Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller [1 ed.] 9781575065779, 9781575061245

Citation preview

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State University

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Bringing the Hidden to Light

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Stephen A. Geller

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation Studies in Honor of

Stephen A. Geller

Edited by

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon

Published in collaboration with Eisenbrauns Winona Lake, Indiana 2007

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

ç Copyright 2007 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bringing the hidden to light : the process of interpretation : studies in honor of Stephen A. Geller / Edited by Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-124-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Kravitz, Kathryn F. II. Sharon, Diane M. III. Geller, Stephen A. BS1171.3.B75 2007 221.6—dc22 2007011649 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. †‘

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Contents

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Publications of Stephen A. Geller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Biblical Accounts of Prehistory: Their Meaning and Formation . . . Tzvi Abusch

1

The Poet as Historian: The Plague Tradition in Psalm 105 . . . . . . . Marc Z. Brettler

19

“The Lord Grants Wisdom”: The World View of Proverbs 1–9 . . . . Alan Cooper

29

A Homily on the Book of Jonah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frank Moore Cross

45

Qoheleth: The Philosopher Means Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen Garfinkel

51

“On My Skin and in My Flesh”: Personal Experience as a Source of Knowledge in the Book of Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward L. Greenstein

63

Contextual Reading: Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency’s Commentary on Jonah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert A. Harris

79

“In Your Blood, Live” (Ezekiel 16:6): A Reconsideration of Meir Malul’s Adoption Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 S. Tamar Kamionkowski Biblical Remedial Narratives: The Triumph of the Trophies . . . . . . 115 Kathryn F. Kravitz Rib Redux: The Essentialist Eve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Anne Lapidus Lerner v

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

vi

Contents

Prolepsis in the Story of Rahab and the Spies (Joshua 2) . . . . . . . . . 149 David Marcus On Biblical Anthropomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Yochanan Muffs Biblical Exegesis à la Mercantilism and Raison d’état in Seventeenth-Century Venice: The Discorso of Simone Luzzatto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Benjamin Ravid “You Are My Servant”: Ambiguity and Deutero-Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . 187 Michael Rosenbaum The Song of the Silent Dove: The Pilgrimage of Judah Halevi . . . . 217 Raymond P. Scheindlin The Way of the Word: Textualization in Isaiah 55:6–11 . . . . . . . . . 237 William M. Schniedewind

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Choreography of an Intertextual Allusion to Rape in Judges 5:24–27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Diane M. Sharon Prophecy as Translation: Ancient Israelite Conceptions of the Human Factor in Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benjamin D. Sommer Indexes Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Other Ancient and Medieval Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

271

291 296 302

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Preface The essays in this volume were contributed by colleagues, friends, and students of Stephen A. Geller to mark the occasion of his 65th birthday. Stephen Allen Geller was born on August 30, 1938, in Albany, N.Y. His father, Irving, died when Stephen was a child, and he and his sister, Barbara, were raised by their mother, Eva. Stephen attended Hebrew School from the age of 6 and enjoyed it from the beginning. He recalls strict Mr. Auerbach, who drummed into him a love of Hebrew grammar and language and Ms. Helen Ott, who introduced him to German language and literature at Albany High School. He continued his Jewish studies at Temple Israel under Rabbi Herman Kievel. Geller went to Cornell University in 1956, where he majored in German Literature, spending his junior year at Heidelberg. While there, he also took courses in Semitics and Bible, attending lectures by Gerhard von Rad, among others. Geller entered the Rabbinical School of the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1960, at that time one of the few places offering higher studies in Judaism and Jewish culture. He studied Bible at JTS and, at the same time, began the study of Akkadian and other ancient languages at Columbia University. Upon receiving ordination in 1965, Geller entered the Ph.D. program in the Department of Near Eastern Literatures and Civilizations at Harvard, where he studied with Frank M. Cross, among others. He received his doctorate in 1976; his dissertation, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry, was published in the Harvard Semitic Monographs series in 1979. Geller taught in the departments of Hebrew and History at York University in Toronto from 1970 to 1972. He returned to JTS in 1972, becoming a colleague to his former teachers in the Bible Department as well as to his fellow scholars Raymond Scheindlin and Tzvi Abusch, two lifelong friends. In 1980, he moved to Dropsie College in Philadelphia and then to Brandeis University, where he was a visiting professor from 1988 to 1990. In 1991, he returned to JTS and the renamed Department of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages. In 2003, he was named the Irma Cameron Milstein Professor of Bible. Trained in the historical and comparative methods of criticism, Geller became interested in the “literary approach” which, modeled on the “New Criticism,” sought to apply the methods of literary analysis to the Hebrew Bible.

vii Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

viii

Preface

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

His attention to language at every level is reflected in his work throughout his career. He has addressed such topics as “The Dynamics of Parallel Verse” in Deuteronomy 32, the “Language of Imagery in Psalm 114,” and the literary uses of “Cleft Sentences with Pleonastic Pronoun.” But what especially distinguishes his literary studies of biblical texts is his search for an interpretation that encompasses the emotional and religious meanings that a text might be presumed to have had at the time it was written. Combining a historical orientation with deep exegeses of individual texts, he has focused on the contribution that the literary approach might make to the study of biblical religion. He has developed what he terms a “literary theology,” in which, by examining the literary devices in the passage under consideration, he has been able to formulate emerging religious ideas that the ancient writers did not express in systematic treatises. His method is illustrated in his studies of texts that represent the major religious traditions of the Hebrew Bible; these studies have been collected in Sacred Enigmas, published in 1997. The clarity and grace of Geller’s own writing is amplified by his wit— which is also reflected in his conversation as well as in his preference for restoration comedy and Oscar Wilde’s Importance of Being Earnest. He enjoys walks in the country, in both old and New England, and is an avid collector of art and antiques. He is presently at work on a further exploration of literary theology in a commentary on the book of Psalms. The contributors and editors of this volume wish him well and look forward to reading his future work.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Publications of Stephen A. Geller Books Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry. Harvard Semitic Monograph 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. Editor, A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature. Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. [Coedited with Edward L. Greenstein and Adele Berlin.] Sacred Enigmas: Toward a Literary Theology of the Hebrew Bible. London: Routledge, 1997.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Articles “The Dynamics of Parallel Verse: A Poetic Analysis of Deuteronomy 32:6– 12.” Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 35–56. “The Struggle at the Jabbok: The Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982): 37–60. “Theory and Method in the Study of Biblical Poetry.” Jewish Quarterly Review 73 (1982): 65–77. “Through Windows and Mirrors into the Bible: History, Literature and Language in the Study of Text.” Pages 3–40 in A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature. Edited by S. A. Geller. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982. “Were the Prophets Poets?” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 211–21. “A Poetic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–2.” Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984): 413–20. “Some Pitfalls in the ‘Literary Approach’ to Biblical Narrative.” Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1984): 408–15. “The Song of Songs: Recent Readings.” Prooftexts 4 (1984): 308–12. “Wellhausen and Kaufmann.” Midstream (December, 1985): 39–48. “ ‘Where Is Wisdom?’: A Literary Study of Job 28 in Its Settings.” Pages 155– 88 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by J. Neusner, B. Levine, and E. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

