shape of Proper Worship (Exodus 25-31; 35-40).445 It would seem that the Golden Calf story and the sin of the people are too negative for Longman to discuss at any great length. Lastly, William T. Miller, S.J. offers his own analysis of Exodus 32:1-35. In his discussion of the breaking of the tablets, Miller immediately notes the shift in tone as Moses is described as moving from “negotiator” who “becomes the enraged leader, judge, and jury.”446 It seems that Miller is right in calling Moses both the judge and jury by noting that the idea for the breaking of the tablets and the destruction of the calf are Moses’ alone, he “consulted no one and gave no explanation.”447 It is the lack of explanation of his actions for his audience that most troubles this reader. Missing from Moses’ address to Aaron and the people is some announcement that he is breaking these tablets as a sign and symbol of their own broken covenant with God. Whether the chapter is historical or not, was everyone in the original, intended audience truly aware of the covenant making process in the ancient Near East? Are we to imagine that the Golden calf worshipers in the narrative have a clear understanding of the significance of Moses’ actions? Many symbolic actions in the Bible are accompanied by an explanation of their meaning to the audience, but not here. As Miller is right in calling attention to the fact that Moses is acting on his own without an explanation for the people.

Longman, 132. Ibid., 133. 445 Ibid., 134. 446 Miller, 321. 447 Ibid., 321. 443 444

166

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Jeffrey M. Cohen A modern interpretation of Exod 32:19 is offered by Jeffrey Cohen in his article, “Why Moses Smashed the Tablets.”448 Cohen holds to the idea that the breaking of the tablets was no accident. He connects Moses’ action to his initial call on the mountain with God in Exod 3:12. There the narrative reports that Moses will know that God has called him when he leads the people out of Egypt and serves God back at the same location. “This was to be the proof that Moses had sought that God had sent him, and he was not imaging his call.”449 However, instead of the people serving God and affirming Moses’ calling at the mountain as Moses hoped, the people build an idol and worship it. “So not only was Moses’ faith in his people shattered in an instant, but also his faith in himself, as the messenger and leader chosen by God. The proof he sought evaporated before his eyes.”450 So, Cohen’s explanation for the shattering of the tablets by Moses was “his great shock at the non-fulfillment of the divine promise to confirm his mission when the people arrived at Sinai and serve God by that mountain.”451 Cohen supports this interpretation by noting that Moses asks for a sign of God’s absolute support of his leadership “in a tangibly physical manner.”452 In Cohen’s interpretation Moses is not seen as angry, but rather greatly disappointed. The people’s idolatry sends him into “shock” and he reacts violently. Cohen does not attempt to absolve the people of their sin or to lessen the severity of Moses’ response, but rather personalizes Moses’ disappointment in this case. In following the canonical narrative of the book of Exodus one might see the kind of confirmation that Cohen talks about for Moses’ call earlier in the book. One could see why a person might be skeptical of a religious calling to lead people out of Egyptian slavery. But surely the success of the plagues in Egypt and the mi448 Jeffrey M. Cohen, “Why Moses Smashed the Tablets,” JBQ 23 (1995): 33-37. 449 Ibid., 35. 450 Ibid. 451 Ibid., 36. 452 Ibid.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

167

raculous parting of the sea for the Israelites would have been enough to convince Moses that God had truly called him. If the few signs Moses was given at his initial calling—the staff turning into a snake, the skin turning leprous and then healing—were enough to get him off the mountain and into Egypt, then surely the success of the mission up to the point of Mt. Sinai was enough to convince him that he was truly called by God. As mentioned earlier, the book of Exodus does record the people’s initial acceptance of the commandments in chapter 24, before the idolatry of the golden calf. As will be demonstrated in the following sections, one could argue that Moses is angered not only by the behavior of the people, but also by the people’s attempt to replace him as their leader with the golden calf. Moses reacts violently to the people and asks God for a sign in order to reestablish himself as their undisputed human leader. Although Moses is surely disappointed and even disturbed by the people’s idolatry, he is also upset at the people for various reasons throughout the narrative of the Pentateuch. In none of the other stories of confrontation and disappointment does Moses destroy something considered holy to demonstrate the people’s sin. Rabbinic Exegesis The ancient rabbis also commented on the motivation for Moses’ action in breaking the tablets. In Babylonian Talmud tractate Yebamot the idea is mentioned and later to be echoed by Rabbi Shelomo Yitschaki Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105 (also known as Rashi), that since it was commanded that the Paschal lamb was not to be eaten by aliens “and this was only one of the 613 commandments, then how could Moses bring the Law to the children of Israel?”453 The idea behind this comment is that if even eating the proscribed sacrifice of the Paschal lamb by an alien was considered unlawful, then how much more so would the Israelites constructing and worshiping an idol which was strictly forbidden be unlawful. Hence, the breaking of the tablets before the people saw them was Moses’ way of protecting the people from what would have 453 The Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth, col. 61b, vol. 6, trans. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1936) 412.

168

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

surely been a much harsher punishment. Of course, this line of rabbinic reasoning seems to forget that the people have already heard the contents of the commandments on the tablets and agreed to keep them (Exod 24:3), that the Levites killed three thousand men that day (Exod 32:28), and that God still “sent a plague upon the people” (Exod 32:35) even without the people seeing the commandments actually written on the tablets. Babylonian Talmud tractate Yebamot also mentions the idea that Moses acted on his own accord without divine guidance in breaking the tablets. Yebamot says, “The breaking of the tablets was one of three things Moses did on his own initiative which the Lord agreed with. Moses separated himself from his wife, broke the tablets and added one day.”454 Indeed, in most instances the text reports Moses directly following God’s command, but here in Exod 32, the narrative does not indicate that God wished the tablets to be broken, or for that matter, for three thousand of the Israelites to be killed. Babylonian Talmud tractate Baba Qamma notes the difference between the listing of the commandments in Exod 20 and Deut 5 as an indication that the first tablets were destined for destruction. Baba Qamma states, “The first tablets contained no mention of well being for honoring your mother and father, as the version in Deuteronomy, ‘That your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you….’ The first tablets were destined to be broken and the well being part was left out on purpose, otherwise there would have never been well being in Israel.”455 One can see the theological idea that everything always works out according to God’s divine plan behind this comment. God knew all along what would happen with the people and how Moses would respond to their idolatry. God was in control despite the sinfulness of the people, or in spite of the sinfulness of the people, and was looking out for the well being of future generations by preserving their “well being.” According to this interpretation,

454 455

319.

The Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth, cols. 61b-62a, vol. 6, 412-413. The Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma, cols. 54b-55a, vol. 10, 318-

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

169

Moses’ action in breaking the tablets was all part of God’s response to the sin God knew the people would commit. The famous Jewish exegete Rabbi Shemuel ben Meir (Rashbam), 1085-1174, described the breaking of the tablets as accidental. “At the sight of the calf, Moses felt faint and was no longer able to carry the heavy tablets. They fell from his hands.”456 It seems that the rabbi is trying to excuse Moses from any possible impropriety for destroying such sacred objects as the tablets received from and written by God. According to Rashbam, Moses does not intentionally break the tablets to signal the broken covenant or for dramatic effect, it was just an unintentional accident for which Moses should incur no guilt. Moses is not angry at the people’s sin and not vengeful in any way according to this interpretation, nor even looking out for the people’s best interest in destroying the tablets, rather he has a physical reaction of weakness to the people’s moral weakness in sinning during his absence. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu mentions the idea that the golden calf was not made by the children of Israel at all. The sin of producing the calf and worshiping it was the fault of the mixed multitude that accompanied Israel out of Egypt. The midrash reports a conversation between God and the calf to determine what people were responsible for its production. God only wanted to punish the offending parties involved. When it was determined that it was the mixed multitude and not the Israelites, “Thus Moses broke the tablets, then pleaded for the children of Israel, God realized they had done nothing wrong and granted a second set of tablets.”457 This interpretation is not concerned with removing any possible guilt from Moses, but rather removing any guilt from the true Israelites themselves. The Israelites were without sin and were

456 Rabbi Shemuel ben Meir, Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation (ed. and trans. M. I. Lockshin; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 398-399. 457 Samuel A. Berman, Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of TanhumaYelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV Publishing House, 1996), 614.

170

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

granted another set of tablets. According to this line of reasoning, if they had been guilty, surely they would have been punished, too. This book of midrash also records the idea that the loss of the sacred writing on the tablets was partially responsible for the destruction of the tablets. The writing, which was the very writing of God and therefore holy in and of itself, could not be around or near the sin of the people. The midrash states, “while the writing was on the tablets Moses did not feel their weight, but when the writing flew away, they became heavy in his hands and he dropped them and they were broken.”458 The holy nature of the letters somehow miraculously enabled Moses to carry the large tablets. The letters bore some of the weight or all of the weight of the tablets, enabling Moses to carry them. The destruction of the tablets was by no means intentional on Moses’ part, nor was the sacred writing of God destroyed according to this interpretation. The sacred letters simply returned to God; this caused Moses to drop the unbearable weights from his hands. This particular interpretation offers no excuse for the behavior of the people, but Moses is certainly dismissed from any wrongdoing. The sacred nature of the tablets also diminishes greatly without God’s holy writing present. While it may be difficult to advocate any one of these rabbinic interpretations as the definitive cause for the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32, one can clearly see a need on the part of the tradition to explain why such holy objects were destroyed. Each interpretation offered is an attempt by the scholars of the day to excuse Moses and/or the children of Israel from any perceived sin on their part. D. Early Christian Exegesis of Exod 32:19

Exodus Through the Centuries Scott M. Langston’s commentary on the book of Exodus does a fascinating job of culling interpretations of the chapters and verses of Exodus through the ages.459 Having already discussed the releIbid., 615. Scott M. Langston, Exodus Through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries Through the Centuries; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 458 459

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

171

vant rabbinic exegesis of Exod 32, we will begin looking at Langston’s discoveries from the post-New Testament era to the modern age. Langston points out that the Epistle of Barnabus referred to the breaking of the tablets in the Golden Calf story as “the reason Jews no longer possess the covenant…Moses broke the tablets to signify the annulment [4:5-9; 14:1-9].”460 Ephrem also uses the breaking of the tablets to signify an anti-Jewish polemic. According to Ephrem Moses broke the tablets instead of giving them to the people because the tablets would have no value to “a people who had exchanged the very Lawgiver for a Calf.”461 Caesarius of Arles also demonstrates an anti-Jewish bias in his interpretation of the significance of the breaking of the tablets. Caesarius explains that the first set of tablets were broken “on account of the infidelity of the Jewish people, but the second ones were preserved because of the faith of Christians.”462 Langston also discusses the depiction of the Golden Calf story in art over the centuries. Two works specifically interpret the breaking of the tablets in unique ways as opposed to only focusing on the Golden Calf. Domenico Beccafumi’s Moses and the Golden Calf (1536-7) shows Moses “using the tablet of the Law in order to strike the golden calf.”463 Langston describes the painting as coupling the “sins of idolatry and promiscuity, virtually equating the golden calf with the seductress, while Moses is poised to use the Law to smash the calf.”464 William Blake shows the frustration of Moses in the breaking of the tablets. For Blake, Moses is revolted by the people’s idolatry in Moses Indignant at the Golden Calf. The broken tablets are at Moses’ feet as “Moses draws back in horror while the people continue to worship…the broken tablets reflect the power of idolatry over the people and the powerlessness of 2006). While the number of citations that discuss the Golden Calf are plentiful, I will mention only those citations that deal directly with the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32. 460 Ibid., 235. 461 Ibid., 236. 462 Ibid. 463 Ibid., 244. 464 Ibid.

172

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

YHWH to attract their willing devotion.”465 The Bible is filled with stories of people making agreements with God and continuing to sin. Perhaps Blake is right in capturing the essence of the Golden Calf story so shortly after the covenant between God and the people had been agreed upon. John Calvin Christian exegetes also offered interpretations of the purpose and reasoning behind the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32:19. John Calvin interpreted the actions of Moses as being motivated by his righteous anger at the people’s sin. Calvin contrasts the work of Moses as intercessor on behalf of the people with God, and his actions in breaking the tablets upon coming down from the mountain. “He who had before humbly pleaded for the safety of the people, now, when he sees the calf, bursts forth into rage, and the hideousness of the crime awakens him to different feelings.”466 Calvin makes no attempt to lessen the people’s guilt or to excuse the actions of Moses in breaking the tablets as accidental. Calvin goes on to chastise Moses for breaking the tablets because of the tablet’s sacred nature. “In breaking the tables, however, he seems to have forgotten himself; for what sort of vengeance was this, to deface the work of God? Howsoever detestable the crime of the people was, still the holy covenant of God ought to have been spared.”467 This interpretation of Calvin’s implies causality to the action of Moses. The covenant of God is intact until the tablets themselves are broken. Calvin goes on to disparage some of the rabbinic interpretations as attempts to excuse Moses’ actions, which he considered inexcusable. Calvin offers another interpretation for Moses’ true motivation in breaking the tablets, “I have no doubt, however, but that he broke the tables in reference to his office, as if to annul the Ibid., 245. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of A Harmony (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 3:346. Originally translated from the original Latin and compared with the French edition by Rev. C. W. Bingham. 467 Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, 3:348. 465 466

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

173

covenant of God for a time; for we know that God commits both charges to the ministers of His word, to be the proclaimers of His vengeance, as well as the witnesses of His grace.”468 Hence, according to Calvin, Moses was merely doing what he thought best as any good minister would. However, Moses apparently went too far, by Calvin’s standards, because of the holy nature of the tablets themselves. Calvin explains that “God rejected the people by the hand of Moses, renouncing the covenant which He had recently established in a solemn ceremony; and this severity was more useful as an example than as if He had sent Moses back empty-handed; for else it would never have suggested itself to the Israelites of how incomparable a treasure they had been deprived.”469 Then, according to Calvin, Moses is guilty of going too far by destroying the sacred tablets and the people are guilty of sinning with the calf. God allowed Moses to take the tablets down the mountain and destroy them to help the people realize what their sin had done to their recently established relationship with God. The breaking of the tablets served as an object lesson for the Israelites in just how far they had gone astray from the covenant and how much they had lost. John Wesley Wesley adds in his interpretation of Exod 32:19 that Moses was angry. Wesley considered this kind of righteous anger to be free from sin: “Those are angry and sin not that are angry at sin only.”470 Far from being an accident, according to Wesley’s interpretation, Moses broke the tablets on purpose in an effort to show the people how angry he was at them. “Moses shewed himself angry, both by breaking the tables, and burning the calf, that he might by these expressions of a strong passion awaken the people to a

Ibid. Ibid. 470 John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament (3 vols.; Salem, Ohio: Schmul, 1975), 1:314.Originally published in Bristol by William Pine, in Wine-Street (1765). 468 469

174

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

sense of the greatness of their sin.”471 The great anger that Moses showed was because of the people’s great sin.