ix Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

x

Publications of Stephen A. Geller

“New Approaches to the Comparative Study of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Literatures.” Pages 72–77 in Approaches to Teaching the Hebrew Bible. Edited by B. Olshen and Y. Feldman. New York: Modern Language Association, 1989. “The Language of Imagery in Psalm 114.” Pages 170–94 in Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Edited by T. Abusch and J. Huehnergard. Harvard Semitic Series 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. “The Sack of Shechem: The Use of Typology in Biblical Covenant Religion.” Prooftexts 10 (1990): 1–15. “Cleft Sentences with Pleonastic Pronoun: A Syntactic Construction of Biblical Hebrew and Some of Its Literary Uses.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 20 (1991): 15–33. “Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work of the Pentateuch.” Prooftexts 12 (1992): 99–124. “Hebrew Prosody and Poetics: I. Biblical.” Pages 509–11 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. “Some Sound and Word Plays in the First Tablet of the Old Babylonian Atramhasis Epic.” Pages 63–70 in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume I. Edited by Barry Walfish. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993. “Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy 4.” Prooftexts 14 (1994): 103–39. “The God of the Covenant.” Pages 273–319 in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World. Edited by Barbara Nevling Porter. Chebeague, Maine: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000. “Nature’s Answer: The Meaning of the Book of Job in Its Intellectual Context.” Pages 109–32 in Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word. Edited by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. “Wisdom, Nature and Piety in Some Biblical Psalms.” Pages 101–21 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Edited by Tzvi Abusch. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. “The Religion of the Bible.” Pages 2021–40 in The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. “The Torah.” Pages 545–57 in World Literature and Its Times. Edited by Joyce Moss. Detroit: Thomsongale, 2004.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Publications of Stephen A. Geller

xi

“Who May Lead the People of God: Contradictions of Leadership in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 3–16 in Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality. Edited by Jack Wertheimer. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2004. “Manna and Sabbath: A Literary-Theological Reading of Exodus 16.” Interpretation 59 (2005): 5–16.

Forthcoming

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Minneapolis: Fortress. “The Genealogy of Faith.” Based on a paper read at the University of Chicago, 2004. “The Prophetic Roots of Religious Violence.” Conference volume of the Conference on Religion and Violence Held at Wellesley College and Boston University, February, 2006. “Sabbath and Creation: A Literary-Theological Study, Part 2.” SBLSymS. “The ‘Still, Small Voice’: 1 Kings 19 and the Roots of Intolerance in Biblical Religion.” Festschrift for Raymond P. Scheindlin. “Syntax and Meaning in Psalm 93.” Festschrift for Jeffrey Tigay.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Abbreviations General

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

ANE asv c. fem. kjv LXX masc. MT nasb neb njpsv OT pl. sing. rsv

ancient Near East American Standard Version common feminine King James Version Septuagint masculine Masoretic Text New American Standard Bible New English Bible New Jewish Publication Society Version Old Testament plural singular Revised Standard Version

Reference Works AB ABD ABRL AcOr AfO AfOB AJSR AnBib ANET AOAT AOS ASTI ATD BA BARead

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Acta Orientalia Archiv für Orientforschung Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft Association for Jewish Studies Review Analectica Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeologist Reader

xiii Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

xiv

Abbreviations

BBB BDB BETL BHS Bib BibInt BJS BKAT BWANT BZAW CAD

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

CBC CBQ CBQMS CCSL ConBOT DDD EncJud ErIsr FAT FCB FOTL GKC HALOT

HAT HSM HSS HTR HUCA ICC Int JANES JAOS JBL JE JJP

Bonner Biblische Beiträge Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Biblica Biblical Interpretation Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956– Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Conniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden, 1995 Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972 Eretz-Israel Forschungen zum Alten Testament Feminist Companion to the Bible Forms of the Old Testament Literature Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1910 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden, 1994–2000 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Encylopedia. Edited by I. Singer. 12 vols. New York, 1925 Journal of Juristic Papyrology

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations JPOS JQR JR JSIJ JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KEH KHC LCL LUÅ NAC NCB NIB NICOT OBO OIP OrAnt OTL PAAJR PEQ RB RBL REJ RES RHPR RIMA SBLDS SBLMS SBLWAW SBT SEA SemeiaSt ST SubBi TDOT

VT VTSup WBC ZA

xv

Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Jewish Studies Internet Journal Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Loeb Classical Library Lunds universitets årsskrift New American Commentary New Century Bible The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oriental Institute Publications Oriens antiquus Old Testament Library Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Revue des études juives Revue des études sémitiques Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Studies in Biblical Theology Svensk exegetisk årsbok Semeia Studies Studia Theologica Subsidia biblica Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, 1974– Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

xvi

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

ZAW

Abbreviations

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory: Their Meaning and Formation Tzvi Abusch Brandeis University

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

In this essay, I will present some thoughts about the biblical account of prehistory. By prehistory, I mean the stories in the book of Genesis that precede the accounts of the patriarchs and that tell the story of early humanity in mythic terms. I shall treat these texts as a mythological account with the hope of entering its inner world and understanding its metaphors and meaning. Any interpretation of such a long and complex myth can only focus on a limited line of thought. Thus, I do not claim exclusivity for my interpretation, for surely there are many aspects of the text that I have not taken up. A mythic text—especially one that has gone through several revisions—operates on more than one level and treats more than one set of issues. I have focused on

Author’s note: This essay originated as a lecture that I was privileged to deliver over the course of some 20 years to several audiences, both academic and lay. Among the most stimulating occasions were the Colloquium in the History of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, 1984; the Inaugural Potts Lecture in Cosmology, Johns Hopkins University, 1997; and a lecture to the Department of Bible, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2003. On the last of these occasions, I dedicated the lecture to the presiding chair, Professor Stephen Geller, one of my oldest and dearest friends. Steve is among the foremost practitioners of the literary approach of interpretation to the biblical text, and it is, therefore, a profound pleasure to dedicate this literary and psychological interpretation of a biblical text to him. This contribution is intended as an essay in interpretation and not as a work of research. I have retained the original informal lecture style; moreover, I have neither searched out nor provided bibliographical information. I would emphasize that most of the conclusions were arrived at independently by me and that the overall interpretation is mine, though I have no doubt that many of the individual points made in this essay may already be found in the voluminous secondary literature. The analysis of J was worked out in the late 1970s; that of P and the relation of the two sources in the early 1980s. The work has taken as its presumption the existence of biblical documentary sources and the dependence of the biblical text on Mesopotamian literary sources. The biblical translations follow the translations of E. A. Speiser except insofar as I have replaced his use of Yahweh with Yhwh (E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB 1; 3rd ed.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981]).

1 Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

2

Tzvi Abusch

the line of thought that seemed to me to be central when I worked out my original analysis, and I have emphasized one set of components more than others.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction The biblical stories explain how humans in their most fundamental sense came into being and how human institutions emerged. These are stories of creation, yet humanity is not immediately created in its fullness; for, just as a child is born but is not immediately part of the world, so too humans were not immediately part of the world at their creation. Thus, the biblical story of creation first describes the physical creation of the universe and of humanity and then tells us how people came to be part of the world. It defines their place in the universe by telling how they were accepted into the world and attained a stable place therein. The main actors in this dynamic story are human beings and God. In contrast to polytheistic creation accounts in which several gods function as peers, in the biblical monotheistic account, the protagonists are God and mankind. God is presented as an adult, while humans are presented as children; the biblical story is an account of the interaction of this adult and these children and of the development of their relationship. In other words, the emergence of the present order is told in terms of the development of the relationship between humankind and God. Accordingly, we are primarily interested in the first nine chapters of Genesis, for only after the Flood do we observe the emergence of the order in which we live. These chapters allow us to see how humankind came about, how human nature evolved, how also God changed, and how, through a new resolution of their relationship, the two created a form of coexistence that is the world order in which we live. Accordingly, we must enter into the story in order to identify the issues with which it is concerned as well as the nature of the characters Turning to the story, we note that its scheme is very simple. At first, an order is established. But this order does not work out and gradually, through intervening generations, the situation becomes more and more intolerable—so intolerable that God must bring the Flood. The aftermath of the Flood is the creation of a new order. To understand this account, we should first realize that the account is not made of whole cloth. First, the writers have drawn on ancient Near Eastern sources, and second, the biblical story itself is not unitary, for there are two separate sources or documentary strands that run through chs. 1–9.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

3

Mesopotamian Sources With regard to ancient Near Eastern sources, it suffices to recall the wellknown story of Atrahasis, the Babylonian Noah. The story begins before the creation of man, when only the gods existed. The gods worked within an organized administration in which some were administrators and others did the actual physical work of digging canals and maintaining the irrigation system that was necessary for agriculture. The worker-gods found the work heavy and burdensome and went on strike; they burned their tools and threw up a picket line around the temple, the home of the god Enlil, the chief executive officer of the earth. At the suggestion of Enki, the god of water, the administratorgods decided to create humankind as a replacement for the worker-gods. Humans were created as the replacement for the worker-gods, and a new system was established. But this new system did not remain stable, for humanity multiplied too rapidly because limits had not been placed upon reproduction.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Twelve hundred years had not yet passed When the land extended and the peoples multiplied. The land was bellowing like a bull, The god got disturbed with their uproar. (Lambert and Millard, Atrahasis, I 352–55 // II 1–4)

Unable to sleep because of the uproar of humanity, Enlil decided to limit the number of humans by means of a pestilence, then a partial drought, and, finally, a complete drought. When these attempts failed, he decided to bring the Flood. However, Enki, the god who had created humankind, tried to save his creation. He addressed Atrahasis and instructed him to build an ark and save himself, his family, and the animals from the anticipated Flood. With the onset of the Flood, the people were destroyed, and the gods themselves retreated before its terror. Moreover, they found that in the absence of their human servants they were starving for lack of food. They regretted the Flood, however, not only because of their own physical needs, but also because of the destruction of their human creation. Enlil, by contrast, was outraged that anyone should have survived the Flood; nevertheless, he was forced to accept the fact. But now a new order had to be established, for if it were not, reproduction would continue without limit, and every twelve hundred years there would be a new crisis. Therefore, a compromise had to be reached between two sets of gods: gods of power, rule, and order and gods of reproduction—or, if you will, between human reason or control and human passion. The compromise that

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

4

Tzvi Abusch

was reached was to set limits on human reproduction, for both sides were right—both those who represented power and organization and those who represented the interests of birth and humanity. In the future, there would be cloistered women who were not permitted to bear children, women who were sterile, and children who would die in infancy. Moreover, natural death was added to violent death. From the Mesopotamian point of view, we live in the new order that was established. Humanity exists to serve the gods—for this reason it was created, but it must not burden them; that is, it must not overproduce and overwhelm the earth with excessive numbers of people.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Biblical Sources Turning back to the biblical material, we note that there was no single biblical view, as there was no single Mesopotamian view. In fact, the biblical account is made up of two sources, the Yahwistic or J source and the Priestly or P source. In Gen 2–4, the J source presents the story of Adam and Eve, the events in the Garden of Eden, the expulsion from the garden, and the story of Cain and his descendants. An account of the Flood follows in chs. 6–8; ch. 8 concludes with God’s acceptance of humankind and his promise that he will never again destroy the natural order. The P source comprises ch. 1, which tells of the creation of the world, ch. 5, which gives the genealogical line of Adam through Noah. Then, in chs. 6–8 we have a parallel account of the Flood. In this source, too, there follows an acceptance of humankind, for in ch. 9, God introduces innovations, imposes limits on human activity, and promises never again to bring a Flood. Here, I offer an interpretation of the individual sources and of their interaction, and, while these sources may contain some preexisting units that originally had a somewhat different meaning, my focus here is the documentary source in its present form. In my estimation, there are three issues that are central to both the J and P sources; the treatment and resolution of these three issues inform these accounts and will inform our discussion. The text addresses the questions of reproduction, work and food, aggression and death. Overshadowing all is the question of natural death. By treating these questions, the writers deal with the nature and fate of humankind. The relationship of the J and P accounts of prehistory is interesting and complex, for I believe that in the section treating human prehistory these two sources were not two wholly independent documents. To be more precise, I would suggest that, whereas J had an existence prior to and independent of P, the P account of prehistory took its present form in response to J. That is, P was not a fully independent source that a later