II. STUDY OF “THE BREAKING OF THE COVENANT” A. Most Common Hebrew Expressions Despite their interpretational differences with regard to Moses’ motivation in Exod 32, commentators understand the breaking of the tablets as a sign of a broken covenant between God and the people. The disagreement among these scholars stemmed from their analysis of Moses’ psyche: Moses was angry at the people, disappointed in the people, or even trying to protect the people from God’s wrath. All of these commentators point to the idea that the breaking of the tablets symbolizes in some way what the people have done to their relationship with God. After the study of the ancient Egyptian execration ritual, and the similarities of that ritual with the actions of the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 19, one can see another interpretive alternative as to the motivation in Exod 32 for the breaking of the tablets. Indeed, the breaking of the tablets by Moses was not merely symbolic of what the people had done, the breaking of the tablets signified what Moses wanted to do to the people because of their sin. Moses did not want to destroy all the people. Rather, Moses sought to break the “stiff necked” people and restore the proper relationship between God and the people. The Egyptian pharaohs and priests sought to control the enemies of the state, from inside or outside of their borders, through the use of execration magical practices involving the shattering of pottery or figurines. In Exod 32 Moses attempts to control the people’s behavior through a similar response to a lack of divine order, and an apparent attack on his position as leader of the people, by shattering the tablets of the law. According to the canonical text of Exod 32, the people have transgressed the newly formed covenant with God by worshiping a golden calf in Moses’ absence. The Hebrew word for “covenant” is 471

Ibid.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

175

‫ ברית‬which occurs 283 times in the Bible.472 While ‫ ברית‬does not

occur in any verse in Exod 32, the term is found thirteen times in the book of Exodus.473 A working definition for covenant is given by John M. Lundquist as being the kind of agreement that is “a formal, ritually enacted ceremony mediated by the prophet or king in (more exactly ‘in front of,’ or ‘on,’ in case of the mountain) the temple, a ceremony in which the community is founded through the people’s ‘indexical’ acceptance of the revealed law.”474 As George Mendenhall explains, “The clans who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses were of diverse background…. [T]hey were formed into a new community by a covenant whose text we have in the Decalogue.”475 According to the book of Exodus this “new community” had arrived at Sinai under Moses’ leadership, had agreed to establish a relationship with God, had agreed to obey the laws given there, and soon thereafter broke some of those laws. Of the two hundred and eighty three occurrences of ‫ ברית‬in the HB, fifty-seven of those passages are concerned with the breaking Abraham Evan-Shoshan, ed., A New Concordance of the Old Testament: Using the Hebrew and Aramaic Text (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Sivan Press, 1989), 205-206. 473 ‫ ברית‬occurs in Exod 2:24; 6:4,5; 19:5; 23:32; 24:7,8; 31:16; 34:10,12,15,27, 28. 474 John M. Lundquist, “Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (ed. Avraham Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 295. The technical term “indexical” is defined by Lundquist on page 304, n. 12, as coming from R. Rappaport and referring to verbal and physical acts of acceptance during a ritual from one participant to another. 475 George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (September, 1954): 63. Since this book is dealing with the canonical text as it has been received in the tradition, there is no need to offer conjecture as to the historical layers in the text and their approximate date of compilation. Robert A. Oden, Jr. provides an historical review of the concept of the covenant and its importance in the Old Testament in “The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (eds. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 429-447. 472

176

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

of a covenant.476 The Hebrew verb in Exod 32:19 used to describe Moses’ action in breaking the tablets, which has been interpreted as a dramatic sign of the broken covenant between God and the people, is ‫שבר‬. There is only one passage in the Hebrew Bible that connects the verb ‫ שבר‬with the Hebrew term for covenant ‫ברית‬. This passage is found in Dan 11:22 and says, “Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken (‫שּׁברוּ‬ ֵ ִ‫ )וְ יּ‬and the prince of the covenant also.” The use of ‫ שבר‬actually refers to the breaking of the armies and the prince, not a covenant, or the covenant itself. ‫ שבר‬occurs in different verbal forms one hundred and forty eight times in the Hebrew Bible, but never in conjunction with the idea of breaking a covenant in any kind of figurative or metaphorical sense. So, it seems odd that commentators would connect the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32 as a symbolic sign of a broken covenant with the verb ‫ שבר‬when it is never used in that sense elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. ‫“ פרר‬to break, to destroy” There are six Hebrew verbs that appear two times or more in conjunction with ‫ ברית‬to express the idea of the breaking of the covenant.477 The most common verb used to designate the breaking of a covenant is ‫ פרר‬which occurs twenty-one times in conjunction with ‫ ברית‬to indicate that a covenant relationship has

476 While there are several types of covenants found in the Old Testament—Sinaitic, Davidic, Abrahamic, Noachic—the concern of this book is the idea of how the Hebrew Bible as a whole describes the dissolving of those agreements between the parties and how that idea or those ideas might relate to Exod 32. Covenants are described as being broken in Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15,44; Deut 17:2; 29:24; 31:16,20; Josh 7:11,15; 23:16; Judg 2:1,20; 1 Kgs 11:11; 15:19; 19:10,14; 2 Kgs 17:15,38; 18:12; Isa 24:5; 28:18; 33:8; 54:10; Jer 11:10; 14:21; 22:9; 31:32; 33:20,21; 34:18; 50:5; Ezek 16:59; 17:15,16,18,19; 44:7; Hos 6:7; 8:1; Amos 1:9; Zech 11:10; Mal 2:8,10,14; Pss 44:18; 55:21; 78:10,37; 89:35,40; Prov 2:17; Dan 11:22,28,30,32; Neh 13:29; 2 Chr 16:3. 477 ‫ פרר‬is found twenty-one times, ‫ עפר‬occurs nine times, ‫ עזב‬five times, ‫ שכח‬three times (twice with ‫)לא‬, ‫ חלל‬also occurs three times and ‫לא‬ ‫ שמר‬is found twice in the HB.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

177

been severed or might be severed because of the actions of one side of the agreement.478 The symbolic action of a leader which most closely resembles the general interpretation of Moses’ actions in Exod 32:19 can be found in Zech 11:10, “And I took my staff Grace, and I broke it, annulling (‫ ) ְל ָה ֵפיר‬the covenant which I had made with all the peoples.”479 Here the narrative itself removes all doubt as to the purpose of the shepherd’s act. In breaking the staff, the shepherd intends to symbolically represent the nature of the broken covenant between God and the people. One similarity that the Zechariah passage has with Exod 32 is the problem of leadership in the religious community. The problem of the idolatrous worship of the golden calf began when Moses, the community’s leader, disappeared from the people’s sight. This left a vacuum of leadership that apparently Aaron was unable to fill and that made the people restless. So, too, the shepherd in Zechariah attempts to lead the people and has problems with the people’s other leaders. “In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me” (Zech 11:8). As to the historical identity of these “shepherds” there have many attempts to identify them. However, Paul L. Redditt disagrees with this approach to the text, “It is not possible to identify any specific event to which the prophet makes allusion here, though…scholars have tried to do so. Conflicts over leadership, with Samaria pitted against Jerusalem, Jerusalem against Judah, and repatriated exiles against other groups, or even against each other, must have abounded in the postexilic community.”480 Another similarity between the actions of the people in Exod 32 and those mentioned in Zech 11 is noted by Elizabeth Achtemeier. The leaders of the group in Zech 11 offer a payment of 478 A form of ‫ פרר‬and ‫ ברית‬can be found together in Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15,44; Deut 31:20; Jud 2:1; 1 Kgs 15:19; Isa 24:5; 33:8; Jer 11:10; 14:21; 31:32; 33:20,21; Ezek 16:59; 17:15,16,18,19; 44:7; Zech 11:10; 2 Ch 16:3. 479 ‫הפֵיר‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬is a hipʽil infinitive of the verb‫פרר‬. 480 Paul L. Redditt, “The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-17,” CBQ 55 (1993): 682.

178

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

thirty shekels to the shepherd, whom she analyzes as a Messiah figure. “They want a Messiah who can be bought, whom they can hire or dismiss at will. In short, they want to run their own community.”481 This interpretation can also be applied to the people in the story of the golden calf. With Moses missing, they want to find a replacement that they can manufacture and hence, control. According to Exod 32 and Zech 11, God is not pleased with that arrangement and neither are God’s appointed leaders. However, despite the analogous meaning and interpretation of the two passages or situations mentioned in Exod 32 and Zech 11, the Hebrew verbs associated with the two ideas of breaking are different. In Zech 11 it is a form of ‫פרר‬, but in Exod 32 the verbal root is‫שבר‬. Perhaps this points to the need for a different interpretation regarding Moses’ actions in the Exod 32 passage. As evidence of this one needs only to look at the roles of the two leaders in the given passages. The role of the shepherd in the Zechariah passage is opposite of Moses’ actions with regard to the people in Exod 32. Moses objects to God’s desire to wipe out the people and intervenes with God on the people’s behalf. Moses convinces God to relent by reminding God of the effect this action would have on God’s reputation with the Egyptians and of God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. However, the shepherd in Zech 11:9 says, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another.” While the actions of Moses and the shepherd have been interpreted in the same way, it would seem the attitude of Moses in Exod 32 is definitely not the same, therefore leading one to infer that Moses’ actions had a different purpose than the breaking of the staff by the shepherd in Zechariah. Moses wants the covenant relationship with God to continue despite the sinful actions of the people, while the shepherd in Zechariah is willing to let the chips fall where they may. While the breaking of the staff for Zechariah’s shepherd indicates that God’s protection of the people is over, the attitude and actions of Moses 481 Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum-Malachi (Interpretation Series; Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 157.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

179

in Exod 32 would indicate that Moses uses the breaking of the tablets to correct the community and to bring their behavior back in line. Moses is concerned with what their enemies will think of the people, but is willing to argue with God to give the people a chance to reform. Zechariah’s shepherd does not. ‫“ עבר‬to go through, to pass through, to transgress” The second most numerous verbal combination describing the breaking of a covenant with ‫ ברית‬is ‫עבר‬. This combination of terms occurs nine times in the HB.482 Five of the nine occurrences deal with the issue of future repercussions for going against God’s laws: Deut 17:2 commands the stoning of anyone who breaks covenant with God by committing the sin of idolatry in the future; Josh 23:16 promises that those who worship other gods will “perish quickly” from the promised land; Judg 2:20 declares that the people will be punished by God for their lack of obedience to the “covenant which I commanded their fathers”; Jer 34:18 promises that God will cut in two the people that have not kept covenant; and Hos 8:1 describes the impending doom for Samaria because they have not been faithful to God by choosing their own leaders and worshiping idols. These are all promises of punishments that have not been enacted yet and therefore do not match or resemble the immediate actions of Moses and the Levites against those who made and worshiped the golden calf in Exod 32. The punishment for breaking the covenant in these passages is certainly expected, but has not yet occurred. The situation in 2 Kgs 18:12 describes the action of God punishing Samaria with exile as already having happened. Samaria broke covenant with God through a lack of listening to God’s commands and through its lack of obedience. Hosea 6:7 also describes the past actions of the people as leading to their eventual demise. The people “dealt faithlessly” with God’s commands and have been defiled. These situations are similar to Exod 32 in their lack of obedience to God’s commands, but no items—like the tab482 Deut 17:2; Jos 7:11,15; 23:16; Judg 2:20; 2 Kgs 18:12; Jer 34:18; Hos 6:7; 8:1.

180

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

lets—are being broken to signify the people’s breaking of the covenant and the punishment for their actions has already occurred in the past. Two of the occurrences of ‫ עבר‬and ‫ ברית‬can be found in Josh 7:11 and 15. The disobedience of Achan in Josh 7 is seen as a transgression against the covenant and is most similar to the story of the golden calf with regard to people breaking covenant with God and being punished. When God delivered Jericho to the people under Joshua’s leadership, the people were to destroy everything, except for the precious metals that were to belong to “the treasury of the Lord” (Josh 6:19). Next, Joshua and the people anticipated an easy victory over the city of Ai, but were amazed when they were routed and needed to retreat. Joshua and the elders prayed before “the ark of the Lord” (Josh 7:6) wondering why God would bring them across the Jordan just to be destroyed by the local population. Joshua also expressed concern over the people’s reputation now that their army had “turned their backs before their enemies” (Josh 7:8). Joshua appealed for God to act on behalf of the divine name asking, “what will you do for your great name?” (Josh 7:9). Joshua was unaware of any sin by the people, or any person under his leadership. From the ark, God responds to Joshua’s prayer and explains the sin of Israel in not keeping the ban at Jericho. God promises, “I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you” (Josh 7:12). An elaborate trial is described by Joshua. God will reveal the guilty person to the rest of the community. The guilty party is to be “burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord.” (Josh 7:15). It is soon discovered that Achan is the guilty person. Achan confesses his sin to Joshua. The “devoted things” are uncovered inside his tent. Achan and “all that he had” (Josh 7:24) is taken to the Valley of Achor to be stoned to death and burned. After Achan’s death, things return to normal for Joshua and the people. The Lord tells Joshua, “Do not fear or be dismayed; take all the fighting men with you, and arise, go up to Ai; see, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, and his people, his city, and his land” (Josh 8:1). The story of Achan is similar to the golden calf story in the sense that the disobedience of a person, or the people, needs to be

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

181

discovered and dealt with before it destroys the entire community (God is willing to do it in Exodus, and willing to let it happen in Joshua). The punishment is immediate in both cases (Moses instructs those “on the Lord’s side” to slay the opposition; Joshua and “all Israel” stoned and burned Achan, his family, and his possessions). The leader in each situation is temporarily unaware of the sin that has occurred (Moses while on the mountain; Joshua sending the army to Ai). There is a concern in both stories for how this will affect Israel’s reputation with their enemies (Moses is concerned about the Egyptians; Joshua is concerned about the Amorites and the Canaanites). Finally, there is a desire on God’s part to essentially disown the people for having sinned (God wants to “consume” the people in Exod 32; God tells Joshua, “I will be with you no more” in Josh 7). But in the end, both situations are resolved and some sort of order is restored. While Joshua has taken Moses’ place as the conduit through which God speaks to the people (Josh 3:9; 7:13), he does not mirror Moses’ actions in this passage. The covenant with God has been broken by some member of the community (Josh 7:11, 15), but Joshua does not take the ark and break it, or even take the second set of tablets out of the ark to break them to show the people that the covenant has been broken like commentators imply that Moses did in Exod 32. The breaking of the tablets appears unnecessary in the Joshua passage. Surely the defeat of the army at Ai was enough to convince the people that something was wrong (Josh 7:5), just as the worship of a golden calf upon Moses’ return would have been enough to convince the people that they had gone against the first commandment at Mt Sinai. Instead of breaking the second set of tablets inside the ark, Joshua is told to sanctify the people and to have them “brought near” (‫ )וְ נִ ְק ַר ְב ֶתּם‬the ark tribe by tribe, family by family, house by house, man by man to learn who has brought sin upon the community (Josh 7:13-14). Moses is given no such divine method for determining who has sinned and who has not. Instead, Moses offers the people a chance to declare, or perhaps even change, their allegiance by asking the people, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me” (Exod 32:26). Joshua does not offer the guilty person a chance to come forward or confess before the ordeal is announced. The narrative descriptions of Joshua seem to go out of their way to assure the reader that he is the next Moses, God’s new appointed leader. Both encounter a divine presence (Moses sees the