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

5

redactor or editor happened to put together with J in an effort to include in the Torah the creation account of both sources. Rather, P was composed or revised in reaction to J’s treatment of basic human issues. Each source deals with the same issues, but each source deals with these issues in diametrically opposed ways. J’s presentation may be regarded as representative of his position. What P really believes is not as clear, for P’s purpose is to counteract and neutralize J. We will see how these documents represent diametrically opposed positions and how they interact with each other. Neither source presents a picture that does justice to the complexity of human beings. Each source or story presents only one aspect of human nature, but together, the two sources provide a complex and true-to-life picture of human nature. In contrast to Mesopotamia, the main interaction is between humans and God. The model for the interaction is a relationship between a parent and a child. The representation of human beings as active participants as well as the use of this model allow for the presentation of the several aspects of human nature.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

J Source We turn first to the J story. The story is, first of all, a story of ever-increasing spatial areas of human activity: the garden; the area outside the garden; Cain’s wanderings; his entrance into the land of Nod, which is the land of wanderers east of Eden; the return from the east to the plain of Shinar, the city of Babylon; and then the dispersion over the whole world. Moreover, in addition to a series of geographical areas, we have a series of successively more complex social situations: a husband and wife who are food gatherers, then brothers, a shepherd and a farmer, then nomads, city builders, and wanderers. Overall, the movement is from simple to complex, but we are not dealing with a straightline progression, for built into the story are a number of conflicts. The text moves forward and then backward, and then again forward and backward. The story tells of conflicts between humans and God. The first conflict that we shall address here takes the form of a conflict between nature and culture. According to J, God intended humans to live in a state of impotence—impotence in nature and then powerlessness in nomadism. Humans found such a state to be intolerable, for they sought self-expression and safety; they did not wish to be at the mercy of God or nature. I shall begin, then, with the story of the Tower of Babel, for although it stands outside the first nine chapters, the conflict of nature and culture can be most readily observed and understood there. (In any case, this story follows upon and is thematically related to the

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

6

Tzvi Abusch

preceding account and may even have formed a continuation of an early part of the J story, prior to the insertion of the Flood account.) In this story, men migrate from the east; apparently, the purpose of their movement is to spread over the earth. When they come to the plain of Shinar, they recognize that although God wishes them to spread over the earth they would be vulnerable if they did so, they would be powerless. So they stop and build a city, not to vie with God or to reach the heavens, but for reasons of self-expression and self-preservation: “Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world’ ” (11:4). When the people say, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the sky,” they are not seeking to reach the heavens; rather, they are simply talking in terms drawn from Babylonian city structure and architecture. They are seeking to build a base from which they can create and build and can thus prevent their power from being dissipated and their numbers dispersed. Their desire “to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world,” does not suggest that they are rebelling against God; rather, they are attempting to protect themselves and to use power in a creative way. God views this as a threat; he scatters the human race. We have here a conflict of urbanism and nomadism, of culture and nature. What are the connotations of these concepts for our author? In this text, nature represents human powerlessness and vulnerability, while civilization represents power. For this author, there are two sets of extremes: nature and impotence on one hand, city and power on the other. But the author is ambivalent about cities and about the human use of power. In contrast to Mesopotamia, the city does not exist under the aegis of God. The result is a polarization that leads the author to present humanity as either bereft of all power or as possessing too much power, of being almost omnipotent: “And Yhwh said, ‘If this is how they have started to act, while they are one people with a single language for all, then nothing that they may presume to do will be out of their reach’ ” (Gen 11:6). The poles are concretized in the conflicting figures of God and human, nature and city. The nomadic state is the divine order, but humans have no power in that natural state. Power as well as the internal, psychological and external, natural forces inhibiting the human being from using power are projected onto God; God, thus, has all the power. So, for this composer, the human use of power and simple self-expression amount to depriving God of his power, for in this author’s mind all power belongs to God. Self-expression, creativity, building is seen as rebellion. In more general terms, then, when humankind takes action and uses or overuses its power in response to feelings of powerlessness and vulnerability, it spread is 14 pts long

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

7

is seen as acting in an extreme fashion, as overreacting, for it was meant to be without power. In the J account, human beings fluctuate between weakness and power, between submissiveness with feelings of helplessness and mastery with feelings of competence. God is self-protective and punitive; he retaliates. Each time humans act, God reacts and sets humanity into a new position, into a new relationship. Humans are placed in a new situation in which they are again vulnerable, yet the situation allows them to create and build a new modality if they so desire. Herein the author explains the emergence of such cultural institutions as languages, cities, nations, and so forth. In the new setting, humanity can succumb and be powerless, or it can exploit the situation and create a new modality of existence. An example of this can be seen very clearly in ch. 4, the story of Cain and Abel. Instead of being mere grubbers, as Adam was to have been, men have now become farmers and shepherds. Cain is a farmer, Abel a shepherd. By presenting God with sacrifices or offerings, Cain and Abel draw God into their arena, but they also make themselves vulnerable to his response. Having entered their world, God takes advantage of the situation, for humans have attained more independence and power than God had intended. God undermines both of them by rejecting Cain’s offering and accepting Abel’s, for he wishes to deprive both of them of their achievements and to set humanity again into a condition of powerlessness and dependence. A conflict between two brothers, between a farmer and a shepherd, is a commonplace of ancient literature that here serves to concretize this author’s attitude toward human culture. Cain used his power to become a farmer. God accepted the shepherd’s sacrifice so that the farmer—the representative of sedentary culture—would kill the shepherd and then be stripped of his power. Cain kills his brother. His action in response to God’s calculated favoritism of the shepherd is an overreaction, an overreaction that takes the form of killing, of aggression. At this point, God reenters the story and takes control. He takes advantage of Cain’s new vulnerable position as a killer. He strips him of his power, telling Cain that he can no longer be a farmer but instead must be a wanderer. Cain is powerless and vulnerable. He recognizes that as a wanderer he may be killed. God responds by giving him a mark of protection; to be sure, the mark protects Cain, but it also establishes his dependence on God. Cain is forced to give up being a farmer and goes into the land of Nod, the land of wanderers. But notice what he does there. Instead of giving in to powerlessness, here in the land of wanderers he marries, has a child, builds a city, and thus creates a new modality of expression. Cain, the murderer, is also the first city builder. And now the pattern repeats itself. The text recites Cain’s

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

8

Tzvi Abusch

genealogy. The highlight of the genealogy is Lamech, who is an aggressor par excellence and talks about how he maims and kills.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; O wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech: I have slain a man for wounding me, And a boy for injuring me. If Cain be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” (Gen 4:23–24)

Notice who Lamech’s sons are. They, too, are wanderers: herdsmen, musicians, metal workers. In other words, in the story of Cain and his descendents, we again find the pattern of humans creating a new modality (the city) but then overextending themselves by becoming excessively aggressive and again being placed in the vulnerable position of wanderers. We now move beyond the social formulation to the existential one, to the story of the Garden of Eden. That story takes up the issue of mortality/immortality. Thus, in addition to nature and culture, impotence and potence, we deal now with death and life. We may assume that in this story God originally intended Adam to live forever. He neither forbade Adam to eat of the Tree of Life nor intended that he reproduce. Woman was created only to be a companion to Adam, not a sexual mate; hence, we find that God first created the animals to see if any of them might satisfy Adam’s need for companionship. When that attempt failed, a woman was created. Man and woman possessed no sexuality; they were unaware of each other sexually even though they were naked. God originally planned to allow humans to eat of the Tree of Life and be immortal. But he forbade them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, the tree of awareness and sexuality. He was working on the assumption that there would be no human reproduction because reproduction is only necessary when there is mortality—when children are needed to replace those who have died. So the story starts from the premise that humans would live forever in a dependent, impotent, sterile state in the garden; such was God’s intention. But Adam and Eve rejected this option, ate of the Tree of Knowledge, and gained sexual awareness and desire. They now possessed power and creativity. They had become a threat to God; for, if they remained in the garden, they might also eat of the Tree of Life, that is, the tree of immortality, and become as the gods, the equal of God. Hence, they were expelled from the garden. Death was called into existence, and its existence gives meaning to life.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

9

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The issues dealt with in the story are seen most clearly in the curses. The curses represent essential human characteristics; these features of human life are presented as emerging from the conflict of humanity and God. Three curses or destinies are established: the curses of the snake, the woman, and the man. (1) The curse on the snake is the curse of aggression: he will fight the descendant of woman; the descendant of woman will fight him. Herewith, we have the introduction of aggression into life. (2) The curse on the woman is not that now she will have pain in childbirth, whereas previously she gave birth without pain; rather, from now on she will give birth to children, an act which is physically painful, although she will still desire her husband. (3) The curse on the man is that he will have to work, to eat by grubbing, and finally to die: “Condemned be the soil on your account! In anguish shall you eat of it All the days of your life. Thorns and thistles Shall it bring forth for you, As you feed on the grasses of the field. By the sweat of your face Shall you earn your bread, Until you return to the ground, For from it you were taken: For dust you are And to dust you shall return!” (Gen 3:17–19)

But, of course, the curses on the individual characters serve the more general purpose of accounting for the existence of such defining characteristics of human life as aggression, sex and birth, labor and death. Now that we have examined the antediluvian section of J, let us look back at the J source and articulate a more general sense of it. The central concern is not sin. The emergence of human life is not a consequence of ever-recurring sin and of the accumulation of evil. Nor is it a story of the dissolution of communion with God and God’s just judgment and punishment of a sinner. In our text, God is not just; humans are not necessarily sinners. Rather, the J source has dealt with the emergence of human self-expression in the face of adversity and has provided an explanation for the human way of life—the things that are part of our lives, the how and why of food, death, reproduction, aggression, and killing. The picture is one-sided. Humans are presented either as essentially powerless or as overly powerful. In an attempt to protect themselves, to

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

10

Tzvi Abusch

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

gain a sense of value, and to gain God’s favor, they act in an overly aggressive manner, using whatever power they have. To obey God was to remain sterile, uncreative, and in a position of dependence. In this text, the attainment of some autonomy involves immediate punishment and the imposition of limits. Autonomy and limits are part of human life. But in this story, the introduction of limits comes about in the context of conflict and punishment. In other words, the human is not simply told that he will die; rather, death comes about because he has tried to assert himself. Human nature and human destiny emerge out of the conflict of man and God—that is, of man and reality. Let us look more closely at the nature of the divine-human relationship here in J; the simplest way to do so is to use human metaphors—family metaphors. God is a father, a punitive father who fears his own children; he is afraid of being supplanted and abandoned. He wishes to keep humans dependent and weak. God fears that if humans become strong they will vie with him and possibly abandon him. But humans do become strong, and God is forced to reject and eject them. He thus carries out his threat and brings about his own worst fear. Man is set on an independent course, and God has created the very situation that he tried to prevent. J conceives of God as a punitive superego and of the human will to achievement as split and in conflict with itself. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Lamech, the sons of God and the daughters of man—all overstep limits and produce a situation that God finds intolerable. The situation goes from bad to worse, and finally, God brings the Flood, for “Yhwh saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every scheme that his mind devised was nothing but evil all the time” (Gen 6:5). Yet, after the Flood, God realizes that he must treat the surviving human beings differently, and he states “Never again will I doom the world because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from the start” (8:21). That is to say, “I will never again bring a Flood, because man is evil by nature.” But human evil was the very reason that God gave prior to the Flood to explain his decision to destroy humanity. Here, by saying that he accepts man’s evil, God is now saying that he has changed and that he accepts humanity. God’s utterance of contradictory statements reflects more than just the fact that two gods who held opposing positions in a polytheistic myth (recall Enlil and Enki in Atrahasis) have been compressed into one actor in a monotheistic story. A compression such as this may well be a necessary condition for the development of the biblical story, but the J author is doing more. He is playing on the paradox—that man is evil, and that God both destroys and preserves man because he is evil—in order to show that at first God did not accept man

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

11

but that finally he did. J’s God now realizes that he has no reason to fear humanity, for the destructiveness of the Flood has brought home to him how great is his own strength. He also realizes that he needs humans: Then Noah built an altar to Yhwh and, choosing from every clean animal and every clean bird, offered burnt offerings on the altar. As Yhwh smelled the soothing odor, he said to himself, “Never again will I doom the world because of man, since the devisings of man’s heart are evil from the start; neither will I ever again strike down every living human being, as I have done.” (8:20–21)