182

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

burning bush in Exod 3; while Joshua meets “the commander of the army of the Lord” in Josh 6). In both of these meetings Moses and Joshua are to take off their shoes because they are in a holy place. Joshua is told to use the ark of the covenant just as Moses used his hands/his rod/Aaron’s rod to win a miraculous military victory (Joshua over Jericho; Moses over the Amalekites), and to cross through a body of water (Joshua crosses the Jordan; Moses crosses the Red Sea). However, Moses shows the people the signs he was given at his calling, is instrumental in bringing the plagues upon Egypt, and uses his rod to bring water from a rock in the desert. Moses has the power or authority that Joshua relies on the ark to provide. During his call, Moses is given the ability to perform signs to show the pharaoh, “see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power” (Exod 4:21). From the narrative descriptions in Joshua, it would seem that Joshua is lacking this kind of power, although he is clearly shown to be God’s chosen one. The Exodus story is also set coming out of Egypt with all of its ancient magical practices as the background for the people’s deliverance through the plagues which overpower the Egyptians, the Pharaoh, and even the Egyptian magicians. Because of the Egyptian flavor of the Exodus story, the narrative description of Moses in Exod 32 continues to use the magical techniques of ancient Egypt so that Moses does not simply rely on the Lord for guidance. Moses is informed by God of the people’s sin. However, Moses takes it upon himself to determine the guilty parties and the punishment for those people through the use of an execration ritual.483 483 The narratives in the book of Exodus are more than willing to borrow ideas from foreigners like Jethro in Exod 18. In the book of Exodus it is Jethro who comes up with the idea of appointing judges to relieve Moses of some of the burden of hearing all the people’s problems. The same concept is discussed in Numbers 11 in a very different way. In Numbers, God responds to Moses’ complaint about being over-worked. God decided to take some of the spirit that was with Moses and give it to 70 elders. The same appears to be true in comparing the Achan story with Exod 32. The determination of the guilt and the arrival at a punishment for Achan are described in elaborate detail as coming from God. In con-

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

183

‫“ עזב‬to leave, to abandon, to forsake” All five occurrences of ‫ עזב‬with ‫ ברית‬deal with the covenant relationship being broken due to the people’s worship of other gods which is virtually identical to the situation described in Exod 32.484 However, upon closer inspection that is where the similarities end. Both Deut 29:24 and Jer 22:9 serve as warnings to the people about the negative effects that breaking covenant with God can have. Deuteronomy 31:16 is written as part of a prophecy about the people’s idolatrous behavior after Moses dies. The last two occurrences of ‫ עזב‬with ‫ ברית‬are in the story of Elijah hiding from Jezebel on Mt. Horeb after defeating the prophets of Ba’al on Mount Carmel. Elijah tells God that the “people of Israel have forsaken your covenant” (1 Kgs 19:10, 14). In these passages there are no symbolic gestures of any kind given to signify the broken covenant or any punishments to compare with the narrative of Exod 32. ‫“ שכח‬to forget, to fall into oblivion” Another way of expressing the broken covenant was to say that the covenant had been “forgotten” using the Hebrew verb ‫ שכח‬in combination with ‫ברית‬.485 There are four occurrences of this combination in the HB. Deuteronomy 4:23 is a warning to the people not to practice idolatry because the Israelite God is a “jealous God” and will punish them if they transgress the Law. Deuteronomy 4:31 is a promise that God will be true to the covenant made in the past with the patriarchs. 2 Kgs 17:38 is a reiteration of the promise that if the people will keep the covenant, God will “deliver” the people from the “hand of all your enemies.” Proverbs 2:17 warns that the kind of woman to stay away from was one that “forgets (‫ ) ָשׁ ֵכ ָחה‬the covenant of her God.” The “strange woman” (‫ ) ֵמ ִא ָשּׁה זָ ָרה‬can be

trast, the narrative of Exod 32 determines the guilt and punishment of the people using another foreign practice adopted into the Exodus narrative: the execration ritual. 484 Deut 29:24; 31:16; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14; Jer 22:9. 485 Deut 4:23, 31; 2 Kgs 17:38; Prov 2:17.

184

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

taken on a literal level as a word of caution to men. On a figurative level this “strange woman” could serve as a caution to Israel to be careful about what nations it makes agreements with. Another possible interpretation for the “strange woman” is that she reminds Judah itself to maintain an exclusive relationship with God. There is little relation to the story in Exod 32 of the breaking of the tablets because none of these passages is about a current or actual response to the people’s breaking of the covenant. Deuteronomy 4:31 and 2 Kgs 17:38 serve as promises of God’s faithfulness and fairness. Deuteronomy 4:23 and Prov 2:17 are warnings to the people to the people to be faithful and not responses to their lack of faithfulness. ‫“ חלל‬to be taken into common use, to profane” The idea of “profaning” or “violating” the covenant is also expressed in the HB by a combination of the Hebrew verb ‫ חלל‬and ‫ברית‬.The people have profaned the covenant with God by being unfaithful to God and to each other. According to Mal 2:10 the people are breaking the covenant because of the way they treat one another. Idolatry is among the crimes that the people have committed, but unlike Exod 32, it seems that the punishment is in the future. Indicating that the punishment is yet to come for the people’s sins, Mal 2:12 implores God to “cut off” the offending parties “from the tents of Jacob.” There is no ceremonial breaking to signify publicly what the people have done and no immediate punishment as in Exod 32. Psalm 55:20-21 tells of a “companion” that violated the covenant with another friend by saying one thing, but all the while intending another. This action may offend God, but is not openly against God or the divine representative in a direct way like the action of the people in worshiping the golden calf in Exod 32. The use of breaking the covenant in Ps 89:34-35 is actually a promise that the Lord will “not violate the covenant” made with David that one of his line would endure forever. This is a positive statement of God’s faithfulness and not a threat or reaction to the people’s wrongdoing as in Exod 32.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

185

‫“ לא שמר‬to not watch, to not guard” One last phrase found in the HB to express the idea that a covenant has been broken is a combination of the verb ‫“(שמר‬to keep, guard”) and the Hebrew negative ‫לא‬. God accuses Solomon of having “not kept my covenant” by worshiping other gods (1 Kgs 11:11). Solomon’s punishment is the loss of the kingdom for his son who was to succeed him. This is similar to Exod 32 in that there is a punishment for the offending party. However, the penalty for Solomon’s idolatry is delayed until the next generation unlike the immediate death of 3,000 at the hand of the Levites in Exod 32. Also, there is no public display or ceremony showing that the covenant has been broken and that some type of punishment will ensue. The Ephraimites are also accused of not keeping God’s covenant when they turn “back on the day of battle” (Ps 78:9). The psalm goes on to recount God’s marvelous deeds that the Ephraimites have forgotten as a means of contrasting the faithfulness of God with the treachery of the people. Unlike Exod 32 where Moses and the Levites act against the idolaters, the Ephraimites are eventually punished by God. Psalm 78:31 reports that God eventually “slew the strongest of them, and laid low the picked men.” This is similar to the activity of the Levites in Exod 32. However, in Ps 78 there is no public moment when God, or God’s leader brought an accusation against the people for their disobedience as in Exod 32. In Ps 78 it appears that God works on a cosmic or heavenly level to exact punishment against the people. Exodus 32 is a story in which Moses and the Levites take charge in a very earthly sense without direction from the Lord to exact punishment against the people. B. The Function of ‫“ שבר‬to break, to shatter” Instead of any of these words commonly connected with ‫ ברית‬in the HB, Exod 32:19 has ‫וַ יְ ֵשׁ ֵבּר‬, a piʽel converted imperfect, third person, masculine singular form of ‫שׁבּר‬. This verb is nowhere else associated with the idea of the breaking of the covenant, but rather with the enforcement of the covenant relationship. There are three passages in the HB which discuss the breaking of the covenant using a form of ‫ פרר‬where a form of ‫ שבר‬is found in the same narrative. Leviticus 26:15 states, “If you spurn my stat-

186

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

utes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but you break (‫ ) ְל ַה ְפ ְר ֶכם‬my covenant,” using a hipʽil infinitive of ‫ פרר‬to describe what has happened to the covenant. This is followed in Lev 26:19 with a use of ‫ שבר‬to describe what God will do to the people for having broken the covenant, “I will break (‫ )וְ ָשׁ ַב ְר ִתּי‬the pride of your power, and I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like brass.” This form of ‫ שבר‬is a qal converted perfect, first person singular to describe how God will break the people. The author of this passage in Leviticus clearly connects the breaking of the covenant with a form of ‫ פרר‬and the punishment for breaking the covenant with a form of ‫שבר‬. While this is only one example, it does point to the idea of the function of the verb ‫ שבר‬in the HB as more than symbolic or figurative in nature, but rather dealing with the punitive nature of breaking the covenant with God. The same kind of vocabulary choice can be seen in 1 Kgs 19:10-11 in describing the breaking of the covenant. 1 Kings 19:10 reports the words of the prophet Elijah saying, “I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the people of Israel have forsaken (‫)עזְ בוּ‬ ָ your covenant, thrown down your altars, and slain your prophets with the sword.” In the next verse the mighty wind that precedes the earthquake and fire before the “still small voice” of God is described as “a great and strong wind” that “rent the mountains, and broke (‫)וּמ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬ ְ in pieces the rock before the Lord.” The use of ‫ שבר‬is clearly within the vocabulary of the writer who chose to describe the offense against the covenant with a form of ‫ עזב‬and the destruction of the rock before God’s communication with a form of ‫שבר‬.486 It is interesting to note that especially in the piʽel form, which occurs thirty-five times in the HB, ‫ ִשׁ ֵבּר‬refers to the breaking of 486 Jeremiah 14:17 describes the “great wound” that the virgin daughter “of my people” has been “smitten” with (‫שׁ ְבּ ׇרה‬ ְ ‫ )ׅנ‬within a lament about the status of the people. Jeremiah 14:21 is part of the reply of the people to God asking that God “remember and do not break (‫ )אַל־תָּ פֵר‬your covenant with us.” Once again demonstrating the choice of ‫ פרר‬instead of ‫ שבר‬to describe the condition of the covenant relationship.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

187

idolatry and preventing the worship of idols (eighteen times); to God’s powerful control over nature, a nation, or individuals (fourteen times); and to a powerful act attributed to an individual (three times).487 The breaking in these texts is not symbolic of what has happened between the people and their relationship to God, but rather of what will happen to the offender or the foreign gods in question. As an example of the above, in Exod 23:24, the people of Israel are to show their dominance and disdain for the foreign practices of the local religions. Upon entering the Promised Land they are commanded to “not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break (‫ )וְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬their pillars in pieces.”488 Instead of joining in the worship of these false gods and idols, the people are to destroy the physical signs of this idolatry and show the power of their own God over these foreign gods. They are to make a statement about who has the power in the land. There are reports in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah that the people actually followed through on God’s command in several instances of reform to rid the nation of idolatry. After the priest Jehoiada made a covenant among the Lord, the king, and the people, 2 Kgs 11:18 (and also 2 Chr 23:17) states, “Then all the people of the land went to the house of Ba’al, and tore it down; his altars and his images they broke (‫ ) ִשׁ ְבּרוּ‬in pieces, and they slew Mattan the priest of Ba’al before the altars. And the priest posted watchmen over the house of the Lord.” The posting of the watchmen was no doubt an effort to make sure there was no retaliation on the temple. Concerning idolatry: Exod 23:24; 32:19; 34:1,13; Deut 7:5; 9:17; 10:2; 12:3; 2 Kgs 11:18; 18:4; 23:14; 25:13; 2 Chron 14:3(2); 23:17; 31:1; 34:4; Isa 21:9; Jer 52:7. Concerning God’s power: Exod 9:25; 1 Kgs 19:11; Pss 3:7(8); 29:5; 46:9(10); 48:7(8); 74:13; 76:3(4); 105:33; 107:16; Isa 38:13; 45:2; Lam 2:9; 3:4. Concerning individual acts of power: Job 29:17 (Job breaks the fangs of the unrighteous); Jer 43:13 (Nebuchadnezzar will break the obelisks of Egypt); Dan 8:7 (which has been interpreted to mean that Alexander the Great will break the two rams’ horns of Persia). 488 Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3 give similar commands. 487

188

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Part of Hezekiah’s reform was to remove the high places. King Hezekiah also “broke (‫ )וְ שׁׅ ַבּר‬the pillars, and cut down the Asherah” (2 Kgs 18:4; also mentioned in 2 Chr 31:1) during his reign. An element of Josiah’s reform was also the breaking of the system of foreign idolatry in and around Israel: And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And he broke (‫ )וְ ִשׁ ַבּר‬in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Asherim, and filled their places with the bones of men (2 Kgs 23:13-14).