God comes to the realization that he needs humanity when he smells the soothing odor of the sacrifice. The metaphor for God’s need for humanity is food, an image which is, in fact, the basic theme in the Mesopotamian material. Thus, God recognizes that not only need he not fear man but actually he requires his existence.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

P Source Let us now take up the P version of prehistory. As noted earlier, the P source is not a wholly independent story; rather, it is an editorial framework. P also uses Mesopotamian material and treats the same issues as J, but it does so from a position diametrically opposed to that of J. P’s story begins in ch. 1 with the creation of the world. There, God is presented as separate from the world and as creating humans in his own image. And God created man in his image; In the divine image created he him, Male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27)

We learn immediately that human maleness and femaleness are inherent in creation. The emergence of the two sexes and of sexuality is not a result of conflict; it is free from conflict. And, in fact, the two sexes are part of and derive from the image of God. Immediately following the creation of human beings in the divine image, God commands humanity to reproduce, to multiply, and to eat vegetation: “God blessed them, saying to them, ‘Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and subdue it; subject the fishes of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that move on earth.’ God further said, ‘See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on earth and every tree in which is the seed-bearing fruit of the tree;

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

12

Tzvi Abusch

they shall be yours for food’ ” (1:28–29). And the same kind of food is given to the animals: “And to all the animals on land, all the birds of the sky, and all the living creatures that crawl on earth [I give] all the green plants as their food” (1:30). Thus, humans are to reproduce, but they and the animals are to eat only plants, not meat; that is, not other animals, not each other. Let us now note that the two very issues that are conflict ridden in J—sex and eating—here in P derive from and are imposed by God. But still everything degenerates, and P also contains a Flood story. What caused the God of P to bring the Flood? What was the problem or flaw in God’s creation? Allow me to anticipate my answer: according to P, the problem was excessive autonomy without limitation. The clue to the identification of the problem is to be found in its solution, which is found in God’s speech after the Flood (9:1–6). In ch. 9, God resolves the problem as follows: “God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fertile and increase and fill the earth. Dread fear of you shall possess all the animals of the earth, all the birds of the sky—everything with which the ground is astir—and all the fishes of the sea: they are placed in your hand’ ” (9:1–2). So again, as in ch. 1, humans are intended to reproduce and to have power over nature; but in addition, “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did with the grasses of the field” (9:3). That is, humans may now eat not only vegetation, as before, but also animals. But now a limitation is introduced; notice the effect of the additional statement in the next verse: “Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it shall you not eat” (9:4). The P author has again addressed the topic of reproduction and food, but now he wants to introduce another point. He knows that there is hostility, aggression, and killing in the world, something of which we were not informed in ch. 1. He now introduces blood because he wants to use it as a jumping-off point to assert something new: “So, too, will I require an accounting for your own lifeblood: I will ask it of every beast; and of man in regard to his fellow man will I ask an accounting for human life. He who sheds the blood of man, By man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God Was man created. Be fertile, then, and increase, Abound on earth and subdue it.” (Gen 9:5–7)

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

13

In this manner, the P text has God say: multiply, eat animals, but bloodshed and killing are forbidden. We have here an acceptance of man’s nature as one who kills as well as an attempt to regulate the killing. The passage recognizes, moreover, that humans kill each other as well as animals and that also animals kill humans as well as other animals. By recognizing the existence of killing and imposing execution on killers, limitations are built into the natural and human order. Population is thus curtailed, and chaos is prevented. What, then, was the problem that led to the Flood? The problem seems to be reflected in the verse in ch. 6 that states that the earth was full of ˙amas (6:11, 13), full of violence. In this statement, I understand the author to be playing on the earlier “reproduce and fill the earth”: humans have filled the earth, and the earth is full of violence. What did the violence result from? The conflict of man and man, man and beast, beast and man, and beast and beast. Thus far, the problem of aggression had gone unrecognized in P. Conflicts emerged because at creation, in ch. 1, no limit had been placed on human reproduction, and no attempt had been made to limit animals. Moreover, natural aging and death had not been established, as indicated by the long lifespans in ch. 5. But now, limits are set. Humans may kill animals, thus acquiring food and limiting the animal population, but animals may not kill humans, and humans may not kill each other. But, as we all know, men and beasts do, in fact, kill men. The killing and the punishment reduce both population and the competition for food. And setting the limit serves as a recognition of the existence of that which is being limited but had previously gone unrecognized: aggression. The issues in P, then, are the same as in J: reproduction, food, aggression. But here in P, they are linked not only to each other but also to God. Thus, in both chs. 1 and 9, we are told that humans were created in the image of God; in ch. 1, they are then divinely mandated to reproduce and eat vegetation and, in ch. 9, to reproduce and to eat meat as well. In ch. 9, the existence of the killing of humans is then mentioned and thereby acknowledged, and God further mandates that men and animals guilty of that act are to be punished, because humankind is created in the image of God. On the surface, the meaning is clear: human nature is good, for it is divinely derived and, in the main, derived without conflict. This understanding is correct but insufficient. We attain a better understanding of the text by seeking a metaphor that allows us a fuller and more concrete appreciation of God’s behavior in P and of the image of humanity that is there presented. In J, God was represented as a punitive parent, the human as an immature child; God was, effectively, the superego. The metaphor that I suggest for understanding P’s

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

14

Tzvi Abusch

account, a metaphor that allows our story to cohere, is that of a parent who absents himself and leaves his children in charge, with the mandate to be adults: reproduce and rule the earth. He is a parent who creates children and leaves them before giving them a chance to grow up. The parent—God here—assumes that his children are his equals, for they are created in his image and can presumably take charge of the situation. God withdraws and humans are all-powerful. But neither humankind nor God is prepared for the situation. For P, the human is not split as in J; he is not in conflict with himself, for humankind is allegedly in the form of God. But God is an absent parent who has abandoned his children. He is not a superego; rather, he is here a divorced ego ideal. P’s approach to humanity is no less unrealistic than J’s. In J, humans are powerless; in P, they are all-powerful. Neither picture is true. In P’s story, humanity is asked to live up to an unrealistic ego ideal, for God has imposed adult life on a child well before the child is ready. God has asked humanity to be like god. Humanity is betrayed; God is disappointed. Thus, he brings the Flood but then recognizes that he can no longer abandon the world, for humans are not his equals and cannot function perfectly in his stead. He must impose limits on chaos.