Asa, the king of Judah, was also credited for doing what was right “in the eyes of the Lord.” Asa took away “the foreign altars and the high places, and broke down (‫ )וַ יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬the pillars and hewed down the Asherim” (2 Chr 14:3[v 2 in BHS]). The Chaldeans did the same breaking of sacred ritual objects in Jerusalem and in the temple to show their dominance over Israel. This is reported in 2 Kgs 25:13 and Jer 52:17. “And the pillars of bronze that were in the house of the Lord, and the stands and the bronze sea that were in the house of the Lord, the Chaldeans broke (‫שׁ ְבּרוּ‬ ‫ ) ׅ‬in pieces, and carried all the bronze to Babylon” (Jer 52:17). For the Israelites, Judeans, and the dispossessed people of the Promised Land, this breaking was an effort to show the people who was now in charge of the Land. The deity they worshiped was not able to defend the sacred location, the temple. It was an attempt to break the faith and hope of the people in whom or whatever they were worshiping. The use of ‫ שבר‬in the piʽel also shows ‫) ׅ‬ the power of God. Exodus 9:25 describes God breaking (‫שׁ ֵבּר‬ every tree in Egypt during the plague of the hail storm. The Psalms reference God breaking (‫ ) ִשׁ ַבּ ְר ָתּ‬the teeth of the wicked (3:7); the voice of the Lord breaking (‫)וַ יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬the cedars of Lebanon (29:5); God breaking (‫ )יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬the bow and making wars to cease in Zion (46:9); God shattering (‫ ) ְתּ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬the ships of Tarshish (48:7); God ‫ ) ׅ‬the heads of the dragons in creation (74:13); God breaking (‫שׁ ַבּ ְר ָתּ‬ broke (‫ ) ִשׁ ַבּר‬the weapons of war in Judah to ensure their safety (76:3); recalling the shattering (‫)וַ יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬of trees in Egypt during the

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

189

ִ ‫) ִכּ‬ plagues (105:33); and God is to be praised for shattering (‫י־שׁ ַבּר‬ the doors of bronze to deliver the people from bondage (107:16). The power of God also goes against Israel or Judah in several cases. Lamentations 2:9 says that the Lord has ruined and broken (‫ )וְ ִשׁ ַבּר‬the bars of Israel. The author of Lam 3:4 expresses the idea that God is the source of trouble saying, “He has made my flesh ‫ ) ׅ‬my bones.” The Song and my skin waste away and broken (‫שׁ ַבּר‬ of Hezekiah in Isa 38:13 notes, “I cry for help until morning; like a lion he breaks (‫ )יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬all my bones.” The use of ‫ שבר‬in the piʽel also occurs in three verses about the power of individuals: Nebuchadrezzar, Job, and as interpreted in Daniel regarding Alexander the Great. Nebuchadrezzar will break (‫ )וְ ִשׁ ַבּר‬the obelisks of Egypt according to Jer 43:13. Job boasts of breaking (‫ )וָ ֲא ַשׁ ְבּ ָרה‬the fangs of the unrighteous in Job 29:17. The description of the “he-goat from the west” in Dan 8 is interpreted as a reference to Alexander the Great. In Dan 8:7 the he-goat breaks (‫ )וַ יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬the two horns of the ram, meaning that Alexander defeats the powers of Persia. These different verses demonstrate the use of ‫ שבר‬in the piʽel dealing with power and authority. The effect of the breaking, whether literal (as in the breaking down of the pillars of the foreign gods) or symbolic (God’s voice breaking the cedars of Lebanon), has to do with the punishment of the weaker party, or the one in opposition to the Lord. The breaking is not a demonstration of what the weaker party has done, but rather, it is a demonstration of what has happened or will happen to that offending party. One can see how this notion of power and dominance is applied in the case of Exod 32 where Moses ‫“ וַ יְ ַשׁ ֵבּר‬shatters” the tablets to stop the worship of the golden calf. Moses’ actions to restore order do not stop with the breaking of the tablets. He then destroys the calf, questions Aaron, and orders the Levites to slaughter those in opposition to the Lord to restore the proper order in the camp. Moses’ actions are not merely symbolic of what the people have done, but rather the first step in his attempt to reform the people who have “broken loose” from the covenant. C. The Function of ‫ שלך‬in Exodus 32: 19 “to throw, to cast” The use of the Hebrew verb ‫שלך‬, which means “to cast” or “to throw,” in Exod 32:19 also needs some clarification. ‫ שלך‬occurs in the hipʽil converted imperfect, third person, masculine singular

190

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

form in Exod 32:19, (‫)וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵלך‬. The hipʽil form of the verb also appears in Exodus during the call of Moses and in the plague stories. In Exod 4:3 when God grants Moses the sign of turning the rod into a serpent, Moses is instructed to “cast” (‫יכהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ ) ַה ְשׁלׅ‬his rod down. Upon following God’s orders the rod miraculously turns into a serpent to help convince Moses to answer the call. This same sign is used to help convince Aaron of his calling (Exod 4:28) and to convince the people that God would deliver them (Exod 4:30-31). Pharaoh is unconvinced when the same sign is performed in his presence by casting the rod to the ground (Exod 7:8-13) perhaps because the Egyptian magicians are able to perform the same feat when they “cast down” (‫ )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬their rods. When the people murmured for drinking water at Marah (Exod 15:22-26), Moses was shown a tree by the Lord that would turn the water from bitter to sweet. Exodus 15:25 reports that Moses “threw (‫ )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵלְך‬it into the water.” The miraculous transformation of the water is the work of both the Lord’s identification of the particular tree and Moses’ performance of the “casting” or “throwing” of the tree into the water. The miraculous powers of the prophets Elijah and Elisha are often demonstrated after something or someone has been “cast” or “thrown.” To anoint Elisha, the prophet Elijah merely “cast (‫ )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵלְך‬his mantle upon him” (1 Kgs 19:19). The sons of the prophets are sent by Elisha to look for Elijah thinking that perhaps “the spirit of the Lord has caught him (Elijah) up and cast (‫ )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִל ֵכהוּ‬him upon some mountain or into some valley” (2 Kgs 2:16). The action of Moses in purifying water for the people in the desert is similar to the action of Elisha in purifying water at Jericho as he “threw (‫ְך־שׁם‬ ָ ‫ )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֶל‬salt in it” (2 Kgs 2:21). Elisha also cured a poisonous stew in Gilgal when he “threw” (‫ )וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵלְך‬meal into the pot. The text reports that “there was no harm in the pot” (2 Kgs 4:38-41) after this most ingenious of solutions. Elisha also found a missing ax head in the Jordan River by cutting off a stick and when “he threw (‫ְך־שׁ ָמּה‬ ָ ‫ ”)וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֶל‬the stick into the river, the ax head floated to the top (2 Kgs 6:1-7). One last occurrence in connection with Elisha was the report of a dead man coming back to life upon touching the bones of the prophet in his tomb. The man was “cast (‫שׁליכוּ‬ ִ ַ‫ )וַ יּ‬into the grave of Elisha” in order to avoid some marauding Moabites from finding his body and was miraculously revived after coming into contact with Elisha’s remains (2 Kgs 13:21).

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

191

In Exod 32 a hipʽil form of ‫ שלך‬is also used when Aaron describes to Moses the mysterious process by which the golden calf is produced. In Exod 32:24 Aaron explains that he asked the people for their gold. They gave it to him and he “threw (‫ )וָ ַא ְשׁ ִל ֵכהוּ‬it into the fire, and there came out this calf.” While Aaron’s explanation seems odd in light of the earlier narrative of Exod 32:1-6 which gives greater detail of his work in producing the calf, it does follow along with the other texts mentioned above about the miraculous occurrences after something has been “cast” or “thrown.” While the passages cited above show the miraculous and magical properties associated with the term ‫ שלך‬in the HB, the largest group by subject matter of the verses in the hipʽil form of this verb deal with death in one way or another.489 This magical connotation with casting or throwing compares well with the action of the Egyptian priests in the execration ritual in which pottery or clay figurines were cast or thrown as part of the ritual annihilation of their opponents.

III. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE EXECRATION RITUAL AND EXODUS 32 There are two key factors that point to the execration ritual as the antecedent to the activity reported in the narrative of Exod 32: the Egyptian setting of the entire book and the vocabulary found in this passage. Israel’s presence in ancient Egypt as slaves that were miraculously delivered, whether archaeologically verifiable or not, is irrelevant at this point. One can certainly see a literary and cultural connection between ancient Israel and ancient Egypt. Within the worldview of the narrative of the book of Exodus itself, the connection between Egypt and the people of Israel is certain. As F. V. Greifenhagen points out, “When Israel is given a voice in the narrative, this voice speaks predominantly of an Israel 489 ‫ שלך‬occurs in the hipʽil form 110 times in the Hebrew Bible. Thirty-three of the verses detail the intended death of someone, the actual death of someone, or the after-effects of a person’s death. Twelve verses are of the miraculous variety as in the work of the plagues in Egypt or in the work of Elijah or Elisha. Eight verses deal with idolatry and five verses relate to the Exile.

192

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

that is rooted in Egypt and is reluctant to participate in an exodus.”490 The fear of the unknown is greater than the dread of enslavement when taken in totality. This return to Egypt is not encouraged in the narrative, but remains in the voice of the people. So, despite their abuse at the hands of the Egyptians, most references in the book of Exodus still remain positive with regard to returning to Egypt as opposed to being totally anti-Egyptian. The book of Exodus relates the story of a baby Hebrew boy named Moses who is discovered and eventually raised by the Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod 2). Within the book of Exodus itself, the people are thought to have been delivered out of slavery in Egypt and to have been led out by this same Moses. This Egyptian background demands that the characters of Moses and the people of Israel themselves have a familiarity with Egyptian practices since they are leaving Egypt and opposed by the Egyptians. Moses is a special case in the book of Exodus, he is a “hybrid straddling the boundary between Egypt and Israel; he is also the hero who leads Israel out of Egypt. While the narrative attempts to distance Moses as much as possible from his Egyptian background, in the end his identification with Israel remains suspect.”491 While the Moses of the Exodus narrative has no interest in returning to Egypt during his call story or after the exodus, he does not speak ill of the Egyptians and no mention is made of his upbringing in Egypt as an adult. The narrative of the book of Exodus describes Moses as challenging the pharaoh and being challenged by the people and the pharaoh, but Moses does not go on any theological or philosophical tirade bashing the Egyptians. The Egyptian setting of the book serves as the context in which to better understand the miraculous nature of the plague stories as a competition between the pharaoh and the Egyptian magicians with the Israelite God, Moses, and Aaron. The Egyptian 490 F. V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity (JSOTSup 361; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 156. Greifenhagen notes that most occurrences of the term ‘Egypt’ are in the first part of the book of Exodus up to the crossing of the Sea in chapter 15. 491 Ibid., 156.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

193

setting of the book also allows one to see the breaking of the tablets in light of the ancient Egyptian magical practice of ritual execration. This context provides a more insightful background for understanding the actions of Moses in Exod 32. A. The Egyptian Setting of the Story The Egyptian setting of the story firmly places the action within a magical worldview. The Egyptian understanding of magic has been discussed in detail above in chapter two. Suffice it to say, Egyptian cosmology considered magic one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe itself. The book of Exodus itself has a magical kind of cosmology. Moses is called and empowered with a magical rod (chs. 3-4), then is able to at least assist in bringing about the ten plagues upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians to force the release of the children of Israel (chs. 7-12). The people escape Egypt when waters are magically parted using Moses’ hand (ch. 14). The people are able to drink potable water when the Lord shows Moses a tree that when thrown into the water makes it safe (ch. 15). As if that weren’t enough, the people are able to defeat the Amalekites through the magical assistance of Moses’ raised hands (ch. 17). As Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg explain, “God empowers Moses with the powers befitting an Egyptian magician. Magic in ancient Egypt was the most respected of the arts and sciences. So if anyone was to the impress the Egyptians, as Moses would have to do in order to secure the freedom of the Israelites, he would have to ‘show his stuff’ in the manner of an Egyptian magician.”492 Clearly, the stories in the book of Exodus are set in the same kind of magical worldview in which miraculous feats are performed to save the people from peril. After being so active in the first part of Exod 32 in demanding of Aaron a god, the idea that the people would merely stand by and allow 3,000 of themselves to die at the hands of the Levites seems odd without some sort of magical assistance on the part of Moses. The curse of the breaking of the tablets, enacted like an execration ritual, would have helped to magi492 Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (4th ed.; New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997), 144.

194

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

cally annihilate Moses’ opponents—the people who worshiped the golden calf and who refused to be restored to “the Lord’s side.” This is all Moses’ doing since it is not until the end of the chapter that God acts for the first time by afflicting the people with a plague. B. Divine Representatives In both ancient Egypt and in Exod 32 there is disorder or chaos. For the Egyptians, the execration ritual sought to maintain or reestablish the proper order on earth through magical means. According to the ancient Egyptian conception of the world, harmony within the state was maintained by the king. The king, or pharaoh, had loyal officials to aid in this important matter, but the king’s role as maintainer of order was of paramount importance. The pharaoh himself was considered a god by the Egyptians, “His role as secular ruler was inseparably combined with his role as god. He kept his people in good order by means of divine utterance: his statements were statutes in themselves. In theory he directed every phase of secular and religious activity.”493 The king’s responsibility covered not only the essential areas of justice and piety, but also ridding Egypt of any unruliness, or disorder. In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh communicated with the gods and had loyal officials to carry out his work from which the people of Egypt benefited. This is the same order that was established for the children of Israel during the call of Moses (Exod 4:16) when Moses is told that Aaron “will speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God.” In the book of Exodus, God’s messages to the people come from Moses to Aaron. In receiving the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai, the people reaffirm their satisfaction and perceived need for this indirect arrangement upon seeing the lightning and hearing the thunder representing God’s presence by telling Moses, “You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die” (Exod 20:19). Just as the pharaoh was the divine representative for the Egyptian gods, Moses served in that same special capacity for the people of Israel. 493 J. E. Manchip White, Ancient Egypt: Its Culture and History (New York: Dover, 1970), 16.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

195

As is shown in Num 12 when Aaron and Miriam challenge the sole authority of Moses, the text reports God favoring Moses above all others. Numbers 12:6-8 offers God’s reply, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech; and he beholds the form of the Lord….” Despite the number of other specialists available like magicians in Egypt and prophets in Israel, Moses and the pharaoh held unique positions of authority from which to act in order to maintain order. C. Situation of Chaos or Disorder Partly to insure the status quo and as a response to disorder when things went awry in ancient Egypt, the pharaoh or his representative priests would perform an execration ritual to destroy their opposition. This opposition was most often foreign, but offenders were also found inside Egypt. The execration ritual also sought to protect the pharaoh and Egypt from these internal problems as well. Perhaps it is this threat to disorder from within that so enrages Moses against Aaron. Instead of maintaining the status quo with the people and serving as mediator, Aaron has allowed the people to “break loose” (Exod 32:25). In speaking to the elders before he ascends Mount Sinai with Joshua, Moses tells them, “behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; whoever has a cause, let him go to them” (Exod 24:14). Of course, the people then disturbed that order by commanding Aaron instead of listening to him in Exod 32:1, “the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, ‘Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, that man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’” Since the people want a replacement for Moses who disappeared up the mountain, they further violate the order established in Exod 4.494 As the divine 494 The people (‫העָם‬ ָ ) initially credit Moses with their deliverance from Egypt in Exod 32:1, “Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt.” This is also quoted by Aaron in 32:23 in explaining to Moses