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Summary and Conclusions Having reviewed each of our two biblical sources, we have noticed that each one treats the same three issues—reproduction, food, killing—but in very different ways. The J source reflects a psychic conflict within man, and thus the human activities of reproduction, eating, and aggression are depicted as resulting from a conflict between man and God; in the P source, on the other hand, these basic activities are seen as mandated by an external source, God. P takes up the same themes as J in order to neutralize J. The P account of creation was created (more likely just modified) to serve as a framework to be placed around J. As a frame, it causes, nay, compels the reader to read J through the eyes of P. P thus overshadows J, and because P lays out assumptions and sets up expectations that are opposite to J’s, it counteracts many of J’s approaches and positions. In J, God is a punitive father, and humans are asked to submit and to remain helpless. God is a parent who tries to keep his children immature. Humans assert their own will; God retaliates. The process repeats itself, and eventually a crisis is reached. In P, God is a parent who withdraws soon after the birth of children and imposes an unrealistic demand. Be perfect because I am perfect. The child cannot do this. Disorder leads to a crisis and causes the

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

15

parent to reengage. More precisely, the disorder caused by humans acting without limitations, along with God’s own needs, draw God back. In J, God deprived humanity of power; in P, God gave humanity too much power. In J, God rejected humanity when it became powerful; in P, God withdrew from humanity after having made it too powerful. Acceptance of humanity is accomplished differently in J, in P, and in the Mesopotamian sources. One can even see how the different sources relate to each other in the way they resolve this problem. After the Flood, an attempt is made to create a new balance that allows humankind as we know it to be rooted in the world, that allows the integration of the child into the adult world. God recognizes that he needs humanity, and a code of coexistence is established. Just as a parent and child must create a pattern of coexistence, else one or the other may be killed, so here, the two must learn to coexist. The imbalance prior to the Flood brings God back, and after the Flood a permanent relationship is established. J’s God is no longer threatened by the human propensity to overstep limits and to seek autonomy and creativity. God accepts humans for what they are and returns to them, and humans accept the fact that they will serve God. Man offers and God accepts. Contrast this with God’s reaction to the offering of Cain and Abel in ch. 4. For their part, humans recognize that they need God and can coexist with him in a relationship of respectful interaction. In P, the Flood was brought because of violence due to overpopulation and to the resulting competition among both humans and animals. After the Flood, P’s God recognizes that he must remain engaged and cannot again absent himself, for humanity is not perfect. In order to avert recurring chaos, he limits man’s numbers by accepting killing but also by regulating the killing and the killers; he thus creates an ecological balance. In both sources, humanity and God are alienated until they are reconciled. First, however, the situation becomes intolerable, and there is a crisis reaction—the Flood. Following the Flood, there must be a resolution of the problem that led God to bring the Flood. And the changes can only come when God changes his attitude toward people and they acquiesce. God must accept humanity and the world, and humans must accept limits. Humanity is accepted after the Flood, and there is the establishment of a balance—a balance between God and man. In the biblical account, there is only one God. The conflict is in the heart of God and between God and man. The real and important relationship is between man and God; hence, a parent-child model underlies the biblical account of creation. In the Mesopotamian materials, the problem is resolved by

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

16

Tzvi Abusch

the creation of a balance not between god and man but among the gods themselves. The interaction is not between god and man as parent and child but between the gods themselves, a group of adults; the model for Mesopotamia is the interaction of adult peers. Man is a passive participant; both he and the original worker-gods represent a servant population. Interestingly, both J and P keep an element of the Mesopotamian solution, and each rejects an element of that solution. J rejects the notion of the goodness of cities but keeps the notion that man is created to serve God by providing food. P rejects the notion that man was created to serve the gods—for, in contrast both to the Mesopotamian source and to J, from the beginning, P commands man to go out and control the world; but he accepts the notion that there must be a limitation placed on numbers. In the end, a balance is struck: man and God accept limits and each other. Looking at the biblical text, then, as a composite, we find that, while the text is not logical, it is coherent and provocative in that contradictory aspects are treated and balanced along a temporal scheme. The two sources present contradictory scenarios that ultimately complement each other, for we get to see two opposite sides of the human being—man as powerless, man as powerful—as well as the manner in which these sides must be balanced and integrated in the world. Each source is dependent on Near Eastern material, yet each conveys its own special notion by the nuances it lends the text and the images it creates and evokes. The biblical account is very attractive because it is complex. Instead of presenting the human being’s complexities, contradictions, and conflicts through a unitary story or a unitary theory, the text presents two contradictory sides of man and each in an extreme fashion. The writer can do this in ways that we cannot, simply because the writer can use God as an actor and God may represent man, the world, reality, whatever. In humanistic theories of man, the conflicts and the resolutions are within us. For J, humans are in constant conflict with the world. The world is destructive and punitive, yet humans can overcome. For P, humans are an extension of the world. The world is orderly and protective, and humans can rule it and organize it. However, it sometimes becomes chaotic. Both are true; neither is exclusively true. The human being is not always in conflict. He is not always hurt by the world. Nor is he simply an extension of the world. The world is not orderly. Yet, by these two absolute and contradictory statements and approaches to life, the composer manages to set out, to formulate the complexity of human life. But, although the middle is touched on by the dialectic of the two extremes, the middle is really missing. What is the middle? God, nature, reality

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Biblical Accounts of Prehistory

17

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

as a nurturing parent that helps children to attain a sense of autonomy and limits and does so in a loving, gradual way so that the child does not feel isolated, rejected, betrayed. Thus, even if man’s independence is comprehended in J and/or P, man is left to feel rejected and abandoned in J, betrayed, inadequate, and out of control in P. We find the story moving partly because the story, by presenting two opposite points of view, presents the complexity of human nature and life; it also is moving, even existentially gripping, because of the empty middle. We are forced to confront the existential dilemma, the gap, the emptiness that represents the dilemma for humankind, for all of us: the fact the we are alone and not yet fully integrated into our world.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