196

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

representative, the people do go to Aaron with their concern for a god to lead them, and the first person Moses questions after his descent down the mountain is Aaron. In both the ancient Egyptian and Exodus situations, when the divine order is disturbed or threatened, a ritual is enacted to restore order. One of the confusing aspects of Exod 32 as a narrative is the intervention of Moses to save the people from divine annihilation in verses 11-14, which is then followed by Moses’ desire to curse them and to order the Levites to “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor” (Exod 32:27). This response to chaos, an effort to preserve and punish, is characteristic of the prophetic role. According to Michael Widmer, “Before YHWH, Moses, by definition of his mediatory status, must advocate the people’s interest, while before the people he is to assume the attributes of YHWH (32:7-10) and uncompromisingly condemn their deed with divine authority. Ultimately, both aspects have the same goal; the well-being of the people and the honor of God.”495 The people in this case have separated those two ideas with the loss of Moses causing chaos for them. The people take matters into their own hands. God and Moses remind the people the people’s request for a replacement. Moses is also given credit for the delivery from Egypt in 32:7 by hwhy saying, “your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt.” This positive action credited to Moses is then applied to the golden calf that is made in 32:4 and 32:8, “These are your gods…who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” This shows the disorder of the people (‫ ) ָהעָם‬in two ways: first they credit Moses for their deliverance, not God; and then they apply this positive affirmation to their newly formed idol. The people (‫ ) ָהעָם‬also complain to Moses about their deliverance from Egypt in Exod 17:3 when there is a lack of drinking water, “why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us?” What was intended as the most positive of acts by God on behalf of the people is turned into a negative by the people when things go wrong. Perhaps an explanation of the plural “these are your gods (‫ ”) ֱאלֺהֶיָך‬in Exod 32:4 and 8 is the designation of Moses as an ‫ ֱאלֺהִים‬to Aaron in Exod 4:16. The people in Exod 32 have completed the disorder by telling Aaron what to do instead of listening, and in declaring Aaron and the golden calf as their new ‫ ֱאלֺהִים‬in place of God and the long absent Moses. 495 Michael Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer (FAT 2. Reihe 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 138.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

197

that this does not bring honor to God and hence, is not in the people’s best interest. The use of the execration action in Exod 32 functions to “condemn” the actions of the people. Moses wants to restore order in Exod 32 by not only punishing the guilty parties, but by also maintaining the proper relationship between God and the people. D. Identification of Offending Action or Party with Item Broken In the execration ritual, the one who is deemed responsible for disturbing the proper order of things was ritually destroyed. The inscribed or uninscribed pottery, statue, or figurine was representative of that person or that action/thought that went against maat, the natural harmony of the world. The pharaoh, or one of his priests, would then break that piece of pottery to initiate the magical destruction of their enemy. In Exod 32, Moses wants to break the opposition to his leadership that he perceives in the people’s making and worshiping of the golden calf. He throws and breaks the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written. The tablets were made of stone. The Hebrew word for stone, ‫ אבן‬, occurs thirty-three times in the book of Exodus.496 Nineteen times these occurrences refer to stones that will be used to engrave the names of the tribes of Israel on the priest’s breastpiece, shoulders and ephod. The priest would naturally be seen as the divine representative to the people. One sees Six of these occurrences refer to non-religious items of stone or the skill to cut stone by Bezalel (1:16; 7:19; 17:12; 21:18; 31:5, 33). One occurrence refers to making an altar (20:25). Eight of the occurrences refer to the use of stones for the breastpiece and ephod of the priest (25:7 [2x]; 28:17 [2x]; 35:9; 35:27 [2x]; 39:10). Eight times stones are mentioned as being inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel to be worn by the priest (28:9, 10 [2x], 11 [2x], 21; 39:6, 14), and specifically three times referring to the two inscribed stones worn on the shoulders of the priest as stones of remembrance (28:12 [2x]; 39:7). Five occurrences refer to the tablets as being made of stone (24:12; 31:18; 34:1, 3 [2x]). Twice, stones are used to describe Israel’s enemies: pharaoh’s chariots and army sank like stones (15:5); and the fear of Israel in the land of Canaan made the people as still as stones (15:16). 496

198

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

here a symbolic connection between items made of stone and the people of Israel. The idea that Moses would shatter the tablets of stone to curse the Israelites and magically render them unable to defend themselves from the attack of the Levites, follows this connection between equating the tribes of Israel inscribed in stone with the stone tablets broken by Moses in Exod 32. Although there is no visual correspondence between the stone tablets and the people of Israel, most execration finds from ancient Egypt have also exhibited no direct visual correspondence between Egypt’s enemies to be cursed and the item being broken in the execration ritual. As stated above, most of the pottery shards discovered to date have been uninscribed. While it is true that the ancient Egyptians also made clay figurines in the shape of humans that more visually corresponded to their enemies, most execration finds have been in various forms of pottery containers. This leaves the execration ritual itself to make the connection between the enemy to be cursed and the item being broken. The action of the Egyptian priests in the execration ritual made clear to the observers of the ritual and the gods invoked who was to be cursed. This is also true for the action ascribed to Moses in the narrative of Exod 32. While the people of Israel do not resemble in any way the stone tablets, the breaking of the tablets in the presence of the people and the slaughtering of 3,000 of them afterward creates the connection just as the ancient Egyptians attempted to do with their enemies. The ancient Egyptians created the correspondence between their enemies and the items being broken by means of the ritual just as the text reports Moses doing here with his actions in Exod 32. The Egyptian army and the Canaanites, both enemies of Israel, are mentioned in Exod 15 as having stone-like qualities. As quoted in chapter one of this book, Scott B. Noegel has connected the imagery in Exod 15 with the execration ritual in which the biblical author reverses the roles of the execration ritual by making the Egyptians the victims of the ritual. In Exod 32, the enemy of the divine order is not a foreign power, but rather the people themselves, who must be controlled. Moses does this by initiating a curse upon them to break their opposition just as the Egyptians attempted to shatter their enemies by equating them with pottery, statues, and figurines made of various materials.

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

199

E. Priestly Assistance in Ritual Sacrifice One final connection between the circumstances described in Exod 32 and the execration ritual of the ancient Egyptians is the role of the priests to assist the leader in offering different forms of sacrifice. As discussed in chapter two of this book, the execration ritual of the ancient Egyptians included a ritual sacrifice of a cow or bull, and at least at Mirgissa, a human sacrifice as well. The sacrifice has been described as symbolic of what the Egyptians wanted to do to their enemies, and perhaps also an encouragement to the gods to act on their behalf. Since the pharaoh could not perform every temple ritual, the priests offered the sacrifices and performed the temple rituals on behalf of the pharaoh, “the rituals ensured the king’s immortality and success over his enemies and also the fertility of the land and its people. If these duties were neglected or abandoned the result would be chaos and disaster.”497 This gives the rituals their power and importance in Egyptian society. The avoidance of chaos and disaster also precipitates the necessity of performer execration rituals throughout the kingdom wherever order is threatened. The text indicates that chaos and disorder have happened in Exod 32:25 because of Aaron’s dereliction of his duties, “And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron has let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies).” This chaos provides the opportunity in Exod 32 for the Levites to side with Moses when he asks, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me” (Exod 32:26). The Levites strap on their swords and kill 3,000 people to restore the proper order “according to the word of Moses” (Exod 32:28). In ancient Egyptian execration rituals there was a sacrifice of a cow or bull. In Exod 32 not only are the people killed in order to restore the proper order, but also the golden calf is destroyed. Both the calf and the people are annihilated after the tablets are broken. Despite the slaughter of a people that were bold enough to demand a god from Aaron, there is no mention of any Levite being harmed by any of the people, or any retaliation by the people at all. Just as 497

David, Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, 109.

200

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

the ancient Egyptians hoped to destroy the enemies of chaos and keep the world in perfect order, Moses and the Levites wipe out the enemies of disorder in Exod 32. F. Word Studies While most commentators see the breaking of the tablets as a sign of the broken covenant, the vocabulary of the passage itself does not totally support this idea. As mentioned above, the Hebrew verb used by the author to narrate the breaking activity is ‫שבר‬. Of the one hundred and forty-nine occurrences of ‫ שבר‬in the Hebrew Bible, none of these is used to describe the breaking of a covenant. Indeed, ‫ שבר‬is often used to describe what God will do or has done to Israel for its sinfulness or to the enemies of Israel for opposing God’s chosen ones. There are thirty-two occurrences in the Hebrew Bible that mention the idea that God is going to “break” (‫ )שבר‬a foreign nation. Twelve of those occurrences are actions against Egypt in one way or another. An example can be found in Ezek 30:22 where the text says, “Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and will break (‫ )וְ ָשׁ ַב ְר ִתּי‬his arms, both the strong arm, and the one that was broken (‫ת־הנִּ ְשׁ ָבּ ֶרת‬ ַ ‫ ; )וְ ֶא‬and I will make the sword fall from his hand.” Another anti-Egyptian message is found in Jer 43:13, “He shall break (‫ )וְ ִשׁ ַבּר‬the obelisks of Heliopolis which is in the land of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he shall burn with fire.” The breaking of enemies that Egypt practiced through their magic was being returned against them by Israel’s God. This is similar to the plague contests early in the book of Exodus with the idea that God can out-duel the famous Egyptian magicians at their own game. Aaron throws down the rod that becomes a snake. The Egyptian magicians do the same, but Aaron’s rod/snake is able to eat all of the Egyptian ones. One of the lessons of the plague stories is that while there is no limit to the things that the Lord is able to do for the people of Israel, there is a limit to the magicians of Egypt. “The magicians tried by their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not. So there were gnats on man and beast. And the magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God…’” (Exod 8:18-19). The last the reader sees of the magicians, they are covered with boils and unable to stand before Moses any longer (Exod 9:11). By using magic against them, the

EXODUS 32:19 AND THE EXECRATION RITUAL

201

Lord and Moses (and Aaron) have defeated the Egyptians at their own game. Not only are foreign enemies broken by God, the use of ‫שׁבר‬ is also found against Israel. Leviticus 26:18-20 speaks about the attempt to reform the people from their sinful ways and promises judgment against them if they do not change: And if in spite of this you will not hearken to me, then I will chastise you again sevenfold for your sins, and I will break (‫ )וְ ָשׁ ַב ְר ִתּי‬the pride of your power, and I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like brass; and your strength will be spent in vain, for your land shall not yield its increase, and the trees of the land will not yield their fruit.

Within Israel, the Lord looks to break the pride of the people that leads to their sinfulness, idolatry, and attempts to change the divine order. This echoes the examples of Jer 19 and Exod 32 discussed in this book. The divine power is wielded against both those inside and outside the people of Israel. In Exod 32:19 it is being proposed that the throwing and breaking of the tablets releases a curse on the people of Israel. The action is more than symbolic of a broken covenant. The people have broken the chain of command as established by God and have tried to usurp the authority of Moses. Following the Egyptian setting of the story, the narrative invokes an Egyptian practice of cursing one’s enemies through ritual breaking. Moses does not need God to act in punishing the people because of the effect of the curse that has been released upon them by his own actions in throwing and breaking the tablets. The effect of the curse is seen in the death of the 3,000 at the hands of the Levites and the restoration of order with Moses and God firmly in charge.

CONCLUSION Besides those interpretations of the breaking of the tablets in Exod 32:19 that seek to remove any blame from Moses, most interpreters of this part of the golden calf story explain the motive for breaking the tablets from an Akkadian perspective, i.e., the breaking of the tablets signals that the people have broken the covenant with God. This interpretation is understandable given the historical links between ancient Israel and Mesopotamia, as well as the historical connection between Hittite covenant arrangements and biblical studies. This interpretation also makes sense because of the historical fact of the exile in Babylon and the growth of what became the Bible before, during and directly after this time of exile. Quite naturally, biblical scholars would look to this historical connection as having a profound effect on the stories remembered, collected, and written down in the HB. This book has sought to look in another direction for an interpretation for the breaking of the tablets containing the Ten Commandments. Instead of looking in the direction of Mesopotamia, this book has looked to the southern neighbor of ancient Israel, Egypt. It has been shown that the ancient Egyptians had a regular practice of breaking and cursing enemies of the state known as the execration ritual. This Egyptian procedure sought to render the opponents of the pharaoh and the state incapacitated by magical means. From an Egyptian perspective, the breaking of the execration items initiated a magical curse on the opposition in order to break them, to annihilate them, or to make them powerless. As opposed to the Akkadian setting, the Egyptian ritual represented what the pharaoh and his representatives wanted to do to their opposition, not what the opposition had done. This book has argued that this is the proper interpretation for the throwing and breaking actions in Exod 32:19. The tablets are broken not to represent what 203

204

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

the people have done to the covenant relationship with God, but rather to represent what Moses intends to do to them because of their “stiff-necked” opposition. One of the purposes of this study was to show some similarity between ancient magical practices and religious rituals. A study of the characteristics of what one group would define as ‘magic’ as opposed to ‘religion’ reveals that the line separating those two terms moves based on whose ritual is being described. If it is something ‘your group’ does to manipulate or to change a situation, then it could very well be magic. If it is something ‘my group’ does to manipulate or to change my situation, then most certainly it is religious. When one takes away the labels of magic and religion, and focuses only on the actions of the participants and the desired results, one can see more similarities. One further insight from this study of ancient rituals described in the HB is that the larger distinction seems to be not between religion and magic, but rather between religion and idolatry. Idolatry, the appeal to another ‘god,’ is always unsuccessful and worthy of death—whether in the present or predicted in the future; however, the practice of ‘magic’ in a given situation may well be effective and tolerated. According to the canonical text of Exod 32, God is ready to wipe the people out for their idolatry, their appeal to another ‘god,’ until Moses intercedes on their behalf. When Moses sees the idolatry for himself, he orders the Levites to kill those who have worshiped the idol and refuse to now side with God and Moses. Jeremiah also announces punishment for the people’s idolatry in Jer 19. The people have broken their covenant in Jeremiah because of their worship of foreign gods and idols. The plague stories from the book of Exodus also serve as an example of this distinction between the practice of magic and idolatry. While many commentators parse and divide the plagues by sources, it is also interesting to view the canonical text by the success or lack of success in re-producing the plagues by the Egyptian magicians. As Moses and Aaron perform the first few plagues, the Egyptian magicians are able to do the same: staffs turned into serpents, water into blood, and frogs on the land. The Egyptian magicians are able to do this not because of idolatry—an appeal to Egyptian god and goddesses. No, the first plague stories give credit to the magicians “by their secret arts” (Exod 7:11, 22; 8:7).