The Poet as Historian: The Plague Tradition in Psalm 105 Marc Z. Brettler

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Brandeis University

I have explored in The Creation of History in Ancient Israel how and why biblical historical texts were written, or more precisely, created; 1 that study, however, looked only at selected prose texts. But how does the poet create history? There is no single answer to this question, and the variety of methods used by poets recreating history, that is, “a narrative that presents a past,” 2 are probably as great as the methods used by writers of prose. To echo Stephen Geller’s formulation “Were the Prophets Poets?” 3 this paper is an attempt to begin to explore the question “Were the poets historians?” This is a huge topic that deserves lengthy consideration. I will here offer only a brief glimpse into this issue by exploring the plague narrative in Ps 105:27–36. The treatment of Ps 105 has changed quite significantly over the last century. Early in the 20th century, several scholars thought that Pss 105 and 106 were originally a single psalm that was divided into two as a result of a complex text-history. Following von Rad’s study of historical traditions in the Bible, this idea has now been abandoned, and the internal integrity of Ps 105 Author’s note: It is a great pleasure to offer this study to my friend and former colleague, Stephen Geller, who has done so much to help us understand biblical poetry and religion. 1. Marc Zvi Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995); these issues are explored in greater detail in reference to Judges in my Book of Judges (London: Routledge, 2002). 2. For this definition, see my Creation of History, 12. 3. S. A. Geller, “Were the Prophets Poets?” Prooftexts 3 (1983) 211–21. It is striking that the topic of what might be called poetic historiography has not been studied in greater detail, though significant effort has been paid to how prose historical texts interpret poetic texts. See the literature cited in my Book of Judges, 74–77; and Yair Zakovitch, “Poetry Creates Historiography,” in “A Wise and Discerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (ed. S. M. Olyan and R. C. Culley; BJS 325; Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 2000) 311–21.

19 Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

20

Marc Z. Brettler

is recognized. 4 There is also a broad consensus that even though the psalm contains historical traditions, it should be classified as a hymn, though for our purposes, Anderson’s suggestion to classify it as a “History-Psalm (Geschichtspsalm) in the style of a hymn,” or Gerstenberger’s classification of the psalm as both hymn and instruction are attractive. 5 Though a wide variety of dates have been offered for the psalm, a consensus began to develop in the late 1970s and early 1980s that it is exilic. 6 This notion is buttressed and refined in a forthcoming article by Adele Berlin: Psalm 105 takes as its main topic the promise of the land to the forebears of Israel, a promise that is eternal and unconditional, and that therefore is still in force, undiminished, in the time of the exiles, to whom the promise is directed. . . . According to the psalm, this postexilic audience is the direct heir of the patriarchs, the initial promises, and of their progeny, the exodus generation, in whose time the promise was fulfilled, and whose vicissitudes en route to possessing the land are summarized. 7

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

In fact, given that the psalm is looking forward to this restoration, it is likely exilic or very early postexilic. This is supported by the observation that it nowhere contains Late Biblical Hebrew. 8 Psalm 105 should thus be considered a hymn containing instruction, dating to the exilic or early postexilic period. In the context of composing this psalm, the poet recalls the plague story to comfort or encourage his audience—God will act again to save his people, es-

4. See, for example, A. F. Kirkpatrick, Psalms (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902) 105–6; and C. A. and E. G. Briggs, Psalms (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907) 2:342; Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: SCM, 1966) 11–13; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150 (trans. H. C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 308–9. 5. See Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen: Übers. und erklärt (5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 458 for Ps 105 as a hymn; see more recently K. Seybold, Die Psalmen (HAT; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996) 414; A. A. Anderson, Psalms (73–150) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 725; E. S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations (FOTL 15; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 230–36. 6. S. Holm-Nielsen, “The Exodus Tradition in Psalm 105,” ASTI 11 (1977–78) 27; R. J. Clifford, “Style and Purpose in Psalm 105,” Bib 60 (1979) 427; A. R. Ceresko, “A Poetic Analysis of Ps 105 with Attention to Its Use of Irony,” Bib 64 (1983) 45–46. 7. A. Berlin, “Interpreting Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” forthcoming. 8. See the list in A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Postexilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972 [Hebrew]); supplemented by E. Qimron, “Second Temple Language in the Book of Psalms,” Beit Miqra 23/72 (1978) 139–50 [Hebrew].

spread is 3 points short Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

The Poet as Historian

21

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

pecially if they heed his laws (v. 45). It has been recognized for a long time that the plague account embedded in the psalm differs from the “canonical” account in Exodus. 9 Scholars have typically suggested that Ps 105 recognizes the completed “Priestly” Torah, 10 and thus the modifications found in the psalm are typically understood to be made by its author based on poetic and other considerations. The assumption that the entire Torah narrative is known is based on the fact that elements of both J and P are reflected there. 11 It is unclear, however, why a plague narrative based on Exodus would look like Ps 105—specifically, why would darkness be the first plague, 12 why would the order of swarms (br[) and lice (µynk) be reversed (v. 31), and why would pestilence (rbµy[r ykalm tjlvm He gave their beasts over to pestilence, their cattle to lightning bolts. He inflicted His burning anger upon them, wrath, indignation, trouble, a band of deadly messengers. He cleared a path for His anger; He did not stop short of slaying them, but gave them over to pestilence.

26. In fact, the argument is sometimes made that, given P’s role in the possible redaction of the Torah, P carries a greater narrative weight than the other sources; see the literature cited in Lemmelijn, “The So-Called ‘Priestly’ Layer,” 488–92, on P as a redactor. 27. This speaks against the position of F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 301–21; for a more recent discussion of this issue, see Lemmelijn, “The So-Called ‘Priestly’ Layer,” 488–92. Consideration should also be given to the position of Lemmelijn, that P is both a source and a redactor because it redacted earlier materials, using supplementary materials. 28. I am emending drbl to rbdl; see, for example, H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 122; and Seybold, Die Psalmen, 307. This is supported by Symmachus, by the parallelism to µypvr in v. 48b, and by the parallelism to v. 50b.

Bringing the Hidden to Light : The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, Pennsylvania State

Copyright © 2006. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

26

Marc Z. Brettler

The word rbd in this psalm is no mere pestilence. It is parallel to µypvr (see Hab 3:5), which refers to the deity Reshef, known from Egyptian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Punic sources; 29 indeed, a rabbinic text identifies Reshef as ˆyqyzm ‘harmful demons’ (b. Ber. 5a). The word rbd is understood in many different ways by biblical authors, 30 but in this context, it is clearly µy[r ykalm tjlvm ‘a band of deadly messengers/angels’. The rb