CONCLUSION

205

Death is not unavoidable in the plague stories until the Egyptian pantheon is mentioned in opposition to the Hebrew God. Exodus 12:12 states, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.” The story of the plagues not only tolerates, but gives some credit to the “secret arts” of the magicians, and their willingness to be the first to recognize “the finger of God” (8:19) in the plagues. Outsiders, like the Egyptian people, are even said to “fear the Lord” in the plague stories (9:20). The use of magic in these stories is not a negative. Magic is actually given some sense of power, in a limited way, without appeal to a foreign deity or idol. Death for the Egyptian first-born, whether hiding at home or unprotected in the field, is unavoidable in order for the Hebrew God to triumph over the Egyptian gods and goddesses not to punish the magicians. As this is applied to Exod 32 and Jer 19, the activities of Moses and Jeremiah resemble the work of the Egyptian priests who performed the execration ritual in ancient Egypt. They all want to maintain or return society to the proper order. The threat of the execration ritual is for those who have violated a previous agreement. While not appealing to the Egyptian pantheon of gods and goddesses, Moses and Jeremiah want to set in motion a curse against those people who have practiced some form of idolatry in violation of their covenant with the Hebrew God. While not embracing all aspects of Egyptian society, any leader in the ancient world could admire Egypt for its military prowess and stability. The ancient Egyptians practiced the execration ritual to help maintain the status quo magically by punishing those who got out of line. Moses and Jeremiah seek to do the same here.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aberbach, Moses and Leivy Smolar. “Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves.” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 129-140. Abrams, Judith Z. “Metzora(at) Kashaleg: Leprosy, Challenges to Authority in the Bible.” The Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 4145. Abu Bakr, Abdel Moniem and Jurgen Osing. “Ächtungstexte aus dem Alten Reich.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo 29 (1973): 97-133. Achtemeier, Elizabeth. Nahum-Malachi, Interpretation Series. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986. Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2004. Amy-Dressler, Jennifer A. “Moses and the Rod.” Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies, vol 6 (1986): 18-31. Anderson, Bernhard W. “Miriam’s Challenge.” Bible Review 10 (1994): 16, 55. Anderson, Craig Evan. “The Tablets of Testimony and A Reversal of Outcome in the Golden Calf Episode.” Hebrew Studies 50 (2009): 41-65. Anderson, Jeffrey Scott. “The Nature and Function of Curses in the Narrative Literature of the Hebrew Bible.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1992. Antelme, Ruth Schumann and Stephanie Rossini. Becoming Osiris: The Ancient Egyptian Death Experience. Translated by Jon Graham. Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1998. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993. Assmann, Jan. “Magic and Theology in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 1-18 in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium. Edited 207

208

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

by Peter Schäfer and Hans G. Kippenberg. Vol. LXXV of Studies in the History of Religion; Numen Book Series. Edited by H.G. Kippenberg and E.T. Lawson. London: Brill, 1997. ______. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2008. ______. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. ______. “When Justice Fails: Jurisdiction and Imprecation in Ancient Egypt and the Near East.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 78 (1992): 149-162. Aune, David B. “Magic.” Pages 213-219 in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Goffrey William Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Baines, John, Leonard H. Lesko, and David P. Silverman. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practices. Edited by Byron E. Shäfer. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. ______. “Society, Morality, and Religious Practice.” Pages 123-200 in Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practices. Edited by Byron E. Shäfer. Ithaca: Cornell, 1991. Barré, Michael. “The Extrabiblical Literature.” Listening 19 (1984): 53-72. Ben Amos, Dan. “Comments on Robert C. Culley’s Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers.” Pages 35-45 in Text and Tradition. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Edited by Susan Niditch. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Ben Isaiah, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Benjamin Sharfman., trans. The Pentateuch and Rashi’s Commentary: A Linear Translation into English. Exodus. Brooklyn: S.S. & R., 1949. Ben Meir, Rabbi Shemuel. Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation. Edited and translated by Martin I. Lockshin. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Bentzen, Aage. “The Ritual Background of Amos i 2-ii 16.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 8 (1950): 85-99. Berg, Yehuda, ed. The Kabbalstic Bible: Exodus, Technology for the Soul. New York: Kabbalah Publishing, 2008. Berman, Samuel A. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by A. Alt, O. Eissfeldt, P. Kahle, and R. Kittel. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1987. Bleeker, C. J. Egyptian Festivals: Enactments of Religious Renewal. Leiden: Brill, 1967. ______. “Guilt and Purification in Ancient Egypt,” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 13 (1966): 81-87. Blythin, Islwyn. “Magic and Methodology.” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 17 (1970): 45-59. Boadt, Lawrence. Jeremiah 1-25, Old Testament Message, vol. 9. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982. Borchardt, Ludwig. “Bilder des Zerbrechens der Kruge.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 64 (1929): 1216. Bowker, John. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Bracke, John M. Jeremiah 1-29. Westminster Bible Companion. Edited by Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Braman, Robert Michael. “The Problem of Magic in Ancient Israel: A Century of Studies.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1989. Breasted, James Henry. Development of Religion and Though in Ancient Egypt. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. Brichto, Herbert Chanan. “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry.” Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983): 1-44. Bright, John. Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-Exilic Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. ______. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1965. Brown, John Pairman. “The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Janus: The Magico-Military Numen of the state in Jerusalem and Rome.” Biblische Zeitschrift 30 (1986): 20-35. Bruckner, James K. Exodus. New International Bible Commentary. Old Testament Series 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. Brueggemann, Walter. The Book of Exodus. The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. ______. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

210

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

______. Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Buber, Martin. On the Bible: Eighteen Studies. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. Introduction by Harold Bloom. New York: Schocken Books, 1982. Bulka, Reuven P. “The Golden Calves: What Happened?,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 37, no. 4, O-D (2009), 250-254. Burns, Rita J. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers with Excurses on Feasts/Ritual and Typology. Old Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. vol. 3. Edited by Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P. and Martin McNamara, M.S.C. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983. Burrell, Barbara. “Arti-Facts: ‘Curse Tablets’ from Caesarea.” Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (1998): 128. Bush, Randall K. “The Theological Ethics of Contemporary Prophetic Acts.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 2003. Butler, Trent C. “Anti-Moses Tradition.” Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (1979): 33-39. Buttrick, George Arthur, Thomas Samuel Kepler, John Knox, Herbert Gordon May, Samuel Terrien, and Emory Stevens Bucke, eds. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations, vol. 2. Translated by Reverend John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. ______. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of A Harmony Translated from the Original Latin, and Compared with the French Edition; with Annotations, etc. Vol. 3. Translated by Reverend Charles William Bingham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Campbell, Antony F. and Mark A. O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Capart, Jean. Introduction to Princes et Pays d’Asie et de Nubie: Textes Hieratiques sur des figurines d’envoutement du moyen empire by Georges Posener. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologigue Reine Élisabeth, 1940. Carr, David M. “What Is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections Between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases.” Pages 159-180 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman an Konrad Schmid. Number 34 of Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series. Edited by Christopher R. Matthews. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Carroll, Robert P. “Dismantling the Book of Jeremiah and Deconstructing the Prophet.” Pages 204-210 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986. Edited by J.A. Emerton, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 40. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988. ______. Jeremiah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library Series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary.The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. ______. Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Clark, R. T. Rundle. Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson, Ltd., 1959. Repr., New York: Thames & Hudson, 1991. Carke, Peter B. and Peter Byrne. Religion Defined and Explained. New York: St. Martin’s, 1993. Clements, Ronald E. Exodus. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J.W. Packer. Cambridge: The University Press, 1972. ______. Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996. Clifford, Richard J. “Exodus.” Pages 44-60 in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990. Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Cody, Aelred. “Exodus 18,12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites.” Biblica 49 (1968): 153-166. Cohen, A. ed. The Soncino Chumash: The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth. London: Soncino, 1947. Cohen, Jeffrey M. “Why Moses Smashed the Tablets.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 23 (1995): 33-37.

212

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Collins, John J. Encounters with Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Couroyer, Bernard. “Un Egyptianisme en Exode XVII, 15-16 YHWH-NISSI.” Revue Biblique 88 (1981): 333-339.Couturier, Guy P., S.C.S. “Jeremiah.” Pages 265-297 in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990. Craghan, John F. “Exodus.” Pages 79-114 in The Collegeville Bible Commentary. Edited by Dianne Bergant, C.S.A. and Robert J. Harris, O.F.M. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1989. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. Jeremiah 1-25. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 26, Dallas: Word Books, 1991. Culley, Robert C. “Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers.” Pages 25-34 in Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Edited by Susan Niditch. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Currid, John D. “The Egyptian Setting of the Serpent: Confrontation in Exodus 7, 8-13.” Biblische Zeitschrift Jahrgang 39, Heft 2 (1995): 203-224. Dauphinais, Michael and Matthew Levering. Holy People, Holy Land: A Theological Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005. David, A. Rosalie. A Guide to Religious Ritual at Abydos. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1981. ______. Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File, 1998. ______. Introduction to Egyptian Magic. by Christian Jacq. Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips; Chicago: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1985. Davies, T. Witton. Magic, Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbors. New York: KTAV, 1969. Davis, Dale Ralph. Looking on the Heart, vol. 2: Expositions of 1 Samuel 15-31, Expositor’s Guide to the Historical Books. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994. Daxelmüller, Christoph and Marie Louise Thomsen. “Bildzauber im alten Mesopotamien.” Anthropos 77 (1982): 27-64. Dee, Jonathan. Chronicles of Ancient Egypt. London: Collins & Brown, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Dempsey, Carol J. The Prophets: A Liberation-Critical Reading. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. De Vries, Carl E. “The Bearing of Current Egyptian Studies on the Old Testament.” Pages 25-36 in New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco: Word Books, 1970. Domeris, William R. “When Metaphor Becomes Myth: A Socio-Linguistic Reading of Jeremiah.” Pages 244-262 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Dorsey, David A. “Broken Potsherds at the Potter’s House: An Investigation of the Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah.” Evangelical Journal 1 (1983): 3-16. Douglas, J. D., ed. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1980. Dozeman, Thomas B. and Konrad Schmid. A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentatuech in Recent European Interpretation. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ______. “Moses: Divine Servant and Israelite Hero.” Hebrew Annual Review 8 (1984): 45-61. Driver, G. R. and John C. Miles, eds. and trans. The Babylonian Laws: Transliterated Text, Translation, Philological Notes. vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. International Critical Commentary 5. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902. Driver, Tom F. Liberating Rites: Understanding the Transformative Power of Ritual. Boulder,Colo.: Westview, 1998. Durheim, John I. Exodus. Word Bible Commentary, vol. 3. Edited by David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker and John D. Watts. Waco: Word Books, 1987. _______. “Exodus.” Pages 127-155 in Mercer Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1947. Dykstra, Laurel A. Set Them Free: The Other Side of Exodus. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2002.

214

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Eakin, Frank E., Jr. The First Tablet of the Commandments: A Jewish and Christian Problem. Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2004. Elazar, Daniel J. Covenant and Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations and Jewish Expressions, vol. 1 of the Covenant Tradition in Politics. New Brunswick, Conn.: Transaction, 1995. Eliade, Mircea, ed. The Encyclopedia of Religion. 16 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino, 1935. Étienne, Marc. Heka: Magie et envoûtement dans l’Égypte ancienne. Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2000. Evan-Shoshan, Abraham., ed. A New Concordance of the Old Testament: Using the Hebrew and Aramaic Text, 2d edition. Jerusalem: Sivan, 1989. Evans, Carl D., William W. Hallo and John B. White, eds. Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, vol. 34. Edited by Dikran Y. Hadidian. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980. Fass, David E. “The Molten Calf: Judgment, Motive, and Meaning.” Judaism 39 (1990): 171-183. Faulkner, Raymond O. The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. 3 vols. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1978. ______. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. ______. “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus 3: The Book of Overthrowing Apep.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 23 (1937): 166. Fischer-Elfert, Hans-W. “The hero in Retjenu—an execration figure.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 82 (1996): 198-199. Fishbane, Michael A. “Studies in Biblical Magic: Origins, Uses and Transformations of Terminology and Literary Form.” Ph.D. diss. Brandeis University, 1971. Fleming, Fergas and Alan Lothian. The Way to Eternity: Egyptian Myth. London: Duncan Baird Publishers, 1997. Fohrer, George. History of Israelite Religion. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. ______. Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1965. ______. Die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten. Zurich: Buchdruckerei H. Schürch, 1953. Fox, Everett. Now These Are the Names: A New English Rendition of the Book of Exodus. New York: Schocken Books, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Fox, Marvin. “R. Isaac Arama’s Philosophical Exegesis of the Golden Calf Episode.” Pages 87-102 in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday. Edited by Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Frankel, David. “The Destruction of the Golden Calf: A New Solution.” Vetus Testamentum 44, no. 3 (1994): 330-339. Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Eastern Religion. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948. Fraser, Elouise Renich. “Symbolic Acts of the Prophets.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 4 (1974): 45-53. Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic in Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1922. Freedman, H. Jeremiah: Hebrew Text and English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11. The Soncino Books of the Bible. Edited by Rev. Dr. A. Cohen. London: Soncino, 1949. ______. and Maurice Simon, eds. and trans. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus. Translated by Rabbi Dr. S.M. Lehrman. London and New York: Soncino, 1983. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1991. Friebel, Kelvin G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 283. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______. “Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign Acts: Their Meaning and Function as Nonverbal Communication and Rhetoric.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1989. Friedman, Florence D. “Aspects of Domestic Life and Religion.” Pages 95-118 in Pharaoh’s Workers: The Villagers of Deir el Medina. Edited by Leonard H. Lesko. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1994. Fritz, Maureena. “A Midrash: The Self-Limitation of God.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:4 (1985): 703-714 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Moses and the Cults: The Question of Religious Leadership.” Judaism 34 (1985): 444-452. Gardiner, Sir Alan. “A Unique Funerary Liturgy,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 41 (1955): 9-17. Gaster, Theodore H. “Magic.” Pages 273-275 in vol. 7 of the

216

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isaac Landman. 10 vols. New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1948. Geddes and Grosset. Ancient Egypt: Myth and History. New Landmark, Scotland: Geddes & Grosset, 1997. Gilbert, Jim B. “A Reevaluation of Magic In Israel and the Ancient Near East in Light of Contemporary Anthropological Studies.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,1985. Giveon, Raphael. The Impact of Egypt on Canaan: Iconographical and Related Studies, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, vol. 20. Edited by Othmar Keel. Freiburg, Switzerland: Biblical Institute of the University of Freiburg, 1978. ______. “Remarks on the Transmission of Egyptian Lists of Asiatic Toponyms.” Pages 171-183 in Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur: Studien zum Gedenkun an Eberhard Otto. Edited by Jan Assmann, Erika Feucht, and Rienhard Grieshammer. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1977. Goelet, Ogden. Introduction to Book of the Dead. Translated by Raymond Faulkner. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994. Goldingay, John, ed. Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 459. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Goode, William J. “Magic and Religion: A Continuum.” Pages 152162 in vol. 1 of Articles on Witchcraft, Magic and Demonology: A Twelve Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles. Edited by Brian P. Levack. New York: Garland, 1992. Goodenough, Edwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Volume 2: The Archeological Evidence from the Diaspora, Charms, b. Magic and Religion. 13 vols; New York: Pantheon Books, 1953. Gordon, Cyrus H. and Gary A. Rendsburg. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. 4th edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1997. Gore, Norman C. Tzeenah U-Reenah: A Jewish Commentary on the Book of Exodus. New York: Vantage, 1965. Graf, Fritz. “Theories of Magic in Antiquity.” Pages 93-104 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Gray, John. 1 and 2 Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1970.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

Greenberg, Moshe. Understanding Exodus. Volume II, Part I, of the Melton Research Center Series: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Behrman House, 1969. Greene, Thomas M. “Language, Signs and Magic.” Pages 255-272 in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Hans G. Kippenberg. Vol. 75 of Studies in the History of Religions: Numen Book Series. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Greifenhagen. F. V. Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 361. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Halpern, Baruch. ““Brisker Pipes Than Poetry”: The Development of Israelite Monotheism.” Pages 77-107 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Hansen, Nicole B. “Ancient Execration Magic in Coptic and Islamic Egypt” Pages 427-446 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Harries, Richard. “Power and Powerlessness in Judaism and Christianity.” Christian Jewish Relations 21 (1988): 37-40. Harris, J. R. The Legacy of Egypt. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Hasel, Michael Gerald. “Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant During the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition.” Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 1996. Hendrix, Ralph E. “A Literary Structural Analysis of the GoldenCalf Episode in Exodus 32:1-33:6.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 28, no. 3 (1990): 211-217. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. The Prophets. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Hester, David Charles. “Authority Claims and Social Legitimation in the Book of Jeremiah.” Ph. D. diss., Duke University, 1982. Hoffmeier, James K. “The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives.” Biblica 67 no. 3 (1986): 378-387. ______. “Egypt As an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response.” Pages 79-97 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of

218

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Roland K. Harrison. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. ______. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ______. “Some Egyptian Motifs Related to Warfare and Enemies and Their Old Testament Counterparts.” The Ancient World 6 (1983): 53-70. Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Based Upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971 Repr., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989. ______. Jeremiah: A Fresh Reading. New York: Pilgrim, 1990. ______. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25, Heremeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Holbert, John C. “A New Literary Reading of Exodus 32, The Story of the Golden Calf.” Quarterly Review 10/3 (1990): 46-68. Holt, Else K. “Word of Jeremiah—Word of God: Structures of Authority in theBook of Jeremiah.” Pages 172-189 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. Vol. 459 of Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. Edited by Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Horn, Siegfried Herbert. “The Relations Between Egypt and Asia During the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1951. Hornung, Erik. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. Translated by John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell, 1982. ______. Idea Into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought . Translated by Elizabeth Bredeck. Princeton: Timken, 1992. Hutton, Rodney R. “Magic or Street-Theater? The Power of the Prophetic Word.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107, no. 2 (1995): 247-260. Hyatt, J. Phillip. Commentary on Exodus. New Century Bible. London: Olphants, 1971. Jacob, Walter. trans. and interpreted by Benno Jacob. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1992. Jacq, Christian Egyptian Magic. Translated by Janet M. Davis. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Janzen, J. Gerald. Exodus. Westminster Bible Companion. Edited by Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Jeffers, Ann, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. New York: E. J. Brill, 1996. Joines, Karen Randolph. Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Study. Haddonfield, N.J.: Haddonfield House, 1974. Jones, Douglas Rawlinson. Jeremiah. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992. Joyce, Paul. “The Individual and the Community.” Pages 77-93 in Beginning Old Testament Study. Edited by John Rogerson. London: SPCK, 1998. Junker, Hermann. Giza, VIII. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1947. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Kemp, Barry. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of A Civilization. London: Routledge, 1991. King, Philip J. Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Kirsch, Jonathan. Moses: A Life. New York: Ballantine, 1998. Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1966. Klutz, Todd E. “Reinterpreting ‘Magic’ in the World of Jewish and Christian Scripture: An Introduction.” Pages 1-22 in Magic in the Biblical World. Edited by Todd E. Klutz. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 245. London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2003. Knight, George A. F. Theology As Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1976. Korosec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsvertraege. Leipsig: T. Weicher, 1931. Kroeger, Catherine Clark, and Mary J. Evans, eds. The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Kugel, James L. The Bible As It Was. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997.

220

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Kummerlin-McLean, Joanne Kay. “Divination and Magic in the Religion of Ancient Israel: A Study in Perspectives and Methodology.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1986. Lang, Bernhard. Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Langston, Scott M. Exodus Through the Centuries. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006. Larsson, Goran, Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1999. Lauer, J.-Ph. and J. Leclant. “Decouverte de Statues de Prisonniers au Temple de la Pyramide de Pepi I.” Revue d’Égyptologie 21 (1969): 55-62. Lawhead, Alvin S. “The Strange Behavior of Jeremiah.” Emphasis 9, no. 2 (1985-86): 14-15. Leibowitz, Nehama. Studies in Shemot (Exodus): Part II Mishpatim-Pekudei (Exodus 21, 1 to end). Translated by Aryeh Newman. Jerusalem: Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora, The Joint Authority for Jewish Zionist Education, 1980. Leinhard, Joseph T., S.J., and Thomas C. Oden. eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Exodus, Leviticus, Number, Deuteronomy, Old Testament III. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001. Lesko, Leonard H. “Egyptian Magic.” Pages 37-69 in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 5. Edited by Mircea Eliade. London: Collier Macmillan, 1987. Leslie, Elmer A. Jeremiah: Chronologically Arranged, Translated, and Interpreted. Nashville: Abingdon, 1954. Leuchter, Mark. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26-45. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Levinson, David and Melvin Ember, eds. Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. 4 vols. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Volume 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. ______. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Volume 2: New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Press, 1976. Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962. Lockshin, Martin I., ed. and trans. Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf.” Biblica 48 (1967): 481-490. ______. “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf—a Rejoinder.” Biblica 56 (1975): 330-343. Lohfink, Norbert, S.J. In the Shadow of Your Wings: New Readings of Great Texts from the Bible. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003. Longman, Tremper, III. How To Read Exodus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Lundbom, Jack R. “Jeremiah, Book of.” Pages 707-721 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. Jeremiah 1-20, The Anchor Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lundquist, John M. “Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament.” Pages 293-305 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1988. Lurker, Manfred. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary. London: Thames & Hudson, 1980. MacDonald, Mary. “An Interpretation of Magic.” Religious Traditions. 7-9 (1984): 83-104. Magonet, Jonathan. “The Attitudes Towards Egypt in the Book of Exodus.” Pages 11-20 in Truth and Its Victims. Edited by Wim Beuken, Sean Freyne, and Anton Weiler. Concilium, Religion in the Eighties, 200. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. Maher, Michael. Genesis. Old Testament Message: A BiblicalTheological Commentary. Edited by Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P. and Martin McNamara, M.S.C.; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazer, 1982. Malinowski, Bronislaw Magic, Science and Religion: and Other Essays, Selected and with an Introduction by Robert Redfield. Boston: Beacon, 1948. Mann, Thomas W. Deuteronomy. Louisville: Westminster John

222

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Knox, 1995. March, W. Eugene. Great Themes of the Bible, Vol. 1. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Margaliot, Meshullam. “The Theology of Exodus 32-34.” Pages 4350 in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994. Matheny, Matthew Pierce. “The Relationship of Ancient Near Eastern Sympathetic Magic to the Symbolic Acts of the Hebrew Prophets.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1965. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. “Expository Articles: Exodus 32:1-14.” Interpretation 44 (1990): 277-281. McCarthy, Dennis J. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1972. McConville, J. Gordon. “Jeremiah: Prophet and Book.” Tyndale Bulletin 42:1 (1991): 80-95. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah in Two Volumes, Volume 1: Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25, International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Meadors, Edward P. Idolatry and the Hardening of the Heart: A Study in Biblical Theology. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” Biblical Archaeology 17 (September, 1954): 49-76. Meyers, Carol. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Milgrom, Jacob. “Magic, Monotheism and the Sin of Moses.” Pages 251-265 in The Quest For the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall. Edited by H.B. Huffmon, F.A. Spina, and A.R.W. Green. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Millard, Alan. “The Tablets in the Ark.” Pages 254-266 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J.G. McConville and Karl Möller. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 461. Edited by Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Miller, William T., S.J. The Book of Exodus: Question by Question. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2009. Moberly, R. W. L. Prophecy and Discernment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Montet, Pierre. Everyday Life in Egypt in the Days of Ramesses the Great. Translated by A.R. Maxwell-Hyslop and Margaret S. Drower with a new introduction by David B. O’Connor. Westport, Conn: Greenwood, 1974. Repr., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings. International Critical Commentary 10. New York: Scribner, 1951. Moret, Alexandre. “Le Rite de Briser les vases rouges au temple de Louxor.” Revue d’Égyptologie 3 (1938): 167. Murphy, Roland E., O. Carm. “Introduction to the Pentateuch.” Pages 3-7 in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990. Neusner, Jacob. “Science and Magic, Miracle and Magic in Formative Judaism: The System and the Difference.” Pages 61-81 in Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and In Conflict. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. ______. trans. and ed. The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Newing, Edward G. “Up and Down—In and Out: Moses on Mount Sinai. The Literary Unity of Exodus 32-34.” Australian Biblical Review 41 (1993): 19-34. Newsome, James D., Jr. The Hebrew Prophets. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984. Nicholson, Ernest W. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25, Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: University Press, 1973. Noegel, Scott B. “Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 24 (1996): 45-59. Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1962. ______. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972. Repr., Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Oden, Robert A., Jr. “The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel.” Pages 429-447 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in

224

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Oren, Eliezer. “Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984): 7-44. Oswalt, John N. “Golden Calves and the ‘Bull of Jacob’: The Impact on Israel of Its Religious Environment.” Pages 9-18 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1988. Overholt, Thomas W. “Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 35 (1967): 241-249. Perdue, Leo G. “Jeremiah.” Pages 615-665 in Mercer Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995. Phillips, Elaine A., “Exodus.” Pages 27-49 in The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Phillips, Graham. The Moses Legacy: In Search of the Origins of God. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 2002. Pilch, John J. “Jeremiah and Symbolism: A Social Science Approach.” The Bible Today 19 (1981): 105-112. Pinch, Geraldine. Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1994. Pixley, George V. On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective. Translated by Robert R. Barr. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1987. Plastaras, James, C.M. The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1966. Plaut, W. Gunther. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981. Posener, Georges. “Ächtungstexte,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie 1: 67-68. ______. “Les Textes D’envoütement de Mirgissa.” Syria 43 (1966): 277-287. ______. Princes et Pays D’Asie et de Nubie: Textes Hiératiques sur des Figurines d’Envoûtement du Moyen Empire. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1940. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Propp, William H. C. Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. ______. “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107/1 (1988): 19-26. Quirke, Stephen. Ancient Egyptian Religion. London: British Museum, 1992. ______ and Jeffrey Spencer, eds. The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1992. Rad, Gerhard von. Die Botschaft der Propheten. Munich: Siebenstern Taschenbuch, 1967. Repr., The Message of the Prophets. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. ______. Genesis: A Commentary in The Old Testament Library Series. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1972. ______. Moses. London: Lutterworth, 1960. ______. Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Rainey, A. F. “The World of Sinuhe.” Israel Oriental Studies 2 (1972): 369-408. Redditt, Paul L. “The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-17.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55, no. 4 (1993): 676-686. Redford, Donald B. “Egypt and the World Beyond.” Pages 40-57 in Ancient Egypt. Edited by David P. Silverman. New York: Oxford, 1997. ______. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University, 1992. Reiner, Erica. “Magic Figurines, Amulets, and Talismans.” Pages 27-36 in Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval World: Papers Presented in Honor of Edith Porada. Edited by Ann E. Farkas. Mainz am Rhein, Germany: Philipp von Zabern, 1987. Ricks, Stephen D. “The Magician As Outsider in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.” Pages 131-143 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Edited by Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Ritner, Robert K. “The Cult of the Dead.” Pages 132-147 in Ancient Egypt. Edited by David P. Silverman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

226

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

______. “Curses.” Pages 183-225 in Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. Edited by Marvin Meyer, Richard Smith, and Neal Kelsey. San Francisco: Harper, 1994. ______. “Egyptian Magic: Questions of Legitimacy, Religious Orthodoxy and Social Deviance.” Pages 189-200 in Studies in Pharoanic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths. Edited by Alan B. Lloyd. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992. ______. “Horus on the Crocodiles: A Juncture of Religion and magic in Late Dynastic Egypt.” Pages 103-116 in Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt. Edited by James P. Allen, Jan Assmann, Alan B. Lloyd, Robert K. Ritner, and David P. Silverman; Yale Egyptological Studies Series 3. Edited by William Kelly Simpson. New Haven: Yale, 1989. ______. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practices. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993. ______. “Religion vs. Magic: The Evidence of the Magical Statue Bases.” Pages 495-501 in The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Studies Presented to Laszlo Kakosy by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Edited by Ulrich Luft. Budapest: Innova, 1992. Roberts, J. J. M. “Divine Freedom and Cultic Manipulation in Israel and Mesopotamia.” Pages 181-190 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. Robinson, H. Wheeler. “Prophetic Symbolism.” Pages 1-18 in Old Testament Essays: Papers Read Before the Society for Old Testament Study at its Eighteenth Meeting, Held at Keble College, Oxford, September 27th to 30th, 1927. Edited by D.C. Simpson. London: Charles Griffin & Company, 1927. Rogerson, John. “The World-View of the Old Testament.” Pages 58-75 in Beginning Old Testament Study. Edited by John Rogerson. London: SPCK, 1998. Rohl, David M. Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. New York: Crown, 1995. Römer, Thomas Christian. “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research.” Pages 9-27 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Number 34 of Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series. Edited by

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Christopher R. Matthews. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Rowe, Alan. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1940. ______. The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1930. Sacks, Robert D. A Commentar on the Book of Genesis.Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 6. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellon, 1990. Sarna, Nahum. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken Books, 1986. Sawyer, John F. A. Prophecy and the Biblical Prophets. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Scalise, Pamela J. “Jeremiah.” Pages 369-391 in The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Schäfer, Peter. “Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 1943 in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Hans G. Kippenberg. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Schaper, Joachim. “A Theology of Writing: The Oral and the Written, God as Scribe, and the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 97-119 in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach. Edited by Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2004. Schmidt, Brian B. “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo.” Pages 242259 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became A Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schulman, Alan R. “Take for Yourself the Sword.” Pages 265-295 in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke. Edited by Betsy M. Bryan and David Lorton. San Antonio: Van Siclen, 1994. Segal, Alan F. “On the Nature of Magic: A Report on a Dialogue between a Historian and a Sociologist.” Pages 275-292 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A.

228

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995. Sethe, Kurt Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker, und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des Mittleren Reiches. Berlin: Akadamie der Wissenschaften, 1926. ______. “Miszellen.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Alter tumskunde 63 (1928): 99-104. Shaw, Ian. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Buckinghamshire, UK: Shire Egyptology, 1991. Sharp, Carolyn J. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. New York: T & T Clark, 2003. Sheehan, John F. X., S. J. Let the People Cry Amen. New York: Paulist, 1977. Silverman, David P. Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Simpson, William Kelly. “King Cheops and the Magicians.” Pages 13-24 in The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions and Poetry. Edited by William Kelly Simpson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Slivniak, Dmitri M. “The Golden Calf: Constructively and Deconstructively.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 1, S (2008), 19-38. Sorensen, Jorgen Podemann. “Major Issues in the Study of Ancient Egyptian Religion.” Temenos 30 (1994): 125-152. Spence, Lawrence. Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt. London: George G. Harrap & Company, 1915. Repr., Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends. New York: Dover, 1990. Stacey, W. D. Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament. London: Ep worth, 1990. Stulman, Louis. “Insiders and Outsiders in the Book of Jeremiah: Shifts in Symbolic Arrangements.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 66 (1995): 65-85. ______. Jeremiah. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. ______. “The Prose Sermons As Hermeneutical Guide to Jeremiah 1-25: The Deconstruction of Judah’s Symbolic World.” Pages 34-63 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Sullivan, Lawrence E., ed. Hidden Truths: Magic Alchemy and the Occult, Compilation of selections from the Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade; New York: Macmillan, 1989. Suomala, Karla R. Moses and God in Dialogue: Exodus 32-34 in Postbiblical Literature. Studies in Biblical Literature 61. New York: Peter Lang, 2004 Sweeney, Deborah. “Intercessory Prayer in Ancient Egypt and the Bible.” Pages 213-230 in Pharaonic Egypt, The Bible and Christianity. Edited by Sarah Israelit-Groll. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Sweetland, Leon Hiram. “Magic in Old Testament Religion.” Masters’ Thesis. Northwestern University, 1917. Swidler, Arlene. “Prophets and Symbolic Acts Today.” The Bible Today 19 (1981): 182-187. Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. “Form and Meaning of Magical Acts: A Point of View.” Pages 199-229 in Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies. Edited by Robin Horton and Ruth Finnegan. London: Faber & Faber, 1973. ______. Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Theissen, Gerd. The Bible and Contemporary Culture. Translated by David E. Green. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980. Thompson, R. Campbell. Semitic Magic: Its Origins and Development. London: Luzac & Co., 1908. Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Timmer, Daniel. “Small Lexemes, Large Semantics: Prepositions and Theology in the Golden Calf Episode (Exodus 32-34). Biblica 88 (2007), 92-99. Tyldesley, Joyce. Judgement of the Pharaoh: Crime and Punishment in Ancient Egypt. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000. Tylor, Sir Edward B. Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization. New York: D. Appleton, 1909. Ulmer, Rivka B. Kern. “Visions of Egypt in Midrash: ‘Pharaoh’s Birthday’ and the ‘Nile Festival’ Text.” Pages 52-78 in Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Isaac Kalimi

230

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

and Peter J. Haas. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 439. Edited by Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Van Seters, John. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Vawter, Bruce, C. M. “Introduction to Prophetic Literature.” Pages 186-200 in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990. Verner, Miroslav. “Les Statuettes de Prisonniers en Bois D’ Abousir.” Revue d’Égyptologie 36 (1985): 145-153. Vickers, Brian. “Analogy Versus Identity: The Rejection of Occult Symbolism, 1580-1680.” Pages 95-163 in Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Edited by Brian Vickers; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Vila, Andre. “Un Rituel d’Envoûtement au Moyen Empire.” Pages 625-639 in L’Homme, hier ert aujourd’hui: receueil d’études en homage à André Leroi-Gourhan. Edited by Marc Sauter. Paris: Éditions Cujas, 1973. Walzer, Michael. “Exodus 32 and the Theory of Holy War: The History of A Citation.” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 114. Ward, James M. Thus Says the Lord: The Message of the Prophets. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991. Waring, Dawn Elizabeth. “The Nature of Yahweh’s Relationship with His People: A Literary Analysis of Exodus 32-34.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1985. Weber, Hans-Ruedi. “Power: Some Biblical Perspectives.” The Ecumenical Review 38 (1986): 265-279. Weill, Raymond. “Les Transmission Litteraires d’Égypte á Israel.” Revue d’Égyptologie 15 (1950): 43-61. Weinstein, James M. “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241 (1981): 1-28. ______. “Egyptian Relations with Palestine In the Middle Kingdom.” American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin No. 217 (1975): 1-16. Weiss, Meir. “The Pattern of the ‘Execration Texts’ in the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

Prophetic Literature.” Israel Exploration Journal 19, no. 3 (1969): 150-157. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. Reprint of Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885. Translation of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2d ed. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883. Wells, M. Jay. “Figural Representation and Canonical Unity.” Pages 111-125 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grover, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament, vol. 1. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1975. Reprint of original edition published in Bristol: William Pine, in Wine Street, 1765 White, J. E. Manchip. Ancient Egypt: Its Culture and History. New York: Dover, 1970. Widmer, Michael. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32- 34 and Numbers 13-14. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wiesel, Elie. Wise Men and Their Tales: Portraits of Biblical, Talmudic, and Hasidic Masters. New York: Schocken Books, 2003. Wifall, Walter. “The Sea of Reeds as Sheol.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92, Part 3 (1980): 325-332. Wilkinson, Richard H. Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1994. Williams, Ronald J., “A People Came Out of Egypt: An Egyptologist Looks at the Old Testament,” Pages 238-252 in Congress Volume. Edinburgh: Brill, 1975. Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ______. “Some Egyptianisms in the Old Testament,” Pages 93-98 in Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Wilson, Ian Douglas. “Face to Face With God: Another Look.” Restoration Quarterly 51, no. 2 (2009), 107-114. Wilson, John A. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1951. ______. “The Execration of Asiatic Princes.” Pages 328-329 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Edited by James B. Pritchard, 3rd

232

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

edition with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Wimmer, Stefan. “Ein Ächtungstext aus Israel/Palestina.” Pages 571-577 in Sesto Congresso internazionale di egittologia, Vol. 2. Turin: International Association of Egyptologists, 1993. Winthrop, Robert H. Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Greenwood, 1991. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Magic in the Biblical World.” Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983): 169-200. Zandee, J. “Egyptological Commentary on the Old Testament,” Pages 269-281 in Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beek on the occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, and N. A. van Uchelen; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Company B.V., 1974. Zornberg, Avivah Gottlieb. The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

INDEX

157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 193, 198, 200, 201, 203 breaks, 1, 8, 123, 124, 126, 135, 164, 179, 187, 189, 197 Brevard Childs, 29, 143 Carroll, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 112, 113, 120, 210, 211, 221 Cassuto, 150, 151, 152, 211 cast, 33, 41, 45, 71, 91, 92, 189, 190, 191 chaos, 49, 51, 61, 63, 65, 67, 72, 80, 85, 87, 88, 89, 94, 106, 129, 194, 196, 199, 200 Coffin Text, 74, 75 Coffin Texts, 73, 74, 75, 214 continuum, 14, 20, 22, 48, 50, 53, 111 covenant, 4, 5, 6, 8, 35, 117, 118, 128, 129, 130, 131, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205 Deut 9, 145

Aaron, 26, 38, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 150, 152, 153, 158, 159, 165, 177, 182, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 204, 207, 225 Achan, 180, 182 Anderson, 39, 161, 162, 163, 207 Apep, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 214 Apophis, 41, 44, 62, 74, 90, 93 Assyrian, 2, 5, 6, 64, 142, 143 Babylonian, 2, 5, 6, 104, 114, 116, 117, 118, 130, 143, 167, 168, 213, 214 Book of Overthrowing Apep, 63, 64, 69, 71, 73 Book of the Dead, 45, 73, 74, 86, 216 break, 1, 5, 73, 74, 75, 91, 95, 107, 117, 124, 131, 135, 137, 138, 150, 154, 157, 160, 162, 169, 174, 176, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203 breaking, 1, 6, 8, 42, 58, 73, 74, 75, 84, 87, 89, 90, 95, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154,

233

234

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

Deut 18, 34, 227 Deut 29, 183 Deut 31, 101, 155, 177, 183 disorder, 52, 55, 60, 61, 62, 67, 69, 85, 87, 89, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200 Eccl 7, 138 Elijah, 38, 39, 162, 183, 186, 190, 191 Elisha, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 190, 191 enemies, 5, 7, 40, 42, 49, 51, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 109, 110, 120, 122, 125, 130, 134, 174, 179, 180, 181, 183, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203 ephod, 23, 32, 34, 197 evil, 50, 57, 61, 62, 63, 65, 70, 71, 74, 77, 80, 84, 88, 93, 94, 121, 124, 128, 129, 130, 134, 152 execration, 5, 6, 7, 8, 42, 47, 52, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 108, 109, 114, 116, 119, 120, 122, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 174, 182, 183, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 203, 205, 214 Exod 4, 28, 45, 182, 190, 194, 195, 196 Exod 7, 38, 40, 190, 204 Exod 8, 38, 200 Exod 9, 38, 187, 200 Exod 14, 45, 46, 140 Exod 15, 40, 47, 140, 190, 198

Exod 16, 138, 140 Exod 17, 28, 30, 36, 196 Exod 19, 59, 155, 158 Exod 20, 4, 155, 168, 194 Exod 22, 35 Exod 24, 155, 158, 168, 195 Exod 32, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 62, 96, 109, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204, 205 Exod 33, 157, 162 Ezek 29, 41 figurines, 5, 58, 69, 70, 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 130, 134, 135, 174, 191, 198, 210 foreigners, 61, 67, 77, 87, 128, 182 Friebel, 120, 124, 135, 215 Gen 30, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36 Gen 31, 26, 27 Georges Posener, 6, 76, 77, 86, 210 Geraldine Pinch, 52, 53, 55, 94 heka, 49, 50, 51, 54, 58, 59, 73 Holladay, 8, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113, 115, 120, 218 idolatry, 1, 5, 118, 119, 121, 127, 140, 142, 144, 151, 152, 153, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 171, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 191, 201, 204, 205 Isa 38, 187, 189

INDEX Jacob, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 48, 119, 184, 217, 218, 222, 223, 224 Jer 19, 7, 96, 98, 103, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, 174, 201, 204, 205 Jer 22, 183 Jer 25, 117 Jer 43, 187, 189, 200 Jer 44, 118, 119 Jer 50, 118 Jer 52, 187, 188 Joash, 30, 39 Job 29, 187, 189 John 1, 50 Josh 7, 30, 176, 180, 181 Joshua, xii, 28, 29, 30, 180, 181, 182, 195, 217 1 Kgs 11, 176, 185 1 Kgs 12, 141, 148, 150, 162 1 Kgs 18, 38, 162 1 Kgs 19, 183, 186, 187, 190 2 Kgs 2, 190 2 Kgs 4, 190 2 Kgs 6, 190 2 Kgs 11, 187 2 Kgs 13, 30, 36, 190 2 Kgs 18, 179, 188 2 Kgs 25, 188 Kurt Sethe, 5, 76, 77, 86 Lev 20, 35 Lev 26, 72, 176, 177, 186 Levites, 62, 140, 141, 144, 145, 149, 150, 168, 179, 185, 189, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204 maat, 49, 52, 60, 86, 92, 94, 95, 128, 130, 197

235 magician, 16, 23, 29, 45, 46, 47, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 70, 85, 96, 193 magicians, 26, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 61, 62, 66, 96, 124, 182, 190, 192, 195, 200, 204, 205 Mal 2, 176, 184 McKane, 97, 98, 102, 103, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 222 midrash, 169, 170 Millard, 138, 158, 159, 222 Moses, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 59, 62, 112, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 185, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 207, 210, 211, 213, 215, 219, 222, 223, 224, 225, 229, 231 Noth, 3, 28, 109, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 223 Num 11, 138 Num 12, 195 pharaoh, 40, 45, 50, 57, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 109, 122, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 137, 182, 192, 194, 195, 197, 199, 203 Pharaoh, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 61, 64, 65,

236

EXECRATION, EXODUS 32, AND JEREMIAH 19

66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 76, 84, 131, 154, 182, 190, 192, 193, 200, 215, 217, 229 Pinch, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 94, 95, 224 pottery, 5, 47, 58, 69, 74, 77, 82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 107, 108, 109, 110, 114, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 129, 134, 135, 136, 174, 191, 197, 198 priests, 13, 36, 43, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 70, 82, 84, 86, 92, 102, 110, 124, 127, 129, 131, 133, 150, 154, 157, 174, 191, 195, 197, 198, 199, 205 proper order, 50, 61, 62, 72, 86, 89, 94, 136, 189, 194, 197, 199, 205 Propp, 139, 140, 141, 142, 225 Prov 3, 50 Ps 69, 138 Ps 78, 96, 185 Ps 105, 145 Pyramid Texts, 73, 74, 214 Raphael Giveon, 78, 80 red jars, 73, 74, 90 Ritner, 6, 50, 54, 55, 58, 70, 85, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 225 ritual, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 33, 42, 43, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 108, 109, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 174, 175, 182, 183, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196,

197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204, 205 Robert K. Ritner, 6, 50, 51, 53, 54, 71, 87, 226 sacrifice, 6, 33, 78, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 106, 132, 167, 199 1 Sam 14, 32, 33 1 Sam 28, 37 Sarna, 153, 154, 215, 227 Schniedewind, 138, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 164, 227 Seth, 6, 62, 63, 64, 79, 90 setting, 3, 42, 121, 124, 127, 131, 150, 154, 191, 192, 193, 201, 203 Sharp, 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 228 shattered, 58, 69, 92, 93, 105, 129, 135, 146, 151, 160, 166 shattering, 47, 84, 120, 121, 136, 147, 152, 154, 165, 166, 174, 188 sin, 1, 31, 33, 138, 143, 145, 151, 153, 157, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 179, 180, 181, 182 Slivniak, 137, 159, 160, 161, 228 status quo, 52, 61, 128, 195, 205 stone, 47, 52, 84, 94, 153, 156, 159, 197, 198 symbolic action, 103, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 121, 122, 125, 130, 133, 149, 177 sympathetic magic, 26, 27, 84, 111, 113, 120, 123, 126, 136 tablets, 1, 5, 130, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,

INDEX 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 184, 189, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203 Talmud, 167, 168, 214, 223 Ten Commandments, 1, 4, 59, 138, 139, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 194, 197, 203

237 thrown, 91, 139, 186, 190, 191, 193 Thummim, 23, 32, 33, 34, 48 Urim, 23, 32, 33, 34, 48 Zech 11, 176, 177, 178 Zechariah, xiii, 177, 178, 225